Technical Editor: IM Sergey Soloviov

Translation by: GM Evgeny Ermenkov

The publishers would like to thank Phil Adams for advice regarding the English translation.

Cover design by: Kalojan Nachev

Copyright© Nikita Vitiugov 2012

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN13 : 978 954 8782 86-9

Nikita Vitiugov

The French Defence

RELOADED

Chess Stars

Bibliography French Defence: 3.tt:lc3 �b4 by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2003 French Defence: 3.tt:ld2 by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2003 Advance and other anti-french variations by L.Psakhis, Batsford 2003 French Defence: Steinitz, Classical by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2004

Win against the French Defence by E.Sveshnikov, Moscow 2005 Opening for White Ace. to Anand ( vol. VI-VII) by Khalifman, Chess Stars 2006 The Flexible French by Viktor Moskalenko, New in chess 2008

Repertoire books:

Opening for White Ace. to Kramnik l.ll:'lf3 by A. Khalifman Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 2: Anti-Nim-Ind, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, 2008 Volume 3: English (l...c5), English (four knights), 2011 Volume 4: Maroczy, Modern, Trifunovic, 2011

Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman Volume 8: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines, 2006 Volume 9: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Taimanov and other lines, 2007 Volume 10: The Sicilian, Sveshnikov, 2007 Volume 11; The Sicilian, Dragon, 2009 Volume 12: The Sicilian, Rauzer Attack, 2009 Volume 13: The Sicilian, English Attack, 2010

Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman

Current theory and practice series: The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007 The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2nd rev.ed. 2008 The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, 3rd. rev. ed., 2008 The Easiest Sicilian by Kolev and Nedev, 2008 The Petrosian System Against the QID by Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, 2008 Kill K.I.D. by Semko Semkov, 2009 The King's Indian. A Complete Black Repertoire by Victor Bologan, 2009 The Scotch Game for White by Vladimir Barsky, 2009 The Modern Philidor Defence by Vladimir Barsky, 2010 The Moscow & Anti-Moscow Variations by Alexey Dreev, 2010 Squeezing the Gambits by Kiril Georgiev, 2010 A Universal Weapon l.d4 d6 by Vladimir Barsky, 2010 The Meran & Anti-Meran Variations by Alexey Dreev, 2011 The Safest Grunfeld by Alexander Delchev and Evgenij Agrest, 2011 Fighting the French: a New Concept by Denis Yevseev, 2011 The Modern Reti. An Anti-Slav Repertoire by Alexander Delchev, 2012

More details at www.chess-stars.com

4

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Part 1. White avoids the main lines l .e4 e6

1 2 .b3; 2 .f4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 2 .tt:lf3 d5 3.tt:lc3 ; 3.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 2 .d4 d5 3 .id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 4 2 .d4 d5 3.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

Part 2 . The Chigorin Variation & The King's Indian Attack l .e4 e6 2 .'&e2 ; 2 .d3

5 2 .'&e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 6 2 .d3 d5 3.tt:ld2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 7 2 .d3 d5 3.'&e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Part 3. The Advance Variation l .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 '&b6 5.tt:lf3 l2Jc6

8 6 .ie2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 9 6.id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 10 6.a3 l2Jh6 7.b4 cxd4 8 . .b:h6; 8.cxd4 l2Jf5 9 .ie3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 11 6.a3 l2Jh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 l2Jf5 9.ib2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 12 6.a3 id7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Part 4. The Rubinstein Variation l .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.l2Jd2 dxe4 4.l2Jxe4 tt:ld7

13 5.g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 14 5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.ig5 h6 7.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 8.id2 ; 8 . .b:f6 ; 8 .ie3 . . . . . . . 8 0 15 5.tt:lf3 l2Jgf6 6.ig5 h6 7.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 8.ih4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 16 5 .l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 7.g3 ; 7.id3 ; 7.ie2 ; 7.ie3 . . . . . . 9 9 17 5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6 .l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 7.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0 18 5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9

Part 5 . The Morozevich Variation l .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.l2Jd2 ie7

19 4.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 20 4.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7

5

2 1 4.tt:lgf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 22 4.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Part 6. The Tarrasch Variation with 3 . . . c5 l .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.tt:ld2 c5

23 4.c3; 4.exd5 \Wxd5 5.dxc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 74 24 4.tt:lgf3 cxd4 5.tt:lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 0 25 4.tt:lgf3 cxd4 5.exd5 \Wxd5 6.i.c4 \Wd6 7.i.b3; 7.\We2 . . . . . . . 1 8 8 2 6 4.tt:lgf3 cxd4 5.exd5 \Wxd5 6 .i.c4 \Wd6 7.0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 4

Part 7 . The Winawer Variation l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.tt:lc3 i.b4

27 Various without 4.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 7 2 8 4.e5 b6; 4 . . . c5 5.\Wg4; 5.dxc5; 5 .i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 9 2 9 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3+ 6.bxc3 tt:le7 7.i.d3; 7.h4; 7.a4; 7.tt:lf3 . . . . . 2 2 8 30 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3+ 6.bxc3 tt:le7 7.\Wg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 31 4.e5 c5 5 .a3 hc3+ 6.bxc3 tt:lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Part 8. The MacCutcheon Variation l .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.tt:lc3 tt:lf6 4.i.g5 i.b4

32 5 .i.d3 ; 5 .tt:lge2 ; 5.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 9 33 5.e5 h6 6.exf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 73 34 5.e5 h6 6.i.c1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 79 35 5.e5 h6 6 .i.e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 85 36 5.e5 h6 6.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 3

Part 9. The Steinitz Variation l .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.tt:lc3 tt:lf6

37 4.i.d3 ; 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.tt:lce2; 5.tt:lf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 1 38 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7.i.e3 \Wb6; 7 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 14 39 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7.i.e3 cd 8 .tt:lxd4 i.c5

9 .\Wd2 0-0 10.g3 ; 10.0-0-0 a6 wjo ll .tt:lb3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 8 40 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7.i.e3 cd 8.tt:lxd4 i.c5

9 .\Wd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 a6 11.tt:lb3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 Index ofVariations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

6

PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION

I received, quite unexpectedly, many comments and opinions follow­ing the publication of my first book on the French Defence. These were quite varied, both in form and content. There were renowned experts, who pointed out that some of the variations were not analyzed to per­fection. Some meticulous readers looked for, and found ( ! ) , possibili­ties for both sides, which I had omitted in several important, and even not so important, lines. There were people who criticized my rather ambitious concept, according to which I tried to present the opening the way I saw it, instead of just following the branches of the database. However, there were also some appreciative comments.

It took me some time to think about everything I had written, done, read and heard . . . In the meantime I realised the objective defects of my work. Chess develops so rapidly that writing a book devoted to open­ing theory which will be valid for a long period of time is "mission im­possible" nowadays. What was fashionable a year ago quickly becomes outdated, while some dead and forgotten variations rise from the ash­es. Nevertheless, I believe that the foundations which I laid eighteen months ago can be enriched with new variations and ideas, while the essence remains the same.

You are now holding in your hands a new book, in which the author ventured to revaluate certain lines and enrich them with a new supply of fresh, contemporary information.

I should like to express my sincere acknowledgement to GM Vasily Yemelin for his invaluable collaboration in the process of writing of this book.

Nikita Vitiugov Saint-Petersburg, January 2012

7

PREFACE

Black can enter the French defence, as a separate opening, on move one. I believe that players will find the French to be a comfortable and reliable defence against l .e4, even if it happens to be the only one they choose. Admittedly, it is a fact that chess is becoming more popular and universal, and so you need to have a variety of weapons in your opening armoury. Nevertheless, if you judiciously switch your varia­tions within the French defence, it should serve you faithfully as Black, even if it is your only reply to l .e4.

According to the generally accepted classification, the French de­fence is semi-open. I think it can suit the styles both of aggressive tacti­cal players and those who prefer patient positional manoeuvring.

The philosophical justification of the French defence is quite well founded. Black acquiesces to the fact that he will not be able to com­pete with White for control of every square on the chessboard, right from the beginning of the game. In contrast, he fights fiercely for the centre, attacks it with undermining pawn-moves, such as c7-c5 and f7-f6, and exerts piece-pressure on it with if8-b4, lt:Jg8-f6, tt:Jb8-c6, lt:Jg8-e7-f5, �d8-b6.

The arguments for and against the correctness of the French defence began long ago and continue even now. The main themes are Black's lack of space and the consequence of that - the fate of his light-squared bishop, which is severely restricted right from move one. However, all "French" players are well aware of the rule that sometimes, at the de­cisive moment of the game, it is the same "bad" French bishop that strikes the decisive blow and settles the issue.

In this book you will not find an unequivocal answer to fundamen­tal questions such as "is it possible to equalize by playing the French defence?", or "can White obtain a convincing advantage after l . . .e6?".

8

Chess is a microcosm of life and the same principles are applicable -there are many questions and no definitive answers. In the French de­fence we have already seen devastating novelties in variations which previously had an unblemished reputation, as well as rehabilitation of lines long thought to be dead and buried. So I have decided to present to my readers the French defence - just as I see it and understand it.

I believe that chess players of all levels can find something new in this book. It will enable some of you to include the French defence in your opening repertoire and others of you to enrich your knowledge of this opening and sharpen your understanding of its ideas.

The time has long passed when you could play the opening simply according to common sense. Therefore there are many extensive analy­ses of concrete positions in the book, as well as new ideas discovered in the process of preparation for games and tournaments .

This book has been written from Black's point of view, but this should not preclude a study of it by players who prefer the white side of the French. It is always useful to know something thoroughly. It might happen that a player who loves the white side of the French might be­come an ardent fan of it as Black!

Nikita Vitiugov Saint-Petersburg, April 20 10

9

Part l

White avoids the main lines l.e4 e6

In the first part of our book we shall deal with the different ways in which White tries to avoid the main lines of the French defence. Objec­tively, he can hardly rely on gaining an opening advantage with these variations. However, he is following a different philosophy in this case. It is far from easy to prove an advantage for White in the main lines an­yway, so the idea is to obtain an original, non-standard position, which the opponent has not studied deeply at home. This last factor is be­coming more and more important in contemporary competitive chess. Accordingly, Black must be well prepared to counter this approach and to obtain good positions against the less principled lines.

Among the chapters included in our first part, the exchange vari­ation is the most interesting. No doubt there are drawish tendencies in it, but in practice it turns out that making a draw is not so easy for either side. It should be enough to remember the famous game Gu­revich - Short in the last round of the Interzonal tournament in Manila 1990. White only needed to make a draw to qualify for the next round of the competition, but even such a super-expert in the French defence for Black as Mikhail Gurevich failed under pressure to achieve the desired result and lost. Nigel Short qualified to play a match against Garry Kasparov thanks to this same remarkable game ! So we can high­light the fact that modern chess history was greatly influenced by this game. I can therefore advise White players to refrain from playing the exchange variation of the French defence, at least to avoid the appear­ance of new schisms in the chess world.

10

Chapter 1 l.e4 e6

Some seldom played variations

2.b3

This move can hardly be dangerous for Black. Neverthe­less, it is tried periodically by some strong players. The hero of this variation is that legend of Saint-Petersburg chess, Vladimir Ivanovich Karasev.

2 . . . d5 I can recommend to players

with wide opening knowledge the move 2 . . . c5 ! ? , transposing to the Sicilian defence.

3 . .ib2 White's plan is based on this

semi-gambit move. 3 . . . dxe4 I think that this is the most

unpleasant response for White to face.

The alternative is 3 . . . lt:Jf6 4. exd5 (4.e5 lt:Jfd7 5.f4 c5 6 .�g4 lt:Jc6 7.lt:Jf3 a6 8 . .ie2 b5 9 .0-0oo) 4 . . . exd5 5.�e2+ .ie6! ? (After 5 . . . �e7, White's idea i s justified: 6 . .ixf6 gxf6 7.�xe7+ .ixe7 8.lt:Jc3 c6oo) 6.�b5+ lt:Jbd7 7.�xb7 and Black's compensation for the pawn should be sufficient. For example: 7 . . . .ic5 ! ? 8.d4 .id6 9 . .id3 0-0 10. lt:Jf3 .ig4 11.lt:Jbd2 l"le8+ 12 . mfl aS�

4)lJC3 lbf6 The move 4 . . . f5? ! however,

can turn out to be really danger­ous for Black - 5.f3 .id6 6.lt:Jh3 (6.g3 !?) 6 . . . exf3 7.�xf3 lt:Jf6 8. 0-0-0 0-0 9 . .ic4 and White's initiative might become crushing.

5.�e2 It seems too extravagant to

play 5.g4?! .id7 6.g5 (6 . .ig2 .ic6 7.g5 lt:Jd5 8.lt:Jxe4 h6 9 .h4 lt:Jf4t) 6 . . . lt:Jd5 7.lt:Jxe4 .ic6 and there a logical question arises - was it re­ally worth it for White to weaken his position to that extent, only to regain the pawn he sacrificed with his third move?

5 . . . .ie7 6.lt:Jxe4 It is imprecise for White to

play 6.0-0-0?! lt:Jc6 7.lt:Jxe4 lt:Jd4 8.�d3 lt:Jxe4 9.�xe4 .if6--t 10 .g4? !

11

Chapter 1

�d7! 11 .hd4 �c6 12 .�b5 hb5 13 .11*'xb7 0-0� Karasev - S.lva­nov, Leningrad 1991.

6 •.. 0 - 0 7.lt)f3 (7.0-0-0 a5 ! ?) 7 •.. a5!? 8.a4 b6 9. 0 - 0 - 0 .ib7 1 0 .d3 c!Llbd7 and Black has a very good position.

2.f4

This move looks a little ugly, but it is played quite often nev­ertheless. At top level, I recall the recent game Zvjaginsev - Zhang Pensjang, won by White in a bril­liant style.

2 .•. d5 3.e5 c5 4.c!Llf3 c!Llc6 5.c3

This is the idea of his set-up. It resembles White's play in the Ad­vance variation with 3 .e5, except that he can choose the right mo­ment to push d2-d4.

5 .•. c!Llh6 6.c!Lla3 The move 6.d4? ! is still clearly

premature - 6 . . . 11*'b6 7.�d3 �d7 8.�c2 cxd4 9.cxd4 ttJb4 and Black seizes the initiative.

6 .•. �b6 7.c!Llc2 After 7.d4?! cxd4 8.cxd4 ha3

9.bxa3 l2Jf5, Black wins a pawn.

12

7 .. . �d7 8.d4 It would be too depressing for

White to continue with 8.l2Je3? ! f6 ! and he will have to play 9.exf6 (It is too risky for him to play 9.d4? cxd4 10.cxd4 fxe5 ll .fxe5 �b4+ 12 .1i>f2 o-m= and White's position is close to being hope­less.) 9 . . . gxf6 10 .d3 0-0-0 11 .�e2 �d6 and Black had a clear advan­tage in the game Komliakov -Rustemov, Moscow 1998.

8 •.• �k8. This is a useful pre­paratory move. 9 . .id3 cxd4. Black demonstrates a concrete approach to solving his problems. (It is also possible for him to opt for 9 . . . �e7! ?) 1 0 .cxd4 (He can counter 10.l2Jcxd4 with �c5?) 10 .•. c!Llf5 ll . .ixf5 exf5

In the variation with 3 .e5 (after 2 .d4 d5) , pawn structures of this type are considered worse for Black in view of the transfer of White's knight to the f4-square. Here White's own pawn prevents the knight from occupying this square, so Black's position is quite acceptable. 12. 0 - 0 §J.e7 13.c!Lle3 .ie6 14.b3 0 - 0 15 . .ib2 f6!??

Chapter 2 l.e4 e6 2.lt� f3 d5

We shall analyze a) 3.�c3 and b) 3.e5.

a) 3.�c3 This is one of the ways for

White to avoid the main lines of the French defence. He some­times chooses a similar system of development against the Caro­Kann defence and there it seems more reasonable.

3 . . . d4 This is, of course, a much more

principled move than 3 . . . lt:Jf6. White is allowing his opponent to occupy additional space and it would be a sin not to make use of that.

4.�e2 White has also played 4.lt:Jb5? .

Fortunately this book is not an opening encyclopaedia, so I do not feel obliged to analyze such moves .. .

4 . . . c5 The move 4 . . . lt:Jc6? ! flouts the

opening principle laid down by Philidor - pawns in front and pieces behind . . . 5.c3 e5 6.cxd4 exd4 7.'�a4 �c5 8.b4i and Black has problems.

5.c3 This is the most concrete deci­

sion for White. He wishes to im­mediately destroy Black's pawn centre, which has just appeared on the board.

5 .lt:Jg3 a6 ! ? (After 5 . . . lt:Jc6 White can simply play 6.�b5 �d7 7.hc6 hc6 8.lt:Je5 V!ic7 9.lt:Jxc6 V!ixc6 10.d3 and he has some pros­pects for active play on the king­side. ) 6.a4 (6.�e2 lt:Jc6 7.0-0 e5 (Black can also try here 7 . . . h5 ! ? and 7 . . . �d6.) 8.d3 g6 and it i s not obvious what White is supposed to do, while Black's plan is crystal clear - �g7, lt:Jge7, 0-0, h6, �e6, b5 etc.) and now 6 . . . lt:Jc6. Here is a possible continuation : 7.�c4 �d6 (7 . . . �e7! ? 8 .0-0 h5) 8.d3 lt:Jge7 9.0-0 0-0 lO.lt:Jel :t'lb8 ll .f4 b5

13

Chapter 2

12 .axb5 axb5 13.�b3 �b7 with a complicated position.

After 5.d3 there arise positions with a King's Indian pawn struc­ture but with colours reversed. Black can usually only dream of this sort of outcome from the opening. 5 . . . Lt'lc6 6.g3 e5 7.�g2 �e7 8.0-0 g5 (8 . . . h5 ! ?) 9 .Lt'ld2 h5 ! ? and White already has prob­lems (9 . . . �e6 10.f4 f6 ll .Lt'lf3 h6 12 .c4oo Bachin - Korchnoi, Togli­atti 2003).

5 .. .lbf6 This is the strongest move,

based on some simple tactics. Black cannot hold on to his d4-

pawn : 5 . . . Lt'lc6?! 6.cxd4 cxd4 7. '\1;Ya4 �c5 8.b4 �b4 9 .Lt'lexd4 '\1;Ya5 (Or 9 . . . Lt'lge7 10 .�b5 '\1;Ya5 11 .l"lb1 and he is unable to solve the problems of the opening.) 10.�b5 (An alternative for White is 10. '\1;Yxa5 �a5 ll.Lt'lb5 Lt'lf6 12 .Lt'ld6+ rtie7 13.e5 Lt'ld5 14.l"lb1 and Black is again in trouble.) 10 . . . �d7 ll .l"lb1 (In the endgame after ll .Lt'lxc6 bxc6 12 .'\1;Yxa5 �a5 Black must worry about his pawn structure.) 11 . . .'\1;Yxa4 12 .�xa4 Lt'lxd4 13.l"lxb4

14

(White cannot achieve much with 13 .Lt'lxd4 �c5 14.�xd7+ rtixd7 15. Lt'lf3 b6 16.�b2 Lt'lf6.) 13 . . . Lt'lxf3+ 14.gxf3 �xa4 15. l"lxa4 and White has a slight advantage in this endgame, even if Black defends it correctly.

6.cxd4 I think it is weaker for White

to play 6.e5 Lt'lfd7 7.cxd4 cxd4 8.Lt'lexd4

8 . . . Lt'lxe5 ! White already has problems, both in static and dy­namic terms. He has not blun­dered anything yet though, so he might still be able to hold the balance. 9.�b5+ Lt'lec6. Black is not afraid of weakening his pawn structure (It is less principled for him to play 9 . . . Lt'led7, because then White can develop his pieces to acceptable squares.) 10 .Lt'lxc6 (10.0-0 �d7 ll .Lt'lb3 Lt'lb4 12.�c4 �c6 and Black obtains a comfort­able game, Janturin - Lysyj, Par­dubice 2005; it is also possible for Black to opt for 10 . . . �e7.) 10 . . . Lt'lxc6 11.hc6+ bxc6. Black's bish­op pair is a very powerful factor, compensating for the defects of his pawn structure. 12 .'\1;Ya4 '\1;Yd5 13.0-0 �e7 14.b3 '\1;Yb5 15.'\1;Yf4 0-0

16.�b2 f6 17J'l:fc1 �d7? Guseinov - Huzman, Warsaw 2005.

I cannot recommend for White the move 6.li:Jg3, which Black can counter with 6 . . . a6 ! ? (after the usual reply 6 . . . li:Jc6 White's game is much easier - he can develop his bishop actively with 7.�b5). For example, the game Guseinov ­Bartel, Kusadasi 2006, continued in the following fashion: 7.li:Je5 h5 8 .d3 h4 9 .li:Je2 li:Jfd7 10 .li:Jxd7 Wfxd7 ll.f4 li:Jc6 12 .li:Jgl. It is be­coming more and more difficult to guess the moves of either side, so we shall stop here. The position is tremendously complicated. It is an unclear strategic struggle, with chances for both sides.

6 ••• cxd4 Black does not need to compli­

cate matters with 6 . . . li:Jxe4. 7.lLlexd4 lLlxe4

8.lLlxe6 It looks as if White has caught

his opponent in a trap. The check on b5 would not

achieve much - 8.�b5+ �d7 and then what. . . ?

8 ••• .h:e6 9.1Mfa4+ lLlc6 1 0 .

l.e4 e6 2.li:Jj3 d5 3. li:Jc3 d4

Wfxe4 i.c5 It turns out, however, that

Black has obtained excellent com­pensation for the sacrificed ma­terial and White must play accu­rately to avoid being worse.

11.i.c4 The fanciful move 1l.�d3

changes nothing important -1l . . .g6 12 .�c4 0-0 13.0-0 E'i:e8 14.he6 E'i:xe6 15.1Mfc4 �b6 and the presence of the pawn on g6 is not disadvantageous for Black's posi­tion.

11 • • • 0 -0 12. 0 - 0 Black can counter 1 2 .�xe6

with the obvious developing move 12 . . . E'i:e8 and then 13 .0-0 E'i:xe6 14.Wfc4 li:Jd4 ! 15 .li:Jxd4 (15.1Mfxc5?? li:Jxf3+ 16 .gxf3 E'i:g6+ 17.\t>h1 Wfd3-+) 15 . . . �xd4 with an advan­tage and an easy game for Black.

12 ••• l3e8 13.d3 White creates the unpleasant

threat of li:Jg5 and Black must de­fend against it right away.

13 ••• h6 14.�xe6 If 14.�d2, it is very strong for

Black to play 14 . . . li:Jd4 ! 15.E'i:ae1 hc4 16.Wfxe8+ W!xe8 17.E'i:xe8+ E'i:xe8 18.dxc4 li:Jxf3+ 19.gxf3 �d4= Myagmarsuren - Adamski, Po­lanica Zdroj 1972.

It might be interesting for White to opt for 14.�f4 ! ? li:Jd4 15.tt:Jxd4 �xc4 16.Wff5, but Black has a concrete answer to this -16 . . . Wfxd4 17.dxc4 �b6 ! =

14 ••• l3xe6 15.�c4 �b6 16. �d2 lLld4 17.lLlxd4 hd4 18. �c3 l3d8= Vorobiov - Vitiugov, Moscow 2007.

15

Chapter 2

b) 3.e5 c5 4.b4

This is an interesting gambit line. White sacrifices a flank pawn with the idea of creating a solid centre and organizing an offen­sive on the dark squares. Never­theless, his compensation for the pawn is insufficient.

I will mention that a similar position can arise from the Sicil­ian defence after l.e4 c5 2 .lLlf3 e6 3.b4 ! ?

4 . . . cxb4 The most principled reaction

for Black is no doubt to accept the sacrifice. The resulting positions have not been well analyzed yet and this is easily understandable. There are not so many players with White who would be willing to sacrifice a pawn for such ob­scure compensation. I shall not analyze this position extensively and I shall just show you the cor­rect moves to start off with. These are not at all obligatory, just some of the possibilities.

Black's attempt to maintain the tension with 4 . . . b6, can be countered with 5.c3 '1Wd7 6.a3 .ia6

16

7 . .ixa6 lLlxa6 8.d4 and we have reached a version of the 3.e5 (2 .d5 d5) variation. The manoeuvring game in that case may not be to everyone's liking.

It is worth considering the oc­cupation of the centre with 4 . . . d4 5.bxc5 hc5 6 . .ia3, and here Black must choose between two accept­able retreats of his bishop. In both cases the position remains rather unclear: 6 . . . ib6 (6 . . . '\WaS? ! 7.hc5 Wxc5 8.c3 lLlc6 9.cxd4 lLlxd4 10. W/a4+t; 6 . . . ie7 !?) .

5.a3 lLlc6 6.axb4 hb4 7.c3 .ie7 8.d4

So, White has achieved what he wanted. However, Black has his counter chances . . .

8 . . . i.d7 The character of the position

has been defined early, so Black should not be in a hurry to com­plete the development of his king­side. It is obvious that White will develop his initiative there, so Black should leave his king in the centre for a while.

I do not like the move 8 . . . lLlh6 very much, because then White

has a target to attack, which is the knight on h6 (or f5) . 9 . .id3 li:Jf5 10.h4! ?and White's pawn-offen­sive on the kingside would not be very pleasant for Black. However, he could try the super-solid move 10 . . . h5oo

9 . .id3 a6 It would be interesting to play

the aggressive move 9 . . . b5 ! ? in­tending to follow up with b4.

1 0 .h4 After 10.0-0 Elc8, White will

have difficulty proving that his compensation for the pawn is sufficient.

1 0 .. .'�c7 Black is preparing the

undermining move t7-f6. ll.Elh3

l.e4 e6 2. liJj3 d5 3.e5 c5

Black can counter ll.h5 with the preparatory move ll . . .Elc8 and after 12 .Elh3 - 12 .. .f6?

ll . . . f6 12 . .if4 f5

Now it has become clear that the f4-square is not suitable for White's bishop in this pawn struc­ture and he will need to change his set-up.

13.Elg3 .if8oo The position is complicated.

Of course, it is not possible to analyze it to exhaustion. How­ever, it is obvious that White's pawn-sacrifice on move four is hardly correct. Nevertheless, Black should not try to refute it outright. It is advisable for him to simply play the French defence, but with an extra pawn.

17

Chapter 3 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.i.d3

This is a very seldom played variation. Its idea is to maintain the tension in the centre without defining the position of the queen's knight. Its drawbacks are evident too. White's bishop comes to the centre prematurely and it can be attacked with tempo.

3 . . . dxe4 It would be interesting for

Black to play 3 . . . c5, but White has the attractive tactical possibility 4.exd5 (After 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 dxe4 6 . .be4 '2lf6 7.�f3 it is un­clear why White's bishop on f3 has occupied the knight's usual place; 4.dxc5? and White must begin to fight for equality. 4 . . . dxe4 5.�b5+ �d7+; 5.�xe4 �xdl+ 6 .'tt>xdl .bc5 7.'tt>e2 '2lf6 8.�d3 b6; 8 .�f3 ct:Jbd7+) 4 . . . �xd5 (The move

18

4 . . . exd5 leads to a version of the Exchange variation.) 5.'2lc3 ! and now Black will have to reply to this with 5 . . . �xd4, when White obtains excellent attacking chanc­es, because after 5 . . . �xg2 , Black's queen is suddenly trapped - 6. �e4 ! . 6.'2lb5 (6.'2lf3 �d8 7.�f4.) 6 . . . �d8 7.�f4 ct:Ja6 8.�e2 '2lf6 9. 0-0-0 with a very powerful at­tack for White.

4 . .be4 '2lf6 5.-i£3 This is the only way for White

to justify his third move, because after 5.�d3 c5 Black has no prob­lems whatsoever.

5 . . . c5 I do not think that Black has

anything to worry about after, for example: 5 . . . �e7 6 .'2le2 0-0 7.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.i!.d3 de 4.he4 Ci:Jf6

0-0 Ci:Jbd7 8.Ci:Jbc3 (8.i!.f4 c5) 8 . . . e5 9.Ci:Jg3 exd4 10.'�xd4 i!.c5 11. 1Mfc4 i!.d6, but the move 5 . . . c5 seems more active and to the point.

6.Ci:Je2 Ci:Jc6 Black continues in the same

fashion, exerting maximal pres­sure against his opponent's centre.

7 • .ie3 cxd4 The alternatives seem worse:

7 . . . e5? ! Black's attempt to play analogously to the variation 3. Ci:Jc3 i.b4 4.i.d3 is less appropriate here - 8.i!.xc6+ bxc6 9.dxe5 1Mfxd1 + 10. 'it>xd1 Ci:Jg4 11 . Ci:Jd2 i!.a6 12 .l"l:eU and White has a clear advantage in this endgame, thanks to his extra pawn and Black's terrible queenside pawn structure.

It would be bad to play 7 . . . Ci:Jd5? ! 8 .hd5 1Mfxd5 9.Ci:Jbc3 ! Rap­id development takes precedence over everything else ! 9 .. .'�xg2 10. l"l:g1 1Mfxh2 ll .i!.f4 1Mfh5 12 .Ci:Jb5 and Black is in great trouble. It would be sufficient to say that the best move for him in this position, ac­cording to Fritz, is 12 . . . 'it>d8.

8.lt:lxd4

8 •. .lt:le5 This move is simple and

strong. Black is attacking White's

bishop and he can exchange it at any opportune moment.

9. 0 - 0 For example, if 9.1Mfe2, Black

simply captures with 9 . . . Ci:Jxf3+ and begins fighting for the advan­tage.

9 . . . i!.e7 1 0 .liJc3 0 - 0 ll . .ie2

11 ••• 1Mfc7!? This i s an active move, creating

the threat of Ci:Jc4. We can evaluate the position after the opening as at least equal for Black.

It is also acceptable for him to try ll . . . i!.d7 12 .f4 Ci:Jc6 and there arises a version of the Sche­veningen variation of the Sicilian defence, one in which he has nothing to worry about.

12.liJcb5 12 .f4? ! Ci:Jc4 12 ••• �b8 13.f4 c!Llg6 14.i.d3

c!Lld5 15. �d2 .ic5 and White must play very accurately for the rest of the game.

19

Chapter 4 l.e4 e6

The Exchange Variation

2.d4 After 2.c4 there do not arise

any original positions, since Black can enter the main lines of the exchange variation without any problems. 2 . . . d5 (I can recom­mend to players who wish to play more complicated positions the move 2 . . . c5, which leads to a good version of the Sicilian defence.) 3 .exd5 exd5 4.d4 (White does not achieve anything much with 4.cxd5 tt'lf6 5.�b5+ tt'lbd7 6.tt'lc3 �e7 7.tt'lf3 0-0 8.0-0 tt'lb6 with easy equality for Black.)

2 . . . d5 3.exd5

What can we say about the Exchange variation in general? It was played actively for a while by Garry Kasparov himself, but

20

it cannot be dangerous for Black. It is obvious that White can cre­ate considerably more problems for his opponent only with the moves 3 .tt'lc3, 3 .tt'ld2 and 3.e5. Nevertheless, Black must play ac­curately. For those chess fans who always wish to play only for a win, I should like to tell you that ac­cording to the professional play­ers there are two positive results in chess - a win and a draw . . .

3 . . . exd5 4)iJf3 This is the most solid and flex­

ible move for White. It is also pos­sible for him to play 4.c4, but in general it is not so advantageous for him to clarify his plan so early in the game.

Black has at his disposal a very harmonious set-up - 4 . . . tt'lf6 5.tt'lf3 (He can counter 5.tt'lc3

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.tt'lj3 .id6

with 5 . . . ib4.) 5 . . . ib4+ 6 .tt'lc3 0-0 7.ie2 dxc4. Now, White has nu­merous alternatives, but they all have certain drawbacks. If Black so wishes, he can ignore his addi­tional possibilities and stick to the same plan. 8.0-0 (After 8.hc4 it is reasonable for Black to ex­change the light-squared bish­ops immediately with 8 . . . l"le8+ 9.ie3 ie6 10.he6 l"lxe6 11 .0-0 tt'lc6 12 .ig5 hc3 13.bxc3 �d5 14.ixf6 Elxf6, although White still maintains some pressure with 15.�b3.) 8 . . . ig4 (An alternative for Black is - 8 . . . ie6 ! ?) 9.hc4 tt'lc6 10.ie3 . White is more or less forced to enter this position after 4.c4. Considering that White has recaptured on c4 in two moves, Black should not have any prob­lems after the opening. For ex­ample : 10 . . . �d7 11.h3 ih5 12 .i.e2 Elfe8= and both sides' prospects are approximately equal.

After 4.tt'lf3 Black has several possibilities . I will concentrate on the move 4 . . . id6, for two rea­sons. Firstly, the situation after 5.c4 dxc4 6.ic4 can arise from

the Queen's Gambit Accepted and it is always useful to know about such transpositions between dif­ferent openings. I am referring to the variation l.d4 d5 2 .c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4.ic4 exd4 5.exd4 id6 6.tt'lf3.

Secondly, I think this same move combines reliability and positional justification and avoids complete symmetry enabling Black to think about winning the game after all . . .

4 ... .td6 The move 4 . . . ig4 was popular

during the nineties of the last cen­tury, but after Kasparov found the idea 5.h3 ih5 6.�e2 + ! it became clear that Black would have prob­lems in this variation.

6 . . . �e7 7 ..ie3 tt'lc6 8.tt'lc3 0-0-0 9.0-0-0:t Kasparov - Short, Til­burg 1991.

21

Chapter 4

Black sometimes tries to pro­voke complications with the move 4 . . . 4Jc6, but he may have difficul­ties in the well-known variation after 5.�b5 �d6 6.c4 dxc4 7.d5 a6 8.�a4 b5 9.dxc6 bxa4 10.0-0 4Je7 11 .1Mfxa4. White risks nothing, while Black must still make sever­al very accurate moves. Of course, his most reliable resource here is the symmetrical move - 4 . . . 4Jf6.

5.c4 The famous principle of asym­

metry in the Exchange variation can be illustrated here with the move - 5.�d3.

I should inform my readers that according to this principle Black should be in no hurry to de­velop his king's knight early, since if its counterpart goes to f3, then Black should deploy his knight to e7, and vice versa . . . Of course, you should not take all these par­adoxical principles completely seriously, but still, it is always useful to keep them in mind. For instance, in the following game Black obeyed all these rules and managed to gradually outplay his

22

opponent and prevail in the end­game. 5 . . . 4Je7 6.0-0 4Jbc6 7.h3 4Jb4 8.�e2 �f5 9.4Ja3 a6 10 .b3 0-0 ll.c3 4Jbc6 12 .4Jc2 4Jg6 13. �d3 hd3 14.1M/xd3 1M/d7 15.�d2 4Jce7 16.:1'1fel 1M/f5 17.1M/xf5 4Jxf5 18 .g3 f6 19.:1'1e2 l"1fe8 20 .:1'1ael l"1xe2 21 .:1'1xe2 'kt>f7 22 .'kt>g2 h5+ Gorbatov - Rychagov, Moscow 2008.

5 •.. dxc4 6.hc4 tt:lf6 7. 0 - 0 0 - 0

8.tt:lc3 It is interesting for White to try

to seize the initiative immediately with 8.4Je5 ! ? Black must react very precisely: 8 . . . 4Jc6 ! This is the right move ! (It is weaker for him to opt for 8 . . . 4Jbd7? ! 9.�f4 4Jb6 10 .�b3 4Jfd5 ll.�g3 �e6 12 .4Jd2 l"1e8 13 .4Je4 1M/e7 14.l"1cH and White obtained an advantage in the game Tregubov - Vitiugov, Sochi, 2009.) 9.4Jxc6 (Now he cannot play 9 .�f4 because of the routine reply 9 . . . �xe5 10.dxe5 4Jg4, and White cannot protect his pawn.) 9 . . . bxc6. Black's pawn structure has been weakened a lit­tle, but he is not worse. For exam­ple : 10.4Jc3 l"1e8 11 .1Mlf3 l"1b8 12 .h3

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.'Llf3 id6

ie6?, and the dynamic factors are in his favour.

8 • • .ll:lc6

From this moment on, the opening has many things in com­mon with the Chigorin defence. It is obvious that in this rather original and complicated open­ing, Black's position is considered as acceptable, but things are not so simple here.

9.h3 The seemingly active move

9.ig5, strangely enough, is not dangerous for Black at all . 9 .. . h6 (It is less precise to play 9 . . . ig4, since White can counter this with 10.'Lld5, obtaining the advantage of the two bishops. 10 . . . ie7 ll.'Llxe7 + Wfxe7 12 .h3 ixf3 13.Wfxf3 Wfe4 14.Wfxe4 'Llxe4 15.ie3 'Lld6 16.b3 with some ad­vantage to White, Lputian - Rom­anishin, Manila 1992.) 10 .ih4 ig4. It looks as if White's best here is the forced draw after ll.h3 ixf3 12 .Wfxf3 'Llxd4 13.Wfxb7 Elb8 14.Wfxa7 Ela8 15.Wfb7 Elb8, Gure­vich - Azmaiparashvili, Saint Vincent 2003.

9 . . . h6

1 0 .ge1 It is difficult to say which is

White's most useful move here. He has tried many different ide­as, but Black has good counter­chances in all cases. In principle, this is quite logical . Both sides are playing solidly in the centre and neither side should have prob­lems.

White cannot harm his oppo­nent with 10 .a3 if5 11.b4 'Lle4! 12 .ib2 'Llxc3 13.ixc3 Wff6=

It would be too routine for him to opt for 10 .ie3 a6 11 .a4 if5 12 .'Llh4 ih7 13 .id3 ixd3 14.Wfxd3 'Llb4 15.Wfd1 Ele8 16.Wff3 if8 17. Elad1 'Llbd5 18.'Llf5 illh7 19.if4 c6 2 0.ie5 Ele6? Balashov - Mo­rozevich, Samara 1998.

White has an interesting pos­sibility here - 10 .Wfc2 , with the idea of preventing the natural development of his opponent's light-squared bishop. Black can react cleverly with 10 . . . a6 ! ? , or he can play more simply - 10 . . . 'Llb4 11.Wfb1 c6 ! ? (White obtains some targets to attack after ll . . . ie6

23

Chapter 4

12 .�xe6 fxe6 13J'le1 '\Wd7 14.�d2 ct:Jbd5 15.1Wd3 l'l:ad8 16.l'l:e2 1Wf7 17.l'l:ae1 l'l:fe8 18.'Lle4;t; Tkachiev -Sulava, Gonfreville 2006.) with the idea of responding to 12 .l'l:e1 with 12 . . . ct:Jbd5. It is also worth considering 10 . . . 'Lla5 11 .�d3 �e6. ll .a3 b5 12 .�d3 �b7, with good counterplay.

1 0 •• J'l:e8 This is Black's most natural

response. He has some alterna­tives though. The move 10 . . . �f5 was played in a game against a computer by the famous French defence expert Alexander Mo­rozevich: ll.d5 'Lle7 12 .�e3 a6 13. �d4 'Llg6 14.a4 l'l:e8 15.1Wb3 b6 16.l'l:xe8+ 'Llxe8 17.l'l:e1 'Llf6oo Fritz - Morozevich, Frankfurt 2000. Two other acknowledged giants in this opening tested out the ben­efits of including the moves 10 . . . a6 and ll.a3 : ll . . . l'l:e8 12 .l'l:xe8+ 1Wxe8 13.1Wd3 1Wf8 14.�e3 �d7 (It was also interesting for Black to continue with 14 . . . b5 15.�a2 �b7,

24

developing the bishop to a more active position.) Now White ex­erts some positional pressure. 15.'Llh4 �h8 16.'Llf5 l'l:e8 17.'Llxd6 (17.b4 ! ?) 17 . . . 1Wxd6 18.l'l:d1 (White cannot play 18 .hf7 in view of 18 . . . 'Lle5 ! ) 18 . . . �e6 19 .he6 l'l:xe6 20 . d5 'Lle5 21 .1Wd4 l'l:e8 22 .�f4 (22 . 1Wa7 !?) 22 . . . c5 23.dxc6 1Wxd4 24. l'l:xd4 'Llxc6=. The players agreed to a draw, Korchnoi - lvanchuk, Frankfurt 1998.

ll . .ie3 The eventual consequences of

the exchange of rooks were ana­lyzed in our previous notes. I will just mention that after ll .l'l:xe8+ 1Wxe8 White cannot prevent the development of Black's bishop to f5 - 12 .1Wd3? 'Llb4!

ll . . . .if5 Black can also begin with the

move ll . . . a6 ! ? 12.a3 a6

13.lt:lh4 .ih7 14.1Wf3 �d7oo with a very complicated position, Short - Bareev, Pula 1997.

Part 2

Chigorin Variation l.e4 e6 2. �e2

King's Indian Attack l.e4 e6 2.d3

In principle, different, "non-French" positions arise only if White does not try to occupy the centre and does not place a pawn on d4. It would be quite reasonable to tell you immediately that studying this chapter will be useful not only for readers who play the French De­fence. The King's Indian Attack can be considered as a separate open­ing concept for White and Black must be well prepared to counter it.

White's play might not appear to be very ambitious or concrete, but every possible move-order deserves thorough attention, since White's opening strategy is not without venom.

25

ChapterS l.e4 e6 2 . �e2

Chigorin Variation

This move was invented by Mikhail Ivanovich Chigorin. Its idea is quite simple. White wishes to build a typical King's Indian Attack set-up. However, he tries to impede Black's thematic move d7-d5, since after the exchange of pawns, Black will have to recap­ture with his queen rather than the pawn, which is not part of his plan at all . On the other hand, this early development of the white queen also has some drawbacks.

2 ... c5 I believe this is the most logical

reaction for Black. He postpones the move dS for a while, occupy­ing and controlling the centre in the process.

Black sometimes plays the

26

amusing move 2 . . . e5 . The posi­tion is rather unusual after that and, if you see it for the first time, you might think that after l .e4 eS, White has played 2 .WI'e2?! In fact, with his second move, Black wish­es to emphasize that White's early queen-sortie is completely harm­less for the opponent. Still , this is a tempo gained. It seems logi­cal for White to choose the plan of f2-f4, followed by moving the queen to f2 . For example: 3.c3 4Jc6 4.f4 d6 5.4Jf3 g6 6.WI'f2 ig7 7.ic4 4Jf6 8.d3 0-0 9.0-0 exf4 10.ixf4 4Jg4 ll .WI'g3 C/JgeS 12 .4Jbd2 4Jxc4 13.4Jxc4 ie6 14.4Je3 C!JeS 15.4Jxe5 dxeS 16 .ixe5 ixeS 17.WI'xe5 Wl'xd3 18 .llf3 Wl'e2 19.c4 ! and White went on to win, Zvjaginsev - Ni Hua, Ergun 2006.

Black also plays 2 . . . ie7, with the idea of eliminating the x-ray pressure along the e-file. But that way he loses the possibility of fi­anchettoing his dark-squared bishop.

Even 2 . . . d5 is sometimes played successfully by Black. There is no doubt that in that case White's queen move is jus-

tified, because after 3.exd5 Black must play 3 . . . i�hd5. There arises a strange version of the Scan dina­vian defence (with the inclusion of the moves �d1-e2 and e7-e6) which has not been evaluated by the theoreticians yet.

3.lilf3 There is a multitude of possi­

bilities and move-orders in this position. We shall analyze White's most natural and purposeful moves.

Black should counter 3.f4 with 3 . . . d5. Here is a possible continu­ation: 4.exd5 �xdS S.ltJc3 �d8 6.ltJf3 ltJc6 7.g3 ltJf6 8.ig2 ie7 9. 0-0 0-0 10 .d3 id7 11.ltJe4 8:c8 12 .c3 ltJdS with an approximately equal position, Short - Korchnoi, Groningen 1997.

3 .g3 ltJc6 4.c3 g6 S.ig2 i.g7 6. f4 ltJge7 7.ltJf3 d6 8.0-0 0-0 9. tt:la3 8:b8 10.'it>h1 fS 11 .d3 bS 12 . exfS ltJxfS 13.id2 dS 14.g4 ltJh6 15.ltJg5 �d7 16.8:ae1 b4 17.ltJb1 bxc3 18.bxc3 ltJd8� Lastin - Ba­reev, Elista 1997.

3 ••• c!Llc6 4 .g3 4.b3 ltJf6 S.e5 ltJdS 6.ib2 i.e7

7.g3 0-0 8.ig2 d6 9.exd6 �xd6 10.0-0 if6 ll .ltJc3 ltJxc3 12 .dxc3 id7 and Vasily Vasiliyevich could hardly be satisfied with his posi­tion, Smyslov - Panno, Buenos Aires 1990.

The move 4.c3 was tried by, among others, the famous open­ing experimentalist Vadim Zvja­ginsev. This game continued in creative fashion but did not end up successfully for him. 4 . . . ltJge7

l.e4 e6 2. �e2 c5

5.ltJa3 g6 6.d4 cxd4 7.ltJb5 d6 8.ltJbxd4 ig7 9 .ie3 ltJxd4 10.cxd4 d5 11.e5 ltJfS 12.ig5 �b6 13 .�d2 id7 14.8:cl h6 15.if6 ixf6 16.exf6 �d8 and Black gobbled up a pawn, Zvjaginsev - Rublevsky, Poikovsky 2006.

4.d3 transposes to the main line after 4 . . . ltJge7 5.g3 g6 6.ig2 ig7.

4 ••• g6 This is a principled move.

Maybe not all French defence players would like the develop­ment of the bishop to the g7-square, but I am very much in­clined to deploy it precisely there.

5.�g2 �g7 6. 0 - 0 c!Llge7 Black is unable to develop this

knight to a more active position 6 . . . ltJf6 7.c3 ! d5 (It is no improve­ment for him to opt for 7 . . . 0-0 8.d4 d5 9 .e5 ltJd7 10 .ig5 and White obtains a clear advantage.) 8.e5 ltJd7 9.d4 f6 10.exf6 �xf6 ll.ltJgS and Black is in great trou­ble.

7.c3 0 - 0 8.d3 8.8:d1 e5 9 .d3 dS 10 .ltJbd2 d4

ll .ltJb3 b6 12 .cxd4 cxd4 13.ig5

27

ChapterS

�e6 14.1Mfd2 f6 15.�h6 1Mfd6 16. hg7 lt>xg7 with a clear advantage for Black, Chahrani - Gleizerov, Dubai 2002.

8 . . . d6 Black has two possible plans in

this position - playing on the queenside, based on advancing b7-b5-b4, or natural central strat­egy of the type - e6-e5 and f7-f5.

9.llJbd2 Boris Abramovich once tried

9 .a3 , but he is unlikely to use it again in his forthcoming match against Anand. 9 . . . b6 10 .b4 cxb4 ll.axb4 'Llxb4 12.d4 tt:Jbc6 13.'Llbd2 i.b7 14.�a3 d5 15J'Ub1 :ge8 16.1Mfb5 dxe4 17.'Llxe4 lLldS 18 .1Mfd3 �f8 with an extra pawn for Black, Gel­fand - Navara, Prague 2006.

The move 9 .lLla3 looks a bit strange. Do not be prejudiced -the knight is only half-way to its destination. The only surprise is that Vadim Zvjaginsev has not tried it yet. 9 . . . :gbs 10.lLlc2 bS 11.�f4 b4 12 .d4 bxc3 13.bxc3 cxd4 14.'Llcxd4 'LlaS 15.i.g5 h6 16.he7 1Mfxe7 17. :gab1 �b718.'Lld2 :gbc8 with an un­doubted advantage to Black, Lag-

28

vilava - Malakhov, Minsk 1997. White can also try here the ex­

treme prophylactic move - 9.a4. This is an amazing move, since it is far from clear exactly what White is defending against. It is little wonder that the move 2 .d4 is about ten times more popular than all of these attempts.

An alternative for White is -9 .�e3 b6 10.d4 (10.lLla3 �a6 11. :gfd1 :gcs 12.1Mfc2 bS 13.c4 lLld4 -13 . . . b4! - 14.1Mfd2 bxc4 15.dxc4 lLlec6+! 16.:gac1? lLlxf3+ 17.hf3 1Mff6+ Jasim - Radjabov, Dubai 2002) 10 . . . cxd4 (lO . . . aS ! ?) 11.'Lld4 (11.cxd4 aS ! ? with counterplay) ll . . . lLld4 12 .�d4 eS 13.�e3 �e6 -this position requires additional practical tests.

9 . . . e5 1 0 .a3 h6 11.b4 i.e6 I much prefer the idea of main­

taining the knight on the c6-square with ll . . . a6 ! ?

12.b5 c!Da5 13 . .ib2 f5 14. exf5 gxf5 15.c!Dh4, Smyslov -Cramling, Prague 1995

and here with 15 . . . c4! Black could have obtained an excellent position.

Chapter 6 l.e4 e6 2.d3

King's Indian Attack

This move is definitely a bit slow and usually indicates that White wishes to postpone any sharp struggle to the middle game. It is also possible that White is just a bit too lazy to study the basic theoretical lines at home and is trying to play safely and se­curely early in the game.

2 . . . d5 Nowadays broad opening

knowledge is one of the most im­portant features of a strong chess player. For example, here it seems very reasonable for Black to trans­pose to the Closed Sicilian with 2 . . . c5 3.lLlf3 lLlc6 4.g3 g6 5.�g2 �g7 6.c3 lLlge7 7.0-0 0-0 (It is maybe a bit more precise to play 7 . . . e5 ! ?) 8 .8:e1 (8.d4 !?) 8 . . . e5 9 . lLla3 d6 10.�e3 b6 1l .'Wd2 and

here Topalov tried the interesting idea of exchanging his light­squared bishop with 11 . . .�g4 ! ? 12 . h3 hf3 13.hf3 'Wd7 14.�g2 f5 15. exf5 gxf5 16.f4 8:ad8 17.8:e2? ! 'We6 ! And Black seized the initia­tive and went on to win the game, Bruzon Bautista - Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2005.

3.lild2 White can also defend against

d5xe4 and support his e4-pawn with the move 3.'We2 and we shall analyze this in our next chapter.

3 . . .lilf6 Here Black has an equally ef­

fective move for our suggested scheme of development - 3 . . . c5. The text move has been chosen mostly for the sake of the clarity

29

Chapter 6

of our explanation. Our notes over the next few moves will help you to become acquainted with some positions in which Black changes the pawn structure with d5xe4 and e6-e5. This is going to be our basic weapon against the scheme with 3.�e2. After 3 . . . c5 White can consider placing his pawn on f4, which is aimed against Black's set-ups with �d6 and Ci:Jge7 or g6, �g7, Ci:Jge7, for ex­ample : 4.g3 ! ? Ci:Jc6 (or 4 . . . �d6 5.�g2 Ci:Je7 6.f4) 5.�g2 Ci:Jf6 (after 5 . . . g6, White can play not only 6 .f4 followed by Ci:Jgf3, but also 6. Ci:Jh3 ! ? , played by Morozevich) 6.f4. This idea has been tried only rarely and it is difficult to assess whether it is dangerous for Black. The most likely continuation would be then - 6 . . . �e7 7.e5 Ci:Jd7 8.Ci:Jgf3 leading to positions which we shall analyze in our next notes.

4.c!Llgf3 Here if 4.g3 Black has at his

disposal the after quite effective set-up: 4 . . . dxe4 5.dxe4 e5 6.Ci:Jgf3 �c5 ! 7.�g2 0-0 8.0-0

30

and now: 8 . . . l"\e8 ! ? this is a very precise

move, with which Black shows his reluctance to determine immedi­ately the placement of his b8-knight. 9.c3 (After 9 .b3 it would be good for Black to play 9 . . . Ci:Jc6) 9 . . . a5 10. �c2 a4 1l .Ci:Jc4 Ci:Jbd7 12. Ci:Je3 ! ? b6 13.l"\d1 �b7 14.Ci:Jh4 g6 15.�h3? ! This idea is just wrong. 15 . . . he4! 16.fud7 hc2 (16 . . . �xd7? 17 .i.xd7 hc2 18.i.xe8 he3 19.i.c6! hc1 20.E1xc1 +-) 17.E1xd8 E1axd8 18.Ci:Jxc2 l"\d1+ 19.@g2 h5 ! ? (This is a prophylactic move, the point of which can be seen in the varia­tion 19 . . . Ci:Je4 20.�g4 ! , but it is even stronger for Black to prepare the exchange of the active enemy rook on d1 with the move 19 . . . l"\ed8 ! when White's situation be­comes critical.) 20.�g5 E1xa1 21. Ci:Jxa1 Ci:Je4 22.�d7 l"\b8 23.Ci:Jf3 f6 24.�c1 Ci:Jxf2+ Nadanian - Lpu­tian, Armenia 1998;

However, Black can try to play more simply: 8 . . . Ci:Jbd7 9 .b3 b6 10. �b2 �a6 (On the next move it would not be so convenient for him to develop his bishop to the a6-square: 10 . . . �e7 ll.Ci:Jc4 �a6 12.Ci:Jfxe5 Ci:Jxe5 and now White can either capture a pawn: 13.

.ixeS !'!adS 14. hf6 �xf6 1S.�e2, when Black's compensation for it should be sufficient to draw, or else sacrifice the exchange : 13. tt:lxeS .ixfl 14.�xf1� with very good compensation.) 1l .c4 �e7 12.a3 .ib7 13.b4 .id6 14.tt:lh4 g6 1S. �b3 tt:lhS 16 .:!'!ae1 aS 17 . .ic3 axb4 18.axb4 cS 19.bS :!'!fd8 ! The oppo­nents agreed to a draw in this complicated position, Voitsekhov­sky - Andreev, Vladimir 2008. Black's last move is important and accurate, because now his knight on d7 is headed for d4, while his other knight on hS will keep threatening to go to f4 at an opportune moment, exploiting the under-protected state of White's knight on h4 : if 20 . .if3 tt:lf4.

The natural reply 8 . . . tt:lc6 is also possible, but Black's knight is slightly misplaced there : 9 .c3 aS. This is a very popular position and it can arise from different move-orders . 10 .�c2 b6 11 .tt:lb3 .ie7 12.:!'!d1 �e8 13.a4 .ia6 14.tt:lh4 :!'!d8 1S . .ie3 tt:lg4 16.tt:lfS tt:lxe3 17. tt:lxe3 :!'!xd1+ 18 .:!'!xd1 �c8 19.tt:ldS± White managed to obtain a slight edge in the game Bologan - Ma­slak, Budva 2009.

An original position arises af­ter 4.eS ! ? tt:lfd7 S.f4 (after S .d4, White reaches a position from the Steinitz system, but a tempo down). In response, Black should try to consistently seize space on the queenside, for example: S . . . cS (it would be also interesting for him to try S . . .f6 ! ? with counter­play) 6.g3 tt:lc6

l .e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. ttld2 ttlf6

7.tt:lgf3 (7.tt:ldf3 bS 8.tt:lh3 b4 9.tt:lf2 aS 10 . .ih3 g6 11 .0-0 .ia6 12.a3 �b6 13.axb4 cxb4 14.Wh1 .icS with a very good position for Black, Najer - Chebotarev, Inter­net 2004) 7 . . . bS 8 . .ig2 �b6 9 .c3 .ie7 (It would be reasonable to try Kamsky's recommendation: 9 . . . c4 ! ? 10 .d4 b4 11 .0-0 �aSi with initiative on the queenside. The centre is closed, so Black is not obliged to be in any hurry with his development. White's pieces are not very well placed at the mo­ment, so he cannot punish his op­ponent with the pawn-break f4-fS.) 10.0-0 0-0 11 .Wh1 .ib7 12. �e2 :!'!ae8 13.tt:lb3 aS (Black can again follow Kamsky's ideas with 13 . . . d4 ! ? 14.cxd4 tt:lxd4 !? , or 14 . . . cxd4 1S.�f2 tt:lcS with a very com­plicated game.) 14 . .ie3 a4 1S. tt:lbd2 fS ! 16.exf6 .ixf6 17.d4 b4! with a sharp position, Kamsky -Bareev, Tilburg 1991.

(diagram) 4 ... c5 The plan we mentioned earlier

for Black, with the development of his bishop to cS, is again possi­ble here: 4 . . . dxe4 S.dxe4 .icS (af­ter S . . . tt:lc6 6 . .ibS .id7 7.0-0 a6 8 . .ia4 bS 9 . .ib3 tt:laS lO .eS tt:lxb3

31

Chapter 6

11 .axb3 tLldS 12 .tLle4 �c6 13.iWe2 �e7 14J�d1 iWb8 15.tLld4 �d7 16. iWg4t White maintained a power­ful initiative in the game Kiik -Przewoznik, Espoo 1991).

This position has been en­countered very rarely in games between strong players and there is insufficient practical material to evaluate whether White can transform his advantage of two tempi (the first move and the tempo which Black is going to lose with e6-e5) into some mean­ingful positional gains. 6.�d3 ! ? (White did not obtain anything much by deploying his forces "a la Philidor" : 6.�e2 eS 7.0-0 iWe7 8. c3 aS 9 .b3 0-0 10.a3 �g4 11.�b2 tLlbd7 12 .h3 �hS 13 .tLlh4 ixe2 14. iWxe2 g6 15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 �b6

32

17.g3 tLlhS 18.'it>h2 tt:Jf4 and the opponents agreed to a draw, Hra­cek - Akopian, Cap d'Agde 1996.) 6 . . . e5 7.tt:Jc4 tLlc6 8.c3 and after 8 . . . tt:Jg4 9.0-0 bS 10.tLle3 ixe3 11 . ixe3 tt:Jxe3 12 .fxe3 a6 13 .a4 b4, Rohde - Akopian, Los Angeles 1991, White could have continued with 14J'k1 0-0 1S.cxb4 tt:Jxb4 16. �c4 iWe7 17.ttJxeS !:t maintaining a considerable advantage, but it looks as if Black could have equal­ized with 8 . . . a5 9.tt:Jcxe5 ttJxeS 10. tLlxeS 0-0 11.tLlf3 iWe7. This idea requires further practical tests .

5.g3

5 . . . g6 This set-up is only seldom

played and its idea is not only to surprise the opponent, but to en­ter a complicated position with counter chances for Black. The classical scheme in this situation looks to me to be a bit passive -s . . . tLlc6 6 .�g2 �e7 7.0-0 b6 8J'!e1 �b7. I have played many games with it, not without considerable success, but I think White's play is easier, since he makes the impor­tant decisions.

6 . .ig2 .ig7

7. 0 - 0 White can try to seize the ini­

tiative with 7.exd5, but Black can counter this with 7 . . . tt'lxd5 (But not 7 . . . exd5? ! and he will have problems after 8 .'�e2+ .ie6 9 . tt'lg5±; the endgame arising after 8 .. .'�e7 9.�xe7+ �xe7 10.tt'lb3t is no good for Black at all .) 8.tt'lb3 ! ? (White cannot hurt his opponent with 8.tt'le4 tt'lc6 9.0-0 b6 10 . .ig5 f6 1l ..id2 0-0 and the position is double-edged.) 8 . . . tt'lc6 (It seems weaker for Black to play 8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 tt'ld7 10.Ei:e1 and he will have problems with the develop­ment of his light-squared bishop. For example: 10 . . . b6? ! ll . .ig5 f6 12 . .ic1 ; ll . . . .if6 12 . .ixf6 �xf6 12 . tt'lfd2 ! ?) 9 .0-0 b6 and it will be difficult for White to achieve any­thing from this position. For in­stance, 10 .d4 (10.c4 tt'lde7 ll .d4 .ia6 ! ) 10 . . . .ia6 1l .Ei:e1 cxd4 (But not ll . . . c4? ! 12 .tt'lbd2 c3 13.tt'le4 cxb2 14.hb2 0-0 15 . .ia3 tt'lce7 16.tt'le5t) 12 .tt'lbxd4 tt'lxd4 13. tt'lxd4 0-0 14.tt'lc6 (White cannot obtain any advantage with 14.c3

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.lt'ld2 lt'lf6

Ei:c8 15.�a4 .ic4 16.tt'lc6 b5 17. �xc4 bxc4 18.tt'lxd8 Ei:fxd8, Sav­chenko - Vitiugov, Serpukhov 2008.) 14 . . . �d7 15.hd5 exd5 16. lt'le7+ �h8 17.�xd5 �xd5 18. tt'lxd5 .ib7 and Black has full com­pensation for the sacrificed pawn.

7 . . . 0 - 0 Black can also play 7 . . . tt'lc6, be­

cause he need not be afraid of 8 . exd5 tt'lxd5 9.tt'lb3 (After 9.tt'le4 b6 i t i s far from clear how White can increase his pressure. 10 . .ig5 (Af­ter 10.c4 tt'lde7 ll . .ig5 .ib7 12 . tt'lf6+ �f8 , White's pieces will have to retreat, coming under at­tack with tempo, while the weak­ness of the d4-square will be per­manent.) 10 .. .f6 ll . .id2 0-0 12 . Ei:e1 e5 and White's set-up seems absolutely ridiculous for a King's Indian scheme.) 9 . . . b6 10.c4 tt'lde7 1l .d4 .ia6 ! Black has a good posi­tion.

SJ�el The line 8.�e2 tt'lc6 9.c3 b6 is

not so good for White, because af­ter Black's natural reaction 10 .e5 tt'ld7 ll .d4 a5, White's queen is obviously misplaced.

33

Chapter 6

8 •• .lZlc6

9.c3 White has completed his

King's Indian attack "pro­gramme". We shall try to go a bit deeper into the intricacies of this position.

White cannot change much with indifferent moves such as 9 . a3 b6 10 .c3, although White often plays like this. He has tried also lOJ''lbl . . . Unfortunately, he does not do that very often . . .

White also has difficulties af­ter 9 .'\We2 b6 lO.tiJfl (10 .c3 ia6) 10 . . . h6 ! ? (It is also very good for Black to play the immediate 10 . . . e5 ll .tiJe3 ib7) ll .h4 e5 12.tiJe3 ie6 13.exd5 tiJxd5 14.liJc4 ig4+ and Black is simply better, Ma­tikozian - Lputian, Yerevan 1999.

(diagram) 9 • • .l'�e8 It has become clear that after

Black has chosen his set-up, the most principled plan for White will be connected with e4-e5 and d3-d4. Black will have to under­mine White's centre with f7-f6. He needs to be well-prepared to

34

do that successfully, though . . . Black has several alternatives

to his last move. It is weaker for Black to play

9 . . . e5? ! , because then he enters a position from the King's Indian defence with colours reversed, two tempi behind, and this must be an important factor. 10.exd5 liJxd5 ll .liJc4 f6 12 .'\Wb3 and White's initiative is tremendously powerful.

It is possible for Black to play 9 . . . b6 ! ? - the so-called "double fi­anchetto". He will develop his bishop, while keeping the elastic­ity of his pawn centre intact. 10.e5 (Waiting moves for White such as 10.a3 would not change much -10 . . . 1b7.) 10 . . . tiJd7 ll .d4 f6

12 .ih3 ! ? This is the only way

for White to obtain some advan­tage. (He should not give up the centre with 12.exf6, since his op­ponent will have no problems after 12 . . . Wxf6 13 .We2 �b7 14. Wxe6+ Wxe6 15J�xe6 cxd4, or 13. tt'lb3 c4 14.tt'lbd2 �b7 15.b3 cxb3 16.axb3 e5 ! and in both cases Black obtains an excellent posi­tion.) 12 .. J'l:e8 13.exf6 Wxf6 14.tt'lfl and here he can strike an immedi­ate blow against White's centre : 14 . . . cxd4 15.�g5 Wf7 16. cxd4 e5 17J'k1 �b7 18.�e3 h6 19.�xd7 and the opponents agreed to a draw, Areshchenko - Vysochin, Olginka 2011, or he can calmly complete the development of his pieces 14 . . . �b7 15.�f4 (15.�g5?! Wf7 16.�f4 h6 17.tt'le3 e5 18.�xd7 Wxd7 19. tt'lxe5 tt'lxe5 20 .�xe5 he5 2l .dxe5 E1xe5+) 15 . . . cxd4 16.cxd4 E1ac8. On the board a complicated position with chances for both sides has been reached.

The prophylactic move 9 . . . Wh8 ! ? was tried by the French Defence specialist Lputian. His rook remains on the f-file, so that if White plays e4-e5 Black has the undermining move f7-f6, while the retreat of his king relieves his anxieties about the safety of his e6-pawn.

The move 9 . . . a5 ! ? deserves thorough attention.

(diagram) Let us examine White's possi­

ble replies : it would be very risky now for

him to opt for the natural move 10.e5? ! owing to 10 . . . tt'lg4! ll .d4

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.tt'ld2 tt'lf6

cxd4 12.cxd4 f6 13.h3 (White should avoid 13.exf6 Wxf6 14.h3 tt'lxf2 ! 15.Wxf2 Wxd4+ 16.We2 Wb6 17.tt'lf1 �d7-+ ; 17.\ilfl tt'ld4 18. tt'lb3 tt'lf5 19.�f4 a4; 17.Wb3 Wc7 18.g4 Wg3-. with a dangerous at­tack for Black. It is interesting that he can even afford to leave his queen under attack: 16 . . . �d7 !? ; 1 6 . . . Wa7 i s n o less effective than the move in the text.) 13 . . . tt'lxf2 14.Wxf2 fxe5 15.Wg1 (15. dxe5 Wb6+ 16.Wf1 tt'lxe5 17.Wb3 Wxb3 18.axb3 tt'ld3 19.E1e3 tt'lxc1 20.E1xc1 e5+. I should like to men­tion that not only does every pos­sible capture on e5 lead to a better position for Black, but even after the prophylactic move 16 . . . a4 ! ? his game i s preferable.) 1 5 . . . exd4+ Black maintains a clear advan­tage, Rathnakaran - Kurnosov, Bhubaneswar 2009.

White has also tried 10.tt'lb3 b6 1l .e5 tt'ld7 12.�f4 �a6 13 .h4 E1c8 14.tt'lc1 d4 15.c4 b5 16.b3 a4 17.h5 h6oo with a very complicated posi­tion, Amin - Vorobiov, Cappelle la Grande 2010.

If 10.tt'lf1 Black should consid­er simplifying into an endgame: 10 . . . dxe4 ! ? (after 10 . . . a4 1l .e5 tt'ld7 12 .�f4 a3 13.b3 f6 14.exf6

35

Chapter 6

lt:Jxf6 15.�d2;!; White has a slight edge, Bologan - Komarov, Ulcinj 1997) ll .dxe4 �xd1 12 .Elxd1 a4 ! (but not 12 . . . lt:Jxe4 13 .ie3� with excellent compensation for Black). Black is threatening a4-a3 and has good counterplay.

It looks natural for White to play 10.a4, but after 10 . . . b6, White again has problems. Now a switch to a French Defence pawn struc­ture with e4-e5, followed by d3-d4, would present the b4-square to his opponent, while after lt:Jf1, Black can go into an endgame and occupy the d3-outpost with his knight via e5, or c5 after c5-c4, while 11 .exd5 exd5 12 .lt:Jf1 ia6 13. if4 lt:Jh5 14.ig5 �d6 would not achieve much for White.

1 0 .e5 White decides to make a solid

preparatory move without forc­ing the game. If nothing dramatic happens, Black's plan is simple - b6, ib7, �c7, Elad8 etc. , typi­cal central strategy. Therefore we shall study attempts to sharpen the game.

36

If White tries to make another useful move - 10 .�e2, Black can continue according to the sche­me: 10 . . . b6 11.e5 lt:Jd7 12 .d4 f6 (or 12 . . . a5 13.lt:Jfl ia6 14.�d1co with a complicated position) 13.exf6 �xf6 14.lt:Jb3 c4 15.lt:Jbd2 ib7co with a complex and unclear posi­tion, but Black could also serious­ly consider playing 10 . . . e5 ! ? 11 . exd5 lt:Jxd5 when White has two extra tempi in comparison to the King's Indian Defence with col­ours reversed, but one of them -�d1-e2 is obviously superfluous.

10 . . .ll:ld7 ll.d4 f6 12.exf6 �xf6

13.c4!? This undermining move cre­

ates great problems for Black. 13.dxc5 ! ? This is a flexible

move. White is ready to give up his centre in order to gain some tempi for the development of his pieces. 13 . . . lt:Jxc5 14.lt:Jb3 lt:Je4 15. if4 (White is unable to challenge the position of Black's knight -15.c4 Eld8.) 15 . . . �d8. Strangely enough, sometimes coming back

with the queen to its initial square can be an unexpected but very strong decision. 16.tLlbd4 ! (pre­venting e6-e5) 16 . . . 2:f8. Black is eyeing the f2-pawn! (It is bad for him to play 16 . . . ¥Mb6? ! 17.¥Mb3 ¥Mxb3 18.axb3 e5 19.tLlxc6 bxc6 20 . .be5 .be5 21.tLlxe5 Elxe5 22.f3 �f5 23.fxe4 .be4 24.b4±) . The game might continue : 17.¥Mb3 ttJa5 18.¥Mc2 tLlc4 19.2:adl e5 20. ttJxe5 .be5 21..be4 .bf4 22.tLlb3 ttJb6 23.gxf4 with an equal posi­tion.

Here it looks logical for White to play 13.tLlb3, for example, and now: 13 . . . c4 14.tLlbd2 (After 14. �g5 ¥Mf7 15.tLlbd2 e5 16.dxe5 ttJdxe5 17.ttJxe5 ttJxe5 and Black has an excellent position, Nepom­niachtchi - Moiseenko, Kazan 2003. White cannot obtain any advantage with the forcing line -18.f4 ! ? �g4 19.2:xe5 .bd1 20 . .bd5 .be5 21..bf7+ �xf7 22.Elxdl �f6 23.tLlxc4 Elad8 24.tLld6+ �e6 25. .bf6 Elxd6 26.�d4 �f5=. He can win a pawn with 19.¥Ma4 tLld3 20. Elxe8+ Elxe8 21..bd5 but only temporarily, because after 21. . . �e6 22 . .be6 ¥Mxe6 23.¥Mxc4 ttJxb2 24.¥Mxe6+ Elxe6, Black's position is perfectly comfortable.)

l .e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. tLld2 tLlf6

The chronic weakness of the e5-square might hurt Black in the future. It would therefore be in­teresting for him to try the pawn­sacrifice 14 . . . e5 15.tLlxe5 tLldxe5 16 . .bd5+ �h8 17.dxe5 ttJxe5

Black is a pawn down but has compensation. For example:

It would be too risky for White to try 18.tLlxc4 �g4 19.¥Md2 tLlf3+ 20 . .bf3 �xf3 and despite the fact that Black is now two pawns down, his light-squared bishop more than compensates for them;

White is unable to seize the initiative with 18.tLle4 ¥Mf8 19.tLlg5 (It is bad to play 19.�f4? �g4 20.¥Ma4 tLlf3+ 21.�g2 ttJxel+ 22. Elxel Elad8 ! 23.¥Mxc4 ¥Mf5 24 . .bb7 �h3+ 25.�gl ¥Mh5+ with advan­tage for Black.) 19 . . . �g4 20.¥Md2 (the line: 20 .¥Mc2 �f5 21.¥Md2 Elad8 22.2:xe5 leads to almost the same position, except that Black's bishop is on f5, which is in his fa­vour.) 20 . . . 2:ad8 (20 . . . h6 21.Elxe5 .be5 22.lLlf7+ �h7 23.¥Mxh6+ �xh6 24.�xh6 �f6) 21.2:xe5 Elxe5 22.lLlf7+ ¥Mxf7 23 . .bf7 Elxd2 24 . .bd2 Ele2� and Black's compen­sation for the pawn should be suf­ficient for a draw;

37

Chapter 6

18 .. bc4 :gf8 ! (18 . . . �g4?! 19. �e2 ! ) 19.f3 �f5 . Black has ob­tained an excellent game for the sacrificed material . His counter­play is rich and easy - all in the centre. He can also try 19 . . . �h3 ! ? 20 .�fl �d7.

13 . . .l:�f8 It is logical for Black to move

the rook back to its working file .

His alternatives are inferior: it is bad for him to continue

with 13 . . . dxc4 14.dxc5 tLlde5 15. tLle4 tLlxf3+ 16.hf3 '\Wd4 17.'1We2 (17.:gb1 ! ?) 17 . . . :gd8 18.:gb1 ! (Me3) 18 . . . '1Wd3 19 .�e3±;

13 . . . tLlxd4 14.cxd5 e5 (after 14 . . . tLlb6 it is good for White to play simply 15.tLlxd4 '1Wxd4 16. '1We2 ; 15 . . . cxd4 16.dxe6 and Black has problems; or 15.tLle4 '1Wf8 16. d6 e5 17.tLlxd4 cxd4 18 .�g5) 15. tLle4 '1Wf8 and White has several promising possibilities : 16.�g5 !? , or 16 .b4 tLlb6 17.bxc5 �g4 18.cxb6 �xf3 19.'1Wd3 axb6 20 .�b2 , or 16.�e3 tLlf6 17.tLlfg5 tLlxe4 18. tLlxe4.

14.cxd5 exd5 15.dxc5

38

This is a critical position. Black is faced with a difficult choice :

White enjoys a comfortable edge in the endgame after 15 . . . tLld4 16.:gf1 tLlxc5 17.tLlxd4 '1Wxd4 18 .tLlb3 'IWxd1 19.:gxdU;

15 . . . �h8 16.tLlb3 (16.tLlf1) 16 . . . tLlde5 17.tLlxe5 '1Wxf2+ 18.�h1 tLlxe5 19 .�e3 tLlg4 20 .�d4 !±;

15 . . . tLlxc5 16.tLlb3 tLlxb3 17. '1Wxb3 �h8 18.'1Wxd5 �f5 ! ?� Black has compensation for the pawn. White will be unable to develop his queen's rook and bishop with­out losing his b2-pawn. Still , his chances seem slightly preferable. Instead of his last move, the natu­ral try 18 . . . �g4 would not grant Black complete equality: 19.�g5 '1Wf5 20.'1Wxf5 :gxf5 21 .�f4 :gb5 22 . tLlg5t with a powerful initiative for White.

It looks attractive for Black to try 15 . . . tLlde5.

(diagram) Now his position is quite play­

able after forcing lines, for exam­ple : 16.tLlxe5 '1Wxf2+ (16 . . . tLlxe5) 17.�h1 tLlxe5 18.hd5+ �h8 19. tLle4 tLlg4 (19 . . . tLld3) 20 .tLlxf2 (20. '1Wd2 '1Wf5 - �tLle3 - 21 .tLld6 '1Wh5

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. 0,d2 0,f6

22 .l"lxdl �g4= with equality, or 16.Wfb3 �g4 17J'1xeS 0,xeS 18. WfxdS+ �e6 19.WfxeS '&xeS 20 . 0,xeS �xeS with a complicated endgame.

But White has a powerful re­source here, which is to fortify his position with the move 16.l''1e3!? , so as after 16 . . . aS, or 16 . . . �e6 to continue with 17.Wffl . Black has some compensation, but it seems

22 .h4 �d7 23.WfgS 0,f2+ 24.Wg2 to me to be much easier to play 0,d3?) 20 . . . 0,xf2+ 2l .Wgl 0,xdl this position with White.

39

Chapter 7 l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.W/e2

King's Indian Attack

This move has been played successfully several times by Mo­rozevich, as well as by strong players such as Fedorov, Glek and Yudasin. The difference between this move and 3.'Lld2 which we have already analyzed is that White increases his pressure against Black's dS-pawn and to a certain degree restricts Black's choice of methods of develop­ment. It is important for White that in many variations his dark­squared bishop is free to move and his knight may be developed advantageously to the a3-square if Black chooses a set-up includ­ing the move c7-c5. The drawback of White's third move is that his queen might become vulnerable on the fl-a6 diagonal and that the

40

move 'l'tldl-e2 might turn out to be a loss of a tempo in many varia­tions. In this chapter we shall an­alyze some possibilities for Black to exploit all this by changing the pawn structure with the move e6-e5, avoiding c7-c5, which is much more typical for the King's Indian Attack.

We shall now deal with a) 3 . . .

llJc6 and b) 3 . . . dxe4. The scheme we analyzed in the

chapter devoted to the move 3.'Lld2 is less advisable here, al­though it is still quite playable: 3 . . . Lt:lf6 4.Lt:lf3 cS S.g3 g6 ! ? 6.�g2 �g7 7.0-0

7 . . . 0-0 (Black should avoid experimenting with the order of moves, since the premature de­velopment of his queen's knight would only present White with

the additional possibility of com­plicating Black's defensive task with ic1-g5 : 7 . . . tt:Jc6 8.ig5 ! h6 9 . exd5 �xd5 10. tt:Jc3 �d8 ll .ie3 tt:Jd7 12 .�d2, Vescovi - Svidler, Bermuda 2003, and the players agreed to a draw, but Black's posi­tion was a bit suspect. However, 8 . . . �b6 might solve Black's prob­lems after all .) 8.c3 (It was also possible for White to play 8.e5 tt:Jd7 9 .if4 tt:Jc6 10 .tt:lbd2 , but the way Damljanovic played was even stronger.) 8 . . . tt:Jc6 9 .e5 tt:Jd7 10 .d4 f6 1l.exf6 �xf6

This position was reached in the game Damljanovic - Svidler, Plovdiv 2 003. White chose the seemingly attractive 12 .ig5 (after 12 .if4 �e7 13J:'i:d1 cxd4 14.cxd4 Ei:xf4 Black probably has sufficient compensation for the exchange. It is good for White to play simply 12 .%'\dl. It seems to me that he should also consider 12 .tt:lg5 ! ?) 12 . . . �f5 13.ie3. Now Black's best decision would be 13 . . . cxd4 (in the above mentioned game there followed 13 . . . b6 14.tt:Ja3 a6 15. Ei:ad1 ib7 16.tt:Jg5 Ei:fe8 17.f4± and Black ended up in an unpleasant position) 14.tt:Jxd4 (White should

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.�e2 tt:Jc6

avoid 14.cxd4 e5 15.dxe5 tt:Jdxe5 16.tt:Jxe5 �xe5t) 14 . . . tt:Jxd4 15. cxd4 and here, after 15 . . . tt:Jb6 16. b3 id?t, as well as after the more principled 15 . . . tt:Jb8 16.tt:Jc3 tt:Jc6 17.%'\fdH, White's position would be preferable.

a) 3 • • .tl:lc6

Black's idea is to maintain the tension in the centre.

4.ll:lf3 e5 Black cannot occupy the cen­

tre without being punished, but preparing e6-e5 with 4 . . . tt:Jf6 also fails, because White can obtain an advantage by changing the pawn structure with 5.e5 tt:Jd7 6 .g3±

41

Chapter 7

5.exd5! This is the only way for White

to utilize his two extra tempi in comparison with the Philidor De­fence with colours reversed.

After S.c3 tt:lf6, Black has no serious problems. An early white attempt to seize more space on the queenside backfires : 6.b4 (It would be too passive for him to develop according to the scheme of the Philidor Defence with col­ours reversed and an extra tempo, for example: 6.�c2 aS 7.�e2 h6 8.0-0 �d6 9.tt:lbd2 0-0 10J'l:d1 l'l:e8 11.li:Jf1 �e6 12.tt:lg3 �c8 13.h3 a4 14.�e3 li:Je7+ and in the game Zhang Zhong - Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2004, Black even gained an edge.) 6 . . . �g4 !

7.li:Jbd2 (7.a3 aS 8 .bS dxe4 9 . bxc6 exf3 10 .gxf3 �e6 ll.cxb7 l'l:b8 12.f4 exf4 13.�g2 �d6 14.�c6+ tt:ld7 1S.d4 0-0 16.�bS �e7 17. ci>d1 tt:lb6 18.li:Jd2 �h4 19 .f3 �h3 20./'l:e1 l'l:fd8 21./'l:e2 �f8+ Black is obviously better in this position, Skripchenko - Ulibin, Dubai 2003. White's chances would not be improved by 12.�g2 �d6 13. li:Jd2 0-0 14.0-0, Totsky - Ru­dolf, Cappelle la Grande 2006

42

and here it would be sufficient to win the enemy b7-pawn with 14 . . . c6 1S.f4 �c7+ for Black to gain a clear advantage.) 7 . . . d4 8 .bS dxc3 9.bxc6 cxd2 10.�xd2! (10 .�xd2 bxc6 11 .h3 �xf3 12.�xf3 l'l:b8 13. �e3 l'l:b2+ led again to an edge for Black, Strikovic - Ulibin, Santa Cruz de la Palma 200S) 10 . . . �xf3 ll.gxf3 (Black is also better after 11 .cxb7 l'l:b8 12.gxf3 l'l:b7+) 11 . . . bxc6 12.�c3 �d6 13 .f4 �b4 14. �xb4 �xb4 1S.<i>e2 li:JhS= with ap­proximate equality in the end­game.

5 .. .\!�'xd5 6)i:'lc3

6 . . . .ib4 After the retreat 6 . . . �e6,

White's energetic move 7.d4 ! pro­vides him with a slight edge, no matter what endgame arises,

for example: 7 . . . tt::lxd4 8.tt::lxd4 exd4 9 .tt::lb5

ib4+ 10.id2 ixd2+ 1l .�xd2 @d8 12.�xe6 ixe6 13.tt::lxd4 and now Black should probably ignore the positional threat of tt::ld4xe6 by playing 13 . . . tt::lf6. If he plays ac­curately he is likely to make a draw, but that would hardly be enjoyable;

The move 7 . . . exd4 keeps more material on the board but does not change the evaluation of the position : 8 .tt::lb5 ib4+ (8 . . . id6 9 . �xe6+? ! ixe6 10.tt::lfxd4 tt::lxd4 11 . tt::lxd4 id7 12.tt::lb5 ie5 13.f4 a6f!; 9.tt::lxd6+ cxd6 10.if4 tt::lf6 11 . 0-0-0; 10 . . . tt::lge7 1l.�xe6 ixe6 12.0-0-0 ig4 13 .ixd6 ixf3 14. gxf3 0-0-0 15.ig3±) 9.id2 ixd2+ 10. tt::lxd2 lf?d8 (after 10 . . . �xe2+ 11. ixe2 lf?d8 the result is more or less the same: 12.tt::lb3 tt::lf6 13. 0-0-0, an attempt by Black to keep the d4-pawn, while giving up the c7-pawn, with 11 . . . l"lb8 12.0-0-0 a6 13.tt::lxc7+ �d8 would be short-sighted, because after 14. tt::ld5 tt::lge7 15.if3± he loses both pawns) 11 .tt::lb3 tt::lf6 12.0-0-0±

7.id2 .ixc3 8.ixc3 ig4

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. �e2 tt::lc6

9.Wfe4 White's alternatives are weak-

er: he does not achieve much with

9.d4 0-0-0 (but not 9 . . . e4 10 .h3 ih5 1l.�c4 �xc4 12.ixc4 exf3 13. g4 and owing to the threat of d4-d5 White regains his piece, main­taining an advantage) 10 .dxe5 be­cause of 10 . . . tt::lf6 ! and White must be on the alert. 11 .l"ld1 (after 11 .h3 ixf3 12.�xf3, Black has a pleas­ant choice between the simple move 12 . . . tt::le4f! and the sharp line : 12 . . . l"lhe8 13 .�f5+ lf?b8 14. ie2 tt::le4 15.l"ld1 �xd1 + 16.ixd1 tt::lxc3 17.0-0 tt::lxd1 with an excel­lent position in both cases) 11 . . . �xd1+ 12.�xd1 l"lxd1+ 13.1f?xd1 tt::le4 14.ie1 tt::lxe5 15.ie2 l"ld8+ 16. lf?c1 and Black can draw by play­ing 16 . . . tt::lxf3 17.gxf3 ih5 18.l"lg1 g6=

We have to mention the original move 9.l"lg1 ! ? , which Black should probably counter with 9 . . . tt::lf6 (however, even after the simple response 9 . . . tt::lge7 10 . �e4 �xe4+ 11.dxe4 f6 12.tt::ld2 0-0-0 13 .f3 ie6 White did not achieve anything in the game Maiorov - Kuzmin, Kramatorsk 2003; after 9 .. .f6 10.Wfe4 �d7 11 . h3 if5 12.�a4 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 tt::lge7 14.d4 lf?b8 a complicated position arises.) 10.h3 ixf3 11 . �xf3 �e6f! White will have tem­porary difficulties if he castles queenside and permanent prob­lems if he castles kingside, so Black's prospects are at least equal.

43

Chapter 7

9 . . . .ixf3 The text move does not pro­

vide Black with complete equali­ty, so he should consider the less ambitious line : 9 .. .'W'xe4+ ! ? 10. dxe4 f6.

1 0 .'\Wxf3 '\Wx£3 ll.gxf3 f6 ll . . . ltld4 12 .0-0-0 0-0-0 13.

Ei:e1 lt:lxf3 14.Ei:e3:t

12 . .id2 ! This is a very powerful novel­

ty. The seemingly attractive move

12 .Ei:g1, followed by 12 . . . <;t>f7 13. 0-0-0 Ei:d8 14.f4 exf4 15.Ei:g4 g5 16.Ei:xg5 fxg5 17 . .hh8, was tried in the game Jones - Broomfield, Millfield 2003. Black should have continued with 17 . . . ltlf6 18 . .hf6

44

<;t>xf6 19 . .ig2 Ei:e8 20 . .ie4 h5 21 .f3 ltld8oo and his chances would not be worse in the arising endgame.

12 .. A:ld4 After this attractive move

there are some forced variations to consider.

The first game played in this line continued with 12 . . . ltlge7 13. f4 ltlg6 14.fxe5 ltlcxe5 15 . .ie2 (Here White could have played 15 . .ig2 0-0-0 16.h4:t with the better game.) 15 . . . ltlh4 16.0-0-0 ltlef3 17 . .ie3 0-0-0 18.d4 Ei:he8 19 .c3 g5? and Black had suffi­cient counterplay, Garcia Padron - Vallejo Pons, Salamanca 1998.

13. 0 - 0 - 0 tt:lx£3 14 . .ig2 tt:lxd2 15.hb7

15 • • J�b8 The position is more compli­

cated after 15 . . . Ei:d8 16.Ei:xd2 ltle7 17.Ei:e1 (White's attempt to ad­vance d3-d4 with the help of 17. Ei:hd1 is less effective. Black suc­ceeds in avoiding the exchange of the central pawns after 17 . . . c5 18. c3 <;t>f7 19.d4 cxd4 20.cxd4 Ei:d7 21. .ia6 e4 22 . .ic4+ <;t>g6 23.Ei:g1+ <;t>h6 24 . .ie6 Ei:d6 25.d5 Ei:hd8 26.

Ei:gd1 f5oo and he can improve his position by playing mh6-g5-f6-e5, as well as lt:Je7-g6-f4, so his chanc­es would be at least equal.) 17 . . . mf7 18.fi:e4 c5 (The endgame fol­lowing the exchange of the rooks : 18 . . . Ei:d4 19 .c3 fi:xe4 20.dxe4 me6 21..ia6 lt:Jc8 22.Ei:d5 lt:Jd6 23.f3 c6 24.fi:a5 md7 25 . .ifl fi:a8 26.b4:t will be in White's favour in any case; but it would be inferior for him to play 23 . .id3? ! f5 24.f3 fxe4 25.fxe4 fi:f8 26.fi:c5 fi:f3+!) 19.f4 exf4 20.fi:xf4:t - The position aris­ing is rather unclear, but White has a bishop against a knight and the pawn structure is asymmetri­cal on both flanks, so his pros­pects are preferable.

16 . .ic6+ �f8 After 16 . . . mf7 White has an

important intermediate check 17 . .id5+ ! me7 18.Ei:xd2 md6 19 . .ib3 lt:Je7 (after 19 . . . c5 20.f4 exf4 21. fi:e1 t he retains a powerful initia­tive) 20 .d4 e4 21.fi:e1 f5 22.f3t and his pieces are very active.

17.gxd2 lt:Je7 18 . .ig2 c5 19.c3

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. �e2 de 4.de e5

d3-d4 by playing 19 . . . lt:Jf5, but this impedes the evacuation of his king from f8: 20.fi:e1 with the idea of fi:e1-e4.) 2 0 .d4 cxd4 21. cxd4 ghd8 (Black would not change much with 2l . . .fi:hc8+ 22.mb1) 22.ghdl gbc8+ 23. mbH and despite the considera­ble simplifications, White has a slight edge.

So, in almost all the varia­tions after 4 . . . e5 5.exd5! White has a slight advantage and Black needs to play accurately to fight for the draw. These develop­ments are hardly to everyone's liking, even though a draw is the most likely outcome. On the other hand, it is equally unclear wheth­er White players would consider their achievements after the opening to be convincing.

b) 3 ... dxe4 4.dxe4 e5 5.c!Llf3

5 ••• c!Lld7 The move 5 . . . tt:Jc6 is more nat­

ural but less flexible. 6.c3 (The 19 . . • mt7 (Black can prevent plan of developing of the bishop

45

Chapter 7

on g2 is not as good here. Black can exploit one of the drawbacks of the move 3.1We2 by developing his bishop on a6: 6.g3? ! LLlf6 7. ig2 ic5 8.0-0 0-0 9 .LLlbd2 b6 ! This is a very typical motif! 10. l2Jb3 id6 11 .ie3 aS 12 .LLlc1 ia6 13.LLld3 LLld7+ - with a better posi­tion for Black, Motwani - Glek, Belgium 1997) 6 . . . l2Jf6 7.\Wc2

and now: 7 . . . a5 8.ib5 is not good for

Black; 7 . . . id6 8.l2Jbd2 0-0 9 .l2Jc4 h6

10 .ie2 l'l:b8 ! ? This is a strange move. Black provokes a2-a4. Lat­er he wants to undermine White's b4-pawn with a7-a5 and White cannot support it with a2-a3. This will give Black access to the im­portant c5-square. Is it possible that Speelman anticipated these development so early in the game?! 11 .a4 b6 12 .0-0 ib7 13. l'l:e1 l2Ja5 (It also looks very good for Black to continue with 13 . . . l2Je7 14.if1 l2Jg6.) 14.l2Jxd6 cxd6 15.ifl± and White maintains a slight edge thanks to his bishop­pair, Zhang Zhong - Speelman, Bled 2002.

I t would be interesting for

46

Black to prepare the development of his bishop on c5, as well as a potential attack on the c4-knight by b7-b5, followed by the devel­opment of the bishop on b7: 7 . . . a6 ! ? after 8.b4 (I believe White should calmly continue with his development: 8.LLlbd2 ic5 9.ie2 0-0 10.0-0 and his prospects of advancing his queenside pawns, supported by the knight on c4, seem to be more effective than Black's only active plan, based on LLlf6-h5-f4.) 8 . . . id6 9 .LLlbd2 0-0 10.LLlc4 h6

11 .ie2 (It is also good for White to play ll.a4 and after 11 . . . b6 12 .ie2 ib7 13.0-0 l2Je7 14. l2Jfd2± his position is slightly more pleasant.) 1l . . .b5 12 .LLlxd6 cxd6 13.a4 ib7 14.0-0 Wc7 15.id3 LLle7 16.l'l:e1 l'l:fc8 17.ib2 d5� and in the game Svetushkin - Kruppa, Kiev 2000, Black obtained excellent prospects.

Black should also consider the less popular move 5 . . . c6, deploy­ing his pieces harmoniously with­out impeding the c8-bishop. The game could continue : 6.l2Jbd2 Wc7 7.b3 ig4 8.h3 ih5 9 .ib2 l2Jd7 10 .g3 l2Jgf6 ll .ig2 ic5 12 .

0-0 0-0 13.a4 me8 14.\Wc4 aS 1S. tt:lh4 l'l:ab8 16.tt:ldf3 bS� with a complicated position, Leon Hoyos - Akobian, Merida 200S.

6.ll::lbd2 After 6.c3 tt:lgf6 7.\Wc2 fie7=

there arises a symmetrical , equal position.

White's immediate fianchetto runs into the above-mentioned problems on the fl-a6 diagonal : 6.g3 tt:lgf6 7.!ig2 ficS 8.0-0 0-0 9.h3 l'l:e8 10.tt:le1 b6 11.tt:ld3, Yuda­sin - Cifuentes Parada, Dos Her­manas 1998. According to Ci­fuentes, Black could have solved all his opening problems with the natural reaction ll . . . fia6 12.l'l:d1 \We7 13 .tt:lc3 l'l:ad8 14.figS c6 1S. \Wf3 fid6 16.l'l:d2 h6=

6 . . . !ic5!? Instead of the ambitious text

move, a safe continuation would be 6 . . . c6 7.b3 \Wc7 8.fib2 and now:

Nikolic tried 8 . . . aS 9.g3 tt:lh6 10 .!ih3 f6 11.a4 (Morozevich men­tions that White does not need to prevent aS-a4 for the moment: 11 .0-0 a4 12.a3:t with a slight edge for White) ll . . . fib4 12.0-0

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. \We2 de 4.de e5

0-0, Morozevich - Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 2000 and here, Mo­rozevich recommends 13.tt:leU when White exerts some pres­sure.

After 8 . . .f6 9 .g3 tt:lh6, the move 10.fih3 soon leads to exchanges and simplification. lO . . . tt:lcS 11 . fixeS \Wxc8 12.tt:lh4 \We6 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.f4 exf4 1S.gxf4 fid6 16. eS fxeS 17.fxeS fie7 18.tt:lhf3 tt:lfS 19.tt:lc4 l'l:xd1+ 20.l'l:xd1, draw, Popovic - Kosic, Hungary 2008. Here White can try the more modest move 10 .!ig2 ! ? with pos­sible ideas of 0-0, tt:lf3-e1-(d3) or tt:lf3-h4-(fS), f2-f4.

7.ll::lc4 After 7.tt:lb3 it seems to me

that Black should reply with 7 . . . fid6 (the move 7 . . . !ib6 allows 8.a4 aS 9.tt:lfd2 !:t with an edge for White) and the knight on b3 would need to be redeployed.

In practice White has tried 7. g3 tt:lgf6 8 .fih3 0-0 9.0-0, Popo­vic - Bodiroga, Valjevo 2011. Black can counter this with 9 . . . b6 or 9 . . . aS and having saved a tem­po by omitting \Wd8-e7 he should

47

Chapter 7

be able to continue comfortably with the plan of developing the bishop on a6, or attack the enemy e4-pawn by developing the bish­op on b7.

7 • . • fie7 It also seems attractive for

Black to play 7 . . . liJgf6 8.liJfxe5 0-0, but after 9.f3 ! his compensa­tion for the pawn is insufficient.

Now we shall analyze bl) 8.c3 and b2) 8.g3.

bl) 8.c3 a5 9.li)e3 White did not achieve any­

thing after 9 . .ig5 fie6 10 .liJe3 liJe7 11 .liJd2 f6 12 . .ih4 b6 13.fif3 he3 14.fixe3 liJc5 15.f3 .ia6 16.ha6 liJxa6 17 . .if2 0-0-0= with subse­quent simplification and a draw, Maiwald - Socko, Graz 2 011.

9 • . .lL!b6 1 0 .fic2 .!Llf6 (diagram)

ll.�b5+ Otherwise Black could have

considered the transfer of his bishop to the c6-square.

ll . . . c6 12.�e2 .!Llg4 13 . .!Lldl!? After the exchange 13.liJxg4

hg4 14.0-0 0-0 Black's chances

48

are preferable. 13 .•. 0 - 0 14.h3 .!Llf6 15 . .!Lle3

.!Llh5!? Gurevich considers that Black

should not delay the threat to transfer his knight to the f4-out­post: if 15 . . . fic7 16.0-0 liJh5 17. :1'1d1 liJf4 18 . .if1 a4 19.liJc4±, with a slight edge for White.

16.g3 .!Llf6

17.g4!? l'!e8 With the idea of liJf6-d7-f8-g6-

f4. 18.l'!gl fic7 19 . .!Llh4 .!Llfd7

2 0 • .!Llhf5 .!Llf8 21.g5!? .!Llg6 22. .!Llg4 .ixf'S!?

Gurevich mentions that it would be good for Black to play 22 . . . .ie6 23.h4 :1'1ed8 ! ?

23.exf5 �f4 24.i.xf4 exf4 25. 0 - 0 - 0 f3 26 . .id3

Here it would not work for White to play 26.hf3 �f4+ 27. �d2 �xf3 28.�f6+ gxf6 29.gxf6+ @h8 30.�h6 �e3 ! ?-+

26 . . • �f4+ 27.@bl Black has a good position after

the exchange of queens : 27.�d2 �xd2+ 28J!xd2 (28.@xd2 �d5+!) 28 . . . �d6 !+ and he is even better.

This position was reached in the game Glek - Gurevich, Ger­many 1998. Black could have sim­ply captured the pawn with a clear advantage :

27 . . • �xg5!+

b2) 8.g3

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. �e2 de 4.de e5

White should exploit the mis­placement of Black's knight on d7 with the familiar development of his bishop on the h3-square.

8 . • . �gf6 9 . .ih3

9 . . . 0 - 0 An attempt by Black to ex­

change all the pieces would not grant him complete equality: 9 . . . �b6 10 .hc8 Elxc8 ll.�g5 ct:lxc4 12.�xc4 0-0 13.0-0 �b6 14.i>g2 (14.a4 �e6 15.�xe6 fxe6) 14 . . . �e6 ! ? (14 . . . h6 15.hf6 �xf6 16.a4 aS 17.EladU) 15.�xe6 fxe6 16.Elae1 ct:lg4 17.h3 Elxf3 18.i>xf3 (18.hxg4 Elcf8 19.Ele2 �d4) 18 . . . �h2+ 19. i>e2 ct:lxfl 20.Elxfl h6 21 .�d2± and White retains an edge, thanks to his superior pawn structure, but the most likely outcome would be a draw.

It is worth considering the risky move 9 . . . b5 ! ? 10.'Lle3 0-0 11 .0-0 (after 1l .�xb5 ct:lxe4, the double attack 12 .�c6 is not dan­gerous for him, because after 12 . . . ct:ldf6 13.�xa8? hh3 White risks being crushed.) ll . . .�b7oo with chances for both sides.

1 0 . 0 - 0 a5

49

Chapter 7

The development of the bish­op on a6 does not solve Black's problems here : 10 . . . b6 1l.i.g5 i.a6 (ll . . .h6 ! ?) 12 .Elad1 �e8 (White is also better after 12 . . . Elfd8 13.hd7 Elxd7 14.i.xf6 gxf6 15.lt:lh4 �e6 16. b3 Elad8 17.lt:lf5t) 13.c3 h6 14.i.cU

In practice Black has tried 10 . . . Ele8 ll .a4 b6 (He could also try ll . . . lt:lb6 12 .i.xc8 Elaxc8.) 12 .lt:lh4 (12 .i.g5 ! ?) 12 . . . g6 13 .i.g5t and White exerts pressure, Seminara - Needleman, Mar del Plata 1998.

ll.i.g5 h6 12 . .ixf6 lt:lxf6 13 . .ixc8 E:fxc8

(diagram) and now the move 14.a4! ?t,

postponing capturing on e5 for a while, gives White a minimal edge.

50

Bearing in mind this last vari­ation, Black should probably look more carefully at the prophylac­tic move 10 . . . h6. His plans in­clude the familiar development of his light-squared bishop on a6 or b7, while he can counter the ma­noeuvre lt:l h4-j5 with the defen­sive set-up Elf8-d8 and �e7-e8.

Part 3

The Advance Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5

In the third part of our book, we shall analyze the Advance variation of the French defence, which arises after 3.e5. This is in fact White's most ambitious reply against the French set-up. White starts to exert strong pressure over the whole board right from the start of the game, trying as hard as he can to restrict his opponent's space. Black must immediately play very actively; otherwise his pieces will be squashed by the lack of operating space.

However, White's strategy also has a drawback. It might turn out that he is not well enough prepared for a task of this magnitude. Black is immediately presented with targets to attack, in particular his oppo­nent's d4-pawn. There are several variations in which White's king is endangered and sometimes his pieces have to occupy rather awkward squares in order to protect and preserve his d4-e5 pawn-chain.

I think it would be useful to restate here the famous axiomatic rule, known since the time of Aaron Nimzowitsch, who was an keen exponent of the Advance variation of the French, that the d4- and e5-squares are absolutely crucial in this variation. Will White succeed in securely protecting his centre pawns? How effective will Black's at­tempts to undermine them with c7-c5 and f7-f6 be? The outcome of the opening battle, and possibly of the entire game, can depend on the answers to these questions.

I should add that, in addition to Nimzowitsch's efforts, the Advance variation has been played and actively popularized by Evgeny Ellinovich Sveshnikov. There have also been many important games played by Alexander Grischuk, Peter Svidler, Alexey Shirov, Alexander Motylev and many other strong masters who from time to time use this interesting variation, which leads complicated and fighting positions.

51

Chapter 8 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5

Black should play this thematic undermining move without delay.

4.c3 This is a necessary response

and nowadays it is absolutely au­tomatic.

There were times when there were serious debates about the possibility of 4.dxc5, after which there arises a variation of the Ca­ro-Kann defence which is satis­factory for Black and here he even has an extra tempo. 4 . . . lLlc6 (White can counter 4 . . . .bc5 with 5.Wfg4.) 5.lLlf3 .bc5 6 .i.d3 f6 7. Wfe2 fxe5 8.lLlxe5 lLlf6 9 .0-0 lLlxe5 10.1Mfxe5 0-0 ll .c4 Wfb6 12 .1Mfe2 i.d7 13.lLld2 �ac8 14.cj;>hl cj;>h8 with a complicated position, Mak­ropoulos - Hug, Nice 1974.

52

White has also tried 4.lLlf3 cxd4 5.i.d3 lLlc6 6.0-0 lLlge7 7. i.f4 lLlg6 8.i.g3 i.e7 9 .a3 0-0 10. �el f5 ll .h3 i.d7 12 .b4 a5 13 .b5 lLla7 14.a4 i.b4 15.�e2 f4 16.i.h2 lLlh4 17.lLlbd2 i.c3 18.�a2 lLlxf3+ 19.lLlxf3 i.e8 with a considerable advantage for Black, Hodgson -Short, Gouda 1996.

4 • • .'!Wb6 5.ll:lf3 5.i.e3 ! ? If Black wishes to

avoid this interesting possibility, which used to be a favourite of Victor Kupreichik, he can simply begin with 4 . . . Wfb6 instead of 4 . . . lLlc6.

5 • . . lLlc6

The first critical moment of the variation is right here.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 W1b6 5. liJ.f3 liJc6 6. �e2 cd

6.�e2 This is by no means the most

dangerous move for Black. White develops his bishop to a very modest position. Black can obtain a very comfortable game in this line.

The game proceeds in similar fashion after the seldom played but very interesting move 6.liJa3. I think that our readers will be hardly surprised to learn that Va­dim Zvjaginsev is one of the expo­nents of this variation. 6 . . . cxd4 7.cxd4 �b4+. This is a principled move. Black is trying to exploit the early development of his op­ponent's knight. (It is weaker for him to opt for 7 . . . liJh6 8.liJc2 liJf5 9.�d3 �e7 10.0-0 �d7 and here White has the strong move 1l.g4 !? . It is also interesting for him to continue with 1l .b4, as in the game A.Zhigalko - Vitiugov, Warsaw 2008.) 8 .�d2 �d7 (It is rather dubious for Black to play 8 . . . ha3 9.bxa3 liJxd4 10 .W1a4+ liJc6 1l .�d3 liJge7 12.!'1b1 W1c7 13. 0-0 and White has an excellent compensation for the pawn.) 9 . liJc2 . I think this is the only way for White to fight for an opening advantage. (He would not achieve much with 9 .hb4 liJxb4 - after 9 . . . W1xb4+ 10.'!!1d2 White might consolidate his position - 10.liJc2 . Without this move White's knight on a3 might remain out of play for a long time. 10 . . . liJxc2+ ll .W1xc2 liJe7 12 .W1d2 0-0 with equal chances. It would be harmless for Black for White to try 12 . �e2 E1c8

13.'!!1d2 �b5=) 9 . . . hd2+ 10.W1xd2 W1xb2. Accepting this sacrifice is obligatory. 1l .�d3 liJge7 (It is quite logical but a bit slow for Black to play ll . . . h6 12 .0-0 W1b6 13.E1ab1 W1c7 14.liJe3 liJge7 15.E1fc1 and he has problems castling, be­cause of the threat of liJg4-h6.) 12.0-0 W1b6 13.'!!1g5 liJg6. I think the most objective evaluation of this position is - White has com­pensation, Black has an extra pawn.

6 . . . cxd4 As always, it is important for

Black to employ the right move­order.

It might seem that he reduces the tension in the centre in this fashion, but this assumption is wrong. He is just avoiding some rather unfavourable variations.

It is inferior for Black to play 6 . . . liJh6, since White can counter this with 7.hh6! gxh6 (Black los­es now after 7 . . . W1xb2? in view of 8 .�e3 W1xa1 9 .W1c2 cxd4 10.liJxd4 ! and this shows the difference be­tween playing the immediate 6 . . . liJh6 and inserting the exchange

53

Chapter S

6 . . . cxd4. 10 . . . . b3 11.tLlb5+-; 10 . . . �d7 11 .0-0 l"lc8 12 .tLlxc6 l"lxc6 13. �b5+-) 8.Wfd2 �g7 9 .0-0 0-0 10. tLla3 cxd4 11.cxd4 �d7 12 .tLlc2 f6 13.exf6 l"lxf6 14.b4 l"laf8 15.b5 tLle7 16.tLle5 �e8 17.g3 and White ob­tained an advantage in the game Topalov - Bareev, Novgorod 1997.

7.cxd4 tiJh6 Again White has a choice, but

Black should not be afraid. White has only two acceptable moves in this position.

8.tiJc3 This is the most natural move.

He develops his b1-knight to its most active position. However, the point is that in this pawn­structure the c3-square is hardly the best one for this knight.

After the inclusion of 6 . . . cxd4, capturing - 8.hh6 is not so good for White any more and Black not only can but should capture the sacrificed pawn - 8 . . . Wfxb2

(diagram) and now: it is very bad for White to play

9 .�e3? Wfxa1 10.Wfb3 �b4+ and he

54

is unable to trap his opponent's queen;

it is possible to continue with 9.tLlbd2 gxh6 10. 0-0 (It would be too optimistic for White to opt for 10.l"lb1 Wfxa2 11 .0-0 and Black should try here tLlb4 ! ?) . I think Black should grab as much mate­rial as possible, even though this might seem risky at first sight. 10 . . . tLlxd4 (It is also possible for Black to choose 10 . . . �g7 11.tLlb3 Wfa3 with an unclear position. It is essential for him to be on the alert - 11 . . . 0-0 12 .a3 ! and Black's queen is in danger! ) 11 .l"lb1 tLlxe2+ 12.Wfxe2 Wfc3 13.l"lfc1 Wfa5 14.tLld4. It looks as though White has acti­vated his forces to the maximum and will soon crush his opponent, but this is an illusion. With accu­rate defence Black can withstand the initial assault and there might never be a second wave. 14 . . . a6 15.tLl2b3 Wfd8 16.Wfe3 l"lg8 17.g3. The position arising is quite safe for Black. White's knights are not very dangerous and have no threatening manoeuvres. White has some definite compensation, but it is hardly sufficient for two missing pawns;

9.tLlc3 ! ? This is a very original

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 '&b6 5.CiJj3 tt'lc6 6 . .ie2 cd

solution to the problem - he puts another piece en prise, defending his rook on a1 in the process. It may sound a bit ridiculous, but Black has to make an important choice in this position. He can head for a position with an extra pawn, but with compensation for his opponent, or . . . he can end the game with perpetual check. 9 . . . tt'lxd4 ! ? This i s a paradoxical be­ginning if playing for a draw. (Fighting positions arise after 9 . . . '&xc3+ 10 . .id2 '&a3 11 .0-0 .ie7 12 . '&c2, as played in the game Man­tovani - Yemelin, Kallithea 2008. Black should continue here with 12 . . . 0-0 ! ? and after 13.l":ab1 the position is very complicated.) . This is the beginning of a long forcing variation ending in per­petual check.

10 .'&xd4 (White can bring about a tense struggle, but it would not be to his advantage. 10.'&c1 '&xa1! ll .tt'lxd4 - He does not change anything much with ll.'&xa1 tt'lc2+ 12. rnd2 tt'lxa1 13. .ie3 a6 14.l":xa1 b5 with a good po­sition for Black - 1l . . .'&xc1+ 12 . ixc1 a6 . Black's chances in this position even seem to be prefera-

ble. White must play very precise­ly in order not to end up quickly in a very difficult position. For ex­ample : 13.tt'la4? ! b5 14.tt'lb6 l":b8 15.tt'lxc8 l":xc8 with an easy game for Black.) 10 . . . '&xa1+ 1l..id1 gxh6 12 .0-0 '&b2 13 . .ia4+ rnd8 (But not 13 . . . .id7? 14.l":b1+-) 14.l":b1 '&a3 15.tt'lxd5 exdS 16.'&xd5+ lt>c7. All this was played in the game Maslik - Turcan, Slovakia 2001 and the players agreed to a draw. We shall continue the variation a bit further: 17.l":xb7+ .ixb7 18. '&d7+ lt>b6 19.'&b5+ lt>c7 20 .'&d7+ rnb8 2l .'&e8+ .ic8 22 .'&b5=

8.tt'la3? ! This logical move is good in principle in this pawn­structure, but not at this mo­ment . . . 8 . . . .ixa3. This is the most radical solution for Black. 9 .bxa3 tt'lfS 10 . .ie3 '&aS+ ll .'&d2 '&xa3 (I do not think Black should have any problems after 1l . . .tt'lxe3 12 . fxe3 .id7!?=) 12 .0-0 tt'lxe3 13 .fxe3 0-0. White must play very ener­getically in this position in order to obtain compensation. 14. l":fc1 ! ? (It would b e too slow for him to opt for 14.l":ab1 b6.) 14 . . . .id7 (14 . . . '&e7 15.l":ab1) 15.l":ab1 and White's pressure might be enough for a draw, but no more . . . . For exam­ple: 15 . . . b6 (1S . . . l":ab8 16.l":c5 b6 17.l":c3 '&e7 18.l":bc1) 16.l":c3 '&e7 17.l":bc1 l":ac8 18 . .ia6 l":c7 19.-ibS l":fc8 20 . .ia6=

White cannot gain any advan­tage with 8.b3? ! .ib4+ 9.rnf1 tt'lfS 10 . .ib2 .ie7. Black is playing quite sensibly. He deprives the oppo­nent's king of castling rights and

55

Chapter 8

then retreats his bishop to its usu­al place. 11 .lLlc3 (Or ll .h4 f6 ! ? ; 1l .id3 0 - 0 12 .h4 f6 13.hf5 exf5 and Black has the initiative.) 11 . . .0-0 12 .lLla4 iWd8 13 .g3 f6 14. exf6 ixf6 15.<;t>g2 '&d6 16.Ei:e1 b6 with an excellent position for Black, Kupreichik - Piskov, Ger­many 1998.

8 .id3 ! ? Apart from 8.lLlc3, this is the only interesting move which might cause trouble for Black. The first impression is that White has just touched his bishop by accident, and decided to move it one square forward along the same diagonal. In fact, things are far from being that simple . . . 8 . . . id7 9.ic2 (But not 9.l2Jc3? ! l2Jxd4 10.0-0 ic5 1l.a4 iWb3 12 .iWd2 lLlxf3+ 13.gxf3, Movsesian - Iva­nov, Chalkidiki 2002 , and here, after the simple move 13 . . . 0-0 !? , Black obtains an overwhelming advantage) .

Black has tried several possi­bilities in this position:

9 . . . g5 ! This dynamic resource is both interesting and attractive. 10 .h3 lLlf5 ll.ixf5 exf5 12 .0-0 (12.lLlxg5 '&xd4 13.0-0 '&xd1 14. Ei:xd1 l2Jxe5 15.lLlc3 ic6 and White

56

will regain his pawn, but without gaining any advantage; 12 .hg5 '&xb2 13.l2Jbd2 '&b5 14.a4 '&a6 15. iWe2 iWxe2+ 16.<;t>xe2 Ei:g8 and the endgame is quite acceptable for Black; 12 .lLlc3 h6 13.0-0 ie6; Black is still threatening g4; 13. lLlxd5 iWa5+ 14.lLlc3 0-0-0 15. 0-0 ie6�) 12 .. . g4 (12 .. . h6 ! ?) 13. hxg4 fxg4 14.l2Jc3 gxf3 (it is also possible for Black to opt here for 14 . . . ie6 15.lLla4 '&aS 16.lLlg5 if5) 15. lLlxd5 fxg2 16.Ei:e1 '&xd4 17.ig5 ig7? This was a blitz game and playing precisely was obviously mission impossible . . . ! (17 . . . ie7! 18.ixe7 ie6 ! 19.if6 ixd5 20.'&h5 '&f4 21 .hh8 l2Jd4 22 .Ei:e3 lLlf3+ 23.Ei:xf3 '&xf3 with an overwhelm­ing advantage for Black) 18.lLlc7+ <;t>f8 19.lLlxa8 l2Jxe5 20.ie7+ <;t>g8 2l .Ei:xe5 ixe5 22 .iWxd4 ixd4 23. Ei:d1 +- Movsesian - Caruana, Moscow 2010;

Black can show more restraint with 9 . . . lLlf5 10.hf5 exf5 ll .lLlc3 ie6. It turns out now that White has lost a tempo with the ma­noeuvre id3-c2 , while Black has done the same with id7-e6. 12 . 0-0 ie7 13.lLle2 (White cannot hurt his opponent with 13.lLla4 '&d8=) 13 . . . h6 14.h4 Ei:c8 (Black should avoid 14 . . . <;t>d7? ! , as in the game Harikrishna - Meier, Meri­da 2007.) 15.h5 0-0 16.lLlf4 Ei:c7 with a very interesting position.

Black has some interesting al­ternatives, but these fail to equalize:

9 . . . g6 ! ? 10.lLlc3 lLlf5 11.hf5 gxf5 12 .0-0 Ei:g8 13.h3 ie7 14.Ei:b1 with an edge for White. Black can-

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Wb6 5. l'iJf.3 l'iJc6 6. �e2 cd

not make good use of his control of the g-file;

9 . . .f6? ! 10.exf6 (10.ixh6? ! gxh6 11.exf6 Wxb2 12 .l'iJbd2 l'iJxd4 13. l'iJxd4 Wxd4 and Black has a good position) 10 . . . gxf6 11.l'iJc3 l'iJf7 12 . 0-0 �d6 13.a3. Black's unstable centre will be a telling factor in the future ;

It is possible to opt for 9 . . . �e7, but even then White is better after 10.0-0 f6 ll .l'iJc3 fxe5 12 .l'iJxe5 l'iJxe5 (unfortunately it does not work for Black to continue with 12 . . . Wxd4 13.Wh5+ lt>d8 14.l'iJxd7 lt>xd7 15.l"ld1 Wg4 16.Wxg4 l'iJxg4 17.l'iJxd5 ! ) 13.dxe5 l'iJf7 14.�e3 Wxb2 15.�d4 Wa3 16.l"lb1 b6 17. l"le1 t with a very powerful initia­tive for White.

8 . . . l'iJf5

9.l'iJa4 White has only just managed

to develop this knight and now he is forced to place it on the edge of the board.

It is easy to be convinced that the alternatives are even worse for him. 9 .�b5 �d7 10.hc6 hc6 and White has no compensation

for his missing light-squared bishop.

The awkward move 9 .lt>f1? ! postpones the inevitable for just one move : 9 . . . �d7 10.l'iJa4 (White loses a pawn after 10.g4? l'iJfxd4 11 .l'iJa4 (11 .�e3 Wxb2-+) 11 . . . WaS ! ) 10 . . . Wd8 11 .g4 l'iJh4 12 .�g5 �e7 13.�xh4 �xh4 14.l'iJc5 �e7 and, to add to his problems, his king cannot castle.

9 . . . 1Mfa5+ 1 0 .�d2 This is a natural and reasona­

ble move. It would be futile for White to play too enterprisingly - 10.It>f1 b5 (It is also interesting for Black to play 10 . . . �d7! ? 11 .�d2 Wd8.) ll .l'iJc3? (ll .l'iJc5 hc5 12 . dxc5 b4 13.g4 l'iJfe7 14.�e3 h5 and he seizes the initiative) ll . . . b4 12 . l'iJb1 �a6 13 .�e3 �e7 14.l'iJbd2 0-0 15.l'iJb3 Wb6 16.ha6 Wxa6+ 17. We2 Wb6 18.g4 l'iJxe3+ 19.Wxe3 f5 ! (In the game Black played the weaker move 19 . . . a5 and after 20 .It>g2 l"lfc8 21 .l"lac1 a4 22 .l'iJc5 l"lc7 23 .h4 Wa7 24.l'iJd3 he came under a crushing attack on the kingside and lost, Movsesian -Vitiugov, Novy Bor 2010.) 20 .exf6 l"lxf6 21 .g5 l"lf7 22 .Wxe6 l"laf8 and White will have problems with­standing his opponent's pressure on the f-file.

1 0 . . . �b4 ll . .ic3 White can sacrifice a pawn

here, but why? 11.l'iJc3 l'iJfxd4 12 . l'iJxd4 l'iJxd4 13.a3 l'iJxe2 14.axb4 l'iJxc3 15.hc3 Wb5.

ll . . . b5 This is Black's simplest re­

sponse. He should not be too

57

Chapter S

greedy 11 . . . hc3+ 12.'t:Jxc3 1M/b6 13.ib5 0-0 14.ixc6 1M/xb2 15. lt:Ja4 1Mib4+ 16.1M/d2 1M/xd2+ 17. �xd2 bxc6 18.li:J c5 with an inferi­or position for Black.

12.a3 .ixc3+ 13.ll:lxc3 b4 14.axb4 1M/xb4

15.\Wa4 This seems to me to be White's

most solid move. The ambitious attempt 15.ib5

might boomerang after 15 . . . id7

58

16.1M/a4 1M/xb2 17. l"la3 0-0 (17 . . . 1M/c1+? 18.lLldl±) 18 . 0-0 a6 19.l"lb1 1M/xa3 20.1M/xa3 axbS 21 .1Mlb2 l"lfb8. Black has excellent compensation for the queen.

It is possible for White to play 15.0-0 here, but even then Black has a pleasant choice. For exam­ple : 15 . . . lt:Jfxd4 (15 . . . 0-0 !?) 16. lt:Jxd4 1M/xd4 (Or 16 . . . lt:Jxd4 17. id3 and White has some initiative.) 17.ib5 ! 1M/b6. Now it looks as though White must force a draw in tactical fashion: 18.lt:Jxd5 exdS 19 .1M/xd5 ib7 20.l"la6 ixa6 21 . hc6+ �f8 22 .1M/d6+ �g8 23.e6 (The evaluation is the same after 23.l"ld1 l"lc8 24.e6 h6 25.1M/e7 1M/xc6 26.1M/xf7 + �h7 27.1M/f5=) 23 . . . hf1 24.exf7+ �xf7 25 .id5+ �e8 26. ic6+ �f7=

15 • • . .id7 16.1Mfxb4 c!Llxb4= . The prospects are equal i n this endgame.

Chapter 9 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5)£)£3 ltlc6 6 . .id3

White develops his bishop to d3 and ignores the protection of his d4-pawn, thus solving one of his main problems in this varia­tion. His compensation will be based on rapid development and the numerous moves of Black's queen. Nevertheless, his central pawn is too valuable. It would be quite objective to confess that the popularity of this gambit belongs to the past. However, even today there are still players who wish to enter such dire straits.

6 . . . cxd4 The move 6 . . . �d7 presents

White with the additional possi­bility of 7.dxc5 ! ? hc5 8.0-0.

7.cxd4 .id7 8. 0 - 0 This i s the idea behind the en­

tire operation. Now Black is prac-

tically forced to accept the sacri­fice. It would be too faint-hearted for White to continue with 8. �e2? ! tt:lge7 9.tt:lc3 tt:lf5 10.tt:la4 \WaS+ ll .tt:lc3?

White achieves nothing with 8.�c2 tt:lb4=

8 . . . tt:lxd4

9.ll)xd4 It is very attractive to lure

Black's queen into the centre of the board.

The alternative for White is 9 . tt:lbd2 ! ? tt:le7 (If 9 . . . tt:lc6 Black might have problems after 10.tt:lb3 tt:lge7 ll .�e3 \Wc7 12 Jk l tt:lg6 13. tt:lc5, Leon Hoyos - Meier, Merida 2008.) 10.tt:lxd4 \Wxd4 ll.tt:lf3 \Wb6 12 .�e3 \Wc7 13J'kl tt:lc6, with a solid position for Black, Haba -

59

Chapter 9

Goloshapov, Cappelle Ia Grande 1998.

9 ••• V�bd4 1 0 .tl:\c3 It would not be in gambit style

for White to continue with 10 .�e2 CiJe7 11 .4Jc3 CiJc6.

1 0 ... a6 This is a solid move. Black

takes the important bS-square under control.

I have failed to find more than a draw for White in the variation lO . . . �xeS ! ? 1Ule1 �d6 (It would be rather unclear for Black to choose ll . . . �b8? ! 12 .CiJxdS .id6 13 .�g4 <j;lf8 14 . .id2 fS - 14 . . . hS 1S.�h3 with good compensation for White - 1S.hfS exfS 16.�d4 and White's attack might easily become crushing. ) 12 .4JbS (Black neutralizes his opponent's attack after 12 .�f3 CiJf6 13.l2lbS �b6 14 . .ie3 �aS, or 13 . .if4 �b4 14.a3 �b3 1S . .ieS .ie7 16.Elad1 and White has some compensation, but not more.) 12 . . . �b6 (It is sim­ply weak for Black to continue with 12 . . . �b8? 13.�f3 .id6 14. �xdS hh2+ 1S.<j;lh1 l2lf6 16.�gS 0-0 17.£4 and he is in great trou­ble.) 13 . .ie3 �as.

that White has is a draw by repeti­tion:

14 . .id2 �b6= ; The inclusion of the moves

14.a4 a6 can hardly be in White's favour - 1S.CiJd4 .ie7 (But not 1S . . . l2lf6 16.l2lfS ! g 6 1 7 . .igS and Black is in danger.) 16.�g4 g6 and the attack has reached a dead end;

14.l2ld4 .ie7; 14.�b3 a6 1S . .id2 �b6 16 . .ie3

�aS - Here White should acqui­esce to the draw, because he would not be happy with the con­sequences of 17.l2lc3 (17.l2ld4 .ib4 ! ) 17 . . . �b4 18.�c2 l2lf6 and Black ends up with extra material. Of course, not everyone would be happy to play only with his queen at the beginning of the game.

ll.�e2 White can also play ll.Ele1, but

his compensation after ll . . . l2le7 12 . .ie3 �xeS 13.Elc1 Elc8 can hard­ly be proved.

ll ••• .!L\e7

12.<j;lhl This prophylactic move is

forced. The endgame is inferior Strangely enough, the best for White after 12 .Eld1 l2lc6 13.

60

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Wffb6 5.CiJf3 ti:lc6 6. �d3 cd

.ba6 Wffxe5 14 . .bb7 Wffxe2 15.ti:lxe2 Elb8 16.�xc6 .bc6.

12 . . . ttlc6 13.f4 �c5!? Black i s in a hurry to place his

bishop on a7, before he has evacu­ated his queen away from the cen­tre.

It is possible for him to play more actively 13 . . . ti:lb4 14J�d1 �c5 ! ? (It is obvious that White has some initiative after the cap­ture on d3 - 14 . . . ti:lxd3 15.Elxd3 Wffb6 (It is weaker for Black to opt for 15 . . . Wffc4? ! 16.b3 Wffc7 17.�b2 �c6 18.l''k 1 with good compensa­tion for the pawn, Sveshnikov -Razuvaev, Belgrade 1993.) 16.�e3 �c5 17.�xc5 Wffxc5 18.f5. Now, af­ter the precise move 18 . . . d4 !? , Black has good chances of obtain­ing a satisfactory position: 19.b4 Wffc7 2 0 .Elad1 0-0-0 21 .Elxd4 (21 . ti:le4 �b5) 2l . . .�c6 22 .fxe6 Elxd4 23.Elxd4 fxe6=) 15 . .ba6 Wfff2 16. Wffxf2 M2 17.�b5 �c6 and the end­game is very pleasant for Black, Smimov - Smikovski, Omsk 1996.

14.a3 White cannot effectively ex­

ploit the awkward position of his opponent's queen 14.Eld1 Wfff2 15. Wffg4 0-0-0 ! ? and Black is better.

14 . . . .ia7 15 . .id2 He can counter the ugly move

15.ti:ld1, with 15 . . . Wffa4 for exam­ple.

15 . . . �b6 16.�g4 g6 17.b4 �d8

The position has been stabi­lized. White is a pawn down and he hardly has any meaningful compensation.

61

Chapter 1 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5)L)f3 �c6 6.a3

White is trying to seize more space on the queenside and force his opponent to clarify the posi­tion in the centre.

6 . . .ltlh6 This move requires deep

knowledge of theory from both sides.

We shall say a few words about Black's other possibilities in the next chapter.

As often happens, the inclu­sion of the moves a3 - aS (or a6 - a4 with colours reversed) is ad­vantageous for the side which has advanced his pawn only one square forward. 6 . . . aS? ! 7.�d3 cxd4 8.cxd4 �d7 9 .�c2 and Black does not have the resource ct:Jb4 (It is also possible for White to play the risky move 9.0-0 !? , en-

62

tering a favourable version of a variation which we analyzed in the previous chapter: 9 . . . ct:Jxd4 10.'Llxd4 '&xd4 11.'Llc3).

7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 It is possible for White to in­

sert the exchange 8 . .bh6 gxh6 9. cxd4 but then his pawns, placed on dark squares, become poten­tially defenceless. 9 . . . �d7 10 .�e2 (It would be a mistake for White to play 10.'Llc3?, because of the standard tactical blow 10 . . . 'Llxb4.) 10 . . J'lc8 (It looks very interesting for Black to try 10 . . . l"\g8 ! ? 11 .0-0 l"\g4 12 .h3 l"1f4 13.g3 l"\xf3 14.�xf3 '&xd4 1S.'&xd4 'Llxd4 16.�hS aS 17.bxaS 'Llb3 18.l"\a2 'LlxaS 19.'Lld2 bS with good compensation for the exchange.) 11 .0-0 �g7 12 .bS. White is reluctant to play this, but he must. (His position would be quite awkward after 12 .'&d2 0-0 13.l"\a2 and, just as before, he cannot play 13.'Llc3? ct:Jxd4 14. ct:Jxd4 .beS 1S.l"\ad1 '&xd4 16. ct:JxdS ! '&xd2 17.l"\xd2 and the end­game is better for Black - 13 .. .f6 14.bS 'Lle7 1S.exf6 .bf6 with a good game for Black.) 12 . . . 'LlaS (After 12 . . . 'Lle7 White can accom­plish everything he wants and de-

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Wb6 5Jijf3 ltJc6 6.a3 ltJh6

velop his pieces to their optimal positions. 13.Wd3 0-0 14.lt:lbd2 f6 with a complicated position.) 13. a4 (It is inferior for White to play 13.Wd3 here, because of the pos­sibility of 13 . . . Wc7 14.We3 Wc2 15. �d3 lt:lc4 ! ) 13 . . . 0-0 14.lt:lbd2 f6 and the future developments will be quite interesting.

8 . • . lt:lf5 9.�e3 White is ready to give up his

dark-squared bishop. However, Black must play cleverly to exploit this possibility . . .

9 . . . f6 I remember here an old cliche

- "You must strike a blow against your opponent's centre from the flank!"

1 0 .exf6 There arises a well-known

draw after 10.b5 lt:lxe5 11 .dxe5 lt:lxe3 12 .fxe3 Wxe3+ 13.We2 Wc1+ 14.Wd1 We3+ (It does not appear that Black has any serious grounds for continuing the fight here. He can still try, though . . . 14 . . . Wb2 15.lt:lbd2 fxe5 16J�b1 Wxa3 17.lt:lxe5 We3+ 18 .We2 Wc3, but I should prefer White's po-

sition at the end.) 15.We2= Ro­manishin - Lputian, Yerevan 1988.

10 .�d3 - This is a very inter­esting move, which creates com­plex problems for Black. 10 . . . lt:lxe3 11 .fxe3 fxe5 12 .b5 lt:lxd4! This is a key counter-strike and Black's whole defence is based on it. 13.exd4 e4 14.he4 dxe4 15. lt:le5 �d7. The best thing to do in a position like this is to calmly con­tinue your development. (Black can also head for an approximate­ly equal endgame with 15 . . . Wa5+ 16 .Wd2 - 16.lt:ld2? ! Wc3 17J'k1 We3+ 18 .We2 Wxe2 + 19.Wxe2 �xa3 and Black will retain an ex­tra pawn - 16 . . . Wxd2+ 17.lt:lxd2 �d7 18.lt:lxd7 Wxd7 19.lt:lxe4= ; 18. a4 a6 19.b6 �d6 20.lt:lxe4 �xeS 21. dxe5 0-0 22 .lt:ld6 �c6, but Black might have some problems at the end of this line. It seems rather artificial for him to play 15 . . . g6? 16.0-0 �g7 17.Wh1 he5 18.dxe5 Wxb5 19.lt:ld2---+) 16.0-0 (White cannot create any difficulties for his opponent with the simple line: 16.lt:lxd7 Wxd7 17.0-0 - 17.lt:ld2? Wxd4 18.lt:lxe4 Wxd1+ 19.l"lxd1+ WeB - 17 . . . l"ld8 18.lt:lc3 Wc8 and although Black has spent three moves on castling, instead of one, he is still better.) 16 . . . 0-0-0 17.lt:lc3 �e8 ! ? (The brave move 17 . . . �c5 was tested in the game Potkin Filippov, Togliatti 2003.) . White must find new tar­gets for attack; otherwise, Black's bishop pair and extra pawn might quickly become the decisive fac-

63

Chapter 10

tors. 18.'Lle2 'it>b8 19J''!b1 l"!d5 20 .'Llc4 'fffc7. In Sveshnikov's book "Win against the French Defence" (Moscow, 2005) this position was evaluated as +/=. I disagree cate­gorically with this opinion! 2l.l"!c1 i.xb5 22 .'Lle3 Wd7 23.'Llxd5 exd5 and in this position, with a mate­rial imbalance, I should even pre­fer Black.

1 0 . . • gxf6 11.i.d3 'Llxe3 12. fxe3

Black's pawn-structure is a bit loose, but this is compensated for by his two powerful bishops. His dark-squared bishop has no op­ponent and might become a mon­ster.

12 . • . i.h6 13.'fffe2 White should avoid coming

under "x-ray" pressure - 13. 'fffd2 a5 14.b5 'Lle7 15.'Llc3 e5 and his centre is about to crumble alto­gether.

13 . . . i.d7 14.c!tJC3 If White has already read this

book and tries to cleverly change the move-order - you should not panic. 14.0-0 0-0-0 (The rou­tine 14 . . . 'Lle7 can be countered

64

with the rather unpleasant re­sponse 15.'Llfd2.) 15.b5 'Lla5 ! ?�. This is the point - now Black's knight is not forced to retreat to the a7-square.

14 . . .c!l:\e7 15. 0 - 0 This is again quite logical.

White mobilizes his forces in the most natural fashion. The tricky move 15.'Lld2 is harmless for Black. For example : 15 . . . 0-0-0 16.0-0 e5 17.'Llb3 l"!hg8 18.i>h1 e4 19.i.b5 i.g4�

If White insists on preventing his opponent from castling queen­side, Black can go kingside. 15.l"!c1 0-0 16.0-0 e5 ! This is an impor­tant moment. This pawn-break is even stronger now that White's rook is on cl. 17.i.bl e4 18.'Lld2 (18.'Llh4 l"!ac8) 18 . . . 'fffa6 19.l"!fe1 Wxe2 20 .l"!xe2 l"!fc8 with a very complicated and double-edged endgame.

15 • . • 0 - 0 - 0 !? Black does not wish to solve

the problem of the safety of his king on its usual flank and he evacuates his monarch to the queenside.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 '&b6 5. ti:Jj3 ti:Jc6 6.a3 ti:J h6

Nevertheless, it seems more natural to play 15 . . . 0-0 16.mh1 E:ac8 with chances for both sides, Morozevich - Bareev, Monaco 2002 .

16.a4 There is no more resolute re­

action for White than a direct pawn-assault.

He could try something differ­ent though - 16.b5 mb8 17.tl:Ja4 '&d6 18.ti:Jc5 j,c8 with a compli­cated position (or 18 . . . e5 ! ? 19. ti:Jxd7+ Elxd7 20.dxe5 fxe5 2l.e4 d4) .

t6 . . . mbs Black should avoid accepting

gifts - 16 . . . '&xb4? ! 17.Eltb1 '&d6 18.ti:Jb5 hb5 19.axb5 mb8 20.b6 axb6 2l .'&a2 and White has won­derful compensation for the sacri­ficed pawns.

17.b5

White has no time for further preparatory moves. For example: 17.Elab1 e5 18.a5 '&c7! I believe Black has an excellent position even without his last precise move. Still , he should exploit this wonderful possibility. 19.Elfc1 '&d6 and surprisingly it turns out that White's rook on c1 is far more of a liability in his position than a strength. The game might contin­ue in this fashion : 20 .ti:Jb5 hb5 21 .hb5 ti:Jf5 22 .Elc3 Elc8 23.Elcb3 Elhg8 24.a6 e4 25.ti:Je1 j,f4 ! ! - +

Black can counter the move 17.ti:Jb5, which was played in the game Yagupov - Lastin, Orel 1992 , with the quite effective counter strike 17 . . . ti:Jf5 !

17 . . . '&d6 18.a5 e5

There will be a fierce fight ahead and the chances for both sides are about equal .

65

Chapter 11 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 VHb6 5.lbf3 lbc6 6.a3 lbh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 lbf5 9 . .ib2

This is no doubt a much more natural development of this bish­op than on the e3-square. It has its drawbacks though and one of them is the "x-ray" pressure from the enemy queen along the b-file.

9 ••• .id7 1 0 .g4 This is more or less forced. White does have an alternative

in 10 .h4, but Black will have no problems after 10 . . . h5 ll .g3 �c8 12 . .ih3 aS (Here 12 . . . g6 is also worth considering.) 13.0-0 axb4 14.axb4 .ie7! (It is inferior for Black to play 14 . . . 'Llh6? ! , which was tried in the game Yemelin -Gorovykh, St Petersburg 2007, but instead he can play 14 . . . .ixb4.) 15.hf5 exf5 16.'Llc3 'Llxb4 - this is the idea behind Black's modest­looking 14th move, to capture on

66

b4 with the knight. It appears that he has a good position.

Sometimes White plays 10 . .ie2 , but he can hardly count on any advantage with this move: 10 . . . .ie7 11 .0-0 h5 12 .Wd3 g5 13. �dl g4 14.'Llel f6 15.b5 'Lla5 16. exf6 .ixf6 17.a4 a6 18.'Lla3 axb5 19.axb5 'Llxd4 20.'Llc4 'Llxe2+ 21 . Wxe2 dxc4 22 . .ixf6 �f8 23 . .ic3 Wxb5 24.'Llc2 and although he won that game after wild compli­cations, Alexander can hardly be satisfied with the results of the opening battle, Motylev - Liu Qingnan, Chaongqing 2011 .

10 . . . 'l:lfe7 Now Black's knight is headed

for another route . The targets are the vulnerable f4- and h4-squares.

It is less principled, but still quite playable, for Black to con­tinue with 10 . . . 'Llh6 ll.h3 (It would be worse for White to leave his king in the centre with ll.�gl f6 12 .exf6 gxf6 13.'Llc3 'Llf7 14.'Lla4 Wc7 15.�cl Wf4 and Black has ob­tained good counter chances, Short - Lputian, Batumi 1999.) ll . . .f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13.'Llc3 'l:lf7, Shirov - Berg, Tallinn 2006.

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 V!ib6 5Jijf3 lUc6 6.a3 lUh6

ll.c!Dc3

ll . . • �a5! This key manoeuvre is an es­

sential part of Black's strategy. It is positionally justified but

rather passive for Black to opt for 11 . . .hS 12 .CUa4 V!id8 13.lUcS �c8 14.gS and his lack of space will hurt him.

12.�d2 White cannot allow his oppo­

nent's knight to come to c4. He achieves nothing with the

more natural line: 12 .V!ic2 lUc4 13. �xc4 dxc4 14.lUd2 V!ic6 1S.l2Jce4 and here Black can choose be­tween a forced draw and playing a position a pawn down but with excellent prospects. 1S . . . c3 ! ? (lS . . . lUeS 16.CUxc4 bS ! ?) 16.lUd6+ (M­ter 16.V!ixc3 cuds, the missing pawn is practically irrelevant.) 16 . . . 1!/dS 17.lUxf7+ l!le8 18.lUd6+ l!ld8= Sveshnikov - Radjabov, Tallinn 2004.

12 . . Jk8 13.:1kl �g6 Black's plan has been slightly

altered. Now it has become evi­dent that his attack against the d4-pawn has failed, but White has

so many vulnerable squares in his camp that Black can be optimistic about the future.

14.h4 Here Alexander Motylev tried

a queen manoeuvre which seems a bit slow - 14. V!ie2 �e7 1S.V!ie3 0-0 (1S . . . lUh4 ! ?) 16.h4 f6 17.h5 lUh8 18.l'k2 lUc6 19.lUa4 V!id8 20. exf6 hf6 2l .CUcS eS and White's king came under attack, Motylev - Ponomariov, Khanty-Mansiysk 200S.

It would be too straightfor­ward for him to opt for 14.�a1?! lUc4 1S.lUxc4 dxc4 16.lUe4 aS with powerful pressure for Black.

14 . . . i.e7 Here it is worth considering

the blockading idea 14 . . . hS ! ? 15. gxhS lUf4 (After 1S . . . lUe7? ! 16.�d3 - Black is a pawn down without compensation, since it would be bad to continue with 16 . . . V!ixd4 17.lUbS ! ) 16.V!if3 (If 16.l"k2 Black has the resource 16 . . . CUc4 17.lUxc4 Elxc4! 18.Eld2 (Or 18 .hc4 dxc4 with a good game for the sacri­ficed exchange.) 18 . . . Elc8 with counterplay.) 16 . . . lUxhS 17.�d3 (It

67

Chapter 11

is also possible for White to try the more forcing line 17Jk2 'Llc6 18.'Lla4 'l'¥d8 19.'Llc5 hc5 20 .bxc5 'l'¥a5 reaching a position which has not yet been analyzed exten­sively.) 17 . . . g6 18Jk2 'Llc6 19.'Lla4 'l'¥d8 20.'Llc5 �xc5 21 .dxc5. It looks as if White can still hope to gain an edge, but Black has his counter-chances.

15.g5 Black successfully blockades

his opponent's pawns after 15.h5 'Llf4 16.'1'¥f3 �g5.

15 ••. 0 - 0 I n practice Black has tried 1 5 . . .

h5 16.gxh6 :Bxh6 17.h5 'Llh4?! (It seems that the computer's recom­mendation is stronger here - 17 . . . �g5 18.:Bc2 (White has an inter­esting alternative - 18.:Bg1, but Black is likely to hold the position after 18 . . . �xd2+ 19.'1'¥xd2 'Llb3 20 .'1'¥d1 'Llxc1 21 .hxg6 :Bxg6 2 2 . :Bxg6 fxg6 23.'1'¥xc1 Wxd4 2 4 . We3 'l'¥xe3+ 25.fxe3 cJle7 with a compli­cated endgame.) 18 . . . hd2 + 19. :Bxd2 'Llc4 2 0.hc4 :Bxc4 21 .:Bg1 'Llf4 22 .:Bxg7 :Bxh5 23.'1'¥f3 and the fearless computer programme Rybka considers that in the com­plications after 23 . . . :Bxd4 24. 'Llxd5 :Bxd5 25.:Bxd5 Wc6, Black can draw by perpetual check.) 18. 'l'¥g4 'Llf5 19.�d3 �f8 and White had a powerful initiative in the game Grischuk - Radjabov, Wijk an Zee 2003.

16.'1'¥g4 White exerts positional pres­

sure over the entire board and he forces his opponent to temporari-

68

ly give up some material. It would not be in the spirit of the position for him to play 16.'Lle2? ! :Bfd8 17.h5 'Llf8 and Black's position is quite acceptable, Shirov - Gurev­ich, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005.

16 . .• hb4 This is really the only move,

since he should avoid the position arising after 16 . . . :Bfd8 17.h5 'Llf8.

17.axb4 'l'¥xb4 18.:Bb1 There is just a transposition of

moves after 18 .�a1 'l'¥a3 (I do not think it is worth trying here 18 . . . 'Llxe5 19.'1'¥g3 Wa3 20 .:Bb1 'Llec4 2 1.�xc4 'Llxc4 22 .'Llxc4 :Bxc4 23. 0-0; 23.h5 ! ?) 19 .:Bb1 (19 .'1'¥d1?? �a4-+) 19 . . . :Bxc3 20 .�xc3 'l'¥xc3.

18 • • • :Bxc3 It is again bad for him to opt

for 18 . . . 'Llxe5? 19.'1'¥g3 'Llec4 20 . �c1 ! We7 21 .hc4 dxc4 22 .'Llce4 !

19.hc3 '1'¥xc3

Black can be happy with the material balance, but White's kings ide attack looks very danger­ous.

2 0 .!%h3 White should not be in a hurry

20.h5 'Lle7 21.h6? 'Llf5 !

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 cS 4.c3 V!ffb6 5. CiJf3 CiJc6 6.a3 CiJh6

He should not play passively either - 20.i.e2? CiJc4 2l ..bc4 dxc4 22 . h5 CiJe7 23.l"\h3 V!ffa5 24. l"1xb7 i.c6 25.l"1xe7 c3 26.V!ffdl V!ffa3 ! 27.l"\xc3 V!1xc3 with an advantage to Black.

2 0 • • • V!ffc7 21.i.d3 White cannot really continue

the game without this move. Of course he can try, but this will just present Black with extra possibili­ties. 21 .h5 CiJe7 22 .h6 g6 23.V!fff3 CiJf5 24.i.d3 i.a4 ! ? 25.'tt>fl i.c2 26. .bc2 V!ffxc2 27.V!ffd3 (It is more ambitious for White to play 27. V!ffc3 V!ffxc3 28.l"\xc3 CiJxd4 29.l"\c7 a6, but after all Black has three extra pawns . . . ) 27 . . . V!ffc7 and the position is again completely un­clear.

21 • • .tbe7 22.h5 In reply to 22 .V!fff4, as in the

game Solodovnichenko - Del Rio Angelis, Spain 2006, Black should continue with 22 .. .f5 ! ? 23.gxf6 l"\xf6 24.V!ffg5 (Or 24.V!ffg4 l"\f7 25. fi:f3 CiJf5 with counter chances.) 24 . . . l"\f7 25.h5 h6 26.V!ffg4 CiJac6 with a very interesting play in prospect.

22 ••• CiJf5 23.�f4 We have already analyzed the

position arising after 23.h6 ! ? g6 24.V!fff3 i.a4 !

(diagram) 23 • • .tbc6 There are some other possible

moves for Black, but they are all very risky.

For example, it seems very dangerous for him to play 23 . . .

CiJc4? ! 24 . .bf5 exf5 25.h6 g 6 26. CiJxc4 dxc4 27.d5 and despite the fact that Black wins a pawn after 27 . . . l"\e8, the endgame which soon arises will be tremendously diffi­cult for him. For example: 28. V!ffd4 (28.l"\e3? V!ffa5+) 28 . . . V!ffxe5+ 29.V!ffxe5 fi:xe5+ 30.l"\e3 l"\xe3+ 31. fxe3 b6 32 .'tt>d2 f6 33.gxf6 @f7 34. l"\cl i.bS 35.l"\al a6 36.e4 'it>xf6 37. exf5 gxf5 38.'it>c3±

It is worth considering 23 . . . b5 (23 . . . l"\c8 ! ?) 24.i.xf5 exf5 25.g6 ! ? and here after the cold-blooded response 25 . . . h6, Black maintains the material balance (It would be too risky to try instead 25 . . . fxg6?! 26.hxg6 hxg6 27.V!ffh2 l"\c8 28 .l"\al and Black's hanging knight on aS spells serious trouble for him. It cannot be good either to opt for 25 . . . CiJc4 26 .CiJxc4 bxc4 27.gxf7+ l"\xf7 28. l"\a3 and White has the initiative.)

24.hf5 exf5 25.g6 fxg6 26.hxg6 h6 27.tbf3 c!LldS -Black obtained a good position and went on to win in Fluvia Poy­atos - Gonzales Garcia, Badalona 2005.

69

Chapter 12 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5 )2�£3 lLlc6 6.a3

I believe it is always useful to have a "reserve airfield", so to speak, if not in all the variations, but at least in the main line. I sug­gest below that you take a look at some other possibilities for Black in reply to the 6. a3 system.

6 . . . �d7 This is a universally useful

move in blocked French posi­tions. It is almost impossible to find a line in which the d7-square would not be a reasonable one for this black bishop.

The struggle develops in an entirely different way after 6 . . . c4!? The resulting closed posi­tions are not to everyone's liking, but this move has its logic, in its chess aspects as well as in the

70

purely competitive sense. Black reduces the tension in the centre but he occupies space on the queenside, fixing the weak b3-square in the process. The game develops much more according to schemes and plans, rather than depending on concrete variations. It becomes essential to manoeu­vre skilfully, to hinder your oppo­nent's ideas and to accomplish your own plans. The games we quote below are simply the most typical illustrations of the play in this pawn-structure and not some axiomatic rules about how to pro­ceed.

My own conclusions about this variation are, in short, as fol­lows :

1. Black should avoid exchang­ing minor pieces, with the excep­tion of the light-squared bishops.

2. The exchange of queens, however, is in favourable to Black, because then he can advance his queenside pawns much more comfortably.

3. Black should try to combine play on the queenside with coun­terplay on the kingside as well, since otherwise he might be

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Wffb6 5. tiJj3 tiJc6 6.a3 1J.d7

squashed. 7.tiJbd2 tiJa5 (7 . . . tiJge7? 8 . .bc4 ! dxc4 9.tiJxc4±; 7 . . . 1J.d7? ! 8.b3 cxb3 9 .tiJxb3 tiJa5 10.tiJxa5 fffxa5 11.1ld2 tiJe7 12 .1J.d3 Wffc7 13. 0-0 h6 14.tiJh4 with an initiative to White, Motylev - Hort, Essent 2003.)

and here: 8 .h4 JJ.d7 9.h5 f5 10.l'l:b1 tiJh6

11 .1J.e2 1J.e7 12 .0-0 l'l:c8 13.l'l:e1 tiJ£7 14.Wffc2 Wffc7 15.tiJh2 g5 16.tiJhf1 g4 17.tiJe3 tiJg5 and Black exploited his enormous space advantage, Shabalov - Akobian, Philadelphia 2004;

8 .1le2 1J.d7 9.0-0 tiJe7 10 .l'l:b1 (10.l'l:e1 f5 1l .exf6 gxf6 12 .l'l:b1 0-0-0 13 .b4 cxb3 14.tiJxb3 1J.a4 15.tiJfd2 1J.h6 with a good position for Black, Klimov - Vysochin, St Petersburg 2008) 10 . . . Wffc7 ll .l'l:e1 tiJcB 12.tiJf1 tiJb6 13.1J.f4 tiJb3 14. tiJ3d2 (14.tiJg3 1J.a4 15.1J.fl 0-0-0 16.tiJh5 h6 17.fffe2 tiJa5 18.fffd2 Wffc6 19.l'l:e2 fffe8 20.g4 1J.e7 21. l'l:bel Wffg8 22.Wffc1 Wffh7 23.Wffb1 fffxb1 24.l'l:xb1 g6 25.tiJg3 1J.b3 26 .1J.h3 tiJa4 27.l'l:f1 b5 28.1J.e3 tiJc6 29.tiJe1 aS 30.f4 b4+ and Black realized his advantage in the game S.Zhi­galko - Andreikin, Moscow 2010) tiJa5 15.tiJg3 1J.a4 16.fffc1 0-0-0

17.tiJh5 ®b8 18.tiJf3 1J.b3 19.tiJd2 1J.a4= Ni Hua - Bareev, Beijing 2003.

8 .g3 1J.d7 9.1J.g2 (9.h4 0-0-0 10 .h5 tiJh6 11 .1J.h3 f6 12 .fffe2 tiJ£7 13.0-0 f5 14.tiJh2 g6 15.f4 1J.e7 16.g4 g5 17.1J.g2 gxf4 18.gxf5 exf5 19 . .bd5 l'l:hg8+ 20.®h1 1J.e6 21 . .be6+ Wffxe6 22 .tiJdf3 tiJb3 23. l'l:b1 tiJxc1 24.l'l:bxc1 Wffc6 25.l'l:g1 tiJg5 26.l'l:g2 tiJe4 27.®g1 fffd5 28.tiJf1 l'l:xg2+ 29.<;hg2 l'l:g8+ 30.®h1 1J.h4 31 .®h2 1J.f2 32 .l'l:c2 ffff7 33.tiJ3d2 1J.g1 + 0-1 Maslak - Asrian, Mos­cow 2 007; 9 . . . 1J.e7 10 .1J.h3 f5 11 . exf6 gxf6 12 .0-0 h5 13.l'l:el tiJh6 14.tiJh2 0-0-0 15.fffxh5 l'l:dg8 16. Wffe2 f5 17.tiJdf3 tiJb3 18.l'l:b1? ! tiJxc1 19.l'l:bxc1 f4 20.g4 tiJf5t and Black's initiative more than com­pensates for the sacrificed pawn; 18 . .bh6 l'l:xh6 19.l'l:ad1 1J.xh4 20 . tiJxh4 l'l:xh4 21.1J.g2 l'l:h7 2 2 .tiJf3 tiJa5 23.fffd2 fffd6 24. tiJe5 1J.a4 25. l'l:b1 tiJc6 with approximate equal­ity, Grischuk - Korchnoi, Biel 2001 . )

9 . . . 1J.e7! ? (9 . . . 0-0-0 10.0-0 f5? This was a questionable deci­sion after which Black's position was soon in ruins. ll .exf6 gxf6 12 .l'l:e1 1J.d6 13.1J.h3 1J.c7 14.l'l:b1

71

Chapter 12

lt>b8 15.b4. It is already practical­ly over. 15 . . . cxb3 16.l2lxb3 l2Je7 17.l2Jfd2 �c6 18.l2lc5 l2lf5 19.l2Jdb3 l2Jxb3 20 .�xb3 and the game last­ed fifteen more moves only owing to White's inaccurate play, Grischuk - Vitiugov, Moscow 2010. A typical manoeuvring game might arise after 9 . . . l2Je7, followed by the standard transfer of the knight to the b6-square.) 10.0-0 hS 11.l2le1 h4 12 .h3 hxg3 13.fxg3 l2Jh6 14.g4 fS 15.exf6 gxf6 16 .�c2 0-0-0 17.l2Jdf3 l2lb3 18. l"lb1 eS and Black won quickly, Hadzimanolis - Lputian, Athens 2005.

7.b4 The awkward move 7.l"la2?,

tested by Sergey Fedorchuk, is unlikely to attract any followers. 7 . . . c4 8 .i.f4 l2Jge7 9.l2lbd2 lLlaS 10. i.e2 l2Jc8 11.h4 �c7 12 .h5 h6 13 . l"lh3 l2Jb6 14.a4? �c6 15.g4 l2Jxa4 and White ended up simply a pawn down and unsurprisingly he went on to lose, Fedorchuk - Alsi­na Leal, Aix-les-Bains 2011 .

7 • . . cxd4 8.cxd4 l''k8 Black delays the development

72

of his knight on g8 for as long as he can, operating only on the queenside.

9 . .ib2 It seems to me that in this

case White must consider the possibility of developing his bishop to a more active position - 9 .i.e3 l2Jh6 10 .i.d3 l2Jg4 11 .0-0 i.e? 12 .l2lbd2 l2Jxe3 (It is weaker for Black to play 12 . . . 0-0?! 13. l2lb3 l2Jxe3 14. fxe3 �d8 15.l2lc5 b6 16.l2lxd7 �xd7 17.l"lc1 with pressure for White.) 13 .fxe3 l2Jb8 14.�e2 ia4 15.l"lac1 l"lxc1 16.l"lxc1 0-0 with equality, Areshchenko ­Paehtz, Gibraltar 2008.

We have already seen several times that the development of White's bishop on e2 does not bring him any benefits : 9 .i.e2 l2Jge7 (9 . . . a5 ! ? 10 .b5 l2Jxd4 11 . l2Jxd4 l"lxc1 12.�xc1 �xd4 Nikitin) 10.0-0 lLlfS 1l .i.b2 i.e? 12 .�d2 0-0 13.l"ld1 f6 14.l2lc3 fxe5 15.dxe5 ie8 16.l"lac1 i.hS 17.l2Ja4 �d8 18.l2lc5 hcS 19.E\xc5 l2Jh4 and Black's prospects are no worse, Sveshnikov - Lputian, Podolsk 1990.

l .e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.e5 cS 4.c3 Wffb6 S. t:iJfJ t:iJc6 6.a3 �d7

9 . . . �a5!? This is a very aggressive move.

It looks as if Black has forgotten about the existence of his king­side. White cannot punish him so easily for this, though . . .

I t would b e inferior for Black to play here the move 9 . . . t:iJh6? ! recommended earlier. 10 .t:iJc3 (It would be a simple loss of a tempo for White to play 10 .�d3 t:iJa5 11 .0-0 t:iJc4 12 .hc4 l'!xc4=) 10 . . . t:iJa5. We are already familiar with this motif. 1l .t:iJa4 (Now it is no good for White to play 1l .t:iJd2 t:iJf5 12 .t:iJa4 Wffc6 and the best that he has is a repetition of moves with 13.t:iJc3. He would even be worse after 13.t:iJc5 t:iJc4.) . ll . . . Wffc6

and now: 12 .l'!cl This move is played

with tempo, but it is not the best. 12 . . . t:iJc4 13.hc4 dxc4 14.t:iJc3. It is obvious that statically Black has an excellent position, so his main task is to complete the develop­ment of his forces without losing material if possible. 14 . . . t:iJf5 (He has a good alternative here - 14 . . . �e7!? 15.0-0 0-0 16.d5 exd5 17. t:iJd4 Wffg6 18.t:iJxd5 �d8 with an in­teresting game in prospect.) 15.0-0

15 . . . �e7 (The game might de­velop in amusing fashion after 15 . . . b5 ! ? 16.Wffd2 �e7 17.d5 exd5 18. t:iJxd5 �d8 19.l'!fd1 �e6 20.t:iJe3 0-0 and Black obtains a very good position. It would not make much sense for White to postpone d4-d5 : 17.l'!fd1 0-0 18.Wfff4 �d8=. White cannot change much with 16.Wffe2 �e7 17.l'!fd1 0-0 18.d5 exd5 19.t:iJxd5 �d8 and the posi­tion offers chances to both sides.) 16.d5 exd5 17.t:iJxd5 and in the game Khairullin - Dyachkov, Dagomys 2008, the players agreed to a draw. Let us continue this variation a bit further: 17 . . . �d8 ! ? (It i s weaker for Black to play 17 . . . �e6? ! 18.t:iJxe7 Wxe7 19. t:iJd4 t:iJxd4 20 .Wxd4 and White's initiative might even be enhanced

73

Chapter 12

by the presence of bishops of op­posite colour on the board.) 18. 1Wd2 (White cannot hurt his oppo­nent at all with the line: 18.g4 tt:Jh4 19.tt:Jxh4 1xh4 20 .tt:Je3 b5.) 18 . . . 0-0 19J'Ud1 1e6 and Black has a good position.

12. tt:Jc5 tt:Jc4

13.1c1 ! Theist is a very power­ful retreat. (13.1xc4 dxc4 14.0-0 1Wd5 15.1We2 1c6 16.Ei:fe1 1e7 17. Ei:ac1 0-0 and Black is better, Ko­rchnoi - lruzubieta, Oviedo 1992 ; 13.1c3 b6 14.tt:Jxd7 1Wxd7 15.1d3 tt:Jf5 16.0-0, draw, Predojevic -Vojinovic, Neum 2 005.) 13 . . . tt:Jf5 14.1d3 b6 (14 . . . 1xc5 15.dxc5 b6 16.cxb6 axb6 17.0-0 and although the computer evaluates this posi­tion as equal, we cannot really agree) 15.tt:Jxd7 1Wxd7

16.h4! This is a great posi-

74

tional move and it practically forces Black's response. (16.0-0 1e7 17.Ei:a2 h5 18.1xf5 exf5 19.Ei:e1 Ei:c6 20.h4 b5 2l.i.g5 0-0 22 .1xe7 1Wxe7 23 .tt:Jg5 g6 24.'\Wf3 tt:Jb6 25. Ei:ae2 Ei:e8 26.e6 and White's po­sition was winning in the game Grischuk - Le Quang, Beijing 2011 .) 16 . . . h5 17.1xf5 exf5. Now White will have access to the g5-square in the arising pawn-struc­ture. Meanwhile, the knight on c4 is completely cut off from the action. In fact, White's advantage is already overwhelming. 18.0-0 g6 19.Ei:a2 1g7 20.tt:Jg5 0-0 2l .Ei:e1 Ei:fe8 22 .Ei:ae2 a6 23. tt:Jh3 Ei:c6 and here White needed to find the pre­cise move 24.tt:Jf4± (In the game, White allowed his opponent to free his position with the pawn­break 24.'\Wd3 f6 ! and Black suc­ceeded in equalizing, Zherebukh - Vitiugov, Aix-les-Bains 2011 .) .

1 0 .c!L!bd2 .!Llc4

ll • .!Llxc4 Or 11 .1xc4? ! dxc4 12 .Ei:c1 1Wa6

13.tt:Je4 ic6 14.tt:Jfd2 idS 15.0-0 tt:Jh6 16.1We2 tt:Jf5 17.g4 tt:Jh4 18.f4 h5 19.gxh5 tt:Jf5 with excellent

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 cS 4.c3 Wffb6 5Ji'Jf3 lt'Jc6 6.a3 fld7

counterplay for Black on the light squares, Atutobo - Fishbein, New York 1995.

ll . . . dxc4 12J'kl �a6 13.d5 This is the correct reaction.

White must open the position in order to exploit the lag in devel­opment of Black's pieces.

It is too risky for White to play 13.4'ld2? ! b5 14.4'le4 SJ.c6 15.Wffg4 lt'Jh6 16.4'ld6+ li>d7 17.Wffh5 hd6 18.exd6 fJ.d5 and he ended up a pawn down, Sveshnikov - Szy­manski , Warsaw 2005.

13 . . . exd5 14.�xd5

14 . . .c!l:\e7 I believe Black should respond

in this fashion. It is a sin not to use this tempo to develop his knight.

It seems too routine for Black to opt for 14 . . . b5 15.1J.e2 lt'Je7 16.Wffd2 Wffg6?! - he is playing too optimistically. (He should try here 16 . . Jl:d8 ! ?) 17.0-0 flc6 and after the simple move 18J'Ud1 ! ? Black has great problems. For ex­ample, after 18 . . . 4'lf5, White has the resource 19.hc4 ! bxc4 20 .

E1xc4 fle7 2l .b5±. The game con­tinued instead with 18.E1fe1? ! lt'Jf5 19. Wfff4? ! (19.g3 ! ?) 19 . . . 1J.e7 20 . fJ.d1 lt'Jh4 and White was even worse at the end, Sepp - Yemelin, Tallinn 2009. It is amazing, but after the more active move 15.E1d1, White cannot obtain any advan­tage if Black defends accurately: 15 . . . 1J.c6 (He can also try 15 . . . 1J.e6 with the following sample contin­uation: 16.Wffe4 lt'Je7 17.1J.e2 Wffc6 18.Wffxc6+ lt'Jxc6 19.4'lg5 and Black should have only minimal diffi­culties in this endgame.) 16.Wffd4 (It is inferior for White to contin­ue with 16.Wffd2 SJ.e7 17.e6 hf3 ! ) 1 6 . . . 4'lh6 17.1J.e2 fle7 18.e6 f6 19. 0-0 0-0 and the position is very difficult to evaluate.

15.�e4 This is the most popular reply. Black's position is quite ac-

ceptable after 15.Wffd4 SJ.e6 16.1J.e2 g6 17.Wfff4 SJ.g7 18.0-0 0-0.

White's initiative gradually ebbs away in case of 15.Wffd2 SJ.e6 16.1J.e2 E1d8 17.Wffg5 b5 18.0-0 h6 and the knight will make way for the f8-bishop with tempo.

It would be too fanciful for White to play 15.Wffd6 lt'Jc6 16.Wffd2 b5 17.4'lg5 flf5 and Black ends up with a very solid position.

15 . . . b5 16 . .ie2 Or 16.4'ld4 c3 ! ? 17.E1xc3 E1xc3

18.hc3 Wffxa3 19.1i>d2 Wffa2 + 20 . li>c1 g6 21 .4'lxb5 SJ.h6+ 22 .f4 0-0 and Black has good compensation.

16 . . . �g6 17.'�e3 .ic6� with counterplay.

75

Part 4

The Rubinstein Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)!)d2 dxe4

The Rubinstein variation holds a very special place in the theory of the French defence. Firstly, this is because it can arise after both 3.tt:ld2 and 3 .tt:lc3. Secondly, there will be none of the pawn chains which are so typical of the French defence, or any other complicated pawn-struc­tures. Black is playing purely to equalize, and so he relieves the tension in the centre, starting on move three. This plan might look primitive and is quite simple, but maybe this is also the reason why it is so strong. The name of the great maestro Rubinstein, who began playing this way long ago, is in itself a recommendation which speaks even more elo­quently than the numerous grandmaster games played with this line . .

Nowadays chess players of various levels should have an opening repertoire which includes both sharp lines and lines which are com­pletely safe and reliable, even if sometimes a bit passive. The Rubin­stein variation definitely belongs to the second group.

76

Chapter 13 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)tjd2 dxe4 4 .ti:J xe4

4 . . .tl:ld7 Black sometimes plays 4 . . .

i.d7, but I consider this line to be too passive and slow. Black defi­nitely cannot equalize by playing in this fashion. It might be possi­ble for him to reach a position which is only slightly worse, but very solid and difficult to crack. This approach is appropriate in practical games, but in my ana­lytical endeavours I have chosen another, more classical, line.

5.g3 At the beginning of the 21st

century, this slightly unnatural move was very fashionable for a while, but then Black found a way to counter it successfully and its popularity gradually ebbed away.

5 .• .tl:lgf6 6.�xf6+ �xf6 7. i.g2

7 . • . e5! White's control over the centre

is not very secure at the moment and Black exploits this, equalizing immediately.

8.Wfe2 Black has no problems after

8.li:Jf3 exd4 9.0-0 i.e7 10.l"lel 0-0 ll .'&xd4 c6 12 .i.f4 'Wxd4 13.li:Jxd4 l"le8=, or even 8 . . . e4 ! ? 9 .li:Je5 i.d6 10.0-0 0-0 ll.i.f4 c5oo with an unclear position.

8.d5. The position is tremen­dously interesting after this move and there are plenty of possibili­ties for both sides. 8 . . . i.g4 (8 . . . i.d6 9 .li:Je2 0-0 10 .0-0 i.f5 ll.c4

77

Chapter 13

�d7 12 .tt:lc3 ih3 13.igS ixg2 14. Wxg2 �fS 1S.ixf6 �xf6 16.a3 aS 17.tt:lbS e4= with approximately equal chances, Naiditsch - Milov, Bastia 200S) 9.tt:le2

9 . . . e4 (9 . . . �d7 !?) 10 .c4 c6 11 . �a4 �d7 12.dxc6 �xc6 13.�xc6+ bxc6 14.tt:lc3 ib4 1S.id2 0-0-0 16.a3 icS 17.igS id4 18.0-0 h6, with a very good position for Black, Jones - Mamedyarov, Bas­tia 2011 .

8 . . .'�xd4 9.tt:lf3 �d5 In reply to the rather artificial

move 9 . . . �e4, White has the re­source 10.�xe4 tt:lxe4 ll.tt:lxeS tt:lcS 12 .0-0 f6 13.tt:lc6 ! and Black must still prove that he has equalized.

1 0 . 0 - 0

1 0 . . . e4!

78

This is the most principled and precise move for Black.

He has also played 10 . . . id6

and now: 1Ule1 ig4 12 .c4 (Black equal­

izes easily after 12 .h3? ! hf3 13. ixf3 e4=) 12 . . . �c6 13.�d3 e4 14. tt:lgS 0-0-0 1S.�b3 ie6 16.tt:lxe4 (White cannot obtain any advan­tage in case of 16.tt:lxe6 fxe6 17. igS icS.) 16 . . . hc4 17.tt:lxf6 hb3 18.hc6 ie6 19.tt:lhS bxc6 20 . tt:lxg7 id7, Black's bishop-pair fully compensates for his disrupt­ed pawn-structure.

It would be interesting for White to opt for ll .tt:lxeS ! ? �xeS 12 .�xeS+ !xeS 13.Ele1 tt:lg4 (It is weaker for Black to continue with 13 . . . ie6 14.hb7? ! Elb8 1S.ic6+ We7 16.ElxeS Wd6 ! 17.Elxe6+ fxe6= ; 14.ElxeS ! 0-0-0 1S.if4 and White has obtained the ad­vantage of the bishop pair for nothing.) 14.f4 ie6 1S.fxeS 0-0-0 16.h3 tt:lh6 17.igS Eld7 18 .g4. This position looks very difficult for Black, but things are not as bad as they seem. 18 . . . tt:lg8 19. Elad1 hS with some pressure for White.

ll.l:�dl

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jijd2 de 4Jijxe4 liJ d7 5.g3 liJgf6

Black can hold successfully af­ter ll .liJg5 �g4 12 .�e3 �f5 13J'\el i.d6=

ll . . . �c5

12.h3!? This i s quiet move i s sensible. White's attempt to smash his

opponent's position right away would not work after: 12 .�g5 �e6 13.hf6 exf3 14.�xf3 gxf6 15.�xb7 l"\c8 16.l"\el <i>d8. Black has an extra piece and a quite defensible position.

It would be a crude blunder for White to play 12 .�e3? exf3

13.�xf3 �e5-+ The position peters out to ster­

ile equality after 12 .l"\el �g4 13.h3 hf3 14.hf3 0-0-0 15.he4 liJxe4 16.�xe4 �d5 ! =

12 •.. �d6 13.liJg5 0 - 0 14. tbxe4 liJxe4 15. �xe4

15 ..• �f5! 16.�e3 he4 17. .h:c5

Here the only real problem for Black is to choose between two equalizing lines.

17 . . . hg2 18 .hd6 �f3 19.l"\d3 l"\fd8 2 0.hc7 l"\xd3 21 .cxd3=

18.he4 gae8=

79

Chapter 14 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijd2 dxe4 4)ijxe4 llJd7 5.llJf3 llJgf6 6 . .ig5 h6

7_.!ljxf6+ 7 . .ih4 ! ? This is an interesting

possibility for White. He post­pones the exchange on f6, with the idea of exploiting the fact that Black's knight on d7 stands in the way of his other pieces. 7 .. . .ie7 (White can counter 7 . . . cS with 8 .c3 �aS - After 8 . . . cxd4 he replies with the simple move 9.�xd4 - 9.tt:lxf6+ tt:lxf6 10.hf6 gxf6 11 .dS .id7 12 .dxe6 fxe6 13. .ic4 0-0-0 14.�e2 �b6 1S.O-O-O .id6 16.Wb1 Wb8 17J':1he1 E1he8 18.�e3 .if8 19.tt:lh4 .ic8 20.tt:lg6 and Black will have problems protecting all his weaknesses, Gashimov - Illescas Cordoba, Lugo 2009.) 8.tt:lxf6+ .ixf6. With­out the inclusion of the moves h6, .ih4, White would have the move

80

h4 here, which is considered to be the most aggressive and dan­gerous for Black in this position. Now the situation is more favour­able for him. (8 . . . tt:lxf6 ! ? 9 . .id3 0-0 10.�e2 tt:ldS ll.he7 �xe7 12.0-0-0 .id7 13.tt:leS .ic6 14.h4 E1ad8 1S. Wb1 E1d6 16 . .ie4 E1fd8 17.c3 tt:lf4 18.�f3 he4+ 19.�xe4 tt:ldS 20.g4 cS and White repeated moves after 21 .tt:lc4 E16d7 22 .ttJeS= Inarkiev - Grachev, Taganrog 2011 .) 9 . .ixf6

9 . . . �xf6 (9 . . . tt:lxf6 ! ? 10 . .id3 0-0 11.�e2 cS 12 .0-0-0 cxd4 13.�eS .id7 14.tt:lxd4 E1c8 1S.f3 �c7= Leko - Anand, Monte Carlo 2001 . ) 10 .�e2 0-0 11 .0-0-0 E1d8 12 .�e4 �e7 13.tt:leS cS (After 13 . . . tt:lf6 14.�f3 aS 1S . .ic4 tt:ldS 16.h4 �f6 17.�e2 b6 18.tt:lg4 �f4+ 19. Wb1 .ib7 20 .g3 �d6, Black was

2.d4 d5 3 . Ci'Jd2 de 4Ji'Jxe4 Ci:Jd7 5. Ci:Jj3 Ci:Jgf6 6.i.g5 h6 7. Ci:Jxf6 Ci:Jxf6

slightly worse in the game Kur­nosov - Lysyj , Rijeka 2010.) 14. i.c4 Ci:Jf6 15.�e3 cxd4 16Jl:xd4 l"lxd4 17.�xd4 id7 18 .l"ld1 ie8 19.g4 l"lc8 20 .h4 �cS= Kurnosov - Grachev, Rijeka 2010.

7 •• .-!Lixf6

Before we deal with White's most principled response 8 .ih4, we shall analyze: a) 8.i.d2, b) 8 . .ixf6 and c) 8.i.e3.

a) 8.i.d2 White plans to attack the tar­

get on h6. This is not so danger­ous for Black, though . . .

8 . . . c5

9.dxc5

It is inferior for White to play 9.id3 cxd4 10 .�e2 a6 (10 . . . ie7 !? 11 .0-0-0 0-0 and here he is forced to play 12 .if4, which is enough indication.) 11 .0-0-0 ic5 12 .Ci:Je5 �c7 13.f4 Ci:Jd5 14.l"ldf1 Ci:Je3 1S.l"lf3 b5 16.l"lg3 gS 17.�h5 l"lf8 18.he3 dxe3 19.l"lf1 e2 20 . . be2 ib7 21 .Ci:Jd3 id6 22 .�xh6 l"lc8 with wild complications, Dworakowska - Zhukova, New Delhi 2000.

Black obtained a good position after 9 . . . a6 10 .�e2 b5 11 .dxc5 hc5 12 .0-0-0 �c7 13 .ic3 ib7 14.ie5 �b6 15.hf6 gxf6 16.ie4 l"ld8 17.hb7 �xb7 18.l"lxd8+ lt>xd8 19.l"ld1 + lt>e7 20.Ci:Je1 l"ld8 21 .Ci:Jd3 ib6 22 .f4= Bologan -Komarov, Reggio Emilia 1997.

9 . . . hc5 1 0 .i.d3 0 - 0 11. '!We2

ll . . . e5! This is a standard resource for

Black. This pawn advances as a spearhead in order to free the way for the rest of his forces.

It is not advisable for him to play 11 . . . '\WdS 12.c4 '!Wc6 13 .ic3 eS 14.Ci:Jxe5 Wxg2 15.0-0-0 l"le8 16.

81

Chapter 14

E!df1 .ih3 17.E!hg1 W/xh2 18.1Mif3 and White had the advantage in the game Khalifman - Dreev, Yal­ta 1995.

12. o- o - o ges 13 • .ic3 After 13 . .ib5 .id7 14.hd7 W/xd7

15 . .ie3 he3+ 16.W/xe3 W/a4 17. \tlb1 E!ac8 18.1Mib3 W/xb3 19.axb3 ltlg4 20 .E!d2 e4+ Black's position is preferable, Bologan - Dokhoi­an, Germany 1993.

13 ... 1Mib6! 14.ltlxe5 .ie6 15. f4 .ie3+ 16 . .id2 .id4 17.c3 .ig4 18)iJxg4 gxe2 19 . .!Dxf6+ .ixf6 2 0 .he2 W/e6 ! with advantage for Black, A.Fedorov - Supatash­vili, Ekaterinburg 1997.

b) S . .ix£6

This variation is a bit similar to the Moscow variation (l.d4 dS 2 .c4 c6 3.ltlc3 ltlf6 4.ltlf3 e6 S . .igS h6 6 . .ixf6), but its popularity is diminishing lately. Its idea is sim­ple and easily understandable. White is ready to give up his dark­squared bishop for the sake of the quickest possible development.

8 • . . 1M!xf6 9.i.b5+ c6 1 0 • .id3 .id7

82

ll . .!De5!? This is the most unpleasant

move for Black to face. The position is swiftly simpli­

fied after 11 .0-0 cS ! 12 .c3 cxd4 13.cxd4 .ic6 14.ltle5 .id6 15.ltlxc6 bxc6 16.W/a4 0-0 17.W/xc6 W/xd4 18.E!ad1= Amonatov - Vorobiov, Moscow 2006.

White has also tried the tricky move 11 .c3, but Black can obtain an acceptable position in that case as well. 1l . . . .id6 (The complica­tions after 11 . . .0-0-0 12.0-0 cS 13.1Mib3 .ic6 14.ltle5 .idS 15.c4 .ixg2 16.\tlxg2 E!xd4 are unclear and Black does not need to go in for them, although his prospects there are not at all bad. 17.f4 .id6 18.E!ae1 E!xf4 19.E!xf4 W/xf4co Amo­natov - Maslak, Moscow 2006.) 12 .1Mie2 cS 13.0-0 cxd4 14.cxd4 W/e7 15.ltle5 .ixe5 16.dxe5 .ic6 17. .ie4 .ixe4 18 .W/xe4 0-0= Anand - lvanchuk, Monte Carlo 2004.

It is a bit too solid for White to continue with 11 .1Mie2 0-0-0 12 . 0-0-0 .id6 (12 . . . c5 ! ?) 13.\tlbl \tlb8 14.a3 .ic8 15 . .ie4 eS 16.dxe5 heS 17.ltlxe5 W/xeS 18 . .if3 W/f6 19.E!xd8 E!xd8 20 .E!dl= Vallejo

2.d4 dS 3JiJd2 de 4JiJxe4 t:iJd7 5. t:iJf3 t:iJgf6 6. �g5 h6 7. t:iJxf6 t:iJxf6

Pons - lvanchuk, Monte Carlo 2007.

ll . . . �d6 12.'!We2 0 - 0 - 0 13. 0 - 0 c5 14.c3

14 . . . 'i!?b8. Black should be in no hurry to exchange the c-pawns. 15.Wfe3 .ic8 16.lUd1 .ic7 17. .ie2 gds 18.li'lg4 W/g5 19.dxc5 gxc5 2 0 .g3 h5 21.h4 W/e7 22. b4 gf5 23 . .id3 gds 24.�h2 g5t and Black had the initiative in the game Hracek - Lobron, Bad Wiessee 1999.

c) 8 . .ie3

with the black pawn on h7. There many transpositions between the variations are possible, but there are also some ideas which become possible only under specific cir­cumstances.

8 . . . �d5 Here Black has an alternative

which has been gathering popu­larity lately - 8 . . . �d6. For exam­ple : 9 .g3 (9 .�d3 b6 10.0-0 �b7 1l.c4 0-0 12 .h3 c5 13.dxc5 bxc5 14.t:iJd2 W/c7 15.�e2 �h2 + 16.cj;>h1 �f4 17.hf4 W/xf4 and Black was better in the game Pikula - Meier, Zuerich 2010) 9 . . . b6 10.�g2 �b7 11 .0-0 0-0 12 .c4 c5 13.\We2 cxd4 14.�xd4 \We7 15.gfd1 E1fd8= Yu Yangyi - Ding Liren, Hefei 2011 .

9 . .id3 White is relying on rapid de­

velopment. This strategic re­source is quite popular and you can encounter it in many open­ings. One side is willing to sacri­fice some so-called static factors in the opening for the sake of quick development. This can be

The variation which shall ana- critical in the opening phase of lyze below can also be reached the game. He would surely be re-

83

Chapter 14

luctant to operate like this in the middle game or the endgame.

Black achieves quickly the de­sired result after 9.�d2 ib4 ! This is an exquisite manoeuvre and its idea will become clear a bit later. 10 .c3 id6 1I.id3 (11 .0-0-0 �e7 12 .l2le5 ixe5 ! ? 13.dxe5 id7 14. �d4 tt:lxe3 15.�xe3 ic6 16.id3 b6 17.ic2 Eld8 18.Elxd8+ �xd8 19.f4 �d5= Najer - A.Rychagov, Mos­cow 2 008.) 11 . . . �e7 12 .0-0-0 id7 13.tt:le5 ia4 ! This is the point of Black's move nine. White's rook on d1 is very uncomfortable. 14.ic2, draw, Amonatov - Vitiu­gov, Krasnoyarsk 2007.

9 .id2 c5

Now: 10 .c4 tt:lf6 1I .id3 cxd4 12 .0-0

id6 13.h3 0-0 14.tt:lxd4 e5 15.l2lb5 ic5 16.�e2 e4 (16 . . . a6 ! ? 17.tt:lc3 id4 18.Elad1 id7=) 17.ic2 �e7 18.ie3 id7 19.tt:lc3 ic6 20.Elad1 Elfe8 2l .Elfe1 a6 2 2 .a3 a5 23.id4 and Black had to struggle to equalize for most of the game, Amonatov - Potkin, Belgorod 2010;

10.l2le5 a6 11 .id3 White has this possibility only when Black's pawn is on h6. 11 . . .cxd4. This is

84

the most principled move. (11 . . . �c7 12 .c3 id6 13.�e2 b6 14.0-0 ib7 15.Elfe1 0-0 16.�g4 f5 17.�e2 cxd4 18.cxd4 ixe5 19.dxe5 �c6 20.f3 �c5+ 2l.�f2 �xf2+ 22 .<it> xf2 and Black managed to hold this inferior endgame, Ganguly -Gomez, Guangzhou 2010) 12 . �h5 �c7 13 .0-0-0 (13.tt:lxf7 tt:lf6 14.tt:ld6+ <it>d8=) 13 . . . tt:lf6 14.ia5 (White cannot hurt his opponent at all with 14.�e2 id6 15.f4 b5 16.Elhe1 ib7 17.<it>b1 idS 18.g4 Elc8 and White has only slight compensation for the pawn, Man­ca - Kosic, Budapest 2011) 14 . . . tt:lxh5 (It looks very risky for Black, but it might be best to play 14 . . . �e7!? 15.�f3 �c5 16.tt:lc4 tt:ld5 17.Elhe1 ie7 18.Ele5 �c6oo with a rather unclear position.) 15.ixc7 ic5 16.tt:lc4 (16.ie4! ? tt:lf6 17.if3 <it>e7 18.Elhe1 g5oo) 16 . . . b5 17.ie4 Ela7 18 .id6 ixd6 19.tt:lxd6+ <it>e7 20.Elxd4 tt:lf6=

10 .ib5+ id7 11 .ixd7+ �xd7 12 .c4 tt:lb6 13.Elc1 ie7 14.dxc5 ixc5 15.b4 ie7 16.c5 tt:ld5 17.tt:le5 �c7 18.�a4+ <it>f8

19.tt:lc4 (Or 19. f4 g6 20 .0-0 <it>g7 2l .�b3 Elhd8 22J''ke1 if6 23. tt:lg4 id4+ 24.<it>h1 h5 25.tt:le5 b6

2.d4 dS 3 Ji:Jd2 de 4J uxe4 lLJd7 5. li:Jf3 li:Jgf6 6. 1lg5 h6 7. li:Jxf6 li:Jxf6

26.cxb6 �xb6 27.bS heS 28 .fxeS a6 and Black is better. His power­ful knight on dS protects the dark squares, while White's pawns are vulnerable, Shirov - Wang Hao, Moscow 2010.) 19 . . . hS 20 .0-0 h4 21 .h3 �hS 22 .�fdl. This is an at­tempt by White to improve on Leko's play (22.�fe1 a6 23.�b3 �d8 24.a3 <±>g8 2S.�c2 �fS 26.1lc1 li:Jf4 27.!lxf4 �xf4, with a quite comfortable position for Black, Leko - Gurevich, Elista 2007.) 22 .. . a6 23.�b3 �d8 24.a3 i>g8 2S.!le3 �fS 26.�d3 li:Jf4 ! = Nai­ditsch - Vitiugov, Poikovsky 2010.

9 . . .t!Jxe3 1 0 .fxe3 .id6

ll.e4 The cautious move 11 . �e2

does not combine well with the loss of the dark-squared bishop on the previous move. ll . . . �e7 12 .0-0-0 eS 13.1lc4 0-0 14.�f2 !lg4 (Or 14 . . . e4 ! ? 1S.li:Jd2 c6, with an excellent game for Black.) 1S.�hf1 �ae8 16.h3 h£3 17.�xf3 exd4 18.exd4 �e3+ 19.�xe3 �xe3= Jenni - Pelletier, Zurich 2006.

ll . . . c5!? That i s a rarely played move.

However, I believe that it will be­come much more popular in the coming years.

Black will have to fight long and hard for a draw after 11 . . . eS 12 .dxeS !lcS 13 .!lbS+ (But not 13.!lc4? �e7 14.�d2 0-0 1S. 0-0-0 c6 16.�hf1 bS 17.1lb3 aS 18.a3 a4 19.!la2 b4 2 0 .axb4 a3 21 .b3 hb4 22 .c3 !laS 23 .b4 !lc7 24.li:Jd4 �xeS 2S.li:Jxc6 �e8 26. li:Jd4 !lg4 27.�de1 !leS and Black had a powerful attack in the game Nakamura - Akobian, San Fran­cisco 2002.) 13 . . . c6 14.�xd8+ i>xd8 1S.!lc4 i>e7

16.c3 (Or 16.a4 !le6 17.he6 i>xe6 18.�d1 �hd8 19.i>e2 !lb6 20.�d3 �xd3 21 .cxd3 �d8 22 .�cl

8S

Chapter 14

�d4 23.aS a6 24J'k4 .beS 2S. 'LixeS @xeS and White failed to break down Black's defences in the rook and pawn ending, Nai­ditsch - Akobian, Moscow 2009.) 16 . . . �e6 (After 16 . . . l"i:d8 17.a4 a6 18.@e2 �e6 19 . .be6 @xe6 20. l"i:hfl l"i:d7 2l .l"i:ad1 l"i:xd1 22 .l"i:xd1 aS 23.'Lie1 �g1 24.g3 �b6 2S.'Lid3 @e7 26.g4 l"i:d8 27.l"i:f1 �c7 28.h4 l"i:e8 29 .hS @f8 30.l"i:fS White real­ized his advantage, Gashimov -Akobian, Caleta 2009.) 17 . .be6 @xe6 18.@e2 �b6 19.l"i:hf1 l"i:hf8 2 0.l"i:ad1 l"i:ad8 2l .l"i:xd8 .bd8 22 . l"i:d1 �c7= Leko - lvanchuk, More­lia/Linares 2007.

12.e5 Black should not be afraid of

12 .dS exdS 13 .�bS+ (diagram)

13 . . . @e7! (It is also acceptable for him to continue with 13 . . . �d7 14 . .bd7+ �xd7 1S.�xdS 0-0-0 16.0-0 l"i:he8=) 14.�e2 (Or 14. 0-0 a6! 1S.�xdS axbS 16.'LieS .beS 17.�xf7+ @d6 18.�dS+ @c7 19.

86

�xeS+ @b8 20.�xeS+ �c7 and White's attack reaches a dead end.) 14 . . . �aS+ 1S.@f2 a6 16.exdS+ @d8 17.�d3 c4 ! 18 . .bc4 �cS+ 19.@f1 l"i:e8 20 .�d3 �fS ! with a powerful initiative for Black.

12 • . • �e7 13.�d2 The situation remains more or

less the same after 13.c3 �d7!? , or 13 . . . cxd4 14.'Lixd4 �dS ! ?

13 • . • �d7 (Here Black could also have tried 13 . . . cxd4.) 14. 0 - 0 - 0 �c6 15.@b1 �c8 16. dxc5 .bc5 17.�f4 �b6 18.�e4 0 - 0 19 . .bc6 �xc6 and Black gained an excellent position in the game Yu Shaoteng - Wang Hao, Cebu City 2007.

Chapter 15 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .ti� d2 dxe4 4.�xe4 �d7 5.�£3 �gf6 6 . .ig5 h6 7. �xf6+ �xf6 8 . .ih4

This retreat is much more principled than 8 . .\ke3 . White keeps his opponent's knight on f6 pinned and he plans to maintain his kingside initiative.

8 . . . c5 This is an energetic reply.

White can counter it in about ten different ways, so Black must be prepared against all of these.

The alternative is - 8 . . . .\ke7. This move is safer but it is a bit passive.

Here White can choose be­tween: a) 9.dxc5, b) 9 • .\kc4, c) 9.ltle5, d) 9 • .ib5, e) 9.c3, 0 9 • .\ke2 and g) 9.�d3.

It is not very logical for him to opt for 9 . .\kxf6 gxf6 10 . .\ke2 cxd4 ll .ti:Jxd4 .llc5 12 .ti:Jb3 �xdl+ 13J�xd1 .llb6 14 . .\kf3 l"lb8 15.0-0 .\kd7 16.ti:Jd4 0-0 17.l"ld2 l"lfd8

18.l"lfd1 .lla4 19.b3 .\ke8= Huebner - Rivas Pastor, Manila 1992 .

a) 9.dxc5!? White solves the problem in

one move.

9 . . . �a5+ Unfortunately, it is inferior for

Black to continue with 9 . . . �xdl+ 10.l"lxd1 .llxc5 ll .ti:Je5 (It would be just a loss of time for White to play ll ..lkb5+ rJJe7 12 .ti:Je5 g5 13. .\kg3 li:Je4 and Black equalizes. For example: 14 . .\ke2 .\kd6 15.ti:Jxf7 .llxg3 16.ti:Jxh8 .llxf2+ 17. rJJfl .llb6 18 . .\kh5 ti:Jf2 19.'it>e2 ti:Jxh1 20.l"lxh1 .lld7 2l .ti:Jg6+ rJJd6 22 .l"ld1 + rJJc7 23.ti:Je5 l"ld8=) 11 . . . 0-0 12 . .\ke2 ltld5 13 . .\kf3 ib4+ 14.rJJf1 f5 15.c4 ti:Je7 16 . .\kxe7 he7 17.ti:Jg6 l"lf7 18. li:Jxe7+ l"lxe7 19.l"ld8+ rJJf7 20 .rJJe2

87

Chapter 15

l"i:c7 2 1 .b3± Sivokho - Serov, St Petersburg 2008.

1 0 .c3 �xc5 ll . .id3 .ie7 The same position can arise af­

ter 8 . . . �e7 9 .�d3 c5 10. dxc5 �a5+ ll .c3 �xc5.

12. 0 - 0 This is the classical set-up for

White. It would be more aggressive

for him to opt for 12 .�e2 0-0

and then : after 13.0-0-0, Black has the

possibility of placing his light­squared bishop in an active posi­tion. 13 . . . �d7 14.l2Je5 �a4 ! (It is possible, but I believe more pas­sive, to play 14 . . . �c6.) 15.l"i:d2, Morozevich - Zvjaginsev, Mos­cow 2005 (do not think that Black

88

has blundered his bishop - 15. hf6 h£6 16.�e4 l"i:fc8 ! = ) 15 . . . l"i:fd8 16.f4 b 5 17.g4 l"i:ac8� with a very complicated and double­edged struggle ahead.

13.l2Je5 b6 (Black can also try 13 . . . �d6 !? , for example : 14.�g3 b6 15.0-0-0 �b7 16.l2Jd7 �g5+ ! , o r 14.l2Jc4 �e7, freeing the d7-square for the bishop.) 14.0-0-0 �b7 15.hf6. This is obviously the only way for White to achieve something in the opening. (The quieter move 15.�b1 leads to a complicated struggle: 15 . . . l"i:ad8 16.f4 l2Jd5�) 15 . . . hf6 16.l2Jd7 �g5+ 17.�c2 (17.�b1 !?) 17 . . . l"i:fd8 18.�e4 �d5 ! ? This interesting de­cision enables Black to equalize. 19.l2Jxf6+ and the opponents agreed to a draw in the game Su­tovsky - Dolmatov, Moscow 2003.

12 . . . 0 - 0 13J1�'e2 gds 14. gfe1 b6 15.�e5

The move 15.�a6? ! looks like a silent offer of a draw: 15 . . . l2Jd5 16.he7 l2Jxe7 17.l"i:ad1 ha6 18. �xa6 l2Jc6 19.�e2 l"i:ac8 20.h3= Leko - Bareev, Monte Carlo 2002.

15 . • . .ib7

3Jijd2 de 4. 0,xe4 0,d7 5. 0,]3 0,gf6 6. ii.g5 h6 7. 0,xf6 0,xf6 8. ii.h4 c5

16.l3adl Tactical strikes such as 16.0,xf7

do not work, because of 16 . . . 'it>xf7 17.�xe6+ 'it>f8 and White can do nothing more to harm his oppo­nent.

16 . . . l3d6 17.b4 The alternative is 17 . .ig3 !"1ad8

18.b4? �xc3 19.1"1c1 �xb4 20 .!"1c7 .ie4 21 .he4 0,xe4 22 .1"1fl 0,c3 23. �c2 0,d5 24.0,c6 1"1xc6 25.1"1xc6 .ic5, but Black gains a serious ad­vantage.

17 . . . �c7 18 . .ig3 !"1dd8

Now the key-move for the cor­rect evaluation of the position is

19.0,xt7!? In the game White played

19.1"1c1? ! and he was even worse, although his opponent failed to punish him. 19 . . . .id6 20.a3 a5 21 . 1"1ed1 1"1ac8, Fressinet - Degraeve, Val d'Isere 2004.

19 . . . �c6 2 0 .<tJxh6+ gxh6 21. fJ <.!?fl. White has sacrificed a knight and he has two pawns for it, while Black's king is exposed. However, it is difficult to say whether White's initiative will be sufficient to compensate for the piece.

b) 9 . .ic4

It seems to me that the bishop does not belong to this square. White is unlikely to be willing to sacrifice his bishop on e6. How­ever, many strong players have played this move.

9 .•• cxd4 It seems sensible for Black to

play 9 . . . a6, but after 10.0-0 (But not 10 .�e2? ! b5 ll . .id3 g5 12 . .ig3 c4 13 . .ie4 0,xe4 14.�xe4 �d5 and Black's idea will be perfectly justi­fied: 15.�xd5 exd5 16.h4 1"1g8 17. hxg5 hxg5 18.0-0-0 f6 19.1"1h7 .ig7 20 .1"1e1 + 'it>f7 2l..id6 .if5 22 . 1"1hh1 !"1ae8, with an excellent posi­tion for Black, Svidler - Bareev, Haifa 2000.) 10 . . . b5 ll . .ie2 .ib7 and White has the destructive re­source - 12 .c4! and Black is in trouble: 12 . . . �b6 13.�b3 cxd4 14. cxb5 .id6 15.bxa6 �xb3 16.axb3 hf3 17.hf3 !"1a7 18.b4 hb4 19. 1"1a4 .id6 20 .b4 'it>e7 2l .b5 1"1b8 22 . .ic6+ - Leko - Vallejo Pons, Monte Carlo 2 004.

1 0 . 0 - 0 .ie7 11.�e2 It is obvious that the move 11 .

0,xd4 does not combine well with

89

Chapter 15

the development of the bishop to c4. 11 . . . 0-0 12J��e1 'Wb6 13 .i.b3 aS ! ? 14.a4 Ei:d8 15.c3 tt'ldS 16.i.g3 i.f6 17.Ei:e2 tt'le7 18.Ei:d2 i.d7 19.i.c4 Ei:ac8 20 .tt'lb5 i.xbS 2 1 .hb5 tt'lfS and Black is in no danger, Pono­mariov - Bareev, Moscow 2001 .

11 . . . 0 - 0 12.gadl �b6 Black is forced to play aggres­

sively. 13.tiJxd4 White cannot obtain an edge

with the modest-looking move 13.i.b3? ! : 13 . . . Ei:d8 14.Ei:d3 a5 15.a4 i.d7 16.Ei:fd1 i.c6 17.tt'lxd4 i.e4 18. Ei:3d2 i.g6 19.tt'lf3 i.hS 20 .i.g3 Ei:xd2 21 .Ei:xd2 'Wb4 and despite Black's strange bishop manoeu­vre, his position is quite accepta­ble, E .Romanov - Zhou Weiqi, Moscow 2006.

13 . . . �xb2 14.tiJf5! The game becomes simplified

after this move, but White cannot develop his initiative in any other way.

14 . . . exf5 15.�xe7 i.e6!

16.he6 After 16.Ei:b1, I recommend

that Black try the novelty - 16 . . .

9 0

'Wxc2 ! ? (After 1 6 . . . 'We5 17.Ei:b5 'We4 18.he6 'Wxe6 19.hf6 'Wxf6 20 . 'Wxf6 gxf6 21 .Ei:xb7, theory prom­ises Black the possibility of de­fend a worse rook and pawn end­ing, but he might well lose it. 21 . . . Ei:fc8 22 .Ei:c1 Ei:c4 23.1t>f1 Ei:ac8 24. Ei:xa7 Ei:xc2 25.Ei:xc2 Ei:xc2 26.a4 Ei:a2 and Black succeeded in sav­ing this endgame, mostly thanks to being a very classy player, Al Modiahki - Huzman, Biel 2002.) 17.i.xe6 Ei:ae8 18.i.xf5 'WxfS 19 . 'Wxb7

19 . . . tt'le4! Black should be able to equalize after this important move. 20 .i.e7 Ei:xe7 21 .'Wxe7 tt'ld2 =

16 . . . fxe6 17.�xe6+ 'it>h8 18. �xf5 �xa2 19.gd6 ttJgS 2 0 . �e4 �f7 21.i.g3 gadS 22.gxd8 gxd8=

3. l2J d2 de 4. l2Jxe4 l2Jd7 5. l2Jj3 l2Jgf6 6. i.g5 h6 7. l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 B. i.h4 c5

I evaluate this position as equal , although the computer does not agree with me, Shirov -Radjabov, Leon 2004.

c) 9.lt:le5

White is trying to exploit the fact that Black's last move was a bit too active.

9 . . . a6 The game proceeds quite dif­

ferently after 9 . . . �a5+ 10 .c3 cxd4 11.�xd4 i.c5 12.�f4 (An equal endgame arises after 12 .l2Jc4 hd4 13.l2Jxa5 i.b6 14.l2Jc4 i.c7 15.i.e2 i.d7 16.i.g3 hg3 17.hxg3 @e7 18. i.f3 Ei:ac8 19.l2Je5 Ei:c7 20 .0-0-0 Ei:d8 21 .Ei:h4 i.e8 22 .Ei:xd8 @xd8 23.Ei:b4 b6= Topalov - Milov, Ajaccio 2004.) 12 . . . i.d6 13 .i.g3 0-0

14.i.e2. This is an important intermediate move. (White can­not create problems for his oppo­nent with the immediate 14.l2Jc4 and now: 14 . . . hf4 15.l2Jxa5 hg3 16.hxg3 b6 17.l2Jc4 i.b7 18.f3 Ei:fd8 19 .i.e2 Ei:ac8 20 .l2Je3 @f8 2 1.Ei:h4 l2Jd5 22 .l2Jxd5 Ei:xd5 23.Ei:d1 @e7 24.Ei:hd4= Gashimov - Vysochin, Cappelle Ia Grande 2006.) 14 . . . �c7 15.�c4 (15.�d4! ?) 15 . . . �xc4 16.l2Jxc4 hg3 17.hxg3 Ei:d8 18. 0-0 i.d7 19.l2Je5 i.e8 20 .Ei:fd1 @f8 21.i.f3 Ei:xd1+ 22.Ei:xd1 Ei:b8. White's position is possibly slightly pref­erable, but this seems to be insuf­ficient for a win, Jakovenko -Zhang Pengxiang, Poikovsky 2007.

1 0 .dxc5 The correct way for Black to

equalize after 10 .c3 was demon­strated by a truly classic French defence game: 10 . . . cxd4 11 .�a4+ i.d7 12 .�xd4 i.b5 ! 13.i.xb5+ axb5 14.�e3 �d5 15.0-0 �e4! 16.�xe4 l2Jxe4 17.Ei:fe1 l2Jd6 18.a3 i.e7 19. Ei:ad1 Ei:d8 20 .i.g3 0-0= Short -Korchnoi, Reykjavik 2000.

10 •• . '%Ya5+

91

Chapter 15

Black should try the line: 10 . . . �c7 !? 11 .t2Jc4 (After 11 .�g3 hc5 12 .�d3 �d6 13.�e2 �b4+ ! ? 14. <i>f1 �d6, the manoeuvres of Black's bishop might give the im­pression that Black is showing disrespect for the opponent, but they seem logical enough.) 11 . . . hc5 12 .�g3 �c6 13 .�e2 0-0 14.0-0 t2Je4=

ll.c3 exc5 12.�g3 �d6

13.ltJg4 This is the only way for White

to challenge Black's intention to equalize.

13 ••. �e7 It is surprising, but after 13 . . .

�xg3 14.t2Jxf6+ gxf6 15.hxg3, Black's pawn-structure has been disrupted and White's rook on h1 conveniently comes into action. This provides White with a slight advantage and the ex-world champion succeeded in winning this position after 15 . . . �d7 16.l"1h4 l"1d8 17.�d4 �xd4 18.l"1xd4 �c6 19.l"1ad1 l"1xd4 20 .l"1xd4 'tt>e7 21 . �e2t Ponomariov - Bareev, Cap d'Agde 2003.

14.t2Jxf6+ .ixf6 15 . .ie2 (It is

92

only White who might have prob­lems after 15.�d6 �c6 16.�d3 e5 17.0-0-0 �e6 and his bishop on d6 is in trouble.) 15 • . . .id7 16. 0 - 0 .ic6=

d) 9.�b5+

This move only reduces the tension and creates no problems for Black.

9 ..• �d7 1 0 .hd7+ exd7 11. ee2

It is somewhat depressing for White to continue with 11 .0-0 cxd4 12 .hf6 gxf6 13.�xd4 �xd4 14.t2Jxd4 0-0-0 15.l"1fd1 �c5 16. t2Je2 'tt>c7 17.g3 Wc6 and Black equalizes easily, Leko - Shirov, Linares 2001.

11 .•. .ie7 12. 0 - 0 - 0 Or 12 .dxc5 0-0 13.0-0 hc5

14.l"1ad1 �c7 15.hf6 gxf6 16.l"1d3 l"1fd8 17.l"1fd1 l"1xd3 18.l"1xd3 l"1d8 19.t2Je1 l"1xd3 20 .t2Jxd3 �d6= Ga­shimov - Ivanchuk, Dagomys 2008.

12 ..• 0 - 0 13.dxc5 In reply to the risky move 13.

g4, I very much like this reaction

3Jijd2 de 4. liJxe4 liJ d7 5. liJ.f.3 liJgf6 6. §J.g5 h6 7. liJxf6 liJxf6 8. §J.h4 c5

by an experienced long-time sup­porter of the French defence -13 . . . liJdS (After 13 . . . g5? ! 14.§J.g3 �dS 15.c4 �e4 16.�xe4 liJxe4 17.d5 l'l:ad8 18.l'l:he1 liJxg3 19.hxg3 White had some pressure in the game Amonatov - Roiz, Dagomys 2008.) 14.he7 �xe7 15.Wb1 bS 16.dxc5 �xeS 17.liJeS l'l:ad8 18. liJd3 �c4 and Black obtained an excellent position, Chandler - Va­ganian, Germany 1996.

13 . . .'�c6 14.li'le5 �xc5 15. i.xf6 i.xf6 16A'ld7

16 .•• hb2+ This i s a contemporary practi­

cal approach in action - Black is willing to draw. (Incidentally, he would not have any serious prob­lems after 16 . . . �g5+ ! ? 17.Wb1 E:fd8 either.) 17.mxb2 �b4+ 18. �cl �a3+. White cannot be hap­py with the position he gets if he avoids the repetition of moves. For example: 19.�d2 l'!fd8 2 0 . mel �a4! and White's knight is in trouble. (Things are less clear after 20 . . . l'l:ac8 2l .l'l:d3 �xa2 22 .c4 �b1+ 23.�d1 �b4+ 24.�d2 �b1= ; 21 .f3 �e7 22 .liJeS l'l:xd1+

23.Wxd1 - 23.�xd1 �gS ! - 23 . . . �b4 24.�d2 and White will grad­ually consolidate his position, re­taining an extra piece. ) 21.�d3 l'!ac8 22J;d2 �h8. Now White he is forced to repeat moves, be­cause of the threat of his knight being trapped. 23.�b3 �e4+ 24.�e3 �b4 25.�b3 �e4+ 26. �e3=

e) 9.c3 cxd4 1 0 .ll:lxd4

1 0 . . . §J.c5! Black is trying to equalize im­

mediately with this move. This is an ambitious approach !

ll . .ib5+ .id7 12.hf6 It is also interesting for White

to try the new move here 12 . � e2 ! ? a 6 (The idea i s to counter 1 2 . . . hd4 with 13.0-0-0! hbS 14. �xbS+ �d7 15.�xd7+ liJxd7 16. l'l:xd4 f6 17.l'l:c4 Wd8 18.§J.g3 l'l:c8 19.l'l:a4 a6 20 .l'l:b4 b6 21 .l'l:d1 and Black had a hard task to equalize in the game Sutovsky - Meier, Porto Carras 2011) 13.hd7+ (It would not be good for White to play 13.liJxe6 hbS 14.liJxd8+ he2 1S.liJxb7 l'l:b8 16.liJxc5 l'l:xb2

93

Chapter 15

17.<bf6 gxf6 18.f3 r!!le7 since Black has tremendous compensation for the pawn. Of course, it would have been a disaster for him to opt for 13 . . . fxe6? 14 . .bd7+ \Wxd7 15 . .bf6 .bf2 + 16.\Wxf2 Ei:f8 -16 . . . 0-0?? 17.\Wd4+- - 17.0-0 Ei:xf6 18.\Wh4±; 15 . . . 0-0 16.�h4± and White retains the extra pawn.) 13 . . . \Wxd7 14.0-0-0 tt:ld5 (It looks as if White cannot ex­ploit the temporary stranding of Black's king in the centre.) 15.f4 (Or 15.tt:lf5 0-0 16.tt:lxg7 r!!lxg7 17. c4 \Wa4! 18.Ei:xd5 exd5 19.\Wg4+ r!!lh7 20.\Wf5+ r!!lg8 2 1 .\Wg4=) 15 . . . 0-0 16.f5 Ei:ae8, and Black's powerful centralized knight on d5 keeps him out of trouble.

12 ••• 1Wxf6 Or 12 . . . gxf6? 13.tt:lxe6 ! .bf2+

14.r!!lxf2 fxe6 15.\Wh5+ r!!lf8 16 . .bd7 \Wxd7 17.Ei:hd1 \We7 18.r!!lg1 Ei:h7 19.Ei:d3± K.Szabo - Galyas, Budapest 2004.

13.hd7+ r!!lxd7

It looks as though White is about to punish his opponent, but things are far from simple.

14. 0 - 0

94

White would not achieve any­thing with 14.\Wh5 hd4 15.0-0-0 \Wg5=

14 .•• r!!le7 I do not think that there will be

many players willing to defend Black's position after 14 . . . Ei:hd8? 15.tt:lxe6+ ! r!!lxe6 16.Ei:e1+ r!!lf5 17. \Wh5+ g5 18.b4 �b6 19.c4! Ei:d4 2 0 .c5 �c7 2l.g3 and White's pow­erful initiative will prey upon the nerves of the opponent, despite the absence of direct threats.

15.\Wb3 gab8 16.gadl ghd8

17.\Wb5 White has tried 17.Ei:d3 several

times, but without any success. 17 . . . �xd4 18.\Wa3+ r!!le8 19.cxd4 \We7 and in the game Almasi - Er­dos, Kazincbarcika 2005, the op­ponents agreed to a draw. We can continue this variation a bit fur­ther, but the evaluation remains the same: 20 .\Wxa7 Ei:a8 21.\Wb6 Ei:xa2 22 .d5 ga6 23 .\Wb5+ r!!lf8=

17 ••• hd4 18.1Wb4+ lt>e8 19. gxd4 gxd4 2 0 .cxd4 gds 21. gdl f!e7 22.f!a4+ lt>f8 23. \Wxa7. White has won some mate­rial, but he will not manage to

3. 4Jd2 de 4.Ci'Jxe4 4J d7 5. 4Jj3 4Jgf6 6. �g5 h6 7. 4Jxf6 4Jxf6 8. �h4 c5

convert it into a full point. 23 • . .

�b4 24.b3 @g8. In general, Black can survive by doing noth­ing, thanks to White's queen be­ing out of play on the a7 -square. If he wishes however, he can force the issue. 25.h3 (25 .g3 e5=) 25 . . •

b6 26.E:cl �xd4=

f) 9.�e2 !?

This i s a clever move. White's bishop is eyeing the f3-square.

9 • . . cxd4 1 0 .�xd4 10.4Jxd4 �e7 (10 . . . �c5 ! ? 11 .

4Jb3 �d6 12.0-0 Wffc7=) 11 .0-0 0-0 12 .c3 e5 13.4Jf3 Wffc7 14J'l:el E:d8 15.Wic2 e4 16.�xf6 hf6 17. Wixe4 and White ended up with an extra pawn in the game Fressinet - Moreno Carnero, Sanxenxo 2004.

10 ... Wffxd4 ll..!Dxd4 �d7 (diagram)

12 • .!Db5 White can check with this

move whether he has the edge, or not.

If he plays routinely, he cannot obtain any advantage : 12 .0-0-0 �c5 13.E\d3 (13.�f3 0-0-0=) 13 . . .

4Jd5 14.�f3 4Jf4 15.E\d2 g5 16.�g3 0-0-0=

12 . . • E:c8 13. 0 - 0 - 0 a6 This move is imprecise and in­

stead he could have tried the more flexible line: 13 . . . �c5 ! ? 14.4Jd6+ �xd6 15J�lxd6 g5 16.�g3 4Je4=

14.c!Dd6+ hd6 15.E:xd6 g5 16 . .ig3 c!De4 17.E:d4 (Thanks to Black's 13th move, White could have tried 17.E\b6 ! ? Black proba­bly equalizes anyway, but he would have more problems to solve in that line.) 17 . . • c!Dxg3 18.hxg3 @e7 19.�f.3 E:c7 2 0 .a4 e5 21.E:b4 a5 22.E:xb7 E:xb7 23. hb7 ha4 24.g4= A.Galkin -Bareev, Tomsk 2001.

95

Chapter 15

It seems to me that if White wishes to bring about a long and hard struggle, he should choose this move.

9 . . . cxd4 9 . . . �a5+ ! ? Alexander Mo-

rozevich is reluctant to follow well-trodden paths. 10 .c3 cxd4 11 .l2Jxd4 id7 12 .0-0 id6 (Black managed to equalize even after the more passive line : 12 . . . ie7 13. Ele1 0-0 14.ig3 Elfd8 15.ic2 Eiac8 and the opponents agreed to a draw, Sutovsky - Roiz, Netanya 2009.) 13.�f3 �h5 14.�xh5 t2Jxh5 15.f3 l2Jf4 16.ie4 ic5 17.if2 hd4 18 .hd4 t2Je2+ 19.i>f2 t2Jxd4 20 . cxd4 c±>e7= Nepomniachtchi -Morozevich, Moscow 2011 .

In this position we shall ana­lyze the moves: g1) 1 0 .�xd4 and g2) 1 0 . 0 - 0 .

g1) 1 0 .�xd4 ic5 Black has a good alternative

here - 10 . . . ie7! ?

9 6

11.�b3 White is fighting for a tempo. It is more natural, but too

slow, for him to play 11.l2Jf3 0-0 12 .�d2 b6 13.0-0-0 ib7 14.l2Je5 (Or 14.Elhe1 ie7 15.l2Je5 l2Jd5 16.he7 �xe7 17.a3 Elad8 18.f4 l2Jf6 19.c4 �c7= Morozevich -Pelletier, Biel 2006.) 14 . . . ie7 15.a3 l2Jd5 16.he7 �xe7 17.f4 Eiac8 18.Elhf1 �c7 19.g4 g5 ! This is an important resource. 20.h4 t2Jxf4 21.hxg5 �xeS 22 .Elxf4 �xg5 and Black ends up with an extra pawn, but he is unlikely to be able to exploit it, Nepomniachtchi -Erdos, Dresden 2007.

ll . . . ie7 12.�e2 id7 Black should refrain from

experimenting with 12 . . . �d5? ! 13. f3 id7 14.0-0-0 �c6 15.i>b1 �a4 16.c4 Elc8 17.Eld2 b5 18.hf6 ixf6 19.cxb5 c±>e7 20.Elhd1 Elhd8 21 .Elc2 Elxc2 22 .�xc2 ie5 23.ie2 hh2 24.Eld4 and suddenly Black's queen was trapped in the game Huebner - Korchnoi, Switzerland 1998.

13. 0 - 0 - 0 �b6 14.�d2 0 - 0 15.�c4 \Wc5 16.�e5 .ic6 17.�xc6

17 . . . bxc6! This is a very smart move. Af-

3Ji'Jd2 de 4 .CiJxe4 11Jd7 5. 11Jf.3 11Jgf6 6. iJ.g5 h6 7. 11Jxf6 11Jxf6 8. iJ.h4 cS

ter White has castled long, this pawn-structure is in Black's fa­vour, because he has the open b­file and an excellently centralized knight on d5. 18.c3 gfd8 19 . .ic2 tlJd5 2 0 .he7 Wfxe7 and Black has a wonderful position, Jako­venko - M.Gurevich, Batumi 2002.

g2) 1 0 . 0 - 0 !?

This is an interesting move or­der, used regularly by GM Emil Sutovsky. White wishes to avoid the variation with 10 . . . ic5, which arises if he captures the pawn im­mediately.

Of course, Black can counter this with a ruse of his own -

1 0 . . . .id7!? This is an interesting move. al­

though slightly strange-looking. The attempt to hold on to the

pawn would be too risky for Black: 10 . . . ic5 ll.Wfe2 0-0 12.1��fe5 and obviously he would have to give up the extra material in order to avoid the worst. 12 . . . ie7 13.ig3

1M'b6 14.1Mixd4 1Mixd4 15.11Jxd4 with a slight edge for White. It would be inferior for White to choose 14.11Jxd4, because of 14 . . . 11Jd7 !? 15.1Mie4 (15.1M'e3 ig5 ! ) 15 . . . 11Jf6=

Black can also transpose to the variation with 11Jxd4 ie7 - 10 . . . ie7 !? 11 .11Jxd4 0-0 12.c3 1Mib6 13. 1Mie2 id7 14J:'!adl E1fd8 15.ibl ia4 16.:1'1d3 :1'1d5 17.:1'1e3 .ib5 18.11Jxb5 E1xb5 19.b3 :1'1d5= Amonatov - Na­jer, Zvenigorod 2008.

11.1M'e2 The rather romantic-looking

line 11 .11Je5 .id6 12 .1M'e2 .ic6 13.f4 0-0 would not yield any benefit to White. Black can counter 11 . 1M'e2 with ll . . . ic6.

If 11 .11Jxd4 1Mfb6 ! ? (Here he can also try ll . . . .ic5 12.11Jf3 .id6 with similar ideas.) 12 .c3 (After 12.11Jf3 .id6, Black obtains an excellent position.) 12 . . . .ic5 (It is rather passive for Black to play 12 . . . .id6 13.:1'1el 0-0-0 14.1Mif3i and White seizes the initiative.) 13.11Jf3 .id6 14.1M'd2 1Mic7 and Black has suffi­cient counter-chances.

ll . . . .ic6 12.tlJe5

97

Chapter 15

12 • . . .id6 After the superficial move 12 . . .

fie7?, the author could have been punished for his inadequate prep­aration in the opening. 13.f4 0-0 14.f5 exf5 15.Ei:xf5 'Wd6

16.l2Jxc6 (Black would have great problems after the move 16.Ei:afl±) 16 . . . bxc6 17.Ei:e1 .id8 18. 'Wf3 ltJdS 19 . .ig3 'Wd7 2 0 . .ie5 g6 21.'Wg3 .ic7 22 .Ei:xf7 'Wxf7 23.hg6

(diagram) and after overlooking the re­

source 23 . . . 'Wf6 ! , Black ended up in a very difficult endgame after

98

23 . . . 'Wf2+ 24.'Wxf2 Ei:xf2 25.�xf2 Ei:f8+ 26.�g3?, but then he struck lucky with the beautiful reply 26 . . . Ei:f6 ! Sutovsky - Vitiugov, Poiko­vsky 2010.

13.f4 'Wc7 14 • .if2

14 . • . i.d5 15.�hl i.c5 16. i.b5+ �£8 17.i.d3 b6 18.l"lael h5 19 • .ih4 l2Jg4 2 0 .ltlxg4 hxg4 21.'Wxg4 f5 22.'Wg3 �f7 23.i.g5 and in this position the players agreed to a draw, although it ap­peared to me to be slightly better for Black, Sutovsky - Vorobiov, Moscow 2011 .

Chapter 16 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJd2 dxe4 4.liJxe4 liJd7 5.liJf3 liJgf6 6.liJxf6+ liJxf6

This move has become popu­lar lately, but Black has found an adequate response.

7 • • . b6 This is his strongest and most

natural reply. If 7 . . . cS 8 .i.g2 cxd4 9.Wixd4

Wixd4 10.'Llxd4 a6 11 .i.f4 'LldS 12 . i.d2 bS 13.a4 b4 14.'Llc6 aS 1S.c4 bxc3 16.bxc3 i.b7 17.'Lld4 i.a6 18. 'LlbS with some pressure for

Now we shall analyze White's White, Alekseev - Pridorozhni, four possibilities to avoid the Khanty-Mansiysk 2009. main line: a) 7.g3, b) 7 . .id3, c) 7.i.e2 and d) 7.i.e3.

For 7.i.gS h6 - see 6.i.gS h6 7.'Llxf6 'Llxf6.

If 7.i.c4 Black's simplest re­action is 7 . . . i.e7 (It is riskier to play 7 . . . cS 8.i.e3 cxd4 9.i.xd4 Wic7 10 .Wie2 i.cS 11.i.eS i.b4+ 12 . c3 i.d6 13.i.bS+ i.d7 14.0-0-0 i.xeS 1S.'LlxeS 0-0-0 16.i.c4 ! and White had strong pressure in the game Milos - Vitiugov, Khanty­Mansiysk 2009.) 8 .0-0 0-0 9 . Wie2 b6 10J'ld1 i.b7 ll.c3 Wic8 12 .i.gS cS 13.'LleS Ei:d8 14.f4 .idS 1S.i.d3 Wic7= Bindrich - Meier, Moscow 2008.

a) 7.g3

8.i.b5+ This is a very unpleasant sur­

prise for Black! It turns out that White was just waiting for this weak­ening of his opponent's position.

After the routine move 8 .i.g2 , Black can equalize i n a n interest-

99

Chapter 16

ing fashion : 8 . . . i.b7 9.0-0 i.e7 10 .c4 0-0 11 .b3 aS ! 12 .i.b2 a4 13. �e2 fi:a6 14.fi:fd1 fi:e8 1S.i.c3 l2Je4 16 .i.e1 axb3 17.axb3 fi:xa1 18.fi:xa1 i.f6 19.fi:d1 �a8= Shirov - Anand, Mainz 2004.

8 . . • i.d7 9 . .ie2 9.a4 a6 10 .i.e2 i.c6 11 .0-0

i.d6 (Here Black could have tried 11. . .i.e7 12 .tLleS i.b7, making use of the presence of the pawns on a4 and a6; otherwise in this position White would have a check from the bS-square.) 12 .tLleS heS 13. dxeS �dS 14.�xdS tLlxdS 1S.aS bS 16.i.d2 0-0-0 17.fi:fd1 fi:d7 18.f3 Ei:hd8 19.1t>f2 l2Je7 2 0.i.gS fi:xd1 21 .fi:xd1 fi:xd1 2 2 .hd1 tLlg6 23.f4 h6 24.i.h4 l2Jxh4 (Black could have postponed the exchange of his knight.) 2S.gxh4 fS and it be­came clear that there was a for­tress on the board, Morozevich -Pelletier, Biel 2 011.

l2Jxd7 14.i.d3 fi:d8 1S.O-O l2Jf6 16. i.f4± with a clear advantage to White, Sjugirov - Timofeev, Ir­kutsk 2010.

1 0 . 0 - 0 .id6 After 10 . . . i.b7? ! 11 .lLleS a6 12.

c4 i.d6 13.i.f3 (13.�a4+!?) 13 . . . �c8 14.i.c6+ i.xc6 1S.l2Jxc6 0-0 16. �f3 fi:e8 17.i.gS l2Jd7 18 .fi:fe1 f6 19. i.e3, Black failed to obtain an ac­ceptable position in the game Timo­feev - Riazantsev, Ulan Ude 2009.

ll.tLle5 i.xe5 12.dxe5

Now, in most of the variations, there gradually arises an end­game in which White has merely a symbolic edge.

Black exchanges the heavy pieces along the d-file and builds a fortress.

12 • . . �xdl Or 12 . . . �dS 13.�xdS tLlxdS 14.

i.d2 aS 1S.f3 0-0-0 16.fi:fd1 h6 17.a3 l2Je7 18.1t>f2 fi:dS 19.f4 hS

9 • . . .ic6 20.b3 Ei:hd8 21 .i.e1 fi:xd1 2 2 .fi:xd1 9 . . . cS? ! - This opening experi- fi:xd1 23.hd1 g6 24.c4 lLlfS 2S.h3

ment can hardly be described as a i.e4 26.g4 hxg4 27.hxg4 l2Je7 success, despite the fact that Black 28.1t>e3 i.h1 29.i.h4 lt>d7= Bolo­won the game. 10.tLleS cxd4 11. gan - Laznicka, Khanty-Mansiysk �xd4 i.cS 12 .�h4 �c7 13.l2Jxd7 2009.

100

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.4'Jd2 de 4.4'Jxe4 4'Jd7 5.4'Jj3 4'Jgf6 6.4'Jxf6 4'Jxf6

13J�xd1 �d7 14.f4 0 - 0 - 0 15 • .ie3 �b8

16.:!'\xdS+ 16.�d3 �f3 17.:t!d2 �g4 18.c3

hS 19 .�fl :t!xd2 2 0 .�xd2 :t!d8 21 . �e3 4'Jc6 22 .h3 :t!d1 23.:t!xd1 hd1 24.�b5 �b7 25.�f2 a6 26.�f1 4'Je7 27.�g2+ �c8 28.�e1 �c2 29.�f3 g6 30 .�e2 aS 3l.c4 c5= Vachier Lagrave - Meier, Khanty-Mansi­ysk 2009.

16 ... :!'\xdS 17.:Eid1 .ie4 18. :Eixd8+ @xd8 19.c3 �c6 2 0.h4 g6 21.g4 �e7 22.b4 �d5 23 . .id2 f5 24.c4 �e7 25.g5 @d7= Vachier Lagrave - Meier, Khanty­Mansiysk 2009.

b) 7 . .id3 c5

8 . .ie3!? This i s a sharp move. If White

wishes to bring about a sharper struggle in this position, this is how he should play.

White does not achieve much with 8.dxc5 hc5 9 .0-0 0-0 lO .�gS b6 11.'1We2 �b7 12 .:t!ad1 '!Wc7 13.hf6 gxf6 14.�e4 E1fd8 15. hb7 '!Wxb7 16.c3 '!Wc7 17.g3 :t!xd1 18.:t!xd1 :t!d8 19.4'Je1 :t!xd1 2 0 .'1Wxd1 �e7 21 .4'Jg2, and the opponents agreed to a draw, Anand - Gel­fand, Monte Carlo 2007.

It would be too cautious for White to continue with 8.0-0 cxd4 9.4'Jxd4 �cS

10 .lt:lf3 (It is hardly any bet­ter for him to play 10.�e3 �b6 ll.c3 eS - 11 . . .0-0 ! ? - 12.4'Jc2 0-0 13 .�g5 h6 14.�h4 �g4 15.hf6 hd1 16.hd8 �xc2 17. �xc2 E1axd8= Korneev - Mo­rozevich, Elista 1997.) 10 . . . 0-0 ll .'!We2 b6 12 .�g5 �b7 13.:t!ad1 '!Wc7 14.hf6 gxf6 15.�e4 l"!fd8 16.c3 l"!ac8 17.a3 a6 18 .hb7 '!Wxb7 19.:t!d3 :t!xd3 2 0.'1Wxd3 �e7 2 1 .:t!d1 :t!d8 22 .'1We2 :t!xd1 + 23. '!Wxd1 '!We4= Acs - Khalifman, Dubai 2002 .

8 ... �c7 9.�e2

101

Chapter 16

9 . • . i.e7 It seems too risky for Black to

play 9 . . . a6, although in the follow­ing games he obtained a good po­sition after 10.0-0-0 (10.0-0 b6 ll.dxcS i.xcS 12 .i.xcS �xeS 13. �eS �xeS 14.l2lxeS rtJe7 1S.a4 ib7 16J''la3 aS 17.f4 g6= Caruana -Pelletier, Biel 2011) 10 . . . bS 11. dxcS i.xcS 12 .i.gS i.b7 13.'2leS i.d6 14.f4 ltJdS 1SJ�hfl 0-0= Shirov -Drozdovskij , Mainz 2007.

1 0. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 ll.dxc5

18 .i.xh7+ ! rtJxh7 19.�hS+ rtJg8 20 .g6 fxg6 21 .'2lxg6 �f6 22 .fS ! exfS 23J''lxfS+- Spraggett - Po­gorelov, Andorra 2006.

12 . .id4 tl:\f4 13.'11;Ve4 Black also has counterplay af­

ter 13.�eS �xeS 14.l2lxeS f6 1S. l2lc4 Eld8 16.i.fl. White must play in this awkward fashion if he wishes to keep the extra material. 16 . . . eS 17.ie3 Elxd1+ 18.rtJxd1 ie6 19.'2laS b6 !?

13 ... tl:\xd3+ 14J:!xd3 f6

Black has temporarily sacri­ficed a pawn and has gained the bishop-pair. The pawn wedge "f6-eS" looks very logical and White's pieces are restricted in their mo­bility, so Black might even gain an advantage.

15J'i:hdl White has also tried 1S.Ele1

Ele8? ! (It is not very easy to under­stand why Black did not play the

ll ... tl:\d5! natural move 1S . . . eS ! ?) 16.rtJb1 Black should avoid ll . . . i.xcS if8 17.'2ld2 �f7? 18.f4 Elb8 19.

12 .i.xcS �xcS 13.'2leS �e7 14.f4 b6 l2lc4 eS 2 0.'2ld6 i.xd6 2l .cxd6 g6 1S.g4 i.b7 16.Elhf1 Elad8 17.gS 22 .Elg3? White overlooks an ele­l2ld7. White crowned his strategy gant tactical shot. (He could have with a crushing kingside attack - practically concluded the game by

102

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJd2 de 4.11Jxe4 11Jd7 5.11Jf.3 11Jgf6 6.11Jxf6 11Jxf6

playing 22 .fxe5 ! �fS 23 .Wfe3 fxeS 24.�xa7±) 22 . . . �f5 23.Wfxf5 exf4 ! 24.�h1 fxg3 2S.Wfxf6 Wfxf6 26. �xf6 gxh2 27.\t>cl �e6 28 .�e7 �e8 29.�xh2 �8xe7 30.dxe7 �xe7= and after some wild complica­tions the game ended in a draw, Sulskis - Roiz, Port Erin 2 007.

15 ... e5 16.Wfd5+ Black's task is simpler after

16.�e3 �e6 17.�3d2 Wfc8 18.h3 b6 19 .c6 and the opponents agreed to a draw in this rather complicated position, Volokitin - Roiz, Beer­sheba 2005.

16 • . . \t>hS 17.4Jxe5 fxe5 18.he5

White has sacrificed a piece and it looks las though his initia­tive is very powerful. However, Black can neutralize it with a se­ries of precise moves.

18 ... Wfc6 19.�g3 Wfh6+ 2 0. gd2 .ie6 21.Wfxb7 .if6 22 . .ixf6 �xf6 23.�f3 �xf3 24.gxf3 gxf3 25.gxf3 lt>g8 26.a4 a5 and only Black can play for a win in this position, Volokitin - Lysyj, Moscow 2 007.

c) 7 • .ie2

This is a quiet move. White avoids critical theoretical debates, but still cherishes hopes of ob­taining an opening advantage.

7 . •• c5 8. 0 - 0

8 . •• cxd4 Here Artyom Timofeev played

another move, one which was not very well analyzed at the time: 8 . . . a6 ! ? 9 .a3 Wfc7 10.c4 �d7 11 .dxc5 aS ! 12 .g3 .ixcS 13.�f4 Wfc8 14.4Je5 0-0 1S.�f3 �a6 16.b4 axb4 17. axb4 hb4 18.�b1 �b6 19 .�e3 �d6 20 .Wfc2 �cS= and Black equal­ized, Lastin - Timofeev, Novo­kuznetsk 2008.

103

Chapter 16

9.'!�'xd4 Strangely enough, the whole

idea of White's set-up is based on this particular capture. White hopes to prevail in the endgame.

He should refrain from 9. Lt:lxd4 fie7 10.fif3 0-0 11.1'1:e1 V!ffc7 and Black has a good game.

9 ... '11bd4 1 0.Lt:lxd4 .id7

The same position but with White's bishop on c4 can arise from the Tarrasch variation with 3 . . . c5 (see page 195, 10 .V!ffxd4 V!ffxd4 ll.'Llxd4 fid7). We should analyze this possibility thorough­ly, because the bishop on e2 has more prospects now.

Black might encounter some problems in this seemingly harmless variation and these can be best illustrated by the follow­ing game: 10 . . . fic5 1L'Llb3 fid6 12.fif3 0-0 13.'Lla5 1'1:b8 14.fie3 Lt:ld7 15.Lt:lc4 fic5 16.fif4 1'1:a8 17. 1'1:fd1 Lt:lb6 18.'Lla5 Lt:ld5 19.fig3 fib4 20 .'Llb3 a5 2l .c4t with a pow­erful queenside initiative for White, Volokitin - Lysyj, Sochi 2 007.

ll . .i£3 0 - 0 - 0 12 . .if4

104

12 ... .ia4! This standard manoeuvre is

very strong here and was recom­mended in the annotations of F.Bindrich.

It would be too passive for Black to opt for 12 . . . Lt:le8 13.c4 fid6 14.fie3 Lt:lc7 15.1'1:ac1 fie5 16. b4 mb8 17.b5 fic8 18 .'Llb3 Lt:le8 19.1'1:fe1 f6 20.a4 and White main­tained the advantage in the game Vescovi - Seirawan, Istanbul 2000.

13.�adl In response to 13.'Llb3, Black

should react simply with 13 . . . fie7. It is inferior for him to play 13 . . . fid6? ! 14.fixd6 1'1:xd6 15.fixb7+ <±>xb7 16.'Llc5+ <±>c6 17.Lt:lxa4 and he can hardly prove that his com­pensation for the pawn is suffi­cient. He cannot equalize after the rather strange knight manoeuvre - 13 . . . Lt:ld5 14.fig3 Lt:lb4 15.c3 'Llc6 16.1'1:fe1 - Black's bishop on a4 does not beautify his position.

13 ... .ic5 14.lbb3 .ib6 15 . .ie5 .ic6!?

Black solves his problems in radical fashion, reducing White's queenside pressure by slightly

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.lbd2 de 4.lbxe4 4:Jd7 S.ltJfJ l2Jgf6 6.4:Jxj6 l2Jxf6

worsening his own pawn struc­ture. Black will have dynamic fac­tors on his side, though . . .

16.hc6 bxc6 17 .h3 17.c4? .bf2 + ! and White ends

up a pawn down.

17 . . S�d5 and Black has a good position. It would also be interest­ing for him to play the sharper line: 17 .. J=!xd1 ! ? 18J=!xd1 l2Je4 19. c;f;>fl l2Jxf2 2 0.Eid6 l2Je4 21 .Eixc6+ c;f;>d7 22 .Eic4 l2Jd6 with rather un­clear consequences.

d) 7 . .ie3 ttld5

develop in similar fashion to the notes to White's ninth move in the variation 6 . .ig5 h6 7.4:Jxf6 l2Jxf6 8 . .ie3.

It would be interesting to try here 8 . .id3 ! ? l2Jxe3 9.fxe3 .id6 (This is a new possibility, which has become possible thanks to the absence of Black's pawn on h6: 9 . . . g6 ! ? 10 .�e2 .ig7 11 .0-0-0 .id7 12 . .ie4 �e7 13.4:Je5 he5 14. dxe5 �c5 15.�f3 �xeS 16.hb7 Eld8 17.Eixd7 c;f;>xd7 18.�xf7+ c;f;>d6 19.l"i:d1+ c;f;>cs 20 .�e7+ c;f;>b6 21 . Elxd8 Elxd8= Aroshidze - Rozen­talis, Kavala 2006.) 10 .e4 c5 ! ? ( 1 0 . . . e5? ! 11 .dxe5 .ic5 12 . .ib5+ c6 13 .�xd8+ c;f;>xd8 14 . .ic4 c;f;>e7 15.c3 and the endgame will be difficult for Black without the pawn on h6), playing by analogy with vari­ation c (Chapter 14).

8 ... c5

9 . .ib5+ 9.4:Je5 ! ? - This aggressive

move is playable. 9 . . . a6 (Black should avoid 9 . . . .id6 10 . .ib5+ c;f;>f8

8 • .id2 11.�f3 f6 12 .c3 cxd4 13.cxd4 and Or 8.�d2 .ib4 ! and events will he is clearly worse.) 10.c3

105

Chapter 16

10 . . . .td6 (It is inferior to opt for 10 . . . cxd4?! 1l.�a4+ .td7 12 . �xd4 .tb5 13.c4 'Llb4 14.�c3 ! and Black has obvious difficulties, while if 10 . . . b5 White can play 11. a4. ) 1l.�a4+ rJJe7 (ll . . .rJJf8 !?) 12 . �d1 cxd4 13.cxd4 �xeS (It is well worth considering 13 .. .f6 ! ? 14. 'Llc4 �c7 and Black's position is quite acceptable with the pawn barrier on the sixth rank.) 14.dxe5 �b6 15.�c4 �d7 16.0-0 �b5 17.b3 Ei:hc8 18.�g4 rJJf8 19.hd5 �xf1 20 .�b4+ �xb4 21 .hb4+ rJJe8 22 . hb7 �b5 23.ha8 Ei:xa8 24.Ei:cl± and White ends up with a solid extra pawn in the endgame, Ad­ams - Meier, Liverpool 2008.

9 .dxc5. At first sight, this move looks like a result of a bad home preparation, or even a complete absence of any such. However, things are far from clear. 9 . . . hc5 10 .�d3 �c7 1l .�e2

106

11 . . .0-0 ! ? 12 .0-0-0 (Or 12 . 0-0 b6? ! 13.c4 'Llf6 14.�c3 �b7 15.Ei:ad1 Ei:ad8 16.'Lle5 with some pressure for White; 12 . . . 'Llf4 13. hf4 �xf4 and he is unlikely to obtain any advantage without his dark-squared bishop.) 12 . . . 'Llf4 (I believe that Black should consider here 12 . . . a5 ! ?, or even the more desperate move 12 . . . b5.) 13.hf4 �xf4+ 14.rJJb1 f6 15.�c4 rJJh8 16.he6 he6 17.�xe6 hf2 18. Ei:hfl Ei:ad8 19.Ei:d7 Ei:fe8 20 .�e7+­Nijboer - Dambacher, Hilversum 2007.

Black plays 11 . . .�d7 much more often here.

It would be imprecise for White to reply with 12 .0-0, be­cause of 12 . . . �d6 13.c4 'Llf4 14. �xf4 h£4 15.g3 �d6 16.Ei:fd1 Ei:d8 17.Ei:ac1 �c6 18.�e4 0-0 19.c5= Quezada Perez - Nogueiras San­tiago, Havana 2008, or even the rather cheeky line : 12 . . . 'Llf4 13. hf4 �xf4 14.g3 �c7 15.'Lle5 �c6 16.'Llxc6 bxc6 17.�e4 �e7 18.�c4 Ei:c8 19.Ei:ad1 0-0 20 .Ei:d3 Ei:fd8 21 . Ei:fd1 g6 22 .b4 Ei:xd3 23.Ei:xd3 c5 24.b5 Ei:d8= N.Guliyev - Meier, Germany 2 007.

The move 12 .0-0-0 enables

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jfjd2 de 4.tiJxe4 CiJd7 5. CiJj3 CiJgf6 6.CiJxf6 CiJxf6

Black to equalize immediately with the simple line : 12 . . . CiJf4 13 . .b:f4 �xf4+ 14J�d2 0-0-0 15.i.e4 @b8 16.g3 �c7 17J':\hd1 i.c8 18. Ei:xd8 Ei:xd8 19.Ei:xd8 �xd8= Stell­wagen - Meier, Yerevan 2007.

Or 12 .CiJe5 0-0 13 .0-0 Ei:ad8 (But not 13 . . . i.d4?? 14.�e4 and Black had to resign, Fressinet -N.Guliyev, Ajaccio 2007.) 14.Ei:adl (It would be a mistake for White to try to obtain the bishop pair in this particular case : 14.CiJxd7 Ei:xd7 15.g3 �b6 16.Ei:ab1 Ei:fd8= . Black's powerful centralized pieces guarantee that he will have no problems at all. ) 14 . . . i.c8 and Black should equalize gradu­ally.

9 . . . .id7

1 0 . .ixd7+ If 10 .�e2, White more or less

gives up the idea of obtaining the advantage - 10 . . . cxd4 ll.CiJeS CiJf6 12 .0-0-0 a6 13 . .b:d7+ CiJxd7 14. Ei:he1 (14.i.f4 CiJf6 15.CiJf3 �dS 16. @b1 �e4=) 14 . . . CiJxe5 15.�xe5 �d6 16.i.f4 Ei:d8 17.�xd6 .b:d6 18. Ei:xd4 .b:f4+ 19.Ei:xf4= Adams -Mamedyarov, Baku 2008.

10 .. . �xd7 11.c4 �b6 12.l"kl

12 .. . f6!? Black exploits the absence of a

pawn on h6. 12 . . . i.e7 13.dxc5 .b:cS 14.b4

i.e7 15.c5 CiJdS 16.CiJe5 �c7 17. �a4+ @f8

and now: 18.CiJf3 hS ! This move is an im­

portant part of Black's plan - he wants to activate his king's rook. 19.0-0 (White can halt the march of his opponent's rook-pawn, but obviously he should not do so: 19.h4 g6 20 .0-0 @g7 and Black's position is acceptable.) 19 . . . h4 20 . h3 Ei:hS 21 .Ei:fe1 a6 22 .Ei:e4 Ei:c8 23 . �d1 �d8 24.�e2 @g8 25.Ei:cc4 g6 26.i.c1 aS 27.a3 axb4 28.axb4 Ei:a8 29.i.b2 Ei:a2 30.Ei:c2 Ei:xb2 ! = Jako-

107

Chapter 16

venko - lonov, Dagomys 2009; 18.'2ld3 (Here, with a pawn on

h6, Black would have the impor­tant resource 18 . . . �g5 ! , but he cannot play that here and so his position is worse.) 18 . . . a6 19.0-0 �d8 20 .Wb3 h5 2l.a4 h4 22 .h3 �h5 23 .b5 and White's pawns were advancing to promotion rather quickly, Karjakin - Nav­ara, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.

It would be tremendously risky for Black to play 12 . . . cxd4?! 13.c5 '2ld5 14.'2le5 Wb5

15.Wf3 (The position remains quite unclear after 15.b4 'Llxb4 16.Wf3? ! 0-0-0 17.a4 Wxa4 18. 0-0�; 16 . . .f6 17.a4 Wa6 18.hb4 fxe5 19 .Wh5+ g6 20 .Wxe5 �g8= ; 16.Wb3 aS 17.a3 hc5 18.f4 0-0 19.axb4 hb4 20 .mf2 and al­though White has an extra piece, Black's four pawns seem to be suf­ficient compensation. White achieves nothing much after 15.a4 Wxb2 16.0-0 �e7 17.�b1 Wa3 18. Wg4 �f6 19.Wxd4 b6 ! and Black is not at all worse. ) 15 . . .f5 16.a4! This powerful move guarantees a long-lasting initiative for White. (The game would be much sharp­er after 16.Wh5+ g6 17.'2lxg6 hxg6

108

18.Wxh8 '2lb4 19.hb4 Wxb4 20.mfl Wb5 2l.mg1 Wxb2 22 .�e1 0-0-0�

12 . . . �c8. Black puts up a fight for every square in the opening.

Now: Black can withstand his oppo­

nent's pressure after 13.0-0 cxd4 14.'2le5 Wd8 (It would be more ac­curate for him to play 14 . . . Wc7 !? 15.�e1 'Lld7 16.�f4 �d6 17.Wxd4 he5 18 .he5 'Llxe5=, while if 15. �f4 Black can play 15 . . . Wd8.) 15. Wb3 (White has a powerful alter­native here - 15.Wh5 Wf6 16.�fe1 �e7 17.c5 '2ld5 18.We2 ! and he wins material. ) 15 . . . '2ld7 16.'2lf3 �c5 17.Wxb7 �b8 18.Wc6 �b6 19.Wa4 �xb2 2 0.�a5 Wc8 with an excel­lent position for Black, Jakovenko - Mamedyarov, Dagomys 2008.

13.dxc5 hc5 14.b4 �e7 15.c5 'Lld5 16.'2le5 Wc7 17.Wa4+ mf8 18.'2lc4 (After 18.'2ld3 ! ? White's far-advanced pawns might be­come a powerful force in the near future.) 18 . . . a6 19.0-0 h5 20 .�fe1 h4 21 .h3 �h5 22 .Wd1 g6 23.We2 �d8 - Black ended up with a per­fectly satisfactory position after the opening, Motylev - Ding, Ji­angsu Wuxi 2008.

13.dxc5 .bc5 14. 0- 0

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.{jjd2 de 4.{jjxe4 {jjd7 S.{jjj3 l:jjgf6 6.[jjxj6 l:jjxf6

14.b4 ii.e7 15.�b3 0-0 16.0-0 l'l:ac8 17.l'l:fd1 l'l:fd8 18.1J.e1 �a4= Bacrot - Meier, France 2010.

(diagram) 14 . . . e5 14 . . . l'l:c8 - It is obvious that

this is not the best square for this rook. 15.�e2 0-0 16.l'l:fd1 e5 17. ii.e3 �c6 18.1i.xc5 �xeS 19.{jjd2. Black has some problems to wor­ry about, Rasmussen - Meier, Co­penhagen 2010.

15.�e2 0 - 0 16J3fdl ti'e7 and Black's queen's rook will go to the d-file.

109

Chapter 17 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltJd2 dxe4 4.ttJxe4 ttJd7 5.ttJf3 ttJgf6 6.ltJxf6+ ttJxf6 7.c3

This is a safe and solid move yet it marks the beginning of a very aggressive plan, which in­cludes queenside castling for White.

Black is faced with a difficult choice - the immediate a) 7 . • . c5 grants White a long-lasting initia­tive, although it is the more prin­cipled move, and the more relia­ble; b) 7 . . . i.e7, which later on will probably turn out to be a tem­po loss, since Black can hardly ever play the Rubinstein variation without the pawn advance c7-c5.

a) 7 . • . c5 It often happens that, when a

player has a choice, he not only evaluates objectively what is hap­pening on the board, but he in-

110

eludes some personal element in the assessment of the situation. This is the case here - the White player has to decide what line he prefers in this particular position.

Naturally this is the most logi­cal move for Black, but sticking to chess logic often leads to terrible consequences.

8.ll)e5

8 ••. a6 The variation with 7.c3 proba­

bly owes its popularity to the game below. It was played in a very principled encounter be­tween "The Great" and "The Ter­rible", so it acquired a label of quality and the inspired play of Garry Kimovich contributed greatly to its coming into fashion.

2.d4 d5 3JiJd2 de 4JiJxe4 liJd7 5. liJ.f3 liJgf6 6. liJxf6 liJxf6 7.c3 c5

8 . . . liJd7? ! 9.�b5 �d6 10.\Wg4 lt>f8 11 .0-0 liJxe5 12.dxe5 he5 13 .�g5 �f6 14.:1'1ad1 \Wc7 15.\Wh4 hg5 16. \Wxg5 f6 17.\WhS g6 18.\Wh6+ lt>f7 19 .:1'1d3 a6 20.:1'1h3 \We7 2 l .�d3 f5 22 .g4 ! and White prevailed in the ensuing struggle, Kasparov -Ponomariov, Linares 2002 .

9 . .ie3 9.�g5 - This move transposes

to another variation. 9 . . . cxd4 10. \Wa4+ �d7 11 .\Wxd4 �b5 ! This idea belongs to Victor Lvovich Kor­chnoi, who used it with the inclu­sion of the moves h6 and �h4. It works perfectly here as well !

9 ... \Wc7 1 0.\Wa4+ This is just one of the ideas be­

hind White's seventh move.

l O ••• ttJd7 Black continues in principled

fashion. He would be clearly worse af­

ter 10 . . . �d7 1l .liJxd7 \Wxd7 (Or 11 . . .liJxd7 12 .g3 0-0-0 13.�g2 liJb6 14.\Wb3 liJd5 15.�g5 �e7 16.he7 liJxe7 17.0-0 cxd4 18. cxd4 :1'1xd4 19.:1'1ac1 liJc6 2 0 .hc6 bxc6 2 1.:1'1c3 E1hd8 22 .\Wc2 :1'18d6 23.\Wxh7± Svidler - Vaisser, As-

nieres sur Seine 2006.) 12 .\Wxd7+ liJxd7 13. 0-0-0 cxd4 14.hd4 0-0-0 15.\t>c2 liJb8 16.�e2 liJc6 17.�b6 :1'1d6 18 .:1'1xd6 hd6 19.h4 h5 2 0 .b4 �c7 2l .�c5 g6 2 2 .a4 aS 23.b5 liJe5 24.�d4 :1'1d8 25.b6 �d6 26.:1'1b1 liJc6 27.�e3 lt>d7 2 8.�b5 E1c8 29.:1'1d1 lt>e7 30 .�g5± A. Sokolov - Vaisser, Pau 2008.

In this position we shall ana­lyze two moves: al) ll.�b5 and a2) 11. 0 - 0 - 0 .

al) l l . .ib5 cxd4 12.hd7+ hd7 13.�xd4

13 . . • �b5!? Black solves his problems in a

concrete fashion.

111

Chapter 17

A more conservative approach would be 13 .. .f6 14.li:Jxd7 �xd7 15. �xd7+ i>xd7 16.0-0-0+ i>c6 17. l'!d4 b5 18.l'!hd1 i.e7 19.l'!d7 l'!he8

You can study this position by following the games between Dominguez and Nogueiras, played in the Capablanca Memo­rial Tournaments. Judge for your­selves - the quite principled Cu­ban player defended it three times and it was only on the third occa­sion that White managed to breach his opponent's defences ! 2 0 .b3 h5 21 .h3 e5 22 .i>c2 aS 23.a4 bxa4 24.bxa4 i.f8 25.g4 hxg4 26. hxg4 l'!eb8 27.l'!f7 l'!b7 28.l'!xb7 i>xb7 29 .l'!b1+ i>c6 30.l'!b6+ i>d7 31.i>d3 and White went on to overcome Black's defensive for­tress, L.Dominguez - Nogueiras Santiago, Havana 2008.

14.a4 i.d6 (diagram)

15_.!ljxf7!? The alternative here is 15.axb5

i.xe5 16.�a4 0-0 17.b6 �e7 18. 0-0 l'!fd8 19.l'!fd1 g6 20 .g3 l'!ac8 21 .l'!xd8+ E\xd8 22 .l'!d1 hS 23.h4 l'!xd1 + and the players agreed to a draw, D.Mastrovasilis - Meier, Kallithea 2008. However, the

112

pawn on b6 guarantees that White would not have risked much by continuing to play for a win.

15 ... i>xf7 16.axb5 axb5

17.i>e2! White must centralize his king

most of all ! Black can counter 17.E\d1 with

the automatic reply 17 . . . l'!hd8. 17 .. J!hd8 In the following encounter be­

tween two champions of this vari­ation White prevailed: 17 . . . �c6. This is a clear loss of time. Black should have considered the idea of �c4+, which would be more relevant than the pressure against the g2-pawn. 18.l'!hd1 l'!xa1 19. l'!xa1 b4 20.E\d1 l'!d8

2.d4 dS 3J'ijd2 de 4.CiJxe4 liJd7 S. liJ.f3 liJgf6 6. liJxf6 liJxf6 7.c3 c5

And now: 2 l .�b6 �c4+ 22 .Wel i.c7 23.

�xb7 :1'\xdl+ 24.Wxdl bxc3 25.b3 �d5+ 26.�xd5 exd5 27.i.d4 i.xh2 28.g3 ! i.gl 29.We2 c2 30 .i.e3 We6 ! This is an important im­provement by Meier on his game against Ragger. However, I should advise you to think twice before you decide to contest files with your king in this manner on a reg­ular basis. (30 . . . d4? 3l .i.cl We6 32 .Wfl i.h2 33.Wg2 +- Ragger -Meier, Rijeka 2010) 3l .Wfl i.h2 32 .<i>g2 <i>e5 33.<i>xh2 <i>e4 34.b4 d4 35.i.cl Wd3 36.b5 We2 37.b6 d3 38 .b7 d2 39.hd2 <i>xd2 40. b8� cl� 4l.�f4+ <i>dl 42 .�g4+ Wel 43 .�xg7 �c2 ! = Guseinov -Meier, Marrakesh 2010.

21 .'1Wh4 i.e7 22 .�f4+ Wg8 23 . :r"'xd8+ hd8 24.�xb4 �xg2 25 . �b5 ! This endgame looks only equal, but in fact it is rather un­pleasant for Black. The game only confirmed this evaluation. 25 . . . �c6 26.�xc6 bxc6 27.b4 <i>f7 28 . <i>f3 i.f6 29.c4 g6 30.We4 i.g7 31 . b5 cxb5 32 .cxb5+- and to hold this ending in a practical game would be extremely difficult, L. Dominguez - Meier, Havana

2009. However, Meier handled it in very principled fashion and managed to hold it: 28 . Wd3 i.e7 29.Wc4 <i>e8 30 .i.c5 i.f6 3 l.i.d4 e5 32 . .ite3 e4 33.i.d4 i.h4 34.b5 <i>d7 35.b6 g6 36.<i>b4 <i>c8 37.c4 iJ.e7+ 38.c5 g5 39.h3 h5 40.Wc4 g4 41 .hxg4 hxg4 42 .i.e5 i.h4 43. i.g3 i.f6 44.i.f4 and the oppo­nents repeated moves, Socko -Meier, Lublin 2010.

18.gxa8 gxa8 It might look as if Black has

simply lost a tempo, but this is not the case.

19.gdl ga6 19 . . . .ite7 2 0 .�f4+ i.f6 2 l .g4

:r"\a4 22 .�f3 :r"\a2 23 J!d2 b4 24. �xc6 bxc6 25.cxb4 :r"\xb2= lstra­tescu - Meier, Antwerp 2010 .

2 0 .b3 White is forced to play this

move if he wants to play for a win; otherwise, Black will simply force a drawish endgame.

2 0 • • • i.e7 21.�g4 �xc3 22. �h5+ mf8 23.�xh7 �xb3 24. �hs+ mf7 2s.�hs+ mgs 26. gd8+ .ixd8 27.�e8+ mh7 and White was unable to achieve more

113

Chapter 17

than a draw in the game Vachier Lagrave - Grachev, Dagomys 2009.

a2) 11. 0 - 0 - 0 This is the White's most ag­

gressive option. ll . . • cxd4

12.lt:lxd7 White loses his advantage af­

ter 12 . . bd4? ! id6 13.lt'lxd7 ixd7 14.Wc4 Wxc4 15.ixc4 l'l:c8 16.ib3 ic6 17.f3 0-0= Nepomniachtchi - Vitiugov, Serpukhov 2008.

12 ... hd7 If White plays precisely, he

will be able to prove an advantage after 12 . . . Wxd7 13.Wc2 icS 14. ixd4 ixd4 15.l'l:xd4 Wc7 (Black has also tried 15 . . . Wc6 16.f4 -White would maintain a powerful initiative after 16 .id3 ! - 16 . . . b5 17.id3 ib7 18 .ie4 Wc7 19.Wb1 l'l:d8 2 0 .l'l:xd8+ Wxd8 2 l .ixb7. Wxb7 22 .l'l:d1+ We7 23.Wd3 Wc6 24.Wg3 h6 ! = L.Dominguez - Dre­ev, Tripoli 2 004.) 16.id3 id7 17. g3 h6 18 .l'l:d1 0-0-0 19.l'l:c4 ic6 20 .ie4 l'l:xd1+ 2 l .Wxd1 l'l:d8 22 .

114

Wf3 l'l:d6 23.h4 ! Wb8 24.ixc6 l'l:xc6 25.l'l:xc6 bxc6 26.h5 ! and the queen and pawn endgame was clearly better for White, who won it convincingly, Adams - Anand, Linares 2002 .

13.Wfxd4 ic6 The ending is worse for Black

after 13 . . . e5 14.Wb6 Wxb6 15.ixb6 l'l:c8 16.ie2 ic5 17.ixc5 l'l:xc5 18. if3 l'l:c7 19.l'l:d6 We7 2 0 .l'l:b6 l'l:b8 2l .l'l:e1 f6 22 .l'l:e4 l'l:c6 23 .l'l:eb4 l'l:xb6 24.l'l:xb6 ic8 25.a4± Gashi­mov - Sumets, Cappelle Ia Grande 2007.

14.ic4 If Black succeeds in develop­

ing his kingside he will not be worse at all , but at the moment he has obvious problems in accom­plishing this.

14 ... l'l:d8 Black is almost lost after 14 . . .

b5? ! 15.ib3 ixg2? 16.l'l:he1 if3 17.ig5 ! ixd1 18 .ixe6 fxe6 19. l'l:xe6+ ie7 2 0 .l'l:xe7+ Wxe7 21. ixe7 Wxe7 22 .Wxg7+ We6 23. Wxd1+- Baklan - Tratar, Trieste 2007.

15.Wfg4 h5

2.d4 dS 3. Ci:Jd2 de 4. Ci:Jxe4 Ci:Jd7 5. Ci:Jj3 Ci:Jgf6 6. Ci:Jxf6 Ci:Jxf6 7.c3 c5

It would be a disaster for Black to opt for 1S . . . id7? 16.ib3 \WaS 17.igS l"lc8 18.l"lhel hS 19.he6 ! + ­Karjakin - Rychagov, Sochi 2007.

16.\Wg5! White continues to exert pres­

sure against his opponent's posi­tion.

Black's defence is much easier after 16.l"lxd8+ \Wxd8 17.\Wg3 iWd6 18.f4 h4 19.\Wg4 ie4 20 .l"ldl \Wc6 2Lib3 ifS 22 .1Wf3 ie4 23.\Wf2 l"lhS 24.g4 hxg3 2S.hxg3 and White offered a draw, which was accepted, Anand - Bareev, Monte Carlo 2004.

16 • . • l::1xdl+ 16 . . . l"ldS ! ? 17.l"lxdS ixdS 18.

l"ldl g6 19.iWf6 l"lh7 20 .if3 ie7 21. \Wd4 hf3 22 .gxf3 h4 23.if4 "\Wc6 24.\WeS \Wc8 2S.iWe4 and here Black preferred to repeat moves, although he should have consid­ered the possibility of fighting for a win with 2S . . . \Wc6 (2S . . . l"lhS ! ?) 26."\WeS \Wc8 27."\We4 \Wc6, draw, Kasimdzhanov - Meier, Sestao 2010.

17.l::1xdl g6 18JU6

White loses his advantage af­ter 18.if4? \Wxf4+ ! 19."\Wxf4 ih6=

18 • . .l:�h7 19.g3 ie7 2 0."\Wd4

2 0 ••• .tf3 Black's play provokes admira­

tion. It is evident that Georg Mei­er has deeply studied and ana­lyzed this variation.

But not 20 .. . h4 2Lif4 WaS 22 ."\Wa7 @f8 23 .g4 with an initia­tive for White.

21 • .if4 Here it is possible that White

should prefer 2 l .l"ld2 h4 2 2 ."\Wa7 \Wc8 23.ib3 l"lhS, with good chances of equalizing for Black.

21. •• 1Wc6 Or 21 . . .'\WcS ! ? 22 .\Wd7+ @f8

23.l"ld4 bS 24.b4 (24.ixe6 fxe6 2S.id6 hd6 26.\Wd8+ lt1g7 27. l"lxd6 lf1h6 28.1Wf8+ l"lg7 29 ."\Wh8+ l"lh7 30."\Wf8=) 24 . . . "\Wc6 2S."\Wxc6 hc6 26.ib3 h4 27.g4 gS=

22.l::1d2 h4 23.\We5?! @f8 24.\WbS+ lt1g7 25 • .ie5+ f6 26. \Wc7 @f7 27.\Wxc6 hc6 and Black was even better in this end­game, Navara - Meier, Budva 2009.

llS

Chapter 17

b) 7 ... i.e7

8.i.d3 The rather bizarre move 8 .

�a4+ implies that chess has evolved considerably.

However, I believe that White merely reduces his own possibili­ties with this move: 8 . . . c6 (Alex­ander Grischuk tried to resurrect this half-forgotten line at the re­cent World Cup, but his opponent reacted to it quite creatively. That was hardly a surprise, though . . . 8 . . . i.d7 9.�b3 �c8 10.ltJe5 0-0 11 .i.e2 !!d8 12 .i.f3 !!b8 13.0-0 i.e8 14.i.f4 ttJd7 15.ltJd3 i.d6 16. i.g5 f6 17.i.e3 i.t7 18.!'1ad1 e5. It might seem paradoxical, but Black has almost equalized. 19. i.d5 hd5 2 0.�xd5+ �h8 21.

116

dxe5 ltJxe5 22 .ltJxe5 and the oppo­nents agreed to a draw, Grischuk - lvanchuk, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011 . ) 9 .i.d3 0-0 10 .�c2 b6 11. i.g5 h6

12 .h4 i.b7 13.!'1h3 c5. White's risky play has led to a situation in which he must attack, ignoring possible loss of material. 14. i.xh6!? This is the beginning of a series af forcing moves. 14 . . . c4 ! (It is bad for Black to respond with 14 . . . hf3? 15.!'1xf3? ! gxh6 16.!'1g3+ �h8 17.�d2 ltJg8 18.!'1xg8+ �xg8 19.�xh6 f5 2 0.i.c4 !!f6 21 .he6+ !!xe6+ 22 .�xe6+ with advantage to White, Degraeve - Vaisser, Gonfreville 2006. It is even better for him to play 15.gxf3 ! gxh6 16. !!g3+ �h8 17.�d2 ltJg8 18.!'1xg8+ �xg8 19 .�xh6 f5 2 0 .�g6+ �h8 2 1.�e2+- and the game is over, thanks to the open g-file.) 15. hg7 (White cannot be content with the line : 15 .hc4 gxh6 16. !!g3+ �h8 17.�d2 ltJg8 18 .i.d3 f5 19.ltJe5 i.d6! and his pressure has been neutralized, while Black has retained the extra material. ) 15 . . . cxd3 16.�d2 �xg7 (Black's only alternative here is 16 . . . �d5 ! ? 17. i.x£8 �xf8 18 .�xd3 ltJh5 with

2.d4 d5 3. liJd2 de 4.l!Jxe4 l!Jd7 5.l!Jj3 l!Jgf6 6. liJxf6 l!Jxf6 7.c3 ie7

good piece play. However, Black must keep in mind that his oppo­nent has a material advantage and a quite serious one at that.) 17.�g3+ liJg4 18.�xg4+ Wh7 19. liJg5+ (It is scarcely better for White to opt for 19.�xd3+ f5 20 .liJg5+ hg5 2l .�xg5 �g8 22 . �h5+ Wg6 23 .g4 �d5 with a very sharp game.) 19 . . . ixg5 20 .�xg5 ie4 ! This is Black's only possible reply, but it is satisfactory. (Not 20 . . . �h8? 2l .�xd3+ f5 22 .�g3 'it>h6 23.�g6+ 'it>h5 24.�g5+ wh6 25.�g7 and Black resigned, Moty­lev - Roiz, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005.) 21 .�h5+ (2l.�f4 ig6 22 .h5 if5+) 2l . . .Wg8 22 .�h6 f6 23.f3 if5 24.g4 �d6 ! This is the last dif­ficult move. 25.gxf5 �g3+ 26. Wd2 �f2+ 27.Wxd3 �xf3=

8 ... 0 - 0

9.�c2 The overly routine move 9 .

0-0 would not give White any ad­vantage : 9 . . . b6 10.�e2 ib7 1Lif4 c5 12 .dxc5 bxc5 13.�fd1 �b6 14. liJe5 �adS 15.ig3 ia8 16.liJg4 �c6 17.f3 liJd5 18.liJe5= A.Sokolov -Dorfman, France 2002.

White would not change much with 9.ig5 h6 (9 . . . b6 !? ) 10.hf6 (10.h4 ! ?) 10 . . . ixf6 1l.�e2 �d5 ! Even Vladimir Kramnik failed to obtain any advantage with White from this position : 12 .h4 id7 13. ie4 �h5 14.0-0-0 ic6 15.Wb1 he4+ 16.�xe4 �d5 17.�he1 �xe4+ 18.�xe4= Kramnik - Ba­reev, Cap d'Agde 2003.

Maybe White can try to devel­op his queen to a more ambitious square, but that is not going to radically change the evaluation of the position. 9.�e2 b6 10.ig5 (It is interesting to deploy this bish­op to f4 : 10 .if4 ib7 11 .0-0-0 �c8 -here I should like to recom­mend the advance of Black's rook's pawn. 11 . . . a5 ! ? - 12 .h4 c5 13.h5 cxd4 14.liJxd4 �d8 15.Wb1 �d5 16.�h3 id6 17.hd6 �xd6 18. g4 �d5 19.f4 h6 20 .�g1 �c5 21 . �e3 with a comfortable position for White, Timoscenko - Khol­mov, Stary Smokovec 1996.) 10 . . . ib7 11 .0-0-0 �d5 ! This i s a standard manoeuvre of Black's queen in this variation. 12 .Wb1 c5 13.ic2 (Or 13.c4 �d6 14.h4 cxd4 15.liJe5? ! liJd7 16.if4 if6 17.liJxd7 �xd7 18.ig5 �e7 19.f4 �fe8 20 . ie4 he4+ 2l .�xe4 �ad8 2 2 .�he1 h6 23.hf6 �xf6 and Black ended up with an extra pawn, Ibrayev -Rychagov, St Petersburg 2006.) 13 . . . mds 14.h4 h6 15.c4 �d6 16. ie3 cxd4 17.�xd4 �c7 18.�hd1 e5 19 .�xd8+ �xd8 20.�xd8+ hd8 2l .ic1 e4 2 2 .liJd2 e3 23 .fxe3 �g3 24.liJf3 �g4 25.id2 liJe4 26.ie1 if6� with excellent compensation

117

Chapter 17

for the pawn, Shirov - Bareev, Monte Carlo 2004.

9 ... b6 1 0.i.g5 h6

ll.h4!? White maintains his initiative. There was a recent game which

continued ll . .bf6 i.xf6 12 .1e4 (White would not change much by inserting the check - 12 .1h7+ mh8 13 .1e4 l"lb8 14.0-0-0 1b7 15 . .bb7 l"lxb7 16.�e4 �d5 17. �xd5 exd5 18.l"lhe1 c6 19.mc2 mg8 20.lt:Je5 l"lc8= Berelovich -Totsky, Bucharest 1998.) 12 . . . l"lb8 13.0-0-0 1b7 14 . .bb7 l"lxb7 15. �e4 �d5 16.�xd5 exd5 17.l"lhe1 c6 18.lt:Je5 l"lc8 19.mc2 mf8 2 0 .lt:Jd3 l"le7 2l .l"lxe7 1xe7 22 .l"le1 1d6= Ovetchkin - Mihajlovskij , St Pe­tersburg 2006.

11 ... 1b7 12. 0 - 0 - 0 If 12 .l"lh3 c5, there arises a

transposition to the game Mo­tylev - Roiz, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005, which we analyzed in the note to White's eighth move.

12 ... �d5! 13.�h3 This is a bit too risky. It seems

more natural for White to play 13. mb1 c5 with chances for both sides.

118

13 ... �fd8 It is preferable for Black to

play 13 . . . �xa2 14 . .bh6 �a1+ 15. md2 �a5 16.1e3 c5 with a very sharp game.

14.c!lJe5 White continues with the same

aggressive approach. However, after 14 . .bh6! gxh6 15.�d2 (After 15.lt:Je5 1f8 ! it is only a draw.) Black must be very careful not to lose quickly. For example: 15 . . . 1d6 16.lt:Je5 ! ? mf8 17.�xh6+ me7 18.l"le1; 18.lt:Jg6 !? , or 15 . . . �h5 16. lt:Je5 1d6 17.1e2 �f5 18.�xh6 lt:Je4 19.f3 1f8 20 .�e3 lt:Jd6 21 .h5t

14 ... hxg5 15.hxg5

15 ... �xg2 (There is no forced win for Black after 15 . . . lt:Jd7!? It appears that the best White can do then is to enter an endgame a pawn down. 16.mb1 .bg5 17.1c4 �xg2 18.l"lg3 �e4 19.l"lxg5 �xc2+ 20 .mxc2 lt:Jxe5 2l .l"lxe5+) 16.�g3 �h2 17.gxf6 h:f6 18.�e2 �h6+ 19.mbl c5 2 0.�el �d6 21.�g4 �h4 22.�e2?! and Black pre­vailed in the ensuing struggle, Vachier Lagrave - Tratar, Herak­lio 2007.

Chapter 18 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)!jd2 dxe4 4)!jxe4 tt:Jd7 5.tt:Jf3 tt:Jgf6 6.i.d3

This is the most dynamic and aggressive approach. White is de­veloping a fresh piece with his every move. Now Black must choose between: a) 6 . . .c!L1xe4 and b) 6 . . • c5.

a) 6 . . .t!L1xe4 This is more fashionable than

6 . . . c5. 7 . .ixe4 ttJf6 8 • .ig5 We shall analyze the routine

move 8 .�d3? ! further on. 8 ... ffd6 Black might be totally

squashed after 8 . . . �e7? ! 9 .�xf6 hf6 10 .ffd3 ! c6 11 .0-0-0 �d7 12.ltJe5 g6 13. f4± ffe7 14.ffe3 0-0-0 15J=!d3 �e8 16.c4 ffc7

17.!'1hd1 c5 18.dxc5 E1xd3 19.tt:lxd3 �c6 2 0 .�xc6 Wxc6 21 .tt:le5 Wxg2 22 .c6 ! + - b6 23.Wa3 he5 24. Wa6+ Galkin - Galavics, Ober­wart 1999.

We shall now analyze : al) 9 . .id3 and a2) 9.�6.

al) 9.�d3 This move involves much

more risk for both sides. 9 . . . ffb4+ 1 0.�d2 White cannot count on any ad­

vantage after 10 .Wd2 Wxd2+ (But not 10 . . . Wxb2?, because White develops his queen with tempo, and with disastrous consequences for his opponent. 11 .0-0 �e7 12 . Wf4 Wb6 13.Wg3 c5 14.!'1ab1 Wd8

119

Chapter 18

15.dxc5 hcS 16J'Ud1 fffe7 17.i.b5+ 'tt>f8 18.l2Je5+- h6 19J�d7 hd7 20.hf6 hf2+ 21.\Wxf2 gxf6 22 .l2Jxd7+ 'it>g7 23.1"1b3 1"1hd8 24. 1"1g3+ 'it>h8 25.ffff4 and Black terminated his resistance, Alek­seev - lsmagambetov, Khanty­Mansiysk 2007.) 11.hd2 cS 12 . 0-0-0

12 . . . i.d7? ! 13.dxc5 hcS 14. lLleS ! White obtains an edge with this strong move. 14 . . . a6 (Maybe Black should gobble a pawn, since after the move in the game he had to suffer, with nothing in return. 14 . . . i.xf2 ! ? 15.1"1hf1 i.cS 16.i.c3 and White has tremendous com­pensation, while Black has almost no useful moves.) 15.f4 i.c8 16.a4 bS 17.a5 tLldS 18 .i.e4 i.b7 19.1"1he1 i.d6 2 0.h4 1"1b8 21 .h5 heS 22 .fxe5 0-0 23.h6!± Rublevsky - Kosic, Budva 2002.

It is stronger for Black to go for concrete action. 12 . . . cxd4! 13. l2Jxd4 i.cS 14.if4 (It is no better for White to continue with 14.i.e3 id7 15.1"1he1 l2Jg4, because Black obtains at least an equal posi­tion. ) 14 . . . l2Jd5 15.ib5+ id7 16. ixd7+ 'tt>xd7=

1 0 ... �xb2 11. 0 - 0

120

This position needs further practical tests. It is obvious that White has excellent compensa­tion, but it is not easy to tell whether it should be sufficient to claim an advantage. The game quoted below is at present the only practical example.

ll ... fffa3 Black retreats his queen im­

mediately. ll . . . ie7 12.c4 cS

13.d5 ! This is a standard pro­cedure for White. It is clear that Black will not capture this pawn on dS and so it is going to cramp his position considerably. 13 . . . 0-0 14.1"1e1 id7 1S.if4 1"1fe8 16.d6 idS 17.l2Je5 (It would be even stronger for White to play simply 17.1"1b1! \Wxa2 18.1"1xb7 ic6 19.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3Ji:Jd2 de 4Jijxe4 11Jd7 5.11Jj3 11Jgf6 6 . .id3 11Jxe4

l"lbl±) 17 . . .'�d4 18.'�d2 CiJhS 19. .ie4 !± .ia4 2 0 . .ixb7 l"lb8 2 1 ..ic6 Wxd2 22 .hd2 hc6 23.11Jxc6 l"lb7 24 . .ie3+- l"ld7 25.hc5 .ib6 26 . .ia3 �h8 27.c5 l"lc8 28.11Je5 1-0 Volokitin - Levin, Dagomys 2009.

12.11Je5 12 .We2 ! ? Wd6 13 .c4 cS 14 . .ic3

.ie7 1S.d5 exdS 16 . .ie5 Wd8 17. hf6 gxf6 18.cxd5 .ig4 19.l"lab1 l"lb8 20.l"lfelt N.Kosintseva - Za­tonskih, Hangzhou 2011 .

12 . . • �d6

13.i.e3 (It is also possible for White to follow Denis Yevseev's recommendation in "Fighting The French a new concept" 13 . .if4 ! ? Wd8 14.Wf3t) 13 ... i.e7 14.c4 c5 15. i.c2 0 - 0 16.�d3 g6 17. �ad1 �c7 18.�c3 b6 19.dxc5 bxc5 2 0 .i.f4! (White overlooked this possibility in the game, but he won the game anyway. 2 0 .i.h6 l"ld8 21 .l"lxd8+ .ixd8 22 .l"ld1 .ib7 23.11Jg4 with wonderful compen­sation for the sacrificed pawn, Kasparov - Anand, Kopavogur 2000.) 2 0 . • • �b6 21.�b1 �d8 22.ttJc6+- and it is all over.

a2) 9 • .bf6

White continues to rely on his quicker development.

9 . • • gxf6 1 0.c3 It is weaker for him to play

10 .�e2 .id7 11 .0-0-0 (ll .hb7?? Wb4-+ ) 11 . . . 0-0-0 12 .�b1 .ig7 13.c3 fS 14.i.c2 .ic6 and Black has solved all his opening problems, Can - Maslak, Peterhof 2 006.

10 ... f5

ll . .ic2 It is possible that White should

seriously consider 11 . .id3 here. The following game illustrates this convincingly. 11 . . . .id7 12 .11Je5 .ig7 13.11Jxd7 Wxd7 14.�e2 0-0-0 15.0-0 cS 16 . .ib5 �c7 17.dxc5

121

Chapter 18

'l'@'xc5 18.a4 l"ld6 19.\Wh5 1'@'c7 20 .a5 a6 2l .�e2 <;t>bS 22 .l"la4 and White's initiative gives him prac­tical chances, A.Timofeev - A.Ry­chagov, Krasnoyarsk 2007.

ll ... �d7 It is essential for Black to play

his moves in the correct order: if ll . . . �g7? 12.\We2 ! and he is in trouble. 12 . . . �d7 (After 12 . . . 0-0 13. 0-0-0, White's attack against the enemy king will be decisive.) 13. h£5± 0-0-0 14.�c2 h5 15.0-0-0 �c6 16.�e4 \Wf4+ 17.4:ld2 �d5 18. <;t>b1 e5 19.1'@'e3 1'@'f6 20.dxe5 1'@'xe5 21 .1'@'f3 �e6? 22 .�xb7+ <;t>bs 23. �a6+- Alekseev - lsmagambe­tov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2007.

12.1'@'e2 12 .4:le5 �g7 13.f4. White's wish

to avoid entering a position with bishops of opposite colours is un­derstandable, but now Black equal­izes easily. 13 . . . �xe5 14.fxe5 'l'@'d5 15.1'@'f3 �c6 16.\Wxd5 hd5 17.0-0 <;t>e7 18 .�b3 �e4= Macieja - Ana­stasian, Stepanakert 2004.

12 ••• 0 - 0 - 0 13.�e5 White exploits the possibility

of forcing the enemy bishop to oc-

122

cupy a passive position. This is only temporary, though . . .

13 ••• �e8

14.�b3 It is very important that Black

can counter 14.0-0-0 with the double-attack 14 . . . \Wd5 ! , winning a pawn.

14 ••. �g7 15. 0 - 0 - 0 White would not achieve much

with 15.f4 he5 16.fxe5 1'@'e7 17.0-0-0 �c6= Gaponenko - Alexan­drova, Germany 2009.

15 ••• .ixe5 16.dxe5 'l'@'c5 17. gxd8+ <;t>xd8 18.gd1 + c;!?c8

White's pieces seem to be very active, but the position is in fact equal.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJd2 de 4. CiJxe4 CiJd7 5. CiJf3 CiJgf6 6. JJ.d3 c5

b) 6 ... c5

Black accomplishes all the main ideas of the Rubinstein vari­ation, one after the other.

As always in cases like this, it is essential to do things in the right order. He undermines his opponent's centre before ex­changing a pair of knights . . .

7. 0 - 0 White should not go too far in

his desire to develop all his pieces immediately. 7.YJ.g5 cxd4 8.CiJxd4 �aS+ (I think that the routine move 8 . . . YJ.e7 is weaker in this particular case : 9.�e2 CiJxe4 10. he7 �xe7 11.he4 0-0 12.0-0-0 CiJcS 13.f4 YJ.d7 14.YJ.f3 Elfd8 15.Eld2 CiJa4 16.Elhd1 �b4 17.c3 Eldc8 18.CiJc6 ! YJ.xc6 19.Eld8+- Navara ­Luther, Deizisau 2 005.) 9 .YJ.d2 (White would not achieve any­thing with 9.�d2? ! �e5 ! 10.CiJf3 CiJxe4 ll .CiJxeS CiJxd2 12 .CiJxd7 CiJf3 + ! 13. gxf3 hd7.) 9 . . . �e5 10. CiJf3 �xb2 11 .0-0 §J.e7 12 .CiJxf6+ CiJxf6 with a complicated game. This position is similar to the game Kasparov - Anand, Kopa­vogur 2000, which we analyzed

above. The difference is that here Black has already exchanged the d4-pawn and this will considera­bly ease his defence.

7 .. )2Jxe4 Black should not help his

opponent to carry out his plans : 7 . . . cxd4? 8.CiJxd4 CiJxe4 (Black can also opt here for 8 . . . YJ.e7 9.c3 0-0 10 .�e2 CiJxe4 11.he4 �c7 12 .§J.c2 CiJf6, but equalizing com­pletely would then be a hard task for him to accomplish. 13.YJ.g5 CiJdS 14.�e4 g6 1S.§J.h6 Ele8 16. YJ.b3 CiJf6 17.�f3 §J.d7 18.Elfe1 §J.c6 19.CiJxc6 �xc6 20 .�xc6 bxc6 and White maintained a comfortable edge in the endgame, Motylev -Akopian, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.) 9.he4 CiJf6 10.§J.f3 JJ.e7 ll .YJ.f4 0-0

123

Chapter 18

12 .c3. Black already has some serious problems. 12 . . . a6 13.Eie1 Eia7 14.a4 i.d7 1S.Wfb3 Wc8 16.a5 i.cS 17.Eiad1 i.xd4 18.Eixd4 i.c6 19.Wfb6 !± with a great advantage for White, Alekseev - Mamedya­rov, Moscow 2008.

8 . .ixe4 lt:!f6 9.i.g5 This is once again the right

move. If he retreats the bishop, his hopes of obtaining an advan­tage will evaporate.

9 ... cxd4

1 0.lt:!xd4 White can also try here the

semi-gambit move 10 .Wfe2 , which Black should counter in an ag­gressive and even greedy fashion. 10 . . . Wb6 ! (Black's problem is that playing in classical fashion would not work here : 10 . . . i.e7? ! ll .Eiad1 tt:lxe4 12 .Eixd4 tt:lxgS 13.Eixd8+ hd8 14.tt:lxg5 hgS 15.Wb5+-, or 12 . . . Wxd4 13.ltlxd4 tt:lxgS 14.h4±) 11.hf6 (White has also tried 11 . Eifd1 i.cS? ! 12 .hf6 gxf6 13.b4 Wxb4 14.:1�ab1 Wa4 1S.Wfd2 Wd7 16.c3 d3 17.Wfh6 �e7 18.Eixd3 Wfc7 19.Eibd1 with a decisive attack, Rublevsky - Kacheishvili, Ohrid

124

2001. Black should have defended with ll . . . tt:lxe4 12.1�{ixe4 f6 ! 13.i.f4 i.e7 14.tt:lxd4 eS 15.he5 fxeS 16.Wxe5 i.d7 and White's attack would have been over before it had even started.) ll . . . gxf6

12 .Eiad1 i.g7 (It would be too risky for Black to play 12 . . . i.c5 be­cause of 13.Eid3 ! , with a combined attack against the pawns on b7 and d4. ) 13.ltlxd4 0-0 14.c3 fS 1S.i.b1 Eid8 16.Eid3 i.d7 17.Eifd1 i.c6, and Black gradually neutral­izes his opponent's lead in devel­opment and equalizes, Saric -Meier, Szeged 2007.

White's attempts to play in a sophisticated fashion with 12 .Eifd1 would not guarantee him an ad­vantage: 12 . . . i.g7 (For 12 . . . i.c5? ! 13.b4 see the game Rublevsky -Kacheishvili, Ohrid 2001 . ) 13. tt:lxd4 0-0 14.c3 fS ! (14 . . . i.d7? ! -This move is a bit slow and White can now exert some pressure. 15. a4 a6 16.a5 Wc7 17.Wfh5 h6 18.Eid3 fS 19.i.f3 Eiad8 2 0.Eiad1 with an advantage for White, Shirov -Gelfand, Monte Carlo 2002. ) 1S.i.d3 (It can only be dangerous for White to try 1S.i.f3? ! e5 16.ltlb5 e4 17.i.h5 i.e6.) 1S . . . i.d7 16.a4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJd2 de 4.ti'lxe4 CiJd7 5.tiJj3 CiJgf6 6. JJ.d3 c5

:§fd8, with counterplay for Black. 1 0 . . . .ie7 It looks rather dubious to play

10 . . . h6?! ll .. bf6 Wlxf6 12 .'W!d3 a6 13 .:§ad1 .ie7 14.CiJc6 ! e5 15.CiJxe7 W!xe7 16.f4 exf4?? 17.hb7 and White won, Svidler - Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2 004.

ll . .i£3 0- 0

This position is very similar to the game Alekseev - Mamed­yarov, for which see our notes to Black's seventh move. There is only one difference, but it is tre­mendously important. White has had to develop his bishop to g5 rather than the f4-square, where it was much more functional.

Here, White can choose be­tween several attractive possibili­ties. Among these, we shall con­sider bl) 12.�el and b2) 12. Wld3.

It would be too ambitious for White to opt for 12 .c4 Wfc7 13.'W!c1 (The move 13.'W!e2 can be coun­tered with the typical resource 13 . . . CiJg4 ! ) 13 . . . a6 14.:§e1 e5 15. CiJc2 �xc4 16.:§xe5 .ie6= 17.CiJe3 �xc1+ 18.:§xc1 :§ac8 19.:§xc8 :§xeS 2 0 .hb7 :§b8 21 .ha6 :§xb2 22 .a4

h6 23 . .ih4 :§b4 24 . .ig3 and the opponents agreed to a draw, hav­ing exhausted all the resources of the position, Morozevich - Pelle­tier, Biel 2004.

White sometimes tries 12 .c3 and it seems to me that Black should reply with the active and so far untested move - 12 . . . e5 ! (Or 12 . . . �c7!? 13 .:§e1 :§d8 14.Wle2 CiJd5 15.he7 CiJxe7 16.:§ad1 .id7 17.�e4 :§ab8 18 .g3 h6 19.h4 CiJd5 20 .�c2 CiJf6 21 ..ig2 .ie8 22 .'W!e2 Wlb6 23.:§d2 :§d6 24.:§ed1 :§bd8= Womacka - Drozdovskij, play­chess.com 2 006.)

13.CiJb5 (This is the only way for White to create any problems for his opponent.) 13 . . . .ie6 14. �xd8 :§axd8 15.:§fd1 (Black should fear neither 15.CiJc7 .ic4 16.:§fd1 b6 17.b3 :§xd1+ 18.:§xd1 :§c8 ! 19.hf6 hf6 2 0.:§d7 :§d8= ; nor 15.:§fe1 h6 ! 1 6 . .ih4 :§d2 with good counter chances. ) 15 . . . h6 16 . .ih4 g5 17 . .ig3 .ic4 18.:§e1 ! White has played quite concretely and appears to have gained an edge, but Black has a wonderful resource up his sleeve - 18 . . . e4 19.CiJd4 :§fe8 20.he4 .ia3 ! 21 . bxa3 CiJxe4=

125

Chapter 18

Kramnik tested here the inter­esting line: 12 .a4 ! ? a6 13.l"1e1 Wffc7 14.c3 l"1e8 15.Wffb3 l"1b8 16.g3 �d7 17.a5 �c5 18.l"1ad1 Wffxa5 19.�f4 hd4 2 0.hb8 �xf2+ 2l .cJixf2 l"1xb8 2 2 .l"1d4 and White prevailed in the game Kramnik - Bareev, Monte Carlo 2005. It looks better for Black to play actively with 14 . . . l"1d8 ! ? 15.Wffd2 ! (15.g3 tt:ld5 16.he7 tt:lxe7 17.Wffe2 �d7=) 15 . . . �d7 16. �f4 (White can capture his oppo­nent's bishop with 16.l2lf5, but this will not gain him any advan­tage : 16 . . . �c6 17.tt:lxe7+ Wffxe7 18. Wfff4 hf3 19.Wffxf3 h6! Black repels his opponent's bishop from its wonderful square. 2 0.�h4 l"1d2 ! ; 2 0.�e3 l"1d5=) 1 6 . . . �d6 17.hd6 Wffxd6 with an approximately equal position.

bl) 12.l"1el �b6

13)L\b3 White is understandably re­

luctant to retreat from the centre, but in this case it is forced.

The ultra-aggressive move 13. tt:lf5 led to a quick exhaustion of

126

the resources of the position after 13 . . . exf5 14.l"1xe7 tt:le4 ! = 15.�xe4 fxe4 16.Wffd5 Wffxb2 17.l"1cl �e6 18. Wffxe4 Wffxa2 19.Wffxb7 l"1ac8 20 . Wffxa7 l"1xc2 and the opponents agreed to a draw, Cheparinov -Perez Garcia, Seville 2004.

13 . . . l"1d8 14.�e2

14 . . . �d7 Black plays this with the al­

most stereotyped idea of exchang­ing the light-squared bishops.

It would be too risky to play 14 . . . a5 15.l"1adl! (It is less precise for White to play 15.�e3 Wffc7 16.c4 �d7 17.�d4 a4 18 .�e5 �d6 19. hd6 Wffxd6 20.l"1adl Wffb6 21 .tt:ld4 �e8 with an excellent game for Black, Shomoev - Bareev, play­chess.com 2004.) 15 . . . �d7 (After 15 . . . a4 16.�e3 Wffc7 17.l"1xd8+ hd8 18.tt:ld4 �d7 19.a3 - Black's queenside has slightly weakened by the advance of his a-pawn.) 16.�e3 (It is stronger for White to play 16.Wffe3 ! Wffxe3 17.he3 �c6 18.�xc6 bxc6 19.l"1xd8+ �xd8 and he obtains a long-term advantage thanks to Black's devastated queenside.) 16 . . . Wffc7 17.tt:ld4 �c5

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jijd2 de 4Jijxe4 CiJd7 5.C!Jj3 C!Jgf6 6 . .id3 c5

18 .g3 .ie8 19.c3 h6 2 0 .CiJb5 .ixb5 21 .�xd8+ �xd8 22 .'Wxb5 .ixe3 23.�xe3 b6= Robson - Meier, ICC 2008.

15 . .id2 That is the right way for White

to create problems for his oppo­nent.

15 . . . .ib4 It is premature for Black to

play 15 . . . a5, because of 16.'We5 ! and Black has have problems.

16.c3 16 . .ie3?! 'Wc7 17.c3 .id6= 16 . .. .id6 17.c4 a5

18.l'�edl!? This has the idea of placing the

rooks on cl and dl, rather than dl and el.

White can create wild compli­cations with 18.�acl, but he might end up on the wrong side of them. 18 . . . a4 19 .c5 hh2+ 20 .@hl (Black obtains an excellent posi­tion in the event of 20 .@xh2 'Wc7+ 21 .g3 axb3 22 . .if4 'WeB 23. axb3 .ic6.) 2 0 . . . 'Wc7 21 .CiJa5 (It would be disastrous for White to play 21 .CiJd4? .if4 22 .hf4 'Wxf4 23. .ixb7 �ab8 - 23 . . . 'Wxd4? 24.�c4 !

- 24.c6 'Wxd4 25.c7 'Wh4+ ! 26.@gl C!Jg4-+) 21 . . . .ib5 ! 22 .'Wxb5 �xd2 23.C!Jc4 �xf2 24.'Wxb7. Here Black should place his rook in a defen­sive position : 24 . . . �a7 ! ? (In the game after 24 .. J''1b8 25.'Wxc7 .ixc7 26.@gl .ig3 27.c6 C!Je8 28.�edl? ! a3 29.bxa3 �xa2, he freed his rook and had a clear advantage, Ju. Polgar - van Wely, Hoogeveen 2001 . However, the Dutch GM might have encountered difficul­ties after 28 .�e3 ! ) 25.'Wxc7 hc7 26.@gl .ig3 with a very interest­ing struggle ahead.

It looks very attractive for White to play 18.c5 !? , but fortu­nately for Black he can just man­age to neutralize White's assault. 18 . . . .ixc5 19.C!Jxc5 'Wxc5 2 0 .�acl (Naturally, the move 20 . .ixb7? ! was not why White sacrificed a pawn: 2 0 . . . �ab8 21 .�ecl 'Wa7 22 . .if3 �xb2 23.'\Wel a4 and Black will manage to draw.)

20 . . . '\WfS (It would be tremen­dously risky for Black to play 20 . . . 'We7? ! 21 .'We5 ! - 21 .�c7? ! 'Wd6 22 .�xb7 .ic6= - 21 . . . .ic6 22 . .ixa5 �deS 23 .hc6 bxc6. Black's posi­tion is strategically hopeless. Of course, he can still play for tricks,

127

Chapter 18

but that's down to the individual.) 21 .hb7 :1l:ab8 2 2 .:1l:c7 ib5 23.ll>Jt'e3 :1l:d3 ! (Black cannot stop half-way, since that might lead to his swift demise. ) 24.ll>Jt'f4 (24.ll>Jt'a7 :1l:xb7!-+) 24 . . . tLle8 25.ie4 (25. :1l:e7 :1l:xd2 ! 26.ll>Jt'xd2 ll>Jt'f6 and his position is slightly the more active after 27.:1l:xe8+ he8 28.if3 :1l:xb2 29.ll>Jt'xa5 ll>Jt'd4.) 25 . . . ll>Jt'xf4 26.hf4 ttJxc7 27.hc7 :1l:dd8=

The straightforward move 18. :1l:ad1 enables Black to simplify the position after 18 . . . ic6 19.ixc6 bxc6 20 .ic3 ib4 (20 . . . a4 ! ? 21 . tLld2 ib4 22 .hb4 ll>Jt'xb4 23.tLlf3 with approximate equality, or 21 . :1l:xd6 :1l:xd6 22 .c5 ll>Jt'd8 23.cxd6 axb3 and Black is not worse at all . ) 21 .c5 ! ? ll>Jt'a7 22 .:1l:xd8+ :1l:xd8 23.hf6 gxf6 24.:1l:c1 :1l:d5=

18 ••• ic6!? I t would be inferior for Black

to play 18 . . . ib4, because besides what happened in the game -19.ie3 ll>Jt'c7 20.:1l:ac1 ic6 21 .tLld4 hf3 22 .Wxf3 e5 23.tLlf5 e4 24.Wg3 ll>Jt'xg3 25.tLlxg3 :1l:d3 26.cj;lf1 :1l:c8 27.cj;>e2 :1l:xd1 28.:1l:xd1 h5 29.b3±

128

Rublevsky - Voinov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007, White has the interesting possibility of 19.ll>Jt'e3 ! ? ll>Jt'c7 20 . hb4 axb4 21 .ll>Jt'c5 and Black loses part of his queenside.

19.hc6 bxc6 2 0 .i.c3 Black can counter 20 .ll>Jt'e1 with

20 . . . ib4. The move 20 .ig5 can be par­

ried by Black with 20 . . . a4 21 .hf6 gxf6 22 .:1l:xd6 :1l:xd6 23.c5 ll>Jt'd8 24.cxd6 axb3 with equality.

2 0 . •• a4

21.�xd6!? After 21.ctJd2 ib4= White will

merely reach a weaker version of the variation which we analyzed in our notes to White's eighteenth move

21. •• �xd6 22.c5 1oWd8 23. cxd6 axb3 24.1oWc4 bxa2 25. ll>Jt'xc6

Or 25.:1l:xa2 :1l:xa2 26.ll>Jt'xa2 tLle8 27.ie5 ttJxd6 28.hd6 1oWxd6 29. ll>Jt'a8+ ll>Jff8 30.ll>Jt'xc6=

25 • • .li:\d5! and Black's power­ful knight on d5, together with the missing white pawn on a2, in­sures Black against any trouble.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jjjd2 de 4Jijxe4 tiJd7 5.tiJj3 tiJgf6 6. �d3 c5

b2) 12.'1Wd3

This is the exact point at which Black has been experiencing seri­ous difficulties in this variation lately.

12 ••• '1Wc7 Black also has problems after

12 . . . \Wb6 13.:l'l:ad1 �d8 (Here if 13 . . . �d7 White can play 14.\Wb3, or 14.�fe1 !? and in both cases he maintains strong pressure.) 14. �e3 'WaS 1S.'IWbS \Wc7 16.'Wb3 �d7 17.c4 eS 18.tiJbS hbS 19.cxbS e4 2 0.b6 'WeS 2l .�e2 a6 22 .g3 �cS 23.hcS 'WxcS 24.�c1 'We7 2S.�c7 �d7 26.�fcl± Karjakin - Droz­dovskij , Odessa 2010.

It would be interesting for Black to try a new move in this po­sition - 12 . . . 'WaS !?

Now White has to make up his mind about where to move his bishop:

his possibilities are restricted after 13.�h4 'Wb6, because his bishop cannot go to the e3-square. Here is a possible continuation: 14.a4 aS 1S.c3 �d7 and Black completes his development har­moniously;

13 .�e3 �d8 14.'WbS 'Wc7 1S.'Wb3 tiJdS= ;

13.�f4 �d8 14.c3 tiJdS 1S.�g3 �d7 and Black solves his problems;

13 .�d2 'Wb6 14.�e3 �d7

1S.�fd1 (1S.�ad1 �cS 16.b4 'Wxb4 17.Ei:b1 'Wa4 18.tiJxe6 he6 19.hcS Ei:fd8 20 .'Wa3 'Wxa3 21 . ha3 ha2 22 .Ei:xb7 �dS= ; White would not achieve much with 1S. 'Wb3 'WaS! 16.'Wxb7 �ab8 17.tiJb3 Ei:xb7 18.tiJxaS Ei:xb2=) 1S . . . 'Wc7 16. 'Wb3 Ei:ac8 (Black's position re­mains inferior but still defensible after 16 . . . eS 17.tiJbS 'WaS 18.tiJc3 �c6 19.tiJdS tiJxdS 20.hdS Ei:ad8 21 .hc6 bxc6.) 17.'Wxb7 eS 18 .tiJc6 hc6 19.hc6 'Wxb7 20 .hb7 Ei:xc2 2l .b3 tiJg4 22 .ha7 Ei:c7 23.�f3 tiJxh2 24.@xh2 Ei:xa7 2S.a4. After the forcing line a complicated endgame has been reached.

129

Chapter 18

White's position looks preferable, but his pawns are not likely to promote any time soon. Black's counter-chances seem to be suffi­cient for equality.

13.:afel The active sortie 13.Ci:JbS would

not yield any benefits after 13 . . . WeS 14 . .ie3 .id7 1S.a4 .ic6=

The move 13 . .ih4 was tested recently by a young Russian grandmaster. His opponent was one of the main experts in the en­tire Rubinstein variation and he found a worthy response : 13 . . . Ci:Jg4 ! 14 . .ig3 Ci:JeS 1S . .ixeS WxeS. White's pieces are active and it looks as though he has the initia­tive, but Black has the bishop pair and no weaknesses at all in his camp, so the prospects are equal. 16.:aad1 a6 17.Wc4 l"i:b8 18.l"i:fe1 WaS (18 . . . WcS ! ?) 19.Ci:Jb3 Wb6 20 . a4 .id6 21 .g3 Wc7 22 .Wxc7 hc7= Timofeev - Meier, Havana 2009.

13.l"i:fd1 :adS? This is a weak move (It was much better to play 13 . . . a6.) . 14.c4 (After 14.Ci:JbS ! WaS 1S.Wxd8+ .ixd8 16.b4 Wb6 17. .ie3+-; it appears that the least of

130

the evils for Black is 1S . . . '\Wxd8 16.:axd8+ .ixd8 17.:ad1 .ib6, al­though this ending must be also lost for him.) 14 . . . a6 1S .Wc2 .id7 16.g3 :aac8 17.:aac1 Wb8 (17 . . . h6 ! ? 18 . .ie3 .icS=) 18.1We2 e S 19.Ci:Jc2 .ie6 20 .Ci:Je3 l"i:xd1+ 21 .l"i:xd1 bS 22 .hf6 hf6 23 . .idS and White had the advantage, Najer - Lysyj, Ulan Ude 2009.

13.We3 ! ? WcS 14.c3 h6 1S . .ih4 Wb6 16.1We2 .id7 17.a4 a6 18.aS 1Wa7 19 . .ig3 l"i:fe8 20 .Wc4 l"i:ec8 21 . Wb3 .ic6 22 .Ci:Jxc6 bxc6 23.l"i:fe1 and White exerts strong pressure, Leko - Morozevich, Saratov 2011 .

13 • • • :ads 14.:aadl a6 15.We3 1S.c3 .id7 16.1We2 (16 .We3 .ie8

17 . .if4 1Wb6 18.Ci:Jb3 'IWbS= Kur­nosov - Meier, Lublin 2010) 16 . . . Ci:Jg4 ! (after 16 . . . .id6 17.g3 l"i:ab8 18 . .ig2 .ie8 19 .:ad3 Black was un­able to equalize, Najer - Relange, Ohrid 2 009) 17.hg4 hgS=

15 ••• h6 16 • .if4 .id6 17.tt'lb3 .ixf4 18.:axd8+ �xd8 19.1Wxf4 �b6 2 0 .'1We3 '1Wc7 21.'1Wc5

This position is by no means equal, Akopian - Pelletier, Aix­les-Bains 2011 .

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ti:Jd2 de 4. ti:Jxe4 ti:Jd7 5. ti:Jf3 ti:Jgf6 6. ild3 c5

In order to conclude the results of the analyses in the fourth part of the book, I should like to mention the following - the Rubinstein vari­ation is in fact a separate opening. It is very different from the main lines of the French defence. It has the reputation of being a super-solid and even drawish opening, but this should not be overestimated. We must remember that Black reduces the tension in the centre rather prematurely and his bishop is restricted in its movements by the pawn on e6, as always. On the other hand, we have been convinced, on the basis of concrete variations, that if White wishes to create problems in the opening for a well-prepared opponent, he himself needs to have done some thorough analytical work.

I should like to recommend to French defence fans that they in­clude this variation in their opening repertoire, but not as their main weapon. One might get too used to playing rather simple positions and then have problems in the other variations of the French, since these are all very complicated, with pawn-chains, tension and many non-standard tactical ideas.

131

Parts 5 and 6

The Tarrasch Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ti)d2

When you think about the Tarrasch variation the words that first come to mind are reliable, flexible and elastic. The positions arising from 3.lLld2 do not depend so much on pawn-structure and manoeu­vres, like after 3.e5, but on the other hand they are not so irrational and sharp as those arising after 3.tt:Jc3. If your opponent prefers to play quiet positions, then most probably he will be willing to include this variation in his armoury. White does not risk much and the possible set-ups after the opening are less varied and can be easily studied. You very rarely find weak squares or pawn-weaknesses in White's position.

On the other hand, the more straightforward the game-plan your opponent adopts, the easier it will be for you to prepare against it. If White wishes to avoid any sharp theoretical debates, then it should be simple enough for Black to implement his own plans in the absence of any pressure from the opponent.

It is considered that after 3.tt:Jd2, Black has two main possibilities at his disposal - 3 . . . c5 and 3 . . . tt:Jf6. Recently, however, a variation which used to be regarded as a sideline - 3 . . . �e7 - has become very popular. I recommend to readers who are willing to take risks, both strategically and tactically, to consider this particular variation. Later, for the play­ers who prefer a "classical" approach, we shall also analyze 3 . . . c5. The system with 3 . . . tt:Jf6 was undoubtedly a fairly trustworthy weapon for Black for many years and also deserves attention. However, I do not like it very much, because in that line Black can find it difficult to reach really complicated positions. And there are so many weak squares in Black's camp that he is likely to fail to equalize.

132

Parts 5

The Morozevich Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijd2

It should not even cross your mind that mysterious-looking bishop move is a finger slip. The point is that White cannot create any real threats in the next few moves (This should come as no surprise, since the game is just beginning . . . ) and Black develops his bishop to a safe, although not necessary permanent, position. Quite simply he wishes to see his opponent's next move.

This approach is quite reasonable if you want to complicate matters against a less experienced opponent, or if the tournament situation obliges you to opt for an asymmetrical position in order to play for a win. It appears to me that Black should not be able to equalize by play­ing in this fashion. But on the other hand, the conservative, routine approach should not stand in the way of creative endeavour. Black has wonderful possibilities for creativity in this variation !

133

Chapter 19 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)Lid2 i.e7

4.c3 This is a solid move. It is even

a bit too solid to enable White to fight for an opening advantage.

It is absolutely senseless for White to transpose to the ex­change variation - 4.exd5 exd5=

White has also tried 4.g3, but White can hardly create any seri­ous problems for his opponent by playing in that exotic fashion. M­ter 4 . . . tt:Jf6 5.i.g2 dxe4 6 .tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxe4 7.he4 c5= Black has a comfortable game.

A French grandmaster tried to play a joke here : 4.a3 dxe4 (The move 4 . . . tt:Jf6 looks quite reason­able too.) 5.tt:Jxe4 tt:Jf6 6.tt:Jxf6+ hf6 7.tt:Jf3 b6 8 .i.d3 i.b7 9 .0-0 tt:Jd7 10 .Wfe2 0-0 ll .Eidl Wfe7

134

12 .i.f4 Elfc8 13.c4 c5 14.d5 exd5 15.Wfxe7 he7 16.cxd5 i.xd5 17.i.f5 tt:Jf6 18.hc8 Elxc8 and White went on to lose the game, Hamdouchi - Edouard, Caen 2011 .

4 . . . c5 White's idea is perfectly justi­

fied after 4 . . . tt:Jf6? ! 5.e5 tt:Jfd7 6. i.d3 c5 7.tLle2 and he solves the problem of the deployment of his knights in an optimal way.

One of the real experts in the French defence, and in particular the 3 . . . i.e7 variation - Alexander Morozevich - used to play 4 . . . dxe4 5.tt:Jxe4 i.d7, reaching a fa­vourable version of the Rubin­stein variation.

5.dxc5

The move S.exdS can lead to a simple transposition of moves. On the other hand it presents Black with an extra possibility -S . . . i�lfxdS (S . . . exdS ! ? 6 .dxc5 �xeS) 6.tt:lgf3 (6.dxc5 '\WxcS 7.tt:le4 '1Wc6 8.�d3 tt:ld7 9.tt:lf3 tt:Jgf6 10 .'1We2 tt:lxe4 1l .�xe4 '\Wc7 12 .0-0 0-0 13. a4 tt:lf6 14.�c2 b6 15.�g5 �b7= Dvoirys - Morozevich, Samara 1998.) 6 . . . cxd4 7.�c4 'IWhS 8.tt:lxd4 '\Wxd1+ 9 .<;t>xd1 a6 10J'l:e1 tt:lf6 1l.a4 b6 12 .�e2 �b7 13.�f3 �xf3+ 14. tt:l2xf3 0-0 1S.<;t>c2 tt:lbd7 16.tt:lc6 �cS 17.�e3 :8fc8 18.�xc5 :8xc6 19. �d4 tt:ldS 20 .g3 :8ac8= Khamraku­lov - Caruana, Dos Hermanas 2006.

5 . . . .ixc5 Black can also play more con­

cretely with S . . . tt:lf6 ! ? 6.exd5 tt:lxdS (An interesting position with compensation for Black arises after 6 . . . '\WxdS 7.b4 0-0 8.tt:lgf3 b6 9.�c4 '1Wc6 10.cxb6 axb6 1l .�b2 �b7 12 .'1We2 :8d8 13.0-0-0?! Rather reckless . . . 13 . . . '\WcS 14.<;t>b1 �dS 15.a3 tt:lc6 16.:8he1 :8a7 17.g3 \WaS 18 .hd5 tt:lxdS 19.tt:lc4 bS 20 . tt:le3 tt:lxe3 2 l .fxe3 :8c8 - the posi­tion looks better for Black, Burg - Werle, Netherlands 2010.) 7. tt:le4 (7.tt:lb3 tt:ld7 8.tt:lf3 0-0 9.�d3 a5 10 .'1Wc2 h6 1l.c6 bxc6 12 .a4 �a6 13.�xa6 :8xa6 14.0-0 '\Wc7 15. tt:Jbd4 �f6 16.:8d1 :8b8= Tiviakov - Shulman, Montreal 2009) 7 . . . 0-0 8 .�c4 '\Wc7 9.tt:lf3 b6 10. 0-0 :8d8 11 .hd5 :8xd5 12.cxb6 axb6 13.'1Wc2 tt:lc6 14.c4 :8f5 15.'1We2 �b7 16.:8d1 tt:laS 17.tt:ld4 :8e5 18. �f4 �xe4 19.'1Wxe4 :8xe4 2 0.hc7 tt:lxc4 with the better endgame for

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt:ld2 �e7 4.c3 c5

Black, Godena - Sutovsky, Spole­to 2011 .

6.lbb3 White does not create any

problems for his opponent with 6.tt:lgf3 tt:lf6 7.e5 (It is completely harmless for White to play 7.�d3 dxe4 8 .tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 9 .'1Wa4+ �d7 10.'1Wxe4 �c6 11 .'1We2 tt:Jd7= Svidler - Shipov, Moscow 2006.) 7 . . . '1Wb6 ! Black obtains dynamic counter chances with this little tactical trick. (7 . . . tt:Jfd7! ? 8 .tt:lb3 �b6 9.tt:lbd4 tt:lc6 10 .�b5 '\Wc7 11. 0-0 tt:JcxeS 12 .�f4 tt:lxf3+ 13. '\Wxf3 '\Wd8 14.�d6 '1Wf6 15.'1Wg3 a6 16.�a4 '1Wg6 17.'1Wh3 '1Wh6 18.'1Wg3 '1Wg6 19.'1Wh3 '1Wh6 20 .'1Wg3 '1Wg6= Vajda - Mkrtchian, Bled 2002) 8 .tt:ld4 tt:lfd7 9.'1Wg4 0-0 (9 . . . g6? ! 10 . tt:l2b3 ! tt:lxeS 11 .'\Wgsgg) 10.tt:l2f3 tt:lc6 ll.�h6 g6 12 .0-0-0 tt:JdxeS 13.'\Wf4 f6 14.�xf8 �xf8. Even though Morozevich lost that game, he had a very good position for the sacrificed exchange. 15. '\Wxf6 tt:lg4 16.'1Wh4 eS 17.tt:lg5 hS 18.tt:ldf3 i.fS 19.:8xd5 tt:lb4 2 0 .�c4 <;t>g7 21 .:8hd1 tt:lxdS 22 .:8xd5 :8c8 23.tt:lxe5 �e7 24.�d3 '1Wxf2 25.

135

Chapter 19

li::le6+ lt>h6 and Black decided not to wait for White's obvious re­sponse 26.li::lg4 and instead re­signed, Onischuk - Morozevich, Germany 1999.

6 ••• .ib6 7.exd5 exd5

The pawn-structure has been clarified. White will try to prove that the isolated pawn is a weak­ness, while Black will argue that it is strong.

8.tlJf3 The tricky move 8 .�e2+ does

not promise White any advantage at all . 8 . . . li::le7 9 . .ie3 .ixe3 10 .�xe3 0-0 11.�d2 (11 ..ie2 li::lf5 12 .�d2 l"le8 13.li::lf3 �e7 14.0-0?? �xe2 15.l"lfe1 �b5 16.�xd5 .id7-+ ; 14. li::lfd4 li::lxd4 15.li::lxd4 li::lc6 16.li::lxc6 bxc6 17.0-0= Zatonskih - Shul­man, Lindsborg Kansas 2002. ) l l . . . li::lbc6 12 . .ie2 li::lg6 13.li::lf3 �f6 14.0-0 li::lf4 15.l"lfe1 .ig4 16 . .id1 l"lfe8 17.l"le3 h5 18.g3 l"lxe3 19.�xe3 li::le6 20 .It>g2 l"ld8 21 .li::lfd4 li::lcxd4 22 .li::lxd4 li::lxd4 23.�xd4= Borisek - Caruana, Brno 2006.

136

8 ••• tlJf6

9 • .ie2 White will just lose tempi later

if he opts for 9 . .ib5+ li::lc6 10.0-0 0-0 11..ig5 a6 12 . .ie2 l"le8 13.�d3 h6 14 . .ih4 g5 15 . .ig3 li::le4 16.li::lfd4 f5 17 . .ih5 l"le7 18.h3 f4 19 . .ih2 li::le5+ Mezentsev - Atalik, Reno 2005.

9 ••• 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 tlJc6 11. tlJfd4 :!%e8 12 • .ie3 tlJe5 13.:!%el h6 14.ti'c2 .id7 15.:!%adl

15 • • • ti'c7 with an excellent po­sition for Black, Tiviakov -Kasimdzhanov, Kerner 2 007.

Chapter 2 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ti�d2 i.e7 4.e5

This is White's most princi­pled response. With this move he is trying to hinder Black from completing the development of his kingside.

However, matters are far from clear. White's knight on d2 might also impede his own develop­ment. He is likely to be unable to preserve his rather ambitiously constructed pawn-centre.

4 . . . c5 5.�g4 This initiates complications,

involving risky decisions from both players. Black fiercely at­tacks his opponent's centre, but he will have to pay for this with the rather unsafe position of his king. This might look anti-posi­tional and risky, but in this varia­tion Black will need to advance

his kingside pawns in any case. His king will be in a perilous posi­tion then, but White's pieces are not harmoniously placed either, which provides Black with com­pensation.

For White it might be worth considering the quieter possibility of 5.c3 ! ? ttJc6 (It seems inferior for Black to play 5 . . . cxd4? ! 6.cxd4 tLlc6 7.ttJdf3 �b4+ 8.�d2 �as 9. ttJe2 hd2 + 10 .�xd2 �xd2+ 11 . \ilxd2 f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13 .lLJf4 ttJge7 14J''1el \ilf7 15.�d3 �d7 16.g4 ttJxd4 17.ttJxd4 eS 18.ttJxd5 and in the game Korchnoi - Short, Wijk aan Zee 2000, the players agreed to a draw.)

6.tt:ldf3 (It is bad for White to play 6 .tt:lgf3 cxd4 7.cxd4 �b6 8.tt:lb3 aS 9.a4 �b4+ 10 .�d2 hd2+ and he must reply with

137

Chapter 20

ll .@xd2, after which he cannot even dream about an advantage, Coratella - Glek, Porto San Gior­gio 2001 ; it looks more reasona­ble for him to opt for 6.lLle2 !? , but Black's immediate attack on the e5-square thwarts White's plans : 6 . . .f6 7.lLlf3 fxe5 8.dxe5 ¥!1c7 9 .�f4 lLlh6, with a complicated posi­tion.)

Now: After 6 . . . ¥!1b6 7.�d3 cxd4 8.

cxd4, it is too slow for Black to play 8 . . . �d7 9.lLle2 lLlb4 lO .�bl ¥!1a6 11 .lLlc3 l"i:c8 12 .a3 �d8 13.�e3 h6 14.h4 lLle7 15.h5 lLlbc6 16.�d3 ¥!1b6 17.lLla4 ¥!len and his position is cramped, so White's prospects are better, Balogh - Rapport, Szombathely 2011 , but after 8 . . . �b4+ h e should avoid 9 .�d2?! (the correct move is of course 9. @fl) 9 . . . lLlxd4 10 .lLlxd4 ¥!1xd4 11 . ¥!1a4+ �d7 12.¥!1xb4 ¥!1xd3 13. ¥!1xb7 l"i:c8 14.lLlf3 lLle7 with endur­ing compensation for Black, or 1l .�b5+ @e7 12 .lLlf3 hd2+ 13. ¥!1xd2 ¥!1xd2+ 14.@xd2 �d7 and Black ends up with an extra pawn in the endgame, Ni Hua - Vitiu­gov, Ningbo 2010 ;

The Polish GM Mateusz Bar-

138

tel, playing in very original fash­ion, equalized with : 6 . . . ¥!1a5 ! ? 7. dxc5 (7.�d2 ¥!1b6 ! ) 7 . . . ¥!1c7 8.�e3 f6 (8 . . . lLlh6 ! ?) 9 .exf6 lLlxf6 10.lLld4 e5 11.lLlb5 ¥!1d8 12 .�e2 0-0 13.lLlf3 a6 14.lLld6 �xd6 15.cxd6 ¥!1xd6 16.h3 �e6 17.0-0 Ei:ad8, with an easy game for Black, Ni Hua -Bartel, Beijing 2008;

6 . . .f6 7.�d3 cxd4 8.cxd4 lLlh6 9 .exf6 �xf6 10 .�xh6 gxh6 ll.lLle2 ¥!1a5+. In this position, the author had a heated debate with the Chi­nese grandmaster Ni Hua. 12 .@f1 This move is too ambitious. (Ni Hua improved his play the follow­ing year yet still ended up in an inferior endgame after 12 .¥!1d2 ¥!1xd2+ 13.@xd2 �d7 14.�b5 @e7 15.l"i:ac1 @d6 16.l"i:he1 l"i:hf8 17.l"i:c3 �d8 18.a3 �a5 19 .b4 �b6 2 0.hc6 �xc6 2l .g3 �d7 22 .lLlf4 aS, but Black failed to realize his advan­tage, Ni Hua - Vitiugov, Ningbo 2010.) . 12 . . . �d7 13.a3 0-0-0 14. Wic1 a6 15.b4 ¥!1b6 16.¥!1xh6 l"i:hf8 17.¥!ie3 @b8 with a wonderful po­sition for Black, Ni Hua - Vitiu­gov, Sochi 2009.

5 . . . wf8

It seems masochistically pa­tient for Black to opt for S . . . if8, but in fact that move is quite sen­sible. 6.dxcS Wic7 7.lLlgf3 lLld7 (It is weaker to play 7 . . . l2Jc6 8.ibS f6 9.lLlb3 ! ?±, or 9 .0-0 !xeS 10 .c4 fxeS 11 .WihS+ g6 12 .WixeS WixeS 13. lLlxeS l2Jge7 14.l2Jdf3 0-0 1S.ixc6 l2Jxc6 16.lLlxc6 bxc6 17.ih6 E1fS 18.cxdS cxdS 19.2"1ac1 ib6 2 0 .ie3 he3 2 l.fxe3 and the endgame is better for White, Nevednichy -Antic, Herceg Novi 2001 . ) 8 .lLlb3 (White cannot gain any advantage with the line : 8.ibS WixcS 9.c4 a6 10.lLlb3 Wc7 1l .ixd7+ Wixd7 12.0-0 dxc4 13. Wxc4 l2Je7 14.lLlcS WdS 1S.Wc2 l2Jc6 16.ie3 lLlxeS 17.lLlxeS WxeS 18.2"1ad1 ie7 19.id4 WigS 2 0 .lLle4 Wig6 21 .2"1fe1 0-0 and his compensation for the pawn is in­sufficient, Khamrakulov - Lopez Martinez, Ayamonte 2007.) 8 . . . lLlxeS 9.lLlxeS WixeS+ 10 .ie3 lLlf6 1l .ibS+ id7 12 .ixd7+ l2Jxd7 13.0-0-0 ie7 14.h4 0-0 1S.id4 fS 16.Wf3 We4 17.Wg3 eS 18.f3 f4 19 .Wh3 WifS 20.WixfS E1xfS 2 l .if2 d4 22 .c3= Todorovic - Drasko, Subotica 2008.

White should counter the rather cheeky move S . . . gS with the elegant response 6.WhS! (White lost a very instructive game after 6.dxcS hS 7.ibS+ id7 8 .We2 Wc7 9.lLlb3 hbS lO.WxbS+ lLlc6 11.f4 0-0-0 12.lLlf3 g4 13.lLlfd4 l2Jxd4 14.l2Jxd4 !xeS 1S.ie3 hd4 16. hd4 �b8 17.icS �a8 18.id6 Wxc2 19 .0-0 l"1c8 20.fS lLlh6 21 . E1f2 Wie4 22 .fxe6 fxe6 23.2"1af1 h4 24.Wd7 Wd4 2S.g3 hxg3 26.hxg3

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lLld2 ie7 4.e5 c5

lLlfS 27.Wxe6 l2Jxg3 0-1 Adams -Morozevich, Frankfurt 1999.) 6 . . . lLlc6 7.l2Jdf3 cxd4 8.lLlh3 ! Wc7 9.lLlhxgS lLlxeS lO .ibS+ �f8 11. l2Jxh7+ l"1xh7 12.Wxh7 l2Jxf3+ 13. gxf3 WieS+ 14.�fl Wg7 15 .WhS lLlf6 16.Wh6 lLlg8 17.Wh3 eS 18.id7 hd7 19.Wxd7 E1d8 20 .WifS, with advantage to White, Kurnosov -Mesropov, Serpukhov 2002 .

6.dxc5 White is forced to give up the

centre. If 6 .c3? ! lLlc6 and it is even

harder to hold his centre against Black's pressure.

It is possible that the rather slow move 6.lLlb3 may become more popular in the near future. I believe that Black should counter this with 6 . . . c4 7.lLld2 lLlc6 8 .c3 lLlh6, with a very complicated po­sition. It looks as though White has lost several important tempi in the opening trying to keep the position closed.

It is bad for White to continue with 6.lLlgf3? ! hS 7.Wig3 (He would not fare any better with the awk­ward line : 7.Wh3 lLlc6 8 .dxcS Wc7

139

Chapter 20

and White will lose his e5-pawn; 8 . . . g5 ! ? 9.g4 �c7. ) 7 . . . h4 8.�h3 tLJc6.

6 ••• tDc6

Now White is faced with a choice. The position is very sharp and it requires very precise treat­ment from both sides. The next few moves can involve complex tactical decisions.

7.tilgf3 This is the most natural move

for White and probably the strongest.

It seems rather artificial for him to opt for 7.tDdf3 . Although this move is quite sensible (it looks attractive to develop the bishop on c1 as soon as possible) , White's other knight looks a sorry sight. 7 . . .f6

140

8.�g3 (In response to 8 .i.f4?! Black has an interesting manoeu­vre - 8 . . . �a5+ ! 9.c3 �a4. This placement of the queen justifies the check on the previous move. 10.�g3 �c2 and White has great problems coping with the enemy queen on c2. However, Black has also tried 8 . . . hc5 9 .i.d3 �a5+ 10.c3 �b6 ll.tDh3 �xb2 12 .0-0 �xc3 13.:Bfd1 fxe5 14.:Bac1 �b4 15.CDfg5 tDf6 16.tLJxe6+ he6 17. �xe6 :Be8 18.�f5 tDd4 19.�g5 exf4 and the game is over, Feher - Farago, Hungary 2006. In the following game White tried to radically solve all his problems but he did not fare at all well . 9 . 0-0-0? ! ixf2 10 .h4 f5 11 .�h3 �aS 12 .a3 id7 13.i.d3 b5 14.g4 b4 15.a4 b3 16.cxb3 tDb4 17.gxf5 :Bc8+ 18.�b1 ha4 19.CDg5 i.d7 2 0.ic4 �a2+ 21 .�c1 �a1+ and White resigned in view of the mate on the next move, Balogh -Cvek, Germany 2 007.) 8 . . . hc5 9.i.d3 (White should avoid 9 .tDh3 fxe5 10.tDxe5 tLJxe5 11.�xe5 i.d6 and Black has an excellent posi­tion.) 9 . . . fxe5 10.CDxe5 tLJxe5 11. �xeS tDf6

For comparison's sake, I

should like to tell you that this po­sition is known to theory, except that normally a white knight is on d2 instead of gl. Naturally, this is considered to be preferable for White. 12.ltlf3 ix:f2 + ! This is an important detail ; otherwise, White would obtain an advan­tage. 13.<i>d1 i.cS 14.Eifl . White has undoubtedly some compen­sation, but Black has an extra pawn and nothing to worry about. 14 . . . <i>g8 ! ?? (Black has an alter­native in 14 . . . i.d6, which was tried in the game Akopian - Pelletier, Aubervilliers 2002) .

One more possibility for White in this position is 7.\Wg3 f6 ! ? (I think this is stronger than 7 . . . ltlh6 8.i.d3 i.h4 9.\Wf4 i.gS 10.\Wg3 i.h4 11.\Wf4 i.gS 12 .\Wa4 ltlxeS 13.ltlgf3 ltlxd3+ 14.cxd3 i.e7 15.b4 f6 16. 0-0 ltlfS 17.i.b2 hS 18.Eiac1 i.d7 19.\Wb3 Elc8 20 .ltld4 ltlxd4 21 . i.xd4 h4 22 .h3 \We8 23.f4 \Wg6 24.<i>h1 ElhS 25.ltlf3 and White outplayed his young adversary in the subsequent complicated struggle, Svidler - Nepomnia­chtchi, Moscow 2006.)

8.ltlgf3 ltlh6 (Of course Black should not reduce the tension

l .e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ltld2 i.e7 4.e5 c5

prematurely with 8 . . . fxe5?! 9. ltlxeS ltlxeS 10.\WxeS ix:cS 11 .i.d3 - 11.ltle4 ! ? - 11 . . .ltlf6 12 .0-0 i.d6 13.\We2 \Wc7 14.f4 ix:f4 15.ltlf3 i.d6 16.c4 i.d7 17.i.g5 Ele8 18.E\ac1 \Wb8 19.\Wf2 Ele7 2 0 .\Wh4 and White had a powerful initiative in the game Lastin - Kacheishvili, Ohrid 2001 . )

9 .i.d3 (It seems inferior to play 9 .exf6 ix:f6 10.ltlb3. Black's position might be less fearsome than it looks, but still it is quite satisfactory, at least. 10 . . . ltlf5 11 . \Wh3 eS 12 .g4 ltlfe7 with a sharp game. It is very bad for White to continue with 9.ltlb3? ltlfS 10 .\Wf4 gS 11 .\Wa4 ltlxeS 12 .ltlxe5 fxeS and Black ends up with a very power­ful centre and an extra pawn.) 9 . . . ltlf7 10.exf6 gxf6 11 .0-0 (White fails to destroy Black's excellent pawn-formation with 11.c4 Elg8 12 .\Wh4 Elxg2 13.ltlb3 fS 14.\Wxh7 i.f6, with a double edged game.) 11 . . . e5 12 .ltlh4 (White should pos­sibly start thinking about main­taining equality, but Black would not mind that. 12.ltle1 e4 13 .i.e2 ltld4 14.i.d1 ix:cS and White's pieces have ended up on the first two ranks.) 12 . . . e4 13.ltlxe4. This

141

Chapter 20

i s the most principled response. 13 . . . dxe4 14.he4 i.xc5 ! GM Pel­letier quite correctly recommend­ed this move in his annotations : (14 . . . ltJd4? ! 15.�d3gg Nevednichy - Pelletier, Gothenburg 2 005). 15.ltJf5 (15.�e3 l2ld4 16J'lae1 l"1g8 17.i.xd4 �xd4 18.�b3 ltJgS and Black is already counter-attack­ing.) 15 . . . i.xf5 16.i.xf5 �dS+

7.�e2 ! ? This is an original and logical try. White does not wish to lose more tempi moving his queen and so retreats it back home right away, protecting his pawn in the process. 7 . . . i.xc5 (Or 7 . . . f6 8.f4 i.xcS 9.ltJgf3 ltJh6 10.l2lb3 �b6 11 .�e3 ltJfS 12.�f2 i.xf2+ 13.�xf2 �b6 14.�d3 �e3+ 15.�xe3 ltJxe3 16.\t>f2 ltJg4+ 17.\t>g3 ltJh6 18.l'%he1 ltJf7 19.i.b5 fxeS 20 .fxe5 l2lb8 21 . ltJbd4 with an obvious advantage for White, Timman - Paehtz, Ant­werp 2011 . Black also has an in­teresting pawn-sacrifice here -7 . . . b6 ! ? 8.cxb6 axb6 9.l2lgf3 �c7 with plenty of promising possi­bilities. Tournament practice will show how meaningful Black's compensation is.) 8 .ltJb3 �b6 9. �e3 ltJge7 10.f4 ltJfS 11.�f2

11 . . . h5 (It would have been

142

much more consistent to continue with 11 . . . g5 ! 12 .g4 i.xf2+ 13.�xf2 ltJh4 14. 0-0-0 gxf4 15.l"1e1 l"1g8+) 12 .ltJf3 �d7 13.�d2 i.xf2+ 14.�xf2 �b6 15.�d3 l2le3? 16.c3 ltJg4?! 17. �e2 �e3 18.h3 �xe2+ 19.\t>xe2 l2lh6 20 .g4 l2lg8 21 .l2lc5 �c8 and although Black's position is res­ignable, in the end he managed to draw, not without his opponent's generous help, Bezgodov - Vitiu­gov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011 .

7 . . . h5 The author of this book has

successfully tried 7 . . . l2lh6, but on the whole this move can only be considered as experimental. 8 . �h5 f6 9.�b5 l2lf7 10.i.xc6? ! bxc6 11.ltJb3?! g6 12 .�g4 fxe5 13.h4 e4 14.ltJg5 e5 15.�g3 �f6 16.�d2 a5 17.a4 �f5 18.0-0-0 h6 19.l2lxf7 \t>xf7 2 0.f3 exf3 21 .gxf3 d4 22 .f4 �d5 23.fxe5 i.xeS 24.�f2 �c4 25.�e1 �f4+ 26.\t>b1 �xb3 27. l"1xd4 �e3 28.l'%d7+ \t>e8 0-1 Papin - Vitiugov, Saratov 2 007.

8.�g3 It looks rather provocative for

White to play 8.�f4?! g5 9.�e3 ltJh6 (Black has an interesting al-

ternative here - 9 . . . d4 ! ? 10 .�e2 g4 11 .lt:Jg1 �d5 12 .f4 ih4+ 13.Wd1 lt:Jh6 with a quite acceptable posi­tion for Black, Kapnisis - Skaper­das, Athens 2000, or 10 .�e4 g4 11.lt:Jg1 f5 ! This is a key move for Black. 12 .�e2 - Black has abso­lutely nothing to worry about af­ter 12 .exf6 lt:Jxf6 13 .�d3 Wg7 -12 . . . �d5 and White has great problems developing his pieces to active squares.) 10 .id3 (If 10 .h3, I can recommend the following sample variation: 10 . . . lt:Jf5 1l.�c3 Wg7 12 .lt:Jb3 d4 13.�d2 aS 14.a4 �d5 15.lt:Jxg5 lt:Jxe5�. The move 10.lt:Jb3 would just lose a pawn for White after 10 . . . lt:Jf5 1l .�d2 g4 12 .lt:Jfd4 lt:Jfxd4 13.lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxe5.)

10 . . . ct:Jg4 (It is too slow for Black to opt for 10 . . . �c7? ! 11 .lt:Jb3 lt:Jg4 12 .�e2 ct:Jgxe5 13.lt:Jxg5, be­cause his vulnerable king will soon come under a dangerous at­tack. It looks attractive but is in fact futile to play 10 . . . d4? ! 1l .�e4 g4 12 .lt:Jglt. Black has lost the elasticity of his pawn-mass and he is unable to exploit White's tem­porary lag in development.) 1l .�e2 �c7 (Black cannot equal­ize after ll . . . hc5?! 12 .0-0 lt:Jxf2 .

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:Jd2 ie7 4.e5 c5

Black's attack has come to a dead end and he must play enterpris­ingly. Now it is bad for White to continue with 13.lt:Jb3? ! lt:Jxd3+ 14.lt:Jxc5 ct:Jxc1 - but not 14 . . . lt:Jxc5? 15.lt:Jxg5, with a powerful attack for White - 15.l"laxc1 g4 16.lt:Jd2 �g5 and Black is even slightly better. But after 13.l"lxf2 ! g4 14.b4 ! - things are not so clear after 14.lt:Je1 �b6 15.lt:Jb3 ixf2+ 16.�xf2 �xf2 + 17.Wxf2 lt:Jxe5 and in this complicated asymmetrical endgame the prospects are ap­proximately equal - 14 . . . lt:Jxb4 15.ia3 and having White has neu­tralized his opponent's initial pressure White has gained a clear advantage. It is even worse for Black to play 14 . . . hf2+? 15.�xf2 gxf3 16.lt:Jxf3 and White's initia­tive on the dark squares is over­whelming. I should like to men­tion that it is much weaker for White to continue (after 11 . . . hc5? ! ) with the this line which has been tried a few times : 12 . lt:Jb3? ! ixf2+ 13.Wd1 ib6? ! 14.l"lf1 and the evaluation changes - now it is White doing the attacking. However, after 13 . . . �b6 ! 14.ixg5 l"lg8 ! ? - if Black tries to simplify with 14 . . . ie3, White has chances of seizing the initiative with 15. he3 �xe3 16.�xe3 lt:Jxe3+ 17. Wd2 lt:Jxg2 18.l"laf1� - 15.h3 lt:Je3+ 16.Wc1 lt:Jxg2 . Black has played riskily, but White's king is so vul­nerable that such a strategy is quite justified, for example: 17.h4 l"lxg5 ! 18.hxg5 lt:Jf4 19.�fl �e3+ 20.lt:Jbd2 ct:Jb4 and although the

143

Chapter 20

situation on the board i s totally chaotic, Black's prospects are not at all worse, or 17.'tt>b1 Ei:xgS 18. lLlxgS l2lf4 19.�f3 �e3 20.�xe3 �xe3 21 .l2lf3 l2lxd3 22 .cxd3 b6, with an excellent game.) 12 .l2lb3 (White must refrain from 12 .b4? lLlgxeS 13.�b2 �f6 and Black is clearly better.)

12 . . . l2lgxeS. Black provokes a crisis. (The time for cautious play has long passed. It would not be in the spirit of the position for Black to continue with 12 . . . Ei:g8? ! 13.h4 ! gxh4 14.�f4 b6 1S.cxb6 axb6 16.c3 !± . It would be rather faint-hearted for White to choose 16.�bS?! l2la7 17.�d3 l2lc6 18 .�bS l2la7 19.�d3 and here the players agreed to a draw in the game Vaj­da - Asrian, Bled 2002.) 13.l2lxgS aS ! This is another important de­tail . 14.a4 (White should refrain from 14.�e3? ! a4 1S.l2ld2? d4-+ ; o r 1S.l2lc1 l2lg4 and h e will have great difficulties. It would be dy­namic for White, if rather risky, to continue with 14.f4 l2lxd3+ 1S. �xd3 a4 16.l2ld4 l2lxd4 17.�xd4 f6 18.�e3 Ei:g8 - Black has a tricky resource here - 18 . . . Ei:aS ! ? - 19. 0-0 fxgS 20 .fxgS+ 'it>e8 and

144

White's compensation for the pawn seems insufficient.) 14 . . . l2lxd3+ 1S.cxd3 b6 and Black com­plicates the position even further. For example: 16 .�e3 bxcS 17.0-0 (17.hcS hcS 18.l2lxcS l2ld4-+ ; 17.l2lxcS d4-+) 1 7 . . .f6 18.l2lf3 d4 19.�c1 <i>f7 and he has an excel­lent position.

White has also tried the some­what paradoxical move 8.�a4 !? to which Black must respond very precisely, otherwise he might end up in a difficult position.

8 . . . �c7 - I believe this is Black's best move. (It would less consistent for him to play 8 . . . hcS 9.l2lb3 �e7 10.�f4 l2lh6 11 .�d3 lLlfS 12 .�xfS exfS 13 .�e3 �e6 14. 0-0-0 Ei:c8 1S.<i>b1 �c7 16.Ei:he1 lLlaS 17.l2lbd4 h4 18.l2lgS �d7 and White had a clear advantage in the game lvanchuk - Mkrtchian, Yerevan 2 004. Black will not equalize with 8 . . . �d7 9.�bS hcS 10.l2lb3 �e7 11 .�e3±) 9 .�f4 f6 (This is a very important motif.) 10.�bS (Black should counter White's activity after 10.l2lh4 with the calm response 10 . . . <i>f7, al­though practice has seen 10 . . . �xeS+ 11 .�xeS lLlxeS 12 .f4 gS

13.fxe5 gxh4 14.tt:lf3 .bc5 15.tt:lxh4 @g7 16.�f4 �d4 17.4Jf3 .bb2 18. �b1 �c3+ 19.@d1 fxe5 20 .tt:lxe5 @f6 21 .tt:lf3 e5 with a good posi­tion, Liss - Botvinnik, Ramat Aviv 2000.) 10 . . . g5 ! ? This is an original decision. (Black can also play more simply with 10 . . . tt:lxe5 but then in the endgame arising after 11 .tt:lxe5 '\Wxe5+ 12.'\Wxe5 fxe5 13.tt:lf3 �f6 14.0-0 he risks facing difficulties in de­veloping his queenside. ) 11 .tt:lxg5 (White should not back down -11 .'\We3? ! g4 12 .tt:lh4 @g7 13.exf6+ .bf6 14.g3 tt:lb4 15.�d3 tt:lxd3+ 16.cxd3 tt:le7 and the game is quite complicated.) 12 . . . .bf6 13.tt:lg1 tt:lge7 and Black has a very active position, or 12 .exf6 '\Wxe5+ 12 . '\Wxe5 tt:lxe5 13.tt:lh3 .bc5 14.tt:lf4 tt:le7 and the endgame is double­edged.

8 . . . h4 This is an aggressive decision. The move 8 . . . tt:lh6! ? has hardly

been tested in practice, but I be­lieve it is a quite reasonable way for Black to avoid the well-trod­den theoretical paths.

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tLld2 �e7 4.e5 c5

For example: After White's natural response

9 .�d3, Black can continue with his pawn-storm 9 . . . h4 10.'\Wf4 (Or 10 .'\Wh3? f6 and White is in trou­ble.) 10 . . . g5 l l.'\We3 tt:lg4 (It would also be interesting for Black to give further tests to 11 . . .tt:lf5, e.g. 12 . .bf5 exf5 13.tt:lb3 f4 14.'\Wc3 h3 15.g3 d4 16.4Jfxd4 '\Wd5 17.'\Wf3 '\Wxe5+ 18.tt:le2 �f5 19.gxf4 '\We6 2 0.Elg1 g4 2 1 .'\We3 '\Wd5 22 .�d2 �e8 and he had a powerful initia­tive in the game Zhang Zhong -Shipov, Internet 2007.) 12 .'\We2 .bc5. An attentive reader might have realized by now that we have already analyzed a similar posi­tion in our notes to White's previ­ous move, examining the conse­quences of 8.'\Wf4. The difference is that here Black's pawn is al­ready on h4 and this will soon be very important. 13.�fl (Now it is less attractive for White to con­tinue with 13.0-0 tt:lxf2 14.�xf2 g4 15.b4? tt:lxb4 16.�a3 g3-+ ; 15. @h1 .bf2 16.'\Wxf2 gxf3 17.tt:lxf3 h3 and the position is unclear but still quite playable for Black.) 13 . . . '\Wc7 14.tt:lb3 �e7 15 . .bg5 .bg5 16.tt:lxg5 '\Wxe5 and Black is at least equal.

145

Chapter 20

9.lt:lb3 lt:lf5 (Black has tried, without much success, the stand­ard and logical line: 9 . . . a5 10.c3 a4 11 .lt:lbd4 ixc5 12 .1d3 �b6 13. 0-0 1d7 14.1e3 lt:lxd4 15.cxd4 1e7 16.1g5 ixg5 17.�xg5± Kob­alia - Ivanov, Togliatti 2003.) 10.�f4 (10 .�h3? ! aS 11.a4 b6! We already know this motif and once again it works perfectly for Black. 12 .cxb6 lt:lb4 13 .1d3 lt:lxd3+ 14. cxd3 �xb6 and White is worse; 12 .c3 bxc5 13.1b5 �b6 with an ex­cellent game for Black.) 10 .. .f6. White is forced to defend in a rather bizarre fashion against with the threat of g5. ll .h3 (Or 11 .h4? ! <;f;>f7 and the white pawn on h4 will soon drop.) ll . . . g5 12 . �h2 . You rarely see White's queen ending up on this particular square ! 12 . . . <;f;>g7 (It would be pre­mature for Black to play 12 . . . lt:lxe5? ! 13.lt:lxe5 fxe5 14.�xe5 1f6 15.1xg5 1xe5 16.ixd8 ixb2 17. l"lb1 1c3+ 18.<;f;>d1 and White is better in this endgame.) 13 .1d3 b6gg. The situation resembles an ancient battle. Black has sacri­ficed a small regiment of soldiers, but has also deflected his enemy's main forces away from the centre of the battlefield. How all this will end is not so easy to predict and it requires thorough practical test­ing.

9.�f4 The following possibility does

not need any further comment: 9.�g4? �c7.

9 ••• g5 Black must bite the bullet . . .

146

1 0 .�a4 It is simply very bad for White

to play 10 .�g4?! lt:lh6 11 .�h5 f5 ! It is hardly any better to con­

tinue with 10 .�e3 lt:lh6 11.h3 lt:lf5 12.�c3 f6 13.1b5 lt:lxe5 14.lt:lxe5 fxe5 15.�xe5 1f6 16.�h2 and the placement of White's queen is in sharp contrast to that of its black counterpart.

1 0 . . . .id7 Black can also try 10 . . . �c7, but

after ll .lt:lb3 1d7 12 .1b5 lt:lxe5 13.lt:lxe5 �xeS+ 14.1e3 ixb5 15. �xb5 White is better.

ll . .ib5 a6 This might not be very good

for Black, but it is at least his most consistent continuation.

It would not do for him to try to be too tricky - ll . . . lt:lh6 12 .lt:lb3 a6 13.ixc6 ixc6 14.�b4, and White's blockade is working per­fectly.

12 .hc6 hc6 13.'1Wd4 lLlh6 Black's wish to open the long

diagonal is understandable, but it will be too difficult to accomplish this.

If 13 . . . h3 14.g4 ! and the knight on g8 is going nowhere.

14.h3! This is a very important im­

provement for White. Unfortu­nately it is becoming clear that in this variation Black needs to look for an improvement at some ear­lier point.

It is much weaker for White to play 14.lt:Jb3? ! lt:Jf5 15.'&d3 d4 (or 15 . . . i.b5 ! ? 16.'&c3 E1c8) 16.l"1g1 '&c7 17.lt:Jfxd4 '&xe5+ 18 .i.e3 '&xh2 19. 0-0-0 lt:Jxd4 20.'&xd4 E1h6 21. '&g4 '&e5 22 .lt:Jd4 i.f6 23.c3 '&e4 and Black had an excellent posi­tion in the game Adams - Mo­rozevich, Sarajevo 1999.

14 • • .tlJf5 Here Black has an interesting

idea at his disposal, but it back­fires after 14 . . . b6 15.cxb6 lt:Jf5 16.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:Jd2 i.e7 4.e5 c5

'&g4 lt:Jh6 17.'&h5 ! wg7 18.lt:Jb3± 15.'&g4 hc5 15 . . . lt:Jh6! This is a very good

move for Black. It does not solve all his problems though . . . 16.'&h5 (16.'&b4 a5 17.'&c3 d4 18 .'&d3 E1g8�; 16.'&d4 lt:Jf5 17.'&g4 lt:Jh6 18.'&h5 and the players agreed to a draw, Fargere - Wirig, Caen 2011) 16 . . . f6 17.lt:Jd4 i.d7 18.'&e2 (18.exf6?! i.xf6 19.lt:J4b3 g4 and White has to worry about his queen) 18 . . . hc5 19.lt:J2b3 i.a7 with a very complicated position in which Black must be on the alert for the safety of his endan­gered king. For example, he might be in a serious trouble after 2 0 .f4 !

16.lt:Jb3 i.e7 17. 0 - 0 �g8 18.lbbd4±

It is time we came to a conclusion about the results of the opening battle. White played an important improvement on move 14 and gained a slight but stable advantage. It is rather unpleasant for Black. However, he could and should have avoided playing into this line by deviating earlier. In that case, there would have arisen some very sharp and lively complications.

147

Chapter 21 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijd2 .ie7 4.�gf3

This is an interesting line, one which is often used by very ag­gressive players, since White will almost always have to sacrifice material in order to fight for the advantage.

4 . . .tt:lf6 5.e5 White does not achieve much

with the safer line 5.�d3 c5 6.exd5 (There will be only a few pieces left on the board after 6.dxc5 dxe4 7.tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 8 .he4 �xd1+ 9 . Wxd1 hc5 10. We2 tt:ld7 1U''ld1 -11 .�e3? ! he3 12 .Wxe3 tt:lc5 and only Black can think about an ad­vantage - 1l . . .We7 12 .c4 tt:lf6 13. �c2 b6 14.b3 �b7 15.�b2 l"lhd8 16.tt:le5 h5 17.f3 and in the game Akopian - Korchnoi, Calcutta 2000, the players agreed to a draw.) 6 . . . �xd5 7.dxc5 tt:lbd7! Af-

148

ter this good move it becomes clear that Black has solved all his opening problems.

Here White has tried : 8 .tt:lb3 tt:lxc5 9 .tt:lxc5 �xeS 10.

0-0 0-0 11.�e3 �h5 12 .l"le1 b6 13.tt:ld4 �xd1 14.l"laxdl �b7 15.c3 and the position is equal, Howell - Shulman, Philadelphia 2007.

8 .0-0 tt:lxc5 9 .�c4 �d6 (It would be more ambitious but also riskier for Black to play 9 . . . �h5 ! ? 10.l"le1 tt:lcd7 11 .b3 0 - 0 12.�b2 b5 13.�e2 �c5 - 13 . . . �b7! ? - 14.c4 b4 15.�d3 �b7 16.tt:le4 �c7 17.�c2 h6 18.l"lad1 l"lad8 19.tt:lxf6+ hf6 2 0.hf6 tt:lxf6 21 .tt:le5 �c5 22 .�e2 l"ld6 23.�c2 l"lfd8 24.l"lxd6 l"lxd6 25.tt:ld3 �g5 26.f3 tt:ld7 27.�e3= Svidler - Shabalov, Odessa 2008.) 10.�e2 0-0 11 .tt:lb3 tt:la4 12 .l"ld1 �c7 13.�b5 tt:lb6 14.tt:le5 a6 15.�d3

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lLld2 �e7 4. lLlgj3 lLlf6

tt:lbdS 16.�d2 �d6 17J''lel tt:Jb4 18. �xb4 hb4 19 .c3 �d6= Gufeld ­Lputian, Las Vegas 2001 .

White's attempt to hold on to the extra pawn fails after 8 .b4 aS 9 .�c4 �hS 10.c3 tt:Jds 11 .hdS. Naturally, he is reluctant to give up this bishop, but he has to. (Black can counter ll .�b3 with the strong move ll . . .tt:lxc3 ! ; nor would White achieve anything with 11.tt:le4 axb4 12.cxb4 tt:Jxb4 13.tt:ld6+ hd6 14.cxd6 �cs lS. �b3 �bS ! and Black has the initi­ative.) 11 . . . �xdS

12 .�b2 axb4 13.cxb4 Elxa2 14. Elxa2 �xa2 lS.�al �xal+ 16.hal tt:lf6 17.o-o tt:Jds 18 .hg7 Elg8 19. �d4 tt:lxb4 and Black is better, Tu­rov - Shulman, St.Petersburg 1998.

12 .�b3 axb4 (It is also possi­ble to maintain the tension with 12 . . . �f6 13.Elbl lLleS 14.0-0 tt:ld3 1S.a3 - 1S.�a3 ! ? - lS . . . 0-0 16.Eldl tt:lf4 17.�b2 �fS 18.c4 eS 19 .�e3 �g6 2 0.g3 �fS and Black out­played his opponent in the ensu­ing struggle, Kholmov - Mo­rozevich, Russia 1998.) 13.cxb4 (Not 13.�xdS? ! exdS 14.cxb4 �f6 lS.Elbl Elxa2 16.0-0 0-0 and only White will have problems in this

position.) 13 . . . �xb3 14.tt:lxb3 �f6 1S.tt:lfd4 Ela4 16.a3 tt:JxcS ! 17.tt:JxcS (After 17.bxcS hd4 18.tt:lxd4 Elxd4 Black is even slightly bet­ter.) 17 . . . �xd4 18.tt:lxa4 hal 19. tt:lb6 �d7 20 .tt:lxd7 @xd7, with comfortable equality for Black.

12 .a4. This is an interesting idea. White creates a protected passed pawn and fixes two poten­tial weaknesses in his opponent's camp on cS and aS. However, Black's position is by no means inferior, since his powerful light­squared bishop provides compen­sation. 12 . . . b6 13.0-0 bxcS 14.bS (14.c4 �fS lS.bS eS - 1S . . . �b7! ? -16.�e2 �b7 17.�b2 f6 18.tt:lh4 �e6 19 .f4 fS 20 .tt:lhf3 e4 21 .tt:lb3 0-0 22 .tt:leS tt:JxeS 23 .heS gS 24J''lacl gxf4 2S.hf4 Elf7 26.�e3± Solak ­Markidis, Kavala 2011) 14 . . . �b7 1S.c4 �fS 16.�b2 0-0 17.�bl �xbl 18.Elfxbl Elfd8 19.@fl tt:lb6 20 .@e2 f6 21 .�c3 eS 2 2 .Eldl �c8 23.tt:lb3 tt:Jxc4 24.Elxd8+ hd8 2S. tt:JxcS �b6 26.tt:lb3 �e6 and Black's position is perfectly acceptable, Naiditsch - Edouard, Mulhouse 2011 .

5 •• .li:lfd7

149

Chapter 21

6 . .id3 White sometimes plays 6.c4,

against which I recommend 6 . . . 0-0. (It is also possible for Black to opt for 6 . . . dxc4 7.lLlxc4 lLlb6 8.a3 lLlxc4 9 . .ixc4 lLld7 10. 0-0 lLlb6 ll . .id3 .id7 12 . .ie4 lLld5 13 . .ixd5 exd5 14.�b3 .ic6 15 . .id2 a5 16J:Uc1 0-0 17.l"lc3 l"le8 18.l"lac1 l"la6 19 .�c2 .id7 20 .�b3 .ic6 21 . �c2 .id7 and the opponents re­peated moves in the game An­toniewski - Bosiocic, Austria 2008.)

This is a position known to theory, but with a white pawn on a3. It arises in the Bogo-Indian defence. White's main idea there to advance with b2-b4. Here he does not have this resource, so I think Black's position is perfectly acceptable; for example: 7.cxd5 exd5 8 . .id3 c5 9 .0-0 lLlc6 10.l"le1 �b6 ll.a3 c4 12 .lLlxc4 dxc4 13. .ixc4 l"ld8 14.e6 fxe6 15.l"lxe6 Wh8 16.lLlg5 .ixg5 17 . .ixg5 l"lf8 18 . .ie7 l"lf5 19.g4 lLlf6 20 . .ic5 l"lxc5 21 . dxc5 �xeS and White is lost, Zhou Weiqi - Sadorra, Kuala Lumpur 2007.

6 . . . c5

150

7.c3 Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu has

played several times the appar­ently unambitious move 7.0-0 !? This fact should make us pay seri­ous attention to this plan. 7 . . . lLlc6 8.l"le1

The ultra-aggressive approach with 8 . . . g5 can be countered with 9.h3 h5 10.c4 ! It is not good for Black either to play 8 . . . c4 9 . .ie2 g5 10.h3 h5 ll.lLlf1 and White has the advantage .

8 . . . cxd4 9 .lLlb3 �b6 10.a4. White has lost a pawn and al­though that is not very important at this stage, it does mean that he must play very actively. (He would not achieve much with 10 . .if4 lLlc5 ll.lLlfxd4 lLlxd4 12 .lLlxd4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 'Lld2 i.e7 4. 'Llgj3 'Llf6

i.d7=) 10 . . . a6 (It is less good for Black to play 10 . . . a5 ll .i.b5 0-0 12.i.f4 and White has promising compensation.) 11 .a5 WJ.c7 12. 'Llbxd4

12 . . . 'Llxd4 (It would be too risky for Black to be tempted by the rook's pawn - 12 . . . 'Llxa5 13. i.g5 ! ? and White has good attack­ing prospects.) 13.'Llxd4 'Llxe5 14. i.f4 i.d6 15.Wl.h5 (It is considera­bly weaker to play 15.WJ.e2? 'Llxd3 16.hd6 WJ.xd6 17.'Llf5 WJ.f4 18. 'Llxg7+ Wf8 19.'Llh5 WJ.xf2 + ! and White has no compensation for the pawn in this endgame. It is bad for Black to continue with 15 . . . 'Llg6? 16.hd6 WJ.xd6 17.'Llf5 Wif8 18.WJ.g4? ! - 18.WJ.e3 ! ± - 18 . . .f6 19.Wl.g3 e5 and the players agreed to a draw in this position, Ni­sipeanu - Itkis, Sovata 2000.) 15 . . . 'Llf3+ . Here, in the game Czar­nota - Socko, Poznan 2005, a draw was also agreed. We can al­ready see that the variation is suitable for players who do no like to ponder over the board for long ! Leaving the humour aside, we should like to continue this varia­tion a bit further. 16.'Llxf3 (White has also tried the rather original

line : 16.gxf3 ! ? hf4 17.'Llxe6 i.xh2+ ! Black gobbles up another pawn before retreating his bish­op. 18.Wg2 he6 19.1''1 xe6+ Wf8 20 .l"lb6 i.e5 ! ; 20 .l"le2 i.d6 with an approximately equal position.) 16 . . . M4 17.g3 (There is merely a transposition of moves after 17. WJ.xd5 0-0.) 17 . . . g6. This trick is not forced, but it is attractive. 18.WJ.xd5 0-0 19.WJ.d4 i.h6= and Black's bishop-pair compensates for White's piece activity.

7 . . • 'Llc6 Here 7 . . . b6 !? leads to a posi­

tional manoeuvring game .

White can try to create prob­lems for his opponent by hinder­ing the exchange of the light­squared bishops, but he cannot

151

Chapter 21

prevent in the long run anyway. B .'�e2 aS 9.a4 ! ? (9.0-0 �a6 10.c4 lLlc6 ll.cxd5 hd3 12.1Wxd3 exd5 13.l"\e1 0-0 14.'\WfS cxd4 15.lLlb3 lLlcS 16.lL:lbxd4 1WcB 17.l2Jxc6 1Wxc6 1B.l2Jd4 1Wd7 19.1Wxd7 l2Jxd7 20.e6 l2Jc5 21 .exf7+ <±>xf7 22 .�e3 �f6= and Black has an excellent posi­tion, Jones - Grigorian, Yerevan 2007. White did not obtain any advantage after 13.dxc5 lL:lxcS 14.1Wb5 1Wd7 15.a4 0-0 16.!"1d1 1Wc7 17.lL:lf1 lL:lxe5 1B.lLlxe5 1Wxe5 19.�e3 l'!fdB 2 0 .�d4 1We6 and his com­pensation for the pawn was insuf­ficient in the game Adams - Yem-elin, Ohrid 2009.) 9 . . . �a6 10 .�b5 '\WeB 11.c4 �b7 (11 . . . 0-0!?) 12 . dxc5 0-0?! Black is excessively generous. (He should calmly play 12 . . . bxc5 13.cxd5 hdS.) 13.cxb6 l2Jxb6 14.b3 and White ended up with a solid extra pawn, Fedor­chuk - Burlai, Evpatoria 2 007.

It is interesting for White to play in tactical fashion with B. l2Je4 ! ? h6? ! This move is both a loss of a tempo and weakening of the position. (Black might also have problems after B . . . h6 9.ha6 l2Jxa6 10.lLld6+ hd6 11.exd6 and suddenly his d6-pawn will soon be a great source of anxiety. The line B . . . '\Wc7 !? 9 .lLlg3 �a6 can be recommended, but it requires practical testing.) 9 .lLlg3 �a6 10. lLlhS hd3 11.1Wxd3 <i>fB 12 .0-0 lLlc6 13.�e3 g6 14.l2Jf4 <±>g7 15.c4 cxd4 16.cxd5 lL:lcS 17.1We2 l2Jb4 1B. lL:lxd4 lL:lxd5 19.!"1fd1 lLlxf4 2 0.hf4 '\WeB 21 .lLlb5 l'!dB 22 .lLld6± Gopal - Drasko, Banja Luka 200B.

152

B .0-0 �a6 9 .ha6 l2Jxa6 10. l'!e1 b5 11.a4 (White did not achieve much after 11 .1We2 c4 12 . a3 l2Jc7 13.lLlf1 lLlb6 14.g3 h6 15. h4 <i>d7 16.lLl3h2 '\WgB ! This is a typical Botvinnik manoeuvre ! 17.lLld2 1Wh7 and Black is better, Andriasian - Nepomniachtchi, Kirishi 2007.) 1l . . .b4 12.c4 l2Jc7 13.b3 0-0 14.�b2 dxc4 15.l2Jxc4 lL:ldS 16.l"\c1 l"\cB 17.1We2 1Wc7 1B. l'!ed1 l'!fdB 19.1We4 '\WbB= Andria­sian - Socko, Polanica Zdroj 2 007.

8. 0 - 0

This is close to becoming a tabia of this variation. Black has several interesting possibilities. All of them are based on an attack against White's key d4-pawn. Black must always keep in mind that if White manages to preserve his centre over the next few moves, he will maintain an ad­vantage throughout the entire game. The reason for this will be Black's misplaced knight on d7 and the excellent route f1-g3-h5 for its white counterpart on d2. Meanwhile, the unfortunate

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lLld2 ie7 4. lLlgj3 lLlf6

"French" bishop on c8 will remain a sorry sight. Therefore, all means are justified at the moment for Black to complete what he has started.

We shall analyze now: a) 8 . . .

a5, b) 8 . . . h5 and c) 8 . . . g5.

a) 8 . . . a5 This is an interesting move, al­

though a bit mysterious. It will be useful for Black in about 50% of games, but in the rest it might be useless and even harmful. Some­times the pawn-advance a5-a4 can be very good for Black and strangely enough the factor of "having made a move" can turn out to be quite useful. The idea of g7-g5 is still on Black's agenda, but he wants to play it at the best possible moment.

9.E1el It is weaker for White to play

9.b3? ! , because then Black's pre­vious move is perfectly justified: 9 . . . a4 ! 10.bxa4 c4 11 .ic2 IMfaS 12 . tt:Jb1 h6! 13.ia3 tt:Jb6 14.h4 id7 15.h5 tt:Jxa4 16.he7 tt:Jxe7 17.ha4

1Mfxa4 18.1Mfe2 tt:Jc6 19.tt:Jbd2 1Mfa3 2 0.1Mfe3 bS and Black has the ini­tiative, Sulskis - Lputian, Las Ve­gas 2 001.

I find it hard to evaluate the consequences of the move 9 .a4 ! ? Maybe Black can rely o n the strength of the b4-square and try to continue in positional fashion with 9 . . . cxd4 (If 9 . . . g5? ! lO .dxcS and in all variations White's bish­op on bS will be very comfortable since it is securely protected.) 10.cxd4 tt:Jb4, but still I would pre­fer White's position. 11 .ib5 (11. ib1 b6 12 .E1e1 ia6 13.tt:Jfl E1c8 14. tt:Jg3 E1c6 15.1Mfd2 1Mfc7 16.1Mff4 tt:Jd3 17.hd3 hd3 and Black is slight­ly better, Kosteniuk - Matveeva, Elista 1997.) 11 . . . 0-0 12 .lLlb3 lLlb8 13 .id2 lLl8c6 14.1Mfe2 lLla7 15.ixb4 hb4 16.id3 ie7 and the players agreed to a draw on Black's offer, Dervishi - Jacimovic, Elista 1998.

9 . . . cxd4 1 0 .cxd4

1 0 . . . g5 It looks logical but slightly

risky for Black to play 10 . . . 1Mfb6 11.lLlb1 ! tt:Jxd4 12 .lLlxd4 1Mfxd4 13.

153

Chapter 21

'Llc3. The gaping weakness on the b5-square spells a lot of trou­ble.

13 . . . 'W'b6 (It would be too pro­vocative for Black to play 13 . . . i.c5? ! 14.'Llb5 'W'xf2 + 15.�h1 0-0 16.i.g5 i.b4 17Jl:fl 'W'xb2 18.a3 i.c5 19.i.f4 'Llxe5 20.i.xh7+ �xh7 21 . 'W'h5+ �g8 22 .i.xe5 'W'xb5 23 . i.xg7 !+- Sutovsky - Vavrak, Plovdiv 2008.) 14.'W'g4 0-0 (Black will not have a quiet life after 14 . . . g6 15.i.h6 'Llc5 16.i.b5+ i.d7 17.a4 i.c6 18Jl:ac1 0-0-0 19 .i.e3 'W'c7 2 0 .'Lle2 i.xb5 2l .axb5 b6 22 .'Lld4 'W'xe5 23.'Llc6 'W'c7 24.b4 axb4 25. �a1 b3 26.�a7 'Llb7 27.'Llxe7+ 'W'xe7 28 .�c1+ �b8 29.'W'a4 'Llc5 30 .�a8+ �c7 3l .'W'a7+ �d6 32 . i.f4+ 1-0 Caruana - Vavrak, Ro­gaska Slatina 2009.) 15 .i.h6 g6. Black's positional exchange-sacri­fice is, firstly, good enough to dampen White's attacking fervour and, secondly, it gives Black the bishop-pair and control over the dark squares. 16.hf8 (Black had an excellent position after 16.'Llb5 'Llc5 17.'W'd4 i.d7. Notice that Black makes it obvious that he has no intention of moving his rook to safety! 18.hf8 �xf8 19.a4

154

f6 20 .exf6 hf6 2 l .'W'e3 i.xb2 22 . �a2 i.f6 23.�c1 d4 24.'W'g3 'Llxd3 25.'W'xd3 i.c6 and the position was very sharp in the game Rublevsky - Lputian, New Delhi 2000.) 16 . . . hf8 17.i.b5 ! This i s a very good decision. (White's play was much weaker in the following game : 17.'Lla4 'W'a7 18.i.b5 b6 19.hd7 i.xd7 2 0 .'W'd4 i.b4 2l .�ecl ha4 22 .a3 i.c5 23.'W'xa4 hf2 + ! and Black had a clear advantage, Mkrtchian - Matveeva, Istanbul 2003.) 17 . . . 'Llc5 18.a4 (White has fortified his bishop on b5 and gained an edge.) 18 . . . i.e7 19.�ad1 'W'c7 20 .h4 h5 2l .'W'f4 i.d7 22 .�e3 i.c6 23 .i.e2 'Lld7 24.'Llb5 'W'd8 25.hh5 i.xb5 26.axb5 hh4 27. �h3 i.g5 28.'W'h2 'Llf8 29.f4 i.e7 30.i.f3 with powerful pressure for White, Nedev - Bauer, Bled 2002 .

ll.h3 It would be weaker to play 11.

g4? ! h5 12 .h3 'W'b6 13.'W'a4 (The sacrifice of the central pawn is ob­viously not in the spirit of the po­sition - 13.'Llfl? ! hxg4 14.hxg4 'Llxd4 15.'Llg3 'Llxf3+ 16.'W'xf3 'W'd4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l/Jd2 ie7 4 .l/Jgf3 l/Jf6

17.ib5 and here after 17 . . . !lh4 ! ? Black could have won a second pawn. However, he also main­tained his advantage in the game after 17 .. .'&b4 18.�e2 !lh4 19.f3 Wf8 2 0 .Wg2 l/Jc5 2 1 .ie3 id7 22 .ixd7 l/Jxd7, Shirov - Kasim­dzhanov, Moscow 2007.) 13 . . . hxg4 14.hxg4 l/Jdb8. A paradoxi­cal move. (The natural move 14 . . . l/Jf8 i s less good for Black, because after 15.l/Jf1 id7 16.ie3 l/Jb4 17. �d1 l/Jxd3 18.�xd3, his knight on f8 has no good prospects .) 15.l/Jfl id7 16.ie3 l/Jb4 17.�d1 l/Jxd3 18. �xd3 ib5 19 .�c3 l/Jc6 20.a3 0-0-0 and in the ensuing sharp struggle the chances of both sides are approximately equal.

ll . • . h5 12.lL!fl g4 13.hxg4 hxg4 14.lL!3h2 ib4

Black would not change the character of the fight with 14 . . . l/Jxd4 15.�xg4 (15.l/Jxg4 ! ?) 15 . . . ic5, White is better, since his king is much safer.

15.ge3 �h4

16.gg3! It is only this original rook

manoeuvre that enables White

to maintain an advantage in all lines .

The endgame is good for Black after 16.�xg4?! �xg4 17.l/Jxg4 l/Jxd4 18.l/Jfh2 b6 19.l/Jf3 ic5 20 . id2 !lg8 21 .l/Jfh2, with a compli­cated position, Hracek - Kekki, Saint Vincent 2005.

16 . . . f5 17.exf6 c!Llxf6 White must act very resolutely

after 17 . . . id6 18 .�xg4 ! hg3 19. �g6+ Wd8 20 .�xg3 and as well as having enough material for the exchange, he has a powerful initi­ative.

18 . .if4! Degraeve - Ganaus, Vienna 2011 .

Of course, the game is not over yet, but White's pieces are placed much more harmoniously. Black has so many weaknesses in his position that I shall refrain from further comment. . .

b) 8 . . • h5!? This i s Morozevich's latest in­

vention in this line. With this move Black prepares the unavoid­able pawn-advance g5, but he

155

Chapter 21

does not weaken his kingside as much. Of course, you can confuse your opponent by playing like this, but that's all . . .

9.:1:le1 Black's idea is perfectly justi­

fied after 9 .dxc5? ! lLldxe5 10.t2Jxe5 lLlxe5 11.lLlb3 lLlxd3 12.�xd3 h4 13. :i:le1 h3 14.g3 a5 15.�f4 0-0 16. lLld4 hc5 17.l"le5 f6 18.:1:lxe6 he6 19.lLlxe6 �b6 20 .lLlxf8 hf2+ 21 . <i>f1 <i>xf8 and Black was fighting for the advantage in the game Hracek - Morozevich, Rethym­non 2003.

After 9.b3 g5 10.�b2 cxd4 11. cxd4 �b6 White has great prob­lems with the protection of his d4-pawn.

9 .�e2 ! ? g5 (It is a matter of tempi, but his idea would not work after 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 g5 11. lLlb3 a5 12 .�e3 a4 13.lLlbd2 g4 14. lLle1 - White has parried his op­ponent's initial pressure and is now ready to launch a counterat­tack. Black can win a pawn, but this would be insufficient com­pensation after 14 . . . �b6 15.lLlc2 �xb2.) 10.dxc5 lLlxc5 (It would be

156

too ambitious for Black to opt for 10 . . . g4 11.lLld4 lLldxe5 12 .lLlxc6 lLlxc6 13.lLlb3 e5 and his lag in de­velopment would be a telling fac­tor in the future.) 11 .�b5 (ll.�c2 lLld7!) 11 . . .a6 12 .hc6+ bxc6 13.b4 lLld7 14.lLld4 �c7 15.:1:lel. Black's position would be quite accepta­ble if we could ignore his king­side pawns, since the purpose of their advance now remains a mys­tery.

9 . . . g5 It is weaker for Black to play

9 . . . cxd4?! 10.cxd4 g5 11.lLlb3 g4 12 .lLlfd2 a5 (or 12 . . . �b6 13.lLlb1 a5 14.a4 lLld4 15.lLld4 �d4 16.lLlc3 with excellent compensation for White) 13.a4 lLlb6 (it comes to more or less the same after 13 . . . �b6 14.lLlb1 ! ) 14.lLlb1 lLlc4 15.lLlc3 �b6 16.hc4 dxc4 17.lLld2 lLlb4 18.lLlxc4 �c6 19.b3± Smirin -Cheparinov, Mallorca 2 004.

10 .dxc5 g4 11.c!L!d4 c!Lldxe5

White has an additional resource in this position. 12. c!Ll2b3! (He could have trans­posed to the main line here with 12 .�b5. )

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. li.Jd2 �e7 4. li.Jgj3 li.Jf6

c) 8 . . . g5

This is the most aggressive move for Black and it creates the most problems for the opponent.

9.dxc5 Black's position is quite ac­

ceptable after 9.a3 g4 (But not 9 . . . h5? ! 10 .b4 g4 11.b5 ! and White's idea is perfectly justified: 11 . . . li.Jxd4 12 .cxd4 gxf3 13.li.Jxf3 c4 14.�c2 a6 15J'1bl axb5 16Jl:xb5 �a3 17.li.Jg5 �cl 18.�xcl li.Jb8 19.li.Jh7 <;ild7 20 .li.Jf6+ <;ilc7 2l .�e4 ! with an overwhelming attack, Ni­sipeanu - Volkov, Saint Vincent 2003.) lO .li.Jel cxd4 11.cxd4 �b6! 12 .li.Jc2 (Black has no problems after 12 .�xg4 �xd4 13 .�xd4 li.Jxd4 14.li.Jef3 li.Jc5! It looks as though White was not familiar with my previous book and en­tered an inferior endgame straight from the opening: 15.li.Jxd4 li.Jxd3 16.li.J2f3 b6 17.li.Jb5 <;ild7 18.l"ldl �a6 19.l"lxd3 �b5 20.l"lc3 l"lac8 and Black failed to save this posi­tion, Jones - Korobov, Aix-les­Bains 2 011.) 12 . . . li.Jxd4 13.�xg4 li.Jxc2 14.�c2 �c7 15.�a4 �xe5 16.li.Jf3 h5! Black should be reluc-

tant to give back the extra mate­rial, but he must neutralize White's initiative at the very start. 17.li.Jxe5 hxg4 18.li.Jxg4 a6 - with chances for both sides.

It would be interesting for White to try 9 .b4 !? cxd4 10.cxd4 li.Jxb4 ll.�e2, with the idea, hav­ing preserved the pawn-centre, of trying to exploit the weakness on g5. The position is very compli­cated and requires extensive practical testing at the highest possible level.

9 . . . g4 Was that the reason Black

made his previous anti-positional move?

The alternatives are less con­sistent and weaker for the most part.

It is absolutely not in the spirit of the position to continue with 9 . . . li.Jxc5?! 10 .�b5 �b6 11 .li.Jd4 a6 12 .�c6+ bxc6 13 .b4 li.Jd7 14.�h5 li.Jxe5 15.li.J2f3 li.Jg6 16.�g5± Ariz­mendi Martinez - Herraiz Hidal­go, Sant Lluis 2005.

9 . . . li.Jdxe5? ! 10.li.Jxe5 (The large number of pieces left on the

157

Chapter 21

board is definitely not in White's favour in this case. lO .�bS? ! �d7 11 .\We2 \Wc7 12 J"!e1 lt:Jg6 13.lt:Jb3 g4 14.lt:Jfd4 eS 1S.lt:Jc2 a6 16 .�a4 hS 17.Eld1 0-0-0 18.ElxdS lt:Jd4 19. hd7+ Elxd7 20.cxd4 ElxdS 2 1 .lt:Jb4 Eldd8 22 .dS aS 23.d6 hd6 24. cxd6 \Wxd6+ Rublevsky - Volkov, Ohrid 2001.) 10 . . . tt:JxeS 11.lt:Jb3 ! ? This tempo for the development of the initiative is much more im­portant than the light-squared bishop. (Or 1l .�bS+ �d7 12 . hd7+ \Wxd7 13.lt:Jf3 lt:Jxf3+ 14. \Wxf3 eS 1S.�e3 \We6 16.c4 d4 17.hd4 exd4 18.\Wxb7 \Wc8 19. \We4 Elb8 20 .Elfe1 \WxcS 2l .b4 \Wc7 22 .a3 Eld8 23.Elad1 �f8 24.Elxd4 �g7 2S.Elxd8 Elxd8+ Meier -Socko, Bastia 200S. It would be worse for Black to play the slightly awkward line : 12 . . . tt:Jxd7 13 .b4 b6 14.c4 dxc4 1S.lt:Jxc4 bxcS 16.lt:Jd6+ hd6 17.\Wxd6 \Wb6 18 .\Wg3 cxb4 19.\WxgS \WcS 20.\Wg3 and his posi­tion is difficult, Rublevsky - Mo­rozevich, Togliatti 2003.)

ll . . . tt:Jxd3 (Preparatory moves such as ll . . . �d7 would not change much. White's plan is simple and effective. 12 .f4 lt:Jxd3 13.\Wxd3 h6 14.�e3 \Wc7 1S.�d4 Elf8 16.fxgS

1S8

hxgS 17.Elae1 0-0-0 18 .\Wh7 �e8 19.Elf2 aS 20 .�eS \Wd7 2l .�g7 a4 22 .hf8 hf8 23 .\Wg8± Hracek -Stellwagen, Germany 200S. 11 . . . \Wc7? ! 12 .f4 ! ? hcS+ 13.lt:JxcS \WxcS+ 14.Elf2 lt:Jxd3 1S.\Wxd3 g4 16.b3 �d7 17.�e3 \WbS 18 .\Wd4 Elg8 19.fS exfS 20 .\WeS+ �e6 2l .ElxfS 0-0-0 22 .Elf2 a6 23.�f4 \Wc6 24.Eld1 bS 2S.c4 �b7 26.cxbS \WxbS 27.a4± lordachescu - Vol­kov, Moscow 2007.) 12 .\Wxd3 eS 13.\We2 \Wc7 14.Ele1 e4 1S.c4 �e6 and although Black has managed to defend somehow, the evalua­tion of the position is quite clear. White's initiative is tremendously strong. 16.lt:Jd4 hcS 17.cxdS hdS 18 .\WbS+ �f8 19.�e3 a6 20 .\Wa4 bS 2 1 .\Wd1 \Wd7 22 .hgS Elg8 23. �h6+ �e8 24.�e3 Eld8 2S.\WhS hd4 26.�xd4 \Wg4= Pavasovic -Bartel, Portoroz 200S.

lO • .!LJd4 .!LJdxe5 It is weaker for Black to opt for

lO . . . tt:JcxeS? ! 1l .�bS a6 12 .hd7+ �xd7 13.f4 and White proceeds with his standard attack.

ll . .ib5 Black's strategy is justified af-

ter 11 .'Ll2b3? ! tt:lxd3 12.�xd3 eS 13.tt:lxc6 bxc6 14.�h6 f6. White's set-up looks positionally dubious, so he is forced to rely on tactics . So far this has not been working. 1S.f4 gxf3 16.�xf3 :!'1g8 17.�hS+ :!'1g6 18.�e3 (18.�f4 �d7 19 .�g3 �a6 20 .:!'1f2 0-0-0 21.�xh7 E1dg8 22 .'tt>h1 �d3 23.�hS :!'18g7 24.�d1 �e4+ Korbut - Matveeva, Samara 200S.) 18 . . . �d7 19.h3 �d8 20 . :!'1ae1 �f7 21 .'tt>h1 �e6 22 .�f4 :!'1g7 23.�e2 �g6 24.tt:ld4 �d7 2S .�h2 �e7 26.tt:lb3 aS 27.�g1 �fS 28 .�d2 �e4 29.:!'1f2 a4 30 .tt:lcl hcS-+ Gasanov - Izoria, Baku 2002 .

ll . . . �d7 Black should not be too greedy:

ll . . . �xcS? ! 12 .f4 gxf3 13.tt:l2xf3 �d7 14.�xc6 tt:lxc6 1S.tt:lgS :!'1f8 16. tt:lxh7 �h4 17.tt:lf6+ lt>e7 18 .�e3 tt:lxd4 19.�xd4 :!'1ac8 20 .�d2 :!'1h8 21 .h3± Carlsson - Berg, Gothen­burg 200S.

12)L!2b3 This is White's most sensible

move. He develops his knight, protects his pawn and opens the diagonal for his dark-squared bishop. Nevertheless, some other

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 'Lld2 �e7 4.e5 c5

moves have been tried here. 12 .f4? ! This enables Black to sim­plify the position favourably. 12 . . . tt:lxd4 13.hd7+ �xd7 14.cxd4 tt:lc6 1S.�xg4 �f6 16.tt:lf3 tt:lxd4 17.tt:leS �c7 18.�d2 hS 19 .�d1 heS 20 . fxeS tt:lfS 21 .:!'1c1 �c6 22 .b4 d4 23 . �f3 a6 24.a4 :!'1g8, with an excel­lent position for Black, Smirin -Radjabov, Sarajevo 2002 .

I t would be illogical for White to strengthen his opponent's cen­tre. However, it might be an inter­esting idea to try 12 .�xc6 bxc6 13.f4 tt:ld3 (13 . . . gxf3 14.tt:l 2xf3 tt:lg6 1S.�e2 �c7 16.tt:lgS �eS 17.�f2 0-0 18.tt:lxf7 �g7 19.tt:lh6+ lt>h8 20 .'Llf7= ; 17.�hS �xeS 18.�d2 h6 19.:!'1xf7 hxgS 20 .�xg6 �xh2+ 21 . lt>f2 0-0-0-+ Oratovsky - Vitiu­gov, Jerusalem 2010) 14.b4 aS 1S.tt:l2b3 tt:lxc1 16.�xc1 axb4 17. cxb4 :!'1a4 ! 18.fS 0-0 19.�f4 eS (19 . . . exfS ! ?) 2 0.�xeS �f6 21 .�e1 :!'1e8 22 .�c3 :!'1e4 and Black has good compensation for the pawn, Smirin - Akobian, Philadelphia 2004.

The following line is a bit simi­lar to the Botvinnik variation of the Semi-Slav defence : 12 .b4 aS ! ? ( 1 2 . . . h S 13.:!'1e1 tt:lxd4 14.�xd7+ �xd7 1S.E1xeS tt:lc6 16.:!'1e1 �f6 17. bS tt:leS 18.tt:lb3 �xbS 19.tt:ld4 �xeS 20 .:!'1b1 b6 21 .�f4 tt:lg6 22 . �a4+ lt>e7 23.tt:lfS+ 'it>d8 24.�e3 �c7 2S.hb6± Timofeev - Bartel, playchess.com 2004.) 13.f4 tt:lxd4 14.�xd7+ �xd7 1S.fxeS tt:lfS ! 16. �xg4 tt:le3 17.�g7 0-0-0 and Black's initiative is very powerful.

12 . . . h5

1S9

Chapter 21

It is inferior to play 12 .. J!g8, because then he loses the possi­bility of castling kingside, no mat­ter how ridiculous that might seem at the moment. 13.Ei:e1 'Llc4 14 . .if4 'Llxd4 15.'2lxd4 Ei:c8 16. Ei:xe6! and the issue has been al­ready settled. (16.b3 'Lla3 17 . .id3 Ei:xc5 18 . .ixh7 Ei:g7 19 . .id3 Ei:xc3 20 . .ie5 .if6 2l .Wfd2 .ixe5 22 .Ei:xe5 Wfc7 23.Ei:h5 Ei:g8 24.Ei:h7 e5 25.'2lf5 e4 26.Wfg5+- Smirin - Akobian, Minneapolis 2005.) 16 . . . fxe6 (16 . . . .ixb5? 17.Ei:e1 .ia6 18.'2lf5+-; 17 . . . .id7 18 . .id6+-; 17 . . . '2lxb2 18 . Wlb3 .id3 19 . .id6+-) 17.'2lxe6 .ixb5 18.'2lxd8 Ei:xd8 19.Wfe2± Black's pieces are so discoordi­nated that they are unable to pro­tect his king.

13.l'�el 13 . .if4 'Llg6. The move 13 .Wfe2 has been

played twice, quite successfully, by Sergey Erenburg. I think Black should respond with 13 . . . a6 ! ? (13 . . . '2lxd4? ! 14.Wlxe5 .if6 15. ixd7+ i'f8 16.Wfd6+ .ie7 17.Wfe5 if6 18.Wfd6+ .ie7 19 . .ig5 .ixd6 20 . .ixd8 'Llxb3 2L.if6 'Llxc5 22 .

160

.ixh8 'Llxd7 23 . .id4 and the result of the game will depend on wheth­er White will realize his extra ex­change or not, Erenburg - Peek, Port Erin 2005. 13 . . . Ei:g8? ! 14. .ixc6 'Llxc6 15 . .if4 'Llxd4 16.cxd4 .ic6 17.Ei:fe1 .ig5 18 . .ixg5 Ei:xg5 19. Wfd2 Wff6 20.Ei:e3 h4 2l .Ei:ae1 - 21. 'Lla5 ! ? - 21 . . .i'e7 22 .'2lc1 Ei:ag8 23. 'Lle2 i'f8 24.g3 Ei:f5 25.l2Jf4 Ei:xf4 26.gxf4 Wlxf4 27.Ei:d3 Wff6 28 .Ei:e5 Wfg6 29.Wfe3 g3 30.fxg3 hxg3 31. hxg3± Erenburg - Heberla, War­saw 2 005. The move 13 . . . Wfc7? is just bad and after 14 . .if4 Black cannot play 14 . . . '2lf3+? 15.Wfxf3 ! )

1 4 . .ixc6 (White can also try to preserve this bishop by 14.'2lxc6 'Llxc6 15 . .id3, but I think that af­ter 15 . . . e5, Black has sufficient counter-chances. If 14 . .ia4 Black can play 14 . . . Wfc7 15 . .if4 'Llf3+ 16. Wfxf3 gxf3 17 . .ixc7 'Llxd4 ! , regain­ing the piece.) 14 . . . '2lxc6 15.Ei:e1 Wfc7 and the position is acceptable for Black (It is weaker for him to play 15 . . . '2lxd4?! 16.'2lxd4 .ixc5 17.Wfe5 ! ; 16 . . . Ei:c8 17.b4 and White has managed to get rid of one of his knights, since it was duplicat­ing the functions of the other one) .

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ct:ld2 �e7 4. ct:lgf3 ct:lf6

13 . . )/jxd4 This move forces the issue to

the greatest extent. I can recommend to players

who are after more complicated positions the line : 13 . . . ct:lg6 ! ? 14.c4 (Black should counter the simplifying move 14.ct:lxc6 with 14 . . . hc6 15.�d3 l"ig8 and he ob­tains good counterplay, for exam­ple, 16.�xg6 l"ixg6 17.�f4 �d7 18. �e2 h4 19.l"iad1 \tlf8 2 0 .�e5 �f6 21 .�h5 \tlg7 22 .�e5 �d8 23.ct:ld4 �xeS 24.�xe5+ �f6 25.�c7 �d8 26.�e5+ �f6= Korneev - Stopa, Forni di Sopra 2011 . It is worse for him to continue with 14 . . . bxc6 15.�d3 l"lg8 16.c4t, because his centre is rather unstable and his pieces are obviously very pas­sive.)

and now: Black has tried 14 . . . a6 15.hc6

(15.cxd5? ! axb5 16.dxc6 hc6 17. ct:lxc6 �xd1 18.l"ixd1 bxc6 19 .�d2 h4 20 .ct:la5 l"ic8 21 .ct:lb7 l"ih5 22 . �e3 l"ia8 23.a4 l"ixa4 24.l"ixa4 bxa4 25.l"ia1 h3 26.l"ixa4 l"id5 with a su­perior endgame for Black, Naray­anan - Shimanov, Chennai 2011) 15 .. . bxc6 (It is stronger to contin­ue with 15 . . . hc6 !? 16.ct:lxc6 bxc6 and Black has managed to ex­change his queen's bishop, which is usually very passive in this pawn-structure.) 16.�d2 e5 17. �a5 �b8 18.cxd5 cxd5 19.c6 �c8 2 0.c7 �b7 21 .l"ic1 �d7 22 .ct:lc5 �xc5 23.l"ixc5 0-0 24.�b3 �xb3 25.ct:lxb3 �e6 26.l"ic6 l"lfe8 27. ct:lc5± Timofeev - Arencibia Rod­riguez, Cappelle Ia Grande 2 004.

It looks attractive for Black to play 14 . . . dxc4 15.hc4 ct:lxd4, but unfortunately White has a very powerful riposte : 16.ct:lxd4 (If 16. �xd4 �f6, and the white queen does not have a comfortable square to retreat to: 17.�d3 ct:le5; 17.�d1 �c7 with an excellent po­sition for Black.) 16 . . . hc5 (It would be inconsistent to play 16 . . . 0-0?! 17.�c2 ! ; while the move 16 . . . �c7 is simply very risky in view of 17.b4 0-0-0 18.�b2 .) 17.he6 fxe6 (White gains an ad­vantage in problem-like fashion after 17 . . . he6 18 .�a4+ ! �d7 19.ct:lxe6 fxe6 20.�c2 ! ) 18.�c2 �e7 (Black loses after 18 . . . hd4 19.�xg6+ \tlf8 20.l"ie4 e5 21 . l"lxd4 ! ! exd4 22 .�f4+-) 19.�xg6+ �fl 2 0.�e4 0-0 21 .�e3, and

161

Chapter 21

White has a clear, if small, advan-tage . . .

14 . . . l/Jxd4 1S.ll:lxd4 (Or 1S. '&xd4?! .b:bS 16.cxbS .if6 and Black's position is acceptable.) 1S . . . .b:cS 16.cxdS .ixbS 17.l/JxbS '&b6 ! Black's position looks peril­ous, but in fact it is quite satisfac­tory. 18.'&e2 (Or 18.dxe6? .ixf2+ 19.mh1 '&xbS 20.exf7+ mf8 21 . l'l:f1 .id4 ! and Black neutralizes White's attack. ) 18 . . . 0-0 19 . .ih6 l'l:fe8 with counterplay.

14.lilxd4 Activating the white queen

with 14.'&xd4 is harmless for Black after 14 . . . .b:bS 1S.l'l:xeS (IS. '&xeS .if6 16.'&f4 '&e7) 1S . . . '&d7 (It is essential not to overlook the trick 1S . . . .if6 16 . .igS ! ) 16.l'l:xdS '&xdS 17.'&xh8+ md7 18.'&d4 .ic6 19 . .if4 l'l:d8 and Black will have excellent compensation in the en­suing endgame.

14 . .ixd7+ '&xd7 1S.cxd4 l/Jg6? ! (I believe that this is not the right square for this knight. It seems much more natural for Black to continue with 1S . . . l/Jc6 16 . .if4 .idS, reaching a very complicated

162

position. The computer recom­mends another move - 1S . . . l/Jc4.) 16 . .id2 .if6 17.l'l:c1 0-0 18.f3 eS 19.dxeS .ixeS 2 0.fxg4 hxg4 2l ..ic3 .ixc3 22 .l'l:xc3 l'l:ae8 23.l'l:f1 fS 24. h3t White maintains a powerful initiative, Rublevsky - Vysochin, Olginka 2011 .

14 . . . hb5

15.lilxb5!? This i s a novelty which has not

been tried in practice yet. The move 1S.l'l:xeS has been

played in two games, but it does not create any serious problems for Black. 1S . . . '&c7 (Black can also try 1S . . . .id7 16.b4 .if6 17.l'l:e1 '&c7 and the players agreed to a draw in this complicated position, Emms - Lalic, Southend 2001 . ) 16 . .if4 (Here the computer recommends 16.l'l:e1 '&xeS - 16 . . . .id7! ? - 17 . .ie3 '&c4 18 .b3 '&d3 19.l/JxbS '&xbS and now the really cheeky move -20 . .b:a7!) 16 . . .'�xcS 17 . .ie3 '&c4 18 .b3 '&d3 19. l/JxbS '&xbS 20 . .id4 '&d7 2l .'&d3 h4 22 .f4 gxf3 23. '&xf3 f6 24.l'l:hS 0-0-0, with ad­vantage to Black, Kolar - Boukal, Czech Republic 2004.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt'ld2 i.e7 4 .tt'lgj3 tt'lf6

15 • . . ttlg6 16.c4 If 16.Wa4, Black should reply

16 . . . 0-0! without hesitation 16 . • . i.xc5

17.Wc2! 0 - 0 It would be too risky to play

17 .. J'k8 18.l"lxe6+ fxe6 19.Wxg6+ <j;ld? 20.cxd5 with an enduring initiative for White.

18.i.h6 If 18.l"lxe6, Black has the pow­

erful riposte 18 . . . Wd7! 18 . . .l:�e8 Black is worse after 18 . . . Wb6

19.i.xf8 <j;lxf8 20.tt'lc3 dxc4 21 . tt'la4 Wc6 22 .tt'lxc5 \MixeS 23.l"lad1 and the position is open, so White's rooks are very powerful.

19.cxd5

19 • . .'�b6 Black must play sharply and

precisely in order to obtain a good position.

2 0 .ttlc3 After 20.dxe6, Black can reply

with 20 . . . <j;lh7! 21.exf7 fue1+ 22.fue1 <j;lxh6 23.Wd2+ <j;lg? 24.l"le8 WxbS 25.fua8 Wc6! and he can easily co­ordinate his pieces after taking con­trol of the important dS-square.

2 0 • . . i.d4 21.i.e3 exd5 22. ttlxd5 �xb2 23. �xb2 i.xb2 24. �abl i.e5 25.�xb7 �eb8 and Black has sufficient counter­chances with his far-advanced kingside pawns.

163

Chapter 22 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)i)d2 .ie7 4 . .id3

I consider this to be White's most flexible move. He counters the rather "abstract" move 3 . . . �e7 with a non-forcing developing move - 4.�d3. This is a perfectly reasonable approach, because in the other lines the game becomes very tense and involves White in some risky lines. Of course, it is not easy for White to gain a big opening advantage by playing like this, but he can definitely create problems for a less than well-pre­pared opponent and he has good chances of gaining a small edge.

4 . . . c5 Without this move Black has

no chance of organizing any meaningful counterplay, not only in this variation, but in the entire French defence in general.

164

5.dxc5 This move does not appear to

be very principled, but this im­pression is not correct.

Instead, it would make no sense to play 5.exd5? ! because af­ter 5 . . . 1Mfxd5 6.tt:Jgf3 cxd4 7.0-0 tt:Jf6 8 .�c4 1Mfd6 9.tLlb3 tt:Jc6, we reach a familiar position from the 3.tLld2 c5 variation, except that here Black has an extra tempo.

It is only slightly better for White to play 5.tt:Jgf3, after which Black can choose between 5 . . . cxd4 and 5 . . . tt:Jf6.

If 5.c3 cxd4 6.cxd4 dxe4 7. tt:Jxe4 tt:Jf6 8.tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 the game transposes to positions analyzed in the section of the book dealing with 3.tt:Jd2 c5.

5 . . . .!Llf6 It is too passive for Black to

play 5 . . . tt:Jd7, after which White can maintain a slight advantage by simple means : 6.exd5 exd5 7. tt:Jb3 tt:Jxc5 8.tt:Jxc5 hc5 9.tt:Jf3 tt:Jf6 10.1Mfe2+ V!ffe7 ll .V!ffxe7+ <±>xe7 12 . 0-0 l"i:e8 13.�g5 h6 14.l"i:fe1+ �e6 15.�e3 �xe3 16.l"i:xe3 <±>d6 17. tt:Jd4;t Meier - Bartel, Germany 2008.

6.1Mfe2

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4Jd2 �e7 4. �d3 c5 5.dc lt:Jf6 6. Vf1e2 lt:Jc6

We shall now analyze a) 6 •• .

ll'lc6 and b) 6 ••• 0 - 0 .

a) 6 ••• 4Jc6 7.ll'lgf3

7 . • • ll'lb4!? This time-consuming ma­

noeuvre to nab White's bishop brought good results to Mo­rozevich in several games.

It seems more natural for Black to play 7 . . . .b.c5, but this is in fact a loss of time. 8 .0-0 Vfffc7 9.a3 ! ? This is a rather tricky move. (White fails to obtain any advan­tage with the concrete line : 9 .exd5 ltJxdS 10 .4Je4 �e7 ll .g3 ! eS ! 12 .4Jeg5 - 12 .c4? 4Jdb4 13.�b1 �g4 and Black has an excellent position - 12 . . . h6 13.�c4 hxgS 14 . .b.d5 �h3 15.Ei:d1 f6, with chances for both sides, but it is worth considering 9.e5 ! ? 4Jd7 10 .4Jb3 �e7 ll .Ei:e1 b6 12 .c3 ltJcS 13.�c2 �a6 14.Vfffd1 4Jd7 15.4Jbd4 0-0-0 16.4Jxc6 Vfffxc6 17.a4 <i>b7 18.a5 Vfffc7 19 .�e3± Vysochin -Socko, Polanica Zdroj 2000. ) 9 . . . �d7 lO .eS 4Jg4 ll.b4 4Jd4 12 .Vfffd1 �b6 13.�b2 4Jxf3+ 14.4Jxf3 �a4 15.Vfffe2 0-0-0 16.Ei:ac1 <i>b8 17.h3

4Jh6 18.4Jd4 Ei:c8 19.Vfffh5 Vfffd7 20 .Vfffg5± Kotronias - Barsov, Patras 2001 . Of course, Black could have defended much better, but this variation does not prom­ise him an acceptable position.

8. 0 - 0 White relies on quick develop­

ment. He is willing to part with his light-squared bishop and hopes to compensate for its loss with rapid mobilization of his forces, which is so important at the beginning of the game.

However, White could try to hang on to his extra pawn with the greedy line : 8.4Jb3 4Jxd3+ 9. cxd3 aS lO .�gS (It is weaker for him to opt for 10.a4? ! dxe4 11. dxe4 0-0 12.0-0 b6 13.Ei:d1 Vfffc7 14.�g5 bxcS 15.Ei:ac1 �a6 16.Vfffc2 Ei:fc8 17.�h4 and the players agreed to a draw in the game Rublevsky - Radjabov, Hy­derabad 2002 . Black has also tried 10 . . . b6, but this presents White with additional possibili­ties : 1l .e5 4Jd7 12 .c6 ltJcS 13.4Jbd4 �a6 14.4Jb5 tt'lb3 15.Ei:b1 �b4+ 16. <i>f1 0-0 17.d4 f6 18.Vfffe3 .b.bS+ 19.axb5 a4 20 .g3 Vfffe8 2l .Vfffd3 4Jxc1 22 .Ei:xc1 a3 23.b3 a2 24.<i>g2 Vfffg6 25.Vfffxg6 hxg6, with wild complications, Adams - Mo­rozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2000.) 10 . . . a4 ll .tt'lbd2 h6 12 . .b.f6 (It is also possible for White to contin­ue with 12 .�h4 !? VfffaS 13.exd5 VfffxcS 14.dxe6 .b.e6 15. 0-0 Ei:d8 16.4Je4 VfffdS 17.Ei:fd1 gS 18.�g3 g4 19.4Je5 Vfffd4 20.4Jg6 fxg6 21 . tt'lxf6+ .b.f6 22 .Vfffxe6± Navara -

165

Chapter 22

Libiszewski, Pula 2003, while the move 12 . .ie3 does not achieve anything after 12 . . . �a5 13.0-0 .ixc5 14 . .ixc5 �xc5 15J'1fc1 �b6 16.e5 lt:lg8 17.�e3 �xe3 18.fxe3 lt:le7 19.lt:ld4 .id7 2 0 .E\c7 E\b8 21 . b4 f6 22 .'Ll2f3 lt:lg6 23.exf6 gxf6 24.E\ac1 1t>d8 25.1t>f2 lt:le7 26.E\7c5 b6 27.E15c3 E1c8 28.E\xc8+ lt:lxc8 29 .lt:lh4 lt:le7 30.lt:lhf3 e5 31.'Lle2 .ib5 and Black has a good posi­tion, Navara - Duppel, Pardubice 2000.) 12 . . . hf6 13.exd5 (If 13.e5, Black obtains enduring compen­sation for the pawn with his bish­op-pair and the possibility of un­dermining his opponent's pawn­centre. 13 . . . .ie7 14.E\c1 �a5 15.�e3 .id7 16.0-0 0-0 17.E\c2 E\fc8 18.E\fc1 E1c7 19 .�d4 E\ac8 20 .b4 axb3 21 .'Llxb3 �a6 22 .'Lle1 f6 23. exf6 hf6 24.�b4 e5 25.d4 e4 26. �b6 �a4 27.�d6 .ic6 28.E\d1 E\f7 29.�g3 E\eSgg Pogonina - Tairova, Moscow 2007, or 15 . . . b6 16.cxb6 idS 17.�c5 �xc5 18.E\xc5 .ixb6 19J=\c2 0-0 20 .'Llf1 .ia6 2l .lt>e2 .ib5 22 .'Lle3 f5 23.E\hc1 E\ab8 24.a3 g5 25.h3 lt>g7 26.E\b1 lt>g6 27.E\cc1 h5gg Godena - Moroze­vich, Istanbul 2000. ) 13 . . . �xd5 (The move 13 . . . 0-0? ! strikes me as too gambit-like, but in the fol­lowing game Black was quite suc­cessful. 14.lt:le4 exd5 15.lt:lxf6+ �xf6 16.0-0 b6 17.E\ac1 bxc5 18.E\xc5 .ig4 19.�e5 �b6 20.E\xd5 .ixf3 21 .gxf3 E\ab8 22 .E\b1 a3 23.b4 E1fe8 24.�d4 E\e2 25.�xb6 E1xb6 26.E\a5 E\xa2 and the players agreed to a draw, Rozentalis -Pert, Dublin 2007. It looks attrac-

166

tive, if rather risky, for Black to continue with 13 . . . a3? ! 14.lt:le4 �xd5 15.lt:lxf6+ gxf6 16.b4 .id7 17.�e4 .ic6 18 .�xd5 hd5 19.lt:ld4 E1a4 20 .'Llc2 E\g8 21 .E\g1 b6 22 .cxb6 lt>d7 23.1t>d2 lt>c6 24.g3 lt>xb6 25.lt:le3 E\d8 26.lt:lxd5+ E\xd5 27. E\abl± Vachier Lagrave - Marzo­la, Chartres 2005.) 14.lt:le4 .id7 15.0-0 .ic6 16.E\ac1 E\d8 17.lt:ld6+ lt>f8 18.b4 axb3 19.axb3 �xb3 20 .lt:le5 .ixe5 2l .�xe5 �xd3 22 . f4?? �d2 and White was so de­pressed that he resigned, Kotro­nias - Nepomniachtchi, Moscow 2007.

s .. .tl:lxd3 9.cxd3 hc5 1 0 . ltlb3 .ie7 11 • .ig5

Here it is worth considering 1l .e5 ! ? ll:ld7 12.'Llfd4 0-0 13 . .if4 ltlc5 14.�g4 lt>h8 15.lt:lxc5 .ixc5 16.lt:lf3 .ie7 17.E1fe1 .id7 18.�h5 f6 19.E\acl .ie8 20.�h3 f5 2l ..ie3 .id7 22 . .ic5 E\c8 23 . .id6 E\c6 24.d4 .ie8 25.E\xc6 .ixc6 26.�g3 h6 27. h4, with some advantage for White, Svidler - Radjabov, Mos­cow 2002 .

ll . . . h6 12 . .ih4

12 . . . �b6!?

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3JiJd2 �e7 4. �d3 c5 S.dc CiJf6 6. Vlie2 0 -0

This i s the most fashionable move for Black in this variation. Do not try to justify it logically, simply accept it as a fact.

13.e5 c!LlgS 14.i.g3 White should avoid 14 . .b:e7? !

CiJxe7 1S.CiJfd4 �d7 16.Ei:ac1 0-0 17.Vlffd2 Ei:fc8 18.VlffaS VlffxaS 19 . CiJxaS b6 20.CiJab3 gS 21 .Ei:ce1 c!Llg6 22 .g3 aS, with a good position for Black, Leko - Morozevich, Sara­jevo 1999.

14 ••• i.d7 15.i.f4 Vlffa6 16.a4 �eS 17.c!Llbd4 i.e5 1S.i.d2 �b6 19.i.e3 �dS 2 0 .�fel i.b6 21. �xeS �xeS 22 • .id2 c!Lle7 23. i.b4 �dS 24.a5 i.e7 25.�e2 i.bS with an obvious advantage for White, Anisimov - Nepomnia­chtchi, Krasnoyarsk 2007.

b) 6 ••• 0 - 0 7.c!Llgf3

7 ••• a5 I am not a fan of such a volun­

tary chronic weakening of the po­sition, but if Black wants to cap­ture on cS with his b8-knight this is the only way for him to arrange it.

It is bad for him to play 7 . . .

CiJbd7? in view of 8.eS± However, the seemingly para­

doxical move 7 . . . CiJfd7 deserves very serious attention by Black. 8 .CiJb3 (Or 8 .b4? ! aS 9.c3 axb4 10.cxb4 CiJc6 and Black regains the pawn after all . 9 .bS CiJxcS - It is far from clear what White has achieved by advancing his pawn all the way up to bS. 8 .exdS CiJxcS. However, Black could have easily avoided sacrificing 8 . . . exdS ! ? -9.dxe6 CiJxd3+ 10.Vlffxd3 .b:e6 11. Vlffxd8 Ei:xd8 with an excellent compensation for the pawn, thanks to his bishop-pair and su­perior development. He also has a good position in the event of 10. cxd3 .b:e6 11.0-0 CiJc6 12.CiJe4 h6) 8 . . . aS 9.a4 (The alternative for White is 9.exdS exdS 10 .0-0 a4 ll .CiJbd4 CiJxcS 12 .�f4 CiJxd3 - 12 . . . CiJc6 ! ? - 13.cxd3 CiJc6 and Black obtains an acceptable position, or 10 .a4? ! CiJxcS and White cannot exchange comfortably 11 .0-0 CiJxb3 12 .cxb3 CiJc6= ; 11 .CiJxcS �xeS 12 .0-0 Ei:e8=) 9 . . . CiJa6 10. exdS. This is the most precise re­action. (10 . .b:a6 Ei:xa6 11 .0-0 dxe4 12 .Vlffxe4 CiJxcS 13 .CiJxcS �xeS 14.CiJgS fS 1S.Vlffe2 h6 16.CiJf3 f4 with an unclear position.)

167

Chapter 22

10 . . . tt:ldxc5. Black is forced to strike this counter-blow. (The routine move 10 . . . exd5? ! leads to an inferior position for Black after ll .h:a6 !'1xa6 12 . .te3 Wic7 13.Wib5 ! and White preserves his c5-pawn.) 11.dxe6 tt:lxd3+ 12 .Wixd3 h:e6 13.Wixd8 !'1fxd8 14.tt:lbd4 tt:lb4 15 . .td2 (Here White can also try 15.0-0, but then Black obtains a good position with 15 . . . .tc4 16.!'1e1 .tf6) 15 . . . .td5 16.0-0-0 .tf6 with sufficient compensation for the pawn. Black also solves his problems after ll .tt:lxc5 tt:lxc5 12 . .tb5 exd5 13 .tt:ld4 (White was obviously reluctant to play the natural move 13 .0-0, because of the possible pin - 13 . . . .tg4.) 13 . . . .tf6 14 . .te3 tt:le6 ! This i s a concrete variation and Black obtains a good game with it. 15.!'1d1 (Black's position is also perfectly accepta­ble too after 15. 0-0-0 tt:lxd4 16. h:d4 .tf5) 15 . . . h:d4 16 . .txd4 WigS 17.0-0 tt:lf4 18.Wif3 .tg4 19.Wig3 tt:lh5 20 .Wie5 Wixe5 21 ..txe5 .txd1 22 .l"i:xd1 and Black won this end­ing, Milos - Vitiugov, Khanty­Mansiysk 2009.

168

8. 0 - 0 The symmetrical response

8.a4 is not at all satisfactory for White after 8 . . . tt:la6 9.e5 tt:ld7 10.tt:ld4 tt:ldxc5 (10 . . . tt:lb4 !?) 11 . .txa6 !'1xa6 12.tt:l2f3 .td7!? (It seems to me that Black played in even more straightforward fash­ion in the following game: 12 . . . tt:le4 13.0-0 f6 14.c4 Wic7 15.cxd5 exd5 16 . .tf4 Wic4 17.Wid1 .td7 18. l"i:c1 Wixa4 19.l"i:c7 Wixd1 20.!'1xd1 fxe5 21 ..txe5 tt:lc5, with a complicated position, Navara - Pelletier, Plov­div 2003.) 13 .b3 tt:le4 14.0-0 Wib6 with an excellent game for Black.

White did not achieve much with the risky line : 8 .c4 tt:la6 9. cxd5 tt:lxc5 10.0-0 exd5 11.e5 tt:lfd7 (Or ll . . . tt:lxd3 ! ? 12.Wixd3 tt:ld7 13.Wixd5 tt:lc5 14.Wixd8 !'1xd8 and Black has good compensa­tion for the sacrificed pawn.) 12 . .tc2 f6 13.e6 tt:le5 14.tt:lxe5 fxe5 15.Wixe5 .tf6 16.Wie2 !'1a6 ! A crea­tive move. 17.tt:lb3 l"i:xe6 18 .h:h7+ 'it>xh7 19.Wih5+ 'it>g8 20 .tt:lxc5 l"i:e5 21 .Wid1 Wid6 22 .tt:ld3 l"i:e4 23 . .te3 d4 and Black seized the initiative in the game Sjugirov - Bajarani , Rijeka 2010.

White plays only rarely here 8.c3 tt:la6!? (8 . . . tt:lfd7 9.exd5 tt:lxc5 10 . .tb5 exd5 11.0-0 tt:lc6 12.tt:ld4 .td7 13.tt:l2f3 .tf6 14 . .te3 !'1e8 15. !'1fd1 tt:le4 16.a4 Wic7 17.h3 l"i:ad8= Almasi - Radjabov, Pamplona 2001 . White was not successful either after 9 .0-0 tt:lxc5 10 . .tc2 b6 11.!'1d1 .ta6 12 .Wie3 !'1a7 13.exd5 and the players agreed to a draw,

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lbd2 �e7 4. �d3 c5 5.dc ljjf6 6 . Vfie2 0 - 0

Yemelin - Vitiugov, St Petersburg 2006.) 9.e5 [jjd7 10 .�xa6 ll:xa6 ll .b4

11 . . .ll:a8 (Unfortunately, the sharp 11 . . .f6 12 .exf6 hf6 13.b5 ll:a8 does not work. Now it is bad for White to continue with 14. Vfixe6+? ! @h8 15.Vfixd5 Vfie7+ 16. @d1 hc3 17.ll:e1 VfixcS 18.Vfixc5 [jjxcS 19.ll:b1 �fS-+ ; 19 .�a3 �g4 ! ! 2 0 .hc5 ll:fd8-+ ; 16.@f1 hc3 17. ll:b1 [jjxcS 18 .�a3 �b4 19.hb4 axb4 with advantage for Black, who also won a game with 17 . . . ll:e8 18.�a3 Vfie2+ 19.@g1 [jjf6 20 . Vfic4 �fS 2l .ll:e1 Vfixe1 + 22 .[jjxe1 ll:xe1 + 23.[jjf1 ll:d8 24.h3 �eS 25.f4 �d3 26.Vfia4 ll:xf1+ 27.@h2 �xf4+ 28 .g3 ll:f2+ 29. @g1 �e3 0-1 Nekra­sov - Vavrak, Edmonton 2006. Nevertheless, after 14.�a3 ll:e8 -but not 14 . . . hc3? 15.ll:c1 d4 16. 0-0 [jjf6 17.ll:fdl± Kudrin - Shul­man, Philadelphia 2008 - 15.0-0 hc3 16.ll:ac1, White keep an edge. The position is rather unclear af­ter 15.Vfie3? ! eS 16.0-0 e4 17.ll:ae1 Vfie7 18.[jjd4 [jje5 19.f3 [jjd3 2 0 .ll:e2 �gS 2l .f4 �f6 and Black has some compensation.) 12 .�b2 Vfic7 13. 0-0 b6 14.cxb6 [jjxb6 15.b5 and Black must choose how best to

seek compensation for the sacri­ficed pawn 15 . . . a4 ! ? (or 1S . . . {jja4 16.ll:ab1).

8 . . . tba6 9 .e5 I believe White must try to ob­

tain an advantage in this precise way.

In this position, many famous experts on the white side have preferred the line : 9 .exd5 exdS 1Q.{jjb3 (10 .ll:e1 ll:e8 U.[jjb3 [jjxcS 12 .�b5 �d7 13 .�e3 a4 14.hd7 Vfixd7 15.hc5 axb3 - 15 . . . hc5 !? 16.[jjxc5 Vfic6= - 16.he7 ll:xa2 17.ll:ac1 ll:a4 18 .Vfie5 ll:e4 19.hf6 ll:xe1+ 20 .[jjxe1 ll:xeS 21 .he5± Naiditsch - De Ia Riva Aguado, Pamplona 2004.) 10 . . . a4 1l .[jjbd4 [jjxcS 12 .�b5 �d7 (12 . . . [jjce4 ! ?) 13.�f4 ll:e8 14.�xd7 Vfixd7 15 .Vfib5 VfixbS 16.[jjxb5 [jje6 17.�e5 ll:ec8 18.ll:ac1 ll:a5 19.[jjbd4 tt:ld7 20 .[jjfS �fB 2l .�d4 and White won this endgame, but only thanks to his superb technique, Malakhov -Del Rio Angelis, Chalkidiki 2002 .

9 . . . tbd7

1 0 .c3 White must play in this con­

sistent fashion, implementing his

169

Chapter 22

plan step by step, in order to ob­tain an edge.

The other possible treatment of this position is 10.'2:l d4 'i:ldxcS ll .f4 ! ? (It is too cautious for White to opt for 1l .'i:l2f3 'i:lxd3 12.cxd3 �d7 13 .�e3 a4 14.a3 'i:lc5 1S.Ei:ac1 Ei:c8 16.Ei:c3 b6 17.�f4 fS 18.h3 h6 19.Ei:fc1 �e8 with a good game for Black, Ki.Georgiev - Kornev, Warsaw 200S.) 1l . . .�b6 12.'i:l2f3 �d7 13.a3 'i:lxd3 (Black should re­frain from 13 . . . 4Je4 14.Ei:a2 'i:lacS 1S.�e3 a4 16.�h1 f6 17.exf6 �xf6 18 .�e1 'i:lxd3 19.cxd3 'i:lcS 20 . 'i:le2 �bS 2l .�b4 Ei:fc8 22 .4Jed4+­Kotronias - Barsov, Montreal 2002 . ) 14.cxd3 'i:lcS 1S.�e3 �a6 and the position remain rather unclear.

White does not need to in­crease the tension in the centre with 10 .c4 'i:laxcS 1l.�c2 b6 12 .b3 �b7 13 .�b2 �b8 (Black should avoid the risky line : 13 .. .fS 14.4:ld4 �b8 1S.Ei:ad1 �xeS 16.�xeS 'i:lxeS 17.4JxfS exfS 18 .�xeS Ei:ac8 19. Ei:fe1 g6 20.cxdS �xdS 2l .'i:lc4 �xc4 22 .bxc4 �f6 23.�f4 Ei:fd8 24.Ei:dS �f7 2S.�e3 �e7 26.Ei:b1 Ei:b8 27.Ei:xd8± Vachier Lagrave -Sprenger, Germany 2008; 13 . . . �c7! ?) 14.Ei:ad1 Ei:c8 1S.Ei:fe1 'i:lf8 16.�b1 a4 17.�e3 axb3 18.axb3 'i:lg6 19 .h4 h6 2 0 .hS 'i:lf8 2l .'i:lh2 �gS 22 .f4 �h4 and the position remained very sharp in the game Kaplan - Rodshtein, Biel 2007.

1 0 ••• 4Jaxc5 11 . .ic2 (diagram)

ll . . . b6 I believe the possibility of 11 . . .

170

bS ! ? will attract some fans, even though Black failed to equalize in the following game 12 .a3 (After 12 .'i:ld4 �c7 13.Ei:e1 b4 14.cxb4 axb4 1S.�e3 fS 16.exf6 'i:lxf6 17.h3 �d7 18.'i:l2b3 'i:lce4 19 .he4 'i:lxe4 20.f3 'i:lgS 2 l.�eS �xeS 22 .Ei:xe5 'i:lf7, Black has a clear advantage in this endgame, Sjugirov - Najer, Olginka 2 011) 12 . . . �c7 13.Ei:e1 �b7 14.4:ld4 b4 1S.axb4 axb4 16.Ei:xa8 Ei:xa8 17.cxb4 'i:la6 18 .bS 'i:lb4 19. �b1 'i:la2 20.'i:l2b3 'i:lxc1 2l .Ei:xc1 �b6 22 .�c2 g6 23.�c7± Parligras - Jackelen, Germany 2007.

It is premature for Black to play 1l . . .f6? ! 12 .exf6 hf6 13.'i:lb3 b6 14.4JxcS 'i:lxcS 1S.Ei:d1 �a6 16. �e3 �e8 17.4JgS �xgS 18.�xgS 'i:le4 19.�h4 with an obvious ad­vantage for White, Kotronias - Ni Hua, Khanty-Mansiysk 200S.

12.Ei:el .ia6 Yuri Shulman, one of the ex­

perts in this variation for Black, tried an interesting novelty here in a recent game - 12 . . .f6 ! ? 13. exf6 (Black's idea is best illustrat­ed by the variation 13 .b4 axb4 14.cxb4 'i:la6 ! ) 13 . . . hf6 14.'i:lb3 �a6, but White can also counter it

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji'Jd2 JJ.e7 4. JJ.d3 c5 5.dc CiJf6 6. �e2 0 -0

i n a n appropriate manner: h e can play 15.�d1 JJ.b7 (Black cannot equalize with 15 . . . �e7 16.4Jxc5 bxcS 17.JJ.f5±; 16 . . . 4Jxc5 17.4Je5, since the use of the eS-outpost by the white pieces spells enduring trouble for Black.) 16.4Jxc5 CiJxcS 17.Ji.e3 C/Je4 18.he4 dxe4 19. �xd8 l"lfxd8 20.4Jd4 hd4 21. Ji.xd4 bS 22 .l"led1 JJ.ds 23.Ji.e3 a4 24.l"ld4 l"ldc8 25.l"lc1 and White offered a draw, which was accept­ed, Kryvoruchko - Shulman, Rey­kjavik 2009.

13.�e3 f6

Black's position looks accept­able, but that impression is wrong.

Nevertheless, in order to re­fute Black's strategy White has to play very resourcefully.

14.b4! White does not achieve any­

thing by playing cautiously with 14.exf6, in view of 14 . . . JJ.xf6 15.4Jb3 eS 16.4Jxc5 (16.�d2 JJ.b7 17.4Jxc5 bxc5 18.C/Jg5 iJ.xgS 19. �xg5 �b6�) 16 . . . bxc5 17.C/Jg5 hg5 18.�xg5 �e8 19.Ji.e3 �f7 2 0.�h4 h6 2l .l"lad1 l"lab8 and I

even prefer Black's position, Kudrin - Perelshteyn, Tulsa 2008.

14 . . . fxe5 Black should not try to be too

tricky with 14 . . . axb4?! 15.cxb4 fxeS 16.bxc5 JJ.xc5 17.�b3 !

15.ll:lxe5 c!Llxe5 16.bxc5 .ixc5 17.�xe5

This is the key-position of this variation. After analyzing it ex­tensively, I have concluded that Black is worse and that objective­ly he should seek an improvement in the main line at some earlier point.

17 . . . �xf2 A reasonable alternative here

is 17 . . . JJ.xf2 + ! ? 18.Wh1 JJ.xe1 19. �xe6+ . I think White should not be greedy here. (It would be stronger for him to continue with 19.�xe1 �d6 20 .a4! l"lfe8 2l .CiJf3 eS and his prospects in the ensu­ing complicated struggle are slightly better.) 19 . . . mh8 2 0 .�xe1 d4 2 1 .Ji.b2 (2l.CiJf3 ! ? d3 22 .Ji.d1, White wishes to redeploy his bishop to a working diagonal.) 21 . . .d3 22 .Ji.d1 �g5 23.4Jf3 l"lae8

171

Chapter 22

24.�f2 d2 25.i.a4 l"i:e2 26.�g1 �e7 27.c4 i.b7 28 .l"i:fl l"i:e1 29 .i.d1 l"i:xf3 30.gxf3 1'lxd1 0-1 Kristjansson -Caruana, Reykjavik 2008.

18.®hl Once again, White should re­

frain from gobbling pawns. 18. �xe6+? Wh8 (The computer rec­ommends here the paradoxical move 18 . . . Wf8 ! ?, with the follow­ing sample variation 19.®h1 �g5 2 0.�h3 l"i:e8 21.l"i:g1 - 21 .l"i:xe8 + ! ? ®xeS 22 .i.a4+ b 5 23 .i.b3 - 21 . . . i.c8 22 .lLlb3 �xc1 23.l"i:gxc1 hh3 24.lLlxc5 bxc5 25.gxh3 l"i:ee2 26. i.a4 l"i:xh2+ 27.Wg1=) 19.®h1 �h4 20 .lLlf3 (White loses after 20 . �xd5? l"i:af8 21.�e4 i.f1 ! !-+ , as well as after 20 .i.b2? l"i:af8 21 . �xd5 i.b7 22 .�xb7 i.d6-+) 20 . . . l"i:xf3 21 .gxf3 �f2 and here White must find two very important moves : 22 .�e8+ ! (White lost in a really childish fashion after 22 . i.e3?? �xf3+ 23.®g1 i.f1 !-+ Du­rarbeyli - Yemelin, Budva 2009.) 22 . . . i.f8 23.�e3 �xc2 24.i.a3 ! d4 (24 . . . �f5 25.i.xf8 l"i:xf8 26.l"i:ab1

i.b7 27.�d4 ! and Black's bishop will remain out of play.) 25.cxd4 i.b7 with some compensation for Black.

18 . . .'�e7 White can counter 18 . . . �h4

with the same manoeuvre: 19.i.d1! 19.i.dl �af8 2 0 .i.f3 It appears that in this varia­

tion Black's pawn on e6 is taboo: 20 .i.g4 l"i:8f6 21 .he6+? Wh8-+

2 0 . . . �f6 21. �b8+ �f8 22. '\Wg3 a4 23.c4!±

White has freed his pieces and obtained an overwhelming ad­vantage.

Concluding out survey of the move 4. i.d3, we must say that Black should be prepared to play some quiet and solid lines and he has a wide choice. Attempts by Black to sharpen and complicate the game can be countered by White quite venomously. However, none of this means anything conclusive from the practical point of view. The ele­ment of surprise. or finding White unprepared, can dramatically change the outcome of the opening battle.

172

Part 6

The Tarrasch Variation with 3 ... c5 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)t)d2 c5

The philosophical justification of this system is tremendously sim­ple. With his third move White is merely maintaining the tension and not attacking the centre. The deployment of White's knight on d2, in­stead of c3, is preferable from the point of view of building a pawn­chain, so Black should undermine his opponent's centre before it be­comes established.

I believe that this is the right way for Black to fight for equality in all the systems of the Tarrasch variation. The resulting positions are not very typical of the French defence. There will be no pawn-chains, no chronically weak squares and no "bad" pieces. Of course, things are far from simple and Black needs to play very precisely, but the overall soundness of the entire system with 3 . . . c5 is beyond doubt.

173

Chapter 23 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)i)d2 c5

4.exd5 After 4.c3 White can cannot

count on any advantage : 4 . . . cxd4 5.cxd4 dxe4 6.t2:lxe4 l2:lf6 - this is the most concrete order of moves for Black.

Now: Black has no problems after

7.l2:lxf6+ �xf6 8.l2:lf3 �d7 (8 . . . tt:Jc6 9.�d3 - 9.a3 ! ? - 9 . . . �b4+ 10 .�d2

174

�d7 1l.�e4 �f4 12 .�xc6 hd2+ 13 .�xd2 �xd2+ 14.@xd2 hc6 15. @e3 f6 16J'!hcl @e7+ with the better endgame for Black, Bert­holee - Dvoretsky, Wijk aan Zee 1999) and if 9.l2:le5 he has the pre­cise reply 9 . . . l2:lc6 10.l2:lxd7 �b4+ 1l.�d2 �xd4! ;

after 7.l2:lc3?! French Defence players should think about trans­posing to the Caro-Kann Defence, since this would be a perfect ver­sion of the Panov Attack for Black. He has so many attractive possi­bilities that making the right choice becomes a real problem. For example: 7 . . . �e7 (the move 7 . . . �d7 would almost certainly transpose to the variations with 7.�d3.) 8 .tt:Jf3 0-0 9 .�d3 a6 10.0-0 b5 ! ? ;

7.�d3 �d7 8 .l2:lc3 (8.l2:lf3 l2:lxe4 9 .he4 �c6 and White is fighting for equality) 8 . . . �c6 (It would be less consistent for Black to opt for 8 . . . l2:lc6 9.l2:lf3 �d6 10.0-0 0-0 1U1e1 tt:Jb4 12 .�b1 �c7 13.�g5 l2:lfd5 14.a3 l2:lxc3 15.bxc3 tt:Jd5 16. �d3t - White has seized the ini­tiative, Plaskett - Martinez Mar­tin, Roquetas de Mar 2010.) 9 .

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .tiJd2 c5 4.ed V!Jxd5 S.dc hc5

tt:lf3 tt:lbd7 (9 . . . hf3? ! 10 .V!Jxf3 tt:lc6 11 .�e3 �e7 12 .0-0 0-0 13 .a3 and White still has an edge) 10. 0-0 �e7 with an excellent version for Black of an isolated queen's pawn position.

4 ••• V!Jxd5 5.dxc5

On the one hand, giving up the centre can hardly be good for White, but Black is forced to place in the centre pieces which will soon come under attack.

We shall deal now in detail with a) 5 ••• hc5 and b) 5 ••• tt:lf6.

a) 5 ••• hc5 6.tt'lgf3 tt'lf6

7 • .ic4

This move has become very popular lately. White avoids tak­ing any risks and creates some practical difficulties for his oppo­nent.

Previously White used to play 7.�d3 0-0 8.Wie2 (It is harmless for White to play 8 .0-0 b6 9.tt:lb3 tt:lbd7 10 .�g5 �b7 11 .'Wie2 h6 12 .c4 V!Jc6 13.�d2 f1ad8 14.�c2 f1fe8 15. f1ad1 e5 and Black seized the ini­tiative in the game Conquest -Budnikov, Neuwied 1993.) 8 . . . tt:lbd7 9 .tt:le4 (White has also tried 9.b3, for example: 9 . . . tt:lg4 ! ? 10. 0-0 tt:lde5 11 .�e4 tt:lxf3+ 12.tt:lxf3 'Wih5 13.�f4 tt:lf6 14.f1ad1 'V!Jg4 15. 'V!Jc4 tt:lxe4 16.'Wixe4 f6 17.h3 'Wig6= Rublevsky - Ivanov, St Peters­burg 1998, or 9 . . . a5 10 .�b2 b6 11 .0-0-0 �b7 12 .f1he1 a4 13.tt:le4 'Wih5 14.tt:lfg5 'Wih6 15.�b1 axb3 16.axb3 �a3 with chances for both sides. However, there was no ne­cessity for White to be mated within a few moves . . . : 17.tt:lxf6+ tt:lxf6 18.hf6 'V!Jxf6 19.�xh7+ �h8 20 .'Wih5 'Wib2 # Rublevsky - Belia­vsky, Novosibirsk 1995.) 9 . . . b6 10.tt:lxc5 'V!Jxc5 11.�e3 'V!Jc7 12 .�d4 �b7 13.0-0-0 tt:lc5 14.�e5 tt:lxd3+ 15.f1xd3 'V!Jc4 16.tt:ld4 �e4 ! and Black prevailed in the complica­tions, Kasparov - Anand, Reggio Emilia 1992. As often happens, this spectacular victory greatly in­fluenced the development of the entire variation, but at present the whole line has faded into oblivion.

7 ••• V!Jc6 Black has tried various re-

175

Chapter 23

treats of his queen, but it has be­come clear that the last move is his best option.

He can also play 7 . . .'�d6 8. 0-0 �c7 9 .�e2 lt'lc6 10.lt'le4 fi.e7 ll.c3? ! White's last defensive move is absolutely senseless. (He could have maintained his open­ing initiative with 11.fi.g5 !?) . 11 . . . b6 12 .fi.g5 fi.b7 13J'!ad1 0-0 14. lt'lxf6+ hf6 15.fi.xf6 gxf6 16.fi.d3 �h8 17.fi.xh7 �xh7 18.�e4+ �h6 19 .�h4+ �g7 2 0 .�g4+ �h6 21 . �h4+ and the game Pogonina -Xu Yuhua, Krasnoturinsk 2008, ended in a draw by perpetual check.

It is rather dubious for Black to play 7 . . . �h5?! 8 .�e2 a6 9.lt'lf1 fi.d6 10.fi.g5 h6 11 .0-0-0 hxg5 12 .l'l:xd6 g4 13.�d2 lt'lc6 14.lt'lg5 fi.d7 15.lt'lg3 �h6 16.�e3 lt'le7 17. h3± Carlsson - Braun, Wijk aan Zee 2008.

8.�e2

8 . . . 0 - 0 Or 8 . . . a6 ! ? 9 .b3 b5 10 .fi.d3 fi.b7

ll.a4 b4 12.lt'lc4 �c7 13 .fi.b2 lt'lbd7 14.0-0-0 0-0 15.lt'lfe5 lt'ld5 16. lt'lxd7 �xd7 17.lt'la5 l'l:fe8 18.lt'lxb7

176

�xb7 19.fi.e4 with a complicated game, Svidler - Grischuk, Almaty 2008.

After 8 . . . lt'lbd7! ? 9 .lt'lb3 a6 10. a4 fi.d6 11 .0-0 �c7 12 .a5 0-0 13. l'l:e1 e5 14.lt'lbd2 h6 15.b3 l'l:e8 16. lt'le4 lt'lxe4 17.�xe4 lt'lc5 18.�h4 fi.e6 19.lt'ld2 l'l:ad8, Black is not worse, Adams - Bareev, Chalkidi­ki 2002. The readers should have noticed by now that as long as he plays accurately Black has no problems and he simply needs to select one of the possible lines.

9. 0 - 0 l!Jbd7 It is interesting to opt for the

prophylactic line : 9 . . . fi.d6 10 .fi.d3 fi.c7 ll.l!Jc4 l!Jbd7 12 .l'l:d1 b5 13. lt'lce5 lt'lxe5 14.lt'lxe5 �c5 15.lt'lg4 lt'lxg4 16.�xg4 fi.b7 17.�h4 g6 18. fi.g5 fi.d8 19 .fi.xd8 l'l:fxd8= Adams - Speelman, London/Crowthorne 2006.

1 0 .l!Jb3 b6

11.l!Jxc5 White obtains the advantage

of the bishop pair. This does not provides him with anything tangi­ble though . . .

In a recent game White tried a

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3JiJd2 c5 4.ed Wfxd5 5.dc l'iJf6

completely new idea - ll.t'iJfd4 ! ? ixd4 12 .t'iJxd4 Wfc5 13.Ei:d1 ib7 14. a4 t'iJe5 15.ib3 t'iJg6 16.ie3 Wfe5 17.f3 l"i:ad8 18 .Wfe1 Wfh5 19.Wfg3 h6 20.t'iJe2 t'iJd5 2l .id2 Wff5 22 .c4 Wfd3 23.t'iJc1 Wfd4+ 24.Wff2 t'iJdf4 25.Wfxd4 l"i:xd4 26.ie3 l"i:xd1+ 27. ixd1 and the endgame was about equal, Naiditsch - Hou Yifan, Moscow 2010.

ll . . . Wfxc5 12.�e3 Wfc7 13. �d4

Sergey Tiviakov is a master of positions with a minimal advan­tage and here he played 13 .l"i:ad1 ib7 14.Ei:d4 l"i:ac8 15.ib3 t'iJe5 16. l'iJxe5 Wfxe5 17.c4 l"i:fd8 18.l"i:fd1 l"i:xd4 19.l"i:xd4 h6. Black failed to anticipate the imminent danger and, reacting rather carelessly, was soon in trouble. 20 .ic2 Wfc7 2l .b3 Ei:d8 22 .f3 l"i:xd4 23 .ixd4 Wff4 24.Wfd3 Wfd6 25.Wfc3 t'iJh5 26. c5± Tiviakov - Malakhatko, Ajac­cio 2008.

13 ••• .ib7 14.l'iJe5

14 ••• l::1ad8 In the following game, the

young Dutch GM used a much more forceful approach - 14 . . .

l"i:ac8 15.b3 t'iJxe5 16.Wfxe5 Wfxe5 17.ixe5 idS 18.ixd5 exd5 19. l"i:ac1 l"i:fe8 20.ixf6 gxf6 2l .f3 l"i:c3 22 .Ei:fd1 l"i:e2 23.l"i:xd5 l"i:cxc2 24. l"i:xc2 l"i:xc2 and the players agreed to a draw, Godena - Stellwagen, Novi Sad 2009.

15.l::1ad1 l'iJxe5 16.he5 Wfc6 17.f3 Wfc5+ 18.�h1 l'iJe4 19. l::1xd8 l::1xd8 2 0 • .if4 l'iJf6. The position is approximately equal and Black even managed to win, Kornev - Zvjaginsev, Krasno­yarsk 2003. In general, we must admit that to play this variation successfully Black must be capa­ble of skilfully and patiently de­fending slightly inferior positions. In this system, forcing lines are of less importance.

Without any false modesty, I should like to offer you a plan, in­troduced at top grandmaster level by the author of these notes.

b) 5 ••• t'iJf6 The order of moves is of some

importance. After the immediate 5 . . . Wfxc5 White has an additional

177

Chapter 23

resource - 6.'Lle4 �b4+ 7.'Llc3 tt:lf6 8.i.d3 tt:lbd7 9.a3? ! Why force the enemy queen to a better square? 9 . . . �d6 10.'Llf3 tt:lc5 11. i.b5+ i.d7 12 .�e2 a6 13.i.c4 �c7 14.0-0 i.d6 15.b4 �c8 16.i.b2? tt:la4 17 . .be6 'Llxc3 18 . .bd7+ \tlxd7 and Black realized his extra piece almost effortlessly, Timofeev -Morozevich, Taganrog 2011.

6.l!Jgf3 White has an alternative here

as well : 6 .'Llb3 �xd1+ 7.\tlxd1 i.d7! This is a very good move. Black's bishop might go to the a4-square in many variations. 8.f3 . A renowned master of opening preparation, Vladimir Potkin, an­alyzed this position thoroughly and found a move which was not at all obvious. 8 . . . ie7. Black plays quite simply and develops his pieces in the most natural fash­ion. 9 .'Lla5 ic6 10 .ie3 tt:lbd7 11.c3 ixc5 12.ixc5 and the players agreed to a draw, Potkin - Vitiu­gov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011 . It would be fair to say that it is hard for White to fight for an advan­tage in this variation.

6 . . • �xc5

178

The essence of Black's idea is quite simple. His queen will soon be dislodged from the centre any­way (and it will require more than one move to reach a good square . . . ), while the bishop would be under threat of exchange on c5, so its is best for Black to acqui­esce to the loss of two tempi, rath­er than three.

7 . .id3 .ie7 8. 0 - 0 0 - 0 9. �e2 l!Jbd7 10 .l!Je4 �c7 11 . .ig5 b6

12.l'�adl In the first game played in this

line there followed 12 .'Llxf6+ tt:lxf6 13.'Lle5 .ib7 14.�fe1 �adS 15.�ad1 �d6. This is a typical manoeuvre in such positions, and is often seen, for example, in the Rubin­stein variation. 16.if4 'WeB 17. tt:lg4 and a draw was agreed on White's proposal, Kobalia - Vitiu­gov, Dagomys 2010.

12 . . . .ib7 13 . .ih4 l!Jc5 14. l!Jxc5

In the game Yegiazarian -Lputian, Yerevan 1999, White played 14.ig3 'Wc6 (14 . . . 'Wc8 !?) 15.'Lle5 WeB 16.'Llxf6+ .bf6 17.ic4 a6 18 .a3 b5 19 . .ia2 tt:le4 20 .'Lld7

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Cbd2 c5 4.ed 'i/!Jxd5 S.dc Cbf6

and here Black was reluctant to sacrifice the exchange with 20 . . . ib2, which would have led to a very sharp position. As a result, he ended up worse after 20 . . . 'i/!Jc6. I should mention that the posi­tion was reached by transposi­tion. In fact, that game began with the move-order 3.Cbd2 ie7.

14 . • . 'i/!Jxc5 15.lbe5 gadS

16.c4 This is a paradoxical decision.

However, the king of the silicon brains - "Houdini" approves of it.

16 . . . g6 17.a3 a5 18.'i/!Je3 'it>g7 19 . .ig5

19 .• .lL!g8 ! Black is playing very mven­

tively. 2 0 .he7 .!Llxe7 21 . .ic2 .ic6

22.�f4 f6 23 . .!Llxc6 �xc6, Ba­logh - Vitiugov, Ningbo 2011 , and later Black was even able to fight for the advantage.

179

Chapter 24 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)t)d2 c5 4.ttlgf3

This is a very flexible option. After Black's next move, White will have the choice of transpos­ing into the main theoretical lines, or taking an independent line.

4 . . . cxd4 There are other acceptable

moves here, but since after 4.exd5 I advise Black to continue with 4 . . .'�xd5, here it logical for Black to opt for 4,,cxd4, which often transposes.

5.ltJxd4 After 5.exd5 �xd5 there is a

transposition to the main theo­retical lines which we shall ana­lyze later.

5 . . . �f6 Black has a good alternative

here - 5 . . . t2Jc6 6.�b5 �d7. For ex­ample: 7.t2Jxc6 (This is the only

180

way for White to create some problems for his opponent.) 7 . . . hc6 (Or 7 . . . bxc6 8.�d3 and on d7 Black's bishop is possibly placed worse than on its initial square. However, this position has not yet been thoroughly analyzed and it is too early to make a final evalua­tion. For example: 8 . . . �d6 9 .�e2 �c7 10 .t2Jf3 dxe4 11.�xe4 t2Jf6 12 . �h4 h6 13 .0-0 c5 14.�g5 t2Jd5 15. �e4 l'l:b8 16.c4 t2Jf4 and Black had a good position in the game Gu­seinov - So, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.) 8 .hc6+ bxc6 9.c4. How­ever, I do not believe that White can create serious difficulties for his opponent by playing this way.

Nevertheless, the most recent games in this variation show that Black has not yet demonstrated a convincing way to equalize.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jt'Jd2 c5 4Jijgf3 cd 5Jijxd4 CiJf6

It is not good to play 9 . . . dxe4? ! 10.CiJxe4 (White does not need to enter the complications arising from 10 .'&a4? fS 11 .'&xc6+ ill£7 12. 0-0 CiJf6 13.CiJb3 id6 14.h3 Efc8 1S.'&b7+ '&c7 and Black is better, Erenburg - Hug, Gothenburg 200S.) 10 . . . '&xd1+ 11 .illxd1 CiJf6 12 .CiJxf6+ gxf6 13.ie3 (It is less precise for White to continue with 13.illc2? ! Efg8 14.g3 icS ! 1S.ie3 ixe3 16.fxe3 Efg4 17.b3 ille7 18. Efad1 c5 and Black equalized in the game Vachier Lagrave - Yu Sha­oteng, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.) 13 . . . Efg8 14.g3 cS 1S.illc2 illd7 16. a3 ! This is a new and very effec­tive plan which gives White the advantage. It seems to me that even if Black plays very precisely, he cannot avoid having serious problems. (After 16.Efad1 + illc6 17.Efd3 ie7 18.Efhd1 Efgd8 19.g4 Efxd3 20 .Efxd3 id6 21 .h3 ieS 22 . Efa3 aS 23.Efb3 a4 24.EfbS id6, Black equalized, Delchev - De la Riva Aguado, Andorra 2006.) 16 . . . hS (Black is in trouble after 16 . . . illc6 17.b4 ! cxb4 18.axb4 ixb4 19.Efa6+ illc7 20.Efha1 Efgb8 21 . if4+ ! ? This is a very accurate move by White. 2l . . .eS 22 .ie3 Efb7 23.g4 illd7 24.illd3± and Black's position was a sorry sight in the game Efimenko - Hou Yi­fan, Moscow 2010.) 17.Efhd1+ illc7 18.id2 aS 19 .ic3 ie7 20 .b3 illc6 21 .Efd3 fS 22 .ieS Efgd8 23.Efxd8 Efxd8 24.ic3 Efa8 2S.b4! This is the key idea of the entire plan. 25 . . . axb4 26.axb4 Efxa1 27.b5+ illb6 28.ixa1 - Black managed

somehow to defend this appar­ently lost endgame, but it cannot really be recommended, Rublevs­ky - Kosic, Kragujevac 2009.

An interesting option is 9 . . . id6 lO.cxdS cxdS ll .exdS exdS 12 .0-0 CiJe7 13.CiJf3 0-0 14.'&d3 '&d7 1S.Efd1 Effd8 16.ie3 aS 17.g3 h6 and Black almost equalized in the game Topalov - Kamsky, So­fia 2009. By the way, this evalua­tion is applicable to most of the positions arising from this varia­tion.

9 . . . CiJf6 10 .'&a4 '&c7 11 .cxd5 exdS 12 .0-0 ie7 13.exd5 (Anoth­er interesting continuation is 13.Efe1 !? but Black has an easier task against that. 13 . . . 0-0 14.e5 CiJd7 15.CiJf3 CiJcS 16.'&g4 CiJe6 17. h4 Efab8 18 .b3 Efb4 19.'&g3 hS 20 . CiJgS Efg4 21 .'&d3 CiJxgS 22 .hxg5 ixgS and White failed to exact re­venge for his defeat in the previ­ous game, Bezgodov - Vitiugov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.) 13 . . . CiJxdS 14.CiJc4 (Or 14.CiJf3 0-0 1S. id2 if6 16.Efac1 ixb2 17.Efxc6 '&d7 and here the players agreed to a draw, Smirin - Ni Hua, Kallithea 2008.) 14 . . . 0-0 15.id2 if6 16.Efac1 and White has endur­ing pressure, Sebag - Xu Yuhua, Nanjing 2009. Black should prob­ably be able to overcome his diffi­culties with tenacious defence, but the character of the fight spells trouble for him.

(diagram) 6.exd5 It is possible, but not very logi­

cal, for White to play 6.e5 CiJfd7

181

Chapter 24

7.ct:J2f3 (or 7.f4? ct:Jxe5 ! and Black wins a pawn) 7 . . . ct:Jc6 8 .if4 (Black has absolutely nothing to worry about after 8.ct:Jxc6 bxc6 9 .id3 ia6 10.0-0 hd3 11.�xd3 ie7 12 .c4 0-0 13 .�c2 aS 14.l"ld1 a4 15.if4 ct:Jb6 16.b3 c5 17.l"lac1 h6 18.ie3 �b8 19 .h4 �b7, with a very complicated position, Svidler - Dreev, Rostov on Don 1993.) 8 . . . �b6 9.l"lb1 g6 ! ? (9 . . . ie7? ! 10. c3 0-0 ll .id3 ct:Jc5 12 .ic2 id7 13. 0-0 a5 14.�e2 a4 15.�e3 a3 16. bxa3 �d8 17.ct:Jb5 b6 18.ct:Jfd4 ct:Ja5 19.�g3 g6 2 0.ct:Jd6 ct:Jc4 21 .ct:Jxc4 dxc4 22 .ic1 �c7 23.l"ld1 ia4 24. ha4 l"lxa4 25.ct:Jb5 �c6 26.l"ld4 ct:Jd3 27.ih6 l"ld8 28 .ct:Jd6± Kry­voruchko - Grigorian, Yerevan 2006. It would be interesting for Black to try the more active line : 9 . . . ic5 ! ? 10.c3 0-0) 10.ct:Jxc6 bxc6 ll.id3 ig7 12 .0-0 ia6 13. \Wd2 0-0 14.l"lfe1 l"lab8 15.h4 hd3 16.cxd3 \Wb4 17.\We3 h5 18.l"le2 �b6 19.�d2 �b4 2 0 .�e3 \Wb6 21 . \Wc1 �a6 22 .l"ld2 c5 and he ob­tained a good position, Howell -Grigorian, Yerevan 2007.

6 . . . Vbd5 If Black has made up his mind

182

to capture on d5 with his queen, then he should do so in every case, within reason !

Black won a very beautiful game after 6 . . . ct:Jxd5! ? 7.ct:J2f3 ib4+ 8 .id2 0-0 9.ic4 (9.c4 e5 10.cxd5 hd2+ 11.�xd2 exd4 12.\Wxd4 l"le8+ 13 .ie2 if5 14.\Wd2 ie4 15. d6 ixf3 16.gxf3 �h4 17.0-0-0 �xf2 18 .ic4 �xd2+ 19.l"lxd2 ct:Jc6 2 0 .h4 Wf8 21.id5 l"lad8 22 .ie4, draw, Howell - Stellwagen, Solin­gen 2011 ; 9 .hb4!? ; 9.c3 ! ?) 9 . . . e5 10 .ct:Jb5 e4 11 .hd5 exf3 12 .hb4 �e8+ 13.Wd2 \Wxb5 14.Wc3 ie6 15.ixe6 ct:Jc6 16.hf8 �e5+ 17. <i>b3 ct:Jd4+ 18.wb4 1Wb5+ 19.<i>c3 ct:Je2+ 20.Wd2 l"ld8+ 21 . We3 �e5+ 22 .Wxf3 ct:Jd4+ 0-1 Fedorchuk -Martinovic, Aix-les-Bains 2011 . This was a very impressive crush !

The interesting move 6 . . . a6 was tried in a recent match between two capital cities. I do not believe that Black can equalize by playing in such an artificial manner.

7.ct:J2f3 �xd5 8.c4 \Wd6 9.id3 ie7 10.0-0 0-0 11.�e2 ct:Jbd7 12. ic2 l"le8 13 .ig5 \Wc7 14.l"lad1 ct:Jf8 15.ct:Je5 ct:J6d7 16.ixe7 l"lxe7 17. ct:Jdf3 f6 18.ct:Jg4 b6 19.ct:Je3 l"lf7 and White's position looks the

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .li'ld2 c5 4Ji'lgf3 cd 5 .liJxd4 11Jf6

more attractive, Malakhov - Ro­manov, St Petersburg 2011 .

7.tt:\b5 This is the way for White to try to

create problems for his opponent. There is a quieter possibility -

7.11J2f3 a6 8.�d3 11Jbd7 9.0-0 �cS 10 .c4 1gfd6 11.11Jb3 �a7 12 .1gfe2 0-0 13 .�g5 1gfc7 14.�h4 l'%e8 15. l'!fe1 �b8. This is an original ma­noeuvre. However, the player with Black, Igor Lysyj, is one of the most eminent experts in the French defence in general, and in this variation in particular, so we should trust his moves, no matter how wild they might seem at first sight. 16.l'%ad1 b6 17.�g3 1gfa7 18. tiJeS 11Jxe5 19 .he5 �xeS 2 0 .1gfxe5 1gfb8 and the players agreed to a draw, Vysochin - Lysyj, St Peters­burg 2009. It is weaker for Black to play 7 . . . 11Jc6 8.11Jxc6 1gfxc6 (It is possible that Black's seventh move might be justified by the strategically risky line : 8 . . . 1gfxd1 + 9 .\t>xd1 bxc6 with a very compli­cated endgame.) 9 .�d3 1gfc7 !? (9 . . . a6? ! 10 .0-0 �d6 ll .b3 bS 12.a4 b4? 13 .�b5 ! axbS 14.axb5 �xh2+

15.11Jxh2 1gfb7 16.l'%xa8 1gfxa8 17. 1gfd6 tiJdS 18.1gfg3 g6 19.11Jg4 hS 2 0.�b2 0-0 21.tt:lf6+ tt:lxf6 22 . 1gfeS ! +- Efimenko - Ivanov, Da­gomys, 2009) 10.0-0 �d6 11.�g5 �d7 12 .1gfe2 tt:ldS 13.c4 tt:lf4 14. �xf4 hf4 15.g3 �d6 16.md1 l'!d8 17.l'%ac1 b6 and Black had a slight edge, McShane - Shimanov, Stockholm 2009. Of course, White was not forced to play so indifferently, but there is a feeling that after 7.11J2f3 Black should have no problems whatsoever.

7 ••• tt:\a6 Black does not really want to

develop his knight to this square, but has no good alternative at this point.

8.c4 This is the only move for White

which combines aggression and soundness.

There are interesting develop­ments after the gambit line : 8.�e2 �d7 9 .c4 (White even tried a "double gambit" in the following blitz game - without success, though . . . : 9 .0-0 �xbS 10 .c4 hc4 11 .�xc4 1gfc6 12 .1gfe2 tt:lc7 13.tt:lf3

183

Chapter 24

id6 14.ig5 0-0 15J'l:ac1 iWb6 16. .b:f6 gxf6 17.iWe4 ie7 18.iWh4 E1ad8 and the position was very complicated, Svidler - Grischuk, Moscow 2008.) 9 . . . 1Wxg2 10.if3 iWh3 1l ..b:b7

ll . . . tt:Jb4 (It is clear that Black refrained from the more forcing line starting with ll . . . tt:Jc5 because of 12.1MI'f3 iWxf3 13.ixf3 l"1b8 14. tt:Jxa7 4Jd3+ 15.�e2 with an un­clear position. White does not achieve much with 12 . .b:a8 4Jd3+ 13.�e2 tt:Jf4=) 12 .4Je4 This is ad­mittedly a bold move, but I can­not recommend it since it is too risky. (12 . .b:a8 4Jd3+ 13. �e2 tt:Jf4=) 12 . . . 4Jd3+ (Or 12 . . . 4Jxe4 ! ? 13.ixe4 l"1c8 and Black seizes the initiative. White will remain a pawn down and that might not be the worst thing that happens to him in this position.) 13.�e2 tt:Jxe4 14 . .b:e4 tt:Jxc1+ 15.l"1xc1 E1b8 16.b3 ic5 17.4Jc7+ �e7 18.4Ja6 E1b6 19.4Jxc5 iWh5+ 2 0.f3 iWxc5 and White emerged victorious from the subsequent struggle, Ni Hua - Lysyj, Dagomys 2008.

Black survived in the only two games played with the variation 8.ie2 iWxg2 9.if3 iWg5 10 .a4. It is

184

amazing, but the opponents in both these games were the same !

10 . . . 1Wh4. This improvement for Black was obviously the result of home preparation. (Their pre­vious game had continued with 10 . . . 1We5+ 1l.�f1 4Jd5 12.4Jc4 iWb8 13 .ig5 h6 14.ih4 iWf4 15.4Jcd6+ .b:d6 16.ig3 iWc4+ 17.ie2 iWc6 18.4Jxd6+ �f8 19.l"1g1 tt:Jac7 20 . l"1a3 and White had an over­whelming advantage, Yemelin -S.lvanov, St Petersburg 1994.) 1l.l"1g1 ic5 12.1l>lfe2 0-0 13.b3 tt:Jb4 14.4Jc4 a6 15.ig5 iWxh2 16.l"1h1 hf2+ 17.�fl iWg3 18 . .b:f6 gxf6 19.1Wxf2 iWxf2+ 20 .�xf2 axb5 21 . l"1ag1+ �h8 22 .l"1h4 bxc4 23. l"1gh1 and after this wild struggle the game ended with a draw by per­petual check, Yemelin - S.lvanov, St Petersburg 1996. However, I believe that the variation has yet not been exhausted and there are many possibilities still to be tried.

It would be too optimistic for White to play 8.4Jc4 iWxd1 + 9. �xd1 ic5 10.f3 (Or 10.4Jbd6+? ! �e7 11. tt:Jxc8+ E1axc8 12.f3 E1hd8+ 13.id2 4Jd5 14.id3 tt:Jab4 15.�e2 b5 16. 4Ja3 tt:Jxd3 17.cxd3 ha3 18.bxa3 l"1c2 and the endgame is lost for

l .e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3Jijd2 c5 4Jijgf3 cd S .tiJxd4 l:iJf6

White, Mannion - Hmadi, Yere­van 1996.) 10 . . . 0-0 11 .c3 l"ld8+ 12.'it>c2 l:iJdS 13.b4 il.e7 14.il.d2 i/.d7 1S.a4 i/.e8 16.i/.e2 l:iJac7 17.1:iJxc7 lLlxc7 18.l"lhd1 l"lac8 19.g3 1:iJdS 20 . 'it>b3 il.f6 2 1.f4 bS, Black's position is totally dominant, Vorobiov -Volkov, Krasnoyarsk 2003.

8.lLlc3 ! ? White is planning a long struggle with this move. 8 . . . \Wd8 (An interesting for Black here is 8 . . . \WeS+ 9 .i/.e2 il.b4 ! ? with a rather unclear position.)

Now: 9 .a3 il.e7 10 .i/.c4 0-0 (Or 10 . . .

lLlc7 11 .0-0 0-0 12 .\Wf3 lLlfdS 13. lLlde4 fS 14.lLlg3 lLlxc3 1S.\Wxc3 lLldS 16.\Wf3 bS. GM Emil Sutovs­ky usually treats the French de­fence as a cross between the Gru­enfeld Defence and the Najdorf Sicilian . . . 17.hbS \Wc7 18.c4 Black is unlikely to obtain compensa­tion for his wild sacrifices, Ni Hua - Sutovsky, Wijk aan Zee 2010.) 11 .0-0 (White did not achieve any advantage with the line: 11 .\We2 lLlcS 12 .0-0 a6 13.b4 lLlcd7 14.il.b2 aS 1S.bxaS \WxaS 16.lLlbS lLlb6 17. i/.c3 \Wa4 18.il.b3 \Wh4 19.1:iJc7 l"lxa3= Timofeev - Ni Hua, Tai­yuan 2006. It would be rather

half-hearted for White to play 14. lLlb3? ! \Wc7 1S.il.b2 lLleS 16.i/.d3 lLlxd3 17.cxd3 il.d7 18.lLle4 lLlxe4 19.dxe4 l"lfc8 20.\Wg4 eS 21 .\Wg3 f6 and Black gained the advantage in the game Handke - Lysyj, Stock­holm 2009.) 11 . . .lLlcS. (This move is stronger than 11 . . .lLlb8 12 .lLlde4 \Wc7 13 .i/.d3 lLlbd7 14.l"le1 b6 1S. lLlbS \Wc6 16.1:iJbd6 ! ? l:iJcS 17.1:iJxc8 l"laxc8 18.lLlxcS hcS 19.\We2 l"lfd8 20 .il.f4 il.d6 21 .i/.d2, Lastin -Alekseev, Moscow 2008. It seems to me that White's prospects are superior in this position. Howev­er, his advantage might not be so easy to realize.) 12 .b4 lLlcd7 13.il.b2 aS 14.bxaS \WxaS 1S.lLlbS lLlb6 16. il.d3 il.d7 17.l"lb1 hbS 18.hbS lLla4 19 .hf6 il.xf6 20 .lLle4 il.e7 21 . i/.xa4 and Black agreed to a draw in a very comfortable position, Malak­hov - Shimanov, Olginka 2011 .

There appeared a fresh idea (not completely new in this posi­tion, however . . . ) , as early as the second round of the World Cup, from Peter Svidler (who won the Cup, by the way . . . ): 9 .g3 il.b4 10. \Wf3 lLlc7? ! That was not the right square ! (It was stronger for Black to play 10 . . . lLlcS, protecting the b7-pawn! , for example: 11 .i/.g2 il.d7 and his position is perfectly playable ; or 11 .a3 i/.xc3 12 .\Wxc3 b6? with chances for both sides. ) 11 .a3 i/.e7 12 .i/.g2 . Now the game is developing in a rather unpleasant way for Black. 12 . . . 0-0 13.0-0 l"lb8 14.lLlde4 l:iJxe4 1S.\Wxe4 il.f6 16.i/.f4 il.d7 17.l"lad1 \WeB 18.i/.d6 il.c6 19.\Wf4 hg2 20 .'it>xg2 hc3

18S

Chapter 24

2l .bxc3 'LldS 22 .Wlf3 Wlc6 23.ixf8 Elxf8 and later, showing tremen­dous tenacity, Black somehow managed to save the game, Svidler - Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011 .

8 ••• Wlc6 It looks quite sensible for

Black to try 8 . . . W!fS 9 .ie2 ie7 10. 0-0 (10.'Llf3 0-0 11 .'Lld6 WlaS+ 12 .id2 Wlb6 13.'Llxc8 8:axc8 14. Wlc2 'Llb4 1S.Wlb1 icS 16.0-0 'Llc6 17.ic3 8:fd8 18 .Wlc2 'Llb4 19 .Wlb1 'Llc6 20 .'<Mic2 'Lld4 and Black tried to seize the initiative but failed to win the game, Godena - Ni Hua, Reggio Emilia 2008.) 10 . . . 0-0 11 .'Lld4 '<MicS 12 .'Ll2b3 '<MieS 13.if3 '<Mic7 14.'<Mie2 id7 1S.ie3 8:ac8 16.8:ac1 'LlcS 17.8:fdl. If Black manages to exchange queens he will surely be able to equalize, Howell - Ni Hua, Dresden 2008.

9.lLlf3 Over-complex solutions to the

position, such as the move 9.a3, do not accord with the style of competitive grandmasters. I do not quite understand the idea of this move in any case. 9 . . . ie7 10. b4 (White tried something very strange in this game : 10.'Llf3 0-0 1l .ie2 8:d8 12 .Wlc2 'LlcS 13 .b4 Wle4 14.'<Mixe4 'Llcxe4 1S.ib2 id7 16. 0-0 aS 17.bxaS ElxaS+ and Black's position is much the more pleas­ant, Kogan - Grischuk, Rogaska Slatina 2011 .) 10 . . . 0-0 11.Wlf3. This is another strange-looking move. (It looks positionally more sensible for White to play ll .ib2 Eld8 12 .'<Mif3 'Llb8 but after 13.'<Mic3?

186

aS 14.ct:ld4 '<Mid7 1S.bS '<Mid6 16.ie2 'Llbd7 17.ct:l4b3 a4 18.'Lle4 Wlf4 19. ct:lbd2 ct:lcS 20.f3 b6 2l .g3 Wlh6 22 .'Llf2 ib7 23.8:d1 Eld7 24.'Llfl Elad8 Black had an overwhelming advantage, Grekh - Vysochin, Li­petsk 2008. After 12 .'<Mic2 'Llb8 13. ct:ld4 Wlc7 14.ie2 aS 1S .bS a4 ! 16.0-0 'Llbd7 17.8:ad1 ct:lcS 18. 'Ll4f3 'Llfd7 19.'Lle4 f6 20.8:fe1 ct:lxe4 21 .Wlxe4 'LlcS 22 .8:xd8+ Wlxd8 23.'<Mic2 id7 Black scored a very nice victory - White's posi­tion is even worse than it seems at first sight, Rublevsky - Riazant­sev, Poikovsky 2010.) 11 . . .'Llb8 12 .8:b1 aS 13 .bxaS Wxf3 14.ct:lxf3 ElxaS. I think Black should have a perfectly acceptable position in this ending. In the game he failed to equalize, but even won it at the end. . . 1S.ie2 'Llbd7 16.0-0 b6 17.id2 8:a4 18 .ib4 ct:lcS 19.8:fd1 ib7 20 .'LleS ia8 2 l .f3 Elb8 22 .8:d2 'Lle8 23.'Lld7 8:b7 24.8:bd1 gS 2S. ct:lxcS bxcS 26.ic3 Elb8 27.ieS Elc8 28 .8:d7 with positional pressure for White, McShane - Ni Hua, London 2009.

9 . . . b6 10 . .ie2 .ib7 11. 0 - 0 ie7

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJd2 c5 4. CiJgj3 cd 5. CiJxd4 CiJf6

12.c!tJbd4 White's wish to break up his

opponent's battery on the long di­agonal is understandable.

White has another interesting line here - we are already famil­iar with its ideas : 12 .a3 0-0 (12 . . . CiJc5 ! ?) 13.CiJbd4 �c8 14.b4 l"1d8 15.�b3 e5 16.CiJc2 e4 17.CiJfd4 CiJb8 18 .�b2 CiJc6 19.l"1ad1 CiJxd4 20 . CiJxd4 and White is better, Howell - Istratescu, Hastings 2010.

12 . . . �c8 13.�a4+ .!Lld7 14. �g5

This is the start of a forcing line. White considers, quite cor­rectly, that Black's pawn-struc­ture is solid enough and he tries to create concrete problems for his opponent based on the fact that he has not yet castled.

14 . • . .!Llac5 15.�a3 .!Llf6

16.b4 White tried to obtain an ad­

vantage with much quieter meth­ods in the following game, but he did not achieve much : 16.l"1ad1 0-0 17.CiJe5 l"1e8 18.�e3 CiJce4 19. �f4 l"1d8 20.f3 CiJd6 2 1 .�g3 CiJd7

22 .CiJxd7 l"1xd7 23 .b3 �c5 and only Black might think about an ad­vantage, Rublevsky - Matlakov, Moscow 2010.

16 • . . .!Llce4 17.M6 M6 18. c5 !?

This i s a n interesting way of playing for White, but it is very risky.

18 . . . bxc5 19.�b5+ 't!?e7 2 0 . l"1ac1

2 0 • . • cxd4! Of course, Black must answer

a blow with a counter-blow! 2U!xc8 ghxc8 22.�a6

gc3 !? I believe that this move is much more interesting than the continuation of a previous game: 22 . . . l"1ab8 23 .b5+ CiJd6 24.hb7 l"1xb7 25.l"1d1 l"1c3 26.'&a6 l"1xb5 27. �xa7+ l"1b7 28.'&a6 E1bc7 29.h3 l"17c6 30 .�a7+ l"1c7 31 .'&a6 l"17c6 32 .'&a7+ and the players agreed to draw, Vachier Lagrave - Ivan­chuk, Biel 2 009. 23.�a5 .id5 24.gd1 't!?f8 25 . .!Llxd4 �d8 26. �a4 �b6 with a very complicated position in which Black's pros­pects are by no means worse.

187

Chapter 25 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)i)d2 c5 4.lLlgf3 cxd4 5.exd5 VMxd5

Readers should be aware that this position can be reached via another move-order: 4.exd5 '\Wxd5 5 .tt::lgf3 cxd4. If Black intends to recapture on d5 with his queen, the move-order is irrelevant to him. He also has the option of another plan, based on capturing on d5 with a pawn and then playing with an isolated queen's pawn. However, I believe that Black should not weaken his pawn-structure unnecessarily. Of course, his queen comes into the centre of the board rather prema­turely and it is exposed to attack. However, Black can hope to neu­tralize White's activity in the opening and if he manages this he will have a bright future, since there are neither pawn-weakness-

188

es nor any weak squares in his po­sition.

6 • .ic4

6 ••• '1Wd6 Black sometimes plays 6 . . . '\Wd8

as well. This move is regularly played by Igor Lysyj. Possibly this is the result of serious analytical work. It is a bit passive but quite reliable. I will quote several mod­el games for you. 7.0-0 (7.tt::lb3 .ib4+ 8 . .id2 .ixd2+ 9.'\Wxd2 tt::lf6 10. tt::lbxd4 0-0 11.0-0-0 '\Wc7 12 . .ib3 tt::lc6 13 .Ei:he1 and the players agreed to a draw, Popovic - Kosic, Niksic 1997.) 7 . . . a6 8.tt::lb3 tt::lc6 9. tt:Jbxd4 (9 .'1We2 b5 10 . .id3 tt::lf6 11. .ig5 .ib7 12.a4 b4 13 . .ie4 .id6 14. Ei:ad1 0-0 15.tt::lbxd4 tt:Jxd4 16. Ei:xd4 .ixe4 17.Ei:xe4 h6 18 . .ih4 g5

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Cbd2 c5 4. tbgj3 cd 5.ed Wffxd5 6. �c4 Wffd6

19.Ei:d4 Wffb6 20 .�g3 hg3 2 1 .hxg3 Ei:ad8 22 .Ei:fd1 Ei:xd4 23.Ei:xd4 Ei:c8 and Black had some pressure, Sjugirov - Riazantsev, Moscow 2009.) 9 . . . 4Jxd4 10.t2J xd4 �d6 11. Wffd3 (ll.Wffg4 l2lf6 12.Wffh4 0-0 13. �d3 h6 14.Ei:e1 l2Jd5 15.Wffxd8 Ei:xd8 16.c3 �c7 and a draw was agreed, Navara - Lysyj, Dagomys 2 008.) 1l . . . Wffc7 12 .h3 l2Jf6 13.Ei:d1 0-0 14. l2lf3 �e7 15.�b3 b6 16.�g5 �b7 17. c3 Ei:fd8 18.Wffe2 h6 19,j,e3 �c5, draw, Deviatkin - Lysyj, Voronezh 2009.

Here Black should possibly consider the move 6 . . . Wffd7. At least, there have been several games played at a very high level in which it was tried and Black solved his opening problems eas­ily and convincingly. 7 .0-0 l2Jc6 8 .lLlb3 lLlf6

9 .l2Jbxd4 (9.�f4 �d6 10 .hd6 Wffxd6 ll .l2Jbxd4 l2Jxd4 12 .Wffxd4 Wffxd4 13.l2lxd4 �d7= Movsesian ­Vallejo Pons, Reggio Emilia 2011) 9 . . . �c5 10.l2Jxc6 Wffxc6 ll .l2le5 Wffb6 12.Wffe2 0-0 13.�d3 l2Jd5 14.Wffe4 f5 15.Wffe2 Wffc7 16.�c4 �d6 17.l2Jf3 �d7 18 .hd5 exd5 19.�e3 f4 2 0 .�d4 �f5 and Black was better in the game Caruana - Shirov, Biel 2011 .

This is White's most aggres­sive plan, although it is not the most popular. White is trying to refute his opponent's opening strategy in a radical fashion. How­ever, he must take some risks if he is to accomplish such an ambi­tious task.

The motive for placing his queen on this rather strange square is that if White naively plays 7.l2lb3 Wffb4+ ! he will need to go back with his knight: 8 .l2Jbd2 .

Attempts by White to avoid the main line with moves like 7. �b3 do not achieve anything. This move can only rely on the element of surprise and White's chances of obtaining an advantage are mini­mal. 7 . . . 4Jc6

189

Chapter 25

8.ltlc4 (8.ltle4 Wd8 9.0-0 :Jie7 :Jie7, or even 9 . . . Wb4+ 10 .:Jid2 10 .We2 lt:lf6 11.:gd1 0-0 12 .c3 eS Wb6. 13.h3. Black has an extra pawn 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 b5 ll.:Jid3 :Jie7 and no problems whatsoever. 13. . . Both sides have almost com-:JifS 14.lt:lg3 d3 15.We1 Wd7 16. pleted the mobilization of their lt:lxeS lt:lxeS 17.Wxe5 :Jig6 18.:Jie3 forces. :gfe8 and White must think about White can choose here be-equalizing. Black played less tween several possibilities. strongly in the following game, but he still won the rather compli­cated ending after 18 . . . :Jid8 19. :Jic4 :Jic7 20.Wb5 WxbS 21 .:Jixb5, Hansen - Akopian, Turin 2006.) 8 . . . Wd8 9.0-0 lt:lf6 10.We2 d3 ! The Chinese player treats the po­sition in a very original fashion. White's pieces are really awk­wardly placed from the point of view of fighting against the iso­lated pawn. ll.cxd3 :Jie7 12 .d4 0-0 13.lt:lce5 lt:lxd4 14.lt:lxd4 Wxd4 15.:Jig5 lt:ldS 16.:gfd1 Wb4 17.:Jixe7 lt:lxe7 18.:gacl lt:lc6 19.ltlxc6 bxc6 20 .:gxc6 :Jib7= Timofeev - Ding, Sochi 2009.

7 . . )i:lf6 8.tbb3 lbc6 9 • .ig5

9 . . . a6 I recommend that Black fol­

lows the most principled path. Sometimes Black plays 9 . . .

190

12.:ghel This move has not been thor­

oughly analyzed yet, but I think it is White's most promising. This is quite typical of contemporary chess. You can hardly win a game at any level without demonstrat­ing something new . . .

I t would be a mistake for White to opt for 12 .:Jie4? lt:lxe4 13.Wxe4 :Jib7 14.lt:lbxd4 Wc7 and Black is even better.

The logical move 12.ltlbxd4 can be countered forcefully with 12 . . . lbxd4 13.lt:lxd4 WdS !

(diagram) 14.:Jixf6 :Jixf6 15.mbl. It looks

as though White has created some difficulties for his opponent, but that assumption would be wrong. 15 . . . :Jib7! This novelty solves all Black's problems. (Previously

l .e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. t2Jd2 cS 4. t2Jgj3 cd S.ed V!ixdS 6. iJ.c4 V!id6

Black used to play 15 . . . V!ffc5 16.iJ.e4 l'!a7 17.iJ.c6+ rnf8 18.V!ffe3 lt>g8 19. l'!d2 l'!c7 20 .l'!hd1 h5 21 .iJ.a8 g6 with an acceptable position, Solak - Wang Hao, Dubai 2 005. Of course, not everyone likes to play with such a stalemated rook.) 16.t2Jxb5

16 . . . rne7! This is another very good move for Black. 17.t2Jc7 V!fc5 18.t2Jxa8 iJ.xg2. Suddenly it be­comes clear that despite his extra rook White must think about how to equalize. 19.V!ffe3 (Or 19.l'!hg1? l'!b8 2 0.c3 V!ffxc3 21 .l'!d2 iJ.f3 ! 22 . l'!c1 V!ffxc1+ 23.rnxc1 he2 24.l'!xe2 l'!xa8 and Black has an over­whelming advantage in this end­game.) 19 . . . V!ffxe3 20.fxe3 iJ.xh1 21 .l'!xh1 (It is very risky for White to opt for 21 .tt:Jc7 iJ.c6 22 .t2Jxa6 g5 and Black's pawns, supported by his bishops, might well promote

rather quickly.) 21 . . .l'!xa8. Black can continue playing for a win in this position.

It is possible that White should try 14.f4, but Black also has an ex­cellent position in that case : 14 . . . V!ffxa2 15.c3 iJ.d7 16.f5 (It i s inferior to choose 16 .iJ.b1? V!ffa5 17.V!ffe5 0-0 18.tt:Jb3 V!ffa4 and the players agreed to a draw here in a better position for Black, Akopian -Roiz, Sochi 2006. 17 . . . l'!c8 ! and White has no compensation for the pawn.) 16 . . . l'!c8 17.iJ.b1 (White might become the victim of a beautiful combination if he ex­changes pawns prematurely: 17. fxe6 fxe6 18 .iJ.b1 l'!xc3+ 19.tt:Jc2 V!ffc4 20 .V!ffd2 iJ.c6 ! 21 .V!ffxc3 tt:Je4 ! ! -+) 17 . . . l'!xc3+ 18.tt:Jc2 V!ffc4 19.V!ffd2 l'!xc2+ (Here 19 . . . iJ.c6? 2 0 .bxc3 t2Je4 does not work, since after 21 .V!ffd8+ he gets mated.) 20 .hc2 iJ.c6 21 .l'!he1 iJ.d5 and Black has excellent compensation for the exchange.

White obtains no advantage even if he plays 12 .mb1, since Black answers that with 12 . . . iJ.b7 13.t2Jbxd4 tt:Jxd4 14.tt:Jxd4 iJ.d5 (Or 14 . . . 0-0. This is also possible. lv­anchuk can play anything . . . 15. tt:Jf3 t2Jd5 16.ma1 hg5 17.tt:Jxg5 h6 18.V!ffe4 l'!fd8 19.V!ffh7+ mf8 20 .tt:Jf3 V!fff4 21 .V!ffe4 V!ffxe4 22 .he4 f5 23. iJ.xd5 l'!xd5. White is faced with a rather unpleasant defence, Ni­kolaidis - lvanchuk, Peristeri 2010. It is important that after 14 . . . 0-0, it would not work for White to play 15.t2Jxb5 axb5 16.hf6 iJ.d5 ! )

191

Chapter 25

1S.lt:lf3 (Or 1S.E!he1? ! ha2 + 1 6 . 'it>xa2 �xd4 and suddenly Black has won a pawn, Dovliatov - Malakhatko, Baku 2008, since if 17.ixbS+ axbS is check.) 1S . . . 0-0 16.lt:leS b4 17.h4 aS 18.E!h3 E!fd8 19.E!g3 a4 20 .f4 a3 with a complicated position, Kim - S. Ivanov, St Petersburg 2004. Of course, the play of both sides can be corrected and improved, but the overall picture is quite favour­able for Black.

12 . . . h6 This is a new move and it is

based on an interesting tactical trick.

Previously Black had played 12 . . . ib7 13.lt:lfxd4 lt:lxd4 14.lt:lxd4 �dS? (Black can also try the line: 14 . . . idS ! ? 1S.�e3 �c7 16.'it>b1

192

with a complicated fight ahead.) 1S.lt:lfS ! �xa2 16.�eS (16.c3 !±) 16 . . . �a1+ 17.'it>d2 �aS+ 18.c3 lt:le4+? 19.he4 hgS+ 20.'it>e2 he4 21 .lt:lxg7+- Ganguly -Petrik, Dresden 2008.

Black can develop his bishop another way - 12 . . . id7 - but it seems to me that it is misplaced there. 13. 'it>b1 (White does not ob­tain any advantage with 13.ie4 E!c8 14.lt:lbxd4 �c7 1S.lt:lxc6 hc6 16.hc6+ �xc6 17.'it>b1 0-0 18. lt:leS �c7 19.ixf6 hf6 20 .lt:ld7 hb2 ! = ; 19.lt:ld7 E!fd8 20.lt:lxf6+ h£6 21.hf6 gxf6=) 13 . . . E!d8

14.h3 lt:ldS 1S.ixe7 �xe7 16. lt:lfxd4 lt:lxd4 17.lt:lxd4 �b4 18 .lt:lb3 0-0 19 .ie4 lt:lf6 2 0 .E!d4 �e7 21 . id3 ic6 and Black has an excel­lent position, Lie - Avrukh, Her­aklio 2007.

In reply to 14.ih4 ! ? it would be interesting for Black to try the simple response 14 . . . 0-0 and now:

1S.ig3 �dS 16.lt:lfd4 lt:ld4 17. lt:ld4 g6 - Black's position seems secure;

1S .g4 lt:lg4 (1S . . . g6 !?) 16.ig3 �dS 17.lt:ld4 lt:lf6 - It is unlikely that White will manage to mate

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jijd2 c5 4Ji:Jgj3 cd S.ed Vfffxd5 6.i.c4 Vfffd6

his opponent, but he does retain some compensation;

1S.C2Jfd4 ltJd4 16.C2Jd4 g6 17. C2Jf3 C2Jd5 18 .i.e7 Vfffe7 19.lLle5 VfffcS=

13.i.h4 After 13 .hf6?! hf6 14.i.e4

i.b7 1S.C2Jbxd4 C2Jxd4 16.C2Jxd4 he4 17.Vfffxe4 0-0, Black can be quite happy.

13 ••• 0 - 0 It looks attractive to try 13 . . .

i.b7 but i t doesn't work very well : 14.ltJbxd4 C2Jxd4 1S.ltJxd4 Vffff4+? 16.'1t>b1 Vfffxh4 17.C2Jxe6 ! + -

14.i.g3 14.ltJbxd4? ltJxd4 15.ctJxd4 Vffff4-+ The preliminary 14.'1t>b1 mere-

ly presents Black with additional possibilities. For example : 14 . . . i.b7 1S.C2Jbd4 (1S.i.g3 Vfffd8 16. C2Jfxd4 C2Jxd4 17.C2Jxd4 i.dS ! ?) 15 . . . C2Jxd4 16.ctJxd4 Wxh2. Black's boldness can be envied. In fact, everything which is not forbidden is allowed! 17.i.g3 VfffhS 18.f3 ttJdS

19.Vffff2 C2Jb4 2 0.i.e4 i.xe4 21.fxe4 !:'1ac8 2 2 .a3 ctJc6 with an extra pawn and a superior position for Black, Shyam - Shimanov, Chen­nai 2011 .

14 • • .tt/d5 15.'i!?b1 i.b7 16. c!bfxd4 c!bxd4

But not 16 . . . C2Jb4? ! 17.f3 C2Jxd3 18.!:'1xd3 and White seizes the ini­tiative.

17.c!bxd4 E1fd8

The position is approximately equal. Let us see some sample variations.

18 • .ie5 White would not achieve much

with the risky line: 18.C2Jf5 .if8 19.lLle3 WcS.

Black's position remains solid after 18.C2Jf3 VfffcS 19.lLle5 i.dS.

18 •• .l'�ac8 with a very compli­cated position.

It is inferior to play 18 . . . ltJd7? ! 19.i.c7! and Black's pieces be­come rather uncoordinated.

The plan with 7. Vfffe2 is becoming less and less popular lately. White must try to find an improvement in this variation!

193

Chapter 26 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lL'ld2 c5 4.lL'lgf3 cxd4 5.exd5 �xd5 6.i.c4 �d6 7. 0 - 0

This is the main line. White plays solidly, relying on obtaining an advantage through simple cen­tral strategy.

7 •. .tiJ f6 8 .ti:l b3 8.l'!e1 - This is a risky plan and

Black must react aggressively against it. 8 . . . '2ic6 9 .'2ie4 'Lixe4 10.l'!xe4 ibe7 11 .'2ixd4 (Black can solve his opening problems suc­cessfully after ll.ibf4? ! � c5 12 .ibd3 ibf6 13.a3 a5 ! ? and White cannot develop any initiative. It is weaker for Black to play 13 . . . 0-0, since White can then carry out an inter­esting idea : 14.b4 �h5 15.b5 'Lie7 16.ibe5 'LidS 17.1Lxd4 ibxd4 18. l'!xd4 'Lif6 19.�d2 with some pres­sure, Hracek - Kelly, Rethymnon 2003.)

194

ll . . . e5 ! This is the beginning of a forcing line, which leads to a very complicated endgame. (It is less principled for Black to play 11 . . .0-0?! 12 .1Lf4 �c5 13.'2ixc6 �xc6 14.ibd3 b5 15.a4 a6 16.l'!e3 ibb7 17.1Le4 �xe4 18.l'!xe4 1Lxe4 19.�e2 ibd5 20 .h4 l"1ac8 21 .axb5 axb5 22 .ibg5 ibd6 23.l'!a6 ibb8 24. ibe7 l'!fe8 25.ibd6 l'!ed8 26.1Lxb8 l'!xb8 and White succeeded in winning this position, Kasparov -Gelfand, Astana 2001 . ) 12.1Lf4! exf4 13.'2ixc6 �xd1+ 14.l'!xd1 bxc6 15.l'!de1 @f8 16.l'!xe7 ibe6 ! Black's whole defence is based on this possibility. He wins the exchange and although White will have ex­cellent compensation, this will hardly be sufficient for victory. 17.l"11xe6 fxe6 18.l'!c7 h5! This is the right way to develop Black's

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJd2 c5 4. liJgf3 cd S.ed Wffxd5 6. 1lc4 Wffd6 7. 0 - 0 liJf6

king's rook. (It would be weaker to play 18 . . . gS? 19.Wfl l'!e8 20 . E!xa7 l'!e7 2l .l'!a6 l'!c7 22 .l'!aS h6 23.l'!eS l'!e7 24.l'!cS l'!c7 2S.a4 We7 26.l'!eS Wd6 27.l'!xe6+ WcS 28 .b3 and White eventually won, Hra­cek Borovikov, Pardubice 2002 . ) 19.Wfl E!h6 20.l'!xc6 E!d8 (One game ended in a quick draw after 20 . . . E!e8 2l .l'!c7 l'!e7 22 .l'!c8+ l'!e8 23.l'!c7 l'!e7 24.l'!c8+ , Kurnos­ov - Najer, Kazan 200S.) 2 l .id3 We7 22 .l'!a6 E!d7 23.l'!aS h4 24.h3 g6 2S.l'!a6 gS 26.We2 Wf6 27.b3 E!h8 2 8.ic4 l'!e7 29.l'!c6 E!b8 with a very complicated endgame in which Black's prospects are bet­ter, Oral - Wang Hao, Mallorca 2004.

8 . • .liJc6 9.tiJ bxd4 ttJxd4

1 0 .�xd4 The endgame is absolutely

harmless for Black after 10.®xd4 ®xd4 ll.liJxd4 id7 12.if4 E!c8 13 .ib3 icS 14.E!adl 0-0 1S.liJf3 E!fd8 16.liJeS ibS 17.c4 ie8 18. E!xd8 E!xd8 19.E!dl l'!c8 20 .Wfl aS, and Black even had the better po­sition in the game Pavasovic -Roiz, Valjevo 2007.

1 0 . . . a6 This is the most sensible move.

Black has also tried here 10 . . . id7 and 10 . . . ie7.

White now has to make a choice between several possibili­ties .

ll.l'�el This is his main and most ag­

gressive move. Now Black is faced with concrete problems and he must react very precisely.

It is weaker for White to play ll .a4 Wc7 12 .b3 (12 .We2 id6 13. h3 0-0 14.c3 h6 lS.l'!el b6 16.id3 ib7 17.id2 E!fd8 18.E!adl icS= Short - lvanchuk, Montreal 2007.) 12 . . . id6 13.h3 0-0 14.ib2 eS 1S.liJf3 e4 16.liJgS (16.li:Jd4 id7 17.We2 l'!ae8 18.icl WaS 19.l'!dl WeS with an initiative for Black, Tiviakov - Dreev, Podolsk 1992) 16 . . . ifS 17.hf6 gxf6 18 .WdS ih2+ 19.Whl ieS 20 .liJxe4 ie6 2 l.®dl hc4 22 .bxc4 fS 23.liJg3 hal 24.Wxal f6. White has com­pensation for the exchange, but not more than that, Movsesian -Morozevich, Reggio Emilia 2011 .

It is hardly interesting for

19S

Chapter 26

White to opt for ll .i.d3 i.d7 12.li'lf3 Vfic7 13.l"le1 i.d6 14.Vfie2 li'ld5 15.a3 li'lf4 (Black has a rea­sonable alternative here in 15 . . . 0-0 16.li'le5= Azarov - Akopian, Plovdiv 2008.) 16.i.xf4 .b:f4 17.g3 i.d6 18 .l"lad1 l"ld8= Ponomariov -Huebner, Istanbul 2000.

Black has some problems to solve if White plays in prophylac­tic fashion with 11 .i.b3.

It is quite principled for Black to play 1l . . .i.d7, preventing the early activation of White's queen. 12 .c3 Vfic7 13 .i.g5 0-0-0 (13 . . . i.d6? ! 14.i.xf6 gxf6 15.Vfih5 Vfic5 16.Vfif3 Vfie5 17.g3 0-0-0 18.l"lfe1 Vfig5 19.i.c4 Vfic5 2 0 .i.fl f5 21 .b4 and White seized the initiative in the game, Ye Jiangchuan - Wang Hao, Jinan 2005) 14 . .b:f6 gxf6 15.Vfih5 i.e8 16.l"lad1 <;t>b8 and de­spite the fact that Black still has some problems to solve in this po­sition, he has scored excellent practical results so far.

17.l"lfe1 l"lc8 18.Vfih4 i.e7 19.g3? h5 ! 20 .Vfif4 Vfixf4 21 .gxf4 l"lg8+ 22 . <;t>f1 f5, with brilliant prospects for Black, Rublevsky - Vitiugov, Moscow 2006;

17.l"ld2 l"lc8 18.l"lfd1 l"lg8 19.

196

Vfixh7 l"lg6 2 0.g3 f5 21.Vfih5 f4 22 .Vfif3 i.c5 23.<;t>fl l"lh6 24.Vfixf4 Vfixf4 25.gxf4 l"lxh2 26.li'lf3 and the players agreed to a draw, Tiviakov - Stellwagen, Hilversum 2008.

ll . . . Vfic7

12.1�'f3. This is the idea behind White's play. He wishes to save a tempo by not playing l"lel. (It is inferior to play 12 .i.g5 i.d6 13. i.xf6 gxf6 14.Vfih5 Vfic5 ! and Black solved all his problems after 12 .c3 i.d6 13.<;t>h1 0-0 14.i.g5 li'le4 15. i.h4 e5 16.li'lc2 li'lc5 17.i.d5 i.f5 18. li'le3 i.g6 19.li'lc4 li'ld3 2 0.Vfib3 i.e7= Rublevsky - Khalifman, Neum 2000.) 12 . . . i.d6 13 .h3 (The ultra-cautious move 13.<;t>h1 does not change much after 13 . . . 0-0 14.i.g5 li'ld7 15.c3 li'le5 16.Vfih5 li'lg6 17.i.c2 h6 18.i.e3 li'lf4 19.Vfif3 li'ld5 2 0 .i.d2 b5 21 .Vfie4 f5 22 .Vfie2 l"lf6 23 .i.b3 Vfic5 24.l"lad1 <;t>h8 25. i.c1 i.d7 26 . .b:d5 exd5 27.Vfif3 f4 with a rather complicated posi­tion, Potkin - Rodriguez Guerre­ro, Linares 2002 . 17 . . . b6 ! ? 18. l"lae1 i.b7 19.l"le3 Vfic5 20 .Vfig4 l"lae8 and Black's position is ac­ceptable. 20 . . . i.e7?? 21 .li'lxe6 ! fxe6 22 .Vfixe6+ l"lf7 23 . .b:g6 hxg6 24 . .b:e7 Vfib5 25.c4 Vfixb2 26.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .lild2 c5 4 .tilgf3 cd 5.ed Wixd5 6. il.c4 Wid6 7. 0 - 0 ltJf6

Wid7+- Rublevsky - Morovic Fer­nandez, Poikovsky 2001. ) 13 . . . 0-0 14.il.g5 ltJd7 15.c3

15 . . . ltJe5 (One of the most re­nowned experts in the French De­fence, the German GM Georg Meier played in this position 15 . . . b5 16.E1fe1 il.b7 17.Wih5 ltJe5 18 .il.c2 ltJg6 19.E1ad1 Wic5 20.Wig4 ltJeS 21 .Wih4 ltJg6= Parligras - Meier, Rijeka 2 010) 16.Wih5 ltJg6 17.il.c2 b6 18 .il.e3 il.b7 19.ltJf3 h6 20 .E1fd1 ltJf4 2 l .il.xf4 hf4, and Black is slightly better, but it is perfectly obvious that White could have played better, Tiviakov - lonov, Ohrid 2001 .

Previously White used to con­tinue with 1l .b3, but Black found a way to obtain a good game. 11. . . Wic7 (1l . . .e5. This i s a very risky move. 12 .E1e1 ! ? il.e7 13.ltJf3 Wixd1 14.E1xd1 e4 1S.ltJeS 0-0 16.il.e3 and in the ensuing endgame White exerts some pressure ; 12.ltJf3 b5 13.il.e2 e4 14.ltJd4? il.e7 1S.il.b2 0-0 16.Wid2 ltJg4 17.hg4 hg4 18.Wie3 f5 19.f3 exf3 2 0.ltJxf3 f4 with a better position for Black, Movsesian - Shirov, Plovdiv 2010. White should have ex­changed queens - 14.Wixd6 hd6

15.E1d1 il.b4 16.ltJd4 il.c3 17.E1b1 0-0 18 .il.b2 hb2 19.E1xb2 b4 20 . c4 bxc3 2l .E1c2± and he would have retained some advantage. ) 12 .il.b2 il.d6

13.ltJf3 (Or 13.h3? ! 0-0 14. ltJf3 bS 1S.il.d3 il.b7 16.E1e1 E1fd8 17.ltJeS ltJe4 18 .he4 he4 19.Wid4 hc2 2 0 .E1ac1 il.a3 2 1.ltJd7 hb2 22 .Wixb2 E1ac8 and Black ended up with an extra pawn in the game Postny - Filippov, Moscow 2004.) 13 . . . b5 14.il.d3 il.b7 15.c4 (It is no better for White to play 15.E1e1 0-0 16.ltJe5 E1ad8 17.Wie2 ltJdS 18.Wig4 fS 19.Wih4 ltJb4 2 0.E1e2 ltJxd3 21 .ltJxd3 il.e4 and Black even went on to win in Tiviakov -Psakhis, Rostov-on-Don 1993.) 15 . . . ltJg4 16.h3 il.h2 + 17.c;t>h1 il.g1 18.il.e5 ltJxeS 19.ltJxe5 Wixe5 and here the players agreed to a draw, Tiviakov - Prusikin, Dresden 2007. Two different opponents continued the fight from this same position, but the result was just the same in the end: 20 . c;t>xg1 E1d8 21 .Wie2 Wixe2 22 .he2 E1d2 23.E1fel bxc4 24.hc4 c;t>e7 25.E1e2 E1hd8 26.E1ae1 aS 27.f4 E1xe2 28. E1xe2 il.dS 29.hd5 E1xd5 30.c;t>f2 c;t>d6, draw, Womacka - Luther,

197

Chapter 26

Chemnitz 2009. This is probably the sign of a very strong player -to anticipate the inevitability of a certain result, long before it has become really obvious . . .

I t looks reasonable, but rather slow, for White to play ll.c3 V!ffc7 12 .i.b3 (White cannot create any real problems for his opponent with the line: 12 .V!ffe2 i.d6 13.h3 0-0 14.i.g5 'Lle4 15.i.e3 b5 16.i.d3 i.b7 17.V!ffc2 'Llf6 18 .i.g5 h6 19 . .hf6 gxf6 2 0.i.e4 .he4 21 .V!ffxe4 fS 2 2 .V!fff3 Elac8 23.Elad1 i.eS 24.Eld3 Elfd8 25.Elfd1 i.g7 and Black equal­ized easily, Bagirov - Djurasevic, Oberhausen 1961; 12 .i.d3 i.d6 13. h3 i.d7 14.V!fff3 0-0 15.i.g5 i.h2+ 16.<i>h1 i.eS 17.Elae1 .hd4 18.cxd4 'Lld5 19.V!ffe4 fS 20 .Wffe2 V!ffb6 21 .Eld1 i.bS with an excellent position for Black, Tiviakov - Kramnik, Kherson 1991.) 12 . . . i.d6 13.h3 0-0 14. i.gS 'Lle4 15.i.e3 i.h2+ 16 . 'tt>h1 i.f4 17.V!fff3 i.xe3 18.V!ffxe3 'Llf6 19.f4 bS 20 .Elae1 Ele8 21 .V!ffe5 V!ffxeS 22 . ElxeS i.b7 23.f5 exfS 24. ElexfS Elad8 25.<i>h2 i.dS 26 . .hd5 ElxdS 27.Elxd5 'LlxdS= Tiviakov -Huebner, Venlo 2000.

198

11 ••. V!ffc7 Black has a very attractive al­

ternative here - ll . . . i.d7 12 .i.g5 (It is probably quite reasonable for White to try some less forcing line, such as: 12 .c3 ! ? V!ffc7 13.V!ffe2 i.d6 14.h3 0-0 15.i.g5 i.h2+ 16. <i>h1 i.f4 17 . .hf6 gxf6 18 .i.d3 fS 19.V!ffh5 <i>h8 20 .'Llxf5 exfS 21 .Ele7 V!ffc6 22 .Elxd7!± Yemelin - Filip­pov, Panormo 2001 . )

and here: it is bad for Black to play 12 . . .

V!ffcS? 13 . .he6 fxe6 14 . .hf6 gxf6 15.'Llxe6 .he6 16.Elxe6+ i.e7 17.b4 V!ffc3 18.Ele3 V!ffc7 19.V!ffh5+ <i>f8 20. Elae1 and White has a decisive at­tack, Adams - Nisipeanu, Sofia 2007;

as is 12 . . . V!ffc7? 13 . .he6 i.xe6 14 . .hf6 gxf6 15.'Llxe6 fxe6 16. Elxe6+ <i>t7 17.V!ffd5 \t>g7 18.V!fff5 V!fft7 (18 . . . i.e7 19.Elae1 Elhe8 20. V!ffe4 <i>f8 21 .V!ffxh7 Elad8 22 .h4 V!ffcS 23.h5 1-0 Shytaj - Malakhatko, Tromsoe 2009.) 19.Eld1 i.e7 20.Eld7 Elhe8 21 .g3 Elab8 2 2 .h4 hS 23.c4 b6 24.b4 Elbc8 25.Elexe7 Elxe7 26.Elxe7 V!ffxe7 27.V!ffxc8+- Andria­sian - Rodshtein, Yerevan 2006;

12 . . . 0-0-0 13.Ele3

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.0,d2 c5 4.0,gj3 cd S.ed Vffxd5 6. ilc4 Vffd6 7. 0 - 0 0,f6

This position was considered to be difficult for Black, in view of the possible transfer of White's rook along the third rank. That fa­mous master of original and spec­tacular ideas, Emil Sutovsky, managed to overturn that evalua­tion. 13 . . . ilc6 ! (After the indiffer­ent move 13 . . . Wb8 Black has great problems: 14J'lb3 l"i:c8 15.Vfff3 ilc6 16.0,xc6+ Vffxc6 17.ilxf6 gxf6 18. Vffxf6 l"lg8 19.ilf1 l"lg6 20 .Vffxf7 ilc5 2l .Vfif3 e5 22 .Vffxc6 l"i:gxc6 23.l"i:el± Asrian - Wang Hao, Taiyuan 2006.) 14.l"i:d3 ile4 15.0,b5 (White achieves nothing with 15.l"ld2 Vffb6 16.c3 ild6= ; he should avoid 15.0,f5 Vffc7 16.l"lxd8+ Vffxd8 17. Vffxd8+ Wxd8 18.l"i:d1+ Wc8 19. 0,d6+ ilxd6 20 .l"i:xd6 ild5=) 15 . . . Vffe7 16.0,a7+ Wc7 17.ilf4+ (White might try to create some prob­lems for his opponent with 17. l"i:xd8 Vffxd8 18.Vfie1 ild6 19.ilxf6 Vffxf6 20 .Vffxe4 ilc5 21 .0,c6 bxc6 22 .l"i:fl l"i:d8, although the first im­pression is that Black should be able to hold. After 18 . . . Wb8, how­ever, he is clearly worse: 19.Vffxe4 0,xe4 20 .ilxd8 Wxa7 2 1.ila5 ilc5 22 .ilel. Of course, if Black de­fends well, White's advantage will probably not be sufficient to win

the game, but under the present fast time-controls it would be very difficult for Black to defend such positions in over-the-board chess.) 17 . . . e5

18.ilxe5+? Vffxe5 19 .l"i:xd8 ild6 20.l"i:xh8 Vffxh2 + 2l .Wf1 ilxg2+ 22 . We2 Vffe5+ 23.Wd3 b5- +

The only game played with this line continued with 18.ile3 ilxd3 19.cxd3 Wb8 20 .l"i:c1 Vffd6 (I cannot understand why Black did not play 20 . . . l"i:d4 ! ? 2 1 .ilxd4 exd4 22 .0,c6+ bxc6 23 .ilxa6 Vffe6 24. Vffa4 ilc5, with an extra piece.) 2 1.ilxf7 ile7 22 .Vffb3 Vffb4 23 .Vfic2 Vffd6 24.h3 0,d7 and the game ended in a draw: 25.Vffb3 Vffb4 26.Vffe6 Vffd6 27.Vffb3 Vffb4 28.Vffe6 Vffd6 Shirov - Sutovsky, Poikovs­ky 2009.

18.l"i:xd8 Vffxd8 19.Vffxd8+ Wxd8 20 .l"i:d1+ 0,d7 21 .ile3 (The game might end in an amusing draw after 21 .ilxf7 exf4 22 .ile6 Wc7 23.l"i:xd7+ Wb8 24.f3 ilc5+ 25. Wfl ilxc2 26.ild5 ild3+ 27. We1 l"i:e8+ 28.Wd2 l"i:e7 29.l"i:xe7 ilxe7 30.Wxd3 Wxa7=) 2l . .. Wc7 2 2 .ilxf7 ilf5, it seems that White cannot really play this endgame for a win, for example: 23 .a4 b6 24.ild5 0,f6

199

Chapter 26

25.c4 �d7 and the knight on a7 re­mains a sorry sight.

12 . .ib3 The move 12 .�d3 is consid­

ered to be bad by theory, probably because of 12 . . . �d6 13.tt:Jf5?! hh2 + 14.\t>h1 lt>f8 15.g3 exf5 16 . lt>xh2 h5 17.�f4 �b6 18.\t>g2 �e6 19.c4 h4 20.f3 hxg3 21 .hg3 f4 22 .�f2 l"1h2 + 0-1 Smagin - Aka­pian, Yerevan 1988.

12 .�e2 ! ? This is an interesting try for White. He keeps his bishop on c4, with the idea of retreating it later to d3 if necessary. Black will have some problems to solve.

It would be a step in the wrong direction for him to try 12 . . . �d7? 13.�g5 0-0-0 14.h3 ! This is White's most precise response by

200

White. He prevents in advance any attack on this pawn. 14 . . . �b4 15.c3 �d6 16.a4 h6 17.�e3 e5 18. tt:Jc2 �f5 19.tt:Jb4 a5 20 .tt:Jd5 tt:Jxd5 21 .hd5 e4 22 .�b5 �d7 23.�b3± Lastin - Shimanov, Ulan Ude 2009.

12 . . . �c5 13.c3 (It would be too passive for White to opt for 13. tt:Jf3 b5 14.�d3 �b7 - 14 . . . tt:Jg4 ! ? 15.l"1f1 �b7 16.�e4 0 - 0 = - 15.tt:Je5 0-0 16.�f4 tt:Jd5 17.�g3 tt:Jb4 18. hh7+ . This is a beautiful combi­nation, but it leads to an endgame where White is a pawn down. 18 . . . lt>xh7 19.tt:Jg6 fxg6 20.hc7 l"1xf2 2l .�xf2 hf2+ 22 .<i>xf2 tt:Jxc2 . Black failed to exploit it, howev­er . . . , Azarov - Vitiugov, Aix-les­Bains 2011 .) 13 . . . b5 (Or 13 . . . 0-0?! 14.�g5 tt:Jd5 15.l"1ad1 �e7 16.he7 tt:Jxe7 17.he6 ! he6 18.tt:Jxe6 fxe6 19.�xe6+ l"1f7 20 .l"1d7 �f4 2l .l"1xe7 �xf2+ 22 .<i>h1 l"1af8 23.h3± Emms - Kelly, Birmingham 2005.) 14. �b3 0-0 15.�g5 �b7 16.hf6 gxf6 17.�h5 lt>h8 18.�h6 l"1g8 19.�xf6+ l"1g7 20.g3 �e7 2l.�e5 �d6 22 .�f6 �e7 23.�e5 �d6 24.�f6 �e7 25. �e5 �d6 26.�f6 and White had to acquiesce to a draw, Emms - Le­vitt, Plymouth 1989.

It is might be worth consider­ing a more cautious approach for Black - 12 . . . �d6 13.�g5 0-0 14.hf6 (White will not achieve much with 14.tt:Jf3 b5 15.�d3 �b7 16.hf6 gxf6 17.�e4 l"1fd8 18.l"1ad1 l"1ac8 19.c3 he4 20 .�xe4 f5 21 . �h4 �f8 22 .a4 �e7= Azarov -Dubov, Aix-les-Bains 2011 . ) 14 . . . gxf6

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ttJd2 c5 4 .ttJgj3 cd 5.ed Vfixd5 6. JJ.c4Vfid6 7. 0 - 0 ttJj6

15.id3. The only chance for White to create any real difficul­ties for Black is to play with maxi­mum aggression. 15 . . . ixh2 + (15 . . . f5 ! ? 16.Vfih5 'it>h8 17.l'!e3 l'!g8 18.l'!ae1 §J..d7 19.Vfixf7? This move is obviously based on an incorrect evaluation of the position arising. 19 . . . l'!xg2 + 20.c;�;>f1 l'!f8 21 .Vfixf8+ hf8 22 .'\t>xg2 ic5 23.c3 hd4 24. cxd4 ic6+ 25.'1t>f1 idS and Black exploited his advantage, So -Meier, Lubbock 2010.) 16.'1t>f1 if4 17.g3 l'!d8 ! 18 .Vfie4! (18.c3? ! ih6 19.Vfih5 §J..g7 20.hh7+ 'it>f8 21 . l'!ad1 §J..d7 22 .'1t>g1 l'!ac8, Black's position is acceptable but rather passive, Giri - Wiedenkeller, Ohrid 2009.) 18 .. .f5 19.ttJxf5 exf5 20 .1Jfixf4 Vfixf4 21 .gxf4 'it>g7 and the endgame is worse for Black, but still defensible.

12 ... .id7!? Some ten years ago, it was very

popular for Black to continue with 12 . . . id6 and although White failed to prove any advantage in the gambit which arises in the main line, Black stopped playing that line, for reasons I do not quite understand. This is quite typical of the trend of fashion in chess. It is changing and com­pletely unpredictable. 13.ttJf5 ixh2+ 14.'it>h1 0-0 15.ttJxg7. I be­lieve it is not necessary to put ex­clamation marks to well-known moves, so I shall simply show you here what theory has approved and time has tested. 15 . . . l'!d8 16. Vfif3 'it>xg7 17.ih6+ (17.g3? ! b5 18.'it>xh2 ib7 19.Vfif4 Vfic6 20 .l'!g1 l'!d1 2 1.ie3 l'!xa1 22 .Vfig5+ 'it>f8 23 .Vfic5+ 'it>e8 24.Vfixc6+ ixc6 25. l'!xa1 ttJg4+ with an advantage for Black, Wolff - Gulko, Durango 1992.) 17 . . . '\t>g6 18 .c3 (18.l'!ad1? l'!xd1 19.l'!xd1 e5 ! This was a very important novelty at the time. 20 .'it>xh2 ttJg4+ 21 .'it>g1 'it>xh6 and White had to resign, Zaw - Kha­lifman, Bali 2000.) 18 . . . ttJh5 (18 . . . ttJd5? 19.l'!ad1 'it>xh6 20.l'!xd5 ! +-)

19.l'!e4 'it>xh6 20 .l'!h4 lffie5 21 .

201

Chapter 26

'Wxfl (After 2l .E:xh2? f6 22 .g4 �d7, Black can fight for the ad­vantage.) 2l . . .'Wf5 22 .E:xh5+ 'WxhS 23.'Wf6+ 'Wg6 24.'Wh4+ 'Wh5 25. 'Wf6= Geenen - Barsov, France 2007.

19.�e3 fS 20 .g4 liJf6 2l.gxf5+ exfS 22 .'Wg2 + liJg4 23.f3 bS 24. �d4 'it>gS 25.�e6 �g3 26.�xc8 E:axc8 27.fxg4 �xe1 28.E:xe1 'Wc6 29.gxf5+ 'Wxg2 + 30.\t>xg2 lt>xfS and the position should be techni­cally winning for Black, Sarakaus­kas - Dochev, Tanta 2001.

19 .�c1 �f4 20 .g4 liJg3+ 2l .fxg3 �xc1 22 .E:axc1 b6. This move en­sures both the development of Black's bishop on the long diago­nal and also the c5-square for the queen. (There is nothing wrong with the less intricate 22 . . . �d7!? 23 .�c2 + lt>g7 24.'We3 �c6+ 25. 'it>h2 h6=) 23.�c2 + (After 23. 'We3, a game by one of the most famous experts in this line, Ser­gey Ivanov, proves that Black has no problems whatsoever: 23 . . . �b7+ 24.\t>h2 'Wc5 25.'Wf4 'WgS 26.�c2 + 'it>h6 27.E:cd1 'Wxf4 28. gxf4 �f3 29.E:xd8 E:xd8 30.'it>g3 E:d2 = Solovjov - S.Ivanov, St Pe­tersburg 2005.) 23 . . . \t>g7 24.�e4 E:a7 25.E:c2 �b7 26.E:h2 �xe4 27.'Wxe4 'Wb7 28.E:xh7+ lt>g8 29. 'Wxb7 E:xb7 30.E:h2 E:d3 3l.'it>g2 E:d2+ 32.'it>h3 E:xh2+ 33.'it>xh2 E:d7 34.E:e2 'it>g7 35.\t>h3 bS 36.b3 E:c7 37.E:e3 lt>f6 38.E:f3+ lt>g5= Brodsky - Glek, Wijk aan Zee 1999.

13.'\W£3 White achieves very little with

202

13.'We2 0-0-0 14.�e3 �d6 15.h3 'it>b8 16.a4 �h2 + 17.\t>hl �f4 18. E:ad1 h5 19.�xf4 'Wxf4 20.'it>g1 h4 2l .'We3 'Wxe3 22 .E:xe3= Pavasovic - Akopian, Heraklio 2007.

13 . . . �d6 This is the right answer for

Black. He must occupy the b8-h2 diagonal before his opponent does.

The author of this book made a terrible mistake in the move-or­der in one of the morning rounds of the Bundesliga. This led to six hours of hard and laborious de­fence, but in the end it all ended successfully, by a miracle: 13 . . . 0-0-0? 14.�f4 �d6 15.�xd6 'Wxd6 16.E:ad1 'Wc7 17.E:e3 'it>b8 18.E:c3 'WeS 19 .�c4 lt>a7 20.E:a3 ! 'We4 (20 . . . 'Wc5 2l .'We3 ! ) 2 1 .'\Wc3 (Black would have even greater prob­lems to solve after 2l .'Wg3 ! E:c8 22 .f3 'Wg6 23 .�xa6 ! 'Wxg3 24. �d3+ 'it>b8 25.hxg3±) 2l . . .E:c8 22 .'Wb4 'WeS 23.�e2 'WcS 24. 'Wxc5+ :§:xeS 25.b4 E:cc8 26.c4 E:hd8 27.f4 and White had very powerful pressure, Efimenko -Vitiugov, Hamburg 2009.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.CiJ d2 c5 4.Ci:Jgf3 cd S.ed WlxdS 6. 1J.c4 Wld6 7. 0 - 0 [iJj6

14.h3 It is unsound for White to con­

tinue with 14.[iJf5? hh2+ 15.<i>h1 0-0-0 16.[iJe7+ (Or 16.[iJxg7 ie5 and his knight on g7 does not seem to be doing anything.) 16 . . . <i>b8 17.g3 Wffc5 ! and Black ends up with an extra pawn and a superior position.

A well-known draw arises af­ter 14.he6 fxe6 15.[iJxe6 he6 16J''l:xe6+ <i>f7 17.Wffb3 hh2+ ! This is an important intermediate move; otherwise Black would simply lose the bishop on d6. 18. <i>h1 <i>g6 19.Wffd3+ <i>f7 20.Wffb3 <i>g6= 21 .g3? ! This is a very risky decision for White and it cannot end well for him. 21 . . .hg3 22 . fxg3 l"l:ac8 23.if4 Wffxc2 24.Wffxb7 l"l:he8 25.Wffxa6 l"l:xe6 26 .Wffxe6 l"l:e8 27.Wffh3 l"l:e2 28.l"l:c1 Wle4+ 29.<i>g1 h5 30.Wfffl [iJg4 31.l"l:d1 l"l:h2 32. l"l:d6+ <i>h7 and White resigned in view of the unavoidable mate, Be­likov - Danielian, Jurmala 1991.

14 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 Black cannot change his mind

now: 14 . . . 0-0?! 15.ig5 ie5 16. Wle3 and White obtains an advan­tage.

15 . .ig5 Black easily solves his prob­

lems after the more modest line : 15.ie3 <i>b8 16.c4 e5 17.c5 ixc5 18.l"l:acl (18.l"l:ec1 Wffb6 19.l"l:xc5 Wlxc5 20.[iJe6 Wlc6 21 .Wffxc6 ixc6 22 . [iJxd8 l"l:xd8 23 .ixf7 [iJdS=) 18 . . . Wffb6 19.{iJf5 he3 20.l"l:xe3 hf5 21 .¥flxf5 e4 22 .ixf7 l"lhf8 23 .ib3 l"l:d2 24.Wfff4+ Wffd6 25.Wffxd6+ l"l:xd6 with an equal endgame, Pavaso­vic - Sakalauskas, Plovdiv 2003.

15 . . . �c5 The other plan for Black does

not work: 15 . . . ih2+ 16. <i>h1 ie5 17.l"l:ad1 h6 18 .ie3 g5 19.l"l:d3. It is quite obvious that if White can manoeuvre his rook along the third rank in this variation, this causes plenty of problems for the opponent. 19 . . . <i>b8 20 .l"l:c3 Wffd6 21 .l"l:d1 Wffe7 22 .ic4 with a power­ful initiative for White.

16 . .ie3 It is too risky for White to gob­

ble up the gambit pawn: 16.ixf6 gxf6 17.Wffxf6 l"l:hg8 18 .l"l:ad1 l"l:g6 ! 19.Wffxf7? ! (The line 19.Wfff3 l"l:dg8 20.g4 h5 can hardly be consid­ered satisfactory for White. For

203

Chapter 26

example : 2 l .'Wxf7 hxg4 22 .he6 gxh3+ 23.Whl he6 24.!'1xe6 'Wd5+ 25.f3 l"1gl + 26.!'1xgl !'1xgl + 27.Wxgl 'Wxd4+ 28 .Wfl 'Wc4+ and White is rather lucky that Black has nothing better than delivering perpetual check. .) 19 . . . !'1f8 20 . 'Wxh7 'WgS 2l .g3 hg3 22 .'Wxd7+ Wxd7 23.'Llxe6+ Wc6 24.'Llxg5 hf2 + 25.Wh2 .bel 26 .!'1xel l"1xg5 and only White can lose this posi­tion.

16 . . .'�e5 17.g3 Wfe4 18.gadl .ic6 19. Wfxe4 .ixe4

2 0 . .ig5 White might create more

problems for his opponent with the line : 20.f3 .tg6 21 .'Lle2 h6 22 . Wg2 (White did not achieve any­thing much after 22 .Wf2 .th7 23.a3 .teS 24.c3 l"1xdl 25.!'1xdl !'1d8 26.!'1xd8+ Wxd8 27.g4 hS 28.'Llf4 hxg4 29.hxg4 'Lld7 30.

204

'LlhS .tg6 3l.We2= Sermek -Harikrishna, Istanbul 2000.) 22 . . . .tc7 23.c4 !'1xdl 24.!'1xdl !'1d8 25.!'1xd8+ Wxd8. As you can see, White had some success in sever­al games with very precise play, but I don't think Black needs to panic. 26 . .td4 eS 27 . .te3 .tas (Here Black should consider the possibility of activating his bishop with: 27 . . . .tf5 ! ?) 28 .c5 'Lld7 29.a3 'Llb8 30 . .td5 'Llc6 3l .b4 .tc7 32.g4 hS 33.'Llg3 hxg4 34.fxg4 WeB 35. 'Llf5+- Almasi - Kindermann, Germany 2000.

20 . . . .ig6 21.c3 .ic5 22 . .if4 ghe8 23 . .ie5 .if8 24 . .ic4

Even such an expert in posi­tions of this type as Sergey Ti­viakov understood that he had no winning chances here and so of­fered a draw, Tiviakov - Kramnik, Moscow 1991.

Parts 7-9

The Classical System l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tbc3

The last three parts of our book will be devoted to the analysis of the most popular and, I believe, also the most dangerous move for Black - 3.tt:lc3. White maintains the tension in the centre and develops his knight to a more active position, in comparison with the variation with 3 .tt:ld2. Now, unless Black opts for Rubinstein's 3 . . . dxe4, which we cov­ered in Part 4, the game continues according to one of two basic sce­narios - 3 . . . tt:lf6 or 3 . . . .ib4. The positions arising from each of these moves are completely different; but what they have in common is the importance of handling the different pawn structures correctly, plus the tremendous importance of concrete variations in the implementa­tion of the various plans. Thus the play involves great risks for both sides.

205

Part 7

The Winawer Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 .ib4

We shall begin with 3 . . . ib4. This principled and double-edged vari­ation requires precise and energetic play from both sides and the re­sulting pawn structures are so varied that they should please both the tacticians, who long for dynamic play, and the positional players who love long manoeuvring battles .

I think that White can create the greatest problems for Black by playing 4.e5. After this move Black will most probably have to give up his dark-squared bishop for White's knight on c3 and then you can simply forget about symmetry until the next game . . . I am not going to mention here all the strategic ideas which are typical of this variation, since there are so many that systematizing them is practically impos­sible. Sometimes Black castles queenside and sometimes kingside. There can be attacks against White's monarch and very often Black comes under attack himself. There can be games featuring a slow and patient fight for squares and outposts, as well as games with wild tacti­cal complications, in which the value of every tempo is tremendously important. It is quite clear that whenever you play a game in the Winawer variation, you will most probably enjoy the sheer process of playing, particularly if you are well-prepared and have a deep under­standing of the resulting positions.

206

Chapter 27 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijc3 i.b4

If White wants to avoid the main lines, he has many lines to choose from. The point is, how­ever, that he must then rely most­ly on the element of surprise, rather than the objective value of these sidelines.

Now we shall cover: a) 4.�d3, b) 4 . .id2, c) 4.'1Wg4, d) 4.exd5, e) 4 . .id3, f) 4.a3 and g) 4.tt::lge2.

a) 4.�d3 This move looks a bit awk­

ward. 4 . . • tt::le7 White would love the game

to continue with 4 . . . dxe4 5.'�xe4 C/Jf6 6.�h4 c5 7.dxc5 C/Jd5 8. �xd8+ mxd8 9.C/Jge2 C/Jd7 10.id2

C/J5f6 11.c6! This is an important move, with which he maintains the advantage. 11 . . .bxc6 12 .a3 .ie7 13.0-0-0 Wc7 14.C/Jd4 .ib7 15 . .ie2 l"lae8 16.C/Jb3 C/Jd5 17.C/Je4± Anand - Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1990.

5 . .id2 b6 6 . .ie2 0 - 0 7.a3 hc3 8 . .h:c3 a5 9.tt::lf3 tt::ld7 1 0 . exd5 exd5 11. 0 - 0 tt::lf6 12.�dl tt::le4 13 . .id2 l"le8 14.l"lel tt::lg6 15 . .ie3 a4 16.tt::ld2 tt::ld6 17.-i£3 .ie6 18.tt::lfl tt::lh4 with an excel­lent game for Black, Anand -Short, Wijk aan Zee 1990.

b) 4.i.d2 This move reminds me of

those good old one-move traps. 4 . • • dxe4 5.�g4

207

Chapter 27

White continues in the same style. He is not trying to mate his opponent right away, but some­thing similar. . .

5 • • .c!iJf6 6."1Wxg7 ggs 7."\Wh6 "\Wxd4 8. 0 - 0 - 0

Black has no problems at all after 8 .liJge2 "\We5 9.0-0-0 l"l:g6�, or 9 .i.f4 "\Wf5 10.liJg3 Wg6 ll.Wxg6 l"l:xg6.

8 . . . .if8 Black can also play 8 . . . l"l:g6 ! ?

9 .Wh4 (It i s weaker for White to play 9.Wf4?! i.d6 10.liJge2 hf4 ll .liJxd4 i.e5 and he ends up a pawn down in an endgame.) 9 . . . l"l:g4 10."\Wh3 "\Wxf2 ll.i.e2 l"l:g6 with some compensation for Black.

9."1Wh4 But not 9.Wf4? ! i.d6. 9 • • • gg4 1 0 ."\Wh3 "!Wxf2 11.i.e2

gh4 It looks as though Black wins

on the spot, but this is not the case.

ll . . . l"l:g6 ! ? 12."\Wxh4 "\Wxh4 13.g3 ! Now Black's queen is trapped! 13 • • . "\Wh6 14.i.xh6 i.xh6+

15.�bl

2 08

The resulting endgame with a material imbalance is, I believe, better for Black. The following game is an instructive example: 15 • • • a6!? 16.h4 b5 17.c!iJh3 b4 ts.gdfl bxc3 19.gxf6 i.g7 2 0 . gffl f5 21.i.h5+ �e7with an ad­vantage for Black, Korepanov -Skomorokhin, Podolsk 1993.

c) 4."\Wg4

This lively sortie by White's queen does not create any prob­lems for Black.

4 • • .c!iJf6 5. "\Wxg7 ggs 6. "!Wh6 )3g6 7."1We3 c!lJxe4 8.i.d3

Here it looks interesting for Black to investigate the greedy move -

s . . . gxg2 !? which leads to a more o r less

forced line. In an encounter between two

World Champions, the future President of FIDE played too rou­tinely and was punished for it: 8 .. .f5 9 .tLlge2 c5 10 . .be4 fxe4 11. �h3 ttJc6 12 .�xh7 �f6 13.tLlf4 cxd4 14.tLlxg6 dxc3 15.b3 ttJe7 16. ttJxe7 �xe7 17.h4± and later White prevailed, Alekhine -Euwe, Netherlands 1935.

A very unclear position arises after 8 . . . ttJc6 9.tLlge2 gxg2 10 . .be4 dxe4 1l .�xe4 �d5 12 .�xh7! ? �f3 13 .�e3 gxf2 14.�xf2 �xh1+ 15. �gl . It looks as though the most reasonable course for Black is to sacrifice a pawn for the sake of the fastest possible development -15 . . . �d7 16.0-0-0 0-0-0 17. �xt7 with a slight edge for White.

9 . .ixe4 This is White's only move. 9 . . . dxe4 1 0 .Wxe4

1 0 . . . gg6 Black must play accurately:

after 10 . . . �d5? 1l.�xd5 exd5 12 . l!?f1 ! he loses a pawn.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ttJc3 �b4

ll.tlJge2 Black equalizes in the most

simple fashion after 1 l .�d2 .bc3 12 .�xc3 �d5=

ll . . . ttJd7 12.�d2 Black has an excellent position

after 12.�f4 tLlf6 13 .�d3 �d7 14. 0-0-0 �c6.

12 . . . tlJf6 13.�h4 b6 14. 0 - 0 - 0 �b7 15.ghgl .ie7 -with an acceptable game, since he can counter the immediate attack - 16.d5 - with the perfectly ade­quate resource : 16 . . . tLlxd5 17. �xh7 gxg1 18J'1xg1 �d6 !

d) 4.exd5 exd5

5 . .id3 This is a popular move. White

avoids any theoretical debates and at the same time leaves Black with some problems . .

5.�f3? ! This looks as i f White is trying to set up Scholar's Mate ; Black's previous cunning moves did not allow White to develop his queen earlier to such an active po­sition. 5 . . . �e7+ 6.tLlge2 (The line 6 .�e3 tLlf6 7.h3 would just lead to a transposition. Bearing in mind

209

Chapter 27

what happens later, White should think about equalizing with the move 6.�e3.) 6 . . . ttJc6

Now: after 7.�xd5? ttJf6 8.�c4 i.e6

9.�d3 0-0-0 White will not sur­vive for long;

7.i.e3 ttJf6 8 .h3 ttJe4 (It seems quite sensible for Black to play here 8 . . . i.xc3+ !? , for example : 9. ttJxc3 ttJxd4 ! or 9.bxc3 ttJe4 and White has problems.) 9.a3 (Black's play is quite easy after 9 .0-0-0 i.xc3 10.ttJxc3 ttJxc3 11.bxc3 i.e6 12 .i.d3 0-0-0 13.2"1he1 ttJaS 14. <;1;>d2 �a3 and he is in no danger, Onoprienko - Riazantsev, Biel 2010 ; 12 .�g3 0-0-0 - 12 . . . 0-0!? - 13.�xg7 E1dg8 14.�h6 i.fS 15. <;1;>d2 �a3 16.�h5 i.e4 17.f3 i.xc2 18.<;1;>xc2 �xa2+ 19.<;1;>d3 E1e8 - The complications have ended in Black's favour, Lehmann - Fara­go, Kiev 1978) 9 . . . i.a5 (It would be less ambitious to opt for 9 . . . i.xc3+ 10.Ci:lxc3 Ci:lxd4 11 .i.xd4 Ci:lxc3+ 12 .�e3 �xe3+ 13.fxe3 Ci:le4 14.i.xg7 E1g8 15.i.e5 i.e6 16.g4= with an approximately equal posi­tion.) 10.b4 ttJxc3 11 .bxa5 (11. Ci:lxc3?! ttJxd4 12 .�d1 ttJfS 13.ttJxd5 Ci:lxe3 14.ttJxe7 ttJxd1 15.ttJxc8 Ci:lc3

210

and White must fight for equality) 11 . . .ltJb5 12 .�xd5 ttJxa3 13.�b3 �b4+ 14. <;1;>d1 �xb3 15.cxb3 ttJbS with an interesting struggle in the endgame;

7.�d3. White is trying to con­solidate his position at the cost of a tempo. This loss of time (a sec­ond move with the same piece in the opening, and moreover the strongest one) is unlikely to hand the advantage to Black in view of the symmetrical pawn structure. However, Black's game is com­fortable, beyond any doubt. 7 . . . ttJf6 (It i s slightly premature to play 7 . . . g6 8.a3 i.fS 9.�e3 i.c3 10.�c3 �e4 11.i.f4 and Black fails to win a pawn.) Now any bishop development offers Black attrac­tive possibilities. For example, af­ter 8.i.e3, 8 . . . g6 ! ? is already worth consideration, and in the event of 8.i.g5 Black can ask the opponent to define his intentions by 8 . . . h6. The most sensible move is 8.i.f4. It could be met by either 8 . . . 0-0, or 8 . . . i.e6, intending to castle queenside. In both cases Black is probably fine, although the fight is still ahead.

5 . . . c6 This is a rarely played move,

but one which seems to me to be perfectly reasonable in the cir­cumstances. Black should not be disappointed that he has failed to reach the complicated positions arising after 4.e5. Instead, he should simply try to equalize with accurate play.

Fans of sharp positions play here 5 . . . lt:Jc6 ! ? 6.a3 .bc3+ 7.bxc3 ct:Jge7 and later the development of the game becomes totally un­predictable. It seems to me that Black is just asking for trouble playing like that. For example: 8 . �h5 �e6 9J�b1 b6 10.lt:Jf3 �d7 11 . lt:Jg5 0-0-0 12 .lt:Jxe6 �xe6+ 13. �e3 g6 14.�f3 lt:Jf5 15.0-0 ct:Jxe3 16J'!fe1 �d6 17.fxe3 f5 18.c4 dxc4 19.�xc4 and Black's king can nev­er feel safe, Glek - Chenaux, Saint Vincent 1999.

6.�f3 Black equalizes easily after 6 .

lt:Jge2 ct:Je7 7 .0-0 �f5 8.lt:Jg3 hd3 9.�xd3 0-0 10.lt:Jce2 lt:Ja6 ll .c3 �d6 12 .�f4 lt:Jc7 13J�ae1 lt:Je6= on

- Short, Parnu 1996. 6 . . . �f6

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:Jc3 �b4

7.�xf6 White cannot gain any ad­

vantage from 7.�f4 lt:Je7 8.�g3 lt:Jd7 9 .lt:Jge2 0-0 10.0-0-0 lt:Jg6 11 .�g5 �d6 12 .�xd6 �xd6 13.h4 h6 14.�d2 lt:Jf6 15.h5 lt:Je7 16.f3 �f5= Moreno Camero - lvan­chuk, Mallorca 2004.

7 .. .ti:lxf6 8)l:\ge2 lilbd7 9.a3 .ie7 1 0 .f3 h5 11.h4 lilf8 12.lilf4 .id7 13.�f2 0 - 0 - 0 14.lilce2 tileS 15 . .id2 �f6 16 . .ib4 g6 17. 1::1ael lilg7 18.c3 .if5= with some chances for Black to seize the ini­tiative, Alekseev - lvanchuk, Biel 2009.

e) 4 . .id3 White wants to maintain the

tension in the centre. The idea is excellent, but this way of imple­menting it is questionable.

4 . . . dxe4 5 . .h:e4 lilf6 6.�f3 This move seems logical but,

as often happens, such an artifi­cial idea can only work if the op­ponent cooperates.

It is less sensible for White to opt for 6 .�d3 c5 7.lt:Jf3 (The game takes a completely different direc-

211

Chapter 27

tion after 7.a3 hc3+ 8.bxc3 �c7! 9.ltlf3 c4 10 . .ie2 ltld5 11.�d2 ltld7 12 .a4 ltl7f6. Black has seized the initiative with a series of strong moves and he went on to win the game, not without some mistakes by his opponent. 13.�g5 0-0 14. �h4 ltlxc3 15J''1a3 ltlxe2 16. Wxe2 c3 17.l"ld1 b6 18.Wf1 .ia6+ 19.Wg1 .ie2 20 .l"le1 .ixf3 21 .gxf3 ltld5-+ V.Shcherbakov - Petrosian, Mos­cow 1955.) 7 . . . cxd4 8.ltlxd4 e5 9. ltlde2 .ig4 10.f3 .ie6 11.a3 .ie7 12 . .ie3 0-0 13.0-0 ltlbd7 14.ltlg3 .ic5 15 . .if2 hf2+ 16.l"lxf2 �b6 and Black had a slight edge in the game Renet - lvanchuk, Izmir 2004.

6 .. . 0 - 0 Black has a good alternative

here : 6 . . . c5 ! ? 7.ltlge2 ltlc6 8.a3 .ixc3+ 9.bxc3 e5 ! 10 .hc6+ bxc6 11 .0-0 exd4 12 .cxd4 0-0 13.l"le1 .ia6= 14.ltlg3 cxd4 15.ltlf5 l"le8 16 . .ig5 �a5 17.ltlh6+ Wf8 18. l"lxe8+ l"lxe8 19.hf6 gxf6 2 0.h4 l"le4 21.f3 l"lxh4 22 .ltlg4 f5 23. �xd4 fxg4 24.l"lb1 .ic8 0-1 M. Tseitlin - Yusupov, Moscow 1983.

7.li:lge2

212

7 . . . e5! By playing in this energetic

fashion Black obtains an excellent position.

8. 0 - 0 This is the most solid response

by White. Greediness such as with 8 .

dxe5 does not bring White any ad­vantage whatsoever. 8 . . . �xd1+ 9 . Wxd1 ltlg4 10 .hg4 hg4 11.f3 .if5 12 . .id2 ltlc6 13.f4 l"lad8 14.Wc1 f6 15.a3 hc3 16.hc3 .ig4 17.ltlg3 fxe5 18.fxe5 l"lf2 and Black was clearly better, Muromtsev - Lysyj, Sochi 2006.

The endgame is worse for White after 8 . .ig5?! h6 9 . .ih4 exd4 10 .�xd4 �xd4 11.ltlxd4 l"le8+ 12 . Wf1 hc3 13.bxc3 ltle4 14.he4 l"lxe4 15 . .ig3 ltla6 16.l"ld1 .ie6 17.f3 .ic4+ 18.Wf2 l"lee8, Movsesian -Shirov, Sochi 2006 .

8 . • . .h:c3 9.lt:lxc3 exd4 White sacrifices a pawn and

temporarily seizes the initiative. 1 0 .c!l:\b5 c5 11.i.f4

(diagram) ll . . .ll:\e8!? The more cautious move 11 . . .

a6 presents White with a slight

advantage after 12.l2:Jd6 lt:Jc6 13.c3 .ie6 14.hc6 bxc6 15.cxd4 cxd4 16.'&xd4 and here in the game Jo­vanovic - Vaganian, Dresden 2007 the players agreed to a draw.

12.c3 White did not achieve much

with 12 .Ele1 lt:Jc6 13.c3 a6 14.Elxe8 Elxe8 15.lt:Jc7 '&f6 16.'&d2 .id7 17.Eld1 Elac8 18.lt:Jxe8 Elxe8, with a solid extra pawn for Black, Sarie­go - Diaz, Bayamo 1991.

12 • • • a6 13.li:Ja3 tlJc6 14.l'kl .ie6 - White definitely has some compensation for the pawn in­deed, but nothing more . . .

t) 4.a3

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltJc3 .ib4

leading to forcing lines; it formed part of the opening armoury of Robert James Fischer.

4 • • • hc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6. '%Vg4 tlJf6 7.'%Vxg7 l':1g8 8.'%Vh6

Now Black has a choice.

8 • • • tDbd7 Black has also tried 8 . . . Elg6 as

well as 8 . . . c5 9.lt:Je2 cxd4 10.cxd4 lt:Jc6 11 ..ib2 .id7 12.0-0-0?! lt:Jg4 13. '&f4 '&g5 14.Ele1 lt:Jxf2 15.Elg1 lt:Jg4 16.h3 lt:Jh2 17.Elh1 lt:Jxfl 18 . Elhxfl lt:Je7 19 .g4 f5, with a solid extra pawn for Black, Jobava -Sutovsky, Novi Sad 2009.

9.tDe2 I can recommend to fans of

wild irrational positions the quite creative line : 9.a4 c5 10.a5. The Serbian GM Igor Miladinovic reg­ularly plays this with White and he is a very original player.

(diagram) I do not think that White can

seize the initiative in this manner, but he can definitely force his opponent to solve problems over the board. I like a new and inter­esting plan here - 10 . . . lt:Jd5!?

This is a very sharp move, 11 .'%Vd2 lt:J7f6 12 .lt:Jh3 e3 13.'&d3

2 13

Chapter 27

exf2+ 14.tt'lxf2 i.d7 and Black ob­tains a very promising position.

However, Black might have some problems after 9.tt'lh3 c5 10 .i.e2 . White plays very sharply and his forces have their eye on the f7-square.

10 . . . Ei:xg2? ll .tt'lg5 �a5 12 . <±>f1 ! + -

10 . . . �a5 1Li.d2 Ei:xg2 12 .tt'lg5 cxd4 13.�g7! (We shall analyze 13 .cxd4? ! �f5 ! a bit further on.) 13 . . . Ei:xg5 14.�xg5 �xg5 15.hg5 dxc3 16.0-0-0. It looks as though Black's knight and three pawns should be sufficient to compen­sate the missing rook, but in this open position White's long-range pieces can become very powerful. 16 . . . a6 17.Ei:hg1 b5 18.Ei:g3 tt'ld5 19. Ei:h3 f6 20 .i.e3 tt'lxe3 2l .fxe3 l2lf8 22 .i.h5+ <±>e7 23.Ei:g3 i.d7 24.Ei:g7+ and Black resigned, since he loses

214

his rook on the next move, Ljubo­jevic - Korchnoi, Tilburg 1986.

An interesting try for Black is 10 . . . cxd4 ! ? 1l .cxd4 (White can continue in gambit fashion, but Black can defend successfully: 11 .0-0 dxc3 12 .i.g5 Ei:g6 13.�h4 �a5 14.hf6 l2lxf6 15.l2lf4 Ei:g5 16. l2lh3 Ei:g6=) 1l . . .Ei:xg2 12 .l2lg5 �aS+ 13.<±>fl (After 13.i.d2 Black re­sponds with 13 . . . �f5 14.0-0-0 and now it looks very attractive to play the paradoxical line : 14 . . . tt'ld5 15.i.h5 <±>e7 16.l2lxf7l2l7f6 17. i.g5 �h3 ! It is quite unclear which side has the safer, for example: 18.f3 i.d7 19.c4 Ei:c8 20 .tt'le5 Ei:xg5 2l .�xg5 �xh5 22 .�g7+ <±>d6 23. fxe4 Ei:g8 24.�f7 �g5+ 25.Ei:d2 l2lc3 and Black has an excellent position.) 13 . . . l2lg4 14.hg4 Ei:xg4 15.h3 �b5+ 16.<±>e1 Ei:g2 . Surpris­ingly, the rook on g2 is perfectly placed. It is attacking and defend­ing at the same time. 17.i.e3 (17. l2lxe4 �c6 18.�xh7 l2lf8 19.l2lf6+ <±>e7 20 .�h4 l2lg6 2 1.l2ld5+ <±>e8 22 .l2lf6+ <±>e7=) 17 . . . b6 18 .�g7 �f5 - Now the game might end in an amusing repetition of moves : 19.<±>fl Ei:g3 20.<±>e1 Ei:g2=

9 . . . b6 Or 9 . . . cS ! ? 10.a4 (After 10.h3

\WaS ll .i.d2 1Wa4 12.lug3 b6 13. dxcS bxcS 14.i.e2 i.a6 1S.O-O l"1g6 16.1Wh4 i.xe2 17.lt:lxe2 1Wxc2 18. l"1ad1 lt:leS, White is deprived of active possibilities, Nepomnia­chtchi - Ponomariov, Moscow 2010; 10.g3 b6 1l .i.g2 i.a6 12 .1Wd2 1Wc7 13.0-0 0-0-0 with chances for both sides ; 13 . . . cxd4?! 14.cxd4 l"1c8 1S.c3 i.xe2 16.1Wxe2 1Wxc3 and here, in the game Henris - Gdan­ski , Cappelle la Grande 1994, White could have obtained rea­sonable compensation for the pawn with 17.i.e3 or 17.i.f4 !?) 10 . . . 1Wc7 11 .dxcS 'IWxcS 12 .1Wd2 lt:lb6 13.aS lt:lbdS 14.c4 lt:le7? (Black should continue here with 14 . . . 1Wxc4 1S.lt:ld4 1Wc3 16.1Wxc3 lt:lxc3 17.l"1a3 lt:lfdS 18.i.b2 eS ! -This is the move I overlooked! ) 1S.i.a3 'IWeS 16.1Wc3 1Wxc3+ 17. lt:lxc3 a6 18 .g3? (18.lt:la4 i.d7 19. lt:lb6 l"1d8 20 .i.d6 i.c6 21 .i.c7 lt:lfS and although Black has some compensation for the exchange, White has the edge, of course.) 18 . . . i.d7 19 .i.g2 i.c6 20 .0-0 lt:lfS 21 .l"1ae1 lt:ld4 22 .lt:lxe4 lt:lxe4 23. he4? he4 24.l"1xe4 lt:lf3+ 2S. �g2 lt:ld2 and despite desperate resistance White soon lost the game, Andreikin - Vitiugov, Sara­tov 2011 .

10 • .ig5 After 10.lt:lg3 i.b7 11 .i.e2 1We7

12.0-0 0-0-0 13.f3 l"1g6 14.1Wh4 exf3 1S.hf3 i.xf3 16.l"1xf3 l"1dg8 17.a4 hS 18.i.a3 1Wd8 19.l"1f2 l"1g4 20 .1Wh3 aS 21 .l"1e1 h4, Black's ini-

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:lc3 i.b4

tiative is growing stronger, Ker ­Berkes, Mallorca 2004.

1 0 • • • 1We7

11.1Wh4 The seemingly logical move

11 .lt:lg3? loses for White owing to the beautiful reply 11 . . .lt:lg4! 12 . i.xe7 lt:lxh6 and White's bishop is trapped.

ll . . . i.b7 12.ttlg3

12 . . . h6! That is an important finesse. 13 • .id2 Just as before, if 13.1Wh6 lt:lg4-+;

13.i.h6 l"1g4 14.'1Wh3 0-0-0 1S. i.e2 l"1g8�

13 • . • gg4 Black has a good alternative

21S

Chapter 27

here - 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.i.e2 e3 15. fxe3 hg2 16.Elg1 i.e4! ?

14.'1Wxh6 If 14.'\Wh3 Elg6 15.i.e2 0-0-0,

the queen seems misplaced on h3. 14 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 15.c4 �g8 16.

'!We3 f5 17.ll:lh5 e5 18.dxe5 �xe5 19. 0 - 0 - 0

After 19.l2lf4 Elxd2 20 .\ilxd2 '\Wd6+ 21 .\ilc3 l2lc6 22 .i.e2 Elxf4 23 .g3 Elg4 24.hg4 fxg4 Black's prospects are better in this posi­tion with an unusual material bal­ance.

19 .. .ll:ld3! -+ Black's attack is decisive, Romero Holmes - Mata­moros Franco, Elgoibar 1997.

g) 4.�ge2

216

This is a very popular move. White wants to prevent his pawns from being doubled on the c-file. He has sacrifice a pawn to achieve this though . . .

4 •.. dxe4 Black has a serious alternative

at this point; for example: 4 . . . l2lc6 5.a3 i.aS !? 6.b4 (6.'\Wd3 !? ; 6.e5 ! ?) 6 . . . i.b6 7.l2Ja4 dxe4 8 .i.b2 l2lf6 9.c4 a6 10.g3 0-0 11 .i.g2 i.a7 12 . 0-0 '\We7 13.Ela2 Eld8 14.'\Wa1 bS and Black's chances in this com­plicated position are not worse, Guseinov - Bauer, Heraklio 2007.

5.a3 hc3+ Here 5 . . . i.e7 is also played, but

the text move is sharper. 6.l2lxc3 l2lc6 7 . .ib5 It is weaker for White to play

7.i.e3? ! l2lf6 8 .'\Wd2 i.d7 9.0-0-0 l2le7 lO.i.gS i.c6 ll.i.c4 '\Wd6 12 . Elhe1 0-0-0 13.g3 lLledS 14.l2lxe4 l2Jxe4 15.Elxe4 l2lb6 16.d5 l2Jxc4 17. Elxc4 '\WxdS and Black has a solid extra pawn, Van Mil - Korchnoi, Netherlands 1993.

White's most reasonable alter­native to the main line is 7.d5. He tries to regain his pawn and then gain the advantage thanks to his bishop pair. 7 . . . exd5 8.'\WxdS

8 . . . tt:lge7 !? This is an original move. 9 .Wxd8+ 'Llxd8 10.'Llxe4 �f5 1l .�d3 'Lle6. There is no doubt that if White is allowed to consoli­date his position he will have the advantage. Thus Black needs to play energetically to equalize. 12 .�d2 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 ct:Jd4 14. �b1 (14.�e3 ct:Jec6 15.f3 �g6 16. E1he1 tt:leS 17.�f1 tt:ldxf3 ! ? 18.gxf3 tt:lxf3 19.�h3+ �b8 20.'Llc5 'Llxe1 21 .!=1xe1 E1he8 with counter-chanc­es, Ragger - Seifert, Austria 2004.) 14 . . . ct:Jec6 15.f4 E1he8 16. E1de1 E1e7 17.!=1e3 E1de8 18.!=1he1 �g6= Zelcic - Psakhis, Batumi 1999.

It looks more natural for Black to play 8 . . . �e6 9.Wxe4 'Llf6 10. Wh4 �fS (It is a mistake to con­tinue with the ambitious move 10 . . . Wd4, because of 11 .�g5 ! WeS+ 12 .�e2 tt:ld4 13 .0-0-0! tt:lxe2+ 14. tt:lxe2 Wxe2 15.hf6 gxf6 16.!=1he1 Wa6 17.Wxf6 E1g8 and here White could have won immediately with 18.!=1e3 ! , since after 18. .. �f8 he has the simple resource 19.!=1d8+-. However, what he played in the game also proved to be sufficient for victory: 18.!=1d3 �f8 19.!=1ed1 E1e8 2 0.!=1d8 �d7 21 .Wxa6 bxa6 22 . E11xd7 E1xg2 23.!=1xe8+ �xeS 24. E1xc7± Zaitsev - Kosyrev, Moscow 1996.) 11.�bs o-o 12 .hc6 (12 . 0-0 tt:le4 ! ? 13.Wxd8 E1axd8 14. hc6 bxc6 15.'Llxe4 he4 and maybe only Michael Adams is ca­pable of pressure this advantage home.) 12 . . . bxc6 13.0-0 hc2 (Black could equalize with 13 . . . tt:ldS ! ? 14.Wc4 Wd6, since White's

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ttlc3 �b4

bishop cannot be developed to a good square, which makes up for the defects of Black's pawn struc­ture.) 14.�g5 h6 15.�xf6 Wxf6 16. Wxf6 gxf6 17.!=1fc1 �d3 18.tt:la4 E1fe8 19.'Llc5 and the endgame was better for White, Bojkov - Gesing, Chambery 2007.

7 • • • tt:lge7 8.i.g5 Black can counter 8 .'Llxe4 with

8 . . . Wd5 ! Sometimes White plays imme­

diately 8 .�e3, after which the game can transpose to the line: 8 . . . 0-0 9.Wd2 f5 10.0-0-0 etc. , which we analyze below.

8 • • • f6 9 .�e3 0 - 0

1 0 .V�!fd2 White should not try to regain

his pawn: 10.tt:lxe4? fS 11 .'Llg5 f4 12 .�d2 Wd5 ! 13.�xc6 ct:Jxc6 14.'Llf3 'Llxd4 1S.'Llxd4 Wxd4 16.�c3 We4+ 17.We2 Wxe2+ 18.�xe2 eS and he has no compensation for the pawn, Thorhallsson - Moskalen­ko, Copenhagen 1995.

10 • • • f5 If Black wants to play more

safely, then 10 . . . a6 ! ? is the right move. ll .hc6 tt:Jxc6 12 .0-0-0 b6

217

Chapter 27

13.'Llxe4 ib7 14.f3 �d7 15.Elhe1 Elad8 16.�e2 Elfe8 17.\t>b1 �f7 18.Eld2 Ele7 19.Eled1 Eled7= Ben­tivegna - Drasko, Cutro 2 005.

11. 0 - 0 - 0 Black can counter the prema­

ture ll .f3 with ll . . . f4 ! ? 12 .hf4 �xd4 13.fxe4 eS 14.ie3 �xd2+ 15.hd2 'Lld4 16.id3 ig4= Solo­dovnichenko - Feygin, Germany 2003.

ll . . . a6 Black can even consolidate his

extra pawn with 11 . . .'Lld5, but this is not satisfactory. 12 .'Llxd5 exdS 13.ixc6 bxc6 14.�g5 �e8 15.if4 Elf7 16.h4 ie6 17.�a5 �b8 18.Elh3 �bS 19.�d2 with excellent com­pensation for White, Hector -Furhoff, Stockholm 1993.

12 .�xc6 'Llxc6

13.�g5!? Black has considerably fewer

problems after 13.f3 exf3 14. gxf3 eS 15.d5 'Lle7 16.ig5 (Black can answer 16.ic5 with 16 . . . Elf7 17.�e3 b6! 18.d6 bxcS 19.dxe7 �xe7 20 .'Lld5 �d6 21 .Elhe1 ib7 and he ends up with extra mate-

218

rial.) 16 . . . �d6 (16 . . . �e8? ! 17.Elhe1 'Llg6 18.h4 'Llh8 19.�h2 'Llf7 20. if4;t Jovanovic - Medic, Sibenik 2007.) 17.Elhg1 id7 18.h4 \t>h8 19. hS h6 and Black is even slightly better.

13 . • J��fd7 14.d5

14 . . .ll:le5!? This i s an aggressive move. It would be fair to say that

White maintains some initiative if Black tries to plays more quietly. 14 . . . exd5 15.'Llxd5 �f7 16.if4 ie6 (Perhaps Black can consider the exchange sacrifice 16 . . . Eld8 17. hc7 ie6 18 .hd8 Elxd8 19.c4 ixdS 20 .cxd5 'LleS but not every­one would be happy to go in for a sacrifice of this type.) 17.'Llxc7 Elac8 18.'Llxe6 �xe6 19.�d7 �a2 20.�d5+ �xdS 21 .Elxd5 'Lle7 22 . Eld7 'Llg6 23 .ie3 Elf7 24.Elhd1 and White still has some pressure in this endgame.

15.£3 'Llc4 15 . . . exf3? 16.Elhelt 16.�e2 b5 17.fxe4 ib7 18.

exf5 exd5?, with double-edged play.

Chapter 28 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 .ib4 4.e5

This is White's most ambitious move. Now Black's knight will have no access to the f6-square and White will have excellent chances of developing a kingside initiative. However, chess is not a simple game, and even the most principled decisions can have drawbacks.

4 ... c5

After this move both sides must play very precisely.

The play is completely differ­ent after 4 . . . b6. Black is trying to encircle White's centre and his strategy is based on the exchange of the light-squared bishops. I ad­vise you to play 4 . . . cS here, but I shall supply you with some basic theoretical variations after 4 . . . b6. S.a3

Now: Although it looks a bit exotic,

it is quite reasonable for Black to play S . . . .if8 6.Li:lf3 (Or 6 . .ibS+ c6 7 . .ia4 .ia6 8.Li:lce2 .ibS 9 . .ib3 cS 10 .c3 Li:lc6 ll .Li:lf3 Li:lge7 12 . .ic2 Li:lfS 13.hfS exfS 14.0-0 cxd4 1S. cxd4 .ie7 16J"1e1 .ixe2 17.l"lxe2 h6 18.iWd3 iWd7 19.l"lc2 l"lc8 and the game is equal, Dinesh Kumar -Hamdouchi, Sort 2007.) 6 . . . Li:le7 7.h4 (Or 7.b4 c6 8.a4 Li:lfS 9 .l"lb1 Li:ld7 10 . .id3 aS 1l.bxaS l"lxaS 12 .iWe2 g6 13 .h4 h6 14.hS gS 1S.g4 Li:le7 16 . .ia3 .ib7 17. 0-0 Li:lc8 18. hf8 l"lxf8 19.Li:ld2 cS 20.Li:lb3 l"la8 2l .Li:lxcS bxcS 22 .l"lxb7 and White went on to win, Najer - Hort, Fuegen 2006.) 7 . . . h6 8 .hS aS 9 . .ibS+ c6 10 . .ia4 Li:ld7 1l .Li:le2 bS 12 . .ib3 cS 13 .c3 Li:lc6 14.0-0 iWc7 1S.l"le1 c4 16 . .ic2 Li:lb6 17 . .if4 .ie7 18 . .ig3 l"lb8 and Black has his typ-

219

Chapter 28

ical "French" counter-chances, Kasparov - Ivanchuk, Horgen 1995;

5 . . . hc3+ 6.bxc3 t'jje7 (I think it is riskier for Black to play 6 . . . \Wd7 7.\Wg4 f5 8.\Wg3 ia6 9 .ha6 t'jjxa6 10.t'jje2 t'jjb8?! ll .t'jjf4 t'jjc6? 12 .t'jjxe6 \Wxe6 13 .\Wxg7 0-0-0 14.\WxhS \Wg6 15.0-0 :1:'!d7 16.:1:'!e1 Wb7 17.if4 :1:'!g7 18.g3 t'jjge7 19. \Wf8+- Zhigalko - Mihajlovskij , Minsk 2006; 1l .c4 ! ? dxc4 12 .d5 exd5 13.t'jjd4 t'jja6 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.e6 \Wd6 16.if4 \Wc5 17.\Wxg7 t'jje7 18.c3 and White had excel­lent compensation in the game Grischuk - Dizdar, Mainz 2006; 10 . . . wf7 1l.a4 ! ? c5 12 .\Wd3 \Wc8 13.!a3 t'jje7 14.h4 t'jjc6 15.\Wf3 :1:'!f8 16.h5 wg8 17.0-0 :1:'!f7 18.h6 g6 19.c4 dxc4 20.d5 t'jjxe5 21.\Wc3 t'jjg4 22 .ib2 e5 23.:1:'!ad1 t'jjb4 24. f3 t'jjf6 25.\Wxc4 \Wa6 26.\Wxa6 t'jjxa6 27.he5 and White exploit­ed his edge in this endgame, Vitiugov - Ulibin, Biel 2007; l l.h4 c5 12 .h5 :1:'!c8 13.h6 g6 14. \Wh4 cxd4 15.cxd4 :1:'!xc2 16.:1:'!h3 \Wb5 17.t'jjc3 \Wc4 18.id2 t'jjb8 19. :1:'!b1 t'jjc6 20.t'jjb5 \Wa2 2l .t'jjd6+ Wf8 22 .:1:'!d1 \Wb2 23.:1:'!d3 :1:'!xd2 24.:1:'!3xd2 \Wxa3 25.:1:'!c2 1-0 Moty­lev - Ulibin, Moscow 2010. White won a very good game. He sacri­ficed a pawn for the initiative and gradually increased his pressure, while Black's kingside remained static.) 7.\Wg4 t'jjg6 8.h4 h5 9.\Wg3 (White sometimes plays the origi­nal line: 9 .\Wf3 \Wd7 10.a4 c5 11 . ib5 t'jjc6 12 .a5 \Wc7 13.t'jje2 !d7 14.axb6 Wxb6 15.hc6 \Wxc6 16.

220

!a3 cxd4 17.t'jjxd4 t'jjxe5 18.Wg3 \Wc4 19.Wd2 \Wc7, with a very com­plicated position, Kurnosov -Ponkratov, Moscow 2009; 9 .Wd1 \Wd7 10.t'jje2 Wc6 1l .!d2 ia6 12 .t'jjg3 !xfl 13.Wxfl t'jjd7 14. t'jjxh5 0-0-0 15.\Wf3 f6 16.exf6 gxf6 17.g3 e5 18.t'jjg7 :1:'!dg8 19.t'jjf5 \We6 20.t'jje3 t'jje7 2l .c4 e4 22 .\We2 f5 with good compensation for Black, Karjakin - Grischuk, Odes­sa 2008.) 9 . . . !a6 10.ha6 t'jjxa6 1l .!g5 \Wd7 12 .a4 c5 13 .\Wd3 t'jjbS 14.t'jje2 t'jjc6 15.0-0 :1:'!c8 16.t'jjg3 t'jjce7 17.\Wd1 cxd4 18.cxd4 :1:'!c4 19.a5 b5 20.:1:'!a3 \Wc6 2l .t'jjxh5 t'jjf5 with chances for both sides, Kos­intseva - Riazantsev, Biel 2009.

I think that the move 4 . . . \Wd7 only reduces Black's possibilities, because he will have to play b7-b6 anyway. Whether d7 is the right square for his queen remains un­clear. 5 .a3 and in both cases the game transposes to 4 . . . b6 5 . . . hc3+ (5 . . . if8 6 .t'jjf3 b6) 6.bxc3

In this chapter, we shall ana­lyze White's attempts to avoid the main line (5.a3) : a) 5.'�g4, b) 5.dxc5 and c) 5 . .id2.

The move 5.t2Jf3 does not lead to original positions, since after 5 . . . tt:le7 the game transposes ei­ther to 6 .dxc5 or to 6.a3 �xc3+ 7.bxc3.

a) 5.�g4? ! This move cannot be recom­

mended to White. 5 . . .tbe7

6.a3 For 6.dxc5, see 5.dxc5. After 6 .�d2? cxd4 7.'&xd4

tt:lbc6, Black is better. 6.tt:lf3?! cxd4 7.tt:lxd4 �c7!? 8 .

�b5+ �d7 9 .0-0 hc3 10.hd7+ tt:lxd7 11 .tt:lb5 '&b6 12.tt:lxc3 0-0 13.l"1e1 l"1fc8 14.a4 l"1c4 15.'&h3 l"1ac8 16.tt:lb5 tt:lf5 17.g4 l"1xc2 18. l"1fl tt:ld4 19.�e3 tt:le2+ 20 .<i>h1 d4 0-1 Friedel - Mamedyarov, Chalkidiki 2003.

6 .'&xg7l"1g8 7.'&h6 (It would be a disaster for White to opt for 7. '&xh7? cxd4 8.a3 '&a5 9.tt:lf3 dxc3 10.b3 tt:lbc6 ll .tt:lg5 tt:lxe5 12 .f4 l"1xg5 13.fxg5 �d6-+ Manik - Yu­supov, Warsaw 2005.) 7 . . . cxd4 8.a3 dxc3 (The game is rather un­clear after 8 . . . '&a5 9.axb4 Wxa1

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt:lc3 �b4 4.e5 c5

10 .tt:lb5, and the position is dou­ble-edged.) 9.axb4 Wc7 10.tt:lf3 cxb2 11 .�xb2 Wxc2 12 .�d4 tt:l bc6 13.�b5 '&e4+ 14.<i>f1 tt:lf5 15.hc6+ bxc6 16 .Wd2 a5 17.b5 c5 18 .�e3 �d7 19.l"1xa5 '&b1+ 20 .tt:le1 l"1xa5 2 1.'&xa5 '&xb5-+ Pogosian - Vy­sochin, St Petersburg 2009.

6 .. • Wa5! 7.axb4 7.�d2 cxd4 8.axb4 '&xa1+ 9.

tt:ld1 0-0 10.tt:lf3 f5 11 .exf6 l"1xf6 12 .�g5 e5 13.'&h5 g6 14.Wh4 l"1xf3 15.�xe7 l"1f4 16.Wg3 tt:lc6 with an absolutely hopeless position for White, Grischuk - Shipov, ches­sassistantclub.com 2004.

7 ... Wxa1 S.�dl cxd4 9.lbb5 0 - 0 1 0 .tb c7

It is absolutely senseless for White to continue with 10.tt:lf3 tt:lbc6 11 .�d3 tt:lg6 12 .l"1e1 tt:lxb4 13.tt:la3 tt:lxd3 14.cxd3 �d7 15. tt:lxd4 l"1ac8- + Jansa - Korchnoi, Luhacovice 1969.

10 ... �d7 11.�xa8

ll . . . �a6! This accurate move was rec­

ommended by Korchnoi in the notes to his game. Black can also play here 11 . . .tt:lbc6 12 .b5 tt:lb4 13.

221

Chapter 28

�xd4, which was played in the game Cuijpers - Yusupov, Nether­lands 2009 and now his simplest response would be 13 . . . tt:Ja2 14.�d2 Elxa8 with an overwhelm­ing advantage.

12.�xd4 tt:Jc6 13.�c3 tt:Jcxb4 -White's position is hopeless.

b) 5.dxc5

This move has much more venom than is apparent at first sight.

5 . . • tt:Je7 6.tt:Jf3 6.�g4 tt:Jbc6 7.�b5 (For 7.�d2

- see 5.�d2; 7.�xg7 Elg8 8.�xh7 d4 9 .a3 �a5 10.Elb1 dxc3 11 .�e3 �d7 and to evaluate the position correctly you only have to add up the number of developed pieces of each side.) 7 . . . �a5 8 .hc6+ bxc6 9 .�d2 tt:Jf5 10.tt:Jge2 h5 11 .�f4 �xc5 12 .0-0 �a6 13.Elfe1 �c4 with a superior endgame for Black, Yudasin - Lputian, Simfer­opol 1988.

6 . . • tt:Jd7 It is less good for Black to play

6 . . . tt:Jbc6 7.�d3 tt:Jg6 (Black should

222

avoid 7 . . . d4 8.a3 �a5 9 .b4 tt:Jxb4 10.axb4 hb4 11 .0-0 hc3 12.Elb1 tt:Jc6 13.tt:Jg5 tt:Jxe5 14.�h5 g6 15.�h6 tt:Jg4 16.�b5+ �d7 17. hd7+ �xd7 18.�g7 0-0-0 19. tt:Jxf7 �c7 20 .�f4 �xf4 21 .tt:ld6+ Elxd6 22 .�xb7+- Zelcic - Barsov, France 2003.) 8 .0-0 (8.hg6 !? fxg6 9 .�e3 0-0 10.0-0 b6 11.cxb6 axb6 12 .tt:Jb5 �e7 13.tt:Jbd4 tt:Ja5 14.Ele1 �d7 15.b3 g5 16.h3± Yur­taev - Dolmatov, Frunze 1983) 8 . . . tt:Jgxe5 9.tt:Jxe5 tt:lxe5 10.�f4 �xc3 (10 . . . tt:Jd7 ll.tt:Jxd5 ! exd5 12 . �d6 and White has an over­whelming initiative.) 11.bxc3 tt:Jxd3 12 .cxd3 0-0 13.Ele1 �a5 14.�d6 Ele8 15.d4 Eld8 16.Ele3± Damaso - Bartel, Evora 2006.

7 . .td3

7 . . . tt:Jxc5 It makes less sense for Black to

play 7 . . . �c7 8.0-0 hc3 9.bxc3 tt:Jxc5 and, since he cannot cap­ture on e5 in any case, he might as well delay the development of his queen. 10.c4 �d7 11 .�a3 h6 12 . Ele1 0-0 13.Elb1 b6 14.�e2 Elfe8 15.cxd5 tt:Jxd5 16.hc5 tt:Jc3 17.�e3 �xc5 18.�xc5 bxc5 19.Elb3 tt:Jd5

with an equal endgame, Zelcic -Berg, Kusadasi 2006.

8.0- 0 hc3 9.bxc3 i.d7 1 0 . .ie3 �c8 ll.�bl b6 12.�b4 ll:lg6 13.a4 0 - 0 14.a5 �c7 15. axb6 axb6 16.hg6 fxg6 17.c4 dxc4 18.�xc4 i.c6, and the players agreed to a draw, Zelcic -Drasko, Bosnjaci 200S.

c) 5 . .id2

If White wants to avoid the doubling of his pawns at all costs, I can recommend this move. Now Black has a choice of continua­tions.

5 ..• ll:le7 This is Black's most popular

choice and it leads to very inter­esting positions in which all three results are possible.

The game is rather quieter af­ter S . . . ll:lc6 6.ll:lbS �xd2+ 7.�xd2 '2lxd4 8 .'2lxd4 cxd4 9.f4 (It is weaker for White to opt for 9.'2lf3 '2le7 10.�xd4 '2lc6 11.�e3 �aS+ 12 .c3 d4 13.'2lxd4 �xeS 14.�xeS ltJxeS= Frolov - S. lvanov, Sochi 2004; 11.�g4 0-0 12 .�d3 fS 13.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. '2lc3 �b4 4.e5 c5

�f4 �b6 14.0-0-0?! �xf2 1S.<i>b1 �d7 16.c3 .ie8 17.Eld2 �b6 and he has no compensation for the sac­rificed pawn, Meister - Ionov, Sochi 2004.) 9 . . . �b6 10.0-0-0 '2le7 11 .'2lf3

After 11 . . .'2lc6 White can try Sergey Movsesian's patent : 12 .h4 hs 13.Elh3 g6 14.rnb1 �d7 1s.ttJgs a6 16.Elb3 �a7 17.a4 Elb8 18.'2lf3 �cS 19.'2lxd4 '2lxd4 20.�xd4 �xd4 21 .Elxd4 aS 22 .Elb6 �c6 23. b4 axb4 24.Eldxb4 rnd7 2S.�bs rnc7 26 .aS Elhc8 27.rncl rnd7 28 . �xc6+ Elxc6 29.Elxb7+ with a win­ning endgame for White, Movse­sian - Hochgraefe, Hamburg 1997; or 13 . . . �d7 14.<±>b1 a6 1S. �e2 g6 16.tt:'lh2 ! ? 0-0-0 17.Elb3 �cs 18.'2lf3 tt:'laS 19.Eld3 '2lc4 20. �e1 '2le3 21 .Elc1 '2lxg2 22 .�f2 '2le3 23.c3 and White seized the initia­tive in the game Movsesian -Koutsin, Frydek Mistek 199S.

11 . . .�d7 12 .h4 Elc8 13.'2lxd4 '2lc6 14.hS tt:'lxd4 !? 1S.�xd4 �xd4 16.Elxd4 h6 17.Elh3 . The Slovak grandmaster enjoyed a victory in this ending as well. Still , I think Black's position is not so bad. He can draw the endgame with accu­rate defence, but this task was be-

223

Chapter 28

yond the capabilities of an ama­teur player: 17 .. J�c7 18 .g4 f6 19. l"1e3 fxeS 20.l"1xe5 0-0 21 .�d3 l"1f6 22 .cj;>d2 cj;>f8 23.cj;>e3 aS 24.a4 �c8 25.g5 hxgS 26.fxg5 l"1ff7 27.h6 gxh6 28.gxh6 cj;>g8 29.l"1g4+ cj;>h8 30 .l"1eg5 l"1f8 31.h7 d4+ 32 .cj;>e2+­Movsesian - Guedon, Bourbon Laney 1997.

6.ll:lb5 This is White's most consist­

ent move. It is too provocative to play 6.

f4? ! tt:lfS 7.tt:lf3 cxd4 8 .tt:lb5 �cs 9 .b4 �e7 (The complications are quite unclear after 9 . . . �b6 10. �d3 �d7 11 .g4 tt:le3 12 .tt:ld6+ cj;>e7 13.�e2 �c7 14.l"1c1 tt:Jc4 15.tt:lxc4 dxc4 16.hc4 �c6 17.�d3 hS 18. 0-0 hxg4 19.tt:lg5 tt:ld7 20 .�xg4 l"1af8 21 .tt:le4 cj;>d8 22 .tt:ld6 gS with a rather messy position, Watson - Lputian, Belgrade 1988.) 10. tt:lbxd4 tt:lxd4 ll .tt:lxd4 tt:lc6 12 . tt:lxc6 bxc6 13 .�d3 �b6 and White should be happy if he manages to equalize, De Ia Villa Garcia - Ariz­mendi Martinez, Palma de Mal­lorca 2009.

It is too slow and inadvisable

224

for White to play 6.tt:lf3 cxd4 7. tt:lbS hd2 + (Black can try to con­tinue in an original fashion with 7 . . . �c5 8 .b4 a6 9.bxc5 axbS, but this would only justify White's strategy.) 8 .�xd2 0-0 9J[jbxd4 tt:lbc6 10.tt:lxc6 bxc6 11 .�d3 �b6 12 .b3 �a6 13.0-0 hd3 14.�xd3 tt:lg6 and Black has no problems whatsoever, Miles - Menvielle Lacourrelle, Gran Canaria 1996.

It looks interesting for White to try 6.a3 �xc3 7.hc3. He has preserved his dark-squared bish­op and his pawn structure is in­tact. However, your opponent will not always let you play so conven­tionally in the opening. 7 . . . tt:Jbc6 8.tt:lf3 cxd4 9 .tt:lxd4 (9.�xd4 tt:lxd4 10.�xd4 tt:lc6 11 .�g4 0-0 12 .�d3 f6 13.�h4 h6 14.exf6 �xf6 15. �xf6 gxf6 16.0-0-0 eS= Bala­shov - Lputian, Kiev 1986.) 9 . . . tt:lxe5 10 .tt:lxe6 he6 11.�xe5 0-0

This position would be better for White if only we could ignore the dynamic factors, which are so important at the beginning of the game. 12 .�d3 tt:lc6 13.�g3 �f6 14. l"1b1 �f5 15.0-0 l"1fe8 16.hf5 �xfS 17.�d2 l"1e6 18.l"1fe1 l"1ae8 19. l"1xe6 l"1xe6 20.l"1dl d4 2 1.a4 (21 .l"1el h6

22 .f3 l'!xe1+ 23 . .b:e1 '&b5 24.b3 '&c5 25.b4 '&c4 26 . .ig3 b5 and Black's position is better, Okkes -Berelovich, Netherlands 2007.) 21 . . .h5 22 .f3 '&c5 23 . .if2 '&c4 24.b3 '&c5 25.h4 '&e7 26.<;t>f1 a6 27.'&g5 '&xg5 28.hxg5 \ilh7 29.

.b:d4 l'!d6 30 .c3 \ilg6= Hector -Rowson, York 1999.

It is sharper for White to play 6.dxc5 tt::lbc6 7.'&g4 0-0

8 .tt::lf3 (White sometimes plays 8 .0-0-0 f5 9 .exf6 l'!xf6 10 . .id3 h6 ll .'&h5 .id7 12 .tt::lf3 '&f8 13.tt::le2 .ie8 14.'&h4 tt::lg6 15.'&g3 '&xc5 16 . .b:h6? gxh6 17.tt::lf4 '&d6 18.tt::lh5 l'!f8 19.'&g4 tt:Jce7 and Black won easily, Bengtsson - Renman, Linkoping 1984. It looks very at­tractive to play 8 . . . d4 ! ? 9 .tt::le4 .b:d2 + 10.l'!xd2 tt:Jxe5 ll .'&g3 tt::l7g6 - 11 . . .tt::l5g6 ! ? - 12.f4 tt::lc6 13 . .ic4 tt::la5 14 . .id3 '&d5 15.\ilb1 f5 16.tt::lg5 '&xc5 17.tt::l1f3 l'!f6 18 .h4 h6 19.tt::lh3 tt::lc6 20.l'!hd1 .id7 and al­though White won the game, the position is rather unclear, Robson - Sevillano, Saint Louis 2009. Black can also try 8 . . . .b:c5 9.tt::lf3 tt::lg6 10.'�h5 .id7 n.<;t>b1 '&e8 ! ? 12 .h4 - 12 . .id3 ! ? - 12 . . . l'!c8 13. tt::lg5 h6 14.tt::lf3 f5 15.exf6 l'!xf6 16.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tLlc3 .ib4 4.e5 c5

'&g4 .b:f2 17.h5 tt::lf4 18 .g3 e5 19. '&h4 tt::lxh5 20 .tt::lxd5 l'!xf3 with an overwhelming advantage for Black, Movsesian - Bukal, Medu­lin 1997.) 8 .. .f5 (The author has reached this position several times: 8 . . . tt::lg6 9 . .id3 - 9.0-0-0 !? - 9 . . . f5 10.exf6 '&xf6 11 .0-0 tt::lf4 12 . .b:h7+ \ilxh7 13.tt::lg5+ \ilg8 14. .ixf4 .b:c3 15 .bxc3 '&xf4 16.'&h5 l'!f5 17.'&e8+ l'!f8 18.'&h5 l'!f5 19. '&e8+ and the game ended in a draw, Savchenko - Vitiugov, Sochi 2006.) 9 .exf6 (It is weaker for White to play 9.'&g3? ! tt::lg6 10 . .id3 d4 11 .tt::lb5 .ixd2+ 12 .\ilxd2 a6 13.tt::ld6 '&a5+ 14.\ild1 '&xc5, with an excellent position for Black, Polzin - Timman, Germany 1997.) 9 . . . l'!xf6 10.0-0-0 e5 11 . '&h5 l'!f5 (Black often plays the more popular line : 1l . . . .if5 12 .a3 .ixc3 13 . .ixc3 d4 14 . .ic4+ mh8 15.tt::lg5 .ig6 16.'&e2 '&f8 17 . .ie1 tt::lg8 18.h4 h6 19 . .id3 l'!d8 2 0.f3± Borgo - Huebner, Baden 1999 ; 12 . . . '&a5 ! ? 13.axb4 tt:Jxb4 14 . .ig5 '&a1+ 15.\ild2 '&xb2 16.l'!cl .ixc2 17.tt::ld1.b:d1+ 18.\ilxd1 l'!f7 19 . .id2 l'!f5 20.'&h4 tt:Jec6 with a powerful attack.) 12 .'&h4 '&f8. This is an in­teresting idea - Black makes sev­eral preparatory moves before ad­vancing his centre. 13 .'&g3 (Or 13.tt::lxd5? tt::lxd5 14 . .ic4 .ie6 15. tt::lg5 .ixd2+ 16.l'!xd2 l'!xg5 17.'&xg5 '&xc5 18 . .ib3 l'!e8 with advantage to Black, 13.\ilb1 .ixc3 14 . .b:c3 l'!f4 !-+; 14.bxc3 b6 15.c4 l'!xf3 16.gxf3 .if5 with acceptable com­pensation for the exchange.) 13 . . . \ilh8 ! I t becomes evident that

225

Chapter 28

White is nearly helpless against Black's powerful central pawns. 14.�g5 e4 15.tt'ld4 tt'lxd4 16J�xd4. Here Black can make a choice be­tween two excellent possibilities : 16 . . . �xc3 ! ? 17.�xe7 Vfixe7 18.Vfixc3 E1xf2 19.E1xd5 �e6, with a very good game, or 16 . . . �xc5 17.�xe7 �xe7 18.E1xd5 E1f4 and in this open position Black's bishop pair fully compensates for the sacrificed pawn.

6 . . . .b:d2+ 7.�xd2 0 - 0 Black should not neglect the

possibility of castling.

8.f4 This is a routine move. Black has no problems in the

greedy line 8.dxc5 <iJd7 9.f4 (9. Vfic3 f6 10.exf6 tt'lxf6 11 .�d3 �d7 12 .<iJd4 e5 13.<iJb3 Wic7 14.f3 a5 15.a4 �e6 16.�b5 Wh8 17.�d3 d4 18.�c4 �f5 19.Vfie2 <iJed5 with an excellent position for Black, Jur­cik - Chytilek, Olomouc 2005; 10.<iJf3 <iJxe5 ll .tt'lxe5 fxe5 12 . Vfixe5 �d7. This is an ambitious approach. Black is trying to derive maximum benefit from his lead in development. He does not appear

226

to have any problems at all , for in­stance in this logical variation : 13.0-0-0 Vfia5 14.tt'lc7 <iJc6 15. �d6 Vfixa2 16.�xd7 E1xf2 17.�xe6+ Wh8 18.�e2 Vfia1+ 19.Wd2 Vfia5+ 20.Wc1 �a1=) 9 . . . <iJxc5 10.<iJd4 Vfib6 11 .0-0-0 �d7. If we count the tempi, it is clear that Black has a good position. The following game shows how play might con­tinue : 12.<iJgf3 E1fc8 13.�e3 E1c7 14.Wb1 E1ac8 15.E1c1 a6 16.g4 <iJc6 17.h4 tt'le4 18.E1h2 tt'la5 19.�d3 <iJc5 20 .c3 C2Ja4 21 .Wa1 �b5 22 . �b1 C2Jc4 23.�e1 C2Jcxb2 ! and Black was better in the game Karpov -Nogueiras, Rotterdam 1989.

The move 8 .c3, reinforcing White's pawn chain, has an obvi­ous drawback: White's knight on b5 is left isolated. 8 . . . <iJbc6 9.f4 a6 10.<iJd6 f6 ll.<iJf3 cxd4 12.cxd4 <iJg6 13 .�d3 (13.<iJxc8 fxe5 14. dxe5 E1xc8 15.g3 Vfib6 16 .�h3 Wh8 17.a3 <iJa5?! 18.Vfid4 �b5 19 .a4 �d7 20.�b6± Timman - Agde­stein, Taxco 1985; 17 . . . <iJcxe5 ! This is an important improve­ment for Black. 18.<iJxe5 <iJxe5 19. fxe5 E1c4. This attack with his ma­jor pieces leads to victory, for ex­ample after 20 .�g2 E1f5 21 .E1cl E1xe5+ 22 .Wfl E1f5+ 23.We1 Vfif2 + ! 24.Vfixf2 E1xc1+ 25.Wd2 E1xf2+ 26. Wxc1 E1xg2 and the rook ending is winning for Black.) 13 . . . fxe5 14. fxe5 (It is no better for White to opt for 14.hg6 �xd6 15.dxe5? �b4 ! and he ends up a pawn down. 15.fxe5 Vfib4. Black can ex­ploit the open file and his oppo­nent's d4-pawn is weak, so the

endgame is at least equal for him. 16.�b1 aS 17.\Wxb4 axb4 18 .b3 �d7 19.'it>e2 E1a3 20 .!'1d1 tLla7 21 . �d3 E1a8 22 .'it>e3 ttJc6 23.!'1d2 E1xb3 24.axb3 fua1, Royset - Haug, Kau­tokeino 1997.) 14 . . . 2"1xf3 ! This is a typical resource in the French de­fence. After the exchange sacri­fice, White will lose both his d4-and eS- pawns. 1S.gxf3 ttJxd4 16. �e4 ttJxeS 17.\Wxd4 \Wxd6 18.0-0-0 tLlc6 19.iWd2 �d7 and Black has excellent compensation for the exchange.

8 . . . .id7!? This is a rarely played move,

but it sets White some rather unu­sual (for this variation) problems.

Black should avoid 8 . . . a6 9. tLld6 cxd4 10.tLlf3 ttJbc6 11 .�d3 f6 12 .0-0 fxeS 13.fxeS E1xf3 14.2"1xf3 ttJxeS 1S. iWf4 ttJxf3 + 16.gxf3 ttJc6 17.iWf7+ 'it>h8 18.'it>h1 g6 19 .hg6 \We7 20 .\Wf4+- Perelshteyn -Berg, Southampton 2003.

Black fails to solve his prob­lems with 8 . . . ttJbc6 9.tLlf3 a6 10. tLld6 ttJxd4 11.tLlxd4 cxd4 12 .�d3 \Wb6 13.0-0-0 �d7 14.g4 (White's game is much easier.) 14 . . . ttJc8 1S.tLlxc8 E1axc8 16.fS �bS 17.hbS iWxbS 18 .f6 d3 19.c3 \Wa4 2 0.'it>b1 iWc2 + 2 1 .\Wxc2 dxc2+ 22. 'it>xc2 and White has the edge in this endgame, thanks to his advanced kingside pawns, Landa - Marzo­la, Paris 2006.

9.dxc5

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tLlc3 �b4 4.e5 c5

After 9.tLld6 cxd4 10.tLlf3 ttJbc6 Black has a good game. For exam­ple, he can counter 1l .b4 with the interesting idea: 11.. .iWc7 12.bS tLlxeS! 13 .fxeS f6 14.b6 axb6 1S.exf6 E1xf6 16.tLlbS �xbS 17.hbS eS 18.0-0 tLlfS and Black's powerful central pawn-mass more than compen­sates for the sacrificed piece.

9 • • • .ixb5 1 0 . .ixb5

10 . . . a6 This is a new plan for Black in

this position. Or 10 . . . b6 ! ? 11.iWf2 bxcS 12 .

iWxcS tLld7 13.\Wa3 E1b8 14.hd7 \Wxd7 1S.tLlf3 E1fc8 16.0-0-0 aS and he has good play along the open files, Westermeier - Z.Med­vegy, Austria 200S.

ll . .id3 .!Lld7 It is obvious that if Black re­

gains his pawn he will have an ex­cellent position.

12.b4 a5 13.c3 axb4 14. cxb4 b6 15.cxb6 iWxb6 16 • .!LlfJ E1a3!? - White has difficulties.

227

Chapter 29 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)t)c3 J.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3

This is the strongest move for White and logically the main line

5 ... hc3+ Nowadays Black rarely plays

5 . . . i.a5 ! ? , which has been named "The Armenian variation", mostly as a tribute to its greatest expo­nents, Rafael Vaganian and Sm­bat Lputian. Black's position would be fine, were it not for 6 . b4 ! cxd4 (Accepting the sacrifice with 6 . . . cxb4 would be fatal for Black, because after 7.lLlb5 White's initiative is crushing.) 7. Wg4 lLle7 8.bxa5 dxc3 9.Wxg7 Ei:g8 10.Wxh7 lLlbc6 ll .lLlf3 Wc7. This position attracted a lot of atten­tion, at various levels, but then Andrey Volokitin revealed an analysis which proved to be very unpleasant for Black. 12 .i.f4 i.d7

228

13.a6 ! 0-0-0 (Here Black can try 13 . . . b6, but this is hardly an im­provement.) 14.axb7+ (White postponed this capture in the fol­lowing game and he was almost punished for it - 14.Wd3 Ei:g4 15. i.g3 Ei:e4+ 16.'tt>dl Ei:c4 17.Wh7 Ei:e4 ! ? with rather unclear conse­quences, Vallejo Pons - S.Volkov, Kallithea 2008.) 14 . . . 'tt>b8 15.Wd3 Ei:g4 16.g3 lLlg6 17.Wxc3 lLlxf4 18. h3 ! lLlxh3 19.Ei:xh3 lLlxe5 20. Wxc7+ 'tt>xc7 21 .lLlxe5 Ei:e4+ 22. 'tt>d2 Ei:xe5 23.i.d3± Volokitin -Lputian, Mallorca 2004. I think that if theory ends up in this really unpleasant endgame for Black, the variation with 5 . . . i.a5 cannot be recommended.

6.bxc3 c!L!e7 Black has some popular alter­

natives here - 6 . . . Wa5 7.i.d2 Wa4 with interesting play, as well as 6 . . . Wc7 7.Wg4 f6 (7 .. .f5 8.Wg3 cxd4 9.cxd4 lLle7 10 .i.d2 0-0 11 . i.d3 b6 12.lt)e2 i.a6 13.lLlf4 Wd7 14.h4 i.xd3 15.Wxd3 lLlbc6 16.Ei:h3 Ei:ac8 17.Ei:g3 Ei:f7 18.h5 lLld8 19.c3 Ei:f8 20 .'tt>fl Ei:c4 2l .'tt>gl and White has a clear-cut plan of action, Kasparov - Short, Novgorod 1997.) 8 .i.b5+ 'tt>f8 9.lLlf3 WaS

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt'Jc3 1lb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc lt'Je7

10J:'!b1 a6 1l .§ie2 \Wxc3+ 12 .§id2 \Wxc2 13.Elc1 \We4 14.\Wg3 lt'Jd7 1S. exf6 gxf6 16.\Wd6+ lt'Je7 17.0-0 Elg8 18.Elfe1 \Wg6 19.lt'Jh4 \Wf7 20. tih6+ \ile8 21 .tihS+ - Vitiugov -Dyachkov, Dagomys 2008.

I shall repeat - I recommend that Black opt for another main line.

Now White has several op­tions, but in fact they can be di­vided into two groups - 7.\Wg4 and the rest: a) 7 . .id3, b) 7.h4, c) 7.a4 and d) 7.ti:lf3. We shall deal with the queen-move in the next chapter, while here we shall analyze White's possible position­al moves. I think it will be more useful and reasonable if we focus more on the typical plans, ideas and manoeuvres and rather than concrete variations (They are not that many, in fact . . . ) .

a) 7 • .id3 Black has no serious problems

after this quiet move. 7 •. .tbbc6 8 .tbf3 Or 8.\Wg4 \WaS 9 .id2 c4 10 .ie2

0-0 11 .h4?! f6 12 .f4 \Wa4 13 .id1

\WbS 14.ic1 \WaS 1S.id2 \WbS (lS . . . \Wb6 ! ? and Black can prolong the struggle) 16.ic1 \WaS 17.id2 and the players agreed to a draw, Short - Shulman, Dhaka 1999.

8 . • . 'tYa5 After 8 . . . c4 ! ? 9 .ie2 0-0 10.

0-0 f6 ll.exf6 Elxf6 12 .lt'JeS lt'JxeS 13 .dxeS Elf8 14.igS \We8 1S.ixe7 \Wxe7 16.\Wd4 id7 17.f4 tieS 18. Elf2 ig6 19.tig4 tie4, Black ob­tained an excellent position in the game Ju.Polgar - Sutovsky, Na­tanya 2009.

9 . .id2 c4 1 0 . .ie2 .id7 11. 0 - 0 f6 12J3el fxe5 13.dxe5 0 - 0 14 . .ifl Elf5 15.g3 13af8 16. 13e3 135f7 17.§ig2 \Wc7

Black's position is slightly preferable, De Firmian - Gulko, Malmo 2001 .

b) 7.h4!? This is an active move, con­

nected with a pawn-sacrifice. 7 . . . tia5 After 7 . . . \Wc7!? 8 .Elh3 lt'Jbc6

9.hS h6 10.lt'Je2 f6 1l .exf6 gxf6 12 .Elf3 eS 13.Elxf6 ig4 14.Elxh6

229

Chapter 29

E1xh6 15.1xh6 ltJf5 16.ig5 exd4 E1g4 cxd4 12.cxd4 b6 13 .1d3 ia6 17.f3 hh5 18.g4 ltJe5co, wild 14.hf5 exf5 15.E1xg7 'W'xd4 16.E1g3 and unpredictable complications f4 (Here, with 16 . . . 'W'e4+ ! , Black arise, Shukh - Shimanov, Irkutsk could have obtained a considera-2010. ble advantage.) 17.E1f3 'W'xe5+? !

7 . . . ttJbc6 8.h5 h6 ! ? 9.'W'g4 ltJf5 (17 . . . 'W'e4+ ! ?) 18.ltJe2 'W'xh5 19. 10.id3 0-0 11.l2le2 cxd4 12.cxd4 ic3. White seized the initiative 'WaS+ 13 .id2 'W'a4 14.E1b1? ltJxe5 ! and went on to win, Vitiugov -and Black realized his advantage, Lysyj, Serpukhov 2008. Nepomniachtchi - Savchenko, The game takes a completely Olginka 2011 . different course after 9 .'W'b1 c4

8.i.d2 'W'a4 10 .h5 h6 11.l2le2 ltJbc6 12 .g4 id7 Or 8 . . . ttJbc6 ! ? 9.ltJf3 id7 10. 13 .ig2 0-0-0 14.ie3 f6 15.f4 f5

h5 0-0-0 1l .id3 f6 12 .0-0 c4 16.g5 g6 and the players agreed to 13 .1e2 fxe5 14.ltJxe5 ttJxe5 15.dxe5 a draw, Motylev - Rustemov, E1df8 16.1g4 E1f7 17.'W'e2 @b8 18. Tomsk 2001. @h2 @aS 19.f4 g6 20.ih3 ltJf5 9 . . .lbbc6 1 0 .h5 cxd4 2l .g4 ltJe7 22 .h6 with a compli- This move leads to rather forc-cated position, Alekseev - ing play. Grischuk, Moscow 2008. It is also possible for Black to

9)bf3 It is not very advisable for

White to try the risky line: 9 .h5 h6 (9 . . . b6 !? 10.ltJf3 ia6 ll .E1h4 hf1 12 .@xfl ltJf5 13.E1f4 ltJc6 14.@g1 cxd4 15.g4 ltJfe7 16.cxd4 h6 17. ltJh4 E1c8 18.c3 'W'xd1 + 19 .E1xd1 ltJa5 and the endgame is excellent for Black, Sasikiran - Sutovsky, Antwerp 2009.) 10.E1h4 ltJf5 11 .

230

opt for 10 . . . h6 11.E1h4 ltJf5 12.E1g4 cxd4?! (12 . . . b6! ?) 13.cxd4 b6 14. c4 ! and White obtains an edge.

ll.cxd4 1l .id3 dxc3 12 .hc3 ltJf5 13.

h6. After this, the play is forced for many moves. 13 . . . gxh6 14 . .ixf5

exf5 15.e6 'W'e4+ 16.@f1 'W'c4+ 17. 'W'd3 'W'xd3+ 18.cxd3 0-0 19.exf7+ E1xf7 20.E1xh6 d4 ! 21 .hd4 ltJxd4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3JiJc3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJ e7

22 .liJxd4 and here, Black could have equalized with 22 . . . YJ.d7= (I played less well in the game and ended up in an inferior position after 22 . . . b6 23J'l:d6 YJ.a6 24.<i7e2 l"i:e8+ 25.�d2, Kurnosov - Vitiu­gov, Moscow 2010.) .

White's victory in the next game is very instructive ll .l"i:h4 b6 (ll . . . liJf5 12 .1"i:f4 b6 !? , provoking g4) 12 .liJxd4 liJxd4 13.1"i:xd4 Vfffc6 14.Vfffg4 liJf5 15.YJ.d3 l"i:g8 16.1"\f4 YJ.d7 17.Vfffe2 g5 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.0-0-0 l"i:c8 20.g4 liJe7 21 .Vffff3± Guseinov - Bocharov, Khanty­Mansiysk 2011 .

ll . . . liJxd4 12.YJ.d3 c!Llec6 Or 12 . . . h6 ! ? 13.YJ.b4 liJdc6 (13 . . .

liJxf3+? 14.Vfffxf3 liJc6 15.1"i:b1 liJxb4 16.1"i:xb4 Vfffa5 17.YJ.b5+ �f8 18. 0-0±) 14.1"i:h4 Ci:lxb4 15.axb4 Vfffc6 16.Vfffd2 0-0. Of course, White has active pieces and some attacking chances for the sacrificed pawn, but Black's position is quite solid and his passed a-pawn might be­come very dangerous in the fu­ture.

13.�fl

13 • • • liJf5

After 13 . . . liJxf3?! 14.Vfffxf3 Vfffd4 15.1"\e1 liJxe5 16.Vfffg3 liJxd3 17.cxd3 0-0 18.1"i:h4 Vffff6 19.YJ.f4, White de­velops a powerful initiative on the dark squares.

14.hf5 Or 14.�g1? ! Vfffg4 15.Vfffe2 f6 16.

h6 fxe5 17.hxg7 l"i:g8 18.1"i:xh7 e4 19.liJg5 Vfffxe2 20 .he2 l"i:xg7 21 . l"i:h8+ �e7 and Black is better, Fe­dorov - Gulko, Las Vegas 1999.

14 • • • exf5 15.h6 �g8 16.YJ.g5 YJ.e6 17.�h4 Vfffa6+ 18.@gl gxh6 19 • .if6 �g4 2 0 .�bl �xh4 21. YJ.xh4 �c8 and the players agreed to a draw, Hellers - Gulko, Biel 1993.

c) 7.a4

This is an interesting move, but in order to understand its point, you must be familiar with some of the finer points of this variation. White achieves some pluses with his last move, but he wastes valuable time in the open­ing. His a4-pawn might be strong later, but it might become a liabil­ity as well. In addition, the b4-

231

Chapter 29

square can be used by a black knight after an eventual exchange of pawns on d4.

7 . . . \Wc7!? The essence of White's idea

can be best seen in the line : 7 . . . b6 8 . .ib5+ .id7 9 . .id3. Following a typical manoeuvre, Black's bishop was denied the use of the a4-square, where it would have been excellently placed. 9 . . . ltJbc6 10. ltJf3 h6 11 .0-0 \Wc7 12 J�e1 0-0, with a complicated position, Her­nandez - Ivanov, Balaguer 1997.

8.tt:lf3 h6!? This i s a very interesting mo­

ment. Black is in no hurry and makes a useful prophylactic move.

9 . .id3 After 9.h4 b6 10 . .ib5+ .id7 11.

.id3 lt'lbc6 12 . .id2 c4 13 . .ie2 f6 14 . .if4 0-0 15.�d2 lt'lg6 16.hh6 fxe5 17.�g5 .ie8 18.h5 lt'lf4 19.�g4 exd4 20.cxd4 e5 21 .dxe5 lUxeS 22 . .ixf4 E1xf4 23 .�e6+ ltJf7 24.h6 l=\e4 25.�f5 �d7 26.�xd7 ixd7, the endgame is better for Black, Konguvel - Rustemov, Biel 2004.

9 . . . b6!

232

This is the point! Now the check on b5 would lose a tempo for White.

1 0 .a5 After 10.0-0 .ia6 11 .a5 hd3

12 .axb6 axb6 13.l=\xa8 ixfl 14. �xf1 0-0 15.�d3 ltJec6 16.�b5 E1c8 17.dxc5 bxc5 18.�xc5 lt'ld7 19. �d6 �b7 20 .l=\xc8+ �xc8 21 ..ie3 ltJa5, Black has excellent compen­sation for the pawn, De Firmian - Ibragimov, New York 2005.

10 ... bxa5 11. 0 - 0 c4 12. .ie2 0 - 0 13J�el tt:lbc6 14 . .ifl f6 15 . .ia3 fxe5 16 . .ixe7? \Wxe7 17.tt:lxe5 tt:lxe5 18.l:�xe5 \Wc7 19.g3 .id7 2 0 . .ih3 lU6 21.\Wcl a4 22.\Wa3 gbs with great ad­vantage for Black, Topalov - Ba­reev, Wijk aan Zee 2004.

d) 7.tt:lf3 b6

Black's idea is blatantly obvi­ous - he wants to exchange the light-squared bishops.

8 . .ib5+ We are already familiar with

this manoeuvre. It is less principled for White

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJc3 1J.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJe7

to continue with 8.a4 §J.a6 9.1J.xa6 (Black has nothing to worry about after 9 .1J.b5+ hb5 10.axb5 �d7 11 .:gb1 a6 12 .dxc5 bxc5 13.1J.a3 axb5 14.hc5 0-0 15.�d3 :gcs 16.he7 �xe7 17.0-0 4Jd7 18. :gxb5 liJc5 19.�e3 liJe4 20.:gb3 �c7 with good play, Varavin - Bareev, Elista 1996.) 9 . . . 4Jxa6 10.0-0 liJb8 ll .dxc5 bxc5 12 .c4 0-0 13. cxd5 liJxd5 14.�d3 h6 15.c4 liJe7 16.�e4 4Jd7 17.:gb1 �a5 18.:gd1 )"ladS 19.�c2 4Jxe5 ! 20 .4Jxe5 �c3 2l .�e2 �xeS and Black went on to win, A.Sokolov - Yusupov, Riga 1986. I should mention that Artur Yusupov is one of the greatest specialists in this line and I plan to use many of his games to illus­trate most of the finer points and intricacies of this variation.

8 . . . .id7 9.§J.d3 .ia4 This is an important moment.

Black's bishop will exert pressure against White's c2-pawn from this square and furthermore White's bishop is prevented from occupying the a3-f8 diagonal.

1 0 .h4 h6

ll.h5

The following game illustrates very instructively how the game can develop in this variation. ll.fi.f4 4Jbc6 12 .h5 a6. Black has decided nevertheless to exchange the light-squared bishops after all , but in this rather original fashion. 13.�b1

This is a sensible response. White leaves his rook on a1 to protect his a3-pawn, in case the a­file is opened. 13 . . . �c7 14.0-0 liJa5 1s.:ga2 :gbs 16.:ge1 i>d7. Black's play in this part of the game is not very impressive and the instructive value of this en­counter lies more in the way White handles the position. 17.:gb2 c4. Black closes the centre in order to avoid the worst. Now readers should pay attention to how Inarkiev (White) plays. His manoeuvres are very impressive indeed ! 18 .1J.e2 4Jac6 19 .�c1 b5? ! Black deliberately boxes in his bishop. Up to this point Black's play has perhaps been viable, but his last move goes to far . . . 20 . liJh2 ! a5 21 .:ga2 �d8 22 .1J.g4 �g8. This is another manoeuvre worth noticing. 23.4Jfl i>c7 24.4Je3 i>b7 25.1J.h3 liJc8 26.§J.g3 liJb6. White's

233

Chapter 29

play so far has been excellent. This is exactly how his pieces should be deployed in this pawn structure - the knight on e3, the light-squared bishop eyeing the e6-square. He only had to make one more important move and Black's position would have been very difficult. . . 27.f4? ! (It was much stronger to play 27.Wh2 ! , protecting the bishop o n g3, and his opponent would have been in great difficulties .) 27 .. .f5 ! Black exploits the fact that the white bishop on g3 is hanging and he eases his defence a little with this move. 28 .'\Wd1 !1'Je7 29.l"lf1? ! (It was again worthwhile for White to play 29.Wh2, with the same idea - to protect the bishop.) 29 . . . g 5 30.hxg6 !1'Jxg6 31 .hf5?! White has already lost his positional ad­vantage and now he goes in for complications. (It is important that he cannot play 31 .'\Wh5, be­cause of 31 . . .!1'Jxe5 ! ) . 31 . .. exf5 32 . !1'Jxf5 <i>a6 33.'\Wf3 h5 34.!1'Je3 h4 35.�h2 h3 and Black triumphed in the time scramble, lnarkiev -Vitiugov, Moscow 2008.

234

ll . . . c4 Yusupov tried another set-up

in his match against A.Sokolov: 11 . . . !1'Jbc6 12 .l"lh4 c4 13.�e2 <i>d7 14.�e3 '\Wg8

Black's queen is quite useful on the g8-square. It allows the rook on a8 to get closer to the ac­tion, it prepares an attack on the c2-square from h7 and of course it will support an advance of the f­and g- pawns in the future. 15. 1Wd2 '\Wh7 16.l"lcl <i>c7 17.l"lf4 l"laf8 18.!1'Jh4 !1'Jd8. This is another mul­ti-functional manoeuvre - Black's knight is not attacking anything from the c6-square, so it provides additional defence of the key "French" pawn on e6. 19.�g4 <i>b7 20 .l"lf3 �e8 21 .l"lh3 g5. This move seems to flout some well-founded positional rules, but this is exactly the way for Black to activate his pieces a little. 22 .hxg6 fxg6 23. !:i'Jf3 g5 24.!1'Jh2 Wg7 25.'\We2 �g6 and Black had an excellent posi­tion in the game A.Sokolov - Yu­supov, Riga 1986.

12.�e2 <i>d7 13.lL!h4 13.�f4 '\Wg8 14.!1'Jd2 '\Wh7 15.

l"la2 l:i'Ja6 16.g4 !1'Jc7 17.l"lh3 l"laf8

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lbc3 i.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc {jj e7

18.�e3 lt>c8 19.i.g3 {jjc6 20.{jjf3 �hg8 2l .lt>d2 lt>b7 22 .'Wh1 {jjb5 23.{jje1 {jjc7 24.{jjg2 �e8 25.f4 f6 26.exf6 gxf6 27.{jjh4 f5 28.{jjg6 fxg4 29 .hg4 'Wf7 30 .'Wh3 lt>a6 31.�a1 {jje7 32 .{jjxe7 �xe7 Black has gained an advantage, Bologan - Vitiugov, Dagomys 2010.

13 •.. 'Wg8 14.i.g4 �h7 15J�a2 It is difficult to tell where this

rook belongs - on a2, or cl.

15 • • )Da6!? We have already explained all

the previous manoeuvres. It is clear that the knight will ensure additional protection of the e6-pawn, but this time from a differ­ent square. It can be activated

later, for example via b5. 16.13h3 tl:lc7 17.\t>fl 13af8

18.�gl g5 Nothing new under the sun.

Black's set-up has withstood the test of time.

19.tl:lf3 tl:lc6 2 0 .ttlh2 f5 21. exf6 13xf6 22.13e3 13hf8 23.£3

23 . . . �t7 with a very good po­sition for Black, Ki.Georgiev - Yu­supov, Las Palmas 1993. It is ob­vious that the position is so com­plicated that an exhaustive analy­sis is practically impossible. What matters is that you understand the main ideas which are typical for this rather original and non­standard pawn structure.

235

Chapter 3 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lt:Jc3 .ib4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3+ 6.bxc3 �e7 7.'?Ng4

This is White's most aggres­sive move. Black faces immediate concrete problems with the pro­tection of his g7-pawn.

7 . . . cxd4!? Black tackles his problems

head on! Attack is the best form of defence.

I think I ought to clarify for you the character of the arising positions. They are totally irra­tional. Probably only the Botvin­nik variation of the Semi-Slav de­fence stands comparison. Black sacrifices his kings ide for the sake of obtaining a lead in develop­ment and keeping his opponent's king stranded in the centre for a long time to come. Black's com­pensation is temporary and main­ly of a dynamic sort. Black should

236

be reluctant to go into the end­game, because his opponent's passed pawns and in particular the h-pawn, perfectly supported by the rook from its initial square, can become very dangerous. White's king, however, can re­main in danger right to the end of the game, because even if Black's first attacking wave fails, another one can follow.

Nothing definite can be said to make the play easier for either side in this variation. In fact, the position will be difficult for White, owing to the necessity to defend early in the game, as well as for Black, since he is risking a lot. The concrete theory of this variation is tremendously complex and these unbalanced positions are difficult to analyse, even for today's pow­erful computers. So, despite the fact that everything seems to be forced, there remains plenty of scope for creative endeavour. It seems to me that after you have read all this, it would be sensible for me to outline for you Black's basic plans, ideas and resources in this variation.

First of all, it is less precise to

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. t:iJc3 i2.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc t:iJe7 7. Wg4 cd

begin with 7 . . . Wc7, because then White has the additional possibil­ity of 8 .i2.d3 ! ? cxd4 9.t:iJe2 dxc3 10.Wxg7 l"i:g8 11.Wxh7 Wxe5 12 .i2.f4 Wf6 13 .Wh6 t:IJg6 14.i2.g5 l"i:h8 15. i2.xf6 l"i:xh6 16 .hc3, with an ad­vantage in the endgame, Carlsen - Sanchez Alarcos Galian, Madrid 2008.

Completely different positions result from 7 . . . 0-0, but that might be the subject of another book.

8.�xg7 It is not so good for White to

play 8.cxd4? ! �c7

and now: it would be too artificial to play

9 .l"i:a2 t:IJf5 10.t:iJf3 t:IJc6 11 .Wd1 h5 12 .Wg5 i2.d7 13.Wf4 f6 14.exf6 Wxf4 15.hf4 gxf6 16.c3 l"i:c8 17. i2.d3 t:IJa5 18.a4 l"i:g8 19.l"i:e1 Wf7 20 . hf5 exf5 21 .i2.d6 l"i:ce8 22 .l"i:xe8 he8 23. We1 t:IJc4 24.i2.f4 l"i:xg2 25.i2.g3 f4 26.hf4 i2.d7 and Black is better, So - Li Shilong, Manila 2008.

It looks too provocative for White to choose 9.Wd1 h5 (Black sometimes plays 9 . . . 0-0 10 .i2.d3 f5 11 .exf6 l"i:xf6 12.Wh5 h6 13.g4 e5 14.g5 hxg5 15.h4 e4 16.hxg5 l"i:g6

- 16 . . . l"i:xf2 ! - 17.i2.b5 t:IJbc6 18. t:IJe2 Wb6 19.a4 Wf7 20.i2.a3? -20.i2.e3 !± - 20 . . . t:IJxd4 21 .l"i:b1 i2.d7 22 .a5 i2.xb5 23.l"i:xb5 Wxb5 24. t:IJxd4 Wa4-+ Shirov - Zhukova, Gibraltar 2006; another interest­ing try is 14 . . . g6 !? , impeding White's attack.) 10.Wf4 (Or 10. Wxg7 l"i:g8 ll.Wh6 Wc3 12.l"i:b1 Wxd4+ 13.i2.d2 Wxe5, White's king is vul­nerable and he is a pawn down.) 10 . . . b6 11 .i2.b5+. This is a new ver­sion of an old story. This annoy­ing check haunts Black through­out the entire Winawer variation. ll . . . i2.d7 (ll . . .t:iJbc6 ! ? 12 .t:IJf3 a5 13. l"i:b1 i2.a6 14.ha6 l"i:xa6 15.l"i:e1 a4 16.h3 l"i:a8 17.i2.d2 l"i:c8 18.We3 t:IJa5 19 .Wd3 t:IJc4 with advantage for Black, Savchenko - Shulman, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.) 12 .i2.d3 t:IJg6 13.We3 t:IJc6 14.t:IJh3 t:IJce7 15. t:IJg5 t:IJh4 16.Wh3 t:IJhf5 17.i2.b2 f6 18.t:IJf3 0-0-0 19.l"i:e1 g5, White's position is a disaster, Savchenko - Kamsky, Baku 2009.

9 .i2.d2 Wxc2 10.l"i:c1 (10.Wxg7 l"i:g8 ll.Wh6 t:IJbc6 12.t:iJe2 i2.d7 13. i2.c3 t:IJf5 14.Wd2 Wa4 15.g3 f6? 16. exf6 e5 17.f7+ Wxf7 18.i2.g2 t:IJcxd4 19.0-0 t:IJxe2+ 20.Wxe2 d4 21 . i2.d2± Kokarev - Andreev, Vla­dimir 2008; 12 . . . t:IJxd4 !? 13. t:IJxd4 Wb2 14.i2.b5+ i2.d7 15.0-0 Wxd4 16.hd7+ Wxd7 17.l"i:fe1 Wg4 18.g3 t:IJf5 19.Wf4 Wxf4 20.i2.xf4 t:IJd4-+ Srinivasan - Roller, Toronto 2003) 10 . . . We4+ 11 .Wxe4 dxe4. Black has brought about an end­game. He will soon have to give up his extra pawn soon, but his position will remain very good in

237

Chapter 30

any case. 12.lt:le2 0 - 0 13 .g4 .id7 14 . .ig2 .ic6 15 . .ie3 tt:Jd7 16.tt:lc3 f5 17.exf6 tt:Jxf6 18.g5 tt:Jfd5 19.he4 tt:Jxc3 20 .hc6 tt:Jxc6 21 .Ei:xc3 Ei:ad8. I failed to win this position, but still Black should be quite ea­ger to go in for it again, Kobalia -Vitiugov, Tomsk 2006.

White can also try the clever move order 8 . .id3 WaS 9.tt:le2 (9.Ei:bl. This is Bojan Vuckovic's excellent idea. 9 . . . Wxc3+ 10.�d1 �f8 11 .tt:lf3 b6 12 .Wh5 h6 13.tt:lg5 g6 14.Wh4 Wc7 15.tt:Jxf7 �xf7 16. Wf6+ �g8 17.Ei:b3 g5 18 .hg5 hxg5 19.Wxg5+ �f8 2 0.Wf6+ �e8 21 . Wxh8+ �d7 22 . .ib5+ tt:Jbc6 23 . Wf6 a6 24 . .ixc6+ Wxc6 25.h4 a5 26.Wf4 Wc5 27.�d2 .ia6. Black's pieces have great scope and are tremendously active, Vuckovic -Grischuk, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010. It would be interesting to know what White had in mind against the solid move 9 . . . tt:Jg6 ! ? For example: 10.tt:lf3 Wxc3+ 11 ..id2 Wc7 12 .0-0 tt:Jc6 13.h4 0-0 14. Wg3 f6 and Black's extra material might become the decisive fac­tor. )

9 . . . 0-0 (It is obviously too dangerous for Black to play 9 . . .

238

tt:Jg6 10 . .id2 dxc3 11 .tt:lxc3 Wc7 12.f4 a6 13 .h4 h5 14.Wg3 tt:Jc6 15.0-0 tt:Jce7 16.tt:le2 tt:Jf5 17 . .ixf5 exf5 18.tt:Jd4 Wc5 19 . .ie3 We7 20 . .if2 .ie6 21 .Ei:ab1 b5 22 .a4, with a rather unpleasant position for Black, Al Modiahki - Grischuk, Sochi 2008.)

10 . .ig5 (10 . .id2 . This is an in­teresting pawn-sacrifice, but it is not quite correct. After 10 . . . dxc3 11 .hc3 Wc7 12 .0-0 tt:Jbc6 13.Wh5 tt:Jg6 14.f4 d4 15 . .id2 f5 16.exf6 Ei:xf6 17.tt:lg3 tt:Jce7 18.tt:Je4 Ei:f5 19. tt:lg5 h6 20.hf5 exf5 21 .tt:lf3 White was the exchange up, Macieja -Vysochin, Warsaw 2010. It is worth considering ll . . . Wd8 ! ? 12 . 0-0 tt:Jd7, with the idea of elimi­nating White's light-squared bishop with his knight, from cS.) 10 . . . tt:Jg6 ll.f4 tt:Jd7 12 .hg6 (It would be extremely risky for White to continue with 12 .h4? ! f5 13 .Wg3 Ei:f7 14.h5 tt:Jgf8 15.Wh4 tt:JcS 16 . .ie7 dxc3 17.Ei:h3 .id7 18. tt:Jd4 Ei:c8 since he obtains no com­pensation for the two missing pawns, Short - Shulman, Ohrid 2001 .) 12 . . . fxg6 13.Wxe6+ Ei:f7 14. WeB+ Ei:f8 15.We6+ Ei:f7 16.0-0 tt:Jb6 17.We8+ Ei:f8 18.We7 dxc3 19.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJc3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJe7 7. Wfg4 cd

if6 l"lf7 20 .Wie8+ l"lf8 2 1.Wie7 l"lf7 l"lxa1 l"laf8 23 .f3± Matulovic -and the players did not avoid the Camilleri, Halle 1967. triple repetition of the position, 10.l"lb1 !? Wfxe5+ ll.liJe2 dxc3 Svidler - Grischuk, Nalchik 2009.

8 • • J�g8 9.'\�!fxh7 Wfc7

l O .liJe2 The following line is long out

of fashion: 10. \ild1 dxc3 11.liJf3 liJbc6 12 .liJg5 Wfxe5 ! ? (In the past there were theoretical debates about the merits of 12 . . . liJxe5 13. f4 l"lxg5 14.fxg5.) 13.Wixf7+ \ild7 14.if4 Wfd4+ 15.\ile1 e5 16.ie3 Wfg4 17.ie2 Wff5 18.g4 Wfxc2 19. liJh7 \ilc7 20.liJf6 l"ld8 21 .if3 d4-+ Busquets - Ivanov, Irvine 1997. It is inferior for Black to play 10 . . . liJbc6 11.liJf3 and here 11 . . .Ci:Jxe5 (ll . . .dxc3 ! ?) presents White with a clear way to seize the initiative : 12 .if4 Wfxc3 13.Ci:Jxe5 Wfxa1+ 14. ic1 l"lf8 (Black should avoid 14 . . . d3 15.Wixf7+ \ild8 16.Wff6 - 16 . Wff4 ! ? - 16 . . . dxc2+ 17.\ild2 Wfd4+ 18.id3 Wfc5 19.\ile2 id7 20 .ie3 and White's game is much easier, Stein - Beliavsky, London 1985.) 15 .id3 id7 16.\ile2 liJc6 17.Ci:Jxf7 l"lxf7 18.Wfg8+ l"lf8 19.ig6+ \ile7 20 .Wig7+ \ild6 21 .if4+ l"lxf4 22 .

12 .h4. This i s a very ambitious move and it was probably moti­vated by the fact that the game was played in a friendly match. (12 .if4 Wff6 13.h4 liJd7 14.ig5 Wfe5 15.ixe7 l"lh8 16.id6 l"lxh7 17. ixe5 liJxe5 18.Ci:Jxc3 f5 ! ? with a good endgame for Black; 12 .Wfd3 liJbc6 13.Wixc3 Wfe4 14.Wfd3 Wfxd3 15.cxd3 f6 - This position re­quires practical tests. Black has an alternative, but I do not like it as much - 13 . . . b6 14.Wfxe5 Ci:Jxe5 15.liJd4 id7.) 12 . . . d4 13 .h5 (A po­sition with dynamic balance arises after 13.if4 Wff5 14.Wfxf5 Ci:Jxf5 15 .Ci:Jg3 liJxg3 16.ixg3 Ci:Jc6� White's missing pawn is compen­sated by his bishop pair and passed h-pawn.) 13 . . . Ci:Jbc6 14.h6 f5 (Here it was very strong for Black to play 14 . . . l"lg6 ! , cutting off White's queen from the main field of action.) 15.if4 Wff6 16.Ci:Jg3 Wfh8?! (16 . . . Wff7) 17.Wfxh8 l"lxh8 18 .ig5t and White seized the ini­tiative in the game Morozevich -Vitiugov, St.Petersburg 2011 .

10 • • .c!l:lbc6

239

Chapter 3 0

ll.f4 White easily won the following

game after 1l.�f4, but that was owing more to the overwhelming difference in playing-class rather than the intrinsic strength of White's move. 11 . . .dxc3 12 .1Wd3 Elg4 (12 . . . �d7!? 13.\Wxc3 0-0-0 14.l2ld4 l2lxd4 15.\Wxd4 l2lf5 16. \Wd2 �c6 17.Elb1 d4 with an excel­lent game for Black, Lehmann -Martinovic, Sibenik 2007. Black can go into an endgame if he so wishes - 12 . . . l2lxe5 13.\Wxc3 \Wxc3+ 14.l2lxc3 f6 with chances for both sides.) 13.\Wf3 Elh4 14.g3 Elh8 15. \Wxc3 l2lg6 16.l2ld4 l2lxf4 17.l2lb5 \Wb6 18.gxf4 �d7 19.a4 d4 20.\Wa3 \Wa5+ 21 . ciJd1 0-0-0 22 .l2ld6+ ciJb8 23.Elb1+- Tal - Grefe, San Francisco 1991.

ll . . . .id7 Black can also try another ap­

proach - 11 . . .dxc3 (diagram)

Now: 12 .l2lc3 a6 (There are still un­

clear issues in the variation 12 . . . l2ld4 13 .�b2 �d7 14.0-0-0 \Wb6 15.\Wd3 l2ldf5 16.l2lb5 Elc8 17.g3 Elc4 18.l2ld6+ l2lxd6 19.exd6 l2lf5

240

20.ciJb1 �a4 2l .Eld2 ciJd7f:! Kar­jakin - Sutovsky, Poikovsky 2010.) 13.\Wd3 . White is trying an­other line, but it is questionable whether he knows what to do fur­ther. (13 .�b2 �d7 14.0-0-0 0-0-0 15.\Wh4. This is a very long manoeuvre to transfer the queen to the f2-square. Is it any good for him, though . . . ? 15 . . . ciJb8 16.1Wf2 l2la5 17.ciJb1 Elc8 18 .�d3 l2lc4 19. �xc4 \Wxc4 20 .Eld2 l2lf5 21 .l2le2 \We4 22 .l2ld4 l2le3 23.Ele1 Elxg2 24. \Wxg2 \Wxg2 25.Elxg2 l2lxg2 and Black won this endgame, Magem Badals - Stellwagen, Khanty­Mansiysk 2010.) 13 . . . �d7 14.�d2 0-0-0 15.g3 l2lf5 16.�g2 l2la5 17. �h3 �c6 18.hf5 exf5 19.\Wxf5+ ciJb8 20 .\Wd3 d4 21 .l2le4 f5 ! Black went on to win, Kosintseva - Hou Yifan, Hangzhou 2011 ;

12 .\Wd3 d4. Now Black is obliged to go in for forcing play. It is difficult to believe that White will obtain an advantage as long as Black's powerful pawn pair d4-c3 remains on the board.

(diagram) Here there is an interesting

idea played by a young Spanish grandmaster: 13.h4 �d7 14.h5 0-0-0 15.h6 ciJb8 16.h7 Elh8 17.

l .e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ttJc3 ii.b4 4.e5 cS 5.a3 hc3 6.bc ttJe7 7. Wffg4 cd

0-0-0 15.0-0 Wffb6 16.0Je4 tt:Jd5 17.Wffb5? Wffxb5 18.ii.xb5 @c7 19. Ei:b1 a6 20 .ii.d3 b5 21 .a4 tt:Jcb4 and White is in trouble, Khachiyan -Shulman, Saint Louis 2009; 17. tt:Jd6+ @b8 18.tt:Jxf7 Ei:df8 19.0Jd6 tt:Jce7 20 .ii.f3 ii.c6 21 .a4 tt:Jb4 22 .a5 Wffc5 with an excellent game for Black, Karjakin - Kamsky, Nal­

Ei:b1 ii.c8 18.g4 (As a bonus, White chik 2009.) 14 . . . 0-0-0 15.0Jd6+ is able to develop his bishop on @b8 16.Ei:b1 g2 .) 18 . . . b6 19.ii.g2 ii.b7 20 .@f2 tt:Ja5 2 1.Ei:h3 ii.xg2 22 .@xg2 tt:Jec6 23.a4 Wffe7 24.Wffe4 with advantage to White, Salgado Lopez - Alek­seev, Novi Sad 2009. In this game Black first developed his bishop to d7 and then transferred it to b7. I think I can recommend to Black the move 13 . . . b6 ! ? with the idea of saving at least a few tempi. , for example: 14.h5 ii.b7 15.h6 0-0-0 16.h7 Ei:h8 17.Ei:b1 @b8 with a com­plicated game, or 14.0Jxd4 tt:Jxd4 15.Wffxd4 tt:Jf5 16.ii.b5+ ii.d7 17. Wffxd7+ Wffxd7 18.ii.xd7+ @xd7 19. Ei:h2 (19.@f2 Ei:g4 20 .ii.e3 Ei:ag8 21. Ei:ag1 tt:Jxh4 22 .g3 tt:Jf5 with the better endgame for Black, Bolo­gan - Kamsky, Reggio Emilia 2010) 19 . . . Ei:g4 20.h5 Ei:ag8 21 .h6 Ei:h8 (21 . . .Ei:h4! 22 .h7 Ei:h8 23.Ei:xh4 tt:Jxh4 24.@f2 Ei:xh7 25.ii.e3 Ei:g7=) 22 .@f2 Ei:g6 23.h7 Ei:g7 24.ii.e3 Ei:gxh7 25.Ei:d1+ @c6 26.Ei:xh7 Ei:xh7 27.Ei:d3 and White won a pawn in the game Svetushkin - Giri , Me­lilla 2011 .

White sometimes manoeuvres his knight all the way to the d6-square: 13.0Jg3 ii.d7 14.0Je4 (It is less consistent to play 14.ii.e2

16 . . . b6 ! ? This idea of this move will become clear a bit later. (The main line in this position is con­sidered to be : 16 . . . ii.c8 17.0Jxf7 Ei:df8 18.0Jd6 tt:Jg6 19.Wffe4 tt:Jh4 20. g3 tt:Jf5 21 .ii.g2 @a8 22 .0Jxf5 exf5 23.Wffd3, but Black's compensa­tion for the pawn is insufficient, Neelotpal - Sengupta, Mumbai 2003.) 17.0Jxf7 Ei:df8 18.0Jd6 tt:Jf5 19.0Jxf5 Ei:xf5 . Now if White plays 20 .g3, Black has the resource 20 . . . tt:Jxe5 ! ? 21 .fxe5 ii.c6 ! 22 .Ei:g1 ii.e4 23.Wffxe4 Ei:xe5 24.Wffe2 Ei:xe2+ 25. ii.xe2 e5 with a very sharp posi­tion.

13.0Jxd4 tt:Jxd4 14.Wffxd4 ii.d7 15.Ei:g1 (For the main line - 15.Ei:b1 - see variation c.) 15 . . . 0Jf5 (15 . . . Ei:h8 ! ? 16.h3 tt:Jf5 17.Wfff2 ii.c6 18 .g4 tt:Jh4 19.Ei:g3 Wffa5 20 .Ei:d3 Ei:d8

241

Chapter 3 0

21 .Wg3 E1xd3 22 .Wxd3 �f8 23.�f2 �g7 24.Wg3 lt:Jf3 25.�d3 E1d8 26. �e3 E1xd3 ! 27.cxd3 Wb5-+ Ortiz Suarez - Nogueiras Santiago, Ha­vana 2010) 16.Wf2 Wc6 17.�d3 (17.g4 We4+ 18 .We2 Wa4 19.E1b1 �c6 20.�f2 Wd4+ 21 .�e3 lt:Jxe3 -21 . . .Wd8 ! ? - 22 .Wxe3 Wxe3+ 23. �xe3 E1h8 24.h3 and White won, Volokitin - Cornette, Aix-les­Bains 2011 . It seems to me that it would be more precise for Black to continue with 18 . . . Wd5 19 .�g2 Wc5 20.Wf2 lt:Jd4 21 .�e4 0-0-0 22 .�e3 �c6 ! �) 17 . . . Wd5

18.l"1b1 (18 .�e3 lt:Jxe3 19.Wxe3 E1xg2 20.l"1xg2 Wxg2 21 .�e4 Wxh2 22 .0-0-0 E1d8 23.�b1 �a4 24. E1xd8+ �xd8 25.Wxa7 �d7 26. Wa5+ �e8 27.Wxc3 Wxf4 28. hb7± Robson - Shankland, Mil­waukee 2 009; 22 . . . �c6 ! 23.�b1 he4 24.Wxe4 Wf2 = ; In principle, Black should not be afraid of 18. �xf5 exf5 19.�e3 0-0-0 20 .E1d1 Wc4 21 .ha7 �c6 22 .E1d4 Wa2 23. We2 Wxa3 24.E1xd8+ E1xd8-+ Spitz - Debray, Evry 2005.) 18 . . . �c6 19.l"1b3 0-0-0 20.E1xc3 �b8 21 .l"1c4 (At the recent European Cup, Alexey Shirov won the fol­lowing, somewhat unbelievable,

242

game: 21 .l"1b3 Wa5+ 22 .�d2 Wa4 23 .�b4 a5 24.�c5 E1d5 25.E1c3 E1gd8 26.g4 lt:Jd4 27.E1c4 E1xc5 28. E1xa4 �xa4 29.c4 b5 30 .�e4 bxc4 31 .Wb2 + lt:Jb5 32.Wf2 E1d1+ 33. �e2 lt:Jc3+ 34.�e3 lt:Jxe4 35.�xe4 �c6-+ Pijpers - Shirov, Rogaska Slatina 2011 .) 21 . . . 21 . . .b6 ! ? (21 . . . E1h8 2 2 . l"1c5 and the players agreed to a draw, David - Wirig, Fourmies 2010) 22 .g4 �b5 23.E1c3 lt:Jd4 24.hb5 Wxb5 25.Wfl WaS 26.�d2 Wa4 27.�e3?? lt:Jxc2-+ Kuipers - Stellwagen, Nether­lands 2011 .

12.'1Wd3 dxc3

This is in fact the key-position of the entire variation. Now White is faced with an important choice : a) 13.l"1gl, b) 13.'1Wxc3, c) 13.gbl or d) 13.lZlxc3.

However, it is far from clear which move can be considered as best for him at this point.

a) 13.13gl This move has become popu­

lar just recently. 13 • • • 0 - 0 - 0 14.g4 d4 15.h4

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .tiJc3 il.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6 .bc tiJe7 7. Wig4 cd

It seems to me that it is illogi­cal for White to advance his h­pawn after it has been deprived of the support of the rook from be­hind it. Alexey Shirov, however, is usually so good in this type of po­sition that we should perhaps trust his choice . . .

15 • . . il.e8 It might be interesting for

Black to play 15 . . . Wib6 ! ? with the idea of preventing the activation of White's rook on a1 to a more active position on bl .

16.h5 f6 17.exf6 �d5 18. il.h3 �b8 19.g5 hh5 2 0 .he6 he2 21.�xe2 l"lge8 22.£5 Wie5+

Black could have won here with the surprising line : 22 . . . Wih2+ 23.�fl tiJe3+ 24.i!.xe3 Wih3-+

23. �f3 Wih2 24. Wifl �e3 25. he3 dxe3 26.l"ld1 e2 27.Wffxe2 �e5+ 28.�e3 Wih3+ 29.�f4 �c6 3 0 .Wffg4 Wffh2+ 31.Wig3+­and White's king is now quite comfortable behind its pawn bar­rier, Shirov - Shulman, Khanty­Mansiysk 2007.

b) 13.Wixc3 This move leads to very com­

plicated positions. 13 • . . �£5

14.l"lb1 Or 14.l"lg1 Wib6 ! It is because of

this powerful manoeuvre that White usually begins with 14.l"lb1 (Black did not solve his opening after 14 . . . l"lc8 15.l"lb1 d4 16.Wid3 �ce7 17.g4 Wixc2 18.Wixc2 l"lxc2 19. il.d2 tiJh4 20.tiJxd4± Karjakin -Harikrishna, Bilbao 2007.) 15. g4? ! (I am scared to recommend 15.Wib2 Wic5 16.c3, but the com­puter programmes like this very much.) 15 . . . tiJfd4 16.l"lg3 l"lc8 17. Wffd3 �b4 18.axb4 tiJxc2 + 19.�d2 tiJxa1 20.tiJd4 il.a4 2l .'it>e2 l"lxcl. White resigned. This was a very impressive blitzkrieg! A.Vlasov -Ponkratov, Samara 2004.

White has at his disposal a paradoxical exchanging manoeu­vre : 14.tiJg3 tiJxg3 (14 . . . 0-0-0 !? 15.tiJxf5 exf5 16.h4 d4 17.Wffd3 f6 18.exf6 Wid6 and Black has com­pensation.) 15.hxg3 l"lc8 16.l"lb1 (16. a4 Wib6 17.a5 Wid4 18 .il.d2 tiJb4 19. Wixd4 tiJxc2+ 20 .<i>f2 tiJxd4 21.

243

Chapter 30

l"la2 a 6 22 .g4 j,b5 23.g5 with ap­proximate equality, Frolov - Bak­lanova, St Petersburg 1994; 16 . . . a5!?) 16 . . . lLle7!? 17.�xc7 l"lxc7 18. j,d2 j,a4 19.j,d3 lLlf5 and Black should be able to hold this endgame.

White sacrifices a pawn some­times in order to simplify the po­sition a little. Naturally, he does not obtain any advantage by do­ing so. 14.g4 l"lxg4 15 .j,h3 l"lh4 !? 16.hf5 exf5 17.j,e3 0-0-0 18. 0-0-0 with a double-edged game. 14.g3 d4 15.�d3 0-0-0 16.j,g2 lLlce7 17.0-0 j,c6 18.hc6 �xc6 19. j,d2 <i>b8 20.l"lf2 . Black had some compensation for the pawn, but he continued sacrificing needlessly with 20 . . . lLld5? (20 . . . �b6 !? ; 20 . . . l"ld7!?) . 21 .lLlxd4 �b6 22 .c3 lLlxc3 23 .hc3 lLlxd4 24.�e3± Fogarasi - Degraeve, Arnhem 1989.

14 . . . d4

15.�d3 White just helps his opponent

if he plays 15.�c5 b6 16.�c4 l"lc8 ! ? (16 . . . �b7 17.l"lg1 l"ld8 18.�d3 lLlce7 19.g4 lLlh4 20 .lLlxd4 j,c6 2l .l"lg3 l"lxg4 22 .l"lxg4 l"lxd4 23.�h3 lLlhf5 24.j,d3+- Brkic - Sengupta, Bel-

244

fort 2005) 17.j,d2 �b7 18 .�d3 lLlce7 with good compensation for Black.

15.�c4 �a5+ (Black failed to prove any compensation after 15 . . . 0-0-0 16.j,d2 lLlce7 17. �xc7+ <i>xc7 18.l"lg1 j,c6 19.l"lb3 l"lh8 20.g4 lLle3 2 1 .he3 dxe3 22 .h3 l"ld2 23.l"lg3 tt:ld5 24.c4 l"la2 25.l"lb1 lLlb6 26.lLlc3 l"lxa3 27. l"lxe3 l"la5 28.lLlb5+ hb5 29. l"lxb5± Lukulus - Tatar, play­chess.com 2007.) 16.j,d2 �xa3 17.l"lxb7 lLle3 18.j,xe3 dxe3 19.�c3 (After 19.�b3 Black can easily transpose to the line with 19.�c3 �a5+ 20 .�c3 �xc3+ 2 1 .lLlxc3.) 19 . . . �xc3+ 20.lLlxc3 lLld4 21 .lLle4 j,c6 2 2 .lLld6+ <i>d8 23.lLlxf7+ and the players agreed to draw, Adoc­chio - Krueger, Germany 1988. We can continue the variation -23 . . . <i>e8 24.lLld6+ <i>d8 25.c3 e2 26.cxd4 exf1�+ 27.l"lxf1 hb7 28 .lLlxb7+ <i>e7 29.l"lf2 l"lab8 30. lLlc5 l"lb1+ 31 .<i>e2 l"lb2+ 32.<i>f3 l"lxf2+ 33.<i>xf2 a5, with an ap­proximately equal endgame. White's extra material is balanced by Black's outside passed pawn.

15 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 16.:ggl

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3 .ti:Jc3 �b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc li'J e7 7. V!ig4 cd

16 • • .ll:la5 I think this is the best move for

Black, but sometimes 16 . . .f6 or 16 . . . �e8 are also played.

17.g4 After 17.:1'1b4 Black should play

17 . . . a6 and if 18 .g4 then 18 . . . li'Je3 ! 19.�xe3 �b5 20.Vfid2 dxe3 21 . V!ixe3 V!ixc2 22 .li'Jd4, Sharma -Riedel, Bad Wiessee 2009, 22 . . . Vfih2 ! 23.�b5 ab 24.:1'1b5 V!ih4 25. mfl E1g4=

17 • • • .ia4 18.c3 18.gxf5 E1xg1 19.li'Jxg1 �xc2 20.

V!ib5. Now White obtains two bishops for Black's rook. White will have a material advantage, but the dynamic factors should enable Black to keep the game ap­proximately balanced. 20 . . . :1'1d5 (20 . . . a6 ! ? 2 l .Vfib6 hb1 22 .Vfixb1 li'Jb3 23 .Wd1 V!ic3 24.fxe6 fxe6 25.Vfic2 li'Ja1 26.Vfid3 li'Jb3 27.Vfic2 li'Ja1 28.Vfib2 Wc7 - 28 . . . 2"1d7! -29.�e2 b5 30.li'Jf3 V!ic6 3l .�d2 d3 32 .�a5+- Smirnov - Arslanov, Dagomys 2009) 2 l .Vfib4 �xb1 22 . V!ixb1 li'Jb3 23.Wd1 li'Jxcl 24.V!ixc1 E1c5 25.Vfib2 Vfic6 26.�d3 :1'1c3 27. Wd2 Vfig2 + 28.li'Je2 Vfif2co Markin - Kanovsky, Pardubice 2009.

18 . • • .ic2 ! This is the resource that

Black's strategy is based on. Now the rest of his pieces become tre­mendously active at the cost of this bishop.

An alternative is 18 . . . li'Jb3 19. gxf5 2"1g1 20.cxd4 (20 .li'Jg1 dxc3 2l.Vfie3 :1'1d1 ! + 22 .Wf2 c2 23.:1'1xb3 hb3 with a great advantage for Black) 20 . . . V!ia5+ 2l .Wf2 E1f1+ 22 . Wf1 V!id5�

19.V!ixc2 d3 2 0 .Vfia2 W'c5 21. l'!g2 ll:le3 22.ll:lg3

22 • • • l'!xg4 22 . . . li'Jac4? This mistake em­

phasizes once again that it is not enough to know long forcing lines, you also need to be able to remember them at the right mo­ment. 23.li'Je4 V!ic6 24.li'Jd6+ E1xd6 25.exd6 V!ie4 26 . .ixe3 li'Jxe3 27. mf2 li'Jxg4+ 28.Wg1 1-0 Ivekovic - Martinovic, Sv Filip i Jakov 2010.

23.l'!f2 ll:lac4 24. V!ib3 b6 25. V!ia4 ll:lc2+ 26.l'!xc2 dxc2 27. \!ffxc2 ll:le3 28.W'e4 l'!dl+ 29. 'it>e2 ll:ld5! 30 • .id2 l'!xbl (Or 30 . . . :1'1xd2+ ! ? 3l.Wxd2 V!ixc3+ 32.

245

Chapter 30

<±>d1 <±>b8 33 .'&d3 '&xd3+ 34.hd3 tt:lc3+ 3S.<±>d2 tt:lxb1+ 36.hb1 :§:xf4 and the endgame is worse for White.) 31.�xbl gxf4 32. �d3 g£2+ 33.<±>dl �xa3 and Black triumphed in the ensuing complicated struggle, Volokitin -Ganguly, Moscow 2007. Natural­ly, the sharpest variation with 13. Qc3 requires a very precise play, but I think that in the pages of this book it should be sufficient for me to give you an idea of the outlines of the arising positions and schemes.

c) 13.gbl

After this useful inclusion of White's rook, Black has an inter­esting possibility:

13 . . . d4 Now after 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.tt:lxc3

Black cannot play 14 . . . a6??, be­cause of 1S.'&xa6 !

14.ll:lxd4 This is no doubt White's most

logical reaction. He cannot obtain an advan­

tage with 14.g3 0-0-0 1S . .ig2

246

ttJaS 16.0-0 .ic6 17.hc6 ttJaxc6 18.'&e4 WaS 19.:§:d1 '&cS 20 .:1'ld3 ttJdS and Black dominates, Do­minguez Perez - Grischuk, Al­maty 2008.

White plays 14.tt:lg3 0-0-0 1S . .ie2 (Black can counter 1S.tt:le4 with the powerful positional sac­rifice - 1S . . . ttJxeS ! 16 .fxeS 16 . . . '&xeS 17.'&e2 .ic6 18.tt:lg3 '&h8 -18 . . . WdS ! ? - 19.Wf2 :§:g6 20 . .id3 :§:f6 2 1 .'&e2 :§:dS 2 2 .tt:le4 :§:ffS 23. <±>d1 tt:lg6 24.g3 :§:feS 2S.Wg4 fS 26.Wxg6 fxe4-+ Smirin - Short, Tilburg 1992 ; White cannot be successful if he avoids the forcing lines : 16.Wxd4 .ic6 17.'&b4 aS 18. '&xc3 he4 19.Wxc7+ <±>xc7 20. fxeS .ixc2 21 .:§:a1 :§:d1 + 22. <±>f2 ttJfS 23 .g3 .ie4 24.:§:g1 tt:ld4 2S . .ib2 :§:d2-+ Hou - Nepeina Leconte, Paris 2006.) 1S . . . ttJfS 16.<±>f2 ttJce7 17.tt:le4 .ic6 18.g4 tt:lh4 19.:§:d1 <±>b8 (19 . . . .ixe4 ! ? 20.Wxe4 tt:lc6 21 .a4 tt:lg6 with chances for both sides.) 20.:§:b4 he4 21 .Wxe4 tt:lc6 22 .:§:b1 <±>a8 23.a4 a6 24 . .ia3 :§:dS 2S.'&h7! - Black overlooked this simple tactical shot and the game was soon over, Ju.Polgar -Schmidt, Warsaw 2002 .

White also plays here 14.:§:g1 0-0-0 1S.g4 (It is less consistent, but still playable, to opt for 1S. tt:lxd4 tt:lxd4 16.'&xd4 .ibS 17.'&xa7 .ixf1 18.<±>xf1 Wc6 19 . .ie3 ttJfS 20. <±>f2 '&e4 21 .'&cS+ <±>b8 22 .Wa7+ <±>c8 23.'&a8+ Aseev - Eingorn, Odessa 1989; 18 . . . Wc4 + ! ? 19.<±>f2 We4 20 .WcS+ <±>b8 21 .Wxc3 :§:c8 22 .:§:b4 '&h7 23.:§:c4 :§:xc4 24.'&xc4 :§:c8 2S.Wd4 :§:xc2+ 26 . .id2 Wh4+

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4Jc3 :ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc 4J e7 7. Wig4 cd

27.g3 Wixh2+ 28J�g2 Wih1 29. Wid8+ <i>a7 30 .WiaS=) 1S . . . fJ.e8 (I do not think that Black can equal­ize with 1S . . . liJdS 16.4Jxd4 4Jxd4 17.Wixd4 <i>b8 18J'lg3? ! 1J.c6 19. '!lieS f6 20.exf6 4Jxf6 2 1 .WieS liJxg4 and his position is acceptable, Dominguez Perez - Grischuk, Linares 2009; it is stronger for White to play 18.h4 ! ? 1J.c6 19.hS 4Jf6 2 0.Wixc3 4Jxg4 21 .1J.e2 4Jh6 22 .fi:xg8 fi:xg8 23.1J.e3 with an ex­tra pawn. I can recommend for Black the multi-purpose move -1S . . . <i>b8 ! ?) 16.fi:g3

16 .. .f6 17.exf6 liJdS 18.Wic4 (The best move for White is 18. 4Jxd4 ! 4Jxf6 19.4JbS fi:xd3 20. 4Jxc7 fi:xg3 21 .4Jxe8 fi:xe8 22 .hxg3 and Black has great problems.) 18 .. . eS 19.gS 1J.f7 20.Wid3 1J.g6 21 . fS fJ.hS 22 .Wie4 fi:ge8 23.<i>f2 1J.f7 24.1J.g2 4Jb6 2S.g6 fJ.dS 26.Wig4 e4 27.f7± Svidler - Berg, Heraklio 2007.

Instead of 16 . . .f6, it looks very good to me for Black to continue with 16 . . . 4JaS ! ? 17.<i>f2 (After 17. 1J.g2 '!lieS 18.fl:b4 4Jec6 19.fi:bS Wie7 20 .Wih7 Wif8, White suddenly sac­rificed a piece, but his position was rather suspect in any case : 21 .

4Jxc3 dxc3 22 .fi:xc3 fi:xg4 23.Wih3 Wig7 24.<i>f2 <i>b8 2S.fJ.e3 1J.d7 26.Wif3 fi:g8 27.1J.h1 fi:h4 28.<i>fl fi:xh2 0-1 Schachinger - Marti­novic, Rogaska Slatina 2009.) 17 . . . a6 (Black is planning 18 . . . :iJ.bS.) 18.4Jxd4?! 4Jac6 19.1J.e3 4Jxd4 20 .hd4 4Jc6 2l .fi:b4 4Jxb4 22 .axb4 fJ.bS 23.Wixc3 fi:xd4! with the better game for Black.

14 . . . 4Jxd4 15.Wixd4 ll:lf5 16. Wi£2

16 . . . Wic6 At the price of a pawn Black

has gained several tempi for the development of his initiative.

It would be too risky for him to play what used to be considered the main line here - 16 . . . 1J.c6 17. fi:g1 0-0-0 18.Wixa7 4Jd4 19.1J.d3 (Or 19.<i>f2 f6 20.1J.e3? ! fxeS 21 . 1J.c4 Wih7 with an overwhelming initiative for Black, Nijboer -Stellwagen, Hilversum 2007.) 19 .. . hg2 and here White should continue with the brave move 20.<i>f2 (It is only a draw after 20 .Wia8+ <i>d7 21 .Wia4+ <i>c8 22 . Wia8+ <i>d7 23.Wia4= Riff - Cor­nette, Le Port Marly 2 009.) 20 . . .

247

Chapter 30

V1/c6 21 .:E!b4 V1/f3+ 22 .1!?e1 V1/d5 (22 . . . V1/h5 23 .:E!c4+ �c6 24.:E!xg8 lt:Jf3+ 25.1!?f2 V1/h4+ 26.:E!g3 V1/xh2+ 27.\!?e3 lt:Jxe5 28.V1/a8+ l!?c7 29. V1/a5+ l!?c8 30.:E!xc6+ lt:Jxc6 31 . V1/g5+-) 23.:E!c4+ (It is even sim­pler for White to play 23 .V1/xd4 ! V1/xd4 24.:E!xd4 :E!xd4 25.1!?f2 +-) 23 . . . Wxc4 24.�xc4 lt:Jf3+ 25.1!?f2 lt:Jxg1 26.\!?xg1 �c6+ 27.1!?f1+- Be­rescu - Vargic, Djakovo 2005.

17J'!b4 �d5 18.:E!gl �c6

So, Black has deployed his pieces perfectly.

After 19 .�d3 0-0-0, White must choose between two possi­bilities : 20 .g4 and 20.:E!c4 - see 19 .g4, or 19.:E!c4.

The move 19 .�e2 is sensible only in connection with 19 . . . 0-0-0 20.�f3, but Black can ob­tain a good position by: 20 . . . Wd7 21.V1/c5 lt:Jh4, with counterplay.

If 19.g4 0-0-0 20.�d3 (20. �e2 V1/a2 ! ?) 20 . . . lt:Jd4 21 .:E!xd4 V1/xd4 22 .V1/xd4 :E!xd4 23 .�e3 Ela4 (Black can also adopt a more modest approach - 23 . . . :E!xd3 ! ? 24.cxd3 Elh8, recapturing the h­pawn.) 24.h4 �e4 (If White is

248

playing for a win, he should opt for: 24 . . . :E!xa3 25.1!?f2 Ela2 26.h5 �a4 with rather unclear conse­quences.) 25.he4 Elxe4 26.1!?e2 Ela4 27.�c1 Eld4 28 .h5 b5 29 .g5 a5 30 .�e3 Eld5 3l .l!?f3± Mitkov -Lamoureux, Paris 1993.

19.Elc4 0-0-0. The game con­tinued logically and ended in a draw, so it is clear that White needs to look for an improvement somewhere. 20.�d3 l!?b8 21 .Elxc3 V1/a2 22 .�e3 (22 .:E!xc6 bxc6 23.Wfc5 :E!xd3 24.cxd3 Elxg2=) 22 . . . lt:Jxe3 23.Wfxe3 Elxg2 24.Elxg2 hg2 25. l!?f2 �c6 26.�e4 �xe4 27.Wfxe4 Wfb1 28.:E!e3 Elc8 29.Ele2 Elh8 30. Wfg2 Wfc1 31.Wfg3 Wfh1 32 .1!?e3 a6 33.:E!d2 V1/c1 34.\!?e2 V1/h1 35.\!?e3 Wfc1 36.1!?e2 Wfh1 and the players agreed to a draw, Mamedyarov -Alekseev, Ohrid 2009.

d) 13.lt:Jxc3 a6 White was threatening to pen­

etrate to the d6-square with his knight.

Now we shall analyze in detail dl) 14.lt:Je2 and d2) 14.:E!bl.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJc3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJe7 7. '?1ig4 cd

The move 14.h4 merely pre­sents Black with some additional interesting possibilities : 14 . . . liJf5 15J�h3 0-0-0 (Or 15 . . J'k8 16.:id2 liJxe5 ! ? 17.fxe5 :ib5 18.'?1ff3 Wxe5+ 19.'i!ld1 hf1 20.'?1ixfl d4 2l .liJe2 d3 22 .liJc3 E\xc3 23 .hc3 Wxc3 24.E\c1 E\g4 with excellent com­pensation; 18.liJxb5 Wxe5+ 19. 'i!lf2 '?1ixa1 20 .liJc3 E\g4 2 1 .h5 Wxa3 leading to a complicated position with a material imbalance.) 16.h5 '?1ia5 ! ?

White sometimes plays 14. :id2 , but I think this move will lead to original positions only if White starts looking for trouble; otherwise, after 14.E\b1 or 14.liJe2 there will be a transpositions to another variation : 14 . . . liJf5 (If 14 .. . liJa5 15.h4 liJf5 16.E\h3 liJc4 17. E\a2 0-0-0 18.h5 :ic6 19.liJe2 l!lb8 20.liJd4 Wb6 2l .liJb3 :ib5, Black was better in the game Mor­zywolek - Grzesik, Wroclaw 2005.) 15 .g4 E\xg4 16.:ih3 liJxe5 ! 17.fxe5 Wxe5+ 18.'i!ld1 (Or 18.'i!lf2 E\d4 19.We2 Wf6 20.hf5 E\xd2 21 .'?1ixd2 Wxf5+ 22 .'i!le1 We5= 23. 'i!ld1? ! E\c8 with the better pros­pects for Black.) 18 . . . E\d4 19.'?1ie2 Ele4 20 .Wf2 liJe3 + ! (20 . . . E\c8 21 . hf5 exf5 22 .'?1if3 E\cc4 23.E\b1 :ia4 24.E\b4+- Frackowiak - Her­rmann, Germany 2002) 2 l .'i!lc1 E\c8 and Black's attack is decisive.

14.g3 liJa5 15.liJe2 (After 15. :ig2 E\c8 16.:id2 liJc4 Black's posi­tion is quite acceptable.) 15 . . . liJf5 (Or 15 . . . :ib5 ! ? 16.Wd2 Elc8 with a complicated game.) 16.§lh3 E\c8 17.hf5 :ib5 18.Wc3 :ixe2 19.Wxc7

E\xc7 20.1!/xe2 exf5 2 l .'i!ld3 'i!ld7 22 .:id2 liJc4 23.:ic3 E\gc8 24.h4± Spassky - Doroshkievich, Sochi 1964.

dl) 14.c!L!e2 White's knight retreats . . . 14 . . .l''k8 The magician from Lviv tried

here 14 . . . 0-0-0 15.g3 d4 16.Wc4 liJf5 17.:ig2 liJa5 18.'?1ixc7+ l!lxc7 19.E\b1 :ic6 20 .hc6 l!lxc6 2l .'i!lf2 d3 22 .cxd3 E\xd3 23.E\g1 E\h8 24. h4 liJc4 25.a4 b6 26.Eia1 \!Ids and in this endgame Black had good compensation on the light squares, Anand - lvanchuk, Nice 2009.

15.�d2 If 15.Eib1 Black must play

inventively: 15 . . . liJa7 (15 . . . liJf5? ! 16.h3 liJce7 17.g4 liJh4 18.liJd4 liJc6 19.liJxc6 Wxc6 20.E\h2 E\h8 2l .'i!ld1 '?1ic7 22 .'?1ib3 '?11c5 23.'?1ib6 Wxb6 24.E\xb6± Chandler - Tim­man, Linares 1988; Black should also consider 15 . . . liJa5 ! ? with the idea of countering 16.liJd4 with 16 . . . liJac6.) 16.:ie3 (Or 16.liJd4

249

Chapter 30

CL!bS 17.�d2 '\Wc5 18.lt'lxb5 hb5 19J=!xb5 axb5 20.'\WxbS+ '\WxbS 21 . �xb5+ <i>f8 22 .g3 l"1xc2 and the endgame is winning for Black, Oliveira - Leitao, Campinas 2009; 17 . . . CL!xd4 ! ? 18.'\Wxd4 CL!fS with excellent position for Black.) 16 . . . CL!b5 17.CL!g3 CL!c3 18.�b6 '\Wc6 19.l"1b4 CL!e4 20 .CL!h5 l"1g6 2l .Wd1 CL!fS 22 .CDf6+ l"1xf6 23.exf6 d4 24. <i>e1 '\Wxc2 25.'\Wxc2 l"1xc2 26.l"1b1 CL!c3 27.l"1a1 �c6 28.�d3 l"1xg2 29. l"1f1 �e4 and White resigned, Ves­covi - De Toledo, Americana 1997.

15 .. .ll)f5

16.l:�gl This move is rather dangerous

for Black. 16 .l"1b1 CL!a7 (He should carry

out the same idea but with the stronger move 16 . . . CL!ce7! 17.h3? ! �a4 18.c3 d4 19.CL!xd4 l"1d8 20.h4 l"1g3 21 .'\We4 CL!xd4 2 2 .cxd4 �c6 23.'\Wc2 l"1xd4 24.l"1b4 '\Wd8 25. l"1xd4 '\Wxd4 26.l"1h3 l"1xh3 27.gxh3 CL!fS and Black was better, Maslak - Averell, playchess.com 2007; 17.'\Wc3 '\Wxc3 18.�xc3 �b5 ! ; 18. CL!xc3 �c6 19.CDe2 d4 20.l"1g1 �e4

250

with excellent compensation.) 17.CL!d4 CL!xd4 18 .'\Wxd4 CL!bS 19. '\Wd3 '\Wxc2 20 .'\Wxc2 l":1xc2 2l .a4 CL!c3 22 .l"1xb7 CL!xa4 23 .g3 �c8 24. l"1b8 <i>d7 25.�d3 l"1b2 26.l"1b4 §xb4 27.hb4± Khalifman - Shulman, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005.

16.h3 CL!aS (This is a quiet and sensible decision. Black should not provoke complications with­out urgent necessity.) 17.g4 �bS 18.�xa5 '\Wxa5+ 19 .'\Wd2 '\Wa4 20 . gxfS he2 2l .�xe2 l"1xc2 22 .'\We3 l"1g2 23 .�d3 d4 24.'\Wf3 \WaS+ 25. <i>fl l"1cf2 + 26.'\Wxf2 l"1xf2 + 27.<i>xf2 '\Wd2+ 28 .�e2 d3=

16 . . . llJce7 16 . . . '\Wb6 ! ? 17.c3 CL!aS 18.l"1b1

'\Wc5 (18 . . . �b5 ! ? 19 .g4 '\Wxg1! 20 . l"1xb5 '\Wxg4 2l .l"1xa5 '1Wh4+ 22 .<i>d1 '\Wxh2 and Black has good com­pensation for the sacrificed mate­rial , thanks to the totally mis­placed white rook.) 19.g4 �bS 20 .l"1xb5 axb5 2l .gxf5 l"1xg1 22 . CL!xg1 '\Wxg1 23.'\WxbS+ CL!c6 24. '\Wxb7+- Anand - Baer, Frankfurt 1994. After 17.g4, Black should re­ply with 17 . . . CL!fd4 18.l"1g3 CL!xe2 19.he2 CL!d4 (19 . . . l"1h8 ! ? 20.l"1h3 l"1xh3 21 .'\Wxh3 CL!d4 and it is un­clear whether White has anything better than perpetual check with 22 .'\WhS+ <i>e7 23 .'\Wf6+.) 20 .�d1 l"1h8 2l .h3 l"1c4 with good piece­play for Black (in the endgame arising from 21 . . .�b5 22 .'\We3 CL!xc2+ 23 .�xc2 '\Wxe3+ 24.�xe3 l"1xc2 25.l"1c1 l"1xc1 + 26.�xc1 Black might have some difficulties).

17.�bl .ib5 18.�xb5! axb5 19.g4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJc3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc CiJe7 7. !!lffg4 cd

With energetic play White ex­erts positional pressure against his opponent.

19 . • .lL1h4? Black reacts in a very mediocre fashion. (He had to play boldly - 19 . . . !!lffb6 20 .gxf5 :Bxg1 21 .CiJxg1 !!lffxg1 22 .!!lffxb5+ 'it>f8 23 .f6 CiJf5 24.!!lffxb7 :Be8=) 2 0 . c!Lld4 �c4 21.@f2 �xd3 22. i.xd3 'it>d7 23.c!Llxb5± Saric -Vitiugov, Warsaw 2008.

d2) 14.l':lbl

14 • • . c!Lla5 It would be a blunder for him

to opt for 14 . . . 0-0-0 15.�xa6 ! 15.h4 It is too slow for White to con-

tinue with 15.id2? ! CiJc4 16.CiJe2 CiJf5 17.h3 !!lffc5 (It is even stronger for Black to play here 17 . . . ib5 18.g4 �e7!) 18.g4 CiJxa3 19.:1'i:b2 CiJc4 20.:1'i:xb7 c!Llfe3 21 .he3 CiJxe3 22 .:1'i:b3 CiJxc2+ 23.'it>d2 :Bc8 24. !!lffc3? !!lffa7 25.!!lffb2 ia4 26.:1'i:c3 :Bxc3 27.!!lffxc3 'it>d7-+ and White's position is hopeless, Karjakin -Ni Hua, Moscow 2005.

15 • .. c!Llf5 16.l':lh3 0 - 0 - 0

17.h5 Black's has a decent position

after 17.:1'i:b4 d4 (Or 17 . . . CiJc4 18.h5 !!lffc5? ! 19.CiJe4 !!lffg1 20 .CiJg5 ib5 21 .!!lffe2 !!lffc5 22 .!!lfff2 !!lffc7 23.h6 :Bxg5 24.h7!± Alekseev - Vitiugov, Kallithea 2008; he should have transposed to a theoretical posi­tion by 18 . . . ic6.) 18.CiJe4 ib5 19. :Bxb5 (19 .c4 dxc3 20.!!lffc2 CiJc6 2 1 .:1'i:xc3 'it>b8co) 19 .. . axb5 20 .CiJf6 :Bh8 2 1.h5 CiJc4 22 .g4 CiJfe3 23 .ie2 and White has compensation for the exchange, but nothing more.

It would be premature for White to continue with 17.id2 CiJc4 18.CiJe2 d4! , preventing White's knight from coming to the d4-outpost (After 18 . . . ib5?!

251

Chapter 30

19.a4 .ba4 20.tLld4 ttJxd4 2 1 . �xd4 .bc2 2 2 .l"kl ia4 23.h5 ic6 24.h6, White obtained good com­pensation, Klimov - Ivanov, St Petersburg 2005.) 19 .h5 (If 19. ttJxd4 ib5 20 .tLlxb5 axb5-+ ; or 20 .tLlxf5 Ei:xd3 21 .cxd3 tLlxd2 22. tLld6+ �b8 23.�xd2 �c5 and White is clearly worse.) 19 . . . ib5 with an excellent game for Black.

17 • • • tLlc4

18.h6 White has a reasonable alter­

native here - 18.Ei:b4 ic6 19.tLle2 (Or 19.h6 Ei:g6 20 .h7 Ei:h8 21 .�dl Ei:g7 22 .g4 tLle7 23 .id3 tLlg6 24. .bc4 dxc4 25.ie3 Ei:gxh7 26.Ei:h5 f6 ! and Black has the initiative, Chigvintsev - Pokrasenko, Novo­sibirsk 2002.) 19 . . . ib5 20.a4 (It is more logical for White to contin­ue with 20.tLld4 ! ttJxe5 21 .�c3 tLlc4 22 .h6 ttJxd4 23.�xd4 f5 24. Ei:bb3 and he maintains the advantage; 21 . . .tLlxd4 22 .�xc7+ �xc7 23.Ei:xd4 .bfl 24.�xfl tLlc4 with a complicated endgame; 21 . . . tLlc6 ! ? 22 .tLlxb5 axb5 23.Ei:xb5 tLld6 with some initiative for Black.) 20 . . . �c5 21.�c3 (21.ia3 ic6 22 .

252

�c3 Ei:g4 23.h6 Ei:h8 24.h7 Ei:g7 25.Ei:b3 �a7 26.icl .ba4 27.�b4 b5 28 .Ei:h5 a5 29.�c3 Ei:gxh7, White's position was hopeless in the game Becerra Rivero - Shul­man, Tulsa 2008.) 2l . . .d4 22 .�b3 tLla5 23.Ei:xb5 tLlxb3 24.Ei:xc5+ tLlxc5 25.tLlgl Ei:g3 26.ia3 d3 27. Ei:xg3 tLlxg3 28.cxd3 ttJxa4 29.tLle2 tLlxh5 30 .g4 Ei:xd3 31 .gxh5 Ei:xa3-+ Cheparinov - Grischuk, Baku 2008.

18 . . . Ei:g6 This is one of the most impor­

tant ideas for Black in this varia­tion. He keeps this active rook on the g-file and blocks the passed pawn with his other rook.

19.h7 ghs

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji:Jc3 ib4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc ltJe7 7. 1Jf1g4 cd

2 0 .Y;'/f3 White fared terribly after

20.ltJe2 ibS 21 .ltJd4 ltJxeS 22 .Y;'/dl ixfl 23.'it> xfl 1Jf1c4+ 24.ltJe2 1Jf1e4 25J'!bb3 iWxg2+ 26.mel ltJc4-+ Karjakin - Grischuk, Moscow 2008.

The game ends in a forced draw after 20 .ltJe4 dxe4 2 1.'1Wxc4 iWxc4 22 .ixc4 :1'1xg2 23.ha6 bxa6 24.:1'1c3+ ic6 25.:1'1xc6+ md7 26. :1'1xa6 :1'1xh7 27.:1'1a7+ mc8 28.:1'1a8+ mc7 29.:1'1a7+ mc8 30 .:1'1a8+ Becer­ra Rivero - Bhat, ICC 2008.

(diagram) 2 0 • • )tJce3! Or 20 . . . :1'1g7 2l.g4 ltJe7 2 2 .id3

ltJg6 23.'\Whl ltJcxeS 24.fxe5 iWxc3+ 25.mdl iWd4co Kulaots - Ivanov, Sweden 2 006.

21.i.xe3 Y;'/xc3+ 22 • .id2

iWxf3 23.:1'1xf3 After 23.gxf3 :1'1g7 the endgame

is better for Black. 23 • • • :1'1xh7 and Black has a

promising position, because if 24.i.xa6? he has the hidden tac­tical resource 24 ••• bxa6 25. :1'1c3+ .ic6! (but not 25 . . . md8?? 26.:1'1b8+ me7 27.l'k7 +-) 26. :1'1xc6+ 'i!?d7-+

253

Chapter 31 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)!jc3 i.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 i.xc3+ 6.bxc3 liJc6

After 6 . . . '2le7 7.'\Wg4 cxd4 there arise very sharp variations, based on sacrificing the kingside pawns, so I suggest as an alternative for Black the quiet developing move 6 . . . '2lc6, which is not very popular and has not been analyzed exten­sively yet. It leads to positions in which the objective evaluation of the position is not so important, but it becomes essential to under­stand how to play in complicated closed pawn structures, to find the optimal squares for the pieces and discover surprising manoeu­vres with them. This move was regularly played by the Ukrainian GM Yuri Kruppa and later it was borrowed and played in several games by the ex-World Champion Ruslan Ponomariov

254

We shall deal in detail with a) 7.'2lf3, b) 7.a4 and c) 7.'1Wg4.

The move 7.h4 transposes to the variation 6 . . . '2le7 7.h4 and it is not worth-while for Black to avoid this (for example: 7 . . . '\WaS 8 .�d2 iWa4 9.'2lf3 'Llge7, or 9.h5 cxd4 10.'2lf3 'Llge7) . However, depend­ing on the move order chosen by Black, White can try some origi­nal lines. For example: 9.'1Wg4, which Black should counter this with 9 . . . <j;>f8. White's centre is un­der threat and Black can continue with the standard idea of b7-b6 and �c8-a6. This position re­quires additional practical tests . If Black chooses the move order 7 . . . '2lge7 8.h5 '!WaS 9.�d2 iWa4, then, instead of 10.'2lf3, White can try 10.h6, as played in the game Volokitin - Zhang Pengxiang, Feugen 2006. Black obtained an excellent position after 10 . . . gxh6 ll .'Llf3 cxd4 12 .cxd4 'Llxd4 13 .�d3 �d7 14.�b4 'Lldc6 15Jl:h4?! 'Llg6 16.�xg6 hxg6 17.�d2 iWa6.

a) 7.ll::lf3 This is a very good developing

move, which is a bit stronger here in comparison to the variation 6 . . .

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l!Jc3 flb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc l!Jc6

l!Je7 7.l!Jf3, because now Black cannot easily use the plan of b7-b6 and flc8-a6.

He has other methods of fight­ing, though . . .

7 • • • '1Wa5 It is sensible to postpone the

development of Black's king knight for a while, since it will re­capture on f6 if possible, or, more rarely, it can take the route l!Jg8-h6-f7.

Completely different positions arise after 7 . . . l!Jge7 8 .1le2 (The move 8.1ld3 provokes c5-c4, but this pawn advance is part of Black's plan anyway: 8 . . . '\Wa5 9 .1ld2 c4 10. fle2 !ld7 11 .0-0 f6 12 .E!e1 fxe5 13. dxe5 0-0 14.1lf1 E!f5 15.g3 E!af8 16. E!e3 E!5f7 17.1lg2 '\Wc7 and in this rather complicated position the players agreed a draw, De Firmi­an - Gulko, Malmo 2001 . ) 8 . . . '\Wa5 9 .1ld2 (after 9. '&d2 , i t would be good for Black to play 9 . . . b6, after which the standard exchange of the light-squared bishops with !lc8-a6 solves all his opening prob­lems) 9 . . . 1ld7 (It is difficult to as­sess the risk involved in winning a

pawn with : 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 '&a4 1l.E!b1 !? l!Jxd4 12.1ld3t, but the sta­tistics of this variation are terrible for Black, because White's initia­tive is very dangerous.) 10.0-0

10 . . . '&c7 (It is also interesting for Black to play 10 . . . c4. Although White has an extra in comparison with the game we have already quoted (de Firmian - Gulko), that is not so important in this closed position. Besides the plan of cas­tling kingside which we have al­ready seen, Black can also con­tinue, for example, with : l!Je7-c8-b6-a4, or 0-0-0 and f7-f6.) 1l .E!e1 h6 (it is possibly more accurate for him to play 11 . . .0-0) 12 .1lfl (Here 12 .dxc5 ! ? is worth consid­ering; Bologan tried out another route for his bishop: 12.a4 0-0 13. flf4 l!Jg6 14.1lg3 l!Jce7 15 .1ld3 c4 16.1lf1 l!Jf5 17.h4 l!Jxg3 18 .fxg3 f5 19.1le2 a5 20.h5 l!Jh8 2l .g4 fxg4 22.l!Jh2 g3 23.l!Jfl l!Jf7 24.l!Jxg3 l!Jg5, with an excellent position for Black, Bologan - Sengupta, Cale­ta 2011 .) 12 . . . c4 13.a4 0-0 14.1lc1 f5 15.1la3 E!f7 16.h4 l!Jc8 17.h5 a5 18.l!Jh4 l!Jd8 19.g4 fxg4 20.'&xg4 ha4oo with a very sharp game, Byrne - Vaganian, Vienna 1980.

255

Chapter 31

8 . .id2 White rarely plays 8.�d2 , with

the plan of developing his bishop to the a3-f8 diagonal without los­ing any tempi. This position has not been encountered enough in games between strong players.

Black has reacted in various ways:

after 8 . . . l2Jge7 White created problems for his opponent in sev­eral games with the move 9.l"i:b1 ! ? (He does not achieve much with 9.�d3 b6 10.a4 �a6 1l .dxc5 hd3 12 .�xd3 bxcS 13.0-0 c4 14.�d2 0-0= Ivanovic - Vaganian, Nik­sic 1978; the move 9.a4 has been analyzed under 7.a4) . I believe Black can obtain a promising po­sition with 9 . . . b6! lO.dxcS (White can prevent the development of

256

his opponent's bishop on a6 with the manoeuvre lO .�bS �d7 - 10 . . . �a6?! 1l .a4;t - 1l .�d3, but Black can use the tempi to follow the plan of castling kingside and then playing the undermining move f7-f6 : 11 . . .c4 12 .�e2 0-0 13.0-0 f6oo with a rather complicated game) 10 . . . �a6 11 .ha6 �xa6 12 .�d3 �xd3 13.cxd3 bxcS 14.\t>e2 0-0. Black has a good position in this endgame, for example : 15.l"i:b5 c4 16.dxc4 dxc4 17.l"i:c5 l"i:fc8 18.l"i:xc4 lLlaS� with sufficient compensa­tion for the pawn;

Black has also tried playing the immediate 8 . . . b6 ! ? 9.dxc5 bxcS 10.a4 �a6 11 .ha6 �xa6 12 .�a3 l"i:c8 13.�d3 �xa4 14.0-0 �as 15.�e3 l2Jge7 16.l"i:fb1 lLld8 17.�b4 �c7 18.�a5 �d7 19.hd8 �xd8 20.l"i:xa7 0-0= with equali­ty, Poulton - Pert, Birmingham 2002;

8 . . . f6 ! ? 9 .l"i:b1 fxeS lO.CLJxeS l2Jf6 ll .�bS 0-0 12 .lLlxc6 bxc6 13. hc6 �a6� and Black has ob­tained sufficient compensation. The game continued: 14.ha8 l2Je4 15.�e3 l"i:xf2 16.�xe4 dxe4 17.\t>xf2 �xc3 18 .he4 �xd4+ 19. lt>f3 �f6= with equal chances, Van Riemsdijk - Rodriguez Vila, Sao Paulo 2004.

8 . . . �a4 Black wants to transpose to

the variation 6 . . . �a5 7.�d2 �a4. In the game Gashimov - Pono­

mariov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009, Black closed the position immedi­ately: 8. . . c4 9.a4 �d7 10.g3 0-0-0 ll.h4 fS 12 .lLlg5 l"i:f8 13.h5 lLlh6 14.

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJc3 1lb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc CiJc6

Elh4 C/Jf7 15.C/Jxf7= with equality. The opponents agreed to a draw.

9.gbl White should also consider

9.dxc5 f6 10.C/Jd4 C/Jxd4 11 .cxd4 �xd4 12 .1lb5+ �f7 13.0-0 �xe5

A complicated position has arisen, which needs precise analy­sis . White has compensation for the pawn, but possibly nothing more than that. The computer recommends the logical variation 14.c4 (Black should counter 14. c6 with 14 . . . �c7) 14 . . . d4 15.1J.a5 (Black has a very good game after 15.f4 �c7 16.1J.b4 C/Je7 17.�xd4 Eld8) 15 . . . �xc5 16.1J.b4 �b6 17. 1J.a5 ! ? = After this attractive shot a repetition of moves takes place . .

After 9.h4 Black can play 9 . . .

C/Jge7 and transpose to the favour­able variation 6 . . . C/Je7 7.h4. In­stead, Black could consider the sharper 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 C/Jxd4, but White has a very powerful ri­poste : ll .§J.b4 C/Jf3 (ll . . . C/Jc6 12 . C/Jd4 ! ) 12 .�f3 C/Je7 13 .1J.d3 C/Jc6 14.Elb1 and his initiative at least compensates for the sacrificed pawn.

Or 9 .�b1 c4 10 .g3 §J.d7 11 .Slg2 0-0-0 12 .C/Jg5 Elf8 13 .0-0 h6 14. C/Jh3 g5 15.f3 f6 16.exf6 C/Jxf6 with chances for both sides, Timman -Vaganian, Bazna 2007.

It would be too provocative for White to choose 9 .§J.d3, when Black's simplest reaction would be 9 . . . c4 10 .1J.e2 §J.d7. In the game which we mentioned above, the ex-world champion equalized by closing the centre even without gaining a tempo. So I believe that here Black should not have any problems at all .

9 . . . c4 1 0 .�cl b6

Now White has a standard plan based on the advance of his h-pawn after ll.h4 .id7 12.h5 and the game transposes to the

257

Chapter 31

encounter Yemelin - Akopian, Moscow 2008, in which after 12 .•. 0 - 0 - 0 13J3h3 f6 14 • .if4 �f8 15 . .ie2 �U'7 16 . .ih2 i>b7 17. i>fl h6 lS.i>gl ll:lge7 19.\'Nb2 �hf8 2 0 .�fl \'Na5 21..if4 �h8= Black obtained approximate equality and neither side could improve his position.

b) 7.a4

We have already seen this plan in action in the variation with 6 . . . ll:le7. There Black played b7-b6 and .ic8-a6, while here it results in completely different positions, which used to be popular several decades ago.

7 ..• ll:lge7 S.ll:l£3 \'Na5

258

9 . .id2 It is also quite logical for White

to continue with the plan for de­velopment based on deploying the bishop on a3 : 9 .'1Wd2 .

We shall examine several pos­sibilities for Black:

here it is not so good for him to opt for 9 . . . b6 10 . .ib5 .ia6 (His po­sition is also worse after 10 . . . .id7 11 ..ia3, since it ll . . . cxd4?? runs into 12 . .ib4) 11 .Ei:b1 with the bet­ter game for White;

a world-famous expert in the French Defence played here 9 .. .f6 10 . .ia3 fxe5 ll .dxe5 \Wxa4 12 . .ie2 b6 13.c4 lt:Jd8 14.0-0 \Wd7 15.lt:Jg5 h6 16.lt:Jh3 0-0 17.Ei:fd1 tt:Jdc6 18. .ib2 .ib7 19.ll:'lf4 d4 with a slightly better position for Black, Kuijpers - Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1971, but White had a very powerful counter: 10 . .ib5 .id7 11 .exf6 gxf6 12 .0-0 0-0-0 13 . .ia3 cxd4 14. lt:Jxd4 e5 15.lt:Jb3 \Wc7 16.lt:Jc5 with advantage to White, Felgaer -Rustemov, Dos Hermanas 2005;

9 . . . .id7 10 . .id3 (the position is equal after 10 . .ie2 f6 11 .exf6 gxf6 12 .dxc5 e5 13.0-0 0-0-0 14.c4 dxc4 15.\Wxa5 ll:lxa5 16 . .id2 lt:Jac6 17 . .ixc4 .ig4 18 . .ie3 hf3 19.gxf3

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .lijc3 ii.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc Lt:l c6

Lt:ld4 20.f4 Lt:lxc2 = Felgaer - Ro­jas, Santiago 2006) 10 .. .f6 11 .0-0 fxe5 12 .Lt:lxe5 Lt:lxe5 13.dxe5 0-0 14.c4 Wlc7 15J''1e1 ii.c6 16.Wle2 dxc4 17.hc4 ii.d5oo with good pros­pects for Black, Tringov - Korch­noi, Skopje 1972.

9 • • . ii.d7

l O .iJ.b5 This position has been reached

in more than two thousand games, but it has still not been analyzed thoroughly. Black has succeeded in obtaining a good game is several different ways.

White has tried some other moves instead, but not very suc­cessfully:

10 .h4 f6 ll .h5 fxe5 12 .Lt:lxe5 Lt:lxe5 13.dxe5 Wlc7 14.f4 0-0-0oo with a complicated position, Pirt­timaki - Farago, Helsinki 1983 ;

White did not achieve much with 10 .g3 0-0-0 1l.ii.h3 f5 12 . ii.g2 h6 13 .0-0 ii.e8 14.Lt:le1 c4, Van der Wiel - Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 1984;

Black obtains a good position after 10.ii.d3 c4 1l .ii.e2 f6. We have seen the same position in the

variation with 7.Lt:lf3, except that instead of the move a3-a4, White had played 0-0;

10 .ii.e2 f6 1l.c4 Wlc7 12 .cxd5 Lt:lxd5 13.c4 (White can also try supporting his centre pawn, but this does not really benefit him: 13.exf6 gxf6 14.c3 0-0-0 15.0-0 Elhg8 16.Ele1 e5 - 16 . . . Lt:lf4= -17.c4 ii.h3 18.ii.f1 Lt:lb6 19.d5 Lt:lxc4 20.dxc6 Wlxc6 2l .g3 hfl 22 .Elxf1 e4 23.Wlb3 Wld5+ with an edge for Black, Spassky - Korchnoi, Bel­grade 1977.) 13 . . . Lt:lde7 14.exf6 gxf6 15.dxc5 0-0-0 16.ii.c3 e5 17.Wld6 Lt:lf5 18 .Wlxc7+ c;t>xc7 with an excellent position for Black. After 19.0-0 Lt:lfd4 20.Lt:lxd4 Lt:lxd4 2l .ii.d1 c;t>c6 22 .. bd4 exd4 23. ii.f3+ c;t>xc5 24.hb7 ii.f5, White was in trouble in the game Tim­man - Korchnoi, Leeuwarden 1976.

10 . . . a6 Black can also close the centre

before exchanging White's bish­op, which has remained isolated from the rest of his forces: 10 . . . c4 11 .0-0 h6 12 .Ele1 a6 13.hc6 hc6 and the players agreed to a draw,

259

Chapter 31

Anand - Oil, Rome 1990. It is far from clear whether

White's bishop is better placed on b5 than on e2 in the line 10 .. .f6 ll .c4 V/ic7 12.exf6 gxf6 13.cxd5 ltlxd5 14.dxc5 0-0-0 15.0-0 E1hg8 16.a5 e5 17.a6 ltlc3 18 . .bc3 �h3oo with a very sharp position, Nunn - Wang Hao, Amsterdam 2 006.

ll . .ixc6 .ixc6 (Black has a good alternative here - 11 . . .ltlxc6 12 .0-0 Wic7.) 12. 0 - 0 h6 13. dxc5 �xeS 14.ll:ld4 0 - 0 15. �g4 l!?h7 16J3fe1 �d7 17.l'�ab1 �c7 18.E1e3 .!Llf5= with equality, Kovalev - Tischbierek, Germany 1991.

c) 7.�g4

Black's dark-squared bishop is already absent from the board, so it would be logical to expect this standard queen-sortie to create the greatest problems for Black.

7 • • • g6 This is the key position of the

variation. I believe that the most unpleasant plan for Black is the one chosen by Anand and his sec-

260

ond Kasimdzhanov in games against Ponomariov.

8.h4 It is a bit less precise for White

to follow the same idea with the move-order 8 .�d2 in view of 8 . . . f5 ! (it i s also good for Black to play 8 . . . �d7, planning 9.h4 f5).

Now: the variation 9 .V/if4 h6 10.h4

V/ib6 ll .dxc5 V/ixc5 leads to a posi­tion we have discussed in our notes to Black's eighth move in the main line ;

the pawn-sacrifice 9.Wig3 is not very dangerous: 9 . . . cxd4 10. ltlf3 (10.h4 dxc3 ll .Wixc3 d4 12 . Wic5 �e7oo) 10 . . . dxc3 11 . .bc3 ltlh6 and Black's position is quite reli­able;

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. '2Jc3 Jlb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc '2Jc6

after 9 .exf6 '2Jxf6 10 .�h4 eS Black has a good game: ll .dxcS (but not 11 .'2Jf3, because after 11 . . . exd4 12 .cxd4 0-0 13.Jld3 c4 14. Jle2 JlfS 1S.c3 E1e8+ Black has a clear advantage, Andriasian -Tarlev, Voronezh 2011 . And after 11 .JlbS, Black has a choice be­tween 11 . . .exd4, with an approxi­mately equal middle game after 12.cxd4 0-0 13.'2Je2 cxd4 14.0-0 '2Je4 1S.�h6 �f6 16.f3 = ; or an endgame after 11 . . .'2Je4 12 .�xd8+ Wxd8 13.Jlxc6 bxc6 14.dxeS E1e8 1S.C2Jf3 Wd7! 16.c4 Jla6� with ex­cellent compensation for the pawn) 11 . . . '2Je4 (it is also possible for Black to opt for ll . . . �e7 12 . '2Jf3 0-0 13 .Jle2 �xeS 14.0-0 JlfSoo) 12 .�xd8+ Wxd8 (12 . . . '2Jxd8? ! 13.Jle3) 13.'2Jf3 ltJxcS 14. E1d1 (White achieves very little with 14.JlbS Jlg4.) 14 . . . Wc7 1S.Jle3 '2Je4 16.E1xdS Jle6+! Black has good counterplay and should have no problems in the resulting endgame.

White sometimes retreats his queen in order to protect his queenside. 8 .�d1 �c7 !? (GM Kruppa has also tried the plan with 8 . . . �aS 9 .Jld2 �a4 10.'2Jf3 c4 - I believe it is good for Black to play here 10 . . . b6 ! ? - 11 .h4 h6 12 . g3 Jld7 13.Jlg2 0-0-0 14.�c1 Wb8 1S.O-O WaS and it is unclear whether White can improve his position, but Black is very passive with his knight on g8, forced to protect the h6-pawn, Zontakh -Kruppa, Kiev 2006.) 9.'2Jf3 Jld7 10.h4 h6 ll .Jlf4

11 . . .c4 (Black should have grasped the chance to activate his king's knight with 11 . . . '2Jf6 ! ? 12 .dxcS ! '2Je4 13.§ld3oo) 12 .�d2 �as (12 . . . 0-0-0 13.'2Jh2) 13 .Jle2 0-0-0 (It is possibly better for Black to play an immediate 13 . . .fS with the idea of '2Jc6-d8-f7.) 14. Wf1 fS 1S.g3 (The position is rath­er unclear after 1S.exf6 '2Jxf6 16. Jlxh6 '2Je4 17.�e3 �xc3 18.�xc3 '2Jxc3 19.JlgS E1df8oo) 1S . . . �a4 16.Wg2 Jle8 17.'2Jg1 E1d7 18.g4 '2Jce7 19.'2Jh3± with slight pres­sure for White, Yemelin - Krup­pa, Amman 2008.

Alexander Khalifman recom­mends in his book "Opening for White According to Anand" (vol. 7) the variation 8.a4 �c7 (Black's most natural reaction here would be 8 .. .fs 9 .�d1 �as 10 .Jld2 '2Jge7 11.'2Jf3 c4 12 .h4 h6 13.�c1 '2Jd8 14.�a3 Jld7, Gligoric - Maksi­movic, Yugoslavia 1991, but White's position is still preferable after 1S.Jle2 '2Jf7 16.0-0 '2Jc8 17. �b4±. As usual in this system, it seems sensible for Black to post­pone the development of his g8-knight with the move 10 . . . Jld7. Tournament practice will show whether this precision is essen-

261

Chapter 31

tial, but White should test the consequences of the aggressive move 11 .c4 ! ? It looks as though Black's position is O.K. after 11 . . . V!ffc7 12 .cxd5 exd5 and White will be unable to hold his centre, for example: 13 .c3 cxd4 14.li:lf3 li:lxe5 ! 15.Vlffe2 0-0-0 16.li:lxe5 dxc3 17. l"lc1 cxd2+ 18.V!ffxd2 ic6ro. All this seems rather risky, but Black has two extra pawns as meaningful compensation for his difficulties. The position is unclear.) 9 .id2

9 .. .f5 (Black has also tried 9 . . . f6 10.li:lf3 fxe5 11 .V!ffg3 cxd4 12 . cxd4 li:lf6 13.ib5 0-0 14.hc6 li:le4 15.V!ffxe5 V!ffxc6 16.ih6 V!ffc3+ 17.Wf1 l"lf7 18.l"lc1 V!ffc7, Della Mar­te - Lemos, Villa Ballester 2006 and now the line 19.Wg1 V!ffxe5 20 .li:lxe5 l"lxf2 21 .h4 b6 22 .c4ro would have led to a sharp and un­clear endgame position. After 11. li:lxe5 li:lxe5 12 .V!fff4 cxd4 13.cxd4, Black should try V!ffxc2 and his ex­tra pawn, together with the possi­bility of exchanging queens on the e4-square, might well be suffi­cient for equality. Nevertheless, the move 9 . . .f5 seems to be more accurate.) 10.V!ffh4. Similar posi­tions are very typical for this vari-

262

ation and are quite difficult to evaluate. It seems to me that Black's defence should be easier after he has advanced f7-f5 and White must work hard to prove any advantage. For example: 10 . . . V!ffe7 (10 . . . h6? ! 1l .ib5t) 1l .Vlfff4 id7 12.li:lf3 h6 13 .h4 c4 14.ie2 0-0-0ro and we reach a standard position. The deployment of Black's queen on e7, in compari­son to the aS-square, has its plus­es and drawbacks as well. White is not forced to protect his queen­side and can acquire additional space there by advancing a4-a5, but castling kingside seems risky in view of Black's possible offen­sive there, based on V!ffe7-h7 and g6-g5 .

The somewhat forgotten move 8.li:lf3 was rehabilitated by a fresh idea discovered by Andrey Volo­kitin. 8 . . . V!ffa5 (In an earlier game, Ruslan chose 8 . . . id7 9 .V!fff4 f5 10. h4 h6 11 .id2 c4 12 .a4 V!ffa5 13 .ie2 li:lge7 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.l"lfb1 l"ldg8 and Black had a comfortable posi­tion, Cheparinov - Ponomariov, Cuernavaca 2006. However, White's play could possibly be im­proved earlier.) 9 .id2 V!ffa4 10. ie2 (It only amount to a transpo­sition of moves after 10.:l'la2 c4 ; 10.V!fff4 c4 1l .ie2 h6 12 .h4 id7 13.0-0 l"lh7 14.li:lh2 0-0-0 15.:l'la2 l"lf8 16.li:lg4 draw, Muzychuk -Rajlich, Ohrid 2009. Instead, Black should have opted for 12 . . . V!ffxc2 with very problematic com­pensation for White.) 10 . . . c4 11 . :l'la2 id7 12.V!ffh4

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji:Jc3 �b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc 'Llc6

This is an interesting idea. White prevents his opponent from castling in the most straight­forward way. (He used to do that indirectly, by attacking the fl­pawn: 12.Wf4 h6 13.h4 l"lh7. Black's rook-manoeuvre might look ri­diculous, but is in fact quite rea­sonable. 14.hS gS 1S.Wg3 0-0-0 16.'Llh2 fS 17.exf6 'Llxf6 18.'Llg4 'Llxg4 19.�xg4 WaS 20 .We3 eS and Black seizes the initiative, Aver­janov - Kruppa, St Petersburg 2003.) 12 . . . h6 13.0-0 'Llce7. This move looks artificial , but is quite well motivated. . (Black fails to equalize after 13 . . . 'Llge7 14.�gS -14.Wf6? 0-0-0 - 14 . . . 'LlfS 1S.Wh3 l"lg8 16.�f6 WaS 17.g4 Wxc3 18. gxfS gxfS+ 19.�h1 'Llxd4 20 .�d1 �c6 21 .a4 'Llxf3 22.�xf3 l"lg6 and he has some compensation, al­though insufficient, for the piece. After 16.�d2 l"lh8 17.g4 'Llfe7 18. �gS 'Llg8, Black's achievements are rather questionable.) 14.�gS �c6 1S.g4 WaS. The manoeuvres of both sides are thematic and quite consistent. 16.l"lb1 'Llc8 17.a4 'Llb6 18.l"lb4 'Llxa4 19.�f6 'Llxf6 20.exf6 bS 21 .Wg3 (White occu­pies an important diagonal. ) 21 . . . Wd8 (Black cannot change much

with the line : 21 . .Jk8 22 .'LleS Wc7 23.£4.) 22 .'LleS Wd6 (It would not work to opt for 22 . . . �d7 23.f4 a6 24.l"laxa4! bxa4 2S.l"lb7 l"lb8 26. l"lxd7 l"lb1+ 27.�f2 Wxd7 28.'Llxd7 �xd7 29 .hc4 dxc4 30.We3 a3 31 . dS exdS 32 .Wa7+ �d6 33.Wxa6+ �d7 34.Wxa3 �c6 and White re­tains an advantage.) 23.f4 'Llb6? After this mistake the position be­comes difficult for Black. He should not have removed his knight from its active position, es­pecially since from there it con­tained the activity of the enemy rook. (or 23 . . . gS ! ? 24.Wh3 gxf4 2S.gS l"lh7 26.�g4 0-0-0 27.g6 fxg6 28.he6+ �c7, with counter­play) 24.fS gS 2S.l"lb1 �d7 26.fxe6 Wxe6 27.l"le1 and White seized the initiative and went on to win, Vo­lokitin - Ponomariov, San Sebas­tian 2012 . We should mention that this game was played in a tournament in which the players contested a match of two games against each other (with White and Black) simultaneously.

8 . . . h6 It looks as though Black can-

263

Chapter 31

not solve his all problems with the move 8 . . .fS because of 9.�g3 ! (It would less convincing for him to opt for 9.�f4 h6, for example: 10.dxcS �aS 11 .�d2 �xeS 12.li:Jf3 li:Jge7 13 .�d3 �d7 14.0-0 0-0-0. Black has sufficient counterplay on the kingside, for instance 1S. l"lfb1 gS 16.hxgS - 16.�h2 �aS -after 16 . . . li:Jg6 17.�g3 hxgS 18.�e3 �e7 19 .�xgS �h7 20.Wfl l"ldg8i Black has the initiative on the kingside.) 9 . . . cxd4 lO .hS gS 11. �xgS �aS 12.li:Je2 (Black obtains a good position in the endgame af­ter 12 .�d2 dxc3 13.�xc3 �xc3 14.hc3 li:Jh6.) 12 . . . dxc3 13.li:Jf4 ! ? with advantage t o White. I t i s also very good for White to continue with 13.�xc3 �xc3+ 14.li:Jxc3 liJxeS 1S.liJbS� with a powerful initiative for the sacrificed pawn.

Black's position in the main line is not very reliable, so he should consider much more care­fully the line: 8 . . . �aS 9 .�d2 �a4 (or 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 �a4) lO .hS �xc2 (10 . . . liJxeS? 11 .�g3 li:Jd7 12 .hxg6 fxg6 13.l"lxh7±) 11 .li:Jf3 cxd4 12.cxd4 h6 13.hxg6 �xg6

14.�h3 (in the endgame after 14.�xg6 fxg6 1S.�d3 Wf7 16.We2

264

�d7 17.l"lh4 Wg7 18.l"lah1 l"lc8, White has full compensation for the pawn, because Black cannot untangle his kingside. Still, it is far from clear how White can in­crease his pressure and maintain an advantage.) 14 . . . �d7 1S.l"lc1 0-0-0 16.�e2 (16.�h4 ! ?) 16 . . . Wb8 17.l"lc3 �b1+ 18 .�d1 li:Jge7oo Black obtained an excellent posi­tion in the game Solozhenkin -Kashtanov, St Petersburg 2000.

9.�d2 White has tried 9.hS gS 10.f4

�aS 11 .�d2 fS 12 .�g3 g4 13.dxcS �xeS 14.�d3 li:Jge7. In the game Motylev - Kruppa, Predeal 2007, Black succeeded in closing the po­sition on the kingside and his prospects were by no means worse.

9 . . . .id7 It is worth considering the

greedy line : 9 . . . �b6 lO.dxcS (or 10.li:Jf3 �b2 11 .l"lc1 c4 and Black closes the position, winning the enemy a-pawn, while White has difficulties in developing any ini­tiative. After 12 .�e2 �xa3 13.0-0 Black, having played until now in

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji:Jc3 il.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc 'Llc6

computer style, should continue in the same fashion: 13 .. .'11*'b2 ! ? 14J�fd1 aSoo with a rather unclear game) 10 .. .'�b2 1Uk1 �xa3 12 . 'Llf3 �xeS 13.il.d3 hS 14.�f4 'Llh6 15.l"lb1� White has sufficient com­pensation for the pawn.

Black has not yet tried the move 9 . . . �a5. It seems to me White has a powerful reply -10.a4, preventing �a5-a4 and b7-b6.

1 0 .i/.d3

1 0 . . . �e7 Black can try placing his queen

on another square : 10 . . . �c7 !? 11 .'Llf3 (There was a nice point to Black's last, natural, move. It would be a mistake for White to play 11 .'Llh3? owing to ll . . . cxd4 12 .cxd4 'LlxeS ! ) . The position of White's knight on f3 is less para­lysing for Black. ll . . .c4 12 .i/.e2 0-0-0 13.0-0 'it>b8 (It would be too early for 13 .. .f6 ! ? 14.�xg6 'Llge7 15.�g3 ! l"ldg8 16.�h2 fxeS 17.'Llxe5 'LlxeS 18.il.f4t and Black's compensation for the pawn is in­sufficient. I should like to men­tion that it would be rather dubi-

ous for White to continue with 15.�h5 because of 15 . . . l"ldf8 , with the plan of l"lhg8, 'LlfS, il.e8, for in­stance: 16.l"lfe1 l"lhg8 17.�xh6 'LlfS 18.�f4 fxeS 19.dxe5 'Llg3 20 .�e3 'Llf5= and there is a repetition of moves, while after 20 .fxg3 l"lxf4 2l .gxf4 'Lle7oo the position is very unclear.) 14.l"ltbl 'it>a8 15.a4, Al Modiahki - Khader, Dubai 2011 . It seems to me that this was the right moment for Black to achieve the desired set-up for his pieces. He should continue with 15 . . . il.e8 ! 16.il.cl fSoo with chances for both sides. This looks to me to be the best line for him at the moment.

ll.'Llh3!? White plans to deploy his

knight on f4, preventing the im­portant pawn-advance for Black in this system - f7-f5. Of course, the deployment of the knight on f4 and the queen on g3 is mainly prophylactic and it is possible that to accomplish a break on the kingside he will have to regroup his forces. Black will then have the chance to play f7-f6, or f7-f5, but it would not be very pleasant

265

Chapter 31

for him to await developments with a paralysed kingside.

11 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 12. 0 - 0 c4 13 . .ie2

13 . . . .ie8 Black's position is worse after

13 . . . f5 14.1&xg6 1&xh4 15.'i:Jf4. The option 13 . . . g5 ! ? deserves

a thorough analysis. Strangely enough, it would be very difficult for White to prove a substantial advantage here: 14.1&h5 (after 14. hxg5 hxg5 15 . .ixg5 f6 16.exf6 'i:Jxf6 17.f4 l"ldf8� with the idea of 't&h7, Black has compensation for the pawn) 14 . . . f6. Now after 15. hxg5 Black manages to hold the balance in the forced variation 15 . . . fxe5 16.gxh6 'i:Jf6 17.1&h4 'i:Je4 18.1&xe7 'i:Jxe7 19 . .ig5 'i:Jxg5 20. 'i:Jxg5 l"ldf8 21 .dxe5 l"lxh6 22.f4 'i:Jg6 23 .g3 l"lg8 24.'i:Jf7 l"lh7 25.'i:Jd6+ Wc7 26.Wg2 .ic6= , with enough counterplay to draw. It looks very attractive for White to play 15.f4 .ie8 16.'t&f3 gxh4 (it is worse for Black to play here 16 . . . gxf4 17.'i:Jxf4 fxe5 18.dxe5 .if7 19. l"laeU with an edge for White) 17. .ie1 , but even then after 17 . . .f5

266

18.'i:Jf2 l"ld7 19.'t&h3 't&d8 20.'i:ld1 h5 (planning 'i:Jg8-h6-g4), Black's position is quite trustworthy. It is also interesting to try 17 . . . .ig6 18 . .ixh4 l"l£8 and, as a reward for the risk, Black is able to activate his "French" bishop.

14.tl:lf4 'i!?b8 15.a4 'i!?a8 Black is still not well prepared

for the freeing sacrifice which he accomplished a move later in the game Anand - Ponomariov: 15 . . . f5 16.exf6 'i:Jxf6 17.1&xe6 't&g7 18. 't&h3 .if7 (after 18 . . . .id7 19.'t&g3 'i:Je4 20 .'t&h2 Wc8 2 1 .l"lad1, White is better. Black's king is much saf­er on a8.) 19 . .ig4 g5 20 .'i:le6 .ixe6 21 ..ixe6 'i:Je4 with an advantage for White after 22 .l"lad1, or 22 . .iel.

16.a5! This i s an important improve­

ment, which transposes to the game Kasimdzhanov - Ponomar­iov, Moscow 2007. Another pos­sible continuation is 16 . .ic1 f5 ! 17.exf6 'i:Jxf6 18.1&xe6 't&g7 19.'t&h3 .id7 20 .'t&g3 .if5 21 .'i:lh5 't&e7 22 . 'i:Jxf6 't&xe2 and Black ended up with excellent compensation for

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. CiJc3 1J.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc CiJc6

the sacrificed pawn, Anand -Ponomariov, Leon 2007.

Here it would be interesting for Black to try:

16 •.. g5?! One of the ideas behind the

move 16.a5 is that now 16 .. .f5 17. exf6 4Jxf6 18.�xe6 �g7 19.a6 b6 20 .§J.f3+- does not work for Black. With his pawn still on b7, he would have played here 1J.e8-f7 and g6-g5.

Bearing in mind that Black fails to free his position with the move in the main text, he should consider 16 . . . �c7 17.a6 (it is also possible for White to try 17.1J.cl 4Jxa5 18.1J.a3 4Jc6 19.l"1fbl 4Jge7oo and he has obvious compensa­tion, but Black still has an extra pawn) 17 . . . b6 18 .1J.cl White's a6-pawn is weak and he has no pres­sure on the queenside, but Black's kingside is vulnerable. Still , White's prospects seem prefera­ble.

17.hxg5 It is less convincing for White

to continue with 17.4Jh5 f5 18.exf6 �h7.

17 . . . hxg5 18.4Jh3 f6 19.exf6 CiJxf6

2 0 .hg5 1J.g6 20 . . . 1J.h5 21.�f4± 21.a6 b6 22.�f4 E1df8 23.

§J.g4 e5 Black should avoid 23 . . . 4Jxg4

24.he7 E1xf4 25.4Jxf4 4Jxe7 26. E1ael± and in this endgame his two minor pieces are weaker that White's rook and pawns.

24.dxe5 .!Llxe5 25.l"1ael §J.e4 Black's compensation for the

pawn is insufficient after White's simple response

26.-idU, but it is also good for him to opt for 26J�xe4 ! ? dxe4 27. 1J.f5t seizing the initiative.

267

Part S

The MacCutcheon Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)iJc3 llJf6 4 . .ig5 .ib4

After 4 . .ig5 I recommend that Black chooses one of two possibilities - either the sharp MacCutcheon counter-attack ( 4 . . . .ib4) or the quite reliable and advantageous transposition, under favourable circum­stances, to the Rubinstein variation ( 4 . . . dxe4 S.tt:lxe4 tt:lbd7). Both lines have their devoted adherents and have been played successfully. In the MacCutcheon variation Black risks more, but has chances of seizing the initiative if his opponent reacts imprecisely. After the simplifying move 4 . . . dxe4, his game is safer and he focuses on neutralizing White's opening initiative.

The French Defence, as an opening, is centred on the pawn-advance e4-e5. Black presents his opponent with this possibility on move three (the Advance variation) , or on move four (the Steinitz variation or the Winawer variation). If White insists on maintaining tension in the cen­tre, then Black has the option of playing the MacCutcheon variation, in which he can combine pressure against White's centre from his knight on f6 and his bishop on b4 - a sort of combination of the Steinitz and the Winawer.

This system used to be considered very risky, but recently it has gained some popularity. The dangers for Black are obvious - his king­side has been weakened by the absence of defending pieces, and his king often has to roam all over the board in search of a safe haven. It often happens that Black has to reduce the tension in the centre by advancing c5-c4. White, in turn, has to react very precisely and ener­getically in order to create problems for the opponent.

268

Chapter 32 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)[jc3 �f6 4 . .ig5 .ib4

5.exd5 Attempts by White to main­

tain the tension in the centre do not achieve much.

After 5.�d3 Black obtains an excellent game by undermining White's centre with 5 . . . c5 (This is probably even stronger than 5 . . . dxe4 6 .he4 c5 7.'Llge2 (7.dxc5 -see 5 . . . c5) 7 . . . cxd4 8.tt:Jxd4 �a5 9 .hf6 hc3+ 10.bxc3 �xc3+ 11 .�d2 �xd2+ 12 .i>xd2 gxf6 13 .l':lab1 'Lla6 and Black has at least equalized; or 11 .i>f1 gxf6 12 . l':lb1 'Lld7, and White's compensa­tion for the pawn is sufficient only for equality.) 6.dxc5 (It is rather dubious to opt for 6.e5? ! cxd4 7. a3 dxc3 8 .axb4 cxb2 9.l':lb1 h6.) 6 . . . dxe4 7.he4 �xd1+ 8.l':lxd1 'Llbd7 9.�f3 hc3+ 10.bxc3 'Llxc5=

After 5.'Llge2 Black's most practical decision is to continue with a temporary pawn-sacrifice: 5 . . . h6 (The attempt to equalize by simplifying: 5 . . . dxe4 6.a3 �e7 7. hf6 hf6 8.tt:Jxe4 0-0 9.�d3 -9.�d2 e5 - 9 . . . e5, fails owing to White's powerful resource 10. �f3 ! , played in the game S.Polgar - M.Gurevich, Breda 2000. After 10 . . . 'Lld7, White should have cho­sen ll .tt:Jxf6+ , for example 12 . . . gxf6 13.0-0-0;t with a slightly better endgame for White; or 11 . . . �xf6 12 .�xf6 'Llxf6 13 .dxe5 'Llg4 14.f4 l':ld8 15.'Llc3 'Lle3 16.l':lcl l':ld4 17.g3 and Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient, or fi­nally 11 . . .tt:Jxf6 12 .dxe5 'Llg4 13. �c3 f6 14.exf6 'Llxf6 15.'Llg3 and again Black does not have enough for the missing pawn.) 6.hf6 �xf6 7.a3 �a5

269

Chapter 32

8.exd5 (The position is very complicated but good for Black after 8.b4 ib6 9.e5 'We7 10.ti:la4 id7 11 .c3 0-0 12.t2lf4 ie8 13.g3 f6 14.exf6 'Wxf6 15.1"1a2 ti:lc6 16.h4 if7 17.ig2 1"1ad8 18.0-0 e5oo Hec­tor - Glek, Copenhagen 1995.) 8 . . . 0-0 9.'Wd3 (The game is equal after 9.'Wd2 1"1d8 10.dxe6 ixe6 11 .'We3 t2lc6 12 .0-0-0 ixc3 13. ti:lxc3 ti:lxd4 14.id3 c5 15.1"1d2 b6= N.Mamedov - Antic, Kavala 2 010.) 9 . . . 1"1d8 10.dxe6 ixe6 11 . 0-0-0 'Wxf2 12 .ti:le4 'Wf5 13.t2lc5 'Wxd3 14.1"1xd3 ic8 15.g3 ti:ld7 16. b4 ib6 17.ig2 c6 18.ti:lf4 a5 19. 'it>b2 ti:lf6 20 .d5 axb4 21 .axb4 ixc5 2 2 .bxc5 if5= Unzicker - Piskov, Germany 1991.

5 . • . �xd5 Black can also play the simpler

5 . . . exd5 6.'Wf3 (White has also tried 6.id3 0-0 7.ti:lge2 c6 8.0-0 1"1e8 9 .t2lg3 h6 10.id2 ti:lbd7 11 . ti:lce2 ixd2 12 .'Wxd2 ti:lf8 13.ti:lf4 'Wd6 14.f3 id7 and his advantage is merely symbolic, Shirov - lvan­chuk, Morelia/Linares 2008.) 6 . . . ti:lbd7 7.0-0-0 (7.id3 0-0 8 . ti:lge2 c6 9 .0-0-0 1"1e8 10 .h4 ie7

270

11 .t2lg3 ti:lf8 12 .ti:lf5 ixf5 13.'Wxf5 'Wd7 14.'Wxd7 t2l6xd7= Kadziolka - Rajlich, Ostrow 2002) 7 . . . ie7 8. 1"1e1 0-0 9 .id3 1"1e8 10.ti:lge2 c6 11. ti:lg3 ti:lf8 12.t2lf5 ixf5 13.ixf5 t2l6d7 14.ixe7 1"1xe7= Black has solved all his opening problems, Galkin - Alavkin, St. Petersburg 1999.

6.hf6

a) 6 . . . hc3+ b) 6 • • • gxf6

a) 6 . . . hc3+ This zwischenzug is consid­

ered to be a good alternative to the immediate 6 . . . gxf6. However, giving up bishop for knight with­out any clear necessity, or imme­diate benefits, and especially un­provoked, as a zwischenzug, is a positional concession for Black.

7.bxc3 gxf6 (diagram)

s:�d2 This is White's most precise

move. He cannot obtain much in this pawn-structure however.

It is harmless for Black for White to continue with 8.ti:lf3 b6

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJc3 li'Jf6 4. �g5 �b4 5.ed Wffxd5 6. hf6 hc3

9.�e2 �b7 10.0-0 li'Jd7 11 .a4 aS and Black has a very comfortable game.

An active queen-sortie is not very satisfactory for White after: 8 .Wffg4 '&aS 9.li'Je2 (9.Wffg3 �d7 10. �c4 �c6 11.li'Je2 li'Jd7 12 .Wffg7 ct;e7 13.he6 ct;xe6 14.li'Jf4+ ct;e7 1S.O-O :1'i:af8 16.dS �a4 17.:1'i:fe1+ ct;dS 18. li'Je6+ fxe6 19.dxe6 :1'i:fg8-+ and Black has parried the attack, end­ing up with a lot of extra material, Christiansen - Volkov, Internet 2004.) 9 . . . ct;e7 10 .g3 (White has also tried here 10.Wfff3 :1'i:d8 11 .Wffe3 cS 12 .:1'i:d1 cxd4 13.:1'i:xd4 :1'i:xd4 14. li'Jxd4, Pilavov - Kiselev, Lugansk 200S, but after the simple reply 14 . . . WffeS+ Black's position is pref­erable.) 10 . . . li'Jc6 11 .�g2 eS 12 .Wfff3 li'Jxd4 13.li'Jxd4 exd4 14.0-0 Wffxc3 15.:1'i:fe1+ �e6 16.Wffxc3 dxc3 17. hb7 :1'i:ab8+ and Black's game is slightly better, Robson - Vagani­an, Moscow 2009.

Black does not have the slight­est problem in the endgame after 8 .Wfff3 Wffxf3 9.li'Jxf3 b6 10.g3 �b7 11 .�g2 li'Jc6 12 .li'Jd2 0-0-0 13. 0-0-0 e5 14.dxe5 fxe5= Feygin ­Vallejo Pons, Emsdetten 2010.

8 . . . Wffa5 This is Black's most popular

continuation - a prophylactic move against c3-c4 - but the attempt to undermine White's centre imme­diately deserves close attention :

8 . . . c5 9.li'Je2 cxd4 10.cxd4 li'Jc6 11 .Wfff4 ct;e7 12 .c3 '&aS 13.g3 :1'i:d8 14.Wffe3 eS� with sufficient coun­ter chances, Smirin - Vaisser, Tel Aviv 1992 ;

8 . . . e5 9.li'Jf3 (Black has no prob­lems after White's active queen­sortie 9.Wffh6 Wffe4+ 10.ct;d2 Wffg6 11 .Wffxg6 hxg6 12 .:1'i:e1 li'Jc6 13.dxe5 fxeS 14.�b5 :1'i:h5 15.li'Jf3 �d7, A. Sokolov - Korchnoi, Switzerland 2002.) 9 . . . li'Jc6 10.dxe5 Wffxd2+ 11 . ct;xd2 fxeS 12 .li'Jxe5 liJxeS 13.:1'i:e1 f6 14.f4 �e6 15.fxeS 0-0-0+ 16. �d3 fxe5 17.:1'i:xe5 �xa2 18.:1'i:a1 �dS 19.:1'i:xa7 ct;bS 20.:1'i:a4 �xg2. White maintains some minimal pres­sure, thanks to his well-placed bishop on d3 and the vulnerabili­ty of Black's h-pawn, but the posi­tion has been simplified so much that a draw seems inevitable, A. Sokolov - Kolly, Lenk 2011 .

9.�d3 �d7 1 0 .ll:le2 �c6 11. tl:lf4 tl:ld7 12.c4 Wffxd2+ 13.

271

Chapter 32

'i!?xd2, A.Sokolov - S.Atalik, Ger­many 2003 and here it seems quite reasonable to follow GM Andrey Sokolov's recommenda­tion: 13 . . . 4Jb6 14.c3 0-0-0�

b) 6 . . . gxf6

7.4Jge2 After 7.'&d2 '&aS 8.4Jge2 it is

good for Black to play 8 . . . 4Jd7, planning to transfer the knight via the attractive route lt:Jd7-b6-dS. 9 .'&f4 (the position is simplified and balanced after 9.0-0-0 tt:Jb6 10.'i!?b1 4JdS= ; if 9 .a3 tt:Jb6 10J'1d1 !J.e7 ll.lt:Jc1 fi.d7 12.4Jb3 '&gS, Black has nothing to complain about) 9 . . . bS ! ? 10.0-0-0 !J.e7 ll .'i!?b1 b4�

7 • • • 4Jc6 8.a3 8.'&d2 '&gS 9.f4 '&g6 10.a3 !laS

11.g3 fi.d7 12 .fi.g2 0-0-0 13.b4 fi.b6 14.lt:Ja4 tt:Je7 1S.lt:Jxb6+ axb6 16. 0-0-0 §J.c6= and again, after the numerous exchanges, Black has equalized comfortably, Rabiega -Huebner, Altenkirchen 2001.

8 • • • hc3+ 9.lljxc3 '&xd4 1 0 . '&xd4 llJxd4 11. 0 - 0 - 0 c5 12. llJe4

272

12 • • • b6 It is a bit less precise to play

12 . . . We7 13.4JxcS eS. In the game Safarli - Nepomniachtchi, Kirishi 2007, there followed 14.c3 lt:Je6 1S. tt:Je4 fS 16.4Jd6 4JcS 17.!J.c4 !J.e6 18. l'l:he1 Wf6. Now it seems danger­ous for Black if White plays 19. he6 fxe6 20 .b4 4Ja4 2 1 .Wc2 l'l:ag8 22 .g3 l'l:g7 23.c4, but Black can hold the balance, for example with 23 . . . 4Jb6 24.2'l:e3 tt:Jc8 2S.lt:JbS hS 26.:8:de1 a6 27.4Jc3 e4 28.f3 tt:Jb6=

13.c3 llJb3+ 14.Wc2 llJa5 15. b4 llJb7 16.llJxf6+ 'i!?e7 17.llJe4 .id7 18.b5 f5

Black has obtained an excel­lent position and it is high time for White to think about fighting for equality.

19.llJg5 It is more accurate to continue

with 19.4Jf6 !J.c8 20 .4JhS lt:Jd6, but Black has a good position in any case.

19 • • • ghg8 2 0 .llJf3 llJd6 21. llJe5 .ie8 22.g3

If 22 .2'l:b1 c4. 22 • • • llJxb5 White has to fight

for a draw, Morozevich - Kovalev, Moscow 1994.

Chapter 33 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)2Jc3 �f6 4.i.g5 i.b4 5.e5

This is a natural and princi­pled move. Nevertheless White should think about whether it is reasonable to acquire so much space and he must try not to suc­cumb to provocation.

5 .•• h6 6.exf6 This move is tried only very

rarely in contemporary tourna­ment practice. Its positional de­fects are obvious and White can­not effectively exploit the draw­backs of Black's king being stranded in the centre, or the vul­nerability of his kingside. Al­though this line is not as harmless as it looks, it is not the most fearsome line that Black must face in the MacCutcheon varia­tion.

6 . . . hxg5 7.fxg7 �g8 8.h4

After 8.Wh5 Wf6 9.ltlf3 Wxg7 10.a3 .id6, White might have problems with his over-active queen.

8 • • • tLlc6!? This interesting move attract­

ed attention after it was played by Morozevich in his game against Landa.

It was considered to be quite safe for Black to play simply 8 . . . gxh4 9.Wg4 (White does not ob­tain much with 9.1Mfh5 Wf6 10. Ei:xh4 Wxg7 11.ltlf3 ltlc6 12 . .ib5 .id7 13.hc6 hc6 14.ltle5 0-0-0+±; 12 .0-0-0 .id7 and he must make use of his control of the open h­file in order to maintain the bal­ance. Black has no problems at all .)

273

Chapter 33

and here : Black plays 9 . . . ie7 only rarely.

This might be owing to fear of some old but spectacular analysis by Alekhine. Many inaccuracies and mistakes have been discov­ered in it, but still it is not every day that you see a position where, in a quite natural and logical way, five (yes five ! ! ) queens appear on the board. 10 .g3 (It would be much more unpleasant for Black for White to play simply 10.tt:lf3 if6 1l.Wf4 a6 12 .0-0-0t with a powerful initiative.) 10 . . . c5 11 . gxh4 (It is better for White to play here 1l .dxc5, but after ll . . . if6 Black has an excellent position, for example: 12 .0-0-0 Elxg7 13. We2 We7 14.tt:lb5 cj;lfS 15.tt:ld6 tt:ld7 16.Wb5 Elb8 ! planning b6; or 12 . tt:lf3 Elxg7 13.Wf4 tt:ld7 14.0-0-0 tt:lxc5?; 12 .ib5+ id7 13.0-0-0 hg7 14.cj;Jb1 cj;lfS?) 11 . . .cxd4 12. h5? ! dxc3 13.h6 cxb2 14.Elb1 Wa5+ 15.cj;Je2. Unfortunately, here Black can obtain a clear advantage, neu­tralizing his opponent's attack with the move 15 . . . if8 ! The fa­mous position with five queens on the board arises after 15 .. . Wxa2 16.h7 Wxb1 17.hxg8W+ cj;Jd7 18. Wxf7 Wxc2+ 19.cj;lf3 tt:lc6 20.

274

Wgxe6+? cj;Jc7 2l .Wf4+ cj;Jb6 22 . Wee3+ ic5 23.g8W b1W

24.Elh6 ! and . . . White is better. 9 . . . Wf6 10.Elxh4 (Black can

counter 10.Wxh4 with 10 . . . Wxg7.) 10 . . . Wxg7 (White cannot refute 10 . . . Elxg7 11.Elh8+ cj;Je7 12 .Wh3 tt:lc6 13.0-0-0 ixc3 14.Wxc3 Elxg2, Barczay - Hoang Thanh Trang, Budapest 2001 . Here he should continue with 15.ixg2 Wxh8 16.We3� with sufficient compensation for the pawn.) 11 . Wxg7 Elxg7 12 .Elh8+

12 . . . if8 (The move 12 . . . cj;Jd7 does not solve all of Black's prob­lems: 13.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 14.0-0-0 b6 15.ib5 and here it is important that the attempt to fortify his po­sition with 15 .. .f6 16.Elh6 ie7? fails to 17.tt:lxd5 ! exd5 18.tt:le5+, while if 15 . . . j,d6 16.tt:le5+ -

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJc3 [/Jj6 4. §ig5 §ib4 5.e5 h6 6.efhg

16.[/Je4 §ib7 - 16 . . . 1ixe5 17.dxe5 §ib7 18.Elh6 Eld8 19.[/Jxd5 exd5 20.c4 'it>c8 21 .hc6 iixc6 22.Elxc6 dxc4, the forcing line has led to a complicated rook and pawn end­ing with the better prospects for White.) 13.0-0-0 §id7 (Black should consider the seemingly unattractive line 13 . . . [/Jd7 14.[/Jf3 c6. It appears that he can do what he likes behind his solid pawn­chain, since White's dark-squared bishop is absent from the board, for example: 15.g3 Elg6 16.§ig2 Elh6 17.Elh1 Elxh1+ 18 .1ixh1 f6 - plan­ning @f7 - 19.Elh7 §id6, evicting White's rook by [/Jf8.) 14.Ele1 1ic6 15.f4 [/Jd7. Black frees his position with this pawn-sacrifice. (An at­tempt to exchange White's active bishop does not lead to quick equality for Black: 15 . . . Elg6 16.[/Jf3 Elh6 17.Elg8 [/Jd7 18.§ib5?! hb5 19. [/Jxb5 0-0-0 20.[/Jxa7+ 'it>b8 21.[/JbS [/Jf6 22 .Elg3 [/Je4 23.Elg8 [/Jf6= ; 18. g4 Elh1 19.g5 0-0-0 20 .'\t>dU) 16. f5 0-0-0 17.f:xe6 fxe6 18.Elxe6

This position has been known for a long time and is considered equal. However, it must be admit­ted that Black still has to play pre­cisely: 18 . . . §ie7 (18 . . . Elg4 19.Elh5

Elxd4 20.[/Jf3 Elg4 21 .[/Jxd5 'it>b8 22 .Ele1 id6; 19.[/Jf3 ig7 20.Elh5 [/Jf6, Belavenets - Bondarevsky, Tbilisi 1937; his compensation is sufficient for a draw, but still , af­ter for example: 2 1 .Elh2, he must take care.) 19.Elxd8+ 'it>xd8, Heu­er - Dvoretsky, Tallinn 1976.

White has an extra pawn but he will not be able to exploit it if Black defends accurately. White cannot protect his pawns on d4 and g2 and prevent the appear­ance of his opponent's knight on e4, all at the same time. We shall continue this variation a bit fur­ther: 20 .[/Jf3 [/Jf6 21 .Ele1 (White does not achieve much with 21 . [/Jh4 [/Jg4 22 .[/JfS ig5+ 23.'it>b1 Elg8 ; or 21 .[/JeS ie8.) 2l . . .id6 (2l . . .id7 !?) 22 .[/JeS he5 23.dxe5 (23.Elxe5 [/Jg4 24.Elh5 [/Je3 25.id3 Elxg2) 23 . . . [/Je4 24.[/Je2 Elg5 and Black regains his pawn.

However, if the prospect of having to defend a drawish end­game a pawn down does not ap­peal to Black, he should pay more attention to the slightly risky move 8 . . . [/Jc6.

I should mention that after the move 8 . . . Elxg7 White is not forced

275

Chapter 33

to advance his h-pawn, transpos­ing to the main line. He can reach original positions by playing 9 .hxg5 'Wxg5 10.lt:lf3 1Wg6 11.'Wd2, or 9.lt:lf3.

9.h5 It is also good for White to

play 9.'Wd3 ! ? l"\xg7 (the line 9 . . . 'Wf6 10.hxg5 'Wxg5 also deserves attention) 10.hxg5 'Wxg5 11.lt:lf3 'Wf4 12 .a3 'We4+ 13.'Wxe4 .ixc3+ 14.bxc3 dxe4 15.lt:ld2 f5 16.f3 exf3 17.lt:lxf3 lt:ld8 ! ? 18 .0-0-0 lt:lf7 White's position appears to be more attractive, at least optically, but there is just too little material left on the board for him to be able to achieve anything.

Black should not fear the im­mediate 9 . .ib5 l"\xg7 10.lt:lf3, be­cause of 10 . . . gxh4 11 .lt:le5 'Wg5 ! It is also possible for play simply 9 . . . gxh4 10.'Wh5 (White's attempt to exploit his rapid development fails after 10.lt:lf3 l"\xg7 ll.l"\xh4 l"1xg2 12 .!"1h8+ .if8 13 .'Wd2 'Wf6 and his attack comes to a dead end; 11 .lt:le5 .id7 12 . .ixc6 .ixc6 13.'Wh5 'Wf6 14.!"1xh4 l"\xg2 and he has nothing) 10 . . . !"1xg7 ll .'Wh8+ .if8 12 .lt:lf3 l"\xg2 13.lt:le5 .id7 14.

276

.ixc6 bxc6 15.0-0-0 'We7 16.!"1xh4 0-0-0, Black's pawn-structure has been disrupted but this is practically irrelevant, whereas his extra pawn might become a deci­sive factor.

9 • • • 1';xg7

1 0 .h6?! The advance of White's passed

pawn, in combination with an at­tack on the advanced g5-pawn, looks quite natural, but it is prob­ably stronger for him to opt for 10 . .ib5 .id7 1l.'Wd3 (or 11.lt:lf3 f6 ! ? 12 .'We2 'We7 13.h6 l"\h7 14 . .id3 l"\h8 15.a3 .ixc3+ 16.bxc3 o-o-m= and Black's position is preferable) 11 . . . 'Wf6 ( l l . . . 'We7 12 .h6 l"\g8 13.lt:lf3 f6 and Black's game is rather pas­sive). However, Black's position would be acceptable after 12 . .ixc6 (or 12 .lt:lf3 .ixc3+ 13 .bxc3 g4) 12 . . . .ixc6 13.lt:lf3 @e7!?+

10 . . . 1';h7 It is less precise for Black to

play 10 . . . !"1g8? ! l l . .ib5. ll.i.d3 The line ll .lt:lf3 'Wf6 ! loses the

h6-pawn for White, as does ll .a3 .if8.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l1Jc3 l1Jf6 4.�g5 iJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6.efhg

He also has to fight for equali­ty after 11.'Wd3 l"\h8 12 .0-0-0 'Wf6 13.h7 iJ.d7.

ll . . . l"i:h8

12.'Wh5!? 12 .a3 iJ.f8 13.h7 l1Jxd4 14.'Wh5

(the line 14.iJ.g6 iJ.g7 is in Black's favour) 14 . . . 'Wf6 15.0-0-0 iJ.d7+ with a clear advantage for Black.

12 . . . 'Wf6! It is less accurate for Black to

opt for 12 . . . l1Jxd4 13 .l1Jh3 'Wf6 (af­ter 13 . . . iJ.e7 !? 14.0-0-0i White has initiative for the sacrificed pawn) 14.l1Jxg5 and there is a transposition to the game, but Black loses the possibility of im­proving his play on move 13.

13.ll::lf3

13 . • . ll::lxd4 This is an important moment.

Morozevich points out that it is much stronger for Black to play here 13 . . . �d7! analyzing the fol­lowing variations : 14.l1Jxg5 (14.a3 iJ.e7+) 14 . . . 0-0-0

15.l1Jxf7 iJ.e8 16.iJ.g6 iJ.xf7 17. iJ.xf7 l"ldf8+

15.'Wh4 l1Jxd4 16.0-0-0 (16. l1Jxf7 l1Jxc2 !+) 16 . . . iJ.d6 !+

15.0-0-0 Ei:dg8 16.l1Jxf7 iJ.e8; 16.l1Jf3 l"\xg2 and again he has an excellent position.

15.1!/f1 ! ? l"ldg8 ! ? 16.l1Jf3 l1Jxd4 17.'We5 'Wxe5 18.l1Jxe5 iJ.e8. Black's position is slightly better, thanks to his powerful centre and the bishop pair. Now 19.l1Jxd5? exd5 20 .c3 fails to 20 .. .f6-+

We should like to show you the analysis of the less precise move played in the game and Mo­rozevich's recommendations for White, in order to clarify what is playable in this rather non-stand­ard position.

14.ll::lxg5 ll::l£5 It is too risky for Black to play

14 . . . l1Jxc2+ 15.1!/d1 l1Jxa1 (15 . . . iJ.xc3

16.l1Jxf7! 'Wxf2 17.l1Jxh8+ l!ld8 18. bxc3+-) 16.l1Jxf7.

277

Chapter 33

15.hf5! This is the correct move for

White, as pointed out by Mo­rozevich in his annotations to the game, from where we have bor­rowed his analysis.

White went wrong in the game and Black maintained an advan­tage: 15.h7?! hc3+ 16.bxc3 �xc3+ 17.We2 �e5+ (but not 17 . . . lt:Jd4+? 18.Wd1 18 . . . �xa1+ 19 .Wd2 lt:Jb3+ 20 .axb3 �f6 21 .lt:Jxf7+-; 19 . . . �xh1 20.�xf7+ Wd8 21 .�f6+ Wd7 22 .�xh8 ; 18 . . . lt:Jxc2 19 . .ib5+ c6 20.�xf7+ md8 2 Uk1±) 18.Wd2 �f4+ 19.We2 lt:Jd6! 20 .l"lae1 .id7 2l .Wfl 0-o-m: Landa - Mo­rozevich, Samara 1998.

15 . . . �xf5

278

15 . . . hc3+ 16.bxc3 �xf5 17. l"lh3±

16.l"lh4!? 16.0-0-0 .ie7 17.lt:Jf3 �xh5

18.l"lxh5 f6 ! and Black can be very happy with his position (but not 18 . . . .if6? 19 .g4±) .

16 . . . .ie7 It is bad for him to continue

with 16 . . . c5? 17.l"lxb4! cxb4 18. lt:Jb5 me7 19.�h4 !

White is also better in the event of 16 . . . .if8? ! 17.h7 .ie7 18. f4.

17.f4 .id7 18. 0-0-0 0-0-0 19.ll:le2 .ie8 2 0 .g4 �f6 21.lt:Jf3t; with somewhat better chances for White.

Chapter 34 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ll::Jc3 <!bf6 4 . .ig5 .ib4 5.e5 h6 6 . .icl

White retains his important dark-squared bishop in order to organize an attack later against Black's kingside.

This move also has some drawbacks. It is detrimental to his development and weakens the centre. In addition, after the ap­pearance of a pawn on c3, it will be undefended, and this indirect­ly weakens the d4-pawn as well .

White should avoid 6 . .ih4 gS 7 . .ig3 'Lle4 8.'Llge2 fS (8 . . . cS 9.a3) 9.exf6 �xf6 10.a3 'Llxg3 11 .'Llxg3 0-0 12 .f3 .bc3+ 13.bxc3 eS 14 . .ie2 'Llc6 1S.dxeS �xeS 16.0-0 .ie6 17.�d2 d4+ Galkin - Beloze­rov, Tomsk 2004.

6 . . . 'Lle4 Here it would make sense for

Black to try a move which has not

often been tested in practice - 6 . . . 'Llfd7 and after 7.�g4, he can choose between 7 . . . g6 and 7 . . . .if8 .

7.�g4

7 . . . g6 7 . . . gS. This move unnecessarily

weakens his position. 8 .'Llge2 (Af­ter 8 .a3 .ixc3 + ! ? - 8 . . . .iaS 9.'Llge2 transposes to 8.'Llge2 - 9.bxc3 cS 10 . .id3 hS 1l .�f3, Black should consider 11 . . .'Llxc3 ! ? 12 .dxcS 'Llc6, since the alternatives are not at all impressive : ll . . . g4 12 .�e3 'Llxc3 13.h3 'Llc6 14.hxg4 cxd4 1S. �f4t White has a powerful initia­tive, Hector - Vitiugov, Horsholm 2008; if 11 . . . cxd4 White is better not only after 12 . .ixe4 g4 13.�d1 dxe4 14.cxd4 �aS+ 1S . .id2 �dS 16.'Lle2 e3 17 . .ixe3 �xg2 18.!"1g1

279

Chapter 34

Wc6 19.c4± Khalifman - Janovs­ky, Kirishi 2007, but also after 12 .cxd4 ti:Jc6 13 .ti:Je2 WaS+ 14.<i>f1 Wd2 1S.i.b2 !±, or 1S.g3 h4 16.gxh4 Wxc1 + 17 .Elxc1 ti:Jd2 + 18. lt>g2 ti:Jxf3 19.ci>xf3 Elxh4 20 .ElcgU with an advantage for White in all lines.) 8 . . . cS 9 .a3

9 . . . i.aS (9 . . . hS 10.Wf3 g4 11 . Wf4 i.aS 12 .b4 ti:Jxc3 13.ti:Jxc3 cxd4 14.bxaS dxc3 1S.h3, Aveskulov -Vovk, Lviv 2006. Black's position remains rather unpleasant even after his best option 1S . . . gxh3 16. Elxh3 ti:Jc6. He has also tried 10 . . . WaS ll .axb4 Wxa1, Zdebskaja -Podolchenko, Odessa 2007 and here White maintains a clear ad­vantage with 12 .ti:JbS ! ? ti:Jc6 13. bxcS±) 10 .b4 ti:Jxc3 11.ti:Jxc3 cxd4 12 .bxaS dxc3 13.h4 Elg8 (The less optimistic line 13 . . . Wc7 14.hxgS WxeS+ still leaves White with the better prospects, even after the unambitious line: 1S.We2 Wxe2+ 16.i.xe2 hS 17.hhS±) 14.hxgS hxgS 1S.Elh7t and White has a dangerous initiative.

Based on contemporary theo­ry, the move 7 . . . ci>f8 seems to me to be less reliable than 7 . . . g6 in this line.

280

White has two promising plans.

1) The rarely played 8.a3 can lead to original positions only if Black plays 8 . . . hc3 (8 . . . i.aS transposes to 8.ti:Jge2 cS after 9.a3 i.aS, since it would not be advisa­ble for White to opt for 9 .i.d3 ow­ing to the simple response 9 . . . ti:Jxc3 10.i.d2 ti:Ja4 or 9 . . . cS 10 . he4 cxd4 1l .b4 dxc3 12 .bxaS dxe4, with a good game for Black in both cases.) 9.bxc3 ti:Jxc3 (after 9 . . . cS, White can still play 10 .i.d3) 10 .i.d3 (Here 10.a4 cS 1l .aS ! ? de­serves analysis) lO . . . cS ll.dxcS ti:Jc6 12.ti:Jf3

Now it is bad for Black to play the natural move 12 . . .fS?! (He should continue instead with 12 . . . WaS, or 12 . . . d4 13.0-0 WdS, but White still has good compensa­tion for the pawn.) The same po-

l .e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3 .Ci:Jc3 C2Jf6 4. �g5 �b4 5.e5 h6 6 . �cl C2Je4

sition but with a bishop on e3 also arises in the 6.�e3 variation, but there White can create problems for his opponent with the move 13.'Wh5, Goloshchapov - Volkov, Silivri 2003. With the bishop on c1, White has another powerful resource: 13.exf6 'Wxf6 14.�b2 ! e5 15.'Wh4 ! This accurate move is important. 15 . . . g5 16.'Wg3t and White is better since, owing to the move g7-g5 which White has pro­voked, Black cannot now play 16 . . . e4? ! 17.he4 C2Jxe4 18.�xf6.

2) 8 .C2Jge2 c5 9.a3

and now: 9 . . . �a5 10.dxc5 (the line: 10 .b4

C2Jxc3 11 .bxa5 C2Jxe2 12 .�xe2 C2Jc6 is not very promising for White. He has compensation for the pawn, but nothing more) 10 . . . C2Jc6 (for 10 . . . C2Jd7 - see 10 . . . C2Jc6 ll .b4 C2Jxe5; after 10 . . . 'Wc7 ll .'Wf4 a somewhat better endgame for White arises by force : ll . . . C2Jxc3 12 .C2Jxc3 hc3+ 13.bxc3 C2Jc6 14.c4 'Wxe5+ 15.'Wxe5 C2Jxe5 16.cxd5 exd5 17J'l:bU; GM Suetin's recom­mendation from his book "The French Defence" 10 . . . C2Jxc3 11 . C2Jxc3 d4 12 .b4 dxc3 13.bxa5 C2Jc6 does not stand up to scrutiny, be-

cause after 14.a6± White has a clear advantage.) 11 .b4 C2Jxe5 12 . 'Wh5 (White has also tried the oth­er possible retreat 12 .'Wh3 �c7 and after 13.C2Jd4 C2Jc6 14.C2Jxc6 'Wf6 15.'Wf3 bxc6 16.'Wxf6 C2Jxf6 17. �d3 e5co Black obtained an excel­lent position in the game Savchen­ko - Volkov, Serpuhov 2008; or 13.C2Jxe4 dxe4 14.�b2 b6 15.cxb6 axb6 16.C2Jc3 �b7 17.C2Jb5 �b8 18. 'Wc3 Wg8 19J'l:d1 'We7 20 .�d4 Wh7 21 .'Wxb6 �d5 22 .�d4 f6 23.c4 �c6 24.�e2 C2Jg6 25.C2Jd6 i"ld8 26.c5 C2Jf4f! Stocek - Tibensky, Slovakia 2008.) 12 . . . �c7 13.C2Jxe4 dxe4 14. �b2 �g5 15.�xg5 hxg5

16.C2Jc3 (Now it seems to be very unpleasant for Black if White chooses 16./"ld1 ! , hindering the development of the c8-bishop and planning C2Je2-c3-b5-d6. However, the position remains rather unclear, for example : 16 . . . C2Jd7 17.C2Jc3 �e5 18.C2Ja4 �xb2 19. C2Jxb2 aS 20 .C2Jc4 axb4 21 .axb4 We7 22 .C2Jd6 f5f!; 18 .�b5 We7 19. c6 C2Jb8?! 20 .C2Jd5+ exd5 21 .cxb7 hb7 22 .he5 f6 23 .�d4t; 19 . . . bxc6 20 . . bc6 !"lb8 and suddenly, Black has nothing to complain about. I should like to mention

281

Chapter 34

that Black should refrain from the natural move 16 . . . �e7 17.'Llc3 e3 18.'Llb5 exf2+ 19.�e2 i!.b8 20 . 'Lld6± and White is clearly better.) 16 . . . e3 17.fxe3? ! (Here White should not have ignored the open d-file: 17.0-0-0 ! , for example : 17 . . . a6 18.'Lle4. Black's position looks rather worrying. He cannot play 17 . . . 'Llg4?, because of 18 .i!.e2 ! 'Llxf2 19.'Llb5) 17 . . . 'Llg4 18 .i!.e2 i!.g3+ 19.�d2 'Llf2f7 with chances for both sides, Bruzon Batista -Short, Havana 2010.

It would be interesting for Black to try 9 . . . hc3 + ! ? 10 .bxc3 (after 10.'Llxc3 f5 11 .exf6 'Llxf6 12 . Wd1 cxd4 13.'\Wxd4 'Llc6 14.'\Wc5+ '\We7 15.i!.e3 i!.d7 16.0-0-0 �f7± White obtains a minimal edge, but Black made a relatively easy draw in the endgame after 17.i!.d3 Wxc5 18.i!.xc5 'Lle5 19.i!.d4 'Llxd3+ 20. cxd3 ghc8 2l .�d2 'Llg8 22 .f4 'Lle7 23.'Lle2 i!.a4= with equality, Bu­kavshin - Volkov, Samara 2011)

10 . . . cxd4 (after 10 . . . '\WaS 1l.f3 'Llxc3 12 .i!.d2 cxd4 13.'Llxd4 '\Wc7 14.'\Wf4 i!.d7 15.i!.d3 �g8, White has excellent compensation) 11 . cxd4 (It would unconvincing to opt for 11.f3 h5 12 .'\Wh3 'Llxc3 13.

282

'Llxd4 'Lld7 14.i!.d2 '\Wc7 15.f4 'Lle4 16.i!.b4+ �g8 17.i!.d3 a5 18.i!.d2 'Lldc5 19.'\We3 i!.d7 with a good game for Black, Ehlvest - Bhat, San Francisco 2000.) 11 . . . 'Llc6 12 .c3 WaS 13 .i!.e3 'Lle7 14.'\Wh3 f6 (It might be worth testing the line 14 . . . b5 ! ? 15.gc1 �g8 16.f3 'Llg5 17. '\Wg4 Wxa3 - Black's pieces seem to be totally misplaced, but he has an extra pawn and is threatening b5-b4, while White's king is stuck in the centre.) 15.exf6? ! (It is pos­sible that the variation 15.f3 ! ? 'Llg5 16.'\Wh5 creates rather serious problems for Black.) 15 . . . 'Llxf6 16.g4 �g8 17.f3 i!.d7 18 .i!.d2 'Llg6 19.'\Wg3 gf8 20 .h4 h5 2l .gxh5 'Lle7+ Vallejo Pons - Kindermann, Bahia Feliz 2011 .

8.ll:lge2 In this position White hardly

ever plays 8.a3 hc3+ 9.bxc3, when Black has a choice between 9 . . . 'Llxc3 10 .i!.d3 b6, analogously to the variation 6.i!.e3, or 9 . . . c5 10 .i!.d3 cxd4! (it is inferior to play 10 . . . 'Llxc3 1l .dxc5 '\Wc7 12.'Llf3 'Lld7 13.0-0 'Llxc5 14.'\Wh4t and White exerts powerful pressure on the

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. t/Jc3 t/Jf6 4. �g5 �b4 5.e5 h6 6. �cl t/Je4

dark squares, while 11 . . .WaS can 9.a3 be countered with the standard reply 12 .Wb4± with a better posi­tion for White.) 1l .�xe4 (but not ll.cxd4? WaS+ 12 .Wf1 Wc3 13.l"1b1 Wxd4+ with an obvious advantage for Black.) 1l . . .dxe4 12 .Wxe4 dxc3 with an extra pawn.

8 . . . c5 It would be interesting for

Black to test the rare move 8 . . . t/Jxc3 9.bxc3 (If 9 .t/Jxc3 cS 10.a3 �xc3+ ll.bxc3 WaS 12 .�d2 Wa4 a position arises which resembles some of the lines of the Winawer variation, but with the exchange of a pair of knights. Naturally, Black must also consider the pos­sibilities of 10.dxcS or 10 .�d2 .) 9 . . . �e7 10.l2Jf4 cS ll .�bS+ l2Jc6 12. a4 cxd4?! This reduction of the tension in the centre is the main cause of Black's difficulties. (after 12 . . . Wa5 13 .�d2 c4 14.0-0 �d7 Black maintains a good and safe position) 13.cxd4 �d7 14.0-0 Wc7 1S.�a3 0-0-0 16.�xe7 l2Jxe7 17. l2Jd3± White has an edge, thanks to his queenside pressure, Najer - Glek, Silivri 2003.

9 ..• hc3+ It is bad for Black to play 9 . . .

WaS 10.axb4 Wxa1 11 .lLlxdS ! ± with an obvious advantage for White.

It looks as though the move 9 . . . �aS would not solve Black's problems either. 10.dxcS (It is less effective for White to opt for 10. b4 l2Jxc3 11 .t/Jxc3 cxb4 12 .lLlbS b3+ 13.c3oo. Or ll . . . cxd4 12 .tiJbS �c7 13.f4 l2Jc6 14.�d3 a6 1S.l2Jxc7+ Wxc7 16.0-0 �d7 17.Wh4 Wd8 18 .Wf2 , Borriss - Huebner, Ger­many 2001 and after 18 . . . 0-0, Black's position is not at all worse ; 13.Wxd4 l2Jc6 14.l2Jxc7+ Wxc7 1S. �bS �d7 16.�xc6 Wxc6 17.�e3 Wa6 18.a4 l"1c8 19 .bS WaS+ 20 .�d2 Wb6 2 1 .Wd3oo Berg - Nepomni­achtchi, Wijk aan Zee 2007.) 10 . . . l2Jc6 ( 10 . . . Wc7 11.Wf4 l2Jxc3 12 . l2Jxc3 �xc3+ 13.bxc3 WxcS 14.�d2 l2Jd7 1S.l"1b1 a6 16.�d3 Wc7 17.0-0 WxeS 18.Wb4� with excellent compensation for White ; 13 . . . t/Jd7 14.�bS WxcS 1S.�xd7+ �xd7 16. 0-0i - The vulnerability of the dark squares in Black's camp more than compensates for

283

Chapter 34

White's weakened pawn-struc­ture, Spraggett - Vernay, La Mas­sana 2010) 11 .b4 tt:JxeS 12.1lfih3 :!c7 13.LLlxe4 dxe4 14.LLlc3 aS, Negi - Nepomniachtchi, Wijk aan Zee 2007 and in this position the move 1S.:!b2± creates serious problems for Black.

1 0 .bxc3 cxd4 11.cxd4 �a5+ 12.c3

12 . • • §J.d7 Complications arise after

Black's other attractive move -12 . . . l2Jc6 ! ? , but it looks as though White retains an edge at the end of the variation. 13 .1J.e3 hS (the line 13 . . . l2Je7 14.1lfih3 f6 might turn out to be better for Black than it looks at first sight) 14.1lfih3 bS 1S. fi:c1 (1S.f3 tt:Jxc3 16.1J.d2 b4oo) 1S . . . 'Wxa3 16.f3 l2Jb4 (the only move) 17.cxb4 ! (after 17.fxe4 tt:Jd3+ 18. md2 dxe4� the threat of bS-b4 provides Black with reasonable

284

counterplay for the sacrificed piece) 17 . . . 1lfixb4+ 18.LLlc3 l2Jxc3 19.§J.d2 'Wxd4 20 .hc3 (20.fi:xc3 b4) 20 . . . 1!fie3+ 21 .'it>d1 b4 22 .1J.d2 'WxeS 23.1lfih4 aS 24.1J.bS+ §J.d7 2S.fi:eU and despite the fact that he has sufficient material equiva­lent for the piece, White has the edge.

13.£3 White's alternative here is to

sacrifice the exchange : 13.fi:b1 §J.bS 14.fi:xbS 'WxbS 1S.f3 LLlgS 16. 'Wf4�. White has definite compen­sation, but Black has no reason to be afraid of this position.

13 • • • §J.b5 14.fxe4 he2 15. �h3 .hf1 16.:gxfl dxe4 17.mf2 lLld7oo - A very complicated posi­tion has arisen, in which Black has weak dark squares but can or­ganize an offensive on the light squares, Rytshagov - Anderton, Gausdal 2000.

Chapter 35 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)2jc3 tLlf6 4.i.g5 i.b4 5.e5 h6 6.i.e3

The idea of this move is the same as with 6.ic1 - White wish­es to preserve his dark-squared bishop.

The difference in the place­ment of the bishop is the key in­fluence on the further develop­ment of the game. On e3 the bish­op is developed and protects the d4-pawn, but it comes under at­tack in many variations. Inevita­bly a doubled pawn appears on c3 and this will be sacrificed in many variations.

6 • • .ti:'le4 7.�g4 Strong players almost never

play 7.lt:Jge2 and indeed this move should not trouble Black, for ex­ample : 7 . . . b6 ! ? 8.a3 lt:Jxc3 9 .lt:Jxc3 ixc3 10.bxc3 0-0 11 .if4 (11 .�g4 f5) f5 12 .exf6 E1xf6 13.ie3 �d6

and the opponents agreed to a draw, Kupreichik - Cibulka, Stockholm 1997.

The line 7.a3 ixc3 8.bxc3 is most likely to transpose to varia­tions we analyze below, since af­ter 8 . . . lt:Jxc3 or 8 . . . c5 White's most logical move is 9.�g4. However, an original position arose in this game: 8 . . . c5 9 .id3 �a5 10 .lt:Je2 cxd4 ll.ixd4 lt:Jc6 12.0-0 lt:Jxd4 13. cxd4 lt:Jc3 14.lt:Jxc3 �xc3 15.\Wg4 0-0= with approximate equality, Sutovsky - L'Ami, Wijk aan Zee 2010.

We shall analyze now a) 7 . . .

�f8 and b) 7 . . . g6 . At this particular point, in the

variation with 6.ie3 it seems to me that weakening the pawn-

285

Chapter 35

structure on the kingside with (7 . . . g6) is a lesser evil for Black than moving the king, although both moves have their pluses and minuses.

The pawn-advance 7 . . . gS ! ? is interesting, but weakens Black's position considerably and irrevo­cably.

Here are some typical examples: 8 .l2Jge2 hS 9 .'&f3 fS 10 .h4 g4

ll.'&f4, Aroshidze - Moskalenko, Banyoles 2007. Black must try to organize counterplay with 1l . . .cS .

8.a3 hS 9.'&d1 (For 9.'&f3 hc3+ 10.bxc3 cS 1l .�d3 - see 7 . . . g6 8.a3 hc3 9.bxc3 cS 10 .�d3) 9 . . . l2Jxc3 (9 . . . �xc3+ 10.bxc3 l2Jxc3 1l .'&d3 l2Ja4 12.l2Jf3 g4 13.�gS '&d7 14.�f6 l"lh6, Belov - Alavkin, Sochi 2004. White now have played 1S.LLlgS '&c6 16.h3 gxh3 17.l2Jxh3t with a dangerous initiative) 10 .'&d2 �aS ll .bxc3 cS ! ? 12 .dxcS '&c7 13.l2Jf3 (but not 13 .�d4 �d7 14.l2Jf3 g4 1S.LLlgS l2Jc6, Felgaer - Lemos, Mendoza 2008) 13 . . . g4 14.l2Jd4 '&xeS 1S .�bS+ l2Jd7 16.0-0t again with an initiative for White. Black must obviously try to save his king by castling kingside and later he will regret his active play with

286

his pawns. 8 .h4 hS 9.'&d1 (The spectacu­

lar queen-sacrifice 9.hxgS led to a quick sharing of the point after 9 . . . hxg4 10.l"lxh8+ M8 ll.l2Jxe4 dxe4 12 .l2Je2 cS 13.0-0-0 '&aS 14.l2Jc3 cxd4 1S.hd4 l2Jc6 16.l2Jxe4 l2Jxd4, draw, Shirov - Volkov, Rethym­non 2003.) 9 . . . cS 10.l2Jge2 l2Jc6 11. a3 cxd4 12.axb4 dxe3 (it is prefer­able for Black to opt for 12 . . . l2Jxc3 13.hgS L2Jxd1 14.hd8 LLlxf2 1S.�f6 l2Jxh1 16.hh8 l2Jxb4 17.l2Jxd4 l2Jg3 with approximate equality) 13. l2Jxe4 dxe4 14.'&xd8+ �xd8 1S. hxgS exf2+ 16.�xf2 l2Jxe5 17.l2Jc3 l2Jg4+ 18.�g3. White has the ini­tiative in this complicated end­game. We should like to quote this brilliant game to the very end : 18 . . . l2Je3 (Here it is prefera­ble for Black to play 18 . . .f5, with good chances of equalizing.) 19. l"le1 l2Jf5+ 20.�f4 l2Jd6 2l .g4 h4 22 .l"ld1 �e7 23.�eS l"ld8 24.l"lxh4 aS 2S.bS a4 26.l"lh7 a3 27.g6 a2 28.l"lxd6 l"lxd6 29.l"lxf7+ �e8 30. �xd6 a1'& 31.l2Jxe4 1-0 Lanin -Skorchenko, Sochi 2006.

a) 7 . . . �f8

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4Jc3 4Jj6 4. ilg5 ilb4 5.e5 h6 6 .ile3 4Je4 7. Wffg4 r;f;JB

8.a3 The alternatives for White are

not convincing: In the variation 8 .4Jge2 , you

can see one of the differences be­tween 6.iJ.e3 and 6.iJ.cl : 8 . . . c5 9.f3 4Jxc3 ! 10 .bxc3 cxd4 ! ll.hd4 iJ.a5 12.f4 4Jc6 with a good game for Black, Savchenko - Volkov, Dag­omys 2008;

After 8.iJ.d3 4Jxc3 9 .a3 , i t is equally attractive for Black either to capture the pawn with 9 . . . iJ.a5 10 .iJ.d2 4Ja4, or to simply preserve his bishop with 9 . . . 4Ja2+ lO.r;f;fl iJ.e7 11.l"1xa2 b6; he has a very good position in both cases.

8 ..• .h:c3+ 9.bxc3

9 . . . 4Jxc3 This move, followed by 10 . . .

4Jc6, i s based on the idea of pre­serving a closed pawn-structure.

Black's attempt to retain the possibility of organizing more ef­fective counterplay with 9 . . . c5 is in crisis at the present moment. 10.iJ.d3 4Jxc3 (10 . . . Wffa5 ll .CiJe2 cxd4 12 .hd4 4Jc6 13.0-0) ll .dxc5 4Jc6 (White should counter 11 . . . Wffa5 with the standard resource

12 .Wffb4, for example: 12 . . . Wffxb4 13.axb4 4Jc6 and here he can ob­tain a better position in two ways : 14.l"1a3 d4 15.iJ.xd4 4Jd5 16.c3 4Jxd4 17.cxd4 4Jxb4 18.iJ.e4± with superior prospects, Rytshagov -Brynell, Gothenburg 2002, or 14. iJ.d2 d4 15.4Jf3 4Jxb4 16.4Jxd4 4Jxd3+ 17.cxd3 4Jd5 18.r;!;e2± and the idea of 4Jd4-b5-d6 gives White an edge, Istratescu - Bressac, France 2009; White is again better following 14 . . . 4Je4 15.he4 dxe4 16.iJ.c3±; I should like to add that the move 12 .iJ.d2 is less promising for White, owing to 12 . . . 4Jc6.) 12 .4Jf3 f5 13.Wffh5 d4 (The computer is quite optimistic in its evaluation of the lines 13 . . . Wffe8 14.Wffh3 and 13 . . . iJ.d7 14.g4, but there are some purely human factors to consider here. In a posi­tion with material equality, White has a bishop pair and Black's king appears to be rather misplaced on f8 .) 14.iJ.d2 Wffd5 15.ilxc3 dxc3 16. l"1d1 Wffxc5 17.0-0 r;f;g8

18.iJ.xf5 ! ! A brilliant combina­tion ! 18 . . . exf5 19.l"1d6 ! iJ.e6 (This is Black's only move.) 20 .l"1xe6± White gained a clear advantage in the game Goloshchapov - Volkov,

287

Chapter 35

Istanbul 2003. After losing this game, one of the main experts in the MacCutcheon variation for Black - GM Volkov - switched to the defensive system with 9 . . . li'lxc3 and 10 . . . li'lc6.

lO . .id3 lDc6

ll.lDf3 White has also tried some oth­

er plans in this position. 11 .li'lh3 f5 12.'&g3 '&e8 (This is

Volkov's improvement on his game against Areshchenko, in which Black's position was very suspect: 12 . . . g5 13.f4 g4 14.li'lf2 li'le4 15 . .ixe4 dxe4 16.h3 gxh3 17. Ei:xh3 '&e7 18.c4 b6 19.d5t with a dangerous initiative for White, Areshchenko - Volkov, Gibraltar 2006.) 13 .'&h4 '&e7 14 . .ig5 '&f7 15. f3 �g8 16 . .id2 li'la4 17.Ei:b1 li'lb6 18.c3 li'lc4 19.icl '&e7 20.'&g3 li'lxa3 21 .Ei:a1 li'lc4 22 .li'lf4 '&fl 23. h4 h5 and Black gradually con­solidated his position and real­ized his extra material, Zenklusen - Volkov, Fuegen 2006.

11.h4 li'le7 12 .f3 ! ? (In the game Amonatov - Volkov, Khanty­Mansiysk 2009, White neglected

288

this prophylactic move and Black successfully solved his opening problems : 12 .li'lh3 li'lf5 13.li'lf4 li'le4 14.'&f3 c5 15 . .ixe4 dxe4 16. '&xe4 '&a5+ 17.id2 '&a4 18.c3 Ei:b8 19.g4 li'le7 20.f3 li'lc6 21 .ie3 b6 22 .0-0 .ia6 23.Ei:f2 Ei:c8 - 23 . . . �g8 - 24.li'lxe6+ fxe6 25.d5 '&xe4 26.fxe4+ �e7 27.dxc6 id3+ with the better position for Black.)

12 . . . li'la4 (It is possibly more precise to play 12 . . . li'lf5 13 .id2 li'la4) 13.Ei:b1 li'lb6 14.li'le2 li'lc4 15. icl li'lf5 16.'&f4 h5 17.li'lg3 g6? ! Now White manages to develop a powerful initiative. (After the simple exchange 17 . . . li'lxg3 18. '&xg3, Black's position is very sol­id, but he has no active prospects in sight. He should have support­ed his knight with the move 17 . . . '&d7 !?) 18.c3 b6 19.li'le4 !± and White's prospects are slightly bet­ter, Popov - Andreikin, St Peters­burg 2007.

ll . . . lDe7 White has also tried ll . . . li'la4

12 .0-0 (12.Ei:b1 ! ?) 12 . . . li'lb2 13.ie2 li'lc4 14.li'ld2 li'lxd2 15 . .ixd2 f5 (It is worth trying 15 . . . b6, with the idea of a7-a5, ic8-a6.) 16.exf6 '&xf6 17.c3 e5 18.'&g3� with pow-

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 Ci'Jf6 4. 11.g5 ffl.b4 5.e5 h6 6. 11.e3 Ci'Je4 7. �g4 g6

erful compensation for the sacri­ficed pawn, Naiditsch - Volkov, Stockholm 2011 .

12.§J.d2 The move 12 .h4, with the pos­

sible plan of h4-h5, Ci'Jf3-h4, Ei:h1-h3-g3, was tried in the game S. Solovjov - Yemelin, St . Peters­burg 2011 : 12 . . . Ci'Jf5 (it seems very promising for Black to opt for 12 . . . 11.d7 with the idea of ffl.bS.) 13 .§J.d2 Ci'Ja4 14.h5 (14.Ei:b1 !?) 14 . . . Ci'Jb2 15.ffl.e2 Ci'Jc4 16.11.b4+ 'kt>g8 17. �f4 b6 18 .g4 Ci'Je7 19.Ei:g1 cS 20. dxcS aS 2 1.ffl.c3 bxcS 22 .g5 Ci'JfS 23. ffl.d3 hxgS 24.Ei:xg5 d4 25.0-0-0. There arose a very sharp position. After the correct response 25 . . . �b6! White must defend very carefully.

12 • • )i)a4 13.l'�b1 ttJb6 14.h4 ttJc4 15.ffl.c1

(diagram) This is a very typical position

for the 10 . . . Ci'Jc6 variation. Black's extra pawn is irrelevant at the moment and he has no counter­play at all . His attempt to acti­vate his pieces ended up in White's favour: 15 • • • c5!? 16.

ffl.xc4 dxc4 17.dxc5 �a5+ 18. ttJd2 W/xc5 19. 0 - 0 c3, Ponkra­tov - Volkov, Izhevsk 2009. After 2 0 .ttJc4! Black's position is very worrying.

b) 7 • • • g6 8.a3 It would unconvincing for

White to opt for 8.Ci'Jge2 cS, or 8 . §J.d3 Ci'Jxc3 9.a3 §;.aS 10 .ffl.d2 Ci'Ja4.

8 • • • hc3+ 9.bxc3

We shall analyze now bl) 9 • • •

c5 and b2) 9 • • • ttJxc3.

b1) 9 •.• c5 This is a more active plan than

9 . . . Ci'Jxc3. 1 0 .§J.d3

289

Chapter 35

1 0 . . . h5 It is slightly worse for Black to

play 10 . . . tt'lxc3 ll .dxc5 tt'lc6 (11 . . . \WaS 12.1�b4 '\Wxb4 13.axb4;t; and White is a bit better, for example: 13 . . . tt'lc6 14.:i'l:a3 d4 15.hd4 tt'ld5 16.c3 tt'lxd4 17.cxd4 tt'lxb4 18.�e4 �d7 19.md2 �c6 20.f3;t; Iorda­chescu - Foisor, Naujac 2002 ; 19.hb7? ! :i'l:b8 20.:i'l:xa7 tt'lc6�, or 20 . . . �c6�) 12.tt'lf3 (12 .�d2 !?) 12 . . . d4 ( 12 . . . '\WaS 13.0-0 '\Wa4 14.'\Wxa4 - 14.'\Wh3 ! ? - 14 . . . tt'lxa4. The end­game is in White's favour. 15.�b5 tt'lc3 16.a4 �d7 17.:i'l:a3 tt'le4 18.:i'l:b1 tt'la5 and Black managed to hold the position, Hracek - Vaisser, Pula 1997. However, it is more promising for White to opt for 15.:i'l:ab1 a6 16.:i'l:fc1, or 16.h4 ! ?)

'\Wf6 :i'l:h7 16.0-0 and White's com­pensation for the pawn is more than sufficient.

For some unknown reason, in practice White has preferred to go in for the less promising capture of the pawn: 13 .hd4 tt'lxd4 14. tt'lxd4 (In the endgame after 14. '\Wxd4 '\Wxd4 15.tt'lxd4 Black has no problems at all : 15 . . . �d7 16.a4 :i'l:c8 17.md2 :i'l:xc5 18.tt'lb5, Paehtz - Socko, Ekaterinburg 2007 and here it would be correct to con­tinue with 18 . . . tt'lxb5 19.axb5 �xb5 20.:i'l:xa7 0-0 2l .:i'l:a5 :i'l:d8= with equality, exploiting the circum­stance that 22 .:i'l:b1?? fails to 22 . . . :i'l:xc2-+) 14 . . . '\WdS 15.tt'lf3 '\Wxc5 16.0-0 �d7 17.'\Wh4 �c6 18.:i'l:fel. Now Black has several attractive possibilities : 18 . . . hf3 ! ? This is the simplest. (It is also possible for him to choose 18 . . . md7!? Zakhartsov - Borovlev, Russia 2004, or 18 . . . :i'l:d8 19.'\Wf6 0-0 ! ? 20 .hg6 �xf3 2 l .�xf7+ :i'l:xf7 2 2 . '\Wxd8+ :i'l:f8 23.'\Wh4 �e2 with very sharp play; 2l .�d3 :i'l:xd3 22.cxd3 �e2 ; 22 .gxf3 :i'l:d7 23.mh1 mh7 24. :i'l:g1 :i'l:g8 25.:i'l:xg8 mxg8 26.:i'l:g1 + mf8=) 19.'\Wf6 0-0 20.'\Wxf3 :i'l:ad8 ! 21 .'\Wxb7 :i'l:d5= with equality.

(diagram) 11.'\Wf4 White can try some other re­

treats of his queen : ll.'\Wf3 tt'lxc3 12 .dxc5 tt'lc6 13.

'\Wf4 d4 14.�d2 g5 15.'\Wxg5 (the move 15.'\Wf6 has been analyzed in the variation with ll .'\Wf4) 15 . . . '\Wxg5 16.hg5 tt'lxe5 17.�f6 (17.

13 .�d2 ! '\Wd5 14.'\Wf4 '\WxcS 15. tt'lf3 :i'l:g8 18.�f6 tt'lxd3+ 19.cxd3

290

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJc3 CiJf6 4 . ilg5 ilb4 5.e5 h6 6. ile3 CiJe4 7. 111ig4 g6

lt:ldS 20 .ilxd4 j"lxg2 with advan­tage to Black, Sutovsky - Wang Hao, Poikovsky 2008) 17 . . . lt:lxd3+ 18.cxd3 fi:g8 19.hd4 lt:ldS (but not 19 . . . lt:lb5 20.ile5 with an edge for White) 20.g3 ild7. In the re­sulting endgame Black has suffi­cient compensation for the pawn, for example: 21 .ctJe2 (It is not ad­visable for White to play here 21 . lt:lf3 ilc6 22 .ctJe5? ! 'LJb4 23.'LJxc6 lt:lc2+ 24.@d2 'LJxa1 25.lt:la5 b6 26. fi:xa1 bxaS and Black's prospects are even slightly preferable, Kos­teniuk - Zhukova, Caleta 2010.) 21 . . .f6 22 .f4 (22 .j"lb1 eS�) 22 . . . ilc6 23. @d2 @f7� with the idea of lt:le7-f5.

An interesting try for White is the rarely played line 11.111ih3 ! ? lt:lxc3 12 .dxc5 d4 13 .ild2 111id5 14. 'LJf3 lt:lc6 (it is also good to capture the enemy cS-pawn with one of his knights : 14 . . . 'LJe4, or 14 . . . 'LJd7.) 15 .0-0 'LJxe5 16.lt:lxd4 lt:lxd3 17.ilxc3 'LJf4 18.111ig3 eS 19.fi:fe1 0-0 20.lt:lf3 f6 with a good posi­tion for Black, Van Kampen - Ko­tainy, Dortmund 2011 .

ll • • • g5 12. �f3 ci)xc3 13.dxc5 d4 14.ild2 ci)c6

15.�f6 (Here White has also tried 15.�g3 111id5 16.111ixg5 -16 .hg5 lt:le4 - 16 . . . 111ixe5+ 17. 'LJe2 = with equality, Nemcova -Guo Qi, Gaziantep 2008.) 15 • • .

�xf6 16.exf6 ci)a4 (It i s inferior for Black to continue with 16 . . . g4 17.ilxc3 dxc3 18.ctJe2 'LJeS 19.ile4 j"lb8 20 .h3 @d8 21 .CiJxc3 §ld7 with a very complicated endgame in which Black has to fight for equal­ity, Jakovenko - Vitiugov, Mos­cow 2007.) 17.hg5 ci)xc5 18. ci)f3 ci)xd3+ 19.cxd3 b6 2 0 .l'k1 ilb7 21. @d2 �d8 22.�c2 �d5 23. �hc1 @d7 24 • .if4 �c8= with ap­proximate equality, Areshchenko - Smerdon, Port Erin 2007.

b2) 9 • • • ci)xc3 1 0 .§ld3

291

Chapter 35

1 0 ..• b6!? In several games Nepomnia­

chtchi preferred the move 10 . . . t2lc6 , but tournament practice confirmed this to be too risky: ll .h4 t2le7 12 .h5 gS 13.t2le2 t2lxe2 14 .11tixe2 and White had more than sufficient initiative for the pawn, for example : 14 . . . c5 15.dxc5 d4 16.0-0-0 .id7 17.hd4 .ic6 18 . .ic3 11tid5 19.!:'1hg1 11tixc5 20 . .ib4 11tib6 21.c4 .ia4 22 .11tif3± with a clear advantage for him, Popov -Nepomniachtchi, Dagomys 2008, or 14 . . . t2lf5 15.g4 Lt:lxe3 16.fxe3 cS 17.c3 c4 18 . .ic2 11tia5 19.�d2± with an edge for White, Vuckovic -Nepomniachtchi, Plovdiv 2008.

ll.h4 .ia6 12.h5 g5 13.f4 gxf4 14J�'g7

Black obtained a good position after 14.hf4 �d7 15 . .id2 Lt:le4 16. he4 dxe4 17.11tixe4 �c8 18.Lt:lf3 .ib7? in the game Gashimov -Nakamura, Monaco 2011 .

14 ..• �d7 15.Y;bf7+ fie7 16. fixe7+ �xe7 17 • .bf4 hd3

White's prospects are prefera­ble after 17 . . . c5 18.dxc5 bxcS 19. Lt:lf3 (19.Lt:le2 .ixd3 20.cxd3 Lt:lxe2 21 .�xe2 Lt:lc6 22 .!:'1abU) 19 . . . hd3 20.cxd3 Lt:ld7 21 .Lt:lh4±

18.cxd3 �d7 19.ll:lf3 ltlc6 (diagram)

The evaluation of Black's de­fensive approach depends almost entirely on the proper assessment of the resulting endgame. The

292

weakness of Black's pawn on h6 is a important trump for White. Here Naiditsch recommends 2 0 . .id2 (In the game he played 20. �d2 Lt:lbS 21 .�e3 l:!af8?, but Black had sufficient counterplay, Naiditsch - Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2006) 2 0 •.. ltlb5 21 . .ie3, evaluating the position as some­what better for White. Indeed, Black must immediately find some very precise moves. We shall try to continue that variation along the most forcing lines : 21. . . gaf8 22.gfl gh7 23.a4 gxf3 24.gxf3 ltlbxd4 25.hd4 (or 25.!:'1f2 LLlfS 26 . .if4 l:!g7 and White cannot unblock the kingside) 25 . • . ltlxd4 26.gf2 and now Black can either restrain White's pawn-majority with 26 . • . gg7!?, or he can grab another pawn for the exchange with 26 .. • ltlc6. Fu­ture games in this ending will in­dicate its correct evaluation and determine whether it will become fashionable.

Chapter 36 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltJC3 tt:lf6 4.i.g5 i.b4 5.e5 h6 6.i.d2 hc3

7.bxc3 The move 7.hc3 ! ? is much

less popular, because it makes the standard queen-sortie �d1-g4, af­ter Black's knight moves, sense­less . Still , a move which keeps White's pawn-structure solid and intact should not be bad. 7 . . . tt:Je4.

Now: the awkward move 8 . .iaS with

the idea of provoking b7-b6 and

preventing Black's queen-sortie to the aS-square was convincingly refuted in the famous game Fis­cher - Petrosian, Curacao 1962 : 8 . . . 0-0 (but not 8 . . . b6 9.�b4 cS 10.�a3) 9 . .id3 tt:Jc6 10 .�c3 tt:Jxc3 1l.bxc3 f6 12.f4 fxeS 13.fxeS tt:Je7 14.tt:Jf3 cS 1S.O-O �aS 16.�e1 �d7;

8.tt:Je2 0-0 (8 . . . cS 9.dxcS tt:Jc6 10 .�d4 �e7 - 10 . . . �c7 !? - 11.tt::lc3 tt:JxcS 12.f4 0-0 13.�d2 �d7 14. 0-0-0 tt:Jxd4 1S.�xd4 j"\ac8 16. g3;t Sutovsky - Comas Fabrego, Pamplona 1998) 9.�b4 cS 10 .�a3 tt:Jc6 1l.f3 bS 12 .fxe4 b4 13.hb4 tt:Jxb4 14.c3 tt:Jc6� and Black has good compensation for the pawn, Svidler - Morozevich, Frankfurt 1999 ;

8 .�b4 cS 9 .hcS (It is very bad for White to play 9.dxcS? tt:Jxf2 . After 9 . .ia3? ! tt:Jc6 lO.dxcS, as played in the game Sulskis - Jes­sel, Cappelle la Grande 2009, White faces great problems after 10 . . . �aS+ ll .c3 d4 and Black has dangerous threats .) 9 . . . tt:JxcS 10. dxcS �aS+ (Black's compensation for the pawn after 10 . . . b6 ! ? 11. cxb6 �xb6 12 .j"lb1 .ia6 is highly questionable.) 1l.�d2 �xeS 12 .f4 tt:Jc6 13.tt:Jf3 aS 14.�d3 b6 1S.c3

293

Chapter 36

�a6 and Black has no problems at all and can even think about fight­ing for the advantage, Guseinov -N epomniachtchi, Porto-Karras 2011 .

7 • • • ll:le4 8.'�g4 lt>f8

9.�d3 9.lLlf3 c5 10 .�d3 t2Jxd2 1l.Wxd2

(it is not convincing for White to opt for 1l .t2Jxd2 t2Jc6, with the idea of �a5) - see 9 .�d3.

We should take a look at White's alternatives.

If in the main line White wants to use the plan with 11.h4 and l"lh1-h3, then it would be good for him to play the immediate 9.h4, depriving Black, after 9 .�d3 t2Jxd2 10.Wxd2 , of the possible transi­tion into an endgame with 10 . . . �g5, although, as we will see lat­er, this is not good for him in any case. 9 . . . c5 10.l"lh3 t2Jc6 1l.�d3 t2Jxd2 12 .Wxd2 c4 and on the board we have a position from the main line.

The move 9.�f4 enables White to avoid the necessity of placing his king on d2, but his queen is re­moved from its active position.

294

9 . . . c5 10 .�d3 tt'lxd2 1l.�xd2 'Llc6 12.'Llf3 c4 13 .�e2 We7! Black im­proves the position of his king. He has a very good plan at his dispos­al, which is quite typical for the system with 8 . . . Wf8, in response to 6.�d2. 14.a4 Wd7 15.0-0 Wc7 16.�c1 �d7= with approximate equality, Kargin - Volkov, Mos­cow 2008. In this position, which is very reminiscent of the Winaw­er variation 3 . . . �b4, White's dark­squared bishop is absent from the board, while Black has a knight, which works in Black's favour.

With the intricate move 9. �c1 ! ? White reaches a position from the variation with 6.�c1, having deprived his opponent of the possibility of 6 .�c1 tt'le4 7.�g4 Wf8 8.a3 �a5, and with the slight difference that his pawn is on a2 instead of a3 .

Strangely enough, this detail is very important: 9 . . . c5 10.�d3 (A continuation which was a possi­bility in the 6.�c1 variation, 10. 'Lle2? ! , is not good here : 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 �a5+ 12 .c3 tt'lc6 13.�f3 b5i and Black has the initiative. The absence of the pawn on a3 is important in the variation 13.

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4:Jc3 l1Jf6 4. iJ.g5 iJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6. iJ.d2 hc3

iJ.e3? !1Jb4!-+) 10 . . . 4:Jxc3 (Black can also try the risky-looking line : 10 . . . 1Wa5 11.4:Je2 cxd4 12 .0-0 dxc3 13 .iJ.xe4 dxe4 14.1Wxe4 4:Jc6 15.Eld1 g6. It is not clear how White can exploit the weakness of his oppo­nent's dark squares, for example: 16.1Wf3 1Wxe5 17.4:Jxc3 1Wf5 18.1We3 eS 19.4:Je4 \ilg7oo lordachescu -Vaisser, Aix-les-Bains 2011 .) 11 . dxc5 1Wa5

It is important here that White does not have the standard re­source 1Wg4-b4, which is possible with a pawn on a3. 12 .iJ.d2 1Wa4 13.h3 1Wxg4 (13 . . . !1Je4 14.4:Je2 4:Jd7 15.iJ.xe4 1Wxe4 16.1Wxe4 dxe4, Klo­vans - Dvoretsky, USSR 1974.) 14.hxg4 !1Je4 (14 . . . 4:Ja4 !?) 15.iJ.xe4 dxe4 16.f4 iJ.d7 17.4:Je2 'LJa6 18 .iJ.e3 Elc8 19 .Elb1 'LJxcS 20 .iJ.xc5+ ElxcS 2l .Elxb7 \ile7= Black can hold the balance in this endgame, Hebden - Lautier, London 1988.

9 .. . .!lJxd2 1 0 .\ilxd2 c5 After 10 . . . '\WgS+ 11.\WxgS hxgS

12 .g4 ! f6 13.h4 ! ? fxe5 14.dxe5 4:Jc6 15.4:Jf3 gxh4 16.Elae1 h3 17.Elh2 iJ.d7 18.Eleh1 \ile7 19.Elxh3 Elxh3 20.Elxh3± Black is slightly worse in this ending, Gdanski - Ditt­mar, Saint Vincent 2000.

We shall analyze now a) ll . .!lJ:£3 and b) ll.h4.

I should also mention that af­ter White's immediate 1l .dxc5, trying to transpose to the game Leko - Huebner, Black has the possibility of 11 . . .4:Jd7!?

a) ll . .!lJ:£3 Now, depending on circum­

stances, White can either prevent Black's counterplay on the queen­side, or develop his initiative by advancing his kingside pawns: h2-h4, g2-g4, g4-g5 . . .

Black i s faced with an impor­tant choice (it is more or less a matter of style . . . ) whether to close the centre immediately (11 . . .c4),

295

Chapter 36

which might lead to some difficul­ties in advancing his queenside pawns, or to allow the typical cap­ture on c5 after 11 . . .li'lc6 12.dxc5 ! ?

ll . . . c4 11. .. li'lc6 12 .dxc5 ! ? (The line :

12 .h4 c4 13 .ie2 b5 has been ana­lyzed below after the move order: 1l. .. c4 12 .ie2 b5 13.h4 li'lc6; simi­lar positions arise after 12.1l*'f4 c4 13 .ie2 b5.) . Here, the natural moves 12 . . . 'Wa5 13.'Wf4 Wxc5 14. li'ld4 id7 (It is too passive for Black to continue with 14 . . . li'lxd4 15.Wxd4 Wxd4 16.cxd4 id7 17. Elhb1 Elb8 18.a4 r:J1e7 19.a5t with a small but stable advantage for White, Brynell - Bagirov, Lenin­grad 1989.) 15.Elhb1 b6 (This is a recommendation in the annota­tions to the game Leko - Hueb­ner, instead, 15 . . . li'ld8?! 16.a4 Elc8 was tried in the game Morozevich - Vallejo Pons, Pamplona 1999, but of course with tragic conse­quences for the Spanish grand­master: 17.Elb3 a6 18 .h4 Elc7 19 .g4 li'lc6 20.li'lxc6 ixc6 2 l .'Wb4 - here Morozevich recommends 2l .h5t - 21 . . .'Wxb4 22 .cxb4t and White went on to convert his minimal advantage into the full point.) 16. a4 li'la5 17.ia6 leads to a position in which White succeeds in tem­porarily blocking his opponent's queenside, but Black's position is quite safe, Leko - Huebner, Dort­mund 2000. Black can consider Leko's suggestions - 17 . . . Eld8 or 17 . . . 'We7.

12 . .ie2 b5

296

12 . . . li'lc6 13.a4 a6 14.Elhb1 Elb8 15.h4 b5 16.axb5 axb5 17.'Wf4 We7 18 .'We3 r:J1e8 ! 19.h5 r:J1d8 20 .li'lg1 b4. White's attempts to impede Black's counterplay on the queen­side soon led to simplification and a draw: 2l .f4 id7 22 .cxb4 Elxb4 23.Elxb4 Wxb4+ 24.'Wc3 Wxc3+ 25.r:J1xc3 r:J1c7= Black easily equal­izes in this endgame and the op­ponents soon agreed to a draw, Khalifman - Short, Merida 2001.

13.h4 White is trying to consistently

implement his plan of g2-g4-g5. He has tested some other ideas

too. After 13.Elhb1 id7 14.'Wf4,

Black can try 14 . . . li'lc6 ! ? , exploit­ing the fact that after 15.Elxb5, he has the tactical shot 15 . . . g5 !+

The move 13.a4 breaks up Black's pawn-structure and pre­vents the threat of b5-b4, but pre­sents Black with other possibili­ties : 13 . . . bxa4 14.Elxa4 id7 15. Elaa1 li'lc6 16.h4 aS 17.'Wf4 a4 18. g4, Ganguly - Volkov, Moscow 2007. After the immediate reac-

l .e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. liJc3 liJf6 4. §J.g5 JJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6. JJ.d2 hc3

tion 18 . . . 4Ja7 19.gS tt:JbS, Black's position is quite satisfactory.

13 ••• tt:Jc6 14.a3 Or 14J"!hbl l"i:b8 1S.a3 aS. 14 • • • a5 15.\Wf4 i.d7

16.g4 (An equal endgame is reached after 16.l"i:hbl l"i:b8 17.hS %'fe7 18.g4 ..t>e8 19.\We3 @d8 20 . l"i:gl b4 21 .axb4 axb4 22 .cxb4 \Wxb4+ 23.\Wc3 \Wxc3+ 24 . ..t>xc3 f6= Madl - Huebner, Loeberitz 2001 .) 16 • • • b4 17.axb4 (17.gS bxc3+ 18 . ..t>xc3 4Je7+) 17 • • • axb4 18.cxb4 tl:lxb4 19.\We3 tl:la2 ! This is an important resource. Black's knight cannot retreat, but it turns out that it is perfectly placed on the a2-square ! 2 0 . l"i:hbl ti'a5+ 21.c3 \!;>e7 2 2 • .idl l"i:hb8 with a very good game for Black, Berg - Renman, Sweden 2003.

b) ll.h4 This plan is based on exerting

piece-pressure against Black's kingside. White's rook is deployed on the third rank and his knight is developed on f4.

ll • • • tl:lc6 The move 11 . . . c4 leads more or

less to similar positions. 12.l"i:h3 c4 Now White can retreat his

bishop to two different squares with the same effect.

13.i.e2 An important point here is

that White cannot play 13J"!g3 cxd3 14.\Wxg7+ @e7 1S.\Wf6+ @d7 16.\Wxf7+ tt:Je7+ when Black has a big advantage, since 17J"!g6 l"i:f8 18.\Wxe6+ @e8 does not work and so White can resign, Kopec -Smith, Virginia Beach 2004.

13.i.fl bS 14.l2Je2 aS (It is also good for Black to play here 14 . . . l"i:b8 1S.a3 \WaS, exploiting the fact

297

Chapter 36

that White's rook on a1 is unde­fended. 16.�f3 �d7 17.g4 rile? 18.�g2 b4 19.cxb4 l"1xb4 20.axb4 �xa1 2l .�a3 �xa3 22 .!"1xa3 li:Jxb4 23.!"1xa7 !"1b8 24.f4 li:Jc6 25.!"1a1 f6 26.h5 - An equal endgame with an already familiar pawn-struc­ture has arisen and here the play­ers agreed to a draw, Volokitin -Vallejo Pons, Wijk aan Zee 2009.) 15.a3 �d7 16.li:Jf4

16 . . . !"1g8 17.!"1f3 rile? 18.li:Jh5 b4 19 .�f4 bxc3+ 20 .rile1 �e8 21 . l"1xc3 . The position on the board is from the game Leko - Korchnoi, Essen 2002. Later Leko analysed the following sample variation : 2l . . .�b6 22 .!"1d1 �b2 23.!"1g3 �xc2 24.li:Jxg7 !"1b8 25.li:Jf5+ exf5 26. l"1xg8 �c3+, evaluating the posi­tion as equal, and we agree with this .

Black has a very good alterna­tive here in 16 . . . li:Je7 (instead of 16 . . . !"1g8) and this emphasizes the reliability of his position : 17.li:Jh5 li:Jf5 (Black obtained an excellent game with 17 . . . !"1g8 ! ? 18.�f4 b4 19.axb4 axb4 20.!"1xa8 bxc3+ 21 . l"1xc3 �xa8 22 .g4 �a5 and the awkward positioning of his pieces is only temporary. He is threaten-

298

ing li:Je7-c6 and later li:Ja7-b5, or �a5-b6. White prevented this, but allowed the activation of Black's rook. 23.g5 hxg5 24.hxg5 !"1h8 and he has the edge, Muzy­chuk - Paehtz, Krasnoturinsk 2007.) 18.�f4 b4 19 .�e2 bxc3+ (19 . . . bxa3 !?) 20 .rilxc3 �b6 21 . !"1hh1 l"1g8 22 .g4 li:Je7 23.!"1hb1 �a7 24.!"1b2 l"1b8 (it is also good for Black to play 24 . . . a4 ! ?) 25.!"1ab1 !"1xb2 26.rilxb2 li:Jg6 27.�d2 li:Jxh4 and Black has an extra pawn and the better prospects, Fressinet -Belozerov, Izmir 2004.

13 . . . b5

14.�f4 This move is played with the

idea of increasing the effect of the advance of the g-pawn by moving the bishop to the h5-square.

If 14.!"1f3 a5 15.a3 �d7 16.li:Jh3 li:Je7oo Arnold - Almasi, Budapest 1997.

Or 14.a3 a5 15.�f4 !"1a7 16.�h5 �e7 17.!"1g3 l"1h7 18.!"1f3 rileS 19. \Wg3 g6 20 .!"1f6 b4 2l .�d1 h5 22 .li:Jh3 rild8 23.li:Jf4 �d7 24.\WgS bxc3+ 25. rile3 !"1c7 26 .li:Jxh5 gxh5 27.\Wg8+ �e8 28.\Wxh7 li:Jxd4oo

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.luc3 CiJf6 4. JJ.g5 JJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6. JJ.d2 hc3

with rather unclear complications in which Black prevailed in the end, Gashimov - Korchnoi, Dago­mys 2008.

14J''1g3 l::lg8 1S.'Wf4 (1S.CiJh3 CiJe7) 1S . . . JJ.d7 16.JJ.hS JJ.e8 17.l::lf3 fS. Black's fS-pawn can become a target for White's undermining move g2-g4 but nevertheless this typical blow is in Black's favour. 18.he8 lt>xe8 19.hS aS 20.g4 l::lf8 21 .CiJh3 b4+ and his position is preferable, Shukh - Najer, Dago­mys 2010.

14 • • • i.d7 Black has also tried 14 . . . 'We7

1S.JJ.hS lt>e8 16.a3 aS 17.l::lg3 l::lg8 18.CiJf3 l::la7 19.CiJh2 'it>d8 20 .JJ.e2 b4 21 .axb4 axb4 22 .l::lxa7 'Wxa7 23. cxb4 CiJxd4 24.'We3 'Wa1 2S.'Wa3 CiJb3+ 26.l::lxb3 'Wd4+ 27.\t>c1 cxb3 28.'WaS+ with a draw by a perpet­ual check, Volokitin - Korchnoi, lgualada 200S.

15.i.h5 It is premature for White to

play 1S.g4?! b4 ! 16.cxb4 'Wb6 17. l::lb1 CiJxd4 18.c3 CiJc6 19.a4 'Wc7 20.l::le3 d4 21 .l::le4, Areshchenko -

Yemelin, St. Petersburg 2009. Here Black wrongly refrained from the attractive possibility of 2l . . .l::lc8 ! 22 .<i>e1 d3, with advan­tage to Black.

15 • • • i.e8 16.ll:\e2 a5 17.g4 b4

18.g5 The preparatory move 18.l::lah1

was tested in the game Kinder­mann - Reefschlaeger, Alten­kirchen 1999: 18 . . . l::la7 19.gS CiJe7 20.JJ.g4. Here Black missed a wonderful opportunity to close the kingside with the move 20 . . . hS ! , since White would lose a piece after 21 .he6? 'it>g8 22 .JJ.fS g6.

18 • • • hxg5 19.hxg5 'it>e7 (Now, according to an analysis by Acs and Hazai, Black can obtain a very good position with 19 . . . g6 ! ? 20 .l::lah1 ! bxc3+ 21 .CiJxc3 'Wb6.) 2 0 .�ahl bxc3+ 21.tt:\xc3 'Wb6 22.�h4 �b8 23.i.f3 �xh4 24. �xh4 'Wb2 25.g6 tt:\b4 26.i.dl tt:\d3 Black's prospects in this rather complicated position are not at all worse, Acs - Almasi, Ohrid 2001.

299

Part 9

The Steinitz Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltk3 tlJf6 4.e5

The move 4.e5 introduces the Steinitz variation and the game usu­ally develops into the sort of complex positional struggle of which the first World Champion was so fond! Nowadays, the tabia of the varia­tion arises after 4 . . . tt'lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt'lf3 tt'lc6 7.�e3. All the typical fea­tures of the French defence are displayed here - the passive bishop on c8 and the undermining pawn-breaks against White's centre, ranging from the routine f7-f6 and c7-c5 to the more classical b5-b4 and the ultra-modern g7-g5. White's plan is often based on his control of the d4-outpost; posted there, his knight is usually very powerful. His active play is usually connected with a pawn-storm on the kingside (particu­larly in positions with opposite sides castling) , or with a combination of piece-pressure and the pawn-break f4-f5. Players of the black pieces are attracted to this line because it is reliable but they can also play it actively and sharply. I believe that at present this is a very important variation of the French defence.

300

Chapter 37 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lDc3 lDf6

We shall now analyze a) 4 . .id3 and b) 4.e5.

White enters an inferior ver­sion of the Exchange variation with 4.exd5 exdS S . .igS .ie7 6 .i.d3 'Llc6 7.'Llge2 'Llb4 8.'Llg3 'Lle4 9 . i.xe7 'Llxc3 10.i.xd8 'Llxd1 1U '1xd1 c;t>xd8 12 .c3 'Llxd3+ 13J''1xd3 aS 14J''1e3 l"la6= Short - Morozevich, Sarajevo 2000.

a) 4 . .id3 Sometimes White maintains

the tension in the centre in this fashion.

4 . . . c5 This is the best move for Black.

He tries to undermine his oppo­nent's centre.

5.exd5 I think it is a bit artificial for

White to play 5.'Llf3 cxd4 6.'Llxd4 eS (White can counter 6 . . . 'Llc6 with 7.i.b5! ?) 7.'Llf3 d4 (It is worse for Black to choose 7 . . . dxe4 8 . i.b5+ i.d7 9.'Llxe5 i.b4 10.'Llxd7 'Llbxd7 11 .0-0 i.xc3 12 .bxc3 0-0 13 .i.a3 l"le8 14.l"lb1 and White has the initiative.) 8.'Lle2

8 . . . i.g4. This is a good move. Black exploits the fact that his eS­pawn is taboo. 9.'Llg3 (Black ob­tains an excellent position after 9.c3 i.xf3 10.gxf3 dxc3 11 .'Llxc3 'Llc6 12.f4 i.d6 13.fxe5 i.xeS 14.f4 i.d4 15.Wf3 0-0 16.i.d2 'Llb4 17. i.b1 l"le8 18.c;t>fl l"lc8, with a con­siderable advantage for Black, Mantell Lorenzo - Comas Fabre­go, Linares 1998.) 9 . . . i.b4+ (This

301

Chapter 37

is a typical manoeuvre. In pawn structures of this type, which are completely untypical for the French defence, it is advanta­geous for Black to exchange the dark-squared bishops and he can achieve this here.) 10 .id2 4Jc6 ll .ixb4 4Jxb4 12 .0-0 0-0 13.a3 4Jxd3 14.cxd3 �b6 15 .h3 ixf3 16. �xf3 g6 and Black has the better position.

5 . . . cxd4

6)L\b5 Here White often plays 6.ib5+

id7, for example : 7.�xd4 ixb5 8 .4Jxb5 4Jxd5 9.4Je2 4Jc6 10 .�a4 a6 (After 10 . . . ic5 ! ? Black has chances of seizing the initiative.) 11 .4Jbd4 4Jb6 12 .4Jxc6 4Jxa4 13. 4Jxd8 Elxd8 14.0-0 ie7 15.b3 if6 16.Elbl lLlc3 17.4Jxc3 ixc3= Stein­itz - Blackburne, Vienna 1873, or 7.ixd7+ 7 . . . �xd7 8.'Wxd4 4Jc6 ! 9 .�dl exd5 10.4Jf3 d4 (It would be too risky for Black to opt for 10 . . . 0-0-0?! 11 .0-0 4Je4 12 .ie3 f5 13.4Jb5 a6 14.4Jbd4 id6 15. 4Jxc6 bxc6 16.�d3 �b7 17.c4 d4 18.ig5 Eld7 19.Elabl h6 20 .id2 ib8 2 1.b4 g5 22 .a4 Elg8 23.c5 and

302

White's attack looks very danger­ous, Von Bardeleben - Black­burne, Frankfurt 1887. Attentive readers might have noticed that this variation was very popular in the 19th century. It is positionally solid, but the game is not very concrete or tactical . 11 .4Je2 ib4+ 12 .id2 d3 13.cxd3 'Wxd3 14.0-0 ixd2 and the players agreed to a draw, Khalikian - Stezko, Yere­van 1980.

6 .. )l:\xd5

7)L\f3 7.4Jxd4 e5 ! This sharp move

enables Black to obtain a fine po­sition. (If 7 . . . ib4+ 8.id2 �g5 9. ixb4 4Jxb4 10.4Jgf3 4Jxd3+ 11. �xd3 �a5+ 12 .c3 4Jc6 13.4Jxc6 bxc6 14.'Wd6 ib7 15.0-0-0 Eld8 16.'Wxd8+ 'Wxd8 17.Elxd8+ lt>xd8, Black might have problems in this endgame, Ljubojevic - Padevsky, Amsterdam 1972 .) 8.'We2 (8.4Jdf3 4Jb4 9.ic4 'Wxdl+ 10.\t>xdl f6 and only Black can think about an ad­vantage.) 8 . . . ib4+ 9.c3 0-0 10. 4Jb3 4Jxc3 (10 . . . e4 ! ?) ll.bxc3 ixc3+ 12 .id2 ixa1 13.4Jxal lLlc6, Black has some initiative in a po-

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lDc3 lDf6 4.e5 lDfd7 5. LD.f3 c5

sition with equal material. 7 • . . <tlc6 7 . . . ib4 + ! ? 8.id2 0-0 9.0-0

'Wb6 10.hb4 tLlxb4 11.tLlbxd4 LD8c6 12.ltJxc6 bxc6=

8.<tlbxd4 <tlxd4 9.<tlxd4 <tlb4 1 0 . 0 - 0 <tlxd3 11.'Wxd3 ie7 12.if4 0 - 0 13.�adl

13 . . . �b6 (Here Black could have tried 13 . . . if6 ! ? 14.tLlb5 'Wxd3 15J'lxd3 e5 with a good game.) 14.<tlb3 a5 15JWg3 a4 16.ic7 'Wb5 17.<tld4 �c5 18.�fel b5 19. �d3 b4 2 0 .c3 �a6 21.if4 if6 - Black's position is preferable, Ljubojevic - Bednarski, Bath 1973 .

b) 4.e5 <tlfd7

Of course White's main line here is 5.f4 and in this chapter we shall deal with bl) 5.<tlf3 and b2) 5.<tlce2.

bl) 5.<tlf3!? White sometimes prefers to

defend his centre with pieces. 5 . . . c5

6.dxc5 Once in a while White even

plays 6 .ib5 here, but I believe Black has various ways to solve all his problems. Here is just one of his possibilities : 6 . . . a6 7.hd7 + ixd7 8 .0-0 tLlc6 9J"le1 'Wc7 10 .ie3 cxd4 ll.hd4 ie7 12.tLle2 0-0 13.'Wd2 l:'i:fc8 14.l:'i:ac1 b5 15.tLlg3 tLlxd4 16.<tlxd4 'Wc4 17.b3 'Wc3 18 .'Wxc3 l:'i:xc3 with a considerable advantage for Black, Buckley -Riazantsev, Cannes 1997.

White has also tried 6.ie3? ! tLlc6 7.ib5 cxd4 8.ttlxd4 'Wc7 (Here Black could consider 8 . . . ttldxe5 9.f4 a6 10.fxe5 axb5 11. 0-0 ic5 12 .ttlcxb5 0-0 13.Wh1 ie7 14.tLlf3 l:'i:a4 !? and his position is preferable.) 9.f4 ic5 10 .'Wd2 a6

303

Chapter 37

11 .i.e2 0-0. A position from the Classical variation has arisen, ex­cept that White had lost a tempo. 12 .0-0-0 b5 13.li:J xc6 �xc6 14. i.xc5 'Llxc5 15.i.f3 i.b7 16.f5 b4 17.f6 gxf6 18 .�h6 fxe5 19.�g5+ wh8 2 0 .�f6+ Wg8 2 1 .�g5+ wh8 22 .�f6+ Wg8 23 .�g5+, draw, Rausis - Bricard, Paris 1995.

6 • . . 'Llc6 The move order is important. It is less precise for Black to

play 6 . . . i.xc5, since White then has the possibility of leaving his queen's bishop on c1 for the time being: 7.i.d3 'Llc6 8 .�e2 . It is highly probable that he will have to deploy his bishop on f4 in any case, but Black should force him to do so.

7.i.f4 .ixc5 Black can also continue with

7 . . . 'Llxc5. For example, Ian Nepo­mniachtchi is an keen fan of the following line for White : 8 .h4 a6 9.a3 b5 10 .h5 h6 1U''lh4 i.b7 12 . ig3 �b6 13.b4 'Lld7 14.�d2. One cannot expect to gain an advan­tage with such wild play, but you can certainly confuse your oppo-

304

nent in that fashion, as ilack's next move shows - 14 . . . �d8 15.�e3 'Llb6 16.l"ld1 'Lle7 17.'Lld4 'Llc4 18 .i.xc4 bxc4 19.l"lg4 �d7 20 .ih4 'Llc6 21 .'Llce2 'Llxd4 22 . 'Llxd4± Nepomniachtchi - Lintch­evski, Dagomys 2009.

8.i.d3

8 . . . f6 This is Black's most concrete

response. The play is much more com­

plex after 8 . . . a6 9 .�d2 b5 10 .h4 �b6 11 .Wfl f6 12 .exf6 'Llxf6 13.l"le1 0-0 14.h5 l"la7 15.l"lh4 l"le7 16.h6 g6 17.a3 'Llh5 18.l"lxh5 gxh5, but even though White won that game, his compensation for the exchange was insufficient, Nepo­mniachtchi - Volkov, Novo­kuznetsk 2008.

Not 8 . . . 0-0?? 9.i.xh7+ Wxh7 10.'Llg5+ wg6 11 .�d3+ f5 12.�g3 'Lldxe5 13.'Llxe6+ 'Llg4 14.'Llxd8 ix£2+ 15.�xf2 'Llxf2 16.'Llxc6 'Llxh1 17.'Lle5+-

9.exf6 �xf6 This is an interesting idea for

Black and it less well-analyzed than 9 . . . 'Llf6.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4:Jc3 4:Jj6 4.e5 4:Jfd7 5. 4:Jj3 c5

1 0 .i.g5 Sometimes White plays 10.

.tg3 0-0 11 .0-0 4:Jd4 12 .4:Jxd4 hd4 13.�e2 (13.�d2 4:Jc5 14.E1ae1 4:Jxd3 15.cxd3 .td7 16.4:Je2 .tb6 17.'i!ih1 E1ae8 18.4:Jg1 .tbs 19 . .td6 E1f7 2 0.f4 .td4 21.4:Je2 E1d8 22 . .ta3 .tb6 23.4:Jc3 .tc6= Lein - Dvoret­sky, Moscow 1973.) 13 . . . 4:Jc5 14. ltJbS hb2 15.l"1ab1 .td7 16.4:Jc7 E1ac8 17 . .td6 E1f7 (17 . . . .td4 ! ? 18. hf8 E1xf8 19.4:Jb5 .txbS 20 .l"1xb5 a6 21 .l"1bb1 bS and Black has excellent compensation for the exchange.) 18 .hc5 E1xc7 19 .ha7 E1f8 with an playable game, Guseinov - Stellwagen, Baku 2002 .

1 0 . . . �£7

ll.�e2 White occasionally plays 11 .

.th4 ttJdeS (It was quite unclear what Black was trying to achieve with 11 . . . h6 12 .0-0 0-0 13 . .tg3 4:Jf6 14.4:Je5 ttJxeS 15.he5 .td7 16. 'i!ih1 .tc6 17.f4 4:Je4 18 .�e2 4:Jd6 19.4:Jb5 hbS 20 .hb5 ltJfS 2 1 .c3 4:Je3 22 .E1f3 4:Jg4 23 .h3 ttJxeS 24. �xeS= Tsigelnitskiy - Leniart, Moscow 2006.) 12 .4:Jxe5 ttJxeS

13 . .tg3 (13 . .tb5+ .td7 14.�e2 4:Jg6 1S . .tg3 0-0 16.0-0 .tc6 17.E1ad1 E1ad8 18 .hc6 bxc6 19.4:Ja4 .td6 20 .c4 4:Jf4 2 1..txf4 hf4= Rogers - Gurevich, Batumi 2001) 13 . . . 0-0 14.0-0 4:Jc6 15.�d2 a6 16.a3 �f6 17.'i!ih1 .td4 18.f4 .td7 19.l"1ae1 g6? ! This is a rather strange move. Why is Black weakening his king voluntarily? (Or 19 . . . E1ae8 ! ? with chances for both sides.) 20 .4:Jd1 .txb2 21 .4:Jxb2 �xb2 22 .l"1b1 with an initiative for White, Kosintseva - Xu Yuhua, Krasnoturinsk 2005.

After 11.0-0 0-0 12 . .th4 �hS ! ? 13 . .tg3 a6 14.�e2 4:Jf6 15. E1ad1 .td7 16.4:Ja4 .ta7 17.c4 4:Jb4 18.4:Jc3 4:Jxd3 19.�xd3 E1ac8 20 . cxdS exdS 21 .4:Jxd5 �xdS 22 . �xdS+ ltJxdS 23.l"1xd5 .te6 24.l"1d2 .txa2, White ended up in an infe­rior endgame, Sengupta - Gurev­ich, Gibraltar 2007.

11 . . . 0 - 0 12. 0 - 0 - 0 h6 13 .

.th4

13 . . . a6 Black has a reasonable alter­

native here in 13 . . . .tb4!? , since it is ineffective for White to contin­ue with 14.4:Jb5 (Or 14.�e3 hc3

305

Chapter 37

15.bxc3 e5 with an excellent game for Black.) 14 . . . a6 15.l2Jc7 \Wf4+ 16.'\t>b1 \Wxc7 17.\Wxe6+ j:\f7 18. ih7+ c1s . .ig6 ttJb6 ! ) 1s . . . mfs 19. \Wxd5 l2Jf6 20 . .ixf6 gxf6 and White's attack has reached a dead end, while Black has retained an extra piece.

14 • .ig3 c!Llb6 15.'it>b1 .id7 16. ghfl "MM'h5 17.a3 gac8 18. gde1 g£6 19.1M!'d2 1MI'f7

Black has deployed his pieces in a rather unusual fashion, but he still has a sound and solid posi­tion.

2 0 .c!Lle5 c!Llxe5

21.he5. This move is over­optimistic. 2l .j:\xe5 !? 21. •• gxf2 22.1MI'd1 "MM'e7 23,gxf2 ixf2 24. gfl .ic5 25.1Mfh5 gf8 26.ge1 "MM'g5 27.1Mfxg5 hxg5 and Black re­alized his extra pawn, Morozevich - Bareev, Sarajevo 1999.

b2) 5.c!Llce2 This move is practically

White's only real alternative to the Classical system with 5.f4. He wants to play the Advance varia-

306

tion with his knights developed to unusual squares. Although Black's knight on d7 is not well placed, White's knight on e2 is impeding the moves of all his pieces at the moment. I think that this variation has lost its popular­ity because White is trying for too much, and a single inaccuracy might bring him very close to dis­aster. Playing in that fashion is not to everyone's taste.

5 • • • c5 6.f4 It is amazing but if White plays

6.c3, Black has more possibilities. For example, he can opt for 6 . . . cxd4! ? (Or 6 . . . b5 ! ? This i s an orig­inal and attractive move. 7.a3? ! This is a rather feeble reaction by White. Now Black's concept is justified. White does not need to provide his opponent with a tar­get for attack and could play 7.f4 instead. 7 . . . cxd4 8.cxd4 b4 9.a4 .ia6 10.f4 l2Jc6 11. b3 ie7 12 .l2Jf3 j:\c8 13.l2Jg3 ixf1 14.l2Jxf1 f6 ! 15. exf6?! ixf6 16.j:1b1 0-0 17.l2Je3 "MM'b6 18 . .ib2 l2Je7 and Black can be quite happy with the outcome of the opening battle, Nepomnia-

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l2Jc3 l2Jf6 4.e5 C2Jfd7 5. l2Jce2 c5

chtchi - Vitiugov, Moscow 2010.) 7.cxd4 f6, immediately attacking White's centre.

White cannot harm his oppo­nent with 8.exf6?! C2Jxf6 9.C2Jf3 C2Jc6 10.C2Jc3 �d6 ll .g3 (After 11 . �d3 0-0 12 .0-0, there arises a fa­vourable (to Black) version of the variation with 3.C2Jd2 C2Jf6, for ex­ample: 12 . . . �d7 13.�e3 �e8 14. C2Jg5 We7 15.f4 h6 16.C2Jh3 �h5 17. �e2 �xe2 18.Wxe2 Wf7 19.E1ad1 E1ae8 20 .\t>h1 C2Je7 Black he has a very good game, Sevillano - Ako­bian, Los Angeles 2003.) 1 1 . . .0-0 12 .�g2 �d7 13 .0-0 Wb6 14.a3 E1ae8 15.b4 E1e7 16.C2Ja4 Wc7 17. l2Jc5 �e8 18 .�b2 �h5 19.Wd2 b6 20 .C2Jd3 C2Je4 2l .We3 E1ef7 22 .C2Jfe5 he5 23.C2Jxe5 C2Jxe5 24.dxe5 �f3 0-1 Okkes - M.Gurevich, Hoo­geveen 2004.

After 8.C2Jf4 Black should try to simplify the position with 8 . . . �b4+ 9 .�d2 Wb6 10.hb4 Wxb4+ 11 .Wd2 Wxd2+ 12 .\t>xd2 lt>e7 13. exf6+ gxf6 14.E1e1 C2Jb6 15.C2Jf3 lt>d6. This is an important finesse. (It is less precise for Black to con­tinue with 15 . . . l2Jc6 16.�b5 ! �d7 17.hc6 bxc6 18.E1e2 E1ae8 19.E1he1 lt>f7 20.\t>c1 C2Jc4 2l .C2Jd2 and

White obtained an edge, which he converted successfully into a full point in the game Anand - Ba­reev, Shenyang 2000.) 16.�d3 C2Jc6 17.C2Jh5 E1f8 (17 . . . e5 ! ?) 18. �xh7 e5 19.dxe5+ fxe5 20 .\t>c1 �g4 21 .l2Jg3 �xf3 22 .gxf3 C2Jd4 with advantage to Black, Ara­khamia-Grant - Gleizerov, Port Erin 2001 .

The game becomes very sharp after 8.f4 fxe5 9.fxe5 (9.dxe5 Wb6 10.C2Jc3 C2Jc6 ll.C2Jf3 �b4 12 .�d2 l2Jc5 13.a3 hc3 14.hc3 0-0 15. g3 �d7 16.b4 C2Je4 17.�d4 Wd8 18 .�e3 E1c8 19 .�d3 a5 20.Wb1 C2Je7 2l .C2Jd4 C2Jf5 and the players agreed to a draw, Bologan - Short, Beijing 2000; 9 . . . C2Jc6 10.C2Jf3 �b4+ ll.C2Jc3 C2Jc5 12 .�e3 Wa5 13 .Wc2 0-0 14J'k1 d4 15.C2Jxd4 C2Jxd4 16.�xd4 E1xf4 17.E1d1 'Wc7 18 .�e2 �d7. White has problems, Shirov - Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993)

9 . . . �b4+ (Strangely enough, White gains a good position after 9 . . . Wh4+ 10.C2Jg3 �b4+ 1Lit>f2 0-0+ 12.C2Jf3 C2Jc6 13.�e3, since Black's activity has ebbed away. There followed 13 . . . C2Jdxe5 14. dxe5 C2Jxe5 15.\t>g1 Wf6 16.Wd4 �d6 17.�e2 �d7 18.E1c1 b6 19.a3

307

Chapter 37

tt:Jxf3+ 20 .gxf3 �e5 21 .j!,l{d2 hb2 22 .Elc7 Elf7 23.'tt>g2 �xa3 24.Elfl and White won from this complex position, Morozevich - Gurevich, Moscow 2001.) 10.'tt>f2 0-0+ 11. LLlf3 tt:Jc6 12.a3 (If 12 .�e3, Black can try 12 . . . tt:Jb6 ! ?) 12 . . . LLldxe5 (It looks very strong for Black to play the novelty 12 . . . �a5 ! with the idea of transferring the bishop to the b6-square, attacking White's cen­tre and his king. 13 .�e3 �b6 14.h4 LLldxe5 15.dxe5 d4 and Black seiz­es the initiative.) 13.axb4 (13.dxe5 �c5+ 14.'tt>e1 tt:Jxe5 15.tt:Jxe5 �f2+ 16.'tt>d2 j!,l[g5+ 17.'tt>c2 j!,l{xe5 18. 'tt>b1 �d7 19.LLlg3 Elac8 20 .�d3 �e8 2l .�d2 �g6 22 .hg6 hxg6 23 .�c3 d4 24.�b4 Elf4 25.\t>a2. White realized his extra piece, Popov - Danin, Smolensk 2005.) 13 . . . "*'h4+ 14.'tt>g1 LLlxf3+ 15.gxf3 Elxf3 16.LLlg3 LLlxd4 17.�g2 Elf7 18 .�e3 tt:Jf5 19.LLlxf5 Elxf5 20 .b5 �d7 21 .b6 a6 22 .j!,l{d4 j!,l{h5 23.h3 �c6 24.'tt>h2 and Black's compen­sation was insufficient in the game Polgar - Hernandez, Meri­da 2000.

6 . . .c!i)c6

308

In answer to 6 . . . b5, the most precise line for White seems to be 7.c3 b4 (If 7 . . . tt:Jc6 then White plays 8.a3 ! , impeding Black's pawn-advance b5-b4. 8 . . . cxd4 9. tt:Jxd4 LLlxd4 10.cxd4 b4 ll .a4 j!,l{a5 12 .�d2 �e7 13.tt:Jf3 0-0 14.�b5 LLlb6 15. b3 �a6 16.ha6 j!,l{xa6 17. a5 LLld7 18 .j!,l{e2 LLlb8 19.'tt>f2 j!,l{xe2+ 20 .\t>xe2 tt:Jc6 2 1.Elhc1 Elfc8 22 .Ela2 Elc7 23.Elac2 Elac8 24.a6 and White won this endgame, Anand - Shirov, Leon 2000.) 8.cxb4 cxb4 9 .LLlf3 �e7 10.f5 exf5 ll.LLlf4 0-0 12.tt:Jxd5 tt:Jb6 13.tt:Jxe7+ j!,l{xe7 14.�d3 �e6 15.0-0 tt:Jc6 16.�e3 LLld5 17.j!,l{d2 LLlxe3 18.j!,l{xe3 Elad8 19.Elac1 j!,l{b7 20 .Elc5. White has gained some pressure, but it is ob­vious that Black should be able to find an improvement, Sax -Gulko, Aruba 1992 .

7.c3 After 7.tt:Jf3 it would be quite

logical for Black to play 7 . . . b5, fol­lowed by the standard pawn-of­fensive on the queenside and the development of the bishop to a6. (Of course, the natural move 7 . . . �e7 i s quite playable too.) . 8 .a3 Elb8 9 .g3 j!,l{b6 10 .c3 a5 11.�g2 b4 12 .axb4 axb4 13.0-0 �a6 14.Elf2 cxd4 15.tt:Jexd4 �c5 16.'tt>h1 0-0 17.�e3 bxc3 18.bxc3 �c4 and Black's position is slightly better, Tiviakov - Navara, Sibenik 2009.

In this pawn structure, Black has several typical ideas and plans. He can also prepare a clas­sic knight-sacrifice on e5 after preparation with f6, �e7, j!,l{b6 and 0-0.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lbc3 CiJf6 4.e5 CiJfd7 5. 4Jce2 c5 6f4 4Jc6

7 . . . �b6 However, Black has also tried

out some other ideas. For exam­ple : 7 .. .'�aS !? 8.4Jf3 bS 9 .id2 �b6 10.fS ie7 ll.CiJf4 0-0 12 .id3 cxd4 13. cxd4 4Jxd4 14.f6 4Jxf6 1S.exf6 ixf6 16.4Jxd4 ixd4 17.We2 ib7 18.ic3 ixc3+ 19.bxc3 eS and Black's pawn-mass turned out to be stronger than White's extra piece, Hamdouchi - Gurevich, Belfort 2003.

It would be very interesting for Black to opt for 7 . . . ie7 8.4Jf3 0-0

9 .g3 f6 (It is also possible for Black to choose the less forcing line : 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 4Jb6 ll .ig2 aS 12 .0-0 a4 13.g4 a3 14.bxa3 4Jc4 1SJ:!:b1 ixa3 16.Elb3 ixcl 17. 4Jxc1 b6 18.Wc2 f6 19.Wf2 fxeS 20.fxeS id7 21 .Eld1 We7 with a

good game for Black, Socko - Gu­revich, Venaco 200S.) 10 .ih3 cxd4 11 .4Jexd4 4Jxd4 12 .cxd4 WaS+ 13.id2 Wb6 14.Wb3 Wxb3 1S.axb3 CiJb8 16.exf6 gxf6 17.0-0 4Jc6 18.Elae1 <;t>f7 19.Elf2 id7 20 . ic3 fS and the endgame is about equal, Palliser - Speelman, West Bromwich 2003.

White can try another plan for the development of his pieces (in­stead of 9.g3), but it looks too risky for him: 9 .a3 aS 10 .h4 f6 11. 4Jeg1 cxd4 12 .cxd4 Wb6 13.id3 f:xeS 14.fxeS CiJdxeS ! ? 1S.dxeS CiJxeS 16.ic2 id7 17.We2 Elac8 ! ! This is a fabulous move ! 18.ixh7 + (The essence of Black's idea can be best illustrated in the line : 18.4JxeS ixh4+ - this is another typical tactical blow in this varia­tion - 19.<;t>d1 ia4 ! ! 20.ixa4 Wd4+ with a quick checkmate.) 18 . . . <;t>xh7 19.WxeS id6 20 .ie3 Wb3 21 .4Jd2 Elf1 !-+ Macieja - Ivan­chuk, Moscow 2001.

8.lt:lf3 f6

9.a3 This move is standard in simi­

lar positions - White prevents the

309

Chapter 37

possible check from the b4-square and prepares the pawn-advance b2-b4, seizing extra space.

He has a safer plan here - 9 .g3 cxd4 10.cxd4 (10.<Llexd4 !? <Llxd4 11 .<Llxd4 �cS and Black has a good position; 1l .cxd4 fxeS 12 .fxeS �b4+ 13.<±>f2 ! ? �e7 14.\t>g2 <Llb8 1S.�d3 <Llc6 16.:1'1£1 �d7 17.:1'1f2 0-0-0 18.�e3 E1df8 19.a3± and it appears that White is slightly bet­ter, Kosintseva - Edouard, Cap d'Agde 2010; 10 . . . fxeS !? 1l .ti:lxe6 e4 12 .<LlfgS <Llf6 13.\Wb3 - this po­sition needs further practical test­ing.)

10 .. . fxeS (It would be quite reasonable for Black to delay this pawn exchange for a while with 10 . . . �b4 + ! ? ll .<Llc3 0-0 12 .a3 �e7 13.�h3 <±>h8 14.<Lla4 \Wa6 1S.�fl bS 16.<Llc3 fxeS 17.�xbS \Wb6 18 .�xc6 \Wxc6 19.fxeS �a6 20 .�f4 :1'1ab8 with an excellent game for Black, Sznapik - Knaak, Bratislava 1983.) 11.fxeS �b4+ 12 .<Llc3 (Or 12 .�d2? 0-0 13.�g2 <LldxeS 14. dxeS <LlxeS 1S.�xb4 \Wxb4+ 16. <±>f2 \We4 17.<Llc3 <Lld3+ 18. <±>f1 \Wc4 ! And Black has a dangerous at­tack; 17 . . . <Llg4+ 18.\t>fl <Lle3+ -18 . . . '\We3 ! ? - 19.<±>e2 <Llxd1+ 20 .

310

<Llxe4 dxe4 21 .:1'1hxd1 exf3+ 22 . �xf3=) 12 . . . 0-0 13.�f4

Now: Black should refrain from 13 . . .

\WaS 14.\Wc2 <LlcS 1S.dxcS d4 since after 16.0-0-0 dxc3 17.<LlgS E1fS 18.�c4 he is in a great trouble.

13 . . . �e7 14.a3. White is able to hold his centre in this paradoxical fashion and thus retain the open­ing advantage. (It is weaker to play 14.\Wd2? gS ! 1S.<LlxgS �xgS 16.hgS ti:lxd4 17.�g2 <LlxeS 18. 0-0-0 E1f2 19.\Wxf2 <Llb3+ 20. axb3 \Wxf2 21 .:1'1d2 \WfS 22 .�h6 <Lld3+ 23.<±>b1 <Llf2 + 0-1 Dolmatov - Bareev, Elista 1997. White should also avoid 14.�h3? \Wxb2 1S.\Wc1 - 1S.�xe6+ ? <±>h8 16.ti:la4 \Wg2 !-+ - 1S . . . \Wxc1+ 16.:1'1xc1 <Llb6 17.<LlbS <Lld8 18.<Llc7 :1'1b8 19.0-0 h6 20 .�d2 <Llc4 2l .�c3 bS and White lost this pawn-down end­game, Anand - Sisniega, Phila-delphia 1987.) 14 . . . :1'1f7 1S.ti:la4 \Wd8 16.h4 <Llf8 (16 . . . <Llb6 ! ?) 17. �d3 �d7 18.b4 b6 19.<Llc3 aS 20. bS <Lla7 21 .<LlgS hgS 22 .�xgS \WeB 23 .\We2 :1'1c8 24.�d2 :1'1c7 2S.E1fl E1xf1+ 26.\t>xfl± Dubinin - Ala­tortsev, Leningrad 1947.

13 . . . <LldxeS ! This is a powerful

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. {/jc3 {/jj6 4.e5 [jjjd7 5. {/jce2 c5 6j4 {/jc6

tactical resource, in complete har­mony with Black's sound strategy.

14 . .ixeS (14.{/jxeS? {/jxeS 1S. .ixeS .ixc3+ 16.bxc3 'Wb2 17 . .if4 'Wxc3+ 18.'tt>f2 gS and White is in trouble; 14.dxeS .iaS ! ? 1S.'Wd2 d4. Black regains his piece and has a perfectly acceptable position.) 14 . . . {/jxeS 1S.{/jxe5 .ixc3+ 16.bxc3 'Wb2 17.'Wc1 'Wf2+ 18.'tt>d1 'Wxfl + ! This i s a key move. 19.Ei:xfl Ei:xfl+ 20.'tt>d2 Ei:xc1 2l .Ei:xc1 b6 22 .Ei:f1 Ei:b8 23.Ei:f7 Ei:b7 and despite Black's solid extra pawn, White should be able to hold the draw, Robson - Meier, Lubbock 2010.

9 • • • .ie7 After 9 . . . aS? 10 .g3, Black can­

not base his counterplay on any checks. 10 . . . .ie7 ll . .ih3 {/jf8 12 .

0-0 a4 13.exf6 gxf6 14.fS cxd4 1S.cxd4 eS 16.{/jc3 Ei:aS 17.\t>h1 e4 18 .{/jh4 'Wxd4 19.'WhS+ lt>dS 20 . Ei:d1+- Vasiukov - Kaminik, Bad Wildbad 1993.

1 0 .h4 If 10 .b4, play usually transpos­

es to a line we shall analyse below. 10 . . . cxd4 11.{/jexd4 {/jxd4 12.cxd4 0-0 13 . .id3 fxeS 14.dxeS aS 1S.bS a4 16.h4 h6 17.'tt>f1 {/jcS 18 . .ie3 .id7 19 .Ei:b1 and Black agreed to a draw in a position where she had an overwhelming advantage, Mo­rozevich - Zhukova, Mainz 2004.

10 . . . 0 - 0

1U�h3 The situations clarifies consid­

erably after 1l .b4 cxd4 12 .cxd4 aS 13.bS ! This is an important and quite natural stratagem. 13 . . . 'WxbS 14.{/jc3 'Wb6 1S.Ei:b1 'WdS 16 . .id3

(diagram) Black's extra pawn is com­

pletely irrelevant in this position. However, he has other pluses . . . 16 . . . fxeS (Or 16 . . . h6 17 . .ic2 b6 18.'Wd3 fS 19.g4 .ia6 20.{/jbS {/ja7 2l.a4 {/jc6 22 . .id2 {jjb4 23 . .ixb4

311

Chapter 37

hb4+ 24.'it>d1 Elc8 25.Elb3 1xb5 26 .axb5 V!ffe7 with great advantage to Black, Firman - Podolchenko, Minsk 2006; 17.li:Jb5 f5 18.Wffc2 li:Jb6 19.g4 li:Jc4 20 .Wffg2 fxg4 21 . V!ffxg4 Elf5 22 .Elg1 if8 23 .h5 li:Je7 24.li:Jh4 Ela6 25.a4 id7 and the position is very complicated from a strategic point of view, Bauer -Carlsson, Kerner 2007.)

17.dxe5 (In reply to 17.li:Jg5? the computer suggests a radical continuation - 17 . . . exd4 18. hh7+ 'it>h8 and "says" that Black's position is acceptable . . . It looks as though this is true. Nev­ertheless, I prefer the "human" solution to the problem: 17 . . . e4 18.li:Jxe6 V!ffe8 19.li:Jxf8 exd3 20 . li:Jxd7 ib4+ and Black seizes the initiative. He can counter 17.fxe5 with 17 . . . li:Jxd4 18.li:Jxd4 li:Jxe5 19.1g5 h6 20.he7 V!ffxe7 with suf-

312

ficient compensation for the knight. He can also try 17 . . . Elxf3 18.gxf3 li:Jxd4 19 .hh7+ lt>xh7 20.V!ffxd4 and the position is un­clear.)

17 . . . h6 (An earlier recommen­dation loses practically by force : 17 . . . li:Jc5? 18.hh7+ ! 'it>xh7 19. li:Jg5+ 'it>g8 20 .Wffh5 1xg5 21 .hxg5 li:Jd3+ 22 .'it>e2 li:Jxc1 + 23.Elbxc1 li:Jd4+ 24.\t>d1 li:Jf5 25.li:Jb5 V!ffe8 26.Wffh7+ 'it>f7 27.Elc7+ id7 28.g4 V!ffe7 29.gxf5 1-0 Bindrich -Straub, Deizisau 2 004. But not 18.li:Jb5 li:Jxd3+ 19.V!ffxd3 h6 20 . Wffg6 id7 21 .li:Jg5 hg5 22.hxg5 li:Je7 23.V!ffd3 hb5 24.Elxb5 V!ffc7 25.1d2 hxg5 26.Wffh7+ 'it>f7 27.Elh6 li:Jf5 28.Elf6+ 'it>e7 and Black pre­vailed in the subsequent mind­boggling struggle, Bologan - Bau­er, Belfort 2002.) 18.li:Jg5 (18. li:Ja4? li:Jc5 19.li:Jxc5 hc5 20.li:Jg5 V!ffc7 21 .ih7+? 'it>h8 22 .Wffd3 li:Jxe5 ! 23.fxe5 Wffxe5+ 24.'it>d1 id7-+ and White can already resign, Armbrust - Kipper, Germany 2007) 18 . . . li:Jc5 19.1h7+ 'it>h8 20. ic2 d4+

ll . . . a5 12.b3 The play of both sides might

seem rather mysterious to any

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Ci'Jc3 l:i'Jf6 4.e5 l:i'Jfd7 5. Ci'Jce2 c5 6j4 l:i'Jc6

non-specialists in this variation. 12 . • • �c7 It is a bit passive for Black to

opt for 12 . . . Wd8 13.Ci'Jg3 Ci'Jb6 14. id3 f5 15.ic2 id7 16.ie3 cxd4 17. cxd4 a4 18.b4 l:i'Ja7 19.Ci'Jh5 ie8 20.Ci'Jg5 Wc8 2U'k1 Ci'Jc4 22J'1g3 ig6, but he is still better here, Smirin - Psakhis, Las Vegas 1999.

13.tbegl White loses immediately after

13.Ci'Jg3?? cxd4 (There was only one game played with this line and Black decided to trust his op­ponent and played only to equal­ize : 13 . . . b6 14.id3 f5 15.Ci'Jg5 ixg5 16.hxg5 g6 17.ie3 ia6 18.mf2 ixd3 19.'\Wxd3 E!f7 20.E!hh1 E!c8 21 .E!hcl cxd4 22 .cxd4 Wb7 23.Ci'Je2 E!ff8 24.Ci'Jc3 and the players agreed to a draw, Klimov - Danin, Smolensk 2005.) 14.cxd4 fxe5 15.fxe5 Ci'Jdxe5-+

13 . . • a4 Anand recommended 13 . . . b6 ! ?

i n his annotations to the game and this move gives Black an ex­cellent position. 14.ie3 ia6 15. ixa6 E!xa6. Now White's attack-

ing potential is considerably di­minished and we start to wonder why he deployed his kingside pieces in this awkward fashion. 16.Wd3 b5 ! 17.E!a2 c4 18. bxc4 bxc4 19.Wc2 E!b8 20 .a4 E!ab6 and Black is clearly better, Netzer -Picard, Mulhouse 2006.

14.b4 fxe5 15.fxe5 ll::ldxe5 This is a risky decision in the

style of Alexey Shirov. 16.dxe5 ll::lxe5 17.ll::lxe5

�xe5+ 18.�e2 hh4+? Anand recommended here the

move 18 . . . Wc7, followed by the advance of his centre pawns. Nev­ertheless, White is slightly better.

19.c!>dt

19 . • • �f6? (Black had to con­tinue here with 19 . . . Wxe2+, but he did not create created such chaos on the board just to end up exchanging queens . . . ) 2 0 .ll::lf3 �xc3 21.i.b2 �b3+ 22.c!>cl e5 23J.,�xh4 i.f5 24.�dl e4 25. �xb3 axb3 26. ll::ld2 e3 27.ll::lf3 and White realized his two extra pieces, Anand - Shirov, New Del­hi/Teheran 2000.

313

Chapter 38 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 ttJf6 4.e5 ttJfd7 5.f4 c5

6.ltlf3 White should avoid the inferi­

or line 6.dxc5 'Llc6 (White can an­swer 6 . . . ixc5 with 7.Wg4 ! ?) 7.a3 ixc5 8.Wg4 0-0 9.id3 (9J2jf3. Here it would be interesting for Black to try 9 . . . Wb6 !? 10 .id3 if2+ 1l .We2 f5 12 .Wh3 'Llc5 with a good position.) After 9 . . . We7 10. id2 f6 1l .Wh4 h6 12 .exf6 'Llxf6 13.0-0-0 e5 14.fxe5 'Llxe5 15.'Llf3 'Llxd3+ 16.cxd3 b5 17J'l:he1 Wb7 18 .ie3 ixe3+ 19.l'i:xe3 aS Black went on to gain a winning posi­tion, but then. . . lost the game, Short - Morozevich, Reggio Emil­ia 2010.

6 . . . ltlc6 7.ie3 (diagram)

This is the key position of the Steinitz variation. Modern chess

314

requires players to have a lot of ideas and lines in their armoury, so that they can vary their lines from game to game. I shall thor­oughly analyze the move 7 . . . cxd4 in the next two chapters, so here I should like to recommend to Black two other back-up lines : a) 7 . . . Wb6 and b) 7 . . . a6 .

Attentive readers might have noticed that recently the author of this book has been regularly playing 7 . . . ie7. I should like to leave extensive analysis of this variation for a future book of mine . . .

Black sometimes plays even more extravagantly (although with the same ideas as in varia­tion b: 7 . . . l'i:b8 8 .Wd2 (The world­famous exponent of the French

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJc3 liJf6 4.e5 liJfd7 5f4 c5 6. liJ.f3 liJc6 7. ie3 Vf1b6

defence, Viktor Lvovich Korch­noi, treated this position in a very original fashion : 8 .ie2 cxd4 9 .liJxd4 ic5 10.Vfid2 0-0 11 .l'!d1 Vfih4+ 12 .if2 Vf1e7 13.0-0 liJb6 14.liJcb5 id7 15.Vf1e3 liJxd4 16. liJxd4 B:bc8 17.Vf1h3 f5 18.c3 Vf1e8 19.ih5 g6 20 .ie2 ixd4 21 .l'!xd4 ib5 and Black equalized, Landa - Korchnoi, Reggio Emilia 2007) 8 . . . Vf1a5 9 .a3 b5

10.l'!a2. This paradoxical ma­noeuvre has recently become an integral part of White's strategy in the Steinitz variation. White de­fends against b4 and leaves his rook on the a-file in case it be­comes open. 10 . . . c4 11 .f5 ie7 12 . fxe6 fxe6 13.g3 0-0 14.ig2 liJb6 15.0-0 liJa4 16.liJe2 vt1xd2 17.hd2 liJb6 18 .ih3 liJa8 19.ig4 liJc7 20 . h4 a5 2 1.c3 id7 2 2 .liJf4 liJd8 23 . l'!aa1 liJf7 24.ih3 !'!aS 25.g4 liJd8 26.g5 liJc6 27.liJh5 <i>h8 28 .liJf6 ! and White triumphed i n the ensu­ing struggle, Bologan - Korchnoi, Gibraltar 2006.

If White does not hinder Black's queenside pawn-storm, he cannot count on any advan­tage : 9 .ie2 (instead of 9 .a3) 9 . . . b5 10.0-0 b4 11.liJd1 ia6 12 .ixa6

vt1xa6 13.liJf2 ie7 14.liJd3 c4 15.liJf2 c3 ! ? Vadim Zvjaginsev's ideas can often be beyond the log­ical understanding of mortal hu­man players, but you just have to accept that that is the way he plays. (Here, for example, he could have considered quieter moves such as 15 . . . id8 ! ?) 16.bxc3 Vf1c4 17.cxb4 ixb4 18.Vf1d3 liJb6 19.B:ab1 Vf1xd3 20.cxd3 <i>d7 and Black survived in this endgame, Jakovenko - Zvjaginsev, Moscow 2005.

a) 7 . . . Vf1b6 I think you should make this

move part of your opening ar­moury.

8.ll:\a4 It is riskier for White to opt for

8.Vf1d2 vt1xb2 9.B:b1 Vf1a3 10.ib5 ! ? (10.liJb5? vt1xa2 ll .l'!c1 B:b8 12 .ie2 cxd4 13.liJfxd4 ib4 14.c3 Vf1xd2+ 15.<i>xd2 ic5 and White has no compensation whatsoever for the two sacrificed pawns, Ragger -Andreikin, Gaziantep 2008. In the game Nakamura - Mo-

315

Chapter 38

rozevich, Reggio Emilia 2012 , White continued with 10.f5? ! a6 11 .fxe6 fxe6 12 . .te2 .te7 13 .0-0 0-0 14.i>h1 cxd4 15.Ct:Jxd4 tt:Jdxe5, but in the resulting position he could already resign.) 10 . . . c4 (10 .. .'�a5?! 11 .0-0 c4 12.f5 tt:Jb6 13.\19e1 exf5 14.a4 .te6 15 . .td2 .tb4 16J''1xb4 �xb4 17.Ct:Je4 �b2 18. Ct:Jd6+ i>f8 19 . .tc3 �xc2 20.Ct:Jxb7 tt:Jxa4 2 L.tb4+ ci>g8 22 . .txc6 �c8 23.�f2 �b3 24.Ct:Ja5+- Kamslq -Akobian, Saint-Louis 2011) 11 .f5 tt:Jb6 12 .f6 g6 13.0-0 .td7 14.bc6 bxc6 15.Ct:Je2 h6 16 .c3 0-0-0 17. h4 ci>b7 18.Ct:Jh2 i>a8 19.Ct:Jg4 g5 20 .hxg5 hxg5� Sethuraman -Volkov, Vrachati 2011 .

It is too slow for White to play 8.a3? ! cxd4 9.Ct:Jxd4 .tc5 10.Ct:Ja4 �aS+ 1l .c3 .txd4 12 . .txd4 Ct:Jxd4 13.�xd4 b6 14 . .te2 (White should not go into an endgame here, be­cause his knight on a4 will be un­able to come into play any time soon: 14.�b4 �xb4 15.axb4 ci>e7 16 . .tb5 .tb7 17.0-0 �hd8 18.i>f2 f6 19 . .txd7 �xd7 20 .i>e3 �f8 2l .b3 .tc6 22 .Ct:Jb2 .tbs 23.�f3 ci>d8 24. �d1 ci>e7 25.�a1 �c7 26.i>d4 .te8 27.�e1 .tg6 with advantage to Black, Nunn - Ehlvest, Reykjavik 1988.) 14 . . . .ta6 15 . .td1 �b5 16.b4 �c8 17.Ct:Jb2 �c6 18.�c1 0-0 (Black can resort to a more con­crete response here - 18 .. .f6 19. exf6 tt:Jxf6 20 . .tf3? ! 0-0 2l .c4? �d7 22 .a4 .txc4 23.tt:Jxc4 �xa4 24.0-0 �xb4 and he gained a winning position in the game Gueroff - Jackelen, Germany

316

1989; 20 . .ta4 .tb5 2L.tb5 �b5 22 . c4 dc4 23.0-0 �d5 with pressure for Black.) 19.a4 .tc4 20 . .tg4 .tb3 21 .0-0 .txa4 22 . f5 .tb5 23.�fe1 �feB 24.�e3 f6 ! and the young Filipino player triumphed with Black over his very experienced opponent, Kamsky - So, Khanty­Mansiysk 2009.

8 . . .'�a5+ 9.c3

9 . . . cxd4 This is an aggressive move

based on a piece-sacrifice. Inci­dentally, Black is not obliged to play so riskily. He has alternatives which lead to a quiet positional struggle.

9 . . . c4 10.b4 �c7 1 1.g3 .te7 12 . .th3 (12 . .tg2 ! ? f5 13 .0-0 tt:Jf8 14. �b1 b6 15.g4 ! fxg4 16.Ct:Jd2 Ct:Jg6? 17.f5 exf5 18.bd5 �d7 19 . .txc4 f4 20 . .txf4 Ct:Jxd4 2L.tg3 Ct:Je6 22 . Ct:Je4+- Edouard - Michiels, Ant­werp 2011 . Black should have been less generous and preserved his centre with 16 . . . h5 17.f5 tt:Jd8 and Black should be able to with­stand his opponent's initial offen­sive.)

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lbc3 CiJf6 4.e5 11Jfd7 5/4 c5 6. 11Jj3 CiJc6 7. �e3 Vfffb6

12 . . . 11Jf8 (One of the important guidelines for Black in this posi­tion is not to allow his opponent to re-activate the knight on a4, which is reminiscent of Black's knight on a5 in the Ruy Lopez. 12 . . . b5? ! 13.11Jc5 a5 14.a3 axb4 15.axb4 !'lxa1 16.Vfffxa1 CiJxc5 17. dxc5 0-0 18.11Jd4 CiJxd4 19.hd4 �b7 20.0-0 and White enjoys a comfortable advantage, Svidler -Bareev, Elista 1997.) 13.0-0 b6 14.�g2 �d8 15.CiJb2 CiJe7. It is worth noting Black's play here. It looks as though his manoeuvres are completely random and not based on any coherent idea. This assumption is entirely wrong, however . . . 16.a4 a6 17.11Jd2 !'la7 18.Vfffe2 b5 19.�f2 �d7 20 .g4 (Hav­ing seen what happens later, it can be recommended to White to play 20.a5 here.) 20 . . . h5 2 1 .gxh5 a5 ! 22 .axb5 hb5 23.bxa5 !'lxa5 24.!'lfb1 CiJf5 25.11Jd1 g6 ! 26.hxg6 CiJxg6 27.�g3 CiJxd4 28.cxd4 c3 29.Vffff2 c2 30.11Jb3 !'la2 ! Once the position opened up, Black's play was very impressive and he soon obtained a decisive advantage in the game Bologan - Volkov, Sochi 2006.

The other plan for White be-

gins with the move - 1l .�e2 .

Here a true master of such po­sitions, Sergey Volkov, has tried various moves. 1l . . .�e7 (He can place another piece on the e7-square: 11 . . .11Je7 12 .0-0 CiJb8. It might look as though Black is re­placing his pieces ready to begin the next game, but you need to have a very specific understand­ing of these positions in order to play them successfully. 13.11Jh4 CiJg6 14.11Jxg6 hxg6 15.�g4 CiJc6 16.!'lb1 b6 17.!'lf3 �d7 18.!'lh3 !'lxh3 19 .hh3 !'lb8 20.�g4 a5 21 .bxa5 CiJxa5 22 .11Jb2 b5+ Salem - Vol­kov, Dubai 2002.) 12 .0-0

12 . . . 11Jf8 (12 . . .f5 13.�f2 CiJf8 14.�h4 CiJg6 15.�xe7 CiJgxe7 16. V!ffe1 �d7 17.�d1 b6 18.V!ffg3 0-0 19.CiJb2. White has not achieved much, but Black decided to be the

317

Chapter 38

first to sharpen the game and af­ter 19 . . . bS? ! 20 .a4 aS? 2 l.axbS LL'la7 22 .b6! Wxb6 23J''1xaS, he ended up a pawn down in an infe­rior position, Almasi - Volkov, Nakhchivan 2011 . ) 13.LL'lb2 �d7 14.a4. It seems that White has se­cured his queenside and will soon begin his kingside offensive. The position on the board however, changes with dramatically speed. 14 . . . LL'lg6 1S.We1 fS 16.LL'lgS 0-0 17. Wg3 a6 18J'U3 bS 19.aS LL'lxb4 ! White's attack never even started and Black's pawn-mass settled the issue, Shomoev - Volkov, Tomsk 2006.

Black can also try a very clever move order here - 9 . . . b6 10.�d2 c4 11 .b4

ll . . . Wa6. The drawback of this move is that Black's queen is mis­placed. (Black can sacrifice a piece here, but only with the idea of building a fortress - 11 . . .LL'lxb4 12 .cxb4 �xb4 13 .hb4 Wxb4+ 14. �f2 bS 1S.LL'lcS LL'lxcS 16.dxcS WxcS+ 17.Wd4 Wxd4+ 18.LL'lxd4 �d7 19.�e2 �e7 20 .a3 aS 2U '1hb1 l'J:hb8 22 .�e3 l'J:b6 23 .�d1 f6? ! This i s the wrong plan. Black had only to make one more useful

318

move - 23 . . . l'J:ab8 ! ? and then he could just sit tight and wait. 24. �c2 h6 2S.h4 l'J:ab8 26.g4 E1f8 27. l'o:h1 fxeS 28.fxeS E1bb8 29.gS. The position has been opened up in White's favour, Karjakin - Ernst, Wijk aan Zee 200S.) 12 .a3 �e7 13. g3 fS 14.exf6. The aggressive Finnish player obviously disliked a closed pawn structure. 14 . . . gxf6 1S.fS eS 16.�h3 �b7 17.0-0 0-0-0. Black's queen is a sorry sight, but things were not as trag­ic as they seem . . . 18.l"1b1 bS 19. LL'lcS LL'lxcS 20.bxcS l'J:he8 2l .l'o:e1 �f8 22 .Wc1 LL'laS 23.Wb2 LL'lb3 24. �e3 hcS ! 2S.dxcS d4 and Black seized the initiative, Nyback -Volkov, Plovdiv 2008.

1 0 .b4 .!Llxb4 11.cxb4 .ixb4+ 12.�d2 hd2+ 13 . .!Llxd2

White's pieces seem to be mis­placed at the moment. Can Black exploit this and if so, how?

It is true that nowadays theory considers White's prospects to be superior . . .

13 . . . b6 It has been proved that the

move 13 . . . gS does not provide

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Ci'Jc3 Ci'Jf6 4.e5 Ci'Jfd7 5f4 c5 6. Ci'Jf3 Ci'Jc6 7. �e3 Wfb6

Black with an acceptable position. 14J"1b1 gxf4 (White won beauti­fully after 14 . . . a6 15.�d3 gxf4 16.0-0 4Jxe5 17.4Jb6 l"lb8 18.4Jxc8 - 18.4Jf3 ! ? - 18 . . . l"lxc8 19.l"lxb7 4Jxd3 20.Wfh5 0-0 21 .4Je4 l"lc1 22 .l"lxc1 4Jxc1 23.4Jf6+ lt>g7 24. 4Je8+ Wh8 25.Wfe5+ f6 26.l"lxh7+ Kalegin - Okotchik, Russia 1992.) 15 .�b5 l"lb8 16.4Jc5 Wfc3 17.4Jd3 a6 18.l"lc1 Wfa3 19.Wfb3 Wfa5 20 .hd7+ �xd7 21 .4Jxf4± Short - Timman, Amsterdam 1994.

Another possible try for White here is 13 . . . 0-0 ! ? 14.�d3 b5 15. Ci'Jb2 Ci'Jb6 16.0-0 (It is weaker for White to play the cautious move 16.Wfc2 Ci'Jc4 17.hh7+ Wh8 18. �d3 �d7 19.We2 l"lac8 20 .4Jf3 f6 21 .hc4 bxc4 22 .4Jxd4 fxe5 23. fxe5 l"lf4 and White is unable to maintain the blockade, so Black's position is good enough. He has no problems either after 18.4Jbxc4 bxc4 19.0-0 d3 20.�xd3 cxd3 21.Wfxd3 �a6 22 .Wfh3+ Wg8 23. l"lf2 l"lac8 .) 16 . . . 4Jc4

17.�xh7+ ! ? This is a key point in this variation - White has a very powerful attack. (He should not change the move-order: 17. Ci'Jf3? ! 4Jxb2 18.hh7+ lt>h8 ! ) 17 . . .

lt>xh7 18 .Wfh5+ lt>g8 19.4Jf3 g6 (It would possibly be more interest­ing for Black to try 19 .. .f6 20 .4Jxc4 bxc4?! 21 .exf6 Wfc7 22 . fxg7 Wfxg7 23.4Je5 l"lf5 24.Wlh4, but the ab­sence of any pawn cover for his king might be a telling factor in the near future; but after 20 . . . dxc4 ! 21 .exf6 Wfc7 22 .fxg7 Wlxg7 23.Wfb5 White slight initiative proves to be temporary. However, White can avoid this line if he ex­changes on c4 on move 17, when capturing with the d-pawn would not be good for Black.) 20 .Wfh6 Wfc7. Black's position is so dubi­ous that I am not sure that he can hold it, so this line cannot be rec­ommended. 21 .4Jh4 (21 .4Jd3 ! ?) 21 . . .f6 (21 . . .4Jxb2 22 .l"lf3+-) 22 . 4Jxg6 Wfg7 23 .Wfh5 l"lf7 24.4Jxc4 dxc4 25.l"lf3 Wfh7 26.Wfg4 l"lg7 27. l"lg3 l"lb8 28.h4 f5 29 .Wfg5 l"lxg6 and the game ended in a draw by a perpetual, Quesada Perez - Cor­dova, Havana 2009.

Recently the theoretical de­bates in this position have been focused on the move 17.4Jbxc4, for example, 17 . . . dxc4

18.�xh7 lt>xh7 19.Wfh5 lt>g8 20.4Jf3 g6 21 .Wfh6 Wfc7 22 .f5 (22 .

319

Chapter 38

lt'lh4 d3 23.E1f3 E1e8 24.lt'lxg6 fxg6 25.E1g3 'Wh7 26.E1xg6+ Wh8 27. 'Wg5 E1f8 28.E1h6 E1b8 29.E1xh7+ <±>xh7 30.'Wh5+ <±>g7 31 .'Wg5+ <±>h7 32.f5 E1xf5 33 .'We7+ Wg6 34.'Wc7 E1a8 35.E1b1 E1f7 36.'Wc6 d2 37.'Wa4 �d7 38.'Wc2 + Wg7 39 .'Wxd2 and White realized his advantage in the game Edouard - Hovhani­sian, Antwerp 2011) 22 .. .f6 (22 . . . exfS 23.E1ae1 f6 24.exf6 'Wh7 25. 'Wf4 'Wf7 26.E1e7 'Wxf6 27.E1fe1 E1f7 28.E1xf7 Wxf7 29.lt'lg5+ Wg7 30. 'Wc7+ <±>h6 31 .'Wh7+ <±>xg5 32 .g3 1-0 Zherebukh - Jaiswal, New Delhi 2011 .) 23 .fxg6 'Wg7 24.'Wh5 �d7 25.exf6 E1xf6 26.lt'le5 E1af8 27.E1xf6 E1xf6 28.E1b1 �e8 29.E1b8 E1f8 30.'Wh3 hg6 31.'Wxe6+ �f7 32.E1xf8+ 'Wxf8 33.'Wg4+ 'Wg7 34. 'Wxd4, Black's position is accepta­ble in this endgame, Frolyanov -Danin, Belgorod 2010.

14.�d3 �a6 Black plays quietly, relying on

his three pawns and White's un­coordinated pieces.

15.liJb2 ttlc5 After 15 . . . hd3 16.lt'ld2 lt'lc5

17.lt'lf2 , White easily consolidates

320

his position; 16 . . . 'Wc3 17.We2 0-0 18.'Wb1 ! - Black is in a big trouble.

16.i.xa6 'Wxa6 17.'1We2

17 • • • 'Wa3 Black does not achieve much

with 17 . . . d3 18 .'We3 'Wa3 19.'Wd4 0-0 20.0-0 E1ac8 21 .lt'ld1 E1fd8 22 .lt'lf2 lt'le4 !? This is an interest­ing decision. He gives up a pawn with the idea of creating a power­ful passed pawn, supported by his rooks. 23.lt'lfxe4 dxe4 24.'We3 E1c2 25.lt'lxe4 'Wb2 26.'Wf3 d2 27.E1ad1 E1d5 28.h3 h6 29.Wh2 E1c1 30.'We3 E1xd1 31.E1xd1 'Wxa2 32 .E1xd2. Black saved the game, but he was on the verge of losing throughout, Psakhis - Dizdar, Portoroz 1987.

18.'Wb5+ �e7 19. 0 - 0 White's knights are rather

misplaced, but Black cannot ex­ploit this.

19 • • • 'We3+ 2 0 .E1f2 1'!hc8 21.1'!afl

21.E1d1 g6 22.lt'lf1 'Wa3 23.E1xd4 'Wxa2 24.lt'lg3 'Wb3 25.'We2 -White has the better prospects in the ensuing struggle, Chandler -M.Gurevich, Leningrad 1987.

21. .. g6 22.ttlb3 ttlxb3 23.

l .e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ltJc3 ltJf6 4.e5 ltJfd7 5j4 c5 6. 4Jj3 4Jc6 7. 1l.e3 a6

tbdl �e4 24. axb3 l'k5 25.�a6 @f8 26.�d2 'it>g7 27.�a4 �bl 28.�xd4± and White went on to win, S .Zhigalko - Podolchenko, Minsk 2011 .

b) 7 . . . a6

This is a very logical move. Black's plan is extremely simple - he will advance his queenside pawns as far as the opponent per­mits .

8.�d2 8.4Je2 ! ? This is an original and

fashionable move. White is trying to emphasize that Black's last move is useless, by transposing to positions more typical of the S.lij ce2 variation. However, the point is that White's extra tempo - the move ie3 - might even turn out to be harmful for him. Black has some active, concrete possi­bilities up his sleeve. 8 . . . �b6 (Black has a reasonable alterna­tive here : 8 . . . ie7 9 .c3 0-0 10.a3 f6 11 .4Jg3 cxd4 12.cxd4 �b6 13. �d2 ltJaS 14.:gd1 �b3 ! 1s.:gc1 4Jb6 16.:gc3 �a2 17.id3 4Jbc4 18.�c2

fS 19.ic1 bS 20.0-0 b4 21 .axb4 hb4+ Svidler - Vitiugov, Mos­cow 2009; lO.dxcS ! ? ttJxcS 11 . 4Jed4 4Jxd4 12 .4Jxd4 id7 13.ie2 with relatively quiet play.) 9.Wc1 (With 9.:gb1 WaS+ 10 .id2 Wc7 11.c3 bS 12 .f5 exfS 13.4Jf4 4Jb6 14.id3 c4 15.ic2 ie7 16.0-0 g6 17.b3 cxb3 18.axb3 0-0 19 .�e1 4Jd8 20 .c4 dxc4 21 .ia5 ib7 22 . bxc4 hf3 23.:gxf3 Wxc4, White sacrificed too much material and went on to lose, Shirov - An­dreikin, Plovdiv 2010.)

9 . . . g5 ! This is a standard way of undermining White's centre. (The well-known French Defence expert Vladimir Potkin tried the developing move 9 . . . ie7 here and obtained a good position: 10 .g3 cxd4 11 .4Jexd4 ltJcS 12 .ih3 i'h'aS+ 13.Wf2 id7 14.4Jb3 4Je4+ 15.Wg2 Wc7 16.c4 4Jb4 17.cxd5 i'h'c2+ 18. Wxc2 4Jxc2 19.ib6 4Jxa1 20.dxe6 fxe6 21.:gxal+ Shirov - Potkin, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.) 10 .c3 (Here 10.fxg5 cxd4 11 .4Jexd4 ttJdxeS? 12 .4Jxc6 ! 4Jxf3+ 13.gxf3 Wxc6 14.id4 :ggs 15.id3 and Black will have problems; 11 . . . ttJcxeS 12.4Jxe5 ttJxeS 13.c3 4Jg4 ! ; 13.ie2 icS 14.c3 4Jc6 15.Wd2 eS

321

Chapter 38

16.Lt:l xc6 bxc6 17.�xcS ®'xeS -Black's centre should compensate for the vulnerability of his king. Instead it would be interesting for Black to play: 13 . . . h6 ! ? 14.gxh6 �xh6 1S.�xh6 'Wxd4 16.'Wf4 'Wxf4 17.�xf4 'Llc6 with a very compli­cated endgame.) 10 . . . cxd4 11 .cxd4 �b4+ 12 .�f2 f6 13 .g3 g4 ! Mo­rozevich improves on his own previous game. (Or 13 . . . E1f8? 14. �g2 g4 1S.l2:lh4 E1g8 16.h3 hS 17. hxg4 hxg4 18.'Llc3 fxeS 19 .fxeS 'LlcxeS 20.dxeS d4 21 .'Lla4 'WaS 22 .'Wc4 'LlxeS 23.'Wxd4 'Llf3 24. 'Llxf3 gxf3+ 2S.�f2 'Wxa4 26.�d3± Topalov - Morozevich, Morelia/ Linares 2007.) 14.'Llh4 fxeS 1S. fxeS 'LldxeS 16.dxeS d4 17.�f4 E1f8 18.�g2 �d7 19 .h3 d3 20.hxg4 dxe2 21 .�xe2 'Lld4, White's king is in a more perilous situation than its black counterpart, Predojevic - Morozevich, Sarajevo 2008.

8 . . . b5

9.a3 This is the most fashionable

move in the position. White tem­porarily impedes the advance of his opponent's pawns.

322

He has also tried several alter­natives, since there are many rea­sonable moves in this position.

It would not be advisable for White to opt for 9.fS? ! cxd4 10. fxe6 (10 .'Lld4 'LldxeS 1l.fxe6 he6 ! - this is the move which makes the difference - 12 .0-0-0 E1c8 and it now seems a mystery why White sacrificed the pawn in the first place.) 10 . . . fxe6 11.'Llxd4 (White also played the move 11.�xd4 and it can be evaluated thus: he obtained a good game in the end, but not without effort.) 11 . . .'Llxd4 (It is too risky for Black to play ll . . . 'LldxeS 12 .�e2 , fol­lowed by 0-0 and White has com­pensation, since Black's king is stranded in the centre.) 12 .�xd4 �cS, with an excellent game for Black. Having exchanged the f­pawn, White has merely created a weakness for himself on eS.

9.g3 b4 10.'Lle2

10 . . . g6. This is an important prophylactic move. (I had a game in which I played routinely and carelessly and I was punished for it. lO . . . aS? ! 1l.fS ! cxd4 12.'Llexd4 'Llxd4 13.'Llxd4 'LlxeS 14.0-0-0 �d7 1S.�f4 'Llc4 16.'We2? - 16.

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt'Jc3 tt'Jf6 4.e5 tt'Jfd7 5.f4 c5 6. tt'Jf3 tt'Jc6 7 . .ie3 a6

.ixc4 ! dxc4 17.'1We2 and Black's position was practically hopeless - 16 . . . '1Wf6 17 . .ig2 .ie7? (17 . . . .ic5 ! ) 18J':1he1 g5 19 .fxe6 .ixe6 20.b3 gxf4 21 .bxc4+- lnarkiev - Vitiu­gov, Dagomys 2008.) 11 ..ig2 a5 12 .0-0 .ia6 13J':1f2 h5 14.h3 '&b6 15.l"l:d1 l"l:c8 16.g4 hxg4 17.hxg4 .ixe2 18.l"l:xe2 cxd4 19.tt'Jxd4 tt'Jxd4 20 . .ixd4 '&xd4+ 21 .'1Wxd4 .ic5 and Black has good prospects in the approaching endgame, Richards - Kiriakov, West Bromwich 2005.

For a long time White used to play here 9 .dxc5 .ixc5

10 . .ixc5 (10 . .id3 '&b6 11 . .if2 b4 12 .tt'Ja4 .ixf2+ 13.'1Wxf2 '&xf2+ 14.�xf2 .ib7 15.l"l:ac1 0-0 16.l"l:he1 l"l:fc8 17.h4 tt'Je7 18.tt'Jd4 .ic6 19.tt'Jxc6 l"l:xc6 20 .h5 f6, with a complicated endgame, Karjakin -So, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011 ; 10. tt'Je2 b4 11 ..ixc5 tt'Jxc5 12 .tt'Jed4 tt'Jxd4 13.'1Wxd4 '&b6 14.tt'Jd2 l"l:b8 15.tt'Jb3 tt'Ja4 16.0-0-0 0-0 17.a3 a5 18. '&xb6 l"l:xb6 19.l"l:d4 .id7 20 . axb4 axb4 21 ..id3 l"l:c8= Shomoev - Potkin, Taganrog 2011 ; 10 . . . '&b6 11 . .ixc5 tt'Jxc5 12 .tt'Jed4 .id7 13 .tt'Jxc6 .ixc6 14.tt'Jd4 0-0 15 . .id3 f6 16.exf6 l"l:xf6 17.0-0-0 .ie8 18. l"l:hf1 l"l:c8 19 .g4 '&d6 20 .�b1 tt'Jxd3

21 .cxd3 .id7 22 .tt'Je2 l"l:cf8 23.l"l:g1 d4 24.h4 .ic6 25.l"l:df1 b4 and Black was better, lnarkiev - Lysyj, Rijeka 2010.) 10 . . . tt'Jxc5 11 .'1Wf2 (The ultra-modern move 11 .b4 is interesting only because it is very provocative : 11 . . . tt'Jxb4 12 .tt'Jxb5 0-0 13.'1Wxb4 '&b6 14.a4 axb5 15. a5 '&a7 16.'1Wd4 .id7 17 . .id3 tt'Ja4 18.0-0 l"l:tb8 19.'1Wxa7 l"l:xa7 20 . l"l:fb1 l"l:xa5co Safarli - Lintchevski, Kirishi 2006) 11 . . . '1Wb6

12 . .id3 (This attempt to play tactically fails : 12 .b4?! tt'Jxb4 13. l"l:b1 d4 ! This is a nice counter­blow. White's idea can be best il­lustrated in the variation 13 . . . tt'Jc6 14 . .ixb5 ! - 14.tt'Jxd4 '&a5 15.'1Wd2 tt'Jxa2 16.tt'Jd1 '&xd2+ 17.�xd2 tt'Je4+ 18.�d3 .ib7 19.l"l:b2 .idS 20. �e3 tt'Jac3 and Black ends up with an extra pawn in this endgame, Heberla - Carlsson, Fuegen 2006. White does not achieve much with 15.tt'Jdxb5 tt'Je4 16.'1Wf3 tt'Jxa2 17.tt'Jc7+ �e7 18.'1Wxe4 l"l:a7 19. tt'Jxa6 .ixa6 - 19 . . . '1Wxc3 + ! ? 20 .�f2 l"l:d8 - 20 . .ixa6 :1'1d8 21 .0-0 tt'Jxc3 22 .l"l:b7+ �f8 23 .'1Wxh7 :1'1xb7 24. .ixb7 '&b6+ 25.'tt>h1 '&xb7 with an extra piece for Black, Fogarasi -Bhat, Budapest 2001 .) 12 . . . b4

323

Chapter 38

13.4Je2 aS 14.0-0 .ia6 1S.c;t>h1 4Je7

We can formulate a very spe­cific rule for Black in this position. If White places his f-rook on d1 then, after a transition into an endgame after 4Ja4, he can open the queenside in his favour with a3. So, in that case, Black should play h6 and castle. But if White places his a-rook on d1 then the endgame is harmless for Black. 16J'l:ad1 (Or 16.l:l:fd1 h6 17.4Jed4 0-0 18.�h4 l:l:a7 19.g4 4Jg6 20. .bg6 fxg6 2 l.fS l:l:af7 22 .gS l:l:xfS ! with a good game for Black, Main­ka - Glek, Recklinghausen 199S; 16.b3 h6 17.l:l:ad1 l:l:b8 18 . .ixa6 4Jxa6 19.4Jfd4 tt:JcS 20.fS 4Je4 21 . �f3 0-0 22 .4Jf4 4Jc6 23.4Jxc6 �xc6 24.fxe6 fxe6 2S.�g4 Wxc2 26.Wxe6+ c;t>h7 27.Wg6+ c;t>h8 28. Wg4 4Jf2+ Berndt - Glek, Germa­ny 2003.) 16 . . . 4Ja4 17.Wxb6 4Jxb6 18 .g3 4Jd7 19 . .ba6 l:l:xa6 20.a3 bxa3 2l .l:l:a1 4Jb8 22 .l:l:xa3 4Jbc6 23.4Jc1 0-0 24.4Jd3 l:l:b6 and the players agreed to a draw, Do­minguez Perez - Nogueiras San­tiago, Merida 2002 .

It is also quite solid for White to play 9 . .id3, but then Black has

324

his hands free to carry out all his own ideas. 9 . . . b4 10.4Jd1 (10.4Ja4 c4 1l ..ie2 c3 12 .Wd1 cxb2 13.4Jxb2 4Jb6 14.0-0 .ie7 1S . .id3 .id7 16. tt:JgS g6 17.l:l:f3 tt:JaS 18.l:l:h3 4Jbc4 19.4Jxc4 4Jxc4 20 . .ic1 .ia4 21 .We1 Wb6= Black has equalized com­fortably, Nakamura - Wang Hao, Moscow 2010.) 10 . . . Wb6 11.Wf2 aS 12 .0-0 .ia6 13 . .ba6 l:l:xa6 14.c3 .ie7. Black has accomplished what he wanted and the only thing White can and should do is try to sharpen the position. 1S.fS exfS 16 . .if4 cxd4 17.cxd4 0-0 18.c;t>h1 .id8 19.4Je3 4Je7 20 .l:l:ad1 h6 2l .g4 fxg4 22 .4Jxg4 tt:JfS 23.l:l:g1 c;t>h8 24. l:l:g2 l:l:g8 2S.l:l:dg1 4Jf8 26.Wd2 We6 and White has no compensation for the pawn, Shaposhnikov -Volkov, Samara 2000.

White sometimes plays more cautiously: 9 . .ie2 Wb6 10.4Jd1 b4 (10 . . . cxd4 11 .4Jxd4 4Jxd4 12 . .ixd4 .icS 13.c3 0-0 14.0-0 aS 1S.a3 .ib7 16.4Jf2 b4 17.4Jg4 hS 18.4Je3 g6 19.l:l:f3 .ia6 20 . .ba6 bxc3 21 . bxc3 l:l:xa6 22 .g4 hxg4 23.4Jxg4 l:l:b8 24.l:l:h3 Wb2 and later White ended the game with perpetual check in order to avoid the worst, Karjakin - Potkin, Moscow 2010.) 11 .0-0 aS 12.c3 .ia6 13 . .ba6 Wxa6, but the character of the position remains more or less the same. 14.fS bxc3 1S.bxc3 exfS 16.4JgS 4Je7 17.dxcS h6 18.4Jf3 gS 19 . .id4 l:l:g8 20.4Je3 We6 2 l .a4 f4 22 .4Jc2 tt:JfS 23.4Ja3 l:l:c8, and after some non-standard operations, Black obtained a good position, Riazan­tsev - Michna, Hamburg 200S.

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ltJc3 ltJf6 4.e5 ltJfd7 5j4 c5 6. ltJj3 ltJ c6 7 . .ie3 a6

White sometimes tries the hy­peractive line : 9 .h4 b4 10.ltJe2 .ie7

1l .dxc5 (Or 1l .g3? ! 0-0 12 . .ih3 aS 13.dxc5 ltJxc5 14.ltJed4 ltJe4 15.Wfg2 Wfb6 16.0-0 .ic5 17. E1fd1 a4 18.Wh2 a3 19.b3 ltJc3 20 . E1d2 f6 with an overwhelming ad­vantage for Black, Fedorov -Volkov, Samara 1998.) ll . . . ltJxc5 12 .ltJg3 h5 (12 . . . 0-0 ! ?) 13 . .ie2 g6 14.0-0 ltJa4 15.c3 bxc3 16.bxc3 Wfa5 17.f1acl .id7 18 .f1c2 ltJa7 19. ltJg5 ltJb5 20 .f5 ! ? with a rather un­clear game which later Black managed to win, Anand - Mo­rozevich, Monte Carlo 2004.

It is worth noting this game, which was particularly important for the outcome of the tourna­ment, won by Alexander Grischuk against one of the renowned ex­perts in this variation. 9 .ltJd1 ! ? b4 10 . .ie2 Wfb6? ! (Black should not have been obsessed with the quick development of his queenside. The correct move was 10 . . . .ie7.) 1l .c3 bxc3 12 .ltJxc3 f1b8 13.b3 Wfa5 14.f1c1 cxd4 15.ltJxd4 ltJxd4 16. .ixd4 .ia3 17.f1c2 0-0 18.ltJa4 .ib4 19 . .ic3 f6 20 . .ig4 and Black did not survive, Grischuk - Potkin,

Khanty-Mansiysk 2011 .

9 •.. Wfb6 This is just one of his possibili­

ties . It seems to me to be very log­ical and principled. Black contin­ues with his queenside action, in­creasing the pressure against the d4-square in the process.

The fans of really sharp play may try here the line: 9 . . . g5 ! ? 10. fxg5 cxd4 ll .ltJxd4 ltJcxe5 12 . .ie2 .ib7 13 .0-0 .ig7 14.f1ae1 0-0 15. ltJd1 ltJc4 16 . .ixc4 dxc4 17.ltJf2 ltJe5 18 .Wfe2 c3 19. bxc3 f1c8 20 . E1d1 Wfd5 21 .ltJg4 ltJxg4 22 .Wfxg4 f1xc3 23.ltJe2 f1c4 24.Wfg3 Wfe5 with a better position for Black, Kar­jakin - Morozevich, Nice 2008. Or 9 . . . .ib7 10 . .id3 g5 ! ? ll .fxg5 cxd4 12 .ltJxd4 ltJdxe5 13 .0-0 .ig7 14.ltJxc6 .ixc6 15 . .ic5 Wfc7 16.a4 ltJc4 17.Wff2 b4 18 . .ixb4 ltJxb2 19. l'lab1 ltJxd3 20.cxd3 .ie5 2l .f1bcl and White was better in the game Jakovenko-Vitiugov, Moscow 2008. One must be very well prepared to cope with these sharp forcing lines. I think this approach is very risky and not very practical, but of course it is quite possible.

325

Chapter 38

l O .lLle2 This move is the best. Black equalizes easily after

10 .�e2 �b7 11 .0-0 cxd4 1Vuxd4 �cS 13J'!ad1 !"k8 14J"\f3 CiJxd4 15. �xd4 hd4+ 16.�xd4 We7 17J"\g3 Ei:hg8 18.�xb6 CiJxb6 19.Ei:d4 and the players agreed to a draw, Na­jer - Vitiugov, Dagomys 2009.

It would be interesting for White to opt for 10.g3 cxd4 11 . CiJxd4 CiJxd4 12 .�xd4 �cS 13.CiJe2 �xd4 14.�xd4 �b7 15.�xb6 CiJxb6 16.CiJd4 We7 17.�h3 g6 18.�fl CiJc4 19.b3 CiJaS 20.Wd2 CiJc6 2l .We3 CiJxd4 22 .Wxd4 �c6 and his posi­tion is passive but very solid in this endgame. 23 .�e2 hS 24.Ei:hfl �d7 25.l"i:f3 l"i:ac8 26.l"i:c1 Ei:hg8 ! This is an important manoeuvre. Black is maybe threatening gS, maybe not, but White has to con­sider this possibility. 27.h4. I don't think White can breach Black's defences after this move, Nepomniachtchi - Grachev, Mos­cow 2010.

10 . . . b4!? I was able to demonstrate this

idea back in the year 2009. Black

326

opens the b-file with tempo. He weakens the a6-pawn in the pro­cess, but his dynamic resources compensate completely for this.

Despite the fact that Kasparov himself failed to hold the position after 10 . . . c4, Black cannot equal­ize by reducing the tension in the centre. 10 . . . c4 1l .g4. White must play aggressively, otherwise Black will continue with his queenside offensive. ll . . . hS 12 .gxh5 Ei:xhS 13. CiJg3 Ei:h8 14.f5 exfS 15.CiJxf5

1s . . . cuf6 ! 16.cug3 cug4 17.�f4 �e6 18 .c3 (White failed to achieve anything in the line: 18.�g2 0-0-0 19 .c3 CiJe7 20 .h3 cuh6 2l .CiJg5 �d7 22 .0-0 f6 23.exf6 gxf6 24.CiJf3 CiJg6 with the better prospects for Black, Kurnosov - Looshnikov, Satka 2008.) 18 . . . �e7 19.CiJg5 0-0-0 (19 . . . CiJa5 ! ?) 20 .CiJxe6 fxe6 2l .�e2 CiJgxeS ! ? 22 .�e3 (Black obtains some compensation after 22 .�xe5 CiJxeS 23.dxe5 �cS since White's king will remain stranded in the centre for a long time. Nev­ertheless, White should have cho­sen this very line, and his extra piece might then have been the decisive factor in the ensuing bat­tle. 23 . . . �c7! ?) 22 . . . CiJd7 23 .�xe6

l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)1jc3 ti:Jj6 4.e5 ti:Jfd7 5f4 c5 6. ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 7 . .ie3 a6

.ih4 24.\Wg4 g5 25 . .id2 Ei:de8 26. 0-0-0 ti:Ja5 and Black seized the initiative and triumphed in the subsequent struggle, Kasparov -Radjabov, Linares 2003.

ll.axb4

ll . . JWxb4 This is the point. 12.c3 Some practical tests are re­

quired of the endgame arising af­ter 12.\Wxb4 ti:Jxb4 13.Wd2 and now Black has plenty of possibili­ties on almost every move. 13 . . . c4 (13 . . . ti:Jb6 ! ? ; 13 . . . ti:Jc6 ! ?) 14.g4 h5 (14 . . . ti:Jb6 !?) 15.gxh5 Ei:xh5 with a very complicated position.

12 • . • �b7 (diagram)

13.ti:Jcl !? This i s a non-standard deci­

sion. It did not bring White any success in this game, though . . .

After the introduction of this line for Black, it attracted some popularity and several very inter­esting games have been played from the diagram position during

the last year and a half. 13.ti:Jg3 cxd4 14.ti:Jxd4 ti:Jxd4 15 .

.ixd4 ti:Jc5 16.\Wc2 ti:Jb3 17.Ei:xa6 Ei:xa6 18 . .ixa6 ti:Jxd4 19.\Wa4+ \Wc6 20 .\Wxc6+ ti:Jxc6 21 ..ixc8 g5 22 . .ib7 ti:Ja5 23 . .ia6 gxf4 24.ti:Jh5 Wd8 25 . .ib5 Ei:g8 26.ti:Jxf4 .ig7 27. 0-0 We7 28.Ei:a1 .ixe5 29.ti:Jxd5+ exd5 30.Ei:xa5 Ei:b8 31..id3 Ei:xb2 32.Ei:xd5 .ixc3 33 . .ixh7= S.Zhi­galko - Stupak, Minsk 2011 .

13.g3 .ie7 14 . .ig2 Ei:b8 15.Ei:a2 ti:Jb6 16.b3 ti:Jd7 17.ti:Jcl cxd4 18. ti:Jxd4 ti:Jxd4 19 . .ixd4 ti:Jc5 20 .b4 ti:Je4 2 1.\We3 \Wb5 22 . .if1 \Wc6 23. .id3 0-0 24.0-0 f5 25.ti:Je2 .ib7 26.Ei:fa1 Ei:a8= N.Kosintseva -Zhukova, Konya 2009.

13.dxc5 ti:Jxc5 14.ti:Jed4 .ie7 15. .ie2 0-0 16.0-0 a5 17.b4 ti:Jxd4 18.ti:Jxd4 ti:Je4 19.\Wc2 axb4 20. cxb4 .id7 21 .b5 �fc8 22 .\Wb2 .ic5 with the better game for Black, Li - Ding, Xinghua 2010.

13 • • • .ie7 14 • .id3 c4 15 . .ibl :Sb8 16.:Sa2 tlJb4 17.:Sal ti:Jc6 18.:Sa2 and a draw was agreed, Karjakin - Vitiugov, Khanty­Mansiysk 2009.

327

Chapter 39 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltk3 �f6 4.e5 �fd7 5.f4 c5 6.�f3 �c6 7 . .ie3 cxd4

Black reduces the tension in the centre and plans to exchange one or two pieces on d4 later and then advance his queenside pawns. It is important to under­stand that this plan has its posi­tional justification (the exchange of the "French" bishop from the a6-square) as well as some pro­phylactic importance (after White's queenside castling, the possibility of Black playing b4-b3 and a4-a3 would distract the op­ponent from his kingside attack). Black sometimes succeeds in or­ganizing an attack on the queen­side, but this is much more often a side effect than the object of the entire plan.

8.ll'lxd4 i.c5 9.'\�!fd2 0 - 0 Black's alternative here is to go

328

for total simplification with 9 . . . 4Jxd4 10.1xd4 hd4 ll.�xd4 �b6.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 If White does not wish to study

theory, he has an interesting alternative here, one which should not be underestimated: 10.g3 ! ?

Black should react to i t i n one

5f4 c5 6. 11Jj3 11J c6 7. ile3 cd 8. 11Jxd4 ilcS 9. Wffd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6

of two natural ways, but he must play precisely in either case :

1) 10 . . . a6 11 .ilg2 11Jxd4 12 .ilxd4 ilxd4 ! This is an important mo­ment! (The careless line : 12 . . . b5 13.11Je2 ! leads to some problems for Black. Now he must quickly construct the standard defensive set-up with a knight on e4: 13 . . . Wffc7 14.a3 ilb7 15.0-0 ilxd4+ 16.11Jxd4 11Jc5 and Black's position is slightly inferior but solid enough, Macieja - Brynell , Istan­bul 2003. I should like to mention that it is rather dubious for him to opt for a move which has been played in several games - 13 . . . a5? ! , because of 14.a3 and now Black will be unable to advance with b5-b4, while White will soon play b2-b4 himself and then the weak pawn on b5 will make Black's defence rather diffi­cult.) 13.Wffxd4 b5, or 13 . . . 11Jb8 ! ? with a n approximately equal posi­tion.

2) 10 . . . Wffe7 11 .ilg2 (The move 11 .0-0-0 was tested in the game Kasparov - Shirov, Astana 2001 . After 11 . . .11Jb6 12 .11Jb3, White gained an edge. However, if Black chooses the plan with a7-a6, either immediately, or after the preliminary exchange of any of his pieces on d4, then the inclusion of the moves g3 and Wffe7 will be in his favour.) 11 . . . l:iJb6 12 .b3 l2lxd4 13.ilxd4 ilxd4 14.Wffxd4 Wffa3 ! ?� Black's knight on b6 is misplaced, but the same can be said for White's pieces too.

10 . . . a6 Here is a new and promising

idea instead of the routine basic plan : 10 . . . ilxd4 11 .ilxd4 Wffa5 ! ? 12 . �b1 (The game ended in a spec­tacular draw after 12 .h4 l"lb8 13 .l"lh3 b5 14.f5 l2lxd4 15.f6 b4 16. WigS l2lf5 17.ild3 h6 18.ilxf5 hxg5 19.hxg5 bxc3 20 .ilh7+ �h8 21 . ilg6+ �g8 22 .ilh7+ �h8 23 .ild3+ �g8 24.ilh7+ , draw, Shirov -Grachev, Lublin 2011 .) 12 . . . l"lb8

13.h4 (13.ile3 b5 14.l2le2 b4 15.l2ld4 l2lxd4 16.Wffxd4 ila6 17.f5 l"lfc8 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.Wffg4 l2lf8 20 . h4 l"lc6 21 .h5 l"lbc8 22 .ilh6 l"l8c7 23.ild2 l"lxc2 24.Wffxb4 Wffxb4 25. ilxb4 ilxfl 26.l"lhxfl l2ld7 27.ild6 l"lc8 28.l"lcl l"lxcl + 29 .l"lxcl l"lxc1 + 30.�xcl= and after some quite logical play from both players,

329

Chapter 39

there arose an endgame in which Black managed to hold the bal­ance convincingly, Svidler - Zv­jaginsev, Moscow 2010.) 13 . . . b5 14 .l2le2 b4 15.l2lc1 l2lxd4 ! Black played very carefully, which should be admired (White's idea was 15 . . . �a6 16.l2lb3 ®'a4 17.f5t with initiative.) . 16.®'xd4 l2lc5 17. h5 �d7 18.h6 g6 19.l2lb3 l2lxb3 20 .axb3 mcB 21 .f5 ®'c5 22 .\WxcS 2:xc5 and in the resulting end­game Black had no problems achieving a draw, Naiditsch -Grachev, Sibenik 2011 .

I should like to mention that 1 1 . . .\WaS ! ? is part of a new plan. Previously Black connected the preliminary exchange with the standard move 11 . . . a6. He pre­vented the plan which we analyze in our next chapter - 10 . . . a6 11 . l2lb3 - but as so often happens, simpler was better.

As a result White obtains a very good extra possibility: 12 .�f2 (or 12 .�e3) 12 . . . b5 13.l2le2 b4 14. l2ld4 l2lxd4 15.hd4 a5 16.g4 ®'c7! (the straightforward reaction 16 . . . �a6 17.�g2 ®'c7 18.Wb1 fi:fc8 19. fi:cl fi:ab8 20.f5± provided White with a better position and an easy

330

plan for its further improvement, Anand - Gurevich, Bastia 2002 ; Froljanov recommends the line: 16 .. .f6 ! ? 17.exf6 l2lxf6 18.g5 l2le4 19.®'e3 a4 20.�d3 b3, with coun­terplay for Black. It seems to me, however, that White's prospects should be preferable owing to his powerful dark-squared bishop.) 17.Wb1 ! ? (after 17.�b5, Black has the resource 17 . . . l2lc5 ! 18.®'e3 �a6! 19 .hc5 2:fc8 20 .�xa6 2:xa6=, whereas the straightforward reac­tion 17 . . . �a6? ! 18 .�xd7! ®'xd7 19. 2:hg1 2:fc8 20.f5 left Black without any counterplay in the resulting position with bishops of opposite colour, and so White retained an advantage, Svidler - Iljushin, Russia 2002) 17 .. .f6 (Black is try­ing to deviate from the Anand -Gurevich game.) 18.exf6 l2lxf6 19. �e5 ®'a7 20 .�d3± and White maintains a slight but stable edge.

It is possible but, I think, not the best for Black, to continue with 10 . . . l2lxd4 11 .�xd4 a6 with similar ideas to 10 . . . �xd4 and 11 . . . a6.

12 .®'e3 ! This is the simplest. (Here, as well as the standard moves 12 .®'f2 and 12 .Wb1, White

5j4 cS 6JiJj3 CiJc6 7. �e3 cd 8.CiJxd4 �cS 9. V!ffd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6

has at his disposal a very promis­ing variation: 12.�xc5 CiJxc5 13. l?!ffd4, Nijboer - Gurevich, Amster­dam 2002 . The game continued: 13 . . . b6 14.�b1 �b7 15.�d3 l"lc8 16.l"lhe1 l?!ffc7 17.g4 f6 18.f5 CiJxd3 19.cxd3 and White had the edge, so Black had to fight for the draw.) 12 . . . l?!ffc7 (12 . . . l?!ffe7 13 .�d3 �xd4 (13 . . . b5 14.l?!ffh3 ! This possibility became possible thanks to the de­ployment of the queen on e3. 14 . . . g6 15.CiJe2t) 14.l?!ffxd4 l?!ffc5 15.CiJe2 b5) 13 .�d3 b5. White is better af­ter this move. (However, even af­ter 13 . . . �xd4 14.l?!ffxd4 b5t the po­sition arising is slightly inferior for Black, and we shall cover it in the move order ll .l?!fff2 CiJxd4 12 . �xd4 l?!ffc7 etc.) 14.l?!ffh3 g6 (14 . . . h6 15.CiJe2) 15.CiJe2 (It is also good, but less dangerous for Black, for White to play 15.l?!ffe3 b4 16.CiJe2 a5 17.h4t, or 15 . . . �xd4 16.l?!ffxd4 V!ffc5 17.CiJe2t with a slight edge. The subsequent pawn-advance h2-h4-h5 would be rather un­pleasant for Black, even in the endgame.) 15 . . . b4 16.l?!ffe3t (it also looks attractive for White to opt for 16.l?!ffh6).

After 10 . . . a6 we shall deal with the moves a) ll.�f2 and b) ll.h4.

Positions of a quite different character arise after 1l .CiJb3 which we shall consider later.

White cannot hurt his oppo­nent much with 1l.CiJce2 l?!ffe7 12 . CiJb3 �xe3 13.l?!ffxe3 f6 14.exf6 CiJxf6 15.h3 a5, and Black has a good game, Svidler - Morozevich, Moscow 2005.

The move 1l .�b1 seems to be more precise, but is less aggres­sive.

We shall show you some of the possible continuations for Black:

One of the fine points of 1l .�b1 is that the plan for Black begin­ning with 11 . . .hd4?! seems rath­er dubious: 12 .hd4 b5 13.�f2 b4 14.CiJa4 a5 15.�b5 l?!ffc7 16.c4 ! bxc3 17.l?!ffxc3 �b7, Adla - Gomez Bail­lo, Buenos Aires 1990, 18.l"lc1 mc8 19.l?!ffd3 l?!ffd8 20.a3± and White has a clear advantage;

it is possible for Black to opt for 11. . .l?!ffc7 12 .l?!fff2 (12 .CiJb3 �e7) 12 . . . CiJxd4 13.hd4 b5 14.�d3 �xd4 15.l?!ffxd4 l"lb8, transposing to a game quoted in the variation with 1l .l?!fff2 , - Smeets - Stellwa-

331

Chapter 39

gen, in which Black managed to equalize;

a good continuation is 11 . . .1!tfe7 12 .h4 (12 .tt:lb3 ! ?) . Here, in com­parison with the ll .h4 variation Black's queen is a bit misplaced on e7, but nevertheless it is ac­ceptable for him to continue with 12 .. .f6 , or 12 . . . tt:lxd4 13.hd4 bS 14.Elh3 �b7, analogously to the variation with 11 .1!tff2 ;

ll . . .tt:lxd4 12 .�xd4 b S 13 .1!tfe3 1!tfb6 ! ? 14.�xc5 tt:lxcS 15.�d3 b4 16.tt:le2 aS 17.tt:ld4 �a6 (Black can also consider the attractive line: 17 . . . a4 18.f5 exfS 19.tt:lxf5 hfS 20 .hf5 Elfd8? and he obtains good counterplay, Wojciechowski

Scibior, Szklarska Poreba 2007.) 18.f5 tt:lxd3 (or 18 . . . hd3 19.cxd3, with an edge for White.) 19.f6 ! ? Timoshenko - Korchnoi, Panormo 2001. Now, instead of accepting the pawn-sacrifice, Black could have tried to fight for the initiative by sacrificing mate­rial himself with 19 . . . b3 ! ? 20 .axb3 gxf6 21 .cxd3 a4 22 .exf6 �h8 23.bxa4 Eltb8 24.Eld2 eS?

a) 11.1!tff2

332

Here, Black is faced with a choice as to which piece to use to capture on d4. We shall analyze both possibilities : al) ll .. .tl:lxd4, a2) ll . . . hd4.

al) ll . . AJxd4 12 .hd4 Now Black must again make

up his mind whether to support his bishop, or continue with the exchanges. We shall deal with both lines in order to clarify for you the finer points of this posi­tion.

12 . . . 1!tfe7 The idea of this move is not to

allow 1!tff2-h4, as was played in the game Kramnik - Radjabov.

It is also possible for Black to opt for the routine and rather pas­sive move 12 . . . b6 ! ?

The seemingly attractive and most popular move 12 . . . 1!tfc7 does not solve his problems either. 13 .�d3 hd4. Black is forced to entice the enemy queen to the d4-square. (After 13 . . . b5, White has the standard manoeuvre 14.1!tfh4 ! h6 15.tt:le2. It is interesting that

6JiJ.f3 tt:Jc6 7. �e3 cd 8. tt:Jxd4 �c5 9. V'ffd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. V'if2

Kramnik evaluates this position as "White is clearly better.", while the computer program "Houdini" considers it to be equal. We be­lieve that artificial intelligence is still not superior to that of hu­mans in the aspect of evaluating positions . . . After 15 .. .f6? ! 16.V'ffg4 �xd4 17.tt:Jxd4 tt:Jc5 18.V'ffg6 tt:Jxd3+ 19J'1xd3 V'ffc4 20J''1hd1, there can­not be any doubt that White has a great advantage, Kramnik - Rad­jabov, Linares 2003.) 14.V'ffxd4

and now: 14 . . . V'ffc5 15.tt:Je2 b5 16.Wb1 !

White can also play the move 16.1"\he1 and transpose to varia­tions with 14 . . . b5, but the position now arising is one of the most im­portant in this variation and can be reached via different move or­ders. In fact, Black can reach it by force, if he so wishes, but this is less favourable for him. 16 . . . b4 17.1"\c1 f6. This is probably Black's most resilient defence. (He has also tried 17 . . . V'ffxd4 18.tt:Jxd4 tt:Jc5 19.1"\hd1 tt:Ja4 - otherwise c2-c3 -20.1"1e1 �d7 21 .1"\e3, planning f4-f5. White has a slight but stable advantage, Khalifman - Gurev­ich, Germany 2002.) 18.exf6

V'ffxd4 19.tt:Jxd4 1"1xf6 20.1"\he1 tt:Jc5 21 .g3 a5 22 .1"\e3 �a6 23.ha6. This exchange is playable, al­though not necessary. After White's simple response 23.1"\ce1 he is obviously better. 23 . . . 1"\xa6 24.c3 (His previous move would have been perfectly justified if fol­lowed by 24.c4, when Black would be faced with a rather difficult de­fence.) 24 . . . tt:Je4 25.cxb4 axb4 26.1"\e2 g5 and Black managed to hold the balance in the game In­arkiev - Rychagov, Moscow 2007;

it is more or less the same after 14 . . . b5 15.1"\he1 (We must mention that the move 15.Wb1 transposes to a position which is advanta­geous for White from the game Khalifman - Gurevich, which we have already analyzed above, aris­ing after 15 . . . V'ffc5. However, Black has an alternative plan of devel­opment: 15 . . . 1"\bS 16.tt:Je2 b4 17. V'ffe3 tt:Jc5 18.h4 �d7 19.h5 a5 20 . h6 g6 2 1.lt:Jd4 a4 22 .V'ffg3 a3 23 . V'ffg5 V'ffd8 24.Wxd8 1"1fxd8 25.b3 1"1b6 26.Wc1 �c8 27.Wd2, draw, Smeets - Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2005. It would not work for White to play 15.tt:Je4? ! dxe4 16.Wxe4 g6 17.Wxa8 �b7 18.V'ffa7 tt:Jc5 19.b4 tt:Ja4 20 .1"\he1 1"\a8 21 . Wd4 1"\d8 22 .Wa1 tt:Jc3 23 .1"\d2 a5 and Black has a dangerous initia­tive. He can also draw easily with the simple move 23 . . . �d5 if he so wishes.) 15 . . . Wc5 16.tt:Je2 b4 (Here there is a possible improvement in the shape of the prophylactic move 16 . . . 1"\eS ! ? and after 17.g4 b4 18.V'ffxc5 tt:Jxc5 19.tt:Jd4 a5 20.f5

333

Chapter 39

�a6 2U!e3 a4, Black obtains sufficient counterplay, while he should counter 17.�bl with 17 . . . �b7, but not 17 . . . b4? ! 18Jkl and the inclusion of the moves l'l:hel , 2:e8 is not in Black's favour. In fact, his position is bound to re­main worse, no matter what . . . )

17.fS (Black has sufficient re­sources against the simple plan: 17jWxcS lLlxcS 18.�d2 aS 19.l2Jd4 �a6 20 .2:al 2:fc8 2l .a3, Szelag -Depyl, Cappelle la Grande 2001 . Black could have equalized here with 21 . . .2:cb8. His position is sat­isfactory too after 20 . . . 2:tb8 2l .fS 2:b6 22 .fxe6 fxe6 23.2:e3 a4 24. 2:h3 g6 2S.l'l:e3 �c4=) 17 . . .'®xd4 18.lLlxd4 2:e8 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.2:e3 lLlcS, Perpinya Rofes - Rojas Keirn, Sabadell 2009. After 21 . 2:h3, provoking a weakening of Black's kingside, White preserves some advantage. Black's position is quite defensible, though . . .

13.i.d3 (diagram)

13 . . . b5 We should like to highlight an

important detail : if 13 . . . �xd4 14.1�hd4 bS (14 . . . \WcS 1S.lLle2 - see 12 . . . \Wc7) White has a very strong

334

response : 1S.l2Je4! f6 16.exf6 lLlxf6 17.lLlgS± with an obvious advan­tage, Grischuk - Lorenz, Mainz 200S.

14)i:le2 ! This is more precise than

14.�bl hd4 (the move 14 . . . b4 transposes to the game Karjakin - Iljushin, Dagomys 2008, which we quote below) 1S.\Wxd4 b4 !? , which we shall analyze later - see 11 . . . \We7! ?).

14 . . . b4

15.�bl! It would be less convincing for

White to choose 1S.\We3 ! ? aS 16.\Wh3 (he has a good alternative here - 16.�bS ! ) 16 . . . g6 17.'�'h6 �a6 18.h4 b3 19.cxb3, Kulaots -

6. li'Jf3 li'Jc6 7. �e3 cd 8. li'Jxd4 �c5 9. Wld2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. Wlf2

Brynell, Sweden 2006. In this po­sition Black could have obtained sufficient counter-chances with the line : 19 . . . hd4 20.li'Jxd4 hd3 2l .l"lxd3 li'JcS, for example: 22 .l"le3 a4 23.h5 axb3 24.a3 (or 24.l"leh3 bxa2 25.%lfxh7+ Wxh7 26.hxg6+ with a draw by a perpetual check) 24 . . . l"lxa3 25.bxa3 li'Je4 and the complications ended in a draw.

15 . . . a5 16 . .ib5

This is the point. After ex­changes, White wants to obtain a superior position with a knight on d4 against his opponent's light­squared bishop. If Black avoids that with 16 • .. hd4 17)t)xd4 ll:lb8 18.f5± then he ended up in a clearly worse position in the game, Karjakin - Iljushin, Dago­mys 2008.

In view of all the variations we have just analyzed, it seems to me that Black's best move order for the ltlc6xd4 plan is:

ll . . .'�e7!? 12.Wb1 This is already a minute

achievement for White. (A very

complicated position arises after 12 .�d3 f6 13.exf6 ll:lxf6 14.h3 �d6 lS.l"lhfl �d7 16.l"ldel li'Jb4 17.%lfd2 li'Jxd3+ 18.cxd3 bSoo Jakovenko -Morozevich, Moscow 2 007. If 14. :§bel, as played in the rapid-chess game Karjakin - Morozevich, Tomsk 2006, Black overlooked the possibility of gaining an edge by means of the tactic 14 . . . li'Jg4 15.li'Jxc6 %lff6 ! ) .

Now Black is forced to ex­change :

12 • • • ll:lxd4 13.�xd4 b5 14. .id3 hd4 15.'1Wxd4

We have mentioned this posi­tion in our notes to move 14 in the variation with ll.. .li'Jxd4 12.hd4 %lfe7 13.�d3 bS (14.\t>bl hd4 15.%lfxd4).

335

Chapter 39

In fact, the point of this move order for Black is to obtain this position and to play here the move 15 . . . b4!?

I t looks risky, but i t cannot be refuted directly.

After 1S .. .'®cS there arises a position which is disadvanta­geous for Black and which we an­alyzed using the move order 11. . . 'Llxd4 12 .ixd4 1l!ic7. Black has also tried 1S . . . ib7 16J''lhe1 but now he should avoid 16 . . . b4, which led to an inferior position for Black after 17.'Lle2 aS 18.1lffe3 'LlcS 19.'Lld4 'Lle4 20.ixe4 dxe4, Dolmatov -Korchnoi, Las Vegas 1999 and now, according to Korchnoi's rec­ommendation, 2l .'LlbS idS 22 . 'Lld6 fS 23 .g4±. White's dominant knight provides him with an over­whelming advantage. Instead, af­ter 16 . . . 1lficS 17.'Lle2 b4 18.fS 1l!ixd4 19.'Llxd4 E\ae8 20 .g4 E\e7 21 .E\e2 exfS 22 .e6 'LlcS 23.gxfS fxe6 24. fxe6 g6 2S.E1e3 E1f4 26.ie2 Wg7= Black equalizes, Hillarp Persson - Brynell, Lund 2010.

16.tl:le4 a5

336

17.lt:ld6 (White cannot hurt his opponent with the line: 17. 'LlgS h6 18.h4 ia6 19.'Llf3 'LlcS, with the plan of b4-b3 . An inter­esting option for White here is 17.h4 ! ? ia6 18.'LlgS ixd3 19.1lfixd3 fS 20.exf6 gxf6 21 .'Llf3 'LlcS 22 . Vffd4, AI Sayed - Roghani, Dubai 2003. Now Black could have cre­ated good counterplay with the pawn-sacrifice : 22 . . . a4 ! ) 17 • . . ia6 18.f5!? This move leads to sim­plification, but if White allows f7-f6 then the future of his active knight on the d6-square might become highly questionable. It is difficult to see how White can im­prove his position in any other way. 18 . . . .ixd3 19.l:�xd3 f6 2 0 .fxe6 exe6 21.exd5 exd5 22.l'�xd5 lt:lxe5. White's advan­tage is only minimal but Black must play very accurately, Zhang Pengxiang - Lou Yiping, Hefei 2010.

Having examined the finer points of this line, which in any case sometimes leads to an infe­rior endgame for Black, the ques­tion arises as to whether it is re­ally worthwhile for him to com­plicate matters so much?! The rather "primitive" line 12 . . . hd4 13. 1lffxd4 bS 14. id3 Vffb6 15. 'Lle2 E1b8, Edouard - Berend, Differ­dange 20 0 8, does not seem infe­rior for Black to the main varia­tion of the 'Llc6xd4 plan. This all requires further practical tests, though.

6.CiJj3 t2Jc6 7. ie3 cd 8. t2Jxd4 ic5 9. V!Jd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. V!1j2

a2) ll . . . .ixd4

This non-standard capture enables Black to easily advance his queenside pawns and develop his light-squared bishop to the a6-square without any problems.

12 . .ixd4 b5 13 . .ie3 b4 White has a slight edge after

13 . . . V!fa5 14.�b1 ib7 15.t2le4;!; Of course, it is also possible for

Black to play patiently with 13 . . . ib7, for example: 14.id3 tt:Jb4 15.id4 Ei:c8 16.�bl V!1e7 17.Ei:he1 t2lc5 18 .hc5 V!1xc5 19.V!1xc5 Ei:xc5 20 .ifH with a slightly better end­game for White. After some forty more moves Black equalized com­pletely in the game Khalifman -Iljushin, Sochi 2005.

14.�a4 White's knight is very well

placed here at the edge of the board.

In contrast, he does not achieve much with 14.t2le2 aS 15. t2ld4 tt:Jxd4 16.hd4 ia6 17.f5 (or 17.�b1 V!fc7 18 .h4 Ei:fc8 19.h5 t2lc5 20 .hc5 V!1xc5 21.V!ixc5 Ei:xc5= with an equal rook and pawn end­ing, Shirov - Radjabov, Leon 2004) 17 . . . exf5 (it is good for Black to play here 17 . . . V!fc7 ! ) 18. V!1xf5 V!1e7 19.g4 hf1 20.Ei:hxf1 l"lfc8 21 .l"lf2 t2lf8 22 .ie3 V!1b7 23. V!1f3 l"lc4 24.l"lxd5 l"lxg4 25.b3, Kar­jakin - Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2005. Black eventually lost this game, but according to Karjakin's recommendation, the move 25 . . . l"lg6 would have led to a very com­plicated position.

14 . . • a5 15.h4 After 15.g4 ia6, the game

transposes to Fedorov - Hassan, Abu Dhabi 2006, which we shall analyze below.

15 . . • .ia6

The pawn structure seems very good for Black, but unfortu-

337

Chapter 39

nately for him White's knight on a4 completely paralyses Black's queenside counterplay, so he will have to resort to the undermining move f7-f6 in the majority of cas­es. However, any opening of the position will be in White's favour, since he has an unopposed bishop.

16.h5 If Black avoids playing f7-f6,

his position can become very dan­gerous; this is best illustrated by the following game : 16.g4 .bfl (he would not change much with 16 . . . Wb8 17.h5 ! ) 17J''1hxfl Wb8? ! (Fedorov recommends here 1 7 . . . f6 ! 18.exf6 Wxf6 19 .h5 Elac8 20. �bl+. Predoevic analyzes : 18.ct:Jc5 We7 19.f5 exf5 20 .gxf5 ct:Jdxe5 21 . ct:Je6 ct:Jg4 22 .Wg3 ct:Jxe3 23.Wxe3. I believe that after 23 . . . ct:Jd8 24. Elxd5 ct:Jxe6 25.fxe6 Elfd8, Black can hold the balance.) 18.h5 Elc8 19.h6 g6 20.�b1 Wb5 21 .b3 Elc7 2 2 .ct:Jb6 ct:Jxb6 23 .�xb6 Elb7 24. �c5 ct:Je7 25.f5 ! exf5 26.Wd4+­with a winning position for White, Fedorov - Hassan, Abu Dhabi 2006.

16 • . • .hfl

338

Black begins the immediate preparation of the undermining move f7-f6.

We must take a look at his al­ternatives too :

after 16 . . . We7 17.h6 g6 18.g4 f6 19 .. ba6 Elxa6 20 .�c5 ct:Jxc5 21 . ct:Jxc5 Ela7 22 .exf6 Wxf6 23.Elhf1 Elaf7 24.We2, in the game Mueller - Buhmann, Germany 2007, White ended up with a comforta­ble advantage ;

Black tried an interesting de­fensive line in the following game: 16 . . . Wc7 17.h6 g6 18.�b1 Elfc8 19. Elcl ct:Jcb8 ! ? 20 .b3 (20 .g4) 20 . . . �xf1 21 .Elhxf1 Ela6 22 .g4 Elc6 23. �d4 (White can opt here for 23. f5 ! ?) 23 . . . Wd8 24.f5 We7 25.Wf4 ct:Ja6 26.Elf2 ct:Jc7 27.Elcf1 ct:Jb5 28. �b2 ct:Ja3 + ! ? and in the position arising, White's pressure has been reduced to his control of the f-file, which is insufficient for a mean­ingful advantage, Luther Drozdovskij , Neustadt an der Weinstrasse 2009.

17J�hxfl It is also possible for White to

play 17.h6, which leads to a trans­position of moves.

17 • • • f6 18.h6 g6 19.exf6 ct:Jxf6 2 0 .We2 lt'le4

(diagram) This is an important position

for the evaluation of the plan with �xd4. It looks a bit worse for Black, since his king is not as safe as his opponent's and White's threat of g2-g4 and f4-f5 might break up his pawn structure. It looks as though White has played

6. li'Jj3 li'Jc6 7. fle3 cd 8. li'Jxd4 flc5 9. Wd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.h4

all the best moves and deserves an edge from the opening. In the two games that have been played from this position, Black has missed at some point the correct path to equality.

21.'l;Vd3 After 21 .Wb5, in the game

Cheparinov - Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2006, Black immediately made a mistake. He should have continued with 21 . . .'l;Vc7 22 .g4 !'labS 23 .Wa6 WeB, holding the balance in the endgame.

21. . . 'l;Vc7 22.g4 �ac8 23. @bl, N.Kosintseva - Brynell, Wijk aan Zee 2007.

In this position Black has a powerful resource in 23 . . . g5! , for

example: 24.flb6 (after 24.fxg5 l"lxfl 25.l"lxfl li'Je5 26.Wdl li'Jc4 27.flcl Wc6� Black has nothing to complain about.) 24 . . . 'l;Vb7 25. fxg5 (Black's position is quite ac­ceptable after 25.f5 li'Je5 26.\Wd4 li'Jc4 27.l"lfel e5 28 .Wxd5+ 1Wxd5 29.l"lxd5 li'Jf6.) 25 . . . li'Je5 26.Wd4 l"lxfl 27.l"lxfl li'Jc4 28. ci>al li'Jcd2 (but not 28 . . . e5? 29.\Wd3 Wc6 30. flc5) 29 .We5 li'Jxfl 30.Wxe6+ ci>f8 31 .fld4 l"lc7 32 .We5 l"lxc2 33.flc5+ li'Jxc5 34.Wh8+ ci>e7 35.Wxh7+ ci>d6 36.Wxc2 li'Je4 and White manages to draw, thanks to his threats against the enemy king. We shall continue this forcing line to the very end, just out of curios­ity: 37.g6 Wb5 38.g7 li'Je3 39 .\Wcl Wd3 40. g8\W li'Jc2 + 41.Wxc2 Wxc2 42.Wf8+ ci>e6 43.Wfl Wxa4 44.h7 b3 45.a3 ( 45.\Wbl li'Jd2 46.Wf5+ ci>d6 47.a3 Wd4=) 45 . . . Wd4 46. Whl Wh8 47.\Wh6+ li'Jf6 48 .g5 Wxh7 49.Wxf6+ Wd7 with a draw.

b) ll.h4

ll . . .c!ilxd4 After ll . . . hd4 12 .hd4 b5,

339

Chapter 39

White has generally responded in one of the following ways :

13J'l:h3 - This move seem less convincing against Black's chosen plan. 13 . . . b4 14.ct:Ja4 (14.ct'le2 aS) 14 . . . aS etc.

After 13.hS, the simplest road for Black to equality is transpose favourably to the ll .h4 ct:Jxd4 vari­ation, by playing 13 . . . b4 14.ct:Ja4 �aS 1S.b3 ct:Jxd4 16.�xd4 i.b7.

Black should react similarly to 13.�b1 b4 14.ct:la4 �as 1S.b3 ct:lxd4 16.�xd4 i.b7.

White has also tried the moves 13.i.g1 and 13 .i.f2 , while the na­tural move 13 .i.e3, strangely enough, has not been sufficiently tested. Nevertheless, it would be quite interesting to see whether White can continue with 13.i.e3 b4 (13 . . . �aS 14.�b1 b4 1S.ct'le2 ct:JcS 16.�eU with an edge for White.) 14.ct:Ja4 aS 1S.�f2 , trans­posing to the variation with 11. �f2 i.xd4, in which Black must still play very precisely to fight for equality. We shall not examine this in detail and instead we shall try to equalize for Black using the tried and tested classical recipes.

12.hd4 b5

340

13J:1h3 The alternatives for White

would not achieve much: The move 13 .hS is not so effec­

tive and only loses time: 13 . . . b4 14.ct:Ja4 (14.ct:Je2 aS 1S.�e3 �c7 16.�b1 i.a6 17.hcS ct:JxcS 18.ct'lg3 l"1fc8 19.l"1c1 a4 20 .ha6 l"1xa6 21 . l"1hd1 a3 22 .b3 l"1c6 and Black ob­tained the better position in the game Topalov - Morozevich, Sa­rajevo 1999. He should not fear 1S.hcS ct:JxcS 16.�e3 �b6 17.fS a4 18.�b1 b3 19.cxb3 axb3 20 .a3 exfS 2l .l"1xdS, Smirin - Lputian, Rostov-on-Don 1993, because af­ter 21 . . .ct'la4 Black has a good game. The surprising move 18 . . . �c7 !? may even help him seize the initiative ; if 19.f6 ct:Je4.) 14 . . . hd4 1S.�xd4

6JiJ.f3 lLlc6 7 . .ie3 cd 8. lLlxd4 .icS 9. Wfd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.h4

1S . . . aS (It is also possible for Black to play 1S . . . W/aS 16.b3 .ib7 17.fS .ic6 18.f6 gxf6 19.exf6 mh8 20 . .id3 .ixa4 21.W/f4 Elg8 22 .bxa4 W/xa4 23.mb1 lLlcS and White's premature attack reaches a dead end, Gallagher - Barsov, Bern 1994.) 16 . .ibS Elb8 17 . .id3 .ib7 18.mb1 (It would not work for White to play 18.h6 g6 19.fS, Nunn - Lputian, Manila 1992 , owing to Nunn's recommenda­tion 19 . . . gxfS ! 20 .ElhS f6+ with a clear advantage for Black; if in­stead 18.fS WigS+ 19.mb1 Elfc8 20. Eldfl .ic6 21 .h6 .ixa4 22 .hxg7 exfS 23.hfS W/xfS 24.ElxfS hc2+ Black wins, Gofshtein - Glek, Baden-Baden 2001.) 18 . . . .ic6 19. lZJcS .ibS 20 .l2Jxd7 W/xd7 2 l.g4 Elfc8 22 .fS hd3 23.cxd3 b3 24.a3 Elc2 , Black's queenside attack is much more effective than White's threats, Olenin - Zvjaginsev, Togliatti 2003.

It is more interesting for White to choose 13.hcS lLlxcS 14.W/d4 Wfc7 1S.a3 .id7 16.fS Elfc8 17.f6 gxf6 18.exf6 mh8, but he is unable to organize an effective attack against Black's king. 19.mb1 (Gurevich recommends as best for White : 19 . .id3 ! aS 20 .hh7! eS 21 .W/xdS .ie6 22 .lLlxbS hdS 23. l2Jxc7 Elxc7 24.ElxdS mxh7 with a very sharp endgame.) 19 . . . Elab8 20 . .ie2 aS 2l ..ihS b4 22 .hf7 eS 23.W/e3 .ifS and Black's advantage became decisive in the game Api­cella - Gurevich, Clichy 2001 .

The game Kamsky - Gurevich, Belgrade 1991, continued with 13.

l2Je2 aS 14.W/e3 W/c7 (Black can also try here 14 . . . W/b6 1S.mb1 b4 16.g4 .ia6 17.hcS lZJxcS 18.l2Jg3 l2Ja4 19.W/xb6 l2Jxb6 20 .ha6 Elxa6= with equality, Beulen -Glek, Breda 1999.) 1S . .ixcS lLlxcS 16.l2Jd4 b4 17.g4 .ia6 (It would be much more energetic and consist­ent for Black to continue with 17 . . . a4 18.fS b3.) 18.fS and the ex­change of the bishops provides him with equal chances: 18 . . . hf1 19.Elhxf1 l2Je4.

Black develops his pieces com­fortably after White's natural line : 13 .W/e3 W/c7 14 . .id3 b4 1S. l2Je2 aS 16. mb1 .ia6 17.Elc1 Elfc8 18 .g4 hd4 19.W/xd4 W/cS 20. Elhd1= with approximate equality, Kuczynski - Luther, Germany 1992. A comparison with the 11 . W/f2 variation shows that the move h2-h4 has not been at all helpful to White.

13 . . . b4 Black's position is quite relia­

ble and this can be best illustrated by the fact that even the prelimi­nary move 13 . . . .ib7 is quite ac­ceptable for him.

341

Chapter 39

We shall show you several ex­amples without going into too many details :

14.g4 b4 15.LLle2 a5 16.g5 ia6 17.h5 l"lc8 18.1t>b1 i!tfb6 19.g6, Gru­enfeld - Gurevich, Haifa 1995 and here Gurevich points out quite justifiably that the position would remain rather unclear following 19 . . . fxg6 20.hxg6 hxg6oo

White's game is less comforta­ble after his alternatives :

14.h5 b4 15.LLla4 ixd4 16.i!tfxd4 i!tfa5 17.b3 ic6 18.LLlb2 l"lfc8 ! ? ( 1 8 . . . i!tfxa2 19.LLld3�) 19.f5 i!tfc7 2 0 . i!tlxb4 LLlxe5 21 .h6 exf5 22 .hxg7 id7t Tischbierek - Knaak, Ger­many 1993;

14.a3 i!tfe7 15.h5 ic6 16.h6 g6 17.g4 b4 18.ixc5 i!tlxc5 19.axb4 i!tfxb4 20 .LLle2 i!tfxd2+ 2l .lt>xd2 ib5= and Black has no problems in this endgame, Najer - Ry­chagov, Krasnoyarsk 2007;

14.l"lg3 b4 15.LLla4 ixd4 16. i!tlxd4 i!tfa5 17.b3 ic6 18.LLlb2 (White should avoid 18.f5 i!tfc7 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.LLlc5 LLlxc5 21 . i!tfxc5 i!tfxe5 22 .l"le3 i!tff4+ with an edge for Black, Berg - Iljushin, Yerevan 2000.) 18 . . . LLlc5 19 .id3 l"lfd8 20 .f5 exf5 21 .ixf5 LLle4 22 . ixe4 dxe4 23.LLlc4 l"lxd4 24.LLlxa5

342

l"lxd1 + 25.\t>xd1 l"ld8+ and the end­game is better for Black, Du­treeuw - Gurevich, Brussels 1995;

14.\t>b1 ixd4 15.i!tfxd4 f6 ! ? 16. exf6 i!tfxf6 17.i!tfxf6 l"lxf6 18.LLle2 l"le8 19.l"lc3 l"lf7 20.l"lc7 LLlf6 21. l"lxf7 lt>xf7 22 .LLlg1 lt>g6 23 .id3+ lt>h6 24.\t>c1 d4. White is unable to solidify his pawn structure in this endgame and the resulting position is favourable to Black, David - Gurevich, Vlissingen 1999.

14)!Ja4 It is no improvement for White

to opt for 14.LLle2 a5 15.i!tfe3 i!tfc7 16.hc5 LLlxc5 17.LLld4 a4 18.\t>b1 (The move 18.a3 ! = would have maintained the balance.) 18 . . . a3 19.b3 ia6 and Black managed to obtain a better position : 20 .ixa6 l"lxa6 21.i!tfe1 l"lb6 22 .c3 i!tfb7 23.l"lc1 LLle4 24.cxb4 l"lxb4 25.l"ld3 l"lc4 ! Polgar - Shirov, Prague 1999.

14 ... hd4 15.i!tfxd4 a5 You can see one of the points

of the idea h4 and l"lh3 after 15 . . . i!tfa5 16.b3 ib7 17.c3 ! l"lfc8 18.1t>b2 bxc3+ 19.l"lxc3 l"lxc3 20 .i!tlxc3 with the better position for White,

6.tiJ.f3 li'Jc6 7. j,e3 cd 8 .tiJxd4 j,c5 9. Wffd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.h4

Nijboer - Luther, Leeuwarden 1992.

16 . .ib5 �b8

17.c4! This is the only way for White

to create problems for Black. 17 . .bd7 j,xd7 18.li'Jc5 Ei:c8 19.

Ei:d2 Wffc7 20.li'Jxd7 Wffxd7 and his game is much easier, Wells -Glek, Vienna 1998.

White does not obtain much with 17.j,d3.

Black's only problem here is to make the right choice between several attractive possibilities :

17 . . . Wffc7 18 .h5 j,b7 19.Ei:e3 (af­ter 19.g4, Fogarasi - Luther, Kec­skemet 1993, it would be good to play 19 . . . f6 ! ) 19 . . . j,c6 20 .li'Jc5 li'Jxc5 21 .Wffxc5 Ei:fc8 22 .f5 j,bS 23.

Wffxc7 Ei:xc7 24.f6 .bd3 25.Ei:dxd3 Ei:bc8 26.Ei:e2 gxf6 27.exf6 Ei:c4 28. Ei:g3+ Wf8 29.Ei:g7 Ei:f4 30.Ei:xh7 Wg8 31 .Ei:g7+ Wf8, draw, Fedorov - Akopian, Moscow 2002 ;

White was unable to create any real problems for his oppo­nent after the straightforward line 17 . . . j,b7 18.f5 j,c6, for example: 19.Ei:g3 (or 19.li'Jc5 Ci:lxc5 20 .Wxc5 Wffb6 21 .Wffxb6 Ei:xb6 22 .Ei:f3 Ei:c8 23 .fxe6 fxe6 24.Ei:f4 j,b5= and an equal ending was reached in the game Marjanovic - Antic, Suboti­ca 2000) 19 . . . exf5 (19 . . . Wffc7! ?) 20 . .bf5 (20.e6 g6 21 .exd7 j,xa4 22 . .bf5 .bd7=) 20 . . . j,xa4 21 . Ei:xg7 + (Black has nothing to fear after 2 1 .j,xd7 .bd7 2 2 .e6 g6 23 .exd7 Wxd7 24.h5) 21 . . .Wxg7 22 .Wffg4+ mh6 23.Wfff4+ mg7= ;

even after 17 . . . Ci:lb6 18.Ci:lc5 Ci:ld7, White cannot create any meaningful threats against Black's position ;

17 . . .f6 ! ? Black is planning to enter a complicated endgame in which both sides have weakness­es. White's less ambitious possi­bilities, which we have analyzed above, lead to equality for Black without any problems, so we can conclude that the entire concept with h2-h4 and Ei:h1-h3 is harm­less. 18.exf6 Wxf6 19.Wffxf6 Ei:xf6 20.Ei:e3 Ei:xf4 21 .Ei:xe6 Ci:lf6 22 .Ei:d6 j,g4 23.Ei:e1 j,hSoo with a rather unclear endgame, Langheinrich -Shirov, Germany 2003.

17 . . . bxc3 Here the move 17 . . . li'Jb6 !? is

worth considering.

343

Chapter 39

18.tb xc3 \Wb6 19.\Wxb6 i'!xb6 2 0 .b3 f6 21.exf6 ltlxf6

White's game is a bit easier in this ending but, objectively speak­ing, Black's position is quite ac­ceptable.

22.a4 ltlg4 23.i'!d4 ltlh6 24. @b2 ltlf5

The complications after 24 . . . e5 25.fxe5 ixh3 26.gxh3 Ei:f2+ 27.@a3 ltlf5 28.Ei:xd5 ltle3 29. Ei:d8+ Ei:f8 30.Ei:d3 Ei:f3 31.Ei:xe3 Ei:xe3 32 .ic4+ lt>f8 33.ltld5 end in White's favour. Black should not play so riskily.

25.i'!dl ltld6 26.i'!f3 (diagram)

26 • . • ltlxb5 Black could have obtained a

very good position after the at­tractive exchange of the light­squared bishops with 26 . . . ia6, or with 26 . . . ib7, emphasizing that

344

White's kingside has been seri­ously weakened by the advance of his h-pawn.

27.ltlxb5 i.d7 28.ltld4, Yur­taev - Goloshchapov, Kolkata 2000.

After 28 . • . .ixa4 29.i'!al i.e8 3 0 .i'!xa5 i.h5 3l.i'!fl i.g4, threat­ening e6-e5, or simply 31. . . .ig6, Black's strong bishop is sufficient to ward off any danger and the most likely result of the game is a draw.

Chapter 4 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lbc3 �f6 4.e5 �fd7 5.f4 c5 6.�£3 �c6 7 . .ie3 cxd4 8.�xd4 .ic5 9.V«d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.�b3

This is a very fashionable re­sponse by White.

He avoids the exchange of knights and his own knights often prevent the advance of Black's a and b-pawns. The positions aris­ing are difficult to evaluate and the correct choice of a line for Black is not at all easy. The Dutch GM Friso Nijboer has contributed greatly to the development of this variation, winning several spec­tacular games in this fashion. The move ll .lt:Jb3 has also been rec­ommended and analyzed as the main line for White in the book "Opening for White According to Anand".

I should like to point out here Black's possible ways of creating counterplay, as well as the com-

plex of "unclear spots" in this var­iation.

Black must now make his choice between four different plans: a) ll . . . b6, b) ll . . . .ixe3, c) ll . . . i.b4 and d) ll . . . i.e7 and which one he should prefer is not at all easy to decide . . .

a) ll . . . b6 Black is striving to complete

his development as quickly as possible .

12 .h4 i.b7 13.h5 gcs 14.gh3 i.b4

After 14 .. .'&e7 15.@bl gfd8 16. lt:Je2 f6 17.lt:Jed4, White obtained a slight edge in the game Nijboer -Glek, Apeldoorn 2001, analyzed in the book "Opening for White According to Anand".

345

Chapter 4 0

15 . .if2 15J'l:g3 <j;Jh8 (it is bad for Black

to opt for 15 . . . lLle7 16 . .id3 lLlc5 17 . .ixc5 bxc5 18 .f5 ! ---+ Lorand -Werner, Budapest 2008) 16.a3 .ixc3 (it seems to me that after the simple move 16 . . . .ie7 Black has a very good position) 17.�xc3 lLla5 18.�b4 �c7 19.lLld4 lLlc5 20 . .id3 lLlc4 21 . <j;Jb1 lLle4 22 .Elh3t with the slightly better game for White, Di­ermair - Luther, Austria 2009. It is far from clear, however, how he can improve his position.

15.h6 g6 16.a3 .ie7 17.lLle4 ttJdxe5 (Black could have avoided this exchange of blows with the simple reply 17 . . . �c7!? , obtaining excellent prospects .) 18 .fxe5 dxe4 19 .�f2 �c7 (after 19 . . . �e8 the po­sition seems to be in Black's fa­vour) 20 . .ixb6 �xe5 2l .Eld7, Baramidze - Buhmann, Bad Wo­erishofen 2008 and after the pos­sible continuation 21 . . . .if6 22 .c3 .ia8 23 . .ixa6 Elb8, Black's chances look very good in this sharp posi­tion.

15 . . . ttJc5 16.�e2 Black should not be afraid of

16 . .ih4 lLlxb3+ 17.axb3 .ie7 18 . .ixe7 �xe7 19 . .id3 f6 20.exf6 �xf6 2 1.f5 lLla5 22 .<j;Jb1 exf5 23 . .ie2 d4, because the resulting endgame is very good for him, Saw - Smerdon, Canberra 2009.

(diagram) 16 . . . hc3?! The forcing lines conclude in

White's favour. Black should prefer the quiet­

er response 16 . . . �c7, with good

346

prospects, and future tournament practice will determine whether this position has been evaluated correctly and will become fash­ionable.

17.t!�xc5 hb2+ I t would b e interesting for

Black to try 17 . . . .ixe5 ! ? 18 .fxe5 (Black regains his piece after 18. lLlxb7 .ixf4+ 19.<j;Jb1 �c7 20 .�xa6 lLlb8 2l .�a4 .ie5 and the position remains unclear) 18 . . . bxc5 19. h6!?, but it is all very risky for him.

18. @xb2 bxc5

19.hc5 (it is possibly prefer­able for White to choose 19.h6 g6 20 . .ixc5) 19 .• .ll:lxe5 2 0 • .ixf8 tt:lc4+ 2t.<j;lat �f6+ 22.c3 <j;lxf8

6.tiJj3 CiJc6 7. :ie3 cd 8JiJxd4 :ic5 9. Wid2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 1l. CiJ b3

23.�f2 Black's compensation for the exchange seems to be insuffi­cient, Rodriguez Lopez - Sum­merscale, London 2010.

b) Black's most straightfor­ward approach is based on:

ll . . . he3 12.Wixe3 b5

Black does not lose time re­treating, exchanges a piece in a cramped position, and continues with his planned pawn advance.

White's decisions in this posi­tion are not difficult either. He is able to maintain an advantage by simple means, so I do not like this line for Black. However, such an expert in this variation as Mo­rozevich played this way in the recent World Cup, so Black might have some hidden resources here.

13.i.d3 b4 14.ll:la4 White has tried all the possible

knight-retreats : the seemingly attractive move

14.CiJe4 aS 1S.CiJbcS CiJxcS 16.CiJf6+ leads only to a draw (His attempt to continue the fight with 16.WixcS CiJe7 17.CiJgS h6 18.CiJf3 :ia6 19.�b1 Wffd7 20 .g4 a4 21 .ha6 l"lxa6 22 .

Wixb4 CiJc6t provided Black with a powerful initiative for the pawn in the game Fier - Morozevich, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011 .) 16 . . . gxf6 17.hh7+ �xh7 18.Wih3+ �g7 19. Wlg4+ �h7 20.Wih4+ �g7 21 .Wig4= Bobras - Socko, Lublin 2008;

the retreat of the knight to e2 however, deserves serious atten­tion : 14.Wffh3 (it makes sense for White to immediately create a target on the enemy kingside) 14 . . . g6 1S.CiJe2 aS (The line 1S . . . Wffb6 16.�b1 aS 17.Wih6 a4, Axlrod - Pitam, Israel 1994, is too opti­mistic for Black. After 18.h4 ! CiJdxeS 19.fxeS CiJxeS 20 .hS CiJg4 21 .WigS eS 22 .hxg6 fxg6 23.CiJd2, White has an edge.) 16.CiJbd4 CiJxd4 17.CiJxd4 a4 18.Wie3 Wffc7 19. h4 b3. Now, since h4-hS cannot be prevented, White seems to have an advantage, but it is not really so clear. After 20.a3 bxc2, Black's plans include CiJd7-cS, ic6-a6-c4, l"lfb8, Wffb6, l"la7 and it is questionable whether White will manage to increase his pres­sure on the kingside. He has the edge, though . . .

14 . . . a5 15.'�h3

347

Chapter 4 0

15 ..• g6 The move 15 . . . h6 is less trust­

worthy for Black: 16.g4 .ia6 17.g5 i.xd3 18.l"lxd3 lLlb6 (White has a clear advantage after 18 . . . lLldxe5 19.fxe5 lLlxeS 20.l"lg3 hxgS 21 . lLld4±, as well as after 18 . . . lLle7 19.gxh6 g6 20.lLld4±) 19.gxh6 g6 20 .lLlxb6 '\Wxb6 2 1.lLld2± and White has the better position.

16.1Wh6 .ia6 17.lLlbc5 lLlxc5 1S.lLlxc5 hd3 19J�xd3 '\We7 2 0 .gh3 f6 21.lLlxe6 gf7 22.f5 lLlxe5 23.gg3 @hS

This more or less forced series of about ten moves led in the game Edouard - Socko, Differ­dange 2008 to a very peculiar po­sition. White has the better pawn structure and seemingly the safer king, but Black has a strong knight on eS. There is so little material left on the board that Black can count on a favourable outcome of the game. White is slightly better, but he cannot convert his edge into anything real. For example: 24.gxg6 (The games ends in a draw after 24.l"lel gxfS 25.lLlf4 '\Wa7 26.l"lxe5 fxeS 27.lLlg6+ @g8

348

28 .lLlxe5+ l"lg7 29.l"lxg7+ '\Wxg7 30. 1We6+ @h8. It becomes clear that White cannot achieve much by forcing the issue, so he should maintain the tension with 24.fxg6 lLlxg6 25.l"lel l"lg8 26.'\WhS '\Wd6 27.l"lee3 ! ? His rook will remain on g3, encouraging an exchange of rooks, which will weaken his op­ponent's king. Black should be re­luctant to enter a position of this type.) 24 . . . b3 !? (The end­game is worse for him after 24 . . . lLlxg6 25.fxg6 '\Wxe6 26.gxf7 1Wxf7 27.l"lfl l"la6 28.l"lel±) 25.cxb3 a4 26.gg3 axb3 27.gxb3 '\Wa7 2S. ga3 gcS+ 29.@bl '\Wf2. Black has sufficient compensation. Af­ter 3 0 .@al lLlc4 31.gb3 gas 32.1Wf4 1Wa7 33.a3 gb7 34.'\Wg3 gabS 35.gxb7 \Wxb7 36.\Wc3 \Wxb2+ 37.\Wxb2 gxb2 the most likely outcome of the game is a draw.

c) ll . . . .ib4

With this pin Black restricts White's possibilities. Sometimes the threat of capturing on c3 may

6. tiJf3 tiJc6 7. 1i.e3 cd 8. tiJxd4 1i.cS 9. Wid2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. tiJ b3

be very unpleasant for White. Lat­er Black has ideas of b7-b5, tiJc6-a5, fi.b7, l"1c8, tiJd7-b6 and even a6-a5. After a2-a3 , the pawn on a3 might become a target for Black's pawn-advance b5-b4.

12.1i.d3 b5 The line 12 . . . tiJa5 13.g4 Wic7 is

too passive. 14.tiJxa5 1i.xa5 15.1i.d4 fi.b6 16.1i.xb6 tiJxb6 17.Wie3 f6, Bachmann - Berelowitsch, Nu­remberg 2008 and here White's simplest reaction would be 18. exf6 l"1xf6 19. tiJe2± keeping a slight edge.

13.g4 We should mention the game

Anand - Morozevich, which end­ed in a spectacular draw: 13.l"1hf1 tiJb6 14.a3 (Here I shall mention another game as well : 14.Wif2 tiJc4 15.1i.xc4 bxc4 16.tiJd4 tiJe7 17. g4 and now Bareev gives an exclama­tion mark to the move 17 .. .f6 ! , evaluating the position after 18. exf6 l"1xf6+, as slightly preferable for Black, Cabrilo - Bareev, Bel­grade 1988. We shall soon en­counter a similar position.) 14 . . . fi.e7 15.tiJd4 Wic7 16.tiJxc6 Wixc6

17.1i.d4 tiJc4 18 .Wie2 l"1b8 19. fi.xh7+ ! ? Wxh7 20 .Wih5+ Wg8 21 . l"1d3 f5 22 .l"1h3 fi.c5 23.l"1ff3 fi.xd4 24.l"1fg3 l"1b7 25.Wih7+ wt7 26. Wixg7+ We8 27.Wixf8+ , draw, Anand - Morozevich, San Luis 2005.

13 • • .lt:'la5 This move seems to me to be

the most promising for Black at the moment.

After 13 . . . tiJb6 14.Wif2 tiJc4 it would be good for White to play 15.tiJe4 15 . . . 1i.e7 16.1i.c5 !? , ana­lyzed in the book "Opening for White According to Anand", as well as 15.1i.xc4 bxc4 16.tiJd4, Amonatov - Rychagov, Dagomys 2009, for example : 16 . . . 1i.d7 (Af­ter 16 . . . tiJe7, White can try 17.f5 and here, you can see the differ­ence from the above-mentioned game Cabrilo - Bareev, in which instead of g2-g4 White played the move l"1hfl.) 17.tiJxc6 fi.xc6 18. fi.d4, or 18 .1i.c5 with a better posi­tion for him.

13 . . . 1i.b7 - This natural devel­opment looks good but might be a bit too slow. 14.l"1hg1 l"1c8 (Here again it looks good for Black to opt for 14 . . . tiJa5. After 15.Wfff2 ! ? there i s a transposition to the game Inarkiev - Nakhapetiane, Olginka 2011 . Black should have continued with 15 . . . l"1c8 16.1i.d4 tiJc6 17.tiJe2 fi.e7, gaining a good position. If 15.1i.d4 tiJc6 16.l"1g3 then 16 . . . a5 ! ?� with counterplay, or 16.a3 fi.e7. Furthermore, Black could consider trying the immedi­ate pawn-sacrifice : 14 . . . a5 ! ?) 15.

349

Chapter 4 0

l"lg3 g6 ! ? (It i s too late for 15 . . . 'Lla5? ! 16.1:'\h3 g 6 1 7 . .id4 and White is threatening f4-f5, Nijbo­er - Sielecki, Breda 2001 . Black can postpone any decisive action a few more moves: 15 . . . 1:'\eS 16. l"lh3 g6 17.1Wf2 , and here, not the passive line 17 . . . .if8 18.g5 'Llb4 19.�b1 'Llxd3 20.cxd3 .ic6 21 . 'Lle2t - even though in the result­ing position White's edge is just minimal, Nijboer - Glek, France 2003, while 17 . . . 'Lla5, or 17 . . . .ixc3 18 .bxc3 \We7 19.g5 d4 ! ?oo lead to rather unclear consequences.) 16.1:'\h3 f6. This was the idea be­hind Black's previous move. 17.�b1 ! This position was reached in the computer game Rajlich - Rentner2 , Playchess. com 2007.

White ignores the threat against his e5-pawn and prepares f4-f5 (The immediate pawn-ad­vance would not work: 17.f5 'Llcxe5 18 .fxe6 'Llxd3+.) . The con­tinuation was 17 . . . fxe5 18.f5 ! A tremendously complicated posi­tion has arisen, and it is very dan­gerous position for Black. We must have a look at some possible lines : 18 . . . 1Wf6 (But not 18 . . . 'Lle7

350

19 .fxe6 'Llf6 20 . .ig5 l"lc7 21 .1We1 \Wd6 22 .1Wh4 \Wxe6 23.l"lf1 and White's position is winning. He also maintains an advantage after 18 . . . e4 19 . .ixe4 'Llce5 20.fxe6 'Llf6 21 ..ig2 .ixc3 22 .bxc3 .) 19. .ih6 (Things would be rather un­clear after 19.1:'\h6 e4 20 . .ixe4 'Llce5) 19 . . . .ixc3 20 .bxc3 e4 21 . .ixf8 'Llxf8 22 . .ie2 'Lle5 23.1:'\flt and White is the exchange up for a pawn and has some advan­tage.

14.i.d4 After 14.'Llxa5 \Wxa5 15 . .id4

.ic5 16 . .ixc5 'Llxc5, Black's posi­tion is quite acceptable, for exam­ple : 17.�b1 .ib7 18.'Lle2 \Wxd2 19.1:'\xd2 and here, he can liven up the game with 19 . . . d4 ! ? 20 .l"le1 !:'ladS? with sufficient counter­play, or else choose the standard move 19 . . .f6.

14 • . .ti:Jc4 It is also possible for Black to

opt for 14 . . . 'Llc6, which would not necessarily lead to a repetition of moves. White can respond with 15 . .if2 'Lla5 16.1:'\hg1 (or 16.�bl) 16 .. . 'Llc4 17.\Wel. However, after

6. 4Jj3 4Jc6 7. 1J.e3 cd 8. 4Jxd4 fJ.c5 9. Vf1d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. 4J b3

17 . . .f6co, the position remains un­clear.

15.�f2 a5 !

This pawn-sacrifice is essen­tial for Black; otherwise, his play would come to a dead end.

16.a3 fJ.e7 17.-!l:lxb5 fJ.a6 18. 4Jc3 �c7 19 . .ixc4 hc4 2 0 . tl:ld2 �ab8 21.tl:lxc4 �xc4 22. �e2 �c6 23.�d3 �fc8� and Black has excellent compensation for the pawn, Gharamian - Ni Hua, Biel 2011 .

d) ll . . . fJ.e7

After this retreat of the bishop, Black plans to advance b5-b4 and

in the event of the blockading move 4Jc3-a4, he intends to attack the enemy knight with 4Jc6-a5 and fJ.c8-b7-c6.

12.h4 b5 13.1!lbl The game we were following

transposed to the main line after 13.�h3 fJ.b7 14.mb1, Nijboer -Stellwagen, Leeuwarden 2002, but Black had a good alternative - 13 . . . 4Ja5 ! ?

13 . . . 1J.b7 It is rather difficult to evaluate

whether Black should allow his queenside to be blocked for the sake exchanging the light-squared bishops: 13 . . . b4 14.4Ja4 aS.

He can follow the same plan with b5-b4 and 4Jc6-a5, even without the preliminary move fJ.c8-b7, for example: 13 . . . Vfffc7 14. hS b4 15.4Ja4 CiJaS 16.Vffff2 4Jc4 17. fJ.xc4 dxc4 (but not 17 . . . Vfffxc4 18. fS) 18.4Jbc5 �b8 and it is hard to see how White can convert the temporary activity of his piec­es into anything really meaning­ful.

14.�h3 �c7 The position is far from clear

351

Chapter 4 0

after the risky-looking immediate 14 . . . b4 15.tt:la4 tt:la5 16.tt:lbc5, but Black should not allow this unless he has to. It appear that he can af­ford to lose a tempo to take the c5-square under control.

15.h5 b4 16.tt:la4 tt:la5 17. �g3

17 •.• .ic6! Now Black should not lose

more time: 17 .. J'lfd8 18.tt:lxa5 '&xa5 19 . .id4 ! ! '&xa4 20.f5 and White's attack became decisive in the game Nijboer - Stellwagen, Leeuwarden 2002.

18.c!Llxa5 The move 18.tt:lbc5 presents

Black with the extra possibility of 18 . . . d4 ! ? and, compared with 18.tt:lac5 tt:lxc5 19.tt:lxc5 tt:lc4 (19 . . . .ib5 i s also good) 20 . .ixc4 dxc4 21 .'&e2 l"lfd8, he has an excellent position.

18 . . Jba5 This looks risky, but the forc­

ing line is very interesting. It would be acceptable for

Black to choose the quieter varia­tion: 18 . . . ha4 19.tt:lb3 l"lfc8 20 . .id3 .ib5= with equality.

352

19.f5 .ixa4 2 0 • .ih6 b3! Black loses after 20 . . . g6 21 .

hxg6 hxg6 22 . .ixf8 l"lxf8?! 23 . .id3 ! ! +-

21.axb3 We must examine what hap­

pens after the other possible cap­ture : 21 .cxb3 ! ? '&xd2 22 .l"lxd2 .ic6 (The move 2 1.cxb3 is aimed at preventing 22 . . . .ib5 since here White can continue with 23.hb5 axb5 24.fxe6. If he captures on b3 with his a-pawn, Black can play 24 . . . fxe6, while here he would have no other choice but to play 24 . . . tt:lxe5 25.l"lxg7+ lt>h8 26.l"lxd5 fxe6 27J''lxe5 .if6 28.l"lgg5 .ixe5 29.hf8 .if6 30.l"lxb5 l"lxf8, and only White is in any danger; or 25.hg7 .ih4 26.e7 l"lfe8 27 . .ixe5+ hg3 28.hg3 l"lxe7 29J''lxd5, with a very sharp endgame) 23 .f6 (the line : 23.hg7 .ih4 24.l"ldd3 h6! is in Black's favour) 23 . . . tt:lxf6 24. exf6 (24.l"lxg7+ lt>h8 25.exf6 hf6 26.l"lg4 l"lg8 and Black's position is perfectly acceptable in this com­plicated endgame.) 24 . . . hf6 25. .ixg7 hg7 (it is weaker for Black to opt for 25 . . . .ih4 26.l"ldd3) 26 .

6.li:JfJ '2lc6 7. i.e3 cd 8. '2lxd4 i.cS 9. V!ffd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. '2l b3

h6 e5 27J�xg7+ <ioh8 28.Ei:f2 ! ? f5 29.Ei:c2co with a rather unclear po­sition. A very unusual pawn struc­ture has arisen in this endgame, but Black's centre pawns guaran­tee that he will not have any prob­lems.

21 •.• V!ffxd2 22.Ei:xd2 .ib5 23. c4

23.fxe6 fxe6 (The variation 23 . . . '2lxe5 24.hb5 axb5 25.hg7 i.h4 26.e7 Ei:fe8 27.he5+ hg3 28.hg3 Ei:xe7 29.Ei:xd5 leads to a sharp endgame which is difficult to evaluate.) 24.Ei:xg7+ Wh8 25. i.d3 i.b4= and White does not have any more than a draw.

23 •.. dxc4 24.bxc4 The line 24.Ei:xg7+ Wh8 25.f6

i.b4 26.Ei:xd7 hd7 27.bxc4 trans­poses to the same position.

24 ..• .ib4

25.gxd7! White cannot achieve more

than a draw with 25.Ei:d4 i.c6 26.hg7 Ei:fb8 and he unable to in­crease the pressure.

25 . . • .ixd7 26.gxg7+ Wh8 27.f6

It does not often happen that you have an extra rook for two pawns in the endgame and yet have to fight for the draw! Black can still cope with this task, though . . . :

27 . . . ggs It is also possible for Black to

continue with 27 . . . Ei:fd8 28 .i.d3 i.f8+ and he has sufficient coun­ter chances.

28.gxf7 .ie8 29 . .ig7+ Ei:xg7 3 0 .gxg7 .if8 31.gc7 .ixh5 32 . .id3 .ig6 33 . .ixg6 hxg6=

All these complications were quite interesting, but a draw seems to be the most likely out­come.

353

AFTERWORD

Finally, I should like to tell you that the dynamic progress of the devel­opment of contemporary chess theory obliges us to regard almost every book with a degree of scepticism. Everything in this world undergoes evolution and chess is no exception. The assessment of certain posi­tions changes dramatically and sometimes even entire openings are refuted. New variations and theoretical novelties appear and fade into oblivion every day. I have therefore tried in my book to show you some of the general principles, typical manoeuvres, exchanges, plans and tactical resources which are intrinsic to the French defence, all based on concrete analysis. I believe that a book of this type will be always useful.

354

Index of Variations

Part 1. l.e4 e6 White avoids the mail lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

Chapter 1 l.e4 e6 2 .b3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 .f4 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chapter 2 l.e4 e6 2.ltlf3 d5 a) 3 .tt'lc3 d4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 b) 3 .e5 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Chapter 3 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 • .id3 dxe4 4.he4 tt'lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter 4 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.tt'lf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Part 2. 1.e4 e6 2.f!'e2 ; 2.d3 Chigorin Variation; King's Indian Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter 5 l.e4 e6 2.fl'e2 2 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 6 l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.ltld2 3 . . . tt'lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter 7 l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.f!'e2 3 . . . tt'lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

a) 3 . . . tt'lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 b) 3 . . . dxe4 4.dxe4 e5 5.tt'lf3 tt'lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.tt'lf3 c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.tt'lf3 tt'ld7 6.tt'lbd2 c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

b1) 6.tt'lbd2 .ic5 7.tt'lc4 We7 8.c3 . . . . 48 b1) 8.g3 . . . . 49

355

Index of Variations

Part 3. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 The Advance Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Chapter 8 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5 . .!L:rf3 lLlc6 6 . l2J a3 cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 6 .ie2 cxd4 7.cxd4 tLlh6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Chapter 9 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5.lLlf3 lLlc6 6.id3 6 . . . cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Chapter 1 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5.lLJf3 lLlc6 6.a3 lLJh6 7.b4 cxd4

8.ixh6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 8 .cxd4 tLlf5 9 .ie3 f6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Chapter 11 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5.lLJf3 lLJc6 6.a3 lLJh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 lLJf5 9.ib2

9 . . . id7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Chapter 12 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5.lLJf3 lLJc6 6.a3 6 . . . c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6 . . . id7 7.b4 cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Part 4. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lLld2 dxe4 The Rubinstein Variation . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 76

Chapter 13 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lLld2 dxe4 4.lLlxe4 lLld7 5.g3 5 . . . ttJgf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Chapter 14 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .lLld2 dxe4 4.lLJxe4 lLJd7 5.lLlf3 lLlgf6 6 . .ig5 h6

7.ih4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 a) 7.tLlxf6 tLlxf6 8 .id2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 b) 8.ixf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 c) 8 .ie3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter 15 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lLld2 dxe4 4.lLlxe4 lLld7 5.lLlf3 lLlgf6 6 . .ig5 h6 7.lLlxf6 lLlxf6 8 . .ih4 c5

9.ixf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 a) 9.dxc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

356

Index of Variations

b) 9.i.c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 c) 9.CUe5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 d) 9 .i.b5+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 e) 9.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 f) 9 .i.e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 g) 9.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Chapter 16 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 dxe4 4.tl:\xe4 ttJd7 5.ll:\f3 tl:\gf6 6.tl:\xf6 tl:\xf6

7.i.c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 a) 7.g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 b) 7.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 c) 7.i.e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 d) 7.i.e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Chapter 17 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 dxe4 4.tl:\xe4 tl:\d7 5.tl:\f3 tl:\gf6 6.tl:\xf6 tl:\xf6 7.c3 a) 7 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 b) 7 . . . i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Chapter 18 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 dxe4 4.tl:\xe4 tl:\d7 5.tl:\f3 tl:\gf6 6.i.d3 a) 6 . . . ttJxe4 7.i.xe4 ttJf6 8 .i.g5 i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

a1) 8 .i.g5 �d6 9.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 a2) 8 .i.g5 �d6 9.i.xf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

b) 6 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Part 5. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .tl:\d2 i.e7 The Morozevich Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Chapter 19 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 i.e7 4.g3; 4.a3; 4.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Chapter 2 0 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 i.e7 4.e5 c5 5.c3 CUc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 5.�g4 lt>f8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Chapter 21 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 i.e7 4.tl:\gf3 tl:\f6 5.i.d3 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5.e5 cufd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

357

Index of Variations

Chapter 22 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 i.e7 4.i.d3 c5 5.exd5; 5.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

a) 5.dxc5 tt:lf6 6 .'&e2 tt'lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 b) 6 .'&e2 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Part 6. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 c5 The Tarrasch Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Chapter 23 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 c5 4.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

a) 4.exd5 '&xd5 5.dxc5 hc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 b) 5 .dxc5 tt:lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Chapter 24 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 c5 4.tl:\g£J cxd4 5.tt'lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Chapter 25 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 c5 4.tl:\g£J cxd4 5.exd5 '&xd5 6 . .ic4

6 . . . '&d8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 6 . . . '&d7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 6 . . . '&d6 7.i.b3 tt:lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

7. '&e2 tt:lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Chapter 26 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 c5 4.tl:\g£J cxd4 5.exd5 �xd5 6 . .ic4 �d6 7. 0 - 0

7 . . . tt:Jf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Part 7. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\c3 .ib4 The Winawer Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 2 0 6

Chapter 2 7 l.e4 e 6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\c3 .ib4 a) 4.'&d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 b) 4.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 c) 4.'&g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 d) 4.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 e) 4.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 f) 4.a3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 13 g) 4.tt:Jge2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

358

Index of Variations

Chapter 28 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lt:lc3 .ib4 4.e5 4 . . . b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

a) 4 . . . c5 5.'\Wg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 b) 4 . . . c5 5.dxc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 c) 4 . . . c5 5.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Chapter 29 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 .ib4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 5 . . . i.a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

a) 5 . . . i.xc3 6.bxc3 ljje7 7.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 b) 7.h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 c) 7.a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 d) 7.ljjf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Chapter 30 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 .ib4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 .b:c3 6. bxc3 �e7 7.'�g4

7 . . . cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Chapter 31 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ak3 i.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 .b:c3 6.bxc3 �c6

7.h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 a) 7.ljjf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 b) 7.a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 c) 7.'\Wg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Part 8. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4 . .ig5 J.b4 The MacCutcheon Variation . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Chapter 32 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4.J.g5 .ib4 5.i.d3 ; 5.ljjge2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

a) 5.exd5 Wxd5 6.hf6 hc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 b) 6.i.xf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

Chapter 33 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4.J.g5 .ib4 5.e5 h6 6.exf6 6 . . . hxg5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Chapter 34 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4.J.g5 .ib4 5.e5 h6 6 . .icl 6 . . . ljje4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

Chapter 35 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4.J.g5 .ib4 5.e5 h6 6.i.e3 �e4

7.ljjge2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

359

Index of Variations

7.Wg4 g5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 a) 7.Wg4 c;t>£8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 b) 7.Wg4 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Chapter 36 l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4 . .ig5 .ib4 5.e5 h6 6 . .id2 .ixc3

7.hc3 l2le4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 7.bxc3 l2le4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

Part 9. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.l2lc3 tlJf6 4.e5 The Steinitz Variation . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 30 0

Chapter 37 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

a) 4 . .id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 b1) 4.e5 l2lfd7 5.l2lf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 b2) 5 .l2lce2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Chapter 38 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.e5 l2lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.dxc5 l2lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 6.l2lf3 l2lc6 7 . .ie3 Elb8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314

a) 7 . .ie3 Wb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 b) 7 . .ie3 a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Chapter 39 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.e5 tlJfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tlJf3 tlJc6 7 . .ie3 cxd4 8.tlJxd4 .ic5 9.tM2 0 - 0

10 .g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 10.0-0-0 hd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 10.0-0-0 l2lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 10.0-0-0 a6 11.l2lce2 ; 11 .c;t>b1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

a) 11 .Wf2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 b) 11 .h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Chapter 40 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.e5 tlJfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tlJf3 tlJc6 7 • .ie3 cxd4 8.tlJxd4 .ic5 9.tM2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.tlJb3 a) 11 . .. b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 b) 11 . .. he3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 c) 11 . .. .ib4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 d) 11 . .. .ie7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

360