Ward - Unusual Queens Gambit Declined.ocr

unusual queen•s gambit declined

by Chris Ward EVERYMAN CHESS Everyman Publishers pk www.everyman.uk.com

First published in 2002 by Everyman Publishers pk, formerly Cadogan Books pk, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD Copyright© 2002 Chris Ward The right of Chris Ward to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 185744218 0 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060 email: [email protected] website: www.everyman.uk.com

To my nephew Geor:ge, whose own chess is coming along nice/y!

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Production by Book Production Services. Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

CONTENTS

I

Bibliography

4

Introduction

5

Albin Counter Gambit 7

1

The Albin Counter Gambit: Introduction

2

Spassky's 4 e4 and Tartakower's 4 ... cS

27

3

Main Line 5 g3

39

The Baltic Defence

4

Main Line 3 cxdS

62

5

3 'l!Vb3 and 3 tllc3 e6 4 'l!Vb3

81

6

3 ti:lf3

97

The Chigorin Defence

7

3 cxdS

110

8

3 tllc3

129

9

3 ti:lf3 and 1 d4 dS 2 ti:lf3 tllc6

148

Index of Complete Games

159

8/8LIOGRAPHY

I

Books

The Baltic Defence to the Queen's Gambzf, Andrew Soltis (Chess Digest 1993) The Chigorin Queen's Gambit, Angus Dunnington, (Batsford 1996) Nunn's Chess Openings, John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms and Joe Gallagher (Everyman 1999) Periodicals

ChessBase Magazine The Week in Chess Videos

Albin Counter Gambit, Andrew Martin (GM Video 1997)

INTRODUCTION

I

\Velcome to a unique experience in chess opening books. Yes, it's three for the price of one as this text covers a triad of club players' favourite defences. That means if you are looking for a new way to do battle with all those solid queen's pawn players out there, then the next nine chapters of this book are going to provide you with plenty of options. Perhaps you admire the entertaining style of that Russian superstar Alexander Morozevich and fancy taking a leaf out of his book by making the Chigorin your main defence. Or maybe you fancy an early pawn sacrifice to spice up your chess and are contemplating dabbling in the Albin Counter Gambit. But what of 1 d4 dS 2 'Llf3, doesn't that spoil the party? Well, not if you are flexible enough to employ 2 ... i<.fS, transposing into a favourable line of the Baltic Defence. A spot of mixing and matching could be the solution that changes your life forever and puts an end to that stale predictable repertoire you once rigidly stuck by. As it happens, I have employed all three of these unusual defences to the Queen's Gambit Decline (QGD) at one time or another. On the other hand, you, like me, might be a 1 d4 player that has had trouble facing these offbeat lines. Inevitably you may have wondered why there are still people wheeling them out when general opening texts invariably inform White that he is at least clearly better after just a few moves. Well, read this book and hopefully you'll learn the truth. I may be a grandmaster but I can tell you that I really have come to understand a lot more about these tricky variations during the completion of this book. If you're really lucky then you'll benefit from botb sides of the coin; a category that I now hope is going to include me. Please, though, I've got some tournaments coming up, so don't tell anyone about my surprise weapons!

Chris Ward London, December 2001

5

CHAPTER ONE

I


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 Far be it from me to suggest that the .\!bin Counter Gambit is just a bag of rricks, but I'm pretty sure that the trap encountered in the first game of this chapter is an initial attraction to the opening for your average club player. Certainly, as a junior, I was taken in by rhe concept of what I suppose one might these days term as 'cheap tactics', but I loved the quick victories that came with the gambit and only ditched it when listening to the preachments of 'a pawn is a pawn'! In fact, the truth is that back then I hadn't even touched on the complexities of the Albin. The next three chapters of this book analyse the positional compensations that are afforded to Black. In this first chapter White generally tries to pressurise Black's pawn on d4 and transform the captured pawn on eS into a clear pawn plus for the endgame. Specifically, White looks to challenge Black with e2-e3 and in Games 2, 3, and 8 a swift a2-a3 helps to make this a reality. Black, of course, has a variety

of ways to counter White's intentions and, as in general he is quite successful, Games 4, 5 and 6 concentrate instead on 5 'tJbd2. Essentially, this is a nonmain line chapter (the main line is covered in Chapter 3). Throughout there is the possibility for White to play g2-g3 at any stage and transpose to a later part of the book (particularly with the flexible 5 'tJbd2) but that aside, I'm reasonably happy with the way that I've classified things.

Gamel Madej-Gruz Polish Girls Ch., Zakopane 2001 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 No self-respecting queen's pawn player should really even conremplate declining the gambit, but it is inevitable that some \vhite players will. Of the attempts seen in rhe past, 3 e3 at best transposes to an unpopular variation of the French Defence after 3 ... exd4 4 exd4 'tJf6, whilst 3 'tJc3 can also be frowned upon. Indeed, though Black's

7

Unusual Queen's Gambit Declined

response is not forced, 3 ... dxc4 transposes to a generally acknowledged inferior line in the Queen's Gambit Accepted, In lines of independent significance, only 3 cxd5 stands out, Then 3,,.exd4 is a possible gambit continuation, but clearly fine for Black is 3,,.'liVxd5 4 li::ic3 (or 4 dxe5 'liVxdl+ 5 @xdl li::ic6 {also no doubt appealing to the Albin player would be the 5,,.~c5 6 e3 li::ic6 7 f4 f6 8 li::if3 ~g4 9 ~b5 0-0-0+ 10 @el li::ib4, Storkebaum-Mehler, Darmstadt 1993, which gave Black a nice initiative} 6 li::if3 ~g4 7 ~f4 li::ige7 8 li::ibd2 li::ig6 9 ~g3 0-0-0 10 a3 hS 11 h4 ~xf3 12 exf3 li::igxe5 with an advantage to Black) 4,,,'liVxd4 5 'liVxd4 exd4 6 li::ib5 ~b4+ 7 ~d2 ~xd2+ 8 @xd2 li::ia6 9 li::ixd4 li::if6. Now 10 f3>! c5 11 li::ib5 ~d7 12 li::id6+ @e7 13 li::ic4 .l:thd8 14 @el ~e6 15 e4 li::ib4 unsurprisingly saw Black go on to win in the encounter GordivskyKotsuba, Sevastopol 2000, but the alternative try 10 e3 should be roughly equaL 3,,,d4 I have seen 3,,.dxc4>! attempted but, seeing as it simply leads to an inferior endgame and it's no longer in the gambit style, such a ridiculous continuation hardly seems worthy of serious attention. 4 e3? This is the move all black players are hoping that White will play when they first entertain the notion of the Albin Counter Gambit. It's natural enough for White to want to free his bishop and undouble his e-pawns but with the text he is on the rocky road to falling into the main trap. 8

4,,,.\lb4+ 5 .lld2 5 li::id2 dxe3 6 fxe3 'liVh4+ 7 g3 'liVe4 8 'liVf3 'liVxe5 leaves Black (who has regained his pawn) with a superior pawn structure. Not long ago 9 'liVf2 li::if6 10 li::igf3 'liVe7 11 'liVe2 0-0 12 ~g2 .l:te8 13 0-0 'liVxe3+ 14 'liVxe3 l:Ixe3 15 li::ib3 l:Ie8 16 ~f4 c6 17 cS li::ia6 18 l:Iacl li::ie4 19 ~e3 li::ixg3 20 hxg3 l:Ixe3 21 @f2 l:Ixb3 22 axb3 ~xc5+ 23 @e 1 ~g4 24 l:Ic2 li::ib4 25 l:Ic4 ~e6 26 l:Ic3 .l:te8 27 @d2 l:Id8+ 28 @e2 ~b6 29 l:Id 1 li::idS 30 l:Icd3 ~fS 31 l:I3d2 l:Ie8+ 0-1 was seen in Vainius-Uogele, Vilnius 2000 and one can't really argue with the final result. 5 ... dxe3 6 .llxb4 Contrary to the belief of some, 6 'liVa4+ li::ic6 7 ~xb4 doesn't bail White out of trouble because of 7,,.exf2+ 8 @xf2 'liVh4+! 9 @f3 (this is of little use, but the 9 g3 'liVd4+ 10 @g2 'liVxb2+ 11 ~e2 'liVxal 12 li::if3 'liVb2 13 ~d2 ~g4 14 'liVb3 'liVxb3 15 axb3 0-0-0 16 l:Iel li::ige7 17 ~c3 l:Ihe8 18 li::ibd2 li::ig6 19 h3 ~f5 0-1 of Obdrzalkova-Ramik, Trinec 1998 is hardly a significant improvement!) 9,,.~d7 10 @e3 (a rather unattractive attempt to avoid losing the queen to the likes of ,,.li::ixeS+, but frankly there is not much on offer!)


10 .. .'i!i'd4+ 11 @e2 'ili'xb2+ 12 .1i.d2 0:ld4+ 0-1 Larusdottir-Grigorian, Co-

penhagen 1999. 6 ... exf2+ 7 @e2

Not helpful, but White was totaE:lost anyway. 14 ...lilge2+ 15 .ltxe2 lilxe2+ 0-1 Next comes ...lllxc3 when the knight on d2 drops too.

Game2 Hsu Li Yang-Handoko Singapore 199 7 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 a3

To promote to a queen now would allow 8 'ili'xd8+ ~xd8 9 l:i:xgl. However, Black has a surprise in store for his opponent. 7 ... fxg11il+ ! Yes, even in the twenty-first century White players are still falling hook, line and sinker for the average trickster's, I' dream scenario. \ 8 @e 1 With ....tg4+ floating in the air, this is the only way to avoid losing the queen. 8 ... 't\l'h4+ ! In capturing a knight and simultaneously promoting to a knight, Black has gone from being a piece down to a piece up. A trade of queens now would leave the knight stranded but, as we can see, Black has other plans. 9 @d2 lilc6 10 .ltc3 't\l't2 + 11 @c 1 ii.ts 12 lild2 0-0-0 It's looking pretty grim for White, whose opponent is merrily progressing his position. 13 b4 lild4 14 't\l'a4

In view of the previous game, it's no wonder that many nervous White players are eager to play this move. Indeed, whether whipped out before or after the usual inclusion of 4 illf3 lllc6, there is a dual purpose to it. Firstly, it prevents the enemy bishop check on b4. Useful at any stage, this is particularly handy if e2-e3 is White's intention. Secondly, a queenside expansion is prepared. This may be threatening if Black castles queenside and perhaps more relevant is that Black's cl-pawn can be further pressurised. There's the option of .tb2, whilst b4-b5 to kick a future knight on c6 is also on offer. The general debate is \Vhether or not this fairly mnocuous pawn move is too slow. 4 .. .lbc6 5 e3 9


White gets in his desired pawn push but he hasn't taken time out to guard his extra eS-pawn. 5 ... dxe3 With the white knight not yet on f3, this game is of independent significance to the ones that follow. 6 1i!'xd8+ @xd8 7 .lil.xe3 li:lxe5

As the two centre files are open and Black can't castle, one might suggest that White is slightly better here. However, arguably White's c-pawn is unfavourably placed on c4 and so l would say that there is very little in it. 8 li:lf3!? A very aggressive continuation. It appears that White is prepared to significantly compromise his kingside pawn structure in the name of piece activity. 8 ... .lil.d6 The safest response. I'm still not totally convinced, but certainly the 8... lt:lxf3+ 9 gxf3 i.e7 10 lt:lc3 c6 11 0-0-0+ ~es 12 i.d3 f5?! 13 l:!.hel ~£7 14 lt:le2 i.f6 15 lt:lf4 lt:le7 16 c5 g6 17 i.c4+ ~g7 18 i.d4 l:!.eS 19 i.xf6+ ~xf6 20 l:!.d6+ ~g7 21 lt:le6+ i.xe6 22 l:!.dxe6 ~£7 23 l:!.xe7+ 1-0 of JasnyJ.Lukac, Tatranska Lomnica 1999 is of some instructive value. Kings are re10

quired in the centre for endgames but when exactly do they cease to be m danger? 9 li:lc3 .lil.g4 10 0-0-0 li:lxf3 11 h3

Always the intention. 11 c5 lt:lxh2 is less clear, but after 11 h3 i.h5, White can choose between 12 c5 or 12 i.e2. 11 ... .lil.d7 12 gxf3 li:lf6?! Possibly Black took this position too lightly. 1n view of the game continuation, developing the knight on e 7 or h6 may have been shrewder. 13 J;[g 1 J;[gS This is the sort of forced passivity that justifies White's decision to effectively self-isolate his kingside pawns. Note that 13 ... g6? 14 l:!.x

16 .. .luxe4 ll:xg5 h6

17

.txe4

.txg5+

18

that his first 'developing' move has ro be 8 i::la2, just to keep him on the board. It looks pretty ugly though! 6 ... dxe3 Black is committed to this now as 6... ~g4 would obviously look ridiculous, whilst 6 ... ~c5 would walk into 7 b4. 7 11i'xd8+ J:l.xd8 8 .ixe3 li:lge7

19 l:tg3 19 i::le5+ ~e6 20 ~xb 7, with 21 .\ll,d5 to follow, looks more promising. 19 ... c6 Now I think that Black's position is defensible. 20 .i1.h7 l:tf8 21 l:txg7 .txh3 22 l:th1 .ie6 23 .i1.d3 Wd7 24 l:txh6 We7 25 Wc2 l:tad8 26 Wc3 l:th8 27 lhh8 l:txh8 28 Wd2 l:l'.h4 29 c5 b6 30 l:tg8

White is a pawn up but Black has a slight lead in development and intends regaining the pawn on eS with a com%-% mon manoeuvre of the king's knight via The extra half-a-pawn on the f-file g6. isn't that important. 9 li:lc3 The premature 9 li:lg5?! might gain a Game} bishop fot a knight but after 9 ... li:lf5 10 Agrest-Glenne li:lxe6 fxe6 11 .\ll,g5 .\ll,e 7 12 .\ll,xe 7 @xe 7 13 li:ld2 li:lxe5 14 li:lb3 li:ld4 15 li:lxd4 Bergen 2001 .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,. l:!xd4 it was Black who held the upper 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 a3 li:lc6 5 e3 .ie6 Black is determined that the 'Albin' should remain a gambit and White's next move effectively transposes the position into the more regular move order 4 li:lf3 luc6 5 e3. 6 li:lf3 6 exd4?! 'lil'xd4 7 'lil'xd4 luxd4 is very awkward for White, who might just find

hand in Sbarra-Marchio, Corsico 1996. 9 ... a6 In this line I could probably conclude that Black has a choice of slightly inferior endgames. The text cuts out a lbbS possibilitY, but Black also has: a) 9 ... li:lf5 and now: al)IO.\ll,g5J::ld711 J::ldl h6?! 12l:l:xd7 @xd7 13 .\ll,d2 g5 14 li:le4 .\ll,g7 15 luc5+ @e 7 16 li:lxe6 @xe6 17 g4 iufd4 18 11


.'.z:lxd-l+ 12\xd4 19 .lil.g2 .lil.xe5 20 h4 f6?! (instead 20 ... c6 21 hxg5 hxg5 22 l:i.xh8 .lil.xh8 23 .lil.xg5 i2lb3 24 'iildl li:ia5 would offer Black reasonable drawing chances as his superior king position helps negate White's bishop pair advantage) 21 hxg5 fxg5 22 .lil.xb71 c6 23 @fl li:ib3 24 .lil.b4 a5 25 i:!.h3 axb4 26 l:i.xb3 bxa3 27 bxa3 and White's pawn advantage eventually told in PushkovPoddubnyi, Elista 2001. a2) 10 .lil.f4

J:i.b6 40 .lil.e4 b4 41 li:ia4 J:i.b5 42 J:i.cl l:i.a5 43 l:i.c7+ @f6 44 'Lib6 bxa3 45 bxa3 i:l.xa3 46 i:!.h7 li:ifS 47 'Lid7+ 'iilg6 48 li:if8+ @f6 49 li:id7+ '/2-'/2 BabulaKrasenkow, Brno 1994. b) 9... li:ig6 10 12\bs l:i.d7 11 12lbd4 li:igxe5 12 li:lxeS li:ixe5 13 li:lxe6 fxe6 14 .lil.e2 'Lid3+ (arguably more forcing than 14 ... .lil.e7 15 i:!.dl l:i.xdl+ 16 @xdl @f7 17 @c2 i:!.dS 18 l:i.
11...h6 11 h4 .lil.e7 12 li:id5 .lil.xd5 13 cxd5 l:i.xd5 14 .lil.c4 l:i.c5 15 J:i.cl a5 16 0-0 @f8 Oust one of the slightly baffling moves in this rare high-level encounter. Presumably Black was angling for ... g7 g5 where, with his e7-bishop possibly deflected, he wouldn't be prone to a future discovered attack with .lil.xf7+. I'm sure White stands better throughout the game but eventually the wares are shared.) 17 e6 g5 18 .lil.xc7 g4 19 li:id2 '1Jcd4 20 .lil.b6 l:i.c6 21 .lil.xa5 fxe6 22 g3 @f7 23 .lil.d3 i:l.hcS 24 l:i.xc6 i:l.xc6 25 l:i.el .lil.f6 26 .lil.e4 l:i.a6 27 .lil.c3 b5 28 .lil.d3 J:i.d6 29 .lil.bl l:i.c6 30 .lil.e4 i:!.d6 31 @g2 l:i.d8 32 .lil.b 1 l:i.cS 33 .lil.a2 i:l.c6 34 li:ie412lf3 35 i:!.dl .lil.xc3 36 'Lixc3 'Li5d4 37 @fl 'Lih2+ 38 @g2 li:ihf3 39 .lil.bl

12

10 ... li:lxe5 11 li:lxe6 fxe6

White has the bishop pair and a nice target on e6, but Black has some handy short term options for his knights. 12 l:Id1 J:i:xd1 + 13 li:lxd1 li:l7c6

13 ... li:ifS!?, looking to pinch a bishop, certainly appears to suggest itself. If then 14 .lil.f4, Black could play 14... .lil.d6, threatening 15 ... 12\f3+. 14 f4 li:lg4 15 .ltg1 e5

Black seeks to offload this blatant


weakness. The board now becomes more open, but although this is theoretically in White's favour, currently residing on the back rank is in fact his entire army! 16 .ie2 11:lt6 1 7 fxe5 11:lxe5 18 .id4 11:lc6 19 .ie3 .id6 20 .if3 ll:ld7 21 c5 .ie5 22 b4 l:l'.e8 23 ll:ld2

23 ... 11:le7? A bluff which doesn't come off. Black was hoping to solve the b7-pawn pinning problem but he clearly underestimated White's response. Virtually any other move would have been preferable and most would still leave White with a lot to prove. 24 .ixb7! c6 25 .ixa6 11:led5 26 ll:lc2 11:lc7 27 .id3 It's all gone horribly wrong. The adventurous bishop has safely returned, leaving White two clear pawns up. 27 ... 11:lcd5 28 .ic1 ll:lc7 29 g3 h5 30 l:i'.e 1 h4 31 gxh4 .ixh2 32 l:i'.xe8 11:lxe8 33 .ig5 11:lef6 34 11:lc3 .ie5 35 11:lxd5+ 11:lxd5 36 ll:lb3 .ig3 37 .it5 11:lt4 38 a4 11:lg2 39 h5 11:lf4 40 .ig4 11:ld5 41 .it3 11:lt4 42 .ie7 11:le6 43 .ig4 11:ld8 44 b5 11:lb7 45 .if3 .if2 46 ll:lb4 .ie1 + 47 ll:lc4 11:la5+ 48 ll:ld3 .ig3 49 .i 18 1-0

Game4 Karr-Jossien Bethune 1999 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 11:lt3 11:lc6 5 11:lbd2 .ie6 6 a3

With 5 li:lbd2 White effectively rules out the idea of an early e2-e3. The c4pawn is protected by the knight and the option is now there to transfer it to b3 in order to try and round up the thorn on d4. 6 ... a5 Presumably a critical 'getting straight to the point' alternative is 6 ... li:lge7 7 b4 li:lg6 (for 7 ... 'lifd7 see below) 8 .i:l.b2 'lifd7 9 g3 (the impatient 9 b5 li:lcxe5 10 li:lxd4 wins the cl-pawn but loses the cpawn) 9 ... J:1.d8 10 J:1.cl .i:l.e7, for example 11 h4 li:lgxe5 12 b5 li:lxf3+ 13 li:lxf3 li:la5 14 'lifa4 b6 15 li:le5 (not losing in itself but certainh· offering Black play is 15 .i:l.xd4 0-0 16 .i:l.g2 a6', for example 17 0-0 axb5 18 cxb5> {or 18 'lifxb5 li:lxc4} 18 ... .i:l.b3 when disaster has struck) 15 ... 'lifd6 16 li:ld3 0-0 (16 ... li:lxc4 17 J:l.xc4 'liVd5 18 J:l.xd4 'lifxh 1 could go either way!) 17 .i:1.g2 .i:1.g4 18 'liV c2 J:l.fe8 19 0-0 .i:l.f6 with an unclear position, 13

- ,':usual Queen's Gambit Declined

::-cekic-Dena, Nis 1993. \\'ith clear similarities to the above, .ilso of relevance is 6 ... 'li'd7 7 b4 {jjge7 and now: a) 8 {jjb3 {jjg6 (8 ... ..\txc4 9 {jjbxd4 .:::l.dS 10 ..ltb2 {jjg6 11 .:::l.cl looks good for White in view of 1 J...{jjgxeS? 12 {jjxeS {jjxeS 13 f4) 9 {jjbxd4 ..ltxc4 10 {jjxc6 'li'xc6 11 ..ltb2 aS!? offers Black some reasonable compensation although the rating point superiority eventually told after 12 {jjd4 'li'a6 13 bS ..ltxbS 14 .:::l.cl ..ltc4 15 'li'c2 bS 16 'li'e4 ..lte7 17 h4 0-0-0 18 hS {jjfS 19 {jjc6 .:::l.d7 20 .:::l.xc4 bxc4 21 e3 ..ltcS 22 ..ltxc4 'li'b 7 23 0-0 {jje6 24 a4 {jjds 25 ..tbs .:::l.d2 26 ..tc3 .:::l.d7 27 l:!.bl ..ltb6 28 'li'c4 {jjxc6 29 ..txc6 'li'a7 30 ..txd7+ ~xd7 31 'li'xf7+ ~cs 32 e6 'li'b7 33 'li'xg7 1-0 Volzhin-Rewitz, Aarhus 1997. b) 8 bS {jjas 9 'li'a4 b6 10 ..ltb2 cS 11 e3 dxe3 12 fxe3 {jjg6 13 l:!.dl a6 14 'li'c2 axbS 15 cxbS 'li'b 7 16 {jjc4 ..te 7 17 {jjxaS l:!.xaS 18 ..tc4 0-0 19 0-0 'li'cS 20 {jjd2 .:::l.aS 21 ..ltxe6 'li'xe6 22 {jjc4 l:!.fd8 23 l:!.xd8+ l:!.xdS 24 a4 l:!.d7 25 aS bxaS 26 {jjxaS ..ltdS 27 {jjc4 ..ltb6 28 'li'fS 'li'xfS 29 l:!.xfS l:!.b7 30 {jjxb6 l:!.xb6 31 e6 l:!.xbS 32 exf7+ ~fS 33 ..ta3 ~e7 34 ..txcS+ ~e6 35 g4 .:::l.xcS 36 l:!.xcS ~xf7 37 ~f2 1-0 R.Fernandez-Limp, Santos 1998. A far from conclusive encounter that might however suggest that the acquired doubled isolated e-pawns aren't as bad for White as they look. The selection of 6 ... aS offers up another debate. Halting White's spacegaining b2-b4 certainly takes some stress off of the d4-pawn but is it an admission that Black's play elsewhere is mo slow> The only really clear thing is rhat after this move, the concept of cas74

cling queenside is really a trifle optimistic!

7 b3 'l!Vd7 Definitely a shrewder plan than the one now attempted would have been 7 ... {jjge7 8 ..tb2 {jjg6. Black is simply aiming to regain the e-pawn and upon 9 {jje4, which unleashes the queen against the black d-pawn, Black can stay alive by pressurising c4 via 9 ... a4!. 8 i.b2 0-0-0?! 9 b4!

9 {jje4 was probably good too, but the text sets about refuting Black's overambitious play. 9 ... axb4 10 g3 White is encouraging open lines on the queenside. 10 'li'a4 also suggested itself as 10 ...{jjxeS?> would be rather


dramatically floored by 11 'i'aS mate, and 10 ... WbS 11 axb4 is hardly much better. 10 ... i.h3 11 axb4 i.xf 1 12 ll:a8 + ltlb8 13 'ili'a1 Ignoring the recapture of the bishop in favour of threatening 14 'i'a7. 13 ... c6

Game5 Bilobrk-Levacic Bibin;e 2001 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 ltlt3 ltlc6 5 a3 i.g4 14 c5 14 'i'a7 'i'c7 15 bS, with 16 b6 in mind, was an alternative but the text offers a promising knight route. 14 ... i.g2 15 ltlc4 'ili'e8 15 ... 'i'e6 is no better, for example 16 'i'a7 Wd7 17 'i'xb7+ We8 18 l:txbS Sl.xhl 19 li:lgS 'i'xc4 (observe !9 ... 'i'd7 20 l:txdS+ 'i'xdS 21 'i'xf7 mate!) 20 e6', which basically forces Black to relinquish his gueen. 16 'ili'a7 Wc7 17 ltla5 Having solved the b8 problem, Black now faces significant difficulties on the b 7 -square. 17 ... Wd7 18 ltlxb7 ll:c8 19 ll:xb8 19 li:ld6+ l::c 7 20 e6+ is also rather 1mpress1ve. 19 ... i.xh1 20 ltld6+ .l:l.c7 21 'ili'a8 'ili'e7 22 .l:l.e8 1-0 Black's kingside development leaves something to be desired'

Here Black chooses g4 instead of e6 as a home for the bishop. White no longer has to worry about defending his c-pawn but he does now have to consider the pressure on his knight and the e-pawn. 6 ltlbd2 ltlge 7 We've already seen plenty of this move with a ... li:lg6 follow up. In this game another idea is investigated. 7 ltlb3 15

~

nusual Queen's Gambit Declined

.\rcer what looked like a bit of play :or Black, 7 h3 .ie6 8 '!Wa4 li:ic8 9 g3 ~e- 10 .ig2 0-0 11 0-0 li:ib6 12 '!Wc2 "i;\i'c8 13 lii'h2 a5 (13 ... Jl.f5!? 14 '!Wdl d3 i:-- another approach that deserves attention) 14 b3 l:td8 15 .ib2 Jl.f5 16 '!We! 'liV e6 17 c5 li:id7 18 li:ixd4 'Llxd4 19 Jl.xd4 li:ixe5 20 '!Wc3 li:ic6 21 e3 '!Wh6 22 li:if3 Jl.e4 23 b4 '!Wh5 24 li:ie5 Jl.xg2 25 lii'xg2 li:ixd4 26 exd4 Jl.f6 27 l:tfel finally turned into a real pawn advantage for White in Nogueira-Gonzalez Gil, Lisbon 2001.

7 .. .lbt5 7 ....ixf3 8 exf3 merely concedes a bishop for a knight as after 8... li:ig6 9 f4, Black won't even regain the pawn. The notes to White's previous move included a ... li:ic8-b6 manoeuvre. We've seen plenty of ... li:ig6 and now comes another option. On f5 the black knight adds the required protection to the d4pawn. 8 'i'd3 8 g3 enables Black to regain the pawn via 8 ... Jl.xf3 9 exf3 li:ixe5 and so instead White employs a flexible queen move. 8 ... 1!Vd7 9 .if4 0-0-0 10 li:lbd2 White has bolstered the extra pawn but is yet to complete his kingside development. The text paves the way for the likes of b2-b4 but although this seems very reasonable, there are plenty of candidate moves here. 10 ... li:lfe7 11 h3 .if5 12 e4 dxe3 Now it is a genuine pawn sacrifice, although Black certainly has some play for it. 13 'l!Vxe3 .ig6 14 .ie2 li:lf5 The knight returns to its prev10us rose but this time with the d4-square in :r::: ::-:i~hts. ,6

15 'i'c3 li:lfd4 16 .id1 'i'f5 Although Black wins this game, it's not exactly entirely convincing. As an alternative, 16 ... Jl.c5 keeps up the pressure, e.g. 17 b4 li:ixf3+ 18 li:ixf3 Jl.d4 19 li:ixd4 '!Wxd4 with active play. 17 li:lxd4 'li'xf4 18 li:lxc6 bxc6 19 .ig4+ <;i;>b7 20 g3 'i'd4 21 1!Vxd4 l:i'.xd4 22 .if3

Although White is a pawn to the good, has a superior structure and has pressure on c6, in fact the position is fairly unclear. Black has the bishop pair and an active rook with which to try and exploit the space behind White's position (e.g. the holes on c2 and d3). 22 ... .ie7 23 b4 On the face of it White is actively


looking to hit Black's weak c6-pawn further. In reality, though, he does also have some problems with his awkwardly positioned knight. 23 ... i.c2 24 b5 a6 After 24 ... l:hdS 25 ~xc6+ @b6, White has 26 ~dS so Black is seeking queenside confusion with the text. 25 i.xc6 + l!lb6 26 li:lf3 Although two pawns up, White still has problems with his knight and, as ... l:hd8 was imminent, he opts to offload one pawn now. Alas, this decision to complete his development (i.e. move the knight to get castled) now costs him his material advantage. 26 .. Jhc4 27 0-0 axb5 28 .i.d5 l:l:c3 29 li:ld4 .i.96 Black still has the two bishops but now he has a queenside pawn majority too. His king is also more centralised, thus leading to a conclusion of a clear advantage to Black. 30 l:!fc1 l:!c5 31 i.g2 l:!d8 32 li:lc6 l:!e8 Rather unnecessary m view of 32 ... l:xcl+ 33 l:xcl ~xa3 34 l:al ~b2 35 l:a2 l:dl+ 36 @h2 l:d2. However, although White should grab the bishop on e7 now, Black is still favourite. 33 l:!xc5 i.xc5 34 li:lb4 l:!xe5 35 li:ld5+ @a5 36 li:lxc7 l:!e2 37 li:ld5 l:!xf2 38 l!lh2 i.e4 39 li:lf4 g5 40 l!lh 1 gxf4 41 .i.xe4 fxg3 42 i.g2 f5 0-1 The f-pawn will secure victory.

li:lc6 5 li:lbd2 .i.f5

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 li:lf3

13 ... ~e4 14 'iiVg3, but it's not clear how

One of three obvious candidates for the light-squared bishop. On this square, though, there is a sting in the tail. If now 6 g3?, then 6 ... lt:ib4! would be rather embarrassing. 6 a3 White's selected move is good for preventing both ... lt:ib4 and ... ~b4+. If he gets straight to the point (that is of attacking the d4-pawn) with 6 lt:ib3, then 6 ... f6 has been suggested as an interesting way to keep things on the boil: a) A hole I have observed in limited previous analysis is that although 7 lt:ibxd4 ~b4+ 8 ~d2 lt:ixd4 9 lt:ixd4 'iifxd4 10 ~xb4 'iir'xb2 looks good for Black, surely 10 'iiVa4+' is a big improvement. b) 7 exf6 'iifxf6 8 a3 h6 (as well as preparing an expansion, the text is useful for preventing ~gS, which in turn is of course vital if Black plans castling long) 9 g3 (after 9 it:ifxd4 0-0-0, I guess 10 e3 lt:ixd4 11 exd4 - not 11 lt:ixd4? cS Game6 - 11...'iiVg6 12 'iiVf3 ~c2 offers Black Singer-Diermair some play for the two pawns, for example 13 lt:iaS - or 13 dS?! l:e8+ 14 ~e2 Oberwart 2000 ,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~xb3 15 'iifxb3 'iir'xg2 16 J:fl ~cs -

17


much) 9 ... 0-0-0 10 ..tg2 g5 11 0-0 d3! with reasonable compensation and obviously a threat of ... dxe2 and ... ..td3.

6 ... 'l!i'd7 Regarding alternatives, I suppose 6 ... a5 is a candidate as it halts 7 h4, but no doubt most interesting to the crowd would be the immediate 6 ... f6 7 exf6 'lixf6 (with 7 ...li'lxf6, Black's bishop might prefer to be on g4) and now: a) After 8 b4 0-0-0 things look fairly double-edged. White has the likes of lub3 and ..tb2 to pressurise the d4pawn, whilst 'lia4 and b5 also spring to mind. However, he has a bit of diffi. culty with his light-sguared bishop, bearing in mind that Black may use the half-open e-file, and ... d4-d3 is a move to look out for too. b) 8 ... 0-0-0 9 ..tg2 d3. As ... dxe2 and ... ..td3 is a serious threat (as in the main game), 10 e3 is pretty much forced. The black gueen prevents b2-b4 at present and 10 ... gS sets things in motion on the kingside. I suspect White is objectively better after, for example, 11 J:!.bl ..tg7 12 b4 luge7 13 ..tb2 'lig6 14 ..txg7 'lixg7 15 0-0 h5 16 b5 but Black has perfectl:· reasonable practical chances in rhi~ line. 78

7 g3 f6

Also possible is 7 ... luge7 8 lub3 0-0-0 as 9 luc5?! 'lie8 10 'lia4 looks tempting, but 10 ... lug6 11 'lib5 ..txc5 12 'lixc5 lucxe5 13 luxe5 luxe5 14 'lixa7 lud3+ 15 @d2 luxf2 16 'lia8+ @d7 17 'lixb7 'lie6! is in actual fact better for Black. 8 exf6 li:lxf6 9 ~g2 d3 10 0-0 0-0-0 11 e3

White has set his stall out. Black's pawn on d3 is a thorn but if he can develop around it, then there is every chance that he could pick it off in the endgame. He has options to expand on the gueenside and his only worry is whether Black can drum up a serious attack.

The Albin Counter Gambit: lntroductior:

11 ... h5 12 b4 .id6?! Gamel Although this offers up the eS-square Hove-Hvenekilde to the c6-knight, this looks suspiciously like a bit of a time-waster. Surely 12 ... h4 T aastrup 2000 or 12 ... il.h3 is what the position called .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

for. 13 'l!ll'a4 lilb8 14 c5 .ie5 15 li:lxe5 li:lxe5 16 'l!i'xd7 l:txd7 17 .ib2 Now with the queens off, the chances of Black mating the white king are virtually non-existent. Hence it's full steam ahead for the side with the extra pawn and the two bishops. 17 ...li:leg4 18 h3 li:lh6 19 cG bxc6 20 l:tfc1 h4 21 g4

21 ... li:lhxg4 With his last move, Black intended this sacrifice. However he is clutching at straws and final result of the game is in little doubt. 22 hxg4 li:lxg4 23 e4 .ie6 24 .ih3 J:te7 25 J:txc6 .id7 26 l:tg6 li:le5 27 .ixe5 .ixh3 28 14 .ic8 29 J:tc1 h3 30 lilh2 J:118 31 li:lb3 J:td8 32 li:la5 .ib7 33 li:lxb7 lilxb7 34 J:txg7 J:txg7 35 .ixg7 d2 36 l:td1 l:tg8 37 .ic3 J:tg2+ 38 lilxh3 l:te2 39 .ixd2 J:txe4 40 ll:e1 l:td4 41 J:te2 J:td3+ 42 lilg4 J:txa3 43 15 J:ta 1 44 16 ll:g 1 + 45 11115 ll:11 + 46 .il4 1-0

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 a3 li:lc6 5 li:ll3 .ig4 Note that after 5 ... il.e6 instead, both 6 e3 and 6 li:lbd2 would transpose to positions already covered. 6 .il4

6 li:lbd2 has been previously studied and for the sake of completion, other alternatives to the text include: a) 6 b4 which is best met simply by 6 ... il.xf3 7 exf3 12\xeS e.g. 8 f4 li::\g6 9 g3 li:lf6 10 il.g2 'iiw' e 7+ 11 ~fl 0-0-0 12 il.f3 hS 13 h4 with approximately equal chances, Ovod-Shurygin, St Petersburg 1997. b) 6 'iiw'b3 looks a little greedy and indeed was ultimately rebuffed rather visually after 6... b6 7 'iiw'b5 'iiw'd7 8 it:lbd2 a6 9 'iiw'b3 lt:lge 7 10 e3 li:lf5 11 exd4 li:lfxd4 12 it:lxd4 it:lxd4 13 Wc3 0-0-0 14 cS 'iiw'a4' 15 b3 lt:lxb3 16 cxb6 'iiw'e4+!! 17 'iiw'e3 (rather than 17 li:lxe4 J:idl mate') 17 ... 'iiw'xe3+ 18 fxe3 lt:lxal and Black won, Klak-Saenger, Neuwied 1993. I'm not so sure that this should be followed 79

.... nusua! Queen's Gambit Declined

·olindk b,· either colour, though. _--\mongsr other things, 6 ... b6 creates a fe"· holes and 9 'iil'd5 looks stronger rhan 9 'iil'b3. Regarding 6 .ltf4, I am a little reluctant to award it with a '?!' alrhough this game seems to suggest that such an annotation might be justified. 6 ...li:lge7 The f4-bishop supports the e5-pawn but Black will gain a tempo on it with ... l'i:lg6. 7 li:lbd2 li:lg6 8 i.g3

8 ... i.e7 With the text Black shows no urgency to regain his sacrificed pawn. White has it well protected but he has a spot of difficulty developing his lightsquared bishop. That said, it would be negligent of me to withhold from you the miniatures that have occurred from Black placing his queen on the e-file with 8 ... 'iil'e7: a) 9 'iil'a4 h5 10 h4 (I see no obvious flaw in 10 l'i:lxd4, certainly as opposed to when White chose this move!) 10 ... .ltd7 11 'iil'dl l'i:lcxe5 12 l'i:lxd4» l'i:ld3 mate, Martinez-Fernandez ..\.guado, Cajas 1989. b) 9 'iil'b3>1 0-0-0 10 e3 l'i:lgxe5 11 -s,e5 !2ixe5 12 .ltxe5 'iil'xe5 13 h3 dxe3! 20

14 'iil'xe3 'iil'xb2 15 hxg4 'iil'xal+ 16 lt>e2 .ltxa3 17 liilf3 .ltcl 18 ..id3 ..ixd2 19 .!:l:xal ..ixe3 0-1 Hochstein-H.Miiller, Bochum 1991. c) 9 h3 ..ixf3 10 l'i:lxf3 0-0-0 11 'iil'c2 l'i:\gxe5 12 'iil'f5+ l'i:ld7 13 'iil'f4 l'i:lc5 14 l'i:\e5 'iil'e6 15 l'i:lxf7?, l'i:ld3+ 0-1 KohlerStroup, Hagenbach 1998. 8... 'iil'd7 9 h3 ..ie6 10 e4 dxe3 11 fxe3 0-0-0 12 'iii'c2 ..ic5 13 'iii' c3 .!:i:he8 14 b4 ..trn also didn't turn out that badly for Black in Charkhalashvili-Koneru, Athens 2001. 9 li:lb3 h5!? Suddenly a serious threat. Black gains some space on the kingside and coincidentally looks to trap the g3-bishop. The essential point, though, is Black desires the roo h-pawn interjections before trading on f3. 10 h3 i.xf3 11 exf3 h4 12 i.h2 li:lgxe5 13 i.xe5 White concedes one of his bishops in order to re-establish his material plus. There was a danger, however, that Black's cl-pawn could have caused some trouble. 13 ... li:lxe5 14 'i!Yxd4 It's logical for White to want to trade queens and, although Black now gets very reasonable activity, 14 l'i:lxd4 instead would also have offered Black very reasonable compensation after 14... ..ic5 15 l'i:lc2 'iii'e 7. 14 ... 'i!Yxd4 15 luxd4 0-0-0 16 li:lt5 :!:the8 White is half-a-pawn up but his king is still in the centre and he has much developing to do. Black is also better after 16 ... .ltf6 hut the text sets up the delightful possibility of ... .ltb4+ and ... l'i:lxf3 discovered mate.


17 ie2 if6 18 0-0 ll:d2 19 ll:fe1 li::ig6 20 .lif1 ll:xe1 21 ll:xe1 ll:xb2 22 .!:te3 ll:b 1 23 g3 li::ie5 24 @g2 ll:c1 25 ll:e4 hxg3 26 f4 Black has played this game very nicely and has a clear endgame advan-

tage. As 26 fxg3 drops a pawn to 26 ... 12lxf3, White is provoked into the text. 26 ... li:if3! 27 @xf3 And not 27 fxg3 12ld2. 27 ...ll:xf1 28 li:ixg3 ll:a1 The pawn count is level but Black has a bishop for a knight, the more active rook and a far superior pawn structure. 29 ll:e8+ @d7 30 ll:f8 ll:xa3+ 31 li.lg4

Black is winning and really deserYes the full point. Unfortunately, now things slowly start to go horribly wrong' 31 ... a5 32 ll:xf7 + lllc6 33 li'ih5 ~b2 34 li::ixg7 ll:d3 35 li::ie6 ll:d7 36 .!:tf8 a4 37 ll:a8 a3 38 f5 b6 39 li.lg5 l!.>b7 40 .!:ta4 l:!.d3? Black has made several inaccuracies recently but this tops the lot. Now he is lost. 41 f6 J;!f3 42 f7 Surely this is what Black missed. The f-pawn is immune to capture because of the fork on d8. 42 ... c6 43 c5 b5 44 .!:tf4 ll:xf4 45 \l.>xf4 .lie 1 + 46 li.lf5 .lih6 4 7 li.196 .lif8 48 li::ixf8 a2 49 li::ie6 a11!V 50 f81W 1-0 ,--------------

Game8 Martinez-Yanez Acin Narciso Yepes 200 I 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 a3 li:ic6 5 li:if3 li:ige 7

6 .lig5 After 6 e3, thanks to his last move, Black now has 6 ...12lf5 at his disposal. Then 7 e4 12lh4 8 jl_f4 12lxf3+ (or perhaps 8...12lg6 9 jl_g3 jl_g4) 9 'li'xf3 gS, 21


\\·irh ... $1.g7 in mind, should be okay. 6 Ji.f4 Jl.g4 7 lbbd2 lbg6 8 kg3 will transpose to the previous game. 6 g3, \\·hich appears to mix systems (see Chapter 3), was egually balanced after 6 ... lbg6 7 kg2 12:lgxeS 8 lbbd2 ke7 9 0-0 0-0 10 b4 d3 11 b5 lbd4, PinterSouleidis, Dortmund 1998. 6 ... h6 7 i.h4 Even 7 Jl.xe7 Jl.xe7 8 g3 Jl.g4 9 lbbd2 °l!i' d7 10 kg2 aS 11 0-0 0-0 12 l:el l:fd8 13 l:cl a4 14 c5 'l!Ve6 15 l:c4 l:aS 16 l:xa4 l:xcS 17 lbb3 l:c4 18 l:xc4 'l!i'xc4 19 'l!Vd3 °l!i'e6 (ChmielBlumel, Czech Team Ch., 1992) wasn't that clear and there's 10 ... 0-0-0 to consider as well, for example 11 b4 d3L 7 ... g5!?

Disaster would befall Black if a white knight made it to f6, but Black has correctly weighed up his options. The weaknesses created are offset by the space gained and the new possibilities for pressurising the eS-pawn. 8 i.g3 li:lg6 A logical continuation, although 8 ...12:lfS appears to have its merits too. 9 e3 An amusing line runs 9 lbbd2 g4 10 lbe4 gxf3 11 lbf6+ We7 12 12:ldS+. The 22

best White has, however, is a draw by perpetual but I suspect that if Black is a bit more adventurous with his king he could play on. 9 ... i.g4 10 i.e2 dxe3 11 'l!Vxd8+ Il'.xd8 12 fxe3 i.f5 The text works out well for Black but arguably due to poor white play. 12... i.cS is an obvious alternative candidate and another possible variation runs 12... kxf3 13 gxf3 JI.cs 14 lbc3 kxe3 15 12:ldS kf4 16 lbxc7+ Wd7 17 12:ldS kxeS, when Black has the upper hand. 13 i.f2?! I'm really not sure what this is ail about. 13 lbc3 must be best. 13 ... li:lcxe5 14 li:lxe5 li:lxe5 15 b4 li:ld3+ 16 i.xd3 Il'.xd3

Now White's position is not looking good. His opponent has the two bishops and the superior pawn structure, while the bl-knight struggles to find a way into the game. 17 0-0 i.e7 18 h3 i.f6 19 Il'.a2 i.e6 20 J:tc2 We 7 21 e4 i.d4 22 c5 l:td8 23 i.xd4 J.8xd4 24 J:te 1 Il'.d 1 25 J:tce2 i.c4 26 J:te3 J.4d3 27 li'f2 Il'.xe 1 28 Il'.xe 1 We6 29 Il'.e3 We5 30 li:lc3 Il'.d2+ 31 li'f3 i.f1 32 li:le2


26 l:dl ilxh4 27 'il!'d3 'ili'f2 28 'ili'e3 ilxg3 29 'ili'xg3 'ili'xf4+ 30 'ili'xf4 l:xf4 And of course the king and pawn 31 d6 1-0 Karpov-Stoma, Koszalin endgame is completely lost. (simul) 1997. 35 @12 15 36 @g3 @d4 37 @13 @c4 6 exl6 li:lxl6 38 g4 14 39 h4 @b3 40 b5 @xa3 41 In his 'Foxy Openings' video on the c6 b6 42 hxg5 hxg5 0-1 Albin, International Master Andrew , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , Martin arguably went a little overboard Game9 on the line 6... 'ili'xf6 and now: H.Visser-Van der Laar a) 7 ii.gs 'ili'g6 8 ilf4 (more recently 8 h4 h6 9 ilf4 'ili'f7 10 g3 ilf5 11 'ili'a4 Dutch Junior Ch., Henge/a 1997 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0-0-0 12 it:lbd2 it:lf6 13 ilg2 d3 14 'ili'bS 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 li:ll3 'ili'e6 15 e3 it:lg4 16 ~fl ile7 17 hS was li:lc6 5 a3 16 a fascinating quick draw in Santa-Sosa San Juan 1999) 8 ... 'ili'f7 9 ilg3 ilg4 10 it:lbd2 0-0-0 11 b4 it:lf6 12 bS it:laS 13 it:leS 'ili'e6 14 'ili'a4 b6 15 f3 ilfS 16 it:lb3 ilc2 17 it:lcS 'ili'f5 18 e4 dxe3 19 .ild3 'ili'xd3 20 it:lcxd3 ilxa4 21 it:lb2 ilb3 22 it:\f7 l:l'.d2 23 it:lxh8 l:l'.xb2 24 0-0 ilxc4 0-1 Tatayev-Naglis, Makhachkala 1964. b) I guess that also critical is 7 g3 ii.ES 8 ilg2 h6 9 0-0 0-0-0 10 it:lbd2 gS. Now 11 b4' is poor in view of 11...d3 and indeed it is interesting to make a comparison with this position and the Confirming the gambit, this idea of same with ... d4-d3 and e2-e3 already the Norwegian IM Rojan is an impor- thrown in. Nothing is especially clear except that in both instances a kingside tant theme in the Albin. One more approach worth noting attack is on Black's agenda. has restrictive intentions on the oppo7 g3 .ig4 nent. However, 5... aS has not scored Pressurising the knight and through that well in practice, e.g. 6 ilgS ile 7 7 to the pawn on e2. h4 ilg4 8 it:lbd2 h6 9 ilf4 'ili'd7 10 e3 8 li:lbd2 dxe3 11 fxe3 l:l'.d8 12 'ili'b3 b6 13 0-0-0 I'm loath to be too critical of this move, but playe
23

~

0usual Queen's Gambit Declined

to solve the problem of his Jark-squared bishop and I wonder ,d1erher he could have completed his kingside development and retained the option of, for example, ~g5? 8 ... a5!? Introducing a new dimension. Black wants to park his bishop on c5 and so prepares this by clamping White's queenside. 9 b3 il.c5 10 il.b2 0-0 11 il.g2 'li!'d7 12 0-0 ll:ae8 ::1.1b1li1T

Black's pieces have flowed nicely into play and he appears to have the obvious white breaks b3-b4 and e2-e3 firmly under control. His last move pressurises the e2-pawn and even with the kings castled on the same side, it is possible for him to launch an attack. 13 .!l:e1 il.h3 14 b4 After 14 ~xh3 'lii'xh3, the oncoming ...li::lg4 looks like a very powerful continuation, with serious threats mounting on h2 and f2. Indeed, 15 12lg5 'lii'hS hardly constitutes a solution to the problems. Cynics might no doubt criticise White's choice but what else is there for him to do> Of course he could sit back clutching his extra pawn but his palms would no doubt sweat as Black 24

maximises the use of the half-open fand e-files and descends his queen on White's monarch. 14 ... axb4 15 li:lb3 b6 16 li:lxc5 bxc5 17 axb4 li:lxb4 18 .!l:a5 il.xg2 19 l!lxg2 li:le4 White's pawn sacrifice has hardly brought the activity he desired as his bishop is still locked out, whilst Black's knights stand tall. 20 il.a3

20 ... g5 Black's play looks quite impressive in this game but it's a shame he failed to employ the beautiful 20 ... 'lii'h3+!! 21 Wxh3 (or 21 Wgl 12lxf2! 22 Wxf2 'lii'xh2+ 23 @fl d3 with a crushing attack) 2!...12lxf2+ 22 @g2 12lxd1 23 l:Ixd 1 (23 12lxd4 12le3+ 24 Wg 1 12lxc4 sees the knight doing some impressive work) 23 ... l:Ixe2+ 24 @fl l:Ic2 (with a winning ending!). 21 il.xb4 cxb4 22 J:td5 'lii'f7 23 ll:f1 g4 24 li:lh4 Possibly White's only chance in the whole game was with the complications of 2412lxd412lc3 25 l:IgS+ Wh8 26 'lii'd3 12lxe2 27 l:IfS. As it happens, the rest of the game is rather painful. 24 ... c5 25 f3 li:lc3 26 .!l:g5+ l!lhB


27 'i'd3 lhe2+ 28 ll:12 gxf3+ 29 ti:lxf3 ll:xf2 + 30 @xf 2 'i'xf3 + ! 31 'i'xf3 ti:le4+ 32 @e2 ll:xf3 33 ll:h5 0-1 ~------------~

9 g3 i.g4

Offering the black queen a couple of possibilities along the h3-c8 diagonal. 10 i.g2 ti:lxf4 11 gxf4 0-0-0 12 ti:lb3 'i'f5 13 ti:lfxd4!

Game 10 Santos-N. Rodriguez Athens 1998 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 ti:lf3

It strikes me that the breaking of the 'knights before bishops' rule with 4 .ltf4 merely provides Black with more options. As well as 4... IZk6 (and indeed 4...1Zle7, intending ...1Zlg6), Black also has 4... .ltb4+ 5 1Zld2 cS 6 1Zlgf3 1Zle7 7 e3 1Zlg6 8 .ltg3 dxe3 9 fxe3 0-0 10 .lte2 1Zlc6, as played in Mantzouneas-Kahler, Bad Wiirishofen 1992. 4 ... ti:lc6 5 i.14 i.e6 5... .ltb4+ 6 1Zlbd2 .lte6 7 .i:cl 1Zlge7 8 a3 .ltxd2+ 9 'it'xd2 1Zlg6 10 .ltg3 .ltg4 11 'it'gS .ltxf3 12 'it'xd8+ .l:xd8 13 exf3 'Dcxe5 is an interesting endgame that was reached in Brakedal-Ferkingstad, Oslo 2001. White shades it because of his bishop pair. The text does have its points but I still prefer the previously seen 5 ...1Zlge7. 6 ti:lbd2 'i'd7 7 'i'a4 White plays actively. He intends solving the problem of his light-squared bishop later. 7 ... ti:lge7 8 0-0-0!? White seriously has it in mind to pressurise d4. 8 ... ti:lg6 This is logical although, as an alternative may be sought, 8... 1Zlc8, preparing to come to b6, has something to be said for it.

Now all of \v'hite's pieces are ready for action. 13 ... ti:lxd4 14 ti:lxd4 'i'xf4+ 15 e3 'i'xf2 16 'i'xa7! 'i'xg2 After 16 ... 'it'xe3+ 17 lt>bl kfS+ 18 lt>al, Black runs out of checks and has the impossible task of dealing with the threat on b7. 17 'i'a8+ @d7

18 'i'xd8+! 1-0

19 1Zlc6+ and then 20 .i:d8 mate would follow.

25

_ 0usual Queen's Gambit Declined

Summary

_\!though this chapter obviously finished better for White than it started('), Game 7 should indicate that perhaps the protective 1<-f4 doesn't fit in well with any longrerm white plans. In particular, development tends to suffer and, while I'm on that ropic, Game 9 is an important one for Black to take note of. There were some fascinating endgames earlier on with novel ideas for both sides, but outside of 5 g3 (the main line covered in Chapter 3) only 5 12:lbd2 really stands out. The whole concept of confirming the opening as a gambit with ... f7-f6 could do with some further investigations and this section merely opens the debate as to where Black's light-squared bishop is most effective. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 li:lf3 (D) 4 a3 12:lc6 5 e3 5... dxe3 - Game 2 5...1<.e6 - Game 3 4 e3 - Game 1 4 ... li:lc6 5 li:lbd2 5 a3 5... 1<.g4 - Game 7 5... luge 7 (D) - Game 8 5... f6 - Game 9 5 1<-f4 - Game 10 5 ... i.e6 5... 1<.g4 - Game 5 5... .if5 - Game 6 6 a3 (D) - Game4

4 li:lf3

26

5 ... li:lge 7

6 a3

CHAPTER TWO

I

The Albin: Spassky's 4 e4 and Tartakower's 4 'L'lf3 c5

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 e4 and 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 li:lt3 c5 Although the above-mentioned players are both prominent figures in the history of the game, this chapter refers to comparative sidelines. There is a certain amount of logic behind 4 e4 but Black appears to have a variety of attractive ways to meet it. It's unusual for respected opening books to offer pawn sacrifices as their main lines but the 5... f6! of Game 11 is even recommended by NCO as the antidote of White's system. Indeed, none of this chapter's first three encounters is especially inspirational to the first player and the same could be said about Black of Garnes 14 and 15.

only be carried through immediately and so Black has no time for ... 1<.b4+ and ... dxe3, which is of course the devastating recipe against 4 e3. White concedes that Black retains a strong pawn on d4 but intends building up a big pawn initiative of his own on the kingside. 4 ... li:lc6

Game 11

Meschke-Eulberg Hassloch 1997

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 e4 The so-called 'Spassky' Variation. Boris craftily observed that en passant can

5 f4 You would have rhought that this was an automatic choice, but at the beginning of the last century Janowski preferred not to weaken the e3-square. Actually, after playing over the main

27

unusual Queen's Gambit Declined

game, you may conclude that he had a reasonable point but his results weren't encouraging, for example: a) 5 12lf3 ~g4 6 'l!Vb3 ~b4+ 7 i2lfd2 'i'h4 8 a3 ..txd2+ 9 12lxd2 0-0-0 10 g3 'l!Vh5 11 £4 g5 12 'l!V d3 gxf4 13 gxf4 12lge7 14 l:Igl l:Ihg8 with good play for the pawn, Janowski-Marshall, Suresne 1908. b) 5 ..tf4 12lge7 6 .ltg3 h5 7 h3 g5 8 h4 g4 9 12ld2 12lg6 10 f4 ..te7 (10 ... .lth6 also looks promising) 11 ..td3 12lxh4 12 'i'e2 /2lg6 with an advantage that Black duly converted, Janowski-Maroczy, Munich 1900. 5 ... 16! In case you were wondering, 5... 12lxe5? 6 fxe5 'l!Vh4+ 7 'i!;>d2 'l!Vxe4 8 ..td3 .ltb4+ 9 'il;>c2 'i'xg2+ 10 12le2 was tried once (Popovics-Kiss, Hajduboszormeny 1999) and it's not very good! 6 exf6 Practical play has seen White decline the pawn but, of the attempts, only 6 12lf3 fxe5 7 f5 holds any water and even then (bearing in mind the check on b4) I'd favour Black's dark-squared possibilities over White's light-squared ones. 6 ...li:lxf6

28

Also possible is 6 ... 'i'xf6, e.g. 7 12lf3 .ltb4+ 8 'i!;>f2 i2lh6 9 ..td3 12lg4+ 10 'i!;>gl 12le3 11 'l!V e2 ~g4 12 h3 ~xf3 13 'l!Vxf3 0-0 14 a3 ..te7 15 ~xe3 dxe3 16 12lc3 .ltc5 and Black has good compensation for the pawn, From-Sorensen, Vejle 1974. In view of the attractive main game continuation, however, it seems a bit unnecessary. 7 .td3 7 e5 .ltb4+! 8 ..td2 12lg4 would incur similar problems to the text. 7 ... .tb4+ 8 .td2 The only way to prevent ...12lg4 is to escape the check with 8 'il,>£1 but then White experiences significant problems on the £-file, as highlighted by the visual game Bouton-Raetsky, Cappelle la Grande 1995: 8 ... 0-0 9 12lf3 ~g4 10 h3 ~xf3 11 'l!Vxf3 12le5 12 'l!Vdl 12lh5 13 'il;>g 1 12lxf4 14 ..txf4 l:Ixf4 15 a3 'l!Vh4 16 .lte2 .Itel 17 12ld2 ..tf2+ 18 'il,>£1 .lte3+ 19 /2lf3 'l!V f2 mate. 8 ... li:lg4 9 li:lf3 li:le3 Just as in the main Albin trap, the pinned White d2-bishop has no influence on e3. 10 1ii'e2 0-0 Hitting f4. White would love to follow suit and castle kingside too but the thorn-like black knight cruelly controls fl. 11 g3 .tg4 1 2 a3 Upon first sight it looks as though White is simply blundering here but close inspection reveals that the obvious 12 h3 fails to l 2 ... ..txf3 13 'l!Vxf3 12le5 14 'i'e2 l:Ixf4!! 15 ~xb4 (or 15 gxf4 'l!Vh4+ 16 'l!Vf2 li:ixd3+) 15 ... l:If3! with all sorts of nasty threats. 12 ... li:le5!

The Albin: Spassky's 4 e4 and Tartakower's 4 Ci:Jf3 c5

of pawns. This is likely to be successful when you note that 6 g3 is no solurion in view of 6 ... gxf4 7 gxf4 'lii'h4+.

6 15

Both of White's knights and his f4pawn are pinned. It's curtains!

13 .ixb4 li:lxl3+ 14 W12 lh14 0-1 Wrapping things up nicely. The rook can't be taken because of 15 ... 'i!Vh4 mate.

Game 12

S. Gross-Eiber German Bundesliga 1995

6 li:lf3 gxf4 7 ..ixf4 li:lge 7 looks to be what Black is after; namely mopping up the e5-pawn via ... li:lg6, ... ..ig7 etc. Now 8 e6 ..ixe6 9 li:lg5 li:lg6 10 li:lxe6 fxe6 11 ..ig3 ..id6 is no help and indeed 12 'liVg4 'lii'd7 13 li:ld2 0-0-0 14 ..ixd6 'lii'xd6 15 c5 'lii'xc5 16 'lii'xe6+ lii>b8 17 'l!Vc4 'l!Vg5 18 0-0-0 li:lge5 19 'lii'a4 d3 20 lii>bl li:lg4 21 li:lf3 'i!Ve3 22 'lii'b3 li:lf2 23 l:!.el 'i!Vxel+ 24 li:lxel d2 25 ..ie2 li:ld4 26 'i!Ve3 li:lxe2 27 li:lf3 dl'i!V+ 28 l:!.xdl l:!.xdl+ 29 lii>c2 l:!.cl+ 30 lii>d2 l:!.d8+ 31 lii>xe2 l:!.c2+ 32 lii>fl l:!.dl+ 33 li:lel li:ld3 34 'lii'xd3 l:!.xd3 35 li:lxd3 l:!.d2 0-1 (Praszak-Mozny, Prague 1990) was fairly conclusive. Aside from the text, 6 fxg5 ..ib4+! 7 ..id2 'i!Vxg5 and 6 ..id3 gxf4 7 ..ixf4

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - li:lge7 8 ..ig3 li:lg6 have occurred but it 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 e4 seems to me that Black is getting what li:lc6 5 14 g5!? he is after.

6 . ..li:lxe5 7 li:ll3 li:lxl3+ Comparing 7 ... ..ib4+ now and with my notes to Black's next move, it's possible that it is time to strike when the iron is hot. After 8 li:lbd2 li:lxf3+ 9 'i!Vxf3 li:lf6, if this knight makes it to e5 then Black will have a more than comfortable game.

8 1Wxl3 .ig7

Although the previously seen pawn sacrifice 5 ... f6 appears to be justified, there is also a certain amount of logic behind this attractive move. Black sets about disrupting White's congregation

My initial thoughts on this position were that Black had to be doing fine provided he can keep the e5-square firmly under control. Ideally a ... li:le7c6-e5 plan would work a treat but the problems are the g5-pawn and having to avoid f5-f6. One interesting encounter saw White go on to win after 8... ..ib4+ 29


9 Wdl .ltd7 10 .ltd3 'illle7 11 h4 g4 12 ·~g3 hS (it feels as though Black is doing okay and 12 ... 0-0-0 or 12 ... .ltd6 are more restrained yet, in a way, more to the point than the text) 13 .ltf4 0-0-0 14 a3 jl_as 15 b4 li'if6 16 eS jl_a4+ 17 'i!lcl li'id7 18 bxaS li'icS 19 li'id2, PetrosianMukhitdinov, Tashkent 1951. 9 ~d3

... jl_xfS, the positional threat of ... li'if6d7 is also there. 12 hxg5 ~xf5 13 gxh6

13 ... ~eS

9 ... c5 An obvious move although there is an underlying feeling that Black is deferring the problem of how he is going to complete his development. Again I reiterate that 9... lue7??, with ... li'ic6 and either bishop or knight to eS, would be attractive if it didn't leave the g-pawn en prise and allow the forking f5-f6. Unfortunately 9... 'lifo, preparing this, falls foul of 10 'iig3!, simultaneously hitting both gS and c7. Hence the text that cements a supported passed pawn on d4. 10 1Wg3 h6 11 h4!

Making sure that Black doesn't solve the problem of his g-pawn quite so easily. 11 ... 1We7! Deflecting the attention to both the e4-pawn and the now effectively unprotected fS-pawn. As well as the obvious 30

I still can't shake off the feeling that Black shouldn't be worse, and indeed both 13 ... .ltxe4 14 jl_xe4 'illlxe4+ 15 'iild 1 jl_es 16 li'id2 'ii f4 and 13 ... .ltg6 14 .ltgS 'ii e6 15 lua3 a6 are difficult to assess. 14 ~f4 ~xf4 15 1Wxf4 ~g6 16 lt:ld2 'l!i'f6 Although Black is a pawn down, by way of some dark squares he obviously has a little bit of compensation. The text is clearly an attempt to readdress the balance in the material situation and in all fairness it probably works out just fine. 17 g3 Instead 17 'illlxf6 4Jxf6 18 e5 4Jg4 19 jl_xg6 fxg6 20 lue4 luxes 21 luxes luxc4 is also rather murky. 17 ... 'l!i'xf4 The price Black has to play is ironing out White's pawns. Being picky, I'd prefer 17 .. .l::ixh6 first as White then has to be the one to trade rooks if he wants Black to swap on f4. 18 gxf4 ll:xh6 19 @f2

The Albin: Spassky's 4 e4 and Tartakower's 4 !:uf3 c5

A tad more flexible than 19 l:!.xh6, thus justifying my last comment. 19 ... .llxh1 20 .llxh1 f6 21 11lf3 @f8 22 @g3 J:i.e8 23 f5 Sl.f7 24 @f4

38 @e4 11le3 39 e6 11lxc4 40 e 7 li:ld6+ 41 @d5 1-0

Game 13 Galovic-Dzurenda Slovakian Team Ch., 2000 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 e4 c5 Evidently another playable move, although it may appear a little casual. Black supports his d-pawn in an aesthetically pleasing manner, although in doing so rules a future ... i.b4+ out of the equation. 5 f4 12:lc6 6 11lf3

White has several pawns on the same colour as his bishop but his king is in a dominant position and Black's pieces are far more passively placed. 24 ... b5 25 J:i.c 1 b4 26 Sl.c2 J:i.d8 27 Sl.a4 Sl.h5 28 .llh1 Sl.xf3 29 @xf3 @g7 Were Black's knight able to make it to eS, then we would be talking about him being able to win the position. Thar's not going to happen and, although I think he should be able to hold the draw, he appears to take one liberty too many. 30 .llg1 + @f7 31 @e2 11le7 32 .llh1 @g7 I prefer 32 ... I:l.gS!. Black ultimately trades rooks on a square that leaves his king too far off the pace. 33 J:i.g1 + @f7 34 J:i.h1 @g7 35 @d3 .llh8?! 36 .llxh8 @xh8 37 e5 11lxf5 It's not so easy for Black to just shut up shop and pass, e.g. 37 ... @g7 38 @e4 @f7 39 i.dl @g7 40 i.hS when zugzwang leads to the white king finding a way deeper into enemy territory.

6 ... Sl.e7 Black sets his stall out for the ... g 7-gS rather than the ... f7.f6 break. The problem with the latter is that after, for example, 6 ... f6 7 exf6 (the only testing response) 7 .. .1Dxf6, White can happilv play either 8 i.d3 or 8 eS. Without the bishop check on b4, Black won't be securing the e3-square for the knight. It looks like a clear pawn to me. 7 .il.d3 g5 8 fxg5 Here 8 f5'! fails to 8 ... g4!, when ... ltJxeS follows. 8 g3 looks best met by 8... i.h3,, rather than 8 ... gxf4 9 gxf4 i.h4+ 10 @e2. Either way there is 31

Unusual Queen's Gamba Declined

some, if perhaps not really enough, compensation for the pawn. 8 ... ~g4 9 ~14 ~xl3 10 'ill'xl3 'ill'd7 I don't know whether originally Black had it in mind to recapture in order to make a claim for the dark squares, but after 10 ... .llxgS 11 e6! throws a spanner in the works, for example 11...fxe6> 12 'l!i'hS+ netting the bishop. 11 lt:la3 a6

ll:c8 34 ll:3d2 16 35 h4 J:l.c5 36 'lli'f2 ll:ec7 37 g5 'l!li'e4+ 38 ll:d3 ll:c1 + 39 @a2 'l!li'a4+ 40 ll:a3 'i'xd1 0-1

As it happens, things turn out quite nicely for Black as it soon develops into a sort of 'Benko Gambit situation' on the kingside. White is two pawns up but could do with a useful plan. He doesn't find one and Black slowly swarms into his position. 12 lt:lc2 h6! 13 gxh6 'llxh6 14 0-0-0 'llg4 15 e6 'l!li'xe6 16 e5 0-0-0 17 ll:hl1 lt:lgxe5 18 ~xe5 lt:lxe5 19 'lli'f4 lt:lxd3+ 20 ll:xd3 'l!li'xc4 And now Black is clearly on top. He has a nice queenside pawn majority, his bishop is preferable to the passive white knight and amazingly he is material up. 21 li:ld1 'lli'xa2 22 ll:e1 ~d6 23 'lli'f5+ @b8 24 h3 ll:he8 25 ll:dd1 ~g3 26 ll:11 ll:e7 27 ll:13 ~e5 28 :.a3 'l!li'd5 29 g4 c4 30 @b1 d3 31 8e3 'l!li'b5 32 lt:lxc4 'l!li'xc4 33 ll:axd3

A rather idealistic move that, as you can see from this game, was a played a bit in the old days. Black supports his d4-pawn and, given time to complete his development and to regain the e5pawn, he would sit very pretty. His clpawn would be a thorn in the enemy position and he could no doubt generate serious pressure against White's e2pawn by maximising the use of the halfopen e-file. 5 e3 In reality the note above was all waffle as White is unlikely to sit back and waste time doing nothing. The text gets straight to the point and takes advantage of the fact that ... .llb4+ (as in the main trap) is no longer available. 5 ... lt:lc6 6 exd4 More accurate than 6 .lld3, which

32

Game 14 E.Griinfeld-Tartakower Kar/sbad 1923 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 'llf3 c5

The Albin: Spassky's 4 e4 and Tartakower's 4 {i}f3 c5

lead to a novel draw after 6... .ltg4 7 11..e2 .ltfS 8 .ltd3 .ltg4 9 .lte2 1i..f5 I 0 .ltd3 11..g4, Ballinas-Manzur, Cuidad del Carmen 1997. 6 ... cxd4

7 Sl.d3 Blocking Black's d-pawn doesn't look like a ridiculous idea and it must be observed that White shouldn't get too complacent, e.g. 7 .ltgS .lte 7 8 .ltxe 7 Cugxe7 9 Cubd2 0-0 10 a3>! (presumably White was worried about 10 .ltd3 Cub4 but that wouldn't have been a big problem and his choice is rather slow) I 0 ... Cug6 11 Cub3 .ltg4 12 Cubxd4 Cuxd4 13 'lii'xd4 .ltxf3 14 'lii'xd8 l:Iaxd8 15 gxf3 CuxeS 16 f4 Cuf3+ 0-1 Aguilar-Manzur, Mexico 1997. That game is an important warning but speeding up Black's development by expending time to trade dark-squared bishops looks like a poor plan. More logical would be 7 11..f4 Cuge 7 8 .ltd3 Cug6 9 .ltg3 .lte 7 (in view of the queen check on a5, Black could regain the pawn on eS immediately but 9 ... CugxeS 10 CuxeS CuxeS 11 0-0 is simply better for White because of the isolated d-pawn) 10 0-0 .ltg4 11 l:Ie I with White having to experience no real suffering for the extra pawn. Indeed,

11 ... 'lii'aS 12 .ltxg6 hxg6 13 Cubd2 l:Id8 14 a3 .lte6 15 b4 'lii'c7 16 Cue4 'lii'd7 17 Cud6+ .ltxd6 18 exd6 @f8 19 b5 Cua5 20 Cuxd4 11..xc4 21 l:Ie7 'lii'c8 22 l:Ic7 'lii'aS 23 'lii'a4 b6 24 l:Ixc4 'lii'dS 25 l:Icc! Cub7 26 'lii'c4 'lii'g5 27 'lii'c7 Cues 28 l:Ixc5 1-0 looked rather convincing in Salus-Andrieu, Thonon Les Bain 1995. 7 ... si.g4

I suppose this doesn't look illogical and it's certainly not clear what Black's best is. However, let's analyse some alternatives:

a) 7 ... h6>! hardly looks inspirational and all the play was with White after 8 0-0 .lte6 9 a3 'lii'c7 10 l:Ie! 0-0-0 11 b4 g5 12 'lii' e2 .lte 7 13 Cufd2 g4 14 cS .ltgS 15 Cue4! .ltxcl 16 Cud6+ @b8 17 l:Ixc! 'lii'e7 18 Cud2 'lii'gS 19 Cu2c4 h5 20 b5 h4 21 bxc6. Now 21...g3 22 'lii'b2 was effectively game over in KapstanRoque, Winnipeg 1997. b) 7 ... Cuge7 is in many respects the most logical response. Favouring kingside development, Black holds back on ... .ltg4. bl) 8 Cubd2 .ltg4 9 'lii'b3 'lii'c7 10 0-0 0-0-0 11 l:Ie I Cug6 12 h3 .lte6 13 .lte4 Cugxe5 14 CuxeS 'lii'xeS 15 Cuf3 'lii'c5 16 1/..f4 .ltd6 was unclear in Tarrasch33

...,nusua! Queen's Gambit Declined

Tmakower, Berlin 1920. b2) After 8 0-0 ti:lg6 (again I feel 8 ... .lil.g4 9 l:tel ti:lg6 10 h3 .lil.xf3 11 ·ijVxf3 leaves White with the upper hand, although l J...j,,b4 12 j,,d2 0-0 13 j,,xb4 ti:lxb4 14 j,,xg6 hxg6 15 'ill'b3 'lll'a5 16 ti:ld2 l:tad8 17 ti:le4 d3 18 'lll'c3 b6 19 l:tedl ti:lc6 20 'lll'xa5 bxa5 was eventually drawn in Reti-Tartakower, Amsterdam 1920) 9 h3 j,,e7 10 Mel j,,e6 11 b3 Wic7 12 j,,xg6 hxg6, it's clear that 13 ti:lxd4? is a mistake, for example 13 ... 0-0-0 14 j,,e3 ti:lxd4 15 j,,xd4 j,,c5 16 ti:lc3 j,,xd4 0-1 Szymanski-Ganguly, St Lorenzo 1995. I still feel the variation is good for White but perhaps this is Black's best attempt. c) 7... j,,c5 is a little slow

trick, Black can regain his pawn immediately with 7... ti:lxe5, but after 8 Wie2 f6 Oohner-Duras, Karlsbad 1907), I'm sure White can even gain a simple edge with 9 ti:lxe5 'lll'a5+ 10 ti:ld2. 8 0-0 'Wic7 9 h3 An alternative and fascinating game started off as being quite murky but then solidified in White's favour before completely changing (!): 9 kf4 0-0-0 10 j,,g3 ti:lh6 11 ti:lbd2 ti:lf5 12 j,,xf5+ j,,xf5 13 a3 d3 14 b4 ti:ld4 15 ti:lxd4 l:txd4 16 Wia4 ~b8 17 c5 j,,e6 18 'lll'dl ke7 19 f4 g6 20 Wif3 Wic6 21 Wie3 l:thd8 22 kf2 g5 23 kg3 gxf4 24 kxf4 a5 25 'ill'f2 axb4 26 ke3 l:tg4 27 axb4 l:tdg8 28 g3 l:txb4 29 l:tfb 1 l:tgg4 30 l:txb4 l:txb4 31 ti:lf3 l:ta4 32 l:txa4 'lll'xa4 33 ti:ld2 ~c8 34 'ill'fl 'lll'c2 35 ti:le4 kd5 36 ti:lf2 d2 37 'lll'e2 '!ll'c!+ 38 'ill'fl 'lll'el 0-1 Takacs-Tartakower, Vienna 1922. 9 ... Sl.xf3 10 'Wixf3 li:lxe5 11 J:l:e1 Sl.d6 12 Sl.f4 li:le 7 13 Sl.xe5 Sl.xe5 14 li:la3

and 8 0-0 ti:lge7 9 a3 a5 10 ti:lbd2 0-0 11 ti:lg5' h6 12 ti:lge4 (incidentally 12 ti:lh7 ti:lxe5 13 ti:lxf8 ti:lxd3 14 ti:le4 ti:lc6 15 'lll'xd3 kxf8 saw White go on to convert his extra exchange in Dus Chotimirsky-Tartakower, Karlsbad 1911, but 14 ... fS! would have retained material equilibrium) 12... j,,a7 13 Wih5 looks like a clear edge. White retains his pawn plus and appears to have more attacking chances than his opponent. d) Thanks again to that little ... '!ll'a5+ 34

White's play is very sensible in this game. The bishops are now of opposite colour but Black's cl-pawn is clearly a weakness, whilst White's queenside pawn majority soon looks menacing. 14 ... a6 15 c5! Sl.f6

The Albin: Spassky's 4 e4 and Tartakower's 4 '2,{3 c5

15 ... 'iii'xcS 16 'l!Vxb7 l:b8 17 'l!Vxa6 l:lxb2 is unplayable because of 18 li:ic4. 16 11:lc4 'l!Vxc5?! The game continuation proves this to be a mistake but the alternative 16 ... 0-0 17 b4 would simply have been very unpleasant. 17 'l!Vxb 7 0-0 This way Black has protected the rook by castling but now there is a tactic netting the exchange. 18 11:lb6! No prizes for guessing that the knight is heading for d7. 18 .. Jl:ab8

19 'l!Ve4 The point, of course, is that the white knight is bought an important reprieve by the mate threat on h 7. 19 ... 11:\96 20 11:ld7 Effectively a winning fork. 20 ... 'l!Vd6 21 11:lxf8 11:lxf8 22 J:l:ac1 .!:tb6 23 .!:tc8 96 24 .ltc4 @97 25 'l!Ve8 It's not just the material situation which is important. Through persistent pressure White is close to winning the house. 25 ... l:!b7 26 l:!c6 'l!Vt4 27 93 'l!Vd2 28 .!:txf6! @xf6 29 'l!Ve5 mate

Game15

Martin del Campo-Manzur Merida 1997 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 11:lf3 c5 5 93

Of course a fianchetto here is fine as White certainly doesn't rule out breaking with e2-e3 a bit later. An alternative to 5 g3 (and, of course, the 5 e3 of our last encounter) is 5 il.f4 li:ic6 6 g3, which could equally be reached via 5 g3 li:ic6 6 il.f4 (but I don't see why preference should be given to White's queenside bishop). Anyway, amusing now was the wacky 6... il.e 7 7 il.g2 gS 8 il.d2 g4 9 li:igl li:ixeS 10 il.f4 'i!VaS+ 11 il.d2 'i!Vb6 12 b3 il.fS 13 f4 li:ixc4 14 bxc4 'l!Vb2 15 li:ia3 'l!Vxa3 16 il.xb7 J:!b8 17 il.c6+ @f8 18 'l!Vcl 'l!Va6 19 il.g2 li:if6 20 e4 il.xe4 21 il.xe4 li:ixe4 22 li:ie2 li:ixd2 23 'l!Vxd2 'i'xc4 which, closer to the current century('), Black wem on to convert (Joensen-J.Hansen, Oyrabakki 2000). The bishop on f4 doesn't fit in well with a kingside fianchetto. 5 ... .lte6 The text breaks the good old 'knights before bishops' rule. I guess Black tries 35


provoke something like 6 lubd2 or 6 b3. Black, no doubt, would look upon that as a favourable trade-off as he probably intends to castles queenside anyhow. As it happens, he is in for a shock but I would have thought that 5... luc6 6 1lg2 luge7 7 0-0 lug6 is critical. to

a) Certainly 8 b3 1le 7 9 1lb2 lugxe5 10 luxes luxes 11 lud2 0-0 12 luf3 luxf3+ 13 1lxf3 'filc7 14 'filc2 1lh3 15 :re 1 :ad8 16 :ad 1, which lead to a quick draw m Kopinitz-Tasnadi, Zalakaros 1993, is nothing at all for White. b) 8 e3 d3. It's not clear whether the pawn on d3 is a weakness or a strength and although 9 b3 1lg4 10 h3 1lxf3 11 1lxf3 lugxe5 12 1ld5 lub4 13 luc3 'fild7 14 '.!lg2 h5 15 f4 lug6 16 a3 luxd5 17 cxdS 0-0-0 18 'filxd3 turned out well for White in Bodnar-Urietyki, Eforie Nord 1998, clearly there are plenty of deviations available to both sides. As seems to be consistent in this line, my preferences are for White and it came as no great surprise for me to see IM Andre\\' \lartin whip out an early ... f7-f6 gambit style, later claiming 'tenuous ·..-::r.'l::n.pen:::auon' in a blitz game with

England's World U-18 Championship representative Craig Hanley. Alas, I can't provide too many details but could that concept really be the future of this variation?

6 i.g2 li:lc6 Black gives his opponent another chance to change his mind but White is determined to return the pawn.

7 0-0 7 lubd2 luge7 8 0-0 lug6 9 'filc21le7 10 a3 'filc7 11 lue4 lugxe5 12 luxe5 luxeS was fine for Black in JohanssonHarju, Turku 1997.

7 ... i.xc4 8 1Wc2 i.d5 9 a3

Black has regained his pawn and theoretically has the better structure. However, he is behind on development

The Albin: Spassky's 4 e4 and Tartakower's 4 l:i:Jf3 c5

rnd, in view of the attacked cS-pawn, a spot of difficulty getting his king;ide pieces out. In addition, whilst \\.hite's last move prevents a possibly .rn·kward ... 4Jb4, Black must also be wary of a b2-b4 break. 9 ... .ie 7 10 J:l:d 1 'i'b6 11 lbbd2 'i'b5 12 b3 h5 1ias

Although this is a typical plan, I'm not sure that Black is positioned so well for a kingside attack. An Albin player is, I suppose, unlikely to be tempted by a smash and grab raid but perhaps the key variation in this game begins with 12 ... 'lil'xe2. Now 13 ilfl doesn't trap the queen because of 13 ... d3!, whilst 13 luxd4~ fails because 13 ... luxd4 hits the white queen. I guess that there are a few ways for White to seek compensation and 13 ilb2 'li!'bS 14 ilfl 'iii'bG 15 b4 is certainly amongst them. Regarding a conclusion, I'm afraid that 'unclear' is about as good as I'm going to offer! 13 lbc4 J:l:d8 14 e3 .ixc4?! Black appears to cave in under pressure. 14... h4 would have been a consis-

rent continuation that didn't relinquish the light squares. 15 bxc4 'i'a6 16 J:tb1 lbh6 17 exd4 cxd4 18 e6!

Creating a few more light-squared holes in the enemy camp. 18 ... f5 19 J:.b5 19 ilxhG l:txhG 20 'iii'xfS also looks good but the knight isn't gomg anywhere. 19 ... 0-0 20 .ixh6 d3 In the general scheme of things, this affects very little. 21 J:txd3 J:l:xd3 22 'i'xd3 gxh6 23 ll:xf5 'i'xa3 24 ll:xf8+ .ixf8 25 'lii'g6+ \i,h8 26 'i'xh5 'i'a1 + 27 .if1 'li!'f6 28 .ih3 a5 29 lbh4 a4 30 lbg6+ li,g7 31 lbt4 31 4Jxf8 and 32 'i!i'bS is another way forward but the final result is never in doubt. 31 ...lbe5 32 'i'e2 li,98 33 lbd5 W/g7 34 f4 .ic5+ 35 li,g2 li::ic6 36 f5 'i'd4 37 1l.g4 W/g1 + 38 Wh3 /bd4 39 e7 lbxe2 40 e8'1W + .its 41 W/96+ 1-0

37


Summary

4 e4 may avoid the main theory of the Albin Counter Gambit but it clearly isn't the best way to deal with this opening. I'm hardly risking too much by announcing that I believe 4 'L\f3 to be White's best move and the guestion then is whether 4... cS (as employed on numerous occasions in the early part of the last century) is a viable alternative to 4... 'LlcG. Again I would have to conclude not, as both the 5 e3 of Game 14 and the 5 g3 of Game 15 suggest that Black's plan is too slow. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 e4 (D) 4 'Llf3 cS 5 e3 - Game 14 5 g3 (D) - Game 15 4 .. .li:lc6 4... cS - Game 13 5 f4 f6 (D) - Game 11 5... gS - Game 12

4 e4

38

5g3

5 .. .f6

I CHAPTER THREE I The Albin: The Main Line - 5 g3

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 11:lf3 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Game 16 11:lc6 5 g3 Bellon Lopez-Cirabisi Although it's fair to say that the move 5 IZ:lbd2 (which can often transGenua 1989 pose into this chapter) has often been .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

suggested as a simple way of meeting the Albin, ever since employing and facing the gambit as a junior I have considered this to be the main line continuation. Some interesting ideas come to light over the next ten games and after you've played through them all you could easily decide that the first one remains the most critical. What is clear is that on move five there are three distinct bishop moves for Black to choose from. Match these with caveman attacks involving ... h7-h5-h4 or possibly an ... f7-f6 sacrifice and you could have a dangerous weapon at your disposal. Black players beware, though! It seems to me that despite gambiting the pawn, an equal amount of tactics come from White's direction and that's true even if Black quietly tries to equalise the material with ... IZ:lge7 -g6.

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 11:lf3 11:lc6 5 g3 Ji.ts

Throughout this chapter I will be discussing the three main light-squared bishop deployments available to Black. Whether it travels first to e6, g4 or fS as here, each has its own characteristics. However, it is clear that often transpo5irions occur, particularly when a guick .. ...lll.h3 (after...'llt'd7) is fortbcomrnc

39


This specific game focuses on just that speedy plan for Black. Take a look at another encounter to reiterate my point: 5... ,te6 6 li:lbd2 'iii'd7 7 kg2 kh3 8 0-0 h5 9 li:le4 ,txg2 10 'ii;>xg2 h4 11 li:lxh4 li:lxe5 12 e3 d3 (The bishop could equally have come from fS or g4 in order to get to h3 and the launch of the hpawn may appear like caveman stuff However, despite Black not even having taken time out to castle, he has built up a dangerous attack and the finish implies that White seriously underestimated this offensive.) 13 li:ld2 g5 14 f4 gxh4 15 fxe5 hxg3 16 hxg3 'iii'h3+ 17 'ii,f3 0-0-0 18 b4 li:le7 19 ,tb2 li:lf5 20 l:tg 1 li:lh4+ 21 'ii;>f2 'iii'h2+ 22 @fl l:tg8 23 'iii'el 'iii'h3+ 0-1 Hiemstra-Clemens, Groningen 2001. There aren't many serious alternatives to bishop deployments. 5.. .f6 is a gambit which we have seen (and will do later) but it seems a little premature right now (i.e. with White having wasted no rime on a3 or li:lbd2). A move primarily concerned with regaining the pawn is 5... li:lge7 but again this doesn't look so effective without a white knight on d2 and 6 ,tg2 li:lg6 7 ,tf4! looks like a sensible way to handle the position, e.g. 7... f6 8 exf6 li:lxf4 9 f7+! 'ii;>xf7 10 gxf4 'iii'f6 11 0-0 h6 12 e3 ,tcs 13 exd4 li:lxd4 14 li:les+ 'ii,[8 15 b4 li:le6 16 bxc5 li:lxf4 17 l:tel 'iii'gS 18 'iii'f3 ,th3 19 'iii'xf4+ 1-0 Ligterink-Thiel, Ruhrgebiet 1999. 6 ~g2 'l!l'd7 7 0-0 ~h3 8 a3 Basically, Black is not bearing about the bush. He wants his queen in close proximity to the enemy king and has seen a possible way to get it there by offering a swap of bishops. As will be40

come apparent throughout this chapter, such a trade also has the benefit of removing White's threats along the g2-b 7 diagonal.

There is no rook on d8 yet, but 8 kxh3 'iii'xh3 9 li:lxd4 is surely not what White wants to get involved in 9... 0-0-0! with ... li:lxe5-g4 on the agenda is a worry. Black delays developing his kingside pieces and it is a serious possibility that it might be the h8-rook that will see the first light of day. Indeed, as we've already seen with 8 li:lbd2 hS, transposing to an earlier mentioned game, the h-file becomes all important. Consequently, I'm not sure that the text isn't just a little slow and the outwardly flexible 8 'iii'd3 also came in for some stick after 8 ... 0-0-0 9 ,txh3 'iii'xh3 10 li:lbd2 (10 li:lgW) 10... li:lge7 11 l:tdl li:lg6 12 'iii'e4 ,te7 13 li:lb3 fSP 14 exf6 ,txf6 15 ,tgs l:the8 16 'iii'c2 ,txgS 17 li:lxgS 'iii'g4 (here the pressure isn't simply on h2 but there is a lot of it nonetheless) 18 'iii'd2 h6 19 li:lf3 d3! 20 h3 'iii'f5 21 l:tel dxe2 22 'iii'c3 li:lgeS 23 li:lh4 'iii'xh3 24 li:lcS li:ld4 0-1 YuferovKupreichik, !vlinsk 1972. Funnily enough, what could be the acid test of 8 ,txh3 'iii'xh3 9 li:lgS 'iii'fS

The Albin: The Main Line - 5 g3

10 f4 has very rarely occurred in practice. As the e5-pawn is supported and the white king given a bit of breathing space, NCO assesses this position as a clear advantage to White. This is possibly based on the line 10 ... ..ie7 11 'Llf3 0-0-0 12 'l!i'd3 'l!i'h3 13 a3 h5 14 'Llbd2 'Llh6 (14 ... h4!? 15 'Llxh4 ..ixh4 16 gxh4 'l!i'xh4 17 'l!i'f5+ @bS 18 'Llf3 'l!i'h6 also seems to leave Black with some reasonable play for the pawn · or two if White is greedy enough to take on f7) 15 'Lle4 h4 16 'Llf2 'l!i'd7 17 ..id2 hxg3 18 hxg3, Sarno-Chen, Geneva 1992. If so, I'm not sure this isn't a rash assessment, as things look rather unclear to me. Finally, it's worth noting the possibility of an important theme 8 e6. The point is that the f7-pawn can't capture as the h3-bishop would then be en prise, whilst a queen capture would allow a piece winning knight fork on g5. The idea, then, is that for the price of his extra pawn, the forcing of 8... ..ixe6 buys White a move. In this position Black would have no qualms about that at all but in another situation (as you will later see), it might be a different

As said before, the rook is eager to get in on the act along the h-file. Played now (rather than trading bishops first), it may look as though Black is trying to prevent White from blocking the h-file with h2-h4 but as this game highlights, that may nor be an important concern. An alternative plan is demonstrated by 8 ... ..ixg2 9 @xg2 0-0-0 10 'l!i'd3 'Llge7 11 ..ig5 'l!i'e6 12 'Llbd2 h6 13 ..ixe7 ..ixe7 14 e3 dxe3 15 'l!i'xe3 ..ig5 16 'l!i'c3 ..ixd2. Black regains the pawn on e5 and stands a little better, MuukkonenTahkavuori, Finland 1993. 9 b4 .i.xg2 10 l!,xg2 0-0-0 11 b5

story.

12 h4 The move that either 9 .. h4 or 10 ... h4 would have avoided. This game, however, is very instructive for demonstrating a way through an apparent blockage. In retrospect, 12 'l!i'a4!? @b8 13 l:!:dl might be a better way for White to handle things. Certainly, if Black could park his bishop on c5 before continuing with his attack, then White's queen might just look silly. However, the d4-pawn would be attacked and it is worth observing 13 ... 'Llf5 14 e4!. Nevertheless, with White's lack of queenside devel-

8 ... h5

{ijce7

41

I Queen , s Garn b it Declined

"'"d3 li:lh6

.

. an)•thing JUSt 12... li:)96 13 ..hreatenmg Though not t ertainly startare c vet the black knights . , , to Ioo k menacing. ing 14 e3 'l/Ng4! down, things ·u a .pawn fall I Although St! into P ace are very, much starung to nicely for Black.

Game 17 Turner Chatalbashev- J~7 Pardubice 19

15 exd4 li:lf5

, /,

r h

~

,.,-, 1, both 'liV f3+ 22 "'g After 21 'Llxf3 3 force mate. 2 'Llh4 and 22... xg 2 ··· players b eware! White

?,!

two pawns. but Black's . . Yes,' it's now attract1ve . . There is ser1. . . n is, very d4 and h4 . pos1t10

16 oos P"""" °" ~g5 ""hite \\ ou tstarts :-iiecc~ ' but

.

.

Whi
h1·s. gueens1de ld mam line. h's bishop • WI· thout t 1 to get th~::=~h:e-~T~h~eo_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __


the usual ... 'lii'd7 (and hence ... .il.h3), the bishop stops off at a sguare where it pressurises through to the e2-pawn. A simple idea of ... .il.xf3 (to regain the eSpawn) does enter into the equation and the pawn push ... d4-d3 in some circumstances may lead to White's knight being awkwardly pinned. 6 il.g2 'l!i'd7 7 a3 0-0-0 7 ... aS 8 0-0 hS is a cheeky way to play that might be worth a punt in a blitz game! 8 0-0 Though I suppose there is no compulsion to castle, White must be especially wary of a central breakthrough if he leaves his king in the middle. Indeed, both 8 'lii'a4 and 8 li:lbd2 could be interestingly met by 8 ... d3. The forthcoming bishop for knight trade (now in the offing as the b7-pawn doesn't hang) would look better after, say, 8 b4. 8 ... il.xf3 It is obviously a bit of a blow to this whole ... .il.g4 system for Black if (as our main game seems to suggest) he isn't in general threatening ... .il.xf3. However, a2-a3 by White isn't that scary and so here there are possible alternatives for Black. Just as in our last game, 8 ... .il.h3 is obviously a consideration and it looks as though Black also has time for 8... li:lge7 9 b4 lug6, e.g. 10 .il.b2 .il.xf3 (or 10. .. lugxeS) 11 .il.xf3 (11 exf3 11:lgxeS 12 'lii'b3 is probably a better recommendation but it looks like a slightly inferior version of our main game) 1 L.lucxeS 12 .il.g2 luxc4 with essentially a pawn advantage, Jovanovic-Fry, Mingara 2000. 9 exf3!

Deliberately doubling the pawns and gifting Black a passed pawn in the centre. However, there is method in White's madness. He is eager to preserve his bishop and doesn't want to expend another tempo moving it. Instead, 9 .il.xf3 11:lxeS 10 .il.g2 li:lxc4 doesn't give much for White's pawn as there is no tactic on b 7 and, of course, the black gueen covers the a4-sguare. 9 .. .li:lxe5 10 li:ld2 h5 A logical move although, without a light-squared bishop to challenge White's, it is unlikely that his offensive will be successful. As an alternative, 10 ... li:ld3 11 f4 luxe] 12 l:l:xcl would eliminate one of White's potentially powerful bishop pair, but opposite coloured bishops favour the attacker and I suspect White would be the one engaging in most of the offensive manoeuvres. 11 f4 li:lc6 This time 11 ... iud3? walks into 12 'lii'f3! (this is even stronger than 12 .il.xb7+) 12... lucS 13 b4. 12 b4

Preparing to remove the flimsy cover the knight offers. The unchallenged g2b 7 diagonal is a trump card for White. 43


12 ... h4 13 li:lb3 hxg3 14 hxg3

Correctly recapturing towards the centre. As White doesn't intend parting company with his light-squared hishop, he isn't fretting about any ... 'l!i'h3-h 1 possibilities. 14 ... '*li'f5 15 b5 li:lce7 15 ... 'l!i'h7 16 J:1.el 'l!i'h2+ 17 Iii.fl isn't even a nunor mconvemence. 16 l:l.e 1 li:lf6 17 li:lxd4 Another reason for budging the c6knight. This appears to walk into a selfpin but White has everything under control. 17 ... '*li'c5 18 .lte3 li:lf5 Black's position is desperate. With his choice he now loses by force but you can't blame him for not fancying 18 ... 'l!i'xc4 19 l:1.cl 'l!i'a2. Indeed, both 20 'l!i'a4 and 20 b6 look horrendous. 19 '*li'f3 19 ~xb7+ 'iii'xb7 20 'l!i'f3+ Iii.cs 21 li:le6! was also crushing but it is fitting that White retains his light-squared bishop to the end. 19 .. .J:hd4 20 '*li'xb7+ l!.>d7 21 .ltxd4 li:lxd4 22 l:l.ad1 '*li'xc4 23 .ltc6+ 1-0 The king must advance further up the board and then the pinned knight drops. 44

Game 18 Van der Wiel-Tiviakov Groningen 2001 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 li:lf3 li:lc6 5 g3 .ltg4 6 .ltg2 '*li'd7 7 0-0 0-0-0 8 li:lbd2 h5

A quick queensi

Groningen 2001 is of interest. If White is happy to bash out b2-b4 without a2a3 when the f8-bishop is not obscured, it follows that it will be a more serious consideration with a knight on e7.

Attacking Black's cl-pawn while simultaneously covering the cS-sguare and freeing the cl -bishop.

9 b4!? To me this sort of move is much

13 ... b6 14 e6 'i!i'd6

more to the point than the slower a2-a3 and b2-b4. It is, of course, a sacrifice but Black knows that in accepting it he is creating a half open b-file towards his own king. Along similar lines is 9 h4 tfJge7 10 b4! tfJg6 11 bS tfJcxeS 12 'i'a4 @b8 13 tfJb3 tfJxf3+ 14 exf3 .i.h3 15 tfJxd4 .i.cS (mate is forced after 15 ... .i.xg2 16 tfJc6+ bxc6 17 bxc6 'i'c8 18 .i.e3) 16 tfJb3 .i.xg2 17 Wxg2 .i.e7 18 .i.e3 b6 19 tfJd4 tfJeS 20 f4 .i.cS 21 fxe5 .i.xd4 22 l:!adl 'i'fS 23 .i.xd4 'i'e4+ 24 f3 'i'e2+ 25 l:!f2 1-0 Van der Marel-Clemens, Groningen 2001. I guess Black should investigate the likes of 9 ... 'i'fS or 9 ... f6 instead. It still feels better for White, though. 9 ... 1Zlxb4 10 a3 1Zla6

It's only natural for Black to want to relocate the knight on cS rather than return it to c6, where he will be hit by the dangerous moves l:!b 1 and 'i' a4. 11 1Zlb3

11 ... d3 12 il.e3 1Zle7 13 1Zla5!?

Pinpointing b7 as a target. 14... 'i'xe6 might put up a sterner defence but after 15 tfJgS the same ideas as in the game are in evidence. 15 'Llg5!!

Showing tremendous vision. 15 ... dxe2 16 'i!i'a4 exf1'ili'+ 17 l:txf1

Black is a rook up with the white knight hanging on aS too. Nevertheless, he has some serious problems to deal with and no solution in sight. 17 ... fxe6

17 ... bxaS 18 'i'bS fxe6 19 .i.b7+Wb8 20 .i.c6+ @c8 21 'i'b 7 mate is another way that the game might have ended. 181Zlb7! 'i!i'd3 19 'i!i'xa6 1-0 No longer up on pieces, massive ma-

terial loss (or mate) is imminent. A very 1mpress1ve game.

Game 19

Del Rey-Filgueira Fernandez Corunha 2000 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 1Zlf3 45


li.lc6 5 g3 ~g4 6 ~g2 'l!Hd7 7 0-0 0-0-0 8 'l!Hb3! It may look like an attractive square

but after 8 'li'a4 'i!.b8, the white queen is a little vulnerable to tricks involving ...12:lxe5. Indeed, 9 l::!.d 1 ..txf3 10 ..txf3 12:lxe5 11 'i!Vxd7 12:lxf3+ 12 exf3 (12 'i!.g2 it:lh4+ 13 'i!.h3 l::!.xd7 14 @xh4 keeps White's pawn structure in order but with all his pieces on the back rank, I'm not sure how enthusiastic he would be about having such an adventurous king') l 2... l::!.xd7 leaves Black half a pawn up. One possibility, though, that has just occurred to me is after 8 'ii a4 'i!.b8 to retreat the queen to b3. Then it is, of course, debatable as to who will have gained in comparison to our main game. Generally the king is better off tucked 'away' on b8 but, on the other hand, tactics revolving around the b 7sguare could be even more devastating.

8 ... li.lge7

Regarding 8 ... 'li'f5, read the comments to Black's next move for an explanation but also observe that 9 l:tdl ..txf3?! 10 ..txf3 h5 is not of theoretical importance as White was even clearly better after 11 h4 it:lh6 12 ..tg5 f6 13 cx:"6 ,:xf6 1~ ~xh6 l:i.xh6 15 'li'bS 'li'xb5

16 cxb5 12:le5 17 ..te4, Galianina Ryjanova-Chetverik, Zvolen 2000. A major point behind 8 'li'b3! is highlighted after 8.....th3'! 9 e6!

9... ..txe6 (as previously explained, a forced response) 10 12:le5. The knight is immune to capture because of the mate on b7 and 10 ... 'li'd6 11 12:lxc6 bxc6 12 'li'a4 @d7 (or 12 ... @b7 13 'li'b5+ @c8 14 ..txc6) 13 ..tf4 'li'c5 14 it:ld2 ..td6 15 ..txd6 cxd6 16 b4 'li'b6 17 c5 dxcS 18 bxc5 'li'c7 19 it:lf3 1-0 OvsejevitschAfifi, Cairo 1998 is just one of many victories that White has achieved after Black has fallen into this trap. Similarly, 8 ... h5 9 h4 ..th3?! comes a cropper after 10 e6!, for example 10 ... ..txe6 11 12:leS 'li'd6 12 12:lxc6 bxc6 13 'li'a4 'li'c5 14 b3 Wb7 15 it:ld2 'l!Vb6 16 b4 'li'a6 17 'li'c2 'i!.c8 18 l::!.bl g5 19 hxg5 h4 20 g4 h3 21 ..tf3 d3 22 exd3 l:i.h4 23 12:le4 ..txg4 24 'Ii' e2 ..te6 25 ..te3 ..td6 26 a4 fS 27 12:lxd6+ cxd6 28 bS 'Ii' aS 29 ..td2 1-0 SavchenkoKotsuba, Alushta 1994. 9 l:td1

It may seem a little annoying to block the b2-pawn, but vacating the dl-square paves the way for the text move, which not only pressurises Black's d4-pawn


but indeed threatens to capture it (i.e. because of'lii'xb7 mate!).

9 ... Sl.xf3

In the 5... ~g4 line this simplifying move will always be on Black's mind. The question he will always ask himself is whether he can afford to offer White domination of the g2-b 7 diagonal in exchange for the return of material equilibrium. If Black is not interested in this then 9 ... 'lii'f5!? (played this turn or last) avoids an immediate trick on d4, although Black must be prepared for further ganging up: 10 12:la3 12:lg6 11 12:lc2 and now: a) l 1...~xf3 12 exf3 12:lgxeS 13 f4 12:laS 14 'lii'a4 12:lexc4 15 12:lxd4 left Black's knights awkwardly placed and 15 ... bS 1612:lxfS bxa4 17 l:!.xd8+ led to a superior endgame in Roder-Hubert, Germany 2000. b) Playing it cool with 11...~cS keeps the game very much alive. Certainly the tactic 12 it:lfxd4 ~xd4 13 12:lxd4 l:Ixd4 14 l:Ixd4 12:lxd4 15 'lii'xb 7+ @d8 is inconclusive and although 12 12:lce 1 has scored well for White, for example 12 ... .lil.b6 13 it:ld3 .lil.xf3 14 ~xf312:lcxe5 15 .lil.g2 l:!.he8 16 l:Ifl c6 17 a4 12:lxd3 18 exd3 12:leS 19 a5 .lil.c5 20 a6 b6 21 .lil.e4

it:lf3+?? 22 @g2 12:lh4+ 23 gxh4 'lii'g4+ 24 @hl .lil.d6 25 f4' f5 26 .lil.f3 1-0 (Budnikov-Meszaros, Lenk 1993), I'm not convinced things are that bad for Black as there is more to the position than White's light-squared bishop. Finally, there is another point behind l:!.dl. Now 9 ... .lil.h3 (with Black very eager to relieve the pressure on the g2b 7 diagonal) can simply be met by 10 .lil.hl!. This maintains the 12:lxd4 threat and after 10... 'lii'fS (creating an escape square for his king), the awkwardness of Black's own bishop was well exploited: 11 12:lg5! 12:lg6 12 .lil.e4 'lii'd7 13 12:lxh3 'lii'xh3 14 'lii'f3 12:lge7 15 .Iii.gs 12:lxe5 16 .lil.xb7+@d7 17 'lii'e4 f6 18 'lii'xd4+@e6 19 'lii'xd8 12:lg4 20 .lil.c8+ 1-0 lppolitoReprintsev, New York 1997. 10 'lii'xf3 Yet another benefit of 8 'lii'b3!. The queen obviously protected the knight and offered this preferred recapture. With the queen and bishop aligned on the critical diagonal, the c6-knight is unable to move to anywhere of interest. 1O.. .li:lg6 Hitting the e5-pawn and allowing the queen to protect the currently attacked f7-pawn. 11 SI. f4 Sl.e 7 12 li:lc3!

Yes, you've guessed it; another plus point of employing the 'lii'b3 and l:!.dl pairing. The cl-pawn is pinned to the queen and the white knight is headed for the fine d5-square. 12 ... a6 13 li:ld5 li:lf8

13 ... li:lgxe5 14 .lil.xe5 fi:lxe5 1512:lxe7+ 'lii'xe716 'lii'xb7+@d7 17 l:!.xd4+doesn't bear thinking about, although Black is visibly struggling anyway. 14 b4! 47


Though this game suggests that White needn't worry about this just now, it certainly could be a future issue and the previously seen deployment of the queen on b3 might not look so attractive now.

Putting the boot in. Not that Black would want it, but this pawn is out of bounds because of the veiled threat on b 7. Meanwhile, the c6-knight is about to be prised away from a vital defensive role. 14 ... 1Zle6 15 b5 axb5 16 cxb5 tzla5 17 1Zlxe7+ 'W/xe7 18 il.d2 The simplest way to win. The offside knight guards b 7 but it is lacking support itself. 18 ... 1Zlg5 The last try. There is no need for 19 il.xgS. 19'Wif5+ 1-0 ,.....----------------,,

6 il.g2 I won't award this with an '!', simply because the shortly considered alternatives look equally good. If White can get away with this, though, it can't be wrong to play a move that he is most likely to play at some point anyway. 6 ... il.xc4 Not exactly what was in mind when the 'gambit' was invented. Still, in a Game20 radical change of plan and an ideal Yermolinsky-Reprintsev world, Black could stand better as Philadelphia 1995 White has doubled pawns. The reality is, .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of course, that things aren't that simple. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 1Zlf3 1Zlc6 5 g3 il.e6 Failing to achieve much on g4 (partly because it soon became clear that ... il.xf3 was rarely promising), the trend in Albin players switched to the text move. Placed here, Black still has in mind a possible ... 'li'd7 and ... il.h3 manoeuYre but in the interim Black makes \\.!lin: think about his en prise c-pawn.

Practical results basically indicate that taking the pawn right now isn't a good idea (though it doesn't actually look that dreadful, statistics hugely favour White) . Hence he should probably just continue as usual for the time being (e.g. 6... 'li'd7). Although one advantage of 5... il.e6 is that it might dissuade 'li'b3 (in view say of a later .. .li:laS), this move can't be ruled out. Indeed, a nifty trick


worth noting occurs after 6 ... f6 7 0-0 fxe5 8 'lil'b3!. Often b-pawns are poisoned but here 8 ... 'lil' d7' fails to 9 'lil' xb 7 l:tb8 10 lt:lxeS! l:txb 7 11 ..ltxc6.

preference to developing but without the text, he would have to contend with b2-b4 (and perhaps bS), as well as ..ib2, further pressurising the d4-pawn.

7 it:lbd2

10 'llkc2 'l/ke7

Immediately developing a piece at the expense of the attacked bishop. In fact, though netting a pawn, Black's decision to capture on c4 has receives scant long term reward. Other successful continuations include: a) 7 0-0 d3 (or 7 ... lt:lge7 8 it:la3 ..ia6 9 b4!? lt:lxb4 10 it:lxd4 it:led5 11 e6 f6 12 'lil'b3 c6 13 l:tdl 'lil'b6 14 e4 ..icS lS it:lfS ..ixf2+ 16 ~hl 0-0-0 17 exd5 it:lxd5 18 ..ixdS ..ie2 19 ..\tf4 'lil'xb3 20 lt:le7 mate, Matthiesen-] ensen Copenhagen 1999) 8 exd3 'lil'xd3 9 lt:lc3 ..ltb4 10 'lil'a4 ..ltxc3 11 bxc3 ..ibS 12 'lil'g4 'lil'g6 13 'lil'xg6 hxg6 14 l:tel 0-0-0 15 ..if4 lt:lge7 16 it:lgS ..ltc4 17 e6 ..ltxe6 18 lt:lxe6 fxe6 19 l:i.xe6 and the two bishops ultimately win the day, Norri-Laine, Helsinki 1997. b) 7 'lil'a4 'lil'dS 8 0-0 ..ibS 9 'lil'dl 0-0-0? 10 it:lgS! d3 11 e4 'lil'xe5 12 i2lxf7 with large material gain, BaginskaiteSagalchik, Seattle 2000.

I'm not sure that 1O... ..ib6 11 lt:lc4 or 10 ... ..ia7 11 l:tdl exactly constitutes an improvement, but I'm sure the g8knight would have been grateful to have been left the use of e7-square. 11 11:ib3 ,lb6 12 11:ibxd4! 11:ixd4 13 11:ixd4 In case you were wondering, the d4-

knight is indirectly protected by a queen check on a4 . 13 ... ,lxg2 14 l!txg2 'l/kxe5 15 11:if3

Black has a queenside pawn majority but White's lead in development is of more relevance. 15 ... 'l/ke7 16 'llka4+ c6 17 'ilkb3 ,la7 18 ,lg5!

7 ... ,ld5 8 0-0 ,lc5 9 a3

18 ... 11:if6

This allows White a very simple continuation but a close inspection reveals a lack of viable alternatives. Black had to keep the b 7 -pawn guarded and, not wanting to play ... f7-f6, after 18 ... 'lil'c7 19 'lil'c3! would have forced just that. 9 ... a5

I'm sure Black would prefer to give

19 ,lxf6 gxf6 20 :!i:fd 1 0-0 21 e3

The black bishop is blunted and there 49

Unusual Queen's Gamba Dec/;ned

are no prizes for guessing which square the white knight intends taking up as residence. 21 ... l:l:fdS 22 l:l.ac1 J:l:xd1 23 l:l.xd1 b5 24 'l/!'c2 l:l:c8 25 li:lh4!

25 ... 'l/!'e6 Inevitably forced although now there will be no challenging for the cl-file. 26 li:lt5 .i.b8 The threat was 27 J:1.d6 although now

White's rook welcomes a 'swrngrng' possibility. 27 J:l:d4 c5 28 'l/!'xc5 The rook had several tempting fourth

might be deemed as unnecessary. However, although I would find, say, 6 b3 a little less ambitious, a move such as the text has its plus points (other than just mere defensive duties).

6 ... 'll!'d7 6 ... .lfl.b4+ 7 .lfl.d2 .lfl.xd2+ 8 Ei:lbxd2 Ei:lge 7 helps White develop faster: 9 .lfl.g2 Ei:lg6 10 0-0 'liVd7 11 Ei:lb3 0-0 12 J:1.fdl l:1.ad8 13 Ei:lcS 'liVc8 14 'liVb5' Ei:lgxeS 15 Ei:lxeS Ei:lxeS 16 Ei:lxb7 c6 17 'liVxeS 'lii'xb7 18 b3 left White a clear

pawn up and with a superior position in Bouwmeester-Trauth, Berlin 1980. rank options and so Black's last move 7 .i.g2 0-0-0 was more of a diversion than a blunder. Automatic, but possibly not the best. The queen, of course, can't be taken Of the alternatives, 7 ... d3 (hoping to because of the back rank mate. trap the white king in the centre after 8 28 ... l!lhS 29 'll!'d5 h5? exd3 'lii'xd3) looks the most interesting. Indeed, although 8 0-0 dxe2 9 J:1.e 1 Effectively ending his own suffering! 30 'l/!'t3 1-0 0-0-0 10 Ei:lc3 .lfl.b4 has seen results that , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. favour White, it doesn't look like the Game 21 end of the world for Black, e.g. 11 .lfl.gS Mittelman-Harari f6 12 exf6 gxf6 13 .lfl.e3 .lfl.xc4 14 .lfl.xa 7 .lfl.xc3 (perhaps 14... .lfl.a6 immediately is Hampstead 1998 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • more accurate; however, Black appears 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 11:if3 to make a few inaccuracies in the folli:lc6 5 g3 .i.e6 6 'l/!'a4 lowing game and still doesn't lose) 15 Bearing in mind the last game, any atbxc3 .lfl.a6 16 .lfl.e3 Ei:leS?!. Inexplicably tempt to protect the c4-pawn now eschewing 16 ... Ei:lge7, Black was worse 50


throughout but went on to draw in Muhammad-Weaver, Chicago 1990. Regarding an attempt to solve kingside development, the bishop never looks comfortably settled on the far side of the b6-f2 diagonal and indeed 7 ... -ltcS 8 0-0 luge7 9 a3 lug6 10 b4 saw it forced back: 10... .\te 7 11 .ltb2 0-0 12 lubd2 a6 13 l:!.fdl l:!.fd8 14 'ltc2 .lth3 15 .ltxh3 'ltxh3 16 'lte4 fS 17 exf6 .ltxf6 18 lub3 was even better for White than his extra pawn suggested (Yakovich-Grigorian, Yerevan 1996). 7 ... luge7 8 0-0 lug6 makes more sense but after 9 l:!.dl, again the problem for Black is his d4-pawn. In view of the tactical drawbacks of 9 ... 0-0-0, Black has tried 9 ... l:Id8 (either the b- or dpawn drops after 9 ... lucxeS 10 'ltxd7+ .ltxd7 11 luxeS luxeS) but in practice both 10 .ltgS and 10 luc3 have turned out better for White. 8 0-0 lilb8 A typical continuation with both queens on the a4-d7 diagonal. Black protects the a7-pawn and offers the chance to move his c6-knight. Life without this move can be rough and a familiar theme returns after 8 ... .\th3, i.e. 9 e6 .ltxe6 10 12le5 luxeS 11 'ltxa 7.

However, although the queen and bishop look menacing and the black king is right to feel nervous, I certainly wouldn't call it a winning combination. The position is quite unclear, suggesting that 9 e6 may not be best. The continuation 11...'ltd6 12 'ltxb7+ ~d7 13 f4 12lg4 14 b3 fS 15 'ltbS+ c6 16 'ltb7+ ~e8 17 cS 'lte7 18 .ltxc6+ .ltd7 19 b4 lu8f6 20 .\tf3 12le3 21 .ltxe3 'ltxe3+ 22 ~hl hS 23 a4 h4 24 l:!.a3 'lte6 25 l:Igl hxg3 26 l:Ixg3 lug4 27 l:!.g2 lue3 28 l:IgS .lte 7 29 J:!.hS l:!.xhS 30 .ltxhS+ g6 31 .ltf3 'ii'c4 0-1 Schlechter-Mieses, Paris 1900 is the only practical encounter with it that I can find. Amazingly, as this line looks very important, could it really be that there hasn't been a more vital game in this 6 'ii' a4 line in the 101 years since this game was played? 9 li:lbd2 li:lxe5 10 'iil'b3!

The most testing. Instead 10 'ii'xd7 luxf3+ 11 12lxf3 l:!.xd7 12 lueS J:!.dS is very playable for Black. 10 ... li:lxf3+ 11 li:lxf3 1!\Vc8

The alarm bells were no doubt ringing about b 7 and that was perfectly justified in view of the threatened bishopuncovering knight moves. 12 ll:d1 ~c5 5,


The bishop never gets comfortable on this sguare but something had to be done about the d4-pawn. Alas, 12 ... cS 13 il.f4+ @a8 (or 13 ... il.d6 14 li:lxd4' cxd4 15 l:!:xd4 which wins as the black gueen is overworked after 15 ... il.xf4 16 l:!:xd8) 14 li:lgS would involve losing the key bishop for a knight. 13 'lll'b5! ~b6 14 c5 a6 Buying the bishop a retreat sguare but all holes created in the pawn structure around the black king are undesirable. 15 'l!l'b4 a5 16 'lll'a3 ~a7 17 li:lxd4

Suddenly the position is a nightmare for Black. He's already a pawn down, the one on aS looks set to drop and, on top of all that, White has the better pieces too. 17 ... li:le7 18 ~g5 f6 19 ~f4 g5 20 ~xc7+! A neat tactic to effectively end things. As the gueen must guard the lightsguared bishop, Black's selected recapture is forced. 20 ... ~xc7 21 li:lxe6+ 'l!l'xe6 22 'lll'xa5+ ~b8 It was either the bishop or the rook and Black is about to resign in any case. 23 J:txd8 + 1-0

52

Game22 M .Uiffler-M .Schmid Basie 2001 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 li:lf3 li:lc6 5 g3 ~e6 6 li:lbd2

Though I reiterate my conclusion that White probably doesn't have to protect his c-pawn at this juncture, the text remains a very flexible move. Although the cl -bishop has been temporarily obstructed, from now on White can consider a b2-b4 lunge safe in the knowledge that his al-rook isn't far off some action. This game also shows why it is possible for White to delay castling in favour of piece deployment on the queenside. 6 ... 'l!l'd7 7 ~g2 ~h3 It is very difficult to draw conclusions about when this is or isn't the correct way forward for Black. It's simply one way! The outcome here is different from in most situations and although the main game is instructive, for completion alternatives need to be studied: a) Though it usefully controls the g5sguare, 7 ... il.e7 feels a little slow but it is always worthwhile studying encounters


involving strong players: 8 'l!i'a4 hS 9 iub3 .!:I.dB 10 0-0 h4 11 .il.f4 hxg3 12 fxg3 .il.h3 13 .il.xh3 .l:l.xh3 14 .!:I.ad 1 iuh6 15 lubxd4 luxd4 16 'l!i'xd7+ .l:l.xd7 17 luxd4 12\g4 18 12\f3 gS 19 .l:l.xd7 Wxd7 20 .l:l.dl+ We8 21 .il.xgS .il.xgS 22 12\xgS .l:l.h6 23 iuf3 .l:l.a6 24 a3 .l:l.a4 25 .!:I.cl lue3 26 12\d2 lbg4 27 e6 fxe6 28 .l:l.c3 @e7 29 h3 12\es 30 Wf2 b6 31 iuf3 luxc4 32 b3 iud6 33 .l:l.xc7+ Wd8 34 .l:l.c6 1-0 Tiviakov-Brenninkmeijer, Groningen 2001. The comparatively quiet approach of 7 ... luge7 8 0-0 lug6 is possible but 9 'l!i'a4 .il.e7 10 .l:l.dl 0-0 11 lbe4 .l:l.ad8 (as in Roselli Mailhe-C.Zimmerman, Montevideo 2000) left Black still to do a lot of work in order to successfully regain his pawn. I can recall as a junior believing that critical was the assessment of a position reached after the likes of 7 ... 0-0-0 8 0-0 (not actually forced as White could instead play as in our main game) 8 ... hS 9 b4!? .il.xb4 10 'l!i' a4 h4 11 .l:l.b 1 hxg3 12 fxg3 .il.h3 13 .l:l.xb4 luxb4 14 'lli'xb4 .il.xg2 15 Wxg2.

White has two pieces for the rook and so you would have to favour him. However, Black has a far more solid

pawn structure and the following demonstrates why his chances are not to be under-estimated: 15 ... lue7 16 lue4 luc6 17 'l!i'cS d3 18 e3?! 'l!i'g419 lt:if2 'l!i'hS 20 .il.d2 gS 21 .il.c3 d2 22 .!:I.bl dliV 23 12\xdl "l!Vh3+ 24 Wgl iVfS 25 "l!VbS "l!Vxf3 26 "l!Vxb 7+ Wd7 27 12\f2 .l:l.bS (though you can't argue with that, 27 ... .l:l.xh2! would have been a more emphatic finish, particularly if followed by 28 Wxh2 "l!Vxf2+ 29 Wh3 .l:l.h8+ 30 @g4 "l!Ve2+ 31 WfS iVf3+ 32 WxgS .l:l.hS mate) 28 .l:l.dl+ "l!Vxdl+ 29 12\xdl .l:l.xb7 30 e6+ Wxe6 31 .il.xh8 .l:l.b 1 0-1 Shepherd-Sedgwick, Port Erin 2000.

8 .il.xh3!? White accepts that he won't be castling in the near future and intends getting straight on with things on the queenside. 8 ... '1Wxh3 9 '1Wa4 Not that it would be that great anyway, but there isn't a lbgS and eSprotecting f2-f4 sequence this time as the black queen can slip into g2. However, in another situation the king's rook could easily be offered as bait, e.g. 9 a3 luh6 10 "l!Vc2 lug4 11 "l!Ve4 Sl.e7 12 b4 0-0 13 b5 'l!i'g2 14 "l!Vxg4 "l!Vxhl+ 15 12\fl with excellent compensation for 53


the exchange. 9 ... 0-0-0 10 l:!:b1 The immediate 10 h4 il.xh4 11 l:!:bl should also be a consideration although no doubt White was more than satisfied with how the game turned out. 10 ... d3

Game23 Postny-D.Schneider World Junior Ch., Athens 2001 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 li:lf3 li:lc6 5 g3 ~e6 6 li:lbd2 ~b4 11 b4 dxe2 12 li.>xe2 So the white king has decided to remain in the centre, where it anticipates being safer than its enemy number. 12 .. :lli'f5 13 l:!:b3! Correctly employing the rook to patch up the hole on d3. 13 ... '1Wg4 14 h3 l:!:xd2+ Black takes this opportunity to make a go of things. Instead 14... '1We6 15 il.b2 would, with b4-b5 next on the agenda, give White an easy ride. 15 ~xd2 '1Wxc4+ 16 ll:d3 Alas, White is quite compact and has reasonable co-ordination, whereas Black still has most of his army at home. 16 ... li:lh6 17 l:!:c1'lli'e618 '1Wc2 see following diagram

Homing in on c7. The knight is pinned, making 19 bS a serious threat. 18 ... ~d6 19 l:!:xd6! cxd6 20 b5 li:lf5 21 bxc6 l:!:eB 22 cxb7+ 1-0 54

Introducing a new idea. The text, which in pinning the d2-knight coincidentally threatens 7 ... il.xc4, means that only one king's knight move is required if (as in the game) Black desires castling kingside. If 6 ... li:lge7 7 il.g2 then 7 ... li:lg6 has to be played to free the bishop. Okay, the eS-pawn is hit but we've seen this sort of thing before. After 8 0-0 il.e 7 9 '1Wa4 0-0 10 J:!:dl, Black's d-pawn was


equally a target and 10 ... 'l!VcS 11 li'lb3 .il.h3 12 li'lbxd4 should have offered Black nothing m Blokland-Rellum, Groningen 2001 (although he did eventually win'). A rather cheeky alternative is 6 ... gS. We have seen before how this move ultimately pressurises the eS-pawn more but when White is not committed to castling, much of the sting is removed. It is handled well by 7 h3! h6 8 a3 'llV d7 9 b4 0-0-0 10 bS!, e.g. 10...12:laS 11 'l!Va4 b6 12 .il.g2 cS 13 bxc6 'l!Vxc6 14 'l!Vxc6+ li'lxc6 15 li'lxgS hxgS 16 .il.xc6 l:i:xh3 17 l:i:xh3 .il.xh3 18 li'lf3 12:le 7 19 .il.e4 .il.e6 20 .il.xgS .ltxc4 21 l:i:cl bS 22 li'ld2 @b8 23 li'lxc4 1-0 A.Hoffman-Da Silva, Brasilia 2001.

8 ... Jl.f5 9 1ll'a4 Jl.xd2+ 10 Jl.xd2 0-0 11 Jl.g2 d3 12 e3

White must allow this pawn on d3 if he wants to get castled. Regarding my previous comments, now the debate starts. 12 .. .12196 13 0-0 Jl.e4 14 Jl.c3

7 1ll'c2

The queen is reasonably placed here but I do wonder whether, just as in Game 20, a candidate (i.e. with a similar concept) might be 7 .ltg2, allowing Black to regain his pawn. 7 . ..fi:Jge7 8 a3

Compare the main game with the following encounter: 8 .ltg2 .il.fS 9 'l!Va4 d3 10 e3 .il.e4 11 0-0 .ltxd2 12 .il.xd2 0-0 13 .il.c3 li'lg6 14 l:i:ad 1 'llVe 7 15 12:le 1 .ltxg2 16 @xg2 12:lcxeS (note that the d3-pawn is currently indirectly protected by a future queen check on e4) 17 'l!Vb3 l:i:fd8 18 h3 b6 19 @gJ) 'l!Ve6 20 @g2 li'lxc4 21 @gl 'l!Ve4 22 .ltd4 d2 23 li'lg2 12:lceS 24 .ltc3 12:lf3+ 25 @h 1 cS 26 'liVbS c4 27 'liVhS fS 28 l:i:a 1 l:i:dS 29 g4 f4 30 'l!VxdS+ 'l!VxdS 31 exf4 li'le1 32 l:i:axel dxel'l!V 33 l:i:xel li'lxf4 34 l:i:gl 'liVf3 0-1 Burtman-0.Sagalchik, Seattle 2000. Clearly there is a fine line between the black pawn on d3 being a strength or a weakness.

14 ... .1:teS

This move, hitting the eS-pawn, is self-explanatory, but it might be possible to delete it in favour of 14... 'l!Vd7 or 14... 'l!VcS!). Then a rook can come to d8 whilst her majesty has some interesting options on the c8-h3 diagonal. 15 J:tad 1 1ll'd7 16 .l:td2

White does the obvious thing in ganging up on the d3-pawn but Black is preparing some tricks. 16 ... .1:tadS 17 1il'd 1

As is a common occurrence with the two queens on the a4-d7 diagonal, a standard theme could be brought into action with 17 l:i:fdl .ltxf3 18 .il.xf3 12:lcxeS 19 'l!Vxd7 li'lxf3+. Funnilr enough, after 20 @g2 it might all backfire anyhow, e.g. 20 ... li'lfh4+ 21 gxh4 l:i:xd7 22 hS. Thus it couldn't be recommended to Black just now, Ho\\·ever, it will remain a tactic for the furun: and so White plays it safe. 55


17 ... .tf5 18 li:ld4 li:lgxe5 19 li:lxf5 "iii'xf5 20 b3

We've reached another interesting position to discuss. Much of the tension has been removed and it's a case of two bishops versus two knights. As Black has his pieces reasonably well placed but White still covers his holes, you'd have to say that the first player has more potential. This statement is justified by the progression of this game. 20 ... a5 21 e4!

Black was angling for ... a5-a4, but this becomes irrelevant as White correctly judges that now is a good time for expanding on the kingside. 21 ... "iii'd7 22 f4 li:lg4 23 "iii'f3

Of course White must still be careful. 23 l:l.e 1, similarly covering the e3square, was also acceptable. 23 ... f5 24 e5 "iii'e7 25 h3 "iii'c5+ 26 ll;>h1 li:le3 27 "iii'f2!

suited. In all fairness, though, he doesn't appear to win it convincingly, which is perhaps characteristic of the sturdiness of Black's position throughout. 32 ... J:l:ed8 33 a4 @f7 34 @f2 h5 35 ll;>f3 ll;>e6 36 J:l:e1 96 37 J:l:c1 J:l:8d7 38 J:l:c3 J:l:d8 39 ll;>e3 J:l:e4+ 40 @f2 J:l:ed4 41 @f3 J:l:8d7 42 c5 J:l:c 7 43 J:l:cxd3 bxc5 44 ll;>e3 h4 45 gxh4 J:l:e4+ 46 @f3 J:l:d4 47 J:l:xd4 cxd4 48 J:l:xd4 J:l:c3+ 49 @e2 J:l:xb3 50 J:l:d6+ @f7 51 J:l:f6+ @e8 52 J:l:xg6 l:l:b4 53 h5 J:l:xf4 54 h6 @f7 55 J:l:f6+ ll;>e7 56 h7 J:l:h4 57 l:l:b6 J:l:xh3 58 @f2 @f7 59 J:l:xb7+ @e6 60 @g2 J:l:h5 61 J:l:a7 f4 62 @f3 @f5 63 J:l:g7 J:l:h3+ 64 ll;>g2 J:l:h4 65 J:l:e7 J:l:h5 66 @f3 J:l:h3+ 67 @g2 J:l:h5 68 J:l:a7 J:l:h4 69 J:l:e7 J:l:h5 70 e6 @f6 71 J:l:a7 @xe6 72 @f3 @f6 73 ll;>xf4 ll;>g6 74 J:l:xa5 J:l:h4+ 75 ll;>e5 @xh7 76 J:l:a7+ @g8 77 a5 J:l:h5+ 78 @d6 l:l:f5 79 @e6 J:l:g5 80 J:l:a8+ li.>h7 81 @f6 l:l:b5 82 J:l:a7+ @g8 83 J:l:a8+ @h7 84 J:l:a7+ ll;>g8 85 J:l:g7+ ll;>f8 86 J:l:g5 l:l:b1 87 @e6 J:l:d1 88 J:l:d5 J:l:e1 + 89 @d7 J:l:e7+ 90 ll;>c8 J:l:e6 91 ll;>b7 J:l:e7+ 92 @c6 J:l:e6+ 93 @b5 J:l:e1 94 a6 ll;>e7 95 a7 l:l:b1 + 96 @a6 1-0

Game24 Dinser-Mione Bratto 1996

An important defence that White needed to spot when employing 25 h3.

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 li:lf3 li:lc6 5 g3 .tf5

27 ... "iii'b6 28 J:l:e1 li:lxg2 29 "iii'xb6 cxb6 30 @xg2 li:ld4 31 .txd4 J:l:xd4 32 J:l:e3

The third bishop posting alternative which, as results would indicate, offers Black the most chances. The text doesn't pressurise the f3-knight (as it does on g4), nor does it threaten White's c-pawn (as it does on e6). How-

As the d3-pawn remains an obvious target, White clearly has the upper hand in the double rook ending that has re56


ever, the option remains for ... 'lll'd7 and ... il.h3, whilst controlling the f5-bl heralds some bonuses of its own. Witb the bishop arguably less vulnerable on f5, White must always beware the possibility of ...'Llb4 (e.g. after 6 'Llbd2? 'Llb4!). Black's light-squared bishop has an option of dropping into e4 and the pawn push ... d4-d3 is always in the offing too.

6 ~g2 'lll'd7 7 0-0 0-0-0 You may recall the 7 ... il.h3 of Game 16. If in real gambit mode, the immediate 7... f6 also deserves attention. 8 a3 As with both 5... .¥l.g4 and 5... .¥l.e6, there are a variety of different approaches that White can take. Relatively speaking, though, this variation is in its early stages. Some alternatives seen in practical play are: a) 8 'lll'a4 'i!?b8 9 e3 d3 10 'Llc3 ti:ige7 11 e4 il.g4 12 il.e3 ti:ic8 with a tussle not dissimilar to our last game. Black can regain the e5-pawn but the debate in Cabero Valero-Alvarino Cazon, Gijon 2000 was whether the d3-pawn is a strength or a weakness. b) 8 'lll'b3 (with familiar ideas, e.g. the tricks with e5-e6 and Ci:Je5) 8 ... .¥l.e7 (or 8 ... ti:Ja5 9 'lll'b5 'lll'xb5 10 cxb5 d3 11

exd3 il.xd3 12 il.h3+ 'i!?bS 13 l:td 1 with basically a clear pawn's advantage for White in C.Bernard-Guilbert, Le T ouquet 1996) 9 l:tdl .¥l.h3 10 'Llc3 (as we've seen before, this is one of the benefits associated with l:td 1; another is 10 .¥l.hl!?) 10... .¥l.xg2 11 'i!?xg2 h5 12 h4 'lll'g4 13 ti:id5 ti:ih6 14 ti:ixe7+ ti:ixe7 15 'lll'a3 ti:ic6 16 b4 'lll'e4 17 b5 ti:ixe5 18 'lll'xa7 b6 19 il.f4 ti:ihg4 20 c5 bxc5 21 b6 cxb6 22 'lll'xb6 'lll'c6 23 'lll'xc6+ ti:ixc6 24 l:tacl l:td5 25 e4 l:td6 1-0 YrjolaTahkavuori, Jyvaskyla 1993. c) 8 ti:ibd2 h5 9 h4 ti:Jh6 10 a3 ti:ig4 11 b4 'Llcxe5 12 .¥l.b2 ti:ixf3+ 13 'Llxf3 c5 14 'lll'b3 '12-'/2 Brenninkmeijer-Van der Wiel, Groningen 2001. 8 ... f6 Certainly not the first time we've seen the pawn sacrifice confirmed in this manner, although this game introduces some new features. Again 8... .¥l.h3 is possible (with White having the option of returning the pawn for a tempo with 9 e6), whilst 8 ... d3 is another idea available in the ... il.f5 lines. That said, I prefer White's position after 9 exd3 .¥l.xd3 10 l:tel il.xc4 11 'lll'a4. 9 exf6 li:lxf6

10 li:lbd2 57


I think that I can make the same criticism of this move as I did of it in the similarly instructive Visser-Van der Laar encounter (Game 9). If you revisit that now, you may wonder whether say 10 ..ltgS could have been employed first. Still, Black certainly appears to have some play for the pawn. 10 ... ~h3 g5!?

11

b4 ~xg2

12 lilxg2

although h2 is an obvious target. 17 ... d3 18 e3

Black wanted to utilise the d-file to aid in an attack and doesn't intend trading queens. 18 exd3 'i'fS, for example, looks very powerful but having a pawn lodged on d3 is also very restrictive for White here. 18 ... 'l!Vf5 19 ~b2 li:le4!

You may wonder what's going on here; I know I am! Of course the likes of Fritz want to grab this pawn too but obviously humans have a tendency to be a little more cautious. 13b5g4!

Black's point. Now 14 bxc6 'i'xc6 leaves White a little tied up although the game continuation is no improvement and turns very sour very quickly! 14 li:lh4 li:le5

The rook on h8 can't be taken because of the mate on f2. 20 li:lxe4 'l!Vxe4+ 21 lilg1 l:th3 22 ~d4 .l:td7

The other rook sets about making its way to the h-file and you'll soon see the devastation its arrival brings. 23 J:!:d1 J:l:dh7 24 'l!Vxd3

A far more attractive square for the knight than a5 (which is where it might have found itself without g-pawn interference). 15 'l!Vb3 li:lg6!

Black wants to prise open the h-file and you'll soon see why. 16 li:lxg6 hxg6 17 l:th 1

To my mind this is slightly premature 58

Apparently falling in with Black's


plans, although the fact is that there

now 26 ... l:te3! is very strong) 14 ... 'l!Vg4 15 .il.xh3 'l!Vxh3 16 'l!Ve4 .il.d6 17 e3 l:td7 18 'l!Vg2 'l!VhS 19 .il.c3 cS 20 bxc6 12lxc6 guate defence available. 24 ... "l!l'xh1 +!! 0-1 21 12l2f3 l:tc8 22 l:tabl '/2-'/2 JellingThe two black rooks combine to deRewitz Copenhagen 1995. liver mate on the h-file. b) 8 'l!Vb3 is again a major alternative. , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Although it leads to a black win in a Game25 fairly high level encounter, very unconJ. Richardson-Mortensen vincing is 8 ... 0-0-0 9 l:tdl .il.h3 10 .il.hl f6 11 exf6 gxf6 12 12lc3 12la5 13 'l!Va4 Copenhagen 1997 ,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 'l!Vxa4 1412lxa412lf5 15 b312lc6 1612lb2

isn't even anything resembling an ade-

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 li:l!3 li:Jc6 5 g3 ~15 6 ~g2 "l!l'd7 7 0-0 li:Jge 7

This, of course, is neither 7 ... .il.h3 nor 7 ... 0-0-0 - Black tenders one final approach. 8 "l!l'a4 Read what you will into the results of the following examples: a) 8 a3 12lg6 9 b4 l:tdS which, justified or not (and I suspect the latter), definitely favours Black: 10 .il.b2 .il.e 7 11 12lbd2 0-0 12 bS 12lcxe5 13 12lxd4 .il.h3 14 'liVc2 (or 14 'l!Vb3 .ii.cs 15 12l2f3 12lxf3+ 1612lxf3 .il.xg2 17 ll?xg2 'l!Vg4 18 li?hl 'l!Ve4 19 l:tael l:tfe8 20 li?gl h6 21 'l!Vc3 f6 22 12ld2 'l!Vg4 23 12lb3 .il.d6 24 f3 'l!Vh3 25 f4 12lxf4! 26 'l!Vf3 {Bekker Jensen-Rewitz, Copenhagen 1995} and

.il.b4 17 12ld3 .il.c3 18 l:tb 1 .il.g4 19 .il.g2 12ld6 20 h3 .il.fS 21 i2lh4 .il.e4 22 f3 .il.xd3 23 exd3 12lb4 24 a3 12lc2 25 .il.b2 .il.xb2 26 l:txb2 12le3 27 l:tel l:tde8 28 b4 l:te 7 29 l:tbe2 l:the8 30 .il.h 1 c6 31 f4 hS 32 .il.f3 l:tg8 33 li?h2 l:teg7 34 l:tgl? l:txg3 35 l:teel l:!3g7 36 l:txg7 l:txg7 37 l:tgl l:te7 38 .il.xhS>? (38 l:tg6 leaves White better) 38 ... l:th 7 39 .il.g4+ fS and Black won in Ostergaard-S.Hansen, Copenhagen 1996. 8 .. .li:lcB White's previous logical gueen deployment offers Black a tempting alternative to the usual development for his knight. 9 li:Jbd2 li:Jb6 10 "l!l'd 1 l:dB

Essentially this is the new system. Black isn't interested in castling lo:;.-.::: 59


and has no particular aspirations for a kingside attack. Instead he bolsters his d4-pawn and continues his development. Whilst trying to restrict the activity of his opponent's pieces, he hopes to pick off the eS-pawn later. 11 li:lb3 Upon 11 b3, the immediate 11....i1.b4 suggests itself in order to exploit the hole created on c3, but 11...d3 12 exd3 .ii.b4!> also looks kind of awkward for White. 11 ... ~e 7 12 ~g5 0-0 Black plays it safe and correctly avoids the continuation 12 ... .lil.xgS 13 luxgS luxeS 14 lucS 'fie7 15 luxb7 'fixg5 16 f4!. 13 'l!i'c1 h6 14 ~xe7 'l!i'xe7 15 'l!i't4 ~h7 16 l;tac1 After 16 lubxd4 luxd4 17 luxd4, both 17 ...gS and the immediate 17 ... luxc4 look playable. Hence White simply defends his c-pawn. 16 ... d3!? 17 exd3 Though often a serious candidate, here 17 e3 f6! poses the white gueen some difficult questions. 17 .. .l:l:xd3 White's extra e-pawn is no longer doubled but there is a space behind his advanced pawns and Black's pieces are looking to infiltrate. 18 J:ife1 li:la4 19 J:ie2 li.lc5 20 li:lxc5 'l!i'xc5 21 h4 li:ld8! In this position, White's minor pieces have difficulty moving and this excellent temporary retreat, preparing to relocate to the fine e6-sguare, is also very annoying for the white gueen. As he has difficulty doing anything constructive as things stand, White now offloads his extra pawn. 60

22 e6 li:lxe6 23 'l!i'e5 J;i.td8 24 'l!i'xc5 li:lxc5 At least White now has the e-file. It's fair to say that Black has a very slight edge here. It shouldn't be enough for a win but there is plenty of play left. 25 J:ie7 J:i3d7 26 J:ixd7 J:ixd7 27 li.le5 Z.e7 28 J:l:d1 ~c2 29 Z.d8+ @h 7 30 li:lf3 a5 31 li.ld4 ~b 1 32 a3 a4 33 li.lb5 ~d3 34 J:id4 c6 35 li.lc3 l;i.e1 + 36 @h2 .1f5 37 ~f3 J:ic1 38 g4 ~e6 39 liilg2 g6 40 h5 liilg7 41 ~d1 4.lb3 42 J:id8 li:lc5 43 l:td4 gxh5 44 gxh5 @f6 45 @f3 li:lb3 46 J:if4+ liile5 4 7 J:ie4+ @d6 48 @e3 f5 49 J:ih4 liile5 50 f4+ @f6 51 J:ih1 li.lc5 52 @d2 J:ia1 53 J:ig1 ~f7 54 J:ig2 li.le4+ 55 li:lxe4+ fxe4 56 ~xa4 ~xc4 57 J:ig6+ @f5 58 l:txh6 @xf4 59 l:tf6+ @e5 60 ll:f8 J:l:h1 61 @c3 ~e6 62 J:l:e8 J:txh5 63 ~c2 ll:h6 64 a4 c5 65 b3 b6 66 .!i.d1 li;/d6 67 @d2 l:th1 68 ~c2 J:ih2+ 69 liilc3 J:ih3+ 70 @d2 e3+ 71 liilc3 l:th2 72 ~d3 e2 73 @d2 ~xb3 7 4 J:ib8 liilc 7 75 J:ta8 ~e6 76 a5 bxa5 77 J:txa5 @d6 78 J:ia8 c4 79 ~xe2 ~g4 80 J:ie8 liilc5 81 ll:e7 ll:xe2+ 82 l;txe2 ~xe2 83 liilxe2 @b4 84 @d2 @b3 85 @c1 @c3 86 @b1 @d2 0-1


Summary

Though comprising the vast majority of Albin games on the database, it looks to me as though both 5... .lig4 and 5... .lie6 are in serious danger of being pushed off the map. Game 16 offers some salvation, although even this came via the comparatively new 5... .lif5. The question then is just how sound are Games 24 and 25? Add these to the possibility of a timely ... £6 pawn sacrifice and the opening could well have some quite reasonable surprise value. Not too bad (and certainly exciting) for practical play, but it might be worth black players adding another queen's pawn defence to the repertoire too! 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 d4 4 li:lf3 li:lc6 5 g3 (D) ~g4

5... .lie6 6 it:lbd2 6... 'lifd7. Game 22 6... .lk.b4 · Game 23 6 .lk.g2 · Game 20 6 'lifa4 · Game 21 s ... .lifs with ... £6 · Game 24 with ... lt:lge7 · Game 25 6 ~g2 'l!l'd7 7 0-0 0-0·0 7... .lk.h3 (D) . Game 16

8 a3

8 it:lbd2 · Game 18 8 'lifb3 (D) . Game 19 8 ... ~xf3 9 gxf3 . Game 17

5 g3

8 'l!l'b3

61

CHAPTER FOUR

I

The Baltic Defence: The Main Line - 3 cxd5

1 d4 d5 2 c4 j.f5 3 cxd5 Presumably this opening is so called because many strong Latvian grandmasters have employed it at one stage or other. I know first hand of one who has clearly burned the midnight oil regarding home preparation on it. That, however, will come later as I focus in this chapter on what I believe to be the most principled response to the move 2 ... i.fS. If Black could get by without a significant pawn centre, then this tricky defence would get my vote. The problem is that I'm not entirely convinced that it does. It seems as though White has just as many tricks at his disposal as his opponent and invariably he can sidestep Black's tactics to enter favourable endgames. On the other hand, perhaps I am doing it a disservice as both Alexei Shirov and Igor Rausis have not only defended such endgames but also played them aggressively for the win. Play over the games in this chapter and then judge for yourself. 62

Game26 Legky-Brochet St Quentin 1999 1 d4 d5 2 c4 j.f5 And here we have the 'Baltic Defence'. It is probably fair to say that in the standard Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD), White generally obtains a slight edge due to the space advantage afforded to him. Specifically, the piece that causes Black the most difficulty is his light-sguared bishop. Normally it gets locked inside a pawn chain but with this system, it tries to sneak out. Black will, if allowed, follow up with the likes of ... e7 -e6 and possibly ... c 7 -c6. 3 cxd5 As you will later discover, there are lines in which White allows his opponent to erect a Slav or Semi-Slav style position with the bishop out on fS, but in my view more critical are the variations such as 3 cxdS, in which White eliminates Black's centre. However, although they may be positionally best,


Black does have certain tactical resources at his disposal. 3 ... .1xb1 Giving up a developed bishop for a knight like this may seem a bit odd but it is justified. White winds up a little light on queenside pieces and Black's army tends to flood into the game quite quickly. Anyway, the fact is that this is the only option now as 3... 'lifxdS? 4 li:lc3 would be ridiculous. 5 e4 would probably follow next with White having a dream pawn centre. 4 l:txb1 My original theoretical understanding of this line was that 4 'lifa4+ was the only way to test Black. However, whilst that is covered later, results would indicate that Black does have cause to be concerned about this simple recapture. 4 ... 'i'xd5 5 a3 li:lc6

eS 14 'lifg3 ~d6 15 'lifxg6 hxg6 16 h3 c5 17 ~b2 gS 18 ~e2 fS 19 l:!:adl c4 20 e4 l:!:he8 21 ~hS l:!:h8 22 ~f7 f4 23 f3 We 7 24 @f2 bS 25 @e2 li:lb3 26 dxeS ~xeS 27 l:!:xd8 l:!:xd8 28 ~dS li:lcS 29 @d2 li:la4 30 @c2 @b6 31 l:!:h 1 ~f6 32 l:!:el WcS 33 ~al ~es 34 l:!:hl li:lb6 35 ~e6 l:i:d3 36 l:i:dl l:!:xdl 37 Wxdl Wd6 38 ~f7 li:la4 39 @d2 @c7 40 ~es @b6 41 Wc2 li:lcs 42 @b 1 WaS 43 ~b2 li:ld3 44 Wa2 Wa4 0-1 Crouch-Shirov, London 1991) 8 li:lc3 °i'aS 9 dS li:lf6 10 ~d2 li:lxdS 11 li:la4 li:lxe3! 12 fxe3 l:!:xd2 13 'l!Vxd2 'lifxa4 in Foisor-Rausis, Cannes 1990, although sadly after 14 l:!:cl the players agreed a draw! b) Another active alternative 1s 6... eS!?. Then 7 dxeS 'l!Vxdl+ 8 Wxdl li:lxeS 9 li:lf3 l:!:d8+ 10 ~d2 ~d6 11 Sl.e2 li:lf6 12 li:lxeS Sl.xeS is nothing too special for White. Indeed, amazingly Black went on to win from here in Poulton-Rausis, Cappelle la Grande 1991, although I can tell you that it wasn't that instructive!

6 li:lf3

Or 6 e3 and now: a) 6... 0-0-0 7 li:le2 offers a reason for not deploying tbe king's knight so early, although it is time consuming and Black cleverly generated some excitement via 7... eS (the early days of a super GM saw 7... li:lf6 8 li:lc3 'lifgS 9 'liff3 'lifg6 10 ~bS li:ldS 11 l:!:a 1 li:lxc3 12 bxc3 li:laS 13 0-0

6 ... 0-0-0 One of the opening's leading exponents, Igor Rausis, has dabbled in 6... 'l!Ve4!? 7 l:!:al eS and on that evidence alone one wonders whether it could be 63


the most accurate continuation: 8 dxeS (short but sweet was the 'perfect' 8 e3 li:lxd4 9 li:lxd4 exd4 10 'lllfxd4 '/2-'/2 Solozhenkin-Rausis, Cappelle la Grande 1995) 8... ..ltb4+!?

9 axb4 (I would say that Black can probably hold after 9 ..ltd2 ..ltxd2+ 10 'liVxd2 li:lxe5 11 'l!lfc3 f6 12 l:f.d 1 l:f.d8 13 l:f.xdS+ ~xd8 14 li:lxe5 fxe5 15 f3 'l!ifd4 16 'l!Wb3 li:lf6 17 e3 'l!Vb6 18 'l!Vxb6 axb6 19 ..ltc4 c6 but amazingly Black again went on to win in Dittmar-Rausis, Germany 1993) 9 ... li:lxb4. Having been on the painful end of some Rausis home preparation, I smell a rat and perhaps White was wise to bail out with 10 li:ld4 'lllfxd4 11 'l!Vxd4 li:lc2+ 12 ~dl li:lxd4 13 e3 li:lb3 14 l:f.a3 li:lxc1 15 ~xcl a6 16 f4 li:le7 17 ..ltd3 0-0-0 18 l:f.dl f6 19 exf6 gxf6 1/2- 1/2 in Beaton-Rause, Hastings 1996/7.

17 'lllfxd2 (Mahmoud-Roghani, Tehran 2001). No doubt the check on g4 was overlooked. 7 ... li:lxd4 8 li:lxd4 'i!!'xd4 9 g3

White does have the bishop pair but with no real development at present, you'd hardly think that Black should worry. As you'll see though, it is easy to get complacent. 9 ... e6 10 i.g2 'ill'c5 11 'i!!'a4! Maintaining the tension. Instead 11 'l!Ve4 allowed Black to trade queens via 1 L'lllfd5 and 12 0-0 'l!lfxe4 13 ..ltxe4 li:lf6 14 ..ltf3 ..lte7 15 ..lte3 li:ld5 16 ..ltxa7 b6 17 l:f.bcl ~b7 18 e4 li:lf6 19 l:f.c4 l:f.d7 20 l:f.fcl l:f.aS 0-1 evidently saw White failing miserably to regain his pawn in Sendon-Rausis, Cadiz 1991. 11 ... 'i!!'d4 12 b4 'i!!'c3+ ?! Tempting, but in retrospect perhaps 12 ... 'l!lfd7 might have been more appropriate. White can't take on a7 without cover on d 1 and so 13 'l!lfc2 li:lf6 is likely, with Black's pieces better placed to defend inevitable pressure on the cfile. 13 @f1

7 'i!!'c2

Tendering a pawn sacrifice that certainly poses some questions but to which you feel there should be some answers. Black was fine after 7 ..lte3 g6 8 'liV c2 li:lh6 9 ..ltxh6 ..ltxh6 10 e3 e5 11 dxe5 li:lxe5 12 li:lxe5 'l!lfxe5 13 ..lte2 l:f.he8 14 0-0, before falling for 14 ... ..ltxe3> 15 fxe3 'l!lfxe3+ 16 l:f.£2 l:f.d2? 64

Freezing the position here, one might think that with White unable to castle as well now, he's surely not going to be

The Baltic Defence: The Main line - 3 cxd5

able to coordinate a serious attack. The truth is that his bishops are about to

Game27 S .Pedersen-A. Grigorian

come into their own. 13 ... 'ilkc4 14 Jl.f3 a6 15 lilg2 Jl.e7 16 Jl.f4

Now either rook to cl is a very serious threat. 16 ... 1Wb5 17 'ilkc2 Jl.d6 18 a4!

Copenhagen 1999 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Jl.f5 3 cxd5 Jl.xb1 4 J:!xb1 'ilkxd5 5 e3

Admittedly not that hard to see but the concept is very important. The bfile is going to figure prominently as Black regrets moving a pawn around his king. 18 ... 'ilkeB

More resistance would have been offered by 18 .. .'i'fS, but White would retain a dangerous initiative. 19 b5! axb5

For what it's worth, Black has no time to interject 19 ....ixf4, e.g. 20 bxa6 .id6 21 .ixb 7+ '.t'd7 22 .ic6+. 20 S:xb5 c6

Black must put up the shutters on the £3-b 7 diagonal but now the white rooks take over. 21 S:hb1

Refraining from defending the apawn with 5 a3 (also useful for dissuading but, as you probably noticed, not necessarily preventing ... .ib4+). Instead 5 'i'a4+ now is an inaccuracy compared to its employment on move

four as Black is not forced into 5... c6 (which would transpose into the games that come later). Although 5 ... li:ic6 6 li:if3 'l!V e4 7 l:l.a 1 e5 has previously been played and is a common theme for Black in these lines, certainly 6 ... 0-0-0 and the immediate 6... e5 are possible too.

21 ... Jl.xf4 22 S:xb7! Jl.c7 23 Jl.xc6 'ilkf8 24 Jl.d7 + 1-0

It is mate after 24 ... '.t'xd7 (24 ... l:1xd7 25 l:1b8) 25 'i'xc7+ '.t'e8 26 'l!Vc6+.

Quite instructive is the blatant bishop versus knight supremacy of 5 li:if3 li:ic6 6 e3 e5 7 li:ixe5 li:ixe5 8 dxe5 .ib4+ 9 .id2 .ixd2+ 10 'i'xd2 'i!Vxe5 11 .ie2 li:ie7 12 .if3 c6 13 0-0 'l!Vc7 14 J:l.fdl J:l.d815 'i'c3 0-0 16 J:l.d4 J:l.xd417 'i!Vxd4 c5 18 'i!Va4 b6 19 J:l.dl li:ig6 20 J:l.d7 'i'eS 21 'i!Vc2 a6 22 .ids 'i'e8 23 J:l.b7 'l!Vcs 24 J:1d7 'l!Ve8 25 l:l.a7 'i'dS 26 'i'e4, 65


which White went on to win in MishraRoy Chowdhury, Calcutta 1996. Black should investigate snatching that a~ pawn. 5 ... e6 Critical must be 5... 'lli'xa2, when one fascinating encounter between two strong players ran 6 ~d3 c6 7 1Zie2 'lli'a5+ 8 b4 'lli'c7 9 0-0 e6 10 e4 1Zif6 11 'iii'c2 li:ibd7 12 f4 ~e7 13 ~d2 g6 14 Whl 0-0 15 l:tb3 l:tac8 16 e5 li:ie8 17 f5 exf5 18 ~xf5 li:ig7 19 ~h3 .!lcd8 20 b5 li:ib6 21 l:tcl 1Zie6 22 ~xe6 fxe6 23 li:if4 .!lxf4 24 ~xf4 l:txd4 25 l:tfl c5 26 ~h6 'lli'xe5 27 'lli'f2 ~£6 28 l:te3 'iii'f5 29 l:tf3 11:idS 30 l:txf5 gxf5 31 'lli'e2 Wf7 32 'lli'hs+ We7 33 ~gs ~xgs 34 'lli'xgs+ Wd7 35 l:tel li:ie7 1-0 L.HansenChuchelov, Bad Worishofen 1992. This is a really tough one to assess. Black's later exchange sacrifice didn't seem to come off but for the earlier part of the game it wasn't clear just how much compensation White really had for the pawn. Certainly enough for some fun, but a pawn is a pawn! 6 a3 li:lt6 7 'ilkc2 c6 8 li:lt3 li:lbd7 9 i.c4

a French Fort Knox (i.e. 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 li:ic3 dxe4 4 1Zixe4 ~d7 5 1Zif3 ~c6 where Black soon concedes the lightsquared bishop for a knight and then hunkers down with the solid ... c7-c6) but the pawn structure is not the same. 9 ... 'ilka5+ Now reminiscent of a 'Centre Counter' (1 e4 d5), but again a key difference is that White has an e-pawn instead of a c-pawn. The way it is here, there is the option of pushing back Black with e3-e4 and perhaps e4-e5, whilst it is also easily breach the enemy queenside pawn structure with b4-b5. 10 i.d2 'ilkc7 110-096 Placing pawns on the opposite colour from his bishop but also creating holes. 12 e4 li:lb6 13 i.a2 i.g7 14 l:!.fe1 0-0

15 e5

Black's set up just looks a bit passive. He might kid himself that he is playing 66

Making the decision to get on with things on the kingside. The downside for White is that it gives away an outpost on d5, but only one black knight will be able to occupy it. 15 ... li:ltd5 16 'ilke4 The queen makes her way in the general direction of enemy monarch. One plan now would be 'iii'h4, ~h6 and 11:igS

The Baltic Defence: The Main Line

with mate on h 7 in mind. That would be defendable, though, and so a more controlled build up is the order of the day. 16 ... 'iil'd7 17 h4! White obviously intends 18 h5 to weaken Black's defensive pawn shield and possibly utilise the h-file. 17 ... hS 18 J:!bd1 {jje7

19 g4 Really going for it. The pawn on e5 remains a thorn throughout with Black naturally reluctant to want to advance his f-pawn. 19 ... hxg4 20 'iil'xg4 {jjbd5 21 h5 White's long-range bishops may rest on the other side of the board but they have a big influence on the kingside. 21 ... fS No doubt not fancying 21...gxhS 22 'iil'xh5, Black reacts how most humans would. Unfortunately, g6 and e6 become severe weaknesses. 22 exf6 J:!xf6 23 h6 i.hB 24 i.gS li:tS 25 i.b1 White certainly hadn't forgotten this bishop. The advantage of the bishop pair really shows in this game. 25 ... J:!f7 26 i.xe7 {jjxe7 27 {jjgS White torments his opponent further.

~

3 cxd5

He could have taken on g6 imme
Yes, he'd still not forgotten about this bishop. Painful! 30 ...llleB 31 d5 'iil'd6 32 dxc6 'iil'xc6 33 'iil'b4 l:!fS 34 {jjg7 + 1-0 It's mate on e7 next turn. A powerful attacking game from White.

Game 28 Miladinovic-Auth Kava/a 2001 1 d4 d5 2 c4 i.fS 3 cxd5 i.xb1 4

'iil'a4+


The theoretically recommended intermezzo. With the pawn on d5, White pretty much gains this as a free move and it's fair to say that the queen is useful on a4. For example, it defends the a2-pawn. 4 ... 'l!l'd7?! Not very ambitious. At no cost, White is given the bishop pair and a better centre. 5 'l!l'xd7+ li:lxd7 6 l:i:xb1 li:lgf6 7 ~d2 White was also better after the continuation 7 li:lf3 1Zlb6 8 e3 1Zlbxd5 9 a3 e6 10 .id3 .ie 7 11 e4 1Zlb6 12 0-0 0-0 13 il.e3 .!:tfd8 14 .!:tfc 1 c5 15 dxc5 .!lxd3 16 cxb6 axb6 17 l:f.c7, Inkiov-Trzaska, Recklinghausen 2000, but 7 £3 1Zlxd5 8 a3 e5! 9 e4 1Zl5f6 10 d5 .ic5 11 .ib5 a6 12 .ixd7+ @xd7 13 @e2 l:f.ac8 14 .ie3 .ixe3 15 @xe3 c6 16 dxc6+ l:f.xc6 17 1Zle2 '!z. '!, Rocabert Andreu-Gonzalez Manchon, Barcelona 2000 wasn't much to write home about. 7 ... li:lxd5 8 e4 1Zl5f6 9 f3 e6 Now 9 ... e5 10 dxe5! 1Zlxe5 11 .ic3 would be better for White. 10 b4 I find this game quite amusmg as White, who significantly outrates his opponent, appears to neglect his kingside development for long periods of the game. Still, it's clear that he has a plan on the kingside and creating a bind on the cS-square is just the start of his ambitions. 10 .. .li:lb6 11 a4 Like I said, there is no hanging around from White, who immediately continues his queenside assault. The apawn can't be taken because of 12 .ib5+. 68

11.. J1d8 12 a5 li:lbd7 13 J:tc 1 c6 14 a6 White is very determined and, it seems, only worried about his kingside pieces after he has positionally won on the queenside. 14 ... 12:lbS 15 axb7 J:txd4 16 b5 Now White's aim is that his b7-pawn will win him the day. 16 ... cs 17 l:ta1 The c-file has just been sealed off but the a-file provides an alternative entry point for the white rook. 17 ... ~e 7 18 e5 li:lfd7

19 1Zle2 Just when you might have expected 19 .ic3 or even 19 f4, out comes a kingside piece!


19 ... J:l:d5 20 f4 f6 21 exf6 .ixf6 22 J:l:xa7 0-0 23 li'lc1 li'lb6 24 J:l:a6 J:l:fd8 25 .ie3 J:l:d1 + 26 l!lf2 li'ld5 27 J:l:xe6 li'lxe3 28 .ic4!

compensation for his missing bishop pair.

5 dxc6 As it turns out, encouraging Black to

One does wonder whether White really needed to get involved in all these complications but the tactics do seem to hold up.

develop isn't that provocative. Nevertheless, 5 l:1xbl (see Game 31) is arguably a more measured response.

28 ... li'lxc4

An obvious recapture, although it's fair to say that more excitement is generated by 6... e5 (see the next game).

And not 28 ... J:lxh P? 29 l:1e8 mate. 29 J:l:xd 1 .id4+

5 ... li'lxc6 6 J:!.xb1 '!!l'xd4

After 29 ... J:lxdl 30 l:te8+ @fl 31 l:txb8 White is set to promote his pawn soon and 31....id4+ 32 @g3 only provide spite checks.

8 4Jf3 4Jc2+! 9 @d 1 4Jb4 10 .id2 e6 11 e3 a6 has previously been assessed as equal by Dautov and Shirov.

30 l!lf3 l!lt7 31 J:l:c6 J:l:d7

8 ... li'lc6

7 '!!l'xd4 li'lxd4 8 e3

31...4Jxc6 32 bxc6 leaves two awesome pawns. 32 Il.xd4 :S.xd4 33 1-0

.tea

li'ld7 34 :S.c 7

A new white gueen is inevitable.

Game29 Ricardi-Rausis Yerevan Olympiad 1996 1 d4 d5 2 c4 .if5 3 cxd5 .ixb1 4 '!!l'a4+ c6

More in the spirit of things. Black should go searching for some tactical

9 li'lf3

Of the alternatives, 9 b4!> looks as 69


though it might be the most testing. After 9 ... e6 10 a3 .id6 11 li:lf3 li:lf6 12 .ib2 We7 13 g3 l:Iac8 14 .ig2 l:Ihd8 15 We2 Black was quite compact but White had that lasting bishop pair advantage in Ehlvest-Rausis, Riga 1995. Instead 9 .ib5 l:IcS! (avoiding the slightly inferior 9 ... e6 10 .ixc6+ bxc6 11 li:lf3) 10 li:lf3 (or 10 .id2 a6 11 .ia4 b5 12 .idl e6 13 J:Ic1.id614 .if3 @d7 15 We2 li:lf6 '!,-'!, Kishnev-Svidler, Copenhagen 1991) 10... e6 transposes to our main game, while 9 .id2 l:IcS 10 l:Icl a6 11 li:lf3 e6 12 .ie2 .id6 '/,-'/2 Akesson-Rausis, Copenhagen 1995 was pretty tame stuff. 9 ... e6 Apparently dabbling with different ideas. The line 9 ... l:IcS 10 .id2 e6 11 .ib5 a6 12 .ixc6+ l:Ixc6 13 We2 .id6 14 l:Ihcl li:le7 15 l:Ixc6 li:lxc6 16 l:Icl Wd7 17 .ic3 ('/,. '/2 Oil-Rausis, Riga 1995) was evidently nothing for White, although presumably he doesn't have to go in for all that .ib5 stuff if it isn't going to result in isolating Black's queenside pawns. 10 Jl.b5 J:!c8 11 li:le5 li:lge 7 11....ib4+ 12 .id2 ..ltxd2+ 13 Wxd2 li:lge7 may seem tempting but 14 libel would also offer White a niggling advantage. 12 il.d2 No more pressure can be brought on c6 until the cl-square is cleared for the rooks. 12 ... a6 13 Jl.xc6+ li:lxc6 14 J:!c1 Jl.d6 14 ... li:la7 keeps Black's pawn structure intact but leaves his knight worse off and Black is slightly behind on deYelopment after 15 We2. 70

15 li:lxc6 J:!xc6 16 J:l:xc6 bxc6 17 @e2 @d7 18 Jl.c3

I don't feel the need to study the ensuing endgame in too much detail. Suffice to say that although it's clear that White's structural advantage provides him with a slight edge, Rausis, for one, obviously believes that such endings are manageable for Black. Frankly, it's not much fun to defend and I know some players that would enjoy handling the white pieces. 18 ... eS 19 14 exl4 20 exl4 Jl.xl4 21 @13 Jl.h6 22 J:!d 1 + @e6 23 J:!e 1 + @d7 24 !l:d 1 + @e6 25 il.b4! !l:b8 26 Jl.a3 !l:c8 27 J:l:d6+ @e5 28 !l:d7 15 29 .!l:e7+ @d5 30 .!l:17 @e5 31 .!l:e7+ @d5 32 li:t7 @e5 33 Jl.b4! @e6 34 !l:a7 Jl.c1 35 Jl.c3 g5 36 J:xh7 g4+ 37 @e2 Jl.14 38 h3 gxh3 39 J:l:xh3 !l:g8 40 @13 J:l:g4 41 J:l:h8 Jl.d6 42 J:l:a8 J:a4 43 a3 @d5 44 J:d8 J:l:f4+ 45 @e2 !l:e4+ 46 @13 l:t/4+ 4 7 @e2 J:l:e4+ 48 @f3 Y, -Y,

Game30 Y .Zimmerman-B. Kovacevic

Oberwart 2000 1 d4 d5 2 c4 JI.IS 3 cxd5 Jl.xb1 4


'i'a4+ c6 5 dxc6 li:lxc6 6 l:l'.xb1 e5!?

8...12ixd4 9 e3 12ic6 10 .ltb5 .ltd6 wa, not the point behind 6 ... e5!? and, whilst we've seen the likes of 11 .ltxc6+ bxc6 12 12if3 before, White was successful in converting his edge in another way: 11 lt:if3 12\ge7 12 @e2 a6 13 .lta4 0-0 14 l2ig5 b5 15 .ltb3 as 16 a3 .l:tad8 17 .l:thdl a4 18 .lta2 b4 19 .ltxb4 l2ixb4 20 axb4 h6 21 12if3 e4 22 lt:id2 .ltxb4 23 12ixe4 and the pawn advantage told in Moiseenko-Reprintsev, Alushta 1999. 9 g3

7 i.d2 As 7 dxe5'' .ltb4+ would confirm, Black wasn't exactly offering a pawn sacrifice. White is wise to want to cover the b4-square!

7 ... 'i'xd4 The main difference between this and the last game is that Black has the option of recapturing on d4 with a pawn. Played immediately though, White appears to get some edge via 7 ... exd4 8 g3 'l!l'd5 9 12if3 12if6 10 .ltg2 .lte7 11 0-0 0-0 12 l:l:fcl. Indeed, the 12...12ie4 13 ~el 12ic5 14 'l!i'dl .l:tab8 15 e3 'l!l'xa2 16 b4 12ie4 17 12ixd4 12ixd4 18 'l!l'xd4 lt:id6 19 .ltd5 'l!l'a6 20 'l!l'g4 .ltf6 21 b5 'l!l'b6 22 'l!l'a4 l:l:fc8 23 .l:tdl 'l!l'c5 24 ~b4 'l!l'xb5 25 'l!l'a2 12ic4 26 .ltd6 12ixd6 27 .l:txb5 12ixb5 28 ~xf7+ @h8 29 .l:td7 .l:td8 30 'l!l'd5 l:l:xd7 31 'l!l'xd7 a6 32 .ltd5 12ic3 33 .ltxb7 aS 34 'l!l'c7 .l:td8 35 'l!l'xa5 h6 36 'lil'f5 l:l:dl+ 37 @g2 .l:td2 38 .ltf3 12\dl 39 .ltxdl .l:txdl 40 e4 .!:tel 1-0 of Zakurdjaeva-Karlovich, Patras 2001 was quite convincing. The dominance of White's light-squared bishop seems even more accentuated with the queens on.

8 'i'xd4 exd4

9 ... .ltc5 If the significant white advantage obtained after 9 ... .ltb4 10 .ltg2 .ltxd2+ 11 @xd2 12if6 12 lt:ih3 .l:td8 13 .!:the I .l:td6 14 b4 a6 15 b5 12id8 16 12if4 0-0 17 bxa6 bxa6 18 .l:tc8 g5 19 lt:id3 lt:ie6 20 .l:tbb8 @g7 21 l:l:xf8 12ixf8 22 l:l:b7 lt:i8d7 23 .l:tc 7 12id5 24 .ltxd5 .l:txdS 25 lt:ib4 in K.ruppa-Eliet, Cappelle La Grande 2000 is anything to go by, then it looks as though preserving the darksquared bishops, as in the text, is a better route to take. It is an interesting clash of general principles. On one hand it is logical to break up the white bishop pairing but, on the other, the more pieces traded, the weaker the isolated pawn becomes. 71


10 ig2 i.b6 11 J:!c1 li:lge7 12 li:lf3 0-0 13 0-0 l:Ife8 The position resembles a QGD Tarrasch, where pressurising the e2-pawn is also a sensible plan. 14 l:Ifd1 J:Iad8

Implementing a standard policy of overprotecting. White now embarks on a typical manoeuvre that is well rebuffed by a neat tactic. There might be some mileage in 15 b4 instead but this creates weak squares too and Black's position remains solid.

15 li:le1 li:ld5 16 @f1 li:le5! Black's knights could hardly be better placed and there is still no entry into Black's position along the c-file. 17 li:ld3 li:lxd3 18 exd3 li:le3+ !

72

19 fxe3 dxe3 20 ixe3 The pawn had to be removed in view of ... e2+. 20 ... ixe3 21 l:l:c 7 l:Id6 21...bS was possible but Black goes for active defence. The rook looks to swing over to the f-file. 22 if3 g6 23 d4 If 23 l:txb7, then 23 ... ilb6 paves the way for ... l:te3. Black's 22 ... g6 means that, with ... f7-f5 available, White can't simply block with 1..e4. 23 ... ixd4 24 J:Ixb 7 l:ted8 And in this opposite coloured bishop endgame, a draw is always likely. 25 l:Ib3 ib6 26 l:Ixd6 l:Ixd6 27 @e2 h5 28 l:Id3 l:Ixd3 29 @xd3 ig1 30 h3 f5 31 @e2 @f7 32 id5+ @f6 33 @f3 id4 34 b3 ic3 35 h4 ib4 36 a4 a5 37 ic4 id6 38 ib5 @f7 39 ic6 @e7 40 @f2 f4 41 gxf4 ixf4 42 li,f3 id6 43 ib5 @16 Y, - Y,

Game31

Lagunow-Hohelj Munster 1993 1 d4 d5 2 c4 if5 3 cxd5 ixb1 4 '1Wa4+ c6 5 l:Ixb1 'i'xd5 6 li:lf3 Having studied the various lines and transpositions, I'm still confused in this system. Hence rather than distinguishing between, say, li:lf3 and e2-e3, I've opted to separate the next few games on whether White ultimately opts for the cautious a2-a3 or the aggressive b2b4. This game generally deals with the former but I'd like to take this opportunity to mention another idea: 6 e3 li:ld7 7 i..d2 (For the time being we have neither of the queenside pawn lunges just mentioned. As our main game generally


deals with the a3 variety, another fascinating encounter between two strong

players saw 7 a3 'li' e4 8 J:l.a 1 e5 9 i'i:lf3 i'i:lc5 10 'li'c4 exd4 11 b4 i'i:le6 12 .lll.d3 'li'g4 13 0-0 .lll.d6 14 exd4 i'i:le7 15 J:l.el i'i:lf4 16 .lll.xf4 'li'xf4 17 J:l.e4 'li'f6 18 i'i:le5 l:td8 19 g3 0-0 20 J:l.ae 1 i'i:ld5 21 b5 .lll.xe5 22 dxe5 'li'f3 'li-\11 RuzeleMiladinovic, Istanbul Olympiad 2000) 7... i'i:lgf6 8 f3 i'i:lb6 9 'li'b3 'li'xb3 10 axb3. As usual, Whire has the bishop pair but rhe doubled isolated b-pawns don't look that clever. I think that after 10... e6 11 i'i:le2 .lll.e7 12 i'i:lc3 0-0 13 .lll.d3 c5 14 dxc5 .lll.xc5 15 We2 i'i:lbd5 the position was close to equal in Narciso Dublan-Ferron Garcia, Martinenc 2001. 6 .. .tbd1 Ill-advised is the 6... i'i:lf6 7 a3 'li'a2 8 'li'c2 e6 9 i'i:ld2 .lll.xa3» 10 'li'a4 1-0 of Gheorghiu-Elstner, Crans Montana 2000. 7 a3

7 .. .1Zlgf6 We have seen the theme 7... 'li'e4 8 J:l.al e5 before. It doesn't look that great but after 9 'li'b3 exd4, White should rake on b7 rather than indulge in 10 'li'xf7+>! Wxf7 11 i'i:lg5+ Wg6 12 i'i:lxe4

as 12... J:l.e8 then leaves Black with the better pieces. 8 e3 'l!Vf5! Side-stepping .lll.c4, Black ploughs ahead with the idea of a central break. One of my own games saw Black settle for a space disadvantage and my opponent suffered for his decision: 8 ... g6?! 9 'li'c2 i'i:lb6 10 .lll.e2 .lll.g7 11 0-0 0-0 12 i'i:le5 J:l.ac8 13 b4 l:tfd8 14 a4 e6 15 a5 i'i:lbd7 16 i'i:lc4 i'i:le8> 17 e4 1-0 WardHorta, Las Palmas 1993. Yes, the black queen is in dire trouble. 9 J:ia1 e5 10 .ll.e2 10 dxe5 i'i:lxe5 11 i'i:lxe5 'li'xe5 would leave the black queen in a dominant posmon. 10 ... e4 111Zld21Zlb6 12 'l!Vc2 It should be observed that this natural retreat sets up a pin on the e4-pawn and hence threatens 13 .lll.f3. 12 ... 'li!'g6

So we reach a critical point in the game. As Black is missing his lightsquared bishop, White may be able to get away with 13 0-0. However, it's clear that Black could drum up some sort of attack. Presumably 13 ... .lll.d6 would follow and then Black himself would have to choose between ... 0-0 or a similar

73


pawn lunge (... h7-h5 with ...lllg4 ideas). 13 g4 White doesn't like the idea of castling into an attack and so he defends the pawn by advancing it. Note that 13 .. .''llxg4> falls foul of 14 l:l:gl hS 15 h3. 13 ... 0-0-0!? 14 h4 lt:ixg4 15 h5 'iii'f5 16 lt:ixe4

The position is a bit of a mess. White threatens 17 li:ld6+ and, in preventing that, Black lines up 17 ... li:lxf2. 16 ... @b8 17 l:th4 lt:ih6 18 .lld2 :1e7 19 l:th1 lt:ig4 20 $..d3? Conceding a rather large square that Black is now happy to exploit. Again White was facing 20 ... li:lxf2 but preferable was 20 J:l:cl. White would then have the nice centre and the two bishops but the black monarch would be the more comfortable of the two. 20 ... 'iii'f3 21 .l:tg1 21 l:l:fl would have been dealt the same treatment, i.e. 21...~h4 when castling long is illegal and 22 1..e2 walks into 22 ... /Zlxe3!. 21 .. .:1h4 22 l:txg4 The f-pawn was pinned, meaning that the e3-pawn was equally targeted. Hence White 'sacrifices' the exchange 74

but his opponent retains the initiative anyhow. 22 ... 'i!i'xg4 23 'iii'd1 'iii'g1 + 24 @e2 'i!i'g4+ 25 @f1 '1Wh3+ 26 @g1 l:td5 Threatening ... l:l:xhS as the rook would be indirectly defended there by ... 1..xf2+. 27 .lle2 f5 27 ... 1..xf2+ would have been more visual, e.g. 28 ,l;,xf2 (or 28 li:lxf2 'i'g3+ 29 ,i;,f] l:tf5 30 'i'el 'i'h3+ 31 @gl l:l:g5+) 28 ... 'i'h2+ 29 ,l;,el 'i'hl+ 30 ,i;,[2 'i'xe4. 28 lt:ic3 f4! Harbouring a very nice idea. 29 lt:ixd5

29 ... $..g3! And that's it. Now mate is forced. 30 fxg3 fxg3 31 'iii'e1 1Wh2+ 32 @f1 'l!t'h1 mate.

Game32 Ward-Shaw Oakham 1994 1 d4 d5 2 c4 $..f5 3 cxd5 :1xb1 4 'i!i'a4+ c6 5 l:txb 1 'i!i'xd5 6 e3 After 6 li:lf3 li:ld7 7 b4 e6, an alternative way to develop the king's bishop is via 8 g3. Although nice in theory, in


practice Black can take up the initiative if he acts quickly. Candidates include 8... 'll!'e4 and 8 ... e5 (yes, even though ir has only just moved!), whilst 8 ... a51? 9 a3 'Llb6 10 'll!'c2 axb4 11 axb4 .l:ta2 12 'll!'d3 'Llf6 13 .Ylg2 'll!'e4 14 0-0 'll!'xd3 15 exd3 'Llfd5 also recently left Black on top in Efimov-Organdziev, European Ch., Ohrid 2001.

23 'll!'a4 'Llxf4 24 'll!'aS 'll!'b 7 25 :i::t:a 1 !li..xb4 26 ii'xd8+ 1-0 lgney-Nachrkamp, Seefeld 1997. Similarly 8... a6 9 'll!'c2 e6 10 .Yle2 !ii..e7 11 0-0 0-0 12 'Lld2 .l:tfc8 13 !ii..f3 'll!'d6 14 'Llc4 'll!'b8 should nor really be what Black is looking for although at least here there is no imminent material loss (Noonan-McDonnell, Irish Ch., 1991).

6 .. .li:ld7 7 b4 li:lgf6 8 li:lf3

9 'lll'c2 a5

Effectively, in this system White has chosen the immediate b2-b4 over the slower a2-a3. This could be a weakness if Black, say, manages a timely ... a7-a5, bur arguably the positive attributes outweigh this deficit. The option is there ro strike at Black's queenside pawn structure with b4-b5 and the white rook no longer feels so exposed to the likes of ... 'll!'e4 or ... 'll!'fS. 8 ... e6 My view of this system is that Black can't really afford to remain passive. An excellent demonstration of how his solid-looking position can easily be broken down is: 8 ... 'Llb6 9 'll!'c2 e6 10 .Yld3 !li..e7 11 0-0 h6 12 a4 0-0 13 aS 'Llc8 14 e4 'll!'d8 15 a6! bxa6 16 'll!'xc6 .l:tb8 17 'll!'a4 ii'b6 18 !ii..f4 .l:tb 7 19 !li..xa6 :i::t:d7 20 .YlxcS .l:txc8 21 eS 'LldS 22 'll!'xd7 :i::t:dS

Along the same lines is 9 ... !ii..e7 10 !ii..d3. Then we have: a) 10... 0-0 leads to a simple advantage for White after 11 e4 (or 11 0-0 .l:tfd8 12 e4 'll!'hS 13 h3 eS 14 dxeS 'LlxeS 15 'LlxeS ii'xeS 16 !ii..e3 ii'e6 17 f4 g6 18 .l:tf3 bS 19 !ii..d2 'Lld7 20 e5 aS 21 fS 'll!'xeS 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 .Ylxg6! and White's attack crashed through in Shulman-Mezentsev, San Francisco 2000) 11...ii'hS 12 h3 eS 13 bS (the 13 .l:tgl!? .li:ad8 14 g4! 'll!'xh3 15 :i::t:g3 ii'hl+ 16 <;i;,e2 'Llxg4 17 !li..gS 1-0 of Berezovsky-Bex, Geneva 1995 should also clearly be a consideration) 13 ... cS 14 dxeS 'Llxe5 15 'Llxe5 'll!'xe5 16 !ii..b2, as the bishops rule the day and a kingside pawn expansion is on the agenda (Prudnikova-Ruchieva, Tivat 1995). b) 10 ... aS 11 e4 'll!'hS 12 a3 axb4 13 axb4 0-0 14 0-0 h6 when Black is still on the map, Shneider-Karlovich, Alushta 2000. Black's bishop looks vulnerable travelling too far afield and after 9 ... .Yld6 10 !ii..e2 (10 !ii..d3 'll!'hS 11 e4 e5 12 bS cS 13 dxeS 'LlxeS 14 'LlxeS 'll!'xeS 15 f4 'll!'e7 16 0-0 .Ylc7 17 eS 'LldS 18 .Yle4 was good for White in S.Webb-Bonner, Ayr 1978) 10... 0-0 11 0-0 eS 12 !li..c4 'll!'e4 13 !ii..d3 'll!'dS 14 e4 'll!'e6 15 'LlgS 'll!'e7 16 f4! White had a very powerful position 75


that was neatly converted: 16 ... .ltxb4 17 fxeS lt:lg4 18 'li'b3 12:idxeS 19 dxeS .ltcS+ 20 @hl 'llfxeS 21 .ltf4 'li'd4 22 .ltg3 l:l:ad8 23 l:l:xfl 'lifxd3 24 l:l:xf8+ 1-0 Saidy-Cripe, Philadelphia 1995. 10 .ic4 'lii'e4 11 .id3 The 11 'li'xe4 lt:lxe4 12 bxaS 12:idG 13 .ltb3 l:l:xaS 1/z- 1/ , of Flear-Rausis, Hyeres 1992 is somewhat of a wimp-our. 11 ... 'lii'g4 12 0-0 axb4 12 ... .ltxb4' 13 a3 would see rhe b7pawn drop and the last thing Black wants to see is a white rook on his second rank. 13 .id2 li:ld5 Black doesn't want to give up his extra b-pawn without a fight as then rhe half-open b-file would become too important. 14 h3 'iif'h5 15 e4 li:lc3 16 .ixc3 bxc3

17 e5 17 l:txb7 also doesn't look bad but the text cuts off the black queen from the queenside. 1 7 ... l:l:b8 18 l:l:b3 The c3-pawn isn't going anywhere and so White keeps his queen (i.e. my queen in this particular instance!) where it is for the moment, in favour of pre76

panng a powerful doubling of the rooks .

18 ... g5 Black attempts to make a go of things as 18... .lte7 19 J:ifbl bG 20 'llfxc3 is just unpleasant. 19 l:l:fb1 g4 20 hxg4 '1Wxg4 21 .ie4 l:l:98 22 li:lh2 'i!f'g5 23 'iif'xc3 Finally the wayward pawn is taken. Black's only threat (the mate on g2) has been prevented and soon it will be the black king that enters fatally into the firing line. 23 ... 15 24 exf6 .id6 25 'i!f'h3 'lii'xf6 26 l:l:xb7 l:l:xb7 27 .!hb7 .ixh2+ 28 'lii'xh2 'lii'xd4

29 'i!f'h5+ Wd8 30 .ixc6 l:l:g7 31 'iii'a5+ 1-0

The Ba/t;c Defence: The Ma;n L;ne - 3 cxd5

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . (remember the b-pawn is pinned and :-o Game 33 White must avoid 10 l:!.bV> li:lc5 Sadler-Condie 10 ... 'i!VxeS 11 .ie2 li::lb6 12 'i!Vb3 .il.d6 13 .il.b2 'i!Ve7, where White held a small British Ch., Swansea 1995

' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - advantage in Molander-Laato, Finnish 1 d4 dS 2 c4 ii.ts 3 cxdS il.xb1 4 Team Ch., 1997. 'i!Va4+ c6 S l:txb1 'ilVxdS 6 li:lf3 li:lf6 7 e3 li:lbd7 8 b4 es

10 li:lxeS 'ilVxeS 11 bS!

11 ... J;!d8

Opening up the position for the white bishop pair is always going to be a risky decision) but this is the only serious alternative to the comparative passivity of the lines given in the previous game. 9 dxeS

Matthew Sadler has always been a tremendous theoretician and I implicitly trust his view that this is more precise than 9 'l!Vc2 exd4 (9 ... e4 10 li:ld2 li::lb6 might also be possible although I suspect that eventually Black will find himself missing his light-squared bishop) 10 .ic4 'i!Vh5 11 exd4 .il.d6 12 'iiVe2+ Wf8 13 0-0 l:!.e8 14 'iiV c2 li:lb6, which didn't look too bad for Black in Coret Frasquet-Trobat, Spain 1993. 9 ... li:lxeS

In view of the strength of 11 b5 in a couple of moves time, there is something to be said for 9 ... 'i!Ve4!' 10 li::ld2

Sadler plays moves in this game that most players would be frightened to even contemplate. No doubt after 1 L.li::le4 he intended 12 bxc6!, as 12 ... 'i!Vc3+ 13 We2 leaves Black with nothing other than an inferior ending via 13 ... 'i!Vxc6 14 'i!Vxc6+ bxc6. 12 il.e2

A calm move from a player who can calculate so well. That said, things also turned out nicely after 12 .i<.c4 'iiV c3+ 13 We2 li::le4 (13 ... a6 14 bxa6 b5 15 l:!.xb5 cxb5 16 .il.xb5+, with 17 a7 to follow, also looks good) 14 .il.xf7+ Wxf7 15 'i!Vxe4, for example 15 ... .i<.e7 16 bxc6 bxc6 17 J:!.b 7 l:!.he8 18 l:!.xa 7 Wg8 19 'i!Ve6+ Wf8 20 'i!Vb3 and Black has no compensation for the two-pawn deficit, S.Liiffler-Liebau, Germany 1993. 12 ... il.d6

12... 'i!Vc3+ 13 Wfl still leaves Black with a problem to solve on c6. 77


13 bxc6 0-0 14 cxb7 il.b8 15 il.b2 'lii'fS 16 0-0 12ie4 17 Ii:bd1 li:ld2 18 Ii:fe1 The English grandmaster is such a cool customer. He isn't remotely phased by the troublesome knight or any other attacking possibilities for Black. 18 ... hS 19 .lfl.a3 li:le4 20 .lfl.f3 li:lgS 21 .lfl.xf8 li:lxf3+ 22 gxf3 'lii'h3

23 il.d6! I'm sure Black was hoping for 23 £4, when he could kick off a perpetual check sequence with 23 ... 'l!ll'g4+. The text, though, is a nice move with which to wrap things up. Black is running out of steam as White continues to accumulate pieces. 23 ... Ii:xd6 24 'lii'e8+ @h7 25 'lii'xb8 1-0 Cute. After 25 ... l;Ig6+ the white queen covers on g3 and prepares to be reincarnated on b8.

Game 34 Lamprecht-Polyakova Pardubice 1998 1 d4 dS 2 c4 .lfl.fS 3 cxdS .lfl.xb1 4 'lii'a4+ c6 5 Ii:xb1 'lii'xdS 6 f3 This is certainly a logical way to play

78

as it makes perfect sense for White to want to make something of his extra central pawn. The question is whether or not Black can make him suffer for preferring pawn to piece moves.

6 ... eS Taking a look at some other suggestions: a) 6 ...li::lf6 7 e4 when 7 ...li::lxe4' is foiled by 8 .ltc4! 'l!li'fS 9 fxe4 'l!ll'xe4+ 10 li::le2 'l!ll'xbl (or 10 ... bS 11 'l!ll'b3 bxc4 12 'l!ll'b7) 11 'l!ll'b3 li::ld7 (or 11...bS 12 .ltd3 'l!ll'al 13 0-0 when not only is f7 attacked, but the black queen is doomed) 12 .ltd3 'l!ll'al 13 0-0. In exchange for the trapped queen and a substantial lead in development, White is down just by the exchange. The more sober 7 ... 'l!li'd8 8 .lte3 e6 9 li::le2 li::lbd7 10 li::lc3 is just a comfortable edge to White. b) With some reason it has been claimed that 6 ... fS is a little suspicious in view of 7 e4 fxe4 8 .ltc4 bS 9 .ltxdS bxa4 10 .ltxe4. True, but clearly 8 ... 'l!li'fS puts up better resistance. c) The anti-positional 6 ... bS doesn't win a real pawn because of 7 e4! 'l!li'd8 (7 ... bxa4 8 exdS cxdS 9 .ltbS+ li::ld7 10 li::le2 will probably see the bishops weaving their magic again) 8 'l!li'dl, when


8... e6 9 a3 is another safe edge. d) Finally 6 .. .'Lld7 7 e4 isn't a million miles from our main game. 7 dxe5

15 ~e2 0-0 16 'Df2 Jtb6 17 0-0 .li:fe8 18 1/;;>h 1 'DhS 19 li:lh3 'Dhf6 finally left White with a good position in Lamprecht-Ehrke, Germany 2000, but it was all a bit unclear earlier on. 10 'l!i'b3 .ic5 11 li:lf2 'l!i'e7 12 .lli.e2 .tb4+ 13 l/;>f1li:lf614 g3

If White can get his king into safety and complete his development, then his bishop pair and extra centre pawn will put him in good stead. Achieving that, though, reguires a bit of ducking and diving. 14 ... 0-0-0 15 l/;>g2 li:lfd7 16 a3 .lli.d6 17 'l!i'c2 h5 A natural enough move that sets

1 . ..tud1 Though this is accompanied by the sneaky threat of 8 ... ~b4+ 9 'llixb4 "i!l'xa2, it might not be best. The immediate 7... "iil'xeS would transpose after 8 e4 'Dd7 (does Black have anything better?), but 8 'Dh3 (or 8 ~f4 'llifS 9 .li:dl 'Da6 10 e3 'DcS 11 "iil'c4 'De6 12 ~d3 'I/Vas+ 13 l/;;>f2 'Dxf4 14 'llixf4 '/2-'/2 Czerwonski-lvannikov Frydek Mistek 1996) 8 ... 'Da6 9 Jtf4 'llie6 10 a3 'Dc5 11 'Iii c2 .li:d8 12 e3 ~d6 13 Jtc4 'Iii e7 looks okay for Black, while 7... 'Da6!? 8 a3 'DcS 9 'llic2 0-0-0 (or just 9... 'llixeS) is also interesting.

Black on an attacking road himself. Black soon gets carried away. though, seemingly losing his sense of danger. 18 a4 a5 19 il.d2 .lli.b4 20 .lli.f4 g5??

8 e4 'l!i'xe5 9 1Zlh3

9 Jtd2 Jtc5 (or 9... li:lb6 10 'llib3 .li:d8 11 ~c3 'lligS with similar confusion) 10 ~c3 'lligS 11 'Dh3 'llie3+ 12 Jte2 'Dgf6 13 .li:dl is an alternative way to play. Still, the c5-gl diagonal remams an annoyance for White. 9 ... li:lb6

9 ... ~cS 10 Jtf4 "iil'e7 11 b4 Jtd4 12 .li:d 1 Jtc3+ 13 ~d2 Jtd4 14 'i'b3 'Dgf6

A complete disaster. Both 20 ... 'DcS and 20 .. .'LleS would kept Black well in the game. 21 'l!i'xc6+!! 1-0

Oops! 22 ~a6 mate follows. You're probably sick of me going on about the two bishops throughout this chapter. Well, this just about sums up what they are capable of.

79


Summary

I originally believed that the acid test for Black in this system were Games 33 and 34, and my view has only been altered in that Games 26 and 27 appear to pose problems too. Hence 4 'i'a4+ is far from forced although if employed and correctly met by 4 ... cG, the simple 5 l:l:xb I looks like a better attempt at an advantage for White than 5 dxcG. With the latter move, Black is definitely able to generate play. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 ..ttS 3 cxdS ..txb1 (DJ 4 'ili'a4+

4 l:l:xb 1 'i'xd5 5 a3 - Game 26 5 e3 - Game 27

4 ... c6 5... °i'd7 - Game 28 5 l:i:xb1

5 dxcG lt:ixcG 6 l:l:xb I (DJ 6 ... 'i'xd4 - Game 29 6 ... e5 - Game 30 5 ... 'IWxdS 6 e3 6 f3 - Game 34

6 lt:if3 lt:id7 7 a3 - Game 31 6 ... 12id7 7 12113 <'219!6 8 b4 /DJ es 8 ... eG - Game 32 9 dxeS - Game 33

3 ... ..txb 1

80

6 '!1.xb1

8 b4

I CHAPTER FIVE

I

The Baltic Defence: 3 'iVb3 and 3 lt:lc3 e6 4 'iVb3

1 d4 d5 2 c4 if5 3 'l!i'b3 or 1 d4 d5 2 c4 if5 3 li:ic3 e6 4 1!i'b3 The first three games of this chapter, kicking off with possibly my most humiliating ever encounter, are easily distinguishable. The rest deal with the move order 3 li:lc3 e6 4 'lil'b3. Played this way, White pretty much forces 4 ... li:lc6 although Black may have favoured this move even if he had time to play ... c7-c6 instead. My point is that there are several transpositions available from and to the next chapter. Yes, in Chapter Six you'll be likely to see 'lil'b3 inserted if Black adopts an ... e 7 -e6 and ... c7-c6 policy and even though those games have li:lf3 included on either move two or three, both li:lc3 and 'lil'b3 could conceivably come at a later stage. Getting to the nitty-gritty, although you won't miss anything if you play over the material in these two chapters, the position after 1 d4 dS 2 c4 .¥l.f5 3 li:lc3 e6 4 'lil'b3 li:lc6 5 cxdS exdS 6 li:lf3 (which can be reached via a number of different move orders), for example, is covered here.

Game35 Ward-Rausis LJ Touquet 1992 1 d4 d5 2 c4 if5 3 'l!i'b3 Just like 3 cxdS, this is a very principled move. In the QGD, for example, we are told that 1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 li:lc3 li:lf6 4 cxdS exdS 5 il.gS .¥l.e7 6 e3 .¥l.f5? is best punished by 7 'lil'b3. The b 7pawn is the problem whenever Black's light-squared bishop vacates its home and the text move looks just the ticket as it also pressurises dS. However, you will see that this is far from the end of the story. 3 ... e5! Black is not interested in defending his pawns and plays actively in order to try and punish White for bringing his queen out so early. 3 ... dxc4?! 4 'lil'xb 7! shouldn't even be contemplated; instead we reach an Albin Counter Gambit with two other pieces 'developed'. Theoretically this should favour Black and, overall, perhaps it does. In practice, how-

87


e\·er, there are pawns up for grabs! 4 cxd5 The safest looking of the three possibilities covered in this chapter but, in truth, it's really difficult to tell whether it's the best. 4 ... exd4 5 lbt3 As a way to avoid complications, 5 e3 has been successfully tried, although 5... lt'ld7 (there is also some compensation for the pawn after 5 .. ,lt'lf6 6 't!!Vxb7 't!!Vxd5 7 .ib5+ .id7 8 .ixd7+ lt'lbxd7 9 't!!Vxd5 lt'lxd5 10 exd4 lt'lb4 11 lt'la3 l:ibS) 6 exd4 't!!Ve7+!? 7 lt'le2 (upon either 7 .ie2 or .ie3, 7 ... 1..xbl 8 l:ixbl 't!!Vb4+ also looks like a reasonable way to simplify and ultimately round up the d5pawn) 7 ... 1..xbl 8 l:ixbl 't!!Vb4+ 9 't!!Vxb4 .ixb4+ 10 lt'lc3 lt'lgf6 11 a3 .id6P should be okay for Black, whilst 11 .ic4 0-0-0 leaves Black well set to regain his pawn via ... lt'lb6, Note that if 12 d6 .ixd6 13 .ixf7, then Black gets excellent play from 13 .. ,l:ihfS 14 .ib3 lt'lg4 15 f3 l:ideS+ 16 lt>fl (or 16 lt'le2, when each of 16 ... .ib4+, 16 .. ,lt'le3 and even 16 .. ,lt'lxh2 cause White some problems) 16 ... lt'lxh2+ 17 lt>f2 (and not 17 lt>gP' l:iel+) 17 ... lt'lg4. 5 ... il.c5 Around the time that I played this game, the only theoretical line I knew of was S....ie4 (?!) 6 lt'lxd4 .ixd5 7 't!!Ve3+L Indeed, even recently this has cropped up, justifying the assessment of better for White: 7 ... 't!!Ve7 8 lt'lc3 't!!Vxe3 (no improvement is S.. ,lt'lf6 9 't!!Vxe7+ .ixe7 as all of 10 .igS, 10 .if4 and 10 lt'lf5 look attractive) 9 .ixe3 .ib4 10 0-0-0 .ixc3 11 lt'lb5 .ia5 12 l:ixd5 lt'lc6 13 lt'ld4 .ib6 14 lt'lxc6 .ixe3+ 15 fxe3 bxc6 16 l:ia5 0-0-0 17 l:ixa7 @b8 18 82

l:ia3 lt'le7 19 g3 l:id6 20 .ig2 l:ihd8 21 l:ib3+ Wa7 22 l:ifl g5 23 l:ixf7 l:idl+ 24 Wc2 l:iSd2+ 25 lt>c3 l:id7 26 @c4 h5 27 @c5 1-0 Barsov-Badjarani, Abu Dhabi 2001. 6 lbxd4 Another queen move here doesn't inspire: 6 't!!Vc4 lt'ld7 (it's also worth paying attention to Igor's 6... 't!!Ve7 7 lt'lxd4 .ixb 1 8 l:ixb 1 't!!V e4, for example 9 'ii'xc5 'ii'xbl 10 e3 lt'ld7 11 .ib5 0-0-0 12 .ixd7+ l:ixd7 13 0-0 't!!Vxa2 14 't!!VfS+ l:idS 15 't!!Vxg7 lt'le7 16 e4 't!!Va4 17 .ie3 't!!VeS 18 l:icl, although this looked good for White in Genovese-Rausis, Cattolica 1994) 7 lt'lxd4 'li'h4 8 .ie3 (or 8 e3 .ixd4 9 't!!Vxd4 't!!Vxd4 10 exd4 lt'lgf6 11 lt'lc3 lt'lb6 12 d6 cxd6 V2-'/, HracekBagirov, Brno 1991) 8 ... 1..xbl 9 l:ixbl lt'lgf6 10 l:icl 0-0, when White was struggling to complete his development on the kingside (Dyachkov-Rowson, Halle 1995). Again the innocuous 6 e3 has been tried but unless after 6 ... dxe3 7 .ixe3 lt'ld7 8 .ixcS lt'lxc5 9 't!!Vb5+ lt'ld7 or 7 ... .ixe3 8 fxe3 lt'ld7 he is prepared to risk taking on b 7 with his queen, he can't really claim to have anything. 6 ... il.xd4 7 'l!Va4+

The Baltic Defence: 3 'iilb3 and 3 li:lc3 e6 4 'iilb3

This was what was indirectly protecting the knight. With the first player's potential for a big centre, if Black just plays casually now, you could easily imagine White soon having a dream position. However, that's irrelevant as that is certainly not the style in which he continues. 7 .. .li:ic6! 8 dxc6 b5 In for a penny, in for a pound! 9 'li'xb5?! After this somewhat embarrassing game, I virtually wrote 3 'ii'b3 off. I was annoyed because it wasn't the sort of move that I would have made if I hadn't 'known' that it was theoretically recommended. However, although I would surprise myself if I ever dabbled in this variation again, in fact it could well be playable, provided White isn't so greedy as to take this pawn. Indeed, far shrewder is 9 'ii'b3! fi:ie7 10 e3 .lil.f6 11 .lil.d2 0-0 12 .lil.c3. However, although White was better after both 12 ... fi:ixc6 13 .lil.xb5 l:l.bS 14 'li'a4 .lil.d3 15 .lil.xf6 .lil.xb5 16 .lil.xdS .lil.xa4 17 .lil.xc7 l:l.xb2 18 fi:ic3 .lil.c2 19 0-0 (NovikovWesterinen, Benasque 1996) and 12... 'iii'd6 13 .lil.e2 fi:ixc6 14 0-0 b4 15 .lil.xf6 'iii'xf6 16 fi:id2 fi:ieS 17 l:l.fcl J:!.fdS JS fi:if3 .lil.e4 19 fi:ixe5 'iii'xe5 20 'ii'xb4 l:l.ab8 21 l:l.d1 l:l.e8 22 'ii'c3 'ii'xc3 23 bxc3 l:l.e5 24 l:l.d4 (Novikov-Lalic. Manila Olympiad 1992), I would certainly issue a warning. White is behind on development and I also wouldn't rule out any surplus home preparation involving a sacrifice somewhere here. 9 ... li:ie7 10 e3 I was shocked to discover that 10 fi:ic3 0-0 11 e3 l:l.bS had been played before, with White going on to win af-

ter 12 'iii' c4 .lil.e5 13 .lil.e2 l:l.b6 14 0-0 l:l.xc6 15 'iii' a4 l:l.g6 16 f4 .lil.xc3 17 bxc3 fi:id5 18 '!i'd4 (Lukacs-Vadasz, Budapest 1977). Okay, he probably does have an edge now, but the remainder of the game wasn't that convincing and there are plenty of interesting deviations available (e.g. 10 ... 'ii'd6). 10 .. Jl.bS 11 'li'e2 0-0!

I can't even remember whether the likes of ChessBase were even around in those days, but I certainly didn't have access to any databases. These days I might have known that only slightly earlier my opponent had reached exactly the same position and continued with 11....lil.fo 12 'iii'd2 0-0 13 .lil.c4 fi:ixc6 14 0-0 .lil.xb2 15 .lil.xb2 'ii'xd2 16 fi:ixd2 l:l.xb2 17 fi:ib3 fi:ieS JS l:l.fcl .lil.c2 19 fi:id4 .lil.d3 20 .lil.b3 fi:ig4 21 .lil.c2 c5 22 .lil.xd3 cxd4 23 exd4 fi:ixf2 24 .li/.f5 l:l.eS 25 d5 g6 26 l:l.c2 'lz-'/2 A.SokolovRausis, Viernheim 1992. Of course, even if I had been aware of the existence of this encounter, it's very doubtful that I would have predicted his home-brewed improvement. Already at this stage of the game I was chastising myself. Even in those days I coached youngsters and I was always telling 83


them about not moving one piece twice in the opening before moving others once. Then, of course, there's the 'don't bring your queen out too early' principle. Well, all I had to show by way of development was moving my queen to where it obstructed the bishop in front of my king. Not exactly setting a good example! 12 11:lc3

To be honest, to this very day (and it would be easier to reach a conclusion with computer assistance) I haven't been able to bring myself to study 12 exd4 liJxc6. White is a piece and (temporarily) a pawn up but the position is a joke. I can recall the post-mortem uncovenng that White's undeveloped position is really difficult to hold.

It's simply horrendous! 16 11.g2 lt:ld3 + 17 l!lf 1 11:lxc 1 0-1

The knight can't cause of 18 ... i.d3. weren't the greatest nitely urge caution white pieces.

be recaptured beClearly my moves but I would defifor players of the

Came36 Rei-Vasconcelos Portuguese Ch., Lisbon 1999 1 d4 d5 2 c4 11.f5 3 'llib3 e5 4 dxe5

12 .. .'ilxc6 13 g4

At this point I had used well over an hour on my clock with my opponent using barely two minutes! It was fairly clear that he had analysed it all before (it's very disconcerting when a reply is instantaneous) and now out of home preparation, it didn't take him long to refute my attempt at getting a piece out. 13 ... 11.xc3+ 14 bxc3 11.e4 15 J:l:g1 lt:le5

84

Making the same decision that White does in the gambit coverage of Chapters 1-3. 4 ... 11:lc6

4 ... d4, continuing as in the Albin, looks like an alternative. One might think that 5 'lll'xb 7 liJd7 would be critical, but White must be careful not to get his queen trapped. Funnily enough, that's exactly what happened after 6 liJf3 l:!b8 7 'lll'xa7 liJcS! 8 'li!'aS (with 7 ... l:!a8 threatened, things were already difficult and the text is no solution) 8... liJd3+! 9 exd3 i.b4+ 10 'lil'xb4 l:!xb4 (White has a fair few pieces for it but...) 11 b3 f6 12 i.a3 l:!.b6 13 exf6 l:!e6+ 14 \i;>d2 liJxf6 15 h3 h6 16 i.cS Sl.h 7 17

The Baltic Defence: 3 'fib3 and 3 li'ic3 e6 4 'fib3

.ixd4 0-0 18 lt:lc3 l:He8 19 a4 c6 20 a5 l:id6 21 .ib6 l:lxd3+ 22 'i!;>c2 l:ld2+ 23 'il;>cl l:lc2+ 24 'i!;>bl 'li'd2 with an unstoppable mare in B.Schmidt-De Wacl1ter, Bischwiller 1993. You can only offer to sacrifice your queen if you have one! 5 'Llf3

A fascinating and very complicated encounter was 5 cxd5 .ib4+ 6 it:ld2 lud4 7 'lic4 luc2+ 8 'i!;>dl li:lxal 9 e4 .ixd2 10 .ixd2 .id7 11 f4 c6 12 e6 fxe6 13 dxe6 it:lf6 14 li:lf3 b5 (14 ... i..c8!>) 15 exd7+ 'li'xd7 16 'li'c5 lt:lxe4 17 'li'e3 0-0-0 (Knights really are duff in corners. Even a little bit of trickery after 17 ... 'li'd5 18 i..d3 'lixd3 19 'li'xd3 li:lf2+ 20 'il;>e2 it:lxd3 21 'i!;>xd3 0-0-0+ doesn't help Black, as 22 'i!;>c3 b4+ 23 'i!;>xb4 still leaves him having return the exchange in order to save his otherwise doomed knight.) 18 'li'xe4 l:lhe8 19 'li'bl 'li'e6 20 i..d3 'li'd5 21 l:lel l:lfS 22 i..e4 'li'd6 23 'li'xal l:txf4 24 'li'cl c5 25 'li'c3 b4 26 'li'xg7 l:l.d7 27 'li'e5 'li'f8 28 'i!;>cl l:tf6 29 i..d5 'li'd6 30 i..e6 1-0 Xu Yuanyuan-Mohota Yerevan 2000. I like the way White played as a very attractive centre was built up. However, although Black was a whole rook up for a while, one can't shake the feeling that too much material was returned too soon. 5 ... 'Llb4!?

We've already seen in this book why a black knight on b4 and a black bishop on f5 can cause White a headache. The text is best as the alternative 5... dxc4 6 'li'xc4 .ixbl 7 :xbl .ib4+ 8 i..d2 i..xd2+ 9 luxd2 results in a simple advantage to White. 6 11:la3

6 ... a5 I'm not sure that this is the best move although it evidently turns out quite well. Black's position seems quire reasonable and tv.ro other alternatives also stand out: a) 6... dxc4 7 'li'xc4 .ie6 8 'li'd4 c5 9 'li'xd8+ l:txd8 10 e3 a6 11 b3 h6 12 ..lte2 li:le 7 13 0-0 b5 14 12\e 1 lt:lec6 with superior piece positioning for the pawn, Gebigke-Guenrhner, Pforzheim 1997. b) 6 ... d4 and now: b 1) 7 .id2 a5 8 g3 when Black now engaged in a dubious tactic: 8 ... ..\tc2? 9 luxc2 a4 10 'li'xb4 Jl.xb4 11 .ixb4. Black had done his sums wrong as White emerged with three minor pieces for the queen. Somehow the draw was eventually held, though, in AzamatovWirthensohn, Liechtenstein 1994. b2) 7 ... 'li'd7 8 l:[dl c5 9 it:lh4 Jl.e4 10 f3 i..c6 11 it:lbS (the white queen was in trouble and he soon loses material because of the ... Jl.a4 threat) l 1...a6 12 li:ld6+ Jl.xd6 13 exd6 Jl.a4, and Black wins, Blaser-Peter, Bern 1996.

7 g3 7 JI.gs 'lW d7 8 e3 is an alternative way to develop bur the white queen still feels awkwardly placed and ... a5-a4 is 85


always in the air. 7 ... d4 8 'iil'a4+ c6 9 .lt92 d3!? 10 e3 .lte4

This whole game has an Albin feel about it. You will recall the debates we had earlier about the relative merits of a passed pawn such as the one on d3. 11 .ltd2 'ii!'d7 12 e6 Amongst other things, Black may have had 12... °ii'fS in mind to notch up the eS-pawn. Hence White attempts to return it on his terms, but this familiar (hopefully to all readers by now!) theme doesn't come off well here. 12 ... 'iil'xe6 13 ti:lg5 'iil'g4! An important move. Mate is threatened on e2. 14 13 'iil'xg5 15 lxe4 .ltc5

Now Black has well and truly taken over White's operation. 16 0-0-0 Jl.xe3 17 l:lhl 1 ti:le 7 18 'iil'b3 0-0 19 l:113 .ltxd2 + 20 l:lxd2 'i!Vc5 21 l!lb1 15 22 'i!Vd1 l:lae8 23 exf5 ti:lxf5 24 .lth3 ti:ld4 25 l:lxf8+ 'iifxl8 26 .ltf1 ti:ldc2 Black still has a big advantage but 26 ... li::if3 or 26 ... °ii'f3 might have sealed things more easily. 27 .ltxd3 l:le 1 28 .ltxc2 l:lxd 1 + 29 .ltxd1 'iifl1 30 b3 1!117 31 ti:lc2

31 ... ti:ld3?? Admittedly, Black still had a bit of work to do in order to secure victory but this blunder turns things around completely. 32 ti:le3 Oops' Now the knight is lost. Really White should have been playing on but having suffered for most of the game, he was clearly happy to draw. 32 ... 'iifg1 33 l:lxd3 'iifxh2 34 ti:lg4

%~% Game37 Gutop-Rausis Moscow 1992 1 d4 d5 2 c4 .ltf5 3 'i!Vb3 e5 4 'i!Vxb7 86

The Baltic Defence: 3 'dlib3 and 3 iuc3 e6 4 'dlib3

Taking the greedy route and calling Black's bluff. Still, if White had any faith in 'li'b3, it had to be that he was serious about snatching this pawn. 4 .. .li:ld7 5 luc3 There were a few options at this juncture, but in making sure that his queen doesn't get trapped, White must also be careful that he doesn't fall too far behind on development: a) 5 dxe5!? d4 6 ti:lf3 l:!:b8 7 'lWc6 i.c5 8 'li'a4 ti:le7 9 a3 a5 10 ti:lbd2 0-0 11 g3 i.b6 12 b4 l:!:a8 13 b5 ti:lc5 14 'li'dl a4 15 i.g2 left Black having completed a relatively successful smash and grab raid in Lugovoi-Korolev, St Petersburg 1996 but 5... l:!:b8!? 6 'li'xd5 (or 6 'li'xa7 i.xbl 7 l:!:xbl i.b4+) 6... i.b4+, with 7 ... ti:le7 next, may keep White on his toes. b) 5 cxd5 looked a little risky after 5... exd4 6 'li'c6 i.c5 7 ti:lf3 ti:le7 8 'li'a4. Although White appeared to consolidate his extra pawn after 8 .. .li:lxd5 9 ti:lxd4 'li'h4 10 e3 0-0 11 ti:lc3 ti:lxc3 12 bxc3 ti:lf6 13 'lWc4 i.xd4 14 cxd4 i.e4 15 'li'xc7 l:!:ac8 16 'li'g3 in Mirovshchikov-Skatchkov, Ekaterinburg 1996, instead 8 ... l:!:b8!? keeps the pressure well on. c) 5 'li'xd5?! i.xb 1 6 l:!:xb 1 i.b4+ 7

lt'dl ti:lgf6 8 i.g5 0-0 9 ti:lf3 'li'c8 10 i.xf6 ti:lxf6 11 'li'xe5 l:!:e8 12 'lW f4 l:!:e4 13 'li'cl? ti:lg4 14 'li'c2 ti:lxf2+ 15 lt'cl and although Black went on to win with 15 ... l:!:e3 in Mokriak-Jotov, Teteven 1991, in fact both 15 ... 'li'e8 and 15 ... 'li'g4 were stronger. 5 ... exd4 6 li:lxd5 .idG 7 e4 Black has also scored well against the alternatives: a) 7 i.£4 i.xf4 8 ti:lxf4 ti:lgf6 9 0-0-0 c5 10 f3 l:!:b8 11 'li'a6 'li'c7 12 g3 'li'e5 13 e4 dxe3 14 'li'a3 0-0 15 i.d3 l:!:b4 16 'lWc3 i.xd3 17 l:!:xd3 ti:le4! and Black was better in Goldin-Klaric, Palma de Mallorca 1989. b) 7 ti:lf3 c5 8 e3 ti:le7 9 exd4 0-0 10 'li'b3 ti:lxd5 11 cxd5 cxd4 12 ti:lxd4 ti:lc5 13 'li'dl l:!:e8+ 14 i.e2 ti:ld3+ 15 lt'fl 'li'h4 16 i.xd3 'li'xd4 17 i.e2 'li'xdl+ 18 i.xd 1 i.d3+ 19 i.e2 l:!:xe2 0-1 KuhneEhrke, Germany 1998. c) 7 b4 l:!:b8 8 'li'xa7 ti:le7 9 a3 0-0 10 ti:lf3 ti:lxd5 11 cxd5 ti:lb6 12 i.d2 'li'c8 13 'li'a5 i.d7 14 l:!:cl 'li'b7 15 ti:lxd4 l:!:a8 16 l:!:bl l:!:xa5 17 bxa5 'li'xd5 0-1 Karls krona A.Stahlberg-L.Svensson, 1998. These games merely confirm that White is playing a dangerous game. If the b 7-pawn isn't poisoned, it's at the very least rather sour!

7 ... luc5 8 ~cG+ It seems rather illogical to give up the only (and a well) developed piece to net another pawn and accordingly 8 luxe 7+ has also suffered, e.g. 8... i.xc7 9 'li'c6+ (or 9 'li'b5+ ti:ld7 10 'li'xf5 i.a5+ 11 It'd 1 ti:le 7 12 'lWg5 0-0 13 ti:lf3 l:!:c8 14 i.d2 f5 15 b4 i.b6 16 c5 fxe4 17 cxb6 ti:lxb6 18 i.a6 l:!:c7 19 i.f4 l:!:xf4 20 'li'xf4 ti:lbd5 21 'li'e5 exf3 22 gxf3 ti:lg6 87


23 'lii' e6+ @h8 24 l:!'.e 1 li:le3+ 0-1 J.Bellin-Gobet, Biel 1987) 9 ... li:ld7 10 exf5 ii.as+ 11 @dl li:le7 12 'lii'f3 o. o 13 il.f4 'lii'b6 14 l:!'.bl li:lc6 15 a3 i1.c3 16 i1.d3 il.xb2 17 Wc2 l:!'.ab8 18 il.xb8 l:!'.xb8 19 li:le2 li:lce5 20 'lii'g3 li:lxd3 21 li:lcl li:lxcl 22 l:!'.hxcl d3+ 0-1 H.Sorensen-Rausis, Gausdal 1989. I must admit that it would be interesting to know how the advocates of these tactical black lines would fare against the likes of Fritz. These days it's possible that much of the Latvian home preparation may have been 'ruined' by the 'spoilsport' computer engines that could probably accept the material and then keep it! For human beings, though, it's a different story and the practical value of this system looks excellent.

There are definitely shades of Game 35 as twelve moves into the game, the only white piece out is his queen. The centralised black king is only a minor inconvenience that is shortly sorted out. 13 li:lf3 'li'a5+ 14 i1.d2 li:lxd2 15 li:lxd2 i1.e5 Black has a handy pair of bishops and this one in particular is a giant in the centre of the board. 16 'li'e3 li:e8 17 0-0-0 I'm sure a few moves later White regrets his decision to 'go long' with his king. However, after 17 il.e2 @f8 18 0-0' is still not possible because of 18 ... i1.xh2+ 19 Wxh2 l:!'.xe3 20 fxe3 'lii'xd2. 17 ... li:lg4

8 ... i1.d7 9 li:lxc7+ 'li'xc7!

The more materialistic 9... i1.xc7 10 'lii'xcS il.a5+ isn't as effective here because of 11 b4. Instead Igor's selection keeps the compensation nicely on the boil. 10 'li'xa8 +
18 li:lb3

After 18 'lii'gS+ @f8 White has to deal with 19 ... 'lii'xa2, 19 ... li:lxf2 and of course 19 ... i1.xb2+. A mere short-term solution is 19 f4 in view of 19 ... hG 20 'lii'h4 i1.f6 21 'lii'g3 l:!'.e3 22 li:lf3 'lii'xa2, which will certainly lead to mate. 18 ... 'li'xa219'li'g5+ 11 'li'd5 The queen couldn't hang around m

,·iew of 11 ... i1.c6.

19 'lii'c5+ with the move 20 'lii'a3 to follow was the only way for White to stay alive.

11 ... li:lf6 12 'li'xd4 li:lcxe4

19 ... WfS 0-1

88

The Baltic Defence: 3 'lll'b3 and 3 /jjc3 e6 4 'liib3

Game38 Bates-Summerscale Richmond 1994 1 d4 d5 2 c4 ~15 3 li:lc3

The text move order pretty much forces Black's hand as he never has time to fit in ... c7-c6 as well. 3 ... e6 Ali Slav players know that the position after 3 ... c6'! 4 cxd5 cxdS (i.e. if they have mistakenly just played ... .\i.fS) is bad because of 5 'ilfb3!. The difference between this and our main variation is that the £8-bishop isn't yet controlling b4, thus making 'ilfxb 7 less risky. 4 'l!i'b3 By playing the knight out first, White has bypassed the tactical variations with ... e7-e5. Instead Black is looking to keep his centre although because of 4 'l1Vb3, there is no time for the ultra solid 4 ... c6 that appears in the next chapter. 4 .. .lt:lc6 5 cxd5 The drawback of placing the queen on b3 and the tactical use of 4...1i:k6 is well highlighted after 5 li::)£3,! li:lb4! 6 e4 dxe4 7 cS a5 8 a3 exf3 9 axb4 'ilfxd4 (I.Ivanov-Mezentsev, San Francisco

2000). Actually, I guess White is still on the board, an assessment that is very doubtful about 5 'ilfxb7? li:lxd4. 5 ... exd5 6 li::113 It should be observed that 6 'ilfxdS, is virtually losing to 6... li:lxd4 and 6 li:lxds, (aiming to meet 6... li:lxd4 with 7 'l1Va4+) falls into the trap of 6 ... .\i.e4!, e.g. 7 'ilfe3 (or 7 lt:lc3 li:lxd4 8 'ilfa4+ bS 0-1 Aoiz Linares-Moyano Morales, St Cugat 1994) 7 ... 'ilfxdS 8 f3 12lxd4 9 fxe4 lt:lc2+ 10 ~f2 'ilfcS 11 'ilfxc5 .\i.xcS+ 12 e3 lt:lxa 1 13 .\i.d3 0-0-0 14 ~e2 li:lf6 15 12lf3 l:the8 16 eS 12ld7 17 b4 .s11..xb4 18 ..\tb2 f6 19 .\i.xh7 li:lxeS 20 .\i.xeS fxeS 21 l:txal e4 22 lt:lgS l:td2+ 23 ~fl l':l.f8+ 24 ~g 1 ..\tcS 25 li:lxe4 .s11..xe3+ 26 ~h 1 l:1xa2 0-1 Zhaurov-Korobov, Kstovo 1998. 6 ... ~b4 I feel that here is a very good point in the game to have a discussion. 6 ... 12lf6 is covered in the next game but an obvious alternative is 6 ... li:lb4

After all, wasn't I essentially just implying how, with both ... .\i.c2 and ... li:lc2 threatened, this move often exploits the queen on b3? The theoretical answer is that, thanks to a earlier trade of pawns on dS, White now has 7 e4!, intending 89


7 ... dxe4 8 12:leS il.e6 (no improvement here was the 8... 't!!Ve7 9 il.c4 li:ld3+ 10 il.xd3 exd3 11 't!!Vxb7 l:l.cS 12 0-0 't!!Vd6 13 l:l.e 1 12:le 7 14 li:lc6 il.e6 15 12:lxa 7 l:l.dS 16 li:lcb5 't!!Vb6 17 12:lxc 7+ 1-0 of Schemmann-Poulain St lngbert 1994) 9 il.c4 li:ld3+ 10 li:lxd3 il.xc4 11 't!!Vxc4 exd3 12 't!!VbS+ c6 13 't!!Vxb7 and White stands better, B.Beliavsky-Korolev, St Petersburg 1996. However, I'm not totally convinced that 6 ... li:lb4 deserves the question mark that many commentators have affixed to it, as 7... 't!!VeW 8 li:le5 (after 8 il.b5+ c6 9 0-0 dxe4 10 il.g5 li:lf6 11 li:lh4 il.e6 12 il.c4 0-0-0 Black even went on to win in Gokhale-Parker, British Ch., Dundee 1993) 8 ... f6 9 li:lxd5 li:lxd5 10 't!!Vxd5 fxe5 11 exf5 exd4+ 12 il.e2 l:l.d8, as seen in Menyhart-Papp, Hungarian League 1999, doesn't look that clear to me at all. 7 a3 Getting straight to the point. In symmetrical queen's pawn openings we are generally taught not to obstruct our c-pawns. Most critical after 1 d4 dS is for White to want to make that c2-c4 pawn break at an early stage. Similarly, Black's c-pawn is required to either bolster his centre with ... c7-c6 or attack his opponent's with a timely ... c7-c5. An obvious anti-positional element of Black's position in these lines is the 'misplaced knight' on c6. Black managed to solve this after 7 il.f4 li:lf6 8 e3 0-0 9 il.e2 li:le4 10 l:l.c 1 l:l.e8 11 0-0 il.xc3 12 bxc3 li:la5 13 't!!Va4 c6 bur, although Black's grip on c4 left him okay in McMahon-Vang Frank, Kilkenny 1999, the other drawback of 6 ... il.b4 must be the requirement of Black to 90

concede his 'good' bishop. Though played before with some success, I don't believe that either 7 e3 or 7 il.d2 should test a reasonable defender.

7 ... il.xc3+ 8 'i!Vxc3 li:\16 9 .ig5

9 ... 'i!Vd6 The problem with the game continuation (from Black's point of view) is that he doesn't generate enough activity. White has an obvious plan on the queenside and, rather than just trying to hold things there, it would be more in the spirit for Black to generate some play on the kingside. Something like 9 ... 0-0 10 e3 h6 11 il.xf6 't!!Vxf6 12 il.e2 J:l.fcS 13 0-0 li:le7 14 l:l.fcl c6 15 b4 li:lg6 1612:lel l:l.eS 17 a4 l:l.e6 18 b5 l:l.aeS 19 't!!Va5 't!!Ve7 20 il.d3 b6 21 't!!Vc3 il.xd3 22 li:lxd3 cxbS 23 axb5 't!!Vd7 24 't!!Vb3 looks good for White, as he has successfully managed to isolate and target the black d5-pawn. However, after 24 ... J:!.f6 25 l:l.c2 li:lh4 26 12:leS 't!!Vf5 27 l:l.xa 7 li:lxg2!! Black achieved a similar aim on the kingside: 28 l:l.ac7 li:lh4 29 £4 't!!Ve4 30 l:l.cS l:l.fe6 31 l:l.xeS+ l:l.xe8 32 l:l.e2 l:l.a8 33 't!!Vdl li:lf5 34 't!!Vd3 l:l.al+ 35 Wf2 't!!Vhl 36 l:l.c2 't!!Vgl+ 37 We2 't!!Vg2 mate (Ree-Sahovic, Amsterdam 1979).

The Baltic Defence: 3 'iib3 and 3 iilc3 e6 4 'ikb3

10 .ltxf6 I suppose this is the simplest as the unpinned knight was ready to run away. 1O... 'ili'xf6 11 e3 0-0 12 .lte2 .ltg4 Although I've already mentioned how, with a black knight on c6, the d5pawn is significantly weaker, Black's light-squared bishop does remain quite active. On fS it covered what could be a useful square (bl) and dissuaded .lid3. Now on g4, there will most likely be the option of trading itself for either of White's minor pieces. 13 0-0 l:i:ac8 14 '!li'c5 l:i:fd8 15 l:i:fc1 l:i:d6 16 b4 h6 17 l:i:a2 \!,h8

This may look odd but upon closer inspection, it seems that there is little constructive for Black to do. 17 ... a6 may prepare to move the knight but then 18 a4, with b4-b5 to follow, could easily see White making something of the afile. 18 h3 .lth5 19 '!li'b5 l:i:b8 20 '!li'a4 A clever manoeuvre to eke out a concession. 20 ... a6 21 l:i:ac2 '!li'e7 22 b5 This turns out well but 22 'l!Vb3, intending a3-a4 and b4-b5, looks like a sensible plan too. 22 ... axb5 23 '!li'xb5 li:la7

There was a serious threat in 24 .1:txc6. 24 '!li'b4 c6 25 li:le5!

The knight is superb here (for one thing it threatens 12ixc6) and, after a trade of bishops, it will take a while before Black can budge it with ... f7-f6. 25 ... .ltg6 26 l:!:b2 'ili'c7 27 l'i:lxc6 was once again on White's mind as the d6-rook was pinned. 27 'ili'b6 'ili'xb6 28 l:i:xb6 Black's queenside pawn structure 1s fine, but the passive positioning of his pieces means that pins are the name of the game. With 29 .lia6 a possibility now, Black is destined to drop a pawn. 28 ... li:lc8 29 l:i:cxc6 l:i:xc6 30 li:lxc6 li:lxb6 31 li:lxb8 \!,98 32 .ltb5 .ltf5 33 a4

9 -


1 d4 d5 2 c4 .tf5 3 li:lc3 e6 4 li:lf3 li:lf6 5 cxd5 exd5 6 °il'b3 li:lc6

via a different move order. 7 .lt95 The most natural move. It should now go without saying that White should stay away from 7 'liVxb7' lob4. After 8 \¥Id 1, not only could Black at least force a draw with ... l::tb8-a8-b8 etc., but 8 ...12\g4, amongst other things, is very difficult to deal with. 7 .. .li:la5 I've previously stated why the knight looks awkward on c6 and hence Black sets about replacing it with a pawn. Only 7 ... 'liVd6 8 e3 0-0-0 offers anything different but the nice game, that I believe White has, was superbly demonstrated with 9 a3 12\aS 10 'liVa4 'liVb6 11 b412\c6 12 11.bS h6 13 .11.h4 gS 14 .11.g3 g4 1512le512lxe51611.xeS .11.g7 17 llcl 1¥/b8 18 12\xdS l::txdS 19 .11.xc7+ 'liVxc7 20 l::txc7 1¥/xc7 21 .11.c4 1¥/b8 22 11.xdS 12\xdS 23 'liVb3 .11.e6 24 e4 12\fo 25 'liVd3 .11.d7 26 0-0 a6 27 'liVg3+ 1¥/a8 28 'liVf4 11.bS 29 l::tcl i2ld7 30 eS hS 31 'liVxf7 11.xeS 32 dxeS 12\xeS 33 'liVfS and White won, Klebel-Rausis, Germany 1993.

6 ...12\fo is effectively a the third alternative (to 6 ... 12\b4 and 6... .11.b4) that I wanted to discuss, although here you can sec that we've reached the position

8 'il'a4+ c6 9 .ixf6 This move has previously been criticised but I don't feel that this is justified. Admittedly, 9 e3 looks sensible too

The prospect of 34 aS means that the \\·bite knight will escape and his extra pawn will bring him victory. 33 ... li:lc4 34 li:ld7 .ixd7 35 .ixd7 @t8 36 @t1 @e7 37 .ib5 li:ld6 38 @e2 @d8 39 .id3 @c7 40 @d2 @b6 41 lilc3 @a5 42 @b3 h5 43 .te2 li:le4 44 .ixh5 96 45 .if3 li:ld2+ 46 lila3 li:lc4+ 4 7 lila2 @xa4 48 .ixd5 li:ld6 49 e4 f5 50 e5 li:lb5 51 .ixb 7 li:lxd4 52 .id5 f4 53 h4 li:lf5 54 .lte4 li:le7 55 94 fx93 56 fx93 lilb4 57 94 lilc5 58 h5 9xh5 59 9xh5 /1)98 60 @b3 li:lh6 61 .if3 @b6 62 lilc4 @c7 63 lild5 @d7 64 e6+ lile 7 65 lile5 lilts 66 lilt6 li:l98+ 67 @96 li:le7+ 68 @f6 li:l98+ 69 @95 @e7 70 .id5 li:lf6 71 h6 li:lxd5 72 h7 @xe6 73 h8'il' 1-0 ---------------

Game39 Gagarin-Konotop Moscow 1998

,._-----------...a

92

The Baltic Defence: 3 'lll'b3 and 3 lbc3 e6 4 'lll'b3

but, although that appears to keep White's options open, in fact it seems to me that Black has a couple of interesting ways to mix things up nicely. Previously analysed has been 9 ... b5 10 ~xb5 cxb5 11 'lli'xb5+ ~d7 12 ~xf6 gxf6 13 'lli'xd5 (unclear!) although 9 ... 'l!!i'b@ is quite appealing. 9 ... gxf6 10 e3 a6 10 ... 'l!Vb6 11 0-0-0 'l!Vb4 12 'l!Vxb4 ~xb4 13 12:le2 (13 12::ih4!? also has its points) 13 ... 12:lc4 1412:lg3 12::id6 15 12:lxf5 12:lxf5 was obviously better for White in Zeller-Kralj, Germany 1989, but 10 ... b5!? might just (in view of the game continuation) be worth a go. Above we saw that 11 ~xb5 is inconclusive, while 11 12:lxb5 cxb5 12 ~xb5+ ~e 7 13 12:lh4 ~e4 14 f3 ~g6 15 f4 ~e4 turned out better for Black in Engman-Rausis, Gausdal 1989. That just leaves 11 'l!Vdl 12:lc4, which is difficult to assess. 11 'ili'd1 !

I really like this anticipatory retreat, which acknowledges that the queen's job has been done on the queenside. Now both ~d3 and 'llV d2 (if hit by ... 'l!Vb6) are available. In addition, the queen eyes a swift call up into kingside action in order to exploit Black's weak-

nesses there. Instead, 11 12:lh4 b5 12 'llfdl ~g6 13 ~e2 12:lc4 14 ~xc4 bxc4 15 'l!Va4 'l!Vd7 16 12:lxg6 hxg6 looked fine for Black in Gaertner-W.Posch Austria 1999, and 11 b4?! 12:lc4 12 ~xc4 dxc4 13 e4 b5 14 'llV c2 ~g4 15 a3 a5 left Black clearly on top in H.Muller-P.Juergens, Dortmund 1993. 11 ... ~g7 This may be a slight error, but Black is after more cover on the g-file as he wants to castle short. 12 b3 0-0 13 ~d3 ~xd3 Usually 13 ... ~g6, hoping that a trade will iron out some pawns, would be more logical. However, as well as 14 12::ih4, angling for that key f5-square, White has the attractive 14 h4!?, looking to force the issue with 15 h5. 14 'i'xd3 b5 15 l!:le2 Va ca ting the c- file to make way for l:!.acl and eyeing up a juicy square or rwo on the kingside. 15 ...l!:lb7 16 0-0 li:ld6 17 l:l:ac1 'ili'd7 18 l!:lg3 l:l:tc8 19 l!:lh4

It's all pretty basic stuff as White's moves play themselves. 19 ... ~fB 20 f3 a5 21 e4 If Black swaps pawns on e4 then the 93


f-file will spell his doom. That said, he is positionally lost anyhow. 21 .. .a4 22 li:c2 axb3 23 axb3 li:a3 24 li:lhf5 li:lxf5 25 li:lxf5 li:ca8 26 li:fc1 li:8a6 27 h4 'lll'e6 28 li:b1 li:a8 29 li:e2 To be honest, it looks as though White makes a bit of a meal out of this position although he gets there in the end. 29 ... 'lil'd7 30 h5 li:d8 31 'lil'c3 c5 32 dxc5 d4 33 'lil'd3 .ixc5 34 li:c2 .ltb4 35 li:d1

uves:

a) 6 .ltf4'! it:lxd4 7 'l!Va4+ lt:lc6 8 0-0-0 it:lf6 doesn't offer White much, e.g. 9 f3 .ltd6 10 g4 ~e6 11 e3 0-0 12 h4 a6 13 .ltxd6 'lii'xd6 14 it:lh3 'lii'c5 15 'lii'f4 b5 16 a3 b4 17 axb4 lt:lxb4 18 it:lf2 l:!.ab8 19 it:ld3 it:lxd3+ 20 ~xd3 l:!.b4 21 'lii'g5 J:!.fb8 22 l:!.h2 h6 23 'l!VeS it:ld7 24 'lii'g3 'lii'xe3+ 25 J:!.dd2 it:lc5 0-1 NimschD.Fischer, Germany 1997. b) 6 ~g5?! is not great after 6 ... it:lxd4' 7 'lii'a4+ ~d7 8 'lii'xd4 'lii'xg5 9 it:lf3 'lii'f6 10 'lii'xd5 0-0-0 when Black's bishop 35 ... li:c8? 36 li:xc8+ 'lll'xc8 37 pair are looking good, Wallach'lil'xb5 li:xb3 Berchenko, Chicago 1984. 6 ... .ixe4 The passive 37 ... ~fS merely prolongs the agony. Surprisingly, 6 ... dxe4 is a far more 38 'lil'xb4! 1-0 popular way of capturing: There is a decisive fork on e 7. a) Whilst there are improvements , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , available, 7 'lii'xb7'! lt:lxd4 8 ~b5+ Game40 lt:lxb5 9 'lii'xb5+ 'l!Vd7 10 'lii'b 7 l:!.dS 11 Szollosi-L. Deak ~gs f6 12 J:!.dl .ltd6 13 .lte3 lt:le7 14 lt:lge2 0-0 15 .ltxa7 lt:lc6 16 it:ld4 lt:lx
20 ~xf2 l:!.xe2+ 21 ~xe2 .ltg4+ 22 ~d2 ~a3+ 23 ~e3 'lii'd2+ 0-1 AngererPosch, Vienna 1998 is a very entertaining game. b) 7 d5 it:lb4 8 a3 it:ld3+ 9 .ltxd3 exd3 is quite murky.

7 'UX "' " ' d4 8 "-JXe "' 4 l:!.bS! . left 7 e4 ""'xb . . . ri·ve m the m 7 "-lX m1t1a · h a . strong · way Black wit ne Tel Aviv, game Zwaig-Fallo ' back in 1964.

7 ... dxe4 8 .l1.c4 behind 6 e4 (although The big poim his chances). White White is overrat1n~ b7 still hanging, his targets f7 and ' wit least hope.I) is. that expectation (or at the light sguares. Black may crumble on 7 8... 1!Ve ! 9 .l1.xf7+ "'"b4+ 10 ,rn, .. xb 4 Jtxb4+ 9 ~xb 7 l" . he d4-pawn. ld see B ac k netting t t comb.ma~::ever, although the t~~:gs backfire . loo ks attracuve, uon

. :r mate via 12 ... ~d3+ and Threatening

13 ... ~fl+.

12 1!Vxa8+ lild

7 13 lbf3 exf3 14

.l1.e3 lbge7 salt into the wound. This merely rubs . ore than adequate 4Jxd4 was also m 17 14... for victory. + lilc1 lbxd4 15 1!Vxh8 1!Vd 3 16 1!Vxh 7 ll a fast one but White tries to pu . · :mores him. Black simply tg 17 ... lbe2 mate

9:'


Summary

A.s I clearly suffered a life-scarring experience in that variation, I have probably been a bit hard on White's chances in Game 35. What should, however, become clear to the reader is that, although a black knight on c6 is poorly placed from a po· sitional angle (see Game 38), it is often involved tactically to exploit the early white queen sortie to b3. Although on b3 her majesty can attack the b 7 -pawn, the dS-pawn and pressurise through to f7 (useful for when a surprise e2-e4 break appears), White should be wary of forgetting his development. The queen can pick off several pawns without noticing the black pieces swarming into action. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 i.fS 3 li:lc3 3 'llVb3 (D) eS 4 cxd5 · Game 35 4 dxe5 · Game 36 4 'llVxb7 · Game 37 3 ... e6 4 'i'b3 li:lc6 5 cxd5 exd5 (D) 6 li:lf3 6 e4 · Game40 6 ... li:lf6 6 ....tb4 · Game 38 7 i.g5 (D) · Game 39

3 'i'b3

96

5 ... exd5

7

i.g5

CHAPTER SIX

I

The Baltic Defence: 3 iZ'lf3

1 d4 d5 2 c4 .llf5 3 ii:lf3 The first two games of this chapter show White still provoking .. .luc6 by whipping out 4 'i!Vb3. However, after that White shies away from the tactics seen in the last chapter by trying to cut out .. .'L)b4 altogether. Although the move c4-c5 does, in general, have a clamping effect, it looks as though Black has enough play elsewhere not to suffer too badly. Possibly more worrying to the pure Baltic Defence player are Games 43 and 44, where Black doesn't generate his usual amount of play after rejecting White's offer of transposing into a variation of the Slav Defence.

stop to both of those, whilst attempting to place a clamp on Black's position. Usually in a standard Queen's Gambit, White isn't advised to play such a move as it takes the tension off of the centre and gives Black an obvious plan of aiming for ... eS. That's not so applicable here as Black's light-squared bishop isn't locked inside the pawn chain. However, the fact that it's not on c8 means that the b 7 -pawn really is en prise now.

Game41 Gretarsson-M .Ehrke Gausda! 1998 1 d4 d5 2 c4 .ll. f5 3 ii:lf3 e6 4 'i'b3 ii:lc6 5 c5 5 li:lc3 would have transposed to last chapter, in which both 5 ... .tb4 and 5... li:lb4 were covered. The text puts a

5 ... l::tb8 Although this might look like a passive way to defend the pawn, at such a

97


future time, when the .lil.bS pin and IZleS aren't available to White, it is possible that this rook could see some action via ... b7-b6. A rare alternative 5 ... a5, which reintroduces the ...1Zlb4 possibility, was kind of refuted in the unique style of a popular English Grandmaster: 6 .lil.f4 li:lb4 7 1Zla3 IZle 7 8 g4 .lil.e4 9 h4 1Zlec6 10 l:th3 .lil.xf3 11 'i'xf3 'lW f6 12 e3 eS 13 gS 'lW fS 14 .lil.h2 'i'xf3 15 l:txf3 exd4 16 li:lbS fS 17 1Zlxc7+ <;j;,d7 18 l:txfS l:tc8 19 .lil.h3 <;j;,dS 20 1Zle6+ <;j;,es 21 <;j;,d2 dxe3+ 22 fxe3 and White went on to win in Conquest-Bjornsson, Hafnarfirdi 1992. Don't ask me what was going on in the early part of that game. Only Stuart is capable of playing such crazy moves! 6 .l1.f4 6 e3 has been played here but it's not particularly inspirational. The text grips the eS-square and thus side-steps the debate over 6 1Zlc3 eS 7 e4 1Zlxd4 (7 ... exd4 8 exfS dxc3 9 .lil.bS .lil.xcS 10 0-0 li:lf6 11 'i'xc3 has been said to give White a clear advantage but there's nothing especially clear about the position except that White has a development lead for a pawn) 8 1Zlxd4 exd4 9 'lWa4+ c6 10 'i'xd4 .lil.xe4 11 'lWeS+ .lil.e7 12 1Zlxe4 dxe4. In Taha-Rahman, Kuala Lumpur 1993, Black went on to win after 13 'i'xg7 .lil.f6 but it was all rather unconvmcmg. Perhaps the central complications do favour White, but there is no compulsion for Black to enter them. Instead 6... .lil.e7 7 .lil.f4 g5!' 8 .lil.eS?! (better is 8 .lil.g3, as 8... hS!? 9 h4 g4 doesn't really win a pawn because of 10 li:leS 1Zlxd4 11 'lWa4+) 8 ... li:lxeS 9 IZlxeS f6 10 g4 fxeS 11 gxfS exd4 12 li:lbS c6 13 1Zlxd4 98

eS 14 li:le6 'lWaS+ 15 <;j;,dJ 1Zlf6 turned out quite well for Black in H.KohlRausis, Untergrombach 1995. 6 . ..ti:lf6

As just seen, an alternative idea of 6 ... .lil.e7 7 e3 gS 8 .lil.g3 hS might take Black's fancy, with 9 h4 g4 10 li:leS IZlxeS 11 .lil.xeS f6 12 'lWa4+ ',j;,f7 being far from your typical game (HaagRausis, Bad Mergentheim 1989). Either way, both moves are better than the premature 6... b6 7 e3 f6 8 .lil.bS 1Zlge7 9 'lWa4 'lWd7 10 b4 g5', which was crushed by 11 .lil.xgS! fxgS 12 IZleS m Krallmann-Funke, Germany 1994. 7 h3

Offering the dark-squared bishop a retreat square as a way of dealing with a future ... li:lhS. That option wasn't taken up after 7 1Zlc3 a6 8 e3 .lil.e 7 9 .lil.e2, when instead 9 ... 1Zle4 10 li:lxe4 .lil.xe4 11 'lWa4 0-0 12 0-0 .lil.f6 13 l:tfdl l:ta8 14 b4 'lWe 7 15 lilac! l:tfd8 16 'i'b3 l:ta 7 17 a4 left White looking to push home his space advantage but Black still on the board in Krallmann-Drill, Kassel 1994. 7 ... .11.e 7 8 e3 a6 9 li:lc3 li:le4 1 O 'l!Va4 0-0

Black doesn't want to trade on c3 because, although the bl-square is cov-

The Baltic Defence: 3 '8f3

ered, the inevitable c3-c4 will lead to White obtaining an extra centre pawn. 11 lk 1 95 12 .lth2 h5 A novel approach. Black is attacking on the kingside even though his king resides there but his opponent's doesn't! Nevertheless, Black needed something to do and the text certainly gains some space. 13 b4 94 14 liJxe4 .ltxe4 15 liJd2 .lt96 16 hx94 hx94

24 13 .!:i:h8 25 @12 .lth5 26 .lte2 9xl3 27 .ltxl3 .ltxl3 28 liJxl3 liJc4 29 J:l:c2 J:l:xh1 30 'ili'xh1 'ili'h8 31 'ili'xh8 J:l:xh8 32 a4 J:l:h 1 33 J:l:a2 @e 7 34 a5 @d7 35 a6 bxa6 36 J:l:xa6 J:l:c1 37 /1)95 J:l:c2+ 38 @93 J:l:c3 39 J:l:xe6 J:l:xe3 + 40 J:l:xe3 liJxe3 41 liJl3 @e6 42 @h4 @16 43 liJe5 liJc2 44 liJc6 liJe3 45 liJb4 @e6 46 @95 @e7 47 @96 @e6 48 @95 @e7 49 liJc6+ @d7 50 liJe5+ @e6 51 /1)13 liJc2 52 @96 liJe3 53 liJh4 liJc2 54 liJl3 liJe3 55 liJh4 liJc2 56 liJxl5 c6 57 liJ97+ @d7 58 15 liJxd4 59 16 liJl3 60 /1)15 @e6 61 @97 @e5 62 liJh4 liJ95 63 @96 liJe6 64 liJl3 + @14 65 @17 @15 66 @e7 d4 67 17 d3 68 liJd4+ liJxd4 69 18'ili' + @e4 70 'ili'l2 @d5 71 @16 @c4 72 @e5 liJb3 73 'ili'b2 liJxc5 74 'ili'd4+ 1-0

Game42

0. Todorov-Brochet I do believe that White holds a reasonable advantage here although I'm not sure that he continues in the correct way. The rest of the game is certainly interesting although one can't help get the feeling that it was White's superior rating that saw him through, rather than a sufficient middlegame/ endgame edge. 17 b5 axb5 18 .ltxb5 J:l:a8 19 'ili'b3 liJa5 20 'ili'd1 15 21 .lt14 .lt95 Now if White trades bishops, Black can seek some action for his remaining bad one via ... f5-f4. 22 93 .ltx14 23 9xl4 @17 Black looks to challenge the h-file. As there is now no realistic available route for the knight to make it to the eSoutpost, the rest of the game is really hard work.

Cannes 1996 1 d4 d5 2 c4 .lt15 3 liJl3 e6 4 'ili'b3 liJc6 5 .ltd2

A simple move to cover the b4square. White prefers to retain the ten+ sion around the centre pawns which, 99


ironically, is a situation that Black now seeks to take advantage of. 5 ... dxc4!?

In a rare outing with the opening myself (I was desperate to play for a win and it seemed like a good idea at the time!), I played 5.. .'i!i'd7 here as I had no idea what the theory was. I think it's fair to say that, overall, White had the better of an eventual draw and, despite my initial aspirations, I felt relieved to shake hands at the end: 6 e3 0-0-0 7 cxd5 exdS 8 ~bS f6 9 0-0 a6 10 ~e2 ~d6 11 l:tcl ~xbl 12 l:taxbl {jjge7 13 'i!i'dl {jja7 14 b4 bS 15 a4 Wb7 16 {jjel {jjec8 17 {jjd3 c6 18 {jjcS+ ~xc5 19 bxc5 f5 20 axb5 axb5 21 l:tal l:thf8 22 l:ta2 @b8 23 l:tca 1 'iii' e6 24 'i!i'b 1 l:td7 25 ~d3 g5 26 f3 h5 27 e4 '/2-'/2 Lalic-Ward, Jersey 1997. The solid move is 5... l:tb8 6 e3 a6 7 cS {fjf6 (7 ... e51?) 8 'i!i'a4 {jjd7 9 b4 l:ta8 10 ~e2 ~e7 11 'i!i'b3 0-0, which didn't look too bad for Black in Dao Thien Hai-Rowson, Bratislava 1993. White still retains a space advantage, as in our last main game, but here White's darksguared bishop is inside the pawn chain. 6 'l!Vxb7

The most critical reply. After 6 'i!i'xc4, both 6 ... ji,e4 and 6 .. ,{fjf6 are fine for Black. 6 ... .i.e4!

This looks more accurate than 6 ... {jjge 7 which, although encouraging mayhem, has favoured White in practice after both: a) 7 'i!i'a6 l:tb8 8 ~c3 {jjb4 9 'i!i'a4+ {jjec6 10 {jja3 'iii'd5 11 {jjes l:tb6 12 {jjxc6 'i!i'xc6 13 'i!i'xc6+ l:txc6 14 g3 l:ta6 15 ~g2 l:!.xa3 16 bxa3 {jjc2+ 17 Wd2 {jjxa 1 18 ~c6+ Wd8 19 e4 ~g6 20 l:!.b 1 100

{jjb3+ 21 axb3 (Schlosser-Konieczka, Germany 1988) and b) 7 'i!i'b5 l:!.b8 8 'i!i'a4 l:!.xb2 9 {jja3 l:!.xd2 10 @xd2 eS 11 e3 exd4 12 ~xc4 dxe3+ 13 We2 ~d7 14 'i!i'b3 {fjf5 15 ~xf7+ We7 16 fxe3 g6 17 l:!.adl ~h6 18 {jjc4 {jjd6 19 ~dS 'i!i'c8 20 'i!i'a3 {jjd8 21 e4 @e8 22 'i!i'xd6 cxd6 23 {jjxd6+ We7 24 {jjxc8+ (Mahn-Schuettig, Germany 1997). 7 li:lc3 l:l.b8 8 'l!Va6 li:lb4

Yes, it's that old move again! 9 'i!Va4+ .i.c6 10 'i!Vd1 .i.xf3 11 exf3 'i!Vxd4 12 'l!Va4+

Black conceded his light-sguared bishop in order to net that d-pawn. Consequently, White now turns his attention to the light squares again. 12 ... 'l!Vd7

Were there a suitable square for the king, then nudging the monarch to the side might have been a consideration. There wasn't and so an endgame approaches. 13 'l!Vxd7+ @xd7 14 0-0-0

The best way to stop 14...{jjc2+. The c4-pawn will drop next. 14 ... .i.d6 15 .i.xc4

I suppose White has the slightly better pawn structure and the bishop pair.

The Baltic Defence: 3 lbf3

However, Black has a half open b-file, the more centralised king and the d5square also looks like a potentially good home for a knight. A draw looks like the fairest result and the players don't disappoint!

15 ...li:lf6 16 ~e3 a5 17 a3 li:lc6 18 l:the1 @e7 19 ~g5 li:le5 20 ~a2 h6 21 ~h4 l:thd8 22 li:ld5+ A nice-looking tactic that, alas, merely leads to a liquidation to an opposite-coloured bishops scenario. 22 ... exd5 23 f4 g5 24 ~xg5 hxg5 25 fxe5 c6 26 l:td3 ~c7 27 exf6+ @xf6 28 l:tf3+ @g7 29 @c2 l:te8 30 l:tte3 @f8 '/z -'/z

break a few hearts by concluding that 4... c6 is the superior move. Although there is no necessity for me to talk about this transposition to the Slav defence, I do discuss the whole concept in a little more derail in Game 45. 5 ~f4

Game43 Van Wely-1.Sokolov Internet 2000

As I have mentioned before, the knight is poorly placed on c6 in a QG D-style position and, without White having to worry about the ...iub4 tactics that often worked with the queen on b3, it seems that White can just play simple moves in order to obtain a comfortable edge. 5 ... li:lf6 6 e3 ~e7 After 6... a6 7 l:.cl :l,..e7 8 :l,..e2 .i:1c8 9 0-0 0-0 10 cxd5 exdS 11 IZ:la4 li:le4 12 a3, Black made a go of things with 12 ... gS 13 :l,..g3 h5 but, alas, even 14 h3

'------------1 li:lf3 d5 2 d4 ~f5 3 c4 e6 4 li:lc3 li:lc6 For the first time, then, we are seeing 'il'b3 omitted from White's early enquires, yet Black is still opting for ... li:lc6. With all of the available material at my disposal, including this fairly recent encounter between two world-class players, I'm afraid that I may have to

li:lxg3 15 fxg3 :l,..d6 16 li:ld2 :l,..g6 17 :l,..xhS turned out well for White: 17 ... 'il'e7 18 .i:1c3 :l,..xg3 19 'l!Vf3 :l,..xhS 20 'lii'xhS :l,..d6 21 li:lf3 f6 22 'lii'g6+ 'il'g7 23 'i1Vf5 li:le7 24 'l!Ve6+ ~h8 25 li:lcS .i:1ce8 26 12lxb7 IZ:lg6 27 'l!Vxd5 and White soon won in Chuchelov-Hille, R Munster 1995. Relocating the awkward knight on dS is an idea, but the 6 ... h6?! 7 l:!.cJ dxc4 8 101


.ltxc4 li'lb4> 9 a3 li'lbdS 10 li'lxdS exdS 11 .ltxc7! 1-0 of B.Schneider-Stauch, Porz 1992, is not to be recommended!

7 a3 A nice utility move that prevents a

black piece coming to b4 and prepares the b2-b4 expansion itself. lo addition, the text potentially offers a retreat square to the light-squared bishop (if it ends up being attacked after recapturing on c4). Indeed, upon 7 .lte2 perhaps Black should try something like 7... dxc4 8 .ltxc4 li'ldS, as 7... 0-0 8 0-0 li:le4 9 l:l.cl l:!.c8 10 li:ld2 li:lxc3 11 l:txc3 .ltb4 12 .!:tel f6 13 cxdS exdS 14 a3 .ltd6 15 .ltxd6 'llfxd6 16 'llfb3 .ltd7> 17 li:le4 '!We7 18 'llfxdS+ had gone just according to plan in Jose Abril-J.Costa, Badalona 1999. While I'm here, 7 cxdS exdS 8 .ltbS is good for White and 7... li:lxd51> 8 .ltg3 .ltb4 9 'llfcl 0-0 10 .lte2 is also considered by theory to offer a slight edge. 7 ... 0-0 8 J:tc1 Again White finds another useful waiting move so that he won't have to move his fl-bishop twice in the event of ... dxc4. 8 ... a6 9 cxd5 The text represents an alternative way 102

to play to the also sensible 9 .lte2. 9 ... exd5

10 ~d3 lo offering to swap good bishop for

bad bishop, White is banking on his superior pawn structure prolonging his edge. An excellent example of how this position could transform into your standard minority attack scenario was 10 .lte2 l:!.e8 11 0-0 h6 12 li:leS li:lxeS 13 .ltxeS .lte6 14 li:la4 c6 15 b4 .ltd6 16 .ltxd6 'llfxd6 17 li:lcS 'lW c7 18 a4 li:ld7 19 bS li:lxcS 20 l:!.xcS axbS 21 axbS l:!.aS 22 'llfb3. The pressure against Black's queenside pawns (to possibly include isolating the dS-pawn) is what it's all about and Black now crumbled under the strain with 22 ... .ltd7'>, allowing 23 b6 in Boonman-Veteschildt, Nijmegen 1992. 1o... ~xd3 11 'ili'xd3 li:lh5 Because of the pressure on c7, Black is eager to remove White's bishop. However, his own knight is also important and hence challenging the bishop with ... .ltd6 might be shrewder. As 12 .ltgS would then be annoying, 11...h6!' has been suggested as an alternative. 12 ~g3 li:lxg3 13 hxg3 The trade of knight for bishop has

The Baltic Defence: 3 !i:...t3

improved White's kingside and, as he has not yet castled, the half open h-file is also a bonus. 13 ... g6 14 li7e2!?

White wants to retain the use of the h-file and correctly judges that his king will be safe in the centre. 14 ... ii.f6 15 g4 ii.g7 Upon 15 ... l:[eS, White would simply double the rooks on the h-file. 16 g5! Putting a clamp on Black's kingside. Any attempt to break out now will involve creating weaknesses.

16 ... f5?! I suspect Black was expecting White to capture this pawn en passant as it would, after all, leave the first player

with a superior kingside pawn structure. However, White achieves an even stronger position through noncompliance, indicating that perhaps 16 ... f6 is a better defence. 17 J:ih4 J:if7 18 J:tch1ii.h819 li7f1 Paving the way for an attractive knight manoeuvre. Black's bishop on h8 is extremely vulnerable and a 'sacrifice' on g6 is just what White is looking for. 19 ... 'l!fd6 20 li:le2 li:le7 21 li:lf4 c5 The only active plan available to Black. 22 g3 1Wb6 23 li7g2 The b2-pawn is out of bounds as White would then get a rook to the 7th rank via 24 l'l:b I. 23 .. .ll:c8 24 J:ih6 J:tc6?! Black was eager to add extra protection to g6 but the text allows White a quick breakthrough. 25 li:le5! .li.xe5 26 dxe5

The cl-pawn is impossible to defend. 26 ... 1Wxb2 One beautiful variation runs 26 ... d1 27 'lll'c4! 'lli'bS 28 l'l:xh71l 'l!l'xc4 29 l:[h8~ @g7 30 l:[Jh7 mate. 27 e6 J:ig7 28 li:lxd5 ll:xe6 28 ... 'LixdS 29 'ii'xdS lea;-es no c:cfence to 30 'ii'dS+ or 30 e7+.


291i:lc7! 1-0

l:l'.b3 3ld7 28 f4 l:l'.h5 29 li:lf3 l:l'.bh8 30 Next comes 30 'ii'dS+. 3ld2 li:lb6 31 c4 a4 32 l:l'.bbl f5 33 exf5 . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . exf5 34 d5 li:ld8 35 3lb4+ Wf7 36 li:le5+ Game44 Wg7 37 3lc3 Wg8 38 l:l'.xb6 1-0 MiladiFridman-Seu! novic-Papastavropoulos, Korinthos Essen 2001 1997 shows why it certainly doesn't al.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,. ways pay to mix things up! 1 li:lf3 d5 2 d4 .fi.15 3 c4 e6 4 li:lc3 li:lc6

6 .fi.xe7 A sneaky way to eliminate any future

I'd like to reiterate my view that 4... c6 (see next game) is probably a better move. The only other candidate that springs to mind is 4... li:lf6. Then 5 cxd5 exd5 6 'ii'b3 li:lc6 would transpose to Game 39, whilst 5 3lg5 c6 6 3lxf6 'ii'xf6 7 'ii'b3 has also been seen before.

... li:lxd5 possibilities is with 6 cxd5P and now: a) Obviously 6... 3<.xgs> 7 dxc6 is clearly good for White. b) 6... exd5 7 3<.xe7 li:lgxe7 8 e3 a6 9 3le2 0-0 10 0-0 'ii'd6 11 l:l'.cl l:l'.adS 12 li:la4 3lc8 13 a3 left White with his usual small advantage in VaganianShort, Novgorod 1995. 6 .. .ltlgxe7 7 e3 0-0

5 .fi.g5

Assuming that White is in no hurry for 'ii'h3, then this is the other natural alternative to 5 .>tf4. 5 ... .fi.e7

5... f6 6 .>th4 .>tb4 7 e3 g5 8 .>tg3 h5 is a chance to throw a spanner in White's works. However, 9 h3 li:lge7 10 'ii'b3 a5 11 'ii'a4 h4 12 .>th2 g4 13 hxg4 3lxg4 14 li:ld2 .>txc3 15 bxc3 Wf7 16 f3 3lf5 17 @f2 .>tg6 18 cxd5 li:lxd5 19 'ii'a3 li:lce7 20 e4 li:lb6 21 3lf4 li:lc6 22 .>te3 'ii'e7 23 'ii'xe7+ Wxe7 24 l:l'.bl l:tab8 25 .>tb5 3<.eS 26 3ld3 li:la4 27 704

8 li:lh4

After 8 3ld3 dxc4 9 .>txc4 li:la5 10 .>td3 (instead 10 .>teW halts the forthcoming break) 1O... .>txd3 11 'ii'xd3 c5, Black had equalised in ]
I must confess that I find this whole 8 li:lh4 business a little bemusing as taking on e4 now would leave the offside

The Baltic Defence: 3 li:Jf3

knight a little stranded. In general, though, Black is evidently keen to preserve his bishop and that explains his next move. 9 ... h6 10 0-0 .i.h 7 11 li:lf3 And we're back to square one, with \X/hite's main advantage being his control of the tension on the c- and d- files. 11 ... 1!1'd6 One standard push for equality is for Black to take on c4 and then achieve ... e6-e5. The text makes this plan a reality although it never really comes to fruition. 12 a3 dxc4 13 .i.xc4 li:ld5 13 ... eS 14 dxeS 11:lxeS 1511:lxeS 'i!VxeS is certainly possible, although then 16 'i!Vf3 hits both b7 and f7, making it a bit awkward for Black to challenge the clfile when a white rook inevitably arrives at dl. 14 lk1 .!:iad8 14 ... li:ixc3 15 .t'!:xc3 e5> is well met by 16 dxeS li:ixeS 17 'i!Vxd6 li:ixf3+ 18 gxf3 cxd6 19 3ld5 but holding back with, say, 15 ... .tlad8 looks eminently playable. 15 11:la4!?

Eyeing up the tasty cS square. 15 ... b6 It looks as though Black has missed

the boat regarding the central challenge. Indeed, 15 ... eS> just loses a pawn to 16 dxe5 li:ixe5 17 3<.xd5 'iWxdS 18 'i!VxdS .t'!:xdS 19 li:ixeS .t'!:xeS 20 .t'!:xc7. 16 .i.b5 11:lce 7 17 .!:ie 1 li:lf6 18 b4 c6 19 .i.11 A typical grandmasterly retreat. White now has the key breaks ... c6-c5 and ... e6-e5 well covered. 19 ... li:ld7 20 li:lb2 The knight has fulfilled its duty on a4 and now seeks sunnier climes. 20 ... 1!1'b8 21 li:ld3 .i.xd3 Black concedes the bishop because he can't face the prospect of having to deal with a knight on eS. 22 .i.xd3 e5

Finally this move is played. However, the position is merely opened nicely for the bishop and, with the b-pawn on b6 rather than b 7, the c6-pawn is far more of a target. 23 .i.b1 The bishop visits a different back rank square, this time possibly with a queen and bishop alignment in mind. 23 ... exd4 24 exd4 I also like 24 li:ixd4 although the restrictive text enables the knight to look for a home on eS instead. 105


24 ... 1Wd6 25 1Wa4

The queen looks menacing here although it is doubtful that 'i!Vxa7 is on the agenda just yet! 25 ... l:i:fe8 26 11:leS!?

26 1..e4!?, further pressurising c6, also looks attractive. 26 ... 1Wxd4

Not fancying 26 ... li:lxeS 27 dxeS, Black takes up the challenge. 27 l:i:cd1 1Wc3 28 l:i:e3!

Unfortunately, it is clear that he has walked into trouble.

to be said that 28 ... 'i!Vxe5' 29 l:l.xeS li:lxeS 30 .l:txd8 l:l.xdS would have been a more resilient way of doing it. 29 fxe3 11:lxeS 30 l:i:xd8 J:i:xd8 31 'li!'xa7

As Black's knight is attacked, White can afford to allow the back rank check. There is a bit of work to be done, but this endgame is winning. As soon as White coordinates his position the material advantage makes itself felt. 31 ... 11:ldS 32 il.e4 li:lf6 33 il.13 b5 34 'li!'c7 li:lxf3+ 35 gxf3 l:i:d1 + 36 @12 l:tc1 37 'li!'c8+ @h7 38 'li!'f5+ @98 39 1Wc8+ @h7 40 'lii't5+ @98 41 e4 li:lh7 42 'li!'c8+ li:lf8 43 14 96 44 15 gxf5 45 exf5 J:i:c4 46 We3 h5 47 'li!'d8 h4 48 @d3 l:i:g4 49 'li!'c7 h3 50 'li!'xc6 li:lh7 51 'li!'xb5 li:lg5 52 a4 l:i:g2 53 a5 li:lf3 54 a6 1-0

Game45

Mikavica-Rausis Neuchatel 1996 28 ... 1Wxe3

1 d4 d5 2 c4 ii.IS 3 li:lc3 e6 4 e3

Note that losing her majesty was pretty compulsory as 28 ... 'i1Vb2 29 li:lxd7 l:i'.xd7 30 l:i'.xd7 'i!Vxbl+ 31 l:l.dl would haYe been even worse. However, it has

After 4 li:lf3 the fact is that even the majority of Baltic Defence players switch to a Slav Defence via the move 4... c6,

706

The Baltic Defence: 3 !?cf3

5 e3. I'm certainly not going to claim that White is worse here but the irony of this game is that, rather than Black worrying about his light-squared bishop (in the Semi-Slav it is traditionally hemmed in on c8), it is White who ultimately suffers for retaining a bad bishop. 5 ... 11:if6 6 .lte2 11:ibd7 7 0-0 .ltd6 8 l:!:e1 ?! 0-0 9 .ltf1

from which there have been thousands of games. Obviously the Slav Defence is outside the scope of this book, but what I will say is that the lines in which Black secures his light-squared bishop (usually his problem piece) outside the pawn chain have a very good reputation. Certainly, as a white Queen's Gambit player myself, I personally would be reluctant to engage in a move order that allows Black to safely achieve the above formation. As this book is about the unusual Queen's Gambit defences, I don't want to go into too much detail, particularly about the theory of this variation. However, I have selected two games that I believe are fitting. The following encounter was played in the same year as this book's creation and casts a fair reflection on the line's theoretical standing: 5 'i'b3 'i'b6 6 cS 'i'c7 7 ~f4 'i'c8 8 'Llh4 ~g4 9 h3 ~hS 10 g4 ~e7 11 ~g3 ~g6 12 'Llxg6 hxg6 13 e3 'Lld7 14 J:!.cl ~h4 15 ~h2 ~d8 16 'i'c2 ~c7 17 ~xc7 "fllxc7 18 f4 'Lle7 19 b4 f6 20 ~d3 'lz-'/2 Poluljahov-Gleizerov, Bydgoszcz 2001. 4 ... c6 5 11:if3 Effectively, White eschews 5 'i'b3 in favour of the comparatively innocuous

White clearly plays too passively m this game, but what could be more appropriate than another instructive Igor Rausis game to round off the section on the Baltic Defence. 9 ... l:!:e8 10 h3 'W/e7 11 cxd5?!

Control of the tension on dS was all that White had going for him. A minority attack would now take far too long and so from now on it's all one-way traffic. 11 ... exd5 12 11:ih4 .lte4 13 g3 h6 14 i.d2 .ll.h7 15 i.g2 g5 16 11:if3 li:ie4 17 l:!:f1 i.t5 18 g4 .ltg6 1911:ih2 f5

Seeking to crack open the white king. 20 11:ixe4 fxe4 21 '!ll'b3 11:if6 22 l:!:fc1 h5!

Relentless! Not that White was doing anything anyway. 23 gxh5 .ltxh5 24 11:if1 .ltf3 25 12lg3

707


l.xg3 26 fxg3 g4 27 h4

@f1 @d7

Toying with his opponent, Black is considering a break on the queenside. 49 b4 li:ld6 50 J:!:d1 @c7 51 J:!:dc1 li:lc4

White is desperate to keep things closed off but this supported passed pawn won't mean much in the overall scheme of things. 27 .. .ltlh5 28 i.e1 i.xg2 29 @xg2 'i/Vf7 30 'ilid1 'i1Vf3+ 31 'i/Vxf3 exf3+

Creating an outpost on e4. Black's knight is somewhat preferable to White's bishop. 32 @f2 li:lf6 33 J:!:c2 J:!:e6 34 J:!:d1 J:!:ae8 35 J:!:d3 li:le4+ 36 @f1 li:ld6 37 @f2 @f7 38 a4 @96 39 a5 a6

Preventing the glimmer of hope that would have been 40 a6. Now there is nothing for White to do other than sit and wait for the inevitable. 40 b3 J:!:f6 41 @f1 J:!:f7 42 .tt2 J:!:fe7 43 J:!:c 1 li:lf5 44 J:!:cc3 J:!:e4 45 @g 1 @f7 46 @f1 J:!:8e6 47 @g1 @ea 48

108

52 J:!:xc4

The pawn break ... b7-b6 would have happened some day and so, in frustration, White sacrifices the exchange. He's still left with a duff bishop though! 52 ... dxc4 53 J:!:xc4 b6 54 axb6+ @xb6 55 J:!:c5 J:!:d6 56 J:!:c3 J:!:d5 57 i.e1 a5 58 bxa5+ J:!:xa5 59 J:!:c2 J:l:a3 60 i.d2 J:!:a1 + 61 J:l:c1 J:l:xc1 + 62 i.xc1 J:!:e8 63 i.d2 @b5 64 @f2 @c4 65 .ta5 @d3 66 d5 cxd5 67 i.b6 J:!:a8 68 i.d4 J:!:a2+ 69 @f1 l:k2 70 i.e5 @xe3 71 .tf4+ @e4 72 h5 l:l:h2 73 h6 f2 74 @e2 d4 75 h7 d3+ 0-1

The Baltic Defence: 3 ciJf3

Summary

The section on the Baltic Defence has shown how a swift ... lt:ic6 can easily produce quick wins as there are clearly tactics available (particularly with the white queen on b3). I do, however, believe that this chapter has exposed its positional frailties when White has decided on a simple game. Whilst the likes of Bent Larsen, Vladimir Malaniuk and even Paul Keres have contributed heavily to the theory of this tricky opening, possibly because of my memorable loss to him, it is the Latvian Grandmaster Igor Rausis who is to my mind the leading man of 2 ... .lil.fS. However, whilst it is possible that Black could defend (and no doubt will attempt to in the future) the positions reached in Games 43 and 44, it is the last game of this chapter that demonstrates that common-sense should prevail. If Black has the opportunity to transpose into a favourable variation of a Slav /Semi-Slav hybrid then he probably should do so. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Jl.f5 3 li:lf3 e6 4 li:lc3 (D) 4 'lli'b3 lt:ic6 5 cS. Game 41 5 .lil.d2 (D) • Game 42 4 ... li:lc6 4... c6 · Game 45

5 .1¥.14 5 .lil.gS · Game 44 5 ... li:lf6 (D) · Game 43

4 ltlc3

5 .fi.d2

5 ... ltlf6

109

CHAPTER SfVEN

I

The Chigorin Defence:

3 cxd5

1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 cxd5 I once went through a two-year period losing only three games with White; amazingly, all of them were to the Chigorin Defence! However, as I have actually defeated it a few times now as well, I'm not going to praise this energetic system too much. Nevertheless, with all due respect to the Albin Counter Gambit and the Baltic Defence, this opening is generally held in much higher regard. Indeed, whilst several top players have heen known to employ it occasionally, a regular member of the world's top five, Alexander Morozevich, practically has it as his main defence to 1 d4. As whole books have previously been published on this opening, I thought that, rather than include every sideline here, I would especially concentrate on current trends in variations and new ideas. Consequently, although I don't believe that I have left anything critical out, most of the games included over the next three chapters are recent and it's possible that I have ignored some

I I0

lines that haven't been seen in years. This first chapter deals with what happens when White immediately tries to punish Black for not employing either 2 ... e6 or 2 ... c6 and looks to exploit the hlack queen coming out early. Particularly in vogue at the time of this book's publication are Games 46-50.

Game46 Muse-Ljubicic

Split 2000 1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 cxd5 Just as with 2 ... ~f5, this is the most principled move. Black has done nothing to support d5 and hence White eliminates his pawn centre. 3 ... 1Wxd5 4 e3 More testing than 4 'tlf3, for reasons given in Game 53. 4 ... e5 This is necessary, or else White is simply afforded a large space advantage. 5 li:lc3 ~b4 Another necessity. Black is prepared to concede bishops for knights in the

The Chigorin Defence: 3 cxd5

Chigorin in order to maintain some challenge in the centre and to facilitate quick development.

6 .ltd2 .ltxc3 7 .ltxc3 Initiating a line that has become very popular in recent times. Here looks are deceiving. White certainly isn't preparing to receive an isolated queen's pawn. 7 ... exd4 8 li:le2 The point. With Black's d-pawn pinned, White also intends preserving his bishop pair. 8 ... li:lge7 9 li:lxd4 li:lxd4 Black can preserve the queens now with 9 ... 0-0 although after 10 ti:lxc6 'lll'xc6 11 'l!i'd4 ti:lfS 12 'lli'f4 l:l.eS 13 .lfl.d3 'l!i'd6 14 'lli'xd6 ti:lxd6 15 We2 they had evidently been eliminated anyway. White stood slightly better in E.CosmaFomina, Istanbul Women's Olympiad 2000. 10 'i'xd4 'i'xd4 11 .ltxd4 0-0 The drawback of the text is the decentralisation of the king when we are, after all, in an endgame. However, after 11...f6 12 i.c4 (12 .lfl.e2 was evidently defendable for Black: 12 ... i.e6 13 0-0 Wf7 14 i.hS+ g6 15 i.f3 c6 16 l:l.fc! hS 17 .lfl.e2 l:l.hd8 18 b4 ti:lf5 19 i.c3 l:1d7 20 a4 a6 21 Wfl ti:ld6 22 l:l.d 1 l:l.ad8 23

Wei ti:lfS 24 l:l.dcl .11.dS 25 Wfl l:l.eS 26 .lfl.el ti:ld6 27 l:l.a3 l:l.de 7 28 l:l.cS fS 29 i.d3 f4 30 i.d2 ti:le4 31 ..Yl.xe4 l:l.xe4 32 l:l.cl '!,-'!, Lautier-Yermolinsky, Parnu 1998) 12... ti:lc6 13 .lfl.c3 ti:leS 14 .lfl.xeS fxeS 15 0-0-0 We7 16 J:l.dS Wf6 17 l:l.hd 1 i.e6 18 l:l.cS c6 19 l:l.d6 there were some questions hanging over its positioning. Indeed, 19 ... l:l.he8 20 g4 Wf7 21 l:l.d7+ Wg8 22 l:l.xb 7 i.xc4 23 l:l.xc4 was easily converted in Bekker Jensen-Buchmann, Kiel 2000. Perhaps 13 ... We7 is a better way to play but White always retains that bishop pair niggle.

12 .li.c4 Another grind came via 12 .lfl.e2 ..Yl.e6 13 0-0 l:l.fd8 14 b4 ti:lc6 15 .lfl.c3 l:l.d7 16 l:l.fcl ti:le7 17 b5 c6 18 a4 ..Yl.dS 19 f3 fS 20 i.b4 l:l.c8 21 Wf2 Wf7 22 l:l.a3 ti:lc8 23 ii.cs l:l.c7 24 ..Yl.d4 J:l.d7 25 l:l.ac3 ti:ld6 26 bxc6 bxc6 27 l:l.b 1 g6 28 l:l.c2 l:l.c 7 29 ii.cs We6 30 l:l.cb2 Wd7 31 l:l.b8 l:l.e 7 32 h4 J:l.f7 33 hSI gxhS 34 J:l.h 1 ti:lc4 35 l:l.xh5 ti:leS 36 J:l.hS and Black's pawn weaknesses finally told in Matamoros Franco-Castro Valero, Dos Hermanas 1998. Even if he could objectively hold them, these positions aren't much fun for Black. 111


12 ... :C:e8 13 l:!:d1 ti:lc6 14 Sl.b5 Simple but, as this game suggests, obviously effective. Note that Black can't now prevent the doubling of pawns with 14 ... i.d7 because of the rook-uncovering 15 .lil.xg7. 14 ... il.e6 Upon 14 ... l:!.e6, both 15 i.c5 and 15 i.c3 leave Black experiencing senous development difficulties. 15 il.xc6 bxc6 16 a3

always likely and this game serves as a useful warning to black players. 36 ... 11.117 37 il.d4 l:l.ed7 38 l:txd7+ l:!:xd7 39 @xl5 l:!d6 40 l:ta5 il.e6+ 41 @f4 il.d7 42 l:txh5 l:th6 43 l:txh6 9xh6 44 h5 il.c8 45 94 il.a6 46 95 hx95+ 47 li.lx95 \/.198 48 \/.196 il.c4 49 e4 il.17 + 50 \/.195 il.c4 51 14 1-0

Game47 Rogozenko-Morozevich Istanbul Olympiad, 2000 1 d4 d5 2 c4 ti:lc6 3 cxd5 'li:l'xd5 4 e3 e5 5 ti:lc3 il.b4 6 il.d2 il.xc3 7 il.xc3 exd4 8 'Lle2 ti:ll6

It's an opposite-coloured bishops ending but with rooks on as well, White's winning chances are significantly increased. 16 ... a5 17 l;\c1 Sl.d5 18 f3 J;\ab8 19 @f2 f5 20 h3 l;\f8 21 h4 h5 22 \/.193 11.117 23 @f4 \/.196 24 l:!:c2 l;\a8 25 ll:hc1 ll:a6 26 .1:tc5 a4 27 il.e5 :C:17 28 il.xc7! This may seem rather convenient, but with so many weak black pawns around, tactics like this were always going to crop up. 28 ... ll:e7 29 il.e5 ll:f7 30 :Sd1 ll:a8 31 l:td4 l:ta6 32 l:tb4 il.e6 33 il.c3 Sl.d5 34 ll:b8 ll:aa7 35 l:td8 ll:fe7 36 ll:d6+ And another pawn effectively bites the dust. Progression such as this was 7 72

This is more dynamic than 8... li:lge7 as the knight has some more adventurous squares at its disposal. 9 ti:lxd4 0-0 More interesting for Black than 9... li:lxd4 10 'lli'xd4 which, it will come as no great surprise to you, has lead to very favourable White results: a) 10 ... i.e6 has offered some hope: 11 'lli'xd5 .lil.xdS 12 f3 0-0 13 Wf2 cS 14 i.e2 i.c6 15 i.xf6 gxf6 16 J:!.hdl l:!.fd8 17 l:!.xd8+ l:!.xd8 18 J:!.dl l:!.xdl 19 i.xdl b5 20 .lil.c2 h6 21 e4 Wf8 22 We3 We7 and Black held the ending in Detter-


Grabher, Austria 1996. b) However, 10... 0-0 11 .lkc4 'l!!Vxd4 12 .lkxd4 .lke6 13 ~xe6 fxe6 14 J:icl l:if7 15 @e2 l:ie8 16 ~xf6 gxf6 17 l:ihdl l:ife7 18 l:id3 @f7 19 e4 l:ig8 20 g3 l:ic8 21 l:icdl @e8 22 l:!a3 a6 23 l:ib3 c6 24 l:if3 l:if7 25 e5 f5 26 l:!d6 l:ie 7 27 l:!fd3 c5 28 @d2 c4 29 l:!3d4 l:ic5 30 f4 l:ia5 31 a3 b5 32 l:ib6 @f7 33 @c3 saw White converting a small advantage in Krivoshey-Bezgodov, Minsk 1998. c) 10 ... 'l!!Vxd4 is also not much fun, e.g. 11 .lkxd4

we've seen so far. White certainly doesn't get things all his own way with the queens on: 10... 'l!!Vxc6 11 J:!cl l:!e8 (11...il.g4 12 'l!!Vc2 l:ife8 13 il.d4 'l!!Vd6 14 'l!!Vc5 'l!!VdW 15 f3 b6 16 il.xf6 'l!!Vxf6 17 'l!!Vc3 'l!!Vh6 left White regretting his decision to play 15 f3 in Syrigos-Pantavos, Poros 1998) 12 ~d4 'i!i'd6 13 ~e2 b6 14 0-0 c5 15 ~c3 'l!!Ve6 16 .lkf3 lt:le4 17 ~xe4 'l!!Vxe4 18 l:iel ~a6 19 f3 'l!!Ve6 20 'l!!Va4 b5 21 'l!!Va5 b4 22 .lkd2 J:!ed8 and I prefer Black, M.Richter-Miladinovic, Saint Vincent 2000. 10 .. .'lll'g5 11 h4?!

While it is tempting to try and nudge the black queen away from attacking g2, there is a problem with this move. Now it becomes vety difficult for White to castle kingside. Hence 11 lt:lxc7 ~g4

11...0-0 12 l:icl c6 13 .lke2 .lke6 14 a3 ~b3 15 l:ic3 .lke6 16 f3 lt:ld5 17 l:icl l:ifc8 18 @f2 and again the pair of bishops prorruse White an edge, T.Christensen-Charles, Suncoast 1999. Regarding other ninth move alternatives, premature is 9 ... 'De4?! in view of 10 lt:lb5!, when 10... 'l!!Vxdl+ 11 l:!xdl 0-0 12 lt:lxc 7 lt:lxc3 13 bxc3 nets White a fairly comfortable pawn. The move 9 ... il.g4 is well met by 10 'l!!Va4, e.g. 10... ~d7 11 lt:lb5 0-0-0 12 'l!!Vf4 lt:le8 13 .txg7!, winning a pawn in RiemersmaHeisel, Germany 1998. 10 li:lb5.

10 lt:lxc6 fails to inspire when compared to plenty of other variations

is possibly how things should go and now:

a) I have noticed an interesting point regarding the concept of the move 12 il.xf6. Indeed 12 ... gxf6 13 '1Wd5 l:l:ad8 14 'l!!Vxg5+ fxg5 15 ~e2 ~f5 16 lt:lb5 with an advantage to White, Green-Spain, Auckland 2001 is another inexplicable game. I can't help wondering what this obsession with ... gxf6 is all about, when 113


surelr here 12 ... 'li'xf6, intending 13 ·11Vxg4 'li'xb2, is more accurate. b) 12 'li'b3 is seen most in practice, e.g. 12... l:i:ad8 with a further split: bl) After 13 h3 ..ltc8 14 'li'b5 'li'g6 15 ..ltxf6 gxf6 - here we go again! - 16 J:i:cl 'li'e4 17 ..ltc4 'li'xg2 18 ..td5 'li'g6 19 We2 @h8 20 l:i:hgl 'li'h6 21 ..ltxc6 bxc6 22 'li'xc6 'li'h5+ 23 @el 'li'e5 24 l:i:g3 l:i:g8 25 l:i:xg8+ l:i:xg8 26 12id5 ..lte6 27 luc3 ..ltxh3 28 'li'd5 ..ltg2 29 'li'xe5 fxeS 30 We2 h5 things had turned out okay and indeed Black went on to win in Flear-Miladinovic, Athens 1999. However, I'm not that convinced about the earlier play and your money would be on a computer with White! b2) In contrast 13 ..ltc4 lue4 14 'li'b5 'li'h4 15 0-0 l:i:d6 16 f3 12ixc3 17 bxc3 J:i:h6 saw Black build up a very reasonable attack and then blunder after 18 lud5 'li'xh2+ 19 Wf2 'li'h4+ 20 @e2 ..ltd7 21 l:i:ad 1 lue5 22 'ii' c5 with 22 ... @h8?? 23 'li'xf8 mate (Summerscale-Oates, Hampstead 1998. b3) 13 'li'xb7 'li'cs 14 .tbs (14 h3 12ie4 15 'li'b5 'li'd6 16 lud5 'li'xd5 17 'li'xd5 l:i:xd5 18 hxg4 12ixc3 19 bxc3 l:i:cS 20 l:i:cl g6 21 l:i:h4 l:i:b8 22 ..ltd3 l:i:b2 23 l:i:c2 lub4 24 cxb4 l:i:cxc2 25 ..ltxc2 l:i:xc2 26 a3 l:i:a2 27 g5 l:i:xa3 led to a draw in Rebel Tiger-Century, Cadaques 2000; this is certainly of relevance as it's two materialistic computers) 14... J:i:d6 1512ia6 'li'd5 16 0-0 ..ltc8 17 'li'c7 'li'xbS 18 'li'xd6 12ie4 19 'li'f4 12ixc3 20 bxc3 ..ltxa6 21 l:i:fdl eventually led to a draw in Van Wely-Miladinovic, FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1997. Again, whilst 11 ..ltxf6 gxf6 12 'li'a4 ..ltg4 13 luc3 l:i:ad8 14 lue4 'ii' e5 15 12ixf6+ 'li'xf6 16 'li'xg4+ Wh8 17 ..lte2 7 74

l:i:d2 18 0-0 lueS 19 'li'b4 l:i:fd8 20 ..ltdl l:i:xb2 21 ..ltb3 l:i:gS 22 'li'e4 12if3+ 23 @h 1 l:i:xf2 24 gxf3 l:!.xh2+ 0-1 was the very entertaining encounter Olszewski~ Bromann, Budapest 1999, of course White shouldn't really have· lost, and surely 11...'li'xf6 intending 12 12ixc7 'ik'xb2 is more accurate. 11 ... °i!!'h6! After 11...'li'g6, quite promising is 12 12ixc7 (it must be said that 12 h5 'li'gS 13 h6 holds a certain appeal) l 2 ... ..\tg4 13 ..ltd3! 'lli'h6 14 'li'a4 l:!.ad8 15 ..ltc2 ..ltc8 (15 ... ..ltd7 16 l:i:dl also seems to leave Black with insufficient compensation for the pawn) 16 J:i:dl l:i:xdl+ (16 ... J:i:d7 17 l:i:xd7 ..ltxd7 18 'llf c4 saw White justifiably go on to win in Cifuentes Parada-Miladinovic, Dos Hermanas 2000) 17 ..\txdl 'li'g6 18 0-0. It's safe to castle and White's extra pawn and two bishops should rule .

12 .11.e2 White now makes nothing of his position and, having already weakened himself on the kingside, objectively he may as well go in for 1212ixc7!? ..ltg4 13 'lli'b3 l:i:ad8 14 'li'xb 7. However, although Black has some reasonable practical chances after 14... l:i:d6, another


crazy Stuart Conquest cracker continued 14.. .ltle4 15 ..tbs ..td7 16 li:ldS li:ld6 17 'iWa6 lub8 18 li:lf6+ gxf6 19 'iWxd6 ..txbS 20 'iWxf6 'iWxf6 21 ..txf6 l:td7 22 l:th3 l:tc8 23 l:tg3+ Wf8 24 ..tc3 l:tc4 25 J::l:gS ..tc6 26 g3 ..tf3 27 J::i:fS ..tg4 28 J::i:f6 J::i:d3 29 l:tcl lud7 30 l:ta6 lueS 31 Wfl J::i:d7 32 f4 ..th3+ 33 We2 ..tg4+ 34 Wfl /uf3 35 a3 J::i:xc3 36 bxc3 J::i:d2 37 J::i:xa7 ..th3 mate (MarcelinConquest, Noyon 2001). 12 ... S:d8 13 1//ic2 Arguably Black is a bit better already and that was definitely true after 13 'iWa4 li:ldS 14 l:tdl ..te6 15 hS a6 16 J::i:xdS ..txdS 17 luxe 7 J::i:ac8 18 luxdS J::i:xdS 19 ..tf3 J::i:dd8 20 0-0 'iWgS in Peng Zhaoqin-Botsari, Istanbul Women's Olympiad 2000. 13 ... li:ld5 14 S:d1 As previously mentioned, White has problems castling kingside but after 14 0-0-0 ..te6!, there will be inevitable pressure on the queenside too. 14 ... .tea 15 a3

16 li:ld4 li:lxc3 17 1//ixc3 li:lxd4 18 S:xd4 J:!.ad8 19 J:!.xd7 An amusing variation is 19 'i'xc7

l:txd4 20 exd4 l:tc8 21 'iWxb7 'iWcl+ 22 ..tdl ..tdS 23 'iWxdS l:te8+. White must concede his queen . 19 ... S:xd7 20 .if3 b6 21 g3

White is eager to protect the h-pawn and get castled but I suspect he overlooks the strength of Black's next move. 21 ... 1//if6!

Demonstrating a tremendous understanding. Black's queenside pawn majority is important but the icing on the cake is White's inability to be able to satisfactorily develop his rook. 22 1//ixf6 gxf6 23 h5

23 We2 ..tc4+ is, of course, no help. 23 ... h6 24 S:h4 c5 25 .ie2?

15 ... S:d7!

White should have taken this opportunity to play 25 b4 in order to bring his rook into play. After Black's next move, White remains tied up and, despite the fact that drawing chances remain, my Wood Green team-mate continues to victory in a very competent manner.

15 ... luxeW 16 fxe3 'iWxe3 17 l:td3 l:txd3 18 'iWxd3 'iWcl+ 19 'iWdl 'iWf4 looks like an interesting sacrifice but the text move is simply good.

25 ... .ib3! 26 J:!.f4 lt>g7 27 g4 J:td6 28 J:!.e4 \t>f8 29 J:l:f4 a5 30 J:!.e4 S:d8 31 J:l:f4 lt>e7 32 J:!.e4+ lt>d6 33 .id1? .ie6 34 .ie2 f5 35 gxf5 .txf5 36 115


;::14 lile5 37 ll:13 b5 38 e4 .i1.e6 39 :c3 c4 40 13 1!114 41 l:!'.c2 J:!.d4 42 .i1.d1 b4 43 axb4 axb4 44 .i1.e2 lile3 45 Jl:c1 Jl:d2 46 .il.xc4 ll:h2 47 .il.11 Jl:h1 48 Jl:c2 .i1.h3 0-1

19 l:txcS l:txcS 20 .ltxcS b6 21 exdS 'h-'/2 Gulko-Brynell, Copenhagen 2000.

1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 cxd5 1!1'xd5 4 e3 e5 5 li:lc3 .il.b4 6 ..id2 .i1.xc3 7 ..ixc3 exd4 8 li:le2 li:\16 9 li:lxd4 0-0 10 .i1.e2!?

11 .il.13 111'96 12 li:lxc6 bxc6 13 1!1'd4

1 o... 1!1'x92?!

10.. .li:le4!? looks like a critical alternative. Then 11 .ltf3 is nothing because of 11...li:ieS and so 11 li:ixc6 'l!Vxc6 seems Game48 likely, when the c3-bishop has to move Kishnev-Rabiega for White to claim an edge. However, neither 12 .ltd4 'l!Vg6 nor 12 .lteS l:te8 German Bundesliga 200 I .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,. particularly impress.

Not as alluring as 10 4Jb5, but possibly better as the g2-pawn is a risky one to take. Rounding off White's other options: a) 10 'l!Vb3 4Jxd4 11 il.xd4 'l!Vd6 12 l:!.dl cS 13 il.c3 'l!Ve7 14 il.c4 4Je4 15 0-0 b6 16 ii.JS l:tb8 17 f3 4Jxc3 18 'l!Vxc3 il.b7 19 e4 '12-'/2 DautovMorozevich, Gelsenkirchen 2000. b) 10 4Jxc6 'l!Vxc6 11 'l!Vf3 (or 11 l:!.cl l:!.e8 12 il.d4 'l!Vd6 13 il.e2 b6 14 0-0 cS 15 il.c3 'l!Ve6 16 il.f3 4Je4 17 il.xe4 'l!Vxe4 with equality in M.Richter-Miladimwic, Saint Vincent 2000) 11...'l!Vxf3 12 ?' f3 li:idS 13 il.d4 il.e6 14 :tlg 1 f6 15 a3 aS 16 :tlc1 l:!.ac8 17 llild2 J:!.fd8 18 e4 cS , ,6

White has two raking bishops and, considering this move and the halfopen g-file, it's easy to envisage something big happening on g7. 13 ... 1!1'15?

Conceding the g-file all too easily. More resistant would have been either 13 ... il.e6 or 13 ... il.b 7 but White's chances still look preferable. 14 .i1.xc6 J:!.b8 15 .!l.91 lilh8 16 0-0-0

Completing the development. White's army looks awesome and, in fact, he is already threatening 17 l:txg 7. 16 ... .!l.b6 17 1!1'd8!

Black's intention was to meet the move 17 l:txg7' with 17 ... l:txc6. However, White now exploits his opponent's frailty on the back rank in devastating fashion.


erable to 8 lt:lf3. 9 ... .11.xf3

Certainly entering into the spirit of things although I suppose Black officially surfaces material up rather than down in this line. 10 gxf3 'lli'xf3 11 il,xd4 The current view seems to be that this is slightly stronger than the also very playable 11 lt:lxd4 'ifxhl 12 lt:lxc6.

17 ...'lli'c5 17 ... l::tg8 would have walked into 18 'il'xg8+!! lt:lxg8 (or 18 ... Wxg8 19 l::td8+) 19 11.xg7 mate. 18 l1g5! 1-0 The icing on the cake. The black queen must stay protecting the f8-rook and there are no safe squares available along the a3-f8 diagonal.

Game49

In the above position White is threatening 13 il.xg7 and I, myself, now faced 12 ... lt:lf6 (White is left with an excellent Malaga 2001 .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. endgame after 12 ... 'ifxh2 13 'il'g4! it:lf6

Cifuentes Parada-Moreda

1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 cxd5 'lli'xd5 4 e3 e5 5 li:lc3 .11.b4 6 .!i.d2 .11.xc3 7 .11.xc3 exd4 8 li:le2 .11.94 9 f3

The reason why 8 lt:le2 is much pref-

14 'ifxg7 'il'h4+ 15 Wdl l::tg8 16 'ifxf6 'ifxf6 17 il.xf6 bxc6 18 l::tcl) 13 lt:la5!> 'il'e4 (or 13 ... 'ifxh2 14 'il'a4+ c6 15 0-0-0! 0-0 {else 16 'ifb4 will keep the enemy king in the centre} 16 il.xf6 gxf6 17 lt:lxb 7 with a clear advantage to White) 14 'ifd4 0-0 15 0-0-0 b6 16 lt:lc4 'if xd4 17 il.xd4 lt:le4 18 il.g2 l::tae8 19 l::tgl f6 20 b4 c5 21 bxc5 bxc5 22 ii.al it:lf2 23 il.d5+ Wh8 24 Wc2 l::td8 25 e4 lt:lh3 26 l::tfl. In general you'd favour the two bishops over the rook and two pawns but I'm sure that Black wasn't anticipating what soon followed: 26 ... l::tfeS?! 27 l::txf6!! l::txd5 28 exd5 gxf6 29 il.xf6+ Wg8 30 d6 it:lf4 31 d7 WfS 32 1 17


d,e8'll!' + 'ii.>xe8 33 .lteS tlle6 34 'ii.>d3 Wd7 35 We4 lilc6 36 tlle3 tllgS+ 37 @f4 tllf7 38 .ltc3 @bS 39 @fS tlld6+ 40 lileS tllc4+ 41 tllxc4 li?xc4 42 .ltd2 @d3 43 .lth6 c4 44 lilf6 li?e4 45 a4 c3 46 lilg7 1-0 Ward-M.Goldberg, Jersey 1998. 11 ... 'l!!'xh1

There is little disputing how bad this turns out and hence 11 ... tllxd4! 12 'lli'xd4 'll!'xh 1 has been suggested as a better route to take. After 13 'lli'xg 7 0-0-0! (rather than 13 ... 'll!'xh2? 14 0-0-01 'lli'h6 15 'lli'xh8 'lli'xe3+ 16 @bl when Black has three fairly irrelevant pawns for a piece but plenty to worry about) 14 'lli'xhS 'lli'xh2 15 'lli'g7 'lli'h4+ 16 'll!'g3, things aren't actually that clear although the feeling remains that White should be better. 12 .il.xg7 'i!i'xh2 13 'i!i'a4!

The h8-rook isn't going anywhere, whilst the text eliminates a rather painful check on h4. 13 ... 0-0-0 14 .il.xh8 f6 15 'lli'g4+ lilb8 16 J:l:d1 A trade of rooks will obviously leave Black's back rank vulnerable. 16 ... l:te8 17 'l!!'f4 'i!i'h1 18 li:lg3 1ii'g1 19 li:lf5 ©e5 20 .il.g7 1 18

Black isn't going to win this bishop. 20 ... a6 21 lild2

The king heads for safety, after which there is no disguising that Black only has two pawns for a piece. 21 ... li:le7 22 li:lxe7 'l!!'xg7 23 li:ld5 J:te6 24 @c1 1ii'g6 25 li:lc3 'l!!'e8 26 .il.g2 'l!!'e7 27 a3 J:tb6 28 'l!!'e4 1ii'g7 29 .il.h1 'l!!'g3 30 'lli'f4 'l!!'h3 31 @b1 lila7 32 ©d5 l:i:d6 33 'l!!'b4 1-0

Game50 Shtyrenkov-Tishin Alushta 2001 1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 cxd5 'l!!'xd5 4 e3 e5 5 ©c3 .il.b4 6 .il.d2 .il.xc3 7 .il.xc3 exd4 8 li:le2 .il.g4 9 f3 .il.e6 A move about which many experts

disagree. Before launching into a debate about this, however, the other tries to date here are: a) 9... 0-0-0?!

(an amazing idea attempted in a high profile encounter) 10 tllxd4 l"i:lf6 11 'll!'a4! (11 fxg4?! offers Black a reasonable amount of compensation after 11 ... l:theS) with: al) 11....ltd7? 12 tllxc6 .ltxc6 13 'lli'xa7 l:the8 14 .lte2 'lli'gS 15 .ltxf6


'i'xf6 16 0-0 with a clear advantage for White, as in Lilja-Bromann, Copenhagen 2000. a2) 1l...li:lxd4 12 ..ixd4 (rather than 12 'i'xd4; ..ixf3!) 12 ... ..ixf3 13 gxf3 'i'xf3 14 l:i:gl li:lg4 (or 14... li:le4 15 l:i:g2 with everything under control) 15 l:i:xg4 'i'xg4 16 'i'xa7 'i'h4+ 17 Wd2. White will escape the checks and it goes without saying that the bishops are far more preferable to Black's extra rook. a3) 11...'i'gS 12 li:lxc6 'i'xe3+ 13 ..ie2 l:i:he8 14 li:le5 (White now wins an unconvincing game; better would have been 14 'i'c2! bxc6 15 ..ixf6 ..ixf3 16 gxf3 gxf6, with either 17 l:i:f! or 17 l:i:dl leaving White set to rebuff Black's pressure) 14 ... ..ifS 15 J:i:dl l:i:xdl+ 16 'i'xdl l:i:xeS 17 ..id4?

li:lb6 34 Wc3 Wc6 35 @b4 li:lds+ 36 Wa5 li:le3 37 l:i:cl+ li:lc4+ 38 Wb4 d5 39 l:i:dl li:le3 40 l:i:cl+ li:lc4 41 f4!? d4 42 l:i:xc4+ bxc4 43 Wxc4 d3 44 Wxd3 WdS 45 Wc3 Wes 46 g4 f6 47 fS h5?? 48 gxhS! Wd5 49 Wb4 @es 50 Wxa4 WxfS 51 @b4 Wg4 52 @c3 fS 53 @d2 f4 54 We2 1-0 Topalov-Morozevich, Frankfurt 1999. b) 9... 'i'g5 10 li:lxd4 ..id7 11 li:lxc6 ..ixc6 12 'i'd4 li:le7 13 'i'eS 'i'xeS 14 ..ixeS f6 15 ..ic3 0-0-0 16 e4 l:i:heS 17 g4 li:lg6 18 Wf2 li:leS 19 ..ie2 l:i:d7 20 l:i:ad 1 and the bishop pair gave White a niggle in Karr-Taddei, Mulhouse 2001. 10 li:lxd4 0-0-0

10 ... li:lxd4 11 'i'xd4 'i'xd4 12 .ltxd4, just as in positions we've already cov-

ered, is a fairly comfortable (if not large) edge ro White. 11 'lii'a4

17 ... 'i'f4? (17 ... ..ic2!! 18 'i'd2 'i'xd2+ 19 Wxd2 l:i:dS would have left Black on top) 18 ..ixeS 'i'xeS 19 0-0 'i'xb2 20 ..ic4 ..ie6 21 'i'd3 'i'b6+ 22 Whl ..ixc4 23 'i'xc4 'i'e6 24 'i'b4! (as Black is more vulnerable on the back rank, he is now forced ro allow the trade of queens that leads to a probably lost endgame) 24 ... 'i'd6 25 'i'xd6 cxd6 26 Wgl Wd7 27 @f2 li:ldS 28 We2 li:lf4+ 29 @f2 b5 30 g3 li:ldS 31 We2 aS 32 Wd2 a4 33 a3

Ultimately working out considerablr worse than the text for \\/hite \Vas the

slower 11 .lte2 li:lge7 12 'i'a4 li:lxd4 13 ..ixd4 li:lc6 14 ..ic3 l:i:heS 15 'i'bS 'ii d6 16 l:i:dl 'i'e7 17 l:l.xdS+ l:l.xdS 18 Wf2 J:l.eS 19 e4 a6 20 'i'd3 ..ixa2 21 ..ixg7 l:i:g8 22 .ltc3 'i'c5+ 23 @fl l:i:d8 24 'i'c2 li:ld4 25 'iic 1 .ltc4 26 ..ixd4 l:i:xd4 27 h3 ..ixe2+ 28 Wxe2 'i'b5+ 29 Wf2 'i'b3 30 119


·~gs 'lli'xb2+ 31 Wg3 J:1d6 B..-\ddison-Antal, Witley 2001.

0-1

11 ... li:ige 7 12 li:ixc6 li:ixc6 13 .i.bS 'i'c5 14 li.>12 .i.d7 15 J:1hc1 li:ieS 16 .i.xd7+ J:txd7 17 .i.d4 li:id3+ 18 li.>11

Game51

Piket-Morozevich Wijk aan Zee 2001 1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:ic6 3 cxd5 'i!!'xd5 4 e3 es 5 li:ic3 .i.b4 6 .i.d2 .i.xc3 7 bxc3

18 ... J:1xd4!

After 18 ... 'lli'xcl+? 19 J:!.xcl li:lxcl, both 20 'lli'xa7 and 20 'lli'c4 are clearly winning for White. Indeed, Black was in trouble were it not for this clever exchange sacrifice. Alternatives let the queen and knight work wonders after 20 ... 'll!'xh2.

The older move that has also experienced a recent resurgence. White sets about building up a big pawn centre. The only drawback of this policy is that the development doesn't come as quickly as with 7 ~xc3.

20 ... li:ixe1 21 J:1xe1 a6 22 J:1e8+

7 ... li:il6 8 f3

Despite having an isolated pawn, White gets to bail out for a draw.

Obviously aimed at controlling the e4-square. The other obvious way to budge the black queen is with 8 c4. Then 8 ... 'll!'d6 9 d5 has been played a few times, including recently: a) Relocating the knight via 9... li:lb8 is definitely deserving of consideration, for example 10 'll!'b 1 li:la6 11 ~d3 li:lcS 12 li:le2 c6 13 e4 b5 14 li:)c3 b4 15 li:ld 1 cxd5 16 exd5 a5 17 li:le3 J:1b8 18 ~c2 0-0 19 0-0 g6 with level chances in Yusupov-Beliavsky, Solingen 2000. b) 9... li:\e7 and now b 1) 10 'll!'b 1 (which is more productive than 10 li:lf3 as it controls e4 and

19 exd4 'i'd6 20 J:1e1

22 ... J:1xe8 23 'i'xe8+ 'i'd8 24 'i'xl7 'i'xd4 25 'ili'e8+ 'i!!'d8 26 'i!!'xd8+ li.>xd8 27 li.>e2 li.>e7 28 li.>e3 li.>d6 29 li.>e4 li.>e6 30 14 li.>16 31 b4 li.>e6 32 15 + li.>d6 33 g4 li.>e 7 34 li.>eS li.>17 35 g5 li.>e7 36 h4 li.>f7 37 li.>dS h5 38 li.>eS li.>e 7 39 li.>dS li.>f7 40 a3 li.>e 7 41 li.>e5 li.>f7 42 a4 li.>e 7 43 as @f7 44 f6 gxf6 + 45 gxf6 b6 46 li.>d5 bxa5 47 bxa5 li.>xl6 48 li.>c6 @e6 49 li.>xc7 li.>dS 50 li.>b6 li.>d6 51 @xa6 li.>c6 52 li.>a 7 li.>c 7 53 a6 li.>c8 54 @b6 li.>b8 Y, - Y, 7 20


facilitates White's next move) 10 ... 0-0 11 .ltb4 c5 12 .ltd. Now the ambitious 12... b5 didn't turn out so great: 13 'lli'xb5 l:b8 14 'lli'a5 lt:le4 15 it:lf3 lt:lg6 16 lt:ld2 f5 17 f3 lt:lxd2 18 @xd2 lt:lh4 19 l:g I l:b6 20 .lte2 f4 21 e4 l:a6 22 'lli'bs .ltd7 23 'lli'b2 l:b8 24 'lli'c2 .lta4 25 'Iii' cl and Black didn't have enough for the pawn in Yusupov-Rabiega, Frankfurt 2000. b2) IO 'iWb3 0-0 11 .ltb4 c5?! (alas, this doesn't work out so well as when the queen is on b I as White has more options when the going gets tough) 12 dxc6 'lli'c7 13 'iWa3! (like this!) 13 ... l:e8 14 .ltd6 'lli'd8 15 c7 'lli'd7 16 l:d! 'lli'e6 17 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 18 .lte2 b6 19 0-0 .ltb 7 20 cS and White went on to win in Bonsch-Brynell, Tegel 2001. An excellent example of a strong black plan came after 8 lt:lf3?! .ltg4 9 .lte2 e4! 10 lt:lg! (IO c4 now looks like White's last chance to avoid Black's forthcoming grip on the light squares) I O... ~xe2 11 lt:lxe2 0-0 12 0-0 lt:laS! 13 lt:lf4 'iWc6 14 'lli'c2 lt:lc4 15 l:fdl l:fe8 16 .lte 1 it:ld5 17 lt:lxdS 'lli'xd5 18 a4 l:e6! (Black makes perfect use of the space afforded to him by the pawn on e4) 19 l:db 1 a6 (preventing 20 l:bS and hence allowing the queen to retain its attractive central post) 20 l:b4 b6 21 'lli'e2 l:c6 22 l:c! l:e8 23 l:c2 l:ee6 24 ~d2 l:g6 25 ~cl h5 26 'lli'el?! 'lli'f5 27 'lli'e2 l:xg2+!! 28 @xg2 l:g6+ 29 @hi (29 @fl 'iWh3+ 30 @el l:g!+ is mating) 29 ... 'iWh3 30 f4 exf3 31 'iWf2 lt:ld6 0-1 Machelett-Brynell, Germany 2000. 8 ... 0-0 One would be tempted to contemplate throwing a spanner into White's works with 8... e4 and, regarding this

move, it's probably fair to say the jury is still out. So far, though, 9 c4 'lli'd6 10 'lli'b I! looks promising for White: 10 ... ~f5 11 f4 0-0 12 lt:le2 h5 (or 12... l:fe8 13 lt:lg3 ~d7 14 ~e2 l:ad8 15 ~c3, when White's pawn control left him well placed in Radjabov-Antal, Budapest 2000) 13 d5! lt:le7 14 ~b4 'lli'd7 15 lt:ld4. Again White stood better and went on to win in Avrukh-Miladinovic, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. Similarly, 8 ... 'lli'd6 9 .ltd3 0-0 10 lt:le2 l:e8 11 0-0 b6 12 'Iii'c2 ~e6 13 l:ad I l:ad8 14 @hi h6 15 a4 ~d7 16 e4 exd4 17 ~f4 'lli'c5 18 cxd4 lt:lxd4 19 'lli'xc5 bxc5 20 lt:lxd4 cxd4 21 ~xc7 l:c8 22 l:c! ~xa4 23 ~a6 left White with the better chances, although Van der Sterren-Piket, Amsterdam 1999 ended in a draw. 9 e4 Now 9 c4 'lli'd6 10 d5 lt:le7 11 'lli'b! aS!? (halting ~b4 altogether) 12 e4 c6 13 a4, as in Giorgadze-Sulava, San Marino 1998, makes slightly less sense. 9 ... 'lli'd6 10 d5 Ci:Je7 11 c4 Ci:Jh5

As usual, the brilliant young Russian comes out with a new idea and, typically, it's a fairly aggressive approach. The knight eyes up the f4-square and 121


rhe way is paved for ... f7-f5. Previously 11...lbd7 12 lbe2 b6 13 lbc3 a6 14 ~e2 /bes 15 0-0 f5 16 ~e3 ~d7 17 a4 lbg6 18 a5 lbf4 (Dautov-Miladinovic, Yerevan Olympiad 1996) had been played but I'm not certain I agree with the suggested assessment of 'slightly better for White' as Black seems to have his fair share of play. 12'1ii'b3c5 Black had to choose between this and 12 ... aS as 13 ~b4 would have been awkward. Now White has a supported passed pawn on dS, but this won't be such a big thing until the endgame. In fact, in a middlegame Black would ideally enjoy blockading it with a knight. 13 ii:le2 f5 Now we have an interesting situation. White would love the e4-square for his own knight but he dare not grant an enemy steed access to d4. 14 ii:lc3 b6 1 5 .ltd3 ii:lg6

Objectively, I suppose White does stand better but in practice I suspect that each of 15 ... lbf6, 15 ... /bf4 and even 15 ... f4 wouldn't be that easy to handle. 16 g3 Simply keeping the black knights out of f-l. 122

16 ... 'lii'e7 Instead 16 ... f4!? 17 g4 lbh4!? 18 gxhS lbxf3+ 19 Wdl, with either 19 ... ~g4 or 19 ... 'lii'h6 to follow, looks fun although actually White is not forced to accept the piece and can play 18 ~e2 or 18 0-0. 17 exf5! Ensuring that White gets the cherished e4-square that I was talking about earlier. 17 ... .ltxf5 18 .ltxf5 Il.xf5 19 ii:le4 The knight is superbly placed here and it may even have the exciting e6square in its sights. 19 ... ii:lf6 20 .ltg5

Securing the knight on e4 and hoping to exploit the awkward placing of the black rook. Note 20 lbgS isn't that effective now because of 20 ... h6 21 ©e6 e4 22 0-0 lbf8!. 20 ... 'lifts 21 .ltxf6 gxf6 22 0-0-0 An ambitious, though certainly not bad, continuation. White would, however, also have retained a simple edge by castling short. 22 ...Il.h5 23 h4 Il.h6 24 h5 Both 24 d6 and 24 'lii' e3 also looked attractive. 24 ... ii:le7 25 g4


Black's rook and knight are poorly placed and White has an apparent bind on Black's position. With little else to do, Black's reaction is only natural. 25 ... f5 26 g5 26 gxfS li:lxfS 27 'l!Wc3 li:ld4 28 'l!We3 was the way of playing for an advantage that wouldn't have allowed the forthcoming exchange sacrifice. 26 ... fxe4 27 gxh6 'i1Vf4+ 28 lt>b1 exf3 White is still clear favourite but Black has managed to mix things up nicely. It is always better to have a 'messy' disadvantage rather than a clear cut one. 29 'i!Vd3? 29 l:hgl+ liith8 30 l:g7 li:lfs is fairly unclear but 29 l:hfl! l:f8 (rather than 29 ... e4 30 'l!Wc3!) 30 'l!Wc3 looks good. Black won't be able to employ his epawn and White has moves like l:d3, l:del and d6 to think about in the fu. ture.

knights love blocking enemy supported passed pawns and here it hits the root of the dS-pawn too. 31 J:thg1 + lt>h8 32 J:tg7 'i!Vxh6 33 J:td7?! White's rooks soon lose all coordination. Better was 33 l:g3. 33 ... J:tf8 34 'i!Vc3? White continues to err in time trouble. He was still able to secure a draw with 34 l:fl e4 35 'lid+ 'lif6 36 'lixf6+ l:xf6 37 l:gl ! h6 38 l:d8+ liith 7 39 l:d7+ liith8 (or 39 ... li:lf7 40 l:e7) 40 l:d8+ etc. 34 ... 'i!Vf6 35 h6? Accelerating Black's win although in fairness there was no satisfactory way to halt the menacing pawns. 35 ... f2 36 J:tf1 'i1Vf5+ 37 lt>a1 lue4 This or 37 ... li:lxc4 were fine but not 37 ... 'l!Wxd7' 38 'lixeS+ liitg8 39 'l!Wg3+ liithS (acguiescing in a draw but vastly preferable nevertheless to 39 ... liitf7> 40 'lixf2+) 40 'lies+ with a draw by repetition.

2s .. .1ut5 This way the knight looks set to make it to d4. All of a sudden it's anybody's game. 30 J:tde 1 11:id6 On the other hand, this looks a good place for it too! As mentioned earlier,

38 'i!Vd3 'i!Vxd7 39 'i!Vxe4 'i1Vf5 40 J:txf2? The black gueen can return to f6. Still, there was little else. 40 ... 'i!Vxf2 0-1 123

Unusual Queen's Gamb;t Oect;ned

, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , . of Goldin-Lein, Oberlin 1999) 10 .lte2 Game52 b6 11 0-0 h6 12 'lli'c2, which ended in a Tukmakov-Skembris draw in Kurajica-Bukal, Poree 1998. However, more common is 8... ibf6 9 Lausanne 2001 .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,. /bg3 0-0 (9 ... h5 is interesting in a differ1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 cxd5 'lli'xd5 4 e3 e5 5 li:lc3 .ltb4 6 .ltd2 .ltxc3 7 bxc3 'lli'd6

The other move which, along with 7... /bf6, seems to have nudged the more compliant 7... exd4 out of the spotlight.

ent sort of way!) 10 .lte2 .lte6 11 0-0, when Black needs to decide whether his c6-knight should try to grip the c4square (perhaps 1L.lba5) or journey to the kingside via, say, 11...ibe7.

8 ... li:lge7 8 .ltd3

Lesser seen, but far from illogical, is 8 f3, for example 8... f5 9 .ltd3 ibf6 10 lbe2 .il.e6 11 'lli'bl e4 12 .il.bS a6 13 .il.a4 b5 14 .il.b3 li:ia5 15 .il.xe6 'lli'xe6 16 a4 0-0 17 0-0 lbc4 18 .ii.cl c6 19 ibf4 'lli'd7 20 fxe4 lbxe4 21 '!li'd3 l:lae8 22 axbS axb5 23 .lta3 l:!£7 24 .il.b4 ibf6 25 l:lael ibd5 26 ibxd5 'lli'xdS 27 l:lf4 g6 28 e4 l:lxe4 29 l:lexe4 '/,-'/2 PraszakMyc, Glogow 2001 witnessed an interesting light-squared tussle in which Black's play was at least outwardly attractive. After 8 lbe2 one option is 8... lbge7 9 lbg3 0-0 (better than the 9... f5?! 10 .lte2 .il.e6 11 0-0 0-0 12 'lli'a4 lbd5 13 c4 lbb6 14 'lli'c2 exd4 15 c5 'lli'd5 16 cxb6 d3 17 .il.xd3 l:lad8 18 bxc7 l:ld7 19 .il.xfS! 1-0 124

Or 8... ibf6 9 f3 (9 lbe2 0-0 10 lbg3 l:1e8 11 0-0 b6 12 'lli'c2 h6 13 f3 iba5 14 lbe4 lbxe4 15 .il.xe4 .il.b 7 looked very reasonable for Black in ZimmermanJ amrich, Budapest 1999 - White still has those centre pawns but enough pieces have been traded for Black not to be too cramped) 9 ... 0-0 10 lbe2 l:l.e8 11 0-0 (compared to my previous note, not committing the knight yet) 11...b6!? 12 'lli'c2 (12 'li'cl .il.b7 13 .ii.el l:l.ad8 14 .il.f2 e4 15 fxe4 lbxe4 16 .ltxe4 l:l.xe4 was double-edged in Yu MingyuanJamrich, Budapest 2001) 12... .il.e6 13 l:l.ad1 l:l.ad8 14 li?hl h6 with even chances, Van der Sterren-Piket, Amsterdam 1999. On the other hand, 11....il.e6 12 'Ill' c1 (if you're confused about the general


employment of this move, the main idea is to over-protect the e3-pawn in order to enable an activation of the dark-squared bishop via el) 12 ... l:!:ad8 13 ~el ~c8 14 ~f2 e4 15 fxe4 li:lxe4 16 ~h4 f6 17 'iifc2 'iife7 18 li:lg3 is a difficult line to assess. The fact that White went on to win from here in Beliavsky-Miladinovic, Belgrade 1995 would suggest that perhaps he stands better. However, there are obviously chances for him to go wrong. Finally, 8... f5 has also been seen, with 9 ~c4 ~e6 10 ~xe6 'iifxe6 11 'iifb3 'iifxb3 12 axb3 being slightly better for White in Razuvaev-Kaminski, Biel 1995. 9 li:le2 0-0 10 0-0 b6 11 'l!Vc2 11 f4?! exd4 12 exd4 ~f5! 13 'iifc2 'i!Vg6 14 ~xf5 'iifxf5 15 J:!:acl J:!:ad8 16 li:lg3 'iifxc2 17 l:!:xc2 f5 18 l:!:el g6 19 ~cl l:!:fe8 20 l:!:e6 Wf7 21 l:!:ce2 li:la5 22 ~d2 li:lc4 23 ~e 1 li:ldS 24 J:!:xe8 l:!:xe8 25 l:!:xe8 Wxe8 26 li:le2 Wd7 27 Wf2 Wc6 28 Wf3 Wb5, Tjomsland-Heim, Bergen 2001 demonstrates how things can easily go horribly wrong for White (particularly on the light squares!), but 11 a4 l:!:d8 12 'iifc2 h6 13 ~cl ~b7 14 ~a3 'i!Ve6 15 l:!:ae 1 li:la5 16 li:lg3 l:!:e8 17 f4! showed rather better timing: 17 ... exd4 18 exd4 'iiV d7 19 'iif f2 li:ld5 20 l:!:e5 f6 21 l:!:h5 li:le3 22 l:!:b 1 'iifxa4 23 ~b4 c5 24 ~xa5 'iifxaS 25 'iifb2 li:lxg2 26 'i!Vb3+ Wf8 27 ~h7 We7 28 li:lfs+ Wd8 29 li:ld6 ~f3 30 li:lxe8 li:lxf4 31 li:lxg7 li:lxh5 32 'iifg8+ Wc7 33 'iiff7+ Wb8 34 li:le6 1-0 Milov-Peek, Amsterdam 2000. Food for thought, although plenty of scrutinising to be done! 11 ... f5 It's easy to see the appeal of this move. Not only does it attempt to pre-

vent White getting a pawn on e4, but if Black can get one there himself and then trade light-squared bishops, he could be laughing.

12 f3 il.e6 13 .¥1.e1 ll:ad8 14 .¥1.f2 li:lg6 15 ll:fd1 'l!Ve7 16 e4 fxe4 17 il.xe4 li:la5 18 d5 The option was there to net a pawn

via 18 ~xg6 hxg6 19 'iifxg6, or perhaps 18 dxe5 li:lxe5 19 ~xh7+ Wh8, but Grandmaster Tukmakov prefers to keep control of the position. 18 ... .¥1.f7 19 c4 li:lb7 20 li:lg3 White surely stands better but, as this game proves, it's easily possible for Black to drum up play. 20 ... li:lc5 21 li:lf5 'li'f6 22 il.xc5 bxc5 23 ll:ab 1

125


With four isolated pawns to target, vou'd think that it would all be one-way traffic. But there's always the kingside to consider! 23 ... i.e8 24 "ilf'f2 ti:lf4 25 ti:lg3 h5!? Black is not going to bother trying to grimly defend his pawns and instead looks to build on his well-placed knight by putting some pressure on the enemy king. 26 i.c2 i.g6 27 i.xg6 "i!Vxg6 Finally a serious threat. If allowed, Black will play ... h5-h4 followed by ...li:lh3+. 28 @h 1 h4 29 ti:le4 h3 30 gxh3 Upon 30 g3, possible is 30 ...ltlxdS because of 31 cxd5 'lli'xe4. 30 ... ti:lxh3 31 "i!Vg3 'lli'h5 32 .l:tb3

Despite Black's admirable effort to divert White's attention from his own weaknesses, you'd still have thought that the first player was favourite to win. All credit to Black, though, as he never gives up and in the end earns his just rewards. 32 ... .l:tf5 33 .i:tf1 .i:tdf8 34 ti:lxc5 .l:tg5 35 "i!Ve1 ti:lf4 36 .l:tg1 .i:tf6 37 .l:txg5 'ili'xg5 38 "ilf'f1 l:!.h6 39 l:!.b2 'ili'e7 40 ti:le4 "i!Va3 41 .i:td2 .l:tb6 42 .l:tf2 .l:tb4 43 d6 cxd6 44 ti:lxd6 "i!Vc3 45 ti:le4 726

"i!Vxc4 46 "i!Vd1 Y,-Y,

Game53 Erdogan-Skembris Anta!ya 2001 1 d4 d5 2 c4 ti:lc6 3 cxd5 "i!Vxd5 4 ti:lf3

The drawback of this otherwise natural looking developing move is that it commits the knight too soon and lures forward the black e-pawn to the second player's advantage. 4 ... e5 5 ti:lc3 White clearly gains nothing from taking on e5. Indeed, 5 12ixe5?! 12ixe5 (5 ... /2ixd4'?) 6 dxe5 'lli'xe5 7 12lc3 c6 8 'lli'b3 /i:)f6 9 g3 il.cS 10 il.f4 'lli'hS 11 il.g2 0-0 12 0-0 il.b6 13 h4 il.g4 14 l:!.fel il.e6 15 'lli'c2 li:lg4 16 e3 h6 17 f3 12if6 18 '11H f2 12id5 19 12le2 l:!.ad8 20 g4 'llig6 21 Wh2 'llic2 22 'lli'g3 li:lxe3 23 ii.es J;[d2 24 J;[acl 'lli'a4 25 il.c3 J;[d5 26 12if4 J;[d7 27 12lxe6 fxe6 28 ii.es J;[d2 29 J;[xe3 il.xe3 30 'lie! J;[xf3 31 Wh 1 'lli'xg4 0-1 Honsch-Jamrich, Budapest 2000 was a recent example of how things can go horribly wrong, whilst 5 dxeS '!Wxdl+ 6 Wxdl il.g4 enables Black to develop quickly and regain his pawn.


5 ... .ltb4 6 .ltd2

Instead 6 e3 exd4 7 exd4 is of no use to White and indeed 7 ... fbf6 (amusingly 7 ... ~g4 8 ~e2 ~xf3 9 ~xf3 'i1Vc4 transposes to a GOring Gambit Declined!) 8 ~d2 ~xc3 9 bxc3 fbaS 10 'ilV e2+ ~e6 11 fbgS 0-0 12 fbxe6 :l:i:fe8! 13 ~e3 'i1Vxe6 14 'i1Vd3 li:ldS 15 ~e2 cS 16 :l:i:bl fS 17 g3 c4 18 'i1Vc2 fbxe3 19 fxe3 'i1Vxe3 20 :l:i:bS fbc6 21 :l:i:fl 'i1Vd3 22 'ilV d2 :l:i:e3 23 :l:i:f2 l:l.ae8 24 @d 1 :l:i:xe2 0-1 Alber-Wisnewski, Seebad Heringsdorf 2000 should not be encouraging for the first player and, as before, 6 dxeS 'ilVxd 1+ 7 @xd 1 ~g4 8 h3 0-0-0+ 9 ~d2 ~xf3 10 gxf3 fbxeS 11 @c2 li:le7 is also nice for Black to play. 6 ... .ltxc3 7 .ltxc3 e4! 8 1Zle5 8 fbd2'! e3 9 fxe3 li:lf6 10 e4 fbxe4 11 fbxe4 'i1Vxe4 12 dS liJe7 13 d6 cxd6 14 'i1Vxd6 0-0 was a little better for Black in Cajzler-B.Kovacevic, Bizovac 2001. 8 ... e3 Also possible are 8 ... li:lge7 and 8 ... liJxeS 9 dxeS, which doesn't seem to be of any concern to Black in the event

of either 9 ... liJge7 or 9 ... 'ilVxdl+ 10 J:t.xdl ~e6. 9 fxe3 1Zlf6 Aiming to get the knight to either e4 or g4 looks like an attractive policy but 9 ... liJxeS 10 dxeS ~e6 is a simpler continuation. White's extra pawn means very little when you realise that it's one of those trebled isolated ones! 10 °i!Vb3! This seems to lead to an endgame in which White is not worse. Alas, somehow he does actually manage to fluff it. 1O... "i!Vxb3 11 axb3 1Zlxe5 12 dxe5 1Zle4 13 g3 1Zlxc3 14 bxc3 0-0 15 .ltg2

The e-pawns aren't much to speak of but White has some reasonable play against Black's queenside. I don't believe that the final result is a fair reflection upon this position. 15 ... a5 16 l!lf2 c6 17 ll:a3 ll:a6 18 b4 a4 19 ll:ha 1 b5 20 ll:d 1 .lte6 21 ll:d6 ll:c8 22 .lte4 96 23 .ltd3 ll:a 7 24 c4 c5 25 cxb5 cxb4 26 ll:a 1 a3 27 ll:a6 lha6 28 bxa6 a2 0-1

127


Summary

After 1 d4 dS 2 c4 t2:lc6 3 cxdS 'ii'xdS 4 e3 eS 5 t2:lc3 .ltb4 6 .ltd2 .ltxc3, it looks as though Black is holding his own in the 7 bxc3 variation. More recently the acid test has been 7 .li.xc3 but just when it seems Black is on the ropes, along comes that man Morozevich with a new idea to save the day! 1 d4 d5 2 c4 11:lc6 3 cxd5 'l!i'xd5 4 e3 4 t2:if3 - Game 5 3 4 ... e5 5 11:lc3 i.b4 6 i.d2 i.xc3 7 i.xc3 (D)

7 bxc3 7... t2:if6 - Game 51 7... 'ii'd6 - Game 52 7 ... exd4 8 11:le2 (D) 12lf6 8... t2:lge7 - Game 46 8... .ltg4 9 f3 9 ... .ltxf3 - Game 49 9... .lte6 - Game 50 9 11:ixd4 0-0 10 11:lbS 10 .lte2 - Game 48 10 .. .'iWgS (D) - Game47

7 i.xc3

728

811:le2

10... 'lWg5

CHAPTER EIGHT

I

The Chigorin Defence:

3~c3

1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 li:lc3 The largest Chigorin chapter, here we cover the move 3 li:lc3, which pressurises the dS-square and thus generally avoids lines with the black queen coming out early. Although 4 li:lf3 may appear next, there is less of a transposition issue to the next chapter than one might think However, things become similar to the Queen's Gambit Accepted when Black (as often happens) opts for an early ... dxc4. Don't worry, I'm not using that as a get-out clause for noncoverage. It's more likely that after 1 d4 dS 2 c4 dxc4 3 li:lc3 li:lc6, QGA books would say 'see Chigorin Defence'. A typical position for Black to acclimatise to is Game 56 and, in general, a big decision that Black needs to make is whether his knight goes to aS or eS after a ... dxc4, d4-d5 scenario.

Like the Albin Counter Gambit, but with a pair of knights already developed! As it's both queen's knights, this isn't a sacrifice at all. The main drawback is that Black's only developed piece is going to be kept on the run. 4 cxd5 After 4 dxeS d4 5 li:ldS .ile6 6 li:lf3 .ilxdS 7 cxdS 'ill'xdS 8 g3 li:lxeS 9 ilg2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ilb4+ 10 .i..d2 .ilxd2+ 11 'il!'xd2 0-0-0 Game54 12 0-0 in fact it's actually Black who has Orlov-Yoos emerged a pawn up. Now 12 ... li:lxf3+ 13 .ilxf3 'ill'd6 14 'il!'aS litb8 15 l:.acl li:le 7 Vancouver 200 I 16 l:.fd 1 'il!'b6?! 17 'ill'gS? (17 'ill'eS! reclaims a pawn or two) 17 ... li:lg6 18 l:.d3 1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 li:lc3 e5?!

129


f6 19 'li'fS 'li'xb2? 20 l:tddl (20 'li'c5! was even stronger in view of 20 ... 'i'b6 21 l:tb3) 20 ... 'li'xa2 21 l:tal 'l!i'f7 22 'li'aS saw White obtain a wicked attack in Bekker Jensen-Maahs, Hamburg 1999. However, it's not clear just how much White has for the pawn after, say, 12 ... li:lf6!, and so 4 cxd5 looks like a better route for White to take. 4 .. .1Zlxd4 5 e3 li:lf5 6 li:lf3

6 ... f6 More common is 6 ... .\11.d6 and now: a) A novel idea is the 7 g3!? a6 8 .\11.g2 li:lfe 7 9 0-0 .\11.g4 10 h3 .\11.d7 11 e4 'li'c8 12 @h2 f6 13 .\11.e3 gS 14 li:ld2 li:lg6 15 li:lc4 .111.fS 16 l:tcl bS 17 li:la5 li:lh6 18 d6 .111.xd6 19 li:ldS 0-0 20 li:lb6 'li'e8 21 li:lxa8 'li'xa8 22 .\11.c5 'li'b8 23 'Ii' dS+ li:lf7 24 l:tfdl li:le7 25 'li'b7 'li'xb7 26 li:lxb7 l:tc8 27 .\11.[3 .\11.e6 28 .111.xd6 li:lxd6 29 li:lxd6 cxd6 30 l:txc8+ li:lxc8 31 .\11.g4 .\11.xg4 32 hxg4 li:lb6 33 l:txd6 1-0 of Flear-Rabineau, St-Chely d'Aubrac 2001 and frankly it looks quite good for White. b) 7 e4 /i:lfe7 8 .111.bS+ @f8 (a standard response as allowing the good bishop to be traded off leads to a lasting edge after 8 ... .\11.d7 9 'li'b3 . the b 7-pawn is in trouble too) 9 0-0 /i:lf6 10 .\11.e3 h6 730

11 .\11.e2 g5 12 li:ld2 li:lg6 13 li:lc4 li:lf4 14 l:tc 1 h5 15 a3 'li' d7 16 f3 li:le8 17 l:tf2 f6 18 .111.fl 'li'g 7 19 li:lbS g4 20 li:lcxd6 cxd6 21 'li'd2 g3 22 hxg3 'li'xg3 23 .\11.xf4 'li'xf4 24 'li'xf4 exf4 25 li:lxa 7! etc., Schlosser-Lach, Ditzingen 2001 is not untypical of how a game might turn out. 7 'l!Vc2 li:ld6 The reason behind Black's sixth move. However, although the knight in general is well placed on d6, in this particular position other pieces suffer and, furthermore, (as White's next move exposes) there will be a problem with Black's kingside pawns. 8 ~d3 96 9 h4!

9 ... ~g7 10 h5 f5 The only way for Black to play as after 10... gS? 11 .\11.xh7 fS 12 .11l.g6+, just because it's a little isolated, there is still no chance of him winning the bishop . 11 e4 f4 12 lbb5! Now Black can't leave the knight where it is because of the under-fire c7pawn. 12 ...lbxbS 13 ~xb5+ ~d7 With the bishop on g7, 13 ... @fS is too dodgy as White's dark-squared bishop will make it to the a3-f8 diagonal.

The Chigorin Defence: 3 li:Jc3

14 .il.xd7 + @xd7 This may look bizarre but the fact is that Black wanted to keep the queen on d8 to prevent White making e6 a home for his knight via 15 ti:lg5. 15 .il.d2 1Zlh6 16 JI.as Now the c-pawn takes a real hammering and Black can't even play ... b7b6 because of 'liV c6+. 16 ... 1Zlf7 17 J:!:c1 J:!:c8 18 "l!li'a4+ @e7 19 .il.b4+ @f6 20 "l!li'xa7 JI.ts 21 .il.xf8 "l!li'xf8 22 "l!li'xb7 J:!:b8 23 J:!:c6+ 1-0 Already exhausted, the black king has had enough!

Game55 Markus-Antal Budapest 2000 1 d4 d5 2 c4 /Zlc6 3 1Zlc3 dxc4 4 d5 1Zle5 5 f4

5 ...1Zlg4 The fact is that the other two vacancies for the knight also warrant attention: a) 5 ... ti:lg6 6 e4 e6 (6 ... e5?! 7 f5 ti:lf4 8 ti:lf3 ti:ld3+ 9 il.xd3 cxd3 leaves White with a nice choice of pawns to take) 7 il.xc4 (Actually, 7 dxe6P 'l!Vxdl+ 8

Wxdl fxe6 - the bishop can't recapture because of the 9 f5 fork - 9 il.xc4 is possibly a better way to play. Certainly safer, it offers White a slightly favourable endgame.) 7 ... ti:lf6 (also here 7 ... il.c5!? 8 ti:lf3 ti:lf6 9 il.b5+ il.d7 10 dxe6 fxe6 11 f5 exf5 12 exf5 'l!Ve7+ 13 'l!Ve2 'l!Vxe2+ 14 Wxe2 il.xb5+ 15 ti:lxb5 0-0-0 was good for Black, who went on to win in Lindinger-Fries Nielsen, Hamburg 1997) 8 il.b5+ (In an encounter of my own I was lured into some tactics and, as you'll soon see, things horribly backfired. Again more cautious is 8 dxe6, but 8 ... 'l!Vxdl+ 9 Wxdl il.xe6 10 il.xe6 fxe6 11 ti:lf3 offers no more than equality) 8... il.d7 9 dxe6 il.xb5 10 exf7+ We7 11 'l!Vb3 'l!Vd3! 12 ti:lge2 il.c4 13 'l!Vxb7 Wxf7 14 'l!Vxc7+ il.e7. Though I was tempted by this whole sacrificial thing in Ward-Lejlic, Gausdal 1996, now Black's king is far safer than White's, which was soon surrounded by enemy pieces. b) 5... ti:ld7 and now: bl) 6 'l!Va4. At first this pin looks attractive, with 6 ... a6 7 e4 l:tbS 8 'l!Vxc4 ti:lb6 9 'l!Vb3 e6 10 il.e3 ti:lf6 11 J:ld 1 exd5 12 e5 ti:lfd7 13 ti:lxd5 appearing to pile on some pressure. However, 13 ... ti:lxd5 14 'l!Vxd5 (14 l:txd5!?) 14... .11.b4+ 15 Wf2 o-o 16 ti:lf3 'l!Ve7 17 il.d3 ti:lc5 wasn't that clear at all in A.Garcia-Renteria, Cali 2001. b2) 6 e4 ti:lb6 7 il.xc4 (arguably more ambitious is 7 a4!> and indeed the hypothetical line 7 ... a5 {7 ... e5 8 a5 ti:ld7 9 il.xc4 ti:lgf6 10 ti:lf3 il.d6 11 0-0 'liV e 7 12 f5 lead to White converting his space advantage in Schrik-Helvensteijn, Arnhem 1996} 8 il.e3 e6 9 il.xb6 cxb6 10 il.xc4 il.b4 11 dxe6! 'l!Vxdl+ 12 l:!.xdl 131


~xe6 13 ~b5+ Wf8 14 l'i:lge2 would be nice for White his superior pawn structure compensates for Black)s bishop pair) 7 ... l'i:lxc4 8 'l!Va4+ ~d7 9 'l!Vxc4 c6 10 l'i:lf3 e6 and White must be careful. He may appear to hold an edge but if all the centre pawns are coming off, Black's bishops may well be rubbing their hands in glee! 6 e4 In a variation resembling a line in the Danish Gambit, 6 h3 l'i:l4f6 7 e4 e6 8 l'i:lf3 a6 9 ~xc4 exd5 10 l'i:lxd5 l'i:lxd5 11 ~xd5 l'i:lf6 12 ~xf7+ Wxf7 13 'l!Vxd8 ~b4+ 14 ~d2 l:lxd8 15 ~xb4 l'i:lxe4 is approximately equal. 6 ... e5 7 f5 h5

though he would much rather have the knight here than the queen. 12 h3 li:lf6 13 J..e3 Jld7 14 il.b3 li:lcS 15 0-0-0 J..xe3+ 16 'ill'xe3 li:lh7 17 li:le6!

Possibly coming as a bolt out of the blue to Black, White's pawns on d5 and f5 are definitely pulling their weight. The knight is a real pain here but it can't be taken. 1 7 .. .l:i:g8 18 g4 a5 19 a3 b5 20 'ill'e2 li:b8 21 g5 b4 22 'ill'xh5! li:lfS 22 ... bxc3 23 'l!Vxh7 l'i:le7 24 l'i:lxg7+ is winning for White. 23 axb4 axb4

The g4-knight was attacked Oeaving no time for ... ~c5) and Black's problem is that both his steeds desire the same square. 8 li:lh3 An alternative and interesting way to play is with 8 l'i:lf3 ~c5 9 ~xc4! l'i:lf2 10 'l!Vh3. The knight is obviously an annoyance but the rook shouldn't be taken because of 11 'l!VbS+. 8 ... J..c5 9 'ill'f3 li:le7 10 J..xc4 a6 11 li:lg5 'i!l'd6 Black needed to prevent 12 d6 al132

24 li:la2 More entertaining and to the point would have been 24 luxe?+! 'l!Vxc7 (or

The Chigorin Defence: 3 li:Jc3

24 ... lild8 25 'lifxf7) 25 'lifxf7+ lilxf7 26 d6+ but White prefers to continue without any risk. Well, either that or he didn't see it! 24 ... 96 25 fxg6 ll:xg6 Heavy pressure would have remained after 25 ... luxg6 26 J::!,hfl !. 26 lilb1 'l!li'b6 27 li:lxf8 lilxf8 28 'l!li'h8+ ll:98 29 'l!li'xe5 The end of this pawn marks the end of Black's resistance. 29 ... 'lil'd6 30 'l!li'xd6+ li:lxd6 31 e5 li:le4 32 e6 fxe6 33 dxe6 i.c6 34 ll:hf1 + lile8 35 h4 li:lc5 36 i.c4 1l.e4+ 37 @c1 ll:h8 38 ll:f4 i.96 39 ll:fd4 1-0 -------------~

2001 is certainly food for thought) 7 e4 ..ltd6 8 ..ltxc4 (8 l'i:lf3, intending iud2xc4, would be another approach as there is no denying that c4 is a good square for a white steed) 8 ... a6 9 luf3 l'i:lf6 10 'lii'b3 (10 0-0 is premature because of 10 ... hW) 10 ... bS 11 ..ltd3 l'i:lhS 12 0-0-0 l'i:lhf4. Probably 'with equal chances' is a fair assessment.

1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 li:lc3 dxc4 4 d5 li:le5 5 'i!\l'd4 The other way to budge the knight is with 5 ..ltf4.

6 'l!li'xc4 Not a million miles from our main game, 6 e4 eS 7 'lii'xc4 a6 8 iuf3 ..ltd6 9 ..lte2 iuf6 10 0-0 0-0 offers equal chances. 6 ... a6

5 .. .lug6 I don't trust the ugly looking move 5 ... f6 and indeed the game ChuchelovVan Houtte, Belgium Team Ch., 1997 continued 6 f4 ltlf7 7 'lii'xc4 lud6 8 'lii'b3 fS 9 g3 iuf6 10 ..ltg2 g6 11 l'i:lh3 ..ltg7 12 0-0 0-0 13 ltlf2 l::te8 14 ..lte3 e6 15 l::tadl lilhS 16 ..ltd4 exdS 17 ..ltxdS luxdS 18 Game56 ..ltxg7+ lilxg7 19 l'i:lxdS ..lte6 20 'li!'c3+ Kosyrev-Charbonneau lilf7 21 'lii'xc7+ lilg8 22 'lii'xd8 1-0, thus ,,__ _ _ _Montreal _ _ _2001 _ _ _ _ _ _,. offering feeling. some evidence to confirm this

Now we have 5... lug6 6 .lig3 eS (this is very logical but the recent 6 ... ..ltd7 7 a4 e6 8 e4 iuf6 9 .lixc4 ..ltb4 10 dxe6 ..ltxe6 11 ..ltxe6 'lifxdl+ 12 l::txdl fxe6 13 f3 'lz-'/2 Sharavdorj-J.Gonzales, Manila

7 li:lf3 Instead 7 'lii'b3 l;!,bS (one point behind White's last move is the pawn 133


grabbing 7... e5 8 dxe6 il.xe6 9 'i'xb7, hence the rook move that looks passive but certainly becomes useful later) 8 e4 b5 9 a4 b4 10 il.c4 'i'd6 11 ti:lce2 ti:lf6 12 ti:lg3 e6 13 ti:lf3 .11.e 7 14 0-0 0-0 15 h3 exd5 16 exd5 l:td8 looked fine for Black until it went horribly wrong for him after 17 ti:ld4 ti:lxd5 18 ti:lgfS 'i' cS 19 il.e3 ti:lxeV 20 il.xf7+ lilhS 21 fxe3 il.f6 22 l:tacl 'i'eS 23 ti:lc6 'i'e4 24 l:tc4 il.e6 25 l:txe4 il.xb3 26 il.xb3 1-0 K.hassanov-Ghannoum Montreal 2001. 7 .. .li:lf6 8 e4 e5 9 a4

Game57 Vera-Formanek Andorra 1996 1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 ti:lc3 dxc4 4 d5 ti:la5

Restricting Black a little. An odd situation here is that White's queen feels simultaneously both well and badly placed! 9 ... i.d6 10 i.e2 0-0 11 a5 The pawn here has good restrictive value but Black's bishop sits like a rock on d6. 11 ... 'l!i'e7 12 g3 b5 13 axb6 cxb6 14 0-0 b5 15 'l!i'd3 i.d7 16 li:ld1 b4 17 i.g5 a5 18 li:le3 h6 19 i.xf6 'l!i'xf6 20 li:lc4 Y, • Y, The next move would most likely have been 20 ... il.bS. The opening can be regarded as a success for Black as he can clearly hold his own in these type of posmons. 134

According to theory, this is not as effective as when ti:lf3 and ... ti:lf6 have been thrown in. Certainly it's true that White has more options with the kingside knights at home hut this and the next game seriously question whether this move is acceptable either way. 5 'l!i'a4+! The only move ro truly test Black's strategy. It looks like a good one, though.

The Chigorin Defence: 3 luc3

5 ... c6 6 b4 cxb3 It is important for me to cover this move although 6 ... bS 7 'llfxaS 'llfxaS 8 bxaS b4

1s the real position to debate. The point is that whichever way White opts to move his knight, he still has the useful central break to chisel away at Black's pawns: a) 9 tba4 cxdS 10 e4l e6 and now: al) 11 ..\il.e3 ..li.d7 12 tbcS ..li.c6 13 exdS ..\il.xdS 14 tbf3 l:1.b8 15 ..\il.e2 tbf6 16 J:l.cl tbg4 17 tba6 tbxe3 18 tbxb8 tbxg2+ 19 'i¥1fl tbf4 20 l:1.xc4 tbxe2 21 l:l.c8+ 'i¥1e7 22 'i¥1xe2 1-0 ZimmermanBouton, Cappelle la Grande 2000. a2) The immediate 11 exdS also isn't bad, e.g. 11...exdS 12 ..li.e3 tbf6 (and more recently 12 ... ..\il.d7 13 tbcS ..\il.c6 14 l:bl l:1.b8 15 tba6 l:b7 16 ..\il.cS ..\il.xcS 17 tbxcS l:l.e7+ 18 tbe2 lbh6 19 l:l.xb4 0-0 20 'i¥1d2 lbg4 21 f3 tbe3 22 tbd4 with a wmmng advantage, Barria-Velasco Blasco, Salou 2000) 13 ..\il.e2 ..\il.e 7 14 tbf3 0-0 15 ..Ill.cs l:l.e8 16 tbd4 ..\il.xcS 17 tbxcS tbe4 18 tbxe4 l:xe4 19 0-0-0 ..li.d7 20 ..lil.f3 l:eS 21 l:1.hel l:1.ae8 22 l:l.xeS l:l.xeS 23 tbc2 1-0 Komljenoviclnsua Mellado, Linares 1994. b) 9 tbdl cxdS 10 e4! e6 11 ..\il.e3

(slightly different, but worthy of a mention, is 11 tbe3 tbf6 12 exdS exdS 13 tbf3 ..\il.e6 14 tbd4 ..li.cS 15 tbxe6 fxe6 16 tbxc4 dxc4 17 ..li.xc4 ..li.d4 18 l:l.bl tbe4 19 f3 ..li.c3+ 20 'i¥1e2 tbcS 21 a3 b3 22 ..li.e3 l:l.c8 23 l:1.hcl ..\il.f6 24 ..\il.xb3 :li.e7 25 ..\il.xe6 1-0 Pelletier-Moreda, Medellin 1996) 11 ... ..\il.e 7 12 exdS exdS 13 ..\il.d4 ..li.f6 14 tbf3 ..lil.fS 15 tbe3 :li.e4 16 l:dl h6 17 ..lil.e2 a6 18 0-0 l:l.c8 19 J:l.fel l:l.c6 20 tbeS l:l.e6 21 £3 ..\il.h7 22 tbxdS ..\il.xeS 23 ..\il.xeS l:1.xeS 24 ..\il.xc4 l:txe 1+ 25 l:l.xe 1+ 'i¥1d7 26 lbb6+ 'i¥1c6 27 l:l.e8 ..lil.g6 28 ..li.xa6 hS 29 ..li.c4 h4 30 tbdS 'i¥1c5 31 a6 'i¥1xc4 32 a7 l:hS 33 tbe3+ 1-0 Volkov-Ferron Garcia, Internet 2000. As this sample of games suggests, the results for White have been fantastic.

7 axb3 e6 8 i.d2 White's intention is to take the knight but here 8 'llfxaS? 'llfxaS 9 l:l.xaS runs into 9 ... ..li.b4.

8 ... 12lxb3 Notching up more pawns for the piece, as 8... exdS 9 'llfxaS 'llfxaS 10 l:xaS only gives two. The only way to preserve the offside knight is with 8 ... b6 although then 9 dxc6 leaves a very strong pawn and 9 ... tbe7 10 ..lil.gS! £6 135


(also taking 'DbS into consideration, there are no convenient squares for the black queen) 11 l:tdl li:ldS 12 e4 is excellent for White. Not only is the d5knight attacked and pinned, but 12 ... fxgS is decisively met by 13 c7+ 'liV d7 14 .i.b5. 9 'l!Vxb3 exd5 10 e4 Black has three connected passed pawns for the knight but, typically, pieces play a greater role than pawns in the opening/ middlegame phase. Hence White is eager to get his developed. 10 ... d4 Black's chances have all hut been written off by theory on the basis of this game but I notice that the same black player has attempted 10 ... dxe4 since our main encounter. My view, though, is that he must be a glutton for punishment as there will be a lot of suffering to be done before those a-, band c-pawns have an influence on the position. Both 11 .ilc4 and 11 li:lxe4 look appealing.

11 J..c4! 'l!Vd7 Black can't take this knight as 11 ... dxc3? 12 .i.xf7+ ,;l;,d7 13 .ilf4! leaves the black king caught in a fatal crossfire, and 11...'lii'e7 12 li:lce2 b5 13 136

.i.d3 li:lf6 14 li:lf3 is no better than the text as Black still can't get castled. 12 11:id5!? 12 'Dce2 is a safer way to retain an advantage but, with all bar Black's queen on the back rank, White decides to go for it. 12 ... b5 Obviously the knight is safe on dS for the time being because of .i.bS. 13 .il.d3 J..b 7 A different defence would put up by 13 ... l:tbS but Black's big problem remains getting his kingside out. 1411:if3

14 ... .il.dG Still 14... cxdS> isn't possible because of 15 .i.xbS .i.c6 16 li:leS. White's next move, then, is effectively a sacrifice. 15 0-0 cxd5 Black takes up the challenge as 15 ... li:le7 16 li:lxe7 .i.xe7 17 .i.xbS! cxbS 18 li:leS leaves Black unable to protect both b5 and f7. 16 .il.xb5 .il.c6 17 J..xc6 'l!Vxc6 18 l:l:fc1 The piece count is now level but White has a blatantly strong lead in development. 18 ... 'l!Vd7 19 'l!Vxd5 J:l:d8

The Chigorin Defence: 3 0,c3

This rook was attacked, leaving no time for the knight to come out. 20 'l!li'xd4

20 ... i1.xh2+ Upon 20 ... li'lf6, each of 21 e5, 21 .taS and 21 l:!:xa7 would have left White in a winning position. 21 @xh2 'l!li'xd4 Black gets the queens off so that he won't be mated but his little liquidating combination has a flaw. 22 luxd4 ll:xd4 23 i1.c3 1-0 Black will lose one of his rooks.

Compared to the last game, 7 ... cxb3 8 axb3 e6 9 .td2 li'lxb3 isn't possible because after 10 dxc6!, the bishop on d2 is protected by the knight. 8 'l!li'xa5 'l!li'xa5 9 bxa5 b4 10 lbd1 Recently White returned the piece with 10 dxc6 bxc3 11 l:!:b 1. However, the position is quite unclear and in fact White soon got carried away: 11 ... .ta6 12 li'leS 0-0-0 13 li'lxf7? c2 14 l:!:b8+ @xb8 15 li'lxd8 e5 16 c7+ @c8 17 @d2 .tb4+ 18 @xc2 @xc7 19 li'le6+ @d6 20 li'lxg7 .tbs 21 e4 l:!:b8 22 li'lfS+ @e6 23 f3 .txaS 24 .tb2 li'ld7 25 li'le3 .ta4+ 26 @b 1 li'lb6 27 g3 c3 28 .ta3 l:id8 29 .tc4+ li'lxc4 30 li'lxc4 c2+ 0-1 MeinsRabiega, See bad Heringsdorf 2000 . 1o... cxd5 11 g3

Game 58 Ward-Fries Nielsen Copenhagen 1998 1 d4 d5 2 c4 lbc6 3 luc3 lbf6 4 lbf3 dxc4 5 d5 lba5 With both king's knights out, of course now there is no 5 ... li'leS option and so this becomes critical. 6 'l!li'a4+ 6 .tgS is a playable alternative, but for what it's worth, I tried it once and I didn't like it! The presence of the c4pawn becomes annoying and it's difficult preserving the bishops. 6 ... c6 7 b4 b5

The move e2-e4 isn't available right here and so White has to find an alternative method of negotiating Black's pawn majority. 11 .. .e6 12 i1.g2 l:!:b8 Searching for improvements, certainly 12 ... .ta6 is a candidate, for example 13 0-0 .te7 14 .te3 0-0 15 li'leS l:ifc8 16 f4 li'le4 17 li'lf2 li'lc3 18 l:ife 1 l:!:c7 19 li'ldl li'lbS with a highly complex position in Mancini-Clery, Le Touquet 2001. 13 7


13 i.e3 ll:b5 Black's idea. He's not too worried about his own a-pawn and prefers to activate his rook and concentrate on his other pawns. 14 i.xa 7 ll:xa5 15 i.d4 The drawback of having a knight on f6 is that it's not a pawn! Consequently, White's pieces can use the eS-square that Black would ideally like to occupy with a pawn. 15 ... i.d7 16 li:ie5 i.b5 17 0-0 i.e7 18 a3!

18 ... b3 Black couldn't afford to open the bfile with 18 ... bxa3 as 19 li:lc3 0-0 20 l:tfb 1 would see a very useful infiltration to the seventh rank (20 ... l:tbS> isn't possible due to 21 li:lc6). 19 li:ic3 i.d7 20 e4! Finally this move comes and Black's pawn chain comes under serious pressure. 20 ... i.c5 Black would prefer to get castled in order to activate his other rook but, alas, this would drop a centre pawn as his knight is overworked. 21 i.xc5 ll:xc5 Black dreams of ... d5-d4 but it's just 738

not going to happen. 22 ll:fd1 i.c8

This has been a real problem piece for Black, suggesting that perhaps 12 ... .lil.aG might have been the route to take. With 22 ... dxe4, White can adequately handle the remaining two connected pawns after 23 li:lxd7 li:lxd7 24 li:lxe4 l:.c7 (or 24 ... c3 25 l:txd7! b2 26 l:tadl 0-0 27 li:lxc3 l:txc3 28 .lil.e4 l:.cl 29 'ii,,£1, with everything under control) 25 li:lc3. Indeed, with the bishop on g2, White's a-pawn could come in rather handy. 23 exd5 0-0 24 li:ic6 exd5 25 11:ie 7 + @h8 26 li:iexd5 li:ixd5 27 ll:xd5

With the c-pawn nicely blockaded, it's all over bar the shouting!

The Chigorin Defence: 3 l:uc3

27 .. Jk 7 28 a4 .lte6 29 ll:b5 ll:d8 30 a5 96 31 a6 ll:a7 32 l:l.b7 J:l.xa6 33 ll:xa6 ll:d3 34 J:l.xe6! Just the same, the finish is nice (if I say so myselfl). 34 ... fxe6 35 lue4 1-0 The knight is heading for f6, when l:txh 7 mate would follow. .----------------,,

li:ldb3 cxdS 27 exdS f6 28 lt>h 1 il.f? 29 l:td 1 'l!i'b6 30 l:ta6 'l!i'bS '12- '!, BaburinMiladinovic, Saint Vincent 2000 looked like a fair result. 6 ... .ltxf3 Of all the top grandmasters I know, Alex is the least afraid to concede his bishops. The main alternatives to the

text are: a) 6 ... e6 7 il.xc4 il.b4 8 'lii'c2 0-0 Anand-Morozevich (note 8 ... il.xf3 9 gxf3 li:lxd4;, 10 il.xd4 'l!i'xd4 11 'l!i'a4+) 9 l:tdl sees a lot of Wijk aan Zee 2001 .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ pinning but White still maintains his

Game59

1 d4 d5 2 c4 luc6 3 luc3 dxc4 4 luf3 luf6 5 e4

Less committal than 5 dS as White keeps all of cS, dS, eS and fS under his beady eye. The text certainly lays down the gauntlet for his opponent to pressurise this attractive centre. 5 ... .ltg4 6 .lte3 Refusing to show his hand. Instead, 6 dS li:leS 7 il.f4 li:lg6 8 il.e3 eS 9 il.xc4 a6 leads to the sort of position we've seen before and 10 0-0 il.d6 11 il.e2 il.d7 12 li:ld2 bS 13 a4 l:i.b8 14 axbS axbS 15 'l!i'b3 b4 16 li:la4 li:lg4 17 il.xg4 il.xg4 18 f3 il.d7 19 li:lcS il.bS 20 J:i.fc 1 li:lf4 21 il.xf4 exf4 22 'lii'xb4 0-0 23 li:ldb3 ii.es 24 li:ld4 ii.es 25 'lW d2 c6 26

centre. b) 6 ... eS 7 dS and now: bl) 7 ... li:le7>! 8 il.xc4 li:lg6 9 'l!i'a4+ il.d7 10 il.bS il.d6 11 ii.gs il.e7 12 l:tcl a6 13 il.xd7+ 'lii'xd7 14 il.xf6 il.xf6 15 'l!i'xd7+ lt>xd7 16 g3 il.e7 17 lt>e2 l:thc8 18 l:i.c2 f6 19 h4 li:lh8 20 hS li:lf? 21 lt>d3 il.cS 22 li:la4 il.a7 23 b4 was excellent for White in Flear-Libiszewski, Montpellier 2001. Previously we've already noted why it is important for Black to try to avoid this trade of lightsguared bishops. b2) 7 ... li:lbS 8 il.xc4 il.d6. Objectively White has a slight edge but we've already seen just how solid Black's position is. 7 gxf3 e5 8 d5 lub8 This and 8 ... li:le7 are to be compared with my last comments. This way Black has already committed himself to ... il.xf3 although in a situation whereby White was forced to recapture with a pawn. 9 .ltxc4 The most natural move although White could make immediate use of his. forced gxf3 by 9 f4. The presence of two white f-pawns, as opposed to one, 139


means that it's unlikely that a black piece will end up resting on e5. 9 ... li:lbd7 10 'lli'b3 .ll.c5!?

It is logical to want to open up the diagonal for the bishop and, besides, White can't contemplate the thought of Black blockading the d5-pawn via ... 0-0 and ... li:JeS. 13 ... 0-0 14 li:lbS c6!

Black doesn't want the white knight arriving on d6 and feels that he can control it elsewhere. 15

li:lc 7

b5 16 .ll.e2

Although it temporarily breaks the connection of the two rooks, 16 .i.£1 r>, with the future possibility of .i.h3, might be an improvement. Daring White to take a pawn that should certainly be snatched after 10 ... .i.d6,r, i.e. 11 'ill'xb7 l:.bS 12 'ill'c6 l:.xb2 13 .i.b3 when the errant black rook is in deep trouble. In Black's defence, obviously he is missing his lightsquared bishop, making 10 ... b6 look ridiculously ugly.

16 ... l::tb6 17 l:!.d2 a6 18 .!::thd1 c5 19 Wb1 'l!i'bS

11 0-0-0

Later it was decided that White should go for it with 11 'ill'xb7! l:.bS 12 'ill'a6 .i.xe3 (rather than the immediate 12 ... l:.xb2,, 13 .i.xc5 li:lxc5 14 'il!'a3 l:.c2 15 'ill'xc5 l:.xc3 16 .i.b5+) 13 fxe3 l:.xb2 14 'il!'a3. Indeed, according to Morozevich, the resulting ending likely to be reached via 14 ... 'il!'bS 15 0-0 'il!'b4 16 'il!'xb4 l:.xb4 17 .i.e2 is clearly better for White because of his opponent's weak queenside pawns. 11 ... .\l.xe3+ 12 fxe3 l::tb8

All of a sudden things are looking up. Not only does Black have no difficulty protecting his gueenside pawns, but also now he can consider launching them at the enemy king. 13 d6 140

Black is playing nicely around the pawn and knight. No doubt White's rooks are frustrated at not seeing more action. 20 'l!Va3 'ilVb7 21 .ll.11 c4 22 'l!Vb4 l:!.c6 23 li:ld5? !

Kind of an admission that White's little knight foray was unsuccessful. Still, although both 23 'il!'a5 and 23 .i.h3 have been suggested as improvements, Black's position remains solid, with his a6, b5, c4 chain apparently invulnerable. 23 ... li:lxdS

Trading off this rather superfluous

The Chigorin Defence: 3 lbc3

knight, though, enables Black to get on top. 24 l:txd5 l:tfc8 25 'i!i'c3 b4 26 'i!i'c2 b3 27 'i!i'c3

It goes without saying that opening up the c-file with 27 axb3 cxb3 could easily end in tears. 27 ... bxa2+ 28 Wa1

5 ... h6

The usual judgement call. The white king prefers the extra cover and is confident of it being safe to eliminate the a2-pawn when the queens are off 28 ... l:tb8 29 il.h3 h6 30 il.xd7 'ili'xd7 31 l:t5d2

31 'i'xe5? c3 32 bxc3 'i!!Vb7 would certainly have seen Black making the most of the b-file! 31 .. .J::tc5 32 J::td5 J::tc6

32 ... 'i!!Va4 33 d7 J:l.d8 would have kept the game going and I suspect the classy Indian GM was relieved to see this one over. 33 J::t5d2 J::tc5 Y, - Y,

Immediately putting the question to White's bishop. 5 ... e6 is too passive but, as Black doesn't want to commit his lightsquared bishop yet, the main alternative is 5... ti":id5. Then after 6 e4 Black must then decide on what to do with his knight: a) 6 ... ti":ixc3 7 bxc3 f6 8 .\Tl.e3 ti":ia5 9 ti":id2 c6 10 ti":ixc4 looks really ugly for Black, Gelfand-Miladinovic, Belgrade 1995. b) 6 ... ti":ib6 7 d5 ti":ib4 8 .\Tl.xc4 ti":ixc4 9 'i!!Va4+ c6 IO 'i!!Vxb4 ti":ib6. Now 11 dxc6 would be a small edge but 11 l:Id I f6 12 dxc6 'fic7 13 cxb7 .\Tl.xb7 14 ti":ib5 'fic6 15 .\Tl.e3 e5 16 ti":id6+ .\Tl.xd6 17 l:Ixd6 'i'xe4 18 l:Ie6+ l!tf7 19 'i!!Ve7+ l!tg8 20 0-0 .\Tl.d5 21 J:l.d6 h6 22 .\Tl.xb6 axb6 23 J:l.d7 l:Ih7 24 J:l.dl g5 25 l:Id8+ 1-0 evidently turned out even better in NotkinM.lvanov, Moscow 1996 .

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , 6 il.xf6

Game60 Gausel-Nielsen Reykjavik 2000

After 6 .\Tl.h4 a6!? 7 d5 ti":ia5 8 e4 (8 'i!!Va4+ c6 9 b4 is really murky now, particularly as Black can play 9 ... cxb3 10 ,.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. axb3 e6, with the 11 .\Tl.d2 concept of 1 d4 d5 2 c4 li::ic6 3 li::ic3 dxc4 4 li::if3 li::if6 5 il.g5

Game 57 not available), Black can consider 8 ... c6 and 8 ... b5, or even flicking in 14 1


8 ... g5 before eitber of those moves. 6 ... exf6 7 e3 li:la5!? Refusing to give up the c4-pawn right now looks like a good idea and, in either event, simple moves such as 7 ... Sl.b4 8 Sl.xc4 0-0 9 'i!Vc2 Sl.xc3+ 10 'i!Vxc3 'i!Vd6 11 0-0 Sl.g4 12 lud2 l:tae8 13 Sl.d3 lub4 14 Sl.b 1 Sl.c8 15 lue4 'i!Vb6 16 lucS ludS 17 'i!Vc2 lead to a comfortable white edge (Schandorff-Lindfeldt, Nyborg 2001). 8 li:ld2 c6 9 li:lxc4 li:lxc4 10 il.xc4 il.d6

In exchange for White's supenor pawn structure, Black has a handy bishop pair. 11 O·O 0-0 12 'lii'h5 A standard idea although there is no realistic chance of a serious attack. 12 ... f5 13 J:tad1'lii'g514 '!i't3 White isn't that enamoured with the concept of trading queens, especially if it brings a pawn to g5. However, the text is sort of an admission that White has nothing substantial to go on. 14 ... 'lil'g6 15 li:le2 il.d7 16 li:lf4 '!i'f6 17 g3 The knight has manoeuvred to a very reasonable square but what's next? 17 ... J:l:te8 18 li:ld3 J:l:e7 19 .:id2 142

J:tae8 20 b4 95 Now it's almost reminiscent of a more standard Queen's Gambit (rather than a Trompovsky), things appear back to normal. White attempts to press forward on the queenside whilst Black seeks his counterplay on the opposite wmg. 21 '!i'h5 f4 22 li:le5 ii.ts 23 exf4 gxf4 24 li:lg4 Black is now forced to part with one of his bishops but in the last few moves weaknesses have appeared in White's camp. 24 ... il.xg4 25 '!i'xg4+ @h8 26 a3 l:te4 Threatening the isolated cl-pawn, as well as 27 ... fxg3. 27 '!i'h5 J:l:8e7 28 l:te2 'lil'g5

White is forced to trade queens and now it's Black who has the better pawn structure. However, as we now have an opposite-coloured bishops scenario, a draw still remains the most likely out· come. 29 '!i'xg5 hxg5 30 l:tfe 1 ll:xe2 31 J:txe2 .ll:d7 32 @g2 @g7 33 ll:d2 g4 34 f3 fxg3 35. hxg3 gxf3+ 36 @xf3 a5 37 bxa5 il.xa3 38 d5 cxd5 39 ll:xd5 .ll:xd5 40 il.xd5 il.b4 Y, · Y,

The Chigorin Defence: 3 lbc3

7 .. .li:lb8 Although one must acknowledge that Ward-Keeling database results from this position are overwhelming for White, personally I Jersey 2000 ..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ think that Black is fine. With the text,

Game 61

1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 li:lc3 li:lf6 4 cxd5 li:lxd5 5 e4

Of course 5 12:lf3 is also sensible, when 5... gj_fS!? 6 'lifb3 would transpose into our next game.

Black intends relocating the knight on d7, where it controls the important c5square. Also reasonable, however, is 7.Ji::ie7, intending to rest the steed on g6.

5 ... li:lxc3 6 bxc3 e5

8 li:lf3

I've learnt first hand that this position is quite deceptive. Theoretically, one might think that White's centre puts him in very good stead. In practice, life isn't that easy at all.

8 l:bl gj_d6 9 g/_d3 0-0 10 12:lf3 12:ld7 11 0-0 1Zlc5 12 il.g5 f6 13 g/.e3 1Zlxd3 14 'llfxd3 f5 was better for Black in Molina Mansilla-Gallego Jimenez, Barcelona 2000. If White is looking for something different then I suppose 8 'lifh5 is a candidate. However, although I suppose it deserves a '!?', it shouldn't be that frightening for Black. 8 ... i.d6 9 i.e2 White also had no joy with 9 gj_g5 f6 10 g/.e3 0-0 11 1Zld2 f5!? 12 exf5 g/.xf5 13 g/.e2 12:ld7 14 0-0 'llff6 15 c4 b6 16 12:lb3 '/2-Y2 in Inkiov-Giffard, Evry 2001. 9 ... 0-0 10 0-0 li:ld7 11 li:ld2 li:lc5 12 i.g4

7 d5

If White keeps the tension with 7 12:lf3, then Black can try to resist White's central domination with 7 ... gj_d6 but much more testing is 7... exd4 8 cxd4 gj_g4 9 d5 g/.b4+ 10 gj_d2 il.xf3. I suppose that the white king can accept that the centre will be its home with 11 'llfxf3 g/.xd2+ 12 l!txd2, but 11 gxf3 il.xd2+ 12 'llfxd2 'llff6 13 l:c! 12:le5 was seen in Eljanov-Sepman, St Petersburg 1999, where you can't help feeling that White is over-extended (and, if so, all because of 7 1Zlf3).

Trading 'bad' for 'good' bishops like this usually constitutes a good plan and 143


it's not a stupid idea here. However, there is more to the position and the fact that White has a pawn on c3 rather than b2 has a significant negative effect on the pawn structure. 12 ... 'iil'h4! 13 il.xc8 J:1.axc8 14 'iil'e2 f5 Black's position is the easier to play and this (or the other pawn break 14... c6) readily suggested itself. 15 93 'iil'h3 16 f3 fxe4 I can recall in the game thinking that 16 ... li::)a4!? would be rather annoying. Black would have a niggling advantage. 17 li:lxe4 li:lxe4 18 'iil'xe4 On the other hand, the last few simplifications have relieved a lot of White's problems and, as the game shows, it's now easily possible for Black to go wrong. 18 ... J:l.t5 19 il.e3 J:1.cts Black continues actively but he's not going to be able to budge the rock of a queen on e4. 20 J:1.t2 h5 21 J:tat1 J:l.5t6 22 c4 b6 23 J:l.92?!

nent missed a cute tactical opportunity. 23 ... 'iil't5 23 ... 'iil'g4! is possible as 24 fxg4?? allows 24 ... l:txfl mate and 24 l:tgf2 falls foul of 24 ... l:txf3!. 24 'iil'xf5 J:l.xf5 25 J:l.9f2 h4?! Black perseveres with a policy of aggression but without the queens it's a misplaced concept. 26 94 J:l.5t7 27 1¥192 1¥/h 7 28 @h3 1¥196 The h4-pawn is obviously a target now and even 28 ... .il..e 7 29 f4! could well lead to a winning endgame. 29 1¥/xh4 The white king won't get mated and a pawn is a pawn after all! 29 ... J:th8+ 30 1¥193 il.e7 31 J:l.e2 il.h4+ 32 @92 :il.e7 33 il.t2 il.d6 34 il.93 @f6 35 l:!fe1 J:te7 36 f4 il.b4 37 fxe5+ li,95 38 J:l.b1 il.c5 39 J:te4 J:tt8 40 h4+ W96 41 J:l.t1 J:tte8 42 e6 1-0

Game62 Gyimesi-Miladinovic Malta 2000 1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 li:lc3 li:lt6 4 li:lt3 :il.t5

I decided here that I might like a piece of the action but, in kidding myself that g3-g4 might eventually be available, I was fortunate that my oppo144

The Chigorin Defence: 3 li:lc3

Fourteen years ago, after 4 ... ~g4 5 cxd5 ti:lxd5 6 e4 ti:lxc3 7 bxc3 e5 8 d5 ti:lbS 9 'lifa4+! ti:ld7, a stunning novelty in 10 ti:lxe5 'llff6 11 ~e2!! appeared. It wins in view of, say, 11...'llfxeS 12 ~xg4 'llfxc3+ (the problem is the black knight but 12 ... l:tdS 13 0-0 is, for all intents and purposes, game over) 13 ~d2 'llfxal+ 14 l!i>e2 but, anyway, that's all old hat now! The text, which has been unjustly written off in the past, presents a better practical try. As is sometimes seen in the Albin and, more notably, the Baltic Defence, the bishop latches onto what can often be an annoying diagonal. More frequently seen to hit bl or threaten to bring a knight to c2, the text also throws a spanner into the works of White's quick plan of e2-e4. 5 cxd5 li:lxd5

cal variation. 6 ... e6 6... ti:lb6 7 d5 ti:lbS 8 e4 is certainly not what Black had in mind! 7 e4 7 'llfxb 7? ti:ldb4 is the kind of trap that this book has witnessed dozens of times. Not only is the fork there on c2, but the white queen could easily wind up trapped. 7 ... t;2ixc3 8 exf5 Forced, or else Black would get the epawn for nothing. 8 ... li:ld5 9 .ltd2 With Black's light-squared bishop no longer around it has to be said that dabbling in a spot of pawn-grabbing becomes more feasible. Nevertheless, 9 'llfxb7 ti:lcb4 10 ~b5+ l!i>e7 is still a little worrying. 9 ... 'li'd6

6 'lWb3 Having tried 6 ~d2 e6 7 g3?! ti:ldb4 8 l:tc! ti:lxd4 9 'lW a4+ c6 10 ti:lxd4 'llfxd4 11 Wb3 Wes 12 ~g2 0-0-0 13 ~e3 ~c5 14 ti:ldl l:txdl+! 15 'llfxdl ~xe3 16 fxe3 J:tdS 17 'lWb3 ti:ld3+ 0-1 and, as you can see, suffering horribly in WardHorner, Norton (rapid) 1997, I must concur that the text represents the criti-

10 .ltc4 It looks to me as though 10 'llfxb 7!? is now the only way for White to strive for an advantage. He shouldn't get his queen trapped but after 1O... J:tb8 11 'llfa6, Black clearly has some play for the pawn. However, as 11...l:txb2>! 12 ~b5' is a problem, unless he wants to take on fS instead, it may have to stay as a genu14 5


ine sacrifice. 10 ... 0-0-0 11 il.xd5 l'm sure it pained White to do this but presumably he didn't want to drop a pawn and 11 fxe6 'ili'xe6+ 12 Wdl feels unpleasant. 11 ... 'li!'xd5 Either recapture would have lead to a black advantage but, although arguably the edge was bigger after 11...exdS, this way Black can play to win with no risk whatsoever. 12 'lii'xd5 l:l.xd5 13 fxe6 fxe6 14 il.c3 b5!?

146

Preparing to pressurise a key defender of the d4-pawn. Funnily enough, 14... gS!? would have done exactly the same thing on the other side of the board, whilst enabling ... :fJ..g7 as well. 15 0-0-0 b4 16 il.d2 li:lxd4 17 li:lxd4 l:l.xd4 Black has netted a pawn but this endgame is not easy to win. However, eventually he comes good, thus paving the way for some further investigations. 18 l:l.he1 il.c5 19 l:l.xe6 l:tc4+ 20 @b1 il.xf2 21 l:l.c1 l:txc1 + 22 @xc1 il.c5 23 l:l.e5 il.d6 24 l:ta5 l:tf8 25 il.e3 il.xh2 26 l:txa7 l:tf1 + 27 @d2 l:tf6 28 l:l.a8 + @b 7 29 l:ta 7 + @c8 30 l:l.a8+ @d7 31 g4 il.f4 32 @d3 il.xe3 33 @xe3 l:te6+ 34 @f3 @d6 35 a3 @c5 36 axb4+ @xb4 37 l:l.a7 l:tc6 38 @f4 @c5 39 @e5 @b6 40 l:ta3 l:l.c5 + 41 @e6 l:tb5 42 l:th3 h6 43 @f7 l:tg5 44 l:tb3 + @c6 45 l:tb4 @d6 46 l:tc4 c6 47 l:l.a4 @c7 48 l:l.b4 h5 49 gxh5 l:txh5 50 l:tg4 l:tb5 0-1

The Chigorin Defence: 3 CiJc3

Summary

As I've already mentioned that the Chigorin is held in higher esteem than the openings covered in Chapters 1-6, it only follows that there will be more encounters involving higher rated players. As he is the opening's leading light, it is no great surprise that I've featured several Alexander Morozevich games. However, I would have to say (modestly of course!) that it is my own Game 58 that needs to go under the microscope as the key debate as to which of the piece or pawns is better rumbles on. You've received a bit of a treat in Game 62 as I publish a somewhat critical game that didn't make it to most mainstream databases. Yes, luckily for you guys your intrepid reporter just happened to be there at the event when all of the games were later swept under the carpet. My apologies to Grandmaster Miladinovic, who probably wanted it to remain a secret! 1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 li:lc3 li:lf6 3... eS - Game 54 3 ... dxc4 4 dS (D) 4... tiJeS 5 f4 - Game 55 5 'i!lVd4 - Game 56 4 ... tiJaS 5 Wa4+ - Game 57 4 li:lf3 4 cxdS - Game 61 4 ... dxc4 (DJ 4... ,ifS - Game 62 5 d5 5 e4 ,ig4 6 ,ie3 (D) - Game 59 5 ,igs - Game 60 5 ...li:la5 - Game 58

4 d5

4 ... dxc4

6 il..e3

74 7

CHAPTER NINE

I

The Chigorin Defence: 3 lt:lf3 and 1 d4 d5 2 lt:lf3 lt:lc6

1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 li:lf3 and 1 d4 d5 2 li:lf3 li:lc6 The main bulk of this chapter focuses on the position after I d4 d5 2 c4 li'ic6 3 li:lf3. Equally, this could be reached after I d4 d5 2 li'if3 li'ic6 3 c4 although, as Game 67 explains, there is no compulsion for White to commit himself to this pawn break now with that move order. There is nothing especially scary for black players in this section of the book and you'll see why the variation covered in Game 65 is particularly deceptive. Although he obviously played more exciting games, I feel that it is fitting that I start the final chapter with a game involving the late Tony Miles. Although I grew up following his games in the Sicilian Dragon, the player who most recognised as England's first Grandmaster became better known as a Nimzowitsch Defence expert. Be it against I e4 or I d4, he loved responding 1...li'ic6 and it's no great surprise that, directly or by transposition (as below), he also became a leading exponent

748

of the Chigorin.

Game 63

Komljenovic-Miles Lisbon 2000 1 d4 li:lc6 2 li:lf3 d5 3 c4 11.g4 4 cxd5 11.xf3 5 gxf3 'l!i'xd5

As a junior I considered this to be the main line of the Chigorin but in more recent times it has been put on the back-burner a little. The black queen takes up its familiar post in the centre and the major difference between this and similar variations previously cov-

The Chigorin Defence: 3 tuf3 and 2 tuf3 tuc6

ered is that one bishop has already been conceded to double some white kingside pawns.

9 ... 1Wxd1+ 10 J::txd1 li:ll6 11 i.g2 li:le 7

This represents a completely different approach to the more forcing 6 ... e5 of the next game.

As is typical of Chigorin variations, White has the bishop pair but invariably there are good squares around for knights to settle on. With the text Black eyes up f5.

7 li:lc3 1Wh5

12 li:le4

Black's idea. He is not so eager to part with his other bishop. Hence his decision not to play 7 ... ..¥l.b4.

Not a lot different was the 12 'i!le2 lufS 13 l:l:hgl ~e7 14 l:tc! 'il;>bS 15 lue4 luxe4 16 ..¥l.xe4 g6 17 l:l:c2 l:td7 of Janssen-Witt, Leeuwarden 2001, which also ended in a draw.

6 e3 e6

8 i.d2

As will become clear soon, White intends to put a different Rook on c 1. Not too dissimilar to our main game, 8 f4 'ill'xd I+ 9 Wxd 1 0-0-0 10 ..¥l.g2 has also been seen and isn't of too much concern for Black. 8 ... 0-0·0

12 ... li:lxe4 13 i.xe4 96 14 <;1;>e2 li:ld5 15 a3 i.d6 16 b4

It's very difficult to tackle Black's solid kingside pawn structure and so White starts expanding on the queenside instead. 16 ... <;1;>d7 17 J::tc1c618 J::tc2 a6

9 14

Somewhat different was the 9 h4'? luf6 10 ~e2 'ill'g6 11 'il,f! eS 12 hS luxh5 13 f4 luxf4 (leading to an interesting position although Black didn't have to plan this piece sacrifice) 14 exf4 exd4 15 f5 'ill'd6 16 lue4 'ill'd5 17 ..¥l.d3 lue5 seen in Beliavsky-Rabiega, Tegel 2001. Comprising a better way for White to play for a win, clearly there are more losing chances too.

The problem for White is that Black is well supported over there too. 19 Wl3 15 20 i.d3 h6!?

You have to admire Black's play. He had all of his pawns thematically placed on the opposite-coloured squares to his bishop but now, from a position· with no weaknesses, he sets about obtaining more activity. 21 h4 g5 22 hxg5 hxg5 23 J::txh8 149


g4+ This intermezzo was Black's point. 21...gS wasn't a pawn sacrifice at all. 24 @g2 !1xh8 25 l1c1 @e7 26 l:l:h1 l1xh1 27 @xh1 Y,-Y, Now nothing much is happening.

Game64

Nemet-Helvensteijn Amsterdam 2001 1 d4 d5 2 li:lf3 li:lc6 3 c4 .ltg4 4 cxd5 .ltxf3 5 gxf3 '1Wxd5 6 e3 e5 6 ... l:l:d8 7 li:lc3 'ill' a5 8 ..¥l.d2 li:lf6 9 a3 'ill'hS 10 £4 'ill'xdl+ 11 '>i>xdl li:lb8 12 ..¥l.g2 c6 13 b4 e6 14 '>i>e2 proved to be an inferior version of the last game: 14... b6 15 i:!.hcl ..¥l.e7 16 li:ldl 0-0 17 ..¥l.xc6 li:lxc6 18 l:l:xc6 ..¥l.d6 19 b5 li:ld5 20 li:lc3 and White converted the pawn advantage, Loginov-Musalov, St Petersburg 2000. 7 li:lc3 .ltb4 8 .ltd2 .ltxc3 9 bxc3

Of course, unlike in Chapter 7, there is no 9 ..¥l.xc3 exd4 10 li:le2 possibility and so instead White takes the only other option and ensures that he maintains a preponderance of pawns in the centre. 9 ... 'i'd6 750

This type of knights versus bishops scenario has been hotly debated over the years. One thing that seems to have been concluded is that 9 ... exd4 shows Black's hand unnecessarily early. Indeed, the likes of 10 cxd4 li:lf6 (or !O. .. li:lge7 11 ..¥l.d3 0-0-0 12 ..¥l.e4 'ill'e6 13 'ill'b3 li:ld5 14 :!:!.bl) 11 ..¥l.g2 h5 12 0-0 0-0-0 13 'ill'c2 l:l:he8 14 l:l:abl l:l:d6 15 l:l:fc! (Ulibin-Hovling, Stockholm 1996) would suggest that, wherever White decides to deploy his lightsquared bishop, the premature pawn trade enables him to utilise the queenside ftles far more easily . 10 14 A very reasonable idea, but possibly played at the wrong moment. Indeed, previous analysis includes 10 l:l'.b! b6 11 £4!? exf4 12 e4 li:lge7 13 'il!'f3 0-0 14 ..¥l.xf4 'ill'a3 15 ..¥l.e2 fS 16 0-0 li:lg6!? 17 ..¥l.xc7 'ill'e7 18 exf5 'ill'xc7 19 'ill'd5+'>i>h8 20 fxg6 li:le7 with some compensation for Black according to Gary Kasparov. Taking everything into consideration, though, I'd suggest that White's chances are preferable although there are plenty of deviations available. 1O... exf4 11 e4 Always White's idea. Now he obtains two very attractive pawns in the centre and is pretty confident of regaining the pawn on £4. 11 ... li:lge7 12 'i'f3 0-0 13 'i'xf4 With the bishop pair, it's no surprise that White is seeking an ending. However, Black has a big lead in development and achieves some speedy counterplay. 13 ... J:l:aeB! Black is preparing to hit out at White's centre with ... f7-f5 and it's even

The Chigorin Defence: 3 li:Jf3 and 2 li:Jf3 li:Jc6

more effective with a hlack pawn on d6 as White can't then keep his king covered with the simple e4-e5.

to enjoy his position a little more. 29 J:!e1 J:!bd2+ 30 l!lc1 J:!c2+ 31 l!lb1 J:!b2+ 32 l!lc1 J:!ec2+ 33 l!ld1 J:!d2+ y,.y,

Game65 K .Hansen-B.Kovacevic Obewart 2000 1 d4 d5 2 c4 tilc6 3 tilf3 .i.g4 4 cxd5 .i.xf3 5 dxc6 White opts to avoid the doubled pawns and thus selects the knight instead of the bishop. 5 ... .i.xc6 6 tilc3 14 'il!i'xd6 cxd6 15 J:!b 1 f5!? Given time to settle his pieces, White would see his two bishops dominating. 16 J:!xb 7 fxe4 17 .i.g5 h6 18 .i.h4 l:!b8 Although 18 ...llifS also didn't look silly, the text move holds a certain appeal. White now gains two pieces for a rook but his king remains vulnerable. 19 J:!xe7 tilxe7 20 .i.xe7 l:!b1+ 21 l!le2 J:!f3 22 .i.xd6 If anything, 22 .tg2 :!'l.b2+ 23 @dl :!'l.fxf2 24 .txe4 :!'l.fe2 25 .tdS+ li!lhS 26 .th4 :!'l.ed2+ 27 'iile 1 :!'l.dc2 could only be better for Black once you bear in mind the trick 28 .tf3? :!'I.cl+! 29 .tdl :!'l.xdl+ 30 'iilxdl :!'l.b 1+. 22 ... J:!b2+ 23 l!ld1 J:!xc3 24 .i.e5 J:!cc2 It's seventh heaven for the black rooks and the white king is right to feel nervous. 25 J:!g1 g5 26 .i.g2 J:!d2+ 27 l!lc1 J:!dc2+ 28 l!ld1 J:!e2 Of course Black could repeat for the draw here and now but against a higher rated player, he takes this opportunity

6 ... e6 Although it may appear to relinguish control of the centre, you will soon become aware of why this has been Black's most successful response. Essentially, after the likes of, say, 6 ... li'if6 7 f3 e6 8 e4 .te7 9 .te3 0-0 10 .td3 'l!Yd7 11 'l!Yc2 Whs 12 o.o :!'l.fdS 13 :!'l.fdl 'l!Ye8 14 :!'l.acl (a seguence seen in Barkhagen-Karlsson, Linkoping 2001), there can be no denying White's comfortable edge. I must, however, add that, although run of the mill moves clearly favour White, I do have a soft spot for 7 ... e5 8 dxe5 'l!Yxdl+ (8 ... li'id7 9 151


il.f4 gS 10 il.g3 il.g7 11 e6 fxe6 12 e4 is a simple way for White to return his pawn) 9 'iii>xd 1 0-0-0+. The main reason for this is that I once lost horribly with 10 'iii>c2 li:ldS 11 li:lxdS (White was more successful with 11 il.d2 il.cS 12 li:lxdS l:1xd5 13 e4 l:1xe5 14 il.c3 l:1g5 15 h4 l:1g3 16 ii.es l:1g6 17 hS l:1e6 18 il.xg7 l:1g8 19 h6 in Marovic-Calvo Minguez, Olot 1969. There have been very few practical encounters in this line and, regarding White's 11th move, I was more eager to cut out the likes of ... li:lb4+.) 11...l:1xd5 12 il.d2 l:1xe5 13 il.c3 l:1c5 14 e4 il.e7 15 l:1el l:1d8 16 il.d3 aS 17 a3 il.a4+ 18 'iii>d2 il.bS 19 l:1e3 il.gS (Ward-Duchovny, London 1994). Presumably it would be easy to criticise a move or two but I can recall struggling with the position at the time, indicating that Black has at least reasonable play (and he doesn't even remain a pawn down!). 7 e4 After playing over the rest of our main game, you will understand why 7 a3 has been tried as a deviation. However, it's very difficult to get excited about it! 7 ... .il.b4 8 f3 'i!!i'h4+ !

A key move and the reason for delaying ... li:lf6. White (who now gets saddled with the odd undesirable weakness on the kingside) is not going to be able to just develop smoothly and consolidate his attractive pawn centre. The text mixes things up just as well as the 8 ... fS!? 9 i.c4 'l!i'h4+ 10 g3 'l!i'e7 of Van Dongen-Giffard, Vichy 2000. 9 g3 'iii'f6 9 ... 'l!i'hS has also been played, when the 10 a3?! i.aS 11 i.e3 0-0-0 12 'iii>f2 il.b6 13 il.c4 li:le7 14 'lii'd3 li:lfSt 15 li:le2 (not, of course, 15 exfS?? 'lii'xf3+ although White's position is looking bad now anyhow) 15 ... li:lxe3 16 'lii'xe3 eS of Provkin-Egorov, Voronezh 2000 is not to be recommended. Clearly the black bishop benefits from the transfer to the b6-f2 diagonal.

10 .il.e3 0-0-0 White's d4-pawn is destined to be pressurised. 11 .il.d3 This is useful for preventing the 11...il.cS that would take advantage of the pinned cl-pawn. The downside is that at various stages you could imagine a positional exchange sacrifice on d4 (for a pawn) being quite reasonable. 152

The Chigorin Defence: 3 ii:Jf3 and 2 ii:Jf3 li:Jc6

11 .. .ti:le7 12 'lil'e2 The white queen is a little restricted as it has to keep an eye on the f3-pawn. 12 ... .ta5 13 J;!t1 The bishop was preparing to relocate on b6 but Black must be careful as the queen-trapping 14 e5 is a very real threat. 13 ... g5 14 f4 gxf4 15 J;!xf4 'l!l'g7 16 'l!l'h5 f5 17 0-0-0 e5 Very thematic although 17 ... 'L\g6 18 l:tf2 .¥1.xc3 19 bxc3 fxe4 was certainly to be considered. Either way Black appears to be on top. 18 dxe5 'l!l'xe5 19 ll:xf5! A timely sacrifice to save the day. Without this, White is struggling. 19 .. .li:lxf5 20 .if4 'l!l'c5 21 'l!l'xf5+ 'lil'xf5 22 exf5

Black's extra gueenside pawn is nowhere near as relevant as White's twopawn majority on the kingside and so the first player is probably no worse despite his official material deficit. 22 ... .if3 23 J;!d2 .tg4 24 .ig5 l:td7 25 '.i,c2 c6 26 J;!f2 .id8 27 f6 .ih5 28 .ih6 .ib6 29 ll:t1 .ic5 30 li:le4 .tt8 31 .txf8 ll:xf8 32 li:lc5 l:td5 33 li:le6 J;!t7 34 h4 .ig6 35 .ixg6 hxg6 36 li:lg5 J;!t8 37 li:le6 'h -'h

Game66 Nenashev-Rabiega Heringsdorf 2000 1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:lc6 3 li:lf3 .ig4 4 li:lc3 e6!

Deliberately avoiding 4 ... 'L\f6 5 cxd5 li:lxd5 6 e4, which transposes to the favourable white line mentioned in Game 62. 5 .tt4 Regarding alternatives, I don't think much to the bishop-blocking 5 e3 but, on the other hand, the following practical encounters are a bit worrying: a) 5 cxd5 exd5 6 'l!Vb3 .¥1.xf3 7 exf3 li:lxd4 8 'l!V xb7 l:tb8 9 'l!Va6 c6 10 .¥1.d3 'l!Vc7 11 0-0 .¥1.d6 12 l:tel+ li:le7 13 .Iii.gs 0-0 14 .¥1.xe7 .¥1.xe7 15 .¥1.xh7+ @xh7 16 'li'd3+@g8 17 'l!i'xd4 .¥1.f6 18 'l!i'd2 'l!l'a5 and Black has excellent compensation for the pawn, Levitt-Gormally, Oakham 2001. b) 5 .¥1.g5 f6 6 cxd5 exd5 7 .¥1.f4 .¥1.b4 8 e3 li:lge7 9 .¥1.d3 'l!Vd7 10 0-0 g5 11 .¥1.g3 h5 12 h3 .¥1.f5 13 h4 .¥1.g4 14 'l!Vc2 .¥1.xf3 15 gxf3 gxh4 0-1 AscicB.Kovacevic, Bizovac 2001. 5 ... .tb4 153


5 ... dxc4 6 e3 .>td6 7 .>tg3 l'i:lf6 8 .ltxc4 is typically a little better for White, whilst 5... .>txf3 6 gxf3 .>td6 7 .>tg3 l'i:lge7 8 e3 'llfd7 9 'l!fc2 fS 10 .>txd6 'l!fxd6 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 f4 a6 13 Wbl l'i:ld8 14 l:.gl c6 15 l'i:le2 l'i:lf7 16 lt:Jcl, as seen in I! 7 l:.cl 0-0 8 .>td3 dxc4> 9 .>txh 7+! Wh8 (rather than 9... @xh 7 10 l'i:lgS+) 10 .>tbl l'i:ldS 11 .>tg3 l'i:lce7 12 0-0 c6 13 'llfc2 in Topalov-Rabiega, Frankfurt 2000. 7 lk1 0-0 8 h3 If White could have his time again, he might instead have used this opportunity to develop his light-squared bishop. There is little doubt that he was oblivious to the oncoming bombshell. 8 ... Jl.xf3 9 '1Wxf3

9 ... Jl.xc3+!?

Black voluntarily parts with both of his bishops, with the intention being to open up the centre and expose White's 154

lack of development. Previously 9... 'l!fe7 10 .>tgS .>txc3+ 11 l:.xc3 'l!Vb4 12 .>txf6 'llfxb2 13 l:.b3 'l!fcl+ 14 'l!fdl 'l!fxdl+ 15 Wxd 1 dxc4 16 l:.xb 7 gxf6 17 Wd2 was better for White in Kramnik-lvanchuk, Linares 1998 although active defence saw Black holding the draw. 10 J:i.xc3 Although White specifically moved the rook to cl in order to recapture in this way, in retrospect a better practical decision would have been 10 bxc3. 10 ... li::ie4 11 lk1 e5!

The point. White is put under immediate pressure rather than being able to get castled quickly and enjoy that bishop pair advantage. 12 dxeS '1We7 13 '1Wd1 Things are looking dangerous in the centre. The other move that had a solution to ... 'l!fb4+ was 13 a3, but after 13 ... l'i:lxeS 14 'llfh5 l'i:lg6 Black would get in ... d5-d4 next, when White would be left very vulnerable on the central files. 13 ... li::ixeS Upon 13 ... 'llfb4+ now, 14 We2 'llfxb2+ 15 'l!fc2 'llfxc2+ 16 l:.xc2 would have been okay for White as his king wouldn't be in as much danger with the queens off.

The Chigorin Defence: 3 lbf3 and 2 lbf3 lbc6

but the final result is never really in doubt. 22 dxc6 l:!ac8 23 i.f3 bxc6 24 b4 lkd8 25 94 l:!d3 26 1¥192 J:!.e1 27 b5 c5 28 a4 96 29 a5 l:!b3 30 i.c6 l:!eb1 31 l:!xc5 l:!3b2 32 1¥1f3 li:ixf2 33 l:!d5 li:ixh3 34 J:!.d8+ 1¥197 35 l:!d7 l:!.b3+ 36 lile4 J:!.b4+ 37 1¥1d5 l:!xb5+ 38 i.xb5 l:!xb5+ 0-1

14 a3 li:i96 15 'iii'f3 After 15 Sl.h2, finally we'd see 15 ... d4! in view of 16 'i!fxd4?> l:i.fd8 with the unusual scenario of a queen being trapped in mid-board. 15 ... 'iii'f6! 16 lk2 li:ixf4

17 cxd5? Forced was 17 'ill'xf4 'ill'xf4 18 exf4 when, although rather miserable, White has chances to defend against both 18 ... d4 and 18 ... l:!.feS. The text just loses. 17 .. .ll:fe8 18 'iii'xf4 'iii'xf4 19 exf4 li:i93+ 20 i.e2 li:ixh1 21 lilf1 c6 Okay, the knight is lousy in the corner but it is a whole rook after all. Conseguently, Black acts guickly to get his rooks involved. He then takes his time

Game67 Ward-Brameld Jersey 1999 1 d4 li:ic6 2 li:if3 d5 Obviously we're not even at a Queen's Gambit yet and so this isn't really a Chigorin Defence. However, for completion I thought I'd cover this as well as briefly mentioning 3 c4 e5 (P or >!). Now 4 cxd5 'i!fxd5 transposes to Game 53 but more critical are 4 1Zlxe5 and 4 dxe5, when 4 ... d4 would be a straightforward Albin but 4 ... Sl.b4+ 5 Sl.d2 dxc4 is of independent significance. Recently both 6 e4 'ill' e 7 7 Sl.xc4 .l:1.g4 8 .l:1.b5 .l:1.xf3 9 .l:1.xc6+ bxc6 10 'ill'xf3 (Peralta-Terron Elena, Malaga 2001) and 6 'ill'a4 .l:1.xd2 + 7 1Zlbxd2 IZlge 7 8 e3 0-0 9 .l:1.xc4 1Zlg6 10 e6 .l:1.xe6 11 .l:1.xe6 fxe6 12 0-0 (BoudalakisVolfson, Patras 2001) favoured White, but relatively speaking this line is in its early days. 3 i.f4 Another popular non-confrontational continuation is the kingside fianchetto. In truth there have been numerous games following along the lines of 3 g3 .l:1.g4 4 .l:1.g2 'i!l'd7 5 0-0 (or 5 h3 .l:1.h5 6 c3 0-0-0 7 b4 f6 8 a4 'i!l'eS 9 .l:1.a3 e5) 5... .l:1.h3. Alternatively White could try to get in c4 a bit earlier, making it more 155


relevant to this book! More recently though, a different approach of 3... i.£5 4 i.g2 'L\b4 has been in vogue. With this idea, Black clearly takes on board the misplacing aspect of the white knight in the quieter lines. A good equalising example is 5 'L\a3 e6 6 0-0 'L\f6 7 i.f4 i.d6 8 i.xd6 cxd6 9 c3 'L\c6 10 c4 i.e4 11 cxd5 i.xd5 12 'L\b5 0-0 13 'L\c3 i.xf3 14 i.xf3 d5 '/,-'/, Arkell-Miles, British Ch., Millfield 2000.

eventually. It is, of course, a very flexible move as it prevents a bishop or a knight going to b4 and provides the option of a b2-b4 expansion later. 5 ... il.d6 6 il.g3 li::if6

3 ... il.f5

The other alternative is 3... i.g4 4 e3 e6 5 c4, when a nice game to highlight White's advantage is 5... dxc4 6 i.xc4 i.d6 7 i.g3 'L\ge7 8 'L\c3 0-0 9 l:!.cl i.h5 10 a3 a6 11 'L\e4 i.xg3 12 hxg3 i.g6 13 'L\c5 b5 14 i.a2 'liVd6 15 'L\b 7 'l!i'd7 16 'L\h4 l:!.fb8 17 'L\c5 'l!i'd6 18 'L\xg6 'L\xg6 19 'lii'h5 'L\f8 20 'L\e4 'l!i'd7 21 'L\g5 1-0 Lodhi-Sosa, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. A neat attack (the black queen is overworked), taking full advantage of the rock-solid d4-pawn and halfopen c-file. However, those of you on the ball will observe that 5 ... ~b4+ 6 'L\c3 'L\f6 would merely transpose to our last game. Unless White wants to block the check on d2 instead, he might want to look into delaying c2-c4 as in our main game. 4 e3 e6 5 a3

Being a kind of cross between the Chigorin and the Baltic Defence, the immediate 5 c4 could easily transpose to Game 43. That, of course, turned out quite well for White and this main game could yet transpose. 5 a3 is more appropriate under the circumstances as it delays the pawn break that Black, frustratingly for him, knows is on the way 156

7 c4 0-0 8 li::ic3 li::ie4 9 J:!:c1

Simple chess. There is no need to turn to 9 cxd5 just yet and White keeps a watchful eye to ensure that ... e6-e5 isn't available. 9 ... dxc4 10 il.xc4 a6 11 il.d3 li::ixc3 12 J:!:xc3 il.g6 13 0-0 J:!:cB

I just feel that this whole game highlights the awkwardness of Black's queenside pawns when there is a knight rather than a pawn on c6. Black can dream of ... c7-c5 but it's not going to happen. 14 il.xg6 hxg6 15 'lil'b3

Yes, both the c7- and b7-pawns are a major annoyance to Black, who is plagued by having to defend them throughout this game. 15 ... li::ia5 16 'lil'c2 li::ic6 17 'lil'e4 il.xg3 18 hxg3 'lil'd5 19 'i!li'c2

19 'lii'xd5 exd5 20 b4 would retain some initiative, but the text is stronger. 19 ... :.ifdB 20 J:!:c5 'i!li'd6 21 J:!:c1

The black knight won't be going anywhere for a while. Not only has it

The Chigarin Defence: 3 {uf3 and 2 {uf3 {uc6

been loath to grant its enemy number domination of the e5-sguare, but there's the little matter of the somewhat pressurised c7-pawn to consider. 21 ... 'l!Ve7 22 'i'e4

The queen returns to the fantastic square that it checked out for comfort just a short while ago. With a rook on c5, though, this time it will be unopposed. 22 ... 'i'f6 23 li:le5! White's plan finally comes to fruition. Now the c6-knight must budge, leaving Black's queenside pawns at White's mercy. 23 .. .luxe5 24 dxe5 'i'e7 25 'i'xb7

l:tb8 26 'i'xa6 l:txb2 27 l:txc7 l:td1 + 28@h2 This just seemed easier than 28 l:i:xd 1 'jj!'xc7. 28 ... 'i'g5 29 l:tc8+ @h7 30 l:t1c4 1-0

Quite a nice game that highlights the danger of playing simple chess in the QGD with a knight on c6. That said, I must confess that my heart skipped a beat upon noticing the concept of 30... l:i:bbl 31 l:1h4+ 'jj!'hs. Clearly my opponent was unaware of this possibility, which in fact is refuted by 32 l:i:xhS+ gxhS 33 g4 h4 34 g3.

157


Summary

After 1 d4 d5 2 ti:lf3 I must confess to having my doubts about 2... ti:lc6 as the usual amount of play for Black just doesn't seem to be there when White delays c2-c4. Of course, it's nothing too disastrous but that there is a lingering edge. Regarding the Chigorin Defence though, Black certainly appears to be holding his own after 3 ti:lf3 .1lg4 4 cxd5 and in the 3 ti:lf3 line I would suggest that 4 11:lc3 could be critical instead. A very dynamic example was given in Game 66 but the more cautious white alternatives suggested might prove more frustrating. 1 d4 d5 2 c4

2 'Uf3 ti:lc6 (D) - Game 61 2 ... 11:lc6 3 11:lf3 i.g4 4 cxd5 4 ti:lc3 - Game 66 4 ... i.xf3 5 gxf3 (D) 5 dxc6 - Game 65 5 ... 'l!Vxd5 6 e3 e6 6 ... eS - Game 64 7 li:lc3 (D) - Game 63

2 ... li:lc6

158

5 gxf3

7 li:lc3

INDEX OF COMPLUE GAMES

I

Agrest-Glenne, Be,;gen 2001 ...................................................................... 11 Anand-Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2001 ............................................... 139 Bates-Summerscale, Richmond 1994 ....................................................... 89 Bellon Lopez-Cirabisi, Genua 1989........................................................ 39 Bilobrk-Levacic, Bibin;e 2001 ................................................................... 15 Chatalbashev-Turner.J, Pardubice 1997 ................................................. 42 Cifuentes Parada-Moreda, Malaga 2001 ............................................. 117 Del Rey-Filgueira Fernandez, Corunha 2000....................................... 45 Dinser-Mione, Bratto 1996 ....................................................................... 56 Erdogan-Skembris, Ania/ya 2001 ......................................................... 126 Fridman-Seul, Essen 2001 ....................................................................... 104 Gagarin-Konotop, Moscow 1998 .............................................................. 92 Galovic-Dzurenda, Slovakian Team Ch., 2000 ........................................ 31 Gausel-Nielsen, Reykjavik 2000 ............................................................ 141 Gretarsson-Ehrke.M, Gausdal 1998 ....................................................... 97 Gross.S-Eiber, German Bundesliga 1995 ................................................... 29 Griinfeld.E-Tartakower, Karls bad 192 3 .. ............................................... 32 Gutop-Rausis, Moscow 1992...................................................................... 86 Gyimesi-Miladinovic, Malta 2000 ........................................................ 144 Hansen.K-Kovacevic.B, Oberwarl 2000 ............................................... 151 Hove-Hvenekilde, Taastrup 2000 ............................................................ 19 Hsu Li Yang-Handoko, Singapore 1997. ................................................... 9 Karr-Jossien, Bethune 1999 ........................................................................ 13 Kishnev-Rabiega, German Bundesliga 2001 ........................................... 116 Komljenovic-Miles, Lisbon 2000 ........................................................... 148 Kosyrev-Charbonneau, Montreal 2001 ................................................. 133 Lagunow-Hohelj, Munster 1993 .............................................................. 72 159


Lamprecht-Polyakova, Pardubice 1998 ................................................... 78 Legky-Brochet, St Quentin 1999 .............................................................. 62 Loffler.M-Schmid.M, Basie 2001 ............................................................ 52 Madej-Gruz, Polish Girls Ch., Zakopane 2001 ............................................. 7 Markus-Antal, Budapest 2000.................................................................. 131 Martin de! Campo-Manzur, Merida 1997 ............................................. 35 Martinez-Yanez Acin, Narciso Yepes 2001 ............................................. 21 Meschke-Eulberg, Hassloch 1997 ............................................................ 27 Mikavica-Rausis, Neuchatel 1996........................................................... 106 Miladinovic-Auth, Kava/a 2001 ............................................................... 67 Mittelman-Harari, Hampstead 1998 ........................................................ 50 Muse-Ljubicic, Split 2000 ....................................................................... 110 Nemet-Helvensteijn, Amsterdam 2001 ................................................. 150 Nenashev-Rabiega, Heringsdorf 2000 ................................................... 153 Orlov-Yoos, Vancouver 2001 .................................................................... 129 Pedersen.S-Grigorian.A, Copenhagen 1999............................................. 65 Piket-Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2001 .................................................. 120 Postny-Schneider.D, World Junior Ch., Athens 2001 ............................. 54 Rei-Vasconcelos, Portuguese Ch., Lisbon 1999.................................. :...... 84 Ricardi-Rausis, Yerevan Olympiad 1996 ................................................... 69 Richardson.J-Mortensen, Copenhagen 1997........................................... 59 Rogozenko-Morozevich, Istanbul Olympiad, 2000 .............................. 112 Sadler-Condie, British Ch., Swansea 1995 ................................................ 77 Santos-Rodriguez.N, Athens 1998.......................................................... 25 Shtyrenkov-Tishin, Alushta 2001 .......................................................... 118 Singer-Diermair, Oberwart 2000 .............................................................. 17 Szollosi-Deak.L, Hungarian League 1995................................................. 94 Todorov.0-Brochet, Cannes 1996 ........................................................... 99 Tukmakov-Skembris, Lausanne 2001 ................................................... 124 Van der Wiel-Tiviakov, Groningen 2001 ................................................. 44 Van Wely-Sokolov.I, Internet 2000 ........................................................ 101 Vera-Formanek, Andorra 1996 .............................................................. 134 Visser.H-Van der Laar, Dutch junior Ch., Hengelo 1997 ....................... 23 Ward-Brameld,Jersey 1999 ..................................................................... 155 Ward-Fries Nielsen, Copenhagen 1998 .................................................. 137 Ward-Keeling,Jersey 2000 ....................................................................... 143 Ward-Rausis, Le Touquet 1992 ................................................................. 81 Ward-Shaw, Oakham 1994 ........................................................................ 74 Yermolinsky-Reprintsev, Philadelphia 1995........................................... 48 Zimmerman.Y-Kovacevic.B, Oberwart 2000 ........................................ 70

160

Ward - Unusual Queens Gambit Declined.ocr

Recommend Documents