CHESS BASE MAGAZINE 168.pdf

EDITORIAL Analysis tool Let‘s Check

Working with engines is nowadays part of the basic knowledge required for a chess player. But how can one really squeeze out the maximum for one’s preparation for and post mortem of a game? One of the tools is Let’s Check, now almost 4 years old and still slightly under-estimated by many. Here is how it works. Users all over the world analyse positions, the results are taken into the “LiveBook”, with deeper analyses replacing those which were generated rapidly; only the three best results are shown. This happens automatically and in the background. During top games which are broadcast on playchess.com, one can have live access to the latest “Let’s Check” results; I no longer need to look at my own engine. In the subsequent days most of the positions are submitted to even longer analyses so that the quality of the analysis continues to rise. Every user of Fritz 13/14 or any new ChessBase engine has access to these results. So they save time and also you are not obliged to have the most up-to-date computer. A special titbit is to be found in the game Navara-Wojtaszek, Biel 2015 (annotated on the DVD by Igor Stohl, Navara’s second). Navara’s king march will go down in the history of chess. The evaluations lay around 0.0, that means everything ok, a draw is the probable result. But 12 days later the evaluation of 24...¥d3 suddenly cropped up as -1.64 in Let‘s Check. The user calvinahobbs had set his engine “Deep Fritz 14” to analyse to a search depth of 33 (see cover). Just two days previously the evaluation had been 0.0, because his engine had “only” reached depth 29. A check on the move, or “delving into” the variations, rapidly proved that White is lost. First and foremost Let’s Check is an enormous store of knowledge with evaluations of positions which have already been played. You can,

for example, look at any WCh game and you will find for every move analyses going to enormous depths. Even less well known classical games have been extremely well analysed. But Let’s Check is even more. In the field of openings too, thousands of analyses of positions which have not yet been played are stored. On page 10 you will find the description of the openings article by Milos Pavlovic. In it the following position crops up.

Pavlovic analyses the move exclusively played in practice 7.¤xd4. In Let’s Check, however, the first move is 7.¥f4. The variation 7...e5 8.¤xe5 g5 is then defused with 9.e3 ¤e6 10.¤xf7!. Let’s Check prefers 7...¤e7 8.¤xd4 cxd4 9.¤b5 e5 10.¤d6+ ¢f8 11.£b3! ¤f5 12.¤xf5 gxf5 13.¥d2. Whether White really has a slight plus here still requires to be proved. But for the important moves a search depth of over 20 is standard, sometimes it is greater than 30. Moves such as 7.¥f4 are well suited to being used as a surprise for one game. In this way you can check your own repertoire with Let’s Check and systematically search for innovations. Your Rainer Knaak

ChessBase Magazine #168 | 3

Chessbase Magazine Contents of the DVD TOP TOURNAMENTS Biel: The traditional tournament in Biel came down to a battle between three players, Navara, Wojtaszek and Vachier-Lagrave. The Czech began with 3 out of 4, one of which was his own immortal game with a king march to h8. In the second flight of games Wojtaszek took the lead at first, but the best final sprint was that of Vachier-Lagrave. Both the French and the Polish players have each annotated a game for us. Other commentary has been provided by Ftacnik, Illingworth, Krasenkow, Marin, Mokal, Pavlovic, Roiz, Shah, Stohl, Szabo and Wagner. In addition you can also find on the DVD ten “Games of the day” by Daniel King, Rustam Kasimdzhanov and even Maxime Vachier-Lagrave himself. Sinquefield-Cup: The second tournament in the “Grand Chess Tour” was even stronger. Once again Magnus Carlsen had a miserable start, with Veselin Topalov again being the spoilsport. The latter’s early lead did not last. Levon Aronian had started with a magnificent win against Caruana and also continued to play strongly. Undefeated and with three victories he won the tournament with a lead of one point. On the DVD you will find annotations by Illingworth, Krasenkow, Marin, Mokal, Pavlovic, Roiz, Stohl, Szabo and Wagner. On top of that all nine daily roundups by Daniel King have been included in the report on the DVD. Other tournaments: The Russian Championship was once more super-strong. For the first time Evgeny Tomashevsky was able to write his name into the list of winners. The new champion has annotated for us his game against Bukavshin, providing extensive notes. During this time period three high-class matches were taking place. In his home town of Szeged Peter Leko had to bow to the Chinese player Li Chao (2:4). On the other hand, Shahkriyar Mamedyarov lived up to his role as favourite and defeated Markus Ragger in Vienna by 3.5:2.5. Previously in Wenzhou Ding Liren had won against Boris Gelfand by 3:1. Other players have annotated their games from various events: including Adhiban, Edouard, Gupta, Postny, Sutovsky, Tiviakov and Wagner.

4 | ChessBase Magazine #168

OPENINGS (see also booklet, from p. 8) Karolyi: Reti Opening Stohl: English 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Pavlovic: English Symmetrical Variation Marin: Owen Defence Schipkov: 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.c4 Nd7 Schandorff: Caro-Kann Advance Variation

In Svidler-Jobava, Tbilisi 2015, the Georgian played the surprise 6... f6. Lars Schandorff has investigated the idea

Krasenkow: Sicilian Rossolimo 3...e6 Berg: French Winawer 4.Ne2 Ris: Scotch 5.Nxc6 bxc6 Illingworth: Ruy Lopez Anti-Berlin 4.d3 d6

Max Illingworth relies on numerous games by Aleksej Aleksandrov (Photo) in his examination of 4...d6

Havasi: Queen’s Gambit ...Bf5 Postny: Queen’s Gambit Ragosin Szabo: King’s Indian Fianchetto Kuzmin: King’s Indian Classical 9.Qc2

Pavel Eljanov (Photo) has made known the rare 9.Qc2 in the Classical King’s Indian. Alexey Kuzmin explains the ideas

October/November Booklet DVD COLUMNS Williams: Move by Move This time Simon Williams has chosen the recent game Aronian-Caruana (Saint Louis 2015) for training. In our interactive video format you have the opportunity to find the correct moves.

Editorial 3 Contents 4-5 Top-tournaments Biel, Sinquefield Cup

6-7

Rogozenco: The Classic In the Classic video the German federal trainer Dorian Rogozenco shows us the unusual game Paulsen-Morphy, New York 1857. Marin: Strategy – Against the minority attack In his column Mihail Marin looks into minority attacks, but does so from the viewpoint of Black. The article begins with a video in interactive format. He has also added a section in which the student is tested with numerous classical training questions. Reeh: Tactics – “Capture – but correctly!” Oliver Reeh’s article contains 27 games studded with numerous training questions and an introductory text with links to all the games. In addition to that our tactics expert has recorded two of his favourites as a video in interactive format. Müller: Endgames – “Rook against pawn” Karsten Müller’s column contains two introductory texts, 26 annotated endgames, many training questions and five classical videos. In addition the endgames expert from Hamburg has recorded two endgames in interactive format.

Clap on the shoulder – Rex Sinquefield congratulates Aronian after his win over Nakamura

Openings Introduction to the DVD articles

8-21

Impressum 12 Tactics 22 Nine combinations to solve Nicholas Pert: ChessBase author introduced

23

Knaak: The Opening Trap Rainer Knaak’s opening trap (including a Fritztrainer video) contains five topical traps. Openings videos (see also p. 25) Tiviakov: Queen’s Indian 4.g3 Bb4+ Mihail Marin: Classical King’s Indian Ris: Reti Opening 2.g3 g6 3.c4 dxc4

Service

New products with videos of the DVDs by Breutigam, Gormally, Williams. Complete booklet in PDF format

Nicholas Pert is still a relatively new ChessBase author, but has created for himself a large fanbase with several DVDs

Overview of previous openings articles

Endgames 24 Nine endgame exercises to solve

Overview of previous video openings articles

Openings videos introduced

25


Top Tournaments Biel: hat-trick for “mvl” Good things come in threes! Maxime VachierLagrave (“MVL”) obviously feels good at the Chess Festival in Biel. The French player has taken part every year since 2009. This year he was not the Elo favourite at the start, but never-

With three wins in the last three rounds VachierLagrave put the opposition in its place

ations of the Grünfeld Defence with the early 4.¥f4 followed by 7.c4-c5. His plan of forcing the French player into unusual structures worked. Wojtaszek shows in the analysis of the game on the DVD that in the transition to the middlegame (14...¥h6) his opponent made the decisive strategic mistake, So, thanks to having free play on the queenside, the Polish player decided the game in his favour and was the first to lead the field. In the penultimate round against Navara, MVL bet everything on a single card with a pawn sacrifice and defeated the Czech with an impressive attack. Before the final round MVL and Wojtaszek were in front, equal on points. The Pole first of all reached a winning position against Navara, but then lost the thread – a draw and thus the way was open

theless he managed to win the GM tournament for the third year in succession after 2013 and 2014. In good Biel tradition the spectators were again treated to a lot of hotly contested, sometimes even sensational games (see the editorial) and

tension till the very last round. After six out of ten rounds MVL, David Navara and Radoslav Wojtaszek were leading the pack with +1 each and struggled for victory in the return rounds. Wojtaszek made a start with his victory over MVL. Anand’s second avoided the main vari-


for MVL! Against the indisposed Rapport he required only a clean win on technique to take victory in the tournament. The diagram above shows the critical moment: in typical fashion Rapport sacrificed a pawn with 15...d5 (followed by 16.exd5 ¥xh3 17.¥xe5 ¦xe5 18.¥xh3 a6 19.¤bc3), but Black does not get sufficient compensation. MVL annotates the game on the DVD and explains to you how he won it.

Top Tournaments

sinquefield cup: aronian back on track In the second stage of the “Grand Chess Tour” in Saint Louis things started with a bang: all five games in the first round had a decisive result. For example, Levon Aronian defeated Fabiano Caruana with hand-to-hand combat. The previous year’s winner opened up the position seen in the diagram with 20...dxe4 at just the wrong time. After 21.fxe4 ¦a5 22.exf5 ¤xf5 23.¥c4+ ¢g7 24.d5 ¦e8 25.¤e4!! ¤d4 26.£h5! Aronian conducted a crashing attack with a rook sacriCongratulations from Rex Sinquefield to Aronian after the latter’s win against Nakamura

fice and a quiet knock-out blow. A dream start, which would lend the Armenian wings. Things were quite different for Magnus Carlsen: the

world champion’s start to the tournament was less dramatic than in Stavanger (CBM 167) but just as unsuccessful. Once more he had to congratulate Topalov on a victory. But this time the world champion found a better pace and after 6 rounds he was leading the tournament with Aronian. The decision came in round 7: Carlsen wanted to win the endgame against Grischuk and overreached himself. Aronian, on the other hand, took advantage of Nakamura’s bold choice of opening and outplayed the American positionally. An early conclusion – after that, two draws were enough for the Armenian to decide a top tournament in his favour after a long drought.


Opening actually a fight for equality Tibor Karolyi introduces the Schmid Benoni Attack Reti Opening A09: 1.¤f3 d5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.c4 d4

In CBM 166 Tibor Karolyi had already looked into 3.d4 ¥f5; we now have his once more thorough article on 3.c4 d4. In it the position in the diagram arises much more frequently via 2.c4 d4 3.g3 ¤c6. In an overwhelming number of cases the continuation is 4.¥g2 e5. White is now faced with a difficult decision – should he allow e5-e4 or (after 5.d3) the check on b4?

Radek Wojtaszek: strong pawn sacrifice


A) After 5.0-0 e4 6.¤e1 our Hungarian author also analyses 6...¤f6, but the pawn sacrifice introduced in 2005 by Radek Wojtaszek with 6...h5!

immediately puts White under pressure. In practice things have not looked good for White, even the improvements suggested by Karolyi result in no more than equality for him. B) So 5.d3 is somewhat more popular, but Black plays similarly to the Schmid Benoni (1.d4 c5 2.d5 ¤f6 3.¤c3 g6 4.e4 d6 5.¤f3 ¥g7 6.¥b5+) 5...¥b4+. Then every reply has its disadvantages. 6.¤bd2 may be played often, but the knight does not belong here, since the typical thrusts b4 and e3 are not supported. Nor is 6.¥d2 optimal. Perhaps it is even the most rarely played 6.¤fd2 which is the lesser evil; with ¤b1-a3-c2, b3, a3 and ¦b1 White can get in the thrust b4, but that does not mean that he gets an advantage with it. Conclusion: Black has no need to fear 3.c4, for White it is actually a struggle for equality.

Opening

many open questions Igor Stohl analyses new trends in the English Opening English A22: 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.¤c3 ¤b6

In the Sicilian Dragon with reversed colours the usual continuation is 6.¤f3 ¤c6, but theory has developed to an extraordinary extent without really promising White anything. In his article Igor Stohl examines the still relatively new trend of deviating from the main variation early on – either by delaying ¤g1-f3 or by finding another way of developing the g1-knight.

B) 6.e3 is not new, but the move was first introduced at GM-level in 2011 by Vadim Zvjaginsev. A critical position arises after 6...¤c6 7.¤ge2 ¥e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.f4.

Now there are two principled lines. After 9... exf4 10.¤xf4 White will go on to play d4 and possibly e4. Whether that suffices for an advantage is another question. Most strong players have preferred 9...f6 and after 10.f5 White will try to follow up with d2-d4.

A) After 6.d3 ¥e7 the Slovakian grandmaster considers 7.¤h3 “ a single-shot weapon”, which may have been successful in GrischukHammer, Stavanger 2015, but “straightforward development gives Black good counterplay” (Stohl). 7.¥e3 0-0 8.¦c1 is more valid, in order to see which setup Black adopts. Often, White first plays ¤f3, if Black decides on a line which would have sought to avoid this in the event of the immediate 6.¤f3. However, this strategy also comes to an end with 8...¦e8 9.a3 ¥f8 10.£c2!? h6– when 11.¤f3 ¤c6 has to be played anyway. An important element in this variation is to leave the diagonal for the ¥g2 open. As soon as Black plays ...¤c6, there follows ¥xc6 ruining Black’s pawn structure.

Jones-Edouard, London 2014: no advantage, but a more pleasant game

In Jones-Edouard, London 2014 10...a5 11.b3 ¥d7 12.d4 was played and although White did not have a proper advantage, his position was probably more pleasant to play. Conclusion: After both 6.d3 and 6.e3 many questions remain open.


Opening

very close to equality

Eröffnung

Milos Pavlovic examines a sharp English variation English A37: 1.c4 c5 2.g3 g6 3.¥g2 ¥g7 4.¤c3 ¤c6 5.¤f3 e6 6.d4

A) The clearly more popular 8...£a5+ forces White into a decision – interpose with the knight or with the queen. There is some evidence that 9.¤d2 constitutes the better choice. Pavlovic also analyses one of his own games, which he won in impressive fashion. B) Probably 8...exd5 is safer, when White has mostly continued with 9.¤bxd4 or first castled and then gone on to take on d4 with the b-knight. Although Black almost always develops his knight to e7, in his article on the DVD Pavlovic also looks into both 9...¤ge7 and also 9...¤f6.As things appear, Black can hold his own in both cases.

The setup with ...e6 is popular, Milos Pavlovic thinks: “On account of its reputation as a flexible and rock-solid system it continues to be considered as one of the best variations against the English Opening”. If White now plays solidly (for example, 6.0-0 or 6.d3), then sooner or later Black will play ...d5 and have very good chances of equality. But there is as an alternative the aggressive 6.d4 – in most cases a temporary pawn sacrifice. Now 6...¤xd4 is hardly played any more, though it is not clear that White then really obtains an advantage. After the usual 6...cxd4 7.¤b5 d5 8.cxd5 Black is faced with a decision.

In Gelfand-Leko, Tashkent 2012, 9.¤fxd4!? was, however, played – White then has a knight on b5 instead of standing passively on f3. Then ¥e3 was played and the ¤b5 can, after ...a6, occupy the c3-squarefrom where it directly attacks d5. But Leko replied 9...¤f6 (instead of the usual move after 9.¤bxd4, namely 9...¤ge7) and after 10.0-0 0-0

11.¥e3 he had 11...¤g4. Whether11.¥f4 represents an improvement needs to be tested.

Gelfand-Leko, Tashkent 2012: the rare 9.Nfxd4 did not worry the Hungarian


Conclusion: Black is “very close to equality” (Pavlovic), but 6.d4 is probably nevertheless the reason why 5...e6 has become less popular for the moment.

Opening

In hypermodern spirit Mihail Marin completes his repertoire with 2...Bb4+ Owen Defence A40: 1.d4 e6 2.c4 ¥b4+ 3.¤c3 b6 4.e4 ¥b7

C) The clearly most frequently played move is 5.¥d3 and after 5...f5 White has a choice. a) 6.f3 £h4+! 7.g3 £h5 leads to a pawn structure which is unfavourable for him. b) 6.d5 fxe4 7.¥xf3 ¤f6 8.¥f3 ¥xc3+ etc. also gives White nothing. c) The most popular is 6.£e2 (6.£h5+ g6 7.£e2 is really the same, because g6 does not represent a weakness, on the contrary, it is sometimes useful) 6...¤f6 and then 7.¥g5 leads after 7...fxe4 to extensive exchanges and equality. A more ambitious try is 7.f3,

Mihail Marin’s new article also deals with the analysis of 3.¤d2 b6 4.e4 ¥b7, but that is more of a marginal issue, whereas the position in the diagram occurs very frequently in practice. Marin’s intention is to complete his repertoire after 2...¥b4+ 3.¤c3 b6. In the original Owen Defence after 1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.e4 ¥b7 nowadays 4.¤c3 has been replaced by 4.¥d3! and after 4...¥b4+ White would have both 5.¥d2! and 5.¢f1! instead of 5.¤c3. Thus the position in the diagram is important above all for Marin’s 2...¥b4+, and less for the Owen Defence itself. Starting from the position in the diagram above, the Romanian grandmaster analyses five continuations, of which the most important are presented here in brief. A) After 5.£c2 Black should react energetically in order to equalise: 5...£h4 6.¥d3 f5 and then 7.¤f3 ¥xc3+ 8.¢f1! (8.bxc3 £g4!) 8...£h5 (8...£g4 9.h3 £g6 10.exf5) 9.bxc3 fxe4 10.¥xe4 and now he has a nice game after 10...¤c6! B) After 5.f3 too, Black has to attack the white centre immediately: 5...f5 6.exf5 ¤h6! 7.fxe6 ¤f5! 8.¥f4 (otherwise 8...£h4+) 8...dxe6 9.£a4+ ¤c6 and as the analyses on the DVD show, Black can also hold his own against 10.d5 which has been successful in practice.

with which White is also setting an opening trap. Because if Black now accepts the pawn sacrifice with 7...fxe4 8.fxe4 ¥xc3+ 9.bxc3 ¤xe4, White simply replies 10.¤f3 and his attack becomes much too strong (and 10.£h5+ g6 11.£g4 ¤f6 12.¥xg6+! also works). In fact in practice most players cannot resist the temptation. But in 7...¤c6! he has a far better continuation at his disposal. After 8.¥e3 f4 9.¥f2 e5! Black obtains a typical Nimzo-Indian blockading structure. Conclusion: Mihail Marin does not see any danger to his repertoire for Black and thinks that “the Owen variations with the pinned queen’s knight offer him excellent counterplay in the purest hypermodern spirit“.


Opening

losing Popularity Boris Schipkov introduces you to an unusual opening Wade Defence A41: 1.d4 d6 2.¤f3 ¥g4 3.c4 ¤d7

4.£b3 and 4.¤c3. But what he recommends is the main move, that is 4.¤c3. Then 4...g6 is a mistake, though it is only rarely exploited: 5.¤g5! shows exactly what the problem was, e.g. 5...h6 6.¤xf7 ¢xf7 7.h3 with very pleasant play for White. However, Black mostly plays 4...e5. Now 5.e3 is an option, which leads after 5...¤gf6 6.¥e2 to Old Indian positions in which Black has played ...¥g4. Our Russian author sees for White “a tiny advantage, but Black can obtain sufficient counterplay, if he plays correctly”.

In the previous issue we saw that 3...¥xf3 hardly sets White any problems, he can even obtain an advantage in various ways. 3...¤d7 is somewhat more flexible, but above all Black wants to be able to play ...e5 quickly. In his contribution on the DVD Boris Schipkov analyses four replies for White: 4.d5, 4.e4,

A more principled move is 5.g3, since there is no need for White to worry about d4. After 5...¥xf3 (to which Schipkov attaches ?!, though it is nevertheless the most played move) 6.exf3 exd4 7.£xd4 the queen is well placed in the centre. A better move is 5...¤gf6 6.¥g2 c6 7.h3 ¥xf3 (after 7...¥h5 8.¤h4 too, White obtains the possession of the bishop pair) 8.¥xf3 ¥e7

ChessBase Magazine Nr. 168, October / November ISSN: 1432-8992 Published by: © ChessBase Schachprogramme Schachdatenbank Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, represented by managing directors Rainer Woisin and Matthias Wüllenweber, Osterbekstrasse 90a, 22083 Hamburg, Tel: (+49)40 - 639060-0, Fax: (+49)40 - 6301282 E-Mail: [email protected] Editor in chief: Rainer Knaak Advertising editor: Dr Steffen Giehring Editorial board: Dr. Steffen Giehring, André Schulz, Pascal Simon, Thomas Stark, Rainer Woisin Layout: Rainer Knaak Translations: Ian Adams, Dean Hall, Oliver Reeh Photos: internet press photos (pp. 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19), Pascal Simon (pp. 8, 21), Amruta Mokal (p. 17) Printing: Druckhaus Leupelt GmbH, 24976 Handewitt Exclusion of liability: The publishers of this magazine cannot be held liable for the accuracy or completeness of the information and especially not for the chess analysis contained in it. Reproduction: No material contained in this issue of ChessBase Magazine may be reproduced in whole or in part without written consent of the publisher. Reproduction, where allowed, must include the full name and location of the publisher as the source. Subscriptions: ChessBase Magazine is published six times per year on DVD. The price for an individual volume is EUR 19.95, for the annual subscription EUR 99.70. ChessBase Magazine Extra consists of six additional CDs. Price: EUR 12.99 per issue. The annual subscription costs EUR 51.50. All prices include 19% European VAT, which may be deducted for foreign orders.


and here Schipkov recommends 9.d5 or even 9.0-0 (but not 9.e4?!) with a slight but longlasting advantage. Conclusion: The setup with ...d6 and ...¥g4 has lost popularity for good reason. With simple moves White can secure himself a secure advantage.

Opening

almost like the french Lars Schandorff fancies another Jobava idea Caro-Kann B12: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 ¥f5 4.¤f3 e6 5.¥e2 ¤d7 6.0-0 f6

Svidler-Jobava: an important game in which 7.c4! was played

The advance ...f6 tends to be linked to the French Defence, but why should it not also be played in the Advance Variation of the CaroKann? Of course the liberation of the ¥c8 does not play any role here, pressure on the white centre is the main idea. In addition, one gets away from the closed type of positions, which also fits in well in this opening.

while Black is still struggling with his development”. After 7...fxe5 8.dxe5 ¥c5 the development of the b1-knight to d2 also comes into question, but in higher class games 9.¤c3 a6! (not 9...¤e7 on account of 10.¤a4) was played: 10.cxd5 cxd5.

Lars Schandorff first deals with a few secondary moves, of which above all 7.¤bd2 is quite interesting. After 7...£c7 8.¤b3 ¤e7 9.exf6 gxf6 10.¤h4 etc. Based on more than 100 computer games. 7.exf6 has been seen relatively often in practice. After 7...¤gxf6 8.¥d3 ¥d6 White can play 9.£e2, setting a trap (9...0-0? 10.¥xf5 exf5 11.£e6+), but 9...¤e4 equalises. Defending the e5-point is counter-productive. After 7.¥f4 ¤e7 8.¦e1 ¤g6 9.¥g3 fxe5 Black’s position is already preferable.

Here White has tried 11.¥e3 and 11.¤d4, though without much success. Whether he should look for improvements here or earlier is the question.

But 7.c4! was played in the important game Svidler-Jobava, Tiflis 2015 and appears to be setting Black the greatest problems. Our author thinks: “White puts the black centre under attack. He already has his own king in a safe place so it is natural to try to blow open the position

Conclusion: The opening system presented here has not yet become really popular, but Baadur Jobava is now even playing 5...f6! successfully and thereby demonstrating that the advance of the f-pawn is a genuine theoretical question.


Opening

3...e6 vs. the ROSSOLIMO — part 2 Michal Krasenkow reveals secrets from his repertoire Sicilian Defence B30: 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 e6 4.0-0 ¤ge7

White, e.g. Caruana-Gelfand, Paris 2013 (1-0), and Caruana-Radjabov, Bazna 2013 (1-0), had little to do with the opening. Most of the space in grandmaster Krasenkow’s investigations, however, is taken up with the continuation 5.c3. After 5...a6 6.¥a4 b5 7.¥c2 ¥b7

Here White has a wide choice of moves, Michal Krasenkow analyses five continuations on the DVD. Two of these – 5.¤c3 and 5.¦e1 – prepare d2-d4. So in both cases 5...¤d4 should be played. The analyses of the Polish grandmaster prove that Black can be satisfied with the positions he achieves. However, the immediate 5.d4 cxd4 6.¤xd4 is also relatively popular, above all with Fabiano Caruana whose played it several times. Naturally ¥b5 does not then fit well into the position, so Black should immediately force the exchange on c6 with 6...£b6. The positive results for

There are several moves for White. Naturally 8.d4 is premature on account of 8...cxd4: 9.cxd4 ¤b4! or 9.¤xd4 £c7 with a nice Paulsen position for Black. Two other lines are more usual. A) 8.¦e1 ¦c8! with the point 9.d4?! cxd4 10.cxd4 and Black has 10...¤b4 11.¥b3 ¦xc1! 12.£xc1 ¤d3=. So the most frequently played move is 9.a4, whereupon Krasenkow gives two replies: 9...b4 10.d4 cxd4 11.cxd4 d5 12.¤bd2 ¤a5 with equality or even 9...¤g6 10.¤a3 b4 with the same evaluation. B) 8.£e2 is followed by the quite different move 8...d5 9.e5 d4! 10.¥e4 ¤d5! and 11.d3 is followed by 11...dxc3 with equality, whereas 11.cxd4 ¤xd4 is really dangerous for White.

Caruana-Gelfand, Paris 2013: one of Caruana’s wins with 5.d4!?


Conclusion: White has nothing to fear in the Rossolimo with 3...e6, though he should “be prepared for a long positional struggle” (Krasenkow), which is not quite typical of the Sicilian.

Opening

an ambitious continuation Emanuel Berg offers a building block for your repertoire French Defence C15: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.¤e2 ¤c6

Nowadays one does not often meet 4.¤e2, but if so then one is usually up against specialists in this variation, who are well versed above all in the 4...dxe4 5.a3 line, no matter whether one plays the older 5...¥xc3+ or the more modern 5...¥e7. With 4...¤c6 it is possible to avoid the majority of theory though the move can no longer be considered a secret weapon. Several times Emanuel Berg has had the position in the diagram on the board with both colours. In addition the Swedish grandmaster has also dealt with the subject in detail in his book “Grandmaster Repertoire 14 – The French Defence”. He considers the moves 5.a3 ¥a5 to be automatic, since it does not make sense to delay them. Then three sub-variations come into question: A) 6.b4 ¥b6 7.¥b2 ¤ge7 8.g3 brought White surprising success after the over-aggressive 8...h5?! in the game Solodovnichenko-Giri, Montpellier 2015. However, the improvement 8...e5! is obvious and easily allows Black to equalise immediately. B) 6.¥e3 sets Black the problem of where to develop his g8-knight. Berg’s answer is 6...¤ge7!, after which White’s e4-e5 can be met with ...f6.

C) 6.e5 may not be the most played move, but it is represented by three high class duels involving Hector vs. Berg. In each case it was followed by 6...¤ge7 7.b4 ¥b6 8.¤a4 0-0.

Here Jonny Hector first tried 9.¦b1 (9...¤f5) and then 9.b5 (9...¥a5+!). In their third meeting 9.c3, which according to Berg is the best move, was finally played. But the analyses by our author on the DVD prove that even then Black can also keep things on a level keel with 9...f6!.

Hector-Berg: three high-class duels in the same variation

Conclusion: In 4...¤c6 Black has at his disposition an ambitious continuation, which has the additional advantage that there is not yet a lot of theory around it. For Berg himself 4...¤c6 was the reason for giving up the variation with 4.¤e2 as White.


Opening

play the natural move Robert Ris stands up for an unpopular variation Scotch C45: 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.d4 exd4 4.¤xd4 ¥c5 5.¤xc6 bxc6

In the Scotch with 5.¤xc6 the move 5...£f6 was for a while played automatically (at least by stronger players), but especially the positions after 6.£d2 dxc6 are very particular ones. The natural reply 5...bxc6 has been played in numerous games, though few of the players had elevated Elo ratings, and it can be supposed that most of them did not even suspect that instead of recapturing on c6 they could also have played an intermediate move. In his article Robert Ris mainly examines 6.¥d3, which is the most frequently played move. It is met with 6...£h4. A) The popular 7.£e2 was followed in CarlsenCaruana, Biel 2011 with 7...¤e7 and although Black came out of the opening well, White was able to win in the long run. However, Ris rec-

Carlsen-Caruana, Biel 2011: victory for White


ommends 7...¤f6. After it White can have no great hopes with 8.¥e3, since after the exchange of the bishops Black’s position is quite comfortable. However, the alternative 8.h3 runs into 8...d5!

The main idea consists of 9.exd5+ ¢d8! 10.0-0 ¥xh3! with equality. But 9.g3 £h5 10.£xh5 ¤xh5 brings White no advantage either. B) But the first player can also put his queen on f3. Not so much on move 6 or 7 (though nevertheless this is also investigated by Ris on the DVD), but 7.0-0 ¤f6 8.£f3. As a result of his analyses Ris comes to the conclusion that both the natural 8...0-0 and also 8...¥d4!? are very playable. Finally the Dutch international master also takes a look at 6.¤c3, which may be played quite infrequently, it nevertheless enables interesting transpositions: both 6...¤f6 and 6...£f6 lead to known variations. Our author’s recommendation is 6...£f6 7.£f3 d6 and e.g. 8.£g3 £g6. In the game Radjabov-Carlsen, Moscow 2012, there was soon an endgame, which Magnus Carlsen conducted in the style of Capablanca and won. Conclusion: 5...bxc6 not only allows one to avoid the heavily analysed lines, but to also fight for more than equality.

Opening

still an ace up your sleeve Max Illingworth gives deep insights into an ambitious variation Ruy Lopez C65: 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¤f6 4.d3 d6

6.d4! ¥d7 7.d5 ¤e7 8.¥xd7+ ¤xd7 9.c4 will leave Black missing his light-squared bishop in this King’s Indian type of position. Therefore 5...¥d7 is the correct reply (to 5.0-0). Then 6.c3 (as is usually played) 6...g6 is a major subject in in Illingworth’s article on the DVD. All in all, one can say that Black is okay.

In the games involving top players the move 4...¥c5 is totally dominant, but when Black has more in mind than simply aiming for equality and a possible draw, then, according to Max Illingworth, the other move 4...d6 comes into question. It will come as no surprise that Arkadij Naiditsch is well represented in the database on the DVD, with an even greater expert being the Belarussian Aleksej Aleksandrov.

But White has a not very well known trick: 6.¦e1!? Then 6...g6 may be playable, but in principle 7.d4! then works when followed by d5 and the exchange of the light-squared bishops. Aleksandrov, who likes to meet 5.c3 with 5...g6, always reacts to 6.¦e1 with 6...¥e7. The following standard moves lead to a tabiya of the variation: 7.c3 0-0 8.¤bd2 ¦e8 9.¤f1 h6 10.¤g3 ¥f8.

White should now play 11.h3 if he wants to meet 11...¤e7 with 12.¥xd7. Or else he rescues his bishop with 11.¥a4 ¤e7 12.¥c2. In both cases Black can be content. Aleksej Aleksandrov: greatest expert of the variation

Our Australian author begins his article with a classic game: 5.¥xc6?! in Anderssen-Steinitz, London 1866. A little later he issues a warning which one might call a rule: do not play ...g6 until White has played c3. For, e.g., 5.0-0 g6?!

But our author still has another ace up his sleeve for White: 9.¥a4! ¥f8 10.d4! and his analyses of this almost unknown position do not reveal any equality for Black. Conclusion: According to Max Illingworth Black can really obtain more exciting positions with 4...d6, but White tends to get more of an advantage than after 4...¥c5.


Opening

Theory revised Gergö Havasi makes some surprising discoveries Queen‘s Gambit D06: 1.d4 d5 2.¤f3 ¥f5 3.c4 e6 4.¤c3 ¤f6

Alexander Morozevich: new development

reached the position after 7...£c7, but, as is so often the case, a new variation does not become popular until a top player take it up. It is actually desirable to first develop the ¥c8 and only then to play ...e6. According to old theory, however, White gets an advantage, but this judgement is based above all on 4...c6, after which 5.£b3 £b6 6.c5 £c7 7.¥f4! £c8 leads to a position which we know (with reversed colours) from the London System. But there is a major difference: in our position Black has not yet played ...¤f6, so White is a tempo up and that means that he is better placed.

Gergö Havasi also clears up another evaluation. After 5.¥g5 c6 the line 6.¥xf6 £xf6 7.£b3 £e7

After 4...¤f6! things are somewhat different. Now 5.£b3 ¤c6! 6.cxd5 exd5 7.¥g5 leads to a variation of the Exchange Variation of the Queen’s Gambit Declined. It is considered to be level. But what is decisive is an important discovery after the main move 5.¥g5. Next comes 5...c6 6.£b3 £b6 7.c5 £c7 and now White actually has no better use for his ¥g5 than 8.¥f4 £c8, after which we reach the aforementioned London System, but this time without White having an extra tempo. The new development first started with the game Landa-Morozevich, Eilat 2012; after Morozevich, Grischuk also included the move 4...¤f6 in his repertoire. There had previously been games by Chatalbashev, and even Marshall-Torre Repetto, Moscow 1925,


was considered advantageous to White in line with the game Stangl-Dautov 1994. But this evaluation appeared to be too optimistic. So what hope is there left for White? Perhaps 5.¤h4, which brought Bacrot victory over Chatalbashev (Baden-Baden 2013). But Havasi suggests the as yet never played 5...¥b4 and backs up his choice with analyses. Conclusion: Perhaps the early development of the bishop is more playable than has been thought up till now.

Opening

the other Ragosin Plan Evgeny Postny deals with recent developments Queen’s Gambit D38: 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 d5 4.¤c3 ¥b4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.¥g5 h6 7.¥h4 ¤bd7

Evgeny Postny writes in the introduction to his article on the DVD: “Compared to other lines of the Ragosin Defence, here Black is usually not counting on a standard c7-c5 advance, but mainly on a g7-g5 push, followed by ¤f6-e4, eliminating the dark-squared bishop.” The Israeli grandmaster presents a total of four replies for White, but of those 8.£a4 and 8.¤d2 are of lesser importance. A) The move 8.£c2 is most frequently met with 8...c5?!, but in his article Postny shows that after 9.e3 £a5 10.¥d3 c4 11.¥f5 gets into a variation in which the insertion of ...h6 ¥h4 is unfavourable for him, because then he cannot easily play ...g6 later. After 8...g5 9.¥g3 ¤e4 White can play 10.¤d2 ¤xg3 11.hxg3, but Postny thinks that Black equalises with 11...¤b6. B) After 8.e3 once more 8...c5 is inexact, the reason for this being the same as above. But there is a good reason for the plan ...g5 (and not ...c5). So 8...g5 9.¥g3 ¤e4 10.¤d2 ¤xg3 - See diagram above right -

and now one of course expects the recapture

with the h-pawn. But in Carlsen-Aronian, Stavanger 2014, the world champion shocked his opponent with 11.fxg3. The final result (1-0) certainly had nothing to do with the opening and also no one else has taken up the idea of 11.fxg3. However, White can probably not get an advantage with 11.hxg3 either.

Carlsen-Aronian: shocked his opponent with 11.fxg3

So the trend now appears to be towards 10.£c2, whereupon 10...h5 has shown itself to be necessary. White has several promising replies, but if Black defends precisely he can maintain the balance. Conclusion: The variation is very playable for Black, but he must logically follow the plan with ...g5 and ...¤e4. According to Postny thorough preparation is required.


Opening

only a4 works long term Krisztian Szabo on the state of the Gallagher Variation — Part 2 King’s Indian E68: 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ¥g7 4.¥g2 0-0 5.¤c3 d6 6.¤f3 ¤bd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 exd4 9.¤xd4 ¦e8 10.h3 a6 11.¥e3!

In the second part Krisztian Szabo examines the strongest white setup with 11.¥e3! ¦b8 12.b3! The two moves for White are not exactly obvious, as, e.g., they leave the ¤c3 momentar-

Solutions to the combinations 1. 22...Rxc1+! 23.Rxc1 Qb3 (24.axb4 Qa4+) 0-1 2. 38...Rxe3! 39.Rxe3 Bb6 40.Kf2 f4 0-1 3. 26.Ng6+! Kd7 27.Bb5+! Bc6 28.Ne5+ 1-0 4. 28.Qxd7 1-0 28...Qxd7 29.Bxe5+ Kh7 30.Rh1+ +5. 13...Ndc5! 14.dxc5 Nxc5 15.Qd2 Qxb5 -+ 6. 32.Be4+! g6 33.Nxg6?? (33.Qf8! +-) 33...Nxe4! 7. 15...Nxf4! 16.exf4 Nxc4! 17.Bxc4 Qe8+! -+ 8. 20...Nxc4! 21.Qb4 (21.Bxc4 Qf5! -+) 21...a5 -+ 9. 19...Nxe5! 20.Bxe7 e3! 21.Qe2 Bb5! -+

Endgame solutions 1. 77.Rxd4+! Kxd4 78.a7! +2. 59...Rf1+! 60.Ke5 Rg1 61.Kf5 Kd4 -+ 3. 54...Kg5? (54...Kg4! 55.Ke5 f4! 56.gxf4 f5 -+) 55.Ke5! Kg4 (55...Kg6 56.Kd6!! =) 56.Kf6 = 4. 73...Rg1?! (73...Rg4! 74.Rh4 Rc4 -+; 74...Rd4 -+) 74.Rh1 Rf1? 75.Rxf1 Bxf1 76.Ka4 = 5. 52.b4!! axb4 53.Kxd3 Kxh4 54.c5!! bxc5 55.a5 +6. 79...Ke1? (79...Rf8! 80.Ra7 Kg2 81.Ra1 Rf4!! -+) 80.Rf7 = 7. 103.Qc2+! Ka1 104.Qc3+ Ka2 105.Kh8 +8. 86.Be3! Bg2 87.Kg6 Bf1 88.Kf6 = 9. 67...Bc5! 68.Nc6 Kd5 69.Nd8 Bb6? (69...Bd4! 70.Nb7 Bb6 -+) 70.Nf7 =


ily unprotected. The decisive advantage of this move order lies in the fact that Black’s typical plan when he played 10...a6, namely 12...c5 13.¤de2 b5?! is bad; after 14.£xd6 b4 15.¤a4 ¤xe4 16.¥xe4

neither 16...¥xa1 nor 16...¦xe4 is sufficient. The second most frequently played move is 12...¤c5. But after 13.£c2 ¥d7 14.¦ad1 (or immediately 14.b4) it is not so easy for Black to obtain his usual queenside counterplay. For a main line Szabo analyses 12...¤e5, which again intends ...c5 and ...b5. A) 13.f4 is ambitious. After 13...¤ed7 White has gained time and space, but there is no clear promise of any advantage. B) Many fianchetto players act quite typically: the prudent 13.a4 stops any play by Black. Most frequently seen has been 13...¥d7, but Szabo proposes 13...¤fd7; in several correspondence games Black has had little trouble keeping things on an even keel. Conclusion: The white setup prevents “for a moment” the typical ...c5 and ...b5, but in the long run this can only be guaranteed by a2a4. But moving the rook pawn weakens the b4-square and limits White’s options on the queenside.

Opening

the Ukrainian Variation Alexey Kuzmin presents a surprise weapon King’s Indian E97: 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 ¥g7 4.e4 d6 5.¤f3 0-0 6.¥e2 e5 7.0-0 ¤c6 8.d5 ¤e7 9.£c2

many ideas do not work, such as ¦f8-f6-h6. Just how useful ¦d1 is remains to be seen. Instead of ¤e1 White also likes to follow a plan with b4. The ideas around 9.£c2 were developed in Ukrainian chess circles, Pavel Eljanov has played the move from time to time, but his main weapon remains 9.b4. In the diagram on the left Black has various knight moves. A) 9...¤h5 10.¦d1. Now, according to Kuzmin, 10...h6 is even worse (than 10...f5), since White plays 11.g3 f5 12.¤h4! ¤f6 13.exf5! etc. B) 9...¤d7 10.¦d1 h6 allows the unplayed 11.¤h4!?, after which Kuzmin’s analyses show an advantage for White.

The move 9.£c2 is still a rarity in the Classical King’s Indian. Alexey Kuzmin explains in detail his preferences in the introduction to his article on the DVD. In brief, they are as follows. White almost always plays 10.¦d1, then he hopes that Black will play ...f5 without a preparatory ...h6. This would give White the opportunity for ¤g5 followed by ¤e6, after which the setup with £c2/¦d1 develops its full potential. So Black

Pavel Eljanov: 9.Qc2 only as a surprise

should first play ...h6, and then advance the f-pawn. ...h6 is followed, e.g., by. ¤e1 and one gets positions similar to those after 9.¤e1. It then turns out that ...h6 is the waste of a tempo,

C) 9...¤e8 is the most precise. After 10.¦d1 h6 White does not have 11.¤h4 on account of 11...¤xd5! (this time the §c7 is protected). After 11.b4 f5 Eljanov has played 12.c5, whereupon his opponent should have played 12...a5. 12...¤f6 13.¤d2

would result in a position similar to a 9.b4 ¤e8 variation – £c2 and ¦d1 fit in very well, less so ...h6. Conclusion: For the moment 9.£c2 still represents a good surprise weapon; this can also be seen from the fact that the best move 9...¤e8 is played relatively rarely.


Tactics

1. Roeder - Mozharov How can Black mate in four moves?

2. Feldtmann - Pechac How would you continue with Black?

3. Das - Burmakin White to play and win.

4. Chabanon - Ekeberg How can White win quickly?

5. Verstraeten - Shankland How can Black win material?

6. Antonsen - Harvey How would you continue here as White?

7. Karas - Zwardon Which combination with several moves wins Black material?

8. Blahynka - Tsaknakis Here too Black wins material. How?

9. Stets - Lubbe Start a nice assault for Black.

You will find the solutions on page 20 or in detail in the tactics column on the DVD


ChessBase Author Nicholas Pert – grandmaster because of a lack of snow The English GM Nicholas Pert has already gathered for himself a large community of fans with his DVDs which have been published by ChessBase. After the openings DVDs on the French Defence, the Slav Defence to the Queen’s Gambit and his repertoire for White with fianchetto systems (“Safe and Solid against the wild Indians”) his DVD “Typical mistakes by 1600-1900 players” was particularly well received by chess players. Nicholas Pert, born in 1981, grew up in Ipswich where, after he demonstrated his talent, he was coached together with his twin brother Richard by Kevin O’Connell, who was active in England in the chess in schools project and who also lived in Ipswich. Nicholas and Richard had learned to play chess as five year olds. Their parents had taken them to Sweden to go skiing, but there was no snow so they taught their two sons the game of chess. Nicholas Pert turned out to be somewhat keener than his twin brother, achieved good results in international youth championships and in 1998 became U18 world champion. He won the British U20 national championship three times. In 2006 Pert represented England at the Chess Olympiad in Turin. Between 2008 and 2010 he remained undefeated in 52 successive games. At the latest British championship Nick Pert, as one of the four leading players in the final round, just had to come up against his twin brother Richard. A victory would have assured him of at least a shared first place. Elsewhere

Nicholas Pert: chess instead of maths

that is how the game would have been decided in “pragmatic” fashion, and that not only between twin brothers. But in the homeland of “fair play”, however, the game finished in a draw. “Our games always finish as draws. That has already cost me so many Elo points“, commented Nick Pert, shrugging his shoulders. Thus Jonathan Hawkins, taking advantage of mistakes by his opponent Keith Arkell, became British champion. Pert was left sharing the runner-up spot. Twins are used to sharing. After leaving school Nick Pert studied mathematics and statistics and worked for a time in a firm of actuaries. That, however, was not so very exciting and so he decided he would prefer to earn his living as a chess trainer. Pert lives with his wife and their two small daughters near London, still takes part from time to time in some attractive tournaments, but spends most of his time giving chess lessons in a series of schools and to some private pupils. In addition, as the youth trainer of the British Chess Federation, he also teaches up and coming English players.


Endgame

1. Saranya - Gomes How did White cash in on his passed pawn?

2. Bjorksten - Sarkar Black to play and win.

3. Tari - Grandelius How should the extra pawn be exploited?

4. Dinev - Injac Can the black rook escape the perpetual pursuit?

5. Ros Alonso - Kunal How did White continue?

6. Hasangatin - Goganov Black to play and win.

7. Schachinger - Sermier How did Schachinger win?

8. Navara - So How did Navara stop the passed pawns?

9. Liu Manli - Ni Shiqun How did Ni Shiqun start the hunt for the knight?

You will find the solutions on page 20 or in detail in the endgame column on the DVD


Opening Videos This time the “Openings Videos” column contains eight videos by three authors. Sergei Tiviakov: Queen’s Indian 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.g3 ¥b4+

grandmaster Mihail Marin analyses the game extensively and suggests improvements for both sides. Sergei Tiviakov knows the Queen’s Indian well. On his ChessBase DVD “No fear of 1.d4! Vol. 1 – Catalan and Queen’s Indian”, he showed how to get very playable positions on the board with Black. Now with his latest video he goes into recent developments and in doing so leans heavily on his own games. The Dutch grandmaster is convinced that 4...¥b4+ is the strongest move against White’s 4.g3 in the Queen’s Indian. As a bonus the database contains 35 games from among his own. Mihail Marin: King’s Indian 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 ¥g7 4.e4 d6 5.¤f3 0-0 6.¥e2 e5 7.0-0 ¤c6 8.d5 ¤e7 9.¤e1 ¤d7 10.¥e3 f5 11.f3 f4 12.¥f2 g5 13.¤d3 In the game Lysyj-Wan Yunguo, China 2015, both players followed for a long time a topical line of the Mar del Plata Variation. Then White surprised his opponent with an unusual plan. In a position with his king on h1 he played 17.¦g1!? (see diagram above right), in order to then go on and open up the kingside himself with g3. Actually that is where Black is active. But an advantage in space and the slightly better development make this possible. Romanian

Robert Ris: Reti Opening 1.¤f3 d5 2.g3 g6 3.c4 dxc4

Robert Ris has an interesting suggestion against the Reti Opening: 2...g6. It is not new, but thanks to two Carlsen-Anand games from the WCh match of 2013 the move became really popular. The main idea is that the ¤g8 has not yet been developed, which allows ...¥g7 and ...e7-e5 – naturally only if White takes no steps against it. The most played moves are 3.¥g2 ¥g7, but 3.c4 dxc4 is more critical and thus the topic of our Dutch author who presents his investigations in a total of 6 video clips.


CHESS BASE MAGAZINE 168.pdf

Recommend Documents