A Rock-Solid Chess Opening Repertoire for Black - Eingorn.pdf

A Rock-Solid Chess Opening Repertoire for Back Viacheslav Einorn

First blis i t K b bit Pblicatios td 2012 Corit © Viacsl E  T rt   Vahesav go t  ti as t auor of is wor has b assete  aoe  the orit Dsis a Patts Act 88 ll rhts see N   ths blation may b rrouc stor in o ue     o smitt  a fo or b a mans (l, c,   rcori or otrwis) wiot rio pss  the pushe I articular no ar of this publication may be a, tastte  e tt or loa o a wbsie wihou  pub liss pesso A  o os ay unatorize ac in relaion o his publat a  iae t rimial prosecuion and civil claims for amage. IB-  IB  TT lwe (exc  Cetal Boos t  allis R onon E9 5N Ela Te +   84 Fa + (0)20 8533 5821 Ema: es@Ceakm ambt Pulatos Lt,  allis R oon E 5N Englan Eml: @gatksm bte (egu uate): w.ambibooscom Et b ah Bugess et  Pea Nu  mae  Wo Mow t  eat B  the P Boos Group Bomin an Kings Lynn

 



      

bi bii  Managing Director: Mua Chale  Chess Director:  Jh Nu  Editorial Director: aha Bgess  Gean Editor: Pa Nu  Webmaster: Dr l  a 

Cntet Symbols Bibliograph Introduction

 

Pt    



1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Frech atellites Kin's India Attack Exchane Variation Advace Variation Tarrasch Variation teiitz Variation Classical Frnc

Pt    

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

The Nimzo-like 2 c4 b+ 3 c3 The oo-ike 2 c4 b+ 3 d2 The oo-ike 2 c b+ 3 d2 Traspositio to the iciian Trasposition to the Enlish 2 f3 c5 3 e3 Rare 2d and 3rd Moves aer 1 d e6

5 9 16 27 33 50 66 80 

93 10 118 133 1 55 6

t 

15 hould ack Play ...e6 vs Flank Openins? 16 The XFiles

173 177

dex of Variations

189

Symbos   

u

he be h hekmate  rt mv  g mv  teesti   uus   ba mv  blun  hami h th ath  (n) th a    win for ite  th a      th a     for Blac 0   3) it   to  o mov 63 (etc.)

Biigraph Nita Vituv: e French fnc A omplet Black Rpetoir; hes Sts 200 Ne MDal: How to Play Against 1  4; E 2008 Jh Wat: Dangeus Weapons Th Frnch, E 200 O Stts Frantsuzsya zashchta Klassichskaya sistma;  Astl - AT 2 i A: Grandster epertoire 1  d4 Volum Two; Qit  2010 Ia Oe Nevozmozhnoe nachalo  1  d4    c4 ; Ra hss us 25 See Jhs a Vlat Kv Win with th Lndon Systm; Gbt 25

Introduction

The appeal of a universal' defence is easy to understand By playing the same move against both 1 e4 and 1 d4, Black reduces his woroad ad ca use some move-order subtleties to make it harder for White to reach his prefeed systems Our focus here is on 1 e4 e6 and 1 d4 e6, but we also briy dscuss how best to answer White's other options on move 1. The French Defence, I e4 e6, is clearly the backbone of the repe oire. It is a popular opening wth a long history, and a list of adherets that includes several of the all-time greats After 1 d4, the reply  e6 is less commo, and normally used as a way to trasos to strd openg lies If hite rplies 2 , then obviously we have a ech Deece, but if Wite res from this central ad vance, he must t o acco at Blac gt ollow up wth 2 f5, 2  .  d5, 2 b6, 2  c5 o 2 .. . f Wt as a higl  ee (as many club- level players do), t     a at olm, and lead to a rash decision In this book we sl ol vestgate   spotioal ieas whn they ae paticulaly attracte, a ocus more o idepeet lines, where Black ies to takes full advantage of te que possbilties pesented by the move  e6 We shall exame a wide vaety of ideas ad variations, and in some cases ittle-investigated openg positios arise after the rst e moves I would like the make the following general points ao ut the repertoire: •

•

The repertoire based on  e6 lays the foundation fo m ulti-opening prepara tion Chess-players often consider the initial order o moves exclusively as a way to restrict the opponent's possiblities, forgettg tat thereby they them selves become a stationary tget In the era of computrs ad free excha ge of theoretical information, such a view of opening stratg looks le an anacho nism If we are wlling to play a variety of stuctures  d variatons, and even wholly dierent openings, then our opponent's choics ill be more dicult, and in this repertoire we shall make etensive use of is The variations recommended (the French Defence as ell as lines arising after 1 d4 e6) are rather stable and allow a variety of nteetatos, and this en hances the reliability of the openng reperoire as a w oe for Black In a ma jority of potential problem lines', two or more optis are discussed Some



   PG PEE FO BLCK aitinal tions emain o-sreen, so they an be onsidered as a stratei ve fo xle, h ormations, athouh possibe, are amost absent fm tis k. Mst eae wi no doubt have eperience with other open ings, an may well e e to pt this owede to use when they see an op unity t nspse t nes o, e, the NimzoIndian, Duth or Queens Gami tat aeal t em





  stuy    en is a serios matter One shoud not et ar    ting t ae an idea wor and ose ones obetivity ssess mnt mut, it  re eeptions, be based on onrete proos o xmls.  e k we dsss some openin variations in onsiderabe de ai an, wee it s both possibe and epedient, ive preferene to ess we knn cntinuatn Sic   senti a repertoire for a, I ony reommend ines if I on  t layal or a, and the reader an onsider a uoted varia tin   quite s atisato by deat  i this is ot the ase, then I mae this  v cl in te tet I soe ases the assessment unear is iven; this su gt at  suset e ositon is aso aeptabe or a, but that more de til invstgatn i s eeded beore this an be stated with ertainy or a more ci assessmen ive

t :  e e6  French Defence, whose main sys s arise after 1 e4 e6 2 4  (D) is n of the most complex chess open is, with an xtreme walth of strate ic content

repertoire should not be made need lessly elaborate, and rather than play in every line and taclin every structure, a player has to mae some choices In this boo I present my rec ommendations accordin to the fol lowin structure: 



The position in the diaram srves as umpin-o point for sevral dif frt continuations (the clarifyin 3 exd5, the blocin 3 e5, and the two main lines, 3 d2 and 3 c3), but it rpresents only the visible tip of an normous opnin iceber The us tion of how to consuct an opin rpoire is somtims answred by lac in the simplest way: meetin both 3 c3 and 3 d2 with 3 dxe4 This saves a ood deal of eort, but also dprives lac of much of the variety of French Defence possibili ties and ideas On the other hand, a





In Chapter  we discuss all continu ations (with the exception of the ins Indian ttac) in which Wit avoids th mov 2 d4 We ao covr t rar variation 2 d4 d5 3 d3 hese sidelines are not dan rous for lac, but they occur in pracic vry ow and then, and it mas sense to be read for thm Chaptr 2 is devoted to the popular st-up nown as th Kins Indian tac, which in th Frech can be introducd by 2 '2 or 2 d3 Th Exchane Variaion, 3 exd5 exd5, is considered in Chapter 3 One cannot hid th fact that this can lad to drawih and rar e dious positions owevr, both play ers hav ways to spice up th ame, and I shall b loon closly at ways for lac to crate winnin chances aainst an opponent who plays resolutely for a draw The move 3 e5 (Chapter 4) denes the dvance Viation This is the st chapter in the boo where lac



 H>   EE R LCK

hi    upnlg   th• a        ·h   h1 '�h, ·' \      " cue t ee    mlunN uc   I   ap "•  u 3 I h 



 pral'ance      won  4 ex5   rap r 4  ex5    r

dln    a a brf uk u   



h   f h Frh D fee    ad t h



  a f h   wh bh payr  r a Ba pr    b th Wawr   ) ad  aa 3    b  fu  h r  tt arato  3    fd7 i drd   W ud P 1 wth h a  y   f  g 7 ar 7) Th   of h d    f th Frh D f bu r fah ha  a w wd h B d) d Mauth (4b) a   ur h f  y adxay  ay a     urr aa  w d  f  t  arg fr h  a 

 rw of our Frh D  r uds agh h bu wih ths ara  a grat arey of paw ad  bats  h  ad  ragg om log posta au rs o sharp attas  th  I a or a h f  r B  hs  praa I     Wh d     k ghg a    s t  ray w   s for xa h  d by Wh f       ul rab      d th bad b     a r     h ba      udy     b au f     rahr a    ra ra Fr  y    m h                 u                              B       r   a     ra     l   P 2   

 Fenc Satellites e4 e6D)

I th har w xa a y of e  whh    dd Frh Df    cae by aodig 2 d atgh B fo og o to h ot gat of th d w houd r a a bf oo at a fw aou r p Th ha othg ragay i oo wth h Fh Df apart fo th fat that h ga b g wh 1   Thy a b ade quaty dea wh ug ut a fw l of x ad ma ba om mtary  2  d  xd xd  d  f )  f   0-0  b;  bd7)  d  7 0-0   2 g d  g2 dx     x f  g2 ) d7 f) 

d  x ;  x ma ta a ua poto)    dx 'xd + 7 xd f   b7  2  d  f dx  x f  xf+   x  dx 'xd + 7 xd 1 d7;  f2   f xf2+ 7 xf2 g+  g1  )  xf    g )   7 f   2      a ooy o  gabt ot oft ayd by BarDr Gabt hu a w h ga targ 1   2    ) Af  dx  f   f  f b;  d2 f  f   '  7  exf)  f h   ao ab)  fx x  f  d  7  x    g)   Wh do  ha u t oao for h a d aw I th aboe a Wh og pay a a od pa ba ad thrfo th ouao ar o of ay a horta au wr othe d a mor g ad worthy f rou ao Th Kg Ida Atta  whh Wh pay 2 d o 2 '2 ad fow up wth a aheo f h g bhop i odrd aay  th x hapt That ea u wh



A CK ESS PENING EPERIRE R LCK

1.1: 2 c4 1.2: 2 3 1.3: 2 4 1.4: 2  5 3 e5 1.5: 2 4 5 3 3

10 11 12 13 14

11

2 c4D)

This is a rathr innv ntnu atin, but ivs Whi an ata ga. 2 ...5 3 cxd Ony h vaian    pan xhan n 5 ha n signican. Ar  x5    we reah a in f th Exha  tin (se Stin .). 3 ...ex 4 exd Th gabit  ?! as n  if ny bcaus f th y .... 4 ...f6 N Whit ns t sh hat h as gaind by aviding th ve  d4. 5 5+! Sipe vping ntinuatins cannt cuse any incnveniene f Black; fr exale:

a)  d4?! xd5 6  (6 f3 + 7 d2 e+) 6...b 7 2 00 8 d3 (8 f3 an b t by 8...c !  8...e8+ 9  x 0 bc3 'e7 11 c4 f5, hn Back takes er the initiativ) 8...5 gave Blck the initiative in KuijfKrhni, Tilbg 1992. b) 5 f3 xd5 6    4 b 8 d2 00 9   ..h6 10 00 6 is as qua) 0 a a5 11 e an nw bth .5 an ...f5 12 00 b6  qua. Therefre White ust at r vig sy and the bish h i rba bly the best e at his ia. he ttempt t create preur a the a2g8 diagna by 5  is unris ing: 5...x5 6  (6 b?! + 7 e b6) 6...b6 (thi i ser than 6...b   6   ) 7 b 6 8 g (8 f + 8..  5!?) 9  0-0 0 00    ay fr a, Mas yn  95.       .5?!   grants W  v)   ( x+   v Wt n avantage) a  h ...6 an ...x5 8    00 6 ad t arxi  quaity. 6! It is a g ie t cri th intn tins f the whte bishp saight way 6...e  f 00 is als quit reli abe, thugh aer 8 d4 (8 x! xd leas the initiative t Blak) 8...b6 9 00 f5!? (9...bx5 10  c6 1 d3) 0  fx 1 e4  12 d2 x 1 xd2

RENC ATETES

hites pieces ae moe actie and the nitiatie emains on hs side Spassy Kochnoi Elista (2) 29.  a4 7 xd7+?! is not een enough to equalize in iew of 7...'xd7 8 �f3 e7+!.   b5 8 b3 b7 9 � b4 1 e2 d6 Both sides hae chances. 1.2

2 b3 D)

B

This moe which we shall call the Rti Vaiation has soe quite noel ideas notably of castling queenside. Blac should not undeestimate this oddloong moe. 2  d5 3 b2 dx Ting the cenal pawn is abso lutely logical although it allows te to deeop as planned. Bla has a cou ple of ways to direct the game in othe dections. Firstly 3...�f6 4 e5 (4 exd5 exd5 5 'e2+ e7! 6 xf6 gxf6 is OK fo Blac) 4...�fd7 5 'g4 c5 6 f4 �c6 7 �3 leads to a comlicated position



and chances fo both sides while the waiting moe 3...a6!? A) is an in teesting way to intefee with ites deployment. ite then has nothing moe logical than 4 ' e2 (4 �c3 is met b 4...d4 while 4 exd5 exd5 gies Blac ll equality) with the following pleasant choice fo Blac a) 4...dxe4 5 �c3 (5 'xe4?! �f6) 5...f5 (the point!) 6 0-0-0 �f6 7 f3 (7 d3 exd3 8 xd3 d6) 7 ...exf3 8 �xf3 d6 and it is hd to say whethe White has ea compensation fo the sacriced pawn. b) 4...�f6 5 e5 (5 exd5 can be met by 5...5!? o the uncle 5...' xd5!? 6 �f3 6 7 �c3 ' f5) 5...�fd7 6 4 5 aes Bac a moe up com  to the 3...�f6 ine that we saw abv.   � 5 'e2 ature aggression with 5 g4?! proises te nothing but adship; fo exape 5...�c6 6 g5 �d5 7 �xe4 e5 (7 ...h6!?) o 5...d7 6 g2 c6 7 'e2 h5 8 g5 �d5 9 �h3 �xc3 0 xc3 'd5 Geashili-B.Soco European Cubs Cup Panoo 200  5   If Bac aspires only to eqalize then the line 5...�c6 6 �xe4 (6 0-0-0 �d4 7 'e d7 8 �xe4 c6 is also equal) 6...�xe4 7 'xe4 'd5 8 ' xd5 exd5 9 0-0-0 f6  0 �e2 (0 g3 f5!  e+ d7) 0...f5 as· in the gae GeashiliRamon Perez Bala guer 27 is woh noting. 6 00 6 g4?! is still inappropiate in iew of 6...�c6 7 �xe4 (7 g5?! �d4) 7...�xe4 (7...�b4!?) 8 'xe4 'd5.



 OCKO ESS PENING EPEIE FO BCK

Also afte 6 xe4 00 7   the most judicious policy fo White is to sound the eteat and play 8 3 fol lowed by 2 and 00, tyin to eep appoximate euality 6  g4!

Now this move comes just at the iht time, since 7 xe4?! a5 favous lac Afte the textmove (7 4), a vey unclea position has aisen: a) 7 c6 8 5 d5 (8 d4 9 e  d5 10 xe4) 9 h4 f5 ( weae is 9 db4?! 10 'xe4, Miloviosi, Montenein Team Ch, ece Novi 2008) 10 xf6 xf6 is unclea b) 7  a5 8 5 (8 a4 c6 ives lac e initiative, while 8 2 is met by 8  a4) 8 d5 9 h4 a4 (9 d7!?) 10 xa4 ( 10 'xe4 axb3 1 1 axb3 a3) 0b5 11 c3 b4 (f5 12 xf6 xf6) 12 xe4 xa2 is unclea  2 4 (D)

This is called the McDonnell & La boudonnais Attac, and as the name

suests, chessplayes in the 19th centuy often eacted to the Fench and Sicilian Defences with this f pawn thust 25 3 e5 c5 4 3c6 5 c3

The d4 advance needs to be pe paed White should avoid 5 d4? ! 'b6 with the possible continuation 6 d3 d7 7 00 h6 5 h6 63 

lac has othe satisfactoy moves too, such as 6 f6 7 c2 (weae ae 7 d4 cxd4 8 cxd4 fxe5 9 fxe5 xa3 and 7 exf6 'xf6 8 d4 cxd4 9 cxd4 b4+ 10 f2 00 1 1 c2 a5) 7 fxe5 8 fxe5 5 (White can benet fom complications lie 8 xe5 ! 9 xe5 'h4+ 10 3 'e4+ 1 1 'e2 'xh 1 12 d4  aniev) 9 d4 e7 1 0 d3 00, with euality With the textmove, lac stives fo moe  c2 '6 8 4

White may be welladvised to op fo Chioins moe cautious move 8 e2 ? Afte 8 e7 9 00 (9 d4! c8 ives lac the initiative) 9 00 10 h ( 10 e3 f6) 10 f6 and only now 1 1 d4, White maintains the eui libium The estained 8 d3 is also wothy of some attention; fo exam ple, 8 e7 9 e2 f5 10 00 h5 1 1 b  aniev oweve, we shoul note that the nal position of this vai ation is also eached in anothe open in with evesed colous, viz 1 d4 d 2 c4 e5 3 f3 e4 4  1 (o 4 5 f5 5 c3 c6 6 h3 a6 7 e3 6) 4 f5 5 c3 c6 6 h3 a6 7 e3 6 8 e c7 9 'b3 b8 10 4 e7 1 1 h 00 One can hdly complain as lac about ettin a position that ston

RENC ATEITES

layers have been happy to play as hite It remains to add that 8 e3 is not a good hoie 8 f 9 exf (9 d4 xd4 10 xd4 b4+ oued twie in the math MDonnell-de a bourdonnais ondon 1 834) 9 gxf 10 d3 0-0-0 1 1 e2 d gave Ba the initiative in Koiaov-Rustemov Russia up Mosow 1998



3 3 f 4 e fd7  d4 trans oses to a line of the teinitz ariation (see etion 1)

8c4!?

Whites position is lie a Advane ariation (1 e4 e 2 d4 d 3 e  4 3) but with the seemingly inappropriate move f4 However it is diut for la to exploit this irumstane in lear-ut fashion Another ative pos sibility is 8 8 9 d3 (9 d2 e7 10 d3 4 1 1 e2 'xb2) 9  xd4 when 10 xd4  xd4 1 1 d4  gives Bla the initiative but 10 d4 maes it harder for him to pursue aggressive plans; both 10 f 11 xf exf 12 0-0 e7 1 3 e3 e 14 'd3 0-0 1 d2 and 10b4 11 xb4 xb4+ 1 2 d2 b 1 3 xb+ xb 14 xb4 'xb4+ 1 'd2 4 1 'xb4 xb4 17 b3 f 18 f2 h 19 h 1 d7 20 ab 1 are equal 9 c4

After 9 xd4 f 10 g4 fe7 1 1 d3 ( 1 1 h3 h 1 2 h2 8 gives Bla the initiative) 1  h 1 2 g f ( 1 2a and 12g an also be on sidered) Whites position may tu out to be even worse 9   c 10 4 4 11 4

4 12 '4 '4 13 c4 c8

Bla has a minimal advantage  2   3 e (D)

is sequene a transpose to the Advane aration but this reise move-order normaly indiates that White intends to play the Frenh Wing Gambit whih is quie popul nowa days at lub level 3  c 4 4

By distrating the -pawn away from the d4sque Whie hopes to set up a strong and stabe entre that will enabe him to atta unhindered on the ingside 4  c4

Aepting the gambit is not obiga tory 4 d4 is good enough when  bx ( a3 a  bx x 7 4 b and  b e7  d3 g are un lear)  x  a3 'a 7 e2 (7 x 'x 8 3  9 xd4 xd4 10 'a4+ d7  1 1 'xd4   + 1 2 e2 b+ 13 d3 d8 14 bd2 a3) 7 d7 8 x x 9 4 'x4 10 x4  leads to an approximatey equal ending More ompliated pay



 OCK-O ESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BCK

ises if Bck decines the pwn b 4c4  c3 ( 3!?)   6 b d7 7 d3 cd3 8 d3 f6!? 9 e2 fe 10 e e   e f6, s in Zaka rin-Anti, Kmri 29  a  d4 c6 6 a3 ba as t th sme position s a The ine  c6  ax   c3 e 8 d4 occurs mr n Th int of the tet-mv is t av  sre vcant fr the g8-ight 6 4 c6 7 c 7 D)

8  White does not hurr t iquite the 3-pwn, though sner r ater he wi hv t do s The ieiat ttck by 8 g?! h6 9 f7?! f7  0  + f6 ks cey ratur, bt it is possibe t p 8 a a6 9 d3 h6 (r 9c8) right away 8h6 Preventive mesures: Bck estab ishes cntr ver the g-su, r ing ut any attept b White t start a uick assut b g Instea he can

simp py 86 or provoke n im mediate crisis b 8b!? Then: ) 9g?isngoddueto9b4 b) Aer 9 b e 10 e b5  a3 (11 3 3 12 a 7  'g4 g6) 11a3 12 xa 7 ack parries the threts  rn e  pwn c) 9 xa? b4 10 cb4 (10 b a  + 6 12 ed6 f6) 0 x (0xb4 11 0-0 e7 is un)    a 2 b4 (12 0-0 c  t by g7  c2 a,  in Jung, uniga 1987/8) x  xh 7 with eu ity 9 00 Whites kng has n rasn t re main in the cen Ar 9 h a6 (9b !?) 10 3 c8 1 h a 12 b1 (the retu f the pice t its home suare is  bd sign) 12 6 13 c2 c4 14 h4?! e7 ack hd the avntge in Lerch-Naumkin, Cappee a Grande 27 9 a6 10 a c In is cmparativey ca situa tion, ite has yet t nd rea cm penstion fr the scrice awn F empe, 11 c4 b 12 c b6  cb6 'b6 prve unsuccess   ge Edi-GPrtisch, Hungarian Ta Ch 1998/9 1.5

2 4   i D) It is cear enugh at  i nt the best way t efn th -awn Nev ertheess, this bishp v crps up from time t tie in e tu ment prctice

ENC ATEITES

 d4 Te most atural reactio, altoug 3c5 4 exd5 (4 c dx4 5 xf6) 4exd5 is aso good, ansin  a ie of te Excg Vian a i atisfactry fr a ( io 31). 4 �x   � T i y n  n ia al. Oerise Wits iso oves ave siy cost i tie it nt ig to s for it; for exape, after 5 d3 (5 g5 c5) 5c5 6 c (6 dxc5 xc5 7 f3  8  b6) 6...c6 7 f3 cxd4 8 cxd4 e7 9 c3  Black gets a stadard IQP positio it at least oe extra tempo.   Te simplest pat to equality is 5.d6 6e2bd7 7bc3 e5, as i Feadez Romero-de a Villa, Bur guilos 27 Te text-move leads to a more complicated game. 6 2 c6 7 �



oter positio wit a isolated d-pa ca arise after 7 c3 cxd4 8 cxd4 (8 xd4 is met by 8e5). Black as o problems ere: 8d6! (tis is preferable to 8.e7, as te e7-square will proe useful to te c6igt) 9   1bc3 6 11 e3 e7 (11.d7!?) wit equaliy, Blu steiBov, Moa 2002. 7cd4  d4  No te oer knigt atacks te wite iso. ut ote o lack de lays actuly mang e excage o f, a  as n is to elp Wite sy aivate i quee M Kin  ssibiliy of caslig qui.  ca continuatio 9  a6 (r 9...7!?  2  it quiy)  c (10 e2 ad  c4   t y .  .c) .d6! ( ...c?! i igy caress i vie of   f4, as i Hectr-Sort, Worl unir C, fort 198) 11 e2  dos ot ao Wite to cout o te iiiative. 96 10 2  l l  11 xf3 e5 is god for ack;  will aser 12f5 i 12 ...' l l �7 Back prepares to case ad as rater good prospects. "Te future be logs to e wo as te bisops tis staeet by Dr Taasc is igly peiet to tis poiio, but at pres ent te caces of te two sides are ap proximately equal.

2 King's ndian Attack A popar way for W o ao saar s of  r  o  vop i a smar y o  s Iia w  mo f  a  sppori  -paw w  mo paw mo 3 I prp h s Ia Aa -p so no promis W a aaa as  is mor s o oc ha ra a a Howr in h a of   Df  si ao sm mor compca c a ha aay pay 6 a a frr aa w 6-5 wo iov a o of m  a x p fr ao   c (s ay by pay 5 ppa a aac o  bac  a  o p som op av o a a ms woy   o  W a a o  pa a a a s oo om a  ray of -ps  opo  wr o p   Or a coray  a foow  I    ' (o    a   5  ' (o  a  o way or aor   w   I  ma oiao   5   (o 3) ac rs Wis ra pa of vop m or amps o aap  for his ow s

 1    ' (D)

T  ow a  Cor Var ao T o a of s mo w py o r ac      A  7 Co  f py  b 5 4 b a    4 f6 5 5 (a w a ay o om o  5 x5 x5 6 xf6 xf6  o aaa o fo ) 5  f7 s a a o am Trfor m s-payr s h mo  ' a mos xsvy i a Kns Ia Aa ox:  7 3 f 5 4 3 f6 5 3 Ts ma aao i scss i io  a hr w sha osr aohr coa o as a aaiv 2

INGS NIAN ACK

lac proposs a wholly irn pning srcr  a mho which w will ofn s in Par  of his boo nsa of a rnch or Sicilian forma ion ( c5) lac is going o play 3 5 a swich o som in of Opn Gam whr h aiiona mov ' will hav is pros an cons Th imm ia  5 is lss accra as 3 f? is a form of Kings Gambi whr Whi has som sfl xra possibiliis   Ohr movs ar no vry araciv for Whi a) 3 f 5 (3   '3 c5 is eal)  x5 ( 3 x 5 x c5)  x5 (  5  i n) 5 c3 'f5 gav a  a in Dimov-Doa Va 200. b) 3  5 (    d3 e5)  f (an o in of   b  6 (  xf? 5   i mo o l) 5 3 (5 f3 xf 6  g5)  now 5 f6 o 5 f5? oo favor abl for lac c) 3 c3 c5 (3  7?  f3 5 is ao possib)  f3 ( f can b m by  a6 5 f3 g7)  5 5 3 (5 g3) 5 f6, an h irrlvanc of h ns posiion on  bcoms vin  

Whi is prsn wih a choic only play in h nr givs him any chac of a avag b ha mans noncing his orginal plan 4 c

lac has no problms afr  g3 c5 5 g 6 6 c3 (6 3 g7) 6 a6 7 - g7 (o 7 f6), as his gam is xib an srong



46  4 (D)

Now 5 g3 is comforably answr by 5 5 6 3 x 7   bcas h ns posiion on  os no prov civ wih his srcr Af r 8 g c5 9 0-0 0-0 0 b (  0 h b6    g  f3 'c8) 10 b6 w hav by ronabo mans rach a wll-nown horical po siion, in which h iniiaiv is alray on acs si

W hav a Ponziai Opning ( 1  5  f c6 3 c3 f6  ) wih h xa mov ' for Wi This mans h pawn is prc b Wis ns laion also has som signi can rawbacs 6

5 x !? is lss soli, b ins ig Thn a) Afr 6 cx b+ h nfor na posiion of Whis royal cople will ll 7 ? wol b highly in caios whil 7 c3 0-0 8 5 5 9  xc3  0 bxc3 6 gav lac he iniiaiv in h gam GiinahKambl Visaapanam 6 prcis 7



 OCK-O ESS ENING EETOIE FO LCK

d2!? d2+ 8 bd2  9 d5 9 d3 can be me by 9 ...e8  e2 d   e4 2 e4 f5) 9 ...e7  'd3 d   e2 c 2 dc c 3  d5 leads o eualiy. b)  e5 d5 beer han  ...d3 7 d3 g4 8 'e2!) 7 'e4 de7 8 f4!? 8 cd4 d5 is uncle, while 8 d4 d4 9 cd4 d5  f4 f5 is eual) loos soger, bu aer 8 ...g here is sill no clear ath o an advan age for Whie. Boh 9 g3 e 9.. .e7!?)  h4 d5   ed cd ad 9 cd4 b   ( b    d5 5)  .. .  g ( d5 c3 2 bxc3 x   ...  d3 e  unc  9 c4 e  g3 ( xd      2 ed cd          cd4 d5 !?   x5 (  x  2 ...5  3 x x  3 ( 'd3 ad8 5  x   5 d4 'd      euaiy. 6 ' Echangig by  dx x vs Blac easy euy B v  his ueen, Wi m y  e bisho  wih he e  d (..  er  e4 e5 2 3 c 3 c   d d) he would immedial lay b5, bu here his is imossible.

g4  3 e3 f 4 gf g5, wih unclear lay in boh cases. 7!?

Blac lays in Chigorins syle, fa vouring aciviy a he cos of sruc ure. A slighly assive coninuaion is 7 ...d7 8 d5 here is nohig beer) 8 .. .b8 9 d7+ bd7  c4 c   dc bc, wih a more agreeable o siion for Whie.  ic6

Aer 8  d7 he acica has ...d4 ad ..b4 ae.   bc6 9 d d 1 

Acceg he g bigs W no advg  xe    c e8   5   x      e e  bhopp  he  of   

1       ' D)

6i7 7 ib

Afer 7 e2, Blac can choose 7 ... 8  e8 9 bd2 9 d f8) 9 ..f8, wih a Ruy Loz where he whie ieces are unusually laced If desred, Bac coud comlicae th game b 7 ...ed4 8 cd4 d5 9 e5 b4  d  f5 or 7 ... 8  ed4 9 cd4 d5  e5 e4   a3 f5 2 d3

We shall ca his he Barcza Vara ion. Whi blus Blacs hea of ...de4 by sideseing he echange

INGS NIAN ACK

of ueens. By avoiding he more obvi ous move 3 d2 (whch we see in Sec ion 2.3, he rens e ossibiliy of c3 and ees he c  h diagonal oen for e bisho. These facors may rove usel in soe variios, al ough he ueens ely eny ino he game is sill  disadvanage. Blac cn y o ei s circumsance rgh away by 3 ...c, bu we shall rs in vesgae he classical line of defence: 221:  6 9 2 222:   2.2.1  6 4 

4 f4 de4 5 de4 5 is dui for Whie. T e    fawn de   ef   he de f      47  

Whes sd   e  Indin c s s fows o In e ne fuue e wl advnce he wn  e5. o er he moves e and h4, he moeuve bd2fhg ca fol low, when a lge  of Whes army wll b concenraed on he ngsde. o If he blac ng is also on he ngside, Whie can see o launch a direc aac. You may have noced ha he mve 'e2 is no a fundamenal a of his schee  i s usuly lyed only in cse he e5awn reires defence On he he hnd, e delay in develoing he uees ngh lows Whie o emly anohe saegic idea f ar rae: 5 ...c5  g2 c (a sreoyed



reacion 7  (7 e5 !  d7 8 c4 is also ossible 7 ... 8 e5 d7 9 c4 gives Whie he iniiaive. This discussion hels elan Blacs ne move s  b! ?

Blac rules ou any c4 ideas, such as he one we saw in e las noe, wile maing a useful move ha forms a of a ueenside awn advance  Bls hemaic source of counelay. I s also ossible o lay 5 ...  g2 b5, bu here is no need o huy wih cas ling. 6  D) r e me being Whie should m he ension in he cenre nd cnnue develomen. Oening he    ex5 ed5 is no in his fa   e he immediae  e5    c5 8 h4 c loos re  e ee s sill no one o a   e gsde.

6 c 7  

I would be uncomfrble fo he blac ng o remin n he cene y longe. e 7 ...c, in addon o 8 e o 8 f, Blac mus also recon



 OCK-O HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR LCK

wih he oening of he cenre by 8 ed5? ed5 9 d4 c4 (9 ...cd4  b5 d7   d3 b  2 c3)  e5, which is by no means easy for Blac o mee.  

By crossing ino Blacs erriory, Whie aes on a serious liabiliy, al hough aer 8 e (8 e5 b7 is also eual) 8 ...c 9 bd2  he can delay his decision no longer   ed5 ed5 leads o a balanced game, while  e5 d7 will ransose o he main line. arrying by  f ? allows Blac he iniiaive aer  ...de4   de4 a.  9 4 The ve  e a  bd2 are of axiaely el vae, i as much as tey eee i  e same chi. ee      Blacs cue    us ou ly  e  ii ive 9 ...b4  dx4  (10     c5 e5  e b    . 9 10  Whies e  se    barrier by  c b       4 b4 roved unsuel i e me GleKorchi, Liz 97 a Bacs ueenside cuelay evel ra idly when i ha e  bie uon. Whie soul as ar as ossible avoid a confronaion n he ueenside, since ha is where Blac has he iniiaive. l. .a (D) 11 bd2

  f4 is anoher oin for Whie, bu   .. .a (   ...a4 ?) 2 bd2  (2...c4  3 d4 c3 { 3 ...a4?} 4 bc3  is unclear, Belesyosaleno,

Badalona 25) 3  (3 'e3?) 3...c4 4 dc4 (4 e3 can be me by 4...cd3 or 4...b3 ?) 4...c4 gave Blac he beter rosecs in Gle Cheushevich, Siss Team Ch 29. In ay case, i tus  ha he e Wie e  laying 'e2  e i vain, an his ac is now be eue, a i ee. r com  e  e he eb  erasuen, Sousse Izal 97  e e 2 d3 d5 3      5    gf3   0-0 0-0  e5   e b5. Al h i  iin he mve  e2   been see in racice, i is beer fr Whie o lay      h4   2 4 a4  3 a3 ba3 4 ba3, as ischer did. l l  b4

Blac is ging o cnnue wih 2...a followed by ...c4, maing conac ih Whies sucure. This ceaes ension ha mae i hd r Whie o focus  his nide lay.   ...a4  has siila iea, h a er 2 a3 (2  a3 3 b3 e5) 2 .. .b4 3  ba3 4 a3(4

INGS NIAN ACK

ba3? de5) 4 ...c4 5 �g5 he si uaion remains unclear. 12  �6 1 �g

After 3 h2 (or 3 h5) 3...c4 Blac heaens o deonae Whies ueenside by 4 ...3, whle 3 c4 bc3 4 bc3 b8 is no much more ala abe since 5h2 a4 gve Blac he iniiative. 1 c4 14 ' Or 4 dc4 c4. We can aready sate hat Whies oening sraegy has been a failure. 14 cd 1 cd b

I is simler o ay 5...'b   d4 fc8. 16  �g 17 g c

Bac a t    siion, Smirn.v, u , Plovdiv 28.  c 6!? (D)

We aeady now this motf Bac maes use of the ueens odd ocaion on e2 o change he nature of the oen ing sruggle.

 

4 

The same rely will also foow af er 4 c3. 4  c

The atem o oen he game by 5 ed5 !? is ineresing 5 ...'d5  c3 b4 7 �d2 c3 8 �c3 (beer han 8 bc3?! f 9 g3   �g2 e4   de4 e4  2 c4 'f5, SrioviSo janovi, Belgrae ) 8 ...�g4 9 'e4 (9 d4?!   de5 f) 9 ...�f  'f3 'f3   g3 f. owever, i is then dicu for Whie o deveo hi iatve for eamle, 2 �d2 d4 13  x3  �g2 d2 5 x7 8 gives o sides chances in a ccatd nding, wie he awn  12  x o 2 g f7  3 0-00 d  4 x os Whie no vg. 5 g3f6  g  anoter ossii ity, ut Bc otn a eaan game y  .. .e4 (a ial meod the awn ecag on e4 gans in aea aer the wt io moves o g2) 7 de4 c5 8 c3  foowed by ..b and ...�a.  6 (D)

 OCK-OU HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BLCK

  6 b4

An adventros move White rabs space bt delays his development and ives lack chances of a counterattack y d4 or ...a. Positionally it is more approprate to play  c2  7 e2 wit a reversed Philidor Then the ad vance b4 will demand additional prep aration and ato te exa tempo wil ndobtedly prove valable to Wite e cannot poe Black any si nicant openin poblems. 6g4 After pinni te it lacks aze ests y o e d4sare.

His chances in this position ae prefer able.  1 4 6 2 d  d  d2 

7 bd2

 c y to ifoe s een side by 7 a b   l a pe in is     d4 8 4 (8 b a 8  9 b   bd2 (        12 d2  1 7d6 ow  lie  d   c3 9 bxc cxd  d    xd2 bx 1    2  b8 as sown by ov anta Cz de a alma   to nclea complicatios   

8 ..d7 is lo n bd. 9 b2  1 g  11 b Te careles  1 exd xd 1 2 b (ioviodstein Benase 28) leads to serios hdships for Wite afte 12...e8 1  e4 b4 . And the line 1  a axb4 12 cxb4 d7 as its own defets. ll d4 12 d4 b

Te weaess of Whites eenside pawns povides Black wi ood play.

Tis is te stadad wy to imple et e s di ttak and is   d t oial conin       We    te ene o     e metod ver  a   o it will   i se t te imme de 4  i ae in view o 4 .dxe  de4 b   (  will be onsideed in noe a to Whites th move i econ 2. 1   ... b7 7 f (7 'e2 c 8 f is better) 7 ...xe 8 e c wit  advan tae for Black. Terefo  fers to develop is iht foe playin . Here o openin rods fk We shall dell on to of lak poibil ities thoh in bot cases te moe ..b is in or plans

INGS NIAN ACK 21 : 4  6 22: 4 e

23 24

 4 6

lack wants to prevent e chetto of Whites kins bishop. 5 e5

With this move White chanes sa teic corse and keep chances of re tainin an advantae. If White persists with the idea of a kinside anchetto lack has nothin to complain abot as the followin variations demon strate a  3 dxe4 (the sanad reply  dxe4 b7 7 e2 (7  ca  et by 7 .. .b7   b b7 8 e a 9 c xc  xc6 c8 ives ac the  7 ...c6. ow 8 2 b4 9  9 c4? xe4 1 x4 ' 9 ..xc2    (Yldahev Hyeb 2 is dbios for White an ae 8 c 8 a3  8. ..e7 9 2 d7 ack ha a pleasant ame b The inclsion of the moves  c3 c somewhat chanes the sitation bt in any case White does not achieve his desired setp  3 (it makes no sense to play  'a4 d7 7 c2 c7 8 3 c 9 2 d  ...e7 7 2 a 8 e (both 8 exd exd and 8 c4 dxe4 9 dxe4 c 1    are eal 8   .fd7 9 'e2 c 1  'c7 1 1 e1   1 2 c4  with ood conterplay for lack. c The ninspirin  e2 ives ack a pleasant choice  ...dxe4  dxe4 a 7 c4 (7 c4  c 7 ...b7 8 e e4 with eality or  ...b7  e



( 3 dxe4 7 dxe4 transposes to line a  .. .fd7 7 3 c 8 2 c 9   and aain lack takes over e initiative. 5 t 6 4

After  3 c the pawn sacrice 7 2 c 8  dxe 9 xe xe 10 e c 1 1 c4 is only enoh for eality at best and nwaanted stb boness like 7 b3 c 8 f4 e7 9 h4  10 a4 (1 0 2 a4 1 1 bd2 a3 10...a brins White to an even worse position. 6c  c 

7 c4 is dbios becase of the simpe 7 ...e7 8 cxd exd

For the st time in this book we see a natrallookn rench Defence position lack has manaed to per sade White to abandon his oriinal openin plan and has even obtained a small bons in the form of an extra tempo in compison with the line 1 e4 e 2 d4 d 3 d2 f 4 e fd7  f3 c  c3 b. t is it enoh to  ealize  e



 OCK-O HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR LCK

lack does no hrry wih he sra eically imporan exchane of he lih-sqared bishops hopin o ain one more empo by waiin for Whie o move his bishop from f 8 �5

Oher coninaions are not eec ive a 8 d3 alows lack o demon srae the idea mentioned in the previ os note after 8 �a bot 9 f �xd3 10 xd3 c   3 cxd4 12 cxd4 b4 13 'd c7 14  'c2 and 9 �xa xa 10 e2 c  1 1   are eqal b 8 h4 c7 (8 �a 9 xa xa  h5 h maintains ety wie lack can also try 8  ! 9 d �a 9 h5 (9 d s  t by 9 �a 9   n  h3 c aeady ives ac  be chances c 8 a3 'c7 9  (9 d3 � 10 xa xa s eqa 9 c  e2 (   c2 is aso answeed w  f while  d3 cxd4 1 1 cxd4  12 b5 xd4 sws a way f te to land in roble     f 1 1 exf �xf (xf s aso vabe and ie aain risks ndin himself in he worse position 8 �a6 9 a4

Whie arees o excane e bis ops b only on his terms ow an exchane of bishops on b5 will be an swered wit axb5 bockin lacks qeensde play I will reqire some effo and accracy from ack to keep the qeenside id and mainain scien conerchances; for exam ple

a) 9 b7 seeks o compicae he srle and afer 1   c   e a6 2 d3 5 lack had ood con erplay in he ame ea-Elissal Car denas Gines 1998 However afer he precise 10 f Whie sands some wha beer b 9  'c8 10 'e2   cxd4 1 1 cxd4 c 10  'b7 1 1 c4 (1 1  xb5 1 2 axb5 a   c 1 2 dxc5 xc5 13  ( 1 3 �xc+ xc 14 b4 xc4 13  maintains te ba ance c 9 cxd4 (lack xes the centra pawn-strctre riht away 10 cxd4 c8  e2 (1 1  c b7 1 2 0 xb 1  b a ie by lit e  fees  e and ites t  cea eas n te kn s by 14  b 5 xa8 'xa8 6 'g4 0-0 73 (ndasan-Ho   2 c be paied b 17      in tese varia t  ens te initiative in the na anays ac can neveheless cont on eqality  4� (D)

This contination is in principle dierent from e previos one lack is happy for White o develop in te syle of e Kins Indian Attac plannin to disrpt he smoo pro ress of is play once e bisop as reached 2 5 g 6

It is also acceptable to make the prelimnary pawn excane 5 dxe4  dxe4 before playin  b After 7 e5 fd7 8 e2 (8 2 a transposes

INGS NIAN ACK



c 1 h4 e? 1 1 'e2 h (it is sim pler to play 1  .b , calmly makin eenside proress 12 f ( 1 2 h b 1  f b 12...  1  hx ( 1  h 8 1hx 14 1h2 - 1 4 h 1 c d4 leads to a doble eded ame. The carless 17 cxd4 xd4 18 xd4 cxd4 19 d2 dh8 led to major for hite in ovsesianDelchev, 2. 6  xe4  xe4

to the main line 8 ...c 9 2 c 1 - a 1 1 c4 - chnces are approximately el  lcks pces are active enoh ad hite s st preponderance s t    tance. evertheess the tet  more cric. 6  As alredy oted in ecto .2. 1  it is not very oic to dce e white pawn to e beore ck hs cs tled and the variation  e ( e2 can be met by  dxe4 7 dxe4 a 8 c4 c  .. .d7 7 2 b7 8 - c 9 e c does not represent a daner to lack a 1 c4 - 1 1 cxd ( 1 1 'e2 is met by   . e8, while 1 1  'c7 12 'e2 dxc4 1 dxc4 fd8 ives lack the initiative 1  .. .exd 1 2 b  ( 1 2 f e8 12. . .e8 1 c f8 is el. b 1    1 1 h h 12 c (1 2 1h2 8 1 4 'c7 and now 14 'e2 is poor in view o 14. . .dxe 12 .. .4 1  hx4 hx4 14 h2 dxe 1 x4 x4 1 'x4 f is n clear

Aer 7  b7 8 - (or 8 xe4 riht away 8 ...- 9 xe4 xe4 1 xe4 bo 1...'c8 and 1..c lead to eity.  a6  

s idea resides precisely in  oo move. 7 ...b7 is s t sive, d ater 8 - - (  is taboo 8 ... xe4 9 e 9 e fd7 1 'e2 c hite h d cool of the ame.

ather than ht for eali in a crmped position lack preers to en ae in a dispte abot which o the lihtsared bishops occpies a more eective diaonal.



 OCK-O HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BLCK

8 e5

White accepts the challene. The alteative is 8 c4 c 9 00 (9 a3 is met by 9 ...d7 10  Jf and 9 e5 by 9 ...d7) 9 ...00 10 e5 d7. Then   'e2 c5 or 1 1 'c2 b8 oers White no prospects wile after 1 1 a3 lack can decide between the calm 1 1 ...b8 (bt only nt   ...cxe5 12 xe5 xe5 13 'a) 12 e b7 13 'c2 ( 1 3 e2 'c8) 13 .. . wit euality and te s   ...b. en a) 12 c2 dxe 1  xe5 xe5 14 d d (14...e nd 1...d3 are also possible) 15 cxb xb leads to nclear play. b) 1 2 e bx4 1  '    r 1 3...cb8 1 4 x     with elty 1 'x    Jb7 1 x5 x 1  d  aain ncle. c) 12  ves     tween 12...dxe5 1 e  1 b2 d3 1 x x d te more nba ...bx    '4 Jb7 14 x4 b 1 'c2  1 xd4 Jx  te e is roly eal n b ses. 8  recisely so. ll s well in Whites position except for one factor any check cold m ot to be very painfl for is kn d ack constcts his conterplay on is small bt vital de tail. ow besides 9 c4 c 10 00 00 (whch nsses to e pvios note) practically all admissible moves by the wite kits need to be considered a) 9 4 c 10 '4 10 e4 xe5 1 1 xd8+ Jxd8 leads to an n clear position)  ...xe5 1 1 x7

f 12 'h Jxh4 (12...'d4) 13 xh4 (13 xh4 8 ives lack the initiative) 13...'xh4 14 xh 8 15  bd7 1 f4  is eal. b) 9 b3 c 10 Jf4 (1 0 bd4 dxe5) 10 ...00 1 1 bd4 ( 1 1 d2 e 8) ...a5 (...db8) 12 a4 c5 (lack can also choose 1 2...c ) 13 b5 c 14 'xd8 (14 d f 15  fxe5 1 xe5 d7) 14 ...axd8 15 xa7 d7 i s eal. c) 9 e4 c 10 f4 h (the immediate 10 ...00 is an interestin alteative) 1 1 h4 ( 1 1 c3 5 is nclear) 1 1 ...00 1 2 d2 c5 1 3 xc5 bxc5  14 xd8 ( 14 000 b8) 14 ...fxd8 1  d2 d4 1 xa8 xc2+ 17 d1 x1 1 8 e4 c4 1 9 c 1 c3 wit eal y. d) 9   1 0 2f3 10 'h5  1 1  ) 1 0...00 1 1 f4 ( 1 1 a4 is  y 11...5 1 e3 'd5)   ...   x    cxd4 1 3 xd4     15  xe5) 1 ...xe 1  c7 14 xa8 c 15 xc 'xc is ncle. e) 9 5 c 10 de4  1 1 3 00 1 2 f4 c5 1 3 d ( 1 3 xd8 xd8 14 fd2 xe4 15 xe4 d7) 13...bd7  14 4 (14 d4 is met by 14 .. .xe5 15 xe5 xd 1 xc xe5) 14...xe5 15 xe5 (15 xe5 f) 15...'xd is ncle. In all these rater nsal varia tions I did not scceed in ndin any advantae for Wite. I can terefore recommend this line to lack as i leads to concrete pay of a type ta Wite can ardly ave intended when he decided to play the ns Indian ttack.

3 Exca nge Vaiatin 1 e4 e6 2 4 5 3 ex5 ex5 (D)

e Echge Vao o  ch Deece coti to at oor, in ite o it ovio raih tee cies, unfavorale statistic (sangely eogh, Blac wins more oe tha Whte) an it ategic overty. With Blac ee o weaese a the c tre static a ymmeical, White has no real reerence oint om hich to develo an iitiatve. Occioally he sccee i creatig an avaced ost on the e5e or ig a atac on he lac ng, ut mot oen the o ele merely leas to echag. As Blac, oe must not e overcon ent o core, a all the egatve ea tre o White oito aly eay to Bac game, a he i a temo e hin to oot. The one avantage Blac

has is sychological  ite may eel oliged to lay actively o avoi an derig hs rtmove advantage. Or i White i eeg a raw, he may lay inaccrately i a attemt to orce hi dee relt. We hall eame the fooig lie  Ater 4  (Sectio .) Blac e ome hoe of enlivening the game  4  (Sectio .2) give Blac ay to tease White ito reang t ymetry, t he mt e care .  4 c f (Section .) is very o or Blac,  his osiili tie or coterlay are mima. ote that ater 4 c, Blac can aso ay 4 ...4, ut given that or reeoe choice aer  c i  .. ., we will eed to e reay to tace thi oitio i ay cae.  The lie 4 c4 (Section .4) i the mot welcome choice rom a racti cal viewoit, a White create a maor imalace. Blac get a ght ig oitio a chace to eize the initiative.  4 3 D)

Geerally eag, it i more logi cal for White to evelo oe o hi ight t a committig hi iho



 OCKOI HESS PENING EPERTOIRE FOR BLCK

a his early sae ives lack more possibilities. However es choice is comprehensible if he wans o play c3 and e2. In he case of the immedi ae 4 c3 lack can reply 4 ...d  d3 c (ransposin to he main line or 4...f  d3 c (see lie c in the next note.

oe ha he play after 4 d3 c has some parallels with positions we see aer 4 c4 in ecion 3.4. 5

 f3 (or  f3 on he next move is consideed in ecion 3.2. n e case of  e2 Black can simply play  ...   (or  b c 7  f it eality  ...xd3 7 xd3 d6 8 f e7 levellin he  .  'f   6 2 e lie  ...f 7 3 7 a3 s e by 7 ...a wle 7 0-0  8 d2 f as eal in

4 6

4...c leas to moe lvely play a  'e2 s a ste of time. Af er  ...e7  dxc f 7 3  8  e8 9   Blk akes over the initiative. b  xc xc  f3 f 7  (7 e2 e 8  d7 and now 9 f is calmy met by 9 ... 7 ...- leads to eaiy. c  c3 oes Black a coice be ween  ...cxd4  xd4 c 7 f3 d 8 - e7 and  ...f  f3 d 7   8 dxc xc  he can con on eal chances in both lines. d  f3  c4  e2 (an npleas ant loss of time bt tere is oti to be done  ...c 7  d 8 b3 cxb3 9 axb3 e7 ives eal chances.

A.eos Ayamonte 2 7 ...e7 8  (or 8  e 9 e3  wit eality 8 ...h is pos sible. By movin his own een ie sees to bea Blak to te pnch and hiner te development of te c8 bishop. 66

Black takes his chance. Tis contin ation is more iterestin   ...e 7 e2 (7 f4 f 7 ...d7 8 h3 (8 f4 e7 9 h3  is clear .Vidarsson.Grevic Amsterdam 22 8 ...e7 9 f4 f 1 xd xd ith eality V.Georievit kov Bbera del Valles 1999.  3

If ite is strivin for no more than a draw he can choose 7  4 8 x4 (8 e3 d7 ives Black te iniiative 8 ...x4 9 x8 xd8 .      8  oe Blak a plet choic betwee 8 ...e8 9 e2 e4 ad 8 ...e7 followed by 9 ...e4. The po sitio is no loner it so borin

CHANGE ARIATION 8e4 9 

Acceptin the pawn sacrice by 9 xe4 dxe4 1  xe4 e8 1 1 f3 (weaker is 1 1 d3  f 1  ...e 1 2 e3 e7 pvides lack with plenty of compensation alinCech Czech Team C 29/1. 9  1   lack has a ood ame.  4   )

4

lack can maintain the symmetry a while loner by playin 4 ...f  d3 d   ( e2 e 7  e7 is eal  ... and then a 7 h3 e8 8  (8 e xe1  9 xe 1 c and 8 c3 c both ive lack comfoable eality 8 ...h 9 4 c 1 c3 ( 1 c3  1 1 3 e4 1... 1 1 3 x3 12 fx3 4 is ncle. b 7 e1 4 8 h3 (8  h 9 h4 bd7 1 bd2 c is eal 8 ...h 9  h 1 h4 bd7 1 1 bd2 (after 1 1 f c 1 2 xd7



xd7 lack has the initiative 1 1 ...e8 ives lack eal play. c 7  h 8 h4 c 9 bd2 (9 h3 is met by 9 ...e while 9 c3 4 1 h3 xf3 1 1 xf3 bd7 leads to eality 9 ...4 1 c4 (1 h3 xf 1 1 xf3 bd7 is eal 1 ...bd7 11 cxd ( 1 1 h3 is met by 1  .. .e and 1 1 c by 1  .. .f4 1  .. .cxd 12 b3 b8 leads to an eal ame. Playin careflly for eality in lines like these is not a reat deal o fn. The textmove invites a sharper strle bt it is still p to ite wehe he wishes to play ball.    4   c3 f ansposes to eton 3.4 while lack stands well in  vaation  c3 b4  d3 (b  h3 e7 7 d3 f 8   and  b e7 7   8 h3 f lead to eality  ...e7 7  4. lo   d3 d   ( h3 b  b c 8 a4 e7 and  3 e7 7   8 h3 b4 show e ideas for lack  ...e7 lack has no diclties. ite then does best to play 7 c4 dxc4 8 xc4 ans posin to the main line below.      orcin play arises afte  c4 dxc4 7 d a 8 a4 b  9 dxc bxa 1   (1 xa4 4 1...e7. Then a 1 1 'xa4  12 bd2 (12 xc4 e ives lk the intiave 12 ...b8 1 3 a ( 1 3 xc4  14 c2 f 13...e (13...b 14 xc4 d 1 d4 c was eal in ther G.eie Asian Team Ch 29/1. b 1 1 bd2  ( 1 1 .. . e  1 2 xa4 c 3 1 3 bx3 d is an interestin

 OCKO HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BLCK

 

alteative) 12 xc4 xc 1 'xa4 'xa4 b7 14   and now now 14    'b8 1 ac allowed White the initiative in Gonzalez Perez-oskaleo ites 20 10 14   e7 shold be prefeed when White has slihtly the more pleasa pleasant nt position position  bt lack has no real problems

position is especially important for s becase it can also arise via 1 e4 e 2 d4 d   f 4 exd exd

6e e  cc44 xc4

This captre is foe de t e threa threatt of 8 c c 8 xc4 

8 4  4 is a blner n ve  9 xf7 9 3

Preve Prevent ntin in    4 n  n se  9  4 10 h 10 e  1 1  1 1 'xf x 1 b b  1 'a 1 d b     1   'h4 l  n e te that 14 e  met b 1 1  9 eizin e ve whte bishop by 9    e     te  hen the exchane 10 e e e le to to an an ap proximately el position becase the pawns n e  4 e eally weak 1 e3

Or 1 0 d e e 1 1 xe xe xe xe 1 2 e 'd 'd 1 6 11  e8 12 el a6 th sides have chances oloan Aleksandrov ropean Ch Plovdiv 28  4 c3 6 

Here we see the xchane Varia tion in its Classical Classical fo form  withot withot  exava exavaances ances like the move move c4 This

  o te black bshop mst ms t occpy the e7-sre Other continations promise White nothin a)  d c (an interestin altea tive to the the rotine lines     d and  c  c  e2 b4 thoh these yield eality to)  dxc lack can also be happy with  f c4 7 e2 b4 and   cxd4 7 xf 'xf ' xf 8 'e2 e) e)     xc 7 f 00 8 0-0 h with eality b)  f d  d 00 7 0-0 4 8 h h 9  c keeps the ame a me level level Then Then 1 0 4 4    1 1 e is inappropriate aression be case ca se after   e8  e8 it is liable o re bond on White ote that this line can be reached via the moveorder 1 e4 e 2 f d  c f 4 exd exd  d4 c)  f4 f4 can can be met met by     d  'd2 00 7 000 e8 8 d c o  b  b44    d d 00 ( (    c) 7 e2 c

CHANGE VARIATION

8 dxc5 xc5 9  c with wi th eal ealiy iy in boh boh cases. cases . 5  e 6 3 This is ye anoher varia variaion ion where Whie can ry a sep with d3 and e2. Other Other moves a    7 d3 (the move 7 e2 is entire entirely ly passive 7 . . . h 8 e3 (8 f4 f4 c 9 h3 d is eal while 8 h4 can can be met by 8 . . . c c 9 h3 h3 h5 h5 8 ..d .. d (or 8 . . . c leads to a level ame. b After After  d2 d2 , the plan with 7  brins some welcome diversity o the position bt does not represent a seos daner for la. e m pest pest reply is 7 . . . e8 en e at empt to lan a pan-to by 8 f bd7 9 4 9   9   .  1  b5 loo y  y bo   W  he variation 7   8  (8  b4 b 4 8 . . . e4 (8 . . . e  is ne ne 9 xe7 xe7 1  xe4 xe4 xe4 xe4  7  c 8 f3 (8 e2 b4 8 . . . e8 9   h h 1 h h44 e4 e4 1 1 xe7 xe7 xe xe77 12 xe4 dxe4 13 e5 xe5 14 dxe5 xd2 xd2 15 xd2 f5 lac stands at least n worse. 6c6 The more more exible  . . .  deserves attention. After 7 e2 h 8 h4 (8 e3 e 3 eps eps te te ame ame eal 8 ..... . e8 lac has some chances to take over the initiative.  e2 e2 4 4 8 3 3

8 b c 9 a3 (9 a4  1 a3 a concedes lac te initiative 9 ...xc2 ... xc2 1 'xc2 'xc2 cxb5 is eal. 800

lack lac k has no need to hrry wih wi h the exch exchan ane e 8 . . . xd3.

 

9 00

In the case of of 9 e2 h 1 e3 (or 1 f4 f4 1 . . . c5 Wte Wte nds himself in somewha somewhatt the worse position. or is it advantaeos for him to pay 9 f xf5 xf5 1 xf5 xf5  1 1 a3 c c 1 2 h3 e4 when w hen lac lac  a the iniiative iniiative in W.Richter-Glek ndeslia 1992/. 9  6 10 4  The ame ame is i s ea. 34

4 c4 c 4 (D)

own as the Monte o Vaia tion this is i s a mode mode openin weapon White takes on a position t  io lated lated eens een s pawn reyin rey in on te ac tivity of his piees pie es to provie provie y compensation for thi stati wees. wee s. We have aleay een ti type o satey sed by ac (with coors reversed in ection 3.1 (in te note abot 4 d3 c c  and we shall meet it aain in hapter 5 when we examne the Taasch line 3 d2 c5 4 exd5 exd5. 4 6



 H        N NN NG G EPERIRE FOR BLCK

k n ro  editey kn k n n  ng ng t in  tempo y wn r te t move his p r f. f . Inste Insted d 4 . . . dxc4 

 tnes t  vritin f the eens Gmbit Accepted 1 d4 d 2 c4 dxc4  e e 4 xc4 exd4  exd4.   In the the cse cse of of  f b4 b4  d2? d2?  ( c leds to t o the the min cntintion) cntin tion) ... .. . c lcks lc ks position posi tion becomes pref pref erble. 5  i4 6   d hs the ide of deveopin the kn kn   kiht to to e2 bt sch  set p is i s e ied t defendi tn t tcn. tcn. lk elies elies  . . . dxc4 7 xc4 0-0 8 e2 c 9 0-0 d d   mte mte f ft echnes ech nes oni les le s with hi one. 6  c6   Any he dely n deel deel  e f-bish  n   benet t White  7   8    e2 dxc4 dxc4 1 0 x4 x4 (    e6)  . . e8+ 1 1 e e  12 d  1     nd lck intend  lde o he iht e e. e. A di Ten Tent t 21 2 1 . b 7   e e (7 . . .00 8 d 'e8 'e8 9 e2 e2 xd 10 d d e e 1 1 -0 e7 is el 8 e2 e2 (8   8 . . . h 9 xd xd leve lk l k cmf cmft tble ble.. The mve 7 d is me ccrte thnn 7 e2 s then besides 7 . . . dxc4 th e ly ly 7 . . .e is i s wohy f tten ttention tion..  00

7 .. . dxc4 is i s likey like y to ed to to the the sme position. 8 oo ig4 9 i xc4 10 ixc4 (D)

  e  itin of the whole  h cn ise vi  wde   eences. The white   eed c4 in two mves e n te QGA line mentined e e bt nw lck needs t decide n  ln f ction. It is nt dvnteos fr lck to ly 1  ...x ... xf f 1 1 x x xd4 xd4 1 2 'xb7. In order to crete the thet of tn n d4 d4 the the mov movee 10 . . . b8 hs of of ten ten been plyed bt bt 1 0 ...' ... 'd ? lk lkss moe ntrl. White des not scceed in deivin d eivin ny benet fm fm e oen in in f fter 1 1 h  xf 1 2 xf xf xd4 xd4 1  xb7 xb7 xc xc 14 bxc bxc 8 1    'x x 1  x x c2 1 1 b 'd7 'd7 12   (Weissenbch-A.Gf erin 28  1 1  xc 12 bxc bxc e8 e8  lck hs od py in ll cses.

4 Advance Variatin  e4 e6 2 4 5 3 e5 c5 (D)

We have now reahed the rst of he main lines of the Frenh in whih White has realisti prospets of main ainin his openin advantae. n the French one of laks main priorities from the otset is o dene the central pawnsctre sine this makes it possible for him to deide how best to develop his pieces while eneratin conterplay. o in one sense the Ad vane Variation is hihly obliin as White rans his opponen his wish wihot fher ado. Neverheless his straihtforward stratey also poses problems for lak as White seizes a spae advantae and takes sares away rom laks minor piees  in many lines there is a a jam over the e7se. While lacks s move •

is obvios (3 ...c) later he mst at deliberately and prposeflly; other wise Whites spatial pls an beome he dominant stratei fator. After dealin with the mnor op ions 4 dxc 4 4 and 4  in etions 4. 1  4.2 and 4.3 respetively we  to the noal 4 . I reom mend a standard setp bt si the moveorder4...b  f . Then   a etion 4.4) is an interestin sielie bt is not very promsin  for hite.  e se may be said abot  �d3 te famos ilneray Gambit (etion 4.). There is insient jstiation for Wite to ive p his dpawn.  n etion 4. we examne  e2 which may reslt in either eality or interestin complications.  Finally etion 4.7 is devoted to Whites main ontination  a, by whih he aims to stabilize te een side by  and so minimie Baks onterplay. We examne  ... �d7 (an attempt to play for eality)  ...c4 (which tends to lead o a lon positional strle) and the non ventional  ...f. 41

n this and the next two setions we briey onsider variations in which

 

 OCK-OI HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BLCK

hite refses to spport the d4pawn with the natral move 4 c. Wites main idea in these lines is to establish iece control of the centre, bt this imzowitschian concept ds not bear rit here. In the best case (4 f) hite can expect at most an nclear osition, so one can wonder why these old ideas still enjoy some poplaity in o time. 4 c5?!

This is the most illoical of these oddball continations Wite not only takes away te defence of the e pawn, bt in addtion pomotes the op onents develoment. 4c6 5 f

White sold avod  b c  4 e7 (BeezovsGle n deslia 2/4. It is not m e fo him to lay     4 xe 7 '7 f w  s the initiative. s ...�c5 6 �

 f4 s not   vew    7  b2 wle    7  f esembles e m l 6f6 (D)

 e2

7 f4 fxe 8 xe xe 9 xe  is entirely bad for White, while after 7 exf xf 8 00 00 9 c4 (9 e2 e) 9 ...dxc4 10 xc4 xd 11 %xd 4 1 2 f d4 Wites posi tion is worse, BeckerEliskases, i enna 19. fe 8 e5 e5 9 e5 6

Here any blockade of the sare d4 and e is ot of the estion since White is clealy behind in develop ment. The ent piority for White i simply to emee fom his openin mess witot too reat a disadvantae. 10  5+ O 1 0 00 00 1 1 c4 (played too op timsty 1 1 .4 1 2 h xf2 1    1 4 1 f with an e   l    00  12 � g8

 ve e sme position as in the l  b w two extra moves on  oeets. Black stands better. 4.2

  ?!

s has ideas in common wit eton 4. (4 f) bt is makedly wose since White simply lacks time fo sc een walks at the beinnin of the ame. 4...c6 5 f c4 6 � c (D)

White now has an awkwd choice a) 7 00 (ivin p the last cental pawn 7 ...xe 8 xe xe 9 f f 10 ' (10 b is met by 10...�d7 11 xd7+ xd7 12 ' f, while Wte shold avoid play ing 10 x7 xf4 1 1 xh8 e7, as

ANCE ARIATION

Remlinger inicate) 1 'h 1 1 h (1 1 b 7 1 x7 x7 1  e 7)   e4 wth a n age for Blac b) 7 4 4   (  4 x  cx  1  4 hte i  t    ition ine h        erpoing fail to g  Bt 8 x  cx 'c  x4 (1 b 'x) 1'xb   b 7 doe not gie Whte enogh ompen saion for the pawn c) Impartiall peaking, the lne 7 g f  ex (8 xh7  anwere by  xe an 8 f4 with  g) 8   'g  hxg ( f7+ xf7 1 hxg f)  gxf may be calle the tron get for Whte, bt for the ae of thi it wa eiently not worth playing 4 'g4 43

4 f (D)

ite man iea i to etah a strongpoint on e, an to achee this he  rea to acrce the 4-paw, at leat temporarl �

 

4 cxd4  d

Whte can chooe  'x4 e7 (    '4 'c7 7 c a  n cr)   ( 'f4 g 7 'g c   '7)  g (c) 7  h  - c  '4, whch l t t (hot), bt thoe w  4   not genrall ong to bail ot at ch an el tage    6 00

ht t an  to aane hi qee pawn with a an , fo lowe b  fter  4 ec 7  7  b e7  g (not  e 1  g, whle   g  1 g h 1 1 h g4 ge Bla the tiae)   ( g)  ex x Blac chance e preeable, praggetof hten, ell    6 c6

Thi lne i more interestng than  g 7 e c 8 b (8 a? e7  b4 c7 1 e f, Doleal Ra, lbace )  'c7  xg fxg (or �  hxg) wth approxmate eqalit   d 8 

 

 OCKO HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BLCK

8 b i weaer e to 8 'c7 or 8 b4 8'c

Blac can alo play 8 a  ? (rai cally preenting 4 bt weaening the point b)  a4 b4 wth an nclear game 9 ' c 10  xd 11 xd d

Whte wll oon -etablih the ma terial elibrim, t he ha no rea on to expect any aantage 44

4 c 6 (D)

Blac cte  pon oth the central int 4  th pawn The more ctm  4 c (intng o m    5  allow   5 3 w we can now ecl   ation

  White can alo play  a, which af ter  c  f lea to ection 47 c  

White main poibilitie ( 3  e an  a) are coniere n later ecton One can alo menton that  xc? tear apa White pawnchain for no epecially goo reaon, an   xc 7 'c (7 'e f 8 b4 e7) 7 c7 8 f4 ge gie Blac the initiatie The ight moe to a i an inter eting iea the ight i reay to bol ter the 4-pawn by c, which can be a efl way to conter Blac  ge7-f manoere, bt Blac i not commtte to th, an can ee to throw a panner in White plan 6cxd4  cxd4 ib4+

The implet rejoiner aer the hp chec, the ght can come to e  Blc the ole the often    nge eelop m 7  .   c c8  alo qte g;  m  9 3  !  1  b 1 1 b    c a (pchi-Vle  n ), an now it i be f White to gie p the pawn by 1  )   b4 1 x4 xb4 1 1  ( 1 1 f b) 1 1  x 1 x b c)  e b4 ? (or  b4 1 e  with ealty) 1  (1  f i met by 1  e7  while 1 xb4? xb4 11  c 1 b1 e7 i nclea) 1 x 1 1 'x 'xb 1 - 8 1 fc1 e7 wth nclear play 8 d  9 b Whte ght ay from it n tene rote, bt  c i a pawn ac rce that i not altogether conincing

ANCE ARIATION

after  ...x 1 'x xb 11 3 'b 1 - -. Howeer,  c3? 7 1   (1 c xc3+ 11 bxc3 b ) 1 ...- 1 1 e f lea to a poition with chance for both ie. 9ixd+ 10 x d 00 11 i

1 1 3?  i inappopate in iew of   ...f 1 exf xf, when the ex change acrice ...xf3 i in the air. l l f6

  ...7 1  c3 f 1 3  f 1 exf (1 g? fx 1 x4 fxe give Black the initiatie) 1...xf tranpoe. 1 xf6 xf6 1  White hol aoi 13 - xf 1 gxf a 1 3 x4 1 f 14 d1 id

The gae i axl eel. lac att l nae for the efet f h pawne 45

4 c 6   c6 6 d (D)

Thi moe inoce the Milner Ba ambit. White pt the bihop

  

on it bet qare, bt he will pa a price for thi pleare, a the -pawn i left nprotecte. To avoi an infe rior game, Black mt accept the chal lenge. 6cxd4

Fixing the ftre boot in it place.

 cxd4 id

Now the threat to captre on  i real.  00

Bacng own b  c b   x 1 x c  11 c3 e7 mae  ene fo White, whle   x  x4 x4 1 - (or 1 e a 1 1 ) i eel a tranpo ito of e. d4 9 xd4  i e tan contination. e ee  g i objectiel a p e:  ... 1 e c 1 1 'f h ( 1 1 .. .--  1 c3 f 1  exf xf ge Bak he initae) 1   4 1  f4 hf. owee, gie ha hi popet e t too  pee in he an lne, ite a be ae to pla  b. e  .. .c, the ha lne 1 b xf (1...'xb4 1 1 x4 x4 1 b c 1  f b) 1 1 x3 'x 1 g 'a4 13  h (eron Zhao Zong, Qeentown ) leae Black in chge, bt the me reaon able 1 x4 x4 1 1 f e7 of fe White ome comenation for e miing pawn. 9'xd4 10  (D) lower line ch a 1 e e7 1 1 c3 a or 1 'e e7 1 1 c3 c 1 e (1 b 'xe 1 e3 'xe 1 f  1 f 'e) 1 .. .a

 

 OCK-O HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BLCK

only gie Blac extra efenie poi bilitie

alteatie  Blac ha a reliable game an retain hi mateial pl 1 h1

fter 1 1 c 1 xa 'xe 1 x7 ( 'xe xe 1 xb7 a7) 14  'xe 1 xe b8 the a teria i eal, bt ite poiton ha eiently woree 1c6 1 f4  14 d1 14 1 'c4 1 ' (o 1 '1) 14 i ba for ite 14 c 1 x6 'f

e game moe ito an ening in whic ite will hae to tggle for eality 106

Blac cotet  wt t oe  w      a  ctc c t  ig  ec w    clely a ctca tt  t  ategy He o     lge elot     lac i te  t     eciie low   e     (1  ' ca  t    1  '  4  c7) 1  '4 (     1 c   '4 )  14      '  a ite initiatie  exat eeele, Blac oe ot e to ee ielf to c age, ece te text-oe eep te cloe atre of e play, an minimie the ri of coig n e attac 11  

 c   1 c ('4) 1 g ( f4  gie Blac the iitiatie) 1h 1  e7 i an

46

4  'b6   c6 6  (D)

ith t oet ihop eelop met, ite ee te 4-paw er he rotectio of  een Blac nee to tegthe te iee, an for tat i econ nit t get to the f-ae 6cxd4

I t cae the exchage ee a e pepaatio fo te et oe

ANCE ARIATION  cxd4 h6 (D)

The night e thi rote o a not to aow he ariation 7 ge7 8 a f  c.

 

he prefer a more carefl efence of the 4-pawn. There are eeral wa he can o o 4.6.1:  b?!  4.6.:   4 4.6.:  �d!? 4 46.1

 b?!

Now 8 a i not aantageo in iew o 8 ...�xa  bxa  1 � a 1 1 ' 'xa (or   .. .7). The obio argmnt againt pt ting the night on h i 8 �xh, bt lac iea i to anwer thi with 8 ...'xb. Then a)  �e i ba e to  ...'xa. b) fter  b gxh 1 b1 (1  x4) 1...'xa it i nliel that White initiati i woh two pawn. c)  c   an now  .. .'xc 1 � 'a (1...'b )   - �e7 1 'c gae White compnation in Mantoani-Emelin, Eropean Clb Cp, allithea 8. It  afer to pla  .. .x4  1 'x4 xa1  1 1 �1 gxh 1 - 'b 1 �a4  14 b1 'a 1 x with a raw, a Vitigo anale. Oerall, ee complication are not o atactie for White, an normall

 e bio contination. White loe hi catling right, an the initia tie remain in Blac han.  Bla ca pla een more igor ol b e immeiate 8 ...�b4   , not pening a tempo mo ing the ight.  � �b4+ 10  oo Bla lgicall prpare to open the f-le b .... 11 4

Other poibilitie e no beer. la eep the initiatie r 1 1 c f 1 g4 7 1 a4'8 14 a �a, 1 1 �  1 �xf exf ( 1 ...fxe  ) 1 c �e or 1 1 a f 1  c �e7 1  g4 h 14 ex xf 1 h ( 1  g i met b 1 ...xf) 1...�7, a in Ditro-Re, Blgaan Ch, oroet 8. l l...h6 1 1 In comparion with 1  h f, White at leat actiate hi roo. 1 f6 1 6 6 14   1 � t i better for White to tae the ex change than to er for nothing ae 1 gxh f7 1 xg7 xg7 17 hxg7 'c7, a in Inio-to, French Team Ch 1. 1

 

 OCK-OI HESS PENING EPERTOIRE FOR BLCK

Blac has the better chances e to hites nmeros weanesses, Savi Retsy, Eropean Ch, Bva 9.

463  d!? (D)

46  c (D)

This intates forcing pla. f 9 a4 Ditratng th l  o  attac on th 4pw    4 1 a (       xe)  . .      g f ps nothg go for hte. 9 + 10 d

gain 1 f b   ( c xc  xc b4)    b4 1 b1    e7 loo a lttle absr. Now, hower, simplcaons are ntal 10  b4 11 ic xc+ 1 xc 'b6 1 b d 14 xc6 xc6 1 b

Or 1   b. 1 a6 The position s approximatel eqal Blac will meet  e b  .  .

 non-stanar ecision It loos o to move the bishop again so soon after it came to e, bt the nighs move to h has change the sitation sigtl  Bl  a teat to tae the 4aw Ia,  f  xf exf las to a own thortcal position that ll e om the line  c  f ge7   cx4 7 cx4 f  c (niting the blac qeen to oc cp b)  b 9 xf exf. Sch a pawn-strctre s not to everbos taste, bt the chances are approxi matel eqal For example,  c e an now a)    e7  h h  fl (an atempt to attac) 1... ( 1..- 1 h b, Benjan-n, Co logne rapi 1997) 1 f ac8 1 h b4 1 g h b)   - c 1  a (or  b1 e7  e h, not allowing the

ANCE ARIATION

exchange of bishops) 1 1hh 1  b b ?  i s ncle nclear, ar, since since 1  b 5 will be me me by 1 1x x 9 c

The pawn sacrice in he spiri of he Milner-Barry amb,  c, is ncnincing ncnincing after fter    x 1 0 0-0 (1  x x 1 1 0-0 a a)) 1    a (or 10 c5)  c5) With he extmoe, Whie again offers his opponen he chance o each the srcre iscsse in the peio peioss noe by     f5 1 xf5 exf5 exf5 I is also accep accepable able to to pla     g 10 0-0 f5 11 x gx  c g8, g8 , as in anip-Bl Ce Ce 7, 7 , bt Blac has a  nttg possibliy possibliy 9 !?

This sharp e, wc ha   only been tete in ne lt g(), eseres atinal st Blc  an oiginal wa to cntne te attc on he pawn an creates coplica ions 10 h f 11 1 1 xf xf xf xf (D) (D)

 

By casling, White inens a piece sacce Here Here are his other opions a) 1 xg5 xg5 xb xb 1 b b 5 5  ? 1  a g8  g8 gies Blac te te initiaie initiaie b) 1  xg5 xg5 x4 1  0-0 x 1 x 1 xe5 1 5 c c is el el c) 1 c h? ( (g4 g4  hxg fxg 1 g5 'x x s eal) eal) 1  x5 x5 ( 1  00 e 14 a4 )    ' '5 1 c e 15  0-0-0 with he initiaie for Blac 1 4 4 1 hx4

Pehaps White shol o witho te pelin pw xche an pl e imite  c gxf 14 x x fx fxg   e   ? ( (   x4 1  f f  88 i eal) eal) 1    8 8    4 4 1 8 e e c5 c5   c, wit wit a  lce e

1 1 fx4 fx4 14 c xf 1 xd fx 16  xd4

Blac hol ai 1 1  17 f 8 18   1 e4, t ang on 4 now sewhat gins in srength 1 f6+

1 7 g5? g5 ?  , as plae plae in in Mosesi Mosesian an Carana, Moscow blt 1, i e rior becase 17 17e7 e7 gs Blac the aanage 1.
Not Not 17   e7? e 7? 1 8 5   when when Blac lac is in roble The ext-moe les White regain he piece, b 18 x4 x 1  f (r 1 1c) c) leaes Whie ghting ghti ng for ealit ealit 47 4 c c  b6  f c6 6  (D)

1 00

This is i s the main line of the ance ance Variation Wite prpes te moe



 RCKSUD HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BCK

evelopmen an (given the oppo nity) the pawn can  attace by a  a 8.. c (D)

b4, which will ole the problem of efening the 4-pawn, a b or e will be poible. Blac ha e eral viable replie, an we ic the following three, betwn which rea er can chooe epening on their preference an moo 4..1: ...d ... d 4

4..: 4..:  ..c4 ..c4 f 4..:  f



4

471 ... d

Thi i a lightl paie, t ite reliable ateg. Blac ignore hi op ponent ponent  intention an call call contin e eeloping.  b4

It mae no ene for ite to e la thi moe. fter 7 e ge7 he will in an cae hae to pla  b4 (al rea not at the mot aantageo moment) or  xc c7  - xe 1 xe xe, which oe not pre ent an problem for Black.  ...cxd4 ...cxd4  cxd4

Now White ha occpie een more more pac, bt he contine to fall behin in

For the time being, Blac hiner the moe  c in iew of the obio repl    . x4. lo the line  a a   x4  x4 xc1 1 'c x4 gie Blac more tha it copenation for the ex chane, bt thi tactical iea i inef fecti fectiee ate aterr  e, a  . . . a? a? 1 - -  axb4 axb4  1 axb4 axb4 xb4 xb4 1  a a leae leae ite with the the initiatie. In thi cae i i ter fo forr Blac Blac to contine  . . . ge 1  - (   b? b?  a a gie Bla Blac c  goo game, game, while while  e f f  1 ?  ? i we wellll met b   .. .a) .a)  ...f ... f oling hi eelopent problem o the ngie. Meanwhile, he whit ight ight mt remain remain on b  , an White White   propect of achieing an aantag are are remote remote  a) 1 e e7 (...g 1 ' '  xe  fxe h 4 c e7 i alo alo goo, goo, while while 1 1 . . .g  ? ii inte intere ret t ing) ing)    ( 1    an an     ar ar

ANCE ARIATION

boh me by 1 1f f 1 c fe) 1 e  e 1 fe gie Blac an e ra empo emp o in comparion wih the th e main line below b) 1 1 b b h 1 h1 (1   i anwer an were e by by 1    g an 1   wih   g)  g) 1 1 e7 1  c c (1    g) g) 1 1 a a 1 a 'c 'c 1  c (or (or 1  c 1 c c 1  c c c c 1 7 c ) ) 1 c  c 1 'b 'b (DKononeno Manee, lhta ) 1 1- - i nclear The The concl con clion ion i ha aer aer 8    c8, hite ha o  o rengthen rengthen hi h i  eece eece of he -pawn right away o a to lce hi ing biho on the ete e  9 

Thi i he ot et t atio fo Blac e e ih moe,  , i alo pile: a)    h 1 c (1  a   c c c 1  - - e7 e7 with with an e eal al poitio)     a 1 1 a 'c 1 c (1 c c 1 'b ' b i n clear) clear) 1    c c 1  c c c 1 c e7 In conat o line b aoe, White ha aen on c withot elay, b Blac ill maintain the eilib rim: 1  - f (anothe (anothe path to eali eality ty i 1     1  e 17  g g 18 x g, a i D Damjaoi, a 17) 1  e 17 x 8 with eal play (Vii go) )   ge7 ge 7 (hi (h i otie otie le o a laer cetal ea o , bt at the cot of lowig Blac B lac eelopmet)  c (1      1 1  a a 1  b a i pleaa pleaa fo fo Blac, while 1     a a 1 1 c c 1  g g



i nclear)   a  a 1 1 a c 1 c c Now White mt accept he preence of the hotile nigh on c an y not o allow he othe blac piece o become become actie oo e e 1  b b  ( 1  c 1 f f 14   xc xc 1  c b i nclear) 1 1  b b 1 x7 7 7 1  b   (1 ( 1   c c 1 c b)) 1   g there are chace b cha ce o o  oh ie 9 Thi tie he igh i heaing or g, whe it ca awt the the et oet to exhge o e, the th eig fce t it eael 0 d   00 1   ii et et y y 1   a a 1  b e      d

e cig 1  (with the iea o lcig the oo o  taigh awa ae 1 1xe xe 1 fxe) al low Blac to     o 1 1- - 1    ( 1      1  cxe cxe) ) 1  f f 1 e x B ater the e-moe, the ebihop hol be aen witho fher elay    x x  fx fx (D)

 

 OCK-O HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BLCK

Let s sm p the main efect of lacs position is the inactiity of his ieces, an he mst tae meares to improe ths staton. He oesnt yet ae time to castle, snce Wite is hreatening the npleasant manoere bc. 13  Opening the le for the roo an he iagonal for the bishop, while pre paring the possble nermining moe ..aS. The lne 1...b 14 b (14 'e a4) 14...a4 1 �b1 xb (wore i 1 ...c ! 1  c xc 17 xc, when Wt  the initatie) 1 xb  17 1 g is approxi mately eal in al Wte tll has some initiatie, bt Blac is close to eality. 

 little piece of sbtlety after 1 �c a the position becomes leel right away. 16  1 xb5+ 'xb5 The exchanges hae faore Blac Whites aantage s minimal, as his pawns in the centre an on the een ie rreent a conenient tget for Blacs ftre conterplay. .

4.7.2

 c4 (D) •

14 cl

In ths case 14  a4 1 1 c 1  c (1    ) 1  17 xc c 7 1  c   1 9 1 c  c a only l to   clear game, as os 14   aS !  14 xc1 15 �xcl 5  

 �

Bl nt th  aance an rl g e iecton of the sc ggl Te aance of the blac wn mrrors the eas behin Wte moe  e, an s jstie by te weaening of the b-se.  long an omplex milegame s ally follows.  b The moe 7 e s of eal ale, bt if White wants to play g, then it is btter for him to eelop the een ight rst. The mmeate 7 g is less accrate  then besies 7 ...7 or 7 ...a Blac may t 7 .. .f!   exf

ANCE ARIAON

(8 h fxe  xe xe 1 xe e7) 8 ...xf  h (or  g  1 - - 1 1 e a 1 b  with eqality)  ... 1 'e - 1 1 xe h8 with goo compenation for the pawn. It i een weaker for ite to play 7 h4 ! f. In ho, there i no reaon to elay the moe b. It i alo woth noting that after 7 b, the natral-looking 7 ...ge7 i a erio mitake in iew of 8 xc4!.   The poibility of attacng the ont of the pawn-chain by b4 or ... mt conantly be taen nto cn by both i. Th   a crio pl, nc  t  epaate rgmn t   l o imaine a wh    h analogy, on c c   I ian line 1 4   c   c 7 4 e4    -  e e 7  h  ' f  -- 4 1   1  ge: thi tation look clearly a orable for White, bt een in thi cae hi aantage eman proof. The immeiate 7 ...f ! i not o ef fectie in iew o 8 e fxe  xe (we hall ee the poiton aer  xe! c 1  in note c to White 7th moe i ection 4.7.)  ...x 1 xe c 1 1 - e7 1 4 cxb 1 xb with ome aantae for White. Bt i Black cant attack the white e-pawn immeiately, then he nee to take precaton agant the analo go acton by hi oponent. n that one reaon why he place h kight on a now there i nothng goo for White in the line 8 b4 ! cxb  b (

 

b 7 1 c4 e7 )  .. .  1  c4 xc4 (or 1. ..le7) .   O ing to the aance poiton of Black s c�-pawn,



Wite also has prob lems fndg a convenient way to velop his pieces . On the e2-squ d ae ;e bihop ha _

more propect than it would on g2 , but now the white qee

n has less freedom to ov. The   . n atertiV  s

 g3

().

Now the bhop can ecie betw the qare h an g. e foeen er _ e, but is loos mo!e actv had to plement  a way tat oen t i ae ome o of rawback : a) The straightfowd 9  h3  . v!tes a vgorous response on the  kn Side: 9. ..e7 0 0-0 ?! ( 10  gg2 ) 1..h ( ... g! i een ore ac  rate)   e ( 1 1 .g2 is answ erd b .

_

�

  ...g 1 h h, wile 1 1 b  Y a o anwered t. h   .. . g)   ...g � g -- (or  ... 4 ! ) wit an i 1  ni tiative for Black . b) noer erion f i iea  -- (or  ... h 1 h f) 1   

:

4

 OCKO HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BLCK

is no very successful eiher. lack has he ineresing reply   ...f5 !?   ef    0-0?! is weaker in view of   ...h followed by . ..f7 and ... g5)   ...gf 2 0-0 h, when i become  clear ha he main impac of he move h4 has been o weaen Whies own kng side. Since he sluggish 3 e g8 akng aim a he g3-pawn) delivers he iniiaive o lack, Whie mus ae emergency measures:  3 b ! f5 4 3 cb3 5 b3 a4  fd2 wih chances for boh sides. c) 9 b  ! ? (he bes preparaion for h3) 9 ...e7 (D) 9 .. .0-0-0?! 0 b3) and now

c) 0 h4?! is again of uesion able value. Afer 0 ...h   h3 (  h5 0-0-0 2 h3 b8  3 0-0 g ?)   ...0-0-0    ...f5 is also possible) 2 0-0 b8 3 e Whie could  3 e) 3...f5 (3...g5 !?) 4 g2 4 'f3 is me by 4 ...e7) 4 ...e7 5 'f3 g5 Blac has he iniiaive. c2) Afer 0 h3 h   0-0 0-0-0 2 e (less logical is  2 e b8  3 f c8) 2...b8, he pah forward

appears open for he f-pawn, u he line 3 f4?! g is advanageous for lack. Whie has no naural way o push forward wih his pawns, so a manoeuvring sruggle usually fol lows; e.g.,  3 g2 or  3 'f3 e8 4 g2 h5) 3 .. .a8 3...g? 4 e3 f5  5 g4 e is anoher ap proach) 4 e3 e8 wih approi mae eualiy. d) Since in he nal analysis Whie does no succeed in deriving any real bene from he bishops posiion on h3, i is simpler for him o play 9 g2. Afer 9 ...0-0-0 0 0-0 (0 g5 h   0-0 e7) i is in any case beer fo lack o refrain from he move 0...f5 and o coninue, for eample, 0...h   e (here   e is less logical since he g2-suare is aen, and i is dicul o ransfer he igh o e3 ...e7 2 b b8 (2...f5  b4!? cb3 4 b3 i s unclear)  3 h a8 ( 3...c8 ! ?) wih chances for bo sides, Moylev-erelowisch, ucha res 998. Les reu o 8 e2. 8  (D)

ANCE VAIATION

The pay now becomes more con crete 9 00

9 b 1 e7 10 f is of independent mpornce White wants to rerop his pieces withot delay d is wilin to play a compex qeenles ddeame er 10  b3 !? 1 1 f4 (or 1 1 'xb3 xb3 1 2 f4 b5) 1  a4 12 'xb3 xb3 13 e3  14 3 h5! 15 h4 (1 5 h3 h4 1 h2 e7 is eqal) 15f

4

e7 it is by no means cear who has ained from this The simpe 13 3 (o even 13 'd2 riht away) 1 3a4 14 'd2 deserves attention, bt then White wi have to play d1 , offerin an exchane of ihtsqared bishops that it is principe in acks favor

9  e 10 b1

Removin the rook from the ine of re After 10 e 'c7 (10f5 !? is aso possibe), 1 1 5 is answered by l  h 12 h3  000 13 f4 , whie 1 1 b1 transposes to the main line 10 ' ack raday prepares the ma noevre  c8b foowed by a4 1 1 e1

White needs to nrave his tanled pieces He intends f, and then to brin ot the c 1bishop He can aso try varios moves by the fkiht, wit ot achievin any particar ains 1 1 h4 c8!? 12 f4  1 3 df3 h 14 e3 b, 1 1 e1 f5 12 4 ( 12 4 is met by 12h4 and 12 df3 by 2  b3) 12e7, or 1 1 5 h 1 2 h3 c8 (simper is 120-0-0 13 f4 ) 13 f4 (1 3 f3!? b 14 e3 a4 15 'c1 b3 1 'e is nce) 13b 14 f a4 1 5 'd2 ,  in Zdeaanian, ndeslia 2/5   c 1  b6 1 f4 (D)

13 5 provokes the back pawns forward, bt after 13h 14 h4 a4 15 c1 (15 'd2 5 1 3 4!? 17 h4 h5) 155 1 3 000 17 h3

1 f!?

ack takes the opponity to alter the pawnstrctre and ain some space on the knside He c also preseve the stats qo by 1 3a4 14 c 1 h, when White appears to have nothin better than 15 d 1 , releasin the white qeen from the necessity to ard the c2sqare 14 h4 h6

The immediate 14 0-00 is of eqal vae, iven that 15 5?! h 1 f7? a4 is evidently not advanta eos for White 1 h e 16 ' 000 ack enjoys at least his fll share of the pay his mnor pieces contro the qeenside, and ter a sbseqen 5 his rooks will nd prodctive work on the knside

4.7.3 6...f6 (D)

he moves we eamined in he las wo secions 6...d7 and 6 ...c4 are heoreically welleslshed and have undergone eensive racical esing. he same canno be said of his lile known awn move. However i is quie ossible ha in his way lack can solve his defensive roblems: by immediaely aacking he cene he wishes o disrac his oonen from his lans of awneansion on he queenside.  b4

his move is consisen and clearly a criical es of lacks idea. Of course oher moves e ossible oo: a) 7 ef6 f6 (nomally lack needs o send wo moe emi o ge osiions of his ye) 8 d3 (8 b4?! c4) 8 ...d6    (...c4  c2  is equal while lac can also ry  .. .c7!?)  dc5 (Whie should avoid  b4 ?! cd4   cd4 e5 and  e ?! h8) ...c5   b4 f2+!? 2 f2 g4 is unclear.

b) 7 d3 fe5 and now: b ) 8 e5 f6   d6 and here  f3 ransoses o line a while  c6?! bc6 gave lack he iniiaive in YilmazSuovsky World eam Ch ursa 2. b2) 8 de5 is more rinciled al hough lacks chances loo no worse: 8 ...c4!  c2 h6   g6 (...f7   bd2 g6 2 b3 is unclear)   b3 cb3 2 b3 g4 3 h3 ge5 (3..f2!?) 4 e5 e5 5 e g7 wih equaliy Panarinimofeev Sarajevo 2. c) 7 e2 (a very modes move bu he bisho is no oo well laced on e2) 7 ...fe5 8 de5 c4! (beer han he unclear lines 8 ...h6  c4 d4  h b2   bd2 gh6  2  and 8 ...ge7  c4 d4  d3 g6   e2 g7 2  c7 3 f4  as in Li Shilonghang Pengiang Singaore 26)   c5 ( ...h6 is also os sible)  bd2 h6   b4 (   b3? g4)   ... e !? (   ...f2+) wih good rosecs for lack. In all hese lines lack is ghing hard for he iniiaive. I is worh draw ing aenion o he characeisic move ...h6 which occurs in many lines.  ...fxe (D)

s echange is more resolue han 7 ... c4 which is also acceable. hen 8 f4 a5  bd2 g5  e3 ( g3) ...ab4   ab4 a 2 a g4 gives lack he iniiaive while 8 e3 fe5 (8 ...c7!?  f4 fe5)  e5 e5  de5 c 7   f4 h6 and 8 a4!? fe5  b5 e4 ( ...a5  e5 b3   c4!)  bc6 ef3   cb7 b7 are boh unclear.

ANE VAAON

4

4 f4 f5 15 xf5 xf5 16 d2 8 is qite convenient for ack 9  c5  3 ge   

(D)

8 c5

t is not advantaeos for White to pay 8 dxc5 c7 9 c4 f6, bt 8 xe5 ? xe5 9 dxe5 a5 10 d3  axb4 1 1 h5+ d8 12 c4 b3 eads to abso ltely iational pay 8 dxe5 c4 aso eads to an nclear position 8  9 e5

9 xe5 xe5 1 0 dxe5 xc5 1 1 d3 e7 1 2 h5+ 6 1 3 'h6 c7

lack stands well The standard sac rice 12 xh7+ xh7 13 5+ 6 4 d3+ (14 4 can be answered by 14  f5) 14  f5 is not daneros for him

5 Tarrasch Variation

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ld2 c5 (D)

The Tach Vaatn  n  t main lne f the enc Dnc. Whte up h epawn wt a u ful develpng mve, d k  t the game int me anal channl than the that can ccu ae the more cmbative knght mve 3 c3. Strikng at Whte cente b 3 ..c5 i one f Black man ejnde  and a ve lgcal ne, nce with White is not in a pitn t geneate apid peue agant d5. Mt line featue the pawn exchange exd5, althugh thee e me exceptin, a we ee in Sectn 5 . 1 , where the line 4 gf3 f6 5 e5 fd7 lead t me tpcal French ucture. After 4 exd5, Black ha a majr chice etween tng on an ilated queen pawn b 4 ..ed5,

or the lne with 4 .'xd5, where he keep an undamaged tucture but mut be caeful nt t fall t far be hind in develpment. In thi bk, I shall motl cover the 4 .exd5 lines but hall alo bre preent a reper toire with 4 .'xd5 (in Section 5.2), as ome eade ma pefe thi and in an cae t i gd t be able t u pie u ppnent nce in a while. 4 . .exd5 demntrate a claical teatmen f th pitin n the pirit fTach pnciple f fee piece pla. After 5 b5+ (Sectin 53)  nt expec an penng ad vg nd 5 g3  me citical. Thn the lne 5 ..f6 (Sectn 54) i a pu tet  the p and cn of the lated pawn and b playing 5 .a6 (Sectn 5.5) Black eek even more piece actvit 5.1

4 tg3 (D)

Th move, mantaining the central pawn-tenin at leat fr a little whle i the nl eiou alteative t 4 exd5, which i cndeed in the fol lowng ectin. Often the line tran pe, but thee are me ubtletie tha need t be nted. Other moves are eldom played, a the f to keep White pening ini tatve:

ARSCH ARIATION

a) 4 b5+ d7 5 xd7+ 'xd7 6 dxc5 (Black can also be happy with 6 gf3 cxd4 7 xd4 dxe4 8 xe4 e5 and 6 exd5 'xd5) 6 ...xc5 7 gf3 f6 8 'e2 c6 with an equal gam. b) 4 c3 (White chooses to take on th IQP but this is not an eective ver sion) 4 ...cxd4 5 cxd4 dx4 6 xe4 f6 7 c3 (7 xf6+ 'xf6 8 a3 d6 9 f3 can be met by 9 ...h6 10 d3 d7!?, while 7 d3 xe4 8 xe4 b4+ 9 d2 xd2+ 0 'xd2 d7 is equal) 7 ...e7 8 f3 a6 9 d3 b5 is the same as a varation of te Q Gambit Accepted, bt wt  a move for Black. c) 4 dxc c   (  exd5 exd5 6 b b    Black is a tep p   with Section .5 5 ...c6 6 g  7 0-0 'c7 8 'e2 (8 exd5 xd  equal) 8 ...0-0 and now  c3 s an odd transposition to the Colle Syste  see Section 3.2. Instead, 9 e5?! can be met by 9 ...d7 0 xh7+ xh7   g5+ g6 or 9 ...g4!?.

5

If Black prefers to meet 4 exd5 with 4 ...'xd5 (as in Section 5.2), then it is logical for him to continue 4 .. .cxd4 here. Besides 5 exd5 'xd5 (transposing to Section 5.2) it is also necessay to considr 5 xd4 6. Then: a) 6 b5+ d7 7 exd5 (7 xd7+ bxd7 s also equal) 7 ...xb5 8 b5 a6 9 c3 xd5 with qality. b) 6 5 d 7 3 ( f4? s strogly swered by 7 ...x 8 xe6   fxe c6  f3 c5, while 7 b b  2   atfac t o la  ...  4 6  b (    xd4 x b2    w a levl ge  ...g 0  b6 le to uear play in D.wll-A.go, Wl uior Ch, v 7. c)    7 3 +!? (gg  or dvlopnt 8 d2 (8 c3? c3)  ...  x ( c4 ca be et by 9 ...e5    b5 4, as in the ge Fedorchk-Mtinovi, Ax les-Bs 20 ) 9 .. .x gve Black a satisfactory postio. Itretig co plicatons e possble; fo eple, 0 c3 e5!? (0...6 pvd sucint fo equality in Dgebuadze-Eing, Mtz 20 )   e (  b5  2 c4 e6 3 xe c  c6 bxc6 5 d4 xc3!) ... 7 (...e8 is also possble) 12 f4 (2 e2 can  an swered with 2 ...) 2 .. .c6 3 c4 xe 4 fxe5 e6 !  s uncle.  

4

Ar 5 exd5, 5 ...ed5 leads to Sc tion 5.4. 5 .. .xd5 is an alteative, whn 6 e4 cxd4 7 xd4 e7 leavs Black safe and 6 b3 cxd4 7 bxd4



 OCK-OI HESS PENING EPERTOIRE FOR LCK

transposes to line c in the previous note. However, 6 dxc5! is already less inoensive. After both 6 ...�xc5 7 e4 e7 8 c4   xd8+ xd8 0 d 4c6 and 6 ...d7 7 g3 (7 b3 xc5 8 'd4 'b6  c4 xb3 and 7 c4 5f6 8 b3 'c7 lead to equal play) 7 ...�xc5 8 g2 b5!, Black doesnt have serious problems, but White has a pefeabe game.   fd7 (D)

e7 0 e c5   b3 xd3 2 'xd3 b4  3 'd  d3 4 fd4 'b6. White aso achieves very little by 6 �b5 c6, 6 b3 cxd4 7 bxd4 c6 or 6 dxc5 c6 7 b3 dxe5.   c 7 d ess logical continuations are 7 e 2 'b6 (7 ...f6! ) 8 b3 cxd4  cxd4  0 a4 b4+ and 7 b3 cxd4 8 cxd4 'b6  d2 ( �e3 )  ...f6, with chances for both sides. With the text-move, White shows his wilingness to play a gambit in or der to keep the initiative. However, Black is by no mans obliged to accept the pawn, or to do so on hites tes: 11: 7  52 1: 7 h 53 5.1.1

    cd

Ths s qute a wekow tot cal position tat ises oe o a the moveorder 3 ...f 4 e5 d 5 gf3 c5. The sategic sggl movs in a very dieent directio om the standd 3 ...c5 lines. Toughout this  .. .e6 repertoire we shall see many such metamohoses; if we are pre paed for them, then it is ost likely our opponents who will nd them selves on unfamilar ground.

t   to x te pawn in its pa w Back pas to take the paw t oe o not.  cd (D)



Addtonal pawn-tension n e cen tre will rathe suit Black:  c4 c6 7 cxd5 exd5 8 d3 (8 b5 can be met by 8 .. .6 or 8 ...e7) 8 ...cxd4  0-0

 !?

ARRASCH VARIATION

For the tie being, Black keeps his options open, while aking it had fo White to secure his hold on d4 (0 b3?! can be met by 0 a4) The straightforwd  xd4 0 xd4 xd4   f3 6 perits Whtes pieces to assue an aggressive posture right away Although Blacks defensive resources appear adequate, rather accurate play is deanded of Black in this case Here are soe criti cal lines showing the typical cut and thrust: a) 2 a3 e ( 2  c5 ?  3  d7 is anoter iea) 3  ( e3 !? is unclear  30-    (  'c2!?) 45 ( f6 s  too)  5 xh7 (tt   5 5  h6, Fehlhar-t  tea event) 23) 5x7 6 xg5+ g8 b) 2 e2 h6 3 b (3 e3 c5) 3  c5 (Black can also   3a5) 4 e3 d8 5 b5 d7 6 fc a6 7 xd7+ xd7, Gopal Wang Hao, Saraevo 200 c) 2 'a4 ' b4 (not letting the white queen transfer to the kingside)  3 c2 c5 4 d2 ( 4 xh7 d7 5 d2 g4) 4 a4 5 b3 d (  5a3 !?) 6 d4 (  6 b4 can be answered by 6 b6, and 6 e2 by 6b6  7 b4 a6)  6d8 7 ac d7  8 e2 e4   5 c5, hl vestAkobian, USA C, Saint ouis 200 d) 2 c2!? h6 3 d2 (3 a4 c5!? or 3 e3 c5 4 d2 ) 3 (or 3 c5 ? 4 e3 d7) 4 f4 g5 5 e3 c5  fe ASokolovHousieaux French Tea

5

Ch, Guingap 200) 6g4!? is un clear 10   a4?! oers Wte nothig go aer 0 e7 (or 0  g5)   a 0-0 2 b (Stoanovi-st ar 27) 2f6, when Black has the iatve Howeve, these two vaatos de serve serious attenton: 0 a d   xd4 xd4 2 f3 b6 3 b5 c5 (3e7 was tried in Aoso rostein, Villa Melli 200) 4 5 (4 f4 0-0 5 c f6) h6 5 5 0-0 6 f3 f6 and 0   6 (0a4!?   a4 (    4 2 xd xd4 3 c3 c5)    2 c2 xd4  3 xd4   f 5  xd 11 xd Wxd 1  ow 2b4? leads to uclea pla, whle 2e7 3 e 6 is also acceptable 51

1h (D

The position after 7 e7 8 0-0 g5 has occued ore ofte, but ts lle pawn ove has its advatages



 OK-O HESS PENING EPERIRE FO BK

Black wishes to advance on the kingside, but the real target is the d4 pawn. He is waiting for White to castle before playing 8 ...g5. 8 00

White can sidestep Blacks main idea, although without particular success: 8 a3 (8 f ?! is met by 8 ...cxd4  cxd4 'b6 and 8 h4?! with 8 ...'b6) 8 ...'b6  0-0  0 dxc5 (Black can be content wit 0 a4 e7   e 0-0 2  cxd4 3 cxd4 f6, while  0 c4 cxd4   cxd5 exd5 is unclear) 0 .. .xc5    a 2 c4 e7, with approxiaty a aces. 8   dc

This capt i ciderd strongst in the analos i with 7 ...e 7, but here it  ut  b  tive. However, it i by n  ip or White to cast doubt  is ppts riskyloong pay. For xp a)  c4 7 !? (.4 0 d xd5   e6 fxe6  2 g6 7 ad t  unclear position, Gttner-w, Bad Wis 2 0 xd    e6 x6 2 6 8, ad a central paw-aty fly  sates or his awkwardly pad king. b) The iclusio o the ov  h3 h5 arpens the poition evn rther. Then: b) 0 g4?! hxg4   hxg4 'b6 2 e ?! (  b3 is relatively btter) 2...cxd4 3 cxd4 xd4 4 xd4 'xd4 5 b3 'a4 6 xg5 g8 7 f4 xg5! 8 xg5 '4 with the initia tive for Blak (Watson). b2) 0 c4?! g4   cxd5 exd5 2 e6 fxe6 3 g6 7 ad again Black is to be preeed.

b3) 0 b ?! g4   hxg4 hxg4  2 g5 cxd4 3 cxd4 xd4 4 'xg4 c6  5 f7 dxe5 givs Black the initiative. ) 0 b3 ! (best) 0 ...g4 (0...c4   xg5 c7 2 e2 is unclear)   g5 (   hxg4 c4  2 b cxb3) and now both   ...h6 2 xe6 fxe6 3 xh6 xh6 4 'd2 h8 5 g6 f8 6 'f4 g7 7 f7 h6 8 xh5 'g8 and   ...e7 2 xe6 fxe6 3 g6  4 hxg4 hxg4 5 xg4 h4 6 f3+ g7 7 g3 (r 7 '7  h8  8 g3 dxe5) 7...'f8 18 f4 g5 lead to very interesting com plications, but White cannot rely on emerging with an advantage. Aftr the text-move, White wil ost likely lose a pawn, but in retu h ca xpect to gain a signicant ini tiative. c 10  Now:

a  b6    g4 2 fd4  3 b5 (3 f4?! is weaker, sinc White loses time after 3...f6 4 g3 h5, Handke-P.Meister, Bun delia 008) 3 ...'f6 gives White enough compensation for th pawn. b) Te line 0 ...f8 (Watson)   bd4 (   e g 7  2 b5 0-0 is un clear) ...dxe5 2 xe5 xe5 3 c2 g7 also desees attention. In comparison wit line a , Blacks ng side is better defended. 5 4 d 'xd (D

This viation is rather popular i me practice. The pawn-cene wil soon be totally liquidatd, so White

ARRASCH VARIATION

opes of preseving an avantage e inne firmly on his piee atiity an lea in eelopt. a longtem pospts  it  ant, with his ental ajty y t be an asset in many ilga  narios.   This is the main line. The unon ventional continuation 5 b3 x4 6 x4 (6 x4 f6) 6 ...6 7 �e3 (o 7 gf3) 7 .. .�7 !? is safe fo Blak, but by playing 5 x5!? White an also hope to keep the initiative: a) After 5 ...�x5 6 gf3 f6 the following lines ae possible: a  ) 7 �3 0-0 8 e2 (8 0-0 b6 9 b3 �a6 !?) 8 .. .b7. This evelop ment is onsiee optimal for Blak. Now 9 0-0 b6 leas to approxiate equality, while attempts by White to shapen the situation ae unsussful; e.g ., 9 e4 b6 0 x5 _x5   �e3 a 5! ? o 9 b3 b6 10 �b2 �b7   0-00 (the moe atios   0-0 leas to a level game)   ...a8 (   .. .�e7 an   ...a5 ae also possible) 2 g4? ! (2 b1 is unlea) 12...6 with a

55

preferable game for Blak, Shaw Dizaevi, Khanty-Mansiisk Olym piad 20I . a2) 7 �4 gains tie by attackng the queen, an is moe poising. Af ter 7 ...'6 8 e2 0-0 9 00, if lak continues with onventional evelop ment by 9 ...b7  0 b3 b6 1 1 x5 xc5 2 b3 �b7  3 �b2, then White keeps a small avantage, as in the gae Aas-Leos, Gibalta 201 1 . Blak an obtan satisfatoy play by 9 .. .�7!? 10 b3 7 not allowing the exhange of the  bishop fo the kiht. Rig to e vey beginning of the va 5 5, let s note that th ly  ...� is not obligatoy b  .. .!? leas to unlea play a  f3 x5 o  b3 x 1  7 x1 �e7. ) 5 ...x5 6 gf3 (6 e4 + 7 3 f 8 �3 b7 9 a '6 is unlea TiofevMoozevih, Rus sian Ch Taang 201 1) ...f6 7 �3 �e7 8 0-0 (8 e2 b7) 8 ...0-0 also eseves attntion, immeiately ahieving the sheme of evelopment fro line a2. s   �  Fo the time being Black hines 7 b3 or 7 e4, whih will be met by 7 .... White will nee to spen some time winning bak the 4pawn, an Blak intens to use this respite to evelop his pieces. ...

7 0-0 (D)

The plan with queensie astling, 7 'e2 f6 8 b3 c6 9 g5 sharpens the play, but oes not pomise ite the avatage  patly bause at

5

A OKO HESS PENING EPERIRE FO BLK

some point he will need to take time out to pay b  . Back has two satis factory continuations:

a) 9... 'b4+ 10 d2 'b6 1 1 000 d7 and now both 12 g5 h6 1 3 h4 (or 1 3 .xf6 gxf6 14 bxd4 0-0-0 with equality) 13 ...e7 and 12 f4 c5 1 3 e5 0-0 14 g4 ad8 (not 14...fd8 ? ! 15 xf7 ! xf7 16 g5, with a strong attack) are u ncear. b) 9...a6 10 0-0-0 b5 1 1 d3 e7

12 he1 ( 1 2 fxd4 xd4 1 3 xd4 'd5 ! 14 xf6 xf6 15 �b1 b7 ! 16 xb5 e7 ! 17 c7 'c5 1 8 xa8 xg2 gives Black the initiative  Vitiu gov ; 12 �b b7 1 3 fxd4 xd4 14 xd4 d 5 15 e1 ?! xa2+ ! 16 xa2 'xd4, Dovliatov-Ma akatko, Baku 28) 12. .6 ! 13 h4 0-0 14

g3 'd5 1 �b  b 7 play (Vitiugov).

wit

eqal

same) 9 ...xe4 10 xe4 is interesting. Now Black must carefuly negotiate some copcatons: 10 ...e7 1 1 xd4 (Psakis gave the ine 1 1 f4 'c5 12 d3 f6 13 a3 ) ...e5! 12 f4 exf4 13 xc6 'xd+ 14 xd bxc6 15 de f8 16 xe7 e6 17 xe6 fxe6 18 c7 (1 8 xe6?! e8 19 xc6 e + 20  f7) 18...h5! 19 xc6 h6, wit a coplicated position and unbalanced ateral. 8...c6  bxd4

Te rook move 9 e1 is again wor thy of attention, this time in connec tion with the continuation 9 ...e7 10 bxd4 xd4 11 'xd4 ( 1 1 xd4 eads to our main ine) 1  ...'xd4 2 xd4 d7 13 f4 c8 14 b3 0-0. Howeer, Whites advantage in this ending is minima; e.g., 15 f5 c5 16 d6 b8, eszarosA.Graf, Neu stat  de Weistrase 200. d 10 d

7...f6 Stil not etting the d2-kight move to e cetre. 8 b

8 e l c6 9 e4 ! ? (the white

ight occupies this squae a the

e ee excge by 10 'xd4 ' 1   ds ot create di cte o lac here:   .. . d7 12 e2 (12 f c8 13 b3 c5 14 a  1 f3 fd8 16 e5 b5 led to eqaity in the gae Pavasovi Roiz, Valevo 27) 12..c5 1 b3 b6 14 a4 a5! 15 f3 c8 16 c3 c6 with equa play, obzhanidzeuther, Cappelle a Grande 2002. 10e7 (D Opeig teoy ostly focuses on 10...a6 and 10...d7. With the text-move, Black prepares to castle kngside rght away in order to provide safety for his kng rst and ony ten to occupy hiself with the deveopent of te queenside.

ARSCH ARIAON



11 00 1 b (D

1 b

White has plenty of alteatves of which this is ust a sale a)   e3 -    an be et by 2...c  3 b3  b) 1 b c   e   3 f4 b (or 3. . a   4  c ) 4 d4 'c ( 4.. .  )   c 3 b  fe1 ad8 RadulskiDizdavi Bel grade 2. c)   c3  (   .. ?)  f3 c  3 b3 d 4 g ( 4 f4 e 15 g3 d6 6 f xf  xf e4 8 x6 x  ad 6) 14... ( 4 .a?)  xe xe 16 fe ad8 Mista-Ganski Polish Ch Warsaw 21. )  e -  c3  3 b3 (13 g? is poor due to 3c 5 while 3 '3 b ? 4 b3 a gave Back the initiative in Topalov-Ka s Soa (7) 2) an Blk can choose 3..b6? 3...'c or 3e5 4 f3 e4  x x6  4 h Obviously these variations e not of a forcing nature. White keeps soe pressure but Black retains a satisfac tory position without any weaknesses.

1f

 . is reliable but passive; for exaple 3 e fe8 14 ad  'b6 5 3 a8 6 e c8 alif anolov Mins 8 As a at ter of princile Black wants to place his queens bishop on the long diago nal but then he has to watch out for piece sacrices on e. 1..'c ? also deserves attention: 3 '3 (3 e can be answered by 13...b and 3 b5 by 3...c ) 3.a6 4 fe b4? (or  4..b) with a coplicated gae 1 '

After 3 f3 b 4 e 'g4  4 b White gets nothing whie he should not allow hiself to be pro voke into playing 3 g3? because after 3...'c 4 f3 a6  a4 ( a can be et by 5  c5 o  .b  c b  xe xe with equality) 4 .c5  a (5 fe b?) 5.  e5  f b5 Blac takes over the initiate. 1   1 ad1



 OCKO HSS PNNG PRTOR FOR BLCK

Or 4 f3 b6 5 e5 ( 5 e5 e4 is also equal) 5...xe5 6 xe5 b7 with equality, BerbatovDizdarevi, Khanty-Mansiisk Olympiad 200. 1 b

The game is roughly equal; for ex ample, 5 a3 ( 5 3 can be answered by 5...b7, while 5 g3 e4 is equal) 5... ( 5...b7 6 xe6 fxe6 7 b4 allows White the initiative) 6 b4!? axb4 7 axb4 xb4 8 xe6 xe6  xe6 ae8 20 'c4 'xc4 2 xc4 e4, with a likely draw in the ending. 5.3  xd xd (D

We saw a siml position wit re versed colours in Sction 3., and there White even ed to seize the ini tiative. Here Black will be content with equality, as he is playing with a tempo less. The move d2 may not be the most active development for the knight, but it is of course quite a useful move.  ib+

This check is unlikely to pose real problems for Black. We examine 5 gf3 in the next two sections. d7  '+

This is the logical follow-up to the bishop check. The attempt to secure a minimal advantage by 6 xd7+ 'xd7 7 e2 (7 'e2+ is met by 7 ...'e6 and 7 gf3 by 7 ..6+ 8 'e2 c6) 7 ...f6 8 0-0 d6  dxc5 xc5 0 b3 b6   a4 0-0  2  c7 has lit tle chance of success .   7 7 dxc f6 8 b

After 8 gf3 0-0  b3 e8, 0 e3 amounts to a mere transposition of moves. If White does not even tem porarily defend the c5-pawn and plays simply 0 0-0, then 0 ...xc5   d3 b6 (  l ...a6! ?) 2 g5 (or 2 xd7 bxd7  3 f4 e4) 2 ...xb5 3 b5 bd7 gives Black a pleasant gae 800   8 10    pans to castle queenside, t t  st t o so rght away: 0 0 a6  7 (after   d3?!    a 3 d4 xc5 problems app r White)   .. .bxd7 2 d3 (  d   3 a can be met by the equalizing 3..7 4 e2 xc5 5 c5 xc5 6 xc5 xc5 or the more adventurous 3...b6!?) 2...c7 3 e2 (  3 f3 a !?)  3...xc5 4 xc5 c5 5 xc5 (5 d4 g4) 5 .. .c5 leads to a standd type o situation. Both sides have chances, since with his ng on the queenside, it is hard for White to create real play against the isolated d-pawn. 10  a 11 d a 1 fd bd7

ARRASCH VARIAON

Now: a) As mentioned above,  3 0-0-0? ! is by now rather risky. Black stands well after 3..xb3 4 xb3 xc5, but he can already count on more:  3...xc5 4 f5 xd3+ 5 xd3 f8 gives Black the initiative. The prophylactic move  6 b would now be wise, since the inappropriately ac tive 6 g5?! h6 7 h4 g5  8 g3 b5  'd2 e2 20 'd4 (as in B.Vukovi-Baklan, Paris Ch 24) leads to hardships for White after 20 .. .c8. b) 3 0-0! ? xc5 4 c5 c5 5 c3 (after 5 ?! 6 Bac gains the initatv t ai mate equaity. 54  xd xd   (D



8 0-0 e7 (screening the kng om a check on the e-le)  b3 d6 he only partially succds: te g8-kight could not move to its most active square, f6, and the bisho was uabe to stay on the a7-g diagoal bcase of the threat of a strategicaly disad vantageous exchange. Ths xlans in brief the motivatio bhi my two ecommendations for Back n ts po sition, namly that Blac asies to deveop his minor pices to their best squares.  f Iiaty solving the kights devot roblem. he attempt to b bot t kigt and th bishop to t t sqs by 5 ...a6 is con si i cton 55  

If t asps to  oi ad vatag, te acty e as o oter coic. 6 d i mt by 6 ...c4 ad in th cas of 6 2 c6 7 0-0 7 (or 7 .. .d6) 8 dc5 c5  b b6 Blac as no dicts  tis posi tion (with the uimpotat aditio of the move ..a6) will be found in the next section d7 7 xd7

This is Whites strongest continua tion. The d5-pawn wil soon become isolated, and to compensate for this weakess, Black needs to generate ac tive piece-play. In the main toretical line 5 ...c6 6 b5 d6 7 dxc5 xc5

The aicial 7 e2 changs tt: 7 .. .c6 8 0-0 e7  dxc5 c5 0 c4 (0 b b6   g5 0-0) 0...c4 with an equal osition. Blac aso ad quite a satisfactory gae aftr 7 ...cd4 8 d4 d6  0-0 0-0 0 2f3 h6 in Dvoirys-Baeev,  Ch, eningrad 0. 7bxd7 8 00 7  dxc

White does nt have to hurry with the exchange o pawns. After  e



A OCKO HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

    (or 0 c3 d6) it is logical

for Black to relieve the tension in the cen by playing 0 ...cxd4! ?   xd4 c5, with a good position, though 0 ...e8   c3 b6 is not bad either.  (D

Te sre s w  re dene. T   t t disposa, but te w  y to oe unr y r t   tie to coe. e t  ter vlnerabty r t main op. Bac    squares or his it an   next few moes both payers w eek to anoeuvre their iees into btter positions.   The d2ight will head or  , with an eye to oing to e3 at a later point. This is probably the plan that poses Back e ost diculties. Oer ideas are less uitul, as they ail to threaten the saety o the d5-pawn a) Aer 0 d4 d7 Blak takes control o the f5-sque. I Wite per sists and continues   f3  2 f5

(or 12 2b3 ce4 3 f5 c7 with equality), then 2 ...d8  3 b3 ce4 4 e3 g6 ollows, with chances for both sides. Also in the variation   2   2 e5 ( 2 4 8 3 e5 c 8) 2...'c8 Black stands no worse an in the ase o 3  e8 4 5 ce4 5 c3 c5 6 d3 b6 or 3 4 (3 g5 ce4 4 h4?! c5) 3 ...e8 4  (4 e is equal) 4...e6 he can even try to seize the initiative hiself. b)   b3 ce4 is another line where Black has active piece-play. Ater   e3  2 'd3 (2 d4 e8) 2 ...e8 3 ad c7 Black cally nihes his developent, while the d5pawn reains only a nonal weaess.  1 d4 proises White little ore:   ...d6!? (a compara tely re  th ight volun ty reats o the centre, but is rey t y  l ost at c4 and at   t er Wites in t   4   3 e e8, wt  attry e for Black.  11   1  Wt lans d reeing the e3 sque or the knight. 1  Black prevents his opponents in tentions. Aer 2 ...'c7, the variation 3 d4 e6 4 e5 (4 e3 is an swered by 4 ...xd4 5 xd4 c5  the exchange of the white bishop for te knight is in principle adantageous for Blac since his own bishop will have good prospects) 4 ...'b6 5 e3 ad8 is also aceptable or Black However, 3 c3 e6 transposes to our ain line in any ase.



ARRASCH VARATON 1 c

O 1 3 d4  14 xe6 (14 c3 c5) 14 .. .fxe6 15 d4 c5 with an equal positio since 16 xf6 is met by 6...f4. 1  7 14 d a6

White has not succeeded in putting eal pessure on the d5-pawn. An ap poximate equilibrium has been cre ated. Both sides have plenty to play fo although a daw seems the most pobable esult. 55 4 xd xd   a6 (D

illustation of Blacks ideas. He has achieved his goal, and expeiences no diculties whatsoever aer  1 h3?  e4, 1 g5 h6 (   ...g4!?) 12 h4 g5  3 g3 e4 14 fd4 e8 or  1 e1 g4 1 2 h3 h  3 4 (  3 g5 'd6; 3 e3 e8 14 xb6 'xb6) 13 .. .e8. These lines illustrate an al most ideal outcome or Black. So, if White wes o ght or an advantage, he needs to hinder his op ponents intetio. We discuss ..1 6 c4 6 . 6 d 62   



5.5.

 

 re ove  raher veomous. Abdo e dea of ethodical play a a slaed queens pawn, We relies o  lead i develop me Aloug e nacve d2-kigt is an obstacle to Wes cenal ntia tive, Black faces some dstinct chal lenges in the lines that fllow 6 f6 7 cxd

Behind this modest-looking move lies the ambitious idea of placing the g8-knight and f8-bishop on their best possible squares: te kight on f6 and the bihop on the a-g diagonal. The variation 6 c3 c6  dxc5 (7 d3 al lows Black to equalize by  ...c4 8 e2+ e or  ...cxd4? 8 xd4 xd4  cxd4 e+)  ...xc5 8 b3 b6  d3 f6 0 0-0 (10 'e2+ e6) 10 .. .0-0 (Wang Yu-Roiz, World Team Ch, Beersheba 2005 can serve as an

ess accurate i  e2 cxd4 8 cxd5 (8 0-0 c6  cxd5 xd5!? 0 c4 c5    'h5 is equal), since hen besides 8 ...xd5, whch anspoes to the note to Whites 8 move, 8 ...xd5 is also possible In tat case aer  c4 'h5 ( ..  c 5? 0 'e2+ e) 10 0-0 c6  1 b3 e (the rsky   ..g4? 2 e+ e 3 bxd4 0-0-0 leads to uncle play)  2 fxd4 'xd 3 xd1 xd4 14 xd4 0-0 White keeps no more than a minial advatage. 7 ...xd (D



 OCK-OU HSS PNNG PRR FOR BLCK

7 ...cxd4 8 c4 (8 e2!?) 8 ...b5 9 b3 'e7+ 0 f d3 is unclear and leads to a shaer ght.

xg2+ 2 f h3 3 g ( 3 g5 can be met by 3...e3++!? 4 e c2+) 3...f5, with equality.

9cxd 10 b b6 1l d 7 12 fxd xd 1 xd 

Whites game deseres preference but Black is close to equality; for ex ample, 4 e f 5 b3 a4 or 4 f5 f 5 'f3 e8. 55  dxc (D)

8 c

8 e2 cx 9 00 c 0 b3 e7 (0...!?)   bx (   fxd4 00)   ...00  2 xc bxc   alteat. Wt t   able, but te ctt    cot      pawnsctur. 8c 8 ...b5 9 xd5 (9 2 c  t by 9 .. .c4) 9 .. 'x 0 00 c   c5 xc5 2 4 (o 2 b x   xd e7  4 3 00   c   2...xd 3 x e   (4 f4 00 5 c d8  x8 xd8 7 d b s nothr os bilty 4 ...xd 5 x (aa Volo, ussn ea Ch, Dagoys 28 also deeres attenton. lack should then play  5...e7, lttle by lit tle acheing equalty. 9 

White achees nothng by 9 'e2 due to 9 ...e7 ! 0 dxc5 f4   'e4

c cis a lttle present from h nt: now the f8bishop gets to c5 n one moe. Of course, White does hae a specic idea n mind; oth erwse ths moe would be relegated to a small footnote.   xc 7 b

7 d3 'e7 8 'e2 c 9 b3 b s consdered in lne c2 of the next note. 7 b 8   Wt must act igorously. Other moes: a) he indierent 8 2?! f 9 00 00 0 g5 c   c3 e8 gae

AASH VAATON

lack the initiative in PavasoviDiz dar, Murska Sobota 2006. b) The fanciful 8 'e2+ also does not pose any particular problems for lack: 8 ...e7  e3 bc6. Now White can spend a futher tempo pre paring to castle ngside, but 0 'd2 0-0   e2 xe3 2 'xe3 e8  3 0-0 g6 4 'd2 'f6 5 c3 f4 allowed lack the initiative in EmelinErdos, erlin 2. Castling queenside allows lack good counterplay: 0 000 00  xb6 'xb6  2 b (or  2 fd4 e8) 2...f5. A more el co is 0 xb6 xb6   d2   2 e2 g4  3 00 with equal. c) 8 d3 is o atual ow 8 .. .f6?! is ulastly t by  'e2+, so Blac sould v a  check himself: 8 ...+.  c   h feeble otiuatio  2 f6 0 0-0 00   e (not   g5?! c6, when Blac has the iitiative)   ...c6 leaves Blac comfoable. c2) After  'e2 Black can eter an ending by  ...g4 0 0-0 (0 xe+ xe7   fd4 bc6 2 e3 e5 leads to an equal position) 0 ...'xe2   xe2 f6 2 h3 h5 or  ...c6 0 g5 (0 00 xe2   xe2 f6 is equal) 0 ...'xe2+ (or 0 .. .f6   e3 !? xe3 2 fxe3 with unclear play)   xe2, when   ...g4,   ...ge and   ...f6!? l give Blac go chances of eualizing. 8... 7 (D A small achieveent for White. Black should avoid 8 ...f6  e2+ e6, as he may then experience some diculties.  d



 l wit uesde castlg is be a t was o t rvious mov, bt sll oly leads to ucle lay  d  0 00-0 (0 d3 can be t by  ...b6 o 1 ...h ! ?   4    2   wth the iitia tv  ...b6; fo exal   h3 ( b!? ...8 2 e3 (2 g4 ) 2...   d4 g6 4 4 c8  5 5 e4 d Bla lads  th race to atta, de la Villa-oalov, alma de Mallorca 2. bc 10 00 h 11 i

  xe7 'xe7 2 e e6 is equal, while   f 00 (  ...g! ?) 2 e (2 3 g6) dserves atte tion. hen 2...g4 3 h3 h 4 c3 e8 5 e3 c7 6 c b is uite good, and 2...g6 3 g3 (3 e3 is met by  3...d4 ad  3 xg6 fxg6 4 3 with 4...g4) 3...g4 4 h3 h5 ca lead to iterestg colca tions: 5 e2 xf3 6 x g5 is equal, whle 5 c3 f5!? gives Black good counterplay. 1 1  00 1 l

In the case of  2 c3 ite eeds to onsider 2 ...g5! ? 3 g3 f5.



 OCK-O HESS PENNG EPERRE FOR BLCK

12  Je6 13 c3 

Black frees himself from the pin and obtains a satisfactory game thanks to his active b6bishop. 553  e2 (D

This modest placement of the white bishop is better than 6 d3 c4 7 e2 when White can expect no advantage after 7. c6 8 0-0 d6 or 7 .. .f6!? 8 00 d6  b3 ( e5 0-0)  ...b5.

 lf 7 00 7

7 ...bd7!? is vy ae bt intt ing. Then 8 5?! i wl t by 8 ...d while 8  e   0-0 10 g3 e8 loos qite aceptable for Blac. It is hd to ay if it can derive any real benet om hi devel opment advantage ae 8 c4 e7  cxd5 0-0 1 0 e (10 d6 xd6 1 1 c4 c7) 10...xd5 1 1 e4 5f6. 8 xc xc 9 b3 b Black has accomplished his idea of placing his kingside minor pieces on their best locations albeit with some loss of time ( ...f8exc5 rather than

...f8xc5) but on the other hand White s bishop is inactively placed on e2 and may even get in the way of Whites other pieces. In the variation 6 dxc5 xc5 7 b3 the retreat of the bishop to the b6-sqare looked best bt in this case  .. .a7 is equally deserving of atten tion and we shall bear both moves in mind as we discuss the main continua tions below. 10  10 d3 tus the tempo that Black has lost with his bishop. Then 10 0-0 1 1 h3 !? (1 1 g5 can be answered by l l ...c6 while 1 1 c3 leads to a posi tion fom the game Wang Yu-Roiz that I described as an almost ideal out come at the sta of Section 5.5) l  .. .e4 (  .. .c7 !? 12 bd4 c6) 12 bd4 e8 leads to chances for bot ides. 10 3 00  1 e3 is too slow to giv  pobl. After   ...xe3 (   ...? i alo possible) 12 xe3 e 3 d2 (13 d3 g4) he can co btween 1 3...e4 (equalizing) and  3...g4. More vigorous action is reqied of White. Afte 0 c4 0-0 (or 10 ...c6 11 g5 0-0, if the bishop is on a7) 11 g5 (11 cxd5 can be answered by 1...'xd5 and 1 1 c5 c7 12 g5 by 12...h6 1 3 h4 c6) 1  ...h6 12 xf6 'xf6 13 cxd5 d8 little by little Black achieves equality. 10  00 11 c3 e

To conter the theat of xf6 Black sets his sights on the e2-bishop. This is the most natual reaction but it is worth examining the pawn sacice

ARSCH VARIAON

  ...c6 2 �xf6 xf6 3 'xd5 �f5 when the activity of Blac pieces rovides compensation: 4 bd4 fe8 5 xf5 xe2 6 3 xf5 7 xb6 5  8 'xb5 axb5 is eual while 4 ad  �c2 5 d2 ad8 6 'c4 xd2 7 bxd2 e8 and 4 fd4 ae8 5  �d3  6 fe e5 7 d2 (not 7xb? e7) 7 .. .'f4 8 ad ( 8 e 3 g4)  8. . .e7 are both unclear. 12 el! ? (D



after 6 �xa6 �e6 7 5 bxa6 8 'xc6 'xb2  bd4 xd4 20 cxd4 'b5 or  6 �d3 �g4  7 f �x  8 xf3 'xf  gxf (   x e5 20 g3+ g6)  ...ad8 20 �e4 f5. 13 2 e4+ 14 1 x 1 x 'x 16 � Bacs defence is sipler ater  6 �xa6 e6   �b xe  8 'xe �d7. ow he eeds to play e ac curately to retai approxiate eal ity. 16  xe1 17 x1 �6 1 d4

Blac also holds is goud i e cae o  8  e  xe xe 20 � e 2     4 23 'c (  c6 2 xe xe) 2 .    2 xe5 xe5.  �7   6 2 �xd c6 21  D er     22 xd4 �c6 or 2  '  e 8 it i di cult for ite to sege the res sure. This move loos at rst ie an oversight but it is in fact the strongest contiuation for ite. 12 �2+

Aer 2...�e6 or 2 ...bd7 ite stands better. However if the bishop is on a Blac has a extra possibility to complicate the play by 2...'b6!?. hen  3 bd4 e4 ad  3 �e3 xe3 work out we for Blac while 3 fd4 bd7 4 e3 (4 �f3 e4) 4 .. .c7 5 c2 �b8 6 g3 e5 is unclear. The citical 3 �xf6 'x2+ 4 h gxf6 5 'xd5 (or 5 bd4 c6 6  'e3 7 �xa6 xd4 8 cxd4 'h6) 5. . .c6 leads to euality

21  x2+ 22 x2 d

ite has ust a small advtage in the ending.

6 Stei nitz Vaiatin 1 e e6 2  5 3 tc3 t6 (D)

By playing 3 f6 Black again at acks the e4-pawn forcing its advance r exchange The Winawer Variation 3  b4 is the main alteative and as the same initial goal

In this chapter we shall examine 4 e5 but White can also maintain the status quo in the centre by 4 g (Chapter 7) Besides these two main possibili ties the rely played 4 d3 should be briey mentioned However in this case Black easily secures a comfo able game: 4c5 5 exd5 (5 f3 cxd4 6 xd4 e5 7 f3 b4) 5 cxd4 6 b5 (6 b5+ d7 and now 7 xd7+ xd7 8 'xd4 c6 9 'd exd5 or 7 xd4 xb5 8 xb5 xd5) 6 xd5 7 f3 b4+

We should also note that the pawn exchange 4 exd5 exd5 transposes to Section 33  e5 t

White can now decde amng sev eral schemes of development: 5 f3 (Section 6) is an idea of a type we have seen before: White seeks to establish piece control over the central squares Although this variation enoys some popularity Black has no real trouble In the line 5 ce2 (Section 62) White demonstrates diametrically opposite intentions  he is going to support his pawn-centre wi the moves c3 and f4 This leads to a very complicated opening battle with chances for both sides  5 f4 c5 6 f3 c6 7 e3 (Sectio 63) is the most dangerous contiu ation for Black He has quite a wide choice of possibilities of which I have elected to focus on 7 cxd4  xd4 c5 (usually very sh 7 cxd4 8 xd4 'b6 (the most forcing) and the calmer 7 e7  5 t3 (D)

5 'h5?! is a speculative move wit out any real substance 5 c5 6  cxd4 (6c6? allows White to dem onstrate the one idea behind his quee

TIN/ VARIATION

ove: 7 g5 g6 8  f5 9 xe6 dxe5 0 xd5 gives White the ad vantage) 7 xd4 (7 b5 is met by 7 ...c6) 7 ...6 (7 .. .g6 plans 8 g4?! xe5 9 g3 bc6, but 8 g5 ! ? is a better  8 b3 c6 leaves Black with the initiative.



f6 e (   .. .h6!?)  2 xe7 xe7 led to equality in Zdebskaya-E.Daniel an, Romanian Womens Team Ch, Eforie Nord 29. 6 c6 Before takng on c5, Black wants to provoke 7 f4, alough 6 ...xc5 and 6 ...xc5 are viable too.   (D) Approximate equality arses after 7 g5 !? e (7 .. .a5?! 8 a3 xc5 9 b5 allows White the initiative) 8 xe7 xe 9 b5 xc5 0 - -   e a6, as in Ha-Eingo, Metz 997.

White is willing to allow the ex hange of his pawns on d4 and e5. 5  c5 6 xc5

Black has no diculty after 6 b5 c6; e.g., 7 dxc5 xc5 8 00 0-0, 7 xc6 bxc6 8 00 e (or 8 ...cxd4) or 7 00 cxd4 8 e2 (8 xd4 is well met by 8 ...dxe5! 9 e d6) 8 ...a6 9 xc6 bxc6 0 xd4 c5 !? ( 0 ..7 is nclear, Barle-Pcola, ondon 29)   f4 and now Black can choose   ...b7 or   ...h6. The active development of the other white bishop by 6 g5 also has little pact: 6 ...b6 (6...a5!?) 7 dxc5 xc5 8 d2 c6 (Black can also  8  ..h6!? 9 h4 g5 0 g3 xb2) 9 0-0 (9 a4 is met by 9 ...xf2+ 0 xf2 +, and 9 b5 by 9 ...d4 0 xc6 xb2) 9 ...a5 0 a3 0-0  

We have reached the basic position of this line. The standard vaiation now runs 7 ...xc5 8 d3 f6 9 exf6, wi Black choosing between 9 ...xf6 and 9 .. .xf6. However, other methods of seekng counterplay are also possi ble, in which Black is in no huy t liquidate the e5-pawn by playing . ..f6, or even avoids it altogether. These al teative plans feature activity on the queenside or (given the opportunity) o the kingside with ...g5. The e5-paw



 OCKOI HSS PNING PRTOIR FOR BLCK

can prov a usful targt; not only can th whit pics bcom tid to its d fnc, but it also blocks lins that thy would lik to us Thus w shall x amin th following movs: 6.1.1:   a6 68 6.1.2:   68 6.1.3:   6 611 a6

This prliminary mov is usful for Black in practically all cass, and kps th possibility of taking on c5 with i thr knight or bishop Thn: a) 8 d3 xc5  - 7 is con sidrd in not b to Whits 8th mov in Sction 62 b) Aftr 8 a3 c5  d3 f6 ( h6!?) 1 xf 6 th inclusion of th movs a3 d  a s ot not to b in Whits fav c) 8 2 xc5  d3 ( a3 -)  b5 ( h6 ?  h    a a5 12 b c av-Vaih vili, Moscw 7)  h (   h6 is unclar)  b 6    f6  2 xf6 xf6 gav Blac th initiativ in th gam poiashchyVolov, ovo kuznts 28 d) 8 a!? is mor of a challng to Blacks ida Aftr 8 xc5  xc5 xc5 1 d2 (or 1 c3 -   d2, but  d3?! is war i viw of 1 b 6 1  - xb2) th gam is appximatly qual, but  xchang of th passiv c3-knight is nvrth lss to its bnt 61  (D

ow Whit facs a maor dcision  4

Making us of th fact that h has not yt castld, Whit maks an ag grssiv advanc o th kingsid This is a risky plan that can asily rbound on Whit thr ovs: a) 8 2 is too mk Ar 8 7   a  s a6 or - b)  td cotiati is 8 d3   - but it  t m is Whit an avantag  v is  a whn   g5 11  h5 2 h3 b6 givs Blac  titiv, whil  d 2 -  a  12 xf6 xf6 was satisfat   in ISchnidrIvch  lubs Cup, hid 2     -   xd3       fo Black too, whil    st ing; thn  3 (     h3 b6 givs Blac th  ga ach-rz rz a 26) 1 xd3   3 i  c) 8 d2 a6 (8     b5 1 3 is siml to   in b low, and ind Wt  ba bly prfr prcisly thi -or

TINI VARIATION

d) Attacking the c5-kight by 8 a3 e7 (8 a6?)  2 (afte  b4? d7, 0 b5 a5   d3 c7 2 e2 c4 gives Back the initiative, whie  0 b5 0-0   c4? a5 is aso peas ant fo him, Aonianputian, evan 200 )  a6 0 b4 d7 does not po vide any benet fo White and ony weakens his position  7

Back bings te idea of liquidating ites e-pawn by f6 back into the pictue He can aso be quite happy af te 8 a6, which pacticay e out queenside cating by Wite  5? and  d2? ae bo we t by  d4, but  a3 is e a e  b5 0 5 6   b4 (t  avoid   4?  a     , whie   d4? b7 e t ua pay)   d7  2  a a choose 2e7 o 2 a can aso combine the two iea by  e7?, meeting 0 b4 by 0 7 and 0 h3 with 0 0-0



l l b4 12 2  1 d4 d7 14 

O 4 g5 d4 5 d4 a5 6 b a4, as in de Fian-aievi, one Pine 0 14 xd4 1 xd4  1 b1 a4

Backs chances ae pefeabe in this dubeedge pitin, uei nov-Monin, St etesbug 2  7xc (D

9 d2

Wethe he ikes it o not, it is best to evacuate te king fom the cente Afte  h5 (o  h3? b6)   f5 (0-0? and  b6? ae aso inte esting) 0 6 6 Back takes te initia tive 9a

The beginnig of a pawn advance Piecepay by  0  0-0-0 b6 (o 0 f5  ?   e6 6) may eve be moe eective 1  b 11 

The caeess   d3? b4 2 e2 b3 3 cb3 b4 eads to hdship fo Wite

 d !? 9 

White must take Backs g5 ide seriousy; fo exampe,  0 g5? 0 g3 h5   h4 g4  2 g5 de5 3 e ?  (  3 b5 is unclea)  3f6 4 xe5 e5 5 e5 fe5 6 g6  7  (Faizakhm-Yuzha kov, Begoo 28) 7b6 wit an advatage fo Back The pophyactic reteat  g3 does not comptey sove this pobem:  a6  0-0 (0 a a7   ? 4) 0g5 ? (0b5 is aso possibe)   e g4  2 d2 g5 is unce he attempt to caste queenside by  e2 a6 0 000 ( 0



A OCKOU HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

0-0 is still met by 10 ...g5) 10...b4!? 11 d2 e7 does not look too atac tive. Finally the radical rejoinder  h4 weakens th kingside and strengthens the eect of the undermining . ..f6: af ter  ...0-0!? Black can meet 10 00 by 10...f6 1 1 exf6 'xf6 and need not fe complications such as 10 h3 f6 11 g3 dxe5 12 xh6 f7 or 10 'd2 f6 1 1 xh6 dxe5. 9...00

Queenside play with  ...6 10 0-0 b5 remains an alteative for Bk. 10 00 6 11 e6 6

We now see a reao  e est advance of Whites hpawn n  it is f less of a target tha it w  on h4. Nevetheless White cannot count on an advantage. 12 e3

12 g3 is simil to a standd theo retical line which arises er 7 ...xc5 8 d3 f6  ex6 'x6 10 g3 0-0 1 1 0-0. n that case Bck needs to void   ...d5? 12 xe5 xe5 13 x7 but in our slightly dierent position Black plays 12 ...de5 ! and takes over the initiative. 12 b6!?

Both sides have chances. .  ce2 (D)

White prepares c3. Another move order 5 4 c5 6 f3 c6 7 e2 has the same idea. s ...c 6 4

6 c3 loks moe logical at rst glance but tis is probably not so. Black can simply play 6 ...c6 when 7 4 transoses to our main line while

7  s we i view of 7 ...'b6 8 a3 . A  citical eply is 6 ...cxd4 7 cx 6. he: a) he cosistet line is 8 f fxe5 when aer  xe5 b+ 10 f2 (1 0 d2 'h+) 10...0-0+ (1...'h+?! can be met by 1 1 g3) 1 1 f3 'h4+ (   ...c6! ? has the ies 1 2 a3  and 1 2 4 xd) 12  ( 1 2 g xf3 1 3 gxf3 x5) 12...c 1 3 e3 b6 14 e2 (1   ) 1...c4 Black stands wel.   s also been tried withut c ccess:  ...'b6 ( ...c ! ?)    c6 11 c3 c5 also   a good game. ite ca  c on the idea of supp   with his f-pawn: b) 8 f    2+ (or  . 6 10   1 1 2 'xd2+ 12  �e7 w ity) 10 'x2 b (0 e7!?)  now both 1 1       xf6 give Blc  . c)  e !? xf6   6 10 c3  1 1  6 s to a line o e  y eched

TINI VARIAON

ia 3 d2 f6 4 e5 fd7 5 d3 c5 6 3 c6 7 e2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 xf6 10 f d6 where White has layed the somewhat remature 1 1 c3 One can draw e conclusion that af ter 6 c3 cxd4 7 cxd4 f6 White ds not achieve an advantage Thats why he oen stas with the move 6 f4 instead 6 c6 We should consider whether it is an oportune moment for Black to tear aa Whites pawn-chain by play ing 6 cxd4 This exchange prootes Whites developent bt a 7  c6 Black has eve riht to cot  equality 8 e i et    while 8 c   c  10  b8 1 1 e2 c   0-0   equal A more principle lie   gf3 xd  x  10 c c Then 1 1 b4 xd 1 2   d 1 cxd4 b6 1 4 b5 d7 and 1 1 b f   exf6 xf6 e equal while 1 1 e2 can be met by 1 1 0-0 12 0-0 b8 also with equality and 1 1 a4 with a5 intending f6 soon (but not f6?? 12 a5) Overall 6  cxd4 is an adequate re ly to Whites ce2 plan whether he opts for 6 c3 or 6  owever the main line with 6 4 c6 is more inter esting and leads to a richer game

71



7 c (D)

White can wait a lie while with this move but the attempt to avoid it completely makes no sense Fo ex ample 7 f3 e (7 b6 8 g cxd 9 ed4 c5) 8 g 0-0  h cxd4 10 ed4 c5 1 1 0-0 b6 ives Black the initiative

Wite has ow shown his cards e ha couc a le pawn-cee at te ct  a e i s development  ie eaees le in the aw we s gies Black grounds to see active countelay often by datc tactcal eas: a piece sacri ce i  e  a echae of fer   I e pt  thi stegy  e7 a  e al tural moes oweer ot all  em seem obligato ad  ay case one needs to sta with soetg We examne: 6.2.1 : 7... 7  72 6.2.2: 7... .. 7 b6 8  f6 

For the time being Black reains from e7 planning to play b4+ should the opporunity arise 9 a! ?  g is an attempt to develop the f-bishop  cxd4 and ow:

a) Blacks b4+ idea is demon sated in the ariatio 10 cd e5 1 1 fe5 b+  2 c3 ( 1  d? ! 0 13 g2 invites 13dxe5! 14 de5



 ·  PIG PROIR FOR LCK

Ixe. h  ck) 1200 13 f4 ( 1 3 h is  by 13x) and now  cn choose beween ain taining h nsion by 13e7 ! ? and iy with 1 3dxe 14 xe (14 dxe ) 14xe 1 xe xc3+ 16 bxc3 2 17 'c 1 '+ 1 8 d1 x f + b) 10 exd4 is ore reiabe but afer 10fxe (or 10 xd4 1 1 cxd4 fxe 12 fxe b4+ 13 f2 e7 14 g2 b8 1  3 c6 wih eualiy NKosintsevaEdoard Cap d Agde api 201 0) 1 1 fxe ( 1 1 xe6 c ! 12 xf8 g4) 1   c 12 h3 e7 13 0-0 0-0 Back noneheess sans we Atas-Lher Ausrian Team Ch 2001/2 9cx4 (D

10 e 11 

Oher continuations are ess ogi cal: a) 1 1 g3 0-0 12 g2 (afer 12 h3?! fxe ie has reason o re gre the empo spen on  a) 12a!? 13 b3 'a7 gives Back he initiative b) 1 1 h4 00 1 2 h3 a !? 1 3 b4 c4 14 c3 'c7 is uncear c) 1 1 b4 (sti deaying piece devel opmen) 1 1 0-0 12 b1 ( 1 2 '3 c7 gives Back he iniiative; 1 2 c3? ! o 12 g3 may run ino 12fxe 13 dxe dxe !) 12 fxe 13 fxe (Back akes he iniiaive afer 13 dxe a 14 b a4) 1 3a 14 f4 (14 b !? xf3 1 gxf h4+ 16 g3 x4 17 f4) 14 axb4 1 x6 x 16 'xf3 dxe 17 'x h! an Back can again be hy l l   

 1  fx ( 1 2 dxe c) 12  00

1 3 a4 c   'c7 13 xe 00 14 e2  The gme is doube-edged 622

e (D

10 cx4

10 exd4 fxe 1 1 fxe ( 1 1 xe6 c) 1 1 c ( 1 1 xe? 12 xe xe 13 'h+) 12 e3 !? (1 2 b e7 is ea) 1 2'xb2 13 b de serves aenion  i is possibe tha the assessment of 7 'b6 as a whoe hinges on his ine

TIN/ VARIATION

Black is in no hurry with the queen sorie ...b6  3 00

8 .. .f6 is also possible but after 9 g3 9 a3 9 h4 or 9 e3 the reply 9 ... 0-0 seems best in all cases; herefore it is logical to castle right away. 9 e3!?

White reacts to the change of the situation: he makes use of the absence of the black queen from b6 to plant his bishop on he vulnerable g-a7 diago nal also strengthening his piece con trol of the d4-square. Other standard moves oer Black additional poibiliie a 9 g3?! 6 (9.. .6 is an ar native) 10 d c 1 1 c  (or   ...'b6!? 12 a 6) 12   gave Black rong play i   usakaevou Yif yan siisk 2. b 9 h4 f6 10 h3 (1 0 g3 can b met by 10 ..b6; 10 a3 is also posi ble 10 cd4 (or 10 b6)   cd4 (1 1 ed4 c5   .. .b5 !? c 9 g3 and now 9 .b6 10 h3 cd4 1 1 cd4 f6 2 e6+ h8 13 ef6 (not 13 xd5? fe5 4 fxe5 de5! 13..xf6 14 c8 + and 15..ac8 gives Black enough compensation for he pawn. This rather wellknown variation can arise from several move-orders. The other stan dard reaction 9 ...cd4 10 ed4 ( 10 cd4 can be answered with 1  ...f6 in tending 1 1 g2 b6 while 1 1 h3? ! fe 12 xe6 h8 gives Black he initiative 10...c (or 10.. .6 is enough for approximate equaliy but it appars more interesting to play

3

9 .f5 ! ? or 9 . .b5!? 10 a3 ( 10 h3 b4) 10 .. .a5 seeking the initiative. d 9 a3 f6 (9 ... is more comon although it is not in he lat obliga tory o impede he advance b4) 1 0 b cd4 ( 1 ...fe ! ?)   d4 ( 1 1 cd4 can be met by   ...b ! ? 1 2 c3 a6 or ...'b6 as considered in note c to Whites 1 1th move in ecion 6.2. 1 )   . .d4 12 cd4 ( 1 2 d 6) 12...f with good prospect for Black on the queenside. 96

e aditiona approach. 9 ... 10 g1 b  11 a b6 1 2 2 c4 deerves atenion a it leads to double-edged win play Negi-Nguyn Ng World unior h Giantp 28. 1 3

er 1 0 ex6 6 1 1 dc g4 12 g ( 1 2 d4 b6 1 3 cb6 d4 12...e Black eize h iniiive. 16

Nevertheles! t i ao quite good (and in he spirit o h idea behin 7 ... e7 to play 10...fe 1 1 de b advncing he pawn-ma 11 'd xe   ...cxd4 1 2 exd4 fe 1 3 xe6 · d4 14 f2 e8 (Negi) leads to com plications. 1 dxe d! ?

Black intends the pawn-brek ...d4. Kamsky-Ding Liren ocow 201 1 went 1 3 h3 d4 14 f2 ( 14 cxd4 cxd 1 fd4 de 14 ...d3 (1..dc3 1 'c f8) 1 c with unclear play. 13 g2 d 14 cxd4 cxd4 1 fd4 b! 16 c3 de 1 7 c6 xd2 with equality i also interest ing.



A OCKO HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

  4 (D

This is i s the most popu popu and prom prom ising move.   c 6  The pawn exchange 6 dxc assists Backs Backs deeo deeopme pmen n 6 .  c6  a  f3 does not ao e to  'g and 7 d is i s met b    c) 7 ...xc ... xc  g4      c be met b b the soid  .  .  i3  or  .. . b6 b6     d d  a w  i i tiativ tiative) e) and ow   . .e 1  6 1 1 h h h6 h6 1 2 ex ex66  66     e 1 xe xe 1  xd+ 16 cxd b (an impoemet oer the century oder piemann-Aap u nich 1909) 1 he1 b gae Back the initiative in hort-orozevich Regg Reggio io Emiia Emiia 20 1. 1 . 9 . . . xg 1 h h6 1 1 xg1 c is wo h worth consd consd ering too whie there is another good historic historica a exampe: exampe:  . . .  1 'h 'h b6 (1... (1 ...e7) e7) 11 g c 12 gx xd+ 1 xd x and Back had the advantage in the game Tower P.ohner Nuremberg 1906.

6c6  ie3 (D

Whites White s piece piece depoyment was pro pro posed by Boeslask: the epoint receives pawn support whie d is protect protected ed b piece pie ces.s. Bac B ackk has severa severa possibities to sek counterpay. We cos e og: 6..: d4  d4  7 6..: d4  d4 6 76 6..:  7  cd4  x4 

Now the pieces come into cose contact and pawn-pay takes a back seat. 9 2

Other moves give White itte hope o an an advantage: ad vantage: a) 9 b can can be be met met b . . . c 1 d2 (1 ( 1  0 0 a6) a6) 1  a  a6 or  . . . 0-0  1 0 d2 xd xd 1 1 xd xd a6. a6. b)  e2 b6 b6 1 a a a+ + 1 1 c (   c c invite invitess a repe repetititition on))   . . .xd .xd 12 xd 12 xc xe2 1 xe2 xc 1  'a) 12... 12...xd xd 1  xd xd b6 with equa chances.

STEINI VARIAON

'b6 10 a4 (ter 10 c) 9 a3 'b6 cb5 cb5 xd4 xd4 1 1 xd4 xd4 00, 1 2  xd4 xd4 13 'xd4 a5 leads to equality while in the case of 12 xc5 'x ' x c5 !? 1 3 e2 f6 Black takes over the initiative) 10 ...' ... 'a5+ a5+ 1 1 c3 (or (or 1 1 b4 'xa4 12 xd4 1 3 xa xa44 xe3) xe3)   . . .xd4 .xd4 b5 xd4 xd4 xd xd44 1 3 'xd 'xd44 ( 1 3  f3+) f3+) 1 2 xd4 1 3 ...0 ... 0-0!? (1 3 ...b6 ...b6 is possible too) 14 d3 b 6 leads leads to equality. 9

...

0-0 (D)

75

d) 10 'f2! ? a6 1 1 e2 ( 1 1 000 transposes transposes to note note d to White Whitess 1 1 th move; move; 1 1 d3? ! is poor poor in vie view w of of 1 1 . . . . 6,  6, whi while le 1 1 xc6 xc6 xe3 xe3 1 2 xd8 xf2+ 1 3 x2 xd8 xd8 leads leads to a leve levell positio position) n)   . . .xd4 .xd4 1 2 xd4 xd4 'c7 13 00 b 5 . Afte Afterr the textmo textmove ve ( 1 0 000), an interesti inter esting ng battle battle lies li es ahead: ahe ad: Wite re re tains conol of e cen, d both players will attack the enemy kng. 10

...

a6

This is the standad way to seek contelay: Black plans to exchange on d4 and en advance his b-pawn. Zvi Zvigi gint ntse sev vss O . . .xd4 1 1 xd4 xd4 'a5 ! ? is i s well wo consider considerng: ng: Bk Bk aoid aoid dng dng a tempo tempo on ... . .a6, seek ig o t in a more economical way. hen: ) ter 12 e3 b8 13 b b5 1 e2 b4! (exchanging queens with 1 .. .'d2? d2? ! 1 5 d2 is not in Blacks Blacks ieest) 15 d d xd xd 1 6 'xd4 a6 1 7 5 c8 1 8 fxe6 xe6 an an uncle po Now ite deciio bot ee sition arose in Svidler-Zviagintsev, to castle wil dee e  o e Moscow 2010. middlegae sgge. b) 1 2 h4 b8 1 3 h3 h3 b5 led to an 10 000 even even shaer sha er battl battlee in Siro S irov-Grachev, v-Grachev, is i i  e  oie. oi e. e oer Lublin Lublin 201 20 1 1 : 14 f5 ! (Whi (White te is willing willing moves, moves, Black d d    ito ptcu to make major sacrices to break lar diclte: though to to the black king, but it is only a) 10 2 a6 1 1 0-0 d d 1 2 xd4 xd4 enough to dra draw) w) 14 . . . xd4 xd4 ( 1 4 ...b ... b4 1 5 (1...' 'c5+!?) f6 xd4 ay be more accurate) 15 f6 b6 b6 13 c5  (1... 14 'd4 d7. b4 1 6 'g5 f5 1 7 d3 h6 1 8 xf5 ! b) he imediat imediatee 1 0 ce2 is pre hxg5 19 xg5 bxc3! and the game mae due to 10... 10...' 'e7 and   . . .f6 .f6. ended with perpetal perpetal check. check . c) 1 0 g3 ! ? (res (reser ervi vig g the e2-square e2-square c) 1 2 �b b8 1 3 b5 b5 ! ? ap appears for for te te c3-ight) c3-ight) 1 0 ...a ... a6 1 1 g g2 ( 1 1 tame by compison compiso n wi the lines we ce2 6) 6)   .. .xd4 .xd4 1 2 xd4 xd4 xd4 xd4 have just jus t seen, but might promise a lit 1 3 'xd 'xd44 b5 1 4 00 00 b8. tle more. 13... 13...' 'xd2 14 xd2 a6 15



   NING TOIRE FOR BLCK

Q6 xd4 xd4  d d f6  7 ef6 xf xf66   d3! ( c fc8 pemts c  ealty ealty eli-viagi e li-viagin n

  2010) 18... 18...b5 b5 (18... (18...d7 d7   ) )    fc8 20 a a look lookss lie lie s pose in which Blac mst (alas!) defend himself in a slightly wose endng. ll b

hs move leads to the most ompli cated cated sggl s ggle.e. oweve othe othe moves also have thei points of inteest: a) 1 1 b b d d 1 2 xd xd b5 1 3 e3 e3 c7 1  d3 d 1 5 d d b8 gives Blak contelay. contelay. b) 11 ce2 a5!? (...'e7 (...' e7 12 b3 b3 e3 e3 1 3 'e3 'e3 f6 is i s anothe anothe pos sibility) 12 g3 (12 b3 'b6) ' b6) 12... 12...b5 b5 1 3 b3 b and Blac holds holds the the inita ive. c) 1 1 h d d 12 1 2 d d  1 3 h3 h3 (13 h5 b 1 a d 15  a5) a 5) 13... 13...b b 1  d 5 d d a5  6 b5 b5 ( 1 6 h5 h5 6 6 d d 1 6 c   ae also OK fo Bac) 6... 6...   d3 b6 (7... (7...b b77 ! ?) 1  c c d7 d7 is eqal. d) 1 1 f2 (plannng (plannng an an adva advant nta a geos egoping by d3 and ce2)   .. . .d (   .. .x .xd 12 d d b6 ! ? with the idea 13 d3?! f6! also de sees sees att attent ention ion)) 1 2 d d b5 1 3 e3 (o (o 1 3 d3 d3 b 1 e2 a5) 1 3 ...' ... 'a5!? 1 b  15 e2 'c7 16 d d 17 d a5 is ncle zelagLamp echt Gemany (team event) 27/8. 27/8 . ll   12 d Ae Ae 1 2 a3 e7 e7  3 d3 b5 the the a3pawn is i s a taget taget fo Blas conteat conteat tack. 1 2 b 1 4

13 hf a5 is also nclear ou YifanNepomniashchy Wij aan ee 2008. 1  b7 14 l c c 1     Both sdes have chances Nijboe Gle Fench eam Ch 23.  7cxd4  xd4 b6 (D

ac s willing to complicate the game immediately. immediately. 9 2

o eep the initiatve White needs o sacice the pawn. We aleay ow om ection 6.3.1 that 9 e2 c5 an 9 a c5 e safe fo Blac whc leaves s with j st a few othe othe cotn ations that we need to now abt a) 9 a a5+ a5+ and now 10 c3 mantans mantans eality while whi le Wte Wte sho s ho avoi avoidd 1 0 c3? c3 ? xd. xd. b) 9 b ? ! c5 10 a a5+ a5+ 1 1 c3 d d ! 1 2 d d d d 1 3 x xd4 ( 1 3 b b f f+) +) 1 3 ...b6 ...b6 gives Blac the initiative. c) 9 cb5 cb5 a6 a6 (9 (9 . . . c5! c5 ! ? c also also  ied ied)) 10 f5 f5 c5 1 1 bd6+ bd6+  12 12

TIN/ VARIAON

'h5 d8 13 xg7 �xe3 14 xe6+ (or 14 6 e7 15 gf5+) 14  fxe6 15 'h6+ wi a daw 9 b2 1 b1 ' 11 �b his more attractive than 1 1 db5 a5 12 xd5 'xd2+ 13 xd2 exd5 14 c7+ d8 1 5 xa8 b6 or 1 1 b3 'a5 12 �b5 c7 hite has also tried 1 1 cb5 'xa2 12 b3 but after 12'a+ 13 e2 b8 (13d8!?) 14 c7+ d8 15 dxe6+ fxe6 16 xe6+ his attack is only enough for a draw Reyhan-Bak wan Izmir 2007 ll  x4 12 �x4 a!?

his is an inteesting alteative to 12�b4 1 3 b3   hih has een more extensivey exned in pa tice 13 �x7+

After the ea    hite can oe a pe sce  4 �a4 ( 14 �x+ an n  anse by 14 'xd  4  pets 14  h4+ and White shoul d nitely avoid 14 0-0? b5 15 x5 d 8 16 3 'a5 1 7 c7+ d8 1 8 xa8 'xa8 19 f5 b6 as in Chepa rinov-Vallejo Pons Dresden Oym piad 28) when the obliging 14 b5?! 15 �xb5 axb5 16 xb5 'd8 1 7 'c3 'a 1 8 c7+ d8 19 xa8 'xa8 20 0-0 'a4 was uncle in opalov-Naka mura Ar Rapid onte Clo 201 1  Blak shoud consider declining the sarice wi e calm 14 d8 which looks good for m 13 �x7 (D 14 b3

he weaker 14 xb7 can be met by 14�b4 14 'e7



Blak has no hce a 14 'a5?? fails to 15 b6 1 xb7 4+!

t  ue to dive the ht bihop o  ene 1   1   h is uncear and 1 6 2 is anseed by 6�e when 1 7 'xh4 �x+ 1 8 2 d8 19 h1 �6 20  x 2 xb8 0-0 as leel in hiv-rzevch Bie 20 1  1 17 �b

hite cannot m prss er 17 00 c8 18 b3 (18 1 c5) 1 8'c4 1 c 1 c !

Black is perilously close to the abyss but his resources appe su cient No: a) he careless 19 0-0? a7 20 �xa7 'xc7 21 �d4 �c5 leads to hadship for White b) 19 d4 and here: b1) 19�a3 is an interesting idea although in the vaiation 20 b1 �e7 21 c4! c8 22 b7 �b4+ 23 f2 xb6 24 xb6 �c5 25 d ! Black stands sightly worse



A OCK-OU HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

b2) After 19 ...c8 it is more di cult for White to prove an advantage: 20 c6 h4+ 21 g3 e7 and 20 a7 e7 !? both yield unclear prospects. .. 77 (D

This somewhat nonchan-ok move has recenty become rah sh ionable. Back has no ojc o h bishop reaching c in w ms (er 8 dxc xc) gien that e white knight remains on  rathe than being centraized on d4.  ' The aempt to economize on the queen move by 8 e2 0-0 9 0-0 gives Black a good game after 9 ...f6!? 10 exf6 xf6 1 1 h1 (1 1 e xd4 12 xd4 cxd4 1 3 'xd4 d7 led to equa ity in PacherPrusikin Chur 2010   .. .d6!? (   .. .e4 is equal) 1 2 g3 (1 2 dxc g4) 12 ...cxd4 1 3 xd4 (1 3 xd4 e) 13...xd4 1 4 'xd4 a6 as in Kokev-aslak erpuov 2008. The variations 8 g3 0-0 9 g2?! (9 d 2 b8! ? 9 ...b 8 d3 b6 and 8

e2 b6 look even less attractive for White.  00 9  The plan with queenside casting is less eective: a) The immediate 9 0-0-0? ! allows Black to begin a very promising attack on the whit king by 9 .. .c4! 1 0 b (or 10 f b 1 1 fxe6 fxe6 1 2 xb b8 13 d6 xd6 14 exd6 f6 zelag .Gurevich Warsaw 2007) 10 ...b (10...b8 !?) 1 1 xb b8 12 d6 xd6 13 exd6 f6 14 'e 'xd6 1  1 d7 1 6 e b4 1 7 a3 xc2! as in .Petrov-A.David Kavala 2008. b) Aer 9 dxc xc (9 ... xc! ? 10 0-0-0 b6) 10 0-0-0 a White should avoid   d4?! xd4 12 xd4 b8 as it leaves Back a tempo up in cos with viagintsevs line in c 6.3.1 (ne to Blacks th me) u 1 1 xc ! xc eads to sh ay with chances for both sides. F ee: 12 h4 (1 2 b d7) 1 ...b 1 3 'e3 ( 1 3 h b) 13...d7 14 h fc8 1  h6 g6 16 b b4! 17 a3 xc2 18 xc2 b 19 d4 e4 gives Black the initiative Koso Kotsur oscow 201 1 . c) Wi he text-moe Whie pre pares to caste kingside. A more acive bishop development by 9 d3 gain allows an immediate assau upon he centre: 9 ...f6 (9...a6!? 10 0-0 f6) 10 exf6 xf6 1 1 e2 cxd4 12 xd4 xd4 1 3 xd4 e with an equa posi tion Emenko-Goloshchapov Bun desliga 267. d) t remains to add that the tempo rizing move 9 a3 mes no paticua sense: 9 ...a6 10 e2 10 dxc can be

TINI VARIATION

answered by 10...xc5 or 10...xc5) 10.. .b5 1 1 00 b7 is unclear whie ack can aso pay by anaogy with our main ine: 9 ...b6! ? 1 0 d3 f6 1 1 exf6 xf6 with equality acieja orozevich t Petersburg 1997. 9 b6!? (D)

It is this move that gives 7 ...e7 in depedent impoace. nstead 9 ...a6 10 0-0 b leads to a ore stadar for mation.

9

b) 10 .. .f5 !? 1 1 exf6 ( 1 1 d1 cxd 1 2 xd xd 1 3 x c5 is un clear) 1 1 ..xf6 12 b5 (1 2 h1 b7) 12...'c7 with chances for both sides who each have their trumps in the forthcomig battle. c) 10 .. .b7 1 1 1 ( 1 1 a1 f5 !?) 1 1 .. .cxd 1 2 xd trasposes to the main line below. he ieiate kight reeat to d 1 somewhat resicts Blacks possibili ties  but that is all. 10 cx4

Otheise Wite will play 1 1 c3. 1 1 xd4 b7 (D)

10 l -

t is still ot safe for White to play 10 0-0-0?! c while 10 0-0 gives Black a wider choice: a) 10...f6 1 1 xc5 (or 1 1 d1 ?! cxd 12 xd xd 13 xd fxe5) 11...xc5 (not 11...bxc5? 12 xd5 whie 1 1 ...fxe5 1 2 x5 xc5 13 ad1 oers Wite the initiative) 12 b5 b7 13 exf6 xf6 1 xc6 xc6 1 5 d leaves Whites positio preferable (.Kositseva).

12 00

Now 12...c5 13 f2 7 led to approximate eqaity i Koepke-Diz d Austa ea Ch 2010/1 1  while Blac cold also cosier 12 ...xd! 1 3 xd b8 1 e3 c6 15 c3 c8 16 b5 xd  i herebukh-ethu rama Kirishi 2010.

7

Classical Fenc

1 e e6 2 d4 d 3 c3 6  ig ie7

Black unpins his knight giving hite little choice but to advance the e-pawn since  d3 fails to  ...dxe4 6 xe4 xe4 7 xe7 xf2. 5 e5

here e two mnor alteatives. Firstly  exd exd ( ... xd is pos sible too) ansposes to the Exchange Variation (ction 3.3). ssns  xf6 xf6 6 f oises nong. Aer 6...c 7 b (7 e ) 7 ... d7 8 exd (8 7 7 9 exd cxd4 1 d ) 8 ...b 9 xb 0- Whie co hop  an advantage while 6... lks ven mo prmising fo Black; he s 7 'd2 with 7 ...c whle  7 e e7 8 d3 c 9  cxd 1 x7 x7 1 1 g  h6 he pies Whites tats without great diculty. 5 fd7 (D)

Now 6 e3 makes no sense while the gambit 6 h4! is discussed at the end of te chapte in ection 7.3. he main line is 6 xe7 'xe7. his leads to a position that is some what similar to the teinitz Vaiation (Chapter 6) but the exchange of the dark-suared bishops changes mat ters signicantly. From a good vs bad bishop perspctive it appears to ben et White but on the other hand Black is immediately ready to castle

ad to c out the feeing move ...6.   cion 7.1 we discuss altea tives to 7 f4. None of them poses any real danger to Black.  ection 7.2 is devoted to the main continuation 7 f4. ile White can choose to castle on either wing the kingside oers him better chances of maintaining a slight edge. 71 6 ie7 'e7 (D)

his is the basic position for the Classical French. he rst point t note is that Black will not be able t play 7 ...c next move in view of the un pleasant reply 8 b5 (a conseuence of the exchange of dk-squed bish ops). o for one move at least White does not have to worry about an attac

SSICA RNCH



10 'e2 is less accurate because af ter 10...xc5 he has little choice but to lay 1 1 00 in any case as 1 1 000?! a6 gives Black the initiative. Black can also play the uncle 10 ...f6!? 1 1 exf6 f6 12 0-0-0 'xc5. 1  c 11 e1 a6

Black takes conol of the important b5square ad is ready for furter ac tion with .. .b5 and/or .. .f6. he game is approximately level. on his pawn-centre and so has a wide choice of moves at this point. We ex amine the main line 7 f in ection 7 .2. ere we discus te olowi  .1.1:    .1.2:  'd .1.3:    .1.4:  ' 3

  d2 (D)

. 7 

White simply develops his pieces intending �d3 and an exchange of pawns wen Black eventually plays ...c5. 7 �d3 is a less accurate move order because Black can then con sider playing 7 .. b 8 e2 xb2 9 0-0 a6.    8 �d c 9 dc

9 b? is bad in view of 9 ...c4 while after 9 00 cxd4!? (9 ...c6 is also possible 10 b5 (10 xd4 c6 10 .. .c6 1 1 e f6 12 exf6 xf6 1 3 'e2 (or 1 3 bxd4 xd 1  xd e5 13 .. .e White does not succeed in keeping a grip on the e5-square since 14 e5 is met by 14 ...a6. 9 ...c6 1 

his move can transpose to Section 7.2.2 after 7 ...0-0 8 f4 c5 9 f3 (or 9 dc5. ere we shall discuss it in con nection with another idea.    8 d1!

his attempt to maintain the pawn centre is articial and unsuccessul. 8 ...6! ?

Blacks position is already slightly preferable; the only question is which sequence of moves is most rotable for him. 9 4

2

A OCK-OD HESS PENNG EPERTORE FOR BLCK

It is entirely illogical to play 9 exf6 xf6 10 f3 (or 10 d3 c6), when oth 10 ...c5 and 10 ...c6 are promis ing. 9c5 10  cd 11 cd fe 12 e

12 dxe5 can  answered by 12...g5, continuing to dismantle Whites cen re. 12c6 13 h

Black threatened 13...h4+, and hite should not allow the ovious exchange sacrice 1 3 ?! xf 1 4 gxf3 h4+, a s in Von Gottschall-ar rasch, Frankfurt 1 887. 13 6    Black has the ntati. .. 7  (D)

he queenside skirmish 8 a4 a6 9 a5 ax5 10 axb6 xa 1 1 xa1 c6! 12 a 'b4 1 3 c3 'xb2 ( 1 3..a4 also leads to equality) 14 e2 4 15 xb8 00 must in the long run end in a draw. Other moves fail to dere much enet from the kight manoeuvre: 8 d3 a6 9 c3 c6 10 f3 b4 and 8 4 b4+ 9 c3 (9 d 1 ?! 0-0) 9 .. .xb2 1 0d1 0-0 1  d3 ( 1 1 d2 can lead to a repettion) 1  ...a6 are unclear, while 8 f3 a6 9 c3 c6 (9.. .6d7!? 10 d3 c5) 10 d2 f6 leads to equal chances. 8a6 9  White has reached his goal, but the knght moves hae also cost him time. 9f6!

hs atak o the sparhead of Wts pn-ce looks more ef fct h an the standd 9...c5, as Wht hs alady nsted consider ab resources in supporting his d4 pawn. 10 id3

his is known as the Alapin Varia tion. By threatening to invade on c7, Whte gains a tempo for the moe c3. Seeral other fos of this idea are possible, as we shall see in Section 7.2. 76 8 c

he exchange 10 exf6 gxf6 (or 10 .. .'xf6) suits Black ne, and 10 f3 is rather well met by 10...c6. After 10 f4, besides transposing to our main line by 10 ...00 11 f3 fxe5 12 fxe5 c5 13 d3, Black can also initiate complcations with 1 0 ...fxe5 11 'h5+ ( 1 1 fxe5? ! 'h4+) 1 1 ...d8 followed by 12...a. 1...00

ere th gambt line 10 ...fxe5 11 'h5+ d8 12 dxe5 a4 1 3 b1 xb2 14 xb2 xa3 (homasSpiel mann, arienbad 1925) is rskir for Black

SSICA RNCH 11 f4 fe5 12 fe5 c5 1  c6 14 00

14 c2 cxd4 (14d7!? 15 0-0 e8) 1 5 cxd4 b4 1 6 x4 'x4+ 17 'd2 xd2+ 1 8 xd2 c4+ leads to an eual ending

3

14 gxe6 f7) 12f6 1 3 exf6 xf6 led to an oning cataophe for Wite in Duras-pielann an eastian 191 1  is attac ust e buit on a more reliale foundation

14  cd4 15 cd4 4

The game is approximately level 71 7 'h5

White places his queen aggressively, ut greaty weaens his conol of the cene Aer the anlogou mve 7 'g?, the play can te on  mot forced characte: 7 00 8 f3 (8 d3 may e met y 8 c   o    9 exf6 xf6 0  6) 8 c  3 and now  cx 0 7 (   gives Bc  cc wee   f   'g c n 1  6   W4   1  0-0 c6 13 exf6  wit ul play) 1xh7 1 1 •+  1 2 g5 'xg5 13 'xg dxc3 14 xc3 c6 15 f4 f6 leads to a doule-eged position w unalnced mateia f he wises, Bac cn avoid these com plications y continuing  h6 10 00 (10 000?! c6 1 1 he1 c4 12 f 5 gives Blac the initiative) 10 c6 or  f6 10 exf6 (1 0 h4 6) 10xf6 1 1 4 c6 with a level game 7  00 8 f4 (D)

Te se poition may be achieved via e move-orde 7 f4 0-0 8   Te adventurous 8 f3? ! (8 d3? g6  '6 c5 10 f3 is the same) 8  c5 9 d3 ( dxc5 is moe cicumspect, ut inconsistent with Whtes last few moves)  g6 10 '6 cd4 1 1 5 c6 12 g5 (1 2 c7 b8 1 3 g5 f6

8  

 3 g6 10 'h6 cxd4 ( 10f6!? 1 1  c6 i s posse too) 1  f6 (o   c  2 3 f6) gin p te nt goo Te line  00 ? cd4 ( c6 10 dc5) 10 5 c6 gt appear to oer White more pospect, altoug in this case too Blac stans omewat etter 9  cd4 10 d4 c6 1 1 000 f6

Now it ecomes obvious that the jouey of White ueen to h5 was simply a waste of tie 12 ef6 '6 1 de2 6

Blac has e nitiative, Vasvari uez Panama, Giralta 28 7 6 ie7 'e7 7 f4 (D)

Tis is the main continuation Fst of all White foies his centre



A OCK-OI HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

c) he Alapin-ty 9 b5 is a more seious attempt hee although it only eads to unclea play aer 9 ...c6 10 c3 f6   h4!? (   d3 a6 12 d6 cxd4 13 cxd4 g5 !?  tetsko)   .. .b6 o 9 ...cxd4!? (Bronstein) 10 c7 xe5 1 1 xa8 xf3+ 1 2 'x d7. 71 9 d (D)

7  00 8 f

An idea an to Alapins fom ec tion 7 . 1 .3 is unsuccessful hee: 8 'd2 c5 9 b5? a6 10 d6 cxd4 1 1 f3 c6 12 0-0-0 (12 d3 is met by 2...f6 and  2 xd4 with 12...dxe5 13 fxe5 'h4+) 2...f6 ith n adan tage fo Black. 8.  .c

Now the play spits o  i diectios deped    wishes to castle: 9 3 l by 0-0 or 9 'd2 pep t cse queenside: 84 7.2.1 : 9 d 7.2.2: 9 d2 85 Othe moes: a) he pelimnay pawn exchange 9 dxc5 c6 changes nothing: 10 'd2 o 10 d3 f6 (o 10 ...xc5 1 1 0-0 h6) will lead to our main lines. b) 9 g3 c6 10 'd2 (10 g2?! cxd4   xd4 ) ...a6   g2 b5 (   ...cxd4 2 e2 d3 13 cxd3  is equal) 12 0-0 b7 (o  2...b6) is of independent impoance but Blacks osition is no worse.

9f

 ost logical moe: Black p ies he eat o xh7+ and attacks Whites pawncene. 9 ...cxd4 is condemed by opening theoy due to 10 xh7+ but is not so bad as it seems at st glance; e.g. ...h8   g5 g6 1 2 'xd4 g7 13 h4 c6 14 'd2 f6 15 'd3 dxe5. Neeheess it is bete to eain om it. On the othe hand 9 ...h6 10 00 (1 0 dxc5 c6 1 1 'd2xc5) ...c6 1 1 dxc5 xc5 1 2 d2 d8 looks like an acceptable alteatie. 10 ef 'f 11 g

  g5 xf4 1 2 xh7+ h8 13 h5 f6 does not end well fo White

SSICA RNCH

so he must defend the f4-pawn. ow ever the move g3 seriously weakens the light sues and this helps Black create counterplay. l l  c6 12 dc c he activity of Blacks pieces com pensates for the defects of his pawn structure. is light-suared bishop can be brought into play via the ma noeuvre ...d7-e8 or after the central pawn-break ...e5. 1 00

13 g5 amounts to a loss of time since there is no good reson to ove the kigt away fro he esare: 13...g6 14 00 ( 1  6 1  f e gives Black he initiae wi 1 f3 can be met by 14...e  1   g7 16 c ) 1  1 2 d7 wi e es 1 3 'd2 can al b w wi 13 .. .e5 (13.7 inans e ten sion) 14 5 (14 000 + 15 d3 d4 16 e4 h6) 14...d3+ 15 d3 'f alhough here Blak is only seekin ealiy: bot 16 e5 e 17 'f f 18 e7+ h8 19 fe5 c2 and 16 0-0 d 17 cxd3 ef4 1 8 f4 g4 19 g5 (1 9 g2 ae8) 19...h6 20 ge6 e6 2 1 e6 f + 22 f (22 f e8) 22.. .e8 gie him enough compensa tion fr the pawn Finly 13 'e2 d7 14 0-0-0 (14 g5 d3+ 1 d3 'f5 16 'f f5 17 000 d 1 8 ce4 h6 19 f3 e5 is eual) 14 ...e8 15 e (15 g5 d3+ 16 d3 g6) 15. . .h5 is uite satisfacto for Black. 1 a6 14 'd2 d7 1 ae1 e8 16 e



16 f5 may be parried by 1 6...d3 17 d3 b4 1 8 d2 ef5. 16c

Black succeeds in maintaining the dynamic euilibrium as Wites con trol of the centre is not solid enough. In order to secure an advantage White needs to make his c3-knight more ac tive but it is not simple to do so. 7.. 9 _d2 (D)

As in many other lines of the French Defence Whites plan of ueenside castling shaens the bale and pushes purely positional factors into the back ground 9c6 10 dc

his is not an obligatory echange but there is little reason to avoid it. Af ter 10 000 Black an simply play 10 ...a6 when White has nothing beer than 1 1 dc5. But he can also reply 10 .c4? which gives him rather seri ous counterplay; for eample: a) 1 1 h4 a6 1 2 h5 b5 13 h6 g6 and Blacks threats come rst.

6

A OCK-O HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

b) 1 1 b5 b6 12 d6 b8 fol lowed by 13...d7 and 14 ...c8. c) 1 1 g4! ? a6 12 f5 b5 13 b1 ( 1 3 f4 f6 and 1 3 g2 b4 14 a4 c 3 also illusate Blacks ideas) 13... 14 a4  15 f4 f6 with a doubleedged game. d) 1 1 f5 b8 1 2 fxe6 (ite should avoid both 12 'g5?! f6 and 12 h4?! b5 when Black has the initiative) 12...e6 13 b5 (13 'g5 b5) 13 ...b6 14 e2 d7 with eual chances. 10  x5 11 000 a6 (D)

euality in Dolmatov-Baeev Sochi 1988) 13..xd3+ 14 cxd3 (14 xd3 h6 is uncle) 14 ..f6 15 b 1 (1 5 e2 fxe5 16 xe5 xe5 17 xe 'c5+ 18 b1 f5) 15 ...fxe5 16 xe5 d4 with uncle lay. he text-move is more cunning as it avoids for the time being counter lay of the tye we have just seen in line b. 12  5

1 2...d8 1 3 e2 (not 1 3 d3? d4, but the knight exchange 13 d 4!? x d4 14 xd4 is uncle) 13. . .d7 14 ed4 ac8 deseves attention as tried in the game Aseev-Baev Lvov onal 1990. 1 

12 e

12 d3 is more straightfowd: a) 12...b5 13 f2 (theatening to lay xh7+; 13 e3 transoses to note b to Whites 13th move) 13...f6 (both 13...xd3+ and 13...h6 e os sible) 14 exf6 xf6 1 5 'e3 (ae 15 he1 'f8!? 16 g3 b4 Black seizes the initiative) 15...b4 (or 15...xd3+! ? 16 xd3 c7 17 g3 d7) 1 6 e2  1 7 b5 d7 18 he1 a4 is unclea otylev-lybin omsk 24. b) 12...d7 !? 1 3 e3 ( 1 3 e 2 ac8 14 b1 xd3 15 cxd3 f6 led to

Again White has a choice but he al ready uns the sk of ding himsel o the ing sde: a) 3  (eature) 13...a7! 14  (  g h6 d 14 f4 exf5 15  e e lso leasant fo Bl) 14...4 1 5 xd4 (o 1 5 ' d 7 16 'f4 b8 17 e1 f6) 1 5...exf5 16 xd5 e6 (16..e8!?) 17 d2 xe3 18 xe3 c5 Wang ao-Riazantsev Dubai 25. b) 1 3 d3 xd3+ 14 cxd3? ! (this is dubious so White should try 14 xd3 !  or the unclea 14 'd3 b4 15 a4 b8) 14...b7 1 5 e2 (not 1 5 d4?? 'c5 while 15 d4 a5 16 'd3 c6 gives Black the initiative) 15 .. .d4! 1 6 exd4 b4 Almasi-Glei zerov Geneva 204. c) 1 3 e2 b4 14 ed4 xd4 15 xd4 c7 and Black can be hay Goloshchaov-Govedaica Yugoslav eam Ch 20.

SSICA RNCH 1 1  e2 a  15 ed

he pawn-break 15 f5 is still not ef ective: 15.exf5 (or 15...e4!? 16 f6 gxf6 17 exf6 xf6 18 g3 a4) 16 xd5 e4 ain GonzaezFuvia Poyatos Benasue 1999. 15 d4 16 d c7 Black is no worse 73

6 h4

Known as the Alekhine-Chatard Attack this gambit continuation pres ents Black with an awkward choice: if he accepts the gift by 6 ...xg5 7 hxg5 xg5 he will be forced on the defen sive and unable to geere ve countelay in  e   e French Defece.  rtc   tried severl   c   and the one o c   f  the simplet. 6h6 (D)



practical choice and fritl ground for serious investigation. White can reply: 7..1 : 7 e 87 88 7..2: 7 e7 Another retreat 7 f4 is very rarely seen in practice; then 7 ...c5 8 g4 (8 dxc5 c6 9 g4 dxe5 1 xg7 g6) 8 ...g6 9 f c6 1 dxc5 a6 1 1 -- xc5 leads to unclear play. 7 h5 is much too articial and after 7 ...a6 8 -- (tetko gives 8 d3 c5 9 xd5?! exd5 1 e6 e5 while 8 f can be met by  ...c5 9 dxc5 c) 8 ...c5 9 dc5 c6 1 f4 xc5 ites iece interact bdly w eac other. .3.

7 e

N Blac ha time to attck the cent. 7    g4 g6 (D)

For the time beig lack retain his castling rights although the variation 8 .. .f8!? 9 f (9 f4 cxd4 1 xd4 c6 1 1 f3 h5) 9 ...cxd4 1 xd4 c6 1 1 0-- xd4 1 2 xd4 ( 12 xd4 a6) 12...c5 13 f4 xf2 14 d1 (Em.Lasker-Kipke Berlin simul 192) 14 .. .b6!? 15 d3 c7 is also rather interestig for him. 9 f

Opening theory disapproves of this move but more due to general consid erations than specic analysis. his fact makes it an esecially interesting

9 d3?! is well met by 9 ...cxd4 while an immediate kingside assaul by 9 h5 does not represent a danger to Black in view of 9 ...cxd4 1 0 xd4 g5 1 1 f4 c6. White also achieves noth ing by 9 f4 cxd4 (9 ...h5 !? 1 g3 c6

A OCK-O HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BLCK



1 1  '5 is uncler) 10 xd4 c6 1 1  '5 9 dxc5!? xe5  g3 ppers strongest as Whte opns lies in the cene A smple line is  b6 11 f4 ( 1 1  h5 1 2 b5  1 3 2 'a5 is uncle)   6 1 2 b5  when White keeps some initii i an unclear position 9 ...cd4 10 d4 c6 11 

Or 1 1  xd4 (    6! ?) 1 2 xd4 c5 13 d2 5 wih good counterplay for Blck ...d4

  6 is also possible since xg6 is not yet a thret 12 d4 '6 1  Now there is no need for Black to get involved in complictions like 13c5 14 'f4 xf2+ 15 e2 c5 since in the ending after 13xd4 14 fxd4  he stands at least no worse .3.2

7 e7 'e7 (D)

We now have the stndard main line of the Clssical Frnch but with the addition of h4 and h6 These moves

lead to some signicnt differences in the varitions and introduce new pos sibilities or both plyers 8 f4

t is mch too opimistic for White to pl  3  9 g4 (ying to mke d  o h oe h4) 9 c5 10 g5 h5,  g os of hites tck  g4  9 4 (or 9 f3 c5 10 dxc5 6 1 1 g3 xc5 as in andu Gleizerov Buchrest 200) 9 c5 10 3 ( 10  cxd4 1 1 b5 c6 12 3 c5) c6 1 1  a6 leads to a complicted gme where it is no completely clear wht the qeen is do ing on g4 The riation 8 b5 b6 deserves attention: a) 9 4 a6 10 5 xb5 1 1 axb6 xa 12 'x c6 13 '8 + 14 c3 'a4 is equl just as it is with the h-pwns unmoved b) 9 c3 6 10 3 c5 1 1 c2 (1 1 f4 c6 12 f3  13 d3 cxd4 14 cxd4 'b4+ 15 'd2 4) 1 1  c6 12 f3  13 d3 d7 !? and Black in tends to ttck Whites centre with f6

LSSCA RENCH

c) 9 g4 0-0 (9 ...b4+ 10 c3 xb2 is equal) 10 0-0-0 ( 10 h3 f6 1 1 f3 c6) 10...a6 1 1 c3 c5 1 2 dxc5 (ammadov-R.Bagirov Azerbaijan Ch Baku 201 1 ) and now Black should play 12...6d7 1 3 f4 c6. 00 9  c (D)



and 1 1 b5 wi 1 1 ...a6 1 2 d6 cxd4)   ...cxd4 1 2 xd4 fxe5 1 3 fxe5 c6 ( 1 3...xe5!?) 14 e xd4 15 xd4 c5 with a good game for Black Abasov-Bajarani Baku 201 1 . 10 c6 (D)

This allows White to fortify his centre but 10 ...cxd4 1 1 c7 xe5 1 2 xa8 xf3+ oers White the new possibility of 13 gx3!? (the lie 13 xf + 14 f2 d7 is till rather safe fo exmpe 15 3 'd2+ 16  1 d3).

10  

ee tis it e i set stroner t i e tr i cal. O te oter ad te folowig continuations do not provide ay be et for White · a) 10 dxc5 c6 1 1 d2 f6 12 exf6 gives Black a choice between the lines 12...xf6 13 0-0-0 'xc5 and 12...xf6!? 13 3 xc5 14 0-0-0 e4 with eit. b) 10 d2 f6!? (without delay; tetskos 10 ...c6 1 1 0-0-0 f6 1 2 exf6 xf6 is ot bd either) 1 1 0-0-0 ( 1 1 exf6 can be answered by 1  ...xf6

11 c cxd 1 cxd 6 1 d6

Wite oe not hve to hurry with this incrion; the ie 1 3 d2 d7 14 e2 6 15 d6 ab8 is of approxi matey el ve. 1   1 'd d7 1  a6

By playi ...c8 Black will evict the iuder fro its advanced post on d6 wit good cces of equality.

Pat 2: 1 d· e6 1 d4 e6 (D)

he st p  te  s a rate weexp    they  the F e. e some o the da es tt we exaned my hae had a smewhat inatie hte ts ws w the fmew  a ey sd and pp pe. I Pt 2 the ts  stti n pening epetire mes t  me expemet ple. O  smpe eel sme pcti aates  Blck o 1 d4 e6 ae immediatey cea. uch lines as 1 d4 f6 2 5 (mpwsy Attack) and  d4 f5 2 g5 ( 2 c3) ae immeditely avided so e.g. ad heets f the Dtch Deece may se this moe-de as a way t each thei fauite oening afte 2 c4 f5  2

 f5 without needing to woy about these tubesome sideines. hse wh py the Qeesimz-Idan compex wi  smi aates als pvied  cse tht they are wiling t pay te Fench Deence. wee ou m hee s t pide an idepedent epetie based n  ...e6 whie nting that sme eaders may pefer to use only pas of this epetie we tete wth ther pes tt ty e ppy t py.  st pedet ie    6 2  s t gsh De e 2 ...b6. wee we sll br     m it d  t ets wth the fl  tw psts s  fnda t stes  c4  (D)

ART    d e6

The im of the bishop check is to lure White into little-explored terri tory The pay can eithe etu to no mal theoretical variations (noally of the Nimzo-ndian or Bogo-ndian) or ake an original direction. White needs to reckon wth both possibilities mak ing his decisions more dicult both practically and objectively.   c (D)

Black strikes at the d4-pawn before its neighbour has arrived on c4 to sup po an advance to d5. The game can now move in a very dierent strategic direction from normal queens pawn openings. Whites best chance of ad vantage lies in 3 e4 or 3 c4 transpos ing to lines of the icilian Defence or the English Opening respectively. We will be ready for these transpositions  but how many of our opponents will be given that they have already avoided e4 and c4 on moves 1 and 2? t remains only to add that after 1 d4 e6 Whites other continuations sides

9

2 c4 and 2 f (not counting 2 e4 of course) do not create serious opening problems for Black. Let us summarize our coverage of 1 d4 e6:  2 c + 3 c3 (Chapter 8) is likely to be chosen by those who en joy playing the white side of the Nimzo-ndian Defence. owever he gets not a Nio-ndian but a signicantly odied version in which soe sandd ideas e un available to him. e must also be w of Black transposing to a fa vourable fo of Dutch Defence.  2 c + 3 d2 (Chapter 9) has uch in coon with the Bogo ia lie 1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 f3 +  bd2.  h 10 deals with the most rolaic vaation for Black af e 2 c + naely 3 d2. e can chooe to coplete the anspo iion o a respectable branch of the Bogo-ndian Defence or continue to pursue an independent path  which is strategically riskier but also more interesting.  The transposiion to the icilian Defence by 1 d4 e6 2 f3 c5 3 e4 cxd4 is covered in Chapter 1 1 . ow ever unlikely this sequence is to oc cur it is obviouly very important that we are fully ready for it.  pres ent a simplied repertoire baed on the icilian Four Knights  a line in which there is intricate piece play making it dicult for White to nd the right moves if he is un prepared.

92





A OKO HESS PENNG EPERTORE FOR BLK

The line 2 f3 c5 3 c4 (Chapter 1 2) 3 cxd4 4 xd4 transposes to one of the varieties of the Symmetrical Engish with an early d4 advance by White After 4f6 5 c3 we examine both 5 �b4 (usually transposing to a g3 Nimzo-Indian) and 5 c6 Chapter 13 is devoted to the move order 2 f c5 3 e3 This modest and rer oldfhioned continua tion shoud not present a gret threat



to Black but it needs to be en se riously We shall reply with 3  reaching positions of the Queens Gambit type happy that White can not activey develop his ueens bishop Finally in Chapter 14 we study some of the more interesting side lines that arise when Wite chooses a rarer option on move 2 or 3 such as the cuently rather popular Lon don System with an early f4

8 Te Nimzlike 2 c4

.b4+ 3 c3 1 d4 e6  c4 i4+  c (D)

without saying that White aso has some additional possibiities so both players need to be wiing to enter in teesting and itte-expored positions. ee is an oveview of the lines in this chapter: o

o

In the standad Nimzo-Indian af er 1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 c3 b4 White has a very wide choice of con tinuations some of them with enor mous bodies of complex theory. Naturaly from our move-order you may opt to play the Nimzo by contin uing 3 ...f6 secure in the knowledge that you ae entering a vey highly re spected opening. Likewise fans of the Dutch can ceainly consider play ing 3 ...f5. In the cuent chapter we shall fo cus on two more independent paths: 3 .. .c5 and 3 ...b6. While Black seeks to benet om the new possibilities af forded by his move-order it goes

o

o

o

o

   is covered as follows:

 he case of 4 dxc5 xc3+ (ec tio .1) the game immediately tes  unusua diection. 4  xc+ 5 bxc3 (ection .2) is aou to te misch Nimzo Indian but hee Black can solve his opening pobems more easily. 4 d5 (ection .3) gives us a choice: pay for blockade by 4...xc3+ or simpy switch back to Nio the ory afte 4 ...f6 as Black need not fear 5 g5 or 5  . 4 e3 (ection .4) is simila to the Rubinstein NimzoIndian but Black has additional options here to re strict Whites expansion plans in the cene and the game may vey soon enter unexplored teritoy. 4 f3 cxd4 5 xd4 f6 bings us to a position we conside via a dif feent moveorder in ection 12.2. We need not consider 4 'c2? (a main line in the Nimzo) since the d4-pawn is already attacked while

4

A OCKO HSS PNING PRIR FOR LCK

4 b3 cd4!? (4 ...c6 5 dc5 f6 is a comfotable Nimzo line fo Black) 5 'b4 c6 6 'a3 dc3 7 'c3 f6 followed by ...d5 gives Black active play. 



  6 has dierent consequences:

Section 8.5 covers 4 c2 when we do enter Nimzondian tetory but in a fom that is quite comfoable fo Black. 4 e4 (Section 8.6) ansposes to a shap line of the Eglish Defence. Black has eadymade counteplay and scores well in pactice.

   c 4 dc (D)

4 c+  c 'a 6 

The lines 6 e4 f6 7 f3 c6 6 'c2 a6 and 6 'b3 a6 7 e3 (7 f4 f6 8 f3 'c5) 7 ...e7 8 f3 c6 followed by 9 ...c5 a insuciently vigoous and permit Black a good po sition. 66 7 ' 7 d2 also deseves attention al though afte 7 ...a6 o 7 ...b6! ? Black has no seious poblems. 7a6  d4

The kight is heading fo b5 where it will occupy a menacing position. White achieves nothing in the vaia tion 8 f4 (8 e3 'c7 is equal) 8 ...c5 9 ' b6 10 d4 (o 10 'a ba) 10...a6 1 1 a ba5 12 b (2 b3 b7) 12...b5 13 cb d.       c shou void 9 ..  c5 10  o 9 ...  0  but one way o oe the hostile c5pawn must be ed.  iesg situation has aisen since White (in his tu) also does not huy with the captue cb6. 10 4

This line is seldom encounteed though athe inteesting. At the cost of allowing seve damage to his pawn suc White hos to mae use of the weaess of the dk squs in his opponets camp. If Black s down the poposal by 4...f6 then 5 'c2 and 5 b3 lead to wellkown theot ical vaiatios of the Nimzondian.

Chasing the black queen by 10 a4 c5 1 1 'c2 ( 1 1 'b4 b4 12 cb4 b3)   .. .b7 12 a3 fc8 looks like a waste of time. And afte 10 cb6 ab6 e activity of the black pieces must be sucient fo him to achieve equality; fo eample 1 1 'a3 c5 2 'a a5 13 f4 b7 1 4  a6 (o 14 ...fa8) 1 1 a3 c5 12 'd 'a4 13 e3 (13 'a4 a4 14 b4 a6) 13...'d1  14 d b7 o 1 1 f3 c5 12  b4 (12...d5!?) 13 cb4 b3 14 b1 c1 1 5 c d5.

H IMZOIK   c b+ 3 c3 10  7 11 3 c6

The nal preparations are made hite lacks time to secure an advan tage; the following variatons are all roughly equal: a) 1 2 cxb6 axb6 1 3 e4 ( 1 3 d6 is answered by 13..c5 14 ' fc8) and now Black can choose 13 ..d5 or 13 ..xb5 14 cxb5 c5 15 ' d5 b) 1 2 d6 xb5 1 3 cxb5 xc5 14 'b4 fc8 15 'xa5 bxa5 16  b7 17 e5 d6. c) 12 e4 xb5 13 cxb5 xc5 14 'b4 b7  3  c 4  xc+  xc (D)

9

from delaying or avoiding altogether the move ..f6. The corollay though is that Wite can play the e4 advance without additional preparation. Lets see how these factors work out in practice. s c6 The blockading continuation 5 ...d6 intending ...e5 is also quite accept able Then 6 dxc5 dxc5 7 'xd8 xd8 8 f4 d7 is not dangerous  ites initiative will gradually be come exhausted but his pawn weak nesses will remain. We should note that 5 ..f5?! fails to preet 6  since 6 ..fxe4 7 'h5 g6 8 'xc5 gives Wite the initiative. 6

 is ot logical for White to play 6 3 f6 because it runs counter to is oeig saegy declared by the oe 4 a stead 6 d5 enters unex plored teritoy: 6 ..e5 !? (6. .a5 and 6 ...ce7 e also possible) 7 f3 (7 e4 4!?) 7 . .xc4 (or 7 ...f6) 8  'a5 with chances for both sides 6 cxd

hite shows he is prepared to play a misch Nizo-ndian to which 5 .. .f6 would now transpose. The sch is a highly double-edged line where Wite hopes his stong centre and kingside attacking chances will compensate for his pawn weesses. One of the main themes is an attack or pin on the f6-knight by e4-e5 or g5. This suggests that Black might prot

6 .. .d6 7 d5 (7 e2! ?) 7 .. .a5 is an alteatie pan: a) The careless 8 f4? exd5 9 ed5 (9 cxd5 f6) 9 ...f6 10 d3 00 led rapidly to serious hardsip for White in oskalenko-Goossens Barcelona 25. b) 8 d3 can be met by 8 e5 9 f4 f6!? (a slightly risky experiment; sim pler is 9 ...exf4 10 xf4 e7 with equality) 10 h 5+ (10 f5 d; 1 e2 e7) 10...f8 1 1 fxe5 dxe5 1 2  'e8 13 d e7 with an unclear game Kacheishvili-Eingo Berlin

96

A OCK-O HSS PNNG PRTOR FOR BLCK

1995. A more exible approach is 8 ...e7 when 9 f4 exd5 10 cxd5 f5 is nclear or 8 ...f6!? intending ...b6 and ...a6 with an attack on the weak c4-pawn. The text-move 6 ...cxd4 represents a more concrete approach: instead of blockading the white pawn-centre Bac imediatey attacks it. 7 cxd4 d

impe and good. 7 ...f6 8 e5 (8 d5? is met by 8 ...xe4 and 8 3 with 8 .. .d5 9 cxd5 exd5 10 e5 g8!?) 8 .. .e4 9 d3 '5+ 10 f f5 (or 10...d5) 1 1 exf6 xf6 loos sightly extravagant but it is ao interesting. 8 cxd xd 9 

As we see in ths variation the ab sence of the knght f f6  tued ot to be use f . 97    e e i pxte e. 8.3

 4 d (D)

The advance of the d-pawn presents Black with a choice. 4...xc3+!? 5

bxc3 gives the play an original feel. Then: a) The blockading strategy 5 ...d6 has a natral appeal as it uses Nimzo themes whie avoiding a direct trans position to well-wo lines. Then 6 e4 (6 dxe6?! xe6 7 e4 'a5 8 'b3 f6) 6 ...e5 7 d3 (7 f4 exf4 8 xf4 'h4+!? 9 g3 'e7 Natsidis-teinbacher Leutersdof 2005) 7 ...e7 8 e2 g6 9 0-0 (9 g3 f4) 9 .. .d7 intending ...h6 ...f6-h7 etc. leads to a ong manoeuvring strggle with a very soid bt sightly passive posi tion for Back. b) 5 .. .'a5 6 e4 f6 has been ex amined intending piece-play after 7 d2 (7 'c2 xe4 is ncle) 7 ...d6 8 d 0-0 9 e2 e (e-Dorfman P o 1). owever if    !? the variation  .3+   e 5 9 e2 exd5 1 0 x  1 1  e ooks dbios fo  l in this cse it makes sense fo Bc to anspose to the Nimzo ndian: 4  The good news fr Back is that this is a ine without a great deal of com plex theory and where he has good counterpay. Now the ines 5 d2 0-0 5 f d6 and 5 g3 e4 do not leave ite any chance of an advantage. e has ony two continuations that deand de tailed coverage but by the highest standards neither gives Back opening diculties: 81    97 97 8  

H IMZO-UK 2  c j+ 3 c3 831 5 ig5 d6 (D)

9

c4

Again using the same m: nw 2 xc is bad in view  12...5b. 1 ic

he evidently weer 12 5 0-0 1 3  (13 d2! xc3 1 g3 ) 13...xc3 1  xc3 x c3 1 5 c e5 1 xc b gave Bak e adv tage in acb-ther Asian eam Ch 2/5. 1 00 13 i4

6 3

We have reac  e  e n grad Nimz-n.    next ew mve      risky for him t ea    velpment in ne c a     h 0-0 8 e e8 9 e2 (nt 9 d3 exd5 10 cxd5 xe !) 9 ...exd5 10 cxd5 bd7. 6xd 7 cxd bd7  id3

Ate 8 b5  9 h a (or 9  .  xc3+! 10 xc3 0-0) 10 xd7+ (1 0 d3! ) 10 .. .xd 1 1 e2 g5 1 2 g3 e4 (or 12...e! when 13 a3 a5 1 0-0 0-0 is unclear ad White shd avi 1 3 0-0 h5 1 h h7 Bouwmeester-m scw Oym piad 195) 13 0-0 xc3 1 xc3 xg3 15 hxg3 e Black is n worse oieenko-anda ssian eam Ch Dagmys 2010.   9  xd5 10 00 ixc3 1 bxc3

1 1 xc3 xc3 12 bxc3 c is  no use to White.

Back replses atempts t attack his kng witt paticar dicuty: 1 3 g3 xc3 1 h5 g (1 ...5!)  1 3 d xc3 1 h5  1 5  ce 1 xe xe 17 e7 e 1 8 xe e5 keeping the exa m. 13c 4 xc3

 1 x+ x 15 c2+ g 1 xc3 e5 17 e e8 18 x d e nme  pawn be cme eal bt White ha  wich t deece. 14c3 1   1 "x  7 d 

Bh side have chances a White has sucient cmpenatn  e pawn. 83  

Nw we have a pit me e reaced via the mve-e 1 d  2 c e 3 c3 b  3 c5 5 d5. 5 00 6  b! 

Whies deay i n devepmet give Back asn t hen e sgge.  Back is not so beicse then e smewhat camer  ...d (D) can be recmended:

9

A OCKO HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

initiative) 9 ed5 10 cd5 bd7 1 1 �e2 a5 !?  2 0-0 b5 7 

a) he dubious ine 7 �g5?! h6 8 h4?! has been already covered in the note to Whites 6th move in ection 83 b) 7 �d2?! exd5 8 cxd5 h 9 g4?! (9 g3 f5) 9  e3+ 1  hxg3 'xh 2 2 (oni menko uropen  Ws 2) 12c4 3 �e3  gives   advantage c) 7 �d3 b5!? (aer 7 b7 8 e2 e5 9  Back can choose be tween 9 e8 and 9 exd5  cxd5 c4 1 1 c2 �c5+ 1 2 h1 �d7 ith un clear pay) 8 e2 bxc4 9 �xc exd5 10 �xd5 xd5   'xd5 'b6 12 0-0 ( 12 f2 b7 gives Black the initia tive) 2 c6 is eual d) 7 e2!? e8 oers Black good play afte both 8 g3 b5!? 9 �f4 (Black takes over the initiative in the event of 9 dxe6 �xe6 0 cxb5 d5 1 1 �d2 a6 1 2 bxa6 d4 or 9 �e2 bxc4 10 �xc4 �xc3+  bxc3 '5) 9  'b6  dxe6 �xe6 1  'xd6 bxc4 2 'xb6 axb6 and 8 �d2 a6! ? 9 g3 (9 a4?! exd5  cxd5 h5  1 g3 d7 1 2 g2 e5 1 3 0-0 f6 gives Black the

7 d2 is unattractive in view o 7 bxc4 8 �xc4 �a6! ? (8 �b7 is eual) 9 �xa6 xa6 1 ge2 exd5 1 1 e5 e8 2 xd5 d6 as in Voka  toek avlikuv Brod 2008 After 7 h3 the gme becomes highly tactical: 7 bxc4 8 �xc4 xd5 9 xd5 exd5 0 xd5 a6! 1  �g5 (not   'a8? 'h4+ 2 d c6     'b6 2 f2 c6 gave Black the initiative in ammer-Ress os cow 2 1  7 �g5 exd5 (it looks more logical to inse 7 h6!? 8 �h4 before playing 8 exd5 9 cx5 e8) 8 cxd5 e8 9 2 6  ge2 d6   g3 bd7 (    ! ?) 2 �e2 c  3 - �c5+ 14   so s not promse White  vte edyov-Fressinet uo s up hid 29 7  

 4

White supports his fadvanced e pawn Black seizes the initiative after

HE MZO-KE 2  c + 3 0c3

8 cxb5 a6 (8 ...d6!?) or 8 dxe6 fxe6 9 cxb5 a6 10 f4 axb5   d3 (  xb5 d5 gives Black the initiative)   ...c4 2 c2 d5 as in Radjabovstratescu European Ch Antalya 2004.   xd 9 cxd d6 10  After 10 xb5 dxe5 Blacks posi tion deseves preference; for example   fxe5? ! c7. 10c 11 a4! Its a ne balancing act between at tack and development. If White delays active play then Black can be happy as the lines   e2 b7  2 00 c4 and   d3 c4  2 c2 (1 2 e ) 2...dxe5 demonsat l l   1   Blunting te tt o 1  7+ 13 00 c4 14   In this rath     sition Black has nog nt 8.4

3c 4 3 

Now instead of 4...f6 (transpos ing to a noma Rubinstein Nimzo-In dian) Black develops the othe knight:

99

4c6

hose familiar with the bner Variation of the Nimzo-Indian wil immediate understand Blacks poten tial blockading ideas But by using this move-order Black puts prssue on d4 that limits Whites options to a much smaller set than in the egular Nimzo-ndian. Note that the immediate 4 ..xc3+ 5 bxc3 d6 is less reiable. Before adopting a bockade sategy it is use ful fo Black to wait until White has pay 0 hineing the advance of t pn.  

t  no tme to develop by   e2 since 5 d3? would av e 4-pawn undefended fr a t  e popa set-up in t Nio 5 e2 pomses litte here du to  c4 6 exd4 d5 and now: a) 7 ? ge7 gave Black the ini tiatv  aavis onon 992. b) 7  xc+  xc dc4 (afte 8 .. .ge7! ? te position is also equal) 9 e3 (9 xc4 xd4) 9 ..ge7  xc4 f5   0-0 0-0 th equaity. c) 7 cxd exd5 (the moe dync 7 ...'xd5!?  e3 f6 9 a xc3+ 0 xc3 'd7 also eads to a evel game)  a ( g3 g4 9 g2 ge7 with equal ity uache-B.Kovevi agreb 997)  .  . xc+ 9 c ge7 10 d3 f5 yieds equa chces. he line 5 d5 !? e5 (5 ...ce7 6 e4 can be met by 6 ...d6 or 6 ...xc3+ 7 bxc3 d6 with unce play) 6 d2 (6 f4 is asweed with 6 ...g6 and 6 e4 by 6 ..'h4) 6 ..f6 eads t a dou ble-edgd game.



A OCK-O HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

 x+

Back boows ideas om the b ner Variation, the standard fo of which coud arise after 5 ...f6 6 d3 xc3+ 7 bxc3 d6, when a typica line runs 8 e4 e5 9 d5 e7.  bx  7  In our case it is ess accurate for White to pay 7 e4 e5 8 d5 ce7, when Back has excellent pay, but a more interesting ine is 7 d5 ce7 (7 ... 8 e4 e5 9 d3 h6 is uncear 8 dxe6 xe6 9 g5 f6 10 xe6 fxe6 1 1 d3 0-0 12 e4 c6, reaching a non-standard position where the back ights are we-placed to coun ter the enemy bishops; e.g., 1 3 f4?! e5 14 f5 xe4. 7..  

Back continue to rfan f 7 .. .f6.

but normaly folows an exchange of kights. We should of course consider what happens if White sticks to more stan dard pattes of deveopment. 8 e exd4 (or 8 ...cxd4) 9 cxd4 g4 leads to euaity, and after 8 0-0 we can sde step the standard Nimzo ines in two ways: a) 8 ... f5 ooks like it ought to be sighty uestionabe, athough there is no obvious refutation. 9 e4 f4 1 0 d5 ce7 (10...a5? 1 1 xe5 1 1 g3 g3 12 fxg3 f6 13 g5 0-0 (13...g6 could be tried 14 h4 g6 15 f5 h6 16 e3 (16 d2 is also possible 16 .. .xf5 17 exf5 h8 is unclear. b 8 .. .ge 9 d5 (9 e4 0-0 is unce 9 ...a5 (9 ...b8!? 10 e4 and n 1...g or 10...h6!? with the i 1  g5. he remoteness of te -igt om the ngside here is of n vta impoance, since Wite cannot start an attack immediatey (see the note to Blacks 4th move. 7!

 4!

In his tu, White takes advantage of a dierence frm standard Nimzo ines: Back is not controng the e4sue. he bishop manoeuvre itsef is not totaly unkown in this sucture,

Back shoud avoid 8 ...ge7?! 9 dxc dxc5 1 0 xd8+ xd8 1 1 a3, but 8 ...c7 9 dxc5 dxc5 10 d5 (10 xc6+ bxc6 i s unce 10...f6 ooks acceptabe, as ites avantage is in signicant.   9 dxc5 dxc5 10 xc6+ bxc6 1 1 a4 ( 1 1 e4 f6 1 1 ...d7 eads to in teresting compications: a) White achieves nothing aer 12 e4 f6 13 g5 h6 14 xf6 xf6 15 a5 (15 00 0-0 1 6 a5 g4  7 d2 g5) 1 5...h3 16 0-0 xg2 17 xg2 g6+ 1 8 h3 h5+.

H IMZO-UK 2  c + 3 c3

b 12 b can be met by 12...f6 1 3 b7 e4 14 d2 'e5. c 12 a3 begins a queenside at ack. After 12...f6 13 d2 (1 3 'a5 e4 13...a5! 14 0-0 (14 d 0-0 15 b3 e4 16 xc5 xc5 17 xc5 xc5 1 8 xd7 ad8 is equal 14 ...0-0 he move 15 f3 is useless in view of 15 .. .e6 or 15...e4!? and after 15 b3 e4 the lack of defenders on Whites ngside becomes a problem for hm c1  16 xc5 g5 17 xf8 xc3 and now 18 'a3? h3 19 g3 'h5 20 d2 e4 leads to a crushing defeat for White but the follow iion saves him: 1 8 f4! _ 19 3 2+ 20 h g3+ ec. c2 16 ac 5  h h! 1  g3 'f5 19   (  19.g3+ is aso iabe d es most pudet oto is to accept a draw by peetual check. 9 

101

freedom but the other one is for the ime being imprisoned by its own pawns. 10 d f 11 '

he atempt to exert pressure on the queenside by 1 1 b1 0-0 12 'a4 is paried with 12 ...d8. he text-move immediately attacks he e4-pawn restricting Blacks op tions. Aer 1 1 0-0 0-0 he enjoys a wider choice of plans: a 12 a4?! is wel met by 12 ... cxd4. b After 12 b1 g4 !? two possi ble lnes e 3 'a4 e2 14 e1 d3 15 x 'xb7 16 xc6 'c7 1 xa xa8 d 1 3 c2 e2 14 xe4 xd5 1 5 cxd5 xf 1 6 xf a5 1 7 dxc xc5. c  c2 e8!? (12... f5 ans  o ou main le below 1 3 b1 a5 1 a and hee Back shoud avoid 14 ...c 7? 1 5 xe4 and chooe the euizin 14 ...xd5 15 cxd5 b6 or the oe advenuous continuaion 14...'d8!?. d 12 3 e8 13 a4 (13 a3 d7 13...a5 14 5 d 8. e 12 f3 !? exf 13 xf (1 3 'xf3 e6 13...a5 14 d3 e6 15 g5 h6 1 6 xf6 hxg5. n none of these lines i any advan age fo White appet.  if 1 00 00 1  a Black has to give up the e4-pawn but he obtains enouh countelay be cause of his active pieces. 8.5

his bockading moe is ossible thanks to the queens position on e7. One of the white bishops has gained

 b 

s exible continuation is oered as an alteaive to 3 ...c5.



A OCK-OU HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

Blac does not immediately attack Whites cene giving him a brief re spite to set up a broad pawnfront by playing 4 e4; we examine in ection 86 how Blac then uses all his re sources to blow that cenre apart f White does not te u t alle then the play tends to ble  Queens ndian or te Nion with direct transoitio  thoug l has soe i  with f anor ()   u rent section we examne ow best or Blac to steer his way tough these variations 4  White prevents the doubling of his queenside pawns e also has the fol lowing possibilities a) 4 3 a  a3 ( e3 b7 6 f3 f is eual)  a4 6 c2 (6 xb4? c6 7 b a) 6 xc3 7 bxc3 (7 'xc3 f6 8 'g3 c6!? 9 f3 a) 7 f is unclear b) 4 g3 (the anchetto oers White little here; 4 f3 b7  g3 comes to the same thing) 4 b7  3 xc3+ 6 bxc3 f6 7 g2 and now 7 d6

keeps the game level while 7 c6 is more ambitious targeting the wea c4pawn c) After 4 e3 xc3+ !? 5 bxc3 b7 6 f3 (6  h4+!? 7 g3 h5 8 e4 e7 is unclear while 6 e2 is simi lly met by 6 h4!? 7 g3 e7) Blac has a choice between the com paratively simple Nimzoline 6 f6 7 d3 0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 d2 (9 e 1 e4 10 d2 f; 9 'e2 e4) 9 e 10 e4 c6 planing e7g6 and the mo ambitious 6 f 7 a3 (7 d3 f6 8 0-0 c is unclear) 7 f6 8 e (8 d3 c !? 9 dxc c7 is also unclear) 8 4 4b7   After  e3 f6 6 f3 0-0 7 d3 (7 e2 fails o control e4 and can be met b   e  0-0 f or 7 e4) 7 c  aves nothing because he  d wo dieent development scmes c te same can be said of  f3 6  g h6 7 h4 c (7 e4!? 8 b3 c6 9 0-0-0 xc3 10 'xc3  1 1 3  is unclear Deevaros otcada 2) 8 a3 (8 0-0-0 cxd4) 8 xc3+ 9 xc3 g 10 g3 e4 1 1 'd3 ( 1 1 'c2 xg3 1 2 hxg3 xf3 1 3 gx3 cxd4) 1  d6 with chances for both sides oolovtefansson Reyjavi 23      d 7  Other continuations allow Black more rapid counterlay a) Aer 7 g3 6 8 f 0-0 (8 g8!?) 9 h6 e8 Blac pies Whites sucial  wiout dif culty; eg 10 e3 h8 1 1 g f6 1 2 d3 e

H IMZO-IK 2 c4 �b4+ 3 c3

b) 7 f3 !? h4+ (7 .e7!?  e4 0-0 9 h3 g6)  g3 e7 9 e4 6 10 e2 (10 �d3 c5   e2 c6) 1 0.c5 1 1 �g2 0-0 12 0-0 c6 13 d5 ( 1 3 �e3 e5) 13  exd5 14 cxd5 �a6!? 15 dxc6 xe2 16 f2 �b5 is uncle. c) 7 b4 d7  �b2 a5!? 9 3 (9 b5 can be met with 9 ..gf6 10 f3 e5 or 9 .f5) 9 .e7 10 e4 f5 (10..0-0 11 h3 e5) 1 1 d5 e5 1 2 h3 fxe4 1 3 fxe4 0-0 is again unclear 7f 

Only now with cono of  se cured does Back develop his kight to f6. This position is f better known via move-orders such as 1 d4  2 c4 e6 3 c3 �b4 4  b6 5 'c2 b7 6 a3 �xc3+ 7 'xc3 d6 and mode theor regards it as rather comfortable for Black  

�g5 is rather dubious as Back can reply actively with  ..h6 9 �h4 g5 10 �3 e4 1 1 c2 ( 1 1 d3 f5)   .. .h5 1 2 d5 (1 2 h4 x3 1 3 xg3 gxh4) 12..exd5 13 cxd5 �xd5 14 d2 e7. 

103

 g3 a5 (Black can also y  c5 !? 9

dxc5 bxc5 10 g2 a 1 1 0-0 0-0) 9 b3 bd7 (9 c6!? 10 2 e7 1 1 0-0 0-0 looks more interesting) 10 �g2 0-0 1 1 00 e7 eads to a long mauv ring game ith apprmately equal chces. 00 9 �e

Whites plan includes the moves  and �b2 but the immdiate 9 b4 is somewhat premaure in view of 9 a5 Then 1 0 �b2 e4 1 1 c2 (1 1 b3 axb4 1 2 ax xa + 1 3 �xa 'f6 gives Black the initiative)   axb4 12 axb4 xa + 1 3 xa a6 leaves e ih problems on the queen side and e advance 1 0 b5 is not d siabe or hm since after 10 .bd7 1 1 2 ( 1  �d3 e5)   .. .e4 1 2 c2 f 1   6 e ematic pan bra  d dcreases in vaue. Aner nuance retes o te de velopn o e bsop: aer 9 d3 d (9  .c5!) 1 00 (10  a5 1 1 b e5) 1c5 1 1 b4 ( 1 1 b3 c 12 b2 cxd4 13 xd4 c5 Yudasin Psais Ramat Avv 1 999) 1  .cxd4 12 xd4 e5 Black obained good counterpay n Koul-uk Yugoslav Team h etinje 1 990. 9bd7 10 00

Again the lie 10  e4 1 1 'c2 ( 1 1 'b3 g5 ! ?)   .a is not advan tageous for Wte 10   11  1 1 d3 5 12  (1 2 d2 4) 12..6 13  6 is also pssible and sl to our main line below.  f 

Tis is he critical posiion for the whole variation

10

A OCK-OI HSS PNING PRTOIR FOR BLCK

Savina-Den Russian Womens Ch, Voronezh 2009 8.6

 b6 4 e4

1 

12 e !? h 1 3 f3 g5 1 d (1 f? ! e 15 3 h6 gave Back the initiative in KovYusupov, C didates (2), Londo 1989; 1 c5!?) and now both 1 ...e5 and 1 ...f6 15 f2 xf2+ 16 xf2 e5 ead to a posi tion with chaces o both sides.

his pinciped rejoinde ansposes to a ine of the ngish Defence (1 d e6 2 c b6 3 e b7  c3 b), so we now need to make a sma excu sion into its theory. In compason with the main ines of that isky open ing (which arise aer 1 d e6 2 c b6 3 e b7  d3 ), Black has fewe pob ems in ou case, athough he must be ready for shap and even iationa play 4 b7 

1 f  d

he ine 1 3 b2 g6 (1 3.6?) 1 d5 e 1 5 a c  xc c, as in Van Wey-ga,  2010, is of appoiaey a vae 1    d

White fais to acieve an avatage ae 1 b2 c5! 15 dxc6 (15 xe6 f8) 15...xc6 16 d e. he the caeess 17 e ?  e hi in a dicut situation i .Geogiev-Gi shchuk, uopean ea Ch, Khe sonissos 27 14   1   Backs attacking theats e oe ipotant than Whites mateia gains. Afte 16 xe6 xe6 17 dxe6 g6 18 d ! ( 1 8 b3?! h5 !) 1 8  g5 19 d5 (19 f gf3) 19 .ef3+ White e tains equaity, but no moe than that,

he epawn can be defended in sevea ways: 105 8..1 :   1 05 8.6.:   8..:   107 5 d5?! aso guads the pawn, bu 5 ..e7 disupts Whites gae: 6 e3 f6 7 d3 exd5 8 exd5 c6 gives Black counteplay, while 6 e2 f6 7

H IMZO-K 2 c4 b4+ 3 lc3

g5 h6 8 �h4?! �xc3 9 bxc3 a3 1 0 �xf6 gxf6 and 6 e2 exd5 7 exd5 f6 also leave Black with a pleasant posion. 861   h4

Whites centre must be atacked be fore he forties it. 6 �d3

6 d5 is also interesting here. Blacks est reply is 6 �xc3+ ! ; for example 7 bxc3 (7 xc3 xe4 8 �e3 and now 8 ...f6 or 8 ...e7) 7 ...'e7 (7 .. .f5 8 exf5 exd5 is uncle) 8 �3 (8 �e2 d6) 8 ...a6 (8 ...exd 9 cx ) 9 f3 e5 as in Floe-A.oalyo o gota 2010. 6 ...f 7  7 g3?! is clely ee  ... 8 e2 (8 �e2 ;    9  f6 1 0 e2 c 1 1 a3 - wh a a tack) 8 ..3 9 0-0 �xc3 10 xc3 c6 1 1 �e3 b4 12 'e2 fxe4.

10

he queen retreats precisely here in order to cover he e-le.

9 bx3 fxe4 10 ixe4 �xe4 11 xe4 6 1 �

he point of this bishop move is to force Black o castle ueensie. f he can calmly nish his deveopment then Whites pawn weakeses will tell. 1...f6 13 �xf6 6 14 3

Or 14 e 0-0-0 15 d5 f5 16 d3 a5. 14 ..000 1  'a3

oh sides have chances. 8.6.2

5 � (D

7 ...�x3+ 8 

Otherwise White will have to give up the e4-pawn. White should avoid playing 8 bxc3? g4 9 0-?? fxe4 10 e5 xg2+ but 8 xc3 g4 9 0-0 fxe4 10 e5 is an interesting altea tive. hen 10 ...h4 11 �e2 (not 11 �c2? d6 12 �a4+ c6 1 3 d5 dxe5) 1...d6 (...h6!?) 12 g4 f6 13 g3 'h3 14 xf6+ gxf6 1 5 c5 -0 and 10 .. .'f5 !? 1 1 �c2 d6 1 2 �a4 (1 2 'g3 e7 13 f3 d7) 12. . .c 6 1 3 'g3 e7 1 g4 g6 both give Whe enough of an initiative to com pensate for he pawn bu he has no ad vantage. 8...e7

An uncomprosing plan: Whe suppos his pawn-cere w a ac tive developing move. Black has no choice but to stie back vigorously.  .. 6 f3!

Nothing else gives lack any di culies: a) 6 exf5? is completely unsound because afer 6...�xg2 7 'h5+ Black can simply reply 7 ...f8.

6

A OCK-O HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

b)  5 fxe4 7 �xe4 h4 8 'e2 f 9 �f3 00 leves Bl wth the inttve c)  '2 f ( 'h4 trnsposes to Seton 8) 7 f3  8 e2 (Oess ponts ot tht Whte shol vo 8 e3 fxe4 n 8 e5 x4 9 '4 { 9 'f2 h5  } 9 g4) 8  fxe4 9 fxe4 e5 0 5 4   x4 (not   '    wen   00 g4 s en trel b for Whte)   ex4 12 e5 x3  3 bx3 �5 14 exf xf n gn Bl s n hrge of events )  e2 f 7 �g5 (7 3  n now 8 �e3 fx 9 fxe4 e5 s ples nt for B whe ht shol e tl vo 8 e5 x4 9  h5) oers Bl  ho twen h el 7 4  4   f  0 '     vnus 7  pursung  nav e)        5 (8 f3  9 e)   (   )  �xe4 ( � e)    �          wth n e ge Bn Brgeto 2 4

The een h s  stn e in postons sh s s  b provo ing  weenng of the h 8 gonl Bl noebl nses the sngth of s b7bshop  s nother nterestng pos siblt: 7 e (7 3 �x3 8 bx3 'h4 9 g3 'h5) 7 fxe4 8 �e4 (8 fxe4 'h4 9 g3 'h5 0 00 f) 8 'h4 9 g3 'e7 0 00 (0 5 s met b  05  0 3 �x3   x3 wth   f  2 �g5 00) 10 f   �g5 (   b5 00 les to

nler pl) 1  �x3 ( 1 1 000) 12 x3 000 So fr ths lne hs not been tested n toment prtie 7 g3  (D)

8 e

A  opex stton rses     ( e7 s possble too)   ( a  0 e5 �e7; 9 b5    0) 9 e5; for exp   f (0000)   4 4 2 h3 �x3 3 �3  8 9 fxe

9 e xf3  f 5   fxe x leves the gme nl 9dxe 10 

The reson for provong the ex hng on 3 s to fof the 4pwn 0 5 s mo fong en 0 ex5   x5 e5 2 �b5 (or 2 '4 f7 3 �e2 �x3 4 bx3 �x5) 2 (2 f7 s nother e) 3 �e2 (3 x x 4 4 �x3 5 bx3 e7 s nlr Tremb Nortsn, nn h, Gelph 20  ) 1 3f 4 f4 eg4 5 h3 'x5 les to elt

HE IMZO-KE 2 c4 jb4+ 3 c3 10...x+ 1 1 bx

Now Bl n hoose between 1 1 ..000 n  1 ... ntenng to castle ngse. Bl hs te goo attng prospets n ret for the sre pwn. 8.63

5 f 

10

ollow rther thn 7 '  8 5 ex5 9 x5 'h. 6h 7 fxe ore relxe pl oes not promse Whte n vntge: 7 3 x3 (7 ... 8 xh h 9 g3 'xh) 8 bx3 x5 9 h3 00 0 g5 'e8   3 h SmntsevKhmts Srtov 8. It s eve worse for hm to hoose 7 e3  x5 8  00 or 7 x 'h 8 g3 'xh 9  'x+ 0 x  wth n n plent nttve or Bl n both ses. 7  

The mn ontnton: Wte m metel ements the vlnerble pont e. 5 f5

Ths move s ll n the spt o the Englsh Deene thogh there re other vble moves e.g. 5 ...'h  g3 x3 7 bx3 'e7 n 5 ...e7  e (  3 g 7 e 'h)  ...f5 7 3 x3 8 x3 00 9 e3 (9 3 xe) 9 ...xe  xe 5 1 1 'g xe whh le to n nler po ston n obergngro Gothen brg .  exf5

 e5 s bos n vew o  ...5 7 3 x3 8 bx3 .  ...  s so possble when 7 ex x shol

8 f4

I Whte grb more mterl the exposre o hs ng n Bls le n evelopment m beome rtl tors: ) 8 ex7 x7 9  (9 e 00 s nle) 9 ...'h (9 ...00 0 ' e8) 0 g3 'e7  1 'e (1  e g5  '3  gerempe Wer en  99)  1 ...xe  xe x4 3  x3 (3...000)  bx3 e 5 e1 5  x7 00 7



A OCK-O HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

d fd8 wi pproximte eqlit despite Whites two ex pwns. b) 8 d3 h4+ 9 f 00 0 xf5 ( 0 b5   is more onsistent; then 0 ...  3 e7 2 xf5 xf5 3 exd7 8 leds to nler pl) 0 ..f5   e3 dxe 2 f2 f 3 4 (er 3 ge2 x3 Whte shol vo 4 x3 xf3 n fvor of 4 bx3 f8) 3...f8 4   rizsnhlo n gin Tem h 995/. With the textmove te spires to stle eensie s qil s pos sible. 8 e2 les to nler pl er 8 ...dxe or 8 ...00. 8dxe6 9 'a+

Slower p th  e2 0-0  0 2 llows Bl eno onre fter 0 ...4   g (  3 e )   .. .h5 2 g2  3  x 4 00  bt ng t wn strght w b    ner estng:  ...x4  0-0-0 b  ge2 5 (...x  xe e7 s slghl weer D.eren S.Wllms rhs 8) 2 x8 x8 les to  smll vntge for Whte in the endng. 96 (D) 10 d

In the se of  0 000 x4 Bl efens sessfll: ) Not   h3 . b)   e5  s bos n vew of   . . . 5 s engis inite.

)   b5 00 2 x7 (or 2 xd4 x4 3 xb4 xf4 4 e2 5) 2 .. .g5  3 f4 h 4 xd4 xf4 5 xf4 x4  b xd4  3 ( 7 h3 'e3) 7...xf3 8 x e4 9  d4 20 d2  h  rw (ess). )   ge x3 2 bx3 xe2+ 3 xe ' 4 x x3 5 b 0-0  Bl is . e)   e  xe2 2 xe2 f   x 0-0 4 4 x4  5 'xb4 8 gn leves Bl with  stis ftor gme. 10 x+ 11 bx exd 1 xd

The ltetve 2 000 'f 3 xd5 'x3 (ess) leds to eql pl. 1  'xd 1 d1 ' 1 e+ fe7

The intitve hs psse to Whte bt Bl n mntn the eqlb rm.

9 Te Bglike  c

�b+ 3 d 1 4 e6  4 �b4+   





With this moestlooking knight move Wite wnts to gn the bhop pir withot weenng his pwn strtre or spening more thn one tempo on the proess (ompre Se tion 8.5). Blk n ether iese elng on his rpi evelopment or prepre to retret his rk-sre bishop when it beomes neessr. In the ltter se he sll wstes  tempo himself lthogh the tempo grnte to White m not prove too vlble s the knight is not ver ef fetivel ple on 2. We exmine these two fnmentll ierent p prohes in the following setions of ths hpter

In Setion 9 we st 3 ...5 4 3 x2. ompre to the reglr Bogo-Inn Blk hs erive some benet from his initl move orer s now White mst tke on 2 w h een sne the 4pwn is er . Wt 3 ...f (Seton 9.2) Blk is g to nspose to  lne of the Bogo-In Defene (vz. 1 4  2 4 e 3 f3 b4 4 b2 hvng voie the 4 2 mn es). We sh fs on lines where he prepres to reet his bshop to e7 n provoes Wte to op the entre. The entrl pwn-str tre n te mn forms resem blng the renh Defene zeh Benoni or even the Stenitz Defene to the R opez

91 ... 

The immeite ttk pon the en e is  logl bt weight eison sne Wite n fore the exhnge of the b4-bishop levng Bls rk ses glrngl wek. 4 a

If White hs seros hopes of n  vntge then he hs no rel hoe. 4 f3 x4 5 x4 f  3 e7 s



A OCK-O HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLCK

noffensve whle 4 e3 x4 5 ex4 5   5 ( 3 e)  ... 7  e5 les to nler pl. Aer 4 x5 f Bl lso hs no fltes: ) 5 f3 x5  e3 b (... 7 3 ) 7 e2 b7 8 b  9 b2 e s el Dzb e  Grne 2. b) 5 g3 x5  g2  7   8  5 9 5 (9    2 4   b3 e 2 g  g B the nttve n the g  noElnov Nov S 29; 9 e  s el) 9 ...ex5  b b   b4 e8 2 b3 g4  3 b2 e4. The  ttve lre belngs to Bl n Whte mst be refl to vo seros troble; e.g. 14 h3 xf3 5 xf3 'f  e3 xg3 G.KzmnEgo Berln 997 or 4 x bx 5 e5 xf2 s  n nsh.ller Germn (tem event) 25/. 4ixd+  'xd xd4 

An nblne poston hs rsen: Whte hopes to se hs obvos vn tge on the r sres bt for the tme beng he s behn n evelop ment Beses hs eense s to

some egree loosene se the move 3 hs weene the b3sre m ng the 4pwn vlnerble. Now: 9.1.1:  'xd4!? 10  9.1.:   9..

  d4

T  een wll soon hve to m g bt the reloton s no b thng s t ws poorl ple on 2. f 7 

Ths evelopng move s the mn ontnton. The gme Kolevent rot p Pl 22 serves s  ros ex mple of nerestmtng the oppo nents possbltes: 7   8 3 (8 'h4 n be met b 8 ... 9 g5  10 b5 e5 or 8 ... 9 b5 e7  b2 f5  1 xf {   'f4 } 11...7 wth hghl nler pl) 8 ...5 (Bl ol lso onser 8 ...  or 8 .. . wth nle pl) 9 e3 (9 f3 s n l tetve) 9 ...e5  x5 (  f3  4   'b2  s nler) ..x5  '5 (Whte shol pl  1 '3)

H BOGO-UK 2 c4 �b4+ 3 d2

  . .e 1 2 b2 8 13 b5 nd here Bl old hve won wth the ttl shot 13.xe3 7 

111

d 8 'd1 0-0 (8...d5 9 xd5 ex5 9 e3 e5 0 b4 d  1 e2 (or 1  b2 b 1 2 e2 5 1 1 .. .5 2 b5 e7  3 4 7 w ontel I.SoolovDorf mn Brs 992. e 8  hs the e of lrn the bl nht to e4 so s to tt t ter. Aer 8 ...e4 9 'd3 5 10 e3 ( 10 b4 'f    e5 1 0 0-0   '2 ( 1 b4 'f  2 2 8 s n ler 1 1 ..  2 d2  there re hnes for both sdes (.Gre vh. 8d

Almost ll th pl   the whte en h n  n prte 8 'd

Ths move loos le th sonst one bt these other vrtons lso e see enton:  8 'f4 e5 (8 ... 0-0 s possble too 9 3 e4 10 2 0-0  1 e3 d5 12 e2 4 ve Bl the nttve n Qnnezs or 25. b 8 h4  9 g5 (9 g4 5 10 2 b s nl 9 ..  0  ( 0 2 f5 0   1 e4 (or   e3 5 1  .. .'x5 wth el pl.  8 '3 0-0 (8 .. .d 9 g5  (9 ...h 0 xf 'xf  'xf xf 2 0-0-0 10 5 (0 xf 'f 1 xf gxf s el whle  0 b4 s met b  0 e5 n 0  b 0 ...e4 10...x5 1 1 'x5  2 x8 x5 13 7 b es to elt.

Sn th move ...d reestblshes so onl over the r sres t s n  to  n mnd n mn vr tns.  nstne 8 ... 9 b4 0-0 10  5 s rth exnn here  d ed 0  00   e8  00  Bs poston s eptble  th  m   lttl worse. 9.1.2

 f

Wht s on t te on 4 wth the nht bt now the vne of Bls epwn s  w to enerte tvt.  f 7 xd

7 x4 nsposs to Seton 9 .  .  . Whte mst not el tn on 4 n loner: 7 3  8 x4 b 9 b5 d5  s dvnteos for Bl KzbovZbrev Kov 27. 7  00 8 

Ths lm evelopn move s the most ommon bt 8 f3 s ver n terestn. Then 8 ...5 9 x5 ex5 0 e3 ppes to gve Bl nsent

11

 RCKSUD HESS PENNG EPERRE FOR LK

conterly bt 8 ...e5 9 c2 (9 b5 c s ncler) 9 ... 10 e4 e   e2 c7 (or 1 1 ...5) les to  com lcte sggle. On the other hn 8 g3 5 9 cx5 (9 g2 xc4 1 0 0-0 e5 1 1 b5 c) 9 .. .x5 10 f f5 (10...e4 s ossble too) 1 1 �g2 c 12 f4 'c2 13 4 x4 14 x4 e5 15 '2 'c7 proces  rther smple n roghly level gme. 8d (D)

b) 10 b5 s more ngeros. After 10...c 1 x5 Blc shol vo 1 1 .. .x5 12 e4 f 1 3 f3  1 c when Whtes r-sre bsho s mster of the bor. Blck cn efen by 1  ...ex5 bt t s bette for hm to resort to tctcl methos even erler: 10...'b3 1 1 'c3 (11 c7 s met by 1 1 ...c 1 2 x8 8 whle 1 1 '3 'x3 12 x3 c 3 0-0 8 14  1 e5 les to elty) 11...xc3 1 2 xc3 8 13 e2 (1 3 b4 5 14 �b2 xb4 15 xb4 x1  1 x1  7 b5 b4 s el) 13...c 14  (14 0-0 cn be met by 4...e5 or 14...5) 14...e5 n Blc wll grlly ealze. Therefore Whte slly vnces hs b-wn preprng to evelop hs eense eces. 9 b3!?

We hve nother crtcl ecson ont. It s esrble for Whte to ex chnge eens bt the ttempt to o so smply fter 9 cx5 x5 oes not romse ny sgncnt vntge: ) After 10 f3 b 1 1 'x5 (1 1 b4 s met by  1 ...) 1...x5 1 2 4 (or 12   13 b5 b7 4 b2 7 15 el c5) 12...8 Blc sccees n netrlzng Whtes pos tonl mps n tmely fshon. After 1 3 c4 ( 1 3 b4 5 14 b5 �b7 15 b2 7 1 e4 f4) 13... 14 x x t s lrey tme for Whte to woy bot mntnng n el o ston les-Engo Osten 1992.

The more ggressve 9 b4 llows Blc to engge n close combt wth ncle conseences: 9 ...5 10 b5 (10 b2 xb4 1 1 xb4 e4 12 c2 x1 3 x1 'e7 14 b2 e5 15 f3 c s ncler whle 10 cx5  cn be met by 10...'x5 1 1 b5 b7) 10 .. .e5 1 1 f3 b7 12 cx5 (or 1 2 b2 e4) 12. . .e4 13 4 e5 Fler Engo Bee 1993. The prent vnce of the whte wn by only one se forces Blc ether to see comlctons n nother wy or else to settle for  slghtly worse poston. Ntrlly we shll f vor the ctve pproch. 9e4!?

9 ...b 10 b2 b7 1 1  s n ex mple of Blc settlng for  slght s vntge

HE BOGO-KE 2 c4 b4+ 3 d2

113

 c2 e  c

1 1 f3 is met by   ...f5 1 2 d3 d7. l l...6 Blk mst gmbit  pwn, sine   .. .xf2? 12 xf2 is not in his f vo.  3

12 b5?? xb5 1 3 xb5 5+ osts White  piee, while fter 12 e2 f5 1 3 d ( 1 3 b2 d7 1 4 d2 8 15 1 x + 1 x 1 f) 13...d7 14 b2 8 15  'b 1 3 5 Blk is tgeting the wek b3pwn. 5 3 1 13 b2 d7 14 xe5 ( 14 d 2 8 15  x+ 1 x b) 14 ...xe5 15 xe5 e8 1 'd4 e4 lso ods Blk enogh ompens tion. 3d7 4  c The lme 14 ...e7 15 d2 f8 is lso good enogh. 5 e c2

Blks inititive is woth the si ed pwns. 9 3 6 (D)

Blk wishes to peseve his bishop. Anothe line wi this im, 3 ...d5, l lows the nplesnt 4 4+  5 e3, whih hs sored well fo White in ptie. Afte the textmove (3 ...Nf), lets note tht 4 g3 is ineetive de to 4...5. Theefoe, we onside two min moves fo White. With 4 f3 he tnsposes diretly to  line of the Bogondin Defene, while with 4

3, he drives bk the b4bishop nd n then opy the ene with his pwns ght wy. We divide or ov erge s folows: 9: 4 a3 113 114 9: 4 3  c 93: 4 3   a3 e7 6 4 11 91 4 a3 e7  4

5 gf3 00 is onsideed in Se tions 9.2.2 nd 9.2.3.  

5 ...d  gf3 00 trnsposes to the note to Blks th move in Setion 9.2.3. 6 e 7

We see  simil seqene in Se tion 9.2.3, to whih 7 gf3 00 wold now tnspose. ee we shll exmine othe vtions, nd see wht der enes thee re. 7 c

White hieves nothng by 7 h5 5 (7 .. .00 ?) 8 xd5 g 9 h f8 10 'f4 exd5 1 1 b4 ? ( 1 1 b5 g7 gves Blk the inititve)  . ..xd4 1 2 d4 g7 1 3 f4 f8.

114

A CK- HSS PNNG P FO BLK

i chnging on d5, the othe ttic continution is 7 4 a5 8 5 c ) 9 f4 (this move is more logical after the preliminry exchange cxd5 9 6 10 gf3 (10 cxd5 xd5) 10  8d7 with good play for Blck  9 cxd5 exd5 10 f3 (10 f4 cxd4 1 1 gf3 c5 12 xd4 f6 13 2f3 fxe5 is also equal) 10cxd4 1 1 'xd5 00 12 2 (12 c4 is answeed y 12c5 1 3 xd8 xd8 14 6 a7 and now Black can choose etween 12e8, 1 2g5 and 12c5, with equality in ll cases c) 9 gf3 cxd4 (90-0 nsposes to Section 923) 10 cxd5 (o 10 2 0-0) 10 exd5 1 1 3 c5 1 2 xc5 xc5 13 d3 g4 14 0-0 d7 is agin equl 7ex5 (D)

answeed with 8 c5 (8  00 trans poses to note  to Whites 8th move in Section 923) 9 dxc5 c6 10 4 5 (1    dxe5 !? 1 1 xe5 xe5 12 2 f6 1 3 5+ d7 1 1 4 0-0 1 2 2 c7, which was equl in Glady szevKogan, Tragona 2007 With the textmove, White makes use of the bsence of his knight from f3, ut it does not provide any eal enet for him 85 9 3

9 dxc5 is answeed y 9 a5, while fter 9 gf3 c6 1 0 d3 ( 1 0 dxc5 a5) 10 6 11 00 a5 (c4 12 xc4 is unclear), the mstken 12 f5? c4 1 3 f6 gxf6 14 exf6 xf6 left White with  d position in SMoKing, Domund 1989 9 1 i3 x4 11 b4 White is staing to oveeach 1 1 e2 c5 1 2 4 xd3+ 1 3 'xd3 0-0 14 0-0 f6 is pproximately equal ll  1   The game is complicted, ut f vourale for Black Aer 1 3 f5, instead of 13c4 (as played in Erdos Kosi, Hungarian Team Ch 2010/1 1 ) the line 13  ac4 14 e2 d7 de serves ttention  4 3  (D)

8 4

After 8 4 5 9 5 c5 10 xc6 (other moves re discussed in line  of the previous note) 10 xc6 1 1 gf3 (or 1 1 df3) 1 1 f6 Black se cues counterplay, nd 8 gf3 is well

 White equently decides to do with out this pwn move Without delving deeply into detils, let us quote two continutions tht re cceptale for Blck: a) 5 e3 d5 6 d3 c5 7 a3 !? (7 00 c6 8 dxc5 xc5 9 a3 5) 7 xd2+

H BOGOK 2 c b+ 3 td2

115

b5 c5 8 bxc (8 e3 5 trnsposes to the mn lne below) 8 ...bxc 9 c5 d 10 cxd xd 11  c7 1 2 b2 c5, s in oiseeo-itiugov, Hgzhou 201 1 . 6d (D)

8 xd2 cxd4 9 exd4 dxc4 10 xc4 c 1 1 0-0 (1 1 g5 cn be met by 1  ...b or 1  .. .h ) 1  .. .b 12 g5 b7 13 c1 e7 14 e5 (Dreev Rsovsy, Plm de llorc 1 989) 14 .. .c8 is equl. b) 5 g3 b  g2 b7 7 0-0 e7. The blc bishop voluntrly retrets, ther thn wtng to be forced. Whites free move, bd2 hnders hs control of the centre, nd fter both 8 b3 c5 9 b2 (9 dxc5 bxc5 is equl) 9 ...d (o 9 ...) nd 8 e1 d5 9 cxd5 exd5 Blc gets  plesnt gme, l beit with widely dierng strtegic themes. Only 8 c2 poses some prob lems for Blc; fter 8 ...c5 (8 .. .d5 leds to  more complicted struggle) 9 e4 d5 10 exd5 (Blc equlizes more esily fter 10 cxd5 exd5 1 1 e5 fd7) 10 .. .exd5 1 1 dxc5 xc5 1 2 b3  (or 12...e7) ccute defence is e quired for him to equlze.   e7 6 e3

Now the line  g3 b 7 g2 b7 8 b4 (8 0-0 c5) 8 ...c5 9 dxc5 bxc5 oers White no prospects for n dvntge. He lso cheves little fter  b4  7

7 4

This dvnce is  logcl follow-up to the move 5 3. It is lso possible to ply 7 c2 bd7 8 b4  9 b5 (9 b is met by 9 ...xb4 1 0 xb4 b 1 1 d3 b7 12 0-0 dxc4, whle 9 cxd5  exd5 10 b5 d 1 1 4 'e7 12 d3 b is uncler) 9 ...c5 0 bxc bxc. If White does not me the b4 d vnce, then the tempo he hs gned plys little role. or nstnce, 7 b3 b 8 b2 b7 9 d3 bd7 (or 9 ...c5) 10 0-0 c5 cn led to  stndrd type of position with hnging pwns. 7 d3 is the most common move in prctice, but fter 7 ...c5 8 dxc5 (8 b3 cn be met by 8 .. .b or the uncle 8 ...cxd4 9 exd4 dxc4 1 0 bxc4 e5 1 1 d5 b5) 8 ... 9 b3 (fter 9 cxd5 both 9 ...exd5 10 b3 bd7 1 1 b2 xc5 nd 9 ...xd5 give Blc equl ply) 9 ...bd7 10 0-0 (10 b2 is weer n vew of

11

A OCK-O HESS PENNG EPERTORE FOR BLCK

10 x5 1 1 2 dx) 10 x5 lak as notng to worry abot 5 8 5 c5 9 c6

lak safely defends mself after 9 dx5 bd7 !? 10 xd5 ( 10  bx 1 1 bx 5) 10xd5 (10x5!? 1 1 dxe xe  2 d d5 s nlear) or 9 b2 bd7 10 e2 (0 d3 b 1 1 e5 b7) 1 0b 1 1 0-0 b7 1 2 e5 (too ambtos) 12xd! (eeng 5) 13 exd4 xe5 14 dxe5 d7 15 f3 5 wt good play for lak 9xc6 10 c5 fd 11 ie2 (D)

Or 1  b2 e5 12 xe5 xe5 13 dxe5 d7 It s of dbos vale for Wte to play 1 1 a e5 12 b3 e 1 3 g1 e8 1 4 d2 d8 1 5 b 7, ankovPala, Rjeka 29

l l...e5 12 00 

Wte s playng a knd of ren Defene ot sdes ave prospets 23

4 f3 00 5 3 e 6 e4 (D)

Ts s Wtes most aggressve on tnaton, altog ere Blak an get onterplay more easly

6...d5

d!? s an expermental bt nterestng dea Blak ntends a sbseqent e5 and arges tat te d2-kngt s poorly plaed n te types of stre tat arse: a) 7 d3 e5 !? 8 00 (8 dxe5 dxe5 9 xe5 e8 s nlear; 8 d5 a) 8 exd 9 xd4 fd7 (or 9 ) s n te sprt of te Stentz Defene to te Ry opez b) 7 e2 5 (7 bd7 8 0-0 e5 s smlar to a standrd poston of te Old Indan Defene, were te ngt wold normally be on 3) 8 d5 e5 (8 bd7 and 8 e8!? are also pos sble) 9 b bd7 10 0-0 (Cstan sen-drsson, Reykjavk 1988) and now 10 a5!? s a sefl move, forng Wte to stablze te poston on te qeensde  e5

7 xd5 exd5 8 e5 fd7 transposes to note b to Wtes 8t move, bt some oter moves are of ndependent mportane: a) 7 d3 dxe4 8 xe xe 9 xe 5 10 dx5 (oer lnes e 10

HE BOGO-KE 2 c b+ 3 2

e3 f5 10 00 f5 1 1 c2 cx4 an 1 0 5 ex5 1 x5 7) 0...'x+ 1  x xc5 (  ...f5! 1 2 c2 xc5 Sanlan-Foo Buapest 29) 2  (12 e2 can be met b 12.. .f5 wile 12 e3 xe3 is equal) 2 ...x 1 3 c5 f5 4 b (14 c2 c 15 b2 8+) 14 ...c 15 a2 8+ an it is not clea to wat extent Wites initia tive compensates fo the pawn I.en inUlbin Bozho unio event) 1988. b) 7 c2 xe4 8 xe4 xe4 9 'xe4 f5 10 c2 (o 0 'e3 c5 1 x5 f 12 e2 e5) 10...c5   xc5 c 2 f4 f (o 12 ...'5+) gives Blac countepla. 7 f7 (D)

117

n a goo wa to elese it) 0 ...5 1 1 b3 x4 2 x4 4 3 x5 xc5 4 xc5 'x  5 x a5 1 b5 b3 7 b x5 an Black will ave a sligtl worse but quite efensible ening. b) ang te pawn excange 8 cx5 ex5 befoe plaing 9  (ee the line 9 3 c5 10 00 c   e a5 leas to equalit an in te case of 1 f ! cx4 Blacs position even be comes prefeable) 9 ... 10 b5 is te main alteative to o main line. In stea of the st  0.5 Bla as an inteesting alteative in 0 ...f! 1 1 'b3 8 2 'x5 (iljovi-Baev Ni 28) wen 12...xe5 13 'x8 x+ 14 x3 x8 leas to equal it. 8 ... a5 9 b5 5 10 x5

0 3 cx4   x5 (   'c2  12 b3 a4 1 3 bx4 c5)   ...ex5 is of equal value Afte 0 b2 x  1 x4 ( 1 cx5 ex5 an 1  e2 c5 2 x4 b7 are also possible) 1  ...c5 1 2 e2 b7  3 00 b the black pieces tae up useful ses 10 ex5 11 i3 x4 1 b  7!? 13 00

8 b4

O: a) 8 3 !? c5 9 00 c 0 e (Wite mainains te cental tension econing tat it is a fo Bla to

Wee is 13 'c2! '3+ 4  'xc2 15 xc2 f (15...b) 1 exf xf  in Bels-alert amb 1992. 13 xe5 14 xe x e 5 e 6 16 a 8

ittle b little Bl nezes hi opponents initiative.

0 The Boo-like  c4 j4+ 3 Jd 1  e6  c i+ 3 i (D)

This is hies mos common re sponse to the bishop check. e shall invesigate wo natural continuations or Blk (3 ...d2+ and 3...) which an lead to shply diering saegies. The immediae echange 3 ...d2+ ofen ansposes to lines of he Bogo ndian hough both sides have some independent options. Our coverage is divided up as follows  Secion 10. 1 covers 4 d2 which creates no diculies for Black as long as he adops he mos appropri ae cenral srucure.  The recapture wih the queen 4 d2 (Secion 10.2) gives hite beer chances of esablishing an

advantage. He can coninue wih eiher f3 and g3 or c3 and e4 (or e3). Black may respond wih two wholly differen developmen schemes. 3 ... a5 is somewhat risker bu leads o more original play wih a ansposi ion o sandard heory less likely. Black seeks o complicae the game and obain counerplay. Then  4 e4 and 4 a3 are the subjec of Sec ion 10.3.  Secion 10.4 covers 4 . e fo cus on a standard Bogondian plan but where Black sars with 4 ...d6 insead of 4...f6. This brings some ineresing new ideas and nuances into he play.  4 c3 (Secion 10.5) is an immedi ate swich to Nimzondian chan nels. hose era move (d2 vs ...a5) will prove more useful? 10.1 3  ix+ (D)

The bishop echange gives Black freedom o develop and manoeuvre while the sligh loss of tempo is not o vial importance as neither the queen nor he knigh will be very eecively placed on d2. On he other hand hite will connect his rooks more

HE BOGO-KE 2 c b+ 3 d2



6 e5 7 d f6 8 00 00 9 el

9 h3 s weaer sne 9 ...h5 sezes the ntatve. 9...  g4 10  c5 1 1 d5 Otherwse Blas qeens ght wll reah d4. ll...a6

Both sdes have hanes. Gven the opportnt Bla wll reate pla on he qeensde  ...7 and ...b5. 10

apdl and ths ma pla a role n the attle for the ente. 4 xd

4 xd2 whh we exane n Se on 10.2 dentel oers Whte more pospets. As a le tng wth the nght s eetve n ths tpe of pos on onl f Bla pls or has lread plaed ...d5. In the ent staton e shold theefore mae fll se of hs exle poston and prepare the ...e5 advane. 4  d6 5  5 g3 e5 6 e3 exd4 7 exd4 f6 (7 ...e7+!) 8 g2 00 does not ate an problems fo Bla I.Soolov Short ondon 2008. 5 e7 A balaned poston ases after 5 ...f6 6 e4 (6 g3 0-0 7 g2 e7 8 0-0 e5) 6...0-0 7 d3 (7 e5 dxe5 8 dxe5 fd7 9 2 6 10 3 f6) 7 ...e5. 6 e4

After 6 g3 e5 (threatenng to atta  ...e4-e3) 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 e3 f6 9 g2 0-0 Blas poston s prefera le To NhatKos Bdapest 2009.

ixd+ 4 d f6 (D) After the exhange of dar-sqred shops adoptng a Dth fomton wth 4 ...f5 seems less well-fonde han n lnes le 2 ...4+ 3 3. Havng sad that  t appears to be n nteestng opton fo Bla n Se on 10.3.2 whee the poston s onl slghtl deent.

Aer plang hs ght on f6 B has two fndmentl derent pns n the ente: ether ..d5 or ese .. followed b ...e5. Sne we sh b r ferng to ths hoe f ps n an oasons for onvenn  sha

1

A OK-O HESS PENNG EPEE FO BLK

designate them as Plan D ( ...d5) and Plan E ( .. .d an ...e5). Of cose st White mst choose ho to develo hs ieces: eithe 5 c3 (ith ossible e4 deas) o 5 f3 (folloed by g3 g2 etc.) and ths one of fo dieent oening congu ations can ase on the boad. 120 1..1: 5 c 1..: 5  121  5 c 

Challenging Whte to occy the cente. This move s moe exible than the immediate 5 ...d5 and in case of 5 .. .d  e4 0-0 (Plan E) Black needs to take the ely 7 f4 into consde ation. 6  (D)

If White is temted by  e4 Black ceates dobleedge lay afte ...d5! 7 e5 e4 8 'e3 (or 8 xe4 xe4) 8 ...c5.

a) 7 g3 is consideed in the note to Blacks 5h move n Secton 10.2.2. b) 7 e3 'e7 8 e2 (8 h3 !? e5 9 g4 c s nclea hle 8 d e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 d5 xd5 1 1 cxd5 e4 led to an eqal oition n TegbovAsian Fench Team Ch 2007) 8 ...e5 (8 .. .b!? 9 00 b7 10 'c2 c5) 9 'c2 !? (9 0-0 e4 10 e1 e8 Koziak-iogky Sa ton 2002) 9 ...e8 10 0-0 bd7 is n clea (an lke a Kngs Indan Attack ith colos evesed). c) 7 e4 c 8 d1 (8 e2 e5 eqal izes; castlng qeense by 8 0-0-0 'e7 shaens the sitaton bt at is all) 8 .'e7 9 e2 (9 e5 dxe5 an no 10 xe5 d8 is eqal whle 10 dxe5 d7!? 1 1 'e3 ' leas to ncle lay) 9 ...e5 10 dxe5 (o 10 00 �g4) 10...dxe5   5 ' (   ...'8!?) 12 'e3  13 00 bxd5 14 cxd5 d7 15 2  ith a satsfacto os ton fo Black. 7 e

This osition is highly reniscent of the Qeens Gambt Declne. 7 ...e7 8 cx5

6 ...5

Black makes his choice. The alte native s Plan E viz.  .... Then:

By etemning the awn-strcte Whte les ot the lqiation of the centre ith ...dxc4 folloed by ...c5. Othe moves oe Whte lttle; n the follong lnes Black shol gad ally acheve eqalty: a) 8 �3 xc4 9 xc4 c5 (9 ...b!?) 10 0-0 d8 1 1 'e2 c 1 2 a1 (or 12 fd1) 12 ...d7 (the an exchange 12...cx4 13 exd4 increases the ange of the break 5) 1 3 a3 e8 Almea Feorchk Madd 2010. b) 8 a3 8 (8 ...b7!?) 9  (9 cx5!? 9 .. .a 10 'c2 xc4 1 1 �xc4

HE BOGO-KE 2 c b+ 3 d2

c5 12 dxc5 xd 1 + 13 xd 1 xc5 1 d8+  15 c7 bd7. c) 8 c2 d8 9 d1 (9 a3 c5 10 cxd5 exd5 1 1 e2 c6 12 dxc5 x 13 0-0 d) 9 ...a6 10 e dxe 1 1 xe and now lack can choose between 1  ...bd7 and the unclear continua ion 11...c6. d) 8 c1 d8 (8 ...bd7 !?) 9 a3 (or 9 cxd5 exd5 10 d3 c6) 9 ...dxc 10 xc4 c5 1 1 0-0 c6 1 2 fd b6. 8e5 9 i3 (D)

121

while 10 0-0 is met by 1  ...g or 10...d8. 108 11 3!? Again Wite adopts a usefu pro phyacic measure. He can also play 1 1 0-0 e 12 d1 f5 13 b 3 a5 1 c2 c6 1 5 a3 d6, as in Riazan sevKulicov, Dubai 2005. l l  e4 1   Whites position is preferable, but lack retains counterpay because his pieces are active, Granda-Fedorcuk, Pamplona 2010. 10 5 lf (D)

9 

This is a rather adventurous con inuation: lack will rapidly develop his queens bishop, but the poorly placed knight can become a problem. The standard 9 ...c6 10 0-0 bd7 1 1 c2 e8 is quite acceptable; for ex ample, 12 ab e (lack should refrain from weakening he queen side by 12...a5?!)  3 b df6 14 b5 (1  e5 xc3 1 5 xc3 e) 1 .. .c5 1 5 dxc5 xc5. 10 h3

10 b5 g 1 1 xc6 xf3 1 2 gxf3 bxc6 13 c e6 is unclear,

White can instead start wit 5 g3 (which also prevents a transpositi to a Queens Indian line by 5 ..b6). Then if lack wishes to adot Pn E, he needs to be on the alert: fter 5...0-0 6 g2, the line 6 ...d6 7 e4 e5 8 e2 (Avruk) 8 ...c5 9 d5 gives him a solid but passive position without rel chances of counterplay. To vi tis scenario he should prefer 6 ...c6 ? 7 f3 (7 e4 is met by 7 ...d5 8 e5  while 7 c3 d5 is equal) 7 ...d6 ec

1

A OKO HESS ENNG EERRE FOR BLK

lack must soon choose between Plan D and Plan E. In the latter case he can wait a little (i.e. 5 ...00 6 g3 d6), but ...d5 is most eective if played right away.

...b7. For the time being, lacks king is safe in the centre. 7 g 6 (D)

5 ...5

Let us briey consider 5 ...d6 6 g3 00 7 c3 c6: a) 8 d1 a6 (White has hindered ...e5, so lack tus his attention to ank play; 8 ..7?! is weaker due to 9 �g2 e5 10 d5) 9 g2 b8. Now 10 00 b5 (TregubovG.eier, erida 2007) leads to equality, and after 10 d5 (Avrukh) 10 ...e7 1 1 d e5 12 c2 g there are chances for both sides; it is not entirely clear what the knights ouey om  to c2 has achieved. b) 8 g2 e5 9 0-0 (9 h3 e8 10 0-0 e 1 1 g5 f5 is unclear) 9 ...g (putting pressure on the d-pawn to provoke its advance or exchange) 10 d5 ( 10 e3 e8 and 10 dxe5 !? xe5 are also possible) 10...e7 1 1 e1 d7 12 e �h3 3 d3 (the hasty 13 f? exf 1 gxf g6 unexpectedly led to problems for White in S.Estan den Doel, Dutch Team Ch 20101 1 ) 13. . .xg2 1 xg2 c6 with satisfac tory play for lack, KharitonovLo ginov, Russian Team Ch, Kazan  995. Although in these vations White does not achieve any real advantage, lacks margin of sategic safety is small. Therefore Plan D ( ...d5) looks more reliable in this paicuar situa ion. 6 g3 b7

lack prioritizes queenside devel opment. ...c6 will come next, and if circumstances allow, then ...b6 and

8 00

lacks delay in castling proves useful in the case of 8 c 2 b6!? 9 bd2 (or 9 c3 b7 10 e) 9 ...b7 1 0 e xe 1 1 xe dxe 12 xe c7 (now everything is ready for the ...c5 advance; it is less accurate to play 12...00 1 3 0-0 c 7 1 e5) 1 3 e5 xe5 1 dxe5 000! with equality. 8 c3 is also of independent im portance, as this is the most opportune moment for White to oer this gambit. 8 ...dxc 9 e aords White enough compensation for the pawn, so it is simpler to play 8 ...0-0!? 9 e5 xe5 10 dxe5 d7 1 1 f b6 1 2 cxd5 exd5, with equaity. 800

There is nothing to be gained from delaying castling any fuher. So far White has played very natural and even obvious moves, but now he must clarify his intentions and decide how to develop his queens kight.

HE BOGO-KE 2 c b+ 3 d2 9 

Whie has pleny of oher possibili ies a) The 9 c3 gambi is less eec ive now since lack can reply 9...dxc4 10 e4 e5. b) 9 b3 acually means a loss of ime: 9 ...b6 (he more vigorus 9 ...b5!? leads o unclear play)  0 e5 ( 10 c3 a6)  ...xe5 1 1 dxe5 d7 12 f4 b5  3 cxd5 cxd5 14 e4 (14 a3 b 6+ 15 h1 b7 was equal in Ki.Georgiev Parligras Ahens 2007) 14 ...dxe4 15 d1 (15 xe4 b7) 15...6+ 16 d4 b7 wih equal play. c) The ank sortie 9 a3 is no ac ive enough. y playing 9 ...b6 10 ac1 b7 1 1 fd1 e7 lack calmly con inues o prepare ...c5. Then 12 e5 ac8 1 3 f4 fd8 led to equal chances in he game Ilini-Andersson e grade 2000. d) Avrukh suggesed 9 e5 which leads to approximate equality after 9 .. .xe5 10 dxe5 d7 1 1 f4 f6 1 2 exf6 xf6 as in Delchev-Ri Pamp lona 201 0. e) 9 c 1 ! ? is a strong rejoinder o lacks sandd plan. Alhough 9 ...b6 has been ested wih some success a high level it neverheless makes sense for lack to change the subject and ee his ge wih cenal play. Should he centre become open it may appear ha he wrong rook has occupied c 1. Afer 9 .. .e7! ? 1 0 e3 ( 1 0 f4 is an other idea while 10 a3 e8 1 1 f4 e5 1 2 dxe5 xe5 1 3 xe5 xe5 is equal) 10 ...dxc4 1 1 xc4 ( 1 a4 e5 !?) 11...d5 12 g5 (12 e4 5f6 13 c2 e5 and 1 2 d2 5b6 1 3 c1 e5

123

boh yield equal chances) 12...f6 13 d2 5b6 and 14. . .e5 lack obains saisfacory play. 9b6 (D)

Sep by sep lack mes progress wih his plan. Now in the case of 10 cxd5 cxd5 1 1 c1 b7 White cannot derive any benet from his empory possession of he c-le. 1 bd

The more acive 1 0 c3!? b7 is an interesting alteaive. lack must defend carefully: 1 1 fd1 (the other rook  1 1 ad  !? can be considered; insead 1 1 d2 c5 is uncle while 1 1 e4 dxc4! ? 12 e5 d5 1 3 e4 c5 14 d6 b4 is equal) 1 1 ...e7 1 2 2 (12 e4 should be me by 12...dxc4 with an uncle posiion since the weaker 12 ...dxe4 13 e5 lows ie he initiaive) 12...c5 13 cxd x (no 13...exd5?! 14 c4   White has the initiative) 14 x exd5 (14...xd5 1 5 e4) 1 5 dx fc8!?  6 f xc5 with an accepabe p for lack. 1 ib 11 b4



A OCK-O HSS PNNG PRR FOR BLCK

White seizes space on the queen side. He can also play in the centre but ith the knight on d2 it is hard for him o make progress a) 1 1 ad1 can be met by 1 1 .. .c5 !?. b) 1 1 fd1 e7 12 e dxe 13 xe c5 leads to equality after 1 e5 xe5 15 dxe5 xe 16 xe xe 17 xe ad8 or 1 xf6+ xf6. c) 1 1 e c5 !? 1 cxd5 (although Whites position is more pleasant after 12 exd5 exd5 in the long run every hing must end with exchanges and a likely dra) 12...exd5 13 e5 e 1 xe (1 a cxd 15 xd e7 is also equal) 1 ...dxe 15 h cxd 16 xe xe 17 xe c5 1 8 g (u Wenjun-Ding Yixin Olongapo City (women) 2010) 18...g6 with equality.

16e4 17 e4 e4 18 e4 f6

lack has enough counterplay for equality Delorme-Stupak Chotoa 2010. 103 3 ...  (D)

ll . a 1  e7 13 c

After 13 2 8 1 fc (1 cxd5 can be ansered ith the equal izing 1 ...cxd5 or the more dynac 1 ...exd5! ?) 1 .. .c5 15 bxc5 bxc5 the game is balanced Psakhis-Andersson Polanica Zdroj 1997. 13...ia6 14 fe1 axb4 15 axb4 b

lack has nished his development and does not object to the exchange of rooks. 16 e4

The c6-pawn is the only weaess in lacks position so White tries to blast open lines towds it. The at tempt to seize the ale ith 16 e3 f8 1 7 c3 h6 1 8 a3 is parried by 1 8.d8 19 ea1 xa3 20 xa3 e8 as in EvdomovFedorchuk aa kesh 2010.

The advance of the rooks pan is risky since White has an extra tempo to ght for the centre. At some later point the weakening of the b5square may prove a further defect of the pawn move. However it is not so simple for White to make use of these shortcom ings while lacks plan also has some major positive points as we shall see. The main moves are  3 (Section 10.) and  c3 (Section 10.5). Here e look at the folloing pan moves 1.3.1 : 4 e4 12 126 1.3.: 4 !? 1031 4 e4

Ts is the most natural reaction but it does not give any lack paicular

H BOGO-K 2 c Jb+ 3 Jd2

trouble. He has even fewer problems in the case of the extravagant  a xd2+ (...e7!?) 5 xd2 e7 6 g 0-0 7 c5 (or 7 e3 d6) 7 ...d6 8 cxd6 cxd6 9 e3 d7 10 b5 e8 with equality aganian-Eingo oscow 1990. Of course  xb?! axb is not to be feared as lack has useful a-le pressure while the c3-square is denied to the white pieces.

12

xe6 with chces for bo sides an eek-.de ong Groningen 200 .

4d6 (D)

 .. .d5 is an alteative: a) 5 e5 e7 6 f3 (6 c3 dxc 7 a3 xc3 8 bxc3 b5 is unclear ar zolo-Apicella French Team Ch 2007) 6 .. .bc6 7 c3 (7 c3 dxc 8 b5 a7 is equal) 7 ...f5 oers lack sat isfactory prospects. b) 5 cxd5 exd5 6 e5 e7 (or 6 ...c6!? 7 f3 g 8 b5 ge7 9 0-0 0-0 10 e3 f6 Cousigne-urey French Team Ch 20067) 7 c3 (7 f3 can be met by 7 ...c5 while 7 a3 xd2+ 8 xd2 0-0 9 c3 c5 is equal) 7 ...c5 8 b5+ (8 a3 xc3  bxc3 bc6 and now 10 f3 is unclear while 10 b5 b 6 1 a d7 2 b1 0-0 13 e2? a7 tued bad for White in Aleksandrov-Roiz European Ch Wsaw 25) 8 ...bc6 9 a3 xc3 10 xc3 b6  1 a 0-0 nner Edouard French Team Ch Guingamp 2010. c) 5 a3 xd2+ 6 xd2 e7 7 gf3 bc6 8 c2 (8 e2 0-0 9 0-0 dxe  0 xe f5   d5 exd5 2 cxd5 ce7 13 c3 c6 was equal in agirov-Eingo insk 1983 while 8 a 0-0 9 0-0-0 dxe 10 xe f5 gives lack enough chances) 8 ...dxe 9 xe f5 10 d5 ce7 1 1 dxe6

5 c

5 a3 xd2+ 6 xd2 e5 leads to equality. White achieves little wi the modest 5 f3 f6 6 c2 (or 6 d3) 6 .. .e5 while after 5 d3 c6!? (5 ...e5 is equal) 6 f3 f6 White unexpect edly faces problems with the defence of his d-pawn. s es 6 a x 7 x

7 bxc3 f5 (or 7 ...c6 8 e3 f6!? 9 f3 when 9 ...a and 9 ...h5 are both possible) 8 exf5 xf5 9 e3 c6 also deserves attention Zayats-I.asilevich Russian Womens Team Ch Dagomys 2009. 7 f6 8 f exd4 9 xd4 6 White has the advantage of the bishop-pair but lags behind in devel opment and his queenside is weak ened. The question is who can make more of his trumps. 10 f

10 d2 is less accuate as 0.00 1 1 e2 d7 1 2 g3 c sho White must lose a tempo by   c



A OCK-OU HSS PNNG PRR FR BLCK

when 13g5!? could be ried in sead of 13 h, as played in is dall-Korchnoi, European eam Ch, Haifa 1989 10e6 11 h3 e5

he game is unclear 103 4 3!?

A suble posiional idea: Whie in ends to play he 3 xd2+ line wih he additional moves a3 and a5, which can be o his advanage A sligh variaion on his heme is also possible:  f3 d6 5 a3!? �xd2+ 6 xd2 4x+ 5 x (D)

pressure, bu he addiion of he moves a3 and a5 renders he siuaion unclear Play can coninue 8 e7 9  (9 h3 is unclear) 9 0-0 (he sharper 9 e5 is in he syle of he Classical Dutch)  0-0 c6, seing up a Sonewall srucure afer   fe1 d5  6 3 6 7  efore playing e, Whie should hinder he couner-advance e5 as much as possible 7 e is inaccurae because after 7 e5 !? (7 0-0 8 f3 ransposes o he main line below) 8 dxe5 (8 f3 exd is equal) 8 dxe5 9 xd8+ xd8 Whies initiative is of a temporary naure 7  00 8 e4

Playing by analogy wih sandard ogo-ndian lines wih 8 g3 leaves the c-pawn without proper proecion and makes lacks counerplay easier 8 bd7 9 g2 (9 d1 e7  �g2 b6 1 1 d3 e5 12 c5 dxc5 is unclear) 9 e5  0-0 (10 dxe5 xe5 is equal)   exd 1 1 xd (1 1 xd is me by 1 1 c5) 1 1  b6 ( 1 1 a! ?) 1 2 b3 a ed to a level game in orovi kov-Kosten, Sauon 2005 86 9 l !

Now lacks only reasonable op ions are a Dutch formaion and Plan E ( d6 and e5) 5f6 5 f5 ! ? is an accepable aleative, even if one may have some doubts abou his plan in general hen 6 c3 f6 7 e3 b6 and 6 f3 f6 7 g3 b6 should be OK for ack 6 g3 f6 7 g2 d6 8 c3 keeps him under more

9 e2?! is evidently weaker be cause lack may continue 9 e5 10 d5 (10 0-0?! �g) e7 1 1 0-0 (or 1 1 c5 g6) 1 1 g6 9e7 10 e

Aer   e5 dxe5 1 1 dxe5 d7 lack nishes his development by c5, b6, b7 and d8, wih a satisfacory posiion; for example, 12 e3 c5 1 3 e b6! 1 xc5 xc5 15 e �b7 16 �d3 g6 10  e5 11 xe5 (D)

HE OGO-KE 2 c b+ 3 Jd2

lack is not endangered by   d5 b8 1 2 b a6 or especially 1 1 d5 xd5 12 cxd5 xd 13 xd exd 1 xd f5.

1

of the white queenside, lack keeps possibilities of counterplay. 104 35 4 3 (D)

 g3 has no particular advantages compared to playing  f3 followed by g3. lack can reply  ...c6, meet ing 5 g2 with 5 ...d5!?, and 5 f3 with 5 ...d6, transposing to Section 10.. 1 . He can also choose ...f6 or  .. .f5, which transpose to other open ings.

l l e5

Here is where the apawn moves hurt lack. We saw the same moves up to this point in note c to lacks 5th move in Section 10.2.1, but continu ing the analogy by 1 1 ...dxe5 1 2 d5 leads to a dicult game for lack, who is deprived of .. .b ideas. There fore he acquiesces to White having a greater share of the centre. 1 4

Or 12 0-0 g6, attacking the epawn. And in e case of 12 xe5 xe5!? (12...dxe5 13 d5 is still preferable for White) 1 3 f ( 1 3 d e6) 13...e 7 1 f3 ( 1 d e8) 1 .. .xe! 15 xe ( 1 5 xe f5) 5 .. .f5 lack is just in time to sim plify the game painlessly. 1g6 13  7 14  e5! ? This useful manoeuvre activates te queen. Whites position is slightly better, but because of the vulnerability

This exible continuation allows both sides plenty of choice in thei scheme of development. For instance, lack could now switch to standard theoretical lines by  ...f6 (ogo Indian Defence) or even  ...f5 with  form of Dutch Defence. 4 ...6

ut this reply is te next link in the chain that constitutes lacks pl, an enables him to create original po sitions with their own subtleties. 1.4.1 : 5 g3 28 1.4.: 5  129

2

A OCK-OU HESS PENING EPERIRE FOR BLCK

For the alteative 5 a3!? see Sec tion 10.3.2. 1041  g3

This is Whites standard reaction in the ogo-Indian Defence. 5 e3 is too meek since 5 . .f6 6 d3 xd2+ 7 xd2 e7 equalizes without any par ticular diculty.   c6 6 g The routine bishop development is often played automatically but more problems for lack arise in the varia tion 6 c3 ! ? f6: a) 7 a3 xc3  xc3 e 9 c2 xc3 10 xc3 0-0 1 1 g2 f6 (1 1 .. .e7 !? 1 2 0-0 e5) 1 2 0-0 e and the coming 1 3...e5 will leave the game level. b) 7 c2 0-0  g2 ( a3! ? xc3 9 xc3 d5 !? 10 g2 dxc 1 1 0-0 d5 is unclear)  ...e5 9 dxe5 (9 d5?! e7) 9 .. .xe5 10 a3 (or 10 d1 e7 1 1 d5 xd5 12 cxd5 b with equality) 10...e!? ( 10...c5 and 10...xc3 11 xc3 e7 are also possible) 1 1 g5 f5 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 e3 e) 1 2...d 13 d1 xc3 (13. . .e3) 1 xc3 c5, with chances for both sides. c) 7 g2 e5 (7 ...0-0!?  0-0 e5 is safer)  a3 ( 0-0 xd 9 xd exd 10 b5 c5 1 1 g5 b6)  ...xc3 9 xc3 e 10 xe5 ! (this remarkable combination enables White to keep up the pressure) 10...xc3 1 1 xc6 xd1 1 2 xd xb2 1 3 xb7 a7 1 0-0! xc 1 5 fc1 xb7 16 xc xg2 17 xg2. This four-rook end game does not look too pleasant for lack but after the accurate 17...b7!

1  c6 d7 19 a6 b2 20 e3 e 21 e 1 a2 22 xa5 b 2 3 a bb2 2 f g6 25 a (25 g b 26 a bxa 27 h c5) 25 ...h5 the game must end in a draw. 6e! (D)

Here in a nutshell is the whole point of the 3 ... variation: lack attacks d before White has had time to castle. In the standard ogo-Indian line ( 1 d f6 2 c e6 3 f3 b+  d2  5 g3 d6 6 g2 c6 7 0-0 e5) White would continue  g5, but now he needs to decide what to do with the d-pawn as 7 dxe5 dxe5  0-0 f6 9 c3 0-0 1 0 a3 xc3 1 1 xc3 e7 only leads to equality. 7 00

The pawn sacrice is tempory, but White will have to take on  in or der to re-establish the material equi librium. esides castling, 7 d!? is of major imporce. le seizing space wi gain of tempo, ite releases the central tension and this is in accor dance with his opponents wishes. The white position remains slightly

HE BOGOKE 2 c b+ 3 d2

pref prefer erable, able, bu b u lac l ackk obains couner play a) 7 . £c £ ce7 e7!! ? 8 00 00 f6 9 e (9 c3 00 10 e1 and now 10... 10...c5 c5 was unclear in enamin-Eingo, Reykavik (e event) 1990; insead  0 ...f5 ... f5 is equal) equal) 9 . . . 0-0 0-0 (9.. . xd2!? 10 xd2 xd2 h5) 10 d3 d3 xd2 1 1 xd2 xd2 (L.akobse (L. akobsen-Antons n-Antonsen, en, Dish League League 1998/9) 11... 11...h5 h5,, wih chances chances for both sides. b) 7 .. . x2+ and here: b1) 8 bxd2 bxd2 b8 b 8 (8 .. . ce7 ce7 ! ? 9 0-0 f5 1 0 e4 f6 is i s uncl un clear, ear, Parker Parker Arkell, Hasings 1994/5) 9 00 (9 c5 f6 1 0 0-0 0-0 0-0 1 1 c4 c4 and now boh boh 1    .b5, .b 5, as play played ed in in Fedde Fedder rWa Ward rd,, Copenh Cop enhage agenn 1 992, and 1 1 . . .a6 a6 are equa eq ual)l) 9 . . . f6 (9 . . .h6 h6 is anohe anoherr idea)  0 e4 0-0 0-0 1 1 e 1 a6 a6 1 2 d3 d3 c6 is equal. b2) b2 ) 8 fxd2 fxd2 b8 b8 (8 ( 8 . . .ce7 9 c3 f6 is anoher possibiliy) 9 c3 (9 c5 f6 1 0 cxd6 cxd 6 cx6 cx 6 1 1 c3 c3 0-0 0- 0 1 2 c4 c4 a6) a6) 9. . .7 7 1 0 a3 a3 f5 f5 1 1 b4 h6 (   . . .gf .gf66 ! ?) 1 2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 1 3 c c  (or 1 3 b3 b3 b6) b6) 1 3 ...b6 ...b6 leads to un clear play, Sadler-Conques, Hasings 1995/6. b3) 8 xd2 xd2 b8 b8 9 c3 (9 0-0 can be met met by 9 . . . h6 h6 1 0 e 1 0-0 1 1 d3 d3 e7 or 9 . . . f6) f6) 9 . . . a6 10 0-0 h6 (10... (10 ... f6 ! ?) 1 1 e  0-0 1 2 d3 d3 ( 1 2 e4 d 1 3 d3 d3 b8) b8 ) 1 2. . .d . d77 1 3 b3 b3 f5 wih equl play, Peran-King, u dapes 1989. I should shoul d be ade tha tha the prelimi nary exchange 7 xb4 x and only hen 8 5  5 does no promise Whie y advan advanage age 8 . . . ce7 9 00 f6 10 b3 ( 1 0 bd bd22 0-0 0-0 1 1 e1 e 1 c6) c6) 1 0...c5 ... c5

129

1 1 xc xc  xc6 xc6 12 bd2 bd2 0-0, ein ei n golOss vr vrls ls 1984. 1 984. 7ex  x

e less r  x xb4 9 x4 ge7   t equality hil  g5?!   by 8 .. . f6. 8   9 ix x On the b4-sq  blk pwn blocks Wites quei , but t can lso become  t 10   f 11  Whie Whi e creaes the tt tt   2  The forcing vato 1 1 5 d  2 xc5 xc5 e7 e 7 13 c (1 'b5+ �d7) 1 3 ... ... xc5 x c5 14 xc c 1 5 c!    xc6?! is highly b  v  1 5 ...bxc6 ... bxc6 16 xc+ 7  XK 8 18  6 19 c  2 .4 c + 21 f f22 h1 h1 ) 1 ...b ... b 16 c! (16 a3 is weaker: 16... 16...e e 17  d8, agemovEgo Uzhg 1988) 16 ... .. .e7 (1 6...e?) ... e?) 17 a  leas to  roughly equl enn.  gme gme is also also leel leel aft after er 1 1 2  2 0-0 0-0   fe fe 1 (or 1 2 e4 e4 xe4 xe4 1 3 xe4  14 . g5) g 5) 12... 12...c6 c6 (or 12... 12... e7 e 7 13 f e5, e5, as an suggests). l l ...a Now 12 2 2 c les to chnce for boh sides, while 12 c 7 i equal. However, 12 2 2 s   imal im al advantag advantagee for White. 10.4.2

  (D)

This is more dgers for l hn 5 g3.  f f    Intening e4, when the e  may become a thret.

3

A OCK-O HESS PENNG EPETOE FO BLK

00 00 b6 (   . ..a .. a?! is wel welll me met by 1 2 c5) 2 b axb axb 13 axb axb b7 leaves leaves lak with a passive def defensive ensive task. t ask. 9 e4

9 d5 b8 10 dxe6 xe6 oers White only a minimal advantage. 9 ...e ... e5 1  5

White has to close the centre, sine 10 d3 is met met by 10 . . .xe ! 1 1 xe xe exd with equality. 1... 1 ...8 8 11 e

6 g5 oers White White less: less : 6 . . . h6 7 h b6 8 e3 b7 9 d2 h d2 (9 d3 g5 1 0 g3 h5 is uncl unclea ear) r) 9 . . . bd7 bd7 1 0  00 (10... (10 ...g5 g5 is an an alt alte eat ativ ive) e) 1 1 a3 ( 1 1 e e5 1 2 a3 exd xd) 1  . . .xc3 .xc3 1 2 bx bxc3 e5 e5 with a comforable game for lack, Sturua SturuaEi Eingo ngo, , Geneva Geneva 2001 200 1 . 6e7 e7

lack la ck prepares prepares the counteradvance ...e5 ... e5 in i n order to halt halt White Whitess expansion in he cene at the right moment. The less confr confront ontati ationa onall 6 . . . 0-0 7 a3 (7 e e5 is uncl unclea ear) r) 7 . . . xc3 8 xc3 d5 leaves lack with a position that is slightly worse but acceptable. acceptable. 7 a3

7 e looks slightly premature, be cause after ter 7 . . . e5 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 d5 xd5 xd5 1 0 cxd5 cxd5 0-0 0-0 1 1 a3 d6 d6 Wh Whititee achieves noing, Grigore-Eingo, Is tanbul Olympiad 2000. 7 ... x3 8 x3 c6 At the cost of two tempi, lack wants to clarify the centre while re taining chances of counterplay. In stea stead, d, 8 . . .bd7 9 e e5 10 d3! 00 (10... (10 ...exd exd 1 1 xd c5 c5 12 0-0 0-0 al al lows White to seize the the initiat initiative) ive) 1 1

Afte Afterr 1 1 d d33 0-0 1 2 0-0 la lack ck can can play 12... 12...h5. h5. As White has a space advantage, he has a wide choice of possible plans, but it is not so easy to implement some of the more natural ones. The f advance would enance the strength of the c3-bishop, but re quires considera consi derable ble prepatio prepation, n, while w hile queenside play pl ay would wou ld work better better with the darksquared bishop on a dierent diagonal. We see these themes in the line liness 1 1 b ax axb (   . ..a .. a66 is po poss ssib ible le too) 1 2 axb a1 a1++ 13 xa1 xa1 0-0 0-0 1  g3 ( 1  d d2 h h5 1 5 g3 f5 f5) 1... 1 ...c6 c6 15 g2 a6 (Arlandi-Ikonnikov, Cata nia nia 1 995) and 1 1 c5 0-0 0-0 (or (or 1 1 .. .bd .bd77 1 2 cxd6 cxd6 cxd6 cxd6 1 3 d2 0-0 1 e2 e2 b6) b6) 12 d3 (12 cxd6 cxd6 13 d2 b6) 1 2 ...a6!? ...a6!? 13 cxd6 (13 xa6 xa6 1 00 h5 is unclear) 13... 13...cxd6 cxd6 1 xa5 xa5 xe xe ! . 1 1 ... ... 1 1    a4 1 3 c5

Otherwise Whites play on the queenside will be blocked.

1 3...g4 ...g4 14 4 a6! 15 xa6 xa6 xa6 16   h5 h5 17  7 7

lack has secured sucient coun terplay against the white king, Odi rovs rovski ki  Heal Healum ump p , playc playchess.com hess.com (freestyle rapid) 2008.

HE BOGO-KE 2 c b+ 3 d2 105 3...5  5 4 c3 (D)



cxd5 cxd5 xd xd33 1 1 x3 x3 ex Peralta vanchuk ceoa 2006 c) 5 !? f6 6 g5 (6 cxd5 exd5 7 g5 h6 8 h g5 9 g3 e 10 d2 d2 xg3 xg3 1 1 hxg3 c6 Ria Riaza zan n tseval tsevaletin etin oscow oscow 2008) 6 . . . h6 7 xf6 xf6 xf6 xf6 8 a3 (8 ( 8 e3 0-0) 0-0) 8 . . . xc3+ 9 bxc3 0-0 10 e3 (haifman- (haifman-aetin aetin Novoku Novokuznet znetsk sk 2008) 1 0 ...b6. ... b6. 5 e4!

White places the ight on c3 right away awa y retaining the option of vigorous vigorou s play in the centre. 4... lack also keeps his options open in the centre: Plans D and E e both still possible and lack will tailor his choice depending on how White now deve de velo lops. ps.  . . . d5 is less consistent but eads to simpler positions position s ; however however in all the following variations Whites chances are preferabl: a) 5 a3 �xc3 6 bxc3 bx c3 (6 �xc3 �xc 3 f6) f6) 6 .. . b6! ? (6...f6 ... f6 7 �g5 h6 8 xf6 xf6) 7 e (7 f3 a6 8 cxd5 exd5 is uncle unclear ar)) 7 . . . dxe 8 g g f6 9 xg7 g8 1 0 h6 h6 b b77 1 1 e2 bd7 bd7 1 2 g3 e7 e7 i s reminiscent of lines of the Winawer French. b) 5 e3 f6 6 d3 0-0 7 f3 (7 cxd5 exd5 8 ge2 b6 9 0-0 a6 was equal in Gustafsson-Fressinet Ober hof 201 1 ) 7 ...b6 ... b6 8 0-0 a6 a6 (8 ( 8 . . . b7 could could be tried) 9 e2 e2 (9 b3 bd7 1 0 a3 xc3 xc3 1 1 xc3 xc3 a) a) 9 . . . bd7 10

The main rejoinder. In lines a and b White also tries to expose the shocomings shocomings of the move 3  . .  but without without paicu paicul l success: succes s: a) 5 c2 c2 d5 (5 ... 0-0! ?) 6 cxd5 (6 e3 0-0 7 f3 f 3 b6 and 6 f3 0-0 7 g5 c5 are also satisfactory for lack) 6 ...exd ... exd55 7 g5 d6 d 6 (or (or 7 . . . h6)  xf6 xf6 9 a3 xc3+ 10 xc3 xc3 c6 Roiz Istratescu elgian eam Ch 2007/8. b) 5 g5 h6 6 h b6 7 e3 (7 f3 is met by by 7  ..d5) .. d5) 7 .. . �b7 8 f3 (8 ge2 e7) e 7) 8 . . .c5 (8 . . e7!? 9 d3 c 10 ge2 c6 is another idea) 9 �3 (9 a3 cxd) 9  . .cxd 10 exd exd c6. c) Afte Afterr 5 f3 f3 b6 the play pl ay retus retus to the framework of the ogo-nian Defence but with lack having sie stepped its main line (i. (i . e. 1 d f6 2 c e6 3 f3 b+  d2  5 g3 g 3 ). he h e c  ) 6 c2 b7 7 e3 xc3 8 xc3 e is equa. c2) 6 �g5 h6 7 h b7 8 e3 d6 ransposes to the note to Whites 6th move in Section 10..2. c3) 6 g3 a6!? 7 b3 d5 8 cxd exd5 9 g2 g 2 0-0 with chances for both sides sides afte afterr 1 0 0-0 e8 1 1 e e  e r 1 0 a3 a3 xc3 xc3 1 1 xc3 xc3 e8. e8. c) 6 e3 xc3 (this (th is is sucint sucint t equali equalize; ze; 6 . . . 0-0 7 d3 d5 e t 

32

A OCK-O HESS PENNG EPERRE FOR BLCK

more complicated struggle  see note b to lacks th move above) 7 xc3 e 8 d3 (8 c b7 is equal) 8 ...xc3 9 bxc3 b7 10 c5 bxc5 1 1 b 1 x 12 xf c6 with equaity. s ...ds

lack initiates complications while avoiding the wilder 5 ...xc3 6 xc3 xe 7 g. 6 e5 e (D)

bxc3 dxc 1 xc d7 is equal, while 9 bxc3 b6 10 d3 (both 10 cxd5 exd5 1 1 d3 a6 12 xe dxe 1 3 g5 d5 and 10 e3 a6 1 1 c2 f5 are also unclear) 10...a6 11 c2 xc 1 2 xc xd2 13 xd2 dxc 1 xc c6 gives rise to unclear play. Another interesting line, 7 xe dxe 8 a3 (White should avoid 8 xb?! axb, when lack has the ini tiative) 8 ...xd2+ 9 xd2 c5 10 e2 (10 dxc5 can be met by 10 ...xd2+ 1 1 xd2 d7 1 2 f exf3 1 3 xf3 xc5 or 10 ...d7 with an equal position, as given by arin) 10 ...c6 1 1 d a 12 c3 cxd 13 xe xe5 1 xd xd 1 5 xd c6, leads to an equal ending. 7 g?! is poor in view o 7 ...xd2. 7 ...h!?

7

is immediate pawn advance is more prosing than delaying it a move 7 f3 00 8 a3 (8 d3 xd2 9 xd2 c5 10 a3 cxd 1 1 axb dxc3 1 2 bxc3 dxc 13 xc c7 is unclear) 8 ...xc3 and now 9 xc3 b6 10 d3 a6 1 1 e2 xc 1 2 xc xc3 13

White is probably slightly better, but the position remains rather unclear and requires additional study. Here are some illusative lines a) Not 8 g3?! xc3. b) 8 xe xe+ 9 e2 xd2+ 10 xd2 xg2 ( 10 .. .c6 11 f3 dxc) 1 1  g6. c) 8 e2 xc3 9 bxc3 (9 xc3 0-0) 9 ...xd2 10 xd2 e + 11 e 3 ( 1 1 e2 dxc 1 2 f3 d7) 11...xe3+ 12 fxe3 0-0.

  Tra nsposition to the Sicilian  4 e6  3 c5 3 e4 (D)

course that it includes the move ...e6. Note that Sveshnikov players oen use the Sicilian Four Kights move order, and tis has caused some anti Sveshnikov lines to become popular, as we shall see in Section 1 1 .5 . De pending on how scared our opponents are of the Sveshnikov, we may not even be forced to play the main lines of the Four Knights ! 3  cxd4 4 x4

Welcome to Sicily! Since we have ccidentally found ourselves here, let s try to make our walk short and safe  as far as this is possible in such a complicated opening with a lot of con crete variations. y choice of line to recommend is he Sicilian Four Knights, which has uite dierent positiona temes from most Sicilian lines. You wont be at a disadvantage here just because you ack years of experience with typical Sicilian sacrices and attacking sce narios. Naturally, if there is aleady a variation of the Sicilian in your reper toire that you are happy to play, you may prefer to use that, provided of

 c3 dxc3 5 xc3 is the orra Gambit. It is not very promising for White, and lack has several good re joinders. For example, 5 ...c6 6 c d6 7 0-0 and now: a) 7 ...f6 8 e 2 e7 9 d1 e5 10 e3 0-0 is a traditional main line. Now in case of 1 1 ac 1 e6 the game is approximately level, and 1 1 b?! (too active) 1  ...g 1 2 a3 c8 13 ac 1 xf3 1 gxf3 (1 xf3 xb) 1 .. .h5 15 d2 d delivers the initiative to lack. b) 7 .. .a6 8 e2 e7 9 d d7 is a subtle line where lack refuses to make any unnecessary concessions. If White wishes to force ...e5, then he must spend a tempo with 10 f e5 1 1 e3 f6, when it will be hd for White to generate much activity. I White instead chooses a waiting move

4

A OKO HESS PENNG EPEE FO BLK

such as 10 a3 or 0 h3, lack can play he seful 10 c8 before commiing o f6 4 6 5 c3

5 d3 c6 6 xc6 bxc6 7 00 (7 c can be me by 7 d5 or 7 e5) 7  d5 8 c3 is considered in he noe o Whies 7th move in Secion   5 5c6 (D)

This is he saing posiion of the Sicilian Four ighs, in which lack plans the cenral advance d5, ofen baked up by a pin wih b White now has several possibilities:  y playing 6 a3 (Setion     ) White prevens b, bu spends a empo on a move ha isn espe cially useful  6 e3 (Section 1  2) is no enirely appropae in his situaion  Secion   3 covers 6 e2 eading o gambi play  On he conrary, 6 g3 (Section   ) heads for relatively calm and bal anced play  6 xc6 (Secion 15) is mosly used to avoid the Sveshnikov, bu of



course our opponens may well play it too! Secion   6 deals wih 6 db5, which is the main coninuaion Noe ha 6 f b 7 db5 comes o the same hing

 6 a3

This is no a very common move in he Sicilian Defence Those who are willing to play more sandard Sicilian se-ups an happily choose the Sche veningen-syle d6 (now or later), but we shall adhere o he d5 plan 6  ie7 7 e 7 xc6 bc6 8 e5 d5 9 e is less poen than a move earlier (see Secion   5) since Whie is behind in developmen Neverheless, he posi ion remains unclear; eg, 9  c7 (9 a5+!? 0 c3 c7) 0 f f5 1  d6+ (  f2?! 0-0  2 c b6 3 c2 c5  e2 b7 5 00 d6) 1xd6 2 exd6 b6 13 h5+!? g6 1 'e2 00 700 8 00

Or 8 e3 d5 9 exd5 xd5 0 xd5 xd5   f3 a5 2 b c7 3 xc6 bxc6  0-0 a6 wih enough counterplay for lack 8  d5 9 exd5 xd5 (D) 10 xd5

I is no advanageous for Whie  play  0 xc6?! bxc6, which srengh ens lacks central conrol l  d5 11 ie3 d8 lack can also choose   xd 12 'xd 'xd 3 xd d8! (lac needs o play accuraely o mainain he equilibrium)  fd d7 5 f3

NSPOSITION  TH ICIAN

1

less appropriate move, since lack re plies 6...d .

a! 16 b3 (16 xb7 xc2 17 xa8 xd 18 xd c is also equal)  6.c6, achieving equality. 1   1 x6! bx6 After 13...xd ?! 1 xe7+ f8   fxd xe7 1 6 b (omkn-Kra pivin, Ashdod 2003) Whites aack on he black king is rather unpleasant, so i is more reasonable to decline the een sacrice. 1 e

1  e does not give White any advantage.

1  a6 15 x x 16 f1  17 e if6

The activity of lacks pieces com pensates for the weakness of hs pawns, so there are chances for both side.  6 e (D)

This moves surprising popularity is presumably an echo of the aggres sive scheme with e3, f3 and d2 ha is used against the Najdorf and Scheveningen. Here it is somewhat ou of place since lack is fully ready o play in the cent. 6 f3?! is an even

6 b

lack scores very well with this natural move. 7 

In the variation 7 a3 xc3+ 8 bxc3 a (8 ...xe 9 g f6 is equal) 9 b  00 10 c xe! ? (10...d8 is possible too) 1 1 xf8 xf8 lack ob ains good compensatio for the ex change. White can also play 7 xc6 bxc6 before 8 d3. Then: a) 8 ...d 9 e (9 exd can be met by 9 ...exd 10 d 0-0 1 1 0-0 6 or 9 ...cxd ! ?) 9 ...d7 1 0 g f8 gives lack a pleasant form of French. Aer 1 1 'g3 b8 12 b c 7 1 3 f ( 1 3 f c) 1 3. . .g6 or 1 1 f b 12 d  (1 2 b c 13 f2 h gives lack the ini iative) 12 . + 1 3 d2 b6, as in itkov-llescas, Spanish Team Ch, Ponfeada 1997, he has nothing to complain about. b) 8 .. .e 9 0-0 0-0 ts better with he Sicilian ethos, an leads to an

36

A OCK-O HSS PNING PRIR FOR BCK

equal game. Inappropriate activity with 10 f d6 1 1 h3 exf 1 2 xf ( 1 2 xf c5+ 13 h d) 12...a5 coud even eave White with the worse posi tion.

  ie (D)

e

This may be simpler than 7 ...d5 8 exd5 (8 xc6 bxc6 transposes to line a of he previous note) 8 ...xd5 9 xc6 bxc6 0 d2 0-0 1 1 0-0 b8 which is aso quite satisfactory for ack. 8 f

8 xc6 is a safer choice with ap proximate equality after any recapture on c6. 800 9 g

This active approach is practicaly forced. Aer 9 00 xc3 10 bxc3 d5 (10...d6! ?) 1 1 exd5 xd5 2 c5 xf5 3 xf5 e8 White must switch to defence. 9d

There now follows a sto in a tea cup  the main line of which ends in a draw. y playing instead 9 ...h6!? 10 xf6 (0 h d5) 10...xc3+ 11 bxc3 xf6 12 e3 d6 lack can con tinue the struggle. 10 exd xd 11 ixf xf 1 ixf xg

lack forces events. 2...xd + 1 3 xd  gxf6 1  0-0 xc3 15 bxc3 fd8 is sucient for equality in the ending. 13 ixh+! xh 14 h+ g8 1 000 g 1 hg1

The aggressive 16 h is parried by 16...d!. 1 6xh 1  xg+

The game ends in perpetual check.

With this modestooking move White indicates his willingness to of fer  interesting gambit. Uness lack is familiar with some form of the Scheveningen or Paulsen (to which he can easily anspose) he shoud accept the invitation to go pawnhunting.  b4  00

7 f3 is met by 7 ...e5 while de fending the pawn with 7 d3 d5 8 exd xd5 9 d2 (9 xc6 bxc6 10 a3 xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 f6) 9 ...xc3 (or 9 ...00) leads to an equal position.   ix3 8 bx3 xe4 9 id3

This is one of two ways to begin the attack. In the case of 9 d3 ack should defend by 9 ...d5 1 0 a3 ( 10 xc6?! bxc6 1 1 a3 a5 2 b b6  3 ab c5) 10 ...a5   b5 a6 12 d6+ xd6 1 3 xd6 e7. 9x3 (D)

lack is optimistic and seizes even more material. A safer approach is 9 ...d5 0 xc6 (after  0 a3?! a5 1 1 c xc3  2 b3 d8 White

NSPOSITION  TH CIUAN

cannot create real teats) 10 ...bxc6 11 a3 c5!? 12 xe (12 c 0-0 is equal) 12...dxe 1 3 xc5 ( 1 3 g 0-0 1 xc5 f5 15 f f7 leads to un clear play) 13...a6 1 e1 (1 g d 5) 1 ...xd1 15 axd1 c8 lead ing to approximate equality in the end ing

1 g4

10 d2 also deserves attention. Al though it is not entirely clear how White can prove a real advantage after 10...d5 1 1 b5 0-0 12 a3 de7 13 d6 (or 13 d6) nevertheless 10...f6!? looks preferable with an equal position after 1 1 xc3 xd 1 2 xd xd 13 b2 e5 1 fe1 ( 1 f d6) 1...0-0 1 5 xe5 d6 16 d5 e6 17 xd6 c5. l   f6 11 x6 h5!? This useful zwischenzug disrupts the coordination of the white pieces. 1 'g bx6

Now 1 3 h! ? reaches a position that requires careful study but it seems that White has enough compensation for the two pawns. Instead 1 3 g5 ?!

13

d and 1 3 d2?!  1 g h3 of fer White less. 114 6 g (D)

Now lacks standd counterplay with 6 ...b? ! 7 g2 d5 fails due to 8 exd5 xd5 9 0-0! so we shall adopt another approach 6  d5 7 exd5

Interesting complications begin af ter 7 g2 !? b6 8 xc6 (following 8 b3 d 9 e5 d7 gives White no more than equality and 9 e2?! e5 10 c3  1 1 cxd b+ is advantageous for lack) 8 ...bxc6 9 exd5 ! (9 0-0 a6 10 e3 xb2 1 1 d c5! ) 9 . .cxd5 10 0-0 e7! (10...a6?! is risky in view of 1 1 e3 xb2 12 xd5! with an attack for White) 1 1 e1 and lack can choose between the equalizing 1  ...b7 and the more adventurous 1..d7!?. 7  exd5 8 ig ig4

8 ...b6 is an aceptable alteative: a) 9 e3 c5 is very similar to a variation of the French Defence. After

18

A OKO HESS PENNG EPEE FO BLK

10 a a5+ both 1 1 c3 b6 and 1 1 c3 �xd 12 �xd xd 1 3 xd 00 1 00 b6 are equal. b) 9 xc6 bxc6 10 0-0 �e7 1 1 e1 �e6 1 2 a b5 led to a bal anced game in asiukovAPancheo, Dnepropetrovsk 1980. c) After 9 b3 !? d 10 e (10 e2 �b+ 1 c3 dxc3 12 bxc3 e7 13 00 00 1 ed �d7) 10 ...e7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 e1 White keeps a modest initiative. The text-move leads to a more com plicated struggle 9 d

After 9 de2 �c5 10 00 0-0 1 1 h3 (1 1 �g5 e8) 1  �e6 1 2 f d7 White does not get an advantage, and in the lines 9 f3 �e6 10 �e3 �b and especially 9 xc6?! bxc6 10 d e7 lacks position is even preferable 95 1 e+!?

This queen check looks rather odd, but the celess 10 �e3 b6 1 1 b3? (   h3 ! still retains rough equality) 1 1 b can lead to serous hardshps for White. lack stands no worse in the case of 10 b3 e7+ 1 1 e3 0-0!? (a small improvement over 1  ...xe3 2 xe3 xe3+ 3 fxe3 c8, which is also quite satisfactory for lack) 12 xc5 ( 1 2 00 �xe3 1 3 xe3 xe3 1 fxe3 ad8 is also equal) 12.d 13 xc6 (13 3a dxe3 1 xe3 xe3+ 15 fxe3 b) 13..xc5 with equality. 1  e7 11   1 d h6

oth sides have chances. 11.5 6 x6 (D)

The exchange of the knights fo lowed by the advance of the e-pawn completely changes the strategic com pexon of the game. We should note that this line has received considerable theoretical and practical attention as  way to avoid the transposition to the Sveshnikov that arises after 6 db5 d6 7 �f e5 8 g5 6 bx6 7 e5

White stops the d5 advance, and hopes to achieve a clear positional ad vantage 7 d3 d5 8 0-0 �e7 leads to more standard play The typical outcome is a complex positional struggle with no obvious advantage for either side. Here e some illustrative variations a) 9 e5 d7 0 g (10 f c5) 10g6 1 1 e b8 12 b 0-0 b) 9 b3 (9 e2 0-0 10 b3 e8 is similar) 9 .0-0 10 b2 e5 1 1 e2 e8. c) 9 �f 00 10 e5 (10 f3 d7 1 1 exd5 exd5! equalizes; 10 e2 can be met by    . dxe!?) 10...d7 1 1 h5 f5 (..g6!?) 12 exf6 xf6 13 e2 d6, Abergel-Petrov, enidorm 28.

NSPOSTON  TH CUAN

d) 9 e1 00 10 f (10 e5? ! d7 1 1 g f5) 10...d7 (10...d!?) 11 exd5 cxd5 1 2 b5 c5!. e) 9 f3 0-0 10 g3 (10 e1 d  1 e5 dxc3 12 exf6 xf6 leads to un clear play) 10 ...h5 1 1 f3 (1 1 h3 g6) 1  ...f6.  ••• 5 8 e4

It is absolutely illogical for ite o play 8 xd5?! cxd5 9 d (9 d3?! c7 10 e2 b+! ) 9 ..a6 10 xa6 a5+, with a good game for lack. ut now lack must act very vigorously if he is to obtain enough counterplay. 8 Dragging the white pawn to f in order to weaken te g-a7 diagonal and the e3sque in particular. 9 f4  5+! ? (D)

9

12 .. .gxf6, but two oter moves de serve attention: a) 10 c3 e7 1 1 d3 b6 2 e2 ( 1 2 c f5) 1 2...a5 1 3 c (1 3 a3 a6 is equal) 13 ...+ 1 f f5 is OK for lack, SaxT.Reiss, Hungarian Team Ch 2008/9. b) 0 d2 b 1 1 c3 ( 1 1 d6+ f8)   ...e7 1 2 e2 (for 12 d3 b6 1 3 e2, see line a ) 1 2...b6 1 3 a3 f5 1 exf6 xf6 1 5 d6+ xd6 16 xd6 (Govedica-jelajac, Yugoslav Team Ch, Tivat 1995) 16 ...e 17 h5+ d8 18 d xd 19 cxd a6 and again White has not achieved an advantage. 10  b6 11 id3

The purpose of the sly manoeuvr by the black queen is revealed in the variation 1 1 c d ! 12 f 3! (2 b ? b8) 12...x b2 1 3 d , when 13 .. .b led to puzzling complica tions in achier-Lagrave  Wagner, ulhouse 2005. The line 13...f5 1 d6+ xd6 15 cxd5 e7 16 dxe6 x a2 1 7 exd7+ xd7 1 8 d3 0-0 1 9 0-0 e6 is calmer, but also gives lack a satifactory defence. ll e7 1 e In response to 12 c lack can choose 12...f5, 12...d or 12...a6 (intending 1 3 e2 xb2). 1  b8 13 b3 f5

And the purpose of this check is to create some disharmony in ites position. 10 id

White stands worse after 10 e2? f5 or 10 f2? b 6+ 1 1 f3 ( 1 1 g3 f5)   ...f5 12 exf6 ( 1 2 f2 b7)

The game is approximately equal. 116

6 db (D)

This is the main line. White is will ing to face the Svesnikov after 6 ...d6 7 f e5 8 g5. ut we have other plans ...



A OKOI HSS PNING PRIR FOR BLK

satisfied with a small opening advan tage lack is obliged to struggle for equality, but at least we are in famil iar strategic territory: lack will have an isolated d-pawn and active piece play (compare lines in Chapter 5!) 8•••5 (D)

6Jb4 7 

The complications following 7 Jf xe 8 f3 (after 8 c7+ f8 White should avoid 9 xa8? f6 and settle for the equal 9 f3 xc3 ! ?  0 bxc3 f6) 8 d5 (8  xc3 !? 9 bxc3 f6) 9 c7+ f8 are not dangerous for lack a) After 10 0-0-0 xc3 1 1 bxc3 e5 12 xd5 f5 1 3 Je3 a5 1 Jc (1 b2 Je6 1 5 c? e7) 1 Je6 the white king is not safe b) 10 xa8! ? e5 1 1 Jd2 (1 1 Je3?! is met by    d, while 1 1 Jb5 d 1 2 d3 is unclear)   d 12 d h! 13 g3 ( 1 3 xe?! xe+ 1 Je2 xc2+ 15 f Jxd2 16 xd2 xa 17 d  ?! c2 1 8 xa d7) 13  f6 1 xe (1 f g 6 15 d3 g 16 xe dxe gives lack the initiative) 1 f3+ 15 x f3!? (15 e2 d+ is a draw) 1 5xf3 16 Jxb+ g8 17 d6 xh 18 0-0-0 e6 with double-edged play 7  x3+ 8 x3

In contrast to most of the previous lines in this chapter, here White acts in a calm positional manner and is

9 ex5

An interesting queenless middle game arises after the liquidation 9 Jd3 !? dxe 10 xe xe 1 1 Jxe xd + 12 xd  If White can calmly nish his development, then he will enoy good prospects because of his bishop-pair and queenside pawn-ma ority However, as long as the white king separates his rooks, the initiative belongs to lack, and by maintaining it he denies White his cherished advan tage: 12d7 1 3 e3 (1 3 b3 0-0-0 1 Jb2 Je8+ 1 5 c f6) 1 3f5 1 Jf3 (1 Jd3 e5 15 Je2 g 16 Jd c6) 1e5 15 c (15 e f7) 15  c8 !? ( 150-0-0) 16 e (16 dl f is equal) 16f7 retains the dy namic equilibrium 9  ex5 1 3

NSPOSITION TO TH ICIIAN

White should not delay castling; in the line 1 0 g5?! 00 1 1 d3 ( 1 1 e2 f5; 1 1 f3 e8+ 1 2 e2 d) 1 l h6 (1  e8+) 12 h e8+ 1 3 e2 e5 1 0-0 b6 White runs into problems lack also achieves a good position aer 1 0 e2+ e6 1  g5 h6 12 h (or 12 xf6 xf6 13 000 0-0) 120-0 13 0-0-0 e8 1 b5 c7 (   b8!?) 15 b a6 6 d3 e, as in Dvoirys-Hasangatin, Par dubice 2007 1 ... 11  4 (D)

Advancing the d-pawn makes it more vulnerable, but seizes space Now Whites knight must choose a square 11.6.1 : 12 e2 11 11.6.2: 12 e4 12  12 e2

White directly targets d-pawn, leading to complicated play 12  4 13 f3 There is a wide range of other con tinuations at Whites disposal, in which



the black knights combt te white bishops more or less successlly a) 1 3 d2?! is ill-dvised due to 1 3xe2 b) 1 3 h3 xe2 and now both 1  xe2 e8 and 1 xe2 e8 15 f3 b6 are equal c) 1 3  xe2 also leads to equal ity after  xe2 e or  xe2 e8 15  e5 6 'xb7 xd3 17 cxd3 d5 d)  3 f e8 1 e ( 1 f3 h5) 1  b6 15 b d8 with equality, LaninPopov, St Petersburg 207 e)  3 e1 e8 1 g5 h6 5 h xe2 16 xe2 d6 oers ite no more than a minimal advantage  1 3 g5 h6 1 h xe2 1 5 xe2 (15 xe2 e8 16 e e 17 g3 b6 is unclear) 1 5e8 6 f3 (16 d2 e 17 xe xh 8  d8 with equality) 6e5 7 xb7 xd3 1 8 cxd3 d5 gives lck com pensation for the pawn and he may even sacrice another one, if given the opportunity; for exmple, 9 xd5 xd5 20 g3 e2 2  ab 1 f5 22 d6 d8 23 c5 f 2 xa7 c2 13  14  (D) The bishop pins the knight and can be transferred to f2 to attack the d pawn Another line with simil ideas, 1  b6 15 b2 ( 5 f g6 16 xg6 hxg6 leads to equal play) 15ad8 16 f (16 h1 g6) 168 1 7 e1 g6 18 xg6 hxg6, looks somewhat weaker An alteative pln is to ack the black king, but after  f e8!? (1g6 15 xg6 hxg6 6 f b6 is



A OCK-OU HSS PNING PRTOIR FOR K

nclear) 5 xh5 xh5 6 f f6 7  d5 8 h3, as in Topalov vanchk, Nanjing 2008, lack can defend himself by 8...h6 9 f5 f6.

18 4

8 d2!? ad8 9 fe  oers lack a choice between the unclear 9 .. .b5 and 9 ...g5!?, while 8 b can be met by 8...ad8 9 c3 (9 d2 a 6 is equal) 9...d3. 18  a8 19 c6 c6  i4 5

lacks counterplay appears su cient for equality. 11.2 1 e4 (D)

14  ig6 15 ih4

This is consistent, bt there are other continuations: a) 5 e can be answered with 5...e8. b) 5  c8 6 ad e8 7 2 ( xg6 hxg6 is unclear) 7...xd3 ( 7 ...b6!?  8 xf6 gxf6 led to un clear play in Peushin-Yailian, Ak tiubinsk 985)  8 xd3 h6 is equal. c) 5 f xd3 6 xd3 d6 7 xf6 xf6 8 d2 (Asrian-Khenkin, FIDE Knockot, oscow 200) gives lack a choice between the equalizing 8...fe8 and the more adventurous 8...e7!?. 15  e8 16 ig6

6 f2 is inaccurate in view of 6 .. .xd3 7 xd3 e5. 16  hxg6 17 f b6

lack cannot defend the pawn, but all his pieces gain activity.

This move leads to exchanges, after which White can expect only a mini mal advantage. 1 ...f5 13 g5 e4 14 e4

h6

Forcing White to part with one of his bishops. 15 if6

After 5 h g5 6 xc6 bxc6  7 g3 d 5 (7...e8!? i s unclear) the activity of the cenalized black pieces completely compensates for the weak ening of his ngs residence. Then  8 h i s met with  8...fe8, while 8 f

NSPOSON  THE CU

e 19 h5 (1 9 d3 d8) 19 .. .g7 20 ad1 ae8 2 � (21  f5) 2 ...c5 and 1 8 d3 e 19 ad1 ad8 20 fe1 fe8 21  (21 c7 c8 22  c5) 21 ...xg3 22 hxg3  eave the game roughy baanced. 15 x6 (D)

13

b) A more accurate implementation of s idea by 6 e fe 17  x 1 8 xf  9 xe8+ ( 9 f e5; 19 b3 xe + 20 xe c8) 19 ...xe8 20 d 6  f c8 22 d2 (22 e f5) 22...e5 also allows ack to retain apprxiate equality. c) 16 d2 fe8 7 ae ( 7 fe e6 1 8 e2 d3) 1 7...e6   e2 ae8 19 fe1 6e7 leads to a sml sa tion to our main line.

16  (D)

Or: a) Simplifying by 16 f3 xf3 17 xf3 leads to equality: 7...e5 18 e (  8 �xb7 ab8 19 �e b2 20 1 8 21 xb2 b2 22 d1 g6 23 h3 f5) 18...ad8 19 fe b6, Zas avsky-ydeslaver, Haifa 2010.

16 e8 17 4 e7 1  ae8

Whites position   ore peasant, but it is diclt t y how he can make further r

12 Transposition to the English 1 4 e6  3 c5 3 c4

With this move, White directs the game towards a form of Engish Open ing. 3cx4 4 x4 (D)



ost of the lines we examine in this chapter follow the natural moves  ...f6 5 c3, when we have trans posed to the Symmetrical English line 1 c c5 2 f3 f6 3 d cxd  xd e6 5 c3. Then lack can choose ei ther the Four nights with 5 ...c6 or the more Nimzolike 5 ...b. oth players can also choose to avoid the transposition. We survey these possi bilities as folows  In Section 12.1 we examine the consequences of lack choosing a

different th move, namely  ...c6, or of White meeting  ...f6 with something other than 5 c3  ...f6 5 c3 b is the subject of Section 12.2. This popular variation often arises from the NimzoIndian Defence, and we are interested in it mainly because of the moveorder 1 d e6 2 c b+ 3 c3 c5  f3 cxd 5 xd f6. If in Chapter 8, you meet 3 c3 with 3 ... c5, then you need to be famiiar with this line too. In Section 1 2.3 we look into   ..f6 5 c3 c6 (or  ...c6 5 c3 f6), which leads to more complex play and oers lack better chances of counterplay. The position bes more than a supercial resemblce to the Sicilian Four ights  as we sha see, the two ines share severa opening ideas.

12.1 46 (D)

The main alteative is  ...c6!?. Then: a) 5 c3 f6 transposes to Sec tion 12.3. b) 5 b5 f6 6 f e5!? 7 g5 a5+ 8 5c3 (8 d2 d8 9 g5 re peats, while 8 d2 can be met by

NSPOSITION  TH NGSH

8 ...e 9 c7+ xc7 10 xe b6) 8 ...e 9 d2 xd2 10 xd2 b with equality, Nybck-iezis, yvs yl 2006. c) 5 g3 b6 6 b5 !? (6 c2 is met by 6 .. .c5 7 e3 d5, while 6 b3 e5 7 e b+ 8 c3 f6 trans poses to Section 1 2. 3.) 6...e5 7 f a6 8 xe5 axb5 9 g2!? (9 e? ! c5) 9  .bxc 10 0-0 with chances for both sides, Tomashevsky-Zahartsov, Irkutsk 2010.

Now 5 c3 is covered in Sections 12.2 and 12.3. There is just one major alteative:  g3!?

White avoids the lines we see in Section 123, but allows other possi bilities.  ...d

This is a sharp continuation, which is also relevant to lines we cover in Chapter . 5 ... b+ is an alteative. Then 6 d2 (6 c3 trsposes to Section 12.2, while 6 d2?! is dubious in view of 6...c6 6 e7 a standard



manoeuvre: he w p  oly pd on d2) 7  0-0  00  9 c3 (th bshop    u, but at th os    t squae or th b ) 9   d2 6 a   ppoxt equa ositon For xp    (   cxd5 xd5 1 2 x x   while 1  x6 x       1 1 .. .d7  2 a3 ac (  2)  b?! (White c t u  13 c fd) x   a6, and Whites pc  o  ated actively enou o   pawn advance. 6  e 7 tf3 This is the man continun Sev eral other knigh movs  viable, although in al these   chances e no wors a) 7 b5 d 8 f a6 9 x5 x  0 exf6 bxc  1 0-0 e b) 7 c2 d 8  ( 0-0 c 9  f5 10 b e7 gvs ck the i tive) 8 ..c6 9 xc+ (9 0-0 6) 9 .. .bxc6 10 fxe5 g !? (1 0...'a5+ 1  d2 xe5 12 xd is unc)   xd xd 12 xd xe5. c) 7 b3 d 8 0-0 (8 e3? ! a 9 exd4 a gives lack the initiv 8 4 b+ 9 d2 g 10 0 x   xd2 e3 12 f2 g s   cause White shoud avod   c6) 8 ...c6 9 f (9 e3? !   � a5) 9 ...e 1 0 f5 g6 1 1  .c7 2 xf6 (12 e3 d3) 12..x 1 3  0-0. 7d4 8 00 6 9 e Whte shoud avod 9    g5 xb. 9e7 10 exd4 exd4



A OCK-O HESS PENNG EPERRE FOR LCK

Now 1 1 bd2 e6!? 12 g5 g 1 3 b3 d7 1 de 00 eft ack in possession of the initiative in as ovasiisEdoud, Capele a Grande 2010, whie 1 1 f 00 1 2 e5 ( 1 2 e1 b!?) 12. . .b6 13 b3 (13 xc6 bxc6 1 d2 e6) 13. . .a5! 1 x b6 ( 1 b5 e6) 1 ...axb6 aso gives ack satisfactory pay. 122 6 5 c3 i (D)

6 g3

This is virtuay the ony way to ght for the advantage, and reaches a position that is better known via the Nimzo-ndian move-order 1 d f6 2 c e6 3 c3 b  f3 c5 5 g3 cxd 6 xd. Other continuations are not danger ous for ack: a) 6 c2 0-0 7 g5 (7 a3 xc3+ 8 xc3 d5 9 cxd5 x d5) 7 ...c6 8 e3 h6 9 h (9 h? xd  exd d5) 9 ...xd 10 exd b6 1 1 d3 b7 1 2 0-0 e7 and then ...d5 with sighty the more peast position for ack.

b) 6 g5 h6 7 h a5 8 c2 (or 8 b5 e 9 d 00! 10 xe a6 1 1 d3 axb5 1 2 cxb5 d5) 8 ..c6 (8 ...e 9 c1 f5 !? is uncear) 9 e3 (9 xf6 gxf6 10 e3 aso oers uncear ay) 9 .. .e  c xc3 (...f5!?) 1 1 bxc3 e7 was equa in Ste Aekseev, Santo Domingo 2003. c) 6 d2 c6 7 a3 (7 e3 0-0 8 e2 d5 is aso equa) 7 ...e7 8 g5 (or 8 e3 0-0 9 e2 d5 with equaity) 8 ...0-0 9 e3 h6 10 h d5 1 1 cxd5 xd5 1 2 xc6 bxc6 13 xe7 xe7 1 c2 xc3 15 xc3 c5 gave rise to eve pay in Cifuentes-Ubiava, Roquetas de ar 008. d) 6 b3 c5 (6 ...e7!?) 7 e3 (this is articia; 7 e3 c6 8 f3 is simper, and equal) 7 ...b6 8 f3 00 9 d (9 f2 e5 gives ack the initia ive) 9 ...a6 (9 ...e5 !? is an interesting ateative)  f2 c 8 11 e3 c6 was equa in Granda-Gashimov, Lugo 2009. e) 6 b5 is more interesting but aso brings no advantage e1) 6 ...0-0 7 a3 xc3+ 8 xc3 d5 9 g5 (9 cxd5?! exd5 10 g5 d) 9 ...h6 1 0 xf6 ( 10 h d 1 1 e g5) 10.f6 1 1 cxd5 exd5 is su cient for equaity since 1 2 e3 is met by 12...d8, whie aer 1 2 xd5 c6 1 3 e3 d8 1 f3 g6 acks ead in deveopment competey compensates for the missing pawn. e2) 6 .. .d5 can ead to interesting complications 7 cxd5 (7 f 0-0 8 e3 a6 9 a3 a5 10 d6 xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 bd7 ! 1  cxd5 e5 gives lac the initiative) 7 ...exd5 8 f (8 g5 0-0 9 e3 c6  e2 a6 1 1 d

NSPOSITION  TH NGISH

xc3+ 12 bxc3 a5 is unclear, Aron ian-Gustafsson, Deizisau 22) 8 0-0 9 a3?! (9 c7 is unclear) 9    xc3+ 10 bxc3 c6 and now White cannot even equalize, Leni-Y aovenko, Eu ropean Team Ch, ersonissos 007 6  00 7 g d5 (D)

1

d 1 5 0-0 xe2+  6 h1 d with equality) 9 dxc 0 a3 (10 xc e5 1 1 b5 a6 1 2 c7 b5 1 3 c5 bd7 1 a3 b8 15 xa6 xa6 1 6 xa6  is equal) 10bd7 1 1 0-0 b6 8xd5 9  9 d2 is less ambitious: 9 xc3 10 bxc3 c5 (it is usel to leave the e7-square vacant) 1 1 e3 ( 1 b3 b6 12 0-0 c6 and 1 1 0-0 e5 1 2 c2 c6 13 b  also lead to an equal game) 1  e7 12 b3 a6 13 0-0 b8 with a level game in pros pect, Almeida-Almagro Llanas, a drid 2010 95 (D)

8 xd5

This is e strongest continuation Nowadays other lines occur less often, although they too require accurate play from lack In both the following lines, Whites initiative compensates for the sacriced pawn, but he has no advantage: a) 8 0-0 dxc 9 a (9 g5 e; 9 c2 xc3 10 bxc3  1 1 b1 d8 12 f e 13 c1 d5) 9 a6 10 db5 (10 d1 d7) 10d (or 10  e8 !?) 1 1 d xc3 2 xc3 xc3 13 bxc3 c5 1 c 2  5  (15 d e5; 15 e3 b8) 15b8 16 d b5 7 d2 b7 8 xb7 xb7 b) 8 b3 xc3+ 9 bxc3 (9 xc3 e5 0 b3 c6 1 1 g5 dxc 12 xc e6 13 h xb3 1 axb3

Up to here we have followed the standard main line of Nimzo-Indian theory, but this rare move looks like a reasonable way to move in a dierent direction  and one that our opponents are unlikely to have analysed in ad vance White must at once make a tricky decision 10 xd5

The following lines are also possi ble:

18

A OKO HESS PENNG EPERTORE FOR BK

a) 10 db5 a6 1  d5 ed5 1 2 c3 d 13 d5 c6 1 0-0 e6 is equa b) 10 d5 d4 1 1 c3 (  e3 c6 and now not 12 xd?! d 13 c e2!, but 12 dl a5+ 13 d2 c5 with an equa po sition)    c6 1 2 00 e5 1 3 e3 (1 3 d1 f6) 13b6 1  d1 g5 with counteay; for eampe, 15 d5 e6 16 b5 ad8 c) 10 f3 !? c6 (b6! ?) 1 1 0-0 c3 1 2 c3 e7 13 e3 (13 f f6) 13xe3 1 xe3 e5 eads to equaity d) 10 c2 c6 (the possible loss of the d5pawn does not perturb lack) 1 1 xd5 ( 1 1 00 a5 1 2 b5 c3 13 bc3 b6 is equa; 1 1 xd5 ed5 12 d b6) 1led5 1 0-0 (12 d5 a5+ 1 3 d2 f2+ 1 f2 d2 is unclear, whie 12 d5 + 13 d b6 1 0-0 g is equa) 12 d 1 3 f ( 1 3 d1 e8) 1 3e7 with equal chances  e5  e3  2  c6 13 1

It is dubious for White to continue 13 0-00?! e6 and entirey bad to pay 13 c5? d 3  h3

Now the white king remains in the centre 1 5

Other moves e at best uncear 1 f3?! e8 15 f2 e7, 1 g1 e6, 1 c5 e8 15 d5 f6 or 1 b7 d6   15  c8 16 3 cl      18 1 e6

The game is equa

12.3 6 5 c3 c6 (D)

White has a wide choice of continu ations here, so before moving on to our four main ines, we sha briey dea with moves that do not pose seri ous probems for ack a) Theres no justication for 6 c2?! (6 b3?! and 6 3?! are aso absoutey inappropriate) 6 d5 7 cxd5 ed5 8 e3 (8 e3 is sightly prefera ble) 8 d6!? 9 g3 (9 d5 f5 gives lack the initiative) 9  0-0 10 g2 e5, when lack enjoys the better chances b) 6 xc6 bxc6 7 e b trans poses to Section 1231 c ) 6 e 3 d5 7 cxd5 (7 e dc4! ?) 7 ed5 and now 8 e2 d6 9 0-0 a6 transposes to Section 1312 A more vigorous idea is 8 b5 d7 9 00 d6 10 e ( 10 f3 g ), but by pay ing 10  xe4 1 1 c6 xc6 12 d5 00 13 c6 c3 1 bc3 bc6 15 xc6 c8 lack soon re-establishes the material equilibrium, with equal chances

NSPOSITION TO THE NGSH

d) 6 f can also be met by 6 d5 hen d1) 7 db5 transposes to Section 12.3.3. d2) 7 e3 is quite adequately an swered by 7 .c5 !? 8 cxd5 (8 c 1 00) 8 ..xd5 9 xd5 (9 xc6 bxc6 is equal) 9 exd5 10 xc6 bxc6, with equaity d3) 7 cxd5 xd5 8 xc6 bxc6 9 d2 is a more interesting possbility Whites pawn-structure is superior, but due to the tempo lost by f-d2 he has no time to make use of this advan tage 9 ..b 10 c2 (10 c1 b8) 10.. .a5 (or 10 0-0! ? 1 1 a3 xc3 12 bxc3 f6 with equality) 1 1 a3 b8 12 e3 00!? (weaker is 12..a6?! 13 xa6 xa6 1 a xa 15 xa) 13 d3 a6 1 x7+ h8 15 d3 fd8 is equal e) 6 g5 e7 7 e3 a !? 8 h (8 db5 00 9 a3 d5 10 b d8 was equal in AgrestTimm, alm 1999, while 8 xf6?! xf6 9 d2 xd 10 exd b6 gives ack the initiative) and now lack must make an impoant decision e l ) After 8 .e 9 xe7 xc3 10 d2 xe7 ( 10 ...xe7 !? 1 1 bxc3 xd and 10 ...xd!? 1 1 exd xe7 12 el b6 are both unclear) 1 1 b5 d5 12 xc3 (12 d6+ f8 13 xc3 xc3+ 1 bxc3 g6 is equal) 12 ...dxc lack can play for equality e2) 8 . b oers lack more pos itive prospects. Aer 9 c2 xd 10 exd4 b5 !? 11 xf6 gxf6 1 2 cxb5 b7 he sacrices a pawn to secure the ini tiative. Now we move on to the main lines

12.3.1:  e4 12.3;2:   12.3.3:  b5 12.3.4:  g3

19

19 150 151 153

12.3.1  e4 (D)

Another metamorphosis we have now reached a line of the Sicilian De fence ( 1 e c5 2 f3 c6 3 d cxd  xd e6 5 c f6 6 c3), but not one that is considered dangeus for lack The line 6 xc6 bxc6 7 e b comes to the same thing.

   b4  txc bxc 8 3

It is not good for ite to choose 8 e5? e 9 d2 xc3 (lack even has a stronger path in 9 ..xd2!? 10 xd2 a) 10 xc3 xc3 1 1 bxc3 a 5 12 d b8 with the initiative for lack, AStefanova-Zhu Chen, Wijk  Zee 2. ...e5

Otherwise lack will need to take Whites e5 advce into onsidetion; for example, 8 ..0-0 9 e5!? a 10 f with unclear play.



A OCK-O HESS PENNG EPERRE FOR BLCK

 e3

9 0-0 is a more common move order, athough lack can then play 9...�c5 !?, taking contro of the impor tant g1-a7 diagonal. Instead, after the standd 9 ...00, 10 �e3 transposes to our main line below, while the saight forwd 10 f d6 (10...�c5+! ? 1 1 h1 d6 12 f5 h6 gives lack the initiative) 1 1 f5? ! (better is 1 1 a e8 12  �a5, with unclear play) 1 1 ...d5 al lowed lack to take over the initiative in A.uzychuk-Cherenkova, Russian Womens Team Ch, Sochi 27. Given the strategic importance of e g1-a7 diagonal, both sides should seek to conol it; for example, er 9 �d2 or 9 �g lack plies 9 ...�c5 to good ef fect.

does not change the assessment of the position. 15  5

The game is approximately equal as both sides have pawn-weaesses. 12.3.2 6 3 (D)

   1  6 1 1 h3 

1 1 a g 1 2 �d2 (12 �c !? is unclear) 12 ...�xd2 1 3 xd2 h 1 h3 f6 (Anka-erczes, Hungarian Team Ch 2005/6) and 1 1 a xc3 12 bxc3 c5 do not promise White an dvantage. ll  ic3 12 c3 e6

1 2...c5!? is more ambitious (al though somewhat risky) lack xes the pawn-structure and restricts the activity of the white bishops. 1 3 f (1 3 d2 b7 1  d7; 13 b1 c7) 1 3...d7 1 f5 f6 (1...b8!? 15 f6 xf6 16 g5 e8) can follow, with unclear play, which may be sharpened if White launches a kingside attack. 13 4 e4 14 4 6+ 15 2

Or 15 h1 c5, as in the game Chandler-Emms, Hastings 2000. In terposing the rook appears slightly stronger than moving the king, but it

This is a rather popular continua tion. Covering the b-square is useful in many lines, while in specic tes White seeks an improved version o the 6 �f d5 7 cxd5 variation, which we examined at the beginning of Sec tion 12.3. 65  c e

This time taking with the knight is somewhat weaker after 7 ...xd5 8 xc6 bxc6, 9 d2 or 9 c2 will fol low, with a small but stable advantage for White.  ig

8 g3 leads to positions similar to the Tarrasch Queens Gambit where the move a3 is not very useful. After 8 ... �c5 9 �e3 (the careless 9 xc6?! bxc6 10 �g2 g hands the initiative

NSPOSTON TO TH NGSH

o lack righ away) 9 ...b6 10 g2 00 1 1 0-0 e8 he game is level, Kasimdzhanov-Gopal, FIDE World Cup, Khany-ansiisk 2007. 8  c5  e3  1 e2 (D)

Changing he pawn-srucure by 10 xc6 bxc6 does no provide any bene  for Whie, since he vulnerabiliy of his own queenside reduces he eec of he pressure along he c-le. lack obains enough counerplay; for ex ample, 1 1 e2 h6 12 h e8 1 3 00 f5 1 a d6 1 5 c  e6 16 c5 (16 g3 a5 is equal, while 16 b can be answered wih 16...2+!? 17 xh2 g+ 1 8 xg x+ 19 h3 g6) 16 ...xc5 17 xc5 g5 8 g3 e 19 c1  maintining the equi librium wihou any picul di culy. I is worh paying aention o he weakess of he b2-pawn  a con sequence of he move 6 a3.

11

afer 12 e3!? e8 13 0-0 f5  c Whies positio remins  more pleasan because of is bishop-pir.  f6

1 1 h is quite well aswered with 1 1 ...xd 1 2 exd f5  3 0-0 c8 or 1 1 .. .xd 12 exd e7 1 3 00 e6, when 1 b3, 1 f3 ad 1 e1 are all me by 1...e. ll   12 xd

Afer 12 b3 6 13 xd5 (13 00?! d8) 3. . .e5 the posiion of he b3-knight is insecure ad lacks iniiaive compleely compensates for his small maerial deci. 12 e5 13 x6

er 13 b3 d8 1 xc5 xd5 15 d3 g5 he acivi of the black pieces again tus ou to be enough o mainain he equilibrium; for exam ple, 16 f3 g 7 xg4 e5, 6 0-0 h3 17 f3 xg2   xg2 ad8 or 16 g3? ! e5, when  7 b3? loses o 17 ...xd3 ! 8 xd3 f3. 13xc6 14 f4

Or 1 c3 b8 5 c d6. Whie is ready o retu te pan, bu lack is in no hurry to te it back. 14f5 15 d3 xd3 16 xd3 a8 1 d1 x2

The game is approximately equal. 1233 6 d5 (D)

1 h6

This move has so far no been played in pracice, bu i is a useful way o liven up he game. In principle, 10 ...xd 1 1 exd h6 suis lack, bu

Now 6 ...d6!? is possible, wi very ineresing play after 7 f e5 8 g5 a6. However, White ca also choos 7 e, transposing to a Sicilian main line, namely  e4 c5 2 f3 c6 3 d cxd  xd e6 5 b5 d6 6 c f6 7 c3. So le us no emp fae any longer.

2

A OC-OU HESS ENING EEIE FO BLCK

White initiates a forcing sequence that leads to a sharp ending. 8 g5?! is not advantageous i n view of 8 ...a6 9 cxd5 axb5  0 dxc6 xd 1 +  1 xd  bxc6. 8e4 9 xc6 xc6 1 d8 x8 D)

65

his move is a pawn sacrice, but one that White usually does not ac cept.  i4

The choice is not large  either this bishop move or the exchange 7 cxd5 xd5. Now it is illogical to play 8 e4 xc3 9 xd8+ xd8 0 bxc3 (more careful is 0 xc3 c5, with equal ity)  ...c5   f4 a6 2 d4 d7  3 b 3 a3 4 d (4 b !?) 14 .. .e7, when Whites activity is ex hausted but his pawn weesses re main, iladinovi-Anti, Kragujevac 29. However, 8 xd5 exd5 9 xd5 b4+ 10 d2 is more critical. lack has the initiative in retu for the pawn after 10 ...0-0 1 1 xd8 xd8 1 2 c 3 e6 13 e3 d7, 10...e6!?  xd8+ xd8 12 c3 0-0  3 e3 d6 or  ...e7   0-00! ? (   c 3?! 0-0;   a3!? xd2+ 2 xd2 is unclear)  1 . ..xd2+  2 xd2 0-0  3 d6 h4 (  3...g5 4 e3 d8? 5 h4) 4 g3  However, all these lines could be investigated further. e5 8 cx5

11 d1+

  0-0-0+?! e7! 2 d4 (2 d6 e6) 2...d7 is of doubtful value fo White as the f2-pawn is undefended and so e unpleasant threat of ...g appears. After  1 d4 lack can equalize by ...d7 12 g3 fxg3 3 hxg3 b 14 g2 (14 c  b8) 14 ... xc3+ 15 bxc3 c7 or try to obtain more with 1 1 ...c7 !? 12 g3 b8 ( 2...c5 is un clear, Korchnoi-Poisch, Candidates (3), a Kissingen 983) 3 c xb2. ll  i 12 6 c

Or 2...xd6 1 3 xd6 b8 14 d2 (4 b3 b4 5 g3 e7 is equal) 14 ...e8 5 g3 (  5  e5 6 g3 d5) 15 ...f3 6 d fxe2+ 17 xe2 c7, with approximate equality.

NSOSITION TO HE NGSH 13  g8 14 e5

Whites knight should save its skin ight away After 1 g3?! b8 1 5 d2 (1 5 �g2 xb2 16 00 b 1 7 c  fxg3) 1 5   16 g2 the unexpected 16f3! 17 xf3 ge8 drives White into a dicult situation 14 8 15 2

ore accurate than 15 xd7 (or 15 d3 f5) 15xd7 16 g3 (16 d2 e) 16xb2 17 h3 f6 (17b6!?) 18 00 b, when ack has the initiative, PostnyGrnfeld, Givataim 1998 154 16   1 g3 e5

he game is equal leesHegele, umbach 1991 ended in perpetua check after 18 h3 xc3 19 bxc3 b1 + 20 d1 d3+ 21 exd3 e8+ 22 d2 b2+ 23 c1 ee2 2 de1 ec2+ 25 d1 d2+ 1234 6 g3 (D)

As in Section 1 22, the anchetto is the most prosing for White if he

1

wants to fight for an opening advan tage Here, however, lack has more ways to create counterplay 66  3

7 e3 can be met by 7 b 8 g2 e5 or 7 d, with equality, while 7 c2 d5 8 g2 (not 8 cxd5?! exd5 9 xd5? xd 10 xd5 �e6 1 1 e b+) 8 dxc 9 e3 (9 00 d7) 9 a6 10 a b 1 1 00 xc3 1 2 bxc3 00 looks unattrative for White The adventurus 7 db5 !? is much more interesting and popul Then 7 d!? i certnly posible but the main line is 7 e5, wen we ave two important moves to consider: a) 8 g2 xc 9 a a6 1 0 xc axb5 11 x b (11 xb5?!  12 e3 xe3 13 c7+ e7  xa8 xf2+ 1 f d gave lack the advantage in the game cian urtasova, European Womens Ch, Dresden 2007) 1 1 xb5 12 xb5 b+ 1 3 d2 �xd2+ 1 xd2 e7 1 5 hc 1 d5 and an equal ending arises b) 8 f fg leads to complica tions b) 9 e3 a6 10 h3 (10 c7+?! xc7 1 1 xg xc!?, SmrinHolz ke, Port Erin 200) 10axb5 1 1 xg xc 12 b 3 d 13 xc dxc 1 xb5+ xb5 15 xb5 b+ 1 6 e2 a5 (TimofeevStevi, osnian Team Ch, ihac 2010) 17 a d7 is equal b2) 9 a!? (adding more fuel to the re) 9 xf2+!? (it is strange that this simple reply has still not been tried in practice) 10 d2 c5 1 1 e b6!? 1 2 h3 f6, wi rather inicate play



A OC-OU HESS ENING EEIE FO BLC

.e5 8 e

White is not completely obligated o defend the cpawn, bu after 8 g2 xc 9 0-0 (9 e b 10 0-0 xc3   bxc3 d6 12 g5 e5, Kalashian-D.Pe rosian, Armenian Ch, Erevan 2010) 9 ...e7 (9...d5 !? 10 e xe!   xe dxe) 10 e d6 1 1 e2 e5 ( 1 1 ...b and   ...a6 are also possible) he gets no real compensation.

+ 16 d xb5 17 cxb5 c8 18 c xc 19 bxc e3+. 1...c6 11 e3

1 1 g2 is answered with   ...e5, seizing the initiative.

ll ...c3+ 12 c3 c 13 g2 e5! (D)

8... 9 e2 6 (D)

For the time being castling can wait; rst it is more important to aange the pawns correctly. 1 

1 

e modest 10 d2  1 1 b5 ! ? ( 1 1 f c6 12 a c7 gives lack the initiative)   ...xd2+ 12 xd2 is enough for equaity at most; for exam ple, 12...fg!? 13 b3 (not 13 f?? d3+ 13 ... d7 1 f4 d3+ 5 xd3

1 c5 dxc5 15 xc5 g (15...exf is unclear) 16 e3 d7 fails to incon venience lck greatly. 14... 6 1 e5

Now 15...dxe5?! is dubious in view of 16 h6, but aer 1 5...xe5 lac stands no worse.

1 3 2 f3 c5 3 e3    e6 2  c5 3 e3

This modest continuation can serve as an introduction to one of thee dif ferent opening schemes for White, de pending on what he does with his cpawn.





3 5 (D)



 c (Section 13.1) eads to the Symmetrical Tasch, which is not dangerous for lak. The same verdict may  passed on  c3 (Section 13.2). oreover, if White employs Coles system of de velopment in ll, he even risks fall ing into a slightly worse position. The most notewohy ine is  b3 (Section 13.3), own as the Zuker tot Attack. White can opt for cenal pay (c, when hanging pawns  likely) or a classical attacking plan with e5, f, et. lak must e both these possibilities into acount.

131 4 c (D)

We occupy the centre, not fearing ines where we end up with an isolated d-pawn, given that White has made a rather slow move with this e-pawn, and wont be abe to adopt the most potent ine in the Tarrasch Queens Gambit. Given that  d3 can be answered by  ...c 5 e2 b5 6 0-0 f6 7 b3 b7 8 a a6, not ony seizing space but aso establishing  contro over e, White needs to make a committal move right now:

With this move, the game ans poses to the Symetal Tsh (a

15

A OCKOI HESS ENING EETOIE FO BLCK

sandard move-order being 1 d d5 2 c e6 3  c5 4 e3). The sategic sggle will volve ound both sides atemps o resolve he cenral tension in he favour and as economically as possible in erms of empi. 6!?

The exchange  ...dxc 5 xc f6 ansposes to the tradiional main line of he Queens Gambi Accepted. Wih he text-move lack hopes o encour age Whie o exchange pawns himself or else to play d3 when lack can save a tempo by replying ....dxc.  ...f6 is a reasonable alteative. hen 5 c3 a6 ansposes o our main line low whle 5 cxd5!? exd5 6 b5+ c6 7 0-0 d6 (a knd of reversed Nimzo-Indian) 8 dxc5 (8 xc6+ bxc6 9 c2 b6 10 dxc5 xc5; 8 c2 b6 9 dxc5 xh2+ ! Hebden-Chand ler tish League (NCL) 1997/8) 8 ... xc5 leads to a dieren ype of game. In the following illusrative lines Whie fails o secure he initia ive and here is a complicaed srug gle with chances for boh sides: 9 c2 b6 10 xc6+ x c6 1 1 b3 g 9 xc6+ bxc6 10 c2 d6  1 b3 (1 1 c3 g)   ...a6 1 2 d 1 0-0 or 9 b3 0-0 10 b2 d6 1 1 xc6 bxc6 1 2 c2 d7 (when Whie should avoid 13 g5?! xh2+). 5 c3

5 b3?! is answered by 5 ...cxd 6 exd b+ and 5 a3 wih 5 ...dxc as lacks a-pawn move is a litle more usel than Whites in this scture  compare Secion 13.1.1. Whie can also play 5 dxc5 xc5 6 a3. Afer 6 ...f6 7 b e7 8 b2 0-0 9 bd2

 10 b5 bd7 (10...b6!? 11 cxd5 xd5) 1 1 c2 ( 1 1 cxd5 exd5 12 e2 c5 and 1 1 e2 b6 1 2 cxd5 xd5 are also equal)   ...b6 12 d b7 13 c6 xc6 1 bxc6 c5 lack main ains he equilibrium. 5 6 (D)

Now White should avoid 6 b3?! cxd 7 exd b (or 7 ...e) 8 d2 dxc and choose one of the following continuaions: 3.1.  6  156 157 3.1.2 6 cd5  6 3 dc  c 5

Again we have a Queens Gambi Acceped but one of the secondy vaaions rather than the main line.   This rerea is logical since Whites main hopes are pinned to aggressive play in the cenre. The following lines have also been seen in pracice: a) 8 e2 b7 9 0-0 bd7 10 dxc5 xc5 1 1 b e7 1 2 b2 0-0 is equal SarakauskasIvanisevi Troms 2010.

2 0f c5 3 e3

b) 8 �d3 bd7 9 0-0 b7 10 e2 d6!? (10...�e7) 1 1 d1 0-0 1 2 dxc5 xc5 1 3 e4 c7 leaves lack wi the initiative  eki-Nikolov Nova Gor ica 1998. 8�   d 1 e1 A risky continuation but 10 e2 c7 1 1 d1 d6 yields no more than equality. 1 d6 11 d5

After 1 1 e4 cxd4 12 xd4 (12 xd4 c5) 1 2..b8 1 3 h3 00 Whie already needs to sruggle for equaliy Ekstrm-Godena Swiss Team Ch 2001. l l ed5 1 2 e4 

lack is somewhat beer since 13 e5 carries no punch. After the furher moves 13...xe5 14 xe5 d4 15 b1 c7 lack has more than enough for he piece 1 3  1 2

6 cd5 ed5 (D)

This type of position more often arises with reversed colours.  e2



ite is gi   a  aginst  isot   ac tive cotiaio    tion: a) 7 �d3 6 8      h3 �xf3 10 xf3    x x is eql whi 9      is uncle) 9 ...�x       xf3 1 2 f3       x3 x4     to equal play. b) 7 g3!? is  i attemp to play the mi i f  Tasch wi the exa m 3   . .a6. However ar 7  . 6 8   i is h to itey    lack (since �g  im) and 9 dxc5 �xc     1 b  is equal.   c6 8 00 cx

8 ...�6 9 x x   often whe  h  r  his bishops inn o t    agonal: a) 10 b3 0- 1  �b �7   cl (12 c2 can b mt by 1...  1 2...6) 12... 13  ( 1 3 a4 e4 t   for equality by 14 3!? f6, since 1 4 d4?! g ga   iitiativ in te gme n Clichy 201 ) 13 .. .6 14 f 7 an little by little ite y r a  lock. b) 10 a3 !?  1 1      (or 12 b5 xb 3 x a now 1 3...b6 4 b2  1  c1 eH was ucle i Gr Eurpe Ch Plo 28,  Black c also  13 .. . b8!?      c e 12...�6     3 

158

A OCO HESS ENING EEIE FO BLC

e 1 d c8) 1 3...axb5 1 xb5 b8. White has more prospects in this line, but neveheless does not achieve any real advantage.  4 i6 1 3!

This is evidently stronger than 10 xc6?! bxc6 1 1 b3 "c7 (  .. .h5 ! ?, Trois-Kosten, London 1982) 12 h3 (12 g3 h5 gives lack the initiative, while White should denitely avoid 12 f?! 0-0 3 "c2 e8, Gelashvili-Lu ther, alaguer 2007) 12..."e7, when lacks position is preferable. After 10 f3 0-0, White must also bd7 6 d3 d6), and the idea is tha be ceful not to end up worse.  1 White should be able to make good xc6?! bxc6  2 b3 "c7 (or  2...e5) use of his extra tempo. As in many permits lack the initiative, while  1  other cases of reversed openings, b3 e5 ( 1 1 ..."e7 !?) 1 2 a3 (2 ce2 this strategy does not represent a seri "d6 1 3 h3 e) gives lack a choice ous danger for lack, mainly because between the equalizing 12...xd and it works best as a counterpunching 12...e8. White should possibly try 1 1 set-up, and is less well suited to pursu xd5 ! ? xd5 2 xd5 xh2+ 3 ing active plans. 4. .6 5 2 c6 6 i3 6  xh2 "xd5. 1  c  3 e6 12 2  13 cl

Now 13...ad8 is quite acceptable for example, 1 "c2 c8 5 fd1 fd8  6 "b1 d! ? 17 e xe  8 "xe d5 9 "g e6 20 "h dxe3 2 fxe3 h6 with equal play, .Geor giev-.lauert, Turin 2002. However, lack may well try  3...fd8, because the other rook could prove useful on the c-le. 13.2 4 c3 (D)

White chooses the Colle System. White is playing a nd of reversed Semi-Slav (the original looks like 1 d d5 2 c c6 3 f3 f6  c3 e6 5 e3



7 dxc5 !? xc5 8 b is a kind of re versed eran, but lack has no di culties after 8 ...d6 (8 .. .e7!?) 9 a3 (9 0-0 0-0 ansposes to note a to Whites 9th move) 9 ...0-0 10 b2 (1 0 c?! e5) 0... (0...e5 is unclear) 1 1 b5 e5 1 2 xe5 xe5 13 f3 (1 3 0-0 b6 1 f3 d6 15 c b7) 13 ...d6 1 c dxc 5 xc "e7 16 0-0 e5.  .. 8 c5

White switches to active measures, since otherwise lack will play ...e5 himself. For example, 8 e e5 9 e?! cxd 0 exd5 xd5  1 c g. In stead 8 "e2 c7 9 dxc5 (9 e cxd 0 cxd e5) 9 ...xc5 10 e transposes t

2 f c5 3 e3

our main line below. The immediate advance 8 e is parried without dif culty by 8 ...cxd 9 cxd e5 (provong simplications; 9 ...dxe!? 10 xe e7 is also an effective equalizing viation) 10 dxe5 (10 exd5 xd) 10 .. .xe5 1 1 xe5 xe5 1 2 exd5 g 1 3 f3 h6 1 e2 ( 1 h3 x 15 x xd5 16 xd5 xd5 also leads to equal play) 1 ...c7 15 h3 h5 with equality Samsonkin-.Frie del Toronto 2010. 8    e4 9 b still remains the alteative for White: a) 9 ...d6 10 b2 (10 a3 a5 is equal) 10 ...a6 (10...e7 is also possi ble) 1 1 a3 b5 12 a b8 1 3 axb5 axb5 1 e2 b6 15 d (15 e g) 15 .. .xd 16 exd d7 with an equal game. b) 9 .. .e7 10 b5 (10 b2 a6 1 1 a3 b5 12 a b8 13 axb5 axb5 1 e2 b6 and now White should avoid 15 d?! e5) 10...a5 1 1 b2 a6 12 a c7 1 3 c dxc leads to chances for both sides.  (D)

 

The game has te o ntor  the Fren Defene tog it i  b o means easy for ite to ex te e e5 advace as lacks acurat  qun move not only hiders it bt ets p some neat ideas for conteratacg the pawn if it does evetally re ach 5. 10 e2

Preparing the advance e5. fter 0 h3 d8 1 1 exd5 ( 1 1 e2 is et  1 l .. .h5 and 1 1 c2 with 1 l . .. ) 1 1 ...xd5 White has nothing t cot on. The exchange 10 exd5 ed5  1 b3 (not 1 1 h3? x3) 1 1...6 rit away delivers the initiative to l. Then 12 h3 allows a dangerou  pie sacrice but it looks as if la ks  tack only leads to a draw 12. . 3 13 gxh3 g3+ 1 1 x3+  5 h2 e5 16 e2 f3 17   1 8 f3 g (or 1 8...5 1 5 ae8 20 d6 d8 2 1 e5 wit e ity) 19 xd5 xh2 20 xh  8 2 1 g1 c7 22 g3 xg3 23 f 3 f5 2 f3 xd5 is equal. Iste 1 2. . .le4 ! ? 1 3 lbd4 l�d 14 lx4

d6 maintains the tnsion an kes the initiative. Oter typical li es e 1 2 bd g 13 a ( 1 3 e  1 xd xe2) 13...xd 1  fe8 1 2 c 2 g (1 2...e5 1  5 xe5 1 d! xd is eq al)  fd d7 1 g5 g 12 1  13 e3 fe8 1 xb6 b6  5 xe8+ xe 16 3 xf3 17 ' e5 and 12 g5 e 13 c1  ( 1 3...d6!?) 1 f d 7 15  with a choice betee 15 ... 5  the eqal 1 5...xd 1 6 xd4 xd 10 6!?



A OCOI HESS ENING EETOIE FO BC

Now lack appears in the role of the provocateur, tempting White with the standard idea of a bishop sacrice on h7.  ...b6 has a similar idea: 1 1 e5 (lack can be content with I I h3 h5, 1 1 c2 d7 or 1 1 b3 e8)   ..d7! 2 xh7+ (lack has the initiative after 12 e f6) 12...xh7 1 3 g5+ g6 1 d3+ f5 15 xe6 xe5 1 6 x8+ x8 17 3 e 1 8 d2 e5, with chances for both sides. 11 e5

If White does not take up the chal lenge, he forfeits the initiative. For ex ample, 1 1 h3 h5 12 d f 13 b3 xd3 1 xd3 e7 15 exd5 d8 or 1 1 b3 d6 1 2 b2 b7  3 exd5 (13 c?! d allows lack to take over the initiative), when lack can try 1 3...exd5!? or settle for equality ater 13...xd5  g3. ll g4! (D)

12 h7+

Half-measures are of no use  1 2 b?! e7 13 e f6 i s in lacks a vour.

12  h7 13 g5+ g8 14 g4 e5 15 h5

Or 15 d3 f6 (1 5f5 16 xf5 exf5 17 e 6 is another idea) 16 h5 (16 a is answered by 6...e5, while 16  g6 leads to an equal game) 16...h 6 17 x h6 gxh6 18 h3 h7 19 f a6 and lacks position is prferable, Pamesw Zicki, Erevan Olympiad 1996. 15 5 16 g4

After 16 d3 a6 17 d 1 (1 7 e? f6) 17.  .d3 18 g g 6 19 xg6 xg6 lack also has good pros pects, Fenollar ordaGonzalez Gar cia, arbera del alles 201 1 . 16 g6 1 g6 g6 18 3 e7 19 h3 e5

lack has the advantage in the end ing. 133

4 3 (D)

This set-up is kown as the Zuker tort Attac. Among all the develop ment systems or Wite considered in the present chapter, this one is the

2  cS 3 e3

most flexible. For the time being the c2pawn remains in its place, but can be moved forward to c at an appro priate moment.   c6 5 3

The straightforward 5 b2 leaves lack more possibilities for improvi sation: a) 5 ...f6 6 d3 a5+ (6...b6 7 00 transposes to our main line below) 7 c3 (7 bd2 cxd 8 exd a3 is equal) 7 ...cxd!? 8 exd e 9 0-0 f5 is unclear; e.g., 10 b c7. b) 5 .. .cxd!? 6 exd ge7 7 d3 g6 (or 7 ...f5 8 0-0 e7) 8 0-0 g7 9 c3 (9 bd2 0-0 10 e b6) 9...00 10 bd2 d7 with unclear play, San Emeterio CabanesArencibia, adrid 2002. 5 6 6 00

There is no need to play 6 a3, which again gives lack an opportunity for the useful queen check 6 ...a5+! ? 7 bd2 (7 c3 d6 8 00 e5 9 dxe5 xe5 is equal) 7 ...cxd 8 exd c3 9 b xd,  in Zarubin-akychev, Russian Team Ch, oscow 199. 6 6    (D)



White must now m  ipoant decision that will dtn th nature of the struggle 3.3.1: 8 c4 161 3.3.2: 8  162 For 8 e5, see Section 3.3.2. 1331 8 c

y playing in e centre, White opts for a standard position with hanging pawns. 8...c 9 e 6 10  After 10 bd2 0-0 Whites cente is defended better, but he has fewer at tacking chancs. In the followig lines, lack is no worse a) 1 1 e2 f 2 a3 c8 and now 13 c5 is met by 1 3...bxc5 4 dxc5 e5. b) 1 1 e5 dxc 12 dxc e7 1 3 e1 b 1 b1 bd5 1 5 f3 b5 (or 15...b8 !?) 1 6 e3 b 1 7 d1 c8, Hebden-E.erg European Union Ch, Liverpool 2008 . c) 1 1 a3 c8 (other possibilities include 11...e!? and 11...f4) 12 e1 dxc 1 3 bxc f 14 e4 xe (1...a5!?) 15 xe h6 16 g oers lack a choice between 16 ..g6, as played in ladenoviA.Kovae vi, Serbian Cup, aljevo 201  , and 16...a5!?. 10 00 (D)

10 .. .dxc 1 1 bxc 0-0 is sher. ite is in danger of losing on of s pawns, but lack risks coming under aack: a) 1 2 e1 c8 1 3 d5 ( 3 a3 a5) 1 3...b 1  (14 b xc4 5 dxe6 fxe6 16 e2 and now g4

62

A OC-O HESS ENING EEIE FO BLCK

17 3 xf 18 xe6+ 8 19 xg xg4 20 b3 c5 gives ack e iniiaive) 14 exd5 15 a3 a6 16 xd5 xd5 17 cxd5 c5 is uncear b) 12 e2 c8 1 3 ad1 (or 13 a3 a5 1 e5 b3 15 ad xd 16 x7+ x7 1 7 xd4 g5) 1 3b ( 1 3e8!?) 1 b (no 1 e5?! xd3 15 xd3 a6) 1xf3 15 xf3! (15 gxf3? fd5) 15xc4 16 d5 e7!? 17 a3 bxd5 18 xd5 xd5 19 x7+ 8 is uncear

13.3.2 8 2 (D)

is is a more direcy aggressive anding of e posiion Wie is go ing o pay e5, wic was e origi na idea of e Zukeror Aack 8 e5 d6 9 d2 eads o e same po siion

8i6 9 e5

11 'e2

Exchgig by 1 1 cxd5 oers  very ie ope of an advanage aer   exd5 or    xd5 1 2 x5 exd5  e8 12 a1 c8 13 i1

Wie mus no coninue 13 fe1 ?! b 14 b1 dxc4 15 bxc4 xf3 16 gx b8 17 e 5, when ack ges e advanage, Franco-ASoko ov, Pampoa 1993/4 13  i8

o sides ave cances Wie soud sil refrain from 1 fe1 ?! in view of 14 dxc4 15 bxc4 a5, wen 16 e5?! is me by 16  xc

Afer 9 c4, e ine 9 cxd 10 cxd5 xd5 1 1 xd4 x4 1 2 xd4 00 seems sucien for euaiy, wie 9 0-0 10 cxd5 (oherwise 0 cxd4 wi foow) 10 exd5 ca again reac a posiion wi anging pawns, bu now i wil be ack wo possesses em Whies exa empo would be of val mporance if is kgh were more acively placed on c3, bu ere ack can be uie code as is pawns won come under muc pres sure: 1 1 e5 ( 1 1 e1 e8) 1  b 12 b1 (12 e2 cxd4  3 xd4 c8) 12e8 9  00 10 a3

e paw covers e b4suare 10 e2 is me by 10b4, wie 10 f

2  c5  e3

is premaure in view of 10...cxd 11 exd b 12 e2 e wi a pleas an game for lack. 1  (D) is is ogoljubows manoeuvre, by wic lack wans o preven 1 1 f. u since e f advance is no really so dangerous for lack, e can also calmly wai for is move and en seek o exploi is loosening eec on Wies posiion: 10 ...c8 11 f (11 'f3?  'c7 12 'g3 e7 1 3 '3 e 1 f3 g5 gives lack e iniiaive) 1 1 ...e7 and now: a) 1 2 'f3 b5 (12...f5 ?) 13 dxc5 xc5 1 b (avoiding 1 'g3? e and 1 '3? e 15 ad1 f5) 1 .. .b6 1 5 1 (15 d? is unclear  Zsu.Pogar) 15 ...e 1 6 xe dxe 17 xe xe 18 'xe 'd5 19 xd5 xd5 20 d7 fd8 21 xb6 axb6 and lack as e iniiaive, Ko siDinger, udapes 2008. b) 12 'e2 e 1 3 xe ( 13 xe dxe 1 dxc5 xc5) 13...dxe 1 c cxd (1...f5!?) 15 exd (15 xd f5) 15...f5 16 a and lack can pursue e iniiaive by 16...'c7 or 16...xe5? 17 dxe5 'c7. erefore, afer 10...c8, e calm coninuaion 1 1 'e2 e7 12 dxc5 (12 fd1 g6 was equal in Cvian Caruana, European C, udva 2009) 12 ...xc5 deserves aenion, aloug in is case e posiion will be ap proximaely level. 11 'e2



lacks idea is a 1 1 f is well me by 1  ...e, wen 1 2 f3? f6 1 3 g cxd 1 exd 5 is clely no good for Wie. 1 2 'e2 can be answered wi 12 ...c8?, ansposing o line b of e previous noe, wile 12...f5 13 ad 1 oers a pleasan coice beween 1 3...'e7 and 13...c8. 1 1 '3 g6 1 2 '3 is raer a du bious plan. en 12...e is equal, bu lack can also op for 1 2...cxd 1 3 xg6 xg6 1 exd. Afer 1. . .g5 ? i is lack wo as aacking cances on e kingside, wile 14 ...5 1 5 g3  was equal in agirov-Kociev, nin grad 1989. ll  12 l e complicaions afer 12 xe dxe4 13 dxc5 xc5 e quie favour able for lack; e.g., 1 ad1 'c7 15 'g f5 16 'g3 f 17 'g fxe3. 12 e game is complex, wi cances for bo sides.

4 Rare nd and rd Moves after 1 d4 e6 1  e6 (D)

o complee our reperoire wi 1 e e6 and 1 d e6, i remains ony o consider a viey of more minor con inuaions for Wie on moves 2 and 3 a aven been covered in earlier capers ere isn muc poin dwelling on some of ese opions because lack can obain a good posiion simply by ogical developmen or else direc e game o ines we ave aready exam ined by bearing in mind suiable rans posiions For insance, 2 g3 c5 3 c3 (3 d5 exd5  g2 f6) 3  d5  g2 f6 5 f3 e7 or 2 c3 f6 (2 d5 of fers Wie a Frenc Defence rig away) 3 g5 (3 f b) 3 d5 

 ( e is a Frenc)  bd7, wen 5 e can be me by 5 6 We sall focus on ee ines were ack can face more signican open ing problems:  In Secion 1 1 we examine a pos sibe forms of e London Sysem Wies key move ere is f, and we need o consider 2 f, 2 f3 c5 3 c3 (wi f o follow) and e immediae 2 c3, inending a uick f ese as wo move-orders may aso be used by players looking o employ some form of oe A ack, wi g5  Secion 12 feaures 2 f3 c5 3 g3 or 2 g3 c5 3 f3 is as ideas akin o a Caaan, and can ranspose o mainsream openings afer Wie pays c However, lack can direc e game ino a fo of reversed Gnfed were Wie will nd i ard o ge muc racion on e black posiion  Afer 2 f3 c5 3 c3 (Secion 13) we are, concepualy a leas, ging agains our own weapon: Wie uses an unusual moveorder o make i more dicu for ack o acieve is ambiions Higy original posiions resu in many ines

E N AN  OES AE 1 d4 e6 14.1

e London Sysem is a ae popu a sceme of deveopmen wee ie pays d, f, c3, e 3, f3 and bd2, in one sequence or anoer Generay speang, ie seeks a vey eiabe posiion wi a sig iniia ive. ack can aio is repy accod ing o Wies pecise moveorde, or ese reduce is wokoad by adoping a univesa meod a can be em poyed agains a forms of e Lon don Sysem e examine: 165 1.1.1: 1  e6 2  166 1.1.2: 1  e6 2 3 c5 3 c 1.1.3: 1  e6 2 !? 167 Noe a wiin hese as wo sec ions, we need o bea in mind a ie isn ye commied o paying f, and may seek o pro om some oer deveopmen sceme. 14.1.1 1  e6 2  (D)



and a rapid shpeig of the stge e absece of he moe  and f6 can  ou o be i lack s fa vour. 2 ...c5

ack can also jus igore Whies moveorder ad pay 2  d5 3 e3 f6  f c5 5 c3 (5 c3 a6 is equa) 5 c6, ansposing o Secio 1.13 is rpresens the universa mehod menioed above. 3 e3

3 c3 b6 geneay eads o came pay, since ie can defend is b pawn by  c2 cxd 5 cxd c6 6 e3 b (6f6 7 c3 b4) 7 b3 (7 'd2 d5) 7 .a5 8 c3 (8 d2 b6) 8 ..f6, wen e game is approxi maey equa. Insead,  b3?! xb3 5 axb3 cxd 6 cxd c6 is no oy in sipid, bu i aso eads o the more peasa posiio for ack. 3 ...c  e b6 5 c3

ite is no bound o ener e compicaions, bu in he vaion 5 b3 f6 6 f3 (6 c3 d6!?) 6 d5 7 d2 c6 ack has o probems. Te pure gambi 5 f xb2 6 bd2 f6 gives ie some empi but o ce compensaio for te paw. Al tha eaves is 5 a3 xb2 6 b5, whic rasposes o the mai ine beow 5 ...b2 6 b5

6 d2 may be parried by 6 ...b6 o 6  a6 6 ... b+  e2 6 (D) 8 b1

is sraighforward move aows counerpay agains ies b2-pawn

ack is safe after 8 f3 f6 (8  .f8!?) 9 c7+ d 10  ( 1 0 a3? ! e 1 1  c3 1 0  'a2 1 1 xa8 d5 Whie should aoid 8

66

A OCK-OI HESS ENING EEIE FO BCK

wie ng canno escape from e cecks. c) 14 �e3 oers ack a coice beween wo accepabe endings: c1) 14... xd4 15 �xd f6 16 �xa7 d6 (or 16...b5) 17 �e3 b5 18 b6 �c5 ooks safe enoug for ack. c2) 14 ...b5+ 1 5 e1 a5 1 6 x g7 c3 1 7 g5+ xg5 1 8 �xg5+ f6 is no easy o assess, bu i doesn appear bad for ack. c7+?! d8 9  g5!?, wie 8 b 1 can be me by 8 ...xb1 9 c7+ d8 10 xb1 e5. 8 •••  9 c7+!? A courageous aemp o pay for a win. I is no advisabe o pay 9 d5? f6, bu Wie can repea moves by 9 a1 b2 10 b1, ec. ack as o ake is drawing line ino consider aion if e cooses is variaion.

141.2 1  e6 2 3 c5 3 c3 (D)

9•••e 1 8 + 11  b1 12 f3

No 12 c3? c2+ 13 �d2 (or 13 d2 e4+ 14 e3 d6) 1 3. . .d6 14 xg7 b6, wen ack wins (onsen and Kovaevi). 12••c2+ 13 2

I is evideny weaker for Wie o coninue 13 �d2?! xd2 14 xd2 b6. 13 ••c5

Now a) Wie soud avoid 14 'xc5+ ?! xc5. b) Afer 14 'xg7 �xd2 15 �xd2 (15 xd2 'xf2+ 16 d3 xf4 is eua) 15...f6 16 x8 '5+ e game ends in a draw again, since e

is exibe move-order reains ideas of eier f4 or �g5, or some oer sysem compleey. 3•••f6 3 ...d5 embodies e universa re py a we refeed o in e inoduc ion o Secion 14. 1 : raer an ry o expoi any specia feaures of Wies move-order, lack is appy for is opponen o se p is preferred for maion. en 4 �f4 c6 5 e3 f6 ransposes o Secion 14. 1 .3. o en usiass wi gain ie aer 4 �g5

E N AN  OES AE 1 d4 e6

16

e7, wile  e3 was covered in Sec on 13.2. Noe a lack sould in one way or anoer ake conrol of e e square since afer 3 ...c6  e d5 5 exd5 we nd ourselves in Alapin Si cilian erriory.  g5

Wie adops e orre Aack.  f is less eecive ere in view of  ...e7 (...c6 5 e3 5 6 g5 b6 is also quie good) 5 3 (5 e3 is me by 5 ...5, wile 5 bd2 cxd 6 cxd c6 7 e3 5 was equal in .Georgievvancuk, Merida 2006) 5 ...cxd 6 cxd b6 7 'd2 (7 c2 c6 8 e3 b 9 b3 bd5 is equal) 7 ...e 8 c2 c6 9 c3 f5, wi a good game for lack. tc6 5 e3

Now i is no advanageous for Wie o seize e cenre by 5 e since lack is back wi 5 ...cxd 6 cxd (6 e5 6 and 6 xf6 xf6 7 cxd d5 sow lacks oer ideas) 6 ...b6 7 c3 d5. 5  h6 6 h 6  3

Wie can also play 7 c2 d5 8 bd2 d7 9 e2 (or 9 d3; 9 xf6 gxf6 is unclear) 9 ...cxd 1 0 exd h5.   5 8 t2 (D)

e queen excange 8 xb6 axb6 quie suis lack; for example: a) 9 a3?! c gives lack e ini iaive afer 10 b5 a5 1 1 a a7 or 10 c2 e 1 1 d2 xd2 1 2 xd2 b5 13 a3 5. b) 9 bd2 c 10 a3 b5 and now 1 1 b1 is me by 1  .. .g5 1 2 g3 h5, wile 1 1 xf6!? gxf6 1 2 b1 leads o equaliy.

8•th5

I is simpler o play 8 ...d6 9 e2 d7, wi an equal posiion. Wih e exmove lack wans o enliven he game.  ie2

Whie can preserve he saus quo in e variaion 9 g f6 10 h3 d6.  g5 10 te5 te5

lacks oer ry is 10...cxd!? 1 1 xf7 xb3 1 2 axb3 xf7 1 3 xh5+ e7 1 g3 dxc3 15 bxc3 g7 16 c d7 11 e5 gh4 12 6 6 13 ih5 g8 1 g hg3 15 hg3 5

o sides ave cances in a com plicaed endge, Panov-Nepomnia schy, Russian eam C, Dagomys 2009. 14.1.3 1  e6 2 c3!?

A raher suble inoducion o e London Sysem. 2 ...5 (D)

2 .. .c5 s of course posble, b afer 3 e d5  exd5 we have ped o an Alapin Sicilian.



 OC-OI HESS ENING EETOIE FO BLC

3 i

Aer 3 f3 i is no bad for ack o op for 3 d6!? 4 g5 (4 bd2 5) 4 f6 5 4 e7 6 e3 c5 3 ...c5

is is e universa approac as appied o is move-order, as we sa in wo moves ime reac a posiion a ack can acieve agains a fos f e ondon Sysem If ack wises o expoi he pecu iariies of Wies precise seuence, he can pay 3 d6 en: a) 4 xd6 cxd6 gives ack an eua game, as is doubed pawns use fuy cono cenra sues b) 4 g3 f6 5 d2 0-0 6 gf3 b6 7 e3 b7 8 a4 (8 d3 e4 is un cear, wie 8 e5 c6 is eua) 8 c5 wi euaiy, GrivasSandas, Poro Caas 2008 c) 4 e3 f6 5 f3 00 6 bd2 ( 6 g3  7 bd2 f5) 6 xf4 7 exf4 c5 8 dxc5  is eua  e3 c6  3 6 6 d2 (D)

is posiion is e resu of an opening compromise: Wie as suc cessfuy acieved is desired opening

formaion, and ack sees noing bad in a for imsef 6id6  ig3

is is e mos aggressive coninu aion e foowing ines ave aso been ried in pracice: a) 7 d3 sows a Wie is no oo conceed abou pawn-srucure 7 xf4 8 exf4 b6 (8 cxd4 aso eads o euaiy) 9 b3 (9 dxc5?! xb2) 9   cxd4 (9xb3!? lO axb3 cxd4) lO xb6 axb6 1 1 xd4 xd4 s eua b) 7 dxc5 xc5 8 d3 0-0 9 00 6! ? (9  d6 lO xd6 xd6 1 1 e4 d8 and 9 e8 lO e4 e5 1 1 g5 d4 are aso possibe) lO 3 ( 1 0 e4 ?! 5) 10  d6 1 1 xd6 'xd6 12 e4 d8 wi eaiy c) 7 g5 6 8 4 0-0 9 d3 (9 e2 b6 10 0-0 b7 is aso ea) 9 e8 10 0-0 ( lO c2 e5 1 1 dxe5 xe5 1 2 xe5 xe5 ! ?) lO e5 and e game is eve d) 7 e5 appears aggressive, bu is us ou o be a premaure inr sion, since er 7 7 Wie as no convincing foowup:

E N AN  OES AFTE 1 d4 e6

d1) 8 b5?! 0-0 9 xc6 bxc6 gives ack e preferabe game; e.g., 10 0-0 b8 1 1 b1 cxd4 12 cxd4 c5. d2) Afer 8 df3!? cxd4 Wie soud see for 9 xc6 wi an eua game, since 9 exd4?! e4 10 xc6 xf4 1 1 ce5 f6 ds ack e ini aive. e) 7 xd6 'xd6 8 b5 d7 9 0-0 (9 'a4 b8 !?) 9 ...0-0 10 a4 a6 1 1 xc6 xc6 12 e5 d7 1 3 xd7 xd7 14 a5. Wie is reying on is knigh o prove superior o e back bisop, bu by opening es for is rooks ack secures enoug couner pay: 14 ...b6! 15 axb6 (15 'b3, as payed in e game Kvenys-ivo ruchko, Cappee a Grande 2008, can be me by 15...cxd4 1 6 exd4 ab8 17 'c2 fc8) 15...8 16 'c2 'xb6 wi eualiy.   00 8 3

I s si oo eary for 8 e5 in view of 8 .. .'c7 9 f4?! cxd4 10 exd4 e4 (10...e8!? 11 d3 f6) 11 d3 f5, bu 8 b5!? is more ineresing; for nsance, 8 ...'e7 9 xc6 bxc6 10 'a4. ack mus ac vigorously o avoid coming under posiiona pres sure: 1  ...cxd4 1 1 exd4 ( 1 1 cxd4 b8 12 xd6 'xd6 is unclear)   .. .h5!? 12 x6 (1 2 'xc6?! 3 13 xg3 b8 eaves Wie in consderabe da ger) 12...'xd6 13 0-0 (13 g3 f6; 13 e5 c 5 14 'a3 b 6 15 dxc5 'c7) 13 .. .f6 wi counerpay. 8 b6 (D)

hs posion is reminiscen of e Zukeror Aack (Secion 1 3.3.2), and ack may defend imsef simiary.  

9

9 0-0 xg3 10 xg3 b7 eads o an eua game, and e empng 9  is parried by e coo-heae reea 9  e7!, wen 10 dxc5 bxc5 is eal, 10 e5? ! is me by 10 ...h5, a 10 'c2 by 10...cxd4 11 e5 5.   Jb 10 4 e 1 1 ' Oerwise 1  ...e4 and en ...f6 wi foow. le8 So aks kig goes o another sue. lack can aso choose 1 1 ...f5  2 f2 e7, inening 1 3...d6 wih uncear pay, Mikov-orges Maeos, ouca 2009. 12 2 6

Now We can ecde beween a draw by perpeua ceck (13 xh7+ x7 14 'h3+ g8 1 5 'xe6+) d 13 '3 f5 14 g4 cxd4!, wi chces for bo sides. 14.2 1  4 e6 2  c5 3 g3 (D)

Wih s ybr varao, e pospones he move c4. Now laks ask (from he po of ew of our reperoire) is o avo co uer

17

A OCKO HESS ENING EEIE FO BLCK

pressure in a main ine of e Caaan or aasc 3c4 4 4 5 5  5 c f6 (5 e5!?) 6 g2 rans poses o Secion 121

imes e game acquires an origina naure, bu i appears a is is Wies ony rea acievemen For exampe: a) 1 1 d c6 and now Wite soud see for e uncear 12 1, since 12 xe6?! fxe6 13 e 'b6+ 1 1 d gives ack e iniiaive b) 1 1 1 c6 12 e3 00 1 3 d d7 ( 1 3c8!?) 1 xe6 (1 f5 gxf5) 1fxe6 15 g1 ad8 (Ro manisinuvsein, Monrea 2003) and ere 1 6 e enabes Wie o main ain equaiy 8 (D)

5 t6 6 00

6 c is again Secion 1 2 1  6e5  3 e6 We now ave e Grnfed ine 1 d f6 2 c g6 3 f3 d5?!  cxd5 xd5 5 e b6 wi reversed coours and wo exra empi for Wie is facor woud normay be a damning indic ment of an opening ine, bu a form of Gnfed eaves ack wit a very passive game Can Wie pu is exa empi o good use, or wi ack be abe o cac up in deveopmen wie si enjoying is exceen pawn cene? 8 5 8 c c6 9 cxd5 xd5 is inoen sive for ack, bu 8 c3 !? e7 9 f (9 g5 bd7 ransposes o te main ine beow) 9  exf is more danger ous e naura 10 xf ! ? c6 as no so far been seen in pracice, bu 1 0 gxf g6 as been examined severa

9 tc3

9 e dxe 10 c3 e7 1 1 xe 'c7 aows ack o nis is deve opmen in safey, wereupon e wi no experience dicuies e aempt o begin e siege of e d5-pawn rig away by 9 e3?! 6 (9b6!? 10 c3 e is more vigorous, uning e waywd w bisop) 10 xf6 xf6 1 1 e2 ( 1 1 c3 b) 1   a6! ? 12 c3 c7 13 ad1  appears unsuc cessfu

E N AN  OES AFTE 1 d4 e6  e

An accepable aleaive is 9 ...6 10 xf6 xf6 1 1 'd3 (1 1 f 'b6+ 12 1 exf 1 3 gxf d8) 1 1 ...e 1 2 b5+ (12 'd e7 13 c5 a6 is eual) 12...'d7 13 'xd7+ xd7 wen lack sands no worse.  

I is cear a 10 xd5?? xd5 is no use o Wie and 10 e3 only leads o eualiy afer 10 ...e 1 1 d 'b6. Meanwile 10 e dxe ransposes o e noe o Wies 9 move. ...e 1 i

e exravagan 1 1 gxf b6 12 f5 d7 also gives Wie no advanage ere. '6 e game is rougly level. e pos sible loss of e d5-pawn sould no perurb lack oo muc; for exampe afer 1 2   ( 12 e3 6! ?) 1 2...0-0 13 xd5 ( 13 xd5 x5 1 xd5 ad) 13...a8 e as uie enoug posi ional compensaion.

7

A rare bu ineresing coninuaion.

3 ... c

e line 3 ...d5  e f6 5 exd5 is no enoug for eualiy.  

 xd c6 5 'a ardly de serves serious aenion. lack can coose 5 ...a6! ? 6 e d6 or 5 ...f6 6 e b 7 d2 (euscler-Hess Graz 2008) 7 ...d5 wi eualiy.  ...6 5 t5

5 e c6 ranspoes o e Sicili Four igs coniere in Caper 1 1 . However Wie a oer pl  i us ou a e Sicilian Defenc can also be playe wio   e! Le us noe only tat it wo b inaccurae for Wie o play 5 f i view of e repy 5 ...a6. 5 ...6 6 i e5 7 i5 a6 (D

14.3 1   e6 2 3 c5 3 c3 (D)

Wies opening experimen as l o a posiion a looks rar iil o e Svesnov Sicilian  ly the moves e and ...c6 e lacn. Both sides ave ways  ai ompleting e ansposiion. 8 6

 

A OCKOI HESS ENING EEIE FO BLCK

e immediae rerea of e knig b 8 a3 is e aleaive: a) 8 ...e6 9 xf6 (9 e bd7) 9 .. f6 10 d5 (10  'g6) IO ...'d8 I I e (   c d7)   ...d7 1 2 c c8 13 ce3 (13 c3 ') 13...e7 1 e2 0-0 1 5 0-0 g5 is equal. b) 8 .. .bd7!? 9 c 6 10  ( 10 xf6 xf6 1 1 e e6 gives lack e iniiaive) I O...g5 1 1 g3 c5 1 2 f3 b5 (12...e6 13 e c8) 13 e3 e6 1 ed5 xd5 15 xd5 a 16 b1 b6, wi cances for bo sides. 8 9   (D)

  Wie can also play 10 g3 e6 1 1 g2 d7 1 2 00 5 !? ( 1 2...'a5 13 d5 c8) 1 3 xb7 b8 1 xa6  or 10 e3 c6 (10...b5 1 1 d5 e6)

1 1 d5 (1 1 c b5 12 d5 d7) 1  ...e6. ese variaions are di cul o evaluae wi a ig level of cerain, as is our main line.  ••  Avoiding IO .   c6!?, wic ans poses o a sideline of e Svesnikov a is oug saisfacor for lack.    Now 1 1 ...c6 would anspose o a main-line Svesnikov Sicilian.    (D) e variaion 12...g7 13 a bxa ( 1 3...b!? as e idea 1 xb e3, and can be me b 1 d2, wi un clear play) 1 bc3 c6 1 5 xe 00 is wor of noice.

      e game is uncle.

15 Should Black Play l vs Flan k Open i ngs? learly e move l e6 is playable af er any opening move by Wie and as a maer of principle one would lie o make our 1 e6 repeoire complee by recommending i agains moves suc as I c and I f3 oo However e mere fac a e move can be played does no necessarily mean a is would be a coeren reperoire For a o be rue ere would need o be rans posiions a work in lacks favour by lessening is workload and eas of saegic common ground beween e ines e needs o andle Above all is coice agains I  and I f souldn mean a e is forced o anspose o uge acs of I d or I e eory a e as ieo been able o avoid Unfounaely afer I c e6 2 f3 (2 c3 and 2 g3 mus also be considered) or I 3 e6 2 g3 i is very dicul o propose for lack any worwile orig inal ideas a give is moveorder some real purpose wiin e conex of our reperoire Cerainly ere e inde penden ideas bu ey are more a case of originaliy for e se of original iy an anying else Oerwise e play jus reaces usual eoreical con inuaions So if simply playing e6 agains all of Wies reasonable rs moves is

. . .

e6

no e end in iself en we sould a leas seek answers o ese moves a  as well as possible wi our cosen reperoire e basic problem lies in e fac a aer 1 c or 1  ie can seek o ranspose o 1 d openings a may no be wiin our openin prepaion And wile in e case of 1 c c5 (Secion 151) e soluion may be no more complex an simply ad ing a few lines o ose covered in aper 1 2 e siuaion wi 1  is no so simple: lack mus eier allow e possibiliy of e Sicilian Defence ( 1 f3 c5 2 e  and here is no guar anee we will ge an Ope Sicilian for wic Caper 1 1 as prepared us) or prepare some oer rejoinder As an example in Secion 152 he variaion I f d5 2 d c5 is uoe bu i can serve mainly as a surprise weapon us e main purpose of his chap er is o provide uidance an a few ougs on ow you migh complee your reperoire 151

   (D) Caper 12 as aeay covre lis were ie plays n ely . Hr we briey examine lines in whch

1

A OC-O HESS ENING EEIE FO BLC

7 ..xc5 8 b4 a7 9 b2 00 10 'c2 (10 e2 dxc4 is eual) 10 ...d7 is un clear.      (D)

Wite delays te d4 advance or avoids it entirely.   I suggest meeting 2 c3 by 2 ...g6. Ten: a) 3 f3 g7 4 d4 cxd4 5 xd4 c6 6 c2?! (6 e3 is eual) 6 ...xc3+ 7 bxc3 f6 oers lack a pleasant game. b) 3 g3 g7 4 g2 c6 5 a3 (5 e3 can be met by 5 ...d6 6 ge2 f6 7 d4 00 or 5 ...e6 6 ge2 ge7 wit eual ity; 5 f3 d6 6 00 f6 will tanspose o lines covered below) 5 ...f6 6 b1 00 7 b4 cxb4 8 axb4 a5 9 bxa5 d6 10 d3 (10 f3 d5 is eual) 10...'xa5 is uncle.         After 4 e3 e6 5 d4 d5 anoter form of Symmetrical Tasc arises: a) 6 cxd5 exd5 7 b5 (7 e2 a6 ransposes to Secion 13.1.2) 7 ...d6 8 dxc5 xc5 9 00 00 is eual. b) 6 a3 a6 7 dxc5 (7 b3 cxd4 8 exd4 e7 and now 9 b2 b6 leads to eual play, wile 9 c5 can be answered by 9 ...b6 10 cxb6 'xb6 1 1 a4 'b8, wit an unclear game, or 9 ...e4!?)

s 

lack plays tis move befo ...g7 so tat e is better prepared to meet Wites d4 advance.   Wite can instead opt for wing play: 6 a3 g7 7 00 (7 b1 00 8 b4 cxb4 9 axb4 a5 10 bxa5 d5 and 7 d3 00 8 b1 d5 are eual) 7 ...00 8 b1 (8 d3 d7 9 b1 d4 10 b4 c6 yields eual cances) 8 ...b6! ? 9 b4 (9 e5 xe5 1 0 xa8 f5 also leaves te game level) 9 ...b7, wit approx imate euality.       In te variation 8 b3 a5 !? 9 a4 (9 c5 a4 is unclear, itiugovZou ian cao, Moscow 201 1) 9 .. .g7 10 c5 d5 lack stands no worse.   9  Wite as also exaned tese oter continuations, witout acieving any real advantage:

HO BCK Y    S LNK ENI

a) 9 e3 00 (9 5?) 10 b3 a6 I I b2 a5 12 a3 (or 1 2 e2 ac8) 12ab8 b) 9 xc6 bxc6 (9  xc6 10 e4 0) 10 f? (bo 10 c5 d5 I I e4 xe4 12 xe4 d5, as in GaiSevi, roaia Cup,  ibenik 201 1 , and 10 e4 -0 I I c5 dxc5 are eua) 1000 I I d2 e8 c) 9 c2 and now ack can seek counerpay by 9 5 10 4 c8 1 1 b3 3 12 b 00, wi eua pay, or 9 g4 ?; for exampe, I 0 d2 5 1 1 3 ge5 12 b3 (12 e3 is uncear) 12c8 13 2 ( 13 f4 x3 is un cear) 13f5 ? 14 4 g5  1 5 xg5 4, wen e ad seized e iniiaive in Leko-Gasimov, Asrakan 2010  •••    Or 10 b2 a5 1 1   ac8 (    fc8 12 a3 ab8) 12 e3 a6 13 a3 xd4 14 xd4 c6 wi euaiy, Andersson-a, Mam (4) 1983           '    o sides ave cances 15.2

      Wi is move, Wie prefers a ueens pawn opening raer an a pure Ri approac e radiiona Ri coninues wi 2 c4, wen I sug ges 2  d4 Here is a brief summary a) 3 g3 c6 4 g2 e5 5 d3 f6 6 0-0 a5 7 e3 c5 ? 8 exd4 xd4 is un cear b) 3 e3 c6 4 exd4 (4  dxe3 5 fxe3 xb4 6 d4 e5 gives ack e ini iaive) 4 xd4 5 xd4 xd4 6 c3

1

e5 7 d3 e7 wi approximae eual iy c) 3 b4? f6 4 b2 (bo 4 g3 c5 and  e3 dxe3 5 fxe3 e5? 6 xe5 bd7 are aso unclear) 4c5 5 e3 dxe3 6 fxe3 cxb4 7 a3 e6 is unclear Wies oer sandd way of pay ing e Ri is 2 g3, wen I propose e soid 2 c6 3 g2 g4 4 0-0 (4 e5 f5 is eual; 4 c4 e6 5 0-0 f6) 4 d7 5 d4 (oer lines run 5 c4 xf3 6 xf3 e5, 5 3 xf3 6 xf3 e5 and 5 d3 gf6) 5 gf6 6 c4 e6 7 3 5 8 b3 b6, leaing o a pro raced posiiona sgge wi rugy eua cances, AdlyZang Zong, any-Mansiisk Olympiad 201 0  is is an ineresig way o avoid e sandard coninuaions lack of fers is opponen a game of symme ry   e meek 3 e3 e6 aows us o reac Caper 1 3, and 3 c3 e6 is iscussed in Secion 14 1 2 a leaves 3 c5 e6 4 g5 (4  xc5 5 b5+ c6 is eua) 4 f6 5 e3 xc5 6 c4 c6 7 c3

1

A OC-O HESS ENING EEIE FO BLC

 8 a3 e7, wen Wie does no acieve y advange. A er idea is 3 c3, wi a kind of reversed igorin Queens Gambi, bu Wie s ea move doesn prove very useful. en 3 ...c6 4 f4 (4 dc5 f6 5 g5?! d4!) 4 .. .f6 5 e3 g4 keeps e game level. •••  Insead, 3 ...e6 is a aasc Defence, and 3 ...dxc4 is a line of e Queens Gambi Acceped  bo main-line openings a demand deailed prepa raion.    

is posiion is also known om e Symmerical Queens Gambi, i.e. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c5 3 cxd5 f6 4 f3 cxd4, bu a move-order gives Wie a variey of dangerous aleaive op ions

  5 d4 d5 6  (6 b5 a5+; 6 f3!? c6 7 e db 8 a3 'd 1  9 d1 a6) 6 ...f6 is also raer in eresing: a) 7 b5+ d7 8 xd7+ (8 e5 b5 9 xb5 'xd1+ 10 xd1 d5 1 1 1c3 c6 is eual) 8 ...bxd7 9 c3 e6 1 - a6 wi Wie some wa for preference. b) 7 c3 e5 8 b5+ d7 9 f3 (9 f5 b5 1  'xd8+ xd8 1 1 xb5 e4 leads o unclear play, wile 9 d7+ d7 is eual) 9 ...  10 b3 (10 c4 00 11 00 xc3 12 bc3 c7) 10...xc3+ 11 bxc3  also gives Wie sligly e beer game.  •••   6 'd5 d5 7 d2!? (7 a3 g6! ? 8 e4 b6 is uncle) appears more dan gerous for lack, as Wie will keep e iniiaive for a lengy period; for example, 7 ...c6 8 e4 c7 9 f4 (9 c3 g4 10 d5 c8) 9 ...e6 10 e3 g6.       Afer 8 g5 d7 9 f6 ef6 10 d5 a7 lack successfully defends imself, argaogu,  ibenik 2008. •• 9         lack as uie good cances of eualiy, GenovSermov, Guingamp 211.

16 X-Files An opening reperoire is more an us a coecion of variaions; i is aso a variey of srucures and emes con neced wi ose viaions, and in or der o be eecive wi e repeoire we need o know ow o ande ese siuaions wen we are a e board. We can gain ese skis by experience and by addiiona sudy Wie decid ing wic ines o seec and wic o discard i is easy o ose sig of gen era consideraions and conceps. is caper is designed as a rs sep owards broadening your under sanding of e ines feaured in is book. Our focus is no on games were ack swep is opponen o e board, bu on posiions were ack ad o make a via decision, and in many cases faied o coose correcy. ese are in eec warning exampes  i is beer o e from e misakes of oers an o earn from our own. In many of e exampes a foow, e decision we are exam ning was no necessariy bad, bu was a eas insucieny oug ou, and a rs sep owards greaer difcuies. In some cases e error was a conseuence of a supecia approac o probem-soving, and wi e elp of ese exampes you can es your own eve of posiiona assessmen.

Eac key momen is marked wi  diagram and a capion    , so before reading e commenary a foows, give some serious oug o ow e soud con inue. e numbers a appear above e players names denoe e secion of e book in wic e opening ine is discussed. 3.2 Pavel Tregubov Svetlana Matveeva

Ra p Tk 1998

                             

   

178

A OCK-OI HESS ENING EETOIE FO LCK

 s a esul of is eea e bisop is diven away o e empy b1 7 di agonal and Wie keeps a supeioiy in e cene Howeve i is oo ealy o claim a lacks coice is inco ec as e weakening of Wies king posiion is also elevan 10 �xf3 11 'xf3 xd4 is an aleaive        logical aemp o ceae coune play agains g4 fe 12'd7 13 e1 ae8 14 d5 only passive defence awais lack   '    is ook move is a wase of ime; i is bee o eea e bisop by 1  �7 rig away     '  fe e moe logical 16 f5 lack would nd eself in ae an un pleasan posiion

 lacks game is dicul bu acive play by 16 fe8 17 f5 xd4! 18 �xd4 c6 19 �f2 e5 makes Wies ask fa ade

  Wie coninues o linge and even ends up losing e iniiaive 17 g5! would ave given im an ovewelm ing aack              Wie sows aciviy a a mos in appopae momen Afe 21 c I e posiion emains unclea      lack as e advanage aloug se wen on o ose ( 1 0 34 ) 46 Joel Benjamin  Daniel Edelman

 ok 

              '                         

      e wie ngs esidence is weak ened and lack aspies o aack wi

X-IES

...g5. However, in spie of e ouward ogic of is decision, e sarpening of e pay us ou no o be in is fa vour. If ack cases on e oer side  1 3 ...00!  is posiion is preferabe, as is king s safey is ensured and e eains e iniiaive on e queenside.    An impeuous repy  ack does no obain compensaion for e pawn. I is aso no eniey success for im o pay 1 ...dg8 15  g5! (15 ...b8 16 a3 ! gives Wie e iniiaive) 1 6 b5 a5 17 xg5 xg5 18 xg5 xg5 19 xg5 c (19...xg5 is rued ou by 20 'c 1 +) 20 f, wile e ine 1...b8 15  c8 (or 15 ...a5 16 x6) woud mean a swic o de fence.                  Wie wen on o win ( 10, 55). 47.2 Alexander Grishcuk Ni kita Vitiugov

Moscow 2010

                                   is unimey us eads o di cuies for ack. e opening of e g-e does no promise im any coun erpay, snce Wie manages o avoid weakening is kings posiion by play ing . Meanwie, e black e6pawn

9

becomes vunerabe, ad is circum sance, ogeer wi e undermining b3, aows Wie o seize e iiia ive. 10 ...6 is beer.      e immediae 12 b, meeing 12 .. .e7 by 13 b3, is even more reso ue.  A wase of ime; ack paeny dis regds e need for defence. He sould pay 12.. .b8 or 1 2...e 7.             I is aready oo ae.               Wie as a direc aack ( 1 -0, 36). 5.2 Leonid Stein - Wolfgang Uh lma nn Moscow 

                                         

8

A OCKOI HESS ENING EETOIE FO BLCK

for ack, bu e coud ry 1 8c5 !, keeping surviva cances                54 Garry Kasparov Andrei Karitonov

 Ch, oow 

    ••  is sap coninuaion is perfecy viabe, bu ack bady misjudges is consequences 1 b is safe Wies nex wo moves are obvi ous enoug       ack correcy considers e d3 bisop o be a source of direc danger and erefore es o proec 7, bu e way e does so is oo mecaica A moe sube defence is needed: 16  ad8! successfuy mees Wies acica reas, and mainains e equiibrium   Wie wans o egain e csquae fo is bisop  •••   e immediae ig sacrice 18 xe6! aows ack o od on by paying 18fxe6 19 xe6+ f7 20 c d5  • is eads o a crusing defea 18d5 19 xe6 is aso opeess

                                     '  One coud quesion is move, and sugges insead 13c7 u objec ivey, ack is si OK      

     •' In posiions ike is, ack ends o reain sucien counerpay even in an ending, bu e coud prefer o avoid e queen excange by 15a u

XIES

he main reason for disliking lacks decision o echange queens i s ha he helps his opponent ransfer his knigh o an excellent pos on e3          This careless move leads o real dif culies After 18a5 ack sil has a reliable position       Another poor move; 20 g7 21 g5 hg5 22 hxg5 fe4 is songer lack is rady to sacrice the d5-pawn, b Whi does not hurry o ae t, prefer ring to improve his pieces             The nal misake; 24  ed8 25  e is more tenacious  < <      Wite has a decisive positional ad vantage ( -0, 35) .32 Roeland Pruijssers Hagen Poetsch

Grnige 

                                                                       This rs viation serves as a vivid demonstration of he conemporary

181

approach to solving opening prob ems, under which te sraegic ug gle is replaced by a acical battle, somemes continuing all he way io he endgame In sc postions even a minor detail can be of pamoun im porance for he assessmen of he po siion For eample, now eher way for the queen o  is acceptable fo lack, bu combining the wo us ou o fail 22 e7 is the oher viabe move    Now hat lack has brough his queen ino bae, i is correc o keep i active by 23 h3  < A subtle rejoinder: e whie kng defends the c3kght, ualizg the aack a3 Ad thans o acks overly elaborate quee moevre, he h4-que is now inaccessibe to his qeen  y perseverng wit active mea sres, lack marches to s ath B all was not yet lost   hl ve ried 24g5



A OCKO HESS ENING EEIE FO BLCK

              +     6.3.3 Tatiana Kosintseva - Ho  Yian Jeuk (women) 

                             (D)

bishops eads to unpeasant conse uences      his break in the centre is typica in such positions Here the tactics sup porting it are not very compicated         6c6 17 dc6 c5 is sighty better  '     Now by paying 19 a4 White coud have secured  obvious advantage, though even after missing this she went on to win anyway ( 1-0, 48) 72 Peter Leko - Sergey Volkov

 Knocut, New Delhi 

     10cd4 is correct y aowing her opponent to jon up her pawn chain, ack oses the possibiity of pacing her kight on c5 and then (given the opportunity) on e4 As a re sut she suers om a constrained and sighty worse position, whie White retains attacking chances on the g side with 0-0, h  , g , g4, etc       ack is careess; the preiminary 12db8 is better he immediate at tempt to echange the ightsuared

                 '                      3a6 4 'd2 d7 is arguaby  more paatabe option         (D)

XIES

     • lack wans o acivae his French bishop bu chooses an inappropriae momen The simple 16a6 is more useful; eg 17 b xd3 1 8 cxd3 c8       This move seems like he naural conclusion of he manoeuvre bu he modes reea 1 8f7 is sronger  ' Whie could exploit his opponens carelessness and seize the advanage by 1 9 b! x d3 (1 97 20 g5) 20 cxd3 followed by ransfeing he knigh o d  •• Now lacks dream comes rue he gains counerplay along he cle            A ank sally of doubtful value Af er 23 e �xe (23 'd8 2 g5) 2  the posiion remains equal ••• 23  fd8 2 xa7 (no 2 g? �xd3) 2c1 + 25 h2 'h6 is more accurate and keeps he iniiaive; eg 26 g? xd3     '     This piece sacrice is more or less forced bu i is enough for equaliy   '    28  'xg is far simpler   '       Only 3 1  'd 1 +! keeps lack in the game when he compuer line 32 h2 a6! 33 c7 c8 3 c5 e1 35 h3

83

e3+ 36 'g3 e5 37 xa6 (37 f5 h6+ 38 g2 b6!) 37xc5 38 xc5 exf 39 xe3 dxe3 is equal!  '    Whie went on o win ( 1 0 39) 7.3.1 Ferdinand Hellers  Evgeny Bareev

World Junior Ch Gausda/ 1986

                      '    (D)

    ••• This is a fudamental error ha eads o a dicul posiion for lack He should take on d er 9cxd 10 �xd leaves the white bishop poorly placed and the pawn sacrice 10 xd xe5 has uncle conseqences    0  dxe5 1  xe5 xe5 2 'g3 is advantageous for te so Black ries to avoid he openig of lies

18

A OCKO HESS ENING EEIE FO BLCK

 000        lack should prefer 13 ...b6 1 c5 (1 f6+ f8) 1...c5 wh an nferor bu reslien poson.    Afer his error lack can pu up lle furher resisance. 1 .. .f8 s beer.       This concludng oversigh ends he game.        ' 10  Serge Ivanov Tiger Hllar ersson

    •• Afer choosing he somewha risky  ...c3+, heighened cauion s re quired of lack. The whie f-pawn s ready o advance, and lack has o de cde on which sque o hal s push forward. In his case anoher way o blocade Whies pawn-cenre looks more reliable 9 ...0-0 10 f f5!, wih unclear play. 10        00 I is very dubious for lack o op for 12...ef4?! 13 f5.   (D)

Stockholm 2001

            Earlier in he boo I recommended  ...c6 5 f3 c3+ 6 bc3, he poin beng o wai unil Whie had bloced his f-pawn.           00    (D) The developmen of evens is rathe neresing. lack is gong o aac he c4-pawn bu Wies heas on he ngside m ou in the long er o be more dangerous.  •• I loos more logical o coninue 1 3...a6 14 h5 h8 righ away. Those moves wihou which one can no manage anyway should be made rs of all.

IES

     Whe sakes everyhng on hs a ack. The calmer dea 5 a4 a6 6 e2 blocks lacks counerplay on he queensde.       Acvang he hosle bshop.                     Whe has he advanage ( 10, 36). 911 Kr l Georgev - evon Arona Bundesliga 200

                '      '    (D)

     A hghly dubous decson. lack mus be very cauous abou exchang ng queens, becase he has no  squares for hs ghs and n he long erm  wll be dcul for hm o ress



he srengh of he whe bshops. 9 ... exd5 s preferable.    Even here 10 ...exd5 deserved aen on.     !? f6 2  b6 (Malaako Rozenals, Cappele la Grade 200) 13 e3 s anoher promsng possb y for Whe. l l      b Ts paw mov  a y, whch ack mdae plo 1 3 f4 s sroer, and eps a a b lasng advaage        i b        if   1 8...b7 9 d2 a8 mas approxmae equaly

  b 0 b ib7 Now   v  should mmedaely   b5-pawn by 20.. .d7. Ae  i b3  poi o sll sem b           i    Whe w o o   34).

6

A OCK-O HESS ENING EEIE FO BCK

1042 Vladislav Tkacev Aleksader Delcev

rn m  2001

                                (D)

u allows him o urs hough in he cenre.    1 3...d7? is entirely ad due o 14 f4, but 13 ...xe2 14 f5 f8 15 xe2 g6 is a beter defence.                     White has a decisive advantage ( 1-0, 40). 1312 Mark Hebden - Cris Ward oun 2008

                        8 ...e7 is my recommendaion.   (D)     l l  

This continuaion is quie plausible, but clearly not he es, since now Whie could continue 12 4!. Com pare his with  1 ...00 1 2 4 h5, which oers Black good counerplay.    Black evidenly forges aout he wo empi already lost y him earlier in the opening, which mean that he mus be very cauious aout any lines where the game opens up. Now he should eiher castle or play 1 2...xf3! 13 xf3 a4, with good chances of equality. The iediate a-pawn ad vance locks Whies queenside play,

     A silar variaion exists in the Taasch Defence: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 c c5 4 cxd5 exd5 5 f3 c6 6 g3

XFE

f6 7 g2 e6 8 00 c8. Here lacks play seems a rs glance more logcal since Whie canno conine g5, b in fac i is very risky o de lay he developmen of he f8-bishop.      This is oo sluggish. y conining 1 1 g5 e7 1 2 e4! Whie can seize he iniiaive wih condence. ll  More logical is 1 1 ...e7 2 b3 e4 13 dxc5 xc5 14 b2 0-0, wih ap proximae eqaliy.    lack conines o provoke his op ponen.       

 13.2 Car s   LW 

B m /

    ! J J         d   ·        1      

    l l  

  Whie shold prefer he simple 15 xe4 dxe4 6 xd7+ xd7 7 d +, wih a nimal advanage.      Now afer 16...g6 17 xg6 f7 an nclear posiion wold arise. He in sead played    and wen on o lose afer misakes by boh sides 10, 38.

I is no so easy o feel he dier ence beween he variatons 0...b6 1 1 e5 and 10 .. .b6 1  e5, b his df ference is raher considerable. I he rs case lack shold reply wih 1  ...g4, and in he second, 1 1 ...d7.                lack nds nohng beter han of fering an exchange of qeens. 6.f6 loses o 1 7 g4 d3 1 8 e 1 or 1 7 h d3 1 8 g6, b 16.. . d8 1 7 e3 xg5 18 xg5 shold have been ried, even hogh Wie keeps he ini iaive.



A OCK-O HESS ENING EEIE FO BLCK

     The endng s dsncly beer for ie because hs g5kng occupies a dominan poson.                 Whe as an exra pawn alhoug e faled o win he game (f_f, 72). 413 Dragan Kosi - Stefan Mijovi onnrn m , nj 2009

                                (D)

    ll 

Ths connuaon mus gve rise o some doubs snce lacks basc dea

is o aack he we e5kng w hs fpawn bu now is idea is inde niely delayed. lack sould prefer   .. .e8 or   .. .f5 12  e7. Neverheless, lacks real hardsp only begins afer hs nex move.   Afer 12 h4 lack defends by 12...'c7 (no 12...f5? 13 g4) 1 3 'h3 g6.  1 2...f6? is no use due o 1 3 xh7+ xh7 14 'h3+ g8 15 'xe6+, bu e wosquare advance of he pawn is a poor subsue. lack should calmly play 12 ...'c7 (meeing 13 '3 w 1 3...f6) reanng he opon of drv ing he e5kngh away w ...f6 a some laer momen.              ' 1 7 h4 is more accurae denying e black kngh he g6suare. Wes advanage s hen obvous.    '       lack msses an excellen chance for counerplay by 20...f4! 21 b (2 1 xe4 dxe4 22 g5 d) 2  ...fxe3 22 xe3 f4.   '   '  '  Whe was hreaenng o rap e black queen by 24 b5.   Whe wen on o wn 10, 33.

Index o Variations A  e e6 2 d d5 3 c3 :  e e6 2 d d5 3 d2 C  e e6 otr s D:  d e6 2 c b4+ E  d4 e6 oer lnes F:  c and   A)

    

   66   

  

 d3 66  ed5 ed5 30  5 66  a) 5 '5?! 66 ) 5 3 66 5 ..c5 6 dc5 c6 7 f ) 7 a6  2)  ..c5 68 3) 7 . .c5 69 c) 5 ce2 70 5 c5 6 f4 c6 7 c3 c) 7 6  c2) 7 .e  d) 5 f  5 c5 6 f3 c6 7 e3 ( e2 ) d)  e7  d2)  .cd4 8 d4 d2 ) 8 c5  d22) 8  'b6       5 d3? 

5 f6  5 ed5  5 .ed5  5 



  6 e3  6   6  6 a) 7 e3  )  f  c)  '5  d)  e7   • '     d3      5   'g! ?   '5  7 'd2  7 . 00 a) 8 d ?!  ) 8 f  see  0-0        8 '5  8 'd2 c5 a) 9 b5?  ) 9 f3        Or: 9 g3  9 5  9 d3  9 dc5 c6 a 0 d2 

9

A OCKO HESS ENING EETOIE FO BLCK

 10 d3  10 c5   - h6  2 106   e6 6  2 g3 c5  B)

              5+   c3   dc5     a  cd     6 5 e5 d7 6 c3 c6 7 d3   7  6  2 7 h6        d5     5 5+      5 6     Or: 6 c3   6 c4! ?   6 dc5  6 d3  C)

   

2 e5  2 g3  2 c4  2 3  2 4  2 'e2     a 3  

 

) 3 3       (3 c3 )  a  d    c3 c6 5 d '6  c       a 3 'e2  a 3 6  a2) 3 c6   3 d2  3  6  g3 )  b6  2   e7        3 e3?  3 d3       a  c3  )  d3  c)  c3  d)  3  e)  c         dxc5? !  4 'g4?!   3    '   5 a3 c6 6 3       6 dc5?!  6 a3  6 d3         a 8 b3? !  ) 8 c3  c) 8 d3 !?      Or: 6 d7  6 c 

11

NE OF VAIATNS   

 

 

    ...

5 109

o    3 d2 2 3 c3 3 3 d2 1)

 4  1 13 ) 4 g3 113 c) 4 f3 00 11: c) 5 e3 11 c2) 5 g3 11

c3) 5 a3 e c31)  e3 11 c32)  g3 11 c33)  4 11 4  4 1 16

  o  �x4! ? 1 10;  f3 1 1 1   5 

 4 � 102 ) 4 � 102 c) 4   102 d) 4  102 e) 4 e4 10 4 ...  e) 5 d5 ?! 1

e2) 5 c2  e3) 5 d3 10 e4) 5 f3    99 Or

4 �4 12 4 x4?! 12 4   127 4 4 12 4  ! ? 126 4 c3 131

 

2)

. b 101:

3)

    ...  12 ... 118:  4 d2 119 ) 4 �x 1 19 4 .. .: ) 5 c3 120 2) 5 g3  3) 5 f3 121   127

 . .f 113:

  93  .

4 dc5 9 4 a3 9 4 f3 cd4 5 x4  16 4 � 93 4 d5 96:  4 96 ) 4   . : ) 5 g5 97 2) 5 f3 97

5 9

o  5  !? 126 ) 5  128 c) 5 g3  d) 5 c3 129





     2 e4  see 1 e e6 2  2 g3 16 2 .  . c5 3 f3 169 2 c3 16 2 4 16 2 c3! 167

9

A OCKO HESS ENING EEIE FO BLCK

 •   



  166   169   171   1       4  ! ? 1     ! ? 1:   4 16     18:    18   4 19     18 4  x x  4 4 19   4 19    10    11     13

   

 4  18  4  1  4 4 1 4  ! ?   :   ?! 16    16   x 17  4  160 4      00    :   4 161    162    162

  13   13   136    137  x 138  4 4   10

 

 

   

   

     

Now:    11 ;   4 12 

 

  5 1 7    1 73;  

173:   4 4 17      1 7   4  :   x 17    1 76     1 4    166   4 x4 4 x  1 76

 

  173

  

 

  



   17

   



 4 x4 4 x4  1

4  133

  13

     139

 ?! 13

Now:

   



 



 4 4 x4  x4  18  4  17  4   1 7