Aveskulov - Attack with Black 2012.pdf

Attack with Black Valery Aveskulov

First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 2012 Copyright© Valery Aveskulov 2012 The right of Valery Aveskulov to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without prior permission of the publisher. In particular, no part of this publication may be scanned, transmitted via the Internet or uploaded to a website without the pub­ lisher's permission. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damage. ISBN-13: 978-1-906454-39-5 ISBN- 10: 1-906454-39-6 DISTRIBUTION:

Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN, England. Tel +44 (0)20 8986 4854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 5821. E-mail: [email protected] Gambit Publications Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN, England. E-mail: [email protected] Website (regularly updated): www.gambitbooks.com Edited by Graham Burgess Typeset by Petra Nunn Cover image by Wolff Morrow Printed in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King's Lynn 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Gambit Publications Ltd Managing Director: Chess Director: Editorial Director: German Editor: Webmaster:

Murray Chandler GM Dr John Nunn GM Graham Burgess FM Petra Nunn WPM Dr Helen Milligan WPM

Contents Introduction

4

Symbols

6

White Avoids the Benko 1

Diemer, Veresov and Trompowsky

7

2

Colle, Zukertort, London and Torre Systems

22

3

Anti-Benoni 4lt:Jc3

37

4

Blumenfeld Gambit

42

5

Blumenfeld Gambit: 5 .tg5

55

6

1 d4 lZ'lf6 2 c4 c5: 3 e3 and 3 dxc5

65

7

Vaganian Gambit

80

8

Vaganian Gambit: 7 e3

92

The Benko Gambit 9

Benko Gambit Declined

104

10

Benko: Zaitsev, Dlugy and Modern Lines

120

11

Benko Gambit: 5 b6

137

12

Benko Accepted: Introduction and Rare Lines

148

13

Benko Accepted: King Walk

158

14

Benko Accepted: Fianchetto Lines

177

15

Benko Main Line with 10 J:.b1

192

Understanding the Benko

16

Dream Positions for Black

200

17

Positions to Avoid

207

18

Tactical Exercises

212

Solutions

217

Index of Variations

223

I ntroduction

The aim of this book is to present a complete repertoire for Black against 1 d4. The cornerstones of the repertoire are two gambits that are aggressive but positionally motivated: the Benko Gambit and the Blumenfeld Gambit. While seeking out lines that give Black attacking chances, I have also striven to recommend only those variations which are theoretically sound and reliable. Throughout the book, I have attempted to explain the most relevant strategic concepts for both players, cater for tricky move-orders, and to analyse new moves and ideas for both sides. I hope that by covering logical but untested ideas for White, I have to some degree 'future­ proofed' the book. But why did I decide to write this book on this topic, and at this point in time? Allow me a brief digression. Our generation has the honour to live in the computer era. Besides the obvious advantages, it also puts certain duties on us; this applies to practically all aspects of life, and chess is no exception. In the 1960s and 1970s, top chess-players spent months studying an opening to find new ideas, and just to gather relevant material they had to subscribe to many chess magazines and manually assimilate all the data. If somebody played a strong novelty, even in a major event, it could take months before it became well-known to the chess community. Nowadays we can learn the main line of any opening in an hour using a database (though this does not mean we can play it well!). If a novelty is played in a top tournament, a good chess-player watching it live online can figure out even before the game has ended whether it is a really strong idea or if it's just a one-time bomb to surprise an oppo­ nent. The speed at which information travels is amazing and we need to take this into account when choosing our openings. I feel it makes sense to have some lines that are special to us, that we have prepared in ways that cannot be replicated by our opponents working with their computer in the few hours before they face us. But which sort of openings should we study: sharp and fashionable or rare and half-correct? Poor opening choices can ruin your efforts in chess. If you like to play quiet positions with pawn-chains, then the Sicilian Dragon shouldn't be in your repertoire. And if you are a good tactical player, forget about defending the Queen's Gambit Declined with Black; learn the King's Indian or Benko Gambit! It will immediately help you to get better results. From my experiences as a coach of players of a wide variety of ages, I have discovered that many players have little notion of how to study a new opening

INTRODUCTION

5

variation. They have a limited grasp of ChessBase, don't know how to use an en­ gine effectively and as a result their repertoire barely gets them to move 10 with­ out a mishap. I assisted them first with advice about which opening lines to choose, and then I offered some brief lines of that or another variation. Later I wrote some opening articles that started to appear in chess magazines. Even­ tually, the idea formed: "Maybe I could write a book on the opening to assist even more players." The question "Which opening should it be about?" was solved very quickly. When I was 7 or 8, a coach presented me with a handwritten 1 70-page mono­ graph that unfortunately has never been published. It was dedicated to the Benko Gambit! If I had been asked at that point to explain why I should sacrifice my b-pawn, I could hardly have done so, but I started to sacrifice it and I loved the games I got. Later when I began to face stronger opponents, my Benko games became more difficult. I took up openings like the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Gambit Declined in order to resist against solid players, but against weaker play­ ers I still preferred to play the opening from my childhood. As I became stronger, I began to understand more and more about the Benko, but there was never time to devote serious study to my favourite opening. But my students often asked about Benko lines, and I found myself increasingly drawn into the subject. Grad­ ually, more and more Benko analysis appeared on my computer. When I asked Graham Burgess (Editorial Director of Gambit Publications Ltd) whether a Benko guide might be of interest, he asked me if I could extend it into a complete open­ ing repertoire against 1 d4. I readily agreed with his idea since most of the other variations were also worked out on my computer and I already had many inter­ esting ideas for how to complete the repertoire. That is how the idea of this book was born. So, if you feel at home with aggressive gambit chess, this book is for you! The last three chapters of the book feature instructive material on the Benko Gambit: positions you should aim for, ones to avoid, and positions for solving (both stra­ tegic and tactical). If you are new to the Benko, you may wish to study these chapters before anything else - the more detailed discussion should make more sense then! I sought to make this book interesting for both professional players and ama­ teurs. There are a great many new ideas that should be viable in high-level games, while there are also plenty of verbal explanations. I very much hope you will like the results of my work. Also I shall be very thankful if you send me your feedback, ideas, questions or even complaints to me by email: [email protected]. Finally, I would like to thank Graham Burgess, who professionally and coop­ eratively assisted me throughout the whole process of writing this book; and Al­ exander Moiseenko, who helped me to believe that I can analyse openings at a high level.

6

A ITACK WITH BLACK

And many thanks to my darling wife Irina who gave us a boy, Ivan, on 9th March 2012 and made me unbelievably happy! Valery Aveskulov July 2012

Symbols X

+ ++ # !! !? ?! ? ?? +± ;!;

=

+ -+ Ch tt 1-0 lf2- lh 0-1

+

(n) (D)

capture check double check checkmate brilliant move good move interesting move dubious move bad move blunder White is winning White is much better White is slightly better the game is equal Black is slightly better Black is much better Black is winning championship team event the game ends in a win for White the game ends in draw the game ends in a win for Black nth match game see next diagram

1 Diemer, Ve resov a nd Trom powsky 1 d4

w

liJf6 (D)

A)

2 tt:Jc3 dS 3 e4?

This is a form of the Blackmar­ Diemer Gambit, a very rare opening at higher levels but it has many adher­ ents among club-level players. An objective evaluation of this gambit is 'not correct' . Its general idea is to give up a pawn for rapid development - a laudable enough aim, but right here this idea can hardly be recom­ mended. Black takes the pawn practi­ cally for free. 3 ...tt:Jxe4 4 tt:Jxe4 dxe4 (D)

Our main lines in this book start af­ ter 2 liJf3 and especially 2 c4. How­ ever, White can direct the game in a w very different direction on his second move, and this chapter is devoted to these lines. In increasing order of im­ portance, we have: 7 A: 2 tt:Jc3 dS 3 e4? 8 B : 2 liJc3 dS 3 ..tgS C: 2 ..tgS 12 Given our repertoire preferences, the move-order 2 c3 gives us no prob­ lems as we simply meet it with 2 ... d5. None of White's continuations give After the rare 2 g3, Black can reply him sufficient compensation. 2 ... c5 3 d5 b5 4 ..tg2 d6, with active 5 ..tc4 play. Or:

AITA CK WITH BLACK

8

a) 5 ..lte3 i.f5 6 g4 ..ltg6 7 lt:\e2 (Ferreira-Chauca, Rio de Janeiro 2008) 7 ...lt:\c6 8 lDf4 'ied6 + intending ...0-0-0 and ... e5. b) 5 i.f4 lt:\c6 6 c3 e6 7 'i¥c2 f5 ! 8 0-0-0 i.d6 + M.Pfeifer-Neckar, Czech Team Ch 2001/2. c) With 5 f3 e5! Black gives the pawn back in order to get a develop­ ment advantage. 6 dxe5 (6 fxe4? 'ii'h4+ -+; 6 ..lte3 exd4 7 'iiixd4 'i!Vxd4 8 ..ltxd4 lt:\c6 9 i.b5 i.d7 10 i.c3 exf3 I l lt:\xf3 0-0-0 12 0-0-0 f6 + Helin-Yurenok, Caleta 2012) 6 ...'iiix dl + 7 �xdl i.f5 8 f4 lt:\c6 9 c3 0-0-0+ 10 �e1 i.c5 +. 5 lt:\c6 6 d5 lt:\a5! This new move improves over Abbasifar-Tanaka, Istanbul Olympiad 2000, and forces the exchange of the light-squared bishop. 7 'i!ie2 (7 i.e2? e6 +; 7 i.b5+? c6 8 dxc6 'i!ixd 1 + 9 �xdl bxc6 +) 7 ... lt:\xc4 8 iixc4 e6 9 dxe6 ..ltxe6 10 'ii'xe4 'ii'd5 ! I I 'ii'xd5 i.xd5 + gives Black a very pleasant endgame with the bishop-pair. .••

B)

2 lt:\c3 d5 3 i.g5 (D)

This is the most common move­ order to reach the Richter-Veresov At­ tack (we shall call it the 'Veresov' for short). Other versions are 1 d4 d5 2 lt:\c3 lt:\f6 3 i.g5, I d4 lt:\f6 2 Ji.g5 d5 3 lt:\c3 and I lt:\c3 lDf6 2 d4 d5 3 i.g5. The opening was named after the Ger­ man International Master Kurt Richter (who played it from the 1920s to the 1940s) and later the Soviet master Gavriil Veresov ( 1950s-1970s ). The Veresov has never been popular at the highest levels, though some top players have employed it on occasion. It has appealed mostly to maverick players such as Spassky, Tal, Larsen, Bronstein, Miles, Alburt and Moroze­ vich, who have never objected to irreg­ ular play on the board. Nowadays you can find this variation in games of such GMs as Hector, Chemyshov, Khachian and Miladinovic. White has two main ideas: the first is to damage Black's pawn-structure with i.xf6 (not considered so danger­ ous nowadays) and the second is to make a pawn advance in the centre with f3 and e4 (often after 0-0-0). 3 lt:\bd7 (D) This is the most popular response to the Veresov, as Black prepares a strong response to the e4 plan, while also avoiding doubled f-pawns. Now: 9 B l : 4 iid3 10 B2: 4 e3 B 3 : 4 f3 10 12 B4: 4lt:\f3 The third of these, preparing the e4 advance, is the most consistent with White's aims in the Veresov, but ...

DIEMER, VERESO V AND TROMPOWSKY

9

bl) 5 iLf4 c6 6 f3 b5 7 a3 trans­ poses to note 'b' to White's 5th move in Line B3. w b2) 5 iL.h4 c6 6 f3 e6! (this quiet move prevents White's e4 advance) 7 e3 (7 e4? tLlxe4 + Misanovic-D.Ivan­ isevic, Belgrade {women} 1990) 7 ... b5 (Black starts an attack on the queenside that is effective since White hasn't created any tension in the centre) 8 ..if2 a6 (Black adopts a French De­ fence plan that is especially good with white pawns on e3 and f3) 9 tt:Jge2 c5 doesn't work very well if Black plays 10 g4 iL.b7 I I iL.g2 �c8 + Moroze­ precisely. The fourth is the most popu­ vich-Ehl vest, Podolsk 1993. lar move. 81) There are a few alternatives: 4 'iWd3 a) White can sacrifice a pawn with White prepares the e4 advance, but 4 e4?! tLlxe4 5 tLlxe4 dxe4 6 f3 but this Black has a nice way to hinder this clearly can't work out well. 6 ... h6 and thrust: now: 4 ...h6 5 iLh4 c6! (D) a1) 7 iLh4 loses control of the e3square: 7 ... c5 ! 8 dxc5 (8 d5? 'iWb6 9 l:tb1 g5 10 iL.g3 iL.g7 1 1 c3 'iWg6 + Gomes-Epishin, Las Palmas 1997; w Black has kept the extra pawn) 8 ... e3 9 'iWd4 e5 ! +. a2) 7 iL.f4 (Lodi-G.Kovacs, Hun­ garian Team Ch 1999/00) 7 ... c6 (as is often the case, the simplest reply to a gambit is to give back the pawn for rapid development) 8 fxe4 e5 ! (and Black can even sacrifice one of his own) 9 dxe5 'i¥a5+ 10 'iVd2 'iWxd2+ 1 1 Wxd2 tLlc5 1 2 ..id3 ..ie6 1 3 tt:Jf3 0-0-0 with ideas of ...tt:Jxe4+ and ...tt:Ja4. 6 tLlf3 Or: b) White can also play 4 'iWd2 in­ tending 0-0-0, f3 and e4 - a delayed a) 6 e4? is not good now because of form of the idea we see in Line B3. a geometric idea: 6 ...tt:Jxe4 7 tt:Jxe4 4 ...h6 and now: dxe4 8 'iWxe4? (it's better not to take

AITA CK WITH BLACK

10

this pawn, even though 8 'ili'd2 tt'lb6 leaves Black with a clear extra pawn) 8 ... g5 9 i.g3 'i!Va5+ 10 c3 f5 1 1 'i!Vf3 f4 + and Black wins a bishop. b) 6 0-0-0?! invites a quick attack on the white king: 6 ... b5 ! 7 tt'lf3 (Ge­ lashvili-Halkias, Erevan Zonal 2000) 7 ... b4! 8 tt'lbi (8 tt'la4? 'ti'a5 9 b3 i.a6 10 'ife3 i.b5 +) 8 ...'ili'a5 9 a3 e6 +. 6 'i!Vas 7 tt'l d2 7 0-0-0? tt'le4! +. The c3-knight is tied to the defence of a2. 7 a3 e6 8 tt'ld2 (Sengupta-N.Mame­ dov, Hastings 2007/8) 8 . .'it'b6!? (a new move) 9 0-0-0 e5 ! 10 e3 ii.d6 +. 7 'ili'b6 8 0-0-0 eS ! 9 dxeS tt'l xeS 10 'i!Vg3 Now: a) Giannakoulopoulos-Dvoirys, Ano Liosia 2000 featured 10 ... tt'lg6?! I I ii.xf6 gxf6, but now 12 tt'lb3!? (in­ tending e4) 12 ...f5 13 e3 ;;\; would have led to a position with a weird pawn­ structure for Black. b) It is safer to avoid the doubling of the pawns: 10 ...tt'lfd7!? Il f4 tt'lg6 12 e4 d4! (the natural 12 ...tt'lxh4? leads to problems due to 13 exd5!; e.g., 13 ... tt'lf5 14 'i!Ve1 + 'iti>d8 15 tt'lc4 'ili'c7 16 dxc6! with a very strong attack) 13 tt'le2 c5. Black has the ... tt'lxh4 idea in hand and has avoided problems with the king in the centre. .••

that there is no guard on the queenside - the bishop is on the other side of the wall. s 'ifb6 6 .litbt White can't defend the b2-pawn in­ directly by 6 a3? because of 6 ... h6 7 i.h4 tt'lg4! 8 'iVc1 g5 ! 9 i.g3 (9 fxg5 hxg5 I 0 i.xg5 tt'lxh2 {intending to play ... tt'lf3+} 1 1 'ifi>d1 e5 + with a strong initiative) 9 ... tt'ldf6 10 tt'lf3 tt'lh5 1 1 i.e2 i.g7 + intending to take on f4 and then on d4. ...

6 e6 7 tt'l f3 (D) •••

•••

Now I recommend 7 ... i.b4! (a new move, improving over Napoli-Mrsevic, Nis 2008) 8 ii.d3 c5 9 0-0 c4! 10 i.e2 i.xc3 1 1 bxc3 'ii'a5 12 tt'le5 tt'le4 +. 83) 4 f3

This aggressive interpretation of the Veresov turns out not to work well. 5 tt'lf3 h6 6 i.h4 transposes to Line 4 c6! B4. This move is important, as it pre­ With the text-move, White seeks pares a strong reply to White's e4 ad­ slow manoeuvring play in the Stone­ vance. wall style. However, the difference is 5 e4?! 82) 4 e3 c6! 5 f4? !

..•

DIEMER, VERESOV AND TROMPOWSKY

White pushes on regardless. This leads to the most interesting play, but it is objectively better to delay this ad­ vance with 5 'i¥d2. Then 5 ... b5 ! is a strong and typical idea. Black starts queenside play thanks to the fact that White has created no tension in the centre. Besides the obvious idea of playing ... b4, Black prepares an out­ post on c4. Then: a) 6 e4 involves a pawn sacrifice: 6 ... b4 7 lt:Jd1 dxe4 8 lt:Jf2 (8 'iVxb4 e5 9 �a4 exd4 10 'iWxc6 l:tb8 1 1 .i.xf6 'iYxf6 12 'ifxe4+ �d8! + Summer­ scale-Miezis, Cappelle la Grande 1999; Black intends to play ....1i.b4+ and ...l:.e8) 8 ... e3 ! (disrupting White's de­ velopment) 9 i.. xe3 e6 10 .i.d3 .1i.e7 1 1 lZJe4 lZJd5 12 i.. g5 0-0 13 ll'le2 c5 Heyken-Kengis, Hamburg 1995. Black has comfortable play; the f3-pawn looks ugly. b) 6 a3 h6 7 .1i.f4 e6 8 e4 lt:Jb6 9 lt:Jh3 .te7 10 lt:Jf2 a5 is equal, Ochoa­ Rivas, Medina del Campo 1980. Black has a good version of the French De­ fence. =

5 dxe4 6 fxe4 (D) •..

11

6 e5! •.•

Black grabs dark squares in the cen­ tre. 7 dxe5 White can't hold the dark squares by 7 lt:Jf3 because of 7 ... 1!i'b6 8 dxe5 'i¥xb2 9 i..d2 (9 :b1 'ti'xc3+ 10 i..d2 'iWc5 1 1 exf6 lt:Jxf6 + Berges-Prie, Fouesnant 1 997; White has no com­ pensation for the pawn) 9 ... lt:Jg4 10 Ilb1 'iVa3 II e6 fxe6 12 lZJg5 lZJde5 +, when Black is a pawn up. 7 'iVa5 ! This is the main point of Black's play. 8 i..xf6 Or: a) White can win a pawn by 8 exf6 'i!Vxg5 9 fxg7 i..xg7, but Black's total control of the dark squares promises him the better chances. For example, 10 'iVd2 �xd2+ 1 1 �xd2 lt:Jc5 12 .1i.d3 .1i.e6 13 lt:Jf3 0-0-0 14 �e2 b5 15 a3 a5 + Alburt-Tal, USSR Ch, Baku 1972. b) 8 'iYd2lZJxe5 9 0-0-0 .i.e6 10 lt:Jf3 (Vooremaa-Bronstein, Tallinn 1981) 10....i.b4 +. White's pawn-structure will be terrible after ... i..xc3. 8 gxf6 White is fighting to avoid a very se­ rious disadvantage: a) 9 e6 fxe6 10 i..c4 i.. a3 ! (a typi­ cal tactic) 1 1 �cl (Vallieres-Lesiege, Quebec City 2004) 1 1 ...'i\Yxc3+! 12 bxc3 i..xc 1 13 l::txc 1 lt:Jc5 ! 14 i.d3 .l:.g8 15 'ifi>f2 e5 +intending ... i..e6. b) 9 exf6 .i.a3! (the strongest move, again emphasizing the weakness of White's dark squares) 10 'i!Vcl lt:Jxf6 1 1 i..d3 lt:Jg4! (intending a double attack by ... 'i\Yb6) 12 h3 (12 bxa3? allows .•.

...

A ITACK WITH BLACK

12

Black a very strong attack: 12 ...1'ixc3+ 13 �e2 'i¥d4 14 tt:lh3 l:tg8 + Brauer­ Crosa Coil, Mendoza 2004) 12 ...1'ib6! 13 tt:ld1 �b4+ 14 c3 tt:le5 15 �e2 �e7 leaves White's position badly dam­ aged. 84)

4 tt:lf3 Thi� is the number one choice for White although it does not fit with the word 'Attack' in the name of the opening: White plays solid but pas­ sive chess. Naturally, this type of de­ velopment doesn't put much pressure on Black. 4 b6 Black immediately determines the position of White's bishop. 5 .i.h4 5 .i.f4 e6 (5 ... c6 allows White to support the e4 advance with 6 1'id3) 6 e3 (now 6 'i¥d3 can be met by 6 ... c5 ! =) and now 6 ... a6! is the most aggres­ sive. Black prevents tt:lb5 and prepares to seize space on the queenside. 7 �d3 c5 8 0-0 b5 9 .l:.e1 �e7 10 tt:le5 �b7 1 1 tt:lxd7 'ii'xd7 12 dxc5 �xeS 13 �e5 1'ie7 = Mestrovic-A.Kovacevic, Nova Gorica 2004. Black has solved all his problems. 5 c6 5 ... e6 can lead to a strange position: 6 e4 g5 7 .i.g3 tt:lxe4 8 tt:lxe4 dxe4 9 tt:le5 �g7 10 h4 with complicated play. 6 e3 6 'i¥d3 transposes to Line B 1. 6 ... e6 7 �d3 �e7 8 0-0 0-0 (D) Black has fully equalized. For example: ...

••.

a) 9 �xf6?! tt:lxf6 10 e4 c5 ! gave Black a slight advantage in Deriabin­ Moiseenko, Ukrainian Team Ch, Al­ ushta 2005. Black opens lines for his bishops. b) 9 .l:r.e 1 c5 1 0 tt:le5 tt:lxe5 1 1 dxe5 tt:ld7 12 ii.g3 (Emodi-Groszpeter, Hun­ garian Team Ch 2002/3) and here I propose 12 ... a6!? intending ... b5. The position after 13 a4 'ii'c7 14 f4 c4 15 �e2 �b4 is rather unclear but I prefer Black. c) 9 tt:le2 b6 10 c3 .i.b7 1 1 .l:te1 c5 = Gukasian-Zarnicki, Internet blitz 2004. C)

2 �g5 (D)

This move defines the Trompowsky Attack. It is named after the Brazil­ ian player Octavio Trompowsky, who played it in the 1930s and 1940s. In modern times, the opening received more widespread popularity on ac­ count of the efforts of players such as Lev Alburt, Vlastimil Hort, Konstan­ tin Chernyshov, Igor Miladinovic and especially Julian Hodgson.

DIEMER, VERESOV AND TROMPOWSKY

13

is the easiest way to get a safe posi­ tion, rather than opening the h-file for White. Black will methodically com­ plete his development while the h­ pawn's advance looks irrelevant. 4 liJd2 lLlxd2 5 'iWxd2 .tf5 6 e3 h6 7 .tf4 e6 8 lL\f3 .i.d6 9 .td3 .txd3 10 'iWxd3 lL\c6 II c3 'iWe7 = Galego-Ziiger, Eu­ ropean Team Ch, Haifa 1989. Cl) 3 .i.h4 c5

The primary idea of 2 .i.g5 is to take on f6, doubling Black's pawns. White will then seek a slow manoeuv­ ring game: he will restrict Black's dark-squared bishop with pawns on c3, d4 and e3, and put his bishop on d3, and his knights on d2 and e2. The plan is that the knights will prove more nimble than the black bishops in this scenario. Although Black has reli­ able ways to handle this set-up, it is more in keeping with the aim of our repertoire to cut across White's de­ signs with an active move: 2 lL\e4 This leads to concrete positions. White will seek to gain time by attack­ ing this knight, but Black aims to make use of its influence in the centre. Now: C l : 3 .th4 13 C2: 3 .i.f4 15 The bishop retreat to f4 is the main move, but in addition to the alterna­ tive of dropping it back to h4, White can also support it with his h-pawn, odd though 3 h4 appears. Then 3...d5 •••

Naturally, Black attacks the centre. 4 f3 Or: a) 4 lLld2 'ifa5 5 c3 lL\xd2 6 'i!Vxd2 cxd4 7 cxd4 'iVxd2+ 8 �xd2 d5 offers White absolutely nothing: 9 e3 lLlc6 1 0 lLle2 e6 1 1 lLlc3 .i.d7 12 .i.e2 i..d6 13 .l:.hcl 0-0 14 lLlb5 .i.b8 = Rausis­ Inkiov, Gausdal 1989. b) 4 dxc5 lLlxc5 5 lL\c3 lL\c6 6 lLlf3 (6 e4?! reaches a kind of Sicilian, but the bishop on h4 appears awkward: 6 ...g6 7 .tb5 .tg7 8 lL\ge2 a6 9 .i.xc6 bxc6, and Black was slightly better in the game Sazhinov-Bocharov, Tomsk 2006) 6...g6 7 lLld5 .i.g7 8 c3 d6 9 e3 0-0 10 .i.b5 .l:le8 =. Black has no prob­ lems. c) 4 d5?! is dubious due to the striking manoeuvre 4 ...'iVb6 5 'ifc1 g5 ! 6 .i.g3 .tg7 7 c3 'i!Vh6! (a key move: Black exchanges off the g3bishop in excellent circumstances) 8 .i.xb8 (8 lLlh3 d6 9 lLld2 lLlxg3 10 fxg3 'ii'g6 + Rossetto-Sanguinetti, Buenos Aires 1975) 8 ... l:.xb8 9 liJd2 lLlf6 I 0 e4 0-0 1 1 .i.d3 d6 + Glek-Kharitonov, Vilnius 1984. 4 g5 5 fxe4 gxh4 (D) •••

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

14

w

6 e3?!

I am giving this as the main line only due to its great popularity. In fact, I think it's a poor move that lets Black seize the advantage. Other moves: a) 6 lt:Jc3?! allows Black to isolate White's e2- and e4-pawns. 6 ... cxd4 7 'iVxd4 l:[g8 8 e5 lt:Jc6 9 'ifxh4 lt:Jxe5 10 0-0-0 (Teske-Kocwin, Guben 2008) 10 .. .'i!i'b6! + intending to exchange queens by .. .'i!Vh6+. White's isolated e-pawn provides Black with a long­ lasting advantage. b) 6 c3!? is not the most popular move, but it looks clearly the most logical. White avoids isolated pawns on the e-file and does not weaken any new squares. There is limited practical experience here; the main line so far is 6 . .'i¥b6, but I prefer to offer some­ thing new and interesting. One idea is 6 ... i..h6!?, but I'll focus on 6 ... d5 !?, blowing open the centre to provide more lines for his bishops. Then: b1) 7 e5? is an attempt to keep the game closed, but it doesn't work well. 7 . ..ti::Jc6 8 lt:Jf3 �b6 9 'ifb3 (9 b3?! i..h6 + gives Black a strong initiative

thanks to the absence of a pawn on f2) 9 ... cxd4 10 'ii'xb6 axb6 1 1 cxd4 i..h6 12 lt:Jc3 lt:Jb4 13 d8 15 �f2 'ifxb1 16 'ilg8 �e8 17 lt:Jf3 +-) 10 'i!kxh4 lt:Jxc5 1 1 lt:Jd2 and in this irregular position it is useful for Black to exchange queens to get more power for his bishops: 1 l ...'ilb6!? 12 lt:Jc4 'ifh6 13 'ifxh6 i..xh6 with obvi­ ous compensation for the pawn. b3) 7 exd5 'tlfxd5 8 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6. As this position has never been played in practice, I shall show just an example line. Hopefully, new games will shed more light on this position. 9 'ili'b3 c4 10 �c2 i..f5 1 1 e4! (this tactical motif enables White to avoid coming under pressure) 1 l ...i.. xe4 12 i.. xc4 'ili'f5 13 'ili'e2 i.. xf3 14 gxf3 .i.h6 is somewhat unclear, but Black should be fine. 6 ... i.. h 6! 7 �f2 This has been the main move so far, but such play definitely can't be cor­ rect. Other moves: a) 7 �h5?! is a dubious pawn of­ fer: 7 .. .'iib6! 8 lt:Jd2 cxd4 + Bellon­ Doncevic, Benidorm 1988. b) 7 lt:Jd2?! is an attempt to make a positional sacrifice. White gets some compensation, but the whole idea can't be recommended. 7 ... i..xe3 8 d5 d6 9 lt:Jc4 i..d4 10 c3 i..f6 1 1 a4 lt:Jd7 12 'iih5 lLlf8! (a key manoeuvre - the

DIEMER, VERESOV AND TROMPOWSKY

knight moves to g6, where it will de­ fend h4 and help to stop the e5 ad­ vance; besides, the queen's bishop is now free to be developed) and Black has an obvious advantage after either 13 e5 dxe5 14 lt:lxe5 lt:lg6 15 .tb5+ 'it>f8 16 lt:lgf3 'ii'd6 17 lt:ld3 �g7 + Van Ruitenburg-Rogers, Hoogeveen 2005 or 13 lt:lf3 lt:lg6 14 0-0-0 .td7! + (but not 14 ...'i!Vd7?? 15 lt:lb6! ± Pal­ trinieri-Bomheim, Vung Tau 2008). c) 7 'ii'd3 'ifb6 8 b3 lt:lc6 9 c3 a5 ! (Black opens the a-file for his rook) 10 lt:lf3 a4 11 lt:lbd2 axb3 12 lt:lxb3 h3 ! (an important move in Black's plan) 13 gxh3 (13 lt:lxc5?? 'i¥b2 14 .l:tbl hxg2 -+; 13 g3 d6 +) 13 ... cxd4 14 exd4 lt:la5 +. Black has a mass of open lines for his pieces, and the white king will soon feel uncomfortable. 7 cxd4 8 exd4 Black has plenty of possibilities and a very good practical score with almost all of them. But in fact the posi­ tion is not so easy and it's important to keep in mind at least one good arrange­ ment. I offer a simple one: ... lt:lc6, ...:g8, ... d6, ... h3 and ... .tg4. For instance, 8 ... lt:lc6 9 lt:lc3 (9 lLlf3 .l:.g8 10 .tc4 d6 11 lt:lc3 leads to the same po­ sition) 9 ... l:tg8! 10 lt:lf3 (10 'ii'h5? loses a pawn to 10 ... .tg7 +; 10 .tc4 d6 1 1 'ii'h5 .:tg6 12 lt:lf3 .tg4 13 'ii'xh4 'ii'b6 +) 10 ... d6 1 1 .tc4 (1 1 h3 .tf4 12 .tc4 .tg3+ 13 'it>fl e6 14 lt:le2 'ii'f6 15 c3 .td7 16 lt:lxg3 l:txg3 17 'i!Ve2 0-0-0 + Kireev-Zwardon, Karvina 201 1) l l ...h3 12 g3 .tg4 13 :n e6 +. •.•

C2) 3

.tf4 d5 (D)

15

This healthy move guarantees Black good play. I like this continuation more than 3 ... c5, which is positionally risky because it does not help Black to de­ velop his pieces. w

Now: lt:l 4 f3

16 17 18 4 lt:ld2 allows Black active play af­ ter 4 ... c5 ! 5 lt:lxe4 (5 e3 transposes to note 'c' to White's 5th move in Line C23) 5 ...dxe4 6 dxc5 'iia5+ 7 c3 'i!Vxc5, and now: a) Black is even slightly better in the endgame after 8 'i¥a4+ 'ii'c6 9 'ifxc6+ lt:lxc6 10 f3 (10 e3 e5 1 1 .tg3 .te6 12 f3 exf3 13 lt:lxf3 f6 + Bar­ bero-Pelletier, Swiss Team Ch 1998) 10 ... e5 1 1 .te3 .tf5 12 g4 .te6 13 lt:lh3 f6 14 lt:lf2 exf3 15 exf3 (Tunik-Avrukh, Beersheba 1996) 15 ... 0-0-0 +. b) 8 'ii'd4 'tWxd4 9 cxd4 lt:lc6 1 0 0-0-0 e5 ! (opening lines for the bish­ ops) 1 1 dxe5 .te6 12 �bl e3 ! (Black cleans up the bl-h7 diagonal) 13 .txe3 C21 : 4 f3 C22: C23: 4 e3

A ITA CK WITH BLACK

16

liJb4 14 licl (14 a3 i..f5+ 15 �al lDc2+ 16 �a2 ltJxe3 17 fxe3 il.c5 leads to a promising endgame for Black) 14 ... i..f5+ 15 �a1 lDc2+ 16 l:txc2 .txc2 was OK for Black in V.Mikha­ levski-Ma.Tseitlin, Beersheba 1996. C2 1 } 4 tiJf3

White opts for a slow approach, but there is a danger that Black's knight, now securely placed on e4, will sim­ ply turn out to generate useful activity. That is not exactly the outcome White had in mind when provoking this piece forward! 4 c5 5 c3 5 e3?! is dubious due to 5 ...'i!Vb6!. Then: a) 6 ltJc3?! 'iia5 ! and now: al) 7 il.xb8 ltJxc3 8 Wi'd2 .l:lxb8 9 bxc3 c4!? (a new move; 9 ... e6 was chosen in the gameS Zaja-Berebora, Croatian Team Ch, ibenik 2005) 10 g3 e6 1 1 i..g2 i..d6 12 0-0 0-0 + with ... b5-b4 to follow. a2) 7 dxc5 ltJxc3 8 'i!Vd2 f6 9 bxc3 e5 10 il.g3 liJd7! +. b) 6 liJbd2?! is not a correct pawn sacrifice: 6 ... ltJxd2 7 'iixd2 �xb2 8 l:!.c1 c4 9 i..e2 e6 10 0-0 i.. b4 1 1 �d1 liJd7 12 e4 0-0 + Berend-Kappler, Dijon 1994. c) 6 �c1 cxd4 7 exd4 lDc6 8 c3 i.f5 9 ..lte2 e6 10 0-0 i..e7 II liJbd2 l:l.c8 is objectively equal, but Black is more active, Okrajek-Magerramov, Bad Worishofen 1993. 5 cxd4 6 cxd4 ltJc6 (D) Note the similarity to the Exchange Slav, an opening in which White is ••.

•••

often happy to spend a move playing his knight into e5. That means White needs to take some action here, as rou­ tine play could leave him effectively playing the black side of that opening. 7 ltJc3 7 e3? lets Black start a strong attack by 7 ... e5 !. Then: a) 8 dxe5 .Yi.b4+ 9 tiJfd2 (9 tiJbd2?? li.g4! +) 9 ... g5 10 .Yi.g3 h5 1 1 f3 ltJxg3 12 hxg3 'iib6 +. b) 8 i.. xe5 .Yi.b4+ 9 liJfd2 (after 9 tiJbd2?? White again loses a piece to 9 ... i..g4! -+) 9 ... ltJxe5 10 dxe5 0-0 1 1 a3 i.. a5 1 2 ..ltd3 ! (12 ..lte2? d4! 1 3 b4 liJxf2! 14 'it>xf2 dxe3+ 15 'it>fl , Mc­ Donald-Wells, Southend 2008, and now 15 .. .'iM4! wins right away: 16 lita2 i..e6 17 litc2 .litfd8 1 8 bxa5 .Yi.b3 -+) 12 ... 'iVg5 13 0-0 li.g4 14 Ae2 i..h 3 15 i.. f3 .Yi.c7! +. 7 ltJxc3 Or: a) 7 ... ..1tf5?! is unconvincing due to an immediate attack on the b7-square: 8 �b3 ltJxc3 (d5 was also hanging) 9 bxc3 �d7 10 ltJe5 ltJxe5 1 1 Axe5 (in­ tending e4 and il.b5) l l...a6 12 e3 and ..•

DIEMER, VERESOV AND TROMPOWSKY

17

Black should play ... f6 at some mo­ ment to develop the f8-bishop. Later White will play c4, exposing Black's vulnerability on the a2-g8 diagonal. b) But Black can start with 7 .. .f6!?. This covers the e5-square and amongst other things prevents l2Je5. The c6knight is useful in these positions - it avoids unpleasant checks on the a4-e8 diagonal, attacks d4 and is ready to move to b4 or a5 to attack on the queenside; on the other hand, the f3knight only defends d4. Black's next few moves could be ... i.f5, ... e6, ... i.d6, ... 0-0, etc., or the same but leaving the bishop on c8. 8 bxc3 g6 This is a simple solution to Black's problems, leaving him a tempo up compared to a position that can arise from the Exchange Slav or a quiet form of Griinfeld (e.g., Portisch-Kram­ nik, Biel Interzonal 1993). After 9 e3 i.g7 10 i.e2 0-0 1 1 0-0 i.f5 Black is comfortably equal.

partial compensation for the pawn). 6 ...l2Jd5 ! is a key move for Black. avoiding any complications related to accepting the gambit pawn. Now: b1) 7 %Vd2 l2Jxf4 8 %Vxf4 %Vxd4 9 l:.d 1 e5 ! (forcing a favourable liquida­ tion) 10 l:txd4 (10 %Vg5? h6 is much better for Black) 10 ...exf4 1 1 l:txe4+ 'iit>d8 12 l:txf4 (12 i.c4, Dunworth­ D.Buckley, Monmouth 2000, 12 . .f5 ! 13 l:txf4 l2Jc6 + intending ... g5 or ... i.d6) 12 ... ..ie6 +. Black's bishop­ pair will be powerful in the endgame. b2) 7 l2Jxd5 %Vxd5 8 i.xc7 (8 %Vd2? yields nothing good: 8 ... l2Jc6 9 i.e3 e5 ! 10 fxe4 %Vxe4 1 1 ..id3 %Vh4+ 12 g3 %Vh5 13 d5, Kanep-Nureev, Internet blitz 2003, 13 ...l2Jb4 +) 8 ... l2Jc6 9 c3 .i.f5 10 .i.e2 (Djurhuus-Elsness, Gaus­ dal 1995) IO ... e6 1 1 fxe4 i.xe4 12 l2Jf3 l:tc8 13 .i.g3 .i.d6 =. Black is fine here. c) 5 c4 e6 6 l2Jc3 c5 ! (D) .

C22) 4 f3 l2Jf6 5 l2Jc3

w

Or: a) 5 e3?! doesn't fit in with White's previous play (i.e. f3), and 5 ... c5 ! ex­ ploits this. Black has a development advantage after 6 c3 l2Jc6 7 l2Jd2 e6 8 i.g5 e5 9 dxe5 l2Jxe5 10 e4 i.e7 + M.Gurevich-Cvitan, Vrsac 1985. b) 5 e4 is an interesting pawn sacri­ fice. After 5 ...dxe4 6 l2Jc3 (following 6 fxe4 l2Jxe4 7 %Vd3, as in R.Leyva­ Again Black attacks his opponent's Vazquez Igarza, Cuba 1997, Black can awkward pawn-structure in the centre simply continue 7 ...l2Jf6 8 l2Jc3 l2Jc6 9 - the pawn on f3 looks disharmonious. 0-0-0 l2Jd5 +, when White has only Now:

A ITACK WITH BLACK

18

c1) With the continuation 7 tlJb5 tt:Ja6 8 e4 (Devereaux-Gallagher, Brit­ ish League (4NCL) 2004/5) White tries to get some initiative but his pieces are unprepared for such play. Here I rec­ ommend the new move 8 ...cxd4! - as is often the case in complicated positions, the most important thing is to castle; af­ ter that everything becomes clear. 9 cxd5 i..b4+ 10 'iii>f2 0-0 + gives Black an obvious advantage. c2) 7 e3 cxd4 8 exd4ltJc6 9 c5 i.e? was equal in the game Santacruz­ Pineda, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988. Everything would be quite typical if White's pawn weren't on f3. It just gets in the way ofWhite's plans, while Black has no such problems. 5 e6 6 e4 After 6 'ifd2 c5 ! (with a pawn on c5 it's very hard for White to arrange his planned e4 advance) 7 e3 Black can advance his queenside pawns in much the same way that we saw in a couple of Veresov lines: 7 ... a6 8ltJge2 lDc6 9 g4 b5 10 i..g2 i.e? 1 1 0-0 b4 1 2 lDd1 a5 13 c3 i.. a6 + Rusanov-Emelin, St Petersburg 1998. 6 c5 ! 7 tt:Jb5 tt:Ja6 8 e5 8 c4 transposes to note 'c1 ' to White's 5th move above. 8 4J d7 9 c3 tt:Jab8! Improving the worst piece. Now: a) 10 c4? a6 1 1 ltJd6+ i..xd6 12 exd6 (Treppner-Assmann, 2nd Bun­ desliga 1998/9) 12 ... cxd4! 13 'i!i'xd4 e5! 14 'ii'e3 ( 14 i..xe5?ltJc6 costs White his bishop) 14 ... d4 15 'i!i'e4 0-0 +. b) 10 dxc5 i.. xc5 1 1 b4 i.e? 12 i..g3 0-0 13 f4 tbc6 14 tt:Jf3 (Vatter­ Blauert, Germany 1989) 14 ... a6 15

lDbd4 tt:Jxd4 16 lDxd4 a5 17 a3 tlJb6 + followed by ... i..d7, ...'ii'c7 and .. J1fc8. White's play on the kingside can be stopped with ... g6. C23) 4 e3

This is the most popular move. Black immediately puts pressure on White's centre. 4 c5 (D) .••

••.

•.•

.•.

5 i.. d 3

There plenty of alternatives at this point: a) 5 4Jf3?! transposes to the note to White's 5th move in Line C21 . b) 5 c3ltJc6 (Black creates the po­ sitional threat of gaining the bishop­ pair by ... g5; the immediate 5 ... g5 is met by 6 i..e5 !) 6 lDf3 ( 6 ltJd2 i..f5 7 tbgf3 e6 leads to the same position; 6 i..d3?! is dubious in view of 6 ... g5 ! 7 i..g3 tbxg3 8 hxg3, as in Budrewicz­ Shishkin, Wroclaw 2009, when V.Mi­ khalevski recommends 8 .. .'i!i'b6 9 'i!i'b3 h6 ; Black has the bishop-pair and faces no problems) 6 ... i..f5 7 tlJbd2 e6 are

=

DIEMER, VERESOV AND TROMPOWSKY

8 tt:lxe4 il.xe4 9 il.d3 Axd3 10 Wt'xd3 and now: b1) It's important for Black to avoid taking on d4 for the time being, as this would give White nice attacking pros­ pects on the kingside since the e-file and 3rd rank prove very useful. Just take a look at how easily White won the following game: 10 ... cxd4?! 1 1 exd4 ..td6 12 il.g3 a6 13 0-0 h6 (al­ though 13 ... 0-0!? looks scary for Black because of 14 i.xd6 �xd6 15 tt:lg5, in fact it's not fatal for him yet: 15 ... g6 16 'i¥h3 h5 keeps a fighting position) 14 liae1 0-0 15 tt:ld2! (preparing a pawn-storm) 15 ... ..txg3 16 'i¥xg3 tt:le7 17 lle2 tt:lf5 18 'iVh3 'iVa5?! 19 tt:lf3 'ii'xa2? (Black wins a pawn but gives White time to pursue his attack) 20 g4 tt:le7 21 tt:le5 �a5 22 f4 �d8? (the black queen does not get back in time; 22 .. .'ifb5 ! ?) 23 f5 tt:lc6 24 f6 tt:lxe5 25 dxe5 'ii'b6+ 26 .:tef2 'i¥c7 27 'ili'h5 with a winning position for White, Miladinovic-Ftacnik, Croatian Team Ch, S ibenik 2007. Black could have defended better in this game, but there is nothing to be gained from inviting White to attack in this way. b2) 10 ... .te7 1 1 0-0 0-0 leaves Black fine; e.g., 12 dxc5 (12 tt:le5 .l:.c8 13 a3 i.f6 14 tt:lf3 {White has just wasted two tempi} 14 ... a6 Schu­ bert-Navara, 2nd Bundesliga 2001/2) 12 ... i.xc5 13 e4 dxe4 14 'iVxe4 'ii'e7 15 l:lfe1 h6 Shmirin-Uhlmann, Leu­ tersdorf 200 1. c) 5 tt:ld2 and now: c 1) The popular 5 ... 'i!Vb6 does not equalize because of 6 tt:lxe4 dxe4 7 dxc5 ! 'i¥xb2 8 'i¥d4 'ii'a3 (White is =

=

19

better in the endgame after 8 ... 'ii'xd4 9 exd4 tt:lc6 10 ..tb5 ;l;;) 9 ..txb8 'i¥a5+ (forced) 10 c3 .l:.xb8 (Mesias Rojas­ Lopez Silva, Chilean Ch, Fenach 2007) 1 1 .:tdl ! (a new move) 1 l...i.f5 12 f3 ;l;; with a strong initiative - Black's king is in big trouble. c2) 5 ... tt:lxd2 6 1!Vxd2 tt:lc6 7 tt:lf3 and here: c21) Black can't develop his queen's bishop because 7 ... .tf5? is answered by 8 dxc5 !. Then 8 ... e6 9 tt:ld4! i.g6 (9 ... il.xc5 10 tt:lxf5 exf5 1 1 0-0-0 ± and the d5-pawn drops as 1 1 ...tt:le7? fails to 12 'ii'c3 +-) 10 'i¥c3 ± gives White a clear extra pawn. 8 ...f6 looks a better try but still does not help to win the pawn back: 9 tt:ld4 il.d7 10 tt:lb3 e5 1 1 il.g3 i.e6 12 l:i.dl ± leaves White a pawn up. c22) 7 ... e6 8 c3 i.d6 9 il.b5 0-0 10 0-0 'iVe7 (a new move; 10 ... i.xf4?! strengthens White's control of the e5square: 1 1 exf4 cxd4 12 cxd4 i..d7 13 lirfc1 ;l;; Pelletier-Vogt, Swiss Team Ch 1998) 1 1 .l:lacl i.d7 with an equal po­ sition. 5 cxd4 (D) ...

A TTACK WITH BLACK

20

6 il.xe4

This is the most critical reply White creates a target on e4 that he will attack in the near future; fortu­ nately, Black can defend it or in some cases successfully give it up. If White wants to avoid risk he can simply take on d4. 6 exd4 tDc6 and then: a) Black feels OK in the case of 7 c3 il.f5 (D). Now:

b) 7 i..xe4 dxe4 8 tDe2 (the aggres­ sive 8 d5 is met by a typical opening counterbreak: 8 ... e5 ! 9 il.g3 tDe7 10 tDc3 tDg6 and in Stefanova-Kurajica, Solin 2007 Black was even slightly better considering that the e4-pawn is indirectly defended: 1 1 tDxe4? f5 12 tDc3 f4 +) 8 ... il.g4 9 tDbc3 'tleb6 trans­ poses to line 'c' of the next note. c) 7 tDe2 il.f5 8 0-0 (8 f3 tDd6 9 i..xd6 i..xd3 10 'ii'xd3 'i!Vxd6 ) 8 ... e6 9 c3 il.g6 10 tbc 1 i..d6 1 1 ..ltxd6 tDxd6 A.Smimov-lordachescu, Paleochora 2010. 6 dxe4 7 'ilxd4 White can also take on d4 with the pawn. 7 exd4 Vi'b6 8 tDc3 tDc6 (D) (8 ...�xb2?! 9 tDge2 gives White the initiative) and now: =

=

•••

al) 8 tDe2 e6 9 f3 tLld6 10 i..xd6? (10 0-0 is more solid) 10 ... il.xd6! (unexpectedly for White, his opponent is not scared by the doubling of his pawns, since in return Black gets an open file and weak squares to target on e3 and e4) 1 1 il.xf5 exf5 12 f4 0-0 13 0-0 .l::te 8 14 tLld2 'ilc7 15 g3 tDa5 16 .l::tf2 tDc4 + Vitiugov-Kariakin, Rus­ sian Ch, Moscow 2010. Black's ad­ vantage is obvious. a2) 8 �e2 e6 9 tLld2 tLld6 10 tDgf3 il.xd3 1 1 �xd3 ttJf5 12 g4 tDfe7 13 h4 tDg6 14 il.g5 �c7 15 h5 tDf4 16 il.xf4 'ii'xf4 17 :g1 h6 18 0-0-0 i..e7 Timman-Van Wely, Breda rapid 1998. =

=

a) After 9 't!Vd2? Black can take the pawn: 9 .. .'ii'xd4! 10 tLlb5 'i!Vxd2+ 1 1 i..xd2 .l::tb 8! + Stefanova-Mamedya­ rov, Wijk aan Zee 2005. b) 9 d5 e5 ! (again we see this typi­ cal counterblow - it is worth memo­ rizing it!) 10 i..e3 'iVxb2 (this is forced, but there doesn't appear to be any way

DIEMER, VERESOV AND TROMPOWSKY

to punish Black for his greed; instead, IO .. .lbd4? loses a pawn with no com­ pensation: 1 1 lZJge2 i.. g4 12 �xd4 exd4 13 �xd4 �xd4 14 LDxd4 ± R.Janssen-Visser, Dutch Ch, Rotter­ dam 1999) 1 1 lZJge2 (the only move) l l ...lZJb4! 12 0-0 �xc2 (the white queen cannot avoid exchange) 13 lZJb5 ..ig4 14 �xc2 lZJxc2 15 lZJg3 �b4! +. c) 9 lZJge2!? �g4 10 0-0 (a new move, improving over 10 h3? �xe2 1 1 lZJxe2 .l:l.d8 1 2 c3 e5 ! + Laurie-Tse­ sarsky, Tel Aviv 1997) 10 ....l:.d8 1 1 d5 e6!? is unclear. Black's king is still uncastled but his bishop-pair and well-coordinated pieces don't allow White to exploit this fact. 7 ...lZJc6! 7 ...�xd4?! is in my opinion not advisable: 8 exd4lZJc6 9 c3 f5 (9 ... g5? 10 ..ixg5 .l:.g8 1 1 i.f4 ;!; and 1 1 .. Jhg2? 12 ..ig3 traps the rook) 10 lZJd2 ;!;, Once White plays f3, Black will have problems on the e-file. 8 �xd8+ 8 �xe4? is not good because of 8 ... �a5+ 9 c3 i.f5 10 �f3 (1 0 �c4? e5 1 1 ..ig3 lZJb4! 12 cxb4 i.xb4+ and ...�c8 wins) 10 ... e5 1 1 ..ig3 �b5 ! 12 b3 ..ic2 + followed by ....l:!.d8, when White is in trouble. 8 lZJxd8! ? (D) With this new move (varying from the game Stefanova-Mongontuul, Rus­ sian Women's Team Ch, Sochi 2006), Black preserves his right to castle and doesn't experience any problems with the king on e8. •••

21

w

9 lZJc3 f6!

That's the point behind Black's 8th move. He temporarily sacrifices a pawn in order to get a pleasant pawn­ structure. 10 lZJdS Attacking c7 and delaying ... e5 for a while. If White decides to take the pawn by 10 lZJxe4 he should be pre­ pared for 10 ... e5 1 1 ..ig3 ..if5 12 f3 lZJf7 with ... ..ixe4 and ...lZJg5xe4 com­ ing next; Black is preferable due to his better pawn-structure. 10 0-0-0 also does not change the character of the play; after 10 ... e5 1 1 i.g3 ..if5 the pawn is defended and the g3-bishop is out of play. Black is OK. 10 ...lZJe6 1 1 lZJe2 ..id7 12 lZJec3 .l:!.c8 13 0-0-0 lZJcS

Next Black will play ... e5 (proba­ bly after ... e6 to push the d5-knight back). Considering that Black has the bishop-pair and the white bishop will be bad on g3, Black's chances are even preferable.

2 Co l le , Zu ke rtort , London a nd Torre Systems These four opening systems have no main concrete order of moves; that's why they are called 'systems'. The common thread is that White plays d4 and an early tt:'lf3, and meets our ... c5 by supporting his pawn with c3 and/or e3. The defining features are as fol­ lows: Colle: e3 and c3, with Si.d3 Zukertort: e3 intending a later b3 London: Si.f4 Torre: Si.g5 Let's note that against the Zuker­ tort, we shall be adopting a set-up with ... g6, which may discourage White from playing b3. In other lines we need to be careful that White can't play an early dxc5 to good effect, so in most cases we shall be occupying the centre with ... e6 and ... d5. Each sys­ tem has its own unique themes, so let's move on to a discussion of each of them: 22 A: Colle 27 B: Zukertort 30 C: London 34 D: Torre

Capablanca in 1929) was the Belgian player Edgar Colle. This variation is characterized by the following moves for White, in one order or another: d4, e3, tt:'lf3, i.d3, 0-0, c3 and tt:'lbd2. This is similar to Black's set-up in the Semi-Slav, and therefore it's no sur­ prise that one of White's main ideas in the Colle is to make the e4 advance. The main advantage of the Colle is its solidity, and there is the practical ad­ vantage that White can save a lot of time in the opening making these au­ tomatic moves. The main disadvan­ tage is that White practically ignores his opponent's replies, and Black has a wide choice and can direct the game towards the kind of position he wants. Also, while the Semi-Slav works well as a counterpunching opening, the re­ versed form proves less effective for taking the initiative. That's why you rarely see games with this system at GM level. So, let's see our way to re­ spond to the Colle system! 1 d4 tt:'lf6 2 tt:'lf3 cS 3 c3 We shall discuss the consequences of 3 e3, which we shall meet with 3... g6, in Section B of this chapter. A) Colle 3 e6 The first notable master to adopt this Here 3... g6 can be met by 4 dxc5 !?, opening (including a game against after which Black has no simple way ...

COLLE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS

to take his pawn back (. . .'�i'a5 is not check any more). Usually Black sacri­ fices a pawn by ... b6, but it does not look very convincing to me. 4 e3 dS Black captures space in the centre, and we now see the contours of a Semi-Slav with reversed colours. Another popular continuation for Black is 4 ... b6, planning ... ii.b7, ... d6, ... tZ:lbd7, ... i..e7, ... 0-0, etc. The disadvantage of this arrangement is that White can make the e4 advance: 5 tLlbd2 i..b7 6 ii.d3 ii..e7 (Black also can switch back to the idea we recom­ mend in the main line by 6 ... d5, but if Black wanted to play ... d5 it was better to do so on move 4 as now it lets White proceed with another typical Colle idea: 7 tbe5 tLlbd7 8 f4 i..e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 'i¥f3 with attacking chances on the kingside) 7 e4 cxd4 8 cxd4 tbc6 9 a3 0-0 10 0-0 d6 1 1 b4 with a space ad­ vantage for White, Bricard-Bischoff, Bissen 1995. 5 i.. d3 Of course, White can make other moves in this position, but this move is logical, and is a basic part of the Colle set-up. Having played c3, there is little point in playing b3 and i..b2, while dxc5 is premature before Black has moved his king's bishop. 5 tLlbd2 tbc6 6 i..d3 ii..e7 7 0-0 would lead to the same position. 5 tbc6 6 0-0 White can also try to get a space ad­ vantage with 6 tbe5 tZ:lxe5 7 dxe5 tLld7 8 f4. However, Black easily obtains in­ teresting active play: 8 ... c4 9 i..c2 (this position was reached in the game ...

23

Kemeny-P.Richardson, New York 1 894) 9 ...'iVh4+! 10 g3 'iVh3 1 1 tLld2. Black has prevented White from cas­ tling kingside and now it's time to start play on the queenside: 1 1 ... b5 (a new move, deviating from Atanas­ kovic-Lajthajm, Serbian Ch, Lesko­ vac 2002) 12 �f3 :b8 with an unclear position. 6 i..e7 7 tLlbd2 0-0 (D) ...

w

Black continues developing and is ready for play in the centre. 8 dxc5 Besides this exchanging operation, which is also a standard theme in the Semi-Slav, White can continue play­ ing slowly: a) After 8 'i¥e2 b6 White has plenty of possibilities but none of them should scare Black too much, as he is ready to meet all White's active ideas such as tbe5 or e4: a1) 9 dxc5?! (giving up control of the centre does not look good) 9 ... bxc5 10 e4 'i¥c7 1 1 e5 (1 1 l;lel does not change too much - Black is still pref­ erable: l l ...Jtb7 12 e5 tbd7 13 tZ:lfl,

24

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

Sydor-Smejkal, Sandomierz 1976, 13 ... c4! 14 �c2 �a6 + intending to occupy the d3-square with ... lt:'lc5-d3) 1 l ...lt:'lg4 12 :e1 c4 13 .i.c2 �c5 ! (Black simply ignores the scare tac­ tics) 14 �xh7+ 'ii?h 8! (now White needs to defend f2; 14 ...'ii? xh7? leads to an unclear position after 15 lt:'lg5+ �g8 16 �xg4 f6) 15 lt:'ld4 �xeS + Guimard-Granda, Porto Velho 1988. Black is better since he has exchanged a rook's pawn for a central pawn. a2) 9 e4?! is another self-destruc­ tive idea. 9 ... cxd4 10 e5 (10 cxd4 can lead to the same position after 10 ...lt:'lb4 1 1 e5 lt:'ld7) 10 ... lt:'ld7 1 1 cxd4 lt:'lb4 12 �b5 a6 13 �a4 (D) and now:

a21) 13 ... a5?! allows the white bishop to return to the a6-fl diagonal: 14 �b5 (14 a3 happened in F.Cruz­ C.Cruz, Sabadell 2009) 14 ... .i.a6 15 .i.xa6 lt:'lxa6 16 lt:'lbl ! and Black cer­ tainly isn't better. a22) I prefer 13...b5 !. With this new move, Black temporarily blocks the a6-fl diagonal in order to open it with greater effect later. 14 �d1 (14 �b3

�6 15 lt:'lbl a5 followed by ... a4, ... �a6, etc., gives Black an advan­ tage) 14 ... �6 15 lt:'lb1 a5 with the same plan: ... �a6, ... lt:'lc6, ...b4, etc. a3) White again gets nothing with 9 lt:'le5 lt:'lxe5 10 dxe5 lt:'ld7 1 1 f4 c4 12 .i.c2 lt:'lc5 13 .l:tf3 (Muse-Kritz, Ger­ man Ch, Hoeckendorf 2004) 13 ....i.a6! intending ... lt:'ld3 (to block the c2bishop) and then ... f6. a4) 9 b3 is the most solid move for White since, as we have seen, all the active options rebound on him. After 9 ... �b7 10 �b2 the natural 10 ...�c7 followed by ....l:tad8 leads to simple and equal play, while in Bruno-Gyi­ mesi, European Team Ch, Gothenburg 2005 Black played a somewhat fussy but still viable plan: 10 .. Jk8 1 1 .l::tac1 :c7 12 .l:r.fd1 'ifa8, after which 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 c4! d4 15 exd4 cxd4 16 a3 a5 led to a very complex and un­ clear position. b) White can again try to attack with 8 lt:'le5. Then: bl) Black gets a strategically risky pawn-structure after 8 ... lt:'lxe5 9 dxe5 lt:'ld7 10 f4 f5 1 1 exf6 lt:'lxf6 12 e4!, al­ though he is not worse at the moment, Bareev-Tukmakov, Tilburg 1994. But anyway I prefer to recommend some­ thing clearer. b2) Black has a typical way to stop White's lt:'le5-based attack: 8 ... lt:'ld7!. After 9 f4 Black plays 9 ...f5! = Araya­ Vazquez Igarza, Asuncion 1991. Now Black is ready to take on e5 since fxe5 does not create any attacking potential for White any more. If White takes a risk with 10 c4?!, Black gets the better game thanks to his more harmonious

COLLE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS

25

pieces: 10 ... cxd4 1 1 tt'lxc6 bxc6 12 giving perpetual check or continuing the game with three pawns for a piece. exd4 c5 ! 13 cxd5 tt'lf6! +. c 1) In his book A Rock-Solid Chess 8 i.xc5 Now: Opening Repertoire for Black, Ein­ 25 gom suggests 12 ...tt'le4 13tt'lbd4 tt'lxd4 Al : 9 e4 26 14 tt'lxd4 'ild6 intending ... i.c7, which A2: 9 b4 "maintains the tension and keeps the Al) initiative". c2) 12 ... i.xh3!? 13 gxh3 �g3+ 14 9 e4 This is a logical continuation, but
...

...

A TTACK WITH BlA CK

26

f6 16 .l:!.ae1 a6!? (covering the b5square to keep the knight out; 16 ... g5?! is less convincing: 17 ..txe5 fxe5 18 'iWxe5 �xe5 19 l:.xe5 ..tc7 20 l:te2 e5 21 ltlb5 ..tb8 22 c4! Fenollar Jorda­ Brynell, Barbera del Valles 201 1) 17 ..tb1 g5 18 ..txe5 (18 ..tg3 'ilig7 +) 18 ... fxe5 19 'iVxe5 'iVxe5 20 J:.xe5 .l:f.f6 21 l:rfe1 ..td7 + Ferrufino-Leitlio, Mar del Plata 2009. c) 1 1 ..tc2!? ..tb6 12 a4 a6 13 h3!? (suggested by Finkel as an improve­ ment over 13 g3?! ..td7 14 �g2 .l:!.ad8 15 h3 e5 + Mamedyarov-Volokitin, Calvia Olympiad 2004) 13 ... ltlh5 14 .l:!.d1 ltlf4 15 �fl (White must control the d3-square; 15 'ilie1 ?? lt:lb4! 16 cxb4 'ilixc2 -+ and ... lt:ld3) 15 ... ..td7 leaves Black fine. 11 e5 lt:ld7! After this accurate move, White is virtually forced to sacrifice his bishop even though it leads to nothing clear. 1 1 ...lt:lg4?! is worse in view of 12 ..txh7+ �xh7 13 ltlg5+ �g8 14 'ilixg4 'iWxe5 15 'ifh5 �f5 (forced) 16 ltldf3! intending lt:lh4 and then to push the black queen away from the h7-square. As Eingorn indicates, Black has noth­ ing better than 16 ... ..td8!? (White is better in the endgame after 16 ... 'i!Vg6?! 17 �xg6 fxg6 18 i.e3 ..tc7 19 .Uad1, as in Ahues-Engels, Bad Nauheim 1935) 17 ..te3 ..txg5 18 ltlxg5 lt:le5 19 f4 �g6 20 �e2 lt:lc6 21 l:r.ad1 with a somewhat better position for White. 12 ..txh7+ 12 l:te 1 ? f6! 13 exf6 lt:lxf6 +. Thanks to the weakness of f2, Black plays ... e5 with an obvious advantage. =

12 'itxh7 13 lt:lg5+ �g6 .••

It appears that White has been mak­ ing the running, but he has no espe­ cially convincing follow-up: a) 14 �g4? f5 ! is winning for Black if he continues accurately: 15 'iVg3 f4! (not 15 ...�xe5? 16 lt:lxe6+ 'iVxg3 17 lt:lxf8+ lt:lxf8 18 hxg3 +) 16 �h4 lt:ldxe5 -+ or 15 'iVh4 lt:ldxe5 16 'ifh7+ �f6 -+ (16 ...�xg5?? allows 17 ltle4++ �g4 1 8 h3#). b) 14 'ii'd3+ f5 15 lt:lxe6 'i!fxe5 16 lt:lxf8+ lt:lxf8 reaches a complex posi­ tion with chances for both sides. A2} 9 b4 ..td6 10 ..tb2 (D)

Or: a) Black gets easy equality after 10 b5 ltla5 1 1 c4 dxc4 12 ltlxc4 lt:lxc4 13 i.xc4 b6!? (this new move varies from Jirovsky-Vesselovsky, Czech Team Ch 2002/3) 14 ..tb2 ..tb7 15 'i!fe2 'i!fe7 16 l:.acl .l:.ac8 17 .l:.fd1 l:!.fd8. b) 10 a3 a5 1 1 b5 lt:le5 12 lt:lxe5 ..txe5 13 ..tb2 ..td7 14 a4 .l:!.c8 15 .l::[c 1 �e7 16 �e2 l:.fe8 is also even, Djerfi­ Todorovic, Serbian Team Ch, Vmjacka Banja 2010.

COUE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS

10 lt:Jg4 ! ? •••

Though this move has been used just once, and in a game between un­ titled players, it looks good. Black wants to place one of his knights on e5, disrupting White's plans of play­ ing either e4 or c4. White gets some pressure in the case of both IO . . . ..td7?! 1 1 b5 lt:Je5 12 lt:Jxe5 .i.xe5 13 li:Jf3 .i.d6 14 c4 ;!; and 10 ... 'i!Vc7?! 1 1 b5 lt:Ja5 12 c4! dxc4 13 l;lcl ;!; Z.Rahman-Ganguly, Kolkata 2009. 10 ...'i!Ve7!? (Soln-Jelen, Slovenian Ch, Skofja Loka 2000) could be a good alternative. 11 h3 Inserting 1 1 a3 a5 does not change too much. ll ...lt:Jge5 12 ..te2 lt:Jxf3+ 13 li:Jxf3 lt:Je5 !

Black seeks simplifications. 14 'ii'd4 14 lt:Jxe5 .i.xe5 15 'ii'b3 .i.d7 16 .l:!.fdl (White can play to restrict the d7-bishop by 16 b5, but this pawn be­ comes a target for Black's counter­ play: 16 ... a6 17 a4 "ilc7 ) 16 ...b5 ! (fixing White's queenside pawns and preparing ... a5) 17 e4 "ilf6! 18 exd5 exd5 19 'ii'xd5 .i.c6 20 'ii'd2 a5 gives Black excellent piece activity. 14 ... 'ikf6 15 li:Jd2 'ii'g6 The position is unclear.

27

moves to c4. Notable among these schemes is a set-up with b3 that is named after Johannes Zukertort, one of the leading players of the late 19th century. This set-up features b3, .i.b2, e3, .i.d3 and 0-0, and several move­ orders are possible. The Zukertort set­ up is most often seen when Black plays ... d5 and ... e6. The king's knight can move to e5, spearheading an at­ tacking push on the kingside that may also feature f4 and tt:lbd2-f3 and/or a rook-lift on the third rank. White can also seek a more boardwide battle by playing c4 and tt:lc3. However, the move 3 e3 is somewhat committal be­ cause White can no longer develop his queen's bishop to f4 or g5, while play­ ing the pawn to e4 would involve a loss of time. With that in mind, I pro­ pose that Black plays ... 3 ... g6 (D)

=

8) Zu kertort 1 d4 tt:lf6 2 li:Jf3 c5 3 e3

This sequence can be used to reach a standard Colle System (with c3 com­ ing soon), but White can also play sys­ tems where the pawn remains on c2 or

This can lead to positions that we study in Line B of Chapter 6 or to completely new situations that are not hard to understand and play. At club level, many opponents may continue

28

A ITACK WITH BLACK

with the Zukertort plan, even though it has a lot less bite against a set-up with ...g6. 4 .i.d3 Or: a) For 4 c4, see Line B of Chapter 6. b) 4 .ie2 .i.g7 5 0-0 0-0 and now: b1) 6 c4 transposes to Line B2 of Chapter 6. b2) If White really wants to fian­ chetto his bishop, he can play 6 b3, al­ though this is not too effective given that the black bishop is already on g7. After 6...d5 7 .i.b2 'Lle4!? (Black em­ phasizes his prevalence in the centre; he could also make this move after ...'Llc6) 8 'Llbd2 'Llc6 ('Llxe4 is not a real threat, so Black simply continues developing) 9 c4 .i.f5 Black has solved his opening problems; for example, 10 cxd5 'iVxd5 1 1 .ic4 'iVd8 12 'Llxe4 .i.xe4 13 .U.c 1 (or 13 'Lle5?! cxd4 14 exd4 e6 15 'iVg4 .i.d5 with nice play against the isolated d-pawn, Mahmud­ Hodgson, Jakarta 1996) 13....i.xf3 14 'iVxf3 cxd4 15 .ixd4 'Llxd4 16 exd4 'iVd7 with equal play. c) 4 b3 .i.g7 5 .i.b2 and now 5 ...cxd4 6 exd4 d5 7 .id3 'Llc6 8 0-0 0-0 transposes to the main line of this section. If Black delays this exchange, the dxc5 option becomes relevant: 5 ...0-0 6 dxc5 !?. The point is that after the natural 6...'iVa5+ White can choose the as yet unplayed 7 c3!?, intending to win the e7-pawn if Black takes on c5 immediately: 7...'iVxc5 8 .ia3 'iVc7 9 .i.xe7 .l:te8 10 .i.d6 'iVb6. Black has some compensation but there is a stra­ tegic risk of being left with a weak iso­ lated d-pawn.

d) 4 dxc5 deserves attention. I have seen many cases where both players ignored this capture even when it was advantageous for White. I therefore urge you to bear this idea in mind. Here Black can win the pawn back im­ mediately by 4...'iVa5+ 5 'Llbd2 .ig7, when White's only active option is to advance with b4 followed by c4 and .ib2; e.g., 6 a3 'iVxc5 7 b4 (7 c4 0-0 8 b4 'iVc7 9 .ib2 comes to the same thing) 7...'iVc7 8 .ib2 0-0 9 c4 (9 .ie2 b6 10 0-0 .ib7 1 1 c4 is the same) 9...b6 10 .ie2 .ib7 1 1 0-0 d6 (D), when Black has a flexible position with no problems: w

d1) 12 'iVb3 'Llbd7 13 .l:i.fc1 (for 13 I:tac 1 see line 'd3 ') 13...lifc8 14 h3 a6 15 .ic3 'iVd8 leads to an equal posi­ tion, V.Kovacevic-Cebalo, Croatian Ch 1992. d2) 12 'Lld4 a6 13 .if3 'Llbd7 14 .U.cl (14 .ixb7 'iVxb7 15 'iVf3?! cannot be recommended because in the end­ game Black more easily besieges the c4-pawn: 15...'iVxf3 16 'Ll4xf3 .U.fc8 17 .l:!.fc 1 'IJ.c7 18 �fl .l:tac8 with better

COLLE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS

chances for Black, Taimanov-Vagan­ ian, Erevan 1994) 14 ...tZ:le5 15 �xb7 'ii'xb7 16 'ii'e2 l:.ac8 17 e4 lLled7 18 tZ:l4b3 llfe8 Muse-Khalifman, Bun­ desliga 2000/1. d3) 12 l:.c 1 tZ:lbd7 13 Vi'b3 .litac8 14 .l:.fdl Vi'b8 15 'i¥a2 Vi'a8 16 'ital l:!.c7 17 tLlel l:tfc8 Abramovic-Nestoro­ vic, Belgrade 2006. 4 �g7 5 0-0 0-0 Here White has a choice of set-ups. 6 b3 Continuing with Zukertort's fian­ chetto. While this is a popular choice among the system's adherents, there are other options too: a) 6 c3 arranges the pawns in the 'Colle' style. Black is flexible, and can choose a variety of set-ups here. I like 6 ... d6 7 tZ:lbd2 tZ:lc6 8 li'e2 flic7 9 .:tel .td7 10 a4 l::!.ac8 1 1 lLlfl .l:.fe8, as in Meduna-Antoniewski, Czech Team Ch 1997/8. All the black pieces are well­ placed, while White still has some de­ velopment problems. Black aims to play ... e5 with slightly higher chances. b) 6 tZ:lbd2 keeps White's queen­ side pawn-structure flexible. Then Black can seize the centre by 6 ... d5 7 c3 'itc7 8 'ii'e2 tZ:lbd7 (intending ... e5; after 8 ... tLlc6 Black needs to reckon with 9 dxc5) 9 e4 cxd4 10 cxd4 (Dau­ men-Zhukova, Caleta 201 1 ; not 10 e5? lLlh5 + and ... tZ:lf4) 10 ... e5 !?, which should lead to simplifications and complete equality, but it is White who needs to be more accurate. 1 1 dxe5 tZ:lxe5 12 tZ:lxe5 'ii'xe5 13 tZ:lf3 (13 exd5?! Vi'xe2 14 .txe2 tZ:lxd5 gives Black pressure against the b2-pawn) 13 ...flih5 14 e5 l1e8 15 �f4 �g4 16 =

=

29

flid2! tZ:le4 17 �xe4 dxe4 18 tZ:lg5 �xe5 19 tZ:lxe4 .litad8 20 'i¥b4! �g7 with equality. 6 d5 7 .t b2 cxd4! 8 exd4 tLlc6 (D) ••.

w

...

The knight eyes the b4-square. 9 l:!.el This seems like White's best op­ tion, since now he is ready for both ... tZ:lb4 and ... tZ:le4. Otherwise: a) 9 a3?! prevents ...tZ:lb4 but invites Black's other active option: 9 ...tZ:le4! 10 l:tel (after 10 tZ:lbd2, as in C.Flear­ Hebden, Guernsey 1989, Black has a strong knight manoeuvre: 10...tZ:lc5 ! 1 1 .i.e2 tLle6 12 c3 lLlf4 +. gaining the bishop-pair) 10 ... �g4! (attacking d4) 1 1 .txe4 dxe4 12 l:txe4 �xf3 13 'ifxf3 (13 gxf3? does not help due to 13.. .f5 ! +, winning back the d4-pawn and leaving White with a terrible pawn­ structure) 13... tZ:lxd4 14 .txd4 .txd4 15 c3 .i.g7 and Black is better, Beltz­ Hund, Women's Bundesliga 1994/5. b) 9 tZ:lbd2?! (conversely, prevent­ ing Black's ... tZ:le4 but 'forgetting' about ... tZ:lb4) 9 ... tZ:lb4 10 �e2 �f5 (note that this follow-up is possible

ATTA CK WITH BLA CK

30

since Black has played ... g6 instead of ... e6) 1 1 liJel 'iVc7!? (more useful than l l ...l:!.c8, as played in Rojas Keim­ Cruz, Mollet del Valles 201 1, as the a8-rook can be developed to d8) and Black's next plan is ... e5; e.g., 12 c3 ltJc6 13 it.d3 e6!? + intending to take on f5 with the e6-pawn to get an open file and an outpost on e4. If White does not take the bishop, ...l:.fe8 and ... e5 is a plan (naturally Black should not allow i.xf5 when he has to reply ... gxf5 and then dxe5 would leave weak pawns on d5, f5, f7 and h7). 9 liJb4 10 St.n i.f5 U liJa3 ltJe4 12 c3 liJc6 13 liJc2 e5 ! (D) ••.

w

Now: a) After 14 dxe5 tL'lxe5 15 liJfd4 'i!kb6 16 tL'le3 i.e6 the active black knights fully compensate for the iso­ lated d-pawn. b) 14 c4 gives Black a choice be­ tween the quiet 14 ...tL'lxd4 15 tL'lcxd4 exd4 16 i.xd4 dxc4 17 i.xc4 .l:!.e8, with a simple and equal position, and the sharp 14 ... dxc4 15 g4 tL'lxf2 16 'iii>xf2 i.xg4 17 dxe5 'i!kb6+ 18 i.d4 'i!kc7,

with enough compensation for the piece, Malaniuk-Todorov, Cappelle la Grande 1995. C) London

The London System is the name of an opening scheme that begins with 1 d4 followed by an early i.f4. In the intro­ duction to Win with the London System, Sverre Johnsen and Vlatko Kovacevic state: "Basically the London is a set of solid lines where after 1 d4 White quickly develops his dark-squared bishop to f4 and normally bolsters his centre with pawns on c3 and e3 rather than expanding. Although it has the potential for a quick kingside attack, the white forces are generally flexible enough to engage in a battle anywhere on the board. Historically it developed into a system mainly from three varia­ tions: 1 d4 d5 2 tL'lf3 tL'lf6 3 it.f4, 1 d4 liJf6 2 tL'lf3 e6 3 i.f4 and 1 d4 tL'lf6 2 tL'lf3 g6 3 i.f4." The London System, like the Colle system, does not require much knowledge of opening theory and normally leads to solid positional play. Its main advantage and difference compared to the Colle System is that White develops his bishop before play­ ing e3. But even this does not change the character of the c3-d4-e3 arrange­ ment. In Russian-speaking countries, players often call it a 'pig system' to demonstrate that it's as solid as a pig. The name dates back to the London tournament of 1922, where it was used by Rubinstein, Maroczy and Alekhine. Modem grandmaster adherents include the Russian Boris Grachev. We shall choose a solid set-up for Black that

3/

COLLE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS

can be used against most of White's 'London' move-orders. 1 d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lf3 White can also start with 2 i.f4 but it does not affect our plans: 2 ... e6 3 tt:lf3 c5 4 e3 tt:lc6 5 c3 d5 comes to the same thing. We can happily meet 2 c3 by 2 ... d5, with ... e6 and ... c5 to follow, or answering the Trompowsky-like 3 i.g5 with 3 ... tt:le4.

2 c5 3 c3 e6 4 i.f4 tt:lc6 5 e3 d5 (D) .•.

a) 7 i.g3 0-0 8 tt:lbd2 transposes to the main line of this section. b) The immediate attempt to estab­ lish control of the centre by 7 tt:le5?! leads to trouble: 7 ...'fic7! 8 tt:lxc6 i.xf4 9 exf4 bxc6 10 'fWd2 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 'fWb6 12 'ir'c3 i.a6 +. c) 7 i.xd6 'i¥xd6 8 tt:lbd2 0-0 9 i.b5 leads to a quiet and equal game. If White wanted to get this kind of posi­ tion, it would make more sense to play 6 tt:lbd2 and avoid wasting time on i.d3 (see note 'b' to White's 7th move below). 9 ... i.d7 10 a4 (10 0-0? loses a pawn to a typical tactic: 10 ...tt:lxd4! 1 1 tt:lxd4 cxd4 12 i.xd7 dxe3 +) 10 ... a6 1 1 i.xc6 i.xc6 12 tt:le5 tt:ld7 d) 7 tt:lbd2 has an interesting stra­ tegic idea: White wants to place a pawn on f4 to stop ... e5. But there is also a disadvantage with this idea the d4-pawn is less well defended. 7 ... i.xf4 8 exf4 'ir'b6 and now: d1) 9 dxc5?! damages White's pawn-structure even more: 9 ... 'li'xb2 10 'li'c1 (10 0-0?! looks like a dubious sacrifice since White doesn't get much for the pawn: 10 ...'ili'xc3 1 1 tt:lb3 tt:ld7 + Klaric-I.Novikov, Hungarian Team Ch 1993) l O ... 'i!i'xcl+ 1 1 .l:txc1 i.d7 1 2 l:lb1 tt:ld8! 13 tt:le5 .l:tc8 14 tt:lb3 0-0 15 �d2 .l:!.c7 +. Black is preferable due to White's weak c-pawns. d2) 9 'itb3 is a standard reply to ... 'ifb6 when White still has a pawn on e3, but here it allows White's pawns to become isolated: 9 .. .'it'xb3 (9 ... cxd4 10 'fWxb6 axb6 1 1 tt:lxd4 tt:lxd4 12 cxd4 i.d7 1 3 �e2, as in Rozentalis-Dreev, Tbilisi 1989, is also possible but I prefer White to =.

My opening philosophy says: if you are allowed to put pawns in the centre, just do it. At this point ... d5 is the most logical continuation. Black makes White's e4 advance more com­ plicated and less advantageous. Now Black's plan is to exchange dark­ squared bishops with ... i.d6 and fol­ low by ... e5. 6 tt:l bd2 White can also start with 6 i.d3, but this slightly restricts his options - with the bishop on f1, there is always the possibility of playing i.b5. 6 ...i.d6 and then:

ATFA CK WITH BLA CK

32

have the doubled b-pawns since the half-open file is unimportant due to the possibility of a3/ ... a6, whereas there are real chances to exploit the weak squares on the b-file) 10 axb3 cxd4 1 1 .!Dxd4 .!bxd4 12 cxd4 .td7 13 'it>e2 'it>e7 with a preferable endgame for Black; the a-file will be blocked by ... a6, the knight will be directed to e8 and d6 to support ... ..tb5 or placed on b5 itself. White's pawn-structure is not good. 6 ..td 6 (D) •••

Black will fight for the e5-square. 7 ..tg3 Or: a) 7 i..d3 transposes to note 'd' to White's 6th move. b) 7 .txd6 'ti'xd6 8 .tb5 is a type of position we saw when analysing 6 i..d 3, but here White has saved a tempo. However, Black still solves his opening problems. 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 ..td7 10 i.xc6 i.xc6 1 1 .!be5 .!bd7 12 f4 f6 13 .!Dxd7 i.xd7 led to equality in Schlindwein-Timman, German Cup, Walldorf 1998.

c) 7 .!be5 again leads to nothing special for White. 7 ... 'ilc7 8 .tb5 0-0 9 ..txc6 (White wants to take total control of the dark squares but it can't be achieved without Black's assis­ tance) 9 ... bxc6 10 0-0 (10 'i!Va4 .!bh5 +) 10 ... i..a6 1 1 l:.e1 cxd4 12 exd4 c5 with a fighting position where Black has good prospects due to his bishop-pair. 7 0-0 8 .td3 'ti'e7 Black prepares ... e5. 9 .!be5 Or: a) The simple 9 0-0 lets Black pro­ ceed with his plan: 9 ... .txg3 10 hxg3 e5 1 1 dxe5 .!bxe5 12 .!bxe5 'ii'xe5. Black has captured the centre and it's hard even to imagine that there could be any problems for him now: a1) One idea is to bring the queen to f4: 1 3 �f3 .l:le8 14 l:tfe1 ..tg4 (this looks more harmonious than 14 ... .td7 15 'ii'f4 1Wh5 16 .te2 1Wg6 17 .tf3 .lir.ac8?! 18 e4 dxe4, when the players agreed a draw in Z.Mamedyarova­ Zhukova, European Women's Team Ch, Plovdiv 2003, although White had slightly better chances due to her su­ perior pawn-structure) 15 'ilf4 .l:!.ad8 16 f3 ..tc8 a2) After 13 l:le1 l:r.d8 14 'i!Va4, an interesting approach is l4...c4!?. Black abandons the d4 square, but grabs the d3-square, which can prove more im­ portant. 15 .te2 .tf5 16 .:tad1 'i!Vc7 17 b3 (White removes the annoying c4pawn to free his game; after 17 .!Df3 .!be4 18 .!bd4 i.g6 White faces the threat of ... .!bc5-d3 and a queenside advance) 17 ... cxb3 1 8 ii'xb3 .te6 19 'i!Va3 l:.d6 20 .l:!.b1 l:.c6 21 l:.ec1 b6 + •.•

=.

COLLE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE SYSTEMS

Appel-Sebag, Vlissingen 2007. Black has pressure on the c3-pawn. b) 9 dxc5 .txc5 10 e4!? and now: b 1) In Magem-de la Villa, Spanish Ch, Linares 1990 White seized a strong initiative after 10 ... dxe4?! 1 1 lt:'lxe4 lt:'lxe4 12 i.xe4 e5 13 0-0 i.g4 14 lte1 ;!;. He has better coordination and pres­ sure on the c6- and e5-squares. b2) Black should keep the balance in the centre rather than giving it up for free. With the new move 10 ... lt:Jh5 !? Black aims to exchange off the g3bishop at the right moment. 1 1 'i!Ve2 (White's best chance is to attack on the h-file, which is why Black does not rush to capture on g3; 1 1 i.h4 f6! 12 0-0 lt:'lf4 13 .tc2 dxe4 14 lt:Jxe4 l:td8 15 'iie l .i.b6 16 i.g3 lt:'lg6 = followed by ... e5) l l ....l:te8 12 lt:'lb3 i.b6 13 0-0-0 .i.d7 preparing ....l:tac8 with an unclear position. 9 lt:Jd7 Now: C 1 : 10 lt:Jdf3 ! ? 33 C2: 10 f4 34 •••

Cl} 10 lt:'ldf3 ! ? (D)

This is an interesting idea. The point is to avoid exchanging the e5-knight until Black weakens his pawn-structure with .. .f6. 10... c4!? This is a new move I am proposing. Generally, it's not good to play ... c4 in this type of position since it makes the e4 advance easier for White. But considering the upcoming simplifica­ tions, Black can seemingly ignore this principle.

33

B

Here's what can happen if Black im­ mediately pushes back the e5-knight: lO ...f6 1 1 lt:'lxc6 bxc6 12 i.xd6 'i!Vxd6 and now 13 'i!Vc2! is an important move that forces Black to make some weak­ ening reply: a) After 13 ...g6 White should avoid 14 i.xg6? f5 !, when he is worse after 15 i.h5 lt:'lf6 + or 15 dxc5 'ilie7 (not 15 ...'ilixc5? 16 i.xh7+! �xh7 17 lt:'lg5+ ±) 16 i.h5 lt:'lf6 +. However, he should just castle: 14 0-0!? e5 15 e4!, opening the centre in a way that promises ac­ cess to the black king. b) 13 ...f5 weakens the e5-square and makes Black's task more compli­ cated: 14 0-0 a5 15 l:tfd1 c4 16 i.e2 i.a6 17 b3 ! lt:'lb6 18 lt:Je5 cxb3 19 axb3 .i.xe2 20 �xe2 l:r.fb8 21 'i¥c2 with a slight advantage for White, Elianov-Sebag, French Team Ch, Guin­ gamp 2010. ll i.c2 1 1 i.e2 leaves the bl-h7 diagonal, so Black changes plan and simply takes on e5: 1 l ...lt:'lcxe5 12 dxe5 i.c7 13 0-0 lt:Jc5 with a good position. ll ... f6 12 lt:'lxc6

34

ATTA CK WITH BLACK

16 e4 1 2 t:bxd7 also looks OK for Black: The most critical continuation. 1 2 ... ..ixd7 13 0-0 ..ixg3 14 hxg3 b5 15 16 ... cxd4 17 cxd4 l1b8 e4 b4 16 exd5 exd5 17 .l::te 1 "flif7 Black is tine; for example, 18 dxe5 12 bxc6 13 i.. xd6 'ii'xd6 Now we can see why we played ..ixe5 19 ..ixe5 'iVxe5 20 lL'lf3 'ilc7 21 ... c4 first. With the bishop on c2, the exd5 cxd5 22 .l:tac 1 'iVb6+ 23 'iff2 attack on h7 is not so useful: 14 'iVbl i.. a6 with a drawish endgame. f5 15 0-0 a5 After 14 0-0 a5 15 e4 i..b7 16 l:.e1 c5 Black is OK. D) Torre 1 d4 lL'lf6 2 lL'lf3 c5 3 c3 e6 4 .t g5 With this move, White opts for a C2) form of the Torre Attack (the most 10 f4 f6 11 t:Dxc6 1 1 i.. xh7 +? is simply bad for White: standard sequence is 1 d4 lL'lf6 2 t:Df3 1 l ...'it>xh7 12 �h5+ 'it>g8 13 t:bg6 e6 3 ii.g5, when 3 ... c5 4 c3 transposes 'iVe8 14 t:bf3 t:be7! + Blatny-lotov, Eu­ to our position). It's named after the famous Mexican master Carlos Torre ropean Ch, Kusadasi 2006. Repetto. Compared to the London Sys­ l l ... bxc6 12 0-0 (D) tem, the key difference is that White places his bishop on g5, exerting a lit­ tle more pressure on Black, but the general set-up is quite similar: c3, e3, lL'lbd2, .i.d3, 0-0, etc. Against accurate play, such modest development is un­ likely to produce any advantage in the opening. 4 ... d5 I prefer this move-order over 4 ... h6, since then besides 5 i..h4 White can take on f6 followed by e4. 5 e3 h6 6 i.. h4 Now there is no reason for White to exchange on f6. 12 ... e5! ? 6 ... t:bbd7 7 lL'lbd2 i.d6 8 i.. d 3 0-0 Black can also close the centre by 12 ... f5 !? with an absolutely safe po­ 9 0-0 (D) sition. 9 ... b6 This quiet-looking but actually 13 fxe5 fxe5 14 'iVh5 lL'lf6 15 �h4 h6! ? rather ambitious move has recently This new idea removes the pawn been tried out in high-level chess. from the firing line. Not 15 ... i..d7?? Black wants to play ... i.. b 7, when he 16 dxe5 i..xe5 17 .txh7+ +- Liogky­ will have a stable and pleasant posi­ Fingerov, Odessa rapid 2005. tion, since if White then plays e4, it =.

•••

=.

=,

.15

COLLE, Z UKERTORT, LONDON AND TORRE S YSn'MS 10 e4

Otherwise Black plays ... .ib7, when White's e4 advance will evidently be less dangerous. 10 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 White has nothing special after I I .ixf6 �xf6 (l l ...tt:lxf6? 12 e5 ±) 12 cxd4 dxe4 1 3 tt:lxe4 'fie7 l l... dxe4 1 2 .ltxe4 Or 12 tt:lxe4 i.e7 12 J:tb8 Black can be happy from a posi­ tional viewpoint, so from now on he can focus on simplification. White in turn tries to complicate matters. 13 .itc6 Another attractive-looking continu­ ation is 13 'ii'e2 but here Black also copes with his problems: 13 ... .ib7 14 .ltxb7 llxb7 15 tt:le4 (15 tt:lc4 .if4! puts the bishop on a very good square, where it controls c 1 ; then 16 tt:lfe5 "file? is equal) 15 ... i.e7 16 .l:.acl tt:ld5 (Black exchanges more and more pieces) and now 17 .ltg3 tt:l7f6 18 "ila6 .l:!.d7 19 tt:lxf6+ .ltxf6 17 .ltxe7 'fllxe7 18 tt:le5 tt:lxe5 19 dxe5 .Uc7 and 17 tt:ld6 l:.c7 18 .ltg3 �hc1 19 l:.xc1 .ixd6 20 i.xd6 .l:!.e8 21 'ii'a6 tt:l7f6 22 i.e5 'i!Vd7 all lead to equal play. .•.

=.

=.

..

will merely lead to exchanges that are by no means unfavourable for Black. So if White is going to create active play, or prove an opening advantage, he needs to take forcing measures right now. In case of the natural 9 ... e5, Black must be prepared to meet the aggres­ sive 10 dxe5 tt:lxe5 1 1 tt:lxe5 .ltxe5 12 f4!. Then: a) 12 ... .itd6?! 13 e4 c4 14 .lte2 �b6+ 15 .ltf2 .ltc5 16 e5 tt:le4 (the al­ ternative 16 ....1txf2+ is similar: 17 l:txf2 tt:le4 1 8 tt:lxe4 dxe4 19 �d4 �xd4 20 cxd4 :l.d8 21 l:!.d 1 .lte6 22 f5 .itd5 23 .ifl ! t intending l:.c2 and �f2-e3) 17 tt:lxe4 dxe4 1 8 .txc5 'i!Vxc5+ 19 'ii'd4 'ii'xd4+ 20 cxd4 with a slightly better endgame for White, Morozevich-Alekseev, Moscow 2008. b) The computer offers the cold­ blooded 12 ... .1tc7 13 e4 g5 14 fxg5 tt:lg4 with an 'equal' evaluation. You may wish to investigate this further, but of course you would need to pre­ pare it very carefully, since in such a position even the most natural move can be a fatal mistake.

= ,

13 ... .ib7 14 l::.cl (D) 14 ... .if4!?

Again the bishop is good on f4 since it pins the d2-knight and pre­ pares ... i.xc6 and ... .l:tc8, which had been impossible due to l::txd6. I am offering this new move as an improvement over 14 ... b5?!, which allows White to achieve his desired complications: 15 d5 ! exd5 16 .ltxd7 'ii'xd7 17 i.xf6 gxf6 18 tt:\d4 with

36

A ITA CK WITH BLACK

quite an unpleasant position for Black, Andreikin-Kovchan, Moscow 2012. 1S �g3 This is the safest move for White. Other continuations tend to rebound on him: a) 15 g3?! forces an exchange of Black's annoying bishop but leaves White's h4-bishop in a precarious sit­ uation. 15 ... ..txc6 16 llxc6 ..txd2 17 1!Vxd2 l:r.c8 1 8 !!xc8 (18 llfcl ?! llxc6 19 .Uxc6 1Wa8 ! 20 'iVc 1 lt::lb 8 21 llc3 lt::ld5 +) 1 8 .. .'i!i'xc8 19 ..txf6 lt::lxf6 leaves Black more comfortable. b) 15 d5?! does not work so well now because Black's pieces are more active than they were in Andreikin­ Kovchan. 15 ...exd5 16 ..txd7 'i!i'xd7 17 �xf6 gxf6 18 g3 �e5! (not allowing White to obtain the d4-square for free) 19 lt::lxe5 fxe5 20 'ii'h5 'i!i'd6 21 lt::lf3 �fe8 22 l:tfel e4 23 lt::ld4 'ii'g6 +. White has taken one blockade square but lost ground in all other parts of the board.

c) 15 'i!Va4?! is strongly met by 15 ...b5 !, gaining an important tempo for Black's development. Then: cl) 16 'fixa7 ..txc6 17 l:txc6 .l:.a8 and here: el l) 1 8 'fib7? loses to 18 ... 'ii'a5 ! (intending ... l:ta7) 19 lt::lb 3 (19 �xf6 .l:ta7 20 lt::lb 3 'fia4 -+ is the same) 19 ... 1!Va4! (defending b5) 20 ..txf6 .l:la7, trapping the queen. It can only be saved at the cost of a piece: 21 lt::lc 5 lt::lx c5 22 b3 lt::l xb7 23 bxa4 gxf6 24 axb5 l:txa2 -+. c12) 18 ..txf6! lt::lxf6 (18 ... gxf6? 19 'fib7 ;!; leaves the d7-knight hang­ ing; e.g., 19 .. .'i¥a5 20 .l::!.c 3) 19 1\Vc5 .l:txa2 +. c2) 16 1Wxb5 ..txc6 17 'ifxc6 ..txd2 1 8 lt::lxd2 .l:r.xb2 19 lt::lc4 (unexpectedly Black wins a pawn since after 19 l:lc2, the d4-pawn drops: 19 ... lt::lb 8! 20 'ii'c 3 .l:txc2 21 'fixc2 'fixd4 +) 19 .. Jha2 20 lt::le5 aS ! + and White needs to fight for a draw. c3) 16 'ii'b4 'ifb6 17 �xb7 .l::!.xb7 + followed by ... lt::ld5. 1S �xg3 16 hxg3 �xc6 17 .l::!.xc6 .l:!.c8 •••

Black has solved his opening prob­ lems; for example, 1 8 'i!i'a4 .l:lxc6 19 'ili'xc6 lt::lb 8 20 'ii'b7 'i!Vd7 21 'iWxd7 lt::lbxd7 22 .:!.c1 lt::ld5 White has captured the only open file but Black has safely blockaded the d4-pawn and taken control of the only dangerous square on the c-file - c7. The position is equal. =.

3 Anti - Benon i 4 ltJc3

1 d4 lDf6 2 lDf3 c5 3 d 5 (D)

B

White gains ground in the centre, and shows that he is in an uncompro­ mising mood. 3 e6 This move is my recommendation for Black. After White's main reply, 4 c4, our repertoire choice is to reach the Blumenfeld Gambit by playing 4 ... b5. In this chapter we look at White's al­ ternative options, most notably 4 lbc3. Many Benko players choose 3 ... g6 or 3 ... b5, hoping to transpose to a Benko. In practice, White rarely coop­ erates, and some of his alternatives are by no means easy to face. Also, some of our repertoire choices in the Benko are based on an early ... e6 rather than ... g6, so opting for 3 ... g6 would require additional preparation. A few •••

specific thoughts on these possibili­ ties: a) 3 ... g6 and now: al) 4 c4 b5 5 cxb5 takes us outside our Benko repertoire if White meets 5 ... a6 with 6 b6 or 6 e3. a2) I don't like 4 lbc3 .ii. g7 5 e4 d6 (a form of Schmid Benoni) for Black, since the positions that arise are of a completely different character from the Benko. Black's position is cramped and if there is a good technical player on the white side, it is usually very hard to get a comfortable game. There is little scope for activity for Black un­ less White is particularly careless. Of course, it's possible for Black to play this way, but I think when you exam­ ine the lines after 3 ... e6 you will agree that they offer Black far better win­ ning chances. b) 3 ...b5 transposes to a Benko De­ clined if White replies 4 c4. But 4 i.g5 is a popular alternative that leads to play of a different nature. Then you may wish to investigate 4 . .'ti'b6, which leads to interesting irregular positions. 4 lb c3 This is White's last chance to avoid serious complications. White seeks to control the d5-square with his pieces and hopes to establish this as an out­ post that gives him a long-lasting edge. Other moves:

ATTA CK WITH BLACK

38

a) 4 c4 is the main move, when our choice is 4 ... b5, the Blumenfeld Gam­ bit. See the next two chapters. b) 4 dxe6 fxe6 5 c4 is a rare se­ quence in practice, as it allows Black easy play in a variety of ways. If you are really keen on the Blumenfeld, then you can choose 5 ...b5, transpos­ ing to Line C of Chapter 4, but there are safe and very satisfactory alternatives such as 5 ... d5, while 5 ... i..e7 and 5 ... lLlc6, with ... d5 often coming soon, have achieved solid plus scores for Black. c) Black has several good answers to 4 i..g 5, but I recommend 4 .. .'ifb6!?, which immediately attacks two pawns - b2 and d5. Black is OK; e.g., 5 dxe6 dxe6 6 'i'c1 lLlc6 7 e3 i..e7 8 lLlbd2 0-0 9 lLlc4 'i!Vd8 4 ...exd5 It doesn't make any real difference if Black takes with pawn or knight, as they both lead to the same position: 4 ... lLlxd5 5 lLlxd5 exd5 6 'itxd5. If you were hoping for coverage of the Pseudo-Blumenfeld, 4 ...b5?!, then I'm sorry, but I consider the text-move to be objectively better. 5 lLlxd5 lLlxd5 6 'i!Vxd5 (D) White's queen has taken up an in­ fluential but exposed central post. If White can establish firm control of e4 and d5, then Black will come under strong pressure. His main mission is therefore to push the queen back in the quickest possible way, which is ...lLlc6, ... d6 and ... i..e6. 6 lLlc6! This move appears to invite an im­ mediate attack on the f7 -square, but =.

.••

careful analysis shows that there is no real problem. In case of 6 ... i..e7 Black needs to be ready to face 7 i..f4 lLlc6 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 i..d6!? (a new move), which leaves Black rather cramped. I don't enjoy such positions, and won't recommend them to my readers. Now: A : 7 i.. g5 39 B : 7 e4 39 Or: a) Now White does not have time to blockade the d7-pawn with 7 i.. f4 because of7 ... d6 (Rakhmangulov-Efi­ menko, Ukrainian Team Ch, Alushta 2002) 8 e3 i..e6 9 'i!Vd2 i..e7 10 .!:i.d1 0-0 with an equal position because the pawn is indirectly defended: 1 1 i..xd6? i..xd6 12 'i!Vxd6 'i!Va5+ 13 'iWd2 �xa2 +. b) 7 i..d2 d6! (again the priority is to push the white queen back; the next move is ... i..e6 with a comfortable po­ sition; Black can also play 7 ...i..e7 8 e4 0-0 9 i..c4 d6, which proved unclear in P.H.Nielsen-Jobava, European Team Ch, Khersonissos 2007, but I don't see

ANTI-BENONI 4 tiJc3

any reason to allow White to arrange his pieces in this way) 8 liJg5 'i/e7 9 e4 h6 10 .i.b5! (this is the only way for White to keep the balance; 10 liJf3? -te6 1 1 'ilid3 .i.f5 ! + costs him the e4-pawn) 10 ... -td7 1 1 liJf3 (Fodor­ Paschall, Paks 2005) l l ...a6 12 .i.e2 _te6 13 'ilid3 g5 ! (intending ... g4 or ... .i.g7) 14 .i.c3 .litg8 15 0-0-0 0-0-0 = followed by ... .i.g7. c) 7 c3 is a prophylactic move White stops ... liJb4. Then 7 ... d6 8 liJg5 'ilie7 9 .i.f4 (D) was played in Rombal­ doni-Vezzosi, Arvier 2009.

39

8 ltJxe5 9 'ilixe5+ 'ilie6 10 'ilic7! ...

Here I would like to offer a new move, 9 .. .f5!. This cuts off the white queen from defending the g5-knight and prevents ltJe4. The idea is simple: ... h6 and ... .i.e6 (the immediate 9 ... h6? allows 10 ltJe4 ±). After 10 0-0-0 h6 l l liJf3 i.e6 12 'i¥xd6 'iVxd6 13 -txd6 i.xd6 14 .l:txd6 i.xa2 = Black is OK.

White threatens mate in one. The endgame after 10 'i!Vxe6+ dxe6 1 1 g3 f6 12 i.e3 i.d7 13 i.g2 0-0-0 14 0-0-0 i.e7 is approximately equal. 10 'i¥b6!? This is a new move (varying from Berkes-Wojtaszek, Balatonlelle 2002) . Black's safest path is to move towards an endgame. 1 1 'i¥xb6 1 1 'i¥e5+ 'i¥e6 leads to a repetition. ll axb6 12 e4 i.e7 13 i.f4 It's useful for White to keep the dark-squared bishops on the board since his bishop is going to be more active than Black's. After 13 i.xe7?! 'i;; xe7 14 a4 d6 15 b3 i.e6 intending ... c4 Black is comfortably equal. 13 d6 White retains some pressure in the endgame, but Black has sufficient re­ sources to hold the balance, and White can easily get in trouble if he is care­ less. Here are some sample lines: 14 a3 i.d7 15 0-0-0 0-0-0, and now: a) 16 i.xd6? i.g4 17 f3 i.xd6 18 e5 (18 fxg4?? ..tf4+ 19 'i;;b l .Uxdl+ -+) 18 ... i.xe5 19 .l:!.xd8+ %hd8 20 fxg4 iLf4+ 21 'i;;b 1 l:td 1 + 22 'it>a2 'i;;c7 +. b) 16 iLc4 i.e6 17 i.d5 Wc7 18 l:l.d3 l:the8 19 .l:.hdl iLf6 is rather un­ clear. White may enjoy slightly better chances, but Black's position is very solid.

A)

B)

B

...

...

...

7 e4 d6 i.gS 'ilib6 8 liJeS As we know, it's important to pre­ After 8 0-0-0 d6 = followed by pare a quick ... i.e6 to prevent White ... i.e6 Black is fine. 7

40

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

from establishing control over the a2g8 diagonal. 8 ltJ g5 After 8 .tc4 .te6 9 Vi'd3 ltJb4 1 0 �e2 .txc4 1 1 �xc4 d5 ! Black ex­ changes his backward pawn. 12 exd5 'itxd5 and here: a) 1 3 �xd5 ltJxd5 14 .td2 (Mar­ tinez Rodriguez-Veingold, Alicante 2000) 14 ... f6! (an important restrict­ ing move) 15 0-0-0 0-0-0 is equal. Of course, it would be much better for Black if the pawn were back on c7, but thanks to the good location of the black knight, his pawn-structure should not be a big problem. b) Black should not be scared of the check 13 'ife2+ (D). Then:

l:td6 18 a3 ltJd5 19 'it>cl ! (19 c3?! ltJf4 ) 19 .. J:U8 20 c3 g5 21 h3 h5 22 .l:te4 l:tf5 23 'it>c2 followed by .l:.ae1, with a slight advantage for White. b2) I prefer the untried 13 ... .te7!: b21) After 14 0-0, 14 .. .'ii'e6 ! now works well because White has prob­ lems with the c2-pawn. 15 'ii'xe6 fxe6 16 c3 ltJd3 is equal. b22) 14 ..tg5 f6 15 a3 (retreating the bishop is worse: 15 i.f4? 'i¥f5 ! + or 15 i.h4?! 0-0-0 16 0-0 { 16 a3? llhe8 17 0-0 ..td6 + } 16 ... ..td6 + and ...lir.he8) 15 ... fxg5 16 axb4 g4 17 ltJe5 0-0 18 0-0 cxb4 19 ltJxg4 i.c5 Black has solved his problems. =

=.

8 'iVe7 (D) •••

w

bl) 13 . .'ir'e6?! 14 'ii'xe6+ fxe6 cre­ ates a weakness on e6 that White will exploit later. 15 'it>dl ! and now: bl l) 15 ...lir.d8+ 16 .td2 .te7 17 .l:te 1 l:!.d6 18 a3 ltJc6 19 .l:.e4 i.f6 20 c3 �f7 21 �c2 lir.hd8 22 .li1.ae1 ;!; Epi­ shin-Lubbe, Deizisau 201 1 . bl2) 15 ... 0-0-0+ doesn't change matters much. 16 i.d2 .te7 17 .l:tel

9 i.c4 Another interesting idea for White is to start with 9 .tb5, forcing 9 ... i.d7, and then drop the bishop back: a) After 10 .tf4?! h6 l l ltJf3 a6 12 i.e2, as in McDonald-Kaufman, Bu­ dapest 2006, Black can win material by 12 ... ltJb4! 13 'ii'd2 'ii'xe4, when I don't see full compensation for White; e.g., 14 0-0-0 (14 0-0 Vfxc2 15 'ii'e 3+

ANTI-BENONI 4 li:Jc3

iL.e6 16 l:tadl .l:.d8 +) 14 ...lt::lxa2+ 15 �b1 iL.e6 16 l:thel 0-0-0! + followed by ...�a4. b) 10 JL.c4!? (this untried move looks more critical to me) 10 ... lt::ld 8 (Black retreats for the time being, but plans to return soon; the point of White inserting i..b 5 is revealed by 1 o ... f6? 1 1 ti:Jf7 lt::lb4 12 'i!fxb7 { with the bishop on c8, this capture was im­ possible! } 12 ... iL.c6 13 �xe7+ iL.xe7 14 iL.f4! lt::lxc2+ 15 'iti>d2 lt::lx al 16 ti:Jxh8 ±) 1 1 0-0 h6 12 lt::lf3 lt::lc 6 13 iL.f4 iL.e6 14 'i!Vd3 iL.xc4 15 'ii'xc4 'ife6 16 'i¥b5 0-0-0 with an unclear position. 9 f6! (D) •••

41

iL.xb5 13 lt::lxd6+ 'ii'xd6 14 ifxb5+ 'iti>f7 +. 10 'iti> d7! Black gives up his castling rights. If White could keep the queens on, this would be a real problem, but since the queens are going to be exchanged, the black king can feel quite secure. 1 1 'ifxe7+ 1 1 iL.e6+?! 'iti>c7 12 iL.xc8 fxg5 13 'i!fxe7+ JL.xe7 14 iL.e6 lt::ld4 15 iL.b3 .i.f6 16 'iti>d 1 lt::lxb3 17 axb3 l:the8 1 8 liie l a6 + Hebden-Plaskett, British League (4NCL) 1998/9. Next Black will double on the e-file. ll JL.xe7 12 lt::l e6 Black has no problems after 12 lt::lf3 (S.Muhammad-Plaskett, Internet blitz 2000) 12 ... f5! 13 exf5 r:J.c7 12 lt::lb4! (D) •••

...

=.

•••

w

Black pushes White's pieces back. 10 'iff7+ The over-ambitious 10 ti:Je6?? can be punished by 10 ...lt::lb4 1 1 iL.b5+ rli;f7 and Black simply takes the knight after 12 lt::lg5++ 'iti>g6 13 h4 h5 -+ or 12 ti:Jd8++ 'iti>g6 13 h4! h5 -+ (not 13 ... lt::lxd5?? 14 h5#, with a spectacu­ lar checkmate). White must also avoid 10 lt::lf7? lt::lb4 1 1 iL.b5+ iL.d7 12 'ii'xb7

Black's ideas include ...lt::lxc2+ and ... b5, and White can't stop them both. 13 0-0 b5 14 iL.d5 lt::l xd5 15 exd5 (Glud-Skovgaard, Skanderborg 2005) 15 ... i..b7 16 .l:l.d 1 iL.xd5 17 lt::lxc5+ dxc5 18 .l:.xd5+ 'iti>c6 with an equal endgame.

4 B l u m e nfeld Ga m bit

1

tt:'lf3 c5 3 d5 e6 4 c4 b5 and other strong grandmasters. It's notable that scrutiny with modem com­ puter engines has, it seems, suggested that this speculative-looking gambit has a good deal more substance than tended to be thought for much of its earlier history. In common with the Benko Gam­ bit, Black sacrifices a pawn by ... b5. But in the Blumenfeld it is more com­ mon for White to refuse this gift and focus on securing his central foothold. Also, the aims of Black's pawn sacri­ fice are different. In the Benko, Black seeks play on the half-open a- and b­ files using the power of the g7 -bishop; We have now reached the basic po­ in the Blumenfeld Gambit, if White sition of the Blumenfeld Gambit. It's accepts the gambit pawn, Black plays named after the Russian master Benia­ in the centre, setting up a powerful min Blumenfeld. The greatest adher­ pawn-centre. Thus, the inclusion of ent of the gambit in its early years was the moves tt:'lf3 and ... e6 (compared Rudolf Spielmann (author of the fa­ with the Benko Gambit) changes a lot; mous book The A rt of Sacrifice in most significantly, the fact that Black Chess) , who used it successfully in nu­ has played ... e6 means that there is far merous games. Later on, Lev Alburt more tension in the centre, and this (who has played almost all the varia­ can work for or against either side, de­ tions featured in this book) scored pending on the specific features of some high-profile victories with the each position. gambit that considerably increased its The next chapter deals with the popularity. Nowadays you can find the main line, 5 i.g5, which aims to exert Blumenfeld Gambit in games by positional pressure on Black. In this Ehsan Ghaem Maghami, Yuri Krivor­ chapter we shall analyse all the rare uchko, Liviu Dieter Nisipeanu, Fran­ moves White can play on move 5, to­ cisco Vallejo Pons, Andrei Volokitin gether with lines where he accepts the (D)

d4 tt:'lf6 2

BLUMENFELD GAMBIT

gambit pawn. This chapter therefore divides into the following sections: A : 5 a4 43 44 B: 5 lt::lc3 47 C: 5 dxe6 Other moves can be dealt with more briefly: a) The odd-looking 5 cxb5 can be met by the natural 5 ...lt::lxd5 or 5 ... exd5 6 .ltg5, transposing to the note to White's 6th move in Chapter 5. b) 5 'i!Vc2?! does not look like a correct pawn sacrifice. 5 ... bxc4 6 e4 exd5 (D) and then:

43

plans) 9 �dl (or 9 i.e2 lt::lb4 10 'i!Vdl i.a6 1 1 i.e3 'i!Vd6 +) 9 ...lt::lc7! 10 l:.el lt::le6 +. The knight on e6 looks like a great defensive piece; Black is still a pawn up and White needs to prove he has sufficient compensation. c) 5 e4 lt::lxe4 and now: c 1) 6 i.d3 lt::lf6 7 dxe6 fxe6 trans­ poses to line 'c3'. c2) In the case of 6 cxb5 i.b7 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 i.d3 Black needs to be precise. 8 ... i.e7?! allows White an ad­ vantage after 9 'ifc2 lt::lf6 10 lt::lg5 ! ;l;, so 8 ... a6! is best. Now 9 ll¥c2 lt::lf6 10 lt::lg5 can be met by 10 ... axb5 1 1 i.xh7 (1 1 lt::lxh7? 'i!fc7! +) l l...l!Vc7 with a complicated and unclear position. c3) 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 i.d3 lLlf6 and then: c31) The aggressive 8 lt::lg5 bxc4 9 i.xh7 (D.Paulsen-Krause, 2nd Bun­ desliga 200112; 9 i.xc4? lt::lc6 +) can be met with 9 . .'�'c7! (a new move) 10 i.g6+
bl) 7 e5?! lt::lg 8 8 lt::lc 3 i.b7 9 i.g5 (Braga-Ward, London 1987) 9 .. .'ii' b6 +. White's main target here is the d5pawn, so Black should think first of it. For now, Black has two defensive ideas: to push back the g5-bishop by ... h6 and ... g5 and to play ... lt::le7 or A) ... lt::l a6-b4. Two pawns look like too 5 a4 This is a reasonable choice if White large a sacrifice for White's relatively simply wants to reach an interesting modest compensation. b2) 7 exd5 lt::lxd5 8 i.xc4 'iie7+!? position with little theory. 5 ... bxc4 6 lt::l c3 exd5 7 lt::lxd5 (D) (this unpleasant check disrupts White's

A ITA CK WITH BLACK

44

'i!Vxb3 cxb3 12 .i.xa6 lt:lb4 (a double attack on a6 and c2) 13 e5 lt:lg8 14 .l:.b 1 lt:lxa6 15 l:txb3 (White is a pawn down, but Black needs to hurry with his kingside development) 15 ... c4 1 6 .l:!.b5 i.b4 1 7 i.d2 li!.c8! (supporting the c4-pawn) 18 lt:ld5 (18 lt:le4 ?! c3 19 .i.e3 .l:tc4! 20 lt:ld4 lt:le7 + and ... 0-0) 18 ... .i.xd2+ 19 lt:lxd2 lt:le7 20 lt:le4 lt:lxd5 2l lt:ld6+ �e7 22 lt:lxc8+ .l:!.xc8 23 Ihd5 c3 and, with his strong passed pawn, Black is fine. 7 lt:lc6!? .•.

This is a new move that I am pro­ posing. Black always used to play 7 ... i..b7 but after 8 e4 lt:lxd5 9 exd5 it's not clear to me what the bishop is do­ ing on b7. In Pham Minh-L.Vajda, Bu­ dapest 2002 Black won the d5-pawn by 9 .. .'�e7+ 10 i..e2 'ile4 1 1 0-0 'ii'xd5 12 'ii'c2 J..e7 but I don't like the posi­ tion that appears after 13 l:tel !?, when 13 ... 0-0? is no good because of 14 i.. xc4 'ii'd6 15 lt:le5 ! ± with multiple threats. That's why I propose another natural developing move that also al­ lows Black to hold on to the c4-pawn (temporarily, but usefully). 8 e4 i.a6 9 lt:lc3! White creates the threat of e5. The slow 9 i.e2?! i.e7 10 0-0 0-0 + leaves Black better. 9 ...'ii'b 8! A nice square for the queen - it stops White's e5 advance and controls important squares on the b-file. Also, on c7 it could be attacked by lt:lb5. Black is OK here; for example, 10 b3 ! (the most critical; otherwise Black plays ... .i.e7 and ... 0-0) 10 ... 'ii'xb3 ! 1 1

B)

5 lt:lc3

Although this move strikes me as ugly, some care is needed, so we should examine at least one way for Black to get a comfortable position. In some of the practical examples, White has failed to make the most of his chances, so we need to go well beyond 'prepa­ ration by database' here! 5 ... b4 6 lt:la4 Here the knight can easily find it­ self out of play. White's main active idea is to attack the b4-pawn by play­ ing a3, and in order to reply correctly, Black needs to respect the possibilities that the queenside pawn-tension will introduce. Retreating by 6 lt:lbl ?! does not ap­ pear to have much logic, although proving an advantage for Black is not quite as simple as one might expect, as the knight can quickly be 'recycled' if a promising post opens up: a) 6 ... exd5?! is not too good since it gives the white knight the important c4-square, and White can make good use of this; e.g., 7 cxd5 i.b7 8 i.g5 h6

45

BLUMENFEW GAMBIT

9 .ltxf6 'ii'xf6 10 e4! g5 (10 ... 1i'xb2 1 1 tt:lbd2 .lte7 12 .l:.c1 appears to give White decent compensation) 1 1 lLlbd2 g4 12 tt:\g1 'ifxb2 13 i.. b5 and tt:\e2 with obvious compensation. b) 6 ... i..b7! avoids giving White the c4-square. Then: bl) After 7 dxe6 fxe6 Black gets the better position; e.g., 8 i..f4 i..e7 9 e3 0-0 10 i..e2 d6 1 1 a3 a5 and here: b1 1) 12 0-0 (Yakimenko-J.Friedel, Pardubice rapid 201 1) 12 ... tt:\h5 ! 13 i..g 3 lLlxg3 14 hxg3 tt:ld7 +. bl2) 12 h3 preserves the bishop but does not maintain equality either: 12 ... e5!? 13 i..h2 e4 14 tt:lfd2 (14 tt:\g5 'ii'd7 15 h4 h6 16 tt:lh3 tt:\c6 +) 14 ... tt:\c6 + and ... tt:\e5. b2) 7 i..g5 h6 8 i..h4 (8 .ltxf6? �xf6 9 �d2 exd5 10 cxd5 g5 ! +) 8 ... g5 9 i..g 3 exd5 10 cxd5 .ltxd5 + with a useful extra pawn for Black. 6 i.. b7! Once again, taking on d5 opens up both the c4-square and the a6-fl diag­ onal. After 6 ... exd5?! 7 cxd5 d6 8 a3 a5 (D) there are some instructive vari­ ations: ••.

Black has the simple plan of ... i.e7, ... 0-0, ... tt:lbd7, etc. However, White is able to seize the initiative by 9 e4! (improving over 9 i.. g5?!, as played in Kekki-Postny, Caleta 2005), a move that my editor Graham Burgess brought to my attention. Now none of the moves we analysed helped us to find a safe position for Black: a) 9 .. tt:\xe4?! is met by 10 .ltb5+. Then 10 ... tt:\d7?! 1 1 'ii'e2 f5 (l l ...'iie7 12 tt:lb6 l:tb8 13 tt:\xc8 l:txc8 14 axb4 and 14 ... axb4 fails to 15 .ltxd7+ +-) 12 lLlg5 gives White a decisive attack, while 10 ... i..d7 1 1 i.. xd7+ lLlxd7 12 �e2 'ii'e7 (or 12 ... f5 13 ltJg5 �e7 14 tLle6 with excellent compensation) 1 3 0-0 ± gives White more than enough compensation due to Black's uncastled king. b) 9 ... g6 does not help to evacuate the king: 10 e5 ! dxe5 1 1 lLlxe5 and then: b1) l l ...i..g7? 12 i..b 5+ i..d7 (or 12 ... tt:lbd7? 13 tt:lc6 'ilc7 14 d6 �b7 15 'ii'e2+ �f8 1 6 'i!Ve7+ �g8 17 'ii'd8+ i..f8 18 i..h6 +-) 13 ltJxd7 lLlbxd7 14 'ile2+ �f8 (14 ... 'ii'e7 15 tt:\xc5 +-) 15 0-0 +-. b2) 1 l . .. .ltd6 12 .ltb5+ �f8 13 .lth6+ 'itg8 14 ltJc4 ;!; with a poor po­ sition for Black. c) 9 ... i..e7 10 i..b5+ (causing a traf­ fic-jam for Black over the d7-square) 10 ... .1td7 (the knight wants this square, but 10 ... liJbd7? fails to 1 1 e5 ! dxe5 12 d6 i..f8 13 tt:\xe5 +-) 1 1 .ltd3 0-0 12 0-0 ;!; intending moves like .ltf4, h3 and tt:ld2, with a normal sort of posi­ tion where White has pleasant pros­ pects. .

46

ATTACK WITH BLACK

simply ignored this 'threat' by 10 e3!?, since the exchange on g5 leaves the black king in trouble because most of his pieces are on the queenside. As 10 ... tbxg5 1 1 tbxg5 gives White the initiative, Black should try 10 . .'�c7!?, with unclear play. b) 9 ... �c6!? attacks a different white piece, aiming to destroy his pawn-structure. Then: b1) 10 tDb2?! makes 10...tbe4 more effective: 1 1 'ii'c2 (1 1 e3 is now met by 1 l ...'iVa3 ! 12 'iVc2 tbxg5 13 tbxg5 �e7 14 f4 �f6 15 l:!.bl h6 16 tbf3 'ii'xa2 + with a useful extra pawn) 1 1 ... g6 + intending ... Ji.g7. b2) 10 e3 �xa4 1 1 bxa4 tbc6 fol­ lowed by ... �e7, ... 0-0 and ... d5, when Black's chances are higher. 7 h6 8 Ji.xf6 According to my database White has never tried 8 Ji.h4, presumably scared of losing the d5-pawn, but in fact it's not a reason to avoid this move. Then: a) 8 . . g5 9 �g3 exd5 10 cxd5 �xd5 1 1 h4 gives White good compensation since Black's position has become vulnerable. That's why I propose to refuse this gift. b) The main idea of 8 ... d6!? is slowly to create a threat of capturing on d5 without playing ... g5. White will then be forced to do something him­ self, i.e. take on e6 or on f6. After 9 a3 aS 10 e3 Jl.e7 (the d5-pawn is at­ tacked) 1 1 dxe6 fxe6 + the a4-knight is a) 9 ... tbe4 was tried in Gokhale­ out of play, while Black has a quantita­ Zhang Pengxiang, Mumbai 2003 but it tive advantage in the centre and all his seems that ...tbxg5 is not much of a pieces have good prospects. problem for White, who could have 8 Ji'xf6 9 e4 d6 10 a3 (D)

Thanks to these variations, we un­ derstand that Black needs to leave the white pawn on c4, as it blocks lines that White could otherwise put to good use. 7 � g5 7 d6?! is too self-confident. I rec­ ommend 7 . ..lli'a5 ! 8 Ji.f4 tbe4 (intend­ ing ...b3+) 9 b3 �c6 + with threats of ... �xa4 and ... b3+ or ...f6 and ... e5 winning the d6-pawn. 7 ... tbe4?!, as played in Rossetto-R.Garcia, Buenos Aires 1972, is less convincing because White can exploit the vulnerability of the c5-pawn by 8 tLld2!. 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 �g5 (after 8 e3, as seen in Orzech-Shilov, Katy Rybackie 2009, 8 . .'il+'c7!? intending ... .id6 and ... tbc6-e5 deserves attention; e.g., 9 b3 Ji.d6 10 �b2 0-0, when Black's pieces are ready for kingside action) 8 .. .'jWa5 9 b3 (D) (9 e3 �c6 10 b3 transposes to line 'b2') and now:

•.•

.

••

BLUMENFELD GAMBIT

47

Blumenfeld, and quite often occurs in practice. But as mentioned earlier, White more often declines the gambit, since Black's basic compensation is rather obvious - he gets total control of the centre. However, it would be a big lie to say that Black easily proves his compensation. Precision is as im­ portant here as it is in the main lines of the Benko Gambit. 6 ... d5 (D)

Black can either give the b4-pawn additional support or ignore his oppo­ nent's last move: a) 10 ... lLld7 gives rise to a compli­ cated situation: 1 1 axb4 cxb4 12 'i!Vd2 a5 was unclear in Bt:insch-Votava, Mitropa Cup, Bad Wt:irishofen 1993. b) 1 O ... a5! is a solid move strength­ ening Black's pawn-chain. Then 1 1 i..d3 lbd7 1 2 0-0 i..e7 leaves Black better, while after 1 1 axb4 axb4 12 lbb6 l:hal 13 'iVxal lbd7 the lone white queen can't create many prob­ lems for Black on the queenside: bl) 14 'ii'a4?! 'ied8 +. b2) 14 lbxd7?! is natural but inef­ fective: 14 .. .'�xd7 15 i..d3 (15 ii'a4+? c:J;;c 7 16 'ii'a5+ Wc8 +; the b2-pawn is undefended) 15 ... i..e7 + followed by ... I:ta8. b3) 14 'i!Va7 'iYd8 15 'i¥xb7 'ii'xb6 16 'ii'c 8+ We7 intending ... g5 and ... i.. g7 gives Black a pleasant game.

Black has taken control of the cen­ tre. A standard plan here is ... i..d6, . .. 0-0 and ... a6. Then the queen's knight moves to c6 or d7, and the queen's bishop is deployed to b7 or a6. Mean­ while, White has plenty of set-ups to choose from. The most crucial idea that Black should watch out for is the e4 ad­ vance. Now: C l : 7 i..f4 48 C2: 7 e3 49 C3: 7 lbc3 50 C) C4: 7 g3 52 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 cxb5 White accepts the gambit pawn. Or: This is obviously a critical test of the

AITACK WITH BLACK

48

a) There are no problems for Black if White plays 7 a4 a6 8 e3 (Rodkin­ E.Rotstein, World Seniors Ch, Glad­ enbach 1999) 8 ... c4!? (a new move, sealing in White's king's bishop) 9 l2Jc3 axb5 10 l2Jxb5 l2Je4! intending ... .tb4+. Black has good compensa­ tion. b) 7 .tg5 .te7 (7 ... .td6 invites 8 e4!, when 8 ... dxe4? is strongly met by 9 l2Jfd2 .tb7 10 l2Jc3 ±; in my opin­ ion it's better to play more slowly in this case) 8 e3 0-0 9 l2Jc3 (9 .td3? is a poor square for the bishop because of Black's tempo-gaining ... c4 advance: 9 ... a6 10 bxa6 c4 1 1 .te2 'i!Vb6 12 'i!Vcl .tb4+ 13 l2Jc3 l2Je4 + Vasilev-Mirosh­ nichenko, Izmir 2006) 9 ... a6 10 a4 .tb7 1 1 ..te2 axb5 12 .txb5 (12 axb5? .l:txa1 13 'i!Vxa1 d4! gives Black a strong initiative, while in the case of 12 l2Jxb5 lL\e4 13 i..xe7 'i!Vxe7 14 0-0 lL\c6 15 .td3 l2Jf6 his compensation is clear) and then: bl) An instructive miscalculation occurred in Matuszewski-Olszewski, Grodzisk Mazowiecki 2007: 12 ...l2Jbd7 13 0-0 l2Jg4?! 14 .tf4 d4?. White could now have exploited the weak­ ness of e6 and d7 by 15 l2Jxd4! cxd4 16 �xg4 l:!.f6 (16 ... dxc3? 17 \\!Vxe6+ 'iith8 18 :ad 1 ±) 17 :fd 1 l:tg6 18 'ife2 :xg2+ 19 'iitf l ±. b2) Now is a good moment for 12 ... .td6. After 13 0-0 lL\c6 14 'ife2 'i!Vb6 Black has arranged his pieces well for the ensuing middlegame struggle. Cl) 7

.tf4 i..d6

It makes sense to exchange off the f4-bishop since otherwise it exerts too much pressure on Black's position. 8 .txd6 'ili'xd6 (D)

9 l2Jbd2 Or: a) 9 l2Jc3 0-0 10 e4 should not scare Black since he is better developed. I O .. l2Jbd7 I I .tc4 ?! (Dreev-Volokitin, Internet blitz 2004) 1 l...l2Je5! +. b) 9 e3 0-0 10 l2Jc3 l2Jbd7 1 1 .te2 .1b7 12 0-0 e5 13 a4 occurred in Milov-Tregubov, Ajaccio rapid 2008 (they even played two games from this position). After the natural (but un­ tried) 1 3 ... d4!? 14 .tc4+ 'iith8 Black's compensation looks good. 9 0-0 10 e3 l2Jbd7 11 .1e2 l2Je5 12 l2Jxe5 �xeS 13 'i!Vc2 a6! ? This is a new move (deviating from Andreikin-Alekseev, Russian Team Ch, Dagomys 2008). Black's main idea is to distract the e2-bishop from the g4-square to weaken the oppo­ nent's kingside. Then: a) 14 bxa6?! .1xa6 15 i.. xa6 Itxa6 and 16 0-0?! is not good because of .

...

BLUMENFELD GAMBIT

49

16 ...tt:lg4 17 g3 c4 + with ideas such as .. .'ii'h5 , ... tt:le5-d3 or ... :b6 and .. .l�tb8. b) 14 'ii'xc5 'ii'xb2 15 'it'd4 (15 l:tc1 ? axb5 +) 15 .. .'�xd4 16 exd4 axb5 17 �xb5 �a6 Due to the weakness on a2, White's extra pawn is not valu­ able at all. c) After 14 0-0 axb5 15 ..txb5 (15 'fixeS 'iixb2 ) 15 ...tt:lg4 16 g3 'ifh5 17 h4 g5 18 'it'xc5 gxh4 Black clearly has enough activity. =.

=

C2) 7 e3 �d6 8 tt:lc3 tt:lbd7

Now it's time for White to decide on a square for his king's bishop. In practice he has tried all the possibili­ ties: d3, e2 and g2. 9 ..td3 Or: a) 9 i.e2 0-0 10 0-0 �b7 1 1 b3 fiie7 12 i.b2 e5, Vitiugov-Nemtsev, St Petersburg 2002. Black has built up a strong centre and has obvious com­ pensation for the pawn. b) 9 g3 is possible, but frankly, I don't believe that a pawn-structure such as e3-f2-g3-h2 can be good, es­ pecially considering Black's prospects on the a6-fl diagonal. That's why I propose a variation based on ... a6: 9 ... 0-0 10 ..tg2 a6!? (I like this new move; I could not find a direct way to blow up Black's centre in case of I O ... ..tb7 1 1 0-0 'ii'e7 12 a4 e5 13 a5 a6 14 bxa6 i.c6, as in A.Brown-Smerdon, Rotorua Zonal 201 1, but I nevertheless find it a bit risky to stake everything on such a centre) 1 1 0-0 axb5 12 tt:lxb5 and now the unhurried 12 ... �e7 (D) promises Black good compensation.

The idea is ... ..ta6. Then: b1) 13 tt:lg5 seeks a tactical hole in Black's set-up, but it is not really dangerous: 13 . .'itb6 14 tt:lc3 h6 15 tt:lxd5 !? (15 tt:lxe6? 'i!Vxe6 16 tt:lxd5 ltb8 +; 15 tt:lf3 �a6 16 l::te l c4!? in­ tending ... tt:lc5-d3 gives Black a nice position) 15 ... exd5 16 �xd5+ tt:lxd5 17 'iiVxd5+ �h8 and now both 18 'ii'xa8 ..txg5 and 18 tt:lf7+ :xf7 19 'ii'xf7 'ii'd6 are unclear. b2) 13 a4 i.a6 14 i.d2 tt:le4 15 ..th3 l:H6 should be fine for Black. The crazy 16 ..ta5 ! 'iixa5 17 ..txe6+ lhe6 1 8 'ili'xd5 tt:lf8 19 'ili'xa8 .ltf6 leads to an unclear situation. 9 i.b7 10 e4 An instructive attack was executed by Black in the following game: 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 :e1 'it'c7 12 h3 tt:le4 13 'ii'c2?! :xf3 ! 14 gxf3 tt:lg5 15 'itg2 tt:le5 16 �e2 :f8 17 f4 d4+ 1 8 e4 d3?! (18 ... 'ili'f7! -+ would win even faster) 19 fxe5? (19 i.xd3 tt:lef3 + and ... tt:ld4) 19 ... dxc2 20 exd6 "illf7 and Black wins, G.Orlov-Sawyer, Se­ attle 1993. .••

10 ...0-0

50

AITA CK WITH BLACK

1 o ... dxe4? 1 1 i..xe4 ltlxe4 12 ltlxe4 i..xe4 13 'ii'xd6 ;!; leaves Black with no real compensation for the pawn. 11 'ii'e2 Black has great attacking chances after 1 1 exd5 exd5 12 0-0 d4. l l d4! This is a new move (improving over the 1 1 .. .c4 played in Boersma­ Rogers, Amsterdam 1985). After 12 ltlb1 ltlg4!? intending ... ltlde5, Black seizes a strong initiative. ...

C3 ) 7

ltlc3 White prepares the e4 advance. A precise response from Black is essen­ tial, as some of the tactical lines that now follow are rather intricate. 7 ltlbd7 (D) Black prepares an active response to White's intended pawn-thrust. He avoids 7 ... i..d6? 8 e4!. ••.

w

a) 8 e3 i..d6 transposes to Line C2. b) 8 i..f4?! does not make any sense here. 8 ... d4 9 ltlb1 ltld5 10 i.. g3 a6 1 1 e4 dxe3 12 fxe3 (Milov-Tregubov, Ajaccio rapid 2008) 12 .. ."ii'a5+! (White gets unpleasant compensation if Black takes on e3: 12 ...ltlxe3?! 13 'ii'b3 ltlxfl 14 :xfl) 13 ltlc3 ltlxc3 14 'ied2 axb5 15 bxc3 ltlf6 + followed by ... i.e7, ... 0-0 and an attack on White's weak­ nesses by ...ltle4 (or ...ltld5) and ...i..f6. c) 8 g3 is an idea that was first used by Turkish GM Suat Atalik, but no strong players have tried it since. White provokes Black into the varia­ tion 8 ... d4 9 ltla4 �aS+ 10 i..d2 'ii'xb5 1 1 i.. g2 i..b 7, when 12 b4! reveals the point of Atalik's idea: White tries to make use of his superior development. Then I recommend l2 ... 'ii'a6! (rather than 12 ... ltle4, which was played in Atalik-Erdogan, Turkish Ch, Istanbul 2006), sidestepping the attack on the queen by ltlxd4. After 13 0-0 (13 ltlxc5 ltlxc5 14 bxc5 i.. xc5 15 0-0 0-0 is also equal; Black has no problems in this middlegame) 13 ... cxb4 14 ltlxd4 iLxg2 15 'iitxg2 ltJc5 16 ltlxc5 i..xc5 17 ltlb3 iLe7 Black's piece activity compensates for his greater number of pawn-islands. 8 d4 9 e5 That's the point! The e-pawn can look after itself. 9 ltlg4 10 ltlg5 Attacking the g4-knight and the e6pawn. This is better than 1 0 ltle4?! i..b7, as the following lines demon­ strate: a) Black gets the better position af­ ter 1 1 h3 ltlgxe5 12 ltlxe5 ltlxe5 13 =

•.•

.•.

8 e4 ! ?

This is the most logical follow-up to 7 ltlc3, but there are of course other moves:

51

BLUMENFELD GAMBIT

'ii'h 5+ lt:Jf7 14 lt:Jg5 (14 lt:Jxc5 i.d5 15 ti:Jd3 'ii'f6 16 i.d2 i.d6 17 i.b4 e5 + Gozzoli-Maze, French Team Ch 2008) 14 ... g6 15 'i¥g4 lt:Jxg5 16 i.xg5 'i¥d5 + Komarov-Doncea, French Team Ch, Guingamp 2010. b) 1 1 lt:Jfg5 lt:Jdxe5 12 f4 i.xe4! (a typical idea - Black brings an unde­ fended knight to e4 in order to win a tempo) 13 lt:Jxe4 'ii'd5 and then: b1) 14 lt:Jg5? c4! (Black simply ig­ nores the f4-pawn) 15 i.d2 d3! + Malakhatko-Babujian, St Petersburg 2009. b2) 14 lt:Jg3? is a poor retreat, as 14 ... c4! 15 fxe5 i.b4+ 16 i.d2 'ilkxe5+ is a strong reply. 17 'ii'e2? loses by force to 17 ...i.xd2+ 18 'iii>xd2 'iff4+ 19 'ifi>el (19 'iii>d 1 0-0 and ...lt:Jf2+ is coming soon) 19 ... 0-0 -+, while 17 i.e2 lt:Je3 18 i.h5+ g6 19 'ii'f3 i.xd2+ 20 'iii>xd2 .:l.b8 + greatly favours Black. b3) 14 lt:Jf2 lt:Jxf2 15 'iii>xf2 i.e7! (simply ignoring the threat of fxe5; White's pieces are unprepared for the ensuing complications) 16 fxe5 0-0+ 17 'iii>g 1 c4! leaves Black a whole piece down but just look at the state of the white army! Only the king has relo­ cated, while the others are still on their starting blocks. 10 lt:Jdxe5 11 f4 After 1 1 lt:Jce4? h6! 12 lt:Jf3 'ii'd5 Black gets a position that is analogous to the lines after 10 lt:Je4 but without any material sacrifice. 13 lt:Jfd2 i.b7 14 h3 lt:Jf6 15 lt:Jxf6+ gxf6 16 f4?! lt:Jd3+! 17 i.xd3 'ii'xg2 18 'ii'h 5+ 'iii>d7 -+ Malakhatko-Vallejo Pons, Caleta 2010. l l ... i.e7 (D) .••

12 fxe5

12 lt:Jce4?! and now: a) In case of 12 ... 'ilkd5? 13 fxe5 lt:Jxe5 14 '(Wh5+ g6 15 'ilkh3 White gets an advantage: 15 ... lt:Jf7 16 lt:Jxf7 'ii'xe4+ 17 i.e2 0-0 18 'i¥f3 i.b7 19 0-0 d3 20 't!Vxe4 i.xe4 21 i.f3 i.xf3 22 lt:Jh6+ 'iii>g7 23 gxf3 l:tfd8 24 i.d2 ± M.Pavlovic-Parligras, Kavala 2008. b) With the new move 12 ... 0-0!, Black continues developing rather than worrying about material. His initiative will prove to be worth the investment: b1) The natural 13 fxe5 allows Black sufficient compensation after 13 ... lt:Jxe5: b1 1) 14 'ii'h5? h6 15 lt:Jf3 (the al­ luring 15 lt:Jxe6? loses the queen after 15 ...'(Wd5 ! 16 lt:Jxf8 i.g4! 17 'i¥xe5 'i!i'xe5 18 i.c4+ 'iii>xf8 19 0-0+ 'iii>e 8 20 .l:.el d3 ! + without gaining enough in return) 15 . JH5 1 6 'i¥h3 'i¥d5 gives Black strong compensation. b12) 14 'ii'b3 'ii'd5! (intending ... c4; Black's activity is so pronounced that he can even exchange the queens) 15 'i!i'xd5 exd5 16 lt:Jg3 i.g4 and Black's pieces are extremely active. .

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

52

b2) 13 h3 lDf6! and then: b21) White can try to attack by 14 lDxf6+ .txf6 15 h4!? but Black halts these ambitions with another knight sacrifice: 15 ... .txg5 ! 16 hxg5 'i!fd5! (only forward! Retreating by 16 ...lbf7? 17 'i!fh5 h6 18 ..td3 gives White a crushing attack) 17 fxe5 'i!fxe5+ 18 'ilie2 'ifg3+ 19 �dl e5 and now it is Black's attack that should be close to winning. b22) After 14 fxe5 lDxe4 15 lDxe4 'ir'd5 16 'ii'g4 .i.b7 Black is a whole piece down but since the white pieces are mostly undeveloped, he has suffi­ cient compensation. 12 lbxe5 Now: a) 13 lbce4?! 0-0 transposes to line 'b 1 ' of the previous note. b) 13 lbge4? is ugly and bad: 13 ...0-0 (13 ... dxc3? is not good at all: 14 'iWxd8+ ..txd8 15 bxc3 0-0 with un­ clear play) 14 lbe2 ..tb7 15 lD2g3 ..txe4! 16 lDxe4 .th4+! 17 lDg3 (17 g3 loses to 17 ...lDf3+ 18 �e2 �d5 -+) and here Black has a choice between many ways of getting a huge advan­ tage. 17 ... c4!? -+ may be best since it increases the number of threats, while 17 ...�f6 (Kazhgaleev-Kvon, Tashkent Zonal 201 1 ) is a strong alternative. c) 13 lDf3! lbxf3+ 14 �xf3 dxc3 15 bxc3 (15 �xa8?? cxb2 1 6 .txb2 'i!fa5+ 17 �dl 'i!fa4+ -+) 1 5 ... .tf6! with an unclear position.

lbc3? because after the simple 8 ... axb5 the pawn is untouchable since 9 lbxb5? fails to 9 ...'ii'a5+ 10 ltJc3 d4 +.

8 ....td6 9 .tg2 0-0 10 0-0 .txa6 (D)

.•.

Black has captured the centre and secured good squares for his pieces. 11 ltJc3 Or: a) Black doesn't object to getting the bishop-pair after 1 1 .tg5?! tiJbd7 12 ttJc3 h6 13 .txf6 ttJxf6 14 �c2 'i!fe7, when his position is favourable, A.Shneider-Krivoruchko, Cappelle la Grande 20 1 1 . b) An attempt to attack e6 does not pose any danger to Black: 1 1 ltJg5 "file? 12 .th3 .tc8! 13 ttJc3 ttJc6 14 ltJb5 .tb8 15 a4 e5 16 .txc8 l:.xc8 17 e4 ltJd4 18 lbxd4 cxd4 19 exd5 h6 20 ltJf3 iff? and Black's central pawns provide sufficient compensation, Shul­ man-Cordova, Merida 2008. C4) c) 1 1 tiJbd2? is definitely the wrong 7 g3 a6 8 bxa6 place for the knight. By 1 1...ltJc6 12 This capture is practically forced. l:.e1 c4! Black prevents b3 and opens White can't defend the pawn by 8 the a7-g1 diagonal for his bishop and

.H

BLUMENFELD GAMBIT

queen. So far, only two games have been played from this position, but neither was a real test as White made a mistake right away. However, Black's compensation is obvious: cl) 13 e4? ..tc5! 14 exd5?! (Odnor­ ozhenko-Oleksienko, Alushta 201 1 ) 14 ... ..txf2+! 15 'it>hl (15 'it>xf2? ltJg4+ 16 'ifi>fl c3+ -+) 15 ... exd5 +. c2) 1 3 b3? c3 14 lLlbl ltJe4 1 5 ..te3 iVa5 is much better for Black, Cemou­ sek-Navara, Czech Team Ch 2008/9. c3) The attempt to undermine the black centre by 13 ltJg5 .l:.e8 14 e4!? is the most critical reply. Black can safely answer 14...h6 15 exd5 exd5 16 l:.xe8+ 'ii'xe8 17 ltJgf3 'ii'f7, when he is still a pawn down but his centre and better piece coordination provide him with pleasant prospects. l l ltJc6 (D) ...

a) 12 .l:r.e l .l:r.b8!? (this untried move looks the most useful, especially con­ sidering that e4 does not give White any advantage; 12 ...'ii'c 7 was played in Babula-Krejci, Czech Ch, Pardu­ bice 201 1 ) 13 e4 d4 and then: al) 14 e5 lLlxe5 ! 15 lLlxe5 ..txe5 1 6 lLlb5 ! (this surprising move aims to avoid ... dxc3 followed by a further ad­ vance of the pawn towards promotion; not 16 .l:.xe5?? dxc3, when Black is winning after both 17 'ii'c2 ltJg4 and 17 'ii'xd8 .l:tfxd8, threatening ... cxb2 and ...l1dl+) 16 ... l:.xb5 17 llxe5 'ii'd6 +. The material balance is restored and now Black just has a powerful centre for free. a2) 14 'ii'a4 l:tb6 15 e5 (after 15 lLlbl ? ltJg4 + Black dominates the board) 1 5 ... ltJxe5 16 ltJxe5 dxc3 17 bxc3 ..txe5 18 .l:lxe5 ..tb5 19 'ii'c2 ltJg4 20 l:.el llxf2 21 'iVe4 h5 is un­ clear but probably roughly balanced. Just a few variations to show this: a21 ) 22 ..te3 l:hg2+! 23 'iVxg2 ..tc6 24 'iVd2 'iVf6 (intending ... 'iVf3) 25 .:!.fl 'iVe5 26 'iVd8+ 'it>h7 27 'iVd3+ ..te4 28 'ii'e2 (28 'ii'd2? 'ii'b 8! + intend­ ing ....li!.b2) 28 ... ..td5 29 'ii'd 3+ ..te4 a22) 22 h3 .i.d3 23 'ii'a8 l:tb8 24 ikc6 l:.b6 25 'i!ka8 (25 'ii'a4 'ii'd6! with an attack) 25 ... .l:.b8 b) 12 a4 has a similar strategic idea to those we see in the Benko Gambit White prepares an outpost on b5. But in the Blumenfeld Gambit it's often con­ nected with a pawn sacrifice in order to exchange the a6-bishop and get the bishop-pair. 12 ...lLlb4 (a perfect out­ post for the black knight - it defends the d5-pawn and prepares ... e5) 1 3 .l:ta3 =.

=.

12 ..tg5 For some reason, this move is the most popular in my database. But the idea of exchanging one of the bishops in so open a position looks weird to me. Other moves:

54

AITA CK WITH BLACK

'ike8 14 lt:Jb5 (completing the idea) 14 ... i.xb5 15 axb5 .Ub8! (15 ... 'iixb5?! lets White grab the initiative by 16 i.h3 l:!ae8 17 lt:Jg5 l::te7 18 i.xe6+ �h8 19 e4!) 16 i.h3!? (White gets no­ where with 16 lt:Jg5? h6 17 lt:Je4 lt:Jxe4 18 i.xe4, Nikolic-Volokitin, Bundes­ liga 2004/5, 18 ...'i¥xb5 ! 19 i.g2 llf7 +) 16 ... e5 17 'ika4 'ikxb5 18 'i!i'xb5 .:txb5 19 i.e6+ �h8 20 lt:Jg5 .l:tb7 c) 12 lt:Jg5 (D) is an attempt to trap Black with some unexpected tactics. =.

c21) The point is that 14 lt:Jxd5? does not work so well now due to 14 ... lt:Jxd5 15 i.xe6+ (after 15 �xd5?! lt:Jd4! + followed by ... i.b7, ...h6, etc., Black seizes quite a dangerous initia­ tive) 15 ....:txe6 16 'ikxd5 .Uae8 17 lt:Jxe6 .l:.xe6 18 i.e3 lt:Jb4 +. capturing the long light-square diagonal. c22) 14 .l:r.e 1 (intending e4) 14 ... h6 15 lt:Jxe6! (with a rook on e1, this line is more attractive for White) 15 ....:txe6 16 lt:Jxd5 lt:Jxd5 17 'i!ixd5 l:1ae8 18 i.xe6+ .l:txe6 is somewhat unclear but I think Black should be fine. 12 h6! 13 i.xf6 'ikxf6 14 :tel The alluring but untried 14 lt:Jxd5 leads to equality after 14 ... exd5 15 'i!i'xd5+ �h8 16 'itxc6 i.xe2 17 lt:Jh4! i.xfl 18 .l:!.xfl g5 (the easiest way for Black) 19 lt:Jf5 ! (19 lt:Jf3? l:ha2 +) 19 ...'fixf5 20 'fixd6 .l:tf6 14 �h8 Avoiding lt:Jxd5 tactics. Black has the bishop-pair and a powerful centre; his compensation is obvious. 15 b3 Now: a) Not 15 ... c4? 16 bxc4 i.xc4 17 lt:Jd2! (a crushing move) 17 ... i.b4 (or 17 ... i.a6 1 8 lt:Jce4! and White is much better) 18 lt:Jxc4 i.xc3 19 lt:Jb6 �a7 20 lt:Ja4! +- Lputian-Babujian, Armenian Ch, Erevan 2008. b) 15 ... .l:.ab8!? is a new move that keeps an eye on the b5-square and evacuates the rook from the a8-h1 di­ agonal. After 16 lt:Ja4 'W/e7 17 lie1 , 17 ... c4! works well. Black has a strong initiative for the pawn. ...

B

=.

...

Now: c1) After 12 ... 'ike7? (Akhmadeev­ A.Zhigalko, Saratov 2006) White wins too many pawns with a combination you should memorize: 13 lt:Jxd5 ! exd5 14 i.xd5+ lt:Jxd5 15 'i¥xd5+ �h8 16 'ifxc6 i.b7 17 �b5 ±. Of course, Black has some positional compensa­ tion for the material damage, but three pawns is too much. c2) 12 ...'i!Vd7!? (this new move de­ fends c6 in order to avoid the tactic we have just seen) 13 i.h3 .l:fe8 and now:

5 B lumenfel d Ga m bit: 5 i.. g 5

1 d4 liJf6 2 5 .ig5 (D)

lDf3 c5 3 d 5 e6 4 c4 b5

a) 7 ... d6 8 lDc3 i..e7 (this new move covers d5 indirectly; in Khurtsidze­ Schuurman, European Clubs Cup (women), Saint Vincent 2005 Black played 8 ...liJbd7) 9 i..e2 (9 i..xf6 i..xf6 10 ltJxd5 i.. xb2 1 1 .l:tbl 'ii'a5+ 12 'ii'd2 'ii'xd2+ 13 ltJxd2 i.. xd5 14 lhb2 liJd7 leads to an equal endgame) 9 .. 0-0 10 0-0 a6 with unclear play. Now it's clear why the knight stayed on b8; from here it has much better prospects now. b) 7 ... a6 8 ltJc3 i..e7 (D) and now: .

This is the most popular continua­ tion and the most dangerous for Black. White strengthens his centre (by pinning a piece that attacks d5) and claims that the ... b5 advance has weakened Black's queenside. Often White gets pressure thanks to his con­ trol of the c4-square. Note that having played ... e6, Black cannot revert to Benko-style play: the central tension ensures that there will be a hand-to­ hand fight for the central squares in the near future. 5 exd5 6 cxd5 For some reason, 6 cxb5 is very rarely played, though it is by no means bad, and leads to interesting positions after 6 ... i..b7 7 e3. Then: •..

bl) 9 i..xf6 i..xf6 10 ltJxd5 is natu­ ral, taking the d5-pawn without further ado. But 10...i..xb2 I I .l:bl 'iia5+ 12 'ii'd2 axb5 ! works out fine for Black: bl l ) After 13 'ii'x a5?! .l:!.xa5 14 ltJc7+ 'iii>d 8 15 ltJxb5 i..f6 Black has preserved the bishop-pair and feels

AITA CK WITH BLA CK

56

good; e.g., 16 i.c4 (after 16 l"Lld6 i.xf3 17 gxf3 'iitc 7 1 8 l"Llxf7 l:.f8 19 i.c4 .l:.a4! 20 i.d5 l"Llc6 White is a little worse due to his badly placed knight) 16 ... 'iite7 + Breier-Feigin, Bundesliga 201 1/12. Black's bishops are too good. a2) 13 lhb2 i.xd5 14 i.xb5 'ifxd2+ 1 5 'iii>xd2 i.xf3 !? 16 gxf3 cJ;e7 with an equal endgame. b2) 9 a4!? is untried but logical. White does not have to take on d5 right away and plays this useful stan­ dard move instead. 9 ... 0-0 10 i.e2 axb5 1 1 axb5 (the b5-pawn plays an important role by restricting the b8knight but here Black can break through in the centre) l l .. . .l:txal 12 'iix a1 d4! (Black has to play aggres­ sively while White has not completed his development; otherwise, he is lia­ ble to end up cramped) 13 exd4 i.xf3 14 ..txf3 cxd4 15 ..txf6! (in the case of 15 l"Lle2?! ..i.b4+ 16 �fl h6 17 i.xf6 'ti'xf6 18 'i¥d1 .l:te8 + Black solves his problems and now it's White's tum to solve his own) 15 ... i.xf6 16 l"Lle4 'i!i'b6 17 l"Llxf6+ gxf6! (Black's main target is the b5-pawn) 18 i.e2 l:.e8 19
w

not then forced to play 8 ... b4, but can instead choose 8 ... i.e7, based on tac­ tical ideas of ... l"Llxd5 or ... l"Llxe4. In Lines A and B, White does succeed in forcing ...b4, but at the cost of a little time. A)

7 e3 ! ?

The point of this move is to force Black to play ... b4 to weaken the c4square. Unlike Line B, he forces Black to spend a tempo playing ... a6, but at the cost of the white e-pawn advanc­ ing rather modestly. 7 a6 8 a4 b4 Mission accomplished. Now White needs to decide which piece will oc­ cupy c4. 9 l"Llbd2 Although the knight is the most nat­ ural piece to use the c4-square, 9 i.c4 is interesting too, and Black needs to play carefully to maintain the balance. 9 ... ..te7 and then: a) 10 l"Llbd2 0-0 1 1 e4 (1 1 0-0 transposes to line 'b2') lets Black start active play in the centre by 1 1 ...l"Llg4! •••

BLUMENFELD GAMBIT: 5 i.g5

(improving over Jankovic-Saric, Sara­ jevo 2006). This idea is worth memo­ rizing since the e7-bishop is usually Black's worst piece, which is why we are generally happy to trade it off. Af­ ter 12 il.xe7 (12 il.f4 f5 ! gives Black a good game) 12 ... 'i:Yxe7 13 0-0 ltJd7 14 'i¥c2 l:!.e8 Black has no problems. b) 10 0-0 0-0 and now it is still im­ portant for Black to exchange his dark-squared bishop: b1) 1 1 a5 has not yet been tried. Black can then exploit the absence of White's knight from d2 by 1 l...ctJe4 12 il.f4 g5 !? 1 3 'i:Yc2 f5 14 il.g3 h5, with a complicated position. b2) 1 1 ctJbd2 h6 12 .th4 was tried in Jianu-Barnaure, Romanian Ch, Amara 2007. Black has the ...ctJh5 ma­ noeuvre in hand, but first he should solve his problems on the queenside: b21) 12 ...ltJbd7?! is unconvincing because of 13 a5 !. This move is defi­ nitely to White's advantage because it restricts the d7-knight, fixes a weak­ ness on a6 and opens the way for White's bishop to transfer to a4 (via b3). After 13 ....�:Jh5 14 il.xe7 �xe7 15 �c2 il.b7 16 il.b3 ;!:; White's chances are better. b22) 12 ... a5 ! gives up control of the b5-square but in return Black gets the b6-square for the knight and the a6-square for the bishop; also, it re­ moves the a6-pawn from pressure on the fl-a6 diagonal. 13 �c2 ctJbd7 followed by ... ctJb6 and ... ctJh5 leaves Black fine. 9 .te7 (D) The d5-pawn is hanging and White has no time to play a5.

.i 7

w

=

=

...

10 ltJc4 The alternative is 10 il.xf6, but it leads to much the same type of posi­ tion. After 10 ...�xf6 1 1 ltJc4 White has brought his knight to a highly de­ sirable square, but at the cost of Black controlling the dark squares. 1 1 ... a5 ! (as we already know, White is better if he is allowed to play a5) 12 �e2 0-0 13 0-0 and then: a) 13 ... il.a6?! is an instructive mis­ take - the bishop is doing nothing on a6 since it's strategically wrong to ex­ change off White's minor pieces. The c4-knight dominates the f6-bishop af­ ter 14 ctJfd2 �c7 15 �c2 ctJd7 16 l:I.ad1 ctJb6?! (16...I:tfe8 is better) 17 ltJxb6 ..ixe2 18 ltJxa8 il.xd1 19 I:txdl l::txa8 20 ltJc4 ;!:; Kozul-Cebalo, Stari Mikanovci 2008. b) 13 ... �b7 is correct. Since more than one of White's minor pieces would like to use the c4-square, it is better to let them tread on each other's toes. The term 'the superfluous piece' has been coined by Dvoretsky for this important concept. 14 �c2 'i¥c7 15 I:tadl ctJd7 =.

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

58

10... a5 !

For the reasons described above, Black prevents White from playing a5. 1 1 .td3 0-0 12 'iVc2 h6 (12.A:Jbd7?! is not so good because after 13 .l:ld1 h6 14 .txf6 Black has to take on f6 with the knight, when his pieces appear mis­ placed because the bishop belongs on this square, Delchev-Ovechkin, Euro­ pean Ch, Plovdiv 2008) 13 ..txf6 ..txf6 14 0-0 'iVc7 15 l:tadl lt:Jd7 16 b3 ..tb7 Rusev-Lilov, Bulgarian Ch, Bla­ goevgrad 2009. =

B)

7 a4

As explained above, the idea is to force Black to play ... b4 (unlike in the line 7 e4 a6 8 a4 ..te7 !), and follow up immediately with e4. Thus White's e-pawn advances more aggressively than in Line A, but Black has not needed to make the move ... a6. Let's see how these pluses and minuses play out. 7 ... b4 8 e4 8 e3?! definitely does not make sense since White can get this position with Black having played the not-so­ useful move ... a6 (see Line A). Here 8 ... .te7 is more logical and gives Black comfortable equality. 8 .te7 For a while I analysed 8 ... h6?!, a move that has never been played be­ fore. Though it seems very logical, as Black exploits the fact that the e4pawn is undefended and forces White to take on f6, it leads to a very unpleas­ ant position after 9 .tb5+ lt:Jbd7 10 .txf6 'i!i'xf6 I I e5 ! dxe5 12 lt:Jbd2. •••

That's why I came to the conclusion that it's better to complete develop­ ment. 9 .tb5+ .td7 10 0-0 Or: a) 10 ..txf6?! (a strange decision, giving up the dark-squared bishop with no real necessity) 10 ... ..txf6 1 1 'i!i'b3 0-0 12 ltJbd2 ..tg4 13 0-0 a6 14 ..tc4 ltJd7 15 a5 .lle 8 + Krasenkow-Tregu­ bov, Nancy 2009. Black is better, even though White managed to win this game. b) 10 'i!i'd3 0-0 1 1 ltJbd2 ..txb5 !? (a new move, varying from Neverov­ Ghaem Maghami, Dubai 2009) 12 axb5 (12 �xb5? lt:Jxd5 ! +) 12 ... 4Jbd7 followed by ...lt:Jb6, ...lt:Jfd7 and ... ..tf6; Black's position seems solid. 10 0-0 11 lite1 ..txb5! This typical idea is worth memoriz­ ing: Black is not worried about the backward pawn on a7 because he gets good squares for his pieces. 12 axb5 ltJbd7 13 4Jbd2 lt:Jb6 14 .tf4 �d7 15 �e2 lt:Jh5 16 .te3 f5 ! gave Black good play in Avrukh-Volokitin, Greek Team Ch, Ermioni Argolidas 2005. .•.

C)

7 e4 a6 (D) 8 a4

White immediately attacks the b5pawn. Besides this, he has a lot of other moves: a) 8 ltJfd2 has the idea of allowing the queen's knight to develop actively to c3. But now Black need not be scared by the e5 advance (as there is little support for it) and can much more safely play ... c4 because lt:Jd4-c6

BLUMENFELD GAMBIT:

is out of the picture for now. Together with the fact that White would very much like to put a knight on c4, it makes sense for Black to keep his pawn on b5: 8 ... il..e7 9 i.f4 (complica­ tions starting with 9 a4?! lt:lxe4 10 lt:lxe4 i.xg5 1 1 axb5 0-0 leave Black comfortable) 9 ...lt:lbd7! (this new move has the idea of defending b5 with the rook, and improves over the 9 ... 0-0 played in Gofshtein-Saric, Oberwart 2007) 10 a4 .l:.b8 (White's set-up with knights on b 1 and d2 now looks a bit awkward, as Black has managed to avoid providing them with convenient outposts) 1 1 axb5 axb5 12 i.e2 0-0 13 0-0 c4 14 lt:lc3 lt:lc5 15 'i!i'c2 l:.e8 with an unclear position. b) 8 'i¥c2 is another interesting idea, defending e4 and preparing a4. But for each new approach for White, there is a new idea for Black in reply. Here Black makes use of tactics on the e-file. After 8 ... i.e7 9 i.f4 (White avoids tactics on the h4-d8 diagonal and completes his preparation for the a4 advance) 9 ...0-0 (in Zawadzki-Gajewski, Calvia 2006, 9 ...lt:lh5?! intended wing play with . .f5

5 il..g5

59

but this looks insufficiently prepared, and White could have replied 10 i.e3 0-0 1 1 a4 f5 12 axb5 fxe4 13 'i!ixe4 ;!;) 10 a4 .l:te8! 1 1 axb5 ( 1 1 i.e2 i.f8 is un­ clear) 1 1...lt:lxe4! 12 .i.d3 lt:lf6 13 0-0 lt:lbd7!, intending ...lt:lb6, Black main­ tains the balance; e.g., 14 bxa6 'i¥b6 15 'ili'c4 lt:lb8! 16 'i:Vb5 "i/c7 17 b4 Si.xa6 18 'i¥xc5 (only move) 18 ...'i!ib7! and ...lt:Jxd5 with unclear play. c) 8 lt:lbd2 .i.e7 (intending ...lt:Jxd5) 9 Si.f4 (9 a4 transposes to Line C1) is a typical idea for White, avoiding tac­ tics with ... lt:Jxd5 or ... lt:Jxe4, while also supporting the e5 advance. 9 ... 0-0 10 a4 bxa4 1 1 i.d3 and now: cl) In Ivanchuk-Nisipeanu, World Cup, Khanty-Mansiisk 2007 Black played 1 1 ...i.d7, defending the a4pawn, but after 12 0-0 i.b5 13 'i!ie2 was forced to give it back with a worse position: 13 ... lt:lbd7 14 Si.xb5 axb5 15 'i1Vxb5 .l::tb 8 16 'iVd3 ! :b4 17 lt:Jc4 lt:lb6 1 8 lt:lfd2 'i1Vc7 19 �fc 1 ;!;. The e7bishop is too passive. c2) I propose 1 l ...a5!?, whose main idea is to provide the a6-square for the queen's bishop and knight. After 12 0-0 lt:la6 (first the knight goes to b4 ... ) 13 l:.xa4 lt:lb4 14 lt:Jc4 .i.a6 ( ... and now the bishop uses this square) 15 l:te1 lt:ld7 16 .liia3 lt:lxd3 17 'i!ixd3 lt:lb6 18 lt:lfd2 Si.f6 the bishop is activated, and Black should get sufficient counter­ play. d) 8 i.d3 and here: d1) 8 ... .i.e7 9 0-0 0-0 (the immedi­ ate 9 . . lt:lxd5?! is dubious because of 10 exd5 i.xg5 1 1 lt:lxg5 �xg5 12 .l:.e1 + 'it>d8 13 lt:lc3, when White has a strong initiative for the pawn) 10 a4 .

60

A TTA CK WITH BLA CK

transposes to Line C2 (where Black continues I O . . lt:Jxd5 !). d2) With 8 ... h6, Black makes use of the fact that there is no tension on the queenside yet, and captures space on the kingside. Then: d21) 9 .i.h4?! (on h4, the bishop will be at risk of being exchanged at any moment) 9 ... ltlbd7 10 0-0 c4 1 1 i..c2 g5 1 2 i.. g 3 ltlh5 1 3 lt:Jd4 ltlxg3 14 hxg3 .i.g7 leaves Black's position preferable. The weakness of the c6square is not so important because Black has advantages of his own: the long diagonal, the c5- and e5-squares for the d7-knight, and the bad bishop on c2. d22) After 9 i..f4 g5 !? 10 .i.e3 lt:Jg4 1 1 i..c 1 lt:Jd7 12 a4 'iVa5+! (this important check allows Black to avoid weakening the c4-square for even lon­ ger) 13 ltlbd2 lt:Jge5 14 i..e2 lt:Jxf3+ 15 .i.xf3 .i.g7 Black is OK. .

8 .i.e7! (D) ...

60 62 62 The third is the most popular, while the second is rare but very interesting. Instead, 9 axb5 leads to a quiet and equal position: 9 ... ltlxe4 10 .i.xe7 'fixe? 1 1 .i.e2 0-0 12 0-0 i..b7 13 ltlc3 ltlf6! (the instinctive 13 ... ltlxc3?! im­ proves White's pawn-structure: 14 bxc3 axb5 15 .:r.xa8 i.. xa8 16 i.. xb5 i..b7 17 .l:le1 'iid8 18 'fid3 ;!; Elianov­ Firman, Ukrainian Team Ch, Alushta 2004) 14 .l:.el and then: a) 14 .. .'�d7 15 'i¥b3 axb5 16 i.. xb5 'iVg4?! (Khakimov-Firman, Kharkov 2005) 17 l1xa8! .i.xa8 18 l:r.a1 .i.b7 (18 ...ltlbd7 19 .i.c6! is also much better for White) 19 l:ta4! (defending the c4-square; 19 i..c4?! ltlbd7!) 19 ...'fif5 20 ..tc4 ± with strong pressure on Black's queenside pieces. b) 14 ... 'i¥d8!? (the idea is to avoid a later i..x b5 gaining a tempo) 15 �b3 axb5 16 l:txa8 .i.xa8 17 .i.xb5 ltlbd7 Without the bishop on e7, these po­ sitions are fine for Black. C l : 9 ltlbd2 C2: 9 i.. d 3! ? C3: 9 i..xf6

=.

w

Cl) 9 lt:Jbd2 lt:Jxd5 ! (D) 10 i..x e7

Or: a) 10 lt:Jc4?! is a spectacular (and untried) move that gives White noth­ ing: 10 ... bxc4 I I 'fixd5 l:ta7 12 i..xc4 (12 .i.xe7? l:!.xe7 +) 12 ... .i.e6 13 i..xe7 (forced) 13 .. .'iYa5+! 14 'ii'd2 'ii'xd2+ From previous lines we already 15 ltlxd2 �xe7 + followed by dou­ know that Black has ideas of ... lt:Jxd5 bling rooks on the b-file and pressure (or ... lt:Jxe4). Now we examine: on the b2-pawn.

BLUMENFELD GAMBIT: 5 i.. g5

�e7 17 �xb6 �xe4+ 18 �e2 tbd7 l lJ �d6+ �e7 Black is a pawn up but White will definitely take one pawn back) l2 ...tbxc4 13 �d5 l:.a7 14 .ixc4 0-0 followed by ... h6 and ... i.. e6. =

w

=

10 ...�xe7 1 1 axbS 0-0 (D)

w

b) 10 exd5? .ltxg5 1 1 axb5 0-0 12 .lte2 �b7 and here: b1) 13 bxa6?! allows Black's knight to occupy the excellent square b4: 13 .. .<�:Jxa6 14 0-0 lbb4 15 l:.xa8 i..xa8 16 i..c4 i..f6! (this new move improves over 16 ... tbxd5?, which squanders Black's advantage: 17 tbxg5 �xg5 18 tbe4 �f5 19 tbg3 �e5 20 :i.e 1 �d4 21 �xd4 cxd4 22 i..xd5 i..xd5 23 tbf5 i..e6 1h- 1h Sisatto-Markos, European Clubs Cup, Rogaska Slatina 201 1) 17 �b3 g6 +. b2) 13 0-0 axb5 14 l:.xa8 i..xa8 15 i..xb5 �xd5 16 tbc4 �xc4 17 i..xc4 .ltf6 + Tishin-Ovechkin, Alushta 2004. Black has a clear extra pawn. c) 10 axb5 !? is an interesting new move, but Black is fine: 10 ... i..xg5 1 1 tbc4! (another spectacular knight jump; White does not take the knight and hopes to achieve more) 1 l ...tbb6! (White's main idea is 1 l ...i..e7?! 12 �xd5 l:.a7 13 e5 ! with the initiative) 12 tbxg5 (12 tbxb6 �xb6 13 tbxg5 0-0 14 �c4 l:.a7 is equal, while after 12 tbxd6+ Wf8 13 tbxg5 �xg5 14 tbxc8 tbxc8 15 b6! tbxb6 16 �d6+

12 �c4

Or: a) 12 .ie2?! (Bernal-Sanz, Villa Martelli 2004) gives White nothing special: 12 ...tbf4 13 0-0 tbxe2+ 14 �xe2 .ltb7 15 l:tfe1 axb5 16 I:.xa8 .ltxa8 17 �xb5 tbc6 +. b) 12 bxa6?! is also dubious: after 12 ... tbb4 13 i..e2 f5 ! (a strong move that emphasizes Black's development advantage) 14 exf5 l:.xa6! (catching White's king in the centre) 15 l:.xa6 i.. xa6 16 Wfl .l:!.xf5 ! (after the natural 16 ... i..b7?! White holds the pawn by 17 g4!, Wu Li-Aagaard, British Ch, Great Yarmouth 2007) 17 �xa6 tb8xa6 Black has a small but obvious advan­ tage. 12 tbb4 13 0-0 i.. b7 Black is totally OK; e.g., 14 l:.e1 (or 14 bxa6 tb8xa6 15 .l:.e1 tbc7 16 l:ta3 •..

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

62

Or: 'i�Vf6 17 'iVb3 tt:le6 = Dautov-Yoloki­ a) 13 ... axb5?! is premature due to tin, Bundesliga 2003/4) 14 ... axb5 15 .l:.xa8 .i.xa8 16 i.xb5 lt:\8c6 = lf2- lh 14 .:!.xa8 il.xa8 15 i.xb5 tt:lbc6 16 Beliavsky-Cvitan, Slovenian Team 1IY'd2 ;;!; and l:.dl . b) First, I thought that 1 3 ... 'i!Vb6?! Ch, Celje 2004. should help Black to get good play but my editor Graham Burgess pointed C2) out that White has the unexpected 14 9 il.d3 ! ? So far, this is only White's 4th most e5 !: b1) 14...axb5? 15 il.xh7+! �xh7 popular move, but a lot of new games can be expected here since it's both 16 lt:\g5+ ..ti>h6 17 'i!Vg4 is close to lost for Black. logical and quite promising. b2) 14 ... d5? 15 tt:la4 leaves Black 9 0-0 9 ... tt:lxd5? does not work because unable to defend the c5-pawn because of 10 exd5 il.xg5 1 1 'ii'e2+ JJ...e7 12 15 ...'ii'c 7? loses to 16 i.xh7+! �xh7 axb5 0-0 1 3 0-0 ;;!; with an obvious ad­ 17 lt:\g5+ �h6 (17 ...�g6 18 'i!Vg4 +-, vantage since Black's queenside can't etc.) 1 8 'ied3 ! intending 'ii'h7+. b3) 14 ...dxe5 is the best of a bad be developed well. bunch. After 15 tt:la4 "W/c7 16 b6 'ii'c6 10 0-0 tt:lxdS! 1 1 i.xe7! ? This new move varies from 1 1 17 .l:.el ± followed by il.e4 White has exd5 i.xg5 12 tt:lxg5 'i!Vxg5 1 3 axb5 a very pleasant game. The line 13 ... 'ifb6?! 14 e5 ! helped il.b7 14 tt:lc3 axb5 15 .l:txa8 i.xa8 16 il.xb5 iJ...b7 17 'ii'd3 'iee7! = followed me to find the text-move, which elim­ by ... tt:ld7, Cori Tello-A.Muzychuk, inates White's tactical motifs: now i.xh7+ ideas are ruled out. World Girls Ch, Chotowa 2010. 14 'ilkd2 l l ...tt:lxe7 12 axbS i.b7 13 tt:lc3 (D) Here 14 e5 does not have a similar effect because after 14 ... d5 White has no tt:la4 idea. 14 ...'i!Vb6 15 .l:.fd1 Eyeing the d6-pawn. •••

15 ...axb5 16 lba8 i.xa8 17 il.xbS dS !

Black removes a weakness and thus solves all his problems; e.g., 1 8 exd5 tt:lxd5 19 il.c4 tt:lxc3 20 'ii'xc3 il.xf3 21 'ifxf3 'li'xb2 =. l3 ... h6!

C3 ) 9 JJ... xf6 JJ...xf6 (D) 10 axb5

63

BLUMENFELD GAMBIT: 5 .i.g5

w

Or: a) With 10 �c2?! White tries to force ...b4 so that he can occupy the c4-square, but Black has an alterna­ tive: lO ...�a5+! (Black pins the a4pawn and defends b5 a second time) 1 1 tt:lbd2 ..ib7 (Black's primary task is to solve his problems on the queen­ side) 12 ..ie2 (in the case of 12 �b1, Black simply moves back: 12 ... �b6 with a great position) 12 ...tt:ld7 13 0-0 �b6 (right in time; White again can't force Black to move the b5-pawn) 14 .l:!.a3 (intending .l:f.b3 and tt:lc4) 14 ... c4! + Shalimov-Aveskulov, Kharkov 2005. The spectacular line 15 axb5 axb5 16 .l:!.xa8+ ..ixa8 17 ..ixc4?! gives White nothing: after 17 ... bxc4 18 tt:lxc4 �b8 19 tt:lxd6+ �xd6 20 'iVc8+ .idS 21 �xa8 0-0 + Black's bishop is stronger than the three white pawns. b) 10 .l:ta2?! is another attempt to force ...b4, but again it does not work due to 10 ... 'iVa5+! (this novelty im­ proves over Barlov-Djoric, Mataruska Banja 1997): b1) After 1 1 'iVd2, any ideas of playing tt:lbd2-c4 are too long-winded,

so Black can happily play l l ...b4 12 ..ie2 (12 tt:la3? �xa4 +) 12 ... 0-0 13 0-0 tt:ld7 14 b3 �c7 15 'iVf4 tt:le5 16 tt:lbd2 �e7, with a preferable position. b2) 1 1 tt:lbd2 0-0 and then: b21) After 12 ii.d3 ii.g4 1 3 0-0 tt:ld7 + only White can have problems. b22) 12 �b1 ?! threatens axb5, but after 12 ... bxa4! 1 3 ..id3 (13 �c2 .i.d7 + and ... ..ib5) 13 ... tt:ld7 14 0-0 tt:lb6 + White can't take back on a4. b23) 12 "ifa1 also threatens axb5, and now 12 ... bxa4 will be met by 13 �xa4. Thus Black should acquiesce by 12 ... b4, but White is in no position to take advantage of this concession because his pieces have taken up some very strange squares in the process. 13 ..id3 ..ig4 14 0-0 tt:ld7 gives Black a comfortable position where his dark­ squared bishop dominates the long di­ agonal. 10 .....ixb2 l l l:!.a2 .i.f6 12 ..id3 Instead, 12 tt:lbd2 0-0 13 .i.d3 ..ib7 14 0-0 and 12 .i.e2 0-0 13 0-0 ..ib7 14 tt:lbd2 axb5 15 I!.xa8 ..ixa8 16 ..ixb5 lead to the main line. Or 12 bxa6 �b6 13 tt:lbd2, and now: a) 13 ... ..ixa6 looks fine. 14 "i¥a4+ cJJe7 15 ii.e2?! (15 �c2!? ) 15 ... .i.b7 16 �c4 l::!.xa2 17 �xa2 tt:ld7 18 0-0 l:':ta8 19 �c2 �b2 20 �xb2 ..ixb2 21 tt:lc4 .i.a6 22 l:tb1 and now 22 ... ii.c3 + intending ... ..ib4 is an improvement over 22 ... ..ixc4?! 23 ..ixc4 l::la 1 i!z_ i!z Jobava-Ghaem Maghami, Istan­ bul 2004. b) I propose 13. .. 0-0, aiming to take on a6 with the knight, with ...tt:lb4 in prospect. After 14 .i.d3 t'Llxa6 15 0-0 ..ib7 16 t'Llc4 �d8! (16 ...�c7? 17 e5! =

=

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

64

dxe5 18 d6 'ii'd8 19 tt::lfxe5 ;!;) 17 tt::l a5 'ifd7 the game is objectively equal, but Black can even hope for an advantage. 12 ... 0-0 13 0-0 13 tt::lbd2 .i.b7 14 0-0 comes to the same thing.

13 .i.b7 14 tt::l bd2 axb5 15 l:txa8 ii.xa8 ..•

From now on, the aS-bishop is the main problem that Black must solve. 16 ii.xb5 Black should hurry to develop his queenside. 16 tt::ld 7! 16 ... .i.b7?! lets White seize the ini­ tiative: 17 �a4! (keeping the knight on b8) 17 ..."ike7 18 'i¥a7 ii.a6 19 �xe7 ii.xe7 20 ltbl ii.xb5 21 l:.xb5 ;!; Naum­ kin-Salvador, Cutro 2008. 17 'i¥a4 17 tt::lc4 tt::lb6 1 8 tt::le3 'i¥c7 =. 17 tt::lb6 18 �as 18 �a7 'ii'b 8 19 �xb8 l1xb8 20 l:.bl .i.d8! = defending b6 and so pre­ paring ... .i.b7. .•.

...

18 .'�c7 19 tt::l c4 l::tb8 20 l:tb1 (D) •.

20 tt::lxd5 ! ? ••.

This new move makes use of an important tactical motif, and enables Black to defend actively. 20 ... .i.d8 is passive but also suffi­ cient to maintain equality. 21 tt::lxb6 'ii'xb6 22 'i+'xb6 and now: a) 22 .. Jhb6?! 23 tt::ld2 f5 !? (not 23 ... .i.c7? 24 .i.c6 lla6 25 .i.xa8 l:!.xa8 26 l:tb7 ± Van Wely-Feigin, Dutch Team Ch 2008/9) 24 f3 fxe4 25 fxe4 .i.c7 26 1iff2 ;!;. Black's pieces are too cramped on the queenside. b) 22 ... ii.xb6! was mentioned by Boris Alterman in his book The Alter­ man Gambit Guide: Black Gambits 1 . The analysis runs 23 .i.c6 .i.xc6 24 dxc6 l:ta8! 25 liffl lia6 26 life2 .i.c7 27 Wd3 Ihc6 28 'it>c4 'ito>f8 29 'iti>d5 l:1.b6 30 lhb6 ii.xb6 3 1 tt::ld2 c4 32 tt::lxc4 .i.xf2 33 Wxd6 =. 21 exd5 'iWxa5 22 tt::lxa5 ii.xd5 Black intends ... .i.a2 or ... .i.d8. His bishop-pair and central pawns give him enough compensation; e.g., 23 tt::ld2 (only move) 23 ....i.a2 24 tt::lc6 (after 24 .:tel .i.e6 Black has ideas of taking on b5 or playing ... .i.c3; then 25 .l:r.bl .i.a2 repeats) 24 ....l::!.b6 25 .l:r.e l g6! and now: a) White even has a chance to get a worse position: 26 lt:le4 .i.g7! and now not 27 tt::lxd6? Ji.f8! 28 ii.c4 (28 l:te8? Wg7 -+) 28 ...ltxc6 29 .i.xa2 ii.xd6 +. but 27 ii.a4 Ib6 28 .i.b5 l:tb6 =. b) 26 l:[e8+ Wg7 27 llb8 .l:hb8 28 tt::lxb8 d5 29 tt::lc6 ii.c3 (29 ... c4? allows White to blockade the black pawns and gradually capture them after 30 tt::lb4 .i.c3 3 1 tt::lxa2 .i.xd2 3 2 .i.c6! c3 33 tt::lb4 d4 34 .i.b5 +-) 30 lLlf3 Wf6 =. Black is fine since it is very hard for White to make any sort of progress.

6 1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 c5 : 3 e3 a n d 3 dxc5 1 d4 lt:'lf6 2 c4 c5

The possibilities from this position shall be our topic for the rest of the book. The most important is the natu­ ral 3 d5, which we shall meet with 3 ... b5, the Benko Gambit. Another im­ portant move is 3 lt:'lf3, when we shall place our faith in the Vaganian Gam­ bit, 3 ... cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 e5 5 lt:'lb5 d5 6 cxd5 .i.c5. In the present chapter, we shall take a look at two less ambitious moves for White: 65 note 'b' to Black's 7th move) is too A: 3 dxc5 66 provocative: 6 ... i..e7 7 lt:'lc3 a5 8 b5 d5 B : 3 e3 gives Black the initiative. A) After 5 lt:'lc3 d5 both 6 e3 and 6 cxd5 exd5 7 e3 lt:'lc6 lead to the next note. 3 dxc5 The capture on c5 is an attempt to 5 d5 6 a3 Sooner or later White will play a3 lead the game into quiet channels, but Black's rapid piece development can to defend the b4-square. lead to some interesting possibilities. Or 6 lt:'lc3 lt:'lc6 7 cxd5 exd5, and now: 3 ... e6 a) 8 a3 0-0 9 b4?! (playing b4 so 3 ... lt:'la6 is also playable. early usually leads to problems for 4 lt:'lf3 i..xc5 (D) Black will make the ... d5 advance White since his pieces are not yet and thanks to his better development ready for a battle on the queenside af­ will enjoy good play. ter Black plays ... a5) 9 ... .i.d6 10 lt:'lb5 .i.b8 1 1 .i.b2 a5 12 bxa5 lt:'le4! + Van 5 e3 5 i..g5? of course fails to 5 ... i..xf2+. Wely-J.Polgar, Hoogeveen 1997. b) 8 ..ie2 0-0 9 0-0 a6! (an impor­ 5 a3 0-0 6 b4?! (6 e3 d5 transposes to the main line, and 6 lt:'lc3 d5 7 e3 to tant move - Black's bishop will be .•.

A TTACK WITH BLACK

66

well-placed on a7) 10 a3 i.. a7 1 1 b4 d4 (without b4, this breakthrough was possible but less effective) 12 exd4 liJxd4 l3 liJxd4 i.xd4 14 i..b2 i.e6 15 i..f3 ( ih- 112 Hort-Kindermann, Zurich 1984) 15 ... l:.c8 16 .l:.cl b5 with a com­ fortable position for Black. 6 0-0 (D) ...

7 liJbd2

Or: a) Again 7 b4?! leads to trouble: 7 ... i..e7 8 i..b2 (8 liJbd2 a5 9 b5 b6 10 SLb2 J.b7 1 1 i..e2 liJbd7 12 0-0 .l:ic8 13 l:tc 1 liJc5 14 l::tc2 liJfe4 and Black is the first to create pressure, Galkin­ Savchenko, Turkish Team Ch, Konya 201 1) 8 ... dxc4! (Black moves into a queenless middlegame where he gets the advantage thanks to the ... a5 op­ tion) 9 li'xd8 (9 i.. xc4 'ii'xd1 + 10 \folxd1 a5 1 1 b5 liJbd7 12 a4, Ratko­ vich-Lutsko, Belarusian Ch, Minsk 2002, 12 ... b6 + and ... liJc5, ... i.b7, ....l:.fd8, ....l:iac8, etc.) 9 ....l:txd8 10 i..xc4 b6 1 1 liJbd2 J.b7 12 \fole2 liJbd7 13 llhd1 a5 + T.Serensen-P.H.Nielsen, Aalborg 1993.

b) 7 liJc3 dxc4! and then: b1) 8 'ii'xd8?! .l:txd8 9 i..xc4 b6 10 �e2 (compared to line 'b2', White has lost a tempo; or 10 0-0 i.b7 1 1 b4 i..e7 12 i..b2 a5 13 bxa5 .l:!.xa5 14 l:!.fd 1 l:r.c8 15 J.e2 liJbd7 with the better chances for Black) 10 ... J.b7 1 1 J.d2 ( 1 1 b3? liJc6! {intending ... liJa5 } 12 i.d3 liJg4 + intending ... liJce5 or ... liJge5; 1 1 b4 i..e7 12 i.b2 liJbd7 1 3 l:hd1 l:.ac8 14 i..b 3 a5 +) 1 l ...liJbd7 12 b4 i.e7 13 l':lhc1 (Galego-Svetushkin, Panormo rapid 2001) 13 ... liJg4! + intending ... liJde5 or ... liJge5 gives Black a strong initiative. b2) 8 J.xc4 'i!Vxd1 + 9 �xd1 .l:id8+ 10 �e2 liJbd7 1 1 l:.d1 b6 and now: b21) 12 b4?! again leads to prob­ lems: 12 ... i.e7 13 i.b2 i.b7 followed by ... a5 with a very comfortable posi­ tion for Black. b22) The modest 12 b3 enables White to hold the balance: 12 ... i.b7 13 J.b2 a6 14 l:lacl J.e7 Tunik­ Yakovich, Moscow Ch 1996. 7 a6! ? Black intends to take on c4 and play ...b5. 8 b4 Here how Black's idea works: 8 i.e2?! dxc4 9 liJxc4 b5 10 'i¥xd8 l:1xd8 1 1 liJce5 J.b7 +. 8 i..e7 9 i.. b 2 aS Even with the loss of a tempo ( ... a6a5) this idea is still effective. After 10 b5 liJbd7 1 1 i.e2 b6 12 0-0 i..b7 Black is fine, Franic-Sedlak, Bizovac 2009. =

•.•

...

=

B)

3 e3

1 d4 l'tJj6 2 c4 c5: 3 e3 AND 3 dxc5

This solid continuation is some­ times chosen when White doesn't want to compete in a theoretical battle in the Benko Gambit or Modern Benoni. But a modest choice also tends to lead to modest results. 3 g6 Black is not scared of White play­ ing d5 since this will lead to a Benoni with an extra tempo for Black due to White playing e3-e4 (to which there isn't much alternative). Another common scenario is for White to develop by l'tJf3, ..te2, ltJc3 and 0-0, allowing Black to exchange pawns on d4. If he recaptures with exd4, then Black will normally play ... d5, when White may end up with an isolated d-pawn. It is possible for Black to reach this structure immedi­ ately by 3 ... cxd4 4 exd4 d5, but this transposes to the Caro-Kann Panov Attack, where White gets a great deal of piece activity to compensate for his structural liability. By delaying the ex­ change on d4 until White has devel­ oped more modestly, Black hopes to enjoy the structural plus without fac­ ing such a strong initiative. 4 lLlc3 Or: a) White can also start with 4 ltJf3 i.. g7 5 lLlc3, reaching Line B2. b) 4 d5 and now 4 ... i..g7 5 ltJc3 transposes to Line Bl. 4...b5 is feasible, but then 5 cxb5 a6 transposes to a line of the Benko that I am not recommend­ ing for Black in this book, i.e. 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 e3 g6. Also you should remember that after 4 ltJc3 i..g7 5 d5, 5 ... b5 is impossible in any ...

67

case, so there Black is forced to adopt the Benoni set-up. c) White can take on c5 on this move as well. After 4 dxc5 ltJa6 White has two main options: to advance with b4 or simply to develop: c 1) 5 a3 lLlxc5 6 b4 lLle6 7 i..b2 iL.g7 8 lLlf3 0-0 9 iL.e2 b6 10 0-0 iL.b7 1 1 lLlbd2 d6!? (1 l...d5?! helps White deploy his pieces: 12 11ib3 dxc4 13 ..txc4 ;!; Mateuta-A.Szabo, Felix Spa 2007) 12 'iVb3 .l:tc8 leads to an equal position. c2) 5 ltJc3 ..tg7 6 ltJf3 ltJxc5 7 ..te2 0-0 8 0-0 b6 9 lLld4 i..b7 10 b4 (Black got a nice position with the bishop­ pair in Airapetian-Y.Vovk, Ukrainian Team Ch, Alushta 2005: 10 i..f3?! d5 ! 1 1 b4 ltJce4 12 ltJxe4 lLlxe4 13 i.. xe4 dxe4 14 i..b2 11ic8 15 11ib3 l:td8 16 .Ufd 1 a6 17 .!::!.ac 1 e5 1 8 lLle2 1lie6 +) 10 ...ltJce4 1 1 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 12 i..b2 d5 Hertneck-Groszpeter, Kecskemet 1990. Black has solved his opening problems. 4 ..t g7 (D) =

••.

Now:

A ITA CK WITH BlA CK

68

b) 8 t2Jf3 d6 9 ..tg5 (9 ..tf4?! exd5 68 71 10 'ii'xd5 'ii'b6 allows Black the initia­ tive) 9 ...'ili'd7 gives Black easy equality. 6 ...e6 (D) For 5 dxc5 tDa6, see note 'c2' to White's 4th move above. B l : 5 d5 B2: 5 tiJf3

Bl) 5 d5

This is the most appropriate mo­ ment to make this advance since ... b5 is now impossible. As we have already noted, we now have a Benoni position, where White will be a tempo down compared to standard lines if he plays e4. But it's important to understand these positions since it's a hard task to play a strange opening even with an extra tempo if you know nothing about it. Even Kramnik could not solve his opening problems against Morozevich, when he unexpectedly ended up in a Benoni structure without his normal level of preparation. Playing Black's position successfully requires you to be familiar with some typical Benoni ideas and themes, which is why I shall be stressing the most relevant ones throughout this section. 5 0-0 6 tiJf3 After 6 e4 e6 Black should not be scared by the aggressive 7 e5 (7 tiJf3 transposes to the note to White's 7th move below) as White's overextended central pawns will soon come under attack. 7 ... t2Je8 and then: a) 8 f4? d6! (blowing up the cen­ tre!) 9 t2Jf3 exd5 10 cxd5 (10 t2Jxd5 t2Jc6 1 1 ..te3 b6 + gives Black control of the centre) 10 ... ..tg4 + followed by ... t2Jd7; White is unable to hold his pawn-centre. •••

7 ..te2

White avoids a quick e4 advance in order to reach little-studied positions where Black will find it harder to im­ plement ready-made plans. The alternative is simply to acqui­ esce to the loss of a tempo immedi­ ately by 7 e4 exd5. Then: a) 8 cxd5 d6 9 .1i.d3 a6 10 a4 ..tg4 1 1 h3 .1i.xf3 12 'ii'xf3 tiJbd7 13 'i!i'e2 reaches a position that is quite common with White to move. Here Black has an extra tempo and can play 13 ...tiJh5 !?, seeking play on the dark squares. 14 0-0 (14 g4 ..txc3+! 15 bxc3 'iWf6 gives Black the initiative) 14... ..td4 15 'i¥c2 (15 Wh2 t2Je5 16 ..tc2 'ii'f6! intending ...tDf4 leaves Black better since 17 f4? is simply bad: 17 ...'ii'h4! 18 fxe5 'i!i'g3+ 19 �h1 .1i.xe5 20 �g1 'iVh2+ 21 �f2 f5 -+) 15 ...Ite8 16 tDe2 !lc8!? with a strong initiative for Black. His ideas in­ clude ...tDe5 and ...'iWh4.

1 d4 thf6 2 c4 c5: 3 e3 AND 3 dxc5

b) 8 exd5 d6 9 Jte2 Jtf5 10 0-0 tt:le4 (Black uses the ... tt:\e4 exchang­ ing manoeuvre to get more space for his pieces - we shall see this idea again) 1 1 tt:lxe4 Jtxe4 12 tt:\g5 Jtf5 Moracchini-Montheard, Clichy 1998. Black has no problems. 7 exdS 8 cxdS 8 ti::Jxd5?! is worse because the ex­ change of knights uncovers the g7bishop and gains nothing in return. 8 ... tt:lxd5 9 'ii'xd5 (9 cxd5 d6 ) 9 ... d6 10 0-0 tt:lc6 1 1 1ld1 Jte6 12 'i!Vxd6 (12 'ii'd2 is more solid, but passive; after 12 ... 1:te8 + it's not clear how White should complete his development) 12 ... lL!d4! (that's the point: Black has managed to defend the d6-pawn indi­ rectly) 1 3 lhd4 (13 'ifxd8? lDxe2+ 14 Wfl .l:!.axd8 15 .l:!.xd8 .l:!.xd8 16 'iitxe2 i.. xc4+ 17 We1 b5 +) 13 ... cxd4 14 'ii'xd8 l:.fxd8 15 tt:lxd4 i.. xd4 16 exd4 l:.xd4 +. 8 ... d6 9 0-0 l:te8 Stopping e4 and thinking of play­ ing ... tt:\e4 himself. From now on, the e4-square becomes critical and keep­ ing this idea in mind should help you to orientate yourself in this variation. Despite the high pedigree of the move 9 ... i..g4?!, I cannot see any point in exchanging off the light-squared bishop, since after 10 h3 i..xf3 1 1 i..xf3 White has the plan of playing on the queenside by b4, while Black can only defend. For example, 1 1 ... tt:lbd7 12 a4 a6 and now: a) 13 g4?! is not too convincing: 13 ... c4! 14 i..e2 (Morozevich-Kram­ nik, World Ch, Mexico City 2007) 14 ... tt:\e5 ! (Marin's idea) 15 f4 tt:ld3 16 =

.•.

=

69

Jtxd3 cxd3 17 'ifxd3 tt:ld7 intending .. J:!.e8, ...'i¥h6, ....l:!.e7, ....l:r.ae8, ...tt:\c5, etc., with a comfortable position for the pawn. b) 13 'ii'c2 c4 14 i..e2 "iic7 15 .l:td1 'ii'c 5 16 a5 l:!.fc8 and now is the right time for 17 e4 ;!;, as in SJovanic-Doric, Croatian Team Ch, ibenik 2010. White aims to play i..e 3, l:.a4 or tt:la4. 10 tt:l d2 Very good play was demonstrated by Black in Gombac- S olak, Nova Gorica 201 1 : 10 l:te 1 tt:la6 (planning ... i.d7, ... l:tb8 and then { after White plays a4} ...tt:lb4) 1 1 i..fl lDe4! (White wanted to play e4 but Black easily stops this) 12 lDxe4 l:!.xe4 13 i..d3 l:!.e8 14 h3 (first, White prevents ... i.g4) 14 ...i..d7 (intending ... b5, which White should prevent) 1 5 a4 tt:lb4 (now the knight is comfortably placed on b4) 16 i..b 1 a5 !. An interesting move to fix the a4-pawn and prepare ... b5 with an initiative on the queenside. 10...tt:la6 (D)

1 1 tt:\ c4 Or:

70

A TTACK WITH BLA CK

a) 1 1 �el tD.c7 (attacking d5) 12 e4 l:tb8 (preparing ...b5) 1 3 a4 a6 and now: al) 14 l:!.bl?! unwisely allows the reply 14 ... b5. The point is that 15 b4 cxb4 16 �xb4 fails to 16 ...tiJg4! (even stronger than the simple win of the ex­ change by 16 ... a5 17 �xb5 tD.xb5 1 8 �xb5 �g4 19 "Wib3 �d7 + Ibragi­ mov-Khalifman, St Petersburg 1994) 17 "Wib3 (17 i.xg4 �xc3 1 8 l:!.b3 i.xg4 19 1l¥xg4 tiJxd5 20 "Widl "Wie7 +) 17 ... tiJxf2! 1 8 axb5 axb5 + with a use­ ful extra pawn. a2) 14 a5 �d7 = intending ... �b5 or ...tiJb5 leaves Black fine. b) 1 1 e4 and here it's important to keep the knight on a6 for a while, since it makes a4 less attractive for White, as the knight can hop into b4. Thus: bl) l l ...tiJc7?! is premature. 12 a4 and then: bl l) 12 ...b6, as chosen in Tihonov­ Marin, Solsones 2004, does not solve Black's problems. Then 1 3 f3! tiJd7 14 tD.c4 tD.e5 15 tD.e3! t is a typical ma­ noeuvre for White in the Benoni. He avoids exchanges since Black's pieces lack space to regroup. The e5-knight will be pushed back by f4 and the e3knight will return to c4, leaving Black cramped. b 12) 12 ... .l:.b8 1 3 f3 ! (preparing tD.c4) 1 3 ... tiJd7 (13 ... a6 14 a5 i.d7 15 tD.c4 tiJb5 16 �e3 t) 14 tD.c4 tD.e5 15 tD.a3 f5 16 i.f4 t followed by "Wid2 and �ael. b2) l l ...�b8! 12 f3 (12 �el tD.c7 transposes to line 'a') 12 ... tiJh5 !? (in­ tending ... tD.f4) 1 3 f4 (Black can be

happy with the complications arising after 1 3 tD.c4 b5 14 tD.xb5 .l:.xb5 15 CiJxd6 .l:tb6 16 tD.xe8 i.d4+ 17 'ith 1 1!¥xe8) 1 3 ...tiJf6 14 �f3 b6!? (after 14 ... b5 Black should be prepared for 15 a4!?). Now it's not clear what White should do since 15 tD.c4 will be met by 15 ...b5 !. Otherwise, Black can simply play ... tD.c7 and ... i.a6 with a comfortable position. l l ... tD.e4!? I recommend this new move. Black exchanges one pair of knights before White can play f3 and e4. If Black plays the slow 1 1 ...tD.c7 12 a4 b6 (Lobron-Wojtkiewicz, Frankfurt rapid 2000) then 1 3 f3 !? intending e4 appears to give White everything he could dream about after such a modest opening choice. 12 tiJbS Black copes with the complications after 12 tD.xe4 .l::!.xe4 1 3 �d2 ( 1 3 a4 is still met by 1 3 ...tiJb4 =) 1 3 ...b5 14 tiJa5 ( 14 i.a5? 1!¥e7 15 tiJd2 .l::!.a4! {an unusual but effective square for the rook} 16 i.c3 �xc3 17 bxc3 �d7 +) 14 . :i¥e8!. Black is fine; e.g., 15 tD.c6 tD.c7 16 �a5 tD.xd5 ! and then: a) 17 tiJd8? tiJb6! 1 8 i.f3 (or 18 1!¥xd6?! �g4! 19 �xg4 �xd8 20 "Wig3 i.xb2 + with an extra pawn) 1 8 ... �a4! 19 �xb6 (19 �xa8? tD.xa8 and Black wins) 19 ... axb6 20 1!¥xd6 (20 �xa8 .l:txa8 21 'iVxd6 �d7 22 tiJb7 i.c6 23 'iVc7 �a7 +) 20 ...i.d7 21 tiJb7 i.e5 22 "Wixb6 c4 +. b) 17 'iVxd5 �b7 18 �xb5 a6 19 i.e2 l:.e6 (first defending d6) 20 �f3 J::!.c 8 =. 12 ... tiJc7 13 a4 tiJxb5 14 axb5 f5

1 d4 li:Jj6 2 c4 c5: 3 e3 AND 3 dxc5

Thanks to his control of the e4square (which means the c1-bishop is hlocked in) and the exchange of one pair of knights, Black's position is ab­ solutely safe and he has no problem pieces. A possible plan is ... b6, ...Wic7, ... i.d7, etc. B2) 5

tlJf3 0-0 6 i.e2 Other moves lead to positions we have already looked at: a) For 6 d5, see Line B 1. b) 6 dxc5 tlJa6 7 i.e2 tlJxc5 is dis­ cussed in note 'c2' to White's 4th move in Line B. 6 cxd4 There is nothing to be gained by de­ laying this exchange any longer. 7 exd4 7 tlJxd4 tlJc6 (Black can also play the immediate 7 ... d5 8 cxd5 tlJxd5 9 0-0, when he can either take on c3 or transpose to line 'b' by 9 ... tlJc6) and now: a) 8 tlJc2 prevents ... d5. White aims for a position akin to a Maroczy Bind (1 e4 c5 2 tiJf3 tlJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tlJxd4 g6 5 c4 i.g7 6 i.e3 tiJf6 7 tlJc3 0-0 8 i.e2 d6 9 tlJc2), but his slow play so far makes it unlikely to be effective. 8 ... d6 9 0-0 (9 e4 leaves White a tempo down on the Maroczy Bind; then 9 ...tlJd7 10 0-0 tlJc5 1 1 f3 f5 ! 12 exf5 i.xf5 gave Black a perfect ar­ rangement of his minor pieces in In­ kiov-Vaganian, European Team Ch, Plovdiv 1983) 9 ...i.e6 (intending ... d5) 10 e4 (we are again in a kind of Maroczy; although now .. .f5 is not so powerful since it gives the extra tempo ...

71

back due to ... i.e6xf5, it still remains one of Black's main ideas) l O . . tlJd7 and then: a1) 1 1 tlJd5 tlJc5 12 f3 f5 13 exf5 i.xf5 !? (preventing activity based on the b4 advance; 13 ... gxf5?! 14 .l:lb1 ! intending b4 gave White the initiative in Kholmov-Beliavsky, Vilnius Zonal 1975) 14 tlJce3 i.d7 and Black's ideas of ... e6 or ... tlJd4 grant him the initia­ tive. a2) 1 1 i.d2 tlJc5 12 f3 aS was equal in P.Clarke-Eliskases, Leipzig Olympiad 1960. Black intends ... a4 in order to weaken the defence of the c4-pawn; also, ...f5 remains a worthy option. b) 8 0-0 d5 ! 9 cxd5 (White's c1bishop remains a problem after 9 tlJxc6 bxc6 10 'iVa4 'iYb6 Teich-Rustemov, Bad Wiessee 1999) 9 ... tlJxd5 (D) and then: .

=

w

b1) 10 tlJxc6 bxc6 1 1 tlJa4 looks natural, but the weakness of c6 plays no role since Black's pieces are more active -just look at the cl-bishop and the rooks on fl and al . 1 l ...i.f5 12

72

AITA CK WITH BLACK

�d2 (or 12 f3 li:Jb6 13 lt:Jc5 'ii'd6 14 li:Jb3 c5 with the initiative) 12 ...l:.b8 13 �cl �d6 14 .l:!.d1 i..e5 ! (14 ...�f6?, Landa-Atalik, Bad Wiessee 2003, 15 �f3 ;!; gives the initiative back to White) 15 f4 (after 15 g3 'iYf6 + Black creates pressure on the b2-pawn) and now both sides have weak pawns but Black's pieces are obviously more ac­ tive: b1 1) 15 ... �g7?! 16 �f3, and now 16 ... li:Jxf4? does not work due to 17 �c3 li:Jd3 18 �xg7! (here we see why the bishop is better on f6) 1 8 ... 'iitxg7 19 'iVc3+ ± and e4 wins material. b12) 15 ...�f6! + is promising for Black. Now 16 �f3? is bad because after 16 ...li:Jxf4! 17 �c3 (17 exf4 'ii'd4+ and ...�xa4) 17 ... li:Jd3 + the knight stays alive. b2) 10 lt:Jxd5 'iixd5 1 1 �f3 'ii'c 5 12 lt:Jxc6 bxc6 13 'iVa4 .l::f.b8 is equal: b21) 14 'iVxc6 'iVxc6 15 �xc6 �e6 16 �a4 .l::f.fc8 (16 ... �xb2 17 �xb2 l:!.xb2 18 �b3 1h- 1h Barcza-Korchnoi, Budapest-Leningrad match 1959; the ending is indeed equal, although in Schnitzspan-Krivoshei, Germany tt 2001/2 Black managed to win from this position) and now 17 �b3 ! is the easiest way for White to liquidate to a drawn ending. After 17 h3?! .l::f.c7! (Hort-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1982), 18 �b3?! is already not good since the a7-pawn is defended, so Black has chances to get something real. b22) 14 .l:.bl �e6 15 b3 �b5 16 �a3 �xa4 17 bxa4 �f6 18 �xc6 i.. xa2 19 l:.bcl a6 Nogueiras-Kotsur, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. =

=

7 d5 (D) ...

It quite often happens that the same position can arise from two totally dif­ ferent sequences. If White now cas­ tles, we shall have a position that can be reached via a sideline of the Griin­ feld, namely 1 d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 g6 3 lt:Jc3 d5 4 li:Jf3 �g7 5 e3 0-0 6 �e2 c5 7 0-0 cxd4 8 exd4. Of course, this line is not the most critical choice against the Griinfeld. Perhaps a more illuminating parallel is with the Tarrasch QGD (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lt:Jc3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5 5 li:Jf3 lt:Jc6 6 g3 li:Jf6 7 �g2 �e7 8 0-0 0-0) ­ White is playing the black side of this opening with an extra tempo (I would like to thank my editor, Graham Bur­ gess, for highlighting this to me). The problem for him is how to put that ex­ tra tempo to use, as Black can tailor his set-up depending on White's play. The most important thing is that Black un­ derstands the basic strategic plans and chooses one where White's extra move is not very useful. The most common structure is for White to get an isolated pawn on d4. Black's main ideas are play against the d4-pawn and on the light squares on

1 d4 tl:Jf6 2 c4 c5: 3 e3 AND 3 dxc5

the queenside ( ...tl:Ja5, ... i..e6, .. J:k8, etc.). If White does not want to play a position with an isolated pawn, he can opt for c5 at some point. Now: 73 B21 : 8 cxdS 74 B22: 8 cS 76 B23 : 8 0-0 8 h3 lt:lc6 9 0-0 transposes to Line B23. 82 1 ) 8 cxdS

There is little sense in taking on d5 yet because it just helps Black to im­ prove his pieces. 8 li:lxd5 9 0-0 It is safer and more consistent to push back the d5-knight first: 9 'ii'b 3 !? lt:lb6 10 0-0 i..e6 11 'i¥a3 lt:lc6 12 l:!.d1 li:ld5 13 i..e3 (13 i..g5 h6 14 i..e3 'fWa5 15 'i!Vxa5 lt:lxa5 is equal, Gelashvili­ Chadaev, Kavala 2008) 13 ...lt:lcb4 14 l:tacl lt:lxe3 15 fxe3 tl:Jd5 16 li:lxd5 i..xd5 Gelashvili-Kuljasevic, Kavala 2008. 9 lt:l c6 (D) •.•

=

.••

7.1

Here the contours of the reversed Tarrasch are very clear. 10 :tel This is often a useful move in the reversed position, but here Black can avoid putting his bishop on g4, and choose a square that makes it harder to demonstrate why the rook is useful on el. Other moves: a) 10 i.. g5 h6 1 1 i..e3 (there is nothing for the bishop to do on h4: 1 1 i..h4?! i..e6 + Denker-Lehmann, Wijk aan Zee 1972) 1 l ...i..e6 12 'ifd2 'ifi>h7 13 lt:le4 (the knight moves to c5 to at­ tack e6 and b7 but thanks to his harmo­ nious development, Black can ignore this) 13 ... l::tc 8!? 14 lt:lc5 i..g4 15 lt:lxb7 'ifb6 16 lt:lc5 l:!.fd8 17 lt:la4 'i!Vb4 18 lt:lc3 lt:lb6 with active play to com­ pensate for the small material deficit, Plaskett-Bellon, Bahrain 1990. b) Now it is too late to push the knight back: 10 'i¥b3?! i..e6 1 1 'ifxb7 li:lxd4 12 li:lxd4 i.. xd4 13 i..h6 (13 litd1 i..xc3 14 bxc3 'i¥c8! + Barle­ Lalic, Yugoslav Team Ch, Brezovica 1988) 13 ...ltb8 14 'i!Va6 l:r.xb2! 15 li:lxd5 'iVxd5 16 i..xf8 'ifi>xf8 + Kliuner-Sie­ brecht, Duisburg 1999. Black's domi­ nation of the board is worth more than the sacrificed material. c) 10 h3?! i..e6 (D) is instructive because, without making any blatantly tempo-losing moves, White has ended up playing the black side of a main­ line Tarrasch QGD, without being a move up. How has this happened? In the reg­ ular Tarrasch line, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lc3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5 5 li:lf3 lt:lc6 6 g3 li:lf6 7 i..g2 i..e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 i..g5 cxd4

74

w

AITA CK WITH BLACK

+) 14 ...'f6d6 15 lt::lc5 lt::lxd4 16 tbxd4 �xd4 17 lt::lxe6 'i!Vxe6 18 i.f3 'f6d6 +. c42) 13 ... 'ii'd8 14 lt::lc 5 lbxd4 15 lt::lxd4 ..txd4 16 lt::lxe6 fxe6 17 ..tf3 Wlb6 18 lie2 ( 1 8 W/e2? I!c2 19 .:!.ad 1 lDf4 -+) 18 .. Jhf3 ! 19 gxf3 'ifd6 + followed by ... ..txb2 provides nice play for Black. 10 i.f5 10 ... i.e6!? also deserves attention. ll �g5 1 1 'iVb3 (D.Allan-Fishbein, Chicago 1989) l l ...i.e6! 12 'iYxb7 tbxd4 13 lt::lxd4 �xd4 + is similar to note 'b' to White's lOth move. The fact that the rook is on e 1 instead of f1 does not amount to much. ll h6 Now: a) 12 �h4 (Akatova-Gunina, Rus­ sian Women's Team Ch, Dagomys 2010) allows Black to put pressure on d4. There is nothing to defend it, so White needs to take some action, ready or not: 12 ... lt::ldb4!? 13 d5 �xc3 14 bxc3 lt::lxd5 + with an extra pawn. b) 12 i.e3 lt::lxe3 13 fxe3 (Vidarte Morales-Peralta, La Bordeta 2010) 13 ... e5 ! (a new move) 14 d5 e4 15 dxc6 exf3 16 �xf3 bxc6 17 i.xc6 l:lb8 +. The two bishops have great prospects. ••.

10 lt::lxd4 h6 1 1 �e3, the white bishop has reached e3 via g5 (where it moved to provoke Black to resolve the central tension). Here, the black bishop has moved directly to e6 after White ex­ changed voluntarily on d5. It's un­ likely that even the most ardent fan of the Tarrasch will choose to reach this position as White, but you may find some opponents stumbling into it by accident. Rather than repeating heavy­ duty Tarrasch theory, I shall just men­ tion a few interesting lines that keep pressure on White: c 1) 1 1 lt::le4 'iYb6 12 lt::lc5 �f5 13 tba4 W/c7 +. c2) 1 1 �e3 Ii!.c8 12 'ifd2 'ii'b6 13 .l:.fd 1 .l:.fd8 +. c3) 1 1 i.g5 'i!Va5 ! 12 lt::la4 (12 'i!Vd2 lbxd4! 13 lt::lxd4 �xd4 + gave Black an extra pawn in Masic-Pap, European 822) Ch, Budva 2009) 12 ... l:r.fd8 13 lt::lc5 8 c5 This advance gives Black new pos­ �c8 14 lbb3 'iYb6 +. c4) 1 1 .l:!.e 1 'iYa5 !? 12 i.d2 .l:!.ac8!? sibilities thanks to the lack of pressure 13 tba4 ( 13 �c4 tbe3! +) and either on the d5-pawn. 8 lt::l c6 9 0-0 lt::le4 (D) queen retreat leads to interesting play: Now Black has two main ideas. The c41) 13 ... 'ii'c 7 14 .l:.c1 (14 tbc5 lt::l xd4 15 lt::lxd4 i.xd4 16 lt::lxe6 fxe6 first is to attack the c5-pawn by ... b6 ...

.••

1 d4 tbj6 2 c4 c5: 3 e3 AND 3 dxc5

75

ltJxd4! 15 ltJxd4 bxc5 16 Ji.d3 cxd4 1 7 cxd4 e5 + with a useful extra pawn) 12 ...bxc5 13 "fixd5 cxd4 14 ltJxd4 ltJxc3 15 bxc3 l:!.c8. This looks better for Black thanks to the weak c3-pawn. b3) 1 1 i.b5 i.b7 12 l:.c1 bxc5 13 dxc5 ltJxc3 14 bxc3 e5 is unclear, but Black has a comfortable game. 10 .tg4 (D) •••

and play on the queenside; the second is to play in the centre and on the kingside, with a possible advance of the e-, f- and g-pawns. 10 .tf4 Or: a) After 10 h3 Black can initiate play against White's pawn-centre by 10 ... b6!?, seeking to target the d4pawn. 1 1 cxb6 (in case of 1 1 ii.b5, as in Bachmayr-Wendt, 2nd Bundesliga 199112, Black can defend the knight from b7 with an advantage: 1 l .. . .tb7! 12 �a4 liteS 13 cxb6 axb6 +) 1 l...axb6 12 ii.e3 Ji.b7 with a comfortably equal position for Black. b) 10 ii.e3 b6!? (more aggressive than 10 ... ltJxc5, which simply leads to equal play: 1 1 dxc5 d4 12 ltJxd4 ltJxd4 13 l:lc1 ii.e6 Petrov-Guidarelli, Pula 2003) and now: b1) 1 1 cxb6 ltJxc3 12 bxc3 axb6 looks preferable for Black, since the a2- and c3-pawns are not good at all. b2) White does not equalize by 1 1 'ii'a4 ii.d7 12 'ii'b 3 (Black gets an ad­ vantage in case of the inaccurate 12 Ji.b5?! ltJxc3 1 3 bxc3 "fic7 14 "fia3 =

l l .te3

Now this move does not allow tac­ tics with ...ltJxc5. Instead: a) 1 1 ltJe5? simply loses a pawn to 1 1 ...ltJxe5 ! (l l ...iLxe2?, as in Hruska­ Z.Ilic, Prague 1980, misses a zwischen­ zug: 12 ltJxc6! 1Lxd1 13 ltJxd8 ltJxc3 14 bxc3 i.e2 15 ltJxb7 i.xfl 16 'it>xfl with an unclear endgame) 12 1Lxe5 1Lxe2 13 "fixe2 1Lxe5 14 dxe5 ltJxc5 +. b) 1 1 l:.c1 e6!? (intending ... "fif6) 12 ltJe1 (Black need not fear the more solid 12 ltJd2 1Lxe2 13 ltJxe2 'i¥a5 ) and now Black has the interesting plan of advancing his kingside pawns: 12 ... 1Lxe2 (this new move varies from Nei-Jansa, Tallinn 1983) 13 ltJxe2 g5 !? 14 ii.e3 f5 with the initiative. =

76

A ITA CK WITH BlACK

ll ... b6! ?

Here l l...tt'lxc5?! does not work since the g4-bishop is loose: 12 dxc5 .i.xf3 (the problem is 12 ... d4? 13 tt'lxd4 +-) 13 .txf3 d4 14 'ii'b 3 ;!; with pres­ sure. 12 'ii'a4 Or: a) Black has the better position in case of 12 cxb6?! tt'lxc3 13 bxc3 axb6 + thanks to the weaknesses on the a­ and c-files. b) 12 h3?! .i.xf3 13 .txf3 bxc5 14 dxc5 ( 14 lbxe4? loses a pawn after 14 ... cxd4! +) 14 ... lbxc3 15 bxc3 e6. Although White has the bishop-pair, Black's pawn-structure is far superior and Black even has slightly the better chances; e.g.: bl) The exchange sacrifice 16 c4? can be answered by the cold-blooded 16 ... tt'le5 ! 17 cxd5 lbxf3+ 18 gxf3 (18 �xf3? doesn't give full compensation without the queen on the al-h8 diago­ nal: 18 ... .txal 19 :Xxal 'ii'xd5 20 'iVf6 'ii'f5 +) 18 ... exd5 +. b2) 16 'ifa4 l:tc8 17 l:.acl �a5 ! 18 'ifxa5 lbxa5 +. 12 .. .'iVd7 13 lladl 13 .i.b5?! lets Black destroy White's pawn-structure: 13 ... tt'lxc3 14 bxc3 .i.xf3 15 gxf3 (15 .txc6?? 'ii'g4 16 g3 �h3 -+) 15 ...l:tfc8 +. 13 ... bxc5 Now: a) Not 14 lbxe4? lbxd4! 15 �xd7 lbxe2+ 16 Whl .i.xd7 17 lbxc5 .i.b5 1 8 a4 (18 .l:r.xd5?? lbg3+) 18 ... i.c4 19 b3 lbc3 ! 20 bxc4 lbxdl 21 l:!.xdl dxc4 + and ... c3. b) 14 .i.b5 lbxc3 15 bxc3 l:.fc8 +.

c) 14 lbxd5 ! (thanks to this com­ bination, White holds the balance) 14 ... 'ii'xd5 15 dxc5 �e6 16 .tc4 'iff5 (16 ... �f6 17 i.d5 i.xf3 1 8 gxf3 lbxc5 ! ) 17 �xc6 Jtxf3 1 8 gxf3 �xf3 19 i.e2 ii'xe2 20 �xe4 .l:.ad8 =

=.

823) 8 0-0 lbc6 (D)

White now has a huge range of pos­ sibilities. The points to bear in mind are that Black's principal plans are 9 ... Jtg4, putting pressure on d4 and encouraging White to release the ten­ sion by 10 cxd5 or 10 c5, and 9 ... dxc4, opening up a direct attack on d4. Against the latter plan, it is possible for White to make a pawn sacrifice of it by answering with 10 d5. With his next move, White can try to be ready for either plan, but most moves are committal in some way, and give Black a hint as to which plan works best. 9 h3 White prevents ... .tg4, but this move is less useful against the ... dxc4 plan. Other moves:

1 d4 ti:Jj6 2 c4 c5: 3 e 3 AND 3 dxc5

a) 9 c5 transposes to Line B22. b) 9 cxd5 ti:Jxd5 is covered in Line B21 . c) 9 ti:Je5?! is poor: 9 ... dxc4 10 ti:Jxc6 bxc6 1 1 .i.xc4 'ii'd6 + Ruiz Vinals-Lalic, Dos Hermanas 1998. The c6-pawn is less weak than the d4pawn. d) 9 a3 prepares to meet 9 ... dxc4 with 10 .i.xc4 ti:Ja5 1 1 .i.a2, but is much less relevant if Black replies 9 ... �g4. e) 9 .i.g5 dxc4 10 .i.xc4 .i.g4 (forc­ ing White to advance the pawn) 1 1 d5 .i.xf3 12 'i!Vxf3 ti:Je5 13 'ii'e2 ti:Jxc4 14 'i!Vxc4 ltc8 15 'ii'b3 and now 15 ...'ii'd7 is more precise than 15 ...'ii'c 7?! (Jelen-Dizdarevic, European Clubs Cup, Portoroz 1993), which can be met by 16 .li!.adl ! intending d6, .i.xf6 and ti:Jd5. f) 9 .i.f4 dxc4 and now: fl) 10 d5 ti:Ja5 1 1 �e5 (1 1 d6?! exd6 12 .i.xd6 lte8 1 3 ti:Jb5? .i.f5 14 ti:Jc7 l:1xe2! 15 'i!Vxe2 .l:!.c8 -+ Adly­ lvanchuk, World Team Ch, Ningbo 201 1) l l ....i.g4 12 �d4 .i.xf3 13 .i.xf3 ti:Je8 14 .li!.fel f6 15 .i.g3 e5 ! 16 �d2 ti:Jd6 is unclear, Raicevic-Velimirovic, Yugoslav Ch, Belgrade 1978. f2) 10 .i.xc4 ti:Ja5 !? (again this idea; 10 ... ..tg4 1 1 d5 ti:Ja5 12 i..e2 .l:r.c8 is also possible) 1 1 ..te2 ..te6 12 .l:r.cl .tlc8 13 �a4 a6 Nei-Velimirovic, Tallinn 1977. g) 9 l:tel .i.g4 (this seems to work out well enough, despite arguably be­ ing a little obliging; there may be a strong case for 9 ... .i.f5 ! ? , challenging White to find a way to make use of the move .:tel ; as Giddins points out in =

=

77

How to Build Your Chess Opening Repertoire,

there are even lines where the rook is vulnerable after ... ti:Jb4) and then: gl) 10 c5 ti:Je4 1 1 i..e3 gives us a position from Line B22 except for White's extra move .l:!.e l. However, even this does not give him an advantage. l l ...b6 ( l l ...f5!? is also interesting) 12 �a4 ti:Jxc3 13 bxc3 (S.Emst-L' Ami, Dutch Team Ch 2005/6) 13 ...'i!Vd7!? (intending ...ti:Jxd4) 14 'ii'b 5 a6! 15 �b2 (15 'iWxb6?? .l:r.tb8 -+) 15 ...bxc5 16 dxc5 e6 with a comfortably equal position for Black. g2) After 10 cxd5 ti:Jxd5 1 1 h3 i..e6 Black has fixed the isolated pawn and has serious ambitions. This is a reversed Tarrasch where White has the extra move .li!.el , which ought to be of some use, but in fact White has scored rather badly from this posi­ tion, so it may not actually change the nature of the play in any marked fash­ ion. Now: g21) 12 i..f l .l:tc8 13 .i.g5 h6 14 i..e 3 and here I like 14 .. .'ii' d6!? in­ tending ... .li!.fd8. Black should not rush to help White reconnect his pawns: 14 ...ti:Jxc3 15 bxc3 ti:Ja5 16 'ifd2 'ith7 17 ..ltf4 ..ltc4 Elianov-Strelnikov, Ukrainian Junior Ch, Kharkov 2000. g22) 12 i.. g5 h6 13 ..te3 (Kindl­ Milos, Groningen 1994) and again it's good to place the queen on d6: 13 ... �d6!? 14 �d2 ti:Jxe3 15 fxe3 f5 ! intending ... f4 with the initiative. h) 9 .i.e3 dxc4 and here: hl) 10 d5 needs study: 10 ... ti:Ja5 1 1 b4 (1 1 'ii'd2?! is too passive and lets Black complete his development and =

ATTA CK WITH BLA CK

78

keep the extra material: 1 l ...b6 12 l:.ad1, Darga-Hort, Bundesliga 1981/2, 12 ... i..b7 +) 1 1 ...cxb3 12 axb3 and then: h1 1) 12 ... lDxd5!? leads to compli­ cations. Let me show you the main line I found: 13 lDxd5 i..xal 14 'i¥xa1 (14 b4 i..g7 15 bxa5 e6 + and ... Vi'xa5 with an advantage) 14 .. .'ii' xd5 15 i..h6 f6 16 .l:.d 1 'i!Vc5 17 b4! (opening the diagonal to give check) 17 ... 'i'i'xb4 18 'iia2+ lDb3 19 i..xf8 �xf8 20 l:.d8+ �g7 21 i..d l ! (not 21 .l:te8? i..e6! 22 .l:txa8 lDd4 and Black wins, Inkiov-Gharamian, French Team Ch 2008/9) 2l...'i¥b6 22 l!e8 �f7 23 .l:!.h8 �g7 24 .l:!.e8 h12) 12 ...b6!? 13 b4 lDb7, followed by ... lDd6 and ... i..b 7, leads to un­ clear position. White's pieces are more harmonious, but Black has an extra pawn. h2) 10 i..xc4 lDa5 ! (a typical ma­ noeuvre one should remember: Black pushes the c4-bishop back so he can place his own bishop on e6) 1 1 i..e2 i..e6 12 iia4 (12 lDe5 lDd5 13 lDxd5 i.. xd5 14 iia4 lDc6 15 .l:Ifd1 e6 Kavalek-Matulovic, Havana Olympiad 1966) 12 ... lDd5 1 3 lDxd5 i.. xd5 14 .l:.ac 1 a6 15 lDe5 e6 intending ... lDc6 is fine for Black. White should then avoid 16 lDd7? i.c6 17 lhc6 iixd7! (better than 17 ... lDxc6? 1 8 lDxf8, when ac­ cording to my database Black resigned in Bregadze-Pavlidis, World Under-16 Ch, Kerner 2007, but it can't be true since the position is equal after, e.g., 18 ... lDxd4 19 i.xd4 'ifxd4 20 'i!Vxd4 i..xd4 21 .l:!.d 1 .l:.d8) 18 1'!c4 b5 19 'i!Vxa5 bxc4 + . 9 dxc4 10 i.xc4 lDaS! (D) =.

an

=

...

We have already seen this idea. The c4-bishop is pushed back so that Black can place his own bishop on e6. ll i..e2 Usually the bishop is worse placed on d3 but in this situation it makes sense in order to have the option of a later l:!.xe6 sacrifice. 1 1 i.d3 i..e6 12 .l:!.e 1 .l:tc8 (if Black is really scared of llxe6, he can continue 12 .. .'iVd7 or 12 ... 'ifd6) and now: a) 13 i..g 5 i.. c4 (an exchange of light-squared bishops will leave c4 and d5 less well defended) 14 i.c2 i.. a6 15 l:.c l (15 lDe4 lDc4 16 libl lDxe4 17 i.. xe4 lDd6 1 8 i.. d3 i..x d3 19 'i!Vxd3 .l:.e8 gave Black a pleasant position in Morchiashvi1i-Mi1anovic, Kavala 2007) 15 ... lDc4 16 b3 lDb6 17 lDe4 lDxe4 18 i.. xe4 'i¥d7 19 :f.xc8 .l:.xc8 and again Black has no problems, Epishin-Zviagintsev, Russia Cup, St Petersburg 2009. b) 13 .l:!.xe6!? is an absolutely cor­ rect exchange sacrifice, but White gets merely sufficient compensation. 13 ... fxe6 14 iie2 (Black's e6-pawn is doomed, and the white knight heads

1 d4 tbf6 2 c4 c5: 3 e3 AND 3 dxc5

for a nice outpost on e6; however, Black has counterplans) l4 ... 'it>h8 15 tbg5 tt:'lc6! 16 tDb5!? (16 tbxe6? tbxd4 +) l6 ... e5 ! (this is the most convinc­ ing move, and improves over the l6 ... a6 chosen in Lputian-Magerra­ mov, Daugavpils 1978) 17 tbe6 �d5 18 tbxf8 i.xf8 ! (it's important to take with the bishop in order to control c2 and c3; not 1 8 ... l:!.xf8? 19 dxe5 tbxe5 20 i.c2 ;!;) and then: b1) 19 dxe5? tt:'lxe5 (the d3-bishop has nowhere good to move) 20 tbxa7 (20 tbc3 .l:txc3 21 bxc3 tbxd3 and 20 i.c2 .l:txc2 21 'ii'xc2 'i!Vxb5 22 �c8 �g8 23 i.h6 tbed7 are both much better for Black) 20 . Jixc1+ 21 l:.xc1 tbxd3 22 .l:!.c8 'it>g7 gives Black a slight advantage. b2) After 19 tbc3 tbxd4 20 'ite3 'ita5 Black is fine. l l i.e6 12 l:te1 12 i.g5 l:tc8 13 l:!.e1 leads to the main line. 12 tbe5?! l:l.c8 1 3 1i'a4 (this doesn't make much sense since it just helps Black to strengthen his control of the light squares; 1 3 .l:tel transposes to note 'b' to White's 13th move) 13 ... a6! 14 .l:td1 b5 15 'i1Va3 'ifb6 gives Black a comfortable position; e.g., 16 �xe7 .l:.fe8 17 �b4 (17 �a3?? b4 1 8 tba4 bxa3 19 tbxb6 axb2 20 i.xb2 l:tc2 -+ Polak-Ftacnik, Pribram rapid 1997) 17 ...i.f8 1 8 tba4 (forced) 1 8 ...�c7 19 tbc5 i.f5 ! (White's pieces are in dan­ ger but there is a way to save them) 20 i.f3 ! .i.xc5 21 dxc5 .l:txe5 22 i.f4 tbc4 23 b3 'ili'xc5 24 �xc5 liexc5 25 bxc4 i.e4 12 l:tc8 (D) =

...

=.

•.•

79

13 i.gS

Or: a) 13 tbg5?! (there is nothing for the knight to do on g5) 13 ... i.c4 14 i.f3 (Rausis-Fominykh, Cairo 2001) 14...e6 15 i.e3 tbd5 +. Black makes desirable exchanges and gains total control of the light squares. b) Also there is no reason to acti­ vate the knight to e5: 1 3 tbe5?! tbd5 14 i.d2 (or 14 tbxd5 i.xd5 15 'ita4 tbc6 + Beutel-Mahdi, Aschach 1995) 14 ... !Dc6! (as everyone knows, the side facing an isolated pawn welcomes ex­ changes since they reduce counterplay and make the weakness more vulnera­ ble) 15 tbxc6 l:txc6 16 tbxd5 (16 i.f3 .l:c4 17 �e2 lhd4 + Zhukova-Beshu­ kov, Berlin 1995) 16 ... i.xd5 17 i.b4 i.f6 + Slogar-Sermek, Pula 1993. 13 tbc4 14 i.xc4 i.xc4 15 'itd2 l:te8 16 i.h6 i.dS The game is equal, Cabrilo-Leskur, Serbian Team Ch, Kragujevac 2009. Although White still has an isolated pawn, it's hard for Black to attack it ­ the bishop being on d5 disturbs rather than helps in this respect. .••

7 Vaga n ia n Ga m bit

1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 c5 3 liJf3 This is a popular way to avoid both the Benko Gambit and the Modem Benoni. In the theory books, you will find it classified as a Symmetrical English, with masses of theory on lines where Black develops with ... e6, etc. But there is no need for Black to play so slowly, as he can proceed in­ stead in gambit style. Moreover, it is a gambit with an excellent theoretical reputation and an unusually good re­ cord in practice. 3 ... cxd4 4 liJxd4 For 4 'ii'xd4 liJc6 5 'ii'd l e5 see note 'c' to White's 5th move. 4 ... e5 (D)

This is the most natural reply, eye­ ing the weakness on d6. White seem­ ingly stops 5 ... d5 (due to a double capture on d5 and liJc7+ ). Before we examine the main line, let's see the other possibilities for the knight: a) 5 liJb3?! d5 ! already affords Black an advantage in the centre: al) 6 e3 liJc6 7 i..e2 (7 cxd5 'i¥xd5 8 'ti'xd5 liJxd5 9 a3 i..e6 10 liJld2 :c8 + Oll-Westerinen, Oviedo rapid 1992) 7 ... i..e6 (attacking c4 and obliging White to take on d5) 8 cxd5 'ti'xd5 9 0-0 :d8 10 liJc3 �xdl 1 1 :xdl .Uxdl + 12 i..xdl i..b4 + followed by ... 0-0 and ... l:td8 gives Black the better position. a2) 6 cxd5 'r�Vxd5 ! (6 ... liJxd5 is also possible but then White has fewer problems activating his pieces: 7 e4! liJb4 8 i..b 5+ liJ8c6 9 'i¥e2 a6 10 i.. xc6+ liJxc6 1 1 liJc3 ) 7 'r�Vxd5 liJxd5 (now the c2-square is weak­ ened and the black knight heads there) 8 e4 (8 a3 prevents ... tt:Jb4 but leaves the b3-knight vulnerable; after 8 ... liJc6 9 e4 liJf6 10 liJc3 i..e6 1 1 liJd2 i.. c 5 + Black's pieces are more active) 8 ... tt:Jb4 9 liJa3 i..e6 10 i..b 5+ liJ8c6 1 1 0-0 (Popelka-Pacher, Teplice 201 1) 1 1...a6! (this new move is better than 1 l...liJxa2?! 12 liJa5 ! with an un­ Black weakens the d5-square but clear position) 12 i.. c4 (12 i..e 2? liJxa2! + costs White a pawn, while af­ it's only temporary. 5 liJb5 ter 12 i..xc6+ liJxc6 Black is better =

HI

VAGANIAN GAMBIT

due to the bishop-pair) 12 ... lDc2! and then: a21 ) 13 i.xe6? simply loses to 1 3 ... ttJxal -+. a22) Black needs to be precise in the case of 1 3 i.xa6!? i.xa3 ! (the only move that gives an advantage) 14 i.xb7 'it>d7! (a critical move!) 15 i.xa8 �xa8 16 bxa3 (16 �bl ? i.d6 -+) 16 ... i.xb3 17 litbl i.e6 + (17 ... i.xa2? leads to a pawn-down endgame after 18 .l::tb2! i.c4 19 .l:.xc2 i.xfl 20 'itxfl ;!;). a23) 1 3 tDxc2 i.xc4 14 l:td 1 l:td8 +. Black has the bishop-pair. b) 5 lDc2 d5 and now: b 1 ) After 6 e3 lDc6 7 i.e2 (7 ltJc3? d4! 8 exd4 exd4 9 lDb5 i.c5 + fol­ lowed by ... a6 gives Black an advan­ tage, Vasina-Melnichuk, Kiev 2006) 7 ... i.e6 8 cxd5 lDxd5 9 0-0 i.c5 + Kopnicky-V.Sergeev, Tatranske Zruby 2002. Black is better because of his more active pieces. b2) 6 cxd5 'ilixd5 7 'ilixd5 lDxd5 and here: b21 ) 8 g3?! is too modest; White should fight for the centre more radi­ cally. 8 ... lDc6 9 i.g2 i.e6 10 0-0 0-0-0!? (an interesting way to develop the rook faster) 1 1 i.d2 'itb8 12 ltJc3?! (relatively best is 12 .l:!.cl !? i..e7 +) 12 ... liJdb4! 13 lDxb4 i..xb4 14 i.. g5 f6 15 i..xc6 (to avoid ... ltJd4) 15 ... fxg5 16 i.g2 �d2 + Andersson-Gelfand, Tilburg 1990. b22) 8 e4 lDb4 9 lDxb4 i.xb4+ 10 i..d2 lDc6 is totally equal; e.g., 1 1 i.b5 i..d7 12 i.xc6 i.xd2+ 13 'iitxd2 i.xc6 14 ltJc3 0-0-0+ 15 'ite3 .:td6 16 .l:.ad1 .l:thd8 17 .l:!.xd6 �xd6 18 .l:td 1 .l:.xd 1 19

ltJxdl 1h- lf2 G.Mohr-A.Grosar, Por­ toroz 1993. c) 5 liJf3 attacks the e5-pawn, but after 5 ... ltJc6 Black's plan remains the same: ... d5. 6 lDc3 (6 g3?! d5 7 cxd5 'ilixd5 +) 6 ... i.b4 (renewing the ... d5 threat) 7 i.d2 (after 7 a3?! i.xc3+ 8 bxc3, as in Krasnopeev-Kron, Siberian Ch, Irkutsk 2009, 8 ... d6! + prepares to besiege White's doubled c-pawns by ... 0-0, ... i..e6, ... l:.c8, ... lDa5, etc.) 7 ... 0-0 and now: cl) 8 e3 e4 9 lDg5 .l:!.e8 10 a3 (T.Balogh-Rachela, Slovakian Team Ch 2000/1 ) 10 ... i.xc3 1 1 i.xc3 d6 (intending ... h6, meeting lDh3 with ... i..x h3) 12 h4 (in order to take on h3 with the rook) 12 ... ltJe5 (Black is in no hurry to chase the g5-knight back, in­ stead developing his own pieces) 13 i.e2 i.f5 14 Vi'd4 .l:tc8 15 .i:!.dl b6 +. White can't take on d6: 16 'ii'xd6? lDd3+ +. c2) 8 a3 i.xc3 9 i.. x c3 ltJe4! 10 �c2 ltJxc3 1 1 'ilixc3 d6 12 l:.d1 'ilie7 Munkhgal-Brandenburg, Shenzhen 201 1 . 5 ... d5! Black will not be left with a back­ ward pawn, and opens lines so he can develop his pieces rapidly and aggres­ sively. 6 cxd5 i.. c5 (D) Not 6 ... ltJxd5?? 7 �xd5 ! �xd5 8 lDc7+ �d8 9 lDxd5 +-. This move defines the Vaganian Gambit. Though the Armenian grand­ master did not invent the 4... e5 5 lDb5 d5 gambit as a whole, he did introduce this vital follow-up which was essen­ tial to make it respectable. =

=

82

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

Black sacrifices a pawn for long­ lasting compensation in the form of free piece development while White suffers from a lack of space and slow development, and can face a strong at­ tack on the kingside (after ... e4 is played). The extra pawn on d5 is hard to defend, though it can sometimes be­ come a strength or be given back for positional dividends. Before delving into specific varia­ tions, we should talk about Black's plan. Considering that White can't play a quick e4 to support the d5-pawn be­ cause of ... ltJg4, Black will shortly play ... e4 himself. This keeps the d5pawn cut off and provides the black pieces with a natural deployment: e5 is a good square for a knight, f5 for the bishop, e7 for the queen, e8 and d8 for his rooks, while the c5-bishop often moves back to d6. Once this arrange­ ment is achieved, Black starts to create serious threats: attacking d5, entering on d3 or - the most dangerous for White - attacking on the kingside. For a while, Black will simply ignore the d5-pawn since it cannot go anywhere.

White has a choice between two main schemes: he can play e3 and �e2, or fianchetto this bishop on g2. In this chapter we shall look at the g3 plan and a variety of other set-ups for White. The next chapter focuses on 7 e3. Our coverage divides into two main moves here: 83 A: 7 ltJlc3 85 B : 7 ltJ5c3 In both cases, we only deal with lines that don't transpose to the next chapter; that is, White doesn't follow up with 8 e3. A few other moves are worth men­ tioning too: a) After 7 'ifc2 ltJa6 it's important to point out that White can't defend the d5-pawn with the e-pawn. White should certainly avoid 8 e4? ltJg4 +, but he also has trouble after 8 lDlc3 ltJb4 9 �a4 0-0 1 0 �e3 (this looks odd but it's an absolutely required step; 10 e3? .1f5 1 1 ltJa3 ltJfxd5 +; 10 �d2? a6 1 1 ltJa3 ltJbxd5 +) 10 ... .txe3 1 1 'ifxb4 �b6 12 .li!.d1 .i.a5 1 3 �b3 �f5. Black has a firm grip on the posi­ tion thanks to his better development, while White's extra pawn means noth­ ing in such circumstances. b) 7 d6?! is a tricky move. White supports ltJc7+, which at first sight appears quite dangerous for Black. However, the natural 7 . . . 0-0 demon­ strates that this threat can be ignored. Then 8 ltJc7 (after 8 lD1c3 ltJc6 +. White no longer threatens ltJc7 and Black will gradually surround the d6pawn, after which he will have an

VAGANIAN GAMBIT

advantage due to his better develop­ ment) 8 .. .lbe4! (threatening instant mate) 9 e3 (9 .i.e3? .itxe3 l 0 fxe3 '1if6 1 1 'ii'd5 'ii'f2+ 12 'it>dl 'ii'xe3 followed by .. :�:Jf2+ is hopeless for White) 9 ... .i.b4+ (D) leaves White no good defence against Black's activity. w

83

c) If White wishes to reach Line B2, then he can also start with 7 g3 because Black can't land any tactics based on f2 and b5. 7 ... 0-0 (the tactic 7 ... .i.xf2+?? does not work because after 8 'it>xf2 'ii'b6+ White can defend king and knight by 9 e3 +-) and now: cl) 8 .i.g2? does not work well because the b5-knight and f2-pawn can't be defended simultaneously af­ ter 8 ... 'ii'b6 +. c2) 8 tblc3 transposes to Line A. c3) For 8 tb5c3 see Line B2. A)

tLl lc3 This is not a good idea because the b5-knight will be pushed back to a3, after which the knights will be awk­ ward on a3 and c3. They are better placed on c3 and d2. 7 0-0 8 g3 Not 8 e4? l2Jg4 +. For 8 d6?! tbc6, see note 'b' to White's 7th move above. 8 e3 transposes to note 'b' to White's 8th move in Chapter 8. 8 a6 9 tb a3 (D) 7

bl ) After 10 tbd2? �xd6 1 1 tbxa8 .l:i.d8 -+, Black will first win the d2knight, and then capture the other white knight, securing a material ad­ vantage. b2) 10 .i.d2 tbxd2 1 1 tbxd2 �xd6 12 tLlb5 (after 12 tbxa8? I!d8 -+ Black wins both white knights) 12 ... 'ii'g6!? (keeping an eye on the g2-pawn) 1 3 a3 (or else Black plays ....l:!.d8) 13 ....i.xd2+ 14 'ii'xd2 tbc6 + followed by .. Jld8 and ... .i.e6. b3) 10 tbc3 tbxc3 1 1 bxc3 .i.xc3+ 12 .i.d2 .i.xal 1 3 'ii'x al 'ii'xd6 14 tbxa8 .i.e6 (intending ...tbd7 or ...tbc6, when Black keeps an extra pawn) 15 'ii'b2 tbc6 16 �xb7? (it is better to give up the knight) 16 ... .l:!.b8 1 7 'ii'a6 �b1+ 1 8 We2 l2Jd4+ and the white queen is lost.

...

...

B

84

AITA CK WITH BLACK

b) After 16 lt'lxc8 'fia5+ 17 �e2 It's extremely important for Black (D) Black gets a decisive advantage by to provoke e3 to gain access to f3 and unexpected means: d3. 10 e3 Now we examine two moves for Black: A l : 10 e4! ? 84 A2: 10 i.xa3! ? 85 9 JWb6! ••

•.•

•••

Al} 10 e4! ? •••

This typical thrust is appropriate here since it is in keeping with all the main ideas of the gambit: the e4-pawn stakes out Black's space advantage while the pawns on e3 and g3 leave weaknesses on f3 and d3. l l lt'lc4 'fic7 12 a4? ! We shall take this as the main line here, even though it is not White's ob­ jectively best option. He should first look after his king and only then think about the queenside. After 12 i.g2 l:r.e8 13 0-0 b5 14 lt'ld2 i.f5 followed by ... lt'lbd7, ... :ad8, ... i.d6, ...lt'lc5, etc., Black has sufficient compensation. 12 ...11d8 13 'fib3 lt'lxd5! This is better than 1 3 ... i.g4?!, as played in Inneman-Prymula, Czech Team Ch 1997/8. With the text-move, Black recap­ tures the gambit pawn, but White can immediately take another pawn: 14 lt'lxe4 White can't win the exchange by 14 lt'lxd5? .l:.xd5 15 lt'lb6 because of 15 ... l:id8 !. Then: a) 16 lt'lxa8? 'fia5+ 17 'it>e2 (17 'fic3 i.b4 -+) 17 ... i.g4+ 18 f3 exf3+ 19 'it>f2 .l:td2+ leads to checkmate.

17 ... i.b4! ! (the idea is ... 'iYh5+; the simple 17 . Jhc8? leads to White's ad­ vantage after 18 i.g2 ;\;). Then: bl) 1 8 h3 'iYc5 (intending ... l:r.d3) 19 lt'lb6 lt'lc6! (Black brings his pieces into the battle as quickly as possible; 19 ... l:.d3? 20 'fic4 'fixb6 21 i.g2 is unclear, while 19 ... 'fixb6?! 20 i.g2 lt'ld7 + is advantageous but less con­ vincing) 20 lt'lc4 :d3 21 'iYc2 l:r.ad8 -+. b2) 18 i.g2 'iYh5+ 19 f3 lt'lc6 20 lt'lb6 (otherwise Black takes the knight with a winning position) 20 ... lt'le5 (20 ...l:ld3 is also good) 21 g4 'iih4 gives Black a decisive attack; e.g., 22 lt'ld5 exf3+ 23 i.xf3 lt'lxg4 -+. 14 i.e7! Leaving the b4-square for the knight. White's main problem is that he can't easily castle: 15 i.g2?! lt'lb4 16 0-0? l:td3 17 lt'lc3 i.e6 -+. After 15 i.e2 i.h3 ! +. preventing 0-0, Black's com­ pensation is beyond doubt. .•.

VAGANIAN GAMBIT

85

( 14 g5 ltJe4 15 iLd3 ltJxg5 16 0-0 lbd7 17 l:tb 1 'ii'c5 + followed by ... e4 and This new move is a concrete and ...ltJe5) 14 ....l:l.xe3+!? (14 ...ltJxg4 leads to a draw by repetition after 15 1'ixg4 straightforward continuation. .l:.xc 1 + 16 Iixcl 'ii'xe3+ 17
•.•

Now we examine: 85 88 8 e3 is analysed in Chapter 8. 8 e4? is impossible, as usual, due to 8 ... ltJg4 +.

B 1 : 8 h3 B2: 8 g3 12 l:tc8! •••

This is the point behind l l ...J.g4. 13 lba4 Black gets strong play if White wrecks his own pawn-structure by tak­ ing the bishop: 13 fxg4 .l::txc3 14 J.g2

Bl) 8 h3

AITA CK WITH BLACK

86

This rare line brings White good re­ sults in practice, so I urge you to ex­ amine it carefully. 8 i..f5! (D) The point of White's 8th move is revealed by the line 8 ... e4?! 9 g4!, when Black can't play ... i..f5 and so the e4-pawn is in danger. For example, 9 .. .'W/e7 10 i..g2 (intending g5 and tt'lxe4) 10 ... e3 1 1 i.. xe3 i..xe3 12 fxe3 'V.!Vxe3 13 'V.!Vd3 ! �c1+ 14 Wf2 'V.!Vxb2 15 tt'ld2 ;\; Dorfman-Degraeve, French Ch, Val d'Isere 2002. White has man­ aged to develop all his pieces and now he has the better chances. That's why Black should start with 8 ... i..f5. ...

w

9 e3

The natural 9 g4 gives Black an op­ portunity to play 9 ... ii.e4! with quite pleasant variations: a) 10 f3? (Sulava-Guidarelli, Mon­ tecatini Terme 2006) allows Black to execute a pleasing geometrical idea: 10 ... tt'lxd5! 1 1 h4 (1 1 fxe4? 'V.!Vh4+ 12 'it>d2 tt'le3 13 'V.!Vb3 tt'lc6 with a crush­ ing attack against the white king; 1 1 tt'lxd5? 'V.!Vh4+ 1 2 Wd2 ii.xd5 -+; 1 1

tt'lxe4? �4+ 1 2 'it>d2 J:ld8 ! 1 3 tt'lxc5 tt'le3+ 14 tt'ld3 tt'lxd 1 15 'it>xd 1 tt'la6 + ; 1 1 g5?! is less solid, and after 1 l ...tt'lxc3 12 WUxd8 Iixd8 13 tt'lxc3 i.. f5 Black is better) 1 l ...tt'lxc3 12 'V.!Vxd8 l::r xd8 13 tt'lxc3 i.. c 6 with a slight advantage for Black. b) After 1 0 tt'lxe4?! tt'lxe4 1 1 e3 Black gets a strong attack by 1 l...'V.!Vh4 12 �c2 f5 ! (the only move, but good) 13 ii.g2 tt'la6 14 gxf5 (not 14 tt'lc3?? tt'lb4 15 'ife2 tt'ld3+ 16 'ifxd3 'i¥xf2+ 17 c;t>d 1 'ifxg2 -+ Anton-Salem, World Under-18 Ch, Kerner 2009) 14 ...tt'ld6 15 0-0 .l:i.xf5 16 tt'lc3 .l:g5. c) 10 .:l.h2 is definitely White's best response. 10 ... i..g6 1 1 g5 !? (White should continue with his plan of ad­ vancing his pawns; after 1 1 i..g5?! tt'lbd7 12 tt'ld2 .:l.c8 Black had the better chances due to the awkwardly placed white pieces in Raetsky-Kae­ nel, Lenk 1995) 1 1 ...tt'lh5 (l l ...tt'le8?! is less convincing due to 12 h4 tt'ld6 13 tt'ld2 intending h5, e4 and tt'lc4; White is preferable since he is still a pawn up and it's not clear how Black is going to gain compensation) 12 tt'ld2 (Black can meet 12 e4 with 12 ... tt'ld7 intend­ ing . Jk8, ... i..b4, ... tt'lc5 or . .f5, open­ ing the f-file for more counterplay; with the knight on h5, Black clearly has more options) 12 ... i..b4 is a rather un­ clear position where the white pieces look awkwardly placed for the coming battle. Black's next moves could be ...tt'ld7, ... .l:tc8, . .f6 and ... e4. 9 tt'lbd7 10 g4 10 �f3 i.. g6 1 1 e4 allows Black to initiate play against the e4-pawn: 1 1...i..d4! (intending ... tt'lc5) 12 i..d3 ...

VAGANIAN GAMBIT

tbc5 13 .tc2 (13 0-0? ttJxd3 14 'ii'xd3 ttJxd5 + Palus-Vaulin, Polanica Zdroj 1998) 13 ... b5 and now: a) 14 tiJd2?! .txc3! (a draw was agreed in an unclear position after 14 ... b4?! 15 tbe2 tbxd5 in Papaioan­ nou-Stefanopoulos, Greek Ch, Athens 1998) 15 bxc3 tDxd5 + followed by .. lieS, ...ttJf4, etc. b) 14 a3 has not so far been tried. Then 14 ... a5 (renewing the ...b4 threat) 15 0-0! (this tricky idea helps White to maintain the balance) 15 ...b4 16 axb4 axb4 17 .l:txa8 'ifxa8 18 tiJd2! (a key move: the d4-bishop is going to be trapped) 18 ...bxc3 19 bxc3 .txf2+ 20 'ii'xf2 (20 .l:.xf2? tbxd5 +) 20 ...ttJfxe4 21 .txe4 tbxe4 22 ttJxe4 .txe4 23 d6 'i!Vc6 reaches an equal endgame. .

10 .tg6 (D) ...

Now: a) 1 1 g5?! ttJe4 12 h4 looks like a dubious continuation of the pawn ad­ vance: a1) 12 ... f6?! leads to problems: al l) In the only practical example, 13 .tg2?! tiJd6 14 h5 gave Black a

87

chance to maintain the balance. After 14 ... .te8!? he is a pawn down but his pieces are better prepared for the com­ ing battle. Instead, after 14 ... .txbl ?! (the light-squared bishop is too impor­ tant to exchange, especially after ...f6) 15 .l:.xbl fxg5 16 �g4 a draw was agreed in Polak-A.Rotstein, Austrian Team Ch 199617, despite White obvi­ ously having the better chances. al2) 1 3 h5 ! .tf5 14 g6! (White cracks open the light squares around Black's king; at first glance 14 'iff3?! should win but Black has a strong de­ fensive resource that leads to crazy positions: 14 ... tiJd6 15 e4 .txe4! 16 tbxe4 fxg5 17 'ii'g4 tbxe4 18 'ifxe4 .txf2+ 19 �dl i.d4 intending ... ttJf6; the position is very complicated and hard to evaluate without any practical tests) 14 ... hxg6 (the natural 14 ... h6? simply loses a piece to 15 'iff3 +­ since there is no play connected with ... fxg5 any more) 15 tbxe4 .txe4 16 hxg6! i..xg6 (16...i.xhl?? 17 �h5 .l:.e8 18 d6! +- intending i..c4+) 17 'ii'g4 gives White a strong attack. a2) I think 12 ... ttJd6!? is the right approach, keeping the pawns together. White has weakened his kingside but achieved nothing concrete, so it's time for Black to fight back. For example, 13 i..g2 (the instinctive 1 3 h5?! i..f5 + increases White's problems - now he needs to take care of the g5-pawn) 1 3 .. Jic8 14 tiJd2 i..b4 15 0-0 tbc5 + followed by ...ttJd3. b) 1 1 i.g2!? (this untried move is more solid than 1 1 g5) l l ..J::t c8 12 0-0 h6 (Black prevents g5 and makes some luft for his king) 1 3 e4 a6. Black

A TTACK WITH BLA CK

88

prepares ... b5 and frees the a7-square for his bishop. Although White has a protected passed pawn on d5, Black still has good compensation thanks to the d6-square for the knight ( ... CLJe8d6), control of the a7-g1 diagonal and the c-file, weak dark squares on White's kingside (thanks to the g4 advance) and simply better develop­ ment. 82) 8 g3 (D)

B

it should give Black sufficient com­ pensation. The most popular continuation is 9 ... .ltg4?! but after 10 .lte2 .ltxe2 1 1 'iUxe2 e4 (otherwise White plays e4 with advantage) 12 a3 ! White gets very good results. 12 ...CLJbd7 1 3 CLJd2 llfe8 14 b4 .ltf8 15 0-0 ;\; Aronian­ Sutovsky, European Team Ch, Kher­ sonissos 2007. Black's pieces are too far from White's weakened kingside. Lines like this forced me to seek an­ other way to get counterplay. Actually, 9 ... e4 also leads to the main line after 10 .ig2 .if5. 10 .i g2 (D) B

White's plan is to fianchetto his king's bishop, castle, and then gradu­ ally develop his queenside. And in­ deed things would look grim for Black if he could not weaken White's pawn­ structure by the following move: 8 .. Wb 6 ! 9 e3 Now the light squares in White's camp are vulnerable and Black has po­ sitional advantages to compensate for the gambit pawn. 9 ... .ltf5! Another critical move. It's actually very rarely chosen, but in my opinion J

10 ... e4

Black gives White no chance to support the d5-pawn with his e-pawn. 1 1 0-0 CLJbd7 Black slowly completes his devel­ opment while White suffers from an obvious space problem. 12 CLJd2 Sooner or later White will make this move anyway. 12 .. Ue8 (D) J

VAGANIAN GAMBIT

89

shows that he can ignore this idea. 14 lbdxe4 lbxe4 15 lbxe4 'i!Vg6! 16 li'a4 (the only move, eyeing the d7-knight) 16 ... lbb6 17 �xe8+ .l:i.xe8 18 lbxc5 lbxd5 ! (Black is in time to take an im­ portant pawn) 19 .i.xd5 �d6 20 .i.xb7 �xc5 d) 13 h3 intends slower play, but Black can create threats right away: 13 ... .i.b4! (threatening to take on c3 and d5) 14 .l::!.b 1 (defending the pawn but now Black has new ideas) 14 ...�d6 15 g4 .i.g6 16 lbc4 �a6 17 �b3 .i.xc3 18 bxc3 .:.ac8 19 lba3 lbc5 20 �c4 �xc4 21 lbxc4 l::ted8 (2l ...lbxd5? 22 tbd6 lbxc3 23 l:!.b2 ±) 22 lba5 (White will win a pawn to compensate for the one on d5, but Black's initiative grows) 22 ....l:i.xd5 23 lbxb7 h5! 24 gxh5 .i.xh5 intending ....l:i.g5 and ... .i.e2-d3, etc. Black is OK. e) 1 3 a3 intends b4, and 13 .. J::tac8 prevents it. Now: el) 14 b4?! would be met with 14 ... .i.xe3, discovering an attack on the c3-knight. e2) After 14 �a4, Black can't play ... .i.b4 to free the c5-square for the knight, but there is another square­ vacating move: with 14 ...�c7! Black prepares ... lbb6 while playing b4 still does not give White any advantage: e21) 15 lbcxe4? lbxe4 16 lbxe4 b5 ! 17 �c2 �e5 ! -+. e22) 15 b4?! .i.xe3 ! 16 lbdxe4 lbxe4 17 .i.xe4 (17 lbxe4? .i.xc 1 18 l::taxcl �XC 1 19 ltJd6 �g5 f) 17...ltJb6 18 �d1 (after 18 �xa7 .l:!.a8 19 lbb5 �e5 20 �xb7 .i.xe4 21 .i.xe3 lbxd5 the white king is in danger) 18 ....i.xf2+ 19 .l::!.xf2 .i.xe4 20 lbxe4 .l::!.xe4 +. =.

White has prevented a frontal as­ sault on his king, but this has not been cost-free: his king's bishop is out of play on g2, and his queenside is some­ what vulnerable. Also, White's d5pawn is still weak. I have found just three games played from this position, so most of what fol­ lows is the result of pure analysis. Now we examine: 90 B21 : 13 lbc4 B22: 13 b3 91 Or: a) After 1 3 �a4?! (as played in the game Francsics-G.Feher, Budapest rapid 1996) 1 3 ... .i.b4! followed by ...tbc5 or ... .i.xc3 and ... lbxd5, Black has sufficient pressure for the pawn. b) 1 3 lba4?! doesn't make much sense. Allowing the black knight into d3 is too large a price to pay for exchanging off the c5-bishop. After 1 3 ...'i!Va6 14 lbxc5 lbxc5 the d5-pawn is going to fall, and Black has pleasant prospects. c) 1 3 �c2 threatens to take on e4, but with the smart 1 3 ....l::!.ac8!, Black

90

A TTACK WITH BLA CK

e23) 15 'i¥c2 i.f8 gives Black many possibilities, such as ...lt:le5-d3, ...lt:lc5d3 and ... lt:lb6xd5; White's position is cramped and Black can be happy with the results of the opening. e3) 14 ltbl prepares b4 but Black again easily stops it: 14 ... i.d6 15 h3 (preventing ...i.g4) 15 ... i.g6 gives Black a very comfortable position. 82 1 ) 13 lt:lc4 'ifa6 1 4 'ifb3 .l:.ad8! ? iLf8

14 .. (as played in Khetsuriani­ Pountzas, Greek Team Ch, Ermioni Argolidas 2005) leaves the c5-square vacant for the d7-knight, and also de­ serves attention. The text-move brings a piece into play, which is why I prefer it. 15 .Ud1 15 a4?! weakens the b3-square, which Black can exploit immediately by 15 ... i.f8! (much more effective than it was a move ago) with more than enough compensation.

Black unexpectedly starts the sort of kingside attack that we shall see in the next chapter, even though the bishop is on g2 here. 17 lt:lxe5 :!.xe5 18 i.fi This is the most natural. After 1 8 a3 b6! Black prepares ...�c8 followed by ... i.f3 or ... i.h3, with a dangerous initiative; e.g., 19 l:.bl 'ii'c 8 20 'ii'c4 i.h3 (D) and now:

.

15 ...i.g4 16 l:.d2 (D)

B

16 ...lt:le5!

a) 21 b4 .l:!.h5 ! throws all Black's pieces into the attack: al) 22 lt:le2 i.xg2 23 lt:lf4 l:.h6 24 bxc5 (24 'iti>xg2 g5 +) 24 ... i.f3 intend­ ing ... g5 and ... 'ii'h 3. White is in trou­ ble. a2) 22 i.xe4 lt:lxe4 and then: a21 ) 23 lt:lxe4?! 'iff5 24 lt:lc3 l1e8! (preventing 25 'it'e4 while intending ... 'ii'f3 with mate threats) 25 'ii'f4 l:r.xe3 ! ! 26 l::td l (26 fxe3 i.xe3+ 27 l:tf2 i.xf4 28 i.xf4 'ii'd3 +) 26 ... 'ii'xf4 27 gxf4 l:!.xc3 28 bxc5 l::.X c 5 29 d6 l:thd5 30 i.e3 .l:r.a5 + followed by ... 'iii>f8-e8-d7. a22) 23 'iVxe4 i.f5 24 'iVf3 i.xe3 ! 25 fxe3 (25 VWxe3? :es 26 'ifxe8+

VAGANIAN GAMBIT

'it'xe8 27 .l:te2 'ifxe2 28 lt:Jxe2 .i.xb1 29 lt:Jc3 .l:te5 +) 25 ... 'ifxc3 26 'i!Vxh5 ..ixb1 27 1'kd1 'i!Vxe3+ 28 l:tf2 �d3! + gives Black good chances in the end­ game. b) 21 .i.h 1 keeps a key defensive piece on the board but fails to repel the attack. 21 ...'iff5 22 b4 .i.xe3! 23 fxe3 l:tc8 24 'ife2 .l:.xc3 25 .i.b2 .l:b3 26 'it'c4 :xd5 ! 27 .li!.f2 .l:!.xb2! 28 .l:.fxb2 h6 gives Black powerful compensa­ tion for the exchange.

9/

822) 13 b3 .i.b4 14 .i.b2 (D)

18 'it'b6 19 'iixb6 ..ixb6 (D) ••.

14 .i.xc3! ? •..

In Beliavsky-B.Vuckovic, Euro­ pean Ch, Budva 2009 Black continued 14 ....l:.ac8?! 15 lt:Jc4 'ili'a6. Then Beli­ avsky chose 16 lt:Je2?! b5 17 a3 .i.f8 18 lt:Jd2, when Black could have obtained a safe position with 18 ...'ifb7! and taking on d5 (instead of 18 ...lt:Je5?!, which he actually played). But the problem is that White can secure a clear edge by 16 a4!? lt:Jb6 (16 ... lt:Jc5 ?? 17 lt:Ja2 .i.a5 18 lt:Jxa5 'ili'xa5 19 .i.xf6 gxf6 20 b4 +-) 17 lt:Ja2 lt:Jxc4 18 .i.xf6 'i!kxf6 19 bxc4 ;!; and �b3. That's why I prefer the text-move, which is un­ tested so far. 15 .i.xc3 lt:Jxd5 16 ..id4 li'e6 Black has solved all his opening problems, and we can assess the game as equal. The black rooks have enough open lines, the f5-bishop and queen support the e4-pawn and control the situation on the kingside, while the knights have a variety of squares at their disposal. =

The d5-pawn is hanging and White must defend it by 20 ..ic4 if he hopes to get any advantage. But then 20...:h5! simply continues the plan of attacking the white king; e.g., 21 b3 .i.a5 22 .i.b2 ..if3 23 l:tc1 lt:Jg4 24 h4 g5 25 .i.e2! gxh4 26 .i.xf3 exf3 27 lid4 f5! 28 gxh4 .i.c7 29 d6 .i.xd6 30 lt:Jb5 (forcing simplifying exchanges) 30 ... .i.h2+ 3 1 �fl .l:txd4 3 2 lt:Jxd4 .i.e5 3 3 �g1 .i.h2+ 34 �fl ..ie5 with a draw by repetition. Of course, this line is not forced - it's just a demonstration of the power of Black's attack.

8 Vaga n ia n Ga m bit: 7 e3

l2'lf6 6 This is the most common choice in practice, even though the lines with g3 in the previous chapter may be a more critical test of Black's gambit. The main drawback of playing e3 (rather than fianchettoing) is that the b8-h2 diagonal remains open for future play against the white king. 7 0-0 8 tLl5c3 White can also reach this position using the move-order 7 tLl5c3 0-0 8 e3. Or: a) 8 i.c4?! does not make any sense since it does not disturb Black's plans but rather provokes them - when the knight moves to e5, it will win a tempo by attacking this bishop. Also, the white bishop is much better on e2 in these positions, since it covers f3 and g4. 8 ... a6 9 tLl5c3 e4 10 l2'ld2 �e7 fol­ lowed by ... i.f5 and ... tLlbd7-e5 leads to similar play to the main line, but substantially improved for Black. b) 8 l2'l1c3 suffers from the same defects as the analogous line (7 l2'l1c3) that we saw in the previous chapter. After 8 ... a6 9 tLla3 b5 10 tLlc2 b4 1 1 tLla4 i.e7 12 i.c4 i.b7 Black regained the pawn with a comfortable position in Benderac-T. Vasilevich, Belgrade (women) 1997. 1 d4 2 c 4 c 5 3 l2'lf3 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 e5 5 t2'lb5 d5 cxd5 i.c5 7 e3

As always, this thrust is a major part of Black's plans. He stakes out a space advantage, cuts off support for the d5-pawn, frees the e5-square for a black knight, and opens the b8-h2 di­ agonal.

...

8 e4 (D) ...

Now we consider: 92 94 l2'l 97

A: 9 a3 B: 9 d2 C: 9 i.e2 A) 9 a3

Although this move does not look so logical (White advances a rook's pawn while his king is still uncastled), it is quite dangerous. White intends b4 followed by i.b2, which is an excel­ lent place for the bishop. Control of the long diagonal will be major a

VAGANIAN GAMBIT: 7 e3

factor if White manages to simplify the position. 9 .. :fle1 My general advice is not to be too scared by White's b4 idea. Often Black can allow this advance and exploit it later by playing ... a5. 10 b 4 �d6 1 1 lLld2 �e5 1 1 ...it.f5?! is not good because of 12 ltJc4 ;!; followed by lLlb5. Black should almost never allow the exchange of his dark-squared bishop since this leaves the b2-bishop unopposed and sharply reduces Black's attacking chances on the kingside. 12 i.. b 2 l:!.d8 13 "ii'b 3 (D)

13 ... a5!

With this new move, Black gets ei­ ther an outpost on c5 for his queen's knight or creates a weakness on b4 to attack. 13 ... i..f5?! allows the exchange of the e5-bishop and gets nothing in re­ turn: 14 ltJc4 i.. xc3+ 15 'i!Vxc3 .l:txd5 16 ltJa5 ;!; followed by i..c4 with ad­ vantage, A.Onishchuk-Summerscale, Hastings 1995.

9J

14 ltJc4

In case of 14 bxa5 l:.xa5, we have the following lines: a) 15 ltJc4?! lt.xc3+ 16 i..xc3 .l:r.axd5 17 liJb6 (17 i..e2?! .:g5 18 g3 i..h 3 + shuts the hl-rook in) 17 ....Ug5 stops the fl-bishop's development, and Black is OK. b) 15 i..c4 lLla6 gives Black suffi­ cient compensation since 0-0 is im­ possible: b1) 16 0-0? i..xh2+! 17 �xh2? (better is 17 �h 1 lLlc5 18 "flc2 i..e5 +) 17 ...ltJg4+ 18 �gl (18 �g3 'iee5+ 19 f4 exf3+ 20 �h4 'iVh2+ 21 �g5 'ieh6#) 18 ... 'ii'h4 19 Il.fd1 'ii'xf2+ 20 �h1 !ld6 leads to checkmate. b2) 16 .:I.e 1 lLlc5 17 "fib4 l:.a8 gives Black very good compensation. His pieces have taken up ideal squares and now the question is what White can do. Castling is still impossible because of ... i..xh2+, while there are no objects for White to attack or pieces for him to im­ prove. White's game is more difficult, which is why I prefer Black here. 14 ... axb4 15 axb4 Or: a) 15 "fixb4 'i!Vxb4 16 axb4 .l:txa1+ 17 i..x al i..x c3+ 18 i.. xc3 lLlxd5 19 i..d2 i..e6 +. With his rook playing no active role, White hardly can hope to maintain the balance. b) 15 lLlxe5 (here the exchange of the dark-squared bishop is no big deal for Black since he has other advan­ tages, most notably the uncastled king on e1) 15 ... bxc3 16 St.xc3 lLlxd5 and then: bl) After the slow 17 i..b2?!, Black gets strong play by 17 ... lLla6! 18 i.e2

94

ATTACK WITH BLACK

( 1 8 .i.xa6 .l:txa6 19 0-0 .i.e6! + intend­ ing ...f6 and ... lbb6) 18 ...f6 19 lbc4 lbc5 20 �c2 lbd3+ 21 .i.xd3 exd3 -+ with a crushing attack. b2) 17 ii.c4 (hurrying to castle) 17 ... ..te6 1 8 0-0 lba6 +. The e5-knight feels especially uncomfortable with ... f6 threatened. 15 ... l:!.xa1+ 16 .i.xa1 .i.c7 (D)

his light squares are left undefended) 1 8 ... .i.e5 19 .i.c4 .i.f5 and now: a) 20 0-0? is still impossible, due to 20 ... ii.xh2+! 21 �xh2 (21 �h1 lbg4 -+) 2l ...lbg4+ 22 �g3 (22 �g1 'ii'h4 23 l:!.d1 'ii'xf2+ 24 �h1 .l:!.d6 -+) 22 ...'ii'd6+ 23 f4 'ii'h6 -+. b) 20 h3 prevents tactics involving ... ..txh2+ and also rules out ... lbg4. After 20 ... lbc7 21 0-0, Black must choose carefully: b1) Regaining the sacrificed pawn by 2l ....i.xc3? 22 "ii'xc3 lbcxd5 leads to rather an unpleasant endgame of a type Black should usually avoid in this opening: 23 ii.xd5 .l:!.xd5 24 'iVc4 .l:!.d8 25 .i.xf6! 'ifxf6 26 lbd4 ;!;;. The knight dominates the bishop. b2) 2l.....td6! intends ...'i!i'e5, at­ tacking h2. White's move h3 was a good way to prepare castling, but it also weakened the b8-h2 diagonal, and now Black makes use of this. Black's attack almost plays itself. White can try 22 h4, planning to meet ...'iVe5 with g3. But naturally this gives Black new pos­ sibilities, such as 22 ...lbh5 23 g3 ii.h3! followed by ...lbxg3 with a practically decisive attack - all White's pieces are on the other side of the board. 17 lbxd5 18 lbxc7 Now 1 8 ...1\Vxc7? 19 ..te5 +- costs Black his b8-knight, but 1 8 ... lbxc7 19 ii.e2 lbba6 gives him easy play on the queenside.

Black's main idea now is to attack the b4-pawn with ... lba6. If White plays b5, the knight uses another route: via d7 to c5. 17 lbb5 This is the safest for White, ex­ changing off Black's dark-squared bishop as it is likely to become his main attacking piece later. White can stubbornly defend the extra pawn by a somewhat awkward knight manoeuvre from c4 to c2, but in this case he can expect serious prob­ lems: 17 lba3?! (freeing the c4-square B) for the fl-bishop) 17 ... lba6 18 lbc2 9 lDd2 'iVe7 10 a3 (exchanging the light-squared bishop Compared with Line A (9 a3), the by 18 ii.xa6?! bxa6 + is very risky for extra moves lbd2 and ... 'ii'e7 have White - as it often is in this gambit- as been made. This difference means that •••

=

VAGANIAN GAMBIT: 7 e3

White can prevent the ... i.e5 idea that Black used in that line. 10 ....l:.d8 1 1 b4 1 1 i.e2 transposes to Line C 1 1 . l l ... i.d6 12 lLlc4 This is the point of White's move­ order. For 12 i.b2 i.e5, see Line A. 12 i.c7 (D) .••

As we already know, Black should avoid the exchange of his dark-squared bishop unless he gets something really substantial in return. 13 i.b2 Or: a) 13 .l:!.a2?! (an awkward and un­ natural idea) 13 ... i.g4! 14 i.e2 i.xe2 15 .l:r.xe2 lLlc6! and the knight moves to e5 with obvious compensation, Kra­ senkov-Smirin, Vilnius 1988 (note that Black could not develop this knight by 15 ... lLlbd7?? because of 16 d6 +-). b) 13 'iii'c 2?! is not good because it allows Black to regain the pawn un­ der good circumstances right away: 13 ... lLlxd5 ! (this new move improves over the 13 ... i.f5?! played in Bou­ aziz-Othman, Arab Ch, Dubai 1995)

95

and unfortunately for White he can ' 1 take the e4-pawn either way: b1) 14 'i!i'xe4?? surprisingly leads to a quick mate: 14 ... lLlxc3 15 'iixe7? :d1#. b2) 14 lLlxe4? is bad because i t opens attacking lines for the black pieces. After 14 ... i.f5 15 i.d3 lLlc6, intending to take on b4, Black is prob­ ably winning already; e.g., 16 i.d2 lLlb6! (planning to take on d3) 17 f3 'iih4+ 18 �e2 :txd3 ! 19 'i!Vxd3 l:.d8 20 'iic2 i.xe4 21 'ifxe4 (21 fxe4 lLlxc4 22 'iixc4 'iVg4+ -+) 2l...'i!Vxe4 22 fxe4 lLlxc4 -+. b3) 14 i.b2 appears best, but of course White's unintentional generos­ ity can't bring him any dividends. 14 ... lLlxc3 15 'ifxc3 f6 followed by ... lbc6, ... i.e6, etc., gives Black com­ fortable equality. c) 13 'ii'b3 a6! (intending ... b5 to push the c4-knight to a less comfort­ able square; the idea behind White putting his queen on b3 is shown by 13 ...lLlxd5? 14 lLlxd5 :txd5 15 lLlb6! axb6 16 'iixd5 ;!;;) 14 a4 lLlxd5 ! (this is a new move; with pawns on a4 and a6, Black can already sacrifice an ex­ change; 14 ... i.f5?! 15 i.a3 lLlbd7 16 .l:td1 gave White strong pressure in A.Donchenko-Kotainy, German Un­ der-18 Ch, Oberhof 201 1) 15 lLlxd5 :xd5 16 lLlb6 i.xb6 17 'i!Vxd5 lbc6 gives Black enough for the exchange: the uncastled white king, Black's better development and the weaknesses on b4 and d3. Here I shall show just a few lines that demonstrate how Black de­ velops his initiative. 18 i..d2 i..g4!? (D) (preparing .. J:td8) and now:

96

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

13 i.e6 Black is ready to exchange the d5pawn for the e4-pawn to get more open lines. 14 �c2 (D) ••.

w

c 1) 19 i..c4 ?? loses a piece after 19 ... l:td8 20 �xf7+ 'i!Vxf7 21 Ji.xf7+ 'it>xf7 -+. c2) 19 'iVc4 l:tc8 20 'iib 3 l:r.d8 trans­ poses to line 'c3'. c3) 19 'i!Vb3 .l:.d8 20 i.c3 a5 ! 21 bxa5 i.xa5 ! (Black creates mating threats) 22 i.. xa5 lLlxa5 23 �c3 lLlb3 ! (distracting the white queen away from the a1-e5 and el-a5 diagonals) and then: c31) 24 'ii'xb3?? 'i!Ve5 25 .l:.c 1 'iia5+ -+. c32) 24 llb1 'iid7! 25 f3 exf3 and now 26 .:txb3?? loses to 26 .. ."Vi'd1+ 27 'it>f2 .:td2+ 28 'it>g3 fxg2 29 i.xg2 l:!.xg2+ 30 �xg2 'ti'e2+ 3 1 'it>gl (31 'it>g3 �f3+ 32 'i2th4 i.e6 -+) 31...i.h3 -+, while 26 gxf3 lLld2 affords Black a strong attack. c33) 24 i.e2 i.xe2 25 'iixb3 i.d3 followed by ... 'i!Vg5 gives Black suffi­ cient compensation. c4) 19 i..e2!? lLlxb4 20 �b3 i.c5 ! 21 llcl (21 i..xg4?! tLld3+ 22 'it>e2 'i!Vh4 23 'ii'xb7 .l:!.d8! 24 i.el 'i!Vxg4+ 25 'it>fl �f5 +) 21...b6 and again Black has enough compensation.

14 tLlxd5! •.•

This new move improves over the previously played 14 ... i.xd5?! 15 �dl lLlc6 16 lLlxd5 l:.xd5 17 l:txd5 lLlxd5 18 i.e2 ;l; Bartels-Mainka, Luxem­ bourg 1989. Now White can take the e4-pawn in two ways but neither leads to an ad­ vantage: 15 lLlxe4 15 'iixe4 lLlc6 leaves Black far ahead in development, and his com­ pensation is rather convincing; e.g., 16 i.e2 llac8 17 0-0 lLlxc3 18 i.. x c3 i.xc4! 19 'i!Vxc4 (19 'ii'xe7? loses one of the bishops: 19 ... lLlxe7 20 i.xc4 Ji.d6 -+) 19 ... lLld4! 20 'i!Vxd4 (20 i..xd4? i.. xh2+ 21 'it>xh2 l:lxc4 22 i..xc4 'ifc7+ 23 'it>g1 'ii'x c4 is some­ what better for Black) 20 ... l:lxd4 21 i..xd4 b6 =.

15 lLld7 •.•

VAGANIAN GAMBIT: 7 e3

White hasn't castled yet, and this provides Black enough time to secure good compensation. The most natural plan is ....l:tac8, threatening ... b5 fol­ lowed by a move by the c7-bishop. Unfortunately for White, there is no quick way to get castled. Let's see a few example lines: a) 16 i..d3?! .lir.ac8 (intending ... b5) and then: a1) 17 'i!ke2? offers Black a choice of good replies: 17 ... b5 ! ( 17 ...lbxb4 18 axb4 i..xc4 19 i.. xc4 'i!Vxe4 + is also good) 1 8 lbcd2 (or 18 lba5 lbe5 19 0-0 il.g4 20 f3 lbxd3 21 'i!ixd3 lbxe3 ! -+) 18 ... ..te5 ! 19 lbf3 lbxb4! -+. a2) 17 .l:icl b5 18 lbcd2 i..e5 19 'ili'b1 (19 'i!Vxc8 i..xb2 20 'i!Vc2 i..xa3! 21 .:tal li:Jxb4 22 'i!Vb1 li:Jxd3+ 23 'ii'xd3 i..b4 24 0-0 f5 ! 25 'i!Vxb5 fxe4 26 li:Jxe4 a5 +) 19 ... ..txb2 and here: a21) 20 'itxb2 l:txcl + 21 'ii'xcl f5 ! (a critical idea for Black: the pawn ad­ vances to f4 with tempo) 22 li:Jg3 (22 lbc5 lbxc5 23 bxc5 li:Jxe3 +) 22 ... f4 with an attack. a22) 20 .lir.xc8 .l:.xc8 21 'ii'xb2 f5! 22 li:Jg3 f4 gives Black an obvious ini­ tiative. b) 16 .l:.dl ?! l:tac8 17 'i!Vbl b5 18 li:Jcd2 f5 19 li:Jc3 li:Jxc3 20 i..xc3 i..b6 + followed by ...f4 again brings Black a strong initiative. c) 16 l::tc l l::tac8 17 'i!Vbl b5 18 lbcd2 (18 li:Ja5? il.xa5 19 bxa5 i..f5 20 .lir.xc8 .lir.xc8 21 il.d3 l:te8 + followed by ...li:Jxe3) 18 . .f5 19 lbc5 li:Jxc5 20 l:txc5 (the only move, since 20 bxc5? il.a5 -+ leaves the d2-knight in big trouble) 20 ...f4! + with strong pressure.

97

C) 9 ..te2 'ii/e7 (D)

Here White has a choice of three main continuations: 10 a3, 10 li:Jd2 and 10 0-0. There are mostly not very serious differences between them and often they lead to the same positions. We take two of them as main lines: C 1 : 10 li:Jd2 98 C2: 10 a3 101 Or 10 0-0 .l:r.d8: a) 1 1 li:Jd2 transposes to note 'a' to White's l ith move in Line Cl. b) 11 'ili'c2 il.f5 12 l:td1 (for 12 li:Jd2, see note 'b' to White's 12th move in Line C12) 12 ... li:Jbd7 (12 ... li:Ja6!? also deserves attention since from here the knight can head to either b4 or c7 to take the d5-pawn; the text-move is more centralizing, which is why I recommend it) 13 li:Jd2 and now we have reached note 'b2' to White's 12th move in Line C 12. c) 1 1 a3 is the only independent continuation. Since there is no threat to the e4-pawn, Black can postpone

IJH

A TTA CK WITH BlA CK

. . . lLf5 e5

in order to bring the knight to more quickly. 1 1 ...lt::lbd7 12 b4 1Ld6 1 3 lLb2 and then: cl) 13 ...lt::lb6?! is unconvincing be­ cause it gives White an opportunity to remove Black's dark-squared bishop by 14 lt::lb5 ! (rather than 14 lt::ld2, Oatlhotse-Ezat, African Ch, Windhoek 2007), securing good prospects for White. c2) After 1 3 ... .ie5 ! 14 'il:Vb3 lt::lb6 15 l:!d 1 White has defended the pawn three times but because the white queen is overloaded, Black can never­ theless play 1 5 ... lt::lbxd5 ! 16 lt::l xd5 lt::lxd5, when the position is equal; e.g., 17 lt::ld2 .ixb2 1 8 'i!Vxb2 .i.d7! (an important move: if the white knight comes to d4, White can hope for some advantage; that's why Black brings his bishop to a4 to eliminate the knight) 19 lt::lb 3 .i.a4 =.

Cl} 1 0 lt::ld2

White first attacks the enemy e4pawn. to :ds Now we have two main sections: C11: 1 1 a3 99 100 C12: 1 1 'ili'c2 Or: a) I I 0-0 lt::la6 (Black will capture on d5 without any complications; 1 l ....if5?! 12 lt::lb 3 ! {Altini-Matamo­ ros, Forni di Sopra 201 1 } followed by lt::ld4 looks too good for White; at least, I could not find any smart ideas there) 12 lt::lb 3 .ib6 followed by ... lt::lc7/b4xd5; Black is OK. ...

=

b) With 1 1 lt::lb3?!, the knight moves towards the d4-square, but takes the pressure off the e4-pawn. Black can get the advantage by simply taking on d5. Now I prefer l l.. . .ib6 over the two other options (l l ...lLd6 and 1 1 ....ib4) because the d5-pawn remains attacked by the d8-rook, and from b6, the bishop controls d4 and e3 and can switch to the b8-h2 diagonal. After 12 0-0 lt::lc6! the knight is ready to move to either b4 or e5. Then: b1) 1 3 'it>hl ?! (this strange move does not help White at all) 13 ... lt::lb4 14 .i.c4 lt::lbxd5 15 .ixd5 lt::lxd5 ! (the alternative 1 5 ... .ie6?! + gave Black less in Luczak-Tomaszewski, Porabka 1986) 16 lt::l xd5 'ilig5 +. b2) 13 a4!? plans to push the b6bishop back, but after 1 3 ... lt::lb4 14 aS .i.e? 15 lt::ld4 lt::lbxd5 + Black is simply better. c) 1 1 'ili'b3 lt::la6 and here: c1) 12 a3?! lt::lc7 1 3 'ili'c2?! .i.f5 14 b4 .id6 1 5 lt::lc4 lt::lcxd5 16 lt::lxd6 l:txd6 17 .ib2?! l:tc8 1 8 lt::lxd5 lt::lxd5 19 'i!Va4 occurred in Stepak-Birnboim, Tel Aviv 1 988. Black has played very well so far, but now gave his opponent a last-minute reprieve by 19 ... lt::lb 6?. Instead, 1 9 . �g5 ! 20 0-0 (20 �fl lt::lxe3+! 21 fxe3 .:ld2 22 l:.c 1 l:.cd8 -+) 20 ... .i.h3 -+ is strong. c2) Black can meet the untried 12 0-0 with 1 2 ...lt::lc7 1 3 .l:!.d1 b6!?, in­ tending ... .i.b7 and ... lt::lcxd5 (and not 1 3 ... lt::lcxd5? 14 lt::ldxe4! ±). Usually, Black does not develop his pieces like this, but since the white queen is block­ ing its own pawns, it works well here; e.g., 14 'ifa4 (attacking e4) 14 ... .i.d7 15 . .

VAGANIAN GAMBIT: 7 e3

99

'i!Vc4 b5! 16 'iVb3 .tf5 17 ltJxb5 lLlcxd5 the balance, though you'd probably and Black obtains good compensation. need to be a computer to find them over the board: 14 fxe3 'ifxe3 15 .l:!.fl Cl l) lLlc6 16 'i!Vb3 (16 Vi'a4? ltJe5 ! 17 �d I 1 1 a3 (D) .te6 + Postny-Smirin, Israeli Team Ch 1999) 16 ... ..te6 17 lLlc4 'ti'd4 18 ltJb5 li'c5 (18 ...�h4+ 19 Vi'g3 'ti'xg3+ 20 hxg3 .txc4 21 .txc4 �d7 ! 22 l:txf7 ! l:!.xf7 23 ltJd6 lLle5 24 .ta2 ) 19 .te3 ! B .txc4 20 .txc4 'i!Vxe3+ 21 li'xe3 .txe3 22 .txf7 + 'iit>h8 b) The less dramatic 13 ... ltJxc3 ! 14 bxc3 i.f5 gives Black very strong play for the pawn. 12 Jtxd5 13 b4 1 3 'i!Va4?! is most energetically met with 13 ... ltJd7! followed by ... lLlf6, ... .tf5, etc. Then White can't take on e4: 14 lLlxe4? (also not 14 'i!Vxe4? This move provokes an opening of :xd2 15 Wixe7 Itxe2+ 16 'iit>xe2 i.xe7 the position, which in principle fa­ +) 14 ... lLlb6 15 'i!Vc2 i.f5 16 f3 .l:.c8 +. vours the better-developed player. Instead, 13 ... ..tf5?! proved less effec­ ll ... ttJxdS 12 ltJxdS tive in Vakhidov-Nesterov, Bishkek 12 lLlcxe4 attempts to justify White's Zonal 1993. play by exchanging the d5-pawn for 13 .tb6 14 .tb2 ltJc6 15 li'b3 the one on e4. However, it does not Another queen move, 15 'ifc2, trans­ lead to desirable simplifications. After poses after 15 ... .tf5 to a well-known 12 ... .tb6! Black develops his pieces game by the young Kasparov. After 16 naturally and strongly - the knight 0-0, he chose 16 ...'ti'g5?! (16 ... l:!.c8 17 goes to c6, the queen's bishop can be ltJc4 .tc7 1 8 l:!.ad 1 llcd8 is better, with brought to e6 or f5 and g6, while the equality, while 16 ... ..tc7 and 16 ... lLle5 queen's rook will move to c8. Then can also be tried), which from a hu­ White's pieces will be even more un­ man perspective looks very natural, as comfortable. For instance, after 13 0-0 the black pieces move closer to the lLlc6 it's not clear what White should white king. But in the cold light of day, do, and Black's game feels good. And and under computer scrutiny, this plan 1 3 ltJc3?! is extremely risky: does not look so scary: a) 17 'iit>h 1?! .l:!.d6 (17 ... .l:tc8!?) 18 a) 13 ... ltJxe3 !? has been success­ fully tried in practice, but may not be lLlxe4 i.xe4? (Black should prefer objectively best because White has 1 8 ... 'i!kg6 19 f3 .txe3 with an unclear enough defensive resources to hold position) 19 li'xe4 l:.d2 and i n =

=.

••

.•.

/ ()(}

A 1TACK WITH BLACK

Mikhalchishin-Kasparov, USSR Ch, Frunze 198 1 White played 20 b5? and Black later won. Both players evi­ dently missed 20 �a6! bxa6 2 1 �xc6 .l:.ad8 22 �c3 ;!;, when White has an extra pawn with good chances to real­ ize it. b) 17 �c4!? even helps Black com­ plete his plan. After 17 ...l:ld6 18 l:lfd1 (continuing to ignore Black!) 18 ... .l:tg6 19 g3 we see the point. Black spent three tempi to create a mating threat, but White just played g3, and it's not easy to see how Black should proceed. 19 ...l:!.e8 20 �b3 'i!fe7 21 �e2 ;!; leaves White's pieces more harmonious. We now return to 15 'ifb3 (D) :

15 ... �e6!

This is a new move. 15 ... l:.g5 (as played in Panno-Glavina Rossi, Ar­ gentine Ch 1 989) is also interesting, but there is a strong case for develop­ ing the queenside pieces without de­ lay. 16 lDxe4 :tc8! Now the white queen has serious problems:

a) 17 �c4 lDxb4! and then: a1) 18 axb4? l:.xc4 19 �xc4 litd1+ 20 .l:.xd 1 i..xc4 21 ltJd6 �a6 +. a2) 1 8 J.. xd5? ltJxd5 (intending ...ltJxe3) 19 1i'd1 'i'h4! 20 ltJg3 'ii'c4! (planning ... J..a5+) 21 lDe2 .l:.d8 -+ followed by ...lDf4. a3) 1 8 0-0 .l::i.d3 ! 19 'ii'xb4 'ii'xb4 20 axb4 l:txc4 21 lDc5 �xc5 22 bxc5 a6 23 J..d4 f6 with a slightly better end­ game for Black. b) 17 l:tcl :d2! 1 8 lDxd2 (18 J..c4 ltJa5 ! 19 bxa5 .l:.xb2! 20 'ii'xb2 J..xa5+ + and ... J.. xc4) 1 8 ... �xb3 19 lDxb3 litd8 +. C 1 2) 1 1 'ii'c2

�f5 12 a3 White does not rush to castle king­ side since the king cannot expect any real safety on that wing. Other possi­ bilities: a) 12 g4 leads to another opening of the position that Black definitely likes. 12 ... lDxg4 13 �xg4 �xg4 14 'i!Vxe4 (avoiding the queen exchange would favour Black since the white king is still in the centre: 14 ltJdxe4? �b4 15 J..d2 ltJd7 + followed by ... lDe5, etc.) 14 ...�xe4 15 lDdxe4 (af­ ter 15 ltJcxe4 J..b4 Black will soon capture on d5 with a better endgame) 15 ... J..b4! (a new move; 15 ...lDa6?! is less aggressive, though it's enough for equal chances, Morovic-Liew Chee Meng, Dubai Olympiad 1986) 16 l:tg1 �f3 17 �d2 ltJd7. Black is a pawn down but his pieces are much better organized and his chances are better in this endgame. b) 12 0-0 ltJbd7 (D) and then:

VAGANIAN GAMBIT: 7 e3

/ (J /

is more important. After 13 li::l xd5 llxd5 14 b4 �b6 15 g4 �g6 16 h4 h6 17 �c4!? (this new move improves over the 17 h5?! played in Karasev­ Montero Martinez, World Seniors Ch, Rijeka 201 1) 17 ... .l:.d8 18 �b2 White has escaped from the pressure and the game is unclear.

13 b4 �d6 14 �b2 .l:.ac8 15 'ii:Vb3 li::le 5 ! ?

Black should generally preserve his dark-squared bishop since it's a key piece in his kingside attack. 15 ... li::lb6 16 li::lb5!? (a new move improving over 16 0-0?!, Goldsztejn-Degraeve, La Fere 2008) 16 ... a6 (16 ... �b8?! 17 d6 �xd6 18 li::lxa7 .:!.a8 19 li::lb5 ;!;) 17 li::lxd6 'ifxd6 18 0-0 li::lbxd5 19 .l:.fd 1 is unclear. 16 0-0 li::ld3! Now: a) 17 �xd3? �xh2+! is a typical idea - the bishop has been distracted from e2 by ... li::ld 3, and ... �xh2+ wins. 18 'it>xh2?? loses at once to 18 ... li::lg4+ 19 'it>g1 (19 'it>g3 'ti'e5+ -+) 19 . .'ir'h4 20 l:.fc1 'i¥xf2+ 21 'it>h1 .l:r.d6 -+, while 18 'it>h1 �e5 ! (18 ... exd3?? 19 'it>xh2 li::lg4+ 20 'it>g 1 'ti'h4 21 li::lf3 +-) 19 �c4 (19 �e2? li::lxd5! -+ threatens both ...li::lxc3 and . .'ii' h4+) 19 ... li::lg4 20 g3 'ir'g5 gives Black a decisive at­ tack. b) 17 li::lb5 li::lxb2 18 li::lxd6 'i!Vxd6 19 'i!Vxb2 'i!Vxd5

b1) 13 li::lc4 liac8 14 lld1 li::le5 ! (an instructive moment: Black gets the d6and e5-squares for his bishop and queen) 15 li::lxe5 'ti'xe5 16 �d2 li::lxd5 ! + (16 ... �g4?!, as in Servat-A.Hoff­ man, Argentine Ch 1995, is a very 'human' move but there is no need for creative measures when it's possible simply to win the pawn back while keeping all Black's positional advan­ tages). The trick is that White can't take on d5: 17 li::lxd5?? �d6 -+. b2) 13 l:.d1 l:!.ac8 14 li::lf l �d6!? (better than 14 ... li::le5?!, as in Cher­ nin-Hebden, London 1989, because Black needs to keep the b8-h2 diago­ nal open so he can line up his bishop and queen on it) 15 li::lg 3 �g6 fol­ lowed by ... h5-h4, etc. White's pieces are cramped and can hardly expect any harmony in the near future. 12 li::lbd7 ! ? The rook will move to c8 and the knight heads for e5. The d5-pawn will C2) most likely to be taken later anyway. 10 a3 12 ... li::lxd5?! is less effective. In my This is the most popular move. opinion, there is no need to take the White aims for a quick b4 followed pawn at once, and rapid development by developing his queenside pieces. •••

=.

AITA CK WITH BLACK

1 02

10 :1.d8 •••

My feeling is that Black still should not worry about the b4 advance be­ cause it gives Black possibilities of ... a5 with play on the queenside. 1 1 b4 For 1 1 lt:Jd2, see Line C 1 1 . 1 1 0-0 transposes to note 'c' to White's lOth move in Line C. l l ...i.. d6 (D)

From here, the bishop keeps an eye on two pawns: b4 and h2. 12 i.. b2 White has two main ideas, both connected with exchanges: 1) To swap Black's dark-squared bishop and remain with an unopposed bishop on b2; 2) To exchange all the minor pieces except for a white knight that will come to d4, and Black's light-squared bishop. Many of the following variations will make more sense if you keep these two ideas in mind. White can also defend the d5-pawn with the rook, but it takes a lot of time

and Black obtains good play without real problems. 12 l:!.a2 lt:Jbd7 13 l:td2 lt:Je5 (Black's main idea is ... i..g4) and now: a) After the manoeuvre .l:r.a2-d2, White gains little from exchanging the d6-bishop: 14 ti:Jb5 i..g4! and then: a1) 15 lt:Jxd6? is not good because of the zwischenzug 15 ...i..xe2 16 'ili'xe2 (16 ti:Jf5 'i¥d7 17 lt:Jh6+ gxh6 18 'i¥xe2 'ii'f5 ! 19 0-0 ti:Jf3+! +) 16 ...:1.xd6 17 0-0 lt:Jxd5 + followed by ... lt:Jd3. a2) 15 0-0 i.. xe2 16 'iNxe2 ti:Jd3 17 ltJ1c3 (17 lt:Jxd6 'i¥xd6 18 i..b2 lt:Jxd5 19 f3 f5 leaves Black OK) 17 ... .litac8 18 l:tc2 (18 lt:Jxd6? lixc3 19 i..b2 lt:Jxb2 20 ti:Jb5 lt:Ja4 +) 18 ... i.b8 with obvious compensation for Black. b) The cold-blooded 14 0-0 is also possible, but then White must defend against an attack on his king after 14 ... i.g4!. Incidentally, 14 ...lt:Jf3+!? is also quite interesting; e.g., 15 i.xf3 (15 gxf3?? loses immediately to 15 ... exf3 16 i.xf3 'ili'e5 17 lie 1 i.h3 ! -+) 15 ... exf3 16 gxf3 (16 'ili'xf3?? i.. g4 -+ traps the queen) 16 ... i..h3 17 .l:!.el . Black has no direct ways to break through to the white king at the mo­ ment but its cover is so weak that I'm pretty sure a new wave of attack will come at some point. Right away even 17 ... a5 can be played, with reasonable compensation. c) 14 h3 (in order to prevent .. . ..ltg4) 14 ... i.f5 15 .litd4 (15 0-0 .l:!.ac8 16 i.b2 i.b8 gives Black compensation) and here Black must choose between tak­ ing an exchange for two pawns or keeping his positional advantages and developing his initiative:

VAGANIAN GAMBIT: 7 e3

cl) Playing to win an exchange by 15 ... liJd3+ 16 .i.xd3 exd3 is not so good in my view. Then 17 0-0 .i.e5 1 8 l:txd3 .i.xd3 19 'i!Vxd3 was at best unclear for Black in Peng Zhaoqin­ V.Mikhalevski, Dieren 1998. c2) 15 .. Jbc8!? 16 0-0 i..b 8 gives Black pleasant compensation . ... liJd3 can be played at practically any mo­ ment, and in addition Black has the idea of ... a6 (preventing lLlb5) and ... 'iVd6 with threats to the white king. 12 .i.e5 12 ... a5?! appears to lead to prob­ lems after 1 3 bxa5 .i.e5 (Timman­ Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1996) 14 lLld2! (a new move), when White's main aim is to exchange off the e5-bishop: a) 14 ... .i.xc3 15 .i.xc3 lLlxd5 16 .i.b2 l:txa5 17 0-0 lLlc6 18 l:.cl t. b) 14 .. Jlxa5 15 �b3 .i.xc3 (or 15 ...liJxd5 16 lLlcxe4 t) 16 .i.xc3 .l:taxd5 17 l:dl t and 0-0. c) 14 ....!bxd5 15 lLlxd5 lhd5 16 .i.xe5 'iVxe5 17 :I.e 1 i..e6 1 8 'ii'c2 lLld7 19 0-0 l:tdxa5 20 'itxe4 'ii'xe4 2l lLlxe4 l:.xa3 22 l:[fd1 gives White an obvious edge in the endgame. 13 �b3 lLlbd7 14 lLld2 14 0-0 transposes to note 'c2' to White's lOth move in Line C.

](}3

•••

14 ...liJb6 (D) 15 .l:!.d1

Black has strong play after 15 lLlc4 lLlxc4 1 6 .i.xc4 a6!? (a new move; 16 ... .i.f5 lets White execute his plan of exchanging dark-squared bishops by 1 7 lLlb5, as in Khodos-Gofshtein, Daugavpils 1978) 17 a4 (17 lLle2?? b5 -+) 17 ... .i.f5 1 8 lLle2 ( 1 8 l:tcl l:!.ac8 19 h3 .i.d6 20 .i.a3 liJd7! + with

... lLle5 to follow) 1 8 ... i.. xb2 19 �xb2 l:tac8 ! and then: a) 20 l:tcl ?! lLlxd5 21 .i.xd5 l:hc1 + 22 'ii'xc1 (after 22 lLlxc1 ?! lixd5 23 0-0 'ili'd6! + White cannot bring his knight to d4) 22 ...�xb4+ 23 'ii'd2 'ii'xd2+ 24 'it>xd2 .l:.xd5+ 25 liJd4 'iii>f8 +. b) 20 i.a2 .i.g4! 21 liJd4 lLlxd5 22 .i.xd5 :xd5 23 0-0 'iVh4 +. Although White has achieved his aim (d4-knight vs light-squared bishop) Black has a powerful attack on the white king. 15 ... .i.f5 16 lLlc4 lLlxc4 17 �xc4 .l:l.ac8 18 'ii'b3 i.. g4! ? Black prepares for the endgame by exchanging his worst piece. 1 8 ... a6?! 19 lLla4 .i.xb2 20 'iVxb2 .l:txd5 21 l:!.xd5 lLlxd5 22 0-0 t Lau­ tier-Illescas, Linares 1995. Black has some problems with his light-squared bishop, which tends to be bad in this type of endgame. 19 h3 i.. xe2 20 lLlxe2 After 20 'it>xe2? 'ii'd7! + Black plans to take on c3 and check from b5.

20 ... i.. xb2 21 'ii'xb2 lLlxdS 22 0-0 lLlb6

The game is totally equal.

9 Ben ko Ga m bit Decl i ned

1 d4 tt:\f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 (D)

w

Finally, we have reached the main topic of this book - the Benko Gambit. Before we start analysing the varia­ tions, let me make some brief historical notes. The first article about 3 ... b5 was published by Argunov, a chessmaster from Kuibyshev (which is nowadays called Samara) in the magazine Shakh­ maty SSSR in 1946. Since this city is on the Volga River, the opening was named the Volga Gambit in Russian­ language literature. Some time later, the Hungarian/American GM Pal Benko made a huge contribution to the development of this gambit line, in particular by showing that Black can rely on long-term positional compen­ sation rather than quickly opening the centre with ... e6. He also published an v

influential book, The Benko Gambit, in 1974. The opening then quickly found followers, both at club level and among grandmasters. White's at­ tempts to refute the gambit kept run­ ning into brick walls, while the ease and elegance with which Black's ideas worked in practice, without White ap­ pearing to do anything wrong, made a strong impression on the chess world. As White started to lower his ambi­ tions, and merely seek a workable edge, the Benko began to acquire a more normal body of opening theory, but still one with more thm. ;ts fair share of spectacular and dynamic vari­ ations. Although the Benko Gambit is not so common at present in games be­ tween the world elite, many of the top players have this opening in their ar­ senal, including Carlsen, Ponomariov, Ivanchuk, Vachier-Lagrave and Caru­ ana. The main idea of the gambit is to create an initiative on the queenside. By sacrificing a pawn, Black opens the a- and b-files for his rooks and queen. At the same time, the g7bishop takes control of the al-h8 diag­ onal. There are also pleasant prospects for the black knights: there are so many good squares for them on the queenside that it is hard for White to

BENKO GAMBIT DECUNED

cover them all: a4, c4, d3 (after White plays e4 or e3), b5 and d4. Besides piece-play, very often Black blows apart the centre with ... e6 or ... f5, in­ tending to advance his centre pawns or create a weakness on d5. It's not easy for White to counter all Black's manoeuvres, which is why many players prefer not to accept this sacrifice. But acceptance is certainly critical, and if White adopts a logical plan, Black needs to be very accurate if he is to retain a strong enough initia­ tive to compensate for the pawn. On move 4 White has a large choice of continuations if he does not want to take on b5. We shall analyse the fol­ lowing moves: 105 A : 4 b3 106 B : 4 f3 107 C: 4 a4 109 D: 4 � g5 111 E: 4 'ii'c2 F : 4 lt:Jd2 1 14 1 17 G : 4 lt:Jf3 A) 4 b3

This is one of the less ambitious moves against the Benko Gambit. White spends time defending the c4pawn but does very little for his own development, since b2 will not be a safe or effective post for the bishop with an open b-file. There are better and more natural ways to defend the pawn, especially considering that the structure after an exchange on c4 isn't ideal for White, as the c4-pawn will be somewhat vulnerable in the long term. 4 ... e6! ?

1 05

Black uses the respite granted by the slow move b3 to seize the centre. This seems very logical to me. 5 dxe6 fxe6 (D)

w

6 lt:Jf3

In the case of 6 cxb5 a6! White is unable to defend b5 normally. 7 bxa6 �xa6 gives Black a pleasant merged version of the Benko and Blumenfeld Gambits; e.g., 8 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 and now: a) 9 �b2 �e7 l 0 g3 'ilia5+ and now 1 1 'ii'd2 1i'xd2+! 12 lt:Jfxd2 ( 1 2 lt:Jbxd2 lt:Jb4 +) 1 2... lt:Jd4! 13 �g2 d5 + or 1 1 lt:Jbd2 0-0 12 �g2 c4! 13 bxc4 .:ab8 14 'ifc2 �xc4 15 1i'xc4 l:txb2 16 0-0 l:.fb8 with at least enough com­ pensation. b) 9 g3 c4! exposes White's weak dark squares on the queenside. After 10 bxc4 �b4+ 1 1 �d2 �xc4 12 �g2 lt:Jd5, intending 13 ... 'iVf6 1 4 jhb4 lt:Jcxb4, Black has a strong initiative. 6 bxc4 This new move improves over 6 ...d5, which was played in M.Jovanovich­ R.Garcia, Argentine Ch, Santa Fe 1973. .••

1 06

A ITACK WITH BLACK

i.e7 Now: a) White can stop ... d5 by playing 9 e4 but it weakens his dark squares in the centre. After 9 ...l:tb8 10 i.e2 0-0 1 1 0-0 lbg4 + intending ..."fic7 or . . i.f6, Black is better. b) 9 e3 0-0 10 i.e2 d5 ! (if White does not prevent ... d5, just play it!) 1 1 cxd5 exd5 12 0-0 llb8 +. c) 9 g3 0-0 10 i.g2 .l:.b8 1 1 0-0 l:tb4 (the c4-pawn is undefended and Black exploits this fact to sow disorder in White's camp) 12 lDd2 .l:!.b6!? (free­ ing the b4-square for the c6-knight and avoiding the tempo-gaining i.a3; the idea is to play ... d5 - the immedi­ ate 12 ... d5?! is poor due to 13 i.a3 l:!.b8 14 cxd5 exd5 15 lbb3 c4 16 lbd4! ;!;) 13 i.a3 1li'e8!? leaves Black with no problems. The queen is headed for h5, when ... lbg4 becomes an idea. 7 bxc4 lbc6 8 lbc3

B)

4 f3

This move looks odd because the pawn takes a natural square away from the king's knight and gets little benefit in return - Black is not made to pay any real 'price' for playing the aggres­ sive ... b5. There are more harmonious ways to support the e4 advance, such as 4 'ii'c2 or 4 lbd2. If White wants to play f3 and e4, then a better option is 4 cxb5 a6 5 f3 (see Line B of Chapter 10), when the move e4 will come with greater force. 4 ... bxc4 Black can also play 4 ...'ii'a5 + 5 i.d2 b4; e.g., 6 e4 d6 7 lba3 g6 8 lbc2 'ii'b6 9 i.d3 lbbd7 10 f4 i.g7 1 1 lbf3 0-0 12

0-0 i.b7 intending ... e6 with unclear play. 5 e4 d6 Black simply develops his pieces to natural squares. 5 ... e6!? is a worthy al­ ternative . 6 i.xc4 g6 (D)

White needs to decide where his king's knight will be developed. 7 lbe2 This knight heads for c3, while the queen's knight will move to a3 to sup­ port c4. Another option is to play f4 and lDf3, but this costs more time. 7 lbc3 i.g7 8 f4 0-0 9 lDf3 i.a6!? 10 i.xa6 lbxa6 1 1 'ii'e2 1li'a5 12 0-0 lbc7 13 .l::td 1 .l:!.fd8! (preventing the e5 advance) 14 i.d2 'ii'a6! 15 'ii'e 1 .l::tab8 gives Black somewhat the better chances, L.Da­ vis-D.Gurevich, Palo Alto 198 1 . 7 ...i. g7 8 0-0 0-0 9 lbec3 9 lbbc3?! is wrong for two reasons: it fails to cover the c4-square, and it leaves the e2-knight with no pros­ pects. After 9 ...lbbd7 it's already not so clear what White should do. 10 l:[b1

BENKO GAMBIT DECLINED

lt'le5 1 1 .i.b3 .i.a6 + was Dalmau Comas-Lanka, Badalona 1994, while 10 lt'lg3 (Sieciechowicz-Tokarski, Pol­ anica Zdroj 2008) fails to improve the knight's prospects of finding a useful role. Black can reply 10 .. J::tb 8 + fol­ lowed by . .'ifa5, ... .i.a6, ... lt'le5, etc. 9 lt'lfd7 Black can also play the more regu­ lar 9 ... lt'lbd7 (Liang Chong-Zhou Jian­ chao, Beijing Zonal 2005) but the text-move gives him more options: the queen's knight can be developed via a6 to b4 (if White plays a4) or to c7; also ... .i.a6 is still an idea. 10 a4 10 lt'la3 lt'la6 1 1 .i.e2 .l::!.b 8 12 lt'lc4 lt'lc7 followed by ... .i.a6 is fine for Black. 10 lt'la6! Now 1 1 lL'la3 lt'lb4 12 .i.g5 lt'le5 13 .i.e2 f5 !? gave Black an active posi­ tion in Segura Ariza-Minzer, Palma de Mallorca 2002.

107

while White will defend his queenside and try to make progress in the centre. w

•.•

=

•.•

C) 4 a4

This move was popularized by So­ sonko. White spends a move to force a resolution of the queenside tension. 4 ...b4 (D) The most solid move. Black's play is simple and guarantees equality. An alternative is 4 ... bxc4; e.g., 5 lt'lc3 d6 6 e4 g6 (if Black defends c4 with 6 ....i.a6?!, then White grabs the centre by 7 f4 lt'lbd7 8 lt'lf3, with pleas­ ant prospects) 7 .i.xc4 !ILg7 8 lt'lf3 (Wojtaszek-Jianu, World Junior Ch, Kochin 2004) with a typical Benko po­ sition. Black will play on the b-file,

5 lt'ld2 Intending a rapid e4 advance. In­ stead, 5 b3 g6 6 JL.b2 JL.g7 7 lL'ld2 0-0 8 e4 d6 transposes to the next note. White can also start with a double fianchetto: 5 g3 d6 6 .i.g2 g6 7 b3 (if White does not develop his bishop to b2, then it can become a problem piece; after 7 lt'lf3 .i.g7 8 0-0 0-0 it is too late to play b3 because of the ...lt'Je4-c3 manoeuvre, while !1Lf4 or !ILg5 will be met with ...lt'lh5 or ...lt'Je4) 7 ... !1Lg7 8 JL.b2 0-0 9 lt'ld2 JL.b7 (it's important to attack the centre since otherwise White will gradually de­ velop his pieces and increase his cen­ tral preponderance) 1 0 lt'lgf3 e6! 1 1 dxe6 (forced since after 1 1 e4? exd5 the white king is trapped in the cen­ tre: 12 cxd5 JL.a6! + or 12 exd5 .l:.e8+ +) 1 l ...fxe6 12 0-0 file7 Zsinka­ K.Rovid, Hungarian Team Ch 2005/6. The b8-knight can be developed to ei­ ther d7 or c6, and Black has solved all his opening problems. =

1 08

A TTA CK WITH BLA CK

tiJgf3 Or 7 b3 .i.g7 8 .i.b2 0-0, and now: a) 9 g3?! is an unfortunate moveorder since Black immediately blows apart the centre by 9 ... e6!, when it's al­ ready not easy to give good advice to White: al) 10 i.g2? is a tactical miscalcu­ lation that almost finishes the game on the spot. 10 ...exd5 1 1 cxd5 .l:.e8 12 tDe2 tDxe4! 13 i.xg7 tDxd2 14 .i.h6 i.g4! 15 i.e3 tiJf3+ 16 .i.xf3 i.xf3 -+ Mileika-Tal, Latvian Ch, Riga 1953 and Surjadnji-Ponomariov, Swidnica rapid 1998. a2) 10 dxe6 i.b7 ! (10 ... fxe6? 1 1 e5 !) 1 1 i.g2 (after I I exf7+? l:txf7 12 i.g2 'fie7! + the threats against e4 are mounting) 1 l...fxe6 12 tDe2 'fie? 13 0-0 e5 + followed by ...tDc6-d4. b) After 9 i.d3, I feel 9 ... e5 ! is the most comfortable way to equalize. Then: b1) 10 dxe6? is a typical mistake due to an idea that everyone should remember: after 10 ... fxe6! + Black's plan is ... tDc6, ... e5 ! and ... lDd4 with the better game. b2) 10 lDgf3?! is a poor choice of square because of 10 ... tDh5. White can prevent ...tDf4 by playing g3, but this invites ... i.h3; both are equally unpleasant. b3) 10 tDe2 prevents ...tDf4 ideas and supports the f4 advance. After 10 ... tDh5 1 1 0-0, 1 l ...a5 was played in Kanakaris-Mastrovasilis, Thessaloniki 2001, but Black should take the initia­ tive on the kingside by 1 l ...i..g4! (a new move, renewing ideas of ... tDf4). Then: 5 g6 6 e4 d6 7 •••

b3 1) 12 h3?! lDf4! (this is the point of 1 l ...i..g4) 13 hxg4 tDxd3 14 .l:.b1 lDxb2 15 .l:.xb2 �h4 16 tDc1 tiJd7 + followed by ... tDf6 and ... h5 gives Black a strong position on the king­ side. b32) 12 f3 pushes the bishop back, but the calm 12 ... i.. c 8 + leaves the f3-pawn looking ugly. Black's main idea is play on the kingside with moves like ... a5, ... f5, ... l:ta7-f7, etc. Meanwhile, White can't do anything active. b33) 12 'fic2 'figS gives Black some pressure on the kingside. 7 i. g7 8 i.d3 0-0 9 0-0 e5 ! (D) •••

w

Again I recommend the ... e5 idea. This position has not been played very often, so there is no detailed theory just general thoughts. Black has closed the queenside and centre and now has a free hand on the kingside. The main plan is naturally ... tDh5 and ... f5. The queen's rook can be transported to f7 via a7 (after ... a5). The knight can remain on b8 for some time, or it can move to b6 to attack the

BENKO GAMBIT DECLINED

a4-pawn (if the white knight is on b3, this can constitute unpleasant pres­ sure). ... h6 and ... g5-g4 is also a possi­ ble idea. White's plan tends to be .l:.el, i.fl (anticipating ... tt::lf4), tt::lb 3, i.e3, 'ili'd2, etc. Objectively the position is probably equal. Let's see some lines. 10 l:te1 In my opinion, 10 dxe6?! is again a strategic mistake. Then: a) 10 ... fxe6?! (intending ... e5) does not work here because of the typical central break 1 1 e5 ! dxe5 12 tt::le4!, when White's initiative causes Black problems. b) I like Black's position after 10 ... i.xe6 since he controls the dark squares in the centre and has free play. 1 1 h3 tt::lc6 12 tt::lb 3 tt::ld7 13 tt::lg5 tt::lde5!? (this new move varies from 13 ... h6 14 tt::lxe6 fxe6 15 f4, which was unclear in Hubner-Hodgson, Bundes­ liga 1995/6) 14 f4 tt::lxd3 15 tt::lxe6! (af­ ter 15 'ifxd3?! Black has the very strong 15 ... i.c8! +. leaving the knight on g5 and bringing the bishop to a better place on b7 or a6) 15 ... fxe6 16 'iexd3 �h8!? (Black wants his oppo­ nent to commit to how he is going to develop his queenside; the immediate 16 ... g5?! achieves little: 17 fxg5 tt::le5 18 lixf8+ 'ili'xf8 19 'ili'e2 ;!;) 17 'ili'e2 (another way to defend b2 is 17 l:.f2 but then 17 ... g5 ! works well: 18 fxg5 .l:.xf2 19 �xf2 tt::le5 20 'ili'e2 d5 ! + with a strong position) 17 ... 'iee7 18 i.e3 e5 ! +. Black seizes the e5- and d4squares. 10 tt::lh5 ! ? I suggest this untried move. The following line is instructive: 1 o ... a5 1 1 .••

109

b3 tt::lh5 12 l:.a2 f5? (Black is fine after the quiet 12 ... tt::lf4 13 iH1 l:.a7; the point is that Black is not ready for an immediate opening of the position) 13 exf5 ! (this gives White a large advan­ tage; 13 tt::lb 1? was played in Mam­ brini-J.Horvath, Montecatini Terme 1999) 13 ... gxf5 (13 ... tt::lf4 1 4 i.b1 gxf5 15 tt::lfl tt::lg6 16 tt::lg5 ± intending tt::le6) 14 tt::lfl ! e4 15 tt::lg5 tt::lf6 16 i.b1 ±. Black's queenside pieces are not ready for the coming battle in the cen­ tre. u i.n tt::lf4 Intending ... tt::lh 3+ if White plays g3; after 1 l...a5 White can improve his position by 1 2 g3 and i.g2. 12 b3 a5 I like Black's game thanks to his f4-knight. The plan is a general ad­ vance on the kingside - all three pawns can be advanced with suitable preparation. D)

4 i.g5

This is a rare but interesting reply to the Benko, with some ideas in com­ mon with the Trompowsky Attack: White invites the knight into e4, hop­ ing it will proved misplaced. Even though I have played the Benko since 1993, I had not come across this move until my work on this book in 2012! But the move looks healthy enough and could easily be­ come more popular as players seek new paths. 4 tt::le4 5 i.f4 'ifa5+ 6 tt::l d2 g5 ! White gets a pleasant position in case of the quiet 6 ... bxc4 ?! 7 'ikc2 tt::lf6 ...

AITA CK WITH BLACK

110

8 e4 d6 9 .ixc4 g6 10 tLlf3 .ig7 1 1 0-0 ;l;. The queen is then doing nothing on a5; if Black is to justify his aggressive posturing, he needs to make use of his active queen and knight immediately. 7 .ie5 A few games continued 7 'i!Vc2?! gxf4 8 1!Vxe4 but this position can be awkward only for White; Black rapidly develops his pieces and gets the advan­ tage. 8 ... bxc4 9 'ti'xc4 d6 10 'ti'c3 (10 'i!Vxf4 lLld7 + followed by ....l:l.b8 and ... .ig7; an exchange of queens is rela­ tively safer for White) 10 ...'ti'xc3 1 1 bxc3 .ig7 12 l:.cl (M.Maksimovic­ Vucinic, Belgrade tt 2012) 12 ... lLld7 1 3 lLlh3 .ie5 + followed by ...lLlf6 and ... l:.b8. 7 I!.g8! (D) Mostly Black prefers 7 ... f6 but af­ ter 8 .ic3 lLlxc3 9 bxc3 (I vanisevic­ B.Vuckovic, Valjevo 201 1) his pawn­ structure looks miserable - Black's f8-bishop is closed in, the e8-h5 diag­ onal is weakened, while there is also a problem with the b5-pawn. Mean­ while, White's position looks more healthy; he only needs to make a few more moves to bring new pieces into the game. Of course, this position is playable for Black, but the text-move looks stronger since it avoids most of these problems. 8 lLlf3 Besides this natural (but untried!) move, White can also play in gambit style with 8 b4 but Black is ready for this as well. 8 .. .'ii'xb4 9 lLlf3 and then: a) 9 ... g4? was chosen in Murshed­ Hodgson, London 1992, the only game so far in which 7 ... l:!.g8 was played. ...

After 10 l::tb 1 lLlc3 1 1 l:!.xb4 lLlxd 1 12 li!.xb5 gxf3 13 exf3 ! (the d1-knight can be taken later) 13 ... d6 14 .ial lLlxf2 15 �xf2 .ih6 16 lLle4 ;l; intending .id3, !:tel or .t:!.hbl, White's pieces were better coordinated and Black had a tough task ahead of him. b) I propose 9 .. .'i!i'a5 !, sidestepping the rook's attack, so that 10 l:!.bl can be met by 1 O ... a6, defending the pawn. Now White needs to think up some­ thing special to prove he has a good position. However, I couldn't find any­ thing interesting for him. 1 1 'i!Vc2 (or 1 1 .ic7 'i/xc7 12 lLlxe4 'i!i'a5+ 13 lLlfd2 d6 with an extra pawn) l l...f5 12 e3 d6 13 .ial g4 14 lLlh4 'i!Vxd2+ (this simple move clarifies the posi­ tion) 15 11i'xd2 lLlxd2 16 �xd2 e5! 17 dxe6 (or 17 cxb5?! axb5 18 .ixb5+ �d8 +; the only chance for White is to break up the enemy pawn-centre) 17 ... .ixe6 18 .id3 l:tg5 ! (the only way to defend the pawn; conveniently, the rook also heads for h5) 19 cxb5 l:1h5 20 g3 axb5 21 .ixb5+ �d8 22 a4 .id5 + and 23 ... .ie7 leaves White fighting for a draw.

BENKO GAMBIT DECLINED

8 lt::lxd2! .•.

This is the easiest way to get a safe position. Black can expect some trouble after 8 ... g4?! 9 b4!, which now works better since Black can't move the queen back to a5 (as in the 8 b4 line). We already saw the consequences of 9 ... 'iVxb4? in Murshed-Hodgson above, while after 9 ... cxb4 10 lt::lxe4 gxf3 1 1 exf3 d6 12 .tf4 Black's position has a lot of long-term strategic disadvantages: his uncastled king, the lack of prospects for the g8-rook, and the fact that the c­ and e-files are going to be opened and used by the white rooks and queen; generally the white pieces are more harmonious. 9 'ili'xd2 9 lt::lxd2? makes no sense. 9 ... d6 and now: a) 10 .tc3? b4 1 1 lt::lb 3 'iia6 12 .td2 �xc4 + and White needs to de­ fend d5, delaying his development further. b) After 10 b4 the simplest path is 10 ...'i¥a3!, avoiding complications. Af­ ter 1 1 i..g3 Ji.g7 12 l:tc1 (or 12 .:r.b1 ?! cxb4 13 cxb5 lt::ld7 + ) 12 ...lt::la6 13 bxc5 lt::lxc5 14 cxb5 i..d7 15 e3 .tc3 (intending ...lt::le4) 16 f3 a6!, planning to meet bxa6 with ... .ta4, Black seizes a strong initiative. c) 10 .tg3 .tg7 1 1 cxb5 .txb2 12 .l:.b1 .tc3 gives Black a slight advan­ tage.

E)

Ill

4 �c2

This move was strongly recom­ mended by the influential writer John Watson in his book A Strategic Chess Opening Repertoire for White, so you may find that quite a number of your opponents will be playing it. 4 ... bxc4 5 e4 Of course, White was not going to take on c4 with his queen: 5 �xc4? e6! 6 e4 exd5 7 exd5 lt::la6 + intending ... lt::lc7 or ... lt::lb4 to attack the d5pawn; then ... .ta6 and .. ."fie7+. 5 ...e6! (D) 5 ... d6 6 ..txc4 g6 7 lt::lf3 .tg7 8 0-0 0-0 is also playable, but the text-move is more ambitious.

6 i.. xc4

Or: a) 6 dxe6?! gives up the centre for free: 6 ... fxe6 7 Ji.xc4 (Walk-Micha­ lek, Millheim 1993) 7 ... d5! 8 .tb5+ 9 'ifxd2+ 10 lt::l xd2 d6 11 .tg3 .td7 9 .txd7+ lt::lbxd7 10 exd5 exd5 bxc4 12 e4 .tg7 13 lt::lxc4 .ta6 14 1 1 lt::lf3 ..td6 12 0-0 0-0 +. l:tb1 i.. xc4 15 .txc4 lt::ld 7 b) 6 lt::lc3 (a logical move) 6 ...exd5 With an equal position where Black and then: has no particular problems. ...

1 12

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

bl) 7 exd5 i..e7 8 i.. xc4 transposes to the note to White's 8th move below. b2) 7 t'Dxd5 (E.Pogorelow-Sieglen, Deizisau 2009) 7 ... t'Dc6! (a new move; before capturing on d5, Black will drop his knight into d4) 8 i..xc4 t'Dxd5 9 exd5 (in case of 9 i..xd5 Black can reply 9 ... .ia6) 9 ... t'Dd4 10 'ii'd3 i..d6 1 1 t'De2 fi/e7 with a comfortable posi­ tion for Black. b3) 7 e5 t'Dg4 8 t'Dxd5 sharpens the game and demands an accurate re­ sponse. In Mamedyarov-Bareev, Mos­ cow blitz 2009, 8 ... .ib7? 9 i.. xc4 t'Dc6 10 t'Df3 ± was clearly unsatisfactory for Black. With a little more time to think, maybe Bareev would have tried 8 ...t'Dxe5 !, when Black is going to get a lot of central pawns for the knight: b31) 9 f4? t'Dd3+! (winning time for development and taking control of the light squares) 1 0 .ixd3 cxd3 1 1 �xd3 .ie7 1 2 t'Df3 .ia6 1 3 'ii'e4 t'Dc6 + and ... 0-0. b32) 9 �e2 d6 10 f4 .ie6 1 1 fxe5 i.. xd5 12 exd6+ and now 12 .. .'�d7! is the fastest way to finish development: the knight goes to c6, the bishop takes on d6, and the king's rook moves across to e8. The game is rather un­ clear, but it is White who needs to be accurate because his king is in even greater trouble. b33) 9 file4 d6 10 f4 (10 li:Jf6+?? loses to lO .. .'iVxf6 1 1 'i'xa8 lt:Jec6 -+ and ... 'i'e7+ and ... i..b7, trapping the queen) 10 ... f5 1 1 'i'e3 i..e6 12 t'Dc3 t'Dbc6 13 fxe5 d5 gives Black a nice position. I would not like to be White here. 6 exd5 7 exd5 i.. e7 8 t'Df3 ...

Or 8 t'Dc3 d6 (D), and then:

a) 9 t'Df3 0-0 10 0-0 transposes to the main line. b) 9 h3 0-0 10 li:Jf3 t'Dbd7 1 1 0-0 can be found in the note to White's lOth move below. c) White can also bring his king's knight to g3 but it does not change Black's plans much: 9 t'Dge2 0-0 10 0-0 t'Dbd7 1 1 t'Dg3 t'Db6 12 b3 and now: cl) 12 ... t'Dg4?! 1 3 .id3 g6 14 h3 t'De5 is somewhat risky because, as Watson points out in A Strategic Chess Opening Repertoire for White, White can seize the initiative by 15 i..h6! (15 i..e2?! f5 was fine for Black in Erdos­ Bologan, Caleta 201 1) 15 ... lie8 16 i..b5 i.. d7; e.g., 17 f4 i.. xb5 18 t'Dxb5 t'Ded7 19 t'De4 t'Dxd5 20 t'Dbxd6 .ixd6 21 t'Dxd6 :e7 (2l....:te6? 22 t'Dxf7! Wxf7 23 f5 with an attack) 22 l:tad1 t. c2) 12 ...t'Dxc4 13 bxc4 .l:b8 is qui­ eter, and satisfactory; e.g., 14 lte1 :es 15 .if4 .l:.b4! 16 t'Dce4 (in case of 16 t'Db5 Black readily sacrifices an exchange for a pawn and a pair of

connected passed pawns in the cen­ tre: 16 .. Jhb5 ! 17 cxb5 liJxd5 with a fine position) 16 ... ltJxe4 17 ltJxe4 ( 17 'ir'xe4 Ji.d7 = and ... Ji.f8; 17 .l:.xe4 Ji.f8 18 lbe 1 l:!.xe4 19 ltJxe4 Ji.f5 =) 17 ... Ji.f5 =. 8...0-0 9 0-0 d6 (D)

w

10 ltJc3

White sees no necessity to prevent ... Ji.g4, and although 10 h3 has been played, it appears unnecessary. Then after 10 ... tiJbd7 1 1 ltJc3 (this position can be achieved from a variety of move-orders) 1 1 ...tiJb6 12 b3 l:tb8 (Schiendorfer-Ztiger, Swiss Team Ch 2010), Black has solved his opening problems; e.g., 13 Ji.f4 ltJxc4 14 bxc4 l:r.e8 15 lilfe1 h6 = followed by ... Ji.f8 and ... Ji.d7. Black is a bit cramped but his position is solid enough and he has no real problems. 10 ...tiJbd7 After 1 0 ... Ji.g4?! 1 1 tiJd2! the black bishop appears misplaced: 1 1 ... tiJbd7 12 h3 Ji.h5 13 f4! with an obvious advantage, Ju.Horvath-K.Rovid, Hun­ garian Team Ch 2003/4.

11 Ji.f4 tiJb6 12 tiJd2 ! ?

This move (suggested by John Wat­ son) looks more critical than 12 b3, when the black bishop reaches a secure post on g6: 12 ... Ji.g4 13 tiJd2 Ji.h5 = Drozdovsky-S.Kasparov, Internet blitz 2006. 12 ... Ji.b7 13 'ii'd3 tiJh5 ! ? 14 Ji.e3 Black gains a comfortable position if the bishop retreats to g3: 14 Ji.g3?! ltJxg3 15 hxg3 Ji.f6. 14... f5 Black has a pleasant game: a) 15 Ji.xc5? does not work since after the forced 15 ... dxc5 16 d6+
114

AITA CK WITH BLACK

A critical move. Black immediately does not have the same effect at all: 16 'i¥xf5 .ixc3 17 'ii'e6+ �h8 18 bxc3 ;!;, attacks White's pawn-centre, denying White time to reinforce it. White can F) either seek complications by sacrific­ ing the d5-pawn or else exchange on 4 l'Lld2 This is regarded as a quiet line, but e6 and then try to keep the initiative it has its logic and needs to be handled with an e5 advance. carefully. 7 dxe6 This is the most popular, and de­ 4 bxc4 5 e4 This move gives White's set-up servedly so. 7 .ixc4?! is suspect, as some bite. After the natural 5 l'Llxc4? Black should get the better game with i.b7 White needs to defend the d5- precise play. 7 ... exd5 and now: a) 8 1li'b3?! has never been played pawn with the awkward 6 l'Lle3 and after 6 ... e6 give up control of the cen­ and the reason is that Black simply wins a pawn by 8 ...'i¥b6! (White is fine tre: 7 dxe6 fxe6 +. 5 ... i. b7 (D) after the natural 8 ...dxc4?! 9 'iVxb7 5 ... c3 is also possible but then White l'Llc6 10 0-0) 9 exd5 'ifxb3 10 l'Llxb3 secures some positional advantages .ixd5 1 1 i.xd5 l'Llxd5 12 0-0 f6! +. The (mostly space) that could become im­ king has the f7 -square at its disposal. b) 8 exd5 'ile7+! (this important portant later on. The text-move is more check cuts across White's plans) 9 concrete and ambitious. fl (9 i.e2 i.a6! and then Black ex­ changes on e2 and takes the d5-pawn practically for free) and here: bl) 9 ... l'Llxd5 is sound but unambi­ w tious: 10 g3 l'Llb6 (10 ... 'i!Vf6?! 1 1 �g2 i..e7 12 l'Lle4 'iVc6 13 :tel 0-0 14 l'Lle5 'i¥e6 15 'i¥b3 ! 'i¥xe5 16 'iexb7 l'Llb6 17 .if4 'ief5 18 l'Lld6 ;!; Skachkov-Pliasu­ nov, St Petersburg 2002) 1 1 �g2 lidS 12 'ii'b 3 'f!ie7 and White has no useful moves. Flear-Milliet, Saint Affrique 201 1 ended 13 'i!Vd 1 'i!Vd8 14 'f!ib3 'Wie7 lf2- lh. b2) I propose the new continuation 6 l'Llgf3 9 ... .ixd5 !?, when I don't see a way for 6 i.xc4 e6 7 dxe6 dxe6 leads to the White to maintain equality: positions we examine in the note to b21) 10 .ixd5 l'Llxd5 1 1 g3 f6!? White's 8th move after 8 l'Llgf3 or 8 (starting a promising regrouping by ...'fif7, ... J..e7 and ... 0-0) 12 �g2 'iVf7 'i¥e2 l'Llc6 9 l'Llgf3 i.e7 10 0-0. 6 ... e6! 13 l:.e 1 + i.e7 14 l'Lle4 0-0 15 l'Llc3 .•.

lDb6 + and ... lDc6 with an extra pawn for Black. b22) 10 g3 i.e6! 1 1 �g2 'i!Vd8 + in­ tending ... i.e7 and ... 0-0; White does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn. 7 dxe6 In the case of7 ... fxe6?!, White's su­ perior pawn-structure in the centre is the most important factor in the posi­ tion. After 8 e5 lDd5 9 lDxc4 i.e7 10 i.d3 0-0 1 1 0-0, White's c4-knight and e5-pawn keep a firm grip on the game; for example, 1 1 ...lDf4 12 i.xf4 l:txf4 (the main worry for White is the b7-bishop, so he now seeks its ex­ change) 13 lDfd2 lDc6 14 g3 l:td4 (14 ... l:.f8 15 i.e4 'i/c7 16 f4 l:.ab8 17 'i!Ve2 t ) 15 lDf3 d5? (15 .. .'if'c7 is better, but doesn't hold the balance: 16 lDxd4 lDxd4 17 f3 ! l::U8 1 8 i.e4 i.a6 19 b3 i.xc4 20 bxc4 �xeS 21 �d3 t) 16 exd6 i.xd6 17 lDxd4 lDxd4 18 lDd2! ± Shariyazdanov-Zelic, Zadar 1998. White intends i.e4, resolving the problem of the long light-square di­ agonal. 8 e5 White can also start with 8 i.xc4, but this doesn't change the nature of Black's play a great deal: 8 ... lDc6 9 0-0 i.e7 10 'i!Ve2 0-0 (D). At a casual glance, it might seem that White should be better because Black has more pawn-islands. How­ ever, there are more important factors at work. Black is better developed look at White's queenside pieces! Black has the makings of a strong grip on the d-file, and especially the d4square, which the isolated c-pawn

w

...

does a fine job of staking out. So there is no need for Black to panic, and in positions like this (we shall see more of them later) he should quietly com­ plete his development with moves like .. .'W/c7, and bringing either rook to d8. In fact, it is White who needs to be careful to maintain the balance: a) 1 1 e5 gains space but has some disadvantages: on e5, the pawn can come under attack, while the b7-bishop is now more potent. After 1 1 ... lDd7 12 .l:.e1 lDb6 13 i.b5, as in Korchnoi­ Collutiis, Bratto 1998, 13 .. .'ifc7 + fol­ lowed by ... l:.fd8 secures an advantage for Black. b) 1 1 lDb3 a5 ! (the most energetic - the b3-knight does not have a safe square) 12 i.g5 (12 a4!? weakens the b4-square forever, although maybe it's better than allowing ... a4; then 12 ...'i!Vc7 is unclear) 12 ... a4 and now: b1) 13 lDbd2 h6 14 i.e3 (14 i.h4 lDd4 15 lDxd4 'ikxd4 +) 14 ... 'i!Vc7 + and then ...l:.fd8. b2) 13 i.xf6! exploits the fact that Black can't recapture with the bishop, and so doubles Black's pawns. After

116

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

13 ... gxf6 (13 ... .1Lxf6? 14 lllxc5 ±) 14 ll:lbd2, there is no need to help White fix the c4-square by 14 ... a3?! 15 b3, as in Beliavsky-Fogarasi, Hungarian Team Ch 2000/1 . I prefer 14 . .'i!i'c7!? followed by ...l:r.fd8, when the bishop­ pair compensates for White's superior pawn-structure. 8 ...ll:l d5 Now White must choose which piece to place on c4: the bishop or knight. Both options are viable. 9 .1Lxc4 9 lllxc4 .1Le7 10 .1Le2 lllc6 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 .1Ld2 'fi/c7 13 llcl .l:.fd8 14 'ii'c2 l:tac8 is OK for Black. We have al­ ready seen this type of position, where Black has three pawn-islands versus two, but his better piece coordination is ample compensation for this slight structural liability. For example, 15 a3?! (there was no real danger from ...ll:ldb4 or ...ll:lcb4 so White should ignore it by 15 life1 ; Black can still re­ ply 15 ... lllb6, freeing lines for both the d8-rook and the b7-bishop) 15 ... lllb6! 16 iLf4 lllxc4 (after 16 ... ll:ld4!? 17 ll:lxd4 cxd4 + Black's passed pawn may well be useful) 17 .1Lxc4 ll:ld4 18 ll:lxd4 l:r.xd4 19 .1Le3 .li:tg4 20 f3 .1Lg5 ! led to an interesting finish in Shari­ yazdanov-Averianov, Russia Cup, St Petersburg 2003: 21 'ili'f2? (21 'i!Vb3 is better: 2l...'i!Vb6! 22 fxg4 'iixb3 23 .1Lxb3 .1Lxe3+ 24 �hl iLxcl 25 l:.xcl g5 ) 21 ...'ii'xe5 ! 22 .1Lxg5 l:lxg5 23 f4?? (23 .li:tfdl + is more resilient, though White remains a pawn down) 23 ... 'ii'xf4! 0-1. The queen is untouch­ able: 24 'ifxf4 .:lxg2+ 25 �hl fl.g3+! 26 l:tf3 .1Lxf3+ 27 'i!Vxf3 .l:!.xf3 -+. =

9 ....1Le7 10 0-0 0-0 (D)

l l lll e4 White aims to play .1Lg5 to gain the d6-square for his knights. Black has a comfortable position in the case of 1 1 b3 'ii'c7!? (this new move deviates from V.Georgiev-Leconte, French Team Ch 2003/4) 12 .1Lb2 ll:lc6 13 ll:le4 .i:.ad8 14 'i!Ve2 llla5 + intending to grab the bishop-pair; besides this, c6 is a vacant square for the black queen now. l l ... ll:ld7! A strong prophylactic decision. If Black plays l l ...lllc 6?! White can im­ prove his position by 12 .1Lg5 ! .1Lxg5 13 lllfxg5. 1 2 b3 12 .1Lg5? does not work now since the e5-pawn falls: 12 ... .1Lxg5 13 lllfxg5 (13 ll:lexg5 lllxe5 ! +) 13 ...ll:l5b6! (not 13 ...lllxe5? 14 �h5 h6 15 lllxe6 ;l;) 14 .1Ld3 .1Lxe4 15 lllxe4 c4 16 .1Le2 lllxe5 +.

12 .. .'�c7 13 .1Lb2 l:iad8

Black avoids the unnecessary com­ plications that arise after 13 ...llle3?! 14

BENKO GAMBIT DECLINED

'i¥d3 tt:lxfl 15 tt:leg5, while 13 ...tt:l7b6 14 tt:lfd2 would allow the white queen to reach g4 directly. I prefer the text­ move, which keeps the knight on f3 a while longer. 14 1We2 tt:l7b6 Black is fine; e.g., 15 tt:lfd2 tt:lf4 16 'i¥e3 (16 'i!Vg4? loses a pawn for free: 16 ...tt:lxg2! +) 16 ... tt:lxg2!? 17 'iti>xg2 l:!.xd2 18 'i¥xd2 tt:lxc4 19 bxc4 ..txe4+ 20 f3 ..tf5 (from here, the bishop con­ trols the important b 1-square) 21 .l:!.ad 1 .l:td8 22 'i¥e2 .l:!.b8 =.

//7

After 5 ... a6, White can play 6 b6 or 6 e3, in both cases reaching standard lines of Benko theory, but having avoided some of Black's alternative lines versus 4 cxb5 a6 5 b6 and 4 cxb5 a6 5 e3. As my recommendations against those two lines do indeed make use of these alternative ideas (namely 4 cxb5 a6 5 b6 e6 and 4 cxb5 a6 5 e3 axb5), we need to look for an­ other move against 4 tt:lf3. I think the one that best fits the bill is ... 4 ..tb7 (D) ...

G)

tt:lf3 This is the most important and pop­ ular way for White to decline the Benko Gambit. From the viewpoint of our repertoire, it is also the simplest to deal with, since by playing 4 ... e6, Black can transpose to the Blumenfeld Gambit, which we have already cov­ ered in Chapters 4 and 5. However, I understand that some of my readers will not be adopting my proposed repertoire in its entirety, and may not wish to play the Blumen­ feld for one reason or another. I shall therefore show you an alternative line against 4 tt:lf3 that stays within Benko territory. But first let's consider the ideas be­ hind 4 tt:lf3. White makes a very useful developing move, and if Black replies 4 ... bxc4, then White will be able to re­ capture the pawn without any inconve­ nience while developing naturally. If Black continues with the standard Benko move 4 ... g6, then White can belatedly accept the gambit by 5 cxb5. 4

Black targets the d5-pawn, making it unappealing for White to take on b5. However, he still has a huge choice of continuations after this move. 5 a4 White insists on resolving the pawn­ tension. Other moves: a) 5 tt:lbd2 bxc4 6 e4 transposes to Line F. b) 5 11i'b3 1i'b6 (5 ... a6!? is also pos­ sible) 6 tt:lc3 b4 (safer than 6 ... bxc4 7 'iVdl and e4) 7 tt:la4 'iic7 8 e4! d6 (8 ... tt:lxe4?! 9 'i!Ve3!) 9 Ji.d3 tt:lbd7 1 0 0-0 g6 l l l:!.el .ig7 =.

1 18

ATTA CK WITH BLACK

c) 5 lt:Jfd2 bxc4 6 e4 e6 dissolves White's pawn-centre; for example, 7 dxe6 dxe6 8 lt:Jc3 i..e7 9 i..xc4 0-0 10 0-0 lt:Jc6 + with ...filc7 and ...:fd8. d) 5 i..g5 lt:Je4 6 i..f4 bxc4 7 lt:Jc3 fila5 8 i..d2 lt:Jxd2 9 lt:Jxd2 i..a6 10 e4 g6 1 1 i..xc4 i..g7 12 0-0 0-0 = Evseev­ Fominykh, Russia Cup, Nizhny Nov­ gorod 1998. e) 5 'ii'c2 bxc4 6 e4 e6! attacks White's pawn-centre before it is ade­ quately supported: el) 7 i..g5?! i..e7 (D) and then: w

e2) 7 i..xc4 exd5 8 exd5 i.. xd5 9 i.. xd5 lt:Jxd5 (Black has grabbed a pawn and now only needs to complete his development) 10 0-0 i..e7 1 1 l:!.el lt:Ja6 12 iJ.. g5 (Zhu Chen-Solodovni­ chenko, Paris Ch 2010; 12 filc4 lt:Jac7 13 iJ..g5 0-0 14 i..xe7 lt:Jxe7 comes to the same thing) 12 ...0-0 13 i..xe7 lt:Jxe7 14 �c4 lt:Jc7 15 'ii'xc5 lt:Je6 16 �a3 d5 =. Black has achieved his goal, but needed to return the pawn. 5 fila5 + Before closing the queenside, Black forces the c 1-bishop to a poor square. Of course, 5 ... bxc4 6 lt:Jc3 followed by e4 would grant White everything he was hoping for. •••

6 i.. d2 b4 7 �c2 d6 8 e4 lt:Jbd7 9 i.. d3 g6 10 0-0 i.. g7 1 1 h3 (D)

B

el l) 8 d6?! leads to the win of a piece, but White only creates trouble for himself: 8 ... i..xd6 9 e5 i..xf3 10 exf6 gxf6 11 filc3 (only move) l l...i..e5 12 filxe5 (again forced; 12 filxf3? fxg5 13 'i¥xa8 i..xb2 -+) 12 ...fxe5 13 i.. xd8 �xd8 14 gxf3 d5 with a pleas­ ant position for Black. e 12) 8 i.. xf6 i.. xf6 9 i.. xc4 exd5 10 exd5 'ii'e7+ 1 1 �fl 0-0 12 lt:Jbd2 (Kallai-Tirard, French Team Ch 2002) 12 ... d6 13 .:tel 'ii'c7 14 lt:Je4 lt:Jd7 15 g3 g6 intending ... iJ.. g7 gives Black chances of gaining an advantage.

1 1 0-0 12 i..e3 (D) •.•

After 12 i..f4 (Volkov-Perunovic, European Ch, Plovdiv 2008) Black has the interesting idea 12 ... lt:Jh5 !?; e.g., 13 iJ..h2 iJ..h6 14 lt:Jbd2 lt:Jf4 15 .l:tfel e5 ! = or 13 iJ..e3 lt:Je5 ! (Black has less space, so strategically it's useful to exchange some pieces) 14 i..e2

BENKO GAMBIT DECLINED

119

tt:lxf3+ 15 .i.xf3 tt:lf6 with no prob­ unfortunately, White can play 18 exf5 lems for Black. gxf5 19 .txf5, exchanging his bad bishop and getting a big advantage as his knights will seize excellent posts. b) Quiet play by 17 ... .i.c8 18 tt:lg3 tt:lf6 is preferable, but 19 l:.ag1 (19 g5?! B allows Black activity after 19 ...tt:lfg8 20 h4 f5) 19 ... tt:lfg8 20 'iii'f l .i.d7 21 b3 'ii'd8 (2l....th6? 22 g5 .i.g7 23 h4 ±) 22 llg2 'ii'c8 23 'iii'e2 is uncomfortable for Black. Here 23 . .f5? does not work due to the knight manoeuvre to e6: 24 gxf5 gxf5 25 exf5 tt:lxf5 26 tt:lxf5 .txf5 27 .i.xf5 l:.xf5 28 tt:lg5 ±. This means that Black must stay passive, and ev­ erything will depend on whether White 12 ...tt:l h5 ! can regroup and storm the black for­ I feel this is an important new move tress. This is not such a pleasant pros­ that hinders White's plan of advancing pect for Benko players, and certainly not in keeping with the title of this on the kingside. The point is that after 12 ... llae8 13 book! tt:lbd2 e5, which has been played many 13 tt:lbd2 13 g4 is possible but definitely less times, White has 14 g4 (14 dxe6? .l:.xe6 + gives Black a pleasant posi­ dangerous for Black with a pawn on tion with pressure on the e4-pawn and e7. 13 ...tt:lhf6 14 tt:lbd2 e6 gives him a two excellent bishops), which prevents fighting position . ... tt:lh5, leaving Black short of active 13 ... e5 Now Black has secured the f4play. 14 ... 'iii'h8 15 'iii' g2 tt:lg8 16 .l:r.hl square for his knight and made the g4 tt:le7 17 tt:lfl and now: a) 17 ... f5? led to good counterplay advance unlikely in the near future. for Black in Khenkin-Tregubov, Yu­ 14 l:fe1 l:tae8 15 .ion .i.cS Here Black can feel absolutely safe. goslav Team Ch, Herceg Novi 2001 after 18 gxf5? gxf5 19 exf5 tt:lf6. But I'd assess this as equal.

1 0 Ben ko : Za itsev, D l ugy a nd M odern Li nes 1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6

Here we examine three lines in which White takes the first pawn, but doesn't capture on a6, at least not im­ mediately. These lines start with the following moves, and vary greatly in their character: 1 20 A: 5 tt:lc3 B : 5 f3 127 132 C: 5 e3 A) 5 tt:lc3 (D)

concessions he has made can often grant Black a significant advantage. In the main line, White establishes a knight on b5, and hopes to break open lines by playing e5 so that other pieces can link up with the knight and create threats to the black king. 5 ...axb5 6 e4 This was Zaitsev's idea. The alterna­ tive is 6 tt:lxb5, but this is rare by this move-order since if White wanted to accept the gambit, he could have done so directly. Black can either transpose to standard lines, or try an independent path: a) 6 ... i.a6 7 tt:lc3 (not 7 e3?? i.xb5 8 i.xb5 �a5+ -+) 7 ... g6 leads to Benko Gambit Accepted lines - see Chapters 12-15. b) 6 ... e6 is an ambitious move, at­ tacking the centre while the knight is offside. Then: b 1) 7 tt:lc3 seeks to maintain a grip on the central squares. 7 ... exd5 8 tt:lxd5 i.b7 9 tt:lxf6+ (after 9 tt:lc3 Black plays 9 . d5 10 e3 i.d6 1 1 tt:lf3 0-0 12 i.e2 file? 13 0-0 tt:lc6 with an excellent po­ sition; of course 14 tt:lxd5? is then im­ possible due to 14 ... tt:lxd5 15 'ii'xd5 tt:ld4 16 filc4 i.a6 -+) 9 . .'iVxf6 10 tt:lf3 'ife6!? (attacking a2) 11 b3 i.e7 12 i.b2 0-0 13 e3 i.f6!? (Black creates ..

This aggressive move is known as the Zaitsev line. It's not very popular nowadays since if Black knows what he is doing, White's attacking ideas don't get very far, while the positional

.

BENKO: ZAITSEV, DLUGY AND MODERN LINES

threats which leave White no time to complete his own development) 14 .i.c4 d5 15 .i.xf6 dxc4 16 .i.c3 lbd7 17 0-0 l:rfd8 gives Black compensation for the pawn. b2) 7 dxe6 and now: b21) 7 .. .fxe6 allows White to main­ tain his knight on b5: 8 e3! d5 9 lbf3 lbc6 10 .i.e2 .i.e7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 b3 ! with a4 and .i.b2 to follow; the b5knight creates problems for Black. b22) 7 ... 'ii'a5+! 8 lbc3 fxe6 9 lbf3 (9 i.d2 'ii'b6 10 e4 lbc6 1 1 lDf3 i.e7 12 i.e2 0-0 13 'ii'b l i.a6 14 0-0 lbd4 with compensation for Black, C.Her­ nandez-Teran Alvarez, Caceres 1993) 9 ... d5 10 e3 i:.e7 1 1 i.e2 (1 1 i.b5+?! leads to the exchange of light-squared bishops and weakens the d3-square: l l ...i.d7 12 i.xd7+ lbbxd7 13 0-0 0-0 gives Black sufficient compensa­ tion due to the ... c4 and ... lbc5-d3 idea) 1 1 ...0-0 12 0-0 lbc6 gives Black comfortable Blumenfeld-type play.

121

to justify the knight's position on h5 hy executing the e5 advance. These the three main moves, but his position looks rather suspicious in all cases: 121 A l : 8 i.f4?! A2: 8 lDf3 1 23 125 A3: 8 i.c4 8 i.d3 is a rare continuation but compared with the other lines it seems the most solid. After 8 ... g6 9 lbf3 i.g7 10 h3 0-0 1 1 0-0 lbbd7 12 i:tel lbb6 Black is OK and has good prospects, G.Kuzmin-Sharapov, Ukrainian Team Ch, Alushta 2001. a rc

=

Al) 8 i.f4?!

With this blunt move, White directly supports the e5 advance and seeks to break through to the c7-square. But Black has a good reply that offers him very pleasant prospects: 8 g5! This move was recommended by 6 b4 7 lbb5 d6 (D) Pal Benko himself. 9 i.xg5 Or: a) 9 e5? leads to a terrible position for White: 9 ... gxf4 10 exf6 lbd7! 1 1 fxe7 'iVxe7+ 1 2 i:.e2 (12 'ife2 lbe5 13 lbf3 i.g7 14 lbxe5 i.xe5 15 �d 1 i.f5 wins for Black, Allekand-V.Bagirov, Jyvii.skylii 1994) 12 ... lbe5 13 'ifi>fl i.g7 + Rozum-Levin, Peterhof 2009. b) 9 i.e3 i.g7 and then: bl) 10 i.d3?! is strongly met by 10 ...lbg4!, attacking e3 and b2. 1 1 i.cl (passive, but what else is there? After As mentioned above, White's prin­ 1 1 i.xg5 i.xb2 12 .l::.b 1 i.g7 + the cipal tries here are based on the attempt b5-knight is in real trouble) l l ...'iWb6 ...

...

122

AITA CK WITH BLA CK

(putting pressure on the b5-knight; White's position is critical) 12 i.e2 (12 tLlh3 tLle5 13 .te2, Chetverik­ Stokke, Oslo 2006, 13 ... .td7 ! 14 a4 bxa3 15 l:.xa3 .l:.xa3 16 tLlxa3 .txh3 17 gxh3 �4+ 1 8 i.d2 'i!Vxe4 +) 12 ... tLle5 and now: bl l) 13 .txg5?! c4! gives White only unpleasant options: b1 1 1) 14 tLld4 tLld3+ 15 i.xd3 Vi'xd4 16 li!.cl (forced in view of 16 i.e2? 'ii'xb2 -+) 16 ... 'i!Vxd3 17 'it'xd3 cxd3 18 .l:.xc8+ �d7 +, when the a2and b2-pawns are helpless. bl l2) 14 a4 bxa3 15 .:txa3 (15 tLlxa3? 'i!Vxb2 -+) 15 ...l:.xa3 16 tLlxa3 1Wxb2 17 tLlxc4? (but after 17 'i!Vcl c3 + White will definitely have problems with Black's passed pawn) 17 ... tLlxc4 18 ..Wa4+ (18 .txc4 'ii'c 3+ and Black wins) 18 ... .td7 19 'ii'xc4 i.c3+ 20 Wdl (20 Wfl iVai+ with checkmate) 20 ... 0-0 -+. The white king is in a hopeless situation. b12) 13 a4 bxa3 14 .l:.xa3 lha3 15 bxa3 c4!, intending ... tLla6/d7-c5, is slightly better for Black. b2) 10 f3 h6 leaves Black fine; e.g., 1 1 a4 bxa3 12 .lir.xa3 .lir.xa3 13 tLlxa3 tLlbd7 14 tLle2 tLlh5 15 Vi'd2 i.a6 + Potapov-Degraeve, Cappelle la Grande 2002. Black has the better pawn-struc­ ture (look at the b2-pawn) and his pieces are more harmonious. 9 tLlxe4 The knight gains a tempo by attack­ ing the bishop that he lured to g5. 10 .tf4 After 10 tLlf3 Black even doesn't take on g5, but instead plays 1 O .. .tg7. Then: •.•

.

a) 1 1 .i.d3 tLlxg5 12 tLlxg5 h6 13 tLle4 was tried in Hernando Rodrigo­ Van Riemsdijk, Barbera del Valles 1999 (where 13 ... tLld7?! was played). However, this looks like a bluff, since Black can take the pawn: 13 ... .txb2! 14 llbl i.g7 + followed by ... 0-0, ... tLld7 and either ...tLle5 or ... tLlf6. I don't see any problems for Black. b) 1 1 .tel tLld7 12 i.d3 tLlef6 13 0-0 i.b7 +. The d5-pawn is too weak and Black will take it at some point. lO tLlf6! (D) •..

The most precise move - anticipat­ ing White's 1We2 idea, the knight drops back to a secure square and puts pres­ sure on White's isolated d5-pawn. With White's e-pawn gone, he will find it hard to open lines. l l .tc4 Instead, 1 1 tLlf3 i.g7 12 i.c4 trans­ poses to line 'b' below, but 1 1 'i!Ve2 is an independent idea, creating the threat of tLlxd6+. Then 1 l...l:a6! is forced, but good. Now White needs to regroup and defend the d5-pawn. After 12 'ii'd2, 12...tLlbd7! is a critical move

BENKO: ZAITSEV, DLUGY AND MODERN LINES

that secures Black's advantage - he prepares to meet ..tc4 with ... lt::lb6 and so White can't defend the d5-pawn (that's why the immediate 12 ... ii.b7?! is not so good: 13 ..tc4 lt::lbd7 14 'ife2 was unclear in Abrashkin-Aveskulov, Saratov 2004). Then 13 'iYe2 (13 ii.c4? lt::lb6 14 ..tb3 'it'd?! 15 'iYd3 lt::lbxd5! -+; 13 g3 ..tb7 14 ..tg2 lt::lb6 + and the pawn falls again, K.luss-Koch, Schon­ eck 1988; 13 lt::lf3 ii.g7 14 ii.e2 lt::lb6 15 0-0 lt::lbxd5 16 ..tg3 0-0 + gives Black a clear extra pawn) 13 . .'�a5! 14 lt::lxd6+ �xd6 15 ..txd6 b3+ 16 'ii?d 1 bxa2 17 ..tg3 lt::lxd5 gives Black strong com­ pensation for the exchange. l l ... i.g7 Now: a) 12 lt::le2 (moving the knight to g3, where it poses some danger to Black) 12 ...lt::lbd7 13 lt::lg 3 lt::lb6 14 b3 h5! (this new move seizes space on the kingside; after the natural 14 ... 0-0 15 0-0 i.d7 16 'iYd2 lt::lfxd5 17 ..th6 White gets counterplay, Arencibia-Ivanchuk, Cap d'Agde rapid 1998) 15 h4 (White cannot allow the pawn to run to h3) 15 ... ..tg4 16 f3 ..td7 17 0-0 'iiif8! (in­ tending ... ..txb5 and ...lt::lbxd5, which was impossible with the king on e8 be­ cause of ..txb5+) 18 ii.g5 ( 18 a4 does not help: 18 ... ..txb5 19 axb5 lha1 20 'ikxa1 lt::lfxd5 21 'i!i'c 1 lt::lxf4 22 �xf4 ii.d4+ 23 'iiih2 lt::lxc4 24 bxc4 b3 -+) 18 ...lt::lh7! +. b) After 12 lt::lf3 the knight can't create real threats but it is more solid than putting it on e2. 12 ... 0-0 13 0-0 lt::lbd7 gives Black a clear edge due to the standard problems: the b5-knight and the d5-pawn. White's only hope is

/ 23

to create some threats to the black k i n g but it's a tall order. A2) 8 lt::lf3

This move dates back to the semi­ nal encounter I.Zaitsev-Benko, Szol­ nok 1975. Again White supports the e5 advance but here he does not ex­ pose his bishop. On the other hand, the knight blocks the f-pawn. 8 lt::lxe4! ? The most popular line here is 8 ... g6, when one possibility is 9 e5 dxe5 10 lt::lxe5 ii.g7 11 ii.c4 0-0, but it seems that Black is able to take the e4-pawn without White getting enough com­ pensation. The fact that the move f3 is unavailable to White makes it harder for him to force open the e-file. 9 ..t c4 g6 10 'i!i'e2 (D) .••

10 ... f5 !

Only this move gives Black pros­ pects of an advantage. After 10 ... lt::lf6? a typical tactic works: 1 1 i.f4 l:!.a6 12 lt::lxd6+! �xd6 13 ..tb5+! (the point!) 13 ... .l:id7 14 ..txb8 ..tg7 15 d6! (saving

124

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

the pawn) 15 ... 0-0 16 i..xd7 'i¥xd7 17 dxe7 .li!.e8 18 0-0 l:he7 19 'i¥c2 ± with an extra exchange. 1 1 tLlg5 ! ? White stops ... tLld7-e5, but Black has an excellent way to give the pawn back. Alternatives: a) 1 1 0-0 (S.Ivanov-Pisulinski, Cheliabinsk 1991) should be met by l l ...tLld7!, transposing to Line A3. It's important for the knight to pass through the d7-square as quickly as possible since while it is on this square, it disrupts the c8-bishop's control of the e6-square. b) 1 1 h4?! tLld7! (again this move is more precise than l l ...i..g7?! be­ cause of 12 tLlg5, when Black cannot reply 12 ... tLld7) and now: b 1 ) 12 tLlg5 tLle5 ! 13 tLlxe4 fxe4 14 'it'xe4? (14 0-0 is a bit more stubborn, though still bad for White: 14 ... i..g7 +) 14 ... tLlxc4 15 'ii'xc4 �b6 -+ and ... i..d7 wins the knight. b2) 12 h5 i..g7 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 .li!.xh8+ i..xh8 + Efimov-Shytaj, Italian Team Ch, Senigallia 2009. l l ... i.. g7 (D) l l ...tLlxg5?! is not so convincing because after 12 i..xg5 i.. g7 13 0-0 Black has to make some move like 1 3 ... 'it>f7. 12 0-0! It is best for White not to rush with the capture on e4, since while the knight remains on g5 it is hard for Black to play his desired ... tLld7-e5 manoeuvre. But even here Black can claim an edge. Other moves: a) 12 f3?! is simply too slow. After 12 ... tLlxg5 13 i..xg5 h6! White has a

choice between sharpening the game or simply playing on a pawn down; in both cases Black is better. 14 i.. xe7 (14 .th4 g5 15 .tf2 0-0 + followed by ... tLld7-e5 is miserable for White, who should prove he has at least something for the pawn) 14 ...'i¥xe7 15 tLlc7+ (the only move; 15 tLlxd6+? 'it>d8 16 'i¥xe7+ 'it>xe7 17 tLlxc8+ .l:i.xc8 -+) 15 ... <.ii'f7 16 �xe7+ 'it>xe7 17 tLlxa8 i..xb2 18 l:.b 1 i.. c 3+ 19 'it>e2 lDd7 + (Black has a pawn for the exchange and strong play on the queenside; besides, the knight has real problems getting back from a8) 20 tLlc7 tLlb6 21 'it>d3 f4! 22 .l:.be1+ and now 22 ... i..e5 ! -+, leav­ ing the f5-square available for the queen's bishop, is even better than 22 ... 'it>d7?! + Etchegaray-Pap, San Sebastian 201 1 . b) 1 2 tLlxe4 fxe4 13 �xe4 0-0 + leaves Black better since his pieces are more harmonious: ... i..f5, ...tLld7-b6, etc. 12 ... 0-0 13 .l:.e1 13 tLlxe4? is still not good: 13 ... fxe4 14 �xe4 tLld7 +. 13 ...�b6 14 a4

BENKO: ZAITSEV, DLUGY AND MODERN LINES

125

Supporting the knight. After 14 tLlxe4 fxe4 15 'ii'xe4 .l:If7 + Black's ideas include ... .l:!.a5, ... .lta6, ... .ltf5 and ... tLld7-e5. 14 bxa3 15 .Uxa3 lixa3 (D) •••

w

16 bxa3

16 tLlxa3? ..td4 17 .l:!.fl tLld7 18 tLlxe4 fxe4 19 'ii'xe4 tLlf6 20 'ife2 (20 'fixe??? .l:!.e8 -+) 20 ... .ltg4 21 'fic2 ..td7 + intending ... tLlg4. 16 ..td7 17 a4 'ii'a5 ! The queen attacks a4 and eyes the el-rook. 18 tLlxe4 fxe4 19 'fidl (19 'fixe4 �xa4 + with an extra pawn) 19 ... 'ii'b4 20 .l:r.xe4 .ltxb5 21 axb5 ..td4 22 ..td3 .l:!.xf2 23 �h 1 .U.f7 + followed by ... tLld7-e5. ••.

A3 ) 8

.ltc4 (D) This is a more subtle way to prepare e5, but also potentially the most vio­ lent. The bishop takes aim at the f7square, planning to smash open the a2-g8 diagonal with a double pawn sacrifice. 8 tLlbd7 •••

White's main idea is shown by 8 ... g6 9 e5 dxe5 10 d6 exd6 1 1 .ltg5, whip­ ping up a dangerous initiative. It's ac­ tually not so clear that this is good for White, but if you play this way as Black, you are walking through a mine­ field that your opponent will definitely have studied. White has serious compensation after the immediate capture on e4: 8 ... tLlxe4?! 9 'fie2 tLlf6?! (9 ... f5 leaves e6 totally weak: 10 f3 tLlf6 1 1 tLlh3 ;\; intending tLlf4-e6) 10 .ltf4 l:!.a6 (Black looks superficially solid, but an effec­ tive tactic wins an exchange for White) 1 1 tLlxd6+! l:.xd6 12 .ltb5+ :d7 ( 12 ... ..td7 13 ..txd6 'fib6 14 .ltxd7 + tLlbxd7 15 ..te5 ±; 12 ... tLlbd7 13 .ltxd6 tLlxd5 14 0-0-0 +-) 13 ..txb8 ..tb7 (Black does not solve his problems in the case of 13 ... tLlxd5?! 14 0-0-0! ±) 14 ..tg3 .ltxd5 15 tLlf3 ±. Black simply does not have enough for the material damage. The text-move reinforces the e5square, but does not abandon the idea of taking on e4 either. 9 tLlf3

126

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

White again wishes to play e5 (e.g., 9 ...g6 10 e5 ! with d6 to follow), but the knight blocks the f-pawn, which has consequences ... 9 lt:Jxe4! ? This move has been very rare in practice, but after considerable analy­ sis I feel that it is good. It's under­ standable that players are reluctant to grab a 'hot' pawn in such a position with no preliminary preparation, espe­ cially since 9 ... lt:Jb6 (the most popular move) gives Black a safe position; af­ ter 1 0 Ji.d3 g6 1 1 b3 he is not going to be overrun by a e5 pawn sacrifice. The game is equal after l l ...J.. g7 12 Ji.b2 0-0 13 0-0 e6! (Black has developed all his pieces and now is ready to fight for the centre) 14 dxe6 Ji.xe6 Breuti­ gam-Fedorowicz, German Cup 1990. 10 �e2 f5! (D) This move is untested in a high­ level game. After 10 ...lt:Jdf6 (Tancik­ Vucinic, Senta 201 1) 1 1 0-0 the posi­ tion remains more complicated. .•.

=

e4-pawn once White has put his knight on f3, and then defends the e4knight with ... f5. He will give the pawn back by letting White exchange on e4, and quickly finish his develop­ ment. The difference is that Black has played ... lt:Jd7 instead of ... g6, which gives White an important extra option. 11 0-0?! Of course, there is no point in tak­ ing on e4 with the bishop: 1 1 Ji.d3? g6 12 Ji.xe4 fxe4 13 lt:Jg5 lt:Je5 14 lt:Jxe4 Ji.g7 + with ... 0-0 and ... J..a6 to follow. But the critical test of Black's idea is 1 1 g4!?. Black shouldn't be in real danger, but must be precise: l l ...li:Jdf6 12 gxf5 (12 g5? is bad because of the simple 12 ... lt:Jd7, when e4 remains a good outpost for the black knight) 12 ... g6! (12 ... Ji.xf5? is bad due to 13 lt:Jh4 followed by f3, winning the e4knight) 13 li:Jh4! (the natural 13 fxg6?! hxg6 is in Black's favour since his bishop gets the f5-square) 13 ... g5 14 f3 li:Jd2! (avoiding fxe4, which would improve White's pawn-structure) 15 Ji.xd2 gxh4 with a very complicated position. ll g6 12 lt:Jg5 lt:Je5! 13 lt:Je6 In this line, this move makes some sense. After 13 lt:Jxe4 fxe4 14 �xe4 Ji.g7 + followed by ... 0-0 and ... Ji.f5 Black is typically better. ...

13 ... Ji.xe6 14 dxe6 lt:Jxc4 15 fixc4 Ji.g7 16 l:td1 !

A prophylactic move against ... 0-0. 16 ...'ii'b 6 16 ... 0-0? loses a pawn to 17 f3 li:Jf6 18 .l:txd6! 'iVa5 19 lldl . For the mo­ We saw a similar idea in Line A2 ment it seems Black can win the b5(i.e. 8 li:Jf3 lt:Jxe4): Black takes the knight, but it's not so: 19 .. Jifb8 20 a4

BENKO: ZAITSEV, DLUGY AND MODERN LINES

l:ixb5? (20 ... ltJe8!? 21 i.f4 is less clear) 21 'i!Vxb5 'i!Vxb5 22 axb5 l:txa1 23 l:td8+ i.f8 24 b6 .l:!.xc1 + 25 'iiif2 l:tc2+ 26 'ito>el ! ± queening the pawn. 17 f3 tLlf6 18 i.f4 0-0! (D) w

127

b1) 23 .lite1 'ii'e7 24 .l:.adl tt:lcH ! (protecting the black king and prepar­ ing for the centralizing ... i.d4+) 25 'i!Vxe7+ (after 25 'i!Vc4 i.d4+ 26 'iith I l:ta8 + White can't activate his pieces - the d4-bishop controls everything) 25 .. .':Ji;xe7 26 .l:td7+ �f8 (the only move; 26 ... 'iitf6?? walks into a mat­ ing-net: 27 h4! g5 28 h5 g4 29 f4 +-) 27 li!.f7+ Wg8 +. Black's pieces are ready to realize his advantage. b2) 23 'ii'c4 'ii'b5 24 'ii'h4 (or 24 'i!fc2?! ltJe8! + and ... i.d4+) 24 ... liaS + followed by surrounding the e6pawn. 19 exd6 20 ltJxd6! Surprisingly, the idea of playing e7+ is very serious and Black must be extremely accurate. The immediate 20 e7+?? fails to 20 ... d5 21 exf8'i¥+ lihf8 -+, when ... c4+ wins the b5-knight. 20 'i!Vc6! Black wants to play ... 'i!Vd5. 21 e7+ 21 l:.d1 leaves the a2-pawn unde­ fended and Black can exploit this by 21...'i¥a6 22 e7+ (the only move) 22 ...Vxc4 23 exf8V+ ..ixf8 24 tLlxc4 l:.xa2 +. Black has won a pawn and has chances to realize it. 21. 'i!Vd5 22 exfS'ili'+ i.xf8 Black is slightly better because with queens off the board, White's vulnera­ ble queenside pawns become a more significant factor. •.•

Black is ready to cope with all possible captures on d6. 19 llxd6! ? Or: a) 19 tLlxd6? allows Black a strong zwischenzug: 19 ...ltJh5 ! 20 i.g5 exd6 21 e7+ l:!.f7 22 'iYe6 J:le8 23 l:!.xd6 i.d4+ 24 'ifilh1 'ii'b 5. Black has an ex­ tra piece while White is unable to cre­ ate any real threats. b) 19 i.xd6 Iia5 ! (this exact move gives Black an advantage; 19 ... exd6? 20 l:hd6 'ii'a5 21 e7+ wins for White) 20 i.xe7 (White can insert 20 a4 be­ fore capturing on e7, but it doesn't hold the balance either: 20 ... bxa3 21 i.xe7 'ii'xb5 22 'i¥xb5 .litxb5 23 i.xf8 'iii xf8 24 .l:!.xa3 .litb7! + and ... 'iite 7) 8) 5 f3 (D) 20 .. .'i!Vxb5 21 'ii'h4 (21 'i¥xb5? .l:r.xb5 With this move, White adopts a very 22 i.xf8 'ifilxf8 +) 21 ... 'i¥e8 22 iLxf8 'iiixf8 and White needs to defend the aggressive stance, but with a clear posi­ tional aim: to capture space in the e6-pawn. .•.

•.

128

A TTA CK WITH BLA CK

centre by means of the e4 advance. It became prominent in the 1980s, with Max Dlugy a major protagonist on the white side. 5 ... axb5 After the natural-looking 5 ... g6?! White continues 6 e4 d6 and here one knight goes to a3 and the other to c3: 7 lba3 ! i..g7 8 lbe2 0-0 9 lbc3 ;!;; with an unpleasant position for Black. In gen­ eral, if White establishes an outpost on b5, Black can expect trouble. There is a simple explanation for this: in the Benko, Black sacrifices a pawn to get half-open a- and b-files; if he doesn't have access to both these files, then he doesn't achieve full compensation ei­ ther! That's why in all lines I recom­ mend, I seek to avoid this type of problem. After 5 ... e6 the most critical lines start with 6 e4 exd5 7 e5 Wle7 8 'iVe2 ltJg8 9 lbc3 i.b7 10 lbh3 c4 and here White has a choice between 1 1 i..e 3, with positional compensation for the pawn, and 1 1 ltJf4 'iVc5 12 ltJfxd5 ! ..txd5 13 ..te3 'iib4 14 a3 'i¥a5 15 i.d2 i..e6 16 ltJd5 1'Hd8 17 'iixc4. This is

the end of a forced line. The position is very complicated, but it seems that Black is running much greater risks here - any inaccurate move can lead to a lost position because of his uncastled king and White's passed pawns on the queenside. That's why I recommend avoiding these variations by playing 5 ... axb5 instead. 6 e4 White threatens both i.. xb5 and e5. Black has only one answer. 6 ... 'i¥a5+ 7 i.. d 2 White also can try a gambit ap­ proach with 7 b4!?, but Black is OK after 7 ... cxb4!: a) 8 ..tb2? is not good at all be­ cause after 8 ... e5 ! (a new move, im­ proving over Csiszar-Mede, Zalakaros 2003) White has no time to prevent ... ..tc5. For example, 9 i..xe5 i.c5 10 ltJd2 Wlb6 1 1 ltJh3 d6 12 i.. xf6 (12 i..b 2?? i.. xh3 13 gxh3 i..f2+ 14 'it>e2 'i!r'e3#; 12 i.. g 3? i..xh3 13 gxh3 lbbd7 + followed by ... 0-0, ...ltJh5 and ...ltJe5 leaves White with a terrible structure) 12 ... gxf6 (Black's pawn-structure is destroyed but White has a lot of prob­ lems to solve; first of all, there is the threat of ... i.. xh3 and ... i..f2+ leading to mate) 13 'il¥e2 i.xh3 14 gxh3 ltJd7 15 'ii'xb5 'ii'a7 +. The difference be­ tween the c5-bishop and its white counterpart on f1 is huge and deter­ mines the evaluation of the position. b) 8 lbd2 (heading for b3) 8 ... e5 ! 9 lbb3 'i!r'b6 10 'i!r'd3 lba6! (there is no point defending the b5-pawn: after 10 ... i.. a6? 1 1 i..e3 'i!r'd8 12 lbh3 ;!;; fol­ lowed by i.e2 and 0-0 Black's pieces are awkward) 1 1 'i¥xb5 (White should

BENKO: ZAITSEV, DLUGY AND MODERN LINES

take this pawn immediately since after 1 1 i..e3?! tbc5 12 'ife2 { 12 'ifxb5?? 'ifxb5 13 .ixb5 tbxb3 -+} 12 ... d6 13 'ifxb5+ tbfd7 + Black has a strong ini­ tiative on the queenside) 1 l ...'ifxb5 12 .ixb5 (Ksieski-Komljenovic, Issy-les­ Moulineaux 1997) 12...i..d6!? (a new move, leaving the e7 -square for the king) 13 tbe2 tbc7 14 .id3 i.. a6 15 j.xa6 l:!.xa6, planning ...
129

81) 1 0 a3 e6!

Thanks to this move, Black creates powerful play in the centre. 1 1 dxe6 After 1 1 tbe3 Black also gets a good position without much difficulty: 1 l ...exd5 12 exd5 bxa3 13 �xa3 .l::!.xa3 14 bxa3 g6 15 .ib5+ .id7 16 .ic4 .ig7 17 tbe2 0-0 18 'ifb3 'ife8! 19
w

w

White has two main moves here: 129 131 j.

B 1 : 10 a3 B2: 10 d3

12 tb e3 Or: a) With the black queen on c7, White would get the advantage by playing i..f4, but here it does not work: 12 i..f4? d5 ! + gives Black the advan­ tage thanks to his better development. b) 12 axb4?! is not good due to 12 . Jha1 13 'ifxa1 d5 !, continuing to dismantle White's centre, though the

130

ATTA CK WITH BLA CK

position still requires accurate han­ dling: bl) 14 lLle5 dxe4 15 i.b5+ and now: bl l) 15 ... l2Jbd7? is wrong because it loses control of the a6-square: 16 �a6! i.e7 17 lLlc6 �b6 18 'i!Va8+ i.d8 19 bxc5 lLlxc5 20 lLlxd8+! (a new move, improving over 20 i.a5?, as in Capris-Husser, Wiirttemberg {juniors} 1995) 20 ... 'i!Vxb5 21 lLlxe6+ �e7 22 l2Jd4! (this critical move was evidently missed by both players in their calcu­ lations) 22 ... .l:.xa8 23 lLlxb5 l:tb8 24 ltJc3 l::txb2 25 i.e3 lLld3+ 26 �fl ± and White should win thanks to his ex­ tra bishop. bl2) Thus I recommend 15 ... lLlfd7! followed by ... i.d6 and ... 0-0. White must hurry to finish his development, but after 16 lLle2 i.d6 17 lLlxd7 i.xd7 18 i.xd7+ lLlxd7 19 'i!Va6 i.b8 + the black pieces are more harmonious. b2) 14 exd5 lLlxd5 and then: b21) 15 b5 (Komljenovic-Vai:sser, Oviedo rapid 1993) 15 ... i.e7 (a new move; again it's good to complete de­ velopment) 16 lLle2 (another way to develop, 16 ii.d3??, loses to 16 ... lLlb4 17 ii.xb4 'i¥xd3) 16 ... 0-0 17 l2Jg3 Il.e8 18 i.e2 lLlb4, preventing 0-0 (as it will be met by ... i.xc4 and ... �xd2), gives Black sufficient compensation. b22) 15 'i!Va4+ l2Jd7 and here: b221) 16 lLle5 liJ5b6 17 'iYc6 and now in Gelfand-Hertneck, Munich 1994, 17 ... i.d5 !? 18 'i¥b5 'i¥h4+ 19 �dl ! ii.e7 20 bxc5 ii.xc5 led to a crazy position that is very hard to eval­ uate. I propose a new move that ap­ pears to solve Black's problems in an

easier way: 17 ... i.e7!? followed by ... 0-0. After 18 bxc5 i.xc5 Black has sufficient compensation due to the uncastled king on e 1 . b222) 1 6 b5 (Nickoloff-Hodgson, Winnipeg 1994) 16 ... i.e7!? (again I recommend this move, seeking to com­ plete Black's own development before taking further action) 17 lLle2 0-0 18 lLlf4 lLlxf4 19 i.xf4 .lir.e8! 20 ii.e2 i.xc4! 21 'i!Vxc4 lLlb6 22 'i!Vc2 c4! with a slight advantage for Black. He has caught the white king at the very last moment: 23 0-0?? is impossible due to 23 .. .'i!i'd4+ -+. 12 d5 (D) ...

w

ii.bS+ 13 exd5 l2Jxd5 14 i.b5+ i.d7! 15 lLlxd5 !? (15 ii.xd7+ 'i!Vxd7 16 l2Jxd5 'i*'xd5 17 lLlh3 i.e7 Rogozenko­ Wang Zili, Moscow Olympiad 1994) 15 ... i.xb5 16 i.g5 and now 16 ...'i¥xg5 17 lLlc7+ �e7 18 lLlxb5 �f6! leads to a crazy position, while 16 ...'i¥d7 17 �f2 f6 18 i.f4 �f7 19 lLlc7 l:r.a5 20 lLlxb5 iixdl 21 .l:txdl l::txb5 22 a4 l:tb7 23 lLle2 ltJc6 is roughly equal. 13

=

BENKO: ZAITSEV, DLUGY AND MODERN LINES

1 3 .1d7! 14 .txd7+ lLlbxd7 .•.

This temporary pawn sacrifice var­ ies from C.Wagner-Verdier, Cannes 1997, where 14 . .'�xd7 was played. 15 exd5 .te7 ! This is Black's key idea for the whole line with 10 a3 e6: first he should com­ plete his development and then exploit the awkwardness of White's pieces. The following lines show how impor­ tant development is in chess: a) 16 lLlf5?! 0-0 17 d6 .1xd6! trans­ poses to line 'b'. b) Aggressive play by 16 d6?! .1xd6 17 lLlf5 can be met with a cold-blooded sacrifice: 17 ... 0-0!. Af­ ter 1 8 tLlxd6 'iVe7+ 19 tLle4 tLlxe4 20 fxe4 'i'xe4+ 21 'ife2 'i!Vg6 Black's at­ tack develops naturally. c) 16 axb4?! .l:!.xal 17 'ifxal cxb4 1 8 d6 .txd6 19 lLlf5 0-0! (this method is already known to us) 20 llJxd6 tLlc5 ! 2l lLlf5. Here the black queen's dream square is d4, so the best move is 21 ...'iWd7 ! ! 22 lLlg3 'iWd4 + with a very strong attack. d) After 16 lLle2 0-0 17 0-0 lLlb6 the position is equal but only Black can fight for a win because of White's pawn-structure on the kingside. B2) 10 .1d3 e6

Black attacks White's pawn-centre. 1 1 dxe6 .1xe6 12 lLle2 lLlc6 Black quietly completes his devel­ opment; it's also possible to start with 12 ... .te7. If instead he rushes into playing ... d5, trouble awaits: 12 ... d5?! 13 exd5 lLlxd5 14 0-0 .1e7 15 'ifc2! (the first problem: Black can't castle)

131

15 ...lLlc6 16 .1e4 l:!.c8 17 l:tfdl ;\; gave Black problems on the d-file in Kas­ imdzhanov-Tregubov, FIDE Knock­ out, New Delhi 2000. 13 lLlf4 13 0-0 .1e7 14 lLlf4 comes to the same thing. 13 ....te7 14 0-0 0-0 (D)

Black has finished his development, and has no meaningful pawn weak­ nesses. The position is roughly equal; here are a few sample lines: a) 15 .1e3 W/c7 16 'iVe2 tLld7! is equal. The bishop goes to f6 and the knights move to e5 and d4. b) 15 "fiel tLld7 (planning ... .1f6) 16 lLlxe6 fxe6 17 f4 'it>h8 18 'ifg3 d5 19 exd5 exd5 20 'iVh3 lLlf6 21 lLle5 lLlxe5 22 fxe5 lLle4 M.Gurevich-De Vreugt, Antwerp 1996. c) 15 l:tel (M.Pavlovic-B.Vucko­ vic, Belgrade 2007) 15 ... .txc4!? 16 .1xc4 lLle5 and then: c 1) 17 'ifc2 lLlxc4 18 'ii'xc4 lLld7! (freeing f6 for the e7-bishop; the knight will go to b6) 19 .1e3 ( 19 llJd5 lLlb6! and after the exchange of knights, =

132

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

Black will be slightly better due to his superior bishop) 19 ....i.f6 c2) 17 .i.fl c4! 18 .i.e3 'ii'a5 fol­ lowed by ....l:tfc8 with a comfortable position. d) After 15 a4 (Avrukh-Bologan, Biel 1995) Black needn't fear the ex­ change of his light-squared bishop and can play 15 ... d5!? (a new move) 16 exd5 ..ltxd5 and here: dl) 17 ltle3 c4! 18 ltlexd5 (not 18 ..ltxc4?? ..ltxc4 19 ltlxc4 \i'd4+ 20 ltle3 'iixf4 -+) 18 ... cxd3 19 ltlxe7+ \i'xe7 20 ltlxd3 .l:.fd8 21 ltlf2 \i'e5 with active play for the pawn. d2) 17 ltlxd5 'ii'xd5 18 .i.e2 .lir.fd8 The activity of Black's pieces should compensate for the absence of his light-squared bishop. =.

=.

C) 5 e3

(D)

the lion's share of Black's queenside counterplay. This system was dubbed the 'Modem' (or 'Quiet') line when it became popular in the late 1970s, and the name stuck, even though it is not quite so new (or quiet!) any more. Rather than adopting a standard Benko posture and fighting with White for control of b5, I shall recommend a line where Black blows open the cen­ tre and seeks a sharp boardwide battle . After all, 5 e3 is a somewhat slow move, which fails to defend the d5pawn or block the long light-square diagonal. 5 axb5 After 5 ... g6 White gets control of the b5-square by 6 ltlf3 ..ltg7 7 ltlc3 0-0 8 a4 d6 9 e4 and it's not easy to create typical Benko counterplay on the queenside (although it's not im­ possible). That's why I propose to play more concretely. 6 .i.xb5 \i'a5+ 7 ltlc3 .i. b7 (D) .••

w

White attempts to accept the gambit in a safe and solid way. His main idea is to establish control of the b5-square, White has a couple of ways to de­ which is a critical idea in the Benko - fend the d5-pawn (8 ..ltd2 and 8 ..ltc4) if White succeeds, then he will prevent and two ideas based on giving up one

BENKO: ZAITSEV, DLUGY AND MODERN LINES

of the central pawns (8 lbe2 and 8 e4). We shall cover these moves as fol­ lows: 133 C1: 8 e4 133 C2: 8 lbe2 C3: 8 ..tc4 134 C4: 8 ..td2 135 Cl) 8 e4

White gives a pawn back in order to gain time for development. 8 lbxe4 9 lbe2 lbd6 Black wins a tempo; later the knight will move to f5. 10 ..td3 10 ll.a4 g6 1 1 0-0 i.g7 12 i.g5 h6 13 i.f4 lLlf5 14 a3 0-0 15 .l::!.b 1 e5 !? (more effective than 15 ... e6, which was played in Sulypa-Kolev, Collado Villalba 1995, because Black gets con­ trol of the d4-square) 16 .i.d2 ( 16 dxe6 dxe6 +) 16 ...'i!Vc7 + followed by ...lbd4. 10 ... ..txd5 1 1 0-0 .i.b7 (D) .•.

w

133

White's compensation, since Black can easily play ... e6, ... i.e7 and ... 0-0, and White must work hard just to stay afloat: a) 12 l:le1 e6 13 i.f4 �b6 14 lbg3 (Nguyen Anh Dung-Kallio, Budapest 2000) 14 ... ll.e7!? and ... 0-0 gives Black a fully satisfactory position, still with an extra pawn. b) 12 lbg3 e6 (12 ...i.a6 was played in Halkias-Abdel Razik, Bled Olym­ piad 2002) 13 Ile1 ll.e7 14 ll.f4 'i!Vb6 is the same as line 'a'. c) 12 i.f4!? (a prophylactic mea­ sure against ... e6) 12 . .'ii' b6 (Black's position is vulnerable after 12 ... e6?! 1 3 i.xd6! .i.xd6 14 i.e4! i.xe4 15 'it'xd6 .i.c6 16 lbf4; the knight moves to h5, and the black king is trapped in the centre) 13 lLlg3 (Hillarp Persson­ Fogarasi, Budapest 1996) 13 ... e6 14 .i.e2 (preventing ... lLlc6-d4; 14 a4 lbc6! + and ... lbd4; 14 .l:.el transposes to line 'a') 14 ... .i.e7 15 a4 0-0 16 aS and now the game can end in a draw by repetition by 16 ... 'ii'c 6 17 i.f3 �a6 1 8 .i.e2 'iiic 6. C2) 8 lbe2 lLlxd5 9 0-0 lbc7 10 a4! ?

(D) Black has no problems in the case of 10 ..tc4 e6 1 1 e4 JJ..e7 12 ll.f4 0-0 13 'ii'd3 :ds 14 'ii'g 3 d6 15 .l:tfdl lbe8 Gonda-Stanojoski, Zupanja 2009. 10 lbxb5 ! Black exchanges immediately so as not to allow White to recapture with the pawn. Black has won a pawn, but White 10 ... e6?! allows White to establish hopes for play against Black's un­ a pawn on b5: 1 1 ..td2! (this new move castled king. I am unimpressed by improves over 1 1 e4, as played in =

..•

A ITA CK WITH BlA CK

134

White hinders Black's kingside de­ velopment. But there is a viable plan: 13 ... f6! intends ... Wf7, followed by ... .i.e7 and ...l:ld8, when Black might even get the better position thanks to his bishop-pair and mobile pawn­ centre. After 14 :f.d1 Wf7 15 .i.d2 d5 the material is balanced, and while the black king is on a slightly strange square, it's difficult for White to exploit this fact. The position is OK for Black, who holds the long-term trumps. I.Novikov-Blees, Isle of Man 1996) 1 1...ltJxb5 12 axb5 ! 'ilib6 13 l1xa8 .i.xa8 14 'i!i'a4 .i.b7 15 e4 .i.d6 (or 15 ... .i.e7?! 16 .l:la1 ;!; intending 'i&'a7) 16 .i.e3 t. Black has a problem with his b8-knight and the general coordi­ nation of his pieces. l l ltJxb5 Now Black should develop his king­ side: l l e6 I propose this new move, rather than 1 1 .. . .i.c6, which was used in Meins­ T.Heinemann, Bundesliga 2000/1 . 12 ltJg3 Or: a) 12 .i.d2 'ii'b6 13 .i.c3 .i.e7 = and ... 0-0. b) After 12 ltJd6+?! .i.xd6 13 'i!i'xd6 'iia6! (White can't take on c5 because the e2-knight is hanging) 14 'iic 7 0-0 15 ltJc3 ..tc6, intending ...'iic4 and ... ltJa6, Black has the better position thanks to his central pawn-majority. 12 1Wb6 Preventing ltJd6+. 12 ... .i.e7?! 13 ltJd6+ .i.xd6 14 'iixd6 t. 13 'iig4 •.•

C3 ) 8

..tc4 e6 9 .i.d2 Or: a) 9 �fl ?! (an odd move) 9 ... 'i&'b4! 10 1i'b3 (Afifi-Ermenkov, Tunis Inter­ zonal 1985) 10 ... 1Wxb3 1 1 .i.xb3 exd5 +· b) 9 1i'b3? .i.xd5 1 0 ..txd5 ltJxd5 1 1 .i.d2? (better is 1 1 ltJe2 ltJxc3 12 ltJxc3 ltJc6 +) 1 1...ltJb4 + Ponkratov­ Nestorovic, Internet blitz 2007. 9 'it'b6! (D) .••

..•

White again has a wide choice of continuations.

BENKO: ZAITSEV, DLUGY AND MODERN LINES

10 e4

Or: a) 10 'iVf3?! leads to a forced line where Black is a pawn up and White has insufficient resources to maintain the balance: I 0 ... exd5 1 1 lt:Jxd5 .i.xd5 12 i.. xd5 'ii'xb2 13 .l:.dl lt:Jxd5 14 Wixd5 ikxa2 15 'ii'e4+ .i.e7 16 .i.c3 �a4! 17 1Wxa4 (or 17 'iVe5?! f6 18 'ili'h5+ g6 19 'ili'h6 <3if7 +) 17 .. ..lha4 18 i.. xg7 l:.g8 + Gibbons-Bruneliere, Shenyang tt 1999. Black is already mobilized for the endga"J.e while White has not yet completed his devel­ opment. b) After 10 lt:Jge2 exd5 1 1 'ili'b3 'i¥xb3 12 ..ltxb3 White plans 0-0 fol­ lowed by attacking the d5-pawn with lDf4, .i.dl-f3, l::tfdl , etc. However, Black can defend it by putting his knights on f6 and c7 and his bishop on b7: 12 ... lt:Ja6 13 0-0 .i.e7 14 lDf4 c4 15 .i.d 1 0-0 (after 15 ...lt:Jc5? 16 ..ltf3 lt:Jce4 17 :fd I ::.b8 18 .lie 1 ± the d5-pawn falls, Beliavsky-Mas, Dresden Olym­ piad 2008) 16 i..f3 lt:Jc7 = followed by ... ..ltc6 and ....l:.fb8 with play on the a­ and b-files. c) 10 'ii'b 3 'ii'xb3 1 1 .i.xb3 exd5 12 tbf3 (12 tbge2 transposes to line 'b') 12 ... tLla6 13 0-0 .i.e7 is at least OK for Black. Compared to line 'b' , the white knight is worse placed since it is unable to attack Black's pawn­ centre. 10 lt:Jxe4! Now: a) 1 1 lt:Jxe4? exd5 +. b) 1 1 dxe6? fxe6 12 lt:Jxe4 .i.xe4 13 f3 .i.f5 + with a pawn-majority in the centre. .••

135

c) 1 1 tbge2 lDf6 12 li:Jf4 ..ltd6 13 0-0 0-0 + Nguyen Huynh Minh-Tu Hoang Thai, Vietnamese Ch, Dong Thap 2003. d) 1 1 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 (Black doesn't want to help the d2-bishop to reach the long diagonal) 12 0-0 .i.e7 (12 ... exd5?! leaves Black more fragile as his king has problems after 13 l:tel+ ..lte7 14 i..b 3, S.Guliev-Khachian, USSR 1986) 13 .i.f4 0-0 14 b3 exd5 15 lt:Jxd5 .i.xd5! (simplifying) 16 i..xd5 tLlc6 17 :el (White can't preserve his bishop: 17 .i.c4? d5! +) 17 ... lt:Jxd5 18 'ifxd5 .i.f6 19 nadl li:Jb4 20 �xd7 lt:Jc2! (20 ...l:!.fd8?!, as chosen in Grachev­ Bareev, Russia Cup, St Petersburg 2009, loses a pawn: 21 .ic7! .:lxd7 22 .ixb6 :!xd1 23 .:lxdl l:!.xa2 24 .ixc5 ;l;) 21 .l:r.fl :xa2 with total equality. C4) 8

.i.d2 'ifb6 9 li:Jf3 Or: a) 9 .i.c4 e6 transposes to Line C3. b) 9 lt:Jge2 lt:Jxd5 10 0-0 e6 and then: bl) 1 1 a4 li:Jf6! leaves the white pieces in each other's way. After 12 lt:Jg3 lt:Jc6 13 lt:Jce4 lt:Jxe4 14 lt:Jxe4 (Brenninkmeijer-Andruet, Amsterdam 1988) 14 ... d5 15 tbg5 .ie7 16 'i¥h5 .ixg5 17 'i!i'xg5 0-0 = Black is OK. b2) 1 1 e4 lbxc3 12 tbxc3 .i.e7 13 :el (13 a4 0-0 14 .if4 d6 =) 13 ...0-0 (Black has a pawn-majority in the cen­ tre and can hope for an advantage) 14 'i!i'g4 f5 15 exf5 .:txf5 16 .i.d3 (16 .l:.adl would be better) 16 ...l:tf7 17 b3 (17 lt:Je4? lt:Jc6 18 .i.c3, Movsziszian­ Klemm, German Ch, Dudweiler 1996,

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

136

18 ... t'Llb4! 19 i.bl c4 + intending ... t'Lld3) 17 ... t'Llc6 1 8 l:1.adl t'Lld4 and Black's position looks preferable. c) 9 'ti'b3 e6! 10 e4 (D) (10 i.c4 transposes to note 'c' to White's lOth move in Line C3) and then:

1 1 i.c3 Iha2!? (this new move im­ proves over l l ...i.xa2? 12 i.a4! i.b3, Gasanov-Aveskulov, Kharkov 2006, when 13 i.xd7+! Wd8 14 l:ha8 i.xdl 15 t'Lle5! and i.a5 wins) 12 .litxa2 i.xa2 13 'ii'a4 i.d5 14 0-0 'iVb7 White has compensation thanks to Black's uncastled king, but Black is solid enough and should be OK. l l e6 12 i.c3 i.e7 13 0-0 (D) =.

...

10 ... t'Llxe4! is a nice tactic based on the weakness of the g2-pawn. After 1 1 t'Llxe4 i.xd5 12 'iVd3 (the only square where the queen defends b5 and e4) 12 ...f5 (the natural follow-up, though 12 ... 'ifb7 13 f3 c4 is also played) 13 t'Llg3 i.xg2 Black will get a rook and two pawns for bishop and knight. Thanks to his big swathe of pawns, Black should be fine. For example, 14 a4! (in order to put the knight on f3; it is poorly placed after 14 t'Llle2?! i.xhl 15 t'Llxhl i.e7 16 a4 0-0 17 t'Llhg3 t'Llc6 18 i.c3 d5 + D.GurevichNicholson, Lugano 1985) 14 ... i.e7 15 t'Llf3 i.xhl 16 t'Llxhl 0-0 (16...i.f6 is not necessary yet, I.Novikov-Palatnik, Lvov 1986) 17 t'Llg3 d5 18 Wfl t'Lla6 is unclear. 9 t'Llxd5 10 t'LlxdS i.xdS 1 1 a4 •.•

Now: a) 13 ... 0-0?! 14 t'Lle5 (14 t'Lld2!?, with the same idea, is also possible, Vitiugov-Tseshkovsky, Biel 2007) 14 ... d6 15 t'Llc4 i.xc4 16 111g4 g6 17 'ifxc4 ;!; Fressinet-Bologan, Bundes­ liga 201 1/12. With the exchange of the d5-bishop, Black's position lost its flexibility. b) 13 ...'ii'b7!? is an important move that stops the t'Lld2-c4 regrouping. 14 1\Ve2 (14 t'Llel 0-0 15 'ii'g4 f6 16 t'Llf3 t'Lla6 led to an equal position in Por­ tisch-Nogueiras, Reggio Emilia 1986n) 14 ... 0-0 15 l:lfe1 d6 16 e4 i.c6 with equal play.

1 1 Ben ko Ga m bit: 5 b6

1 d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS bS 4 cxbS a6 5 b6 (D)

B

This is a popular way to give back the gambit pawn. In common with the lines we saw in the previous chapter, White takes the pawn on b5, but refuses to capture on a6. However, here he forcibly returns the pawn, making sure that there is a black pawn on the a-file, blocking Black's standard Benko coun­ terplay. White's trumps are his control of the c4-square and opportunities to play in the centre with the e4-e5 ad­ vance. Alexei Shirov, in particular, demonstrated White's attacking po­ tential in a number of attractive games in the early 1990s, and this helped make it into one of White's most pop­ ular weapons against the Benko.

Black has two ways to reply. He can play slowly with a kingside fianchetto, capturing on b6 with queen or knight, playing ... a5 and fighting on the queen­ side with moves like ... i.. a6, ... li:Je8c7, etc. Another possibility (which I recommend in this chapter) is to start a sharp battle immediately with 5 ... e6, dissolving White's pawn-centre. This has its pros and cons, naturally. Black gains new squares for his pieces (c6 for the knight and e6 for the bishop), but he is also left with a backward d­ pawn. With that in mind, Black must pay particular attention to the d5- and d6-squares in the ensuing play. 5 e6 6 li:Jc3 6 dxe6?! is dubious since White gives up control of the centre and this makes it easier for Black to find comfortable locations for his pieces: 6 ... fxe6 7 li:Jf3 'ii'xb6 8 g3 d5 9 ..tg2 li:Jc6 (a new move; for the time being the bishop is better placed on c8 since it defends the e6-pawn {in case of i..h3 } and does not block the b-file for the queen's rook; the inferior 9 ...i..b7?! was chosen in Hebert-Degraeve, Mon­ treal 2002) 10 0-0 ..te7 (on d6, the bishop would invite the e4 advance) 1 1 li:Jc3 0-0. Black has solved his opening problems; e.g., 12 ..tf4 ..td7 13 li:Je5 li:Jxe5 14 i..xe5 i..e8! planning ... i..f7 to defend the e6- and d5-pawns and •..

/38

AITA CK WITH BLA CK

support the ... e5 advance; ...J..g6 is also an option, while ...lLld7 is now available too. After 15 'ieb3 "fka7 (15 ...'ii'xb3?! 16 axb3 leaves Black with a weakness on a6) 16 i..h3 .i.f7 +. Black threatens ...lLld7 and ...e5. Normally when Black gets a position like this, it comes at the cost of his a-pawn. 6 lLlxdS 7 lLlxdS exdS 8 'ii'xdS lLlc6 (D) •••

Ch, Warsaw 2001) 14 ...I!d6! 15 'ife2 l:.xdl + 16 'iVxdl d5 (removing Black's only positional liability) 17 i.. f l lLlc6 leaves Black with no problems. b) 9 i..d2 is a rare move. White brings the bishop to c3, where it puts pressure on Black's kingside, but the manoeuvre gives Black enough time to get play of his own. 9 ... J..e7 10 i..c3 0-0 l l lLlf3 'i!fxb6 12 e3 (12 e4?! posi­ tively invites 12 ... lLlb4 13 �d2 �g6 +) 12 ... lLlb4! 13 iid2 i.b7 14 i.e2 a5 !? (making sure the aS-square does not fall into White's hands, though after 14 ... lLld5 15 J.. a5 �g6 16 0-0 the posi­ tion is still equal) 15 0-0 d6 Black prevents the manoeuvre lLle5-c4, while his own plan could be ....l:.fd8, ... i..e4 and ... d5. =.

A) 9 i.. g S? ! it'xb6!

White has a wide choice of moves here, of which three are important or complex enough to get their own sec­ tion: 138 A : 9 i.. g S? ! 139 B : 9 e4 140 C: 9 lLlf3 Or: a) 9 e3 is a very modest continua­ tion - White simply prepares to de­ velop his pieces but does not increase his control of the critical d5-square. 9 ... i..e7 10 i..c4 0-0 l l lLlf3 l:.b8 12 0-0 I!xb6 (threatening ... lLlb4 and ... d5) 13 �dl lLlb4 14 �d2 (Z.Mamedyarova­ Calzetta Ruiz, European Women's

Has Black blundered his rook? No! It's a sacrifice based on his better de­ velopment and the insecure location of the white king. 10 'ii'e4+ i..e7 Black has no choice at this point. 11 i.. xe7 lLlxe7 12 �xa8 If White does not take the rook, Black would be simply better with ... I!b8, ... d5, ... J..f5, etc. Now Black could be satisfied with a draw by perpetual check, but deep analysis shows us that he can seek more. 12 d5 ! (D) 12 ...'i!Vxb2?! 13 l:tdl 'i!Vc3+ 14 lld2 'fie 1 + 1h- 1h Raicevic-Mastrokoukos, Athens 1992 (and numerous later games). •••

BENKO GAMBIT: 5 b6

139

B)

9 e4 w

This is the second most popular move. White defends the d5-square one more time and prepares .i.c4. 9 .i.e7 10 .i.c4 0-0 Black is in time to parry the threat of 'iYxf7# without making conces­ sions. White must now decide where he wants to develop his knight: e2 or f3. ll l'Df3 1 1 l'De2?!, planning to bring the knight to d5, looks too slow. 1 1 ...l:tb8 12 0-0 l:txb6 gives Black free play: a) 13 'i1i'd 1 .i.f6 14 l:!.bl (after 14 l'Dc3 Black has the nice response 14 ... .i.d4! = followed by ... l'De5, ... d6 and ... i.e6) 14 ... d6 15 b3 i.e6 16 .i.xe6 fxe6 17 i.e3 l:.b4 18 f3 a5 Moskalenko-Alterman, Ukrainian Ch, Lvov 1988. b) 13 l'Dc3 d6 and then: bl) The typical 14 'ilh5? does not work here: 14 ... l'De5 15 .i.e2 (not 15 .i.b3?? i.g4 -+) 15 ... f5 ! 16 f4 (16 l'Dd5 fxe4! 17 l'Dxb6 'i!Vxb6 gives Black great compensation for the exchange: a pawn and a powerful centre) 16 ... g6 17 'i!Vh3 fxe4 18 'ii'e3 l'Dg4 19 'ili'xe4 .i.f6 +. Black's pieces are more active. b2) 14 'itd1 .i.f6 15 l'Dd5 ilb8 and now: b21) After 16 1i'e2 l:!.e8 White has a nice outpost on d5, but Black's pres­ sure on the two half-open files plus the d4-square are more important, and his game is preferable. b22) White can grab a pawn by 16 'ita4 i.d7 17 1Wxa6?! but his king is exposed to a strong attack with his .•.

The white queen is trapped in the comer and Black has the primitive idea of winning it with ... 0-0 followed by a bishop move. Now: a) 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 e3 (not 14 .l::[xd5? .i.f5 ! 15 'i¥xf8+ 'ii?xf8 16 l:!.d 1 l'Dc6 +, when the white king lacks protection) 14 ....i.b7 15 'i¥xf8+ 'ii?xf8 leaves Black better; for example, 16 l'Df3 (Ziiger­ Hertneck, Nuremberg rapid 1990) may be met by 16 ... d4! 17 exd4 i.xf3 18 gxf3 cxd4 + and the queen and knight cause White problems. b) 13 lld1 0-0 14 li!.xd5 'iYxb2! 15 f3 (15 l'bf3 c4! +; the idea is to give check on b1, then on b4 and when White interposes a rook or knight on d2, Black plays ... c3; White is in big trouble because the king's rook and bishop are not helping their king) 15 ... 'ii'b4+ 16 c.t>f2 'i¥b6 (intending ... .i.b7; White's kingside is grotesque) 17 e3 .i.b7 18 'i¥xf8+ 'ii?xf8 19 .l:.d2 l'Dd5 + followed by ... c4 or ... 'i!Vh6, at­ tacking e3. c) 13 l'Df3 0-0 14 e3 i.b7 15 'i!Vxf8+ 'it>xf8 +. There's no time to evacuate the white king to the kingside.

=

AITA CK WITH BLA CK

140

queen so far away. After 17 ... it.e5! Black intends to force a weakening of the kingside with ... 'ili'h4, and then he will play ... it.d4 and ...lt:le5, when the white king will feel uncomfortable. ll .'ii'xb6 12 0-0 d6 13 �h5 it.e6! (D) ..

dangerous for Black: 18 'ikh6? lt:lc2 19 lt:lg5? (19 l:tb1 �xe4 +) 19 ... it.xg5 20 it.xg5 f6! 21 l:tacl lt:ld4 22 �f4 lt:le2+ 23 �h 1 lt:lxc 1 24 .l:txc 1 .l:tad8 -+ La Flair-Alburt, New York 1992. After 18 it.h6 .li!.fe8 = Black is OK. b) 16 �b3 'i¥b5 ! (defending the queen and preventing the a3 threat) 17 l1d1 a5 18 a3 a4 19 'ikc3 lt:lc6 =. Black has made progress on the queenside and can feel safe. C)

14 it.d5

After 14 it.xe6 fxe6 15 �g4 (Chab­ anon-Waitzkin, Oakham 1992; or 15 it.g5 it.f6 16 l:r.ad l lt:ld4! 17 it.xf6 .l:txf6 18 lt:lxd4 cxd4 with good chances for Black, Granero Roca-Hemando Rod­ rigo, Villa de Albox 2002), 15 ... e5 !? = is an interesting positional decision: Black weakens the d5-square and 'kills' his own bishop, but in return he gets a superb square on d4 that should compensate for those disadvantages. 14 �xd5 15 'ikxd5 15 exd5?! is met by 15 ... lt:lb4 + and then ... g6, ... it.f6 and ... .l:tae8 with the better position. 15 lt:lb4 Now: a) 16 �f5 g6 17 �h3 'ikb7 and here blunt attacking ideas are not

9 lt:lf3 .l:tb8 (D) Black is worse after 9 ... it.e7?! 10 lt:le5 0-0 1 1 lt:lxc6 dxc6 12 'i¥xd8 it.xd8 (not 12 ...l:txd8? 13 .tf4! ±, when the b6-pawn survives) 13 e3 ;!;; Lputian­ Annageldiev, USSR Team Ch, Azov 1991. In Line C2 we shall see a similar position but there Black will have more active pieces and his queen is still alive. w

•.•

•.•

Now we have two main lines: 141 144 Or:

C 1 : 10 e4 C2: 1 0 lt:le5

a) 10 .tg5?! f6! (Black isn't wor­ ried about the weakening of the a2-g8 diagonal since the white queen will be pushed back by ...tt:lb4 or ... .i.b7) 1 1 .i.d2 'ii'xb6 (this move is stronger now that the e5-square is covered) 12 .i.c3 tt:lb4 13 'ii'd l and here Black has an in­ teresting queen manoeuvre: 13 ...'i!ke6!? (the natural move 13 ...d5 is also good) 14 b3 (14 a3 tt:ld5 15 e3 tt:lxc3 16 bxc3, J.Nilssen-Skjoldborg, Copenha­ gen 2003, 16 ... .i.d6 +; this bishop goes to c7, and the other one moves to b7) 14 ... 'i!Ve4! 15 .i.xb4 �xb4+ 16 tt:ld2 (16 'ii'd2?! c4! 17 bxc4 �a3 is much better for Black) 16 ... .i.b7 gives Black slightly the better position. b) 10 ..td2 l:1.xb6 (10 .. .'ii' xb6?! 1 1 tt:le5 ! gives White more activity and the initiative, Dreev-Fominykh, Rus­ sian Ch, Elista 1995) 1 1 ..tc3. Here Black starts some slightly unusual play: 1 1 ...lt:lb4 12 �d2 .l:.d6! 13 'ili'c1 (13 �e3+ is not good because after 13 ... .i.e7 + tt:lc2# is still a threat) 13 ... .i.b7 14 e3 (Jedynak-Kucypera, Polish Junior Team Ch, Rowy 1998) 14 ... 'ii'a8! (White's light squares are weak) 15 .i.e2 tt:ld3+ 16 .i.xd3 .i.xf3 17 gxf3 �xf3 18 .l:.gl Iixd3 19 .i.xg7 l:tg8 20 llg3 'i!Vd5 21 .txf8 �xf8 with a slight advantage for Black. •

...

Cl) 10 e4

Threatening .i.c4; that's why it's time for Black to prepare castling. The main disadvantage of this move is the weakening of the d4-square, which we see Black exploiting repeatedly in the lines that follow.

10 .te7 1 1 .tc4 0-0 (D) ••.

One difference between 9 e4 and 9 tt:lf3 is that the latter forces Black to play 9 ...l::tb 8. If you look at 9 e4 .i.e? 10 .i.c4 0-0 11 tt:lf3 (Line B) you will see that there I recommended l l...'i!Vxb6. In the present line Black has already played ...l:1b8. w

12 0-0

This is the most logical continua­ tion. Other moves: a) 12 .td2 has been very success­ ful in practice. The main response is 12 ... l:1xb6, but I suggest 12 .. .'ii'xb6, which leads to a more active position for Black: a1) 13 0-0 has never been played but the idea is quite natural: White sac­ rifices a pawn and quickly develops his pieces. 13 . .'ii'xb2 14 .lir.fd1 tt:ld4! (the most accurate path to equality) 15 tt:lxd4 'ili'xd4 16 �xd4 cxd4 17 .i.f4 l:1b4 18 l:!.ac1 (18 l:txd4?? d5! 19 exd5 .i.f6 -+) 18 ... d6 Black prepares to develop his c8-bishop and f8-rook. a2) 1 3 .i.c3 tt:lb4 14 �d2 �g6 15 0-0 �xe4 and then: =.

142

ATTA CK WITH BLA CK

a21) There is nothing scary in case of 16 l:tfel �xc4 17 .l:!.xe7 tt:ld5 18 i.. xg7 !? (a nice idea but it doesn't bring an advantage; or 18 tt:le5 �h4 19 .l:txd7 tt:lxc3 20 'i!Vxc3 i.xd7 2l tt:lxd7 'iib4 =) 18 ... tt:lxe7 (not 18 ...'11i>xg7?? 19 'ii'g 5+ '11i>h8 20 tt:le5 'ii'f4 2l tt:lxf7+ .l:txf7 22 .l:te8+ .l:.f8 23 �xf4 tt:lxf4 24 .l:.xf8+ '11i>g7 25 .l:!.xf4 +-) 19 i.xf8 '11i>xf8 20 'ii'h6+ '11i>g 8 21 .l:.el ! (Black can't defend his e7-knight but can se­ cure equal play) 21...i.b7 22 .l:.xe7 i.. xf3 23 gxf3 'it'd4 = M.Becker-Mich­ alczak, Bundesliga 1999/00. a22) 16 i..b 3 would be a logical novelty for White, and we need to analyse it before we can say with much confidence whether Black is OK in this line. 1 6 ... i..b 7 17 l::tfel 'ii'g6 (the f3-knight is hanging) 1 8 .l:.e3 d6! (defending the c5-pawn and the e5-square; not 1 8 ... i.f6? 19 i.xf6 �xf6 20 tt:le5 !, when White creates very serious threats) 19 l:.ael a5 is unclear and requires practical testing. b) 1 2 'ii'h5 d6 (this advance be­ came possible after White's last move) 13 0-0 i.e6 and here: b1) Grabbing a pawn by 14 i..xa6?! allows Black pressure after 14 ... 'ii'xb6 15 i.e2 h6! (an important defensive move) 16 .:!.d1 (16 i.xh6?? does not work because Black can play 16 ... g6 -+ rather than taking the bishop) 16 ... �b4, attacking e4. b2) After 14 b3 (as in M.Gins­ burg-Waitzkin, New York 1993) Black can play for easy equality by 14 ... i..xc4 (a new move) 15 bxc4 l:!.xb6 16 i..f4 'it'd7 17 �d5 �e6 1 8 .:!.fd 1 tt:lb4 19 'ifxe6 fxe6 =.

b3) 14 i.xe6 is untried but after 14 ... fxe6 Black should not have any problems. For example, 15 b3 i..f6 16 tt:lg5 (Black is OK after 16 i.g5 'ii'xb6 17 .l:!.ad1 tt:ld4! = or 16 llb1 "ii'xb6 = and the knight moves to d4) 16 ... i.xg5 17 i..xg5 'ii'xb6 = followed by ... tt:ld4. 12 .l:txb6 (D) .••

Here White has plenty of possibilities. 13 "ii'h5 Or: a) 13 .l:td1 d6 14 �h5 i..e6 15 i.xe6 fxe6 16 b3 �e8 = Dzevlan-Von Bahr, Stockholm 1994. The standard idea ... e5 and ... tt:ld4 will come soon. b) 13 tt:lg5 is an aggressive move that Black needs to be prepared for. 1 3 ... "ii'e 8 14 'tWf5 i.xg5 !, and then: bl) 15 i.xg5? looks natural but this capture only brings White prob­ lems. 15 ... d6 and now: b 1 1) 16 'i!Vf4 tt:le5 17 i..d5 h6 leaves White with no good choice: 18 i.xh6 (18 i.h4 tt:lg6 19 'i!Vg3 i..e6 is much better for Black) 18 ... gxh6 19 �xh6 tt:lg4! and Black escapes perpetual

BENKO GAMBIT: 5 b6

check and can halt all of White's at­ tacking options; e.g., 20 �g6+ 'ifilh8 21 'i!Vh5+ 'ifilg7 22 Vi'g5+ �h7 23 'i!Vh5+ tlJh6 +. bl2) 16 �f3 tlJe5 17 'iic 3 tt::lxc4 18 Vi'xc4 'iWe5 leads to a slight advantage for Black. b2) 15 �xg5 d6 A.Mikhalevski­ Calzetta Ruiz, European Ch, Saint Vin­ cent 2000. Black has simple play with ...tlJd4 and ... .ie6. c) After 13 b3 tlJa5! Black plans ... .ib7 and ... tt::lxc4. Then: cl) 14 .ib2?! .ib7 15 'ii'd3 tt::lxc4 16 'ili'xc4 d5 17 exd5 .ixd5 18 Vi'c3 .if6 19 tlJe5 (forced) 19 ...'i'a8 gives Black good play on the light squares. c2) 14 .if4?! .ib7 15 �d3 tlJxc4 16 bxc4 (16 'ili'xc4? l:tb4 +) 16 ... .:te6 17 .l:!.fe 1 'ii'a8! (Black seizes the initia­ tive) 18 tt::ld2 (18 e5 !? .ixf3 19 gxf3 'ii'c6 +) 18 ....if6 19 e5?! (19 .litadl .id4 +) 19 .. J::tfe 8 20 tlJf3 .ixf3 21 �xf3 'it'xf3 22 gxf3 d6 + V.Mikhalev­ ski-Manor, Israeli Ch, Tel Aviv 1994. c3) 14 .ie2 .ib7 15 Vi'd2 �e6 16 e5 d6 17 exd6 .ixd6 is unclear, Dokh­ oian-Hertneck, Bundesliga 1992/3. d) 13 .ie3 d6 and then: dl) After 14 �d2?! Black can start to create threats by 14 ... .ig4!? (rather than 14 ... .if6, Cori Tello-Pogonina, Moscow blitz 2010) 15 .ie2 (or 15 .l:tad1 'iWc8! {intending ....ixf3 and ...'i'h3 } 16 i..e2 'ii'e6 + attacking e4 and a2) 15 ... i..f6 16 .l:tab1 'ile7 with the initiative. d2) 14 b3 i..e6 15 'ikd3 'i!ka8!? (eye­ ing the e4-pawn) 16 .l:!.ac 1 a5 and Black is fine, Santos Santos-Mellado, Seville 2004. =

143

e) 13 .id2!? has brought White very good results, so it's important to know what to do in this case. After the natural sequence 13 ... d6 14 .ic3 i..e6 15 'i!i'd3 .ixc4 16 �xc4 .if6 (D) White is seeking a positional edge, and we need to consider which exchanges are in Black's interest:

el) 17 �fe1 i..xc3 1 8 bxc3 (for 18 �xc3 �e7 19 b3 .lle8 20 I!adl see line 'e2') 18 ...�f6 19 .l:.abl l:.fb8 20 11xb6 l:hb6 21 h3 h6 Fridman-Tregubov, Paris Ch 2006. e2) 17 l:ad1 .ixc3 18 'i'xc3 (18 bxc3 'i¥f6 19 l::td3 .l:r.e8 20 lHd 1 tlJe5 21 tlJxe5 .l:r.xe5 22 f3 112- 112 Landa­ Tregubov, French Team Ch, Mulhouse 201 1) 18 ...�e7 19 l:lfe1 (Arutinian­ Rudolf, Dresden 2007) 19 ....:te8!? 20 b3 h6 21 h3 and now it's time to move into a rook endgame: 21...tlJe5 ! 22 tlJxe5 'ii'xe5 23 'i'xe5 .l:!.xe5 24 f4 l:te8 25 l:.d5 f6 leaves Black perhaps very slightly worse but his position is so solid that there isn't anything tangible for White. 13 ... d6 14 tlJgS =

Or: a) 14 l:td1 transposes to note 'a' to White's 13th move. b) 14 b3 jLe6 15 jLxe6 fxe6 16 'ili'g4 (or 16 jLb2 jLf6 17 jLxf6 :1xf6 1 8 :tad1 �e7 Kobylkin-Averianov, Ukrainian Team Ch, Alushta 2001; the plan of ... e5 and ... ltJd4 is still in force) 16 ... 'ii'c 8 17 il.b2 il.f6 18 jLxf6 .l:txf6 19 ltJd2 �f8 20 ltJc4 l:tb7 21 f4 l:tbf7 Gleizerov-Tregubov, Russian Ch, Krasnoiarsk 2003. 14 jLxg5 15 jLxg5 (D) =

=

•.•

b) 16 il.f4 ltJd4 17 lbe1 (17 l:tfe1? ltJc2 + ) 17 ... .te6 18 il.d3 f6 19 'ifh4 'ili'g6! (a move mentioned by Lautier in his notes to Lautier-W.Richter, 2nd Bundesliga 1997/8, where 19 ...�f7?! was played) 20 l:.e3 �g4 21 'i!Vxg4 jLxg4 22 b3 (it is surprising that such a natural check as 22 jLc4+? can be a se­ rious mistake, but after 22 ... .te6 White can't save the b2-pawn: 23 jLxe6+ ltJxe6 24 jLg3 l:.xb2 25 jLxd6 l:.d8 + and ...llxa2) 22 ... .te6 followed by ... a5-a4. Black is fine. =

C2)

10 ltJe5 A logical move. 10 'i¥f6! (D) •••

15 �e8! White's initiative has burnt itself out and Black starts directing events: a) 16 :ad1 ltJe5 17 jLe2 .l:.xb2 18 .:txd6 f6 19 �xe8 l:txe8 leaves both white bishops under attack: a1) 20 jLd2? ltJf7 21 jLc4 (21 l:td5?? jLe6 22 l:td3 c4 23 l:td4 c3 -+; 21 .:td3?? c4 22 :d4 c3 -+) 2l...�f8 22 jLxf7 �xf7 + winning one pawn or the other. a2) 20 l:td2 :b4 21 il.e3 :xe4 22 .l:.c1 c4 23 :c3 jLf5 Krivko-Krav­ tsov, Novosibirsk 1998. •••

=

Black does not care about his pawn­ structure: only time and the initiative matter! l l ltJxc6 1 1 ltJc4?! is not a good retreat, as Black seizes the initiative by 1 1 ...liJb4. Then: a) 12 �d2?! �e6 13 b3 d5 14 ltJe3 d4 15 ltJc2 (15 ltJc4 'ili'g6 + intending

BENKO GAMBIT: 5 b6

... lt:lc2+) 15 ... lt:lxc2+ 16 �xc2 .t!.xb6 b) 12 �e4+ ii..e7 (now ... d5 is threatened) 13 �f4 invites a strong ex­ change sacrifice: 13 .. J1xb6! 14 lt:lxb6 (Black has the better endgame after 14 �xf6 .t!.xf6 15 lt:le3 ii..b7 +) 14 ... �xb6 ( ... lt:Jc2+ is still threatened) 15 'i+'d2 (Gaudron-Calzetta Ruiz, France tt (women) 1999; after 15 �f5 0-0 Black also has powerful compensation for the exchange, with ... d5, ... g6, ... ii.f5, etc., coming) 15 ... c4! + intending ... lt:ld3+ and ... ii..b4. +.

145

a2-pawn and his passed pawn on the queenside looks more dangerous than his opponent's. a3) 13 �f4 appears to defend b6 indirectly, but Black just ignores this with 13 ...l:txb6! (D). w

l l dxc6 (D) ...

w

12 �e4+ Or: a) 12 �g5?! ii..e7 and now: a1) 13 �xf6 ii.xf6 14 e4 .l::!.xb6 15 l:tb1 ii.e6 + O.Andersen-K.Berg, Co­ penhagen 1993. a2) 13 �g3 l:txb6 14 ii.d2 (that's the point of 13 �g3 - the bishop goes to c3; however, Black can cope with this problem) 14 ... �xb2 15 ii.c3 �c2 16 'fixg7 l:tb1+ 17 l:txb1 �xb1+ 18 �d2 l:tf8 +. Black will capture the

Since White's main idea does not work, Black gets an advantage: a31) 14 �c7? ii..d8 15 �xeS 0-0 (White's undeveloped pieces can't cope with Black's well-coordinated army) 16 f3 (creating a flight-square on f2) 16 ...l:txb2! 17 ii.xb2 �xb2 ( ...ii..a5+ is a threat, so White must leave his rook on a1) 18 �xa6 �xa1+ 19 �f2 (Kozakov-Rodriguez Guerrero, Gran­ ada 2006) 19 ...�cl ! supporting ... c4 and preparing ...ii..g 5. Black is win­ ning. a32) 14 g3 (more solid) 14 ...�xf4 and here: a321) 15 ii..xf4?! ii.f6 16 :c1 l:!.xb2 17 I:.xc5 ii.e7 ! 1 8 l:tc4 ( 18 l:te5 ii..e6 +) 18 ... 0-0 19 ii.g2 ii..b4+ 20 �fl .l::!.d8 +. a322) 15 gxf4 ii..f6 16 ii..g2 ii..xb2 17 ii.. xb2 .t!.xb2 18 ii..xc6+ �e7 19 .t!.g1 and now rather than 19 ... .l:!.d8?!

ATTA CK WITH BLACK

146

20 :xg7 .Udd2 21 �f3 il.e6 22 l1xh7 J:ha2 23 .l:[c 1, which was equal in Tikkanen-Bellon, Swedish Team Ch 2005/6, I recommend 19 ... g6!? + followed by ... �f5 or ... �e6, ....lir.d8, etc. b) 12 'iff3 (supporting the �d2-c3 plan) 12 ... �e7 13 �d2 (13 'i¥f4?! transposes to line 'a3') 13 ...'ifxb2 14 il.c3 'illxb6 15 il.xg7 was played in the game Hillarp Persson-Kallio, Stock­ holm 1999/00. But here Black has the strong new move 15 ... f6!, which cuts the g7-bishop off from defending the queenside. 16 'ti'h5+ (not 16 �xh8?? 'i!Vb4+ 17 �dl Vi'd4+ and Black wins) 16 .. .'iltd8 and now: bl) After 17 �h6 c4! (threatening ... il.b4+ and after �d2, ... c3) 18 il.d2 il.b4! 19 'ilfh6 (19 Udl �e7 wins for Black) 19 ...'ilfd4 20 I:kl c3 21 il.e3 c2+ 22 il.d2 �c7 Black should be winning. b2) 17 li:tdl+ �c7 18 �h6 (not 18 �xh8?? 'i¥a5+ 19 .l:.d2 .l:.bl#) 18 ... �e6 19 �d2 l:l.bd8! gives Black an advan­ tage after both 20 e4 .l:.xd2 21 :txd2 c4 and 20 e3 l:.xd2 21 l:txd2 c4. 12 �e7 (D) ...

w

13 g3

Or: a) 13 'iff4?! transposes to note 'a3' to White's 12th move above. Black was better there. b) 13 il.d2?! is a dubious sacrifice. 13 ...V!Wxb2 14 I:lbl 'illxa2 and then: bl) 15 e3?? f5 ! (surprisingly, the queen can't defend the bl-rook any more) 16 �c4 (16 �d3 c4 and Black wins) 16 ...'ii'xd2+ 17 �xd2 fxe4 -+ F.Levin-Ellers, Schwerin 1999. b2) 15 b7 (Gokhale-Ghaem Ma­ ghami, Dubai 2001) 15 ....U.xb7! 16 'ifxc6+ .lir.d7 17 'itxc8+ il.d8 18 .l:.d 1 (the only move) 18 ... .l:txd2 19 'illc6+ (19 l:l.xd2 'iVai+ 20 .l:td 1 'itc3+ 21 .l:td2 0-0 22 e3 il.a5 23 �d7 :d8 24 �xd8+ il.xd8 -+) 19 . .'iti>f8 20 'i!Vxc5+ �g8 +. The rook is untouchable due to 21 l:.xd2? Wial + 22 l:.dl �a5+ -+, but if White does not take the rook, Black just finishes his development by ... h5 and ... .l:.h6 or ... g6, ... �g7, ...�f6 and ... l:!hd8 and gets a serious attack against the white king. Besides, the a6-pawn can run towards al. c) After 13 e3 il.f5 14 'illc4 :xb6 we may note that Black has doubled isolated c-pawns. In some positions such a structural weakness would give the opponent a huge advantage, but here Black has sufficient counterplay: pressure on the b2-pawn and a lot of open lines for his pieces, while the white king is still in the centre. Black has a long-lasting initiative in fact. 15 i..d3 0-0 16 0-0 l:!.d8 17 �xf5 'illxf5 18 b3! (18 e4?! allows Black to secure an advantage by 18 ...�e5 19 �c2 .l:tb4 20 f3 c4 + Tikkanen-Nyblick, World

BENKO GAMBIT: 5 b6

Under-18 Ch, Kallithea 2003) 18 .. .'ifd5 (18 ... i.f6 does not win the al-rook: 19 e4 'iVh5 20 .l:.bl is unclear) 19 'itc2 c4! (the most precise way to avoid prob­ lems with the isolated pawns) 20 bxc4 (not 20 'ili'xc4?? 'ili'xc4 21 bxc4 i.f6 -+) 20 ...'ili'd3 21 'ili'xd3 l:txd3 22 e4 i.f6 23 i.e3 l:!.xe3 24 fxe3 i.xal 25 .l:!.xal 'i£i>f8 =. White's extra pawn does not play any role.

13 ... 0-0 14 i.g2 1Ixb6 15 0-0 i.e6 (D)

w

147

Let's see a few examples from prac­ tice: 16 'il'a4 Or: a) 16 .l:.dl i.d5 17 'ili'c2 �e6 18 b3 c4! 19 bxc4 i.xc4 20 i.e3 l:r.b4 (Black wants to regroup by ... i.b5 and ....l:!.c4) 21 i.d2 .:!.b7 22 i.h3 f5 23 i.e3 i.d5 = Lalic-P.Cramling, Manila Olympiad 1 992. b) 16 'i¥c2 h6 (just a useful move) 17 .l::td l c4! (putting more pressure on the b2-pawn) 18 .l:!.bl i.c5 and now rather than 19 e4? c3 ! 20 b3 'ii'xf2+! 21 'ili'xf2 i.xf2+ 22 'i£i>xf2 c2 + Mar­ kus-Lazarev, Budapest 2000, White should play 19 i.f3; e.g., 19 ... .l:tfb8 20 b3 cxb3 21 'ii'xc5 ! (21 axb3? l:r.xb3 22 i.f4 .l:.8b5 +) 21...bxa2 22 .l:.xb6 l:txb6 23 Wi'xb6 al 'i1j' +. There is an unusual material balance, but Black is obvi­ ously better. 16 'ifd4! After 16 ... .l:!.d8?! White secured the better position in Van Wely-Gelfand, Cap d' Agde rapid 1996: 17 'ilj'a5 (17 i.xc6? l:.d4 -+) 17 ....l:.db8 18 i.f4 .l:t8b7 19 b3 t. 17 'ilj'a5 'ili'b4 18 'ili'xb4 llxb4 Black can also take with the pawn: 18 ... cxb4!? 19 i.e3 c5 20 fitfcl .l::tb5 and the rook goes to a5. 19 b3 i.f6 20 i.a3 i.xa1 21 i.xb4 cxb4 22 .l:!.xa1 c5 23 .:tel c4 24 bxc4 :cs The endgame is equal, Akobian­ Ghaem Maghami, Moscow 2000. .•.

The opening is over and it is time to assess its outcome. Both kings are now safe, at last. Black has the worse pawn-structure, but exerts strong pres­ sure on White's queenside. The e6bishop, the black queen and rook(s) on the b-file are White's main problem. Moreover, the c5-pawn may advance at any moment, and one can question whether it is truly a weakness at all. Overall, it looks like dynamic equality.

=

1 2 Ben ko Accepted : I ntrod u ction a nd Ra re Li n es 1 d4 li::lf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS bS 4 cxbS a6 5 bxa6 (D)

B

Finally we have reached lines in which White bravely accepts the gam­ bit pawn. 5 g6! This precise move eliminates some troublesome lines in which White plays an early b3, such as 5 ... i.xa6 6 g3 g6 7 i..g2 d6 8 b3. 6 li::l c3 If White wants to play the Fian­ chetto line (Chapters 14 and 15), he can also start with 6 li::lf3 or 6 g3. With the text-move, he retains several other options too. ...

While White can play li::lc 3, li::lf3, g3 and i..g2 in a variety of sequences, Black needs to be a little careful with his move-order. The rule I urge you to keep in mind is this: take on a6 as soon as White plays li::l c3 (or even earlier but not later!). Otherwise, you can play ... g6, ...i.g7, ... d6 and ... i.xa6 in whatever legal order you feel like. The key point is that White prepares e4 by playing li::lc 3 and Black can't al­ low that unless he has ... i.. xfl avail­ able in reply. Let's see why 6 b3?! is wrong. After 6 ... i..g7 7 i.b2 0-0 White can't com­ plete his development properly. 8 g3 (8 e3 li::lxa6 9 li::lf3 li::lb4 10 i..c4 i..b7 + and the d5-pawn falls) 8 ...li::lxa6 9 i.g2 i..b7 10 li::lh3 li::lb4 1 1 li::lf4 (1 1 e4? i..a6 -+ leaves White's king in a hopeless mess, Kosarev-Sivokho, St Petersburg 2005) 1 l ...e6! (I like this new move, which is based on a nice tactical trick, though l l..Jixa2, as chosen in Napal­ kov-Hadzimanolis, St Petersburg 2010, is also playable) 12 dxe6 i.xg2 (D). 13 lt:\xg2 (not 13 exf7+?, losing to 13 .. .lhf7 14 li::lxg2 li::le4! 15 i.xg7 lt:lxf2 16 1!Vd2 �xg7 17 nn li::lfd3+! 18 exd3 �e7+ 19 li::le3 li::lc2+ -+)

BENKO A CCEPTED: INTRODUCTION AND RARE LiNES

149

w

w

13 ... fxe6 14 a3 (a modest attempt to keep a material advantage; after 14 0-0 tt::lxa2 + Black's chances are better) 14 ... tt::le4! 15 .i.xg7 Wxg7 (the b4knight is defended, the f2-pawn is hanging and ...�f6 is threatened) 16 0-0 �f6 17 tt::lf4 ( 17 tt::ld2? allows a strong forcing line: 17 ... tt::lc 3 18 tt::le4 tt::lxe4 19 axb4 tt::lxf2! 20 �el t'L:lh3+ 21 Whl �xal 22 �xal+ .l:i.xal 23 .l:rxal cxb4 +) 17 ... tt::ld5 ! (17 ... ii'xal ? lets White collect a few pawns by 18 �xd7+ 'iti>h8 19 axb4 cxb4 20 Vi'xe6, with unclear play) 18 tt::ld2 (18 tt::lxd5 �xal 19 tt::lb6 l:!.a7 +) 18 ... tt::lec3 19 tt::lxd5 exd5 20 �el l:tfe8 21 e3 d4 +. 6 .i.xa6 (D) As we already know, 6 ... i.g7?! is not good because of7 e4!, when White retains his castling rights and develops normally. Compare the lines in Chap­ ter 13, where the white king needs to walk to safety on g2 or h2. In the Benko Accepted, White has two main approaches. One is to fian­ chetto his king's bishop and develop his kingside pieces before taking fur­ ther action in the centre (Chapters 14

and 15). The other is to play a quick e4, and recapture with the king on fl. In this chapter we examine two lines where White plays an early e4 but re­ captures with a knight or rook on f1 , which we may dub the Knight's Tour and the Central Storm respectively: A : 7 tt::lf3 .i.g7 8 tt::ld 2 149 B : 7 f4 152 A} 7 tt::lf3 i.g7 8 tt::ld2 White's plan is to recapture with the knight on f1 so that he can save time by castling rather than walking his king over to g2 or h2. The main disadvantage of this plan is its slow­ ness: he just spends time with his knight instead of his king. 8 d6 9 e4 .i.xfl lO tt::lxfl �aS (D) First, Black forces White to defend the e4-pawn. Actually, Black's main idea is to get access to d3 and c4 for his knights. 1 1 .i.d2 Or: a) 1 1 tt::ld2 (the manoeuvre tt::lf3d2xfl-d2 looks odd but it's a legitimate

.•.

...

A TTA CK WITH BLA CK

150

w

to defend each other. I particularly like Black's position here since he has achieved all that he could dream about when playing 3oo.b5. 17 iVxa6 l::i.xa6 18 tt::lab5?! (18 tt::lc 2!? is better, though Black has good compensation after 18oo . .l:!.b8, also intending oo.tt::lfd7, tt::ld 3, etc.) 1 8 tt::ld3 19 l::i.e2 tt::ld7 20 l::i.b l l::i.a5 ! (20oo.l::i.b6?! 21 a4! leaves Black without the move oo.tt::lb6, Jelen­ Mikac, Ljubljana 1992) 21 a4 tt::lb6 + . b) 1 1 f3?! also appears weird. I I ...tt::lfd7 and now: b1) 12 tt::le 3 .i.xc3+!? (this new move seems more convincing than the typical Benko move 12oo.'�a6, as in M.Schmid-Rogers, Zurich 1994, though this is also playable) 13 bxc3 v.?ixc3+ 14 .i.d2 v.lid4 with great pros­ pects for the black knights - oo.tt::le 5d3 and oo.tt::ld 7-e5. b2) 12 Wid2 tt::lb6 13 tt::le3 tt::l 8d7 14 0-0 c4!?. A common drawback to this advance is that White can reply with the manoeuvre tt::ld4-c6, but here the white knights are in no position to oc­ cupy those squares, so Black just gains control of the d3-square for free. 15 Wic2 0-0 16 .i.d2 l::i.fc8 17 tt::lc d 1 and now rather than 17 v.?ic5 18 .i.c3 tt::le5 19 a4!, as in Gerusel-Knaak, Leipzig 1975, the new move 17oo.v.?ib5 !? is slightly better since it does not allow a4. After 18 .i.c3 tt::le5 followed by oo.tt::la4 Black has strong compensa­ tion. ll tt::lbd7 12 tt::le3 0-0 13 0-0 Surprisingly, I could not find a sin­ gle game played with the natural 13 iVe2, even though it's a logical way to counter Black's plan of taking control 0 0 .

way for White to play) 1 1...0-0 12 0-0 tt::lbd7 13 tt::lc4 (or 13 iVe2 l::i.fb8 14 l::i.e l tt::lb6 intending ... tt::la4 and oo.tt::lfd7; Black has a nice position) l3oo.'ifa6 14 �e2 l::i.fb8 gives Black good play: a1) 15 a3 is a computer suggestion, but it does not help White solve all his problems: 15oo.tt::lb6! 16 tt::ld2 (16 tt::lxb6 'iVxe2 17 tt::lxe2 l::i.xb6 18 tt::lc 3 tt::ld7 + followed by .i.xc3 and oo.�a4 with pressure on the pawns on a3, c3 and e4; the knight will come to c4) and now, while the slow l6oo.iVxe2 17 tt::l xe2 tt::lfd7 gives Black a comfortable position, I prefer 16oo.tt::la4!. This is an­ other typical Benko idea that everyone who plays this gambit should under­ stand. Black exchanges the c3-knight and this helps him exert pressure on the b2-pawn (by his bishop) and the e4-pawn (with the f6-knight and by .l:!.a4). Then 17 'ifxa6 l:!.xa6 18 tt::lxa4 l::i. xa4 19 f3 tt::ld7 20 l::i.b l .i.d4+ 21 �hl tt::le5 + can follow. a2) After 15 l::i.e I l::i.b4 16 tt::l a3 tt::le 5 the white pieces are very hard to mobilize from their cramped loca­ tions. They can do little more than try 0 0 •

0 0 •

00.

000

...

BENKO A CCEPTED: INTRODUCTION AND RARE LINES

of the a6-fl diagonal starting with ... 'ii'a6. l3 ... .l:.tb8 14 lt:lc4 �a6 and then: a) 15 0-0? is not good because of 15 ...lt:lb6! 16 b3 (after 16 lt:lxb6? 'ii'xe2 17 lt:lxe2 .l:txb6 + Black regains one pawn and continues his play against White's weak pawns) 16 ... lt:lxc4 17 bxc4 lt:ld7 18 .lir.ab1 l:.b4! +. White loses one of his pawns and it's still not clear how to cope with Black's activ­ ity. b) 15 l::.c 1 !? lt:le8! (the knight goes to b5 via c7 and frees the long diago­ nal for the g7 -bishop) 16 .Uc2 (defend­ ing b2 and preparing to castle; the immediate 16 0-0? is again not good due to 16 ... lt:lb6 +) 16 ... lt:le5 17 lt:lxe5 .i.xe5 1 8 �xa6 .l:.xa6 19 �e2 lt:lc7 (in­ tending .. .f5 and ... e6; White's pawn­ centre is not well defended) 20 b3 f5 21 f3 e6 is equal; for example, 22 �d3 .i.xc3 23 .ixc3 fxe4+ 24 fxe4 exd5 25 exd5 lt:lxd5. Of course, this is just an example line and there is plenty of scope for thinking up something new. But at the same time it's clear that Black should not have any critical problems after 13 �e2. 13 'i!Va6! A strong move; the idea is to prevent 'ii'e2 and take control of c4 and d3. 14 'ii'c2 (D) Black grip on d3 gives him good compensation after 14 b3 .l:.fb8 15 �c2 lt:le5; e.g., 16 f4 lt:ld3 17 lt:lc4 lt:lb4 18 �b1 lt:\g4 and ... .i.d4+, Andreikin­ Aveskulov, Kharkov 2005. 14 c4! I like this concrete and aggressive move, since it denies White time to •.•

••.

151

B

seize the queenside light squares. The main point is that Black can indirectly defend c4. His next moves are ... lt:\c5, . JHc8, ... lt:lfd7, etc. I find the more popular 14 ... lt:le5?! unconvincing because of 15 a4!, in­ tending to place the knight on b5. Af­ ter 15 ... �d3 16 'i!Vxd3 (16 b3?! is less good since Black is in time to create counterplay: 16 ... .l:!.tb8 17 .li!.tbl �xc2 1 8 lt:lxc2 lt:ld3 19 f3 lt:ld7! intending to weaken White's centre with ... f5; Black is fine) 16 ... lt:lxd3 17 .l:.abl lt:ld7 (17 .. Jltb8 18 b3 lt:le8 19 lt:lb5 ± Tanner-D.Hoffman, Buenos Aires tt 1992) 18 b3 ;t, followed by lt:lc4 and lt:lb5, White is obviously better. 15 lt:le2 The knight sets off towards c6. 15 lt:lc5 Attacking e4. 16 f3 Black has good play after 16 lt:lxc4 lt:lfxe4 17 i..e3 l:r.fc8. 16 lt:lfd7 This is a new move, varying from Franic-!.Popovic, Kastel Stari 1997. 17 .i.c3 •••

.•.

ATTA CK WITH BLA CK

152

The only logical way for White. 17 ....i.xc3 18 'i!fxc3 18 bxc3 .l:.fb8 19 lbd4 lbe5 gives Black compensation. The c6-square is defended, and the attempt to push the e5-knight back by f4 only suc­ ceeds in hanging the e4-pawn (after ... lbed3). Also Black has the active idea ... Vi'a3. 18 lbe5 (D)

22 ...lbxb2! 23 lbxb2 'i!fxe2 24 l:tfe1 'ii'b5 The weakness of a2 and the awk­ wardly placed knight on b2 leave White with no hope of putting his ex­ tra pawn to use. 8)

7 f4 (D)

•..

19 f4 19 lbd4?! gives Black too much compensation: 19 ... lba4 20 Vi'd2 'ii'b6 21 .l:tab1 .l:tfb8 with a strong initiative. 19 lbed3 20 e5 20 lbxc4 lbxb2! is the key point be­ hind the previous play - the c4-pawn is indirectly defended! After 21 lbxb2 'i!fxe2 22 .l:.fel 'i!kb5 Black's compensa­ tion looks convincing. 20 dxe5 21 fxe5 After 21 lbxc4 e4!, the d3-knight becomes stronger and the d5-pawn weaker. 21. lbd7 22 lbxc4 22 'ti'xc4 lbxb2 23 'ifxa6 l:txa6 24 lbg4 lbc4 leads to an equal endgame. •.•

••.

••

Advancing the f-pawn before play­ ing lbf3 and e4 is an interesting idea, as it gives White active options based on an e5 advance. However, it also means that it will require more time for White to evacuate his king from the centre, especially since it will still be exposed on f2 and gl . Black needs to play energetically to make the most of his chances. 7 Jl..g7 8 lDf3 0-0 9 e4 Jl..xfl 10 l:.xfl Capturing with the king makes no sense; Black would continue in the same manner: ... d6, ... lbbd7-b6, etc. 10 d6 (D) The first critical position. White must decide if he wants to attack right .•.

•••

BENKO A CCEPTED: INTROD UCTION AND RARE LINES

1 53

bl) IfBlack plays 19 ... lt:Jc2?, White successfully sacrifices an exchange: 20 .i.xc5 lt:Jxal 21 .i.d4 lt:Jc2 22 i.. xg7 �xg7 23 a4 ;!;, b2) 1 9 ... lt:Jcd3 ! 20 .i.d4 lt:Jc2 21 i.. xg7 lt:Jxal 22 l:!.xal 'it>xg7 The knight is much better placed on d3 compared to the c2-square from the variation after 19 ... lt:Jc2?. =.

81)

now or first secure his king. Our main lines are: 81: 11 'it>f2 153 82: 11 e5 155 1 1 'i¥e2 is another possibility, but we shall deal with it more briefly, as it nor­ mally merges with Line B 1 : l l ...lt:Ja6 12 'it>f2 'ii'b6 13 e5 (this is the only in­ dependent continuation, and it com­ mits White to a king-walk; 13 �gl transposes to Line B 1) 13 ... c4+ (this natural but untested move varies from Domsgen Hoelzlein-Sedina, Women's Bundesliga 2003/4) 14 'it>g3 lt:Jd7 and now: a) 15 h3?! looks like a natural way to bring the king to safety, but doesn't work well: 15 ... dxe5 16 fxe5 lt:Jb4 17 �h2 lt:Jd3 18 e6 lt:J7c5 19 exf7+ l:!.xf7 +. Black has an excellent position. b) 15 e6 lt:Jdc5 16 exf7+ l:.xf7 17 'i¥xc4 (at the moment, White has two extra pawns but almost all his pieces are badly placed; Black gets a danger­ ous initiative) 17 ...'i¥b4! (exchanging White's most active piece) 18 'ii'xb4 lt:Jxb4 19 .i.e3 and then:

11 'it>f2 The white king runs away. Black's main target is the d3-square, which White can't defend properly - ... c4 and ... lt:Jd3 is a construction Black should achieve. 11 lt:Ja6! An important refinement. After l l ...'i¥b6?! 12 'it>gl lt:Ja6 13 e5 !, I don't see a way for Black to equalize: 13 ... lt:Jg4 (13 ... lt:Jd7 14 'ii'e2 ;!; and 13 ... lt:Je8 14 'fi'e2 lt:Jec7 15 l:!.d 1 ;!; leave White in control) 14 'ife2 lt:Jb4 (heading for d3) 15 h3 c4+ 16 Whl lt:Jh6 17 g4! keeps the h6-knight out of play; for example, 17 ... lt:Jd3 18 lt:Jel !? lt:Jxc 1 19 .:txc 1 with a slight advantage for White. Fortunately, Black can ad­ just his move-order to keep more pres­ sure on d5. 12 'it>g1 lt:Jb4 13 'fi'e2 Or: a) Now 13 e5? is bad because of 13 ...dxe5 and 14 ... lt:Jfxd5. b) 13 Wh 1 (evacuating the king) 13 ... 'ifb6 (D) and now: bl ) 14 e5 can be met by 14 ... dxe5 15 fxe5 lt:Jg4, attacking e5 and think­ ing of ... c4 with ideas of ... lt:Jf2+ or ... lt:Jd3. ••.

154

AITA CK WITH BLA CK

w

b2) After 14 �e2, the typical Benko idea l4 ... 'ili'a6! works here too. Black exchanges queens to weaken the light squares on White's queenside: d3, c2 and c4. After 15 �xa6 .l:.xa6 + Black's next few moves are easy: ... lt:Jd7, .. J:f.b8 and ... lt:Jd3 with very strong pressure. For example, 16 a3 lt:Jd3 17 lt:Je1 lt:Jxe1 18 l:txe 1 lt:Jd7 19 .i.d2 l::tb 8 20 .l:.a2 .l:.b3 21 !ic1 lt:Jb6 (intending ... lt:Jc4) 22 lt:Jd1 ? (Black is better even after the more resilient 22 .i.e1 lt:Jc4 +) 22 ... l:.a4! 23 e5 (after 23 lt:Jc3 .i.xc3 24 .l:r.xc3 .l:r.xc3 25 .i.xc3 .l:r.xe4 + Black wins a pawn on d5) 23 ...l:.d4 24 .i.c3 l:r.xf4 -+ Grabert-Delchev, Bled 1997. b3) 14 a3 'ifa6! (securing the d3square for the b4-knight) 15 ii.e3? (White should sacrifice an exchange by 15 axb4 �xa1 16 bxc5 dxc5 17 e5 li:Jd7 and ... lt:Jb6 with an unclear posi­ tion) 15 ... lt:Jd3 16 �d2 .Ufb8 17 .Ufb1 .l:r.xb2! (17 ...lt:Jxb2, as in Emma-Garcia, Mar del Plata 1976, is also possible but it allows 18 e5 with more compli­ cations since 18 ...lt:Jc4 does not work as well here: 19 .Uxb8+ .l:txb8 20 'i!Vd3 {the c4-knight is pinned} 20 ... lt:Jd7 +)

18 lhb2 lt:Jxb2 19 e5 lt:Jc4 20 �e1 lt:Jxe3 21 �xe3 lt:Jg4 22 �e1 �c4 -+. 13.. .'ifb6 14 a4!? White builds an outpost on b5. 14 a3?! does not really attack the b4-knight, so Black just ignores this move: 14 ...'ifa6! 15 �xa6 .l:txa6 16 %:td1 (defending d3) 16 ...lt:Jc2 17 l:.a2 (17 l:[b 1 lt:Jd7 18 ii.d2 l:tb8 19 l:tdc 1 lt:Jd4 20 'iiff2 .l:r.b3 +) 17 ... lt:Jd7 1 8 'iiff2 .l:tb8 with strong compensation. 14....l:ttb8 15 lt:Jb5 White can also start with 15 l::r.a3. Then Black can play 15 ... lt:Je8!? (this new move improves over the uncon­ vincing 15 ... �a6?! 16 lt:Jb5 �b7, Gor­ egliad-Bonin, Long Island 1990) 16 lt:Jb5 lt:Jc7! (exchanging the b5-knight and freeing the b-file for Black's major pieces) 17 lt:Jxc7 'ilxc7 (here White can't establish total control of the c4square) and now: a) 18 �c4 'i!kc8! 19 b3 'ifa6 20 e5 has the logical idea of blocking the g7bishop, but it's too late now to yield any advantage since after 20 ...�xc4 21 bxc4 Black can play 21...lt:Jc2 22 .l:.c3 lt:Jb4 23 .l:r.a3 lt:Jc2, repeating. b) 18 b3 c4! (White will get very weak pawns on a4 and c4) 19 bxc4 ( 19 �xc4 �xc4 20 bxc4 lt:Jc2 21 .l:.a2 lt:Jb4 22 .l:la3 lt:Jc2 ) 19 .. J:!.c8 20 a5 (after 20 e5 'i!Vxc4 21 'i!Vxc4 .l:lxc4 the d5-pawn falls) 20 ... 1:txa5 21 l:ha5 'ifxa5 22 .i.e3 'i'a4 intending ...'ili'c2 or ...lt:Jc2. White has kept an extra pawn, but Black's compensation is very ob­ vious. We now return to 15 lt:Jb5 (D): If Black plays slowly, White will stabilize the position with moves like =

=

BENKO A CCEPTED: INTRODUCTION AND RARE LINES

155

in the Benko Gambit, depriving the d5-pawn of its support. After 22 exf5 gxf5 + the next move is ... lt:Jxd5.

B

82)

l::!.a3, b3, lt:Jd2-c4, etc. That's why Black needs to be precise. 15....l:!.a5! The idea is to play ...'iVa6, attacking both the a4-pawn and the b5-knight. White has no fully satisfactory way to bolster his queenside outpost: a) 16 lt:Jd2? iVa6 17 lt:Jc3 lt:Jd3 ! + leaves White's queenside cramped. b) 16 ..id2 'iVa6! (attacking a4) 17 b3 lt:Jxe4! 18 'iVxe4 i.. x a1 19 'iVxe7 (19 .llx a1 ? .l:!.axb5 -+; 19 ..ixb4?! cxb4 20 'iVxe7 .l:!.axb5 21 axb5 .l:!.xb5 gives Black the better chances) 19 ... i..g7 20 lt:Jg5 (20 lt:Jxd6 'iVa7 ) 20 ... .l:.f8 21 iVd7 .l:i.xb5 ! 22 axb5 (22 'iVxb5? l!Vxb5 23 axb5 lt:Jxd5 +) 22 ... 'iVa3 Black first takes on b3 and then on d5 with an equal position. c) 16 l:Ia3 'iVa6! (White must de­ fend a4) 17 b3 'iVa8! (now ... l'!.bxb5 is a threat) 1 8 lt:Jc3 'iVa6! 19 iVxa6?! (too ambitious; White should simply repeat the position by 19 lt:Jb5 'iVa8 ) 19 ... .l:txa6 (White's pieces are unco­ ordinated) 20 lt:Je1 (20 i.. d2 lt:Jc2 21 l:ta2 lt:Jd4 +) 20 ... lt:Je8 21 lt:Jb5 and now 2l ...f5 ! is a typical pawn-break =

=.

=

11 e5 This move is played the most often. ll ...dxe5!? This seems the best option for Black - he detonates the centre in order to take full advantage of the uncastled white king. My conclusion from analysing other continuations is that they lead to a slight advantage for White. Here are just my main lines (without deep anal­ ysis) to show Black's problems: a) 1 1 ...lt:Je8 12 �f2 lt:Jc7 13 �g1 lt:Jd7 14 iVe2 lt:Jb6 15 J::l.d 1 ;!; Chan­ tsev-Aveskulov, Moscow 2004. b) 1 1 ...lLlfd7 12 e6! fxe6 13 lt:Jg5 (otherwise the e5-e6 advance does not make any sense; after 13 dxe6? lt:Jb6 14 �f2 'iVc8 15 'iVb3 lt:Jc6! + the knight is indirectly defended; for ex­ ample, 16 'iVxb6?? l:tb8 and Black wins) 13 ... i.. xc3+ 14 bxc3 'iVa5 15 lt:Jxe6 l:tf6 16 .i:tf3 lt:Ja6 17 �fl lt:Jc7 (A.Geler-Djukanovic, Montenegrin Team Ch, Podgorica 2008) 18 lt:Jxc7!? 'iVxc7 19 c4 ;!; intending i..b 2. 12 fxe5 lt:Jfd7 (D) More often Black plays 12 ...lt:Jg4. White has three ways to deal with the attack on his e5-pawn. 13 'iVe2 Or: a) After 13 i..f4 lt:Ja6 Black's main idea works well (i.e. to take control of d3 by ... c4 and ...lt:Jb4/c5-d3): 14 �f2 c4 15 iVd4! (after 15 �g1? lt:Jb4 +,

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

156

13 lt::lb6 The d5-pawn is attacked. 14 't!Ve4 lt::la6 (D) ••.

w

White cannot play 'i!Vd4 any more be­ cause of ... lt::lc 2) 15 ... lt::lac5 16 c;t>gi li::ld3 (threatening simply to take on b2) 17 'ii'xc4 �6+ 1 8 c;t>h I lt::lxf4 19 'ifxf4 'ifxb2 leaves Black fine. He is a pawn down but the a2-pawn is weak, and the c3-knight lacks secure outpost squares. b) 13 e6 is not dangerous when there are no pawns on f4 and d6 (com­ pare the 1 1 ...li::lfd7 line): 13 ...lt::lb6 14 exf7 + (otherwise Black can take on e6 and play ... lt::lc 6) 14 ... .l:.xf7 15 c;t>f2 i..xc3! (Black exchanges the g7 -bishop in order to take the pawn back; White is unable to create any threats to the black king, so this exchange is abso­ lutely safe) 16 bxc3 'ii'xd5 17 'ii'e2 lt::lc6 leaves the black pieces more harmonious and centralized. White needs to be precise here just to avoid real problems . An example line: 1 8 c;t>g 1 lt::la4 1 9 i.. d2 ( 1 9 c4? lt::lc 3 ! 20 cxd5 {otherwise Black takes on c4} 20 ...lt::lxe2+ 21 c;t>f2 lt::lcd4 22 i..e3 .l:ta3 + gives White problems with the f3-square and the d5-pawn) 19 ... c4!? intending ... lt::lc5-d3 with unclear play. =

The knight goes to b4 to attack d5 and to be ready to jump into d3 (after ... c4). 15 �f2 It's time to run away! 15 i..e 3? is not safe here because of the strong reply 15 ... f5 !. Then: a) The en passant capture 16 exf6? leaves White worse: 1 6 ... exf6! 17 c;t>f2 .l:.e8 18 'i!Vd3 f5 19 a3 (after 19 �g1 ? lt::lb4 -+ White loses his bishop) 1 9 ...c4 20 1!Vd2 i.xc3 ! (again we see how readily Black can exchange his dark­ squared bishop) 21 bxc3 lLlxd5 22 i..d4 �c7 23 .l:!.ae1 lLlc5 + coming to e4; Black's knights are excellent. b) 16 �h4 lt::lxd5 and then: bl) 17 lt::lg 5? can be met by 17 ...h6! 18 'ifc4 (the point is that 18 lt::le6?? loses to 18 ...lLlxe3 19 lt::lxd8 lt::lxg2+) 18 ...e6! (improving over 18 ... hxg5?!, as played in Zimmer-Molner, Internet 2006) 19 0-0-0 (19 lt::lxe6?? lt::lxe3 20 't!Ve2 't!Ve8 +) 19 ...lt::lab4 +. -

157

BENKO A CCEPTED: INTRODUCTION AND RARE LINES

b2) 17 0-0-0 (there is no time for the king to find shelter on the king­ side) 17 ... e6! 18 'it'c4 (White is worse after both natural captures: 18 'it'xd8?! .l:l.fxd8 + or 18 tt:lxd5? 'it'xh4 19 li'lxh4 exd5 20 .litxd5 li'lb4 21 l::td7 l::txa2 +) 1 8 ...li'lab4 19 ..txc5 'flc7 gives Black a strong attack on the white king. 15 li'lb4 This improves over 15 ... f6?!, which was played in lpatov-Vus, Kharkov (juniors) 2004. 16 .i.e3 This is probably best, seeking sim­ plifications. Further complicating the game is not in White's interest. The natural defence 16 l:td 1 is met with the typical 16 ... c4! 17 'iitg 1 li'ld3, when Black is ready to attack any of White's central pawns (by ... l:ta5 or ... li'ld7). Let me show some variations here: a) 18 ..te3 li'ld7! 19 e6 f5 20 'ii'h4 li'lf6 +. b) 18 a4 l::ta5 ! 19 ii.g5 li'lxd5 and then: bl) 20 �xc4?! 'fib6+ 21 li'ld4 (this is forced; 21 'i!Vd4? 'i!Vxd4+ 22 li'lxd4 li'lxb2 23 l:.dc 1 ..txe5 24 li'lc6 ii.xc3 25 llxc3 li'lxc3 26 li'lxa5 f6 27 ii.d2 li'lcxa4 wins for Black) 21 ...li'lxc3 22 bxc3 l:!.xe5 with a slight advantage for Black. b2) 20 li'lxd5 .litxd5 + 21 ..txe7?? 'ii'b6+ -+. c) 18 li'ld4 'fid7 19 li'lc6 e6! (D) and now: •••

c 1) After 20 dxe6 'i!ixe6 + the e5pawn and c6-knight become more vul­ nerable. c2) 20 d6 f5 ! 21 li'le7+ 'iitf7! (not 2l...�h8?, which leads to problems on the g6-square: 22 1lih4 li'lxe5 23 ..tf4 ;!;) 22 'fih4 li'lc8 ! (the knight frees the way for the queen check from a7 and eliminates the strong e7 -knight) 23 ii.g5 (23 li'lxc8 llfxc8 +) 23 ...tt:lxe7 24 dxe7 (24 ..txe7? 'i!ia7+ 25 'ifi>fl .l:lfb8 +) 24 ... litfb8 25 l:.d2 l:txb2 26 l:txb2 tt:lxb2 +. White's pawns are weak and his other pieces are not much better. Of course, White can play differently in the middle of this line but it demon­ strates that with a knight on d3, Black always has strong compensation. 16 li'l4xd5 17 li'lxd5 'i\VxdS 18 'fixd5 li'lxdS 19 il.xc5 .l:.tb8 20 littb1 Black equalizes in the case of 20 b3 as well: 20....l:l.a5 21 ..td4 tt:lb4 20 li'lf4 The endgame is equal. .••

=.

.•.

1 3 Ben ko Acce pted : Ki ng Wa l k 1 d4 t:Llf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6 6 t:Llc3 i.xa6 Here we shall examine lines where White plays an early e4, allowing an exchange on f1 and recapturing with his king. The king will then generally 'walk' to g2 or h2, completing a 'cas­ tling by hand' manoeuvre. The stan­ dard way for White to do so is 7 tLlf3 followed by 8 e4, but there are also two other ideas: 1) Bringing the knight to e2 to back up the c3-knight. 2) Advancing White's g-pawn two squares to gain space on the kingside as well as giving the king a square. Thus at this point we need to look at two moves: 158 A : 7 e4 B : 7 t:Llf3 161 In Line A we only examine lines without an early t:Llf3. A) 7 e4 i.xn 8 �xn d6 9 t:Llge2 After 9 g4 !!Lg7 (D) White has two main continuations: a) l 0 �g2 0-0 and then: a1 ) 1 1 f3 was played in Seirawan­ Fedorowicz, USA Ch, Long Beach 1989. Then I like the look of the untried 1 1...t:Llfd7!. Since White has prevented

w

the knight from reaching e5 via g4, there is no reason to keep it on f6, so it moves to d7; the other knight can take its place later (after ... t:Llb6 or ...t:Lle5) or be developed via a6. White's king­ side pawn-structure provides some vague hopes of creating a kingside at­ tack but can easily become a weakness in an endgame. After 12 t:Llge2 t:Lle5 13 b3 'ita5 14 'il'c2 t:Llbd7 followed by ... c4 Black has sufficient compensa­ tion. a2) 1 1 g5 tLlh5 12 t:Llge2 f5 13 gxf6 (White gets a bad pawn-structure after 13 t:Llg3 f4! 14 t:Llxh5 f3+ 15 'ifi>fl gxh5 followed by ... t:Lld7-e5 with an advan­ tage for Black, Denayer-Krivoruchko, Cappelle la Grande 2005) 13 ... l:txf6 14 !!Lg5 l:lf7 15 'itd2 'il'f8 16 .li!.afl ?!

BENKO A CCEPTED: KING WALK

(this rook is needed on the queenside; White should prefer 16 .l:lhfl ti:Jd7 17 f4 c4, intending to bring the knight to d3) 16 ... ti:Jd7 17 f4 (Haba-Andruet, Toulouse 1990) 17 ... J.xc3 18 bxc3 (18 �xc3 l:!.xa2 leaves Black better in all parts of the board) 18 ... h6 19 i..h4 Il.a4 +. Black wins one of the pawns back, with the advantage. b) 10 g5 ltJh5 1 1 lt:Jge2 'iec8! (the queen eyes the kingside and leaves the d7-square available for the queen's knight) 12 �g2 (12 lt:Jg3? is extremely bad because of 12 ...'ii'h 3+ 13 �g 1, when the white king and rook will be trapped for a long time; after 13 ...ti:Jd7 14 lt:Jxh5 gxh5 15 �fl 'ifh4 16 'iVg2 i.. xc3 ! 17 bxc3 l:ta4 Black won back the pawn with a much better position in Kaminik-Zso.Polgar, Israeli Team Ch 1996) 12 ... h6! (Black naturally at­ tacks the far-advanced pawn). Now: b1) 13 h4 and then: b1 1) Julian Hodgson opted for an endgame by 13 ... hxg5 14 hxg5 �g4+ 15 lt:Jg3 �xd1 16 lt:Jxd1 lt:Jxg3 17 .l:.xh8+ i.. xh8 18 �xg3 lt:Ja6 but it does not look very convincing: 19 i..d2 ltJb4 (Suba-Hodgson, Spanish Team Ch 1993) 20 a4!? lt:Jc2 21 l:.a2 ;!;. b12) I prefer 13 ... ti:Jd7!?, intending ... lt:Je5-d3 (after ... c4). White's pawn­ structure looks awkward while Black has two unusual features compared with normal lines: the knight on h5 and the uncastled king, but both pieces are quite comfortable in their 'new' lo­ cations. b2) Black has a comfortable posi­ tion after 13 gxh6 i.. xh6 14 i.. xh6

/59

.l:lxh6 with compensation, Seirawan­ Alburt, USA Ch, Estes Park 1986. 9 i..g7 (D) •.•

Now White must decide where to put his king: h2 or g2. 10 h3 After 10 g3 0-0 1 1 �g2, Benko himself demonstrated a viable plan for Black (although there are other good options too): 1 1 ...'iWb6 12 l:ib1 lt:Ja6. The reasoning behind this is that the long light-square diagonal is weakened by the knight's absence from f3, so Black will bring his knight to c7 to prepare to break it open by ... e6. Then: a) After 13 f3 it's not yet a good moment to play ... e6, and Black should prefer 13 ... ti:Jd7, with good compensa­ tion. It's instructive to see why 13 ...e6?! is not so good: 14 dxe6 fxe6 15 i.. g5 (now Black cannot make the ... d5 ad­ vance) 15 . .'�c6 16 'ii'd2 l:tad8 1 7 l:thd 1 l:td7 18 ti:Jf4 lt:Jc7 1 9 'ii'c2 ;!; Narciso Dublan-Rodriguez Guerrero, Calvia tt 2007. Then 19 ... d5? fails to 20 i.. xf6 i..xf6 21 exd5 exd5 22 lt:Jcxd5 !

/ 6{}

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

t:Dxd5 23 .l:l.xd5 .l:txd5 24 Vi'c4 .l:tfd8 25 .l:!.d l +-. b) 13 b3 t:Dc7 14 f3 e6! (now ev­ erything works well for Black because ... d5 is guaranteed) 15 dxe6 fxe6 16 �e3 �c6 followed by ... d5, Gross­ Benko, Aspen 1968. 10...0-0 11 'iii>g1 t:Dbd7 12 'ifi>h2 We have a position very similar to the main lines but the knight is on e2. What are the fundamental differences? First of all, White is less scared by the idea of ... t:Da4, since the e2-knight is ready to replace the knight on c3 (one of the main ideas of White's scheme), although this is not so crucial for the evaluation of the position. On the other hand, there are fewer tools for White to fight for the c4-square since on e2 the knight is a long way from this square (whereas from f3 it can get there quickly via d2). 12 ..�a5 Black can also play 12 ... 'ii'b 6. 13 'ii'c2 13 l:tfl ?! does not actually weaken White's position, but I don't under­ stand what point it might have. Per­ haps White feels it is useful to defend the f2-pawn in some variations but it looks weird to me. 13 ... .l:!.fb8 14 'ii'c2 'i¥a6 15 :d1 (now 13 .li!.fl looks even more strange) 15 ... tbe5 !? (the knight moves towards c4; Black mistakenly blew up the centre in Akobian-L.Mar­ tinez, Las Vegas blitz 2005: 15 ... e6? 16 dxe6 fxe6 17 'iii>g 1 ±, when he couldn't play ... d5 but the d6- and e6pawns come under pressure) 16 b3 ( 16 a4 l:tb4 with compensation) 16 ... c4 17 J..e3 tbd3 (17 ...cxb3?! 18 axb3 �xal .

19 .l:r.xa1 :xa1 20 tbd4 ;;!;; the b3-pawn is quite dangerous, while the c6-square will soon be a good outpost for the white knight) 18 �d4 t:Db4 19 'ifh2 �h6! (unpinning the f6-knight and so intending ... t:Dd7) gives Black strong pressure on the queenside. 13 4Jb6 (D) ...

Preparing both ... t:Da4 and ... t:Dc4, but which knight move will be better depends on the precise details of the position. 14 .:td1 Or 14 .l:!.bl, and now: a) 14 ... t:Dc4?! can be met with 15 a4! (intending b3; the immediate 15 b3? allows 15 ... t:Da3 16 i..xa3 'ii'xa3 with good compensation) 15 ...Vi'b4 16 b3 ;;!;, when 16 ... t:Da3? does not work because of 17 i..xa3 �xa3 18 b4! ± and .li!.b3 wins the queen. b) 14 ... t:Da4! 15 .i.d2 t:Dxc3 16 t:Dxc3 .l:!.fb8 17 .l:!.hel (17 b3 'i!Va3 ! blocks White's a4 advance) 17 ... t:Dd7 18 .i.g5 'it>f8 gives Black solid com­ pensation as White is unable to make progress with any of his queenside

BENKO A CCEPTED: KING WALK

pawns, Shulman-Khalifman, World Cup, Khanty-Mansiisk (rapid) 2005. After the text-move, however, it is better to put the knight on c4. 14 lt:Jc4!? I feel this new move is better than 14 ...lt:Ja4?!, because after 15 ..td2 lt:Jxc3 16 lbxc3 :fb8, as in Shulman-Khal­ ifman, World Cup, Khanty-Mansiisk 2005 (where 17 l:!.e1 was played), White can play the straightforward 17 a4!?. This is the main difference between 14 Iid1 and 14 l:!.bl. With the rook on al , White can follow this pawn advance up with l:a2. After 17 .. ."ii' b4 18 l:r.a2! 'ii'c4 19 a5 lbd7 20
/ (J /

••.

.•.

B)

(after h3). We discuss these lines as follows: 161 B1: 10 h3 165 B2: 10 g3 81)

10 h3 lt:Jbd7 11
7 lt:Jf3 i..g7 Now we move on to the main lines 8 1 1) of the King Walk. 8 e4 i..xn 9
(17 'ti'xa4 .l:.xa4 1 8 .i.c3, Gabriel­ Ziiger, Zurich tt 1999, 18 ... li:'!b5 ! 19 .i.xg7 �xg7 20 li:'!d2 li:'!d4 21 l:tfl l:ta6! +; the idea is to avoid tempo-gaining moves like li:'!c3 or b3) 17 ... li:'!b5 18 lbc3 'i!ia6 19 a4 li:'!d4 (19 ...li:'!c7?! was chosen in Gabriel-Sermek, Pula Zonal 2000, but it does not look logical to play ... li:'!b5 and then meekly retreat) 20 li:'!xd4 .i.xd4 21 f4 'i'c4! intending ...'i!Vb3 with compensation. 16 .'ii'b4! I propose this new move. 16 ...'i'b6?! is worse since from here the queen has fewer options, and after 17 l:ta2 'i!Vb3?! 18 'ii'xb3 .l:!.xb3 19 aS ! t , intending li:'!dl-e3 and .i.c3, White has neutral­ ized the threats and can start thinking about active plans of his own. 17 li:'!d1 With the queen on b4, 17 .l:!.a2 does not help due to 17 ...1Wc4! 18 l:.a3 li:'!a6, intending to bring the knight to d3. 17 .'ii'b3 18 'i!Vxb3 l:.xb3 19 l:.a2 (D) 19 aS?! just gives the pawn back: 19 ... .i.xb2 20 .l:tbl :ab8 (20... .i.e5+? 21 li:'!xe5 lhbl 22 li:'!xd7 ±). .•

15 .i.d2 The bishop defends c3 and so pre­ vents any tactical accidents. 15 .i.g5? (Koczo-Blasko, Hungarian Junior Ch, Paks 2002) allows Black a nice tactic: 15 ... .l:!.xb2! 16 'ti'xb2 .i.xc3 17 'ti'b7 'i'a7! 18 'ti'xa7 .l:!.xa7 with equal mate­ rial and a much better endgame for Black since 19 .i.xe7? f6 traps the bishop. 15 li:'!c7 The purpose of ... li:'!b5 is to ex­ change the c3-knight and clear the way to the b2- and a2-pawns. 16 a4 This logical move stops Black's idea. Alternatively: a) 16 b3 intends a4 in more com­ fortable circumstances, but Black can prevent it by the typical 16 ... 'i!ia3 17 .i.c1 (Karpov-Ponomariov, Moscow blitz 2009) 17 ... 'i!Vb4 1 8 .i.b2 (the only way to continue the fight; 1 8 .i.d2 'i!ia3 repeats) 1 8 . . .li:'!e5, when he has compensation after 19 li:'!d2 c4! or 19 li:'!xe5 .i.xe5+ 20 g3 c4!. b) 16 li:'!d1 ?! intends .i.c3 but al­ lows the immediate 16 ... 'i!Va4! 17 'i!Vcl •.•

..

=

B

BENKO A CCEPTED: KING WALK

19 tt::la6! Since the route via b5 is closed, the knight moves in a different direction. Black can also try 19 ... tt::lb6 20 a5 tt::lc4, another typical manoeuvre, but here White can keep some of his pluses: 21 i.g5 ! litxa5 (21 ...'iii>f8 lets White exchange the c4-knight, which is an obvious achievement for him: 22 tt::ld2! tt::l xd2 23 .i.xd2 ;!; and then .i.c3 or .l:!.e3) 22 .l:.xa5 tt::lxa5 23 i.xe7 tt::lb7 (intending ... f6) 24 i.g5 i.xb2 25 tt::lxb2 !t.xb2 26 .i.f6 !. 20 .l:!.e3 20 a5 tt::lb4 21 i.xb4 :xb4 22 .li!.e3 .li!.a6! = intending ... tt::lb6-c4; the white rooks are unable to look after the pawns on e4 and a5 at the same time. 20 .Uxe3 21 tt::lxe3 The odd-looking 21 fxe3 also does not help: 2l...c4! 22 a5 tt::ldc5 23 tt::lf2 tt::lb 3 24 i.c3 i.xc3 25 bxc3 tt::lac5 = and .. Jha5. 21...tt::lf6! Surprisingly, the e4-pawn is in trou­ ble. Now 22 e5 dxe5 23 i.c3 (not 23 tt::lxe5? tt::le4! 24 tt::l5 c4 tt::lxd2 25 tt::lxd2 tt::lb4 26 .l:.a3 i.xb2 27 .l:tb3 i.e5+ 28 g3 .:xa4 +) 23 ... tt::le4 24 i.xe5 tt::lb4 25 l:[al tt::lxf2 26 i.xg7 'iii>xg7 reaches an equal endgame. •••

1 63

Or 15 i.g5 .i.xc3 16 bxc3 f6! (the most solid option for Black; he closes the centre and now all the play will be focused on the queenside, where he is clearly better) 17 i.d2 'ii'a4 18 .tel 1h- 1h Almasi-Delchev, Croatian Team Ch, Pula 2000. Play could continue 18 ...'iVxd1 19 .l::!.xd1 .li!.a4 =. 15 tt::lb6 16 'i!Ve2 'i!Va6! (D) •••

w

•••

8 1 2)

14 .li!.e2 tt::le8 The knight still heads for b5. 15 l:tc2 This is a typical idea for White: bringing the rook to c2 to defend the critical squares c3, c4 and b2. But here Black easily gets good counter­ play.

It's more difficult for White to keep control of d3 and c4 without queens on the board. 17 'i!Vxa6 Or: a) 17 'ii'e3?! tt::la4! (this looks more aggressive than 17 ...tt::lc4, which was chosen in Wilhelmi-Mainka, Bad Wor­ ishofen 2000) 18 tt::lxa4 'iVxa4 19 'ii'd3 .li!.b4 20 a3! (this is a nice idea to reduce the tension, but it does not solve all White's problems) 20 ... .li!.xe4 21 b3 'ii'd7 22 'i!kxe4 i.xal + followed by ...i.f6 and ...tt::lc7. Black is better due to his more solid pawn-structure. b) 17 e5?! weakens the d5-pawn for no good reason. 17 ... 'i/xe2 18 .Uxe2 tt::lc4! 19 exd6 exd6 20 a4 tt::lc7 21 :e7

A ITA CK WITH BLACK

1 64

i.xc3 22 .l:!.xc7 i.xb2 23 i.xb2 .l:!xb2 + S.Ivanov-Sivokho, St Petersburg Ch 1999. c) 17 i.g5?! also fails to counter Black's play: 17 . ."ilixe2 18 lhe2 ltJc4! (this is even better than equalizing by 18 ... i.xc3 19 bxc3 f6 20 i.cl ltJc4 A.Graf-Ziiger, Geneva 1999) 19 i.xe7 ltJxb2 20 e5 liJd3 21 l:r.dl and now 21 ...ltJxe5?! 22 ltJxe5 i.xe5+ 23 l:txe5! dxe5 24 d6 ltJg7 25 d7 lDe6 26 i.f6 gives White sufficient compensation for the exchange thanks to the d7pawn. However, the e5-pawn can be taken later, and Black should play 21 ...c4! +. 17 .l:!. a6 (D) =

•.•

x

18 l:tb1!? White's idea is to play b4. Or 1 8 i.g5?! ltJa4! (18 ... ltJc4!? is no doubt viable, but ...ltJa4 is almost always more effective, since exchang­ ing off White's c3-knight weakens a2, e4 and a4, while the greater exposure ofb2 is also useful for Black), and then: a) 19 i.cl?! (such moves can't even maintain equality) 19 ...ltJc7 20 liJd2

f5! 21 f3 e6! (improving over 21....l:.b4, Becking-Van der Weide, Saarlouis 2002) 22 dxe6 ltJxe6 with a slight ad­ vantage for Black. b) 19 ltJxa4 .l:.xa4 (Black has opened all the lines he needs) 20 e5 (there is no other way to defend both b2 and e4; 20 i.xe7? .l:lxe4 21 i.g5 i.xb2 22 J:r.d 1 i.f6 + leaves White with weaknesses on a2 and d5) 20 ... f6! 21 exf6 lDxf6 22 l:tel .l:!.xa2 23 l:he7 ltJxd5 24 l:r.d7 and now 24 ...i.f8! + is best. Black will take on b2 for free; instead, 24 ... l:taxb2? only led to an equal position after 25 .:txb2 i.xb2 26 .Uxd6 liJb4 in Golod­ Van der Weide, Hoogeveen 1998. 18...ltJa4!? This is untried but logical. Black makes a planned move and prevents b4. Instead, 1 8 ... ltJc7?! allows White to demonstrate his idea: 19 b4! c4 20 b5 ! .Ua5 21 i.e3 f5? (allowing a typi­ cal idea: 2l...i.xc3 is more resilient, though after 22 lhc3 lha2 23 liJd4 ;!;, lDc6 is coming anyway) 22 liJd4! i.xd4 23 i.xd4 fxe4 24 i.xb6! .l:.xb6 25 a4 with a lost endgame for Black, Poobesh Anand-R.Scherbakov, Pune 2004. 19 liJd1 Or 19 liJd2 f5 ! 20 ltJxa4 l:!.xa4 21 b3 l:!.a7 22 f3 fxe4 23 fxe4 ltJc7, with compensation. 19 ltJc7 20 b3 f5! Again ... f5 works! After 21 exf5 ltJxd5 ! 22 fxg6 ltJac3 23 gxh7+ 'ittxh7 24 ltJg5+ 'iti>g8 25 ltJxc3 ltJxc3 26 .l:.bb2 Black can, if he wishes, take a draw by repetition with 26 ...liJdl 27 �bl ltJc3. ..•

BENKO A CCEPTED: KING WALK

1 65

82)

10 g3 l2Jbd7 It's also possible for Black to start with 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 'it>g2 lDbd7, reaching the same position. 11 'it>g2 0-0 (D)

w

w

a1) 16 l::tc 1 l2Jc4 17 '1We2 '1Wb4 18 a3 '1Wb3 19 lDd 1 l:!.a4 20 '1Wc2 l:!.b8 21 '1Wxb3 .l::!.xb3 Van der Sterren-Van Wely, Dutch Team Ch, Breda 1997. White can't escape from Black's pres­ sure, while Black has no way to turn the screw at the moment. a2) 16 '1We2 .:!.fb8 17 l:tacl '1Wa6! (the threat of ... l2Jd3 virtually forces White to take on e5) 18 i.xe5 .i.xe5 19 .:.c2 '1Wxe2 20 l:texe2 .l:ib4 21 a3 l:.b3 22 l2Jd1 .i.d4! 23 l2Je3 .i.xe3! (preventing l2Jc4) 24 .l::!.xe3 l:.xe3 25 fxe3 l:tb8 26 'it>f3 .l:!.b3 Karpov­ Salov, Belgrade 1996. White is a pawn up, but the activity of Black's rook provides full compensation. b) 13 '1Wc2 '1Wb6 14 a4!? (this logi­ cal move, seeking to place the knight on b5, has not been suggested before; Black got sufficient compensation in Spiess-Vogt, Leipzig 1997 after 14 .i.f4 l:!.fb8 15 .l::!.ab 1 '1Wa6 16 h3 l2Jge5 17 l2Jxe5 l2Jxe5 1 8 .i.xe5 .i.xe5 19 b3 c4) 14 ... '1Wb4! 15 .i.d2 (or 15 l2Jb5 l:tfb8 16 .l:i.a3 l2Jb6 {attacking a4} 17 b3 c4 with compensation) 15 ... �fb8 16 l2Jd1 '1Wb7 (16 ...'1Wb3?! is not good =

Here White has two main moves: B21: 12 .l:i.e1 165 168 B22: 12 h3 The latter prevents ... l2Jg4, while the former just ignores this idea. 821)

12 .:!.e 1 l2Jg4 Now White has many possibilities. 13 '1We2 Or: a) 13 i.f4 is a strange move. The best squares for this bishop are g5 (to attack e7) and d2 (to prepare b3 by de­ fending the c3-knight). There is not much for it to do on f4 with knights on g4 and d7. It can potentially take a black knight on e5, but such an ex­ change rarely gives White much hope of any serious advantage. 13 ...'1Wa5 14 h3 l2Jge5 15 lDxe5 l2Jxe5 (D) and now:

=

1 66

ATTA CK WITH BLACK

since after 17 'i¥xb3 .l:r.xb3 18 a5 ;t Black can't do anything real; White plays ll.c3 and .l::te2, and enjoys his ma­ terial advantage) 17 h3 tLlge5 18 tLlxe5 .txe5 19 il.c3 (after 19 l:ta2 f5! the d5pawn becomes vulnerable) 19 ... .txc3 and here: b1 ) 20 �xc3 'i!Va6 21 tLle3 l:lb4 22 b3 'i¥b7 (not 22 . Jhe4? 23 tLlg4! .l:r.xg4 {23 ....l:r.xe1 ?? 24 tLlh6+ 'iii>f8 25 'iVh8#} 24 hxg4 ±) 23 tLlg4 f6 intending ... h5 and ... l:tb8. Black is OK. b2) 20 bxc3 .l:r.a5 followed by ... 'i¥a6, ... tLle5, etc. The black pieces domi­ nate. c) The idea of advancing with h3 and f4 should not be good since White weakens his kingside too much with all these pawn moves: 13 h3 tLlge5 14 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 15 f4 (15 'i¥e2?! doesn't halt Black's plans because of 15 ... c4! followed by ... tiJd3) 15 ... tiJd7 (D) (in case of 15 ... tLlc4 the black knight is pushed back by 16 �d3).

with good compensation, while 16 a4 has never been played but looks a logi­ cal try, as White hopes to post his knight firmly on b5. 16 ...'itb8! looks the most convincing reply: the f8-rook will go to c8 to support the ... c4 ad­ vance, while the knight will jump to c5 and the queen is ready to be de­ ployed to various squares on the b­ file. Then: cl) Trying to block the b-file by 17 tiJb5 does not work due to 17 ... tiJb6!, intending to take on a4 with this knight (that's why the queen moved to b8 - the b6-square was reserved for the knight). After 1 8 'i¥b3 'itb7 Black intends .. Jlfb8 and ... tLlxa4. c2) 17 �c2 c4 18 .te3 �b4 19 l:tecl l:tfc8 gives Black sufficient com­ pensation. d) 13 .l:.e2 �b6 (13 ... 'ili'a5 !? is also fine for Black: 14 .l:tc2 tLlge5 15 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 16 �e2 �a6! 17 'itxa6 .l:!.xa6 18 il.d2 .l:tb8 with compensation, Gavri­ lov-Andreikin, Moscow 2012) 14 .tf4 l:.fb8 15 l:tc1 'iVa6 16 :tcc2 (the white rooks have safely defended the b2and c3-squares) 16 .. J::tb4 17 �d2 (Mil­ w anovic-Pap, Belgrade 2001; I don't see any reason to force the g4-knight away: 17 h3?! tLlge5 18 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 19 .txe5 .i.xe5 20 b3 c4 gave Black good compensation in Kaidanov-Wang Zili, Erevan Olympiad 1996) 17 ....l:!.ab8 (l7 ...tLlge5 !? is also possible) 18 b3 c4 19 bxc4 .l:hc4 leaves Black's pieces active enough to compensate for the material imbalance. e) 13 tiJd2 tLlge5 14 'ife2 (threaten­ Now both 16 'itc2 'itb6 17 a4!? (a new move) 17 ....l:r.fc8 1 8 il.d2 c4 and ing to trap the knight by f4) 14 ... tiJb6 16 .l:.e2 �b6 17 'ilfc2 l:tfb8 leave Black 15 f4 tLled7 (D) and then:

BENKO A CCEPTED: KING WALK

167

on the black king by playing e6. Now the e6 advance will be met by ... f5. e2) After 16 a4 (stopping ... lt::la4) 16 ... J.xc3!? Black regains the pawn and while the long dark-square diago­ nal may look worrying, he has ideas of blocking it by playing ... e5 (twice, if necessary!), and other resources too. 17 bxc3 lt::lxa4 18 c4 and now: e21) 18 ... lt::lab6 is possible, though it is not the safest move. Then: e21 1) 19 J.b2 lt::la4 20 l:.abl !? (20 .tel lt::lab6 Lalic-Bures, Pardubice 2010) 20 ... e5 ! 21 dxe6 fxe6 22 J.al lt::lab6 23 'ii'd3 Vi'e7 White can't profit from his control of the long di­ agonal since Black is ready to block it by ... e5. Moreover, Black controls the a-file. e212) 19 .ta3 e5 ! 20 dxe6 fxe6 followed by ... 'ike7 and ... e5. e22) I agree with Alterman's ad­ vice to play 18 ... lt::lc 3 !, as from here the knight can transfer to b4 via a2, se­ curing an equal position: 19 I!xa8 'i'Vxa8 20 'ife3 lt::la2 21 J.b2 l:.b8 22 .tal lt::lb4 23 'iVc3 f6 24 e5 fxe5 25 fxe5 lt::lxd5 ! (the only move, but good enough) 26 cxd5 Vi'xd5+ and ... lt::lxe5 with full equality; White seemingly can't remove the knight from this cen­ tral outpost. 13 'iVa5! A strong move; Black wants to take on c3. 14 ltld2 After 14 J.g5, the move 14 ...J.xc3!? (rather than 14 ... .l:r.fe8, Lalic-Aikhoje, British Ch, Scarborough 1999) has not yet been tested, but it is a typical strategic idea: Black exchanges his =

el) 16 ltlf3 lt::la4! (usually, if Black plays ...lt::la4 there are no problems for him any more, and this position is not an exception) 17 lt::ld 1 (Black is OK af­ ter 17 lt::lxa4 .Uxa4 18 a3 'ika8 19 l:bl c4 followed by ... lt::lc5-d3, ....:tb8, etc.) 17 ...'ii'b6 and here: el l) 18 e5 is a weighty decision as it both blocks the g7-bishop's diago­ nal and weakens the white d-pawn. 18 ...'ii'b7 19 'ii'e4 .lir.fc8!? (this is a new move, intending ... c4 and bringing one of the knights to c5; 19 ... <&ti>h8 was played in Yusupov-Baklan, Bundes­ liga 1997/8) 20 b3 (20 e6? is not good in view of 20 ... f5 ! 21 Vi'd3 lt::lf6 +) 20 ... lt::lab6 2l ltlc3 dxe5 22 fxe5 c4! 23 b4 lt::la4! (one knight removes the c3knight, while the other will come to b6 to attack the d5-pawn) 24 lt::lxa4 l:.xa4 with sufficient compensation. el2) 18 l:tbl permits a rather un­ usual tactic: 18 ... lt::lc 3! (18 .. .'ili'a6 was chosen in M.Gurevich-Banikas, Kor­ inthos rapid 2002) 19 lt::lxc3 J.xc3 (the a2-pawn falls) 20 .l:r.dl :xa2 21 e5 and now 21.. .lt::lb8 ! is an important move as White intended to launch an attack =

=.

=

•.•

A ITA CK WITH BLACK

168

dark-squared bishop and blocks the long diagonal by ... f6. 15 bxc3 f6 16 il.d2 'i!fa4! (securing the c4-square for one of the knights; the natural 16 . J�tb8?! leads to an unpleasant po­ sition with an awkward knight on f7 after 17 liJh4! li:\ge5 18 f4 liJf7 19 a4 1) 17 lii.ebl lHb8 followed by ...li:\ge5c4. White has no plan for improving his position. 14 .Jtxc3 15 li:\c4 15 'ifxg4 is not dangerous for Black: 15 ... .txd2 16 il.xd2 Vi'xd2 17 'iYxd7 lilfe8 18 b3 'iiff8 19 a4 llab8 (leaving the e8-rook free to fend off the white queen; 19 ... lieb8 was played in Tal­ laksen-Haugli, Norwegian Team Ch 2010/1 1) 20 l:ad1 'ilfc2 21 e5 (the only way to seek any advantage) 21...l:ted8 22 'ili'c6 'ili'xb3 leaves the position equal since after 23 .l:!.b1 Vi'xb1 24 llxbl .l:txbl the black rooks easily contain White's a-pawn. 15 .'�a6 16 bxc3 li:\ge5 17 li:\xe5 li:\xe5! (D) =

•••

=

18 .th6 Now: a) 18 ... l:.tb8?! loses control of the b-file: 19 �xa6 l:txa6 20 .:!.ebl t in­ tending l:!.b7. b) The natural 18 ...'ifxe2 19 .:!.xe2 litb8 allows White to secure some chances by 20 a4 li:\c4 21 a5 lixa5 22 l:txa5 li:\xa5 23 e5, though this isn't too much, Moiseenko-Tukhaev, Ukrainian Ch, Kharkov 2004. c) I propose the new continuation 18 ... .l:tfe8!?. Then 19 a4? liJd3 ! costs White the exchange since 20 .lir.edl?? loses the queen to 20 ... liJf4+, while 19 'iWxa6 .:!.xa6 leaves Black with no problems since he controls c4, d3 and a4 (after .. J:Iea8). After 20 l:teb1 f6! Black intends to use his king to de­ fend e7. This is the point of playing 18 ....l:!.fe8 instead of 1 8 ... .l:!.tb8 - there after 20 .l:!.ebl Black had no time for 20 ... f6. =

••

w

B22)

12 h3 'ifa5 (D) This and 12 ....l:!.a6 are Black's two most popular choices after 12 h3. w

It's better for Black when White takes on a6 himself.

BENKO A CCEPTED: KING WALK

Before we start to look at theoretical variations, let's consider some general themes that will help us to understand events on the board. It's clear that Black's main idea remains the same ­ pressure on the a- and b-files from his rooks and queen backed up by the g7bishop and both knights (mostly via c4 but possibly from other squares). How should White counter his opponent's plan? There are two main ideas. The first is 13 �e1 followed by e5. How­ ever, almost all the variations have al­ ready been analysed in depth and often end with drawish positions. An­ other option is to create a blockade on the queenside light squares with pawns on a4 and b3 and pieces defending them and preventing ... c4. This is a similar concept to the plans we see White adopting in Chapters 14 and 15. Black naturally tries to disrupt this plan; possible ways to do so are ...lt:Jc4, exchanging queens (usually in Black's favour), setting up a blockade on the a3-square after b3 is played, etc. 13 lilel White's usual plan with this move is the e5 advance; he can also follow up with l:te2 (and even llc2), defend­ ing b2 so that the queen's bishop can be developed. In my opinion, Black should be quite safe in these lines, since the e5 idea is not dangerous, while l:te2 looks awkward (or at least not aggressive) and Black can simply get on with his own plans and secure good play. Moreover, it very often turns out that the rook would be more useful on other squares (d 1, c 1 or even b1). My main reason for having 13

1 69

l:lel as the main line is that it is the most popular in practice. White's principal alternatives both fit in with his queenside plans: a) 13 ..td2 (D) and now:

a1) 13 ... li:Je8?! is unconvincing as it lets White continue his own plan: 14 iic2 lt:Jc7 (Kelecevic-Hertneck, Aus­ trian Team Ch 199617) 15 a4!? ;;!; fol­ lowed by ti:Jb5 (or ti:Jd1-e3), ..tc3, etc. a2) 13 ... li:Jb6 (the knight immedi­ ately sets off to cause trouble for White on the queenside) 14 'i!Ve2 (stopping ... lt:Jc4; another way to do this is 14 b3, but after 14 ... lifc8 15 'i!Ve2 'i!Va6! the exchange of queens will give Black long-lasting compensation) 14 ...'ti'a6! 15 �xa6 l:.xa6 16 b3 ti:Jfd7 intending ... f5, ... c4, ....l:.fa8, etc., gave Black compensation in Tyda-Jaroch, Gdansk 2009. b) 13 'ifc2 and now: bl) Here is a good illustration of White's dream in this line: 13 ... .lil.fb8 14 i.d2 li:Je8 15 llhb1 ! (that's why White left his rook on hl !) 15 ....l:'tb7 16 a4 'ti'a6 17 ti:Jdl ! (preparing i.c3)

A TTACK WITH BLACK

1 70

17 ... .:labS 1 S i.c3 i.xc3?! (Black could try 1S ... i.h6!?, to avoid bring­ ing the d1-knight to an active post) 19 tt:lxc3 .l:tb4 20 b3 tt:lef6 21 tt:ld2 ± Gligoric-Tseshkovsky, Bled/Portoroz 1979. Black achieved nothing on the queenside. b2) 13 ...tt:lb6 and here: b21) 14 .:!.b1 tt:lfd7 (Black has pre­ vented b3, and exerts pressure on White's queenside; now Black can gradually improve his pieces) 15 i.g5 .l:.feS 16 l:.hc 1 i.xc3! 17 bxc3 ( 17 �xc3?! 'ii'xc3 1S l:txc3 l:txa2 19 b4 tt:la4 20 :tee 1 f6 21 .i.e3 .:taS + Ada­ mantidis-Pikula, Zurich 201 1) 17 ... f6 1S .i.h6 'it'xa2 19 �b2 'iVa4 with equal­ ity. b22) 14 11e1 (D) and now: B

... .

•

•

� � -··

•

-·-· - - -·· � � � �----� � • -�· • ·�· • • � .ttJD �

(/.' "'"'

Jo', ..

?.

, ·

"'

b2221) White can't push the knight back by 15 1Wb3 because of another queen-exchange idea: 15 ...'iVb4!? 16 'ii'xb4 cxb4 17 tt:lb5 tt:ld7 and Black's pieces (the aS-rook, g7-bishop, c4knight and the b4-pawn) are perfectly placed. b2222) After 15 a4 l:tfbS 16 tt:lb5 (an important tactical motif is re­ vealed by 16 e5 tt:leS 17 exd6 tt:lxb2! 1 S .i.xb2 l:hb2 19 'ii'xb2 .i.xc3 20 'ii'b7 .i.xa1 21 Iha1 exd6 with equal chances) 16 ... .l:!xb5 17 axb5 'i!i'xa1 1 S 'ii'xc4 tt:ld7 all the black pieces are more active than their white counter­ parts and Black has sufficient com­ pensation. 13...l:.tb8 (D) w

� �

'

,,

� DiY.� D
g

'

�

x+�

m '

'

"

g�

�

•

b221) After 14 ... tt:lfd7?! 15 i.g5 �feS 16 tt:ld1 !, intending i.d2-c3, Black's position again looks suspi­ cious; e.g., 16 .. .'ii'a6 17 i.d2 tt:la4 1S tt:lc3 c4 19 b4! tt:ldb6 20 a3 ;;!; Bel­ monte-Karatekin, Calicut 199S. b222) That's why I am proposing 14 ...tt:lc4!?:

Now the coverage divides as fol­ lows: B221: 14 lie2 171 B222: 14 'ili'c2 172 B223: 14 eS 174 The thinking behind the move 14 e5 is self-evident: White carries out the central pawn-break that his previous move prepared. But as I have already

BENKO A CCEPTED: KING WALK

mentioned, Black has little to fear. With the other two moves, White seeks a light-squared blockade on the queen­ side by �c2, i..d2, a4, b3, etc. If Black does not disrupt this plan, White usu­ ally gets the better position. 822 1 )

14 .l:!.e2 I am unimpressed by this move on general grounds, since these little rook moves seem awkward and fail to ad­ vance White's main plan, i.e. a4 and b3. Anyway, the queen or rook will need to move to c2 to defend the c3knight. 14 ltJe8 15 l:tc2 White completes the second-rank rook manoeuvre. Other moves: a) 15 i..g5?! has achieved a good score in practice, but Black has a safe way to secure at least enough compen­ sation: 15 ... i.. xc3! 16 bxc3 f6! 17 i..d2 �a4! (gaining control of c4) 18 �e1 ltJc7 (in Example 21 of Chapter 18 'Tactical Exercises' - you can see the game Grabliauskas-Khalifman, Vilnius 1997, where Black chose 18 ... 'ifc4, also with good play) 19 h4 'itc4 20 h5 (Grabliauskas-Oleksienko, Lvov 2010) and here the cold-blooded 20 ... g5 ! + would stop White's attack and fix Black's advantage. b) 15 �c2 (combining l:te2 with �c2 looks especially strange since it's not clear why White played Ile2) 15 ... ltJc7 16 ..td2 and now: bl) 16 ... ltJb5?! is unconvincing, since 17 a4 (17 ltJxb5?! 'i!Vxb5 18 i.. c 3 i..xc3 19 bxc3 l:la3 20 c4 'ii'b4 with compensation) 17 ...liJd4! ( 17 .. .'ii'a6? •••

1 71

18 ltJxb5 .l:.xb5 19 i..c 3 .l:!.b7 20 i..xg7 �xg7, Servat-Panno, Argentine Ch 1995, 21 .l:.e3! ± followed by b3) 18 ltJxd4 cxd4 19 liJb5 gives White two connected passed pawns, which could easily become a decisive factor; e.g., 19 ... �d8 20 l:teel ltJc5 21 b4! (White sacrifices an exchange to advance his pawns a little further) 2l...d3 22 'i!Vc4 ltJxe4 (22 ... i..xal? 23 bxc5 i..f6 24 c6 +-; 22 ... ltJxa4 23 liJd4 l:1c8 24 ltJc6 i..xa1 25 l::.Xa 1 'i!Vd7 26 'i!Vxd3 ;!;;) 23 'i!Vxe4 i..x a1 24 .l:.xal .l:!.xb5 25 i..c 3 .l:lbb8 26 a5 ;!;; with a promising end­ game for White. b2) 16 .. .'ii'a6 ! (the black queen eyes the e2-rook) 17 i..g5 (17 i..e 1, Moro­ vic-A.Hoffman, Argentine Ch 1995, 17 ...ltJb5 18 ltJxb5 l:txb5 19 i..c 3 i.. xc3 20 bxc3 l:ta5 gives Black the better chances thanks to the activity of his major pieces) and now Black has a choice between immediate simplifica­ tion or playing for long-lasting com­ pensation: b21) 17 ... .:!.xb2 18 �xb2 i..xc3 19 'it'xc3 'i!Vxe2 20 l:!.e1 'i!Vxa2 21 i..xe7 .liteS 22 ..tf6 (22 i.. xd6? liJb5 -+) 22 ... ltJb5 23 'itb2 'itxb2 24 i..xb2 f5 with an equal endgame. b22) 17 ...ltJb5 18 ltJxb5 %1xb5 gave Black a pleasant game in Markus­ L.Vajda, Hungarian Team Ch 2001/2. c) With 15 i..f4 White prepares e5 but the natural 15 ... i..xc3 !? (deviating from Doric-Brumen, Zagreb 201 1) 16 bxc3 'ifxc3 wins back the pawn and leaves Black with nothing to worry about. 17 l:tc1 'i¥a3 18 e5 f6! (regain­ ing control of e5) 19 exd6 exd6 20 l:le7 l:ta7 21 l:.b1 l:tba8 and ... ltJe5 =.

1 72

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

15 �b6 White intends b4. 18 b3?! f5 ! 19 The knight heads towards both the exf5 .txc3! 20 l:!.xc3 �xd5 21 l:.d3 a4- and c4-squares. �b4 22 l:.d2 gxf5 23 l:.e2 e5 + Ruste­ 16 'ii'e2 'ii'a6! (D) mov-Tregubov, FIDE Knockout, New Delhi 2000. Black's pawns look scary. 18 �c4 Not: a) 1 8 ... �a4? (this typical move does not work here) 19 �dl ! (the b3 advance is coming) 19 ... �c7 20 b3 f5 21 �d2 �b6 22 b4! ± Neverov-Van der Weide, Hoogeveen 1999. b) 18 ... �c7?! 19 b4! c4 20 b5 (20 iLe3?! 1Lxc3 21 :xc3 �b5 22 l:tccl c3 and ... �c4) 20 ... l:ta5 21 ..te3 .txc3 22 l:.xc3 lha2 23 �d4 ;!;. Black has won the pawn back, but the 'hole' on c6 is now a problem. Exchanging the queens is the easi­ 19 b3 est way for Black to retain good play. 19 b4!? is surprisingly still possi­ It nullifies White's active plans, and ble, though I'm not sure if any human enables Black gradually to develop an player would choose it. 19 ... cxb4 20 initiative on the queenside. �e2! (White wants the c6-square for 17 'ii'xa6 one of his knights) 20 ... �a3 21 1Lxa3 17 �gl can be met in two good l:!.xa3 22 �ed4 �f6 23 �c6 l:!ba8 (the ways: a2-, e4-, b4- and e7-pawns are hang­ a) 17 ... �a4 is a perfectly reason­ ing; although White is the first to able 'human' decision, exchanging off make a capture, he can't get an advan­ a good defensive piece (the c3-knight). tage) 24 l:.xb4 SLf8! and . J::txa2. After 18 'i'xa6 .l:.xa6 19 �ge2 �c7 20 The c6-knight is of course strong, but a3 f5! Black had ideal compensation in White has nothing else that is very Beliavsky-Khalifman, Linares 1995. special. This is Example 22 from Chapter 18 19 �a3 20 ..txa3 .:r.xa3 ('Tactical Exercises'), and further ex­ Black is fine, Borsuk-Calzetta Ruiz, planations can be found there. European Women's Team Ch, Kher­ b) A more concrete continuation is sonissos 2007. The a2-pawn is block­ 17 ... 1Lxc3 ! 18 l:.xc3 'i'xe2 19 �xe2 aded and White's dark-squared bishop f5 ! 20 exf5 �xd5 21 .l:lf3 �b4!, with has been exchanged. good chances for Black thanks to his mass of pawns in the centre. 8222) 17 l:!.xa6 18 .l:.b1!? 14 'ii'c2 �b6! (D) ••.

••.

=

•.•

•.•

BENKO A CCEPTED: KING WALK

Black immediately brings this knight closer to the critical squares. I could not find a good way forward for Black after 14 .. .
exchanges his dark-squared bishop, plays ...f6 to keep the centre closed and creates weaknesses on White's queenside. 17 bxc3 f6 18 i.h6 'ii'xa2 19 l::tb2 'ii'a4 + Anastasian-Alterman, Komotini 1992. b) 15 i.d2 lZ:lc4 16 b3 lZ:lxd2 (as we already know, the exchange of the knight for White's dark-squared bishop is generally in Black's favour, though in the line after 14 ... lZ:le8?! it didn't help because White had control of all the key squares on the queenside: a4, b5 and c4) 17 lZ:lxd2 lZ:ld7 18 l:.e3 (Haba-Hess, Hohenloh 1994) 18 ... i.d4 19 lZ:lc4 'ii'b4 20 l:!.f3 lZ:le5 21 lZ:lxe5 ..ltxe5 After the text-move ( 1 5 lZ:ld1 !) for a long time I could not find a fully acceptable continuation for Black. Finally, I figured out that Black's queen is not well placed on a6 since it allows White to play a4. This is the logic behind the new move that I pro­ pose here: 15...'ii'b5! Here is a brief summary of the vari­ ations I analysed before finding this idea: a) 15 ...lZ:lfd7 16 i.d2 'ii'a6 (White has a larger advantage after 16 ...'ii'a4?! 17 b3 'ii'a3 18 .i.c3 .i.xc3 19 lZ:lxc3 ±) 17 .i.c3 :t. b) 15 ... 'ii'a6 16 .i.d2 lZ:la4 (16 ... .l:!.a7 17 a4 lZ:lc4 18 ..ltc3 lZ:ld7 19 .i.xg7 �xg7 20 b3 lZ:la5 21 lLld2 llab7 22 l:!.b1 ;;\;; 16 ... lZ:lfd7 17 ..ltc3 ..ltxc3 18 lZ:lxc3 ;;\;) 17 b3 lZ:ld7 18 lZ:lc3 lZ:lab6 19 a4 lbe5 20 lZ:lxe5 i.xe5 21 lh2 lZ:ld7 22 f4 ..ltg7 23 lZ:le2 and although a draw was agreed in A.Shneider-Kostiuk, =.

w

15 lZ:ldl! This seems the most dangerous line for Black. White prepares the tempo­ gaining .i.d2 while defending b2; he also covers the c4-square. White's other ideas offer Black fewer prob­ lems: a) 15 .l:i.b 1 ?! looks useless in these positions, since it makes the a4 ad­ vance more difficult. Black can reply with 15 ...lZ:lfd7 16 i.g5 .i.xc3 !, which is a typical strategic device. Black

1 73

AITACK WITH BLACK

1 74

Cappelle la Grande 20 12, the final po­ sition is definitely better for White. c) 15 ... c4 and now 16 i.d2? 'ii'a4 17 �c l lbbd7 18 .l:!.e3 l2Jc5 gave Black good compensation in Uhlmann­ Espig, Dresden 1985. However, once more White can seize the advantage by 16 a4! ±, planning i.d2, l2Je3, i.c3, etc. 16 i.d2 There are no other useful moves for White, so the bishop heads for c3. 16 .'i!Ve8! Moving the queen away in order to make a4 impossible. 16 . Jla7? allows 17 a4! ±. 17 i.c3 After 17 lt:Jc3 l2Jc4 18 b3 lba3 (the knight blockades the a2-pawn; this is another case where it's bad for Black to exchange his knight for White's dark­ squared bishop: 18 ...l2Jxd2? 19 lbxd2 ;!; planning a quick a4, lbb5, l2Jc4, etc.) 19 'ifd1 lbd7, followed by ...c4, Black has sufficient compensation. 17 l2Ja4 18 i.xf6 i.xf6 19 l:b1 lbb6 20 b3 l:.a3 Black is OK here. ••

.•.

8223)

14 e5 This is the main move, and obvi­ ously a critical test. If it worked well, Black would need to choose some­ thing different on move 12 or 13. But Black has no problems here. 14 dxe5 15 l2Jxe5 l2Jxe5 16 .l:r.xe5 .lif.b7! (D) This quiet move leaves all the black pieces well harmonized for defence and counterplay. •..

17 �f3 The queen eyes the b7-rook and de­ fends c3. White has a couple of other interesting possibilities: a) 17 d6!? e6! (hoping to prove the d6-pawn weak) 18 .lif.e2 �a6 19 i.f4 �c6+ 20 gl and now 20 ...l2Jd5?! 21 l2Jxd5 exd5 (Shirov-Tregubov, French Team Ch 2004) 22 llbl ! is awkward for Black; e.g., 22 ... c4 (22 . J!txa2? 23 :a1 ! .:hal 24 'ii'x a1 .l:.b8 25 �a7 l:td8 26 'ii'e7 +-) 23 l:td2 l:txa2 24 .l:.xd5 is unpleasant. I prefer 20 ... l2Jd7 !?, in­ tending ... i.d4 and ... e5, while ....lif.xb2 is a threat in some lines. b) 17 �e2 Iiaa7! (the black rooks are well-placed here, doubled on their second rank) 18 a4 l2Je8 (now the knight moves to d6) 19 l:te3 l2Jd6 20 g4 (preventing ...l2Jf5-d4; or 20 .l:.a3 l2Jf5 21 l:.d3 l2Jd4 22 �dl �b4 with com­ pensation, Real de Azua-Coppola, Montevideo 201 1) 20 ... c4 21 'ii'f3 and now: bl) The immediate 2l ....lif.b3?! is not well-prepared because of22 lbe4!. b2) 21 ....l:!b8 22 l:i.a3 .l:tab7 is one way to double rooks. After 23 l2Je4?!

BENKO A CCEPTED: KING WALK

.txb2 24 i.xb2 .l:ixb2 25 lt:lxd6 exd6 Black equalized with no worries in A.Shneider-Khalifman, Moscow 1995. However, the slow 23 lle2!? gives White some chances to develop his pieces without having to return the pawn. b3) 21...l:!.b4!? is the most active way to double rooks. One rook stays on the second rank to defend the e7-pawn while the b4-rook is free to create prob­ lems for White. After 22 :a3 :ab7 Black intends ... i.xc3 and ...l:txa4. 17 lt:le8 The knight repositions to d6, both unleashing the g7-bishop and creating the threat of ... lt:\c4. There is also the possibility of ... lt:lf5-d4. 18 l1e2 lt:ld6 (D) .•.

19 lt:\e4 A possible alternative for White is 19 g4 (stopping ...lt:lf5-d4) 19 ... .l:r.d8 20 a4 (E.Lund-Gunnarsson, Reykjavik 2007), when Black has 20... .tf6!?, de­ fending e7 and freeing the b7-rook. Af­ ter 21 lt:\e4 lt:\xe4 22 .l:.xe4 (or 22 'iVxe4 .li!.bd7 23 g5 i.g7 24 i.f4 l:txd5 25

1 75

'iVxe7 'iVa6, preventing "i¥b7 and so preparing ... .tf8) 22 ... 'ifa6 the queen eyes f1 ; the idea is to play 23 ... .li!.xd5, when after 24 l:txe7? l:txe7 25 "iexd5 Black can win by 25 ... l:.el. Instead, 22 ....li!.bd7 allows White more chances, while the immediate 22 ... l1xd5? 23 .l:r.xe7 l:txe7 24 �xd5 :;!; leaves Black with an unpleasant game. 19...lt:\xe4 (D) w

20 'i!Vxe4 White can also take on e4 with the rook. 20 llxe4 has been successfully played a few times by the Ukrainian GM Vadim Shishkin (e.g., Shishkin­ Jianu, Bucharest 2008). However, Black has a variety of options to keep the balance, of which I prefer 20 ...�d8 (attacking d5) 21 .l:.e2 l:taa7! (an im­ proving/waiting move: Black overpro­ tects e7, the usefulness of which is shown by the continuation 21 ...l:td7 22 .tf4 .l:txd5 23 l:r.xe7), challenging White to demonstrate a useful plan. The most critical is 22 i.f4 l:!.xb2! (the inaccurate 22 ... .l:f.d7? invites the strong reply 23 d6! exd6 24 l:tael ±, while

A ITA CK WITH BLACK

176

22 ... .txb2?! leads to trouble in lines like 23 .l:lbl .tf6 24 l:txb7 l:.xb7 25 d6 .l:r.d7 26 dxe7 .l:txe7 27 l:txe7 'ikxe7 28 a4 ;!;, when the a-pawn is dangerous) 23 :xb2 .txb2 24 l:!.bl lla3 ! (a key move; 24 ...:xa2? 25 'ii'b 3 costs Black his bishop) 25 'iVe4 (another important point is 25 'iVdl e5 ! 26 dxe6 �xdl 27 exf7+ hl .l:.fl+ with a per­ petual check, or 26 'iVc4 'i!i'a8 27 �xc5 h5 20 .'iVa6 A good square for the queen: it at­ tacks e2, defends b7 (important in case White plays d6) and controls the d6-square. 21 a4 .tf6 (D)

22 'iVf3 Another possibility is the untried 22 l:tc2 attacking c5. But then the b7rook plays a major role: 22 ....l:tb4 23 'ii'e3 lid4! and then: a) 24 l:!.xc5 l:idl (intending ...'i!Vfl+) 25 11b5 'i!Vc8! (planning ...'i!Vc4-fl+; also, the c 1-bishop is attacked) 26 .:tc5 (after 26 'ikc5? 'ikf5 Black threatens mate by ...'iVe4+, and 27 'iVe3 :c8 in­ tending . .'ifc2 leaves White worse) 26 ...'ii'a6 27 Ilb5 with a practically forced repetition. b) 24 �f3 .l:.d3 25 .te3 (25 'ii'e4 .l:.d4 26 'ilff3 1ld3 is equal) 25 ... .td4 leaves Black with enough compensa­ tion. 22 ... l:td8 23 .l:tc2 .td4 Now the bishop defends the c5pawn, while the d5-pawn starts to look beleaguered. 24 a5 After 24 .tg5 (A.Shneider-Laza­ rev, Paris 1998) 24 ...11bd7 intending ...f6 (to defend e7) and then ...11xd5, the position is equal. 24 ... :bd7 25 .te3 Or: 25 :e2 .tf6 26 :d2 .td4 ; 25 W.Ve4 :xd5 26 'ii'xe7 .i.e5 ! intending .. .'ita8 and ...:dl. 25 �xd5 Now: a) 26 .txd4?! is dubious since it creates a well-supported passed pawn for Black: 26 ...cxd4 27 b4 (27 .:!.c7!?) The e7-pawn is securely defended 27 ... d3 + Beliavsky-Leko, Cacak 1996. and the b7-rook is free to move along b) 26 �h2!? e5 keeps the position the b-file. equal. =

=.

.•

=

...

1 4 Ben ko Accepted : Fia nchetto Li nes 1 d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS bS 4 cxbS a6 14 Jtb2 0-0 15 li:Jh4 'i!Vh5 16 e4 �xdl 17 .l:tfxdl li:Jfd7 intending ... c4 or 5 bxa6 g6 6 lt'lc3 Jtxa6 7 g3 (D) ... .i.xc3 and ...l:txa2. b) 1 0 0-0 lt'lb6 (heading for c4) 1 1 l:tel 0-0 1 2 e4 lt'lfd7 1 3 'i!Vc2 lt'lc4 (D) and now:

We now begin our coverage of lines where White fianchettoes his king's bishop. They are considered the most dangerous for Black in the Benko Gambit, so we need to pay close attention to them. 7 d6 8 ..tg2 White can play an 'extended fian­ chetto' by 8 li:Jf3 ..tg7 9 ..th3, when Black should play by analogy with the main lines: 9 ... lt'lbd7 and now: a) I 0 .l:.bl is untried, but as in Chap­ ter 15, the idea is to meet 10 ...lt'lb6 with 1 1 b3. However, with the bishop on h3, this is less effective: l l...Jtc8! 12 ..txc8 'ii'xc8 13 0-0 'i!Vf5 (attacking d5) ••.

bl) 14 ..tn transposes to Line B43. b2) 14 i..xd7 has scored well for White, but I find it hard to understand this exchange when White has a bunch of weak light squares. 14...'i!Vxd7 15 b3 lt'le5 (a good alternative is 15 ...lt'lb6!? 16 i..b2 'i!Vg4 {the f3-knight feels un­ comfortable} 17 �g2 'ili'h5 intending ... ..tc8 or . .f5) 16 lt'lxe5 i..xe5 17 .i.b2 f5! (17 ...l:.fd8? gives White time to make an important exchange: 18 lt'ldl ! i..xb2 19 lt'lxb2 ;!; Beliavsky-Palatnik,

AITA CK WITH BLA CK

1 78

Kiev 1978) 18 exf5 (after 18 t'Dd1 i.xb2 19 t'Dxb2 f4 20 t'Dc4 'i!ih3 21 'ii'd 3, as in Kakageldiev-Alburt, Ash­ khabad 1978, Black can reach a type of endgame where he has no problems by 21 ...f3 22 'ili'fl 'ii'xfl + 23 'iitxfl i.xc4+ 24 bxc4 .:!.a4 ) 18 ...l:txf5 19 t'Da4 i.xb2 20 'i!i'xb2 l:.af8 21 f4 and then: b21) 2l...i.b7?! 22 l:tadl e6! (not 22 ... i.xd5? 23 t'Db6 'itb7 24 t'Dxd5 ::r.xd5 25 .l:!.xd5 'ifxd5 26 :xe7 +-) gave Black counterplay in Darznieks­ Shereshevsky, Daugavpils 1973, but it's objectively just enough compensa­ tion. b22) 21...g5! is a new move that my editor Graham Burgess pointed out. It gives Black a strong initiative: 22 l:te4 (22 fxg5? li!.f2 23 'ifxf2 l:!.xf2 24 'iitxf2 'ii'f5+ 25 'iitg l 'ii'xd5 -+) 22 ... gxf4 23 l;lae1 :gS! (23 ...:8f7!? is also worth a try) 24 l:txe7 "ii'g4 25 "ii'c 2 l:tg6 with the better game for Black. 8 ...i.g7 (D) =

178 A: 9 t'Dh3 1 80 B: 9 t'Df3 A) 9 t'Dh3 Of course, the knight on h3 looks a bit ugly but it has its logic: the bishop defends d5 while the knight aims to go to f4. The main disadvantage is that the knight is a long way from the c6square, and this makes Black's coun­ terplay with ... c4 much easier and ef­ fective. 9 t'Dbd7 10 0-0 0-0 (D) •.•

Here White has plenty of possibili­ ties, but his main idea is to play l:tbl, "ii'c2, b3 and i.b2. Black's task is to prevent this arrangement, and his prin­ cipal tools in this effort are the ... c4 advance, putting pressure on the c3knight with .. .'�aS and by unmasking the g7-bishop, and bringing a knight to c4. ll l:lbl Or: Now we consider two knight moves, of which the latter is by far the more a) 1 1 �c2 'iVa5 12 l:tbl is another important: way to reach the main line.

BENKO A CCEPTED: FIANCHETTO LINES

b) 1 1 i..d2 'i!ka5 12 'i!kc2 :ttb8 13 b3 (for 13 l:.abl see the main line) 13 ... c4 14 .l:.abl transposes to the note to White's 13th move below. c) 1 1 lLlf4 does not assist with White's main idea and Black can continue developing his counterplay: 1 1...1i'c7 12 iic2 l:!tb8 13 l:!.bl (after 13 b3 c4! 14 i.. d2 cxb3 15 axb3 'i¥b6 16 l:tabl lLle5 17 l:.fcl l:.c8 we have a picture of typical compensation for the pawn: Black's pieces are so active that White can't free his game; how­ ever, at the moment it's no more than sufficient compensation) 13 ... c4 and then: cl) 14 lLlh3?! lLlc5 15 lLlg5 is an at­ tempt to bring the knight back to a normal square, but it is thwarted by 15 ... i..c 8 ! (preventing lLlf3 due to ... i..f5) 16 f3? (this allows a typical manoeuvre in untypical form; even af­ ter the superior 16 l:.dl i..f5 17 e4 i..d7 + Black is still better, since d3 is weak) 16 ... lLla4! (the d5- and a2-pawns are in danger) 17 lLlxa4 'i!ka7+ 1 8 'it>hI 'ii'xa4 + Yanofsky-Gheorghiu, Siegen Olympiad 1970. c2) 14 i.. d2 (intending life I and an advance by the b-pawn) 14 ... lLle5 15 l:!fcl i..c 8!? (Black aims to weaken the d3-square by ... i..f5) 16 b3 i..f5 17 e4 i..d7 18 lLldl �a7! (counterattack­ ing a2) 19 bxc4 lhbl 20 'iixbl 'i!kxa2 21 'ifxa2 :xa2 22 i..c 3 i..h6! 23 lLle3 i.. xf4 24 gxf4 lLld3 25 :tal .l:hal + 26 i.. x al lLlxf4 with an equal endgame. c3) With 14 i..e3 (Koploy-Cusi, Californian Ch 1996), White wants to place his bishop on d4. Black should naturally disrupt this plan: 14 ... lLlg4!?

1 79

15 i.. d2 .l:ta7 (preparing to double rooks and put pressure on the b2pawn) 16 lLle4 (this is why White pro­ voked ... lLlg4; now the lLle4 and i..c 3 idea is available) 16 ... l:.ab7 17 i..c 3 lLlc5 18 i..xg7
A TTA CK WITH BLA CK

180

After 12 .td2 lttb8 13 b3 (Golov­ The knight wants to move to c4. 14 b3 c4! 15 .:tfcl chenko-Papenin, Serpukhov 2004; 13 'ii'c2 transposes to the main line), the Unfortunately for White, 15 b4? immediate 13 ... c4!? makes the most does not work due to 15 .. Jhb4 16 sense: 14 ll:la4 (or 14 bxc4 l:hbl 15 ll:le4 'ii'a4! + . This is a critical theme 'i!Vxbl .txc4 16 'ii'c2 tt'lb6 followed by for every Benko player to remember. ...tt'lfd7-c5) 14 ...1i'b5 (attacking e2 and 15 cxb3 16 axb3 (D) d5) 15 tt'lf4 (15 .l:.el tt'lxd5 +) 15 ... g5 16 tt'lh3 h6 (again e2 and d5 are hang­ ing) 17 tt'lc3 'ifa5 18 tt'la4 'i!Vb5 12 l:i.tb8 (D) •.•

=.

.•.

13 .td2 13 b3 c4! 14 .td2 cxb3 (14 ... tt'le5 transposes to the main line) 15 axb3 (after 15 l:[xb3 .l:!.c8 Black's compensa­ tion is unquestionable, Aseev-Sivokho, St Petersburg Ch 1996) and now: a) 15 ...l:tc8?! is unconvincing since this move lets White advance his pawn quite far: 16 b4 'i!Vc7 17 b5 .tb7 18 'i¥b3 tt'lb6 (A.Guseinov-Ristic, Ath­ ens 1999) 19 .l:.fc l ! ? t. b) 15 ... 'i!Va3 ! is an important move that prevents the b4 advance and gives Black enough compensation. Next is ... tt'lc5 or . J:tc8. 13 ll:le5 .••

This position occurred in Aseev­ Weber, Bad Wiessee 2002. Now: a) 16 ... .l:.c8?! again gives White more than is necessary. 17 b4 Wlc7 18 b5 .tb7 19 'ii'b 3 t. b) I recommend 16 ... 'i¥b6! to avoid White's b4 advance; only then does Black play ....l:i[c8, maintaining suffi­ cient compensation. Now 17 b4 is met with 17 ...tt'lc4 18 b5 .tb7 followed by capturing on d2 and ... tt'ld7, etc. B)

9 tt'lf3 tt'lbd7 (D) This position can be reached via many different move-orders. But here we see a significant nuance: Black plays ... tt'lbd7 before ... 0-0 so that he has the option of 10 ...tt'lb6 if White plays 10 0-0.

BENKO A CCEPTED: FIANCHETTO LINES

w

Now White has an important choice: 10 0-0 or 10 .l:!.bl . Nowadays, 10 .l::tb 1 is considered White's main weapon against the Benko Gambit - it is ex­ amined in the next chapter. Its main idea is to fight against 10 .. .'�Jb6 by 1 1 b3. But from a strategic viewpoint there are no crucial differences be­ tween these lines, so let's discuss the typical ideas. White's main idea is to restrict Black's queenside counterplay by put­ ting pawns on b3 and a4 and control­ ling the c4- and b5-squares by i.fl, lt:ld2 and lt:lb5 or with his rooks. If White achieves this, Black is usually worse, which is why Black's main idea is to get in first with his counter­ play. This normally involves ... c4 (typically once White has played b3, but sometimes even with the pawn on b2), after which there are three main scenarios: 1) White takes on c4 and Black gets three open or half-open files; 2) White plays b4 and Black tries to blockade the pawns on the a4- and b5-squares;

181

3) White ignores ... c4 and carries on with his plan. Then the main worry for Black is the lt:ld4-c6 manoeuvre; if it's impossible then usually Black is fine. But sometimes (usually in 10 0-0 lines) Black can counter the b3 idea ei­ ther by placing his knight on c4, in­ tending to meet b3 with ... lt:la3, or creating pressure on the c3-knight with his queen and bishop. For White it's highly desirable to prevent the black knight from reaching c4. But if it is already there, he can try to force it away with b3 (he may first play a3 to avoid the a-pawn being blockaded by ... lt:la3). Another way to prevent the white pawns from advancing is to place a queen or rook on a3 or b3 (after b3 or a3 is played). Of course, Black also has the idea of .. .f5 to undermine the d5-pawn, which tends to be especially effective after a certain amount of sim­ plification. Black also has plenty of tactical possibilities, which I shall highlight throughout the text and in the exercises in Chapter 18. 10 0-0 lt:lb6! (D)

182

ATTA CK WITH BlA CK

This move is the reason why White mostly prefers 10 I!b1 instead of 10 0-0. The nuance is that White can't prevent .. .lbc4 by playing b3. While he can also counter this idea by lt::Jd2, it looks a bit too awkward to give White an advantage. Here are our main lines: Bl: 11 lt::Jd2 182 B2: 11 lt::Je l 183 184 B3: 11 I!bl 186 B4: 11 .l:!.el The last of these is the most popular continuation. White hasn't even tried 1 1 b3?! in practice, but we should first verify that this move doesn't work: a) The natural 1 1 .. .lt::Je4? is met with a typical sacrifice: 12 lt::J xe4! .i.xa1 13 .i.h6, when the black bishop can only avoid exchange by moving to a3, which is obviously unattrac­ tive. Then 13 ... .i.f6 14 lt::Jxf6+ exf6 15 lt::Jd2 ;l; is unpleasant for Black; his king is trapped in the centre, the h8rook is out of play for a long time, and White has no weaknesses that might provide targets for counterplay. Al­ ternatively, after 13 ... .i.b2 14 'i!Vd2 .i!.a3 15 .l:i.d l ;l; White defends d5 and plans 'i!Ve3. b) 1 I.. . .i.b7! is the most precise re­ ply, as White can't defend the d5pawn. Now 12 e4? does not work be­ cause Black takes on a2 at the end of the line: 12 ... lt::J xe4 13 lt::Jxe4 .i!.xa1 14 .i.h6 I!xa2 -+ followed by ... lt::Jxd5. That leaves White nothing better than 12 .i!.b2 lt::Jfxd5 +. when Black is better because of his central pawn-majority.

81)

11 lt::Jd2 White seeks to prevent ... lt::Jc4. 11 0-0 12 'i!Vc2 12 .l:!.e 1 transposes to Line B42. White has the interesting idea 12 l::tb 1 (introduced in Dydyshko-Shere­ shevsky, Minsk 1978), preparing b3. But Black has the typical idea of cap­ turing the d3-square; with the new move 12 ... .i.b7!? Black encourages his opponent to play e4: a) 13 lt::Jb 3?! leaves the knight even clumsier than it is on d2. Then I like 13 ... 'i!Vd7! and 14 ... lt::Ja4 with a strong initiative. The game Ju Wenjun-Khai­ rullin, Moscow 2012 (played after I wrote this section of the book) fea­ tured instead 13 ...'i!Vc7, which turned out OK, but seems less pointed. b) 13 e4 .i.a6 14 I!e1 lt::Jfd7 directs the knight to the d3-square; mean­ while the c3-knight is attacked and White can't play b3. 15 a4 (preparing .i.fl, which is impossible right now: after 15 .i.fl?! .i.xfl 16 l:txfl .i.xc3 17 bxc3 I!xa2 + Black is better) 15 ...lt::Je5 16 .i.fl 'i!Vd7! (intending ... .i.xfl and ... lt::Jxa4) 17 b3 .i.xfl and then: b1) 18 lt::Jx fl f5 ! and here: b1 1) 19 exf5?! 'i!Vxf5 20 .i.f4 lt::Jg4 + and the d5-pawn falls. Here's what happens if White tries to defend it: 21 'i!Vd2? (better is 21 I!c1 !?) 21...g5 22 lt::Je3 (22 .i.e3 lt::Je5 -+) 22 ... 'iVg6! 23 lt::Jxg4 gxf4 24 h3 h5 -+. b12) 19 f4 lt::Jg4 20 lt::Jb5 fxe4 21 'i!Vc2 'i!Vf5 22 'i!Vxe4 'i!Vxe4 23 .l:!.xe4 lt::Jxd5 b2) 18 .l:!.xfl f5! 19 f3 c4!. Black un­ dermines everything and stands well. ...

=.

BENKO A CCEPTED: FIANCHETTO LINES

12...�b7! Again Black forces a weakening of the d3-square. 13 e4 .ta6 14 i::td 1 lbg4 (D) 14 ...lbfd7?! is not so good since it allows 15 b3, as in Burmakin-Khalif­ man, Russian Ch, St Petersburg 1998.

15 lDf3 This prevents ... lbe5 but allows ... lbc4. 15 b3?? loses to 15 ....id4 16 lDf3 .ixf2+ 17 �h1 .ie3 -+. 15 ...lbc4 Black's pieces are very active while White has managed to play neither b3 nor a4. 16 h3 lbge5 17 lbxe5 lbxe5 ( 17 ... .txe5 is also possible, although it gives White an important tempo to de­ velop his pieces: 18 .ih6 .l:.e8 19 lbc 1 'i!i'a5) 18 l:l.b1 (or 18 b3 'i!i'a5 19 .ib2 c4 with compensation) 18 ...'ifa5 19 .ig5 .l:tfe8 (lordachescu-Grishchuk, Euro­ pean Team Ch, Porto Carras 201 1) and White can't play 20 b3? because of 20 ... .td3 !. 82)

ll lbe1 (D)

183

B

The knight will move to e3 via c2, to exchange off the black knight when it moves to c4 and to leave the d2square available for the bishop. ll ...lDfd7!? Rapidly transferring the f6-knight to c4 looks the most logical response. You'd expect 1 1 ...0-0 also to work well, but White may gain some advan­ tage by 12 lDc2 lDc4 (bringing the sec­ ond knight to c4 is a bit late now: 12...lbfd7 13 lbe3 lbc4 14 lbxc4 .txc4 15 'i!Vc2 'i!Va5 16 i.d2 t and White pre­ pares to push Black back with the typi­ cal plan of b3 and a4) 13 lbe3 'ii'b6 (13 ...'ii'a5 14 lbxc4 .txc4 15 .id2 lbd7 16 'i!kc2 t is the same position as we saw in the previous bracket; 13 ... lbxe3 14 .txe3 lbg4 15 i.d2 t and White again prepares b3, slowly pushing Black's pieces back), and now: a) 14 lbxc4 ii.xc4 15 b3? .ixb3 + . b) 14 b3!? is possible, but Black copes with it here thanks to some tricky tactics: 14 ... lbxe3 15 .txe3 lbg4 16 ii.d2 c4! and now: b1) 17 l:r.b1? i.xc3 18 i.xc3 lbe3 ! 19 fxe3 (with the rook on b1, 19 ii.d4?

1 84

AITA CK WITH BLA CK

i s less successful for White: 19 .. /t::l x dl 20 �xb6 etJc3 21 l:tb2 etJxe2+! 22 .l:i.xe2 cxb3 -+) 19 ...1ihe3+ 20 �hl 'ii'xc3 +. b2) 17 h3 �xc3 18 i.xc3 etJe3 ! 19 .id4 (19 fxe3? 'ii'xe3+ 20 '>t>h2 'ii'xc3 +) 19 ... etJxd1 20 .ixb6 etJc3 21 .l:!.fe1 cxb3 22 axb3 .l:i.fb8 23 i.e3 lhb3 and then ... �b7 and ... etJb5 with a safe endgame. c) 14 'ii'c2 l:tfb8 and now 15 b3 tbxe3 16 .ixe3 etJg4 17 .id2 c4 gave Black sufficient compensation in Lju­ bojevic-Carlsen, Amsterdam 2006. However, the new move 15 .i:[bl !?, in­ tending to take on c4 and then play b3, looks promising for White. As always, when planning your repertoire, you must be on the lookout for improve­ ments for the opponent over standard theory. 12 tt:Jc2 tt:Jc4 13 etJe3 etJdb6 (D) =

w

which changes the whole nature of the position. That's why I propose to take full advantage by substituting one knight for the other. 14 'ii'c2 14 etJxc4 tt:Jxc4 15 'ii'a4+ is not dan­ gerous in view of 15 ...'ii'd7 16 'ii'c2 'ii'b7, and now: a) 17 'ii'a4+ 'ii'd7 repeats. b) 17 .l:!.bl 0-0 18 b3 'ii'b4 19 bxc4 'ii'xc3 20 'ii'xc3 .ixc3 is a fully accept­ able endgame for Black because of White's weak pawns. For example, 21 .ig5 f6 22 .l:[fc 1 .l:!.fb8 23 l:txb8+ .l:!.xb8 24 l:txc3 fxg5 followed by ...l:tb2 or ... l:tb4. c) 17 a3 !? (since b3 is answered by ... 'ii'b4, White defends the b4-square and prepares b3) 17 ... 0-0 18 b3 .l:!.fb8! (this nice piece of tactics maintains the balance in convincing fashion) 19 .l:r.bl (19 bxc4? 'ii'b 3 20 'ii'xb3 .l:!.xb3 + and both the c3-knight and the c4pawn fall) 19 ... tt:Ja5 20 b4 (the only way to defend the pawn) 20 ... cxb4 21 axb4 'ii'c7 ! 22 bxa5 llxbl 23 'ii'x b1 'ii'x c3 Kiriakov-R.Adamson, Min­ neapolis 2005. 14 ... tt:Jxe3 15 .ixe3 tt:Jc4 16 .if4 'ii'a5 Again Black postpones castling but prevents b3. 17 ll.acl 0-0 18 .l:.fel (or 18 b3 tt:Ja3 19 'ii'd2 .l:!.fb8 intending ... c4) 18 ...l:tfb8 19 b3 etJa3 20 'ii'd2 c4! with compensation, Doroshkevich­ Platonov, Cheliabinsk 1975. =

=

Right on time! Let me repeat: the main reason why 10 .:bl is more dan­ 83) 11 .l:!.b1 gerous than 10 0-0 is that it does not Now this move comes too late due allow Black to bring his knight to c4. After 10 0-0 he has time to do so, to ...

BENKO A CCEPTED: FIANCHETTO LINES

ll i.c4! (D) ...

Black attacks both the a2-pawn and the d5-pawn. 12 lLld2 Or: a) 12 lLle1 i.xa2 13 lLlxa2 .l:r.xa2 14 lLlc2 �a8!? (a new move; White gets an initiative after 14 ...l:f.a8?! 15 b4 ltJa4 16 i.d2 0-0 17 bxc5 ltJxc5 18 lLlb4 ;!;: Khurtsidze-lzoria, Batumi 2003, but it's not clear why Black should bring his rook back instead of making a more useful move) 15 b4 ltJa4 16 i.d2 (16 �d3 ltJd7 =) 16 ... c4 is somewhat unclear, but this position looks much more promising for Black than the one that Izoria got. b) 12 b3?! lLlfxd5 13 ltJxd5 i.xd5 14 'ii'c2 0-0 15 e4 i.e6 + Cacho Reiga­ das-Vallejo Pons, Spanish Ch, Palma de Mallorca 2009. Black's chances are better due to his superior pawn­ structure. c) 12 b4 lLlbxd5 13 ltJxd5 i.xd5 and now: c I ) White does not have any real prospects of advancing his queenside

185

pawns, so 14 a4?! just wastes time. After 14 ... i.e4 15 l:[b3 0-0 16 bxc5 ( ih-1h Sosonko-Ree, Dutch Ch, Eind­ hoven 1993) 16 ...dxc5 + Black's pieces are clearly more active. c2) After 14 bxc5 !? dxc5 15 i.e3 c4 Black is fine. d) 12 ltJg5 !? leads to an interest­ ing position after the forcing line 12 ...i.xa2 13 lLlxa2 .l:r.xa2 14 'ii'b3 l:[a7 15 �b5+ lLlbd7 16 lLle6! fxe6 17 dxe6 0-0 18 exd7 'ifxd7. White's main hopes here are pinned on the pawn-break b4, which would open new lines for his pieces. After 19 �c4+ (19 �xd7 ltJxd7 20 b4 l:tb8 21 .i.e3 .i.d4 =) I propose 19 ... e6!? (this new move has the idea of rearranging Black's central pawns onto light squares; 19 ... �h8 20 i.d2 intending b4 gave White the ini­ tiative in Fochtler-Ristic, Schwabisch Gmtind 1996). Here is a sample line: 20 i.f4 :c8 21 e4 d5 22 exd5 exd5 23 �e2 c4 24 .l:tfd1 l:r.b7 with unclear play. 12 i.xa2 13 ltJxa2 13 llal ? .1l.xd5 14 lha8 ..txa8 + Ac-D.Schwarz, Slovakian Team Ch 2002/3. 13 Jlxa2 14 'iib3 14 b4 is probably safer. 14 ... cxb4 15 e4 lLlfd7 16 .l:.xb4 0-0 = Lima-de Ia Villa, Leon 1997. 14 lia8 (D) White is the only side with anything to worry about here since his b2-pawn is isolated, and the immediate attempt to exchange it does not work very well: 15 'ii'b5+ One way to get a drawish position is 15 ltJc4!? .l:r.b8 (15 ... lLlbxd5? 16 e4 ••.

•.

.•.

186

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

w

lt:Jb4 17 e5 dxe5 1 8 .l:!.d 1 'itb8 19 i.xa8 'i!Vxa8 20 il.e3 is much better for White) 16 'i!Vd3 lt:Jxc4 17 �xc4 'ii'a5 18 b4! J:r.xb4 19 .U.xb4 'i!Vxb4 20 'ii'xb4 cxb4 21 i.d2 0-0 15 lt:Jfd7 16 b4?! lt:Ja4! Now: a) 17 lt:Je4 f5 ! (a new move, im­ proving over the 17 ... 0-0 chosen in Wang Rui-Situru, Singapore 2006; the weakening of the e6-square is no big deal since Black is going to win mate­ rial) 18 lt:Jg5 lt:Jc3 19 'i!Vd3 i.f6 20 lt:Je6 'i¥b6 +. Black wins a pawn or an exchange. b) 17 l:[b3 lt:Jc3 18 'ti'd3 cxb4 19 li!.xb4 lt:Jc5 20 'i!Ve3 'ii'a5 + Stojanovic­ Perunovic, Serbian Ch, Belgrade 2007. Black has pressure. =.

12 .l:.b1 allows Black to win a pawn back by 12 ... i.c4 13 e4 il.xa2 14 lt:Jxa2 (14 .:tal? i.xd5 ! + ) 14 ... .l:!.xa2 15 'ii'b3 l:ta4 16 'ii'd3 'ilic7 with a comfortable position. =,

•••

84 1 }

12 h3?! Here this move is inappropriate since the f6-knight can reach the e5square via both d7 and g4. 12 lt:Jfd7 Unfortunately, Black is unable to keep a knight on c4: 12 ...lt:Jc4?! 13 'ii'c2 lt:Jd7 14 lt:Jd2 'ti'b6 (14...lt:Jdb6 15 b3 lt:Jxd2 16 i.xd2 ;;\; followed by a4) 15 lt:Jxc4 i.xc4 16 i.d2 i.a6 17 .l:r.abl (intending b3 and a4) 17 ... c4 (Black has prevented b3 but now White has another plan) 18 il.e3 'ilia5 19 li!.ed 1 ;;\; 84} and i.d4, Turova-A.Muzychuk, Bu­ ll .l:te1 0-0 (D) charest (women) 201 1 . Again White has a wide choice. We 13 "ifc2 "ifc7! examine: Black now threatens ... i.xc3. He B41: 12 h3?! 186 cannot grab the d5-pawn immediately: B42: 12 lt:Jd2 187 13 ... i.xc3? 14 bxc3 lt:Jxd5 15 i.h6 .l:te8 B43: 12 e4 188 16 lLld2 lLl7f6 17 e4 lt:Jb6 18 e5 dxe5 19 B44: 12 il.f4 190 i.xa8 'i!Vxa8 20 l:txe5 ±. •.•

BENKO A CCEPTED: FIANCHETTO LINES

14 tiJd2 Or: a) 14 a4?! i..xc3 15 bxc3 tiJxd5 16 .i.h6 l:!.tb8 17 tiJd2 and now Black has 17 ... i..b7 =. In the line after 13 ... .i.xc3? this move was impossible because White could reply c4, exploiting the loose bishop on b7. b) 14 .l:td1 Iltb8 (Black can't main­ tain a knight on c4: 14 ... ltJc4 ?! 15 tiJd2 tiJdb6 16 b3 ! tiJxd2 17 i.. xd2 ;!;; followed by a4, l:tab1, etc.) 15 tiJd2 'i!Vb7 (intending to take on c3 and then on d5) 16 tiJde4 tiJf6 17 tiJxf6+ i.. xf6 18 i..h6 (18 b3? .i.xe2! +) 18 ...tiJc4 19 b3 and here: b1) After 19 ... tiJa3 20 'ii'c l ! (20 'iVd2? tiJb5 21 ltJe4 il.xa1 22 l:.xal tiJd4 23 e3 tiJf5 24 il.g5 'iVb4 + Hort­ P.Cramling, London {Veterans vs La­ dies} 1996) 20 ... tiJb5 21 il.d2 tiJd4 22 .i.fl 'flc7 23 l:!.bl it's not so clear what to do for Black, though his position is fine. b2) 19 ...'fib4!? is clearer. After 20 .l:tacl tiJa3 21 ii'd2 c4 22 ltJe4 il.h8 Black has definite compensation. We now return to 14 tiJd2 (D):

187

14 .i.b7! I recommend this new move (vary­ ing from the game Hort-Ristic, Bun­ desliga 1998/9). Black forces White to play e4, since otherwise there would follow ... ..txc3 and ... tiJxd5. 15 e4 il.a6 We see this idea repeatedly in the Benko Gambit - first ... i..b7 provokes White to play e4 and then the bishop moves back to a6 to probe the weak­ ened d3-square. After 16 i..fl c4 fol­ lowed by ... tiJe5, ... l:ifc8 and ... tiJd3, Black is OK. .•.

842)

12 tiJd2 White immediately stops ... t2Jc4. 12...tiJfd7 13 'iVc2 .i.b7 This is a new move, deviating from Antonsen-Skytte, Borup 2010. Black threatens ... i.. xc3. 14 'ilkb3!? Or: a) After 14 e4 Black again gets typical play by 14 ... .i.a6, intending to capture the d3-square. After 15 i..fl i..xf1 16 :txfl tiJe5, intending ... tiJbc4 or ... c4 and ... tiJd3, Black is OK. b) 14 a4!? is interesting: White re­ turns a pawn and tries to seize the ini­ tiative. However, 14 ... il.xc3 15 bxc3 il.xd5 16 e4 il.e6 17 a5 tiJe5 ! (intend­ ing ... tiJbc4) 18 f4 tiJc6 (18 ... tiJec4? loses to 19 f5 ! +-) 19 f5 i..d7 20 a6 'ii'c 8 (Black is OK) 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 e5 tiJxe5 23 i..xa8 'i¥xa8 gives Black strong compensation for the exchange. 14...'ii'c7 Connecting rooks. 15 a4 c4 16 'ilkb5

1 88

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

Otherwise Black takes on c3 and d5. 16 ..ia6 17 'ifc6 17 'i!fb4 lt:Jc5 followed by ... lt:Jbd7 and ....l:.fb8 gives Black sufficient com­ pensation. 17 ...'i!fa7! (D) •.•

a1) 16 ... f6?! (too optimistic) 17 lt:Jd2 .ia6 (there is no immediate tacti­ cal punishment for 17 ... �xa2?! t but l wouldn't be happy about playing a po­ sition with such a bishop) 18 .ih6 llf7 19 f4 ;!; Antic-Rogers, Tuggeranong 2007. a2) 16 ... .l:ta3 !? is (or should be ­ the move is untried!) the whole idea of exchanging the g7 -bishop - Black blockades all White's pawns. 17 e5 (17 'ii'd2?! 'ti'a5 +) 17 ... dxe5 18 lt:Jxe5 lt:Jxe5 19 l:txe5 f6 20 .!:te 1 ..ixd5 21 .ic7! 'ilixc7 22 'ilixd5+ �g7 with an equal endgame. b) 14 'ilic2 lt:Jde5 15 lt:Jxe5 lt:Jxe5 16 �g2 c4 gives Black ideal compen­ sation as his position has no flaws, Escobedo Tinajero-Aldama, Linares 1997. 13 lt:Jc4 (D) •••

Black traps the queen but White collects enough material for it: a) 1 8 lt:Jb5? 'i!fb8 19 a5 .l::tc 8 20 lt:Jc3 (20 axb6? lt:Jxb6 +) 20 ... �xc3 21 bxc3 �xc6 22 dxc6 .ib5 ! + . b) 18 a5 ..ixc3 19 axb6 lt:Jxb6 20 bxc3 .l:tfc8 21 lt:Jf1 .l:.xc6 22 dxc6 'filc7 23 ..ie3 e6 24 .l::teb1 lt:Jc8 with a com­ plicated position. 843)

12 e4 This is a logical consequence of White's previous move. White de­ fends d5 but weakens the a6-fl diago­ nal (especially the d3-square). 12 lt:Jfd7 13 'i!fc2 An alternative is 13 ..if1 lt:Jc4: a) 14 ..ixc4 ..ixc4 15 .if4 .ixc3 ! 1 6 bxc3 and then: .•.

Black has placed a knight on c4 and just two moves are left before he can be completely happy: ... 'ifa5 and .. J:tfb8. Let's see how White can in­ terfere with this plan: 14 .ifi

BENKO A CCEPTED: FIANCHETTO LINES

Or: a) There is no sense in playing 14 a4?! at such a late stage of Black's ini­ tiative. This idea can be effective when White can support the a4-pawn by playing b3, but here he has no such op­ tion. 14 .. .'iVa5 15 li:r.d 1 .l:!.fb8 (Black creates the threat of ... lt:lxb2) 16 l:1a2 ( 16 i.fl ? lt:lxb2! 17 i.xb2 .l:!.xb2 18 'i!Vxb2 i.xc3 19 'i!Vc2 i.xa1 20 .l:.xa1 i.xfl 21 �xfl lt:lb6 + and ... lt:lxa4 with an extra pawn) 16 .. .'ili'b4!? (Black plans .. .'i¥b3 with a better endgame) 17 lt:le1 'ii'b 3 + Mulyar-Gareev, Phila­ delphia 201 1 . b) 14 .l:!.d1?! (moving the rook from f1 to e 1 and then to d 1 creates a strange impression) 14 ...'i!Va5 15 li:ld2? (miss­ ing a typical tactic; 15 a4 transposes to line 'a') 15 ... lt:la3 ! 16 bxa3 'i!Vxc3 17 'i!Vxc3 i.xc3 18 .Ub1 c4 19 li:lf3 l:tfb8 + Averkin-Miles, Dubna 1976. c) 14 i.f4?! weakens the b2-square and gains nothing to make up for this. After 14 ... 'ii'a5 it's important to evacu­ ate the rook from a1 : c1) 15 .l:!.ec1 ?! l:fb8 16 b3 (16 l:tab1 'i!Vb4! {attacking b2} 17 i.fl lt:lxb2 18 i.xa6 Itxa6 + Vijayalakshmi-Tregu­ bov, Gibraltar 2007) 16 ... lt:la3 17 'i!Vd2 lt:lb5 ! 18 lt:lxb5 i.xb5 19 'iWxa5 l:txa5 +. Black wins the pawn back and gets a better endgame. c2) 15 .l:!.ac1 l:lfb8 16 b3 (White fi­ nally forces the c4-knight back, but now ... c4 is coming) 16 ...lt:lce5 (threatening ... li:ld3) and now: c21) 17 lt:lxe5 lt:lxe5 and here: c21 1) 18 i.xe5 (when White ex­ changes his dark-squared bishop like this, it is usually a signal that he has

189

decided to fight for a draw) 18 ... i.xe5 19 f4 i.d4+ 20 'ito>h1 c4!? (20 ... i.xc3 21 'i!Vxc3 'i!Vxa2 + is also possible) 21 lt:le2? (21 'i¥d2!?) 21...cxb3 22 axb3 .l:!.c8 23 'ili'd1 .l:!.xc1 24 'ifxc1 .l:!.c8! (24 ... i.xe2? 25 .l:!.xe2 'ifb4 + Top­ rover-Vasiukov, Voronezh 1997) 25 "i!Vd1 i.e3 -+ with total domination and inevitable threats. c212) 1 8 .l:!.ed1 c4! 19 bxc4 lt:lxc4 20 i.fl l:tc8 + Sriram-Ganguly, New Delhi 2007. c22) 17 .l:!.ed 1 lt:lxf3+ 18 i.xf3 c4! (Black develops his initiative) 19 bxc4 i.xc4 20 lt:le2 (Ruck-Ehlvest, Euro­ pean Ch, Ohrid 2001) 20 ... i.xa2! 21 li:ld4 i.xd4 22 .l:ixd4 lt:lc5 + intending ... lt:lb3; Black still has an initiative. d) After 14 i.g5 h6 15 i.f4 'i!Va5, if we compare with line 'c' (14 i.f4?!) Black has played the extra move ... h6. This may provide an extra object for White to attack, but on the other hand Black gets the option of ... g5 to push the f4-bishop back. 16 .l:!.acl g5 ! 17 i.e3 (or 17 i.d2 li:lde5 18 lt:lxe5 lt:lxe5 19 .l:!.e3 lt:lc4 20 .Uee1 .l:!.fb8 21 b3 lt:lxd2 22 'i!Vxd2 c4! gives Black suffi­ cient compensation) 17 ....:ttb8 18 b3 lt:lxe3 19 l:txe3 i.d4! 20 l:tee 1 lt:le5 21 lt:lxe5 i..xe5 followed by ...c4 leaves Black fine, Garza Marco-Vallejo Pons, Spanish Ch, Palma de Mallorca 2009. 14 'i!Va5 15 i..xc4 Or 15 i..d2 lt:lxd2 16 lt:lxd2, and now: a) 16 ... .l:.fb8?! is too slow due to 17 i.xa6 'ii'xa6 18 a4! (intending lt:lb5 to cover the sensitive spots on White's queenside) 18 ... .l:tb4 19 b3 l:lab8 20 .litab1 i..xc3 21 'i!Vxc3 f6 22 'iii>g2 ;;\; ..•

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

/ 9()

M.Rodshtein-S.Kasparov, Internet blitz 2006. b) I propose the new continuation 16 ... t2Je5 !?, aiming to occupy the d3square. After 17 f4 (17 a4 c4! followed by ... tiJd3 gives Black a very promis­ ing position) 17 ... i.. xfl 18 .l:i[xfl tLlg4 19 tLlc4 'ifa6 20 b3 White appears to have blocked his opponent's play on the queenside but now problems come from the other side: 20 ... i.. d4+ 21 'it>hl (not 21 'it>g2?? �xc4 22 bxc4 tLle3+ -+) 2l ...f5 ! 22 exf5 .l:.xf5 in­ tending ... .l:r.h5. 15 i..xc4 16 i.g5 The e7-pawn is attacked, but this is the only threat White can create here. 16 i..d2 �a6 17 i..f4 l:tfb8 1 8 e5 i.. d3 !? (in Gerusel-Miles, Bad Lauter­ berg 1977 Black played 18 .. .'ii'b7?! and White for some reason believed that the pawn was untouchable; in fact it can be taken: 19 exd6! exd6 20 i.. xd6 lle8 21 .lilxe8+ lhe8 22 'ifa4 !) 19 �d2 i.f5 with multiple ideas: ... i.g4 (to force White to take on d6), ... c4, ... tiJc5-d3 or doubling rooks on the b-file. Black has sufficient com­ pensation. 16 l:!.fe8 17 .l:tacl (D) White wants to play b3, and Black should react to this. 17 i..xc3! A Benko player should always re­ member the option of exchanging the dark-squared bishop! His pawn-struc­ ture is generally solid enough that the weakness of the dark squares around his king can be patched up before it becomes a problem. Of course, Black should be certain that the gains he is •..

•••

•.•

making are worth surrendering such a beautiful bishop. 17 ... h6?! does not disturb White's plan: 18 i.e3 'Ot>h7 19 b3 i.a6 20 i.d2 ;!; Grabarczyk-Heberla, Polish Ch, Krakow 2006. 18 �xc3 i..xa2 Next comes ... f6 to block the al-h8 diagonal and stop e5. Black is fine. 844)

12 i..f4 tiJhS 13 i..g5 h6 14 i..c l White has also tried 14 i.d2 tLlc4, but without his dark-squared bishop, he cannot expect any advantage: a) 15 b3 tLlxd2 16 �xd2 tiJf6 17 %:tacl h5 (with this new move, Black removes the pawn from the gaze of White's queen and awaits White's next move before deciding on further ac­ tion; 17 ...tiJd7 was chosen instead in Engqvist-T.Emst, Swedish Ch, Sunds­ vall 1989) 18 e3 (18 e4?! tiJg4 intend­ ing ...i..h6) 18 ...�a5 gives Black full compensation; for example, 19 tLle4 �xd2 20 tDfxd2 tiJd7. b) 15 �cl t2Jxd2 (a new move, deviating from K.Kakhiani-J.Polgar,

BENKO A CCEPTED: FIANCHETTO LINES

World Under-16 Girls Ch, Rio Galle­ gos 1986) 16 �xd2 (16 lt:Jxd2 'ir'a5 with compensation) 16 ...lt:Jf6 17 e4 lt:Jd7 intending ... 'irb6 and ... .l:.tb8. We now return to 14 .i.cl (D):

191

16 l:r.tb8 (D) ...

B

14 lt:Jc4!? The most popular continuation here is 14 ... lt:Jf6, but I really don't under­ stand why Black should surrender the tempo so readily. 15 lt:Jd2 White can't endure a black knight on c4 for long, and it is logical to push it back right away. 15 �b6!? With this new move, Black is fo­ cused on preventing b3. 15 ... lt:Je5 was met by 16 �c2 intending .l:.bl , b3, etc., in Stohl-Kogan, Koszalin 1999. Black has an easier game if he can avoid obstructing the g7-bishop. 16 'ii'c2 16 lt:Jxc4 .txc4 17 e4 (after 17 'ii'c 2 .l:r.tb8 both b3 and .td2 are impossi­ ble) 17 .. Jltb8 1 8 .tf3 lt:Jf6 19 e5 dxe5 20 .l:lxe5 .l:ta7 intending ... lt:Je8d6 or ... .l:.d8 and ... e6. Black is OK. .••

...

White has no safe and effective way to relieve the pressure on his position and develop his pieces. 17 b3 With 17 llbl White hopes to play b3 without making moves like lt:Jdbl. However, 17 .. .'�a5 ! prevents this idea. After 18 .i.f3 lt:Jf6 19 b3 White has achieved his basic aim, but at the cost of his dark-squared bishop. 19 ... lt:Ja3 20 .i.xa3 'ifxa3 leaves Black with a pleasant game; with the g7-bishop un­ opposed, White can hardly claim an advantage in these variations. 17 . Jifa5 18 lt:Jdb1 Having covered a3, White will push back the knight from c4. But the price now is two tempi, as the knight will move back to d2 from bl in due course. 18 ... lt:Je5 19 ii.b2 c4! 20 lt:Jd2 lt:Jf6 Black can be content with the out­ come of the opening. For example, he has healthy compensation after 21 .Uecl lt:Jfd7 22 l:tabl lt:Jc5 23 .tal h5 (this move emphasizes that White cannot do too much). .

1 5 Ben ko M a i n Li ne with 1 0 �b 1 1 d4 lllf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6 6 tllc3 ..txa6 7 lllf3 d6 8 g3 ..tg7 9 ..tg2 tllbd7 From the previous chapter we are familiar with the main themes of this position and already know that the most precise move for White here is ... 10 .lir.b1 (D) B

thoughts about some of Black's other options . In his detailed and highly regarded books, Boris Avrukh discusses the line 10 ... 0-0 1 1 0-0 �a5, but I disagree with some of his conclusions: a) After 12 �c2 tllb6! Black is able to bring his knight to c4. As we already saw in the previous chapter, this almost always provides enough compensation for the pawn; e.g., 13 l:!.d 1 tllc4 14 tlld2 tlld7 15 tllxc4 i..xc4 16 .i.d2 .i.xc3 ! 17 .i.xc3 �xa2 18 �d2 tllb6 Yusupov-Tregubov, Bun­ desliga 200617. The c3-bishop is not really dangerous since the long dark­ square diagonal can be blocked at any moment by ... f6. b) 12 i..d2 is a more precise move. l2 .. J::Ub 8 13 'itc2 and then: b1) 13 ... tllg4 and here: b1 1) Avrukh recommends 14 b3, claiming an advantage for White after 14 ...�a3 15 h3 tllge5 16 tlle 1 tllb6 17 �d 1 i..c 8 18 tllc2 11i'a5 19 a3 i.. f5 20 tlle4 1!i'a6 21 g4 (Tunik-Shevelev, Is­ rael 2003). However, here the natural 2l ...i..xe4 22 i..xe4 c4 appears to give Black sufficient compensation; e.g., 23 ..tg2 cxb3 24 .lir.xb3 tllbc4 25 .litxb8+ .l:.xb8 26 i.e 1 tllb2 27 1!Ve 1 tllec4. However, any hopes that this might be =

With this move, White prevents the ... tllb6-c4 manoeuvre. Now lO ... tllb6 is going to be met by 1 1 b3, preventing ... tllc4, but I still would recommend this! 10 tllb6 Since many hours and days were spent on the analysis of other lines, seeking to find a reliable course for Black, let me share with you my •••

BENKO MAIN LINE WITH 10 �bl

1 93

the start of a dependable repertoire convincing: 14 b3 tLlb6 15 tLlh4 i.. b7 were dashed when I finally came to 16 e4 i..a6 17 .l:r.fd1 (D) and now: the conclusion that (again contrary to Avrukh's view) White should start with 14 a4!. b12) Avrukh considers 14 a4! less convincing due to 14 ...tLlge5 15 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 16 b3 'ii'b4 (D), when the entry of the queen into a3 threatens to spread disorder among the white forces.

But what happens after 17 .l::!.fcl !? (a new move; Avrukh only looks at 17 tLle4)? White gradually strengthens his queenside before pushing the black queen back; for example, 17 ... 'iia3 18 i..f l .l::!.b6 (18 ...c4? does not help: 19 b4! l:txb4 20 tLlb5 i.. x b5 21 i..xb4 �xa4 22 �xa4 i.. x a4 23 :!a1 and White wins) 19 �g2! (in order to avoid checks from f3) 19 ... l:.ab8 20 tLlb5 ! i.. xb5 21 .l:.a1 i.. d3 (the only move) 22 lha3 i..xc2 23 l:.xc2 .l:.xb3 24 l:.xb3 l:!.xb3 25 a5 l::ta3 26 e3 and White should probably win with accu­ rate play. b2) On the other hand, I found Avrukh's line after 13 ... �c7 rather

b21) Alterman recommends play­ ing 17 ... tLlg4, meeting 18 tLlf3 with 1 8 ...tLle5?! (18 ... tLld7 is better, trans­ posing to line 'b22') but now White executes his typical plan: 19 tLlxe5 i.. xe5 20 a4 ;!;; intending i..fl , again winning control of the b5-square . ... c4 is also impossible due to b4. Black should avoid this type of position. b22) 17 ... tLlbd7 1 8 tLlf3 tLlg4 19 a4 tLlde5 20 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 21 i..e l .Ua7 22 h3 ! (D) intending f4. B

1 94

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

Although Black has an interesting idea in 22 ... g5 !?, White is still able to get an advantage by 23 f4 gxf4 24 gxf4 lL'lg6 25 i..g3 ! l:tab7 (25 ... c4?! 26 b4 ±) 26 i..fl ! ;!;, gaining control of the b5-square. There may be some practi­ cal chances here for Black, but it's not the type of position on which to base your repertoire. Besides these concrete variations, I tried a lot of other moves for Black, trying to exploit the weakness of d3 but every idea could be met advanta­ geously by White. That's why I de­ White follows the basic plan of put­ cided to look for the best solution ting pawns on a4 and b3 to block elsewhere. So we return to 10 ... lL'lb6 Black's play on the queenside. The (D). young Magnus Carlsen did very well in the following game where Black didn't fight against this plan: 1 1 ...0-0 12 0-0 lta7 13 b3 'i!Va8 14 lL'lh4 lL'le8 15 .i.b2 lL'lc7 16 'i!Vd2 .l:lb8 17 .l:.fe1 �c8 18 e4 c4 19 e5 ! ± Carlsen-Calzetta Ruiz, Taormina 2003. A more pointed approach is needed: 11 ...�b7 Black first of all attacks d5 to see how White defends it. If he plays e4, then the a6-fl diagonal is opened, so the bishop can return to a6, preventing 0-0. If the knight moves to h4, it's a signal to prepare ... c4 since the knight Here we consider two main lines, of is further from c6. which the second is the more critical: 12 e4 194 A : 11 a4 12 lL'lh4 has never been played ac­ 195 B: 11 b3 cording to my database. Then: a) At first I thought Black could get 1 1 0-0 transposes to Line B3 of good play by 12 ...'i!Vd7?! (attacking Chapter 14. a4) but White appears to get the better game by 13 b3 0-0 14 0-0 .l:.fc8 (in­ A} tending ... c4; the immediate 14 ... c4? 11 a4 (D) does not work because of 15 il.e3! ±)

BENKO MAIN LINE WITH 10 'g,b]

15 .i.b2! (after 15 e4 .i.a6 16 �el tt::lg4 the knight heads for d3 via e5, and 17 tt::le2 c4! achieves Black's basic aim of executing the ... c4 advance in good circumstances; his compensation is obvious) 15 ... c4 and now 16 .tal ! ;\; is a critical move after which I cannot find anything attractive for Black. b) After 12 ... 0-0 13 0-0 tt::lfd7 it be­ comes clear that White's a4 advance was premature, as now Black's pieces easily find targets; e.g., 14 :tel c4 (in­ tending ...tt::lc 5) 15 il..e3 �c8 16 tt::lf3 l:ta5 ! and the d5-pawn falls. 12 .i.a6 Now: a) 13 e5!? needs to be tried out in practice. My analysis runs 13 ...tt::lg4 14 e6 f5 15 a5 tt::lc4 16 �a4+ 'it>f8 17 �al (defending a5), when I like Black's compensation after 17 ... �b8!, attack­ ing b2. Instead, White appears better after 17 ...tt::lce5?! 18 tt::lxe5 tt::lxe5 19 .i.fl tt::lf3+ 20 'lt>dl .i.xfl 21 �xfl ;\;, b) 13 .i.fl �c8!? (this new move, improving over Epishin-Jones, Deiz­ isau 2003, enables the queen to jump to a6 or h3) 14 .i.b5+ il..xb5 15 axb5 'ifh3 gives Black sufficient compensation.

1 95

B

12 .i.a6 Now White has two main ways to evacuate his king to the kingside: .i.fl or �c2 followed by tt::le 2. 13 i.fl Or 13 'ifc2 0-0 14 tt::le 2, when Black has two good options: a) 14 ... il..b7!? gives Black a good position thanks to a variety of tactical motifs. 15 tt::ld2 .i.a6 16 tt::lf3 .i.b7 and 15 tt::lc 3 .i.a6 merely repeat the posi­ tion, which leaves only: al) 15 0-0? e6! + and the d5-pawn falls. a2) 15 b4? allows 15 ... tt::lxe4!, dem­ onstrating a key idea behind putting the bishop on b7. 16 'ifxe4 .i.xd5 17 'ifh4 (otherwise Black would take on a2 B) with his bishop) and now White can't 11 b3 .i.b7 Again White has two ways to de­ properly complete his development: 17 .. J:lxa2! (17 ... .i.xa2? is unconvinc­ fend his d5-pawn: ing because 18 .l:.b2! .i.xb2 19 .i.xb2 f6 B1: 12 e4 195 20 bxc5 dxc5 21 0-0 leaves Black's B2: 12 tt::lh4 197 pieces poorly coordinated) 18 tt::lf4 (18 tt::lg5 h6 19 .i.xd5 tt::lxd5 20 tt::le4 �d7! Bl) + intending ...�f5 or ...�e6) 18 ... .i.c4 12 e4 (D) This looks like a poor decision be­ 19 tt::ld2 .i.c3! + gives Black a very strong initiative. cause of... =

...

...

/ 96

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

a3) 15 tt'lh4 l:te8! (a preparatory move) 16 0-0 e6 17 dxe6 .l:.xe6 18 tt'lc3 'iVe8 Black wins back the e4-pawn since 19 f3?! is dubious due to 19 ... d5 ! +. b) 14 ... �d7 15 0-0 (D). =.

15 ... 'i!ig4! creates a serious threat to the e4-pawn, as both white knights are pinned. 16 ..ltf4 tt'lh5 ! 17 h3 (Black has no problems after 17 .l:tfc 1 ..ltxe2 1 8 h3! �d7 19 'ifxe2 tt'lxf4 20 gxf4 .l:.a3) 17 .. .'itd7 and now: b1) 18 ..lte3 f5 ! 19 exf5 �xf5 20 �xf5 gxf5 21 l1fe1 ..ltxe2 22 .l:!.xe2 f4! 23 gxf4 tt'lxd5 + leaves White with a shattered pawn-structure. b2) 18 .i.g5 f6! (this new move, pushing back the g5-bishop, improves over A.Grigorian-Iturrizaga Bonelli, World Junior Ch, Puerto Madryn 2009) 19 .i.f4 (19 .i.e3 f5 transposes to line 'b1') 19 ...lt:Jxf4 20 gxf4 ..lth6 +. Black wins the f4-pawn and gains control of all the dark squares in the centre. 13 �c8! 14 ..ltd2 After 14 .i.e2 .i.xe2 15 'ii'xe2 we have a good example of how important ...

it is to look for new ideas not just for 'our' side, but also for the opponent, as I have sought to do throughout my work on this book: a) 15 ...'ifa6?! was played in Bluv­ shtein-Brandenburg, Groningen 2010, in which, after 16 tt'ld2?! 0-0 17 .i.b2 lt:Jfd7 1 8 a4 .l:.fc8 19 lt:Ja2 'i¥xe2+ 20 �xe2 ..ltxb2 21 l:txb2 c4, Black had a very acceptable position and drew rather comfortably against his higher­ rated opponent. From a quick glance at this game in the database, one might conclude that there is no need to seek an improvement for Black here. How­ ever, White could have established control of the queenside by the new move 16 a4!, since Black's counter­ play with ... c4 doesn't work in this po­ sition: 16 . .'itxe2+ 17 �xe2 ;!; c4? 1 8 ..lte3 ! lLlfd7 19 .i.xb6 lt:Jxb6 20 bxc4 lt:Jxc4 21 .l:tb4 ± with a clear extra pawn for White. b) Therefore I propose that Black gets his novelty in first: 15 .. .'ii' h3 ! traps the white king in the centre. Then: b1) After 16 'iVfl ?! 'i!Vxfl + 17 �xfl lLlfd7 18 .i.d2 0-0, intending ...f5 or . . c4, the a2- and d5-pawns are perfect targets. b2) 16 lt:Jg5 �g2 17 �f3 'itxf3 1 8 lt:Jxf3 lt:Jfd7 19 ..ltd2 0-0 has the same ideas ( ... f5 and ... c4). b3) 16 a4 0-0 1 7 lLlb5 (17 1\tfl 1\txfl + 18 �xfl tt'lfd7 also gives Black compensation) 17 ... c4! with sufficient compensation - Black has already started his own play while White is still thinking how to complete his de­ velopment.

BENKO MAIN LINE WITH 1 0 1:J.bl

197

14 0-0 (D) •••

w w

Now: a) 15 a4 (this natural move is un­ tried) 15 ... ..ltxfl 16 Wxfl �h3+ 17 Wgl h6 (to prevent etJg5) 1 8 �fl 'iVxfl+ 19 Wxfl c4! 20 bxc4 etJfd7! (the c4-pawn can be attacked by a rook; after 20 ... ltJxc4 White has the solid reply 21 �e2) 21 �e2 .l:!.fc8 with no problems for Black. b) 15 Jtxa6 �xa6 16 �e2 lbe8! (intending .. .f5) 17 a4 �xe2+ 18 �xe2 f5 19 exf5 ..ltxc3 20 Jtxc3 lbxd5 21 Jtal gxf5 22 .l:.hel lbec7 Cvitan­ Matamoros, Cannes 1996. =

=

82)

12 etJh4 0-0 (D) White has two main continuations: B21: 13 �b2 197 B22: 13 0-0 198 82 1 )

13 i..b2 �d7!? This is my number one choice. Here is why I don't like two other plausible­ looking moves:

a) Black has nothing good in case of 13 ... etJe8?! 14 0-0 lbc7 15 �d2 ;!; Timoshenko-Deriabin, Ukrainian Ch, Alushta 2001. b) 13...c4?! is also unpalatable, due to 14 0-0! (now White is ready to play b4; after the immediate 14 b4?! Black blocks the a2-pawn by 14 ...'iVd7! 15 0-0 lba4 and thanks to the poorly de­ fended a2- and d5-pawns he immedi­ ately gets good play: 16 lbxa4 �xa4 17 a3 �b5 18 e4 c3 19 �xc3 .l::!.xa3 20 �b3 .l:!.a2) 14 ... �d7 15 e4 .l:.fc8 16 �d2 �d8 (Sriram-Alsina Leal, Paris 2009) 17 etJf3 :t. Remember that the h4-knight is always ready to come back towards the centre! 14 0-0 gS There is no time for slow moves like 14 ... h6?! 15 e4 �a6 16 l::te l ltJg4 (Bluvshtein-Perez Mitjans, La Bordeta 20 10) 17 etJf3 ! :t. Again the h4-knight returns to the fray at the first opportu­ nity. 15 etJf3 etJfxdS 16 etJxdS i..xdS 17 ltJxgS �fS (D) After the natural 17 ...i.. xg2?, White has a surprising way to defend a2: 18

A 1TA CK WITH BLA CK

1 98

'i¥c2! f5 19 i.xg7 c:Ji;xg7 20 c:Ji;xg2 ± with a clear extra pawn.

19 c:Ji;xg2 �xg7 Now everything is fine. After 20 �d2 'ilfd5+! the exchange of queens helps to weaken White's pawns, and 21 'tWxd5 li:lxd5 22 .l:l.b2 li:lc3 ! offers Black a comfortable endgame. 822)

13 0-0 (D)

The g5-knight and the a2-pawn are hanging. 18 i.xg7 Or: a) 18 e4 'i¥xg5 19 i.xg7 W/xg7! 20 exd5 l:txa2 +. With the black queen on g7, the idea of playing b4 is not effec­ tive. b) 18 li:lf3 lixa2 19 i.xg7 c:Ji;xg7 20 b4 i.xf3 21 i.xf3 li:ld7 22 �b3 .l:ta7 1h- 1h H.Grtinberg-Polischtschuk, Ger­ many tt 2003/4. The game could con­ tinue 23 bxc5 'tWxc5 24 .l:!.fc1 .l:!.b8! 25 �d3 .litxbl 26 'tWxb1 'iWd4 18 i.xg2! I am proposing this novelty, which I feel is an important zwischenzug. The point is that after 18 ... c:Ji;xg7?! 19 e4 'ilkxg5 20 exd5 l:.xa2 21 b4! White seizes the initiative: 2l...li:ld7 (2l...li:la4 22 bxc5 li:lxc5 leads to the same varia­ tion) 22 bxc5 li:lxc5 23 .l:!.b4! f5 24 .l:r.e 1 lif7 25 l:tf4, Mohota-Turov, New Delhi 2010. That's why I recommend side­ stepping White's e4 advance. =.

.•.

13 ...li:lg4! Or: a) After 13 .. .'iVd7 White first plays 14 'ii'd2! in order to avoid lines that start with 14 i.b2 g5 15 li:lf3 li:lfxd5. Once White plays i.b2, e4 and li:lf3, it's hard for Black to find active play. b) 13 ... li:le8 leaves the knight more passive. 14 i.b2 i.xc3 15 i.xc3 .l:.xa2 16 b4! c4 17 �d4 f6 (after 17 ...li:lf6 18 e4 �c7 19 .:tal .l:.fa8 20 li:lf3 ;!;; White gradually surrounds the c4-pawn) 1 8 e4 ;!;; Gordon-Savage, British League (4NCL) 201011 1. 14 i.b2 i.xc3 15 i.xc3 .l:.xa2 Black has won the pawn back but White has chances of securing the ini­ tiative.

BENKO MAIN LINE WITH 1 0 �bl

16 e4 (D) After 16 b4 c4 the c4-pawn can be­ come either strong or weak. 17 'i!Vd4 (17 e4 liJe5 18 .l:!.a1 .l:!.xa1 19 �xa1 'W/c7 = leaves Black OK) 17 ... liJf6 18 e4 and now: a) 18 ... liJa4?! (the knight is better placed on b6, where it defends the c4-pawn) 19 llfc l ! (19 'ii'xc4 liJxc3 20 �xc3 "itb6 gave Black compensa­ tion in Lautier-Koch, French Team Ch 1999/00) 19 ... 'r!Vc7 20 .i.d2 J:i.c8 21 .i.h3 .l:.b8 22 liJf3 is slightly better for White. The c4-pawn is too vulner­ able. b) Here I propose a new move, 18 ... 'i!i'c7!?, intending to double rooks. White can point to some strategic pluses here, but Black has enough counterplay; e.g., 19 l:.a1 l:tfa8 20 liJf3 .l:tc2! (threatening ...liJa4 or even ... l::txc3) 21 liJd2 liJa4 22 .l:r.a3 liJxc3 23 l:.xc3 .l:.xc3 24 �xc3 l:ta2 25 "ii'xc4 "ii'xc4 2G �xc4 .i.a6 27 .l:.c1 .li!.a4 28 liJa5 l'1xb4 29 liJc6 ltb7 with an equal endgame.

16 liJe5!? .•.

1 99

This is my attempt to improve over 16 ... liJf6?!, as played in Baburin-Koch, French Team Ch 2002, when 17 b4! would have made a lot of sense since the f6-knight is a long way from the d3-outpost. Then White has an edge af­ ter 17 ... c4 18 .li!.a1 l:!.xa1 19 'ifxa1 �c7 20 .i.d4 .li!.a8 21 �b2 liJfd7 22 f4 i. 17 f4 Or 17 .l:!.a1 l:.xal 18 'ii'x al liJbd7 19 liJf3 liJxf3+ 20 .i.xf3 'ii'b6 21 �b2 .i.a6 22 .l:!.a1 f6 = intending ...liJe5. 17 ... liJed7 18 .l:tf2!? It makes sense to exchange off Black's most active piece. 18 b4? al­ lows a strong and unusual tactical idea: 18 ... liJa4 19 .i.a1 lir.xal ! 20 lha1 liJc3 + followed by ...cxb4, ...'i!Vb6, ... .l:!.c8, ... liJc5, etc. White must avoid 21 'ii'b 3? 'ii'b6! +. 18....l:lxf2 19 'iti>xf2 'ikc7 20 .:tal .l:!.a8 (D)

White still has some pressure but Black can be satisfied with the result of the opening - he has won back his pawn while keeping a solid enough position.

1 6 D rea m Positions for B lack

I have presented many variations in this book, and it would be very hard to memorize them all, especially by rote learning. If the lines make logi­ cal sense to you, then you will re­ member them far better, and be better equipped to 'ad lib' when necessary. Throughout the previous chapters, I sought to explain the motivations be­ hind the moves, and the main plans for both sides. This and the next two chapters are intended to help further with your Benko 'education'. To feel comfortable playing an opening, in addition to knowing con­ crete lines, it's important to be famil­ iar with typical ideas, and situations that you need to avoid and things you should aim for. In the Benko Gambit Accepted, this is particularly impor­ tant, as many of the moves don't make much sense unless you under­ stand both sides' intentions. In the current chapter I shall show you some 'dream' positions for Black and ex­ plain why they are so desirable. The next chapter highlights types of posi­ tions that Black should avoid (i.e. White's 'dream' positions), and the final chapter of the book challenges you to find the best move in typical Benko set-ups that require a tactical solution or a positional transforma­ tion.

1)

w

B a n i kas Tregubov Greek Team Ch, Kallithea 2009 -

Black has placed his knight on c4, which prevents b3 (since ... liJa3 would follow). The b5-square is covered, so White can't put his knight there. That leaves White without an effective way to improve his queenside set-up. White's a4- and b2-pawns are discon­ nected and Black has an entry-square on b3. At the very least, Black has no problems. 17 �e4 After 17 .l:.dcl Black could still play 17 ... �b3 ! with pressure on the b-file. 17 liJf6 18 �h4 'ii'b3 19 liJd2 liJxd2 20 i.. xd2 .l:!.b4 •.•

DREAM POSITIONS FOR BLA CK

201

Black starts an attack on the white 3 ) queen. �! 23 1!i'xe7 21 'i!fgS b6 2 � 24 file? l!!�� a5 l:lbb8 26 c7 lDe5! . is forced to ...l:tb? ,· White .giveIntending up his bishop. 27 i..xh6 ..t��6}.:_8 'tixd6 lDc4 29 'ile7 i..f8 30 'f/ "Lld6 Black somewhat better. ·

IS

2)

B

-, . � � � K- · . % � -D • �� � � i. � � �- . ,-�­ . � -0 � . � � . A -0. • �� � � D � /.( " "''- � -� � � /. � � � ;r;...' n - t.t.J � u �/. � � � \Wr- � ·0. D�� �n ?-uu��� u D -:a • = � � Vijayala a ·b ksh m i - liregubov z raltar 2007

Black's pieces · are aII perfectl aced. White has no prospects of al vancing with e5 b3 or a4 , so he has no activ e p1 ans at thei..moment. 17 .'i!ib4'd18 . f1 lDxb2 19 i..xa6 .:!.xa6 20 e5 xe5 21 i.. d2 wa3 Bl ack a pawn up, with a large advantage. PI

•

••

.

.

IS

=

Po rfISCh - Vasiukov Manila 1974

Black's doubled rooks and d4-b" hop create .strong pressure · The e8-knight look. s mactive ri ht now, but it can qmckly find usef�l work, attacking d5 after ... f5 is played. 29 f6! To stop White'�� advance. 30 h4 lDc7 31 1 'iti>f7 32 g3 f5' Black is much better, since Whi;e can't salvage his pawn-centre. IS

.•.

2(}2

A ITA CK WITH BLACK

4)

5)

w

w

Erdogdu - Ca ruana European Ch, Aix-les-Bains 201 1

Aspler - Benko Vancouver 1 971

Here Black made the ... c4 advance and then exchanged on b3, and White recaptured with his a-pawn. We should note that on e4, the white knight is far from c6, and meanwhile Black's major pieces are ready to seize the open files. Black has plenty to attack, starting with the pawns on b3, d5 and e2. 21 .te3 'ii'bS 22 :ret tt:Jg4 23 i.cl .tb7 24 h3 l:tfc8 25 'ii'd l tt:Jes 26 i.b2 'ili'b4 Not 26 ... i.xd5?? 27 tZ:lc3 +-. 27 f4 tt:Jd7 28 i.xg7 'iii>xg7 29 .l:r.b2? 29 'iWd2! is better, although after 29 .. .'ii' xd2 30 tZ:lxd2 .l:Ic2 31 tZ:lc4 .l:.aa2 Black has sufficient compensation. 29 ...i.xd5! Now Black is somewhat better.

Black has taken control of the a6-fl diagonal and White can't even play i.fl because of the check on f3. 16 b3 tiJd3 17 .l::td l?! c4! 18 i..e3 "i!Vb4 19 i.d2 'i!VcS 20 .l:!.n cxb3 21 axb3 tZ:lb4 22 'ili'b2 .l:tc8 Black has a decisive advantage.

DREAM POSITIONS FOR BLACK

6)

203

7)

Segal - Benko Siio Paulo 1973

Aseev - Khalifman St Petersburg 1 995

Black is exerting maximum pres­ sure on White's position, tying him up almost completely. 21 lt:Jed2 'i\Ya4! a2 is weak. 22 lt:Jxc4 .llxc4 23 .llg5 l:Xb3! 24 axb3 J.xb3 25 �d2 J.xd1 26 :xd1 J.f6 Now the b2-pawn is hopelessly weak, and Black is winning.

White can't relieve the pressure Black's pieces are on their best possi­ ble squares. 20 g4?! It is unclear what White is trying to do, but this type of move is not uncom­ mon when White has no truly con­ structive plan. He at least avoids 20 .l:!.d3? lt:Jxb2! -+. 20 ...�a5 21 .l:td3 lt:Je5 22 l:td1 lt:Jc4 23 .l:td3 lt:Je5 24 .l:!.d1 'il¥b4 25 l::tb1 lt:Jc4 26 .l:td3 .llxc3! 27 'i\Yxc3 27 .l:.xc3 lt:Ja3 28 .l:l.xa3 l:.xa3 29 b3 .l:ta4! +. 27 lDa3 27 ....:.xa2! + would be even more convincing. 28 bxa3? Better is 28 'ii'xb4 .l:.xb4 29 .lld2 :bb8 30 .l:!.al lt:Jc4 +. 28 .'ifxe4+ Black is now winning. .•.

.•

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

2fJ4

9)

8)

Romm - Damja novic Netanya 1973

Tu n i k - Turov Belorechensk 2009

This is a typical Benko endgame. Black has pressure on the a-file and a useful outpost on c4. White lacks an active plan and needs to defend very carefully. 18 .l:.tb1 lt:Jb5 19 i.d2 lt:Ja3 20 .l::!.c l lt:Je5 21 i.h6 f6! An important move. Very often the black king needs to escape from the back rank or to defend e7. In passing, Black also creates a threat to trap the white bishop. 22 h4 l::.a4 23 f3 c:Ji;f7 24 'it>fl In the game Black played a typical move, 24 f5, with a pleasant but not necessarily decisive advantage. He could instead have targeted the h6bishop by 24 ... g5 ! 25 hxg5 'ittg6 26 f4 lt:Jd3 27 f5+ 'ifi>f7 28 l:.dl lt:Jc2 +, win­ ning an exchange.

Again we see a picture of domina­ tion: the a2-pawn is fixed and weak, while the c4-square is guaranteed for one of the black knights. 19 lt:Jd3 i.a6 20 h3 lt:Jge5 21 lt:Jxe5 lt:Jxe5 22 f4 lt:Jc4 23 e4 lt:Ja3 24 net i.d3 25 lt:Jf2 ..ic4 26 e5 .:Z.b2 Black has good practical winning chances.

•..

DREAM POSITIONS FOR BLA CK

1 0)

205

1 1)

Plachetka - Peev

Alekseev - Grishchuk

Stary Smokovec 1974

FIDE Grand Prix, Elista 2008

The a2-pawn is safety blockaded and ... c4 is coming inevitably. 22 l:tacl c4 23 bxc4 i.xc4 24 e4 .l:.b2 25 i.fl tbc2 26 l:f.edl i.xfl 27 l:.d2? White could maintain the balance by 27 �xfl .l:.a3 28 .l:.bl l:hbl 29 lbxbl l:!.xa2 30 .Ud2! 27 .l:r.c8! 28 :dxc2 lixc2 29 l:.xc2 i.d3 30 l:tcl i.xe4 Black has the advantage thanks to his better pawn-structure.

This is a typical situation where Black has exchanged his dark-squared bishop for a knight in order to win his pawn back. He has the advantage thanks to his better pawn-structure, while White's bishop-pair is not a ma­ jor factor here. 25 f3 25 b4?! doesn't help because after 25 ... cxb4 26 :!xb4 l:!.xb4 27 ..ixb4 i.b5 + the f2-pawn falls. 25 tbf6 26 l:.f2 26 b4 tbxe4 27 fxe4 l::tc2 28 .U.f3 i.h3 + intending ... :a8-a2. Now Black allowed White to main­ tain the material balance by 26 Jla3 27 i.xf6 exf6 28 :tb2, although Black was still better and later won. Instead, he could have won a pawn: 26 ...tbxe4! 27 fxe4 .Ua3 28 l:l.fb2 ..ib5 (intending ... ..id3) 29 l:tel ..ia6 + and the b3pawn drops off.

=.

••.

•••

•.

A TTACK WITH BLA CK

2fJ6

1 2)

13)

w

w

Andonovski - Sta nojoski

Skopje 201 1

Without his dark-squared bishop, White rarely has much hope of any serious advantage; usually, when he makes this exchange, he is just seek­ ing to build a solid defensive fortress. 18 .l:tec1 l:!.b4 19 a3 l:l.b7 20 l:tab1?! 20 b4! cxb4 21 axb4 'iVxa1 22 .l:.xa1 .l:txa1 20 .l:!.ab8 21 lLld1 White's plan is to bring the knight to c4, where it will securely defend b2, and Black should prevent this with 2l .. . ..id4! + followed by ... :b3 and ... 'iVb5. In the game he played 21. .l:tb3? but White squandered his chance by playing 22 'iVe2? (rather than 22 lLle3 ! .l:txb2 23 lLlc4 l:hc2 24 l:.xb8+ Wg7 25 lLlxa5 .:xc 1 26 lLlc6 with an equal endgame) when Black now saw 22 i.d4, with an advan­ tage. =.

.•.

••

•..

M . Socko - J . Houska European Women 's Ch, Plovdiv 2008

Black's pieces are dancing on the weak squares: d3, c4, d4, etc. 18 lLlab5 lLld3 19 �e2 lLld7 20 �b1 .l:Ia5 21 i.g5 'ii;lf8 22 a4 c4! Fixing the weaknesses on b3 and d3. 23 l:.c2 lLl7c5 24 il.d2 Now one of the black rooks must move, and it should be the one on b4: 24 ... l:!.b3 ! and after 25 lLla3 il.xc3 26 i.xc3 Black can simply take on a4 with total domination: 26 .. Jha4 +. In the game Black chose the less accurate 24 .l:!.a8?! 25 lLla3, when 25 ... i.xc3 26 il.xc3 .l:!.bxa4 would not have left Black so much better. ..•

1 7 Positions to Avoid

This is the flipside of the previous chapter: here we see what White is aiming for, and what Black should therefore avoid. This is very useful knowledge for Black, since if you can't steer the game towards a dream position, then maybe you can at least evade the opposite fate. 1)

Strategically, the main scenario Black needs to avoid is one where White has captured the light squares on the queenside by putting pawns on a4 and b3, and a knight on b5 and/or c4. This set-up blocks three files on the queenside and Black can only wait for his opponent to break through in the centre. That's why Black must pre­ vent this set-up before it is too late. Here l...c4 does not help because of 2 b4!, since the pawn is untouchable: 2 ...ltJxa4 3 b5 'fla7 4 l:t.al costs Black material.

2)

Ba rsov

-

S . Kaspa rov

Cairo 2001

Again White has managed to block the queenside. Black has no counter­ play since 24 ... c4? does not work: 25 b4! .l:.xb4 26 l:t.xb4 l::txb4 27 lDb5 wins an exchange. White will play lDa2, i..c 3, i..f3-e2 and slowly put his extra pawn to use.

A TTA CK WITH BLACK

2()8

4)

3)

B

Kota nj ian - Averianov

Cernousek - Krivoruchko

Moscow 2004

Olomouc 2006

With his last move, 18 a3!, White stopped the ... c4 idea for a long time. Black's queenside play has got bogged down; he can achieve nothing real. White has a lot of time to manoeuvre his pieces to better squares. 18 ..tf5 19 e4 ..tg4 20 h3 ..txf3 21 .il.xf3 tDc7 22 ..te2 .l:!.b7 23 'iti>g2 .l:!ab8 24 a4 liJcS 25 .tal White has defended b3 and is ready to occupy b5 and c4.

Even with a knight oddly placed on f4, putting pawns on a4 and b3 can sometimes provide White with an ad­ vantage. 17 JUb8 After 17 ... c4? 18 bxc4 ±, the b7bishop is hanging. 18 .il.d2 "ila7 19 "ilc2 White prevents ... c4, and once again Black can't do anything. 19 .il.c8 20 .il.c3 .il.xc3 21 'i!Vxc3 f6 22 tDd3 White has a large advantage.

•.•

••

•••

POSITIONS TO A VOID

5)

209

6)

Mala khatko - Avesku lov

Alushta 2001

With his last move, 25 lLlf3-d2, White defended b3, prevented ... c4 and prepared a pawn-storm in the cen­ tre. Black's main problem is that he lacks any active play. 25 �d4 26 f4 �f8 27 eS �g7 28 lLldl �xb2 29 lL!xb2 lL!b6 30 lL!bc4 lL!xc4 31 bxc4 The a6-knight is especially misera­ ble. 31...l:.ab7 32 �c3 lL!c7 33 .l:.abl White is much better. •••

This is a variation arising from the game Wojtaszek-Rasulov, European Ch, Budva 2009. White wants to play lLld3 and �c3 and turn his extra pawn to account. Black's only chance is to play ... c4 right now but it is not fully satisfactory: 2l ...c4 22 bxc4 .l:.xbl 23 'iVxbl 'iVxa4 (23 ... �xc4 24 lL!d3 ± and .l:r.c 1) 24 lL!d3 �f6 25 c5 ± with a clear extra pawn.

A TTA CK WITH BlA CK

210

8)

7)

Kota nj ian - C . Balogh

Ca rlsen - Calzetta Ruiz

Moscow 2008

Taormina 2003

Black has no pieces in the area bounded by b3-b4-d4-d3, and very lit­ tle activity. White simply puts his own pieces on desirable squares and real­ izes his advantage. 17 tl:lc4 tl:ld7 18 i.d2 tl:le5 19 b3 :bs 20 l:tbl 'i¥b7 Now 21 b4! would be the shortest path to victory: 21...cxb4 22 l:txb4 'i!i'c8 23 .l:.xb8 �xb8 24 tl:lxe5 i.xe5 25 l:tb3 'i!i'd8 26 a5 +-. In the game White played 21 aS and won in more drawn-out fashion.

Again White has played a4 and b3 and is well on the way to his ideal set­ up. 18 c4 Black tries the standard disruptive thrust, but White has a strong reply: 19 e5! cxb3 20 exd6 exd6 In the game Carlsen played 21 l:.e7, which is strong, but less convincing than 21 tl:lb5 ! tl:lc4 (21 ...tl:lxb5? 22 l:te8+ i.f8 23 �h6 with mate next move) 22 �g5 i.d7 23 i.xg7 �xg7 24 tl:lxa7 'i¥xa7 25 .l::.e7 +-. ...

POSITIONS TO A VOID

9)

21 1

1 0)

B

Here we see a situation where Black Ku ljasevic - Daskevics made the ...c4 advance, but it had little World Under- 1 8 Ch, Kallithea 2003 impact on the game. White's knight is ready to occupy the c6-square, the b3To be completely happy, White only pawn is safe enough, and Black has no needs to gain control of the b5-square. other sources of counterplay. Even For this purpose, 1 8 ..tfl ! ± is ideal. though it is Black to play, he is worse. After the exchange of the a6-bishop, White's knight will be free to move to b5. In the game White allowed some counterplay by 18 lt:lb5 ..txb5 19 axb5 Ita2, with a less clear position.

1 8 Tacti ca l Exe rc ises

Now it is your tu m to practice. Most of these positions are of a tactical nature (1-19), but it is up to you to decide whether you are looking for a concrete way to win, secure an advantage or maintain sufficient counterplay. Exer­ cises 20-25 feature positional ideas that are typical for the Benko Gambit. In every case, Black is to play. Please note that these exercises don't necessarily have neat and tidy solutions like you will find in tactical textbooks. In many cases White has counterplay and the outcome may not be clear, so just try to choose the best option for Black. If you wish, simply study each position and decide what you think about it, and then compare your answer with mine. All that mat­ ters is how much you learn that you can use in your future games. I hope that these last three chapters have helped to deepen your under­ standing of the Benko Gambit and that your Benko games will include posi­ tions suitable only for the 'dream' chapter!

2

B

TA CTICAL EXERCISES

213

13

B

TACTICAL EXERCISES

17

B

215

216

A TTA CK WITH BLA CK

21 7

TA CTICAL EXERCISES

Solutions 1) This is one of the most common tactical motifs in the Benko Gambit: 1 ltlxb2! 2 .ixb2 :xb2 3 'ifxb2 .ixc3 4 'ii'c2 .ixa1 5 .ixa6 l:.xa6 6 l::lxa1 ltlb6 After ... �b4, the a4-pawn falls, leaving Black with the advantage. 2) This is another version of the same idea. 15 l:txb2! 16 'ii'xb2 .ixc3 17 �b7 'ifa7! After this important move, White is really in trouble. 18 �xa7 18 �c6 f6! (to stop e5 forever) 19 .if4 �a4! +. Black forces an ex­ change of queens and a much better endgame. 18 J:lxa7 It's hard to find a good move for White. 19 a4 19 .ixe7? f6! 20 e5 fxe5 21 .ig5 .ixe1 22 ltlxe1 ltlb6 -+. 19 ....ixe1 20 ltlxe1 ltlb6 21 a5 ltlc4 22 a6 f6 After ... ltlc7 and ... .l:txa6 Black has a clear extra pawn and a technically winning position. •••

••.

••

3)

Tri ka l iotis - Toran Al bero

4)

This was the first game played by my South African student Fran�ois Oberholzer in the Benko Gambit. 18 ltlxd2 19 'ifxd2 l::lxb2! 20 'ii'xb2 .ixc3 21 'ii'c l .ixe1 22 'ifxe1 'ifxe1 + 23 l:.xe1 .ic4 24 .ifl .ixfl 25 �xfl 11xa2 Black has a practically winning rook endgame. Well done, Fran�ois! •.•

Ma rkos - Ponizil

5)

Czech Team Ch 201 1112

Sometimes even GMs are trapped by standard Benko tactics. 17....l:!.xb2! 18 .l:!.xb2 'ii'xc3 19 �xc3 .ixc3 20 .l:!.ab1 .ixb2 21 .l:!.xb2 f6 22 .id2 White has defended the a2-pawn and it might seem that a long endgame lies ahead. But Black denies him any hope: 22 .l:!.a4 23 �f3 �f7 23 ... f5? loses the lion's share of Black's advantage: 24 exf5 gxf5 25 .ig5 �f7 26 .l:le2! ltlf6 27 .ixf6 �xf6 +. 24 g4 White tries to prevent .. .f5 but it's already too late: 24 f5! 25 gxf5 gxf5 The d5-pawn is doomed and Black gets connected passed pawns and an easily winning position. •.•

•••

Averki n - Alburt

6)

Odessa 1974

Siegen Olympiad 1 970

21 .'i6xc2! The e2-rook is defended twice, but Black can also get a big advantage this is not enough to keep it safe! 19 ... 1ixb2! 20 �xb2 .ixc3 21 'itxc3 by 21 ...ltlxb2 but it provides White with an extra option: 22 :xb2 (22 �xe2 22 .:tel �xa2 .ixb2 'ifxc2 23 .ixc2 transposes to Black has a useful extra pawn. .•

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

218

the game) 22 ... �xc3 23 �xc3 i.. xc3 24 .l:.c2 i..g7 25 i..d3 + and White re­ tains some defensive chances. 22 i..xc2 ltlxb2! 23 i..xb2 23 .l:.'!.xb2 i..xc3 24 .l:.xb8+ l:lxb8 25 i..d3 c4 26 i..c2 ltlc5 -+ with total domination. 23...i..c4 24 .l:tda1 .l::r.xb2! Clearer than 24 ... i..xa2 25 l:.xa2 l:!.xb2 26 .l:.xb2 .l:.xa3 !. 25 .l:.xb2 i..xc3 26 .l:!.b7 i..xa1 27 l:txd7 i..xe2 Black has an extra pawn and a win­ ning position. Laver - Benko

7)

Santa Monica 1 967

Black has a very pleasant game; the h4-rook is out of play, there is strong pressure on b2, but a concrete idea is needed for how to proceed. 27 i..a2! Black wins the pawn back with a better position. 28 ltlxa2 .l:bb2 29 .l:.xb2 llxb2 Objectively, Black's advantage may not be overwhelming, but in practice White's defensive task is rather un­ pleasant. 8) Black's pieces are well placed but it is not obvious how he should make progress. 18 'ii'xb2! Yes, sometimes even Black's queen takes on b2! 19 'ifxb2 Iixb2 20 l:txb2 i..xc3 21 :b7! The best try: this leads to a rook end­ game with some saving chances. 21 .l:.abl? is worse: 2l...i..xb2 22 .l:txb2 •.•

•.•

f5 ! (it often happens that a tactical se­ quence finishes with this pawn move) 23 e5 l:.a6! followed by ...ltlb6xd5 with a big advantage for Black. 21. i..xa1 22 l:.xd7 .l:!.xa2+ 23 'iii>f3 .l:l.a3 24 'iii>e2 'iii>f8 25 .l:!.d8+ 'iii>g7 26 �d7 26 .l::te 8? .l:[a7 +. 26 ... i..d4 27 i..xd4+ cxd4 28 l:r.xe7 'iitf8! Forcing the rook to leave the e4pawn unprotected. 29 .l:f.d7 l:txg3 30 �d2 .l:!.e3 31 .l:!.xd6 Uxe4 Black is much better; the only ques­ tion is whether he can win. .•

Averki n - M i les

9)

Dubna 1976

15 ltla3! This little piece of tactics does not regain the pawn, but changes the struc­ ture in a vital way: Black obtains a passed pawn. 16 bxa3 'ii'xc3 17 �xc3 i..xc3 18 l:.b1 c4 Black has the advantage. He plans ... l:tfc8 followed by a retreat of the c3-bishop and ... c3, etc. .•.

1 0) Ga rza M a rco - Perez M itjans Zaragoza 201 1

White had just played 26 i.e l-c3? to provide the b3-knight with a way to reach the c6-square. However, this nat­ ural strategic plan has a tactical refuta­ tion: 26 ltle3! 27 fxe3 'ikxe3+ 28 �f2 �xc3 Black has won back the pawn with a decisive advantage. •••

21 9

TA CTICAL EXERCISES

1 1 ) This is a variation from the game Polugaevsky-Seirawan, Amber Rapid, Monte Carlo 1993. The position could have occurred if White had tried a logi­ cal-looking simplifying manoeuvre that fails because of the following com­ bination: 22....1l.xb2 23 l:txb2 lDxa4! 24 bxa4 .i.xa4 25 'i¥xa4 l:[xb2 Already White must be thinking about his own safety. Zilberma n - G reenfeld

1 2)

Israel 1 995

White has just attacked the e5knight by 20 f2-f4?. However, this weakens the e3-square, which Black exploits in masterful fashion: 20 .l:.xb2! 20 ... ltJd7? would maintain merely sufficient compensation. 21 fxe5 This zwischenzug turns out not to help White. Or 21 .:t.xb2 l:.xb2 22 'i¥a4 'ifxc3 ! 23 fxe5 lDxe5 -+. 21. .1l.xe5 Not 2l ...l:i.xc2?? 22 l:[xb8+ .i.f8 23 .i.h6 +-. 22 l:[xb2 l:.xb2 23 'i!Vd3 ltJd2! This precise move practically finishes the game. 24 'ifxd2 24 'i¥e3 lDxfl 25 �xfl .l:1c2 -+. 24 Jbd2 25 il.xd2 Jl.xe2 26 lDxe2 'tWa4 Black is winning. ••.

•.

.•

least some advantage. But Black has different opinion on this: 15 lDd3! 16 exd3 'tWxc3 17 'i¥xc3 .i.xc3 18 ltJc4 In the game Black played 18 0-0?, allowing White to defend the a2-pawn by 19 .i.b2 i..f6 20 i..xf6 lDxf6 21 l:[fe1 l:[fe8 22 l:[b2 ;!;. The correct path is 18 ... .i.xc4 19 bxc4 lixa2 20 l:[b7 �d8 = intending ... �c8. .•.

.••

Hort - Alburt

1 4)

DeCin 1977

With his last move, 16 lDd2-fl, White attacked the d5-knight. But Black has no need to defend it: 16 ltJc3! A typical and in this case neces­ sary combination. The more natural 16 ... e6?! lets White win a pawn for insufficient compensation: 17 ltJe3 .i.b5 18 lDxd5 exd5 19 i.. xd5 .i.c6 20 i.. xc6 'i¥xc6 21 �c2 ;!;. 17 .i.xb7 .i.xb7 The point is that Black wins the b1-rook for free now. 18 'i'd3 il.e4 19 'i'e3 .i.d4 20 'ifh6 .i.xb1 Black has enough compensation for the queen. Later he even managed to win the game. 1 5) White simply wants to pick up the c4-pawn, so Black needs something radical in reply, and the following fits the bill: 1 .1l.xb2 2 lDxb2 After 2 'i'xb2? lDc5 + Black wins the pawn back and retains some pres­ sure. 2 lixa2! .•.

.••

1 3)

Neverov - Baklan

Ordzhonikidze Zonal 2000

White needs one more move (.i.b2) to cement his position and secure at

•.•

22()

A TTACK WITH BLA CK

I don't recall seeing this tactical motif in practice, but I'm sure it must have occurred somewhere. 3 .l:i.xa2 3 'iVxc4 does not give Black any problems: 3 ... .:1.xa1 4 .:1.xa1 tbc5 5 .l:i.a7 'iVb6 6 .l:i.a3 'iVb4 7 .l:i.a7 3 ...cxb3 4 'iVxc7 bxa2 Black is a knight down but his pawn is just one move away from queening. My analysis of this position didn't re­ veal any advantage for White. 5 tt:Jd3 Or 5 'iVxd7 'iVxb2 6 'iVxe7 'iVxf2 7 .l:i.c I 'iVe3 8 'iVxd6 (forced) 8 ...'iVxcl 9 'iVxb8+ r#ilg7 10 'iVe5+ Wh6 1 1 tbg5 ! 'iVxg5 12 'iVb2 with a drawish queen endgame. 5 'iVb5 6 tt:Jf4 'iVa4 7 tt:Je6!? a1'iV 8 .l:.xa1 'iVxa1 9 'iVxd7 fxe6 10 'iVxe7 exd5 11 'iVxd6 'iVa7 12 'iVxd5+ 'iVf7 This ending should be a draw. =.

..•

1 6)

Arlandi - Va"isser

Athens rapid 1 997

22 l:txb4? White immediately loses control of the situation, whereas a few moves earlier his game looked trouble-free. Better is 22 ..tc 1 ! .i.d4 followed by ... e5 with a rather unclear position. 22 tt:Jxb4 23 'iVb5 tt:Jc2! Black intends ...tbe1+. 24 'it>g1 24 'iVfl e5 25 ..te3 'iVe4 -+. 24 tt:Ja3 Black is winning. .•.

•••

1 7) Brun ner - Landen bergue Bie/ 1 994

White just needs to make practi­ cally any reasonable move to stabilize the situation. But it is Black to play, and in the Benko Gambit very often one move decides everything. 15 tt:Jxe4! 16 tbxe4 tbxd5! The point of Black's combination! Now there are many threats and White can't fend them all off. 17 tt:Jed2 17 tbel tbb4 18 'iVe2 .i.xa1 19 l:ha1 l:.xa2 20 l::txa2 'iVxa2 +. 17 ...tt:Jb4 18 'iVc4 e5! 19 .i.g5 e4 20 tt:Je1 d5 21 'iVe2 21 'iVc 1 tbxa2 22 'iVc2 tbc3 23 I!.xa5 'iVxa5 -+. 21. tbxa2! Black totally dominates. .•.

White's position looks favourable: everything is defended and he has the typical plan to strengthen his control of the queenside by a4, .i.d2-c3, tbb2, etc. But if you look more carefully, you see that the white queen and e2-rook are overloaded by the need to defend the a2- and e4-pawns. That just leaves the question of how to exploit this. 19 ...tt:Jxe4! 20 I!.xe4 I!.xa2 21 'iVd3 1 8) Aleksa nd rov - P. Cra m l i ng And what now? Black is a piece Erevan Olympiad 1 996 down, after all. It's easy to see that the last moves 21...t2Jxd5! were ... c4 and b4. It might appear that Black simply takes a second pawn there is no scope for tactics, but Black and thanks to his better coordination does have a way to smash through. maintains dynamic equality. 18 tt:Jd3! 19 .i.d2? ••

•..

221

TA CTICAL EXERCISES

Even after the superior 19 exd3 Black is better: 19 ... cxd3 20 'i!Vxd3 l:.xc3 21 'i:Ve2 'iVb7 + intending ... e5!. 19 tt::ldxf2 20 a4 i.xc3! 21 tt::lxg6 A desperate throw. 21 'iWxc3 tt::le4 22 'i!Vc2 tt::lxd2 23 'i!Vxd2 tt::le 3+ -+. 21 i.f6 Black is winning. •••

•••

1 9) Korchnoi - Baklan European Clubs Cup, Neum 2000

White's position looks a bit strange (more often a knight is on h3 and a bishop on g2) but it still appears solid enough. However, the following com­ bination totally destroys the position of a legendary chess-player. 17 i.xe2! 18 tt::lxe2 'i!Vxa2 The loose minor pieces on d2 and e2 are the problem for White. 19 'iWxa2 19 .l:tbcl tt::lf3+ 20 Whl tt::lxd2 -+. 19 .l:txa2 20 f4 llxd2 21 Wf2 21 fxe5 l:.xe2 22 exd6 exd6 -+ and ... tt::lxd5 with two extra pawns. 21...tt::ld3+ 22 'it>e3 .l::!.b2 23 llxb2 tt::lxb2 Black has a decisive advantage. 20) Black can't make serious prog­ ress on the queenside since White has blocked it with the a4 and b3 set-up. So instead he exploits another stan­ dard source of counterplay: undermin­ ing the d5-pawn. l...tt::le 8! 2 tt::le2 Or: a) 2 tt::lb5 f5 ! 3 exf5 gxf5 + and ... tt::lxd5. b) 2 i.d2 i.d4+ (2 ... f5 + followed by ... tt::lf6 is also possible, but Black's .••

•.•

idea is more ambitious - he wants to pick up both the e4-and the d5-pawns) 3 'iii>h l tt::lf6 4 g3 i.xc3 5 i.xc3 tt::lxe4 6 i.xb4 cxb4 7 l:r.a2 tt::lc 3 8 .l:!.d2 .U.a5 + and the d5-pawn falls. 2 f5 3 exf5 gxf5 4 tt::lg3 i.d4+ 5 'iii>h 1 tt::lg7! That's why the knight moved to e8 and not d7. The next move is ... tt::lxd5, and Black is somewhat better. •••

2 1 ) G rablia uskas - Khal ifman Vilnius 1 997

Here Khalifman applies a typical idea: he exchanges on c3, closes the centre and occupies the weak squares on White's queenside. 15 i.xc3! 16 bxc3 f6! This is an important move. Now White can forget about the e5 ad­ vance. 17 i.d2 'i!Va4! Black has good squares for his pieces: a4, b5 and c4; also, the a2pawn is extremely weak. White has no active plan, which is why I prefer Black here. 18 'i!Ve1 'i!Vc4 19 i.cl tt::lc7 20 a3 tt::lb6 21 h4 tt::lb5 22 lie3 'iWb3 23 h5 tt::lc4 Black is much better. In the subse­ quent play, White sacrificed material for insufficient compensation, but went on to draw thanks to his opponent's in­ accuracies. .•.

22)

Beliavsky - Khal ifman

Linares 1 995

This is another example from Alex­ ander Khalifman - one of the best Benko players. Black's pieces are

A TTACK WITH BLA CK

222

clearly active enough to compensate for the gambit pawn, but it is always important to choose the right moment for concrete measures. He could now play 20 ... .l:.b3, maintaining the pres­ sure, but the Russian GM decided on a plan to extend the g7-bishop's diago­ nal. 20 f5! First the e4-pawn is weakened. 21 f3 fxe4 22 fxe4 lLlxc3 23 lLlxc3 lLlb5! 24 lLlxb5 %1xb5 Now Black has strong pressure on b2. White must make a tricky deci­ sion: continue to defend passively, or give the pawn back and seek drawing chances in the rook endgame. 25 l:tc4?! It seems that passive defence was a better option. After 25 l:ie2 l:.b3 26 l:ta2 l:ta4 27 .ltf4 Black has merely sufficient compensation, and White should survive. 25 .txb2 26 .Ubl l:.ab6 27 a4 Ub3 28 aS?! 28 l:txb2 is better: 28 ....l:!.xb2+ 29 ..txb2 l:.xb2+ 30 <;j(f3 l:tb3+ 3 1
The evaluation of the position is in­ disputable now - Black enjoys a defi­ nite advantage. Gavri lov - Andrei kin

24)

Moscow 201 2

This is a typical Benko position where White has defended b2 and e4 very securely. Black's pieces are very well placed - but how should he make progress? The 2010 World Junior Champion solves the problem with a typical exchanging operation. 16 .'�a6! 17 'i!Vxa6 .l:.xa6 Now the e5-knight has more pros­ pects. 18 ..td2 .l:tb8 19 .l:!.dl lLld3 20 b3 lLlb4 21 lib2 lia3 22 .tel f5! Another theme to remember! Black seizes a strong initiative, and at least some advantage. ••

Camara - Benko

2 5)

Siio Paulo 1973

.•.

White is trying to establish some control of the queenside, but Black takes decisive action to prevent this. 17 lLle5! 18 lLlxe5 ..txe5+ 19 f4 Otherwise the b2-pawn falls, but the move f4 has a serious disadvantage: the e4- and d5-pawns become more vulnerable to the .. .f5 idea, as f3 is no longer possible. 19 .td4 20 .tel 'i!Vxe2 21 l:txe2 23) B u nzma n n - Halkias
•.•

•••

I ndex of Va riations

A : 1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 c5 B: 1 d4 ltJf6: Other Lines A)

ltJf6 1 d4 c5 2 c4 3 d5 3 dxc5 65 3 e3 66 3 ... g6 4 ltJc3 .i.g7: a) 5 d5 68 b) 5 ltJf3 71 3 ltJf3 80 3 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 e5 5 ltJb5 d5 6 cxd5 Si.c5: a) 7 ltJlc3 83 70000-0: al) 8 e3 92 a2) 8 g3 83 b) 7 ltJ5c3 85 7 00 00-0: bl) 8 e3 92 b2) 8 h3 85 b3) 8 g3 88 c) 7 e3 92 70000-0 8 ltJ5c3 e4: cl) 9 a3 92 c2) 9 ltJd2 94 c3) 9 .i.e2 97 9ooo"flie7: c3 1) 10 0-0 97 c32) 10 ltJd2 98 c33) 10 a3 101 3 b5 4 cxb5 4 b3 105 4 f3 106 4 a4 107 4 .i.g5 109 4 'iVc2 111 •.•

4 ltJd2 114 4 ltJf3 117: a) 4ooo.ib7 117 b) 4oooe6 42 4 a6 5 bxa6 148 5 ltJc3 120 5 ...axb5 6 e4 b4 7 ltJb5 d6: a) 8 .i.f4?! 121 b) 8 ltJf3 123 c) 8 Si.c4 125 5 f3 127 5 axb5 6 e4 'i¥a5+ 7 .id2 b4 8 ltJa3 d6 9 ltJc4 'i'Vd8: a) 10 a3 129 b) 10 Si.d3 131 5 e3 132 5 axb5 6 .ixb5 'iVa5+ 7 ltJc3 .ib7: a) 8 e4 133 b) 8 ltJe2 133 c) 8 Si.c4 134 d) 8 .id2 135 5 b6 137 5 e6 6 ltJc3 ltJxd5 7 ltJxd5 exd5 8 'iVxd5 ltJc6: a) 9 .ig5?! 138 b) 9 e4 139 c) 9 ltJf3 140 9oool::tb 8: cl) 10 e4 141 c2) 10 ltJe5 144 5 ... g6 6 ltJc3 6 b3?! 148 .i.xa6 6 ... 7 g3 7 f4 152 •••

.•.

.•.

•.•

A ITA CK WITH BLA CK

224

7 e4 158 7 i.xf1 8 �xfl d6: a) 9 g4 158 b) 9 lLlf3 i.g7 161 c) 9 lLlge2 158 7 lLlf3 i..g7: a) 8 lLld2 149 b) 8 g3 d6 177 c) 8 e4 161 8 ... i..xfl 9 'iii>xfl d6: c1) 10 h3 161 c2) 10 g3 165 10 ... lLlbd7 1 1 �g2 0-0 12 h3 168 (12 I!.e1 165) 12 ...'i!Va5 13 l:te1 �tb8: c21) 14 .lir.e2 171 c22) 14 'li'c2 172 c23) 14 e5 174 7 ... d6 8 i..g2 8 lLlf3 i.g7: a) 9 i.g2 180 b) 9 i.h3 177 8 i.g7 9 lLlf3 180 9 lLlh3 1 78 lLlbd7 9 ... 10 .l:!.b1 192 10 0-0 181 10 lLlb6: a) 1 1 lLld2 182 b) 1 1 lLle1 183 c) 1 1 .lir.b1 184 d) 1 1 .lir.e1 186 lLlb6 10 10 ... 0-0 192 11 b3 195 1 1 a4 194 11 ... i.b7 12 lLlh4 197 12 e4 195 12 0-0 Now: 13 i.. b2 197 13 0-0 198 •.•

••.

•.•

.•.

.••

B)

1 d4 2 lLlf3

lLlf6

2 g3 7 2 c3 7 2 i..f4 31 2 lLlc3 d5: a) 3 e4? 7 b) 3 i.g5 8 2 i..g5 12 2 lLle4: a) 3 i..h4 13 b) 3 i.f4 15 c5 2 3 d5 37 3 dxc5 e6 4 c4 65 3 c4 80 3 e3 27 3 g6: a) 4 c4 67 b) 4 i.d3 i..g7 5 0-0 0-0 6 b3 29 3 c3 22 3...e6: a) 4 i..f4 31 b) 4 i.g5 34 c) 4 e3 23 e6 3 ... 4 c4 4 lLlc3 37 4 b5 42 5 i..g5 55 5 a4 43 5 lLlc3 44 5 dxe6 47 5 fxe6 6 cxb5 d5: a) 7 i.f4 48 b) 7 e3 49 c) 7 lLlc3 50 d) 7 g3 52 5 exd5 6 cxd5 d6 Now: a) 7 e3 !? 56 b) 7 a4 58 c) 7 e4 58 •.•

•.•

.••

•..

•.•

.••

MAI�IBIITI

www. g a m b itbooks . com

Sick o f defending with B lack? Never found a reliable way t o fight for the i n itiative when White plays 1 d4? Allow Grandmaster Avesku lov to assist. He has put together a sound but u ltra-agg ressive repertoi re based on gambits that have proved their worth in g randmaster play over many years. The Benko Gam bit is dreaded by many 1 d4 players. Black gets very active piece-play, and even if Wh ite reaches a pawn-up endgame, he is often s hocked to find he is worse due to Black's i ntense positional pressure ! If Wh ite avoids the Benko, that's when we hit h i m with t h e B l umenfeld, sacrificing a pawn t o set u p a strong pawn-centre a n d attacki ng chances. Aveskulov exam ines a l l of White's options and move-orders after 1 d4 lL'lf6, and shows an aggressive reply to each of them . He is never wi l l i ng to take existing theory on faith , a n d throughout the book presents an extraord i nary wealth of new analysis and ideas. He a lso explains typical plans in dept h , so you will always know how to turn the screw o n ce you have your opponent on the run . At the age o f 2 1 , Grand master Valery Aves ku lov won the championship of U krai n e , one of the world's strongest chess nations. He has represented h i s country i n j u n ior and team events, wi n n i n g three medals i n 2 0 0 8 a t t h e World Sports M i nd Games in Beij i n g . He is an experienced trainer, and has acted as a second for the top-class g ra n dmaster Alexander M oiseenko.

FCO

£ 1 4.99

CHESS

Understanding

OPENINGS

-&. FOR �

il ·. '

KIDS ''""''��···""

Openiflli S,.UIM

JohnWstlon•nd G
.

�.

�

Chess

Middlegames

�-

,2,

..

John Nunn

, �it� -

fiWift rmpommr

m��idt>N

-� .

....,

$22.95

ISBN-13 :

978-1-906454-39-5

ISBN-10 :

1-906454-39-6