Attacking the English Reti (Delchev, Semkov).pdf

AttackingThe English/Reti A Black Repertoire with 1...e5/1...d5 Alexander Delchev Semko Semkov

Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com

Chess Stars Publishing Current Theory and Practice Series

Attacking The English/Reti

Cover design by Rustam Taichinov Copyright 1£)2616 by Alexander Delchev and Semko Semkov

Printed in Bulgaria ISBN: 978-619-7188-09-7

Contents Bibliography

4

Introduction

5

The English Opening 9

1.

l.c4 e5 2.g3 lllf6 3 ..ig2 c6

2.

l.c4 e5 2.g3 c6

3.

l.c4 e5 2.liJc3 liJf6 3.g3 c6

61

4.

l.c4 e5 2.liJc3 liJf6 3.liJf3 liJc6

73

5.

l.c4 e5 2.liJc3 liJf6 3.liJf3 liJc6 4.e3

85

6.

3.liJf3 liJc6 4.g3 .ib4 5.liJd5

44

101

7.

3.liJf3 liJc6 4.g3 .ib4 5..ig2

115

8.

Rare Second Moves

133

TheReti 9.

l.liJf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4

145

10. l.liJf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3

159

11. l.liJf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3

175

12. l.liJf3 d5 2.g3 c6

193

13. The King's Indian Set-np

215

14. l.g3

223

Index of Variations

Bibliography Books The Modern Reti, Alexander Delchev, Chess Stars 2012 The English Opening Volume I, Mihail Marin, Quality Chess 2009 Mastering the Chess Openings Volume 3, John Watson, Gambit 2008 The English Opening, Zenon Franco, Gambit 2006 How to play the English Opening, Anatoly Karpov, Batsford 2007 Periodicals Chess Informant New in Chess

Internet resources Databases The Week In Chess (www.theweekinchess.com) 10 Days (www.Chessmix.com) Chess Publishing (www.chesspublishing.com) Chess Today (www.chesstoday.net)

4

Introduction

This book aims to offer an active Black repertoire against The Eng­ lish Opening 1.c4, the Reti 1.ltlf3, and their siblings that arise after 1.g3. More importantly, we try to offer not only variations, but also a philosophy of how to treat such openings.

1.g3 e5 2.i.g2 d5 3.d3 ltlf6 4.ltlf3 i.d6 5.0-0 0-0;

A century ago they called them

simply "irregular". Since then, no­ body has revoked the importance of the centre, but nowadays we are so sweeped off by the torrents of variations the engines provide that we tend to forget convention­ al wisdom. Our reasoning is simple: if White

We apply the same approach to the Reti: 1.lilf3 d5 2.c4 d4! and if 3.b4 f6! 4.e3 e5

gave us a chance, we should seize central space; if he played passive­ ly, we should advance. Our goal is to reach an ideal pawn centre: 1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6 3.i.g2 d5 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.d4 e4;

You may find old books or anno­ tated games that criticize Black's set-up on the first diagram. All the better for you - this book will arm you with an innovative approach and thorough original analysis 5

which often refutes widely ac­ cepted assessments. Many of our main lines are nearly unexplored and they are blank spots in theory. Chapter 1 offers a repertoire based on l.c4 e5 2.g3?! li:lf6 3.i.g2 c6!. Chapter 2 presents an independ­ ent alternative repertoire based on l.c4 e5 2.g3?! c6!?. We explain the pros and cons of the two move orders in the corre­ spondent "Main Ideas" chapters. Both are of equal worth and claim the initiative since the first moves. We have not tried to find equal­ izers. On the contrary, we believe that Black has all the reasons to fight for an initiative so we chose enterprising lines, often connect­ ed with pawn sacrifices. We dis­ covered amazing variety of posi­ tions where Black can give up one of his central pawns to get a strong attack in return. Chapters 6 and 7 deal with a more restrictive approach from White: 1.c4 e5 2.li:lc3! li:lf6 3.li:lf3! li:lc6 4.g3. This is played "by the ABC­ book" and we have little ground for an early activity here. Still, we chose the most active options af­ ter the move 4...i.b4. We do not cover lines with 4...d5 at all. Especially interesting is the line 5.i.g2 0-0 6.0-0 e4 7.li:lgS hc3 8.bxc3 E1e8 9.f3. 6

This position has been in the lime­ light ever since the K-K match in 1987 and it seems that it is hyper topical again. We analyse both 9... e3!? and 9...exf3 in order to give you alternatives. I have always been eager to find an exploitative strategy against passive opening play. I have star­ ted with the set-up d5-e6. My idea was to advance slowly, gradually rolling the pawns into the enemy territory. The following game il­ lustrates the zest of this strategy:

Sveshnikov-Semkov Albena, 1 987 l.g3 d5 2.li:lf3 e6 3.i.g2 i.d6 4.0-0 li:le7 5.c4 c6 6.b3 e5 7.i.b2 f6

8.li:lc3 a6 9.d4 e4 10.li:lel f5 ll.f3

Introduction 0-0 12.ltlc2 �e6 13.fxe4 fxe4 14.sxfs+ Wxfs 1s.wa2 ltld7 16.ia3 ha3 17.ltlxa3 ltlg6 18.ltlc2 1Wf5 19.ltle3 '!Wh5 20.sfl ltle7 21.ltlcdl se8 22.sf2 1Wg5 23.Wlb4

This book presents a refined and more aggressive version of the above strategy. We emphasized on piece play, regarding the pawn centre as a mean and not as a goal. We can always sacrifice it in order to get to the enemy king. Finally, I should mention the line 1.lilf3 d5 2.g3 c6 3.c4 �g4 - Chap­ ter 12.

23...c5 24.1Wxb7 cxd4 25.ltlxd5 ltlxd5 26.cxd5 ltlc5 27.1Wc6 sc8 28.1Wd6 1Wxd5 29.Wixd5 hd5 30.e3 d3

It falls out of our general line of preparing ...e5, but it is the best way of meeting White's move or­ der according to Delchev.

31.©fl ltld7 32.el ltlf6 33.h3 sc2 34.sd2 scl 35.sb2 !k2 36.g4 h6 37.a4 @f7 38.b4 ©e7 39.b5 a5 40.b6 �b7 41.�fl ltld5 42.sb5 sh2 43.ltlf2 d2+ 44.©xd2 sxf2+ 45.©el sf6 0-1

The book is written in first person, but it is a collaborative work. Eve­ ry line has been checked and dis­ cussed by both authors Semko Semkov June

2016

7

Chapter 1. 1.c4 e5 2.g3 lLlf6 3.i.g2 c6

Main Ideas

This is the most important chapter of our book. It presents a sharp at­

case, White does not actively attack the centre.

tacking rep ertoire against White's pop ular approach in the English

I adhere to the classical school of chess. I believe in quick develop­

1.c4 e5 2.g3

quence of moves like l.c4 e5! 2.g3?!

Opening lately:

ment and central strategy. A se­

defies my understanding of the game. When I see the diagram posi­

tion, I think we should immediately

switch to "p unishing mode" and try to take over the initiative! The most consistent retort, in my opinion, is to

occupy the centre by ...c6 and ...d5. The big question is should we insert 2...lilf6 3.lilc3 and only then 3...c6, or answer 2...c6. Both move orders By delaying li:lc3, White leaves him­ self more options against the Re­ versed Sicilian set-up when Black

plays an early ...d7-d5. For instance, after 2...lilf6 3.i!.g2 d5 4.cxd5 lilxd5 5.lilf3 li:lc6 6.0-0 lilb6 7.d3 i!.e7,

8.lilbd2 is preferred over 8.lilc3. Another point against 2.li:lc3 is

are possible and have their own spe­

cifics. I discuss them in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 which propose two al­

ternative, albeit similar, repertoires against White's fianchetto. Chapter 3 covers 2.li:lc3 lilf6 3.g3 c6.

2

•••

li:lf6 3.i!.g2 c6!

the line 2...li:lf6 3.g3 c6 4.d4 exd4

5.®xd4 d5 6.il.g2 i!.e6 when 7.li:lf3 would face 7...dxc4. Stayed the knight on bl, White would have had a4, li:lbd2 while from c3 it cannot re­ capture the sacrificed pawn. These two examples reveal the rea­ son behind 2.g3. However, flexibil­

ity always comes at a cost. In our

9 ---··----

Chapter l White has three major plans from here:

1. White attacks the d5-pawn.

Mastrovasilis played it in 2013 and then it has occurred in practical chess only 4 more times. Black has scored a total of 4.5/5!

The tactical background of our setup was shown in the game Peter­ sons-Tal, Riga 1958: 4.lilc3 d5

5.cxd5 cxd5 6.ll!'b3 lilc6! Now 7.lilxd5 lild4 8.lilxf6+ 1ll'xf6 (or 8...gxf6), guarantees Black a lasting initiative for the pawn.

The critical line is 9.1ll'b5 when we shed in a pawn - 9...0-0!? 10.lilxd5 h6 n.lilxf6+ li:lxf6 12.M6 1ll'xf6 13.e3 a6!

He puts a rook on c8 and the threat of ...li:lc2+ forces the enemy to lose his castling rights. Throughout this chapter, we11 often see Black sacrificing a pawn for the initiative. That is not a speculative approach to the game aimed at fish­ ing in muddy waters. It stems from purely positional factors. White has neglected basic laws of chess and we got the chance of taking the centre. He might win a pawn in some lines, but that would give us a lead in de­ velopment. Thus we would transfer our static edge (pawn centre) into a dynamic advantage - active pieces. The core of my repertoire is the line

4.d4 e4! 5.lilc3 d5 6.ig5 lilbd7 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.'lifb3 id6! This position is nearly unexplored. 10

Now 14.1ll'd5 ib4+, 14.1ll'e2 ib4+ and 14.1ll'b3 ie6 15.1ll'dl tb4+ leave White's king in the centre, so 14.1ll'a5 looks best - 14...tg4 15.h3 ie6 16.lile21ll' e7 17.a3 f5 18.0-0 ic4 19 .111'd2 1ll'f7 2 0.l'lfcl l'lad8!

1.c4 e5 2.g3
White is unable to preserve his beau­ tiful pawn centre after 14...te6;. After moving one of the pawns, his dark squares will become sensitive. If White attacked our e4-pawn be­ fore castling, we could leave it and

2. White attacks the e4-pawn.

11.
take over the initiative:

4.d4 e4! 5.
We'll meet this break-through in a various settings - without i.g5, without i.g2 (in the chapters to fol­ low), with

You can get this position via vari­ ous move orders. It is promising for Black. If White does not attack d5 early, his only plausible plan remains f3-f3. We'll meet it with ...tb4, but then we have a choice: 1. To transpose to the above-men­ tioned examples by allowing i.g5. 2. To prevent the pin with ... h6: 6.
11

Chapter l 10...b:c3 ll.bxc3 .bh3! 12..bh3 li:Jxe4. I analyse this position in Chapter2,Game 5Nailer-Delchev, Ordu 2016.

3. White does not play d4.

Attacldng guide In the main line when White takes the d5-pawn, we aim for this attack­ ing scheme:

4.li:J:f3 e4 5.li:Jd4 �b6!

This rare move is the best way of ob­ taining active play. I do not like the common 5...d5 in view of 6.d3!. The queen move pushes back White's only active piece. Our idea is to grab as much space as possible and use it to attack the enemy. We often sac­ rifice a pawn to activate our forces more quickly: 6.li:Jb3 a5 7.a4 (7.d3 a4 8.ie3 '&d8!) 7...ib4 8.li:Jc3?!

26.g4 f4!! (26...ib3 27.'&e2 ic4;) 27.li:Jxe4 ib8 28.li:Jxg5 �c7 29.e4 f3+. If White does not take on d5, but decides to complete development first, we could offer b7 instead:

12...te6! 13.'l>l'xb7 h5! Our dominance in the centre justi­ fies such sharp onslaughts. White's queen is far from the kingside and he lacks any counterplay.

8... 0-0! 9.li:Jxe4 li:Jxe4 10.b:e4 d5 ll.cxd5 ih3 with a rout. Here are more examples:

We often do not defend our central pawns, but sacrifice them for activi­ ty. Thefollowing diagram is afterthe moves 4.e4 d5! 5.exd5 cxd5 6.cxd5 li:Jxd5 7.li:Jf31Zlc6 8.0-0 $.c5 9.Eiel

1.c4 e5 2.g3 lilf6 3.�g2 c6 11.i.g2 (11.12le3 h5) 11...0-0-0 12.b3 h5. Or 4.12lf3 e4 5.12ld4 Wlb6 6.e3 d5 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.0-0 i.g4 9.£3 exf3 10.hf3 fili3 11.i.g2 hg2 12.@xg2 12lc6 13.lilc3

9...0-0! 10.12lxe5 lildb4t. As a rule, if White takes the e4-pawn before having castled, we can keep his king in the centre with ...i,h3. Then his defence is not trivial:

13...0-0-0!?

Theoretical status

12...12ld7!. Then we simply put our rooks on the central files. We could even castle long in some positions with an open centre: 4.12lf3 e4 5.12ld4 Wlb6 6.lilc2 d5 7.12lc3 dxc4 8.0-0 i.e6 9.12lxe4 lilxe4 10.he4 12ld7

The set-up with ...c6 is not in the limelight of modern theory. Your opponents will often think that you chose a second-rate line and they will tend to underestimate Black's threats. Mihail Marin recommends in The English Opening Volume 1 4.d4 e4 5.lilc3 d5 6.i.g5 12lbd7 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.Wfb3, and ommits 8 ...i.d6! alto­ gether. John Watson in Mastering the Chess Openings Volume 3 does not even mention 1.c4 e5 2.g3 lilf6 3.i.g2 c6 4.d4 e4 (there is only a note on 4...i.b4+ ) . I found a fleeting remark about the sequence 1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6 3.d4 13

Chapter 1 e4 4.1Zlc3. He points out that 4...d5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.\Wb3 1Zlc6! is good for Black and concludes: "So perhaps 4 ...d5 is a satisfactory move after all." That's all. I could not find anything in The English Opening by Zenon Franco.

Conclusion In my own tournament and blitz practice I observe that White does not know what to do against the

... c6 set-up. My opponents confi­ dently play 4.d4 e4 5.1Zlc3 d5 and then start improvising. It is real­ ly rare to take over the psyhologi­ cal initiative so early in the opening with Black! My analyses will probably boost the popularity of this line so we could expect many important games in near future. To ensure the longevi­ ty of my idea, I propose a twin back­ up repertoire in Chapter 2, based on the slightly altered move order l.c4 e5 2.g3 c6. It is up to you to decide which one you like more.

Chapter 1. 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ttJf6 3.i.g2 c6

Step by Step

1.c4 e5 2.g3 qif6 3.�g2 The rare move order 3.qic3 trans­ poses to Chapter 3 after 3 ...c6.

3.. c6! .

6..ib2 d5 7.cxd5 qixd5 8..ixe5 0-0 9.a3
A. 4.qic3; B. 4.qif3; C. 4.d4 Exotic alternatives are: 4.\!!lfa 4 is a clumsy attempt to pre­ vent ...d5 which does not actual­ ly stop it as 4 ...d5 5.cxd5 b5 6.\!!lfb3
6.qif3 6.
Chapter 1 4...tc5 5.li:lc3 d6 keeps more tension, but it offers White a free hand on the kingside - 6.li:lge2 (The passive 6.h3 passes the initiative to Black after 6... b5) 6 ...0-0 7.0-0 ig4 8.h3, intend­ ing l!lh2, f4. 5.exd5 cxd5 6.cxd5 li:lxd5 and the game is level - 7.li:lf3 li:lc6 8.0-0 ic5 9.li:lxe5(9.E1el 0-0! 10.li:lxe5 li:ldb4) 9...li:lxe5 10.d4 ig4 11.1ll'a4+ id7=. The gambit 6 ...ig4!? keeps the fight on. For instance: 7.1ll'a4+ li:lbd7 8.li:lc3 id6 9.li:lge2 0-0 10.d4 a6 11.h3 th5oo. 7.1ll'b3 li:lbd7 8.li:lf3 e4 9.0-0 id6 10.li:lg5 li:lc5 11.1ll'c2 E1c8 12.li:lc3 0-0

White should lose a tempo on 9.ig2 (9.id2 li:la6 10.E1cl 0-0 does not change things much.) 9...0-0 10.ii:lf3 ii:lc6 11.0-0 i.e6 12..id2 f6 13.1ll'a4 1ll'b6 14.E1fbl, Georgievski-Sofrevski, Skopje 1976, when 14...a5+ starts an offensive on the queenside where Black is clearly stronger.

6

lilc6 7.li:lxd5 lild4 8.lilxf6+

•••

8.'l!lc4 li:lxd5 9.ixd5 b5 gives Black a strong attack. The main line of my analysis runs 10.txf?+ l!le7 11.1ll'd5 li:lc2+ 12.Wdl li:lxal 13.11\'xaS 1ll'c7 14.1ll'e4 l!lxf715.'l!lbl ib7 16.ii:lf3 ie7 17.'l!lxal ie4 18.d3 E1d8 19.lilg5+ ixg5 20.ixg5 txhl 21.ixd8 1ll'xd8+.

8

'l!lxf6

•••

Black has excellent counterplay: 13.f3 exf3 14.d4 Wb6 15.li:lxf3 li:lce4, or 13.b4 li:ld3 14.Wbl E1e8 15.li:lgxe4 ii:lxe4 16.ixe4 li:lf4! 17.ib2 1ll'g5i:::.

A. 4.li:lc3 d5 5.cxd5 5.d4 e4 transposes to line C.

5

•••

cxd5 6.Wb3

6.d3 is a passive move. According to our general strategy, we should gain even more space with 6...d4 7.li:le4 ii:lxe4(7... li:ld5 8.1ll'b 3=) 8.ixe4 ie7. 16

Practice has proved that Black's in­ itiative more than compensates for the missing pawn. Computer analy­ sis suggests that play is roughly bal­ anced, but over the board Black' s task is easier since he owns the ini­ tiative. In many lines White must find series of only movesjust to stay in the game. I must add that 8...gxf6!? 9.1ll'dl 1ll'c7 10.l!lfl ie6(or 10...ii:lc2 11.E1bl ie6)

is also good and Black's play is quite similar to 8... 'il'xf6. I will consider from here: Al. 9.'il'dl andA2. 9.'il'd3. Al. 9.%1'dl Ms 10.d3 1k8 11.lflfl tc5

A picturesque position. The bishop pair rules over the board, for exam­ ple: 19.!lel td3 20.'il'dl h6 21.lflgl !lc8+.

12.e3 It is dubious to grab another pawn: 12.hb7 !lc7 13..ig2 0-0 14.h4 h6 15.td2 tg4 16.lllf3 1Zlxf3 17.hD e4 18.dxe4 hf3 19.exf3 !ld8 20.'il'e2 'il'xb2 21..if4 11\'xal+ 22.lflg2 'il'c3 23.hc7 !ld2. 12.lllf3 0-0 13.te3 li:lxf3 occurred in Hausner-Baumbach, Leipzig 1978, when 14..ixf3? he3 15.fxe3 should be punished by 15...!lfdS!. 14.hc5 !lxc5 15..ixf3 is more accurate, but Black retains a dominating posi­ tion with 15....ih3+ (15 ...!ldS 16.!lcl !lb5 17.1!:\'a4 !lxb2 18.©g2 'il'e6 19.h4 !lxa2 20.'il'b4 'il'd7 21.!lc5=) 16.©gl 'il'b6 17.tg2 te6 18.b3 !lfc8 19.h4 !lc2 20.tf3 f5t.

A2. 9.1!:1'd3 te7 9....if5 is more popular. Its only drawback is that after 10..ie4 he4 ll.'il'xe4 !lc8 12.lflfl 'il'e6 13.lllf3 1Zlxf3 14.exf3 tc5 15.©g2= White's king finds a safe haven too easily. Perhaps the most challenging op­ tion is 9...td7!?, if you do not mind positions with 2-3 pawns down for a great compensation. Then: 10.e3 tc6 ll.f3 tb5 12.'il'e4 lllc6 is clearly sad for White so he should take the second pawn: 10.hb7 !lb8 ll.1Zlf3 !lxb7 12.lllxd4

12 1!:1'a6! 13.exd4 hd3+ 14.liJe2 (or 14.lflel exd4 15.1Zle2 0-0-+) 14 hd4 15.M3 1k2 16.lflg2 1'xe2 17.he2 he2 18.'il'c2 0-0 •••

••.

17

Chapter 1 12...l'lb4! Following the same ultra-ag­ gressive tactic. 12...'i!id6 13.lilb3 1lifxd3 14.exd3 is "only" equal. 13.lilc2 1lifc6 14.£3 White can castle, but it is unclear how he could complete develop­ ment after 14.0-0 fil:i3 15.f3 l'lc4 16.lile3 ic5 17.b3 l'ld4 18.1lifc3 1lifb6 19.l'ldl 0-0t. 14...l'lc4 15.l!?dl e4 16.fxe4 l'lxe4 17.l'lfl ic5 18.b4 ie� Black needs two tempi to castle. Then his attack on the enemy king could quickly become irre­ sistible. White may grab a third pawn, but that would not help his defence. For instance: a) 19.'i!ic3 Wg6 20.d3 l'le6 21.lild4 l'lb6 22.1lifc7 l'ld6->;

as are similar. He has full compen­ sation thanks to his better develop­ ment and potential pressure along the c- and d-files. Possible continu­ ations are: a) 11...ie6 12.lile2 l'ld8 13.1lifb5 l'ld7; b) 11...lilb4 12.1lifb5+ id7 13.Wxb7 l'ld8 14.a3 lilc2+ 15.hc2 ic6 16.1lifc7 (16.1lifxa7 hhl 17.ia4+ l!?f8+) 16... hhl 17.ia4+ l!?f8 with irrational play. c) ll...g6!? 12.li:le2 (12.a3 0-0 13.b4 l'ld8 14.1lifbl 1lifd6 15.li:le2 ih3 16.f4 M6 17.l'la2 We6�) 12...0-0 13.0-0 lilb4 14.Wbl Wa6 15.lilc3.ili3 16.l'ldl f5 17.if3 f4�.

B. 4.lilf3 e4 5.lild4

b) 19.a4 0-0 20.b5 1lifb7 21.ib2 ig5 22.h4 .ili6->.

10.e3 lilc6 n.te4 11.lile2 lilb4 12.1lifbl 1lifa6 13.ie4 f5 leaves White with horrible holes on the light squares - 14.a3 fxe4 15.axb4 1lifc416.b3 1liff717.Wxe4 0-0.

5...1lifb6!

The pawn structure is the same as in the Mora gambit and Black's ide18

5...d5 is ten times more frequent, but I do not like 6.d3! 6.cxd5 1lifxd5 7.lilc2 1lifh5 is com­ fortable for Black: 8.h3 (8.li:lc3 fil:i3; 8.h4 if5 9.lilc3 li:la6 10.a3 lilc5 11.lile3 ie6) 8...1lifg6 9.lilc3 id6 (The email game Utesch-Schuster, ICCF 2007, went through sharp complica-

1.c4 e5 2.g3 tilf6 3.�2 c6 tions after 9... tila6 10.h4 ic5 11.h5 tilxh5 12.tilxe4 ie7 13.d3 0-0 14.if3 tilf6 15.tile3 <;Jxe4 16.he4 f5 17.if3 1!1'f6 18.1!1'b3+ l'lf7 19.id2 <;Jc5 20.1!1'c2 tile6 21.�5 g6 22.ic3 <;Jd4 23.Wa4 ic5 24.<;Jc2 <;Jxc2+ 25.1!1'xc2 Wd6 26.if3 f4 27.gxf4 1!1'xf4 28.id2 We5 29.ic3 1!1'd6 30.1!1'a4 ie6 31.Wh4 id5 32.hd5 cxd5 33.e3 d4 34.exd4 ib4 35.0-0 l'laf8 36.l'lael hc3 37.bxc3 1!1'a3 38.1!1'e4 \Wxc3 39.\Wd5 1!1'xd3 40.l'le7 Wf5 41.1!1'xf5 gxf5+) 10.d3 (or 10.<;Je3 0-0 11.1!1'c2 l'le8 12.b3 <;Ja6) 10...exd3 11.Wxd3 1!1'xd3 12.exd3=, Miraglia-Dias, ICCF email 2002. 6...exd3 6...dxc4 7.dxe4 ic5 8.e3 <;Jbd7 (8...0-0 9.0-0 l'le8 10.<;Jc3) 9.f4 0-0 10.0-0 <;Jb6 ll.h3! - White's kingside pawn horde looks dan­ gerous. 6... ic5 7.<;Jb3 ib4+ 8.id2 hd2+ 9.\Wxd2

9...dxc410.dxc41!1'e7(10...\Wxd2+ n.<;Jlxd2 e3 12.fxe3 <;Jbd7 13.h3'1;) ll.<;Jc3 0-0 occurred in Girl-Balogh, Germany 2015. White chose to prevent ...e3 by 12.1!1'e3 l'le8 and the queenless

middlegame was roughly equal - 13.1!1'c5 <;Ja6 14.1!1'xe7 l'lxe7. More challenging is 12.l'ldl, in­ tending 12...<;Ja6 13.\Wd6. 6...ib4+ 7.<;Jc3 1!1'e7 8.0-0 dxc4 was already really grim for Black in Gajewski-Erdos, Dresden 2016 - 9.<;Jxe4 <;Jxe4 10.dxe4 ic5 ll.ie3 0-0 12.\Wc2 hd4 13.hd4 c5 14.ie3 ie6 when 15.f4! f6 16.e5 fxe5 17.1!1'e4 <;Jc6 18.f5 W 19.h4 would have promised a strong attack, e.g. 19...<;Jd4 20.ig5 1!1'c7 21.e3 <;Jc6 22.l'ladl h6 23.f6 hxg5 24.Wf5-+. 7.cxd5! and Black's pawn centre is busted. The queen sortie aims to reject the d4-knight to a passive position.

6.<;Jc2 6.e3 d5 6... ic5 7.<;Jb3 ie7 pushes back the centralised knight, but at the cost of a passive bishop. It would stand better on d6. Still, 8.<;Jc3 d5 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.0-0 0-0 ll.d3 was not too impressive, Thiede­ H.Stefansson, blitz, Berlin 2015. 7.cxd5 cxd5

8.0-0 19

Chapter 1 8.f3 lilc6 9.lilxc6 exf3 10.1!1ixf3 bxc6 11.0-0, Skembris-Baklan, Neustadt an der Weinstrasse 2015. Black has an attack after 11...ia6 12.!lf2 id6 or ll...h5 12.b3 h6 13.!lel h4. 8...ig4! Weakens White's king. 8...lilc6 9.lilc3!? (9.d3 ig4=) is not really dangerous, but it gives Wbite an initiative. The point is that 9...ig4fails to 10.lilxd5, and 9...lilxd4 10.exd4 1!1ixd4 ll.d3 1!1ixd3 12.1!1ib3 requires precision from Black: 12...ic5! 13.!ldl 1!1ia6 14.Ml 1!1ib6 (14...111ia5=) 15.ib5+ @f8 16.li:la4 1!1ic7 17.ig5 ie6 18.!lacl b6 19.1!1ic3 a6 20.ie2 1!1ie7=. 9.f3 (9.1!1ib3 1!1ixb3) 9...exf3

10.txf3 10.li:lxf3 li:lc6 ll.d4 ie7 12.li:lc3 0-0 13.1!1ic2 g6 14.li:le5 ie6=. 10...th3 ll.ig2 hg2 12.@xg2 li:lc6 13.li:lc3 It looks that Black' s king is in danger since if it castled short, !lxf6 or iilfS would be serious threats.However, Black can hide his king on the opposite flank or even take on d4: a) 13...0-0-0!? 14.1!1ib31!1ixb3 15.axb3 ic5 (or 15... @bS=) 16.li:lxc6 bxc6 17.d4 ib6=. 20

b) 13...li:lxd4 14.exd4 ie7 15.!lel !ld8 16.d3 !ld7 17.1!1ib3 1!1id8=. 6.li:lb3 a5 disturbs White's develop­ ment. 7.a4 The point is that 7.d4 a4 8.c5 could be met by 8...1!1ia7 9.li:l3d2 d5 10.cxd6 1!1ixd4=. 7.d3 a4 8.li:l3d2 (8.ie3?? cu­ riously loses to 8...c5 9.li:l3d2 1!1ixb2 and the lonely queen sud­ denly inflicts serious damage upon White's queenside.) 8...d5

9.cxd5 (9.dxe4 dxe4! 10.li:lxe4 li:lxe4 11.he4 ih3�) 9...exd3 10.dxc6 (10.0-0 cxd5 ll.exd3 ie7 12.li:lc3 1!1ia5) 10...li:lxc6 ll.exd3 (11.0-0 dxe2 12.1!1ixe2+ ie6=) ll ...ig4 is balanced, e.g. 12.li:lf3 ib4+ 13.li:lc3 0-0 14.0-0 !lfd8 15.a3 hc3 16.bxc3 1!1ic5. 7...ib4 7...li:la6 8.0-0 li:lc5 is also ba­ lanced.

i.c"+ eo z.g;j 't.:lto 0..&gz co 8.0-0 8.li:lc3 0-0 9.li:lxe4 li:lxe410.he4 d5 ll.cxd5 fili3 spells a quick rout. 8 ...0-0 9.li:lc3 !le8 10.d3 exd3 11.Wxd3 MS. The full control of

i.e7 12.b5 d4 13.li:lxe4 li:lxe4 14.he4 Wxb5 15.a4oi;.

the queenside dark squares makes Black's game somewhat preferable.

6

.••

d5 7.cxd5

7.d3 exd3 8.exd3 i.g4 provokes ugly moves from White. 7.li:lc3 dxc4 8.0-0 i.e6 9.li:lxe4 li:lxe4 10.he4 li:ld7 is interesting. (The quiet 10...i.e7 is also playable.)

Now 11.d4 cxd3 12.exd3 li:lf6 13.i.e3 i.c5 14.d4 li:lxe415.dxc5 Wd8 16.Wd4 Wxd4 17.hd4 li:ld2 is equal. 11.i.g2 begs for 11 ...0-0-0 12.b3 h5 13.bxc4 h4 with active play. 11.li:le3 h5! 12.Wc2 \!!lc5 13.b4 cxb3 14.axb3 h4 was pleasant for Black and he went on to win in Gabuzy­ an-Istratescu, Legnica 2013.

cxd5 8.0-0 (8.d3 li:lc6 trans­ poses) 8 li:lc6 9.d3 i.e7

7

•••

.•.

9...i.e6 10.li:lc3 !ld8 11.b4! assures White of some pressure after 11...

10.li:lc3 0-0 11.dxe4 dxe4 12.li:le3 !ld8 13.li:led5 li:lxd5 14.li:lxd5 \!!lc5 This position occurred in Chibukh­ chian -Minasian, Yerevan 2007. The forcing variation 15.he4 i.e6 16.b4 li:lxb4 17.i.e3 !lxd5 18.hc5 !lxdl 19.he7 !lxal 20.!lxal led to a lev­ el endgame. Minasian chose 20... li:lc6 (20...li:ld5 21.i.g5 f5 22.i.f3 h6 23.i.d2 !lc8= is more natural.) 21.i.c5 !ld8 22.hc6 bxc6 23.ha7 !la8 24.i.c5 !lxa2, draw.

C. 4.d4 e4! 4... i.b4+ 5.i.d2 hd2+ 6.Wxd2 d6 7.li:lc3 0-0 8.e3 is acclaimed by J.Watson. He believes that the trade of dark-squared bishops was great for Black taking into account that his central pawns stand on d6e5. However, the same reasoning applies to White's set-up and at the end of the day we have a spatial ad­ vantage for White, ensured by his c4-d4 vs. c6-d6 pawns. 21

Chapter! Marin considers also 4...exd4 which looks somewhat ridiculous after ... c6. I have much more ambitious plans for the opening!

5.liJc3 White can play 5.d5 himself. Then the question is whether to trade on d5 immediately. 5...cxd5 6.cxd5 �b4+ 7.�d2 V!ie7 8.hb4! (8.a3 hd2+ 9.liJxd2 0-0 10.d6 V!ie5 ll.liJc4 V!Jb5 12.l'lcl b6 looks attractive for Black.) 8...V!Jxb4+ 9.V!id2 lilxd5 10.a3 V!Jxd2+ 11.liJxd2 f5 12.liJc4 0-0 13.l'ldl liJf6 14.lild6 lilc6 15.f3 gives White compen­ sation. Black still has enough counterplay with 15...bS 16.fxe4 fxe4 17.lilxe4 lilg4 18.M3 lile3 19.l'ld3 liJc4. 5...�b4+ 6.�d2 V!Je7 may be more accurate. Now 7.hb4 V!ixb4+ 8.V!id2 V!Jxc4 does not work so White plays: 7.lilc3 0-0 It makes sense to define the cen­ tre with 7...cxd5!? 8.lilxd5 lilxd5 9.cxd5 0-0. 8.a3 hc3 9.hc3 cxd5 10.cxdS d6 ll.lilh3 MS=. 5.�g5 d5 6.hf6 V!ixf6 7.cxd5 Or 7.e3 �b4+. 7.a3 allows, besides the sym­ metrical 7...�e6 8.lilc3 lild7, 7... dxc4!? with double-edged play. For instance: 8.lilc3 e3 9.fxe3 g6 10.liJf3 a6co or 8.he4 lild7 9.�g2 liJb6, followed up by ...g6co.

??

7...�b4+! 8.liJc3 cxd5 9.e3 hc3+ 10.bxc3 V!ic6 11.Vlib3 (11.l'lcl b5) ll...lild7 was fine for Black in Suba­ Llorente Zaro, La Roda 2009.

5...d5 6. �g5 6.cxd5 cxd5 defines the centre a bit early. In some variations Black gets the c6-square for his knight as in the line 7. V!ib3 h6 8.�f4 liJc6. Or 7.f3 �b4 8.lilh3 exf3 9.exf3 0-0 10.0-0 h6 followed by ...liJc6. 7.�g5 lilbd7 should transpose to the main line. 6.lilh3 h6!? leaves White with the only possible plan of undermining the centre with 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.f3 (or 8.0-0 lilc6 9.f3 exf3).

IfWhite has traded his dark-squared

l.c4 e5 2.g312lf6 3.ig2 c6 bishop on f6, we could let him take on e4, but here best is to aim forthe symmetrical pawn structure - 8... exf3 9.exf3 id6! 10.0-0 0-0 11.lilf4 12lc6 when 12.lilfxdS 12lxd5 13.lilxdS ixg3 14.hxg3 'li.1xd5 15.ie3 if5 is at least equal as White's bishop pair is passive.

cxd5 7.12lh3 h6 8.0-0 ib4 9.f3 0-0 see Chapter 2, line B3.

It is more challenging to save ...h6: 6...ib4!? 7.cxd5 If White delays this exchange with 7.0-0 0-0 8.ig5, he should also reckon with 8...ixc3 9.bxc3 dxc4oo (although 9...12lbd7! is fine for Black). 7...cxd5 8.0-0 0-0 9.'li.1b3 (9.f3 h6 is covered in Chapter 2, Game 5 Nailer-Delchev, Ordu 2016) 9... ixc3 10.bxc3

6

...

12lbd7

The game Svane-Jakovenko, Cale­ ta 2015, saw the plan with ...ie7: 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.ig5 ie7 8.e3 12lc6 9.12lge2 12ld7 10.ixe7 12lxe7 11.0-0 which looks passive, but resilient. 6...ib4 is a simple and good alter­ native. After 7.cxd5 cxd5 It is not practical to elaborate on the intermezzo 7...ixc3+ since White could sidestep this move order by 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.ig5. White has three main continua­ tions:

10...!le8!? T.L.Petrosian-Hovhannisyan, Dubai 2012, saw 10 ...h6!? ll.f3 exf3 12.exf3 12lc6 when 13.g4 12la5 14.'li.1c2 !le8 15.gS?! hxg5 16.ixgS 'li.1d6 gave Black the bet­ ter pawn structure. ll.ig5 (ll.f3 e3!) 11...12lbd7 12.f3 h6t. The above-mentioned game Nailer­ Delchev shows that we could com­ bine both ...ib4 and ...h6 - 6.cxd5

a) 8.!lcl lilbd7! Marin considers only 8...0-0 9.12lh3 12lbd7 10.0-0, when 10... ixc3 11.!lxc3 h6 12.if4! al­ lows White to preserve his bish­ op, and 10...12lb6 11.12lf4 ixc3 12.!lxc3 h6 13.ixf6 'li.1xf6 14.f3, exploiting the clumsy placement of the f6-queen. It is essential to define the fate of White's g5bishop before castling. 9.12lh3 h6! 23

Chapter 1 Edouard gives 13.8b3 1/!l'xd4 14.ib4 \\Yxdl lS.fu:dl 8d8 16.lilf4 b6 17.lilxdS lilxdS 18.8xdS ib7 19.8dl lilf8=.

Now 10.kx:f6 only helps Black to develop - 10...hc3+ ll.fu:c3 lilxf6 12.0-0 0-0 13.'l>l'b3 �JS 14.8fcl 'i!l'd7!. The main mo­ tif in this position is the lack of prospects before the f3-knight. 1S.lilf4 gS 16.8c7 8ac8! 17.1/!l'xb7 gxf4-+, Migot-Demuth, Belfort 2012. 10.id2 10.if4 takes this square from the f3-knight. 10...0-0 11.0-0 [ll.'l>l'b3 hc3+ 12.'l>l'xc3 (12. 8xc3 lilb6=) 12...lilb8=] ll...lilb6 12.'l>l'b3 (12.ieS lilg4) 12...hc3 13.'l>l'xc3 ifs. 10 ...hc3 ll.8xc3 11.hc3 would weaken e3 (after f3-f3) and it also blocks the c-file - 11....0-0 12.0-0 8e8 13.f3 as 14.lilf2 lilb6 1S.fxe4 dxe4, when White could maintain the bal­ ance with 16.dS. 11... 0-0 12.0-0 I have been following the game Eljanov-Edouard, Istanbul 2012. Edouard suggests here the ma­ noeuvre 12...lild7-b8-c6=, but the move he actually played is more challenging. 12... 'l>l'b6 13.'i!l'c2

?.d

13...8e8!= This move prepares ...lilf8 thus solving the problem with the development of the c8-bishop. The stem game saw 13...1/!l'xd4?! 14.8dl 11>\'eS when 1S.ie3! 8d8 16.if4 'l>l'e7 17.ic7 8e8 18.lilf4 lilb6 19.hb6 axb6 20.lilxdS lilxdS 21.8xdS ie6 22.8dl f5 would have been slightly better for White. b) 8.f3 should be ignored by Black - 8...lilbd7 9.fxe4 dxe4 10.lilh3 h6 11.kx:f6 hc3+ 12.bxc3 lilxf6 leads to a typical position with mutual chances. It is considered in line Cl. c) 8.'l>l'b3 is best met by 8...hc3+ 9.'l>l'xc3 9.bxc3 lilbd7 10.lilh3 h6 is pleas­ ant for Black (10...0-0 11.IUf4 h6 12.h4!? 8e8 is also possible). 9...o-o 10.lilh3 lilbd7 (10...Ms ll.kx:f6 'l>l'xf6 12.lilf4 8d8 deserves attention) 11.0-0 h6 12.if4 8e8 13.8acl was tested in two games.

l.c4 e5 2.g3 ltlf6 3.ig2 c6

Cl. 8.f3; C2. 8.e3, C3. 8.'/!ib3 I mentioned 8.ltlh3 h6 9.M6 ltlxf6 10.0-0 �d6 above. 8.'/!ia4 aims to drag Black's queen

Simplest is 13...ltlbS, but sending tbe knight to tbe kingside after 13... '/!ie7(or 13...ltlfS) 14.f3 ltlf8, intend­ ing 15.fxe4 .b:h3 16..b:h3 '/!ixe4, is also fine.

to b6, which is tbe natural place for tbe d7-knight. After 8...'/!ib6 9.W.d2 (9.0-0-0 is clearly dubious - 9... W.b4 10.ltlb5 W.e7 11.llibl 0-0) 9 ... W.e7, White fails to win tbe d5-pawn:

7.cxd5 After 7.ltlh3, 7...h6 8.M6 ltlxf6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.0-0 id6 equalizes as ll.'l!ib3 ie6 12.'/!ixb7 0-0 would be dubious for White. However, Black may also consider 7...dxc4!? witb asymmetrical double-edged position, for instance: 8.ltlxe4 h6 9.ltlxf6+ ltlxf6 10.�cl �b4+ 11.�d2 a5 12.a3 hd2+ 13.'/!ixd2 0-0. White's centre is not mobile since his pieces are passive.

7...cxd5

10.g4 h6 11.h4 '/!ic6; 10.f3 e3 (tbe thematic sacrifice 10...0-0 is also okay) 11.he3 '/!ixb2; 10.ltlh3 0-0 11.ltlf4 'l!id6 12.'l!ib3 ltlb6 13.a4 a5 - White's activity is tamed and it is Black's turn to reject tbe enemy pieces witb ...g5.

Cl. 8.f'3 This breakthrough does not fit well witb W.g5. Black's most consistent retort would be: 8 ...'/!ib6, pinpointing tbe weakness­ es on b2 and d4. However, it only weakens d5. Play is balanced after 9.fxe4 ltlxe4 10.ltlh3 h6 11.W.cl W.b4 12.'llid3, for example: 12...f5 13.ltlf4 hc3+ 14.bxc3 '/!ic6 15.c4! dxc4 16.he4. 25

Chapter! Mastrovasilis chose against Don­ chenko, Legnica 2013, to define the fate of the g5-bishop with: 8...h6 and got the slightly better game after 9.tf4?! tb4 10.1/iib3 'l!le7 1Ltd2 when best was ll...a5 12.a3 ixc3 13.ixc3 0-0. In this sharp position tempi are more impor­ tant than the bishop pair so White should better play 9.ixf6 ltlxf6 10.fxe4 dxe4 11.ltlh3 te7 12.0-0 0-0

13.ltlf2 e3 14.ltlfe4c:o. Another consistent approach is to start the fight for e4 with:

White would have been better stayed his knight on e3 instead of h3. From there it would protect c4 and cover g4. In the diagram posi­ tion, White is unable to preserve his beautiful pawn centre after: 14...te6 White should decide what conces­ sion to make as 15.!lcl !lc8 gives only a short respite: 15.d5 'l!lb6+ takes over the initiative after either 16.lilhl tg4 17.ltlf2 !lacs 18.!lbl 'l!lc5, or 16.ltlf2 M5. 15.c5 offers the d5-square and de­ fines a target which could be imme­ diately attacked with 15 ...b6. To sum up, White's kingside and especially the e3-square are chron­ ically weak. b) ll...h6!? 12.ixf6 ltlxf6 13.ltlf2 (13.!lcl ltlg4 14.'l!ld2 f5) 13...ixc3 14.bxc3 ltld5 15.\Wcl f5c:o.

11...h6 12 .b:f6 ltlxf6 13.liJfxe4 liJxe4 14.he4 !le8 15.'l!ld3 th3 •

8 tb4 9.ltlh3 (for 9.!lcl - see G3Ille 4 Troyke-Delchev, Wunsie­ del 2016) 9 0-0 10.fxe4 dxe4 11.ltlf2 .••

••.

11.0-0 offers Black a choice: a) It is unnecessary to rush with 11... ixc3 although 12.bxc3 h6 is also possible - 13.ixf6 ltlxf6 14.c4

White must find a series of strong moves to stay in the game. He can­ not castle in view of 16.0-0-0? !lc8 17.lilbl ixc3 18.bxc3 'l!la5. Perhaps best defence is 16.a3 ta5 26

1.c4 e5 2.g3 12lf6 3.ig2 c6 17.b4 tb6 18.l�dl as 19.b5 �e7 20.th7+ l!ih8 21.ltldS �e6 22.12lxb6 �xb6 23.te4, but Black still retains a pull after 23... !le7 24.�3 �f6.

9...tb4 10.12lge2 g5 n.te5 We7 12.0-0 0-0

C2. 8.e3 h6 Markowski-B.Socko, Warsaw 2014, saw 8... td6 9.12lge2 0-0 10.�b3 h6 11.txf6 12lxf6 12.0-0=. The point is that after ll.tf4 Black could easi­ ly defend d5 with ll...12lb6. There­ fore, critical should be 9.1Wa4 when the only reasonable answer 9... 1Wb6 takes away b6 from the d7knight. Then 10.12lge2 0-0 11.!lcl h6 12.tf4! gives White some initiative, for instance: 12...!ldS 13.0-0 M4 14.12lxf4 12lf8 15.f3. Black's problems ensued from the bishop staying on d6. 8...id6 is good to 8.1Wb3, but slightly inferi­ or to 8.e3. Since White's eight move is not threatening anything yet, let's de­ fine the plans of the enemy dark­ squared bishop. The game Adams­ Bogner, Germany 2013, went:

9.M4

I like Black's position. 13.\Wb3 12lxe5 14.dxeS hc3 15.exf6 txf6 16.�xd5 !le8 is fine for him. Even better is 13.txf6 12lxf6. Adams tried to keep the bishop, but:

13.tc7 was dubious in view of 13...b6 14.1Wa4 ib7 15.!lacl !lfc8. Instead Bogner opted for 13...ltlbS 14.hbS (14.teS!) 14... !lxbS 15.a3 td6 16.�b3 ig4 17.l!?hl?! when simplest would have been 17...1We6.

C3. 8.1Wb3 td6!

At some point White will have to part with his bishop via tf4-e5-f6, but he hopes that ...g5 could be a weakness. 9.txf6 12lxf6 10.12lge2 obviously has no venom as Black can choose between 10... ig4, 10...id6 and the passive, but solid 10...td7 heading for c6.

27

Chapter! This move holds the position. It improves on 8... h6?! 9.M4 g5 10..ie5 ig7 when White has sever­ al good options. For instance: 11.h4 qixe5 12.hxg5 hxg5 13.!lxhS+ ixhS 14.dxe5 €lg4 15.°l;l'xd5 "l;l'b6 16.1ll'b5+ 1l!lxb5 17.€lxb5 he5 1S.he4 id7 19.€lc3 €lf6 20..id3 g4 21.e3;!;.

u.qixf6+ qixf6 12 .ixf6 °l;l'xf6 13.e3 a6 •

Let's consider now: C31. 9.1ll'b5; C32. 9.f3; C33. 9.e3. Practice has also seen: 9.€lh3 h6 10..if4, Lederer-Mikha­ levski, Beersheba 2014 (10.M6 €lxf6 11.0-0 .ie6! 12.°l;l'xb7 0-0t), 10...M4 11.€lxf4 €lb6 12.a4 a5=.

The 1l!lb5 controls the fifth rank and two important squares on the queenside - b4 and c4.

C31. 9.°l;l'b5 0-0!?

14.°l;l'a5

9...1l!lb6 was introduced in the correspondence game Flatz-Tyu­ lenko, ICCF 2012, which showed that Black easily defends the end­ game after 10.M6 gxf6 ll.€lh3 1ll'xb5 12.€lxb5 @e7 13.€lxd6 @xd6. The game went on 14.€lf4 €lb6 15.Elcl .ie6 16.b3 a5 17.a4 (17.f3 f5) 17...!lac8 18.@d2 €ld7 19.e3 8bS draw. I propose a more enterprising gambit approach which sets practi­ cal problems to White.

If White allows a check from b4, he will be unable to connect his rooks

10.€lxd.5h6

If Black changes the move or­ der with 10...a6 ll.°l;l'a4 h6 12.M6 8xf6 13.8xf6+ 1ll'xf6, d4 is pro­ tected and White can eat a second pawn - 14.he4 1l!le7 15..id5 M5 16.1ll'b3 !lfdS 17.@fl !lacs 1S.1l!lxb7 !lc719.1ll'b3 !lc2 20.1ll'f 3 ih7 21.h4;!;. ?Q

anymore: 14.1ll'd5 ib4+ 15.@fl EleS 16.€le2 id2 17.1l!lb3 .ie6 18.d5 when Black can force a draw with 1S...hd5 19.°l;l'xd5 he3 20.f4 exf3 21.txf3 !lads 22.1l!lxb7 !ld7 23.1Wc6 !le6 24.1ll'c8+ !ldS 25.1ll'b7 !ld7 26.1l!lcS+ or keep the tension with 1S ... id7!? 19.lllgl !lacS. 14.1We2 ib4+ 15.@fl 1l!le7 16.'1!1dl f5 17.8e2 ie6 lS.@gl td6 19.a3 !lacs 20.ifl 1Wf7. This position resembles the main line. Black can attack on both flanks - with ... g5 or ... b5. Black also has clear counterplay af­ ter 14.1l!fb3 .ie6 15.1/!fdl ib4+ 16.@fl ic4+ 17.qie2 .id318.a3 !lac819.lllgl !lc2 20.€lf4 .id6 21.€lxd3 exd3 22.tf31l!ff5.

LC4

eo z.g;; 'tltb ;5 .!:1.g� Cb

14....tg4 15.h3 The e4-pawn is immune due to the double hit 15.he4?? Y!Je7. 15.12ie2 loses the right to castle ow­ ing to 15... il.f3. 15.Y!Jd2 is solid, but rather passive. Black can follow up with natural moves like 15...!lacS 16.12ie2 he2 17.'i!lxe2 il.b4+ 18.rnfl 1We6 19.a3 il.d6 20.h4 f5 21.11.h3 !lf7 22.l!lg2 !lfc7 23.!ladl g6 24.!ld2 l!lg7 25.!lfl g5? keeping pressure. 15....te6 16.12ie2 16.he4 may lead to a draw af­ ter 16...1We7 17.a3 11.c4 18.11.f3 hg3 19.1Wc3 11.h4 20.1Wxc4 with repeti­ tion of moves - 20...1Wxe3+ 21.1We2 'i!lxd4 22.!ldl 1Wb6 23.@fl !lfe8 24.'i!lc2 !lac8 25.1Wd2 !lcd8 26.1Wc2.

•

launch a march of the h-pawn up to h4, preparing it with ...g7-g5 first. Let's go further: 18.0-0 18.!lcl b5 19.0-0 11.c4 20.'l;\1d2 is si­ milar. Although Black can already start his kingside offensive with 20... g5, I would recommend to im­ prove our heavy pieces first. White does not have any threats so there is no need to rush. Why give him chances to alter the course of the game with 21.!lxc4 bxc4 22.!lcl:;;;. 20...h5 21.h4 g5 is also pre­ mature in view of 22.b3! hb3 23.hxg5 'l;\1xg5 24.!lc6t 'i!ld8 25.12if4. It is better to play first: 20...'i!lf7

16... 1We7 17.a3 f5

A critical position for the gambit 9...0-0. My analysis convinced me that it is balanced, but Black re­ tains the initiative in all the lines. His main task is to deprive the enemy of counterplay based on d4-d5 or f2-f4. Then he can

21.!lc2 Alternatively: 21.!lfel unpins the knight and threatens to meet 21...g5 by 22.d5! !lad8 23.12id4 so we should anticipate this idea with 21...!ladS 22.12ic3 il.b3. 21.!lfdl !lad8! 22.11.fl g5 23.!lel 'i!lg6 24.l!lhl l!lh8. 21.l!lh2 g5 22.!lgl is a passive waiting stand. We can display 29

Chapter! activity with 22...@hS 23.lilc3 !lae8 24.Wdl

Compared to 18.!lcl, White's knight is unpinned. That enables ideas with d4-d5 so we should address this threat with: 20

!ladS!=

...

24...h5 25.@hl h4 26.g4 f4!! (26...i.b3 27.We2 tc4=) 27.lilxe4 tb8 28.lilxg5 Wc7 29.e4 f3+. It may be even stronger for Black to improve the placement of his king before pushing ... h4. For example, ...@h8-h7-h6 looks promising. 21...g5 22.!lfcl !lad8 (22 ...!lae8 is also possible, of course). Now every­ thing is ready for ... h5, and ...f4 can also become an option after ... @h8, ...Wg6. White's only counterplay is 23.!lxc4 bxc4 24.lilc3 with mutu­ al chances, for instance: 24...tbS 25.g4 fxg4 26.hxg4 !lxd4! 27.exd4 tf4 28.Wc2 hcl 29.Wxcl Wxf2+ 30.@hle3=. 18....tc4 19.Wd2 Wlf7 20.!lfcl

Black's main plan is 20 ... g5 intend­ ing ... h5. It is effective against pas­ sive play as convincingly shown by Grune 3 Hessenius-Grebenshchik­ ov, ICCF 2014. However, it is still premature since White could coun­ ter-attack with: 21.d5! td3 22.lild4 f4 23.lile6 when White's knight proves to be very powerful:

23...fxg3 24.fxg3 !lfc8 25.tfl Wf5 26.Wlf2 We5 27.@hU. After the text, White should be ac­ curate in order to keep the bal­ ance. He can only wait. On the other hand, it is not easy to break through his ditches: a) 21.lilf4 @h7 22.lile2 g5 23.!lc2 tb3 24.!lc3 @h8 25.!lacl td5 b) 21.lilc3 tb3 22.lile2 (22.Wel g5 23.lile2 tc4 24.lilc3 tb3) 22... g5 23.!lc3 @h8 24.!lacl td5 25.!l3c2. c) 21.@hl g5 22.!lgl b5 23.lilc3 i.b3 24.Wel @h8 25.!lcl !lde8.

30

1.c4 e5 2.g3 ltlf6 3.$.g2 c6 d) 2U1c2 g5 22.!lacl $.b3 23.!lc3 $.d5 24.!lfl!

L.Mkrtchian-Zawadzka, Wroclaw 2014.) 15.e4 a4 16.'1¥d3 M5! intend­ ing ... '1¥a5+. 10...0-0 11.fxe4 dxe4 12.ltlxe4 ltlxe4 13.he4 ltlf6 14..ig2 �e6

Preparing to meet 24... h5 by 25.£4!. 24.b4 h5 25.l!ihl h4 26.!lgl hxg3 27.fxg3 $.c4 would give Black a tangible initiative. 24...b5 25.!lc2 After 25.£4 exf3 26.$.x£3 M3 27.!lxf3 we have the strong re­ source 27... '1¥h5! 28.l!ig2 b4 (to drag the rook to a vulnera­ ble square) 29.!lc6 g4 30.hxg4 fxg4 31.!lxf8+ !lxf8 32.l!igl with a drawish position although the fight might heat up after 32... '1¥d5 (32...!lfl=) 33.!lxd6!? (33. '1¥d3=) 33... '1¥xd6 34.'1¥d3 bxa3 35.bxa3 !lf3oo. 25...$.c4 26.!lel (26.£4 gxf4) 26 ... h5 intending ... h4 at an opportunity. C32. 9.f3 h6 10.$.d2

White is doomed to a passive de­ fence, see game 1 Lechtynsky-Mas­ trovasilis, Germany 2013. C33. 9.e3 h6 10.�6 10.�£4 $.xf4 ll.gxf4 l1lb6 left White with a chronically weak kingside in Ledger-Shaw, Hinckley Island 2015. 10

•••

ltlxf6 11.ltlge2 0-0!?

It is not absolutely necessary to de­ fend the b7-pawn although ll...!lb8 12.0-0 $.e6 is posssible. Then 13.£3 0-0 14.fxe4 dxe4

White can also take on e4 after 10.$.xf6 ltlxf6 ll.fxe4 dxe4 12.ltlxe4 ltlxe4 13.$.xe4, but Black's com­ pensation is more than enough. He castles and follows up with ...$.e6, ... '1¥b6. If White prevents it with 14.$.d5, then the queen finds anoth­ er nice place - 14 ... a5! (14...'1¥a5+ 15.l!if2 $.d7 16.a4 was unclear in 31

Chapter l is balanced - see game 2 Gagare­ Dragun, Pune 2014. 12.0-0 .ie6! 13.®'xb7h5!

Black has more then adequate com­ pensation for the pawn. His do­ minance in the centre is a sound ground for a kingside attack. Black's idea is simple - to trade h-pawns and bring a heavy piece in the vicin­ ity of the enemy king. He can com­ bine this with a chase of the queen.

14

a5 15.1:1abl 1:1b8 16.®'c6 liJg4

.•.

Perhaps a computer could save White's game, but in practice his task would be difficult. The engines recommend here the strange wait­ ing move 17.'i\la6 (17.lilxd5 hg3; 17.Wa4 g5!), but then Black could activate his last passive piece with 17...1:1e8!. It can go to c7 via e7, or to the kingside via e6. 18.Wc6 1:1b6 19.'i\la4 g5 20.hxg5 h4 21.gxh4? is lethal due to 21... .ih2+ 22.l!lhl l!lg7!. 18.1:1fcl is more logical, but 18...®'f6 would force 19.1:1fl. However, Black can continue the at­ tack with: 18...$.c8 19.®'c6 .ib7 20.®'b5 1:1e6.

14.h4 Perhaps White should seek a way to equalize. For instance: 14.1:1fcl h4 15.®'a6 1:1b8 16.1:1c2 .ic8 17.®'xa7 1:1b7 is a draw. 14.lilf4 .txf4 15.gxf4 1:1b8 16.Wxa7 Wc8 is at least a draw - 17.'i\la5 .ih3.

32

Black's main threat is seen from the line 21.liJxd5 b6! 22.Wxa6 hg3, and 21.liJf4 .txf4 22.exf4 is not help­ ful either - 22...e3 23.f3 lilf2 24.Ml b6.

Chapter 1. 1.c4 e5 2.g3 lll f6 3.i.g2 c6

Annotated Games

1 . Lechtynsky- Mastrovasilis Germany 2013 1.c4 e5 2.g3 lilf6 3.i.g2 c6 4.d4 e4 5.lilc3 d5 6..ig5 Clibd7 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.Virb3 i.d6 9.f"3 h6 10.i.d2

You might ask where is Black' s compensation here? The answer is simple - White's kingside is weak­ ened and he is lagging behind in development. Black simply puts his bishop on d5 and his rooks on open files and starts looking around for the harvest. For example: 15.Vira4 8e8 16.lilf3 .id5 17.e3 lilg4. White logically decides to keep his queen closer to his central pawns, but on d3 it will be a prey for the light-squared bishop. 15... Virb6?!

10...0-0! Black will obtain an excellent com­ pensation for the pawn. Perhaps White should restrain his appetite and complete development with ll.lilh3 ltlb6 12.0-0+. However, first players often think that Black's set­ up is dubious and greedily eat poi­ soned pawns, assuming that his material advantage is a natural re­ sult of their opening "advantage". Thus wrong assessments lead to wrong decisions. 11.fxe4 dxe4 12.lilxe4?! lilxe4 13..ixe4 lilf6 14..ig2 .ie6 15.Vird3

Black trades his strong initiative for a mere pawn. 15...acS! was much more unpleas­ ant: 16.b3 8e8 17.ltlf3 .id5

Now 18.0-0 loses by force after 18...i.e4 19.Virb5 a6 20.Vira5 i.c7 21.Virb4 a5 22.Virb5 (22.Vira4 i.c6) 33

Chapter! 22... i.xf3. More stubborn is 18.e3 ie4 19.1!\'e2 gc2+. The a2-pawn will soon fall. After 15...gcs White could also grab a second pawn: 16.hb7 gbs 17.ig2 1!\'d7 (threatening ...M5) 18.b3 MS 19.111'c4 gfcs

gc7 22.if3 gxbl 23.�bl ha2 24.gal id5 25.ga5 is a draw. 20...gc2 21.M4 gd8!? A good try. It does not change the

evaluation, but faces the opponent with practical problems. 21...i.xf4 22.lilxf4 ha2 23.gxb7 g5 24.lild3 �e2 25.gb2 gxb2 26.lilxb2 id5 27.lilc4! eliminates all the pawns. 22.�b7 a5 23.ga7 g5 24.hd6 �d6 25.lilc5 ic4

Black's rooks are so strong that he could even trade queens af­ ter 20.1!\'a4 1!\'xa4 (20...1!\'e7!-+) 21.bxa4 gb2 22.lilf3 ig4+. His pres­ sure will cost White more than two pawns. 16.lilf31!\'xb2 17.o-o gfcs 1s.gfb1 1!\'c2 19.lilel 1!\'xd3=

26.�as The endgame is drawn, but White still has to find a couple of precise moves. 26.lilb3 was safe enough. 26...�d4 27.a4? (27.ga4!=) 27 �e2 28.Ml ged2 29.gcl gdl 0-1 .••

20.lilxd3 20.exd3 was easier to hold. The pawns may be doubled, but they keep the black pieces at bay. The po­ sition after 20.exd3 gab8 21.hb7 0A

2. Gagare - Dragun Wch U20 Pune 14.1 0.2014 1.c4 e5 2.g3 lilf6 3.ig2 c6 4.d4 e4 5.lilc3 d5 6.ig5 lilbd7 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.1!\'b3 id6 9.e3 h6 10.ixf6 lilxf6 11.lilge2

l.c4 e5 2.g3 1Zlf6 3.Ag2 c6

11...!lbS 11...0-0!? 12.0-0 Ae6! 13.'lllxb7 h5! is a sharper approach. 12.0-0 i.e6 13.£3 This is undoubtedly the most prin­ cipled way. 13.1Zlb5 is just a blunt struggle for the draw, although Black retains some active options after13...a614.1Zlxd6+ 'l!lxd615.!lfcl o-o 16.a3 Ag417.Afl g5.

17.1Zlxe4? 1Zlxe418.he4 Ah319.i.g2 hg2 20.i:!ixg2 'llle4+ 21.i:!igl !lc2.

It is moredifficult to assess17 .i.xe4. In practice, White probably does not even consider such a move serious­ ly because the bishop pair after 17... 1Zlxe4 18.lilxe4 i.b4 will be a gener­ ator of constant threats throughout the game. Objectively, however, the position is rather unclear. Another attractive option for Black is 17... b5!? 18.i.g2 b419.IZldl i.d5

13...0-0 14.fxe4 dxe4 15.'lllc2 The e4-pawn looks very weak, but it is still alive and it considerably hampers White's play. It turns out that c2 is the only good retreat of the queen since15.'llldl allows a cru­ cial tempo for 15... 1Zlg4 16.'llld2 f5 17.i.h3 h5 when Black consolidates his space advantage. 15.d5 is also dubious because it of­ fers a nice square to the d6-bishop -15...Ag416.1Zld4 !le8 17.!lf2 i.e5. 15...!lcS 16.'llld2 'llle7 A critical moment of the game. First

of all, White should discard:

Black has full compensation for the pawn, but it would be difficult to break through the enemy centre. We see that both captures on e4 of­ fer Black a lasting initiative. On the other hand, any delay would give him time to bolster it up. I think that the best practical approach would be to immediately sacrifice the ex35

Chapter 1 change - 17. l'lxf6 1/Nxf618. iilxe4 'llie 7 19. iilxd6 1/Nxd6 20.hb71'lb8 21..ig2.

coordinated and he is unable to stop the distant passer on the queenside:

From a formal standpoint, this is not even a sacrifice since White gets two pawns. The resulting po­ sition is balanced. More important­ ly, it is easy to play with White who could just stay, hiding behind his pawn shield. Gagare obviously missed the im­ portance of the moment and made a trivial move which turns the tables in Black's favour.

26.iilcl b3 27.liJe2 '@'c2 28.'@'xc2 bxc2 29.liJcl a3 30.b3 a2 31.liJxa2 l'la8 32.iilcl !fal 33.:Sfl .ia3 34.liJe2 l'lxfl+ 35.Wxfl liJd5 36.b6 liJxb6 37 .if5 liJd5 38..ixe4 liJxe3+ 39.IM:? cl='iN 40.liJxcl .ixcl 41. b4 @f8 42.b5 liJc4 43.we2 l!le7 44.wd3 liJb6 45..ic6 f5 46.h3 wd6 47.g4 f4 48.l!le4 g5 49.WfS .ie3 50.M'3 liJc4 51.b6 liJd2 52.b7 @c753 ..id5 hd4 0-1 •

17.l'lacl?! .ic4 18.a3 It is already late for an exchange sac - 18. l'lfS l'lfd8 19. l'lcfl .ib4 20. l'lxf6 gxf6 21. l'lf2 ha2+.

3. Hessenius - Grebenshchikov Rochade-25/TT ICCF 2014 1.c4 e5 2.g3 liJf6 3 .ig2 c6 4.d4 e4 5.liJc3 d5 6.cxd5 cxd5 7 .ig5 liJbd7 8.'@'b3 .id6 9.Vi.'b5 •

18

b5 19..ih3

•..

A purely defensive move, taking g4 under control.19. l'lfS g6 20.l'lf2 iilg4 21. l'lffl £5 would be clearly better for Black.

19...l'lc7 20.l'lf2 a5! 21.a4 b4 22.iilb5 hb5 23.a:xb5 l'lbS 24.l'lxc71/Nxc7 25.l'lf5 a4-+ White has kept the material ba­ lance, but his pieces are totally un�"

•

l.c4 e5 2.g3 li.lf6 3..tg2 c6

9 0-0! 10.li.lxd5 h6 11.lilxf6+ li.lxf6 12 .txf6 lil'xf6 13.e3 a6 14.lil'a5 i.g4 15.h3 i.e6 16.li.le2 lil'e7 17.a3 f5 18.lil'd2 .tc4 19.0-0 lil'f7 20.gfc1 •••

24.gfl

•

24

lilhS!

•••

20

.•.

g5

This is premature due to 21.d5! with counterplay. However, the game is a good example of Black's plan against passive defence. Even in an email game White fails to hold.

21.W gae8 22.gc3 .td5 23 .tg2 h5! •

The h-pawn is Black's most danger­ ous resource. The break ...f5-f4 is rarely effective. Note that ...h6-h5h4 should be prepared first with ...g5 as otherwise White will meet ... h5 by h4 and it will be difficult to break through.

In some lines the king would be saf­ er on h6, but Black must be con­ stantly on guard for f3 or f4. For instance, after 24...lilh7 25.f4 exf3 26.hf3 hf3 27.gxf3 h4 28.°&d3, the king is obviously on the wrong square. Besides, White should have played 25.f3 in all events, because it is his only defence against the imminent attack. Perhaps White got scared by variations like 24... @hS 25.f3! exf3 26.hf3 h4 27.hd5 '&xd5

28.gxh4?! f4! 29.exf4 gxf4 with a strong attack, but the tactical trick: 28.°&dl! hxg3?! 29.li.lxg3!= saves the day. Instead, 28...f4! keeps the fire on.

37

Chapter 1 25.©hl?! h4 26.!lfcl !lg8 27.!lgl .ic4 28.'/;l'c2

4. Troyke - Delchev Wunsiedel 06.05.2016 1.g3 e5 2.c4 iilf6 3..ig2 c6 4.d4 e4 5.iilc3 d5 6.cxd5 cxd5 7 .ig5 iilbd7 8.f3 .ib4 9.!lcl •

28 ...he2 Removing the last defender of g3. The opposite-coloured bishops at­ tack is now decisive.

An ambitious idea. White would 29.'/;l'xe2 g4 30.Ml '/;l'h 7 31.'/;l'c2 gxh3 32 .ic4 !lg5 33..ib3 'l;l'h5 34.'/;l'dl '/;l'g6 35.!lcl ©g7 36.'/;l'e2 hxg3 37.fxg3 hg3 38 .td5 !lg4 39.!lcfl !lh8 40.'/;l'c2 .id6 41.!lxg4 fxg4 •

like to recapture on c3 by rook, but it costs a tempo. Alternatives are 9.fxe4 and 9.iilf3.

•

The ending is won since White is unable to prevent the invasion of Black's rook on the second rank:

9...0-0 10.fxe4 If White delays this exchange too much, we could take by piece on e4 - 10.iilh3 h6 11.hf6 iilxf6 12.00 l:le8 13.fxe4 .ixc3 14.l:lxc3 .txh3 15..txh3 iilxe4.

10... dxe4 11.e3 I expected1L.ixe4 h6 12.hf6 iilxf6 13..ig2 !le8

42.'/;l'xe4 '/;l'xe4+ 44.!lel !lf8 0-1

38

g3

Lc4 e5 2.g;; 'ilto :>.Jltg2 co

and suddenly White faces difficult problems. 11...Vira5 12 .b:f6 hc3+ •

This intermediate move spoils White's plans to connect the knights. I did not like 12...ltlxf6 13.ltlge2 Virxa2 14.0-0 with compen­ sation, but Black is not obliged to take the pawn. Instead, the new 13... ig4! assures him of a clear edge. 13.Etxc3 13.bxc3 ltlxf6 14.ltle2 is grim for White. I could either eat the a2pawn or achieve the thematic ...f5 after 14 ...ie615.0-0 ltlg4 16.Vird2 f5. 13...ltlxf6 14.Vird2

16.lfa3 '1¥c4 At the last moment I saw that there is 16...'1¥bl+ would lose to 17.©f2. (I only considered 17.ltlcl ltlb6). Now the game starts again and White's bad bishop suddenly breaks loose. 17.he4 !le8 (17...ltlf6! 18.ig2 ig4) 18..id3 '1¥c6 19.e4 ltlf6 20.!lc3 'l!lb6! I was afraid to enter the endgame after 20...ltlxe4 21.!lxc6 ltlxd2 22.!lxc8 !laxc8 23.©xd2 in view of the enemy passed pawn. 21.e5 ltld5 22.!lc5 ie6 22...ltlb4 23.0-0 ltlxd3 24.Wxd3 ie6 is roughly equal. 23.0-0 !lads 24.!lfcl a6 24...Wb4 equalized, but I wanted to keep the queens in order to exploit the weakened white king. 25..ie4 27.ltlf4

!ld7=

26.hd5

!lxd5

Or 14.ltle2 ig4 15.0-0 '1¥xa2. Af­ ter 14.\!¥d2 I decided that my play should be rewarded and snapped the pawn. 14 V!rxa2 15.ltle2 ltld5? •••

It all had been fine, but this move is a terrible blunder. 15 ... ig4 16.0-0 he2 17.'1¥xe2 We6 was a healthy pawn up and better pieces - 18.!lc7 l'lab8 19.l'lfcl ltld5.

27

.••

!lddS ?

Following the same course of keep39

Chapter 1 ing more pieces on the board, but I lack space so I had to seek exchang­ es. Correct was 27...axc5 28.axc5 !ld8 (28...'/;l'b3 29.dS) 29.'/;l'c3 h6. After my mistake my opponent could have impose a total domina­ tion in the centre with 28.dS Ms 29.'/;l'c3. Fortunately, he preferred the "solid": 28.'l;l'f2?! �b3 29.!llc3 a5 (29... '/;l'b4!) 30.'/;l'e3?

At last I got serious counterplay! 32.qid3 '/;l'e6 (32 ...�a2!+) 33.!lc7 '/;l'g4 33...'l;l'fS 34.!lxb7 �ds 35.!la7 '/;l'h3 gave more chances. 34.!lxb7 �d5 (34...'/;l'xd4=) 35.qif2 1!!'f5 36.!la7 !ld7 37.!lxd7 '/;l'xd7 38.'/;l'f4 fxe5 39.dxe5 !lf8

White misses the trick 30.dS! !lxeS? 31.!lcS!. I would have to answer 30 ...a4 31.'/;l'd4 h6 32.d6±. 30

a4 31.h4 f6

..•

40.'/;l'e3? White finally breaks down and lets my queen in. 40...�aS 41.e6 'i;l'd5 42. ©fi 'i!!'dl + 0-1 (43.'/;l'el �g2+)

Chapter 2. 1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6

Main Ideas

This chapter presents an alternative repertoire with 1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6. It is completely independent of Chap­ ter 1 and formally, you could skip it (and vice versa!). However, you would improve your understanding if you studied both. It is instructive to observe the impact of the differ­ ent move order on the plans in posi­ tions with an identical pawn struc­ ture. To facilitate comparisons, I will consider the same three major plans I focused on in Chapter 1:

The big difference is when White continue development with 5 .ig2. Now we could use the fact that our knight is not on f6 and it cannot be pinned by .ig5. A logical answer is: 5....ib4!? •

6.cxd5 cxd5 7.li:lh3 h6 and White should switch to the plan with the break-through f2-f3. 7...li:Jf6 is also possible - 8.0-0 0-0 9..ig5 bc3 10.bxc3 li:lbd711.f3 h6 1. White attacks the d5-pawn. 3.d4 e4 4.li:lc3 d5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.'l;l'b3. The same method of Chap­ ter 1 is effective here: 6... li:lc6! 7.Wxd5 Wxd5 8.li:lxd5 li:lxd4 and Black achieves comfortable equal­ ity. 41

Chapter 2 12.b:f6 12lxf6 13.fxe4 12lxe4 14.11!1d3 �3 with the better pawn struc­ ture, Alvarado Diaz-Ramiro Oveje­ ro, Vecindario 2013.

Pros and

cons:

We can prevent

the pin i.g5 with ... h6, but that in­ volves ...i.b4, beginning the battle for e4. Play is more positional than in Chapter 1 and Black does not need to sacrifice a pawn. The choice is a matter of taste.

2. White attacks the e4-pawn. 3.d4 e4 4.12lc3 d5 5.12lh3 h6 (5... 12lf6!? is also possible) 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.i.g2 12lf6 8.0-0 ib4! 9.f3 0-0! is a critical position which could arise via several move orders. I analyse it in Game 5 Nailer-Delchev, Ordu 2016.

3. White does not play d4. 3.12l:f3 e4 4.12ld4 1il'b6! It may seem that 4...d5 is strong­ er than in Chapter 1. Indeed, after 5.d3, we could already take 5...exd3 (with i.g2 12lf6 inserted, White had the unpleasant intermezzo 7.cxd5!). Still, 6.1il'xd3 dxc4 7.1i!lxc4 is pleas­ ant for White due to his pawn ma­ jority in the centre. So we adopt the same tactic of repelling the d4knight from its active stand. Only 5.12lb3 is of independent signifi­ cance when 5...a5 is not effective in view of 6.d3 a4 7.12l3d2 exd3 8.i.g2 with an initiative.

5... 12lf6

6.d3 (6.i.g2 a5 - see Chapter 1, line B, and 6.12lc3 a5 - Chapter 3, line

Al.) 6 12lg4! 7.e3 •••

7.d4 d5 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.12lc3 leads to a familiar pawn structure: The point is to take on e4 by piece: 10.fxe4 i.xc3 ll.bxc3 �3! 12.�3

lilxe4oo. Next, we connect the knights with ... 12lb8-d7-f6 and im­ pose a light-square blockade on the centre.

Pros and cons: The play is identi­ cal with Chapter 1. 4?

l.c4 e5 2.g3 c6 Since White will attack e4, we fore­ stall it with 9 ....ib4 10..ig2 0-0 11.0-0 ixc3 12.bxc3 iild7oo. 7 d5 8.cxd5 (8..ig2 iile5) 8 cxd5 9.11Jc3 .ib4!? 10.ig2 0-0! ...

...

The best way to fight for the ini­ tiative. Once again we can sacri­ fice the e4-pawn and obtain last­ ing pressure in return. I have an­ alysed deeply the consequences. It would be unnecessary to repeat here the details from the Step by Step chapter so I will only note that after ll.dxe4 dxe4 12.ixe4 /1Jf6 13.ig2 .ig4 14.'liic2 'liia6, the weak light squares cause White constant trouble although a computer should be able to hold on.

Pros and cons: The play may take original turn after 5.iilb3 iilf6 6.d3 lilg4!, but it depends only on White since he could also transpose to Chapter 1 with 6.tg2. On the other hand, Black also has the additional option 4...d5 5.d3 exd3 which is not too ambitiuos, but offers easy devel­ opment.

Conclusion 2 ...c6 is worth considering, espe­ cially if you want to avoid the pin from g5. The trade-off is that with­ out a dark-squared bishop (which should go to b4), Black has more modest attacking resources.

43

Chapter 2. 1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6

Step by Step

1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6

A. 3.li:if3 e4 4.li:id4 'l;l'b6! ? We should not try to transpose to Chapter 1 or 3 with 4... li:lf6, hoping to see 5.tg2 or 5.li:lc3, since White has a better move order: 5.d3 when 5...exd3 6.'l;l'xd3 d5 7.tg2 dxc4 8. 'l;l'xc4 is pleasant for White due to his pawn majority in the centre - 8... li:lbd7 9.0-0 li:lb6 10.Wd3 tc5 11.!ldl 0-0 12.li:lc3 h6 13.e4.

A. 3.li:lf3; B. 3.d4 3.li:lc3 d5 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.d4 e4 is covered in Line B. and 3...li:lf6 is considered in Chapter 3. 3.tg2 d5 should transpose to line B (3 ...li:lf6 is the subject of Chapter 1). I did not face any problems after 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.d4e46.f3 tb4+ 7.td2

4 ... d5 is a popular move, but it of­ fers White some initiative. For in­ stance: 5.d3 poses a problem - 5 ...li:lf6 6.tg2 throws us out of the reper­ toire from Chapter 1. Besides, I do not like this position anyway. Re­ mains: 5 ...tc5 6.li:lb3 6.dxe4 dxe4 7.te3 li:lf6 8.li:lc3 Wfe7 (8 ... 0-0 9.li:lxc6) 9.h3 0-0 is roughly equal - 10.Wfc2 !ld8

hd2+ 8.'l!!lxd2 exf3 (8 .. .f5!? and 8 ...

11.!ldl lila6 12.tg2 '/!!le5 13.lilb3

li:lf6 are more tangled) 9.exf3 li:le7 10.li:le2 0-0 ll.li:lbc3 li:lbc6 12.0-0 te6 13.!ladl li:lf5 14.g4 li:lh4 15.li:lf4 !le8 16.thl li:lg6 17.li:lce2 draw, Vau­ lin-Delchev, Zadar 1998.

!lxdl+ 14.li:lxdl he3 15.li:lxe3 td7 16.0-0 c5 17.li:ld2 tc6=. 6...tM+ 7.td2 hd2+ 8.'l!!lxd2 exd3 9.Wxd3 dxc4 10.'1ilxc4 li:lf6 n.tg2 0-0 12.0-0

44

l.C4

eb �.g;;

CO

I analyse this position in detail in the annotations to Game 5 Anand­ �dams, Shamkir 2015. In my opin­ ion, best practical chances offers the pawn sacrifice 9... 0-0!?.

5.ltlb3

I prefer to avoid such positions with a mobile pawn centre for the enemy. Note that lately Black is also experiencing problems after 4...d5 5.cxd5 '1¥d5 6.ltlc2 6.e3 ltlf6 7.i.g2 °/i,1e5 8.f4 exf3 (8 ...We7!? 9.ltlc3 g6 10.'1¥c2 tg7 11.ltlxe4 ltlxe4 12.'1¥xe4 '1¥xe4 13.he4 0-0 14. M2 �e8:i:) 9.ltlxf3 '1¥h5 10.d4 i.b4+ ll.td2 ltla6=. 6... ltlf6 7.ltlc3! (7.tg2 is mentioned on page 18.) 7...Wh5 Perhaps 7...'1¥e5! 8.tg2 te7 will replace 7...'1¥h5 in future. 8.ltle3 8.h3 prevents ...i.h3, but weakens g3. After 8 ...'1¥g6 9.i.g2 id6 10.ltle3 0-0 ll.Wc2 �e8, the threat ...hg3 will be a constant concern for White. 8 ...tc5 9.'1¥c2

5.e3 ltlf6 6.i.g2 d5 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.d3 (8.0-0 ig4 - see Chapter 1, line B) 8... ltlc6 9.dxe4 dxe4 10.ltlc3 ib4 is covered in Chapter 3, line A2. 5.ltlc2 d5 should also transpose to the corresponding chapters.

5

...

ltlf6

The method from Chapter 1, 5 ...a5, is not effective here in view of 6.d3 a4 7.ltl3d2 exd3 8.i.g2 with an ini­ tiative.

6.d3 Practice has only seen 6.i.g2 a5 see Chapter 1, line B, and 6.ltlc3 a5 - see Chapter 3, line Al. The text, however, is the sternest test of Black's plan. It demands from Black ingenious play:

45

Chapter 2

6... ii:lg4! Or 6 ... exd3 7.�xd3 d5 8.ig2. 7.e3 7.d4 d5 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.ii:lc3 trans­ poses to a position which has oc­ curred in a few games via a differ­ ent move order. I analysed this pawn structure in the previous chapter. White's most dangerous plan is based on f3 when we commonly trade our dark­ squared bishop for the c3-knight and hold e4. The placement of the king's knight on b3 does not change the evaluation:

b) 9...ie6?! may be objectively a de­ cent option, but I would not recom­ mend to enter OTB the position af­ ter 10.f3 iilf6 11.fxe4 iilxe4 12.ig2 i.b4 13.0-0 (13.i.d2 iilxd2 14.�xd2 iild715.0-0 0-0 16.�g5hc3 17.bxc3 l;ac8 18.i;acl f5+) 13 ... iilxc3 14.bxc3 hc3 15.i;bl iild7 16.ia3 �a6 17.e4! 17.i.c5 �a4 (threatening ... iilxc5) 18.id6 �a6 is a draw. 17... dxe4 18.d5 �xa3 19.dxe6 fxe6

Black is holding here, but only if he calculates like a computer.

7. .d5 8.cxd5 (8.ig2 iile5) 8... cxd5 9.iilc3 .

a) 9....ib4 10 ..ig2 0-0 11.0-0 hc3 12.bxc3 ii:ld7 The idea of this move is to meet 13.f3 ii:lgf6 14.ig5 by 14...h6. Al­ ternatively, 14.fxe4 ii:lxe4 15.c4 dxc4 is balanced. More aspir­ ing is to keep the blockade on e4 with 15 ... l;e8!? 16.cxdS �g6 17.�d3 ii:ldf6. If White postpones the break in the centre, we can transfer the knight to e6: 13.a4 �c6 14.aS !;e8 15.if4 h6 16.�c2 iilf8=. 46

9.i.g2 offers Black more chances to develop the initiative - 9 ... iilc6 10.iilc3 10.dxe4 dxe4 11.he4 iilf6 12.i.g2 i.g4 13.f3 ie6 14.0-0oo is a worse version of the main line. 10 ...i.e6 11.0-0 f5 12.dxe4 dxe4 13.iild5 �d8 14.iilf4 ic4 15.he4 fxe4 16.�xg4 Ml 17.@xfl �d7 18.iile6 iild8 19.iilbd4iilxe6 20.iilxe6 !;c8 whereas White can force a draw with 21.�xe4 �dl+ 22.@g2 fuel 23.fucl 'i!\lxcl 24.iilxg7+ @f7 25.iile6 i.e7 26.�fS+ @e8 27.iilg7+ @d8 28.iile6+ @e8.

l.c4 e5 2.g3 c6

10 .ig2 •

The correspondence game Putt­ Lovelock, New Zealand 2003, saw 10 ..id2 'il'f6 ll.f4 exf3 12.lilxd5 hd2+ 13.'il'xd2 f2+ (13 ...'il'd6!? 14.e4 .ie6=) 14.@e2 'il'd6 15.'il'c3 15.e4 gives Black time to castle - 15... 0-0 16.h3 lile5 17.d4 lilg6 18.@xf2 f5t.

9...tb4 !? The email game Portych-Cardenas Huaman, ICCF 2011, saw 9...'il'f6 10.'il'c2 The queen would be vulnera­ ble on d2 as seen from the line 10.'il'd2 'il'f3 lU'lgl lilc6 12.lilxd5 (12.h3 lilge5 13.lilxd5 exd3 14.lilc7+ @d8 15.lilxa8 .ib4) 12 ... exd3 13..ig2 lilge5 14.@fl th3 15.lilc7+ @d8 16.txh3 @xc7t. 10 ...'il'f3 11.!lgl exd3 ll ...tb4 12.h3 exd3 13.hd3 lile5 14 ..id2 lilxd3+ 15.'il'xd3 hc3 16.hc3 0-0 is also some­ what better for White although his winning chances in an end­ game would be very slim due to the opposite-coloured bishop, e.g. 17.!ldl !ld8 18.lild4 'il'e4. 12.hd3 lilc6 13.lild4 lilxd4 14.exd4 .ib4 15.'il'e2+ 'il'xe2+ when instead of 16.he2 lilf6 17.f3 te6 18.@f2 a6 19.lila4 lild7 20 ..ie3 0-0 21.lilc5 lilxc5 22.dxc5 d4 23.hd4 !lfe8 24.c6 bxc6 25.!lgdl MS 26.a3 c5 27..ic3 c4 28.!lacl draw, White would retain a slight pull in the end­ game with 16.@xe2! te6 17.f3 lilf6 18.lilb5.

Now instead of15 ... 0-0? 16.lilc7, Black seizes the initiative with: 15...lila6! 16.'il'xg7 'il'xd5 17.'il'xhS+ @e7 18.e4 'il'h5 19.'il'g7 lilf6+ 20.@xf2 .ig4 21.e5 lile8 22.'il'hS !ld8 and White must find only moves.

10 ... 0-0 Only 10 ... lilf6 11.0-0 0-0 has been tried so far in two old correspon­ dence games. White has the more active pieces after 12.dxe4 hc3 13.bxc3 dxe4 14.'il'c2 !le8 15.c4.

11.dxe4 After 11.0-0, the original queen lift 'il'd8-b6-h6 allows us to put pres­ sure on the enemy king - ll ...'il'h6 12.h3 lilf6 13.dxe4 hc3 14.bxc3 dxe4 15.h4oo.

47

Chapter 2 ll.td2 l'ld8 12.dxe4 dxe4 13.txe4 lilf6 14.tg2 tg4 15.�c2 �a6 is simi­ lar to the main line.

I have analysed two possible ap­ proaches from here:

Al. 14.:f3 .ie6 15.0-0 lilc6 Decent alternatives are: 15...tc4 16.l'lf2 lilc6 17.lila4 l'lad8 18.�c2 �b5 19.lilc3 �a6 20.a3 te7 21.tfl txfl 22.l'lxfl l'ld3 23.l'ldl l'lfd8 24.l'lxd3 l'lxd3�.

Black has full compensation for the pawn. An illustrative line is: 16.h3 te6 17.a3 lilc6! 18.axb4 lilxb4 19.�bl �d3 20.lild4 E1xd4 21.exd4 lilc2+ 22.Wdl tb3 23.©cl �xd4oo. It is undoubtedly easier to play this position wit Black.

15 ... l'ldS 16.�e2 lilc6 17.lila4 �a6 18.�xa6 bxa6�.

16.lila4 'fil>5 17.lild4 lilxd4 18.exd4 l'lad8 19.a3 te7 20.l'lel lild5 21.lilc3 'fil>6

11 dxe4 12.he4 lilf6 13.tg2 tg4 •••

Black's active pieces fully compen­ sate the missing pawn. The point of his counterplay are the weak light squares d3 and c4, and split queenside pawns (after ...txc3). The further play is not forced so I will try to illustrate several key points.

Black is threatening 22 ... lilf4 and 22 ...tf6. 22.lilxd5 l'lxd5 is not too helpful. Perhaps White should seek a drawwith 22.lila4, but Black could deviate from repetition by 22 ...�c6.

A2. 14.Vifc2 Vifa6 15 .id2 •

15.f3 te6 16.lild4 (16.©f2 lilc6 is similar to Al.) 16 ...tc4 17.tfl l'lc8 18.©f2 txf1 19.l'lxfl lilc6 20.l'ldl lild5 21.lilde2 lilxc3 22.bxc3 tc5 L[Q

1.c4 eS 2.g3 c6 White is unable to keep the extra pawn - 24.g4 li:lxf2 or 24.0-0 lilxg3.

B. 3.d4 e4 4.lilc3

Black has a long-term compensa­ tion due to his better pawn struc­ ture. He does not need to rush since the weak a- and c-pawns will not run away. White can push e4, a4, l'lbl, but that's all. For his part, Black can double his rooks on the d-file or place them on d8 and c8: a) 23.l'lbl Ill es 24.lild4 h6 Alternatively: 24 ... l'ld8 2S.'/:!.1e2 lilc4 26.l!lg2 l'lac8=. 24 ...lilc4 2S.e4 l'ld8 26.l!lg2 l'ld7. 2S.'/:!.1e2 lilc4 26.e4 l'lc7=. b) 23.a4 Ill es 24.l!lg2 l'ld8 2S.e4 l'lxdl 26.Wxdl li:ld3 (26 ...'/:!.1c4=) 27.ta3 ha3 28.l'lxa3 l'ld8 29.li:ld4 li:leS�. 15... lilbd7 16.a3 hc3 17.hc3 l'lac8 18.lild4 lilc5 19.h3 "15 20.Hl f;\1d6 21.tc4 tg6 22.We2 li:lfe4 23.tb4 1"fe8oo

After 4.dS, we should not linger too much with ...cxdS since we can miss the moment as in the game Hellbing-Dutra Neto, IECG email 2004: 4...�b4+ 5.�d2 We7 6.li:lc3 li:lf6 7.li:lh3 0-0 8.tg2 d6?! (correct was 8 ...cxdS! 9.cxdS d6 10.li:lxe4 �3 ll.lilxf6+ '/:!.1xf6 12.�3 '/:!.1xb2 13.hb4 '/:!.1xb4+ 14.Wd2 '/:!.1xd2+ 1S. l!lxd2 iila6 16.e4 li:lc5 17.l'lhel l'lfe8 draw, Lukesova-Vegjeleki, ICCF email 2010) 9.li:lxe4 �3 10.li:lxf6+ '/:!.1xf6 11.�3 Wxb2 12.l'lcl cxdS 13.l'lc2! (this intermezzo punishes Black's tactic) 13 ...hd2+ 14.'/:!.1xd2oi;. Perhaps the most challenging is: 4 ... cxdS S.cxdS lilf6 6.tg2 6.li:lc3 tb4 7.td2 0-0= 8.tg2 l'le8 9.li:lh3 d6 10.0-0 tfS 11.lilf4 gS 12.li:lh3 h6+, Schrancz-Schus­ ter, LSS email 2009. 6 ...tb4+ 7.�d2 '/:!.1e7 8.a3 hd2+ 9.li:lxd2 0-0

10.d6 '/:!.1e5 11.li:lc4 '/:!.ibS 12.l'lcl b6oo. 4.lilh3 dS S.li:lc3 h6! transposes to 5.li:lh3. 49

Chapter 2

4 ..d5 .

may be playable, but Black lacks an active plan. He should trans­ fer his bishop to b6 via e7-d6-c7, e.g. 12 ...tfs 13.E1cl i.d6! . 8.0-0 ltlge7 9.ltlf4 0-0 10.f3 f5 1L'!Wb3 hc3 12.1Wxc3 \Wd6 13.\Wc5 \Wxc5 14.dxc5 g5 15.ltlh5 h6 16.b3;!; Markowski-Krasenkow, Warsaw 2010.

6...ltlc6! 7.V!!'xd5 Wxd5 8.ltlxd5 ltlxd4 9.ltlc7+ Bl. 5.cxd5; B2. 5.i.g2; B3. 5.ltlh3, but have in mind that these lines of­ ten interweave. Bl. 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Wb3 In all other lines the exchange on d5 might prove premature as it of­ fers Black the extra option of ... ltlc6. However, I'm not sure Black should go for it as the knight move delays the development of the kingside: For instance: 6.ltlh3 ltlc6?! Line B3 deals with 6 ... h6!? and 6 ...i.b4!?. 7.i.g2 i.b4 7... h6 8.0-0 ltlf6 9.f3 exf3 10.exf3 i.e7 1Li.e3 0-0 12.ltlf4, Czebe­ Farago, Hungary 2006,

9.i.g5 ltlc2+ 10.lild2 ltlxal 1Lltlc7+ @d7 12.ltlxa8 h6 13.i.f4 i.b4+ 14.lilcl ltlf6 15.i.g2 lile7 16.ltlc7 i.d7 17.@bl

Now 17... E1c8 keeps the material balance due to the idea ...i.d6, e.g. 18.i.h3 g5 19.i.e5 g4t. 17 ... ltlc2 is also interesting 18.@xc2 E1c8 19.lilbl h5 20.i.eS hc7 2Lhf6+ lilxf6 22.he4 i.b6 23.hb7 E1c4. Black is two pawns behind, but his raging bishops will easily regain them.

9 @dS 10.lilxaS lilc2+ 11.lildl lilxal •••

The stem game De Bari-Penafiel Lopez, ICCF 2009, continued

l.c4 e5 2.g3 c6

12.tf4 te6 13.b3 li:lxb3 14.axb3 hb3+ 15.@cl ta3+ 16.@bl li:le7 17.e3 g5 18.hg5 ©d7 19.il.h3+ te6 20.he6+ fxe6 21.he7 he7 22.li:le2 E1xa8 and White was happy to draw this endgame.

useless td2. The gameA.Larsen­ Konstantinov, ICCF 2013, went further 11.0-0 E1e8 12.11\'cl lilbd7 13.hh6?! gxh6 14.1!\'xh6 lilf8 15.1!\'g5+ (15.fxe4 li:lxe4) 15...lilg6 16.lilf4 exf3 17.lilxg6 lilh7+. Besides, he could discard ...h6 at all and aspire to the advan­ tage with: 10 ... E1e8 11.0-0 e3!? 12.tel lilc6 (or 12 ...h5!?). The e3-pawn splits the board, hindering White's commu­ nication. 6.cxd5 cxd5 branches to: a) 7.lilh3 li:lf6 (7...h6 is line B3) 8.0-0 0-0 9.tg5 hc3 10.bxc3 li:lbd7 11.f3 h6

B2. 5.tg2 .ib4!? 5 ...li:lf6 transposes to Chapter 1. The text is the only reasonable way to rip dividends from 2... c6.

6.f"3 6.td2 hc3 7.bxc3 li:lf6! 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.li:lh3 0-0

10.f3 Black can now reach a better version of line B3 after 10...h6 since White has spent a tempo on the

12.hf6 12.M4 lilb6 13.lilf2 tf5 14.1!\'b3 E1e8 secures Black's control of the light squares. Then 15.a4 lilc4 16.Wxb7 puts him in total command after 16 ... E1e7 17.1!\'b4 a5 18.1!\'b5 exf3 19.exf3 E1c8. 12 ...lilxf6 13.fxe4 lilxe4 14.1!\'d3 hh3 with the better pawn struc­ ture, Alvarado Diaz-Ramiro Ovejero, Vecindario 2013. b) 7.f3 li:lf6 8 ..ig5 0-0 9.fxe4 dxe4 10.e3 51

Chapter 2 Black has enough compensation following 10.ixe4 !le8

line Cl, but this move is nnneces­ sary here.

8.fxe4 dxe4 9.lilh3 9.ixe4 !le8 10.ig2 lilbd7 11.lilf3 h6 leads to an interesting position with mutual chances. For example:

ll.ig2 \Wa5 12.lilf3 ixc3+ 13.bxc3 \Wxc3+ 14.id2 \Wd3 15.if4 \Wc3+ 16.id2 \Wd3 17.if4 \Wc3+ 18.id2 draw, Kerr-Sch­ ramm, ICCF 2010. 10 ...h6 ll.i:xf6 1Wxf6 12.lilge2 ig4c:o, B.Damljanovic-Komarov, Le Port Marly 2009.

6... lilf6 7.3.gS Perhaps it was time to include 7.cxd5 cxd5 because after the text, Black could exchange on f3 and grab the c4-pawn with unclear con­ sequences.

12.icl lile4 13.\Wb3 \Wa5 14.id2 lilxd2 15.lilxd2 lilf6 - the pressure along the e-file promises Black a lasting initiative. 9.\Wb3 a5 10.a3 ie7 11.!ldl lilg4 12.ixe7 \Wxe7 13.lilxe4 a4 14.Wc3 f5 is double-edged.

9 ...lilbd7 9 ...h6 10.M6 Wxf6 n.lilf2 !ldS 12.e3 Wg5 13.Wcl f5 also deserves attention.

10.0-0 hc3 11.bxc3 h6 12.3.xf6 White's bishop does not have good prospects after 12.3.cl lilb6.

12 ... lilxf6 13.lilf2 !le8oo 7... 0-0!? 7... lilbd7 transposes to Chapter 1/

52

Black has a target on c4. He could attack it with ...We6, ...b6, ...h6.

l.c4 e!J �.g0 cb

B3. 5.lilh3 h6 This move secures the d5-pawn, but it slows down development. More challenging is: 5 ...lilf6!? 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.tg5 tb4

8.txf6 Alternatively: 8.Wa4+ lilc6 9.e3 h6 10.txf6 Wxf6 11.lilf4 Wd6 12.Wb3 lile7 13.tb5+ liifS 14.h4 g6=; 8.2'1cl lilbd7 9.e3 h6 10.txf6 ixc3+ 11.2'1xc3 lilxf6 12.lilf4 0-0=; 8.tg2 ixc3+ 9.bxc3 lilbd7 10.f3 exf3 11.txf3 h6 12.txf6 lilxf6 13.lilf4 g5oo, Mercadal Benejam­ Joppich, ICCF 2015. 8 ...Wxf6 9.lilf4 Wd6

Wxb4 17.axb4 2'1xc3 18.bxc3 lilc4 19.ixc4 dxc4 20.lilxe6 fxe6 21.liie2 a5=. 5 ...tb4!? 6.ig2 lilf6 transposes to Chapter 1, Line C, but White has also: 6.Wa4 6.�b3 a5 is similar, only the b-pawn is not hanging. Black was fine after 7.cxd5 cxd5 8 .. a3 (8.tg5!? f6) 8...ixc3+ 9.bxc3 a4 10.�b5+ lilc6, Klekowski-Nava­ ra, Hockenheim 2015. The d5pawn could be defended by ...2'1a5. 6...a5 7.cxd5 b5 8.�b3 cxd5,

when 9.e3 could be met by the sharp 9 ...lilf6 10.ixb5+ td7 11.ixd7+ �xd7 with compensation for the pawn - White cannot castle safely due to the weak h3-square.

6.cxd.5 cxd5 7.tg2

Black has saved the d5-pawn and should gradually level the game: 10.Wb3 te6 11.Ecl 0-0 12.e3 lilc6 13.a3 ixc3+ 14.2'1xc3 2'1fc8 15.te2 (15.lilxe6 Wxe6) 15...lila5 16.�b4

7.lilf4 lilf6 8.�b3 (8.tg2 g5!?) is an­ other version of the pawn sac 8 ... lilc6! with an initiative - 9.lilfxd5 lilxd5 10.�xd5 �xd5 11.lilxd5 lilxd4 12.lilc7+ @as 13.M4 lilc2+ 14.liid2 lilxal 15.lilxaS ie6+, Tikkanen­ Grandelius, Malmoe 2013.

7... lilf6 8.0-0 tb4! 9.f3 53

Chapter 2

9

...

0-0!

It is always better to avoid the sym-

54

metrical pawn structure after 9 ... exf3 10.exf3 which might be bor­ ing to defend. Besides, the com­ puter claims that 9 ...exf3 is a tacti­ cal mistake in view of 10.!lxf3! 0-0? ll.!lxf6! or 10 ... hc3 ll.!le3+! �e6 12.bxc3 0-0 13.iilf4 when 13 ...MS 14.!leS and 13 ...'i!ld7 14.iilxe6 are slightly better for White. After the text Black holds the crit­ ical square e4 and has full-fledged play. See Game 6 Nailer-Delchev, Ordu 2016.

Chapter 2. 1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6

Annotated Games

5. Anand (2791) - Adams (2745) Shamkir 24.04.2015 1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6 3.iilf3 e4 4.iild4 d5 5.cxd5 ®"xd5 6.iilc2 iilf6 7.iilc3 ®"h5 (7... ®"e5!) 8.iile3 ic5 9.®"c2

9 ...he3 This move saves the e4-pawn, but Black remains without an active plan. Instead I recommend: 9 ... 0-0!? 10.iilxe4 iilxe4 ll.®°xe4 ie6 12.ig2 iila6 13.if3 ®"h3

Let's ponderoverthis position. White cannot castle short since 14.ig2 ®"h5 15.0-0 would drop the e2-pawn. Trading queens by 14.Wh4?! is always dubious since White's queenside will be left to the mer­ cy of Black's overwhelming forc­ es. That reduces his options down to long castling, but then the extra pawn will be of no significance since the kings will be on stake: 14.b3 !lfe8 (threatening ...hb3) 15. Wf4 !lad8 16.ib2 f6 17.ic3 17.0-0-0 defines White's castling position too early - 17... iilb4 18. @bl a5oo. 17 ...id6 18.We4 (18.fil4 Wxh4 19.gxh4gg) Now simplest is: 18 ...id5 19.®"h4 Wxh4 20.hd5+ cxd5 21.gxh4 ic5 22.d4 ib4 23.hb4 iilxb4 24.h5 !ld7 25.h6 g6 and Black regains the pawn with ... !le8-e4-h4xh6. More provocative is 18...li:lc5 19.Wc2 li:la6 when 20.0-0-0 li:lb4 21.hb4 hb4 22.d4 a5 23.@bl @h8 24.!ld3 !lcSgg keeps the battle on.

10.fxe3 In a later game Kovalenko chose 10.dxe3 whereas Black failed to find an adequate set-up: 55

Chapter 2 10 ...Ms Perhaps it is better to keep the queen in the centre, e.g. 10 ...We5 11.b3 0-0 12.ib2 .if5 13.ig2 lila6 14.!ldl lilb4 15.Wcl We7 16.0-0 !lfd8

15.!lxf5! �xf5 16.lilxe4

As long as the g2-bishop is out of

play, Black is safe. 1Lig2 Wg6? (11 ... lila6 12.h3 0-0 13.a3 lilc7 14.b3 lilcd5 15.ib2 Wg6 16.0-0 !lfe8) 12.b3 (12.Wb3 b6 13.Wa3±) 12 ...lilbd7 13.ia3 c5 14.!ldl±, Kovalenko-Petursson, Ber­ lin 2015.

10 ...Wes n.ig2 MS 12.0-0 0-0 13.b3 In Littke-Kolek, ICCF 2011, White shifted the focus to the queenside with 13.b4!? lilbd7 14.ib2 We6 15.b5 15.!lxf5 Wxf5 16.lilxe4 is also possible, but the pawn on b4 could give Black a lever for counterplay. 15 ... !lacS 16.Wb3 !lfd8 17.!lacl lilc5 18.Wxe6 ixe6 19.!lc2 id7 20.bxc6 ixc6 21.lilbl ia4 22.!lccl lilfd7 23.id4 b6 24.lilc3 ic6 25.!lc2 with tangible pressure.

13... lilbd7 14.ib2 �e6

Anand demonstrates one of White's main ideas in this line ofthe English - a kingside attack exploiting the open f-file. The computers ''believe" that the game is roughly even, but this impression is rather deceiving. In fact, we have a typical example of modem top-level approach to the opening. White does not risk any­ thing as he does not have any weak­ nesses while Black must defend ac­ curately. Even strongest players like Adams often fail to hold on in such fluid positions without clear refer­ ence points. Black's difficulties en­ sue from the lack of concrete vari­ ations. For instance, he must now decide where to put the queen. The natural 16... We6 17.lilxf6+ lilxf6 18.!lfl lild5 (preventing !lf4) 19.ie4 Wh6 20.Wc4 a5 21.a3 !lae8 22.id3 !le6 does not solve his problems as White preserves many attacking re­ sources, like 23.!lf5;!; threatening

h4, !lg5 or Wg4, !lh5. Adams takes the brave decision to allow doubled pawns.

16 ...Wg6 17.!ltl !lfe8 18.i.xf6 lilxf6 19.lilxf6+ gxf6 20.e4 !lad8

l.c4 e5 2.g3 c6

21.!lf4 mis 22.d3 l!l'e5 23."1.3 ©g7 24.©g2

There is no perpetual check so 34 ... l!lg8 is the only move. In this line White wins the h-pawn without having to trade any piece. The bottom line is that Black's de­ fence is not trivial at all. Adams' de­ cision might be the right approach, but he shaped it wrongly.

25.!lf5 '1!1d4 26.!lxh5 'll'e3

24...h5 This move looks like a blunder, but things are not that simple. Appar­ ently, Adams thought that passive waiting would not be safe. After the obvious 24...'ll'd4 25.!lg4+ ©h8 26.'ll'cl !lg8 27.!lh4, Black begins to experience difficulties in finding good moves. For instance, 27... a5 28.�fS !lg7 29.'ll'd2 a4 simply los­ es a pawn to 30.bxa4 'll'xa4 31.'ll'b2 'll'd4 32.'ll'xb7. Let's analyse another stand: 27...c5 28.�fS !lg7. Now 29.©£3 b6 30.'ll'h6 does not win in view of 30 ...'ll'al 31.l!lg2 'll'b2, but White has a cun­ ning idea - to put his queen behind the rook, e.g. 29.!lh5! b6 30.l!lfl !le8 31.'ll'f4 11\'al+ 32.l!lf2 'll'd4+ 33.l!lf3 111'al 34.11\'h4.

26 ...!le5 deserved attention, and only after 27.M5, 27... '1!1e3. The point is that the f-file is plugged by the f5-bishop and 28.!lh4 !lh8 29.!lf4?? would lose to 29 ...!lc5 30.'ll'b2 !lcl. Thus Black would have traded rooks with excellent chances to draw. It seems that Adams want­ ed to preserve more tension and was actually playing for a win!

27.!lh4 !le5 28.!lf4 !lc5 29.M>2 !ld6 30.!lfl

30 ... a5 The game is balanced, e.g. 30 ...'1!1d4 31.'1!1bl '1!1c3 32.�g4.

31.� b5 32.h4 !ldS? This is Black's only mistake in the game. Perhaps he was planning 57

Chapter 2 ... !ld8-a8 followed up by ... a4, but this idea misses a tactical hit. 32 ... b4 was more precise. It would have fixed a possible target for Black's rooks on a2.

33.a3 b4 34.axb4 axb4 10.fxe4 was more principled. Then 10....ltxc3 ll.bxc3 .ixh3! (11... dxe4?! released the central blockade in Wiedenkeller-Carlsson, Sweden 2014 - 12.c4 b6 13.d5±) 12 ..ixh3 li:lxe4 13.'ll\'d3 is the critical test of this line.

35 .ie6! •

White succeeds in transferring his passive bishop to c4 and the game is suddenly over.

35 !lc3 36 .ic4 !la8 37.!lf5 !la7 38.!lf3 'l;l°c5 39.'ll\'d2 'll\'d6 40.'ll\'e3 !la5 41.!lf2 !lc2 42.g4 'll\'d7 43.'1ll'g3 !lc5 44.g5 fxg5 45.!lxf7+ 'll\'xf7 46..ixf? ©xf7 47.'1ll'f3 + ©g7 48.h5 !la5 49.©!2 !lb2 50.h6+ ©g6 51.h7 1-0 •••

•

6. Nailer - Delchev Ordu 1 7.04.2016 1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6 3.d4 e4 4.li:lc3 d5 5 .ig2 li:lf6 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.li:lh3 h6 8.0-0 .ib4 9.f3 0-0!

This position is difficult to play with both sides as White has the bishop pair advantage, but his pawn struc­ ture is compromised. Black can de­ velop his knight on c6, followed up by ... b6, but I prefer to treat the po­ sition a la Nimzowitsch, e.g. 13 ... li:ld7 14.c4 !le8 15.!lbl dxc4 16.'ll\'xc4 li:ldf6= with a blockade of the enemy pawn centre.

10 ...exf3 ll.!txf3?!

•

(see next diagram)

10.li:lf2?!

11.exf3 was roughly equal - 11 ... li:lc6 12.li:ld3 .ia5 13..ie3 !le8 14..if2 �f5.

ll...li:lc6 12.e3?

1.c4 e5 2.g3 c6 A horrible positional mistake which leaves the cl-bishop complete­ ly useless. 12.if4, having in mind g3-g4-g5, was a must.

15.lilc5 b:f'3 16.Wfxf3 b6 17.lild3 lila5 18.lile5 !k8 19.h3 l'le8 20.ib4 lilc4 21.lilxc4 l'lxc4 22.l'lael Wfd7 23.Wff5 Wfe6 24.g4 lile4 0-1

12 ...MS 13.lild3 hc3 14.bxc3 .ie4

A triumph of my light-squared strategy.

The material is still even, but the computer evaluates the final posi­ tion at -3.60 due to the threat 25... a5!

59

Chapter 3. 1.c4 e5 2.ttJc3 ttJf6 3.g3 c6

Main Ideas

1.c4 e5 2.11lc3 11lf6 3.g3 c6

2. White attacks the e4-pawn. 4.d4 e4 5.tg5 cuts our choice down to 5...tb4 in view of 5... d5? 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.hf6. After 6.1!!fb3 11la6 7.tg2 h6 8.hf6 1!!fxf6 9.e3 hc3+ 10.1!!fxc3 d5 11.cxd5 cxd5,

The move 11lc3 has a stronger influ­ ence on the centre than tg2, but it throws White off his repertoire with 2.g3. As I explained in Chapter 1, in many lines the knight is not well placed on c3. The stats show that in the following sequence of moves: l.c4 e5 2.g3 11lf6, 3.11lc3 is ten times (!) less frequent than 3.tg2. I will not elaborate further on the best way of exploiting White's knight . early sortie since that is often a mat­ ter of taste or fashion. Instead let's see how it compares to the previous two chapters if we insisit on 3...c6.

Black does not have serious prob­ lems, but he lacks any target. I propose to adopt the more en­ terprising scheme with an isolated pawn: 4 exd4 5.1!!fxd4 d5. ..•

1. White attacks the d5-pawn. This approach directly transposes to Chapter 1, line C, after 4.tg2 d5 5.d4 e4 and to Chapter 1, line A, af­ ter 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.1!!fb3 11lc6. 61

Chapter 3 I recommend to take on d4 only in this particular case when White has already committed his knight to c3. This detail forces him to exchange on d5 (unless he wants to sac the c4pawn) which gives us a nice tempo after ... lilc6. This tempo consider­ ably alters White's common plans against an IQP. The immediate re­ sults of it are:

10.0-0 0-0 3. The bishop on c5 deprives White of ie3, lild4, so he must look for nontrivial ways of completing his development. Whatever he does, we must aim for activity, even at the price of a pawn, e.g. ll.111'b5 (ll.tg5 h6) 11...11\'b6! 12.'ll'xb6 axb6 13.lilg5

1. White cannot comfortably devel­ op his cl-bishop to g5 due to the hit on b2: 6.tg5 te7 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.tg2 (8.lilf3 lilc6 9.111'a4 111'b6!?) 8...lilc6 9.11\'a4 11\'b6!

13...tg4 14.h3 �5 15.g4 tg6 16.lilxd5 lilxd5 17.hd5 l'lfe8 18.e3 h6 19.lilf3 l'led8 20.tb3 ie4t.

3. White does not play d4. Or 6.ig2 ie6 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.ig5 lilc6 9.111'a4 'll'b 6! with complica­ tions which may lead to a draw.

4.lilf3 e4 s.lild4 111'1>6 !

2. If we do not fear the pin from g5, we can find an active stand for our bishop on c5: 6.Ag2 te6 7.cxd5 cxdS 8.lilf3 lilc6 9.111'a4 AcS

As you see, our retort is the same. Most of the lines may transpose to Chapter 1, line B2. In the rest of them, the placement of the knight on c3 is more likely in ourfavour be­ cause we can get in ...d4 with a tern-

Lc4 e5 2.lilc3 lilf6 3.g3 c6 po: 6.lilb3 a5! 7.d3 a4 8.lild2 exd3 9.Ag2 d5!

Note also the plan 6.e3 d5 7.1!1'c2 Ad7 8.a3

10.0-0 (10.exd3 Ag4; 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.0-0 Ag4) 10 ...d4 ll.lilce4 lilxe4 12.lilxe4 Ae7 13.111'xd3 f5! ? 14.lilg5 0-0 with mutual chances.

Do not allow the idea b2-b4+c4c5. We can forestall it with 8... c5 ! 9.lilde2 dxc4 10. lilxe4 lilxe4 11.1!1'xe4+ 1!1'e6 12.1!1'xe6+ fxe6=.

63

Chapter 3. 1.c4 e5 2.tlic3 tlif6 3.g3 c6

Step by Step

1.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilf6 3.g3 c6

5...d5 6.cxd5 icS looks also logical, but then 7.IDb3 ib6 8.ig2 cxd5 9.d3 e3 10.ixe3 is sharp, but favourable to White. If we leave the d4-knight in piece for a while, we'll not be able to shift it later at all, e.g. 6...cxd5 7.d3 icS 8.dxe4 dxe4 9.ie3.

A. 4.lilf3; B. 4.d4 4.ig2 d5 5.d4 (5.cxd5 cxd5 6.'1!fb3 lilc6 is covered in Chapter 1, line A) 5...e4 transpose to Chapter 1, line C. Al. 6.illb3; A2. 6.e3

A. 4.lilf3 e4 5.lild4 5.lllg5 presents a tempo for the use­ ful prophylactic move ...h6 - 5... d5 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.d3 h6 8.li:lh3 ib4 9.id2 exd3+.

6.lll c2 d5 7.cxd5 (7.ig2 dxc4) 7... cxdS 8.ig2 ie7 9.d3 /Dc6 10.0-0 0-0 is covered in Chapter 1, line B2.

Al. 6.lilb3 a5! 7.d3

5 . 'lilh6! ..

This is my standard recommenda­ tion against lll d4. It is always good to repel the active knight from the centre. Most of the lines may trans­ pose to Chaper 1, line B2. ,;4

We can meet 7.a4 by 7...lll a6 or 7... ib4 as in Chapter 1. Enterprising al­ ternatives are 7...d5 8.cxd5 lilxd5!? 9.li:lxe4 ie6 and 8...li:lg4!? 9.e3 li:le5.

7... a4 8.lild2 exd3 9.$.g2

1.c4 e5 2.iilc3 iilf6 3.g3 c6 than to play 16 ...cS?! 17.iilel and the knight is heading for d5 via f4.

Or 9.exd3 icSt.

9

.••

d5 10.0-0 17.""'xa4

10.exd3 �4 11.'lilc2 could be coun­ tered by ll ...iila6!? 12.a3 dxc4 13.iilxa4 'lila5 14.dxc4 if5 15.'lilc3 'lilxc3 16.iilxc3 id3 with compen­ sation, for instance: 17.ifl iilb4 18.ixd3 iilxd3+ 19.i>e2 0-0-0=.

17... seS 18.'lilh3 ""'xb3 19.axb3 .id7

10 d4 11.iilce4 iilxe4 12.iilxe4 ie7 13.""'xd3

Black has full compensation for the pawn. For instance:

.••

17.if4 iilb4 18.'lild2 c5 is already fine so White has to accept the gift.

20.sel iilc5 21.sxa8 sxa8 22.b4 iilb3 23.iild2 iilxcl 24.Sxcl sa2 25.sbl ie6; 20.sdl iilc5 21.sxa8 sxa8 22.iilxd4 ixd4 23.sxd4 sal; 20 ..ig5 ixg5 21.iilxg5 Sxe2.

A2. 6.e3 d5 7.cxd5 13 f5!? •••

As usual, the space advantage as­

sures Black of good chances, but he must stay active. Instead in Yudin­ Jumabayev, Tomsk 2013, was 13 ... c5?! 14.e3 iilc6 15.exd4 cxd4 when 16.if4 0-0 17.sfcl, intending c5, would have forced 17...sa5 with a tenable, but passive position. The text might look as a weakness, but it drives back the e4-knight be­ fore it had the chance to go to d6.

7.'lilb3 dxc4 8.ixc4 'lilxb3 9.ixb3 iila6 10.f3 exf3 11.iilxf3 ib4 12.a3 ixc3 13.bxc3 iilc5 14..ic2 ie6 15.sbl 0-0-0 was in Black's favour, Granda Zuniga-Jumabayev, Pavlodar 2015. 7.'lilc2 id7 8.a3 would have been promising for White if he secured the d4-knight with b2-b4+c4-c5.

14.iilg5 0-0 15.iilf'3 if6 16.""'c2 (defending b2) 16 iila6! •••

Again, it is better to sac a pawn, 65

Chapter 3 However, 8 ... c5! throws a span­ ner into the works - 9.lilde2 dxc4 10.lilxe4 lilxe4 11.1/ifxe4+ 1/ile6=. Black is safe without queens. An il­ lustrative line runs 12.1/ifxe6+ fxe6 13.lilf4 g5 14.lilh3 g4!? (14...h6=) 15.lilf4 tc6 16.!lgl lild7 17.txc4 lile5 18.te2 mf7 19.b3 lilf3+ with a pret­ ty position.

7 cxd5 8.d3 lilc6 9.dxe4 dxe4 •••

Fans of isolated pawns could con­ sider 9 ... lilxe4 10.td3 lilf6 11.0-0 te7 12.lila4 11ifd8, but I would take White after 13.lilxc6 bxc6 14.b3.

B. 4.d4 exd4 4... e4 is more consistent with our opening strategy, but the specif­ ic move order (lilc3 instead of ig2) throws us out of Black's most ac­ tive schemes. After 5.ig5, we can­ not follow up with: 5...d5? 6.cxd5 cxd5 due to 7.txf6. That is not a tragedy since we can resort to the devel­ opment with: 5...tb4. Play may continue 6.1/ifb3 lila6 7.tg2 h6 8.txf6 1/ifxf6 9.e3 hc3+ 10.1/ilxc3 d5 11.cxd5 cxd5

10.tg2 tb4

11.0-0 hc3 12.bxc3 0-0 13.1/ifc2 1/ifc5 Black's pieces are well placed. He is not afraid of14.he4 lilxe4 15.1/ilxe4. That capture would be dubious since the opposite coloured bish­ ops are clearly in his favour after 15...th3 16.!lfdl !lfe8 17.1/ifh4 lilxd4 18.cxd4 1/iff5. Instead, White can open his bishop with 14.tb2 lile5 15.c4 1/ilxc4=. 66

Black should not have problems to hold this position, but the lack of the dark-squared bishops deprives him of active plans: 12.lile2 12.1/ifb3 1/ifb6 (12 ...1/ifd6) 13.1/ilxb6 axb6 is a draw endgame, e.g. 14.lile2 iilb4 15.md2 lild3 16.lilc3 te6 17.f3 lilxb2 18.fxe4 dxe4 19.he4 !la3 20.!lhcl lilc4+ 2i. md3 lild6 22.ds td7 23. md4 !lxc3 24.!lxc3 lilb5+ 25.md3 lilxc3 26. mxc3 me7 27.!lbl= !lc8+ 28.md4 !la8 29.!lxb6 !la4+ 30. md3 !lxa2 31.!lxb7 md6 32.h4 f5 33.W !la3+ =. 12 ...tg4 13.lilf4

l.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilf6 3.g3 c6 White should not forget that Black can castle long - 13.1/ijb3 0-0-0. 13 ... 1/ijd6 14.h3 if5 15.a3 (15.1/ija5 lilb4) 15...g5 16.lile2 0-0 17.1/ijb3 lilc7 18.lilc3 !lfc8 19.ifl a5 20.i.e2 b5

6.ig5 could be metby 6...ie7 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.ig2 lilc6 9.1/ija4 0-0, but the temporary weakness of b2 hints at more challenging ideas as 9 ...1/ijb6! 10.m5 0-0. The same attack is pos­ sible after 8.lilf3 (instead of 8.i.g2) - 8 ... lilc6 9.1/ija4 1/ijb6!? 10.1/ijb5 0-0 ll.ig2 d4=.

6 .ie6 7.cxd5 •••

It is a matter of taste, but I prefer active and more complex play. By taking on d4, we accept an isolat­ ed central pawn which, however, will be quite mobile as White can­ not comfortably blockade it.

If the knight were still on bl, White might have hoped for some edge with quick kingside development and castling. The point is that when Black takes on c4, White can regain the sacrificed pawn by lilbd2. In the diagram position, that course is im­ possible and 7.lilf3 dxc4 8.1/ijxd8+ l!lxd8 leaves White struggling to equalize. For instance, 9.lilg5 lilbd7 (9...td6!?) 10.lilxe6 fxe6 ll.th3? l!le7 was outright bad for him in the blitz game Ovetchkin-Volkov, play­ chess.com 2006. Thus White is forced to let our knight to c6 with a tempo.

5.1/ijxd4 d5

7...cxd5 8.lil:f3

6.ig2

8.ig5 is a principled move. After 8... lilc6 9.'Wa4, Black must immedi­ ately hit b2 with 9 ...'Wb6 ! We should not allow White to torture us in a typical IQP po­ sition following 9 ...ie7 10.e3. Practice has seen 9 ...tb4, but 10.e3 h6 ll.hf6 'Wxf6 12.lilge2 0-0 13.0-0 hc3 14.bxc3 is obvi­ ously pleasant for White. 10.hf6 gxf6. Perhaps White should force a draw here with:

White cannot break through Black's defenceline - 21.h4 @g7 22. l!lflid7 23.hxg5 hxg5 24.l!lg2 l'lh8 25.l'lxh8 l'lxh8 26.l'lhl l'lxhl 27.@xhl=.

67

�--- - -- ------

-

----

Chapter 3

ll..b:d5 Wxb2 12 ..b:c6+
move, and it is well scoring at that. Its idea is to kill the dark-squared bishop after 11 ...i.b6 12.ltla4. Of course, we should keep it: n...Wb6! 12.'l!lxb6 12.1!1'd3 gives us a tempo - 12 ... ltlb4 13.'!l'dl (or 13.'l!lbl ltle4 14.ltlxe4 dxe4 15.ltlg5 f5=) 13 ... ltle4 14.e3 !lac8!? (conceding to trade the bishop in return for full control of the c-file) 15.ltla4 Wa6 16.ltlxc5 !lxc5 17.ltld4 !lfc8. 12.e3 ltle4 is also satisfactory. 12 ...axb6 13.ltlg5

8...ltlc6 9.Wa4 i.c5 With an isolated pawn, we should aim to place our pieces on their most active places so I did not con­ sider 9...i.e7 at all. 9...i.b4 deserves attention, but 10.lile5 underlines its shaky state. 10.0-0 0-0

11.i.g5 11.Wb5 is the second most popular �o

Now it is turn to preserve the light­ squared bishop: 13 ...i.g4 14.h3 i.h5 15.g4 i.g6 16.ltlxd5 ltlxd5 17..b:d5. White has won a pawn, but all his pieces are uncoordinated - 17... !lfe8 18.e3 h6 19.ltlf3 !led8 20.i.b3 i.e4t. 11.ltlg5 could be put to the test with ll...h6 I do not see any compelling rea­ son to precipitate the exchange so ll...!lc8!? should be at least as good as ll ...h6. 12.ltlxe6 fxe6 13.e4 White was too passive after 13.a3 !lc8 (13 ... ltle5!?) 14.e3 We7 15.i.d2 ltle5 16.!ladl?! 'l!!lf7 Jones-Edouard, London 2014.

l.c4 e5 2.1Zlc3 1Zlf6 3.g3 c6 13... 1Zlg4 14.exd5 l'lxf2 15.l'lxf2 1Zlxf2 with a perpetual.

ll h6 12.hf6 lll'xf6 ...

This position resembles the Tarra­ sch, but Black is a tempo up since White's queen landed on a4 via the triangle dl-d4-a4. Besides, this square, as a rule, belongs to the c3knight to chase the active c5-bish­ op. In the Tarrasch White occasion­ ally employs the plan with �g5, but connects it with the idea of forcing ... d5-d4 which plugs the black dark­ squared bishop. In the diagram po­ sition Black is not obliged to com­ ply. As a result, he preserves active pieces and excellent chances. See Grune 7 Neiksans-Kovalenko, Riga 2014.

69

Chapter 3. 1.c4 e5 2.llic3 llif6 3.g3 c6

Annotated Games

7. Neiksans - Kovalenko Riga 2014 1.c4 e5 2.g3 qif6 3 .ig2 c6 4.d4 exd4 5."*'xd4 d5 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.qif'3 qic6 8."*'a4 .ic5 9.0-0 0-0 10.tgs h6 n.hf6 "*'xf6 12.qic3 .ie6 •

20.!lfdl, Dvimyy-Van den Reev­ er, Tromso 2014, 20 ...!lc4 21.Wfe3 .ixg3 leads to a drawish endgame. Therefore, we could first retreat the bishop - 20 ....if6!, followed up by ... !lc4.

13 ... !lfdS 14.!lacl 14.e3 does not really blockade the isolated pawn as we could always exchange it with ... d4. More inter­ esting is: 14...tb6 15.!ld2 !lacs 16.!ladl d4 17.ltlxd4 ltlxd4 18.exd4 !lc4 19.Wfc2 .ixd4 20 ..ixb7

13.l'1fdl The blockading plan 13.lilel lfad8 14.!lcl !lfe8 15.qid3 is not effective since we are not obliged to push ...d4 - 15....ib6 l6.qif4 "*'e5. 13.!ladl looks strange as the queen's rook would be more useful on cl. Black can follow the same plan as in the game - 13 ...!lfdS and if 14.ms Vffe7 15.qia4 .id6 16.qid4 ltlxd4 17.!lxd4 a6 18.Wfb6 .ie5 19.!ld3 !lac8

Black enjoys very active pieces 20 ...tg4 21.!lel g6 22.Wfb3 .ie6t.

14 ... !lacS 15."*'b5 qie5! 16."*'xb7 It suddenly transpires that 16.qixe5

l.c4 e5 2.ltlc3 ltlf6 3.g3 c6 ixf2+ and 16.ltla4 td7 17.'lilb3ha4 18.'lilxa4 ltlc4 lose a pawn so White decides to grab one himself. How­ ever, Black's initiative now becomes overwhelming.

16... lilg4 17.'1fl

26 te6? •••

A critical moment. The winning shaping of this idea was 26 ... ltldl+! 27.©fl ©h7! ! and only after 28.h3 (28.'lilxf7 loses to 28 ...'lilcS), 28 ... ltle3+ 29.©f2 te6! 30.1i!la7 !lcS (the fight is for the gl-a7 diago­ nal) 31.'lila4 ltlc2 32.'1dl 'lile3+ and White is tide up and down.

17....ix(2+ A natural human move which guar­ antees Black a strong initiative. Only a computer could calculate that 17... tb6! threatening ...d4, is even more awkward for White. 18.'1xf2 d4 19.'1ffl dxc3 20.'1xc3 '1xc3 21.bxc3 'lilxc3 22.'lilxa7 lile3 23.'1bl M5 24.'1el tg4 25. 'lile7 '1d5 26.©f2

A further attack on e2 (after some preparation), will decide the game. The text is mistake because White could trade his bishop by 27.th3!=.

27.'lila7?! '1c5 28.'lilbS+ '1c8 29.'lila7 lilc2 30.'1dl tc4 31.'lile7 'lll'a5 32.th3 'lilb6+ 33.e3 te6 34.he6 'lilxe3+ 35.©g2 'lile2+ 36.©h3 'lilxe6+ 37.'lilxe6 fxe6 38.'1cl '1f8= 39.'1xc2 '1xf"3 40.a4 '1a3 41.'1c8+ ©f7 42.'1a8 '1a2 43.a5 h5 44.a6 e5 45.g4 '1a3+ 46.©h4 hxg4 47.©xg4 ©g6 48.a7 e4 49.M4 e3 50.©1'3 ©h7 51.©e2 g5 52.h3 ©g7 53.©1'3 ©h7 54.©e2 ©g7 55.©1'3 ©h7 56.©e2 Draw.

71

Chapter 4. 1.c4 e5 2.lll c3 lll f6 3.lll f3 lll c6

Main Ideas

In this chapter we begin to investi­ gate White's most challenging sys­ tem: 1.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilf6 3.lilf'3

We meet 4.d3 with 4 . tb4, too. 5.i.d2 0-0 6.g3 a5 .

.

lilc6

White's quick development is much more restrictive than the slow g3. It does not leave us time to build a pawn centre with ... c6. Of course, we could play ...d5 without other prep­ aration, but the Reversed Sicilian is not a subject of this book. Fortu­ nately, we have other ways to fight for the centre, based on ...i.b4. In chapter 4 I analyse four rare White options while the main line 4.g3 is considered in Chapters 6 and 7.

4.d4 exd4 5.lilxd4 i.b4 6.i.g5 h6 7.th4 hc3+ 8.bxc3 0-0 is easy to play and does not require any spe­ cial knowledge.

Our next moves should be prophy­ lactive - we hinder White's ad­ vance on the queenside and keep our bishop.

7.i.g2 d6 8.0-0 h6 9.a3 i.c5 Let's take stock. White's play un­ til this moment was mostly preven­ tive. He avoided sharp lines, did not give us a chance to double his pawns, and kept control of the cen­ tre. Black, for his part, developed comfortably, but he lacks an active plan. He should manoeuvre care­ fully to neutralise White's advance on the queenside. It would be use­ ful to trade a pair of knights - with lild5 lilxd5 or with ...lilc6-lild4xf3. Galanov-Eckhardt, corr. 2011, went 10.e3 Ms n.1Wc2 Eie8 12.lilh4 th7 73

Chapter 4 hf3 8.hf3 0-0 9.tg5 h6 10.hf6 '1!1xf6 11.Ei:Jd5 '1!1d8 - see Game 8 Edouard-Karpov, Cap d'Agde 2015. In the light of the above examples, 4.a3!? looks more than logical and I used this move myself. However, we have a trump up our sleeve: 13.b3! '1!1d7 14.tcl l'lab8 15.l'ldl tb6 16.l'lbl Ei:Je7=.

4... e4!? 5.liJg5 '1!1e7 6.d3 exd3 7.'1!1xd3

4.e4 does not fit in with Ei:Jf3 when White cannot develop his king's knight on e2. I suggest 4...tb4 in­ tending to take on c3 after 5.d3 d6 6.a3 hc3+ 7.bxc3 h6 8.g3 0-0 9.Ag2

It turns out that Black can fianchetto the bishop with 7...g6!? 8.Ei:Jf3 tg7 9.Ag5 d6! since 10.Ei:Jd5 '1!1d8 is okay.

The thematic way of obtaining counterplay in this stucture is 9... a6!? followed up by ...b5.

6.Ae2 does not seem any better Black was fine after 6 ...tg4 7.0-0

74

White is unable to capitalise on the pin.

Chapter 4. 1.c4 e5 2.tll c3 tll f6 3.tll f3 tll c6

Step by Step

1.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilf6

A. 4.d4 exd4 5.lilxd4 tb4

2 ...j.b4 3.lild5 is another popular option. The King's Indian structure 2 ... d6 3.d4 exd4 4.®xd4 lilc6 5.®d2 g6 does not appeal to me. White has a space advantage after 6.g3 j.g7 7.j.g2 lilf6 8.b3 0-0 9.j.b2 a510.lilf3 !le8 11.0-0 M5 12.lilh4 td7 13.!ladl Wes 14.!lfel lile5 15.lilf3 lilxf3+ 16.txf3 j.c6 17.lild5 hd5 18.cxd5.

3.lilf3 lilc6

Black's task is easy. He will dam­ age the enemy pawn structure with ...hc3 and will aim to trade some minor pieces.

6.j.g5 h6 7.j.h4 hc3+ 8.bxc3 0-0 It is also possible to play 8 ... li\e5

A. 4.d4; B. 4.a3; C. 4.d3; D. 4.e4. 4.e3 is the subject of our next chapter while 4.g3 is considered in Chapters 6 and 7.

immediately - 9.f4 lilg6 10.M6 1!\'xf6 ll.g3 lilf8 12.tg2 lile6 13.®d2 0-0 14.!lbl lilc5 15.lilb3 d6. Still, it looks more clever to wait for e3 before shifting the knight to e5.

9.e3 After 9.f3 !le8 White cannot play e4 75

Chapter 4 anyway due to the hit on e4 - 10 .e4 lilxe4 or 10.fi.f2 d6 ll.e4 lilxe4.

9 ... lile5 10.fi.e2 lilg6 11 .hf6 Y;\1xf6 12.0-0 d6 13.gbl lile5 •

Black's knight returns to the queenside via d7-c5 to underline the biggest flaw of doubled pawns - the weakness of the square before them. White is already on the de­ fensive.

B. 4.a3 I used to play this move ten years ago in order to prevent 4...fi.b4. Black has a wide choice. 4...d5 leads to the Sicilian Reversed. 4...g6 5.g3 fi.g7 6.fi.g2 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.d3 is a closed system where the opponents attack on the op­ posite flanks. White's typical play may be illustrated with the follow­ ing line: 8... lild4 9.lild2 c6 10.b4 fie6 ll.fi.b2 1ll'd7 12.e3 lilf5 13.lilde4 lilxe4 14.lilxe4 1ll'e7 15.a4 lilh6 16.b5 f5 17.lild2 gac8 18.gbl d5 19.bxc6 bxc6 20.a5;t;. The presence of the a­ pawns gives White a target. That ex­ plains the popularity of 8 ... a5!?

with mutual chances after 9.gbl lild4 or 9 ... ge8 10.fi.g5 h6 ll.fixf6 fixf6 12.b4 axb4 13.axb4 fi.g7 14.b5 lile7 15.1ll'c2 c6. My only objection against this set­ up is that the English adepts usually have plenty of experience with this plan. We can surprise them with the poorly explored:

4, ..e4!? 5.lilg5 Y;\1e7 6.d3 exd3 My game Delchev-Papa, Zuerich 2002, went on 7.e4 h6 8.lilf3 d5 9.cxd5 lilxe4 10 .fi.e3 lilxc3 11.bxc3 lile5 12.fi.xd3 lilxd3+ 13.Wxd3 Wd8 14.0-0

Here my opponent chose a pas­ sive stand with 14...fi.e7 15.c4 c5? (15 ... 0-0 16.gfel ge8 is roughly equal) 16.fi.£4 0-0 17.lild2 with a clear edge. More natural is: 14 ...fi.d6 15.c4 b6 16.gfel 0-0 17.fi.d4 ge8=. The a3-pawn might hang in some lines. In my next game I tried to improve with:

7.Wxd3 The idea is to meet 7... lile5 by 8.1ll'c2 d6 9.e4 h6 10.lilf3 lilxf3+ ll.gxf3;t;.

1.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilc6 3.lilf3 lilc6 White's powerful centre assures him of the edge.

7 g6 8.lilf3 tg7 9.tg5 d6! ..•

9 ... lile5 10.lilxe5 '/Nxe5 11.f4 gave me an initiative against Peranic in 2003.

10.lild5 'INdS 10.a3 10.lile4 hd2 11.'/Nxd2 b6 12.l'lacl Wd7=. 10 ... lilxc3 ll.bxc3 tc5=.

5.td2 0-0

It transpires that White cannot con­ vert the pin of the f6-knight into even the slightest advantage! For instance: 11.We3+ (11.Wc3 lile5) 11 ...te6 12.g3 0-0 13.l'ldl l'le8 (13 ...h6 is also pos­ sible) 14.Wf4 lilh5 15.hdS lilxf4 16.hc7 lilxd5 17.cxd5 tg4! 18.tg2 txf3 19.txf3 lild4 with a level end­ game. Black can either regain the pawn, or enter a curious rook end­ game after 20.0-0 te5 (20 ...lilb5 21.hs b6=) 21.ta5 b6 22.tb4 lilxf3+ 23.exf3 a5 24.tc3 hc3 25.bxc3 l'lec8=.

C. 4.d3 .ib4 4...d5 is also possible - 5.cxd5 lilxd5 6.g3 tb4 6... te7 is the standard approach. 7.td2 te6 8.tg2 f6 9.0-0 0-0

White's set-up is innocuous, but not without venom. He avoids doubled pawns while making normal devel­ oping moves. That discourages ag­ gressive plans with long castling as in the line 4.e3 tb4 5.Wc2 hc3 6.Wxc3 We7 7.a3 d5 8.cxd5 lilxd5 9.'1Nb3 lilb6 10.d3, where Black's huge lead in development enables 10 ...tfs 11.te2 0-0-0.

6.g3 6.e3 is less challenging and it gives Black a wide choice. The most na77

Chapter 4 tural answer is 6 ... dS 7.cxdS lilxd5 S ..te2 S.Vffc2 lilxc3 9.hc3 .td6 (or 9... Vffe7) is balanced. S ... lilxc3 S ....te6 9.0-0 .te7!? 10.a3 as is a curious wayto getthe Schevenin­ gen with two tempi down! Nev­ ertheless, this is the most chal­ lenging line and the top play­ ers gladly take it in order to en­ sure more action. Black's stand in the centre is so solid that he can afford the frivolity of play­ ing like that. I assume that Sicil­ ian adepts will know what to do in this structure (of course, they should forget about the sharpest options), and the others will opt for simpler approaches which involve piece exchanges. 9.hc3 hc3 10.bxc3

Ghaem Maghami-Ramesh, Dubai 2006; 10...Vffe7 11.d4 .td7 12.0-0 !ladS 13.Vffc2 !lfeS 14.!labl b6 lS..tbs e4 16.lild2 Ill as 17.hd7 !lxd7 1S.Vffa4 !ld6=, Timofeev-Najer, Dagomys 2010; 10 ...Vfff6 11.0-0 Vffg6 12.!lel .th3 13.g3 !lads 14.d4 b6 lS.!lbl e4 16.lild2 lilaSco.

6... a5!? 6...hc3 7.hc3 e4 S.lilh4 d6 is con­ sistent, but the threat ...gS can be ignored - 9 ..tg2 ! when 9...gS fails to 10.Vffcl. Black can revive the threat with 9 ...Vffe7 to force play 10.M6 Vffxf6 11.he4 Vffxb2 12.0-0 lild4 13.!lel with a tangled position. Still, White's position is more flexi­ ble due to the pawn majority in the centre. 6... !leS 7..tg2 hc3 S.hc3 dS 9.cxdS lilxdS is a viable alternative: a) 10.0-0

Black's next moves are easy - he puts his rooks on the central files and protects the b-pawn with ...b6. The only question is where to put the queen - ...Vffe7 is safe as Black's pieces stay compact, but ...Vfff6-g6 is more active. Possible continua­ tions are: 10 ...Ms n.d4 Vffe7 12.0-0 !lads 13.Vffb3 e4 14.lild2 !ld6 1S.g3 draw, 7S

10 ...lilxc3 Closing the c-file. Romanishin played 10 ...!lbS!? first, intend­ ing 11.!lcl lilxc3 12.bxc3 b6. Cri­ tical for his idea is 11.i.d2 ! when Black can opt for a solid stand

l.C4 eb Z."-lC:S "-lCb 0."-lt0 "-lCb

in the centre with ... Wd6, ...f6, ...ie6. ll.bxc3 !'1b8 12.Wc2 In the event of 12.lild2, simplest looks 12 ... lila5 (12 ...id7!?) aim­ ing for a Mar6czy structure with ...c5 - 13.Wc2 c5 14.lilb3 lilxb3 15.axb3 a5 16.M axb4 17.cxb4 cxb4=. 12 ...ie6 13.lild2 Wd7 14.lilb3 b6 15.!'1adl ib3 16.e4 hg2 17.@xg2=, Ignatov-Mabling, ICCF 2006. b) 10.id2 lild4 11.0-0 c6=. 6 ... lild4!? 7.ig2 lilxf3+ 8.ixf3 is =#. My recommendation keeps more tension in the centre. More impor­ tantly, White's plan is not so clear as in the open Sicilian structures. The pawn move preserves the bishop in the event of 7.a3 ic5 8.lila4.

9.e3 if5 10.We2 occurred in Laznicka-Topalov, Novy Bor 2013. (10.Wc2 ixc3 11.hc3 lilb4 evens the game outright.) After 10 ...!'leS 11.!'lfdl e4 12.dxe4 lilxe4 13.!'lacl simplest would be 13 ... lilxd2= .

9 .ic5 10 .e3 if5 ..

Two correspondence games saw 10 ....ie6 11.Wc2 Wd7 12.lilh4 ib6 (12 ...ib3 13.f4) 13.lila4 ia7 14.b4 ib3 15.b5 lile7 16.!'labl d5 17.c5 hg2 18.@xg2 !'1fe8 19.ha5 c6 20.bxc6 lilxc6 21.ib4. Although Black drew, I do not see any reason to give the enemy an initiative. It is better to open the centre with ...e4 and display activity on the kingside. The text is the most logical step in that direction.

11.Wc2 B:e8 12.li:lh4 .ih7 13.b3! 7.ig2 d6 8.0-0 h6 Many correspondence games fea­ ture 13.!'lfdl, but this move takes away the only natural retreat square for the c2-queen. That could be underlined with 13 ...g5!? 14.li:lf3 e4 15.dxe4 li:lxe4 16.Wa4 f5 with counterplay, e.g. 17.Wb5 f4 or 17.li:ld5 li:le7.

9.a3 9.lild5 ic5 (9 ...lilxd5 10.cxd5 lile7 11.hb4 axb4, intending ... c6, is ba­ lanced.) 10.ic3 lild4 11.e3 lilxf3 was equal in Kryvoruchko-Sargissian, Spain team eh. 2015. 79

Chapter 4 After 13.b3!, Black does not have a clear plan since 13...g5?! 14.ltlf3 e4 15.dxe4 ltlxe4 16.11!!1dl f5 17.E1a2 would neutralise his temporary ac­ tivity. Instead he should embark on manoeuvring. Galanov-Eckhardt, corr. 2011 went 13 ...11!!1d7 14.fl.cl 14.gfdl 11!!1g4 revives the break ...e4, for instance, 15.il.cl e4. White could repel the quen with 15.h3 11!!1d7, but the h3-pawn would be a good target. Black can then transfer his c6-knight to g5 via d8-e6 - 16.il.cl (preparing gbl) 16 ...ltld8 17.gbl ltle6 18.b4 (18.hb7?! gab8 19.il.g2 ltlg5 20.g4 ltlxg4!) 18 ...fl.b6 19.ltle4 ltlxe4 2 0.dxe4 11!!1e7 21.lilfS 11!!1f8 with complex play. 14... gab8 15_gd1 fl.b6 16.gbl ltle7 17.lilf3 il.f5 18.lile4 11!!1e6 19.b4,

ltlxe5 6.d4 il.b4 7.dxe5 ltlxe4 8.11!!1f3 ltlxc3 9.bxc3 il.a5 10.il.e2 Or 10.il.a3 d6 11.exd6 o-o 12.gd1 il.d7. 10 ... d6 leads to open piece play with equal chances. Ju Wenjun-Kosteni­ uk, Chengdu 2015 went from here:

11.0-0 More prudent is: ll.il.a3 0-0 12.0-0 il.d7 13.exd6 il.c6= or: 11.'l!lg3 il.f5 12.il.f4 0-0=. 11... dxe5 12.il.a3 'l!lf6 13.11!!1e3 c6 14 .il.f3 il.b6 and White is yet to prove enough compensation for the pawn.

5.d3 d6

when 19 ...axb4 20.axb4 ltlxe4 would have been roughly equal.

D. 4.e4 il.b4 This is a solid approach which al­ lows both sides to demonstrate their positional understanding. On the opposite, 4...fl.c5!? 5.ltlxe5!

6.il.e2 I suggest to meet 6.a3 by 6 ...hc3+ for consistency sake - we could get

1.c4 e5 2.'8c3 '8c6 3.'8f3 '8c6 the same structure after 4.e3 !b4 5.1!1'c2 hc3 6.bxc3, see Chapter 5 line B. Carlsen chose against Ghaem in Berlin 2015, 6...!cS 7.b4 !b6 8.'8a4 !g4 9.'8xb6 axb6 10..tb2 (10.!e2 0-0 11.!b2 0,e7 12.0-0 '8g6=) 10 ...txf3 ll.111'xf3 0,d7 aiming for ... '8d7-f8-e6. Criti­ cal for his idea would be 12.111'g3! 1!1'f6 13.!e2 0,f8 14.f4! 0,e6 15.f5 with a space advantage. 7.bxc3 h6 I'm not too sure that we need this prophylaxis. The plan with 7...a6 is also effective without it. 8.g3 0-0 9.!g2 a6!? (this is always good against the setup with !g2) 10.l'lbl

6.g3 is strategically similar to the main line as both allow the exchange ...!c8-g4xf3 - 6...tg4 7.h3 txf3 8.111'xf3 0,d4 9.11\'dl c6 10.!g2. Black has two possible plans now - either to stay passive on the queenside with 10 ...a5 11.0-0 tcS, or to pre­ pare ...b5 with 10 ...a6 11.0-0 !cS 12.l'lbl b5. In his rapid match against Karpov in Cap d'Agde 2015, Edouard first­ ly tried 6.h3 a6 7.!e2 !cS 8.0-0 0-0 9.!e3, but 9...'8d4 turned out to be balanced:

10.a3 h6 ll.b4 '8xf3+ 12.txf3 he3 13.fxe3 !e6 14.1!1'e2 b6 15.a4 c5=.

Libiszewski-Postny, Bastia 2013 saw here 10 ...b5 when White backed off with ll.lild2. The idea of Black's sacrifice was to play ...!d7, ...1!1'c8, ...111'a6, ...l'lfb8 with an initiative on the queenside. I do not see anything wrong with the more restrained: 10 ...l'lb8 11.0-0 b5=.

In the next match game, Edouard opted for 6.!e2.

6.. tg4 7.0-0 hf3 8.h1'3 0-0 9.tgs h6 10.txr6 1!1'xf6 11.ads 11\'dS .

White's bishop does not have any prospects. See Game 8 Edouard­ Karpov, Cap d'Agde 2015.

81

Chapter 4. 1.c4 e5 2.tll c3 tll f6 3.tll f3 tll c6

Annotated Games

8. Edouard - Karpov Cap d'Agde 2015 1.c4 qof6 2.ac3 e5 3.af3 ac6 4.e4 .ib4 5.d3 d6 6 .ie2 .ig4 7.0-0 hf3 8..ht'3 0-0 9 ..ig5 h6 10.hf6 •

10 . .ih4 .ic5 ll.qod5 g5 is hardly any better.

10

'lifxf6 11.ads 'lifds

•••

We see the biggest flaw of the scheme with e4 - the d4-square and the dark squares in general are weak. If we compare the two bish­ ops, White has played against the textbook. The central pawns on light squares are a long-term fac­ tor in Black's favour. Accordingly, his game is already more pleasant. I would think of changing the pawn structure in the centre with 12.d4 exd4 13.a3 .ic5 l4.b4 .ib6 15..ih5 82

Tbe threat f4 would offer White counterplay, but it is Black to move and he retains an advantage by re­ turning the pawn with 15 ... ae5! 16.axb6 axb6 17.'lifxd4 'liff6 18.gfdl ga4. Tbe pressure along the a-file binds the white pieces. Besides the a3-pawn, c4 is also weak, e.g. 19..ie2 gfa8 20.'lil'c3 ltlg6 21.'lifb3 ltlf4 22 ..ig4 ltle6 23.'/;\le3 c5. Alternatively, 12.a3 .ic5 13.b4 .ib6 14.a4 a5 15.ltlxb6 cxb6 also leaves Black with a superior knight vs. a bad bishop.

12.'lifb3 a5 13.a3 ad4 14.'lifdl .ic5 15..ig4 a4 I'm not sure about this move. It is strategically "correct'', but the a4pawn will be weak. That will face Black with technical problems. 15 ... c6 16.ltlc3 g6 was Jess committal.

1.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilc6 3.lilf3 lilc6

16.l!lhl c6 17.lilc3 \Wa5

attempt to complicate things. The calm retreat 25 ..th3 would have passed the ball into Black's court. Although he is clearly better, he lacks a clear plan how to improve further.

25 gxh5 26.1/!lxh5 ga5 27.c5 ••.

18.f4? It is understandable that White wants to show some activity, but this move only weakens the kingside dark squares. Besides, it is a tactical mistake which both opponents fail to spot in a rapid game - 18 ... lilb3! 19.�bl kxa3! wins a pawn since 20.lilxa4? loses to 20 ... lild2.

18 exf4? 19.gxf4 lilb3 20.�1 .id4 21.gfS .ie5+ ..•

21. ..ds 22.cxd5 kxc3 23.bxc3 1/!lxc3 24.1/!lel 1/!lxel + 25.�el lild4 simpli­ fies to a better endgame, but Karpov prefers to improve his pieces before forcing the play.

27 1/!lxc5? •..

White's bold play is suddenly re­ warded. Black would keep an extra piece with 27....ig7! 28.lilxa4 1/!ld8! .

2s.gf5 1/!ld4 29.�fl �g7 30.�a5 lilxa5 31.1/!lxa5 1/!lxd3 32.gdl? The last mistake. 32.1/!lf5 b5 was only slightly better for Black.

32 1/!lc2 33.gfl 1/!lxb2 34.e5 he5 35.lile4 1/!le2 36.gel 1/!lc4 37.1/!ld2 1/!le6 38.lilg5 1/!lh6 39.h3 .tf6 40.lile4 1/!lxd2 41.lilxd2 .ic3 42.ge2 hd2 43.gxd2 d5 44. l!lgl geS 45.©f2 ge4 0-1 •..

22.lile2 1/!lb6 23.lilc3 g6 24.gfl h5! 25.hh5? Edouard obviously hated his po­ sition if he went for this desperate

83

Chapter 5. 1.c4 e5 2.llic3 llif6 3.llif3 llic6 4.e3

Main Ideas

1.c4 e5 2.li:lc3 li:lf6 3.li:l:f3 li:lc6 4.e3 .ib4

that White has spent too many tempi on ambling around with the queen and we should make him pay. So: 10 il.fS!? 11.Ae2 0-0-0! •..

The knight on f3 naturally attracts the e5-pawn to go to e4. For in­ stance, 5.li:ld5 stumbles into 5...e4. White commonly answers 5."lilc2, reviving the threat li:ld5. I suggest to remove it altogether with 5 .ixc3. .••

A. 6."lilxc3 preserves the pawn for­ mation flexible, but will cost a tem­ po after ... d5. 6... "lile7. IfWhite now wants to play a true Sicilian Re­ versed, he must spend another tem­ po on 7.a3 since 7.Ae2 d5 8.cxd5 li:lxd5 9."lilb3 li:lb6 10.d3 allows the promising combination 10 ... Ae6 11.\1!l/c2 li:lb4 12.°l:\lbl Af5 13.a3 12ixd3+! 14.txd3 txd3 15.\1!l/xd3 e4. 7 d5 8.cxd5 li:lxd5 9.'lilb3 (9.\!!"c2 •••

e4) 9 ... li:lb6 10.d3. Here the common equalizer is the plan with short castling, but I think

I'm sure your opponents will not like this. White has to spend yet an­ other tempo to free the lane for the b-pawn while Black's play is easy and effective. He hits the d3-pawn with ... !ld6, !lhd8 to force the ugly li:lel, and then changes the direc­ tion of his main strike towards the kingside with ...g5, ... !lh6. If White plays d4 early, the centre is eliminated and Black's game is easy due to his better development. Here are several ways that lead to the same pawn structure: 7.d4 exd4 8.12ixd4 12ixd4 9.\!!"xd4 o-o (9 ... c5= l 10.te2 !ld8=.

7.a3 d5 8.d4 exd4 9.12ixd4 12ixd4 10.Wxd4 o-o 11.td2 85

Chapter 5

B. 6.bxc3 This recapture makes sense only in conjunction with e4, but that means White will present us with a clear tempo.

6.bxc3 0-0 7.e4 d6 White puts his hope in f2-f4, but we can easily hinder this idea. For in­ stance: 8..ie2 ltlh5 9.d4 1l!'f6 11...c5 12.11!'h4 dxc4 13.hc4 .ie6=.

7 .ie2 d5 8.d4 exd4 9.lilxd4 lilxd4 •

10.1l!'xd4 0-0

10.d5 (10.g3 exd4) 10 ...lila5 ll.g3 b6 planning ... lila5-b7-c5 or ...c7-c6. Black often includes ...c5, but I pre­ fer to gain the tempo by taking with a rook on d5 - ll.cxd5 l'ld8 12.11l'h4 l'lxd5=.

8.g3 ©h8 9.d3 ltlg8 - see game 11 Suba-Delchev, Albacete 2004. Another thematic plan against the fianchetto is 8 ... lild7 9..ig2 ltlc5 10.lilh4 a6 11.0-0 b5 :;±.

Chapter 5. 1.c4 e5 2.'ll c3 'llf6 3.'llf3 'll c6 4.e3

Step by Step

1.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilf6 3.lilt'3 lilc6 4.e3

bishop out to b7 or a6) 8.lile2 lilxd5 9.cxd5 lile5 10.lilc3 f5 ll.d3 lilxd3+ 12.hd3 exd3 13.°l!lxd3 b6 14.0-0 a5. 6... lilxb4 7.lild4 c5 8.lilb5 (8.lilc2 lild3+) 8 ... d5 9.a3 lild3+ 10.hd3 exd3 11.cxd5 lilxd5 with a striking spatial advantage. 5.d4 exd4 6.exd4 d5 cannot be of any concern for Black. Play typical­ ly continues with 7.a3 hc3+ 8.bxc3 0-0 9.ie2 dxc4=.

White displays an intention to contest actively the centre with d4. We should refrain from 4 ...d5 5.cxd5 lilxd5 as 6.ib5 lilxc3 7.bxc3 id6 8.d4 exd4 9.cxd4 0-0 10.0-0 is ob­ viously pleasant for the first player.

s.. hc3 .

4...ie7 5.d4 exd4 is a decent option, but I will focus on the more chal­ lenging continuation:

4...ib4 5.°l!lc2 5.lild5 allows 5 ...e4 6.lilxb4 6.lilgl practically reverses the roles and Black is already ahead in development - 6... 0-0 7.a3 id6 (aiming to lead the other

I will consider now:

A. 6.Wxc3 which we'll attack by castling long, and: B. 6.bxc3 which leads to a closed manoeuvring game. 87

Chapter s

A. 6.'lii'xc3 'lii'e7

10....if5!?

Al. 7.a3; A2. 7..ie2

Almost everybody opts for short castling with 10 ... 0-0 ll ..ie2 a5 12 ..id2 a4 13.'l:ilc2 .ie6 14.l'lcl. Black stands perfectly well here, but he does not have a clear plan. Of course, he controls the centre, but he should basically wait and try to keep the grip. It is difficult to find the best moves in such circum­ stances. On the opposite, White's setup is flexible and his play on the queenside and in the centre is not too committal. I recommend to set concrete prob­ lems to the opponent by castling long and hitting his weak point at d3. Note that the Najdorf-style at­ tack 10 ....ig4 ll..ie2 0-0-0 12.'l:ilc2 f5 seems rather impotent and the counter-attack with 13.b4 has more chances to succeed.

7.d4 exd4 8.lilxd4 lilxd4 9.'l:ilxd4 defines the centre too early - see Grune 9 Mastrovasilis-Hracek, Is­ tanbul 2003.

Al. 7.a3 d5 8.cxd5 8.d4 exd4 9.lilxd4 lilxd4 10.'l:ilxd4 0-0 is completely balanced. See Grune 10 Onischuk-Shirov, New Delhi/Teheran 2000.

8 ...lilxd5 9.'lii'b3 9.'l:ilc2 lets in 9 ... e4 when 10..ibS? loses to 10 ... exf3.

Finally, 10 ...g5?! has not been test­ ed, but it makes sense exactly in this moment - when we have not com­ mitted our king to the queensideyet. The position after 11.1/i/c2 g4 12.lild2 f5 13.b4 a6 is difficult to evaluate.

9 ...lilb6 10.d3

Wecanstillcastleshortorevenleave the king in the centre - 14..ie2 f4 88

l.c4 e5 2.'ilc3 'ilc6 3.'ilt3 'ilc6 4.e3

15.lilb3 !lf8. This plan is very sharp and donble-edged though. I do not see any reason to prefer it over the text or the more tested 10 ... 0-0.

11.�e2 0-0-0 12.0-0 lllb8!? 12 ...g5 looks ont of step as it is com­ monly effective in conjunction with ...f7-f5, where Black's bishop is cur­ rently residing. White would lead the race after 13.lild2 g4 14.1il'c2 h5 15.b4--7. 12 ... !ld6!? is perhaps the most straightforward continuation. It prepares ... !lhd8 or ... !lg6. White mnst qnickly display activity with 13.a4 Xu,Jun-Atalik, Moscow 2001, saw 13.�d2 !lhd8 14.�b4 lilxb4 15.1il'xb4 when 15... lild5 (15 ... lllb8=) 16.1il'c5 !lb6 takes over the initiative. 13... a5 13... !lhdS 14.a5 lild7 15.a6 b6 16.1il'c3 lilc5 is a more complex alternative. Then 17.b4 lilxd3 18.b5 e4 19.hd3 !lxd3 20.1il'xc6 exf3 leads to perpetual check. Of course, Black can switch plans with 16...!lg6 17.lilel 1il'h4, with mutual chances. l4.e4 ig4 15.ie3 hf3 16.hf3 lild4 17.hd4 !lxd4 18.1il'b5 lllb8 19.1il'xa5 !lhd8 20.!lfcl (20.ie2 !lb4 21.!lfcl !ldd4) 20 ...f6= is comfortable for Black. 12 ...e4!? is the other logical follow­ up to 10 ...if5. It aims to open the centre and capitalise on Black's bet­ ter development. The point is that after 13.dxe4 he4,

White cannot play 14 .�d2 since it would be hanging. 14.1il'c3 lild5 15.1il'c4 lilb6 was drawn in the blitz game Mamed­ yarov-Rublevsky, Khanty-Man­ siysk 2013. Perhaps he should try: 14.lild2 �f5 (Ataliksuggests 14...id5 15.1il'c3 1il'e5, but I would not play an endgame here.) After 15.a4? Black can exploit the fact that ie2 is un­ protected with 15...lild4!. It seems that best would be the humble re­ turn 15.lilf3! when 15...ie4 would repeat. I have also checked the more ambitious 15...g5, but 16.!lel g4 17.lild4 reminds that White has a bishop pair and he would gladly sac a pawn to activate it. At that point I thought 14.!lel in the diagram position might be a decent idea - protecting �e2 and preparing lilf3-d4. We should continue our plan ofplay­ ing with pieces rather than with pawns - 14... !ld6 15.lild4 1il'h4 or 15.lild2 id5 16.1il'c3 f5 17.b3 !lg6. The above analysis suggests that d2 is an important retreat square for the f3-knight. It transpires that stayed White's bishop on d2, ...g5 would have been awkward since ic3 would drop the d3-pawn. Thus 89

Chapter s the f3-knight would have to go to the passive square el. Therefore, a useful waiting move like 12 ...mbS!? is a clever way of fighting for an advantage.

13..id2 In the normal Najdorf, Black of­ ten uses the a-pawn for ramming the enemy castling position. The only drawback of this plan is that the pawn structure after 13.a4!? a5 (13 ... lild7 14.'@.ie3 f6co) is not flexible and that limits the options of both sides. Most endgames will be better for Black so White should quickly complete development with 14.e4 ig4 15.ie3 whereas the forced line 15 ...Jixf3 16.ixf.3 lild4 17.'@.ie3 1ilxf3+ 18.gxf3 ad6 is balanced. White will evacuate his king via fl.

A critical line is 14.afcl g4 15.lilel h5 16.a4 ie6 17.'@.id1 lild5 18.a5 a6

Commonly, the exchange sacrifice should provide a lasting initiative, but the very clumsy placement of the el-knight reduces White's at­ tacking potential - 19.axc6 (19.b4 lila7) 19...bxc6 20.d4 exd4 21.exd4 lilb4 and he is still to prove that he has adequate compensation. Another attempt to generate counterplay is 14.d4 exd4 15.ib5 ie4 16.lilxd4 lilxd4 17.exd4 a6 18.ib4 '@.if6 19.ie2 ahe8+.

14...ie6 15.'!Wc3 f6 16.ie3 g4 17.lilh4 lild4 1s.txd4 axd4

13.lild2 ad6 14.lile4 offers Black at­ tacking prospects after 14... ag6/h6.

13 ...g5 Black exploits the fact that 14.ic3 would drop the d3-pawn.

White is in a positional bind, but the following break gives him some counterplay:

14.e4

19.f4! gxJ'3 20.lilrl3 ad6=

90

l.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilc6 3.lilf3 lilc6 4.e3

A2. 7 .ie 2 d5 •

Perhaps White should opt for the exchange sacrifice with 16.a4 1/!llf7 17.!'!xc6 bxc6 18.�.

8 exd4 9.lilxd4 lilxd4 10.'1;\'xd4 0-0 •.•

10 ...c5 was automatically played in all the games, but I prefer to acti­

8.d4 8.cxd5 lilxd5 9.m3 lilb6 10.d3 might look as an improved version ofline 1. However, the absence of a3 enables the tactics: 10 ....ie6 ll.'lilc2 lilb4 12.m1 .if5 13.a3 lilxd3+! 14..ixd3 .ixd3 15.'i!lxd3 e4 16.'l!lb5+ c6 17.'i!le5 exf3 18.'i!lxg7 0-0-0 (18 ...!'!hfS!? 19.gxf3 lilc4co) 19.'l!lg4+ lild7 20.'lilxf3 'l!le6 with full compensation for the pawn. Moreover, the plan with 10 ....ifS 11.0-0 0-0-0 is still possible even though White has not spent a tem­ po on a3. For instance: 12.a4 lild7 13.'l!lc3 1ilc5 14.lilel a5; 12 ..id2 g5 13.!'!fcl g4 14.lilel .ie6 15.1/!lldl f5

vate a rook rather than a pawn. To be fair, the pawn attack is also suf­ ficient for equality - ll.'i!lh4 .ie6 12.0-0 dxc4 13 ..ixc4 .ixc4 14.Wxc4 0-0 15.!'!dl !'!ad8=.

11.cxd5 !'!d8 12.Wh4 After 12.0-0, we could also recap­ ture 12 ...lilxd5 13.b3 c5=.

12

•..

Bxd.5 13.0-0

We can use the tempo we saved on ... c5 to trade bishops:

13 MS 14.f'3 .id3 •••

The activity of Black' s heavy pieces balances the strong enemy bishop. We can even safely allow doubled pawns on the f-file.

91

Chapter 5

B. 6.bxc3 0-0 7.e4 White does not gain anything from delaying this move. After 7$.e2 d6 8.0-0 e4 9.lilel tf5, his dark­ squared bishop is a poor sight.

This is more forcing than 8 ... lile7 which aims for a dark-squared strategy on the kingside: a) 9.0-0 lilg6 10.d3 !le8 11.!lel h6 12.lild2 lilh7 13.lilfl lilf4

7...d6

8.i.e2 The older line 8.g3 offers Black an additional plan, based on the break ...b7-b5. Of course, it should be

14.lilg3 Or 14.�4 exf4 15.d4 'll'g5 16.lild2 'll'g6 17.i.d3 i.h3 18.i.fl b6 19.c5 dxc5 20.dxc5 lilg5. 14...lilg5 15.f3, Suba-Rodriguez Guerrero, Salobrena 2009, when the logical continuation of Black's play would have been 15...h5 16.�fl h4 17.lile2 lilxe2+ 18.'ll'xe2 'll'f6 .

combined with . . .f5. It seems that Black is fine regardless of the re­ treat square the f6-knight chooses: 8 ... lild7 9.i.g2 lilc5 10.lilh4 a6 11.0-0 b5 ;:±, Khairullin-Svidler, Ch­ ita 2015; 8 ... a6!? 9.a4 lila5 10.d3 lild7; Other possible moves are 8 ... lilh5 and 8 ...lile8. I chose against the most promi­ nent adept of this line, Suba, 8 ...

b) 9.d4 lilg6 10.0-0 111'e7 11.i.d3 !le8 White's setup with d4 is more active than in the previous ex­ ample and it would be a mistake to follow in the same fashion. For instance, Bocharov-Matla­ kov, Tyumen 2012 saw ll ...h6 12.!lel lilh7 when 13.c5 would be strong as 13 ...dxc5 14.lilxe5 fa­ vours White. It is better to de­

@h8 9.d3 lilg8 - see game ll Suba­ Delchev, Albacete 2004. Even the noncommittal develop­ ment 8 ...h6 9.i.g2 �e6 10.d3 'll'd7 is a fair option.

9.d4 'll'f6

8

.••

92

lilh5

prive the enemy ofthis resource. 12.!lel h6 13.lild2 c5.

Again the most straightforward move - we attack d4. 9...exd4 allows 10.lilxd4

l.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilc6 3.lilf3 lilc6 4.e3 Or 10.cxd4 'l!lf6 11.0-0 lilf4 12.M4 'l!lxf4 13.!lael ig4 14.\Mib2:. 10 ... lilf6 11.0-0oo Diamant-Molner, Phoenix 2015.

...lila5-b7-c5 or ...c7-c6 - for in­ stance: 12.ie3 ig4! 13.lild2 ixe2 14.@xe2 c6. The radical solution 12.cS dxc5 13.c4 does not really change Black's

10.d5

plan - 13...ig4!. The only challenging continuation is:

10.g3 exd4 ll.lilxd4 lilxd4 12.cxd4 'l!lxd4 13.ib2 'l!lc5 14.0-0 lilf6 15.M6 gxf6 16.!lfdl !le8 17.!ldS 'l!lc6

Computer analysis proves that White has nothing more than a draw after 18. 'l!ld2 (18.f4 'l!lb6+) 18 ... !leS.

10

.•.

lilaS 11.g3 b6

This move does not intend .. .i.a6, it only clamps on c5 and prepares

12.lilg5 'l!!'g6 (12 ...g6!?oo) 13.h4

13...fS 14.exfS iLxf5 15.'l!ldl 11lf6 16.h5 'l!le8 White's initiative has come to an end while the defects of his pawn structure remain. An interesting fight is ahead.

93

Chapter 5. 1.c4 e5 2.tlic3 tlif6 3.tlif3 'll c6 4.e3

Annotated Games

9. Mastrovasilis - Hracek, EU-eh Istanbul 01.06.2003 1.c4 lilf6 2.lilc3 e5 3.lil:f3 lilc6 4.e3 ib4 5. 'lll'c2 hc3 6.'lll'xc3 'lll'e7 7.d4

17.h6 l!/f8 18.f3 ic8 19.ic4 te6 20.h6 ic8 21.ic4 te6 draw.

10.mt4

7... exd4 Kiri! Georgiev successfully defends 7...d6 which keeps more tension 8.d5 ltlb8 9.ltld2 MS. It is unclear how White could extract value from his spatial advantage.

8.lilxd4 lilxd4 9.'llfxd4 c5 Black could play ... c5 later or even omit it. Bandza-Z.Polgar, Wies­ baden 1994, saw 9 ... 0-0 10.te2 1ld8 11.0-0 c5 12.1l:l'h4 d5 13.cxd5 ltlxd5 14.1l:l'xe7 li:Jxe7 15.e4 te6 16.te3 b6 OA

White aims for an endgame. 10.1l:l'd3 keeps the queen - 10... 0-0 ll.ie2 d5 12.0-0 1ld8 13.1l:l'c2 'lll'e5=, Stri­ kovic-Viterbo Ferreira, Vila Nova de Gaia 2010.

10 d5 ll.cxd5 lilxd5 12.'lll'xe7+
Black has active pieces and a pawn majority 3:2 on the queenside. That should allow him to neutralise the bishop pair. He should aim to trade one of them, for instance, 13.a3 li:Jb6 14.e4 ie6.

21 a5 22.h4 24.Elh3?! •••

h6

23.e4

a4

White does not realise that he can­ not survive with his king caged in. The rest is pathetic.

Naturally, White wants to have his king closer to the enemy's poten­

24...g5 25.hxg5 hxg5 26.Elg3 Elc5 27.Elg4 !e6 28.Elg3 b5 29.!c2 llld6 30.Eld3+ llle5 31.EldS ElcS 32.i:!dl Elxc2 0-1

tial passers, but he underestimates Black's threats. A curious alterna­ tive was 14.Elacl Elac8 15.e4 li:Jb4 16.a3 li:Ja2! followed up by ...c5-c4c3;.

10. Onischu k - Shirov New DelhifTeheran 2000

13.id2 ie6 14.0-0-0

14 ... ElacS 15.ie2 li:Jb4 16.b:b4? 16.a3 li:Jc6 17.ic3 f6was about equal. Black's plan is to push ...b7-b5-b4.

1.c4 e5 2.li:Jc3 li:Jf6 3.li:Jf3 li:Jc6 4.e3 .ib4 5.'1!1'c2 b:c3 6.%l'xc3 %l'e7 7.a3 d5 8.d4 exd4 9.li:Jxd4 li:Jxd4 10.%l'xd4 0-0

16... cxb4+ 17.@bl b3! 18.axb3 b:b3 19.Elcl ElhdS 20.ElxcS ElxcS

11.c5

21..id3?! White has a small problem - he can­ not trade rooks with 21.Elcl?? due to 21...ia2+. Perhaps he should have addressed it urgently with 21.!dl id5 22.f3 a5 23.Elel intending Ele2. id3 is a step in the wrong direction.

Black has discarded 10 ...c5 in fa­ vour of the plan with ... Eld8. White accepts the challenge and seizes space on the queenside. This game shows a convincing plan for Black - he arranges an exchange of the bishops via a6. A more cunning version of this idea is ll.!d2 intending 11... EldS 12 ..ib4 95

Chapter 5 \!!le8 13.c5, but Black could switch to lL.cS 12.\!!lh4 dxc4 13.hc4 ie6=. 1Lb4?! is worse, on account of 11... dxc4 12.hc4 8d8 13.\!!lf4 a5.

11 ...b6 12.b4 bxc5 13.bxc5 \!!le6 14.id3 ia6 15.ic2 15.0-0 is positionally harmless since Whte would not be able to generate any threat in near future.

18.g4 18.a4!? bans 18 ...8b5 and 18 ...'/!lb5, but Black gets through the e-file: 18 ... 8e6! 19.g4 8be8 20.g5 8e4! 2Lhe4 8xe4 22.'l!ld2 lilg4

15...\!!lc6 Black had to decide what pawn set­ up to oppose against the enemy bishop pair. One possible stand was 15 ...lild7 16.ib2 f6, then ...\!!lc6. Amore active version ofitis 15 ... lilg4 16.f3 lile5 17.ib2 f6 18.@f2oo, Be­ lozerov-Korchnoi, Smolensk 2000, 18 ... tc4, aiming for ...'/!le7, ...lilc6. A completely different plot offers 15 ... 8ae8!? 16.f3 c6 17.@f2 lild7

White's defence is not easy - 23.8gl would face 23 ...lilxh2, but he can make a draw with accurate moves - 23.id4 lile5 24.he5 8xe5 25.8bl h6 26.8gl d4 27.\!!lxd4 8xc5 28.gxh6 8cl+=. The text is also very sharp.

18.8el (18.ib2 \!!lh6) 18 ...f5. Shirov's novelty defines the queen's placement a little too early.

18 8b5 19.g5 8xc5 20.h4! \!!lb6 21.heS?!

16.ib2 8ab8 17.tc3 8fe8 A critical position. Both sides have completed the "compulsory pro­ gram" and it is time for heavy cal­ culation. 96

•••

2Lgxf6? loses to 2L.8e4. The best continuation was 2L\!!lb4 ! when Black risks to enter a slightly worse endgame. He should carry on the attack with 2L.8xc3! 22.\!!lxc3 c5!!

1.c4 e5 2.
25.@g3 !lc2? 26.1We5? (26.\Wa4+-) 26...
dxe3

After 23.gxf6 d4 24.'1
21...
29

d4

•••

30.\Wxc3

22.f'3

(29...@fS=; 29 ... !lxc3 d4=) 30.hd4
31.@f4
22. Wd2!? was tried in a correspond­ ence game and White failed to make a draw after 22 ...'1<\'c6 23.!lacl !lc4 24.\Wxa7'1
22 ...\Wc6 23 ..td2 l\l'b5 24.Wf2 \We2+?

11. Suba - Delchev Albacete 05.09.2004 1.c4
Chapter s

Another way to enable ...f7-fS was ... li:ld7. My manoeuvre ... li:lf6-g8e7 is a bit slow, but the position is closed and White cannot do much with the tempi.

10.li:lh4 li:lge7 11.�g2 f5 12.exf5 li:lxf5 13.li:lf3 13.li:lxfS Ms 14.!lbl !lb8 lS.0-0 1!\'d7 is easy to play.

13 ...�d7 14.0-0 h6 15.li:ld2 White can create serious threats only on the kingside. Perhaps he could try 1S.h3 intending li:lh2-g4.

15

.••

could have waited with ...!lb8, ...b6, ...1!\'e8, probably ... li:lg6, but I decid­ ed to improve the placement of my c6-knight. It stays well on c6, but it executes only defensive functions there. It seemed to me that from e6 I could send it to the kingside. Also my bishop could use the freed c6square. However, my last move un­ necessaryly provokes 18.d4 ! when 18 ...li:lg6 is impossible. 18 ...li:lf7 would be too passive - White fol­ lows up 19.li:le4, then f2-f4. There­ fore, I should return to c6 - 18 ... li:ldc6 19.li:lb3 as 20.a4 1!\'e8, hoping to grab the a4-pawn later on. For­ tunately, my opponent was too en­ gulfed in his own knight manoeuvre and missed his chance to seize the initiative.

18.li:le4 li:le6 19.'!l'dl li:lf5 20.a4 �c6 21.a5 1!\'d7 22.'lire2 !lae8 23.h3 b6 24.axb6 axb6 25.�b2 li:lc5 26.!la7 li:lxe4 27.dxe4 li:le7

li:lfe7 16.h3 1ll'c8 17.lllh2

The transformation of the pawn

17... li:ldS?! I have obtained a normal, safe po­ sition out of the opening. Now I 98

structure was definitely in my fa­ vour - the c4-pawn is a juicy tar­ get. I could attack it with a knight on a5, but I should trade first a pair of rooks on the a-file. Perhaps that explains Suba's next move -

1.c4 e5 2.illc3 illc6 3.illf3 illc6 4.e3 it prevents ...l:la8, but at the high price of creating more doubled pawns! Of course I had to trade queens and play a better endgame although my decision does not spoil my position either. It just leaves White more chances for obtaining some counterplay.

34.�e3 illf6 35.f3 �d7 36.l:lfal �e6 37.l:lla4 itld7 38.f4

28.'19g4 'lfid8 29.'19h4 'lfib8 30.ga3 illg8 31.i.cl '19d8? This is panic. I suddenly change my mind and offer to trade queens in a worse setting than 3 moves ago. The cold-blooded attack on the e4-pawn 31...illf6! would have assured me of an edge. The trick is that 32.g4 is effectively parried by 32 ... 'l!\ldS! 33.g5? illh7. The rest is not too interesting:

32.'19xd8

l:lxd8

33.l:la7

l:lc8

38 illf6?! (38 ...ill c5!) 39.fxe5 dxe5 40.cS i.d7 41.1:!4a6 i.b5 42.l:la2 i.d3 43.cxb6 cxb6 44.hb6 l:lxc3 45..ic7 l:le8 46.1:!2a3 l:lxa3 47.l:lxa3 he4 48.l:la5 hg2 49.@xg2 e4 50.�e5 l:ld8 51.i.xf6 gxf6 52.g4 Eld2+ 53.©g3 l:ld3+ 54.M4 Elxh3 55.©xe4 ©g7 56.l:la8 l:lb3 57.@f4 @f7 58.l:lh8 ©g7 59.l:la8 l:lb5 60.l:lc8 l:lg5 61.l:la8 Draw. •••

99

Chapter 6. 3.tlif3 tlic6 4.g3 �b4 5.tlid5

Main Ideas

1.c4 li:lf6 2.li:lc3 e5 3.li:lf3 li:lc6 4.g3 ib4 5.li:ld5

knights with 8 ...li:lxd5 9.cxd5 li:ld4 10.li:lxd4 hd4�. That's why first players prefer 8.e3 a6! 9.b3 ia.7 10.ib2 li:lxd5 11.cxd5 li:le7 12.li:lh4 f5:;:±. You can learn more about this line from the anno­ tations to Gaxne 12 Agdestein-To­ palov, Stavanger 2014. 2. White removes the control of e4 and we could take our chance with

White escapes the exchange on c3, but the knight jump has two draw­ backs:

5...e4!? 6.li:lh4 0-0 7.ig2 d6!? 8.0-0 g5!? 9.d4 h6!

1. As a rule, exchanges help the de­ fender, and this is no exception. Al­ though we do not take on d5 at once, the trade is constantly in the air. Moreover, after 5...ic5 6.ig2 0-0 7.0-0 d6

8.d3, we could

eliminate both

When I started my work on this book, the line with 8 ...g5 was totally neglected by practical players and it was harshly criticized by Marin and Watson in their works on the Eng­ lish Opening. My analyses suggest­ ed that in fact it was promising for Black and I hoped to arm you with a powerful surprise weapon. The Candidates tournament in Mos101

Chapter 6 cow, however, saw both Aronian and Anand opting for 5...e4. Their games did not change my evalua­ tion, but they pushed the variation under the limelight. The diagram position is too sharp for generalisations and it demands concrete play. Still, there is some­ thing I would like to stress - Black should not hold for the material ad­ vantage. On the opposite - he must be ready to return it for an initia­ tive. For instance: 10.lilxb4 lilxb4 11.f3 gxh4! 12.Axh.6 hxg3 13.hxg3 lilh5

14.M8 lilxg3!. 10.lilg2 is more solid - See the free­ style Grune 13 Sonofluck,Rybka 2.x-Intuitivestra, playchess.com 2007. Note also Nakamura's move order 8.a3 when simplest is 8 .ia5 (8 ... Anand's 8 ....ic5 is a decent alterna­ tive, but after 9. 0-0 Black should look for improvements. I suggest 9....ig4!?) 9.b4 (9.0-0 g5 10.b4 .ib6; 9.e3 g5 10.b4 lile5!) 9 ....ib6 10 ..ib2 •..

10 ....id4 ll..ixd4 lilxd4 12.e3 lilf5=.

1 0?

Chapter 6. 3.Clif3 Clic6 4.g3 i.b4 5.Clid5

Step by Step

1.c4 lilf6 2.lilc3 e5 3.lilf3 lilc6 4.g3 ib4

5.lild5 (5.ig2 is covered in the next chapter) 5 e4!? .••

This rare move is risky, but it is much more enterprising than the established equalizer 5 ...ic5 6.ig2 0-0 7.0-0 d6

The first question which comes to mind is why Black led out his bish­ op to b4 in the first place. Wasn't it easier to play at once 4 ...ic5. One reason is that 4 .. .ic5 5.lilxe5 ixf2+ 6.@xf2 lilxe5 7.e4! is somewhat bet­ ter for White. Another argument is that after 4...ib4 5.lild5 ic5, Black obtains counterplay by trading on d5 and then undermining the d5pawn with ...c7-c6. 8.e3 Or 8.d3 lilxd5 9.cxd5 lild4 10.lt:lxd4 ixd4=. 8 ...a6! 9.b3 ia7 10.ib2 lt:lxd5 ll.cxd5 lt:le7 12.lt:lh4 f5;:±. I analyse this line in detail in the annotations to Grune 12 Agdestein-Topalov, Stavanger 2014. It could serve as a backup of our main repertoire.

6.lilh4 6 .'ll gl is undoubtedly a strange way of fighting for an opening advan­ tage: 6... 0-0 7.ig2 d6!?. White has lost two tempi so we can sacrifice the e4-pawn without much hesita­ tion: 8.'llxf6+ 111'xf6 9.ixe4 !le8

103

Chapter 6 reputation, but nonetheless it is the most testing continuation. 8.0-0 8.€lxb4 €lxb4 9.a3 €lc6 10.d3

White is unable to finish his deve­ lopment without big concessions. 6.€lxb4 offers White thebishop pair advantage, but it cannot even bal­ ance Black's central domination - 6... €lxb4 7.€ld4 0-0 8.ig2 (8.a3 €lc6 9.€lxc6 dxc6) 8 ... d5 9.€lc2 (9.cxd5 '/ilxd5+) 9...€lxc2+ 10.'/ilxc2 dxc4 11.'/ilxc4 ie6 12.'/ilc2 !le8 13.b3 ig4 14.ib2, Smyslov-Benko, Wijk aan Zee 1972, 14...if3t. White needs its d5-knight for an indirect attack on the e4-pawn - by trading its only defender.

6

...

0-0 7 .ig2 d6!? .

The hunting season on the €lh4 is open! The threat ...g5 is now loom­ ing. Black's last move has a poor

10 ...d5 10 ... !leS is considered equal af­ ter 11.0-0 h6. 11.0-0 exd3!? 12.'/ilxd3 This pawn sacrifice was seen in Topalov-Aronian, Moscow 2016, but something went wrong very quickly - 12 ... €le5 13.'/ild4?! 13.'/ilc2 €lxc4 14.e4 c6 15.b3 €le5 is about equal. Topalov takes e5 under control, but his move is probably wrong in view of: 13 ...€lxc4 14.e4 .ie6 15.b3

15... c5!? The game actually went 15... €la5 16.'/ila4 when 16... c5! would have

3.Gf3
14.f4) 14.d3 gxh4 15.dxe4 lile6 16.dxe6 !lxe6 17.e5±. I propose to improve with: 9 ...i.g4! hitting immediately e2.

8.ltlxf6+ 'l:i'xf6 9.he4 !le8 offers Black excellent compensation as the bishop lacks a good retreat square (10.tf3 i.h3). So White has to part with it - 10.hc6 bxc6 ll.O-O i.g4 12.f3 i.e6 13.d3 i.c5+ 14.@hl d5 15.cxd5 cxds:;;. The insertion of 8.a3 i.c5 8...ta5 is simpler - 9.b4 (9.0-0 g510.b4i.b6; 9.e3 g5 10.b41ile5!) 9 ...tb6 10.i.b2 i.d4 ll.hd4 lilxd4 12.e3 lilf5 is roughly equal.

The idea behind this move is seen in the line: a) 10.b4 ltlxd5 11.cxd5 (11.bxc5 lilf4) ll...lild4 12.!lel lilxe2+ 13.!lxe2 M2+. b) 10.h3 i.e6 ll.d3 lilxd5 12 .cxd5 hd5 13.dxe4 i.e6 14.b4 i.b6 15.lilf5 f6oo. c) 10.ltle3 he3 ll.fxe3 Wle7 12.b3 Wle6=. d) 10.lilxf6+ Wlxf6 11.he4 (11.@hl !lae8) 11 ... !lfeS 12.d3 lild4 13.ltlf3 c6! 14.i.e3 lilxf3+ 15.exf3 th3 16.!lel he3 17.!lxe3=

White will open the f-file, but without minor pieces his attack­ ing chances are minimal. 9.0-0 helped Nakamura to beat Anand in Moscow 2016. The game went 9 ... !le8 10.e3 g5?! 11.b4 i.b6? (Nakamu­ ra suggested after the game 11...gxh4 12.i.b2 lilxd5 13.cxd5 lile5 14.bxc5 ig4 15.Wlb3 lilf3+ 16.txf3 M3 17.h3oo) 12.tb2 lilxd5 13.cxd5 lild4 (13 ... lile5

17...d5! 18.cxd5 cxd5 19.hd5 !lxe3 20.fxe3 Wlg5!. This double attack on 105

Chapter 6 d5 and e3 allows Black to take over the initiative and assures him of full compensation for the pawn.

s ...gs!? Forcing the play. 8... !le8 is much more common, but the pawn structure arising af­ ter 9 .d3 is pleasant for White. Still, Black gets enough counterplay. 9.f3 lilxd5 10.cxd5 exf3 ll.lilxf3 lile5 was seen in Nepomniach­ tchi-Efimenko, Ningbo 2011. Black's dark-squared bishop will remain out of play on the queenside so he must alter the pawn structure by ...c7-c5!. That would enable a back door via d8. For instance 12.e3 (Marin's rec­ ommendation) 12 ....ta.5 13.1ll'c2 c5 14.lilxe5 (14.dxc6 lilxc6) 14 ... !lxe5 15.d3 i.g4 16.e4 1ll'd7=. 9 ... exd3 10.1ll'xd3 lilxd5 11.cxd5 lile5 12.1ll'c2 ic5 13.b3 a5! (intending ...a4) 14.a3 i.d7.

9.d4 9.1ll'a4? �c5 10.d4 lilxd5 ll.dxc5 lildb4 12.a3 1Zla6 13.b4 gxh4. 9.d3? lilxd5 10.cxd5 lilb8 ll.dxe4 gxh4 12 ..tli6 1ll'f6 13.hf8 @xf8 was clearly better for Black in Sipos-B. Lalic, Hungary 2016.

9 ...h6!

A critical position. The threat ...gxh4 is very real and Black is not too afraid of a counterattack as long as he controls the centre. White has a wide choice now. He can either focus on the kingside hoping to develop an attack, or shift his attention left on the b4-bishop: 10.�1

It seems that White has good chanc­

Marin proposes 10.lilxb4 lilxb4 11.f3, but correspondence chess has seen White struggling to equalize: 11 ...gxh4! 12.hh6 hxg3

es on the kingside, but 15.i.b2 Or 15.lilf3 1ll'f6 16.i.b2 1ll'g6. 15 ... 1ll'g5 (heading for h5) offered nice counterplay in Quinteros-Ma­ karichev, Vrsac 1977.

12 ...e3!? 13.g4 c5 14.�g5 1ll'e7 also deserves attention, but the text is preferable because it counts on attack rather than on material advantage.

106

3.lilf3 lilc6 4.g3 .ib4 5.lild5 13.hxg3 lilh5

with sharp play. For instance, 15 ...lilg4 is not decisive due to 16.lilxe4 d5 17.lild2 and White is holding. 11..ie3 gxh4 12.a3 with unclear po­ sition. 10.lile3 gxh4 ll.a3 .ia5 12.b4 .ib6 13.cS d5 is another principled line.

14.fxe4 14 ..ixffi lilxg3! gives Black a strong attack. 14...lilxg3 15.l'1f3 lilxe4 Black owns the initiative, but proba­ bly White can maintain the balance with accurate defence after 16. 'i!lcl (16 ..ixf8 l!?xf8) 16...f5+. White went on to draw eventnally in Bnbnov­ Schunck, corr. 2011. The game McNab-Haik, Metz 1988, saw 10.'i!la4 a5 10 ...lilxd4!? ll.'i!lxb4 lilxe2+ 12.l!?hl c6

sets more problems as the obvi­ ous 13.lilxf6?! '1!!1xf6 14..ie3 gxh4 15.!ladl stnmbles into 15 ....ig4 with many threats. It is better to retreat - 13.lilc3 lilxcl 14.!laxcl gxh4 15.gxh4

14.gxh4 The attack on h6 is easily par­ ried: 14.'i!ld2 lile7 or 14.cxb6 axb6 15.lilc2 l!?h7 16.'1!!1d2 lilg8. 14...l!?h8 1s.l!?h1 !lg8 16.f3 exf3 17.!lxf3 .ie6. A sharp position with mutnal chances has arisen. The ac­ tivity of Black's pieces compen­ sate the enemy bishop pair. We can even sacrifice the exchange, using the fact that White's kingside is still undeveloped: 18.lilfS 18..ib2 concludes the develop­ ment. We can meet it by 18 ... lilh5 19.'l!!lel lile7 20.'i!lf2 !lg6 21.!lgl 'i!ld7;. 18 ... lile4 19.lilxh6 !lxg2 20.l!?xg2 'i!lxh4. The h6-knight has no retreat, but we cannot win it. Thus we have some sort of a fragile balance. I have also analysed the somewhat slow: 107

Chapter 6 10.h3 li:lxd5 (10 ... gxh4 and 10 ...taS are perfectly possible, too) 11.cxdS li:lb8 12.'&a4 li:la6 13.a3 td7 14.'&b3 tas 15.'&xb7 1!ilc8=. Finally, 10.a3 tas 11.li:le3 gxh4 transposes to the main line.

10 ...ta.5 10 ...li:lxd5 11.cxd5 li:le7 12.he4 gxh4 13.'&a4±.

11.ltlg2 This position is strategically unbal­ anced and it needs testing.

Both 11 ... li:lxdS 12.cxd5 li:le7 13.li:le3 th3oo and 11...th3 12.li:lge3 11.xfl 13.@xfl are unclear. See the free­ style Grune 13 Sonofluck,Rybka 2 .x-Intuitivestra, playchess.com 2007.

Chapter 6. 3.tll f3 tll c6 4.g3 �b4 5.tll d 5

Annotated Games

12. Agdestein - Topalov Stavanger 2014 1.c4 e5 2.liJc3 liJf6 3.liJf3 liJc6 4.g3 .ib4 5.liJd5 .ic5 6 .ig2 0-0 7.0-0 d6

3. In principle, one should not dis­ play unnecessary activity on the wing where the opponent is stron­ ger . Thus, after: 12.a4 a5! 13.id2,

•

8.e3 White prevents the unloading ope­ ration 8.d3 liJxd5 9.cxd5 lild4 10.lilxd4 hd4 ll.e3 [email protected] with easy equality. Black only should refrain from undermining the centre with ...c6. Such an idea would have had some sense if Black had knights and the d5-pawn was restricting them. With only long-range pieces left on board, ...c6 is anti-positional be­ cause: 1. It does not solve any strategic problems; 2. It only prolongs the diagonal to the g2-bishop;

instead ofpreparing ...c6, we should turn our attention to the kingside where .. .f5 is a natural idea. We can push it immediately: 13 .. .f5 14.Whl, but here we need to turn again to [email protected], since 14...g5 is a bit premature due to 15.'&h5, e.g. [email protected] 16.f4 exf4 17.gxf4 g4 18.h3. This line sug­ gest that perhaps it would be better to wait for White to shift his queen from the dl-h5 diago­ nal: 13 [email protected] 14.'&c2 f5! 15.Whl when we have two possible set-ups. a) Simplest is to open the e-file and trade all the rooks with a proba­ ble draw: 15...!lfl 16.f4 exf4 17.exf4 109

Chapter 6 '!\1f8=. Note that Anand's rook lift ...1lf8-f6-h6 is clumsy since White can easily prevent ...'!\1h5 with f4, if3. b) The same idea could be modified by gaining space first with 15 ...g5 16.f4 exf4 17.exf4 (17.gxf4 g4 18.e4 ie8 19.e5 h5:;:!) 17...g4 18 ..ic3 1le8 19.b3 h5 20.h4 (20 ..ib2 '!\1e7 21.'!!.1c3 @h7 22.!lael '!\1f7 23.'!!.1d2 c6:;:! 24..ia3 h4) 20 ...1le3 21.l!lh2 '!\1f8 22.ib2 1lae8 23.'!\1c3 @h7=. The first plan is certainly safer and is effective against all White's move orders, for instance, 14.!lcl (instead of 14.'!!.1c2) 14...'!\1e8 15.b3 (15.1lc4 cS=) 15 .. .f5 16. l!lh1 sf7. On a final note, I should add that if White begins with 12.b4 (instead of 12.a4), it is best to counter it with 12 ...a5! 12 ...id7 13.a4 a5 14.b5 f5 15..id2 '!!.1f6 is possible, of course, if a player like Anand chose it, but the b5-pawn clamps on c6 and reduces Black's counter-attack­ ing options. 13.bxa5 (13.b5 a4!) 13 ...ixa5

14..ib2

1 1 ()

14..id2 f5 15.ha5 1lxa5 16.f4 '!\1e7 17.!lel b6, Rogozenco-Ba­ logh, Germany 2009. 14...'!\1e7 15.e4. Here the game Ma­ rin-Komarov, Cairo 2001, finished in a draw, but Black obviously has a slight edge owing to his better pawn structure.

s.. a6 9.b3 .

White's most unpleasant plan is based on the attack with lilh4, f4, aiming to open the f-file. Therefore, 9.lilh4 should be his most princi­ pled continuation. However, the sharp attack 9... lilxd5 10.cxd5 lile7 11.f4 (ll.b3 c6 12.dxc6 lilxc6 13.ib2 d5 14.!lcl ie7=, Tari-Matlakov, Ye­ revan 2014.) ll ...exf4 12.b4 ib6 13.1lxf4!?, Romanov-Fressinet, Hamburg 2014, could be tamed by 13 .. .f5 or even 13...WeS, intending to meet '!\1h5 by ... f5. 9.d4 ia7 should not be a problem:

10.dxe5 10.lilc3 h6 ll.h3 (ll.d5 lile7) 11 ...ifS 12.a3 (12.dxe5 dxe5) 12 ... lile4 13.lile2 exd4 14.lilexd4 (14.exd4 d5 15.cxd5 lile7 16.lilc3 lilxd5 17.Wb3 lildxc3 18.bxc3 c5)

14 ... ltlxd4 15.ltlxd4 th7 leads to normal play in the centre. 10.b3 exd4 11.ltlxd4 ltlxd4 12.exd4 ltlxd5 13.cxd5 id7 14.ie3 a5= is rather dull. 10 ... ltlxe5! ll.b3 ig4 12.ltlf4 ltle4 was equal in Kuzubov-Gupta, Iasi 2015. Finally, the plan of a queenside pawn storm 9.d3 b7 10.td2 has no bite. 10.illxf6+ 111'xf6 ll.td2 invites Black's queen to the kingside ll...1!1'g6 12.Ac3 Wh5 13.ltlh4 ig4 14.if3 f5!=, Grischuk-Adams, Warsaw 2013. 10 ... ltlxd5 ll.cxd5 ltle7 12.1!1'b3 c6 13.dxc6 ltlxc6 14.ic3 gb8 15.d4

White hopes to open up the f-file with f4. 12.d4 is harmless owing to 12 ... e4 13.ltlg5 f5 14.Wh5 h6 15.ltle6 he6 16.dxe6 c6.

12 . .f5! .

12 ... c6? 13.dxc6 ltlxc6 14.f4 led to Black's rout in Swiercz-Balogh, Bu­ dapest 2014.

13.f4

Now 15...exd4 is enough for equality, but in Tomashevsky­ Svidler, Moscow 2007, Black opted for: 15... e4!? 16.ltld2 d5 17.f3, when 17... ie6! 18.'ll'dl f5 would have accom­ plished Black's main strategic goal in our anti-English repertoire - to occupy the centre and hold it.

In Marin's opinion, critical here is 13.gcl ib6 (to free the queen) 14.f4 e4 15.g4, but he only considers: 15... lilxd5?! 16.lilxf5 hf5 17.gxf5 We7 18.gc4. We have the much better option of: 15...fxg4! 16.he4 \We8 with active play. For example:

9 Aa7 10.ib2 ltlxd5 11.cxd5 lile7 12.lilh4 ..•

111

Chapter 6 a) 17.'l!l'el lllf5 18.ixfS ixf5 19.'l!l'g3 g6 20.lllxf5 !lxf5! 21.'l!l'xg4 !lxd5 22.!c3 !lf5 with a firm blockade on the light squares; b) 17.f5 'l!l'h5 18.!lf4 'l!l'xh4 19.!lxg4

'l\lh6 20.!lxg7+ 'l!l'xg7 21.hg7 @xg7 22.'/;!lg4+ @h8 23.'/;!lh4 .txf5 24.'l!l'xe7 !lae8 25.'/;!lxeS !lxe8 26.ixfS !lxe3!=. Note this tactical hit. It exploits the inclusion of 13.!lcl !b6. So Marin's improvement may be not better than Agdestein's choice at all! 13 ...e4 14.g4 lllxd5 l4...fxg4 15.he4 'l\le8 16.f5 '/;!fh5 17.!lf4 '/;!fxh4 18.!lxg4 is already in White's favour. The above-men­ tioned endagame with opposite­ coloured bishops might be a draw, but a pawn is a pawn.

18

•••

c6

The most principled retort was 18... lll d5. Then White has nothing bet­ ter, but push 19.f6 when both cap­ tures are possible: 19 ...!lxf6 20 ..txf6 '/;!fxf6�; 19 ...gxf6 20.he4 lllxe3 21.!lgl+ @h8 22.'l\lh5 d5co. 19.dxe4 Agdestein fails to assess realistical­ ly the position. He overestimates the significance of the open g-file. 19 ..txf6 !lxf6 20.dxe4 he3= was called for. The threat of e4-e5 would provide sufficient counterplay. 19 ... lllxe4 20.'l!l'c2 !laeS 21.!lgl lllf6 22.!lael

15.lllxf5 txf"5 16.gxf5 'l!l'e717 .@hl lllf6

18.d3 White's flank attack 18.!lgl d5 19.Ml should not succeed owing to Black's superior centre. A simple defence would be 19 ...!c5 20.'l!l'el !a3 21.�e5 !d6=, but Black has a number of other good plans, as ...!lads, ...d5-d4.

The stranded e3-pawn is a cause of constant concern for White. Black can choose a solid set-up as ... !lf7, ... @hS, '/;!ff8 or the more active: 22 ...'l!l'f7 23.e4? White counted on 23 ...hgl 24.!lxgl which would have given him de­ cent compensation, but he misses Topalov's counter-blow. The calm 23.'/;!ld2 kept things under control:

3.lilf3 lilc6 4.g3 �b4 5.lild5 23 ...'/;l'h5 24.Ml or 23 ... d5 24.if3 when Black cannot double rooks on the e-file in view of ia3. 23 ...d5!+ 24..hf'6 hgl 25 .ie5 ia7 26.exd5 cxd5 27.1/ild3 !ld8 28.!lcl !ld7 29."13 !le7 30.\1ijg3 ©h8 31.!lc2 .ib8 32 ..ig4 d4 33.©gl d3 34.!ld2 Wd5 35.!lxd3 ia7+ 36.©fl Whl+ 37.©e2 1/ile4+ 38.©dl �b8 39.'lll'f3 1/ilxf3+ 40.� he5 41.fxe5 !lxe5 42.hb7 !lexf5 43.a4 a5 44.h3 !lf2 45.ia6 g5 0-1 •

1 3.Sonofluck,Rybka-lntuitivestra PAUCSS Freestyle 2007

only counterplay could be based on the temporary weakness of e4. If the bishop could take it, the whole course of events would abruptly change since Black will have to wor­ ry about his king. Therefore, the fol­ lowing sacrifice is timely and good. 12.li:lge3! bfl. 13.©xfl ©h8?! This move is too hesitant. The e4pawn could not be defended with 13 ... !leS due to 14.li:lf5 ©h7 15.h4 so Black should have thought how to limit the scope ofWhite's would-be­ a-beast light-squared bishop. I pre­ fer 13...li:lxd5! 14.cxd5 li:le7 15.ixe4 f5 16.�g2.

1.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilc6 3.lilf3 lilf6 4.g3 �b4 5.lild5 e4 6.lilh4 0-0 7.�g2 d6 8.0-0 g5 9.d4 h6 10 ..ilil �a5 11.lilg2 "13

The potential strength of the g2bishop discourages immediate ac­ tive actions with ...f5-f4, but in fu­ ture the f-pawn could tum into an important resource. White's kingside is a funny sight. Especially the hl-bishop is rath­ er awkward. Lines like 12.b4 lilxb4 13.lilxb4 ixb4 14.!lbl c5 15.a3 ic3 16.dxc5 dxc5 17.!lxb7 1/ilxdl 18.!lxdl !lab8 underline that. Every ex­ change increases the weight of the remaining black pieces. White's

I think that White has just enough for the exchange to balance the game, e.g. 16... li:lg6 17.li:lc4 ib6 18.e3 'l;l'f6 19.a4 f4 20.©gl. It looks safer to gain some space on the queenside with 16...b5!? 17.li:lc2 ©g7 18.©gl li:lg6 19.a4 bxa4 20.!lxa4 ib6 21.e3 \1ijd7=. 113

Chapter 6 14.�1 .ib6 15.b4 hd4 16.b5 h:e3 17.bxc6 h:cl 18.cxb7 !lbS 19.Wl'xcl liJxd5 20.cxd5

45

According to the engines, the posi­ tions on the last two diagrams have the same evaluation, but from a practical point of view, White has made a big progress. The b7-pawn secures him at least a draw while any mistake will cost Black dearly. Without the a-pawns, Black would not have risked anything, of course. The rest ofthe game shows that even computer's help is often not enough to save such "equal" (?!) positions. 20 ...Wl'e7 21.Wl'c4 f5 22.e3 Wies 23 ..ig2 !lf7 24.lilgl !le7 25 .ib3 h5 26.a4f4 27..icS h4 28.g4 lilg7 29 ..if5 a5 30.Wl'b3 lilf7 31 .ie6+ lilg6 32 .ifS+ lilg7 33.Wl'c4 @f7 34.Wi'b3 lilgS 35..ie6+ @f8 36 .ifS Wl'f6 37.Wl'c2 h3 38 ..icS Wl'e5 39.Wl'b3 !lf7 40.Wl'c4 lilg7 41 .if5 !le7 42 .icS lilgS 43.Wl'b3 fxe3 44.fxe3 !le8 45.MS

•••

!le7?

Black should always threaten to take the bishop. 45...!lfS! 46.Wl'c4 !lxf5 47.gxf5 Wi'xf5 48.We2 Wf3 49.Wxf3 exf3 50.lilf2 g4 51.lilg3 lilg7 52.Wxg4 f2! is a draw. 46.Wl'c4 !lg7 47.Wl'd4 48.exd4 !le7 49.@f2 1-0

Wl'xd4

•

•

•

•

•

11A

•

I'm not sure what has actually hap­ pened, but this position is probably still a draw after 49 ...e3+! 50.lile2 Wg7 51.�e6 (51.!lb3 @f6 52.�cS; 51.�cS !le8 52.�e6 Wg6 53.Wxe3 !lf8) 51...Wf6 52.!lb5 (52.Wxe3?? c5; 52.f1b3 f1xe6) 52 ...f1xe6 53.dxe6 d5!.

Chapter 7. 3.'2lf3 '2lc6 4.g3 ib4 5.ig2

Main Ideas

1.c4 e5 2.liJc3 liJf6 3.liJf3 liJc6 4.g3 �b4 5.�g2 0-0 6.0-0

However, the strategical plot in this position is much simpler than after 7.illg5. White's only serious plan is connected with f3 and we must learn how to meet it. I suggest ll.'l:l'c2 liJe5!? - see Grune 14 Kel­ ly-Gormally, Birmingham 2002. It is enough to trade any pair of minor piece to achieve comfortable play. 7 ..hc3 8.bxc3 ges 9.f3 e3!? .

6...e4!? I do notsay 6...d6 or 6...ge8 are bad, but I will always choose the aggres­ sive approach unless it's proven wrong. And practice shows 53 per­ cent in Black's favour! 7.liJg5 7.4.lel hc3 8.dxc3 h6 9.liJc2 d6 10.liJe3 ges may be of equal worth.

The other reasonable option is 9 ... exf3 10.lllxf3 when most solid looks 10 ...'l:l'e7 (10 ...d5 seems to hold, too, but I suspect that we could ex­ pect surprises from White here), although this idea is based on the positional pawn sac ll.e3 lll e5 12.ill d4 d6! 13.d3 c5 14.lllf5 .\hf5 15.gxf5 d5! 16.cxd5 c4oo. It is a fair alternative to 9 ...e3. 10.d3 (10.dxe3 'l:l'e7! ll.liJh3 'l:l'c5=) 10 ...d5 115

Chapter ? £-file only look dangerous, but he do much without his queen which is stranded on the other flank. My main line runs: 15.c4 qie7 16.hb7 axb7 17.f5 c5! 18.£6 ac6 19.�b2 h6 20.ae4 g6 2U1ael fjj d4oo. cannot

Since the source game Kasparov­ Karpov, Seville 1987, 11.Wfb3 was White's main retort. The bulletin of the world title match awards it an exclamation mark and puts an evaluation "�". Indeed, I also pre­ fer White after n... qia5 12.Wfa3 c6. However, I suggest the more active set-up: 12 ...b6!. Instead of b7-c6, we'll build the pawn chain b6-c5. That will leave c6 free for our knight. Have in mind that 12 ...b6 is nearly inexplored. Play may continue: 13.cxd5 qixd5 14.£4 �b7

Perhaps Svidler also was not satis­ fied with White's game since at the Candidates tournament 2016 he came up with the novelty: 11.Wfa4!?, but after 11 ...h6 12.cxd5 axd5 13.ae4 £5 14.ac5 £4 he failed to revive his king's bishop.

The g2-bishop is a poor sight, but the position remains extremely tan­ gled Game 15 Svidler-Karjakin, Moscow 2016. -

The same idea works in the event of 11.cxd5 qixd5 12.qie4 £5! 13.c4 ade7 followed up by .. .£4. Black's game is very easy. He will

trade bishops with ... fjje7 and will block the long diagonal with ...c5, ...qic6-d4. White's threats on the

116

Conclusion: The ball is in White's court in the 9 ... e3 line. 9 ...exf3 also seems in good shape.

Chapter 7. 3.lll f3 lll c6 4.g3 .itb4 5 .itg2 .

Step by Step

l.c4 e5 2.lilc3 lilf6 3.lilf'3 lilc6 4.g3 �b4 5.�g2 0-0 6.0-0

d4. Tue best shaping of this idea is, however, the slower 7.d3 h6 8.lila4! (8.lll d5 �c5 9.e3 a6!) 8...a5 9.b3

6.llld5 e4 7.lilh4 d6 transposes to the previous chapter.

6 ...e4!? This advance perfectly fits in with our aggressive approach to the opening as it promises active piece play in a strategically unbalanced position. Alternatives are rather passive: a) 6 ...se8 7.lll d5 lll xd5 8.cxd5 lild4 9.lllxd4 exd4. If Carlsen was will­ ing to defend this, it should not be dangerous, but it looks deadly dull to me. b) 6 ... d6 gives White some spa­ tial advantage due to the plan e3-

White defends c4 and enables the tactical shot 9 ...�c5 10.lilxe5! lilxe5 ll.d4 with the easier game. 9 ...M5 is dubious in view of 10.d4! (threatening a3). 9 V!!Je7 could prove a waste of time as in Aronian-Topa­ lov, Moscow 2016: 10.�b2 �c5 ll.e3 �a7 12.lllc3 !le8 13.lilh4. Tue ex-world champion did not find anything better than 13 ...V!!ld8 14.V!!ld2 lile7 15.sadl c6 16.lll e2 lllf5 17.lilxf5 hf5 18.d4 V!!lc8 19.lll c3 exd4 20.exd4 lll e4 21.lllxe4 he4 22.he4 !lxe4 23.!lfel !lxel+ 24.1'1xel V!!lf5 25.se7t. In general, the queen stands bet­ ter on d7 in this line. 9...!le8 10.�b2 •.•

117

Chapter ? 7. .hc3 8.bxc3 .

Reviving the threat of 10 ... .ic5 11.i2lxe5 i2lxe5 12.d4 i2lxc4 13.bxc4 h7 14.e3�. Svidler-Nakamura, Candidates, Moscow 2016, saw 10 ...Ms 11.e3 "lfle7? when White missed 12.d4!, trapping the b4-bishop. Corres­ pondence chess has seen: 10 ....ig4 11.h3 .if5 12.e3 Vfld7 13.1!1h2 l'lab8 and Black is holding thanks to the possibility of ...b5. Still, the whole Black's set-up is hanging on a hair.

8.dxc3 l'le8 9.1Dh3 d6 10.lilf4 (10 . .ig5 hh3!? 11.hh3 h6=, Mut­ haiah-Costachi, Porto Carras 2015) 10 ...lile5 11.b3 M5 12.1Dd5 h6 is similar to the previous comment 13.lile3 .id7 14.h3 /Dg6 15.1!1h2 l'le5 16.f4 exf3 17.exf3, J.Gabriel-Gyime­ si, Deizisau 2009. The open e-file is a decent insurance against White's kingside attack. 8 ...l'le8 9.£3 9.d3 is senseless. After 9 ...exd3 10.exd3 d6 11.l'lbl h6 12.lile4 /Dxe4 13.he4 th3 14.l'lel lile5 it turns out that 15.l'lxb7 is not a threat in view of 15 ....ig4 16.f3 IDxf3+.

7.lilg5 7.lilel hc3 8.dxc3 (8.bxc3 l'le8 9.f3 exf3 10.lilxf3 d5 transposes to line B.) 8...h6 9.i2lc2 d6 10.i2le3 l'le8

We have now two good options: A. 9 ...e3!?; B. 9 ...exf3.

does not pose any theoretical prob­ lems. I suggest to meet ll.Vflc2 by ll ... 1De5!? - see Grune 14 Kelly­ Gormally, Birmingham 2002. 118

The latter is more dynamic and complex, but it is up to you to de­ cide whether that is a plus. The aris­ ing positions with a fluid centre are rather chaotic and demand perfect calculation. 9 ...e3 is easier to play and Black is commonly the active side.

3.lilf3 lilc6 4.g3 .ib4 5 ..ig2 A. 9 ...e3!?

10

This push became popular af­ ter Karpov's win over Kasparov in the 1987 world title match. Kar­ pov writes that it was invented by his second I.Zaitsev for the match in Bagio against Korchnoi, but later he discovered an older correspon­ dence game Berndt-Zaets, 1979. The idea behind this sacrifice is that Black easily restores the mate­ rial balance in the event of 10.dxe3 \We7! ll.lilh3 \Wc5 12.lilf4 \Wxc4 13.e4 d6 14.'/,lld3.

11.cxdS lilxd5 12.\Wb3 12.lile4 f5 13.c4 lilde7, intend­ ing to meet any knight retreat by 14 ...£4, promises Black an ini­ tiative. 12 ...\WxgS 13.£4 \Wh5 14..ixdS .ig4 15 ..if3 .ixf3 16.l'lxf3 b6 17..ixe3 l'le7 gives Black nice compensation.

•••

d5 11.\Wb3

Svidler's novelty ll.'/,lla4!? does not change significantly Black's play - ll ...h6 12.cxdS lilxd5 13.lile4 f5 14.lilcS £4 - see Gaine 15 Svidler­ Karjakin, Moscow 2016. 11... lila5 12.\Wa3 12.\Wa4 does not protect c3. That en­ courages 12 ...c6 (although 12 ...b6 is also possible) 13.cxdS lilxd5 with a double attack. Then 14.c4 lilc3 15.'/,llc2 lilxe2+ is equal, as well as 14..ib2 b5.

In 2001 Kasparov drew as White with Sadvakasov in the endgame after 14... lileS 15.\Wxc4. A year later Khalifman-Grischuk made only the moves 14....ie6 15 ..ie3 before sign­ ing a peace treaty. Curiously, mod­ em engines evaluate both moves as 0.00 which is highly unusual for a position without forced variations. 10.d3 White keeps his pawns connected. The obvious threat is lile4, .ixe3 so Black must quickly find targets in order to distract the enemy from the overextended pawn.

12 ...b6! This rare set-up is more active than the well tested 12 ...c6 13.cxdS cxd5 14.f4 lilc6 14....ig4 15.lilf3 lilc6 allows 119

Chapter 7 ing to meet 21.!lb3 by 21...'/!1e6.) White to launch a pawn storm . 21.!lfel te6! Black has a com­ on the kingside after 16.h3 id7 fortable equality. For exam­ (16...hfS 17.!lxf3) 17.!lbl '/!Jc7 18.lilel lile7 19.g4. ple: 22.M6 gxf6 23.'/!Jb2 @g7 24.'/!1xb7 hc4 25.'/!Jxd7 !lxd7 or 15.!lbl!? '/!1c7 15...ig4?! 16.!lxb7 he2 17.lilxf7 22.!lecl '/!Je7 24.'/!Jxe7 !lxe7. 16.lilf3 anticipates the manoeu­ '/!Ja5 18.!lel+-; vre ...ig4 (with tempo!), ...'/!Jd7 15...b6?! 16.ib2! ig4 17.c4. and leaves Black in a somewhat cramped position. White may then proceed with h3, g4, or with the more solid ib2, c4 (he can also pre­ pare it with !lfcl). 13.cxd5 lilxd5 14.f4 If White lingers with this move, he

This is a critical position for the Karpov/Zaitsev/Zaets variation. 16.lilf3!� The stem game Kasparov-Kar­ pov, Seville 1987, saw 16.ib2 ig4 17.c4 dxc4 18.M6 gxf6 19.lile4 @g7 with active play. Perhaps White's best conti­ nuation is 20.'/!Jc3 (20.h3 he2 21.lilxf6 Ml 22.'/!1c3 !le5!) 20 ... '/!Jd8! 21.!lxb7 (21.dxc4 Wid4=) 21...lild4 22.'/!Jxc4 !lf8 23.lilc5 !lc8 24.h3 with unclear compli­ cations. White could try to improve over Kasparov's 17.c4 with 17.lilf3, but then 17...'/!1d7! restricts the enemy on the kingside (White's game is easier after 17...!lad8 18.h3! ic8 19.lild4 lilxd4 20.cxd4 b6 21.!lbcl.) 18.c4 dxc4 19.dxc4 !lad8 20.ial (20. lile5 lilxe5 21.fxe5 he2 22.exf6 Ml 23.!lxfl e2 is dynamical­ ly balanced.) 20 ...h6 (Prepar-

might never achieve it, for instance, 14.lile4 f5 15.c4 lile7 16.lilc3 f4!. 14 .tb7 ..

15.c4 15.ib2 should transpose after 15 ... c5 (15 ...lile7 16.f5 hg2 17.@xg2 f6 18.c4 '/!1d7 19.lile4 lilxf5 20.M6 @h8 is also possible.) 16.c4 lile7. This move order offers Black addi­ tional possibilities, but I think that e7 is the best retreat anyway. For instance, White's attack is more

3.ltlf3 ltlc6 4.g3 .ib4 s.tg2 dangerous after 16...ltlb4 17.1Wc3 f6 18.hb7 ltlxb7 19.ltlf3 ltlc6 20.©hl. 16 ...ltlc7 is also dubious in view of 17.ltlf3 ltle6 (or the knight will be clogged with f4-f5) 18.l'labl f6 19.fS when 19 ... ltld4 20.hd4 cxd4 21.1Wb2 ltlc6 22.ltlh4! l'leS 23.l'lf4 surrounds the d4-pawn.

other hand, 22.11:iia6 ltld6 23.ltlc3 does not guarantee him a repetition of moves with 23 ...ltlc2 24.l'lcl ltld4. Instead, Black plays on with 23 ... 11:iid7! 24.1Wa4 bS 25.ltlxbS l'leSt.

B. 9 ...ext'3 10.ltlxt'3

15... ltle7 16.hb7 ltlxb7 17.f5 17.tb2 c5 18.f5 ltlc6 19.f6 transpos­ es to the main line.

In my opinion, Black has two decent options here: Bl. 10 ...dS; B2. 10 ...1We7

It might seem that White has a ter­ rible attack, but once again we wit­ ness that good control of the centre is a fair insurance against flank as­ saults.

The latter is more cunning and easy to play. It is based on a positional pawn sacrifice which gives Black significant strategic advantage.

Bl. 10 ... dS 11.d4 17... c5! 17.. .f6 18.ltle4 1Wd7 19..ib2 ill xfS 20.txf6 l'lf8 21..ib2 c5 is "only" bal­ anced. 18.f6 ltlc6 19.tb2 h6 (19 ...g6) 20.ltle4 g6 21.l'lael ltld4 White should be very careful. For instance, 22.11:iia4 ltld6 23.ltlc3 ltl6f5 obviously favours Black. On the

11.cxdS 1Wxd5! helps Black activate his queen. The point is that 12.ltld4 1Wh5 13.ltlxc6 (13.e3?! tg4 14.tf3 Illes 15.hg4 ltlexg4 16.1We2 l'lad8 17.11:iig2 ltle4 18.l'lbl cS) 13...bxc6 14.e3 tg4 15.1Wa4 th3 gives Black a significant positional advantage which amply compensates a small material deficit. 15 ... l'le6 has similar ideas 16.hc6 (16.l'lbl?! .ie2 17.l'lel 121

Chapter 7 lilg4 18.h3 1/iff5 19.!lxe2 1/ilxbl 20.1/ifxg4 1/ifxcl+ 21.@h2 ad8 22.1/ifb4 h6 23.c4 1/ifdl 24.af2 1/ifel 0-1, Sigurjonsson-Smys­ lov, Reykjavik 1974.) 16...adS 17.1/ifb5 ae5 18.°l>l'h7 fili3�. 16.�3 (16.'/!lxc6 hg2 17.'/!lxg2 '/!lg6) 16 ...'/!lxh3 17.'/!lxc6 aab8

15.lilxc4 1/ilg6 16.e4) 14...'/!ld6 (14... ig4 15.'/!la4 1/ile7 16.Wxc4 '/!ld7) 15.lild2 id7 16.lilxc4, Tomashev­ sky-Gajewski, Berlin 2015. The common ll...lile4 is anoth­ er way to prevent the pin from g5, but the knight is somewhat hang­ ing on that square. For instance, 12.'/!lc2 dxc4 13.lile5 lilxe5 14.Wxe4 looks unpleasant: 14...lilg4 (14 ... lilg6 15.'/!ld5 1/ife716.e4 c6 17.'/!lxc4�) 15.'/!lf3, but 15...f5 16.1/ifd5+ Wxd5= saves the day. The text keeps more tension.

12.cxd5

The game Girth-Scwenk, corr 2010, went on 18.af4 '/!lh5 19.h3 abdS 20.ad4 when 20 ...axd4 21.cxd4 '/!la5! 22.icl axe3 forces a perpetu­ al, but Black could certainly play on with 22 ... hs 23.a4 abs. White has tried to improve on 12.lild4 with 12.ib2?!, but 12 ...ig4! 13.d3 1/ifa5 14.af2 aad8 is clearly in Black's favour. Another attempt was 12.d3 '/!lc5+ 13.@hl lilg4 14.'/!lel 1/ilh5!? 15.M4 (15.e4 f5) 15 ... lilce5 16.he5, Van Wely-Ruck Los Angeles 2011, when 16 ...!lxe5! would have left Black with a more mobile rook which could at­ tack both h2- and a2-pawns.

Alternatively: 12.1/ifc2 dxc4 13.if4 13.abl 1/ife7 14.ab2 'l!lle4 15.Wxe4 (15.'/!la4 'l!lle6) 15 ... lilxe4 16.lile5 lilxe5 17.he4 lild7 leads to mas­ sive elimination of forces af­ ter 18.hb7 hb7 19.l'lxb7 axe2 20.!lxc7 lilf6 21.!lxc4 axa2 22.l'lb4!=. 13... lile4 14.aadl After 14.lile5 lilxe5 15.he5, sim­ plest is 15 ... lilc5 (aimed against 16.e4) 16.aabl tg4=.

11...h6 I do not like ll ...dxc4?! 12.igsgg (12.'/!lc2 h6 transposes) 12 ...h6 13.hf6 '/!lxf6 14.e4 (14.lile5 1/ifd6 1??

14...'l!lle7 14...tf5 15.lile5 lilxg3 (15...lild6?!

3.ltlf3 'll c6 4.g3 ib4 5.ig2 16.e4 ib7 17.1/:l'e2 ltle7 18.hh6 was unpleasant, to say it mild­ ly, in Caruana-Anand, Moscow 2016. In the postmortem Caru­ ana also proposed 18.h4!) 16.e4 'llxfl 17.exf5 'llxh2 18.hh2 'llxe5 19.he5 1/:l'g5 should be tenable. Black could always sac the ex­ change and play with 3-4 pawns for a piece. For instance: 20.afl c6 21.f6 l'1xe5 22.dxe5 ae8oi;. However, at the press confer­ ence in Moscow Caruana called the position "resignable". 15.ltle5 ltlxe5 16.he5 ltld6 17.adel (17.af2 is the same - 17...f6 18.id5+ @hs 19.Exf6 gxf6 20.'!l'g6= J 17.. .f6 18.id5+ @h8 19.Exf6=. 12.ltle5 ltlxe5 13.dxe5 axe5 is at least equal after (14.if4?! ae8 15.cxd5 if5+) 14.cxd5 ig4.

16.axf3 1/:l'd5 17.ltlf5 ltle4 18.1!1'd3 'll d6=. 14...ltla5 15.'ll'b4 ltle4 16.1/:l'a4 ig4 17.1/:l'c2 f5 18.abl c6 is unclear, Musitani-Dorer, corr. 2010. 13.e4 ®xe4 (13...1/:l'c4!?=) 14.ltle5 ®h7 15.ltlxc6 bxc6 16.Exf6 16.hc6 is dubious owing to 16... ig4 17.1/:l'a4 ib3. 16...gxf6 17.hc6=. 13.ltle5 1/:l'e6 14.ltld3!? 14.ltlxc6 bxc6 15.ael ltle4 16.'ll'd3 'll'g6 17.if4 M5=. 14...®xe2 15.hh6 Or 15.1/:l'xe2 l'1xe2 16.hh6 ltle4=. 15 ...1/:l'xdl 16.aaxdl ig4 17.ad2 ie2 18.axf6 gxf6 19.ltlc5 ic4

12 1/:l'xd5! ...

13.e3 This was played by Aronian against Adams in 2015. I have also ana­ lysed: 13.ltlh4 1/:l'h5 14.'!l'b3 Or 14.abl ig4 15.if3 hf3

Now 20.ltlxb7 ltle7 21.'lla5 id5 would be totally even so in the cor­ respondence game Zlotkowski­ Nowak, 2013, White tried 20.@f2!? ltla5 21.'ll e4 and got an overwhelm­ ing position after 21...@hS? 22.g4 c6 23.'llxf6 ae6 24..ig5. Black should have defended the f6pawn with 21...ae6 22.d5 Ea6 when White has just about sufficient com­ pensation for the exchange. 13.if4 1/:l'a5 123

Chapter 7 13...1ll'h5 stumbles into 14.!lbl lild5 15.!lb5 lilce7 16.e4 c6 17.!lb2t. 14.1ll'b3 !lxe2 15.!lfel !lg2+! 16.@xg2 1ll'h5 is excellent for Black.

13 ...Ms 14.lild2 Black was threatening ....ie4. An­ other attempt to put the centre in motion is 14.1ll'e2 .ie4 15.c4 1ll'h5 16.ib2 !lads with full mobilisation.

14...1ll'd7 15.lilb3 lile4 16.c4 b6 17.!lf4 !lad8

Black is still underdeveloped, but he has no weaknesses and that allows him to neutralise the enemy's initi­ ative. Both queen retreats are pos­ sible: 13...1!\'dS 14.1ll'd3 lilf6 15.!lxeS+ 1ll'xe8 16.d5 Ci:Je7 17.d6 cxd6 18.ia3 d5 19.!lel d6! 20.ixd6 .ie6 21.lild4 dxc4=; 13 ...1!\'fS 14.1ll'c2 f5 15.lild2 Ci:Jf6 16.!lxe8 1ll'xe8 17.1ll'xf5 1ll'el+=. Perhaps the most principled retort to 11.d4is 11 ...Ci:Je4 12.1ll'd3 d6 13.!lbl f5, tightening the grip on e4.

11... lile5 In the stem game Aronian failed to equalize completely with White af­ ter 18.1ll'flig6 19.ia3 lila5!? 20.ib4 lilxb3 21.axb3 c5+.

B2. 10 ...1ll'e7 11.e3 ll.d4!? is an interesting alternative. It looks strategically wrong as it of­ fers Black a seemingly full control over e4. However, White puts his hopes on ll ...h6 12.e4! lilxe4 (12 ... 1ll'xe4 13.lile5 1ll'h7 14.!lxf6 triggers a strong attack.) 13.!lel 124

12.lild4 It is natural for White to avoid ex­ changes, moreover that the f5 would be a nice place for the knight. 12.Ci:Jxe5 1ll'xe5 13.!lbl !lb8 occurred

ltlf3 'll c6 4.g3 ib4 5.ig2 in Aronian-Anand, Stavanger 2015. After 14.l'lb5 'l!Je7 15.d3 d6 16.e4 $.g4 17.if3 (17.'l!Jc2 a6 18.l'lbl 'l!Je6) 17... tb3 18.$.g2, a draw was signed. In Biedermann-Kurgansky, email 2012, White came up witb 14.c5, in­ tending to meet 14 ...'l!Jxc5 by a sec­ ond sac, 15.c4 and tbe al-h8 diago­ nal suddenly opens up. Black pre­ ferred development over material and the game was drawn after 14... b6 15.c4 'l!Je6 16.d3 $.b7 17.e4 d6 18.cxd6 'l!Jxd6 19.'l!!f3 'l!Je7 20.$.g5=. 12.li:lh4!? d6 13.d3 is best met by 13...li:lg6!

14.li:lf5 In Karjakin-Eljanov, Baku 2015, White played 14.li:lxg6= and of­ fered a draw. 14...'l!Je5 15.d4 (15.e4 'l!Jxc3 16.l'lbl hf5 17.exf5 li:le5 18.l'lb3 'l!Ja5) 15... 'l!Je6 16.'l!Jd3 Ei:Je7 17.e4 Ei:Jxf5 18.exf5 'l!Je2 19.'l!Jxe2 l'lxe2 20.ig5 l'lc2 leads to a balanced endgame.

12 ...d6! This move, in conjunction witb the pawn sacrifice on move 15, ef­ fectively patches tbe 10 ...'l!Je7-line. The source game Kasparov-Karpov,

Seville 1987, saw 12 ... l'i:Jd3?! 13.'l!Je2 (13.l'i:Jf5!?) 13...li:lxcl 14.l'laxcl d6 15.l'lf4 c6 16.l'lcfl witb an initiative. 12 ... l'i:Jxc4?! 13.li:lf5 'l!Je5 14.e4 d5 15.d4� is also dangerous.

13.d3 c5 14.li:lf5 After 14.li:lc2 $.g4 15.'l!Jd2 the the­ matic break from the main line: 15 ...d5 16.cxd5 c4 is bad because White's bishop enters play from a3 - 17.h3 'l!Jd8 18.dxc4 l'i:Jxc4 19.'l!Jd4±. I propose to modify this idea witb: 15 ...b5!?

16.cxb5 16.$.xa8 is risky - 16 ... l'lxa8 17.cxb5 $.h3 18.l'lf4 c4 19.d4 l'i:Jd3 20.l'lh4 li:le4 and all tbe fun is for Black. 16...d5 17.a4 17.d4 prevents the knight from reaching d3, but c4 is also a perfect stand for it - 17...l'i:Jc4 18.'l!!d3 l'lac8 19.a4 $.h5 20.$.xd5 li:lxd5 21.'l!!xc4 when 21...'l!Je4 22.li:lel $.g6 is equal. 21...l'i:Jf6 22.ia3 li:le4 23.dxc5 'l!Jg5 24.l'lf4 l'i:Jxg3= is more forceful. 17...l'lac8 18.$.b2 c4 19.d4 li:ld3 20.l'i:Jb4 l'i:Je4=. 125

Chapter ?

14...hfS 15.!lxf5 d5! The point ofthe l0...1/!\'e7-line. With­ out it, White would enjoy a bishop pair and the better centre.

16.cxd5 c4

17.d4

126

17.dxc4 lilxc4 18.1il'd4 lilxe3 19.he3 1/!\'xe3+ 20.1/!\'xe3 !lxe3 restores the material balance and the chances are even after 21.c4 b6 22.a4 !lc8.

17... lild3 18.i.d2 The stem game which introduced 15...d5, Khismatullin-Tomashev­ sky, Chita 2015, saw 18.!lxf6? 1il'xf6+. Instead of panicking, White should have calmly defend, but he can hardly expect an edge with his central pawns blocking his bishop. A possible continuation is 18 ...lile4 19.he4 1il'xe4 20.1il'f3 1/!\fxf3 21.!lxf3 !lad8 22.!lafl (22.!lbl b6 23.!lb5 !ld6 24.a4 a6 25.!lbl !lxd5=) 22 ... !lxd5 23.!lxf7 !lb5+±.

Chapter 7. 3.tll f3 tt:lc6 4.g3 i.b4 5.i.g2

Annotated Games

14. Kelly - Gormally Birmingham 20.01 .2002 1.c4 liJf6 2.liJc3 e5 3.g3 !b4 4.liJ:f3 e4 5.liJd4 liJc6 6.liJc2 hc3 7.dxc3 d6 8.!g2 h6 9.li:le3 0-0 10.0-0 B:e8

15.cxd5 li:lexd5 16.1'1'f2 1'1'c8 17.l!lh2 b6 18.c4 li:lxe3 19.he3 c5=, Lauti­ er-Karpov, Biel 1990.

11.1'1'c2 White's bishops lack prospects. His only viable plan is to push f4, but 11.f4 exf3 12.exf3 has not cought in practice since Black could take the best stand against this pawn struc­ ture - 12 ...i.d7 13.h3 li:le7 14.1'1'c2 (14.f4? li:lf5) 14...d5 (or 14...1'\'cS 15. l!lh2 d5). This break in the cen­ tre is Black's main method of de­ fence against a pawn storm on the kingside.

More often White tries to disrupt the coordination of the black piec­ es before pushing f4. A possible stand is ll.b3, but it al­ lows the regroupment ll ...li:le5 12.f4 exf3 13.exf3 i.d7 14.h3 ic6. As a rule, Black needs to trade one mi­ nor piece to be perfectly happy with his position. That's why plans with li:ld5 do not bother him at all. For example, 12.
Chapter ? 11

..•

qie5!?

A similar idea is ll...id7 12.b3

qie7!?. Note that the most popular continu­ ation, 11...aS, loses a tempo since White is not obliged to answer 12.a4, but can develop a piece. Af­ ter 12.id2 Wffe7 13.f4 Black's pieces do not succeed to take te best stand with ...id7, ...Wffc8.

move, but White has not won a sin­ gle game after it in correspondence chess! 12... qixc4

This leaves more tension than 12 ... qixe4 13.'l!lxe4

12.he4

Let's investigate the alternatives: 12.b3 qieg4 achieves the goal of trading a piece. 12.h3 ie6 The thematic 12 ...id7 is good, but why not use the hit on c4 to win a tempo! Even 12 ...qig6 13.f4 exf3 14.exf3 id7 15.f4 qie7 16.g4 ic6 17.g5 hxg5 18.fxg5 qid7 is equal. 13.b3 'l!ld7 14.©h2 if5!

If Black traded his last knight here, he should be able to hold the draw in view of the opposite-coloured bishops, for instance: 13 ... lilg4 14.Wffd3 qixe3 15.tl
13.ig2 qixe3 14.he3 'l!le7 15.c4 qie4

Exploiting the tactical trick 15.lilxf5

Wffxf5 16.f4? qieg4+! 17.©hl lilh5 with attack. If White did not take on f5, we retreat the bishop to h7 and f4 would not have a bite anymore owing to the hole on d3. Thus 12.tl
3.'ilt3 'ilc6 4.g3 �b4 5.�g2 16.®'d3

Polugaevsky-Panno, Mar de! Pla­ ta 1971, saw 16.b3 �d7 17.�d4 f5 18.l'1ael !lf8 19.f3 lilf6 20.e3'1;. Black's best stand is more restrained: 16 ...M5! 17.®'b2 as 18.�d4 f6

29.@fl? h6! 30.®'xa6 ®'dl+ 31.©f2 ®'c2+ 32.©fl ®'xcl+ 33.@f2 lile6 34.®'xa7 ®'d2+ 35.©fl lild4 36.®'aS+ @h7 37.e5 ®'e2+ 38.©gl ®'e3+ 39.@fl ®'xe5 40.®'e4+ ®'xe4 41.fxe4 ©g6 42.©f2 @f6 43.©e3 ©e5 44. ©d3 lilb5 45.� lild6 46.�g2 g5 47.� f6 48.@e3 b5 49.©d3 b4 50.©e3 g4 51.�g2 lilb5 52.©d3 lild6 53.©e3 h5 54.©d3 f5 55.exfS ©xf5 56.�c6 ©g5 57.©e3 ©f5 58.©d3 ©g5 Draw.

15. Svidle r - Karjakin Candidates, Moscow 20.03.2016

19.!ladl b6 20.f3 lilg5 21.e4 as=. 16 ...b6 17.b3 Ab7 18.!lfel !lad8 19.!ladl c5 20.®'c2 d5=

1.c4 lilf6 2.lilc3 e5 3.lilf"3 lilc6 4.g3 �b4 5.Ag2 o-o 6.0-0 e4 7.lilg5 hc3 8.bxc3 !le8 9.1'3 e3 10.d3 d5 11.®'a4

Opening the d-file allows Black to eliminate the rooks and reach a draw position. One mistake on move 29 complicated White's task, but it all ended up peacefully at the end. 21.cxd5 hd5 22.Acl Ab7 23.1'3 lilg5 24.e4 ®'f6 25.®'f2 !lxdl 26.!lxdl !ldS 27.!lxdS+ ®'xd8 28.®'e2 ®'d4+

Svidler's novelty hinders the plan with ... lila5 and ...b6, but the queen does not have any impact on the centre. Karjakin takes the chance to hem in the g2-bishop. 11 ...h6 12.cxd5 lilxd5 13.lile4 f5 14.lilc5 f4 15 ..1b2 !lb8

Defending the b7-pawn in order to free the c8-bishop. If Black wanted 129

Chapter 7 to push ...b5, he could have done it without any preparation since 15 ... b5 16.'1¥xb5? gb8 would be in his favour. However, this move would be double-edged as it creates weak­ nesses on the queenside. Karjakin provokes c4 which weak­ ens the square d4. It is indica­ tive that the engines prefer for White more restrained play on the queenside:

16.c4?! lllde7! (eyeing f5) 17.g4?

No matter the threats, one should never make such moves. 17...b6 18.lll e4 ie6

a) 16.gabl '1¥e7 17.lll e4 (17.c4 lllf6 18.lll a6 ga8 19.'1¥b5 gd8 20.'1¥c5 '1¥xc5 21.lllxc5 b6 22.lllb3 a5=) or: b) 16.lll e4 b5 17.'1¥c2 'l:\le7

The best place for the queen is f7 from where it is eyeing both c4 and g6. Now the most principled conti­ nuation is: bl) 18.c4 lll db4 19.'l:\lcl bxc4 20.dxc4 lll e5! 21.id4 fxg3 22.hxg3 lllbc6 23.he3 if5 with chaotic play where Black's pieces are very active. More prophylactic approaches are: b2) 18.gabl ie6 19.a4 a6 20.axb5 axb5 21.'l:\lcl 'l:\lf7 22.lllc5 .tf5oo. b3) 18.Wcl '1¥f7 19.a4 fxg3 20.hxg3 lll a5oo. Black should play complexly, com­ bining threats on both flanks.

The opening is over and we can take stock now. White has made a novelty, then played all the obvi­ ous moves, and ended down clearly worse! To be sure, the engines eval­ uate this position as nearly even, but I guess that nobody would like to contemplate such a hopeless bish­ op on g2. It would be interesting to know what went wrong with his home preparation. After all, Svidler is one of world's leading experts on the English Opening. He was obvi­ ously frustrated with his achieve­ ments as his next attempt to resur­ rect the poor bishop is almost los­ ing. White adds to the bad bishop another positional drawback - an even worse king. 19.g5? h5?!

Karjakin does not want to part with the sight of the sealed bishop, but the position was ripe for deci­ sive action. 19... hxg5! 20.lllxg5 lllf5 was much stronger. 20.Wb5 if5

3.'ilt3 'ilc6 4.g3 �b4 5.�g2 21.�xg5 does not help either owing to 21...�d4 22.ixd4 Wlxd4 23.fili3 c6 24.Wla4 ixh3 25.�xh3 Wlf6. 20.!lfdl �d4?!

20 ...�d7! 21.Wfa3 �f5+ was a good introduction to ... �d4. Now White is still kicking.

takes which eventually led to a curi­ ous endgame: 26.Wle5 �g6 27.Wd5+ �e6 28.Wlxd7 .ixd7 29.©h2= !!aS 30.�3 hh3 31.©xh3 !!a3 32.!!dcl !leas 33.!!c2 @f7 34.d4 !!dS 35.d5 �e536.!lbl ©g6 37.d6 cxd6 38.!!xb6 ©h5 39.qixd6 !!daS 40.!!b5? (40.g6!) 40 �c6 41.g6+ ©xg6 42.!lcl ©h7 43.!!gl !!3a7 44.!!g4 ©gS 45.!!h5 �e7 46.!!gxh4 �g6 47.!!g4 qifS 48.!!gh4 �g6 49.!lg4 qi{S ..•

21 ..ixd4 Wlxd4 22.Wxa7 Wld7 23.Wla3

23 ...h4 (23 ...�c6) 24.Wlc3 Ms 25.h3 hh3?

Black is getting impatient. ... 25 �c6+, taking the centre under control, was a must. The text allows White to activate the queen and drops all the advantage. The subse­ quent play was sprinkled with mis-

50.!!xf4?

50.!!e5! !!xa2 51.!!e7 g6 52.!!xf4 was still winning. 50 ...!!xa2 51.!!th4 g6 52.!!e5 Draw.

131

Chapter 8. Rare Second Moves

Main Ideas

I conclude my survey on the English Opening with rare second moves. Their only merit is that they might throw us out of our repertoire. We need a concrete approach towards any one of them. 1.c4 e5 2.d3 is aimed against 2... c6 in view of3.ltlf3. One possible ex­ ploitative strategy is 2 ...f5 which is normally bad due to d2-d4. I analyse this plan in Grune 16 Schwaninger - Balinov, Oberwart 2000. We could reach more familiar po­ sitions with 2 .ib4+!? 3 .id2 (or 3.ltld2 c5 and we meet a3 by ...ia5) 3 hd2+ 4.'!Hxd2 ••.

2.a3 is a typical Sicilian move so we should not discard it altogether. Just as 2.g3, it has no direct influ­ ence on the centre so we can safe­ ly employ our plan of claiming the centre with 2 ...c6. However, we should meet d4 by exd4, e.g. 3.ltlc3 d5 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.d4 exd4 or: 3.d4 exd4 4.'!Hxd4 d5

•

•••

If White does not exchange now on d5, we take on c4: 5.ltlf3 dxc4 6.1/,\fxdS+ l!lxd8 7.if4 ltld7 8.ltlc3 ltlgf6 9.!ldl l!le8 or 5.ltlc3 dxc4.

Here simplest is to trade a pair of knights with 4 ltlf6 5.ltl:f3 ltlc6 ••.

6.ltlc3 0-0 7.g3 d6 8..ig2 ltld4 9.0-0 ltlx:f3+ 10.h:f3 c6=.

5.cxd5 is the only principled line, but it offers us an initiative. I sug­ gest to prevent any blockading ide­ as with the manoeuvre ...tf8-e7133

Chapter s f6. It hinders White's harmoni­ ous development: 5...cxd5 6.lilf3 lilc6 7.1/ild3 .ig4 8.g3 .ie7 9..ig2 .if6 10.0-0 lilge7

4.d3 lilc6 5.lilxc6 dxc6 is quite clear so we should consider most­ ly 4.lilc3, keeping the pawn on d2.

4 ...ic5 5.lilb3 .ib4 6.�c2 0-0! .

The isolated d-pawn is always ready to move forth, gaining even more space.

2.lilf"3 e4 3.lild4 lilf6

looks already pleasant for Black. Good old chess laws hint that White is playing with fire and should be punished by an energetic attack.

134

The point! White wins a pawn, but falls behind in development. We can play for suffocation with simple centralising moves: 7.lilxe4 lilxe4 8.�xe4 1'le8 9. �c2 d5 10 .a3 .if8 ll.e3 lilc6 12 ..ie2 dxc4 13.hc4 a5t.

You do not need glasses to notice that White's kingside lacks any de­ fenders...

Chapter 8. Rare Second Moves

Step by Step

1.c4 e5 A. 2.d3; B. 2.a3; C. 2.lilf3 A. 2.d3

In the annotations to Grune 16 Schwaninger - Balinov, Oberwart 2000, I consider in detail an alter­ native plan which is based on 2 ... f5!?. This is an attempt to exploit White's second move since normal­ ly 2 .. .f5 is dubious in view of d2-d4! An argument in its favour is that it is applicable after both 2.d3 and 2.a3. On the other hand, it allows White to follow typical for the Eng­ lish Opening schemes. That leaves him inside his comfort zone. 3.id2

This ridiculous move aims to dis­ courage plans with lilc3 ib4. It would not have posed any problems to us had we the Sicilian Reversed with ...d5 in our arsenal. The funny thing is that we still have: 2...ib4+!? with a rather easy

game. Note that ifwe delayed the check for one move later - 2...lilf6, intending 3.lilf3 ib4+, White might definitely throw us out of our repertoire with 3.a3!? - why not!

I propose to meet 3.lild2 by 3 ... c5!? 3 ...a5 is another positionally well grounded option - 4.lilgf3 lilc6 5.e3 lilf6 6.ie2 0-0 7.0-0 "1e8 8.a3 if8 9.b3 d6 10.'!l'c2 ig4 ll."1el '!l'd7 12.ib2 h6 13.h3 �5, Csom-Taimanov, Saint Vin­ cent 2001. 4.lilf3 lilc6 5.g3 lilge7 6.a3 ia5! We keep the bishop in order to hamper White's queenside play. 7.ig2 0-0 8.0-0 d6 We are ready to attack 9.e3 with 9 .. .f5 so perhaps White should immediately change the course of events with: 135

Chapter 8

5.lil:f3 lilc6 6.lilc3 0-0 7.g3 d6 8.tg2

9.b4!? cxb4 10.lilb3 ib6 11.axb4 lilxb4 12.ia3 lilbc6 13.d4 e4 (13 ... tg4 14.dxeS=) 14.lilgS fS 15.d5 lile5 16.cS dxcS 17.lilxcS 1/!lxd5!? 18.lila4 td8 with roughly equal chances, but all the fight is still ahead.

3 hd2+ 4.1/!lxd2 ..•

We have from here several ways to complete development. Simplest is:

4

•••

lilf6

Another plan consists of ... d6, .. .f5, ... lilf6, but probably the best way to play for a win is: 4 ...b6!? 5.lilf3 d6 6.g3 tb7 7.tg2 lilf6 8.0-0 0-0 9.lilc3 lilbd7.

8 lild4 9.0-0 lilx:f3+ 10.tx:f3 c6 11.d4 '1e8 12."\1;1'd3 1/!le7=. .••

B. 2.a3 This modest pawn move does elimi­ nate ...tb4, but it neglects the cen­ tre. That shonld encourage us to claim it with:

2 ...c6!? 3.d4 3.lilc3 dS 4.cxd5 cxdS 5.d4 should be met by 5...exd4!. 3.lilf3 e4 4.lild4 d5 5.cxdS lilf6 is a reversed Alapin where Black's ac­ tive pieces ensure him a pleasant albeit equal game.

This line is inspired by the Bogo­ Indian Defence. Black's position is very solid and flexible. See Game 17 Lein-Korchnoi, Johannesburg 1979.

1.c4 e5 Rare second moves 3 ...exd4

3...e4 4.lilc3 d5 is more in the spirit of this book, but it leads to an overly static position where White's game is too easy: 5.M4 fie7 6.e3 6�e5 lilf6 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.e3 0-0 9.lilge2 lilbd7 10.1\\'b3 lilxe5 ll.dxe5 lilg4 12.'i;\'xd5 'i;\'xd5 13.lilxd5 fidS

for long so ll...i.d6 12.i.xd6 'i;\'xd6 looks consistent. We have enough counterplay after 13.h4 !lacs, but our chances to break through the enemy's ditches appear to be mini­ mal. 4.'@'xd4 d5

We can play first 4... lilf6, followed up by 5... d5. I'm planning to recap­ ture on d5 with pawn anyway and I'm not afraid of 5.e4 d5=. Still, we could develop the knight to e7 in­ stead of f6 in some lines so it looks clever to push ... d5 immediately. 5.lilf3

White could win a pawn with 14.lilg3, but Black's initiative and bishop pair amply compen­ sate for it after 14...fie6 !. More prudent is 14.lilec3 M5 15.lilb5 lilxe5=. 6.cxd5 cxd5 7.fixbS?! !lxbS 8.'i;\'a4+ fid7 9.'i;\'xa7?? drops the queen after 9...i.c6. 6...lilf6 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.lilge2 0-0 9�e5 lilc6 10.lilf4 i.e6 ll�e2

We cannot stand the e5-bishop

5.lilc3 dxc4 6.®'xdS+ @xdS 7.fif4 lild7 8.lilf3 lilgf6 transposes to the main line. Of course, Black can also keep the tension with 5... lilf6. 5.cxd5 is risky as Black will get an initiative in various ways. I like the following original set-up: 5 ...cxd5 6.lilf3 lilc6 7.®'d3 /ig4 8.g3 (8.lilc3 d4) 8 .../ie7 9.fig2 i.f6 10.0-0 lilge7

It is difficult for White to com­ plete development as ll.lilc3 could 137

Chapter 8 face 11...MS 12.'j,l'bS d4. Perhaps he should seek simplification with 11.i.gS hf3 12.hf6 .b:g2 13..b:e7 i.e4 14.'j,\'xe4 dxe4 15..b:d8 fu:d8=.

5 dxc4 •••

It is worth considering more com­ plex lines as 5...ltlf6 6.i.g5 If White fianchettoed his king's bishop, he would be unable to prevent ...d4. 6 ...i.e7 7.cxd5 cxd5! 8.e3 1tlc6 9.'j,\'d3 h6 10.th4 0-0 11.i.e2

We are not worse here, at least For instance: 10.ltld4 ltlb6 11.e4 ltlfd7 12.ltlfS ltlc5 13.ltld6+ .b:d6 14..b:d6 ltlca4 15.ltlxa4 ltlxa4 16.l'ld2 b5 17.i.e2 i.e6 18.f4 l'ldS - our extra pawn is still alive.

C. 2.ltlf"3 e4 3.ltld4 ltlf6

It seems that White will obtain a standard IQP position, but 11 ... d4!? throws him out of his comfort zone. Following 12.ltlxd4 ltlxd4 13.exd4 ltld5, White should play accurate­ ly in order to maintain the balance:

3... ltlc6 is the common move here, but Black's pawn formation af­ ter 4. ltlxc6 dxc6 is too static and it would be difficult to devise a clear plan. Perhaps long castling is best, in order to mount a kingside at­ tack, but 5.ltlc3 ltlf6 6.e3 tfs 7.m3 b6 8.'j,\'c2 'j,\'d7 9.b3 i.e7 10.h3 h5 11.i.b2 0-0-0 12.a3 is double-edged.

a) 14.i.g3 'j,\'b6 ls.ms 'j,\'xb5 16..b:b5 i.f5 17.ltlc3 l'lfdS 18.0-0 l'lac8 19.l'lfcl tf6=. b) 14..b:e7 'j,\'xe7 15.ltlc3 ltlxc3 16.bxc3 l'leS 17.'j,\'e3 i.g4 18.'j,\'xe7 l'lxe7 19.f3 l'lae8= 20.0-0 l'lxe2 21.fxg4 l'l8e3.

6.'j,\'xd8+ ©xd8 7.tf4 ltld7 8.ltlc3 ltlgf6 9.l'ldl ©e8

Now both 12 ... @b7 13.b4, Rakh­ manov-Seirawan, Berlin 2015, and 12 ...cS 13.b4 ©bS, seem unclear.

l.c4 e5 Rare second moves The text is more in the spirit of the book.

8..ig2 d6 9.0-0 l!e8 10.d3 h6 ll.llbl li:lc6=.

6

..•

0-0!

Guliyev obtained a good game with 6 ...Vfle7, but it would be more natu­ ral to defend the e4-pawn with a rook. If White does not accept the gift, he risks to become worse with­ out any material consolation, e.g. 7.g3 a5!? (7... lle8=) 8.a3 hc3.

4.li:lc3

7.li:lxe4 li:lxe4 8.%l'xe4 l!e8

After 4.d3 we can already play 4... li:lc6. The point is that we no long­ er fear the set-up with e3, b3, i.b2 and a possible f3 later where White needs his d-pawn on d2 to pro­ tect e3. For instance: 5.li:lxc6 dxc6 6.li:lc3 i.c5 7.e3 exd3 gives Black free piece play.

4...tc5 5.li:lb3 i.b4 6.%l'c2 We meet 6.d4 (and 6.d3) by6...exd3 7.%l'xd3 li:lc6. 6.g3 hc3 (or 6 ... 0-0 7..ig2 hc3) 7.bxc3 0-0 brings about a familiar pawn structure where the knight on b3 is a little strange and aloof from the kingside. Play may continue

My claim may sound exaggerated, but I believe that Black's game is clearly better! White is severely lag­ ging behind in development and it would be difficult for him to castle. An illustrative line is:

9.%l'c2 d5 10.a3 MS n.e3 li:lc6 12.i.e2 dxc4 13.hc4 a5t.

139

Chapter 8. Rare Second Moves

Annotated Games

16. Schwaninger- Balinov Oberwart 2000 1.c4 e5 2.g3 f5 3 ..ig2 lilf6 4.d3 .ie7 5.lilc3 0-0 6.lilf3 White's move order is unimpor­ tant provided that he fianchettoes his bishop and develops the king's knight on f3. The only independ­ ent set-up is 6.e3 d6 7.lilge2 c6 (7... lila6!? limits White's options)

8.0-0 8.b4 discloses White's plans too early and suggests a counter in the centre with 8 ....ie6 9.b5 d5 10.bxc6 li:lxc6. It is not clear at all that the advance of the b­ pawn is White's best idea. Cen­ tral play with b3, f4 may be a more clever approach. 8 ...lila6 140

White's set-up is a little passive, but it protects well his castling position. Thus the manoeu­ vre 8...1/;\fe8 already encourages 9.b4! 1/;\fh5 10.f4. The text slows down White's offensive. 9.f4 Or 9.b3 .ie6 10 ..ib2 1/;\ld7 11.f4 !lae8 12.1/;\fd2 id8=, Ribli-Drab­ ke, Austria 2011. 9... 1/;\fe8 10.!lbl Wf7! The point! Black targets the c4pawn and prepares ... e4, e.g. 11.b4 e4, or 11.a3 lilc7 12.b4 e4. It transpires that White should protect c4: ll.b3 id7 12 .1/;\ld2 !lae8 13.ib2

13...idS Black is fully mobilised and well co­ ordinated.

6

..•

d6 7.0-0

l.c4 e5 Rare second moves of queens with lild2. My analysis shows that Black can hold the end­ game after 9...te6 10.lild2 Wxdl 11.!lxdl c6 12.b5 !lc8 13.i.a3 lilbd7 14.bxc6 bxc6 15.!labl @f7, planning ...d5.

7 c6

Still, it is not worth to test White on the move 9.e3!. The text does not waste time on dubious queen ma­ noeuvres, but prepares ... @h8, i.e6.

I have played in one game 7...lila6, having in mind to meet 8.!lbl by 8 ... c6 9.b4 lilc7 10.b5 i.d7, but this set­ up is a bit too passive.

The best move order, however, is 7... a5!? in order to exchange the a­ pawus, and more importantly, to provoke !labl.

Later I was attracted by the straight­ forward idea 7...'l!fe8!? 8.b4 8.lild5 lilxd5 9.cxd5 'l!fh5 10.e3 lild7 11.lild2 'l!fxdl 12.!lxdl lilc5 13.lilb3 lilxb3 14.axb3 i.d7=, Gourlay-Greet, Edinburgh 2009. 8 ...Wh5 Black's idea is to sac a pawu for a great initiative after 9.i.d2 (9.Wc2 f4) 9 .. .f4 10.gxf4 i.h3

8.!lbl

...

11.hh3 (11.i>hl hg2+ 12.@xg2 lilbd7 13.hl lilg4) ll ...Wxh3 12.lilg5 'l!fh4 13.hl lilg4 14.lilf3 'l!fh3. Critical, however, is 9 .e3 ! which prevents .. .f4 and prepares a trade

Of course, 8.b4 is better. In fact, White might need the rook exact­ ly on al. For instance, 8 ... @h8 (in­ tending ...te6), is best met by: 9.a4 ie6 10.i.a3. In practice, White chooses instead exclu­ sively: 9.!lbl 9.b5 cxb5 10.lilxb5 lilc6 11.lilc3 te6=. 9...a6 10.a4 te6 ll.b5 axb5 12.axb5

Black has achieved comfortable development and after 12 ...Wc7 13.bxc6 bxc6 14.Wb3 the game 141

Chapter 8 Spraggett-Dolmatov, Hastings 1989, has finished in a draw.

8 a5!? 9.a3 l!lhS 10.b4 axM 11.axb4 liJa6 12.b5 liJc5 13 .ie3 liJe6 14.bxc6 bxc6 •••

•

15 liJg4 •..

The thematic idea 15 ...f4 was also possible, but perhaps Balinovwant­ ed to keep the centre more fluid.

16.'1!1b6?! '1!1e8 Black smells the blood and stakes on a kingside attack. 16 ...liJxe3 17.'1!1xd8 .ixd8 ensured him a clear edge though.

17.E1al E1xal 18.E1xal

15.m,3 The email game Kuttruf-Zeh, 2004, saw 15 ..ib6 '1!1d7 16.'1!1c2 .ib7 17.E1b2?! c5 and Black's game is even more pleasant. An obvious im­ provement is 17.c5 liJd5=.

18 ...f4? Black could also meet 15..ib6 by 15 ...'1!1e8!? 16.c5 f4, for example 17.cxd6 .ixd6 18.'1!1d2 '1!1e7 19.e3 E1a3 20.E1fcl fxg3 21.hxg3 .ia6 with active piece play.

Black has a big Elo advantage and rushes to finish off the opponent with a direct attack. Correct was 18 ... .id8! 19.'1!1b4 liJxe3 with the bishop pair advantage and a target on e3.

19.�d2? (19.i.a3! d5 20 ..ia3) 19 ... fxg3 20.hxg3 d5 21.e3? (21..iel) 21....icS 22.'1!1a5 '1!1h5-+

Now 22.d4 would be risky in view of 22 ...e4 23.liJe5 liJg5 24.E1al E1xal 25.E1xal .test. 142

l.c4 eo Kare second moves Black has achieved the ultimate at­ tacking set-up. The rest is irrelevant to the opening:

it turns problematic. As usual, cen­ tral play is better: 10.d4 !le8 11.�c2 where Black is solid, but cramped.

23.cxd5 !lxf3? 24.lile4 cxd5 25 .ht'3 dxe4 26.hg4 �xg4 27.!lcl? h6 28.'1xc5 lilxc5 29.�xc5 �dl+ 30.lilg2? �f3+ 31.h2 �xf2+ 32.hl filt3 0-1

10

•••

lilc5 11.lilh4 lile6 12.lile2

•

So far 12.f4 drops a pawn after 12 ... exf4 13.gxf4 lilxe4 12 ... lilh5 13.lilf5 g6 14.lile3

17. Lein - Korchnoi Johannesburg 1979 1.c4 lilf6 2.lilf3 b6 3.g3 �b7 4.�2 e5 5.d3 �b4+ 6.�d2 hd2+ 7.�xd2 0-0 8.0-0

14 �g5 .•.

14...fS equalized because 15.exf5 �2 16.lilxg2 !lxfS 17.g4? would lose to 17...lilhf4 18.gxf5 �g5. 15.!ladl f5 16.exf5 hg2 17.lilxg2 s ...d6

Korchnoi had played earlier 8...!le8 9.lilc3 c6 10.!lacl d5 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.d4 e4 13.lile5 lilbd7 14.lilxd7 �xd7=, Hort-Kortchnoi, Moscow 1971, but White could improve with 10.d4! e4 11.lilh4 d5 12.lilfs. It is more logical to leave the pawns on dark squares.

White's knights are slightly bet­ ter coordinated than Black's after 17.lilxg2! gxf5 18.lilhl lilh8 19.f4 exf4 20.gxf4 �e7. 17...�xf5 18.lilhl?!

An incredible move from a decent grandmaster as Anatoly Lein. I fail to understand its motives. 18.f4= eliminated the tension.

9.lilc3 lilbd7 10.e4 18 �g4 19.lilh4 g5 20.lilg2 !lf6 21.lilgl lilhg7 22.lile3 �5 •••

White chooses a plan with f4, but

143

Chapter s

23.�e2 �g6 24.li'ld5 gf7 25.�e4 �xe4+ 26.dxe4 gaf8 27.@g2 li'ld4

34 bs •••

2s.gd2 White stubbornly refrains from 28.f4 which should be enough to hold after 28 ...gxf4 29.gxf4 c6 30.fxeS dxe5. Perhaps Lein shared the opinion of GM Spiridonov who liked to say that f4 was ALWAYS bad?!

28 li'lge6 29.h3 h5 30.gel g4 31.h4 a6 32.li'le3 li'lc5 33.li'ld5 c6 34.li'lc3 ..•

144

This game is a good example ofwhat to do against passive waiting game - Korchnoi implacably advances, seizing more and more space all over the board.

35.cxb5 axb5 36.b4 li'lce6 37.ge3 gas 38.li'lge2 c5 39.bxc5 dxc5 40.li'ld5 c4 0-1 I suppose that the game was ad­ journed and the knight analysis convinced Lein that his position was hopeless.

Chapter 9. 1.ctJf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4

Main Ideas

1.lllf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 f6!

111'e7 ll.'l:!fxh8 iilf6 was winning for Black as the queen remains en­ trapped on h8. The same theme oc­ curs in various lines ofthe 3.b4 sys­ tem and it is worth remembering it. In 2013 Bukavshin introduced the new idea 6.\1\'a4+, aiming to un­ coordinate Black's pieces. Critical then is 6...id7 7.b5 hc5 8.ic4

Ill e? 9.exd4 exd4 White players had great expecta­ tions about this system five years ago. It seemed that the sharp attack: 4.e3 e5 5.c5 was an effective way to exploit the light-squares weak­ nesses in Black's camp. After 5... a5 White followed up with 6.ib5+? c6 7.ic4 axb4 and his design was based on the hit 8.iilxe5?.

However, Reinhold Thiele noticed that 8... fxe5! 9.'l:!fh5+ g6 10.\1\'xe5+

Black should forget about short castling, but it turns out that his king can find a safe haven on the opposite wing. An important nu­ ance is that White cannot regain the pawn with 10.W.b2 ig4 11.iilxd4 because after 11...iild7! all his minor pieces are hanging and 12.iile6 he6 13.he6 stumbles into 13 ....txf2+!. That leaves White with 10.W.a3 lll a6!? 11.0-0 lllb4 12.d3 when 145

Chapter 9 Black has a pleasant choice between 12 ...c6 13.lllbd2 b6= and 12 ...MS 13.Wb3 1/!lrd6= enabling ... 0-0-0. See Game 2 0 Fraczek-Van Assche, corr. 2013. Another modern direction of White's investigations is the Benko or Benoni Reversed pawn structure. For instance: 4.d3 e5 5.a3

White tries to keep his queenside pawns fluid and to keep all his op­ tions open. Of course, we11 not oblige. We can attack his shaky queenside formation with either 5... a5 or 5...c5. But not both! In a position of this type:

Black lacks comfortable places for his pieces and his stand is passive - he will have to defend against King's Indian style attacks without 1""'

counterplay on the queenside. The 5...c5 approach is universal as it works against different set-ups. Its strong point is that it is centre­ oriented and preserves Black's spa­ tial advantage. For instance, 6.bxc5 ixc5 7.g3 llle7 8.tg2 0-0 9.0-0.

Black will aim to keep the status quo in the centre while White will attempt flank stabs as f2-f4. See Game 19 Iturrizaga-Ly Mo, Cale­ ta 2016. Sometimes White offers a pure Ben­ ko gambit with 6.g3 cxb4 7.tg2 lll c6 8.0-0 a5, but his compensation is at most sufficient for a draw as the game Korchnoi-Seirawan, London 1984, suggests. In the above diagram we see that White's pawn on a3 hampers the move tcl-a3 which is essential in the fight for the c5-square. That led the first players to the idea of re­ fraining from a2-a3 and the move 4.lll a3 e5 5.lllc2 is their latest hope of reviving the 3.b4 system. Al­ though 5... c5 is still possible, I pro­ pose to enhance this plan by insert­ ing 5. lll a6!? first. ..

lilf3 dS 2.c4 d4 3.b4 b6 10..ig2 .ib7 11.0-0 a6 opens up the a-file and that is a good base for counterplay. Of course, there is seemingly nothing to attack on the queenside, but if we considered the breakthrough ... e5-e4, we would notice that the c4-pawn is a poten­ tial target.

The trick is that 6.�bl c5!? 7.bxc5 hc5 8.d3 .id7! threatens the nas­ ty pin ....ia4 and it is unclear how White should neutralise it. With a hindsight, White may choose 7.b5, but then 7... Ei:ic7 8.d3 .id6 9.g3

In conclusion, the 3.b4 line is still not living up to White's expec­ tations. The ultra-sharp variations with c4-c5 are balanced, at best, while calmer development offers Black a structural advantage after ...c5 (or ...a5).

147

Chapter 9. 1.lLif3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4

Step by Step

1.ii:l:f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 f6!

A. 4.d3 e5 5.a3 c5 If you are a Pirc fan, you may con­ sider 5... a5!? 6.b5 ltld7!. Then 7.e3 would be well met by 7...dxe3 8.fxe3 e4 9.ltld4 ltlc5! when 10.g3 ii:le7 is considered in Gaine 18 Van der Werf-Burg, Wijk aan Zee 2013.

This aggressive approach best fits in the spirit of our book. We take advantage of any move that does not attack the centre to grab more space.

A. 4.d3; B. 4.e3; C. 4.ii:la3 Rare alternatives are : 4.1!1'a4+ id7 5.1!1'b3 e5 6.e3 c5 7.bxc5 hc5 8.exd4 exd4t. 4.ib2 e5 5.e3 (5.a3 c5) 5...dxe3 6.fxe3 hb4. Wbite does not have full compensation for the pawn: 7.ie2 ii:lh6 8.0-0 0-0 9.1!1'b3 ltlc6; 7.a3 ie7 8.'l!\lc2 ii:lh6 9.id3 g6 10.ltlc3 ie6 11.0-0 ii:ld7; 7.c5 (Vaganian) 7...hc5 8.ic4 ltle7 9. 0-0 Illbc6 when 10.ii:lxe5 ltlxe5 11.he5 is countered by 11...he3+ ! . 148

·

6.bxc5 6.g3 cxb4 7.ig2 ii:lc6 8.0-0 a5 is a good version of the Benko Re­ versed. Korchnoi-Seirawan, Lon­ don 1984,went 9.e3 ig4 10.h3ixf3 11.hf.3 ic5 12.id5 ii:lge7 13.e4, when instead ofthe hasty 13 ...ltlxd5 14.cxd5 ltle7, which was roughly equal, Black could have posed more problems with 13 ... 1!1'd7!? 14.'l!\lh5+ ©d8?!!+. Please forgive me for this line, I'm perfectly aware that only a silicon creature would take it.

1.lilf3 dS 2.c4 d4 3.b4 6 hc5 7.g3 lile7 8.tg2 0-0 9.0-0= •••

See Grune 19 Iturrizaga-Ly Mo, Caleta 2016. B. 4.e3 e5 5.c5

White cannot play 5.exd4? since he is worse after 5 ... e4! - 6.1/:\le2 Or 6.lilh4 'l:!lxd4 7.lilc3 hb4 8.1/:\lhS+ lllf8 9.ib2 lilh6+, Gud­ mundsson-Kaila, Munich 1936. 6 ...'l:!le7 7.lilgl lilc6 8.'l:!le3 when strongest is 8...lilh6!, headingforfS. 5.lilxe5? fxeS 6.1/:\lhS+ is all wrong sinceeven 6...g6?! (6...llle7! 7.1/:\lxeS+ lllf7 8.cS ie6 is close to winning) 7.1/:\lxeS+ ll1f7 8.1/:\lxb8 lilf6 is rather unclear. Black threatens to win the enemy queen with ...1/:\ld7, ...ig7. We typically meet 5.Wb3 by 5...cS 6.bxcS lilc6 Correspondence players pre­ fer 6...b:cS!? when 7.exd4 exd4 8.ia3 b6 keeps Black's centre to­ gether. 7.exd4 exd4

8.h3

8.id3 hcS 9.0-0 lilge7 10.ia3 b6=, Tomashevsky-Sakaev, Ser­ pukhov 2007. 8...fS! 9.ie2 lilf6 10.0-0 ie7 11.d3 lild7 12.lilbd2 0-0 with a balanced game. 5.a3 c5 6.exd4 cxd4 is a better version of the previous line from Black' s standpoint as the a3-square is occupied. 5.ib2 transposes to 4.ib2 - we can eat the pawn. 5 a5 6.Wa4+ !? •••

6.ibS+? c6 7.ic4 axb4 8.lilxe5? los­ es to 8...fxeS! 9.'l:!lhS+ g6 10.1/:\lxeS+ We7 11.\!;l'xb8 lilf6

Panjwani-So, Edmonton 2014, went further 12.d3 ie6 13.lild2 lilbd7 14.a3 dxe3 15.fxe3 b3 16.lile4 lilxe4 17.b:e6 1/:\lh4+ 18.g3 lilxg3 19.i'lgl lile4+ 20.llldl lildxcS 21.\!;l'eS lilf2+ 22.llle2 lilfxd3 23.'l:!ld4 '1ilf2+ 0-1. 6.ic4 axb4 7.exd4 It is not a good idea to delay this exchange too much as later Black might recapture on d4 by piece - 7.'l:!lb3 lilh6 8.0-0 b:cs 9.exd4 hd4! 10.lilxd4 1/:\lxd4 149

Chapter 9 ll.�b2 1/;l'b6+, Chouari-Pupke, COIT. 2004. 7...exd4 8.0-0 hc5 As Russians say, we take everything and easily win. Our king will be safe on f8. The game Gareev-Ramirez, Saint Louis 2014, continued 9.lilh4 g6 10.d3 @f8 11.lild2 lilc6 12.lile4 �e7 13.f4 lila5 14.hg8,

lilge7 (another good option is 14... lilf4 15.�c4 hd4 16.hd4 �e6) 15.�c4 �d7 16.!lel lilb6 17.�b3 0-0-0= as in Demuth-So, Montpellier 2015. 14...�d6. White has a slight ini­ tiative, but Black should be able to neutralise it. Mareco-Ni Hua, Baku 2015, saw further 15.MS lilge7 16.!lel lilf4 17.d4 lild3 18.!ldl lilxcl 19.!lxcl when 19 ... @f7! would have been unclear. In the game Black wrongly opted for a long castle 19...�e6 20.lilc5 hc5 21.!lxc5 0-0-0 22.b6 c6 23.lilc3 !lxd4 24.!lel;!;. 7.b5 hc5 8.�c4

when instead of 14...!lxg8 15.f5gg, Black had 14 .. .f5!!+.

8.�a3?! �3 9.lilxa3 lile7 10.exd4 is bad in view of 10 ...e4. 8

•••

lile7 9.exd4 exd4

6...�d7

6...lilc6 steers the game into a com­ plex ending - 7.b5 lilb4 8.a3 lild5 9.exd4 exd4 10.Wxd4 We7+ ll.�e2 Wxc5 12.0-0 Wxd4 13.lilxd4 �c5

10.h.3 Ramirez-Edouard, Arlington 2015,

14.lilb3 White's only trump is his lead in development so he should not give us a respite with 14.�b2 lSO

featured 10.Ab2 �g4 ll.lilxd4 when ll ...lild7! 12.lile6 he6 13.he6 �2+! was strong, as Edouard points out. Black is on top after 14.@xf2 lilc5 15.Wg4 lild3+ 16.@gl lilxb2 17.Wxg7?! Wd4+ 18.@fl !lf8+.

1.lilf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 The careless 10.0-0 allows the redeployment 10 .. �g4 ll.i.a3 lild/+. 10

•••

C. 4.lila3 e5 5.lilc2 lila6!?

lila6!? 11.0-0 lilb4 12.d3 Ms

12 ...c6 13.lilbd2 b6=, Bukavshin­ Shukh, Saratov 2013. 13.1!1'b3

In Demuth-Duda, Ruzomberok 2014, White decided to provoke ...b6 with 13.!lcl, but that only bol­ sters Black's queenside. He was bet­ ter after 14.1!1'b3 1!1'd6 15.lilbd2 0-0-0 16.lilh4 i.g6 17.!lel liled5+. 13.!lel i.xd3 14.i.xd3 lilxd3 15.i.xc5 lilxc5 16.1!1'c4 1!1'd6 17.lilbd2 leads to an equal endgame after 17... 0-0-0 18.!lacl b6 19.lile4 lilxe4 20.!lxe4 lild5 21.!lxd4 111'c5=. Instead, 17... !ld8 18.!lacl b6 19.lile4 1/l'd5 and 17...d3 18.!lacl b6 are similar. 13 ...1!1'd6

Black is ready to castle long. Ob­ jectively the position is equal, but Black's game is easier, After all, he is still a pawn up. See Game 2 0 Fraczek-Van Assche, corr. 2013.

White's play might be characterised as hypennodern, but it looks to me simply bad. I propose to take over the initiative with concrete play. 6.!lbl

The other possible approach is 6 .a3 c5 7.g3 i.e6 7...e4 8.lilgli.d7 9.i.g2 f5 10.lilh3 i.a4 11.d3 is tangled. 8.d3 (8.b5 lilc7 9.d3 1!1'd7 10.i.g2 i.h3oo) 8 ... 1/l'd7 9.!lbl lile7!? More solid set-up is 9 ...i.d6 10.lild2 lile7 11.lile4 !lb8 12.b5 lilc7 13.i.g2 0-0 14.0-0 b6. 10.i.g2 th3 11.0-0 hS (11 ...i.xg2 !? 12.@xg2 h5)

Black has good attacking prospects: 12.e3 i.xg2 14.@xg2 h4; 151

Chapter 9 12.e4 hg2 13.i>xg2 h4; 12.hh3 1/Nxh3 13.lilcel h4 14.1/Na4+ i>f7 15.lilxh4?! g5 16.lilhf3 i>gS fol­ lowed by ...lilg6. 12.lilcel hg2 13.lilxg2 lilc7 14.lild2 lilg6

15.f4 The engine suggests 15.lile4 cxb4 16.axb4 h4 17.lilel which is not very consistent, does it? 15...h4 16.f5 hxg3! 17.hxg3 lile7 18.lilh4 ID:h4! 19.gxh4 lilf5 20.lile4 lile3 21.he3 1/Ng4+=.

Here 14... g5 is a bit premature owing to 15.h4. 14...dxe3 15.fxe3 0-0 16.e4 lile6 17.lile3 lild4 is "only" equal. It is more interesting to castle: 14... 0-0 15.lilh4 15.lilfel would be too passive 15 ... lile6 whereas 16.f4?! drops a pawn to 16 ...exf4 17.gxf4 1/Nc7. After the text, we can take over the initiative with: 15 ... g5!? 16.lilf5 lilxf5 17.exf5 hg2 18.i>xg2 e4!? 19.dxe4 i>hS 20.'1!ild3 lile8�. The c4-pawn is weak and we could attack it with ....te5, ...lild6. For instance: 21.lilel l'la2 22.lilf3 1/Na8 23.i>gl 8g8, intending ...g4. 7.d3 isnotentirelycorrect- 7...lilxb4 8.lilxb4 cxb4 9.e3 lile7 10.exd4 exd4 11.g3 lilc6 12.8b2 .ie7 13..ig2 0-0+. 7...hc5 8.d3 .td7!

Note that 6.b5?! lilc5 7.d3 is dubi­ ous in view of 7... a6. 6... c5!? 7.bxc5

7.b5 solidifies our centre - 7...lilc7 8.d3 .td6 9.g3 b6 10 ..tg2 .tb7 11.0-0 a6 12.a4 axb5 13.axb5 lile7 14.e4

The threat ... .ta4 is rather awkward for White and 9.l'lxb7? loses mate­ rial. Remains: 9.e3 .ta4 10.1/Ne2 lile7 (10 ...dxe3 ll.fxe3 1/Ne7=) 11.exd4 .ib6 (11...exd4!?12.8xb7 .ic6 13.l'lb2 .tb6 14.1/Ndl .ta5+ 15..td2 .txf3�) 12.a3 exd4 13.lilb4 lilc5 with active pieces. 1�?

Chapter 9. 1.�f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4

Annotated Games

1 8. Van der Werf - Burg Wijk aan Zee 14.01.2013 1.lll:f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 f6 4.d3 e5 5.a3 a5 6.b5

Black's 6th move does not address any of the above-mentioned strate­ gic problems. It allows 7.e3! dxe3 8.fxe3 when 8... e4 would be already bad in view of 9.lll d4! with domina­ tion in the centre.

7.g3 lll d7 8.ig2 lllc5

6 ... llle7 Black's first task in the diagram po­ sition was to decide: 1. How to meet e2-e3. 2. Then he should choose the best set-up of his MS and lllg8. 3. Finally, he should weigh the pros and cons of an early ... a5-a4. The best solution is 6... llld7 as pointed out in the "Step by Step" chapter. It prepares to counter 7.e3 by 7... dxe3 8.fxe3 e4 9.ill d4 lllc5!. At the same time it does not block the way to the dark-squared bishop. Thus, if White decides to play 7.a4 himself, 7...ib4+! would be unpleasant 8.id2 llle7 9.hb4 axb4 10.11!!.1b3 c5.

Black plays by general considera­ tions, without bothering himself with "details". I would prefer 8...a4 in order to squelch the enemy's the­ matic queenside play. That is not so significant from computer's stand­ point, but it would drastically com­ plicate White's task OTB because he remains without a clear plan. For instance, undermining the centre with 9.e3 also does not work due to 9 ... dxe3 10.fxe3 lll c5 or 10.he3 lllf5 11.lllc3 lll c5. Here is a similar game: 4.d3 e5 5.a3 llle7 6.g3 a5 7.ib2 lllg6 8.b5 llld7 9.ig2 a4 10.0-0 lll c5

153

Chapter 9 11.lilbd2 j,,e7 12.lilel f5 13.lilc2 0-0 14.lilb4 j,,e6 (14...f4!?) 15.1/;l'c2 1/;l'd7 (15 .. .f4!) 16.!ladl !lad8 17.lildS @h8 18.!lfel f4 19.lile4 lilb3=, Iturrizaga­ Wang Hao, Dubai 2014.

The ABC book recommends to fix the enemy pawns on light squares and 19 ...h6 was a step in the right direction. Instead, Black puts his own one on a "wrong" place, beg­ ging to be stopped with 20.f4!.

9.a4 lilg6 The engines prefer 9 ... lilf5, but humans understand that Black's only active plan in this structure is ...f6-f5-f4 so the knight should not be hampering it.

20.'l!fc2 ha3 2t.!lxa3 !lf6 22.!lal f4

10.j,,a3 j,,e6 11.lilfd2 1/;l'c8 The battle is for c5 so the queen should have stayed in touch with the dark squares. ll ...!lb8 was more accurate.

12.h4 j,,d6 13.h5 lilf8 14.lilb3 lilxb3 15.1/;l'xb3 lild7

Black is more active here, but 23.gxf4 !lxf4 24.h6 g6 25.1/;l'd2= would hold. Instead White errs and lands in a critical position.

23.@d2? fxg3 24.fxg3 !lf2 25.ti3 j,,g4 26.!lhfl !lh2 27.c5 @hS 28.1/;l'c4 'l!ff5 29.'l!fdS 1/;l'g5+ 30.@c2 c6 31.bxc6 bxc6 32.1/;l'f7? h6 33.!labl e4 34.hg4 exd3+ 35.@xd3 'l!fe3+ 36.@c2 d3+ 37.@b2 dxe2 38.!lfel 'l!fd4+ 39.@a3 'l!fxg440.!lb3 !ld8 41.'l!fc7 !ldl 42.'l!ff7 l!lh7 0-1 Chances are roughly even and any small nuance could tip slightly the balance in either side. Now 16.h6! would have given White a hidden trump in a future endgame.

16.lild2 lilc5 17.'l!fc2 0-0 18.lilb3 lilxb3 19.'l!rxb3 f5

19. lturrizaga Ly Mo Caleta 01 .02.2016 -

1.lil:f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 f6 4.d3 e5 5.a3 c5 6.bxc5 hc5 7.g3 lile7 8.j,,g2 0-0 9 .0-0

lilf3 dS 2.c4 d4 3.b4 15...h6

White has made all his active moves, but he cannot progress any further. The d4-pawn cuts his forc­ es on two and hampers his manoeu­ vring. Conversely, Black possesses a clear plan for offence. He can push forth his kingside pawns. 9

•••

lilec6

The queen's knight should control the key square c5 from a6 or d7. But the other knight could take an­ other route - to g6, leaving c6 for the bishop, e.g. 9...td7 10.lilbd2 lila6 11.1/¥c2 (ll.lile4 tc6) ll...tc6 12.lilb3 b6

16.td2 f5 17.lilf2 e4?!

This is a typical strategic mistake. The pawn trade is almost always in White's favour since it frees his pieces. Normal would have been 17...exf4 18.M4 '1be8. Then Black will aim for ...g5, .. .f4. 18.dxe4 fxe4 20.lilb4

19.he4 hc4

A solid human approach. The greedy computer suggests 20.tc3 tcS 21.hc6 1/¥xc6 22.li:lxd4.

20

13.lilxc5 lilxc5 14.a4 e4t. 10.lilbd2 te7 11.lilel lila6 12.lilc2 te6 13.!ful '1b8 14.f4 11¥d7 15.lile4

..•

lilc5 21 .if3 lilxb4?! •

This idea is probably based on mis­ calculation. Black's knight is head­ ing for c3, but instead it will be forced to land the passive place b6. 22.axb4 lila4 23.lilg4H6 24.YNc2

24.b5!? would repel the knight 24 ... lilb6 25.'1b4 with the more ac­ tive pieces. Instead, White sudden­ ly shifts the battle to the kingside. 24 b5 25.YNg6 @h8 26.te4 tg8 27.'1bcl lilc3 28.td3 YNe7 29.'1fel !lli6 30.lilxf6?! •..

155

Chapter 9 Simplifying Black's task. The op­ posite-coloured bishops justify the quick draw that followed.

30 ...!lbxf6 31.11ilh5 lile4 32.he4 11ifxe4 33.11ile5 Draw.

23.11ifb2 and White preserves some initiative due to the hang­ ing state of the .ic5. This line suggests that it would be pref­ erable to get rid of the problem bishop. 20 ..ixc5 11ilxc5 21.lilg5 lilc3 22.11!.rel

20. Fraczek - Van Assche corr FICGS 2013 1.lilf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 f6 4.e3 e5 5.c5 a5 6.11ila4+ .id7 7.b5

hc5 8 .ic4 lile7 9.exd4 exd4 10 .ia3 lila6 11.0-0 lilb4 12.d3 .if5 13.11ifb3 Y!\'d6 14.lilbd2 •

•

14... 0-0-0 14...a4 temporary uncoordinates White's heavy pieces, but it is more committal since the b4-knight los­ es pawn support. That binds the d6-queen with its defence. Still, the game remains balanced: 15.11!.rbl 0-0-0 16.lilh4 ig6 17.lilxg6 hxg6 18.h3 f5 19.lilf3 lilbd5 Black had no time for 19 ...!lh5 (covering g5 and threatening ...g5), due to 20.!lel liled5 21.!le5 (threatening 22 ..ixb4 lilxb4 23.!le6) 21...lilc3 22 ..ixb4! .ixb4

22 ...liled5!? The exchange sacrifice is not obligatory. For instance, Black could save it with 22 ...!ldeS, but then White could repeat moves with 23 ..if7 (23.Y!l'e6+!?) 23 ... !ld8 24..ic4. 23.lile6 11ild6 24.lilxdS l!lxd8 Black has full compensation thanks to the weakness of the b5-pawn. He would have practical chances OTB, but computers easily defend such positions: 25 ..ixd5 11ifxd5 26.11ild2 f4 27.!lfel g5 28.b6 cxb6 29.Y!l'b2 11ild6 30.!lacl !le8 31.!lxeS+ l!lxe8 32.!lxc3 dxc3 33.11ilxc3 draw, Kog­ ler-Riifenacht, ICCF 2012.

15.lilh4 .ig6 16.lilxg6 hxg6 17.h3 liled5 17...f5 weakens both e5 and g5 and that gives White sufficient compen­ sation for the pawn after 18.!lfel liled5 19.lilf3. Black finds an indi­ rect defence of the piece:

lilf3 dS 2.c4 d4 3.b4 18.lile4 Wfe5

It seems that White is in a predi­ cament, buthefindsenoughcounter­ play thanks to the open c-file:

19.!lael It turns out that 19.lilxc5? stum­ bles into 19 .. . !lxb3! ! 2 0.g:xb3 WfgS+ 2Ll!ih2 !lh8-+.

19 lilb6 20.i.b2 i.f8 21.lilg3 a4 22.Wfdl Wfc5 23.a3 lilxc4 24.dxc4 !lh4! 25.axb4 Wfxb4 26.i.cl Wfxc4 •••

27.b6! cxb6 28.i.d2 d3 29.Wfbl Wfc6 30.!le3 !lhd4 31.!lcl !lc4 32.!lxc4 Wfxc4 33.!lel Wfc6 34.lile4 !ld4 35.!lcl !lc4 36.lilc3 i.a3 37.!ldl !lxc3 38.hc3 Wfxc3 39.!lxd3 Wfb2 40.Wfdl b5 41.!ldS+ Draw.

157

Chapter 10. 1.ttJf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3

Main Ideas

1.li:lf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3

This chapter deals with some very sharp variations which need memo­ rization. White is ready to contest the centre with pawn sacrifices in the Blumenfeld/Benko style. For instance, 3 ... c5 4.b4 (4.exd4 is the Benoni Reversed. It is covered in the next chapter.) 4. . .li:lf6!? 5.�b2 cxb4 6.a3 may be not entirely cor­ rect, but it is not easy to refute, es­ pecially in rapid games. My repertoire choice is quick devel­ opment with:

In my 2012 book, The Moder Reti, I suggested that White could obtain a slight pull after 8.�e2 (8.�e3 "'1'd8 9.d4 li:lf5) 8... lilf5 9.0-0 e5 10.g4 li:lh4 11.�e3 "'1'd6 12.li:le4 "'1'c7 13.f4. However, the latest innovation: 9..."'1'd8!?, which clears d4 for the knight, leaves Whitewithout a clear plan. His only sensible attempt to get something out of the opening could be an attack on the e-file, but:

10.'1el g6! 11.�g4 �g7 12.� � 13.�g5 �e6!? 14."'1'd2 h6 15.M4 g5 16.�e3 "'1'c7 17."'1'e2 0-0-0

3 ...li:lc6 In the last years Black has found new ideas which cast doubt on White's opening approach. First of all, 4.exd4 lilxd4 5.li:lxd4 "'1'xd4 6.li:lc3 c6 7.d3 lilh6! turns out to be even slightly more pleas­ ant for Black. 159

Chapter 10 leads to interesting double-edged play.

il.e7 11.0-0 0-0

The tricky 4.b4?! has also received serious blows. The lazy solution is to answer 4...lilxb4!? 5.exd4 e5

You can play normal chess here without having to discover only moves. For instance: 6.dxe5 il.f5 7.lila3 il.d3 or 6.a3 e4 7.axb4 exf3 8.Wxf3 '/;l'xd4=. A sterner test of White's idea is to grab the pawn:

4... dxe3 5.fxe3 lilxb4 6.d4 e5! 7.a3 lilc6!

A critical position. Black will bol­ ster his kingside with the manoeu­ vre ...il.c8-f5-g6 and he'll wait to see whether White's centre will of­ fer sufficient compensation. But do not overestimate your chances! Most probably the position is bal­ anced. See Grune 22 Hacker-Krib­ ben, BdF-Schachserver 2013.

You should also be ready to face the symmetrical pawn structure that arises after: 4.d3 e5 5.exd4 exd4 White will prepare b4 and I think that we must counter it with ...b5!. An illustrative line is 6.il.e2 lilf6 7.0-0 il.c5!? 8.lila3 0-0 9.lilc2 a5 10.b3 !lb8! ll.a3 b5!

The point! Instead of7...e4?!, Black opts for a position with an open e­ file. Now 8.d5?! e4 9.lilfd2 Ill es promises Black a strong attack, so White should play: 8.lilc3 exd4 9.exd4 lilf6 10 .ie2 •

160

We preserve our space advantage.

Chapter 10. 1.lLif3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3

Step by Step

1.lilf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3 lilc6! This is a solid equalizer. 3...c5 also has enough fans who love gambit pawns after 4.b4 (Of course, the Benoni Reversed with 4.exd4 is a decent alternative. I consider it in the next chapter). Perhaps the most tricky move order is 4...iilf6!? 5.ib2 dxe3 6.fxe3 cxb4. This approach is principled, but it demands very pre­ cise play.

To start, White should avoid here: a) 7.d4?! in view of 7...g6! 7... e5 8.iilxe5 id6 9.ie2 0-0 10.a3 iilc6 11.0-0 'Ifie? is nice for Black so White should continue ingambit style with 8.iilbd2 exd4 9.exd4 id6 10.c5!? ic7 ll.ib5+ iilc6 12.'llie2+ V!!ie7 13.V!!ixe7+
8.V!!ia4+ (8.a3!?) 8 ... lilbd7! 8...iilc6 9.d5 \1Na5 10.\/Ndl iilb8 ll.lilbd2 iilbd7, followed up by ...ih6, is unclear. 9.\1Nxb4 ih6! 10.\1Nb3 0-0 ll.ie2 'l!"a5+ 12.ic3 \1Nh5 13.id2 e5! 14.iilxe5 V!!ih4+ 15.g3 V!!ih3 16.lild3 V!!ig2+. b) 7.a3! e6 8.ie2 iilc6 9.0-0 a5 10.d4 is perhaps White's best move order towards this position:

It was tested in several corres­ pondence games which com­ monly featured 10 ...b6 and White enjoyed an initiative af­ ter ll.d5!? exd5 12.ixf6 V!!ixf6 13.iilbd2. Critical is 10 ...ie7! 11.iilbd2 0-0. White is yet to prove his compensa­ tion. Dammer-Buettner, corr. 2014, saw 12.iile5?! lilxe5 13.dxe5 iild7 14.axb4 ixb4 15.lile4 iilc5+. 161

Chapter lO 12.axb4 lilxb4 also looks fine for Black. So the ball is in White's court in this line.

A. 4.exd4; B. 4.b4?!

4.d3 aims to throw us out of reper­ toire if we answered 4...eS S.exd4 lilxd4 6.lilxd4 'j,\'xd4. Not that it is such a big achievement, but I con­ sider ... lilh6 instead of ... eS. We can follow in Anand's footsteps: S ... exd4. Of course it is natural to preserve more pieces on the board since we have a space advantage.

The plot in this pos1bon turns around the d4-pawn. White will aim to encircle it and we cannot oblige to play by general considerations. Be­ fore all, we should decide how to meet the following White's plan:

16?

6.Ae2 Bach-Anand, Caleta 2016, fea­ tured 6.a3 as 7.M4 Ad6 8.hd6 'j,\'xd6. 6...lilf6 7.0-0 Ae7 8.lila3 0-0 9.lilc2 as 10.b3 h6 (10 ... !lbS ll.Ab2 Acs 12.a3 bS) ll.a3 ll.Ad2 does not hit d4 so we could continue 11...AfS 12.a3 lilh7 13.b4 Af6. 11 ... !leS 12.!lbl The best solution here is to stop the march of the b-pawn with: 12 ...!lbS 13.b4 (13.Ab2 Ac5 14.b4=) 13...axb4 14.axb4 bS=. We see that White can always drag our bishop to cS by playing Ab2, and equalize with b4. That brings us back to move 7. Why not try: 7...AcS!? Then 8.lila3 0-0 9.lilc2 aS 10.b3 !lb8! ll.a3 bS

keeps the tension in our favour since we have preserved our supe­ rior centre. Remember this thema­ tic way of neutralising the plan with b4! White could try to exploit the ab­ sence of our bishop from e7 with: 8.a3 aS 9.AgS, but 9...h6 10.hf6 (10.Ah4 0-0 11.lilbd2 Ae7) 10 ...'j,\'xf6 11.lilbd2 0-0 12.lile4 We7 still keeps

1.li:lf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3 things in control. Black is ready to take over the initiative after 13.'li!ld2 tb6 14.tdl a4 15.h3 fS.

A. 4.exd4 li:lxd4 5.li:lxd4 'li!lxd4

6.li:lc3 White does not gain anything by de­ laying this natural move - 6.d3 li:lh6 7.ie2 lilf5 8.lild2 g6 9.lilf3 'l!ltd6.

6 ...c6 7.d3 7.ie2 li:Jh6 8.d3 transposes.

7. . . li:lh6!

13 ... li:lxe3 (Computers like 13 ... h5 and 13...'l!\ta5) 14.fxe3 h5, for instance, 15.g4 hg4 16.hg4 hxg4 17.h5 f5 intending 18.hxg6 'l!\td6. 11.te2 tg7 12.sdl o-o 13.0-0 1i!Ia5 14.g4 li:Jxe3 15.fxe3 ie6 (15 .. .f5!?) was better for Black in Kravtsov-Ovetchkin, Vladi­ vostok 2014. 11...cxd5 12.Wxd5 li:lxe3 13.fxe3 Wxd5 14.li:lxd5 sb8 15.sdl e6 16.li:Jc7+ @e7 17.li:lb5 tg7 18.b3 td7 19.a4 a6 20.li:Jd4 f5+, Michalik-Na­ jer, Lysa nad Labem 2014.

8.te2

Black generously offers White to play 8.ie3 'l!\td8 9.d4 since his game is very easy after 9...li:Jf5. Although he cannot realistically claim an ad­ vantage, practical experience sees him scoring more than 70% from here: 10.'li!ld2 g6 ll.d5 11.0-0-0 tg7 12.ie2 0-0 13.h4 is not dangerous because White's attack does not have serious chances to succeed without a dark-squared bishop:

8.txh6 gxh6 9.te2 tf5 hard­ ly needs more attention - Black's pieces dominate the board. The "improved" version of the above line is 8.te3 'li!ld8 9.txh6 (9.ie2 li:Jf5 10.0-0 has no ven­ om due to 10 ...g6) 9 ...gxh6 10.d4 ig7 ll.d5 hardly even equalizes af­ ter ll ...Wd6! (threatening 12.id3 hc3+ 13.bxc3 'li!le5+) 12.scl 1ll'g6 13.Wf3 1ll'g5, Zvjaginsev-Granda Zu­ niga, Pamplona 1996. 8.h3 li:Jf5 9.g4 aims to prevent 163

Chapter 10 Black's knight from reaching d4, but 9 ...'/;l'eS+! (9 ...lilh4 10.ie3 Wf6 11.f4 eS 12 .fS) throws a spanner in the works.

10.lile4 The more natural move 10.°l;l'e2 does not even equalize after 10 ...°l;l'xe2+! 11.he2 (ll.lilxe2 lilh4 12.lilg3 lilf3+ 13.l!ldl g6) 11...lild4+. 10 ...lild4 11.f4 Was+ (ll...'/;l'c7 12.ie3 eS) 12.id2 '/;l'd8 13.ig2 g6 14.ic3, Naiditsch-Bauer, Mulhouse 2011, brought about a position where White is overextended. That could be exploited with 14...hS+.

Salov, Hermanas 1995, when 12 ... °l;l'c7! 13.f4 tl.e7 14.fS hS 15.h3 hxg4 16.hxg4 c5 is balanced.

The h4-knight is easily defended with 17.°l;l'el (or 17.if2 id7 18.'/;l'el) 17...id7 18.if2 gS while 18 ...ic6 19.f6 he4 20.fxg7 !lg8 21.dxe4 lilg6 is equal.

10.!lel 10 ..ig4 g6 11..ixfS .ixf5 12.d4 .ig7 13.ie3 0-0= was the stem Grune 21 Gorovets-Bosiocic, Greensboro 2014.

10 g6! ...

8.. lilf5 9.0-0 .

9.g4 lilh4 10.!lgl '/;l'd6 11.!lg3 is clear­ ly dubious in view of 11 ...eS! 11...hS 12.llle4 '/;l'b4+ 13.id2 °l;l'xb2 14.ic3 '/;l'b6 15.gxhS was unclear in Getz-Hammer, San­ defjord 2012. 12.ie3 f5 13.gxfS lilxf5t. 9

...

®'d8

The latest innovation in this line, aimed at anticipating g4. The older move was 9... e5!? 10.g4 lilh4 ll.ie3 '/;l'd6 12.lile4, Illescas1 "A

Gonzalez Vidal-Naroditsky, Tsagh­ kadzor 2015, saw 10 ... lild4 ll.if4! g6 12.ieS f6 13.hd4 Wxd4 14.if3 with an initiative.

d4

1.li:lf3 d5 2.c4

n.tg4 Concrete approach. White targets the e7-pawn.

3.e3

21.axb6 can be calculated up to a perpetual check. More dangerous, however, is 19.d4 when 19 ...hd4? failsto 20.li:ld5.

11 .ig7 12 .ixfS .ixf5 13..ig5 .ie6!?

19.E:edl .id4= .

13.. .f6 14..ie3 Wxd3 15.Wb3 1/lfd7 16.sadl 1/llc7 17.tc5 e5 is probably a draw. White cannot regain the pawn, but he owns the only open file. An illustrative line is 18.h3 h5 19.li:le4 he4 20.sxe4 tf8 21.txfS wxf8 22.se3 sh7 23.1/lfc2 f5 24.sed3 sg7 2s.Wd2 f4=.

B. 4.b4?! dxe3

..•

•

14.'1l!d2 h6 15.M4 g5 16.te3 1/lfc7 17.We2 0-0-0

Black's pressure down the d-file and the active bishop on the main diago­ nal promise him good counterplay. It is difficult for White to organise an attack. For instance:

18.a4 \t>b8! Eliminating both tactical threats ha7 and d4 which were possible af­ ter 18 ...MS: 19.ha7 b6 20.a5 Wxa7

4...li:lxb4!? is an interesting and simpler alternative. Its idea is to meet 5.exd4 by 5...e5. For instance: 6.a3 Or 6.dxe5 .if5 7.li:la3 .id3 8.1/lfb3 .ic5=. 6...e4 7.axb4 exf3 8.1/lfxf3 1/llxd4 9.E:a4 li:lf6

10.li:lc3 Or 10.1/lfe3+ Wxe3+ 11.fxe3 td7 12.b5 a5=. 10 ...te7 11.li:lb5 1/lfd7 12.E:xa7 1'1xa7 13.li:lxa7 1/lle6+ 14.te2 td7= .

5.f:xe3 1Dxb4 5...e5 has never been played, not be­ cause it is particularly bad, but be­ cause it is better to take the sacri­ ficed pawn. The position after 6.b5 li:lb4 7.li:lc3 .if5 8.e4 tg4 is strategi­ cally unbalanced and unclear. 165

Chapter 10

6.d4 6.1Wa4+ lilc6 7.d4 has no bite: 7... td7 8.'i!lb3 e5

14 ...e4!+.

6 . e5 .

9.d5 If White tries to play by anal­

ogy with the main line 9.te2, the d4-pawn falls after 9 ...exd4 10.exd4 lilxd4. And in the event of 10.0-0, Black conld return the pawn with a positional ad­ vantage - 10 ...d3!? 11.hd3 lilf6 12.lilc3 td6 13.tb2 0-0+. 9...lilb4 10.lilc3 10.a3 lila6 11.lilxe5 was horrible for White after ll ... lilc5 12.'i!lc2 ta4 13.\Wf2 lilf6 14.lilc3 td6 15.lild3, Kozul-A.Petrosian, Slo­ venia 1994, 15 ... lilg4!+. 10.td2 is hardly an improve­ ment - 10 ... lila6 11.lilxe5 lilc5 12.'i!lb2 lilf6 13.te2 td6 14.lilxd7 1!\lxd7 15.lilc3 0-0 16.0-0 l'lfe8. 10 ... lilf6! Pakhomov-Ovetchkin, St Pe­ tersburg 2012, saw 10 .. .f6? which was bad in view of 11.c5! (dragging a piece on c5) 11... hc5 12.a3, winning the unfor­ tunate knight. 11.te2 td6 12.0-0 0-0 13.c5 hc5 14.a3

.

The simplest choice from a practi­ cal standpoint. It ensures us easy development and a good control of the centre. 6...c5 and 6... e6 are also possible.

7.a3 7.lilxe5!? 'i!lh4 8.@d2 lilf6 9.lilc3 may look absurd, but in fact Black's.task is not so easy due to White's power­ ful pawn centre. I even suspect that it is objectively White's best option and his only way to keep the balance although Black retains some initia­ tive with best play: 9 ...lilg4!

1.li:lf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3 9...td6 10.a3 he5 (10...li.lc6!?) 11.axb4 tfs 12.td3 hd3 13. ©xd3 was unclear in Arribas Lopez-Hernando Rodrigo, Sants Open 2013 and after 13...li.lg4? 14. ©c2 ! White got an edge. White may try 10.li:lf3 11!.lhS 11.cS hc5 12.a3! li.lc6 13.dxcS WxcS 14.11!.lb3 with very sharp play where better calculation should decide the game. 9...tf5 10.11!.lf3 .ie4 11.li.lxe4 li.lxe4+ 12.©e2 li.lc3+ 13.©d2 li.le4+ 14.©e2 li.lc3+ led to a re­ petition of moves in Czarnota­ Socko, Katowice 2010.

17.8b3!? li.lxcS 18.11!.lc4 li.lxb3 19.li.lxc7+=; 17.c6hc6 18.8b21i.lxd4 19.li.lfxd4 tcS 20.8e2+ ©d7oo. ll...Wg6 12.h3 li.lc2+ 13.©e2 li.lxal 14.hxg4 li.lc2 15.©f2 li.lb4 16.a3g;.

ll...te7?! 12.a3 li.lxe3 13.We2 li.lbc2+ 14.©f2 li.lg4+ 15.©ga. 12.li.lbs td6

10.li.lf3!? 10.a3 li.lxeS ll.axb4 could face 11 ...hb4!! 12.dxeS tf5 13.11!.la4+ c6 14.Wxb4 0-0-0+ 15.'i!fd6 8he8 16.g3 8xd6+ 17. ©el 11!.lh6 18.exd6 a6. White's king will never find a safe haven so his defence should be unpleasant in a practical game. 10 ...11!.lh6 11.©el c5! 1L.te6 12.8bl li.lxe3 13.Wa4+ td7 14.li.lbS li.lec2+ 15.©f2 'i!fg6 16.cS li.la6 is another crazy po­ sition where White has at least two decent moves:

13.a3 Black manages to blockade the enemy pawns after 13.e4 Wg6 14.li.lxd6+ 11!.lxd6 15.a3 li.lc6 16.dS Ii.lees 17.h3 li.lxf3+ 18.11!.lxf3 li.leS 19.11!.lg3 0-0. 13...li.la6 14.li.lxd6+ 1i!fxd6 15.td3 0-0 16.8a2 cxd4 17.exd4 li.lf6 18. ©f2 tg4 19.te3 8ae8 20.l'lel This position is dynamically bal­ anced, but Black can pose practical 167

ChapterlO problems to White with 20...bSt he does not risk much with the d5square in his possession. The bottom line of my analysis is that 7.iilxe5!? should not be under­ estimated and it leads to great com­ plications where the cost of mis­ takes looks higher for White.

7 iilc6! .•.

The first game in this variation, Takacs-Rubinstein, Merano 1924, saw 7... e4?! 8.iilfd2 iild3+ 9.hd3;. White should be more aggressive: 8.iile5! iilc6 9.\Wa4! with a pull. For instance: 9 ...td6 10.iilxc6 \Wh4+ ll.g3 hg3+ 12.hxg3 \Wxhl 13.'iilb5! iilf6 14.iileS+ c6 15.iilxc6 td7 16.'iileS+ ie6 17.'iild6, with a strong attack.

9.iild4 iile5 10.iilc3 iilf6 ll.'iilc2 c5 ll...td6 12.ie2 0-0 13.0-01:1e8 is also in Black's favour as 14.iildbS .ig4 15.iilxd6 cxd6 will practical­ ly cost White the c4-pawn while 14.1:1bl a6 will deprive him of any sensible ideas. 12.dxc6 iilxc6 13.iilxc6 bxc6 14.ie2 occurred in Neubert-Dmitriev, ICCF World Cup, 1990 when taking the pawn with 14 ...tcS would have given Black a clear edge. Simpler is 9 ... iilxd4 10.'iilxd4 fS ll..ie2 iilf6 when White should not have enough compensation:

12 ..ib2 b6 13.0-0 tcS 14.\Wc3 0-0 15.iild2 td7+.

9

•••

iile5 10.li:lxe4 Wfh4+ 11.iilf2

Bl. 8.d5?!; B2. 8.iilc3 8.ie2 exd4! (It is safer to open up the e-file. Thatalsoweakens White's gl-a7 diagonal.) 9.exd4 iilf6 10.iilc3 transposes to line B2.

Bl. 8.d.5?! e4 9.iilfd2 168

u. iilf6 ..

1.li:lf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3 ll ... ltlg4 12.g3 lilxf2 13.1/!!lf3 1/!!lf6 14.1/!!lxf6 1ilxf6 15.lflxf2 lile4+ 16.lflf3, Mueller-Fier, Caleta 2014, 16 ...ltlc5 offers Black a better queenless middlegame.

Black obtains an initiative thanks to the timely undermining of the ene­ my centre: 13 ... c6 14.!lbl b5!, Nguy­ en-Steinke, corr. 2014.

9 .exd4! 10.exd4 .ie7 11.0-0 ..

12 ..ie2 12.1/!!ld4 lilfg4 13.!la2 �d6 14.g3 1/!!lh6+.

12 lileg4 13.g3 lilxf2 14.gxh4 lilxdl 15. lflxdl .ic5 ..•

11..if4 0-0 12.d5 ltla5 13.ltlb5 is ef­ fectively parried with 13...ltleS (or even 13....id6 14..id2 b6 15.ltlxd6 cxd6 16 ..ig5 h6 17..ih4 1/!ie7 18.0-0 g5 19.M2 lilg4) 14.0-o c6.

11

•••

0-0

White's pieces are too passive.

B2. 8.lilc3 lilf6 Perhaps 8...exd4 9.exd4 lilf6 is just as good since the only line of inde­ pendent significance, 10.d5 ltla5 ll..id3, is better for Black. It was proved by two 2013 email games of Mujunen which featured 11 .. ..tcS 12.1/!!le2+ 1/!!le7 13.1/!!lxe7+ lflxe7.

9 .ie2!? .

9.d5 ltla5 9...e4 10.ltlg5 ltle5 is not too clear after 11..ie2 !. 10.ltlxe5 .id6 11.ltlf3 0-0 12 ..id3 .ig4 13.0-0

Both sides have completed devel­ opment, but we still have an extra pawn. I should note, however, that White's fluid centre keeps us at bay so all the fight is ahead. Our task would be easier if we provoked d5 since we'd have clear counterplay with ... ltla5, ... c6. After the more cunning 12.lflhl, we could lead our bishop to f5 or g4, having in mind ....ih5-g6. I would gladly take Black here. See Game 22 Hacker-Krib­ ben, BdF-Schachserver 2013.

169

Chapter 10. 1.l£if3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3

Annotated Games

21. Gorovets - Bosiocic Greensboro 31 .08.2014 1.lilf3d52.c4d43.e31ilc64.exd4 lilxd4 5.lilxd4 Wl'xd4 6.lilc3 c6 7.d3 lilh6 8.ie2 lilf5 9.0-0 Wi'd8 10.ig4 g6 11 ..bfS .bf5 12.d4 ig7 13.ie3 0-0 14.WId2

14...'iifb6 15.lila4 It was better to play a waiting game with 15.!ladl 1Wa6 16.Wl'e2 !lad8 17.!ld2 ie6 18.b3 ic8. White's knight is better off on c3 than on c5.

15 ...Wl'a6 16.b3 !lfd8 The correct rooks set-up is 16 ... !lad8. The other one will go to e8 in order to prepare ...e5. Opening the centre would be in favour ofBlack's bishop pair.

17.lilc5 Wl'b6 18.!ladl Wl'c7 19.f3 b6 20.lile4 We see a typical Caro-Kann/Scandi­ navian pawn structure. It is gener­ ally harmless for Black, but it is use­ ful to know what exactly he should do in it. Ifhe waits passively, White could trade bishops and organise a kingside attack. The best approach is to harass the c4-pawn, trying to provoke b3. 14...ie6 is therefore principled, but 15.Wi'e2 Wi'a5 16.!ladl 1Mla6 17.b3 !lad8 allows 18.lile4 and 17...Wi'a5 is met by 18.d5. Thus it is best to put a rook on d8 before mov­ ing the f5-bishop. 1711

It is now clear that 16 ... !lfd8 was wrong. It would be senseless to try to justify it with 20 ... a5 since after 21.a4 the pawn on b6 would be a potential target. On the other hand,

1./tlf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3 White is threatening g4 which would not have been a problem stayed the right rook on d8 - Black could simply retreat to c8. I would think of repairing the damage with 20 ...Ele8, but then White would ob­ tain an initiative with 21.il.h6.

20 E!d7 21.\i!ff2 :!lads 22.g4 b:e4 23.fxe4 e6 24.Eld2?! ..•

36.E!cl Eldb7 with an initiative. Af­ ter the text the game is totally even, but the draw has come after mutu­ al mistakes:

34.� E!b2 35.Eldd2 Elxc2 36.Elxc2 Elbl+ 37.ll1g2 \i!fb4 38.c5 il.g7 39.1i!fc4 \i!fb8 40.d5 Wf4? (40...cxd5 41.exd5 exd5 42.\i!fxd5 E!hl! !=) 41.�3? (41. \i!fd3±) 41 Elgl+ 42.llixgl Wxg3+ 43.i>fl \i!fxh3+ 44.@el? (44. llif2=) 44 \i!fg3+ 45.llidl Wxg4+ 46.We2 \i!fgl+ 47.\i!fel \i!fd4+ 48.\i!fd2 Wgl+ (It is not easy to evaluate correctly 48...\i!fxe4! 49.d6 \i!ff3+ 50.\i!fe2 fill+ 51.\i!fel Wd5+ 52.\i!fd2 il.d4 53.'/;!fg2 'l;!fh5+ 54.ll1d2 �c5+) 49.Wel \i!fd4+ 50.\i!fd2 l!!'gl+ Draw. ..•

The pawn structure has changed in White's favour who is now control­ ling the game. He should have tried to maintain the grip with 24.il.g5 Elf8 25.llihl when 25 ...b5 would al­ low 26.c5 e5 26.d5. After the text Black opens lines on the queenside and should be confident for his fu­ ture.

24 b5! 25.E!fdl bxc4 26.bxc4 \i!fa5 27.1i!fe2 \i!fc3 28.\i!fd3 Was 29. \i!fe2 MS 30.Eld3 Wa4 31.El3d2 Elb8 32.h3 Elb4 33.lk2

•..

••.

22. Hacker - Kribben, Schachserver, 04.10.2013 1.ltl:f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3 ltlc6 4.b4 dxe3 5.fxe3 ltlxb4 6.d4 e5 7.a3

ltlc6 8.il.e2 exd4 9.exd4 ltlf6 10.ltlc3 il.e7 11.0-0 0-0 12.llihl

33...Eldb7?! The table have turned and Black now misses the chance to deal a blow in the centre - 33...c5! 34.d5 exd5 when 35.exd5? would fail to 35 ...E!e7. Remains 35.Elxd5 Elbl+

12 ...il.g4 Black's pieces are well placed and 171

Chapter 10 out of reach of the enemy forces. The c6-knight can always retreat to a5 after d4-d5, then ...c6 will gener­ ate counterplay. Remains to accom­ modate the light-squared bishop. I prefer to put it on g6. The shortest route to this place is: 12 [email protected] intending 13.lllh4 [email protected] with a stable albeit small edge. If White keeps the tension with 13 [email protected] [email protected] 14J'fa2 (14.lllb5 runs into 14...a6 15.lllxc7 i;c8 16.d5 lllh5), we could spend a tempo on prophy­ laxis - 14 ...a6, planning to seek ex­ changes with ...lll e4.

now tries to cover it with [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 18.lll g5 [email protected] hxg6 20.lll d5 lll a5, White has 21.i;f3 and the idea 1/!!ic2-f2-h4 hints that it is not very good to have doubled pawns on g6 while White's knight is still alive. Perhaps Black should have braced himself for 16 ...h6, but he stubborn­ ly avoids any pawn moves. It is dif­ ficult to win a game without making any committal move.

13 [email protected] i;e8 •

Jakel-G.Flear, Antwerp 1993, saw 13 ...1/!!id7 14.1/!!ia4 !;fe8 [email protected] i;ad8 16.!;adl, when 16 ...b6 17.c5 lll a5 would have been a good defensive stand on the queenside.

14 [email protected] [email protected] •

Black is not afraid of the pin [email protected] anymore so he decides to activate the bishop. He could also commit himself with a long-term strategic choice as 14... b6. However, Krib­ ben prefers to delay this move for a while. The game has reached the manoeuvring stage where tempi are not so important. Still, I would leave the bishop on e7 in order to defend f6 and keep an eye on d4.

15.i;bl !;b8 16.1/!!ic2 White creates threats on the diag­ onal bl-h7, e.g . [email protected], lllg5. If Black 172

16 ... lile7 17 [email protected] lilg6 18.lile4 lilxe4 19.he4 b6 20 [email protected] •

20.c5 [email protected] 21.!;bdl was more straightforward. Chances would be roughly even already. The text move is a small inaccuracy due to 20 ... [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 22 [email protected] lilf4!, but Black comes up with an amazingly passive answer:

20 ... i;fS 21.a4

Llilf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3 It is obvious that Black cannot win without neutralising the enemy centre. Thus 21...cS appears logical, but it would be a tactical mistake in view of 22.dxcS hc5 23.hc5 bxc5 24.fu:b8 'i!lxb8 25.lilgS. It transpires that White's bishop should be repelled first. Again, the most straightforward attempt 21... lilf4 22.�e4 f5 is not convincing due

Black's pieces are scattered around the board and that makes it impos­ sible to convert the extra pawn.

31...�g5 32.�c5 b3 33.hg6 hxg6

to 23.�c6. Thus we can conclude that we should play something like 21... �d7, preparing ... lilf4 or ...c7-c6c5. Instead Black plays yet another meaningless move.

21 H4 22.a5! .id7 23.axb6 axb6 24.l
34.lilxb3 l!lg8 35.lild4 i
173

Chapter 11. 1.lll f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3

Main Ideas

1.liJf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3

This move should ring a bell in our mind - White is provocatively ne­ glecting the centre! According to my understanding, at this point we should switch our thinking process from playing for equalization to ex­ ploiting the opponent's passivity. The immediate consequence of his approach is that we get a really wide choice. Indeed, any development aimed at bolstering the d4-pawn would be appropriate - 3... cS, 3... liJc6, 3 ...g6, even 3 .. .f6. It is difficult to single out one of these moves and claim it is best. You should take the decision according to your person­ al taste and style. I consider several decent set-ups, but my own prefer­ ence is 3... liJc6 - probably because I like to play against the Pirc as White. It involves more calculation

and piece clashes. Pure d4-players may like to control the centre with pawns so I analyse 3...c5, too. It leads to the Benoni Reversed after 4.e3 lilc6 5.exd4 cxd4 6.ig2 e5 7.d3 id6 8.0-0 lilf6 when White can ex­ ploit his extra tempo with 9.ig5 (in the normal Benoni he has already h3!) 9...h6 10.hf6 'i!lxf6 ll.liJbd2

11...ic7!oo. We stay passively on the queenside and focus our attention on the centre. Let us now deal with 3... liJc6 4.ig2 e5 5.d3 5.0-0 e4! 6.lilel h5! takes over the initiative on move 6 ! See Grune 25 Malakhov-Tomashevsky, Jurmala 2015. 5...ib4+!? This check is an elegant solution of the problem what to do with this 175

Chapter 11 bishop. A well tested alternative is 5... lilf6 6.0-0 a5 (preventing 5... !Jie7 6.b4!) 7.lila3 which I discuss in Grune 24 Azaladze-Gagunashvili, Tbilisi 2009 or 7.e3 !lic5!?, see Grune 23 Hamitevici-Edouard, Montpellier 2015.

The point is that 6.lilbd2?! a5 de­ prives White of his two main plans - li:la3-c2 or !Jicl-g5xf6. Remains: 6.!Jid2 a5 7.0-0 lilf6 We should consider from here White's two main plans:

12.!lbl does not make sense since 12 ... a4 13.b3 would only make a weakness on a3. On the other hand, 12.b3 !Jif5 13.!lbl is too slow. Black could push 13 ... e4, or aim for an attack with 13...h5

14.b4 axb4 15.axb4 h4 16.b5 lild8. White has nothing to attack on the queenside while his king lacks ade­ quate defence.

b) Play in the centre: 8.e3 0-0 9.exd4

a) Flank stabs: 8.lila3 0-0 9.lilc2 hd2 10.lilxd2

10 ... !leS ll.a3 (11.f4? lilb4!) 11... 'i!lfd6. White's pieces are passive.

176

9 ... lilxd4!? (9 ...exd4=) 10.lilxd4 (10.lilxe5 !le8 ll.f4 lilg4!) 10 ...1/!lfxd4 11.!Jic3 'i!lfd6 12.a3 !Jig4!? Black has a tiny plus due to the stranded pawn on d3. See Grune 26 Zmokly-Ness, ICCF 2011.

Chapter 11. 1.lll f3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3

Step by Step

1.lilf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3

fighting the Benoni is 7... lilf6 8.0-0
A. 3...c5; B. 3 ...lilc6!

3 ...g6 offers White more chances to develop an initiative.

A. 3. ..c5 4.e3 lilc6 5.exd4 cxd4 6.Ag2 e5 7.d3

16 ...bS, but White preserves some pull. Putting a knight on c5 does not change the pattern - 9.!lel Ae7 10.
s.o-o
7...td6! Overprotecting the important pawn at eS. The other standard way of

In the normal Benoni White pre­ vents this move with h3. Indeed, it is positionally right to trade the bishop since White has less space. Furthermore, Black's knight is an 177

Chapter 11 important attacking piece which controls e4 and could be unpleas­ ant if it dig itself on c5. That said, it does not automatically means that White becomes better with icl­ g5xf6. More likely, chances are ob­ jectively even. My big correspond­ ence database shows 48% only and that is normal as Black retains the better centre. But undoubtedly, his game is practically more difficult since he lacks an active plan. All he should do is wait, hiding behind his central pawns. Alternatively: 9 .a3 could be met by 9 ...h6, but let us allow ig5 and consider 9 ...a5 10.ig5 h6 ll.M6 "iilxf6 12.lilbd2 when again 12 ...ic7 should be a so­ lid retort. I must admit that I'm par­ tial in my assessment since I love bishops in open positions... 9.l'lel 0-0 10.lila3 l'le8 11.lilc2?! a5 12.b3 h6 13.l'lbl - this plan is al­ ready dubious because Black's piec­ es are actively placed in the centre and 13 ...if5 14.a3 if8 sets up the thematic breakthrough 15.b4?! e4!.

9 ...h6 10 ..hf6 "iilxf6 11.lilbd2

n...�c7! The best set-up. The bishop retreats in advance from lile4 or c4-c5. The famous game Zvjaginsev-Bareev, Sochi 2005, saw instead ll..."iile7?! 12.a3 if5 13.°iile2 0-0 14.b4 l'lfe8 15.lilh4 ie6 16.lile4 g5? 17.°iilh5!± with a decisive attack.

12."iila4 The simplest way to push b4. Two correspondence games went 12.a3 a5 13."iila4 id7 14.l'lfel 0-0 15.l'lacl l'lfe8 16.lile4 We7 17.c5 l'lab8 18.lilfd2 lilb4 19."iilb3=. The weak c5-pawn offers Black sufficient counterplay.

12 ... 0-0 13.b4 if5 14."iilb3 White has fulfilled stage one of his plan, but it seems that he lacks any stage 2. A further advance of his queenside pawns will produce weaknesses. Black has two possi­ ble stands: the more active one is to leave the rook on a8 and push ... a5. Or he plays ... l'lac8 (or ...l'lab8) followed up by ...b6:

a) 14...!lacS 15.l'lacl b6 16.a3 a5 17.b5 lild8

Lillf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3 18.illh4 fili7 19.c5 ill e6 20.cxb6 hb6= 21.!lxcS !lxc8 22.te4 ill c5 (d3 is a target), Kriksciunas-Hay­ akawa, ICCF 2014.

b) 5 ... e4! 6.illel h5!

b) 14 %\le7 15.a3 a5 16.b5 ill d8 •••

17.lll'c2 te6 18.!lael \Wxa3 19.li:lxe5 a4=.

B. 3

...

ltlc6! 4.tg2 e5 7.he4 when both 7...th3!? and 7... h4 promise Black an attack and ad­ equate compensation for the pawn. See Game 25 Malakhov-Toma­ shevsky, Jurmala 2015.

5 tb4+!? ...

5.d3 The provocative 5.0-0 avoids our main line, but at a high price. a) Black could answer 5...illf6, enter­ ing our solid backup line. Only 6.b4 has an independent significance, but then 6...e4 7.illg5 hb4 8.illxe4 illxe4 9.he4 0-0 is in Black's fa­ vour owing to his active pieces. White has also tried 6.e3 when Black has won all 5 games in my da­ tabase after 6...te7, but I believe 6... tc5 is more testing - 7.exd4 illxd4! 8.illxe5 0-0 or 7.b4 illxb4 8.illxe5 0-0oo. The real fun is when Black picks up the gauntlet and burns his bridges:

This check considerably restricts White's choice of plans. At the same time it leads to complex positions where the better player could prove his superiority. 5 ... illf6 is a solid equalizer - 6.0-0, when Black has two decent plans: a) 6 ... a5! 7.e3 The devoted Reti fans prefer 7.ill a3, aiming for a pure flank strategy. Indeed, White's next moves are easy, but in the long run he risks to get gradually suf­ focated. See Game 24 Azalad­ ze-Gagunashvili, Tbilisi 2009 for details. 7.tg5 is rarely played. After 7...te7 8.illbd2 (8.ill a3 0-0 9.illc2 ill d7 10.he7 ll!'xe7 11.!lbl ill c5 12.ll!'d2 tg4 13.b3 !lads 14.lilhl f5 15.illgl e4t, Sahu-Thipsay, 179

Chapterll New Delhi 1987) 8...0-0 9.li:lel (9.h:f6 M6 10.li:lel �g4=, Shariyazdanov-Vaulin, Kras­ noyarsk 1998) 9 ... li:ld7 10.he7 Wxe7 ll.lilc2,

Black has retained the better centre, Rakhmanov-Korneev, Sochi 2014. His most consistent plan is to prepare .. .f5, ...e5-e4, for instance, ll... li:lc5 12.abl f5. 7... tc5!? The current status of 7...dxe3 8.he3 �e7 is dead equal 9.h3 0-0 10.li:lc3 tf5 ll.d4 exd4 12.li:lxd4 li:lxd4 13.hd4 c6, Ga­ buzyan-Tomashevsky, Yerevan 2014. 8.exd4 hd4!?. This is the modern trend. Practical experience has seen White scoring less than 50%. See Grune 23 Hamitevici-Edouard, Montpellier 2015. Besides, 8... li:lxd4 is also fine. b) 6...�d6. The only drawback of this move is that it could lead to a drawish symmetrical pawn struc­ ture after7.e3 0-0! 8.exd4 li:lxd4 (or 8 ... exd4=) 9.li:lxd4 exd4 10.tg5 h6 ll.h:f6 Wxf6 12.li:ld2 c6 13.ael � 14.li:le4 1!1'd8 15.'!l'b3 ab8 16.li:lxd6 Wxd6 draw, Zhou Weiqi­ Ma Qun, China 2015. 1 Qfl

The other plan, 7.li:la3, gives more chances for a full-fledged fight 7... 0-0 8.li:lc2 (8.li:lb5 is senseless due to the simple retreat 8...te7, e.g. 9.e3 a6 10.li:la3 dxe3 11.he3 li:lg4 12. li:lc2 f5)

8... ae8 9.abl a5 10.b3 (10.a3 a4) 10 ... li:lb4 ll.a3 li:lxc2 12.'!l'xc2 with a pleasant choice between 12...We7, . ..c5 or ...c6.

6.td2 6.li:lbd2?! is a typical positional mis­ take. The knight at d2 blocks theway ofthe cl-bishop and cannot support the break b2-b4 with the manoeu­ vre li:lbl-a3-c2. My game Nenkov -Delchev, Sunny Beach 2014, went further 6... a5 7.0-0 li:lf6 8.a3 or 8.li:lel 0-0 9.li:lc2 tc5 10.b3 We7 ll.a3 �f5. 8...�c5 9.b3 0-0+

i.
10.lile4 lilxe4 ll.dxe4 f6 12.lilel $.e6 13.lild3 $.e7 14.$.d2 (14.®'c2 ms 15.id2 b5!) 14 ...a4 and White's queenside crumbled down. 6.lilfd2 a5 7.lila3 lilf6 8.lilc2 could be safely met by 8...i.d6. In prac­ tice Black has played 8 ... 0-0 and 8... if5, but I see no reason to offer the enemy the bishop pair. 8...$.c5!? is more principled, but you should be ready to part with the a5-pawn af­ ter 9.0-0 0-0 10.lilb3 i.d6 ll.a4 l'le8 12.$.d2, although Black's compen­ sation is more than enough.

6.. a5 7.0-0 lilf6 .

The blitz game Anand-Kramnik, Ziirich 2016, saw 7... lilge7 8.i.xb4 8.e3 lilf5 (8 ...dxe3!? 9.i.xe3 lilf5) 9.exd4 lilfxd4 10.lilxd4 lilxd4 11.l'lel f6. 8...axb4 9.lilbd2 0-0

8.e3 White should not delay for long the break in the centre, but he could try a hook from the flank: 8.lila3 0-0 9.lilc2 i.xd2 10.lilxd2 1Wd6 11.f4 exf4 12.l'lxf4oo. The possibili­ ty of f2-f4 should not be underes­ timated and perhaps Black should anticipate it with 10 ... l'le8 (intend­ ing ll.f4? lilb4!, eliminating the de­ fence of the e3-square, Likavsky­ Voloshin, Ceske Budejovice 1998.) 11.a3 1Wd6 - White has weakened his queenside so the line 12.f4 lilg4 13.f5 \Wh6 14.h3 lile3 15.lilxe3 dxe3 16.lile4 lild4 17.g4 id7 18.l!ih2 a4 is obviously pleasant for Black. 8.i.xb4 axb4 9.lilbd2 0-0 10.lilel hardly deserves any attention since it does not even win a pawn after 10 ...$.f5 ll.lilc2 ®'d7 12.i.xc6?! bxc6 13.lilxb4 l'lfb8. 8.$.g5 0-0 9.lila3 h6 10.i.xf6 \Wxf6 11.lilc2 ie7 12.lild2 ®'g6 13.l'lbl h5! 14.a3 a4 is obviously in Black's fa­ vour owing to the imminent attack on the kingside.

8... 0-0 9.exd4

10.a3 10.®'b3 ie6 ll.a3 bxa3 12.l'lxa3 l'lxa3 13.\Wxa3 ®'a8=, Cvitan­ Barle, Rijeka 2010. 10...bxa3 ll.®'b3 when ll ...$.e6 12.l'lxa3 transposes to the above game. The text is more ambitious. 181

Chapter 11

9 ... lilxd4!? Ofcourse, 9...exd4= is also possible. Its only drawback is that the pawn structure is too symmetrical. Here are some examples: a) 10.lila3 lild7 (or 10 ...ifS ll.if4 lilh5)

Or lU'lel �d6 12.f4 ig4 13.lilxg4 l'lxel+ 14.Axel lilxg4 15.1!\lxg4 Axel+. 11 ... lilg4! (to be fair, the blunt 11 ... lild7 achieves the same effect) re­ gaining the pawn since 12.id5 lilh6! leaves White with a horrible hole on e3, e.g. 13.ic3 ic5 14.l!lhl c6 15.ig2 f6 16.lilf3 lildf5+, and 12.lilxg4? fails to 12 ...lile2+ 13.l!lhl Axg4.

10 ...'1Nxd4 ll.Ac3 '1Nd6 12.a3

11.M4 lilc5 12.lilb5 lile6=. b) 10.ig5 h6 11.M6 1!\lxf6 12.a3 ic5 13.lilbd2 Ms 14.lilel lile5+.

10.lilxd4

12 ...ig4!?

The tactical justification of Black's idea is the line 10.lilxe5 !le8 11.£4

Black has a slight initiative, see Grune 26 Zmokly-Ness, ICCF 2011.

182

Chapter 11. 1.ltif3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3

Annotated Games

23. Hamitevici - Edouard Montpellier 31 .05.2015 1.11lf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3 11lc6 4..ig2 e5 5.d3 11lf6 6.0-0 a5 7.e3 .ic5 8.exd4

8...hd4!? The rare 8...11lxd4 is very good, too - 9.11lxe5 Of course, 9.lilxd4 cannot be of any theoretical interest. The full control of d4 suggests that Black's game is better: 9 ...hd4 10.lilc3 0-0 ll.1/;\'f3 h6 12.h3 c6+ 13.lile2 h7 14.b3 !le8 15..ib2 lilh7 16.!ladl lilg5 17.1/;\'h5.tf5 18.d4.ic2 19.!ld2 ig6 20.1/;\'h4 exd4 2L!lxd4 hd4 22.lilxd4 id3 0-1, Kara­ okcu-Ivanisevic, Skopje 2015. 9 ... 0-0 10.lilf3 .ig4�

a) 1Llilbd2 !le8! 12.lilb3 (12.h3 lile2+ 13.@hl 1/;\'xd3!) 12 ...lile2+ 13.@hl .ia7 14.a4 1/;\'d7. White's de­ fence is difficult. For instance, the relatively best 15..ie3 loses pawns after 15 ...txf3 16.txf3 lilxg3+ ! 17.hxg3 1/;\'h3+ 18.@gl he3 19 ..ig2 1/;\'xg3. b) 11..ie3! lilxf3+ 12.txf3 txf3 13.1/;\'xf3 1Wxd3 14.!ldl 1/;\'e4 15.1/;\'xe4 lilxe4 is totally equal.

9.lilxd4 9. lilc3 0-0 does not change the char­ acter of play.

9 ...lilxd4 10.!lel 10.f4 0-0 11.fxe5 lilg4 12.lilc3 lilxe5 13.!lf4 lile6 l4.!le4 lilxd3 left White pawnless in an online game. 183

Chapter 11 10.h3 0-0 ll.lilc3 l'le8 12.lilh2 h6 occurred in Bu Xiangzhi-Ganguly, Doha 2014.

ward on a6: 12 ... l'la6 13.ie3 lilfS 14.1!1'a4 h6 15.l'ladl id7 16.Wla3 1!1'c8 17.lilh2=, Alf-Lange, corr. 2010.

White opted for the sharp 13.f4 exf4 14 .M4 l'la6 15.1!1'd2 when instead of 15 ...gS? 16.ie3 l'lxe3 17.1!1'xe3 lilc2 18.1!1'f2 lilxal 19.d4±, Black could have played 15 ... lilhS! 16.ie3?! l'lg6 with an initiative, or even the sim­ ple 15 ...l'lae6=.

13.f4

10

•••

0-0 11.lilc3

11.l'lxeS? loses to ll...ig4 12.f3 (12.1!1'd2 if3J 12 ... lilxf3+ 13.M3 1!1'd4+ 14.l'le3 l'lae8, M.Gomes­ Adhiban, Pune 2014.

11...l'leS 12.h3 12.lile4 is positionally bad since White needs his knight to contest the d4-square. Zimina-Mirzoeva, Plovdiv 2014, went on 12 ...lilxe4 13.ixe4 c6t. It is much more logi­ cal to take g4 under control.

12 ...c6 I have mentioned above the rook lift ... l'la6. It is also possible here although the rook looks a bit awk-

White possesses a bishop pair and aims to open play. On the other hand, this pawn push weakens the king. Edouard suggests 13.g4 lild7 14.lile2 lilxe2+ 15.Wlxe2 lilf8oo. A correspondence game saw a com­ pletely different plan which could be born only in a computer's brain: 13.b3 ifs 14.ib2 Wld6 15.lile2 killing Black's strongest piece. The game R.Angelov-V.Popov, 2013, went further 15...h6 16.1!1'd2 a4 17.lilxd4 exd4 18.l'lxe8 lilxe8 19.bxa4 l'lxa4 and was eventually drawn. Perhaps 14...1!1'c7 instead of 14...Wld6 is slightly more accurate. By defending eS, Black preserves his knight from exchange - 15.lile2 lile6.

13... exf4 14.l'lxeS+ lll'xeS?! The d4-square is a matter of para­ mount importance so the manoeu­ vre 14... lilxe8-c7-e6 was called for. Then Black would have had an ex­ cellent game.

1.
15.hf4 tf5 16.g4 ig6 17.�d2 !ld8?! A mundane move obviously made by general considerations. Stronger was 17... h5! 18.g5
18.ic7 !ld7

25.gxh5
24. Azaladze - Gagunashvili Tbilisi 2009 1.
19.ha5? Apparently White missed the pin along the a-file. Indeed, moves like 19 ...�aS!, with the idea of 20.ib4
Black's only active plan in this structure is connected with ... e5-e4 so the d4-pawn should be well pro­ tected end the e-file should remaiu opeu for a rook on e8. Another con­ sideration is that ic5 discourages possible breaks in the centre. That said, 7...ie7 also has enough ad­ herents, but it is more prophylactic than aggressive.

19 \&aS!! 20.
8.
.••

Edouard converts his advantage with energy and confidence.

8.ig5 0-0 9.
be impotent. Note that 10 ... lild7 ll.b:e7 '/!ixe7 could be attacked with 12.e3 or even 12.f4, as in Ri­ vas-Romero, Alicante 1989. Similarly, 8.lilb5 0-0 9.ig5 is par­ ried by 9...ie7 10.e3 h6.

8

...

0-0 9.a3

Another critical line is 9.ig5 h6 10.ixf6 '/!lfxf6 11.lild2 ThegameAdamski-Rausis, Lyn­ gby 1989, saw ll.b3 '/!lle7 12.a3 ie6 13.lild2 f5 and Black con­ trols the board. White's attempt to push b4 was instructively parried by the curious rook lift 14.'/!icl l'la6!? 15.l'lbl l'lb6. Here Adamski tried 16.f4 exf4 17.gxf4 ili7 18.b4 axb4 19.lilb3, but 19 ... bxa3 20.lilxc5 l'lxbl 21.'/!ixbl Wxc5 22.'/!llxb7 lila5+ leaves Black with a sound extra pawn. 11 ...'/!lle7

lila5 17.lild2 f5 18.d4 c6 19.'/!ih5 ie6+, Henderson-Krutous, ICCF 2015. The c4 and a3-pawns are hanging. 9.lild2 if5 leaves White without sensible moves - he cannot play lile4, 10.f4 is also dubious due to 10 ...e4. 10.b3 '/!lld6 would prevent ia3. Remains 10.a3 when 10 ... h6!?+ would be a good prophylac­ tic move, aimed against the idea of ig5, as in the line 10 ...'/!id7 11.l'lbl a4 12.b4 axb3 13.lilxb3 ie7 14.ig5.

9 . l'leS ..

Another interesting set-up is 9...'/!ie7 10.l'lbl a4 ll.lild2 lila5 12.b4 axb3 13.lilxb3 lilxb3 14.l'lxb3 c6, but the text is more consistent. Black pre­ pares ...e4.

10 ig5 .

10.l'lbl a4 ll.!d2 stumbles into 11... e4 12.dxe4 lilxe4 13.ib4 b6. Similar is 10.b3 e4, e.g. ll.lilg5 (11.lild2 exd3 12.exd3 ig4 13.lilf3 Wld7 14.ib2 1lilf5) ll ... exd3 12.exd3 ig4.

12.a3 (12.lile4 ib6; 12.lilb3 ib6) 12 ... a4 (or 12 ...!g4 13.h3 !e6 14.1lbl a4) 13.b4 (exploiting the hang­ ing l'la8) 13...axb3 14.lilxb3 id6. It seems that White has achieved his goal, but Black is still better thanks to his bishop pair. The break 15.e3 does not help - 15...dxe3 16.fxe3 186

10.e3 dxe3 11.b:e3 if8 12.d4 also does not solve White's problems due to 12 ... e4! 13.lild2 ig4 14.f3 ih5!.

10...h6 11.!xf6 "l>l'xf6 12.lild2 We7 It is natural to avoid exchancres hava . mg more space, but 12 ... a4 13.lile4

l.'ilt::l <15

V!Je7 14.iilxc5 V!ixc5 is also pleasant for Black. The game Larsen--Short, Hastings 1988, was eventually drawn after 15.V!id2 M5 (Perhaps 15...iiJa5 16.V!Jb4 iiJb3 poses more problems to White.) 16.!labl \1!1a5 17.liJb4 liJd8 18.!lbdl c6 19.e4 dxe3 20.fxe3 ,ig4 21.tf3 .th3 22.tg2 ig4 23.if3 i.h3 24.tg2, draw.

c.c4 <14 3.g3 Black is all set for 16...e4 17.dxe4 \1!1g5, but the threat is stronger than its execution!

17.\1!1cl e4!

13.h3

This breakthrough crowns Black's strategy. All the diagonals to his bishop pair are ripped open.

18.dxe4 he2 19.h4 \1!1g4 20.b4 axb4 21.iilb3 ta7? 13...tg4! 13 ...f5 also looks pretty, but it is bet­ ter to activate first the bishop.

14.!lel 14.liJe4 tb6 15.!labl is too slow 15 .. .f5 16.iild2 e4! 17.dxe4 d3. The ig4 is decisive in this line!

14 f5 15.h3?! ••.

Black is obviously better, but White should not facilitate his task by weakening his kingside. A waiting game would have been more stub­ born for White.

15 fili5 16.\1!1hl \1!1g5! ..•

Black has played perfectly so far, but this awful move ruins all his ef­ forts. The simple 21...d3 22 .iiJxc5 dxc2 23.V!Jxc2 liJd4 24.\1!1b2 iiJf3+ wins easily.

22.c5 The tables have turned and Black is now worse. After mutual mistakes, the game was drawn:

23.axb4 fxe4 22 !ledS 24.liJcxd4? (24.b5±) 24...!lxd4 25.b5 hb5 26.iilxd4 iilxd4 27.\1!1e3? iiJf3+ 28.kd3 exf3 (28 ... \1!1xf3+) 29.�3+ tc4? 30.\Wxb7 !ld8 31.!lxa7 \Wh3 32.1Wxf3 td5 33.!leS+ !lxe8 34.\Wxd5+± ••.

187

Chapter 11

7.he4 7.d3 only accelerates Black's attack owing to 7...e3! 8.fxe3 h4 9.lilf3 hxg3 10.hxg3
34...l!lh7 35.!:lal Vire6 36.E:dl Virf6 37.l!lg2 E:e5 38.Vird3+ Virg6 39.Virxg6+ l!lxg6 40.E:cl @f5 41.l!lf3 g5 42.E:c4 E:el 43.c6 E:e5 44.h5 E:e6 45.E:c5+ l!lf6 46.l!lg4 E:e4+ 47.f4 gxf4 48.E:f5+ l!lg7 49.gxf4 E:c4 50.E:d5 E:xc6 51.l!lf5 E:f6+ 52.l!le5 E:f7 53.E:c5 E:e7+ 54.l!lf5 E:f7+ 55.l!lg4 l!lh7 56.f5 E:d7 57.l!lf4 l!lg7 58.E:c6 E:d6 59.E:xc7+ ©f6 60.E:h7 E:d4+ 61.l!le3 E:h4 62.E:xh6+ ©xf5 Draw.

7...h4 This obvious move is far from be­ ing trivial. Black should seriously consider 7...ih3!?, aiming to lim­ it White's choice. The point is that 8.ig2?! (or 8.lilg2?!) 8...Vird7 is very promising for Black who achieves an ideal attacking position with a long castle. Therefore, White must answer: 8.Vifb3 Vires

25. Malakhov-Tomashevsky Jurmala 08.03.2015 1.lilf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3 lilc6 4.ig2 e5 5.0-0 e4 6.lilel h5!

Black obtains a nearly free, self­ conducting attack.

9.ig2 Hawkins-Pert, London 2015, saw 9.Virb5 when 9 ... lla 6 f5 13.if3 d3!. He had more natural develop­ ing moves like 9...id6 or even 9 ...lilf6. 9...h4 10.d3, 10.ixh3? \\!.lxh3 ll.'l>llxb7 l!ld7.

1.li:lf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3 transposing to the comments to White's move 9.

8.d3 8.e3? li:lf6 9..lig2 dxe3 10.'1¥e2 (10. fxe3 hxg3 ll.hxg3 i.d6) 10 ...li:ld4 11.'1¥xe3+ .W.e7 12.li:lc3 occurred in V.Popov-Navara, Minsk 2015, when 12 ...li:lg4! was winning. 8..lig2 li:lf6 9.li:lf3 hxg3 10.fxg3 .lih3 11.d3?! (11.i.xh3 !lxh3 12.d3 was the lesser evil) ll ...'1¥d7 12.l'lf2 li:lg4 13.i.xh3 l'lxh3 14.l'lg2 0-0-0 was seen in Harika-Zimina, Rome 2015.

This positron illustrates Black's main goal after 6...h5!. White is probably lost here. Harika played 15.li:la3 when the strongest plan was 15...f6 followed up by ...g5. The decisive blow should be dealt on h2, e.g. 16.'/¥a4 g5 17.b4 hb4 18.l'lbl .lic5 19.li:lc2 l'ldh8 20..lia3 ha3 21.li:lxa3 li:lxh2! 22.li:lxh2 '1¥h7 23.'1¥b5 l'lxg3!-+.

s th3 ...

8...li:lf6!? is another critical line. a) 9..lig5 hxg3 10.fxg3 li:le5 n.li:ld2 (11..lig2 .lie7) ll... li:leg4 12.li:lef3

Black has various ways of develop­ ing his attack. 12 ...!lh3 or 12 ...l'lh5!? threaten ...li:lxh2. Another obvious try is 12 ...li:le3 13.'1¥a4+ c6 14.l'lfcl .W.e7. Perhaps the most unpleasant con­ tinuation is 12 ...c6!, anticipating White's check from a4 and enhan­ cing the above-mentioned threats. If then 13.'1¥a4 (13.li:lh4 '1¥a5 14.c5 '1¥xc5 15..lif5 l'lxh4 16.hf6 l'lh6-t), 13... l'lh5 14.l'lfcl '1¥d7 15.i.£4 li:le3 looks rather ominous. In these lines White's light-squared bishop is clearly missing from g2. So we should consider: b) 9 ..lig2 hxg3 10.fxg3 .lih3 (10 ... li:lg4 is also worth considering) 11.l'lf2 (11.i.xh3 l'lxh3 12.li:lf3 and 11 ..lig5 '1¥d7 12.hf6 were more resilient, but Black is better in either case.) ll ...li:lg4 12.l'lf4 (avoiding the pat­ tern ofHarika-Zimina after 12.l'lg2) 12 ...hg2 13.l'lxg4 .lih3 14.l'le4+ .W.e7 15.li:ld2 '1¥d7 16.b4 f5 was yet anoth­ er opening rout, Podzielny-Meister, playchess.com 2007. Attack is the best defence and White should probably not lose any tem­ po, but take immediately on c6: 189

Chapter 11 c) 9.hc6+ ! bxc6 10.lilf3 aiming for lilbl-d2-e4. Then 10 ...hxg3 ll.fxg3 lilg4 is unclear:

10.fi.f4?

White has 12.e4 dxe3 13.he3 fi.e7 14.sel lilxe3 15.sxe3 0-0 where the bishop pair serves as a good com­ pensation for the pawn.

9.lilg2 9.fi.g2 hxg3 10.fxg3 1!!.ld7 ll.lild2 0-0-0 is excellent for Black, but: 9.1!!.lb3, aiming to hamper the cas­ tle, deserves attention: 9... 1!!.lcS (9... hxg3? 10.1!!.lxb7) 10.fi.g2 10. lilg2 is dangerous for White since his pieces remain passive 10... lilf6 11.fi.f3 lilg4 12.lild2 fi.e7. 10 ...hg2 11.lilxg2 hxg3 12.fxg3. Now 12... 1!!.lh3 13.1!!.lxb7 1!!.lxh2+ 14.12/f2 @d7 15.fi.f4 sc8 16.lild2 lilf6 17.shl ltlg4� forces a draw, but of course Black should keep the ten­ sion with 12 ...1!!.ld7! 13.lild2 0-0-0.

9 . '!Nd7 ..

It was better to exchange first on g3, avoiding the exchange sacrifice lilxh4 - 9 ...hxg3! 10.fxg3 1!!.ld7 with a strong attack. The same reason­ ing applies to Tomashevsky's next moves, too. 101)

10.fi.g5 fi.e7 is also dubious. 10.lilxh4! was the only defence. I would not even consider taking the exchange. Black retains the in­ itiative with 10... lilf6! ll.fi.f3 lilg4, for instance: 12.fi.e4 fi.e7! (there is no reason to repeat moves with 12 ...ltlf6) 13.'l;\lb3 lild8 14.MS '/ilc6 15.lilf3 lilxh2. 10.fi.f4? hxg3 11.fxg3 ltlf6 12.fi.f3 ltlg4+.

10... lilf6 11.m td6 cn... hxg3 12.fxg3 lilg4+) 12.1!!.lcl 0-0-0 13.lila3 hxg3 14.fxg3 Black has obtained a very strong position and now 14 ...fi.xf4! 15. '/ifxf4 sde8 16.sf2 ltle5 was clearly better for him. His next two moves wipe out his advantage.

14 lilg4?! 15.hd6 (15 .. .hg2 ! 16.hg2 cxd6) •••

cxd6

1.ltlf3 dS 2.c4 d4 3.g3

16.hg4 White should be able to hold af­ ter 16.111'f4, e.g. 16 ...lilce5 17.lilb5 a6 18.lilxd4 @b8 19 ..b:g4 lilxg4 20.11!fxf7 111'xf7 21.!lxf7 .b:g2 22.!lxg7 !lxh2 23.!lxg4 l'lhl+ 24.@xg2 !lxal 25.a3 !la2 26.b3 l'lxa3 27.!lg7 dS=.

gxh4 34.gxh4 e2 35.©f2 l'lxb2 36.h5 llb4 0-1

26. Zmokly Ness ICCF 2011 -

l.lil:t3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3 lilc6 4..ig2 e5 5.d3.ib4+ 6 .id2 a5 7.0-0 lilf6 8.e3 0-0 9.exd4 lilxd4 10.lilxd4 Vlrxd4 11..ic3 Vlrd6 12.a3 •

16 ...'l;l'xg4 17.!lf2?! 17.111'f4 was essential - 17...lile5 (17...11!1xe2 18.l'lf2 11!1xd3 19.lilb5co) 18.11!1xg4+ lilxg4 19.l'lf4 fS 20.l'lxd4 .b:g2 21.l'lxg4! fxg4 22.@xg2 with good chances for a draw.

17 g5 18.c5 (or 18.b4 @b8 19.lilc2 lile5 20.lilgel f5) 18 ...!lhe8 19.lilb5 .••

dxc5 20.'l;l'xc5 @bS 21.!lel !le5 22.11!fc4

12....ig4 Black could include first 12 ....ic5 13.lild2 111'xd3 14..b:e5 and only now 14....ig4. Then 15.lilf3 11!1f5 16..b:c7 a4 offers good compensation, but 15.$.£3 looks totally equal. The text keeps the pawn structure unbalanced.

13 .i:f.3 •

Black dominates in the centre and he only needs to open another file against the enemy king to finish the game.

22 f5!-+ 23.e3 hg2 24.!lxg2 dxe3 25.'l;l'xg4 fxg4 26.lila3 lild4 27.lilc4 lil:t3+ 28.©fl lilxel 29. lilxe5 lilxg2 30. ©xg2 l'ld5 31.lilxg4 llxd3 32.©:f.3 l'ld2 33.h4 •••

The bishop does not stand well on f3. Perhaps 13.11!fd2 .b:c3 14.lilxc3 c6 15.111'e3 was more solid.

13 hc3 14.lilxc3 .ih3 .••

14...MS 15.lile4 is about even.

15.!lel c6

191

Chapter 11 ea! chances, but in an email game, White easily holds the balance.

23.hhS !
The opening stage is over. The op­ position of the pawns e5:d3 defines a slight space advantage for Black. Naturally, White seeks to trade them.

16.'m>31Mfxd317.l
192

30 !
Chapter 12. 1.ltJf3 d5 2 .g3

Main Ideas

1.liJf'3 d5 2.g3 c6 With this move we prepare to lead out our bishop to g4. That would solve Black's main problem against White's fianchetto - the poor fate of the light-squared bishop which of­ ten remains caged on c8. 3.c4 The only way to exploit the immi­ nent 3...ig4 is to attack the light squares on the queenside which would be left somewhat weakened by the absence of the bishop. I consider Kl set-ups in the next chapter. 3...tg4

4.'ll'b3 is well met by 4....fu
1. One of them is to drag Black's queen to b6 and harass it later with Ae3 or c4-c5: 5.'l!l'b3 ll!ib6

a) 6.d3 liJd7 7.Ae3 is easily parried by 7...tc5, but if you read careful­ ly the "Step by Step" chapter, you could also force playwith 7... dxc4!?.

The most critical test of 3.c4 is 3... dxc4 4.ig2 liJd7, but it is not in the spirit of our book. I analyse here only plans where we hold the cen­ tre. 4.ig2

b) 6.ll!ic2 lild7 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.0-0 lile7 9.Wa4 hf3 10.!xf3 lilc6=. c) 6.lilc3 lild7 7.d4 lilgf6 8.c5 ll!ia6! 9.0-0 ie7 10.!lel b6. Remember the retreat ...ll!ia6 after c4-c5. It is effec­ tive in many lines. There is an ex­ ception though: 193

Chapter 12 Black does not play

'i!'a6

•••

See Game 29 Mola-Delchev, 2015. Here 11...'/Na6 is inaccurate (11... '/Nxb3 ! 12.axb3 a6;) because White's rook is already on el. That does not leave Black time for ...b6 after ll.e4 dxe412.ltlxe4 ltlxe4 13.ID:e4 (threat­ ening 14.il.fl).

2. Sometimes White plays c4, d4, b3: 5.0-0 ltlf6 6.d4 ltlbd7 7.ltlbd2 il.e7! 8.b3 0-0 9.il.b2 a5 10.a3 h6

Whenever White's knight jumps on e5, we take it, and ifhe attempted e4, we answer ...il.fS, aiming to trade on e4 more pieces. That would secure our king against a kingside attack.

3. White's most principled ap­ proach is 5.cxd5. Then the simplest answer is 5...il.xf3 6.il.xf3 cxdS 7.0-0 ltlc6 8.d3 ltlf6 9.ltlc3 il.e7

More double-edged is 5... exd5. It offers White a pawn majority in the centre and the dynamic factors often play a decisive role. If Black stays passively, he risks to fall under attack - White will simply roll forth all his kingside pawns. I suggest the active set-up with ...il.d6: 6.0-0 ltlf6 7.d3 ltlbd7 8.ltlc3 il.d6 9.h3 il.h5 10.e4 0-0

a) Now 11.'i&c2 !;1e8 12.ltlh4 (For 12 .il.e3 il.cS ! see Game 28 Markows­ ki-Pedersen, Istanbul 2003.) is the sterner test of our plan. We oppose a dark-squared strategy - 12 ... ltlcS!, heading for e6-d4. Our idea is to lure the pawns into our camp where we could attack them easier. A typ­ ical position with an overextended White's centre is:

1.lilf3 d5 2.g3

17..ie3 stumbles into 17 ... c5 and 17.1'1dl could be met by either 17... c5, or 17.. .f6.

b) It would be a moral victory for Black if White exchanged on d5 11.exd5 cxd5 12.g4 .ig6 13.lilh4 lilc5 14.lilxg6 hxg6 15.d4 lile6 16..ie3

Stayed the g-pawn on g3, White might have hoped for some advan­ tage in view of his pressure on d5. But the weakened h2-b8 diago­ nal gives us excellent counterplay: 16 ....ic7! 17.'il'b3 'il'd6. To sum up, taking on d5 by e-pawn leads to rich sharp play.

195

Chapter 12. 1.llif3 d5 2 .g3

Step by Step

1.li:lf3 d5 2.g3 c6 3.c4 .ig4

4 .ig2 •

4.'!l'b3 hf3 Morozevich's 4...'!l'b6 is less clear - 5.li:le5 te6 6.d3 f6 (White had the slightly more active pieces after 6...g6 7..ie3 \Wxb3 8.axb3 tg7 9.li:lf3 hb2 10.�xa7 �xa7 ll..ixa7 in Aronian-Motylev, Sochi 2015.) 7.lilf3 W 8.th3 (8.lilc3 lila6) 8...eS

The tactical background of Black's set-up is the line 9 ..ic8 tb4+ 10 . .id2 a5. The stem game Grischuk-Mo­ rozevich, Moscow 2012, went 9.0-0 lila6 10.lilc3 lile7, but 11. \Wc2 ! would have been in White's favour. I have also an­ alysed 10 ...\Wxb3 ll.axb3 d4 12.lile4 .ig6 13.e3i. 5.exf3!? 5.\Wxf3 e6!=, intending to re­ capture on d5 by c-pawn, is ba­ lanced. a) 6.tg2 lilf6 7.0-0 te7 8.\Wb3 '!l'b6 9.\Wc2 0-0 10.b3 a5 ll.lilc3 lila6=

12.d3 ®d8 13..ib2 d4 14.lile4 lilxe4 15.dxe4 e5 16.a3 lilc5 17.b4 lila6 18.b5 cxb5 19.cxb5 �c8 20.\Wdl lilc5 21.a4 ®d7+, Rap­ port-Balogh, Zombathely 2011. b) 6. ®b3! \Wb6! [Black has tried 10/;

1.ltlf3 d5 2.g3 only 6 ... ltla6, heading for c5, but the knight is misplaced there - 7..ig2 ltlc5 8.1/i.lc2 ltlf6 (8...d4 9.b4;!;) 9.0-0 ie7 10.d4 ltlcd7 11.ltld2 0-0 12.b3 with a slight advantage due to the bishop pair although 12 ...c5 promises Black counterplay.] 7.ltlc3 ltlf6 8.cxd5 1/i.lxb3 9.axb3 cxd5 10.ltlb5?! ©d7 ll.E!xa7 E!xa7 12.ltlxa7 when White's small material advan­ tage will be short-lived - 12 ... ic5 13.ltlb5 E!c8 14.f3 ltlc6, fol­ lowed up by ...ltla5xb3. 5 1/i.ib6 It is safer to trade queens. 5...1/i.ld7 6.d4 offers White some initiative although the full con­ trol of the blockading d5-square neutralises all concrete threats. For instance: 6...dxc4 7.hc4 e6 8.ltlc3 ltlf6 9.0-0 ie7 10.E!el 0-0, Maletin-Pushin, Tula 2009. 6.1/i.lxb6 axb6 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.ltlc3 e6=. ..•

4.ltle5 .if5! 5..ig2 5.1/i.lb3 is already a strike at thin air due to 5...ltld7! 6.d4 ltlxe5 7.dxe5 1/i.lc7 8.cxd5 ie4 9.f3 hd5 10.1/i.lc3 g6!? ll.e6 lilf6=. 5.cxd5?! 1/i.lxd5 is a double hit to hl and a2. White is happy to find 6.1/i.lb3 (6.d4 hbl 7.E!xbl 1/i.lxhl 8.Wb3 ltld7 9.ltlxf7 We4 10.E!al Wxd4 11.ltlxh8 Wd5 12.1/i.lxb7 E!b8 13.\Wa6 ltlgf6+; 6.ltlf3 hbl 7.E!xbl Wxa2 8.1/i.lc2 ltla6-+) when simplest would be 6... ltld7=. 6...\Wxb3 7.axb3 ltlf6 is also roughly equal after 8.d4 (8.d3 ltlbd7 9.ltlc4 e5 10 ..ig2.ie6

11.0-0 ie7 12.ltlbd2 0-0 13.ltlf3 ltlc5 14.ltla5 ltlfd7) 8 ...ltld5 9 ..id2 f6 10.ltlc4 ltla6 ll ..ig2 ltldb4=. 5... e6!

6.0-0 6.cxd5 exd5 7.0-0 ltld7 8.d4 .id6 (or 8...ltlgf6 9.ltlc3 ie7 10.h3 h6 ll.Wb3 Wb6 12.1/i.ldl 1/i.ld8 13.1/i.lb3 Wb6 14.Wdl 1/i.ld8 15.Wb3 draw, Pigusov-Dreev, Pavlodar 1987) 9 ..if4 he5 10.dxe5 ltle7 11.ltlc3 ltlg6 12.e4 he4=, Kengis-Yako­ vich, Pinsk 1986. 6 ... ltlf6 7.d4 ltlbd7 8.ltlc3 ie7=, see Grune 27 Kazmierczuk-Carolei, ICCF 2013

4 ...e6

Main continuations now are: A. 5.Wb3; B. 5.0-0; C. 5.cxd5 197

Chapter 12

A. 5.1!1'b3 V;\'b6 6.d3 6.Wc2 brings White good results. His idea is to win a tempo later with ie3 or to exploit the weakening of the back rank. For instance: 6...lilf6 7.cxd5 which forces 7... exd5, al­ though this set-up is not dangerous for Black as we'll see in line C. An independent line arises after 6... lild7, having in mind 7.cxd5 cxd5. The game T.L.Petrosian-Aghasa­ ryan, Yerevan 2013, continued 8.0-0 lile7 9.Wa4 M3 (9 ...ih5!? 10.lileS Wc7 ll.d4 he2) 10.hf3 lilc6 11.lilc3 $.e7=. 6.lilc3 lild7 7.d4 lilgf6 8.c5 should be met by 8 ...1/!lla6! 9.0-0 ie7 10.!lel b6 11.cxb6 axb6 12.e4 0-0 13.exdS

8.Wxc4 (8.dxc4 ic5=) 8 ... Wxb2 9.�d4 1!1'b4+ 10.liJbd2

White has undisputable compensa­ tion due to his lead in development and open files on the queenside. The best defence is to take the cen­ tre under control with:

10...f6

13 ...lilxdS!= (freeing f6 for the bish­ op) 14.Ml Wa7 15.lilxd5 cxd5 16.$.b5 M6, Kozlov-Kharitonov, St Peters­ burg 1995.

6 ... lild7 7.$.e3 dxc4!? Black has two solid alternatives: 7...ic5 8.hc5 lilxc5 9.Wc3 lilf6 10.lilbd2 aS 11.!lcl lilcd7 12.0-0 0-0; 7... 1!1'xb3 8.axb3 a6 9.lilbd2 lilgf6 10.0-0 ie7=. 198

In Romanishin-Delchev, Forni di So­ pra 2014, I chose 10 ...M3 11.M3 Was Safer is ll ...1!1'xc4 12.lilxc4 !lc8 13.0-0 (13.ha7b5 14.lilb6 liJxb6 15.hb6 h3 16.0-0 lile7=) 13 ... b6 14.!labl lilgf6 15.!lfcl ie7 16.a4 0-0 17.aS lild5 18.axb6 axb6 19.lilxb6 liJ7xb6 20.hb6 lilxb6 21.!lxb6 c5=. 12.!lbl !lb8 13.tc3 Wc7 14.1!1'a4 14.ihS!? Wd6 15.liJe4 111'd5 16.1!1'xd5 exd5 17.lilgS liJgf6 (17... lilh6 18.e�) 18.hV+ ©e7=. 14...lilgf6 15.111'xa7 when 15... lildS!? is unclear. One year later, Romanishin repeat­ ed the variation, but his opponent

1.lilf3 d5 2.g3 Marzano was apparently well pre­ pared and opted for 10 .. .f6. The same idea works also after 10...1/!llxc4 ll.lilxc4f6! (but not ll...lilgf6 12.!lbl with nasty pressure).

White is yet to prove that he has enough compensation, Romani­ shin-Marzano, Berlin 2015. Per­ haps best is 15.lile4 !lc7 16.f4.

11.!lbl

B. 5.0-0 lilf6 6.d4

11.0-0 1/!llxc4 12.lilxc4 lilh6!? (12 ...e5 13.te3 lilb6 14.lila5 0-0-0 15.!lfbl @c7 16.lild2 lile7 17.lildc4 liled5 18.lilxb6 lilxb6 19.!lb2 is roughly equal as white will regain the pawn. The knight move aims to repel the d4-bishop from the gl-a7 diago­ nal.) 13.!labl lilf5 14.tc3 !lbS 15.h3 M3 16.M3 lild6 and Black retains the extra pawn although White has probably sufficient compensation.

I analyse 6.b3 lilbd7 7.tb2 td6 8.d3 0-0 9.lilbd2 !leS in the anno­ tations to Grune 30 Janaszak-Dzi­ uba, Warsaw 2011. The same plan is also discussed in the Chapter 14, line B, but Black has an extra tem­ po there since he pushes ...e5 in one step - on the first move!

6 ... lilbd7

11 1/!llxc4 12.lilxc4 e5 •••

7.lilc3

13 .ie3 (13.tc3 b5) 13 b6 •

•.•

13...b5 14.lilfxe5 fxe5 15.hc6 leads to a very sharp and unclear end­ game after both 15...!lcS 16.hb5 tc5 17.lilxe5 he3 and 15 ...bxc4 16.haS cxd3 17.exd3.

14. lilfd2 !lc8

7.lilbd2 te7! I prefer this square for the bishop in order to enable a possible exchange on e5 if White's knight landed there. 8.b3 0-0 9.tb2 a5 This is the thematic plan against White's set-up, but 9...h6 also deserves attention, securing the g4-bishop: 10.!lel (10.lile5 lilxe5 ll.dxe5 lild7 12.h3 th5 13.g4 199

Chapter 12 ig6 14.e4 <;:Jc5) 10 ...M5 followed up by ... a5. 10.a3 lO.ae5 axe5 11.dxe5 <;:)d7 is ge­ nerally fine for Black - 12.h3 �5 13.g4 ig6 14.e4 dxe4 15.<;:Jxe4 ac5 16.<;:Jd6 <;:Jd3 17.ia3 f6! ! (17...axe5 18.c5) 18.1!1'd2 1!1'b8 19.c5 fxe5+. 10 ...h6 10 ...b5 11.c5 1Wb8 12.b4 is diffi­ cult to win with either side. 11.l'lel M5 12.<;:Je5 axe5! 13.dxe5 <;:Jd7 14.cxd5 14.e4 is dubious with a closed c-file - 14...dxe4 15.axe4 ac5 16.<;:)d6 hd6+. 14...cxd5 15.e4 White needs to open the centre as otherwise Black has a clear plan on the queenside - 15.id4 ac5 16.1!\'cl !lc8 17.1Wb2 1!1'd7 18.!lecl b5 19.ie3 !lfd8 20.<;:Jf3 a4 21.<;:)d4 axb3 22.axb3 axb3 23.Wxb3 !lc4+, Malaniuk-Dreev, Tilburg 1993. 15...dxe4

16.he4 (16.<;:Jxe4 <;:Jc5 17.Wxd8=) Here Bagirov-Rabiega, Berlin 1995, signed a draw. Both 16 ... he4 17.<;:Jxe4 !lc8 and 16 ... ac5 17.txts are equal. 7.b3 ie7 8.ib2 0-0 9.<;:Jbd2 should 200

transpose to 7.<;:Jbd2 unless Black chooses 8...ae4!? 9.<;:)bd2 axd2 10.Wxd2 0-0.

7 dxc4!? ...

7...ie7 is certainly possible. White usually continues 8.1!1'b3 8.cxd5 exd5 9.h3 is best met by 9 ...if5 (9...�5 allows 10.aes axe5 11.dxe5 <;:)d7 12.g4 ig6 13.f4) lO.<;:Jh4 ig6=. 8...Wb6

In this popular position top players prefer lately 9.l'lel 9.c5 is typically met by 9 ...Wa6 and then ...b6. The rook move is aimed against it. 9... 0-0 10.c5 1Wxb3 10 ...Wa6 is less attractive here as 11.e4 dxe4 12.axe4 axe4 13.!lxe4 practically forces 13 ... hf3 in view of the threat 14.ifl. You could retain more tension with 10 ...1Wc7 11.M4 Wc8, but it is not advisable to give more space to a good player as you will have to struggle for the rest ofthe game, e.g. 12 ...h6 (12 ...b6 13.id6 Wd8 14.he7 Wxe7 15.cxb6 axb6 16.e4) 13.e4 dxe4 14.axe4 axe4 15.!lxe4 <;:)f6 16.!leel <;:)d5 17.id2 ixf3 18.Wxf3 !ld8 19.h4 with an

1.tilf3 d5 2.g3 initiative in Rapport-Bromber­ ger, Reykjavik 2016. 11.axb3 a6 12.b4 l'lfe8 The blunt 12 ....fud"3 (anticipat­ ing the typical manoeuvre tilf3d2-b3-a5) 13.exf3 l'lfd8 proved quite effective for a draw in Bu­ Malakhov, China 2015: 14.f4 g6 15.Ae3 Ill es 16.Afl lllc7 17.illbl lllf6 18.lll d2 lllg4 19.lllf3 h5 20.h3 lllh6 21.ill eS ©g7 22.Ad3 12lf5 23.lllf3 l'lh8 24.©g2 Af6 25.l'la3 l'lac8 26.l'lhl ie7 27.!laal l'lcg8 28.g4 draw. 13.M4 13.lll d2 e5 assures Black of counterplay. 13 ...h6=.

pawns and a clear positional ad­ vantage. 12.exdS 0-0 13.Wxc4 l'lc8+.

8...e5 8...b5 9.h3 (9.e5? lll d5 10.lll e4 ier+) 9 ...hf3 10.'&xf3 ie7 11.eS?! 12ld5 12.Wg4 ©f8 defends everything and Black can hope to advance his pawn majority on the queenside. How­ ever, in this line White has lasting pressure by just staying solidly in the centre, e.g. 11.l'ldl 0-0 12.M4, which compensates for the missing pawn. It is better to contest the cen­ tre at once.

9.ie3 (9.dxe5?! hf3 10.Wxf3 12lxe5+) 9 .. exd4 10.hd4 lllc5 (threatening 11...lll e6) 11.eS llld5 12.We2 .

8.e4 It is clear that White's hopes are based on the strong centre, but in practice he often inserts a4 a5 first: 8.a4 a5 9.e4 ib4 9 ...Wb6, threatening ... e5, is also in Black's favour. 10.'&e2 e5 11.d5 cxd5 11 ... l'lcS keeps the extra pawn 12.l'ldl cxd5 13.exdS 0-0+, Mat­ nadze-Dzagnidze, Istanbul 2012, but it is even better to have even

Black has at least two ways of reach­ ing comfortable equality:

a) 12 ... 12lb6 13.l'ladl 12ld3 14.We4 Wd7 15.hb6 axb6 16.Wxc4 lllxb2 17.l'lxd7 12lxc4 18.l'lxb7=; b) 12 ... MS!? 13.12lxd5 cxd5 14.l'lfdl ie7 15.b3 12ld3 16.e6 0-0 17.exf7+ ©h8oo. 201

Chapter 12

C. 5.cxd5 exd5 It is always risky to unbalance the game with Black, but this is the best way to play for a win. In my prac­ tice I prefer the solid 5...i.xf.3 6.M3 cxd5 7.0-0 lilc6 8.d3 lilf6 9.lilc3 !!J..e7

White's bishop pair does not have great prospects due to the symmet­ rical pawn structure. I consider in detail this backup line in the anno­ tations to Grune 29 Mola-Delchev, 2015.

12 ...W!la6! (12 ...W!la5 13.lild4! dxe4 14.dxe4 defines the centre in White's favour) 13.lild4 lile5 14.h3 !!J..d7= (or 13 ...c5 14.lildb5 d4 15.lilxd6 W!lxd6 16.!!J..f4 W!la6f!). 10.Widl !!J..d6 ll.lilc3 0-0 12.!!J..e3 12.e4 is not a good idea because of 12 ... dxe4 13.dxe4 lile5. After 12.h3 !!J..h5 13.e4 dxe4 14.dxe4 lile5 15.g4 !!J..g6 16.lilxe5 !!J..xe5 17.!!J..e3 Wie7 18.f3 Black could trade a piece with 18 ...h5 19.g5 !!J..xc3 20.bxc3 lild5=. 12 ...W!la5

6.0-0 6.Wb3 W!lb6 7.W!lc2 is an attempt to win a tempo with !!J..e3 since White was going to play W!lc2 anyway. However, the black queen may re­ treat to a6 where it would be quite active: 7... lild7 8.0-0 lilgf6 9.d3 (9.lilc3 !!J..d6) 9...W!lc5! An important move, aimed at driving the enemy queen back to dl. 9 ... !!J..d6 10.e4 0-0 is also possible - 11.lilc3 !lfe8 (ll...lile5 12.lilxe5 !!J..xe5 13.!!J..e3! d4 14.lila4 W!lb5 15.!!J..cl offers White a mobile pawn pair e4-f4.) 12.!!J..e3

13.h3 The game T.L.Petrosian-Hov­ hannisyan, Lake Sevan Mar­ tuni 2015, saw the wrong plan 13.a3?! !lfe8 14.b4 W!ld8 15.!!J..d4 lilf8 16.lila4 lile6 17.!!J..c3 when 17...b5 18.lilb2 !lc8 19.Wib3 c5 2 O. bxc5 lilxc5 favours Black. 13...!!J..h5 14.lild4 !!J..g6 15.f4 !lfe8

- l.'
a minority attack with b4. I would avoid it for practical reasons.

10.e4 6 ... lllf6 7.d3 illbd7 8.ill c3 .id6 8....ie7 and 8....ic5 are well tested alternatives.

The only sensible plan. 10.ltld4 0-0 11.ltlfS .ic7 12 ..ie3 !le8 13.'/Jfd2 12lf8 14.b4 12le6 15.ltld4 .ib6 was pleasant for Black in Vaganian-Murey, Mar­ seille 1987.

10... 0-0 11.exd5

9.h3

Practice has also seen here 11. \Wc2 although this position arises more often following the move order with 9.'/Jfc2. We answer ll ...!le8 12.12lh4 For 12 ..ie3 .tcS! see Game 28 Markowski-Pedersen, Istanbul 2003. 12 ...ltlc5!

I do not believe that White could as­ pire to the advantage without this move so he better play it right away. 9 .e4 does not gain anything since 9... 0-0 10.h3 .th5 will simply trans­ pose. Besides, 9... dxe4 10.dxe4 lll e5 evens the game outright. 9.\Wc2 0-0 10.e4 !le8 ll.h3 .th5 is another important branch of the main line.

9 .th5 ••.

9...ixf3 10.ixf3 d4 10 ... 0-0 11.e4 dxe4 12.dxe4 gives White a fluid centre and the bishop pair. 11.llle4 leads to a very static posi­ tion where Black lacks any active plan while White could try to mount

The knight is heading for e6-d4. We try to keep as much tension as pos­ sible in the centre and play on the dark squares. Any White's pawn advance will be double-edged as his pieces are still undeveloped and not ready to back it. This line now branches to: a) 13 ..igS? 12le6 14.ixf6 '/Jfxf6 15.exd5 12ld4 16.'/Jfd2 g5-+. 203

Chapter 12 b) 13 ..ie3 12le6 14.exd5 12lxd5 15.12lxd5 cxd5 16.d4 .ie7 17.\l!lf5 .ie2 18.Elfel .ic4 19.12lf3 g6=. c) 13.f4 12le6! 14.e5 (14.12lf5 .ic5+ 15.l!lh2 .ig6=) 14....ic5+ 15.l!lh2 12ld7 and White's offence has come to a halt while Black could think of ...g5 or ...f6.

Eiel Eib8) 19 ... EibS 20 ..ic6 lile6 (20 ... .ic7!?) 21.1llld5 lilxd4=.

14 hxg6 15.d4 lile6 16 .ie3 •••

•

d) 13.12lf5 .if8 14..ie3 14.g4 .ig6 15.e5 12lfd7 16.d4 12le6

16 ..ic7! ••

We see a typical overextended White's centre. 17..ie3 stumbles into 17...c5 and 17.Eidl could be met by either 17...c5, or 17 .. .f6. 14....ig6 15..ixc5 (15.Eiadl .ixf5) 15... .ixc5 16.12lxd5 .ixf2+ 17.1lllxf2 cxd5=, Leopolis-Pelger, gameknot. corn 2007.

11 cxd5 12.g4 .ig6 13.12lh4 lilc5 14.lil:xg6 ••.

The immediate 14.d4 could face 14...lilce4 15.lilxd5 12lxd5 16.12lxg6 fxg6 17..ixe4 lilf4 with compensa­ tion, e.g. 18.1l!lf3 l!lh8 19 ..ixb7 (19.

?114

Underlining the weakness of the h2-b8 diagonal. 16 ...lilf4 cost Black a pawn after 17.1l!lb3 Eib8 18.Eiadl b5 19.M4 M4 20.Eifel Eib6 21.12lxd5 12lxd5 22.\l!lxd5;!;, Radjabov-Ivan­ chuk, Ningbo 2011, with an eventu­ al draw.

17.1l!lb3 \\l'd6 18.f4 .ib6 19.Eiadl Eiae8 20.l!lhl Or 20.g5 12lh5 21.12lxd5 12lg3 22.Eif3 12lf5 23.12lxb6 axb6 and Black easily regains the pawn.

20

•••

Eie7 21.f5 .ic7 22 ..igl lilf4oo.

White's position is dangerous in view of his naked king.

Chapter 12. 1.ctJf3 d5 2.g3

Annotated Games

27. Kazmierczuk - Carolei VWC6/pr23 ICCF 2013 1.lil:f3 lilf6 2.g3 d5 3 .tg2 c6 4.0-0 .tg4 5.lile5 .tf5 6.d4 lilbd7 7.c4 e6 8.lilc3 .te7 •

pensation after 9...lllxe5 10.dxe5 lild7 11.'l:l'xb7 0-0 12.'l:l'xc6! lilxe5 13.'l:l'a6 lllxc4 14.e4.

10.lilxd7 lilxd7 11.e4 dxe4 12.lilxe4 0-0 13..ie3 Eifd8 It is possible to trade queens im­ mediately - 13 ...'l:l'xb3 14.axb3 a6 15.lllc3 Eiac8 16.d5 cxd5 17.cxd5 e5 18.d6 hd6 19.hb7 Eib8 20.j,d5 lilc5=.

14.h3 V;\'xb3

This position arises more often with a knight on f3 instead of e5. The dif­ ference should be in Black' s favour as he is constantly threatening to take on e5, for instance: 9.b3 0-0 10 ..tb2 lllxe5 11.dxe5 lile4 12.lllxe4 dxe4= or: 9.j,f4 0-0 10.1l:Yb3 lilxe5 11.dxe5 (11.he5 'l:l'b6) 11...lll d7 12.'l:l'xb7? lllc5 13.'l:l'b4 (13.'l:l'xc6 Eic8 14.1l:Yb5 Eib8 15.'l:l'c6 Eib6) 13 ...EibS 14.'l:l'a3 lilb3.

14...lilf6 15.lll c5 gave White a slight pull after 15 ...hc5 16.dxc5 'l:l'c7 17.Eifdl in Mozharov-Belov, Mos­ cow 2014, due to the weak square d6. The waiting 14...h6 was a good al­ ternative to the game move.

9.'l:l'b3 'l:l'b6 Black does not have enough corn-

White should continue 15.Eifcl! 205

Chapter12 Or 15.1Wc3 liJf6 16.d5 c5! ; Otherwise Black takes on b3: 15.!lfdl 1Wxb3 16.axb3 liJf6 17.liJc3 ic2; 15.!lfel 1Wxb3 16.axb3 a6 17.liJc3 ic2 18.d5 hb3 19.dxc6 bxc6 20.hc6 !lac8 21.hd7 !lxd7 23.hc5 !lxc5 22.c5 hc5 24.!lxa6 !lb'l'i'. 15 ...1Wxb3 16.axb3 a6 17.liJc3! (in­ tending d4-d5 or 17...liJf6 18.liJa4) 17...!lac8, Romanishin-Dorfman, Tashkent 1980. It was interest­ ing to try here 18.d5 when 18 ... exd5 19.cxd5 cxd5 20.liJxd5 !lxcl+ 21.!lxcl if8 offers White a slight in­ itiative. The computer proposes the original 18 ...liJc5!? 19.dxc6 bxc6 with the more active pieces which compensate for the split queenside pawns.

such committal moves as it is diffi­ cult to judge which pawn would be weaker - b3 or a5.

16.!lfdl This has no venom. More challeng­ ing was to take c2 under control with 16.!lfcl, or to display activity with 16.g4!? ig6 17.f4 h6 18.f5 exf5 19.gxf5 ih7 20.id2 b6 21.ic3.

16 liJf6 17.liJxf6+ ix:f6 18.!ld2 h5 19.©h2 ie7 •••

15.axb3 20.d5 Both sides lack an active plan and a waiting game would be a logical ap­ proach. White forces the course of events, but becomes even slightly worse due to his doubled pawn.

20 cxd5 21.cxd5 ib4 22.!ld4 �c5 23.!lda4?! he3 24.fxe3 exd5 25.!lxa5 !lxa5 26.!lxa5 ie6 27.!lb5 !ld7 28.MS g6 29.©g2 ©f8 30.©f2 ©e7 31.h4 ©d6 32. ©e2 !lc7 33. ©d2 ©c6 34.!la5 !lc8 35.!la4 @d6 36.!la5 !lc6 37.!lb5 !la6 38.e4 dxe4 39.he4 !lal 40.@e3 !lel+ 41.@d4 id7 42.!lb6+ Draw. .•.

15 as ••.

Sam Collins successfully defended against K. Arkell and L. Gutman the position after 15...liJf6 16.liJc5 hc5 17.dxc5 ie4. The text fixes the b3-pawn which might prove useful at some point. However, human players mistrust

206

l.'ilt::S d5 L.g:;

28. Markowski - Pedersen Istanbul 12.06.2003 1.g3 d5 2.lilf"3 c6 3..ig2 .ig4 4.0-0 lild7 5.d3 lilgf6 6.c4 e6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.lilc3 .id6 9.Wc2 0-0 10.e4 !le8 11.h3 .ih5 12 .ie3 .ic5 •

retreat 17..ie2. Instead, Black chose the solid 14 ... lilcS 15.exd5 and a draw was agreed.

14.lila4?! I understand White's reluctance to take on d5, but this move hands Black the initiative. Perhaps best re­ tort was 14...hf3 15.hf3 .id4, but the retreat to e7 is also good enough.

14 .ie7 15.lilc3 .ic5 (15 ... lile6!) 16.exd5 cxd5 17 .ig5 .••

•

13 ..if4 In principle, White should avoid exchanges. 13.hc5 li:lxc5 14.li:lxdS lilcxe4 15.dxe4 cxd5 16.exd5 .ig6; eliminates the whole centre. Another try is 13.lild4 .ig6, creat­ ing a hidden pin along the diagonal, e.g. 14.!lael dxe4 15.dxe4 lild5!. Or 14.!lfdl .ib6 15.exd5 lile5 with the more active pieces.

13. lilfS ..

13...dxe4 14.dxe4 hf3 15.hf3 lile5 16 ..ig2 1/lld3 17.1/llb3 Wc4 18.!ladl 1/llxb3 simplifies to a balanced end­ game. 13 ....ib6!? (intending ...lilc5) 14.!lael occurred in the corres­ pondence game Ptak-Merlicek, 1997, when 14...dxe4 15.dxe4 hf3 16.hf3 lile5 would force the clumsy

17....ie7 17...lile6!? 18.hf6 Wxf6 19.g4 .ig6 20.lilxd5 Wd8 21.li:le5 !lc8 would have given Black full compensation for the pawn. The text is passive and White could have exploited it with 18.Wb3 lile6 19.hf6 hf6 20.!lael with a slight pull.

18.lild4 h6 19 .ie3 lile6 20.!lfel !lc8 21.lilxe6 fxe6 22 .id4 .id6 23.'&b3 •

•

It was possible to eat the a7-pawn 23.ha7 b6 24.1/llb3 .ic5 25.lilb5 e5 26.a4 and White always has a5 to save the bishop - 26 ... !le7 27.!lecl 207

Chapter 12 ie8 28.a5 txf2+ 29.l!lxf2 axcl 30.axcl bxa5 31.ac5 l!lh7 32.lilc7 axc7 33.'i!rb6 ac8 34.'i!rxdS axd8 35.axa5 ac8 with a probable draw. To avoid this line, Black should have defended e6 with 22 .. if7oo.

39.'lilc4 ad4 40.'lifb3 l!lh7 41.'lilc3 'lild8 42.lilc2 i.dl+ 43.ael

.

23 b6 24.lilb5 ibS •••

A decisive mistake. 43 ... lilf4 44..ifl

ad3! 45.'i!re5 lilxh3+ 46 ..ixh3 axh3 47.lile3 keeps the balance.

25.�e5 White's bishop controls both wings so it seems that 25.£4 was better, but then g3 would become a target after ...lilh5, ... g5. Markowski adopts the Nimzowitsch's approach to block­ ade e6, but it is ineffective here.

44.he4 he4 45.axe4 ad3 46.'i!re5 adl+ 47.l!lg2 lilg5 48.ae3 'i!rgS 49.f"3 'lild5 50.'i!rc3 'i!rxa2 51.ae7 ad4 52.'i!rxd4 'i!rxc2+ 53.l!lg3 'lilh2+ 54.l!lxh2 lilxf"3+ 55. l!lg3 lilxd4 56.ab7 b5 57.l!lf4 l!lg6 58.l!le4 lile2 59.h4 l!lf6 60.ab6+ l!lf7 61.h5 1-0

25 he5 26.axe5 a6 27.lild4 M7 28.'lila3 lild7 29.ae2 'i!ff6 30.lilf"3 e5!

29. Mola - Delchev Lucca 1 3.06.2015

Black takes over the initiative for a small price.

1.lilf"3 d5 2.g3 c6 3.�g2 �g4 4.c4 e6 5.cxd5 .ixf"3 6.ixm cxd5

•••

31.'lilxa6 lilc5 32.'lifb5 ih5 33.g4 .ig6 34.lilel (34.gdl!oo) 34 e4 •••

Black forces the play prematurely. 34... aedS was better.

35.dxe4 37.axdS 208

dxe4 36.adl acdS axd8 38.b4 lile6

1.li:if3 d5 2 .g3 7.0-0 7.Wi'b3 only hinders White's plan with a3, b4 and sooner or later he11 have to return the queen back home - 7...Wi'd7 8.lilc3 lilc6 9.$.g2 lilf6 10.0-0 fi.e7 ll.d3 0-0 12.fi.d2 !lac8 (or 12 ... lild4) 13.!lfcl !lfd8 14.Wi'dl h6 15.a3 id6 16.b4 !IJ.e5 17.!labl lile8 18.lila4 b6 19.e3 lild6 20.Wi'b3 lile7 21.lilb2 !lxcl+ 22.!lxcl !lc8=, Ana­ stasian-Seirawan, Groningen 1997. 7 lilc6 8.d3 lilf6 9.lilc3 ie7 10.M4 .••

10.Wia4 0-0 ll.if4 a6 12.!lfcl b5 13.Widl offers Black the initiative - 13 ...!lc8 14.e4 d4 15.lilbl lild7 16.id2 lilc5 17.ie2 Wi'd7 or 17... Wi'b6 18.b4 lild7 19.Wi'el a5. Even the positional pawn sac 17...lila4 18.b3 lilc3!? 19.lilxc3 dxc3 20.hc3 ia3 21.!lc2 lild4 assures Black of a com­ fortable game with zero risk. 10.e4 is unimpressive. In the con­ crete position Black can safely trade on e4, but it is generally clever to keep the centre closed when facing a bishop pair. Therefore, I recom­ mend to meet e4 by ...d4:

10 ...d4 11.lilbl lild7 12.a3 a5 13.a4 ig5 14.lild2 lilc5 15.$.e2 ixd2

16.hd2 '/ilb6 17.Wi'c2 lilb3 and Black had a slight initiative in Pr.Nikolic­ Bluebaum, Germany 2014. White often develops his bishop on d2 - 10.ig2 0-0 ll.id2 !lc8 Or ll...'/ilb6 12.!lbl a6 13.ii:Ja4 Wi'a7 14.!lcl !lac8 15.a3 b5 16.lilc3 lild7. 12.a3 12.fil3 does not really threat­ en anything - 12 ...lild7! 13.!lfcl (13.Wlxb7 lilc5 14.fil5 a6) 13 ...a6 14.Wi'dl !IJ.g5!?

A thematic idea in this pawn structure. At some point White will try to activate his g2-bish­ op with e2-e4 and we'll answer ... d4. Then, according to theABC book, our dark-squared bishop will be constrained behind our own pawns. To be sure, White could prevent the exchange, but 15.e3 creates a weakness on d3 which might tell after 15 ...fi.e7 16.ii:Je2 Wi'b6. The game Zaragatski-Gyi­ mesi, Germany 2011, went 15.hg5 Wlxg5 16.d4 lilb6 17.e3 !lc7 18.li:Ja4 lilxa4 19.'/ilxa4 '/ile7 20.!lc5 lila7 21.b4 lilb5 22.ifl ii:Jd6 23.!lacl !ld7 24.id3 !lb8 209

Chapter 12 25.1/!\1c2 g6 26.a4 @g7 27.a5 b5 28.axb6 draw. 12 ...a6 13.b4 lild7 14.1/!\1b3 lll d4 15.1/!\1a2 .if6 16.E1acl lile5 17.@hl

when 14...aSl 15.bxaS 1/!\1b3 is ab­ solutely comfortable for Black. In­ stead, I opted for the mundane 14... E1c7 15.e3 lilb5 16.lilxbS 1/!\1xb5 17.1/!\1b3 E1ac8 18.E1fcl E1xcl+ 19.E1xcl E1xcl+ 20.hcl a5 21..id2 axb4 22.axb4 h5 23 ..ifl 1/!\1d7 (23 ...d4!=) 24.1/!\1c3 d4=.

12.ll:cl a6 13 .ig2 lild7 14..id2 b5 15.f4 lild4 16.@hl lilc5 17.ll:bl lildb3 18 ..iel d4 19.lile4 a5 20.lilxc5 lilxc5 21.ll:cl a4 •

Black has gained some advantage in the centre which allows him to dis­ play activity on the kingside: 17...h5 18.f4 18.h3 weakens g3 - 18 ...1/!\1b6 19.f4 lilf5 20.@h2 lll e3 21.fxeS lilxfl+ 22.1lxflhe5 23.lila4 1/!\1c6+. 18 ...lilg4 19.e4 dxe4 20.lilxe4 (20. dxe4 lilb3) 20 ...fucl 21.hcl .ie7 22.h3 lllf6 23.lilxf6+ txf6 24.g4 (24.hb7 lilf5 25.@h2 1/!\1xd3) 24...1/!\1d7. White's position is dan­ gerous, McShane-Fressinet, Wijk aan Zee 2011.

10

•••

Fixing the pawns on dark squares. 21...1/!\1b6 22.b4 axb4 23.hb4 would be totally equal and Black should even think about defence since 23 ... g6?! would run into 24.e4.

22 ..ib4 1/!\1d7 23.hc5 hc5 24. VNd2 ll:c7 25.ll:c2 ll:fc8 26.ll:fcl g6 27 .if'31/!\1d6 28.1/!\1dl h5 29.h4 e5 30.fxe5 VNxe5 31.�gl f5 32.�g2 @g7 33 ..td5 •

0-0 11.a3 lk8

I had played earlier ll ...1/!\1b6 12.b4 lild4 13..ig2 E1fc8 14.!d2, Buchal­ Delchev, Bad Wiessee 2013,

33

...

®'d6

Black has a lasting advantage due to the weak kingside pawns. Perhaps I should have changed a pair of rooks with 33 ....id6 34.E1xc7 + hc7+ in or­ der to free my bishop from the pin. The c-file is unimportant. ?1(\

1.lilf3 d5 2.g3

34.tb7 !lb8 35 .id5 !le8 36.tf3 !le3 37.Wgl %1'e7 38.l!ift Wh6 •

38 ...td6!? is similar to the game 39.!lxc7 hc7 40.Wf2 tes 41.Wg2 Wf7 42 .!lc5 1Wb3 43.!lxeS'i'.

39. Wf2 .id6 40.!lxc7 hc7 41. Wfl te5 42.Wf2 b4 42 ...Wf7 43.!lcS Wb3 44.!lxeS !lxe5 45.Wxd4 is a draw.

43.axb4 Wxb4 44.!lc4 %1'xb2 45.!lxa4 td6 46.!la6 !le6 47.!lc6 !lf6 48.Wg2 .ie5 Draw.

30. Janaszak - Dziuba Warsaw 1 7.12.2011 1.c4 lilf6 2.g3 c6 3 .ig2 d5 4.lilf3 tg4 5.0-0 e6 6.d3 lilbd7 7.b3 ,id6 8.tb2 0-0 9.lilbd2 •

9 ...!le8 Our plan is to push ...e5, so this move is not bad, but the immediate 9 ...e5 was also possible. Even better is to include 9...a5 10.a3 e5 in order to weaken the enemy's queenside. The blitz game Edouard-Gunina,

2014, went ll.h3 th5 12.lilh4 l'le8 13.Wel?! (this move would make sense only if the centre were closed with e4-d4) 13 ... e4! 14.dxe4 dxe4 15.lilf5 when 15....ic7! (instead of 15...,ieS) would have preserved an important attacking piece. Note that 10.a3 is an almost au­ tomatic answer since otherwise Black would obtain some pull on the queenside. For instance, look at the game Sadorra-Dreev, Richard­ son 2010: 9 ...!le8 10.Wc2 e5 11.!lael a5 12.lilh4 a4 13.h3 te6 14.e4 dxe4 15.lilxe4 lilxe4 16.!lxe4 axb3 17.axb3 Wb6 18.!le2 !la2 19.!lal !lea8 20.!lxa2 !lxa2 21.%1'dl tc5 with ac­ tive pieces. The text waits for White to define his plan first. A similar approach is 9...a5 10.a3 th5 11.�c2 e5 12.e4

12 ... dxe4 13.dxe4 !le8 14.lilh4 tcS 15.lildf3 �b6 16.!ladl MS 17.!lbl lilc5=, Leko-Kasparov, Wijk aan Zee 2001.

10.h3 If White delayed this move too much, the bishop could return to e6! Let's consider: 211

Chapter 12 10.a3 a5 ll.Wc2 e5 (threatening ... e5-e4-e3)

ll... dxe4 12.dxe4 ie5!.

11...e5!

a) We commonly meet 12.e4?! by 12 ...dxe4 and then we try to exploit the hole on d4 - 13.dxe4 13.iilxe4 iilxe4 14.dxe4 ic5 15.iilh4 (15.!lfdl Wf6 16.h3 ixf3 17.!lxd7 !led8) 15 ...Wb6 (15 ... g6!?) 16.h3 ie6 17.!lfdl id4. 13 ...Wb6! 14.ic3 (14.h3 allows 14.. . txf3 15.iilxf3 iilc5 16.iild2 iile6) 14 .. . ic5 15.h3 15.Wb2 txf3! 16.txf3 id4 17.b4 c5 crowns Black's dark-squared strategy. 15 ...ih5 16.g4 ig6 17.iilh4 id4 18.ixd4 exd4+. White's pieces are awkwardly placed. That turns the otherwise strong e4-pawn into a weakness. b) 12.e3!? h6!. Now our bishop could retreat to e6. 13.iilh4 !lc8! 14.h3 ie6 15.f4 (15.ic3 b5) 15... exf4 16.exf4 iilc5 17.b4 iila6 18.c5 ie7 and White is unable to parry all Black's threats - apart of the hit on b4, ...iilh5 is also awkward.

10 ...th5 11.rl!!lc2 The insertion ofll.a3 a5 suits Black. ll.e4 is premature due to the pin -

12.e4 12.g4?! ig6 13.iilh4 offers us space to grab - 13 ...d4!+ 14.a3 a5 15.iilxg6 hxg6 16.!lael We7 (16 ...ic5 17.iilf3 rl!!le7 18.Wcl Wd6 19.iild2 !lad8) 17.Wcl ic5 18.Wal iilf8, pinpointing the weakness on f4. 12.e3!? h6! 13.iilh4 iilf8! faces White with a choice: a) 14.g4 ig6 15.iilxg6 weakens h4 and the whole kingside - 15... iilxg6 16.iilf3 (16.!lfel iilh4 17.ihl h5) 16... h5 16 ... We7 17.a3 (17.cxd5 cxd5 18.!lacl !lad8) 17...e4 is pro­ mising, too - 18.iild4 (18.dxe4 dxe4 19.ii:ld2 ie5 20.b4 ii:lh4 21.ihl 1/!iie6 22.ixe5 1/!iixe5-+) 18... iilh4-+. 17.gxh5 iilxh5+. b) 14.a3 a5 15.ii:lf5 ic7 16.cxd5 cxd5 17.b4 (17.!lfcl !lc8) 17...!lcSt or 17...ig6. c) 14.iildf3 1il'd7 15.e4 dxe4 16.dxe4 ixf3 17.ii:lxf3 c5 18.!lfel Wc7 19.!ladl iile6=.

12 ...dxe4

L't.it::S db

�.g::S

Our general approach to this posi­ tion is to take on e4, but 12 ...d4!? cannot be really bad. White has put his bishop on b2 and the queen on c2 so he will need 2 tempi to re­ deploy them for the typical KI at­ tack. Other schemes have no ve­ nom - 13.li:lh4 a5 14.li:lf5 MS 15.f4 g6 16.li:lh4 exf4 17.gxf4 �e2 18.!lf2 li:lh5 19.li:ldf3 �3 20.li:lxf3 li:lxf4.

ever, concrete thinking reveals that Black could penetrate even deep­ er in the enemy camp as d3 is also available - 15...�! 16.li:lhxf3 �c7 17.!ladl '/!1d3 18.'/!1xd3 li:lxd3 19.�al !lad8 20.l!lg2 �b6+.

13.dxe4

20 ... li:ld4!+ was more energetic. The pawn is immune owing to 21.hd4 exd4 22.!lxd4?! hg3.

Trading knights underlines the weakness of d4 - 13.li:lxe4 li:lxe4 14.dxe4 '/!1c7 (14...'/!1f6 15.'/!1e2 !lad8 16.!lfdl li:lc5 17.!ld2 li:le6) 15.li:lh4 �c5 16.li:lf5 li:lf8 17.�c3 a5 18.a3 li:le6 19.b4 �d4.

16.li:lxg6 hxg6 17.!ladl '/!1c7 18.�g2 !lads 19.li:lbl?! li:le6 20.h4?! �c5

21.!lxdS !lxd8 22.!ldl (22.�3!) 22 li:lg4 23.!lfl •••

13... a5 14.li:lh4 14.a3 '/!1b6 15.�c3 �c5 is a familiar plan - 16.'1!1b2 �3 17.�3 �d4 18.�g2 !led8 19.b4 li:lc5 20.hd4 exd4

14...li:lcS 15.M3

15 ...�g6 This is a consistent move for the plan based on occupying d4. How-

23

•..

li:ld4?

Black should have looked for a coup de grace. Any capture on f2 wins by force since after 23 ... li:lxf2 24.!lxf2 �2+ 25.l!/xf2 '/!1b6+ 26.l!lfl '/!1e3 the blackheavy pieces dominate the board, e.g. 27.he5 !ld3 28.c5 li:ld4+. Another interesting way of at­ tacking the enemy king was 23 ...g5! 24.hxg5 li:lxf2 25.!lxf2 '1!1d6 26.MS li:lxg5 27.l!lg2 �2 28.'/!1xf2 '/!1d3-+. After the "positional" 23 ...li:ld4 24.hd4 exd4 25.'/!1d3! Black would have stood "only" better. Instead, 213

Chapter 12 White lets thehit on f2 through once again and this time Black grasps his chance.

32.'lifxd2 �d2 33.h5 gxh5 34.hfS ©f7 35 .tcs b6 36..tb7 �a2 37.hc6 !lb2 38.@e4+ ©g6 39.!lf'3 !ld2 40 .teS+ ©h6 41.W !le2+ 42.@d3 !le5 43..td5 @g5 44..te4 ©g4 45.!lf7 g5 46 .tf'3+ ©xg3 47..txh5 !le3+ 48.©c2 g4 49.!lg7 ©h4 50 ..tg6 !le5 51..td3 g3 52..tfl !lf5 53.!lh7+ ©g5 54.fili3 !lf2 + 55.©d3 !lh2 56.!lg7+ ©f4 57..tfl M2 58.!lf7+ ©e5 59.!lg7 ©d6 60.!lg5 .tel 61.@e4 !lb2 62.!ld5+ ©c6 63.!ldl 0-1 •

•

24.hd4 exd4 25.'lifdl? liJxf2! 26.@xf2 d3+ 27.©f3 f5?? 27...'life5 or 27...d2 were winning while now 28.exf5! d2 29.l!lg4 !ld3 30.!lf3= saves the game as 30 ...Wd7 is not mate!

28.e5?? 30.fili3

214

'lifxe5 29.'lifel 'lifd4 d2 31.liJxd2 'lifxd2

•

Chapter 13. The King's Indian Set-up

Main Ideas

1.liJJ'3 d5 2.g3 c6 3.�g2 �g4! 4.0-0 e6

The King's Indian Reversed set-up assumes that White will play d3, e4 instead of c4. An independent line is 5.d4 lilf6 6.liJbd2 $.e7 7.8el 0-0 8.e4 when Black tries to provoke e4-e5 with ...$.g4-h5-g6 and retreats the knight to es.

White's only active plan here is to play f2-f4-f5, gaining space on the kingside. If we neutralise it in ad­ vance, White will run out of use­ ful moves. Then we should expect to take over the initiative. First, we should concentrate our forces in the centre - ...8e8, ...V!Jc7, 8ad8. Our aim is to reach a position of this type: .•.

Black has a wide choice against the Kl Reversed, but I discuss only set­ ups with ... $.d6 and then ... lilg8-f6 or liJg8-e7. The latter may be easi­ er to play, but White has a way to prevent it by the move order 5.b3 (or even 4.b3) 5... liJd7 6.$.b2 liJgf6

7.d3 $.d6 8.liJbd2 0-0 9.e4 Both sides have completed develop­ ment and we should now take the chance of occupying the centre with

9 ... e5

White's advance has come to a halt, his pawns are hanging. See Grune 31 Maiwald-Sasikiran, Dresden 2005. 215

Chapter 13 The set-up with 5.d3 �d6 6.e4 lile7 is based on similar ideas, but the e7-knight can counter lilh4 with ... 12lg6. Another plus for Black is the option of ...f6, preserving the light­ squared bishop. For instance: 7.1!\'el 12ld7 8.h3 th5 9.12lh4

9...dxe4! 10.dxe4 lilg6 11.12lxg6 hg6 12.f4 f6!. White has not achieved anything except of weakening his king. White can try to exploit our set­ up by changing plans: 7.12lbd2 12ld7 8.d4 0-0 9.!lel 1;,c7 10.c3,

but further advance with e4-e5 will only give us a free hand on the queenside. We could take space with ... a5, ... b5 while on the kingside we a rock-solid. Pantsulaia-Dreev Gjakova 2016

This is a model example where White has kept the tension and now Black counterattacks in the centre: 14...c5 15.exd5 lilxd5 16.1;,g5 1!1'c7 17.llie3 lli7f6 18.1!1'b5 llixe3 19.he3 llid5 20.1;,d2 !led8=. Of course, in the diagram position Black could also unload the cen­ tre with 14...dxe4!? 15.lli3d2 llid5 or persist with the waiting game by 14...1;,b8!? or even 14... !lbS!?.

AB a whole, if White offered you a choice, ...llie7 gives the g4-bishop more freedom.

216

Chapter 13. The King's Indian Set-up

Step by Step

1.li:lf3 d5 2.g3 c6 3.Ag2 i.g4! 4.0-0 e6 This move keeps more tension than 4...li:ld7 5.d3 e5 which is also pos­ sible - 6.h3 i.h5 7.e4 dxe4 8.dxe4 li:lgf6 9.11!\'el i.c5 10.a4 a5. Besides, White could shun this option alto­ gether by playing 4.b3 e6 5.i.b2.

We should not be afraid of an at­ tack here so we can allow e4-e5. We should even provoke it with the ma­ noeuvre:

s...i.hs I see no reason to open the centre with 8 ...dxe4 9.li:lxe4 li:lxe4 10.!lxe4 i.f5 11.!lel li:ld7 12.c3 h6 13.'i!l'b3 1/!l'b6 with a solid, but passive position. 8 ... li:la6 would be justified in the event of 9.e5?!, but 9.c3! under­ lines the clumsy placement of the a6-knight. 8 ...li:lbd7!? 9.c3 i.h5 transposes to the main line.

9.c3 li:lbd7 10.h3 A. 5.d4 B. 5.b3; C. 5.d3;

10.e5 li:le8 11.li:lb3 is often seen.

A. 5.d4 li:lf6 6.li:lbd2 i.e7 7.!lel 0-0 8.e4

White's intention is to keep the space advantage and gradually ad­ vance on the kingside. ...c5 does not 217

Chapter 13 promise serious counterplay and White might even use the d4-square for one of his knights. It is more effective to attack the b2 and the c3-pawns. For instance: ll ... ltlc7! 12.j_e3 a5! 13.ltlcl ltlb6! 14.ltld3 (or 14.b3 ltlb5 when 15.Wd2 runs into 15 ... ltlxc3!) 14 ... ltlc4. Only when White's pieces take passive defensive stands, could we think of ...c5 or even ...f6.

Sulava-Feletar, Poree 1998. White was too busy redeploying his knights and temporarily uncoordi­ nated them. That makes the break 15 ...f6! very strong - 16.exf6 1£\exf6 17.ltleg4 ltle4. White can preserve his centre, but 16.f4 fxe5 17.fxeS ltlb8 leaves him with bad pieces and no trace of an attack.

B. 5.b3 1£\d7 6.j_b2 1£\gf6 7.d3 10 ...j_g6 11.e5 11.exdS lacks any constructive idea. Black had comfortable equality af­ ter 11 ...cxdS 12.ltleS ltlxe5 13.dxeS ltld7 14.ltlb3 ltlc5 15.ltlxcS hc5 16.j_e3 !lc8 17.h4 h6=, Speelman­ Gausel, Slough 1997.

11

•••

7.d4 ie7! should transpose to Chap­ ter 12 line B if White pushed c4.

7....id6 8.1£\bd2 8.c4 0-0 was discussed in Chapter 12 - Game 30 Janaszak-Dziuba, Warsaw 2011.

1£\eS!? 8 ... 0-0 9.e4

ll...ltle4 12.ltlxe4 he4 13.1£\h2 j_g6 14.h4 h6, Anand-McShane, London 2013, is possible, but I prefer to keep the option of .. .f6. The knight may be useful for this plan.

12.1£\fl c5 13.1£\3h2 cxd4 14.cxd4 !lcS 15.1£\e3

9 ...e5 Of course, it is better to occupy the centre than to seek simplification with 9...dxe4 10.dxe4 ie5 when ll.c3 ! leaves Black with less space. I have been following the game 218

10.h3 .ih5 lL 'i!lel

The King's Indian Set-up ll.g4 Ag6 12.lilh4 !le8 is similar to the main line.

11... !leS 12.lilh4 '&c7

(10 ...� is also good) ll.1We3 Ac3 12.!lbl c5 13.li:lh4 d4 14.1Wel li:lc6 15.f4 f6+, Iljin-Goganov, Sochi 2015. 8 ...�5 9.lilh4

Black will choose the right timing for opening the d-file. White does not have any attack so he commonly ends up in a slightly worse position. See Game 31 Maiwald-Sasikiran, Dresden 2 005.

c. 5.d3 Ad6 5 ... lild7 is an alternative move or­ der. Then 6.c4 allows 6 ...M3 7.M3 (7.exf3 Ad6 8.lilc3 lile79.l'lel 0-0 10.a3 lilf5) 7... dxc4! 8.dxc4 lile5 9.lild2 lilxf3+ with significant chances to make a draw. How­ ever, the common plan with ...lilf6 from the previous chapter is more interesting. White usually answers 6.lilbd2 Ad6 7.e4 lile7, transposing.

Now the manoeuvre 9 ... lilg6, which I recommend in the po­ sition with lilbd2 0-0 insert­ ed, drops the d5-pawn, so Black should exchange on e4 first: 9 ...dxe4! 10.dxe4 lilg6 11.lilxg6 hg6 12.f4 f6! 13.li:ld2 0-0 14.li:lc4 Ac5+ 15.l!lh2 1We7 16.a3 li:lb6=, T.L.Petrosian-Hovhannisyan, Ye­ revan 2012.

7 lild7 8.h3 •••

6.e4 lile7 7.lilbd2 The insertion of7.h3 �5 may occur now or on the next tum. Sometimes White delays lilbd2, in­ tending to roll quickly his pawns: 7.'&el lild7 8.h3 8.li:lbd2 0-0 9.b3 makes a hole on c3 which Black can exploit with concrete play - 9...Ab4! 10 .h3 (10 ..ib2 loses a pawn to 10 ...M3 11.� '&a5 12.!ldl 1Wxa2+, Leon Hoyos-Vera Gon­ zalez, Yucatan 2004) 10 ...�5

8.d4 0-0 9.l'lel Ac7 10.c3 �5 oc­ curred in D'Amore-Caruana, Siena 2010. With a knight on e7 instead of f6, this manoeuvre is not too ef­ fective, as Black cannot force e5 anyway. D'Amore could not find a good retort and lostthe initiative af­ ter 11.1Wb3 !lb8 12.1Wa3 b5. Perhaps 10 ... a5, followed up by queenside play, is stronger. The game Pantsu­ laia-Dreev, Gjakova 2016, is a good model: 9.c3 l'lc8 10.!lel !le8 ll.a4 a5 12.1Wb3 b6 13.li:lfl �5 14.ie3 c5. 219

Chapter 13 8.b3 0-0 9.�b2 a5 10.a3 b5 11.c4 ll.'!!:1e2 '!!:1b6 12.d4 (12.h3 �5 13.g4 �g6 14.e5 �c7) 12 ...c5 13.a4 b4+. 11 ...'!!:1b6 12.Wc2 !;1ab8 13.!;1abl e5 of­

10.liJh2 e5! is already slightly better for Black. The game S.Martinovic­ Grachev, Sibenik 2011, went 11.l!ihl '!!:1c7 12.liJb3 !;1ae8 13.�d2 when 13 ... f5 14.exf5 e4+ was the best option.

fers Black the better centre.

10... liJg6! 8 .ih5 9.'!!:1el 0-0 •••

This way Black saves the bishop. 10 ... e5 is also possible, but why to give the opponent the bishop pair without a substantial reason?!

11.liJxg6 hg6 12.f4 Wb6+ 13.l!ihl !;1ae8 14.liJ:f3 f6oo

10.liJh4

Black's king is safe and he keeps his options in the centre open - Karja­ kin-Aronian, blitz, Stavanger 2013.

Chapter 13. The King's Indian Set-up

Annotated Games

31. Maiwald - Sasikiran Dresden, 28.07.2005 1.g3 d5 2.tg2 11lf6 3.d3 c6 4.11lf'3 tg4 5.0-0 11lbd7 6.11lbd2 e6 7.b3 td6 8.i.b2 0-0 9.'\l\'el e5 10.e4 !leS 11.h3 �5 12.li1h4

Black stays beautifully, but he does not have a clear plan yet. His saf­ est strategy is to open the d-file and see what target White will offer him. Most probably, ...a5 will be a useful move, but it would be better to bring the rest of his forces to the centre first.

14.f4?! dxe4 15.dxe4 tg6. White could make a waiting move like 13. ©hl, but 13 ... !ladS will face him with the same choice again. In most practical games he cannot find anything better than 14.a3 a5 15.11lf5 tfS 16.f4

Black has some initiative here. For instance: 16 ...dxe4 17.dxe4 tg6 17...exf4 is probably less accu­ rate since it offers the g3-square - 18.gxf4 tg6 19.11lg3 11lxe4 20.11ldxe4 f5oo, Kasimdzhanov­ Li, Zagan 1997. 18.11lxg7! hg7 19.f5oo.

12 ...'\l\'c7! It transpires that White's inten­ tion to push f4 should be postponed for a distant future since his centre would be hanging after 13.lllfS tfS

13.a3 !lads 14.11lf5 i.fS 15.b4 a5 16.c3 Harikrishna-Smeets, Wijk aan Zee 2008 saw 16.11lf3 axb4 17.axb4 c5 221

Chapter 13 (17...b5!?) 18.bxc5 dxe4 19.dxe4 lilxc5 with harmonious pieces.

This recapture allows Black to bring new resources into play. The a4-knight is a powerful beast so 22.l'lxa4 b5 23.l'la5 would have been easier to hold.

22 b5 23.lile3 e4 24.c4 lilxb2 25.1!\'xb2 bxc4 26.l'lacl h5 27.l'lxc4 ••.

16 ...dxe4! 17.dxe4 lilb6 Pinpointing the weakness ofWhite's light squares.

18.g4 tg6 19.1!1'e2 lila4 20.lilc4 axb4 It is difficult to criticize this natural move, but it unnecessarily activates the rook at al. 10 ...M5 ll.gxf5 g6! was stronger since 12.lilxa5 lilh5 would tie White up and down.

21.axb4 .ixf5 22.exf5?!

Now the weak h2-b8 diagonal is Black's main trump. The best way to build the fi.1!1' battery is 27...1!\'f4! 28.gxh5 td6.

27 hxg4 28.hxg4?! l!l'f4+ 29.l!l'e2 td6 30.l'lel lild5 31.lilfl hb4 32.l'ldl? lilc3 0-1 .•.

Chapter 14. 1.g3

Main Ideas

1.g3 is often used against concrete opponents in order to exploit their narrow opening repertoire. For ex­ ample, the King's Indian adepts should reckon with 3.e4, reach­ ing the Pirc. However, it does not pose any problems to us and we can choose both 1.. .e5 or 1.. .d5 to achieve the following position:

1. To meet c4 by ... d4, although ...c6 is probably not worse; 2. To lead out our king's knight to f6, although the set-up with .Jue7 is also possible. A good example to follow is Grune 32 Venya-Bereza, email 2013:

3 ...lilf6 4.c4 d4 5.lil:f3 �d6 6.0-0 0-0 7.e3 c5!? (7...dxe3 is "only" equal!) 8.exd4 cxd4

1. e5 2.�g2 d5 3.d3 ••

Chapter 11 has taught us to meet c4 by ...d4!. We can also transpose to other chapters of this book by de­ fending the centre with ... c6. How­ ever, my main idea against the Eng­ lish and similar "irregular" open­ ings is to seize as much space as possible. Therefore, we should bet­ ter cross the centre and bolster the pawn at d4 rather than at d5. Thus I recommend:

9.c5 �c7!? 10.b4 �e6 and White had to struggle all the game due to Black's superior centre. The other important pawn structure you should know arises when White plays e4 instead of c4. Then I sug­ gest to bolster the centre with ...c6, complete development with ...�d6, 0-0 and see the enemy's plan. I be­ lieve that we should refrain from ...d4 and fix the centre with ...dxe4 223

Chapter 14 to avoid total exchanges which could occur after White's d3-d4. Black's further play has some nu­ ances depending on the placement of White's queen's knight:

8.b3 a5! 9.a3 lllbd7 10 ..tb2 dxe4 11.dxe4 Wlc7 12.lllh4 b5 13.illf5 MS

a) 4.lilf3 .td6 5.0-0 0-0 6.lilbd2 1'1e8 7.e4 c6

See Game 33 Gabrielian-Riazant­ sev, V1adivostok 2014.

Our natural play should be on the queenside, aiming to seize space with moves like ... a5, ...b5. On the kingside, I prefer a passive stand without making any weaknesses with ...g6 or ... h6. A good manoeuvre is ... lilb8-d7(a6)-c5-e6. My main line runs:

224

b) 6.illc3 c6 7.e4 dxe4 - the knight on c3 enables the possibility of d3d4 so we should exchange on e4 im­ mediately. 8.dxe4 llla 6!? 9.h3 lllc7 10.lllh4 lll e6 ll.illf5 .tc7=. I want to stress that after l.g3, our tactic in the opening should be not to equalize, but to take the centre and fight for the initiative. White's extra tempo is not worth much.

Chapter 14. 1.g3

Step by Step

l.g3 e5 2 .tg2 d5 •

3.d3 3.c4d4! (3... c6 4.d4 e4 is mentioned in Chapter 2) 4.d3 lilc6 transposes to Chapter 11. 3.lilf3?! .W.d6 4.d3 lilf6 is considered below. However, we should better switch to punishing mode with 3... e4! 4.lild4 c5 5.lilb3 c4 (5 ...lilc6�) 6.lild4 tc5 7.c3

7...lilc6 (7... lilf6!?) 8.lilxc6 bxc6 9.0-0 9.b3 cxb3 10.axb3 h5! was the curious miniature Hulak-Beliav­ sky, Pula 2000: 11..W.a3 .W.b6 12.h4 lilh6 13.d4 e3 14.f4 .tg4 15.'l:!'d3 lilf5 16.0-0 !lh6 17.c4 dxc4 18.\We4+ @d7 19.lilc3 lilxg3 20.\Wc2 tf5 21.\Wcl lilxfl 22.@xfl hd4 23.'l:!'dl @es 0-1. 9 ... lilf6 10.b3 0-0 ll.bxc4 dxc4 12.lila3 \Wd5+, Durarbayli-Kharlov, Kazan 2013. 3.. lilf6 .

3...lilc6 4.lilf3 After 4.c4 best is 4...dxc4 (4...d4 5.lilf3 is Chapter 11/Line B). 4... lilf6 5.0-0 ie7 is the Pirc Re­ versed. It is not the subject of this book, but it is a safe and proven way of meeting l.g3. 3 ...c6 4.lilf3 id6 5.c4 lile7 6.0-0 0-0 7.lilc3 lild7 is another solid set-up, which I considered in the previous chapter. 4.lilf3 4.lild2 td6 5.e4 c6 6.lilgf3 is co­ vered in line B. Sometimes White tries the original set-up with 6.lile2, 225

Chapter 14 but it has no advantages over the standard lines. Polzin-Boensch, Berlin 1994, went 6... 0-0 7.0-0 dxe4 8.dxe4 ie6 9.b3 a5 10.liic3 lii a6 ll.ib2 b5. Wbite's passive tactic allows for more active approaches and the best retort to 4.lii d2 is 4...ic5! since it hinders 5.liigf3 in view of 5...e4, and 5.e4 due to 5...dxe4 6.dxe4? liig4 7.liih3 hf2+ ! 8.liixf2 liie3 9.11>\'h5 liic6 ! . Therefore, White has to resort to another passive move - 5.e3, giv­ ing Black a free hand in the centre. He can choose any plan at his liking. 4...td6

A. 6.c4 I offer you now two good continua­ tions to choose from: Al. 6... d4; A2. 6...c6

Al. 6...d4 7.e3 7.liibd2 lii c6 8.a3 a5 9.Zlbl a4. A typical way of discouraging b2-b4. Black's pieces control more space, e.g. 10.11>1'c2 h6+. 7.b4 only weakens the queenside. Black answers 7... Zle8! and gains control of c5:

4 ... liic6 is possible again. 5.0-0 5.c4 d4 or 5...c6 transpose to the main line. 5... 0-0 8.a3 a5 9.b5 lii bd7 10.a4 ib4 ll.ta3 c5, or 8.11>\'b3 a5 9.b5 liibd7 10.liibd2 h6, followed by ...lii c5. 7... c5!? 7... liic6 transposes to Chapter 11/ Line B after 8.exd4 liixd4=.

I'm going to analyse from here the English approach in line A. 6.c4, and the Kl plans with B. 6.liibd2 and C. 6.lii c3, followed up by e2-e4. ? ? t'.

Another option is 7 ...dxe3 8.he3 liic6 9.liic3 Zle8. This position may be objectively balanced, but Black lacks an active plan. Conversely, White may try to display activity on the kingside - 10 .h3 10.a3 if5 ll.b4 a6 12.d4 exd4

l.g3 13.lilxd4 lilxd4 14.hd4 c6 was harmless in 'Movsziszian-Kir. Georgiev, Benasque 2010. 10 ...MS ll.g4 h6 12.!lel, Andria­ sian-Ter Sahakyan, Yerevan 2015.

7..ig5 liJbd7 should transpose to the main line, but Black could also take on c4. 7.a3 resigns the battle for the cen­ tre and gives Black time to bolster his pawn pair with 7...h6 or 7... !le8.

8.exd4 cxd4 7 cxd5 8.lilc3 ...

The only way to play for a win. 8... exd4= leads to a symmetrical struc­ ture. 9.c5

This move order is more clever than 8.�g5 lilbd7 9.lilc3 h6 10 ..txf6 12lxf6 ll.\1:ilb3 d4 12.lild5 lilxd5 13.\1:ilxd5 \1:ilb6 14.a4 �e6 15.\1:ilb5 !lacs when Black was at least equal in Kachei­ shvili-Jobava, Tbilisi 2000. 8... lilc6 The attempt to anticipate �g5 by 8...lilbd7 could be exploited with 9.e4 d4 10.lilb5 �c5 ll.a4. 9..ig5

9 .ic7!? .••

9...hc5 10.lilxe5 �d6 ll.lilc4 .ie7= was eventually drawn in Grego­ Calio, ICCF 2015. The text keeps the game strategical­ ly unbalanced and full oflife. White is somewhat overextended on the queenside. See Grune 32 Venya­ Bereza, email 2013.

A2. 6 .. c6 7.cxd5 .

White cannot rip any dividends from delaying this exchange: 7.lilc3 will face 7...d4 8.liJa4 !le8.

9 . �e7! ..

This surprising retreat allows us to keep the centre fluid. 9 .. $.e6 10 ..txf6 \1:ilxf6 ll.liJd2 d4 12.lilce4 is easier to play with White. After the text White does not have a convincing way to force ...d4 un227

Chapter 14 less he plays e4, which would shut off his only good piece. 10.\!!lb3 could be repelled by 10 ... li:laS. Another way to oppose Black's dominance in the centre is: 10.d4 e4 11.lile5, but then both: u....ie6 12.li:lxc6 bxc6 13.lila4 h6 14.if4 lild7 15.l'lcl l'lc8 16.\!!ld2 l'le8 17.l'lc2 Ms 18.\!!lcl, draw, Steinke­ Gasanov, Lechenicher SchachSer­ ver, 2012, and: 11 ...h6 12 ..txf6 .txf6, Seeman­ Miezis, Tallinn 2005, are fine for ilack. The latter game went 13.l'lcl? ! when 13 ....ixeS! 14.dxeS .ie6 would have even gained some advantage.

B. 6.lilbd2 !
the initiative after 11.\!iic2 a5 12. li:lc4 fil8 13.a4 b5 14.lila3 ia6 15.fill l'leb8. Chekhov proposes as an im­ provement 11.b4, but then 11... li:lb6 12.\!!lc2 c5 13.b5 a6 14.bxa6 l'lxa6 fa­ vours Black. In general, his pieces are all targeted towards the queen­ side so the plan with c3 only plays into his hands. By fianchettoing his bishop, White hopes to mount a kingside attack. 8...a5! 9.a3 lilbd7 10 ..ib2 dxe4 Logical alternatives are 10 ...d4 11.c3 c5 and 10 ...\!!lc7 ll.l'lel dxe4.

11.dxe4 \!!lc7 12.lilh4 12.l'lel does not make sense any­ more - the rook might be needed on the f-file. Black can answer 12 ... bS, followed up by ...a4, ... cS. 12 ...bs 13.lilf5 MS

8.b3 8.l'lel lilbd7 9.c3 aS 10.d4 exd4 ll.li:lxd4 dxe4 12.li:lxe4= annihilates the centre. Perhaps that is the rea­ son why Karpov preferred: 9 ...dxe4!? 10.dxe4 \!!lc7 to take over 228

Black's play on the queenside is eas­ ier than White's attempts on the op­ posite side of the board. See Grune 33 Gabrielian-Riazantsev, Vladi­ vostok 2014.

l.g3 C. 6.lilc3 c6 7.e4

We are faced here with a crucial choice of plans. The engines like 7... d4 8.lile2 c5, but that would mean to withstand a classical King's Indi­ an attack with clear two tempi down and a bishop on d6. While email games bring Black excellent results, I'm far from the thought that the KI is so bad that we should enter it at any cost. At least for practical rea­ sons, it is safer to keep tension in the centre. The next question we should an­ swer is: how much tension are we ready to maintain? The knight is much more active on c3 than it was on d2 in line B. It exerts a sig­ nificant impact on the centre and moves like 7... 1le8 could be met by 8.exd5 cxd5 9.i.g5. That hints the move 7...h6, but it has flip-sides, too. One of them is the possibility of 8.d4 exd4 9.lilxd4 dxe4= which leaves no tension at all. Another op­ tion is 8.lilh4 when Black should be very accurate in order to not fall un­ der attack. A good model to follow is the game Seirawan-Dolmatov, Graz

1978: 8.lilh4 i.c5 9.Vfiel (protecting the h4-knight in the event of future f4 exf4) 9 ...1le8 10.h3 lila6 11.lilf5 lilc7 12.g4 lile6 13.lile2 @h7

Black has covered everything and now he can turn his attention to the queenside. Probably the above-mentioned "threat" to suck out any life from the position with 8.d4 tips the balance in favour of: 7...dxe4 It opens a file to ensure counterplay against a direct pawn storm on the kingside, and stabilises the pawn structure in the centre. 8.dxe4 8.lilxe4 lilxe4 9.dxe4 simplifies the position without changing much its strategic canvas. As in the main line, Black can choose either a stand with ...g6, or with ...lilb8-a6-c5, ... 1le8. Here is an example: Jones-Howell, Halifax 2010: 9...Vffe7 10.lilh4 g6 11.Vffe2 lila6 12.i.e3 i.e6 13.lilf3 f6 14.1lfdl 1lfd8 15.c3 lilc7. 8

•..

lila6!? 229

Chapter 14 Black had to decide how to meet the manoeuvre lilf3-h4-f5. I suggest to simply ignore it and transfer our own knight to e6 via c5 or c7. Another possible approach is to take f5 under control with ...g6: Ricki-Benham, Adelaide 1990, saw 8 ...1/!Ye7 9.lilh4 g6 10.ig5 1'1d8 ll.1/!Ye2 lilbd7 12.1'1adl?! (Strong­ er is 12.f4! @g7 13.f5 ic5+ 14.ffihl h6 15.fxg6 fxg6 16.id2 lilb6 with complex play) 12 ...lilc5 13.1'1d2 lile6 14.ie3, when 14...b5 would have passed the initiative to Black. Nakamura-Harikrishna, Wijk aan Zee 2013, shows another version of this stand: 8...1'1e8 9.1/i!e2 ifS 10.lilh4 g6 11.ig5 ig7

?'lO

12.a4 lilbd7 13.1'1fdl 1/i!e7 14.a5 lilc5 15.h3 ie6. 9.h3 (9.lilh4 ig4=) 9 ... lilc7 10.lilh4 lile6 11.lilf5 ic7 12.ie3 g6

In the stem game Rohde-Browne, USA 1989, White chose to return the knight disgracefully to h4 and became worse. He should have opt­ ed for 13.1/i!xdS 1'1xd8 14.lile7+ @g7 15.lbxcS with a roughly equal posi­ tion.

Chapter 14. 1.g3

Annotated Games

32. Venya - Bereza www.bestlogic.ru 2013

though, as 13 ..ia3 .ia5 14.l'lcl .ic3 also offers Black some initiative.

l.g3 e5 2 .ig2 d5 3.c4 d4 4.d3 lilf6 5.lilt'3 .id6 6.0-0 0-0 7.e3 c5 8.exd4 cxd4

13 hg2 14.li1xg2 °1Nd5+ 15.?Nt'3 ?Nxt'3+ 16.lilgxt'3 b6

•

•••

17.lilb3 9.c5 .ic7 10.b4 .ie6 11.b5 White's advanced pawns are not dangerous since they are not backed up by pieces. I think that quick de­ velopment like 11.l'lel lilbd7 12 ..ia3 (defending c5 against the treat of ... a5) or ll..ig5 lilbd7 12.lilbd2oo was more to the point.

17.cxb6 axb6 18.a4 looks attractive for White in view of the ''bad" bish­ op on c7. In fact that bishop is quite "good" since it protects both black pawns while the d3-pawn would turn very sensitive once Black puts his knights to c5 and d5. The a4pawn is also a potential target in view of the idea ... l'la7, ...l'le-a8.

11....id5 12.lilbd2 l'le8 13.lilg5 White decides to trade light-squared bishops in order to enable lild2-c4, but that leads to destruction of his queenside. It is not easy to give a better advice

17... a6 18.cxb6 hb6 19.l'lel lilbd7 20.bxa6 lild5! 21..id2 f6 The d3-pawn is a cause of constant concern and White cannot get rid of it. Still, his biggest problem is the 231

Chapter 14 lack of space. If you cast a look at the next diagram, you11 notice the siguificauce of Black's pawn centre. It helps his pieces to dominate the board. 22.!lecl !lxa6 23.!lc6 !la7 24.a4 lll e7 25.!lc4 ic7 26.!lb4 @f7 27.lll el lll c6 28.!k4 !lbS 29.!lxc6 !lxb3 30.a5 lllbS 31.!lc5 l!le6 32.!lacl id6 33.!lcS @d5 34.@fl. lll a6 35.!ld8 lll c5 36.l!le2 f5 37.f3

should not underestimate his re­ sources. Look at the blitz game Fedoseev-Bologan, Berlin 2015: 8...lila6 9.ib2 lll c7 10.h3 a5 11.a3 h6 12.!lel dxe4 13.dxe4 b5 14.lllfl Wie7 15.lile3t g6 16.Wicl h5 17.lilh4 ic5 18.@hl li:lh7 19.li:lf3 li:lg5?

20.lilxe5 lilxh3 21.lild3 ib6 22.li:lf5! and the charged rifle (the b2bishop) fired the decisive shot 22 . .� 23.Wih6 f6 24.exf5 1-0. .

37 !lab7

s ...a5 9.a3 lllbd7 10.tb2 dxe4 11.dxe4 Wic7 12.li:lh4 b5 13.lllf5

Black's rooks threaten to invade the third or the second rank.

MS

••.

38.!laS e4 39.a6? 39 exd3+ 0-1

(39.fxe4+)

.•.

33. Gabrielian - Riazantsev Vladivostok 2014 1.e4 c6 2.d3 d5 3.llld2 e5 4.lllgf3 id6 5.g3 lllf6 6.tg2 0-0 7.0-0 !leS 8.b3 In principle, this is a logical ap­ proach - White develops his bish­ op towards the enemy king. You

232

Black does not have any weakness­ es on the kingside and is very sta­ ble there. On the other part of the board, he has a clear plan to open lines with 14.li:le3 a4 15.b4 c5. White might have had the idea of opening the f-file, but now it tran-

l.g::S spires that Black's counterplay is faster - 14.lilhla4 15.f4 h6! 16.illf3 b4 17.1lel axb3 18.12Jxe5 bxa3. White decides to counter the enemy activity in advance.

However, it is White to move and he can cut across his opponent's hopes with 26.e5! he5 27.l'leL The tables have turned and White has activated all his forces - for a mere pawn.

14.c4 i.b7 15.�c2 b4 16.axb4 axb4 17.1lxa8 1lxa8 18. illf3 g6 19.ille3 1le8 20.h3?!

26.�c5? 1ld8+ 27.l'ldl i.cS 28.e5 he5 29.l'lel i.g7 30.i.d5

Intending illg4. That would have been a decent positional idea if White had the more active piec­ es. In the current situation, it only wastes time and makes a new weak­ ness. Although Black has more space on the queenside, the position would be close to equal after 20.ill el illc5 2Lill d3.

30...i.e6! 31.he6?

20 ... illc5 21.illg4 illxg4 22.hxg4

Now 22 ...h6! 23.l'ldl i.c8 would have found employment to the doz­ ing b7-bishop. 22 ...i.g7 23.�d2 ill xb3 (23... 12Jxe4!) 24.�xb4 illd4 25.12Jxd4 exd4 Perhaps Black assessed this posi­ tion in his favour in view of his bet­ ter pieces after a possible ...c6-c5.

Trading c4 for the c6-pawn would give more chances for a draw. For instance, the rook endgame should not be a problem to hold. The bish­ ops complicate White's task, but af­ ter the exchange on e6, he is just lost. 31...fxe6 32.1lxe6 d3-+ 33.1lxc6 �7 34.i.cl �bl 35.l'lcS �xcl + 36.lilg2 1lxc8 37.�xcS+ i.fS 38.�e6+ lilg7 39.�d7+ ©gS 40.�e6+ lilg7 41.�d7+ ©f6 42.�d4+ ©f7 43.�d5+ ©eS 44.�c6+ ©dS 45.�d5+ ©c7 46.�f7+ ©b6 47.�xfS �xc4 48.�d6+ ©b5 49.©f3 �c2 50.�bS+ ©c4 51.�c7+ ©b3 52.�b6+ ©c3 53.�a5+ ©b2 54. ©e3 �c3 55.�a4 ©cl 56.f4 g5 57.©f3 h5 58.gxh5 g4+ 59.©xg4 d2 60.�b5 d1=1'1'+ 0-1 233

Index of Variations

The English Opening 1.c4 e5 2.a3 c6 136 2.d3 ib4+ 135 (2 ...f5 140) 2.lllf3 e4 3.llld4 lllf6 138 (3...ILJc6 138) 2.g3 c6 3.lllc3 d5 (3...lllf6 64) 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.d4 e4 50 3.ig2 d5 50; 3...lllf6 15 3.lil:f3 e4 4.lild4 'm>6 44 (4...d5 44) 5.lilb3 45 5.e3 lllf6 45; 5.lll c2 45 3.d4 e4 4.lilc3 (4.d5 49; 4.lllh3 d5 5.lll c3 h6! 53) 4 d5 50 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.'1;\'b3 50 (6.lilh3 50) 5.ig2 ib4!? 51 (5 ... lllf6 22) 5.lllh3 h6 53 (5 ... ILJf6 53) 2 lilf6 3. .tg2 c6 4.'1;\'a4 15; 4.d3 15; 4.e415 4.lll c3 d5 5.cxd5 16 (5.d4 e4 22) 4.lllf3 e4 5.d4 '1;\'b6 (5...d5 18) 6.lllc2 19 (6.e3 19; 6.lllb3 20) 4.d4 e4 5.lll c3 (5.d5 22; 5.ig5 22) 5...d5 6.ig5 22 (6.cxd5, 6.lllh3 22) 6 ... lllbd7 (6 ...ib4 23) 7.cxd5 (7.lllh3 25) 7...cxd5 8.f3 25 8.e3 27 8.'1;\'b3 id6 9.'1;\'b5 28 9.f3 31 9.e3 31 2.lilc3 lilf6 3.g3 c6 4.ig2 d5 5.d4 e4 21 (5.cxd5 cxd5 6.\Wb3 16) 4.lil:f3 e4 5.lild4 'l;l'b6 (5 ... d5 64) 6.lll c2 64 6.lllb3 64 6.e3 65 4.d4 exd4 66 (4...e4 5.ig5 ib4 66) •••

..•

234

3.lilf3 lilc6 4.d4 exd4 75 4.a3 e4 76 4.d3 tb4 77 4.e4 tb4 80 4.e3 tb4 5.Wc2 (5.12ld5 87) 5...txc3 6.Wxc3 88 6.bxc3 92 4.g3 tb4 5.lild.5 e4 103 (5...tc5 103) 5.tg2 0-0 6.0-0 e4 (6 ...d6 117) 7.12lg5 (7.lilel 127) 7...hc3 8.bxc3 '1e8 9.f3 e3!? 119 9 exf3 10.lilxf3 d5 121 10 ...We7 124 •••

The Reti 1.lilf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 f6 4.Wa4+ 148, 4.tb2 148 4.d3 148 4.e3 e5 5.c5 a5 6.Wa4+ 149 (6.tb5+ 149, 6.tc4 149) 4.12la3 e5 5.12lc2 12la6 151 3.e3 lilc6 (3 ...c5 161) 4.exd4 162 4.b4?! 165 3.g3 c5 4.e3 12lc6 5.exd4 cxd4 6.tg2 e5 7.d3 td6! 177 (7... 12lf6 177) 3 lilc6! 4.tg2 e5 5.d3 (5.0-0 e4! 188) 5...tb4+ 179 (5...12lf6 179) 2.g3 c6 3.c4 tg4 4.Wb3 txf3 196 (4...Wb6 196) 4.tg2 e6 5.Wb3 198 5.0-0 199 5.cxd5 exd5 202 (5...txf3 208) 3.�g2 �g4 4.0-0 e6 5.d4 217 5.b3 218 5.d3 219 1.g3 e5 2 .ig2 d5 3.d3 (3.12lf3?! e4 225) 3 lilf6 4.lilf3 (4.12ld2 225) 4 td6 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d4 226 6...c6 227 6.lilbd2Eie8 7.e4 c6 228 6.lilc3 c6 7.e4 229 •••

•

•••

••.

Forward Chess

II .

.

Most Chess Stars books are also available in the interactive electronic for­ mat ForwardChess. It is a free application which presents the books as they look in print. Furthermore, it also provides a board which displays the text moves or your own analysis. Read more information about Forwardchess at: http://chess-stars.com/Forwardchess.html Here is the link to the iOS version: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/forwardchess/id543005909?mt=8 This is the Android version: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.forwardchess You can also use Forwardchess on Windows desktops and notebooks through the Android emulation from http://www.bluestacks.com/

236