9548782448 - Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4, Vol. 5

Opalill lor ita

accord I

1.84

~

Clless Stars

't'iUliptJP

Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com

Technical Editor:

GM R.Ovetchkin, 1M S.Klimov, 1M S.Soloviov 1M Semko Semkov

Translation by:

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Editorial Panel:

Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright © 2005 by Alexander Khalifman and Sergei Soloviov

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN 954 8782 44 8

Opening for White According to Anand l.e4

Book V 1.e4 Miscellaneous l.e4 b6 2.d4 l.e4 ttJc6 2.ttJf3 l.e4 ttJf6 2.e5 l.e4 e6 2.d4 without 2 ... d5

Alexander Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

Other CHESS STARS books

Repertoire books: Opening for White According to Kramnik 1.Nf3 by Khalifman Volume 1: King's Indian, Old Indian, Anti-Gruenfeld Volume 2: Anti-Nimzo-Indian, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango Volume 3: Maroczy, English (1...c5), Modern, Dutch Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman Volume 1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 ... a6 Volume 2: Ruy Lopez with 3 ... a6 Volume 3: Caro -Kann; 1...c6, 2 ... g6 Volume 4: 1... d6, 1... g6 Next book: Volume 6: The French Defence Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, Reti

Current theory and practice series: 1. The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, Second edition 2. How to Get the Edge Against the Gruenfeld by Sakaev 3. Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3! by Bezgodov 4. Latest Trends in the Semi-Slav: Anti-Meran by Sakaev and Semkov Games collections Bogoljubow. The Fate of a Chess Player by S. Soloviov Capablanca. Games 1901 - 1224, Second Revised Edition Capablanca. Games 1925 - 1939, Second Revised Edition Alexander Alekhine. Games Volume 1: 1902 - 1922 Volume 2: 1923 - 1934 Volume 3: 1935 - 1946 Boris Spassky's 400 Selected Games by Soloviov, 556 pages + photos Super Tournaments 2003, 456 pages + colour photos Super Tournaments 2002, 556 pages + colour photos Super Tournaments 2000, 448 pages + colour photos Shirov's One Hundred Wins by Soloviov 316 pages, interviews, biography, photos, hardcover Leko's One Hundred Wins by S. Soloviov 340 pages, biography, colour and b/w photos More details at www.chess-stars.com

Contents Preface ....... , ............. '" ......................... 7

Part 1. Baker's Defence; Owen's Defence l.e4 various; L.a6 2.d4; L.b6 2.d4 1 2 3

various; L.a6 2.d4 .................................. 10 L.b6 2.d4 various; 2 ... i.b7 3.i.d3 4:Jf6; 3 ... e6 4.4:Jf.3 without 4 ... c5 ....................................... 24 L.b6 2.d4 i.b7 3.i.d3 e6 4.4:Jf.3 c5 ....................... 47

Part 2. Nimzowitsch Defence 1. e4 4:Jc6 2. 4:Jf.3 4 5 6 7

2 ... 4:Jf6; 2 ... £5 .........................................72 2 ... d5 ............................................... 77 2 ... g6 ............................................... 88 2 ... d6 ............................................... 96

Part 3. Alekhine's Defence 1.e4 4:Jf6 2.e5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

2 ... 4:Jg8 ............................................. 118 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 various; 3 ... e6; 3 ... d6 4.4:Jf.3 various ......... 125 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 4:Jc6 ............................ 140 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 de ............................... 150 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 g6 ............................... 168 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 i.g4 5.i.e2 4:Jc6 .................. 199 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 i.g4 5.i.e2 c6 ................... 219 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 i.g4 5.i.e2 e6 ................... 233

Part 4. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 16

various without 2 ... d5 .............................. 244

Index of Variations ..................................... 253 5

Preface Dear readers, You are now holding in your hands the fifth volume of our series "Opening for White According to Anand - I.e4". This book is devoted to openings (to put it mildly ... ) rather exotic. In fact, most of the chess-professionals consider the systems that we have analyzed in this volume as simply incorrect. It is maybe the Alekhine Defence, which can be spared such definite evaluation, but this would be probably only due to the reputation of this outstanding chessgenius. It is hardly worth denying that Black would eventually fail to equalize after moves like I. .. a6, or L.b6. Nevertheless ... the chessplayers, belonging to the older generations, definitely remember the famous game Karpov - Miles (Skara 1980) l.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 and ... no, not 1-0 after 20 moves, but just the opposite - after 15 moves Black was already slightly better, after 25 moves Miles was clearly dominant and White resigned on move 46. Naturally, all that does not prove that the opening l.e4 a6 is quite correct, but still it clarifies that neither the win, nor the opening advantage is irrevocably guaranteed even to the best players in the world. White needs some precise knowledge and energetic play to maintain his advantage in these somewhat inferior openings. This small introduction should tell you that the author has had serious problems collecting practical examples (according to Anand ... ) and elsewhere at a really high level, in the process of writing this volume. The present theoretical material was not of much help either, because all these openings had never been analyzed thoroughly. It became necessary to systematize the available material and to give precise recommendations to White after the numerous orders of moves that Black had at his disposal in these rare openings. I am not so optimistic about the eventual evaluation, which this book might deserve by my colleagues - grandmasters. It would hardly be as superb as the reviews of the previous volumes. Moreover, some ofthem might even pay no attention to it and that would be easily understandable. White presently has so many problems to solve, for example in the Marshall Counterattack, or in the Sicilian-Sveshnikov, so why bother about the fine points of the Owen's Defence (1.e4 b6), which is being played so seldom anyway? 7

Meanwhile, this book is addressed not only to grandmasters and even least of all to them. Many less experienced players have encountered opponents at club-level who solve their opening problems once and for all, by avoiding the endless complicated lines of the Ruy Lopez, or the Sicilian Defence and instead respond to l.e4 with l...lDc6 (l...b6, l...a6, l...lDf6) and take care only about all immediate refutation attempts? The author has written this book for these particular players with the hope that it might be really useful for them. I would not venture to guarantee you winning your games with White, but you are going to have the opening advantage - be sure about that!

14th

A Khalifman World Chess Champion

P.S. This book has included, in a separate part, some lines after l.e4 e6 2.d4 (without 2 ... d5). The author considers that the French defence deserves a volume of its own - that is l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5, as for the lines, in which Black refrains from 2 ... d5 - that is " .oh, see the first passages of this introduction.

8

Part 1 l.e4 - Miscellaneous 1.e4 b6 2.d4

and White achieves a substantial advantage. There is also another possibility for Black - 1. .. b6 (Owen's Defence) with the similar ideato develop the bishop to the b7square. It is much more difficult for White to maintain a stable edge after that, since Black has In the first chapter we will not weakened his queenside with analyze some quite strange the move b7 -b5 and he has not moves for Black: 1. .. f5, 1. .. g5 lost additional time to develop (Basman Defence), I. .. a6 his bishop (the a7 -a6-move). (Baker's Defence). Only the last Black's most logical plan for variation has a somewhat sen- the development of his pieces: sible idea - to follow with 2 ... b5 l.e4 b6 2.d4 .ltb7 3 ..ltd3 e6 (preand to develop the bishop to paring c7 -c5) 4.1ZJf3 c5 5.c3 lZJf6 the b7 -square. Such enlarged is dealt with in Chapter 3, while fianchetto is a bit too risky for the rest of Black's possibilities the early stages of the opening are analyzed in chapter two.

9

Chapter 1

1.e4

L.a6 This move became gradually popular after GM Anthony Miles's sensational win with Black against Anatoly Karpov at the European Team Championship in Skara in1980. The moves 1...h5 and 1.. .a5 hardly deserve any serious attention, since they do not contribute at all to Black's development, and he is not fighting for the centre either. After 2.d4± White has a clear advantage, because no matter what popular scheme Black might try to employ - his first move will definitely be premature mildly speaking ... It is obviously wrong for Black to play 1...f5 2.exf5 ct:Jf6 3.~e2±, because White remains 10

with an extra pawn and better development. White has no problems to claim the edge after: 1...ct:Ja6 2.ct:Jc3 c6 3.i..xa6 bxa6 4.l2:lf3 g6 5.0-0 i..g7 6.d4 ct:Jf6, Comp Mephisto Genius - Van Geet, The Hague 1997, 7.e5 ct:Jd5 (7 .. .'~Jg4 8.h3 ct:Jh6 9.i..f4±) 8.ct:Je4 0-0 9. c4 ct:Jb6 (9 ... ct:Jc7 10.'§b3±; 9 ... f5 10.l2:lc5 ct:Jb6 11. ,§c2±) 10.b3 d5 11.exd6 exd6 12.i..a3±2, and Black's bishops are rather passive, while he has plenty of weak pawns to worry about. After 1...g5 2.d4 Black usually follows with 2 ... i..g7 or 2 ... h6, but some other moves have been tried in practice too:

2 ... ct:Jf6? - is a rather strange move, because after 3.e5± Black's

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ltJ{3 ~b7 4.~d3

knight will have to go to the centre of the board. It will come under attack just like in the Alekhine Defence, meanwhile Black will lose his g5-pawn in the process; In answer to 2 ... e6, it is worth for White to try to exploit the weakening of Black's kingside immediately with: 3.h4!? gxh4 4. '§h5! and Black must defend very precisely against the oncoming attack. The only game played in this line followed with: 4 ... .Jie7 5.cbf3 c5 6.ltJe5 t'ta5+ 7. .Jid2 t'tb6 8. t'txf7 + ~d8 9. t'tg7 t'txb2, Kuusela - Kiltti, Tampere 1995. Now after 10.dxc5! Black either gets checkmated, or he loses plenty of material, for example: 10 ... .Jiffi (10 ... ~c7 1l ..Jif4 .Jiffi 12.ltJxd7+-) 11. t'tf8+ ~c7 12. '§d6+ ~d8 13.ltJc4 '§xa1 (13 ... '§d414.t'tf8+ ~c7 15 ..Jia5+-) 14. t'tf8+ ~c7 15 ..Jia5+ b6 16.cxb6+ axb6 (White checkmates too after: 16 ... ~b7 17.ltJd6+ ~c6 18. t'txc8+ ~xd6 19 ..Jib4+ ~e5 20. '§c7+) 17 ..Jixb6+ ~b7 18.'§xc8+ ~xc819.ltJd6# Black thus suffers the punishment for his terrible play in the opening; There are some games in which Black has tried the quite extravagant move 2 ... e5?, against which White should better continue his piece-development with 3.ltJf3 and then for example: 3 ... exd4 4 ..Jixg5 .Jib4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.ltJxc3± and White's lead in development is overwhelming;

2 ... ~g7 3.ltJc3 (This is White's calmest move, but it is also very good for him to play 3 ..Jixg5, although after 3 ... c5 the game might get too complicated.) 3 ... c5 (About 3 ... h6 - see 2 ... h6; the other moves for Black enable White to dominate in the centre completely. He has additionally a powerful pressure on the kingside, which was weakened considerably with Black's first move: 3 ... e6 4.ltJge2 h5 5 ..te3 d6 6. '§d2 g4 7.0-0-0 a6 8.h3± Vouldis - Papastavropoulos, Athens 1996, or 3 ... c6 4 ..tc4 b5 5 ..Jib3 a5 6.a3 Sl..a6, Ginsburg Frey, Deizisau 1998, 7 ..txg5±.) 4.Sl..e3 '§b6, Kottenhahn - Zoeller, Giessen 1997 (After 4 ... t'ta5 5.ltJge2 cxd4 6.ltJxd4± the position resembles the Accelerated Dragon variation - l.e4 c5 2.ltJf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 .tg7 5.ltJc3 - except that Black's pawn is on the g5-square instead of on g6. This is definitely in favour of White, since he can attack much easier on the kingside - the f5 and h5-squares are very weak now.) 5.ltJd5 t'ta5+ 6 ..Jid2 t'td8 7 ..Jic3 cxd4 8 ..txd4± and White enjoys a total control over the centre and his lead in development is overwhelming; 2 ... h6 3.4:lc3 Sl..g7 4 ..Jic4 c5 (After the rest of the moves for Black - White can easily exploit the weakening of Black's kingside with quite natural moves, for example: 4 ... e6 5 ..te3 ltJe7 6.t'te2 d6 7.0-0-0 a6 8.h4 gxh4 11

Chapter 1 9.ttJf3 ttJg6 10 ...ltd3 ttJc6 1l.e5± Smolyaninov - Khabarov, Dagomys 2003, Black lags in development considerably and he can hardly bring his king to safety, while in case of: 4 ... d6 5.ttJge2 ttJc6 6.0-0 e5 7. dxe5 ttJxe5 8 ...ltb3 ttJf6 9.f4 gxf4, Mordiglia - Faraoni, Asti 1995, the simple line 10.Ji.xf4 'f!1e7 1l.ttJg3± leads to a position, which is much more typical for the King's Gambit - White leads in development, the f-file is opened, the f5 and h5-squares are very weak, moreover White has not sacrificed anything whatsoever. White maintains a considerable lead in development too after: 5 ... ttJf6 6.0-0 c6 7.f4± Alvarez Theunisse, corr. 1992.) 5.Ji.e3 ttJc6 (Mter 5 ... cxd4 6 ...ltxd4 ..ltxd4 7. 'f!1xd4 ttJf6 8.ttJd5± Sheldrick Williams, Mingara 2000, Black's kingside is totally destroyed; while in case of 5 ... 'f!1a5 6.ttJge2 ttJf6, Kogge - Millgramm, Pinneb erg 2000, White fortifies his centre with 7.f3 cxd4 8.ttJxd4 d6 9. 'f!1d2± and transposes to a position from the Dragon variation of the Sicilian Defence - l.e4 c5 2.ttJf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4 ttJf6 5.ttJc3 g6 6 ...lte3 Ji.g7 7.f3 - in which Black's kingside has been weakened.) 6.ttJge2 ttJa5 (This chase of the white bishop consumes too much time.) 7.'f!1d3 cxd4 8 ...ltxd4 ttJf6, Ward - Elieff, Canada 1996 (The exchange of White's light squared bishop does not help Black much: 8 ... 12

ttJxc4 9. 'f!1xc4 ttJf6 10.e5 tLlg4 1l.e6±; 9 ... ..ltxd4 10.tLlxd4 tLlf6 11.h4± and White leads in development and he has a powerful initiative in the centre and on the kingside.) 9.e5 ttJh5 (in answer to 9 ... ttJg4, White should better follow with 10.e6 and he wins a pawn preserving a huge lead in development.) 10 ...ltd5±. White's pieces are centralized, he leads in development and he has excellent prospects for active play in the centre and on the kingside. White's advantage is overwhelming. 2.d4

2 ...b5 Mter 2 ... d5 3.exd5 'f!1xd5 4. tLlc3 there arises a position from the Scandinavian Defence with the strange early move a6; about 2 ... d6 3.ttJc3 - see Chapter 1, volume4. In case of 2 ... e6 3.tLlf3, Black has plenty of possibilities, but they usually lead only to transpositions: 3 ... b5 4.Ji.d3 - see 2 ... b5; 3 ... d5 4.tLlc3 - see l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ttJc3 a6; 3 ... c5 - leads to the Sicilian Defence; 3 ... tLlf6 4.e5 - transposes to the Alekhine

l.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ctJ{3 !!i.b7 4.iLd3

Defence with a move like e6, which is hardly the best and also with the inclusion of the strange a6?! - move. Black has also tried the following moves in this position: 2 ... h6 3.c4 cS (The attempt by Black to play symmetrically with 3 ... g6 4.ctJc3 b6 S..lte3 .ltg7, Tidman - Saujani, London 1999, leads after 6.f4± to a position in which White enjoys complete control over the centre; in answer to 3 ... bS, Helin - Marder, Stockholm 2000, White should simply capture 4.cxbS and he remains with a solid extra pawn.) 4.ctJf3 cxd4 (after 4 ... gS S.dxcS .ltg7 6.ctJc3 ctJc6 7 ..lte3 ctJf6 8. ctJd2± Rotman - Basman, London 1994, Black has no compensation for the pawn) S.ctJxd4 e6 6.ctJc3 ~c7 7 ..lte3 ctJf6 8 ..lte2± Wortel - Basman, Amsterdam 1996. There arose a position, which is typical for the Paulsen variation of the Sicilian Defence (l.e4 cS 2.ctJf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4 a6 S.c4) except that Black has played the move h6, which is hardly the best; 2 ... cS 3.dxcS ~aS+ (It is calmer and safer for Black to play 3 ... e6 4 ..lte3 ~c7 S.ctJc3 .ltxcS 6 ..ltxcS ~xcS. The arising pawnstructure is more typical for the Sicilian Defence and the early exchange of the dark squared bishops enables White to either force the weakening of Black's kingside, or to prevent him from castling. 7. ~g4 ~f8 - it is possi-

bly better for Black to play: 7 ... g6 8.ctJf3 ctJc6 9 ..i.d3 bS 1O.0-0± and his queen is active, but both his flanks are weakened considerably - 8.ctJf3 bS 9.ii.d3 b4 1O.ctJe2 .ltb7 11.0-0 ctJc6 12. ~f4 d6 13. a3±; 12 ... eS 13. ~d2 ctJge7 14.a3± Hodl - Sell, Germany 2000. White has excellent prospects on the queenside, because of the exposed position of the enemy king. Black has hardly any counterplay.) 4.ctJc3 ~xcS (The line 4 ... ctJf6 S.i.d3 e5, was played in the game Gonzalvo Lara Cerrajeria, Zaragoza 1999. Now, it looks very attractive for White to follow with 6.i.g5!?, for example after: 6 ... .lte7 White exerts a powerful pressure: 7.ttJge2 ~xc5 8.ii.xf6 .ltxf6 9.ttJd5 ii.d8 10.0-0 d6 l1.b4 ~c6 12.c4 0-0 13.f4±; or 6 ... .ltxc5 7.ii.xf6 gxf6 8.a3 ~d8 9. ~g4± and Black's bishop pair does not compensate his weaknesses on the kingside and in the centre. It is even worse for him to play: 8 ... ctJc6? 9.b4 ttJxb4 10.axb4 ~xb4 11. ctJge2+-, or 8 ... ~b6 9.ctJd5 !!i.xf'2+ 10.~f1+-.) 5.ii.e3 ~a5 (5 ... ~b4 6.a3 ~xb2 7.ctJd5+-; 6 ... ~a5 7.b4 ~e5 8.ctJd5+-) 6.~d5 ~c7 7.~b3! This move enables White to paralyze Black's queenside completely: 7 ... e6. This is Black's only move. (7 ... b5 8.ctJd5 ~aS+ 9.c3 ii.b7 10.ttJb6+-; 7 ... ctJf6 8. ii.b6 ~f4 9.ctJh3+-; 8 ... ~e5 9.ctJf3 ~e6 10.ii.c4+-; 8 ... ~c6 9.ttJd5 ctJxd5 10.exd5 ~f6 11.~c4+-) 8.ii.b6 ~c6 9.ctJge2 ..It.c5 (after 13

Chapter 1 9 ... d6 10.CZ'ld4 ~d7 1l.0-0-0± White's lead in development is overwhelming) 10.CZ'la4 d6 (l0 ... i..e7 11..~.. d4+-) 1l ..txc5 dxc5 12.CZ'lb6 J::i.a7 13.~g3±. White wins at least a pawn. 3.CZ'lf3

3 ... i..b7 3 ... e6 4 ..td3 c5 (about 4 ... .tb7 5.0-0 - see 3 ....tb7) 5.c3 and now: 5 ... .tb7 6.0-0 - see 3 ... .tb7; 5 ... d6 6.0-0 ltJd7 (after 6 ... CZ'lc6 7.l:i.e1 e5 8.a4 l:(bS 9.axb5 axb5 10.h3 i..d7 11..te3 '!fic7 12.ltJbd2± there arises a pawn-structure which is typical for the Ruy Lopez, except that White has several extra tempi, Thallinger - Wiedner, Austria 1994) 7.a4 c4 S..ic2 l:i.bS 9.axb5 axb5 10.~e1 CZ'le7, Anagnostopoulos - I vanets, Heraklio 1996, and here the best way for White to exploit his huge lead in development is to play: 1l.b3! cxb3 12 ..id3± and Black must push his b5-pawn forward in order not to lose it, meanwhile White continues with his development and Black's king is rather unsafe in the centre; Black can reduce the tension in the centre with: 5 ... cxd4 6.cxd4 14

.ib4+ 7.CZ'lc3 .ib7 S.O-O i..xc3 9. bxc3 '!fic7, Pucovski - Rajak, Yugoslavia 2001, but White maintains a steady pressure in the centre and on the queenside: 10.a4! ltJf6 (it is worse for Black to play: 10 ... d5 1l.exd5 .ixd5 12. axb5±, as well as 10 ... '!fixc3 11. .if4 bxa4 12. l';t'bl+-; 1l ... CZ'lc6 12. axb5±) 11.~e1 bxa4 12.e5 CZ'ld5 13.c4 CZ'lb6 14.c5 ltJd5 15.CZ'lg5±; After 5 ... c4, White has a clear plan for actions on the queenside: 6 ..ic2 .tb7 7.0-0 ltJf6 S. l:i.e1 d6 9.b3 ~c7 10.bxc4 bxc4 11. ~e2 ltJbd7 12.ltJbd2 lIc8 13. l:i.b1 .ie7 14.ltJxc4 iLaS, Riefner - Unger, Bayern 2002 (l4 ... .ixe4 15.ltJxd6+ iLxd6 16.iLxe4 CZ'lxe4 17. ~xe4 '!fixc3 lS. '!fig4 c;t>f8 19. i..f4±; lS ... g6 19.iLh6±). Now, White could have preserved a solid extra pawn with: 15.ltJa3! d5 16.'!fixa6 CZ'lxe4 (It is hardly better for Black to try: 16 ... .txa3 17 ..ixa3 CZ'lxe4 lS ..ixe4 dxe4 19. ltJg5±, because he remains a pawn down and his king is vulnerable. He has no compensation for the pawn after: 16 ... ~xc3 17.e5±, while in case of: 16 ... dxe4 17.CZ'lb5 ~c6 lS.'!fixc6 iLxc6 19. ltJa7± Black will have to defend a very difficult endgame.) 17. ltJb5 '!fidS lS.iLxe4 dxe4 19.1tJd2 CZ'lf6 20.iLa3±. 4.i.d3 We will analyze now: a) 4 ... CZ'lf6 and b) 4 ... e6. Black has also tried in practice: 4 ... d6 - White can now exploit

l.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.CiJ/3 !il.b7 4 . .1l.d3

the weaknesses on Black's queenside with quite natural moves: 5.a4! b4 6.c3 c5 7.0-0 a5 B.i.b5+ i.c6 9.dxc5 dxc5 10. Y;;rxdB+ ~xdB ll.tLle5± and Black must fight for the draw in an endgame with weak queenside pawns, moreover his pieces on the kingside are not developed, Comas Fabrego - R.Valles, Spain 199B;

4 ... g6 5.a4! b4, Ferret - Gasch, Internet 1996 (it worse for Black to play 5 ... bxa4 6.0-0 tLlf6, Gabrielson - N agley, IECC 1998, because White dominates in the centre and he has excellent attacking chances after: 7.e5 tLld5 B.i.e4!, for example: B... tLle3 9.fxe3 ~xe4 10.tLlg5!+-; B... Y;;re8 9.tLlg5! f5 1O.~xf5+-; 9 ... h6 10. tLlxf7+-; 9 ... tLlb4 10J:Ixa4 ~xe4 1l.tLlxe4±) 6.0-0 ~g7 (After 6 ... tLlf6 7.e5 tLld5 8.~e4 ~c8 9.tLlg5, Black will hardly manage to defend against White's numerous threats and particularly against 10.Y;;rf.3.) 7.c3 bxc3 B.tLlxc3 tLlc6 9. i.e3±. White's centre is very powerful and he enjoys a much better development. a) 4 •.. tLlf6

5.CiJbd2! This move is a useful prophylactic against the move c7 -c5, which White will counter now with dxc5, followed by e5 and tLle4. He saves a tempo in this fashion for the move c2-c3 in comparison to line b. 5 ... e6 In answer to 5 ... e5, which was tested in several games, White should better capture the pawn 6.dxc5 Y;;rc7 (6 ... e6 7.e5 tLld5 8. tLle4±) 7.b4 CiJc6 B.a3± and Black has no compensation. 6.0-0 c5 Black has no other active counterplay left. About 6 ... i.e7 7 ..1:i.e1- see 4 ... e6 5.0-0 iLe7 6.CiJbd2 CiJf6 7.lIel. 6 ... d5 7.e5 CiJfd7 (If 7 ... CiJe4, Williamson - Schaeperkoetter, IECG 2001, then the simple line 8. Y;;re2 CiJxd2 9.i.xd2 c5 10.dxc5 ~xc5 1l.b4 i.e7 12.a4± enables White to exert a powerful pressure on the queenside.) 8.tDb3 e5 9.dxe5 tDxc5 (It is worse for Black to play 9 ... CiJe6 10.iLe3! CiJdxe5 11.CiJxe5 CiJxe5 12.i.d4 tLle6 13.c3 ::tcB 14.f4 tDxd4 15. exd4±, because White remains with an overwhelming advantage in the centre and he can create threats on both sides on the board, Dibley - Schaeperkoetter, mCG 2001.) 10.CiJxc5 i.xc5 11.e3 tDc6, Flear - Rossi, Asti 1997, and now the simplest way for White to exploit the weaknesses on Black's queenside is to play: 12.b4 i.e7 13.a4t.

15

Chapter 1

6 ... d6 - enables White to seize the initiative on the queenside: 7.a4 b4 (It is worse for Black to try 7 ... bxa4 8.c3 i.e7, Raisa Kivisto, Finland 1994, because after the simple line: 9:~xa4+ ~d7 10. "§c2± White maintains a powerful pressure over the whole board.) 8.e5 dxe5 9.dxe5 4Jd5 10.4Je4 i.e7 11.~e2 4Jd7, Bratic - Nurkic, Neum 2003. Now, after the aggressive line: 12.c4 bxc3 13.bxc3 4Jc5 14.4Jxc5 i.xc5 15.i.d2± there arises a position in which Black cannot complete his development easily, since after: 15 ... 0-0 White plays 16. i.xh7!~, while in case of 15 ... h6 16.J:::tab1~, White maintains his space advantage and he has a powerful pressure on the queenside. 7.dxc5 i..xc5 8.e5 4Jd5 9. 4Je4 i.e7 It is quite dubious for Black to play: 9 ... "§c7 10.4Jxc5 ~xc5 1l.a3± Tripoteau - Delaire, Fouesnant 2000, because White remains with the two bishop advantage and dominates in the centre. 10.a4 b4 After 10 ... 4Jb4 1l.i.g5!± White manages to trade favourably the dark squared bishops. 1l.c4! bxc3 It is worse for Black to play 1l ... 4Jb6, because after 12.:tel± White controls the centre and he has excellent piece coordination.

16

12.bxc3 0-0, Faibisovich Frog, St. Petersburg 1993. (After 12 ... 4Jc6 13.i.a3± White's knight reaches the wonderful d6-square and he maintains a powerful pressure on the queenside, Fritz 6 - Wege, Kuppenheim 2000; it is hardly any better for Black to try here: 12 ... f5 13.exf6 4Jxf6 14.4Jxf6+ i.xf6 15.4Jg5± Burlant - N agley, IEee 2003, because White preserves a huge lead in development and a strong initiative on the kingside.) 13 ..l:!bl ~c7 (13 ... i..c6 14.4Jd4±) 14.4Jd6 i.c6 15.i.c2 f5 (in case of 15 ... i.xd6 16.exd6 "§a5, White plays 17.c4! 4Jf6 - Black loses after 17 ... 4Jc3? 18.i..d2+- - 18.i.b2± and Black has no compensation for White's two powerful bishops) 16."§d4±. Black cannot activate his pieces effectively. White's excellent knight on d6 paralyzes Black's forces and the exchange of that knight with Black's dark squared bishop would cause a great weakening of the dark squares. It is not clear at all how Black can complete his development.

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ct:J{3 iLb7 4 . .i.d3

b) 4 ... e6 5.0-0

5 ... c5 Black must organize some counterplay in the centre; otherwise he will have problems with the defence of his queenside weaknesses. About 5 ... ct:Jf6 6.ct:Jbd2 - see 4 ... ct:Jf6. 5 ... d6 6.a4! bxa4 (after 6 ... b4 7.c3± White maintains his space advantage, his lead in development and his initiative on the queenside) 7.ct:Jc3 ct:Je7 8.Jtg5± Tiger 9 - Goubet, Albertville 1997. 5 ... ct:Je7 6.a4! bxa4 7.c4 ct:Jg6 8.ct:Jc3 Jte7 9. ~xa4 0-0 1O.d5 c6 11.i.e3± Shabalov - Zapolskis, Liepaya 2004. The move 5 ... i.e7looks like a waste of time, because after 6.ct:Jbd2! ct:Jf6 (6 ... c5, Trajano Lima, Pernambuco 2000, 7.dxc5 i.xc5 8.a4±) 7.l:::!.e1 c5 (in case of 7 ... d6 8.a4!t b4 9.c3 White has a powerful pressure on the queenside and in the centre), Sundeen - Vandenburg, Lansing 1990, and here the simple line 8.e5 ct:Jd5 9.dxc5 i.xc5 10.ct:Je4± transposes to the variation a with an extra tempo for White.

Mter 5 ... d5 6.e5 c5 7.c3 ct:Jd7 (in answer to 7 ... ct:Je7, Erlandsen - Benn, Sandefjord 2002, White's simplest line is 8.dxc5±, winning a pawn; the move 7 ... ~b6, Jaeger - Fredriksen, Copenhagen 2004, enables White to seize the initiative on the queenside with: 8.dxc5 i.xc5 9.b4 i.e7 10.a4 bxa4 11.i.e3 ~c7 12.~xa4±; in case of 7 ... ct:Jc6, Tatai - Bellon Lopez, Las Palmas 1975, White should again play: 8.dxc5 i.xc5 9.b4 i.b6 10.a4t) 8.ct:Jg5± and White enjoys extra space, his development is superior and his kingside initiative is dangerous for Black too, Stinson - Loncarevic, Chicago 1993. 6.c3 ct:Jf6 About 6 ... d5 7.e5 - see 5 ... d5 6.e5 c5 7.c3. Black loses plenty of time after 6 ... i.e7 7.dxc5 i.xc5, Nilson - Stephenson, corr. 1993. White plays: 8.b4 Jte7 9.a4 bxa4 (it is worse for Black to try 9 ... ~c7 10.axb5 axb5 11 ..!:.xa8 Jtxa8 12. ct:Jd4±, because White remains with an extra pawn) 10.':xa4± and White has a superior development and a powerful pressure in the centre and on the queenside. In answer to 6 ... ~b6, Brustman - Lebel Arias, Dubai 1986, White can create dangerous threats on the queenside with: 7.dxc5 i.xc5 (or 7... ~xc5 8.a4 b4 9.i.e3 ~c7 10.cxb4 Jtxb4 11. ~b3 ct:Jc6 12J:tc1 Iib8 13.ct:Ja3±) 8.b4 Jte79.a4±. 17

Chapter 1 6 ... tDc6 enables White to occupy the centre: 7.d5 tDce7 (after 7 ... tDa5 8.l:!.e1 Yf:tc7 9.b3± Black's queenside pieces are totally misplaced) 8.c4 bxc4 9.iLxc4 tDf6 10.ttJc3± and White has a huge space advantage and better development, Flear Wohlers, France 1998. 6 ... h6 7 :fle2 ttJf6 (it is too passive for Black to play: 7 ... iLe7, Jenni - Erenska, Bad Woerishofen 2001, because White can counter that with 8.dxc5 iLxc5 9.b4 iLb6 10.a4±) 8.tDbd2 cxd4 (Black loses plenty of time with: 8 ... i..e7 9.dxc5 i..xc5, Pierangeli - Mazziotto, Rome 1996, and now 10.e5 ttJd5 11.tDe4 iLe7 12. a4± provides White with domination in the centre and a powerful initiative on the queenside.) 9.cxd4 iLe7 10.a4 M 11.a5 0-0 12. e5 ttJe8 (12 ... tDd5 13.Yf:te4 g6 14. ttJc4±) 13.ttJc4±, Black's pieces are extremely passive and he can hardly organize counterplay anytime soon, Bengtsson - Engstrom, Linkoping 1984. 6 ... d6 7 :fle2 tDf6 (Mter 7 ... ttJe7 8.a4 M, Levitt - Zapolskis, Plovdiv 2003, White can exploit the weakening of Black's queenside with: 9.dxc5 dxc5 10.i:td1 Yf:tc7 11.tDbd2 ttJg6 12.CtJc4 l' and Black's defence is quite problematic, for example: 12 ... i..e7 13. cxb4 cxb4 14.i..e3 CtJd7 15Jhcl± CtJc5? 16.iLxc5+-. It is too bad for Black to play 7 ... iLe7, because after 8.dxc5 dxc5 9.e5 tDd7 10.i..e4±, Black can hardly de18

velop his kingside, while White's queenside initiative is overwhelming, Kovalevskaya - Dergatschova-Daus, Germany 2003. In answer to 7 ... tDd 7, Hernandez - Lucena, Havana 2003, White should better play 8.b3!? CtJgf6 9. ttJbd2 iLe7 10.a4 b4 - Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient after: 10 ... 0-0 l1.ab axb5 12.lha8 "flxa8 13.iLxb5± 11.cxb4 cxb4 12.iLb2 0-0 13. ltac1±, because White can patiently prepare his queenside initiative making use of his domination in the centre.) 8.ttJbd2 iLe7, Abello - Dunis, France 2000. White can obtain a clear advantage in the centre after: 9.dxc5 dxc5 10.c4!? b4 (10 ... bxc4 11.ttJxc4 ttJc6 12.e5 ttJd5 13.i..g5±) 1l.e5 CtJfd7 12.CtJe4 "flc7 (12 ... 0-0 13.iLf4 CtJc6 14.l:tadl±) 13.i..f4±. White's piece-formation in the centre is so powerful that his advantage is overwhelming. 6 ... Yf:t c7 7."fl e2 ttJc6 (About 7 ... ttJf6 8.ttJbd2 - see 6 ... ttJf6 7.Yf:te2 Yf:tc7 8.tDbd2; while in answer to 7 ... d5, Hartmann Stone, IEeG 2000, the simplest line for White is: 8.e5 lLlc6 9.dxc5 i..xc5 10.M i..b6 11.a4±; 10 ... i..e7 1l.a4± and he exerts a powerful pressure on the queenside; in case of7 ... c4 8.i..c2 lLlf6, Hughes - Lankey, USA 1991, White can also follow with: 9.e5!? ttJd5 10.lLlg5 g6 11.lLle4±; 10 ... f5 11. exf6 lLlxf6 12.f4±; 10 ... d6 11.f4 h6 12.lLle4 tDc6 13.f51' and Black's defence is quite problematic. The

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.lbf3 .Jib 7 4 ..id3 following line is practically forced and it leads to a calm position with the bishop pair advantage for White: 13 ... 0-0-0 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.lbxd6+ ~xd6 16.exd6 '§xd6 17.a4 ~df8 18. .:::rxffi+ Itxffi 19.axb5 axb5 20.lba3 lbc7 21..~e3±; 7... d6 8.dxc5 '§xc5, Crafty - Guest, ICC 1999, and here after: 9.b4 '§c7 10.a4± White preserves a long-lasting positional pressure; after 8 ... dxc5 9.a4 c4 10 ..ic2 lbd7 1I.lba3t Black can hardly cope with defending his weaknesses as well as developing his pieces too.) 8.a4 c4 9 ..ic2 lba5 10.axb5 axb5 1l ..ig5 lbf6, S.Vajda - Covlea, Bucharest 2000. The most energetic way for White to maintain his advantage is to play immediately 12.lba3!, for example: 12 ... b4 (it is worse for Black to play 12 ... ~b6, because after 13.d5! it would be very difficult for him to activate his pieces, for example: 13 ... .ic5?! 14.lbxb5! '§xb5 15.b4±) 13.cxb4 .ixb4 14. lbe5±, Black's king is stranded in the centre, his c4-pawn is weak and his piece-coordination is disrupted. 6 ... c4 - this reduction of the tension in the centre only helps White to develop his initiative on the flanks. 7 ..ic2lbf6 (In answer to 7 ... d6, it seems very purposeful for White to follow with central strategy: 8. '§e2lbd7 9.lbg5!? .ie7 10.f4 h6 11.lbf3 lbgf6 12.e5 lbd5 13.f5lbffi 14.a4 '§b6 15.axb5 axb5 16J~:xa8+ .ixa8, Freitag -

Emmermann, Hessen 1995, and here White creates powerful threats after: 17 .exd6 ~xd6 18.lbe5±; in case of 7 ... g6 8 ..:::re1 lbe7, Martin - O'Harney, London 2000, it is very good for White to play energetically: 9.d5 .ig7 10.a4 t; Black cannot contain White's initiative on the queenside with the move: 7 ... .ie7, because after 8.e5 f5 - or 8 ... d6 9.lbbd2 lbd7 10.lbe4 dxe5 II. dxe5 lbc5 12.'§e2± - 9.b3 .id5 10.a4t White is clearly superior on the queenside, Macieja Kania, Poland 1994; White's game is very easy after: 7 ... d5 8.e5 lbc6 9.lbg5t, since he preserves a powerful pressure on the kingside, Sharp - Judd, Isle of Man 1991, or 8 ... h6 9.lbbd2 g5 10.b3 g4 11.lbe1± Vouldis - Duci, Creta 1996.) 8. '§e2 .ie7 (About 8 ... ~c7 9.e5 - see 6 ... ~c7 7.~e2 c4 8.i.c2 lbf6 9.e5; after 8 ... d5 9.e5 lbfd7 - in the line 9 ... lbe4 10.i.xe4 dxe4 11.lbg5 ~e7 12. lbxe4± Black's compensation for the pawn is obviously insufficient - 10.lbg5 .i.e7 11. ~h5 g6 12. ~h6± and White has a powerful initiative on the kingside, while Black has no counterplay whatsoever, Bernard - Bialas, corr. 1991, or 10 ... g6 1I.~g4t Mokos - Vodicka, Slovakia 2001.) 9.lbbd20-0 10.e5lbe8 (10 ... lbd5 11.lbe4 h6 12.b3t) 11.lbe4 f5 12.exf6 lbxf6 13.lbfg5t. Black lags in development so much that his defence against White's threats on the kingside is quite 19

Chapter 1

problematic, Leib - Frank, Pinneberg 200l. 6 ... cxd4 7.cxd4 4:Jc6 (About 7 ... 4:Jf6 8:~e2 - see 6 ... 4:Jf6; in answer to 7 ... d6, Kohut - Krocian, Bratislava 1991, White can exploit Black's queenside weaknesses with: 8.a4 bxa4 9.4:Jc3±; 8 ... b4 9.i.f4 4:Jf6 10.4:Jbd2±; after 7 ... d5 8.e5 4:Jc6 9.4:Jc3l:lc8 10.~e3 4:Jge7 11.l:tc1 4:Jg6 12.4:Jg5 ~e7 13:~h5± there arose a pawnstructure typical for the French Defence and White preserves a kingside initiative, while Black has no counterplay, Grazinys Andersen, Email 1998; Black weakens his dark squares too much after 7 ... g6, Brock - Hippe, Neumuenster 1999, after 8.a4 bxa4 9.4:Jc3±; 8 ... b4 9.~f4± White enjoys a huge lead in development.) 8.4:Jc3 4:Jb4 (Black's queenside play is absolutely ineffective after: 8 ... .I:i.c8 9.a3 ~b6 10.~e3 4:Ja5, Khazankin - Chernetsky, Odessa 2003, because after: ll.d5 ~c7 12J::tc1 4:Jc4 13. i.xc4 bxc4 14.~d4±; ll ... i.c5 12. ~xc5 ~xc513J:tcl±; 12 .. :~xc513. l:!.c1 4:Jc4 14 ..txc4 t'l'xc4 15.4:Je5 ~c7 16.dxe6 dxe6 17.4:Jxb5+-; 14 ... bxc4 15.b4±, Black's active pieces have been exchanged, his kingside is not developed well and his queenside has been weakened.) 9.i.bl d5, Utasi Herrera Perez, Havana 1985, 10.e5 llc8 1l.a4 bxa4 12.4:Jxa4±. White's development is superior, he has a space advantage, while Black's defence is difficult, be20

cause his a6-pawn is weak and the c5-square is vulnerable. 7. t'l'e2

7 •••cxd4 About 7 ... c4 8.~c2 - see 6 ... c4 7.i.c2 4:Jf6 8.~e2; 7 ... d6 8.4:Jbd2 - see 6 ... d6 7. t'l'e2 4:Jf6 8.4:Jbd2; 7 ... h6 8.4:Jbd2 - see 6 ... h6 7.~e2 4:Jf68.4:Jbd2. After 7 .•. 4:Jc6 8.e5 4:Jd5 9.~e4 cxd4 10.i.xd5 exd5 ll.cxd4 ~b6 12J:td1 ~e7 13.4:Jc3 4:Jd8 14.~g5! i.xg5 15.4:Jxg5± Black's bishop is bad, his dark squares are vulnerable and the d5-pawn is weak, Douven - Welling, Eindhoven 1983. In answer to 7 ... t'l'b6', Zlatanova - Botsari, Athens 1992, White should better play 8.dxc5!? ~xc5 9.e5 4:Jd5 10.a4 b4 (after 10 ... bxa4 1l.l:lxa4 t Black cannot get rid of the e5-pawn, which cramps his position a lot, for example it is too bad for him to play: ll ... d6? 12.b4! t'l'c6 13J:ta3 i.b6 14.b5 ~c8 15.exd6±) ll.c4 4:Je7 12.4:Jbd2 4:Jbc6 13.4:Je4± and White has extra space, moreover Black cannot find a safe haven for his king. 7 ... i.e7 8.dxc5!? i.xc5 9.b4

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ctJ{3 .Yl.b7 4 . .Yl.d3

.§J.e7 10.a4 bxa4 (it is even worse for Black to play 10 ... a5 11.axb5 axb4 12J:txaS 1/..xaS, Mikoska Bock, corr. 2001, after 13.e5 ctJg4 14.ctJd4±; 13 ... ctJd5 14.c4 ctJb6 15.i..e3± Black has great problems to develop his knight on bS) 1UIxa4 0-0 (it is better for Black to play 11...d6 12Jld1 'fic7 13. .i.f4±, but White enjoys a huge space advantage as well as a powerful queenside pressure) 12.e5 ctJd5 13. 'fie4 g6 14..i.h6l:teS 15.'fie2± S.Nagy - A. Nagy, Debrecen 1999. Black has weaknesses on both sides of the board, he lacks space and he has no active possibilities whatsoever. 7 •. 'fic7 S.ctJbd2 cxd4 (After S... d6, Konarkowska - Ranniku, Ohrid 1972, it deserves attention for White to follow with: 9.b3!?, so that he can prepare the undermining move a4, preventing Black from playing c4, for example: 9 ... 3l.e7 10.a4 cxd4 11. cxd4 bxa4 12.l:txa4 3l.c6 13.~a2 0-0 14.i.a3±; 11 ... b4 12.i.b2 0-0 13J~acl± and White has a clearly better position, because of his extra space and superior development. He has ample active possibilities on both sides of the board.) 9.cxd4 ctJc6 10.a3! ctJg4?! (It is better for Black to play 10 ... 3l.e7, but even then after 11.b3! 0-0 12.3l.b2;!; White maintains a stable edge, because he has extra space, moreover Black has no active possibilities at all, for example it is too dubious for him to play: 12 ... ctJh5?! 13.d5!

ctJf4 14. ~e3 exd5 - Black loses after 14 ... ctJxd3 15.dxc6 ctJxb2 16.cxb7+-, this line, which of course is not forced, shows nevertheless the power of White's move 11- 15.exd5 ctJxd3 16.dxc6 ctJxb2 17.cxb7 MaeS IS. 'fie5± and White's almighty b7-pawn provides him with a great advantage.) 11.ctJb3 i.e7 12.i.d2± and Black's defence is very difficult, because of his bad knight on g4, his cramped position and his lag in development, C.Popescu Pessi, Bucharest 1995. 7 ... d5 S.e5 ctJfd7 (It is not good for Black to play: S... ctJe4, Chetverik - Krivolapov, Gyongyos 1999, because White can counter that with: 9.ctJe1!? cxd4 10.cxd4 ctJc6 11..lie3 f5 12.f3 ctJg5 13.a4 b4 14.ctJd2± and he maintains a powerful pressure on the queenside.) 9.ltJg5 g6 (It is not any better for Black to play: 9 ... i.e7, Shim Ng Min - Smyth, Email 1999, because after 10. ~g4! Black's defence is very difficult, for example: 10 ... h5?! 11. 'fig3 h4 12.'fig4±, or 10 ... ctJfS 11.~h5 i.xg5 12.i.xg5 'fic7 13.ctJd2 ctJc6 14.ltJf3±; 11 ... g6 12.i.e3±, and Black's kings ide in both lines is so weak that White is clearly better; it seems more reliable for Black to follow with: 10 ... g6, but Whi te has a powerful tactical strike after that - 11.ctJxe6! fxe6 12.i.xg6+ hxg6 13.~xg6+ 'iiifS 14.i..h6+ :xh6 15. 'fixh6+ 'iiif7 16.~h7+ 'iiif8 17.f4 and Black's pieces are totally discoordinated, 21

Chapter 1

so his defence is extremely difficult. White's attack is very dangerous too after: 15 ... '>t>gS 16. ~xe6+ '>t>g717.f4~.) 10.'§f3 '§e7, Salmi - Bigalke, Tampere 200l. Mter 1l.,§h3 i.g7 (in the line 1l ... cxd4 12.cxd4 ctJc6 13.ctJf3 i.g7 14.~h6!± Black remains with a weak light squared bishop and vulnerable dark squares, particularly the c5-outpost) 12.ctJf3 h6 13.l!!.e1 ctJc6 14.ctJa3:t White's positional advantage is stable, because Black can hardly find a safe shelter for his king, meanwhile his active play on the queenside has only created additional weaknesses. 8.cxd4

8 ... ctJc6 In answer to S... d6, Rossello - I.Torre, IEee 2000, White can exploit the weakening of his opponent's queenside with the help of: 9.a4 b4 (9 ... bxa4 10. ctJc3±) 10.i.f4 i.e7 1l.ctJbd2±. After 8 ... d5 9.e5 ctJfd7 10. ctJg5!t White's kingside initiative is very dangerous, Eslon - Sanchez, Mislata 1993. S ... i.e7 9.a4! b4 (9 ... bxa4 10.ctJc3±) 10.i.g5 h6 (In answer 22

to 10 ... d6 11.ctJbd2 h6, Grabuzova - Frog, Moscow 1991, White can play the simple line 12.i.h4 ctJc6 13.ctJb3 0-0 14.~fc1 t and he maintains a powerful pressure on the queenside.) 11..~h4 ctJh5 12.i.xe7 ~xe7 13. ~e3 0-0 14. ctJbd2 ctJc6 15JHc1 ctJf6 16.ctJb3 I1fcS 17 J:tc2± Sosonko - Sahovic, Amsterdam 1979. White's initiative on the queenside is overwhelming, while Black has no counterplay whatsoever. 9.ctJc3 d5 In response to 9 ... '§bS, Brzezicki - Kubien, Wroclaw 19S0, White has a powerful countermeasure: 10.e5 ctJgS (10 ... ctJd5 1l.ctJxd5 exd5 12.i.f4±) 1l.a3 ctJge7 12.i.e4 ctJg6 13.i..g5± and he has a lot of extra space and superior development. It is not so good for Black to play 9 ... b4 10.ctJa4 d5, Juergens - Weiss, Austria 2001. After l1.e5 ctJe4 (White preserves a stable advantage too after: 1l ... ctJd7 12.i.e3 i.e7 13.ctJd2 ~a5 14.b3 0-0 15.'§g4±, or 11 .. . ~a5 12.b3 ctJd7 13.i.d2±; 12 .. . ctJe4 13. i.xe4 de 14. '§xe4 I1dS 15.i.e3±) 12.i.xe4 dxe4 13.'§xe4 ctJa5 14. '§e2 ncs 15.b3 i.e7 (Black could have regained his pawn with: 15 ... i.xf3 16. '§xf3 ~xd4 17.i.b2 '§a7 lS.l:!acl±, but his lag in development and his weak queenside qualify his position as extremely difficult.) 16.i.e3± Black's light squared bishop is very powerful indeed, but it does not compensate the

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.tD{3 JLb7 4.JLd3 loss of a pawn, since the rest of the black pieces are completely misplaced. 10.ii.g5 tDb4 l1.e5 h6 12. ii.h4 g5 Black cannot change much, by playing: 12 ... tDxd3 13.'~xd3 g5 14.tDxg5±. (diagram) 13.tDxg5 hxg514 ..txg5 .te7 15.exf6± Harikrishna - Wohl,

Torquay 2002. White preserves a solid extra pawn.

Conclusion We have analyzed some quite seldom played moves for Black in answer to 1.e4. The "most difficult" task for White to prove his advantage is connected with the move 1... a6, followed by 2 ... b5. Black is not fighting immediately for the centre indeed, but still he has a clear plan of mobilizing his pieces. The essential drawback of this line is the weakening of Black's queenside. In case he does not follow quickly with the move c7-c5, undermining his opponent's centre, White seizes the initiative on the queenside by playing a2-a4. If Black plays c5 prematurely - White can occupy plenty of space byexchanging on c5, followed by e5 and tDe4. The transposition to the French Defence is not favourable for Black either, because White can proceed with his standard kingside play indeed, but he can also seize the initiative on the queens ide too due to the weakness of the c5square. Black's light squared bishop is usually very bad in similar structures of the French Defence, but here, particularly after Black plays d7-d5 - it becomes a total disaster. The other first moves for Black that we have analyzed in this chapter enable White, with simple and logical play in the centre, to obtain easily a great advantage.

23

Chapter 2

l.e4 b6 2.d4

2 ... i.h7 This is Black's basic reply in this position and it leads to the Owen's Defence. After 2 ... g6 3.lLlc3 i.g7 4.f4 the positions which are reached have been analyzed in Chapter 22, book 4. Black has also tried in practice: 2 ... i.a6?! 3.i.xa6 lLlxa6 4.tDf3 cS (About 4 ... e6 S.O-O - see 2 ... e6 3.tDf3 i.a6?! 4.i..xa6 tDxa6 S.O-O. In answer to 4 ... ~c8 S. 0-0 ~b7, Nimzo 99 - Hiarcs 6.0, 1999, White's simplest line is 6.:e1 e6 7.c4± and he has a huge space advantage. It is even worse for Black to play 4 ... tDf6?! S.e5 tDd5, Sief - Dopey, Internet 1999, because White wins a piece after: 6.c4 tDdb4 7.a3 tDc6 24

8.b4+-, while after S ... tDg8 6. O-O± White's lead in development is overwhelming. It is quite dubious for Black to try 4 ... d5, Hotplayer - Boson, Internet 1999, because after 5. ~e2 tDb8 6.exd5 ~xdS 7.tDc3± White's development is clearly superior.) 5.d5 e6, Hooi Soon - Chen, Singapore 2003. Now after 6.0-0 tDf6 7. ~e2 tDb8 8J:td1± White enjoys a space advantage and a huge lead in development. In answer to 2 ... cS!? it is too dangerous for White to win a pawn with: 3.dxc5 bxcS 4. ~d5 tDc6 6. ~xc5 e5:i5, because Black remains much ahead in development. It is advisable for White to play 3.tDf3 and transpose into the Sicilian Defence (l.e4 cS 2.tDf3 b6 3.d4). It is also good for White to play 3.dS transposing to the Benoni Defence (l.d4 c5 2.dS b6?! 3.e4) and Black's move b6 looks dubious to say the least. After 2 ... e6 3.tDf3 Black usually transposes to the Owen's Defence with 3 ... i.b7 (about 3 ... dS 4.tDc3 - see the French

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ji.b7 3.Ji.d3

Defence) 4.Ji.d3. The rest of the moves are rather questionable:

3 ... i.h4+?! This move is typically

a waste of time and White plays a useful move, fortifying his centre and Black is now forced to retreat: 4.c3 i.e7 5.i.d3. We reach positions, which will be analyzed in our main line, except that White will be with an extra tempo and that enables him to play even more energetically. 5 ... d6 (5 ... ..tb7 6.0-0 d6, Goldbar - Tao, Leiden 2004, 7. ~e2 li:Jf6 8.li:Jbd2±) 6.0-0 li:Jd7 7:~e2 e5 8.i.b5 ..tf6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10J:td1 CiJe7, Gras - Jamme, Aix les Bains 2003, 11.li:Jbd2±. White has a huge lead in development; 3 ...CiJe7 4.i.d3 i.b7 (in answer to 4 ... i.a6, Eliet - Nemety, France 1996, White's simplest line is 5.c4 d5 - Black must try to support somehow the idea to develop his bishop to the a6-square - 6.cxd5 i.xd3 7. ~xd3 exd5 8.li:Jc3 dxe4 9. ~xe4 c6 10.0-0± and Black will have great problems to complete his development) 5.0-0 d6 6.c3 CiJd7, Mohr - Vojko, Ljubljana 1998, 7.~e2±;

3 ... CiJc6?! This move enables White to obtain a great space advantage. 4.d5 exd5 (It is hardly better for Black to play 4 ... CiJce7. After 5.c4 Ji.b7 6.CiJc3 g6 7. ~d4± Rush - Mwange, Luzern 1982, White's pieces are deployed quite harmoniously.) 5.exd5 CiJce7 6.iLc4 d6 7.0-0± Grunberg - Lutton, Port Erin 2002. Black has lost plenty of time to place his knight to an unfavourable position and White has a space advantage and superior development; 3 ... CiJa6?! It is not so easy for Black's knight to enter the action from that square; moreover White can develop his pieces with tempo now. 4.c3 iLb7, Khalidhara - Abdallah, Sanaa 2002, 5 ...td3±; 3 ... h6?! 4 ..td3 i.b7 (after 4 ... ..te7, Hintikka - Taipale, Kuopio 1995, it is very good for White to play 5.0-0 iLb7 6.c4± and he has a great space advantage) 5.0-0 li:Jf6 (it is worse for Black to play 5 ... i.e7 6.c4 d6 7.CiJc3 a6 8.l:i.e1 CiJf6 9.e5 CiJfd710. d5± Puskas - Armeanu, Eforie Nord 1999, because White's lead in development is overwhelming) 6JIe1 CiJc6 7.e5 CiJd5 8.c4 CiJdb4 9.i.e4± Jaeger - Berntsen, Norway 1998. Black's pieces are quite misplaced, he lacks space and White's powerful centre is dominating the board; 3 ... iLa6?! Black will have problems with his knight at the edge of the board after the trade 25

Chapter 2 of the light squared bishops. 4.i..xa6 lDxa6 5.0-0 lDe7 (In answer to 5 ... c6, Romero - Castillo Martinez, Aragon 1995, it is advisable for White to play the simple 6.~e2 lDc7 7.c4± with a huge space advantage. After 5 ... h6, Cuartas - Coppini, Reggio Emilia 1981, it is also good for White to play 6.~e2 lDb8 7.d5± and Black has problems to complete his development. He has the same problem after: 5 ... g6 6.~e2 lLlb8 7.d5 i.g7 8.i.g5 lLle7 9.lLlc3± Sosonko - Bohm, Leeuwarden. After 5 ... c5, Zajac - Morin, corr. 1996, it is the simplest for White to occupy some additional space first with: 6.d5 lLlf6 7. ~e2 lLlbS - Black loses a piece after: 7 ... lDc7?! S.d6 - 8 . .l:tdl± Black's position is cramped and he lags in development considerably.) 6.~e2 ~c8 7.lLlc3 lLlg6 8.~g5 h6 9.i..e3 iLe7 10J:tad1 0-0 l1.h4. Black's position is squeezed and his pieces are quite misplaced on the queenside, so White can start active actions on the kingside immediately. 11 ... f5 (It is too dangerous for Black to play: 11 ... i..xh4 12.lLlxh4 lLlxh4 13.f4 l:Ie8 14.f5 exf5 15.g3lLlg6 16.exf5lLlf8 17 .f6~; 13 ... d5 14. ~h5 lLlg6 15.f5~; 14 .. .'~dS 15.f5 dxe4 16.fxe6±, White has excellent compensation for the pawn, because Black's pieces are rather misplaced.) 12.h5 fxe4 13.lLlxe4 lLlhS (after 13 ... lLlf4 14.~xf4 nxf4 15.lLle5± Black can hardly coor26

din ate his pieces) 14.lDe5± Gligoric - Prins, Saltsjobaden 1952. White has a space advantage and his pieces are developed much more harmoniously; 3 ... lDf6 4.iLd3 iLe7, Arounopoulos - Gilgenbach, Dusseldorf 2000 (Black cannot change anything with 4 ... c5, Hahn - Kotter, Germany 1993, because after 5.e5 lDd5 6.c4 lLlb4 7.iLe4± he cannot coordinate his totally misplaced pieces on the queenside.) 5.e5lDd5 6.c4lLlb4 7.iLe4±; 3 ... g6 4.c4 iLg7 5.lDc3 lLle7 6.i.g5 i.b7, Cruz Lima - Arbaiza, Cajas 1989, 7.~d2±; 3 ... c5 4.d5 (this move seems stronger for White than the transposition to the Sicilian Defence after 4.lLlc3, or 4.c4) 4 ... d6 (It is too bad for Black to play 4 ... exd5, Klein - Christoph, Koenigsfeld 1969, because after 5.~xd5 lLlc6 6.iLc4 ~f6 7.iLg5 ~e6 8.lDc3± he has problems to complete his development and he has too many weak squares in the centre; after 4 ... lDf6 5.lLlc3 i.b7 6.i.c4 a6, Vergbovskij Davidjan, Armavir 1995, White should better follow with 7.a4 exd5 S.exd5± and Black's position is quite cramped and his light squared bishop has no good prospects; it is also insufficient for Black to continue with 4 ... .ib7 5.lLlc3 exd5 6.exd5 d6 7. ~b5+ lDd7 8.0-0 a6 9 ..:t.e1+ ~e7 10.~c6± Ait Hamidou - Ben Kassem, Tripoli 2004, because he can hardly complete his develop-

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ji.b7 3.i.d3 ment; it is bad for Black to play the bishop on b7 will be com4 ... 'l;rc7 as well, Krajewska pletely out of play in the nearest Tomczyk, Leba 2004. After 5.ttJc3 future. You can see some games, White is threatening 6.ttJb5, and for example in the line: 3 ... ttJf6 Black's attempt to prevent that 4. 'l;re2 c5 5.d5; move with 5 ... a6, leads after 6.e5 In answer to 3 ... d5 White's d6 7.i.f4± to a considerable lead simplest line is 4.e5, for example: in development for White.) 5.ttJc3 4 ... i.a6 (The rest of the moves for a6 (after 5 ... e5 6.i.b5+ ii.d7 Black have no separate value, or 7.i.xd7+ ttJxd7 8.ttJd2 a6 9.a4 they are just terrible: 4 ... f6? ttJe7 10.ttJc4± Black's queenside 5. 'l;rh5+ g6 6.i.xg6+- Zippy has been weakened and he lacks Giffy, Internet 1993. About 4 ... space, Geenen - Onkoud, France ttJc6 5.c3 e6 6.ttJf3 - see l.e4 b6 2003) 6.a4 ttJf6 7.i.d3 h6 8.0-0 2.d4 i.b7 3.i.d3 e6 4.ttJf3 d5 5.e5 i.e7 9.h3 0-0 10.l:.e1 exd5 11. ttJc6 6.c3; 4 ... c5 5.c3 ttJc6 6.ttJf3 e6 ttJxd5 ttJbd 7 12.i.f4 ttJxd5 13. - see l.e4 b6 2.d4 i.b7 3.i.d3 e6 exd5 ttJf6 14.c4± Alekhine - 4.ttJf3 c5 5.c3 d5 6.e5 ttJc6; 4 ... e6 Koutny, Prague 1935. Black's 5.ttJf3 - see 3 ... e6 4.ttJf3 d5 5.e5; defence is very difficult. He has 4 ....~d7 5.ttJf3 e6 - see 3 ... e6 problems to activate his pieces, 4.ttJf3 d5 5.e5 ~d7) 5.i.xa6 ttJxa6 he has no counterplay and he 6.e6! This pawn-sacrifice is quite lacks space. typical for similar positions. It 3.i.d3 prevents Black from completing his development; moreover White now has an excellent target for attack on the e-file. 6 ... fxe6 7. ~e2 'l;rc8 S.ttJf3 c6, Schlosser - Wiedner, Austria 1994. White should not be in a hurry to regain his pawn, he must instead complete his development first. 9.i.f4 ttJf6 10.0-0±; 3 ... f5? This risky move is an We will now deal in details attempt by Black to exploit the with: a) 3 ... ttJf6 and b) 3 ... e6. vulnerability of White's g2-pawn. The other moves for Black are Black however, weakens his only seldom played: kingside and comes under an After 3 ... c5 White plays 4.d5 extremely dangerous attack. and has clearly better prospects 4.exf5 i.xg2 (it is not any better no matter what scheme of devel- for Black to play 4 ... ttJf6 either, opment Black chooses. In case of because after 5.ttJf3± White's 4 ... e6 White follows with 5.c4 and development is superior and 27

Chapter 2 he has an extra pawn that cramps Black's position considerably, Ploder - Daikeler, corr. 1986) 5. ~h5+ g6 6.fxg6 iLg7 (The first available game, which was played in this position, ended up in a quick checkmate after: 6 ... ttJf6 7.gxh7+ ttJxh5 8.i.g6# Greco-NN, Europe 1620) 7.~ffi! (this is White's most energetic move, although 7.gxh7± is also very good) 7 ... ttJf6 (Black loses immediately after 7 ... iLf6 8.g7! i.xg7 9. ~g5+-) 8.i.h6! iLxh6 (The next variation only transposes to the main line: 8 ... <;t>f8 9.~g5 iLxh110.i.xg7+ <;t>xg7 1l. gxh7+ <;t>f8 12.~h6+. After 8 ... e6 9.~g5 i.xh6 10.thg2 ttJc6 11. gxh7 rj;;e7 12.ttJf3± Ploder - Weber, corr. 1988, White remains at least with an extra pawn, moreover Black's king is stranded in the centre: 8 ... 0-0 9.gxh7+ rj;;h8 10.iLxg7+ <;t>xg7 11.~g6+ c;t>h8 12. ~xg2 and White remains with an extra piece, Della Morte Lopez, Villa Martelli 2000.) 9.gxh7 c;t>f8 10.~g6 SLxh1 (or 10 ... i.c1 1l.~xg2 iLxb2 12.ttJe2! and Black has no satisfactory defence against ktg1 and ttJf4 with a checkmating attack for White. It is even worse for Black to play: 11...ttJc6 12.ttJe2! iLxb2 13.ktg1 rj;;f7 14.ttJf4 l::{g8 15. iLg6!+-) 11. ~xh6+ rj;;f7 12.ttJh3 We6 (this attempt by Black to run away from the centre with his king is his most stubborn defence, because otherwise he loses immediately: 12 ... ~f8 13. 28

i.g6 ~e614.~f4! Wd5 15.~xc7+­ Warzecha - Rachow, corr. 1987) 13.ttJg5+ Wd5 14.ttJc3+ Wc6 15. O-O-O±. Black now loses his bishop on h1, and White's powerful h7-pawn will yield additional material gains for him in the future. After 3 ... d6 - it is more logical for White to play 4.f4, analogously to the Pirc Defence.

4 ... tt:ld7 5.tt:lf3 g6 6.0-0 i.g7

7.tt:lc3 - see l.e4 g6 2.d4 i.g7 3.ttJc3 d6 4.f4 b6 5.tt:lf3 i.b7 6.i.d3 ttJd7 7.0-0; It is almost a disaster for Black to play: 4 ...f6? 5.ttJf3 ttJd7 6.ffi±, because he has problems with his development and plenty of weaknesses in the centre, Lopez Escribano - Rivas Perez, Madrid 2002; Black cannot solve his problems with the purposeful move 4 ... f5, because after 5. ~e2 fxe4 6.i.xe4 iLxe4 7.~xe4 d5 8.~e2 tt:lf6 9.ttJf3± he remains with a backward e-pawn, less space and he lags in development too; In case of 4 •..tt:lf6 5. ~e2 e6 6.tt:lf3 tt:lbd 7 7.e5 dxe5 8.fxe5 tt:ld5, Pueyo - Iglesias, Oviedo

1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3

2003, White can start a dangerous attack with 9.CLlg5!~ and it is very difficult to find any satisfactory defence for Black, for example it is too risky for him to play: 9 ... iLe7 10.CLlxe6! fxe6 II. ~h5+ g6 (it is possibly the best for Black to play: 11...'~f8 12. 0-0+ CLl7f6 13.exf6 CLlxf6 14. iLe3±) 12.iLxg6+ hxg6 13. ~xg6+ wf8 14.0-0+ CLl7f6 15.~g5! ~e8 16.~h6+ lhh617.~xh6+ Wf7 18. ~h7+ ~f8 19.c4+-; Black has nothing else left but 4 ... e5, but White again enjoys extra space and a dangerous initiative after: 5.CLlf3 CLld7 6.0-0 CLlgf6 7.CLlc3 exd4 8.CLlxd4 iLe7 9.CLlf5± Kalendovsky - Vykydal, Brno 1974. 3 ... CLlc6 4.c3 e5 (About 4 ... e6 5.CLlf3 - see 3 ... e6 4.CLlf3CLlc6 5.c3. It is not logical for Black to play 4 ... d5?! 5.e5 a6 6.CLlf3 g6 7.0-0 ~g7, Lyubimov - Hbn, Internet 1998, since after 8.ttel± Black has problems to organize effective counterplay, because of his lag in development. In answer to 4 ... g6, Nemet-Heedt, Bie11998, White's simplest line is 5.f4 iLg7 6.CLlf3 e6 7.0-0± - and he has an obvious advantage in the centre. It is more or less the same after 4 ... d6, Costa - Gazzera, San Francisco 2001, it looks very good for White to follow with 5.f4 e5 6.CLlf3± and he dominates in the centre and his development is superior, or 5 ... e6 6.CLlf3 CLlf6 7. O-O±.) 5.d5 (it is worse for White to play 5.CLlf3, because after

5 ... exd4 6.cxd4CLlb4 7.iLc4! iLxe4! 8.iLxf7+ ~xf7 9.CLlg5+ ~g6!! 10.CLlxe4 ~h4! Black still holds somehow rather surprisingly) 5 ... CLlce7 6.CLlf3CLlg6 7.0-0 CLlf6 (It is hardly advisable for Black to play 7 ... h5. After 8.CLlbd2 c6 9.CLlC4 ~c7 10.a4 h4 1l ..lIel±, Black has great problems to find a safe shelter for his king, Kopec - Day, Ottawa 1984.) 8.CLlbd2 d6, Rodriguez Lopez - Munoz Moreno, San Sebastian 1995 (in answer to 8 ... c6, Turner - Steinbacher, Krumbach 1991, White's simplest line is 9J~e1!?, for example: 9 ... ~c7 10.CLlc4 b5 11.CLle3 i.c5 12.a4t, or 10 ... .te7 1l.CLle3 0-0 12.CLlf5±) 9.a4!? c6 (White's initiative develops effortlessly after: 9 ... a5 10.iLb5+ CLld7 11.CLlc4 .te7 12.b4±. It is too bad for Black to play: 9 ... CLlf4 1O ..tb5+ CLld7 1l.CLlc4 a6 12.iLxd7+~xd7 13.~xf4 exf414.~d2±. In the line 9 ... a6 10. ~e1 ~e7 1l.a5 b5 12.c4 bxc413.CLlxc4± Black has no compensation for his queenside weaknesses.) 10.dxc6 iLxc6 II. ~b5!±. After the trade of the light squared bishops, White will exploit the weaknesses on d5, f5 and c6-squares even easier. Black falls back in development and he can hardly organize any effective counterplay. 3 ... g6 4.f4 ~g7 (4 ... CLlf6 5.CLlc3 e6 6.CLlf3 .tb4 - this idea to transpose to the French defence is dubious for Black, because the move g6 is definitely not a part of it. Mter 7.CLld2 ~e7 8.a3 ~xc3 29

Chapter 2 9.bxc3± White's centre is very powerful and he has also the two bishop advantage, so his prospects are clearly superior, Benschop - Tichelaar, Hengelo 1992; 4 ... e6 5.tDf3 c5 6.c3 c4, Brodie Alipour, Edmondton 2000, 7. i.c2±; 4 ... f5, Serpik - Blatny, Los Angeles 2003, after 5.tDd2 ctJf6 6:~e2 tDc6 7.c3 fxe4 8.tDxe4 e6 9.ctJf3;t, there arises the pawnstructure, which is typical for the Maroczy system (on opposite flanks) and White preserves a stable pressure.) 5.tDf3 d6 (about 5 ... e6 6.tDc3 - see 1.e4 g6 2.d4 i.g7 3.tDc3 b6 4. f4 i.b7 5.tDf3 e6 6.i.d3 - volume 4, Chapter 22. The next line transposes to the Benoni Defence, except that Black's bishop on b7 is misplaced: 5 ... c5 6.d5 tDf6 7.c4 0-0 8.tDc3 d6 9.0-0 e6, Buchal Alber, Hessen 1990. Now White has a great space advantage and better development and he can start active actions in the centre with: 10.e5, for example: 10 ... ctJe8 l1.tDg5 exd5 12.e6±, or 10 ... dxe5 1l.fxe5 tDg4 12. ~e2 exd5 13.cxd5 tDd7 14.i.g5 ~e8 15.e6±; 12 ... tDd7 13.i.f4± White has occupied the centre and his pieces are much better placed. Black can hardly organize any counterplay. It is now too dangerous for him to play: 13 ... exd5 14.e6 ~f6 15.tDg5! tDde5 16.~d2 'f:!.e7 17. exf7 + 'it>h8 18.ctJxd5±; 15 ... ~d4+ 16.~h1 tDde5 17J:lad1 tDxd3 18. l'1xd3 ~xc4 19.exf7+ ~h8 20.b3 ~a6 21.ctJb5!+-. Black cannot 30

change much with: 6 ... d6 7.c4 ctJd7 8.0-0 ctJgf6 9.tDc3±, and White dominates completely in the centre, Bobb - Blanco, Ushuaia 2002.) 6.0-0 tDd7 (After 6 ... c5 7.d5 tDf6 8.c4 0-0 9.tDc3± Leon Hoyos - Hernandez, Havana 2005, there arises a pawnstructure, which is typical for the Benoni Defence, but Black has problems to obtain counterplay, because his light squared bishop is misplaced and he will hardly manage to play b5, while White dominates in the centre completely.) 7.c3 e6 8.'f:!.e1 'f:!.e7 9.a4 0-0-0 10.a5± Karpov - Georgievski, Skopje 1976. White's centre is quite reliable and his attacking chances are excellent. a) 3 ... tDf6 4:~e2

4 ... tDc6

About 4 ... e6 5.tDf3 - see 3 ... e6 4.tDf3 tDf6 5. ~e2. The premature move 4 ... d5?! enables White to sacrifice a pawn quite typically in order to hamper Black's development with 5.e5 tDg8 (it is a disaster for Black to play: 5 ... ctJe4? 6.f3+-,

l.e4 b6 2.d4 ~b7 3.il.d3 ct:Jf6 4. t;re2

because he loses a piece, but it is almost the same after: 5 ... ct:Jfd7 6.e6!±) 6.e6! t;rd6 (after 6 ... fxe6 7.ct:Jf3± Black has problems to complete his development) 7. exf7+ Wxf7 8.ct:Jf3± Guennoun Ristic, Metz 2001. Black's king is quite exposed, his e-pawn is very weak and he can hardly complete his development, so his defence is quite problematic. In case of 4 ... d6 White should better occupy some more space with 5.f4 e5 6.c3 exf4 (after 6 ... exd4 7.cxd4 d5 8.e5 ct:Je4 9. ct:Jd2! Black's powerful centralized knight gets exchanged and White's space advantage is quite obvious, for example: 9 ... ct:Jc6 10.ct:Jgf3 ct:Jb4 11..tbl.ta6 12. t;re3 ct:Jxd2 13 ..txd2±; it is too bad for Black to play: 9 ... t;rh4+ 10.g3 ct:Jxg3? l1.-,grf2+-, it is hardly better for Black to try: 9 ... .tb4 10.ct:Jgf3 c5 11.0-0±) 7 ..txf4 ct:Jc6 8.ct:Jf3 t;re7 9.ct:Jbd2±, because White's pieces are deployed harmoniously and he has a better development and a powerful centre, Monsterkiller - Hehe, Internet 1999. In answer to 4 ... c5, White should better occupy some more space with 5.d5 and he has a clear advantage, for example: 5 ... e5 6.f4!? d6 7.ct:Jc3 a6 8.a4 exf4 9 ..txf4 ct:Jbd7 10.ct:Jf3 .te7 11.0-0 0-0 12.ct:Jd2± White's development is superior and he has a space advantage too, so Black has problems to organize counterplay, Lobron - Balinas,

Manila 1982; 5 ... e6 6.c4 b5 (it is worse for Black to play 6 ... d6 7.ct:Jc3 iLe7 8.f4 exd5 9.cxd5 0-0 10.ct:Jf3± and White's development is much better and his centre is powerful, Vatter - Hottes, Hamburg 1987) 7.ct:Jf3 (It is too dangerous for White to accept the pawn-sacrifice, because after: 7.dxe6 dxe6! 8.cxb5 c4 9.i.c2 ct:Jbd7 10.ct:Jc3 ct:Je5<'>O, Black's activity more than compensates his missing pawn.) 7 ... bxc4 8.i.xc4 exd5 9.exd5+ -,gre7 10.ct:Jc3 t;rxe2+ l1.Wxe2 d6 12J:i:el± Black's situation is very difficult, because of his cramped position and his weakness on d6, while White dominates on the efile and he has the better development, Nikolenko - Minasian, Cappelle la Grande 1995; Black has great defensive problems after: 5 ... g6 6.f4 .tg7 7.c4 d6. White has a much better development and it is high time that he acquired some more space with: 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 ct:Jfd7 10.Ct:Jf3 e6, Thiemonds - Peuker, corr. 1989 (It is premature for Black to castle 10 ... 0-0?!, because of the move n.e6!, for example: 1l ... ct:Jf6 12.ct:Jg5±; 11... fxe6 12. t;rxe6+ Wh8 13. -,grh3 t;re8 14.ct:Jg5 ct:Jf6 15.ct:Je6 5l.c8 16. ct:Jxg7±, or 13 ... :f6 14.ct:Jc3 ~c8 15.t;rh4±). Now, White had better complete his development, preserving the option to castle on either side of the board: 11.ct:Jc3 0-0 12.iLg5±. White has extra space and very active pieces and 31

Chapter 2 accordingly he has much better prospects. 5.c3

5 ... e5 In answer to 5 ... g6, PhillipsKnight, Burlingame 1998, White can occupy additional space with 6.f4 .1l.g7 7.ttJf.H. 5 ... e6 6.ttJf3 .1l.e7 (Mter 6 ... d6, White can seize the initiative on the queenside with: 7.b4 a5 8.b5 lLlb8 9.0-0 ttJbd7, Gaggiottini Nardi, Italy 1995. White has occupied plenty of space on the queenside and now he can start active actions in the centre: 10 ..i:ld1 e5 11.ttJbd2± and Black can hardly protect his e5-pawn, because of his lag in development. It is even worse for him to try: 10 ... .1l.e7 ll.e5! .1l.xf3 12.gxf3 ttJd5 13.f4±, because White remains with extra space, better development and a couple of active bishops. All that compensates amply the minute weakening of his castling position.) 7.a3 O-O? (It is possibly better for Black to play: 7 ... d6 8.0-0 0-0 9.e5±; 8 ... e5 9 ..i:ld1 0-0 10.b41'.) 8.e5 ttJe8 9.h4! White begins a kings ide attack. 9 ... ffi 10.ttJg5! g6 32

(Black gets checkmated by force after: 10 ... fxg5 l1.i..xh7+ ~xh7 12.hxg5+ ~g8 13.Mh8+! ~xh8 14. gth5+ ~g8 15.g6+-; Black's defence is also very difficult after: 10 ... f5 l1.gth5! h6 12.gtg6-7) 11.ttJxh7 Mf7 12.ttJxf6+ ttJxf6 13.exf6 .i:lxffi 14. ~g4 cJitg7 15. h5+- Bley - Mayer, corr. 2004. 6.ttJf3 d6 It is worse for Black to play here: 6 ... .1l.d6 7.0-0 h6, Leventic - Mihalecz, Kaposvar 2001, because White can emphasize the unfavourable placement of Black's bishop on the d6-square with: 8.ttJbd2 0-0 9.ttJc4±. 6 ... exd4 - the reduction ofthe tension in the centre is definitely in favour of White after: 7.e5lLld5 8 ..1l.e4 ttJa5 (In case of 8 ... ttJde7 9.ttJxd4 ~c8 10.0-0 ttJd8 ll.ttJd2 ttJe6 12.f4± Rade - Lovric, Pula 2000, White preserves a longlasting positional pressure, because he has superior development and extra space, besides Black's king remains stranded in the centre. It is hardly better for Black to play: 8 ... d3 9.'~xd3 ttJde7, Stefansson - Balinas, New York 1989. After 10.0-0 ttJg6 11.~e1 .1l.e7 12 ..1l.f5± Black has problems to evacuate his king away from the centre.) 9.ttJxd4 ttJe7, Koo - Blatny, Las Vegas 2001 (after 9 ... c5?! 10.lLlf5 g6 11. gtf3± Black remains with too many weaknesses, Marciano Blatny, Internet 2001) 10 ..1l.xb7 ttJxb7 11.0-0±, and White's e5pawn cramps his enemy's posi-

1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 tbf6 4. 'ifte2 tion a lot, moreover Black's light pieces are very passive and he cannot organize any counterplay at all. 7.0-0

7 ..•tbd7 Black's main idea here is to maintain his pawn on the e5square. Black's main idea here is to maintain his pawn on the e5square. Some pawn-structure similar to the Indian Defence (1.d4 tbf6 2.c4 d6 3.tbc3 tbbd7 4.e4 e5 5.d5 i.e7), except with a weakened queenside, arises after 7 ... i.e7 B.d5 tbbB 9.c4 0-0 10.tbc3 tbbd7 1l.i.e3 tbeB 12.tbd2 g6 (Black has no other possible counterplay), but here in the game Chiburdanidze - Jachkova, Elista 2004, White could have parried Black's possible counterplay on the kings ide with: 13.i.h6 tbg7 14.f4!? exf4 (14 ... i.f6 15.f5±) 15.i.xf4 i.f6 16.tbf.3 'f:ie7 (It is worse for Black to play: 16 ... tbe5 17.tbxe5± and White's initiative on the queenside develops much faster than Black's counterplay.) 17.ltae1 tbe5 1B.tbxe5 i.xe5 19.

i.xe5 'iftxe5 20. 'iftf2± and Black is dominant over the important outpost on the e5-square, but White has instead the crucial d4outpost and he can seize the initiative on both sides of the board. Black's light pieces have no possibilities to be activated. 8.tba3 h6 In answer to B.. .i.e7, Epishin - Blatny, Bastia 2003, White's plan to bring his bishop to the d5-square seems quite effective too: 9J'~d1! i.f6 (9 ... 0-0 10.i.c4 exd4 11.cxd4 tba5 12 ..id3±) 10 ..ic4 0-0 1l ..id5 f'te7 12.tbc2 exd4 13.cxd4 tba5 14 ..ixb7 tbxb7 15.tbb4±, Black's c6 and d5squares are weak and White's space advantage promises him better prospects. 9J~dl a6 10. .ic4! White brings his bishop to the d5-square and it exerts a powerful pressure from there on both sides of the board. 1O ••• f'te7 1l.tbc2 g6 12 ..Jtd5 i.g7 13.tbb4 tbdb8 14.dxe5 dxe5

15.b31 White thus completes his development. 15 ... 0-0 16. i.a3 .!:le8 17.tbc2±. It becomes 33

Chapter 2 very difficult for Black now to develop his queenside pieces somehow. 17... tM71S.ltJe3 ~cS 19.1Llh4+-. Black's queenside pieces are isolated and they cannot join in the defence of the black king. The game soon entered an endgame with two extra pawns for White. 19 ...b5 20. lLlxg6 b4 21.lLlf5 l:le6 22. ~g4 ~h7 23.i.xe6 ~xe6 24.ltJf4 ~f6 25.lLld5 ~g6 26.~xg6+ fxg6 27. lLlxg7 ~xg7 2S.i.b2 lIa7 29. lLlxc7 ~f7 30.lLld5 a5 31.a3 1-0 Mitkov - Blatny, Kansas 2003. b) 3 ... e6

Black has played in several games the strange move 4 ... .Jtb4+?!, but after 5.c3± White has an extra tempo in comparison to line b3. The move 4 ... a6 looks like a waste oftime. After 5.0-0, Black has tried many different moves, but his position is quite cramped and he lags in development in all the variations: 5 ... g6 (5 ... i.e7 6.c4lLlf6 7.ltJc3±; 5 ... ltJe7, W.Stein - G.Laszlo, Eppingen 2004, 6.c4 ltJg6 7.ltJc3±; 5 ... f6 6.lLlh4 ltJe7 7.e5 f5 8 ..tg5± Crafty - Guest, Internet 1999; 5 ... d6 6. ~e2ltJd7 7.c3 lLle7 8 ..tg5 ~c8 9.ltJbd2± Henri - Vantet, Noisy Ie Grand 2000) 6.c4 .tg7 7.ltJc3ltJe7 8.e5± Alexopoulos - Johnson, East Somerset 1985. bI) 4 ...h6 This move does not contribute to Black's development and White obtains easily a stable advantage.

Black takes the d5-square under control and prepares the pawn-break c7-c5. We have already mentioned that 3 ... c5 immediately is much worse for Black, because White pushes his pawn to d5 and obtains a stable advantage. 4.lLlf3 We will analyze now: bI) 4 ...h6, b2) 4 ... lLlc6, b3) 4 ... i.e7, b4) 4 ... lLle7, b5) 4 ... g6, b6) 4 ... d6, b7) 4 ... d5 and bS) 4 ...lLlf6. Black's main defence 4 ... c5 will be analyzed in our next chapter. 34

5.~e2

5 ... lLlf6 In answer to 5 ... c5, Fernandes - Cordovil, Lisbon 1999, it seems logical for White to occupy some

l.e4 b6 2.d4 !iLb7 3.JLd3 e6 4.4'J{3

additional space after: 6.dS exdS is even worse for Black to play: 6 ... ct:Jf6 7.c4 d6 8.dxe6 fxe6 9.eS±.) 7.exdS+ '?lte7 8.c4± Black's position is cramped and his light pieces have no good prospects, therefore the arising endgame is very difficult for him. S ... d6, Romagnoli - Bini, Caorle 1989,6.0-0 g6 7.l:!.d1 iLg7 8.c3± and White has a powerful centre and a great lead in development. S ... '?lte7 6.c4 gS 7.ct:Jc3 iLg7 8 ..te3 ct:Jc6 9.h3± White has extra space and better development, Becker - Liu Xiao You, Recklinghausen 2003. 5 ... gS 6.ct:Jc3 d6 7.SLe3 SLg7 8.0-0-0 '!l!e7 9.h4 g4 10.ct:Jd2 hS 11.f3 gxf3 12.gxf3± and White has a solid centre and a powerful kingside initiative, Bakhmatov - Liu Xiao You, Recklinghausen 2003. After S ... iLe7, Engerer-Joos, Eisenberg 1998, it seems very good for White to play 6.0-0 d6 7.eS± and Black has great problems to develop his kingside. 6.0-0 iLe7 Mayerhofer - Innreiter, Austria 2000.

(I t

White's pieces are quite well centralized and so he can start active actions with: 7.e5 ct:Jd5 8.iLe4 b5 9.a4 b4 10.c4 bxc3 11. bxc3±. White enjoys a space advantage, he has better development and he can seize the initiative in the centre as well as on both flanks. b2) 4 ... ct:Jc6 5.c3

5 ••• iLe7 It looks like Black only loses

time with the move S... h6, Pohorsky - Petek, Litomysl 1994. After 6.0-0±, White is threatening to push back his enemy's pieces with 7.dS. S... ct:Jce7 6.0-0 g6 7.J:.el iLg7 8.ct:Jbd2 f6 9.a4± Haba - Phildius, Internet 200S. White has a powerful centre and a queenside initiative. 5 ... d6 6.0-0 e5 7.'?lte2 a6 8. Itdl± Wellendorf - Opitz, Germany 1998. Black has played the pawn-move e5 in two tempi and that makes his defence much more difficult in comparison to line a (3 ... 4:Jf6 4. '?lte2 4'Jc6 5.c3 e5). 5 ... 4'Jge7 6.0-0 4:Jg6 7 . .l:!.e1 Yl.e7, Jorma - Kalsi, Espoo 1993, 35

Chapter 2 after 8.tbbd2 0-0 9.tbf1± Black's position is solid, but very passive. 5 ... h5?! 6. ~e2 i.e7 7.d5± White has a great space advantage and much better development, Peltomaki - Kalsi, Finland 200l. In answer to 5 ... tbf6, White occupies additional space with 6.e5 tbd5 7.c4 tbdb4?! (it is better for Black to play 7 .. .lbde7 8.tbc3±) 8.i.e2 i.e7? (Black's only defence was 8 ... a5 9.tbc3±) 9.a3 tba6 10.b4 tbab8 1l.d5+- and White remained with an extra piece, Karasek - Mayer, corr. 2004. 5 ... ~e7 6.0-0 0-0-0 7.b4 h6 8.a4±, White's attack on the queenside seems much more effective than Black's counter threats, Lampen - Kalsi, Tampere 1994. After 5 ... g6, Hewitt - Bankavs, Coventry 2005, it seems logical for White to play 6.i.g5 ~c8 (It looks quite strange for Black to try: 6 ... tbce7 7.0-0 h6 8.i..h4±, because he can hardly complete his development. It is too bad for Black to play: 6 ... tbge7 7.i..f6 .l:!.g8 8.tbg5±, or 6 ... f6 7.i..e3 i..g7 8.ttJbd2 tbge7 9.h4± and White can seize the initiative on the kingside due to his lead in development.) 7.0-0 i..g7 8.d5±. 6.0-0 d6 In answer to 6 ... tbf6 it seems logical for White to continue with 7.e5 tbd5 8.c4 ttJdb4 9.iLe2±. 36

7.d5 exd5 8.exd5 tbb8 9 ..lle1 h6 After 9 ... i..xd5 10.i..b5+ ..Iic6 1l.i.xc6+ tbxc6 12. ~d5± White regains his pawn and maintains his superior development.

10.c4± De Castro - Sin Kuen, Hong Kong 1972. White has extra space and excellent development. In addition - the light squares are quite weak in Black's position. b3) 4 ... i..e7 5.0-0

5 ...tbf6 After 5 ... h6?! 6.e5! Black has problems to develop his kingside: 6 ... i.g5 7.ttJbd2 c5 8.tbxg5 hxg5 9.ttJe4± Bibik - Stodola, Hlinsko 1993. 5 ... d6 6.~e2 ttJd7 (about 6 ... tbf6 7.e5 - see 4 ... d6 5.0-0 ttJf6

l.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 e6 4.tLJ(3

6.'t;\[e2 ~e7 7.e5) 7.~d1tLJgf6 8.e5 tLJd5 9.~e4 c6 10.c4 tLJc7, Soupizon - M.Johnson, Groningen 1999. Now, after the simple line: 11.exd6 ..txd6 12.tLJe5± White maintains a stable advantage, because of the weak black c6pawn and the passive deployment of Black's pieces. 5 ... g5 6.c4 d6, Nowicki Nagrocka, Germany 2000. White has acquired considerably more space and now it seems quite logical for him to complete his development with 7.i.e3, for example after 7 ... g4 8.tLJfd2 tLJf6 9.tLJc3± White is already quite well prepared to start active actions on the queenside, while Black has not completed his development yet. 5 ... tLJh6?! 6 ...txh6 gxh6 7:~c1 ..tg5 8.tLJxg5 hxg5 9. ~e3 ~e7 10.tLJd2± DarkUfo - Hanna, Chess.net 1998. White has a space advantage and superior development. He can proceed with active actions on both sides of the board. After 5 ... c5, there arises a pawn-structure, which is quite typical for the Sicilian Defence, except that Black has lost time for the move i..e7 and he has failed to develop his kingside, 6.tLJc3 cxd4 7.tLJxd4 tLJc6 8.tLJxc6 ..txc6 9.e5! ~c7 10.~el d5 11. ~g4± Dietrich - Wagner, Email 2000. 6.e5tLJd5 It is too dubious for Black to play 6 ... tLJg4?!, because after 7.h3

h5? (it is better for Black to play 7 ... tLJh6 8.c4±) 8.hxg4 hxg4 9. tLJh2+- Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient, Kunte - McKay, Kapuskasing 2004. Still, it is slightly better for Black to play: 6 ... tLJe4, Crafty Dlugy, ICC 1998, 7.tLJbd2 tLJxd2 (7 ... d5 8.'~e2 - see line b8) 8.tLJxd2 0-0 9.'~h5t. 7.a3 c5 Or 7 ... c6 8.c4 tLJc7 9.~e2±, Slowman - Cytebs, Internet 1999. 8.c4 tLJc7 9.dxc5 ..txc5 9 ... bxc5 10.tLJc3±.

10.tLJc3 d5 1l.cxd5 tLJxd5 12.tLJe4 ..te7, Schubert - Brebeck, Ratingen 1993, and here after the simple move: 13.iLg5± White either occupies the important d6-outpost, or he weakens Black's kingside considerably. b4) 4 ... tLJe7 5.0-0 (diagram) 5 ... tLJg6 About 5 ... tLJbc6 6.c3 - see 4 ... tLJc6 5.c3 tLJge7 6.0-0. 5 ... g6 6J~el ..tg7 7.tLJbd2 d6 8.tLJf1 tLJd7, Menacher - Tober, Austria 2002, 9.tLJg3 0-0 10.c3t:. 37

Chapter 2 exchange leads to even more powerful initiative by White. 9.ctJxh4 .ixh4 10. ~g4± BuzetiBanic, Ljubljana 2002. b5) 4 ... g6 5 . .ig5!?

White preserves a long-lasting positional pressure, because of his solid pawn-centre, besides Black has no active counterplay. 5 ... d6 6.~e1 (it is also possible for White to play 6.c4 ttJd7 - see line b6 6 ... ttJe7) 6 ... ttJd7 (6 ... g6 7.c3 .ig7, Yavas - Meyer, Germany 1992, 8.ttJbd2 ttJd7 9.ctJf1 0-0 10.ttJg3;j;:) 7.lDbd2 h6 (7 ... g6, Alvarado - Dive, Bled 2002, 8.ctJfl .ig7 9.ctJg3 - see 5 ... g6) 8.lDfl a6 9.ctJg3 g6, Mareco Claverie, Buenos Aires 2004, 10 ..ie3 iLg7 11. ~d2±. 6 ..ie3.ie7 It is even worse for Black to play 6 ... c6?!, restricting his only active piece. 7.lDbd2± KoehlerStein, Kassel 2000. 7.c40-0

5 ... ~c8 5 ... lDe7? This move enables White to simply crush Black's kingside position. 6.iLf6 ~g8 7.lDg5 h6 8.ctJh7 iLg7 9.~d2 g5 10.h4 d5 11.e5 lDd7 12.hxg5 hxg5, MacDonald - Zarkovic, Auckland 1998, and here the quickest win for White was the line: 13.iLxg7 ~xg7 14.lDf6+-. It is hardly good for Black to play 5 ... f6, because after 6.iLe3 iLg7 7 .h4± White's active plan on the kingside is easy to accomplish, because of his dominance in the centre, Wohlfart - Keckeisen, Goetzis 1997. 5 ... iLe7. This bishop-move does not combine too well with the move g6 and White easily achieves a great advantage with rather simple moves. 6.iLf4 d6 7.c4 iLf6 8.ctJc3 g5 9 ..ie3 g4 10.ctJd2 ctJc6 11.lDb3± Balinov 8.lDc3 ctJh4. Black's knight on Wais, Vienna 1999. g6 is evidently misplaced, but its 6.c4 .ig7 7.lDc3 ctJc6 38

l.e4 b6 2.d4 i..b7 3.Jt.d3 e6 4.ct:J(3

I t is hardly any better for Black to play: 7 ... d6 8.0-0 ct:Jd7, Torre - N.Gaprindashvili, Kuala Lumpur 1994. Mter 9. ~d2 h6 10 ..ie3 ct:Jgf6 1l.h3± White controls completely the centre and Black's counterplay is non-existent. B.d5 ct:Je5 9.ct:Jxe5 .ixe5 10. "i::'ld2.ig7

•.• -- • . -"'"

.i.~

~;;

'"

~

•

~~~

iB i~ i .i.i.

r.·~.i.lr~ .M

_

.~.

.LS.~.

~

~ ~

~w~m~·n·@iii' LSU ~~ % '".dfJ "%if0'''; •• ,

,:

"li%,%0'"

~;

11.0-0-0 h6 (1l ... ltJe7 12. .ih6! 0-0 13.h4-t) 12 ..ih4 e5 (12 ... d6 13 ..ic2±) 13.d6 g5 (13 ... cxd6 14.ltJb5 .ifS 15 ..ic2±) 14. .ig3 cxd615.ltJb5 .if816..ic2± Rublevsky - Chernyshov, Ohrid 2001. White regains his pawn and he remains with a great advantage, because Black has so many weaknesses to worry about. b6) 4 ... d6 5.0-0

5 ••. ltJd7

About S ... jLe7 6. "i::'le2 - see 4 ... jLe7 5.0-0 d6 6.~e2; S... ct:Je7 6.ne1 - see 4 ... ltJe7 S.O-O d6 6.1:[el. 5 ... g6 6.i.g5!? f6 (It is not good for Black to play 6 ... ct:Je7 7 ..if6 Itg8, Antonini - Hirt, Paris 1994, after 8.ct:JgS! h6 9.ltJh7± White has a powerful pressure along the weak dark squares on the kingside. Mter 6 ....ie7, Bresciani - Berlusconi, Lombardia 1991, White's most logical move seems to be 7.i.f4±, because Black's bishop on e7 is obviously misplaced, while his pawn is on the g6-square. In answer to: 6 ... "i::'lc8, Agliullin - Terpugov, Novokuznetsk 1998, White can transpose to line b5, with 7.c4 i.g7 8.ct:Jc3 ct:Jd7 9.~d2±.) 7.i.e3 ct:Jh6 8. "i::'ld2 ltJf7 (8 ... ltJg4 9 ..if4 e5 10.i.g3±) 9.c4 i.g7 10.ltJc3 0-0, Martin Valentin - Pertinez, Spain 1999, and here White's best move is 11.cSt, with a powerful initiative on the queenside. 5 ... ltJf6 6. ~e2 .ie7 (after 6 ... ltJbd7 White should better play 7.Itd1!, with the idea to follow with eS, for example: 7 ... ~e7?!, Israel- Ratel, France 2003, 8.eS! ltJdS 9.jLg5 f6 10.exf6 gxf6 11 . .id2±; 8 ... dxeS 9.dxeS ct:Jd5 10.a3! - Black has great problems with the safety of his centralized knight: 10 ... ct:Jc5 1l.c4 ct:Jb3 12. cxdS ct:Jxal 13 ..ib5+-; 10 ... c5 11.c4 ct:Jc7 12 ..ie4±; 10 ... "i::'ld8 11.c4 ct:Je7 12.jLe4±, or 7 ....f;fc8, Souza - Koffer, Paranagua 1993, 39

Chapter 2 8.lbbd2 il.e7 9.c3 0-0 10.e5 lbd5 1l.lbe4±; 8 ... e5 9.lbc4 exd4 10. lbxd4 lbe5 1l.il.g5±) 7.e5 lbfd7 (7 ... de 8.dxe5 lbfd7 9.~d1! il.d5 10.lbc3 c5 1l.lbxd5 exd5 12.e6 lbf6 13.lbg5+- Wosch - Becker, Email 2002) 8.c4 0-0 (It is worse for Black to play 8 ... d5 9.cxd5 ~xd5 10.lbc3 .i.b7, Poetschke Caels, Willingen 1999, because after 1l ..i.f4± White is totally dominant in the centre and he can exert powerful pressure along the c-file. All that might combine into a dangerous kingside attack.) 9.lbc3 ~e8 10 ..i.e4 .i.xe4 11. ~xe4 lba6 12. ~g4± Demkovich - Semenova, Kiev 2003. White has a stable advantage, because of his extra space and kings ide pressure. 6.c4

6 ... g6 Mter 6 ... c5 7.d5 e5 B.lbc3 g6, Exposito - Gonzalez Zamora, Manresa 199B, there arises a pawn-structure, which is typical for the Benoni Defence (the closed variation - Ld4 c5 2.d5 e5), except that White has several extra tempi and the logical way to exploit that is to play: 40

9.a3±, seizing the initiative on the queenside. 6"'lbe7 7.lbc3 e5 (about 7 ... g6 8.il.g5 - see 6 ... g6; 7 ... h6 8. .i.e3 a6 9.b4 g5 10.d5 lbg6 II. lbd4± Canfell - Wohl, Auckland 2005) 8.d5 lbg6 9 ..i.e3 ~e7 10. b4± White's initiative develops obviously faster than Black's counterplay, Sicars - Konik, Wiesbaden 2000. 6 ... h6 7.lbc3 .i.e7, Benkiar Slimani, Algiers 2000 (7 ... g6, Isonzo - Bini, Montecatini Terme 1994, 8 ..i.e3 .i.g7 9:~d2±. Mter 7 ... lbe7, Schmitz-Kramps, Germany 1993, it is logical for White to continue with: B..i.e3 g5 9. ~d2±, and he has an extra tempo in comparison to the line 6 ... g6.) Now, it seems very good for White to play: B.d5 e5 (B ... lbgf6 9.lbd4 lbc5 10 ..i.c2±) 9 ..i.e3 lbgf6 10.lbd2± and he has occupied more space and his initiative on the queenside is quite obvious. 6 ... lbgf6 7.lbc3 e5 (7 ... .i.e7 8 ..i.f4 0-0 9. ~c2 g6 10J:tadl± White has a stable edge, due to his centralized pieces, Kosmowski - Wieszczycki, Suwalki 2000) 8.d5 .i.e7, Debowiak - Trabszys, Krynica 2001 (Black's active move B... lbc5 only facilitates White's initiative on the queenside: 9 ..i.c2 a5 10.lbd2 .i.e7 11. ~b1 0-0 12.a3 .i.cB 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 lbb7 15 ..i.a4 .i.d7 16. .i.c6± Bank - Lauridsen, Festuge 1991). White can now transpose to the game Chiburdanidze Jachkova, Elista 2004, which we

1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 e6 4.l2J(3

8 ...l2Je7 White's initiative runs smoothly after: 8 ... f6 9.i.e3 12Jh6 10.c5t dxc5, Grimm - Scherer, Stetten 1988, and now the excellent resource 11.~b3t emphasizes Black's difficulties, caused by his lag in development and lack of space, for example: 11...l2Jf8 12.Z1ad1 cxd4 13.l2Jxd4± and Black's king remains in the centre and he has no piececoordination at all, so his extra pawn is practically immaterial. It is even worse for Black to play: 11...~e7 12.l2Jb5t±, because White regains his pawn and preserves his positional advantage. It is almost the same after: 1l ... cxd4 12.'i;:he6+ ~f8 (12 ... ~e7 13.l2Jxd4 12Jc5 14.i.b5+ ~f8 15.~h3~) 13.i.xd4±, because Black is faced with a difficult defence in a position with material equality. 9.tM2 h6 10.i.e3l2Jf6

10 ... gS ll.dS! 12Jg6 (after 11 ... e5 12.b4l2Jg6 13.c5 bxc5 14.bc dc 15.l2Ja4 0-0 16.l2Jxc5± White's initiative is clearly ahead of Black's eventual counterplay, Marciano - Garcia Ilundain, Suances 1997) 12.l2Jd4 ~e7 13. 12Jcb5 12Jc5 14.i.c2 a5 15.b3 0-0 16.a3 a417.b4l2Jb3 18.i.xb3 axb3 19.~b2! exdS 20.exdS f5 21.~xb3 f4 22.i.d2 g4 23.l:tae1 ~h4 24.f3± 011 - Spassky, Tallinn 1998. White wins a pawn and maintains a clear advantage in the centre, while Black has problems to create any counterplay. lO ... a6 ll.:'ad1 ~b8 (In case Black plays actively with: ll ... gS 12.h3 eS 13.iLbl 12Jg6 14.~c2 ~e7 lS.l2Jd5± he only creates additional weaknesses, Porto Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro 2000.) 12JHe1 ~a7 13.a4± Black's strange queen-maneuver has just helped White to start active actions on the queenside, Andrade - Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro 1999. 1l.h3 d5

12.cxd5 exd5 13.e5l2Je4 14. 15.bxc3± Ibragimov - Stefanova, Pulvermuehle 2000. ~c2l2Jxc3

41

Chapter 2 White has extra space and he can build up a powerful initiative on the kingside, so his positional pressure is long-lasting. b7) 4 ... d5 5.e5

5 ... c5 5 ... i.a6 - this idea to exchange the light squared bishops is losing too much time. 6.i.xa6 CDxa6 7.c4!? c6 8.cxd5 ~xd5 9. 0-0 CDe7 10.CDc3 ~d7 1l.CDe4± Pavlovic - Rosic, Yugoslavia 2000. White has extra space and he can seize the initiative on both sides of the board. It is too passive for Black to play 5 ... CDd7, and White can exploit that with the standard attacking move: 6.CDg5! i.e7 (6 ... g6 7.h4 fie7 8.h5±; 6 ... h6 7. ~h5 ~e7 8.CDxf7+-) 7.~g4± and again White has extra space and a powerful initiative on the kingside. 5 ... CDe7 6.b4!? CDg6 7.c3 c5 8.a3 i.e7 9.h4!t White has squeezed his opponent completely on the queenside with a quite standard maneuver and now he can attack safely on the kingside. 9 ... CDxh4 10.CDxh4 JLxh4 11.fig4 JLe7 12. 42

~xg7 l:.f8 13.l:.xh7± Struik- Van Leent, Hoogeveen 2002. Black has no compensation for the pawn at all. 5 ... CDc6 6.0-0 iLe7 (in answer to 6 ... CDge7 7.c3 CDg6, Espina Villar, Oviedo 2003, it is good for White to follow with 8.CDg5! i.e7 9.fih5 ~d7 10.CDxe6+-; 9 ... iLxg5 1O.~xg5 fid7 11.l2Jd2± and White has the two bishop advantage and extra space) 7.c3 ~d7 8.fie2 g6?! This move weakens the dark squares, but Black has problems to create counterplay anywayWhite is threatening with active actions on both sides of the board. 9.b4 h5 10.a4 a5 11.b5 CDa7, Dietz - Forbrich, Germany 1989. It is very favourable for White to exchange the dark squared bishops in that position: 12.iLg5! 0-0-0 13.CDbd2± and Black has no counterplay whatsoever. 6.c34Jc6 In response to 6 ... LUe7, Jahangir - Flaga, Chicago 1996, White's simplest reaction is the standard move 7 .a3t. 6 ... iLe7 7.0-0 CDd7, ZilaSandor, Hungary 2002, and again the typical move: 8.a3! c4 9.iLc2± deprives Black of any counterplay on the queenside. The move 6 ... g6?! weakens the dark squares on the kingside: 7.0-0 4Jc6 8.i.g5! i.e7 9.i.xe7 CDgxe7 10.4Jbd2± Demko - Majling, Martin 1996. Mter 6 ... fid7 7.~e2 a5 (7 ... CDc6 8.a3 ~e7, Gaensmantel -

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Jib7 3.~d3 e6 4.CiJf3

Seyffer, Germany 1990, 9.b4t) 8.0-0 .1a6, Gosztola - Fellegi, White obtains a powerful pressure in the centre and on the queenside after: 9 ..1xa6 ctJxa6 10.c4! cxd4 (1O ... dxc4 11.:d1 '§c6 12.ctJbd2 ctJc7 13.ctJxc4 b5 14. ctJe3±) 1l.l:!.d1 l:tc8 12.cxd5 ctJb4 13.ctJxd4 ctJxd5 14.ctJb5±. The move 6 ... ctJd7 is too passive and White can proceed with the standard kingside attack with: 7.ctJg5! g6 8.h4 cxd4 9.cxd4 f6? (9 ... l:tc8 10.ctJc3±; 9 ... ctJh6 1O.h5t) 10.ctJxe6+- Righi-Kgatshe, Thessaloniki 1988. 6 ... h6 7.0-0 .i.e7 (if 7 ... ctJc6, McLure - Caels, Thessaloniki 1984, then after 8.a3!t, White prevents Black's counterplay on the queenside and he has excellent chances to develop a powerful initiative on the kingside) 8 ..lte3 ctJc6 9.ctJbd2 a6, Zrinscak - van Gellecom, Kleve 1999. Now after 10.a3 c4 (10 ....~d7 11.b4±) 1l ..ic2 ~d7 12.ctJel±, White's kingside attack runs unopposed and Black has no counterplay at all. 6 ... cxd4 7.cxd4 .ltb4+, Arias Torio - Sanchez Gonzalez, Asturias 2000, and Black's bishop is misplaced on the b4-square, while its exchange for White's knight is definitely not in Black's favour. The simplest line for White should be: 8.ctJc3! ctJe7 9.0-0±. After 6 ... ~c7 7.0-0 ctJc6 8.Ji.e3 c4 9 ..ic2 b5 10.ctJg5 h6 11. '§h5± White manages to obtain the

typical kingside pressure for positions of this type, Brodbeck Von Zimmermann, Wuerttemberg 1995. 6 ... f6 7.'§e2 CiJc6 8.exf6 ~xf6 9 ..i.g5 '§f7 10.0-0± Haecker Swemers, Erfurt 1998. Now, opening of files in the centre is clearly in favour of White, because of his lead in development. 6 ... c4 7 ..ic2 ctJe7 (Black's defence is even more difficult after: 7 ... b5 8.0-0 a5 9.CiJg5 g6 10.'§f3± Lipschuetz - Burille, New York 1889.) 8.0-0 CiJd7 9.CiJg5! h6 (Black can save his position against White's attack neither with: 9 ... ctJf5 10 ..1xf5 exf5 11. e6~ Lopez Martinez - Aguilera Olivar, Zaragoza 1999, nor with: 9 ... g6 10. '§f3 ctJf5 1l ..ixf5 gxf5 12.ctJxe6+-; 1l ... exf5 12.e6~.) 10. ~h5 g6 11. ~h3 CiJf5 12 ..ixf5 gxf5 (it is too dangerous for Black to open files in the centre: 12 ... exf5 13.e6~) 13. ~h5 ~e7 14.b3! .ig7 15.ctJh3±. Black has no counterplay whatsoever. The move 6 ... ~c8 is connected with the idea to trade the "bad" bishop, but it still takes too much time: 7.0-0 .lta6 8.ctJg5 .ixd3 9.~xd3 g6, Thomas - Pueplichhuisen, Kleve 2001, and now after the energetic move 10.c4!, with eventual developments like: 10 ... h6 1l.ctJf3 dxc4 12. ~xc4 ~a6 13.,§c2 ctJc6 14.~e4± White dominates completely in the centre. 7.0-0 ctJge7 7 ... :c8 8 ..ie3 g6 9.~e2 cxd4 43

Chapter 2 10.cxd4 CZJge7, Huistra - Amesz, Hengelo 1996. White's most direct way to exploit the weakness of the dark squares is: 11.i.g5 i.g7 12.CZJc3 h6 (It is worse for Black to play 12 ... 0-0 13:~e3±, because White then has excellent attacking chances.) 13.~h4 0-0 (or 13 ... g5 14.li'lb5 0-0 15.CZJd6±) 14.li'lb5±. 7 ... cxd4 S.cxd4 a6 9.li'lc3 b5 10Jle1l:tcS 11.li'le2 i.b4 12.i.d2 li'lge7 13.l:tcl± Fernando - Rita, Portugal 2000. Black's light squared bishop is very bad and his dark squares on the kingside are quite vulnerable. 7 ... i.e7 S.a3 ~d7 (it is clearly worse for Black to play S ... li'lh6, Azua - Garcia, Buenos Aires 2002, because after 9.i.xh6 gxh6 10.b4± Black's bishop pair does not compensate his kingside weaknesses), Bloemhard - Muris, Soest 1999, and here after the standard reaction 9.b4t Black has no counterplay. After 7 ... ~d7 S.l:i.e1 c4 9.i.c2 0-0-0 10.b3± White preserves excellent attacking chances, Simonsen - M.Nielsen, Copenhagen 2002. 7 ... li'lh6 SJ:te1 g6 9.i.g5 'f:Jc7, Kuebel - Hoose, Bad Neustadt 1990, and here after the simple line: 10.i.f6 .l::!.gS 11.li'lg5± White has a powerful initiative on the kingside. The move 7 ... c4 - reduces the tension in the centre and deprives Black of any counterplay. S.~c2 b5 (It is not any better for 44

Black to play: S... CZJge7 9.~e1 li'lg6 10.CZJg5 i.e7 11. ~h5 i.xg5 12.i.xg5 ~c7 13.li'ld2± Lapis Sviridov, Havirov 1965. White remains with a two bishop advantage and a possibility for active actions on both sides of the board.) 9.li'lg5 i.e7 (the move 9 ... h6, Studer-Baertsch, Wangs Pizol 1996, loses for Black after: 10. 'f:Jh5! g6 11.i.xg6+-; 10 ... ~d7 l1.li'lxf7+-; 10 ... hxg5 11. 'f:JxhS li'lh6 12.li'ld2+-) 10.'f:Jg4 g6 (or 10 ... li'lh6 11. ~h5± and Black loses a pawn) 11. 'f:Jf4± and Black is forced to enter a very difficult endgame. 8.a3l2Jg6

In answer to S ... 'f:Jc7, Brajnikov - Smyth, Email 2000.itis again very good for White to play 9.b4±. S... c4 9.i.c2 li'lf5 10.~e1 i.e7 1l.li'lbd2 0-0, Liew - Heesen, Email 1999, and now after 12. CZJf1 b5 13.li'le3t White manages to trade Black's only active piece and he can build up slowly and patiently his kingside initiative.

This position was reached in the game T.Schmid - Okan, Germany 1995. After White's logical

l.e4 b6 2.d4 i.b7 3.il..d3 e6 4.tDf3 reaction: 9.b4 i.e7 10Jlel 0-0 11.tDbd2t Black has no counterplay and White's kingside initiative develops unopposed. bB) 4 ... tDf6 5.~e2

This is the most popular move for White and it is his standard reaction against tDf6 in this opening. 5 ... d5 The other moves for Black are either very dubious, or they just transpose to lines that we have already analyzed: About 5 ... c5 6.c3 - see 4 ... c5; 5 ... d6 6.0-0 i.e7 7.e5 - see 4 ... d6 5.0-0 tDf6 6:~e2 i.e7 7.e5; 5 ... tDc6?! 6.e5 tDd5 7.c4 i..b4+? 8.'~f1 tDde7 9.a3+- Ivanchuk Olejarczyk, Warsaw 1999; 5 ... i.b4+?! 6.c3 i.e7, Wernsmann - Westermann, Willingen 2001, 7.e5 tDd5 8.a3 c5 9.0-0 cxd4 10.c4 tDc7 11.tDxd4±; 5 ... i.e7 6.0-0 O-O?! (6 ... c5 7.c3 - see 4 ... c5; 6 ... d6 - see 4 ... d6; 6 ... h6?!, Schuermann - Mittag, Germany 1993, 7.e5! tDd5 8.c4 tDb4 9.i.e4±; 6 ... d5 7.e5 tDe4 8.tDbd2 - see 5 ... d5; 7 ... tDfd7 8.c4!? dxc4 9.i.xc4 a6 10.tDc3 b5

11.i.d3 tDb6 12.i.e4 ~c6 13.lM1 0-0 14. ~c2 h6 15.i.e3 ~d7 16. 1:!.ac1 };Id8 17.d5!± Khalifman Bauer, Internet 2004) 7.e5 ct:Jd5 (7 ... tDe8 8.c4 f5 9.tDc3 g5 10.d5 tDg7 11.i.e3 f4 12.i.d2± White has a powerful centre and a huge lead in development, AIle Ciemnyjewski, corr. 1998. It is not any better for Black to play: 8 ... d5, Erler - Karpoff, corr. 1984, 9.cxd5! ~xd5 10.tDc3 ~d7 11. i.g5±; 10 ... ~d8 1l.i.f4± and White has a great space advantage and good prospects for initiative on both flanks.) 8. ~e4 g6 9.i.h6! (it is bad for White to play the seemingly attractive line: 9.c4? tDb4 10.~xb7 tD8c6, because now he must already think about how to equalize, H.Hoffmann - Breuer, Goerlitz 1999) 9 ... ne8 10.a3± Morawietz Bohne, Herxheim 1993. White has extra space and excellent attacking chances. 6.e5 CDfd7 6 ... ct:Je4 7.CDbd2 tDxd2 (Black's compensation for the pawn is quite insufficient after the rest ofthe moves: 7 ... a5? 8.tDxe4 dxe4 9.i.xe4± Gerke - Koch, Dortmund 2000, or 7 ... £5?, HafnerSchroeder, Hamburg 1997, 8.exf6 gxf6 9.tDxe4±) 8.i.xd2 h6. This is an attempt by Black to seize the initiative on the kingside. (About 8 ... c5 9.c3 - see line a, chapter 3. Black only weakens his dark squares with the move: 8 ... g6, Ebert - Butz, Gross Gerau 2000. After 9.i.g5 i.e7 - it is even 45

Chapter 2 worse for Black to try: 9 ... t'td7 10.SLf6 Mg8 11.lLlg5± - 10.SLxe7 'flxe7 11.h4± Black can hardly defend his kingside successfully. After 8 ... lLlc6 9.0-0 iLe7 10.c3 t'td7 11.ctJel± Black has no counterplay at all, Vazelaki Seitani, Athens 1999. In answer to 8 ... iLe7 White should better play 9.b4!? c5 10.bxc5 bxc5 11. dxc5 iLxc5 12.0-0 t'tc8 13.lLlg5 iLa6 14.t'th5± and he maintains a powerful pressure on the kingside, Doluhanova - Agudova, Alushta 2005. After 8 ... t'td7, Leitao - Mascarenhas, Sao Paulo 1999, it seems very good for White to continue with: 9.b4!? c5 10.c3 iLe7 11.0-01'.) 9.0-0 lLlc6 10.c3 g5 11.lLle1 h5 12.f4± Schmitz - Ziabari, Troisdorf 2000. Black's play was too risky and it led to a great lag in development and weakening of plenty of important squares. 7.lLlg5!? iLe7 The other moves for Black are clearly worse. After 7 ... c5? 8.ctJxe6 fxe6 9. t'th5+ ~e7 10.iLg5+ Black resigned in the game Mastrokoukos - Klokas, Nikea 2002. The move 7 ... t'te7?! loses a pawn after 8.lLlxh7± Shipman Cooke, New York 1991. It is also bad for Black to play 7 ... g6, because that move only weakens the dark squares and creates a target for White to attack on the kingside. 8.h4! '{!:Je7

46

(8 ... h5? 9.lLlxe6+-; 8 ... lLlc6?! 9.c3 '{!:Je7 10.h5 JLg7 11.h6± Streitberg - Nagrocka, Dortmund 1989; 9 ... iLe7 10.'{!:Jf3 iLxg5 11.iLxg5± Ostojic - Vlahovic, Belgrade 2005, White has the two bishop advantage, extra space and an easy attacking plan on the kingside. His positional pressure will be long-lasting.) 9.h5 iLg7 (After 9 ... iLh6 10.hxg6! .txg5 11J:txh7 :fS 12.f4 iLh4+ 13.~f1 ctJc6 14. t'th5± White regains his piece and remains with an extra pawn) 10.h6 iLfS, Bussek-Jaeger, Germany 1995, and here the simple move 11.lLlf3!± emphasizes the weakness of the dark squares on Black's kingside. 8.t'tg4 h5 8 ... g6 9.h4 h5 10.t'th3 lLlf8 11. t'tf3± Gleizerov - Filipovic, Ljubljana 2000.

9.t'tg3lLlfS, Comp Deep Junior - Akopian, Dortmund 2000. N ow, after the natural move lO.lLlf3t, White manages to exchange the dark squared bishops and he maintains a powerful pressure on the kingside.

Chapter 3

l.e4 b6 2.d4 itb7 3.itd3 e6 4.l1Jf3 c55.c3

5 ... ltJf6 About 5 ... d5 6.e5 - see 4 ... d5 5.e5 c5 6.c3, Chapter 2, line b5. Black has also tried: 5 ••• g6?! This move only weakens the dark squares and White should better exploit that with the move: 6 ..ltf4! .ltg7 7 ..ltd6± Shankar-Jayaraj, Madras 1997; 5•••ltJe7 6.h4! ltJbc6 (in answer to 6 ... 'iff c7, Liebert - Milovanovic, corr. 1985, it seems quite logical for White to continue with his kingside actions with: 7.h5!? d5 S.e5 cxd4 9.cxd4 .lta6 10.Ji.xa6 ctJxa6 1l.h6±) 7.a3 d5 8.e5 c4 (S ... h6, Mrkvicka - Mehlhorn, corr. 2000, 9.b4!±; S... l:i.cS 9.h5 cxd4 10.cxd4 ctJf5 1l.i..xf5 exf5 12.~g5 t:ld7 13.h6± Alonso Scholbach, Email 2000) 9.i..c2 h6 10.h5 'iffd7 1l.ctJh4 0-0-0 12.i..e3

f6 13.f4 'OttbS 14.ctJd2 'OttaS, Sveshnikov - Tseshkovsky, USSR 1980, and here White's simplest way to obtain an overwhelming advantage is: 15. t:le2! followed by 0-0-0 and g4±, so he preserves a powerful pressure on the kingside, while Black has no counterplay at all; 5 ... c4?! This move reduces the tension in the centre and thus White has a free hand for active actions on both flanks. 6.i..c2 'iffc7 (About 6 ... d5 7.e5 see 4 ... d5 5.e5 c5 6.c3 c4 7.i..c2 Chapter 2, variation b5; 6 ... b5 7.0-0 g6 8.l:i.el ~g7 9 ...ltf4 d6 10.a4 a6 11.ctJa3±, and Black can hardly defend his queenside weaknesses, because of his great lag in development, Ruggeri Rota, Crema 2000. 6 ... ctJf6 7.e5 ltJd5 S.ltJbd2 b5 9.ctJe4 'iffc7?! 10. ctJfg5! h6 l1.ctJxf7 ~xf7 12. t:lh5+ 'it>gS, Stangl - Hoose, Bad Neustadt 1990, and here White wins with 13.ctJd6!, because Black is forced to give up his queen, since otherwise after: 13 ... ..ltxd6 14. 'iffeS+ i..f8 15.i..g6+- he simply gets checkmated. White main47

Chapter 3 tains a dangerous attack after: 9 ... i.e7 10.i.g5 f6 l1.exf6 gxf6 12.ltJe5!-7. Evidently, Black's best choice is the move 9 ... h6, but even then after 10.b3!t his defence remains extremely difficult.) 7.0-0 ltJe7 (It is hardly any better for Black to play: 7 ... ltJf6 SJ!e1 d5 9.e5ltJfd7 10.ltJg5! i.e7 11. ti'h5±, because White remains Black has plenty of possibilities with the two bishop advantage in this position, but they are eiand a dangerous kingside initia- ther quite dubious, or they simtive, Brueckner - Josuttis, Pin- ply transpose to lines that we neb erg 1997. Or 7 ... i.e7 S.~e2 have already analyzed. ltJf6 9.i.g5! d6 10.ltJbd2 b5 11.e5! About 6 ... ltJf6 7.~e2 - see 5 ... dxe5 12.dxe5± Kirsch - Happe, ltJf6 6.~e2 ti'c7 7.0-0; 6 ... d6 7. Germany 1995. Following 9 ... d5 ti'e2ltJd7 8.d5 - see 5 ... d6; 6 ... c4 lO.e5 ltJg4 11.h3±, White leads 7 ...tc2 - see 5 ... c4 6 ...tc2 ~c7 7. in development and exerts a 0-0. powerful pressure on the kingThe position after 6 ... ..te7 side, Astrom - Eriksson, Sollen- 7. ti'e2 ltJf6 has been tested in tuna 1995.) SJ:te1 ltJg6 9.h4 h5 numerous games, but strangely (White's initiative will be much enough White has never played more effective in case he man- S.e5!, for example, S ... CLJd5 (in ages to place a pawn on the h5- case of 8 ... ltJg8 9.CLJa3± White resquare, for example: 9 ... ~e7 10. mains with a huge lead in develh5 ltJf8 11.ltJbd2±; 9 ... d6 10.h5 opment) 9.a3! and White is ltJe7 11. ~e2ltJd7 12.ltJa3±; 9 ... d5 threatening to capture the cen10.h5ltJe7 11.ltJe5ltJbc6 12 ...tf4±; tralized enemy knight with the 11 ... f6 12.i.a4+ ltJbc6 13.ltJxc6 move 10.c4, and Black's defence i.xc6 14.exd5 exd5 15 . ..tf4±. against that seemingly primitive Black lags in development con- threat is far from easy. For exsiderably in all variations.) 10. ample after: 9 .. .'~c6 10.c4 ltJc7 i.g5 ltJc6 11.ltJbd2 b5, Panno - 11.CLJc3± Black's pieces on the Sarkany, Los Polvorines 19S0, queenside are so discoordinated and here after the simple move that he has problems defending 12.e5±, White has occupied the against 12 ...te4. centre and he is quite well preIn case of 6 ... h6 7.~e2 CLJe7, pared to play on either side of the Vujicic - Dimitrijevic, Belgrade board, while Black can hardly 2003, White's simple line 8.ltJa3! find any counterplay; a6 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.e5 CLJbc6 11. 5 ... ~c7 6.0-0 ltJc4± enables him to occupy 48

1.e4 b6 2.d4 ~b7 3.~d3 e6 4.tiJ{3 cS S.c3

6 ... ~b4+ 7.tiJc3 lbe7 (7 ... tiJf6 - see 5 ... tiJf6; 7 ... h6 8.0-0 tiJf6 9. ~e2 - see 5 ... ltJf6) 8.a3 i.xc3+ 9.bxc3 0-0 10.0-0± and Black has no compensation for White's couple of powerful bishops, Huesmann - Wauthier, Belgium 1992; 6 ... !ii..a6 7.i.xa6 lbxa6 8.0-0 lbf6 9.lbc3 ..ib4 10.e5± and White has a huge lead in development and he dominates in the centre, Braga - Del Campo, Pico 1996; After 6 ... g6 7.0-0 ..ig7 8.tiJc3 lbe7, Zavgorodny - Kutsyh, Nikolaev 2001, White can emphasize the weakness of the dark squares by bringing his knight to the d6-outpost: 9.lbb5 0-0 10. ltJd6 .ia6 1l ...if4±; The move 6 ... h6 - is too slow. 7.0-0 lbc6 8.lbc3ltJb4 9.!ii..b1lbf6, Hebden - J agerflod, Ramsgate 1984. After 10.a3lbc6 11.e5 tiJg8 12.d5± Black might not even manage to complete his development; 6 ... lbc6 7.lbc3 J:.cB (Black only loses time after: 7 ... lbb4 8 ..ie2 .ie7 9.a3 tiJa6 10.0-0 lbf6, Gruss - Bantle, Plzen 1998. In case of 1l.e5lbd5 12.lbxd5 exd5 13 ..ie3 ltJc7 14.lbd2± White's advantage is stable, because of his dominance in the centre and his enemy's weak d5-pawn. 7 ... d6, Tognella - Szirmai, Budapest 2002, B.d5 exd5 9.exd5 ~e7+ 10 . .ie3 tiJe5 1l.!ii..b5+ 'It>dB 12.0-0±. About 6 ... lbf6 7.~e2 - see White's development is superior 5 ... lbf6; and Black's king is stranded in

plenty of important squares in the centre. The move 6 ... cxd4?! looks quite dubious, because White has excellent chances to dominate on the key open c-file with: 7.cxd4 tiJf6 (after 7 ... d6 B.tiJc3ltJf6 9 ...ig5 !ii..e7 10.~c1 ~d7 11.e5! White's lead in development was so overwhelming that the game ended in just several moves: 11...ltJd5 12.!ii..b5 ..ic6 13.ltJxd5 exd5 14. J:.e1! !ii..xg5 15.exd6+ 'it>fB 16. ltJxg5 1-0 Prevenios - Wall, corr. 1963) B.ltJc3 a6 9.!ii..g5 ltJc6, Machin - Khalid, Kuala Lumpur 1996, and here after 10Jlc1!± White completes his piece-development and preserves the option to break in the centre. 6 ... ltJe7 7.ltJa3! a6 8.dxc5 bxc5, Ramos - Popp, Email 1998 (It is not better for Black to play: 8 ... ~xc5 9.ltJc4 ~c7 10 ..ie3 ltJcB 1l.ltJd4±, because White maintains his huge lead in development.) and here White can play the simple line: 9.e5ltJbc6 10.lIel ltJg6 11.lbc4±; 5 ... cxd4 6.cxd4

8.~e2

49

Chapter 3

the centre. It is hardly any better for Black to play: 9 ... ltJeS 10.~bS+ ltJd7 11.0-0±, because thus he can not complete easily his development.) 8.0-0 .ii.d6 (it is worse for Black to follow with 8 ... d6?! 9:~a4! dS 10.exdS exdS 11. lIe 1+ ~e7 12.ii.f5l:!a8 13.tiJeS 1-0 Pandavos - Trikaliotis, Athens 1989) 9.dSlDeS 10.dxe6 dxe6 11..Si.bS+ ~f8 12.i..f4 lDxf3+ 13. "i;'txf3 i..xf4 14:~xf4± and White has maintained a huge lead in development, Martinez UcedaVicioso Sanchez, Email 2000; 6 ... d6 7.0-0 .te7 (Black should not opt for: 7 ... g6 8.lDc3 i..g7, Dubois - Blackburne, London 1862, since the line 9.i..gS lDe7 10.~d2± emphasizes the weakness of the dark squares, because of White's superior development and his powerful centre.) 8.ltJc3lDf6 9.~el 0-0 10."i;'tc2 ltJc6 Il.a3± Doric - Fenske, Schwarzach 1999. White is now quite well prepared for active actions in the centre; 5 ... d6 6.0-0 ltJd7 (6 ... ltJf6 7.~e2 - see S... ltJf6 6.~e2 d6 7. 0-0; 6 ... ite7 7:~e2 - see S... i..e7; 6 ... ltJe7?! 7.itbS+! itc6 8.i..xc6+ ltJbxc6 9.dS exdS 10.exdS ltJaS 1l.l:!el± and White leads in development and he has extra space, moreover Black's king has no safe shelter, Rijnaarts - Van Beek, Leiden 1997. It is even worse for Black to play: 7 ... lDbc6 S.dS+-; or 7 ... ltJd7 S.dxcS±.) 7:~e2lDe7 (About 7 ... lDgf6 S.lIdl - see 5 ... lDf6; 7 ... ite7 S.lIdl- see

so

5 ... i..e7. Following 7 ... a6, Wittmann - Herrmann Velden 1995, White should try to prepare the pawn-break e4-eS, occupying additional space. The best way to do that is to play the move S.l:!dl±. In case Black plays 7 ... h6, Polak - Stratil, Czech Republic 1991, it is again good for White to continue with S.l:i.dl± having the idea to play e4-eS up his sleeve. In answer to 7 ... "i;'tc7, Ubezio - Tagnon, Forli 1993, White's simplest way to maintain his advantage is: 8.dS eS 9.b4± and he has a powerful initiative on the queenside, while Black has no counterplay. It is even worse for Black to play: S... i..e7 9.dxe6 fxe6l0.lDgS i..xgS 11.~hS±.) S ..tf4ltJg6 9 ..tg3 .te7 10.lDbd2 0-0 l1.eS dS (after 1l ... .txf3 12.lDxf3 dS, Majer Movsesian, Prague 1995, White should strive to open files in the centre, because of his two bishop advantage: 13.c4 dxc4 14.i..xc4 cxd4 ISJ~fdl±) 12.lDellIeS 13.f4 f5 14.exf6 i..xf6 15.lDef3± Danielian - Khachian, Pasanauri 1997. Black must worry about his weak e6-pawn, his vulnerable e5square, as well as his bad bishop on b7 and his compromised kingside; 5 ....te7 6.0-0 d6 (About 6 ... ltJf6 7. ~e2 - see 5 ... lDf6; 6 ... ~c7 7."i;'te2! ltJf6 - see 5 ... ~c7 6.0-0 ite7 7. ~e2lDf6; 6 ... g5? This idea is too dubious for Black - White develops his pieces in the centre, while Black only weakens his

l.e4 b6 2.d4 i.b7 3 ..i.d3 e6 4.0,(3 cS S.c3 tiJf6 6. 'ffte2

kingside without any real attacking chances on the kingside. 7 ..l::re1 h5. This is the logical consequence of the operation that Black has started with his sixth move. 8.d5! g4 9.tiJe5 exd5 10. exd5 i..xd5 11.tiJg6! fxg6 12. i..xg6+ i..f7 13.i..xf7 +
We will now deal in details with the lines: a) 6 ... d5, b) 6 ... cxd4 and c) 6 ....i.e7. Black has also tried in this position the moves: 6 ... '§c8 - with the idea to trade the light squared bishops after i..a6. 7.d5! d6 (7 ... .i.a6 8.c4±) 8.i..b5+ tiJbd7 9.dxe6 fxe6 10.e5! i..xf3 (10".dxe5? 1l.tiJxe5 i..xg2?! 12.l:g1 i.d5 13.c4 i.b7 14.i..g5+-) 11.'fftxf3 dxe5 12.tiJd2 i.e7 (12 ... a6 13.i..c4±) 13 ..lta6 'fftd8 14.'§c6± Baklan - Kopylov, Donetzk 1998. White exerts a powerful pressure along the weakened light squares as weU as against his enemy's weak central pawns. His two bishop advantage is very promising too; 6" .c4 7.i..c2 b5 (Black's other possibilities are worse for him: 7 ... Jie7?! Ziane - Butny, Oak Park 1996, because after the simple line: 8.e5 tiJd5 9. 'fftxc4 White wins a pawn and Black can hardly claim any compensation for it, for example: 9".i..a6 10. '§b3 tiJc6 1L~e4l:i.c8 12. 'fftd1 0-0 13.Jid3± and White evacuates his king away from the centre quite easily. After: 7".d5 8.e5 tZJfd7 9.ltJg5!± White's pressure on the kingside is overwhelming, Stoppel - Scheyka, Germany 1994. Black can hardly equalize with: 7".'§c7 8.Jig5 i..e7 9.ltJbd2 b5, Connell - Bisby, Hastings 1995, because after: 10.e5 ltJd5 11.i..xe7 ltJxe7 12.a4± White dominates in the centre and he can seize the initiative on both 51

Chapter 3 sides of the board.) 8.0-0 .t.e7 9 ..t.g50-0 10.ttJbd2 d6 1l.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 ttJd513.~e4 g614.~h4± and White's attacking chances are just excellent, Cabrera Velez, Isla Guitart 1994; 6 ... ~c7 7.0-0 ttJc6 (7 ... .t.e7 8.e5! - see 6 ... .t.e7 7.0-0 fic7 8.e5!; The strange piece-sacrifice 7 ... ttJg4? 8.h3 h5 was tested in the game Rohl - Denson, Dos Hermanas 2003. White could have captured that knight without too much of a risk, for example: 9.hxg4 hxg4 10.ttJe5 cxd4 1l.cxd4 lDc6 12 ..t.f4 ttJxd4 13. ~xg4+-. In answer to 7 ... d6, in the game Prueske - Maisels, Germany 2002, White obtained a great advantage occupying plenty of space with the help of the move e5: 8J:te1 ttJbd7 9.e5 dxe5 10.dxe5 ttJd5 1l.a3 g6 12.c4 ttJe7 13.ttJc3 a6 14.ttJe4± - and the powerful centralization of White's pieces restricts Black's possibilities considerably. Mter: 7 ... d5 8.e5 ttJe4 9.ttJbd2 ttJxd2 10. .t.xd2 ttJc6 1l.I:tab1 .t.e7, PalauBerra, Rosario 2002, the standard move for White 12.b4t deprives Black of any counterplay whatsoever.) 8.d5 exd5 (It is hardly any better for Black to try: 8 ... tDe5 9.ttJxe5 ~xe5 10.f4 fih5 11. ~xh5 ttJxh5 12.e5± and White squeezes Black's kingside completely, due to the terrible threat g4.) 9.exd5+ tDe7 10.c4 d6 1l.ttJc3± Buchnicek - Nedela, Czech Republic 2004. Black's defence is extremely difficult, 52

because of the lack of space and the problematic development of his pieces; 6 ••• tDc6 7.d5 tDa5 (White's initiative develops unopposed after: 7 ... ttJe7 8.c4 d6 9.ttJc3 e5, Feller - Gazic, Budapest 2001. White can now activate his pieces quite energetically after: 10 ..t.c2! ttJg6 11..t.a4+ ttJd7 12.ttJg5! .t.e7 13. fih5±. Black has problems to complete his development. For example he loses after: 12 ... h6 because of 13.ttJxf'7! ~xf'7 14. fig4 with a non-standard double attack against d7 and e6. It is too bad for Black to play: 8 ... ttJg6? 9.e5 ttJg4 10.h3 ttJh6 1l.ttJc3 ttJf5 12 ..t.xf5 exf5 13.0-0 .t.e7 14. ~el±, because he is left with almost nothing to move, Baklan Hermesmann, Hamburg 1999.) 8.c4 exd5, Baches Garcia - Carbonell Bofill, Barbera del Valles 2003 (8 ... b5 - this is an attempt by Black to seize the initiative, but it can be easily parried by White, because of the misplaced black knight on the a5-square. 9.cxb5 c4 10 ..t.c2 .t.b4+ 11..t.d2 .t.xd2+, Maccapani - Isonzo, San Marino 1998. Now, it is very good for White to continue with: 12.ttJbxd2 exd5 13.exd5+ fie7 14.b4±; 13 ... 'it>f8 14.d6 ~b8 15. h4±. Mter 8 ... d6 9.ttJc3 e5 10.0-0 g6 11..t.c2 .t.c8 12.a3± White begins active actions on the queenside and Black has not even completed his development yet, Roemhild - Grote, Lippstadt 2000.) 9.exd5+ fie7 10 ..lte3 ttJg4

1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 e6 4.Ci'J{3 c5 5.c3 Ci'Jf6 6. ~e2

(10 ... g6 1l.Ci'Jc3 i..g7 12.d6!±) 1l.i..f4 ~xe2+ 12.'it>xe2 0-0-0 (12 ... d6 13.l2Jc3±) 13.Ci'Jg5 lIe8+ 14.'lt>£3l2Jh6 15.l2Jc3 f6 16.lIhel±. Black has no space and his pieces are discoordinated, so his defence is extremely difficult; 6 ... d6 7.0-0 h6, De Vreesse Gommers, Gent 1996 (About 7 ... i.e7 8J~dl - see 6 ... i.e7; the move 7 ... g6?! - weakens the dark squares on the kingside and does not contribute to Black's development. 8.l2Jbd2 l2Jbd7 9.e5± Hanisch - Morlock, Pforzheim 1999. 7 ... l2Jbd7 8.nd1 cxd4 9.cxd4 i.e7 10.l2Jc3t S.Vajda - Sergeeva, Baile Herculane 1994. White enjoys a huge lead in development and he can seize the initiative on both sides of the board.) Now, it is good for White to follow with: 8.lid1 - he thus prepares the pawn-break e4-e5 and it is useful for his rook to occupy the dfile, for example: 8 ... l2Jbd7 9. l2Jbd2 i.e7 (After 9 ... cxd4 10.cxd4 .l:!.c8, White should not be in a hurry to start active actions and he should develop his queenside first. 11.h4 i.e7 12.i.b2t. Black has no possibilities for active actions and it is too dubious for him to try, for example: 12 ... d5 13.e5 Ci'Jh5 14. ~e3±, because he is now forced to weaken additionally his kings ide due to the threat g4.) 10.e5 dxe5 11.dxe5l2Jd5 12.l2Je4± "fflc7 (Black is trying to exploit the temporary vulnerability of White's e5-pawn) 13.i..b5! iLc6 14.iLxc6 ~xc6 15.c4±. All Black's

pieces are quite passive; moreover White enjoys a great space advantage. a) 6 ... d5 7.e5

7...l2Je4 In answer to 7 ... l2Jfd7, White should better follow with 8.iLg5! After White's central pawns have been fixed on dark squares, Black's move 8 ... ~c8, with the idea to try to exchange the light squared bishops seems to be the most purposeful. (White maintains a great advantage after the trade of the dark squared bishops: 8 ... i.e7 9.i.xe7 ~xe7 10. 0-0 Ci'Jc6 11.~e1 0-0 12.l2Jbd2tand Black's bishop on b7 has no good prospects. In the variation: 8 ... ~c7 9.0-0 l2Jc6 10.l2Jbd2 h6 11.i..e3 0-0-0 12.h4! c4 - after 12 ... cxb4 13.cxb4 i..xh4 14Jlfc1~ White preserves excellent attacking chances - 13.i..c2 g5 14.b5l2Ja5, KonstantinopolskyL.Muchnik, Moscow 1966, and White maintains his advantage with energetic actions on the kingside: 15.h4! g4 16.l2Jh2 h5 17.iLg5 :1e8 18. ~e3 i..g7 19. .l:!.ae1± and Black's pieces are iso53

Chapter 3

lated on the queenside, so he will hardly manage to defend his kingside, or 15 ... gxh4 16.4Jxh4 ii.a3 17.'1;;rh5! .l:.df8 18 ..l:.abl± and Black has great problems to defend against the march of White's f-pawn. It is even worse for Black to play: 17 ... ~b2 18. 'i;;lxf7± and he will have problems defending his e6 and h6-pawns.) 9.0-0! ~a6, Morales - Cardenas, Havana 1999 (It is worse for Black to play 9 ... cxd4 10.cxd4 i.a6, because of llJlc1! 'i;;lb7 12. 'i;;lc2 h6 13.~h4 g5 14.~xa6 4Jxa6 15.i.g3±, and the exchange of Black's bad bishop cannot equalize for him, because his kings ide has been considerably weakened. It is better for Black to play immediately: 9 ... h6! 10. i.f4! cxd4! 1l.cxd4 ~a6 12.l:tc1 'i;;lb713.4Jc3 i.xd3 14.thd3;t, but White still remains with a stable advantage, because of his superiority in the centre, excellent development and his domination on the c-file. It is too bad for Black to try: 10 ... g5? 1l.~e3 i.a6 12.4Je1!? i.xd3 13.4Jxd3 with the idea to follow with f4±. Black should not experiment with: 10 ... i.a6? 1l.c4! dxc4 12.~xc4 cxd4 13.~xa6 "1;;rxa6?? 14."1;;re4+-; 13 ... 4Jxa6 14.4Jxd4 i.e7 15.4Jc3±.) 10.c4! - this is White's most energetic move. He has a much better development, so he should attempt to open files in the centre: 10 ... dxc4 (it is much worse for Black to play: 10 ... cxd4 1I. cxd5 4Jc5 12 ..ixa6 "1;;rxa6 13. 'i;;lxa6 54

4Jbxa6 14.d6±, because he has great problems to develop his kingside) 1l.i.xc4 ii.xc4 12. "1;;rxc4 4Jc6 (Black cannot manage to simplify the position with the move 12 ... 'i;;la6, on the contrary - that move only helps White to centralize his queen: 13. "1;;rc2 4Jc6 14. "1;;re4±) 13.dxc5 .ixc5 (After 13 ... 4Jcxe5 14.4Jxe5 4Jxe5 15."1;;re4 f6 16.cxb6 axb6 17J:tcl± Black's centralized knight does not compensate the weaknesses on b6 and e6; moreover his king remains still stranded in the centre, so White has a stable advantage as a result.) 14."1;;re4 0-0 15.4Jc3;t. White has preserved his space advantage and his pieces are developed quite harmoniously. S.4Jbd2 4Jxd2 Mter 8 ... cxd4 9.4Jxe4 dxe4 10.~xe4± Black will have no compensation for the pawn that he is bound to lose quite soon, Hiltmann - Koch, Dortmund 200l. 9.~xd2

9 ... 4Je6 About 9 ... .ie7 - see variation e5a.

l.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 e6 4Jbf3 c5 5.c3 CDf6 6. ~e2 The move 9 ... a5, Eliet - Germes, Chambery 1994, enables White to play aggressively: 10. CDg5 iLe7 l1.~h5 g6 12.~h6 iLfS 13.~h3t.

Black's purposeful move 9 ... Hawes - Adebayo, Elista 1998, enables White to begin active actions on the kingside with: 10.CDg5! (it is worse for White to play 10.b4 SLa6! 11.b5?! c4=) 10 ... SLa6 l1."!';';rh5 "!';';rb7 12.SLxa6 CDxa6 13.0-0±. 9 ... h6 - this is an attempt by Black not to let White's knight to the g5-square, Sosa - Slimani, Dubai 1986, 10.b4!? That is a standard measure by White to restrict Black's counterplay on the queenside, before starting an attack on the kingside. After for example: 10 ... c4 l1.SLc2 ~e7 12. h4t White maintains his space advantage and a powerful kingside initiative, while his opponent has no counterplay at all. It is hardly better for Black to try: 9 ... cxd4 10.cxd4 CDc6 11. ~cl±, because White can easily sustain his initiative on both sides of the board, while Black is almost helpless, Mariani Scialdone, Italy 1995. The move 9 ... c4 - has been tested in practice quite often, nevertheless it is illogical, because Black's light squared bishop would remain out of action for a long time and White's kingside initiative develops unopposed. 10.iLc2 iLe7 (In answer to 10 ... lL:lc6, Gruskovnjak - Sur~c8,

bek, Portoroz 1995, it is very good for White to follow with: 11.CDg5! SLe7 12. t'th5 g6 13. t'th6 .i.fS 14. ~h3±. White has provoked weakening of Black's kingside and he is now quite well prepared for an onslaught against it after for example: 14 ... SLe7 15. ~g3 b5 16. h4~.) l1.h4 b5 12.CDg5 h6, Krug - Barnstedt, Germany 2001,13. ~h5! g6 (13 ... 0-0 14.lbxe6! fxe6 15. ~g6 .l:i.f5 16.g4+-) 14.SLxg6 fxg6 15."!';';rxg6 ~d7 16."!';';rxe6 <:Ji;c7 17.lL:lfl±. Black has great problems to counter White's powerful passed pawns on the kingside. 10.a3! This is a very purposeful move. White intends to prepare b4 and that would prevent Black's counterplay on the queenside. 10 ... a5 The other possibilities for Black are clearly worse: 10 ... "!';';rc8?! l1.b4! .i.e7 12.0-0 0-0 13.CDg5 SLxg5 14.iLxg5± and White has the two bishop advantage and excellent attacking chances, Krivec - Kovacic, Bled 1999; 10 ... c4 - this move gives White a free hand for aggressive actions on the kingside: 11 ..i.c2 b5 12.lL:lg5 h5 13.h4 SLe7 14. ~f3± Dochev - Siempos, Halkida 2001. 1l.h4 h5 11 ... SLe7 12.~h3! h6 (12 ... 0-0? 13.iLxh7+-) 13.M:g3 'l!t>fS 14.h5±. 12.0-0 c4 In answer to the more logical 55

Chapter 3 move 12 ... .ie7, it deserves attention for White to sacrifice a pawn with: 13 ..ig5!? .ixg5 14.CtJxg5 cxd4 15.cxd4 CtJxd4 16. ~e3 CtJc6 17 ..ib5 l:tc8 18.l:tac1~. Black's pieces are discoordinated and his king is quite unsafe. White therefore has an excellent compensation for the pawn, since it is too dangerous for Black to castle, for example: 18 ... 0-0 19. ~d3 g6 20 ..ixc6 lhc6 21JIxc6 .ixc6 22.CtJxe6! .ib5! 23. ~xb5 fxe6 24.~c6± and White has an overwhelming advantage, because he dominates on the only open file. I3 ..ic2 a4 I4 •.ig5±

b) 6 ... cxd4 7.cxd4

Black has two basic lines here: hI) 7 ... i..h4 and h2) 7 .•. 4Jc6. He has also tried in practice: 7 ... d5 8.e5 CtJe4 (About 8 ... .ih4 - see 7 ... .ib4; 8 ... 4Jfd7 9 ..ig5! .ie7 10 ..ixe7 ~xe7 1l.4Jc3 a6 12. 0-04Jc6 13.a3± and Black's light squared bishop has no good prospects and he cannot create any effective counterplay, Samraoui - Gillen, EmaiI2000.)9.0-0.ie7 10.4Jbd2 4Jxd2 11..ixd2 0-0 12.b4! This strong move prevents Black's light pieces from any active actions. 12 ... a5 13.b5 4Jd7 14.4Je1l:.e8 15.f4 f5 16.exf6 .ixf6 Black has no counterplay 17.4Jf3± and White's advantage whatsoever, while White easily is quite stable, because his light exchanges Black's only active pieces are much more active than piece opening the position in the Black's, moreover Black's king centre and on the kingside: position has been compromised, I4 ....ie7 I5.I!.ael ~d7 I6 ..ixe7 Pastor Pons - Mimon, Spain CtJxe7 I7.4Jg5! CtJg8 I8.~dI h5 1993; I9.f4 g6 20.f5! gxf5 21..ixf5 Following 7 ... ~c8, Black in0-0-0 (Black loses too after: 21... tends to trade the light squared exf5 22.e6 fxe6 23.Itxe6+ 4Je7 24. bishops and then enter a pawnItfe1 J::ta6 25J:txe7 ~xe7 26J:txe7 structure similar to the French ct;;xe7 27.~e2+ ct;;d7 28.~e5+-) Defence. This however, takes too 22 ..ih3 4Jh6 23.Itxf7 1-0 Leitao much time and Black fails to play - Mascarenhas, Sao Paulo 2000. d5 altogether. 8.0-0 .ia6 9.4Jc3 56

1.e4 b6 2.d4 !#..b7 3.!#..d3 e6 4.tDf3 c5 5.c3 tD{6 6. ~e2

!#..xd3 10. ~xd3 tDa6 (10 ... ~b7 11.d5 tDa6 12.i.g5 tDc5 13. ~e2± Wagman - Turchi, Caorle 1981) 11.a3! tDc7 12.i.g5 ~a6 13. ~e3 i..e7 14.:tac1 h6 15.i.xf6 .txf6 16.d5± Black has managed to trade a couple oflight pieces, but that has hardly facilitated his defence, because the rest of his pieces are definitely misplaced, Simonovic - Batanjac, Golubac 2003; The move 7 ... .te7 does not seem logical, since Black thus reduces the tension in the centre. White gets the wonderful c3square for his knight as a result, because Black has refrained from playing the active move 7 ... ~b4 and he has placed his bishop to a passive position instead. 8.tDc3! (This move is much more precise than 8.0-0 transposing to the line 6 ... i.e7 7.0-0 cxd4, because now Black cannot play anymore the variation 8 ... d5 9.e5 tDe4; moreover he must constantly worry about the possibility of White playing d5.) 8 ... d6 (It is too bad for Black to play instead: 8 ... ~c8 9.0-0 0-0 10.i.g5 h6 11..th4 lie8 12 ..l:.acl± and White has already completed his development, while Black has problems to accomplish that, Popchev - Batanjac, Nis 1996. Mter 8 ... 0-0 9.0-0 d6 10.l:!.d1 tDbd7 ll.e5!? .i.xf3 12.gxf3 tDe8, Balzar - Hols, Nordwalde 1988, the simple move 13.f4± provides White with a huge space advantage and a couple of powerful

bishops. On top of that, he preserves excellent attacking chances having in his plan the pawn-breaks f5 or d5. Black will hardly manage to exploit White's weakened king position, since he does not have a single active piece at the moment.) 9.0-0 tDbd7 10 . .tf4 0-0, Schmid Mischustov, Abensberg 1987 (In answer to 10 ... a6 11.h3 0-0, Roumegous - Dewitte, Belfort 2004, it deserves attention for White to continue with 12.a4!?, because Black has no active play at all. His attempt to exploit the weakness of the b4-square with the move 12 ... tDb8 leads to a very favourable opening of the game for White after: 13JHd1 tDc6 14.e5±. The other possibility for Black is too slow: 10 ... tDrn, Karlsson - Knutsson, Karlskrona 1997, and the simplest way for White to exploit that is by playing: n.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 tDd5 13.tDxd5 .txd5 14 ..l::!.fdl±. Black has problems to evacuate his king away from the centre, for example: 14 .. J::lc8? 15.i.b5+ tDd7 16 J::txd5! exd5 17.e6+-; or 14 ... tDd7 15.i.e4! .i.xe4 16. ~xe4l:lc8 17. ~a4±; or 14 ... tDg6 15 ..i.b5+ ..t>rn 16 ..i.e3±.) White can try now to seize the initiative on both sides of the board and the most logical way to do that is by playing: 11.:fd1!, with the following eventual developments: ll ... a6 12.e5 dxe5 (12 ... tDh5 13 ..i.e3 g6 14 ..i.h6±) 13.dxe5 tDd5 14.tDxd5 exd5 (14 ... .i.xd5 15.i.xa6 .i.xf3 57

Chapter 3 16.gxf3 ~a7 17.i.b5±) 15.tLld4±. White maintains a stable edge due to his extra space and the great activity of his pieces. hI) 7 ... ~h4+ 8.tLlc3

8 ... d5 This seems like an improvement for Black in comparison to line a - because he has already developed his bishop to b4; nevertheless the premature exchange on the d4-square enables White to exploit the open c-file and to seize the initiative on the queenside. The rest of the moves for Black lead to an overwhelming advantage for White quite easily: 8 ... a5?! 9.0-0 0-0 10.~g5 iLe7 ll.e5 tLld5, Breuer - Rudolph, Gruenheide 1996, and now after: 12.~e4 g6 13.~xe7 '§xe7 14. i.c4± White wins the central pawn; 8 ... '§c8?! - Black loses too much time by trying to exchange the light squared bishops: 9.iLd2 i..a6 10.i..xa6 ~xa6 Il.tLlb5 i.xd2 12.tLlxd2 ~d8, Bebersdorf - EIzinger, Bayern 1996, 13.a4± and 58

Black's king remains stranded in the centre for too long, while White maintains excellent attacking chances; 8 ... '§c7?! 9.~d2 i.xc3 10.i.xc3 d6 11.l:lc1 ~e7 12.0-0± Kalwasinski - Schmidt, Copenhagen 1997. White preserves a powerful positional pressure with his mobile pawn-centre and two powerful bishops; 8 ... d6 9.0-0 O-O? (This move enables White to sacrifice material in a typical fashion, but even after the best for Black: 9 ... i.xc3 10.bxc3 tLlbd7 ll.i.a3 '§c7 12. e5±, his king remains in the centre and the a3-fS diagonal is too weak - the absence of the dark squared bishop is quite telling, Yagupov - Merzliakov, St. Petersburg 2004.) 10.e5! dxe5 11.dxe5 i.xc3 12.bxc3 tLld5 13.i.xh7+White's attack is quickly checkmating, Magide - Saiz, Terrassa 1996; 8 ... h6 9.0-0 (Once again it is not good for Black to follow with 9 ... i.xc3, because after 10.bxc3 0-0 H.e5 tLlh7 12.i.a3 :e8 13. i.d6± White's powerful dark squared bishop exerts a tremendous pressure against Black's position, Fomina - Mariano, Manila 1992.) 9 ... 0-0 10.e5 tLle8 ll.a3 ~e7 12.d5 exd5 13.tLld4± Franco -Valle, Seville 2004. White has excellent attacking chances; 8 ... 0-0 9.0-0 tLlc6? (about 9 ... d6 - see 8 ... d6) 10.e5 tLle8 11.i.xh 7 + ~h8 (in case Black

1.e4 b6 2.d4 ~b7 3.~d3 e6 4.tiJf3 cS S.c3 tiJf6 6. 'f:te2 tiJd7 13.~g5 ~bB 14.J::!.acl +-) 13. .lii.xc6+ tiJxc6 14. 'f:tc2 tiJxd4 15. tiJxd4 .i.xal 16.'f:tc6+ ~fB 17. ~a3+ ~gB IBJhal .l::.cB 19.'f:tb5 'f:tc7 20Jldl± White's two active ~h6 17.~h4+ 'It>g61B.tiJf4+) light pieces are clearly stronger 12 ..lii.c2 .i.e7 13.tiJg5 1-0 Otto - than Black's rook on hB. Rudolph, Leipzig 1997. 12 ..lii.e3 tiJe6 9.e5 tiJe4 10.0-0! It is too risky for Black to follow with 12 ... 0-0, because after 13.tiJd2 ~c7 14.J::!.acl tiJc6 (14 ... f5 15.exf6 i.xf6 16. 'f:tg4 t) 15. 'f:th5 g6 (15 ... h6? 16 ..lii.xh6!±) 16.'f:th3t White preserves superior attacking chances. 13.tbd2 %leS White maintains a powerful pressure even after: 13 ... h5 14. tiJb3.ucB 15.a4±. White sacrifices a pawn and 14.tiJb3.lii.a3 he remains with a huge lead in development and a long-lasting initiative. 10•.. tiJxe3 10 ... .lii.xc3?! - this capture is even worse for Black: l1.bxc3 tiJxc3 12. ~e3 tiJc6 13 ..i.a3 b5, Diaz - Bolivar, Barranquilla 1999. White now recaptures his pawn and he maintains his advantage, because of the mis15.~g4 g6 16.i.g5± Kupoplaced black bishop on the b7- rosov - Turikov, St Petersburg square: 14.l:tfc1 b4 (White's at- 2001. White's centre is very solid tack is quite dangerous after: and he can easily seize the ini14 ... ~a5 15 ..i.d6 tiJe4 16.i.xe4 tiative on both sides ofthe board. dxe4 17.~g5!) 15 . .i.xb4 tiJxb4 16J~xc3±. b2) 7 ... tiJe6 S.a3 (diagram) 1l.bxe3.i.e7 It is quite questionable for S ....lii.e7 Black to play here: 11 ... i.xc3, The move B... tiJa5?! - is a typiKarlik - Snorek, Czech Republic cal loss of time. After 9.tiJbd2 2000. Mter 12 ..lii.b5+! .i.c6 (12 ... .lii.e7 10.0-0 0-0 11.M tiJc6 12.

captures the bishop, he cannot save the game even if he sacrifices his queen: 11...'it>xh7 12. tiJg5+ ~g6 13. 'f:td3+ f5 14.tiJe2! ~xg5 15 ..lii.xg5 'it>xg5 16. ~g3+

59

Chapter 3 0-0 iLe7 1l.b4 a6 12.tLJbd2 0-0

i.b2± Black is deprived of any counterplay, Houpt - Maciulewicz, Email 1998. The possibility 8 ... g6?! weakens the dark squares. There was only one game played in that line and Black fianchettoed his knight in it, but his position remained clearly worse after that: 9.tLJc3 d5 10.e5 tLJh5 11.g4 tLJg7 12.Sl.h6± Leimeister - Stock, Zeilsheim 2000. Mter 8 ....fftc7 9.tLJc3 tLJa5 10. Ji.g5 tLJb3 llJ:td111c8 12.0-0± it is quite unclear how Black can develop his kingside, because his knight on b3 remains out of play, Kaufman - Tesh, Fredericksburg 1998. It is not good for Black to play: 8 .. J!i.c8, Romanova-Abramchuk, Kiev 1997, because after 9.tLJc3 tLJa5 (9 ... Sl.e7 10.e5 tLJd5 10.tLJxd5 exd5 11.b4±) 10.Sl.f4± - White has a huge space advantage, a superior development and a mobile pawn-centre. 8 ... d5 9.e5 tLJe4 (after 9 ... tLJd7, White's plan to neutralize Black's activity on the queenside is quite clear and his initiative on the kingside might become really dangerous for Black: 10. 60

13.tLJb3 b5 14.iLd2 tLJb6 15.4Jc5 l:Ib8 16.iLc2 tLJc4 17.~d3 g6 18. i.h6± Vooremaa - Ivanovic, Tallinn 1979) 10.tLJbd2 tLJxd2 (The strange move 10 ...tDg5 is in fact only a loss of time after: 1l.b4 SLe7 12.h4 tDxf3+ 13.tLJxf3 ~d7 14.iLf4±. White's advantage is just overwhelming, because of his powerful kingside initiative and Black's non-existent counterplay. It is quite instructive to see how White materializes all that: 14 ... f5 15. ~e3 h6 16.h5! nc8 17.l:Ig1! tLJd8 18.g4 fxg4 19.nxg4+- Ostojic - Markovic, Jahorina 2000.) 1l.iLxd2 Sl.e7 12.b4 a6 13.0-0 0-0 14JUci b5 15.nc3 h6 16.SLc2± Damjanovic - Cafferty, Birmingham 1977. Black's pieces are quite discoordinated, he has no active possibilities and his kingside has been weakened considerably. White easily manages to organize a decisive attack in a flash. 9.4Jc3 tLJa5 Mter 9 ... d6 10.0-0 a6, Ridameya Tatche - Koksch, Dresden 2004, it looks quite attractive for White to prepare a break in the centre with the help of the move: 11.l:td1, for example: 11...0-0 12.e5 4Jd7 13.~e4 g6 14.SLh6±. In answer to 9 ... 0-0, Mescher - Seberry, Toowoomba 1986, it is very strong for White to follow with 10.e5, for example: 10 ... 4Je8 (it is too bad for Black to play: 10 ... tLJd5 1l.4Jxd5 exd5 12.h4! h6 13J:th30 and White's attack

3.Ji..d3 e6 4.ti'J{3 c5 5.c3 0,f6 6. '§e2 Ji..e7 7.0-0

is just crushing, while 12 ... llc8 loses after: 13.~xh7+ 'litxh7 14.0,g5+-) 1l.d5 exd5 12.0,xd5± Black's pieces are misplaced, while the position is open and White has an important two bishop advantage. White's game is very easy after: 9 ... d5 1O.e5 0,d7 11.0-0 a6 12. '§e3 b5, Melzer - Straub, Mannheim 1994. It is now quite logical for White to follow with 13.~f4t, bringing his queen to the g-file and Black is bound to face serious problems. 10.~g5

White provokes weakening of Black's kingside and that might become a telling factor in the future battle. 10... h6 11.~f4 d6 12.b4 0,c6

13.d5 exd5 14.exd5 0,b8, Timman - Huebner, Jerusalem 1967, 15.~b5+! (This move deprives Black of his castling rights, because now it is too bad for him to play: 15 ... 0,bd7 16. ~c6!+- and there is no satisfactory defence against 17.0,b5.) 15 ... 'it>f8 16.~c4±. White remains with a great space advantage; moreover Black cannot co-

ordinate easily his pieces, because of the unfavourable placement of his king. c) 6 ... ~e7 7.0-0

We will analyze now: cl) 7 ... cxd4, c2) 7 ... d6, c3) 7 ... 0,c6, c4) 7 ••. 0-0 and c5) 7 ..,d5. About 7 ... '§c7? 8.e5! - see 5 ... 'lfic7 6.0-0 i.e7 7. '§e2 0,f6 8.e5! Black has tested in several games the strange move 7 ... h6?! White can exploit that obvious loss of time with the help of the energetic move: 8.e5!? 0,d5 9.c4 0,c7 (9 ... 0,b4 10.~e4 'lfic7 1l.a3±) 10.dxc5 ~xc5 (10 ... bxc5 l1.~d1 0,c6 12.0,c3±) 1l.0,c3 0-0 (1l ... d5 12.exd6 i.xd6 13.11dl±) 12.0,e4 i.e7 13.~f4± and Black's defence is quite difficult because of his misplaced knight on c7, his lack of space and no possibilities for any active counterplay. The move 7 ... '§c8 - is connected with the idea to trade the light squared bishops. 8 ..l:i.e1 d5 (It seems more purposeful for Black to try: 8 ... cxd4 9.cxd4 d5 10.e5 4Je4 1l.4Jbd2 0,xd2 12. i.xd2 i..a6, but after 13.~ac1 61

Chapter 3 t'tb7 14J:!c3! i.xd3 15. t'txd3± White dominates on the only open file and he enjoys a space advantage too.) 9.e5 ttJe4 10. ttJbd2 ttJxd2 H ..txd2 .ta6 12.c4! dxc4 13.~xc4 ii.xc4 14. t'txc4 t'ta6, Gamer - Dobosz, Karlsruhe 2003, and now White maintains a powerful pressure after 15. t'tc2!, for example 15 ... ttJd7 (it is worse for Black to play 15 ... ttJc6 16. ~e4 l':tc8 17. ~g4±) 16. t'te4! 0-0 (l6 ... l:.d817.~g4±) 17.i.g5 l:tae8 18.d5! exd5 19:~xd5±, and in connection with the great activity of White's pieces and the powerful threat 20.e6, his prospects are clearly superior. el) 7 ...exd4 8.exd4

8 ... 0-0 8 ... d5 9.e5 - see line e5. Black has also tried: 8 ... d6 9.ttJc3 a6, Baeuml Wunder, Germany 1998. White should better prepare the pawnbreak e5 and the simplest way to do that is by playing: 10.~d1 0-0 (10 ... b5 H.e5 ttJd5 12.a4±) H.e5 ttJd5 12. t'te4 g6 13 ..th6±; 8 ... ttJc6 9.a3 d6 (9 ... d5 10.e5 see variation e5. It is quite dubi62

ous for Black to play 9 ... ttJa5?! 10.ttJbd2 :c8 11.b4 ttJc6, 'furnaMoroff, Schmiden - Weil der Stadt, Poka11988, because after 12.i.b2± it becomes clear that Black has lost two tempi. Following: 9 .. .1::tc8 10.ttJbd2 0-0 H.~e1 d6 12.b4 :c7 13.i.b2± Black lacks space and he has no active play at all, Gruenberg - Strobel, Germany 1985.) 10.ttJc3 ttJa5, Sequera - Fraschini, Buenos Aires 1991. It is of course favourable for Black to trade pieces, because his position is cramped, so White should better preserve the dark squared bishops: 11.i.g5l:lc8 12J:tad1 0-0 13. e5± and White maintains superior attacking chances. 9.ttJe3 d6 In case of 9 ... d5 10.e5 ttJe8, Pedersen - Gatland, Bergen 2004, it is advisable for White to follow with the standard resource: 11.a3 ttJc7 (U ... a5 12. i.e3±) 12.b4±, and Black has been deprived of any counterplay. The passive line 9 ... a6, Zozulia - Matsko, Alushta 1998, enables White to start active actions in the centre and on the kingside with: 10.e5 ttJe8 (l0 ... ttJd5 H. ~e4 g6 12.i.h6±) H.d5! exd5 12.i.c2±. In answer to 9 ... ttJc6, Sovratnik - Galaxia, Internet 2004, it is again good for White to proceed with: 10.e5 ttJe8 (10 ... ttJd5 11.ttJxd5 exd5 12Jlel±) H.d5 exd5 12.ttJxd5± and he has the

3.iLd3 e6 4.Ci:,f3 cS S.c3 0,f6 6. ~e2 iLe7 7.0-0

two bishop advantage and he dominates in the centre.

10 •.l:tdl tDbd7, Wittmann Gockner, Oberwart 2000. White has prepared the pawn-break in the centre quite well and after: n.e5 .ixf3 12.gxf3 tDe8 13.f4± he could have obtained a great advantage. The activity of White's pieces more than compensates his somewhat weakened kingside. c2) 7... d6 8 ..l:!.dl!

The idea of that move is to prepare e5 -and the white rook on the d1-square turns out to be quite handy in that case. 8 .. :ffic7 It is worse for Black to play

8 ... 0,bd7, Pantev - Peev, Teteven 1991. The juxtaposition of the

rook and the queen enables White to play aggressively: 9.e5! .ixf3 10. 'ffixf3 dxe5 11.dxe5 0,xe5 12.i.b5+ tDed7 (12 ... tDfd7 13. ~b7±) 13.'ffib7 nc814 ..if4±-and Black has great problems to avoid the deadly pin. 8 ... ~c8, Rehm - Schemm, Nuremberg 1987, 9.e5! tDd5 10. exd6 .ixd6 l1..ib5!± and once again, just like in the variation 8 ... tDbd7, White's rook on d1 is placed extremely well and Black loses his castling rights. After 8 ... cxd4 9.cxd4 0-0 10. tDc3 0,bd 7, Guido - Aleksic, Porto San Giorgio 1995, it deserves attention for White to follow with: 1l.e5!? 0,d5 (ll ... .ixf3 12.gxf3 lUe8 13.f4±) 12.~e4 g6 13 ..ih6t and White has a dangerous initiative. 9.e5! tDfd7 In case of 9 ... lUd5 10.a3± Black is forced to play with his queen once again in order to manage to save his knight, which gets ousted to a passive position as a result. It is also quite illogical for Black to open a file on which his opponent's rook has already been placed: 9 ... dxe5 10.dxe5 0,fd7 (lO ... tDd5 1l.a3 ~c8 12.c4 lUc7 13.0,c3±) l1.lUa3 a6 12.0,c4±. Black's position is cramped, his king remains in the centre and his attempt at castling leads to a terrible position after: 12 ... 0-0 13.iLg5! For example, Black loses after: 13 ... .ixg5 (or 13 ... i.xf3 14. ~xf3 .ixg5 15. ~xh8 0,c6? 16. 63

Chapter 3 .txh7+-) 14.i.xh7+! ~xh7 15. tLlxg5 ~h6 (15 ... ~g6 16.~g4+-) 16.t'te3! ~g6 17.~g3 ~h6 (17 ... ~h5 lS.tLlh3+-) IS. ~h4+ c;t>g6 19.~h7+! c;t>g5 20. f4!+-. 10.tLla3 a6 About 10 ... dxe5 11.dxe5 - see 9 ... dxe5. 1l ..tf4 dxe5 11.. .d5 12.c4±.

12.tLlxe5±. White has a superior development and an abundance of space. c3) 7 •••ltJc6 8.dxc5!?

8 ..•bxc5 It is worse for Black to try: B... .txc5 9.e5 ltJd5 10.b4!, because White has a powerful queenside initiative due to his great space advantage. 10 ... .te7 ll.a3 f5 12.c4 ltJc7 13 ..tb2 0-0 64

14.ltJbd2! White redeploys his knight to the b3-square and it will support the pawn-offensive from there. 14 ... t'teB 15 ..:tfd1 g5 16.4Jb3 c;t>hS 17.b5 g4 IS.4Je1 4JdB. Black's pieces do not help in any way the advance of the pawns and White's position is therefore quite safe. 19 ..tc2 .tg5 20.a4± Gligoric - Filipovic, Podgorica 1996. 9.e5ltJd510.c4ltJb6 It is hardly any better for Black to play: 10 ... ltJdb4 ll ..te4 f5 12.exf6 .txf6 13.a3 ltJa6 14 . .tf4. Black's pawns in the centre are a liability and his knight on a6 has no good prospects in the nearest future. 14 ... 0-0 15 ..td6 .te7 16 ..txe7 ~xe7 17. tLlc3ltJc7 lSJ:tadl±. White exerts a powerful pressure along the central files. 1B ... l:tadB 19. t'te3 ltJeB? (19 ... ltJa5 20 ..txb7 ltJxb7 21.~fel±) 20.4Jd5+- Slipak - Rodriguez, Vicente Lopez 200l. White has won a pawn and subsequently he pressed easily his advantage home. 1l.ltJc3 ~c7 The risky move 11.. .f5?! only weakens the kingside. The game Thorhallsson - Poettinger, Liechtenstein 1996, ended in a quick disaster for Black: 12.exf6 gxf6 13.ltJh4 0-0 14. ~g4+ 'it>hS 15. 4Jg6+ hxg6 16 ..txg6 1-0, since the checkmate is unavoidable. ll ... d6 compromises Black's centre as well as his queenside, 12.exd6 .txd6 13J~d1 ~e7 (13 ... ltJd4 14.ltJxd4 cxd4 15.liJb5±)

3.i.d3 e6 4.CiJ{3 cS S.c3 CiJ{6 6. Y:!!e2 i.e7 7.0-0

14.CiJe4± Fingerov - Shevchenko, Odessa 200 l. The pseudo-active move 11 ... g5?! leads only to the creation of additional weaknesses after: 12.CiJb5 g4 13.tbg5 a6 14.tbd6+ i..xd6 15.exd6 Y:!!f6 16.tbe4± Thinius - Scherer, Hoeckendorf 2004. 12.tbb5 Y:!!bS lS.i.g5t Black's d6-pawn is very weak and White's lead in development provides him with a long-lasting advantage. lS ...CiJcS Black can hardly solve the problem with his development with the move 13 ... f6. After 14.exf6 gxf6 15.i..h4 a6 16.i..g3 e5 17.tbc3 tbd4 18.tbxd4 cxd4 19. Y:!!h5+ wdS 20.tbe4± his central pawns are vulnerable, his king is quite unsafe and his pieces are rather discoordinated. 14.i..xe7 CiJ6xe7 15.1:.adl a6 16.CiJcS CiJg6

c4) 7 ... 0-0 S.e5

S ... CiJeS Strangely enough, the centralization of the knight practically loses outright: S ... lLld5 9. Y:!!e4 g6 10.i.h6! (White's advantage is not so overwhelming after the seemingly attractive line: 10.c4lLlb4 11. ~xb7lLlSc6 12.i.e4 ~bS 13.i.xc6 ~xb7 14.i..xb7 tbc2;!; Goerke - Peschel, Solingen 2000) 10 ... neS 1l.tbbd2±. Black has problems to defend against the oncoming attack and in the game Palkovi - Bosiocic, Kostrena 2001, he was just crushed: 11 ... ~c8 12. ~g4ct:Jc6 13. a3 cxd4 14.cxd4lLlc7 15.h4 d6 16. h5 hS 17.~f4+-.

17.i..e4± Filipenko - Filipovic, Ljubljana 2000. Black's pawns on a6, d7 and c5 are very weak and he has a mountain to climb before he completes his development.

9.dxc5 bxc5 The move 9 ... i..xc5 enables White to sacrifice a piece with in a typical fashion: 10.i..xh7~ ~h7 1l.tbg5+ ~g6 12. ~d3+ f5 13.~g3 ~cS 14.tbxe6+ Wf7 15. tbg5+ \t'g6 16. Y:!!h4ct:Jf6 17.exf6±. Mter that forced line, White has remained with an extra pawn and excellent attacking chances against Black's "centralized" king. 10.lLlbd2 d5 65

Chapter 3 It is worse for Black to play 10 ... f5, Wright - Caels, Dubai 1986, because after 11.tbc4 ltJc6 12.i.e3± his pawns on c5, d7 are weak, the d6-square is vulnerable and he has no active play at all. In case he pushes f4 - that would open the b1-h7 diagonal for White. 1l.exd6ltJxd6

c5) 7 ... d5 8.e5

Black has tried in practice two retreats of the knight in that position: c5a) 8 ... ltJe4 and c5b) 8 •.•ltJfd7. c5a) 8 •.. ltJe4 9.ltJbd2 ltJxd2 10 ..lixd2 a5 Black prevents radically the move b2-b4, which constrains his This position was reached in actions on the queenside, but the game N.Kosintseva - Chi- that does not solve all his probstiakova, Elista 2002. White lems. obtains a slight, but stable adIn case of 10 ... ltJc6, White vantage by centralizing his should better play 11..¥l.e3 ~c7 pieces: 12.l:Idl '!fic7 13.ltJe4 12.z:tac1 c4 13 ..lic2 a5 14.ltJg5 g6 ltJxe4. (Black's attempt at avoid- 15.'~f3t and he has a powerful ing that exchange leads to a very pressure on the kingside, Knors difficult position for him: 13 ... - De Bruycker, Antwerp 1998. c4 14.i.c2 ltJf5 15.ltJeg5. White 10 ... '!fic8 11..¥l.g5! .lia6 (it is is threatening now 16.ltJxe6, even worse for Black to play: while the natural responce 15 ... 1l ... .lif8, Giesen - Gazic, Gerg6 enables him to activate his many 2003, because after 12.c4 pieces immediately with: 16. dxc4 13 ..¥l.xc4± he lags in develi.xf5 exf5 17.i.f4 ~c5 18 ..l::rd4±.) opment considerably) 12 ..lixe7 14.i.xe4 i.xe4 15. '!fixe 4 '!fic6 i.xd3 13. '!fixd3 Wxe7 14.c4 dxc4 16.'!fig4i. Once again White has 15.'!fixc4 '!fia616.~cl±and Black a slight, but stable edge, because must worry about the safety he dominates on the d-file and of his king, despite the fact Black's a7 and c5-pawns are very that there is not much material left on the board, B.Schmidt weak.

66

3.j£,d3 e6 4.4J{3 cS S.c3 4Jf6 6. t:ie2 j£,e7 7.0-0

Schwarzkopf, Wiesbaden 1992. 10 ... cxd4 1l.cxd4 0-0 (it is hardly better for Black to opt for: 1l ... 4Jc6 12Jlfc1 ~c8 13.a3 0-0 14.b4 t:id7, Raubal - Froeschl, Austria 1995, because his pieces remain passive and White has a powerful initiative after: 15. i.c2!? f5 16.exf6 i.xf6 17.'~d3 g6 18.b5±) 12.b4 a5 13.b5± and White has managed to squeeze Black's position completely, Pastor Pons - Mimon, Spain 1993. White's pawn move b4 is quite unpleasant for Black after his other possibilities too: 10 ... 0-0 11.b4 ttJc6 (It is worse for Black to play: 1l ... cxb4 12. cxb4 ttJc6 13.a3 t:id7 14 ..l:.ac1 f5 15.exf6 i.xf6, Faybish - De Bruycker, Antwerp 1999. Mter 16.i.c3±, Black is forced into a long and strenuous defence, due to his "bad" bishop and the weakness on e6.) 12.bxc5 bxc5 13.dxc5 h6 (White's attack is too dangerous after: 13 ... i.xc5 14.i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 15.4Jg5~, while in case of 13 ... t:ic7 14. t:ie3 4Ja5 15.ttJd4 i.xc5 16. t:ig3t his kingside initiative is all too powerful.) 14. l::tab1 l:tb8 15.4Jd4 ttJa5 (it is slightly better for Black to play 15 ... "fic7 16.i.c2!±) 16. "fig4 'it>h8, Tischendorf - Damm, Hessen 1997. White wins by force now: 17.i.xh6! gxh6 18. "fih5 i.g5 (18 ... 'it>g7 19.ttJxe6+-) 19.f4+-; 10 ... h6, Parveen - De Jesus Elista 1998, 1l.b4! ttJc6 (Mter 1l ... c4 12.~c2± White's hands are free for actions on the king-

side. It is too dubious for Black to continue with: 11 ... a5 12.bxc5 bxc5 13.~ab1 ~a6, Schelle Schramm, Freising 2001. Now after 14.dxc5 i.xd3 - 14 ... ~xc5 15Jhb8± - 15. t:ixd3 i.xc5 16. c4± Black's weaknesses on the queenside and in the centre are quite telling and his defence is even more difficult, because of his lag in development.) 12.bxc5 bxc5 13.11ab1 ~b8 14.dxc5 i.xc5 15.4Jd4!t White's initiative is very powerful, because Black's king is stranded in the centre. 15 ... ttJxd4 (It is possibly better for Black to play: 15 ... "fic7 16. t:ig4±, but even then his defence on the queenside is quite problematic.) 16.cxd4 i.xd4 17. t:ig4 ~xe5 18.l:tfel "fic7 (18 ... "fid6 19. "fia4+-) 19Jhe5 "fixe5 20.i.f4 "fid4 21.i.b5+-. White remains at least with an extra piece. llJUel i.a6 12.i.b5+! That move forces Black's knight to a passive position. 12 ... i.xb5 13."fixb5+ ttJd7

14.c4! This move opens files in the centre and that is White's most energetic method to exploit his 67

Chapter 3

lead in development. 14... dxc415.~xc40-0 16.d5! Black's pawn-structure on the queenside is compromised after this move and White maintains his advantage in practically every possible endgame. 16 ..• exd5 17:~xd5 .l:Ie8 18. e6! White preserves excellent attacking chances, by opening his opponent's castling position. 18 ..• fxe6 19J:txe6 tLJf6 20. ~f5 l:Xa7 21.l:tae1 .l:Id7 22:~'c2 Itd6

This position was reached in the game Bryson - Miles, Moscow 1994, and the opponents agreed to a draw, while in fact after: 23. 'ittc4± Black's defence is extremely difficult. c5b) 8 ... tLJfd7

68

9.a3 In comparison to line a (6 ... d5 7.e5 tLJfd7 8.i.g5!), White does not have now the maneuver i.g5; nevertheless he has excellent chances to seize the initiative. 9 ..• a5 White was threatening to deprive his opponent of any counterplay on the queenside, so Black prevented that. 9 ... c4 - this is hardly the best move for Black, because White's development is clearly superior and he has an abundance of space to maneuver. All that indicates - White's initiative on the kingside should be much more effective than Black's counterplay on the queenside, 10.i.c2 b5 1l.tLJe1 h5 12.f4 g6, Gretarsson - Vidarsson, Iceland 2002, and now after the simple line: 13.tLJd2 tLJc6 14.tLJdf3! a5 15.tLJg5± White remains with a stable advantage. In case of9 ... lL'lc6 10.b4 Black has tried in practice several different lines, but they lead more or less to similar positions. White preserves excellent chances to exert a powerful pressure on the kingside: 10 ... a5 1l.b5 lL'la7 12.a4 c4 13.i.c2 'ittc7 14.lL'lg5± Wright Partsi, Melbourne 2002; 10 ... tLJf8 11..~e3 lL'lg6, Grujic - Popchev, Belgrade 1991, 12. lL'lbd2 c4 13.i.c2 0-0 14.b5 lL'la5 15.g3;t:; 10 ... cxd4 11.cxd4 0-0 12.lL'lc3, Canfell- Broekhuijse, Canberra 2005, 12 .. J:Ic8 13.i.d2±;

3 . .i.d3 e6 4.{[jf3 cS S.c3 {[jf6 6. 'ifte2 .i.e7 7.0-0

10 ... 0-0 11..~f4 'iftc7 12.{[jbd2 l1ae8, Schulz Knappe - Hauck, Mehlingen 1992, 13. 'ifte3±; 10 ... h6, Lehtivaara - Pyhaelae, Raahe 1987, 11.b5 {[ja5 12.{[jbd2 c4 13.i.c2 a6 14.a4±; 10 ... g5, Borgo - Miezis, Saint Vincent 2003, 11.b5 {[ja5 12. {[jbd2 c4 13.i.c2 a6 14.a4 g4 15. {[je1 h5 16.f3±; 10 ... a6, Lanau - Antonano Fernandez, Zaragoza 2002, 11. 'ifte3 'iftc7 12.h4t; 10 ... c4 1l.i.c2 h6 (ll...{[jfB 12.{[je1 a5 13.b5 {[jbB 14.a4± Madl- Kincs, Hungary; 11 ... ~c7 12.i.g5 a6 13.{[jbd2 h6 14.i.xe7 {[jxe7 15.h4 0-0-0 16.h5± Rocher - Scherer, Neumuehl2003) 12.a4 'iftc7 13.h4 0-0-0 14.h5 J:tdg8 15.{[ja3 {[jf8 16 ..if4± Belov Rozanov, St. Petersburg 2004. 10.c4! It seems quite logical for White to open files in the centre, because he leads in development; moreover Black has weakened his queenside with his previous move. 10... 0-0 It is possibly better for Black to play here: 10 ... dxc4!? 11 ..txc4 {[jc6 12.dxc5 bxc5! 13 ..l::!.d1 ~c7, Konikowski - Gawehns, Internet 2000. It looks very strong now for White to continue with 14 ..tb5!, depriving Black of any tactical chances connected with the move g5, for example 14 ... 0-0 15 ..tf4

1:tfd8 16.{[jc3;!; - and White enjoys a space advantage and a better pawn-structure. 1l.cxd5 i.xd5 12.{[jc3 .tb7

This position was reached in the game Stoll- Aschenbrenner, Austria 2001, and White had extra space, so his task was to centralize his pieces as quickly as possible. 13.l%dl! cxd4 (The move 13 ... {[ja6 would have been countered with the dangerous pawn-break 14.d5! exd5 15.e6! {[jf6 16.{[jg5~ and Black can hardly avoid material losses.) 14.{[jxd4 {[jc5 15..tc2 {[jbd7 (Mter 15 ... ~c7 16.{[jcb5 'iftc8 17. ~g4 l:td8 1B ..th6± White has a great lead in development and a powerful pressure all over the board.) 16.~h5 g6 (or 16 ... h6 17 ..txh6 gxh6 18.'iftxh6+-) 17. ~h6 ~c7 18.f4 .l::i.fd8 19 . .te3 .!:Lac8 20. ~h3 ~b8 21.l1d2±. Black's squares b5 and d6 are quite vulnerable and he has no active counterplay, so his position is very unpleasant to defend.

69

Chapter 3

Conclusion The Owen's Defence leads to an interesting and complicated struggle in positions that are not so well analyzed and tested in practice. Still, Black practically surrenders the centre to his opponent and falls behind in development, so it becomes quite difficult for him to fight for equality. In the great majority of variations, it is quite enough for White, in order to obtain a huge advantage, to deploy his pieces according to the following scheme - i..d3, 'fffe2, 0-0 and r:..dl. Should Black try to transpose to a pawn-structure typical for the French Defence - his light squared bishop becomes really "bad". The attempts to trade it usually lead to a loss ofplenty of time and White gains total control over the centre as a result. In case Black tries to deploy his pawns in a hedgehog-formation - a6, b6, d6, e6 etc.- his position becomes too passive and he has no real chances for any counterplay. It is more interesting for Black to try to fight for the centre with the help of the pawn-move e5, but then his bishop on b7 becomes terribly misplaced.

70

Part 2 Nimzowitsch Defence l.e4 4jc6 2.4jf3

In this part ofthe book we are dealing with Black's peculiar opening experiment - the move 1...ct:Jc6 (Nimzowitsch Defence). This seldom played move has not been analyzed extensively yet. Its main idea is to avoid the popular theory; nevertheless the game often transfers to some other well-known openings. In fact, Black often suffers from these transpositions, because of the premature placement of the knight to the c6-square. It usu-

ally comes under the pin - iLflb5, or under an early pawn-attack d4-d5 and Black loses tempi in the process. After 2.ct:Jf3, Black sometimes chooses 2 ... ct:Jf6, or 2 ...f5 (Chapter 4). In case Black plays 2 ... d5, (Chapter 5), then after 3.exd5, it turns out that he has entered a not so favourable variation of the Scandinavian Defence. Similarly after 2 ...g6 3.d4 (Chapter 6), there arises a line of the King's Indian Defence, which is not advantageous for Black either. White can play d4-d5 at an opportune moment and he gains one or two tempi by attacking the knight, so he seizes a long-lasting initiative. We have devoted our Chapter 7 to Black's most principled variation 2 ... d6.

71

Chapter 4

l.e4 ttJc6 2.ttJf3

We are going to analyse in this chapter: a) 2 •.. 4:lf6 and b) 2 .•.f5. About 2 ... e5 - see the volume dealing with 1...e5. 2 ... e6 3.d4 - see l.e4 e6 2.d4 4:lc63.4:lf3. a) 2 ... 4:lf6 3.e5 4:lg4 3 ... 4:ld5 transposes, after 4.d4 d6, to the Alekhine Defence. It is too bad for Black to play: 3 ... 4:le4, because of 4.d3 4:lc5 5.d4 4:le4 6.d5, and White obtained a huge space advantage, while Black's knights were circling around the board. 3 ... 4:lh5 does not seem logical. After the natural line: 4.d4 d5 5.c4, Black can hardly defend his position in the centre without losing material. It is a disaster 72

for him to play: 5 ... e6? 6.g4+-, as well as 5 ... .lte6 6.4:lg5±, therefore he has nothing better than: 5 .. . .ltg4 6.cd ~d5 7.4:lc3 ~a5 (or 7 .. . .ltf3 8.4:ld5 .ltd1 9.4:lc7 ~d8 10. 4:la8 .ltg4 11..lte3, and White is threatening d5 and h3 and he has a winning position) 8.h3±, and Black's position is very difficult. He has no coordination of forces at all. It is also not attractive for Black to play: 3 ... 4:lg8, because that knight-manoeuvre has wasted two tempi and White obtains a great advantage by playing simply: 4.d4 d6 (4 ... e6 5 ..ltd3 d5 6.c3 g6 7.i.g5 i.e7 8 ..ltxe7 4:lcxe7 9.~d2 a6 10.~f4 h5 11. 4:lbd2 4:lfS 12.0-0-0 .ltd7 13.h3 ~e7 14.g4 4:lg7 15.4:lg5± Kluger - Korody, Tatatovaros 1935) 5. 4:lc3 g6 (5 ... f6? 6 ..ltf4 4:lh6 7 ..ltxh6 gxh6 8.e6 d5 9.4:lg5+-; 8 ... i.g7 9.d5 4:lb8 10.4:ld4 0-0 11.4:lfS+-) 6.exd6 cxd6 7.d5 4:le5 8.4:ld4 .ltg7 9 ..ltb5+ .ltd7 10.f4 4:lg4 11.i.xd7 + ~xd7 12.h3 4:l4h6 13.g4± Tomescu - Pizzuto, Spain 1999. It is not any better for Black to play: 4 ... d5 5.c3 i.fS (5 ... .ltg4

1. e4 tLJc6 2. tLJf3

6.h3 iLf3 7.~f3 and White has the bishop-pair) 6.tLJh4 .txb1 (6 ... .ie4 7.e6 fxe6 B.tLJd2±, and White has an excellent compensation for the sacrificed pawn; 6 ... .ie6 7.i.d3 ~d7 B.f4 .ig4 9. ~c2 e6 10.h3 .ih5 11.g4 .ig6 12.f5±) 7Jhb1 e6 B"~g4 ~d7 9 ..id3 0-0-0 1O.M'ittbB 11.0-0 ill 12.f4±, and White organized shortly a powerful kingside attack in the game Mueller - Fend, Hessen 1999. 4.d4 d6 After 4 ... e6 5.c3, the game resembles the French Defence except for Black's bad knight on g4. White has a stable advantage and a huge lead in development. 4 ... d5 5.h3 tLJh6 6.i.xh6 gxh6 7.c3 .if5 B..td3 .ixd3 9.~xd3 ~d7 10.tLJbd2 e6 11.tLJfl i.e7 12.tLJg3 0-0-0 13.tLJh5 ~dgB 14.g4 J:tg6 15.0-0-0± Arino Lison - Palomar, Zaragoza 2004. White can easily exploit Black's weaknesses on the kingside. After 4 ... g6 5.h3 tLJh6 6. d5 tLJbB 7 ..tf4, White's edge is obvious, moreover Black has only one developed piece and that is his knight on the h6-square ... 5.h3 tLJh6 6.tLJc3

N ow, no matter what Black plays - he is faced with great difficulties, for example: 6 ... dxe5 7.d5 tLJbB B.tLJxe5 tLJf5 9. ~f3 g6 10.tLJxf7 'ittxf7 1l.g4 .ig7 12.gxf5 .ixf5 13.i.d3 ~d7 14. tLJe4 'it>eB 15 ..ig5 tLJa6 16.0-0-0 tLJM 17.':he1 tLJxd3+ 1B.':xd3.lIfE 19.tLJc5 .txd3 20.~xd3 ~d6 21. ~xe7+- Romero Holmes - Narciso Dublan, Terrassa 1994; 6 ... a6 7.exd6 ~xd6 B.d5 tLJe5 9.g3 tLJf5 10 ..tg2 tLJxf3+ 11. ~xf3 e5 12.0-0 .ie7 13.tLJe4 ~dB 14.b3 0-0 15 ..ih2 f6 16J:tadl ~h8 17.~e2 ~eB 1B.c4 tLJd6 19.tLJc5 ~f7 20.~h2 .lIbB 21.f4 Kolev Bosch, Spain 1995; 6 ... e6 7 ..tb5 tLJf5 B. ~e2 a6 9.i.xc6+ bxc6 10.iLg5 .te7 11. i.xe7 ~xe7 12.0-0 0-0 13.tLJa4 .lib7 14J:tfe1 tLJh4 15.b3 .lIad8 16. ~e4tLJxf3+ 17.~xf3 dxe51B.dxe5 ~d2 19.~c3 '§'g5 20.tLJc5 ~f4 21.tLJd3 '§'g5 22.h4 Romero Holmes - Ramirez, Spain 1993. b) 2 ... f5?!

Black is trying to occupy the centre just like in the Latvian Gambit. White can easily obtain the advantage. His main idea is 73

Chapter 4 to exploit the dark-squares and particularly the e5-outpost. 3.exf5 d5 In case of 3 ... d6, White's simplest line to get the advantage is with the natural move 4.d4, and the game might continue with for example: 4 ... i.xf5 5.d5ltJb4 (it is not any better for Black to play: 5 ... ltJe5, Veingold - Kiltti, Helsinki 1997, 6.ltJxe5 dxe5 7.~b5±) 6.ltJd4 ~d7, Aldrete - Dunne, corr. 1989, 7.i.c4 ltJf6 8.ltJc3 c5 9.dxc6 bxc6 10.a3 ltJd5 1l.ltJxd5 ltJxd5 12.0-0, and White has a huge lead in development and good attacking chances. It seems better for Black to play: 3 ... ltJf6, but White still obtains a huge advantage after: 4.d4 d5 5.i.d3 ltJe4, J.Martinez - Costantini, Email 2001 (otherwise White simply remains with an extra pawn) 6.ltJe5! i.xf5 7.ltJxc6 bxc6 8.ltJd2, and Black's central pawns are immobile and therefore his defence is very difficult. 4.~b5! ii.xf5 Black has tried in several games, and quite successfully at that, the move 4 ... a6, but after the simple: 5 ...txc6 bxc6, Wallace - V.Smirnov, Doeberl 2000, 6. ltJd4, White preserves a solid extra pawn. After, for example: 6 ... ~d6 7.~h5 'it>d8.8.d3, Black's king remains in the centre and White's lead in development enables him to start soon a successful kingside attack. It is just terrible for Black to 74

play: 4 ... d4, because after the natural move: 5.ltJe5, he cannot defend against the threats ~h5 and ~f3, for example: 5 ... ~d5 6. ~h5+ g6 7.fxg6ltJf6 8.g7+ ltJxh5 9.gxh8~+- Snarheim - Carlstrom, Hallsberg 1998. The other possibility for Black leads to a transposition: 4 ... ~d6 5.d4 i.xf5 6.ltJe5 (see the main line). 5.ltJe5

5 ... ~d6 5 ... a6 (This is a definite loss oftime, because White was planning to exchange on c6 anyway.) 6.i.xc6+ bxc6 7.0-0 e6 (7 ... ~d6 8.d4ltJf6 9.c4 ltJd7 10.~f4 ltJxe5 1l.ii.xe5 ~g612.ltJd2 ~c2 13.~f3 ~d3 14.~h5+ 'itd8 15.ltJf3±) 8.d3 i.d6 9.~h5+ g6 10.~e2 ~h4 1l.ltJd2ltJf6 12.ltJdf3 ~h5 13.Z':!.e1 0-0 (13 ... ltJg4 14.h3 ltJxe5 15. ltJxe5 ~xe2 16.Z':!.xe2 ~xe5 17. llxe5 h5 18.i.e3 - Black is faced with a difficult fight to save the draw, despite the simplifications. He has plenty of weaknesses on both sides of the board and his bishop is much weaker than White's bishop.) 14.h3 c5, Lau Gross, Germany 1997, and here

l.e4 ctJc6 2. ctJ[3

after 15.~e3!?, threatening g4 (immediately, or preceded by ~h6), Black has grave problems to save his light-squared bishop. 5 ... ~d7 6.~xc6 bxc6 (It is not any better for Black to play: 6 ... ~xc6 7.0-0 ctJf6 8.~e2 g6 9. d4 ~d6 10.ctJc3 a6 11.~f4 ctJh5 12.~g5 h6 13.i.h4 ~h7 14.~g4 Itg7 15J~fe1 ctJf6 16.i..xf6 ~xf6 17.ctJxd5+- Pirrot - Gross, Germany 1991.) 7.0-0 ctJf6 8.d4 e6 9.c4 dxc4 10.lZ'lc3 i.d6 1l.i.g5 0-0 12. ~e2±, and Black will hardly be able to defend his pawn weaknesses, Schmaltz - Gross, St. Ingbert 1994. 6.d4lZ'lf6 After 6 ... e6, Hadjieff - Rittler, Austria 1995, White wins with: 7.~h5+ g6 8.~e2, and it is impossible for Black to defend against the threat g4, without material losses. 6 ... ~d7 7.i..xc6 (It is also good for White to play: 7.lZ'lxd7 ~xd7 8.0-0 0-0-0 9.:el a6 10.i.a4 e6 l1.c3 i.d6 12.b4±, and White maintains the two-bishop advantage and good attacking chances.) 7 ... bxc6 (White has a stable edge after: 7 ... i.xc6 8.lZ'lc3 0-0-0 9. ~e2 i.e8 10.i.f4±, because ofthe powerful e5-outpost and the attacking prospects on the queenside.) 8.0-0 lZ'lf6 (It is worse for Black to play: 8 ... ~f6 9.c4 e6, Alexopoulos - Ryan, Washington 1994, 10.:el i.d6 1l.c5+-, and Black is practically stalemated.) 9.b3 ~e6 10.ctJc3 ~f5 1l.ctJa4 ctJe4 12.lZ'lxd7 'itxd7

13.f.3 ctJf6 14.ctJc5+ ~e8 15.lIel, and White is easily winning, Yemelin - Kiik, Jyvaskyla 1999. 6 ... a6 7 ...txc6+ bxc6 8.0-0 ctJf6 (8 ... g6 9 ...tf4 i.h6 10.i.xh6 ctJxh6 1l.c4 0-0 12.lZ'lc3 lZ'lf7 13 ..l:iel lIab814.c5 ~f615.~d2±; 9 ... i.g7, Holmsten - Kiltti, Tampere 1998, and here White's simplest line was 10.~d2, threatening ctJf7±.) 9.c3 (It is more aggressive for White to follow with: 9.c4 ctJd7 10.i.f4±.) 9 ... ctJd7 10.i.f4 ctJxe5 1l.i.xe5 ~d7 12.lZ'ld2 e6 13.b4 i.d6 14J~e1 0-0 15.ctJb3 ~f7 16. f.3 ~g617.~e2 i.d318.~e3lIae8 19.h1 i.c2 20.lZ'la5 i.a4 21.lZ'lb7 i.xe5 22.dxe5 llb8 23.lZ'lc5± Misiano - Schmid, Biel 2002. 7.0-0 lZ'ld7 About 7 ... a6 8.i..xc6 bxc6 - see 6 ... a6 7.i.xc6 bxc6 8.0-0 lZ'lf6.

8.i.xc6 bxc6 9.i.f4 lZ'lxe5 9 ... ~b4 - this move does not change much concerning the type of position as well as the character ofthe fight. 10.b3 ctJxe5 1L~.xe5± Bericat - Anda, Email 2001. After 9 ... c5 10.lZ'lc3 c6 lLl:i.el lLlxe5 12.i.xe5 ~g6 13.dxc5 i.xc2 14.~d4 e6 15J~e3, White had a 75

Chapter 4 decisive advantage in the game: Jonkman - Lutton, Port Erin 2004. 10..1Lxe5 ~d7 It is not better for Black to play: 10 .. :~g6 ll.c3 .1Lc2 (1l .. Jtb8 12.b3 l:.b7 13.ltel e6 14J:te3±) 12.'~f3 lib8 (12 ... .1Le4 13.'~g3 ~xg3 14 ..1Lxg3 'it>d8 15.'Lld2 .1Ld3 16.l::tfel± Wadsack - Hainzinger, Austria 1996) 13.b4 .1Le4 14:~g3 ~xg3 15 ..1Lxg3 %:tb7 16.'Lld2 .1Lc2 17.'Llb3± Burchfield - Manarin, corr.200l. (diagram) White has plenty of moves to prove his advantage, but we will recommend to you the most principled line: 1l.'Lld2 with the idea of occupation of the darksquares. 1l •.. e6 12.'Llb3 .1Ld6

13.lte1 0-0 14:~d2 %:tab8 15. %:te3 "fftf7 16J:tae1 a5 (After 16 ... .1Le4 17.f3 .1Lxe5 18.dxe5 .1Lf5 19. ~d4 .1Lxc2 20.'Llc5 l:tb5 2l.l:tcl~, White has an excellent compensation for the pawn - he has a powerful knight on c5 and active play on the dark squares.) 17.c3 l:!.b5 18.'Llc5 .1Lxc5 19.dxc5l:txc5 20J:!g3 g6 21..1Ld4, and White is dominant on the dark squares, Pavasovic - Daus, Deizisau 2004.

Conclusion The variations, which we have analyzed in this chapter, are very seldom played in practice. This is because Black makes considerable positional compromises at a very early stage of the game. He falls behind in development and surrenders the centre in line a, so he often even fails to survive until move twenty. His complex of dark squares is weakened irrevocably in line b and White can exploit that with accurate play and occupy them quite effectively.

76

Chapter 5

l.e4 tDc6 2.tDf3 d5

We have now a line from the Scandinavian Defence, but quite unfavourable for Black. His knight on c6 is misplaced and White easily obtains a great advantage: 3.exd5 '{;fxd5 4.CZJc3 '{;fa5 It is too bad for Black to play: 4 ... '{;fe6 5.i.e2 ~g6 6.CZJb5 ~d8 7.d4, and White has much better development, while Black's king is stranded in the centre. The other possibilities are not promising for Black either, for example: 4 ... '{;fd7 5.d4 e6 6.i.b5 i.d6 7.CZJe4, or 4 ... ~c5 5.d4, and White has a huge lead in development. It is more stubborn for Black to play: 4 ... '{;ff5, with the idea to counter the natural move 5.d4 with 5 ... CZJb4, but even then af-

ter: 6.i.b5+ c6 (It is worse for Black to play: 6 ... i.d7 7.i.d7 'iit>d7 8.0-0; 7 ... '{;fd7 8.0-0, and White has a clear advantage.) 7.i.a4 CZJd5 8.0-0 CZJxc3 9.bxc3 e6 10.c4 CZJf6 1l.CZJe5;t, and White's position is clearly better, because of his more harmonious development and his dominance in the centre, but naturally Black was not forced to lose immediately 1L.i.d6?? 12.g41-0 D.Fernando - Berges, Cappelle la Grande 200l. 4 ••• '{;fd8 5.d4 CZJf6 (The other moves for Black are worse: 5 ... e5, 5... i.g4, 5 ... i.f5, or 5 ... g6, because after each one of them White plays 6.d5 occupying space and gaining a huge lead in development. Meanwhile, after 5 ... e6, the game transposes to the Rubinstein variation (l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.CZJc3 dxe4 4.CZJxe4) of the French Defence, in which White has two extra tempi in addition to the rest of his positional pluses.) 6.i.b5 e6 (It is bad for Black to play 6 ... i.f5? 7.d5 a6, Kasianczuk - Dudel, Kolobrzeg 2001, because after 8.i.a4 b5 77

Chapter 5 9.ttJxb5 axb5 10.i.xb5 ..td7 11. dxc6, his queenside pawns are about to disappear altogether. It is hardly better for him to try: 6 ... ..td7 7.0-0 a6, Huddleston Hickman, Churchill 2000, because now: 8 ...txc6 ..txc6 9.ttJe5, leads to an overwhelming advantage for White in development, for example: 9 ... ..td5 10.ttJxd5 ~xd5 11.c4±, or 9 ... ~d6 10 ...tf4±, or 9 ... ..td7 10 ..i:.e1 ..tf5 11.fif3 fic8 12 ...tg5± .ixc2? 13.ttJd5+-; 10 ... .ie6 11..ig5 ~d6 12. ~f3 0-0-0 13.l:tadl±. Again, it is not so good for Black to continue with: 6 ... a6 7 ..ixc6+ bxc6 8.0-0 e6, Jimenez - V.Gonzalez, Cuba 1976, after 9.ttJe5 .ib7 10 ..ie3 ~b8 11. ~e2 .id6 12.ttJa4± Black's queenside pawns are too weak, just as well the c5-square and his two bishops are not a sufficient compensation.) 7.0-0 ..td7 (It is not any better for Black to play: 7 ... .ie7 8.ttJe5 .id7, McNamara - Jackson, Detroit 1994, 9 ...txc6 bxc6 10.ttJa4±; 9 ... .ixc6 10.ttJxc6 bxc6 11. ~f3± Black's weaknesses on the queenside are considerable and he will have to survive a long and difficult defence without any counterplay. It is not logical for him to play: 7 ... ..tb4, Barnsley - Braakhuis, Email 2001, 8.ttJe5 .id7 9 ..ixc6 bxc6 10. ~f3 0-0 11..ig5±; 9 ... ..txc6 1O.ttJxc6 bxc6 11.~f3 ~d7 12.a3 ..te7 13 ..if4 lLld5 14 ..ie5±; 12 ... .ixc3 13. ~xc3 0-0 14.b3±) 8 ..ig5 lLle7 9 ..ixd7+ ttJxd7 10.l!e1 h6 11..ih4 g5 12 ..ig3 ttJg6?! (It is 78

more stubborn for Black to defend with 12 ... .ig7, but even then his defence is quite problematic: 13.ttJb5 ttJd5 14.c4±) 13.d5! fif6 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.ttJd5 1-0 Kawaciukova - Fonseca, Cappelle la Grande 1995. 4 .•. ~d6 5.d4leads to a line of the Scandinavian Defence with a queen on d6. Black now has problems to parry the threat 6.d5, because his knight has been developed to c6 a bit too early, for example he loses after: 5 ... e6? 6.ttJb5 ~d8 7 ..if4. Therefore it is better for Black to play: 5 ... lLlf6 (Or 5 ... .ig4 6.lLlb5 ~d7 7 ..if4 l:tc8 8 ..ie2 a6 9.lLlc3 e6 10.0-0 lLlf6 11.h3 .ixf3 12 ..ixf3t and White's bishop pair and his lead in development guarantee that his advantage will soon become decisive, Temprano - Ricard, Sant Boi 2000. It is a disaster for Black to play: 6 ... ~e6+ 7.lLle5! ttJxe5 8.ttJxc7+ 'it'd7 9.ttJxe6 .ixd1 10. ttJxf8+ l:txfS 11. 'it'xd 1 +-, or 7 ... ~xe5+ 8.dxe5 .ixdl 9.lLlxc7+ 'it'd7 10.ttJxa8 .ixc2 11..ib5 e6 12. .ie3 .ib4+ 13.'it'e2lLlge7, BezoHlinka, Slovakia 2003, 14J:thc1 .if5 15.a3 .ia5 16.b4+-) 6. ttJb5 ~d8 (6 ... ~d7, Brookshire -Cunningham, Email 2002 and here White could have achieved a great advantage with: 7.lLle5! lLlxe5 8.dxe5 ~xd1 - it is even worse for Black to play 8 ... lLlg4 9 ..if4+- - 9.'it'xd1 ttJg4 1O.lLlxc7+ 'it'd8 1l.ttJxa8 ttJxf2+ 12.'it'e1 lLlxh1 13 ..ie3+-, because White will easily evacuate his knight

l.e4 CDc6 2.CD{3 dS 3.ed "fldS 4.CDc3 "flaS S. .JI..bS

away from the corner, while the same task for Black seems impossible. Obviously it is better for Black to try: 7 ... "fldB B.~f4 ttJd5 9 ..lii.c4!±, but White's lead in development is overwhelming.) 7.d5 ttJb4 B.c4

And now: in answer to B... e6, Filev Karakehajov, Sofia 2004, White's simplest line is: 9 ..lii.f4! ttJa6 10. d6 c6! (after 10 ... cxd6 1l.ttJxd6+ .lii.xd6 12. ~xd6 "flxd6 13 ..lii.xd6 ttJe4 14.~a3±, White's couple of powerful bishops and his pawnmajority on the queenside provide him with a stable advantage) 1l.ttJc3! ttJh5 12.~e5! f6 13. ttJd2! g6 14.g4 fxe5 15.gxh5 ~xd6 16. "flg4~. Black lags in development and his king is quite vulnerable, his pawns are weak and his pieces are rather discoordinated. All these factors are much more important than Black's extra pawn; The attempt to seize the initiative by a pawn-sacrifice with: B... e5 9.11Jxe5 a6, L.Nemeth Sherwood, Email 2003, can be parried by White with the simple line: 10. "fle2! ~e7 (10 ... ttJc2+

11.~xc2 axb5 12."flb3! bxc4 13. "flb5+ llJd7 14.~xc4±) 11.ttJd4 c5

12.ttJc2± and Black has no compensation for the pawn whatsoever; B... c6! 9.dxc6 "fla5?! (It was practically forced for Black to enter an inferior endgame with: 9 ... bxc6! 10. "flxdS+ 'iitxdB 11. llJa3 ~f5 12.~f4t) 10.~d211Je4? (Black's only playable possibility here was: 10 ... bxc6 11.a3 cxb5 12.axb4 ~c7 13.c5±) 11.~xb4 "flxb4+ 12.ttJd2 llbS (after 12 ... 'iitdS 13.cxb7 ~xb7 14.a3± the game goes into an endgame, in which White remains with a solid extra pawn) 13.ttJc7+ ~dS 14.11Jd5 1-0 Bojkov - Panbukchian, Pleven 2005. After 4 ... ~h5 5.ttJb5 ~dS 6.d4±, White is threatening 7 ..lii.f4, moreover Black's king is stuck in the centre and that provides White with a stable advantage. Black's most logical move now is 6 ... ttJf6, Parma - B.Larsen, Zagreb 1965 (He cannot prevent the accomplishment of White's plans with: 6 ... ~g4? 7.~f4 ~xf3 S."flxf3 "flxf3 9.gxf3 a6 10.11Jxc7 I:tcB 11.CDd5 CDxd4 12. 0-0-0+-; 1l ... ~eS 12.0-0-0+-, because White remains with an extra pawn in the endgame and a better development, Wittmann - Moser, Wuerttemberg 2000. It is too dubious for Black to try: 6 ... a6?! 7.ttJc3 ~f5 S.~e2 "flg6, Mecking - Fernandez, Las Palmas 1975, because after: 9.ttJh4 "flf6 10.CDxf5 "flxf5 11..~.g4 "flg6 79

Chapter 5 12 ...I1i.f3± White has two powerful bishops and Black has great problems to secure the safety of his king, which has been deprived of the right to castle). It seems now quite interesting for White to try the move 7.d5!?, which has never been tested in practice yet.

See some lines: 7 .. :~xd5 S.~f4 e5 9.~c4 ~xd1 lOJ:txd1+ ~d6 (after 10 ... ~d7 1l. ttJxe5 ttJxe5 12.~xe5± White exerts a powerful pressure along the central files) 1l.ttJxd6 cxd6 12 ..l:i.xd6+ r:j;c7 (12 ... ii.d7 13. ii.e3±) 13.:xc6+! bxc6 14.ttJxe5 ttJh5 (in case of 14 .. .l:1eS 15 ..txf7 .l:!.e7 16.0-0ii:i. White's compensation for the exchange is more than sufficient - he has two pawns and a couple of powerful bishops, moreover his piece-coordination is excellent.) 15. ttJxf7+ ttJxf4 16.ttJxhS .l:.bS 17.b3 ttJxg2+ lS.'it'd2 ttJh4 19.ttJf7± and Black can hardly prove that his compensation for the pawn is sufficient; 7 ... ttJe5 S.~f4 ttJxf3+ 9.~xf3 ~xf3 10.gxf3 i.d7 1l.~xc7+ ~cS 12.~e5 ttJxd5 13.0-0-0 e6 (the

so

other possibilities for Black are even worse: 13 ... a6?! 14.l:Ixd5 axb5 15 ..txb5 .tc6 16 ..txc6 bxc6 17.l:1c5 ~b7 lS.l:i.d1!± and White remains with an extra pawn in the endgame; 13 ... f6 14Jhd5 fxe5 15J:1c5+ r:j;dS 16 ..th3!± and Black would probably fail to neutralize the great activity of White's pieces without losing material) 14.l:i.g1 f6 15.ttJd6+ ~xd6 16.~xd6 g5 17.c4± Black's defence will be extremely difficult, because of his weak kingside pawns and his considerable lag in development. 5.ii.b5

5 ... ii.d7 5 ... ~g4 6.h3 ~d7 ~h5 (In case of 6 ... ~d7 7.0-0, there arises a position from the main line, except that White's pawn is on the h3-square. This is either immaterial, or it might even be in favour of White.) 7.g4 ~g6 S.ttJe5 ~e4 (Black has also tried in practice the move S... O-O-O, Garside - Stewart, corr. 19S7, but after 9.ttJxc6 bxc6 10.~xc6 ~e5+ 1l. f1± he has no compensation for the pawn.) 9.f3 a6 10.ttJc4 ~b4 1l.a3 ~c5 12.d4 ~a7 13.fxe4

l.e4lbc6 2.lbf3 dS 3.ed 'il1dS 4.ti'Jc3 'il1aS S.!ibS

axb5 14.tL'lxb5 'il1b8 15.i..f4+Bednarski - Allegro, Sion 1990). 5 ... lbf6 - this is a logical developing move, but Black ignores White's threats just in vain: 6.lbe5! i..d7 7.lbxd7 lbxd7 8.0-0 e6 9.i..xc6 bxc6 10. 'il1f3± and Black has no compensation for his horribly compromised queenside pawn-structure, BiyiasasYearwood, Canada 1981. 5 ... a6 6.i..xc6+ bxc6 7.'il1e2, and later in the game Karpov Hort, Oslo, 1984, there followed: 7 ... lbf6 (or 7 ... e6 8.0-0 i..d6 9.d4 lbe7 1O.lbe4 0-0 1l.c4± and the position remains very difficult for Black, because of the weaknesses of his queenside, Akopian - Kalantarian, Caucasus 1988) 8.lbe5 e6 (8 ... i.b7 9.d4 e6 10.0-0 'il1b4 1l.z:td1 a5 12.a3 'il1d6 13. i..f4± Lopez del Alamo - Rodriguez Izquierdo, Madrid 2002; 10 ... i..d6, Boino - Fontes, Lisbon 1999, now it is correct for White to continue with: 1l.a3! 0-0 12. l:dl± and Black's queen is terribly misplaced, so that he is deprived of the only reasonable counterplay, connected with the preparation of the pawnbreak c6-c5 -12 ... c5? 13.lbc4+-. This is the point behind the move 1l.a3. Later, White will prepare b2-b4 and he fill fix Black's weaknesses.) 8.lbe5 e6 9.0-0 iLd6 10.d4 0-0 1L~d1 c5 12.lbc4 'il1b4 13.a3 'il1b8, and here instead of 14.iLg5, White had better play: 14.dxc5 iLxc5 15.iLg5 iLe7 16. lbe4±.

6.0-0

Black has tried in practice the following moves in this position: a) 6 ••• lbf6, b) 6 ...e6, c) 6 ... a6 and d) 6 ... 0-0-0. a) 6 ••. lbf6 7.d4 0-0-0

Black loses too much time with the move 7 ... lbe4, BokrosGanguly, Szeged 1994, 8. 'il1d3! lbxc3 9.bxc3 e6 (in case of 9 ... a6 10.iLxc6 iLxc6 1l.c4 0-0-0 12. lbe5 iLe8 13.iLd2 'il1b6 14.i..e3± White has a lead in development, he has occupied the centre and he can operate effectively along the open b-file, so he has excellent attacking prospects.) 10.c4 a6 (It is not any better for Black to play 10 ... 0-0-0 1l.lbg5! i..e8 12.i..xc6 bxc6 13J~bl±.) 1l.i..xc6 iLxc6 12.lbe5±. White would have a great advantage after: 7 ... a6 8.iLxc6 iLxc6 9.lbe5 e6 (9 ... 'il1b6 10.d5 :d8 11.iLe3 'il1xb2 12.iLd4 iLb5 13.~e1 'il1a3 14. 'il1f3 e6 15.lbxf7 'it>xf7 16.dxe6+ ~g8 17.iLxf6 gxf6 18. 'il1g4+ iLg7 19.e7+- Gdanski Pyda, Warsaw 1990) 10.lbxc6 bxc6 11. 'il1f3 'il1b6 (It is not so good for Black to play: 1l ... lbd5?!. M81

Chapter 5 ter 12.lLle4! Black's position becomes extremely difficult - his weaknesses have been fixed and White's pawn-centre is ready to advance.) 12.b3 i..e7 13.lLla4 ~b7 14.c4 0-0 15.i..g5 :adS 16 ..i::!.adl .l::i.feS 17 ..l:td3 lLld7 IS.i..xe7 l:Ixe7 19.~g3 l:IdeS 20.f4± Kholmov Tibensky, Pardubice 1995. 8.i..e3

8 ... lLld5 S ... a6 9.i..xc6 i..xc6 10.lLle5 i..eS 11. ~f3 e6 12.a3 lLld5?? 13.lLlc4 1-0 Nikolaidis - Tsiotridis, Kavala 1991. It is dubious for Black to continue with: S... e6?!, Ferron Garcia - Arbunic Castro, Alicante 2000, because now White can proceed with the standard operation: 9.lLlg5! i..eS 10.i..xc6 bxc6 11. ~f3± compromising Black's pawn-structure on the queenside. In answer to S... lLle4, SzukZaninotto, Budapest 1991, it is advisable for White to follow with 9.a4!, after which the logical line: 9 ... ctJxc3 10.bxc3, transposes to the variation: S ... ctJd5 9.a4 ctJxc3 10.bxc3. 9.a4 ctJxe3 82

It is too dangerous for Black to open the b-file, because he might come under a dangerous attack, as it happened in the following short and crushing game: 9 ... lLlxc3 10.bxc3 e6 1l.c4 a6 12.c5 axb5 13.axb5 ~xb5 14.1:ta8+ ctJb8 15.'~al i..c6 16.~a7 ~d7 17. ctJe5+ ~e8 18Jhb8 i..e7 19.c4 ~a4 20.ctJxc6 ~xc6 21.lhb7+Magem Badals - Summerscale, France 1999. 10.fxe3 f6 11.ttJd2 e6 I t is hardly any better for Black to play: 11 .. .'~b4 12.ctJa2 ~d6, Priour - Nava, Internet 2001, because after: 13.ttJe4! ~e6 14. ~f3 ~f7 15.ttJc5± White has a huge lead in development and excellent attacking chances. 12.lLla2 ctJe5

13.b4! This position was reached in a game between the same opponents as early as in the year 1959! White played 13.~e2 and later he lost the game. Now, he is demonstrating an improvement and that is a good example of a meticulous home preparation. 13 ... ~b6 (Naturally, it is too bad for Black to continue

1.e4lbc6 2.lbf3 d5 3.ed 'if:1d5 4.lbc3 'if:1a55 ..tb5

with: 13 ... .ixb4??, because of i.xf7± White remains with a 14.lbb3 and White wins a piece, solid extra pawn; 8 ... lbf6, J. but now White's pawn-offensive Emms - Stromer, Cappelle la on the queenside can hardly be Grande 1991, 9.a3 a6 10.iLd3 countered by Black with any- i.e7 1l.lbe4t) 9.i.c4lbf6 10 ..1f4 thing worthwhile.) 14.c4 c6 h6 ll ..l:r.ad1 b5 12.~b3 g5 13. 15.c5 'ffic716.~e2lbg617.lbc3± ~e5±, White's prospects in the Mednis - Seidman, New York centre as well as on the queen1961. Black has the two bishop side are clearly superior, while advantage, but that is the only Black's counterplay on the kingthing he can brag about in this side will hardly be effective, position. White's space advan- Goloshchapov - Weisenburger, tage on the queenside provides Berlin 1997. him with excellent attacking It is quite playable for Black chances. to try: 7 ... i.d6, Ondersteijn Deceuninck, Hengelo 2003, alb) 6 ... e6 7.d4 though the bishop can easily be attacked on that square: 8.'ffie2 lbf6 (In case of 8 ... a6 9. ~c4 0-0-0 10.lbe4 .ie7 ll.c3± Black will face the difficult task of defending against the oncoming dangerous kingside attack.) 9.d5lbd8 10.~xd7+ ~xd7! (10 ... lbxd7 11.~g5±) l1.dxe6+ lbxe6 12.lbb5t. 8. 'ffi e2 i.xc3

7 ... ~b4 It is even worse for Black to play: 7 ... lbf6?! 8.d5 exd5 9J:le1+ lbe710 ..ixd7+ lbxd7 11.lbxd5 c6 12.lbxe7 ~xe7 13.~f4lbf6 (13 ... lbc5 14.b4) 14.Ir.xe7+ ~xe7 15. 'ffid6+ ~e8 16.Ir.e1 +- Zeitler Boerefijn, Bruegge 1978. 7 ... 0-0-0 8.'ffie2 a6 (It is too bad for Black to continue with: 8 ... i.e7 9.~d1 a6 10.i.c4 h6, Rafizadeh - M.N owak, Canberra 2000, because after 1l.d5 exd5 12JIxd5 'ffib6 13J::ld1 f5 14.lbd5 'ffia7 15.lbe5+-; 13 ... lbf6 14.

The move 8 ... lbge7?! is quite dubious. It turns out now that Black's previous move has been just a loss of precious time in the opening. 9.lbe4 a6 10.~d3 lbg6 ll.c3 .id6 12.lbfg5lbce7 13. lbxd6+ cxd6 14. 'ffif3± Buchal Neidhardt, Hessen 1991. 9.bxc3 a6 Black's position is terrible after: 9 ... 'ffixc3 10.~d2 'ffixc2 (10 ... 'if:1a3 ll.d5lbd8 12.~xd7+ Wxd7 13.lbe5~) ll.d5 lbd8 Cll ... lbce7 12 ..1xd7+ ~xd7 13.'if:1b5 ~d8 14. lbe5+-) 12 ..ixd7+ ~xd7 13.dxe6 83

Chapter 5 fxe6 (13 ... lbxe6 14.~b5+-) 14. ~fdl 'lio>eB (14 .. .'it>cB 15.St.g5+-) 15.lIacl ~xa2 16Jlxc7 ~b3 17. lIxg7+-. 10•.lid3lbge7 10 ... lbf6 11.c4 ~h5 12J~b1 0-0-0 13.c3 .u.heB 14. ~b2 lba5 15. ~b4 .lic6, Vogt - Walter, Erfurt 1973, and White could have won here with: 16.lbe5! lbg417.lbxg4.lixg2 1B.tDe5 .lixfl 19 ..lie4 b6 20.'lio>xfl +-. 1l.c4 ~h5 12.l1hl h6

13 ..lif4± Jansa - Trapl, Brno 1964. White has a lead in development, a couple of powerful bishops and a mobile pawn-centre. c) 6 .•. a6 7 ..lixc6 St.xc6

8.d4! This is much stronger than B4

the move BJ:te1, which has brought to White better results statistically until now, because in that case Black has a powerful counter-measure: B... ~h5! 9.lbe5 ~xdl10.lIxd1 .lid7 11.d4 (or 11. lbd5 lIcB 12.lbxd7 'lio>xd7= Boudre - Berges, Marseille 2001) 11 ... lbf6 12.tDxd7 'lio>xd7 1;2 Ost Hansen - Sloth, Aarhus 1976. 8 ... 0-0-0 That is the most popular move. About B... lbf6 9.tDe5 - see 6 ... lbf6 7.d4 a6 8 ..lixc6 .lixc6 9.lbe5. B... f6?! - Black now controls the important e5-square with his last move, but he weakens the e6-outpost and deprives his knight of a reliable base on f6. His development is slowed down considerably and White can start a dangerous attack. 9.d5! 0-0-0 10.b4! ~xb4 11..lid2 .lib5 12J:tbl ~c5 13.lbxb5 axb5 14.a4! bxa4 15.c4!! ~xc4 16 ..l::i.b4 ~xd5 17. ~xa4. Black has played several seemingly logical moves and he has won three pawns in the process. On the other hand, his lag in development has become catastrophic and his position is already beyond salvation. The game ended very quickly: 17 ... e5 18.':b5 .lic5 19 ..lie3 b6 20 . .lixc5 ~b7 21..lixb6! cxb6 22.lIc1 'lio>b8 23.~b4 1-0 J.Anderson Aasum, corr. 2000. If 8 ... ~h5, then after 9.d5, Black has serious problems in all lines, for example: 9 ... 0-0-0

l.e4CDc6 2.lDf3 dS 3.ed YfidS 4.lDc3 'ffi.aS S.ii.bS

(9 ... iLd7 10.'ffi.d4 ltJf6 11.l:el±; 9 .. J~td8 10.iLf4 e6 11.iLxc7 ltd7 12.dxc6+-; 10 ... iLxd5 11..~.xc7 ~d7 12.lDe5 ~xdl13.l!axd1 .l:i.c7 14.lDd5±) 10.iLg5 (White fails to obtain any advantage after: 10.~f4 iLxd5 1l.ltJe5 ~xd1 12 . .!:tfxd1iLe6, Felgaer-N.Vlassov, Moscow 2004. Now, instead of: 13.lDe4, against which Black should have played: 13 .. .lhd1 14 ..l:!.d1 f6=, N.Vlasov recommended the following line as the best for White: 13 ..l:i.xd8+ ~xd8 14.lDe4, however, by playing: 14 ... ~e8! 15.ltJg5 iLd5 16J::td1 lDf6 17.c4 h6= Black could have maintained the equality.) 10 ... h6 (10 ... iLe8 11. ~d4 ~b8 12.iLe3 b6 13.iLf4 ~b7 14. ~c4±; 10 ... ltJf6 11.ttJe5 ~xd1 12.:taxd1 iLe8 13. I:!.fea; 1l ... iLe8 12. ~xh5 ltJxh5 13.iLe3;\;; 10 ... iLxd5 11.ltJxd5 h6 12.~d4! ltJf6? 13.lDb6+ cxb6 14. ~c3+ ~b8 15. ~e5+ rti;a7 16. iLxf6+-; 12 ... hxg5 13 ..l:!.fd1 l:!.d6 14. 'ffi.a7 g4 15. ~a8+ ~d7 16. ~xb7+-; 13 ... ~b8 14.~c5 c6 15.lDf4!+-; 14 .. ..l:!d7 15.ltJxc7!±) 11.lDe5 hxg5 (1l ... ~xdl12. l:.ad1 .i.e8 13.iLe3;\;) 12. Yfixh5 ~xh5 13. dxc6 f6 14.l:!.fd1! .!:te8 (14 ... l:xd1+ 15Jhd1 fe 16 ..l:!.d8+-) 15. cxb 7;\;. 8 ... e6 9.ltJe5 iLd6, DeviatkinVlassov, Moscow 1999, and here White would have achieved a great advantage with: 10.ltJxc6 bxc611.~g4! ~f8 (1l ... g612.~f.3 lDe7 13.Yfif6 l:!.f8 14.ltJe4±; The following pawn-sacrifice is not as good for Black as it seems: 11... lDe7 12. Yfixg7 ~h5 13.g3 ~g8

14. ~h6 ~f5 15. ~d2 h5 16J:re1 h4 17.ltJe4!±, for example: 17 ... 0-0-0 18.~d3 rti;b7 19.b4 ~a7 20.a3! ltJd5 21.lDc5±) 12.Yfif.3 ltJe7 13.ltJe4 ~f5 14. ~e2±. 9.ltJe5 iLe8

White's most convincing way to obtain a huge advantage in that position is the energetic move: 10.h4! which was played in the game Emms - Kristensen, Esbjerg 1996. 10... ~xh4 That capture of the pawn seems to be the most principled. In this game Kristensen refrained from taking the pawn and there followed: 10 ... ~b6 11..1i.e3 e6 (11 ... ~xb4 12.ltJe4 e6 13.l:.b1 ~e7 14.ltJc5±) 12.~b1 f6 13.lDc4 Yfic6 14.lDa5 Yfixc3 (14 ... ~d6 15. Yfif3 c6 16.d5!±) 15.~b3 iLxb4 16 ..l:!.xc3 ii.xc3 17.lDxb7 rti;xb7 18. Yfib1+ 'it>a8 19. 'ffi.b3 ii.xd4 (19 ... ii.a5 20.~a3 i.b6 21.'ffi.xa6+ ~b8 22.d5+-) 20.i.xd4 i.b5 (20 ... .lhd4 21.Yfixe6+-) 21.c4+-. 11.~f3 Yfixd4 12 ..l:!.hl! c6 12 ... Yfixe5 13. ~xb7 + 'it>d7 14. i.b2!+-. 85

Chapter 5

13.~f4! White's attack is extremely powerful, as you can see in the following lines: 13•.. g5!? (13 ... lbf6 14 ..l::!.fd1 'fia7 15 ..l:IxdS+ WxdS 16 .lId 1 + 'it>cS 17. 'fi d3+-; 16 ... lbd7 17 ..l:Ixd7+-) 14.~g3 g4 (14 ... lbh6 15.l:txb7! ~xb7 16. ~b1 +-) 15.lbxg4 h5 (15 ... ~g7 16. lbe4 and White has excellent compensation for the pawn.) 16. ~f5+ e6 (16 ... l::td7 17. 'fia5 hxg4 lS.~xa6!+-; 17 ... 'fixg4 lS.'fie5 .l:Id6 19.'fixhS+-) 17.'fia5 ~d6 lS.Ii.xb7±.

d) 6 ... 0-0-0 7.!:te1

7 ... a6 7 ... e6 S.d3!? - and White can develop a dangerous queenside initiative, so he does not need now to place his pawn on the d4square. 7 ... f6 - this move is too tentaS6

tive. White would not mind Black's occupation ofthe centre, because he has a huge lead in development and a quite promising play on the queenside. S.iLxc6 j.xc6 9.lbe5 i..eS 10.b4 'fib6 This sacrifice with the idea to open the b-file is quite standard. It is very dangerous for Black to accept the sacrifice now and even later: 10 ... 'fixb4?! 11. 'fif3 'fid6 12. J:tb1 c6 (12 ... i..c6? Renner Porth, Germany 1994, 13. 'fih3+! ~d7 14.'fie3+-) 13.lbc4 'fif6 (13 ... 'fid4 14.lbb6+ 'it>bS 15.~a3 f5 16.l:.e3 'fig4 17Jld3+-; 13 ... 'fic7 14.d3 b5 15.i..f4 'fia7 16.i..e3+-) 14.'fig4+ e6 (14 ... ~bS15.'fig3+-) 15.lbe4+-. H.d3 f6 11 ... lbf6 12.~f3 'fid4 13.j.b2 ~xb4 (13 ... e6 14.Itab1 'fih4 15. a4~) 14.l:tab1 'fia5 (14 ... 'fih4 15.~c1 c6 16.lbe4±) 15.~a3! c6 (15 ... lbd5 16 ..l:Ib3 c6 17.lbc4 'fic7 18.lbxd5 cxd5 19.1bb6+ 'it>bS 20.lbxd5+-) 16.i..b4 'fic7 17.lbc4 l:.d4 lS.~c5 ~h4 19.93 ~h3 (19 ... Ith5 20.i.d4+-) 20.lbe4±. White has wonderful compensation for the pawn after: 11 ... 'fixb4 12.~d2 ~d4 13. 'fif3 lbf6 (13 ... f6 14.~ab1 ~a7 15.~e3 'fiaS 16.lbe4! I:td5 17.d4±; 14 ... fxe5 15.'fixb7+! 'it>d716.lbd5+-; 14... c6 15.lbc4 e5 16.:'xe5! fxe5 17. 'fixf8+-) 14J::tab1 'fia7 (14 ... c6 15.lbc4 e6 16.lbe4lbxe4 17.:xe4 ~c5 lS. ~g3+-; 16 ... lbd5 17.i..e3 lbxe3 18.fxe3 ~a7 19.1bb6+-;

l.e4CLJc6 2.CLJ{3 d5 3.ed fid5 4.CLJc3 fia5 5.~b5 15 ...b5 16.CLJa51Id6 17.CLJb3!? fig4 lB. fie3~; 16 ... fic5 17.a4 b4 1B.CLJb3 fih5 19. fixh5 CLJxh5 20.CLJa2+-) 15.CLJe4CLJxe4 16Jhe4 f6 17.~e3 b6 (17 ... fiaB 1BJ:teb4 fe 19.:!:tb7, and White's attack is very dangerous.) lB. l:tc4 l:td6 (lB .. .'~bB 19.CLJc6+ ~xc6 20.l:txc6 l:td6 21..~xd6 exd6 22.fic6 flb7 23.f1eB flcB 24.fif7, and Black can hardly complete his development. For example, he loses immediately after: 24 ... f1dB 25. ~xb6 cxb6 26J:te1+-, or 25 ... flb7 26.a4±) 19.CLJc6 ~xc6 20Jhc6, and here the move 20 ... bB, transposes to the line that we have just analysed. (diagram) 12.flg4+ e6, Sermek - Semrl, Ljubljana 1999 (12 ... ~bB? 13.

~e3

f5 14.f1xf5 fif6 15.fie4+Saltaev - Vlassov, Moscow 1996). After: 13.CLJc4, Black has problems, for example: 13•.. fld4 (13 ... f1xb4 14.~a3 fixc3 15.~xfB±; 13 ... fic6 14.l:tb1!~) 14.f1d4l:td4 15.l:tbl;l;;, and Black is clearly worse, despite his two-bishop advantage, because of his lag in development. White has a powerful pressure in the centre and on the queenside.

Conclusion The variations that we have analyzed in this chapter lead to positions, which are quite similar to the Scandinavian Defence, except for the early developed black knight on the c6-square. White needs to play energetically and he often sacrifices a pawn with b2-b4. It is much more difficult to defend in similar positions than to attack, so White's chances are clearly superior in all variations.

87

Chapter 6

l.e4 4Jc6 2.ttJf3 g6

pawn, Angskog - Bahram, Osterskars 1995; 5 ....~d7 6.d5 lbd8 7 .i.f4± White gained more space and a great lead in development. Black's attempt to reduce the tension by exchanges brought about a quick mate. 7 ... c6 8.dxc6 ~xdl+ 9Jhdl bxc6 10.lbb5lbe6 11.lbg5 i.h6 12.lbxe6 i.xf4 13. l:!.d8# Brynell - Kallerholm, 3.d4 In this chapter we examine Rodeby 1998; 5 ... '§d8 - perhaps positions which are typical for this is the most resilient defence. the King's Indian or Modern 6.d5lbb8 7.i.b5+ i.d7 8.i.c4 i.g7 Benoni. Black usually loses a 9.0-0 lbf6 10.!i.el± White maintempo or even two so White gets tains a lasting pressure due to the edge without significant his spatial advantage and better problems. development, Jowett - GraWe will deal in details with: novsky, Dos Hermanas 2004), a) 3 ... d6 and b) 3 ... i.g7. when the most enterprising con3 ... lbf6?! leads after 4.e5 to tinuation is 6.i.b5! i.d7 (6 ... a6 quite unfavourable for Black 7.i.xc6+ bxc6 8.lbe5±) 7.d5 lbe5 lines from the Alekhine Defence. 8.lbxe5 i.xb5 9. ~rn lbf6 10.d6!±. 3 ... d5?! leads to a bad version Black is badly lagging behind in ofthe Scandinavian. The clumsy development which should probmove g6 and prematurely devel- ably cost him some material. oped knight ensure a solid advantage to White. 4.exd5 ~xd5 a) 3 ... d6 4.d5 lbb8 5.lbc3 '§a5, Sietio - Saarinen, It is worse for Black to play: Tampere 1994 (5 ... '§h5?! 6.lbb5 4 ... lbe5 5.lbxe5 dxe5 6.i.b5 i.d7, 'ot>d8 7.i.f4± White deprived the because after 7.,§d3, White's adopponent of castling and wins a vantage is obvious - he is domi88

1.e4 ttJc6 2.ttJf3 g6 3.d4

nant in the centre, his pawn- ttJgf6 10.i.g5± saves White a structure is superior and he has tempo on h3, R.Garcia - Fibetter development. We'll see in gueroa, Buenos Aires 1963) the following examples that a 9.l::Ib1 ttJgf6 10.b4 0-0 11..1l.e3 temporary lead in development ttJe8 12.c5±. White has the bishop cannot compensate Black for the pair advantage and an attack on sacrificed pawn: 7 ... i.g7 S. '!';tb3 the queenside, J.Rubinetti ttJf6 9.i.xd7+ '!';txd710.'!';txb7 0-0 Figueroa, Mar del Plata 1968. 6 ... c51eads to the Benoni with 11.f3 a5 (11 .. J:tfbS 12.'!';ta6 ttJh5 13.0-0 ttJf4 14.g3 l1b6 15. '!';tc4 two extra tempi for White. That ttJh3+ 16.'it>g2±J.Bednarski-Ro- ensures him the edge against all sin, Hannover 1976) 12. '!';tb3l:i.fb8 defences, for instance: 7.0-0 ttJf6 13. '!';tc4 l:i.b4 14. '!';te2 ttJh5 15.c3 (7 ... ttJd7 8.ttJc3 ttJgf6 9.h3 0-010. l:i.b6 16.ttJa3 c6, Milic - Ivkovic, i.f4±) 8.ttJc3 0-0 9.h3 a6, ThorSarajevo 1958, when simplest steins - Ivkovic, Bela Crkva seems 17.ttJc4 l:i.bb8 18.dxc6 1983. Now simplest is 10.i.f4 '!';txc6 19.93±. It is unclear how ttJbd7 11. '!';td2±, when e7 -e6 or b7Black could activate his minor b5 are difficult to achieve and pieces. without these breaks Black will 5.c4 i.g7 sooner or later perish with insuf5 ... ttJf6 6.ttJc3 i.g7 7.-te2 only ficient space. 6 ... e5 7. ttJc3 ttJe7 (7 ... ttJf6 leads to a transposition. 6.i.e2 see 6 ... ttJf6; in answer to 7 ... ttJd7, White is not obliged to transpose to the main KID lines by castling. He has instead 8.g4 a5 9.i.e3 ttJc5 10.l:.gl b6 1l.h4 ttJf6 12. ttJd2± Praszak - Ciruk, Suwalki 1999. Black is at a loss to find a sensible plan while the opponent has a clear-cut plan on the queenside; 7 ... i.g4 8.h3 i.xf3 9.i.xf3 ttJe7 10.g4 a5 11.h4 h6 12. 6 •.. ttJf6 i.e3± White has a stable edge 6 ... i.g4 7.0-0 ttJd7 (7 ... i.xf3?! due to his spatial advantage, a looks dubious. Mter 8.i.xf3 ttJf6 strong bishop pair and an evi9.ttJc3± Ruderfer - Timoscenko, dent attacking plan on the left Kiev 1970, arises the same posi- wing opposed to Black's total tion which we analyse after the lack of counterplay, Araya moves 6 ... ttJf6 7.ttJc3 i.g4, but Figueroa, Mar del Plata 1991) White have saved a tempo on h3) 8.h4 (8.0-0 0-0 leads to the Clas8.ttJc3 e5 (again 8 ... i.xf3 9.i.xf3 sical main line ofthe KID - 1.d4 89

Chapter 6

lbf6 2.c4 g6 3.lbc3 i..g7 4.e4 d6 5.lbf.3 0-0 6. i..e2 e5 7.0-0 lbc6 8.d5 lbe7 - this is not bad for White of course, but he could try for more) 8 ... h6 9.h5 g5 10.lbh2 c5 11..ltg4 f5 12.exf5 i..xf5 13.lbfl ~d7 14.lbe3± J.Rubinetti - Figueroa, Buenos Aires 1966. Black is left with a bad darksquared bishop and weak light squares. That cannot be counterweighted by transferring the knight to d4 because White could exchange it at any moment. 7.lbc3 The arising position is with a typical King's Indian structure. White's two extra tempi guarantee him the advantage in all the lines. 7 ... 0-0 In the game Romanishin Sale, Slovenia 1999, after 7 ... c6 8.0-00-0 9.h3lba6 10.i..e3 e5 11. dxc6 bxc6 12.§a4 ~e8 13.b4 c5 14.~xe8lbxe8 15.b5lbac7 16.a4 f5 17.a5±, White was clearly better thanks to his well-advanced passed pawn. Black's d6-pawn was quite vulnerable too. His light-squares were very weak and particularly the d5-outpost. The line 7 ... lbbd7 is of no practical importance, because it only transposes to the lines (7 ... 0-08.0-0 lbbd7), that we will deal with later. 7 ... c5?!, leads to the Benoni Defence and Black has already lost two important tempi with the manoeuvre lbb8-c6-b8, and you can see a game as an ex90

ample later (see 7 ... 0-08.0-0 c5). After 7 ... lba6, White obtained a stable edge with quite simple means in the game Silseth Lundkvist, Gausdal1992: 8.0-0 lbc5 9.~c2 a5 10.i..e3 b611.l:tad1 0-0 12.lbd4 i..d7 13.h3±. 7 ... e5 8.0-0 0-0 9.iLg5 h6 10.i..h4lbbd7 11.lbd2± Rogers Sitanggang, Hong Kong 1982. The game is similar to positions from the Petrosian System of the King's Indian Defence, except that White has two extra tempi. 7 ... iLg4 8.0-0 0-0 9.iLg5lbbd7 10.h3 iLxf.3 l1.i..xf.3 h6 12.i..e3 :e8- 13. ~d2± L.Hazai - Zakic, Budapest 1991. White has the two-bishop advantage and extra space. He has the initiative on both sides of the board. 8.0-0

8 •.. lbbd7 8 ... a5 - this move only weakens b5 since Black fails to secure his knight on c5. 9.i..e3lbbd7 (on 9 ... lba6 10.lbd2 e5 11.a3 h6 12. b4± White realised the thematic push b2-b4, whilst Black has nothing to boast with on the opposite flank, Kecskes - Mate, Budapest 1995) 10.~c2lbc5 (10 ...

l.e4 tDc6 2.tDf3 g6 3.d4

tDeS?! Sismanis - Vazouras, 2000, 11Jladl±) 1l.J:Iad1 b6 12. a3 tDg4 13.i.d4 tDf6 14.h4± Linde strom - Rotariu, corr. 1995, domination in space and clear play in the centre and on the queenside promise White a longterm advantage. S... i.g4 - this move only presents the opponent with the bishop pair advantage without anything in return. 9.h3 i.xf3 10.i.xf3 tDbd7 11.i.e3 c6 (lL.e5 12.b4 tDeS 13.c5 f5 14.c6± Likavsky - Felcir, Tatranske Zruby 2001- White's threats in the centre and on the queenside are very dangerous whilst it is difficult for Black to organise counterplay. 11 ... c5 12.t:'l'd2± leads to Benoni structures. White is able to play at any part of the board and the enemy is doomed to wait, Pham Minh - Phung Nguyen, Hanoi 2002. After 11...a5 12J:Ic1 b6 13.a3 h6 14.t:'l'c2 ~h7 15.b4± Black has nothing to oppose to White's queenside initiative, Huss - Mikavica, Zurich 19S9.) 12. t:'l'b3 t:'l'c7 13.l:!.acll:!.feS 14.a3 e6 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.l':i.fd1 ':'ebS 17.'~c2 a5 lS.tDa4 tDeS 19J:tb1 ':'b7 20.g3 ':'abS 2l.b3± Jansa Nikolic, Vrnjacka Banja 1975. Black is without counterplay. The opponent will double rooks on the d-file and will gradually prepare a decisive kingside attack. Black's plan to push b7 -b5 will create plenty of weaknesses for him.

S... c6 9.':'b1 a6 (Mter 9 ... i.g4 10.i.e3 i.xf3 1l.i.xf3, in the game Kleist - Davis, New York 2001, there arose a position from the Benoni Defence. White had a stable advantage, which was quite typical for that pawn-structure. He also had a couple of extra tempi in comparison to the usual lines.) 10.a3 b5 11.cxb5 cxb5 12.tDd4 e5 13.dxe6 fxe6 14. i.e3 t:'l'e7 15. t:'l'b3 c,t>hS 16.a4 e5 17.tDc2 i.e6 lS.t:'l'a3 tDc6 19. IUdl± Aseev - Petit, Ubeda 1996. S... c5. White can easily occupy the centre in the Benoni Defence, especially with several extra tempi. 9.h3 tDa6 10.i.f4 tDc7 1l.e5±, Strikovic - Del Rey, Mondariz 1995. S... e6 9.dxe6 (It is possibly better for White to try: 9.i.g5 h6 10.iLe3.) iLxe6 10.tDd4 tDc6 1l. iLe3 tDd7 12J:Ic1 tDxd4 13 ...ixd4;!:;, and White has extra space, Gleizerov - Rossi, Padova 1999. S... tDa6 9.iLe3 i.d7 (9 ... tDc5 is not better. Mter 10. t:'l'c2 a5 11. .l:.ad1 tDg4 12.i.d4 f6 13.h3 tDe5 14.tDxe5 fxe5 15.i.e3± GritsakG.Kuzmin, Swidnica 1999, White possesses a clear plan for organising an attack on the queenside. He is going to push b4 whilst the opponent is deprived of counterplay. Alternatively, 10 ... tDg4 1l.i.d4 e5 12.dxe6 tDxe6 13.i.xg7 c,t>xg7 14J~ad1;!:; ensures White a small, but lasting edge due to his spatial advantage and possibilities for active play all over the board, Baumgartner 91

Chapter 6 Tibbert, corr. 1989.) 10J:tc1 :e8 ll.a3 e6 12.dxe6 (It is more logical for White to play 12.b4!? exd5 13.exd5;1;, and he has a clear advantage due to the quite misplaced black knight on the a6square.) 12 ... l:txe6 13.ltJd4 lle8 14.f3, and once-again Black has problems typical for the King's Indian Defence in positions after an exchange on d4, Kiriakov Nisipeanu, Santo Domingo 2003. 8 ... e5 9.~g5 (The Petrosian System in action again ... ) 9 ... hS 10.~h4 ttJbd7 (10 ... g5 l1.i.g3 ltJh5 12.ttJe1 ttJf4 13.~g4 ttJd7 14.ltJc2 ltJf6 15.~xc8 l:!xc8 16. ltJe3± Radziewicz - N emcova, Wuppertal 1998) 1l.ltJd2 lie8 (Following ll ... a6 12.b4± White is way ahead in his attack, Huss - Hamed, Thessaloniki 1984. A logical answer to ll ... c5, Rogers - Sitanggang, Hong Kong 1982 is 12.a3±, preparing b2-b4 with a strong bind on the queenside.) 12.b4 ttJf8, Galyas - B.Nagy, Budapest 2003. Now the spatial advantage and lead in development enable the thematic breaktrough 13.c5± without any further preparation. 9.~e3

92

9 ... c6 By this move Black is planning to open up the c-file. However White is better prepared for play on the queenside so his chances for taking over the open file are higher. Alternatives are: 9 ... a5 10"~c2 - see 8 ... a5 9 ..te3 ttJbd7 10.'~·c2; 9 ... ttJc5 10.'~c2 - see 8 ... ltJaS 9.i.e3 ttJc5 10.~c2.

9 .. J~e8. This move has no independent significance. One way or another Black will transfer the play to the King's Indian or Modern Benoni. 10. ~c2 c5. In the current game he preferred the Modern Benoni. White shows yet another way to convert the two extra tempi into an advantage: ll.ttJd2 as 12.l:!ad1 ~c7 13.h3 e6 14.dxe6 fxeS 15.ttJf3 ttJf8 lS.l:!d2± Tisdall- Ng, Jakarta 1997; 9 ... c5 - this is another way of transposing to the Modern Benoni. 10.ttJd2 ltJe5 (To 10 ... ttJe8, Dupont - Avron, France 2002, White could take over the centre by l1.f4. Now Black's attempts to generate counterplay fail, e.g. 11 ... ~bS 12.l:tbl± or 11 ... .td4 12.~f2 i.xf2+ 13.:xf2 eS 14.ttJf3± with excellent prospects in the centre or on either flank.) ll.h3 as 12.a4 b6 13.f4 ttJed7 14 ..tf2 i.b7 15.3Lg3 e5 16.f5 with a kingside attack and a solid space advantage, Lysyj - Turdialiev, Denizli 2004; 9 ... e6 - Black is suffocating because of lack of space, but

1.e4 lbc6 2.lb{3 g6 3.d4 opening up central files favours White who is ahead in development. 10. ~c2 a6 (hardly better is 10 ... lbe5 11.lbxe5 dxe5 12JHdl exd5 13.cxd5±. White's initiative in the centre and on the left wing is clearly outweighing the enemy's counterplay on the other side of the board, Seidl Kamal, Schlosspark 1996) II. llad1 ~e8, Zimmer - Puster, Germany 1996, 12.h3± Black is unable to set up an active plan whilst the opponent could advance in the centre and on the queenside; 9 ... e5 - at the surface this looks like the Classical KID, but White has two extra tempi! 10.lbd2! - a typical KID manoeuvre, which is aimed at utilising a future weakening of the a5 or b6 squares. 10 .. .lbe8 (10 ... ~h8?! wastes yet another tempo - 11.b4 lbe8 12.c5 f5 13.f3 1:.g8 14.c6 lbdf6 15.cxb7 i.xb7 16.lbc4 lbh5 17.lba5± Kleeschaetzky - H. Urban, Germany 1995) 11.b4 a5, Brond - Stella, Mar del Plata 1967 (11 ... f5 12.£3 f4 13.i.f2 g5 14.c5 lbdf6 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.lbc4 l:If7 17.a4± Longren - Nazarian, USA 1996, leads to a pet line of V. Korchnoi against the KID with two extra tempi at that!), when simplest is 12.a3 f5 13.f3± - the move a 7-a5 only has weakened Black's queenside; 9 ... lbg4 10.i.d4 lbge5 (or 10 ... lbgf6 11.h3 c5 12.i.e3 a6 13. ~d2± Salata - Cierny, Rimavska Sobota 1975, again we have the

Modern Benoni with two extra tempi for White) 11.lbxe5 lbxe5 (not any better is 11.. .dxe5 12. i.e3 f5 13.£3 lbf6 14.c5±, when White's initiative on the left side ofthe board is outpacing Black's play on the kingside, Belli Pino - Carvajal, La Paz 2000) 12.c5 i.d7?? (12 ... dxc5 13.i.xc5±) 13.f4 1-0 Azevedo - Batista, corr. 1998. IO.h3

IO ••• lbe8 Alternatives are: 10 ... ~c7 11.1:.e1 lbc5 12.e5 lbfe4 13.lbxe4 lbxe4 14.i.d3 lbc5 15.iH1 cxd5 16.cxd5 a5 17J;tcl± White has gained space in the centre which allows him to attack on either flank, Arutiunov - Bannik, Yerevan 1981; 10 ... ~a5 11.l:tc1 c5 - the Modern Benoni again. 12.a3 a6 13. ~d2 b5 14.b4! cxb4 (there is no sufficient compensation for the queen after 14 ... ~xa315.e5 dxe5 16.l:ta1 ~xb4 17.:ili1 e4 18.lbg5 bxc4 19.:a4!±) 15.axb4 ~xb4 16. :bl± all the files on the queenside open up in favour of White who is better developed and dominates in the centre, Fajardo - Majul, Barranquilla 1999;

93

Chapter 6

10 ... l2Jc5 l1.~c2 cxd5 12.cxd5 (12 ... a5 13JHd1 ~d7 14. ~xc5 dxc5 15.e5± Lelchuk Zatulovskaya, Alma-Ata 1980) 13.~ac1 .l:lc8 14.~b1 a5, H.Kramer - L.Szabo, Zaanstreek 1946, when White could grasp the initiative on the queenside by 15.b4 axb4 16.~xb4±; 10 ... a6 1l.a4 cxd5 12.cxd5 ~a5 13.l2Jd2 l2Jc5, Basin - Thomas, Detroit 1991. Black has compromised his queenside. A consistent way of using that seems 14.l2Jc4 ~c7 15. ~c2± with fair chances oftaking over the only open file and bright prospects in the centre and on the kingside. l1.t!.cl a6 ~d7

4 ... l2Jb8 5.c4 d6 transposes to the line a. 5.l2Jxe5 ~xe5 6.c4 d6 About 6 ... ~g7 7.Si.d3 d6 - see 6 ... d6 7.~d3 ~g7. 7.~d3l2Jf6 7 ... ~g7 8.0-0

l2Jf6 9.l2Jc3 0-0 10.h3 e6 (White has the better game after 10 ... e5 l1...ig5 h6 12.~e3l2Jh513.~d2 ~h4, Davies - Hoi, Espergaerde 1987, when White could practically force the opponent to part with some material by the simple 14.l2Jb5 ~d8 15.Si.xh6±; 14 ... l2Jf4 15.l2Jxc7 l2Jxh3+ 16.gxh3 Si.xh3 17.f3±. By a precise defence White should be able to neutralise the enemy threats on the kingside.) 11..~g5 c6 12. ~d2 cxd5 13.cxd5 e5 14.a4 12.dxc6! bxc6 13.c5 dxc5 a6 15.a5 Si.d7 16.l2Ja4± Black has 14.~xc5 l2Jc7, A.Yegiazarian nothing to oppose to White's iniKalantarian, Yerevan 1995. tiative on the queenside, KaspaBlack's pawn chain is ruined, the rov - Lefstein, Catonsville (sipieces are ill-coordinated. These multan) 1997. drawbacks could be underlined 7 ... e6 - this move is un conby the calm 15.~e3±. sistent. Black is "threatening" to create himself a stranded pawn b) 3 ... ~g7 4.d5 on c7 after exchanging on d5. (diagram) 8.l2Jd2 exd5 9.cxd5 l2Jf6 (relaThe only move for Black here tively better is 9 ... ~g7 10.0-0±, that leads to original positions is: when White still has more space, 4 ... l2Je5 better development and easy 94

l.e4 lDc6 2.lD{3 g6 3.d4 play against the c7-pawn) 10. lDf3 lDd7 11.lDxe5 lDxe5 12.0-0±. The vulnerable dark squares in Black's camp ensure a solid advantage to White, I.Ibragimov Delithanasis, Ano Liosia 1995. 7 ... c6 8.0-0 g5!? - this is a logical attempt to bolster up the strong bishop in the centre. (White's play is easier in the event of 8 ... i.g7 9.lDc3 lDf6 10. h3 0-0 11.i.e3 i.d7, Somlai - G. Horvath, Pecs 1998. Now 12.f4 '?fic7 13.'?fif3;!; keeping all options open seems quite good.) 9.lDc3 h6 10.i.e3 lDf6 11.f3 l:tg8 12. '?fid2 i.d7 13.lDe2 e6 14.dxe6 i.xe6, Roeder - Van Mil, Germany 2002. Here logical continuation of White's strategy is 15. lDd4;!; threatening to swap the light-squared bishop or drop onto f5. 7 ... c5 8.0-0 lDf6 (or 8 ... Si.g7 9.lDc3 lDf6 10.f4 0-0, Malich G.Gonzales, Leipzig 1973. In the current position White is able to gain space on the kingside and gradually p;repare a storm there. 11.f5 lDd7 12.i.e3 lDe5 13.i.e2;!;) 9.lDd2 lDh5, Moller - Hertweck, Germany 1994 (in response to 9 ... i.g4, Dudukin - N.Gavrilov, Bor 2000, White has 10. '?fia4+

i.d7 11. ~b3±; or 10 ... ~d7 11. ~xd7+ i.xd7 12.lDf3± and White is on top on account of the strong bishop pair.), 10.lDf3 i.g7 11. lIe1 0-0 (11 ... e5 12.dxe6 fxe6 13. e5 0-0 14.i.e4±) 12.h3 e5. The only active try. 13.dxe6 fxe6 (13 ... i.xe6 14.i.g5 '?fib6 15.:tb1;!;) 14.e5 dxe5 15.i.g5 '?fic7 16.i.e4;!; the extra central pawn hinders Black's bishop from coming into play. B.lDc30-0 Or 8 ... i.xc3 9.bxc3 l:te8 10. 0-0, and White has a bishop-pair and in case the game is opened he will enjoy a stable advantage.

9.Si.h6 l:teB 10.'?fid2 lDg4 (otherwise White's bishop will support an eventual kingside attack) 1l.Si.g5 i.f6 12.i.xf6 lDxf6 13. 0-0 lDd7 14.f4 c6 15.'it>h1 ~b6 16Jlae1 '?fid417J:te3± Matulovic - Stojanovic, Yugoslavia 1994.

Conclusion In this chapter we examine positions which are known from the King's Indian or Modern Benoni. However Black wasted time on manoeuvres with the queen's knight which gives White in comparison to the above-mentioned openings important extra tempi for development. Therefore the first players can count on a tangible advantage. 95

Chapter 7

l.e4 ct:Jc6 2.ct:Jf3 d6

most logical. White however, obtains a stable advantage with a temporary queen-sacrifice. 4 ... Si.xf3?! - a dubious move. Black is wasting time and gives the opponent the bishop pair advantage. 5. ~xf3 ttJeS 6. ~b3 ~cS (much worse is 6 ... ttJf6? 7.~xb7 ttJxe4 S.Si.bS+ ttJd7 9. The basic idea of that move is Si.xd7+ 'it>xd7 10:~c6+-; 7 ... ~bS to develop the bishop to the g4- S.~a6 ~b4+ 9.ttJc3 g6 10.Si.bS+ square, followed by d6-d5, usu- 'it>dS 11.a3 ~d4 12.i.e3+- Lyally preceded by e7-e6. tchak - Mittag, Germany 1997; Black is unable to regain the 3.d4 We will analyse in details: a) pawn: 9 ... ttJxe4 10.i.bS+ 'it>dS 11. 3 ... Ji.g4, b) 3 ...f5 and c) 3 •. /2\f6. ~b7 .tIcS 12.a3 ~d413.i.e3+-) 7. About 3...g6 - see 2 ... g6; about f4 ttJd7 (After 7 ... ttJg6?! S.Si.d3 e6 3 ... e6 4.ttJc3 - see l.e4 e6 2.d4 9.dxe6 fxe6 10.Si.c4+- Black will ttJc6 3.ttJf3 d6 4.ttJc3; as for 3 ... e5 hardly finish development, En4.Ji.b5 - see Chapter 17 from our gelhart - Hallmann, Oeffingen Book 1. 2002; somewhat better is S... c6 9.0-0 ttJf6 10.ttJc3±) S.Ji.e3 ttJgf6 a) 3 ..• Ji.g4 9.ttJd2 g6, Basheer - Djikerian, This move is obviously pre- Beirut 2000, when simplest is mature, because after White's 10.Si.e2 Ji.g7 11.0-0±. Although Black's position looks very solid, most natural move: 4.d5! the lead in development and the Black is faced with serious bishop pair secure an advantage problems to solve. to White. 4 ••• ttJe5 In case of 4 ... ttJbS, Black preThis reaction seems to be the sents White with two tempi; 96

l.e4 ctJc6 2.ctJ{3 d6 3.d4

moreover his prematurely developed bishop comes under attack too. 5.h3, and now no matter where Black retreats his bishop - White easily obtains a great advantage:

e5 9.dxe6 3l..xe6 10.lbd4 ..id7 11. ii.c4 ii.e7 12. '§e2 lbc6 13.0-0-0 ~cB 14.f4 0-0 15.g4lbh7 16.ctJd5 i.dB 17.ctJf5 .l:i.eB 1B.~g2 i.e6 19.h4 'iit'hB 20.g5 h5 21.g6 fxg6 22. ~xg6 ~d7 23 ..l:i.dg1 ZifB 24. lbde7 1-0 Boleslavsky - DuzKhotimirsky, Moscow 1942. 5.ctJxe5 ii.xdl 6.~b5+ c6 7.dxc6

and now no matter where Black retreats his bishop - White easily obtains a great advantage: 5 ... ii.h5 6:~e2 lbf6 7.g4 ii.g6 B.lbc3 e5 9.dxe6 fxe6 10.e5 lbfd7 7 •.• '§a5+ 11.exd6 ii.xd6 12.~g5 lbf6 13. This is better than: 7 ... a6? B. ~xe6± Radulov - Calvo Minguez, c7+ axb5 9.cxdB'§+ .l:i.xdBI0.lbxf7 'iit'xf7 11.'iit'dl, and White remains Siegen 1970; 5 ... ii.xf3 6.~xf3 lbd7 (6 ... lbf6 with a solid extra pawn in the 7.'§b3 lbbd7?! B.'§xb7 lbxe4 endgame. 9.lba3 '§bB 10.'§c6±; 7 ... '§cB 8.lbc3 0-0-0 B... a6 9.b4! (This is much B.ii.e3lbbd7 - see 6 ... lbd7 7. ~b3 ~cB B.ii.e3 lbgf6; 6 ... g6 7.lbc3 stronger than: 9.lbc4 '§xb5 10. ~g7 B.g4lbf6 9.h4 h5 10.g5lbfd7 lbxb5 axb5 11.ctJb6 .l:.a6 12.ctJd5 11.~d2± Hamdouchi - Picarda, l:txc6 13.'iit'xd1, as it was played Cannes 1999) 7.~b3 '§cB B.~e3 in the game Duppel - Schlindlbgf6 9.lbd2 g6 10.~e2 ii.g7 11. wein, Germany 2000.) 9 ... axb5 0-00-0 12.c3 c5 13.a4 ~c7 14.a5 (9 ... ~xb5 10.lbxb5 axb5 11.cxb7 a6 15.f4 lIfbB 16. ~c2 ctJeB 17.ctJc4 l:tbB 12.lbc6 l:1xb7 13.'iit'xdl+-) ii.h6 18.~d2 .l:i.dB 19.ii.g4± Al 10.bxa5 bxc6 Il.ctJxc6 ii.xc2 12. Modiahki - Eid, Dubai 1995; lbb4! and Black's bishop is com5 ... ~cB - Black is just mak- pletely isolated: 12 ... ii.a4 13. ing fun of the chess-playing axi- lbcd5! lIa5 (13 ... ~c8 14.lbb6 .l:.bB oms and therefore the fact that 15.ii.e3+- and Black will have he got crushed is hardly surpris- problems to stop White's passed ing: 6.lbc3 ctJf6 7.~g5 h6 B.ii.e3 a-pawn.) 14.lbc6 bIaB 15.ctJc7+ 97

Chapter 7 <;t>d7 16.lLlaB ~c6 17.i..e3 lLlf6 1B ..l::i.c1+! <;t>b7 19.1Llb6+-, and White's position is totally winning. 9.lLlc4

9 .. :~c7 It is just terrible for Black to continue with: 9 ... thc3 10.bxc3 i..xc2, Gaggiottini - Giurato, Gubbio 1999, 1l.lLla5 i..xe4 12. lLlxb7 lleB 13.£3 i..f5 14.~e3±. In case of9 ... ~b4, White must play very resolutely and exploiting his lead in development he can organize a powerful kingside attack: 10.a3 ~c5 (In the event of 10 ... ~xc3, White should play like after 9 ... ~xc3. The fact that the pawn is already on a3 does not make any difference.) 1l.i..e3 ~h5 12 ..l::i.xd1, and Black is already probably beyond salvation, for example: 12 ... bxc6 (12 ... ~bB 13.cxb7 <;t>xb7 14.lLla5+ ~aB 15. ~c6+ ~bB 16.~d5+-) 13.i..xc6 a6 (13 ... e6 hardly helps much against White's attack, the game Spraggett - South, Canada 1976 did not last long: 14.ct:Jb5! d5 15.ct:Jxa7+ ~bB 16.lLlb5 ~xd1+ 17.~xd1 dxc4+ 1B.~e2 e5 19.i..b6 1-0. There is nothing surprising 9B

about that if we see Black's kingside pieces which failed to come into play; Black loses immediately after the greedy: 13 ... ~g6? 14.~xa7 ~xg2 15.lLlb5 :leB 16JH1 +-; Black will have to defend against a very dangerous attack after: 13 ... lLlf6 14.lLlb5, for example: 14 ... a6 15.lLla7 'It>bB 16. ~d3+-.) 14 ..l:.d5 ~g6 15.I:ta5!! ~xg2 16Jha6!! ~xh1 17.'lt>e2 d5 1B.lLlb5! with unavoidable mate. 10.lLld5 ~xc2 10 ... bxc6 11..lta6+ 'It>bB 12. lLlxc7 ~xc2 13.~d2 ~xe4 14. ~a5+- Donaldson - South, Seattle 19BB. 10 .. :§bB 1l.c7 ~aB 12.lLlcb6+ axb6 13.lLlxb6+ 'It>xc7 14.lLlxaB+ ':xaB 15.'lt>xd1+- Ramirez Gonzalez - Mingo Fernandez, Tarrega 1995. 10 ... ~xc6 11.~xc6 bxc6 12. 'It>xd1 cxd5 13.exd5 lLlf6 14.lLle3 e6± Donaldson - Ambler, Seattle 19BB - and White remains with a solid extra pawn. 1l.lLlxc7 ~xc7 12.cxb7 ..txe4 13 ...te3 'It>xb7 It is not better for Black to play: 13 ... ~xg2 14.lLla5 'It>bB (Black loses after: 14 ... ..txh1 15. i..xa7 ~xb7 16.~c1+ i..c6 17. lLlxc6+-) 15.~c6 i..h3 (15 ... i..xh1 16.i..xh1 ~d 7 17 .llc1 +-; 16 ... neB 17.:c1 lLlf6 1B.~c6 lIdB 19. ..tb5+-) 16.i..d5 i..d7 17.i..xf7 g6 1B.0-0-0±, and White's initiative is very dangerous despite the material equality. 14.£3 ..td5

l.e4 ctJc6 2. ctJ(3 d6 3.d4

15.tija5+ 'it>b8 16.i.c6 i.e6 17 . .l:i.d1 ctJf6 18.l:.d4 'it>c7 19. O-O± and White's attack is powerful in that endgame, Palkovi Brandies, Hungary 1992. b) 3 •.• f5

This risky attempt by Black to fight for the centre will not be effective at all. White can easily prove it to be unnatural and premature. 4. ctJc3 ctJf6 Black would not fare any better after: 4 ... fxe4 5.ctJxe4 ctJf6 (5 ... g6 6.d5 ctJb8 7.i.d3±; 5 ... d5 6.ctJc3 ctJf6 7.i.b5±) 6.ctJxf6+ exf6 7.d5 ctJe5 8.ctJd4, Gligoric - Rosenstein, USA 1963, Black's position is very difficult. His e6square is quite weak; White has extra space and better development.

5.exf5 i.xf5 6.d5 lLlb4 After 6 ... lLle5, Black's developed pieces can be attacked: 7.lLld4 i.d7 8.f4 lLlg6 (8 ... lLleg4 9.h3 lLlh6 10.g4±, and White's lead in development is overwhelming; 8 ... lLlf7 9.i.b5±, and White's knight penetrates the e6-square.) 9.h4±, Black's defence is extremely difficult, because of the problems with the development of his kingside. It is not better for Black to try: 6 ... ctJb8 7.ctJd4 i.d7 8.i.c4 c6 9. 0-0 b5 (9 ... i.g4 10. ~e1 cxd5 1l.lLlxd5 e5 12.f3 i.d7 13.f4 ctJc6 14.fxe5 ctJxe5 15.lLle6 i.xe6 16. lLlxf6+ gxf6 17.i.xe6+-) 10.dxc6 bxc4 1l.cxd7+ lLlbxd7 (11...'~xd7 12.~f3 d5 13.i.g5+-) 12.ctJe6 ~a5 13.~e1 +-. 7.ctJd4 ~d7 After 7 ... i.d7 8.a3lLla6 9.i.a6 ba 10.i.g5 'it>f7 11.~f3±, White dominates in the centre and he has a great advantage, because of the weak light squares in Black's camp. It is still slightly better for Black to try: 7 ... ~c8 8.i.c4 c6 9.dxc6, but he has great problems to solve with his development: 9 ... ctJxc6 (9 ... bxc6 10.0-0 d5 11.i.b3±, and White has a huge lead in development and pressure in the centre.) 10.0-0 ctJxd4 (10 ... ctJe5 1l.i.b5+ c;t>f7 12.i.a4 g6 13.i.b3+ c;t>g7 14. lLlxf5+ ~xf5 15.lLlb5! lLlf3+ 16. ~xf3 ~xb5 17.i.e6+-) 11.~xd4 i.xc2 12JIe1 e5 (12 ... i.f5 13. 99

Chapter 7 .ig5±) 13.f4 e4 (13 ....~g4 14. .l:Ibl±) 16.tDxf5 gxf5 17. ~e2 tDf6 tDb5±, and White has a powerful 1B.c5±. attack against Black's king stranded in the centre, despite the material equality.) 14.tDxe4 .ixe4 15..lhe4+ tDxe4 16:~xe4+ 'iti>dB(16 ... .ie717 ..ie3+-) 17 ..id5 ~d7 1B ..ie3 .ie7 (lB .. :~eB 19. ~d3 ~a4 20 . .id4±) 19 . .ixb7 .l:[bB 20 ..ic6 d5 (20 ... ~c7 2l. b4!±) 21.~e5 ~d6 22.~xg7 ~f6 (22 ... .if6 23.~xa7+-; 22 ... .:.fB 23. ~c3+-) 23 ..id4+- and White's 14.~e4 e5 (White remains compensation for the exchange with a solid extra pawn in the is excellent with a couple of endgame after: 14 ... tLJf6 15. ~xc6 pawns and two all-powerful bish- ~xc6 16.tDxc6 .id7 17.tDxa7l:rc7 ops dominating all over the 1B ..ixd7+ 'iti>xd7 19.tDb5 l:rxc2 20.tLld4l:tc4 21..ie3+-.) 15•.ixe6 board. S ..ib5 e6 9.dxe6 bxe6 .tixe6 16.tLlxe6 tLlf6 17.~a4 .if5 Black cannot solve his prob- lS.f3 tLJd5 19.~b5+-. White lems with 9 ... tLJxc6, after the pressed easily his advantage natural reaction: 10.tLJf5 ~f5 home in the game Stoltz - Mi11.0-0, and White remains with kenas, Warsaw 1935. a clear advantage - he has a bishop-pair in an open position, e) 3 ...tLlf6 4.tLle3 moreover Black must solve the problem of the safety of his king. 10..ia4 MeS 10 ... .ig6 1l.a3 e5 12.axb4 exd4 13. ~xd4+-. 1l.a3 tDbd5 11 ... tDa6 12. ~f3 .ig4 13. ~xc6+-.

12.tDxd5 tDxd5 13. ~f3 .ig4 Black cannot solve the problems of the defence with his other moves either: 13 ... e6 14. tDxf5 exf5 15.0-0±, or 13 ... g6 14.c4 .ig4 15.~e4 .if5 (15 ... tDf6 16. ~xc6 ~xc6 17 ..ixc6+ .id 7 1B ...Itxd7+ tDxd7 19.b3 tDc5 20. 100

4 ....ig4 Besides that logical move, we will analyse too: 4 ... d5, 4 ... .id7, 4 ... e6, 4 ... e5 and even the more logical 4 ... a6, with the idea to prevent White from playing ..Itb5, as well as 4 ... g6, transposing to

1.e4 ttJc6 2.ttJ{3 d6 3.d4

the Pirc Defence. About 4 ... e6 5.d5 - see l.e4 e6 2.d4 ttJc6 3.ttJf3 d6 4.ttJc3 ttJf6 5.d5. 4 ... d5 5.e5 ttJe4 6 ...id3 ..if5 7:ffie2 ttJxc3 8.bxc3t. 4 ... ..id7 5.e5 dxe5 6.dxe5 ttJg4 7 ...if4±. 4 ... e5 5 ...ib5 - this transfers to the Ruy Lopez and the main lines have been analysed in our book 1 (5 ... ..id7 6 ...ixc6 -line a, Chapter 17, 5 ... exd4 6.ttJxd4 ..id7 7.i.xc6 - variation b, Chapter 17), now we will analyse some seldom played lines: After 5 ... a6? 6 ...ixc6 bxc6 7.dxe5± Luque- Walters, Luzern 1968, White has a solid extra pawn in the centre; The same happens to Black after: 5 ... ..ie7? 6.dxe5 dxe5 7. 'ffixd8 ..ixd8 8.ttJxe5± Redichova - Suchoradska, Czech Republic 1999; In case of 5 ... ..ig4?, White's simplest line is: 6.d5 a6 7 ...ia4 b5 8.ttJxb5 axb5 9.i.xb5 ..id7 10. dxc6+- Krupkova - Jurikova, Czech Republic 1993; The move 5 ... ttJd7, does not help Black's development and its only merit is that the e5-pawn has been defended, therefore White should not be attracted by the possible doubling of pawns, instead, he should simply develop his pieces, for example: 6. 0-0 ..ie7 7.ttJd5 0-0 8.ttJxe7+ 'ffixe7 9J:telt, as it was played in the game Stoliar - Antoshin, Leningrad 1957. White has a

slight, but stable advantage with his two bishops and complete dominance in the centre. 4 ... g6 5 ...ib5 (That move emphasizes the fact that the development of the knight to c6 is still rather premature for Black.) 5 ... a6 (It is too bad for Black to play: 5 ... ..id7 6.e5! dxe5 7.dxe5 ttJg4 8. 'ffie2 ..ig7 9 ...if4 a6 10.i.c4 e6 11.h3 ttJh6 12.0-0-0 ttJf5 13. ttJe4 'ffie7 14.g4 ttJh6 15.ttJf6+Wojtkiewicz - Stenzel, Nassau 1999.) 6 ...ixc6+ (White plays the following line quite seldom, but it is still interesting: 6 ...ia4!? b5 7 ...ib3 ..ig7 B.h3 0-09.0-0 e6 10. a3 ..ib7 11.':e1 ttJa5 12 ...ia2 c5 13. d5 e5 14.b4 cxb4 15.axb4 'ffic7 16. bxa5 'ffixc3 17 ...id2 'ffic7 1B.c4± Kozakov - Zajarnyi, Lviv 1998) 6 ... bxc6 7.h3± (The main defect of Black's position is that his pawns in the centre are immobile and they stand in the way of his own pieces.) 7 ... ..ig7 8.0-0 0-0 9.ne1 .ubB (9 ... ttJd7 10 ..ie3 ..ib7 11. 'ffid2 c5, Kacheishvili Yilmaz, Ankara 1997, now it is good to start play against the weak pawns: 12.dxc5 ttJxc5 13. ..ixc5 dxc5 14. 'ffig5, for example: 14 ... 'ffid6 15.l:tad1 iLd4 16.4:Je2±; 15 ... 4:Jc6 16.4:Jd5±; 15 ... 'ffib6 16. 4:Ja4 'ffib5 17.ttJxc5 .if6 18.'ffie3± Black's bishop pair is not enough to compensate the lack of pawn, because White's pieces are very active. For instance, lB .. .iLxb2? fails to 19.J:lbl+- with severe material losses, or 14 ... i.xc3 15.bxc3 'ffid6 16.l:i.ad1 'ffie6 17. 101

Chapter 7 ~xc5 ~xa2 1B.ttJd4!±; 15 ... f5 16. ~h6 e5 - worse is 16 ... e6 17.ttJg5 ~e7 1B.exf5± -17.ttJxe5 ~d6 lB.

exf5 .i:!.xf5 19.ttJg4±. White is a sound pawn up.) 10 ..i:!.b1 h6 (10 ... ttJd7 11..~g5!? h6 12.ii.h4 g5 13. ii.g3 e5 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.~d3 'ifie7 16.ttJa4 .i:!.eB 17. ~c3 ttJf8 1B.b3 ~f6 19.ttJc5 ttJg6 20.l:.bd1 ~f8 2l. ttJd3 .td6 22. 'ifixc6 .txh3 23. ttJdxe5 ttJxe5 24 ..txe5 ':'xe5 25. ttJxe5 ~xe5 26Jhd6 cxd6 27. gh+- Vuckovic - Petronijevic, Budva 2003.) 1l..te3 ~h7 12. ~d3 ttJd7, Mehlhorn - Diebl, Germany 1996. Now it is a good idea to fix the weaknesses on the queenside by 13.b4! which leaves Black without counterplay, e.g.: 13 ... e5 14.dxe5 ttJxe5 15.ttJxe5 .te5 16 ..ta7 J:IaB 17 ..td4t. Black had to part with the bishop pair, but not with his weaknesses; 10 ... .tb7 11 ..tg5 h6 12 ..tf4 'it>h7 13.b4 ~d7 (The attempt to activate the bishops by 13 ... ttJh5 14 ..th2 c5 15.bxc5 dxc5 fails to 16.ttJd5! .txd5 17 ..i:!.xbB 'ifixbB 1B.exd5±) 14.~d3t. Black has a solid, but very passive position. It is difficult to find counterplay, Hildner - Dunne, Email 1999. 4 ... a65.h3

102

And now: 5 ... e6 6 ..td3 .te7 7.0-0 h6 (7 ... 0-0 B.a3 e5, Crespo - Schreurs, IECC 1996, 9.d5 ttJbB 10.ttJe2 c6 11.c4±) B.a3 0-0 9 ..te3 .td7 10. 'ifid2 e5 (10 ... b5 is dangerous due to 11.e5 ttJd5 12 ..txh6! gxh6 13.ttJxd5 exd5 14. ~xh6+-) 11.d5 ttJbB 12.ttJe2 c6 13.c4 cxd5 14. cxd5 a5 15.b4±, White seized the centre and has a lasting initiative on the queenside, Studnicka - Vorsilka, Svetla nad Sazavou 199B; The position after 5 ... e5 occurred in several games. Unfortunately simplification by 6.dxe5 does not promise an edge: 6 ... ttJxe5! 7.liJxe5 dxe5 B.~xdB+ Wxd8 9 ..i.g5 .i.e6 10.0-0-0+ WcB 11.f4 exf4 12.e5 liJd7= DelchevDrazic, Nova Gorica 2005. That's why I propose the consistent developing move 6 ..te3 ~e7 (if Black weakens his kingside by 6 ... g6, trying to transpose to the Pirc, 7.dxe5! is already a good option). Here my novelty is 7.g4!?, with the following possibilities: 7 ... h6 B . .i.g2 ~d7 9. ~e2t; 7 ... exd4 B.liJxd4 liJe5 (B ... 0-0 9.g5 liJd7 10.liJxc6 bxc6 11. ~h5 nbB 12.0-0-0±; B... h6 9 ..i.g2±) 9.f4 liJg6 10. ~e2±; 7 ... 0-0 B.g5 liJd7 (B ... liJh5 9.l:.gl±) 9.:g1 exd4 10.ttJxd4 liJxd4 11. ~xd4 liJe5 12 ..te2t liJc6 (12 ... ~xh3 13.0-0-0 .te6 14.f4ii5. Summing up, Black's extra pawn has no influence on the play, whilst the open file h, spatial advantage and advanced pawns on the

1.e4 ctJc6 2.ctJ{3 d6 3.d4 kingside promise White good attacking chances.) 13. ~d2 ~xh3 - that is very risky indeed, but otherwise Black could suffer an attack for free, 14.0-0-0i:O; 5 ... g6 6.iLe3 iLg7 7.~d2

Black tested: 7 ... h6 - this move hampers a short castling, Samar - Ilic, Penrith 2003, 8.d5 ltJe5 (inferior is 8 ... ltJb8 9.a4! ltJbd7 10.iLe2±, White is close to finishing development and beginning active operations on the queenside or in the centre. It is difficult to Black to oppose a sensible plan) 9.ltJxe5 dxe5 10.0-0-0 b5 (or 10 ... ~d6 l1.f3 ~d7 12. ~f2±) 11.f3 e6 (11...~d6 12.~f2±) 12.~c5 exd5 13.exd5 ltJd7 14.iLa3 :b8 15. ltJe4t Black's king is stuck in the centre; 7 ... b5 8.iLd3 e5 (or 8 ... iLb7 9.a40-0 10.axb5 axb5 11.0-0 b4 12.ltJd5 e6, De Coverly - Foster, Kidlington 1991, when White gets a small, but lasting edge by the calm 13.ltJxf6+ ~xf6 14.c4t with a spatial advantage) 9.dxe5 ctJxe5, Limpert - Diebl, Germany 2004, the opponents signed a draw here, but 10.ctJxe5 dxe5

l1.a4 b4 12.ltJa2 a5 13 ..lld1 0-0 14.iLc5 ~e8 15. ~e3t is in White's favour in view of the overextended enemy pawns; 7 ... e6 8.iLh6 0-0 9.~g7 ~xg7, Czoeppan - Klee, Wattens 1995, White managed to swap the central defender - the bishop on g7, so he can afford sharp actions: 10.0-0-0 b5 l1.~e3 b4 12. ltJe2 a5 (too slow is 12 ... ~e7 13. g4! ctJd7 14.g5±) 13.ctJf4 a4 14.e5 ctJd5 (14 ... ctJd7 15.h4±) 15.ctJxd5 exd5 16.iLb5 iLd7 17.iLxc6 ~xc6 18.h4±. The weakness of the kingside dark squares looks a more weighty factor than the faradvanced black pawns on the opposite flank; 7 ... d5?! 8.e5 ctJe4, and in this position, in the game Neves Frazao Portugal 1993, White played 9. ~d3?! and after 9 ... i.f5 failed to hold the position. Naturally, it was much stronger for White to play instead the obvious: 9.ltJxe4! dxe4 10.ctJg5 f6 (10 ... ~d5 1l.b3±) 1l.exf6 exf612. ctJxe4±, and White remains with an extra pawn; 7 ... 0-0 8.d5 ctJa5 9.a4 e6 10. iLe2 exd5 1l.exd5 c6, and here instead of: 12.dxc6 ctJxc6 13.0-0 d5 14.ctJd4t Zhuravliov - Donguines, Moscow 1994, it is more precise for White to play: 12.b4 ctJxd5 13 . .ltd4 ctJxb4 14.~xg7 ctJxc2+ 15. ~xc2 cJ;txg7 16.0-0±, and Black's three pawns for the piece are not sufficient compensation. 5.iLe3 103

Chapter 7

and Black has five logical moves in that position: c1) 5 ... d5, c2) 5 ... e5, c3) 5 ... g6, c4) 5 •.. a6 and c5) 5 ... e6.

CDxe4 (worse is 9 ... ttJxa2+?! 10. ~b1 ttJb4 1l.ttJxf6+ exf6 12. ~xb7±) 10. ~xe4 '§d5 11. ~xd5 CDxd5 12.~d2;!; White obtains a clear advantage in the ending due to his bishop pair. He could increase his edge by gaining more space: 12 ... e6 13.c4 ttJf6 14.g4 0-0-0 15.~e3 'it>b8 16.g5 ttJd7 17.h4 h6 18.~d3 hxg5 19. hxg5± Gibney - Payne, Canada 1999. 8.e5 ttJd7 9.0-0-0 ttJe7 10. ~d3a6

cl) 5 ... d5 This is the pet move ofZvonimir Mestrovic. 6.h3 ~xf3 6 ... ~h5 7.e5 ttJe4 8.ttJe2 e6 9.c3 (I can recommend to the fans of extreme sports 9.ttJf4!? Pavasovic - Kos, Ljubljana 2000, when the best answer 9 ... ~b4+! leads to interesting variations: 10.c3 ttJxc3 11.bxc3 ~xc3+ 12. ~e2 ~xf3+ 13.~xf3 ~xa1 14. '§xa1 f6! 15.~b5 fxe5 16.dxe5 0-0 17.~xc6 bxc618.'it>g4!?t. Despite the original location of White's king, it seems that the minor pieces are stronger than Black's rook with pawns.) 9 ... f6 (after 9 ... ~xf3 10.gxf3 ttJg5 11. ttJf4 h6 12.h4 ttJh7 13.~d3± the activity of White's pieces more than compensate for his pawn weaknesses) 10.ttJf4 ~f7 11.~d3 ~e7 12.,§c2 f5 13.h4± Hagarova - E.Danielian, Batumi 1999. 7.'§xf3 e6 Black tested also 7 ... ttJb4, but following 8.0-0-0 dxe4 9.ttJxe4 104

Black is lagging behind in development so he should refrain from opening up files in the centre by 10 ... c5 11.dxc5 ttJxe5 12.~b5+ ttJ7c6 (or 12 ... ttJ5c6 13. l:thel±) 13.'§g3 a6 14.~a4±. 1l.'§g3 c5 12.dxc5 '§c7 13. ttJa4 ttJg6 Dangerous is 13 ... '§xe5 14. ~f4 '§h5 15J~he1 Iic8 16.ttJb6 'u'xc5 (16 ... CDxb6 17.l:te5± forces Black to sacrifice the queen: 17 ... '§xd1+! 18.'it>xd1 ttJa4 19.b4! ttJc6 20.l:tg5! this powerful resource keeps White's advantage 20 ... ttJxb4 21.Iixg7±) 17.CDxd7 ~xd7 18.l:te5 f5 19.':'xe6±.

14.f4 ttJxc5 15.ttJxc5

~xc5

1.e4 iDc6 2.iDf3 d6 3.d4 iDf6 4.iDc3 16.~xc5 ti'xc5 17.h4± Sveshnikov - Mestrovic, Nova Gorica 2004. White is exerting strong pressure on the kingside in a calm position.

c2) 5 ... e5 6.d5

6 .•. iDb8 After 6 ... lbe7 7.h3, White has a stable space advantage and therefore he is clearly better. The following lines confirm that evaluation: 7 ... ..td7 8.g4!? lbg6 (8 ... h6 9. ti'd2 g5 10.0-0-0;!; Perez Rodriguez - Salgado Gonzalez, Vila de Padron 2000) 9.g5lbg8 10.h4 h6 ll.I:l.g1 a6 12.ti'd2 h5 13 ..ie2 lb6e7 14.0-0-0 g6 15.lbe1 ..tg7 16.f4 iDc8 17.lbd3 exf4 18.iDxf4 ti'e7 19 ...td4 Jie5 20.a4 ~f8 21. ti'e3 ~g7 22.iDd3 b6 23JIdfll:th7 24 ...txe5+ dxe5 25.ti'g3+- Cicak - Kaulfuss, Germany 1995; 7 ... ..txf3 8.ti'xf3 a6 (8 ... h6 9. ti'd1 iDg6 10.g3 ..te7 11. ti'd2 a6 12 ...td3 ti'd7 13.0-0-0 b5 14.f4± Zatulovskaya - Skegina, Riga 1968; White is also better after: 9.a4 c6 10.a5±) 9.0-0-0 iDd7 10.h4 (it is quite effective for White to continue with: 10.g4

~g4 5.~e3

iDg6 ll.g5 Jl..e7 12.h4 0-0 13. .ih3±) 10 ... h5 11.g3 g6 12 ..ih3 .ig7 13. ti'e2 0-0, Hagarova Kriz, Slovakia 1996, and now after the energetic move 14.g4!, he is clearly better: 14 ... hxg4 15 . ..txg4 f5 16 ...tf.3±. 7.h3..th5 7 ... ..tcS S.a4 g6 9.a5 a6 10 ...td3 ..tg7 11.lbe2 0-0 12.c4 lbe8 13. g4± Godena - Di Paolo, Genova 1999. 7 ... SLxf.3 S.ti'xf.3 ..te7 9.g4 c6 (9 ... c5?! 10.g5lbfd7 11.h4± Mista - Janaszak, Zakopane 2001; 9 ... 0-0 10.h4 iDbd7 11.0-0-0 a6 12.iDe2 c6 13.g5± iDeS 14.iDg3 g6 15.dxc6 bxc6 16. ti'g4 iDg7 17.h5 f51S ...tc4+ d519.l:txd5+- Felgaer - Liascovich, Ezeiza 2001) 10.00-0 (10.g5 iDfd7 11.I:l.gl±) 10 ... ti'a5 11.g5 lbfd7 12.h4± Bank Nielsen, Aarhus 1993. 8.g4 ..tg6 9.lbd2 c6 9 ... ..te7 10.g5 lbh5 (l0 ... lbfd7 ll.h4 f6 12. ti'g4 fxg5 13.hxg5 iDb6 14.0-0-0 c5 15.f4± Fressinet - Kovarcik, Montlucon 1997) 11. h4 iDd7? (11...h6 12. ti'g4±; 11 ... f6 12.l:tgl±) 12 ...te2 iDf4 13.SLxf4 exf4 14.h5±.

This position was reached in 105

Chapter 7 the game Nevednichy - Nicolescu, Romania 1992, and White had better play the simple: 10.g5! liJfd7 (It is not any better for Black to continue with: 10 ... liJgB 11.h4 h6 12. ~f3 hxg5 13. hxg5l::txhl14. ~xh1 liJe7 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.0-0-0±; or 10 ... i..h5 11.i..e2 i..xe2 12. ~xe2 liJfd7 13.0-0-0±, and Black has managed to exchange the lightsquared bishops indeed, but he lags in development considerably; 10 ... liJh5 11.h4 i..e7? 12. i..e2+-; 11. .. h6 12. ~f3 hxg5 13.hxg5 i..e7 14.dxc6 bxc6 15. 0-0-0 i..xg5 16.liJc4±.) 1l.h4 h6 12.gxh6 gxh6 13.h5 i..h7 14. ttg1±. Black does not have a single piece that can be defined as reasonably placed. White's advantage in development is overwhelming. c3) 5 ... g6

There arise positions from the Pirc Defence and Black's development of the bishop to the g4square is evidently premature. White can immediately exploit that with: 6.h3 i..xf3 7. ~xf3 i..g7 106

7 ... e5 B.i..b5 liJd7, Varlotta Nazzari, Uruguay 1960, now White can simplify to a very favourable endgame by the strong move 9.i..c4! ~f6 (9 ... f5? 10.exf5 exd4 11.fxg6 liJde5 12. i..f7+-) 10.~xf6 liJxf6 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.0-0-0± White's bishop pair and better development doom the opponent to a long unpleasant defence; 7 ... liJb4?! B.i..b5+ liJd7 (B ... c6 9.i..a4±) 9.i..a4 c6 10.a3 liJa6 11.i..b3. Black is by all means worse. After 11...e6 12.h4± White has a strong initiative on the kingside. Apparently the opponent was fed up with his position because he played 11 ... c5?? 12. ~xf7# Daamen - van der Vliet, Dieren 1979. 8.0-0-00-0 B... a6?! - this appears to be a waste of time since Black can hardly generate serious threats on the queenside. 9.g4 liJd7, Burchardt - Micic, Germany 2003, now White prepares f4 by 10. ~g2!? e6 (more dangerous is 10 ... e5 11.dxe5 i..xe5 12.liJd5±; 11...liJdxe5 12.f4 liJd7 13.liJd5±) 11.f4 ~e7 12.d5 C12.e5 is good too) 12 ... liJdB13.~d2 0-0 14.i..g2 liJb6 15. ~d3± White has two bishops, a big advantage in space and attacking prospects. B... e5?! - this dubious move allows White, who is better developed and has a bishop pair, to open up central files. 9.dxe5 liJxe5 10. ~e2 ~e7 11. i..g5 c6, Bizat - Rowe, Erevan

l.e4'bc6 2.'bf3 d6 3.d4 'bf6 4.'bc3 i.g4 5.Si.e3 1996, 12. t'td2 h6 13.i.e3 i.f8 gathering attack on the kingside. 9 ... a6 10:~g2'bd7 1l.h4 (It is (Black is on the downgrade, but 13oo.~dS 14.f4 'bed7 15.'fhd6± even stronger for White to conjust loses a pawn) 14.f4 'bed7 tinue with: 11.f4! e5 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.f5±, beginning a direct king15.i.d4±. 8oo.'bd7 9.g4 e5 10.dxe5 dxe5, side attack.) 11...e5 12.dxe5 i.xe5 Merklinger - Mueller, Germany 13.'bd5 l::te8 14.g5 'ben Ciocal1999, It is still not clear where tea - Knaak, Bucharest 1975. 9 ... e510.dxe5l'bxe5 11.t'tg2 a6 White's bishop would be needed, so it is better to delay its deploy- (11...I:i.e8 - allows White to start ment. Instead White can start active operations in the centre, immediately active operations on Pitl - Rogers, Augsburg 2005, the kingside. 11. t'tg3'bd4 12.h4± 12.f4'bc6 13.e5'bd7 14.i.b5±. It Black is doomed to uneasy de- is late for a good advice, for infence, for instance 12 ... h5 13. stance 14 ... 'bdb8 15.g5! t;{c8 16. gxh51hh5 14.'bb5 a6 (14 ... 'bxb5 i.e2 gives White full control over 15.i.xb5 c6 16.~e2+-) 15.'bxd4 the centre. That makes it diffiexd4 16.~xd4 i.xd4 17.lhd4± cult for Black to parry the immiwith a sound extra pawn. nent attack. At the same time 9.g4 14 ... dxe5? is even worse: 15. i.xc6 bc 16. t;{xc6 ~e7 17.i.c5+-; Black failed to seize the initiative with the pawn-sacrifice: 11...b5?! 12.~xb5 c6 13.~e2l:tb8 14.f4'bed7 15.i.c4 t;{a5 16.i.b3± in the game Filipenko - Scherbakov, Cheliabinsk 1991; or 12.ool:rbS?! 13.f4 'bed7 14.e5+-; 13 .. J:txb5 14.'bxb5 'bc4 15.t'te2 'bxb2 16.~xb2'bxe4 17.i.d4+-; White can afford to play ag- 15,..'bxe3 16.t;{xe3 t;{b8 17. gressively, because of his extra 'bc3+- Paal- Ozsvath, Hungary space and the two-bishop advan- 2003) 12.g5'bh5 13.i.e2 f5 14.f4 tage. 'bc6 15.exf5 .l:t.xf5 16.'bd5 'be7 9 ... 'bd7 17.i.xh5 gxh5 18. t;{e4 z:.xd5 9oo.a5?! - perhaps this move 19.~xd5 'bxd5 20. t'txd5+ ~h8 is aimed at overtaking the initia- 21.i..d4 c6 22.i..xg7+ ~xg7 23. tive, but in fact it is more a weak- t'te6 t;{eS 24.t;{xd6 1-0 Huebner ening. 10.h4 a4, Alfred - Schu- - Wockenfuss, Germany 1986. lien, Ohio 1981, when after 11.g5 lO.h4 e5 'bh5 (l1...'bd7 12.h5--7) 12.a3±, It is less logical for Black to Black has little to oppose to the play: 10oo.h6, after which in the 107

Chapter 7 game: Perunovic - Lazic, Herceg Novi 1999, White had an overwhelming attack: 11. ~g3 e5 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.tUd5 tUd4 14.g5 c6 15.gxh6 ii.hS 16.h5 'iith7 17. hxg6+ fxg6 lS.:gl IIgS 19.tUc7 ~xc7 20.ii.xd4 b5 21..~.h3 .l:i.af8 22.ii.xd7 ~xd7 23.ii.xe5 ~e6 24. ii.xhS 'it>xhS 25J'td6 ~xe4 26. .l:i.xg6lhg6 27.~xg6 ~f4+ 28.'lt>b1 ~e5 29.a3+-.

1l.dxe5 This opening of the d-file is very attractive for White. He has the bishop-pair and his queen's rook has already occupied the dfile, so opening of the centre is definitely in White's favour. In the game Walsh - Larsen, Munich 1955, which was won by Black, White here played instead ll.d5. 1l ...tUcxe5 We will convince you easily that no matter what Black plays - his position will remain very difficult: 1l ... dxe5 12.g5 tUd4 13.~h3 tUc5 14.h5±; 1l ... Si.xe5 12.tUd5 tUb6 13. ~h3 Si.g7 14.g5 neS 15.h5±; ll ... tUdxe5 12.~h3 tUd7 (12 ... 108

~cS 13.~e2 ~e6 14.h5±) 13.~g5 f6 (13 ... Si.f6 14.tUd5±; 13 ... ~eS 14.h5 ~e6 15.hxg6 ~xg6 16. Si.d2±) 14.Si.d2 tUb6 15.f4±. 12. ~h3 tUb6 Mter 12 ... tUf6 13.ii.e2 ~d7 14.f3 ~e6 15.g5 tUeS (15 ... ~xh3 16 ..l:i.xh3 tUh5 17.f4 tUc6 lS.tUd5±) 16.h5, White has the bishop-pair and space advantage. He can easily organize a kingside attack, so we evaluate his position as winning; if 12 ... a5, then 13.g5 kte8 14.h5 tUf8 15.f4 tUc6 16.hxg6 hxg6 17.f5, and White has a checkmating attack.

13.f4 tUec4 (After Black's other retreats of the knight 13 ... tUc6, or 13 ... tUed7, White's simplest reaction is 14.ii.d2±, with a great advantage for him, because of the bishop-pair, the lead in development and the extra space.) 14.Si.xc4 tUxc4 15. it.d4! Si.xd4 16.IIxd4 (Black's defence did not become any easier after the exchange of several pieces. White enjoys a space advantage and he can proceed with operations in the centre as well as on the kingside.) 16 ... tUb6 17.h5 g5 18.e5 ~e7 (It is

1.e4 tDc6 2.tDj3 d6 3.d4 tDf6 4.tDc3 iJ..g4 S.iJ..e3 not better for Black to play: lS ... gxf4 19.tDe4 cJthS 20.exd6 cxd6 21..l:i.xd6 fic7 22J:rh6±.) 19.exd6 cxd6 20.fid3±. c4) 5 ... a6

That move looks like a loss of time. 6.h3.ih5 6 ... ..td7?! - a weird move, which forces Black to "restart" his king's knight after 7.e5 tDgS S. ~d2± Dos Santos - Lins, Brazil199S. Mter 6 ... .ixf3 7.fixf3 e5 S. 0-0-0 exd4 9 ..ixd4 tDxd4 10. lhd4 tDd7, White plays the spectacular move ll.e5!, and achieves a slight, but long-lasting advantage: 1l ... dxe5 12 ..ic4 ~gS+ 13 ..:!.d2 0-0-0 14.tDe4 ~h6 lS ..tthd1 tDb6 16 ...txf7 .id6 17. fif5+ 'itbS 18.fig5 fixg5 19.tDxg5 h6 20.tDe4t Donev - Thoma, Goetzis 1997. White has no problems to obtain an advantage after Black plays 6 ... .ic8. In the game Fernando - Padeiro, Bobadela 2002, after 7.fid2 g6 8.0-0-0, White controls the centre completely and can patiently organize a

kings ide attack. 7.d5.ixf3 Black prefers to exchange his bishop immediately, instead of isolating it from the actions in the game. Mter 7 ... tDbS, White can create great problems for Black with the energetic move 8.g4!?, which restricts his opponent's bishop: 8 ... .ig6 9.tDd2!? eS 10.de fe 11.gS tDfd7 12.~g4..tf7 13.0-0-0 tDc6 14.f4±. The retreat of the knight in the centre does not look promising for Black at all: 7 ... tDeS 8.g4! ..tg6 9.tDd2 h6 10. f4 tDed7 11..ig2 (It also looks good for White to continue with: 11.f5!? ..th7 12. fie2 g6 13.0-0-0 ..tg7 14.tDf3±, and Black's bishop on h7 is a sorry sight.) 11...e6 12.f5 exfS 13.exf5 fie7 14. fie2 ..Ith715.0-0-0 0-0-016 . .i:i.de1 g6 17.fxg6 ..txg6 18. ~c4 tDeS 19. fid4 b6 20. ~a4± Erendzhenov Azahari, Elista 1998.

8.gxf3! White exerts such powerful pressure after that unexpected capture, that presently nobody has tried to find any improve109

Chapter 7 ment for Black at all in that position. 8 ...ctJb8 9.f4 c6 10..i.g2 'ffic7 11.ti'd4! This centralization is quite logical. White exploits his advantage in space and development and prepares opening of the game. 1l ... cxdS 12.ctJxdS! tbxdS 13.exdS tbd7 14.c4 ctJf6 Otherwise, it is not quite clear how Black can develop his kingside.

1SJ:tc1! g6 16.cS dxcS 17. l:xcS ti'd618.ti'a4+ ctJd7 (Black does not fare any better after: lB ... ti'd7 19. ti'c4±) 19.1:c6! ti'b8 (White's attack is very dangerous too after: 19 ... bxc6 20.dxc6 ]:IcB 21. 'ffixa6!±) 20 . .l:tb6 'ffic8 21.0-0 .u.b8 22.llc1 ti'd8 23.d6 .i.g7 24.nxb7 llxb7 2S.i..xb7 1-0 Onischuk - Miles, Wijk aan Zee 1996. Black failed altogether to bring his king to safety in that game. cS) S ... e6 6.h3 .i.hS White's attack develops much simpler after: 6 ... .i.xf3 7. ti'xf3, for example: 7 ... .i.e7 (7 ... d5 B.e5 110

tbd7 9.0-0-0 - see line c1) B. 0-0-0 0-0 9.g4 tbd7 10.h4 e5 l1.dxe5 tbdxe5 12.ti'g3 tba5 13. f4± Vasta - Scalise, Mar del Plata 2002. 7.dS

7 •.. exdS 7 ... Sl.xf3 B.ti'xf3 tbe5 (B ... exd5 - see 7 ... exd5) 9.ti'e2 c6 (9 ... ti'd7 10.0-0-0 exd5 1l.exd5 i.e7 12.f4 tbg6 13.g4± Brustkern - Przewoznik, Germany 2002) 10.f4 tbed7 11.0-0-0 'ffia5, Vehi Bach - Gonzalez Maza, Catalunya 1996, when 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.g4 b5 14.a3 b4 15.axb4 ti'xb4 16. 'ffic4± leads to a big advantage in the endgame. 7 ... tbbB B.dxe6 fxe6 9.i.c4 c6 (9 ... ti'e7 10.g4 i.g6 1l.tbg5 e5 (1l ... c6 12.tbxe6 tbxe4 13.'ffid4±) 12.ctJd5 tbxd5 13.exd5±) 10.i.xe6 'ffie7 1l.i.b3 tbbd7 (dangerous is 1l ... tbxe4 12.tbxe4 ti'xe4 13.g4 Sl.g6 14.0-0±) 12.0-0± Hallier Michel, corr. 2001. 7 ... tbe5 B.g4 tbxf3+ (Following B... i.g6 9.tbxe5 dxe5 10.i.b5+ tbd7 1l.dxe6 fxe6 12.i..g5 i.e7 13.i.xe7 'ffixe7 14.ti'xd7+ ti'xd7 15.Sl.xd7 + Wxd7, Graziano - Jeff, IECG 1997, the knight is clearly

1.e4l'Dc6 2.l'Df3 d6 3.d4l'Df6 4.l'Dc3 ~g4 5.~e3

better than the bishop which is boxed in by the pawns. White normally should try to create weaknesses on the kingside by 16.h4 h5 17 ..i:tg1 ~hgS lSJ~d1+ We7 19.9xh5 i.xh5 20 ..i:td3±.) 9:~xf3 i.g6 10.0-0-0 i.e7 (10 ... e5, Charlton - Mathers, Halifax 1999, 11.h4 h6 12.h5 i.h7 13.g5 hxg5 14.i.xg5 i.e7 15.h6±; or 11...h5 12.g5 l'Dd7 13.i.h3±; 12 ... l'Dg4 13.i.b5+ We7 14.i.d2±) 11.dxe6 fxe6 12.e5 l'Dd7 13.exd6 cxd6 14.i.d4 e5 15.i.e3± the gaping light squares in the centre and clumsy dark-squared bishop provide White with lasting pressure, especially ifhe manages to swap light-squared bishops, Rahal - Fernandez Montero, Sanlucar 200l. If Black plays 7 ... l'De7 immediately, then after: S.i.b5+ c6 (S ... l'Dd7?! 9.dxe6 fxe6 10.i..c4 i.xf3 11.i.c4 i.xf3 12.gxf3! e5 13.f4±) 9.dxc6, he has two moves at his disposal: 9 ... l'Dxc6 and 9 ... bxc6. In case of9 ... l'Dxc6 10.e5 dxe5, and here White must continue with: ll.~xdS+, with the following lines as an example: 11... WxdS, Rittner - Zavanelli, corr. 2000 (ll..JhdS 12.l'Dxe5 lIcS 13.i.xa7 i.b4 14.i.d4 0-0 15. i.xc6 bxc6 16.l'Dd3 l'Dd5 17.a3;!;) 12.0-0-0+ Wc7 13.g4 i.g6 14. i.xc6 bxc6 15.l'Dxe5 i.d6 (15 ... l'Dd5 16.l'Dxd5+ cxd5 17.c4;±;; 16 ... exd5 17.c4;!;) 16.l'Dc4 i.b4 17.l'Da4 i.e4 lS.i.f4+ WcS 19. lIhg1l'Dd5 20.i.d6 i.g6 (20 ... i.f3

2l.l:i.d4 f6 22.~xb4l'Dxb4 23.l'Dd2 l'Dxa2+ 24.'it>bl±) 21.l'Dc5 l:tdS 22.a3;±;. White's task is even simpler after: 9 ... bxc6 10.~a4 ~c7 11. ti'e2l'Dd7 12.g4 i.g6 13.0-0-0 e5 (Black has a wide range of options, but the bad news is that none ofthem could save the day: 13 ... d5 14.exd5 cxd5 15.l'Dxd5 exd5 16.:txd5+-; 13 ... 0-0-0 14. ti'a6+ ~bS 15Jhd6 ti'xd6 16. l'Db5!+-; 13 ... l'Db6 - the most resilient. 14.i.xb6! ab 15.l'Db5+-; 14 ... ~xb6 15.l:i.xd6l:i.bS 16.~b3±) 14.l'Dh4 l'DcS (14 ... :bS 15.l'Dxg6 hxg6 16.~a6±) 15.ti'c4 l'Dc5 16. i.xc5 dxc5 17.ti'd5+- ApicellaDavid, Linares 1995. 8.exd5

In this position Black's major options are: c5a) 8 ... i.x-rJ and c5b) 8 ... l'De5. White is on top after S ... l'DbS 9.g4 i.g6 10.ti'e2! i.e7 11.ti'b5+ l'Dbd7 12. ti'xb7 .ti.bS 13. ti'xa7 lixb2 14.l'Dd4 0-0 15.0-0-0 ti'bS 16.ti'a3 lib6 17 ..tb5± Palac Muse, Tucepi 1996. He has won a pawn and dominates over the weakened light squares. After S ... l'De7 9.g4 ~g6, Cacho 111

Chapter 7 Reigadas - Rossi, Arco 199B, White can gain the bishop pair advantage. Combined with more space, that guarantees him a lasting initiative. 10.CDh4 c6 (10 ... CDfxd5?! l1.CDxd5 iLe4 12. CDxe7 iLxhl13.CDef5 g6 14.CDg3±) 11.CDxg6 hxg6 (1l ... CDxg6 12.g5 CDd7 13:~e2 i.e7 14.h4±) 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.iLg2±. c5a) 8 ••• ~xf3 9. ~xf3 CDe5

Dubious is 9 ... CDbB? 10.0-0-0 iLe7 11.g4 0-0 12.g5 CDfd7, Friedrich - Tomescu, Porto San Giorgio 2004. Now White can prepare an extremely dangerous attack by natural moves: 13.h4! CDe5 (13 ...1:teB 14.~g3±) 14.~g3 i:teB (or 14... f5 15.CDe2! c5 16.CDf4 ~a5 17.'it>bl±) 15.f4-7. 10.~e2

10... a6 This is the most frequent move although there are also other alternatives: 10 .. :~e7 11.0-0-0 g6 12.~e1! 0-0-0 13.iLxa7 ~h6+ 14.i.e3± with a healthy extra pawn, Longares - Cabrera Moreno, Zaragoza 1997; 10 ... c6 11.f4 CDed7, Kul -

112

Porrasmaa, Rethymnon 2003, when simplest is 12.0-0-0 iLe7 13.g4 0-0 14.~g2±. Without distracting himself on pawns, White finished development and is going to start an attack against the enemy's king; 10 ... CDfd7 11.0-0-0 iLe7 12.f4 CDg6 13.g4 0-0 14.g5 lleB 15.h4± Black's pieces are cramped on the last two ranks. That makes his defence very difficult, Vujadinovic - Certic, Tivat 1995; 10 ... ~e7 11.0-0-0 0-0 12.f4 CDed7 13.g4 CDc5 14.~f3 (also possible is 14.~g2 a5 15.g5 CDfd7 16.h4 IteB 17. ~f2 l':tbB 1B.CDe2.ifB 19.CDg3 c6 20.iLd4+Etchegaray - Hasangatin, Cappelle la Grande 2003; another good alternative is 14.iLd4 IteB 15.g5 iLfB 16.~f3 CDfe4? - 16 ... CDfd7± was better, but Black is struggling anyway, 17 .CDxe4 CDxe4 1B ..ib5! l':te7 19.~hg1 a6 20.iLd3 ~eB, Apicella - Porrasmaa, Chalkidiki 2002, when White had a forced win by 21. iLf6! CDc5 22.iLxe7+-; 21...CDxf6 22.gxf6 J:i.e3 23.fxg7 .l:i.xf3? 24. iLxh7+ ~xh7 25.gB~+ ~h6 26. ~hB#; 23 ... .txg7 24. ~g4 ~fB 25. ~f5 .l:i.xd3 26.J:i.xd3+-) 14 ... a6 15.g5 CDfd7?? Bobras - Minasian, Warsaw 2005, this is a blunder, but 15 ... ttJeB 16.h4-7 was difficult for Black too. In the game after 16.b4 Black could have resigned right away since he would have lost a piece. 11.0-0-0 .ie7 1l ... ~e7 12J;~el±.

1.e4 tiJc6 2.!1J{3 d6 3.d4 0Jf6 4.0Jc3 i.g4 5.i..e3 12.f4!? !1Jg6 Email 1998) 16.h5± Golubev White's attack develops eas- Markowski, Biel 1995. ily after: 12 ... 0Jed713.g4 0-0 (13 ... g6 14.h4 b5 15.i.d4 0-0 c5b) 8 ... 0Je5 9.g4 16.h5 b4 17.hxg6 bxc3 18.gxh7+ ~h8 19.95 cxb2+ 20.'it>b1 :l:Ie8 21.i.h3 i.f8 22.~g21-0 Hoffman - Fiorito, Villa Martelli 1996) 14J:tg1 0Jc515.~f3 b5 16.g5 0Jfd7 17 .tDe2 ~e8 18.0Jd4 i.f8 19.0Jc6 ~c8 20.h4 0Jb6 21.i.h3 ~b7 22.g6± D.Schneider - Bachman, Botucatu 2003 13.g40Jd7 13 ... 0-0 14.g5 tDd7 - see 13 ... 9 ... i.g6 0Jd7. Mter 9 ... liJxf3+ 10. ~xf3 i.g6 14.g50-0 11.0-0-0, Black lags in develop14 ... h6? - this dooms Black's ment considerably and his lightking to a long suffering - prepar- squared bishop is endangered to ing a queenside castling is a long be trapped, or isolated from the work, but in the centre or on the actions. His defence is very difother side it is an easy target. ficult and we will illustrate that 15.gxh6 gxh6 16.0Je4liJf6, Servat with some lines: - A.Bermejo, Buenos Aires 1997, 1L.liJd7 12. ~e2 i.e7 13.f4 f5, 17.i.d4! liJxe4 (17 ... 0-0 18 ..l:!.gl~) Fox - Olsson, Dublin 1998, White 18. ~xe4 .i:r.g8 19.~gl+-. forced the opponent into weakening squares along the e-file. e6 is especially appealing, so: 14. tDb5 0-0 15.0Jd4±; 11 ... a6 12.i.d4 (White can achieve a big advantage in another fashion too: 12.h4 h5 13.g5 0Jg4 14.i.d4lDe5 15.~g3 i.e7 16. f4 liJg4 17.i.xg7 .l::i.g8 18.i.d4+Prudnikova - Micic, Plovdiv 2003.) 12 ... i.e7 13. ~e2 0-0 14.f4 15.h4 ~e8 (15 ... c6 is even h6 15.f5 i.h7 16.~f3 ~e8 17.'it>b1 worse, in view of 16.h5 liJh8 liJd7 18.liJe4+- Spraggett - Mohr, 17.i.g2+-, when Black's pieces Ubeda 1996; are amazingly helpless. White 1L.i.e7 12.~g2 liJd7 (Black has more than one way to win does not solve his problems with the game, Elburg - Schaar, 12 ... h5 either. Mter 13.f4 tDd7 113

Chapter 7 14.i.b5 a615.i.xd7+ ~xd7 16.f5 i..h7 17.~e4 0-0 IS.~f4 i.f6 19.i.d4 i.xd4 20Jhd4+- Dgebuadze - Slisser, Dieren 2002, the position of the black bishop on h7 is pathetic.) 13.f4 f5 (13 ... f6 14.h4 a6 15.h5 i.f7 16.i..e2 ttJc5 17.g5+- Black's pieces are very passive, his king has stuck in the centre, Moreno Carnero - S.Sanchez, Ayamonte 2002; 13 ... h6 14.i.d40-0 15.h4 ~xh4, G.Mohr - Cander, Bled 2000, when White could have gained a decisive advantage by the enterprising move 16.g5! hxg5 17.f5 i.h5 IS.11xh4 i.xdI19.ttJxdl +-; Black is beyond salvation also after 15 ... i.f6 16.i.xf6 ~xf6 17.~f2 l:lfeS IS.g5 ~e7 19.i.b5 a6 20. ~hel +-) 14.g5 (It looks attractive for White to play here 14.ttJb5, with the idea to penetrate as quickly as possible with the knight to the weakened e6square, for example: 14 ... i.f6 15.g5, or 14 ... fxg4 15.hxg4 0-0 16.f5 i.e817.t,'th3 h6 IS.ttJd4+-) 14 ... 0-0 15. ~f3 I:tcS 16.h4 a6 17. h5+- Kovacevic - Kostic, Bela Crkva 1990. lO.i.b5+ ttJed7 In answer to 1O ... ttJfd7 Il.ttJd4 a6, White can play the powerful move: 12 ..if1!, and Black is faced with problems that he can hardly ever solve, for example: 12 ... t,'th4 13. t,'td2 i.e7 (Black loses immediately after: 13 ... ct:Jxg4 14.i.g5 t,'th5 15 ...l1i.e2+-) 14.0-0-0 CDxg4 (White is totally winning too, after: 14 ... c5 15. 114

dxc6 bxc6 16.f4 ttJxg4 17.hxg4 t,'txhl IS.i.g2+-) 15.hxg4 t,'txhl 16.f4 h6 (Black is not out of the woods either after: 16 ... h5 17. ~g2+-) 17 .i.g2 ~h4 IS.l:lhl t,'tg3 19.i.f3 0-0-0 20.CDce2 1-0 Landa - Summerscale, Ubeda 1999; or 12 ... c5 13.dxc6 ttJxc6 14. ~g2 .l:i.cS 15.0-0± Roser - Stroppa, France 1998. White is clearly better, because his light-squared bishop is much better than its black counterpart, meanwhile Black's d6-pawn is extremely weak. 11.~e2 i.e7 It is not any better for Black to play: 1l ... a6 12.~a4 ~e7 13. 0-0-0 0-0-0 14.l:lhel ttJc5 15. t,'tc4 ttJxa4 (15 ... b5 16.ttJxb5 axb5 17.~xb5 ~e4 IS.i.a6+ ttJxa6 19. t,'txa6+ ~d7 20.l:ld3±) 16.t,'txa4 CDe4 17.~g5 f6 IS.ct:Jxe4 fxg5 19. ttJfxg5 ~d7 20.t,'td4 c5 21.dxc6 t,'txc6 22 ..l::i.e3 ~b8 23J:k3 ~e8 24. ct:Jc5 ~e7 25.ct:Jxa6+ 1-0 Klovans - Graf, Sverdlovsk 19S7.

The game V.L.Ivanov - N esterov, Moscow 1995 reached this position. White has a great spatial advantage, moreover the only open file, where is Black's

1.e4 CDc6 2.CDf3 d6 3.d4 CDf6 4.CDc3 JLg4 5 . .Yt.e3 king, is in his possession too. Evidently Black will hardly succeed in sheltering his king on the queenside because that requires too much time. Therefore White can boldly advance with his pawns on the kingside, threatening to win the light-squared bishop on the way. 12.h4!? h5 (12 ... h6 13.h5 i.h7 14.g5 hxg5 15.CDxg5 J.g6 16.0-0-0±; 12 ... CDxg4 13.h5 J.f5 14.CDd4 CDxe3 15.\~he3 g6 16.CDxf5 gxf5 17. O-O-O+-; 12 ... a613.J.xd7+ 'i;'fxd7 14.h5 J.e4 15.CDxe4 CDxe4 16.J.d4

~xg4

17 .~gl 'i;'ff4 18.h6 0-0-0 19.hxg7 .l:.he8 20.~e3±.) 13.g5 ttJg4 14.0-0-0±. Black's position is very difficult to defend and it is quite hard for him to find any acceptable plan, for example: 14 ... ttJxe3 (14 ... 0-0 15.J.d4±) 15.'i;'fxe3 0-0 16J:the1 l:te8 17. ttJd4, and despite the fact that Black has the two-bishop advantage his position is dubious. His dark-squared bishop is bad, his position is quite cramped and he can easily become a victim of a crushing kingside attack.

Conclusion We have analysed the most popular lines of the 1... ttJc6-system in this chapter. Black's position seems to be quite solid in the main line, nevertheless his defence is very difficult. The main idea of the whole variation - to exert pressure against the d4-pawn with the help of the moves ttJc6 and J.g4 requires a long, patient and meticulous preparation. White occupies the centre and has a lead in development as well as often the bishop-pair too. Small wonder that Black's position is very difficult after that ...

115

Part 3 Alekhine's Defence l.e4 liJf6 2.e5

The other early development of a black knight - 1...lLlf6 (Alekhine's Defence) is sounder strategically (Black attacks the e4-pawn) and accordingly it is more popular. It is quite enough to assert that plenty of great chess-masters have played like that, for example: Robert Fischer, Vassily Ivanchuk, Michael Adams, Nigel Short etc ... This opening had been mentioned for the first time at the dawn of the 19th century, nevertheless it began to be analyzed seriously only after Alekhine introduced it into the tournament practice at the beginning of the 20 th century. In fact he (Alekhine) was the first to grasp the essence of the real spirit of that opening 116

and he managed to score some especially instructive and impressive wins. Presently, that opening is typical with the following strategy employed by Black: he usually provokes the advance of White's pawn-centre and creates the impression that White has achieved a lot. Later however, Black can easily undermine White's pawn-centre with the move d7-d6. The strange looking retreat of the knight - l.e4 lLlf6 2.e5 liJg8 (Chapter 8) just loses time and the possibility for Black to attack White's advanced pawns does not justify the wasted tempi. Naturally, Black should retreat his knight to the centre (2 ...liJd5) and after the almost obligatory moves 3.d4 d6, I recommend to White to follow with 4.liJf3. This move leads to the contemporary system (The Modern Variation) and it is definitely the best for White. He is not in a hurry to repel Black's knight away from the centre with the move c2-c4 and he completes his

development first, fortifying the e5-outpost in the process.

after 4 ..• dxe5 5.lDxe5 (Chapter 11), Black should better play 5 ... c6, or 5 •.. g6, while the move 5 ••. lDd 7, practically loses the game by force after 6.lDxf7! and I prove that convincingly in this book; it is possible for Black to continue with 4 ••• g6 (Chapter 12) some very strong players like to play that line, for example: grandmasters Vladimir Akopian, Following that, Black has sev- Lev Alburt, Rafael Vaganian, eral possibilities at his disposal, Jan Timman ... ; but they are not all so compaand finally - Black's main rable in value: defensive weapon is the move for example the line: 4 ...lDc6 4 ... i.g4. Following 5 ..te2, he can 5.c4 lDb6 6.e6!? (Chapter 10) try three more or less equally leads to a very sharp opening sensible continuations: 5 ... lDc6 battle with an initiative for (Chapter 13), 5 ... c6 (Chapter 14) White; and 5 •.. e6 (Chapter 15).

117

Chapter 8

l.e4 l2Jf6 2.e5

2 ...lDg8 This extravagant move is only very seldom played by Black. It does not lose immediately indeed, but still the waste of several tempi by Black is bound to tell in the future. Black's strongest and most natural move 2 •.• lDd5 will be analysed in the next chapters. In case of: 2 ... lDe4?! 3.d3 lDc5 4.d4lDe6 (or 4 ... lDa4 5 ..i.b5 ttJb6 6.e6 fxe6 7."§h5+ g6 B."§e5 l:igB 9. "§xe6 !%.g7 10. "§e2 c6 11..i.d3 d6 12.lDc3 ltf7 13.h4 .i.g7 14.h5±) 5.f4, White's space advantage is overwhelming. After: 5 ... g6 6.d5 N c5 (It is not any better for Black to play: 6"'ttJg7 7.lDc3 d6 B'ttJf3 .i.g4 9.h3 i.xf3 10. "§xf3 c6 11. ~e3 dxe5 12.0-0-0 "§cB 13.fxe5 ttJf5 14 ..i.f4±.) 7.i.e3 d6 B..i.d4 f6,

11B

and in the game: Moroz - Vavra, Pardubice 199B, White could have achieved an almost winning position by playing: 9.e6 .i.h6 10.ttJh3 0-0 11.c4 c6 12.lDc3 "§b6 (12 ... b6 13.f5±) 13. "§d2 "§a5 14.0-0-0 ttJba6 15.b1 b6 16.g4 cxd5 17.cxd5 .ib7 1B.g5 .i.g7 19.f5±. 3.d4 d6 3 •.•c6?! - this waiting move is played in a situation in which time is very precious: 4 ..i.d3 d6 (in the line: 4 ... d5, A.Horvath Lotharides, Slovakia 2001, 5'ttJc3 g6 6.h3 .ig7 7'ttJf3 .i.f5 B..i.xf5 gxf5 9.e6 fxe6 10.lDg5, Black is also in trouble. It is probably best for him to try: 5 ... e6, with the idea to transfer to some set-ups typical for the French Defence, but having already lost three tempi in the process ... ) 5'ttJc3 g6 (5 ... e6 6.ttJf3 ttJd7 7.0-0 dxe5 B'ttJxe5lDxe5 9.dxe5 "§d4 10 ..l:r.e1 .ic5 11."§f3 ttJe7 12. "§g3lDg6 13. .ie3 "§b4 14.a3+-) 6.lDf3 .ig4 7. h3 .ixf3 B."§xf3 dxe5 9.dxe5 .ig7 10 ..ic4 e6 11 ..if4 "§a5 (11"'ttJd7 12.0-0-0 "§bB 13.lDe4 .i.xe5 14. lDd6+ .ixd6 15 ..i.xd6 "§dB 16.

1.e4 ltJf6 2.e5 CiJg83.d4

l:the1 ~g5+ 17.'it>b1 ltJgf6 lB. ..txe6 fxe6 19J:txe6+ d7 17.~ffi+-) 1l.ltJfg5! fxg5 (11...h5 12.ltJd6+ ..txd613 ...tg6+ 'it>f814.ltJf7+-) 12. ~h5+ 'it>dB13.~xg5+ ltJe7 14.i.f4 ~c6 15 ...txbBlhbB 16. ~e5±. 3 ... ltJc6 4.ltJf3 d5 5.c4 .ig4 (in case of 5 ... e6 6.c5, the game transposes to the line 3 ... e6) 6.cxd5. In the variation: 6 ... i..xf3 7.~xf3 ltJxd4 B.~e4 c5 9.~xd4! cxd4 10.i..b5+ ~d7 11.i..xd7+ e2 e6 (12 ... f6 13.f4 ltJh6 14.'it>d3 ltJf5 15.g4 ltJh6 16.h3±.) 13.d6 f6 14.f4 fxe5 15.fxe5 'it>c6 16.'it>d3
1l ...te3 ~cB 12.d5 ltJb4 13.l:tc1+ 'it>bS 14.ltJc7 ltJxa2 15.l:tc4+-.) B..ib5 e6 9.h3 ..txf3 10. ~xf3 ltJge7 1l . ..tg5 a6 12.i..a4 ttJd5 13.0-0±. 3 ... e6 - This move is much more flexible than the moves that we have analysed until now. 4.ltJf3

Black has a choice: 4 ... c5 - is not satisfactory for Black at all. The simple 5.d5 d6 6.ltJc3, creates great problems for him, for example: 6 ... ltJe7 (Black loses too after: 6 ... a6 7.i..c4 b5 B.dxe6! bxc4 9.exf7+ 'it>xf7 10. ~d5+) 7.i..b5+ i..d7 S.dxe6+-. After 4 ... d6 5.ltJc3 dxe5 6. ltJxe5ltJd7 7.~f3ltJgf6, we reach by transposition the game Spielmann - Flohr, Prague 1930, that will be analysed in the line: 3 ... d6 4.ltJf3 dxe5; It is more promising for Black to follow with: 4 ... d5 5.c4 ttJc6 (in case of 5 ... dxc4 6 ..txc4, there is another possible transposition to the line 3 ... d5 4.c4 dxc4 5. Ji.xc4 e6). White restricts the mobility of Black's bishops. Mter: 6.c5!? .id7 7.a3 ttJge7 (or 7 ... b6 B.b4 bxc5 9.dxc5 f6 10. 119

Chapter 8 .1i.d3±) 8.b4 a6 9 ..1i.d3 CDf5 10. i.xf5 exf5 l1.CDc3 .ie6 12 ..1i.g5 .1i.e7 13 ..ixe7 '!lixe7 14.0-0 0-0 15.'!lid2 f6 16.exf6 '!lixf6 17.'!lif4 J:::tac8 18J~fe1, White's positional advantage is quite stable. He controls the open file and has a powerful outpost on the e5square; moreover his knight is obviously stronger than Black's "bad" bishop. It is interesting for Black to follow with: 4 ... b6 5.c4 .ib7, in order to try to exploit the weakening of the light squares in the centre. Mter 6.CDc3, Black has two possibilities. In case of6 ... d5 7.cxd5, Black is forced to exchange the important lightsquared bishop. Mter: 7 ... .txd5 (or 7 ... exd5 8 ..id3CDe7 9 ..tg5 h6 10 ..th4 a6 ll.e6 '!lid6 12.exf7+ Wxf7 13.ltJe5+ ..t?g8 14.'!lih5 '!lie6 15.CDe2 g5 16 ..ig3+- Slibar Rabic, Slovenia 1991) 8.ltJxd5 '!lixd5 9 ..id3 .ib4+ 10.We2!? CDc6 ll.a3 .ie7 12 ..ie3, White's position is clearly preferable. He can exert strong pressure on the cfile and Black has problems to complete his development. It is better for Black to try: 6 ... .tb4, continuing the fight for the light squares. In the line: 7 ..td2ltJe7 8.i.d3 d5 (8 ... ltJf5 9.i.xf5 exf5 10.0-0 0-0 1l.ltJd5 .txd2 12. '!lixd2 d6 13JIadl±) 9.cxd5 .txc3 10.bxc3 '!lixd5 11.0-0 c5t, Black can still defend, although White still maintains his initiative; The position is very interesting after: 3 ... d5 4.c4: 120

About 4 ... ltJc6 5.CDf3 - see 3 ...CDc6 4.ltJf3 d5 5.c4; while about 4 ... e6 5.ltJf3 dxc4 6 ..txc4 - see 4 ... dxc4 5.i.xc4 e6 6.CDf3; In case of: 4 ... dxc4 5.i.xc4 e6 6.CDf3 ltJe7, Rogic - Loncar, Slavonski Brod 1995 (6 ... ltJd7 7.ltJc3CDb6 8 ..id3±), the best for White is to play: 7.CDc3, and after 7 ... .td7 (or 7 ... CDd5 8 ..txd5 exd5 9 ..tg5±) 8.0-0 .ic6, he can follow with 9.ltJg5. In the variation: 9 ... h6 10.'!lih5 g6 l1.'!lih3 '!lixd4 12.CDxf7 '!lixc4 13.ltJxh8 .ig7 14.lbxg6CDxg6 15.b3 '!lic5 16. '!lixe6+ ltJe7 17 ..ixh6 i.xh6 18. '!lixh6, White has a winning position, because 18 ... '!lixc3 does not work for Black, because of: 19.'!lih8+ ~d7 20.e6+. 4 ... .te6 - is just another attempt by Black to hold the centre. Still in answer to 5.ltJc3, Black must play 5 ... c6, so that his previous move does not seem to be so effective anymore. (5 ... ltJc6 6.CDf3 g6 7.tLlg5 tLlh6 8.tLlxe6 fxe6 9.cxd5 exd5 10 ..tb5±). The game Cladouras - Steinbacher, Germany 1990, followed with 6.cxd5 .txd5 7.tLlxd5 '!lixd5 8.CDe2 e6 9.tLlc3 .tb4 10.'!lig4 tLle7 11..td2 .txc3 12.bxc3±.

1.e4 Ci'Jf6 2.e5 tlJg8 3.d4

It is simpler for Black to play 4 ... c6 immediately, although even then it is not quite clear how he should continue later. 5.lt:lc3. The immediate surrender of the centre by Black with: 5 ... dxc4 (it is too bad for Black to play 5 ... i.f5, because of 6. ~b3±, while 5 ... g6 is not solving his problems either. After 6.ttJf3, it is not evident how Black should continue with his development, while the active move 6 ... f6 can only cause new difficulties for him: 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.i.b5+ i.d7 9. ~e2. Black is already beyond salvation, for example: 9 ... ~a5 10.i.d2 i.xb5 11.ttJxb5 ~b6 12. exf6 ttJxf6 13.i.f4+-) presents White with clearly better chances: 6.i.xc4 e6 7.ttJf3 ttJd7 8.0-0 ttJb6 9.i.b3 ttJe7?! (9 ... h6 10.ttJe4 ttJd5 11..~d2 b6 12J1c1 i.b7;l;;) 10.ttJe4 ttJed5 1I.i.g5 ~c7 12.z:tc1 h6 13.i.h4 i.d7 (13 ... i.e7 14.i.xe7 ~xe7 15. ~c2 ~f8±) 14.a3 g5 15.i.g3 i.e7 16.ttJd6+ i.xd6 17.exd6 ~d8 18.ttJe5± Lange - Naumann, Ruhrgebiet 1996; There is another line for Black that enables him to hold the centre, but still his position remains too cramped and passive. Mter: 5 ... e6 6.lbf3 ttJe7 7.a3 b6 (7 ... ttJf5 8.c5 b6 9.b4;t) 8.b3 dxc4 (It deserves some attention for Black to follow with: 8 ... i.a6 9.i.d3 ttJd7 10.i.e3 h6 11.0-0 ttJf5;t) 9.bxc4 ttJf5 10.i.g5 i.e7 (10 ... ~c7 11.g4 ttJe7 12.ttJe4 ttJg6 13.h4 h6 14.i.e3 i.e7 15.h5 ttJf8

16.i.e2;t; 10 ... f6 1l.exf6 gxf6 12.ttJe5!? h5 13.tLlg6 ~h7 14.Ci'Jxf8 'iit'xf8 15.i.e3±) 1l.i.xe7 ~xe7 12.i.d3 0-0 13.~c2, and White's advantage is considerable; It seems a bit interesting, but hardly quite correct for Black to play: 4 ... c5?! 5.dxc5 d4!?, in the spirit of the Albin Counter Gambit. (It is worse for Black to play: 5 ... ~a5+ 6.~d2 ~xc5 7.~xd5±, or 5 ... e6 6.cxd5 exd5 7.i.e3±) 6.a3 tLlc6 (6 ... e6 7.b4 a5 8.i.b2 axb4 9.axb4 Ilxa1 10.i.xa1 Ci'Jc6 1I. ~d2±) 7.i.f4 a5 8.Ci'Jd2. White's position is clearly preferable, but still the situation on the board remains tense. Now in case of: S... i.f5 9.g4 i.g6 10.~a4 ~d7 1I.i.g21:tcS (11...tLlxe5? 12.~xd7 tLlxd7 13.i.xb7 :a7 14.c6 e5 15.cxd7+ ~xd7 16.i.xe5 l:!xb7 17.i.xd4+-) 12.i.xc6 ~xc6 13. ~xc6+ bxc6 14.tLlgf3 d3 15.h4 h5 16.e6, White has a huge advantage. It is only slightly better for Black to play: S ... a4 9. tLlgf3 e6 10.tLle4 i.xc5 1l.ttJxc5 ~a5+ 12. ~d2 ~xc5 13.0-0-0 tLlge7 14.ttJxd4± and Black loses after: 14 ... ttJxe5? 15.tLlb3 ~b6 16.c5+-. 4.tLlrJ

121

Chapter 8 4 ... ~g4 The move 4 ... dxe5, leads to seemingly simple positions, but Black is not out ofthe woods yet. (4 ... h6 5.t'bc3 g5 6.h3 ~g7 7.~e3 t'bc6 8.exd6 cxd6 9.d5t Unzicker - Bricard, Wildbad 1990.) 5.t'bxe5 t'bd7 6.~f3 t'bgf6 (6 ... t'bxe5 7.dxe5 c6 8.t'bc3 ~a5 9 ..ll.f4±) 7.t'bc3 e6 8.~g5 c6 (It is slightly better for Black to follow with: 8 ... h6 9.t'bxd7 hxg5 10.t'bxf8 '>itxf8 11. O-O-Ot.) 9.0-0-0 .ll.e7 10 ..ll.d3 t'bxe5 1l.dxe5 t'bd7 (11...t'bd5? 12 ..ll.xe7 ~xe7 13.t'be4 0-0 14.c4 t'bb4 15.t'bf6+-) 12 ..ll.xe7 ~xe7 13. ~g3 0-0 14.t'be4 b6 15.f4± Spielmann - Flohr, Prague 1930. It is quite insufficient for Black to continue with: 4 ...t'bc6. The line: 5 ..ll.b5 ~d7 (5 ... d5 6.c4 ~d7 7.cxd5 t'bxe5 8.t'bxe5 ~xb5 9.~b3 a6 10.a4 ~d7 11.~xb7+-) 6.t'bc3, creates great problems for Black. 6 ... dxe5 (It is slight better for Black to play: 6 ... a6 7. ~xc6 ~xc6 8.d5 .i.d7 9.0-0 .i.g4 10 ..i.f4t.) 7.d5! Now in the line: 7 ... t'bb4 8.~xd7+ ~xd7 9.a3 e4!? (9 ... t'ba6 10.t'bxe5 ~f5 11. ~e2 0-0-0 12.g4 ~f6 13.~g5! ~xg5 14.t'bxf7 ~f4 15.~e6+ ~d7 16. t'bxh8+-) 10.t'be5 ~f5 1l.t'bxf7 Wxf7 (11...t'bxc2+ 12.~xc2 Wxf7 13.f3 t'bf6 14.fxe4 ~e5 15.0-0+-) 12.axb4 e6 13.dxe6+ ~xe6 14. ~h5+ g6 15. ~b5 b6 16 ..i.f4 .i.d6 17 ..i.xd6 cxd6 18.~c6 t'bf6 19. ctJb5±, Black loses a pawn. In case of: 7 ... ctJb8 8.ctJxe5 ~xb5 9.ctJxb5 a6 (9 ... c6? 10. ~f3 ctJf6 11. dxc6+-) 10. ctJc3 ctJf6 11. 122

~f4 ctJbd712.~d4 ctJxe513.~xe5 ~d6 14. ~d4±, White has a huge positional edge. Black plays quite seldom 4 .•• ~f5, because after 5.~d3 he has difficult problems to solve. The trade: 5 ... ~xd3 facilitates White's development. After: 6.~xd3 d6 7.0-0 t'bc6 8.exd6!,

Black must choose between three possibilities: 8 ... exd6 9.l':!.e1+ ~e7 10.d5 ctJe5 (It is even worse for Black to play: 10 ... ctJd8 11.ctJc3 t'bf6 12. ~g5 0-0 13.'~e3l:!.e8 14 ..i.xf6+-) 1l.ctJxe5 dxe5 12.l:!.xe5 0-0-0 13. c4 ~d6 14.J:.el±, and White has an extra pawn; 8 ... thd6 9.ctJc3 0-0-0 (9 ... ctJf6 10.d5 ctJb4 11. ~b5+ c6 12. ~xb7 l::tb8 13.~xa7 cxd5 14J~el±) 10.~f5+ e6 l1.~xf7 l':!.d7 12.~f4 ctJxd4 (12 ... ~xf4 13.~xf4 ctJxd4 14.ctJe5 l':!.e7 15J:!ad1 ctJxc2 16. J:.d2 t'bb4 17 .~fdl+-) 13.ctJe5±. It is obviously best for Black to follow with: 8 ... cxd6 9.d5 ctJb4 10. ~b3 ctJa6 11.J:.el±. In case of5 ... ~d7 6.ctJc3 ctJc6, White plays again 7.exd6. Now after: 7 ... exd6 8.~e2+ Ji.e7 9. j,xf5 ~xf5 10.d5 ctJe5 (10 ... ctJd8

l.e4 tLlf6 2.e5 Ci'Jg8 3.d4

11.0-0±) 11.~b5+ c6 (11...~f8 12.tLlxe5 ~xe5+ 13.iLe3+-) 12. ~xb7 tLlxf3+ 13.gxf3 ti.d8 14.iLe3 c5 15.0-0-0±. White remains with an extra pawn and a better position, while in the line: 7 ... iLxd3 8. ~xd3 exd6 9.0-0 tLlge7 10.~e1 0-0-0 (10 ... d5 n.tLla4±) n.d5 tLle5 12.tLlxe5 dxe5 13Jhe5 f6 14.ti.e4 tLlxd5 15.11d4 c6 (15 ... tLlxc3 16.11xd7 llxd7 17. ~h3 ~d8 18.iLe3+-) 16.tLlxd5 cxd5 17.c4, his position is nearly winning, because Black cannot play: 17 ... dxc4, because of 18.!hc4+ ~b8 19.iLf4+ iLd6 20.ti.d4+-. It is possible for Black to continue with: 4 ... g6 5.iLc4 d5 6. iLb3. His position seems solid enough, but there appears a drawback that is quite typical for all the lines that have been analysed in this chapter - Black has almost no counterplay at all. 6 ... iLg7 (6 ... iLg4 7.tLlbd2 e6 8.h3 iLxf3 9.CtJxf3 tLld7 10.0-0 tLle7 n.c3;!; Roa - Alvarado, Madrid 2000) 7.0-0 7... e6 (7 ... c6 8.c4 dxc4 9.iLxc4 tLlh6 10.h3 0-0 11.tLlc3 b6 12J:rea De La Riva - Beltran, Barcelona 1995) 8.c4 c6 9.tLlc3 tLle7 10.ti.e1 0-0 11.iLf4 h6 12.h4 tLlf5 13.g3 b6 14. ~d2 tLla6 15. '§'ad1 tLlc7 16.cxd5 exd5 17.iLc2 ~h7. Here, in the game on Djurkovic, Nova Gorica 1999, White found an interesting plan: 18.~g2 iLe6 19.h5, and Black's position easily turned from worse into hopeless! 19 ... !th8 (19 ... tLle7 20 ..§.h1 iLg4 21.iLxh6 ~xf3+ 22.~xf3 iLxh6 23.hxg6+

fxg6+ 24.~g2 tLlg8 25 ..§.xh6+ tLlxh6 26 ..§.h1 ':xf2+ 27.~xf2 ~f8+ 28.~g2 fig7 29.g4+-) 20. ti.h1 ~g8 21.hxg6 fxg6 22.iLxf5 iLxf5 23.iLxh6+-. 5.h3

N ow Black has to decide where to move his bishop. 5 ... iLh5 The retreat 5 ... iLf5 enables White to transpose to some lines that have been analysed in other chapters. For example, the positions after 6.iLd3 are quite similar to these arising after: 4 ... iLf5 5 ..id3, while 6.g4 ~g6 (or 6 ... iLe4 7.tLlc3 .ixf3 8.fixf3 c6 9.iLc4±) leads to the line 7.e6 fxe6 8.tLlg5 that we will also analyse later. The exchange 5 ... iLxf3 6. fixf3, presents White with the two-bishop advantage: 6 ... d5 7. ~b3 b6 (Black loses after 7 ... tLlc6? 8.fixb7 tLlxd4 9. .ib5+ tLlxb5 10.~c6+ ~d7 11. ~xa8+ Garbarino - Slipak, Bariloche 1986.) 8.c4 e6 9.cxd5 fixd5 10. ~xd5 exd5 11.a3 tLle7 12.tLlc3 c6 13 ..id3 tLlg6 14.0-0 iLe7 15. .ie3 0-0 16.f4 f5 17 ..§.acl±. In case of 6 ... c6 7.fib3 (the pawn sacrifice 7.e6 fxe6 is un123

Chapter 8

clear because White has no more the knight on the kingside) 7 .. :f:!c7 (Black is risking to stay without castling after 7 .. :f:!b6 S.exd6, for example: 8 ... exd6 9. 'f:!e3+ iJ..e7 10.iJ..d3 ttJf6 11.0-0 ttJd5 12:f:!e4 ttJd7 13.ttJc3 ttJ5f6 14. 'f:!e3 or S... 'f:!xb3 9.axb3 exd6 10.iJ..d3 lLlf6 11.0-0 .i.e7 12.l:te1) 8.exd6 exd6 9 ..i.f4 il.e7? (It is better for Black to play: 9 ... lLld7 10.il.d3lLlgf6 11.0-0 il.e7 12.l:te1 lLlb6 13.c4;!; Boschma - Etmans, corr. 2000.) 10.il.c4, Black is suddenly faced with insurmountable problems: 10 ... il.f6 11.0-0 b5 (Capturing the pawn by 11 ... iJ..xd4 is suicidal: 12.l:td1 iJ..e5 13.il.xe5 dxe5 14.il.xf7+ "f:!xf7 15.l:td8+ ~e7 16.'f:!xb7+-; 12 ... il.c5 13.'f:!c3 lLlf6 14.l:te1+ ~f8?? 15. 'f:!xf6 gxf6 16.il.h6+ ~gS 17. l:teS#; 14... ~dS15.b4iJ..b616."f:!g3 lLleS 17.lLlc3~) 12.l:te1+ ~f8 13. 'f:!g3 il.e7 14.l:txe7! lLlxe7 15.iJ..xd6 'f:!dS 16.lLla3 bxc4 (or 16 .. 5~)gS 17.l:te1 lLlf5 lS.il.xf7+ ~xf7 19. 'f:!b3+ ~g6 20.l:te6+ ~g5 21.iJ..f4+ and White checkmates) 17.::te1 ~g8 18.iJ..xe7 'f:!eS 19.1Llxc4 ttJd7 20.lLld6+- Berg - Etmans, corr. 2000. 6.g4 iJ..g6

7.e6!? According to GM R.Spielmann - that sacrifice should be called "restraining". 7 •••fxe6 S•..tc4 'f:!cS In the event of 8 ... d5 9.il.d3 iJ..xd3 10. 'f:!xd3 White could play by analogy with the game of Klinger. 9.lLlg5 d5 10.il.d3 il.xd3 11. 'f:!xd3 The extra pawn does not help Black much. It is even hindering him to develop harmoniously. Only a few moves later White is going to regain the pawn with a big positional advantage: 11 .•. lLlf6 12.lLlc3lLlc6 13.il.f4 'f:!d7 14. 0-0-0 g6 (14 ... 0-0-0? 15.lLlf7) 15. l:thel il.h6 (15 ... lLldS 16.lLlb5 .l:tcS 17.lLlxa7 .l:taS lS.lLlb5 l:tcS 19. lLlf3±) 16.lLlxe6 il.xf4+ 17.lLlxf4 0-0-0 IS.~bl ~bS 19.1Lle6± Klinger - Buecker, Buende 19S5.

Conclusion It was easily predictable that the weird retreat of the knight to g8 was not strategically sound. White is naturally developing his pieces and easily obtains a spatial advantage. In the event when Black's bishop leaves the c8-h3 diagonal (5.h3 iLh5), White could employ a "restraining" sacrifice on e6. 124

Chapter 9

l.e4 liJf6 2.e5 liJd5 3.d4

This chapter will be devoted to the moves a) 3 ... eS and b) 3 ... dS. The move 3 ... lLJc6, leads Black quickly into trouble: 4.c4 lLJb6 (He does not lose a piece outright in case of: 4 ... lLJdb4, but after 5.a3 ctJa6 6.b4lLJab8 7.b5lLJa5 8.~d2 c6 9:~a4±, Black's position is extremely difficult.) 5.d5 lLJb4 (5 ... lLJxe5 6.c5 lLJbc4 7:~d4+-) 6.c5 lLJ6xd5 7.a3 and he loses a piece. Black plays sometimes: 3 ... c5. Following 4.c4, his knight has two possible retreats. In case of: 4 ... ctJc7 5.dxc5 ctJc6 6.ctJf3 ctJe6, Black regains his pawn indeed, but after: 7.ctJc3ctJxc5 8 ..ie2± he has great problems due to the lack of harmony in the development of his pieces. This is par-

ticularly evident, concerning his knights, since they have only one good place for maneuvers - the e6-square. In case Black chooses another route for his knight: 4 ... ctJb4, then after 5.dxc5 he has problems to regain his pawn. In the game R.Byrne - Soltis, Mentor 1977, there followed: 5 ... a5? (It is better for Black to play 5 ... ti'a5 6.ctJc3 ti'xc5, but his position remains again difficult. After 7.ctJf3, he cannot complete his development in a normal fashion, for example he loses immediately after: 7 ... ctJ8c6?, because of8.~e3 ti'a5 9.a3 ctJa6 10.b4+-.) 6.ctJc3ctJ8c6 7.ctJf3 g6 8 ...tf4 ~g7 9 ...te2 0-0 10.0-0+- and Black cannot regain his pawn at all. It is premature for Black to try 3 ... g6. He lags in development then and White can play much more aggressively than I usually recommend ... : 4.c4 ctJb6 5.c5ctJd5 6 ..ic4 c6 7.ctJf3 b6 8.ctJc3 ctJxc3 9.bxc3 and White preserves excellent attacking prospects. There were interesting developments in the game Sutovsky - Varga, Budapest 125

Chapter 9 1999. It continued: 9 ... .lta6 (9 ... bxc5 10.ciJg5 e6 11.t;!f3 f5 12.exf6 d5 13.iii.d3±) 10.iii.b3 bxc5 11. Ct:Jg5! c4 12.~f3! f6 13.exf6 exf6 14.0-0 iii.e7 (in case of 14 ... ~e7 15 ..ltd2 dS 16.lHel t;!g7 17. SLa4± White's attack is again too powerful) 15.i..c2 f5 (15 ... fxg5 16J:te1:f8 17.~h311f7 lS.SLxg6 hxg6 19.~h8+ ~f8 20.t;!g7 :f7 21. t;!gS+ ~f8 22. t;!xg6+ ~f7 23. SLxg5+-) 16.~e1 0-0 17.t;!e3 i..f6? (17 ... SLxg5 IS. t;!xg5 t;!xg5 19. SLxg5±) 18.Ct:Jxh7 c;t>xh7 19.t;!h6+ c;t>gS 20.t;!xg6+ i..g7 21.i..g5 and Black resigned. It is possible for Black to follow with 3 ... c6. This move is useful for him in several variations of the Alekhine Defence. Sometimes it helps him defend his knight on d5 (for example in the line 3 ... d6 4.Ct:Jf3 g6 5.i..c4 c6); sometimes - after the development of the bishop on cS to g4 and its subsequent exchange for White's knight - he thus protects his b7-pawn. On the other hand, Black plays that move a bit early and so he reduces his own possibilities - his knight cannot be developed to the c6-square anymore. 4.Ct:Jf3 g6 5.i..e2 i..g7 6.0-0 0-0 (in case of 6 ... d6 7.c4 Ct:Jc7 S.exd6 ~xd6 9.Ct:Jc3 0-0 10.SLe3 SLf5 11. ~d2;j;;, there arises a transposition to the variation: 3 ... d6 4.Ct:Jf3 c6) 9. 7 .c4 ttJc7 8.i..f4 and White is clearly better. Following S... Ct:Je6 9.SLe3 d6 10.exd6 t;!xd6 11. t;!d2;J;;, in the game Jacob - Gutman, Senden 1999, 126

White had the advantage thanks to his extra space and superior piece-coordination. Finally, Black has often tried in practice the prophylactic move 3 ... ttJb6. Here, after 4.a4 a5 White should better continue with: 5.i..b5!?, forcing the not so useful move for his opponent here: 5 ... c6 - and as a result Black at first cannot attack the d4-pawn with the move ttJbS-c6 anymore and secondly, he cannot capture on d6 with the c-pawn, in case of a pawn-trade in the centre. (Following 5 ... ttJc6 6.ttJf3 d5 7.0-0 SLg4 S.h3 SLh5 9.e6! fxe6 10.g4 SLg6 1l.Ct:Je5±, Black's position is very difficult and in answer to 5 ... e6, White plays 6. ~g4!? and the development of Black's kingside has been hampered. In the game Bucher Hammer, Switzerland 1997, there followed: 6 ... h5 7.t;!g3 c6 8.i..d3±) 6.SLd3 d5, Tal- Lutikov, Moscow 1969, (6 ... g6 7.c3 i..g7 S.Ct:Jf3 d6 9.exd6 t;!xd6 10.0-0 0-0 11.b3 - or 11.ttJbd2 with the idea ttJd2-e4 - 11 .. .SLg4 12.SLa3 t;!f6 13.Ct:Jbd2 tLld5 14. t;!c2±). Mter 7.SLg5 g6 8.h4 h6 9.SLe3 SLg7 10.Ct:Jd2 tLla6 11.c3± White's advantage is overwhelming. He has plenty of extra space; moreover Black's knights are terribly misplaced. a) 3 ... e6 4.tLlf3 (diagram) 4 ...tLlc6 I t is too dangerous for Black

l.e4 ttJf6 2.e5 ttJd5 3.d4 e6 4.ttJ[3

to follow with 4 ... c5, because in the variation: 5.c4 ttJb6 6 ..1g5! he has no satisfactory continuations. In case of 6 .. :ltic7 7.ttJc3± White's threats are extremely dangerous. It is even worse for Black to play: 6 ... .1e7 7 ..1xe7 'lfixe7 8.a4, because it turns out that his knight on b6 is misplaced and he is forced to give up a pawn: 8 ... d5 9.exd6 'lfixd6 10.b4!+-. 4 ... .1e7 5.c4 ttJb6 6.ttJc3 d6 7.exd6 cxd6 8 ..1e2 0-0 (Black has also tested in practice the variation: 8 ... ttJ8d7 9.0-0 ltJf6 10.a4 0-0, Leskovar - Mazzoleni, Buenos Aires 1994 and here after the logical line: 11.a5 ttJbd7 12. 'lfib3 e5 13JIdl± White remains with a great space advantage and a superior development, so his prospects are very promising. Mter 10 ... a5 11. 'lfib3 0-0 12JId1 .1d7 13.h3 i:.c8 14 ..1e3± White dominates in the centre and Black can hardly organize any counterplay.) 9.0-0 ttJ6d7 (Black's defence is extremely difficult after: 9 ... i.d7 10.i.e3 ttJa6, Goreskul - Szabo, Gyongyos 1999, because he is faced with serious problems to solve after:

11. 'lfib3 'lfic7 12 ..ttacl±. It is even worse for Black to play: 11 ... .ttc8 12.a4 'lfic7 13.ltJb5 'lfib8 14 ..1f4±) 10 ..1f4 a6 11.b4 b6 12.'lfib3 i.b7 13.i:.fdl±, Klaus - Pepke, Stetten 1988. White maintains a great space. advantage and free piecedevelopment. He has excellent chances to seize the initiative in the centre and on the queenside. 5.c4 ttJb6 The other possibilities for Black are clearly worse: 5 ... .1b4+? - this seemingly attractive check, with the idea to simplify the position, suddenly loses surprisingly quickly: 6. 'it'e2! ttJb6 (Black loses a piece after his other possibilities: 6 ... 0-0 7.cxd5 exd5 8.a3+-; 6 ... d6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.a3+- Mullen Stad, Email 1999.) 7.c5 ttJd5 8. a3 .1a5 9.b4+- Zynaps - Dig, Internet 2001. White's king is presently stranded in the centre indeed, but Black's compensation for the piece is obviously insufficient, since he cannot open files in the centre so easily; 5 ... ttJde7?!, Schulz - Klinger, Lingen 2002. White can now achieve an overwhelming advantage in the centre after the logical line: 6.d5! ttJb8 (6 ... ttJb4 7.ttJc3 ttJa6 8 ..1d3±) 7.ttJc3 d6 8.exd6 cxd6 9.dxe6 i.xe6 10.ttJd4± and Black's defence is rather unpleasant, because of the weakness on d6 and his lag in development; 5 ... ttJdb4?! 6.a3 ttJa6 7.b4 ttJe7 (Black tried a really strange

127

Chapter 9 piece-sacrifice in the game Kelbl pin ofthe knight, which becomes - Gabucci, Email 2001 - 7 ... possible after: 8.~d3 e5 9.0-0 .ixb4+? 8.axb4ltJaxb4 9 ..ita3+-) .ig4. 8.ltJc3±, White's superior devel8 .•. .ie7 opment and his abundance of Black has also tested a line, extra space provide him with a which weakens the dark squares stable edge, Higgins - Newton, considerably: 8 ... g6?! 9.~g5! ltJe7 (Black would not fare any better corr.1995. after: 9 ... f6 1O.~e3±, while in 6.ltJc3 case of: 9 ... ~e7 10.~h6 ~f8 1I. ~cl±, he will have problems with the safety of his king.) 10 ..itf6 l:tg8 1I.O-0±. Black lags in development and his pieces are discoordinated, Ardovsky - G.Andersen, Dos Hermanas 2003. 9.0-00-0 9 ... ~c7?! - Black presents White with two valuable tempi for the development of his initia6 ... d6 6 ... d5 - Black loses time like tive with this dubious move: that and he enables White to 10.d5 exd5, Miller - Noland, complete a positional bind with: Email 1999 and here White can 7.c5 ltJd7 8.~b5 ltJe7 9.0-0± exploit the unfavourable placeMalijevsky - Novak, Czech Re- ment of the enemy queen with public. 1996. White has a great the move 11.ltJb5! space advantage and a superior development. 6 ... ~b4 - Black's bishop is not so well placed here. It belongs to the e7-square. 7.~d3 O-O? (This is a blunder, but Black's position is terrible anyway: 7... d6 8.0-0 dxe5 9.dxe5 h6 10.~e2±; 7 ... d5 8.c5ltJd7 9.0-0±) 8.~xh7+! 'it>xh7 9.ltJg5+ 'it>g6 10.h4! ~e7 1I.h5+ ~h6 12. ~c2 ~xc3+ 13. Black can counter that with bxc3 f5 14.exf6 1-0 Jones - three sensible moves, but they all lead to difficult positions for him: Smith, corr. 1992. 11 ... ~d8 12.cxd5ltJb8 (It looks 7.exd6 cxd6 8.~e2 That seemingly tentative like Black is arranging the set for move is aimed at preventing the a new game ... On the other hand 128

l.e4 lbf6 2.e5lbd5 3.d4 e6 4.lbf3 tion for Black, but he has tried some other moves in practice too: 10 ... f5 11.d5! lbe5, Froeyman - Draftian, Belgium 2001 and now White's simplest line would have been: 12.lbxe5 dxe5 13.d6 i.g5 14. ~d2±, his advantage is stable and long lasting, because of his excellent development and powerful passed d6-pawn, despite the seemingly dangerous black pawn-centre; After 10 ... .td7, White must find the most logical set-up for his heavy pieces in the centre, in order to prepare d5, or c5 at an opportune moment and also to prevent Black's counterplay connected with e6-e5, and that is 11.t!:c1 'it>h8 12. ~d2l:tc8 13.l:!.fd1 f6 (It is already too late for Black to play 13 ... d5, because after: 14.c5lbc4 15.i.xc4 dxc4 16. ~e2±, he will have problems to defend his c4-pawn; additionally he has to be constantly on the alert for White's possibility to accomplish the pawn-break d4-d5.) 14.b3 d5 15.c5lba8 16.a3±, White's initiative on the queenside is running smoothly and Black's counterplay is nowhere to be seen, Schmitzer - Kuban, Hessen 1990; The move 10 ... a6 is too slow. 11.d5 exd5 12.cxd5lbe5 13.lbxe5 dxe5, SonnyTom - Backstab, Internet 1998, and here after: 14. ~b3lbd7 15.lbe4lbf6 16.i.b6 ~d7 17.lbxf6+ i.xf6 18J:tfdl±, White remains with a dangerous lO ... d5 This is the most logical varia- passed pawn in the centre and

he loses immediately after: 12 ... lbe5 13.lbxe5 dxe5 14.d6+-, while 12 ... lbb4 13.'~d4 lb4xd5 14.'~hg7 ~f6 15.'~!g3± leads to a position in which Black lags in development and he has plenty of weaknesses. He can hardly find a safe haven for his king in the nearest future.) 13.i.e3 0-0 14Jlc1lb8d7 (14 ... lba6 15.'~'d2±) 15.l:!.el± White enjoys a great space advantage and his development is superior; 1l .. :?fl'b8 12.cxd5 lbe5 (12 ... lbb413.'~'d4lb4xd514.thg7 i.f6 15.'~g3±) 13.lbxe5 dxe5 14.d6 i.d8 15.~c2± Black's pieces are so misplaced that his defence will be extremely difficult; 1l ... ~d7 12.cxd5 lbe5 (It is again worse for Black to defend with: 12 ... lbb4 13:?fl'd4 lb4xd5 14.~xg7 i.f6 15.~g3±) 13.lbxe5 dxe5 14.i.e3 0-0 15.d6± White remains with a stable advantage, because of his powerful passed pawn in the centre, excellent development and superior piececoordination. lO.i.e3

129

Chapter 9 an excellent development. 1l.c5ltJd7 12.l:.bl b6 13.b4±

White's queenside initiative is very powerful and Black has no counterplay whatsoever, Kanani - Radhy Sol, Dubai 1986. b) 3 ... d6 4.ltJf3

We will analyze in this chapter the lines: bI) 4 .•. c6, b2) 4 •.. .Jtf5 and b3) 4 ... ltJb6. About 4 ... ltJc6 - see Chapter 10, 4 ... dxe5 - see Chapter 11, 4 ... g6 - see Chapter 12, while the main defence for Black 4 ... .Jtg4 will be dealt with in chapters 1315. The move 4 ... e6, after 5.c4 ltJb6 (it is worse for Black to play: 5 ... ltJe7 6.exd6 cxd6 7 ..Jtd3±) 6.exd6 cxd6 7 ..Jtd3, transposes to the line - 3 ... e6. Black plays only very seldom 130

4 ... ltJd7. He closes temporarily the c8-h3 diagonal for his bishop with this move. Following 5.c4, Black has two possible retreats for his knight, but he is in trouble after both of them: After 5 ... ltJ5b6, White has the typical restricting sacrifice at his disposal: 6.e6!, for example: 6 ... fe 7.ltJc3ltJf6 (7 ... c5 8.ltJg5+-; 7 ... e5 8.ltJg5ltJf6 9.dxe5+-) 8 ..id3 g6, Chatalbashev - Ratel, Creon 2004. White can obtain an overwhelming advantage now by playing energetically: 9.ltJg5! .ig7 10:~e2 ~d7 (l0 ... e5 1l.dxe5 ltJg4 12.exd6 ~xd6 13.ltJb5±; 12 ... cxd6 13.0-0± and White's game against Black's hanging pawns is quite comfortable, while his opponent's pieces are discoordinated.) 11.0-0 0-0 12. :e 1 e5 (It is worse for Black to play: 12 ... ltJe8 13.ltJxh7! 'It>xh7 14. ~h5+ 'It>g8 15.~xg6ltJf6 16 ..Jth6 :f7 17.ltJe4~) 13.dxe5 dxe5 14. ltJf3±, because White regains his pawn and he preserves his pressure along the central files; The retreat of the knight 5 ... ltJb4, enables White to obtain an edge in another fashion: 6.exd6 exd6 7 ..Jte2 .ie7 8.0-0 0-0 9.ltJc3ltJb6 (It is possibly better for Black to play: 9 ... ltJf6 , after which White can follow with: 10.a3ltJc6 1l.h3;!;. Black has lost plenty of tempi on knight-moves and at the end both his knights went back to where they started from. Meanwhile, the c6-square is not the right place for Black's

l.e4 tDf6 2.e5 tDd5 8.d4 d6 4.tDf.3 c6 5 . .i.e2

knight in this pawn-structure, because its prospects there are quite questionable. He should have placed it instead on d7, with the idea to transfer it to e6, or g6, via the fB-square.) 10.~b3 a5 (or 10 ... tDc6 11.d5 tDe5 12.tDxe5 dxe5 13.~e3 idS 14.lladl±) 11.a3 tDc6 12.~e3 and it is not good for Black to follow with: 12 ... ~f5 13.d5 tDe5 (It is only slightly better for Black to continue with 13 ... a4 14. ~dl tDe5 15.~xb6 cxb6 16.tDxa4±, because White still remains with an extra pawn and a superior position.) 14.tDxe5 dxe5 15.d6!+- and Black loses material. hI) 4 ... c6 5 ..lte2

Mter 5.~e2, the game often transposes to variations, which arise after other move-orders, for example: 5 ... dxe5 6.tDxe5 - see 4 ... dxe5 5.tDxe5 c6 6.~e2; 5 ... ..ig4 6.c4 - see 4 ... ..ig4 5 ...ie2 c6 6.c4. In this chapter, we will only deal with moves that lead to original variations. 5 ... g6 Or 5 ... tDd7 6.c4 tDc7 7.exd6

exd6 8.tDc3 iLe7. There were two games, which reached that position - (Almasi - Mozes, Budapest 1991 and Cabrilo - M.Grunberg, Bjeljina 2000) and in both of them White placed his bishop on the f4-square either immediately, or on the next move. This was a bit dubious decision, because the bishop could be attacked by the black knight on the c7 -square, for example: 9.~f4 0-0 10.h3 tDf6 11.0-0 d5 12 ..l:tel dxc4 and here White played: 13 ...ixc7 (otherwise Black places his knight on d5 and follows with ..ie6) 13 ... ~xc7 14 ...ixc4 ..if5, now White could have maintained his initiative with 15.tDe5 with the idea to continue with ~f3. In general, it is even better for White to postpone a bit the development of his dark squared bishop and to play for example: 9.0-00-0 10J!el!? and h2-h3; 5 ... .ltf5 6.tDh4!? e6 (6 ... .i.e6 7.f41 M4-f5; 6 .. .'~c8 7.exd6 exd6 8.tDxf5 ~xf5 9.0-0 ..ie7, now White can follow with the original maneuver 10 ..i.g4!? ~g6 11 . ..ic8 and Black will be forced to give up a pawn: 11...a5 12.iLxb7 .l:ta7 13 ...ic8±. It is not good for Black to play: 6 ... .i.g6 7.e6! ~b6 8.tDxg6 fxg6 9.0-0 tDf6 10.c4 tDa6 11.tDc3 tDc7 12.d5±. His position now is strategically hopeless and the game Royset - Michalsen, Tromsoe 2001, continued with: 12 ... cxd5 13.cxd5 ~a5 14.b4 ~xb4 15J:tb1! ~xc3 16. ~a4+ ~d8 17 ..i.b2 b5 18 ..i.xb5 tDfxd5 131

Chapter 9

- 18 ... ~d2 19.i.xf6 gxf6 20. from castling short. i.e2+- - 19.i.xc3 tLlxc3 20. ~c4 7 .exd6 ~xd6 B.tLlc3 i.g7 tLl3xb5 21.1Ixb5 and Black re- 9.i.e3 The arising pawn-structure signed.) 7.tLlxf5 exffi, Radivojevic - Madjar, Golubac 2003, 8.0-0;1:; resembles the line: 4 ... g6 5.i.c4 and the doubling of the f-pawns c6 6.exd6 ~xd6, which we have turns out to be in favour of analyzed in Chapter 12. The difWhite, despite the fact that ference is that at first White's Black has acquired the comfort- bishop had not been developed to able e6-square for his knight. c4, but it was deployed to e2 immediately (it is well placed on 6.c4 that square, because it cannot be attacked by Black on the queenside) and secondly, White has already played c2-c4, so he has ousted Black's knight away from the centre, but he has weakened his d4-pawn a bit. 9 ... tLlba6

6 ...tLlc7

This is the key-difference in comparison to the usual lines Black has an additional place for the retreat of that knight - the c7 -square. It can be transferred from there to e6 in order to attack White's d4-pawn. In case Black plays now 6 ... tLlb6, then after 7.exd6, he cannot capture with the queen, because of c4-c5, so he has to follow with: 7 ... exd6 8.i.g5 i.e7 9.i.xe7 ~xe7 10.0-0 i.e6 11.1Ie1 0-0 12.tLlc3;1:; Kocsis - Bagoly, Hungary, 1996 and White remains clearly better, because of the misplacement of Black's knight. Instead of exchanging on e7, White could have tried the move 9.i.h6!?, preventing Black 132

Black can hardly change anything with: 9 ... 0-0 10. ~d2 tLlba6 11.i.f4;1:; 12.i.h6 i.g4 13.i.xg7 ~xg7 14.d5 and here, instead of the horrible blunder: 14 ... cxd5?? 15.~d4+- Komliakov - Tobak, Koszalin 1999, he had better play: 14 ... i.xf3 15.i.xf3 cxd5 16.cxd5 ~d6 17 ..:i.d1;t and White would have only a slight advantage, mostly because of the weakness of the e7-pawn. 10.~d2 i.g4 11.0-0 0-0 12. l::.adl.:i.adB

l.e4 0,f6 2.e5 0,d5 3.d4 d6 4.0,f3 i.f55.i.e2 13. ~c1;t. It is useful for White to take his queen away from the d-file in order to defend the d6-square effectively. This position was reached in the game Dolmatov - Petrosian, Moscow 1981. White's position is clearly preferable. The reason is already quite familiar to us - both black knights are terribly misplaced. The game continued with: 13 •.. b5 14.b3 (White does not wish to surrender the d5-square to his opponent.) 14 .••bxc4 15.bxc4 ~b4 (Black is threatening to capture on f3.) 16.a3 ~a5 17.0,e5 .llxe5 (Black cannot play 17 ... .llxe2, because after: 18.tZ'lxc6! ~h5 19.0,xe2 ~xe2 20.f3 ~a2 21.0,a5±, his queen gets trapped after all.) 18..llxg4 .llg7 19.0,e2 ~a4 20.0,f4 0,e8 21.d5! 0,f6 22 •.llf3 cxd5 23.0,xd5 tZ'lxd5 ·24•.l:txd5t. White has created a passed pawn and his advantage has become even more evident as a result. 24...0,c7 25J1xd8 %:.xd8 26.c5 lid3. This move is too risky, because Black weakens his last rank. (He would not have created any counterplay by playing 26 ... 0,e6 either, because of 27. c6t.) 27.~b1 lib3 28.~d1 0,e6 29.c6 lixa3 30. ~d7 h5 31. tftxe7 .llf8 32.~d7 a5 33.g3 ~b5 34. :tc1 h4 35.~b7 ~e5 36.c7+and White won.

back in comparison to the popular lines for Black. He is not counterattacking effectively White's pawn-centre. 5 ..lle2 e6 The move 5 ... h6 - does not lose outright indeed, but it is hardly necessary at that moment. White does not intend to exchange the bishop on f5 and the move tZ'lg5 is not a part of his plans yet. 6.0-0 e6 7.c4 0,b6 8 ...te3 (White could have developed his knight too - 8.0,c3, with the idea to develop the bishop .llf4.) 8 ... .lle7 9.0,c3 c6?? (9 ... 0-0 10.%:.c1;t) 10.exd6+- - and since Black cannot capture on d6, because of c4-c5 - he can just resign, Juarez - Aima, San Isidoro 1993. 5 ... dxe5 6.tZ'lxe5 0,d7, Borochow - Bagby, Los Angeles 1929, 7.0,f3 (This retreat is quite typical for similar positions - White wants to avoid the exchange in the centre and the loss of tempi is immaterial.) 7 ... e6 8.0-0 .lte7 9.c4 0,5b6 10.0,c3;t and there b2) 4 •.. .ltf5 arises a transposition to a game (diagram) that we are going to analyze later This is a good developing in this chapter - Lehmann, move, but it has a definite draw- Leutersdorf 2002. 133

Chapter 9 5 ... ctJc6 6.0-0 dxe5 (6 ... e6 - see 5 ... e6; 6 ... g6. This move does not combine well with .l1.cS-ffi. 7.c4 ctJb6 S.exd6 cxd6 9.d5 ctJe5 10. ctJxe5 - 10.lbd4!? - 10 ... dxe5 11. ctJc3 l::tcS 12. ~b3 .l1.g7 13 ..l1.e3± and after c4-c5, White's central pawns become extremely dangerous.) 7.c4!? (in case of7.dxe5, it is good for Black to follow with: 7 ... lbdb4 - he attacks the c2pawn and thus he forces a transition to a favourable endgame.) 7 ... lbf4. Black is trying to exploit the temporary placement of his pawn on the e5-square. (He should avoid the line: 7 ... ctJdb4 S.d5 lbc2 9.dxc6 ~xd1 10.~xd1 ctJxa1 11.cxb7 .i:tbS 12.lbxe5+Scrimgour - Fielder, Scotland 19S1, because White already has more than enough material for the exchange and he is threatening .l1.a4, while Black's knight is totally isolated on the a1square.) S..l1.xf4 (It is also interesting for White to try: S.d5 ctJxe2+ 9. ~xe2 ctJd4 10.ctJxd4 exd4 11.~e5 and Black should better refrain from capturing the pawn with: 11.. . .l1.d3 12.J::td1 .l1.xc4 13. ~xd4 .l1.a6 14.ctJc3t, because White's lead in development more than compensates his minimal material deficit, so he should try instead: 11...e6 12.~xd4 c5°o or 12.l:te1 ~e7 and Black manages to castle, because it is too dangerous for White to leave his opponent's passed pawn on the d4-square.) 8 ... exf4 9.d5 ctJb8 10.ctJc3. It is quite 134

clear now that White will regain the f4-pawn without any problems, since Black can hardly defend it with anything. It is now too difficult for Black to develop his kingside, because White can counter g7-g6 with the move ~d4, while in case of 10 ... e6 (10 ... lba6 11.~d4t) - 11. ctJd4t - Black's lag in development might become disastrous for him. 6.0-0

6 ....l1.e7

6 ... lbc6. Usually, it is not advisable for Black to develop his knight here so early, because White has the possibility d4-d5 at his disposal. 7.c4 ctJb6 8.exd6 cxd6 9.d5 exd5 (It is bad for Black to play: 9 ... lbe5?! 10.lbd4 i.e7 11.lbc3 0-0 12.f4. This move is even more energetic than the capture on ffi. 12 ... lbexc4 13.g4 .ig6 14.f5 exf5 15.gxf5 .l1.g5 16.fxg6 hxg6 17 ..ixc4 ctJxc4 IS. ~e2+- and White remained with a material advantage, Fiori de Azevedo - Nasser, Vitoria 1961.) 1O.cxd5 lbe5 11.ctJd4 .l1.d7 12.f4 lbg6 13.ffi (It deserved attention for White to try here: 13.ctJc3, in

l.e4 0,f6 2.e5 0,d5 3.d4 d6 4.0,{3 iLf55.i.e2 order to follow with f4-f5 on the next move: 13 ... ~e7 14.f5 0,e5 15.0,e6 .txe6 16.fxe6 0-0 17. .te3:t and White maintained his pawn on the e6-square.) 13 ... 0,e5 14.0,e6 ~c8 15.~e3 g6, Torhola - Houtsonen, Finland 1991, White's simplest line here was: 16.0,xfBl:txfB (16 ... .txf5 17.~h6 - and Black will have to lose the exchange on the fB-square anyway.) 17.f6±. Black's king is stranded in the centre and the knight on e5 (which is covering it presently) is something White can easily cope with. Following: 6 ... dxe5 7.0,xe5, Black has tried in practice: 7 ... .te7 8.c4 0,b6 9.0,c3 0,8d7 10.0,f3 c5 (White was threatening c4-c5 and ~dl-b3.) 11.~e3 (11.d5 0-0 12.~f4 .tf6 13:~b3 exd5 14.cxd5 c4oo) 11 ... cxd4 12. 0,xd4 ~g6 13. ~d2:t. White has a slight space advantage and he has better prospects on the queenside. In the game Vogt Lehmann, Leutersdorf 2002, Black failed to solve his problems after: 13 .. J:tc8 14.b3 0-0 15JHdl a6 16.a4l1c7 17.~b2:t - it was quite unclear whether Black really needed his rook on the c7square. Then he blundered horribly with: 17 ... e5? and after 18.0,f3 .tc5 19.~xc5 l:!xc5 20.b4 lIc7 21.c5 ~c8 22.lIac1 0,a8 23.0,d5+- he lost the exchange; 7 ... 0,d7 8.c4 (It is interesting for White to try here: 8.0,f3!? and only then to follow with c2-c4.) 8 ... 0,b4 9.0,d3 ~h4?! (Black had

better exchange on the d3-square once, or even twice: 9 ... 0,xd3 10.~xd3 .txd3 11. ~xd3 .te7 12.0,c3:t and White maintains a slight advantage in a calm position; or 9 ... .txd3 10.~xd3 ~h4 11 ..te2 0-0-0 12 ..te3:t and Black has some counterplay along the d-file.) 10.0,xb4 .txb4 Il.g3 ~e7 (It is not good for Black to follow with: 11... ~h3 12. ~b3; he had to play instead: 11 ... ~f6 12.~b3 c5 13.a3 .ta514.~xb7lIb8 15.~xa7 ~b6 16. ~a4 cxd4 17.0,d2 d3 18 ..tf3:t and he would have had some compensation for the sacrificed pawn.) 12.a3 ~a5 13.b4+-, Black lost a piece in the game Lepeshkin - Berdichevski, Moscow 1989. 7.c4 0,b6 8.0,c3 0-0 The other order of moves is too dangerous for Black: 8 ... dxe5 9.0,xe5 0-0 (He had to continue with: 9 ... 0,8d7 10.ttJf3 0-0), Krannich - L.Adams, Mainz 1996, because of 10.g4 .ltg6 l1.f4. Black's bishop is really endangered and in case of 11 ... f6, White can play: 12.0,xg6 hxg6 13.c5 0,d5 14.f5±.

9.~f4!?

135

Chapter 9

The usual square for White's bishop in this pawn-structure is - e3, but he is trying to develop his bishop even more actively. 9 ... dxe5 It was possibly better for Black to have refrained for a while from that exchange, by playing: 9 ... ttJ8d7 10.exd6 cxd6 11. ~b3 ttJf6 12.a4 ttJe4 (it is advisable for Black to try here 12 ... a5 13.1:tacl;!:;, although the weakening of the b5-square might have some long-term consequences) 13.l:tfdl (White had better grab the pawn with: 13.a5 ttJxc3 14.bxc3 ttJd7 15.~xb7;\;.) 13 ... ttJd7 14.ttJxe4 (Now, it is too late for White to capture the pawn: 14.~xb7 :b815.~xa7 'u'a8 16.~b7 'u'b817.~a6 'u'a8=.) 14 ... .i.xe4 15.ttJd2 .i.c6 16.tDf1 d5 17. c5 e5 18 ..i.xe5 tDxe5 19.dxe5 .i.xc5 and in the game Kupreichik - Kengis, Sverdlovsk 1984, Black succeeded in equalizing: 20.i.f3 ~g5 21..l::i.acl i.b6 22. i.xd5 i.xd5 23.~xd5 ~f4 24.~f3 ~xe5=.

10.ttJxe5 ttJSd7 1l.tDf3 ttJf6 12. ~b3 ttJe4 After 12 ... c5 13 ..l:.adl ~c8 14.d5t, the active position of White's bishop on f4 yields dividends - it controls the d6-square in front of the pawn. 13.a4 a5 14.c5 tDd5 15 ..i.g3 ttJexc3 16.bxc3 'u'a7 Or 16 ... b6 17.tDe5 (17.cxb6 cxb6) 17 ... bxc5 18.tDc6 ~d7 19. .i.b5t. 17.tDe5 .i.g5 lS . .i.f3 .i.f6 136

19.1:tfel h6 20.I:ta2 ~cS 21.l:tae2 I:tdS 22.h4t

White enjoyed a space advantage and a superior piece-placement in the game TseshkovskyAlburt, Minsk 1976. b3) 4 ...ttJb6

This prophylactic move is quite popular and it has been tested by grandmasters like P.Leko, D.Bronstein, L.Ljubojevic, K.Sakaev a.nd some others. Black retreats his knight from d5 to the b6-square, since White could have attacked it anyway with moves like c2-c4 and .i.f1c4. He then plans to fianchetto his bishop on f8 and to attack White's pawn-centre. Still, Black loses time by playing deliberately another move with the

1.e4 tiJf6 2.e.5 tiJd.5 3.d4 d6 4.tiJf3 tiJb6 .5.a4

same knight. 5.a4 a5 Black can try some other lines, which do not prevent White from playing a4-a5: 5 ... ii.g4 6.a5 lD6d7 7.h3 (White can obtain a slight advantage, because of his extra space on the queenside, with the line: 7.exd6 cxd6 8.h3 ii.h5 9.ii.e2 e6 10.c3 ii.e7 11.0-0 0-0 12.l:te1 a6 13.d5;:!; Matanovic - Ljubojevic, Yugoslavia 1975) 7 ... ii.h5 (It is too dangerous for Black to try here: 7... .txf3 8:~xf3 lDc6 - because of 9.e6! This is exactly what White had in mind while playing 7.h3. 9 ... fxe610 ..td3 tiJf6 11.c3 d5 12.a6 b6 and White won a piece after: 13.ii.b5 ~d7 14. ~d1! 0-0-0 15. ~a4+-, Romeu Alfonso - Benavent, Valencia 1995. In case of: 11...e5 12.a6 ~b8 13.axb7 ~xb7 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.tiJd2± - all black pawns are catastrophically weak.) 8.g4 ii.g6 9.e6 fxe6 10.tiJg5 tiJf6 11.h4 (It is less energetic for White to follow with: l1..tg2 c6 12.tiJxe6 ~d7 13.tiJxfS l::txfS 14.0-0 lDa6 15.c4 rttfl 16.tiJc3 'It>g8 17.f4;:!;. Pilaj Fahrner, Mureck 2001.) 1l ... c6 (11...h5 12 ..td3±; 11...tiJc6 12.a6 bxa613.h5.tfl 14..l:i.xa6+-) 12.h5 .tf7 13.tiJxfl rttxfl 14.g5 tiJd5 15.c4 tiJc7 16 ..td3± and White already creates powerful threats, for example to capture on h7; 5 ... c6 6.a5 tiJd5. Black's deliberate loss of two tempi looks a bit strange. Its idea is evidently to maim White's pawn on a2 to

the a5-square and to attack it later, or to exploit the b4-square with his knight sometimes in the future. 7 ..te2 g6 8.0-0 .tg7 9.c4 tiJc7 10.exd6 ~xd6 (We have analyzed a similar position, except with a white pawn on the a2square, in the line 4 ... c6 5.i.e2 g6.) 11.lDc3 0-0 12 ..te3 tiJba6 13. ~c1.tg4 14.l:td1 tiJe6, Sigurjonsson - Larsen, Ljubljana 1977, 15.d5 tiJec5 (15 ... cxd5 16.tiJxd5 tiJec5 17J:ta3±) 16 ..tf4 ~d7 17. ~e3± - Black's pieces are horribly misplaced after the pawnbreak in the centre; 5 ... g6 6.a5 tiJ6d7 7 ..tc4 (7. h4!?) 7 ... e6 8.0-0 d5 9.i.g5 i.e7 1O ..txe7 ~xe7 11..te2;:!;. This position resembles the French Defence, but the dark squares on Black's kingside have been weakened considerably with the move g7-g6. 11...0-0 12.c4 (Opening of the centre is too dangerous for Black.) 12 ... dxc4 13.tiJc3 c5 14.d5 exd5 15.tiJxd5 ~d8 16. ~d2 (it is better for White to follow with 16 ..txc4 tiJc6 17.1:te1 i1tiJxa5 18 ..tb5 tiJc6 19 ..txc6 bxc6 20.tiJe3 ~e8 21.tiJc4;t and his compensation for the pawn is more than sufficient) 16 ... ~e8 17 ..txc4 lDc6 (o17 ... tiJxe5 18. tiJxe51:txe5 19.1:tfe1 tDc6oo) 18. ~f4 .l:!.xe5 (18 ... tiJcxe5 19.tiJc7!+-) 19.tiJxe5 tDdxe5 20.1aad1 +- and White pressed his material advantage home in the game Naiditsch - Varga, Budapest 1998. White could have possibly tried on his move 8 another idea: 137

Chapter 9

8.h4, for example: 8 ... d5 (8 ... SLg7 9.SLg5±; 8 ... lbc6 9. ~e2;t) 9.SLg5 SLe7 10.SLd3;t and he reaches an even more favourable deployment of pieces in the same pawnstructure. 6.exd6

6 ... exd6 After the other possible captures on d6 - Black has problems to complete his development: 6 ... cxd6 7.d5. This move makes Black's kingside development - a hard task to accomplish. In case of e7-e6, Black would remain with plenty of pawn weaknesses, while g7-g6 would be countered with ~d1-d4 and Black would be forced to weaken additionally his kingside. 7 ... lba6 (We have already mentioned that Black compromises his pawn-structure considerably with: 7 ... e5?! 8.dxe6 SLxe6 9.SLb5+ lbc6 10.lbg5 ~f6 11.0-0 d5 12.SLe3 lbd7 13.lbc3± Zhidkov - Mikadze, Moscow 1972.) S.SLe3 SLd7 9.lbg5 (It is not so energetic for White to play instead: 9.c3 lbc5 10.b3 Hjartarson - Westerinen, Reykjavik 1997.) 9 ... lbb4 (9 ... h6? 10.lbe6+-) 10.lbc3 g6 138

11. ~f3 f6 12.lbe6 SLxe6 13.dxe6 SLg7 14.SLb5+ ~fS, Kovalev Leko, Tilburg 1992. White's positional advantage is overwhelming in this situation. Black's king is unsafe and it is inconceivable how he can complete his kingside development. Instead of the quite unclear complications after: 15.0-0 lbxc2 16.~xb7 lbxe3 17.fxe3l:tbS 18.~f3 ~c8 19.~h3 - and Black has fortified his position reliably on the dark squares, it would have been much simpler for White to have protected his c2-pawn first with - 15.l:tcl± and castle only later; 6 ... ~xd6 7.lbc3 g6 S.lbb5 ~d8 9.i.f4 lba6 10.SLe5. Thus, White forces the move fl-f6 and at first it weakens Black's kingside pawns and secondly it closes the a1-hS diagonal, which Black plans to exploit at some moment in the future, because he will develop his bishop along it. 10 ... f6 1l.i.g3 c6 (11...SLe6 12. SLd3 c6 13. ~e2 ~fl 14.lba3 lbb4 15.SLe4 SLh6 16.0-0 ~d7 17. :fel±. Practically all black pieces are terribly misplaced. Later, in the game Groszpeter - Konopka, Zalakaros 1995, there followed: 17 .. J:rheS 18.l:tad1 gS 19.c3 lb4d5 20.c4 lbb4 21.b3 SLf5 22. i.xf5 ~xf5 23.lbb1 lba6 24.lbc3 lIadS 25.h3 g5 26.d5 c5 27.lbb5 ~d7 28.~e6+ ~xe6 29 ..l::t.xe6 lbd7 30.J:.de1 lbf8 31.lbd6 and Black resigned.) 12.lbc3 SLe6 13.lbe4 SLfl (Black had better play here: 13 ... SLd5;t.) 14 ..i.xa6 lIxa6 15.

l.e4 ctJf6 2.e5 ctJd5 3.d4 d6 4.ctJ{3 ctJb6 5.a4 ~e2 (White is threatening to checkmate on f6, or to check on the d6-square and Black's position is practically hopeless.) 15 ... .ig7 16.ctJd6+ ~f8 17.ctJxb7 ~a8 18.ctJc5+- and White remained with an overwhelming positional and material advantage, Rublevsky - Laketic, Novi Sad 2000. 7 ..id3.ie7 Black would not change much by playing: 7 ... 3l.g4 8.0-0 3l.e7 9 ..l:te1 0-0 10.ctJbd2 3l.h5 11.ctJf1 ,.tg6 12.ctJg3, Salimaki - Westerinen, Finland 1997. 8.0-0 ctJc6 9.c3 .ig4 1O.ctJbd2

~h5

1l.ctJe4 il..g6 12.ctJg3 .ixd3 13:§xd30-0 14..l:tel;!;;

White's position is clearly superior, because of his extra space and his harmonious deployment of pieces, Tseshkovsky - Laketic, Tivat 1995.

Conclusion We have analyzed in this chapter some seldom played variations for Black on moves 3 and 4. In general, it is not so sensible for him to avoid the natural 3 ... d6-move, counterattacking White's centre and contributing to his piece-development, and to try something else on move three. Some of these rarely played lines like 3 ... ctJc6, or 3 ... g6 are in fact very dangerous for Black, because White can immediately create dangerous threats. Following 3 ... d6 4.tb{3, Black's seldom played moves: 4 ... c6, 4 ... ctJb6 and 4 ... .if5 - usually lead to calm positions with a minimal advantage for White. He often exchanges on d6 and then he develops his kings ide. Later, he castles and maintains a slight space advantage.

139

Chapter 10

l.e4 ttJf6 2.e5 ttJd5 3.d4 d6 4.ttJf3 ttJc6

This seemingly logical move (Black develops a piece and he attacks the e5-pawn.) in the Alekhine Defence has an important drawback - White now has the possibility to attack the knight with d4-dS. 5.c4 tt:Jb6 6.e6! That restricting sacrifice is so well-familiar to us by now. Presently, it becomes possible, because Black cannot capture with the bishop, because of d4-d5. 6 ...fxe6 Black's extra pawn on e6 only hampers the development of his pieces on both sides of the board in this position. His kingside is also very weak now as well as the e8-h5 and bl-h7 - diagonals in particular.

140

He usually defends with two different plans in this situation: The first one is by playing g7g6 and i.f8-g7. He manages to develop his kingside in that fashion and to create some counterplay against his opponent's d4pawn. White in his turn has a wonderful target to attack on the kingside - the g6-pawn. He can follow with h2-h4-h5 and open the position, introducing his rook on hI into the actions. Black's second possible plan is to get rid of the cramping e6-pawn by playing e6-e6. Thus, he is inclined to return his extra pawn, for example he can counter d4-d5 with tt:Jc6-d4. Later, he usually manages to play once again e7-e5, thus developing his kingside in a natural fashion. Sometimes, Black's two possible plans are combined together - he plays at first g7 -g6 and i.f8-g7 and only then he follows with e6-e5. 7.tt:Jc3 This is just one of the possible

3.d4 d6 4.lDf3 lDc6 5.c4lDb6 6.e6 fe 7.lDc3

move-orders for White. Contrary to the two other possibilities 7.h4 and 7.lDg5 - he develops his queenside first, before the direct attack on the kingside.

So, Black has two different plans: a) 7 •.. e5 and b) 7 .•. g6. It is not so good for Black to play: 7 ... lDd7 8.lDg5 lDf6. After 9.d5 exd5 10.cxd5 lDe5 (Naturally, Black cannot expect anything promising for him after the retreat: 10 ... lDb8 l1.i.d3 g6 12. lDxh7 l:txh7 13.i.xg6+ l:tf7 14. lDe4 lDxe4 15.~h5+- Bathke Ritscher, Germany 1998.) l1.f4 lDf7 12.lDe6 ~d7? (It is somewhat better for Black, but still leading to a bad position, to play: 12 ... i.xe6 13.dxe6 lDh6, Malada - Marinic, Split 2000, because of 14.i.e2 ~c8 15.g4 lDhg8 16.g5± and he is forced to capture on e6 and give up a piece for a pawn.) 13.lDb5!+- and White wins material. Later, in the game Minasian - Sobolewski, Leningrad 1990, there followed: 13 ... lDxd5 14.~xd5 ~xe6+ 15.~xe6 i.xe6 16.lDxc7 + 'it>d7 17.lDxa8lDd8 18. i.e3 lDc6 19.1tc1 and Black resigned.

a) 7 ••• e5 B.d5 lDd4 9.lDxd4 exd410.~xd4

lO ... e5 It is not logical for Black to continue with: 10 ... i..f5. In case he does not intend to play e7 -e5, it becomes unclear why he has given up his e6-pawn in the first place. If Black really wants to push e7 -e5, he should have done it immediately in order to be able to capture on e6 with the bishop outright without losing an additional tempo. l1.i.e2 h5 12.0-0 ~d7 13.i.e3 e5 14.dxe6 i.xe6 15.l:tfe1 i.e7 16.lDd5 i.xd5 17. cxd5±. Black has already compromised his kings ide with the move h7-h5, so he cannot castle short, while his king will come under a very dangerous pawnonslaught on the queenside. 17 ... i..ffi18.~d2 ~ffi? (It was better for Black to play: 18 ... 'it>f7 19.J:.acl±), Bosch - Vis, Den Bosch 1997 and here White could have won the game immediately with 19.i.xb6+-. 1l.dxe6 i..xe6 It is too bad for Black to play 11 ... ~f6, because after 12. thffi gxffi 13.lDd5, he fails to regain 141

Chapter 10 his pawn after: 13 ... lbxd5 14. cxd5 c6 15.i.c4 b5 16.Ji.b3 Ji.b7 17.dxc6 Ji.xc6 lS.0-0 0-0-0 19. ~f4+- and White's material advantage has become decisive, Baron Rodriguez - Moya Albadalejo, La Roda 2005. 12.Ji.e3

12 ... ~f6 The move 12 ... ~d7 is with the idea for Black to castle long. 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.lbb5 ~bS 15. '§c3 a6 16.lbd4 Ji.e7 17.lbxe6 '§xe6 18.~xb6 cxb6 19.~xg7 b5!~. Black is trying to exploit the weaknesses of the shelter of White's king. 20.~bl ~f6 21.~h6 bxc4 22.~xc4 '§f5+ 23.~d3 '§xi2= and the position is absolutely equal. It looks like White's castling on move 13 was not his best decision. Having in mind that Black plans to castle long, it is much trickier for White to follow with 13.~e2!?, in order to counter 13 ... 0-0-0 (Black's attempt to win a pawn after: 13 ... ~c6, fails because of: 14.0-0 ~xc4 15.~f3 d5 16. ~e5±.) with 14.0-0t and to proceed later with a pawn-offensive on the queenside. In the 142

game Bor - Ameling, corr. 19S5, after 13.Ji.e2, Black played 13 ... c5 - trying to exploit the temporary vulnerability of White's c4-pawn. 14.'§f4 (14.~e4!?) 14 ... Ji.e7 15.b3 Ji.f6 (Black should have better avoided losing his castling rights after: 15 .. J:tfS 16.~g3 ..tf6 17J::tc1 0-0-0 IS. ltJe4;1;.) 16 ...th5+ ~e7 17J:tc1l:taffi IS. ~e4 ~dS 19.~f3 1:H7 20. ,§d3;1;. Black has only compromised his own position with the move c7-c5 and then, instead of castling naturally, he started performing an artificial castling. Later, the game followed with: 20 ... h6 (o20 ... ..tf5 21.~d2;1;) 21.0-0 lbcS 22 . .l::l.fd1 b6 23.~e4± and White had a clear edge. In the game Madl - Halpin, Canberra 1990, Black somehow neglected the safety of his g7pawn and he played: 12 ... ..te7, with the idea to follow with Ji.f6, in case White captures that pawn, and to obtain some counterplay against White's queenside. The game continued with: 13.c5 dxc5 14. ~xg7 ~f6 15. '§h6lbd7 16.lbe4 ~e7 17.lbxf6+ lbxf6 lS.0-0-0t (18.~xc5 ~xc5 19.~xf6 '§b4+ 20.~c3 ~e4+ 21. .Jte2 0-0-0;1;) 18 ... l.1d8 19 ..i:.e1.i:%.gS 20.~c4 J:lg6 21.~xe6 ~xe6 22. ..txc5+- and Black lost a pawn. It would have been even better for White to have continued with the immediate capture: 13.~xg7, since it was not good for Black to capture White's c4-pawn any-

3.d4 d6 4.tDf3 CDc6 5.c4 tDb6 6.e6 fe 7.tDc3

way: 13 ... i..f6 14. ~h6 tDxc4 15. tDe4 tDxe3. (otherwise Black loses a piece after 15 ... !:tfB 16. i..g5+-) 16.tDxf6+ Wf7 17.tDxh7. Black remains a pawn down, his king is vulnerable and he cannot win the exchange, because of tDf3-g5+. The game might follow with: 17 ... tDc2+ 18.Wd2 ~g8 19. ~f6+ We8 20.Wxc2 ~xh7 21..id3 ~e7 22.~ae1 +-. 13.~xf6 gxf6 14.b3 0-0-0 It deserves attention for Black to try now: 14 ... c6!? with the idea to follow with d6-d5. In the game Mellado Trivino Fontana Sotomayour, Zaragoza 2001, White played 15.i..e2 d5 16.cxd5 i..b4 17.0-0-0 tt'lxd5 18.i..h5+ We7 19.tt'lxd5+ ..Itxd5 20J!hg1l:thd8=. The weakness of Black's f6 and h7-pawns is practically immaterial in that position. The game becomes very complicated after: 15.0-0-0 d5 16. i..xb6 axb617.cxd5 cxd518.tt'lxd5 !:txa2 19 .CDc7 + Wfl 20. tDxe6 'lii'xe6 21..~c4+ 'lii'f5oo - White's king is a bit vulnerable indeed, moreover his extra pawn is not promising him any serious winning chances, because of the opposite coloured bishops present on the board. It is better for White to play: 15.a4!?, with the idea to counter d6-d5 with a4-a5 and to create an isolated d5-pawn for Black. White can rely on having a slight advantage in the endgame in

that case, for example: 15 ... d5 16.a5 ..Itb4 17 ...Itd2 tt'ld7 (17 ... ..Itxc3 18 ...Itxc3 tt'ld7 19.0-0-0;1; White's couple of powerful bishops provides him with a stable edge.) 18.cxd5 cxd5 19.tt'lb5 ..Itxd2 20.'lii'xd2 tDc5 21.tDd4 'lii'f7 22. f3;1; and the defects of Black's pawn-structure are quite considerable. 15.0-0-0

Now, it is too bad for Black to play: 15 ... d5 16 ...Itxb6 i..a3+ 17. Wc2 axb6 18.cxd5±, because White wins a pawn. In the game Korneev - Exposito, Seville 2001, Black played: 15 ... ~g7, after which White redeployed his knight to the d4square: 16.tDb5 \t>b8 17.tDd4 i.g4 18.f3 ~d7 19.i..d3;1; and he had a real advantage in the endgame, because of his control over the f5-square. Later, there followed: 19 ... ~de8 20.i..f4 f5 (This attempt by Black to free himself backfires.) 21.tt'lxf5 i..xf5 22.~xf5 .i:te2 23.J:ld2 !:the8 24.i.e4+- and White pressed easily his material advantage home.

143

Chapter 10 b) 7 ... g6

8.h4!? White begins an immediate attack against Black's g6-pawn. He has often tried in practice the move 8.i..e3 too, in order to prevent Black's counterplay against the d4-pawn. The critical line for the evaluation ofthat move is: 8 ... i..g7 9.h4 0-0 10.h5 and now 10 ... e5 ll.d5 lLld4 12. lLlxd4 exd4 13.i..xd4 i..xd4 14. ~xd4 e5, after which White fails to organize an effective attack on the kingside. He does not achieve much in the endgame after capturing en passant: 15.dxe6 ~f6. Finally, the game is unclear after: 11. hxg6 exd4!, for example: 12.gh ~h8 13.liJxd4 lLlxe5!? 14.i..h6?! i..xh6 15J:!.xh6 .l:i.xf2! 16.~xf2 ~f8 (M.Golubev). I therefore recommend 8.h4, after which Black's king cannot be fortified so comfortably on the kingside. Meanwhile that move has a certain drawback, in comparison to 8.i..e3, that is - White does not control the d4-square. Black should try to exploit that immediately. 144

8 ... i..g7 9.hS eS This is the most principled and practically the only playable move for Black. He cannot afford to castle now, because his kingside is too vulnerable. There are no other useful moves for him available, so he should rely on his only possible counterplay the attack against White's d4pawn. See what might happen in case Black castles short: 9 ... 0-0 10.hxg6 hxg6 1l.i..d3 (White's straightforward offensive against the g6-pawn is his most aggressive and best line.) 11...lLlxd4 (11...e5 12.i..xg6 i..f5 13.i..xf5 nxf5 14.g4±; in case Black tries to defend his pawn with the queen - ll ... ~e8, it is good for White to follow with: 12.lLlb5±) 12.lLlxd4 i..xd4 13.~g4 i..xf2+ 14.~dlllf7 15.i..xg6 J:lg7, baloo - Hossa, ICC 1998, 16. ~h5+- and White checkmates in several moves. 9 ... i..d7. This move is not so useful for Black, because thus he closes the leeway for his king to run away from danger to the queenside. 10.hxg6 hxg6 II. lIxh8+ i..xh8, Lyubimov - Freud, IeS 1997, 12.i..d3±. White wins the g6-pawn; meanwhile Black's king remains on the d8-square, because in case of: 12 ... ~f7, White would continue with: 13.lLlg5 ~g7 14.i..xg6+- and his attack would be absolutely decisive. lO.dS lLld4 1l.hxg6

3.d4 d6 4.0l3 tLJc6 5.c4 tLJb6 6.e6 fe 7.tLJc3

Black has tried in practice here three possibilities in this critical position: hI) 1l ••• hxg6, h2) 1l •••.if5 and h3) 1l •••.ig4. hI) 1l ...hxg6 This seems to be a natural move, but Black's king is doomed to roam all over the board after it. 12 ..§.xh8+ .ixh8 13.tLJxd4 White cannot achieve too much after: 13 ..td3 c6 14 ..txg6+ (It deserves attention for him to play: 14.dxc6!? bxc6 15.c5!? dxc5 16 ..ixg6+ Wd7 17.tLJe4 ~g8 18. tLJxc5+ 'i;c7 19. ~d3±. Black's knight is well placed on the d4square indeed, but his king is rather unsafe.) 14 ... 'it>d7 15 ..ie3 tLJxc4 16 ..ixd4 lZ:lxb2 (16 ... exd4 17.tLJxd4) 17.~b3 exd4 18.tLJe4 ~b6 (18 ... ~a5+!?) 19.dxc6+ bxc6 20.~g8 ~a5+-Now, Black's king is under no threats whatsoever and he has the material advantage too, Kiesel- Schindler, Germany 1999. 13 ... exd4 14 ..id3 e6 This move is aimed at an opening of a safe haven for the black king on the queenside - the c7-square.

15.tLJa4 .if5 15 ... cxd5 16 ..ixg6+ Wd7 17. tLJxb6+ ~xb6 18. ~h5 .if6 19. cxd5± - Black can hardly complete his development, while: 19 ... ~b4+? (19 .. .'~c7 20 ..id2±) loses, because of 20 ..id2 ~xb2 2U::(c1 +- and Black's king is utterly defenseless. It deserved attention for Black to try 15 ... 'i.t>d7, but White could have countered that with: 16 ..id2t, with the idea to bring the rook into action and to start an onslaught against the enemy king on the queenside too. 16 ..ixf5 gxf5 17.~h5+ 'it>d7 18.~xf5+ We7 19.tLJe5 ~g8 20.lZle6+ 'it'h8

21..ig5t. White has an overwhelming attack in a position with material equality. Later, the game Pikula - Todorovic, Cetinje 1993, followed with: 21...exd5 (21...tLJxc4 22.dxc6 bxc6 23.l:i:c1~ d5 24Jhc4 dxc4 25. ~f4+-) 22. .ixe7 a6 23 ..ixd6+ ~a7 24 ..ie5 ~xg2 25.0-0-0+- lie8 26.exd5 'it'a8 27.d6 ~e6 28.tLJe7+ ~h8 29.~bl d3 30..lbd3 .ixb2 31. ~b3 tLJa4 32.1bb2 tLJxb2 33. 'it>xb2 ~h8 34.~d5 ~a4 35.~g5 145

Chapter 10 ~d7 36"~e7 and White proceeded to win with his material advantage.

b2) 1l ... ..tf5 Black is preparing to castle long. 12.luxd4 exd4

13.~xh7!?

This move has not been tested in practice yet; nevertheless it deserves a great attention. The exchange ofthe rooks might turn out to be very favourable for White, for example he will be threatening to play ~h5+ and hB~ at some moment. In answer to 13.gxh7, Black has tried three moves in tournaments: It is not good for him to follow with: 13 ... Wd7 14 ...td3 ~f8, because White could have obtained a great advantage with: 15 ..ixf5+ ~xf5 16.l:i.h5 ~g6 17. l:i.g5 ~xh71B.~g4±, although he can also try: 15.4:Je2 l:i.eB 16.4:Jf4 e5 17.4:Jg6 .ixg6 lB. ~g4+ WdB 19 ..ixg6±. White has extra material and a positional advantage too. Later, in the game Campora - Pacorro, Ceuta 1992, there fol146

lowed: 19 ... .l:te7 20 ..ig5 ..tf6 2l. l:th3 ..txg5 22. ~xg5 WcB 23. ~f5+ ~xf5 24 ...txf5+ WdB 25.b3 4:Jd7 26.We2 4:Jf6 27.l:th6 nf7 2B.g4 <3i;e7 29J::tah1 ng7 30.£3 c5 3l.Wd3 a6 32.a4 b6 33.a5 b5 34.cxb5 axb5 35.a6 4:Jxd5 36J:te6+ Wf8 37.~xd6 4:Jb4+ 3B.We4 :a7 39.:hh6 and Black resigned; It is not so clear after: 13 ... e6 14.4:Jb5 ~e7 15.4:Jxd4 exd5+ 16 . ..te3 ..txh 7 17. ~h5+ Wf8 1B.4:Jf5 ..txf5 19.~xf5+ ~f6 20JhhB+ ..txh8 21...th6+ WgB 22.~xf6 .ixf6 23.cxd5 ..txb2 24.l:tb1 i.d4oo, because Black has a sufficient counterplay, despite White's connected passed pawns, Khruschiov - B.Nevednichy, Romania 1999. White can try to find an improvement by playing: 15. dxe6!? ..txe6 (It is not sufficient for Black to play: 15 ... ~xe6+ 16 ..ie3 0-0-0 17 .4:Jxd4± - White wins a pawn and follows that with castling long.) 16. ~h5+ <3i;d7 C16 ... ..tf7+ 17.~e2 ~xe2+ lB. .ixe2 and White has managed to preserve his h7-pawn, which might become really dangerous in the arising endgame, for example: 1B ... 0-0-0 19 ..id3 4:Jxc4 20.b3 ndeB+ 21.<3i;dl 4:Jb6 22. .ih6±.) 17 ..ig5 ~fB 1B.0-0-0 ~xf2 19 ..id3 4:Jxc4 20 ..ixc4 .ixc4 21.4:Jxd4 .ixd4 22. ~g4+ .ie6 23. ~xd4 ~xd4 24 ..l:txd4 l:i.af8oo, White will hardly be able to win that endgame; 13 ... ~d7 - this is a logical move and Black completes his development and castles after it.

3.d4 d6 4.tDf3 tDc6 5.c4 tDb6 6.e6 fe 7.tDc3

14.SLd3 0-0-0 (14 ... i..xd3 15. ~xd3 dxc3 16. ~g6+ ~fB 17.i..h6 i..xh6 1B:~xh6+ ~f7 19:~h5+ ~fB 20 ..l:th3+-) 15.tDe2 (In case of 15.tDb5, Black will play 15 ... a6 16.i..xf5 ~xf517.tDxd4 ~e4+ lB. i..e3 ~xg2. He regains his pawn with a powerful counterplay against White's king, for example: 19.~e2ltJxc4 20.tDe6 SLb2 2l.l::tb1 l:tdfB 22.tDxfB l:txfB~, or 19. ~f3 ~xf3 20.tDxf3 SLxb2 2l. l::tb1 tDxc4oo) 15 ... e5 16.tDg3 e4! 17.tDxe4l:tdeB 1B.f3 SLxh7 19. 0-0 SLxe4 20.SLxe4 ~f7 2l.~d3 ~h5 22.SLf4, Pletanek - Podsednik, Czech Republic 1993 and after 22 ... ~h4!?t, Black has a powerful counterplay against his opponent's king for the sacrificed pawn. So, presently White has not managed to prove any convincing superiority in the 13. gxh7 variation. 13 ...l:txh7 Mter 13 ... dxc3 14.l:1xg7 ~d7 15.bxc3 0-0-0 16.SLe3±, White maintains both a material and positional advantage. 14.gxh7 'it>d7 Or 14 ... e6 15.tDb5 ~e7 16. tDxc7 + ~xc7 17. ~h5+ ~f7 lB. hB~+ i..xhB 19.~xhB+ ~d7 20. ~xd4± - and White remains with a solid extra pawn. 15.tDe4 (It deserves attention for White to play here: 15.SLd3!? ~fB 16.tDe2.) 15 ... ~f8 16.tDg5 ~f6 17 .i..d3±. Black's compensation for the pawn will hardly be sufficient.

b3) 11. .. i..g4 This move pins White's knight and prepares simultaneously Black's castling long.

12.gxh7 It seems attractive for White

to try here the queen-sacrifice: 12.tDxd4!? SLxdl13.tDe6, but still that line is by far not the best for him: 13 ... ~bB (13 ... i..g414.tDxdB l:!.xdB 15.l:!.xh7l:!.xh7 16.gxh7 i..f5 17.SLh6 ~f7 1B.SLxg7 ~xg7 19. tDb5;1;) 14.tDxg7+ ~d7 15.tDxd1 (It is worse for White to play: 15. ~xd1 hxg6 16J1xhB ~xhB 17. tDe6 ~h1 1B.'it>e1 tDxc4.) 15 ... hxg6 16JIxhB (16.i..h6 ~gB~) 16 ... ~xhB 17.tDe6 c6. White's pieces are discoordinated and despite the favourable material ratio for him (three pieces for a queen and a pawn) - he should better avoid that variation, for example: 1B.tDc3 ~h1 19.i..g5 (19.b3 cxd5 20.cxd5 i:.cB+) 19 ... ~gl (19 ... l::tcB 20.0-0-0;1; cxd5? 2l.cxd5 tDxd5 22.i..b5+-; 19 ... tDxc4 20.dxc6+ bxc6 21.0-0-0 tDb6 22.tDc5+ ~eBoo) 20.b3 ILcBoo. 12 ... ~d7 Black sacrifices temporarily a pawn (presently he does not in147

Chapter 10 tend to recapture on h7 ... ) and he opts for some counterplay in the centre, connected with an attack against the f3-square as well as with the undermining pawn-break e7 -e6. 13..ltd3 White has also tried: 13 ..lte3 0-0-0 14 ..ltxd4 exd4 15.lbe4 e6fZ, but Black obtains a sufficient counterplay. Later, in the game Behling - Marcinkiewicz, ICCF 1999, there followed: 16.dxe6 .ltxe6 17:f!tc2 .ltxc4 18 ..ltxc4 lbxc4 (Black's central pawnmass is no less dangerous than White's passed pawns in this middle game.) 19.0-0-0 d5 20. lbc5 'f!tc6 21.liJd3 'f!tb6 22.'f!ta4 ~de8 23.~b1 (23.b3 lbd6 filiJb5) 23 ... .l:Ie2 24.b3 liJd6 25.lbf4 J::txf2 26.lbxd5 'f!tc5+ 27.lbe7+ 'it'd8 28. l:tc1 'f!tb5 29.'f!txb5 lbxb5 30.lbf5 and here after: 30 .. J:txg2 and the following eventual developments: 31..l::r.hg1 lbc3+ 32 ..l::r.xc3 J::txg1+ 33.lbxg1 dxc3 34.liJxg7 .lhh7 35.liJe6+ ~e7 36.liJd4+ the game should end in a draw. White was not obliged to capture on d4; he should have tried instead to make a good use of Black's long castling and follow with: 14.a4!? a5 (Black would hate to retreat his knight to the a8-square after a4-a5, while the tactical com plica tions after: 14 ... .:i.dfS 15.a5 turn out to be not in his favour, because after the capture on b6, White is threatening bxa7 and a8'f!t: 15 ... CtJxf3+ 16.gxf3 ..I¥..xf3 17.axb6+-; 15 ... 148

..I¥..xf3 16.gxf3 liJxc4 17 . ..I¥..xc4 lbxf3+ 18.~f1 +-; 15 ... .l:Ixf3 16. axb6! a6 17. 'f!ta4±) 15.liJb5 lbxb5. This is the most principled line for Black. (It is too tentative for him to follow with: 15 ... e6 16.dxe6 .ltxe6 17. liJfxd4 exd4 18.lbxd4 .ltxc4 19. .ltd3 .ltxd3 20. 'f!txd3lbd5; 19J~c1 .ltxfl 20.~xfl liJd5 21..ltg5;!;. Presently, White has managed to preserve his extra pawn, he has protected his king quite reliably and he is ready to exploit the vulnerability of Black's king, for example after: 21.. ..ltf6 22 ..ltxf6 lbxf6 23.lbb5 c6 24. 'f!td4±.) 16. axb5 e4. Black wins a piece, but White can utilize the open a-file for an attack after: 17. 'f!t d2 (17. llxa5 exf3 18.gxf3 ..I¥..f5) 17 ... exf3 18.gxf3 .ltxf3 19.11h4 .ltg4 White was threatening to play .lth3 - 20.f3 .ltf5 21.'f!txa5 'f!te8 22 ...I¥..xb6± and Black's kingside has been devastated. 13 .•. 0-0-0 14..lte3 It is not good for White to play: 14.lbxd4 .ltxd115 ..ltf5 exd4 16 ..ltxd7+ 'it'xd7 17.lbxd1lbxc4°o - because his pawn-centre gets destroyed. 14••.J::tdfB This move practically forces White to capture on d4. 15 ..ltxd4 exd4 16.lbe4 .ltxf3 17.gxf3 e6 That is Black's only possible counterplay, in case of 17 ... c6, White would follow with 18.l::!.cl. 18.dxe6 'f!txe6 19.'f!te2 d5 Otherwise White would castle

3.d4 d6 4.t'D{3 tDc6 5.c4 tDb6 6.e6 fe 7.tDc3 long. 20.c5 dxe4 21.cxb6 ~xb6 22.~xe4 d3 Black sacrifices a pawn in order to open the long diagonal for his bishop and to obtain some counterplay against his opponent's king. In the game Campora - Bischoff, Bad Aibling 1982, following 22 ... ~h6 23.'it>fa, White managed to preserve his h 7pawn and maintained his advantage, despite the opposite coloured bishops. Black's central pawns are easily blocked on the light squares and White's king is absolutely safe.

l:td7 28:~a4 .lth6 29.l:tc4 ~g5+ 30.'it>f1 ~h5 31.l:txc6+ 'it>d8 32. .l:Ixh6 ~xh6 33.~xa7 J:lhxh7 34. ~b8+ ~e7 35.ii.xh7 ~h1+ 36. ~e2 ~xh 7 and here after the precise move 37 Jlb3!?±, White could have parried the threats against his king and his material advan23.~xd3 ~d8 24.~c4 ~xb2 tage should have been sufficient (diagram) to win the game. 25.~bl!? 25 ..• ~c3+ 26.~xc3 .ltxc3+ In the game Kindermann - 27.'it>e2 c6 28.l:.b3±. Black's last Fleck, Germany 1982, there hope to save the game is based followed: 25.0-0 ~f6 26.l:.fcl. on the presence of opposite White's idea is to place his king coloured bishops on the board; on f1 and to attack on the queen- nevertheless White's winning side, exploiting the power of chances remain quite considerthe bishop on e4. 26 ... c6 27.l:.ab1 able.

Conclusion The sharp risky move 4 ... tDc6 gives White the interesting option of a restraining pawn sacrifice: 5.c4 tDb6 6.e6 fxe6 7.tDc3. It considerably weakens Black's kingside whilst the material advantage is only temporary. Black usually employs two defensive plans. The first one is linked with an immediate return of the extra pawn for the kingside development - 7... e5 B.d5 tDd4 9.0.xd4 exd4 10. ~xd4 e5. It leads in the main line to a somewhat better endgame for White. The second plan is 7.. .g6, when I recommend the relatively rare move B.h4!? White starts a direct attack to the enemy king allowing Black's knight to land on the central square d4. In this line the ruined kings ide of Black is a factor which outweighs his counterplay. 149

Chapter 11

l.e4 tt:Jf6 2.e5 tt:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.tt:Jf3 dxe5

move seems to be a) 5 ... ttJd7, but in the arisen position White has the sacrifice 6.ttJxf7 ~xf7 7:~h5+ ~e6 8.c4. White has dragged out the enemy king into the centre of the board and his attack is quite strong. The ensuing variations are very complicated and hazy. This move was introduced by As long as the sacrifice is danA.Alekhine in a simultane game. gerous for Black, it is sensible for Later it was revived by one of the him to delay ttJb8-d7 in favour of best players in the 60-70-ies - some developing move which the Danish GM Bent Larsen, prevents ttJxf7: b) 5 •.. e6, c) 5 •.•c6 who employed it in the Can- or d) 5 ... g6. didates matches in 1965 against Worse is 5 ... ~ffi?!. 6. ~f3! e6 B.Ivkov and M.Tal. 7.~d3 ~c8?? (7 ... ~f6 was the Black takes on e5 by his free only move, although in that case will seemingly presenting White White gets a classical pawn mawith a tempo for development of jority on the queenside after the knight. The idea of this line 8.~xf5 ~xf5 9. ~xf5 exf5;!;) 8. however is to play ttJb8-d7, when ~xffi exffi 9.~xd5 ~e6 10.~xb7 White is faced with a choice - and that was all in Gofshtein either to allow an exchange on Gayraud, Saint Quentin 1998. e5 which leads to simplification, or retreat with the knight back a) 5 ... ttJd7 to f3. In the latter case Black reThis position became really gains the tempo. popular after the Candidates 5.ttJxe5 Match for the World ChampionNow the most consistent ship - Tal - Larsen, Bled 1965, 150

3.d4 d6 4.CDf3 de 5.lilxe5liJd7 6.CiJxf7

although White refrained from the sacrifice there.

6.CDxf7! We have assumed that the sacrifice is quite correct after an extensive analytical work and rigorous practical testing. White needs to play extremely precisely with great inventiveness, though ... 6 •• .'.ii'xf7 7. ~h5+ We6 But not 7 ... g6? 8.~xd5+ e6 9. ~f3+- Afanasiev - N azarenko, Novokuznetsk 1998. 8.c4CD5f6 It is too bad for Black to play: 8 ... CDb4 9.a3CDc2+ 10.Wd1CDxa1 (10 ... CDf6 11.~e5 Wfl 12.Wc2+-) 11.~d5+, because he gets checkmated: 1l ... (i~>f6 12 ...tg5+ Wg6 13.~d3+ ~h5 14 ...te3+ Wg4 15. ~g5# B.Wall - J.Wall, Taylorsville 1977. In the game Pace - Briffa, La Valeta 1996, Black gave back the piece with: 8 ... CD7f6 9.cxd5+ ~xd5, in order to manage to trade queens, but after: 10. ~xd5+ CDxd5 1l ...tc4 c6 12.CDc3 g6 13.0-0 Wd6 14.CDxd5 cxd5 15 ...tf4+ ~c6 16 ...tb3+-, his position was hopeless.

9.d5+ ~d6 10. ~f7

10.••CDe5 White preserves a great advantage in case of: 10 ... CDb6 11. CDc3 ..tf5 (11...~e8 12.c5+ ~xc5 13 ...te3+ Wb4 14.CDe4! CDc4 15. a3+ ~a5 16 ...txc4 b5 17. b4+ ~a6 18.CDc5+ ~b6 19.CDe6+ ~b7 20. ~xe8CDxeB 21...txb5+-) 12 ...td3! ..txd3 13. ~e6+ Wc5 14. ~e3+ Wxc4 (it is somewhat better for Black to try here: 14 ... Wd615.c5+ Wd7 16. ~xd3±) 15.b3+ Wb4 16. ~a3+ Wxa3 17.~c5+- BechlerSchirmer, corr. 19B5. Black does not save the game after: 10 ... CDbB, because of 11. c5+! The developments are quite forced now: 1l ... Wd7 (Black is totally crushed in the rest of the variations. See two of them: 11...~xc5 12.~e3+ ~d6 13.CDa3 c6 14 ...tf4+ ~c5 15.dxc6 ~a5+ 16 ...td2 ~a4 17.b4+ Wb6 1B ...te3+ ~c7 19.CDb5+ Wxc6 20.~c4+ ~d7 21.t'tc7+ WeB 22.t'txcB+ 'liff7 23 . ..tc4+ Wg6 24.t'te6+-; 11...~e512. f4 ~d4 13.d6 ~xc5 14.dxc7 t'txc7 15.CDc3 ~c6 16 ...tb5+ Wd6 17 ...te3 t'ta5 lB. t'tc4CDc6 19.b4 t'txb4 20. ..tc5+ ~xc5 21.~d1+-) 12 ...tb5+ c6 13.dxc6+ bxc6 14.0-0 t'ta5 151

Chapter 11 (Black loses after: 14 ... ~e8 15J:Ld1+ ~c7 16.~f4+ ~b7 17. ~a6+, Ochsner - Sorensen, Arhus 1985, as well as after: 14 .. .'~c7, Ragjalis - Kaunas, USSR 1979, 15.~f4+ ~b7 16. ~b3! lDfd7 17.~xc6+ ~xc6 18. ~f3+ ~xc5 19.1':tc1+ ~b6 20. ~b3+ ~a6 21. ~c4+ ~b7 22. ~d5+ ~a6 23.~c7+-; 16 ... a5 17.~xc6+ 'it'xc6 18J:Ld1 ~xd1+ 19. ~xd1 +- and despite the approximate material equality, Black is lost, because of the helplessness of his king.) 15.~c4 'it'c7, Hammar - D.Cramling, Lulea 1980, 16.~f4+ ~d8 (in case of 16 ... 'it'b7, White continues with his attack by playing: 17.b4 ~a4 18.lDc3 ~a3 19.b5! This move wins. That is just one ofthe lines: 19 ... a6 20 ..ttab1 axb5 21.lDxb5 cxb5 22.c6+ and Black loses material: 22 ... lDxc6 23Jhb5+ ~a7 24.~e3+ ~xe3 25.fxe3+-) 17. .l::Ld1+ ~d7 18.lDd2 ~xc5 19.1Db3 ~b6 20.i.e3 ~c7 21.lDc5 ~c8 22.lDxd7lDbxd7 23J::txd7! lDxd7. It is inconceivable where Black can find an improvement, meanwhile now he falls under a checkmating attack. 24.~f4! e5 25. ~a6+ ~d8 26.i.g5+ lDf6 27.11d1+ ~d6 28.i.xf6+ gxf6 29. ~xf6+ 'it>d7 30.~g7+ ~e6 31.~c4+ 'it'f5 32.g4+ 'it'e4 33. ~g5 and White checkmates on the next move. 11.~f4 c5 This is the only move for Black. He loses after 1l ... e6? 12.dxe6 ~xe6 13.c5+, or 11... ~e8? 12. 152

~xe8

lDxe8 13.lDc3+-. In answer to 1l ... b6, Carrion Lara - Rijksen, Alkmaar 1985 White wins with: 12.lDa3! a6 (12 ... ~f5 13.c5+ ~d7 14.~xe5 a6 15.cxb6 cxb6 16.lDc4 b5 17 .~d3 ~xd3 18. ~e6+ ~e8 19.1Dd6+ ~xd6 20.~xd6+-) 13.c5+ ~xc5 14.ii.xe5+-. 12.lDc3 a6 13.b4!

Now, Black's position is beyond salvation after: 13 ... cxb4. In the variation: 14.c5+ ~xc5 15.lDa4+ ~d6 16.lDb2! (Keres) he has no defence against the threats lDc4+, or lDd3, for example: 16 ... b5 17.lDd3 lDfg4 18. lDxe5lDxe5 19. ~h5 'it'c7 20. ~xe5 and White's attack progresses and the material is practically equal: 20 ... 'it'd7 21.ii.e2 ~a5 22. d6 b3+ 23.ii.d2 ~a4 24.11c1 'it'e8 25.ii.h5+ g6 26.ii.f.3+-. It is not sufficient for Black to defend with: 13 ... ~c7 14. 0-0-0 lDfg4 (14 ... g6 15.~xe5+ 'it>xe5 16.d6! ~c617.g3! g5 18.f4+ gxf419.11d5!!+-) 15.~e2! 'it'd7 16. ~xg4+ 'it'd8. In the game Votava - Sarkozy, Czechoslovakia 1988, Black failed to find any satisfactory defence after: 17.d6!+-.

3.d4 d6 4.lt:J{3 de S.CiJxeSlt:Jd7 6.CiJxf7 13 .. :~b6 14..l:.c1! This quiet move enables White to exploit the pin of the black knight at leisure. There are plenty of possibilities for Black, but White's advantage is more than convincing. 14.. :~xb4 14... g6 15 ..ltd3. This variation has been tested in two games: 15 .. :~c7 16.0-0 SLh6 17.SLxe5 ~xe5 lS.d6! Wxd6, Duschek Gueting, Germany 2001, (1S ... '(;(xd6 19 . .l.1cd1+-) and here White's simplest line is: 19.1t:Je4+ 'Ot>c6 20.lt:Jxf6 ~d6 2l.i.e4+ 'Ot>c7 22.lt:Jd5+ 'it>bS 23.bxc5 ~xc5 24. .l:.b1+-; or 15 ... lt:Jfg4 16.SLe2 Wc7 (16 ... It:Jf6 17.0-0 '{;(xb4 lS.1Hel g5 19.i.g3 ~b6 20.i.h5+-; 16 ... Wd7 17.i.xg4+ It:Jxg4 lS.d6 '(;(xb4 19. 0-0+-) 17.bxc5 ,{;(f6 lS.d6+ WdS 19.dxe7+ ~xe7 20JId1+ i.d7 2l.'{;(xe7+ SLxe7 22.h3± Sakai Jensen, corr. 200l. 14 ... g5 15.i.g3 h5 (the move 15 .. .'thb4, transposes to the mainline-see 14... ~xb415.i.d3 g5) 16.bxc5+ '{;(xc5 17.~g6 ~d4, Szilagyi - Krantz, corr. 1991, lS.'{;(c2! h4 19.c5+ Wd7 20 ..l.1d1 It:Jf.3+ 21.gxf.3 '{;(xc5 22.i.e5 WdS 23.i.d4 ~b4 24.a3 '!';ra5 25.d6! i:Ih6 26.dxe7 + 'it>xe7 27.i.c4 'it>eS 2S.0-0 i.e7 29.l:tfe1 WfB 30Jhe7 Wxe7 3l.i.xf6+ 'it>xf6 32.'!';re4 '{;(c5 33. '!';reS '!';rxc4 34.lt:Je4+ 'it>g7 35. '!';re5+ Wf7 36.lt:Jxg5+ 'it>g6 37. ~d6+ i.e6 3S.i:Ixe6+ '!';rxe6 39. '{;(xe6+ Wxg5 40.f4+. 14 ... cxb4 15.c5+ Wd7 (15 ...

'(;(xc5 16.lt:Jb5+ Wd7 17. ~e6+ 'it>dS IS. '!';rxe5+-) 16.i.xe5 '{;(xc5 17. i.e2! bxc3 (17 ... WdB 1B.0-0 bxc3 19.1:.xc3 '!';rb4 20.d6+-) lS.:xc3 ,{;(b4 (lS ... ~a5 19.0-0 Wd8 20. .l.1fc1 '!';ra4 21.i.c7+ Wd7 22. i.b8+-; IS ... '!';rb6 19.0-0 'it>dB 20.IHc1+-) 19.0-0 WdS (19 ... '{;(e4 20.d6 '!';rxe5 2l.dxe7 i.xe7 22. l:td1 +) 20.d6lt:JeS 2l.dxe7 + fixe7 (21...i.xe7 22.i:Id1+ SLd7 23. l:tcd3+-) 22.l:.d1+ .id7 23.'!';rd5 It:Jd6 24.SLxd6 '!';rxd6 25. '!';rxb7 l:.bB 26.'!';ra7+-. 15 •.id3 g5 15 ... '!';rb2 (15 ... b5 16.0-0 bxc4 17.SLbl g5 18.i.g3+-) 16.0-0 ,{;(d2, Rasmussen - Packalen, Hallsberg 2000, 17.lt:Je4+ It:Jxe4 1B.SLxe4 g5 (1B ... '!';rd4 19J:ice1 Wc7 20.i.xh7+-) 19.5Lg3 ,{;(d4 20.l'Hel +-. 16.i.g3 h5 17.0-0 h4 18. i.xe5+ 'it>xe5

19.f4+ gxf4 (19 ... Wd6 20.fxg5 It:Jh5 2l..ih7 i.g7 22.lt:Je4+ 'it>c7 23. '!';rxh5 i.b2 24. '!';rf7 i.xc1 25. '(;(xe7+ 'it>bB 26.11xc1 '!';rb2 27. .l:.el+-) 20.lt:Je4 '!';rb2 (20 ... lt:Jh5 2l.l:tfel+- Sakai - Petruzzelli, corr. 2001; 20 .. 5.t'd4 21..!:!.cd1 f.3 22.lt:Jxffi fxg2 23.SLf5+-) 21.lt:Jxf6 153

Chapter 11 ~d4+ (21...exf6 22.~c7+ i.d6 23.':'ce1+ 'it>d4 24.~xd6+-; 21...£3 22.&ce1+ 'iifd6 23.&xf.3 ~d4+ 24. 'it>h1 'it>c7 25.d6+- Sakai - Zednik, corr. 2001) 22.'it>hl h3 23.g3 'it>d6 (23 ... fxg3 24.hxg3 'it>d6 25.lLleS+) 24.lLle8+ 'it>d7 25. ~e6+ 'it>xe8 26.i.g6+ 'it>d8 27. ~b6+ 'it>d7 28.i.c2 ~e8 29. Ibf4+-. Black is now forced to give up his queen, because ofthe threat 30.i.a4+, but White's attack continues relentlessly.

b) 5 •.. e6

This move is uncommon for the Alekhine - Black needs his light-squared bishop for counterplay against the enemy centre. He should not bar the diagonal cS-g4 because all the pieces remain too passive. 6.~f3

This is the most enterprising. By attacking f7 White forces the opponent to lead out the queen or bring back the knight to f6. 6 ... ~f6 6 ... lLlf6 - a cautious, but rather passive move. 7.i.e3 lLlbd7 S..id3 lLlxe5 9.dxe5 lLld7 10. ~g3±. Black is lagging behind 154

in development and struggling, Ruffian 1.0.1 - Hagrid 0.7.56, France 2002; 6 ... ~e7. The queen is impeding the development of the f8bishop, but enables the possibility of lLlbS-d7, intending a swap on e5 followed by the manoeuvre i.cS-d7-c6 and long castling. In order to hamper this plan or get the edge after its realisation White should play very energetically. In the game Pinto - Rangel, corr. 1977 he chose 7.i.d3 lLld7 s.o-o lLlxe5 9.dxe5 i.d7 10.lLla3 (10.i.e4 i.c6 llJld1 0-0-0 12.c4 lLlb4 13.lhdS+ ~xdS 14.lLlc3 i.xe4 15.~xe4 i.c5oo) 1l ... ~h4 11.c4lLlb4 12.i.e4lLlc6 (12 ... i.c6 13.i.xc6+ lLlxc6 14.lLlb5 .ucS 15.i.e3 ~xc4 16.lLlxa7! lLlxa7 17.thb7±) 13.lLlb5;!; to prevent long castling of the opponent. On move 10 Black should have played the consistent move 1O ... .ic6, when White can hardly prove an advantage, for example: 1l.i.e4 0-0-0 12.l:.d1 f5 13.exf6 ~xf6 14.c4 C14.lLlc4 i.c5 15.lLla5 lLlc3!) 14 ... lLlb4 15JIxdS+ ~xdS 16.i.e3 ~h4 17 .i.xc6 lLlxc6~. Also insufficient is 7.lLlc3 lLld7 S.i.c4 (s.lLlxd5 exd5 9.~xd5 f6=t) S ... lLlxe5 9.dxe5 lLlxc3 10.~xc3 (10.bxc3 ~c5~) 10 ... ~b4=. Perhaps White should consider 7.lLld2!? lLld7 (7 ... lLlb4 S.i.b5+ c6 9.i.a4;!;, like in the game Tal Larsen which we examine further in this chapter) S.lLle4 lLlxe5 9.dxe5 h6 (i.c1-g5 must be prevented: 9 ... lLlb4 10 ..ib5+

3.d4 d6 4.ctJ{3 de S.ctJxeS e6 6.~{3

!ii..d7 1l.!ii..g5+-) 10.a3 !ii..d7 1l.c4 ctJb6 12.b4 (planning to meet !ii..d7-c6 with b4-b5) 12 ... 0-0-0 13.!ii..e3 (13.!ii..d3 ~c6 14.b5ctJd7, threatening a fork on e5.) 13 ... !ii..c6 14.b5 ~eB (14 ... ~xe4 15. ~xe4ctJd716.~xa7!?ctJc517.~e3 15.~c5 ~d7 16. ~e2t.

b6 lB. ~f3±)

7.~g3 h6 Black's queen is in a predicament. 7 ... ctJd7? B.~g5 ~f5 9. ~d3+- loses immediately, WallRasmussen, Tacoma 1970. 7 ... !ii..e7 B.~d3 0-0 is not much better (instead B... ctJb4 9.!ii..e4;!; is holding) 9.h4 g6 (9 ... h6? 10.~g5 hxg5 1l.hxg5 ~xg5 12.~h7+

~hB 13.~g6+ ~gB 14.~xf7+

lhf7 15.nhB+! ~xhB 16.ctJxf7+ ~gB 17.ctJxg5+-) 10.~h6 neB 1l.ctJd2ctJb4 12.~e4± NorevallMonteiro, Email 200l. 8.ctJc3 ctJb4 Worse is B... ctJd7?! 9.ctJxd7 ~xd710.ctJxd5 exd51l.~xc7 ~c6 (11...~xd4

12.c3 ~b6 13.~xb6 axb6 14.!ii..e3;!;) 12.~e5± ZippyPizza, ICS 1994. 9.~b5+

By this move White is defending the pawn on c2 comfortably. 9 ... c6 10.!ii..a4ctJd7

This position occurred in the Candidates match Tal - Larsen, Bled (m/6) 1965. Here 1l.a3 ctJd5 12.ctJxc6 stumbles into 12 ... ctJxc3 13.bxc3 (13.~xc3ctJb6 14.ctJbB+ ~dB 15.ctJc6+ bxc6 16. ~xc6 :bB+) 13 ... ctJb6 14.!ii..b5 a6+. M.Ta! suggested 1l.ctJe4 ~f5 12.f3ctJxe5 13.dxe5 ~d7 14.a3 ctJd5 15.c4 ctJb6 16.!ii..c2 ~h5, when after 17.b3 White has a big positional advantage due to the striking difference in activity between the pieces of the two armies. The game went on with 1l. 0-0 ctJxe5 12.dxe5 ~g6 13. ~f3 ~f5 14. ~e2 (White has no reason to trade queens) 14 ... ~e7 15.a3 (White could have secured the edge by 15.f4!? ~ctJe4, c3 followed by ~c2 - V.Bagirov) 15 ... ctJd5, when Tal threw in a piece: 16.ctJb5!? (~ctJd4) 16 ... cxb5 17. ~xb5+ ~dB 1B.c4 to win after 1B ... ~xe5 (lB ... ctJb6 19.~a5 rt;c7 20.c5 ~bB 2l.cxb6 axb6 22.~b5 na5 23. ~b3t; 1B ... ctJf4 19. ~a5+ b6 20. ~d2±) 19.cxd5 ~d6 20.g3 ~xd5 2l.~e2ii5. Black failed to finish development until the very end: 21...~e7 22J:td1 ~a5 23. ~g4 ~f5 24. ~c4 ~c5 25. ~d3 ~d5 26.~c3 ~e5 27.~e1 ~c5 2B.~d2 ~f6 29.:i.ac1 ~b6 30.!ii..e3 ~a6 31.~b4 b5 32.!ii..xb5 ~b7 33.f4 ~bB 34.~c6 1-0.

c) 5 .•. c6 6.~e2 (diagram) In distinction to the previous line, the play is calm here except 155

Chapter 11

the cases when Black is trying bluntly to take over the initiative. Three continuations have been tried in practice: cl) 6 .•. .li.f5, c2) 6 •.. g6 and c3) 6 ••. tLld7. cl) 6 •.. .li.f5 7.0-0 tLld7 Black has to try trading knights without wasting time. In the event of 7 ... e6, Arribas - A.Garcia, Cuba 1995, B.c4 tLlb4 (B ...f6 9.cxd5 fxe5 10.dxc6 tLlxc6 Il.dxe5;t) White parries the threats and completes development: 9.tLla3 .li.d6 10.tLlf3 b6 11..lii.g5 'ffic7 12. 'ffib3 0-0 13.~ac1 tLlSa6 14 ...td2;t - Black's knights are clumsily placed. To S ... tLlb6 White could exploit the delay of tLld7 by 9.tLlc3 tLlSd7 10.f4. In a number of variations the bishop on f5 could be captured, and in any case White is gaining space in the centre and on the kingside. 10 ... ..te7 11..li.e3 tLlxe5 (11 ... 0-0 12.g4+-; 11...c5? 12.tLlxd7 tLlxd7 13.g4+-; 12 .. .'~xd7 13.dxc5+-) 12.fxe5 0-0 13.d5t and d5-d6. 8.tLlf3 h6 Black secures to his bishop an active position on the important 156

diagonal. He has tested also B... e6 9.c4 tLlb4?! (better is 9 ... tLl5f6 10.tLlh4 .li.g6 Il.tLlxg6 hxg6 12 ..li.f4;t) 10.a3 tLlc2 (yet another example of risky play in the opening) 11.l'ta2 tLlxd4. Black wins a pawn, but lands in a difficult position. (Following 11...c5, Vogt - Loeffier, Graz 2002, White could have achieved a big edge with 12.dxc5 ttJf6 13.b4 ~xdl 14 ...txdl tLlxb4 15.axb4 .ixbl 16 . .ia4+ <:J;;e7 17.lId2+-, or 12 ... Nxc5 13.b4 ~xdI14 ..ixdl tLlxb4. The knight has stuck in the centre so Black has to go for unfavourable complications: 15.axb4 .ixbI16Jld2! tLld7 17 ..ia4 0-0-0 IS.I:!.fdl+-.) 12.~xd4 c513.~c3 .li.xbI14 ..li.g5 f6 15Jhbl fxg5 16.~e3±. To 16 ... ..te7 White can capture on e6 to win the pawn on g5 too; instead he preferred a domination without regaining material: 17.~dl ..tf6 IB.b4 ~e7 19.:r.ad2 tLlf8 20.lId6 cxb4 21.axb4 h5 22. c5 g4 23.tLld2 <:J;;f7 24.tLle4l:1h6 25. ..tc4 <:J;;gS 26.tLlxf6+ 1:f.xf6 27.b5 'it>hS 2S.c6 bc 29.bxc6 a5 30.~g5 'ffif7 31.1IdB lIxdB 32.lIxdB+-, when Black is unable to cope with the threats ~g5-e5 and c6c7, Carlsen - Madsen, Trondheim 2004. An alternative is S ... g6 9.c4 tLlc7 10.tLlc3 ..tg4 11...te3 ..tg7 12.~b3 .l:tbB 13Jladl b5 14.cxb5 tLlxb5 15.tLlxb5 ..txf3 16 ...txf3 cxb5 17 ..if4 ~b6. Here the game Weeks - Wohl, Gold Coast 1999 finished in a draw, but Black

3.d4 d6 4.tiJ{3 de 5.0xe5 c6 6.i.e2 would have been unable to avoid material losses after lS ..:tcl±. 9.a3 Depriving the enemy knight ofb4. 9 ••• e6 10.c4 tD5f6

11.~f4!?

c2) 6 ... g6 7.c4

7 .••tDc7 7 ... tDb6 is seldom seen. White had the edge in the game Gilles - Lacroix, Belgium 1992 after S.a4 ~g7 9.0-0 0-0 10.a5 tD6d7 11.tD£3 e5 12.d5 cxd5 13.cxd5 tDffi 14.tDc3 ~g4 (14 ... e4!? 15.tDg5 :teS 16.~a4 ~f5 17.~b3;!;) 15.h3

White is not letting Black's bishop on an active position (the game Luther - Loeffler, Austria ~x£3 16.~x£3±. 2002 saw 1l.tDc3 ~d6oo). 11 ... 8.tDc3 ~g7 9.~e3 0-0 tDh5 (following 11...~e7 12.tDc3 9 ... tDd7 10.tD£3 transposes to 0-0 13.d5! White's initiative is the line 6 ... tDd7 7.tD£3 g6. increasing: 13 ... cxd5 14.cxd5 9 ... c5 10.tD£3 cxd4 11.i.xd4 ffi exd5 15.tDxd5;!;. Black cannot 12.0-0 0-0 13.~e3± Kocsis take on d5 in view of the double Mozes, Sarospatak 1995. attack of the queen to b7 and 10.0-0 c5 f5. Therefore White could at 10 ... tDd7 11.tD£3leads again to least trade his knight for the e7 the line 6 ... tDd7 7.tD£3 g6. bishop, gaining a lasting advan11.tDf3 cxd4 tage due to the bishop pair; 14... g5 15.~g3 tDh5 16.tDd4 tDxg3 17.hxg3±) 12.i.e3 ~d6 (Black has achieved his goal, but now the knight is awkwardly placed) 13.tDc3 0-0 (13 ... tDf4 14.d5 cxd5 15.cxd5 tDxe2+ 16. ~xe2 0-0 17.tDd4;!;) 14.d5 exd5 15.cxd5 c5 16.tDb5;!;. The play is developing to White's favour. His pieces are considerably more active. 157

Chapter 11 i.e5! 4:Je6 14.4:Jd5 kteB 15:~b3 We have mentioned already e6 16.4:Je3± G.Hernandez - that White often avoids exMiles, Linares 1994. White's changes because Black's knights pieces are clearly more active. are hampering each other. Black finds it difficult to com7 ... g6 plete development. In the game In case of 7 ... b5 (aiming to he chose to buy himself off with secure the knight on d5) White some material and gave in the nonetheless succeeds in ousting queen for a rook and bishop. the knight with the help of a 16.•. 4:Ja6 (16 ... i.g7 is more natu- flank break-through. The game ral, but Black is struggling after De la Paz - Baburin, Havana 17Jiad1 "§f6 1B.SiLd6 4:Ja6 19.4:Jg4 1999 saw further s.o-o g6 (S ... e6 "§f5 20.4:Jfe5!? 4:Jxe5 21.SiLxe5± 9.a4 b4 10.c4 4:J5f6 11.SiLf4;t; SiLxe5?? 22.4:Jh6+-; 21...4:Jc5 22. Szieberth - Varga, Budapest "§b5 4:Jd7 23.l:txd7 a6 24:~a4 b5 2001), when White should have 25."§d1±) 17 . .l::i.fd1 4:Jxe5 lB. continued with 9.a4 b4 10.c4 bxc3 ltxdB ltxdB 19. ~a3 b6 20.b4 11.bxc3;t;. 4:Je4 21.e5 bxe5 22.bxe5 i.g7 The natural move 7 ... 4:J7f6 23 ..l::i.e1 i.b7 24.i.d3 4:Jf6 25.SiLa6 turned out to be a novelty in the ltabB 26.SiLxb7 l:txb7 27.g3±. It game Najer - Bauer, Internet is clear now that Black has not 2004. Its idea is to develop the enough compensation for the bishop to f5 after all. After S. queen. 0-0 i.f5 9.4:Jh4 i.g6 10.c4 4:Jb6 11.4:Jc3 e6 12.g3 4:Je4 13.4:Jxg6 e3) 6 ... 4:Jd7 4:Jxc3 14.bxc3 hxg6 15J~bl;t; the bishop pair advantage and semi-open files provide White with the better prospects. The game went on: 15 ... ~d7 16.h4 c5 17.i.f3 cxd4 1S.cxd4 i.e7 19.~b3 O-O? (19 ... ~xd4, was indispensable, e.g.: 20.SiLxb7 ~dS 21.SiLb2 "§xc4? 22. ~xc4 4:Jc4 23. i.xg7+-; 21...~c5 22.SiLxg7 l::th7 23.SiLa1 "§xc4;t;; 22. ~b5+ ~xb5 Perhaps this is the most flex- 23.cxb5 SiLf6 24.SiLc6+ ..t>fS 25. ible move. It keeps different op- ~fdl;t;) 20.c5 4:Jd5 21.~xb7 and tions open. Its only drawback in White pressed home the extra comparison to 6 ... i.f5 is that the pawn. knight is temporarily barring the B.O-O SiLg7 9.e4 4:Je7 way to the bishop on cS. From here the knight retains open the route to e6 and supports 7.4:Jf3!? 15S

3.d4 d6 4.ttJ{3 de S.tzJxeS c6 6. .i.e2

the break b7-b5. Alternative retreats are: 9 ... ttJ5b6 10.a4 ttJf6 (10 ... a5 11. ~b3t) 11.a5 ttJbd7 12.ttJc3 0-0 13.Ji.f4t; 9 ... ttJ5f6 10.ttJc3 0-0 11.h3 ttJb6. Black misplaces the knight in order to let the bishop out to f5. (Practice has seen also 11...b6 12.Ji.f4 Ji.b7 13. ~d2 l:teS 14Jlad1 ttJf8 15.l:tfe1 e6 16. ~e3t - Black is solid, but passive, Roos Bruns, Selestat 2000. In the game Fox - P.Nunn, Kilkenny 1996 Black firstly took measures against i.f4: 11 ... ~c7 12.Ji.e3 ttJb6 13J1c1 Ji.f5 14. ~b3 l:ladS 15Jlfd1 ttJe416.ttJxe4 i.xe417.a4 Ji.f5 lS.a5 ttJcS 19.~b4 b6 20. axb6 axb6, when 21.l:lalt is in White's favour. White had the interesting option of 13.a4!?, intending to meet 13 ... a5 by 14.~b31' l1d5.) 12.a4 Ji.f5 13. i.f4 ttJcS 14.~b3t. Black is significantly cramped, J .Polgar Visser, Amsterdam 1990. 1O.ttJc3 0-0 10 ... ttJf6 allows the opponent to develop actively the bishop to f4: 11.~b3 0-0 12.l:.d1 ttJceS 13. Ji.f4 ttJd6 14.h3 a6 (This weakening of the queenside is not necessary. Black's position is unpleasant even without it because ofthe lack of counterplay.) 15.a4± ttJh5 16.Ji.h2 i.h6 (the previous move was a mistake. Black should have repaired it by going back 16 ... ttJf6±) 17.c5 ttJeS (17 ... ttJf5 lS.g4+-) lS.d5 ~a5 19.~c4 i.d7 20.ttJe5 cxd5 21.ttJxd5+-.

The break-through in the centre was decisive in Delchev - Dubois, Andorra la Vella 1999. 1l.Ji.e3

1l ...ttJf6 A calm move. Black renounces plans of immediate breaks in the centre like 11... c5 or 11. .. e5. Let's investigate them: 11 ... c5, Joanovits - Dubois, Toulouse 1995, leads to difficulties after 12.dxc5 i.xc3 (12 ... ttJe6, Dunis - Payen, Marseilles 2001, 13. ~c2 ttJexc5 14.~adl±) 13.bxc3 ttJe6 14.c6 bxc6 15.ttJd4±. 11...e5 gives White a powerful passed pawn in the centre without due compensation. (The insertion of 11 ... a6 12.a4 is not helpful. Mter 12 ... e5 13.d5 cxd5 14.cxd5 the weakening of b6 is tangible: 14 ... ttJeS 15.d6 h6 16. .l:.c 1 ttJef6 17.h3± Apicella Miles, Linares 1995. The game saw further 17 ... l:.eS IS. ~b3 ttJbS 19.~fd1 ttJc6 20.i.b6 ~d7 21.i.c4 e4 22.ttJd2 :e5 - 22 ... .i.f8 23.ttJd5 ttJxd5 24.i.xd5+- - 23. ttJd5 ttJeS 24.ttJc7 ttJxc7 25.dxc7, and the pawn on seventh rank decided the game: 25 ... ~e7 26. 159

Chapter 11 ttJf1 ttJa5 27 ..l:td8+ .i.f8 28.'~c3 ttJxc4 29.'~xc4 ~h7 30J:lcd1 .l:te6 31.a5 i..g7 32.ttJe3 .l:tc6 33.ttJd5 ~e5 34. ~b4 .l:tc2 35. ~e7 e3 36. ~xe5 i..xe5 37.fxe3, Black resigned) 12.d5 cxd5 13.cxd5 ttJb6 14.d6 ttJe6 (14 ... ttJe8 15.d7 i..xd7 16.i..c5±) 15.a4 i..d7 (15 ... ttJd4 16. ttJxd4 exd4 17.i..xd4 ~xd6 18. i..xg7 ~xdl19 ..l:tfxd1 Wxg7 20.a5 ttJd7 21.i..f3 ttJe5 22 ..i.d5±) 16.a5 ttJc8 17.i..c4 i..c618.i..xe6 fxe619. ttJg5± with a small edge, Kreizberg - Zilberman, Ramat Aviv 2000. 17. ~d2± was worth consideration, intending after 17 ... i..c6 to defend the pawn on d6 by 18.lHdl. The leisurely plan 1l ... b6 12. ~d2 i..b7 (12 ... lIe8 13.l:!ad1 i..b7 14.i..h6± Herrera - Rodriguez Boado, Mondariz 2000) allows White to continue calmly with centralisation, 13.i..h6 ttJe8 14J:tad1 ttJdf6 15.h3± Zurla Ferretti, Robecchetto 1994. 12.h3 ttJce8 To 12 ... i..f5, Buchenau - Jugelt, Oldenburg 2000, White could allow the simplification 13.~d2 ttJe4 14.ttJxe4 i..xe4 15. l:!ad1 b5 16.b3±, maintaining some edge. He could also think about 13.ttJh4 i..d7 and only then 14. ~ d2±, preventing the trade of knights. 12 ... a6 13.~d2 b5 only weakens Black's queenside. White is better after 14.ttJe5 i..b7 15.i..f3± Beerbaum - Prosch, Mecklenburg 1997. 13. ~b3 ttJd6 160

14J~ad1. White is fully mobilised and ready for attack. His spatial advantage is ominous. 14••.b5. This attempt to organise counterplay weakens the square c6. (14 .. J:tb8 15.d5 cxd5 16.i.xa7 dxc4 17 .i..xc4 :ta8 18.i..c5±; 14 ... ~c7 15.i..f4 ttJh5 16.i..h2±) 15.cxb5 cxb5 16.d5 a6 17.ttJe5 i..b7 18.i..f3 ttJd7 19.ttJc6 i.xc6 20.dxc6 ttJe5 21.ttJd5 ttJxf3+ (21...ttJxc6? 22.i..c5+-) 22.gxf3± Nunn - Ghinda, Hamburg 1984. White's threats (mostly 23.c7 and 23.i..g5) are very dangerous. Black is in for a difficult defence. White's weakness on the kingside is of no significance. The game went on with 22 ••. :tc8 23.i..g5 l:!e8 24 ..l:tfe1 i..f8 25. ~c3! (25.c7 was safely winning the exchange for a pawn, but the text move is better. Now the threat c7 is even stronger) 25 .•• b4 26.~c5 f6 27.i..f4 Wf7 28. ttJb6 e5 (28 .. J:tc7 29.i..xd6 exd6 30.~c4+ Wg7 31.ttJd51he1+ 32. J:;txe1+-) 29.ttJxc8+- ~xc8 30. .tIxd6 (of course the bishop could have retreated) 30 ... i..xd6 31. ~xd6 exf4 32.:txe8 Wxe8 33. ~xf6 ~xh3 34. ~h8+ Wf7 35.c7 ~xf3 36.c8~ ~d1+ 37.Wh2

3.d4 d6 4.tiJ{3 de 5.CDxe5 g6 6.g3

tiJc3 ~g7 12.~e3 ~d6 13.0-0 0-0 14 ..l:tadv,o) 11...~g7 12 ..l:!.d1 ~b6 (12 ... ~f6 13.~g5 ~e6 14. d) 5 ... g6 tiJc3±, threatening tiJd5) 13.~e3 ~b7 14.tiJc3 0-0 15J1d2;!; and despite Black's extra pawn, his position is clearly worse, because it is inconceivable how he can complete his development.) 9. tiJxc6tiJxc610.d5 ~d7 (10 ... i..e4? l1.lIgl ~xd5 12.cxd5 ~xd5 13. ~g2+- Comet - Sos, Lima 2002) 11.c5! tiJe5 12. ~b3 ~g4 13. tiJd2!±. White is threatening 14. This idea belongs to Bent f4 tiJd7 l5.h3 ~f5 l6.g4+-, moreLarsen. The fianchetto of the over Black's b7-pawn is under atdark squared bishop is one of the tack. most typical motives in similar positions. Black is doing it immedl) 6 ... tiJd7 diately; moreover that he should In case Black intends to play play the usual preparatory move like that, without the prelimic7 -c6 only in answer to an attack nary move c7-c6 (and that might against his knight on d5. be purposeful for him in case he 6.g3 intends to follow with c7-c5 at This move became fashion- some moment), he should do it able in the middle of the 90ies of immediately, because otherwise the last century. Black now has White will attack his knight with two good alternatives: dl) 6 ... the move ~f1-g2 and c7 -c5 will tiJd7 and d2) 6 ... ~g7. become impossible unless Black It is not so precise for him to retreats his knight on d5 beforefollow with 6 ... ~f5. In case Black hand. plans to fianchetto his dark 7.~g2 squared bishop, he had better do White's attempt to play it outright and not get distracted analogously to line-d2 fails - afby other ideas. Meanwhile, in- ter 7.ttJf3 ~g7 S..i.g2, Black plays stead of the natural plan with- S... c5 (about 8 ... 0-09.0-0 c6, Mo7.~g2, White can play the more roz - Miroshnichenko, Alushta energetic line: 7.c4 tiJb4 8.~a4+ 1999, 10.lIe1;\; - see line d2) and (this sharp variation has been he obtains more than sufficient tested in games between comput- counterplay, for example; 9.0-0 ers ... ) 8 ... tiJ8c6 (S ... tiJ4c6 9.~g2!? 0-0 10.c3 cxd4 l1.ttJxd4 ttJ7f6 ~xd4 10.tiJxc6 bxc6 11.0-0 (11. 12J:te1'ueS, Finkel- Loeffler, Tel

~h5+ 38. ~h3 - the checks are over so Black resigned.

161

Chapter 11 Aviv 1995. It is quite unclear how White's play can be improved, for example after 13."§b3, Black plays: 13 ... e5 (13 ... a5 14.a4;t) 14.4:Jf3 "§c7 and if 15.4:Jg5, then 15 ... h6 16.i.xd5 (16.4:Je4 lDxe4 17.i.xe4 4:Jf6 lS ..1l.g2 l:i.bS and i.cS-e6) 16 ... 4:Jxd517."§xd5 hxg5 lS.i.xg5 and Black's compensation for the pawn is satisfactory, for example: lS ... i.e6 19. ~f3 f6 20 ..1l.e3 "§f7 21.lDd2 fS 22.a4 i.d5 23. "§e2 f4 24.i.c5 b6 25.i.b4 e4co - because the light squares around White's king are extremely vulnerable. White therefore should not retreat his knight away from the e5-square and he should better continue with his development with 7.i.g2. 7 •.. 4:Jxe5 8.dxe5 c6 9.0-0 i.g7 10:~e2 i.e6 It is a bit sharper for Black to try: 10 ... h5!? He can follow that with the move i.cS-g4, or open the h-file with h5-h4. 1l.c44:Jb6 12.4:Ja3 (so that the e5-pawn is not hanging after "§d4) 12 ... i.g4 13.f3 i.e6 14.f4 "§cS 15.b3 h4 16.4:Jc2 hxg3 17.hxg3 i.h3 lS. 4:Je3;t and it turned out later that Black could not make any good use of the open h-file. White exchanged queens and then his space advantage and the unfavourable placement of Black's bishop on g7 became quite telling factors: lS ... "§e6 19.i.b2 0-0-0 20Jiad1 i.xg2 21..l:1xdS+ lixdS 22.'it'xg2lDd7 23.g4 4:Jc5 24. ~d1l:Ixd1 25.~xd1 "§d7 26.'it'f3 162

~d3 27.~xd3 4:Jxd3 2S.i.a3 e6 29.g5 ~d7 30.4:Jc2 b6 (the exchange on b5 is of course unfavourable for Black, but otherwise he cannot untrap his knight from the d3-square) 31.~e3 4:Jc5 32.i.xc5 bxc5 33.'it>d3± and White succeeded in winning that endgame, Glek - Loeffier, Germany 1994. 1l.b3 "§c8 Or 1l ... ~c7 12 ..1l.b2;t - White will easily manage to protect his e5-pawn, then he will follow with 4:Jf3, or 4:Je4 and later he will play c2-c4. The chances of Black finding any effective counterplay are just miniscule. 12.i.b2 i.h3 13.4:Jd2 i.xg2 14.'it>xg2 0-0 15.c4 4:Jc7

16.4:Je4;!;. White's space advantage is practically unopposed. The game Wolff - de Firmian, New York 1996, continued with: 16 ... "§f5 17 .f4 4:Je6 (Black is forced to play like that if he wished to preserve his queen on the f5-square, or 17 ... 1IadS lS. g4t, followed by f4-fS.) 18."§f3 (It is too bad for White to play: lS.g4 lDxf4+ 19.~f2 4:Jxe2+ 20.gxf5 gxf5 21.~xe2 fxe4-+.) 18 ... h5

3.d4 d6 4.lb{3 de 5.0.xe5 g6 6.g3 19.h3 ~h6 20J:tael (Black can counter 20J:tad1 with 20 ... l:tad8, but not 20 ... h4 21.~c1 hxg3 22.lbxg3, because his queen gets trapped. Now, White should better continue with: 20.~a3 lUe8 20 ... lbd4 21. ~d3± - 21.~xe7 l:txe7 22.lbd6. That is the pointBlack must give his extra piece back: 22 ... lbxf4+ 23.gxf4 ~e6 24.l:tae1 t, with the idea to follow with f4-f5 and White's initiative is very powerful. After the move in the game, White was slightly better indeed, but the fight remained extremely sharp.) 20 •.. .l:.ad8. It is not so easy now for White to create any threats against his opponent's queen after that move, because Black has additional resources - lbe6-d4 and ~f5-d3 in answer to lbe4-g3. (In case of 20 ... h4, White plays 21.~c1 and Black cannot capture on g3 anyway.) 21.~f2 h4 22.g4 (It is worse for White to follow with: 22J~ef1 lbd4 23.g4 lbxf3 24.gxf5 gxf5 25.lbc5 lbd2+; 23. ~xd4 l:txd4 t - because it is Black who has the initiative.) 22 ... lbxf4+ 23.~h2 ~e6 (or 23 ... ~c8 24.~c1 .l:.d3 25.:te3 lbxh3 26. ~xh3 ~xe3 27.~xe3t) 24.lbc5 ~c8 25.~cl b6 (or 25 ... g5 26. ~xf4 gxf4 27 .g5 ~xg5 28. ~h5 ~f5 29.~g1 f6 30J:Hg2 ~h7 31.~g4 and White is threatening lbc5-e6; 27 ... ~g7 28.~xf4t White's initiative is very powerful) 26.lbe4 lld3 27 JIe3 lbxh3 28.~xh3 (28. ~xh3 ~xe3 29. ~xe3 ~e6) 28•.. ~xe3 29.~xe3

~e6 30.~f4

f5 (30 ... f6 31.~h6 32Jhf6 exf6 33.lbxf6+ ~xf6 34.exf6 :txf6 35.~xh4+-) 31. ~xh4 (31.lbg5 fxg4+ 32.~xh4 ~xf4 33.lbxe6 l:tf3+) 31. .. .l:.xe3 32. ~xe3 fxe4 (32 ... ~xe5 33. gxf5±) 33 ..l:txf8+ ~xf8 34.~xe4, and there happened a transfer to a queen and pawn endgame, which was clearly better for White and he won it after: 34... ~g7 35.~g5 c5? (o35 ... b5) 36.a3 a6 37.a4 ~f7 38.~e3 ~g7 39.a5 ~c6 40.axb6 ~xb6 41. ~h3 '>t>g8 42. ~d3 ~f7 43. ~d5+ ~f8 44.e6 and Black resigned . ~f7

d2) 6 •.• ~g7 7 .~g2

7 ... 0-0 This is Black's most natural defence. About 7 ... c6 8.0-0 0-0 - see 7 ... 0-08.0-0 c6. It is too bad for Black to play: 7 ... lbc6? 8.lbxc6 bxc6 9.c4 lbb4 10.a3+- Kristjansson - Nielsen, Copenhagen 2003. After the aggressive line for Black: 7 ... lbb4 8.lbf3 ~f5 (He has an interesting alternative here: 8 ... ~xd4!? 9.c3 ~xf2+ 10.~xf2 ~xd111 ..l:i.xd1lbc2 12.lba3 lbxa1 163

Chapter 11 13.i.f4;!;.) 9.ttJa3 ttJBc6 10.0-0 Spraggett - Brodeur, Quebec 0-0 H.c3 ttJd3? White can obtain 1983, there followed: 14 ... ttJc4 a great advantage with: 12. 15.h3 ttJd5 16.i.f1 ttJd6 17.ttJc5 h5 1B.ttJh4 e6 19.ttJd3 ttJe4. Black ttJh4±. cannot make any pawn-breaks 8.0-0 c6 Black's attempts at compli- and the activity of his pieces is cating matters end up in White's just temporary. 20.ttJf3 g5. This favour after: B... ttJb4, Radovano- aggression on the kingside is vic - Trifunovic, Richmond 1995, not justified. 21..:ta3 g4 22. 9.ttJf3 iH5 10.ttJa3 ttJBc6 1l.c3 hxg4 hxg4 23.ttJfe5 f6. Black's g4ttJd5 (11...ttJd3?! 12.ttJh4±) 12. pawn is doomed anyway. 24. ttJh4;!;, or 8 ... c5 9.dxc5 ttJb4 10. ttJxg4 Wfl 25.i.g2 ttJd6 26 ..:f.al ~e2 ~c7 (10 ... ..ixe5 1l.~xe5 .:f.hB 27.ttJe3 ttJxe3 2B.i.xe3± and ttJxc212.i.h6 f613.~c3 ttJxal14. White gradually materialized his i.xfB WxfB 15.ttJd2 ttJa6 16.ttJe4 positional and material advani.e6 17Jlxa1 ~c8 1B.b4;!;) H.c3 tage.) 1l.ttJc3 (White should pre~xc5, as it was played in the fer to develop his knight to the game Plaskett - Valvo, New York d2-square. It can go to e4 from 1979. White could have main- there as well, but Black will be tained his advantage with the deprived ofthe possibility to exhelp of the variation: 12.ttJxg6! change it. Meanwhile, White hxg6 13.cxb4 ~xb4 14.a3 ~b6 might like to play c2-c4 with a 15.ttJc3 ttJc6 16.ttJd5 ~d8 17. knight on d2 at some moment.) i.g5± - and his activity in the 11...e6 (it is better for Black to centre spells danger for Black. exchange on c3, doubling White's pawns) 12.ttJe4 ~c7 13.c3 i.b7 9.~el 14.~b3;!; Lhagvasuren - Hoang Thong, Singapore 1995; or 9 ... i.e6 (still, the f5-square is preferable for that piece, because the bishop is quite vulnerable on the e6-square) 10.c3 ttJd7 1l.ttJd3 i.f5 12.ttJa3 i.xd3 13. ~xd3 e6 14.ttJc2 ~b6 15.a4;!;. Later, in the game Fercec Visintin, Nova Gorica 1997, Black managed to push e7 -e5 9 ... i.f5 Among the other possibilities indeed, but White's couple of bishops turned out to be exfor Black I will mention: 9 ... ttJd7 10.ttJf3 b5 (or 10 ... tremely powerful after that: ttJ7f6 H.c3 a5 12.a4 i.f5 13. 15 ... a5 16.ttJa3 ~c7 17J:~e2 e5 ttJbd2 ttJb6 14.ttJb3;!;. In the game 18.dxe5 ttJxe5 19. ~c2 h5 20.i.g5 164

3.d4 d6 4./1jf3 de S.ttJxeS g6 6.g3 ~feB

21..l:.ae1 '§d7 22.h3 /1jb6 23. ..ltf4 /1jec4 24./1jxc4 /1jxc4 25. ~b3 lhe2 26 ..u.xe2 '§d3 27 ...ltfl and Black lost a pawn. 10.c3 /1jd7 11./1jf3 :e8 Following 1l ... .ltg4, White in the game Martinovic - Schroll, Austria 2000, continued with: 12. '§b3 '§b6 13./1jbd2 l:tfeB 14./1jc4 ~c715./1jce5..ltxf3 16./1jxf3;!;. The inclusion of the moves ~b3 and ~b6 was hardly necessary for White. It would have been stronger for him to play 12./1jbd2;!; and h2-h3, forcing the exchange on f3. 12./1jbd2 /1j7f6 Some experts suggested here 12 ... e5!? (the lines 12 ... ~b6 13./1jc4 ~c714.~b3;!;, or 12 ... ~c7 13./1jc4 .l:.adB 14. '§b3 /1j7f6 15. lbce5;!; are analogous to the main line, while after: 12 ... ..ltg4 13.h3 Black must either present his opponent with the two bishop advantage: 13 ... 1Lxf3 14./1jxf3 e5 15.dxe5/1jxe5 16./1jxe51he5 17. .l:Ixe5 ..ltxe5, Holl- Keller, Bayern 2000, lB. ~b3;!;, or he must enter unfavourable complications for him: 13 ... 1Lf5 14.g4 i.d3 15.c4 /1jb4 16. '§b3 '§b6 17.a3 /1jc2 1B.thd3 lbxa1 19.b4;!;) 13./1jc4 ~c7 (13 ... exd4 14 ..u.xeB+ ~xeB 15./1jd6 ~e6 16./1jxf5 ~xf5 17. lbxd4;!;; 13 ... i.g4 14.dxe5 /1jxe5 15.lbcxe5 .u.xe5 16.Ii.xe5 i.xe5 17.~b3! .lixf3 18.i.xf3 lbb6 19. i.e3;!;) 14.dxe5lbxe5 (Black fails to regain his pawn after: 14...1Lg4 15.i.f4 i.xf3 16.J..xf3;!;) 15./1jcxe5 i.xe5 16.c4lbb4 (it is stronger for

him to play: 16 ... /1jb6 17./1jxe5 lhe5 1B ...ltf41:Ixe1+ 19:~xel;t). It looks like Black's position is quite acceptable, but after: 17. .l:.xe5! :xe5 1B ...ltf4 /1jd3 19./1jxe5 /1jxe5 20.g4! ..lte6 21.g5 White's advantage becomes overwhelming. Black's knight is deadly pinned and he is faced with insurmountable difficulties: 21.. ...ltf5 22.~e2 ~eB 23.'Jith1! (White thus avoids the trap ... ) 23 ... 'it>g7 24 ..l:.e1 f6 25.gxf6+ 'it>xf6 26.~e3±.

13./1jc4 ~c7 14./1jce5;!;

White's knight has occupied the important strategical outpost - the e5-square. It can only be ousted from there at the expense of the weakening of Black's kings ide pawns. Meanwhile, White can also repel Black's pieces from the centre with the help of c2-c4, or h2-h3 followed by g3-g4. These factors as well as White's space advantage make his position much more promising. In answer to Anand's recommendation - 14. ~b3 .l:.adB 15. lbce5,just like in the game, Black can play: 15 ... lbg4, trading a 165

Chapter 11 couple of knights, after which solid enough (White cannot 16.lbh4 is not so sensible, be- break through easily on either cause Black's knight on g4 is not side of the board), but it is still hanging and the bishop can sim- too passive. In the game Anand ply go back. - Adams, Linares 1994, there 14•••lbg4! followed: IS ...lbe719.f4 (19.c4 c5 The exchange of a pair of L1lbc6) 19•.•lbd5 20.c4 lbe7 21. knights would be in favour of the i.e3 lladS 22.b4 l:td7 23. ~f2 defending side, because of its lbcS! (Black is trying to defend lack of space - that is Black. It is his pawn on a7 without creating however worse for him to try the additional weaknesses - in case move 14 ... lbd7, with the same of23 ... b6, White will follow with idea, because of: 15.lbxf7 ~xf7 24.a4! L1a5.) 24.a4 l:tedS 25.a5. 16.g4 e6 17.gxf5 exf5±. White advances gradually on the 15.lbh4 queenside and in order to obtain Black is now forced to com- some counterplay Black tried: promise his pawn-structure, be- 25•..f6! 26.exf6 i.xf6, weakening cause his knight on g4 is hang- his e6-pawn indeed, but thus ing. he activated his dark squared 15•..lbxe5 16.lbxf5 gxf5 17. bishop and he obtained some dxe5e6 counterplay along the d-file. Black should refrain from the 27.l:tabl i.c3 2S.l:tf1 (28.l:tec1 line: 17 ... i.xe5 18.i.xd5 cxd5 i.d2!) 2S .•. l:td3 29.~hl i.d4 30. 19.thd5 i.g7 20:~xf5, because i.xd4 l:t3xd4?! (Black had to he loses a pawn. play here 30 .. JI8xd4!;l; - in fact both players made several mistakes in a row for some time ... ) 31.1Uel? (31.i.d5! l:t4xd5 32. cxd5 exd5±) 31..:~f7? (3 1.. Jhc4! 32Jhe6 ~dn) 32.i.d5! "f!fg7? (32 ... l:t4xd5 33.cxd5 exd5 34. l:te5± - Anand) 33.l:te5!+- l:t4xd5 34.cxd5 cxd5 35.g4! lbe7 36. l:txe6 fxg4 37."f!fh411d7 3S.!lbel ~fS (38 ... lbf5 39. "f!fh5 ~f7 40. IS:~e2t. Black's position is "f!fg5+) 39.f5 and Black resigned.

Conclusion The main idea of the Larsen variation 4 ... dxe5 is to propose a trade of knights by lbb8-d7. Then White should either accept simplification or retreat with the knight. In general White is better off when 166

3.d4 d6 4.Cfjf3 de 5.4.lxe5 g6 6.g3 maintaining tension with Cfjf3. In that case he maintains a spatial advantage. The immediate 5 ... Cjjd7 in answer to 5.4.lxe5 allows a sacrifice on {7, when Black's king is dragged out to e6. Analytically and practically Black has a hard time in that branch. Our investigation does not show an acceptable defence for him. Beside 5 ... Cjjd7 we consider in this chapter 5 .. .e6, 5 ... c6 and 5 .. .g6. All of them prepare Cfjb8-d7. The first one - 5 .. .e6 - boxes in the bishop on c8. By 6. 'fif3 (which is harmless in the other lines due to ~c8-e6) White forces back to f6 the d5-knight. The other defences of{7 by the queen are to the detriment of development. The move 5 ... c6 bolsters up the knight on d5 and prepares Cfjb8d7. We recommend 6.~e2 with two possible plans for Black - to develop the bishop to f5 followed bye7-e6, or fianchetto the other one on g7. In both cases White plays c2-c4, finishes development and maintains an edge due to his spatial advantage. Finally Black could play 5 ...g6 without wasting time on 5 ... c6. Then I recommend the modern continuation 6.g3!? In answer to 6 ... Cfjd7 White should refrain from the usual retreat to f3 in favour of7.i.g2, allowing the opponent to trade on e5. The fine point is that commonly Black can follow up with c7-c5 which is impossible against a White bishop on g2. In the main line 6 ... i.g7 White meets Cfjb8-d7 with Cfjf3 to proceed with :fl-el, c2-c3, Cfjbl-d2 and to c4-e5 at an opportunity. Black's position is very solid, but he is unable to break-through favourably in the centre. That secures some spatial advantage to White.

167

Chapter 12

l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 tbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 g6

Major options are: a) 5 ... c6 and b) 5 ••• lbb6. Other alternatives are: 5 •.. ..te6?! is the worst of them. 6.lbg5 immediately faces Black with difficulties: 6 ... dxe5 7.lbxe6 fxe6 8.dxe5 ..tg7 9.f4 0-0 (9 ... ~d7 10.lbc3 lbxc3 11. ~xd 7 + lbxd 7 12.bxc3 ~f7 13.i.e3lbb6 14 ...tb3 This system is quite popular. lbd5 15 ...td4 b616.c4lbb417.c5± Similarly to many other open- Unzicker - Schulze, Dortmund ings where Black fianchettoes 1992) 10.0-0 lbc6 11.lbc3 lbdb4 his dark-squared bishop, the (11...lbxc3 12 . ..txe6+ ~h8 13. second player cedes the centre, bxc3 ~xd1 14.lIxd1 g5 15.g3± but only to counter-attack it later Lambert - Krueger, Wiesbaden by pieces. Main characters in 1988) 12 ...txe6+ 'ith8, Arnold this design are bishops on g7 and Palm, Karlsruhe 1988, when g4, a knight on c6 and more sel- White has 13 ...te3 ~xd1 (13 ... g5 dom, the c-pawn which could be 14.g3 gxf4 15.gxf4 ~xd1 16. pushed to c5. ~axd1lbxc2 17 ...tc5 ..th618 ...tb3 Besides, Black's setup has lb2b4 19.a3 lba6 20.i..e3±) 14. obvious faults. Flank develop- ~axd1 lbxc2 15.i..c5 b6 16 ...tb3 ment of the fS-bishop weakens bxc5 17.i..xc2lbd4 18.i..d3 ltab8 the square f7. If Black covers 19.b3 g5 20.fxg5 i..xe5 21.lbe4±; that point by the common e7 -e6, 5 ... e6?! is also not very good. even more vulnerable would be- Although it hardly loses, it weakcome the square f6 and the whole ens the dark squared. 6.0-0 ..tg7 kingside with it. Therefore a con- 7 ...tg5 (White had an interesting sistent continuation for White is transposition aimed at preventto hit f7 - by lbg5 or ..tc4 and ing the possibility of lbd5-e7 7 ...txd5 exd5 8 ...tg5 ~d7 9.lbc3) eventually by ~f3. 7 ... ~d7 (In White's favour is 5 . ..tc4 168

l.e4 0,f6 2.e5 0d5 3.d4 d6 4.0,f3 g6 5 . .1Lc4 7 ... f6 8.exf6 .ixf6 9 ..ixf6 ~xf6 10 ..ixd5 exd5 1l.Ite1+ c:J;;f7 12. ~d2 l:tfS 13.0,c3 c6 14.Ite3:t Black has a ruined pawn chain and weakened king. A better possibility is 7 . ..tiJe7, for example: 8J:te1 h6 9 ..ie3 ttJf5 10.exd6 ~xd6 11.c3 ttJd7 12.ttJbd2 ttJf6 13 ..ib3 ttJxe3 14J:he3 ttJg4 15. l:1e1 0-0 16.h3 ttJf6 17.ttJe5:t with a small edge, Amed - Rossi, Argentine 2004) 8 ..ixd5 exd5 9.ttJc3 c6 (better is 9 ... dxe5 10.ttJxe5 ~d6 11.Ite1 0-0 12.~f3 c6 13. ttJd3:t or 10.dxe5 c6 11.l:te1 0-0 12. ~d2:t - Black's pieces are undeveloped and his kingside is weakened.) 10.Itel 0-0 11.exd6 f6 12 ..if4±. Black is in for a long and possibly difficult struggle to regain the d6-pawn. However it is not too clear how White could break-through. The game Soppe - Houstoun, Buenos Aires 1978 saw further 12 ... I!.e8 13. ~d2 .ifS 14.0,a4. (This operation is unconvincing. Perhaps White should have tried 14 ..ig3 0,a6 15. ~f4 c:J;;g7 16.h3 g5? 17.ttJxg5 fxg5 18. ~xg5+ ~f7 19Jhe8 ~xe8 20. ~h5+- or 16 ... .l:!.d8 17.l:te2 .ixd6 18. ~xd6 ~xd6 19 ..ixd6l:txd6 20. l:te7+ ..t>h6 21.l:tael± with a clear advantage in the endgame, as well as 14.h3 J::rxe1+ 15 ..l::.xe1 ttJa6 16.0,h2 .ixd6 17.0,g4 .ie7 18. ~e3 ~f7 19.~f3:t.) 14 ... b6 15.b3 ~f7? This is losing. (15 ... ~d8:t was better since White is unable to double the rooks quickly: 16.~e3 ~f5 or 16Jle2 .ia6) 16.c4 ~xe1+ 17.~xe1 .ixd6 18 ..ixd6

~xd6 19. ~h6+- with mating attack, Perez Garcia - Garcia Fernandez, Orense 2002; 5 ... dxe5 is also insufficient. After 6.dxe5 (that is why the exchange on e5 is bad - the knight on d5 is under attack) 6 ... c6 7.ttJc3 .ie6 (7 ... ttJxc3? 8 ..ixf7+; 7 ... e6 leads to a severe weakening of the dark squares, 8.0,e4 ttJd7 9 ..ig5± Guski - Al Saad, Vienna 2003) 8.ttJg5

In many variations White puts the enemy bishop out of play by taking on e6, followed by f2-f4 and gets a tangible advantage: 8 ... ttJxc3 9. ~xd8+ ~xd8 10. .ixe6 fxe6 11.bxc3+-Black is losing at least a pawn with bad position; 8 ... ~a5 9 ..id2 0,f4 10.0,xe6 0,xe6 (or 10 ... ~xe5+ 1l.0,e2 0,xg2+ 12 ...t>f1 fxe6 13 ...Itc3 ~e4 14. ~d4 ttJe3+ 15. ~xe3 ~xhl+ 16.0,gl +-) 11.f4 0,d7 12 ..ixe6 fxe6 13.~e2±; 8 ... ttJd7 9.0,xe6 (9.f4 could be met by 9 ... 0,xf4.) 9 ... fxe6 10. f4 ~b6 11. ~e2!? (1l ..ib3. The bishop is a bit misplaced here, 11.. . .ih6 12.g3 0-0-0 13.~e2 ~hf8 14.h4 ttJxc3 15.bxc3 ~a5 169

Chapter 12 16.~b2

lLlc5 17.'~c4 ~d5 18.0-0 19.i..c1 lLlxb3 20.axb3;!;. White has already improved his pawn structure on the queenside whilst the enemy bishop is still imprisoned on g7, Breder Palkovi, Paks 2000) 11 ... ~h6 (11 ... lLlxf4 12.~xf4 ~xb2 13.0-0 ~xc3 14.~xe6 and Black is in great danger since 14 ... 0-0-0 fails to 15.':'ad1 +- Ll~g4; 11 ... 0-0-0 12.lLle4;!; and White retains his pawn chain flawless) 12.g3 lLlxc3 13.bxc3 ~a5 (13 ... lLlc5 14.~e3;!;) 14.0-0 lLlc5 15. ~e3;!;. White harmoniously deployed his pieces; 8 ... i..g7. This is a secondgrade move because after 9.f4 it is unclear what the bishop is doing on g7. Black should not be wasting time. 9 ... lLld7 10.i..xd5 (White can also take on e6 as in the previous variation) 10 ... cxd5 (10 ... i..xd5? l1.lLlxd5 cxd5 12. ~xd5+-) l1.i..e3 (11.lLlxd5 does not win a pawn in view of 11 ... lLlxe5) 11...lLlb6 (11 ... h6?! is inconsistent - Black should not urge on the opponent into a favourable to him exchange, 12.lLlxe6 fxe6 13. ~g4 lLlf8 14. 0-0-0 ~a5 15.h4 h5 16. ~e2± Svendsen - Rockel, corr. 1990) 12.lLlxe6 fxe6 13 ..1i.d4;!;. White has an obvious static advantage because of the g7 -bishop and other perceptible drawbacks in Black's position. The counterplay against the f4-pawn and the queenside cannot compensate that. The game P.Cramling ~d8

170

Alburt, Reykjavik 1984 went on: 13 ... lLlc4 14.b3 lLla3 15.0-0 (15. h4!?) 15 .. J::tc8 16.nf2 ~a5 17. t'fd3 b5 18.nc1 b4 19.1Lle2 lLlb5 20.c3 bxc3 21.a4 (White could have eaten a pawn immediately: 21. lLlxc3!? 0-0 22JHc2 lLlxd4 23. ~xd4 ~c5 24. ~xc5 ':'xc5 25.lLle2 ':xc2 26.':xc2 g5 27.g3;!;.) 21... lLlxd4 22.lLlxd4 ~d7 23.h4! .l:tc5 24JIfc2 :hc8 25.~f2 ~b4 26.~e3 (White's king has supported his knight, thus freeing the queen for ~a6 or h4-h5 planning to capture on g6 or h7) 26 ... i..xe5!? 27.fxe5 ~b8 28.~f2 ~xe5 29.:e1 (29J::txc3!?) 29 ....:.f8+ 30.lLlf3 ~h2 31. ~d4 ':'c7 32Jhc3 ':'xc3 33. ~xc3 ~xh4+ 34.~gl+- .l:txf3 (this is forced since White has created mating threats) 35.gxf3 d4 36. ~d2 ~g3+ 37.~f1 ~xf3+ 38.~f2 ~h3+ 39.~e2 e5 40.~f3 t'fh2+ 41.~d3 ~b2 42.~d5+ ~e8 43. ~a8+ ~fl44.':'f1+. Faced with an

imminent mate, Black resigned.

a) 5 ... c6

This is a good continuation. It was regularly employed at different times by GMs V.Hort, L.Ljubojevic, R.Vaganian, L.Alburt,

1.e4 tDf6 2.e5 tDd5 3.d4 d6 4.tDf3 g6 5.~c4

A. Baburin, A.Miles, V.Akopian, fails under a mating attack: 14. V.Ivanchuk. Essentially this is ~d1 ~c4 15.b3 ~b4 16.~e3+-) the best and perhaps the only 14.tDe6, when in the game Lukin way to preserve the knight on d5. - Yermolinsky, USSR 1979 White Mter the usual exchange on d6 regained the piece leaving the Black takes by queen and rein- opponent with an exposed king. forces the knight by all possible It is possible further 14 ... ~c4 means (including b7 -b5 in case (more cautious is 14 ... ~d6 15. of necessity). That ensures a tDxg7+ 'it>f7 16.i.h6 ~d5 17. very solid, although somewhat ~c3±) 15.tDxg7+ 'it>fl 16.l:!.e1 (a good alternative is 16.i.h6 ~xc2 cramped position. 6.exd6 ~xd6 17.~e3 ~e4 1B.~b3+ ~d5 19. Of course capturing by pawn ~xb7 c5 20. ~xd5+ tDxd5 21. is out of question. Mter 6 ... exd6 l:tfel± or 16 ... tDbd7 17JIfe1 e5 7 ...txd5 cxd5 Black is "enjoying" 1B.:adl±) 16 ... tDbd7 17.tDe6 a compromised pawn chain, un- ~xc2 lB. ~a3±. White is winning developed pieces and problems the e7 -pawn with an attack, or with the defence ofthe d5-pawn. the exchange by tDe6-c7; White gets the edge by B.tDc3 10 ... e6 1l.tDe4 ~c7 (1l ... ~e7 ..te6 9.'~e2 i.g7 10.'~·b5+ ~d7 12.i.g5;t:) 12.i.b3 0-0 (12 ... i.xd4? 11...tf4? or 10.tDxd5 0-0 1l.tDf4±, 13.c4 tDb6 14.tDf6+ We7 15.i.g5 when there is no sufficient com- 'it>f8 16 Jbd 1 c5 17. tDd5! exd5 pensation for the pawn. 1B.:xd4 cxd4 19.~f6+-. Black 7.0-0 i.g7 could have prolonged his resisThe pin 7 ... i.g4 is premature. tance here by 1B ... tDc6, intendWhite meets it with B.h3 i.x£3 ing to parry ~f6 by ~e5. How9. ~x£3 i.g7 10.tDc3, attacking ever White has the simple 19. d5, I:th4 dxc4 20.i.h6+ ~gB 21.l:te1 ~d6 22J:!xc4 with decisive attack.) 13.c4 tDe7 14.i.f4 ~dB 15.tDd6 (15.lhd1± was worth consideration, depriving Black of the possibility of taking on d4) 15 ... b6 (15 ... i.xd4 promises more chances for creating counterplay, e.g. 16.l::tfd1 c5 17.tDxb7 ~b6, when 1B.i.h6 is met by lB .. .tDbc6 with unclear for example: play, or 16.tDxb7 ~b6 17.tDd6 10 ... tDf6 11.tDe4! ~xd4 12. tDd7;t:) 16.I:tad1 a5 17JIfe1 l:ta7. i.xfl+ Wxfl 13.tDg5+ WeB (13 ... Here instead of 18.i.c2 I:.d7 19. WgB keeps the g7 -bishop, but ~g3± with spatial advantage,

171

Chapter 12 but quite solid position for Black in Watson - Wohl, Kuala Lumpur 1992, White could have tried 18.d5 exd519.cxd5 cxd5 20.~xd5 tLlxd5 21..l::txd5 l;ld7 22.~g5 f6 (22 .. :~c7 23.~c1 t!1a7 24.~f6±) 23.~f4±. The open position underlines the advantage of White's piece. 8.h3 Generally Black's design is to raise a light-squared pawn wall by e7-e6 and b7-b5. Therefore he would gladly swap his lightsquared bishop after ~cS-g4. White prevents this positional threat. 8 ... 0-0 9.l;lel

9 ••• tLld7 9 .•. ~f5. After White restrained the enemy bishop by his last move, Black was faced with the problem where to deploy it. He had a plan with b7-b5 and ~c8-b7, but the bishop is rather passive there since White can easily prevent the break c6-c5. By the text move 9 ... ~f5 Black is aiming at swapping his bishop for the other enemy knight which is apparently bound for e4. Of course White is not obliged to

172

hurry with the knight to the central square. He can attempt to underline the downside of the bishop being on f5 - to push g2g4 with a knight on d7, and when the bishop retreats to e6, to attack it by tLlg5. Summing up, White has a spatial advantage and should avoid exchanges, trying to exploit the defects of the crowded enemy pieces. 10.tLlbd2 (An instructive game for this line is Tukmakov - Zhidkov, USSR 1973, which saw 10.~g5 :eS 1l.tLlbd2 tLld7 12.~b3 t!1c7 13. ~h4 a5 14.~g3 t!1d8 15.a4;!:;. Further on White, helped by the enemy's lack of counterplay, gradually advanced his pawns and broke-through: 15 ... ncS 16.t!1e2 ~h617 ...t>h1tLl7f61S.tLlc4 tLle4 19.~h2 tLlef6 20.tLlce5 ~b6 21.tLlc4 ~dS 22.tLlfe5 ~e6 23.tLld3 b6 24.l:tad1 t!1d7 25.tLlce5 t!1b7 26.t!1f3 l;ledS 27.g4 ~g7 2S.c4 tLlb4 29.tLlf4l;lf8 30 ...t>gl. Capturing the bishop on e6 was good too. 30 ... ~d7 31.g5 tLleS 32.c5 ~f5 33.d5! bxc5 - Black is struggling also after 33 ... ~xe5 34Jhe5 bxc5 35.dxc6 4:Jxc6 36.l:Ixc5± - 34.dxc6 tLlxc6 35.tLlxc6 t!1xc6 36.tLld5 'it'hS 37.t!1e3 c4 3S.4:Jxe7 t!1b7 39.4:JxcS, and Black resigned) 10 .. J:teS (10 ... a5 should be met by 11.a4;!:;, but not 11.4:Je4 ~xe4 12Jhe4 b5 13.iLf1 4:Jd7 14.~d2 e6 15.t!1c1 l:IfbS~, where Black achieved his dream setup in Vezzosi - Vaganian, Reggio Emilia 1992) 11. ~b3 b5 12.a4 4:Jd7. Here the mentioned above downside ofthe

l.e4 tDf6 2.e5 tDd5 3.d4 d6 4.tD{3 g6 5.~c4 bishop's stand was highlighted with: 13.g4! .ie6 14.tDe4 'fflc7 15.axb5 cxb5 16.tDeg5 tDf8 17. tDxe6 fxe6 18.tDg5+- and Black's position crumbled away: 18 ... 'ffld6 19. 'fflf3 ~b4 20 ..l:txe6 ttJxe6 2l.'fflxd5 'ffle1+ 22.~g2 ~h8 23. tDf7 + ~g8 24.ttJe5 .ixe5 25. 'fflxe6+ ~h8 26 ..ie3 1-0 Magem Badals - Rayo Gutierrez, Ponferrada 1992. 9 .•. a5. This move raises a difficult question - is it worth playing a7-a5 and provoking a2-a4 at all. The positive side is that the knight on d5 feels more secure since it could meet c2-c4 with tDb4; on the other hand Black's possibilities for counterplay with b7-b5 are even more restricted. 10.a4 ttJa6 1l.ttJbd2 'ffld8 12.ttJe4 :e8 13.c3 tDac7 14 ..ig5;t. The transfer of the knight to c7 is hardly good. Even if it reaches e6, it is unclear what the knight is doing on that square. In the game Anagnostopoulos - Dive, London 1994, Black went on manoeuvring dubiously: 14... l:.b8 15 ..ib3 tDb6 16 ..if4 ttJbd5 17. .ig3 .if5 18.ttJc5;t b6? 19 ..ixd5 'fflxd5 (19 ... cxd5 20 ..ixc7 'fflxc7 2l.tDa6+-) 20 ..ixc7 bxc5 2l. .ixb8+- and lost the exchange. 9 ... l:.e8 10.tDbd2 tDd7 1l ..ib3 'fflc7 12.tDe4 h6 (in the current situation this weakening of the kings ide proves to be significant since the fl -square is also vulnerable.) 13.c3;t b6 (this is passive, Black should have tried 13 ... tDf8) 14.h4! The pawn squeezes

through to h5, since 14 ... ttJ7f6 15.ttJxf6+ ttJxf6 16.ttJe5 e6 17. ~f3 .ib7 18 ..ixh6± is in favour of White, who won a pawn whilst the enemy king is in the draught, Demarre - Dubois, France 1989; 9 ...b5 10 ..ib3 ttJbd7 1l.ttJbd2 leads to a transposition of moves, whilst in the case of 10 ... a5 1l. a4 b4 White retains the edge by the standard manoeuvre of the knight: 12.tDbd2 tDd7 13. tDe4 'fflc7 14 ..ig5 e6 15. 'ffld2;t W.Fischer - Caprano, corr. 1997. 10 ... .if5 1l.a4 b4 is also in White's favour (after 1l ... tDd7 12 ..ixd5 'fflxd5 13.ttJc3 ~c4 14. ~he7 Black would find it difficult to prove that he has enough compensation for the pawn) 12.tDbd2 a5 (also known is 12 .. J::te8 13.tDc4 ~c7 14.ttJe3 .l:td8 - Black should have preserved his pawn structure with 14 ... ttJxe3 15 ..ixe3;t 15.ttJxf5 gxf5 16. ~d3 e6 17 ..ig5 .l:tc8 18.'ffld2 ttJd7 19.i..h6;t, when Black's king is shaky, Cosma Safranska, Calimanesti 1992. Another good option for White is 13.a5 ttJd7 14.g4 i..e6 15.tDe4 ~c7 16.tDfg5 ttJf8 17.ttJc5 i..d7 18 . 'fflf3t; 17 ... i..c8 18.tDxf7±.) 13. 'ffle2 (The placement of the queen on e2 is questionable. A good alternative is 13.tDc4 'fflc7 14 ..tg5 ne8 15.'ffld2 ttJd7 16.i..h6;t, and the typical g2-g4 at an opportune moment.) 13 .. Jle8 14.tDc4 ~c7 15.ttJce5 (15 ..ig5!?;t) 15 ... tDd7 16.'Dxfl!? 'it>xfl 17.g4 ..txg4 18. tDg5+ 'it>g8 19.hxg4 (19.'fflxg4 e5 20.ttJe6 'ffld6 21.tDxg7 'it>xg7 oo ) 173

Chapter 12 19 ... e5 20. tH3 ctJ7f6 (better is 20 ... ctJ7b6 21.dxe5 J::ixeS 22 ..if4 lIxe1+ 23 ..!::i.xe1 ~d7 24 ..ie3 .l:te8 2SJldl t) 21.dxeS l:i.xeS 22 ..if4 ~xe1+ 23.l:i.xe1 ~d7 24 ..l::i.e6 .ud8 (24 ... .:.e8 25.bid6 .l::i.e1+ 26.~g2 ~c8 27 ..ie3± ~.id4) 2S ..ie5ctJe8 26JIxc6!+- .ixe5 27.l:te6 ctJec7 28JheS h6 29.ctJe6. Faced with heavy material losses, Black resigned in Haslinger - Broomfield, England 2002. 9 ... h6. Black prevents the fairly annoying pin .ic1-gS. On the other hand, the text move is weakening (although that is still unnoticeable) the kingside without an urgent reason. 10.ctJbd2.

Here Black has tried: 10 ... b6 11..ib3. Intending c2c4. (However this retreat was not obligatory. White had the interesting variation 11. ~e2 l:te8 12. ctJe4 ~c7 13.ctJeS;t) 11...ttJd7 12. ~e2 ~c7 13.c4 ttJ5f6 14. ~xe7 ':'e8 lS.~b4 bixe1+ 16.ttJxel. Black has some compensation for the sacrificed pawn - the enemy pieces are placed rather clumsy. Actually, in the game he failed to draw from that. 16 ... cS 17. dxc5 ttJxc5 18.ctJdf3 ttJfe4 19 ..ic2 174

.if8 20 ...te3 .ib7 21.i:!d 1 l:i.c8 22.ctJd4 a6 23.ttJef3 ttJd7 24.~e1 .l::i.e8 25.b3, Ernst - Alburt, Subotica 1987. White successfully regrouped, keeping the extra pawn. On move 22 was the last moment when Black could have evened the pawns, but not the chances: 22 ... ttJa6 23. ~b3 ~xc4 24. ~xc4 .l:txc4 2S ..ib3 ':'c8 (2S ... .ucS 26.ttJdf3 llc7 27.ttJeS;j;) 26. ttJe6;j; fxe6 27 ..ixe6+ ~g7 28J:td7 (28 ..ixc8 .ixc8 29J:td8 .ie6 30. .ixh6+ ~xh6 31J:hf8;j;) 28 ... ~f6 29 ..ig4 hS 30 ..id4+ ~gS 31.ttJf3+ ~h6 32 ..ie3+ g5 33 ..ifS ':'c7 34. ':'c7 ttJc7 35 ..ie4 .ie4 36.ttJxg5±; 10 ... ttJd7 11.ttJe4 ~c7 12 ..ifl (commonly White retreats to b3 in this system - 12 ..ib3!?;1;) 12 ... b5 13 ..id2 a5 14.~c1 ~h7 lS.a4 b4 16.c4 ttJSf6 17 ..if4 ~d8 18. ttJg3 e6 (18 ... c5 19.dS;J;) 19 ..id6 ':'e8 20.ttJe5 ttJxeS 21.dxe5 ttJd7 22.cS fS 23.f4, White has a considerable spatial advantage, Z. Almasi - S.Farago, Budapest 1992; 10 ... .ifS 11..ib3 (We already noted that White should maintain tension by avoiding exchanges: 11.ttJe4 .ixe4 12JIxe4 ttJd7 13.c3 ttJ7f6 14.l:te1 b5 15 ..ifl e6 and Black achieved his design although his kingside is somewhat weakened, Mokry - Freisler, Prague 1986) 11 ... b5 (Or 11 ... ttJd7 12.ttJc4 ~c7 13.ttJce5 White does not need exchanges if they do not produce new flaws in Black's position, so 13.ttJh4!?;1; was better. That way White

l.e4 Ci'Jf6 2.e5 Ci'Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.Ci'Jf3 g6 would force the opponent to take on f5 by pawn which spoils his pawn structure - 13 ... Ci'JxeS 14.Ci'JxeS l:.ad8 lS:~e2 cS=, when Black equalised in the game Pad - Freisler, Karvina 1985. 12.Ci'Jh4 was also interesting: 12 ... i..e6 13. Ci'Jxg6; 12 ... .i.xd4 13.Ci'Je4 .i.xe4 14:~xd4±; 12 ... ~f6 13.Ci'Jdf3 e6 14.c4 Ci'JSh6 lS.~e2 l:tad8 16. i..d2t planning i..d2-c3 - anyway Black will have to capture on f5 by pawn or weaken the kingside by g6-gS.) 12.a4 Ci'Jd7 13.c4. This is not the best option. (13.axbS!? cxbS 14.Ci'Jf1t) 13 ... bxc4 14.Ci'Jxc4 "fic7 lS.Ci'JceS Ilab8 16.g4 Ci'JxeS 17.Ci'Jxe5 i..c8. In the current position despite the weakness on c6 Black is not worse, because the shelter of White's king is also compromised. In the game Black made several bad moves and went on to lose. 18. "fic2 .i.e6 (18 ... ~d6 19 ..i.d2 :e8
5.~c4

17.Ci'Jc5 i..c8 18.Ci'Jxg6 !te8 19. .l:.xb6 Ci'Jxb6 20.Ci'Je5-7 with dangerous attack and practically equal material. lO.i..b3

lO ...b5 10 ... Ci'J5f6. Black radically solves the problem of the d5knight. He retreats it to a safe square and plays b7-b6, i..c8-b7, e7 -e6, preparing c6-c5. 11. "fie2 e6 12.Ci'Jc3 b6 13.Ci'Je4 Ci'Jxe4 14. "fixe4 (the queen is heading for f4 or h4) 14 ... i..b7 15.i..f4 "fie7 16.itg5 .if6 (16 ... "fid6 17.l:.adU i\"fih4) 17.h4 l:.ac8 18Jlad1 lHd8 19. "fif4t. White generated pressure on the kingside. In the game Komissarov - Labunskiy, Podolsk, 1993 Black erred and lost in few moves: 19 ... b5 20.c4 (20. h5!?t) 20 ... bxc4 21..txc4 'it'g7 (21.. ..txg5!?t) 22 ..th6+ 'it'g8 23. Ci'Jg5 Ci'Jb6 (23 ... .l:.e8 24.Ci'Je4±) 24. l:.xe6 fxe6 25 ..txe6+ ~h8 26. Ci'Jf7 + and Black resigned. 10 ... Ci'J7f6. The design of this move is similar to the abovementioned line 10 ... Ci'J5f6. Black is preparing c6-c5, but he leaves the knight on d5, assuming that c2-c4 does not give White any 175

Chapter 12 advantage. The other knight is useful on f6, because it is preventing the manoeuvre ct:Jb1d2-e4. 11 ..i.g5 (ll.ct:Jbd2!?;!; was worth consideration. White's knight is aiming to reach e5 via c4. This idea became possible since Black's last move removed the control over that square. The transfer of the bishop to the bSh2 diagonal is consistent although somewhat lengthy.) 11 ... b6 12.ct:Jbd2 .i.b7 13 ..i.h4 (13.c4!? ct:Jc7 14. ~e2 lUeS 15.~ada) 13 ... I:!.aeS 14 ..i.g3 ~dS 15 ..i.e5 (commonly this square is better suited for a knight: 15.ct:Je5!? ~cS 16.c4 ct:Jc717.~e2;;!;) 15 ... ~cS 16. c3 White is demonstratively calm. (16.c4!? is more enterprising) 16 ... c5 17.ct:Jc4 I:!.dS lS.ct:Je3 cxd4 19.ct:Jxd4. The game Bondoc - Suba, Timisoara, 1976, showed that even after realising successfully c6-c5 Black should be accurate: 19 ... ct:Jxe3 20.1he3 .i.aS (20 ... .i.d5!?) 2l.~e2 .i.h6 22J::tg3 ~c5 (o22 ... .i.g7) 23.ct:Jf5 .i.f4 24 ..i.xf4 ~xf5 25 ..i.h6 l:.feS. Here White could have won the exchange by 26 ..i.a4 ct:Jd7 27.:d1 threatening l:!gd3. 1l.ct:Jbd2

176

1l ....i.b7 11 ... .i.a6 (the idea of this exotic deployment of the bishop is not too clear, moreover that after a couple of moves it retreated back to the common place b7) 12.ct:Je4 ~c7 13.c3 (White could play right away 13 ..i.g5l:tfeS 14. ~d2;;!; intending to meet 14 ... e5 by 15.dxe5 ct:Jxe5 16.ct:Jd4;;!;. White wants to capture on d5 and check from f6.) 13 ... .i.b7 14.~g5 l:tfeS 15. ~d2 a5, Donatti - Soppe, Montevideo 1994, when 16.a4;;!; would have underlined the fact that Black has just wasted time on bishop moves. 11 ... e6 12.ct:Je4 ~c7 13.c3 .i.b7 14.a4 a6 15.~e2 .l:tfeS 16 ..lid2 h6 17.c4 bxc4 lS.'~xc4 a5 19 ..l:tac1 .l:tebS 20 ..i.d1 I:!.a7 2l.b3 .liaS 22. ct:Jc5 (Black has covered everything on the queenside so White is trying to single out new targets on the opposite flank.) 22 ... ct:Jxc5 23.dxc5 .i.b7 24 ..lic2 .i.cS 25.~h4 ~e7 26.'~g3 ~c7 27. ct:Je5 .lid7 2S.h2 (White failed to expand on the kingside) 2S ... .lieS 29.ct:Jc4 ~xg3+ 30.xg3 ct:Jb4 3l..i.xb4 .u.xb4 32.I:!.cd1 :bS 33. I:!.d3 .i.f8 34.ct:Jd6 .i.d7 35.f4 g5 36.fxg5 hxg5 37.ct:Je4 .i.e7 3S. I:!.ed1.i.eS 39.ct:Jd6 ~f8 - Black is able to defend successfully, Herrera - Wohl, Havana 200l. White's play could be improved. Firstly, he could carryon c2-c4 in one instead oftwo steps: 13.a4 .i.b7 14 ..i.d2 followed by c2-c4. Secondly, similarly to the game Svidler - Akopian, Halkidiki

l.e4 Cfjf6 2.e5 Cfjd5 3.d4 d6 4.Cfjf3 g6 5.i.c4

2002, White could develop the bishop to the more active place g5 - 13.SLg5;t compared to 13.c3 and SLc1-d2. To 1l ... Cfj7f6, taking e4 under control, White should not play 12.Cfje4 Cfjxe4 13.~xe4 SLb7, M. Pavlov - Cibulka, Slovakia 1974 - as I mentioned many times, exchanges help Black's defence. Better is 12.c4 bxc4 13.Cfjxc4 "fic7 14.SLd2::!; with prospects for pressurising Black's weaknesses on the queenside, or 12.a4 ~b7 13.Cfje5 a6 14.Cfjd3;t, planning to jump to c5. 12.Cfje4 "fie7 13..i.g5 e614.e4 Black is ready to carry out the break-through c6-cS. That would give him sufficient counterplay, for instance after 14 ..i.h4 c5 15 ..i.g3 "fib6 or 14. "fid2 c5. By the text move 14.c4 White is opening up the c-file in order to hinder Black's design. 14 ... bxe4 15•.i.xe4 Cfj5f6 15 ... c5 looks risky: 16 ..l:Ic1 ~acB 17.dxc5 (17.Cfjxc5?! Cfjxc5 1B ..i.xd5 .i.xd5 19.~xc5 "fib7iiO) 17 ... .i.xb2 1BJ:tc2 (Imprecise is 1BJ:tb1 Cfjc3 19.Cfjxc3 ~xc3 20. ~e3 .i.xf3 2l.l:!.xf3 .i.g7=. Worse is 1B ... Cfjxc5 19.Cfjxc5 "fixc5 due to 20JIxb2! Cfjc3 2l."fid2 .i.xf3 22. .i.f6 "fifS 23 ..i.xc3 .lhc4 24.~e5 ~f4 25.gxf3 ~xf3 26.~e3+-.) 1B ... .i.g7 19.Cfjd6 (White has also the calm alternatives 19. "fid2 .i.c6 20.~h4!?t Ll.i.g3 and 19. Cfjd4;t M6) 19 ... Cfjc3 20. "fid2 .i.xf3, when instead of the variation of A.Finkel 2l.gxf3 "fixc5 22.CfjxcB

l':!:xcBf2 White should play 2l. ~xc3! .i.aB (21...SLxc3 22. "fixc3 .i.b7 23 ..i.h6+-) 22.CfjxcB ~xcB 23.~c2±. Black's compensation for the exchange is insufficient. 16.Cfjxf6+ Cfjxf6 17J:tel h6 lS ..i.h4 ~adS 1B .. .lIacB!? 19..i.b3 "fib6 20."fie2l::tdeS

21..i.g3±. White has managed to prevent the break c6-c5 and is able to start processing the enemy's weaknesses. He has a clear positional advantage. The game Svidler - Akopian, Halkidiki 2002 went on 21... "fib4 22.a3 "fie7 23.Cfje5 Cfjd5 (23 .. .1lcB? 24.Cfjxg6+-) 24.Cfjxe6 "fig5 25.h4 "fig4, when best was 26 ..i.xd5! exd5 27.Cfje5 "fixd4 (27 ... i.xe5 2B.dxe5 d4 29.~d2+-) 2S ..l:!.edl ~e4 29."fixe4 dxe4 30.Cfjd7 e3 31.Cfjxf8 e2 32.l:!.el +- with decisive advantage (pointed out by A.Finkel). b) 5 ...Cfjb6 6 ..i.b3 (diagram) We will now analyze in details the following moves: bl) 6 ... d5, b2) 6 ... Cfje6 and the main line b3) 6 ....i.g7. 177

Chapter 12

It is not so good for Black to play 6 ... dxe5. After 7.liJxe5, Black will have to restrict the mobility of his bishop with the move 7 ... e6, moreover this is going to weaken his kingside additionally. 8.lLlc3 i.g7 9.0-0 0-0 10J:tel lLl8d7 11.i.f4t Dias Rain, corr. 1999. It is now unfavourable for Black to capture on e5 (after taking on e5 with the pawn, or with the bishop - the weakness of the complex of dark squares becomes even more evident), while it is inconceivable how Black can develop his pieces without that exchange. It also deserves attention for White to try the move 11. ~g4, in order first to develop the bishop to a more active placement - the g5square and secondly to activate the queen closer to the kingside. It is hard to advise Black to opt here for 6 ... e6. He should defend his f7 -square only if White attacks it. 7.i.g5 i.e7 8.Sii.xe7 ~xe7 9.c3 (This move for White is hardly necessary at that moment - the d4-pawn has not been attacked at all. Instead, he should have simply developed his pieces - 9.liJbd2 'Dc6 10.0-0

178

and his advantage would have been even more clear-cut than in the game.) 9 ... lLlc6 10.liJbd2lLld7 11.~e2±. The dark squares are terribly weak in Black's camp and the horrible mistake 11 ... ~d8? led to an immediate catastrophe after: 12.exd6 cxd6 13. d5+- Grilc - Zrinski, Stockerau 1991. 6 ... a5. This move is standard for this variation and it either forces the retreat of the bishop, or the move a2-a4. Now, following this move-order, White has the possibility of a restricting temporary pawn-sacrifice: 7.e6 i.xe6 (It is worse for Black to play here: 7... fxe6 8.liJg5 and because ofthe threat 9.~f3, Black is forced to continue with: 9 ... Sii.h6 10.lLlxe6 Sii.xe6 11.Sii.xe6± and White's bishop is rock-solid on the e6-square. Black loses immediately after: 7 ... f6?? 8. liJg5+-, since he cannot capture on g5, because ofthe move 9.~f3 and White checkmates. Black loses at least his rook on h8, Ma.Tseitlin - Safarov, Leningrad 1977.) 8.Sii.xe6 fxe6. White regains his pawn and maintains his positional achievements. In the game Lukin - Alburt, Beltsy 1974, there followed: 9.liJg5liJc6 (Black loses a pawn after: 9 ... i.h6 10.lLlxe6 ~d7 11.lLlxc7+ 'fftxc7 12.Sii.xh6 ~c4 13.c3lLlc6 14. liJa3± Beliavsky - Menvielle, Las Palm as 1974.) 10.CtJxe6 ~d7 11. 'ffte2 lLld8 12.CtJxf8 llxf8 13. 0-0 a4 14.Sii.e3t. Black's king is

4.tLlf3 g6 5.i..c4 tLlb6 6.i..b3 d5 7.a4

almost defenseless - his dark a solid defensive line. He loses squares on the kingside are vul- however, his chances to create nerable and accordingly he can- any effective counterplay and not castle there, while his queen- White can maintain a stable adside has been weakened too, be- vantage with his wonderful cause of the advance of Black's pawn-outpost on the e5-square. a-pawn. He will have plenty of 7.a4 a5 S.h3 problems in the middle game, As usual, it is good for White because of the lack of safety of to prevent the move ~g4 and its his king. 14 ... tLld5 15.c4 tLlf4 16. trade for the knight on f3. ~xf4 ':'xf4 17. ~e3l:tf7 18.d5 ti'g4 S... ~g7 9.0-0 0-0 (White will counter 18 ... e5 not Castling for Black is the most with 19.dxe6 ti'xe6 20.ti'c3 ti'f6=, natural follow-up. but with 19.tLlc3 and if Black It is not good for him to play tries to run away with his king 9 ... ~d7 - with the idea to attack 19 ... 'it>f8 - 20.f4±, opening the f- White's a4-pawn, since his pieces file with the intention to pen- will be placed unfavourably then. etrate the f6-square with the 10.lbc3 e6, Segers - Hettler, knight.) 19.tLld2 ti'f4 20. ti'e2. Baden-Baden 1987, and here inNaturally, White should avoid stead of 11. ti'e2, White had bettrading queens. 20 ... b6 21.tLle4 ter continue 11.~g5± with the lbb7 22.b4 axb3 23.axb3 ':'xa1 idea to exploit the fact that Black 24Jlxa1 ':'f8 25.g3 ti'e5 26.':'a8+ has weakened considerably the lbd8 27.'it>g2 ~d4 28.f4 h6 29.tLlf2 dark squares with his last move. e5 30.ti'g4+-, so finally White Black's other possibilities are managed to expose Black's weak- only slightly better: nesses victoriously. The move 9 ... c6 - prepares the maneuver of the knight to bI) 6 ... d5 the c7 -square via a6. Meanwhile, the knight on c7 is not such an asset for Black at all. 10.tLlbd2. (It is also possible for White to follow with 10.tLlc3 and next tLlc3e2-f4.) 10 ... lba6 1l.c3 tLlc7 12.~c2 ~f5 (This move creates permanent weaknesses on Black's kingside.) 13.~xf5 gxf5 14.tLlb3 (This knight is headed via c5 or c1 to d3 and f4 and later if necThis move reduces the ten- essary to the h5-square.) 14 ... sion deliberately without any tLld7 15.~e1 e6 16.~g5;!;. White necessity, but it helps Black build maintains a stable advantage 179

Chapter 12 here - his opponent's position is cramped and he has no clear-cut plan to follow. Black would like to castle, but both his flanks are considerably weakened. Later, in the game Reprintsev - Ryskal, Ukraine 1991, there followed: 16 .. .'~c817.lbc1lbf818.lbd3lbg6 19.b3 b6 20.c4 (White now has an additional possibility - to prepare c4-c5, or to trade on d5 at an opportune moment.) 20 ... ~b7 2l.~d2 h6 22.iLf6 0-0 (22 ... iLxf6 23.exf6±) 23.lbf4 lbxf4 24.~xf4 'it>h7 25.iLxg7 'it>xg7 26.g4 fxg4 27.hxg4 f5 (027 ... f6 28.'it>g2~) 28.lbh4 ~h7 29.gxf5 c5 30.~h2 i:Iad8 3l.i:Ig1 lbe8 32.i:Ig6 and Black resigned; 9 ... lbc6 lo.lbc3 0-0 1l.i:Ie1 iLf5 12.lbe2 ~d7 13.lbg3 iLe6 14.lbg5 .l:tae8 15.f4;1; (White's centre is now rock-solid.) 15 ... f6 16.lbxe6 ftxe617.c3 fxe5 (Black's position would have been more resistant and reliable after 17 ... f5, with the idea to remove the queen later and to follow with e7-e6. Well, Black would not have then any counterplay against White straightforward plan - to play ~h2, i:Ig1, to remove the knight from the g3square and to follow with g2-g4 and if necessary even h3-h4-h5.) 18.fxe5 ~c8 (Black's queen on e6 was miserably placed, but after its retreat his whole kingside became practically defenseless.) 19.h4 e6 20.h5lbe7 2l.hxg6 hxg6 22. ~g4 c5 (otherwise Black loses his g6-pawn after 23.iLc2) 23. 180

lbe4! cxd4 24.lbd6 ~d7 25.lbxe8 l:!.xe8 26.cxd4 and Black could have already resigned in the game Ghinda - L.Popov, Warsaw 1979. Black has experimented with the other possible development of the bishop - 11.. .iLe6 12.iLf4 (White could have also tried the standard maneuver of the knight i.e. 12.lbe2, for example: 12 ... ~d7 13.lbf4 iLf5 14.lbh4!?;!;.) 12 ... ftd7 13. ~d2 .l:i.fe8 14.lbg5 (it is more logical for White to follow with 14.iLh6!?;!;) 14 ... lbb4 15.lbb5 ~ac8 16.c3 lba6 17. ~e3 c6 18. lba3 c5 19.1bb5 cxd4 20.lbxd4 lbc5 2l.iLc2 lbc4 22:!Y:fc1 f6 23. lbgf3 (White maintains his dominance in the centre as before.) 23 ... iLf7 24.lbb5 fxe5 25.lbxe5 lbxe5 26.iLxe5 iLxe5 27 ..l::txe5 e6 28. ~e3± and Black's weaknesses on the dark squares are quite evident, Pikula - Petrovic, J ahorina 200l. lO ..l:lel

White's centre is solid and powerful (Black's bishop on g7 is practically out of action) and he has excellent attacking prospects on the kingside. He should de-

4.lZJ{3 g6 5 . .Yl.c4 CiJb6 6 ..Yl.b3 d5 7.a4 ploy there his light pieces - the knight on b1 (one of the possible routes is via c3 and e2 to f4 or g3 - depending on circumstances), then the bishop on b3 can be brought into action (after c2-c3 and SLb3-c2). White can also try SLc1-f4, tlrd1-d2 and SLf4-h6 with the idea to weaken the defence of the black king by exchanging the dark squared bishops. Generally speaking, his plan is quite clear. Concerning Black, it is not so easy to give him a good advice. He would hardly achieve anything by preparing c7 -c5. Sometimes he brings his knight on b8 to the e6-square (via a6 and c7) in order to control the f4-square, but all that takes a long time and it is hardly effective. Black can try to prepare fl -f6, but that is definitely double edged, since the g6-square gets weakened in the process. White's advantage might not be so great indeed, but it is so much easier and simpler to play with White in this position. 10 ... c6 About 10 ... lZJc6 1l.lZJc3 - see 9 ... lZJc6 10.lZJc3 0-0 1U:tel. It is not good for Black to play 10 ... lZJa6, because after 1l.ii.d2 he is forced to retreat with his knight in order not to lose a pawn - 11...lZJb8, so he loses tempi instead. 12.lZJc3 c6 13:~e2 (This move seems to be quite artificial - the e2-square is not the right base for White's queen and the placement ofthe black knight

on the c4-square is nothing White should worry so much about, for example: 13.CiJe2 CiJc4 and here after the simple line 14.SLclt ilc3, SLc2 - both sides have lost some tempi on knightmoves (Black) and bishop-moves (White), but the deployment of the black knight on the c4-square seems a bit senseless.) 13 ... lZJa6 14 ..Yl.e3 CiJc7 15.tlrd2 (This move is like an admission that the development of the queen to e2 was purposeless.) 15 ... lZJc4 16.SLxc4 dxc417.SLh6 .Yl.e618.l:te4;:!;. White has some initiative, but it is not so easy for him to materialize it into something real: 18 ... f6 19. :rae1 SLd5 20.lZJxd5 (20.SLxg7 ~xg7 2l.exf6+ exf6 22.l:te7+ l:tfl 23.liJxd5liJxd5 24Jhfl+ ~xf7 25. ~e2 tlrb6 co ) 20 ... cxd5 (20 ... CiJxd5 2l.SLxg7 ~xg7 22.exf6+ exf6 23. ~e2;:!;) 2U:th4 (2l.exf6 exf6 22. ~e7 l:!.fl 23.l:txfl ~xfl 24 ..Yl.xg7 ~xg7 25. tlre3;:!;) 21.. ..Yl.xh6 22. ~xh6:f7 23.liJh2l:ta6 24.tlre3 f5 25.f4liJe6 26.g4 CiJg7 27.liJf3 lZJe6 and since White's rook on h4 is definitely not an asset to his position and accordingly he is not even better - the opponents agreed to a draw in the game, Smagin - Marinkovic, Cacak 1991. 1l.CiJc3 CiJa6 12.lZJe2 CiJc7 13.c3 CiJe6 Black has also tried in practice in this position: 13 ... liJc4 with the idea to follow with b7b5 and to organize some counterplay on the queenside. 14.ii..c2 b5 181

Chapter 12 15.b3 4Jb6 16.4Jf4 bxa4 17.bxa4 4Jc4. Black's knight is beautifully placed here, but in fact it is quite useless - it attacks nothing. lS ..l:!b1 (It deserves attention for White now to follow with lS. 4Jg5!? and the threat to sacrifice a piece on h 7 forces Black to weaken his kingside. lS ... h6 19.4Jf3 and later White will follow with h3-h4-h5 at an opportune moment: 19 ... 4Je6 20.4Jxe6 i.xe6 21.i.f4 l:tbS 22"~c1 ~h7 23.h4 "§'cS 24.h5 i.g4 25.hxg6+ fxg6 26.4Jh4 i.h5 27.e61'.) lS ... f6. This move is very risky for Black - he should worry about how to get rid of a white piece on the e6outpost. (He should have played instead: lS ... 4Je6, but even then White maintains his advantage by playing h3-h4-h5 just in time: 19.4Jxe6!? i.xe6 20.4Jg5 "§'d7 2l. 4Jxe6 "§'xe6 22.f4 f5 23.g4;;!;; or 19. i.d3 4Jxf4 20.i.xf4 i.a6 21.h4 z:tbS 22.h5l:txb123.i.xb1 "§'bS 24. i.g5;;!; and White's threats on the kingside will surely become quite dangerous soon, for example: 24 ... "§'c7 25.e6 f6 26.i.c1- White does not achieve anything with the piece-sacrifice: 26.hxg6 fxg5 27.gxh7+ ~hS 2S.4Jxg5, because of 2S ... 4Jd6, for example: 29.4Jf3 i.f6 30.4Je5 i.xe5 3l.z:txe5 4Jc4oo - 26 ... f5 27.hxg6 hxg6 2S.4Jg5 c5 29."§'f3 "§'b6 30. "§'h3 1:tf6 3l.i.d3 cxd4 32.cxd4~ and Black cannot play 32 ... "§'xd4 33."§'h7+ ~fS 34.4Jf3 "§'xd3 35.i.h6+-.) 19.e6 "§'d6 20. ~d3 f5. This is definitely a bad move and Black's whole lS2

kingside remains defenseless after it. 2l.4Jg5 i.a6 22."§'g3 c5 23. ct:Jxh7 and Black resigned in the game Adams - Dunnington, Haringey 19S9, because he has no defence against the checkmating attack: 23 ... ~xh7 24.thg6+~hS 25.4Jh5 4JeS 26.i.f4 "§'c6 27.i.h6 i.xh6 2S. "§'xh6+ ~gS 29.ct:Jf4 z:tf6 30.4Jg6 .l:Ixe6 (30 .. Jbg6 3l.~xg6 ~hS 32."§'h5+ ~g7 33."§'f7+ and White checkmates) 3l."§'hS+ ~f7 32. "§'f8+ ~xg6 33.i.xf5+-. Black should have captured the pawn first: 20 ... 4Jxe6 and after 21. 4Jxe6 (but not 2l.4Jxg6 hxg6 22. "§'xg6, because of 22 ... f5 23.4Jh4 4Jc7) 21...i.xe6 22. "§'e2 he should give it back: 22 ... i.cS (Black must not try to hang on to the extra pawn with: 22 ... ~ 23Jlb7± i.d7 24.i.d3± .l:IfeS 25.i.xc4 dxc4 26. i.a3 "§' e6 27. 4Jd2 "§' d5 28. ~xe 7 + l:txe7 29 ..l:Ixe7+ ~gS 30.l'tbxd7; 27 ... "§'xe2 2S ..l:txe2 l:tadS 29.ct:Jxc4 and Black loses material) 23. "§'xe7 "§'xe7 24.l'txe7l'tf7 25.z:tel;;!;. White maintains a stable advantage - his rooks control both open files. I4.i.c2 f5 I5.en6 exf6

The game Borgo - Varga,

4.ltJ{3 g6 5.1Lc4 ltJb6 6.iLb3 ltJc6 7.ed

Budapest 1999, followed with: This move is with the idea to 16.ltJf4 ~d6 17.ltJxe6 i.xe6 18.b3 follow with d4-d5 on the next .tIfe8 19.i.a3 ~f4 20.i.d3 i.f8 2l. move, making use of White's sui.xf8 ~xf8 22. ~d2 ~xd2 23. perior development and particultJxd2 i.f7 24.f3 ~:txe1+ 25.l:.xe1 larly of the fact that Black's lle8. Black managed gradually to bishop has not been developed to equalize at the end. The ex- the g7 -square yet. change of knights by White on 7 •.. cxd6 moves 16-17 in fact facilitated Opening of the e-file after Black's defence considerably. 7 ... exd6 might cause great probThe side, which has the advan- lems for Black: 8.0-0 d5 (as a tage, should in principle avoid consequence of the move g7 -g6, exchanges, unless they lead to Black fails to interpose with the something quite substantial. bishop 8 ... i.e7 and then castle, Instead, White should have because of 9.i.h6± and he in a played: 16.h4 (eyeing the weak- real trouble; 8 ... i.g4 9 ..i.g51Lxf3? ness on g6) 16..• f5 17.h5 ~f6 10.i.xf7+ c;t>d71l.~e1!+-) 9 ..tIe1+ 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.1tJf4 (with the .i.e6 10.c3 .i.g7 1l.ltJg5;t - and idea to trade the defender of the Black can hardly defend the e6g5-square) 19 ..• Ite8 20.ltJxe6 square successfully. .1:txe6 21.i.g5 ~f7 22.b3 .ltd7 He has tried in practice some23.ltJe5 ~f8 24.~d2;t and White times 7 ... ~xd6 with the idea to is clearly better because of his develop his pieces and to underwonderfully centralized knight. mine White's centre with e7-e5. White preserves his opening adb2) 6 •••ltJc6 vantage in this case too with: 8.0-0 i.g7 9.c3 0-0 10.a4!? with the idea to counter 10 ... a5 with 1l.ltJa3;t, followed by ltJb5 and i.f4. Black cannot equalize either with: 10 ... i.g4 1l.h3 .i.xf3 12. ~xf3ltJd 7, Magomedov - Chetverik, Cappelle la Grande 1997, 13.ltJd2ltJf6 14.ltJc4 ~d7 15.a5 a6 16.ltJe5± and White has an overwhelming advantage (recomThis early development ofthe mended by M.Magomedov). It is knight is quite dangerous for much trickier for Black to follow Black, as in so many other lines with: 10 ... i.f5, preventing the ofthe Alekhine Defence, because move 1l.a5, because ofll ... ltJxa5. White can attack it with d4-d5. White should then play: 1l.ltJbd2 a5 12 ..tIe1 and now he is clearly 7.exd6 183

Chapter 12 better after: 12 ... Itae8 13.tbe4 ~xe4 14Jhe4 and if 14 ... e5 then 15.~e2tbd716.~f4~e717.~g5±

with a dangerous pin along the e-file, as well as after: 12 ... e5 13. dxe5 tbxe5 14.tbxe5 ~xe5 15.tbf3 "§xd1 16 ..l:txd1 ~f6 17 .~f4;j; and White maintains a long-lasting initiative in the endgame. B.d5

B...tbe5 This move compromises Black's pawn structure, but that is possibly the least of evils for him now: The move 8 ... tba5 enables White to play 9. "§d4 and thus to disrupt the harmonious development of Black's kings ide pieces: 9 ... ~g8 10.0-0 ~d7 11o~e1 "§c7, Golubev - Vanderwaeren, Leuven 2003, and here instead of what White played in the game i.e.: 12.~g5 h6 13.~d2 tbac4 14 ..Jtc3;!;, he had to continue with: 12.tbc3, after which it would have been a disaster for Black to play: 12 ... .Jtg7 13. ~h4±, while castling long would have left his f7-pawn defenseless; 9 ... tbxb3 10.axb3 llg8 1l.c4 .Jtg7 12."§f4 tbd7 13.0-0 tbf6

184

14.tbc3±. This position might have been only slightly worse for Black had he already castled, instead of the move ~gB. Presently, he is forced to perform something like an artificial castling, weakening additionally his position. Meanwhile, White has a free hand to prepare a breakthrough on the queenside and in the centre. The game PenroseCafferty, Brighton 1977, followed with: 14 ... a6 15Jle1 'it>f8 16.~e3 h6 17 .~d4 g5 18. "§e3 tbg4 19. ~xg7+ lhg7 20."§d4 f6 21ob4 ~f7 22.tba4 tbe5 23.~a3 tbxc4 24. "§xc4 b5 25. "§d3 bxa4 26.tbd4 "§b6 27 ..l:txa4 'it>g7 28.b5 "§b7 29. tbc6 axb5 30.:xa8 "§xa8 31.tbxe7 f5 32. "§d4+ and because of the line 32 ... 'it>h7 33."§b6 and Black loses his d6-pawn - he resigned, Penrose - Cafferty, Brighton 1977; Black is not out of the woods after: 9 ... f6 either, because that weakens the crucial e6-square and it becomes a dreamlike outpost for White's knight, for example: 10.i.d2 (forcing the opening of the queens ide and Black's knight on b6 would be a sorry sight then) 10 ... tbxb3 11oaxb3 ~g7 12.i.a5 i.f5 (Black has no compensation for the pawn after: 12 ... i.d7 13.~xb6 axb6 14..l:i.xa8 "§xa8 15.~xb6±. Now, Black has serious problems after: 15 ... "§a6 16."§xa6 bxa6 17.tbc3 'it>f7 18. ~e2± and White remains with a solid extra pawn in the endgame, Volzhin - Davies, Dhaka 2001; as

4.4J{3 g6 5.il..c4 4Jb6 6.il..b3 4Jc6 7.ed well as after: 15 ... f5 16.c3 ~a1 17.0-0 ~xb2 lS.~xb7±.) 13.c4 0-0 14.0-0 ~cS 15Jlel .l:teS 16. 4Jbd2 4Jd7 17.Sl.c3 a6 IS.4Jh4 4Je5 19.f4 4Jf7 20.4Jxf5 ~xf5 2l. 4Jf3±. White enjoys an overwhelming positional advantage, because of Black's chronical weakness on the e6-square. Later, in the game PonomariovPesotsky, Kiev 1997, there followed: 21...~cS 22.~d3 e5 (otherwise White follows with 4Jd4e6) 23.dxe6 l:[xe6 24.4Jd4l:[xe1+ 25Jhel ~d7 26.~e4 f5 27.~e7 ~xe7 2S.lIxe7 .l:.bS 29.4Je6 Sl.xc3 30.bxc3 b5 3l.cxb5 axb5 32.~f2± and despite the material equality, the endgame is extremely difficult for Black - his pieces remain too passive. 9.4Jxe5 dxe5 10.0-0

After the exchange on e5 Black's pawn-structure turns out to be considerably compromised, because of the doubled e-pawns. He would hardly manage to correct that by playing e7 -e6. White might then either trade on e6, or follow with d5-d6. Presently, in the existing pawn-structure, White has extra

space and practically unopposed pawn-majority on the queenside. His natural plan would be to make a good use out of it, for example by advancing his c-pawn forward, or by preparing the pawn-break d5-d6. Black's most effective counter chance then might be the deployment of his knight to the ideal d6-square for it, via d7-f6-eS, or cS, and if necessary b7 -b6 (in case White plays c2-c4), followed by an advance of the e and fpawns. 10 ... i..g7 10 ...4Jd7 (this is an immediate attempt by Black to improve the placement of the knight) 1l.4Jc3 Sl.g7. Later, the game Wilder - Boulard, France 1989, followed with: 12.Sl.e3 0-0 13.~f3 4Jf6 14.h3 b6 (14 ... 4Je8!? 15. 4Je4;!;) 15.:ad1.ib7 16 ..l:r.fel 4JeS 17.h4 h5 IS.4Je4;!; and White maintained his space advantage. It was however, much more energetic for him to play: 12. d6!, exploiting his lead in development. Black would have to worry then about too many threats (4Jb5, dxe7, followed by 4Jd5, i.g5) and his defence would be extremely difficult: 12 ... 4Jf6 (12 ... 0-0 13.i.g5 4Jf6 14. dxe7 ~xe7 15.4Jd5+-; 12 ... 4Jc5 13.4Jb5 4Jxb3 14.4Jc7+ ~f8 15. axb3 .&!.bS 16.dxe7+ rJ;;;xe7 17. 4Jd5±, so Black either loses his a7-pawn, or he has to "centralize" his king by placing it on the e6-square) 13.dxe7 ~xd1 (13 ... lS5

Chapter 12 'fixe7 14 ..ltg5±) 14Jhd1 cJ;;xe7 15 ..ltg5 iLe6 16.'Dd5+ i.xd5 17. I:txd5± and Black would not save his e-pawn.

Now, the idea to advance outright White's queenside pawns is once again on the agenda: 12.c4 'Dd7 13.c5 'fic7 (13 ... b6 14.c6 'Dc5 15 ..l:t.e1'Dxb3 16. 'fixb3±; 15 ... e4 16 ..ltxc5 bxc5 17.'Dc3±) 14.d6 exd6 15.cxd6 'fia5 16.'Dc3;;!; White's passed pawn is quite safe now and his pieces are much more active than these of his opponent. b3) 6 ....ltg7

11.iLe3!? White has tried in practice mostly the move 11.a4 in this position. Advancing the a-pawn is not always necessarily advantageous for White, therefore it is possibly better for him not to force Black's knight away from the b6-square immediately. It will have to abandon that square sooner or later anyway. 11 ... 0-0 12.a5 'Dd7 13.iLe3 lbf6 14.h3 (14.'Dc3!? 'De8 15.f4 exf4 16.i.xf4 'Dd6 17.'fie1'Df5 18.iLe5;;!;) 14 ... 'De8 15.'Dd2 (15.c4!? lbd6 16.c5 'Df5 17.'Dc3 'Dd4 18.iLxd4 exd4 19.'Db5;;!;) 15 ... 'Dd6 16.'Dc4 'fic7 17.'fie2 .id7 18.'Dxd6 exd6= and Black is not worse at all, Mortensen - Hoelzl, Randers 1982. 11 ... 0-0 1l ... 'Dd7 12.'Dc3 0-0 13. 'fif3 'Df6 14.h3;;!; transposes to the variations that we have already analyzed in our notes to Black's move 10 in the game Wilder Boulard, France 1989.

186

This is Black's most natural and definitely best move and it has been played by Robert Fischer (well, he tried it only once, but that was in the World Championship match against Spassky back in the year 1972) and it is also a part of the opening repertoire of some leading grandmasters likes L.Alburt, R.Vaganian, J. Timman. Black is already prepared to castle after that move and he plans to attack White's centre with the help of'Db8-c6 and .ic8-g4. White can opt for the following plans: At first, he can play 7.a4 and counter 7 ... a5 with 8. 'fie2, 0-0

4.ltJ{3 g6 S.i.c4ltJb6 6.i.b3 and h2-h3, protecting his centre; Secondly, he might (either immediately, or after the inclusion of the moves 7.a4 a5) play ltJf3-g5, in order to provoke d6d5, later he can fortify his centre with f2-f4 and then he can go back with his knight to the f3square. The critical line for Black, after 7.ltJg5, is the move 7 ... e6 and following 8:~f3, Black answers with 8 .. :~e7 and in the line 9.ltJe4 dxe5 10.~g5 ~b4+ 11. c3 ~a5 12.~ffi 0-0 13.~xg7 cJ;;xg7 14.~ffi cJ;;g815.~xe5 there arises a slightly better endgame for White, but Black maintains decent chances to equalize. In case of 7 ... e6, White can again play 8.f4 and Black's most fashionable variation against that is - 8 ... dxe5 9.fxe5 c5 10.c3 cxd4 11.0-0 0-0 12.cxd4 ltJc6 13.ltJf3 ffi 14. exf6 ~xf6 15.~e3 ltJd5 16.~f2 ltJf4, it is not easy for White to prove that he has the edge in these forced lines; Finally, White has a third possibility at his disposal and it has been tested successfully at the highest level by Vishy Anand in his game against Jan Timman in Linares (1992) and that is what we recommend to you. 7.exd6 (diagram) 7 ... cxd6 Black plays only seldom the move 7 ... thd6. In the game Vajda - Ducsoara, Romania 1995, White maintained the advantage after: 8.0-0 i.e6 9.~xe6

~7

7.ed

~xe6 10J:te1 (The exchange of the light squared bishops has lost several important tempi for Black.) 10 ... ~d6 11.ltJc3 ltJc6 12.ltJe4 ~d5 13 ...th6!? 0-0 14. ..txg7 cJ;;xg7 15.b3 liad8 and here, instead of the tentative move 16.c3;t, White had better play: 16.c4 ~f5 (16 ... ~h5 17.~d2 e6 18. ~b2±, it is too bad for Black to try: 17 ... ltJxd4 18.ltJxd4 c5 19.1tJg3 ~g4 20Jle4 ~c8 21. .u.h4+-) 17.~d2e618.~b2±-and Black's defence is extremely difficult, because ofthe vulnerability of the long diagonal and White's threat d4-d5. It is safer for Black to play: 8 ... 0-0 9 ..l:i.e1 ltJc6 10.c3;t. There arises a position, which is similar to the variation: 6 ... ltJc6 7.exd6 ~xd6 8.0-0 ..tg7 9.c3. White plans to attack Black's queen by playing ltJb1-d2-e4. In the game Arakhamia Grant - Sutter, Geneva 1990, Black tried the immediate pawn-break in the centre 10 ... e5 and White should not have played 11.ltJa3, as he did in the game, because of 11 ... exd4 12. ltJb5 ~d7, but try instead: 11. ltJxe5 ltJxe5 12.i.f4 and White is clearly better in all lines: 12 ... ~e8

187

Chapter 12 13.dxe5 ~xd1 14.l:Ixdl ~e6 15. Ite1 ~xb3 16.axb3 lbd5 17.~g3 f6 1B.e6±, or 16 ... lbd7 17.e6lbc5 1B.exf7+ ~xf7 19J::txeB :xeB 20.lbd2, White preserves his extra pawn in both cases; it is not good for Black to play: 14 ... ~xe5 15JIe1lbd7 16.lba3± and White is threatening lbc4 and lbb5. 7 ... exd6 - Black has never tried that move in practice. Following 8.~g5, he should better play B... f6, complying with an inferior position. 9.~f4 d5 (9 ... ~e7+ 10.~d2!? ~fB 11.%!elt White's loss of castling rights is not as dangerous as Black's .. ·.) 10.0-0 0-0 1l.a4!? (White creates problems for Black now... ) 1l ... a5 (1l ... g5 12.~g3 lbc6 13.a5 tDc4 14.~xc4 dxc4 15.~e2;:l;) 12.tDc3. White's pieces are much better placed than Black's in that symmetrical pawn-structure; the risky move 12 ... g5 (in case of 12 ... lbc6, White can emphasize the defects of Black's previous move with the line: 13.tDb5 J::[f7 14.:el;:);) 13.~g3 g4 14.tDe1 f5 15.tDd3;:l; leads only to a new considerable weakening of his opponent's position. Black's two other possibilities (after 7 ... exd6 B.~g5) enable White to deprive his opponent of castling rights and while Black manages somehow to accomplish an artificial castling, White will create dangerous threats: B... ~d7 9.~e2+ ~f8 10.0-0 tDc6 II. c3 h6 12 ..th4 'ot>gB (there is no other way for Black to introduce 1BB

the rook on hB into actions) 13.:e1 ~h7 14.lbbd2. Black has problems developing his queenside; White is threatening to redeploy his knight - tDe4-f6 and in case of 14 ... .l:tfB 15.tDe4 f5 White can sacrifice a piece: 16. tDeg5+ hxg5 17.tDxg5+ ~hB lB. .te6 with the following eventual developments: lB ... ~eB 19. ~f3 .tf6 (19 ... .txe6 20Jhe6 ~d7 2I. ~xg6+-; 19 ... .th6 20. ~h3 f4 2I. .tg3 ~g7 22 ..txcB ~xcB 23.tDe6+ ~h7 24 ..txf4 l;Ixf4 25.lbxf4 ~xh3 26.tDxh3;:l;) 20. ~h3 ~g7 2I..txcB ~xcB 22.tDe6+ ~gB 23.~g3 tDe7 24.tDxfB ~xf8 25J~xe7 ~xe7 26. ~xg6+ ~hB 27J:le1 ~xh4 2BJ:le6 ~g7 29.~h5+ ~g8 30.1:Ig6 .tf6 3I.~xf5+-;

It is a bit similar after: B... .tf6 9.~e2+~f810 ..th6+~g711.~e3 tDc6 12. ~f4, because White man~

ages easily to create threats against the enemy king, for example: 12 ... ~e7+ C12 ... d5 13. 0-01') 13.~d1 .tf5 14 ..l:te1 ~d7 15.d5 tDe7 (15 ... tDe5 16.tDxe5 dxe5 17. ~xe5±) 16. ~d4 .l:.g8 17.tDg5+-. 8.0-0 White has exchanged his central pawn and he will have a long-lasting pressure along the e-file; moreover Black's bishop on g7 is now harmless, because White can easily defend his d4pawn with the move c2-c3. Black usually tries to organize his counterplay according to the following scheme: he places his pawn on d5 (closing the di-

4.lLlj3 g6 5.i..c4 lLlb6 6.i..b3 ~g7 7.ed

agonal for White's bishop and preventing d4-d5), he deploys his bishop on f5 and the knight on the c6-square and then he opts for the maneuver lLlc6-a5-c4. 8 ... 0-0 About B... lLlc6 9.c3 0-0 10.l:le1 - see B... O-O 9Jtel lLlc6 10.c3; 8 ... d5 9J:te1 0-0 10.i.f4 lLlc6 1l.c3 - see 8 ... 0-0 9.l:!.e1 lLlc6 10.c3 d5 1l.i.f4. It is too bad for Black to play 8 ... i.g4? Stepanov - Tarakanov, corr. 1997, because of9.i.xf7+. 9.l:!.el lLlc6 As for 9 ... i.g4 10.c3 lLlc6 1l.h3 - see 9 ... lLlc6 10.c3 i.g4 1l.h3; 9 ... h6 10.c3 lLlc6 1l.i.e3 - see 9 ... lLlc6 10.c3 h6 1l.i.e3. 9 ... ~c7. This placement of the black queen has some pluses indeed (it supports the maneuver lLlc6-a5-c4), but it possesses certain drawbacks too - for example the queen can be attacked by White's knight; after lLlb1-c3, Black would not be able to play d6-d5. 10.a4. White has this possibility now at his disposal, because his opponent has not played lLlbB-c6 yet and he has developed his queen instead a bit prematurely. 10 ... lLlc6 (10 ... i.g4 1l.a5 lLlcB 12.lLlc3 lLlc6 13. lLld5 ~d7 14.c3t and White can counter the threat of having his pawns doubled after 14 ... ~f5, with the line: 15J!e3 i.h6 16.h3 i..h5 17J:td3 i.xcl 18 ..l:;!xcU) 1l. a5 lLld7 12.lLlc3 ~d8 13.lLld5t White's pieces are very active. 10.c3

White is defending his d4pawn. He plans to bring his knight on b1 to the kingside along the route b1-d2-e4, or fig3. The bishop on c1 can be deployed to the g5-square, provoking a weakening of Black's kingside after h7-h6. In the game that we have already mentioned - Anand Timman, Linares 1992, Vishy chose another plan - he played 10.h3, in order to ensure the c3square for himself, because the immediate move 10.lLlc3, would have been countered by Black with 10 ... i.g4, pinning the knight and attacking the d4pawn. Later, the game continued 10 ... i.f5 1l.lLlc3 lIc8 12.i.g5 h6 13.i.e3 d5 14.lLle2 lLla5 15.c3 lLlbc4 16.i.c1 fib6 17.lLlf4 i.e4?! (After 17 ... e6 18.lLlh2 Black encounters problems with his lightsquared bishop so he must concede weakening of his kingside - 18 ... g5 19.1Llh5. The correct move is 17 ... ~d6! 18.lLlh4 i.d7 19.1Lld3t ~~f4 - Anand.) 1B.lLld2! lLlxb3? (Black had a better option - 18 ... lLlxd2 19.i..xd2! lLlxb3 20. ~xb3t) 19.1Llxc4 (19.~xb3! lLlxd2 20.i..xd2 e6 21.f3 ~xb3 22.axb3 189

Chapter 12 ~c2

23Jha7 ~xb3 24.~xb7l:.bS± - Anand) 19 .. .'~a6 (19 ... dxc4 20.axb3 .ic6 21.bxc4+-, 19 .. Jhc4 20.axb3 and 21.f3+-) 20.thb3 dxc4 21.~dl .ic6 22Jhe7 :feS 23.!heS+ .l:txeS 24 ..ie3 'f;tb5? (Letting the pawn to d5 turns Black's position hopeless. Black could defend with 24 ... g5 25.tbh5 ~b5 26.~d2 ~d5 27.f3 .ihS Anand.) 25.d5!+- .id7 26.~d2 .ifS 27 . .id4 .if5 2S.g4! .ie4 29J:1el ~a4 30.b3! cxb3 31.axb3 ~b5 32. 'f;te3 .id6 33.tDh5! and Black resigned.

.ie6 17.'f;td2 'it'h7) also does not promise an edge due to 16 ... 'f;ta5 (16 ... 'ot>h7 17.d5 tDe5 lS.tbxe5 i.xe5 19.i.xh6±) with the following illustrative variations: 17.c3 (17. 'f;txa5 ttJxa5 18 ..id2 ttJc6 19.d5 ttJe5 20.ttJfd4 .id7 21.ttJc3 g5 22J,tadl .l:IfeS; 17.tDc3 ~fdS lS.l::.adl .l:td7 19 . .ixh6 tbxd4) 17 .. .'.t>h7 lS.b4 (1S.ttJg3 .l:tfdS) lS ... 'f;td5 (lS ... cxb3 19.axb3 ~b5 20.~dl.l:tfdS 21.c4 ~b4 22.ttJg3;l;; .ie6 23.l:tcl±~d4-d5) 19.ttJf4 'f;td6 20.d5 ttJe5 21.tbh4 (21.tDd4 .id7 22.ttJde2 g5 23.tbh5 tDd3) 21... .id7 22.i.d4 (22 ..ic5 l:txc5 23. bxc5 ~xc5 24 ..l:te3 ~d6oo) 22 ... g5 (22 ... l:HdS 23.I:te4;l;;) 23. ~c2+ (23.ttJh5 gxh4 24.tDxg7 ttJd3 25 . .l:te3 :gS 26 ..l:txd3 cxd3 27. 'f;txd3+ f5 2S.ttJh5 ~xd5) 23 ... ~gS 24.ttJf5 (24.ttJh5 gxh4 25.tDxg7 ttJd3 26. l:te3 'f;txd5 27 Jhe7 .ixh3=t=) 24 ... ttJf3+ 25.gxf3 .ixf5 26. ~xf5 .ixd4 27.cxd4 ~xf4 (27 ... gxf4 2S ..l:te6 However on move 14th Black fxe6 29. 'f;tg6+ ~h8 30. ~xh6+ could have introduced on c4 the ~gS 31.'f;tg6+ ~h8 32.~h2+-) other knight: 14 ... tbc4!? 2S. 'f;txf4 gxf4 29Jhe7 lUdS 30. The idea of this move is to l:txb7 lhd5 31.l:.xa7 c3~ with meet 15.i.cl with 15 ... i.e4 16. sufficient counterplay. tbd2 (16.tbh2 b5) 16 ... tDxd2 17. As we can witness - the basic i.xd2 tbxd4 lS.tbxd4 .ixd4 19. problem for White, following .ixh6 .ixb2 20.f3 i.f5 21.i.xffi Anand's plan (which is very difi.xal (21...'li;>xffioo) 22 ..ixe7 'f;tb6+ ficult to accomplish, though ... ) is 23.'it>hl i.d4 with good position that the temporary weakness for Black, Sogaard - N oseda, of the d4-pawn precludes the knight-maneuver. Accordingly, it corr.1995. White should better preserve is logical for White to solve once his dark-squared bishop since and for all the problem of the 15.tbg3 tbxe3 16.l:txe3 i.e6= is defence of the d4-pawn and only equal. therefore I recommend the move 15.i.xc4 dxc416.~d2 (16.tbg3 10.c3. Concerning White's queen 190

4.ttJ{3 g6 5.i.c4 CiJb6 6.~b3 ~7 7.ed knight - its transfer to the kingside via d2 and f1 is hardly inferior to that via the c3 and e2squares. One more plus of the move I recommend is that in many variations White can avoid the trade of his light squared bishop, because it can retreat to the c2square at an opportune moment. The move 10.c3 has a certain drawback too. White controls the centre a bit less with a pawn on c3, instead of a knight and Black has the option to try to push e7e5 - this is a plan that White must take into account after numerous different move-orders.

We will now deal in details with: b3a) lO ... i.f5 and b3b) lO ...i.g4. The other possibilities for Black are: 10 ... d5 11.i.f4 i.g4 (after 1l ... i.f5 12.ttJbd2 ~cS 13.ttJe5 ttJa5, 8hilov - Oliwa, By tom 1995, it deserves attention for White to follow with: 14.ttJg4!? ttJxb3 15.axb3 i.xg4 16. ~xg4;t and then ttJf3-e5) 12.h3 i.xf3 13. ~xf3 - and after a transposition of moves - there arises a varia-

tion that we are dealing with in our line 10 ... i.g4; 10 ... h6. This move prevents i.g5 indeed, but the point is that it is even favourable for White to provoke that weakening of Black's kingside, sometimes with a move like i.c1-g5 and ifh7-h6 - i.g5-e3. Black is now compromising his kingside voluntarily. 11.i.e3 CiJa5 12.i.c2 ttJbc4 13. i.cl. White is not worried by this temporary retreat of the bishop and the loss of tempi. Black will soon lose time himselfby retreating with his knight. 13 .. J:teS 14.d5!? (White is threatening to capture the enemy knight with b2-b4.) 14 ... b5?! (in case of 14 ... ttJb6, the placement of Black's knights is nothing he can brag about, his best decision had to be the move 14 ... b6) 15.a4 ~b6 (after 15 ... i.d7 16.axb5 i.xb5 17.b3, White advances his pawns rather quickly: 17 ... ttJe5 lS.ttJxe5 dxe5 19.c4 i.d7 20.c5±) 16.axb5 i.d7 17.b3 ttJe5 lS.ttJxe5 i.xe5 (lS ... dxe5 19.i.e3 ~xb5 20.c4+-) 19.i.xh6 ~xb5 20.i.e3± de Vreugt - Chigladze, Izmir 2003; 10 ... ~c7 1l.i.g5 (Or 1l.ttJbd2 i.g4 12.h3 i.xf3 13.ttJxf3 e5 14.dxe5 dxe5, McDonald - 8010veychik, Churchill 2000, and here after 15. ~e2;t, White has a slight advantage, because of his powerful bishop.) 1l ... l:i.eS 12. ttJbd2 ttJa5 13.i.c2 ttJac4 14.ttJxc4 (He should avoid compromising his queenside with: 14.b3 ttJxd2 15. ~xd2 i.g4 16.i.d1 e6= Kufa191

Chapter 12 Svihel, Czech Republic 1995.) 14 ... 4Jxc4 15:i::1'e2 SLe6 16 ..id3;!;. White has completed the development of his queenside and he has bright prospects on the kingside; 10 ... 4Ja5 11.SLg5 1:leS (11 ... 4Jxb3 12.SLxe7+-) and here White had better preserve his bishop: 12.~c2;!;,just like in some other lines of the 10.c3 - variation. In the game Burchardt Epstein, Halle 1974, White did not prevent its exchange and he lost his advantage: 12.lbbd2 lbxb3 13.axb3 d5 (13 ... SLf5=) 14. "i::1'e2 SLe6 15. "i::1'e3 lbcs 16.~h6 SLffi 17 .~f4lbd6 18.SLe5 SLxe5 19. "i::1'xe5 lbf5. He then tried to attack on the kingside with 20.g4 and that only caused additional weaknesses: 20 ... lbg7 21."i::1'f4 "i::1'cS 22.h3 h5 23. "i::1'h6 ffi 24. "i::1'xg6 SLf7 25. "i::1'h6 hxg4 26.lbh2 lbf5 27. "i::1'f4 gxh3 2S. "i::1'g4+ 'it>f8 29. "i::1'xh3 SLg6 30.'it>h1 'it>f7~; 10 ... e5 11.~g5 (It is too early for White to go into an endgame: 11.dxe5 dxe5 12."i::1'xdS .l:txdS 13. lbg5 .l:td7; 13.SLg5 1:le8 14. lbbd2 ~e6 15.lbe4 SLxb3 16.axb3 f5 17. lbf6 - 17 .lbd6 ltebS - 17 ... SLxffi 18.~xffi e4 19.1bd4lbe5 20.SLxe5 ~xe5+ Cesarini - Verrascina, Ostia 1996. White does not achieve anything substantial after: 11.h3 h6 12.a4 ~f5 13.a5 lbd7 14.a6 bxa6 15.ltxa6lbb6 16. ~a1 e4?! 17.g4 exf3 lS.gxf5 "i::1'f6 19:i::1'xf3± Rosmann - Piepho, Germany 1997. He proved to be much better in that line indeed, 192

since Black could regain the f5pawn only by weakening his pawn-structure considerably. It would have been much better for Black however, to have played 16 ... a5~, and it would turn out that White's queenside operation with a4-a5-a6 had been just pointless.) 11..."i::1'c7 12.lba3 SLg4 13.h3 SLxf3 14."i::1'xf3 exd415.lbb5 "i::1'd7 16.lbxd4;!; lbxd4 17.cxd4 lIfe8 (17 ... SLxd4 lS.lIe7±) lS.SLffi lIxe1+ 19J:txe1 lIeS 20.ltxeS+ 'i::1'xeS 21.'it>h2;!; and White maintained a slight advantage in the endgame, Vetter - Ziegler, Germany 19S4. b3a) IO... SLf5

Black develops a piece to a natural square and he al.so plans to exchange White's light squared bishop in case it retreats to c2. 11.~g5

1l ... h6 1l .. J::teS 12.lbbd2 "i::1'c7 13. lbh4!? (This is an attempt by White to exploit the temporary weakness ofthe f7-pawn. In case of 13.lbfl, Black follows with: 13 ... 4Ja5 14.~c2 Ji.xc2 15. 'i::1'xc2

4.ttJ{3 g6 5.~c4 ttJb6 6..i.b3 .i.g7 7.ed l:IacS= Mont - Oppedal, California 1993 - and White cannot claim any real edge after the exchange ofthe bishops.) 13 ... ~d7 (13 ... ~cS 14.~£3t e5 15.ttJe4-"7) 14.~£3;!;-thus White makes use of the fact that Black cannot play 14 ... e6, because of 15.ttJe4 and he must defend his fl -pawn with an only move: 14 ... d5, giving up his d-pawn. H ... d5 12.ttJbd2 ~d6 13.ttJf1 .l:.acS 14.a4 (It deserves attention for White to try 14.h3!? lUeS 15. ttJg3 ~e6 16.~e2;!; - and Black's bishop on e6 or d7 would not be placed favourably at all.) 14 ... .l:rfeS 15.a5 ttJc4 16.ttJg3 ~g4 17. ~xc4 dxc4 lS.h3 ~e6 19.ttJe4 ~c7 20.d5 ~cdS 2l.d6 ~cS 22. ~e2 f6 23.~f4 ~d5 (It would be better for Black to play 23 ... .ltfloo, taking the bishop to safety.) 24. .l::!:ad1 ~f5 25.ttJg3 ~xf4 26.~xd5 exd6 27.~xeS+ ~xeS 2S.lIxeS+ cj;;>fl 29 ..l::!:e1 (The move 29.ttJe2± could have forced Black to go into an endgame an exchange down after: ~x£3 and cj;;>xeS.) 29 ... a6 30. ttJe4 ~f8 3l.ttJed2 ttJe5 32. :d4;!; - and White's rooks are slightly better than the queen, because of the numerous weaknesses in Black's position, Rossmann Birnbaum, Germany 1999. 12.~h4 12.~e3 ttJa5 13.ttJbd2 14.axb3 ~g4 (Black had

ttJxb3 better attack the other white bishop with the move: 14 ... ttJd5= with approximately equal chances.) 15.h3 ~x£3 16. ~x£3 d5 17 .~f4 e6

IS. ~e3 cj;;>h7 19.ttJ£3;!; Emms Etchegaray, Cappelle la Grande 1994. 12 ... ~d7 This is the most energetic move for Black - he prepares the thematic pawn-break in the centre e7-e5. He has also tried in practice: 12 ... l:tcS 13.ttJbd2 d5 14. ttJf1 g5 (This move eliminates the attack against the e7 -square, but it weakens the kingside.) 15.~g3 e6 16.ttJe3l:IeS 17.h4 g4 lS.ttJxf5 exf519.ttJe5 ~f6 20.~c2 ttJxe5 2l. dxe5 ~xh4 22.~xf5 lIc4, S.Diaz - Simonetti, San Fernando 1992, and here White could have a practically winning position after the line: 23.b3 l:Ixc3 24. ~xg4+ ~g5 25.e6±. 13.ttJbd2 lIfeS Black has already prepared the break e7 -e5 and White should seriously consider what he should counter that with.

14.a4!? This move is with the idea to attack Black's knights and to preserve an important diagonal for the bishop. There has been only a single game played in that line and 193

Chapter 12 it continued with: 14.ttJfl e5 15. dxe5 (15.lbe3 exd4 16.ttJxf5 .l:he1 17. ~xe1 ~xf5 18.cxd4 ttJxd4 19. ttJxd4 iLxd4+) 15 ... dxe5 16.~xd7 (16.ttJe3!?=) 16 ... iLxd7 17.ttJe3 iLe6 18.iLxe6l:txe6 19.94 e4+, but at the end it was only Black who could be better, Poetschke J.Diaz, Wiesbaden 1988. It is not so good for White to play: 14.lbe4 ttJa5, because then he should comply with the exchange of the bishop, since in case of 15.iLc2 Black follows with: 15 ... g5 16.iLg3 iLxe4 17. iLxe4 f5 18.iLc2 f4 19.~d3 fxg3 20.fxg3 ttJd5 21.~h7+ ~f8 22Jlfl ttJf6+. 14•..ttJa5 14 ... a5 15.iLxf7±. 15.iLa2 l::!ac8

16.ii.g3 16.b4lbac417.a5 ttJb2 18.~b3 ttJ6c4 19.1bfllbd3°o. The move 16.ttJe4 possesses the drawback that Black has some tactical ideas at his disposal, connected with capturing on e4, followed by g6-g5 and f7f5-f4: 16 ... lbac4 (16 ... d5 17.lbc5:;!;; 16 ... iLxe4 17JIxe4 d5 18J:te2:;!;) 17.b3 lba5 18.b4 (18.l:tc1 iLxe4 194

19.1:1xe4 g5 20.iLg3 f5 21..i:.e2 f4 22.b4+ ttJac4 23.a5 ttJa8 24.lbd2 d5+) 18 ... lbac4 19.a5 ttJb2 20. ~b3 lb6c4 21.lbfd2 iLxe4 22.ttJxe4 b6 (22 ... ttJd3 23.lbc5 dxc5 24.~xc4 ttJxe1 25.~xf7+ ~h7 26.iLf6±) 23.axb6 axb6 24.~c2=. 16•.•ttJxa4 16 ... ttJac417.ttJxc4ttJxc418.b3 ttJa5 19Jic1 (but not 19.c4 iLg4) 19 ... d5 20.lbe5:;!;. 17.iLxf7+ ~xf7 18.!:txa4:;!;. Black has not solved the problem with his knight on a5 yet; moreover his kingside has been slightly compromised. b3b) 10... iLg4

1l.h3 It also deserves attention for White to continue with: 11.ttJbd2 e5 12.h3 iLf5 13.lbfl exd4 14.cxd4 d5 15.ttJg3 iLe6 16. iLg5 ~d7 17.lbe5 ~d6 18.iLf4 ~b4 19.1bxc6 bxc6 20.iLe5 iLxe5 21.l:txe5:;!; - and Black remains with a "bad' bishop and vulnerable dark squares, Zhelnin Oliwa, Katowice 1995. 1l ... iLxf3 11...iLd7. Such a loss of time does not cause any immediate

4.ttJ{3 g6 5.~c4 ttJb6 6.~b3 ~g7 7.ed

worries indeed, but it can hardly be justified. 12.~gS (White could have tried 12.ttJbd2!? too.) 12 ... I:i.eB 13.ttJbd2 .l::tcB 14.ttJe4!? (In the game Gysi - Arnold, corr. 1997, there followed: 14.ttJh2 ttJaS IS.ttJg4 ttJxb3 16.axb3 ~xg4 17 :ittxg4 h6 IB.i.h4 a6 19J:te2 'ific7 20 ..l:i.ael eS 21.f4 - Black's pawn is pinned and he has serious problems. 21..Jle6 22.fxe5 dxeS 23.~g3l::.ceB 24.dxe5 'ificS+ 25.'iithl ttJd7 26.'ifid4 'ific7 27. ttJf.H. Instead of 20 ... e5, Black had to defend with: 20 ... e6=.) 14 ... 'ific7. (White was threatening to capture on d6.) IS. 'ifie2 ttJa5 16.~c2 ttJac4 17 .~d3;!;. White has completed the development of his queenside, he has prevented e7 -eS, because he can counter that with a check from the f6-square and he is slightly better. The move 1l ... i.fS - is once again a direct loss of time. 12.i.gS h6 13.~h4 gS (this is a serious weakening of the kingside) 14.i.g3 eS. White maintains now a clear advantage after: 15.dxeS dxeS 16.ttJbd2 'ific7 17.h4! g4 IB.ttJd4! ttJxd4 19.cxd4±. In the game Otero Wohl, Havana 2001, there followed: 19 ... .:.feB 20J:tcl 'ifid6 21. ttJe4 'ifig6 22.hS 'ifixhS 23.ttJd6 l:te7 24.dxeS i.g6 2S.e6 fS 26. 'ifid2 l':tdB 27 ..l:i.cS 'iith7 2B.'ifiaS 'ifigS 29.ttJxfS i.xfS 30.'uxfS and Black lost a pawn and soon after that the game as well. 12.'ifixf3

12 ... e5 The inclusion of the moves 12 ... as and 13.a4 can hardly be useful for Black. The weakening of the queenside is quite unnecessary for Black in this case. 13 ... d5 14.i.g5 h6 (Black should better avoid the creation of additional weaknesses - 14... 'ifid7 IS.ttJd2;!;, followed by 'ifig3 and ttJf.3.) 15.i.h4 gS 16.~g3 e6 17. ttJa3 ttJa7 (This prevents White's move ttJbS indeed, but Black's knight gets terribly misplaced.) IB.i.eS (18.~c2 ttJd7 19. 'ifid3 ttJf6 20.i.eS :eB 21..!:i.e3t) IB ... ttJbcB, E.Join - San Sebastian, Tarbes 2003, and here after the interesting line for White: 19.~c2 f6 20.'ifid3 I:i.f7 21.i.g3 ~e7 22.'ifih7+ 'iitfB 23Jle2± - Black's kingside remains extremely vulnerable. In case of 12 ... e6, instead of 13.i.e3 dS 14.ttJd2 ttJcB IS ..ic2 ttJd6, Glaser - Rufenacht, corr. 1994 - it becomes clear that White's bishop on e3 is misplaced, so he must continue with: 13.i.f4;!; L1'ifig3 and after 13 ... d5 the game transposes to the line: 12 ... dS. 12 ... dS 13.i.f4 f6. This is a very risky move - Black tries to 195

Chapter 12 build up a pawn-centre, but it will come under a powerful pressure by White's pieces and the bishop on b3 in particular. In the game G.Kuzmin - Solozhenkin, St. Petersburg 1997, White managed to exploit the power of his bishops and he organized an attack against Black's central pawns: 14 ..i.g3 e5 15.dxe5 fxe5 16. ~g4 ~h8 (It is better for Black to play: 16 ... ~c8!? 17.lDd2 ~xg4 18.hxg4 ~h8 19.1:tad1 J::[ad8 20. lDfl;tJ 17 .lDa3lZJd7 18.J::[ad1lDf6 19.~e2±. Black had lost so much time on his maneuver with the knight that he failed to hold his centre. 19 ... d4 (19 ... e4 20.lDb5 l:tc8 21.lZJd6 J::i.c7 22 ..i.xd5+-) 20.lDc4 l:te8 21..i.a4 lDd7 (21... lDh5 22 ..i.h2lZJf4 23.~e4 ~d5 24. ~xd5 lDxd5 25.lZJd6+-) 22.lDd6 ~f8 23 ..i.xc6 bxc6 24.cxd4 and Black resigned, because of the line: 24 ... exd4 25.~e6+-. Instead of 17 ... lZJd7, A.Finkel recommended 17 ... ~f6 18J::r.ad1 ~f7, but White could counter that with 19.c4 destroying Black's central pawns. (19.£3 l:!.ad8 20. i.f2 lDc8 21.l:!.e2 lD8e7) 19 ... lDd4 (19 ... h5 20.~g5 dxc4 21..i.c2 i.f6 22. ~xg6 ~xg6 23.i.xg6 h4 24. .i.h2;t and Black's pawns are quite vulnerable in that endgame, for example: 24 ... .l:i.ad8 25 ..i.e4 ttJb4 26.i..xb7 ttJd3 27.l:!.e3 lDxb2 28.lhd8 .l::i.xd8 29 . .i.xe5 i..xe5 30JIxe5 .i:td1+ 31.'it>h2;t) 20.cxd5 ttJxb3 21.axb3 lZJxd5 22.ttJc4;t, Black's central pawn is very weak, for example: 22 ... lDf6 196

23.~e2 (23.lZJxe5 ~xb3 24.~h4 lDh5) 23 ... e4 24.~e3;t ~lDd6. If after: 12 ... d5 13.i..f4 Black does not play 13 ... f6, White should better choose the plan with appropriate actions on the kingside - ~f3-g3, ttJb1-d2-f3-e5 and h3-h4-h5:

After 13 ... e6, instead of the somewhat chaotic reaction by White: 14.a4 ttJc8 15.lDa3 a6 16.g4 ttJd6 17 ..i.c2 ~d7 18 ..i.d3 l:tac8 19. ~g3 lUd8, Kolu - Haara, Finland 1986 - his pawn advances on both sides of the board and the development of the knight to the a3-square are not a part of a consistent plan - he had better play: 14.lZJd2 lZJc8 15.~g3 (15. ~g4lDd6) 15 ... lZJ8e7 16.i..c2;t, followed by lDd2-f3; 13 ... ~d714.lDd2lDa5 (Black's tries to play too much with the rook were not convincing at all after: 14 .. J:tae8 15.l:!.ad1 e6 16. ~g3 -16.h4!?t-16 .. J:td8, Pascot - Desurmont, Morbihan 2004, and here White had to play 17.h4!?t, because it was an obligatory move anyway.) and in this position, instead of 15.i..c2 ttJbc4 16.ttJb3 b6 17.lDxa5 ttJxa5

4.lb{3 g6 5.i.c4 lbb6 lSJle2liacS 19J:tae1 e6 20.h4 b5 21.h5 b4~ Serra - Pont Mulet, Palma de Mallorca 2001, White had to try: 15.h4!? lbxb3 16. axb3;j; - because it was not necessary to preserve the bishop on b3 from its being exchanged. 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.iLe3 It also deserves attention for White to play 14.a4!?, for example: 14 ... lba5 15.iLa2 :IcS (15 ... lbxa4 16.b4 lbc6 17.iLb3 lbb6 lS.b5 lbe7 19"~xb7;j;; 15 ... "f!ic7 16.b4 lbc6 17.a5 lbcs IS. lbd2;j;) 16.b4 lbc6 17.b5!? (17. a5!?t) 17 ...lba5 lS.iLa3± with the threat iLb4.

14 ..•"f!ic7 It is not good for Black to play what the computers have done in games between them i.e.: 14 ... lba5, because after: 15.iLc5 lbxb3 16.axb3 :eS 17"~'xb7 :bS 18."f!ia6 lbd7 19.iLb4 iLf8 20.iLxf8 lbxf8 21.b4± - White remains with a solid extra pawn. 14 .. :~e7 15.i.xb6!? ab 16.lbd2 lba5 17.iLd5 liadS IS. :adU. White's bishop is presently much better than its black counterpart, meanwhile Black's knight is obviously misplaced too. Later, in

6.~b3 ~g7

7.ed

the game Reijnen - Rozier, England 1995, there followed: IS ... lId7 19.1bf1 licS (Black should better play: 19 .. JIfdS!? 20.lbe3;j;) 20.lbe3 lidc7? (he should have simply retreated his rook back ... ) 21.b4 lbc6 22.iLb3+- and here after lbd5 Black loses material unavoidably. 15.lba3 The other route for the knight - 15.lbd2 - enables White to place it on the e4-square, but it does not create the threat lbb5. 15 ... lba5 (It is much worse for Black to defend here with: 15 ... ~hS 16.iLc5 lifdS 17.lbe4 f5 IS. lbg5 l1d7 19.iLe6 e4 20."f!ie2 lbe5, Adithya - Kobernat, Virginia Beach 2005, because White could have won the game immediately with: 21..i.xb6 axb6 22.i.xd7 "f!ixd7 23J:ted1 lbd3 24.lbf3+-) 16.lbe4 lbxb3 17.axb3 f5==. 15 ... a6?! Naturally, Black must prevent the subsequent maneuver of the white knight, but he should have done that only after the preliminary inclusion of the line: 15 ... lba5 16.i.c2 lbbc4 17.lbxc4 ttJxc4 lS ..tg5 h6 19.i.c1 ItfdS and without the weakening of his queenside with: 20.b3 lbb6=, White will not manage to complete his development. Accordingly, White should not retreat his bishop to the c2square, but he should better bring his rook into action: 16. ~ad1 lbxb3 17.axb3 a6 (17 ... f5 IS. lbb5;j;) lS.c4 (lS.i.xb6!? "f!ixb619. 197

Chapter 12 ~d7 ~xb3

20J'hb7) 18 ... :ad819. c5 ttJd7 20.b4t and White deploys his knight to the d6-outpost via c4 and he seizes the initiative. (diagram) 16..ic5. Black's rook cannot retreat now, because of the capturing on b6 and fl, so suddenly Black is pinned all over the board. 16 .•. ttJe7 17 . .ib4 'iith8 18.:adl ttJbc8 19 ..ia4+ and Black cannot prevent the de-

cisive penetration of White's rook - .l:r.d7, P.Schneider - Nonnenmacher, corr. 1996.

Conclusion Presently, the 4 ...g6 variation of the Alekhine Defence is one of the most popular for Black. After 5 ..ic4, he has two good lines 5 ... c6 and 5 ... ttJb6 6..ib3 iLg7. In case of 5 ... c6, White should better play: 6.exd6 ~xd6 7.0-0, after which he completes his piece-development and follows with ttJb 1d2-e4. The position is of a semi-open type and White can react successfully, or even prevent altogether, Black's undermining pawnbreaks c6-c5 and e7-e5. Following 5 ... ttJb6 6 . .ib3 .ig7 - I recommend the line: 7.exd6 cxd6 8.0-00-0 9 . .l:r.e1 ttJc6 10.c3. White trades pawns on d6 indeed and thus he reduces his space advantage on the kingside, but he liquidates Black's counterplay against the e5-pawn and he obtains the semi-open e-file for his rook. Black then has two basic plans. The first is to play d6-d5, but White can counter that by completing his development and he can gradually prepare effective kingside operations. He can also exploit the e5-square for his knight in this case. The other plan for Black is connected with the preparation of e7e5 and White should either exchange on e5 (particularly in the lines in which Black plays .ic8-g4, because then White has the two bishop advantage), or he can also exploit the drawbacks of Black's position in some other fashion.

198

Chapter 13

l.e4 lLlf6 2.e5 lLld5 3.d4 d6 4.lLlf3 ii..g4

This is the main line for Black. He develops his light squared bishop pinning White's knight on f3. As for his other bishop - the one on f8 - it is usually developed to the e7 square after e7 -e6 and hardly ever fianchettoed. 5 ..i.e2 ltJc6 This is a natural move and it is an essential part of Black's plan. It is however too early for him to determine the placement of this knight, because it can easily be attacked by White in many lines either by the bishop on f3 (after the exchange), or by a pawn, after d4-d5. Black moves also 5 ...c6 (Chapter 14) and 5 ... e6 (Chapter 15). About 5 .. .'~d7 6.0-0 lbc6 see 5 ... ltJc6 6.0-0 '§d7.

The other possibilities for Black are very seldom played: 5 ....i.xf3. White often plays h2-h3 in many lines, because this exchange is considered to be very advantageous for him. So, if Black trades his bishop here, without any need - that is just supposed to be a loss of time. 6 ..i.xf3 c6 (or 6 ... dxe5? 7.c4ltJb6 8 ..i.xb7 exd4 9.c5+- Christ Gruettner, Giessen 1991; 6 ... e6? 7.c4 ltJb6 8 ..i.xb7+- Gauche Carvalho, Guarapuava 1992) 7.c4 - see 5 ... c6 6.c4 ~xf3; 5 ... '§c8. This move might turn out to be useful for Black in some lines indeed, but still it does not contribute to his development at all. 6.0-0 ltJc6, Thomson - Walls, Aberdeen 2004, 7.h3 ~h5 8.c4 (it is almost similar after 8.exd6 cxd6 9.1:.e1;t e6 10.c4 ltJb6 11.d5) 8 ... ltJb6 9.exd6 cxd6 10.1:.e1 and if 10 ... ~xf3 (10 ... e6 11.d5±), then 11.~xf3 ltJxc4 12. ltJc31' and White has an excellent compensation for the pawn, because Black has not completed his development at all and the position is quite opened; 199

Chapter 13 5 ... dxe5?! This move is very unsatisfactory for Black, because it enables White to develop his knight to an ideal square with tempo. 6.ctJxe5 .lixe2 7.'~xe2.

able check on the e6-square Black's king would be forced to make a trip into White's camp ... 12 ... e5 13.t'te6+ 'Ot>c5 14 ..lie3+ 'it>b4 15.a3+ 'Ot>a4 (15 ... ~b3 16. ctJd2+ ~a4 17.b3+ ~a5 1B.b4+ ~a419.t'tf5+-) 16.ctJc3+~b317. ~f5 e4 (17 ... .lic5 1B.~b1!+-) lB. ctJxe4 ctJxe4 19. ~xe4 ctJc5 20 . .lixc5 t'teB (20 ... .lixc5 21.~d1! ~a4 22.h4+-) 21.~e3+ ~xe3+ 22 .

This position is again very difficult for Black - White is threatening to check on b5 and then attack the fl -square: Black has often tried in practice here 7 ... c6? and White never managed to find the simple way to obtain a great advantage i.e.: B. ~f3ctJf6 9. ~b3+- with a double attack against b7 and fl; Black simply loses a pawn after: 7 ... e6?! B.'~b5+ ctJd7 9.ctJxd7 ~xd7 10. t'txb7± M.Shulman Patrick, Canada 1963, or 7 ... ~d6? B.t'tb5+ c6 9.~xb7 ~b4+ 10. ~xb4 ctJxb4 11.ctJa3+- Putzbach - Engels, Pinneberg 199B; Following 7 ... ctJd7? it becomes very effective for White to sacrifice a piece, just like in the lines well-familiar to us from Chapter 11: B.ctJxfl! 'it>xfl 9. ~h5+ 'it>e6 10.c4 ctJ5f6 (10 ... ctJ5b6 11.d5+ 'it>d6 12. t'tf5) 11.d5+ 'it>d6 12. ~f5. Here, contrary to the variations in Chapter 11, Black's bishop is not on cB and after the unavoid200

.lixe3 .lid6 23.0-0-0±. Black's only possible reasonable move left is 7 ... ctJb6, for example: B.ctJc3. (Black can now counter B.t'tf3 with B... ~d5.) B... g6 (B ... t'txd4? 9.ctJb5 ~dB 10.~f3+-; B... e6 9.~f3+-.) 9.ctJe4 (Black has defended against the threat t'th5, with his previous move, while now in case of9. ~f3 he has the resource 9 ... f6, which in fact is not enough to equalize either.) 9 ... ctJBd7 (9 ... .lig7? 10. ctJxfl ~xfl n.ctJg5+ ~eB 12.ctJe6 ~d7 13.ctJxg7+ ~fl 14..lih6; 9 ... ~xd4? 10.ctJf6+! exf6 1l.ctJc6+) 10 ..lif4± and once again Black cannot play 10 ... .lig7?, because of 11.ctJxf7 ~xfl 12.ctJg5+ and his lag in development has become really critical for his survival. 5 ..• c5. This move is a bit strange, because in the 4 ... .lig4 line Black usually attacks White's centre with pieces and not with pawns. There is no direct refutation ofthat move, but White can maintain his opening advantage in several different ways. There was only one game played in that position - Za-

1.e4 CiJf6 2.e5 CiJd5 3.d4 d6 4.CiJf3 iLg4 5.iLe2

charias - Sislian, Germany 2002, the difference in piece-placement and there after 6.0-0 Black is more than evident. 13 .. :~d6 played the terrible move 6 ... (in case of 13 ... f6, White can play: iLxf3? and he could have lost the 14.iLh5+ g6 15.CiJxg6 hxg6 16. game immediately after: 7.iLxf3 iLxg6+ ~d7 17.~xd4+ ~c8 18. dxe5 8.dxc5 e6 9.c4+-. Naturally ~xd8+ ~xd8 19.b5 iLxg2 - othit would have been better for erwise Black would simply reBlack to play: 6 ... CiJc6 7.c4 (7. main a pawn down - 20.bxa6 exd6 ~xd6 8.c4 CiJf4 9.iLxf4 CiJxa6 2l.~xg2 ':'g8 22J:td1+ ~c7 23.tDc3 lhg6+ 24.~f3;!;) 14.iLf4 ~xf4=; 7.h3 iLxf3 8.iLxf3 dxe5 9.c4 CiJb6 10.dxc5 ~xd1 1l.':'xd1 CiJd7 15.c5 ~f6 16.~xd4 tDxe5 tDxc4 12.tDc3 e6 13.b3 tD4a5 17. ~xe5 ~xe5 18.iLxe5±; 5 ..•tDb6. This move is reason14.tDb5 ':'c8 15.iLe3 f5co) 7 ... CiJb6 8.e6 iLxf3 9.iLxf3 cxd4 10.exf7+ able enough - Black retreats his ~xf711.iLxc6 bxc612.~xd4 ~d7 knight in advance, against the 13.iLe3 c5 14. ~f4+ ~g8 15.tDc3;!;. eventual attacks with White's c4Black had better capture the pawn, or with the bishop on f3, pawn: 8 ... fxe6 9.dxc5 dxc5 and he but he loses some time in doing would have had some counter- that. 6.h3 iLxf3 (Black only chances, because of the weak- wastes tempi with a line that has ened d4-square. been played very seldom in pracWhite however, having in tice: 6 ... .if5 7.0-0;!;; after 6 ... iLh5 mind that it is unfavourable for 7.e6 fxe6 8.tDg5 iLxe2 9.~xe2±, Black to capture on f3, could im- White usually regains his e6prove his play too with: 6.h3 .if5 pawn and Black remains in a (The move 6 ... iLh5 enables White very bad position, Vidovic to push e5-e6: 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.e6 Jankovic, Zagreb 1996.) 7.iLxf3 fxe6 9.tDe5 iLxe2 10. ~xe2;!;, or CiJc6 (7 ... c6 8.e6 fxe6 9 ..ig4±) 8.e6 9.tDg5 iLxe2 10.~xe2 ~d6 1l. (White's advantage is only minitDxe6t) 7.CiJh4 (7.dxc5!? dxc5 mal in the endgame after: 8. 8.CiJh4 iLe6 9.f4 g6 10.0-0;!;) iLxc6+ bxc6, Olsar - Pad, Czech 7 ... iLd7 8.c4 CiJb4 9.a3 tD4a6 Republic 1995, 9.~f3 dxe5 10. 10.tDf3 cxd4 (10 ... e6 11.exd6 ~xc6+ ~d7 1l.~xd7+ CiJxd7 12. iLxd6 12.dxc5 iLxc5 13.b4 iLe7 dxe5 tDxe5 13.tDc3;!;, White's edge 14.iLb2;!;, or 1l.dxc5 dxc5 12.0-0 in that line is only superficial.) tDc6 13.iLf4 iLe7 14.tDc3;!;) 1l. 8 ... fxe6 9 ..ig4 ~d7 (It is too danb4!? This move isolates Black's gerous for Black to play here: knight on a6 completely and cre- 9 ... e5 10.d5 - he would not manates the threat for White to cap- age to put his knight on d4 anyture on d6: 1l ... dxe5 12.CiJxe5 way, while after: 10 ... tDb4 11.c4t iLc6 13.0-0t. Black cannot pro- ~o-o and f2-f4, White's light tect his d4-pawn anymore and squared bishop is obviously more 201

Chapter 13 valuable than Black's extra doubled pawn.)

10.0-0 g6 11..l:!.e1 ltJd8 12.ltJc3 (The move 12.c3, was played in the game Raut - Grunberg, 'fusnad 2000, but it was too tentative and enabled Black to play ltJb6-d5-f6.) 12 ... i.g7 (Black can hardly equalize after: 12 ... d5 13.ltJe2 i.g7 14.ltJf4 t:'ta4 15.i.xe6 t:'txd4 16. t:'txd4 i.xd4 17.i.xd5;!;) 13.d5 (It is not sufficient for White to play: 13.ltJe2ltJd5 14.c4 ltJf6. He cannot achieve anything much after: 13. t:'td3 0-0 14.d5 t:'te8 15.i.xe6+ ltJxe6 16Jhe6 l:tf5~, or 15.dxe6ltJc6 and White regains his pawn indeed, in both lines, but Black manages to develop his pieces and he obtains a quite sufficient counterplay.) 13 ... i.xc3 14.bxc3 (14.dxe6 ~c6 15.bxc3 ~xc3 16.l:tb1 ~c400) 14 ... ltJxd5 15Jhe6 ~c6 (It is weaker for Black to play: 15 ... ~b5 16. ~d4 l::i.f8 17.c4 ltJxe6 18. iLxe6 ~b6 19.~xd5 ~xf2+ 20. ~h2 c6 21. ~e4, because White's bishop pair is much stronger than Black's rook in this middle game.) 16J::te1. White has some compensation for the pawn in202

deed, but he can hardly manage to attack Black's king effectively: 16 ... ~xc3 (It is possible for Black to play here: 16 ... e5 17 .i.f3 ~xc3 18.iLxd5 ~xa1 19.~d2 ~d7 20. c3 ~b1°o, or 19.f4 ~c3 20.fxe5 dxe5 21.i.f4ltJc6 22.i.xc6+ ~xc6 23J:txe5+ ~f7oo and obviously Black's king will find a safe haven.) 17.i.g5 c6 18.i.xe7 ltJxe7 19.~xd6 0-0 20.~xe7 ~xc2°o White's compensation for the pawn is probably satisfactory in that position, but not more ... It deserves attention for White here to try to transpose the move order i.e. 10.ltJc3!? Now, Black's bishop is not present on the long diagonal and White's chances to push quickly d4-d5 are considerably greater: 10 ... g6 (10 ... 0-0-0. This seems to be a good developing move, but thus Black fails to defend his e6pawn, because his knight has been deprived of the d8-square and his king gets pinned. l1.h4!? This move is with the idea for White to preserve his bishop on the c8-h3 diagonal. 11.. ..l:.e8 12. d5ltJd8 13.i.e3± and he succeeds in regaining his pawn with a obvious advantage; 10 ... ltJd8 ll.d5;!; and White has managed to prepare that important pawn-advance and to capture on e6 without any counterplay for Black.) l1.d5 ltJd8 (ll ... ltJxd5 12.ltJxd5 h5 13.ltJxc7+ ~xc7 14.i.xe6;!;) 12. ~d4 I:tg8 13.dxe6 ~c8 14.h4 i.g7 15. ~e4;!;, Black's position is substantially cramped;

l.e4 lbf6 2.e5 tiJd5 3.d4 d6 4.lbf3 ~4 5 ..i.e2 The line 5 ... lbd7?! 6.h3 .i.h5, permits White to sacrifice a pawn on e6, in the standard fashion, in order to restrict Black's possibilities considerably: 7.e6! fxe6 S.lbg5 i.f7 9.i.g4± Koning - Tern, Munchen 1936 and White regains easily his pawn with a great advantage. There might follow: 10 ... lbxg4 1l.cxd5 lbf6 12. ~a4+ c6 13.dxc6 bxc6 14. ~xc6+ lbd7 15.lbxf7
general, the moves .i.cS-g4 and g7 -g6 do not combine well together. 6. lbg5. This is White's standard reaction. After the trade on e2, White is threatening to push e5-e6 and in case Black pushes e7 -e6 himself then the weakening of his kingside will become a telling factor, particularly the f6-square. 6 ... i.xe2 (Black's position remains very difficult too after: 6 ... .i.f5 7.e6 i.xe6 S.lbxe6 £Xe6 9.i.g4±, for example: 9 ... ~d7 10.~e2
Black has now plenty of difficult problems to solve - White is threatening e5-e6 or ~f3 with a double attack against d5 and f7. It is too bad for Black to play: 7 ... ~d7? S.e6 fxe6 9. ~f3 l2Jf6 10. ~xb7 ~c6? 11. ~cS# Hernan203

Chapter 13 dez - Martis, Bled 2002, as well as 7 ... dxe5 S:~·f3 ttJffi (Black loses immediately after S ... f6?, because of 9.ttJe6 t'td6 10. t'txd5!, Varnusz - Ponyi, Salgotarjan 1975.) 9.dxe5 h6 10.lLJxf7! ~xf7 11.exffi exffi 12.t'txb7+- JansaHaik, Kladovu 19S0. Black loses material in case of: 7 ... c6? S.e6 t'ta5+, Kasperek - Maciazek, Kolobrzeg 2001, 9.iLd2+-. In answer to 7 ... h6, in the game Klovans - Vojtkevic, USSR 1962, there followed: S.ttJxf7! ~xf7 9. t'tf3+ ~e6 10.c4 ttJb6 11.d5+ ~d7 12.~g4+ and here after: 12 .. .'.t>eS13.t'txg6+ ~d7 14.t'tf5+ ~eS 15.e6 t'tcS 16.b3+- LliLb2, White wins again. Black played much better in the game: Mrdja -Joguet, Le Touquet 2001: 7 ... e6 S.c4 ttJb6 (S ... ttJb4? 9. t'tf3 f6 10.ttJxe6 t'tcS 11. t'txf6 J:tgS 12. ttJa3+-) 9.t'tf3 ~d7 (It is worse for Black to play: 9 ... t'te7 10. t'txb7 ttJSd7 11.ttJe4± Sion Castro - Sanchez, Cordoba 1994. It is too bad for Black to try here: 11 ... dxe5 12.c5, because he loses material; it is only slightly better for him to try: 11 ... d5 12.cxd5 t'tb4+ 13.ttJbc3 exd5 14.ttJg5 t'txd4 15.0-0-;, threatening e5e6, while the capturing on e5 is just suicidal for Black, because of the opening of the e-file.) 10.ttJe4 (Now, it is not so good for White to play: 10. t'txb7 t'tc6 11. t'txc6+ ttJxc6, because Black regains his pawn with an excellent game.) 10 ... iLe7 1l.exd6 cxd6 12.ttJf6+ i..xf6 13. t'txf6± and 204

White has a slight edge, because of the weakness of the dark squares in Black's camp. 6.0-0

We will have a look now at the lines: a) 6 •••ttJb6, b) 6 ...dxe5 and c) 6 ... e6. The other possibilities for Black are played only seldom: 6 ... a6 (the idea of that move is not so easy to understand, because White almost never places his bishop on b5 in similar positions anyway) 7.h3 iLd7 (that placement of the bishop is too passive) S.c4. This is much more energetic than the exchange on d6, which was tried by White in the game Wood - Murphy, Belconnen, 1996. S... ttJb6 9.c5. White has this resource thanks to the placement of Black's bishop on the d7-square. 9 ... ttJd5 (9 ... ttJcS 10. t'tb3± and the arising position is just pathetic for Black, because his pieces are totally misplaced.) 10.~c4 e6 11.iLxd5 exd5 12.~g5. White has managed to create extremely dangerous threats along the e-file. 12 ... t'tcS (or 12 ... i..e7 13.i..xe7 t'txe7 14.exd6 cxd6 15J:te1 i..e6 16.ttJc3+-, winning

1.e4lDf6 2.e5lDd5 3.d4 d6 4.lDf3 i..g4 5.iLe2

the d5-pawn) 13.exd6 cxd6 14. !te1+ iLe6 15.lDc3 dxc5 16.lDxd5± - and Black is obviously quite unprepared for the opening of files on the board; 6 .. :~d7. This move is useful for Black indeed - he intends to place his rook on dB, or even castle long. 7.exd6 cxd6 B.h3 iLh5 9.c4lDb6.

In the game Felix - Stanek, Brno 1999, White played 10.b3t and Black countered that with a horrible positional blunder: 10 ... f6?? 1l.d5 iLxf3 12.iLxf3 lDe5 13.i.e3 'f1c7 14.lDc3± and his position became strategically hopeless due to the gaping weakness on the e6-square. Meanwhile, some more sensible lines for Black were not good enough to equalize either: 10 ... d5 11.c5lDcB 12.g4 iLg6 13.lDc3 e6 14.iLf4 iLe7 15. b4t, or 10 ... e6 11.d5 exd5 12.cxd5 iLxf3 13.iLxf3lDe5 14.iLe2t. It is quite interesting for White to try the energetic variation: 10.g4 iLg6 11.d5. He acquires plenty of space and the vulnerability of his king becomes irrelevant. Black's kingside is not developed at all and that is much more important

in addition to the tactical possibilities for White connected with the placement of the black queen on the d7-square: 1l ... lDb4 (It is too dangerous for Black to play 11...lDe5, because of 12.lDd4 h5 13.f4 iLxb1 14.lhb1 lDexc4 15. b3+-) 12.lDh4 (12.lDd4 e5~) 12 ... iLxb1 C12 ... e5 13.lDc3 and Black loses after 13 ... iLe7? 14.lDxg6 hxg6 15.a3 lDa6 16.c5+-. He should play instead: 13 .. JlcB14. a3lDa6 15.a4 'f1dB 16.lDxg6 hxg6 17.'it>g2t ~lDxc4? 1B.a5±) 13.':xb1 lDxa2 14.iLd2 (14.iLe3!? lDb4 15J;[a1 lDa6 16.'f1b3 ':cB 17. :fe1~) 14 ... a5 15.'~b3 lDb4 16. iLxb4 axb417.'f1xb4t and White opens the position enjoying a great lead in development; 6 ... h6. This is not the best move for Black, but it is still reasonable - it prevents lDf3-g5 and thus White fails to obtain immediate advantages exploiting the well-familiar maneuver h2-h3 and after iLg4-h5 - e5-e6! Meanwhile, Black's last move is hardly useful for him in case of somewhat different developments on the board. 7.c4lDb6 B.exd6 exd6 9.h3 iLh5 10.lDc3 iLe7 1l.b3 0-0 12.iLe3 d5 13.c5 lDcB, Krstevski - Oberrauch, Herculane 1994. It was very strong for White here to continue with 14.b4, occupying space on the queenside with some edge, because it is not good for Black to play 14 ... lDxb4, because of 15.'f1b3 a5 16.a3lDc617. ~xb7 lD8a7 18.~b3±. Instead, Black should place his bishop on 205

Chapter 13 f6 on move 14 and try to bring his knight on c6 to the f5-square via e7. His position would remain worse anyway; 6 ... g6 7.h3. This is White's most energetic line in this position, since he deploys his powerful bishop on the long diagonal. 7 ... ~xf3 (It is not good for Black to play here: 7 ... ~f5 8.e6! The point is that after: 8 ... fxe6 9.g4 ~e4 10.lbg5 ~h6 11.lbxe6 ~d7 12.~xh6 ~xe6 13.c4+-; 10 ... lbf6 11.f3 ~d5 12.c4±, Black loses a piece without any sufficient compensation. It is also unsatisfactory for him to try: 8 ... lbdb4 9.exf7+ ~xf7 10.lba3 ~g7 11. c3+-; 10 ... ~g7 11.d5 lbe5 12. lbd4+-, because his position would be strategically hopeless, Kleeschaetzky - Jaeger, Ilmenau, 1981.) 8.~xf3 dxe5 9.dxe5

White's activity in this position more than compensates the relative vulnerability of his e5-pawn. 9 ... e6 10.c4lbde7 (lO ... lbb6 11. ~xc6+ bxc6 12. ~f3±; 10 ... lbdb4 11.~a4±) 11.~a4. (Black could have obtained some counter chances after that move, so instead White had better play: 206

11. ~b3 Itb8 12 ..l:.dl ~c8 13.~g5 and the game transposes to the encounter Barbitskij - Smelov, St Petersburg 2000, or 11 ... ~c8 12.~g5lbd4 13.~d3 c5 14.~f6±; 12 ... iLg7 13.~xe7 ~xe7 14.~xc6 bxc6 15.~a3+ ~e8 16.~e3±.) 11 ... ~g7 (It is too dangerous for Black to capture the pawn after: 11 ... ~d4 12Jldl ~xe5 13.iLd2 .ng8 14.iLc3t) 12.~g5 0-0 (Here however, Black had to try to avoid the immediate disaster by playing: 12 ... ~xe5 13 ..l:.dl ~b8 14.~xe7 ~xe7 15.~xc6 bxc6~; 14.lbc3 0-0 15.lbe4 f6

16.iLe3 lbf500 - White still has to prove that he has some compensation for the pawn.) 13.~xc6 bxc6 14.~a3 f6 (14 .. J:te8 15. lbc3+- and Black remains totally pinned.) 15.exf6 ~xf6 16.~xf6 l::txf6 17.lbc3±. Black is left with plenty of weaknesses to worry about, Tischbierek - Kindl, Balatonbereny 1987; Similarly, after 9 ... lbdb4 (instead of 9 ... e6) 10.~d2 e6 l1.c3 (Possibly, it might be better for White to follow with: l1.a3 lbd5 12.c4 in order to reach the same position, except with a pawn on a3 and not on the a2-square.) 11...lbd5 12.c4 lbde7 13. ~b3 (13. ~a4 ~g7 14.~g5 and we witness a transposition to the game Tischbierek - Kindl, Balatonbereny 1987.) 13 ... l::tb8 14J:td1 ~c8 15.~g5 ~g7 (l5 ... lbxe5 16.~f6 lbxf3+ 17.~xf3l::tg8 18.lbc3lbc6 19.tbe4± and despite the missing pawn, White's position is over-

4.ltJ{3 i.g4 5.~e2ltJc6 6.0-0 ltJb6 7.h3

whelming.) 16.iLf6 0-0 17.~xg7 iLxc6+- P.Sanchez - Burgos, (17.~c3!?) 17 .. /1;;xg7 Barbitskij- Madrid 2001; Black could have Smelov, St. Petersburg 2000 and avoided the blunder on his move here White had to play IS. ~c3;!;, 12 and played instead: 12 ... l:tb8 defending his e5-pawn and main- 13.ltJc3±, but it would have retaining a stable advantage; mained quite unclear how he 6 ... ~xf.3 7.iLxf.3 dxe5 S.dxe5 could have completed his devel(the arising position is similar to opment.) 12 ..i.xe7 iLxe7 (12 ... the one that we have already <1;;xe7? 13.iLxc6 bc 14.~xc6 .l:.d8 analyzed in the line 6 ... g6, except 15.~xc7+ l:td7 16.~c5+ <1;;e8 17. that Black cannot develop his ~c8+ l:tdS lS.~c6+ <1;;e7 19.1tJa3! bishop to g7. His f6-square has ~xa3 20JUd1.l:!.d3 21.~c7+ <1;;e8 not been weakened, though ... ) 22.~bS+ 'it>d7 23 . .l:ab1+-. Black S ... e6 (S ... ltJdb4 9.e6 fxe6 10. cannot change anything with: ~xc6+ ltJxc611.~e2 ~d5 12.ltJc3 17 ... 'it>e7 lS.ltJc3 ~xc3 19 ..l:!.fd1, ~f5 13 ..i.e3 g6 14.ltJb5 0-0-0 because he is forced to give up 15.ltJxa7+ ltJxa7 16 ..i.xa7± and his rook on d 7 in order to avoid White remains with a superior being checkmated.) 13.iLxc6+ pawn-structure and safer king, <1;;fS 14.iLxb7 ~xb7 15.ltJc3;!;. while the material is equal, Black lags in development and Shaposhnikov - Akbaev, Kolon- the band d-files are opened, so taevo 1995. It was even better for his position is quite unpleasant. White, instead of exchanging on His attempt to connect his rooks c6, to play: 10 ..i.d2!?, preventing with 15 ... g6, would be countered the trade of queens and threat- by White with: 16.l:tab1 ~cS 17. ening to capture on b4 and b7. ~c6 'it>g7 18.l:tb7 and Black loses After 10 ... ~d6, White follows material and his position is very with 11..i.xb4± and it is not good bad too. It is slightly better for for Black to play: 11...~xb4? 12 . him to play 15 ... c6, but White .i.xc6+ bxc6 13.~h5+-.) 9.c4 would follow that with 16.l:tfd1 ltJde7 10. ~a4 (here, just like in and then ltJc3-e4. the quite similar position in the line 6 ... g6, White must seriously a) 6 •..ltJb6 consider 10. ~b3!?) 10 ... ~d4. Black cannot evacuate his knight away from the e7 -square; otherwise he cannot complete his development, so he is forced to enter quite unclear complications while having his pieces not developed. 1l.iLg5 ~xb2 (11...~c5 12.l:td1 ltJg6? 13.~e3 ~b4 14. 207

Chapter 13 The main drawback of that unforced retreat is that after the trade on £3, White can exploit the possibility to capture on c6 and that would compromise Black's pawn-structure on the queenside. 7.h3 Si.xf3 White obtains the two bishop advantage after that exchange. The move 7 ...Si.h5, Fioramonti - J.Graf, Geneve 1990 permits the standard sacrifice: 8.e6!? iXe6 9.Si.e3 (White could have tried the same idea - to protect the d4-pawn and try to play next tLlf3-g5, by playing 9.c3 ~d7 10.l1eU, in order to preserve the e-file void of pieces. The move 9.Si.e3 leads to a postponement of the attack of the e6-square.) 9 ... ~d7 10.tLlc3 0-0-0 (Black should have possibly refrained from the seemingly natural long castle and played instead: 10 ... tLld5 11.tLlg5 Si.xe2 12.the2 tLld8, although even then White would have an excellent compensation for the pawn, because the black king would have remained stranded in the centre.) 11.a4 Wb8 (The move 11...a5 compromises Black's king-position too much: 12.tLlg5 iLxe2 13. ~xe2l:!e8 14.~b5 h6 15.tLlxe6 ~xe6 16.d5 tLlxd5 17 .tLlxd5 ~f7 18.l:ta3 e6 19.1:tb3+- and after the capture on d5, White takes on b7 and follows that with l:tb3-c3.) 12.a5 tLld5 13.tLlg5 iLxe214.~xe2iii. The defects of Black's position have remained (his kingside is not 208

well developed, his pieces are quite passive and his king is potentially vulnerable), while his extra pawn is absolutely immaterial. 7 ... Si.f5. The drawback ofthat retreat of the bishop is that after the exchange on d6, followed by d4-d5, the black bishop can be attacked with tempo with the move tLl£3-d4. 8.exd6 exd6 (in case of8 ... cxd6 9.d5 tLlb4 10.tLld4 Si.d 7 11.c4, Black can develop his kingside by either pushing his epawn forward, creating plenty of weaknesses in the centre, or by playing: 11.. .g6 12.a3ltJa6 13.a4 Si.g7 14.a5 tLlc8 15.tLlc3 0-0 16. Si.g5, which would lead to an extremely cramped position for him.) 9.d5 tLle5, Sponnhem Appel, St Ingbert 1988, 10.c4 Si.e7 11.tLld4 Si.d7. White's advantage is only slight indeed, nevertheless it is quite stable: 12.b3 0-0 13.tLlc3;l::. White has extra space, while the mobility of the black pieces (particularly the knight on b6 and the bishop on d7) is considerably restricted. 8.Si.xf3

8 ... dxe5

4.tbf3 i.g4 S.i.e2 tbc6 6.0-0 de 7.tbeS In the game Boleslavsky Mikenas, Leningrad 1962, after S ... e6 9.exd6 ~xd6 (in case of 9 ... cxd6 10.d5;!:; we can see the misplacement ofthe black knight on the c6-square and after the forced exchange: 10 ... tbxd5 II. i.xd5 exd5 12. ~xd5;!:; Black's d6pawn remains very weak) 10.c3 i.e7 1l.tbd2 0-0-0 12:~e2 ~d7 and White's attack's is much faster than Black's counterplay: 13.a4 tbd5 14.tbc4 ':heS 15.i.d2 i.fS 16.b4±. The game later followed with: 16 ... i.d6 17.b5 tbce7 lS.tba5 tbf5 and here White could have played 19. ~d3 Llc3-c4, or even the more aggressive: 19.94 tbh4 20.c4. Both lines win material for White by force and Black has no compensation whatsoever. 9.i.xc6+ bxc6 lO.dxe5 ~xdl It is not very sensible for Black to play here: 10 ... ~d5 1I.~e2 tbd712.f4 e613.tbc3 ~a5 14.tbe4 i.e7 15.i.e3 0-0 16.c4 1:tadS 17.b3 tbb6 lS.1:tad1 h6 19.~f2;!:; and it becomes obvious that Black has preserved the queens on the board simply in vain - his queen on a5 is misplaced, just like the rest of his light pieces, Simkin - Petrak, Prague 2005. l1.1:txdl e6 White now begins to restrict the mobility of Black's pieces. 12.b31:td8 Black hardly changes much with: 12 ... i.e7 13.i.b2 0-0 14. tbd2 ':fdS 15.tbe4 ~fS 16.~f1

Itd5 17.c4;!:; Traeger - Zeitz, Germany 1990. 13.~xd8+ ~xd8 14.i.b2 i.e7 15.c4~c8

16.tbc3;t; Wurschner - Cardoso Garcia, corr. 2001. White maintains his space advantage and he controls reliably the central squares. Black's queenside pawns remain chronically weak. After White centralizes his king, he can prepare a pawn-offensive with f2-f4, g2-g4 etc.

b) 6 ••• dxe5 7.tbxe5

7 ... tbxe5 7 ... i.xe2 S. ~xe2 tbxd4. (It is too dangerous for Black to accept the pawn-sacrifice - he should better trade on e5 and transpose to the main line: S... tbxe5 9.dxe5 - see 7 ... tbxe5; S ... ~d6 9.tbxc6 209

Chapter 13 ~xc6 10.c4 ~a6 11.~el tbf6 12. tbc3 e6 13.tbb5!±. Black's lag in development is too great and in the game Malisauskas - Fioramonti, Bern 1992, White exploited that quickly with: 13 ... 0-0-0 14.i.f4 l:td7 15.b4 tbeB 16.l1abl tbd6 17 .i.xd6 ~xd6 IB ..l:tb3 c6 19.1:ta3 ~b6 20.tbxd6+ 1::txd6 21.c5 winning a rook; Black does not have any real chances to equalize after: B... e6 9.tbxc6 bxc6 10.c4 tbf6 11. ~f3 ~d7 12. i.g5 i.e7 13.tbc3 0-0 14.l:.adl;!;, because his doubled pawns are too weak, Kofman - Mikenas, USSR 1942.) 9.~c4 c5 (It- deserved attention for Black to try here: 9 ... f610.~xd4 fxe5 11.~xe5 ~d6 12. ~e4 0-0-0, Lausten Vio, IECC 2000. White still maintains some advantage after: 13.tba3 tbf6 14.~a4 a6 15.i.f4;t, because his pieces are active and his pawn-structure is superior.) 10.i.e3 a6 11.tbc3! e6 12.iLxd4 tbb6. (It is too bad for Black to play: 12 ... cxd413.~a4+, because his king is forced to go to the e7square, since after: 13 ... b5 White has 14.tbxb5+-.) 13 ..~b3 cxd4 14.tba4 tbxa4 (The alternative for Black here is - 14 .. .tbd5 - but after 15.~xb7 iLe7 16.~c6+ ~f8 17 ..l:f.adl l!tcB IB.~xa6 l:txc2 19. tbc6± he loses a pawn without any compensation.) 15. ~xb7! ~d5 16.~xf7+ ~dB 17.l!tfel. Black has some material advantage indeed, but he fails to defend his king in the centre. (White is threatening c2-c4 and

210

in case of ~d6 - ~b7, while the capture on c3 would be countered with .l:f.adl.) 17 ... tLlc5. (Black could have tried to defend with 17 ... tbxb2, in order to prevent White's rook from coming to dl, but his position is hopeless anyway: IB.l:i.abl i.a3 19.~xg7 :eB 20.c4 dxc3 21.tbf7+ ci;e7 22.tbh6+ ci;d 6 23. ~xc3 ~ c5 24. tbf7 + cj;;e 7 25.~g7+-. Black cannot defend against White's threats with: 17 ... i.c5 IB.c4 ~d6 19.~b7+­ Korneev - Rojo Huerta, Corunha 2000.) IBJ1adl ~cB 19.c3 d3 20. b4 d2 21..1:.e2 tbd7 22.tbf3+- and Black resigned, because of the unavoidable material losses after the capture on d2, Thorstein - C.Hansen, Reykjavik 19B5. 8.dxe5

8 ••• iLxe2 B... iLcB?! - is a very strange move. 9.c4 tbb6 10.~xdB+ WxdB 11.tbc3± Poitras - Hladek, Richmond 2002. It is possible for Black to try the seldom played move: B.. .i.e6 (he is now forced to develop his other bishop on the g7 -square, but it is misplaced there, because its scope of action is restricted by

4.CiJ{3 il.g4 S . .Jl.e2 ctJc6 6.0-0 de 7.CiJeS the e5-pawn) 9.c4 (9.ctJd2!? ~d7 10.ctJf.3 0-0-0 11.c4 ctJb6) 9 ... ctJb6 10.b3 (Unfortunately for White, he achieves nothing much with: 10.~b3 ~d411..~e3 ~xe512.l:.d1

c6 13.ctJc3 ~c7 14Jlac1 .ltfS and it is quite unclear how he can break through, while Black still has an extra pawn to rely on.) 10 ... ~xd1 11 ..l:Ixd1 c6 12.ctJc3 ctJd7 13.f4 g5. This move is sensible; otherwise the g7 -bishop is doomed to remain passive. 14.g3 gxf4 15.gxf4 f6 16 ..lth5+ 'litdB 17.ctJe4 (17.ctJe2 fxe5 1B.fxe5 'litcB 19.ctJf4 .ltfS 20 ..ltb2 .lth6°o. It is possibly better for White to continue with: 17.exf6!? exf6 1B.'litf2 c7 1B ..ltb2 .lth6 (it is too bad for Black to play here: lB ... l:tgB+ 19.'it>f2 fxe5? 20.ctJg5± and in the game Lurje - Wolff, Switzerland 1994, Black lost the exchange, because in case of 20 ... .ltf5 21..ltf7 J:Ig7, White would follow with: 22 ..lte6+-) 19.exf6 exf6= and White has no real advantage at all. He should better try 12.ctJd2, in order to manage to defend his e5-pawn with his bishop and also later to be able to choose between two maneuvers with the knight ctJd2-f.3-d4 (g5), or ctJd2-e4-g5(c5). White maintains a slight advantage in the endgame, for example: 12 ... ctJd7 (12 ... g6 13.ctJe4 ctJd7 14.f4;;1;) 13 ..ltb2 g6 14.ctJf.3 ~ctJg5, or ctJd4. It is also acceptable for Black to play: B... .ltfS 9.c4 ctJb6 (It is

worse for him to try: 9 ... ctJb4 10. ~a4+ ctJc6. In comparison to the line 9 ... ctJb6, Black has presented his opponent with an extra tempo for the development of the rook: llJld1 .ltd7 12.e6! fxe6 13. ~c2 g6 14 ..ltg4 .ltg7 15. ~e4 ~cB 16.ctJc3 ctJe5. Black cannot castle anyway, while the retreat of the knight to dB is too passive. 17 ..lth6.ltf6 1B ..lth3 ctJfl 19 ..l:.xd7! ~xd7 20 ..ltxe6 ~dB 21.l:.d1 .ltxc3 22.htxdB+ ':xdB 23. .ltxf7 + 'litxfl 24. ~f.3+.ltf6 25.g4;;!;. Black's king is seriously endangered and his pieces are too passive, so a queen and a pawn are evidently stronger than two rooks, Dannberg - Cafferty, corr. 1965.) 10.~b3 e6 (10 ... ~d4 11..lte3 ~xe5, Preissmann Fioramonti, Geneve 1992, 12 . .l:tdl. Contrary to the similar position in the line B... .lte6, Black's bishop does not pin the c4-pawn and he fails to consolidate his position with the move 12 ... c6, because of 13.c5. In case Black tries to defend his b7 -pawn with 12 ... .lte4, White plays 13.CiJc3 .ltc6 14.c5 ctJd7 15.CiJb5+-. He is threatening f2-f4 and Black would surely fail to hold on to his extra pawn with his king stranded in the centre.) 11.l:td1 ~cB (It is considerably weaker for Black to play 11 ... ~e7? Mter 12.ctJc3 g5 13 ..ltf3 c6 14.ctJb5! White obtains a decisive advantage: 14 ... .lth6 15.ctJd6+ ~fB 16 ..lte3 ~c7 17.ctJxf5 exf5 lB. .Jl.c5+ Wg7 19 ..ltd6+- E.Alekseev 211

Chapter 13 - Kupreichik, Ekaterinburg 2002. It is also bad for Black to try the move: 12 ... c6, because of the same reason: 13.lt:Jb5 cxb5 14. ~xb5+ ltJd7 15.i.g5+-; Black loses after: 12 ... ~c5 13.~e3 ~xe5 14.c5 ~xc5? 15. ~b5+-; but he could have possibly defended more stubbornly with 12 ... a6, preparing either ~e7-b4, or ~e7c5, but still after 13.lt:Ja4 ~b4 14. ~xb4 ~xb4 15.lt:Jxb6 cxb6 16.a3 ~e7 17 .~f3± the endgame is very difficult for Black.) 12. ~g3 ~c2 13 ..l:.d4;t:. Presently, White prevents Black from castling long. His position is clearly better - he leads in development and he has extra space. Later, in the game Korneev - Panchenko, Berga 1996, there followed: 13 ... ~g6 (d~c5) 14.h4 c5 (14 ... ~c5 15 ..l:.d1 0-0 16.h5 ~xbl17. .l:.xb1±) 15 ..:td1 i.c2 16 ..l:.e1 ~xb1 17J:txb1 ~c7 18.l:i.d1ltJd7 19.a3!? (db4) This is a positional pawnsacrifice, which is not quite necessary in that situation indeed, but still after: 19 ... ~xe5 (or 19 ... lt:Jxe5 20.i.f4 f6 2l.~g4 t and i.xe6) 20.~f3 0-0-0 2l.i.f4 ~f6 22.~e3 h6 23.i.f3t (Ll~e4) 23 ... e5 24.i.g3 ~b6 25.i.g4 ~d6 26.b4l::the8 27.bxc5 ~xc5 28.~e4 b6 29.l::tb5 ~xa3, White could have won immediately with the move 30.i.f3+-. 9.~xe2 ~d7

Black should not blunder a pawn with: 9 ... e6? 10. ~b5+ ~d7 11. ~xb7 :d8 12.c4 ltJb4 13.i.g5 ltJc2 14.i.xd8 ~xd8 15.lt:Jc3ltJxal 212

16J:td1 +- Hmadi - Srivachiranov, Erevan 1996. It is also wrong to permit White to push e5-e6: 9 ... c6?! 10.e6 f5 11.i.g5 g6 12.c4 ltJb6 13.:d1 ~b8? (13 ... ~c7 14.ltJc3±) 14.c5ltJa4 (14 ... ltJd5 15 ..l:.xd5+-) 15. ~c2 ~g7 16.~c1 +- Zarnicki Bulcourf, Buenos Aires 1995. 9 ... ~c8 (this move is too passive in comparison to 9 ... ~d7) 10.c4 It:Jb4 11. ~e4 e6 12.lt:Jc3ltJc6 13J:te1 g6 (Black would have preferred to avoid playing that move, but in case he had developed his bishop along the a3- f8 diagonal, White had the resource 14.~g4.) 14.~g5 ~g7 15.~h4±

and Black's position is difficult, because he cannot castle due to his numerous weaknesses on the kingside, Palac - Gazik, Zillertal 1993 . 10.c4

IO ... ltJb4 It is not good now for Black to play 10 ... ltJb6 (his knight is much more passive here in comparison to the c6-square) 1l.ltJc3 e6 12.i.g5 h6 13.i.h4 ~c6 14. ,U,fd1 g5 (This move compromises Black's kingside considerably,

4.ttJ[3 i.g4 5 ..fLe2 ttJc6 6.0-0 e6 7.c4 but he cannot solve his problems with: 14 ... iLb4 15.ttJb5 a6 16. ~ac1± and ttJd4) 15.iLg3 h5 (It is too bad for Black to play: 15 .. .'~xc4 16. thc4 ttJxc4 17. ttJb5 .tIcB 1B ..l:i.ac1 ttJxb2 19.1:i.d2 ttJa4 20.ttJxc7 + cB 2B . .l:i.c1+ and White won. 1l ..l:i.d1 ~f5 12.ttJc3 ttJc6 13. i.e3 a6 Black loses after: 13 .. .'~xe5? 14.ttJb5 ncB 15. ~d3 .l:i.dB 16. ~f5! ':'xdl+ (16 ... e6 17 ..l:i.xdB+-) 17Jhdl f6 (or 17 ... e6 IB.~d3 i.d6 19.f4 ~f5 20.lL'lxc7+-) lB. ~cB+ 'it>f7 19.ttJxc7+-. Following 13 ... g6? White can simply win a pawn: 14.ttJb5 l:tcB 15.ttJxa7 ttJxa7 16.iLxa7 iLg7 (after 16 ... b6 White plays 17.c5+- and Black fails to trap the bishop) 17.i.d4 0-0 IB.iLc3 ~e6 19.~e4 c6 20. ~d4± Kindermann - Siegel, Munich 1993. 14.f4 e6 (diagram) 15.a3;!;. White has a better

development and plenty of space and his rook is ready to penetrate Black's seventh rank. c) 6 •.•e6 7.c4

7 ..•ttJb6 In case of7 ... iLxf.3 B.iLxf.3 ttJb6 (Black loses a piece after: B... ttJdb4? 9.d5 lL'lxe5 10. ~a4+ c6 11.~xb4+- Kwong-Bailen, USA 199B; B... ttJde7 9.exd6 ~xd6 10.lL'lc3 - see 7 ... lL'lde7 B.exd6 ~xd6 9.lL'lc3 i.xf.3 10.iLxf.3) 9. exd6 cxd6 10.lL'lc3 it is too dangerous for Black to capture the pawn with: 10 ... ttJxc4. After Il.d5! White's threats are extremely dangerous: 11. .. ttJ6e5 (11...exd5 12.iLxd5 ttJb6 13.~b3 ttJxd5 14.ttJxd5l:tbB 15.l:te1+ iLe7 16.i.g5 ffi 17 .i.d2± Reig - Cardona, Spain 2004) 12.dxe6 fxe6 13. iLxb7 .&tbB 14.iLa6 iLe7? (Black 213

Chapter 13

should better try: 14 ... d5 15.b3 .lib4 16.ctJa4±) 15 ..lixc4 ctJxc4 16.~a4+ ~d7 17.~xc4+- Goerens - Kries, Luxemburg 2000. The best for Black here is: 10 ... .lie7 11.d5 exd5 12.ctJxd5;t Celis - Bulcourf, Buenos Aires 1995, except that following 12 ... ctJxd5, White must capture on d5 not with the pawn, as in the game, because that only closes the diagonal for the bishop, but with the bishop, or with the queen and then his advantage is considerable. The move 7 ... ctJde7 does not contribute to Black's development. White opens the position with 8.exd6

And now: 8 ... cxd6 9.d5! provides a huge advantage for him, for example: 9 ... exd5 10.cxd5 .lixf3 (l0 ... ctJe5 11.J::te1 ctJ7g6?? 12.ctJxe5 ctJxe5 13 ..lixg4 .lie7 14. ~a4+ ~f8 15. .lie2+- Keres - Halaczinsky, corr. 1936. Naturally, Black did not need to blunder a piece, but still it is quite unclear how he could have completed his development in this line - in case of 11. .. .ixf3, White could have made a good 214

use of the transposition of moves and played: 12.~b5+ ctJd7 13 . ~xf3+-, after which Black simply has nothing to move.) 11. .ltxf3ctJe5 12.ctJc3ctJ7g6 13.~a4+ ~d7 14.~xd7+ 'it>xd7 15 ..lte2±; Black often tries in practice here: 8 ... ~xd6 9.ctJc3 .ltxf3 (It is bad for him to play: 9 ... 0-0-0? 10.ctJg5 ~e2 11.ctJxe2 and Black's f7 -pawn is defenseless: 11 ... ctJxd4 12.ctJc3! f6 13.ctJf7 ~d7 14.ctJxh8+- Djaja - Janosevic, Belgrade 1948, or 9 ...lbf5? 10.d5 ctJce7 11. ~a4+ c6 12.c5! ~xc5 13.~xg4+- Schoenmann - Engert, Hamburg 1932. It is insufficient for Black to try: 9 ... ctJg6?! 10.d5! exd5 11.cxd5 .ltxf3 12. gxf3! ctJce5 13.ctJb5 ~d7 14.f4± Aronin - Mikenas, USSR 1951 and now it is bad for him to play: 14 ... ctJf3+ 15 ..lixf3 ~xb5 16.l:e1+ .lte7 17.f5 ctJh4 18Jhe7 + 'i;xe7 19 ..lig5+-, as well as: 14 ... ctJh4 15.fxe5 ~h3 16.ctJxc7+ 'i;d8 18. ctJe6+! 'i;e7 19 ..lig5+-. The move 9 ... a6 is only slightly better, but in the game Louma - Kracmar, Chomutov 1954, White countered it with: 1O.ctJe4 ~d8 1l.ctJc5 b6 12.ctJb3;t, he defended his d4pawn and obtained a slight advantage. Instead, it is more energetic for White to play: 10.d5 exd5 11.cxd5 .lixf3 12 ..lixf3 ctJe5 13.~en. Black is now forced to castle queenside and White can already operate on the open cfile. The placement of the black knight on the e5-square is a bit unstable too. There might follow:

4.liJ{3 iLg4 5.i..e2 liJc6 6.0-0 e6 7.c4

13 ... 0-0-0 14.i.e3. Now, all attempts by Black to develop his kingside have certain drawbacks too, for example: 14 ... liJ7g6 15. l:tc1 i.e7 16.i.e2t and the natural move 16 ... .l:theB? is bad, because of 17.f4 liJd7 1B.liJe4 ~b4 19.1:tc4 ~xb2 20.d6+-; 14 ... liJf5 15.i.f4 liJxf3+ 16.~xf3 ~d7 17. l:tac1;!;; 14 ... g6 15.~d4 i.g7 16. ~a7liJxf3+ 17.gxf3~ and White's threats are quite serious now, for example: 17 ... i.xc3 1B.i.c5 i.d4 19.i.d4 .!:theB 20.i.e5 ~b4 21..l:te4 ~b5 22 ..l:lc1 liJxd5 23J:tc5+-.) 10.i.xf3. Black has tried to hold that position in numerous ways: He fails to avoid trouble with: 10 ... liJxd4 (It is hardly any better for Black to try: 10 ... ~d7 11.d5, Kienhorst - van Bommel, corr. 1997, 1l ... exd512.cxd5liJe5 13J:te1liJxf3+ 14.~xf3±, because White enjoys a great lead in development, while the position is quite open, or 10 ... 0-0-0 11.liJb5 ~d7 12.~b3± Matulovic - Knezevic, Bajmok 1975. White is attacking, while Black has no counterplay whatsoever. Later in the game there followed: 12 ... a6 13.liJa7+ ~bB14.liJxc6+ liJxc615. i.e3 :'eB 16.:'fd1liJdB 17 .d5 ~cB 1B.c5+- and White won.) 11. i.xb7 ':d8 (1l ... l::i.b8, CiocalteaKnezevic, Vrnjacka Banja 1975, 12.~a4+ c6 13.~xa7 :'d8 14. i.a6±) 12. ~a4+ c6 13.i.e3 ~c7 14.~xa7 e5 15.lUe1 f6 16.J::!.ad1 ~f7 17.i.xd4 llxd4 18.~a6± De Firmian - Shamkovich, USA 1994. Black has failed to exploit

the unfavourable placement of the bishop on b7 and White remained with an extra pawn in a better position; Following 10 ... ~xd411.liJb5!? Black is faced with numerous problems too: 11 ... ~xd1 (He loses after: 11... ~b6? 12.i.e3 ~a5 13.b4liJxb4 14.i.d2. In the game Pulkkinen - Pitkaenen, corr. 1974, Black came under a dangerous attack after: 11 ... ~d7 12.~a4 a613 ..!:td1 ~c814.liJd4 b5 15.cxb5 liJxd4 16. ~xd4 liJd5 17. i.xd5 exd5 1B.l:te1+ and here he resigned, because of the line: lB ... i.e7 19.i.g5 f6 20.i.xf6 gxf6 21. ~xf6+-.) 12 ..!:txd1 .!:tc8 13.ii.f4 e5 14.ii.xe5! liJxe5 15.ii.xb7 liJxc4 (15 .. J:tb8?? 16.liJxc7# Cornacchini - Zillmer, IECC 1998) 16J:rac1 (this move is much stronger than the immediate win of the exchange: 16.ii.xc8ltJxc8 17.liJxc7+ cJi;e718.~d4±) 16 ... liJb617.ltJxc7+ .l:txc7 18.l:txc7+- and Black will still lose his a7-pawn, while he completes his development. His position is terribly bad, indeed. 8.exd6 cxd6 9.d5

9 ... exd5 Following 9 ... ii.xf3 10 ...txf3, 215

Chapter 13 Black loses a pawn after: 10 ... lLle5 1l.dxe6lLlxf3+ 12.thf3 fxe6 13. 'l;'txb7± Serpik - Massie, Alexandria 1996. Ie should play instead 10 ... exd5 11..~xd5 i.e7 (In case of 1l ... lLlxd5, it is good for White to capture with the queen, as well as the possibility: 12.cxd5 lLle513.f4lLlg614.'l;'td4±; 13 ... lLld7 14J:te1+ i.e715.'l;'te2± and Black still cannot castle.) 12.lLlc3 0-0 13.i.f4:±;. Black's pawn-structure is inferior and in case he tries to play actively with: i.e7-f6, White can maintain his material advantage with: 13 ... 'l;'td7 (It is quite similar after: 13 ... i.f6 14.i.xd6 lLlxd5 15.'l;'txd5 l:te8 16.lLlb5 .l:.e2 17.lLlc7 .l:.c8 18 ..l:.fe1! .l:.xe1+. Black cannot capture on b2, because of the check on the e8square. 19J:txe1 'l;'td7 20.i.g3+Johansson - Freeman, Lugano 1968.) 14 ..l:.c1 i.f6 15.i.xd6 .l:.fd8 16.c5lLlxd5 17. 'l;'txd5 b6 Svensson - Tagnon, Haifa 1976 and it is quite sufficient for White to play just one precise move -18.'l;'te4± in order to preserve his extra pawn. 10.cxd5 i.xf3 This is practically Black's only move. Re loses a piece after: 10 ... lLlb4? 11.'l;'te1+- Shirazi - Kanai, Haifa 1976. It is a disaster for Black to try: 10 ... lLlb811.'l;'td4i.d712 ..l:.e1 and he can already resign, because of the huge material losses, Posch - Karapetian, Vienna 1999. It is also too bad for Black to 216

play: 10 ... lLle7 11.lLlc3± lLlg6 (11. .. g6?? 12.~d4+- Makra Vodila, Miskolc 1998) 12.'l;'td4. White's attack against the g7square prevents Black from developing his bishop on g7 and it is quite unclear now Black should proceed further: 12 ... i.d7 13 ..l:.e1 'l;'tf6 14.i.a6+ i.e7 15. ~xf6 gxf6 16.i.xb7+- and White won easily with an extra pawn, J.Horvath - Derera, Zalakaros 1993.

1l.gxf3!? It is now essential for White to be able to check on the b5square, just in case, and additionally the doubled pawns would help him restrict Black's knights. 1l .••lLle5 12.i.b5+ lLlbd7 Following 12 ... lLled7, White plays 13.'l;'td4 and again Black cannot develop his dark squared bishop, because of the loss of the g7 -pawn, so he should play: 13 ... 'l;'tf614 ..l:.e1+. Black is now faced with a rather unpleasant choice: 14 ... i.e7 15.'l;'txf6 gxf6, leaves his bishop on e7 quite passive, due to the doubled pawns, while

4.ti:J{3 j.g4 5.i.e2lbc6 6.0-0 e6 7.c4 14 ... ~dB enables White to retreat his queen and to playa middle game with a black king stranded on the dB-square. He maintains a huge advantage in both lines: 14 ... iLe7 15. ~xf6 gxf6 16.lbc3 a6 (16 ... ~dB17.f4 f51B.iLd3 iLffi 19.iLxf5 ..txc3 20.bxc3 lbxd5 21.iLa3t (Y.Bagirov) and White hasapairofactivebishopsinan open position. He has the edge despite the numerous mutual weaknesses.) 17 ...te2 lbe5 (In case of the immediate 17 ... f5, White can play 1B.~f1!? He prepares the move iLe2-d3, which would not be good immediately, due to lbd7-e5. 1B ... lbffi 19 ...td3 lbfxd5 20.iLxf5;t and White's bishops are quite effective in an open position.) 1B.f4 l:1gB+ 19.'Jilfl lbg4 20 ...td3! f5 (following 20... lbxh2+ 21.~e2, Black's knight might get trapped on the kingside, particularly in case White manages to play £2-£3) 21...txf5 lbxh2+ 22.~e2lbg4 23 ...txh7 l:.hB 24J:th1 lbf6 25 ...te4± and White remained with an extra pawn, although doubled, in the game Vogt - Uddenfeldt, Skopje 1972; 14 ... ~dB 15.~d1 g5. This is an attempt by Black to organize some counterplay on the kingside. (He does not weaken his position so much after: 15 ... .ie7 16.lbc3 l::tcB 17.iLe3 'iti'f5 lB. ~e2 lbe5. This is practically the only way for Black to create some counterplay: 19.f4 'iti'g4+ 20.'iti'xg4 lbxg4 21.iLxb6+ axb6 22.lba4

iLh4 23.~e2 ~c7 24.h3 lbffi 25. lad1 lbh5 26Jld4 iLffi 27 ..ti.b4;t, and Black has no active play, meanwhile his weakness on b6 is practically defenseless, Kroeger - Junge, Germany 1995.) 16. lbc3 iLe7 17.iLe3 .l:i.gB 1B.iLd4 ~h6 19.1be4 g4, Fiorito - Bulcourf, Villa Martelli 1996 and here White should have simply captured the pawn, without chasing ghosts: 20.fxg4 and Black cannot play: 20 ... f5 (20 ... ~h3 21.£3) 21.lbg3 .l:i.xg4 22 ..l:.xe7 .l:txg3+ (22 ...~xe7 23.'iti'xg4+--) 23. fxg3 ~xe7 24.'iti'c2+--. On move 15 Black can also try: 15 ... 'iti'f5. This is an immediate attempt to create some counterplay with lbd7-e5. 16.lbc3lbe5 17.f4 'iti'g4+ lB. 'iti'xg4 lbxg4 19.1ba4. White makes use of the weakness of Black's Bthrank. 19 ... ~c7 20.iLd2 (This move is probably even stronger than 20.lbxb6 'ittxb6 21.iLeB (I.Boleslavsky) 21...lbe5 22.fxe5 .l:i.xeB;!;) 20 ... lbxa4 21. ..txa4 lbf6 (21...~b6 22.':'acl± with the idea to bring the second rook into the attack against the black king - .l:i.e3(e4)-b3(b4) and Black is practically helpless.) 22. iLa5+ b6 23.iLc3 (23.ltac1+ ~d8 24.iLc61lcB 25.iLc3;!;.) 23 ... lbxd5 24 ..l:i.ac1 ~b7 25.iLc6+ ~xc6 26. iLxg7 + ~d7 27.iLxhB± White has the material advantage, while Black fails to trap the bishop on h8: 27 ... ffi 28.l::tcd1 ~c6 29J:te4 iLh6 30.l::tc4+ ~b5 31.b3+-. 13J:tel iLe7 14.f4 tLJg6 15.f5 lbge5 16.lbc3 a6 217

Chapter 13 16 ... ..th4 17 ...txd7+ 'it>xd7 18. l:te4±. 16 .. .'it>d8 17.f4 f5 18 ...td3 ..tf6 19 . ..txf5 ..txc3 20.bxc3 lDxd5 2l...ta31' (V.Bagirov) and there remain plenty of weaknesses for both sides, but White maintains his advantage thanks to his bishop pair in an open position. 17...txd7+ lDxd7 17 ... thd7 18.f4 lDc4 19. ~d4+-.

18•..tg5 f6 It is also bad for Black to play: 18 ... lDf6 19 ...txf6 gxf6 20.'~h1 and he cannot castle 20 ... 0-0, because of: 21..l:te3 'it>h8 22.l:th3 .l::i.g8 23Jhh7+-. 19.~h5+ ~f8

(diagram) 20..td2± Oll- Kaunas, Clichy 1991. White's advantage is quite clear, because of the vulnerabil-

ity of Black's king and the lack of coordination of his rooks. The weakness of the e6-square is essential too. The moment White managed to bring his knight to that square, Black's position became just terrible: 19. ~h5+ 'it>f8 20 ...td2 ~e8 2l.~h3 "fttf7 22.1:.e3 'it>g8 23.lDe2 lDe5 24.lDf4 g5 25 . 1:.g3 h5 26 ...tc3 h4 27.1:.g2 'it>h7 28.lDe6 ~h5 29.f4 g4 30.fxe5+-and White wins a piece, since it is too bad for Black to play: 30 ... gxh3 3Ulg7+ 'it>h6 32 ...td2+ ~g5 33 ...txg5+ fxg5 34Jhe7+-.

Conclusion We have analyzed in this chapter some seldom played fifth moves for Black, as well as S ... lDc6. Still, basically these rarely played moves are not so satisfactory for Black - he does not develop his pieces and White often manages, by playing 6.h3, to force Black's bishop on g4 to get either exchanged for White's knight on {3, or to retreat (but then after i..g4-hS, White has the positionally cramping sacrifice eS-e6 at his disposal). He maintains a long-lasting initiative in both cases. Concerning the move S ... ltJc6 - it is not bad at all, since the knight attacks the eS-pawn. On the other hand, Black's knight on c6 can be easily attacked by White with the bishop (line a), or by the d-pawn (line c), and that helps him preserve his edge. He should often be prepared to press his advantage home in a slightly better endgame.

218

Chapter 14

l.e4 ttJf6 2.e5 tLJd5 3.d4 d6 4.ttJf3 i.g4 5.i..e2 c6

This system was invented by S.Flohr - one of the greatest players of the 30ies of the 20 th century. We have already seen that it is unfavourable for Black, in the Alekhine Defence, to capture on f3 with the bishop, because the white bishop on f3 attacks the b7-pawn and thus White wins important tempi. Black defends the long diagonal in advance with his last move and subsequently he plans to capture on f3 (sometimes even voluntarily, for example in answer to 6.0-0). Later he exchanges pawns on e5, he plays tDb8-d7 and eventually ~d8-c7 and tDd5-e7 -g6 - altogether he attacks White's e5-pawn with all available means. It is a bit uncomfortable for White to defend

it successfully and his two bishop advantage turns out to be immaterial in similar positions. White has several ways to counter that plan and two of them are the most principled. At first - the move 6.tDg5, with the idea to preserve the knight in the arising pawn-structure in order to try to bring it later to the d6square. Secondly, it is the Levenfish variation, which we recommend - 6.c4 tDb6 7.tDbd2, after which Black fails to reach the desired pawn-structure, since White will still have a knight left on the f3-square and he would capture on e5 with it, if necessary. 6.c4 tDb6 The immediate exchange on f3 is considered to be bad for Black 6 ... i.xf3. After 7.i.xf3lbb6 (7 ... lbc7 presents White with an additional tempo, because of the attack against the b7-pawn and that is quite undesirable for Black: 8.~b3 ~c8 9.exd6 exd6 10.0-0 i.e7 11.l:!el± and Black fails to castle, Ghinda - Mozes, Eforie 1987. It is more stubborn 219

Chapter 14 for Black to defend with: 8 ... b6 9 ..Jte3±, but the weakening of the long diagonal might become a telling factor in the future.) 8. ~b3. Black now fails to accomplish the desired exchange on e5 and White's pressure on the queenside is considerable: 8 ... lLl8d7 (it is even worse for Black to play here: 8 ... dxe5 9.c5 lLld5 10.~xb7 lLld7 1l.~xc6± FleckHaenisch, Germany 1985) 9.exd6 exd6 10.0-0 J.e7 1l.:td1 0-0 12. J.f4± and the black knight on b6 is totally misplaced, Bielczyk Zauner, Werfen 1989. 6 ... lLlc77.exd6

It deserves attention now for Black to try the seldom played move 7 ... ~xd6. After 8.0-0 lLld7 9.lLlc3 lLlill 10 . .Jte3 e6 1l.h3 J.h5, Mulet - Lukasiewicz, BielskoBiala 1991, White maintains his advantage with: 12.lLle5 J.xe2 13.lLlxe2 J.e7 14 ..Jtf4;t. It is too dangerous for Black to play: 8 ... g6 9.c5!? This move forces Black to worsen the placement of his queen and it also prepares ~d1-b3. (It is too tentative for White to play 9.ttJbd2 .Jtg7 10. l:te1 0-0 1l.h3 .Jtxf3 12.lLlxf3 ttJd7

220

13.J.e3;t Buckley - Crouch, Monmouth 2002; 9.lLle5 .Jtxe2 10. ~xe2, and now not: 10 ... lLle6 1l.d5;t cxd5?! 12.cxd5 ~xd5 13.:td1+-, but instead: 10 ... .Jtg7 1l.:d1 c5 12.J.f4 cxd4oo) 9 ... ~d7 10. ~b3 ~c8 (10 ... J.xf3 ll.J.xf3 ttJb5 12.J.e3± ~a4; ~d5) 1l.~e1 t. White is clearly ahead in development and he has a dangerous initiative. There might follow: 11...J.g7 (1l ... lLld5 12.lLlc3 J.e6 13.J.c4±) 12.J.c4 (12.lLlg5 J.e6 13.J.g4!?t) 12 ... J.e6 (12 ... 0-0 13.:txe7+-; 12 ... e6 13.lLle5±) 13.J.g5t. It is more popular for Black to play here 7 ... exd6 and that leads to a position similar to the Indian Defence. 8.0-0 J.e7 9. lLlc3 0-0 (9 ... lLld7 10.h3 J.h5 1l. :le1 0-0 12.d5! c5 13.J.f4 a6 14. a4;t, but Black's possible counterplay is severely restricted - it is difficult for him to prepare b7b5, as well as to deploy his bishop on e7 to the long a1-h-B diagonal, Campora - Paulsen, Dortmund 1981) 10.h3 J.h51l.~b3 ~c812. d5! c5 (12 ... lLlba6 13.J.e3±) 13. J.f4± A.Rodriguez - D.Cramling, Biel 1988. Black's knights are misplaced and his d6-pawn is very weak. White exerts a powerful pressure against the queenside of the opponent and that hampers the coordination of Black's rooks; the queen on c8 is out of action too. All that, in addition to the extra space, makes White's position clearly preferable.

4.CiJ{3 !il..g4 5.iLe2 c6 6.c4 CiJb6 7.CiJbd2 CiJ8d7 8.0-0 7.CiJbd2

This move is based on the idea to sacrifice the d4-pawn in case of 7 ... dxe5 8.CiJxe5 and it is very dangerous for Black to accept that sacrifice as we are going to see quite soon. Black's main lines in this position are - a) 7 .•.CiJ8d7 and b) 7 ... dxe5. He has also tried here plenty of other moves too. White preserves his space advantage in all lines. His basic strategy is to fortify his centre: 7 ... !il..xf3. This move does not make much of a sense; there will remain a white knight on f3 anyway, good enough for anything. 8.CiJxf3 dxe5 9.CiJxe5 CiJ8d7 10.CiJf3 e6 11.0-0 !il..e7 12.!il..f4;t; and White maintains a stable space advantage, Torres Sanchez Uris Escolano, Mislata 1997; 7 ... g6. We have had enough reasons to be convinced by now that the combination of the moves g7 -g6 and !il..c8-g4 in the Alekhine Defence is unfavourable for Black as a rule. In the game Reichmann - Rumpl, Finken stein 1994, White played

8.exd6 exd6 9.CiJe4 iLxf3 10.!il..xf3 d5 1l.cxd5 !il..b4+ 12.CiJc3 CiJxd5 13.0-0 CiJxc3 and here the easiest way for him to maintain his advantage would be the move 14 ..~e1;t;. It is even more purposeful for White to play: 8.CiJg5, for example: 8 ... !il..xe2 9"~xe2 dxe5 10.dxe5 h6 11.CiJf3 and White's advantage is overwhelming in connection with the threat e5-e6; 7 ... d5 8.c5 CiJc8 9.h3 !il..xf3 10.CiJxf3 e6 11.0-0 b6 12.!il..g5 (This move is with the idea to support the c5-pawn with b2-b4, while in case of a7-a5 - White can play a2-a3. It is however not so advantageous for White to exchange the knights, because of his extra space. He should not be afraid that Black might try to undermine his pawn-chain: 12. b4 a5 13.cxb6 ~xb6 14.bxa5 ~xa5 15.!il..d2 "f1ta7 16.~c2 !il..e7 17.a41', or 15 ... !il..b4 16.!il..xb4 "f1txb4 17 ..l:tb1 "f1ta5 18."f1tc21' and White has the initiative and a better piece-placement in both cases. Meanwhile, it is even simpler for White, instead of castling on move 11, to play 11.!il..e3;t;, so that he should not worry about the possibility of his centre being undermined.) 12 .. !il..e7 13. iLxe7 CiJxe7 14.b4 a5 15.a3;t; and White preserves plenty of extra space, Siched - Kertesz, Germany 1992; 7 ... ~c7 8.0-0 CiJ8d7. Black forces his opponent to capture on d6, but that exchange is quite 221

Chapter 14

favourable for White under the circumstances. 9.exd6 exd6 10.CtJgS .Jtxe2 1l.~xe2+ .Jte7 12. 14el. Now, in order for Black to castle, he should first protect his bishop with CtJb6-cB and that is unfavourable for him: 12 ... CtJf6 13.CtJf1;!; ~d7 14.iLd2 CtJcB lS.CtJg3 0-0 16. ~d3 CtJb6 17.a4 (17.CtJf5!?;!;) 17 ... I1aeB1B.aS CtJcB 19.a6 iLdB (19 ... b6 20.dS±) 20.axb7 lhe1+ 21Jhe1 t)[xb7 22.b3;!; and Black remains with plenty of weaknesses in a passive position, Filipovic - Baldauf, Zuerich 19BB. White could have also preserved his knight on the d2-square with the idea to deploy it later on e4: 13.b3CtJc8 14.CtJde4 with the following eventual developments: 14 ... 0-0 (14 ... CtJxe4 lS.~xe4 h6 16.CtJf3 0-0 17.~g4 'iti>hB 18.iLf4±) lS.CtJxffi+ iLxffi 16. ~d3 g6 17.~h3 hS 18.iLe3 CtJe7 19.CtJe4 iLg7 20 ..JtgS .Jtxd4 2l. l:Iadl CtJf5 22.iLf6 cS (22 ... iLe5 23.g4+-) 23.g4!±. Black lags in development considerably in both lines, mostly because of the unfortunate placement of his knight on the cB-square; 7 ... CtJa6. This move is with a purposeful idea - it can be placed on c5, or to b4, after the exchange of pawns on e5. That means White should not present his opponent with such possibility. B.O-O CtJd7 9.exd6 (Black's knight is now deprived ofthe c5-square.) 9 ... exd6 10 ..l:.el;!; and White obtained a small, but long-lasting advantage in the game Nunn222

Kovacevic, Thessaloniki 19B4. The game continued: 10 ... iLe7 ll.d5 cS (in case of ll ... cxd5, besides the natural capture of the d5-pawn, White has the dangerous additional resource: 12.CtJd4 iLxe2 13. ~xe2CtJe5 14.CtJf5~ with threats against the g7 -square and along the e-file) 12.CtJg5 0-0 13.iLxg4 iLxg5 14.iLxd7 ~xd7 15.CtJe4 iLxc1 16. ~xc1 I1ad8 17 ..l:!.e3 f6 (17 ... ~f5 18. ~d2;!; L1l:.ae1) 1B.~c2 CtJc7 19. l:.ae1 I1deB 20.h4;!; and White is again clearly better, at least because of the difference of the power of the knights. Black cannot equalize by exchanging on e5 either: B... dxe5 9.CtJxe5 iLf5 (it is too bad for Black to capture the pawn: 9 ... iLxe2 10.~xe2 ~xd4? ll.CtJdf3 ~c5 12.CtJg5 f6 13.~hS+ g6 14. CtJxg6 hxg6 15. t)[xg6+ 'iti>d7 16. :d1+) 10.CtJb3;!; e6?, Siepelt Matthey, Germany 1993, H.cS CtJd7 12.iLxa6 bxa6 13.CtJxc6±. a) 7 ...CtJ8d7 8.0-0

8 ... dxe5 It is worse for Black to exchange his bishop for the knight

4.11':43 i..g4 5.iLe2 c6 6.c4 tDb6 7.tDbd2 tD8d7 8.0-0

immediately - 8 ... iLxf3 9.tDxf3 dxe5 10.dxe5 and now: 10 ... tDc5 - this move is too optimistic - Black begins maneuvering with the knight before the completion of his development. 11.~c2 g612.tDg5 h613.tDe4 tDe6 14.iLe3 iLg7 15.':'ad1 ~c7 16.f4± and White had a great advantage in the game Hardicsay - Niehaus, Balatonbereny 1997, but instead by playing: 13 ... tDxe4 14.~xe4 e6 15.b3 tDd7, Black could have solidified his position. It is obviously simpler for White to play: 12. b4 tDe6 13.a4 iLg7 (after 13 ... a5 14.bxa5 tDd7 15.~b2, Black fails to regain his pawn: 15 ... ~c7 16J~b1 tDdc5 17.tDd4±) 14.a5 tDd7 15.iLb2 ~c7 16. ~e4± and White maintains his space advantage; 10 ... e6 - Black's position remains too bad after that natural move as well. 11.iLd2 tDc5 (This is just a loss of several tempi, but Black's position is too passive anyway: 11 ... ~c7 12.iLc3 0-0-0 13. ~c2 h6 14.a4 'it'b8 15.a5 tDc8 16.b4±. White attacks on the queenside without any counterplay by Black: 16 ... g5 17.h3 iLg7 18.~b2 tDe7 19J~fe1 tDg6 20.iLfl l:thg8 21.b5 c5 22.b6 axb6, Delgado - Podobnik, Dos Hermanas 2004 and here White's simplest line was 23 Jla3, with the idea to double the rooks along the a-file and if necessary to play - iLd3e4. Black has nothing to counter White's attack with. He has tried also 12 ... h6 13.a4 a5 14J:tel.

Black cannot castle anywhere due to his numerous weaknesses on both sides of the board. His counterplay against the e5-pawn is completely fruitless: 14 ... g5 15.~c2 Ji.g7 16.':'adl. Black cannot capture on e5: 16 ... tDxe5 17.tDxe5 iLxe5 18.iLxe5 ~xe5 19.iLh5 ~f6 20.~b3+-. He has great problems to solve too after: 16 ... tDc8 17.tDd4 0-0 18.iLh5~ and White's attack is very powerful, because of the threat to capture on £7, Altshuler - Kopylov, corr. 1970.) 12.~c2 iLe713.b4 tDcd7 14.t'fe4 ~c7. The game Grischuk - Szmetan, Internet 2000, continued 15.iLc3 tDa4 16.iLd20-0 17.iLdl tDab6 18.iLc2 g6 19.h4 ':'fd8 20.h5 tDfB (it is better for Black to play here 20 ... tDxe5 21.tDxe5 ':'xd2 22.hxg6 f5 23.gxh7+ 'it'xh7 24.~e3 iLxb4co) 21.':'ad1 ':'d7 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.g3 ':'ad8 24.'it'g2 a6 25.11h1 f5 26. exf6 iLxf6 27.iLf4+-- ~c8 28 ..l:txd7 :xd7 29.ttJe5 .l::td8 30.tDxg6 i:td4 31.tDe7+. Black's additional possibility on move 20 is just an episode. Meanwhile, White could have avoided that maneuvering with the bishop left and right: 15.a4 0-0 (I5 ... a5 16.bxa5 tDc8 17.l:tabl±) 16.a5 tDc8 17.iLd3± and Black has no counterplay against White's attack, which is running smoothly. 9.tDxe5

(diagram) 9 ••• 4:Jxe5

Black can temporarily refrain from capturing on e5 and af223

Chapter 14 14.dxe5 ~c7 15.lbg5± J:tadB 16. (It is quite advisable for White to try 16.ttJe4!?;t, in order to create the threat lbe4-d6, and at some moment even ~e2-g4 ili.h6, with a slight advantage) 16 ... i.xg5 (It is safer for Black to play: 16 ... g6!? 17.~e2 ':'xdl IB.l:txdl.l:tdB?) 17.i.xg5 l:txdllB. ter: 9 ... i.xe2 10.the2 e6, there l:txdl h6 19.i.h4 (19.i.f6 gxf6 might arise a position, which re- 20.exf6 ~hB 21.~h4 ~h7 22. sembles the classical variation of ~e4=) 19 ... g5 20.i.g3 l:tdB 21.l';ld6 the Karo - Cann Defence (1.e4 (White should better play a c6 2.d4 d5 3.lbc3 dxe4 4.lbxe4 middle game and not an endi.f5), except that White has al- game, therefore it deserves atready castled short. Black has tention for him to play: 21.l:tel developed his bishop outside of l:td2 22.h4 l:txb2 23.hxg5 hxg5 the pawn-chain; he has traded it 24. ~g4 t and the weakening of and he is preparing c6-c5. Still, Black's king might become a tellWhite's chances are superior - ing factor in the future, for exthe knight on e5 is excellent, con- ample: 24 ... ~d8 25.i.h4 f5 26. trary to Black's knight on b6. exf6 ~xf6 27 .l:.xe6 ~f4 2B.l:tg6+ White controls the centre and ~f8 29.~dl l:td2 30.~h5 ~xh4 Black's move c6-c5 is not on the 31. ~f3+-; 29 ... gxh4 30. ~dB+ ~fl agenda yet. White preserves a 31.~gB+-) 21...lbcB and in the slight, but stable edge. 11.lbdf3. game Joachim - Bente, Ger(In case of 11J:tdl with the idea manyl993, Black managed to to place the knight to a more ac- equalize, since he could counter tive square - to e4, and not on f3 22.l:td3 with 22 ...lbe7 23.h4lbf5oo. - Black might play 11...lbxe5 lO.dxe5 12.dxe5 ~d40(). It deserves some attention for White to try 11. lbxd7. Black would like to be able to capture with the knight 11 ... lbxd7, but that is bad, because of 12.d5t. Ie should better play 11.. ..~:hd7 12.lbf3 i.e7 13J~d1;l;; illbe5.) 11...i.e7 12.i.f4 (this move prevents the development of the black queen to c7 and cramps Black's position even lO ... i.f5 more) 12 ... 0-0 13.l:tadl lbxe5 This move is obviously the ~e4

224

4.tDf3 i.g4 5 . .i.e2 c6 6.c4 tDb6 7.tDbd2 tD8d7 8.0-0

best for Black; his bishop is well placed and quite active on that square. 10 ... .i.e6 11.~b3 g6 12.tDf3 .i.g7. In the game N ijboer Landenbergue, Luzern 19B9, White followed with 13.tDg5 and Black had to play not so passively like: 13 ... ~cB 14.f4 0-0 15 ..i.e3 with a great advantage for White, but more actively: 13 ... ~d4 14.CDxe6 fxe6 15.~e3 (15.a4 ~xe5; 15. ~h3 ~xe5 16. Si.g4.l:r.d8 17 .~xe6 l:td6) 15 ... ~xe5 16 ..l:r.ab1 0-0 17 ..l:f.fe1 ~hB with some counter chances. Therefore it is better for White to play: 13.~f4 0-0 14Jiac1 .ltg4 15. ~e3 e6 16.tDg5 (White needs that knight for the threat to occupy the d6-square.) 16 ... ~xe2 17. ~xe2 tDd7 1B.tDf3 (White should have postponed that retreat - it was wiser for him to try: 1B.lIfd1 ~c7 19.1Id6;!::, occupying the outpost on the open file.) 1B ... ~c7 19.~e3 ~b6 20.c5 ~c7 (Black should have grabbed the pawn, according to the principle "it is better to suffer for a reason, after all ... ": 20 ... ~xb2 2 1. J:.fd 1 tDbB 22.lIb1 ~xa2 23Jhb7 CDa6oo) 21JHe1 b6 22.cxb6 tDxb6 23. ~h6;!:: and Black remained with numerous weaknesses to worry about in the game, Moutousis Landenbergue, Haifa 19B9. 10 ... ~xe2 11.~xe2 e6 12.tDf3 (It seems more attractive for White to place his knight to an active position - 12.tDe4, but Black would counter that with:

12 ... ~d4, Auer - Gebhardt, Porz 1990 and White might end up with no compensation for the pawn whatsoever.) 12 ... .lte7 13. l:i.d1 ~c7 (in case of 13 ... tDd7, Fiorito - Szmetan, Villa Martelli 1997, it is better for White to play 14 ..l:Id4;!:: and after 14 ... ~c7 we reach a position that we will analyze sometime later, in the line 13 ... ~c7 14Jid4 tDd7) 14. l:i.d4 0-0 (Black could have postponed castling for a while: 14 ... tDd7 15.lig4 g616 ..lth6;!::. White's rook on the g4-square seems a bit awkward, while Black's king is in the centre, but it is quite functional on the 4th rank. In case of 16 ... 0-0-0, it can attack the flpawn with 17 ..l:i.f4 and after the forced line: 17 ... f6 1B.exf6 ~xf6 19Jie4CDc5 20.1le3;!:: Black is left with a long-term weakness on the e6-square to worry about. His king cannot remain in the centre forever, after all. In the game Mitrovic - L.Popov, Vrnjacka Banja 1996, there followed 16 ... a5 17Jlb1 tDc5 1B.11f4 1:.dB 19.h4 tDd3. Black's activity is quite harmless for White. 20.l:i.d4 l:lxd4 21.tDxd4 tDc5 22.tDf3 ~dB and here, instead of the quite unfortunate operation by White: 23 ..i.g7 .l:r.gB 24. ~d2+ ~cB 25. ~h6 CDd3 26.~xh7 l:i.dB 27 ..i.h6 ~c5 2B.lifl tDxf2 29.~h2 tDg4~ he had better continue with: 23. J:.d1+!? ~cB 24.tDg5± and attack easily Black's weaknesses.) 15.l:tg4 l:tfdB 16 . .lth6. White's threats on the kingside are quite 225

Chapter 14 dangerous at least because ofthe fact that Black's knight on b6 does not participate in the defence at alL 16 ... i.ffi17.~e4 ~d7 1BJlel ~d319.~f4 ~f5? 20.~g3 g6 21..~.xffi .l:i.xffi 22.Ct:Jd4+- and White traps Black's queen, Danailov - Huguet, Zaragoza 1994. It was correct for Black to play 19 .. Jld7;1; and in case of20 ..i.xg7? h5!=t, Black wins suddenly a piece and he defends successfully. White could have played stronger, though: 17. ~e3 g6 (17 ... ~d7 1B ..i.xg7+-) 1B ..i.xffi lhffi 19. ~h6 f6 20.exf611xf6 2l. l:tel± and White maintains an obvious positional advantage, since Black's kingside is extremely vulnerable. 11.~b3

13 ... ltJd5 14.ltJc4 g6 15 ..i.d2;1; but his position remains substantially cramped, because he cannot play e7-e6) 13.g4. This aggressive move is quite playable. (The calmer line: 13.Ct:Jf3 .i.c5+ 14 ..i.e3 ~e7 15.lladl 0-0, led to a comfortable game for Black in the game Walek - Vl.Sergeev, Czech Republic 1999) 13 ... .i.g6 14.f5 and the position turns out to be in favour of White: 14 ... ~xe5 15. ~d3 (15.fxg6 .i.c5+ 16.<;tJhl hxg6-+; 15. ~f3 .i.d6) 15 ... lldB 16.~e4 ~xe4 17.ltJxe4 lld4 1B.ltJg5!? (lB.Ct:Jd2 .i.b4) 1B ... exf5 (lB ... h6 19.fxg6 hxg5 20.gxf7+ <;tJd7 2l.b3±) 19.9xf5 f6 (19 ... h6 20.fxg6 hxg5 21.gxf7+ <;tJd7 22.b3 .i.d6 23.h3±) 20 ..i.e3 nd7 21.fxg6 fxg5 22 ..i.g4 ne7 23 ..i.xg5 .l:i.e5 24.llae1+-. White refrains temporarily from capturing the piece and he obtains a great advantage in all variations. 12.~g3

In case Black does not castle short, White's queen remains a bit misplaced on that square, therefore it deserves attention for him to follow with: 12.ltJf3 1l ... e6 11... ~c7 12.f4 e6 (In case of ~c7 13. ~e3 ltJd7 14.b3 .i.c5 12 ... 0-0-0, besides the calmer 15. ~c3 a5 16 ..i.b2 h6 17.a3 0-0 lines, White can try: 13.c5!?, af- 1B.b4 .i.e7 19.h3 (It is also poster which it is too bad for Black sible for White to play here: to play: 13 ... ltJd7 14.~xf7 e6 19.1tJd4!? .i.h7 20.ltJb3 a4 2l.ltJd4 15.b4 Ct:Jxc5 16.~xc7+ h1 .i.d4 19 ..i.a3 l:tfdB and now, instead of the .i.xa1 20.i.d6±, because White risky line: 21.ltJd4 .i.h7 22.c5ltJd5 remains with a material advan- 23.f4 b6~ Redsven - Puranen, tage. Black should better play: Jyvaskyla 1993, White could 226

4.iDf3 i.g4 5.i..e2 c6 6.c4 iDb6 7.iDbd2 de B.tDe5

have tried the solid move 2l. lIadlt with a minimal positional edge. 12 ....~e7 The move 12 ... t)/d4 presents White with an additional attractive possibility: 13.iDb3 ~e4 14.i..f3 t)/xc4 15.iDa5 t)/b5 (15 ... t)/a6 16.iDxc61') 16.iDxb7 iDd5 17. iDd6+ i..xd6 18. t)/xg7 i..xe5 19. t)/xe51Ig8 20J~e1 0-0-0 2l.i..e3;l;: Rosito - Malbran, Argentine 2003 and Black's king seems vulnerable and he has too many weaknesses. 13.iDf3 0-0-0

following line is in favour of White: 14 ... i..d3 15.i..xd3 1:txd3 16.t)/f4 ffi (16 ... ~b8 17.i..e3 h6 18.a5 iDc8 19.a6 b6 20. ~e4 l:td7 2l.iDd41') 17.i.e3 i.e7 (17 ... a6 18.i..xb6 t)/xb6 19.iDg5) 18.a51', but Black should better react by deploying his knight to the c5square, since White has weakened his queenside: 14 ... iDd7 15. a5 iDc5 16.i..e3 .l:.g8 17.a6 iDxa6 18.i..xa7 c5
White continued with 14.i..e3 and now, instead of 14 ... i..e7, L.Bronstein - Malbran, Buenos Aires 1990, 15. t)/xg7 h5 16. lIadl±, Black could have obtained a powerful counterplay with the move 14 ... iDa4!? attacking the b2-pawn and White has no ways to obtain any advantage at all: 15.iDd4 (15.lIad1 lIxd1 16J:i.xd1 iDxb2
8 •.. i..f5 It is too dangerous for Black to capture the pawn: 8 ... i..xe2 9. ~xe2 ~xd4 (instead it is better for Black to play here 9 ... e6 10.0-0 i..e7 ll.iDdf3 iD8d7 Goloshchapov - Khachatrjan, Nizhnij 227

Chapter 14 Novgorod 1999 - we have already analyzed that position in line a - see 7 ... lDBd7 B.O-O dxe5 9.lDxe5 i.xe2 10. t'txe2 e6 II. lDdf3 i.e7) 10.lDdf3 t'tc5 (l0 ... ~d6 1l.lDg5 f6 12. t'th5+ g6 13. lDxg6 hxg6 14. t'txg6+ ~d7 15. lDf7 t'te6+ 16.i.e3 lth4 17 .ltd1 +Isupov - Klochko, Vladivostok 1995) 11.i.d2lD6d7 12.0-0 lDxe5 13.lDxe5 f6? (l3 ... lDa6 14.b4;\;) 14. t'tg4+- Vogt - Vukic, Zinnowitz 1969. It seems a bit awkward for Black to play: B... i.e6 9.lDe4 f6 10.lDc5 i.gB. In case of 1l.lDf3, White's position is superior after capturing on c4, as well as after Black defends his b7-pawn with: 1l... lDxc4 12.lDxb7 t'tb6 13.b3 (after 13.lDc5, Black would play 13 ... e5, Payen - Horn, Geneva 1990) 13 ... t'tb4+ 14.~f1lDb2 15. i.xb2 t'txb7 16.l::i.cU Glek - Forchert, Bad Wiessee 199B. White has lost his castling rights, but that is immaterial. He has managed to develop his pieces, to trade the dark squared bishops and to exert a powerful pressure against Black's weaknesses: 16 ... i.d5 17.i.c4 e6 1B.t'te2 ~f7 19.h4 lDd7 20J:th3 i.d6 21.lDd2 l:.heB 22.lDe4 t'tc7 23. t'tc2 i.f4 24J:te1 ~gB 25.i.a3 t'ta5 26.~d6 ~xd6 27.lDxd6 .l:!.e7 2B ..l:the3lDf8 29.lDe4 t!.dB 30.lDc5;\; and White's advantage is only minimal, so that line seems to be quite acceptable for Black; 11... t'tc7 12.b3 e5 13.CLle4 CLlBd7 14.dxe5 CLlxe5 15.0-0 i.f7 22B

16.i.b2 CLlxf3+ 17.i.xf3 i.e7 1B.c5. (otherwise Black would gradually manage to equalize) 1B ... lDd5 (V. Bagirov recommended to Black to prevent the sacrifice in this position with the move 1B ... lDcB, but then after, for example 19 ..u.e1 0-0 20.t'tc2;\; Black's knight on cB is obviously misplaced, while White's better piece-placement is quite evident.) 19.1Dd6+ i.xd6 20.cxd6 t'txd6 2I..u.e1+ ~fB 22. t'td41'. White's initiative for the sacrificed pawn is very powerful. Black's king is in danger and he cannot improve its position without creating new weaknesses. Presently, the success of Black's defence hinges on his knight on d5, which defends the squares suitable for penetration. The game continued with: 22 ... h5 23.a4 ~gB 24.i.a3 t'tdB 25.i.c5 b6 (This move has been provoked by White with the maneuver i.a3c5 and it undermines the stability of the knight on d5.) 26.i.a3 l:i.cB 27.l:i.ad1 1:Ic7 2B.b4 ~cB 29. t'td3 (~b5) 29 ... lDf4 30. ~d6 lDg6 3I.i.e4 (Black defence is catastrophically weakened after the retreat ofthe knight from the d5-square.) 31...h4 32.i.cI. (It deserves attention for White to continue with 32.i.f5, for example: 32 ... t'tb7? 33.t'tdB+ ~h7 34JIe4! and White checkmates; or 32 ... t'tbB and now it is quite good for White to follow with: 33.~xg6 i.xg6 34J::re7 IIb7 35. ~e6+ ~h7 36.lhb7 t'txb7 37JId4

4.tbf3 !iLg4 S . .YI..e2 c6 6.c4 tbb6 7.tbbd2 de 8.tDeS

'fftf7 38. 'ffth3 Jl.h5 39.lhh4 'it>g8 40.g4 ~g6! 4l.lIxh5 lhh5 42. ~xh5 ~bl+ 43.~g2 'ffte4+ 44. ~g3 ~d3t; 36. ~xf6 ~xe7 37. ~xe7 ~f4 38.Jl.b2 Jl.f7±, as well as with the less aggressive line 33.Jl.c1 and after the forced 33 ... llb7 - 34. ~xc6±, recapturing the pawn and preserving the dangerous threats.) 32 ... c5. This move loses. (It is more stubborn for Black to defend with: 32 .. J:th5 33.~d8+ ~xd8 34.lIxd8+ ~h7 35.Jl.f4+-; 34 ... tbf8 35.Jl.f4 I;Id7 36.lIxd7 ltJxd7 37.Jl.xc6 tbe5 38.Jl.e4t.) 33.Jl.f5 ~b7 34.Jl.f4+.l:tc6 35. ~d3 c4 36. ~e4 ~h7 (36 ... ltJf8 37.lId8+-) 37.lId7 lIe8 38. l:txb7 l:txe4 39.Jl.xe4 and Black resigned in the game Vogt V.Bagirov, Riga 1981. 9.tbdf3

9 .••tb8d7 9 ... e6?!. This move turns out to be a grave mistake, since Black should not allow his opponent to play ttJf3-g5. 10.ttJg5! iLb4+ 1l...t>f1. Black now loses practically by force after: 11...0-0 12.g4 iLg6 13.c5! ttJc8 (In case Black covers the d-file with the move 13 ...

tb6d7 - White plays: 14.tbxg6 hxg6 15. ~b3 ~a5 16.a3 tba6 and here he has a choice how to win. White preferred: 17.axb4 ~xal 18.~g2+- and he obtained a decisive material advantage, thanks to the threat Jl.cl-d2, in the game, Nikolaidis - Stefanopoulos, Panormo 1998.) 14.h4 f6 15.tbxg6 hxg6 16.Jl.c4! (16. tbxe6 ~d5) 16 .. .fxg5 17.Jl.xe6 I;If7 18. ~b3 ~ffi 19.1:th2! gxh4 20.g5 and Black resigned in the game A.Kovalev - Dreev, USSR 1986. It is a bit more difficult for White after: 11 ... Jl.g6 12.Jl.h5 (12.h4 ltJ8d7 13.tbxd7 ~xd7 14.h5 Jl.f5 15.g4 h6) 12 ... 0-0 (12 ... lIf8 13.c5 tb6d 7 14.tbc4± L\tbd6) 13.Jl.xg6 hxg6 14.h4 (This move brings the rook into action, because Black can defend somehow against the attack with only a queen and a knight: 14. ~g4 ttJ8d 7 15. ~h4 ttJf6 16. iLe3 ~c7 17.g4 c5~) 14 ... tb8d7 (14 ... iLe7 15.'fftg4 tb8d7 16.ttJxg6 tbf6 17 .ltJxe7 + 'fftxe7 18. ~e2±) 15.tbxd7 ttJxd7 16.h5± L\Jl.e7 17.ttJh7±. It is much better for Black to play 9 ... f6. White must be careful now not to lose a pawn, so he should play 10.c5, weakening the d5-square, which becomes an ideal outpost for the black knight. Well, Black has also compromised his position with the move f7-ffi. In answer to 10.c5, he can either capture the knight, or retreat with his knight to the d5-square: 229

Chapter 14

10 ... fxe5 11.cxb6 axb6 (Evidently, the following pawn-sacrifice is not quite correct; 11 ... e6 12.bxa7 ltJd7 13.dxe5 and Black will obviously fail to regain both pawns - on a7 and on e5 - without paying too dear a price: 13 .. .'~a5+ 14 ..Jtd2 .Jtb4 15.0-0 .Jtxd2 16.ltJxd2 ltJxe5 17.ltJc4 ltJxc4 1B ..Jtxc4 0-0 19. ~b3± and Black loses his e6-pawn, A.Rodriguez - G.Garcia, Bayamo 19B9.) 12.ltJxe5ltJd7 13 ..Jtf4ltJf6 14 ..Jtc4 ltJd5. Black's knight is really powerful on this square, but still his weaknesses along the e-file are even more important in this position. Now, instead of the overly aggressive line: 15.g4 .Jte6 16 ..Jtg3 b5 17 . .Jtb3 g6 1B.h4.Jtg7 19. ~e2 (19.h5 .Jtxe5 20 ..Jtxe5 l:t.fB~) 19 ... ltJf4 20 ..Jtxf4 .Jtxb3 21.0-0 l:t.xa2 22. l:txa2 .Jtxa2+ and Black was even better in the game, Wohlfart Zimmermann, Germany 19B9, White had to continue more prudently with: 15.0-0 b5 16 ..Jtb3 g6 17. ~d2 .Jtg7 1B ..Jth6 0-0 19. l:tfel::!;, or 17 ..Jtg5 .Jtg7 1BJlel::!; and that would have preserved a slight advantage for him; Or 10 ... ltJd5 11.ltJc4

230

And now: 11 ... .Jtg6 12.ltJh4 .Jtfl 13.ltJf5 'ific7 14 ..Jtg4 g6 15.ltJh6 (White does not achieve anything substantial after: 15. 'ifie2 gxf5 16. ltJd6+ 'ifixd6 17.cxd6 fxg4 1B.dxe7 .Jtxe7 19. 'ifixg4 ltJd7+) 15 ... .Jtxh6 16 ..Jtxh6 ltJd 7 17. 'ifie2 0-0-0 1B ..Jte6 .Jtxe6 19.'ifixe6 ~bB 20 . 0-0-0 g5 21.g3 ltJfB 22 ..JtxfB l:t.dxfB 23.h4 h6 24 ..l:.de1 'ificB 25. ~e4;!:; and White had a slight edge in the game, Siklosi - Waldmann, St Ingbert 19B9. It looks like White had better castle on move 14, i.e.: 14.0-0 g6 15.ltJh6 .Jtxh616..Jtxh6ltJd717.~a4tand Black's king will be quite unsafe on the queenside; 11...ltJa6 12.0-0 ltJac7 13.ltJh4 .Jte6 14.f4.Jtfl 15.l:t.e1 e6 16.f5 g6 17 ..Jtg4 ~d7. Black's position is solid enough, despite the fact that it does not seem to be harmonious at all. 1B.fxe6+ .Jtxe6 19 ..Jtxe6+ (19.l:t.xe6ltJxe6 20.~b3 l:t.bB 21..Jtd2 f5 22.ltJxf5 gxf5 23 ..Jtxf5 'ifif6+) 19 ... ltJxe6 20.ltJf3 (but not 20.'ifib3ltJxd4 21.~xb7+ ~c7 22.'ifixaBltJf3!+, or 21.~h3+ f5 22.ltJe5+ ~c7 23.ltJfl 'ifif6 24. ltJxhB .Jtxc5 25.~h1 ltJc2+) 20 ... ~c7 21..Jtd211eB 22.b4 b5 23.cxb6 axb6 24. 'ifib3;!:; Kurass - Sergeev, Kiev 19B6. Black's knight on d5 is quite solid, but his king looks vulnerable. White can try here: 16.ltJf5 exf5 17 ..Jth5+ ~d7 lB . .Jtxfl g6 and now the pawn-break 19.94!?, for example: 19 ... fxg4 (19 ... ~cB 20.gxf5 gxf5 21.'ifih5 'ifid7 22 ..Jtd2t) 20.f5 gxf5 21.'ifid3

4J.iJf3 !il.g4 S.i..e2 c6 6.c4 tDb6 7.tDbd2 de B.tDeS ~cB 22. ~xf5+ ~bB 23.i..xd5 tDxd5 24.i..f4+ tDxf4 25. ~xf4+ ~cB 26J:te6±. 9 ... tDBd7 - this move is not so ambitious. Black exchanges the powerful white knight and he does not create any weaknesses yet. 10.0-0 tDxe5 1l.tDxe5 e6 It is also possible for Black to try: 11...ttJd7. This defensive stratagem is quite typical - the powerful pieces of the opponent must be exchanged. 12.i..f4 e6 13.i..f3 tDxe5 (13 ... i..e7 14.d5 tDxe5 15.i..xe5 f6 16.i..c3 cxd5 17.cxd5 e5 Otherwise - the position gets opened. 1B.i..g4 ~d7 19.i..xf5 ~xf5 20.~b3;!;) 14.i..xe5 f6 (White preserves his initiative after: 14... ~d715.~b3 f616.i..g3 0-0-0 17.d5±; 16 ... i..e717.l::tad1 t ~d5) 15.i..g3 i..d6 16.i..h5+ i..g6 17J~e1 i..xg3 1B.hxg3 ~d7 19.d5 cxd5 20.cxd5 e5 21.i..g4 ~d6 22. ~b3 0-0 23.~xb7 i..f7 24. lIad1, L.Bronstein - Malbran, Buenos Aires 1993 and Black will fail to regain his pawn, for example: 24 ... I:tfdB 25.b3 i..xd5? 26.lIxd5+-. 12.i..g4 i.xg4 (diagram) 13. ~xg4;!; A.Sokolov - Zelcic, Torcy 1991. The position has been simplified a bit; nevertheless Black still has problems to solve due to his lag in develop-

ment. As usual, White has a space advantage. Later in the game there followed: 13 ..• tDd7 14.lId1 h5 (This move is too risky, but Black cannot castle kingside without creating some additional weaknesses: 14 ... g6 15.i.g5 i.e7 16.i.h6 ~c7 17.i.f4 i.d6 lB. ~g3 tDxe5 19.dxe5 i..e7 20.i.g5 lIdB 21.i.xe7 ~xe7 22. lId6;!;, and White has penetrated the key d6-outpost.) 15.~e2 i.d6 16.lId3 i.xe5 17.dxe5 ~e7 18.lIg3 ~c5 19.i.f4 ~d4 20.I:t£3 tDb6 21.lIc1 0-0-0 22.i.e3 ~g4 (22 ... ~xe5 23. l:!.xf7;!;) 23.h3 ~g6 24.lIg3 ~e4 25.I:txg7 l:thg8 26.£3 ~xe5 27.1!xf7±. Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient. After 27 ... l:!.g3, White had better play 2B.ttc2 ~.u.dgB 29. i.xb6+-. Sometime earlier, instead of attacking Black's pawns along the third rank with the rook, White could have tried: 1B.i.f4 0-0-0 (lB ... g5 19.i..d2±) 19J:tad1 g5 20.i..d2 tDc5 21.i..b4± - and Black would have plenty of weaknesses to worry about.

231

Chapter 14

Conclusion Black's idea, in the Flohr variation that we havejust analyzed, is to exchange his bishop for White's knight on f3 and to follow that with capturing on e5 (d6xe5) and attack White's e5-pawn later in the game. We recommend to you to counter that idea with Levenfish's move 6.tiJbd2, after which it becomes senseless for Black to exchange White's knight on f3 with the bishop, since White would capture with the knight and not with the bishop. As a rule, Black usually exchanges on e5 and then White captures with his knight, so Black is faced with a choice. He can trade bishops on e2 and knights on e5, but then the d6square becomes terribly weak. This is in fact one of the essential positional drawbacks of the Flohr variation. Black can also exchange only on e2 and then avoid the trade on e5, but his position remains too passive, nevertheless solid enough. He can capture on e5 too and then retreat his bishop to the f5square, but that leads to a considerable space advantage for White. Finally, Black can try 7 ... dxe5 B.tru:e5 iLe6, or B... lLf5 9.tiJdf3 f6 and then he can exploit the d5-outpost for his pieces, but only at the expense of weakening of his position. We have recommended to you clear and straightforward ways for White to maintain his opening advantage in all lines.

232

Chapter 15

l.e4 lbf6 2.e5 lbd5 3.d4 d6 4.lbf3 i.g4 5 ...te2 e6

does not achieve much with: 8.c4 liJ5b6 9.i.xb7 ~b8 10.i.a6 dxe5co Knuetter - Gerards, Cologne 1993. It is therefore simpler for him to follow with: 8.exd6 and Black loses a pawn in all variations: 8 ... i.xd6 (8 ... c6 9.c4 and c4c5; 8 ... cxd6 9.c4±) 9.c4 i.b4+ 10. ~f1- Black has no way to exploit that placement of White's king6.h3 Presently, it is considered 10 ... liJ5f6 1l.c5 c6 12. ~b3; 7 ... dxe5? 8.c4 liJb6 (8 ... liJb4 that the exchange on f3 is unfavourable for Black at this mo- 9.i.xb7 liJ8c6 10.i.xa8 liJxd4 ment, so it is obviously useful for 1l.i.e4+- Dominguez - Abreu, White to include the moves h3 Havana 2001) 9.i.xb7±, White and i.h5, because he not only has has won the exchange and he an escape-square for his king, should only demonstrate accubut he has an additional resource rate technique in order to real- g2-g4. ize his material advantage, for 6 ... i.h5 example: 9 ... liJ8d7 10.i.xa8 i.b4, The trade for Black 6 ... .Jtxf3 Solomaha - S.Pavlov, Kiev 2005, 7.i.xf3, enables White to create 11.~f1 (11..~d2 i.xd2+ 12.liJxd2 the threat c2-c4, followed by cap- ~xa8 13.0-0 exd4 14. ~g4±) 11 ... turing on b7 and it reduces ~xa8 12.c5+- and White even Black's possibilities consider- wins one more piece; ably: 7 ... liJc6 8.c4 liJb6 9.exd6 cxd6 Black loses material after: 10.d5 exd5 (10 ... liJe5? 11.dxe6 7 ... i.e7? 8.c4 liJb6 9.i.xb7+- Tar- fxe6, Kiernan - Ait Hamido, Thessaloniki 1984. White preres - Morato, Tordera 1996; It is slightly better for him to serves a great advantage by playtry instead: 7 ... liJd7. Now, White ing: 12.i.xb7 J:.b8 13.i.a6±) 11. 233

Chapter 15 ..txd5 ttJxd5 12. '§xd5 ~h4. This is an active counterattacking move, but Black should have possibly left his queen on the d8square and played instead ..te7 and 0-0. That can hardly change the evaluation of the position, though: 13.0-0 iLe7 14 ..l:te1 0-0 15.ttJc3;l;;. White's positional edge is stable and long-lasting - his pawn-structure is superior and he enjoys the d5-outpost for his knight. Black's attempt to complicate matters after: 15 ... ttJb4 16:~xb7 ttJc2 17 ..l:e4 ~h5 18 ..l:lb1 iLf619.~d5 iLe5 20.c5+-left him without any compensation for the missing pawn, Agdestein Kopylov, Kiel 2000; It is the best for Black to play here: 7 ... c6 8.c4 ttJb6 9. ~b3. White has defended his c4-pawn and he is already threatening to capture on d6, so Black's response is practically forced: 9 ... dxe5 (It is useless for Black to play 9 .. :~h4, since the threat exd6 comes again on the agenda.) 10.c5 ttJd5 11.'§xb7 ttJd7, Seidman - Levy, New York. White's position is still preferable after: 12. ~xc6 exd4 13.iLg5;l;;. There might follow: 13 .. ..l::f.c8 (Black loses after 13 ... ..te7 14 ..txe7 r:Ji;xe7 15.iLxd5+-. In case of 13 ... ~c8, White should better continue with: 14.i.xd5 exd5 15. ~xd5 iLxc516.,§e4+ r:Ji;f8 17.0-0;l;; and Black's position remains clearly worse due to his lag in development.) 14. ~xd5 exd5 15. iLxd8. After capturing on d8, 234

White follows with b2-b4 and he obtains two connected passed pawns against Black's doubles dpawns. This is clearly quite favourable for White in case of calm developments, so we will analyze the consequences of Black's attempt to undermine White's b-pawn with: 15 ... .l:!.xd8 (15 ... ~xd816.b4 ttJe5 17.a3 ttJxf3 18.gxf3 iLe7 19.'it>e2 ':e8 20. ~d3;l;;) 16.b4 ttJe5 17.a3 a5 18. ~e2 d3+ (18 ... ttJxf3 19.~xf3 .l:!.b8 20.ttJd2 axb4 21.axb4 lhb4 22. 1:ta7±; 18 ... :b8 19.iLxd5 axb4 20.axb4 .l:lxb4 21.1:ta8+ ~d7 22. l1c1±) 19.~d2 ttJxf3+ 20.gxf3l1b8 21.ttJc3 axb4 22.axb4 lhb4 23. .l:a7+-. It now has become obvious that the opening of the game can only be favourable for White. 7.c4 ttJb6

8.exd6 Until the middle of the 90ies of the last century, the line 8. 0-0 iLe7 9.ttJc3 0-0 10.iLe3 d5 n.c5 iLxf3 12.gxf3 ttJc8 used to be considered as the best for White. Later, in connection with the new plan that we recommend to you - this theoretical evaluation has changed.

5.iLe2 e6 6.h3 iLh5 7.c4 tDb6 B.ed cd 9.tDc3 8 ... cxd6 9.tDc3 iLe7 After 9 ... tDSd7 10.d5 and in case of 10 ... exd5 (10 ... e5 l1.g4 iLg6 12.h4, leads by transposition to our main line - see 9 ... iLe7.) White can continue, ignoring the eventual loss of the c4pawn, with: 1l.tDxd5;t .txf3?! (White remains with a stable positional edge, in case Black does not try anything extraordinary, because of the vulnerability of the d6-square.) 12 ..txf3 tDxc4?, but all that is bound to end up in a disaster for Black: 13.0-0 tDce5 14.l:.el.te7 15.tDxe7 'fftxe7 16 ..txb7, since he loses material, for example after: 16 ... ItbS 17.iLc6 0-0 IS ..txd7 'fftxd7 19J:txe5+-.

lO.d5 This move has appeared relatively recently and it has been recommended by the leading Moldavian theoretician A.Chebanenko. It was tried (in its main line - 10.d5 e5 1l.g4) for the first time by Y.Bologan in his game against S.Adgestein at the Olympiad in Erevan in 1996. White's idea is somewhat non-standard - he usually plays d4-d5 in this

pawn-structure only in case Black's knight is already on the c6-square, since that forces the weakening of Black's pawnchain. He is thus forced to either capture on d5 and he remains with an isolated d6-pawn, otherwise White would be able to capture on e6 and then both black central pawns e6 and d6 become vulnerable. The way White is playing now - Black has the option to continue with e6-e5, preserving compact pawn-structure and later he can hope to advance his e and f-pawns. It is evident why White had refrained to try that until the middle of the 90ies. It turns out however, that Black's central pawns are going nowhere and White can easily prevent f7f5 with the active move g2-g4 and then he can occupy the important e4-square. In general, this idea leads to positions with a huge space advantage for White and a powerful initiative for him. lO ... e5 White is obviously better after: 10 ... exd5, Alavkin - Bratchenko, Russia 1997, l1.tDxd5 0-0 12.0-0;t and Black's attempt to win a pawn fails after: 12 ... .txf3 13 ..txf3 tDxc4, because of: 14.'fftc2 tDe515.i.e4 tDbc6 (15 ... g6 16.tDc7±) 16.i.xh7+ 'it>hS 17.f4±. It deserves some attention for Black to try: 10 ... 0-0 1l.dxe6 fxe6 12.tDd4 i.f7 13.0-0 tDc6 (or 13 ... tDSd7 14.iLe3 tDe5 15.b3;t) 14.i.e3 ~hS 15.b3 d5 16.cxd5 235

Chapter 15 exd5. He has relatively lively piece-play and it compensates somehow the vulnerability of his isolated pawn. 17:~d2 ttJd7 lB. ttJf5 (lB.nad1 ~a5~, planning to continue with i.b4) 1B ... ltJf6. This interesting idea is in the spirit of the Tarrasch Defence. The two bishop advantage is less effective than usual in positions with an isolated d5-pawn. (After 1B ... i.f6, White preserves a slight advantage with: 19.':ad1 i.e6 20.ttJd4ltJxd4 21..txd4 ':c8 22 ..txf6 ltJxf6 23.i.f3 ~b6 24. l:tfe1 .tf7 25.l:te3t.) 19.1tJxe7 ~xe7 20.ltJb5 ltJe4 21. ~b2 a6 22.ttJd4 ~f6 23J1ac1 ttJe7 24. ~a3t. White dominates on the dark squares and he can attack effectively Black's queenside, so he is clearly better. Later, the game Gongora - Nogueiras, Holguin City 2002, followed with: 24 ... l:taeB 25.:c71? ltJc6 26.ltJxc6 bxc6 27.~xa6 (It deserved some attention for White to try the more prudent 27. i.f31?;t.) 27 ... d4 2B.l:!.xc6 (2B.i.c1 i.d5iii) 2B ... 'i::'te5. White made a mistake in that position; he retreated his bishop to c1 and relinquished the initiative. Meanwhile, he should have continued with: 29.f4 ~e7 (29 .. :~d5 30.i.c4 ~d7 31.i.xfl ~xfl 32.l::tdl±) 30. i.xd4 and Black cannot win the exchange with: 30 ... ttJg3, because of 31.i.d3ltJxfl 32 ..l:th61+-. 1l.g4 White must play that move; otherwise Black would castle 236

and follow with fl-f5 and he will have an active position in the centre and on the kingside, while his queenside would be solid enough too. White should not be deterred by the weakening of his kingside by the move g2-g4. He occupies space and he obtains eventually the excellent e4square for his knight. White's king is presently quite safe in the centre and he should not be in a hurry to castle. Concerning Black - there is only one way for him to obtain an active counterplay and that is to deploy his knight to the c5-square and to follow that with e5-e4 and after White plays b3-b4 - check with the knight on the d3-square. In case that plan fails, Black would remain in a rather passive, but relatively solid position and he should try to prepare gradually some actions on the queenside. 1l ••• i.g6 12.h4

Black can play in the arising position either el) 12...h5, or the more prudent line - e2) 12•.. h6. White remains with an extra pawn in the variation: 12 ... e4 13.ltJg5 0-0 (13 ... i.xg5 14.i.xg5

5.iLe2 e6 6.h3 iLh5 7.c4 tjjb6 8.ed cd 9.tjjc3 f6 15 ..ltf4 h6 16.h5 .lth7 17.tjjb5 tjjc8 18.c5!+-; 13 ... h6 14.tjjgxe4 0-0 15.g5 f5 16.gxf6 .ltxf6 17. tjjxf6+ ~xf6 18 ..lte3± Vozovic Le Thanh Tu, Oropesa del Mar 2001) 14.tjjgxe4 l:te8 15. ~d4± Messa - Corvi, Italia 1997.

cl) 12 ...h5 13.g5 This move enables White to cramp his opponent even more and additionally Black is left with another weakness - the h5pawn.

13 ...tjj8d7 It seems quite dubious for Black to play 13 ... 0-0, because of the vulnerability of his h5-pawn that we have already mentioned. Later, in the game Guseinov Podobnik, Dos Hermanas 2004, there followed: 14.tjjd2 tjj8d7 15 ..ltxh5 !:.c8 16.b3 tjjc5 17 ..ltxg6 fxg6 18.tjjde4 tjjxe4 19.tjjxe4± and Black had no compensation for the pawn whatsoever. 13 ... tjj6d7 (That is the standard maneuver of the knight to the c5-square, but still it is better for him to play 13 ... tjj8d7, in order to be able to attack the c4pawn later.) 14 ..lte3 ct:Ja6 15.a3

tjjac5 16.b4 tjje4 17.tjjxe4 iLxe4 18 ..ltd3 .ltxd3 19. t'txd3 g6 20. tjjd2;!; (This is the natural and powerful redeployment of the knight.) 20 ... a5 21.'it>e2 0-0 22. tjje4;!;. White enjoys a space advantage and he has a clear-cut plan to attack on the queenside connected with the pawn-advance c4-c5. It is amazing, but Black cannot prevent that plan even with the move: 22 ... b6 23.c5 bxc5 24.bxc5 ~c5-c6 and Black cannot play 24 ... tjjxc5 25.iLxc5 dxc5 26.d6±. In the game Pinto Coelho - Merg Vaz, Dos Hermanas 2003, Black played 22 ... 'it>g7 23.c5 f5? and he lost promptly after: 24.gxf6+ tjjxf6 25.tjjg5+-. 13 ... .ltf5 14.tjjd2 g6 15.tjjde4 t'tc8 16 ..lte3;!;. As it often happens in cramped positions like that, Black's pieces have no good squares and they stand in each other's way, Nevednichy - Loviscek, Nova Gorica 2002. Mter 13 ... tjja6 14 ..lte3 tjjb4 (14 .. ..!::tc8 15.b3 tjjc5, Vescovi Mayer, Bad Zwesten 2001, even after 16.l:tg1 the game transposes to the main line 13 ... tjj8d 7, except that Black's knight has come to the c5-square via a6 and not the d7-square. The move 14 ... tjjb4 - is an attempt by Black to exploit the placement of the knight on a6.) 15J::tc1 e4 16.tjjd4 tjjd3+ 17.iLxd3 exd3 18. b3;!; Delgado - Almeida, Holguin 2002, and Black's d3-pawn has become a juicy target. Black cannot compensate its weakness, 237

Chapter 15 because he has practically no targets for a counterattack. The game continued with: lB ... 'fIfd7 19.f4 (This is White's simplest plan to press his advantage home.) 19 ... 0-0 20.~f3. White is threatening to follow with: f4-f5. 20 ... .i.f5 21.ttJxf5 'fIfxf5 22"~e4 'fIfg4 23.f5! ttJd7 24.'iii'd2 4Je5 25. 'fIfxg4 hxg4 26 . .i.f4 f6 27 ..i.xe5 fxe5 2B.1:.cfl 1:.f7 29. 'it'xd3 a6 30J~hg1 and Black resigned. 14.iL.e3

14....l:tc8 14 ... ~cB. This move is with the idea to place the knight on the c5-square, the queen on f5 and to create the threat to check on d3. In the game Braun Duemmke, Weilburg 199B, there followed: 15.b3 ttJc5 16.~gl f5 17.~d2 0-0 1B.0-0-0 4Je4 19. 4Jxe4 ~xe4? White plans to castle long, but this idea is not impressive at all, since the king would be quite vulnerable there. He could and should have tried instead: 16.4Jd2 ~f5 17 ..i.xc5 dxc5 1B ..if3, followed by .i.e4. Still, the best for White was to counter 14 ... 'fIfcB with 15.'u'c1! 23B

(He could not capture on c4 anyway, because of the pin of the knight. White thus prevents the accomplishment of Black's plan, because now after 15 ... 4Jc5, White follows with 16.b4± and c4-c5 with a great advantage. 14 ... a6. The idea ofthat move is to place the queen on c7, the knight on c5 and then to redeploy the other knight to the d7square with the object to prepare in the future the undermining pawn-move b7-b5. 15.b3 ~c7 16 ..i.d3 0-0 17.4Je4 .i.xe4 (Naturally, Black was not forced to give his bishop, but he intends to place his knight on c5, while the line: 17 ... 4Jc5 1B.4Jxc5 dxc5 19 . .i.xg6 fxg6 20.4Jd2 4JcB 21. ~c2 'iii'h7 22.4Je41' is not favourable for him at all.) 1B ..i.xe4 g6 19. 4Jd2 4Jc5. The game continued with: 20.'fIfc2 4Jxe4 21.~xe4 (21. 4Jxe4? 4Jxd5) 21...ttJd7 22.0-0 4Jc5 (22 ... 'it'h7! ~23.f4 f5?) 23. .i.xc5!? 'fIfxc5 24.'iii'h1l:IaeB 25.f4 exf4 26.l:Iae1! 'fIfcB 27.~g2 'fIfg4?! (o27 ....i.dB!? 2B.4Je4 ~c7 29.lhf4 l:te5oo) 2B. 'fIfh2? (It was correct for White to follow here with: 2B. 'fIfxg4! hxg4 29.J:.e4! f5 30.gxf6 J:.xf6 31.~fxf4 l:.xf4 32.l:.xf4 .i.xh4 33.4Je4 .i.e7 34.'it'g2t) 2B ... .i.dB!=t and Black's powerful counterplay settled the outcome convincingly: 29.4Je4 f3 30.~gl ~xe4! 31.l:Ixg4 x:!.xe1+ 32J:tg1 .l:tfeB 33. 'fIff2 ~le2 34. 'fIfg3 .i.b6 35.~f1 l:tBe4 36. 'fIfh3 x:!.g4! and White resigned, Vescovi - Leitao, Brazil 199B. Of course, White's play can

5.i..e2 e6 6.h3 i..h5 7.c4 tbb6 S.ed cd 9.tbc3 be easily improved - the fact itself that he had to capture on e4 with the queen and not with the knight is quite indicative that he did not play well. It deserved attention, for example, for White to have played: 20 ..i.c2!? At first, according to the well-known principle, it is better to avoid exchanging pieces when you have a space advantage. Secondly, the bishop prevents reliably Black's move f7-f5 - his g6-pawn would be hopelessly weak after it. Finally, Black has but one good square for his two knights - the c5square, so one of the knights is obviously ineffective. 20 .. J1ac8 (Black cannot change much with: 20 ... a5 21.11bU;.) 21..I:.c1 it.d8 22. ~f3 a5 23.'itfl tbbd7 24.'itg2;t (this move is recommended by A.Finkel) and White has the advantage. He has restricted Black's counterplay and he can prepare the plan with b3-b4 at leisure. 15.b3 tbc5 16.l':.gl tbbd7 17.b4;;l; In case the black knight retreats, White would follow with a2-a3 and then he would try to deploy his knight to e4. Mter 17 ... tbe4, White, just like we have mentioned in our notes to Black's move 13 of the game Pinto Coelho - Merg Vaz, Dos Hermanas 2003, captures on e4, exchanges the light squared bishops and brings his knight to e4 with a clear advantage.

The only way for Black to justify the idea tbc5 is to follow with: 17... e4 18.tbd2 tbd3+ 19.'it>f1 Now, it is already too dangerous for White to capture the d3pawn, because of the possibility tbd7-e5. 19••• tbxb4 20.tbdxe4 0-0

.r::,.tLJ.

~.J.~ ~8!!"W"'i • • ~

'~i~.~·~i~ ~ ~-al~ ~ ~.,m

~

~ ,

r::,.

~ n,

~

•• .t~ ~ .

.~.

Oi ~

~. f&i~, f&i~.~ !fLJ ~ ~ .~O f# ~ 'iV~ ~~'%

21..i.d4t Black's kingside is under threats now, since after the capture on h5 - White can continue with h4-h5-h6 quite dangerously. 21. .. ,Ue8 22.a3 tba6 23.i..xh5 Il.xc4 24.i..e2 ~c8. Black is forced to leave his rook en-pris in order to preserve some counter-threats. 25.h5 i..f5 26. l:i.g3. It might have been better for White to play here: 26.h6 i..f8 27,f3, because his threats on the kingside are quite dangerous (for example hxg7 and tbf6+) , while Black's counterplay is presently non-existent. 26 ... i..f8 27.Ite3 ctJb6 28.i..xb6 lIcxe4 29.ctJxe4 iLxe4 30.~xa7± and Black's compensation for the exchange is hardly sufficient. Hamdouchi - Baburin, Saint Vincent 2000. 239

Chapter 15 c2) 12 ..•h6

13.i..d3 i..xd3 Black can also try another idea here - to enable White to trade bishops on g6, but to open the f-file: 13 .. :~cB 14.i..xg6 fxg6. He relies to obtain a lively piececounterplay on the kingside as a compensation for his compromised pawn-chain. 15.tDd2 0-0 (15 ... tDxc4? 16.'~a4) 16.b3 ~f4 17.g5!±. This is the best way for White to defend his pawn; otherwise his whole kings ide gets weakened after the move £2f3. In the game Bologan - Agdestein, Erevan 1996, White brought his knight to the e4square, deployed his bishop on e3 and castled long. Then he exploited Black's weaknesses on the kingside: 17 ... hxg5 (After 17 ... h5, Black could have closed the h-file, but he would be left without any targets for counterplay.) 1B.hxg5 ~f5 19. ~e2 tDa6 20.tDde4 11f3 21.i..e3 tDd7 22. 0-0-0 tDdc5 23.':'h4! l:Ih3 24.tDg3 ~d7 25.':'xh3 ~xh3 26.~c2 ~f7 27.a3!+-. Followingb3-b4, Black would have no active pieces whatsoever. 27 .. :~g4 2B.b4 .txg5 240

29.i..xg5 ~xg5+ 30.~b2 tDd7 31.t2Jge4 ~h4 32.tDxd6+ ~gB 33.f3 ~f6 34.c5 ~xf3 35. ~xg6 ~£2+ 36.~b1 tDf8 37:~h5 ~g2 3B.tDce4 tDg6 39.tDg5 ~g3 40. ~h7+ ~f8 41.tDe6+ and Black resigned. Black can try the same idea with: 13 ... tDBd714.i..xg6 fxg6 15.b3 (15. ~e2!? 0-0 16.g5 h5 17.tDd2 tDc5 1B.tDde4) 15 ... 0-0 16.g5 (Now, contrary to the game Bologan - Agdestein, Erevan 1996, in which Black had counterattacked energetically White's pawns, the g4-pawn was not under any threat, so it deserved attention for White to play 16. .te3;!;; - that move might be useful anyway. In case the black queen leaves the dB-square White can continue even without the move g4-g5 - the h4-pawn would not be hanging then and he can play tDd2-e4 immediately. Following some waiting move by Black, White can play g4-g5 and he would be in a superior situation in comparison to the game that we have already analyzed.> 16 ... h5 17.tDd2 tDc5 IB.tDde4 (lB.~e2!?) 1B ... tDbd719.i..e3 ~a5 20.0-0. The opponents agreed to a draw here in the game Balogh - Laketic, Novi Sad 2003, but possibly that was at least slightly premature. White's king is completely safe and the weakness of the f5-square is irrelevant. He can counter Black's play: 20 ... tDxe4 21.tDxe4 b5, with 22.~d2;!;; preserving a slight advantage.

5.iLe2 e6 6.h3 iLh5 7.c4 0.b6 B.ed cd 9.0.c3 14.'l*xd3

14.•. 0.Sd7, Daels - Danneel, Brugge 1997. It is hardly advisable for Black to try here: 14 ... 'l*c7, Guseinov - Aliev, Baku, 200 l. The move b2-b3 is an integral part of White's plan anyway, while the placement ofthe black queen on c7 is not so advantageous. 15.b3 0.a6 16.i.e3 0.d7 17.0.d20.ac5 18.'l*e2 0.f6 19.f3 'l*a5 20.l::tc1 l::tc8 2l.i.xc5 'l*xc5 22.0.de4 ~b4 23.0.xf6+ i.xf6 24.'l*d2 a6 25.0.e4 'l*xd2+ 26. 'itxd2;t and White maintains a clear positional advantage in the endgame. The sharp lines after: 14 ... 'l*c8 15.b3 'l*xg4 (It deserves attention for Black to play here 15 ... 0.a6!?, in order to activate the knight, ignoring White's threat to capture the g4-pawn.) 16 ..:tg1 'l*h5 17.l'hg7 f5, bring success to White: 18.0.b5 'itfB (18 ... e4 19.~d4+-; 18 ... 0.a6 19. i.a3 e4 20.~c3+-) 19JIxe7 'itxe7 20.i.a3 e4 (20 ... 11d8 21.0.xe5 0.a6 22.'itd2 0.c5 23.i.xc5 dxc5 24J1e1 +- Lacau Rodean - 10nescu, Calimanesti 2000) 21.

~d4+-. It is slightly better for Black to play: 17 ... 'itfB 18J1g1 11g8 19.11xg8+ 'itxg8 20.0.e4;(;, but even then he would be in a serious trouble, because of the vulnerability of his king. There were two games played in the line: 14 ... 0.a6 15.i.e3. In the game Lopez Guaita - Palacios Latasa, Aragon 1999, there followed: 15 ... 0.d7 (15 .. .'~c7. This maneuver now, just like on move 14, is not purposeful. 16.b3 0.d7 17.0.d2;t d0.de4 Daels Szamos, Tatranske Zruby 2003). White maintains his advantage now with: 16. 'l*e2 0.dc5 17. 0-0-0;(;, followed by the standard maneuver with the knight to the e4-square and in case Black castles short - a direct kingside attack. 15.iLe3 'l*cS 16.0.d2 0.c5 In case of 16 ... 0-0, White should play 17.g5;t directly.

17.i.xc5 This exchange leaves Black with a "bad" bishop against White's knight and it is favourable for White as a rule. 17 ... 'l*xc5 IS.b3 0-0 Or 18 ... 'l*c819.~g3 0-0 20.g5 241

Chapter 15 'it>h7 21.~d3+ 'it>h8 22.'~e3;J;;. 19.1bde4 ~b4 20.~h3 White's queenside has been weakened by the move b2-b3; moreover his dark squared bishop has already been exchanged. It is therefore dangerous for him to castle long, because of the possibility a7-a5-a4. White defends his h4-pawn with his last move and he prepares castling short. His king would be safe there, because Black's pieces are too passive on that side ofthe board and his queen is too far away. 20 .•• ttJd7 21.0-0 ttJc5

22.g5;J;;. White maintains the opening advantage thanks to his extra space, better pawn-structure and the control over the all-important e4-outpost. The mobility of the black bishop is quite restricted.

Conclusion The move 5 ... e6 is considered to be the main line in the system 2.e5 ttJd5 3.d4 d6 4.ttJ{3 jLg4 5.i.e2. Black postpones the development of his knight on b8 and develops his other pieces instead. During the middle of the 90ies of the last century, there appeared a new and quite promising line for White - 6.h3 iLh5 7.c4 ttJb6 8.exd6 cxd6 9.ttJc3 i.e7, and now 1O.d5!? e5 1l.g4!? jLg6 12.h4. White occupies plenty of space on the kingside and thus balances Black's pawnmajority there. On top of everything, White has a wonderful knight on the e4-outpost. He achieves all that, by weakening his position a bit indeed, but it seems like Black's attempts to attack White's c4 and g4-pawns, as well as the ideas for Black to play e5-e4 and bring his knight to the d3-square are not good enough for him to equalize. White preserves superior chances in all variations.

242

Part 4 l.e4 e6 2.d4 without 2 ... d5

if you read our volume 6. Black is however under no obligation to stick to that move only and he can vary with something else on his move two. Still, it is evident that all similar experiments (with the exception of the move 2 ... c5) would not bring him any positive results that he Having played the move can brag about and all of them 1.. .e6, Black has demonstrated would lead to positions that are his intention to enter the French anything else, but French DeDefence. Indeed, after 2.d4, he fence. White, of course, would plays 2 ... d5 in 99% of the games hardly win the game immediand I recommend to White to fol- ately, but he will maintain a low with 3.tDc3 etc. - you can great opening advantage and study these variations in details that is something you can bet on.

243

Chapter 16

l.e4 e6 2.d4

moves: a) 2 •.• ~e7?!, b) 2 •••ltJe7?!, c) 2 ••• d6?!, and d) 2 ••. f5?!. All these tries by Black do not contribute to the development of his pieces and the fight for the centre. In fact, the most reasonable move among the seldom played attempts is - e) 2 ••• ltJc6. We will deal in this chapter with some seldom played lines for Black on move two. They most often lead to transpositions to other openings, for example: 2 ... c6 3.ltJc3 d5 (about 3 ... d6 4.f4 - see 2 ... d6 3.ltJc3 c6 4.f4) 4. ltJf3 - see Book 3, Chapter 5; 2 ... c5 3.ltJf3 - transposes to the Sicilian Defence (1.e4 c5 2.ltJf3 e6 3.d4); 2 ... ltJf6 3.e5ltJd5 4.ltJf3 -leads to the Alekhine Defence (1.e4 ltJf6 2.e5 ltJd5 3.d4 e6?! 4.ltJf3); About 2 ... a6 3.ltJf3 b5 4.i.d3 i.b7 - see L.a6 2.d4 e6 3.ltJf3; 2 ... b6 3.ltJ£3 - see L.b6 2.d4 e63.ltJf3; 2 ... g6?! 3.ltJc3 i.g7 4.h4 - see page 269, Book 4. Now, the only possible originallines arise after the dubious 244

a) 2 .••~e7?! 3.ltJf3 d6 3 ... d5 4.ltJc3 - see 2 ... d5 (Book 6); 3 ... ltJf6 4.e5 ltJd5 - see 1.e4 ltJf6. The move 3 ... a5?! does not help Black's development and his fight for the centre Naimsky - Cerovic, Elancourt 2003, and after the simple move 4.~d3± White's advantage is more than obvious. 3 ... c6?! 4.~d3 d5 (It is quite against the opening principles for Black to play: 4 ... a5? Seifert - Plietz, Griesheim 2003, 5.0-0±; Black only loses time with the move: 4 ... c5, Stanning - Petrou, Box Hill 2001, 5.0-0±.) 5.e5 f6 6.0-0 b6 Hermann - Engelbrecht, Koenigshofen 1999, and here White's simplest positional decision is 7 .c4± with a powerful

1.e4 e6 2.d4 pressure in the centre. 3 ... b6 4 ..td3 ..ta6, Beier Wunder, Schney 1993 (About 4 ... d5 5.lLlc3 - see 2 ... d5; 4 ... .tb7 5.0-0 - see l.e4 b6 2.d4 .tb7 3 ..td3 e6 4.lLlf3 ..te7 5.0-0; 4 ... lLlc6 5.c3 h6 6.0-0 d6 7.lLlbd2 a6 8. ~e2 lLlf6 9Jldl± Machata Benova, Kaskady 2002), after 5.c4 d5 (otherwise the move Ba6 would simply remain a loss of time) 6.exd5 exd5 7.cxd5 .txd3 8. ~xd3 ~xd5 9.0-0 lLlf6 10.lLlc3± White maintains a great lead in development. 4 •.td3

4 ...lLlf6 Alack can also try some other moves: 4 ... b6 5.0-0 .ta6 (5 ... ..tb7 see l.e4 b6) 6.c4±; 4 ... .td7?! - this is hardly the best place for Black's bishop. 5. 0-0 lLlc6 6.a3 h6, Besse - Al Zendani, Bled 2002, and here after 7.e5± Black has serious problems to complete his development; In answer to 4 ... lLld7, Thiele - Craggs, Toronto 1997, White's simplest line is: 5 ..if4 lLlgf6 6. 0-0 0-0 7.~e2± and he domi-

nates in the centre with a superior development; After 4 ... h6 5.0-0 lLlf6, Schneider - Daguzon, Bad Woerishofen 1992, White maintains his advantage with practically every reasonable move, for example: 6. e5±, occupying additional space; The move 4 ... c5?! - leads either to a loss of time, or Black is left with a passive pawn-structure: 5.dxc5 ~a5+ (after 5 ... dxc5 6.e5 lLlc6 7.c3 ~c7 8.~e2 .td7 9.0-0± Black has problems to obtain any counterplay) 6.lLlc3 ~xc5 7.0-0 lLlf6 8 . .te3± and White's lead in development is overwhelming, Balvanyos Vereckei, Hungary 1993; 4 ... lLlc6 5.c3 lLlf6, Philip Butt, Dubai 1996 (after 5 ... .tf6 Farley - Harewood, Bridgetown 2005, it seems logical for White to complete his development with: 6.0-0 lLlge7 7J:te1 lLlg6 8 . .te3;t and he is dominant in the centre, while Black would hardly create any effective counterplay), 6.0-0 0-0 7 ..tf4;t; 4 ... c6 5.0-0 lLld7, Martin Carril, Spain 1998, and here White should better play the simple: 6.e5±, maintaining a great space advantage, meanwhile Black's light squared bishop is bound to remain isolated for a long time. 5.0-00-0 Jovkova Draganova - Kostov, Elenite 1986. 6.e5 dxe5 7.dxe5lLlfd7 Or 7 ... lLld5 8.a3± and White 245

Chapter 16 easily repels Black's knight away from the centre. 8.~e2 tDc5 9 •.1l.c4±

White's powerful e5-pawn provides him with a stable edge. He enjoys a space advantage and excellent possibilities for active play in the centre as well as on both flanks of the board. b) 2 ••• tDe7?! 3.tDc3

3 ... d6 Alack has also tried here some other moves, but his knight on e7 is so misplaced, since it hampers the development of his kingside, that Black's chances to equalize are just superficial. About 3 ... d5 4.tDf.3 - see 2 ... d5 (Book 6). 3 ... f5, Heral - A.Anderssen, Vienna 1873. This move compro246

mises Black's kingside and does not contribute to his development. White's most energetic reaction to it is the move: 4 ..1l.g5!, making a good use of the fact that 4 ... h6 leads to a difficult endgame for Black after: 5. ~h5+ g6 6 . .1l.xe7 gxh5 7 ..1l.xd8 ~xd8 8.exf5 exf5 9.0-0-0±. 3 ... b6 4.f4 g6 (or 4 ... .1l.b7 5.tDf3 g6 6.~d3±) 5.tDf.3 ~g7 6.~d3 ~b7 7.0-0 c6 8.~e3±, with a great advantage for White in the centre, Petrovic - Cvetkovic, Belgrade 2003. Black only loses time with the following maneuver of the knight: 3 ... tDg6 4.~d3 tDh4 5. ~g4 tDg6 6.e5 ~e7, Kotncz Hoeppner, Hassloch 1999, and here after the simple line 7.tDf.3±, White maintains an overwhelming lead in development. In answer to 3 ... g6, White's simplest variation is: 4.h4! ~g7 5.h5 d5 6.h6 ~f8 7.~g5± and he controls completely the dark squares on the kingside, R.Fischer - Codman, Boston 1964. 4.tDf3 White could have also played 4.f4 and after the logical moves: 4 ... g6 5.tDf.3 ~g7 6.~d3 there arises a position, which we have analyzed extensively in our Book 4, Chapter 24, variation d. 4 ...tDd7 4 ... tDg6, Blodig - Zelmer, Kaufbeuren 1998. Having played this compromising move, Black simply provokes his opponent's response 5.h4t and White's

1.e4 e6 2.d4 kingside initiative is very powerful. After 4 ... b6 5.i..g5 i..a6 6. i..xa6lLixa6 7. ~e2±, White's lead in development is considerable and he controls the centre completely, Potthammel - Rothsprach, Mecklenburg 1995. In answer to 4 ... g6, White can develop a dangerous kingside initiative with: 5.h4 h6 6.i..e3 i..g7 7.~d2 lLid7 S.h5 g5 9.lLih2 a6 10.0-0-0 b5 l1.f4 gxf4 12. i..xf4 e5 13.dxe5 lLixe5 14.lLif3 lLixf3 15.gxf3±, because his lead in development is huge and he dominates in the centre, A.Potkin - Novotny, Pardubice 2000. 5.i..c4 lLibS S.i..d3 g6

This position was reached in the game Brazdil - Novotny, Plzen 1999. Black lags in development and his kingside has been compromised. White controls the centre completely and he leads in development, so he can easily develop a dangerous initiative on both sides of the board with the help of one ofthe two standard moves: - 7.h4t, or 7.a4t.

c) 2 •.. dS?! This move is passive indeed, nevertheless it is solid enough. 3.lLic3

3 ••.aS Black continues with his strange strategy. His other possibilities are: 3 ... i..e7 4.f4 - see 2 ... i..e7; 3 ... lLie7 4.lLif3, or 4.f4 - see 2 ... lLie7; 3 ... lLic6 4.lLif3 - see L.e6 2.d4lLic6 3.lLif3 d6 4.lLic3); 3 ... lLiffi 4.f4 - see 1.e4 d6 2.d4lLif6 3.lLic3 e6 4.f4 (Book 4, Chapter 2, variation b); The strange line: 3 ... d5?! 4.lLif3± transposes to the French defence, meanwhile Black has lost an important tempo and that is doubtlessly quite favourable for White; The move 3 ... ffi? - is only compromising Black's position senselessly. 4.f4± De Souza - Beraldo, Pouso Alegre 1997; 3 ... f5?! - weakens the a2-gS diagonal, as well as a complex of squares in the centre: 4.exf5 exf5 5.i..c4 ~e7+ 6.lLige2 i..e6 7. d5± Zdravkovic - Mizdalo, Belgrade 2003; 3 ... c6?! - is just a strange

247

Chapter 16 move, which does not contribute to Black's development and it is quite useless in the fight for the centre too. Mter the simple response 4.f4±, White has occupied plenty of extra space, for example: 4 ... lZJf6 i.e7 (about 4 ... g6 5.lZJf3 i.g7 6.i.d3 lZJe7 - see Chapter 27, Book 4) 6.lZJge2 b5 7.0-00-0 8.e5lZJd5 9.lZJxd5 exd5 10.c3 dxe5 1l.fxe5 g6 12.a4± and White enjoys a space advantage and he has excellent prospects to develop a dangerous initiative on both sides of the board, Crafty Dlugy, Internet 1995; 3 ... i.d7?! - this is an unfavourable placement for the black bishop and after White's logical move 4.f4±, Black can hardly find suitable squares for the rest of his pieces; 3 ... b6 4.f4 i.b7 5.lZJf3 lZJd7 (about 5 ... lZJe7 6.i.d3 g6 7.0-0 see variation dl, Chapter 24, Book 4) 6.i.d3lZJe7 (6 ... g6 7.0-0 i.g7 8.f5lZJe7 - see line dl, Chapter 24, Book 4; it is too passive for Black to play: 6 ... i.e7 7.0-0 lZJgf6 Purdon - Jones, Birmingham 2001, because after 8.e5 lZJd5 9.lZJxd5 i.xd5 10.c4 i.b7 11. f5± White's attacking chances are just excellent) 7.0-0 c5 (7 ... g6, Hieronimus - Robozyt, Internet 1997, 8.f5! exf5 9.exf5 i.g7 10.i.g5±) 8.f5!± Todorcevic - Egido Navarro, Zaragoza 1999; 3 ... g6 4.f4 f6?! - this is a strange and anti-positional move (it is better for Black to follow with 4 ... i.g7 5.lZJf3 - variation d, 248

Chapter 24, Book 4) 5.lZJf3± Stergiopoulos - Dermetis, Nikea 2001; 3 ... lZJd7 4.f4lZJe7 (about 4 ... b6 5.lZJf3 i.b7 6.i.d3 - see 3 ... b6; 4 ... t'ih4+?! 5.g3 t'ie7 6.lZJf3 a6 7.i.g2 g6 8.0-0 i.g7 9.f5± Menchaca - Frid, Apertura 1997) 5.lZJf3 h6 (5 ... b6 6.i.d3 i.b7 7. 0-0 - see 3 ... b6) 6.i.d3 a6 7.0-0 b5, Kordts - Luebcke, Email 1999 and here White can begin opening files in the centre quite favourably with the move 8.f5!±. 4.f4 This move provides White with a space advantage and a superior development. 4 •••lZJd7 About 4 ... g6 5.lZJf3 i.g7 6 ..te3 - see Chapter 28, Book 4, 5 ... e6 6.i.e3. 5.lZJf3lZJe7 5 ....te7 6.i.d3 h6, Ventimiglia - Rosenstein, Email 1998, 7.0-0 lZJgf6 8.e5±. 5 ... h6 6.i.d3 g6 7.0-0 lZJe7, Da Silva Barbosa - Rosenstein, Email 2002, White's lead in development is huge and he can now start the standard attack in this type of positions with the move: 8.f5~. After 5 ... c5 6.d5 e5 7.a4 t'ia5, Wiehagen - Radde, Dortmund 2001, there arises a pawn-structure, which is typical for the Benoni Defence (1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5), except that Black has already lost a tempo (e6-e5) 8.fxe5lZJxe5 (8 ... dxe5 9 ..i.d2±) 9.lZJxe5 dxe5 10.i.d2± and White's superior

1.e4 e6 2.d4 pawn-structure and his dominance in the centre provide him with a stable edge. 6.ii.d3 ttJg6

This position was reached in the game Huang - Mejico, Singapour 2004. Black's lag in development is so great that White should better start some decisive actions with: 7.f5! exf5 (or 7 ... ttJe7 8.fxe6 fxe6 9.ttJg5 ttJf6 10.e5+-; 7 ... ttJh4 8.fxe6 fxe6 9. O-O±) 8.exf5 ttJe7 9.'l*e2± and Black is already beyond salvation.

d) 2 ...f5?!

This strange move is somehow fighting for the centre; nevertheless Black compromises his kingside, some squares on the efile and the a2-g8 diagonaL

3.exf5 exf5 After 3 ... ttJf6 4.fxe6 d5 5 ..id3± Kulbacki - Ball, Lansing 1988, Black's compensation for the sacrificed pawn is evidently insufficient. 4.ii.d3 g6 Alack can tried here some other moves too: 4 ... 'l*f6 5.ttJf3 ttJc6 6.c3 d6, Graetz - Winkelmann, Germany 2000 and after the natural move 7.0-0±, White leads in development and he can easily proceed with active actions in the centre as well as on the queenside; 4 ... d5 5.ttJf3 ttJf6 6.0-0 i.e7 (White maintains a powerful pressure in the centre too after: 6 ... ii.d6 7.c4 c6 8.ttJc3 0-0 9 ..ig5± Gunter-Benson, StHelier 1999) 7.c4 c6 8.ttJc3 0-0 9.~b3. Black's position remains extremely difficult, due to his lag in development and his weak central squares, for example: 9 ... ~b6, De la Rosa - Sauvin, Switzerland 1993, (Black's attempt to consolidate on the e4-outpost led to a swift disaster after: 9 ... ttJe4? 10.cxd5 ttJxc3 1l.dxc6+ 1-0, in the game Keserovic - Ganslmayer, Bad Woerishofen 2001; it is also too bad for Black to try: 9 ... dxc4 10.i.xc4+ ..t>h8 II. ttJe5±, because he can hardly preserve the material equilibrium, Da Cruz - Zampronio, Santos 2001) and now Black is bound to face serious problems after the simple move 10J~el!, for example: 10 ... 'l*xb3 1l.axb3 .id6 249

Chapter 16 (or 11 ... .ltb4 12 ..ltd2 and White preserves a huge lead in development and numerous threats) 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.ltJxd5± and White wins a pawn; 4 ... d6 5.c4 ltJf6 6.ltJc3 ltJc6 (it is hardly better for Black to try 6 ... .lte7 7. tH3 g6 8.ltJge2 c6, Nordstrom - Appelquist, corr. 1967, because after 9.0-0± White remains with a space advantage and he dominates on the only open file) 7.ltJge2 .lte7 8.0-0± Ljubojevic - Dolezal, Prague 1990. 5.ltJf3 fte7+ This move even contributes to Black's lag in development. It is not any better for him to try either: 5 ... .ltg7 6.0-0 ltJe7 7 J:te1 0-0 8 ..ltg5 ltJbc6 9.d5± Garcia Galeote - Guillen Andrinal, Madrid 2002, or 5 ... ltJf6 6.0-0 ltJc6 7.iog5 iog7 8Jie1+ ltJe7 9. fte2±. White's lead in development is overwhelming, Anya Sun - Neo Xiu, Kuala Lumpur 200l. 6.'iitf1!? This is White's most energetic decision, although it is quite good enough for him to follow with the simple move: 6 ..lte2±. 6 ••. ltJf6 7.ltJc3 i.g7

250

8 ..ltg5 c6 9.ftd2 0-0 IOJ::tel ftd8 1l.h4 d6 12.h5~ Sveshnikov - Trajkovic, Pula 1990. All White's pieces are in action, while Black's queenside is just ''napping''. e) 2 ••• ltJc6 3.ltJf3

3 .••d6 In case of 3 ... d5 4.ltJc3 - see Book 6, Chapter 2 (1...e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltJc3 ltJc6 4.ltJf3). After 3 ... ltJf6 4.e5 ltJd5 (It is bad for Black to play 4 ... ltJg4 since he loses important tempi and his pawn-structure gets compromised by force: 5.h3ltJh6 6 ..ltxh6 gxh6 7.ltJc3 d6 8 ..ltb5 .ltd7 9.fte2±; 7 ... f5 8.d5!±; 7 ... d5 8 ..ltd3±; 7 ... .ltb4 8.ftd2± Lor Vio, Email 1999.) after 5.c4, the arising positions are much more typical for the Alekhine Defence - see l.e4 ltJf6 2.e5 ltJd5 3.d4 e6 4.ltJf3ltJc6 5.c4. 4.ltJc3 ltJf6 The other possibilities for Black are: 4 ... d5?! leads to lines similar to the variation: 2 ... d5 3.ltJc3 ltJc6, except that White has an extra tempo.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 4 ... g6?! 5.~b5liJh6?! (Black's defence is quite difficult after: 5 ... ~d7 6.~g5! liJce7 7. ~e2±; 6 ... ~e7 7 .~e3±, because White's lead in development is considerable.) 6.d5± Barrasso - Goodson, Email 1999; 4 .... h6 5.~b5 i.d7, Schulz Meierhofer, Internet 2001 and here it seems quite logical for White to occupy some additional space with the help of: 6.d5 exd5 7.ed liJe5 8.i.xd7+ 'i;i'xd7 9.0-0±. 4 ... ~d7 5.i.c4 liJf6, Zippy Arnaque, Internet 1994. Black's light squared bishop is quite misplaced - it stands in the way of his own pieces and White should better open files with the natural reaction: 6.e5 dxe5 7.dxe5 liJg4 8. 'i;i'e2±; 4 ... liJge7, Raffalt - Koelldorfer, Graz 1991. Now after: 5.d5 liJe5 (it is worse for Black to play 5 ... exd5 6.exd5 liJe5 7.i.e2±) 6.liJxe5 dxe5 7.i.b5+! c6 (The endgame is very difficult for Black after: 7 ... i.d7 8.dxe6±.) 8.dxc6 ~xd1+ 9.liJxd1 liJxc6 10. liJe3±, White's pawn-structure is much better and it provides him with a stable advantage; 4 ... ~e7 5.~b5 a6 6.~xc6+ bxc6 7.0-0 liJf6 8.e5 liJd5, Ballhause - Brandes, Germany 1999. Black's pawn-mass in the centre is quite static and his own bishops are ineffective because of that. White should better emphasize his advantage by centralizing his pieces with: 9.liJe4 0-0 10.c4±;

4 ... a6 5.~d3 ~e7, Dudine Rozmann, Trieste 2004 (5 ... liJb4 6.~e2liJc6 7.0-0 ~e7, RicardiMonaco, Buenos Aires 1991. White's simplest way to maintain his edge is by occupying space with: 8.e5 dxe5 9.dxe5 'i;i'xd1 10Jhd1 ~d7 1l.~f4±; After 5 ... h6 6.0-0 e5, King_Lee Taoyang, Internet 1999, it seems advisable for White to follow with: 7.d5liJce7 8.liJe2liJf6 9.c4± and he leads in development and his plan to seize the initiative on the queenside is quite clear-cut; Black should better not try to change the pawn-structure after: 8 ... f5 9.exf5 liJf6 10.tZ'lg3 liJexd5 11.I:te1 ~e7 12.liJh4±) 6.0-0 liJf6 7.e5! tZ'ld5 (it is even worse for Black to try 7 ... dxe5?! 8.dxe5 liJg4, because of 9. ~e2!± and Black cannot capture the e5pawn with: 9 ... tZ'ld4? 10.liJxd4 'i;i'xd4, since after 11.I:td1 +- he loses material) 8.exd6 ~xd6 (8 ... 'i;i'xd6 9.liJe4 'i;i'd8 10.c4±) 9. liJe4 ~e7 10.a3± and White's advantage is quite stable due to his extra space.

5.d5 This is White's most energetic reply.

5 ... exd5 After 5 ... liJb8, White's simplest line is: 6.dxe6 ~xe6 (6 ... fxe6?! 7.e5 liJfd7 8.~g5 ~e7 9.~xe7 'i;i'xe7 10.exd6 cxd6 11. liJb5±) 7.liJg5!, and now in case Black complies with the exchange on the e6-square, White remains with a stable advantage, 251

Chapter 16

because of his bishop pair. The 8.~e2 ~e7 9.iJ..xd7+ lLlexd7 retreat for Black: 7 ... iJ..d7 is im- 10.iJ..e3 0-0-0 1l.h3 l:.e8 12. possible due to 8.iJ..c4. In case of 0-0-0 lLle4 7 ... iJ..g4 8.£3 iJ..h5, it seems very reasonable for White to continue: 9.lLlh3, with the idea to follow later with lLlf4. His further plans include castling long and a pawnoffensive on the kingside. 6.exd5 lLle5 It is hardly any better for Black to play: 6 ... lLle7 7.3Lb5+ iJ..d7 8.iJ..xd7+ ~xd7 9 ..i.e3 ~f5 10.lLld4 ~e5 11. ~d3 lLlfxd5 12. This position was reached in ~b5+ ~d8 13. ~xb7±, because the game Eggerer - Kleiner, White's development is clearly Bayern 1999. White's advantage superior and Black's king is quite could have been emphasized best unsafe. White's prospects as a with: 13.~c4lLlxc3 (It is clearly result are much better, Dorkus worse for Black to play: 13 ... a6 - Hellas, Internet 1998. 14.:hel± and White's lead in development is overwhelming, or 7.iJ..b5+ iJ..d7 Mter 7 ... c6 8.dxc6 bxc6 9. 13 ... ~b8 14.iJ..xa7+! ~xa7 15. lLlxe5 cxb5 10.lLlc6±, Black's ~a4+ ~b8 16.lLlxe4lLlb6 17.~d4 problems with the coordination lLlxd5 - Black loses after: 17 ... of his pieces are quite obvious ~xe4? 18.:hel-18.~xd5 ~xe4 after: 10 ... ~b6 (or 10 ... "ific7) 19. ~xf7± and White remains 11. ~e2+, because he has to find with a solid extra pawn and a a way to evacuate his king away superior development.) 14.~xc3 from the centre, otherwise he ~b8 15.Ithel±. Black's defence loses his b5-pawn: 11. .. ~d7 is extremely difficult due to his non-developed kingside. 12.lLlb4±.

Conclusion The lines, which we have analyzed in this chapter, are very seldom played. Black has great problems in comparison to the standard lines of the French Defence. It is quite enough for White to make natural and simple moves, developing pieces and occupying the centre, in order to maintain an overwhelming advantage.

252

Index of Variations

Part 1. l.e4 various; 1... a6 2.d4; 1...b6 2.d4 .•..••....•...... 9 Chapter 1 l.e4 various .............................................. I. .. a6 2.d4 various ..................................... 1...a6 2.d4 h5 3.lLlf3 .ih7 4 ..id3 ........................... a) 4 ..id3lLlffi ....................... h) 4 ..id3 e6 ........................

10 12 14 15 17

Chapter 2 l.e4 b6 2.d4 various .............................................. 24 2 ... .ih7 3 ..id3 various .................................. 27 a) 3 ... lLlffi ....................................... 30 h) 3 ... e6 4.lLlf3 ................................... 34 hI) 4.lLlf3 h6 ............................... 34 4.lLlf3lLlc6 ............................... 35 h2) h3) 4.lLlf3 .ie7 ............................... 36 4.lLlf3lLle7 ............................... 37 h4) h5) 4.lLlf3 g6 ................................ 38 h6) 4.lLlf3 d6 ................................ 39 h7) 4.lLlf3 d5 ................................ 42 h8) 4.lLlf3lbffi ............................... 45 Chapter 3 l.e4 b6 2.d4 .ib7 3 ..td3 e6 4.lLlf3 e5 5.e3 various .............................................. 47 5 ... lLlffi 6:~e2 various .................................. 51 a) 6. t'te2 d5 ...................................... 53 h) 6.t'te2 cd 7.cd various .......................... 56 hI) 7.cd.ib4 ............................. 58 h2) 7 .cd lLlc6 ............................. 59 6.t'te2 .ie7 7.0-0 various ......................... 61 c) cl) 7.0-0 cd ............................. 62 c2) 7.0-0 d6 ............................. 63 7.0-0 lbc6 ............................ 64 c3) 7.0-00-0 ............................. 65 c4) c5) 7.0-0 d5 ............................. 66 253

Index of Variations Part 2. 1.e4CL\c6 2.CL\f3 ............••..•.•••.....•.•.....• 71 Chapter 4 l.e4 CL\c6 2.CL\f3 a) 2 ... lbf6 ............................................... 72 b) 2 ... f5 ............................................... 73 Chapter 5 l.e4 lbc6 2.lbf3 d5 3.exd5 ~xd5 4.lbc3 various .............................. '" ............ 77 4 ... ~a5 5.i..b5 various .................................. 80 a) 4 .. :~a5 5.i..b5 i..d7 6.0-0 lbf6 ............................ 81 b) 6.0-0 e6 .............................. 83 e) 6.0-0 a6 .............................. 84 d) 6.0-00-0-0 ............................ 86 Chapter 6 l.e4 CL\c6 2.lbf3 g6 3.d4 a) 3 ... d6 ................................................ 88 b) 3 ... i..g7 .................................. "............. 94 Chapter 7 l.e4 lbc6 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4 a) 3 ... i..g4............................................... 96 b) 3 ... f5 ............................................... 99 e) 3 ... ttJf6 4.CL\e3 various .................................. 100 el) 4.CL\e3 i..g4 5.i..e3 d5 ............................. 104 e2) 5.i..e3 e5 ............................. 105 e3) 5.i..e3 g6 ............................. 106 e4) 5.i..e3 a6 ............................. 109 e5) 5.i..e3 e6 ............................. 110

Part 3. 1.e4 ttJf6 2.e5 •.•••...•.•....•••••••.•••.•....•••• 116 Chapter 8 l.e4 CL\f6 2.e5 2 ... ttJg8 ............................................... 118 Chapter 9 l.e4 CL\f6 2.e5 ttJd5 3.d4 various ............................................. 125 a) 3 ... e6 ............................................... 126 b) 3 ... d6 4.CL\f3 various .................................... 130 b1) 4.CL\f3 e6 ........................................ 131 b2) 4.lbf3 i..f5 ....................................... 133 b3) 4.CL\f3 ttJb6 ....................................... 136

254

Index of Variations Chapter 10 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 tbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3lbc6 5.c4 tbb6 6.e6 6 ... fXe6 7.tbc3 ......................................... 140 a) 7.tbc3 e5 ..................... " ................ 141 b) 7.tbc3 g6 ...................................... 144 Chapter 11 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 lbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 dxe5 5.tbxe5 various ............................................. 150 a) 5 ... tbd7 .............................................. 150 b) 5 ... e6 ............................................... 154 c) 5 ... c6 6 ..lte2 ........................................... 155 c1) 6 ..lte2 .ltf5 ....................................... 156 c2) 6 ..lte2 g6 ....................................... 157 c3) 6 ..lte2 tbd7 ....................................... 158 d) 5 ... g6 6.g3 .ltf5 ........................................ 161 d1) 6.g3 tbd7 ....................................... 161 d2) 6.g3 .ltg7 ....................................... 163 Chapter 12 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 tbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 g6 5 ..ltc4 various ............................................. 168 a) 5 ... c6 ............................................... 170 b) 5 ...tbb6 6 ..ltb3 various .................................. 178 b1) 6 ..ltb3 d5 ...................................... 179 b2) 6 ..ltb3 tbc6 .................................... 183 b3) 6 ..ltb3 .ltg7 .................................... 186 Chapter 13 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 tbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 .tg4 5 ..te2 various ............................................. 199 5 ...tbc6 6.0-0 various ................................... 204 a) 6.0-0 tbb6 ................................... 207 b) 6.0-0 dxe5 ................................... 209 c) 6.0-0 e6 ..................................... 213 Chapter 14 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5 tbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 .tg4 5 •.te2 c6 6.c4 various ............................................. 219 6 ... tbb6 7.tbbd2 various ................................. 221 a) 7.tbbd2 tb8d7 ................................. 222 7.tbbd2 dxe5 ................................. 227 b) Chapter 15 l.e4 tbf6 2.e5lbd5 3.d4 d6 4.tbf3 .tg4 5 ..te2 e6 6.h3 various ............................................. 233 6 ... .th5 7.c4 ttJb6 ...................................... 234

255

Index of Variations Part 4. l.e4 e6 2.d4 without d7-dS ......................... 243 Chapter 16 l.e4 e6 2.d4 a) 2 ... ..te7 ............................................... 244 b) 2 ... lDe7 ............................................... 246 c) 2 ... d6 ............................................... 247 d) 2 ... £5 ............................................... 249 e) 2 ... lDc6 ............................................... 250