Four Pawns Attack [A68−69] & [E76−79] Written by GM Victor Mikhalevski, GM Joe Gallagher and IM Andrew Martin Last updated Wednesday, Wednesday, December 29, 2004
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qk+ t r0 9z ppz p ppv p zpv lp0 lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+Pz PPz P +0 9+ s N + + 0 9Pz P + +Pz P0 9t R v LQKLs K mLs NR0 NR0 xiiiiiiiiy
W
hat do you think about the Four Pawns Attack ? Is it possible to criticise a line which offers such a dynamic and immediate occupation of the centre −
which opens up so s o many possibilities possibi lities of outright o utright attack against Black's King,
sometimes involving considerable material sacrifice? Well, despite the menacing appearance of White's pawn centre, the fact is that most King's Indian players lick their lips when they see the Four Pawns Attack. A lot of the time the outright blitz in the centre is just just too optimistic; this is precisely where the latent resources in Black's position will show to greatest effect. Therefore if White wants success with this system, he must temper his aggression. aggressi on. If he has h as the sense sen se develop develo p his pieces carefully behind the the onrushing pawns then he can hope to run Black out of space later on. The attack needs thorough preparation.
All the games given in blue can be accessed via ChessPub.exe, simply head for their respective ECO code.
2
Contents
1
d4 ¤f6 2 c4 g6 3 ¤c3 ¥g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw qk+-t r0 9z ppz p-z ppv lp0 9-+-z p-s np+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+Pz PPz P-+0 9+-s N-+-+-0 9Pz P-+-+Pz P0 9t R-v LQm KLs NR0 xiiiiiiiiy
5...0-0 6 ¤f3 6 ¥e2 Four Pawns−6...c5 without 7 Nf3/ 7d5 [E77]
6...c5 6...¤a6 Four Pawns−Intro [E76]
7 d5 7 ¥e2 cxd4 8 ¤xd4 ¤c6 9 ¥e3 (9 ¤c2 ¤d7 Four Pawns−7...cxd4 Intro [E76] ) 9...¥d7 Four Pawns−7...cxd4, 9 Be3 [E79]
7...e6 8 ¥e2 8 dxe6 Four Pawns−Intro [E76]
8...exd5 9 cxd5
3
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw q-t rk+0 9z pp+-+pv lp0 9-+-z p-s np+0 9+-z pP+-+-0 9-+-+Pz P-+0 9+-s N-+N+-0 9Pz P-+L+Pz P0 9t R-v LQm K-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
9...¦e8 9...¥g4 Four Pawns−5...O−O 6 Nf3 c5 7 d5 [A68] 10
e5
Four Pawns−5...O−O 6 Nf3 c5, 9...Re8 [A69]
Press F5 to toggle the Navigation Pane, then click on the appropriate bookmark to go straight to that section. Ctrl + 2 resizes the page.
All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd
4
Four Pawns
−
Intro [E76]
Last updated: 29/12/04 by Victor Mikhalevski
E76 covers alternatives to the most common variations with 6...c5 in the Four Pawns Attack. An early ...c5 by Black might be worth reconsidering − it tends to force White's hand. Gufeld once recommended 4...0-0 5 f4 c5 6 d5 b5!? but that's another story. 6...¤a6! is by far the most important line considered here − I believe that as time goes by, this flexible, solid move will supersede 6...c5 completely. Of the remaining variations, the capture on e6 by White still gives dangerous chances, particularly as a one−off surprise weapon. 1
d4 ¤f6 2 c4 g6 3 ¤c3 ¥g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw qk+ t r0 9z ppz p p zpv lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+Pz PPz P +0 9+ s N + + 0 9Pz P + +Pz P0 9t R v LQm KLs NR0 xiiiiiiiiy 5...0-0 5...c5 6 dxc5 (6 d5 could transpose, but... 6...0-0 7 ¥d3 e6 8 ¤ge2 and White lost in only a few moves, Svendsen,M−Porrasmaa,T/Eikrem Memorial, Gausdal, Norw 2000 ) 6...£a5 7 ¥d3 ¤fd7 8 ¥d2 ¤xc5 9 ¥c2 ¤c6 10 ¤d5 £d8 11 ¥c3! Timman,J− Damaso,R/Breda 1998.
6 ¤f3 ¤a6
5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw q t rk+0 9z ppz p p zpv lp0 9n+-z p s np+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+Pz PPz P +0 9+ s N +N+ 0 9Pz P + +Pz P0 9t R v LQm KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy Also covered by Vaiser in his book, which more or less says that the Four Pawns Attack wins, but his arguments are unconvincing. 6...¤a6 is a typical options preserving idea, arguing that White is committed, whereas Black can vary his strike against this massive centre. None of 7 ¥e2, 7 ¥d3 or 7 e5 seem to really threaten Black − White ends up trying to hold his front over too wide an area. At present 6...¤a6 is looking pretty good. 6...a6 7 ¥d3 ¥g4 8 ¥e3 ¤fd7 9 0-0 ¤c6 10 d5 ¤d4 11 £d2 ¥xf3 12 gxf3 c5 13 ¤e2 b5„ Atanu,L−Thipsay,P/ch−IND, Mumbai IND 2000. 6...c5 7 d5 (7 dxc5 £a5 8 ¥d3 £xc5 9 £e2 ¥g4 (9...¤c6 10 ¥e3) 10 ¥e3 £a5 11 0-0 ¤c6 12 ¦ac1 e5 very unusual, (12...¦ac8 Topalov,V−Sherzer,A/New York 1994 ) 13 £d2 exf4 14 ¥xf4 ¥xf3 15 gxf3 ¤e5 Filgueira,H−Ricardi,P/Buenos Aires ARG 2003) 7...a6 Gheorghiu's favourite. Black hopes to launch the attack with ...b7 − b5 at the right moment. a) 7...b5?! 8 cxb5 (8 e5 ¤fd7 9 ¤xb5 dxe5 10 ¥d3 a6 11 ¤c3 £c7 12 f5‚ Vaiser,A− Loginov,A/Alma−Ata 1980 ) 8...a6 9 a4! axb5 10 ¥xb5 ¥a6 11 ¥d2 ¥xb5 12 axb5 ¦xa1 13 £xa1± Nogueiras,J−Sax,G/Graz 1984. b) 7...e6 8 dxe6 Could cause a few qualms against an unprepared opponent. White can often whip up an attack with ¥d3, 0-0, £e 1-h4, f4−f5 etc. (8 e5!? Povah,N− Kruppa,Y/Oerebro 1995 , 8 ¥e2 is the main move, but is considered under [A68] − [A69]. ) 8...fxe6 9 ¥d3 ¤c6 10 0-0 a6 11 a4 b6 12 ¤g5 ¦a7! Nice. 13 ¦a3 ¦e7!= Larsen is ready for any advance by White and prepares counterplay with ...¤d4, Hjartarson,J−Larsen,B/Reykjavik 1986. 8 a4 e5!? a fascinating idea that was developed by Greek players, foremost amongst them being 4 Pawns expert Banikas (although usually from the white side), 9 fxe5 ¤g4! 10 ¥g5! (10 exd6 f5! 11 exf5 ¥xf5 12 ¥e2 £xd6 13 g3 ¤xh2! with a winning attack, Houska,M−Banikas,H/Calicut 1998.and Cebalo,M−Pavlovic,M/Biel SUI 2003. ) 10...£b6 11 a5?! (11 £d2! is best ) 11...£xb2 12 ¦a2 Colin,V−Sandu,M/Sautron 2004, and now the queen sacrifice 12...£xc3+! 13 ¥d2 ¥xe5 is unclear. 6...¤bd7?! is passive, 7 e5 ¤e8 8 c5 c6 9 ¥e3 dxc5 10 dxc5 £a5 11 a3 £c7 12 ¥c4± Banikas,H−Euthimiadis,A, Open, Ano Liosia GRE 2000, Black wasn't allowed a single tempo to get his act together.
7 ¥e2 6
7 e5 ¤d7 (7...¤h5 8 ¥e2 c5 9 d5 ¥h6÷ Lalic,B−Hebden,M/Kilkenny 1998 ) 8 ¥e2 c5 9 exd6 exd6 10 d5 ¤c7 (10...¤b6 11 0-0 ¥g4 12 h3 ¥xf3 13 ¦xf3 f5 Cebalo,M−Kozul,Z/Croatian Cup, Pula CRO 2002 ) 11 0-0 b5 12 f5 Vaiser,A−Golubev,M/Biel Open 1995. 7 ¥d3 ¥g4 8 ¥e3 ¤d7 9 0-0 e5 10 fxe5 c5 11 d5 ¤xe5 Parker,J−Gallagher,J/4NCL, Birmingham ENG 200 1.
7...e5 8 fxe5 8 0-0 exd4 9 ¤xd4 ¦e8 10 ¥f3 ¤c5 11 ¦e1 ¥g4! A typical strike. Black besieges e4 and experiences no difficulty with development. 12 ¤b3 ¥xf3 13 £xf3 ¤fd7 14 ¤xc5 ¤xc5 15 ¥d2 c6 16 ¢h1 £e7³ Klyashtorny,V−Khismatullin,D, ch−RUS Boys U20, Vladimir RUS 2002
8...dxe5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw q t rk+0 9z ppz p +pv lp0 9n+ + s np+0 9+-+-z p-+-0 9-+Pz PP+-+0 9+ s N +N+ 0 9Pz P +L+Pz P0 9t R v LQm K-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 9 ¤xe5 9 d5 ¤c5 10 £c2 ¤fxe4!? 11 ¤xe4 ¥f5 12 ¥d3 ¥xe4 13 ¥xe4 f5 14 ¥xf5 gxf5 15 0-0 e4 16 ¥e3 ¤d3 17 ¤d4÷
9...c5 10 ¥e3 ¦e8 10...¤b4!?
looks better, Huerta,R −Arizmendi,J/Madrid 2000. 10...¤g4 11 ¤xg4?! (11 ¥xg4 ¥xg4 12 ¤xg4 cxd4 13 ¤d5 dxe3 14 0-0 is better for White ) 11...cxd4 12 ¤h6+ ¢h8 13 ¥f2 ¥h3!? Belozerov,A−Poldauf,D/Rethymnon GRE 2003. 11
0-0 cxd4 12 ¥xd4 ¤g4 13 ¤f3 ¥xd4+ 14 £xd4 ¥e6
White's centre seems shaky, but Flear has it all under control, Flear,G−Voiska,M/II Open, St Chely d'Aubrac FRA 2002.
7
Four Pawns
−
6...c5 without 7 Nf3/ 7d5 [E77]
Last updated: 14/03/03 by Joe Gallagher 1
d4 ¤f6 2 c4 g6 3 ¤c3 ¥g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 ¥e2
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw q t rk+0 9z ppz p p zpv lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+Pz PPz P +0 9+ s N + + 0 9Pz P +L+Pz P0 9t R v LQm K-s NR0 xiiiiiiiiy There are only disadvantages to this move compared to 6 ¤f3! as far as I can see. Certainly in the line where Black ventures an early ...b7− b5 White doesn't really want to have moved this Bishop at all. So 6 ¥e2 has become rare. As for the lines with 9 exd5 as featured − well, they are also very rare. White depends on a future f4 −f5 to get his position together and Black has several good ways to combat this idea.
6...c5 6...¤a6 Ignoring the move order blip and heading straight back into a more familiar position is a practical approach.
7 d5 e6 8 ¤f3 exd5 9 exd5 9 e5?! Unless white has something VERY new in mind, this old line of Gunderam's can be scrapped.
8
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw q t rk+0 9z pp+-+pv lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9+ z ppz P-+-0 9 +P+ z P +0 9+ s N +N+ 0 9Pz P +L+Pz P0 9t R v LQm K-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 9...¤e4! Just a strong move... 10 cxd5 ¤xc3 11 bxc3 ¤d7 12 e6 fxe6 13 dxe6 ¤b6 14 0-0 ¥xe6 15 ¤g5 ¥d5 16 ¦b1 ¥xc3!∓ A bad day for Barsov, Barsov,A −Ye Jiangchuan, FIDE WCh KO, Moscow RUS ( 1.4) 2001. 9 cxd5 takes us elsewhere.
9...¥f5 10 0-0
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs n-w q t rk+0 9z pp+-+pv lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9+ z pP+l+ 0 9 +P+ z P +0 9+ s N +N+ 0 9Pz P +L+Pz P0 9t R v LQ+Rm K-0 xiiiiiiiiy 10...¦e8 11
¥d3 £d7 12 h3
Peng Zhaoqin−Polgar,J/Novi Sad Ol 1990. As long as Black retains control over the e4 square all will be well.
9
Four Pawns
−
7...cxd4 Intro [E78]
Last updated: 14/03/03 by Joe Gallagher 1
d4 ¤f6 2 c4 g6 3 ¤c3 ¥g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 ¤f3 c5 7 ¥e2 cxd4 8 ¤xd4
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw q t rk+0 9z pp+-z ppv lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+Ps NPz P +0 9+ s N + + 0 9Pz P +L+Pz P0 9t R v LQm K-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy A 'loose' Maroczy Bind.
8...¤c6 8...¤a6! Stein's old recommendation. Simply a good idea! I'll give some relevant analysis the essence of which is immediate counterplay for Black. 9 ¥e3 ¤c5 10 ¥f3 a) 10...¥h6?! 11 0-0! (11 ¤b3 e5 12 ¤xc5 exf4 13 ¥f2 dxc5 14 ¥xc5 ¤d7 15 ¥xf8 £h4+ 16 ¢d2 ¥xf8‚) 11...e5 12 ¤db5 exf4 13 ¥f2 and d6 drops b) 10...¤fd7!? 11 0-0 e5 12 ¤db5 exf4 13 ¥xf4 ¤e5 is Bisguier,A−Watson,J, St Paul 1982.
9 ¤c2 ¤d7 This collection of very rare lines are unfashionable rather than bad. 10
0-0 ¤c5 11 ¥f3 f5 12 exf5 ¥xf5÷
10
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-w q t rk+0 9z pp+-z p-v lp0 9-+nz p-+p+0 9+ s n +l+ 0 9 +P+ z P +0 9+ s N +L+ 0 9Pz PN+ +Pz P0 9t R v LQ+Rm K-0 xiiiiiiiiy Bisguier,A−Popovych,O/Lincoln 1969. Perhaps the final symbol sums up the variation: 'unclear' covers a multitude of sins!
11
Four Pawns
−
7...cxd4, 9 Be3 [E79]
Last updated: 14/03/03 by Joe Gallagher
d4 ¤f6 2 c4 g6 3 ¤c3 ¥g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 ¤f3 c5 7 ¥e2 cxd4 8 ¤xd4 ¤c6 1
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw q t rk+0 9z pp+-z ppv lp0 9-+nz p s np+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+Ps NPz P +0 9+ s N + + 0 9Pz P +L+Pz P0 9t R v LQm K-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy Veteran GM Arthur Bisguier likes this line although most lines lead to comfortable equality for Black. In my view White is trying a half −way house solution to the problems of the opening− it's a very loose Maroczy Bind.But again, the usefulness of these lines as a shock weapon means that they cannot be ignored.
9 ¥e3 ¥d7?! 9...¤d7 10 ¤b3 a5 11 a4 b6 12 0-0 ¤c5 13 ¤xc5 bxc5 14 £d2 ¤d4 15 ¦ae1 ¥b7 16 f5 e6= With the central squares under full control and counterplay against e4 Black is well placed, Ben Menachem,I −Bitansky,I, ECC, Panormo GRE 200 1. 10
¤b3 a6 11 0-0 ¤a5?
Losing. 12
e5!
12
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-w q t rk+0 9+p+lz ppv lp0 9p+-z p s np+0 9s n-+-z P-+-0 9 +P+ z P +0 9+Ns N L v-+-0 9Pz P +L+Pz P0 9t R-+Q+Rm K-0 xiiiiiiiiy This would be the advance that White is counting on to make the whole position work. of course Black must keep a close eye on e5. His failure to do so in this game makes life very uncomfortable. 12...¤e8 13
¤xa5 £xa5 14 ¤d5 £d8 15 ¥b6 £b8 16 ¤xe7+ ¢h8 17 c5
White is winning, Bertok,M−Petrovic,Z/TCh−CRO, Pula CRO 2001. Surprise is the key element here. One could not play this line on a regular basis and hope to get away with it.
13
Four Pawns
−
5...O O 6 Nf3 c5 7 d5 [A68] −
Last updated: 16/01/04 by Joe Gallagher 1
d4 ¤f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 ¤c3 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 ¥g7 8 ¤f3
8 ¥b5+ ¤fd7 9 a4 Kasparov,G−Kuijpers,F/Dortmund 1980.
8...0-0
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw q t rk+0 9z pp+-+pv lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9+ z pP+ + 0 9 + +Pz P +0 9+ s N +N+ 0 9Pz P + +Pz P0 9t R v LQm KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy As you can see, a position which can arise from both the King's Indian and Modern Benoni move−order. Here we will consider ideas from Black which do not involve the main−line 9 ¥e2 ¦e8.
9 ¥e2 ¥g4 One of the most solid and reliable lines for Black in the 4 Pawns Attack. Black plans to exchange his bishop for the knight on f3 and this benefits him in two ways. Firstly, White will find it much more difficult to force through e5 without the help of the knight and, secondly, with less space it is to Black's advantage to exchange pieces. 9...b5 The other sharper main line, where Black complicates right from the word go. Lovers of the tactical melee will enjoy 10 e5 ( whilst White contenders seeking to dampen Black's spirits could try 10 ¥xb5 ¤xe4 11 ¤xe4 £a5+ 12 ¢f2 £xb5 13 ¤xd6 £b6 a quieter route where maybe White can claim a very small edge. ) a) 10...dxe5 11 fxe5 ¤g4 12 ¥g5 £b6 13 0-0 when perhaps 13...c4+ 14 ¢h1 ¤d7 15 e6 (15 d6?! ¥b7!÷) 15...fxe6 16 dxe6 ¤df6 17 e7 ¦e8÷ is most precise b) 10...¤fd7 11 exd6 a6!? 12 0-0 ¤b6 13 ¤e5 £xd6 14 ¤e4 £xd5 15 £xd5 ¤xd5 16 ¥f3 ¦a7 Petursson,G−Jiretorn,E, Open, Reykjavik ISL 2002. 14
c) 10...¤fd7 9...a6 a) 10 a4 ¦e8 11 e5 (11 £c2 ¥g4 12 0-0 ¤bd7 Bishopric−Ivanov2000/Internet Chess Club 2000 ) 11...dxe5 12 fxe5 sergor − NYCP99/Internet Chess Club 2000 b) 10 0-0 10...b5 (10...¦e8 11 e5 Regez,M−Kurmann,O/Christmas Open, Zurich SUI 2000 ) 11 e5 ¤fd7 12 e6 Flear,G−Chevrier,T/Ist Open, St −Chely d'Aubrac FRA 2001. 9...¤a6 10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5 Konikowski,J−Braune,H/GER −ch qgB corr9395 1993. 10
0-0 ¤bd7
10...¥xf3 11
¥xf3 ¤bd7 Lesiege,A−Hebert,J/It, Montreal CAN 200 1. 10...¦e8 11 e5 ¥xf3 12 ¥xf3 dxe5 13 fxe5 ¦xe5 14 ¥f4 ¦e8 15 £b3 ¤bd7 16 ¦fe1© occurred in Banikas,H−Blot,J, TCh−FRA, Montpellier FRA 200 1, Banikas is of course a modern connoisseur of the Four Pawns so we must note this pawn sacrifice carefully. 11
¦e1
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-w q t rk+0 9z pp+n+pv lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9+ z pP+ + 0 9 + +Pz Pl+0 9+ s N +N+ 0 9Pz P +L+Pz P0 9t R v LQt R-m K-0 xiiiiiiiiy In similar Benoni structures White sometimes plays ¤d2 in order to keep his knight but here it does not look too impressive. 11 h3 White claims the bishop pair. 11...¥xf3 12 ¥xf3 ¦b8! A good move order, no fishy Queen moves − just straight for ...b7 − b5. (12...c4 13 ¥e3 £a5 Kouatly,B− Nunn,J/Cannes 1992. ) 13 a4 a6 14 a5 ¤e8 Borbjerggaard,L−Hernandez,G/Open, Andorra AND 2001. 11...¦e8 12
h3 ¥xf3 13 ¥xf3
15
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-w qr+k+0 9z pp+n+pv lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9+ z pP+ + 0 9 + +Pz P +0 9+ s N +L+P0 9Pz P-+-+P+0 9t R v LQt R-m K-0 xiiiiiiiiy Here is what I wrote about this position in 'Starting out: the King's Indian': The most important factor in the position is the unbalanced pawn structure. White has a 2- 1 majority in the centre whilst Black has 3 −2 in his favour on the queenside. Pawn majorities need to be pushed so, as we already know, White will be looking to play e5 while Black will be looking to expand on the queenside, usually starting with the advance b5. Normally it is an advantage to have an extra central pawn but here this is counterbalanced by the fact that it is easier for Black to advance his majority. 13...£a5!
The most accurate way to prepare ...b5. 14
¥e3
14
a4 c4 15 ¦e2 ¤c5 16 e5 dxe5 17 fxe5 ¤fd7 18 e6 Bosboom Lanchava,T − Gallagher,J/XVIII Open, Cappelle la Grande FRA 2002 − White's attack is bluff.
14...b5 15
a3
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+r+k+0 9z p-+n+pv lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9w qpz pP+ + 0 9 + +Pz P +0 9z P s N L vL+P0 9-z P-+-+P+0 9t R-+Qt R-m K-0 xiiiiiiiiy This is a key position for this important variation. 16
15...¤b6
Heading for c4 from where it will create great confusion in the white camp, but at a price: White can now play e5. 15...b4 16 axb4 £xb4 17 ¦a3!? a new move, (17 £c2 ¤b6 worked well for Black in Cebalo,M−Shchekachev,A/Biel SUI 2003 ) 17...¦eb8 18 ¦e2 a5 the a8 rook needs to be brought into play, 19 ¥f2 with a plus, Regez−Gallagher,J/Zurich 2003. 16
¥f2
White more or less abandoned this move after the game Kozul − Nunn (see below) but analysis by Vaisser has given it a new lease of life. 16 e5 ¤c4 17 exf6 ¤xe3 18 ¦xe3 ¦xe3 19 fxg7 the pawn on g7 is doomed so we will eventually reach a material balance of two minor pieces against rook and pawn. Normally that favours the minor pieces but here the black rooks are very active and the white bishop is severely restricted by his own pawn on d5, see Banikas,H− Gallagher,J/France 200 1. 16...¤c4
Note that 16...¤fd7 17 £c2 b4 18 axb4 £xb4 is also possible, transposing to Cebalo−Shchekachev. 17
£c2 ¤d7 18 ¥e2 ¦ab8 19 a4 b4 20 ¤b5
20 ¥xc4? Kozul,Z− Nunn,J/Wijk aan Zee 1991.
20...¤xb2 see Cebalo,M−Rasic,D/Open, Pula CRO 200 1.
17
Four Pawns
−
5...O O 6 Nf3 c5, 9...Re8 −
[A69] Last updated: 14/03/03 by Joe Gallagher 1
d4 ¤f6 2 c4 c5
2...g6 3 ¤c3 ¥g7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 ¤f3 is the real KI move −order, but this transposes, of course, after 6...c5 7 d5 e6 8 ¥e2 exd5 9 cxd5
3 d5 e6 4 ¤c3 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 ¥g7 8 ¤f3 With lots of theory to come. Without regurgitating everything here it is possible to state that the Modern King's Indian protagonist prefers ...¤a6, probably to avoid the nightmare of getting 'out −theorised'. GM Anatoly Vaiser's brilliant book 'Beating the King's Indian and Benoni' is indispensable reading for anyone wishing to play 6...c5. Black must find improvements.
8...0-0 9 ¥e2
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw q t rk+0 9z pp+-+pv lp0 9-+-z p s np+0 9+ z pP+ + 0 9 + +Pz P +0 9+ s N +N+ 0 9Pz P +L+Pz P0 9t R v LQm K-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 9...¦e8 In the days when they devised the Informator coding system, 9...Re8 WAS the main line although today 9 ...Bg4 generally holds sway. I am currently persuaded that this 18
variation is serviceable only for correspondence chess or for players with an excellent memory. The complications after 10
e5
are many and varied and have been very well documented over the years. Black's defensive resources after 10 ¤d2 are generally adequate, 10...¤a6 (10...¤bd7 11 0-0 c4 Kuzmin,A−Li Shilong/Open, Cappelle la Grande FRA 200 1 ) 11 0-0 a) 11...c4 12 ¢h1 ¤c5 Bagaturov,G−Ioannidis,E/4th Open, Korinthos GRE 2000. b) 11...¤c7 12 a4 b6 13 ¥f3 (13 h3 ¦b8 14 ¥f3 Nevednichy,V−Antic,D/TCh−YUG, Herceg Novi YUG 2001 ) 13...¥a6 14 ¦e1 ¦b8 15 ¤f 1 ¥xf 1 16 ¢xf 1 not exactly a novelty, but an unconventional move which unsettles Kovacevic 16...¤d7 17 ¤b5! a further strange idea, which pushes Black over the top 17...¤xb5 18 axb5 £h4? After 18...Rb7, intending...Nf8, Rbe7 Black's position is alright. 19 ¦xa7± Kosic,D− Kovacevic,A/57th ch−YUG, Banja Koviljaca YUG 2002 c) 11...¦b8 12 ¢h1 (12 ¦e1 ¤c7 13 a4 a6 14 ¥f3 b5 15 a5! probably the best move, which attempts to jam up the Black queenside, Ghane,S−Iuldachev,S/ADCF Masters, Abu Dhabi UAE 2002. ) 12...¤c7 13 a4 ¥d7 (13...a6 14 a5 ¥d7 15 e5 is considered in Vaiser,A−Ibragimov,I/Berne 1992 ) 14 ¥f3 b5 15 ¦e1 b4 Mah,K − Gladyszev,O/SWYM, Witley ENG 200 1. I think that Black's poor results in the 10 ¤d2 line can be attributed to lack of theoretical knowledge. The system is becoming more popular now and I expect Black will discover plenty of resources as the games go by. I recommend that Black proceed with ...b7 − b5 as soon as is practicable, even if this means missing out on ...a7 −a6! 10...dxe5 10...¤h5?! is a very odd move
that cannot go unpunished, 11 0-0! dxe5 12 fxe5 Banikas,H− Pappas,K/ch−GRE, Agios Nikolaos GRE 2000.
11
fxe5 ¤g4 12 ¥g5
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw qr+k+0 9z pp+-+pv lp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+ z pPz P-v L-0 9-+-+-+n+0 9+ s N +N+ 0 9Pz P +L+Pz P0 9t R-+Qm K-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
19
12
0-0 ¤xe5 13 ¥f4 ¤bd7 14 d6 Vaisser,A−Wohlers Armas,F/Masters KO, Cannes FRA 2000.
12...f6
or 12...£b6 13 0-0 (13 £d2 ¤d7 14 e6! Blokh,M−Feldman,A/USSR 1982 ) 13...¤xe5 (13...c4+ Kouatly,B−Murey,Y/Lyon 1988 − what a game! ) 14 ¤xe5 ¦xe5!? An unpopular idea. Let's face it, the Rook looks exposed. But there are a few tricky points and White might not be too familiar with all the ins and outs − interestingly, Nunn's Chess Openings doesn't even mention the move. (14...¥xe5 Albarran,G− Bitelmajer,M/Copa Clarin, Villa Martelli ARG 200 1 ) 15 £d2 ¥f5 16 ¦ad1 Safely in behind the d− pawn and soon it will be time to push: Cebalo,M−Isonzo,D/Torneo A, Montecatini Terme ITA 2002. 13
exf6 ¥xf6 14 ¥xf6
14 £d2 ¥xg5 15 £xg5 ¥f5 Cano Sanchez,J−Casares Cabanas,C/ch −ESP (team) Div 1999.
14...£xf6 15
£d2 ¤e3 16 ¢f2
Tamarkin,L−Edelman,D/New York State Ch, Saratoga Springs NY 2000.
20
