October 2013
The Master’s Bulletin In the Spotlight
2
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qk+ t qk+ r0 r0 9z p +pv lpz lpz p 0 9 p z +ps n p0 p z0 9+ p z + + 0 9 + P z + L0 L v0 9+ P z PN+ P zN+ 0 9Pz P N s PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy Kramnik Triumphs in Tromsø by GM Alex Yermolinsky
Topical Theory
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qk+ t qk+ r0 r0 9z p +pv lpz lpz p 0 9 p z +ps n p0 p z0 9+ p z + + 0 9 + P z + L0 L v0 9+ P z PN+ P zN+ 0 9Pz P N s PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy IM Robert Ris on Andreikin's adventurous rapid repertoire
In the News
Magnus Carlsen Wins 1st Sinquefeld Cup
7
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qk+ t qk+ r0 r0 9z ppz ppz ppz ppz p lp0 l vp0 9 + + s np+0 np+0 9+ + +p+ 0 9 +Pz P L v +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy GM-elect Mackenzie Molner on Aronian's ¥ f4 f4 against the Dutch
17
Hou Yifan regains world title
This Saturday: Death Math #18 Judit Polgar vs. Nigel Short!
Featured Blogs
18
Leaderboards
18 1 of 18
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
In the spotlight Kramnik Triumphs in Tromsø GM Alex Yermolinsky
Without losing a single game, Vladimir Kramnik won the World Cup in Tromsø, his career's best performance since beating Kasparov in 2000 according to GM Evgeny Bareev. But how did he do it? GM Alex Yermolinsky reveals that it was all about the middlegame...
an
result would have been good enough
career achievement since beating
interesting year so far in 2013. After
to win the Dortmund again if it wasn’t
Garry Kasparov in 2000. Considering
a disappointing second-place nish
for a career-reviving performance by
the kind of career Kramnik has had,
in the London Candidates he turned
Mickey Adams.
that’s saying something.
Vladimir
Kramnik
has
had
down an invitation to play in Norway’s
remained,
In Tromsø, Kramnik won seven
rst Super Tournament, giving an
as Kramnik entered his rst World
matches, four of them in regulation
impression of a man resigned to
Cup
Knockout
and the other three on tie-breaks.
his fate. In his interviews Vladimir
Championship) since Las Vegas 1999.
His total score line reads: 9 wins, 13
talked about enjoying life as a family
Together with World’s #2 Levon
draws and no losses. Vladimir went
man and his growing interest in
Aronian, Vladimir was already seeded
+5 =11 in long-time control games,
things other than chess. The 38-year
in the next Candidates tournament
and +4 =2 in 25-minute rapid games.
old Kramnik said he wasn’t sure he
by rating, but was required to play in
No ten-minute games or blitz were
would play much after he turns 40.
one ofcial FIDE qualication event.
required. His rating points gain was
two
Aronian and Kramnik have gured
modest: only 2.4 points.
appearances in tournaments did
out that playing the World Cup would
nothing to dispel this notion. His
be a way less painful alternative to
the
play seemed at and dead-ended,
entering the Grand Prix series of four
accomplishment, it’s time to look at
particularly in the Tal Memorial,
round-robin events. Here in Tromsø,
chess and talk about how he did it.
which turned Vladimir’s rst ever
they could go out of the tournament
It’s very common to praise his deep
last-place nish of his career. His
quickly, fulll their obligation, cash
preparation in the opening, such was
rating dropped below Karjakin’s and
their checks and go home happy.
the case in the second half of the
Grischuk’s, placing Kramnik as low
That’s exactly what Levon did.
Candidates tournament. Of course,
as #3 in the Russian list for the rst
Kramnik, however, wrote a different
then there is his legendary endgame
time since 1993.
story.
technique. However, as I went
Kramnik’s
next
Still,
questions
(formerly
World
Now,
as
we
understand
magnitude
of
Vladimir’s
Then came the traditional
Three weeks later Vladimir
through Kramnik’s games, in contrast
Dortmund tournament. True to his
emerged with what was described
to what was said above, I got a feeling
history of dominance in that event
by his long-time friend and second
that he won the Tromsø tournament
going back some 12 years, Kramnik
at world championship matches, GM
largely due to his excellent handling
played much better and his nal
Evgeny Bareev, as Kramnik’s best
of the middlegame.
2 of 18
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
Kramnik-Kobalia
the rst rapid game Kobalia took a
Black would have to nd the only
FIDE World Cup (Tromsø), 2013
quick draw with White, it was clear
way
Kramnik had a psychological edge
28.¢xg2 ¦fe8 where Qe2+ is going
over his opponent.
to force a queen trade, unless White
18.¦a2 £e7 19.¥c3 ¥e6 20.¦af2 b5 21.axb5 axb5 22.¢h1
nds 29.¦1f2 and then 29...£b7+
XIIIIIIIIY 9 r tlw q r tk+0 9+ + +pz pp0 9pz p + + +0 9+ p zLz p + 0 9P+ s nP+ v l0 9+P+P+ s N 0 9 L vP+ +Pz P0 9t R +Q+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
continue,
to
27... ¥ xg2+!!
30.¢g1 ¦e5 31.£c1 gives White a
middlegame, where both sides have
XIIIIIIIIY 9 r t + r tk+0 9+ + w qpv lp0 9 + +l+p+0 9+pz pLz p + 0 9 +Ps nP+ +0 9+Pv LP+ s N 0 9 + + t RPz P0 9+ +Q+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
strong and weak points. White,
So, both sides have accomplished
¦fe8 Kramnik would have to nd
obviously, is happy with his Bd5 and
their modest goals, and now what?
29.£g4+ (certainly not 29.£g5+ ¢f8
pins his hopes on some play on the
22...h5?
30.£xd5?? £xf6) 29...¢f8 30.¦h6
f-le. Black, in his turn, has the
Kobalia picked a wrong moment to
£e5 31.£h4 and then at the end
powerful Nd4 and loads of space in
get active. 22...b4 23. ¥ xd4 exd4
of a forced line, 31...cxb3 32.¦h8+
the center.
24.¦a2 ¥ e5 and I still prefer Bla ck.
£xh8 33.£xh8+ ¢e7 34.£e5+ ¥ e6
15.£h5 ¥f6 16.c4 g6 17.£d1 ¥g7
23.¥xd4 exd4 24.¤f5!
35.£xc5+ ¢d7 36.£xd4+ ¢e7 White
GM Mikhail Kobalia is an experienced
Kramnik seizes the only opportunity
looks winning, but some work still
grandmaster in his mid-30’s who has
to get things going.
lies ahead.
distinguished himself as a trainer.
24...gxf5
27.fxg7
He possesses a solid if not defensive
24...£d7 25.¤xg7 ¢xg7 26.¦f6 looks
Vladimir
syle of play. Here his main concern
a bit depressing from Black’s point of
28.£xh5 ¦f7 29.fxg7 ¦xg7 30.¦f7
was to shore up his king and then
view, but possibly he can defend.
winning on the spot.
prepare b6–b5. A more actively-
25.exf5 bxc4
27...¢xg7 28.bxc4 ¥xd5 29.£xh5
The game started 1.e4 c5 2.b3, so I won't talk about the opening at all. By now what we have is a complex
have meant the instant elimination,
XIIIIIIIIY 9 r t + r tk+0 9+ + w qpv l 0 9 + +l+ +0 9+ p zL+P+p0 9 +pz p + +0 9+P+P+ + 0 9 + + t RPz P0 9+ +Q+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
and drew without difculty. When in
After 25... ¥ xd5 26.f6 ¥ xf6 27.¦xf6
minded player wouldn’t think of surrendering the kingside to White:
17... ¥ g5 18.¦a2 ¥ e3+ 19.¢h1 £g5 is very logical, followed up by Bg4, or better yet, ¢g7 and f7–f5! Is White in trouble yet? Possibly, so, but I
don’t see Kramnik being excessively worried at this point. He was down a pawn for nothing in the second regulation game, where a loss would
3 of 18
strong attack.
26.f6!? It’s interesting that Kramnik rejected a solid way to retain a big edge: 26.fxe6 fxe6 27. ¥ xc4 Black has a collection of pawn weakenesses and
the presence of opposite-colored bishops makes it even more dif cult
to defend.
26...£d6 On 26... ¥ xf6 27.¦xf6 ¥ xd5 28.£xh5
27. ¥ xe6
missed
fxe6
Better was 29.cxd5 but it’s unfair to blame the players who had to handle tough tactics with whatever little time was left on their clocks.
29...f5? Kobalia
makes
the
last
error.
29... ¥ xc4 30.dxc4 f6 would keep the game going, as the strong d4–pawn
forces White to looks for checkmate of decisive win of material.
30.cxd5 £g6 31.£h4 ¦be8 32.¦f3 ¦e3
The Master’s Bulletin
XIIIIIIIIY 9 + + t r +0 9+ + + m k 0 9 + + +q+0 9+ p zP+p+ 0 9 + p z + Q w0 9+ +Pt rR+ 0 9 + + +Pz P0 9+ + +R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
October 2013
17...b6!
41...£f1!
Clearing out the long diagonal to
Not anymore! Kramnik begins his
render White’s bishop useless.
attack on the white king.
18.£d2 ¤e7 19.¦e2 ¥f7 20.£e1 ¥h5
42.¢h2
This provokes further weakening of
In case of the objectively better
White’s position.
42. ¥ xe5 Black would get the result
21.f3 ¤c6 22.g4 ¥f7 23.gxf5 £xf5 24.¤e4 ¤d4 25.¦d2 c5 26.£f2 ¢h8 27.¦g1 ¥d5 28.£g3 ¤e6 29.h4 ¤f4 30.¥f1 c4!?
he needed after 42...¦xd3+ 43.¢g4
A great practical decision. Kramnik
(43.¢h2 43...£d1+
¥ g1+
44.¦xg1
44.¢f4 ¥ e3+
¦h3#)
45.¢g3
¥ g1+.
42...¦xd3 43.£g4 £f6 44.¦e2 ¥d4 45.¥d2 ¦f3 46.¦g2 e4 0–1
switches
is willing to part with his advantage
tracks to collect some pawns and
in order to facilitate his play. When
wins prosaicly.
a thought of a match-clinching draw
Ivanchuk-Kramnik
33.¦xe3 dxe3 34.£e7+ ¦f7 35.£xe3 f4 36.£e5+ £f6 37.£xf6+ ¦xf6 38.g3 f3 39.¢g1 ¦f5 40.d6 ¢f6 41.¢f2 ¢e5 42.¦e1+ ¢xd6 43.¦e3 1–0
is constantly on your mind the best
FIDE World Cup (Tromsø), 2013
Now
Kramnik
smoothly
would play 38.£e4 and let Black
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ + +k+0 9+ q wnv lpz pp0 9rz pp+p+ +0 9z p P zp+ + 0 9 P z P z P z +0 9z P N s +Nz P 0 9 + +Qz P P z0 9t R + +Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
decide if he wants to enter a slightly
These two have a long history of
38...£f4+
battles on the highest level, the
39.¢g2 £xe4+ 40.dxe4 ¢f7 41.h5
latest being an Ivanchuk victory in the
¥c5 42.¦d1 ¢e6.
last round of the London Candidates
38...¥c5 39.¦g3 ¦f8 40.¦g2 ¦d8 41.£e4
that cost Kramnik a shot at regaining
XIIIIIIIIY 9 + r t +k+0 9z p + + z p 0 9 p z + q w p z0 9+ l v p z + 0 9 +P+Q+ z P0 9z P L vP+ +K0 9 P z + +R+0 9+ + + + 0 xiiiiiiiiy
memories notwithstanding, Vladimir
remedy is to play more direct chess.
Does it look like a normal Kramnik
31.dxc4 ¥xe4 32.fxe4 ¦xd2+ 33.¥xd2 £xe4 34.¥d3 ¤xd3 35.cxd3 £c6 36.¥c3 ¢g8
win to you? A Morozevich-like sudden
The white king is more open. In
attack from a slightly inferior position
another match situation Areshchenko
is a better way to describe it.
would be thinking queen swap, but
here he had to win at all costs. Areshchenko-Kramnik
37.£g4 £f6 38.¢h3
FIDE World Cup (Tromsø), 2013
Still, a more experienced ghter
XIIIIIIIIY 9 + r trv lk+0 9z ppz pq+ z p 0 9 +n+l+ z p0 9+ + z pp+ 0 9 + + + +0 9z P N sPv L P zP0 9 P zP+ z PLm K0 9t R +Qt R + 0 xiiiiiiiiy Round three, another tiebreak. After winning the rst game Kramnik just
needed a draw to go through. His opponent, a talented Ukranian GM,
took a decision to avoid theoretical lines hoping to outplay Kramnik from a worse position. Let's see.
worse
endgame
after
4 of 18
the world championship title. Painful mapped out his strategy for this match to be as solid as possible, hence the Queen's Gambit Declined in the rst game. The position on the
board is very well known.
16.b5 This is not a novelty, but far more
popular is 16.¦ab1 which Kramink faced against Radjabov at the Kazan Candidates, 2011.
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
16...cxb5 17.¤xd5 exd5 18.£xe7 ¦c8 19.¦ab1
£xa3 33.¢g2
42.£b4?
It is not easy to defend this.
Leaving the light squares open ruins
The alternative 19.c6 leads to an
33...£b3 34.£d7 ¦a8 35.¦d3 £e6!
White’s game in a few moves.
endgame 19...¤b8 20.£xc7 ¦xc7 21.¦ab1 ¤xc6 22.¦xb5 ¤e7 that is about equal. It is interesting to
mention that Levon Aronian played the same idea, only with the other
rook 19.¦fb1 against Anish Giri and won the game!
19...bxc5 20.¦xb5 ¦e6 21.£g5 h6 22.£xd5 ¦d6
XIIIIIIIIY 9 +r+ +k+0 9+ q wn+pz p 0 9 + r t + p z0 9z pRz pQ+ + 0 9 + P z P z +0 9z P + +Nz P 0 9 + + z P P z0 9+ + +Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ + +k+0 9+ +Q+pz p 0 9 + +q+ z p0 9+ + z P + 0 9p+ + + +0 9+ +R+ z P 0 9 + + z PKz P0 9+ + + + 0 xiiiiiiiiy 36.£b7 36.£d6 £xd6 37.exd6 ¢f8 38.¦e3 cuts off the black king and ensures
that the passed pawns will be traded off. 36.£xe6 fxe6 37.¦a3 looks more troublesome, as the white rook is
badly placed. Still, White should hold his own after 37...¢f7 38.¢f3 g5 39.h3 ¢g6 40.¢e4 h5 41.g4 ¦f8
42...£c6+ 43.¢f2 ¦b5 44.£d4 £c2+ 45.¢f3 ¦b2 0–1 It doesn’t seem that Kramnik had to do much; he just stayed with the game and let his opponent selfdestruct! Kramnik-Korobov FIDE World Cup (Tromsø), 2013
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw q r tk+0 9z pp+ v lpz pp0 9 +n+p+ +0 9+ +n+ + 0 9P+Lz P + +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9 P z +Qz PPz P0 9t R L vR+ m K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
42.¢e3 ¦f4 43.f3 ¦b4 44.¦c3.
Over the years Kramnik has made
36...£c8
many contributions to the theory of
24.£xc7 ¦xc7 25.¦xa5 d3 26.¦d1
Kramnik continues to bafe Ivanchuk
chess. One of the least recognized
Without the queens the d-pawn isn’t
with endgame riddles.
of those being his study and praxis
that dangerous.
of Isolated Queen Pawn positions.
23...£c6 24.£e2
37.£f3 ¦a5 38.¦a3 £e8 39.£e4 g6 40.f4?!
24.¤e5 is intriguing, but it all zzles
This one just feels wrong with the
accepted, only it came from the Slav,
out after 24...¤xe5 25.dxe5 £xb5
queens still on.
the line Kramnik himself developed
26.exd6 £d3.
40...h5 41.h4 ¢g7
to use with Black against Peter Leko
23.£a2?! Far
stronger
was
23. £c4
cxd4
24...cxd4 25.¦fb1 Ivanchuk continues to drift, his play lacks precision and focus. 25.¦xa5 d3 26.£e3 ¤b6 27.¦a7 at least keeps the extra pawn, although Black’s
chances are higher.
25...a4 26.¤e1 ¤c5 27.¤d3 ¤xd3 28.£xd3 £c3 29.¦d1 ¦e6 30.¦e5 Not 30.£xd4? as 30...¦e1+ 31.¢g2 £c6+ 32.£d5 ¦xd1 wins a rook.
30...¦xe5 31.fxe5 £b3 32.£xd4
XIIIIIIIIY 9 + +q+ +0 9+ + +pm k 0 9 + + +p+0 9t r + P z +p0 9p+ +Qz P P z0 9t R + + z P 0 9 + + +K+0 9+ + + + 0 xiiiiiiiiy 5 of 18
This one resembles a Queen's Gambit
in their match in 2004. White gets a free move a2–a4, but until this game nobody gured out how to use it!
12.¥d2!? A very unusual concept.
12...¤cb4 The knights are awkward, but it’s not easy to nd a constructive idea.
12...b6 13.£e4 and Black doesn’t have the defensive move Nf6 in his disposal. 12... ¥ f6
13.£e4
¤ce7
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013 capitalise on Black’s weak 7th rank.
14.¤e5 and the strong white queen
20...£c7 21.a6!?
exerts pressure on both wings.
Kramnik
13.a5 ¥d7
most energetic choices, as he did
32.h3!
13...b6 14.a6.
the whole tournament against the
This little move makes a lot of
14.¤xd5 ¤xd5 15.¤e5
younger
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ w q r tk+0 9z pp+lv lpz pp0 9 + +p+ +0 9z P +ns N + 0 9 +Lz P + +0 9+ + + + 0 9 P z L vQz PPz P0 9t R +R+ m K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
continues
opposition.
to
play
21.¦ac1
the
a6
32...g6 33.¥d2 ¦xc6!?
21...bxa6 22.b4 ¦fd8 23.¦xa6 h5 24.£f3
As good a choice as any. It’s hard to
Possibly 24.£e2 was more precise.
pawn stays on the board.
In the line 24...¦ab8 25.¦da1 ¤xb4
34.¥xc6 £xc6 35.£b1 g5 36.h4!
26.¦xa7 £xc5 27.¦xf7 ¦xd2 28.£xd2
In the same energetic style.
£xc4 Black could have put up
36...gxh4 37.¥h6 ¤c7
some resistance if it wasn’t for the shot 29.¦xf6!! and then 29...gxf6 30.£h6+ ¢g8 31.¦a7 and the white queen miraculously didn’t let the c4– square out of her sights.
Korobov decides to sit in the trenches.
24...¦ab8 25.¥e1 ¤xb4 26.¦xd8+ £xd8 27.¦xa7 ¢g8 28.c6 ¤d5
no words criticizing himself for playing this game so timidly. To his credit, Korobov nearly equalized the
score by outplaying Kramnik in game 2 before blundering the win away in the endgame. Normally Black should play 15... ¥c6 as the trade on c6 favors him, but Korobov must have
been annoyed with 16.a6.
16.£f3 f6 17.¤d3 ¥f7 18.£g4 ¢h8 19.¤c5 ¥xc5 20.dxc5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ w q r t k m0 9z pp+ +lz pp0 9 + +pz p +0 9z P P zn+ + 0 9 +L+ +Q+0 9+ + + + 0 9 P z L v P zPz P0 9t R +R+ m K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
difference.
22. ¥ d3² is solid, but not spectacular.
15...¥e8 After the match the Ukranian spared
34. ¥ b4 £d5.
XIIIIIIIIY 9 r t q w +k+0 9t R + +lz p 0 9 +P+pz p +0 9+ +n+ +p0 9 +L+ + +0 9+ + +Q+ 0 9 + + z PPz P0 9+ + v L K m 0 xiiiiiiiiy 29.¦b7? A serious error. The best was 29. £a3 tying up the black queen.
29...¦c8!
imagine Black surviving if the c6–
XIIIIIIIIY 9 + + +k+0 9+Rs n +l+ 0 9 +q+pz p L v0 9+ + + +p0 9 + + + z p0 9+ + + + 0 9 + + z PP+0 9+Q+ + m K 0 xiiiiiiiiy 38.¦a7 38.£b4! would have won right away.
38...¤b5 39.£b4 ¤d6 40.£b8+ ¤e8 41.¦e7 e5 42.¢h2 Black has managed to organize some sort of a defense, but of course, he’s
lost in the long run.
42...h3 43.gxh3 ¢h7 44.¥e3 ¢g8 45.£b1 £d6 46.£g1+ ¢f8 47.¦a7 ¤c7 48.£c1 ¤e6 49.£c8+ ¢g7 50.£e8 ¤c7 51.£b8 1–0
Suddenly Black is threatening to win
the c6–pawn.
The victory over Anton Korobov saw
30.¥b5 £d6 31.£e4 £c5?
Kramnik through to the seminals.
Korobov returns the favor with this
His matches against two youngsters,
obscure move. More hands-on would
Maxime
be to continue attacking the pawn
Dmitry Andreikin, featured more
with 31... ¥ e8 32. ¥ d3 g6 33. ¥ b5 ¤e7
spectacular middlegame play by
Now it's clear who won the early
Suprisingly White who’s hampered by
Vladimir Kramnik, but I will leave for
middlegame battle.
his back rank problem is unable to
you to study it on your own. Enjoy.
6 of 18
Vachier-Lagrave
and
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
Topical Theory Andreikin's Adventurous Rapid Repertoire IM Robert Ris Dmitry Andreikin surprisingly managed to reach the World Cup
nal. His secret? Good rapid chess and an adventurous white repertoire based on the Colle, the London, the Torre and the Trompovsky! IM Robert Ris tells the amazing story. Introduction
his games, pointing out the critical
or d4. Another option for Black is
Dear readers, I m IM Robert Ris and
theoretical moments of the game
to ght for the key square e5 by
this is my rst contribution to The
as well as the typical tactical and
means of 7... ¥ d6 8. ¥ d3 0–0 9.0–0
Master s Bulletin. One of the biggest
positional ideas for either side. I
but this setup doesn t work out well
stars of the World Cup in Tromsø
hope you ll nd it both an instructive
for Black, since the desirable 9...e5
was the Russian youngster Dimitry
and enjoyable read!
seems to be premature.
'
'
'
Andreikin, who, against all odds, managed to make it to the nal.
Andreikin-Karjakin
Along his way he defeated several big
FIDE World Cup (Tromsø), 2013
guys in the tiebreaks with impressive attacking play. In this article I have
1.d4 ¤f6 2.¤f3 e6 3.¥g5 d5 4.¤bd2 h6
a closer look at the use of his White
Other moves like 4... ¥ e7 and 4...c5
repertoire, as in fact he succeeded
have been tried here as well, but in
in outplaying opponents like Karjakin
most cases they transpose.
and Svidler from openings which
5.¥h4 c5 6.e3 ¤c6 7.c3
aren t seen frequently at top level '
anymore: the Torre Attack, the London
System,
the
Trompovsky
and the Colle System or any kind of hybrid version of these four. What
kind of impact does Andreikin s '
games have on the current state of opening theory in these lines? In general we can say that play has a less forcing character compared to openings like the Grünfeld or Sicilian
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qkv l r t0 9z pp+ +pz p 0 9 +n+ps n p z0 9+ p zp+ + 0 9 + P z + L v0 9+ P z P zN+ 0 9Pz P N s P zPz P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
'
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw q r tk+0 9z pp+ +pz p 0 9 +nv l n s p z0 9+ p zpz p + 0 9 + P z + L v0 9+ P zLz PN+ 0 9Pz P N s P zPz P0 9t R +Q+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy a) 10.dxe5 ¤xe5 11.¤xe5 ¥ xe5 12.f4
¥ d6 13.e4 c4?! (Better is 13... ¥ e7!
14. ¥ xf6 ¥ xf6 15.exd5 £xd5 16.¤e4 £c6 and Black is in control.) 14. ¥ e2 £b6+ 15. ¥ f2 ¥c5 (15...£xb2 fails
to 16.e5) 16.e5 ¤e4 17.¤xe4 dxe4 18. ¥ xc5 £xc5+ 19.£d4± and after the £s came off Black had some problems protecting the § on e4 in
Najdorf, where every single mistake
7...£b6?!
Morozevich-Alekseev, Moscow 2008.)
decides the outcome of the game.
The £ seems to be a little bit
b) The best way for White opening
Below I have taken up the challenge
misplaced here, as Black fails to
the centre is 10.e4! when it turns
giving an objective view on three of
increase the pressure either on b2
out the black forces are quite badly
7 of 18
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
coordinated, e.g. 10...exd4 (10...
opening rules) 9. ¥ g3! b6?! 10.e4!
e5 by playing ...f7–f6.
g5 can strongly be met by 11.¤xg5!
dxe4 11.¤xe4 cxd4 12. ¥ b5! ¥ b7
8.¦b1!
hxg5 12. ¥ xg5 c4 (12... ¥ g4? runs into
13.£a4! ¦c8 (13...dxc3 14. ¥ xc6
Since the ¤ is already on d2, there is
13. ¥ xf6!) 13. ¥ b1! (13. ¥c2?! exd4
(14.0–0–0!? might even be stronger.)
no need protecting the § on b2 with
14.exd5 d3 15.dxc6 dxc2 16.£f3
14...cxb2 15.¦b1 ¥ xc6 16.£xc6 ¦c8
8.£b3.
¥ xh2+ 17.¢xh2 ¤g4+ 18.£xg4 ¥ xg4
17.¤d6+ ¥ xd6 18.£xd6 should be
8...¥e7 9.¥d3
19. ¥ xd8 ¦axd8„) 13... ¥ e6 (13... ¥ e7
technically winning for White, e.g.
14. ¥ xf6 ¥ xf6 15.exd5 £xd5 16.£h5
18...¦c1+ 19.¢d2 ¦c5 20.¦he1! £a8
looks very dangerous for Black.)
21.¢e2 and White consolidates.)
14.f4! and Black s position looks very
14.¤xd4
suspicious.) 11.exd5 ¤e5 12.¤xe5
something clearly had gone wrong for
¥ xe5 13.f4! (A clear improvement
Black in Zherebukh-Troff, Wheeling
upon a recent rapid game which
2013.)
went 13.c4?! £d6 14.¤f3 ¥ g4 15.h3
b) 8...b6 9.0–0
¥ xf3 16.£xf3 ¦ae8 17. ¥ xf6 and a
b1) 9... ¥ b7 10.¦e1 (10.¤e5 ¤xe5
draw was agreed in E.Levin-Shirov, St
11.dxe5 ¤d7 12. ¥ g3 ¥ h4! — since
Petersburg 2013.) 13... ¥c7 14.¤e4
Black hasn t castled kingside yet this
£xd5 15.¤xf6+! (15. ¥ xf6?! is less
looks like a good idea — 13.f4 ¥ xg3
9...¤h5?
convincing, in view of 15...c4!) 15...
14.hxg3 £e7 15.£g4 h5 16.£e2 h4
Black temporarily misplaces the ¤
gxf6 16.¦f3! and due to the exposed
17.£g4 hxg3 18.£xg3 0–0–0 19.¤f3
on the edge of the board, while after
¢ Black is in huge trouble. In my
and now in Kamsky-Golod, New York
the trading off the dark-squared ¥ s
opinion the most natural continuation
rapid 2004 Black could have played
he remains only with bad pieces.
is 7... ¥ e7 8. ¥ d3 (8. ¥ b5?! £b6 9.a4
19...f6!„) 10...0–0 11.¤e5 ¤xe5
However, after 9...0–0 10.0–0 ¥ d7
0–0 10.¦b1 a6 11. ¥ d3 cxd4 12.exd4
12.dxe5 ¤d7 13. ¥ g3 £c7 14.f4 c4
11.¤e5 followed by 12.f4 White
£c7 13.£e2 was seen in Stefanova-
15. ¥c2 ¤c5 16.¤f3 ¤e4 17.¤d4
retains excellent prospects building
Kosteniuk, Beijing 2008 and now
¥c5 18.£g4 ¥ xd4 19.exd4 £d7
up an attack on the kingside.
13...¤h5! would have given Black a
20. ¥ h4 ¢h8 21.¦e3 ¦g8 22.¦h3 ¢h7
10.¥xe7 ¤xe7 11.0–0
good game, as 14. ¥ xe7 is met by the
23.¦f1 ¦h8 24. ¥ f6 ¦ag8 25.¦ff3
There is nothing wrong with this
intermediate move 14...¤f4!) and
£e8 26.£g5 1–0 Korotylev-Karpov,
natural developing move, but White
now:
Moscow blitz 2007. Although it was
had a nice little tactic at his disposal
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qk+ t r0 9z pp+ v lpz p 0 9 +n+ps n p z0 9+ p zp+ + 0 9 + P z + L v0 9+ P zLz PN+ 0 9Pz P N s P zPz P0 9t R +Qm K +R0 xiiiiiiiiy
just a blitz game and Black s play
with 11.dxc5! £xc5 12.£a4+ ¥ d7
could be improved several times, the
13.£g4 g6 14.¤e5! £d6 (14...¤f6
fact that the 12th World Champion
is met by 15.£f4) 15.¤xg6! and
loses in such a manner reminds us we
Black
shouldn t underestimate the Torre
compensation for the §.
Attack!
11...¤f6 12.¤e5 0–0 13.f4 ¤e8
b2) 9...0–0 10.¤e5 ¤xe5 11.dxe5
Another passive move, but it s difcult
¤d7 12. ¥ xe7 £xe7 13.f4 ¥ b7= and
pointing out a better plan for Black.
objectively speaking Black is doing
Perhaps 13... ¥ d7 with the idea to
Harikrishna-Kryvoruchko,
play ¥ b5 comes into consideration,
Kallithea 2008, as any moment he
but even after the simple 14.£e2!
a) 8...¤d7?! (against the basic
can get rid of White s stronghold on
White continues with his aggressive
'
¤xd4
15.£xd4±
and
'
'
'
ne
in
'
8 of 18
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+ t r0 9z pp+ v lpz p 0 9 q wn+ps n p z0 9+ p zp+ + 0 9 + P z + L v0 9+ P zLz PN+ 0 9Pz P N s P zPz P0 9+R+Qm K +R0 xiiiiiiiiy
doesn t '
obtain
sufcient
'
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
intentions on the kingside.
§ will be regained, retaining a huge
decisive too.
14.£h5 f6
positional advantage.
28.£xh6 dxc3
There is no chance of repeating
19...£c7 20.¤h4
moves with 14...¤f6 in view of
Including the last piece into the
15.£h4 and ideas like g4–g5 spring to
attack with 20.¦be1 is even stronger.
mind.
20...¥b5 21.¦fe1 ¥d7
15.¤g6 ¤xg6 16.¥xg6
After 21...£xf4 22.¦xe6 the ¤ is
More precisely than 16.£xg6 since
ready jumping to f5.
after 16...f5 17.¦f3 ¥ d7 Black is
22.f5?
about to consolidate with ¦f6, ¤d6
Too hasty, allowing Bla ck to exploit
etc.
the exposed kingside. In case of
16...¥d7
22. ¥ d3! White s advantage remains '
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ +nt rk+0 9z pp+l+ z p 0 9 q w +pz pLz p0 9+ p zp+ +Q0 9 + P z P z +0 9+ P z P z + 0 9Pz P N s +Pz P0 9+R+ +Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy 17.g4! Nothing can be gained from 17.¦f3 f5! (intending to play 18...¤f6)
beyond dispute, since 22...£xf4 is
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ + t rk+0 9z pp+l+ + 0 9 + + s nLw Q0 9+ q w p zP+ 0 9 + + + s N0 9+ p z + + 0 9Pz P + +Kz P0 9+R+ t R + 0 xiiiiiiiiy 29.¢h3! c2 30.¦bc1 £d4 31.¦g1 £d3+ 32.¦g3 1–0
met by 23.¤g6.
22...e5 23.dxe5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ +nt rk+0 9z ppw ql+ z p 0 9 + + z pLz p0 9+ +pz PP+Q0 9 + + +Ps N0 9+ P z + + 0 9Pz P + + z P0 9+R+ t R K m 0 xiiiiiiiiy
Andreikin-Svidler FIDE World Cup (Tromsø), 2013
1.¤f3 ¤f6 2.d4 g6 3.¥g5 ¥g7 4.¤bd2 c5
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw qk+ t r0 9z pp+pz ppv lp0 9 + + s np+0 9+ p z + L v 0 9 + P z + +0 9+ + +N+ 0 9Pz PPs NPz PPz P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
18. ¥ xe8 ¥ xe8 and the bad ¥ is
23...fxe5?
quite a good defender.
Amazingly Black could still have held
17...cxd4 18.exd4 £d8
the balance with 23...£c5+! and I
There is no chance for Black to play
failed to spot a win for White, e.g.
18...f5 at any time, because of 19.g5
24.¢g2 d4 25.e6 ¥c6+ 26.¤f3 ¤d6
and soon the g- and/or h-le will be
27.e7 dxc3 28.exf8£+ ¦xf8 29.bxc3
5.e3
opened. Black might have considered
¥ xf3+ 30.¢xf3 £xc3+ 31.¢g2 £d2+
Another line is 5. ¥ xf6 ¥ xf6 6.¤e4
18... ¥ b5 but after 19.¦f2 followed
32.¢h3 £c3+ 33.¢h4 £d2 and
but after 6... ¥ xd4 7.¤xd4 cxd4
by 20.¦e1 White s position is very
neither side can avoid the perpetual!
8.£xd4 0–0 practice has shown that
promising.
After the text move White s attack
Black doesn t have fear that much.
19.¤f3
looks crushing.
5...cxd4
Another option is 19.g5!? fxg5 20.fxg5
Black has tried several other moves
¦xf1+ 21.¦xf1 £xg5+ 22.£xg5 hxg5
24.g5! £c5+ 25.¢g2 d4 26.gxh6 ¤f6 27.£g5 gxh6
23. ¥ f7+ ¢h7 24.¤f3 and soon the
27... ¥c6+ 28.¢h3 dxc3 29.hxg7 is
and 5...£b6 but Svidler prefers to
''
''
'
'
9 of 18
'
here as well, like 5...b6, 5...d5
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
determine the pawn formation in the
under favourable circumstances via
on h5. However, since it s time
centre immediately.
h5.
consuming, I m not really convinced
6.exd4 ¤c6 7.c3 d5 8.h3
9.¥f4!?
of Andreikin s plan. Another plan is
earlier
Quite an unexpected change of
to go after the weakened doubled
games which mainly saw White
direction, as the ¥ moves for a second
b-pawns with 13. ¥c7 but then I think
Andreikin
deviates
'
'
reason.
Black obtains good play: 13...¦f c8
impression is that the exchange of
However, since the pawn formation
14. ¥ xb6 ¤c4 15.¤xc4 dxc4 16. ¥c5
light-squared ¥ s gives Black an easy
in the centre has become statical,
(16.¤e5?! ¤d5 17.¤xc4 (17. ¥c5?
life.
Black can t take advantage of this
fails
loss of time. Thanks to his useful
18. ¥ xc4
last move the ¥ can t be driven away
16...¤d5 17. ¥ xc4 ¤f4 18. ¥ f1 (18.
from the b8–h2 diagonal. In case of
g3 b6 19. ¥ xb6 ¦xc4 20.gxf4 ¦b8ƒ)
9. ¥ e2 £c7 Black gets a good game.
18...b6 19. ¥ a3 ¦xa3! 20.bxa3 ¦xc3
9...0–0 10.¥e2 £b6
and Black has more than sufcient
playing
8. ¥ d3
from
'
but
the
general
time
particular
without
'
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qk+ t r0 9z pp+ z ppv lp0 9 +n+ s np+0 9+ +p+ v L 0 9 + P z + +0 9+ P zL+N+ 0 9Pz P N s P zPz P0 9t R +Qm K +R0 xiiiiiiiiy
'
to
17... ¥ xe5) ¤xb6
17...¦xc4
favours
Black.)
Frankly speaking, I don t like Svidler s
compensation
plan that much as he voluntarily
material. Taking into account White s
damages his own pawn structure. A
favourable pawn formation, I think
logical alternative is 10...¤e4!?
the best plan is to proceed in quiet
11.£b3
style. Hence, the simple 13.0–0!²
Compared with the previous game,
comes into consideration. White can
For example:
11.¦b1
gradually improve his position with
a) 8...0–0 9.h3 £c7 10.0–0 ¥ f5
obvious reasons.
moves like ¦fe1, ¤e5 etc. and in
11.£c2 ¥ xd3
11...¤a5
the long run Black might have some
just have been overlooked by both
11...£xb3 12.axb3 only gives White
difculties protecting his structural
players.) 12.£xd3 e6 13.¦fe1 ¦fe8
additional options on the queenside.
weaknesses on the queenside.
14. ¥ xf6 ¥ xf6 15.h4 ¤e7 16.g3
12.£xb6 axb6
13...¥d7 14.g5 ¤h5 15.¥c7
(11...¤b4!?
might
¤f5= and Black is perfectly ne in
Seirawan-Anand, Amsterdam 1996.
b) 8... ¥ f5 9.£e2 (9. ¥ xf5 gxf5 10.0–0 ¤e4 11. ¥ f4 e6 12.¤e1 0–0 13.f3 ¤d6
14.¤d3 ¤e7 with a rather balanced position in Ibragimov-Perelshteyn,
Ledyard 2008.) 9... ¥ xd3 10.£xd3 0–0 11.0–0 £c7 12.¦fe1 and a draw was agreed in Korobov-Volokitin,
Kiev 2012.
8...¥f5
'
isn t
advisable
'
'
here
for
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ + t rk+0 9+p+ z ppv lp0 9 p z + n sp+0 9s n +p+l+ 0 9 + P z L v +0 9+ P z +N+P0 9Pz P N sLz PP+0 9t R + K m +R0 xiiiiiiiiy
for
the
invested '
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ + t rk+0 9+pv Llz ppv lp0 9 p z + +p+0 9s n +p+ z Pn0 9 + P z + +0 9+ P z +N+P0 9Pz P N sLz P +0 9t R + K m +R0 xiiiiiiiiy
Future games may proceed with
13.g4?!
15...b5
8...£c7!? controlling the f4 square,
A very ambitious plan which is based
Initiating a forcing sequence which
so that the ¤ on f6 may jump there
on getting the black ¤ out of play
must have been checked by both
10 of 18
The Master’s Bulletin
players far in advance. However,
October 2013
temporarily misplaced ¤ on a6.
sac 15...¦f c8!?
¦h3 26.¥xh5 gxh5 27.¦h1 ¦f3 28.¦hg1 ¦h3 29.¦h1 ¦f3 30.¦hg1 ¦h3 and Svidler decided to repeat the
16. ¥ xb6 ¤f4 17. ¥ xa5 (17. ¥ f1 ¤c4
moves. He could still have tortured
squared ¥ s once White has moved
18.¤xc4 dxc4 and the ¥ on b6 might
White a little bit longer with 30...
the ¥ on f1. However, I don t see
get into trouble.) 17...¦xa5 18.¤b3
d4 31.cxd4 ¦d8 32.¦g3 ¦xg3 33.fxg3
what is wrong with the more common
¦aa8 19.h4 f6 and since the pieces
¦xd4 but the despite the extra § he
7... ¥ b7 8. ¥ d3 0–0 and here several
in White s camp aren t cooperating
didn´t feel like having any realistic
moves have been tried.
efciently I think Black has ample
winning chances here. ½–½
Black might have considered the dynamical
pawn
'
'
Better is 21.¢f1 fxg5 (21...e5 is inaccurate,
in
view
of
22.gxf6
e4 23.fxg7 ¢xg7 24.¤de5 exf3 25. ¥ d1!²) 22.hxg5 (22.¤xg5? runs into
22...¤g3+)
and
now
both
22...¤f4 and 22...e5!? should give Black good play.
light'
interesting battle of space advantage
¤bd7 12.¦e1 a6 13.a4 ¤h5 and now
versus the pair of ¥ s ensues.
in Kamsky-Markowski, Mainz rapid
3...h6 4.¥h4 c5 5.e3 ¥e7 6.c3 b6 7.¤gf3
2010 White might have considered
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw qk+ t r0 9z p +pv lpz p 0 9 p z +ps n p z0 9+ p z + + 0 9 + P z + L v0 9+ P z P zN+ 0 9Pz P N s P zPz P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
slightly better. In fact Black s position
1.d4 ¤f6 2.¥g5 e6
21.¦g1?!
of
a) 9.0–0 d6 10.e4 cxd4 11.cxd4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ + t rk+0 9+p+ z p l vp0 9 +l+ z pp+0 9+p+p+ z Pn0 9 + P z + P z0 9+ P zN+N+ 0 9Pz P +Lz P +0 9t R + K m +R0 xiiiiiiiiy
weaknesses with active piece play.
exchange
and after 3...h6 4. ¥ xf6 £xf6 an
Andreikin-Svidler
needs to compensate his structural
the
An ambitious alternative is 3.e4
16.¥xa5 ¦xa5 17.¤b3 ¦aa8 18.¤c5 ¥c6 19.¤d3 f6 20.h4
An excellent move as Black seriously
offered
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs n q w r tk+0 9z pl+pv lpz p 0 9 p z +ps n p z0 9+ p z + + 0 9 + P z + L v0 9+ P zLz PN+ 0 9Pz P N s P zPz P0 9t R +Qm K +R0 xiiiiiiiiy
compensation.
20...¦ae8!
Furthermore he could also have
FIDE World Cup (Tromsø), 2013
The critical way to combat the Trompovsky is 2...¤e4 but that certainly requires more theoretical
knowledge.
3.¤d2
14. ¥ xe7 £xe7 15.£b3² and White is '
is quite unpleasant to play, in view of the slightly weakened queenside and
his lack of space. b) 9.£e2 ¤c6 10.a3 d5 11. ¥ g3?! was
seen
in
Harikrishna-Almasi,
Torrelavega 2007 and now Black seems to be doing OK after 11...¤h5!.
c) 9.a3 cxd4 10.cxd4 d5 11.0–0 ¤e4?
(Completing
development
with 11...¤bd7 makes more sense.) 12. ¥ xe7 £xe7 13.¦c1 ¤xd2 14.£xd2
21...e5! 22.gxf6 22...exd4!
7...¥a6?
The point. Inferior is 22...e4? 23.fxg7
A strange move which I don t really
¤c6
¤xg7 24.¤fe5 exd3 25.¤xd3 and
get. It seems Svidler wanted to
17.£c2 ¤e7 18.£a4 and thanks
Black is clearly worse.
simplify the position at any cost
to the better ¥ , without running
23.fxg7 ¦xf3 24.¢d2 dxc3+ 25.bxc3
and doesn t mind playing with the
any risk White could pressurize his
'
'
11 of 18
15.¦c3
¦f c8
16.¦f c1
£d6
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
opponent s position in Harikrishna-
have obtained full equality by means
game, I nd it quite amazing that
Bluvshtein, Montreal 2007.
of 20...¤e7 21.a4 ¦xc1 22.¦xc1 ¦c8
Andreikin defeated Karjakin in such
d) 9.h3 ¤c6 10.a3 d5 11.£b1 ¤d7
23.¦xc8+ ¤xc8= and there s nothing
great style. However, some critical
12. ¥ g3 ¥ f6 13.b4 cxd4 14.cxd4 a6
left to play for.
notes have to be added to Karjakin s
15.£b2² and White seems to be
play, who clearly failed to generate
slightly better in Kamsky-Navara,
21.¦fe1 ¢f7 22.¤f4 ¤b4 23.£e2 ¤xa2 24.¦xc8 ¦xc8 25.e4! ¤b4
Achaea 2012.
Black will quickly collapse after 25...
attack. Moves like 7...£b6 and
8.¥xf6 ¥xf6 9.¥xa6 ¤xa6 10.¤e4 cxd4
fxe4? 26.£xe4 since the light squares
9...¤h5 are certainly not in the
are too vulnerable.
spirit of Black s plan in this type of
10... ¥ e7?! 11.d5! would give White a
26.exf5 exf5 27.£f3 a5
position. Still, it takes quite some
rm grip over the centre.
More stubborn is 27...d5 28.¦e5 ¢g8
effort to defeat a player of this
11.¤xf6+
and Black retains drawing chances.
calibre!
I think better chances obtaining an
28.¦e6 ¢g8
advantage are offered by 11.cxd4
Still, Black might have considered
The classical game against Peter
¥ e7 12.0–0 and the ¤s are nicely
28...d5 but either after the aggressive
Svidler is, from a technical point of
placed in the centre.
29.g4! or the simple 29.¦xb6 Black s
view, perhaps the most interesting
11...£xf6 12.cxd4 £e7 13.0–0 0–0 14.£a4 ¤c7 15.¦ac1 ¤d5 16.¤e5 d6 17.¤d3
position isn t much fun to play.
of the three. The move 9. ¥ f4!? looks
29.£g3
quite mysterious but it seems that
'
17.¤c6!? £d7 18.¦c2 is perhaps more critical.
17...¦fc8 18.h3 £b7 19.£a3 £d7 20.£a6
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+r+ +k+0 9z p +q+pz p 0 9Qz p p zp+ z p0 9+ +n+ + 0 9 + P z + +0 9+ +Nz P +P0 9Pz P + P zP+0 9+ R t +Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
'
'
'
'
'
'
XIIIIIIIIY 9 +r+ +k+0 9+ +q+ z p 0 9 p z p zR+ z p0 9z p + +p+ 0 9 n s P z N s +0 9+ + + w QP0 9 P z + P zP+0 9+ + + m K 0 xiiiiiiiiy 29...¤d5? 30.£b3 Now Black loses the ¤,
counterplay against White s kingside
Svidler was surprised by this change
of direction and didn t react well. '
Instead of playing for an edge with the natural 13.0–0, Dmitry Andreikin
became very ambitious by pushing his g-pawn but had to be a little bit careful and settle for a draw. In the rapid game Svidler didn t play '
accurately by trading off the lightsquared bishops so quickly, and had
to deal with a somewhat passive since
position. It was pretty close to equal,
30...¤xf4 is met by 31.¦e7+! winning
but from a practical point of view
the £. 1–0
White s position is easier to play. '
After Black committed a few errors,
20...f5?!
Conclusion
the game quickly ended in White s
Simply too weakening. Black could
Even though it was just a rapid
favour.
'
12 of 18
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
Aronian's ¥ f4 against the Dutch GM-elect Mackenzie Molner Whenever World #2 Levon Aronian plays an opening line, it should be investigated — especially when he plays it twice in one tournament. According to GM-elect Mackenzie Molner, the rare move ¥ f4 against the Dutch might be better than it looks! Hi all! This is GM-elect Mackenzie
A
Molner with a Dutch update for the
Aronian against the Dutch. Will this
a) 6.g3?! This would transpose back
Chess.com Bulletin. In the recent
be a new trend to follow or a short-
to classical lines but isn t very logical
Sinqueeld Cup, Levon Aronian, one
lived experiment?
here. 6...¤c6.
of the strongest and most prepared
5...d6 6.e3
b) 6.c5?! This is similar to the line
surprise
variation
played
by
and no time has been wasted. '
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw qk+ t r0 9z ppz p p z l vp0 9 + p z n sp+0 9+ + +p+ 0 9 +Pz P L v +0 9+ N s P zN+ 0 9Pz P + P zPz P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
that I will encourage for White but
Carlsen, in his postgame interview
I don t see a clear path to equality
with Chess.com reporter Mike Klein,
after it. I think that 6... ¤h5
Aronian-Carlsen
said: “I used to play the Dutch a bit
may not reach complete equality
St. Louis, 2013
10 years ago. There was an IM on
either but forces White into less
1.d4 f5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.c4 g6 4.¤c3 ¥g7 5.¥f4!?
ICC who played ¥ f4 all the time,
straightforward
but I never could understand it.”
White has an aggressive setup that
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw qk+ t r0 9z ppz ppz p l vp0 9 + + s np+0 9+ + +p+ 0 9 +Pz P L v +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
It s true that this ¥ f4 may leave you
he can build upon and I would
with a strange impression at rst,
recommend continuing in the spirit
especially when the classical kingside
of future lines with 8.£b3+.
anchetto
exclusively
a1) 7. ¥ e2 was played successfully
played against the Dutch, but I think
by Timur Gareev in 2007. Black tried
if White takes the game into a new
a different setup compared to the
direction, compared to their game,
early ¤c6 but failed to equalize.
he has chances for an advantage. I
7...h6 8.h3 c6 Black tried a different
don t think White has done anything
setup compared to the early ¤c6
to forfeit the initial advantage. The
but failed to equalize. 9.£c2 g5
white pieces are well centralized
10. ¥ h2 ¤a6 11.a3 ¤c7 12. ¥ d3 £d7
players played a relatively rare line against the Leningrad Dutch that has never been seen in elite tournaments.
Whenever
Aronian
plays an opening line, it should be investigated, especially as he played
it twice! Aronian s opponents were '
Carlsen and Kamsky. Both games ended in draws, which is not a
glowing endorsement for the line but I think there is room for improvement on the White side.
'
is
almost
'
13 of 18
here it s not ideal. Black has two '
responses that lead to playable positions. 6... ¥ e6 (6...¤c6 can be met by 7.£b3 but 6...dxc5 is also good enough for equality.) 7.e3
(7.¤g5 ¥ g8=) 7...dxc5 8.dxc5 £xd1+ 9.¦xd1 c6!=.
6...¤c6!? I was originally planning on giving this move an exclamation mark but '
play.
a)
6...0–0
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
13.¦d1 b5 14.c5 ¤cd5 15.¤e2 ¤e4 16. ¥ xe4 fxe4 17.¤d2 dxc5 18.¤xe4 c4
19.¤c5
Gareev-Dzhumaev,
Tashkent 2007. a2) Meister-Glek, Germany 1991
was one of the few higher level games that has seen the ¥ f4 idea. Black was successful using the ¤c6 setup: 7.£b3 ¢h8 8.0–0–0 ¤c6 9.d5 Combining queenside castling along
with opening up the long diagonal doesn t work out well for White here. '
Black s counterplay is straightforward '
with ideas of c5, a6, and b5, opening up lines on the queenside. 9...¤a5
10.£c2 c5 11.h4 ¤h5 12. ¥ e2 a6
Carlsen: “I used to play the Dut c h a bit 10 years ago. There was an IM on ICC
13.¤d2 ¥ d7 14.a4 £b6 15.¦dg1 £b4
who played ¥ f4 all the time, but I never c ould understand it.”
16. ¥ g5 ¦f7 17.¦h2 b5 18.cxb5 axb5 19. ¥ xb5 ¥ xb5 20.¤xb5 c4 with a
e7–e5 break, although Black should
leave the pin on the diagonal. White
strong attack.
be able to arrange counterplay in
has a clearer path to an advantage
a3) 7.c5 ¤c6
a different way. 9...¤h5! The only
here. 9. ¥c4! (9.cxd6 cxd6 10. ¥ d3
way to equalize. (9...¤e4!? 10.¦d1
¤h5 11.g3) Declaring Black s pieces.
¥ d7 11.0–0²) 10.¦d1 ¤xf4 (10...£e8
It s important to remember to play
11.¤d5) 11.exf4 e6 12.0–0 dxc5
£a3 in the following variations,
13.dxc5 £e7„.
targeting
a3b) 8.£b3+! I like this move more
10. ¥ xe6+ ¢h8 11.£a3 ¥ xe6 12.£xa5
than ¥c4 which looks even more
b6
natural than £b3+. There are a
10.cxd6 cxd6 11.£a3!².
few positive points behind £b3+ in
a3b2) 8...¢h8 9.¦d1 This could
comparison to ¥c4. The a1–rook is
be an area for Black to look for
cleared to post itself on d1. Ideas
improvement if 0–0 is something that
involving a potential d4–d5 push are
Black wants to try to make work. I
a3a) 8. ¥c4+ ¢h8 (8...e6 9.0–0
more powerful because Black s most
don t see anything convincing for
£e7 10.cxd6 cxd6 11.a3!² Now d4–
natural response, ¤a5, will no longer
Black though. 9...¤h5 10. ¥ e2 ¤xf4
d5 is a threat due to the fact that
gain a tempo because of £a3. Lastly,
11.exf4² White should almost always
¤a5 will be met with ¤a2.) 9.£c2!
in the event of ¤h5, the white light-
be happy to get this structure.
(9.h4!? looks threatening but Black s
squared bishop would like to be on
b) 6...¤h5
response meets it well: 9...¤h5
e2.
b1) 7. ¥ e2!? This is also a reasonable
Black prepares counterplay and stops
a3b1) The downside to 8...e6 is that
choice for White. Without the threat
the h-pawn before it can become an
it s still going to take extra time to
of ...¤e4, White s bishop is usually
issue.) A benet of this set up is that
arrange the standard e5 break for
very comfortable on e2.
it is hard for Black to arrange an
Black. Sooner or later Bla ck needs to
b1a) 7...0–0 Now 8. ¥ g5?! h6 9. ¥ h4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw q r tk+0 9z ppz p p z l vp0 9 +nz p n sp+0 9+ P z +p+ 0 9 + P z L v +0 9+ N s P zN+ 0 9Pz P + P zPz P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
'
'
'
14 of 18
'
'
d6.
13.£a3²;
9...£e7 9...¦e8
(9...¤a5 10.£a3²)
'
'
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
g5 10.¤d2 gxh4 (10...¤f6?! 11. ¥ g3²)
some lines. In essence it maximizes
diagonal Black doesn t have any
11. ¥ xh5 e5„ is a typical example
the potential of both of White s
problems after he breaks in the
of how Black can gain counterplay.
bishops. I believe that if White wants
center. 8...e5 9.dxe5 ¤xc3 10.bxc3
After 8.0–0 White will look for the
to play this line the best chance for
dxe5
¥ g5 idea under better circumstances
an advantage lies with this move.
¢e7=.
here. Black will need ¤c6 in order to
b1) 7...0–0 transposes back to the
c3) 8. ¥ b5!? The second best try.
support e5 but it s not the best move
note a3 on page 14.
This looks very tempting but it is not
now because of d4–d5.
b2) 7...¤h5? Mixing both knight
the most dangerous option for Black.
b1b) 7...¤xf4 8.exf4 0–0 9.0–0².
moves before castling is favorable
8...0–0 9.£b3+ ¢h8 10.¦d1 ¥ d7!
b2) 7.£b3! White aims to reach play
for White. Black does not have the
and Black has a decent Dutch after
that resembles the mainline. Black s
same counterplay with e5 here
this. 11.0–0 h6! 12.h3 g5 13. ¥ h2 ¤a5
two pawn moves with the c-pawn are
because ¥ g5 is a tempo gaining
14.£a4 ¤xc3 15.bxc3 ¥ xb5 16.£xb5
the only ways I see to give this line
move for White. 8.d5! ¤xf4 (8...e5?
b6 17.c4=.
independent value. In both cases
9. ¥ g5±) 9.exf4 ¤b8 10. ¥ b5+!² Black
c4)
White reaches a stable advantage.
will have to ruin his pawn structure
10.¤xe4 fxe4 11.¤d2 £b6 (11...¦f8
7...c5 (7...c6 8.c5 ¤xf4 9.exf4 d5
in order to deal with White s direct
12. ¥ g3 ¦c8 13.¦c1 White has the
10. ¥ d3 b6 11.¤a4 ¤d7 12.¦c1²)
play. 10...c6 11.dxc6 bxc6 Now
better
8.dxc5 ¤xf4 9.exf4 dxc5 10.¦d1 £a5
both ¥ a4 and ¥c4 have the benet
14.¦xc8 £xc8 15.exd4 £c1+ 16.£d1
11.g3! ¤c6 12. ¥ g2 ¤d4 13.¤xd4
of stopping Black s d5 advance.
£xb2
cxd4 14.£b5+ £xb5 15.¤xb5²
Even cxd6 is possible here, with an
13.¤xe4². More details in this line
7.¥e2?!
advantage for White. 12. ¥ a4 This
can be found in the PGN version of
a) 7.d5? e5!= is a shot one must
is probably simplest way to a clear
this bulletin.
remember!
edge for White. White s pieces are
7...0–0
'
'
'
'
'
'
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qk+ t r0 9z ppz p p z l vp0 9 +nz p n sp+0 9+ + +p+ 0 9 +Pz P L v +0 9+ N s P zN+ 0 9Pz P + P zPz P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
solidly coordinated and Black will be left with ruined central pawns.
c) 7...¤e4! Threatening e7–e5.
'
11.£xd8+
8.cxd6!
¢xd8
cxd6
chances
17.¤xe4²)
12.0–0–0+
9.£b3! ¥ d7
here.
13...¤xd4
12.£xb6
axb6
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw q r tk+0 9z ppz p p z l vp0 9 +nz p n sp+0 9+ + +p+ 0 9 +Pz P L v +0 9+ N s P zN+ 0 9Pz P +Lz PPz P0 9t R +Qm K +R0 xiiiiiiiiy
White s set up. It has the upside of
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qk+ t r0 9z ppz p p z l vp0 9 +nz p +p+0 9+ P z +p+ 0 9 + P znv L +0 9+ N s P zN+ 0 9Pz P + P zPz P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
potentially increasing the scope of
c1) 8.£b3?! e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10. ¥ g3
King s Indian type of position. White
the bishop on f4 as well as making
(10.¦d1 £e7 11.¤d5 £xc5 12.¤g5
has less space and Black s kingside
the a2–g8 diagonal a source of play
¢f8
13.¤xe4 fxe4 14. ¥ g3 ¥ e6
attack is already in formation. 9...h6!
for White. Additionally, b5 may even
15.£b5 £xb5 16. ¥ xb5) 10...¤xc3!=.
(9... ¥ xe6?! 10.¤g5 ¥c8; 9...¤e4?!
be a good square for White s bishop in
c2) 8. ¥c4?! Despite the weak
10.¤xe4 fxe4 11.¤d2 ¥ xb2 12.¦b1²)
b) 7.c5!N This denitely seems
like the most consistent move with '
'
15 of 18
8.0–0 a) 8.d5?! e5 9.dxe6 If White doesn t '
take en passant, Black achieves a nice '
'
The Master’s Bulletin
10.0–0 ¥ xe6. b) 8. ¥ g3 This was Aronian s attempt '
at improving over his game with Carlsen. 8...h6!? (8...¤e4?! Black s '
consistent follow-up doesn t work as '
well now due to the lack of central tactics. With the bishop on g3, there are no more ¤xd4 tricks for Black. White can safely exchange and enjoy
a slightly better position. 9.¤xe4 fxe4 10.¤d2 ¥ f5 11.0–0²) 9.0–0 ¤h5 10.d5
October 2013
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw q r tk+0 9z ppz p p z l vp0 9 +nz p n sp+0 9+ + +p+ 0 9 +Pz P L v +0 9+ N s P zN+ 0 9Pz P +Lz PPz P0 9t R +Q+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
In conclusion, I think this line offers White decent chances for
an advantage if he plays 7.c5. The types of positions that are reached are less common for Leningrad Dutch players, which could make this a
dangerous surprise. A few things to remember: 1) Black s idea in most cases is to play '
¤c6 and then ¤e4. This can often
¤xg3 11.hxg3 ¤e5 In view of Black s
9.h3 e5=
play in the game, White s best chance
After this move, Black s position is
play. If this can be discouraged, as in
here is ¦e1. 12.¦c1 (12.¦e1 ¤xf3+
already preferable.
Aronian-Kamsky, White has chances
13. ¥ xf3 e5 14.dxe6 c6 15.e4! ¥ xe6
10.¥h2 exd4 11.exd4 ¤g5! 12.¤xg5 £xg5 13.f4 £f6 14.d5 ¤d4³ 15.¢h1 c5 16.¥d3 ¥d7
for an advantage.
'
'
16.exf5 ¥ xf5 17.g4 Now the point of having the rook on e1 is clear. The ¥
times guarantee very good central '
2) In the lines with 7. c5, the move £b3 is a key idea in most variations.
The time that is potentially lost by
in this line! Counterplay with e7–e5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ + t rk+0 9z pp+l+ v lp0 9 + p z q wp+0 9+ p zP+p+ 0 9 +Ps n P z +0 9+ N sL+ +P0 9Pz P + +Pv L0 9t R +Q+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
is essential and here White s play has
and eventually Aronian managed to
it is denitely worthy of a better
been too slow to disturb Black s plan.
hold the draw.
reputation and future experiments.
can t retreat to e6. White is better.) '
12...¤xf3+ 13. ¥ xf3 e5!= Once again this move equalizes the game for
Black. In Aronian-Kamsky, St. Louis 2013 a draw was agreed on move 44. (diagram)
8...¤e4! An idea that one needs to remember '
'
16 of 18
playing c5 can be regained through a check on the diagonal, or the queen
may even be useful on a3. 3)
Structures
involving
¤h5xf4
generally favor White. The open e-le provides easy play for White.
It s not totally clear whether or '
not Aronian s ¥ f4 was a product '
of home preparation or over the board inspiration but I think that
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
In the News Carlsen Wins 1st Sinquefeld Cup
In the last round, Norwegian super star Magnus Carlsen
only needed a draw to clinch the rst Sinqueeld Cup and the winner's $70,000 payday. He was offered one, and declined.
Carlsen eventually won his last game
ensured tournament victory. Had
Carlsen, who will now fully focus
against Levon Aronian, securing the
Aronian found a way to convert his
on the prepation for his title match
world number one a plus three score
earlier advantage, the Armenian
against Vishy Anand, in November in
and grabbing the cup by a full point.
grandmaster would have forced a
Chennai.
American GMs Hikaru Nakamura and
three-way playoff.
You can read the nal report on the
Gata Kamsky had drawn earlier, so
Carlsen knew that a draw or win
It was the last tournament for
Sinqueeld Cup online here.
Hou Yifan Regains World Title
Needing only seven of the alotted
China, by beating title-holder GM
10 games, Chinese GM Hou Yifan
Anna Ushenina of Ukraine. You can
convincingly won the 2013 Women's
the nal report on the match online
World
here.
Championship
in
Taizhou,
This Saturday: Death Match #18, Judit Polgar vs. Nigel Short! Chess.com
is
indisputably
hosting
the
what
highest
is
legends will battle it out over three
caliber
hours on Saturday, October 5 at 11
face-off ever: Death Match between
Super-GMs
Judit
#18
a.m. Eastern, 8 a.m. Pacic, 17 p.m.
Polgar
Central European Time. Find out
and Nigel Short! These two chess
more here!
17 of 18
The Master’s Bulletin
October 2013
Featured Blogs
BostonBlitz
•
Baltimore-
Manhattan-
Kingfshers
Appplesauce
Last 9 weeks:
Last 9 weeks:
Last 9 weeks:
11 posts
11 posts
5 posts
4,438 reads
2,900 reads
2,112 reads
Blitz draw with Kingshers - Sep
•
•
•
Preview - Sep 30, 2013
29, 2013 •
Baltimore Kingshers' Week 6
Color me Blitz over Kingshers!
•
Applesauce frozen by Baltimore in a 2-2 tie - Sep 14, 2013
Week 5 Review: Boston Blitz vs.
•
Manhattan Applesauce Look to
- Sep 23, 2013
Baltimore Kingshers - Sep 26,
Rebound From Tough Week 2
Matzah MIA over Boston (0.5 -
2013
Loss - Sep 9, 2013
3.5) - Sep 22, 2013
•
Baltimore Kingshers' Week 5
•
Preview - Sep 22, 2013
Who’s going to be the King
of New York: Previewing Applesauce vs. Knights - Sep 2, 2013
Leaderboards - Top Titled Players Bullet #
Name
01
Blitz
Daily Chess/Correspondence
Rating
#
Name
Rating
IM brute4ever
3004
01
FM Kulinarist
02
FM TigerLilov
2903
02
03
GM SultanOfKings
2777
04
GM erichansen
05
#
Name
Rating
2637
01 IM elobispo
2766
GM Janosik
2609
02 GM Julio_Becerra
2736
03
GM LiemLe
2606
03 GM Kalif88
2623
2753
04
GM lorcho
2595
04 NM RWHaines
2595
IM Molton
2730
05
GM FabianoCaruana
2577
05 FM Soilsurf
2575
06
GM LittlePeasant
2709
06
NM TheTruth
2571
06 FM VPA
2569
07
FM Kulinarist
2700
07
FM TigerLilov
2548
07 NM BMcC333
2561
08
GM KnightStranger
2700
08
GM honestgirl
2541
08 FM The_Evil_Ducklings
2552
09
GM FabianoCaruana
2673
09
GM VovAn1991
2539
09 FM Immortal_Technique
2548
10
GM LiemLe
2657
10
GM CaptainJames
2539
10 NM KingWhacker85
2527
(Standings reect the top titled players, active within the last month on Chess.com)
The Master's Bulletin is Chess.com's monthly PDF magazine for titled players. Any copying or distribution (reproduction, via print, electronic format, or in any form whatsoever), as well as posting on the web, is strictly prohibited without prior written permission. © 2013 Chess.com
18 of 18
