• Author / Uploaded
• crnjak1

Citation preview

Technical Editor:

IM Sergey Soloviov

Translation by:

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

The publishers would like to thank Phil Adams for advice regarding the English translation.

Cover design by:

Kalojan Nachev

Copyright© Nikita Vitiugov 2012

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN13 : 978 954 8782 86-9

Nikita Vitiugov

The French Defence RELOADED

Chess Stars

Bibliography French Defence: 3.tt:lc3 �b4 by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2003 French Defence: 3.tt:ld2 by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2003 Advance and other anti-french variations by L.Psakhis, Batsford 2003 French Defence: Steinitz, Classical by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2004

Win against the French Defence

by E.Sveshnikov, Moscow 2005

Opening for White Ace. to Anand (vol. VI-VII) by Khalifman, Chess Stars 2006 The Flexible French by Viktor Moskalenko, New in chess 2008 Repertoire books: Opening for White Ace. to Kramnik l.ll:'lf3 by A. Khalifman Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 2: Anti-Nim-Ind, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, 2008 Volume 3: English (l...c5), English (four knights), 2011 Volume 4: Maroczy, Modern, Trifunovic, 2011 Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman Volume 8: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines, 2006 Volume 9: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Taimanov and other lines, 2007 Volume 10: The Sicilian, Sveshnikov, 2007 Volume 11; The Sicilian, Dragon, 2009 Volume 12: The Sicilian, Rauzer Attack, 2009 Volume 13: The Sicilian, English Attack, 2010 Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman Current theory and practice series: The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007 The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2nd rev.ed. 2008 The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, 3rd. rev. ed., 2008 The Easiest Sicilian by Kolev and Nedev, 2008 The Petrosian System Against the QID by Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, 2008 Kill K.I.D. by Semko Semkov, 2009 The King's Indian. A Complete Black Repertoire by Victor Bologan, 2009 The Scotch Game for White by Vladimir Barsky, 2009 The Modern Philidor Defence by Vladimir Barsky, 2010 The Moscow & Anti-Moscow Variations by Alexey Dreev, 2010 Squeezing the Gambits by Kiril Georgiev, 2010 A Universal Weapon l.d4 d6 by Vladimir Barsky, 2010 The Meran & Anti-Meran Variations by Alexey Dreev, 2011 The Safest Grunfeld by Alexander Delchev and Evgenij Agrest, 2011 Fighting the French: a New Concept by Denis Yevseev, 2011 The Modern Reti. An Anti-Slav Repertoire by Alexander Delchev, 2012

More details at www . chess-stars.com 4

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Part 1. White avoids the main lines l.e4 e6 2 .b3; 2.f4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2.tt:lf3 d5 3.tt:lc3 ; 3.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 2 .d4 d5 3 .id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 2 .d4 d5 3.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

1 2 3 4

Part 2 . The Chigorin Variation & The King's Indian Attack l.e4 e6 2 .'&e2 ; 2 .d3 5 6 7

2 .'&e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 2 .d3 d5 3.tt:ld2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 2 .d3 d5 3.'&e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Part 3. The Advance Variation l.e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 '&b6 5.tt:lf3 l2Jc6 8 9 10 11 12

6 .ie2 6.id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.a3 l2Jh6 7.b4 cxd4 8 . .b:h6 ; 8.cxd4 l2Jf5 9 .ie3 6.a3 l2Jh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 l2Jf5 9.ib2 . . . . . . . 6.a3 id7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Part 4. The Rubinstein Variation l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.l2Jd2 dxe4 4.l2Jxe4 tt:ld7 13 14 15 16 17 18

5.g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.ig5 h6 7.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 8.id2 ; 8 . .b:f6 ; 8 .ie3 . . . . . . . 8 0 5.tt:lf3 l2Jgf6 6.ig5 h6 7.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 8 .ih4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5 .l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 7.g3 ; 7.id3 ; 7.ie 2 ; 7.ie3 . . . . . . 9 9 5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6 .l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 7.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0 5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9

Part 5 . The Morozevich Variation 19 20

l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.l2Jd2 ie7 4.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 4 4.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7 5

21 22

4.tt:lgf3 148 4.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 4 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Part 6. The Tarrasch Variation with 3 . . . c5 l.e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3.tt:ld2 c5 23 24 25 26

4.c3; 4.exd5 \Wxd5 5.dxc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 74 4.tt:lgf3 cxd4 5.tt:lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 0 4.tt:lgf3 cxd4 5.exd5 \Wxd5 6.i.c4 \Wd6 7.i.b3 ; 7.\We2 . . . . . . . 1 8 8 4.tt:lgf3 cxd4 5.exd5 \Wxd5 6 .i.c4 \Wd6 7.0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 4

Part 7 . The Winawer Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tt:lc3 i.b4 27 28 29 30 31

Various without 4.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 7 4.e5 b6; 4 . . . c5 5.\Wg4; 5.dxc5 ; 5.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 9 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 + 6.bxc3 tt:le7 7.i.d3 ; 7.h4 ; 7.a4; 7.tt:lf3 . . . . . 2 2 8 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3+ 6.bxc3 tt:le7 7.\Wg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3+ 6.bxc3 tt:lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Part 8. The MacCutcheon Variation l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.tt:lc3 tt:lf6 4.i.g5 i.b4 32 33 34 35 36

5 .i.d3 ; 5 .tt:lge2 ; 5.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.e5 h6 6.exf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.e5 h6 6.i.c1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.e5 h6 6 .i.e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.e5 h6 6.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

269 2 73 2 79 2 85 293

Part 9. The Steinitz Variation l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3.tt:lc3 tt:lf6 37 38 39 40

4.i.d3 ; 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.tt:lce 2 ; 5.tt:lf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 1 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7.i.e3 \Wb6 ; 7 ... a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 4 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7.i.e3 cd 8 .tt:lxd4 i.c5 9 .\Wd2 0-0 1 0.g3 ; 10. 0-0-0 a6 wjo ll.tt:lb3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 8 4.e5 tt:lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7.i.e3 cd 8.tt:lxd4 i.c5 9 .\Wd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 a6 11.tt:lb3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 5

Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 Index ofVariations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 6

PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION

I received, quite unexpectedly, many comments and opinions follow­ ing the publication of my first book on the French Defence. These were quite varied, both in form and content. There were renowned experts, who pointed out that some of the variations were not analyzed to per­ fection. Some meticulous readers looked for, and found ( ! ) , possibili­ ties for both sides, which I had omitted in several important, and even not so important, lines. There were people who criticized my rather ambitious concept, according to which I tried to present the opening the way I saw it, instead of just following the branches of the database. However, there were also some appreciative comments. It took me some time to think about everything I had written, done, read and heard . . . In the meantime I realised the objective defects of my work. Chess develops so rapidly that writing a book devoted to open­ ing theory which will be valid for a long period of time is "mission im­ possible" nowadays. What was fashionable a year ago quickly becomes outdated, while some dead and forgotten variations rise from the ash­ es. Nevertheless, I believe that the foundations which I laid eighteen months ago can be enriched with new variations and ideas, while the essence remains the same. You are now holding in your hands a new book, in which the author ventured to revaluate certain lines and enrich them with a new supply of fresh, contemporary information. I should like to express my sincere acknowledgement to GM Vasily Yemelin for his invaluable collaboration in the process of writing of this book.

Nikita Vitiugov Saint-Petersburg, January 2012 7

PREFACE

Black can enter the French defence, as a separate opening, on move one. I believe that players will find the French to be a comfortable and reliable defence against l.e4, even if it happens to be the only one they choose. Admittedly, it is a fact that chess is becoming more popular and universal, and so you need to have a variety of weapons in your opening armoury. Nevertheless, if you judiciously switch your varia­ tions within the French defence, it should serve you faithfully as Black, even if it is your only reply to l.e4. According to the generally accepted classification, the French de­ fence is semi-open. I think it can suit the styles both of aggressive tacti­ cal players and those who prefer patient positional manoeuvring. The philosophical justification of the French defence is quite well founded. Black acquiesces to the fact that he will not be able to com­ pete with White for control of every square on the chessboard, right from the beginning of the game. In contrast, he fights fiercely for the centre, attacks it with undermining pawn-moves, such as c7-c5 and f7-f6, and exerts piece-pressure on it with if8-b4, lt:Jg8-f6, tt:Jb8-c6, lt:Jg8-e7-f5, �d8-b6. The arguments for and against the correctness ofthe French defence began long ago and continue even now. The main themes are Black's lack of space and the consequence of that - the fate of his light-squared bishop, which is severely restricted right from move one. However, all "French" players are well aware of the rule that sometimes, at the de­ cisive moment of the game, it is the same "bad" French bishop that strikes the decisive blow and settles the issue. In this book you will not find an unequivocal answer to fundamen­ tal questions such as "is it possible to equalize by playing the French defence?", or "can White obtain a convincing advantage after l . . .e6?". 8

Chess is a microcosm of life and the same principles are applicable there are many questions and no definitive answers. In the French de­ fence we have already seen devastating novelties in variations which previously had an unblemished reputation, as well as rehabilitation of lines long thought to be dead and buried. So I have decided to present to my readers the French defence - just as I see it and understand it. I believe that chess players of all levels can find something new in this book. It will enable some of you to include the French defence in your opening repertoire and others of you to enrich your knowledge of this opening and sharpen your understanding of its ideas. The time has long passed when you could play the opening simply according to common sense. Therefore there are many extensive analy­ ses of concrete positions in the book, as well as new ideas discovered in the process of preparation for games and tournaments. This book has been written from Black's point of view, but this should not preclude a study of it by players who prefer the white side of the French. It is always useful to know something thoroughly. It might happen that a player who loves the white side of the French might be­ come an ardent fan of it as Black!

Nikita Vitiugov Saint-Petersburg, April 20 10

9

Part l

White avoids the main lines l.e4 e6

In the first part of our book we shall deal with the different ways in which White tries to avoid the main lines of the French defence. Objec­ tively, he can hardly rely on gaining an opening advantage with these variations. However, he is following a different philosophy in this case. It is far from easy to prove an advantage for White in the main lines an­ yway, so the idea is to obtain an original, non-standard position, which the opponent has not studied deeply at home. This last factor is be­ coming more and more important in contemporary competitive chess. Accordingly, Black must be well prepared to counter this approach and to obtain good positions against the less principled lines. Among the chapters included in our first part, the exchange vari­ ation is the most interesting. No doubt there are drawish tendencies in it, but in practice it turns out that making a draw is not so easy for either side. It should be enough to remember the famous game Gu­ revich - Short in the last round of the Interzonal tournament in Manila 1990. White only needed to make a draw to qualify for the next round of the competition, but even such a super-expert in the French defence for Black as Mikhail Gurevich failed under pressure to achieve the desired result and lost. Nigel Short qualified to play a match against Garry Kasparov thanks to this same remarkable game ! So we can high­ light the fact that modern chess history was greatly influenced by this game. I can therefore advise White players to refrain from playing the exchange variation of the French defence, at least to avoid the appear­ ance of new schisms in the chess world.

10

Chapter 1

l.e4 e6 Some seldom played variations

2.b3

The alternative is 3 . . . lt:Jf6 4. exd5 (4.e5 lt:Jfd7 5.f4 c5 6 .�g4 lt:Jc6 7.lt:Jf3 a6 8 . .ie2 b5 9 . 0 - 0oo) 4 ... exd5 5.�e2+ .ie6 ! ? (After 5 . . . �e7, White's idea i s justified : 6 . .ixf6 gxf6 7.�xe7+ .ixe7 8 .lt:Jc3 c6oo) 6.�b5+ lt:Jbd7 7.�xb7 and Black's compensation for the pawn should be sufficient. For example: 7 ... .ic5 ! ? 8.d4 .id6 9 ..id3 0-0 1 0 . lt:Jf3 .ig4 11.lt:Jbd2 l"le8+ 1 2 . m fl aS�

4)lJC3 lbf6 This move can hardly be dangerous for Black. Neverthe­ less, it is tried periodically by some strong players. The hero of this variation is that legend of Saint-Petersburg chess, Vladimir Ivanovich Karasev.

2 . . . d5 I can recommend to players with wide opening knowledge the move 2 . . . c5 ! ? , transposing to the Sicilian defence.

3 . .ib2 White's plan is based on this semi-gambit move.

3 . . . dxe4 I think that this is the most unpleasant response for White to face.

The move 4 . . . f5? ! however, can turn out to be really danger­ ous for Black - 5.f3 .id6 6.lt:Jh3 (6.g3 ! ? ) 6 . . . exf3 7.�xf3 lt:Jf6 8 . 0 - 0 - 0 0-0 9 . .ic4 and White's initiative might become crushing.

5.�e2 It seems too extravagant to play 5.g4?! .id7 6.g5 (6 . .ig2 .ic6 7.g5 lt:Jd5 8. lt:Jxe4 h6 9 .h4 lt:Jf4t) 6 ... lt:Jd5 7.lt:Jxe4 .ic6 and there a logical question arises - was it re­ ally worth it for White to weaken his position to that extent, only to regain the pawn he sacrificed with his third move?

5 . . . .ie7 6.lt:Jxe4 It is imprecise for White to play 6.0-0-0?! lt:Jc6 7.lt:Jxe4 lt:J d4 8.�d3 lt:Jxe4 9.�xe4 .if6--t 1 0 .g4? ! 11

Chapter 1 �d7! 11.hd4 �c6 12 .�b5 hb5 13 .11*'xb7 0-0� Karasev - S.lva­ nov, Leningrad 1991. 6 0 - 0 7.lt)f3 (7. 0-0-0 a5 ! ?) 7 a5!? 8.a4 b6 9. 0 - 0 - 0 .ib7 1 0 .d3 c!Llbd7 and Black has a very good position. •..

•..

2 .f4

7 ... �d7 8.d4 It would be too depressing for White to continue with 8.l2Je3 ? ! f6 ! and h e will have t o play 9.exf6 (It is too risky for him to play 9.d4? cxd4 10.cxd4 fxe5 ll.fxe5 �b4+ 12.1i>f2 o-m= and White's position is close to being hope­ less.) 9 . . . gxf6 10 .d3 0-0-0 11.�e2 �d6 and Black had a clear advan­ tage in the game Komliakov Rustemov, Moscow 1998. 8 �k8. This is a useful pre­ paratory move. 9 . .id3 cxd4. Black demonstrates a concrete approach to solving his problems. (It is also possible for him to opt for 9 . . . �e7! ?) 1 0 .cxd4 (He can counter 10.l2Jcxd4 with �c5?) •.•

10

.•.

c!Llf5 ll . .ixf5 exf5

This move looks a little ugly, but it is played quite often nev­ ertheless. At top level, I recall the recent game Zvjaginsev - Zhang Pensjang, won by White in a bril­ liant style.

2 5.c3

d5 3.e5 c5 4.c!Llf3 c!Llc6

.•.

This is the idea of his set-up. It resembles White's play in the Ad­ vance variation with 3 .e5, except that he can choose the right mo­ ment to push d2-d4.

5

.•.

c!Llh6 6.c!Lla3

The move 6.d4? ! is still clearly premature - 6 . . . 11*'b6 7.�d3 �d7 8.�c2 cxd4 9.cxd4 ttJb4 and Black seizes the initiative.

6

.•.

�b6 7.c!Llc2

After 7.d4?! cxd4 8.cxd4 ha3 9 .bxa3 l2Jf5, Black wins a pawn. 12

In the variation with 3 .e5 (after 2 .d4 d5) , pawn structures of this type are considered worse for Black in view of the transfer of White's knight to the f4-square. Here White's own pawn prevents the knight from occupying this square, so Black's position is quite acceptable. 12. 0 - 0 §J.e7 13.c!Lle3

.ie6 14.b3 0 - 0 15 . .ib2 f6 ! ??

Chapter 2

l.e4 e6 2 .lt� f3 d5

Fortunately this book i s not an opening encyclopaedia, so I do not feel obliged to analyze such moves .. .

4 . . . c5 The move 4 . . . lt:Jc6 ? ! flouts the opening principle laid down by Philidor - pawns in front and pieces behind . . . 5.c3 e5 6.cxd4 exd4 7.'�a4 �c5 8 .b4i and Black has problems. We shall analyze a) 3.�c3 and b) 3.e5.

a) 3.�c3 This is one of the ways for White to avoid the main lines of the French defence. He some­ times chooses a similar system of development against the Caro­ Kann defence and there it seems more reasonable.

3 . . . d4 This is, of course, a much more principled move than 3 . . . lt:Jf6 . White is allowing his opponent to occupy additional space and it would be a sin not to make use of that.

4.�e2 White has also played 4.lt:Jb5? .

5.c3 This is the most concrete deci­ sion for White. He wishes to im­ mediately destroy Black's pawn centre, which has just appeared on the board. 5.lt:Jg3 a6 ! ? (After 5 . . . lt:Jc6 White can simply play 6.�b5 �d7 7.hc6 hc6 8.lt:Je5 V!ic7 9.lt:Jxc6 V!ixc6 10.d3 and he has some pros­ pects for active play on the king­ side. ) 6.a4 (6.�e2 lt:Jc6 7.0-0 e5 (Black can also try here 7 . . . h5 ! ? and 7 . . .�d6.) 8.d3 g6 and it i s not obvious what White is supposed to do, while Black's plan is crystal clear - �g7, lt:Jge7, 0-0, h6, �e6, b5 etc.) and now 6 . . . lt:Jc6. Here is a possible continuation : 7.�c4 �d6 (7 . . . �e7! ? 8.0-0 h5) 8.d3 lt:Jge7 9.0-0 0-0 lO.lt:Jel :t'lb8 ll.f4 b5 13

Chapter 2 1 2 . axb5 axb5 13.�b3 �b7 with a complicated position. After 5.d3 there arise positions with a King's Indian pawn struc­ ture but with colours reversed. Black can usually only dream of this sort of outcome from the opening. 5 . . . Lt'lc6 6.g3 e5 7.�g2 �e7 8.0-0 g5 (8 . . . h5 ! ?) 9 .Lt'ld2 h5 ! ? and White already has prob­ lems (9 . . . �e6 10.f4 f6 ll.Lt'lf3 h6 12.c4oo Bachin - Korchnoi, Togli­ atti 2003).

5 .lbf6 ..

This is the strongest move, based on some simple tactics. Black cannot hold on to his d4pawn : 5 . . . Lt'lc6 ? ! 6.cxd4 cxd4 7. '\1;Ya4 �c5 8.b4 �b4 9 .Lt'lexd4 '\1;Ya5 (Or 9 . . .Lt'lge7 10 .�b5 '\1;Ya5 11.l"lb1 and he is unable to solve the problems of the opening.) 10.�b5 (An alternative for White is 10. '\1;Yxa5 �a5 ll.Lt'lb5 Lt'lf6 1 2 .Lt'ld6+ rtie7 13.e5 Lt'ld5 14.l"lb1 and Black is again in trouble.) 10 . . . �d7 ll.l"lb1 (In the endgame after ll.Lt'lxc6 bxc6 12 .'\1;Yxa5 �a5 Black must worry about his pawn structure.) 11.. .'\1;Yxa4 12 .�xa4 Lt'lxd4 13.l"lxb4 14

(White cannot achieve much with 13 .Lt'lxd4 �c5 14.�xd7+ rtixd7 15. Lt'lf3 b6 16.�b2 Lt'lf6.) 13 . . .Lt'lxf3 + 14.gxf3 �xa4 15. l"lxa4 and White has a slight advantage in this endgame, even if Black defends it correctly.

6.cxd4 I think it is weaker for White to play 6.e5 Lt'lfd7 7.cxd4 cxd4 8.Lt'lexd4

8 . . . Lt'lxe5 ! White already has problems, both in static and dy­ namic terms. He has not blun­ dered anything yet though, so he might still be able to hold the balance. 9.�b5+ Lt'lec6. Black is not afraid of weakening his pawn structure (It is less principled for him to play 9 . . . Lt'led7, because then White can develop his pieces to acceptable squares.) 10 .Lt'lxc6 (10.0-0 �d7 ll.Lt'lb3 Lt'lb4 12.�c4 �c6 and Black obtains a comfort­ able game, Janturin - Lysyj, Par­ dubice 2005; it is also possible for Black to opt for 10 . . . �e7.) 10 . . . Lt'lxc6 11.hc6+ bxc6. Black's bish­ op pair is a very powerful factor, compensating for the defects of his pawn structure. 1 2 .'\1;Ya4 '\1;Yd5 13.0-0 �e7 14.b3 '\1;Yb5 15.'\1;Yf4 0-0

l.e4 e6 2 . li:Jj3 d5 3. li:Jc3 d4 16.�b2 f6 17J'l:fc1 �d7? Guseinov - Huzman, Warsaw 2 005. I cannot recommend for White the move 6.li:Jg3, which Black can counter with 6 . . . a6 ! ? (after the usual reply 6 . . . li:Jc6 White's game is much easier - he can develop his bishop actively with 7.�b5). For example, the game Guseinov ­ Bartel, Kusadasi 2006, continued in the following fashion: 7.li:Je5 h5 8 .d3 h4 9 .li:Je2 li:Jfd7 10 .li:Jxd7 Wfxd7 ll.f4 li:Jc6 1 2 .li:Jgl. It is be­ coming more and more difficult to guess the moves of either side, so we shall stop here. The position is tremendously complicated. It is an unclear strategic struggle, with chances for both sides.

6

•••

cxd4

Black does not need to compli­ cate matters with 6 . . . li:Jxe4.

7.lLlexd4 lLlxe4

Wfxe4 i.c5 It turns out, however, that Black has obtained excellent com­ pensation for the sacrificed ma­ terial and White must play accu­ rately to avoid being worse.

11.i.c4 The fanciful move 1l.�d3 changes nothing important 1l.. .g6 12 .�c4 0-0 13.0-0 E'i:e8 14.he6 E'i:xe6 15.1Mfc4 �b6 and the presence of the pawn on g6 is not disadvantageous for Black's posi­ tion.

11

0 -0 12. 0 - 0

•••

Black can counter 1 2 .�xe6 with the obvious developing move 12 . . . E'i:e8 and then 13 .0-0 E'i:xe6 14.Wfc4 li:Jd4 ! 15.li:Jxd4 (15.1Mfxc5?? li:Jxf3+ 16 .gxf3 E'i:g6+ 17.\t>h1 Wfd3-+) 15 . . .�xd4 with an advan­ tage and an easy game for Black.

12

l3e8 13.d3

•••

White creates the unpleasant threat of li:Jg5 and Black must de­ fend against it right away.

13

8 .lLlxe6 It looks as if White has caught his opponent in a trap. The check on b5 would not achieve much - 8.�b5+ �d7 and then what. . . ?

8 •••.h:e6 9.1Mfa4+ lLl c 6 1 0 .

h6 14.�xe6

•••

If 14.�d2, it is very strong for Black to play 14 . . . li:Jd4 ! 15.E'i:ae1 hc4 16.Wfxe8+ W!xe8 17.E'i:xe8 + E'i:xe8 18.dxc4 li:Jxf3 + 19.gxf3 �d4= Myagmarsuren - Adamski, Po­ lanica Zdroj 1972. It might be interesting for White to opt for 14.�f4 ! ? li:Jd4 15.tt:Jxd4 �xc4 16.Wff5, but Black has a concrete answer to this 16 . . . Wfxd4 17.dxc4 �b6 ! =

14 l3xe6 15.�c4 �b6 16. �d2 lLld4 17.lLlxd4 hd4 18. �c3 l3d8= Vorobiov - Vitiugov, •••

Moscow 2 0 07. 15

Chapter 2

b) 3.e5 c5 4.b4

This is an interesting gambit line. White sacrifices a flank pawn with the idea of creating a solid centre and organizing an offen­ sive on the dark squares. Never­ theless, his compensation for the pawn is insufficient. I will mention that a similar position can arise from the Sicil­ ian defence after l.e4 c5 2.lLlf3 e6 3.b4 ! ?

7 ..ixa6 lLlxa6 8.d4 and we have reached a version of the 3.e5 (2 .d5 d5) variation. The manoeuvring game in that case may not be to everyone's liking. It is worth considering the oc­ cupation of the centre with 4 . . . d4 5.bxc5 hc5 6 . .ia3 , and here Black must choose between two accept­ able retreats of his bishop. In both cases the position remains rather unclear: 6 . . . ib6 (6 . . . '\ W aS? ! 7.hc5 Wxc5 8.c3 lLlc6 9.cxd4 lLlxd4 10. W/a4+t; 6 ... ie7 ! ?) .

5.a3 lLlc6 6.axb4 hb4 7.c3 .ie7 8.d4

4 . . . cxb4 The most principled reaction for Black is no doubt to accept the sacrifice. The resulting positions have not been well analyzed yet and this is easily understandable. There are not so many players with White who would be willing to sacrifice a pawn for such ob­ scure compensation. I shall not analyze this position extensively and I shall just show you the cor­ rect moves to start off with. These are not at all obligatory, just some of the possibilities. Black's attempt to maintain the tension with 4 . . . b6, can be countered with 5.c3 '1Wd7 6.a3 .ia6 16

So, White has achieved what he wanted. However, Black has his counter chances . . .

8 . . . i.d7 The character of the position has been defined early, so Black should not be in a hurry to com­ plete the development of his king­ side. It is obvious that White will develop his initiative there, so Black should leave his king in the centre for a while. I do not like the move 8 ... lLlh6 very much, because then White

l.e4 e6 2. liJj3 d5 3.e5 c5 has a target to attack, which is the knight on h6 (or f5) . 9 . .id3 li:Jf5 10.h4 ! ?and White's pawn-offen­ sive on the kingside would not be very pleasant for Black. However, he could try the super-solid move 10 . . . h5oo

Black can counter ll.h5 with the preparatory move ll.. .Elc8 and after 12.Elh3 - 1 2 .. .f6?

ll . . . f6 12 . .if4 f5

9 . .id3 a6 It would be interesting to play the aggressive move 9 . b5 ! ? in­ tending to follow up with b4. . .

1 0 .h4 After 10.0-0 Elc8, White will have difficulty proving that his compensation for the pawn is sufficient.

1 0 .. .'�c7 Black is preparing undermining move t7-f6.

ll.Elh3

the

Now it has become clear that the f4-square is not suitable for White's bishop in this pawn struc­ ture and he will need to change his set-up. 13.Elg3 .if8oo The position is complicated. Of course, it is not possible to analyze it to exhaustion. How­ ever, it is obvious that White's pawn-sacrifice on move four is hardly correct. Nevertheless, Black should not try to refute it outright. It is advisable for him to simply play the French defence, but with an extra pawn.

17

Chapter 3

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.i.d3

4 ... exd5 leads to a version of the Exchange variation.) 5.'2lc3 ! and now Black will have to reply to this with 5 . . . �xd4, when White obtains excellent attacking chanc­ es, because after 5 . . . �xg2 , Black's queen is suddenly trapped - 6. �e4 ! . 6.'2lb5 (6.'2lf3 �d8 7.�f4.) 6 . . . �d8 7.�f4 ct:J a6 8 .�e2 '2lf6 9. 0-0-0 with a very powerful at­ tack for White. This is a very seldom played variation. Its idea is to maintain the tension in the centre without defining the position of the queen's knight. Its drawbacks are evident too. White's bishop comes to the centre prematurely and it can be attacked with tempo.

4 . .be4 '2lf6 5.-i£3 This is the only way for White to justify his third move, because after 5.�d3 c5 Black has no prob­ lems whatsoever.

3 . . . dxe4 It would be interesting for Black to play 3 . . . c5, but White has the attractive tactical possibility 4.exd5 (After 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 dxe4 6 . .be4 '2lf6 7.�f3 it is un­ clear why White's bishop on f3 has occupied the knight's usual place; 4.dxc5? and White must begin to fight for equality. 4 . . . dxe4 5.�b5+ �d7+; 5.�xe4 �xdl+ 6 .'tt> x dl .bc5 7.'tt> e 2 '2lf6 8 .�d3 b6; 8 .�f3 ct:Jbd7+) 4 . . . �xd5 (The move 18

5 . . . c5 I do not think that Black has anything to worry about after, for example: 5 . . . �e7 6 .'2le2 0-0 7.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.i!.d3 de 4.he4 Ci:Jf6 0-0 Ci:Jbd7 8.Ci:Jbc3 (8.i!.f4 c5) 8 . . . e 5 9. Ci:Jg3 exd4 10.'� xd4 i!.c5 11. 1Mfc4 i!.d6, but the move 5 ... c5 seems more active and to the point.

6.Ci:Je2 Ci:Jc6 Black continues in the same fashion, exerting maximal pres­ sure against his opponent's centre.

7 .ie3 cxd4 •

The alternatives seem worse: 7 . . . e5? ! Black's attempt to play analogously to the variation 3. Ci:Jc3 i.b4 4.i.d3 is less appropriate here - 8.i!.xc6+ bxc6 9.dxe5 1Mfxd1 + 10. 'it>xd1 Ci:Jg4 11. Ci:Jd2 i!.a6 12 .l"l:eU and White has a clear advantage in this endgame, thanks to his extra pawn and Black's terrible queenside pawn structure. It would be bad to play 7 . . . Ci:Jd5? ! 8 .hd5 1Mfxd5 9 .Ci:Jbc3 ! Rap­ id development takes precedence over everything else ! 9 .. .'�xg2 10. l"l:g1 1Mfxh2 l l.i!.f4 1Mfh5 1 2 .Ci:Jb5 and Black is in great trouble. It would be sufficient to say that the best move for him in this position, ac­ cording to Fritz, is 12 . . . 'it>d8.

8.lt:lxd4

8 . lt:le5 •.

This move is simple and strong. Black is attacking White's bishop and he can exchange it at any opportune moment.

9. 0 - 0 For example, if 9.1Mfe 2 , Black simply captures with 9 . . . Ci:Jxf3 + and begins fighting for the advan­ tage.

9 . . . i!.e7 1 0 . liJc3 0 - 0 ll . .ie2

11

1Mfc7! ?

•••

This i s a n active move, creating the threat of Ci:Jc4. We can evaluate the position after the opening as at least equal for Black. It is also acceptable for him to try ll . . . i!.d7 12 .f4 Ci:Jc6 and there arises a version of the Sche­ veningen variation of the Sicilian defence, one in which he has nothing to worry about.

12.liJcb5 12 .f4 ? ! Ci:Jc4

12 �b8 13.f4 c!Llg6 14.i.d3 c!Lld5 15. �d2 .ic5 and White •••

must play very accurately for the rest of the game.

19

Chapter 4

l.e4 e6 The Exchange Variation

2.d4 After 2.c4 there do not arise any original positions, since Black can enter the main lines of the exchange variation without any problems. 2 . . . d5 (I can recom­ mend to players who wish to play more complicated positions the move 2 . . . c5, which leads to a good version of the Sicilian defence.) 3.exd5 exd5 4.d4 (White does not achieve anything much with 4.cxd5 tt'lf6 5.�b5 + tt'lbd7 6.tt'lc3 �e7 7.tt'lf3 0-0 8.0-0 tt'lb6 with easy equality for Black.)

2 . . . d5 3.exd5

What can we say about the Exchange variation in general? It was played actively for a while by Garry Kasparov himself, but 20

i t cannot b e dangerous for Black. It is obvious that White can cre­ ate considerably more problems for his opponent only with the moves 3 . tt'l c3 , 3.tt'ld2 and 3.e5. Nevertheless, Black must play ac­ curately. For those chess fans who always wish to play only for a win, I should like to tell you that ac­ cording to the professional play­ ers there are two positive results in chess - a win and a draw . . .

3 . . . exd5 4)iJf3 This is the most solid and flex­ ible move for White. It is also pos­ sible for him to play 4.c4, but in general it is not so advantageous for him to clarify his plan so early in the game.

Black has at his disposal a very harmonious set-up 4. . . tt'lf6 5.tt'lf3 ( H e can counter 5.tt'lc3 -

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.tt'lj3 .id6 with 5 . . . ib4.) 5 . . . ib4+ 6 .tt'lc3 0-0 7.ie2 dxc4. Now, White has nu­ merous alternatives, but they all have certain drawbacks. If Black so wishes, he can ignore his addi­ tional possibilities and stick to the same plan. 8.0-0 (After 8.hc4 it is reasonable for Black to ex­ change the light-squared bish­ ops immediately with 8 . . . l"le8+ 9.ie3 ie6 10.he6 l"lxe6 11.0-0 tt'lc6 1 2 .ig5 hc3 13.bxc3 �d5 14.ixf6 Elxf6, although White still maintains some pressure with 15.�b3 .) 8 . . . ig4 (An alternative for Black is - 8 . . . ie6 ! ?) 9.hc4 tt'lc6 10.ie3 . White is more or less forced to enter this position after 4.c4. Considering that White has recaptured on c4 in two moves, Black should not have any prob­ lems after the opening. For ex­ ample : 10 . . . �d7 11.h3 ih5 12 .i.e2 Elfe8= and both sides' prospects are approximately equal.

After 4.tt'lf3 Black has several possibilities. I will concentrate on the move 4 . . . id6, for two rea­ sons. Firstly, the situation after 5.c4 dxc4 6.ic4 can arise from

the Queen's Gambit Accepted and it is always useful to know about such transpositions between dif­ ferent openings. I am referring to the variation l.d4 d5 2 .c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4.ic4 exd4 5.exd4 id6 6.tt'lf3 .

Secondly, I think this same move combines reliability and positional justification and avoids complete symmetry enabling Black to think about winning the game after all . . .

4

...

.td6

The move 4 . . . ig4 was popular during the nineties of the last cen­ tury, but after Kasparov found the idea 5.h3 ih5 6.�e2 + ! it became clear that Black would have prob­ lems in this variation.

6 ...�e7 7..ie3 tt'lc6 8.tt'lc3 0-0-0 9 . 0 -0-0:t Kasparov - Short, Til­ burg 1991. 21

Chapter 4 Black sometimes tries to pro­ voke complications with the move 4 . . . 4Jc6, but he may have difficul­ ties in the well-known variation after 5.�b5 �d6 6.c4 dxc4 7.d5 a6 8.�a4 b5 9.dxc6 bxa4 10.0-0 4Je7 11 .1Mfxa4. White risks nothing, while Black must still make sever­ al very accurate moves. Of course, his most reliable resource here is the symmetrical move - 4 . . . 4Jf6 .

5.c4 The famous principle of asym­ metry in the Exchange variation can be illustrated here with the move - 5.�d3. I should inform my readers that according to this principle Black should be in no hurry to de­ velop his king's knight early, since if its counterpart goes to f3, then Black should deploy his knight to e7, and vice versa . . . Of course, you should not take all these par­ adoxical principles completely seriously, but still, it is always useful to keep them in mind. For instance, in the following game Black obeyed all these rules and managed to gradually outplay his 22

opponent and prevail i n the end­ game. 5 . . . 4Je7 6.0-0 4Jbc6 7.h3 4Jb4 8 .�e2 �f5 9. 4Ja3 a6 10 .b3 0-0 ll.c3 4Jbc6 1 2 .4Jc2 4Jg6 13. �d3 hd3 14.1M/xd3 1M/d7 15.�d2 4Jce7 16.:1'1fel 1M/f5 17.1M/xf5 4Jxf5 18 .g3 f6 19.:1'1e2 l"1fe8 2 0 .:1'1ael l"1xe2 21.:1'1xe2 'kt>f7 2 2 .'kt>g2 h5+ Gorbatov - Rychagov, Moscow 2008.

5 dxc4 6.hc4 tt:lf6 7. 0 - 0 0-0 •..

8.tt:lc3 It is interesting for White to try to seize the initiative immediately with 8.4Je5 ! ? Black must react very precisely: 8 . . . 4Jc6 ! This is the right move ! (It is weaker for him to opt for 8 . . . 4Jbd7? ! 9.�f4 4Jb6 10 .�b3 4Jfd5 ll.�g3 �e6 12 .4Jd2 l"1e8 13 .4Je4 1M/e7 14.l"1cH and White obtained an advantage in the game Tregubov - Vitiugov, Sochi, 2009.) 9.4Jxc6 (Now he cannot play 9 .�f4 because of the routine reply 9 . . . �xe5 10.dxe5 4Jg4, and White cannot protect his pawn.) 9 . . . bxc6. Black's pawn structure has been weakened a lit­ tle, but he is not worse. For exam­ ple : 10.4Jc3 l"1e8 11.1Mlf3 l"1b8 12 .h3

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.'Llf3 id6 ie6?, and the dynamic factors are in his favour.

9 . . . h6

8 .ll:l c 6 ••

1 0 .ge1 From this moment on, the opening has many things in com­ mon with the Chigorin defence. It is obvious that in this rather original and complicated open­ ing, Black's position is considered as acceptable, but things are not so simple here.

9.h3 The seemingly active move 9.ig5, strangely enough, is not dangerous for Black at all. 9 .. . h6 (It is less precise to play 9 . . . ig4, since White can counter this with 10.'Lld5, obtaining the advantage of the two bishops. 10 . . . ie7 ll.'Llxe7 + Wfxe7 12 .h3 ixf3 13.Wfxf3 Wfe4 14.Wfxe4 'Llxe4 15.ie3 'Lld6 16.b3 with some ad­ vantage to White, Lputian - Rom­ anishin, Manila 1992.) 1 0 .ih4 ig4. It looks as if White's best here is the forced draw after ll.h3 ixf3 1 2 .Wfxf3 'Llxd4 13.Wfxb7 Elb8 14.Wfxa7 Ela8 15.Wfb7 Elb8, Gure­ vich - Azmaiparashvili, Saint Vincent 2 0 03 .

It is difficult to say which is White's most useful move here. He has tried many different ide­ as, but Black has good counter­ chances in all cases. In principle, this is quite logical. Both sides are playing solidly in the centre and neither side should have prob­ lems. White cannot harm his oppo­ nent with 10 .a3 if5 11.b4 'Lle4 ! 12 .ib2 'Llxc3 13.ixc3 Wff6= It would be too routine for him to opt for 10 .ie3 a6 11.a4 if5 12 .'Llh4 ih7 13 .id3 ixd3 14.Wfxd3 'Llb4 15.Wfd1 Ele8 16.Wff3 if8 17. Elad1 'Llbd5 18.'Llf5 illh 7 19.if4 c6 2 0.ie5 Ele6? Balashov - Mo­ rozevich, Samara 1998. White has an interesting pos­ sibility here - 10 .Wfc2 , with the idea of preventing the natural development of his opponent's light-squared bishop. Black can react cleverly with 10 . . . a6 ! ? , or he can play more simply - 10 . . . 'Llb4 11.Wfb1 c6 ! ? (White obtains some targets to attack after ll . . . ie6 23

Chapter 4 12 .�xe6 fxe6 13J'le1 '\Wd7 14.�d2 ct:Jbd5 15.1Wd3 l'l:ad8 16.l'l:e2 1Wf7 17.l'l:ae1 l'l:fe8 18.'Lle4;t; Tkachiev Sulava, Gonfreville 2006.) with the idea of responding to 12.l'l:e1 with 12 ... ct:Jbd5. It is also worth considering 10 . . . 'Ll a5 11.�d3 �e6. ll.a3 b5 12 .�d3 �b7, with good counterplay.

developing the bishop to a more active position.) Now White ex­ erts some positional pressure. 15.'Llh4 �h8 16.'Llf5 l'l:e8 17.'Llxd6 (17.b4 ! ?) 17 . . . 1Wxd6 18.l'l:d1 (White cannot play 18 .hf7 in view of 18 . . . 'Lle5 ! ) 18 . . . �e6 19 .he6 l'l:xe6 2 0 . d 5 'Lle5 2 1.1Wd4 l'l:e8 2 2 .�f4 ( 2 2 . 1Wa7 ! ?) 2 2 . . . c 5 23.dxc6 1Wxd4 2 4 . l'l:xd4 'Llxc6 = . The players agreed to a draw, Korchnoi - lvanchuk, Frankfurt 1998.

ll . .ie3 The eventual consequences of the exchange of rooks were ana­ lyzed in our previous notes. I will just mention that after ll.l'l:xe8+ 1Wxe8 White cannot prevent the development of Black's bishop to f5 - 12 .1Wd3? 'Llb4 !

ll .. .if5 .

1 0 J'l:e8 ••

This is Black's most natural response. He has some alterna­ tives though. The move 10 . . . �f5 was played in a game against a computer by the famous French defence expert Alexander Mo­ rozevich: ll.d5 'Lle7 1 2 .�e3 a6 13. �d4 'Llg6 14.a4 l'l:e8 15.1Wb3 b6 16.l'l:xe8 + 'Llxe8 17.l'l:e1 'Llf6oo Fritz - Morozevich, Frankfurt 20 0 0 . Two other acknowledged giants in this opening tested out the ben­ efits of including the moves 10 . . . a 6 and ll.a3 : ll . . .l'l: e 8 12 .l'l:xe8+ 1Wxe8 13.1Wd3 1Wf8 14.�e3 �d7 (It was also interesting for Black to continue with 14 . . . b5 15.�a2 �b7,

24

Black can also begin with the move ll . . . a6 ! ?

12.a3 a6

13.lt:lh4 .ih7 14.1Wf3 �d7oo with a very complicated position, Short - Bareev, Pula 1997.

Part 2

Chigorin Variation l.e4 e6 2.�e2 King's Indian Attack l.e4 e6 2.d3

In principle, different, "non-French" positions arise only if White does not try to occupy the centre and does not place a pawn on d4. It would be quite reasonable to tell you immediately that studying this chapter will be useful not only for readers who play the French De­ fence. The King's Indian Attack can be considered as a separate open­ ing concept for White and Black must be well prepared to counter it. White's play might not appear to be very ambitious or concrete, but every possible move-order deserves thorough attention, since White's opening strategy is not without venom.

25

ChapterS

l.e4 e6 2 . �e2 Chigorin Variation

This move was invented by Mikhail Ivanovich Chigorin. Its idea is quite simple. White wishes to build a typical King's Indian Attack set-up. However, he tries to impede Black's thematic move d7-d5, since after the exchange of pawns, Black will have to recap­ ture with his queen rather than the pawn, which is not part of his plan at all. On the other hand, this early development of the white queen also has some drawbacks.

2

...

c5

I believe this is the most logical reaction for Black. He postpones the move dS for a while, occupy­ ing and controlling the centre in the process. Black sometimes plays the 26

amusing move 2 . . . e 5 . The posi­ tion is rather unusual after that and, if you see it for the first time, you might think that after l.e4 eS, White has played 2 .WI'e 2 ? ! In fact, with his second move, Black wish­ es to emphasize that White's early queen-sortie is completely harm­ less for the opponent. Still, this is a tempo gained. It seems logi­ cal for White to choose the plan of f2-f4, followed by moving the queen to f2 . For example: 3.c3 4Jc6 4.f4 d6 5.4Jf3 g6 6.WI'f2 ig7 7.ic4 4Jf6 8.d3 0-0 9.0-0 exf4 10.ixf4 4Jg4 ll.WI'g3 C/JgeS 12.4Jbd2 4Jxc4 13.4Jxc4 ie6 14.4Je3 C!JeS 15.4Jxe5 dxeS 16 .ixe5 ixeS 17.WI'xe5 Wl'xd3 18 .llf3 Wl'e2 19.c4 ! and White went on to win, Zvjaginsev - Ni Hua, Ergun 2006. Black also plays 2 . . . ie7, with the idea of eliminating the x-ray pressure along the e-file. But that way he loses the possibility of fi­ anchettoing his dark-squared bishop. Even 2 . . . d5 is sometimes played successfully by Black. There is no doubt that in that case White's queen move is jus-

l.e4 e6 2. �e2 c5 tified, because after 3.exd5 Black must play 3 . . . i�hd5. There arises a strange version of the Scan dina­ vian defence (with the inclusion of the moves �d1-e2 and e7-e6) which has not been evaluated by the theoreticians yet.

3.lilf3 There is a multitude of possi­ bilities and move-orders in this position. We shall analyze White's most natural and purposeful moves. Black should counter 3.f4 with 3 . . . d5. Here is a possible continu­ ation: 4.exd5 �xdS S.ltJc3 �d8 6.ltJf3 ltJc6 7.g3 ltJf6 8.ig2 ie7 9. 0-0 0-0 10 .d3 id7 11.ltJe4 8:c8 12 .c3 ltJdS with an approximately equal position, Short - Korchnoi, Groningen 1997. 3.g3 ltJc6 4.c3 g6 S.ig2 i.g7 6. f4 ltJge7 7.ltJf3 d6 8.0-0 0-0 9. tt:la3 8:b8 10.'it>h1 fS 11 .d3 bS 1 2 . exfS ltJxfS 13.id2 d S 14.g4 ltJh6 15.ltJg5 �d7 16.8:ae1 b4 17.ltJb1 bxc3 18.bxc3 ltJd8� Lastin - Ba­ reev, Elista 1997.

3

•••

c!Llc6 4 g3 .

4.b3 ltJf6 S.e5 ltJdS 6.ib2 i.e7 7.g3 0-0 8 .ig2 d6 9.exd6 �xd6 10.0-0 if6 ll .ltJc3 ltJxc3 12 .dxc3 id7 and Vasily Vasiliyevich could hardly be satisfied with his posi­ tion, Smyslov - Panno, Buenos Aires 1990. The move 4.c3 was tried by, among others, the famous open­ ing experimentalist Vadim Zvja­ ginsev. This game continued in creative fashion but did not end up successfully for him. 4 . . .ltJge7

5.ltJa3 g6 6.d4 cxd4 7.ltJb5 d6 8.ltJbxd4 ig7 9 .ie3 ltJxd4 10.cxd4 d5 11.e5 ltJfS 12.ig5 �b6 13 .�d2 id7 14.8:cl h6 15.if6 ixf6 16.exf6 �d8 and Black gobbled up a pawn, Zvjaginsev - Rublevsky, Poikovsky 20 0 6. 4.d3 transposes to the main line after 4 . . . ltJge7 5.g3 g6 6.ig2 ig7.

4

g6

•••

This is a principled move. Maybe not all French defence players would like the develop­ ment of the bishop to the g7square, but I am very much in­ clined to deploy it precisely there.

5.�g2 �g7 6. 0 - 0 c!Llge7 Black is unable to develop this knight to a more active position 6 . . . ltJf6 7.c3 ! d5 (It is no improve­ ment for him to opt for 7 . . . 0-0 8 .d4 d5 9 .e5 ltJd7 10 .ig5 and White obtains a clear advantage.) 8.e5 ltJd7 9.d4 f6 10.exf6 �xf6 ll.ltJgS and Black is in great trou­ ble.

7.c3 0 - 0 8.d3 8 .8:d1 e5 9.d3 dS 10 .ltJbd2 d4 ll.ltJb3 b6 12.cxd4 cxd4 13.ig5 27

ChapterS �e6 14.1Mfd2 f6 15.�h6 1Mfd6 16. hg7 lt>xg7 with a clear advantage for Black, Chahrani - Gleizerov, Dubai 2002. 8 ... d6 Black has two possible plans in this position - playing on the queenside, based on advancing b7-b5-b4, or natural central strat­ egy of the type - e6-e5 and f7-f5.

vilava - Malakhov, Minsk 1997. White can also try here the ex­ treme prophylactic move - 9.a4. This is an amazing move, since it is far from clear exactly what White is defending against. It is little wonder that the move 2.d4 is about ten times more popular than all of these attempts. An alternative for White is 9 .�e3 b6 10.d4 (10.lLla3 �a6 11. :gfd1 :gcs 12.1Mfc2 bS 13.c4 lLld4 13 . . . b4! - 14.1Mfd2 bxc4 15.dxc4 lLlec6+! 16.:gac1? lLlxf3 + 17.hf3 1Mff6+ Jasim - Radjabov, Dubai 2 0 02) 10 . . . cxd4 (lO . . . aS ! ?) 11.'Lld4 (11.cxd4 aS ! ? with counterplay) ll . . . lLl d4 12 .�d4 eS 13.�e3 �e6 this position requires additional practical tests.

9 . . . e5 1 0 .a3 h6 11.b4 i.e6 9.llJbd2 Boris Abramovich once tried 9 .a3 , but he is unlikely to use it again in his forthcoming match against Anand. 9 . . . b6 10 .b4 cxb4 ll.axb4 'Llxb4 12.d4 tt:Jbc6 13.'Llbd2 i.b7 14.�a3 d5 15J'Ub1 :ge8 16.1Mfb5 dxe4 17.'Llxe4 lLldS 18 .1Mfd3 �f8 with an extra pawn for Black, Gel­ fand - Navara, Prague 20 0 6. The move 9 . lLl a3 looks a bit strange. Do not be prejudiced the knight is only half-way to its destination. The only surprise is that Vadim Zvjaginsev has not tried it yet. 9 . . . :gbs 10 .lLl c2 bS 11.�f4 b4 12 .d4 bxc3 13.bxc3 cxd4 14.'Llcxd4 'LlaS 15.i.g5 h6 16.he7 1Mfxe7 17. :gab1 �b718.'Lld2 :gbc8 with an un­ doubted advantage to Black, Lag28

I much prefer the idea of main­ taining the knight on the c6square with ll . . . a6 ! ?

12.b5 c!Da5 13 . .ib2 f5 14. exf5 gxf5 15.c!Dh4, Smyslov Cramling, Prague 1995

and here with 15 . . . c4! Black could have obtained an excellent position.

Chapter 6

l.e4 e6 2.d3 King's Indian Attack

here Topalov tried the interesting idea of exchanging his light­ squared bishop with 1 1 . . .�g4 ! ? 12 . h3 hf3 13.hf3 'Wd7 14.�g2 f5 15. exf5 gxf5 16.f4 8:ad8 17.8:e2? ! 'We6 ! And Black seized the initia­ tive and went on to win the game, Bruzon Bautista - Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2005.

3.lild2 This move is definitely a bit slow and usually indicates that White wishes to postpone any sharp struggle to the middle game. It is also possible that White is just a bit too lazy to study the basic theoretical lines at home and is trying to play safely and se­ curely early in the game.

White can also defend against d5xe4 and support his e4-pawn with the move 3.'We2 and we shall analyze this in our next chapter.

2 . . . d5 Nowadays broad opening knowledge is one of the most im­ portant features of a strong chess player. For example, here it seems very reasonable for Black to trans­ pose to the Closed Sicilian with 2 . . . c5 3.lLlf3 lLlc6 4.g3 g6 5.�g2 �g7 6.c3 lLlge7 7.0-0 0-0 (It is maybe a bit more precise to play 7 . . . e5 ! ?) 8 .8:e1 (8.d4 ! ?) 8 . . . e5 9 . lLla3 d 6 10.�e3 b6 1l.'Wd2 and

3 .. .lilf6 Here Black has an equally ef­ fective move for our suggested scheme of development - 3 . . . c5. The text move has been chosen mostly for the sake of the clarity 29

Chapter 6 of our explanation. Our notes over the next few moves will help you to become acquainted with some positions in which Black changes the pawn structure with d5xe4 and e6-e5. This is going to be our basic weapon against the scheme with 3.�e2. After 3 . . . c5 White can consider placing his pawn on f4, which is aimed against Black's set-ups with �d6 and Ci:Jge7 or g6, �g7, Ci:Jge7, for ex­ ample : 4.g3 ! ? Ci:Jc6 (or 4 . . . �d6 5.�g2 Ci:Je7 6.f4) 5.�g2 Ci:Jf6 (after 5 . . . g6, White can play not only 6 .f4 followed by Ci:Jgf3, but also 6. Ci:Jh3 ! ? , played by Morozevich) 6.f4. This idea has been tried only rarely and it is difficult to assess whether it is dangerous for Black. The most likely continuation would be then - 6 . . . �e7 7.e5 Ci:Jd7 8.Ci:Jgf3 leading to positions which we shall analyze in our next notes.

4.c!Llgf3 Here if 4.g3 Black has at his disposal the after quite effective set-up: 4 . . . dxe4 5.dxe4 e5 6.Ci:Jgf3 �c5 ! 7.�g2 0-0 8.0-0 30

and now: 8 . . . l"\e8 ! ? this is a very precise move, with which Black shows his reluctance to determine immedi­ ately the placement of his b8knight. 9.c3 (After 9 .b3 it would be good for Black to play 9 . . . Ci:Jc6) 9 . . . a5 10. �c2 a4 1l.Ci:Jc4 Ci:Jbd7 12. Ci:Je3 ! ? b6 13.l"\d1 �b7 14.Ci:Jh4 g6 15.�h3 ? ! This idea is just wrong. 15 ...he4! 16.fud7 hc2 (16...�xd7? 17.i.xd7 hc2 18.i.xe8 he3 19.i.c6! hc1 20.E1xc1 +-) 17.E1xd8 E1axd8 18.Ci:Jxc2 l"\d1+ 19.@g2 h5 ! ? (This is a prophylactic move, the point of which can be seen in the varia­ tion 19 . . . Ci:Je4 20 .�g4 ! , but it is even stronger for Black to prepare the exchange of the active enemy rook on d1 with the move 19 . . . l"\ed8 ! when White's situation be­ comes critical.) 20.�g5 E1xa1 21. Ci:Jxa1 Ci:Je4 22.�d7 l"\b8 23.Ci:Jf3 f6 24.�c1 Ci:Jxf2+ Nadanian - Lpu­ tian, Armenia 1998; However, Black can try to play more simply: 8 . . . Ci:Jbd7 9 .b3 b6 10. �b2 �a6 (On the next move it would not be so convenient for him to develop his bishop to the a6-square: 10 . . . �e7 ll.Ci:Jc4 �a6 12.Ci:Jfxe5 Ci:Jxe5 and now White can either capture a pawn : 13.

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. ttld2 ttlf6 .ixeS !'!adS 14. hf6 �xf6 1S.�e2, when Black's compensation for it should be sufficient to draw, or else sacrifice the exchange : 13. tt:lxeS .ixfl 14.�xf1� with very good compensation.) 1l.c4 �e7 12.a3 .ib7 13.b4 .id6 14.tt:lh4 g6 1S. �b3 tt:lhS 16 .:!'!ae1 aS 17 . .ic3 axb4 18.axb4 cS 19.bS :!'!fd8 ! The oppo­ nents agreed to a draw in this complicated position, Voitsekhov­ sky - Andreev, Vladimir 2008. Black's last move is important and accurate, because now his knight on d7 is headed for d4, while his other knight on hS will keep threatening to go to f4 at an opportune moment, exploiting the under-protected state of White's knight on h4 : if 20 ..if3 tt:lf4. The natural reply 8 . . . tt:lc6 is also possible, but Black's knight is slightly misplaced there : 9.c3 aS. This is a very popular position and it can arise from different move-orders. 10 .�c2 b6 11.tt:lb3 .ie7 12.:!'!d1 �e8 13.a4 .ia6 14.tt:lh4 :!'!d8 1S . .ie3 tt:lg4 16.tt:lfS tt:lxe3 17. tt:lxe3 :!'!xd1+ 18 .:!'!xd1 �c8 19.tt:ldS± White managed to obtain a slight edge in the game Bologan - Ma­ slak, Budva 2009. An original position arises af­ ter 4.eS ! ? tt:lfd7 S.f4 (after S .d4, White reaches a position from the Steinitz system, but a tempo down). In response, Black should try to consistently seize space on the queenside, for example: S . . . cS (it would be also interesting for him to try S . . .f6 ! ? with counter­ play) 6.g3 tt:lc6

7.tt:lgf3 (7.tt:ldf3 bS 8.tt:lh3 b4 9.tt:lf2 aS 10 . .ih3 g6 11.0-0 .ia6 12.a3 �b6 13.axb4 cxb4 14.Wh1 .icS with a very good position for Black, Najer - Chebotarev, Inter­ net 20 04) 7 . . . bS 8 ..ig2 �b6 9 . c3 .ie7 (It would be reasonable to try Kamsky's recommendation: 9 . . . c4 ! ? 10 .d4 b 4 11.0-0 �aSi with initiative on the queenside. The centre is closed, so Black is not obliged to be in any hurry with his development. White's pieces are not very well placed at the mo­ ment, so he cannot punish his op­ ponent with the pawn-break f4fS.) 10.0-0 0-0 11.Wh1 .ib7 12. �e2 :!'!ae8 13.tt:lb3 aS (Black can again follow Kamsky's ideas with 13 . . . d4 ! ? 14.cxd4 tt:lxd4 ! ? , or 14 . . . cxd4 1S.�f2 tt:l cS with a very com­ plicated game.) 14 . .ie3 a4 1S. tt:lbd2 fS ! 16.exf6 .ixf6 17.d4 b4! with a sharp position, Kamsky Bareev, Tilburg 1991. (diagram)

4

...

c5

The plan we mentioned earlier for Black, with the development of his bishop to cS, is again possi­ ble here: 4 . . . dxe4 S.dxe4 .icS (af­ ter S . . . tt:lc6 6 . .ibS .id7 7.0-0 a6 8 ..ia4 bS 9 ..ib3 tt:laS lO .eS tt:lxb3 31

Chapter 6

11.axb3 tLldS 12 .tLle4 �c6 13.iWe2 �e7 14J�d1 iWb8 15.tLld4 �d7 16. iWg4t White maintained a power­ ful initiative in the game Kiik Przewoznik, Espoo 1991).

This position has been en­ countered very rarely in games between strong players and there is insufficient practical material to evaluate whether White can transform his advantage of two tempi (the first move and the tempo which Black is going to lose with e6-e5) into some mean­ ingful positional gains. 6.�d3 ! ? (White did not obtain anything much by deploying his forces "a la Philidor" : 6.�e2 eS 7. 0-0 iWe7 8. c3 aS 9 .b3 0-0 10.a3 �g4 11.�b2 tLlbd7 12 .h3 �hS 13 .tLlh4 ixe2 14. iWxe2 g6 15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 �b6 32

17.g3 tLl h S 18.'it>h2 tt:Jf4 and the opponents agreed to a draw, Hra­ cek - Akopian, Cap d'Agde 1996.) 6 ... e5 7.tt:Jc4 tLlc6 8.c3 and after 8 . . . tt:Jg4 9.0-0 bS 10.tLle3 ixe3 11. ixe3 tt:Jxe3 12 .fxe3 a6 13 .a4 b4, Rohde - Akopian, Los Angeles 1991, White could have continued with 14J'k1 0-0 1S.cxb4 tt:Jxb4 16. �c4 iWe7 17.ttJxeS !:t maintaining a considerable advantage, but it looks as if Black could have equal­ ized with 8 . . . a5 9.tt:Jcxe5 ttJxeS 10. tLlxeS 0-0 11.tLlf3 iWe7. This idea requires further practical tests.

5.g3

5 . . . g6 This set-up is only seldom played and its idea is not only to surprise the opponent, but to en­ ter a complicated position with counter chances for Black. The classical scheme in this situation looks to me to be a bit passive s . . . tLlc6 6 .�g2 �e7 7. 0-0 b6 8J'!e1 �b7. I have played many games with it, not without considerable success, but I think White's play is easier, since he makes the impor­ tant decisions.

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.lt'ld2 lt'lf6

6 . .ig2 .ig7

Ei:c8 15.�a4 .ic4 16.tt'lc6 b5 17. �xc4 bxc4 18.tt'lxd8 Ei:fxd8, Sav­ chenko - Vitiugov, Serpukhov 2008.) 14 . . . �d7 15.hd5 exd5 16. lt'le7+ �h8 17.�xd5 �xd5 18. tt'lxd5 .ib7 and Black has full com­ pensation for the sacrificed pawn.

7. . . 0 - 0

7. 0 - 0 White can try to seize the ini­ tiative with 7.exd5, but Black can counter this with 7 . . . tt'lxd5 (But not 7 . . . exd5 ? ! and he will have problems after 8 .'�e2 + .ie6 9 . tt'lg5±; the endgame arising after 8 .. .'�e7 9.�xe7+ �xe7 10.tt'lb3t is no good for Black at all.) 8.tt'lb3 ! ? (White cannot hurt his opponent with 8.tt'le4 tt'lc6 9.0-0 b6 10 . .ig5 f6 1l ..id2 0-0 and the position is double-edged.) 8 . . . tt'lc6 (It seems weaker for Black to play 8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 tt'ld7 10.Ei:e1 and he will have problems with the develop­ ment of his light-squared bishop. For example: 10 . . . b6? ! ll . .ig5 f6 12 . .ic1 ; ll . . . .if6 12 ..ixf6 �xf6 1 2 . tt'lfd2 ! ?) 9.0-0 b6 and i t will b e difficult for White t o achieve any­ thing from this position. For in­ stance, 10 .d4 (10.c4 tt'lde7 ll.d4 .ia6 ! ) 10 . . . .ia6 1l.Ei:e1 cxd4 (But not ll . . . c4? ! 1 2 . tt'lbd2 c3 13. tt'le4 cxb2 14.hb2 0-0 15 ..ia3 tt'lce7 16.tt'le5t) 12.tt'lbxd4 tt'lxd4 13. tt'lxd4 0-0 14.tt'lc6 (White cannot obtain any advantage with 14.c3

Black can also play 7 . . . tt'lc6, be­ cause he need not be afraid of 8 . exd5 tt'lxd5 9.tt'lb3 (After 9.tt'le4 b 6 i t i s far from clear how White can increase his pressure. 10 ..ig5 (Af­ ter 10.c4 tt'l de7 ll . .ig5 .ib7 1 2 . tt'lf6+ �f8 , White's pieces will have to retreat, coming under at­ tack with tempo, while the weak­ ness of the d4-square will be per­ manent.) 10 .. .f6 ll . .id2 0-0 1 2 . Ei: e 1 e 5 and White's set-up seems absolutely ridiculous for a King's Indian scheme.) 9 . . . b6 10.c4 tt'l de7 1l.d4 .ia6 ! Black has a good posi­ tion.

SJ�el The line 8.�e2 tt'lc6 9.c3 b6 is not so good for White, because af­ ter Black's natural reaction 10 .e5 tt'ld7 ll.d4 a5, White's queen is obviously misplaced. 33

Chapter 6

8 .lZlc6 ••

9.c3 White has completed his King's Indian attack "pro­ gramme". We shall try to go a bit deeper into the intricacies of this position. White cannot change much with indifferent moves such as 9 . a 3 b6 10 .c3, although White often plays like this. He has tried also l OJ''lb l. . . Unfortunately, he does not do that very often . . . White also has difficulties af­ ter 9 .'\We2 b6 lO.tiJfl (10 .c3 ia6) 10 . . . h6 ! ? (It is also very good for Black to play the immediate 10 . . . e 5 ll.tiJe3 ib7) ll.h4 e 5 12.tiJe3 ie6 13.exd5 tiJxd5 14.liJc4 ig4+ and Black is simply better, Ma­ tikozian - Lputian, Yerevan 1999. (diagram)

do that successfully, though . . . Black has several alternatives to his last move. It is weaker for Black to play 9 . . . e5? ! , because then he enters a position from the King's Indian defence with colours reversed, two tempi behind, and this must be an important factor. 10.exd5 liJxd5 ll .liJc4 f6 12 .'\Wb3 and White's initiative is tremendously powerful. It is possible for Black to play 9 . . . b6 ! ? - the so-called "double fi­ anchetto". He will develop his bishop, while keeping the elastic­ ity of his pawn centre intact. 10.e5 (Waiting moves for White such as 10.a3 would not change much 10 . . . 1b7.) 10 . . . tiJd7 ll.d4 f6

9 .l'�e8 ••

It has become clear that after Black has chosen his set-up, the most principled plan for White will be connected with e4-e5 and d3-d4. Black will have to under­ mine White's centre with f7-f6 . He needs t o b e well-prepared to 34

12 .ih3 ! ? This is the only way

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.tt'l d2 tt'lf6 for White to obtain some advan­ tage. (He should not give up the centre with 12.exf6, since his op­ ponent will have no problems after 12 . . . Wxf6 13 .We2 �b7 14. Wxe6+ Wxe6 15J�xe6 cxd4, or 13. tt'lb3 c4 14.tt'lbd2 �b7 15.b3 cxb3 16.axb3 e5 ! and in both cases Black obtains an excellent posi­ tion.) 12 .. J'l:e8 13.exf6 Wxf6 14.tt'lfl and here he can strike an immedi­ ate blow against White's centre : 14 . . . cxd4 15.�g5 Wf7 16. cxd4 e5 17J'k1 �b7 18.�e3 h6 19.�xd7 and the opponents agreed to a draw, Areshchenko - Vysochin, Olginka 2011, or he can calmly complete the development of his pieces 14 . . . �b7 15.�f4 (15.�g5?! Wf7 16.�f4 h6 17.tt'le3 e5 18.�xd7 Wxd7 19. tt'lxe5 tt'lxe5 2 0 .�xe5 he5 2l.dxe5 E1xe5+) 15 . . . cxd4 16.cxd4 E1ac8. On the board a complicated position with chances for both sides has been reached. The prophylactic move 9 . . . Wh8 ! ? was tried by the French Defence specialist Lputian. His rook remains on the f-file, so that if White plays e4-e5 Black has the undermining move f7-f6, while the retreat of his king relieves his anxieties about the safety of his e6-pawn. The move 9 . . . a5 ! ? deserves thorough attention. (diagram) Let us examine White's possi­ ble replies : it would be very risky now for him to opt for the natural move 10.e5 ? ! owing to 10 . . . tt'lg4! ll.d4

cxd4 12.cxd4 f6 13.h3 (White should avoid 13.exf6 Wxf6 14.h3 tt'lxf2 ! 15.Wxf2 Wxd4+ 16.We2 Wb6 17.tt'lf1 �d7- + ; 17. \ilfl tt'ld4 18. tt'lb3 tt'lf5 19.�f4 a4; 17.Wb3 Wc7 18.g4 Wg3-. with a dangerous at­ tack for Black. It is interesting that he can even afford to leave his queen under attack: 16 . . . �d7 ! ? ; 1 6 . . . Wa7 i s n o less effective than the move in the text.) 13 . . . tt'lxf2 14.Wxf2 fxe5 15.Wg1 (15. dxe5 Wb6 + 16.Wf1 tt'lxe5 17.Wb3 Wxb3 18.axb3 tt'ld3 19.E1e3 tt'lxc1 20.E1xc1 e5+. I should like to men­ tion that not only does every pos­ sible capture on e5 lead to a better position for Black, but even after the prophylactic move 16 . . . a4 ! ? his game i s preferable.) 1 5. . . exd4+ Black maintains a clear advan­ tage, Rathnakaran - Kurnosov, Bhubaneswar 2009. White has also tried 10.tt'lb3 b6 1l .e5 tt'ld7 12.�f4 �a6 13 .h4 E1c8 14.tt'lc1 d4 15.c4 b5 16.b3 a4 17.h5 h6oo with a very complicated posi­ tion, Amin - Vorobiov, Cappelle la Grande 2 0 1 0 . I f 10.tt'lf1 Black should consid­ er simplifying into an endgame : 10 . . . dxe4 ! ? (after 10 . . . a4 1l .e5 tt'ld7 12 .�f4 a3 13.b3 f6 14.exf6 35

Chapter 6 lt:Jxf6 15.�d2;!; White has a slight edge, Bologan - Komarov, Ulcinj 1997) ll.dxe4 �xd1 12 .Elxd1 a4 ! (but not 12 . . . lt:Jxe4 13 .ie3� with excellent compensation for Black). Black is threatening a4-a3 and has good counterplay. It looks natural for White to play 10.a4, but after 10 . . . b6, White again has problems. Now a switch to a French Defence pawn struc­ ture with e4-e5, followed by d3d4, would present the b4-square to his opponent, while after lt:Jf1, Black can go into an endgame and occupy the d3-outpost with his knight via e5, or c5 after c5-c4, while 11.exd5 exd5 12.lt:Jf1 ia6 13. if4 lt:Jh5 14.ig5 �d6 would not achieve much for White.

If White tries to make another useful move - 1 0 .�e2, Black can continue according to the sche­ me: 10 . . . b6 11.e5 lt:J d7 12 .d4 f6 (or 12 . . . a5 13.lt:Jfl ia6 14.�d1co with a complicated position) 13.exf6 �xf6 14.lt:Jb3 c4 15.lt:Jbd2 ib7co with a complex and unclear posi­ tion, but Black could also serious­ ly consider playing 10 . . . e5 ! ? 11. exd5 lt:Jxd5 when White has two extra tempi in comparison to the King's Indian Defence with col­ ours reversed, but one of them �d1-e2 is obviously superfluous.

10 . . .ll:ld7 ll.d4 f6 12.exf6 �xf6

13.c4 ! ?

1 0 .e5 White decides to make a solid preparatory move without forc­ ing the game. If nothing dramatic happens, Black's plan is simple - b6, ib7, �c7, Elad8 etc., typi­ cal central strategy. Therefore we shall study attempts to sharpen the game.

36

This undermining move cre­ ates great problems for Black. 13.dxc5 ! ? This is a flexible move. White is ready to give up his centre in order to gain some tempi for the development of his pieces. 13 . . . lt:Jxc5 14.lt:Jb3 lt:Je4 15. if4 (White is unable to challenge the position of Black's knight 15.c4 Eld8 .) 15 . . . �d8 . Strangely enough, sometimes coming back

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. tLl d2 tLlf6 with the queen to its initial square can be an unexpected but very strong decision. 16.tLlbd4 ! (pre­ venting e6-e5) 16 . . . 2:f8 . Black is eyeing the f2-pawn ! (It is bad for him to play 16 . . . ¥Mb6? ! 17.¥Mb3 ¥Mxb3 18.axb3 e5 19.tLlxc6 bxc6 20 . .be5 .be5 21.tLlxe5 Elxe5 22.f3 �f5 23.fxe4 .be4 24.b4±) . The game might continue : 17.¥Mb3 ttJa5 18.¥Mc2 tLlc4 19.2:adl e5 20. ttJxe5 .be5 21..be4 .bf4 22.tLlb3 ttJb6 23.gxf4 with an equal posi­ tion. Here it looks logical for White to play 13.tLlb3, for example, and now: 13 . . . c4 14.tLlbd2 (After 14. �g5 ¥Mf7 15.tLlbd2 e5 16.dxe5 ttJdxe5 17.ttJxe5 ttJxe5 and Black has an excellent position, Nepom­ niachtchi - Moiseenko, Kazan 2003. White cannot obtain any advantage with the forcing line 18.f4 ! ? �g4 19.2:xe5 .bd1 20 . .bd5 .be5 21..bf7+ �xf7 22.Elxdl �f6 23.tLlxc4 Elad8 24.tLld6+ �e6 25. .bf6 Elxd6 26.�d4 �f5 = . He can win a pawn with 19.¥Ma4 tLld3 20. Elxe8+ Elxe8 21..bd5 but only temporarily, because after 21. . . �e6 2 2 . .be6 ¥Mxe6 23.¥Mxc4 ttJxb2 24.¥Mxe6+ Elxe6, Black's position is perfectly comfortable.)

The chronic weakness of the e5-square might hurt Black in the future. It would therefore be in­ teresting for him to try the pawn­ sacrifice 14 . . . e5 15.tLlxe5 tLldxe5 16 . .bd5+ �h8 17.dxe5 ttJxe5

Black is a pawn down but has compensation. For example: It would be too risky for White to try 18.tLlxc4 �g4 19.¥Md2 tLlf3 + 20 . .bf3 �xf3 and despite the fact that Black is now two pawns down, his light-squared bishop more than compensates for them; White is unable to seize the initiative with 18.tLle4 ¥Mf8 19.tLlg5 (It is bad to play 19.�f4? �g4 20 .¥Ma4 tLlf3 + 21.�g2 ttJxel+ 22. Elxel Elad8 ! 23.¥Mxc4 ¥Mf5 24 . .bb7 �h3+ 25.�gl ¥Mh5+ with advan­ tage for Black.) 19 . . . �g4 20 .¥Md2 (the line: 20 .¥Mc2 �f5 21.¥Md2 Elad8 22.2:xe5 leads to almost the same position, except that Black's bishop is on f5, which is in his fa­ vour.) 20 . . . 2:ad8 (20 . . . h6 21.Elxe5 .be5 22.lLlf7+ �h7 23.¥Mxh6+ �xh6 24.�xh6 �f6) 21.2:xe5 Elxe5 22.lLlf7+ ¥Mxf7 23 ..bf7 Elxd2 24 . .bd2 Ele2� and Black's compen­ sation for the pawn should be suf­ ficient for a draw; 37

Chapter 6 18 ..bc4 :gf8 ! (18 . . . �g4?! 19. �e2 ! ) 19.f3 �f5 . Black has ob­ tained an excellent game for the sacrificed material. His counter­ play is rich and easy - all in the centre. He can also try 19 . . . �h3 ! ? 2 0 .�fl �d7.

13 .. .l:�f8 It is logical for Black to move the rook back to its worki ng file. His alternatives are inferior: it is bad for him to continue with 13 . . . dxc4 14.dxc5 tLlde5 15. tLle4 tLlxf3+ 16.hf3 '\Wd4 17.'1We2 (17.:gb1 ! ?) 17 . . . :gd8 18.:gb1 ! (Me3) 18 . . . '1Wd3 19 .�e3±; 13 . . . tLlxd4 14.cxd5 e5 (after 14 . . . tLlb6 it is good for White to play simply 15.tLlxd4 '1Wxd4 16. '1We2 ; 15 ... cxd4 16.dxe6 and Black has problems; or 15.tLle4 '1Wf8 16. d6 e5 17.tLlxd4 cxd4 18 .�g5) 15. tLle4 '1Wf8 and White has several promising possibilities : 16.�g5 ! ? , o r 16 .b4 tLlb6 17.bxc5 �g4 18.cxb6 �xf3 19.'1Wd3 axb6 2 0 .�b2 , or 16.�e3 tLlf6 17.tLlfg5 tLlxe4 18. tLlxe4. 14.cxd5 exd5 15.dxc5 38

This is a critical position. Black is faced with a difficult choice : White enjoys a comfortable edge in the endgame after 15 . . . tLld4 16.:gf1 tLlxc5 17.tLlxd4 '1Wxd4 18 .tLlb3 'IWxd1 19.:gxdU; 15 . . . �h8 16.tLlb3 (16.tLlf1) 16 ... tLlde5 17.tLlxe5 '1Wxf 2 + 18.�h1 tLlxe5 19 .�e3 tLlg4 2 0 .�d4 !±; 15 . . . tLlxc5 16. tLlb3 tLlxb3 17. '1Wxb3 �h8 18.'1Wxd5 �f5 ! ?� Black has compensation for the pawn. White will be unable to develop his queen's rook and bishop with­ out losing his b2-pawn. Still, his chances seem slightly preferable. Instead of his last move, the natu­ ral try 18 . . . �g4 would not grant Black complete equality: 19.�g5 '1Wf5 20.'1Wxf5 :gxf5 2 1.�f4 :gb5 2 2 . tLlg5t with a powerful initiative for White. It looks attractive for Black to try 15 . . . tLlde5. (diagram) Now his position is quite play­ able after forcing lines, for exam­ ple : 16.tLlxe5 '1Wxf 2 + (16 . . . tLlxe5) 17.�h1 tLlxe5 18.hd5+ �h8 19. tLle4 tLlg4 (19 ... tLld3) 2 0 .tLlxf2 (20. '1Wd2 '1Wf5 - �tLle3 - 2 1 . tLld6 '1Wh5

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. 0, d2 0,f6

2 2 .h4 �d7 2 3.WfgS 0,f2 + 24.Wg2 0,d3?) 20 . . . 0,xf2 + 2l.Wgl 0,xdl

2 2 .l"lxdl �g4= with equality, or 16.Wfb3 �g4 17J'1xeS 0,xeS 18. WfxdS+ �e6 19.WfxeS '&xeS 2 0 . 0,xeS �xeS with a complicated endgame. But White has a powerful re­ source here, which is to fortify his position with the move 16.l''1 e 3 ! ? , s o a s after 16 . . . aS, o r 16 . . . �e6 to continue with 17.Wffl . Black has some compensation, but it seems to me to be much easier to play this position with White.

39

Chapter 7

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.W/e2 King's Indian Attack

move 'l'tldl-e2 might turn out to be a loss of a tempo in many varia­ tions. In this chapter we shall an­ alyze some possibilities for Black to exploit all this by changing the pawn structure with the move e6e5, avoiding c7-c5, which is much more typical for the King's Indian Attack. We shall now deal with a) 3 llJc6 and b ) 3 dxe4. The scheme we analyzed in the chapter devoted to the move 3.'Lld2 is less advisable here, al­ though it is still quite playable: 3 . . . Lt:lf6 4.Lt:lf3 cS S.g3 g6 ! ? 6.�g2 �g7 7.0-0 . . .

. . .

This move has been played successfully several times by Mo­ rozevich, as well as by strong players such as Fedorov, Glek and Yudasin. The difference between this move and 3.'Lld2 which we have already analyzed is that White increases his pressure against Black's dS-pawn and to a certain degree restricts Black's choice of methods of develop­ ment. It is important for White that in many variations his dark­ squared bishop is free to move and his knight may be developed advantageously to the a3-square if Black chooses a set-up includ­ ing the move c7-c5. The drawback of White's third move is that his queen might become vulnerable on the fl-a6 diagonal and that the 40

7 ... 0-0 (Black should avoid experimenting with the order of moves, since the premature de­ velopment of his queen's knight would only present White with

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.�e2 tt:J c6 the additional possibility of com­ plicating Black's defensive task with ic1-g5 : 7 . . . tt:Jc6 8.ig5 ! h6 9 . exd5 �xd5 10. tt:Jc3 �d8 ll.ie3 tt:Jd7 12 .�d2, Vescovi - Svidler, Bermuda 2003, and the players agreed to a draw, but Black's posi­ tion was a bit suspect. However, 8 . . . �b6 might solve Black's prob­ lems after all.) 8.c3 (It was also possible for White to play 8.e5 tt:Jd7 9 .if4 tt:Jc6 10 .tt:lbd2 , but the way Damljanovic played was even stronger.) 8 . . . tt:Jc6 9 .e5 tt:Jd7 10 .d4 f6 1l.exf6 �xf6

avoid 14.cxd4 e5 15.dxe5 tt:J dxe5 16.tt:Jxe5 �xe5t) 14 . . . tt:Jxd4 15. cxd4 and here, after 15 ... tt:Jb6 16. b3 id?t, as well as after the more principled 15 . . . tt:Jb8 16.tt:Jc3 tt:Jc6 17.%'\fdH, White's position would be preferable.

a) 3 .tl:lc6 ••

Black's idea is to maintain the tension in the centre.

4.ll:lf3 e5 This position was reached in the game Damljanovic - Svidler, Plovdiv 2 003. White chose the seemingly attractive 12 .ig5 (after 12 .if4 �e7 13J:'i:d1 cxd4 14.cxd4 Ei:xf4 Black probably has sufficient compensation for the exchange. It is good for White to play simply 12 .%'\dl. It seems to me that he should also consider 12.tt:lg5 ! ?) 12 . . .�f5 13.ie3 . Now Black's best decision would be 13 . . . cxd4 (in the above mentioned game there followed 13 . . . b6 14.tt:Ja3 a6 15. Ei:ad1 ib7 16.tt:Jg5 Ei:fe8 17.f4± and Black ended up in an unpleasant position) 14.tt:Jxd4 (White should

Black cannot occupy the cen­ tre without being punished, but preparing e6-e5 with 4 . . . tt:Jf6 also fails, because White can obtain an advantage by changing the pawn structure with 5.e5 tt:Jd7 6 .g3±

41

Chapter 7

5.exd5 ! This is the only way for White to utilize his two extra tempi in comparison with the Philidor De­ fence with colours reversed. After S.c3 tt:lf6, Black has no serious problems. An early white attempt to seize more space on the queenside backfires : 6.b4 (It would be too passive for him to develop according to the scheme of the Philidor Defence with col­ ours reversed and an extra tempo, for example: 6.�c2 aS 7.�e2 h6 8 . 0 - 0 �d6 9.tt:lbd2 0-0 10J'l:d1 l'l:e8 11.li:Jf1 �e6 12.tt:lg3 �c8 13.h3 a4 14.�e3 li:Je7+ and in the game Zhang Zhong - Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2004, Black even gained an edge.) 6 . . . �g4 !

and here it would be sufficient to win the enemy b7-pawn with 14 . . . c 6 1S.f4 �c7+ for Black t o gain a clear advantage. ) 7 . . . d4 8 .bS dxc3 9.bxc6 cxd2 10.�xd2 ! (10 .�xd2 bxc6 11 .h3 �xf3 12.�xf3 l'l:b8 13. �e3 l'l:b2+ led again to an edge for Black, Strikovic - Ulibin, Santa Cruz de la Palma 20 0S) 10 . . . �xf3 ll.gxf3 (Black is also better after 11.cxb7 l'l:b8 12.gxf3 l'l:b7+) 1 1 . . . bxc6 12.�c3 �d6 13 .f4 �b4 14. �xb4 �xb4 1S.e2 li:JhS= with ap­ proximate equality in the end­ game.

5 .. .\!�'xd5 6)i:'lc3

6 . . . .ib4 7.li:Jbd2 (7.a3 aS 8 .bS dxe4 9 . bxc6 exf3 10 .gxf3 �e6 ll.cxb7 l'l:b8 12.f4 exf4 13.�g2 �d6 14.�c6+ tt:ld7 1S.d4 0-0 16.�bS �e7 17. ci>d1 tt:lb6 18.li:Jd2 �h4 19 .f3 �h3 20./'l:e1 l'l:fd8 21./'l:e2 �f8+ Black is obviously better in this position, Skripchenko - Ulibin, Dubai 2003. White's chances would not be improved by 12.�g2 �d6 13. li:J d2 0-0 14. 0-0, Totsky - Ru­ dolf, Cappelle la Grande 2006 42

After the retreat 6 . . . �e6, White's energetic move 7.d4 ! pro­ vides him with a slight edge, no matter what endgame arises,

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. �e2 tt::l c6 for example: 7 ... tt::l x d4 8 .tt::l xd4 exd4 9 .tt::l b5 ib4+ 1 0.id2 ixd2+ 1l.�xd2 @d8 12.�xe6 ixe6 13.tt::l x d4 and now Black should probably ignore the positional threat of tt::l d4xe6 by playing 13 . . . tt::l f 6. If he plays ac­ curately he is likely to make a draw, but that would hardly be enjoyable; The move 7 . . . exd4 keeps more material on the board but does not change the evaluation of the position : 8 .tt::l b5 ib4+ (8 . . . id6 9 . �xe6+ ? ! ixe6 10.tt::l fxd4 tt::l x d4 11. tt::l xd4 id7 12.tt::l b 5 ie5 13.f4 a6f! ; 9.tt::l x d6+ cxd6 10.if4 tt::l f 6 11. 0-0- 0 ; 10 . . . tt::l g e7 1l.�xe6 ixe6 12. 0-0-0 ig4 13 .ixd6 ixf3 14. gxf3 0-0-0 15.ig3±) 9.id2 ixd2+ 10. tt::l xd2 lf?d8 (after 10 . . . �xe2+ 11. ixe2 lf?d8 the result is more or less the same : 12.tt::l b 3 tt::l f 6 13. 0-0-0, an attempt by Black to keep the d4-pawn, while giving up the c7-pawn, with 11 . . . l"lb8 12.0-0-0 a6 13.tt::l xc7+ �d8 would be short-sighted, because after 14. tt::l d5 tt::l g e7 15.if3± he loses both pawns) 11.tt::l b 3 tt::l f 6 12.0-0-0±

7.id2 .ixc3 8.ixc3 ig4

9.Wfe4 White's alternatives are weaker: he does not achieve much with 9.d4 0-0-0 (but not 9 . . . e4 10 .h3 ih5 1l.�c4 �xc4 12.ixc4 exf3 13. g4 and owing to the threat of d4d5 White regains his piece, main­ taining an advantage) 10 .dxe5 be­ cause of 10 . . . tt::l f 6 ! and White must be on the alert. 11.l"ld1 (after 11.h3 ixf3 12.�xf3, Black has a pleas­ ant choice between the simple move 12 . . . tt::l e 4f! and the sharp line : 12 . . . l"lhe8 13 .�f5+ lf?b8 14. ie2 tt::l e 4 15.l"ld1 �xd1 + 16.ixd1 tt::l xc3 17. 0-0 tt::l x d1 with an excel­ lent position in both cases) 11 . . . �xd1 + 12.�xd1 l"lxd1+ 13.1f?xd1 tt::l e4 14.ie1 tt::l xe5 15.ie2 l"ld8+ 16. lf?c1 and Black can draw by play­ ing 16 . . . tt::l xf3 17.gxf3 ih5 18.l"lg1 g6= We have to mention the original move 9.l"lg1 ! ? , which Black should probably counter with 9 . . . tt::l f 6 (however, even after the simple response 9 . . . tt::l g e7 1 0 . �e4 �xe4+ 11.dxe4 f6 12.tt::l d2 0-0-0 13 .f3 ie6 White did not achieve anything in the game Maiorov - Kuzmin, Kramatorsk 2003; after 9 .. .f6 10.Wfe4 �d7 11. h3 if5 12.�a4 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 tt::l ge7 14.d4 lf?b8 a complicated position arises.) 10.h3 ixf3 11. �xf3 �e6f! White will have tem­ porary difficulties if he castles queenside and permanent prob­ lems if he castles kingside, so Black's prospects are at least equal. 43

Chapter 7 xf6 19 . .ig2 Ei:e8 20 . .ie4 h5 2 1 .f3 ltld8oo and his chances would not be worse in the arising endgame.

12 .. A:ld4

9 . . . .ixf3 The text move does not pro­ vide Black with complete equali­ ty, so he should consider the less ambitious line : 9 .. .'W'xe4+ ! ? 10. dxe4 f6. 1 0 .'\Wxf3 '\Wx£3 ll.gxf3 f6 ll . . . ltld4 1 2 . 0-0-0 0-0-0 13. Ei:e1 lt:lxf3 14.Ei:e3:t

After this attractive move there are some forced variations to consider. The first game played in this line continued with 12 . . . ltlge7 13. f4 ltlg6 14.fxe5 ltlcxe5 15 . .ie2 (Here White could have played 15 . .ig2 0-0-0 16.h4:t with the better game.) 15 . . . ltlh4 16.0-0-0 ltlef3 17 . .ie3 0-0-0 18.d4 Ei:he8 19 .c3 g5? and Black had suffi­ cient counterplay, Garcia Padron - Vallejo Pons, Salamanca 1998.

13. 0 - 0 - 0 tt:lxd2 15.hb7

tt:lx£3

14 . .ig2

15 J�b8 ••

12 . .id2 ! This is a very powerful novel­ ty. The seemingly attractive move 12 .Ei:g1, followed by 12 . . . f7 13. 0-0-0 Ei:d8 14.f4 exf4 15.Ei:g4 g5 16.Ei:xg5 fxg5 17 . .hh8 , was tried in the game Jones - Broomfield, Millfield 2 003. Black should have continued with 17 . . . ltlf6 18 . .hf6 44

The position is more compli­ cated after 15 . . . Ei:d8 16.Ei:xd2 ltle7 17.Ei:e1 (White's attempt to ad­ vance d3-d4 with the help of 17. Ei:hd1 is less effective. Black suc­ ceeds in avoiding the exchange of the central pawns after 17 . . . c5 18. c3 f7 19.d4 cxd4 2 0 . cxd4 Ei:d7 21. .ia6 e4 2 2 . .ic4+ g6 23.Ei:g1+ h6 24 ..ie6 Ei:d6 25.d5 Ei:hd8 26.

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. �e2 de 4.de e5 Ei:gd1 f5oo and he can improve his position by playing mh6-g5-f6-e5, as well as lt:Je7-g6-f4, so his chanc­ es would be at least equal.) 17 . . . mf7 18.fi:e4 c 5 (The endgame fol­ lowing the exchange of the rooks : 18 . . . Ei:d4 19 .c3 fi:xe4 20.dxe4 me6 21..ia6 lt:Jc8 22.Ei:d5 lt:Jd6 23.f3 c6 24.fi:a5 md7 25 . .ifl fi:a8 26.b4:t will be in White's favour in any case; but it would be inferior for him to play 23 . .id3 ? ! f5 24.f3 fxe4 25.fxe4 fi:f8 26.fi:c5 fi:f3+!) 19.f4 exf4 20.fi:xf4:t - The position aris­ ing is rather unclear, but White has a bishop against a knight and the pawn structure is asymmetri­ cal on both flanks, so his pros­ pects are preferable.

16 . .ic6+ �f8 After 16 . . . mf7 White has an important intermediate check 17 . .id5+ ! me7 18.Ei:xd2 md6 19 . .ib3 lt:Je7 (after 19 . . . c5 20.f4 exf4 21. fi:e1 t he retains a powerful initia­ tive) 20 .d4 e4 21.fi:e1 f5 22.f3t and his pieces are very active.

17.gxd2 19.c3

lt:Je7

18 . .ig2

d3-d4 by playing 19 . . . lt:Jf5, but this impedes the evacuation of his king from f8: 20.fi:e1 with the idea of fi:e1-e4.) 2 0 .d4 cxd4 21. cxd4 ghd8 (Black would not change much with 2 l . . . fi:hc8+ 22.mb1) 22.ghdl gbc8+ 23. mbH and despite the considera­ ble simplifications, White has a slight edge.

So, in almost all the varia­ tions after 4 . . . e5 5.exd5! White has a slight advantage and Black needs to play accurately to fight for the draw. These develop­ ments are hardly to everyone's liking, even though a draw is the most likely outcome. On the other hand, it is equally unclear wheth­ er White players would consider their achievements after the opening to be convincing.

b) 3 ... dxe4 4.dxe4 e5 5.c!Llf3

c5

5

19

. .•

mt7 (Black can prevent

•••

c!Lld7

The move 5 . . . tt:Jc6 is more nat­ ural but less flexible. 6.c3 (The plan of developing of the bishop 45

Chapter 7 on g2 is not as good here. Black can exploit one of the drawbacks of the move 3.1We2 by developing his bishop on a6: 6.g3 ? ! LLlf6 7. ig2 ic5 8.0-0 0-0 9 .LLlbd2 b6 ! This is a very typical motif! 10. l2Jb3 id6 11.ie3 aS 1 2 . LLlc1 ia6 13.LLld3 LLld7+ - with a better posi­ tion for Black, Motwani - Glek, Belgium 1997) 6 . . . l2Jf6 7.\Wc2

and now: 7 . . . a5 8.ib5 is not good for Black; 7 . . . id6 8.l2Jbd2 0-0 9 . l2J c4 h6 10 .ie2 l'l:b8 ! ? This is a strange move. Black provokes a2-a4. Lat­ er he wants to undermine White's b4-pawn with a7-a5 and White cannot support it with a2-a3. This will give Black access to the im­ portant c5-square. Is it possible that Speelman anticipated these development so early in the game?! 11.a4 b6 1 2 . 0 - 0 ib7 13. l'l:e1 l2Ja5 (It also looks very good for Black to continue with 13 . . . l2J e 7 14.if1 l2Jg6.) 14.l2Jxd6 cxd6 15.ifl± and White maintains a slight edge thanks to his bishop­ pair, Zhang Zhong - Speelman, Bled 2 0 0 2 . I t would b e interesting for 46

Black to prepare the development of his bishop on c5, as well as a potential attack on the c4-knight by b7-b5, followed by the devel­ opment of the bishop on b7: 7 . . . a6 ! ? after 8.b4 (I believe White should calmly continue with his development: 8.LLlbd2 ic5 9.ie2 0-0 10.0-0 and his prospects of advancing his queenside pawns, supported by the knight on c4, seem to be more effective than Black's only active plan, based on LLlf6-h5-f4.) 8 . . . id6 9 . LLlbd2 0-0 10.LLlc4 h6

11 .ie2 (It is also good for White to play ll.a4 and after 11 . . . b 6 12 .ie2 ib7 13.0-0 l2Je7 14. l2Jfd2± his position is slightly more pleasant.) 1l.. .b5 12.LLlxd6 cxd6 13.a4 ib7 14.0-0 Wc7 15.id3 LLle7 16.l'l:e1 l'l:fc8 17.ib2 d5� and in the game Svetushkin - Kruppa, Kiev 2 0 0 0 , Black obtained excellent prospects. Black should also consider the less popular move 5 . . . c6, deploy­ ing his pieces harmoniously with­ out impeding the c8-bishop. The game could continue : 6.l2Jbd2 Wc7 7.b3 ig4 8 .h3 ih5 9 .ib2 l2Jd7 10 .g3 l2Jgf6 ll.ig2 ic5 1 2 .

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. \We2 de 4.de e5 0-0 0-0 13.a4 me8 14.\Wc4 aS 1S. tt:lh4 l'l:ab8 16.tt:ldf3 bS� with a complicated position, Leon Hoyos - Akobian, Merida 200S.

6.ll::l b d2 After 6.c3 tt:lgf6 7.\Wc2 fie7= there arises a symmetrical, equal position. White's immediate fianchetto runs into the above-mentioned problems on the fl-a6 diagonal : 6.g3 tt:lgf6 7.!ig2 ficS 8.0-0 0-0 9.h3 l'l:e8 10.tt:le1 b6 11.tt:ld3 , Yuda­ sin - Cifuentes Parada, Dos Her­ manas 1998. According to Ci­ fuentes, Black could have solved all his opening problems with the natural reaction ll . . . fia6 12.l'l:d1 \We7 13 .tt:lc3 l'l:ad8 14.figS c6 1S. \Wf3 fid6 16.l'l:d2 h6=

6

. . .

!ic5 ! ?

Instead of the ambitious text move, a safe continuation would be 6 . . . c6 7.b3 \Wc7 8 .fib2 and now: Nikolic tried 8 . . . aS 9.g3 tt:lh6 10 .!ih3 f6 11.a4 (Morozevich men­ tions that White does not need to prevent aS-a4 for the moment: 11.0-0 a4 12.a3:t with a slight edge for White) ll . . . fib4 12.0-0

0-0, Morozevich - Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 2000 and here, Mo­ rozevich recommends 13.tt:leU when White exerts some pres­ sure. After 8 . . .f6 9 .g3 tt:lh6, the move 10.fih3 soon leads to exchanges and simplification. lO . . . tt:l cS 11. fixeS \Wxc8 12.tt:lh4 \We6 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.f4 exf4 1S.gxf4 fid6 16. eS fxeS 17.fxeS fie7 18.tt:lhf3 tt:lfS 19.tt:lc4 l'l:xd1+ 20.l'l:xd1, draw, Popovic - Kosic, Hungary 2008. Here White can try the more modest move 10 .!ig2 ! ? with pos­ sible ideas of 0-0, tt:lf3-e1-(d3) or tt:lf3-h4-(fS), f2-f4.

7.ll::l c4 After 7.tt:lb3 it seems to me that Black should reply with 7 . . . fid6 (the move 7 . . . !ib6 allows 8.a4 aS 9.tt:lfd 2 ! :t with an edge for White) and the knight on b3 would need to be redeployed. In practice White has tried 7. g3 tt:lgf6 8 .fih3 0-0 9.0-0, Popo­ vic - Bodiroga, Valjevo 2011. Black can counter this with 9 ... b6 or 9 ... aS and having saved a tem­ po by omitting \Wd8-e7 he should 47

Chapter 7 be able to continue comfortably with the plan of developing the bishop on a6, or attack the enemy e4-pawn by developing the bish­ op on b7.

7 fie7 •.•

It also seems attractive for Black to play 7 . . . liJgf6 8.liJfxe5 0-0, but after 9.f3 ! his compensa­ tion for the pawn is insufficient. are preferable.

13 0 - 0 14.h3 .!Llf6 15 . .!Lle3 .!Llh5 ! ? .•.

Gurevich considers that Black should not delay the threat to transfer his knight to the f4-out­ post: if 15 . . . fic7 16.0-0 liJh5 17. :1'1d1 liJf4 18 ..if1 a4 19.liJc4±, with a slight edge for White.

16.g3 .!Llf6 Now we shall analyze bl) 8.c3 and b2) 8.g3.

bl) 8.c3 a5 9.li)e3 White did not achieve any­ thing after 9 . .ig5 fie6 10 .liJe3 liJe7 11.liJd2 f6 12 ..ih4 b6 13.fif3 he3 14.fixe3 liJc5 15.f3 .ia6 16.ha6 liJxa6 17 . .if2 0-0-0= with subse­ quent simplification and a draw, Maiwald - Socko, Graz 2 011.

9 .lL!b6 1 0 .fic2 .!Llf6

17.g4 ! ? l'!e8

•.

(diagram)

ll.�b5+

With the idea of liJf6-d7-f8-g6f4.

Otherwise Black could have considered the transfer of his bishop to the c6-square.

18.l'!gl fic7 19 . .!Llh4 .!Llfd7 2 0 .!Llhf5 .!Llf8 21.g5 ! ? .!Llg6 22. .!Llg4 .ixf'S ! ?

ll . . . c6 12.�e2 .!Llg4 13 . .!Lldl ! ?

Gurevich mentions that it would be good for Black to play 22 . . . .ie6 23.h4 :1'1ed8 ! ?

After the exchange 13.liJxg4 hg4 14.0-0 0-0 Black's chances 48

•

l.e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3. �e2 de 4.de e5

23.exf5 �f4 24.i.xf4 exf4 25. 0 - 0 - 0 f3 26 . .id3 Here it would not work for White to play 26.hf3 �f4+ 2 7. �d2 �xf3 2 8 .�f6+ gxf6 29.gxf6+ @h8 30.�h6 �e3 ! ?-+

26

..•

White should exploit the mis­ placement of Black's knight on d7 with the familiar development of his bishop on the h3-square.

8

. • .

�gf6 9 . .ih3

�f4+ 27.@bl

Black has a good position after the exchange of queens : 27.�d2 �xd2+ 28J!xd2 (28.@xd2 �d5+!) 28 . . . �d6 ! + and he is even better.

9... 0 - 0 An attempt by Black to ex­

This position was reached in the game Glek - Gurevich, Ger­ many 1998. Black could have sim­ ply captured the pawn with a clear advantage :

27 �xg5 !+ . .•

b2) 8.g3

change all the pieces would not grant him complete equality: 9 . . . �b6 10 .hc8 Elxc8 ll.�g5 ct:lxc4 12.�xc4 0-0 13.0-0 �b6 14.i>g2 (14.a4 �e6 15.�xe6 fxe6) 14 . . . �e6 ! ? (14 . . . h6 15.hf6 �xf6 16.a4 aS 17.EladU) 15.�xe6 fxe6 16.Elae1 ct:lg4 17.h3 Elxf3 18.i>xf3 (18.hxg4 Elcf8 19.Ele2 �d4) 18 . . . �h2 + 19. i>e2 ct:lxfl 2 0 . Elxfl h6 2 1.�d2± and White retains an edge, thanks to his superior pawn structure, but the most likely outcome would be a draw. It is worth considering the risky move 9 . . . b5 ! ? 10.'Lle3 0-0 11.0-0 (after 1l .�xb5 ct:lxe4, the double attack 1 2 .�c6 is not dan­ gerous for him, because after 12 . . . ct:ldf6 13.�xa8? hh3 White risks being crushed.) ll.. .�b7oo with chances for both sides.

1 0 . 0 - 0 a5 49

Chapter 7 The development of the bish­ op on a6 does not solve Black's problems here : 10 . . . b6 1l.i.g5 i.a6 (ll. . .h6 ! ?) 1 2 . Elad1 �e8 (White is also better after 12 . . . Elfd8 13.hd7 Elxd7 14.i.xf6 gxf6 15.lt:lh4 �e6 16. b3 Elad8 17.lt:lf5t) 13.c3 h6 14.i.cU In practice Black has tried 10 . . . Ele8 ll.a4 b 6 ( H e could also try ll . . . lt:lb6 12 .i.xc8 Elaxc8.) 12.lt:lh4 (12 .i.g5 ! ?) 12 . . . g6 13 .i.g5t and White exerts pressure, Seminara - Needleman, Mar del Plata 1998. ll.i.g5 h6 12 . .ixf6 lt:lxf6 13 . .ixc8 E:fxc8 (diagram) and now the move 14.a4 ! ?t, postponing capturing on e5 for a while, gives White a minimal edge.

50

Bearing in mind this last vari­ ation, Black should probably look more carefully at the prophylac­ tic move 10 . . . h6. His plans in­ clude thefamiliar development of his light-squared bishop on a6 or b7, while he can counter the ma­ noeuvre lt:l h4-j5 with the defen­ sive set-up Elf8-d8 and �e7-e8.

Part 3 The Advance Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5

In the third part of our book, we shall analyze the Advance variation of the French defence, which arises after 3.e5. This is in fact White's most ambitious reply against the French set-up. White starts to exert strong pressure over the whole board right from the start of the game, trying as hard as he can to restrict his opponent's space. Black must immediately play very actively; otherwise his pieces will be squashed by the lack of operating space. However, White's strategy also has a drawback. It might turn out that he is not well enough prepared for a task of this magnitude. Black is immediately presented with targets to attack, in particular his oppo­ nent's d4-pawn. There are several variations in which White's king is endangered and sometimes his pieces have to occupy rather awkward squares in order to protect and preserve his d4-e5 pawn-chain. I think it would be useful to restate here the famous axiomatic rule, known since the time of Aaron Nimzowitsch, who was an keen exponent of the Advance variation of the French, that the d4- and e5squares are absolutely crucial in this variation. Will White succeed in securely protecting his centre pawns? How effective will Black's at­ tempts to undermine them with c7-c5 and f7-f6 be? The outcome of the opening battle, and possibly of the entire game, can depend on the answers to these questions. I should add that, in addition to Nimzowitsch's efforts, the Advance variation has been played and actively popularized by Evgeny Ellinovich Sveshnikov. There have also been many important games played by Alexander Grischuk, Peter Svidler, Alexey Shirov, Alexander Motylev and many other strong masters who from time to time use this interesting variation, which leads complicated and fighting positions. 51

Chapter 8

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5

White has also tried 4.lLlf3 cxd4 5.i.d3 lLlc6 6 .0-0 lLlge7 7. i.f4 lLlg6 8.i.g3 i.e7 9 . a3 0-0 10. �el f5 ll.h3 i.d7 12 .b4 a5 13 .b5 lLl a7 14.a4 i.b4 15.�e2 f4 16.i.h2 lLlh4 17.lLlbd2 i.c3 18.�a2 lLlxf3+ 19.lLlxf3 i.e8 with a considerable advantage for Black, Hodgson Short, Gouda 1996.

4 .'!Wb6 5.ll:l f3 ••

Black should play this thematic undermining move without delay.

4.c3 This is a necessary response and nowadays it is absolutely au­ tomatic. There were times when there were serious debates about the possibility of 4.dxc5, after which there arises a variation of the Ca­ ro-Kann defence which is satis­ factory for Black and here he even has an extra tempo. 4 . . . lLl c6 (White can counter 4 . . . .bc5 with 5.Wfg4.) 5.lLlf3 .bc5 6 .i.d3 f6 7. Wfe2 fxe5 8.lLlxe5 lLlf6 9 . 0 - 0 lLlxe5 10.1Mfxe5 0-0 ll.c4 Wfb6 12 .1Mfe2 i.d7 13.lLld2 �ac8 14.cj;>hl cj;>h8 with a complicated position, Mak­ ropoulos - Hug, Nice 1974. 52

5.i.e3 ! ? If Black wishes to avoid this interesting possibility, which used to be a favourite of Victor Kupreichik, he can simply begin with 4 . . . Wfb6 instead of 4 . . . lLlc6.

5

•..

lLlc6

The first critical moment of the variation is right here.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 W1b6 5. liJ.f3 liJ c6 6. �e2 cd

6.�e2 This is by no means the most dangerous move for Black. White develops his bishop to a very modest position. Black can obtain a very comfortable game in this line. The game proceeds in similar fashion after the seldom played but very interesting move 6.liJa3 . I think that our readers will be hardly surprised to learn that Va­ dim Zvjaginsev is one of the expo­ nents of this variation. 6 . . . cxd4 7.cxd4 �b4 + . This is a principled move. Black is trying to exploit the early development of his op­ ponent's knight. (It is weaker for him to opt for 7 . . . liJh6 8.liJc2 liJf5 9.�d3 �e7 10.0-0 �d7 and here White has the strong move 1l.g4 ! ? . It is also interesting for him to continue with 1l.b4, as in the game A.Zhigalko - Vitiugov, Warsaw 2008.) 8 .�d2 �d7 (It is rather dubious for Black to play 8 . . . ha3 9.bxa3 liJxd4 10 .W1a4+ liJc6 1l.�d3 liJge7 12.!'1b1 W1c7 13. 0-0 and White has an excellent compensation for the pawn.) 9 . liJc2 . I think this is the only way for White to fight for an opening advantage. (He would not achieve much with 9 .hb4 liJxb4 - after 9 . . . W1xb4+ 1 0 .'!!1d 2 White might consolidate his position - 10.liJc2 . Without this move White's knight on a3 might remain out of play for a long time. 10 . . . liJxc2 + ll.W1xc2 liJe7 12 .W1d2 0-0 with equal chances. It would be harmless for Black for White to try 1 2 . �e2 E1c8

13.'!!1 d 2 �b5= ) 9 . . . hd2 + 1 0.W1xd2 W1xb2. Accepting this sacrifice is obligatory. 1l.�d3 liJge7 (It is quite logical but a bit slow for Black to play ll . . . h6 1 2 . 0 - 0 W1b6 13.E1ab1 W1c7 14.liJe3 liJge7 15.E1fc1 and he has problems castling, be­ cause of the threat of liJg4-h6.) 12.0-0 W1b6 13.'!!1g5 liJg6. I think the most objective evaluation of this position is - White has com­ pensation, Black has an extra pawn.

6 . . . cxd4 As always, it is important for Black to employ the right move­ order. It might seem that he reduces the tension in the centre in this fashion, but this assumption is wrong. He is just avoiding some rather unfavourable variations. It is inferior for Black to play 6 . . . liJh6, since White can counter this with 7.hh6 ! gxh6 (Black los­ es now after 7 . . . W1xb2? in view of 8 .�e3 W1xa1 9 .W1c2 cxd4 10.liJxd4 ! and this shows the difference be­ tween playing the immediate 6 . . . liJh6 and inserting the exchange 53

Chapter S 6 . . . cxd4. 10 . . ..b3 11.tLlb5+ - ; 10 . . . �d7 1 1 . 0 - 0 l"lc8 12.tLlxc6 l"lxc6 13. �b5 +-) 8.Wfd2 �g7 9 . 0 - 0 0-0 10. tLl a3 cxd4 11.cxd4 �d7 12 .tLlc2 f6 13.exf6 l"lxf6 14.b4 l"laf8 15.b5 tLle7 16.tLle5 �e8 17.g3 and White ob­ tained an advantage in the game Topalov - Bareev, Novgorod 1997.

7.cxd4 tiJh6 Again White has a choice, but Black should not be afraid. White has only two acceptable moves in this position.

8.tiJc3 This is the most natural move. He develops his b1-knight to its most active position. However, the point is that in this pawn­ structure the c3-square is hardly the best one for this knight. After the inclusion of 6 . . . cxd4, capturing - 8.hh6 is not so good for White any more and Black not only can but should capture the sacrificed pawn - 8 . . . Wfxb2 (diagram) and now: it is very bad for White to play 9 .�e3? Wfxa1 10.Wfb3 �b4+ and he 54

is unable to trap his opponent's queen; it is possible to continue with 9 .tLlbd2 gxh6 10. 0 - 0 (It would be too optimistic for White to opt for 10.l"lb1 Wfxa2 11.0-0 and Black should try here tLlb4 ! ?) . I think Black should grab as much mate­ rial as possible, even though this might seem risky at first sight. 10 . . . tLlxd4 (It is also possible for Black to choose 10 . . . �g7 11.tLlb3 Wfa3 with an unclear position. It is essential for him to be on the alert - 11 . . . 0-0 12 .a3 ! and Black's queen is in danger! ) 11.l"lb1 tLlxe2+ 12.Wfxe2 Wfc3 13.l"lfc1 Wfa5 14.tLld4. It looks as though White has acti­ vated his forces to the maximum and will soon crush his opponent, but this is an illusion. With accu­ rate defence Black can withstand the initial assault and there might never be a second wave. 14 . . . a6 15.tLl 2b3 Wfd8 16.Wfe3 l"lg8 17.g3. The position arising is quite safe for Black. White's knights are not very dangerous and have no threatening manoeuvres. White has some definite compensation, but it is hardly sufficient for two missing pawns; 9.tLlc3 ! ? This is a very original

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 '&b6 5.CiJj3 tt'l c6 6 . .ie2 cd solution to the problem - he puts another piece en prise, defending his rook on a1 in the process. It may sound a bit ridiculous, but Black has to make an important choice in this position. He can head for a position with an extra pawn, but with compensation for his opponent, or . . . he can end the game with perpetual check. 9 . . . tt'lxd4 ! ? This i s a paradoxical be­ ginning if playing for a draw. (Fighting positions arise after 9 . . . '&xc3+ 1 0 . .id2 '&a3 11.0-0 .ie7 1 2 . '&c2 , a s played i n the game Man­ tovani - Yemelin, Kallithea 20 0 8 . Black should continue here with 12 . . . 0-0 ! ? and after 13.l":ab1 the position is very complicated.). This is the beginning of a long forcing variation ending in per­ petual check.

10 .'&xd4 (White can bring about a tense struggle, but it would not be to his advantage. 10.'&c1 '&xa1! ll.tt'lxd4 - He does not change anything much with ll.'&xa1 tt'lc2 + 12. rnd2 tt'lxa1 13. .ie3 a6 14.l":xa1 b5 with a good po­ sition for Black - 1l.. .'&xc1+ 1 2 . ixc1 a 6 . Black's chances in this position even seem to be prefera-

ble. White must play very precise­ ly in order not to end up quickly in a very difficult position. For ex­ ample : 13.tt'la4? ! b5 14.tt'lb6 l":b8 15.tt'lxc8 l":xc8 with an easy game for Black.) 10 . . . '&xa1+ 1l..id1 gxh6 12.0-0 '&b2 13 . .ia4+ rnd8 (But not 13 . . . .id7? 14.l":b1+-) 14.l":b1 '&a3 15.tt'lxd5 exdS 16.'&xd5 + lt>c7. All this was played in the game Maslik - Turcan, Slovakia 2 0 0 1 and the players agreed t o a draw. We shall continue the variation a bit further: 17.l":xb7+ .ixb7 18. '&d7+ lt>b6 19.'&b5+ lt>c7 2 0 .'&d7+ rnb8 2 l .'&e8+ .ic8 2 2 .'&b5 = 8.tt'la3? ! This logical move is good in principle in this pawn­ structure, but not at this mo­ ment . . . 8 . . . .ixa3. This is the most radical solution for Black. 9 .bxa3 tt'lfS 10 . .ie3 '&aS+ ll.'&d2 '&xa3 (I do not think Black should have any problems after 1l.. .tt'lxe3 1 2 . fxe3 .id7 ! ? = ) 1 2 . 0-0 tt'lxe3 13 .fxe3 0-0. White must play very ener­ getically in this position in order to obtain compensation. 14. l":fc1 ! ? (It would b e too slow for him to opt for 14.l":ab1 b6.) 14 . . . .id7 (14 . . . '&e7 15.l":ab1) 15.l":ab1 and White's pressure might be enough for a draw, but no more . . . . For exam­ ple: 15 . . . b6 (1S . . . l":ab8 16.l":c5 b6 17.l":c3 '&e7 18.l":bc1) 16.l":c3 '&e7 17.l":bc1 l":ac8 18 . .ia6 l":c7 19.-ibS l":fc8 2 0 . .ia6= White cannot gain any advan­ tage with 8.b3 ? ! .ib4+ 9 . rnf1 tt'lfS 10 . .ib2 .ie7. Black is playing quite sensibly. He deprives the oppo­ nent's king of castling rights and 55

Chapter 8 then retreats his bishop to its usu­ al place. 11.lLlc3 (Or ll.h4 f6 ! ? ; 1l.id3 0 - 0 12 .h4 f6 13.hf5 exf5 and Black has the initiative.) 1 1 . . . 0 - 0 12 .lLla4 iWd8 13 .g3 f6 14. exf6 ixf6 15. g2 '&d6 16.Ei:e1 b6 with an excellent position for Black, Kupreichik - Piskov, Ger­ many 1998. 8 .id3 ! ? Apart from 8 .lLlc3, this is the only interesting move which might cause trouble for Black. The first impression is that White has just touched his bishop by accident, and decided to move it one square forward along the same diagonal. In fact, things are far from being that simple . . . 8 . . . id7 9.ic2 (But not 9.l2Jc3 ? ! l2Jxd4 10.0-0 ic5 1l.a4 iWb3 12 .iWd2 lLlxf3 + 13.gxf3, Movsesian - Iva­ nov, Chalkidiki 2 0 0 2 , and here, after the simple move 13 . . . 0 - 0 ! ? , Black obtains a n overwhelming advantage).

Black has tried several possi­ bilities in this position: 9 . . . g5 ! This dynamic resource is both interesting and attractive. 10 .h3 lLlf5 ll.ixf5 exf5 12.0-0 (12.lLlxg5 '&xd4 13.0-0 '&xd1 14. Ei:xd1 l2Jxe5 15.lLlc3 ic6 and White 56

will regain his pawn, but without gaining any advantage; 12 .hg5 '&xb2 13.l2Jbd2 '&b5 14.a4 '&a6 15. iWe2 iWxe2+ 16.xe2 Ei:g8 and the endgame is quite acceptable for Black; 12.lLlc3 h6 13.0-0 ie6 ; Black i s still threatening g4; 13. lLlxd5 iWa5+ 14.lLl c3 0-0-0 15. 0-0 ie6�) 12 ... g4 (12 ... h6 ! ?) 13. hxg4 fxg4 14.l2Jc3 gxf3 (it is also possible for Black to opt here for 14 . . . ie6 15.lLla4 '&aS 16.lLlg5 if5) 15. lLlxd5 fxg2 16.Ei:e1 '&xd4 17.ig5 ig7? This was a blitz game and playing precisely was obviously mission impossible . . . ! (17 . . . ie7! 18.ixe7 ie6 ! 19.if6 ixd5 2 0.'&h5 '&f4 2 1.hh8 l2Jd4 2 2 . Ei:e3 lLlf3 + 23.Ei:xf3 '&xf3 with a n overwhelm­ ing advantage for Black) 18.lLlc7+ f8 19.lLlxa8 l2Jxe5 2 0.ie7+ g8 2l.Ei:xe5 ixe5 2 2 .iWxd4 ixd4 23. Ei:d1 + - Movsesian - Caruana, Moscow 2 0 1 0 ; Black can show more restraint with 9 . . . lLlf5 10.hf5 exf5 ll.lLlc3 ie6. It turns out now that White has lost a tempo with the ma­ noeuvre id3-c2 , while Black has done the same with id7-e6. 1 2 . 0-0 ie7 13.lLle2 (White cannot hurt his opponent with 13.lLla4 '&d8 = ) 13 . . . h6 14.h4 Ei:c8 (Black should avoid 14 . . . d7? ! , as in the game Harikrishna - Meier, Meri­ da 2 0 07.) 15.h5 0-0 16.lLlf4 Ei:c7 with a very interesting position. Black has some interesting al­ ternatives, but these fail to equalize: 9 . . . g6 ! ? 10.lLlc3 lLlf5 11.hf5 gxf5 1 2 . 0 - 0 Ei:g8 13.h3 ie7 14.Ei:b1 with an edge for White. Black can-

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Wb6 5. l'iJf.3 l'iJ c6 6. �e2 cd not make good use of his control of the g-file; 9 .. .f6? ! 10.exf6 (10.ixh6? ! gxh6 1 1.exf6 Wxb2 1 2 .l'iJbd2 l'iJxd4 13. l'iJxd4 Wxd4 and Black has a good position) 10 . . . gxf6 11.l'iJ c3 l'iJf7 1 2 . 0-0 �d6 13.a3. Black's unstable centre will be a telling factor in the future ; It is possible to opt for 9 . . . �e7, but even then White is better after 10.0-0 f6 ll.l'iJc3 fxe5 1 2 .l'iJxe5 l'iJxe5 (unfortunately it does not work for Black to continue with 12 . . . Wxd4 13.Wh5+ lt>d8 14.l'iJxd7 lt>xd7 15.l"ld1 Wg4 16.Wxg4 l'iJxg4 17.l'iJxd5 ! ) 13.dxe5 l'iJf7 14.�e3 Wxb2 15.�d4 Wa3 16.l"lb1 b6 17. l"le1 t with a very powerful initia­ tive for White.

8 . . . l'iJf5

9.l'iJa4 White has only just managed to develop this knight and now he is forced to place it on the edge of the board. It is easy to be convinced that the alternatives are even worse for him. 9 .�b5 �d7 10.hc6 hc6 and White has no compensation

for his missing light-squared bishop. The awkward move 9 . lt>f1 ? ! postpones the inevitable for just one move : 9 . . . �d7 10.l'iJa4 (White loses a pawn after 10.g4? l'iJfxd4 11.l'iJa4 (11.�e3 Wxb2-+) 11 . . . WaS ! ) 10 . . . Wd8 11 .g4 l'iJh4 12 .�g5 �e7 13.�xh4 �xh4 14.l'iJc5 �e7 and, to add to his problems, his king cannot castle.

9 . . . 1Mfa5+ 1 0 .�d2 This is a natural and reasona­ ble move. It would be futile for White to play too enterprisingly - 10.It>f1 b5 (It is also interesting for Black to play 10 . . . �d7! ? 11.�d2 Wd8 .) ll.l'iJc3? (ll.l'iJc5 hc5 1 2 . dxc5 b 4 13.g4 l'iJfe7 14.�e3 h 5 and he seizes the initiative) ll . . . b4 1 2 . l'iJ b 1 �a6 13 .�e3 �e7 14.l'iJbd2 0-0 15.l'iJb3 Wb6 16.ha6 Wxa6+ 17. We2 Wb6 18.g4 l'iJxe3+ 19.Wxe3 f5 ! (In the game Black played the weaker move 19 . . . a5 and after 2 0 .It>g2 l"lfc8 21.l"lac1 a4 2 2 .l'iJ c5 l"lc7 23 .h4 Wa7 24.l'iJd3 he came under a crushing attack on the kingside and lost, Movsesian Vitiugov, Novy Bor 2010.) 2 0 .exf6 l"lxf6 2 1.g5 l"lf7 2 2 . Wxe6 l"laf8 and White will have problems with­ standing his opponent's pressure on the f-file.

1 0 . . . �b4 ll . .ic3 White can sacrifice a pawn here, but why? 11.l'iJ c3 l'iJfxd4 1 2 . l'iJxd4 l'iJxd4 13.a3 l'iJxe2 14.axb4 l'iJxc3 15.hc3 Wb5.

ll . . . b5 This is Black's simplest re­ sponse. He should not be too 57

Chapter S greedy 11 . . . hc3+ 12.'t:Jxc3 1M/b6 13.ib5 0-0 14.ixc6 1M/xb2 15. lt:J a4 1Mib4+ 16.1M/d2 1M/xd2+ 17. �xd2 bxc6 18.li:J c5 with an inferi­ or position for Black.

12.a3 .ixc3 + 13.ll:lxc3 b4 14.axb4 1M/xb4

15.\Wa4 This seems to me to be White's most solid move. The ambitious attempt 15.ib5 might boomerang after 15 . . . id7

58

16.1M/a4 1M/xb2 17. l"la3 0-0 (17 . . . 1M/c1 + ? 18.lLldl±) 1 8 . 0-0 a6 19.l"lb1 1M/xa3 20.1M/xa3 axbS 2 1.1Mlb2 l"lfb8. Black has excellent compensation for the queen. It is possible for White to play 15.0-0 here, but even then Black has a pleasant choice. For exam­ ple : 15 . . . lt:Jfxd4 (15 . . . 0 - 0 ! ?) 16. lt:Jxd4 1M/xd4 (Or 16 ... lt:Jxd4 17. id3 and White has some initiative.) 17.ib5 ! 1M/b6. Now it looks as though White must force a draw in tactical fashion : 18.lt:Jxd5 exdS 19 .1M/xd5 ib7 2 0 . l"la6 ixa6 2 1 . hc6+ �f8 2 2 .1M/d6+ � g 8 23.e6 (The evaluation is the same after 23.l"ld1 l"lc8 24.e6 h6 25.1M/e7 1M/xc6 26.1M/xf7 + �h7 27.1M/f5 = ) 23 . . . hf1 24.exf7+ �xf7 25 .id5+ �e8 26. ic6+ �f7=

15

••.

.id7 16.1Mfxb4 c!Llxb4 = .

The prospects are equal i n this endgame.

Chapter 9

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5)£)£3 ltlc6 6 ..id3

tically forced to accept the sacri­ fice. It would be too faint-hearted for White to continue with 8. �e2 ? ! tt:lge7 9.tt:lc3 tt:lf5 10.tt:la4 \WaS+ ll.tt:lc3? White achieves nothing with 8 .�c2 tt:lb4=

8 . . . tt:lxd4

White develops his bishop to d3 and ignores the protection of his d4-pawn, thus solving one of his main problems in this varia­ tion. His compensation will be based on rapid development and the numerous moves of Black's queen. Nevertheless, his central pawn is too valuable. It would be quite objective to confess that the popularity of this gambit belongs to the past. However, even today there are still players who wish to enter such dire straits.

6 . . . cxd4 The move 6 . . . �d7 presents White with the additional possi­ bility of 7.dxc5 ! ? hc5 8 . 0 - 0 .

7.cxd4 .id7 8. 0 - 0 This i s the idea behind the en­ tire operation. Now Black is prac-

9.ll)xd4 It is very attractive to lure Black's queen into the centre of the board. The alternative for White is 9 . tt:lbd2 ! ? tt:l e 7 ( I f 9 . . . tt:l c 6 Black might have problems after 10.tt:lb3 tt:lge7 ll .�e3 \Wc7 1 2 Jk l tt:lg6 13. tt:lc5, Leon Hoyos - Meier, Merida 2008.) 10.tt:lxd4 \Wxd4 ll.tt:lf3 \Wb6 12 .�e3 \Wc7 13J'kl tt:lc6, with a solid position for Black, Haba 59

Chapter 9 Goloshapov, Cappelle Ia Grande 1998.

9

V�bd4 1 0 .tl:\c3

•••

It would not be in gambit style for White to continue with 10 .�e2 CiJe7 11.4Jc3 CiJc6.

1 0 ... a6 This is a solid move. Black takes the important bS-square under control. I have failed to find more than a draw for White in the variation lO . . . �xeS ! ? 1Ule1 �d6 (It would be rather unclear for Black to choose ll . . . �b8? ! 12.CiJxdS .id6 13 .�g4 h1 e4 19.i.b5 i.g4� If White insists on preventing his opponent from castling queen­ side, Black can go kingside. 15.l"!c1 0-0 16.0-0 e5 ! This is an impor­ tant moment. This pawn-break is even stronger now that White's rook is on cl. 17.i.bl e4 18.'Lld2 (18.'Llh4 l"!ac8) 18 ... 'fff a 6 19.l"!fe1 Wxe2 2 0 .l"!xe2 l"!fc8 with a very complicated and double-edged endgame.

Black's pawn-structure is a bit loose, but this is compensated for by his two powerful bishops. His dark-squared bishop has no op­ ponent and might become a mon­ ster.

12

.•.

i.h6 13.'fffe 2

White should avoid coming under "x-ray" pressure - 13. 'fffd 2 a5 14.b5 'Lle7 15.'Llc3 e5 and his centre is about to crumble alto­ gether.

13 . . . i.d7 14.c!tJC3 If White has already read this book and tries to cleverly change the move-order - you should not panic. 14.0-0 0-0-0 (The rou­ tine 14 . . . 'Lle7 can be countered 64

15

•.•

0 - 0 - 0 !?

Black does not wish to solve the problem of the safety of his king on its usual flank and he evacuates his monarch to the queenside.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 '&b6 5. ti:Jj3 ti:J c6 6.a3 ti:J h6 Nevertheless, it seems more natural to play 15 . . . 0 - 0 16.mh1 E:ac8 with chances for both sides, Morozevich - Bareev, Monaco 2002.

16.a4 There is no more resolute re­ action for White than a direct pawn-assault. He could try something differ­ ent though - 16.b5 mb8 17.tl:Ja4 '&d6 18.ti:Jc5 j,c8 with a compli­ cated position (or 18 . . . e5 ! ? 19. ti:Jxd7+ Elxd7 20.dxe5 fxe5 2 l.e4 d4). t6 . . . mbs Black should avoid accepting gifts - 16 . . . '&xb4? ! 17.Eltb1 '&d6 18.ti:Jb5 hb5 19.axb5 mb8 2 0 .b6 axb6 2l.'&a2 and White has won­ derful compensation for the sacri­ ficed pawns.

17.b5

White has no time for further preparatory moves. For example: 17.Elab1 e5 18.a5 '&c7! I believe Black has an excellent position even without his last precise move. Still, he should exploit this wonderful possibility. 19.Elfc1 '&d6 and surprisingly it turns out that White's rook on c1 is far more of a liability in his position than a strength. The game might contin­ ue in this fashion : 2 0 . ti:Jb5 hb5 21.hb5 ti:Jf5 2 2 .Elc3 Elc8 2 3 .Elcb3 Elhg8 24.a6 e4 25.ti:Je1 j,f4 ! ! - + Black can counter the move 17.ti:Jb5, which was played in the game Yagupov - Lastin, Orel 199 2 , with the quite effective counter strike 17 . . . ti:Jf5 !

1 7. . . '&d6 18.a5 e5

There will be a fierce fight ahead and the chances for both sides are about equal.

65

Chapter 1 1

l.e4 e6 2 . d4 d 5 3 . e5 c 5 4.c3 VHb6 5 . lbf3 lbc6 6.a3 lbh6 7.b4 cxd4 8 . cxd4 lbf5 9 . .ib2

This is no doubt a much more natural development of this bish­ op than on the e3-square. It has its drawbacks though and one of them is the "x-ray" pressure from the enemy queen along the b-file.

9

•••

.id7 1 0 .g4

This is more or less forced. White does have an alternative in 10 .h4, but Black will have no problems after 10 . . . h5 ll .g3 �c8 12 . .ih3 aS (Here 12 . . . g6 is also worth considering.) 13.0-0 axb4 14.axb4 .ie7! (It is inferior for Black to play 14 . . . 'Llh6? ! , which was tried in the game Yemelin Gorovykh, St Petersburg 2007, but instead he can play 14 . . . .ixb4.) 15.hf5 exf5 16.'Llc3 'Llxb4 - this is the idea behind Black's modest­ looking 14th move, to capture on 66

b4 with the knight. It appears that he has a good position. Sometimes White plays 10 . .ie2 , but he can hardly count on any advantage with this move : 10 . . . .ie7 11.0-0 h5 12 .Wd3 g5 13. �dl g4 14.'Llel f6 15.b5 'Lla5 16. exf6 .ixf6 17.a4 a6 18. 'Lla3 axb5 19.axb5 'Llxd4 20.'Llc4 'Llxe2+ 2 1 . Wxe2 dxc4 2 2 . .ixf6 �f8 23 . .ic3 Wxb5 24.'Llc2 and although he won that game after wild compli­ cations, Alexander can hardly be satisfied with the results of the opening battle, Motylev - Liu Qingnan, Chaongqing 2011.

10 . . . 'l:lfe7 Now Black's knight is headed for another route . The targets are the vulnerable f4- and h4squares. It is less principled, but still quite playable, for Black to con­ tinue with 10 ... 'Llh6 ll.h3 (It would be worse for White to leave his king in the centre with ll.�gl f6 1 2 .exf6 gxf6 13.'Llc3 'Llf7 14.'Lla4 Wc7 15.�cl Wf4 and Black h as ob­ tained good counter ch ances, Short - Lputian, Batu mi 19 99.) ll . . .f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13. 'Ll c3 'l:l f7, Shirov - Berg, Tallin n 2 00 6.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 V!ib6 5Jijf3 lU c6 6.a3 lUh6

ll.c!Dc3

so many vulnerable squares in his camp that Black can be optimistic about the future.

14.h4

ll

. .•

�a5 !

This key manoeuvre i s a n es­ sential part of Black's strategy. It is positionally justified but rather passive for Black to opt for 11.. .hS 12.CUa4 V!id8 13.lUcS �c8 14.gS and his lack of space will hurt him.

Here Alexander Motylev tried a queen manoeuvre which seems a bit slow - 14. V!ie2 �e7 1S.V!ie3 0-0 (1S . . . lUh4 ! ?) 16.h4 f6 17.h5 lUh8 18.l'k2 lUc6 19.lUa4 V!id8 2 0 . exf6 hf6 2 l .CUcS e S and White's king came under attack, Motylev - Ponomariov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 00S. It would be too straightfor­ ward for him to opt for 14.�a1?! lUc4 1S.lUxc4 dxc4 16.lUe4 aS with powerful pressure for Black.

12.�d2 White cannot allow his oppo­ nent's knight to come to c4. He achieves nothing with the more natural line: 12 .V!ic2 lUc4 13. �xc4 dxc4 14.lUd2 V!ic6 1S.l2Jce4 and here Black can choose be­ tween a forced draw and playing a position a pawn down but with excellent prospects. 1S . . . c3 ! ? (lS . . . lU e S 16.CUxc4 bS ! ?) 16.lUd6+ (M­ ter 16.V!ixc3 cuds, the missing pawn is practically irrelevant.) 16 ... 1!/dS 17.lUxf7+ l!le8 18.lUd6+ l!ld8= Sveshnikov - Radjabov, Tallinn 2 0 04.

12 Jk8 13.:1kl �g6 ..

Black's plan has been slightly altered. Now it has become evi­ dent that his attack against the d4-pawn has failed, but White has

14

. . .

i.e7

Here it is worth considering the blockading idea 14 . . . hS ! ? 15. gxhS lUf4 (After 1S ... lUe7? ! 16.�d3 - Black is a pawn down without compensation, since it would be bad to continue with 16 . . . V!ixd4 17.lUbS ! ) 16.V!if3 (If 16.l"k2 Black has the resource 16 . . . CUc4 17.lUxc4 Elxc4 ! 18.Eld2 (Or 18 .hc4 dxc4 with a good game for the sacri­ ficed exchange.) 18 . . . Elc8 with counterplay.) 16 . . . lUxhS 17.�d3 (It 67

Chapter 11 is also possible for White to try the more forcing line 17Jk2 'Llc6 18.'Lla4 'l'¥d8 19.'Llc5 hc5 2 0 .bxc5 'l'¥a5 reaching a position which has not yet been analyzed exten­ sively.) 17 . . . g6 18Jk2 'Llc6 19.'Lla4 'l'¥d8 2 0 .'Llc5 �xc5 21.dxc5. It looks as if White can still hope to gain an edge, but Black has his counter-chances.

15.g5 Black successfully blockades his opponent's pawns after 15.h5 'Llf4 16.'1'¥f3 �g5.

15

••.

0-0

I n practice Black has tried 1 5 . . . h 5 16.gxh6 :Bxh6 17.h5 'Llh4?! (It seems that the computer's recom­ mendation is stronger here - 17 . . . �g5 18.:Bc2 (White has a n inter­ esting alternative - 18.:Bg1, but Black is likely to hold the position after 18 . . . �xd2+ 19.'1'¥xd2 'Llb3 2 0 .'1'¥d1 'Llxc1 21.hxg6 :Bxg6 2 2 . :Bxg6 fxg6 23.'1'¥xc1 Wxd4 2 4 . We3 'l'¥xe3+ 25.fxe3 cJle7 with a compli­ cated endgame. ) 18 . . . hd2 + 19. :Bxd2 'Llc4 2 0.hc4 :Bxc4 21.:Bg1 'Llf4 2 2 . :Bxg7 :Bxh5 23.'1'¥f3 and the fearless computer programme Rybka considers that in the com­ plications after 23 . . . :Bxd4 24. 'Llxd5 :Bxd5 25.:Bxd5 Wc6, Black can draw by perpetual check.) 18. 'l'¥g4 'Llf5 19.�d3 �f8 and White had a powerful initiative in the game Grischuk - Radjabov, Wijk an Zee 2 003.

16.'1'¥g4 White exerts positional pres­ sure over the entire board and he forces his opponent to temporari68

ly give up some material. It would not be in the spirit of the position for him to play 16.'Lle2 ? ! :Bfd8 17.h5 'Llf8 and Black's position is quite acceptable, Shirov - Gurev­ ich, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 005.

16

hb4

. .•

This is really the only move, since he should avoid the position arising after 16 . . . :Bfd8 17.h5 'Llf8 .

17.axb4 'l'¥xb4 18.:Bb1 There is just a transposition of moves after 18 .�a1 'l'¥a3 (I do not think it is worth trying here 18 . . . 'Llxe5 19.'1'¥g3 Wa3 2 0 .:Bb1 'Llec4 2 1.�xc4 'Llxc4 2 2 .'Llxc4 :Bxc4 23. 0 - 0 ; 23.h5 ! ?) 19 .:Bb1 (19 .'1'¥d1?? �a4-+) 19 ... :Bxc3 2 0 .�xc3 'l'¥xc3 .

18

•••

:Bxc3

It is again bad for him to opt for 18 . . . 'Llxe5? 19.'1'¥g3 'Llec4 2 0 . �c1 ! We7 2 1.hc4 dxc4 2 2 .'Llce4 !

19.hc3 '1'¥xc3

Black can be happy with the material balance, but White's kingside attack looks very danger­ ous.

2 0 .!%h3 White should not be in a hurry 2 0 .h5 'Lle7 2 1.h6? 'Llf5 !

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 cS 4.c3 V!ff b 6 5. CiJf3 CiJ c6 6.a3 CiJ h6 He should not play passively either - 2 0 .i.e2 ? CiJ c4 2 l..bc4 dxc4 2 2 . h5 CiJe7 23.l"\h3 V!ff a5 24. l"1xb7 i.c6 25. l"1xe7 c3 26.V!ffd l V!ffa3 ! 27.l"\xc3 V!1xc3 with an advantage to Black.

20

V!ffc7 21.i.d3

•••

White cannot really continue the game without this move. Of course he can try, but this will just present Black with extra possibili­ ties. 2 1 .h5 CiJe7 2 2 .h6 g6 23.V!fff3 CiJf5 24.i.d3 i.a4 ! ? 25.'tt> fl i.c2 26. .bc2 V!ffx c2 27.V!ffd 3 (It is more ambitious for White to play 27. V!ff c3 V!ffxc3 28.l"\xc3 CiJxd4 29.l"\c7 a6, but after all Black has three extra pawns . . . ) 27 . . . V!ffc 7 and the position is again completely un­ clear.

21 .tbe7 22.h5 ••

In reply to 2 2 .V!fff4, as in the game Solodovnichenko - Del Rio Angelis, Spain 2006, Black should continue with 22 .. .f5 ! ? 23.gxf6 l"\xf6 24.V!ffg5 (Or 24.V!ffg 4 l"\f7 25. fi:f3 CiJf5 with counter chances.) 24 ... l"\f7 25.h5 h6 26.V!ffg4 CiJac6 with a very interesting play in prospect.

22

•••

CiJf5 23.�f4

We have already analyzed the position arising after 23.h6 ! ? g6 24.V!fff3 i.a4 ! (diagram)

23 . tbc6 ••

There are some other possible moves for Black, but they are all very risky. For example, it seems very dangerous for him to play 23 . . .

CiJ c4? ! 24 . .bf5 exf5 25.h6 g 6 26. CiJxc4 dxc4 27.d5 and despite the fact that Black wins a pawn after 27 . . . l"\e8, the endgame which soon arises will be tremendously diffi­ cult for him. For example: 28. V!ff d4 (28.l"\e3? V!ffa5+) 2 8 . . . V!ffx e5+ 29.V!ffx e5 fi:xe5+ 30 .l"\e3 l"\xe3 + 31. fxe3 b6 3 2 .'tt> d 2 f6 33.gxf6 @f7 34. l"\cl i.bS 35.l"\al a6 36.e4 'it>xf6 37. exf5 gxf5 38.'it>c3± It is worth considering 23 . . . b5 (23 . . . l"\c8 ! ?) 24.i.xf5 exf5 25.g6 ! ? and here after the cold-blooded response 25 . . . h6, Black maintains the material balance (It would be too risky to try instead 25 . . . fxg6 ? ! 26.hxg6 hxg6 27.V!ffh 2 l"\ c 8 2 8 .l"\al and Black's hanging knight on aS spells serious trouble for him. It cannot be good either to opt for 25 . . . CiJ c4 2 6 .CiJxc4 bxc4 27.gxf7+ l"\xf7 28. l"\a3 and White has the initiative.)

24.hf5 exf5 25.g6 fxg6 26.hxg6 h6 27.tbf3 c!LldS Black obtained a good position and went on to win in Fluvia Poy­ atos - Gonzales Garcia, Badalona 2 005.

69

Chapter 12

l . e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3 .e5 c5 4.c3 �b6 5 )2� £3 lLlc6 6 . a3

I believe it is always useful to have a "reserve airfield", so to speak, if not in all the variations, but at least in the main line. I sug­ gest below that you take a look at some other possibilities for Black in reply to the 6. a3 system.

6 . . . �d7 This is a universally useful move in blocked French posi­ tions. It is almost impossible to find a line in which the d7-square would not be a reasonable one for this black bishop. The struggle develops in an entirely different way after 6 . . . c4 ! ? The resulting closed posi­ tions are not to everyone's liking, but this move has its logic, in its chess aspects as well as in the 70

purely competitive sense. Black reduces the tension in the centre but he occupies space on the queenside, fixing the weak b3square in the process. The game develops much more according to schemes and plans, rather than depending on concrete variations. It becomes essential to manoeu­ vre skilfully, to hinder your oppo­ nent's ideas and to accomplish your own plans. The games we quote below are simply the most typical illustrations of the play in this pawn-structure and not some axiomatic rules about how to pro­ ceed. My own conclusions about this variation are, in short, as fol­ lows : 1. Black should avoid exchang­ ing minor pieces, with the excep­ tion of the light-squared bishops. 2. The exchange of queens, however, is in favourable to Black, because then he can advance his queenside pawns much more comfortably. 3. Black should try to combine play on the queenside with coun­ terplay on the kingside as well, since otherwise he might be

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Wff b 6 5. tiJj3 tiJ c6 6.a3 1J.d7 squashed. 7.tiJbd2 tiJ a5 (7 . . . tiJge7? 8 . .bc4 ! dxc4 9.tiJxc4± ; 7 . . . 1J.d7? ! 8.b3 cxb3 9 .tiJxb3 tiJa5 1 0 .tiJxa5 fffx a5 11.1ld2 tiJe7 12 .1J.d3 Wffc 7 13. 0-0 h6 14.tiJh4 with an initiative to White, Motylev - Hort, Essent 2003.)

and here: 8.h4 JJ.d7 9.h5 f5 10.l'l:b1 tiJh6 11.1J.e2 1J.e7 1 2 . 0-0 l'l:c8 13.l'l:e1 tiJ£7 14.Wffc 2 Wff c7 15.tiJh2 g5 16.tiJhf1 g4 17.tiJe3 tiJg5 and Black exploited his enormous space advantage, Shabalov - Akobian, Philadelphia 2004; 8 .1le2 1J.d7 9.0-0 tiJe7 10 .l'l:b1 (10.l'l:e1 f5 1l.exf6 gxf6 12.l'l:b1 0-0-0 13 .b4 cxb3 14.tiJxb3 1J.a4 15.tiJfd2 1J.h6 with a good position for Black, Klimov - Vysochin, St Petersburg 2 008) 10 . . . Wffc7 ll.l'l:e1 tiJcB 12.tiJf1 tiJb6 13.1J.f4 tiJb3 14. tiJ3d2 (14.tiJg3 1J.a4 15.1J.fl 0-0-0 16.tiJh5 h6 17.fffe 2 tiJ a5 18.fffd 2 Wff c 6 19.l'l:e2 fffe 8 2 0 .g4 1J.e7 21. l'l:bel Wffg 8 22.Wffc 1 Wffh7 23.Wffb 1 fffxb1 24.l'l:xb1 g6 25.tiJg3 1J.b3 26 .1J.h3 tiJa4 27.l'l:f1 b5 28.1J.e3 tiJc6 29.tiJe1 aS 3 0 .f4 b4+ and Black realized his advantage in the game S.Zhi­ galko - Andreikin, Moscow 2 0 10) tiJa5 15. tiJg3 1J.a4 16.fffc 1 0-0-0

17.tiJh5 ®b8 18.tiJf3 1J.b3 19.tiJd2 1J.a4= Ni Hua - Bareev, Beijing 2003. 8 .g3 1J.d7 9.1J.g2 (9.h4 0-0-0 10 .h5 tiJh6 11.1J.h3 f6 1 2 .fffe 2 tiJ£7 13.0-0 f5 14.tiJh2 g6 15.f4 1J.e7 16.g4 g5 17.1J.g2 gxf4 18.gxf5 exf5 19 . .bd5 l'l:hg8+ 20.®h1 1J.e6 2 1 . .be6 + Wffx e6 2 2 .tiJdf3 tiJ b 3 23. l'l:b1 tiJxc1 24.l'l:bxc1 Wffc 6 25.l'l:g1 tiJg5 26.l'l:g2 tiJe4 27.®g1 fffd 5 2 8 .tiJf1 l'l:xg2+ 29.xd8 19.l"ld1 + lt>e7 2 0 . Ci:Je1 l"ld8 2 1.Ci:Jd3 ib6 22 .f4= Bologan Komarov, Reggio Emilia 1997.

9 . . .hc5 1 0 .i.d3 0 - 0 11. '!We2

a) 8.i.d2 White plans to attack the tar­ get on h6. This is not so danger­ ous for Black, though . . .

8 . . . c5

ll . . . e5!

9.dxc5

This is a standard resource for Black. This pawn advances as a spearhead in order to free the way for the rest of his forces. It is not advisable for him to play 11 ... '\WdS 12.c4 '!Wc6 13 .ic3 eS 14.Ci:Jxe5 Wxg2 15.0-0-0 l"le8 16. 81

Chapter 14 E!df1 .ih3 17.E!hg1 W/xh2 18.1Mif3 and White had the advantage in the game Khalifman - Dreev, Yal­ ta 1995. 12. o- o - o ges 13 .ic3 After 13 ..ib5 .id7 14.hd7 W/xd7 15 . .ie3 he3 + 16.W/xe3 W/a4 17. \tl b1 E!ac8 18.1Mib3 W/xb3 19.axb3 ltlg4 2 0 .E!d2 e4+ Black's position is preferable, Bologan - Dokhoi­ an, Germany 1993. •

13 ... 1Mib6 ! 14.ltlxe5 .ie6 15. f4 .ie3+ 16 ..id2 .id4 17.c3 .ig4 18)iJxg4 gxe2 19 . .!Dxf6 + .ixf6 2 0 .he2 W/e6 ! with advantage for Black, A.Fedorov - Supatash­ vili, Ekaterinburg 1997.

b) S .ix£6 .

This variation is a bit similar to the Moscow variation (l.d4 dS 2 .c4 c6 3.ltlc3 ltlf6 4.ltlf3 e6 S ..igS h6 6 . .ixf6), but its popularity is diminishing lately. Its idea is sim­ ple and easily understandable. White is ready to give up his dark­ squared bishop for the sake of the quickest possible development.

8 .id7 82

•..

1M!xf6 9.i.b5+ c6 1 0 .id3 •

ll . .!De5 ! ? This i s the most unpleasant move for Black to face. The position is swiftly simpli­ fied after 11.0-0 cS ! 12 .c3 cxd4 13.cxd4 .ic6 14.ltle5 .id6 15.ltlxc6 bxc6 16.W/a4 0-0 17.W/xc6 W/xd4 18.E!ad1= Amonatov - Vorobiov, Moscow 2006. White has also tried the tricky move 11 .c3, but Black can obtain an acceptable position in that case as well. 1l.. . .id6 (The complica­ tions after 11.. .0-0-0 12.0-0 cS 13.1Mib3 .ic6 14.ltle5 .idS 15.c4 .ixg2 16. \tl xg2 E!xd4 are unclear and Black does not need to go in for them, although his prospects there are not at all bad. 17.f4 .id6 18.E!ae1 E!xf4 19.E!xf4 W/xf4co Amo­ natov - Maslak, Moscow 2 006.) 12 .1Mie2 cS 13.0-0 cxd4 14.cxd4 W/e7 15.ltle5 .ixe5 16.dxe5 .ic6 17. .ie4 .ixe4 18 .W/xe4 0-0= Anand - lvanchuk, Monte Carlo 2 004. It is a bit too solid for White to continue with 11.1Mie2 0-0-0 1 2 . 0 - 0 - 0 .id6 (12 . . . c5 ! ?) 13. \tl bl \tl b8 14.a3 .ic8 15 ..ie4 eS 16.dxe5 heS 17.ltlxe5 W/xeS 18 . .if3 W/f6 19.E!xd8 E!xd8 2 0 .E!dl= Vallejo

2.d4 dS 3JiJd2 de 4JiJxe4 t:iJ d7 5. t:iJf3 t:iJgf6 6. �g5 h6 7. t:iJxf6 t:iJxf6 Pons - lvanchuk, Monte Carlo 2 0 07.

ll . . . �d6 12.'!We2 13. 0 - 0 c5 14.c3

0-0-0

with the black pawn on h7. There many transpositions between the variations are possible, but there are also some ideas which become possible only under specific cir­ cumstances.

8 . . . �d5

14 . . . 'i!?b8. Black should be in no hurry to exchange the c-pawns. 15.Wfe3 .ic8 16.lUd1 .ic7 17. .ie2 gds 18.li'lg4 W/g5 19.dxc5 gxc5 2 0 .g3 h5 21.h4 W/e7 22. b4 gf5 23 . .id3 gds 24.�h2 g5t

Here Black has an alternative which has been gathering popu­ larity lately - 8 . . . �d6. For exam­ ple : 9 .g3 (9 .�d3 b6 10.0-0 �b7 1l.c4 0-0 12 .h3 c5 13.dxc5 bxc5 14.t:iJd2 W/c7 15.�e2 �h2 + 16.cj;>h1 �f4 17.hf4 W/xf4 and Black was better in the game Pikula - Meier, Zuerich 2010) 9 . . . b6 1 0.�g2 �b7 11.0-0 0-0 12 .c4 c5 13.\We2 cxd4 14.�xd4 \We7 15.gfd1 E1fd8= Yu Yangyi - Ding Liren, Hefei 2011.

and Black had the initiative in the game Hracek - Lobron, Bad Wiessee 1999.

c) 8 . .ie3

9 . .id3

The variation which shall analyze below can also be reached

White is relying on rapid de­ velopment. This strategic re­ source is quite popular and you can encounter it in many open­ ings. One side is willing to sacri­ fice some so-called static factors in the opening for the sake of quick development. This can be critical in the opening phase of the game. He would surely be re83

Chapter 14 luctant to operate like this in the middle game or the endgame. Black achieves quickly the de­ sired result after 9.�d2 ib4 ! This is an exquisite manoeuvre and its idea will become clear a bit later. 10 .c3 id6 1I.id3 (11.0-0-0 �e7 1 2.l2le5 ixe5 ! ? 13.dxe5 id7 14. �d4 tt:lxe3 15.�xe3 ic6 16.id3 b6 17.ic2 Eld8 18.Elxd8+ �xd8 19.f4 �d5 = Najer - A. Rychagov, Mos­ cow 2 008.) 11 . . . �e7 1 2 . 0-0-0 id7 13.tt:le5 ia4 ! This is the point of Black's move nine. White's rook on d1 is very uncomfortable. 14.ic2, draw, Amonatov - Vitiu­ gov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007. 9 .id2 c5

Now: 10 .c4 tt:lf6 1I.id3 cxd4 12.0-0 id6 13.h3 0-0 14.tt:lxd4 e5 15.l2lb5 ic5 16.�e2 e4 (16 . . . a6 ! ? 17.tt:lc3 id4 18.Elad1 id7=) 17.ic2 �e7 18.ie3 id7 19.tt:l c3 ic6 2 0 . Elad1 Elfe8 2 l .Elfe1 a6 2 2 .a3 a5 23.id4 and Black had to struggle to equalize for most of the game, Amonatov - Potkin , Belgorod 2010; 10.l2le5 a6 11.id3 White has this possibility only when Black's pawn is on h6. 1 1 . . .cxd4. This is 84

the most principled move. (11 . . . �c7 12 .c3 id6 13.�e2 b6 14.0-0 ib7 15.Elfe1 0-0 16.�g4 f5 17.�e2 cxd4 18.cxd4 ixe5 19.dxe5 �c6 20.f3 �c5+ 2l.�f2 �xf2 + 2 2 . xf2 and Black managed to hold this inferior endgame, Ganguly Gomez, Guangzhou 2010) 1 2 . �h5 �c7 1 3 . 0 - 0 - 0 (13.tt:lxf7 tt:lf6 14.tt:ld6+ d8=) 13 . . . tt:lf6 14.ia5 (White cannot hurt his opponent at all with 14.�e2 id6 15.f4 b5 16.Elhe1 ib7 17.b1 idS 18.g4 Elc8 and White has only slight compensation for the pawn, Man­ ca - Kosic, Budapest 2 0 11) 14 . . . tt:lxh5 (It looks very risky for Black, but it might be best to play 14 . . . �e7! ? 15.�f3 �c5 16.tt:lc4 tt:ld5 17.Elhe1 ie7 18.Ele5 �c6oo with a rather unclear position.) 15.ixc7 ic5 16.tt:lc4 (16.ie4 ! ? tt:lf6 17.if3 e7 18.Elhe1 g5oo) 16 . . . b5 17.ie4 Ela7 18 .id6 ixd6 19.tt:lxd6+ e7 2 0 . Elxd4 tt:lf6= 10 .ib5+ id7 11.ixd7+ �xd7 12.c4 tt:lb6 13.Elc1 ie7 14.dxc5 ixc5 15.b4 ie7 16.c5 tt:ld5 17.tt:le5 �c7 18.�a4+ f8

19.tt:l c4 (Or 19. f4 g6 2 0 . 0-0 g7 2 l .�b 3 Elhd8 2 2 J''ke 1 if6 23. tt:lg4 id4 + 24.h1 h5 25.tt:le5 b6

2.d4 dS 3 J i:J d2 de 4J uxe4 lLJ d7 5. li:Jf3 li:J gf6 6. 1lg5 h6 7. li:Jxf6 li:Jxf6 26.cxb6 �xb6 27.bS heS 2 8 .fxeS a6 and Black is better. His power­ ful knight on dS protects the dark squares, while White's pawns are vulnerable, Shirov - Wang Hao, Moscow 2010.) 19 . . . hS 2 0 . 0-0 h4 2 1 .h3 �hS 2 2 . �fdl. This is an at­ tempt by White to improve on Leko's play (22.�fe1 a6 23.�b3 �d8 24.a3 g8 2S.�c2 �fS 2 6.1lc1 li:Jf4 27.!lxf4 �xf4, with a quite comfortable position for Black, Leko - Gurevich, Elista 2 0 07.) 2 2 ... a6 23.�b3 �d8 24.a3 i>g8 2S.!le3 �fS 26.�d3 li:Jf4 ! = Nai­ ditsch - Vitiugov, Poikovsky 2010.

9 . . . t!Jxe3 1 0 .fxe3 .id6

ll . . . c5! ? That i s a rarely played move. However, I believe that it will be­ come much more popular in the coming years. Black will have to fight long and hard for a draw after 11 . . . eS 12.dxeS !lcS 13 .!lbS+ (But not 13.!lc4? �e7 14.�d2 0-0 1S. 0-0-0 c6 16.�hf1 bS 17.1lb3 aS 18.a3 a4 19.!la2 b4 2 0 .axb4 a3 2 1 .b3 hb4 2 2 .c3 !laS 23 .b4 !lc7 24.li:Jd4 �xeS 2S.li:Jxc6 �e8 26. li:Jd4 !lg4 2 7.�de1 !leS and Black had a powerful attack in the game Nakamura - Akobian, San Fran­ cisco 2 0 0 2 . ) 13 . . . c6 14.�xd8+ i>xd8 1S.!lc4 i>e7

ll.e4 The cautious move 11. �e2 does not combine well with the loss of the dark-squared bishop on the previous move. ll . . . �e7 12.0-0-0 eS 13.1lc4 0-0 14.�f2 !lg4 (Or 14 . . . e4 ! ? 1S.li:Jd2 c6, with an excellent game for Black.) 1S.�hf1 �ae8 16.h3 h£3 17.�xf3 exd4 18.exd4 �e3+ 19.�xe3 �xe3 = Jenni - Pelletier, Zurich 2006.

16.c3 (Or 16.a4 !le6 17.he6 i>xe6 18.�d1 �hd8 19.i>e2 !lb6 2 0.�d3 �xd3 21.cxd3 �d8 2 2 .�cl 8S

Chapter 14 �d4 23.aS a6 24J'k4 .beS 2S. 'LixeS @xeS and White failed to break down Black's defences in the rook and pawn ending, Nai­ ditsch - Akobian, Moscow 2009.) 16 ... �e6 (After 16 . . . l"i:d8 17.a4 a6 18.@e2 �e6 19 . .be6 @xe6 2 0 . l"i:hfl l"i:d7 2l.l"i:ad1 l"i:xd1 2 2 . l"i:xd1 aS 23.'Lie1 �g1 24.g3 �b6 2S.'Lid3 @e7 2 6.g4 l"i:d8 27.l"i:f1 �c7 2 8 .h4 l"i:e8 2 9 .hS @f8 30.l"i:fS White real­ ized his advantage, Gashimov Akobian, Caleta 2 0 09.) 17 . .be6 @xe6 18.@e2 �b6 19.l"i:hf1 l"i:hf8 2 0.l"i:ad1 l"i:ad8 2 l . l"i:xd8 .bd8 2 2 . l"i: d 1 �c7= Leko - lvanchuk, More­ lia/Linares 2 0 07.

�xeS+ @b8 20.�xeS+ �c7 and White's attack reaches a dead end.) 14 ... �aS+ 1S.@f2 a6 16.exdS+ @d8 17.�d3 c4 ! 18 . .bc4 �cS+ 19.@f1 l"i:e8 2 0 .�d3 �fS ! with a powerful initiative for Black.

12

•.•

�e7 13.�d2

The situation remains more or less the same after 13.c3 �d7 ! ? , or 13 . . . cxd4 14.'Lixd4 �dS ! ?

12.e5 Black should not be afraid of 12 .dS exdS 13 .�bS+ (diagram) 13 . . . @e7! (It is also acceptable for him to continue with 13 . . . �d7 14 . .bd7+ �xd7 1S.�xdS 0-0-0 16.0-0 l"i:he8=) 14.�e2 (Or 14. 0-0 a6! 1S.�xdS axbS 16.'LieS .beS 17.�xf7+ @d6 18.�dS+ @c7 19.

86

1 3 �d7 (Here Black could also have tried 13 . . . cxd4.) 14. •.•

0 - 0 - 0 �c6 15.@b1 �c8 16. dxc5 .bc5 17.�f4 �b6 18.�e4 0 - 0 19 . .bc6 �xc6 and Black gained an excellent position in the game Yu Shaoteng - Wang Hao, Cebu City 2 0 07.

Chapter 15

l . e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3 .ti� d2 dxe4 4 . �xe4 � d7 5 . �£3 �gf6 6 . .ig5 h6 7. �xf6 + �xf6 8 . .ih4

18.l"lfd1 .lla 4 19.b3 .\ke8= Huebner - Rivas Pastor, Manila 199 2 .

a ) 9.dxc5 ! ? White solves the problem in one move.

This retreat is much more principled than 8 . .\ke3 . White keeps his opponent's knight on f6 pinned and he plans to maintain his kingside initiative.

8 . . . c5 This is an energetic reply. White can counter it in about ten different ways, so Black must be prepared against all of these. The alternative is - 8 ... .\ke7. This move is safer but it is a bit passive. Here White can choose be­ tween: a) 9.dxc5, b) 9 .\kc4, c) •

9. ltle5, d) 9 .ib5, e) 9.c3, 0 9 .\ke2 and g) 9.�d3. •

•

It is not very logical for him to opt for 9 . .\kxf6 gxf6 10 . .\ke2 cxd4 ll.ti:Jxd4 .llc5 12.ti:Jb3 �xdl+ 13J�xd1 .llb 6 14 . .\kf3 l"lb8 15. 0 - 0 .\kd7 16.ti:Jd4 0-0 17.l"ld2 l"lfd8

9 . . . �a5 + Unfortunately, it is inferior for Black to continue with 9 . . . �xdl + 10.l"lxd1 .llxc5 ll.ti:Je5 (It would be just a loss of time for White to play ll..lkb5+ rJJ e 7 12 .ti:Je5 g5 13. .\kg3 li:Je4 and Black equalizes. For example: 14 . .\ke2 .\kd6 15.ti:Jxf7 .llxg3 16.ti:Jxh8 .llxf2 + 17. rJJ fl .llb 6 18 . .\kh5 ti:Jf2 19.'it>e2 ti:Jxh1 2 0 . l"lxh1 .lld 7 2 l .ti:Jg6+ rJJ d 6 2 2 .l"ld1 + rJJ c 7 23.ti:Je5 l"ld8 =) 11. . . 0-0 12 . .\ke2 ltld5 13 . .\kf3 ib4+ 14.rJJ f1 f5 15.c4 ti:Je7 16 . .\kxe7 he7 17.ti:Jg6 l"lf7 18. li:Jxe7+ l"lxe7 19.l"ld8+ rJJf7 2 0 .rJJ e 2 87

Chapter 15 l"i:c7 2 1.b3± Sivokho - Serov, St Petersburg 2008.

1 0 .c3 �xc5 ll . .id3 .ie7 The same position can arise af­ ter 8 . . . �e7 9 .�d3 c5 10. dxc5 �a5+ ll.c3 �xc5.

12. 0 - 0 This is the classical set-up for White. It would be more aggressive for him to opt for 12 .�e2 0-0

has blundered his bishop - 15. hf6 h£6 16.�e4 l"i:fc8 ! = ) 15 . . . l"i:fd8 16.f4 b 5 17.g4 l"i:ac8� with a very complicated and double­ edged struggle ahead. 13.l2Je5 b6 (Black can also try 13 . . . �d6 ! ? , for example : 14.�g3 b6 15.0-0-0 �b7 16.l2Jd7 �g5+ ! , o r 14.l2Jc4 �e7, freeing the d7square for the bishop. ) 14. 0-0-0 �b7 15.hf6. This is obviously the only way for White to achieve something in the opening. (The quieter move 15.�b1 leads to a complicated struggle: 15 . . . l"i:ad8 16.f4 l2Jd5�) 15 . . . hf6 16.l2Jd7 �g5+ 17.�c2 (17.�b 1 ! ?) 17 ... l"i:fd8 18.�e4 �d5 ! ? This interesting de­ cision enables Black to equalize. 19.l2Jxf6+ and the opponents agreed to a draw in the game Su­ tovsky - Dolmatov, Moscow 2003.

12 ... 0 - 0 13J1�'e2 gds 14. gfe1 b6 15.�e5 The move 15.�a6? ! looks like a silent offer of a draw: 15 . . . l2Jd5 16.he7 l2Jxe7 17.l"i:ad1 ha6 18. �xa6 l2Jc6 19.�e2 l"i:ac8 2 0 .h3= Leko - Bareev, Monte Carlo 2 0 0 2 .

15

and then : after 13.0-0-0, Black has the possibility of placing his light­ squared bishop in an active posi­ tion. 13 . . . �d7 14.l2Je5 �a4 ! (It is possible, but I believe more pas­ sive, to play 14 . . . �c6.) 15.l"i:d2, Morozevich - Zvjaginsev, Mos­ cow 2 0 05 (do not think that Black 88

.ib7

.•.

3Jijd2 de 4. 0,xe4 0, d7 5. 0,]3 0,gf6 6. ii.g5 h6 7. 0,xf6 0,xf6 8. ii.h4 c5

16.l3adl

b) 9 . .ic4

Tactical strikes such as 16.0,xf7 do not work, because of 16 . . . 'it>xf7 17.�xe6+ 'it>f8 and White can do nothing more to harm his oppo­ nent.

16 . . . l3d6 17.b4 The alternative is 17 . .ig3 !"1ad8 18.b4? �xc3 19.1"1c1 �xb4 2 0 .!"1c7 .ie4 2 1 .he4 0,xe4 2 2 . 1"1fl 0,c3 23. �c2 0,d5 24.0,c6 1"1xc6 25.1"1xc6 .ic5, but Black gains a serious ad­ vantage.

17 . . . �c7 18 . .ig3 !"1dd8

It seems to me that the bishop does not belong to this square. White is unlikely to be willing to sacrifice his bishop on e6. How­ ever, many strong players have played this move.

9

Now the key-move for the cor­ rect evaluation of the position is

19. 0,xt7!? In the game White played 19.1"1c1 ? ! and he was even worse, although his opponent failed to punish him. 19 . . . .id6 2 0.a3 a5 2 1 . 1"1ed1 1"1ac8, Fressinet - Degraeve, Val d'Isere 2 004.

19 ... �c6 2 0 .f1 Ei:ac8 24. Ei:xa7 Ei:xc2 25.Ei:xc2 Ei:xc2 26.a4 Ei:a2 and Black succeeded in sav­ ing this endgame, mostly thanks to being a very classy player, Al Modiahki - Huzman, Biel 2 0 0 2 . ) 17.i.xe6 Ei:ae8 18.i.xf5 'WxfS 1 9 . 'Wxb7

13 . . . �xb2 14.tiJf5 ! The game becomes simplified after this move, but White cannot develop his initiative in any other way.

14 . . . exf5 15.�xe7 i.e6!

19 . . . tt'le4! Black should be able to equalize after this important move. 2 0 .i.e7 Ei:xe7 21.'Wxe7 tt'ld2 =

16 . . . fxe6 17.�xe6+ 'it>h8 18. �xf5 �xa2 19.gd6 ttJgS 2 0 . �e4 �f7 21.i.g3 gadS 22.gxd8 gxd8 =

16.he6 After 16.Ei:b1, I recommend that Black try the novelty - 16 . . . 90

3. l2J d2 de 4. l2Jxe4 l2J d7 5. l2Jj3 l2Jgf6 6. i.g5 h6 7. l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 B. i.h4 c5 I evaluate this position as equal, although the computer does not agree with me, Shirov Radjabov, Leon 2 0 04.

c) 9.lt:le5

White is trying to exploit the fact that Black's last move was a bit too active.

9 . . . a6 The game proceeds quite dif­ ferently after 9 . . . �a5+ 1 0 .c3 cxd4 11.�xd4 i.c5 12.�f4 (An equal endgame arises after 12.l2Jc4 hd4 13.l2Jxa5 i.b6 14.l2Jc4 i.c7 15.i.e2 i.d7 16.i.g3 hg3 17.hxg3 @e7 18. i.f3 Ei:ac8 19.l2Je5 Ei:c7 2 0 . 0-0-0 Ei:d8 2 1 . Ei:h4 i.e8 2 2 . Ei:xd8 @xd8 23.Ei:b4 b6= Topalov - Milov, Ajaccio 2 004.) 12 . . . i.d6 13 .i.g3 0-0

14.i.e 2 . This is an important intermediate move. (White can­ not create problems for his oppo­ nent with the immediate 14.l2Jc4 and now: 14 . . .hf4 15.l2Jxa5 hg3 16.hxg3 b6 17.l2Jc4 i.b7 18.f3 Ei:fd8 19 .i.e2 Ei:ac8 2 0 .l2Je3 @f8 2 1. Ei:h4 l2Jd5 2 2 . l2Jxd5 Ei:xd5 23.Ei:d1 @e7 24.Ei:hd4= Gashimov - Vysochin, Cappelle Ia Grande 2 0 06.) 14 . . . �c7 15.�c4 (15.�d4 ! ?) 1 5 . . . �xc4 16.l2Jxc4 hg3 17.hxg3 Ei:d8 18. 0-0 i.d7 19.l2Je5 i.e8 2 0 .Ei:fd1 @f8 2 1.i.f3 Ei:xd1+ 22.Ei:xd1 Ei:b8. White's position is possibly slightly pref­ erable, but this seems to be insuf­ ficient for a win, Jakovenko Zhang Pengxiang, Poikovsky 2 0 07.

1 0 .dxc5 The correct way for Black to equalize after 10 .c3 was demon­ strated by a truly classic French defence game : 10 . . . cxd4 11.�a4+ i.d7 12 .�xd4 i.b5 ! 13.i.xb5+ axb5 14.�e3 �d5 15.0-0 �e4 ! 16.�xe4 l2Jxe4 17.Ei:fe1 l2Jd6 18.a3 i.e7 19. Ei:ad1 Ei:d8 2 0 .i.g3 0-0= Short Korchnoi, Reykjavik 2 0 0 0 .

10

•• .

'%Ya5 + 91

Chapter 15 Black should try the line: 10 . . . �c7 ! ? 11.t2Jc4 (After 11.�g3 hc5 12 .�d3 �d6 13.�e2 �b4+ ! ? 14. f1 �d6, the manoeuvres of Black's bishop might give the im­ pression that Black is showing disrespect for the opponent, but they seem logical enough.) 11 . . . hc5 12 .�g3 �c6 13 .�e2 0-0 14. 0 - 0 t2Je4=

only White who might have prob­ lems after 15.�d6 �c6 16.�d3 e5 17. 0-0-0 �e6 and his bishop on d6 is in trouble.) 15 .id7 16. •..

0 - 0 .ic6 =

d) 9.�b5+

ll.c3 exc5 12 .�g3 �d6

This move only reduces the tension and creates no problems for Black.

13.ltJg4 This is the only way for White to challenge Black's intention to equalize.

13

�e7

••.

It is surprising, but after 13 . . . �xg3 14.t2Jxf6+ gxf6 15.hxg3, Black's pawn-structure has been disrupted and White's rook on h1 conveniently comes into action. This provides White with a slight advantage and the ex-world champion succeeded in winning this position after 15 . . . �d7 16.l"1h4 l"1d8 17.�d4 �xd4 18.l"1xd4 �c6 19.l"1ad1 l"1xd4 2 0 . l"1xd4 'tt> e 7 2 1 . �e2 t Ponomariov - Bareev, Cap d'Agde 2 003. 14.t2Jxf6+ .ixf6 15 ..ie2 (It is 92

9 ee2

�d7 1 0 .hd7+ exd7 11.

..•

It is somewhat depressing for White to continue with 11.0-0 cxd4 12 .hf6 gxf6 13.�xd4 �xd4 14.t2Jxd4 0-0-0 15.l"1fd1 �c5 16. t2Je2 'tt> c 7 17.g3 Wc6 and Black equalizes easily, Leko - Shirov, Linares 2001.

11

.•.

.ie7 12. 0 - 0 - 0

Or 12 .dxc5 0-0 13.0-0 hc5 14.l"1ad1 �c7 15.hf6 gxf6 16.l"1d3 l"1fd8 17.l"1fd1 l"1xd3 18.l"1xd3 l"1d8 19.t2Je1 l"1xd3 2 0 .t2Jxd3 �d6= Ga­ shimov - Ivanchuk, Dagomys 20 0 8 .

12

..•

0 - 0 13.dxc5

In reply to the risky move 13. g4, I very much like this reaction

3Jijd2 de 4. liJxe4 liJ d7 5. liJ.f.3 liJgf6 6. §J.g5 h6 7. liJxf6 liJxf6 8. §J.h4 c5 by an experienced long-time sup­ porter of the French defence 13 . . . liJdS (After 13 . . . g5? ! 14.§J.g3 �dS 15.c4 �e4 16.�xe4 liJxe4 17.d5 l'l:ad8 18.l'l:he1 liJxg3 19.hxg3 White had some pressure in the game Amonatov - Roiz, Dagomys 2008.) 14.he7 �xe7 15.Wb1 bS 16.dxc5 �xeS 17.liJeS l'l:ad8 18. liJd3 �c4 and Black obtained an excellent position, Chandler - Va­ ganian, Germany 1996.

23. Wxd1 - 23.�xd1 �gS ! - 23 . . . �b4 24.�d2 and White will grad­ ually consolidate his position, re­ taining an extra piece. ) 2 1.�d3 l'!ac8 22J;d2 �h8. Now White he is forced to repeat moves, be­ cause of the threat of his knight being trapped. 23.�b3 �e4+

24.�e3 �b4 25.�b3 �e4+ 26. �e3 = e) 9.c3 cxd4 1 0 . ll:lxd4

13 .. .'�c6 14.li'le5 �xc5 15. i.xf6 i.xf6 16A'ld7

1 0 . . . §J.c5! 16

.••

hb2 +

This i s a contemporary practi­ cal approach in action - Black is willing to draw. (Incidentally, he would not have any serious prob­ lems after 16 . . . �g5+ ! ? 17.Wb1 E:fd8 either.) 17.mxb2 �b4+ 18. �cl �a3 + . White cannot be hap­ py with the position he gets if he avoids the repetition of moves. For example: 19.�d2 l'!fd8 2 0 . mel �a4 ! and White's knight is in trouble. (Things are less clear after 20 . . . l'l:ac8 2l.l'l:d3 �xa2 2 2 .c4 �b1 + 2 3.�d1 �b4+ 24.�d2 �b1= ; 21.f3 �e7 2 2 . liJeS l'l:xd1+

Black is trying to equalize im­ mediately with this move. This is an ambitious approach !

ll . .ib5+ .id7 12 .hf6 It is also interesting for White to try the new move here 1 2 . �e2 ! ? a 6 (The idea i s to counter 1 2 . . . hd4 with 13.0-0- 0 ! hbS 14. �xbS+ �d7 15.�xd7+ liJxd7 16. l'l:xd4 f6 17.l'l:c4 Wd8 18.§J.g3 l'l:c8 19.l'l:a4 a6 2 0 . l'l:b4 b6 2 1 . l'l:d 1 and Black had a hard task to equalize in the game Sutovsky - Meier, Porto Carras 2 011) 13.hd7+ (It would not be good for White to play 13.liJxe6 hbS 14.liJxd8+ he2 1S.liJxb7 l'l:b8 16.liJxc5 l'l:xb2 93

Chapter 15 17.e8 19. gxd4 gxd4 2 0 .cxd4 gds 21. gdl f!e7 22.f!a4+ lt>f8 23. \Wxa7. White has won some mate­ •••

It looks as though White is about to punish his opponent, but things are far from simple.

14. 0 - 0 94

rial, but he will not manage to

3. 4J d2 de 4.Ci'Jxe4 4J d7 5. 4Jj3 4Jgf6 6. �g5 h6 7. 4Jxf6 4Jxf6 8 . � h4 c5 convert it into a full point. 23 �b4 24.b3 @g8. In general,

•..

Black can survive by doing noth­ ing, thanks to White's queen be­ ing out of play on the a7-square. If he wishes however, he can force the issue. 25.h3 (25 .g3 e5=) 25 . .•

b6 26.E:cl �xd4= f) 9.�e2 ! ? 4Jd5 14.�f3 4Jf4 15.E\d2 g 5 16.�g3 0-0-0=

12

E:c8 13. 0 - 0 - 0 a6

..•

This move is imprecise and in­ stead he could have tried the more flexible line: 13 . . . �c5 ! ? 14.4Jd6+ �xd6 15J�lxd6 g5 16.�g3 4Je4=

14. c!Dd6+ hd6 15.E:xd6 g5 16 . .ig3 c!De4 17.E:d4 (Thanks to

This i s a clever move. White's bishop is eyeing the f3-square.

9

•..

cxd4 1 0 .�xd4

10.4Jxd4 �e7 (10 . . . �c5 ! ? 11. 4Jb3 �d6 12.0-0 Wffc 7= ) 11.0-0 0-0 12 .c3 e5 13.4Jf3 Wff c 7 14J'l:el E:d8 15.Wic2 e4 16.�xf6 hf6 17. Wixe4 and White ended up with an extra pawn in the game Fressinet - Moreno Carnero, Sanxenxo 2 004.

Black's 13th move, White could have tried 17.E\b6 ! ? Black proba­ bly equalizes anyway, but he would have more problems to solve in that line.) 17 c!Dxg3 . .•

18.hxg3 @e7 19.�f.3 E:c7 2 0 . a4 e5 21.E:b4 a5 22.E:xb7 E:xb7 23. hb7 ha4 24.g4= A.Galkin Bareev, Tomsk 2001.

10 ... Wffxd4 ll..!Dxd4 �d7 (diagram)

12 .!Db5 •

White can check with this move whether he has the edge, or not. If he plays routinely, he cannot obtain any advantage : 1 2 . 0-0-0 �c5 13.E\d3 (13.�f3 0-0-0=) 13 . . . 95

Chapter 15 It seems to me that if White wishes to bring about a long and hard struggle, he should choose this move.

9 . . . cxd4 9 . . . �a5+ ! ? Alexander Morozevich is reluctant to follow well-trodden paths. 10 .c3 cxd4 11.l2Jxd4 id7 1 2 . 0 - 0 id6 (Black managed to equalize even after the more passive line : 12 . . . ie7 13. Ele1 0-0 14.ig3 Elfd8 15.ic2 Eiac8 and the opponents agreed to a draw, Sutovsky - Roiz, Netanya 2 0 09 . ) 13.�f3 �h5 14.�xh5 t2Jxh5 15.f3 l2Jf4 16.ie4 ic5 17.if2 hd4 18 .hd4 t2Je2+ 19. i>f2 t2Jxd4 2 0 . cxd4 c±>e7= Nepomniachtchi Morozevich, Moscow 2011. In this position we shall ana­ lyze the moves: g1) 1 0 . �xd4 and

g2) 1 0 . 0 - 0 .

g1) 1 0 .�xd4 ic5 Black has a good alternative here - 10 . . . ie7! ?

slow, for him to play 11.l2Jf3 0-0 12 .�d2 b6 13.0-0-0 ib7 14.l2Je5 (Or 14.Elhe1 ie7 15.l2Je5 l2Jd5 16.he7 �xe7 17.a3 Elad8 18.f4 l2Jf6 19.c4 �c7= Morozevich Pelletier, Biel 2 0 0 6 . ) 14 . . . ie7 15.a3 l2Jd5 16.he7 �xe7 17.f4 Eiac8 18.Elhf1 �c7 19.g4 g5 ! This is an important resource. 20.h4 t2Jxf4 21.hxg5 �xeS 2 2 .Elxf4 �xg5 and Black ends up with an extra pawn, but he is unlikely to be able to exploit it, Nepomniachtchi Erdos, Dresden 2 0 07.

ll ... ie7 12.�e2 id7 Black should refrain from experimenting with 12 . . . �d5 ? ! 13. f3 id7 14.0-0-0 �c6 15.i>b1 �a4 16.c4 Elc8 17.Eld2 b5 18.hf6 ixf6 19.cxb5 c±>e7 2 0 . Elhd1 Elhd8 2 1.Elc2 Elxc2 2 2 .�xc2 ie5 2 3.ie2 hh2 24.Eld4 and suddenly Black's queen was trapped in the game Huebner - Korchnoi, Switzerland 1998.

13. 0 - 0 - 0 �b6 14.�d2 0 - 0 15.�c4 \Wc5 16.�e5 .ic6 17.�xc6

11.�b3 White is fighting for a tempo. It is more natural, but too 96

17 . . . bxc6 ! This is a very smart move. Af-

3Ji'Jd2 de 4 . CiJxe4 11J d7 5. 11Jf.3 11Jgf6 6. iJ.g5 h6 7. 11Jxf6 11Jxf6 8. iJ.h4 cS ter White has castled long, this pawn-structure is in Black's fa­ vour, because he has the open b­ file and an excellently centralized knight on d5. 18.c3 gfd8 19 . .ic2 tlJd5 2 0 .he7 Wfxe7 and Black has a wonderful position, Jako­ venko - M.Gurevich, Batumi 2002.

g2) 1 0 . 0 - 0 ! ?

This is an interesting move or­ der, used regularly by GM Emil Sutovsky. White wishes to avoid the variation with 10 . . . ic5, which arises if he captures the pawn im­ mediately. Of course, Black can counter this with a ruse of his own -

1 0 . . . .id7!? This is an interesting move. al­ though slightly strange-looking. The attempt to hold on to the pawn would be too risky for Black: 10 . . . ic5 ll.Wfe2 0-0 12.1��fe 5 and obviously he would have to give up the extra material in order to avoid the worst. 12 . . . ie7 13.ig3

1M'b6 14.1Mixd4 1Mixd4 15.11Jxd4 with a slight edge for White. It would be inferior for White to choose 14.11Jxd4, because of 14 . . . 11J d7 ! ? 15.1Mie4 (15.1M'e3 ig5 ! ) 1 5 . . . 11Jf6 = Black can also transpose t o the variation with 11Jxd4 ie7 - 10 . . . ie7 ! ? 11.11Jxd4 0 - 0 12.c3 1Mib6 13. 1Mie2 id7 14J:'!adl E1fd8 15.ibl ia4 16.:1'1d3 :1'1d5 17.:1'1e3 .ib5 18.11Jxb5 E1xb5 19.b3 :1'1d5= Amonatov - Na­ jer, Zvenigorod 2008.

11.1M'e2 The rather romantic-looking line 11.11Je5 .id6 12 .1M'e2 .ic6 13.f4 0-0 would not yield any benefit to White. Black can counter 11. 1M'e2 with ll ... ic6. If 11.11Jxd4 1Mfb6 ! ? (Here he can also try ll . . . .ic5 12.11Jf3 .id6 with similar ideas.) 12 .c3 (After 12.11Jf3 .id6, Black obtains an excellent position.) 12 . . . .ic5 (It is rather passive for Black to play 12 . . . .id6 13. :1'1el 0-0-0 14.1Mif3i and White seizes the initiative.) 13.11Jf3 .id6 14.1M'd2 1Mic7 and Black has suffi­ cient counter-chances.

ll . . . .ic6 12.tlJe5

97

Chapter 15

12

•..

.id6

After the superficial move 12 . . . fie7?, the author could have been punished for his inadequate prep­ aration in the opening. 13.f4 0-0 14.f5 exf5 15.Ei:xf5 'Wd6

16.l2Jxc6 (Black would have great problems after the move 16.Ei:afl±) 16 . . . bxc6 17.Ei:e1 .id8 18. 'Wf3 ltJdS 19 . .ig3 'Wd7 2 0 . .ie5 g6 21.'Wg3 .ic7 2 2 . Ei:xf7 'Wxf7 23.hg6 (diagram) and after overlooking the re­ source 23 . . . 'Wf6 ! , Black ended up in a very difficult endgame after

98

23 . . . 'Wf2 + 24.'Wxf2 Ei:xf2 25. �xf2 Ei:f8+ 26.�g3?, but then he struck lucky with the beautiful reply 26 . . . Ei:f6 ! Sutovsky - Vitiugov, Poiko­ vsky 2010.

13.f4 'Wc7 14 .if2 •

14 i.d5 15.�hl i.c5 16. i.b5+ �£8 17.i.d3 b6 18.l"lael h5 19 .ih4 l2Jg4 2 0 .ltlxg4 hxg4 21.'Wxg4 f5 22.'Wg3 �f7 23.i.g5 . • .

•

and in this position the players agreed to a draw, although it ap­ peared to me to be slightly better for Black, Sutovsky - Vorobiov, Moscow 2011.

Chapter 16

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJd2 dxe4 4.liJxe4 liJd7 5.liJf3 liJgf6 6.liJxf6+ liJxf6

This move has become popu­ lar lately, but Black has found an adequate response.

7 b6 ••.

Now we shall analyze White's four possibilities to avoid the main line: a) 7.g3, b) 7 . .id3, c) 7.i.e2 and d) 7.i.e3. For 7.i.gS h6 - see 6.i.gS h6 7.'Llxf6 'Llxf6. If 7.i.c4 Black's simplest re­ action is 7 . . . i.e7 (It is riskier to play 7 . . . cS 8.i.e3 cxd4 9.i.xd4 Wic7 10 .Wie2 i.cS 11.i.eS i.b4+ 1 2 . c3 i.d6 13.i.bS+ i.d7 14.0-0-0 i.xeS 1S.'LlxeS 0-0-0 16.i.c4 ! and White had strong pressure in the game Milos - Vitiugov, Khanty­ Mansiysk 2009.) 8.0-0 0-0 9 . Wie2 b6 10J'ld1 i.b7 ll.c3 Wic8 12 .i.gS cS 13.'LleS Ei:d8 14.f4 .idS 1S.i.d3 Wic7= Bindrich - Meier, Moscow 2 0 0 8 .

a) 7.g3

This is his strongest and most natural reply. If 7 . . . cS 8 .i.g2 cxd4 9.Wixd4 Wixd4 10.'Llxd4 a6 11.i.f4 'LldS 1 2 . i.d2 b S 13.a4 b 4 14.'Llc6 a S 1S.c4 bxc3 16.bxc3 i.b7 17.'Lld4 i.a6 18. 'LlbS with some pressure for White, Alekseev - Pridorozhni, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 0 9 .

8.i.b5+ This is a very unpleasant sur­ prise for Black! It turns out that White was just waiting for this weak­ ening of his opponent's position. After the routine move 8 .i.g2 , Black can equalize i n a n interest99

Chapter 16 ing fashion : 8 . . . i.b7 9.0-0 i.e7 10 .c4 0-0 11.b3 aS ! 12 .i.b2 a4 13. �e2 fi:a6 14.fi:fd1 fi:e8 1S.i.c3 l2Je4 16 .i.e1 axb3 17.axb3 fi:xa1 18.fi:xa1 i.f6 19.fi:d1 �a8 = Shirov - Anand, Mainz 2 004.

8

..•

i.d7 9 . .ie2

9. a4 a6 10 .i.e2 i.c6 11.0-0 i.d6 (Here Black could have tried 11. . .i.e7 12.tLleS i.b7, making use of the presence of the pawns on a4 and a6; otherwise in this position White would have a check from the bS-square.) 12 .tLleS heS 13. dxeS �dS 14.�xdS tLlxdS 1S.aS bS 16.i.d2 0-0-0 17.fi:fd1 fi:d7 18.f3 Ei:hd8 19.1t>f2 l2Je7 2 0.i.gS fi:xd1 21.fi:xd1 fi:xd1 2 2 .hd1 tLlg6 23.f4 h6 24.i.h4 l2Jxh4 (Black could have postponed the exchange of his knight.) 2S.gxh4 fS and it be­ came clear that there was a for­ tress on the board, Morozevich Pelletier, Biel 2 011.

l2Jxd7 14.i.d3 fi:d8 1S. O - O l2Jf6 16. i.f4± with a clear advantage to White, Sjugirov - Timofeev, Ir­ kutsk 2 0 1 0 .

1 0 . 0 - 0 .id6 After 10 . . . i.b7? ! 11.lLleS a6 12. c4 i.d6 13.i.f3 (13.�a4 + ! ?) 13 ... �c8 14.i.c6+ i.xc6 1S.l2Jxc6 0-0 16. �f3 fi:e8 17.i.gS l2Jd7 18 .fi:fe1 f6 19. i.e3, Black failed to obtain an ac­ ceptable position in the game Timo­ feev - Riazantsev, Ulan Ude 2009.

ll.tLle5 i.xe5 12.dxe5

Now, in most of the variations, there gradually arises an end­ game in which White has merely a symbolic edge. Black exchanges the heavy pieces along the d-file and builds a fortress.

12

9

•..

.ic6

9 . . . cS? ! - This opening experiment can hardly be described as a success, despite the fact that Black won the game. 10.tLleS cxd4 11. �xd4 i.cS 12 .�h4 �c7 13.l2Jxd7 100

•..

�xdl

Or 12 . . . �dS 13.�xdS tLlxdS 14. i.d2 aS 1S.f3 0-0-0 16.fi:fd1 h6 17.a3 l2Je7 18.1t>f2 fi:dS 19.f4 hS 2 0 .b3 Ei:hd8 2 1 .i.e1 fi:xd1 2 2 .fi:xd1 fi:xd1 23.hd1 g6 24.c4 lLlfS 2S.h3 i.e4 2 6.g4 hxg4 27.hxg4 l2Je7 28.1t>e3 i.h1 29.i.h4 lt>d7= Bolo­ gan - Laznicka, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 09 .

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.4'Jd2 de 4.4'Jxe4 4'Jd7 5.4'Jj3 4'Jgf6 6.4'Jxf6 4'Jxf6 13J�xd1 �d7 14.f4 0 - 0 - 0 15 .ie3 �b8 •

16.:!'\xdS + 16.�d3 �f3 17.:t!d2 �g4 18.c3 hS 19 .�fl :t!xd2 2 0 .�xd2 :t!d8 2 1 . �e3 4'Jc6 2 2 .h3 :t!d1 23.:t!xd1 hd1 24.�b5 �b7 25.�f2 a6 26.�f1 4'Je7 27.�g2+ �c8 28.�e1 �c2 29.�f3 g6 3 0 .�e2 aS 3l.c4 c5= Vachier Lagrave - Meier, Khanty-Mansi­ ysk 2 0 0 9 .

8. .ie3 ! ? This i s a sharp move. I f White wishes to bring about a sharper struggle in this position, this is how he should play. White does not achieve much with 8.dxc5 hc5 9 . 0 - 0 0-0 lO .�gS b6 11.'1We2 �b7 12 .:t!ad1 '!Wc7 13.hf6 gxf6 14.�e4 E1fd8 15. hb7 '!Wxb7 16.c3 '!Wc7 17.g3 :t!xd1 18.:t!xd1 :t!d8 19.4'Je1 :t!xd 1 2 0 .'1Wxd1 �e7 2 1 .4'Jg2, and the opponents agreed to a draw, Anand - Gel­ fand, Monte Carlo 2 0 07. It would be too cautious for White to continue with 8.0-0 cxd4 9.4'Jxd4 �cS

16...:!'\xdS 17.:Eid1 .ie4 18. :Eixd8 + @xd8 19.c3 �c6 2 0.h4 g6 2 1.g4 �e7 22.b4 �d5 23. .id2 f5 24.c4 �e7 25.g5 @d7= Vachier Lagrave - Meier, Khanty­ Mansiysk 2009.

b) 7. .id3 c5

1 0 . lt:lf3 (It is hardly any bet­ ter for him to play 10.�e3 �b6 ll.c3 eS - 11...0-0 ! ? - 12.4'Jc2 0-0 13 .�g5 h6 14.�h4 �g4 15.hf6 hd1 16.hd8 �xc2 17. �xc2 E1axd8 = Korneev - Mo­ rozevich, Elista 1997.) 10 . . . 0-0 ll.'!We2 b6 12 .�g5 �b7 13.:t!ad1 '!Wc7 14.hf6 gxf6 15.�e4 l"!fd8 16.c3 l"!ac8 17.a3 a6 18 .hb7 '!Wxb7 19.:t!d3 :t!xd3 2 0.'1Wxd3 �e7 2 1.:t!d1 :t!d8 2 2 .'1We2 :t!xd1 + 23. '!Wxd1 '!We4= Acs - Khalifman, Dubai 2 0 0 2 .

8 ...�c7 9.�e2 101

Chapter 16 18 .i.xh7+ ! rtJxh7 19.�hS+ rtJg8 2 0 .g6 fxg6 2 1.'2lxg6 �f6 2 2 .fS ! exfS 23J''lxfS+ - Spraggett - Po­ gorelov, Andorra 2 0 0 6 .

12..id4 tl:\f4 13.'11;V e4

9

.•.

i.e7

It seems too risky for Black to play 9 . . . a6, although in the follow­ ing games he obtained a good po­ sition after 10.0-0-0 (10.0-0 b6 ll.dxcS i.xcS 12 .i.xcS �xeS 13. �eS �xeS 14.l2lxeS rtJe7 1S.a4 ib7 16J''la3 aS 17.f4 g6= Caruana Pelletier, Biel 2 0 11) 10 . . . bS 11. dxcS i.xcS 12 .i.gS i.b7 13.'2leS i.d6 14.f4 ltJdS 1SJ�hfl 0 - 0 = Shirov Drozdovskij , Mainz 2 0 07.

Black also has counterplay af­ ter 13.�eS �xeS 14.l2lxeS f6 1S. l2lc4 Eld8 16.i.fl. White must play in this awkward fashion if he wishes to keep the extra material. 16 . . . eS 17.ie3 Elxd1+ 18.rtJxd1 ie6 19.'2laS b6 ! ?

13... tl:\xd3+ 14J:!xd3 f6

1 0. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 ll.dxc5 Black has temporarily sacri­ ficed a pawn and has gained the bishop-pair. The pawn wedge "f6eS" looks very logical and White's pieces are restricted in their mo­ bility, so Black might even gain an advantage.

15J'i:hdl

ll... tl:\d5 ! Black should avoid ll ... i.xcS 12 .i.xcS �xcS 13.'2leS �e7 14.f4 b6 1S.g4 i.b7 16.Elhf1 Elad8 17.gS l2ld7. White crowned his strategy with a crushing kingside attack 102

White has also tried 1S.Ele1 Ele8 ? ! (It is not very easy to under­ stand why Black did not play the natural move 1S . . . eS ! ?) 16.rtJb1 if8 17.'2ld2 �f7? 18.f4 Elb8 19. l2lc4 eS 2 0.'2ld6 i.xd6 2l.cxd6 g6 2 2 .Elg3? White overlooks an ele­ gant tactical shot. (He could have practically concluded the game by

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJd2 de 4.11Jxe4 11J d7 5.11Jf.3 11Jgf6 6.11Jxf6 11Jxf6 playing 2 2 .fxe5 ! �fS 23 .Wfe3 fxeS 24.�xa7±) 22 . . . �f5 23.Wfxf5 exf4 ! 24.�h1 fxg3 2S.Wfxf6 Wfxf6 26. �xf6 gxh2 27.\t>cl �e6 2 8 .�e7 �e8 29.�xh2 �8xe7 30.dxe7 �xe7= and after some wild complica­ tions the game ended in a draw, Sulskis - Roiz, Port Erin 2 007.

c) 7 .ie2 •

15... e5 16.Wfd5+ Black's task is simpler after 16.�e3 �e6 17.�3d2 Wfc8 18.h3 b6 19 .c6 and the opponents agreed to a draw in this rather complicated position, Volokitin - Roiz, Beer­ sheba 2 0 05.

16 \t>hS 18.he5 •..

17.4Jxe5

fxe5

This is a quiet move. White avoids critical theoretical debates, but still cherishes hopes of ob­ taining an opening advantage.

7

White has sacrificed a piece and it looks las though his initia­ tive is very powerful. However, Black can neutralize it with a se­ ries of precise moves.

18...Wfc6 19.�g3 Wfh6 + 2 0. gd2 .ie6 2 1.Wfxb7 .if6 22 ..ixf6 �xf6 23.�f3 �xf3 24.gxf3 gxf3 25.gxf3 lt>g8 26.a4 a5 and only Black can play for a win in this position, Volokitin - Lysyj , Moscow 2 007.

8

. ••

c5 8. 0 - 0

. ••

cxd4

Here Artyom Timofeev played another move, one which was not very well analyzed at the time : 8 . . . a6 ! ? 9 . a3 Wfc7 10.c4 �d7 11.dxc5 aS ! 12 .g3 .ixcS 13.�f4 Wfc8 14.4Je5 0-0 1S.�f3 �a6 16.b4 axb4 17. axb4 hb4 18.�b1 �b6 19 .�e3 �d6 2 0 .Wfc2 �cS= and Black equal­ ized, Lastin - Timofeev, Novo­ kuznetsk 2008.

103

Chapter 16 9.'!�'xd4 Strangely enough, the whole idea of White's set-up is based on this particular capture. White hopes to prevail in the endgame. He should refrain from 9. Lt:lxd4 fie7 10.fif3 0-0 11.1'1:e1 V!ffc 7 and Black has a good game.

9...'11b d4 1 0.Lt:lxd4 .id7

12....ia4!

The same position but with White's bishop on c4 can arise from the Tarrasch variation with 3 . . . c5 (see page 195, 10.V!ffxd4 V!ffxd4 ll.'Llxd4 fid7). We should analyze this possibility thorough­ ly, because the bishop on e2 has more prospects now. Black might encounter some problems in this seemingly harmless variation and these can be best illustrated by the follow­ ing game : 10 . . . fic5 1L'Llb3 fid6 12.fif3 0-0 13.'Lla5 1'1:b8 14.fie3 Lt:ld7 15.Lt:lc4 fic5 16.fif4 1'1:a8 17. 1'1:fd1 Lt:lb6 18.'Lla5 Lt:ld5 19.fig3 fib4 2 0 . 'Llb3 a5 2l.c4t with a pow­ erful queenside initiative for White, Volokitin - Lysyj , Sochi 2 007.

ll. .i£3 0 - 0 - 0 12. .if4 104

This standard manoeuvre is very strong here and was recom­ mended in the annotations of F.Bindrich. It would be too passive for Black to opt for 12 . . . Lt:le8 13.c4 fid6 14.fie3 Lt:lc7 15.1'1:ac1 fie5 16. b4 mb8 17.b5 fic8 18 .'Llb3 Lt:le8 19.1'1:fe1 f6 2 0 . a4 and White main­ tained the advantage in the game Vescovi - Seirawan, Istanbul 2000.

13.�adl In response to 13.'Llb3, Black should react simply with 13 . . . fie7. It is inferior for him to play 13 . . . fid6 ? ! 14.fixd6 1'1:xd6 15.fixb7+ xb7 16.'Llc5+ c6 17.Lt:lxa4 and he can hardly prove that his com­ pensation for the pawn is suffi­ cient. He cannot equalize after the rather strange knight manoeuvre - 13 . . . Lt:ld5 14.fig3 Lt:lb4 15.c3 'Llc6 16.1'1:fe1 - Black's bishop on a4 does not beautify his position.

13....ic5 14.lbb3 .ib6 15..ie5 .ic6! ? Black solves his problems in radical fashion, reducing White's queenside pressure by slightly

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.lbd2 de 4.lbxe4 4:Jd7 S.ltJfJ l2Jgf6 6.4:Jxj6 l2Jxf6 worsening his own pawn struc­ ture. Black will have dynamic fac­ tors on his side, though . . .

16.hc6 bxc6 1 7.h3 17.c4? .bf2 + ! and White ends up a pawn down.

17. . S�d5 and Black has a good position. It would also be interest­ ing for him to play the sharper line: 17 .. J=!xd1 ! ? 18J=!xd1 l2Je4 19. c;f;>fl l2Jxf2 2 0.Eid6 l2Je4 2 1 . Eixc6+ c;f;>d7 2 2 . Eic4 l2Jd6 with rather un­ clear consequences.

develop in similar fashion to the notes to White's ninth move in the variation 6 ..ig5 h6 7.4:Jxf6 l2Jxf6 8 . .ie3. It would be interesting to try here 8 . .id3 ! ? l2Jxe3 9.fxe3 .id6 (This is a new possibility, which has become possible thanks to the absence of Black's pawn on h6: 9 ... g6 ! ? 10 .�e2 .ig7 11.0-0-0 .id7 12 . .ie4 �e7 13.4:Je5 he5 14. dxe5 �c5 15.�f3 �xeS 16.hb7 Eld8 17.Eixd7 c;f;>xd7 18.�xf7+ c;f;>d6 19.l"i:d1+ c;f;>cs 2 0 .�e7+ c;f;>b6 2 1 . Elxd8 Elxd8= Aroshidze - Rozen­ talis, Kavala 2006.) 10 .e4 c5 ! ? ( 1 0 . . . e5? ! 11.dxe5 .ic5 12 . .ib5+ c6 13 .�xd8+ c;f;>xd8 14 ..ic4 c;f;>e7 15.c3 and the endgame will be difficult for Black without the pawn on h6), playing by analogy with vari­ ation c (Chapter 14).

8...c5

d) 7. .ie3 ttld5

9..ib5+

8 .id2 •

Or 8.�d2 .ib4 ! and events will

9.4:Je5 ! ? - This aggressive move is playable. 9 . . . a6 (Black should avoid 9 . . . .id6 10 . .ib5+ c;f;>f8 11.�f3 f6 12 .c3 cxd4 13.cxd4 and he is clearly worse.) 10.c3

105

Chapter 16

1 0 . . . .td6 (It is inferior to opt for 10 . . . cxd4?! 1l.�a4+ .td7 1 2 . �xd4 .tb5 13.c4 'Ll b 4 14.�c3 ! and Black has obvious difficulties, while if 10 . . . b5 White can play 11. a4. ) 1l.�a4+ rJJe 7 (ll . . .rJJf8 !?) 1 2 . �d1 cxd4 13.cxd4 �xeS ( It i s well worth considering 13 .. .f6 ! ? 14. 'Ll c4 �c7 and Black's position is quite acceptable with the pawn barrier on the sixth rank.) 14.dxe5 �b6 15.�c4 �d7 16.0-0 �b5 17.b3 Ei:hc8 18.�g4 rJJf8 19.hd5 �xf1 2 0 . �b4+ �xb4 2 1 .hb4+ rJJe 8 2 2 . hb7 �b5 23.ha8 Ei:xa8 24.Ei:cl± and White ends up with a solid extra pawn in the endgame, Ad­ ams - Meier, Liverpool 2008. 9 . dxc5. At first sight, this move looks like a result of a bad home preparation, or even a complete absence of any such. However, things are far from clear. 9 . . . hc5 10 .�d3 �c7 1l.�e2

106

11. . . 0 - 0 ! ? 12 . 0-0-0 (Or 1 2 . 0-0 b6? ! 13.c4 'Llf6 14.�c3 �b7 15.Ei:ad1 Ei:ad8 16.'Lle5 with some pressure for White; 12 . . . 'Llf4 13. hf4 �xf4 and he is unlikely to obtain any advantage without his dark-squared bishop.) 12 . . . 'Llf4 (I believe that Black should consider here 12 . . . a5 ! ?, or even the more desperate move 12 . . . b5.) 13.hf4 �xf4+ 14.rJJb 1 f6 15.�c4 rJJh 8 16.he6 he6 17.�xe6 hf2 18. Ei:hfl Ei:ad8 19.Ei:d7 Ei:fe8 2 0 .�e7+ ­ Nijboer - Dambacher, Hilversum 2 007. Black plays 11.. .�d7 much more often here.

It would be imprecise for White to reply with 12.0-0, be­ cause of 12 . . . �d6 13.c4 'Llf4 14. �xf4 h£4 15.g3 �d6 16.Ei:fd1 Ei:d8 17.Ei:ac1 �c6 18.�e4 0-0 19.c5= Quezada Perez - Nogueiras San­ tiago, Havana 2 0 0 8 , or even the rather cheeky line : 12 . . . 'Llf4 13. hf4 �xf4 14.g3 �c7 15.'Lle5 �c6 16.'Llxc6 bxc6 17.�e4 �e7 18.�c4 Ei:c8 19.Ei:ad1 0-0 2 0 . Ei:d3 Ei:fd8 2 1 . Ei:fd1 g 6 2 2 .b4 Ei:xd3 23.Ei:xd3 c5 24.b5 Ei:d8= N.Guliyev - Meier, Germany 2 007. The move 1 2.0-0-0 enables

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jfjd2 de 4.tiJxe4 CiJd7 5. CiJj3 CiJgf6 6.CiJxf6 CiJxf6 Black to equalize immediately with the simple line : 12 . . . CiJf4 13 . .b:f4 �xf4+ 14J�d2 0-0-0 15.i.e4 @b8 16.g3 �c7 17J':\hd1 i.c8 18. Ei:xd8 Ei:xd8 19.Ei:xd8 �xd8= Stell­ wagen - Meier, Yerevan 2 0 07. Or 12.CiJe5 0-0 13 . 0 - 0 Ei:ad8 (But not 13 . . . i.d4?? 14.�e4 and Black had to resign, Fressinet N.Guliyev, Ajaccio 2 0 07.) 14.Ei:adl (It would be a mistake for White to try to obtain the bishop pair in this particular case : 14. CiJxd7 Ei:xd7 15.g3 �b6 16.Ei:ab1 Ei:fd8 = . Black's powerful centralized pieces guarantee that he will have no problems at all. ) 14 . . . i.c8 and Black should equalize gradu­ ally.

10 ...�xd7 11.c4 �b6 12.l"kl

12 .. f6 ! ? .

Black exploits the absence o f a pawn on h6. 12 ... i.e7 13.dxc5 .b:cS 14.b4 i.e7 15.c5 CiJdS 16.CiJe5 �c7 17. �a4+ @f8

9 . . . .id7

1 0 . .ixd7+ If 10 .�e 2, White more or less gives up the idea of obtaining the advantage - 10 . . . cxd4 ll.CiJeS CiJf6 12.0-0-0 a6 13 . .b:d7+ CiJxd7 14. Ei:he1 (14.i.f4 CiJf6 15.CiJf3 �dS 16. @b1 �e4 = ) 14 . . . CiJxe5 15.�xe5 �d6 16.i.f4 Ei:d8 17.�xd6 .b:d6 18. Ei:xd4 .b:f4+ 19.Ei:xf4= Adams Mamedyarov, Baku 2 0 0 8 .

and now: 18.CiJf3 hS ! This move is an im­ portant part of Black's plan - he wants to activate his king's rook. 19.0-0 (White can halt the march of his opponent's rook-pawn, but obviously he should not do so: 19.h4 g6 2 0 . 0 - 0 @g7 and Black's position is acceptable.) 19 . . . h4 2 0 . h 3 Ei:hS 21.Ei:fe1 a 6 2 2 .Ei:e4 Ei:c8 2 3 . �d1 �d8 24.�e2 @g8 25.Ei:cc4 g6 26.i.c1 aS 2 7.a3 axb4 28.axb4 Ei:a8 2 9.i.b2 Ei:a2 3 0.Ei:c2 Ei:xb2 ! = Jako107

Chapter 16 venko - lonov, Dagomys 2 0 0 9 ; 18.'2ld3 (Here, with a pawn on h6, Black would have the impor­ tant resource 18 . . . �g5 ! , but he cannot play that here and so his position is worse.) 18 . . . a6 19.0-0 �d8 2 0 .Wb3 h5 2 l.a4 h4 2 2 .h3 �h5 23 .b5 and White's pawns were advancing to promotion rather quickly, Karjakin - Nav­ ara, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009. It would be tremendously risky for Black to play 12 . . . cxd4 ? ! 13.c5 '2ld5 14.'2le5 Wb5

15.Wf3 (The position remains quite unclear after 15.b4 'Llxb4 16.Wf3? ! 0-0-0 17.a4 Wxa4 18. 0- 0�; 16 . . .f6 17.a4 Wa6 18.hb4 fxe5 19 .Wh5+ g6 2 0 .Wxe5 �g8 = ; 16.Wb3 aS 17.a3 hc5 18.f4 0-0 19.axb4 hb4 2 0 . mf2 and al­ though White has an extra piece, Black's four pawns seem to be suf­ ficient compensation. White achieves nothing much after 15.a4 Wxb2 16.0-0 �e7 17.�b1 Wa3 18. Wg4 �f6 19.Wxd4 b6 ! and Black is not at all worse. ) 15 . . .f5 16.a4! This powerful move guarantees a long-lasting initiative for White. (The game would be much sharp­ er after 16.Wh5+ g6 17.'2lxg6 hxg6 108

18.Wxh8 '2lb4 19.hb4 Wxb4 20.mfl Wb5 2l.mg1 Wxb2 2 2 .�e1 0-0-0� 12 ... �c8. Black puts up a fight for every square in the opening.

Now: Black can withstand his oppo­ nent's pressure after 13.0-0 cxd4 14.'2le5 Wd8 (It would be more ac­ curate for him to play 14 . . . Wc7 ! ? 15.�e1 'Ll d 7 16.�f4 �d6 17.Wxd4 he5 18 .he5 'Llxe5=, while if 15. �f4 Black can play 15 . . . Wd8.) 15. Wb3 (White has a powerful alter­ native here - 15.Wh5 Wf6 16.�fe1 �e7 17.c5 '2ld5 18.We2 ! and he wins material.) 15 . . . '2ld7 16.'2lf3 �c5 17.Wxb7 �b8 18.Wc6 �b6 19.Wa4 �xb2 2 0.�a5 Wc8 with an excel­ lent position for Black, Jakovenko - Mamedyarov, Dagomys 2 008. 13.dxc5 hc5 14.b4 �e7 15.c5 'Lld5 16.'2le5 Wc7 17.Wa4+ mf8 18.'2lc4 (After 18.'2ld3 ! ? White's far-advanced pawns might be­ come a powerful force in the near future.) 18 . . . a6 19.0-0 h5 2 0 .�fe1 h4 21.h3 �h5 2 2 .Wd1 g6 23.We2 �d8 - Black ended up with a per­ fectly satisfactory position after the opening, Motylev - Ding, Ji­ angsu Wuxi 2 0 0 8 .

13.dxc5 .bc5 14. 0- 0

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.{jj d2 de 4.{jjxe4 {jj d7 S.{jjj3 l:jj gf6 6.[jjxj6 l:jjxf6 14.b4 ii.e7 15.�b3 0-0 16.0-0 l'l:ac8 17.l'l:fd1 l'l:fd8 18.1J.e1 �a4= Bacrot - Meier, France 2 0 1 0 . (diagram)

14 . . . e5 14 . . . l'l:c8 - It is obvious that this is not the best square for this rook. 15.�e2 0-0 16.l'l:fd1 e5 17. ii.e3 �c6 18.1i.xc5 �xeS 19.{jj d 2. Black has some problems to wor­ ry about, Rasmussen - Meier, Co­ penhagen 20 10 .

15.�e2 0 - 0 16J3fdl ti'e7

and Black's queen's rook will go to the d-file.

109

Chapter 17

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltJd2 dxe4 4.ttJxe4 ttJd7 5.ttJf3 ttJgf6 6.ltJxf6+ ttJxf6 7.c3

eludes some personal element in the assessment of the situation. This is the case here - the White player has to decide what line he prefers in this particular position. Naturally this is the most logi­ cal move for Black, but sticking to chess logic often leads to terrible consequences.

8 .ll)e5 This is a safe and solid move yet it marks the beginning of a very aggressive plan, which in­ cludes queenside castling for White. Black is faced with a difficult choice - the immediate a) 7 c5 grants White a long-lasting initia­ tive, although it is the more prin­ cipled move, and the more relia­ ble; b) 7 . . . i.e7, which later on will probably turn out to be a tem­ po loss, since Black can hardly ever play the Rubinstein variation without the pawn advance c7-c5. .•.

a) 7

.•.

c5

It often happens that, when a player has a choice, he not only evaluates objectively what is hap­ pening on the board, but he in110

8

••.

a6

The variation with 7.c3 proba­ bly owes its popularity to the game below. It was played in a very principled encounter be­ tween "The Great" and "The Ter­ rible", so it acquired a label of quality and the inspired play of Garry Kimovich contributed greatly to its coming into fashion.

2.d4 d5 3JiJd2 de 4JiJxe4 liJ d7 5. liJ.f3 liJgf6 6. liJxf6 liJxf6 7.c3 c5 8 . . . liJd7? ! 9.�b5 �d6 10.\Wg4 lt>f8 11.0-0 liJxe5 12.dxe5 he5 13 .�g5 �f6 14.:1'1ad1 \Wc7 15.\Wh4 hg5 16. \Wxg5 f6 17.\WhS g6 18.\Wh6+ lt>f7 19 .:1'1d3 a6 20.:1'1h3 \We7 2 l.�d3 f5 2 2 .g4 ! and White prevailed in the ensuing struggle, Kasparov Ponomariov, Linares 2 0 0 2 .

9. .ie3

nieres sur Seine 2 0 06.) 12 .\Wxd7+ liJxd7 13. 0-0-0 cxd4 14.hd4 0-0-0 15.\t>c2 liJb8 16.�e2 liJc6 17.�b6 :1'1d6 18 .:1'1xd6 hd6 19.h4 h5 2 0 .b4 �c7 2 l.�c5 g6 2 2 .a4 aS 23.b5 liJe5 24.�d4 :1'1d8 25.b6 �d6 26.:1'1b1 liJc6 2 7.�e3 lt>d7 2 8.�b5 E1c8 29.:1'1d1 lt>e7 3 0 .�g5± A. Sokolov - Vaisser, Pau 2 0 0 8 .

9.�g5 - This move transposes to another variation. 9 . . . cxd4 10. \Wa4+ �d7 11 .\Wxd4 �b5 ! This idea belongs to Victor Lvovich Kor­ chnoi, who used it with the inclu­ sion of the moves h6 and �h4. It works perfectly here as well !

9...\Wc7 1 0.\Wa4+ This is just one of the ideas be­ hind White's seventh move.

In this position w e shall ana­ lyze two moves: al) ll.�b5 and

a2) 11. 0 - 0 - 0 . al) l l . .ib5 cxd4 12.hd7+ hd7 13.�xd4

lO

•••

ttJd7

Black continues in principled fashion. He would be clearly worse af­ ter 10 . . . �d7 1l.liJxd7 \Wxd7 (Or 1 1 . . .liJxd7 12 .g3 0-0-0 13.�g2 liJb6 14.\Wb3 liJd5 15.�g5 �e7 16.he7 liJxe7 17. 0-0 cxd4 18. cxd4 :1'1xd4 19.:1'1ac1 liJc6 2 0 .hc6 bxc6 2 1.:1'1c3 E1hd8 2 2 .\Wc2 :1'18d6 23.\Wxh7± Svidler - Vaisser, As-

13

. .•

�b5 ! ?

Black solves his problems i n a concrete fashion. 111

Chapter 17 A more conservative approach would be 13 .. .f6 14.li:Jxd7 �xd7 15. �xd7+ i>xd7 16.0-0-0+ i>c6 17. l'!d4 b5 18.l'!hd1 i.e7 19.l'!d7 l'!he8

pawn on b6 guarantees that White would not have risked much by continuing to play for a win. You can study this position by following the games between Dominguez and Nogueiras, played in the Capablanca Memo­ rial Tournaments. Judge for your­ selves - the quite principled Cu­ ban player defended it three times and it was only on the third occa­ sion that White managed to breach his opponent's defences ! 2 0 .b3 h5 21.h3 e5 2 2 .i>c2 aS 23.a4 bxa4 24.bxa4 i.f8 25.g4 hxg4 26. hxg4 l'!eb8 27.l'!f7 l'!b7 28.l'!xb7 i>xb7 29 .l'!b1+ i>c6 30.l'!b6+ i>d7 31.i>d3 and White went on to overcome Black's defensive for­ tress, L. Dominguez - Nogueiras Santiago, Havana 20 0 8.

14.a4 i.d6 (diagram)

15_.!ljxf7!? The alternative here is 15.axb5 i.xe5 16.�a4 0-0 17.b6 �e7 18. 0-0 l'!fd8 19.l'!fd1 g6 2 0 .g3 l'!ac8 2 1.l'!xd8+ E\xd8 2 2 .l'!d1 hS 23.h4 l'!xd1 + and the players agreed to a draw, D.Mastrovasilis - Meier, Kallithea 20 0 8 . However, the 112

15...i>xf7 16.axb5 axb5

17.i>e2! White must centralize his king most of all ! Black can counter 17.E\d1 with the automatic reply 17 . . . l'!hd8.

17..J!hd8 In the following encounter be­ tween two champions of this vari­ ation White prevailed: 17 . . . �c6. This is a clear loss of time. Black should have considered the idea of �c4 + , which would be more relevant than the pressure against the g2-pawn. 18.l'!hd1 l'!xa1 19. l'!xa1 b4 2 0 . E\d1 l'!d8

2.d4 dS 3J'ijd2 de 4.CiJxe4 liJd7 S. liJ.f3 liJgf6 6. liJxf6 liJxf6 7.c3 c5

And now: 2 l.�b6 �c4+ 2 2 .Wel i.c7 23. �xb7 :1'\xdl + 24.Wxdl bxc3 25.b3 �d5+ 26.�xd5 exd5 27.i.d4 i.xh2 28.g3 ! i.gl 29.We2 c2 3 0 .i.e3 We6 ! This is an important im­ provement by Meier on his game against Ragger. However, I should advise you to think twice before you decide to contest files with your king in this manner on a reg­ ular basis. (30 . . . d4? 3l .i.cl We6 3 2 . Wfl i.h2 33.Wg2 +- Ragger Meier, Rijeka 2010) 3l .Wfl i.h2 3 2 .g2 e5 33.xh2 e4 34.b4 d4 35.i.cl Wd3 36.b5 We2 37.b6 d3 38 .b7 d2 39.hd2 xd2 40. b8� cl� 4l.�f4+ dl 42 .�g4+ Wel 43 .�xg7 �c2 ! = Guseinov Meier, Marrakesh 2 0 1 0 . 21.'1Wh4 i.e7 2 2 .�f4+ W g 8 2 3 . :r"'xd8 + hd8 24.�xb4 �xg2 2 5 . �b5 ! This endgame looks only equal, but in fact it is rather un­ pleasant for Black. The game only confirmed this evaluation. 25 . . . �c6 26.�xc6 bxc6 27.b4 f7 2 8 . f3 i.f6 29.c4 g 6 30 .We4 i.g7 3 1 . b 5 cxb5 32 .cxb5+ - and t o hold this ending in a practical game would be extremely difficult, L. Dominguez - Meier, Havana

2 0 0 9 . However, Meier handled it in very principled fashion and managed to hold it: 2 8 . Wd3 i.e7 29. Wc4 e8 30 .i.c5 i.f6 3 l.i.d4 e5 32 . .ite3 e4 33.i.d4 i.h4 34.b5 d7 35.b6 g6 36.b4 c8 37.c4 iJ.e7+ 38.c5 g5 39.h3 h5 4 0.Wc4 g4 41.hxg4 hxg4 42 .i.e5 i.h4 43. i.g3 i.f6 44.i.f4 and the oppo­ nents repeated moves, Socko Meier, Lublin 2 0 1 0 .

18.gxa8 gxa8 It might look as if Black has simply lost a tempo, but this is not the case.

19.gdl ga6 19 . . ..ite7 2 0 .�f4+ i.f6 2 l.g4 :r"\a4 2 2 .�f3 :r"\a2 23 J!d2 b4 24. �xc6 bxc6 25.cxb4 :r"\xb 2 = lstra­ tescu - Meier, Antwerp 2 0 1 0 .

2 0 .b3 White is forced to play this move if he wants to play for a win; otherwise, Black will simply force a drawish endgame.

2 0 i.e7 21.�g4 �xc3 �h5+ m f8 23.�xh7 �xb3 �hs+ mf7 2s.�hs + mgs gd8+ .ixd8 27.�e8+ mh7 •••

22. 24. 26.

and White was unable to achieve more 113

Chapter 17 than a draw in the game Vachier Lagrave - Grachev, Dagomys 2 009 .

a2) 11. 0 - 0 - 0 This is the White's most ag­ gressive option.

ll

. .•

cxd4

Wf3 l'l:d6 23.h4 ! Wb8 24.ixc6 l'l:xc6 25.l'l:xc6 bxc6 26.h5 ! and the queen and pawn endgame was clearly better for White, who won it convincingly, Adams - Anand, Linares 2 0 0 2 .

13.Wfxd4 ic6 The ending is worse for Black after 13 . . . e5 14.Wb6 Wxb6 15.ixb6 l'l:c8 16.ie2 ic5 17.ixc5 l'l:xc5 18. if3 l'l:c7 19.l'l:d6 We7 2 0 .l'l:b6 l'l:b8 2l.l'l:e1 f6 2 2 .l'l:e4 l'l:c6 23 .l'l:eb4 l'l:xb6 24.l'l:xb6 ic8 25.a4± Gashi­ mov - Sumets, Cappelle Ia Grande 2 007.

12.lt:lxd7 White loses his advantage af­ ter 12 ..bd4? ! id6 13.lt'lxd7 ixd7 14.Wc4 Wxc4 15.ixc4 l'l:c8 16.ib3 ic6 17.f3 0-0= Nepomniachtchi - Vitiugov, Serpukhov 2 0 0 8 .

12... hd7 If White plays precisely, he will be able to prove an advantage after 12 . . . Wxd7 13.Wc2 icS 14. ixd4 ixd4 15.l'l:xd4 Wc7 (Black has also tried 15 . . . Wc6 16.f4 White would maintain a powerful initiative after 16 .id3 ! - 16 . . . b5 17.id3 ib7 18 .ie4 Wc7 19.Wb1 l'l:d8 2 0 .l'l:xd8+ Wxd8 2 l.ixb7. Wxb7 2 2 .l'l:d1+ We7 23.Wd3 Wc6 24.Wg3 h6 ! = L.Dominguez - Dre­ ev, Tripoli 2 004.) 16.id3 id7 17. g3 h6 18 .l'l:d1 0-0-0 19.l'l:c4 ic6 2 0 .ie4 l'l:xd1+ 2 l.Wxd1 l'l:d8 2 2 . 114

14.ic4 If Black succeeds in develop­ ing his kingside he will not be worse at all, but at the moment he has obvious problems in accom­ plishing this.

14... l'l:d8 Black is almost lost after 14 . . . b5? ! 15.ib3 ixg2? 16.l'l:he1 if3 17.ig5 ! ixd1 18 .ixe6 fxe6 19. l'l:xe6+ ie7 2 0 .l'l:xe7+ Wxe7 21. ixe7 Wxe7 2 2 .Wxg7+ We6 23. Wxd1+- Baklan - Tratar, Trieste 2 0 07.

15.Wfg4 h5

2.d4 dS 3. Ci:Jd2 de 4. Ci:Jxe4 Ci:Jd7 5. Ci:Jj3 Ci:Jgf6 6. Ci:Jxf6 Ci:Jxf6 7. c3 c5 It would be a disaster for Black to opt for 1S . . . id7? 16.ib3 \WaS 17.igS l"lc8 18.l"lhel hS 19.he6 ! + ­ Karjakin - Rychagov, Sochi 2 0 07.

White loses his advantage af­ ter 18.if4? \Wxf4 + ! 19."\Wxf4 ih6=

18 .l:�h7 19.g3 ie7 2 0."\Wd4 •.

20 16.\Wg5 ! White continues to exert pres­ sure against his opponent's posi­ tion. Black's defence is much easier after 16.l"lxd8+ \Wxd8 17.\Wg3 iWd6 18.f4 h4 19.\Wg4 ie4 2 0 . l"ldl \Wc6 2 Lib3 ifS 2 2 .1Wf3 ie4 23.\Wf2 l"lhS 24.g4 hxg3 2S.hxg3 and White offered a draw, which was accepted, Anand - Bareev, Monte Carlo 2 0 04.

16

•.•

l::1xdl+

16 . . . l"ldS ! ? 17.l"lxdS ixdS 18. l"ldl g6 19.iWf6 l"lh7 2 0 .if3 ie7 21. \Wd4 hf3 2 2 .gxf3 h4 23.if4 "\Wc6 24.\WeS \Wc8 2S.iWe4 and here Black preferred to repeat moves, although he should have consid­ ered the possibility of fighting for a win with 2S . . . \Wc6 (2S . . . l"lhS ! ?) 26."\WeS \Wc8 27."\We4 \Wc6, draw, Kasimdzhanov - Meier, Sestao 2010.

17.l::1xdl g6 18JU6

.tf3

•••

Black's play provokes admira­ tion. It is evident that Georg Mei­ er has deeply studied and ana­ lyzed this variation. But not 2 0 ... h4 2 Lif4 WaS 2 2 ."\Wa7 @f8 23 .g4 with an initia­ tive for White.

21 .if4 •

Here it is possible that White should prefer 2 l .l"ld2 h4 2 2 ."\Wa7 \Wc8 2 3.ib3 l"lhS , with good chances of equalizing for Black.

21. 1Wc6 ••

Or 2 1 . . .'\WcS ! ? 2 2 .\Wd7+ @f8 23.l"ld4 bS 24.b4 (24.ixe6 fxe6 2S.id6 hd6 2 6.\Wd8+ lt1g7 27. l"lxd6 lf1h6 2 8 .1Wf8 + l"lg7 2 9 ."\Wh8+ l"lh7 30."\Wf8= ) 24 . . . "\Wc6 2S."\Wxc6 hc6 2 6.ib3 h4 27.g4 gS=

22.l::1 d2 h4 23.\We5?! @f8 24.\WbS + lt1g7 25 .ie5+ f6 26. \Wc7 @f7 27.\Wxc6 hc6 and •

Black was even better in this end­ game, Navara - Meier, Budva 2009.

llS

Chapter 17 b) 7...i.e7

dxe5 ltJxe5 2 2 . ltJxe5 and the oppo­ nents agreed to a draw, Grischuk - lvanchuk, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 1 . ) 9 .i.d3 0-0 10 .�c2 b6 11. i.g5 h6

8.i.d3 The rather bizarre move 8 . �a4+ implies that chess has evolved considerably.

However, I believe that White merely reduces his own possibili­ ties with this move: 8 . . . c6 (Alex­ ander Grischuk tried to resurrect this half-forgotten line at the re­ cent World Cup, but his opponent reacted to it quite creatively. That was hardly a surprise, though . . . 8 . . . i.d7 9.�b3 �c8 10.ltJe5 0-0 11.i.e2 !!d8 12.i.f3 !!b8 13.0-0 i.e8 14.i.f4 ttJd7 15.ltJd3 i.d6 16. i.g5 f6 17.i.e3 i.t7 18.!'1ad1 e5. It might seem paradoxical, but Black has almost equalized. 19. i.d5 hd5 2 0.�xd5+ �h8 21. 116

12 .h4 i.b7 13.!'1h3 c5. White's risky play has led to a situation in which he must attack, ignoring possible loss of material. 14. i.xh 6 ! ? This is the beginning of a series af forcing moves. 14 . . . c4 ! (It is bad for Black to respond with 14 . . . hf3? 15.!'1xf3 ? ! gxh6 16.!'1g3 + �h8 17.�d2 ltJg8 18.!'1xg8 + �xg8 19.�xh6 f5 2 0.i.c4 !!f6 2 1.he6+ !!xe6+ 2 2 .�xe6+ with advantage to White, Degraeve - Vaisser, Gonfreville 2006. It is even better for him to play 15.gxf3 ! gxh6 16. !!g3 + �h8 17.�d2 ltJg8 18.!'1xg8 + �xg8 19 .�xh6 f5 2 0 .�g6+ �h8 2 1.�e2 + - and the game is over, thanks to the open g-file.) 15. hg7 (White cannot be content with the line : 15.hc4 gxh6 16. !!g3+ �h8 17.�d2 ltJg8 18 .i.d3 f5 19.ltJe5 i.d6 ! and his pressure has been neutralized, while Black has retained the extra material. ) 15 . . . cxd3 16.�d2 �xg7 (Black's only alternative here is 16 . . . �d5 ! ? 17. i.x£8 �xf8 18 .�xd3 ltJh5 with

2.d4 d5 3. liJ d2 de 4.l!Jxe4 l!Jd7 5.l!Jj3 l!Jgf6 6. liJxf6 l!Jxf6 7.c3 ie7 good piece play. However, Black must keep in mind that his oppo­ nent has a material advantage and a quite serious one at that.) 17.�g3+ liJg4 18.�xg4+ Wh7 19. liJg5+ (It is scarcely better for White to opt for 19.�xd3 + f5 2 0 .liJg5+ hg5 2l.�xg5 �g8 2 2 . �h5+ Wg6 23 .g4 �d5 with a very sharp game. ) 19 . . . ixg5 2 0 . �xg5 ie4 ! This is Black's only possible reply, but it is satisfactory. (Not 20 . . . �h8? 2l.�xd3 + f5 2 2 .�g3 'it>h6 23.�g6+ 'it>h5 24.�g5+ wh6 25.�g7 and Black resigned, Moty­ lev - Roiz, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005.) 21 .�h5+ (2l.�f4 ig6 2 2 .h5 if5+) 2 l . . .Wg8 2 2 .�h6 f6 23.f3 if5 24.g4 �d6 ! This is the last dif­ ficult move. 25.gxf5 �g3 + 26. Wd2 �f2 + 27.Wxd3 �xf3 =

8

...

0-0

9.�c2 The overly routine move 9 . 0-0 would not give White any ad­ vantage : 9 . . . b6 1 0.�e2 ib7 1Lif4 c5 1 2 . dxc5 bxc5 13.�fd1 �b6 14. liJe5 �adS 15.ig3 ia8 16.liJg4 �c6 17.f3 liJd5 18.liJe5= A.Sokolov Dorfman, France 2 0 0 2 .

White would not change much with 9.ig5 h6 (9 . . . b6 ! ? ) 10.hf6 (10.h4 ! ?) 10 . . . ixf6 1l.�e2 �d5 ! Even Vladimir Kramnik failed to obtain any advantage with White from this position : 12 .h4 id7 13. ie4 �h5 14.0-0-0 ic6 15.Wb1 he4+ 16.�xe4 �d5 17.�he1 �xe4+ 18.�xe4= Kramnik - Ba­ reev, Cap d'Agde 2003. Maybe White can try to devel­ op his queen to a more ambitious square, but that is not going to radically change the evaluation of the position. 9.�e2 b6 10.ig5 (It is interesting to deploy this bish­ op to f4 : 10.if4 ib7 11.0-0-0 �c8 -here I should like to recom­ mend the advance of Black's rook's pawn. 11 . . . a5 ! ? - 1 2 .h4 c5 13.h5 cxd4 14.liJxd4 �d8 15.Wb1 �d5 16.�h3 id6 17.hd6 �xd6 18. g4 �d5 19.f4 h6 2 0 .�g1 �c5 2 1 . �e3 with a comfortable position for White, Timoscenko - Khol­ mov, Stary Smokovec 1996.) 10 . . . ib7 11.0-0-0 �d5 ! This i s a standard manoeuvre of Black's queen in this variation. 1 2 . Wb1 c5 13.ic2 (Or 13.c4 �d6 14.h4 cxd4 15.liJe5 ? ! liJd7 16.if4 if6 17.liJxd7 �xd7 18.ig5 �e7 19.f4 �fe8 2 0 . ie4 he4+ 2l.�xe4 �ad8 2 2 .�he1 h6 23.hf6 �xf6 and Black ended up with an extra pawn, Ibrayev Rychagov, St Petersburg 2 0 06.) 13 ... mds 14.h4 h6 15.c4 �d6 16. ie3 cxd4 17.�xd4 �c7 18.�hd1 e5 19 .�xd8+ �xd8 2 0.�xd8+ hd8 2 l.ic1 e4 2 2 .liJd2 e3 23 .fxe3 �g3 24.liJf3 �g4 25.id2 liJe4 26.ie1 if6� with excellent compensation 117

Chapter 17 for the pawn, Shirov - Bareev, Monte Carlo 2 0 04.

9...b6 1 0.i.g5 h6

13... �fd8 It is preferable for Black to play 13 . . . �xa2 14 . .bh6 �a1+ 15. md2 �a5 16.1e3 c5 with a very sharp game.

14.c!lJe5

ll.h4! ? White maintains his initiative. There was a recent game which continued ll ..bf6 i.xf6 1 2 .1e4 (White would not change much by inserting the check - 12 .1h7+ mh8 13 .1e4 l"lb8 14.0-0-0 1b7 15 . .bb7 l"lxb7 16.�e4 �d5 17. �xd5 exd5 18.l"lhe1 c6 19.mc2 mg8 20. lt:J e5 l"lc8 = Berelovich Totsky, Bucharest 1998.) 12 . . . l"lb8 13.0-0-0 1b7 14 . .bb7 l"lxb7 15. �e4 �d5 16.�xd5 exd5 17.l"lhe1 c6 18.lt:Je5 l"lc8 19. mc2 mf8 2 0 .lt:Jd3 l"le7 2l.l"lxe7 1xe7 2 2 .l"le1 1d6 = Ovetchkin - Mihajlovskij , S t Pe­ tersburg 2006.

11...1b7 12. 0 - 0 - 0 If 12. l"lh3 c5, there arises a transposition to the game Mo­ tylev - Roiz, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 05, which we analyzed in the note to White's eighth move.

12...�d5! 13.�h3 This is a bit too risky. It seems more natural for White to play 13. mb1 c5 with chances for both sides. 118

White continues with the same aggressive approach. However, after 14 . .bh6 ! gxh6 15.�d2 (After 15.lt:Je5 1f8 ! it is only a draw. ) Black must be very careful not to lose quickly. For example: 15 . . . 1d6 16.lt:Je5 ! ? mf8 17.�xh6+ me7 18.l"le1; 18.lt:Jg6 ! ? , or 15 . . . �h5 16. lt:J e5 1d6 17.1e2 �f5 18.�xh6 lt:Je4 19.f3 1f8 2 0 .�e3 lt:Jd6 21.h5t

14...hxg5 15.hxg5

15... �xg2 (There is no forced win for Black after 15 . . . lt:J d7 ! ? It appears that the best White can do then is to enter an endgame a pawn down. 16.mb1 .bg5 17.1c4 �xg2 18.l"lg3 �e4 19.l"lxg5 �xc2+ 2 0 . mxc2 lt:Jxe5 2l.l"lxe5+) 16.�g3 �h2 17.gxf6 h:f6 18.�e2 �h6+ 19.mbl c5 2 0.�el �d6 2 1.�g4 �h4 22.�e2?! and Black pre­ vailed in the ensuing struggle, Vachier Lagrave - Tratar, Herak­ lio 2 0 07.

Chapter 18

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)!jd2 dxe4 4)!jxe4 tt:Jd7 5.tt:Jf3 tt:Jgf6 6.i.d3

17.!'1hd1 c5 18.dxc5 E1xd3 19.tt:lxd3 �c6 2 0 .�xc6 Wxc6 21. tt:le5 Wxg2 2 2 . c6 ! + - b6 23.Wa3 he5 24. Wa6+ Galkin - Galavics, Ober­ wart 1999.

This is the most dynamic and aggressive approach. White is de­ veloping a fresh piece with his every move. Now Black must choose between : a) 6 .c!L1xe4 and ..

b) 6

. .•

c5. We shall now analyze : al)

9. .id3 and a2) 9.�6. a) 6. .t!L1xe4 .

This is more fashionable than 6 . . . c5.

7 .ixe4 ttJf6 8 .ig5 .

•

We shall analyze the routine move 8 .�d3 ? ! further on.

8...ffd6 Black might be totally squashed after 8 . . . �e7? ! 9 .�xf6 hf6 10 .ffd3 ! c6 11.0-0-0 �d7 12.ltJe5 g6 13. f4± ffe7 14.ffe3 0-0-0 15J=!d3 �e8 16.c4 ffc7

al) 9.�d3 This move involves more risk for both sides.

much

9 . ffb4+ 1 0.�d2 . .

White cannot count on any ad­ vantage after 10 .Wd2 Wxd 2 + (But not 10 . . . Wxb2?, because White develops his queen with tempo, and with disastrous consequences for his opponent. 11.0-0 �e7 1 2 . Wf4 Wb6 13.Wg3 c 5 14.!'1ab1 Wd8 119

Chapter 18 15.dxc5 hcS 16J'Ud1 fffe 7 17.i.b5+ 'tt> f8 18.l2Je5+- h6 19J�d7 hd7 2 0 . hf6 hf2 + 21.\Wxf2 gxf6 2 2 . l2Jxd7+ 'it>g7 23.1"1b3 1"1hd8 24. 1"1g3+ 'it>h8 25.ffff4 and Black terminated his resistance, Alek­ seev - lsmagambetov, Khanty­ Mansiysk 2 0 07.) 11.hd2 cS 1 2 . 0-0-0

This position needs further practical tests. It is obvious that White has excellent compensa­ tion, but it is not easy to tell whether it should be sufficient to claim an advantage. The game quoted below is at present the only practical example. 12 . . . i.d7? ! 13.dxc5 hcS 14. lLleS ! White obtains an edge with this strong move. 14 . . . a6 (Maybe Black should gobble a pawn, since after the move in the game he had to suffer, with nothing in return. 14 . . . i.xf2 ! ? 15.1"1hf1 i.cS 16.i.c3 and White has tremendous com­ pensation, while Black has almost no useful moves.) 15.f4 i.c8 16.a4 bS 17.a5 tLldS 18 .i.e4 i.b7 19.1"1he1 i.d6 2 0.h4 1"1b8 2 1.h5 heS 2 2 .fxe5 0 - 0 23.h6!± Rublevsky - Kosic, Budva 2 0 0 2 . I t i s stronger for Black t o go for concrete action. 12 . . . cxd4 ! 13. l2Jxd4 i.cS 14.if4 (It is no better for White to continue with 14.i.e3 id7 15.1"1he1 l2Jg4, because Black obtains at least an equal posi­ tion. ) 14 . . . l2Jd5 15.ib5+ id7 16. ixd7+ 'tt> x d7=

1 0 ... �xb2 11. 0 - 0 120

ll...fff a3 Black retreats his queen im­ mediately. ll . . . ie7 12.c4 cS

13.d5 ! This is a standard pro­ cedure for White. It is clear that Black will not capture this pawn on dS and so it is going to cramp his position considerably. 13 . . . 0-0 14.1"1e1 id7 1S.if4 1"1fe8 16.d6 idS 17.l2Je5 (It would be even stronger for White to play simply 17.1"1b1! \Wxa2 18.1"1xb7 ic6 19.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3Ji:Jd2 de 4Jijxe4 11Jd7 5.11Jj3 11Jgf6 6 . .id3 11Jxe4 l"lbl±) 17 . . .'�d4 18.'�d2 CiJhS 19. .ie4 ! ± .ia4 2 0 . .ixb7 l"lb8 2 1..ic6 Wxd2 2 2 .hd2 hc6 23.11Jxc6 l"lb7 24 . .ie3+ - l"ld7 25.hc5 .ib6 26 . .ia3 �h8 27.c5 l"lc8 28. 11J e5 1-0 Volokitin - Levin, Dagomys 2009.

a2) 9 .bf6 •

12.11Je5 12 .We2 ! ? Wd6 13 .c4 cS 14 . .ic3 .ie7 1S.d5 exdS 16 . .ie5 Wd8 17. hf6 gxf6 18.cxd5 .ig4 19.l"lab1 l"lb8 2 0 . l"lfelt N. Kosintseva - Za­ tonskih, Hangzhou 2011.

12

�d6

..•

White continues to rely on his quicker development.

9

gxf6 1 0.c3

.••

It is weaker for him to play 10 .�e2 .id7 11.0-0-0 (ll.hb7?? Wb4-+ ) 11 . . . 0-0-0 1 2 . �b1 .ig7 13.c3 fS 14.i.c2 .ic6 and Black has solved all his opening problems, Can - Maslak, Peterhof 2 0 06.

10 ... f5

13.i.e3 (It is also possible for White to follow Denis Yevseev's recommendation in "Fighting The French a new concept" 13 . .if4 ! ? Wd8 14.Wf3t) 1 3...i.e7 14.c4 c5 15. i.c2 0 - 0 16.�d3 g6 17. �ad1 �c7 18.�c3 b6 19.dxc5 bxc5 2 0 .i.f4! (White overlooked this possibility in the game, but he won the game anyway. 2 0 .i.h6 l"ld8 21. l"lxd8+ .ixd8 2 2 .l"ld1 .ib7 23.11Jg4 with wonderful compen­ sation for the sacrificed pawn, Kasparov - Anand, Kopavogur 2 0 0 0 . ) 2 0 �b6 21.�b1 �d8 22.ttJc6+- and it is all over. .••

ll..ic2 It is possible that White should seriously consider 11 . .id3 here. The following game illustrates this convincingly. 11 . . . .id7 12.11Je5 .ig7 13.11Jxd7 Wxd7 14.�e2 0-0-0 15. 0 - 0 cS 16 . .ib5 �c7 17.dxc5 121

Chapter 18 'l'@'xc5 18.a4 l"ld6 19.\Wh5 1'@'c7 2 0 .a5 a6 2l.�e2 bS 2 2 .l"la4 and White's initiative gives him prac­ tical chances, A.Timofeev - A. Ry­ chagov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007.

cupy a passive position. This is only temporary, though . . .

13

�e8

•••

ll... �d7 It is essential for Black to play his moves in the correct order: if ll . . . �g7? 12.\We 2 ! and he is in trouble. 12 ...�d7 (After 12 . . . 0-0 13. 0-0-0, White's attack against the enemy king will be decisive.) 13. h£5± 0-0-0 14.�c2 h5 15.0-0-0 �c6 16.�e4 \Wf4+ 17.4:ld2 �d5 18. b1 e5 19.1'@'e3 1'@'f6 2 0 . dxe5 1'@'xe5 21.1'@'f3 �e6? 2 2 .�xb7+ bs 23. �a6+- Alekseev - lsmagambe­ tov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 007.

14.�b3 It is very important that Black can counter 14. 0-0-0 with the double-attack 14 . . . \Wd5 ! , winning a pawn.

14

••.

�g7 15. 0 - 0 - 0

White would not achieve much with 15.f4 he5 16.fxe5 1'@'e7 17. 00-0 �c6= Gaponenko - Alexan­ drova, Germany 2 0 0 9 .

15 .ixe5 16.dxe5 'l'@'c5 17. gxd8+ xd8 18.gd1 + c;!?c8 •••

12.1'@'e2 1 2 .4:le5 �g7 13.f4. White's wish to avoid entering a position with bishops of opposite colours is un­ derstandable, but now Black equal­ izes easily. 13 . . . �xe5 14.fxe5 'l'@'d5 15.1'@'f3 �c6 16.\Wxd5 hd5 17. 0-0 e7 18 .�b3 �e4= Macieja - Ana­ stasian, Stepanakert 2 0 04.

12

•••

0 - 0 - 0 13.�e5

White exploits the possibility of forcing the enemy bishop to oc122

White's pieces seem to be very active, but the position is in fact equal.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJd2 de 4. CiJxe4 CiJ d7 5. CiJf3 CiJgf6 6. JJ.d3 c5 b) 6... c5

Black accomplishes all the main ideas of the Rubinstein vari­ ation, one after the other. As always in cases like this, it is essential to do things in the right order. He undermines his opponent's centre before ex­ changing a pair of knights . . .

7. 0 - 0 White should not go too far in his desire to develop all his pieces immediately. 7.YJ.g5 cxd4 8.CiJxd4 �aS+ (I think that the routine move 8 . . . YJ.e7 is weaker in this particular case : 9.�e2 CiJxe4 10. he7 �xe7 11.he4 0-0 12.0-0-0 CiJcS 13.f4 YJ.d7 14.YJ.f3 Elfd8 15.Eld2 CiJa4 16.Elhd1 �b4 17.c3 Eldc8 18.CiJc6 ! YJ.xc6 19.Eld8 +- Navara ­ Luther, Deizisau 2 005.) 9.YJ.d2 (White would not achieve any­ thing with 9.�d2 ? ! �e5 ! 10. CiJf3 CiJxe4 ll. CiJxeS CiJxd2 1 2 .CiJxd7 CiJf3 + ! 13. gxf3 hd7.) 9 . . . �e5 10. CiJf3 �xb2 11.0-0 §J.e7 1 2 .CiJxf6+ CiJxf6 with a complicated game. This position is similar to the game Kasparov - Anand, Kopa­ vogur 2 0 0 0 , which we analyzed

above. The difference is that here Black has already exchanged the d4-pawn and this will considera­ bly ease his defence.

7.. )2Jxe4 Black should not help his opponent to carry out his plans : 7 . . . cxd4? 8.CiJxd4 CiJxe4 (Black can also opt here for 8 . . . YJ.e7 9.c3 0-0 1 0 .�e2 CiJxe4 11.he4 �c7 12 .§J.c2 CiJf6, but equalizing com­ pletely would then be a hard task for him to accomplish. 13.YJ.g5 CiJdS 14.�e4 g6 1S.§J.h6 Ele8 16. YJ.b3 CiJf6 17.�f3 §J.d7 18.Elfe1 §J.c6 19.CiJxc6 �xc6 2 0 .�xc6 bxc6 and White maintained a comfortable edge in the endgame, Motylev Akopian, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.) 9.he4 CiJf6 10.§J.f3 JJ.e7 ll.YJ.f4 0-0

123

Chapter 18 12 .c3. Black already has some serious problems. 12 . . . a6 13.Eie1 Eia7 14.a4 i.d7 1S.Wfb3 Wc8 16.a5 i.cS 17.Eiad1 i.xd4 18.Eixd4 i.c6 19.Wfb6 ! ± with a great advantage for White, Alekseev - Mamedya­ rov, Moscow 2 0 0 8 .

2001. Black should have defended with ll . . . tt:lxe4 12.1�{ixe4 f6 ! 13.i.f4 i.e7 14.tt:lxd4 eS 15.he5 fxeS 16.Wxe5 i.d7 and White's attack would have been over before it had even started.) ll . . . gxf6

8. .ixe4 lt:!f6 9.i.g5 This is once again the right move. If he retreats the bishop, his hopes of obtaining an advan­ tage will evaporate.

9... cxd4

1 0.lt:!xd4 White can also try here the semi-gambit move 10 .Wfe2 , which Black should counter in an ag­ gressive and even greedy fashion. 10 . . . Wb6 ! (Black's problem is that playing in classical fashion would not work here : 10 . . . i.e7? ! ll.Eiad1 tt:lxe4 12.Eixd4 tt:lxgS 13.Eixd8 + hd8 14.tt:lxg5 hgS 15.Wb5 + - , or 12 . . . Wxd4 13.ltlxd4 tt:lxgS 14.h4±) 11.hf6 (White has also tried 11. Eifd1 i.cS? ! 12.hf6 gxf6 13.b4 Wxb4 14.:1�ab1 Wa4 1S.Wfd2 Wd7 16.c3 d3 17.Wfh6 �e7 18.Eixd3 Wfc7 19.Eibd1 with a decisive attack, Rublevsky - Kacheishvili, Ohrid 124

12 .Eiad1 i.g7 (It would be too risky for Black to play 12 . . . i.c5 be­ cause of 13.Eid3 ! , with a combined attack against the pawns on b7 and d4. ) 13.ltlxd4 0-0 14.c3 fS 1S.i.b1 Eid8 16.Eid3 i.d7 17.Eifd1 i.c6, and Black gradually neutral­ izes his opponent's lead in devel­ opment and equalizes, Saric Meier, Szeged 2 0 07. White's attempts to play in a sophisticated fashion with 12.Eifd1 would not guarantee him an ad­ vantage: 12 . . . i.g7 (For 12 . . . i.c5? ! 13.b4 see the game Rublevsky Kacheishvili, Ohrid 2 001 .) 13. tt:lxd4 0-0 14.c3 fS ! (14 ... i.d7? ! This move is a bit slow and White can now exert some pressure. 15. a4 a6 16.a5 Wc7 17.Wfh5 h6 18.Eid3 fS 19.i.f3 Eiad8 2 0.Eiad1 with an advantage for White, Shirov Gelfand, Monte Carlo 2 0 0 2 . ) 1S.i.d3 ( I t can only b e dangerous for White to try 1S.i.f3 ? ! e5 16.ltlb5 e4 17.i.h5 i.e6.) 1S . . . i.d7 16.a4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ d2 de 4.ti'lxe4 CiJd7 5.tiJj3 CiJgf6 6. JJ.d3 c5 :§fd8, with counterplay for Black.

1 0 . . . .ie7 It looks rather dubious to play 10 . . . h6?! ll . bf6 Wlxf6 12.'W!d3 a6 13 .:§ad1 .ie7 14.CiJc6 ! e5 15.CiJxe7 W!xe7 16.f4 exf4?? 17.hb7 and White won, Svidler - Bareev, Wijk aan Zee 2 004. .

ll ..i£3 0- 0

This position is very similar to the game Alekseev - Mamed­ yarov, for which see our notes to Black's seventh move. There is only one difference, but it is tre­ mendously important. White has had to develop his bishop to g5 rather than the f4-square, where it was much more functional. Here, White can choose be­ tween several attractive possibili­ ties. Among these, we shall con­ sider bl) 12.�el and b2) 12. Wld3. It would be too ambitious for White to opt for 12.c4 Wfc7 13.'W!c1 (The move 13.'W!e2 can be coun­ tered with the typical resource 13 . . . CiJg4 ! ) 13 . . . a6 14.:§e1 e5 15. CiJc2 �xc4 16.:§xe5 .ie6 = 17.CiJe3 �xc1+ 18.:§xc1 :§ac8 19.:§xc8 :§xeS 2 0 .hb7 :§b8 2 1.ha6 :§xb2 2 2 .a4

h6 23 . .ih4 :§b4 24 . .ig3 and the opponents agreed to a draw, hav­ ing exhausted all the resources of the position, Morozevich - Pelle­ tier, Biel 2 0 04. White sometimes tries 12 .c3 and it seems to me that Black should reply with the active and so far untested move - 12 . . . e5 ! (Or 12 . . . �c7!? 13 .:§e1 :§d8 14.Wle2 CiJd5 15.he7 CiJxe7 16.:§ad1 .id7 17.�e4 :§ab8 18 .g3 h6 19.h4 CiJd5 2 0 .�c2 CiJf6 2 1..ig2 .ie8 2 2 .'W!e2 Wlb6 2 3.:§d2 :§d6 24.:§ed1 :§bd8= Womacka - Drozdovskij, play­ chess.com 2 0 06.)

13.CiJb5 (This is the only way for White to create any problems for his opponent.) 13 . . . .ie6 14. �xd8 :§axd8 15.:§fd1 (Black should fear neither 15.CiJc7 .ic4 16.:§fd1 b6 17.b3 :§xd1 + 18.:§xd1 :§c8 ! 19.hf6 hf6 2 0.:§d7 :§d8 = ; nor 15.:§fe1 h6 ! 1 6 . .ih4 :§d2 with good counter chances. ) 15 . . . h6 16 ..ih4 g5 17 . .ig3 .ic4 18.:§e1 ! White has played quite concretely and appears to have gained an edge, but Black has a wonderful resource up his sleeve - 18 . . . e4 19.CiJd4 :§fe8 20.he4 .ia3 ! 2 1 . bxa3 CiJxe4= 125

Chapter 18 Kramnik tested here the inter­ esting line: 12.a4 ! ? a6 13.l"1e1 Wffc 7 14.c3 l"1e8 15.Wffb 3 l"1b8 16.g3 �d7 17.a5 �c5 18.l"1ad1 Wffxa5 19.�f4 hd4 2 0 .hb8 �xf2 + 2l.cJixf2 l"1xb8 2 2 .l"1d4 and White prevailed in the game Kramnik - Bareev, Monte Carlo 2005. It looks better for Black to play actively with 14 . . . l"1d8 ! ? 15.Wffd 2 ! (15.g3 tt:ld5 16.he7 tt:lxe7 17.Wffe 2 �d7=) 15 . . . �d7 16. �f4 (White can capture his oppo­ nent's bishop with 16.l2lf5, but this will not gain him any advan­ tage : 16 . . . �c6 17.tt:lxe7+ Wffx e7 18. Wfff4 hf3 19.Wffxf3 h6! Black repels his opponent's bishop from its wonderful square. 2 0.�h4 l"1d2 ! ; 2 0.�e3 l"1d5 = ) 1 6 . . . �d6 17.hd6 Wffx d6 with an approximately equal position.

bl) 12.l"1el �b6

13)L\b3 White is understandably re­ luctant to retreat from the centre, but in this case it is forced. The ultra-aggressive move 13. tt:lf5 led to a quick exhaustion of 126

the resources of the position after 13 . . . exf5 14.l"1xe7 tt:le4 ! = 15.�xe4 fxe4 16.Wffd5 Wffx b2 17.l"1cl �e6 18. Wffx e4 Wffx a2 19.Wffx b7 l"1ac8 2 0 . Wffx a7 l"1xc2 and the opponents agreed to a draw, Cheparinov Perez Garcia, Seville 2 0 04.

13 . . . l"1d8 14.�e2

14 . . . �d7 Black plays this with the al­ most stereotyped idea of exchang­ ing the light-squared bishops. It would be too risky to play 14 . . . a5 15.l"1adl! (It is less precise for White to play 15.�e3 Wffc 7 16.c4 �d7 17.�d4 a4 18 .�e5 �d6 19. hd6 Wffx d6 2 0 . l"1adl Wffb 6 21.tt:ld4 �e8 with an excellent game for Black, Shomoev - Bareev, play­ chess.com 2 0 04.) 15 . . . �d7 (After 15 . . . a4 16.�e3 Wffc 7 17.l"1xd8+ hd8 18.tt:ld4 �d7 19.a3 - Black's queenside has slightly weakened by the advance of his a-pawn.) 16.�e3 (It is stronger for White to play 16.Wffe3 ! Wffx e3 17.he3 �c6 18.�xc6 bxc6 19.l"1xd8 + �xd8 and he obtains a long-term advantage thanks to Black's devastated queenside.) 16 . . . Wff c 7 17.tt:ld4 �c5

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jijd2 de 4Jijxe4 CiJ d7 5.C!Jj3 C!Jgf6 6 . .id3 c5 18 .g3 .ie8 19.c3 h6 2 0 .CiJb5 .ixb5 21.�xd8 + �xd8 2 2 .'Wxb5 .ixe3 23.�xe3 b6= Robson - Meier, ICC 2008.

15 . .id2 That is the right way for White to create problems for his oppo­ nent.

15 . . . .ib4 It is premature for Black to play 15 . . . a5, because of 16.'We5 ! and Black has have problems.

16.c3 16 . .ie3 ? ! 'Wc7 17.c3 .id6=

16 ....id6 17.c4 a5

- 24.c6 'Wxd4 25.c7 'Wh4+ ! 2 6.@gl C!Jg4-+) 2 1 . . . .ib5 ! 2 2 . 'Wxb5 �xd2 23.C!Jc4 �xf2 24.'Wxb7. Here Black should place his rook in a defen­ sive position : 24 . . . �a7 ! ? (In the game after 24 .. J''1b 8 25.'Wxc7 .ixc7 26.@gl .ig3 2 7.c6 C!Je8 2 8.�edl? ! a3 29.bxa3 �xa2, he freed his rook and had a clear advantage, Ju. Polgar - van Wely, Hoogeveen 2 0 0 1 . However, the Dutch GM might have encountered difficul­ ties after 2 8 .�e3 ! ) 25.'Wxc7 hc7 2 6 . @gl .ig3 with a very interest­ ing struggle ahead. It looks very attractive for White to play 18.c5 ! ? , but fortu­ nately for Black he can just man­ age to neutralize White's assault. 18 . . ..ixc5 19.C!Jxc5 'Wxc5 2 0 .�acl (Naturally, the move 20 . .ixb7? ! was not why White sacrificed a pawn: 2 0 . . . �ab8 21.�ecl 'Wa7 2 2 . .if3 �xb2 2 3.'\Wel a4 and Black will manage to draw.)

18.l'�edl ! ? This has the idea o f placing the rooks on cl and dl, rather than dl and el. White can create wild compli­ cations with 18.�acl, but he might end up on the wrong side of them. 18 . . . a4 19 .c5 hh2 + 2 0 . @hl (Black obtains an excellent posi­ tion in the event of 2 0 . @xh2 'Wc7+ 2 1.g3 axb3 22 . .if4 'WeB 23. axb3 .ic6.) 2 0 . . . 'Wc7 21.CiJa5 (It would be disastrous for White to play 21.CiJd4? .if4 2 2 . hf4 'Wxf4 23. .ixb7 �ab8 - 23 . . . 'Wxd4? 24.�c4 !

2 0 . . . '\WfS (It would be tremen­ dously risky for Black to play 20 . . . 'We7? ! 2 1 .'We5 ! - 2 1.�c7? ! 'Wd6 2 2 . �xb7 .ic6= - 2 1 . . . .ic6 22 . .ixa5 �deS 23 .hc6 bxc6. Black's posi­ tion is strategically hopeless. Of course, he can still play for tricks, 127

Chapter 18 but that's down to the individual.) 21.hb7 :1l:ab8 2 2 .:1l:c7 ib5 23.ll>Jt'e3 :1l:d3 ! (Black cannot stop half-way, since that might lead to his swift demise. ) 24.ll>Jt'f4 (24.ll>Jt'a7 :1l:xb7! - + ) 24 . . . tLle8 25.ie4 (25. :1l:e7 :1l:xd2 ! 26.ll>Jt'xd2 ll>Jt'f6 and his position is slightly the more active after 27.:1l:xe8+ he8 28.if3 :1l:xb2 29.ll>Jt'xa5 ll>Jt'd4.) 25 . . . ll>Jt'xf4 26.hf4 ttJxc7 27.hc7 :1l:dd8= The straightforward move 18. :1l:ad1 enables Black to simplify the position after 18 . . . ic6 19.ixc6 bxc6 2 0 .ic3 ib4 ( 2 0 . . . a4 ! ? 2 1 . tLld2 ib4 2 2 . hb4 ll>Jt'xb4 23.tLlf3 with approximate equality, or 2 1 . :1l:xd6 :1l:xd6 2 2 . c5 ll>Jt'd8 23.cxd6 axb3 and Black is not worse at all.) 21.c5 ! ? ll>Jt'a7 2 2 .:1l:xd8+ :1l:xd8 23.hf6 gxf6 24.:1l:c1 :1l:d5=

Rublevsky - Voinov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007, White has the interesting possibility of 19.ll>Jt'e3 ! ? ll>Jt'c7 2 0 . hb4 axb4 2 1.ll>Jt'c5 and Black loses part of his queenside.

19.hc6 bxc6 2 0 .i.c3 Black can counter 2 0 .ll>Jt'e1 with 2 0 . . . ib4. The move 2 0 .ig5 can be par­ ried by Black with 20 . . . a4 21.hf6 gxf6 2 2 .:1l:xd6 :1l:xd6 23.c5 ll>Jt'd8 24.cxd6 axb3 with equality.

20

. ••

a4

21.�xd6! ? After 21.ctJd2 ib4= White will merely reach a weaker version of the variation which we analyzed in our notes to White's eighteenth move

21. �xd6 2 2.c5 1oWd8 23. cxd6 axb3 24.1oWc4 bxa2 25. ll>Jt'xc6 ••

18

ic6 ! ?

•••

I t would b e inferior for Black to play 18 . . . ib4, because besides what happened in the game 19.ie3 ll>Jt'c7 2 0.:1l:ac1 ic6 21.tLld4 hf3 2 2 .Wxf3 e5 23.tLlf5 e4 24.Wg3 ll>Jt'xg3 25.tLlxg3 :1l:d3 26.cj;lf1 :1l:c8 27.cj;>e2 :1l:xd1 28.:1l:xd1 h5 29.b3±

128

Or 25.:1l:xa2 :1l:xa2 26.ll>Jt'xa2 tLle8 27.ie5 ttJxd6 2 8.hd6 1oWxd6 29. ll>Jt'a8+ ll>Jff8 30.ll>Jt'xc6= 25 .li:\d5 ! and Black's power­ ful knight on d5, together with the missing white pawn on a2, in­ sures Black against any trouble. ••

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Jjj d2 de 4Jijxe4 tiJd7 5.tiJj3 tiJgf6 6. �d3 c5 b2) 12.'1Wd3

This is the exact point at which Black has been experiencing seri­ ous difficulties in this variation lately.

12

Now White has t o make u p his mind about where to move his bishop: his possibilities are restricted after 13.�h4 'Wb6, because his bishop cannot go to the e3-square. Here is a possible continuation : 14.a4 aS 1S.c3 �d7 and Black completes his development har­ moniously; 13.�e3 �d8 14.'WbS 'Wc7 1S.'Wb3 tiJdS= ; 13.�f4 �d8 14.c3 tiJdS 1S.�g3 �d7 and Black solves his problems; 13 .�d2 'Wb6 14.�e3 �d7

'1Wc7

•••

Black also has problems after 12 . . . \Wb6 13.:l'l:ad1 �d8 (Here if 13 . . . �d7 White can play 14.\Wb3, or 14.�fe 1 ! ? and in both cases he maintains strong pressure.) 14. �e3 'WaS 1S.'IWbS \Wc7 16.'Wb3 �d7 17.c4 eS 18.tiJbS hbS 19.cxbS e4 2 0.b6 'WeS 2 l .�e2 a6 2 2 .g3 �cS 23.hcS 'WxcS 24.�c1 'We7 2S.�c7 �d7 26.�fcl± Karjakin - Droz­ dovskij , Odessa 20 10 . It would b e interesting for Black to try a new move in this po­ sition - 12 . . . 'WaS ! ?

1S.�fd1 (1S.�ad1 �cS 16.b4 'Wxb4 17.Ei:b1 'Wa4 18.tiJxe6 he6 19.hcS Ei:fd8 2 0 .'Wa3 'Wxa3 2 1 . ha3 ha2 2 2 . Ei:xb7 �dS = ; White would not achieve much with 1S. 'Wb3 'WaS ! 16.'Wxb7 �ab8 17.tiJb3 Ei:xb7 18.tiJxaS Ei:xb2=) 1S . . . 'Wc7 16. 'Wb3 Ei:ac8 (Black's position re­ mains inferior but still defensible after 16 . . . eS 17.tiJbS 'WaS 18.tiJc3 �c6 19.tiJdS tiJxdS 20.hdS Ei:ad8 2 1.hc6 bxc6.) 17.'Wxb7 eS 18 .tiJc6 hc6 19.hc6 'Wxb7 2 0 .hb7 Ei:xc2 2 l .b3 tiJg4 2 2 .ha7 Ei:c7 2 3 .�f3 tiJxh2 24.@xh2 Ei:xa7 2S.a4. After the forcing line a complicated endgame has been reached. 129

Chapter 18 White's position looks preferable, but his pawns are not likely to promote any time soon. Black's counter-chances seem to be suffi­ cient for equality.

the evils for Black is 1S ... '\Wxd8 16.:axd8 + .ixd8 17.:ad1 .ib6, al­ though this ending must be also lost for him.) 14 . . . a6 1S .Wc2 .id7 16.g3 :aac8 17.:aac1 Wb8 (17 . . . h6 ! ? 18 . .ie3 .icS = ) 18.1We2 e S 19.Ci:Jc2 .ie6 2 0 .Ci:Je3 l"i:xd1 + 21.l"i:xd1 bS 2 2 . hf6 hf6 23 . .idS and White had the advantage, Najer - Lysyj , Ulan Ude 2009. 13.We3 ! ? WcS 14.c3 h6 1S . .ih4 Wb6 16.1We2 .id7 17.a4 a6 18.aS 1Wa7 19 . .ig3 l"i:fe8 2 0 .Wc4 l"i:ec8 2 1 . Wb3 .ic6 2 2 .Ci:Jxc6 bxc6 23.l"i:fe1 and White exerts strong pressure, Leko - Morozevich, Saratov 2 011.

13 :ads 14.:a adl a6 15.W e3 • • •

13.:afel The active sortie 13.Ci:JbS would not yield any benefits after 13 . . . WeS 1 4 . .ie3 .id7 1S.a4 .ic6 = The move 13 . .ih4 was tested recently by a young Russian grandmaster. His opponent was one of the main experts in the en­ tire Rubinstein variation and he found a worthy response : 13 . . . Ci:Jg4 ! 1 4 . .ig3 Ci:JeS 1 S . .ixeS WxeS. White's pieces are active and it looks as though he has the initia­ tive, but Black has the bishop pair and no weaknesses at all in his camp, so the prospects are equal. 16.:aad1 a6 17.Wc4 l"i:b8 18.l"i:fe1 WaS (18 . . . WcS ! ?) 19.Ci:Jb3 Wb6 2 0 . a 4 .id6 2 1 .g3 Wc7 2 2 .Wxc7 hc7= Timofeev - Meier, Havana 2009. 13.l"i:fd1 :adS? This is a weak move (It was much better to play 13 . . . a6.). 14.c4 (After 14.Ci:JbS ! WaS 1S.Wxd8+ .ixd8 16.b4 Wb6 17. .ie3 + - ; it appears that the least of 130

1S.c3 .id7 16.1We2 (16 .We3 .ie8 17 . .if4 1Wb6 18.Ci:Jb3 'IWbS= Kur­ nosov - Meier, Lublin 2010) 16 . . . Ci:Jg4 ! (after 16 . . . .id6 17.g3 l"i:ab8 18 . .ig2 .ie8 19 .:ad3 Black was un­ able to equalize, Najer - Relange, Ohrid 2 009) 17.hg4 hgS=

15 h6 16 .if4 .id6 17.tt'lb3 .ixf4 18.:axd8+ �xd8 19.1Wxf4 �b6 2 0 .'1We3 '1Wc7 21.'1Wc5 •••

•

This position is by no means equal, Akopian - Pelletier, Aix­ les-Bains 2011.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ti:J d2 de 4. ti:Jxe4 ti:J d7 5. ti:Jf3 ti:Jgf6 6. ild3 c5 In order to conclude the results of the analyses in thefourth part of the book, I should like to mention the following - the Rubinstein vari­ ation is in fact a separate opening. It is very different from the main lines of the French defence. It has the reputation of being a super-solid and even drawish opening, but this should not be overestimated. We must remember that Black reduces the tension in the centre rather prematurely and his bishop is restricted in its movements by the pawn on e6, as always. On the other hand, we have been convinced, on the basis ofconcrete variations, that if White wishes to create problems in the opening for a well-prepared opponent, he himself needs to have done some thorough analytical work. I should like to recommend to French defence fans that they in­ clude this variation in their opening repertoire, but not as their main weapon. One might get too used to playing rather simple positions and then have problems in the other variations of the French, since these are all very complicated, with pawn-chains, tension and many non-standard tactical ideas.

131

Parts 5 and 6 The Tarrasch Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ti)d2

When you think about the Tarrasch variation the words that first come to mind are reliable, flexible and elastic. The positions arising from 3.lLld2 do not depend so much on pawn-structure and manoeu­ vres, like after 3.e5, but on the other hand they are not so irrational and sharp as those arising after 3.tt:Jc3. If your opponent prefers to play quiet positions, then most probably he will be willing to include this variation in his armoury. White does not risk much and the possible set-ups after the opening are less varied and can be easily studied. You very rarely find weak squares or pawn-weaknesses in White's position. On the other hand, the more straightforward the game-plan your opponent adopts, the easier it will be for you to prepare against it. If White wishes to avoid any sharp theoretical debates, then it should be simple enough for Black to implement his own plans in the absence of any pressure from the opponent. It is considered that after 3.tt:Jd2, Black has two main possibilities at his disposal - 3 . . . c5 and 3 . . . tt:Jf6 . Recently, however, a variation which used to be regarded as a sideline - 3 . . . �e7 - has become very popular. I recommend to readers who are willing to take risks, both strategically and tactically, to consider this particular variation. Later, for the play­ ers who prefer a "classical" approach, we shall also analyze 3 . . . c5. The system with 3 . . . tt:Jf6 was undoubtedly a fairly trustworthy weapon for Black for many years and also deserves attention. However, I do not like it very much, because in that line Black can find it difficult to reach really complicated positions. And there are so many weak squares in Black's camp that he is likely to fail to equalize. 132

Parts 5 The Morozevich Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijd2

It should not even cross your mind that mysterious-looking bishop move is a finger slip. The point is that White cannot create any real threats in the next few moves (This should come as no surprise, since the game is just beginning . . . ) and Black develops his bishop to a safe, although not necessary permanent, position. Quite simply he wishes to see his opponent's next move. This approach is quite reasonable if you want to complicate matters against a less experienced opponent, or if the tournament situation obliges you to opt for an asymmetrical position in order to play for a win. It appears to me that Black should not be able to equalize by play­ ing in this fashion. But on the other hand, the conservative, routine approach should not stand in the way of creative endeavour. Black has wonderful possibilities for creativity in this variation !

133

Chapter 19

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)Lid2 i.e7

12.i.f4 Elfc8 13.c4 c5 14.d5 exd5 15.Wfxe7 he7 16.cxd5 i.xd5 17.i.f5 tt:Jf6 18.hc8 Elxc8 and White went on to lose the game, Hamdouchi - Edouard, Caen 2011.

4 . . . c5

4.c3 This is a solid move. It is even a bit too solid to enable White to fight for an opening advantage. It is absolutely senseless for White to transpose to the ex­ change variation - 4.exd5 exd5= White has also tried 4.g3, but White can hardly create any seri­ ous problems for his opponent by playing in that exotic fashion. M­ ter 4 . . . tt:Jf6 5.i.g2 dxe4 6 .tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxe4 7.he4 c5= Black has a comfortable game. A French grandmaster tried to play a joke here : 4.a3 dxe4 (The move 4 . . . tt:Jf6 looks quite reason­ able too.) 5.tt:Jxe4 tt:Jf6 6.tt:Jxf6+ hf6 7.tt:Jf3 b6 8 .i.d3 i.b7 9 . 0 - 0 tt:Jd7 10 .Wfe2 0-0 ll.Eidl Wfe7 134

White's idea is perfectly justi­ fied after 4 . . . tt:Jf6 ? ! 5.e5 tt:Jfd7 6. i.d3 c5 7.tLle2 and he solves the problem of the deployment of his knights in an optimal way. One of the real experts in the French defence, and in particular the 3 . . . i.e7 variation - Alexander Morozevich - used to play 4 . . . dxe4 5.tt:Jxe4 i.d7, reaching a fa­ vourable version of the Rubin­ stein variation.

5.dxc5

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt:ld2 �e7 4.c3 c5 The move S.exdS can lead to a simple transposition of moves. On the other hand it presents Black with an extra possibility S . . . i�lfxdS (S . . . exdS ! ? 6.dxc5 �xeS) 6.tt:lgf3 (6.dxc5 '\WxcS 7.tt:le4 '1Wc6 8.�d3 tt:ld7 9.tt:lf3 tt:Jgf6 10 .'1We2 tt:lxe4 1l.�xe4 '\Wc7 1 2 . 0-0 0-0 13. a4 tt:lf6 14.�c2 b6 15.�g5 �b7= Dvoirys - Morozevich, Samara 1998.) 6 . . . cxd4 7.�c4 'IWhS 8.tt:lxd4 '\Wxd1+ 9 .xd1 a6 10J'l:e1 tt:lf6 1l.a4 b6 12 .�e2 �b7 13.�f3 �xf3+ 14. tt:l 2xf3 0-0 1S.c2 tt:lbd7 16.tt:lc6 �cS 17.�e3 :8fc8 18.�xc5 :8xc6 19. �d4 tt:ldS 2 0 .g3 :8ac8= Khamraku­ lov - Caruana, Dos Hermanas 2006.

5 . . . .ixc5 Black can also play more con­ cretely with S . . . tt:lf6 ! ? 6.exd5 tt:lxdS (An interesting position with compensation for Black arises after 6 . . . '\WxdS 7.b4 0-0 8.tt:lgf3 b6 9.�c4 '1Wc6 10.cxb6 axb6 1l.�b2 �b7 12 .'1We2 :8d8 13.0-0-0?! Rather reckless . . . 13 . . . '\WcS 14.b1 �dS 15.a3 tt:lc6 16.:8he1 :8a7 17.g3 \WaS 18 .hd5 tt:lxdS 19.tt:lc4 bS 2 0 . tt:l e 3 tt:lxe3 2 l.fxe3 :8c8 - the posi­ tion looks better for Black, Burg - Werle, Netherlands 2 0 10.) 7. tt:le4 (7.tt:lb3 tt:ld7 8.tt:lf3 0 - 0 9.�d3 a5 10 .'1Wc2 h6 1l.c6 bxc6 12 .a4 �a6 13.�xa6 :8xa6 14. 0 - 0 '\Wc7 15. tt:Jbd4 �f6 16.:8d1 :8b8 = Tiviakov - Shulman, Montreal 2 009) 7 ... 0-0 8 .�c4 '\Wc7 9.tt:lf3 b6 10. 0-0 :8d8 11.hd5 :8xd5 12.cxb6 axb6 13.'1Wc2 tt:lc6 14.c4 :8f5 15.'1We2 �b7 16.:8d1 tt:laS 17.tt:ld4 :8e5 18. �f4 �xe4 19.'1Wxe4 :8xe4 2 0.hc7 tt:lxc4 with the better endgame for

Black, Godena - Sutovsky, Spole­ to 2011.

6.lbb3 White does not create any problems for his opponent with 6.tt:lgf3 tt:lf6 7.e5 (It is completely harmless for White to play 7.�d3 dxe4 8 .tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 9 .'1Wa4+ �d7 10.'1Wxe4 �c6 11 .'1We2 tt:Jd7= Svidler - Shipov, Moscow 2 0 06.) 7 . . . '1Wb6 ! Black obtains dynamic counter chances with this little tactical trick. (7 . . . tt:Jfd7! ? 8.tt:lb3 �b6 9.tt:lbd4 tt:lc6 10 .�b5 '\Wc7 11. 0-0 tt:JcxeS 1 2 .�f4 tt:lxf3 + 13. '\Wxf3 '\Wd8 14.�d6 '1Wf6 15.'1Wg3 a6 16.�a4 '1Wg6 17.'1Wh3 '1Wh6 18.'1Wg3 '1Wg6 19.'1Wh3 '1Wh6 2 0 .'1Wg3 '1Wg6= Vajda - Mkrtchian, Bled 2 0 0 2 ) 8 .tt:ld4 tt:lfd7 9.'1Wg4 0-0 (9 . . . g6? ! 1 0. tt:l 2b3 ! tt:lxeS 11 .'\Wgsgg) 10.tt:l 2f3 tt:lc6 ll.�h6 g6 12.0-0-0 tt:J dxeS 13.'\Wf4 f6 14.�xf8 �xf8 . Even though Morozevich lost that game, he had a very good position for the sacrificed exchange. 15. '\Wxf6 tt:lg4 16.'1Wh4 eS 17.tt:lg5 hS 18.tt:ldf3 i.fS 19.:8xd5 tt:lb4 2 0 .�c4 g7 21.:8hd1 tt:lxdS 2 2 .:8xd5 :8c8 23. tt:lxe5 �e7 24.�d3 '1Wxf2 25. 135

Chapter 19 li::l e 6+ lt>h6 and Black decided not to wait for White's obvious re­ sponse 26.li::l g4 and instead re­ signed, Onischuk - Morozevich, Germany 1999.

6

8

•••

tlJf6

.ib6 7.exd5 exd5

•••

9 .ie2 •

The pawn-structure has been clarified. White will try to prove that the isolated pawn is a weak­ ness, while Black will argue that it is strong.

8.tlJf3 The tricky move 8 .�e2 + does not promise White any advantage at all. 8 . . . li::l e7 9 . .ie3 .ixe3 10 .�xe3 0 - 0 11.�d2 (11..ie2 li::l f5 12 .�d2 l"le8 13.li::l f3 �e7 14.0-0?? �xe2 15.l"lfe1 �b5 16.�xd5 .id7- + ; 14. li::l fd4 li::l xd4 15.li::l x d4 li::l c 6 16.li::l x c6 bxc6 17. 0-0= Zatonskih - Shul­ man, Lindsborg Kansas 2 0 0 2 . ) l l. . . li::l b c6 12 . .ie2 li::l g 6 13.li::l f3 �f6 14. 0 - 0 li::l f4 15.l"lfe1 .ig4 16 . .id1 l"lfe8 17.l"le3 h5 18.g3 l"lxe3 19.�xe3 li::l e 6 2 0 . It>g2 l"ld8 2 1 .li::l fd4 li::l cxd4 2 2 .li::l x d4 li::l xd4 23.�xd4= Borisek - Caruana, Brno 2 0 0 6 .

136

White will just lose tempi later if he opts for 9 . .ib5+ li::l c 6 10.0-0 0-0 11..ig5 a6 12 ..ie2 l"le8 13.�d3 h6 14 . .ih4 g5 15 . .ig3 li::l e4 16.li::l fd4 f5 17 . .ih5 l"le7 18.h3 f4 19 . .ih2 li::l e 5+ Mezentsev - Atalik, Reno 2005.

9 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 tlJc6 11. tlJfd4 :!%e8 12 .ie3 tlJe5 13.:!%el h6 14.ti'c2 .id7 15.:!%adl •••

•

15 ti'c7 with an excellent po­ sition for Black, Tiviakov Kasimdzhanov, Kerner 2 007. •••

Chapter 2 0

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ti� d 2 i.e7 4.e5

This is White's most princi­ pled response. With this move he is trying to hinder Black from completing the development of his kingside. However, matters are far from clear. White's knight on d2 might also impede his own develop­ ment. He is likely to be unable to preserve his rather ambitiously constructed pawn-centre.

his kingside pawns in any case. His king will be in a perilous posi­ tion then, but White's pieces are not harmoniously placed either, which provides Black with com­ pensation. For White it might be worth considering the quieter possibility of 5.c3 ! ? ttJc6 (It seems inferior for Black to play 5 . . . cxd4? ! 6.cxd4 tLlc6 7.ttJdf3 �b4+ 8.�d2 �as 9. ttJe2 hd2 + 10 .�xd2 �xd 2 + 11. \ilxd2 f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13 .lLJf4 ttJge7 14J''1 e l \ilf7 15.�d3 �d7 16.g4 ttJxd4 17.ttJxd4 eS 18.ttJxd5 and in the game Korchnoi - Short, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 0 0 , the players agreed to a draw.)

4 . . . c5 5.�g4 This initiates complications, involving risky decisions from both players. Black fiercely at­ tacks his opponent's centre, but he will have to pay for this with the rather unsafe position of his king. This might look anti-posi­ tional and risky, but in this varia­ tion Black will need to advance

6.tt:ldf3 (It is bad for White to play 6 . tt:lgf3 cxd4 7.cxd4 �b6 8.tt:lb3 aS 9.a4 �b4+ 10 .�d2 hd2 + and he must reply with 137

Chapter 2 0 l l . @xd2 , after which h e cannot even dream about an advantage, Coratella - Glek, Porto San Gior­ gio 2 0 0 1 ; it looks more reasona­ ble for him to opt for 6.lLle2 ! ? , but Black's immediate attack on the e5-square thwarts White's plans : 6 . . .f6 7.lLlf3 fxe5 8.dxe5 ¥!1c7 9 .�f4 lLlh6, with a complicated posi­ tion.)

Now: After 6 . . . ¥!1b6 7.�d3 cxd4 8 . cxd4, it i s too slow for Black to play 8 . . . �d7 9.lLle2 lLlb4 lO .�bl ¥!1a6 11.lLlc3 l"i:c8 1 2 . a3 �d8 13.�e3 h6 14.h4 lLle7 15.h5 lLlbc6 16.�d3 ¥!1b6 17.lLla4 ¥!len and his position is cramped, so White's prospects are better, Balogh - Rapport, Szombathely 2011, but after 8 . . . �b4+ h e should avoid 9 .�d 2 ? ! (the correct move is of course 9. @fl) 9 ... lLlxd4 1 0 .lLlxd4 ¥!1xd4 11. ¥!1a4+ �d7 12.¥!1xb4 ¥!1xd3 13. ¥!1xb7 l"i:c8 14.lLlf3 lLle7 with endur­ ing compensation for Black, or 1l.�b5+ @e7 1 2 .lLlf3 hd2 + 13. ¥!1xd2 ¥!1xd2+ 14. @xd2 �d7 and Black ends up with an extra pawn in the endgame, Ni Hua - Vitiu­ gov, Ningbo 2 0 1 0 ; The Polish G M Mateusz Bar138

tel, playing in very original fash­ ion, equalized with : 6 . . . ¥!1a5 ! ? 7. dxc5 (7.�d2 ¥!1b6 ! ) 7 . . . ¥!1c7 8.�e3 f6 (8 . . . lLlh6 ! ?) 9.exf6 lLlxf6 10.lLld4 e5 11.lLlb5 ¥!1d8 12 .�e2 0-0 13.lLlf3 a6 14.lLld6 �xd6 15.cxd6 ¥!1xd6 16.h3 �e6 17. 0-0 Ei:ad8, with an easy game for Black, Ni Hua Bartel, Beijing 2 0 0 8 ; 6 . . .f6 7.�d3 cxd4 8.cxd4 lLlh6 9 .exf6 �xf6 10 .�xh6 gxh6 ll.lLle2 ¥!1a5 + . In this position, the author had a heated debate with the Chi­ nese grandmaster Ni Hua. 12.@f1 This move is too ambitious. (Ni Hua improved his play the follow­ ing year yet still ended up in an inferior endgame after 12 .¥!1d2 ¥!1xd 2 + 13.@xd2 �d7 14.�b5 @e7 15.l"i:ac1 @d6 16.l"i:he1 l"i:hf8 17.l"i:c3 �d8 18.a3 �a5 19 .b4 �b6 2 0.hc6 �xc6 2 l.g3 �d7 2 2 .lLlf4 aS, but Black failed to realize his advan­ tage, Ni Hua - Vitiugov, Ningbo 2 0 1 0 . ) . 12 . . . �d7 13.a3 0-0-0 14. Wic1 a6 15.b4 ¥!1b6 16.¥!1xh6 l"i:hf8 17.¥!ie3 @b8 with a wonderful po­ sition for Black, Ni Hua - Vitiu­ gov, Sochi 2 0 0 9 .

5

. . .

wf8

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lLld2 ie7 4.e5 c5 It seems masochistically pa­ tient for Black to opt for S . . . if8 , but in fact that move is quite sen­ sible. 6.dxcS Wic7 7.lLlgf3 lLld7 (It is weaker to play 7 . . . l2Jc6 8.ibS f6 9.lLlb3 ! ?± , or 9.0-0 !xeS 10 .c4 fxeS 11 .WihS+ g6 12 .WixeS WixeS 13. lLlxeS l2Jge7 14.l2Jdf3 0-0 1S.ixc6 l2Jxc6 16.lLlxc6 bxc6 17.ih6 E1fS 18.cxdS cxdS 19.2"1ac1 ib6 2 0 .ie3 he3 2 l.fxe3 and the endgame is better for White, Nevednichy Antic, Herceg Novi 2 0 0 1 . ) 8 .lLlb3 (White cannot gain any advantage with the line : 8.ibS WixcS 9.c4 a6 10.lLlb3 Wc7 1l .ixd7+ Wixd7 1 2 . 0 0 dxc4 13. Wxc4 l2Je 7 14.lLlcS WdS 1S.Wc2 l2Jc6 16.ie3 lLlxeS 17.lLlxeS WxeS 18.2"1ad1 ie7 19.id4 WigS 2 0 .lLle4 Wig6 21.2"1fe1 0-0 and his compensation for the pawn is in­ sufficient, Khamrakulov - Lopez Martinez, Ayamonte 2 0 07.) 8 . . . lLlxeS 9.lLlxeS WixeS+ 10 .ie3 lLlf6 1 l.ibS+ id7 12 .ixd7+ l2Jxd7 13.0-0-0 ie7 14.h4 0-0 1S.id4 fS 16.Wf3 We4 17.Wg3 eS 18.f3 f4 19 .Wh3 WifS 20.WixfS E1xfS 2 l .if2 d4 2 2 .c3 = Todorovic - Drasko, Subotica 20 0 8 . White should counter the rather cheeky move S . . . gS with the elegant response 6.WhS! (White lost a very instructive game after 6.dxcS hS 7.ibS+ id7 8 .We2 Wc7 9.lLlb3 hbS lO.WxbS+ lLlc6 11.f4 0-0-0 12.lLlf3 g4 13.lLlfd4 l2Jxd4 14.l2Jxd4 !xeS 1S.ie3 hd4 16. hd4 �b8 17.icS �a8 18.id6 Wxc2 19 .0-0 l"1c8 20.fS lLlh6 2 1 . E1f2 Wie4 2 2 .fxe6 fxe6 23.2"1af1 h 4 24.Wd7 Wd4 2S.g3 hxg3 26.hxg3

lLlfS 27.Wxe6 l2Jxg3 0-1 Adams Morozevich, Frankfurt 1999.) 6 . . . lLlc6 7.l2Jdf3 cxd4 8.lLlh3 ! Wc7 9.lLlhxgS lLlxeS lO .ibS+ �f8 11. l2Jxh7+ l"1xh7 12.Wxh7 l2Jxf3 + 13. gxf3 WieS+ 14.�fl Wg7 15 .WhS lLlf6 16.Wh6 lLlg8 17.Wh3 eS 18.id7 hd7 19.Wxd7 E1d8 2 0 .WifS, with advantage to White, Kurnosov Mesropov, Serpukhov 2 0 0 2 .

6.dxc5 White is forced to give up the centre. If 6.c3 ? ! lLlc6 and it is even harder to hold his centre against Black's pressure. It is possible that the rather slow move 6.lLlb3 may become more popular in the near future. I believe that Black should counter this with 6 . . . c4 7.lLld2 lLlc6 8 .c3 lLlh6, with a very complicated po­ sition. It looks as though White has lost several important tempi in the opening trying to keep the position closed. It is bad for White to continue with 6.lLlgf3 ? ! hS 7.Wig3 (He would not fare any better with the awk­ ward line : 7.Wh3 lLlc6 8 . dxcS Wc7 139

Chapter 2 0 and White will lose his e5-pawn; 8 . . . g5 ! ? 9.g4 �c7. ) 7 . . . h4 8.�h3 tLJc6.

6

•••

tDc6

Now White is faced with a choice. The position is very sharp and it requires very precise treat­ ment from both sides. The next few moves can involve complex tactical decisions.

7.tilgf3 This is the most natural move for White and probably the strongest. It seems rather artificial for him to opt for 7.tDdf3 . Although this move is quite sensible (it looks attractive to develop the bishop on c1 as soon as possible), White's other knight looks a sorry sight. 7 . . .f6

8.�g3 (In response to 8 .i.f4 ?! Black h a s a n interesting manoeu­ vre - 8 . . . �a5 + ! 9.c3 �a4. This placement of the queen justifies the check on the previous move. 10.�g3 �c2 and White has great problems coping with the enemy queen on c2. However, Black has also tried 8 . . . hc5 9 .i.d3 �a5+ 10.c3 �b6 ll.tDh3 �xb2 12.0-0 �xc3 13.:Bfd1 fxe5 14.:Bac1 �b4 15.CDfg5 tDf6 16.tLJxe6+ he6 17. �xe6 :Be8 18.�f5 tDd4 19.�g5 exf4 and the game is over, Feher - Farago, Hungary 2006. In the following game White tried to radically solve all his problems but he did not fare at all well. 9. 0-0-0? ! ixf2 10 .h4 f5 11.�h3 �aS 12 .a3 id7 13.i.d3 b5 14.g4 b4 15.a4 b3 16.cxb3 tDb4 17.gxf5 :Bc8 + 18.�b1 ha4 19.CDg5 i.d7 2 0.ic4 �a2 + 2 1.�c1 �a1+ and White resigned in view of the mate on the next move, Balogh Cvek, Germany 2 007.) 8 . . . hc5 9 .i.d3 (White should avoid 9.tDh3 fxe5 10.tDxe5 tLJxe5 11.�xe5 i.d6 and Black has an excellent posi­ tion.) 9 . . .fxe5 10.CDxe5 tLJxe5 11. �xeS tDf6

For 140

comparison's

sake,

I

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ltl d2 i.e7 4.e5 c5 should like to tell you that this po­ sition is known to theory, except that normally a white knight is on d2 instead of gl. Naturally, this is considered to be preferable for White. 12.ltlf3 ix:f2 + ! This is an important detail ; otherwise, White would obtain an advan­ tage. 13. d 1 i.cS 14.Eifl . White has undoubtedly some compen­ sation, but Black has an extra pawn and nothing to worry about. 14 . . . g8 ! ?? (Black has an alter­ native in 14 . . . i.d6, which was tried in the game Akopian - Pelletier, Aubervilliers 2 0 0 2 ) . O n e more possibility for White in this position is 7.\Wg3 f6 ! ? (I think this is stronger than 7 ... ltlh6 8 .i.d3 i.h4 9.\Wf4 i.gS 10.\Wg3 i.h4 11.\Wf4 i.gS 12 .\Wa4 ltlxeS 13.ltlgf3 ltlxd3 + 14.cxd3 i.e7 15.b4 f6 16. 0-0 ltlfS 17.i.b2 hS 18.Eiac1 i.d7 19.\Wb3 Elc8 20 .ltld4 ltlxd4 2 1 . i.xd4 h 4 2 2 .h3 \We8 23.f4 \Wg6 24.h1 ElhS 25.ltlf3 and White outplayed his young adversary in the subsequent complicated struggle, Svidler - Nepomnia­ chtchi, Moscow 2006.)

8.ltlgf3 ltlh6 (Of course Black should not reduce the tension

prematurely with 8 . . . fxe5?! 9. ltlxeS ltlxeS 10.\WxeS ix:cS 11.i.d3 - 11.ltle4 ! ? - 11...ltlf6 1 2 . 0 - 0 i.d6 13.\We2 \Wc7 14.f4 ix:f4 15.ltlf3 i.d6 16.c4 i.d7 17.i.g5 Ele8 18.E\ac1 \Wb8 19.\Wf2 Ele7 2 0 .\Wh4 and White had a powerful initiative in the game Lastin - Kacheishvili, Ohrid 2001.)

9.i.d3 (It seems inferior to play 9 .exf6 ix:f6 10.ltlb3. Black's position might be less fearsome than it looks, but still it is quite satisfactory, at least. 10 . . . ltlf5 11. \Wh3 eS 12 .g4 ltlfe7 with a sharp game. It is very bad for White to continue with 9.ltlb3? ltlfS 1 0 .\Wf4 gS 11.\Wa4 ltlxeS 12.ltlxe5 fxeS and Black ends up with a very power­ ful centre and an extra pawn.) 9 . . . ltlf7 1 0 .exf6 gxf6 1 1 . 0 - 0 (White fails to destroy Black's excellent pawn-formation with 11.c4 Elg8 12 .\Wh4 Elxg2 13.ltlb3 fS 14.\Wxh7 i.f6, with a double edged game.) 11 . . . e5 1 2 . ltlh4 (White should pos­ sibly start thinking about main­ taining equality, but Black would not mind that. 12.ltle1 e4 13 .i.e2 ltld4 14.i.d1 ix:cS and White's pieces have ended up on the first two ranks. ) 12 . . . e4 13.ltlxe4. This 141

Chapter 2 0 i s the most principled response. 13 . . . dxe4 14.he4 i.xc5 ! GM Pel­ letier quite correctly recommend­ ed this move in his annotations : (14 . . . ltJd4? ! 15.�d3gg Nevednichy - Pelletier, Gothenburg 2 005). 15.ltJf5 (15.�e3 l2ld4 16J'lae1 l"1g8 17.i.xd4 �xd4 18.�b3 ltJgS and Black is already counter-attack­ ing.) 15 . . . i.xf5 16.i.xf5 �dS+ 7.�e2 ! ? This is an original and logical try. White does not wish to lose more tempi moving his queen and so retreats it back home right away, protecting his pawn in the process. 7 . . . i.xc5 (Or 7 . . . f6 8.f4 i.xcS 9.ltJgf3 ltJh6 10.l2lb3 �b6 11.�e3 ltJfS 12.�f2 i.xf2 + 13.�xf2 �b6 14.�d3 �e3 + 15.�xe3 ltJxe3 16.\t>f2 ltJg4+ 17.\t>g3 ltJh6 18.l'%he1 ltJf7 19.i.b5 fxeS 2 0 .fxe5 l2lb8 2 1 . ltJbd4 with a n obvious advantage for White, Timman - Paehtz, Ant­ werp 2011. Black also has an in­ teresting pawn-sacrifice here 7 . . . b6 ! ? 8.cxb6 axb6 9.l2lgf3 �c7 with plenty of promising possi­ bilities. Tournament practice will show how meaningful Black's compensation is.) 8. ltJb3 �b6 9 . �e3 ltJge7 10.f4 ltJfS 11.�f2

much more consistent to continue with 11 . . . g5 ! 12 .g4 i.xf2 + 13.�xf2 ltJh4 14. 0-0-0 gxf4 15.l"1e1 l"1g8+) 12 .ltJf3 �d7 13.�d2 i.xf2 + 14.�xf2 �b6 15.�d3 l2le3? 16.c3 ltJg4?! 17. �e2 �e3 18.h3 �xe 2 + 19.\t>xe2 l2lh6 2 0 .g4 l2lg8 21.l2lc5 �c8 and although Black's position is res­ ignable, in the end he managed to draw, not without his opponent's generous help, Bezgodov - Vitiu­ gov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.

7 . . . h5 The author of this book has successfully tried 7 . . . l2lh6, but on the whole this move can only be considered as experimental. 8. �h5 f6 9.�b5 l2lf7 10 .i.xc6? ! bxc6 11.ltJb3?! g6 12 .�g4 fxe5 13.h4 e4 14.ltJg5 e5 15.�g3 �f6 16.�d2 a5 17.a4 �f5 18.0-0-0 h6 19.l2lxf7 \t>xf7 2 0 .f3 exf3 2 1 .gxf3 d4 22 .f4 �d5 23.fxe5 i.xeS 24.�f2 �c4 25.�e1 �f4+ 26.\t>b1 �xb3 27. l"1xd4 �e3 28.l'%d7+ \t>e8 0-1 Papin - Vitiugov, Saratov 2 007.

8.�g3

11 . . . h5 (It would have been 142

It looks rather provocative for White to play 8.�f4 ?! g5 9.�e3 ltJh6 (Black has an interesting al-

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:J d2 ie7 4.e5 c5 ternative here - 9 . . . d4 ! ? 10 .�e2 g4 11.lt:Jg1 �d5 12.f4 ih4 + 13.Wd1 lt:Jh6 with a quite acceptable posi­ tion for Black, Kapnisis - Skaper­ das, Athens 2 0 0 0 , or 10 .�e4 g4 11.lt:Jg1 f5 ! This is a key move for Black. 12 .�e2 - Black has abso­ lutely nothing to worry about af­ ter 12.exf6 lt:Jxf6 13 .�d3 Wg7 12 . . . �d5 and White has great problems developing his pieces to active squares.) 10 .id3 (If 10 .h3, I can recommend the following sample variation: 10 . . . lt:Jf5 1l.�c3 Wg7 12. lt:Jb3 d4 13.�d2 aS 14.a4 �d5 15.lt:Jxg5 lt:Jxe5�. The move 10.lt:Jb3 would just lose a pawn for White after 10 . . . lt:Jf5 1l.�d2 g4 12 .lt:Jfd4 lt:Jfxd4 13.lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxe5.)

10 . . . ct:Jg4 (It is too slow for Black to opt for 10 . . . �c7? ! 11.lt:Jb3 lt:Jg4 12 .�e2 ct:Jgxe5 13.lt:Jxg5, be­ cause his vulnerable king will soon come under a dangerous at­ tack. It looks attractive but is in fact futile to play 10 . . . d4? ! 1l.�e4 g4 12.lt:Jglt. Black has lost the elasticity of his pawn-mass and he is unable to exploit White's tem­ porary lag in development.) 1l.�e2 �c7 (Black cannot equal­ ize after ll . . . hc5?! 12.0-0 lt:Jxf2 .

Black's attack has come to a dead end and he must play enterpris­ ingly. Now it is bad for White to continue with 13.lt:Jb3 ? ! lt:Jxd3 + 14.lt:Jxc5 ct:Jxc1 - but not 14 . . . lt:Jxc5? 15.lt:Jxg5, with a powerful attack for White - 15.l"laxc1 g4 16.lt:Jd2 �g5 and Black is even slightly better. But after 13.l"lxf2 ! g4 14.b4 ! - things are not so clear after 14.lt:Je1 �b6 15.lt:Jb3 ixf2 + 16.�xf2 �xf2 + 17.Wxf2 lt:Jxe5 and in this complicated asymmetrical endgame the prospects are ap­ proximately equal - 14 . . . lt:Jxb4 15.ia3 and having White has neu­ tralized his opponent's initial pressure White has gained a clear advantage. It is even worse for Black to play 14 . . . hf2 + ? 15.�xf2 gxf3 16.lt:Jxf3 and White's initia­ tive on the dark squares is over­ whelming. I should like to men­ tion that it is much weaker for White to continue (after 11 . . . hc5? ! ) with the this line which has been tried a few times : 1 2 . lt:Jb3 ? ! ixf2 + 13. Wd1 ib6 ? ! 14.l"lf1 and the evaluation changes - now it is White doing the attacking. However, after 13 . . . �b6 ! 14.ixg5 l"lg8 ! ? - if Black tries to simplify with 14 . . . ie3, White has chances of seizing the initiative with 15. he3 �xe3 16.�xe3 lt:Jxe3+ 17. Wd2 lt:Jxg2 18.l"laf1� - 15.h3 lt:Je3+ 16.Wc1 lt:Jxg2 . Black has played riskily, but White's king is so vul­ nerable that such a strategy is quite justified, for example: 17.h4 l"lxg5 ! 18.hxg5 lt:Jf4 19.�fl �e3+ 2 0 . lt:Jbd2 ct:Jb4 and although the 143

Chapter 2 0 situation o n the board i s totally chaotic, Black's prospects are not at all worse, or 17.'tt> b 1 Ei:xgS 18. lLlxgS l2lf4 19.�f3 �e3 20.�xe3 �xe3 21.l2lf3 l2lxd3 2 2 . cxd3 b6, with an excellent game. ) 12 .l2lb3 (White must refrain from 12 .b4? lLlgxeS 13.�b2 �f6 and Black is clearly better.)

12 ... l2lgxeS. Black provokes a crisis. (The time for cautious play has long passed. It would not be in the spirit of the position for Black to continue with 12 . . . Ei:g8 ? ! 13.h4 ! gxh4 14.�f4 b6 1S.cxb6 axb6 16.c3 ! ± . It would be rather faint-hearted for White to choose 16.�bS?! l2la7 17.�d3 l2lc6 18 .�bS l2la7 19.�d3 and here the players agreed to a draw in the game Vaj­ da - Asrian, Bled 2 0 0 2 . ) 13.l2lxgS aS ! This is another important de­ tail. 14.a4 (White should refrain from 14.�e3? ! a4 1S.l2ld2? d4- + ; o r 1S.l2lc1 l2lg4 and h e will have great difficulties. It would be dy­ namic for White, if rather risky, to continue with 14.f4 l2lxd3+ 1S. �xd3 a4 16.l2ld4 l2lxd4 17.�xd4 f6 18.�e3 Ei:g8 - Black has a tricky resource here - 18 . . . Ei:aS ! ? - 19. 0-0 fxgS 2 0 .fxgS+ 'it>e8 and 144

White's compensation for the pawn seems insufficient.) 14 . . . l2lxd3 + 1S.cxd3 b 6 and Black com­ plicates the position even further. For example: 16.�e3 bxcS 17. 0-0 (17.hcS hcS 18.l2lxcS l2ld4- + ; 17.l2lxcS d4- + ) 1 7. . .f6 18.l2lf3 d4 19.�c1 f7 and he has an excel­ lent position. White has also tried the some­ what paradoxical move 8.�a4 ! ? t o which Black must respond very precisely, otherwise he might end up in a difficult position.

8 . . . �c7 - I believe this is Black's best move. (It would less consistent for him to play 8 . . . hcS 9.l2lb3 �e7 10.�f4 l2lh6 11.�d3 lLlfS 1 2 .�xfS exfS 13 .�e3 �e6 14. 0-0-0 Ei:c8 1S. b1 �c7 16.Ei:he1 lLl aS 17.l2lbd4 h4 18.l2lgS �d7 and White had a clear advantage in the game lvanchuk - Mkrtchian, Yerevan 2 004. Black will not equalize with 8 . . . �d7 9.�bS hcS 10.l2lb3 �e7 11 .�e3±) 9.�f4 f6 (This is a very important motif.) 10.�bS (Black should counter White's activity after 10.l2lh4 with the calm response 10 . . . f7, al­ though practice has seen 10 . . . �xeS+ 11.�xeS lLlxeS 1 2 .f4 gS

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tLl d2 �e7 4.e5 c5 13.fxe5 gxh4 14.tt:lf3 .bc5 15.tt:lxh4 @g7 16.�f4 �d4 17.4Jf3 .bb2 18. �b1 �c3+ 19.@d1 fxe5 2 0 .tt:lxe5 @f6 21.tt:lf3 e5 with a good posi­ tion, Liss - Botvinnik, Ramat Aviv 2 0 00.) 10 . . . g5 ! ? This is an original decision. (Black can also play more simply with 10 . . . tt:lxe5 but then i n the endgame arising after 11.tt:lxe5 '\Wxe5+ 12.'\Wxe5 fxe5 13.tt:lf3 �f6 14.0-0 he risks facing difficulties in de­ veloping his queenside. ) 11.tt:lxg5 (White should not back down 11.'\We3 ? ! g4 12 .tt:lh4 @g7 13.exf6+ .bf6 14.g3 tt:lb4 15.�d3 tt:lxd3+ 16.cxd3 tt:le7 and the game is quite complicated.) 12 . . ..bf6 13.tt:lg1 tt:lge7 and Black has a very active position, or 1 2 .exf6 '\Wxe5+ 1 2 . '\Wxe5 tt:lxe5 13.tt:lh3 .bc5 14.tt:lf4 tt:le7 and the endgame is double­ edged.

8

. . .

h4

This is an aggressive decision. The move 8 . . . tt:lh6 ! ? has hardly been tested in practice, but I be­ lieve it is a quite reasonable way for Black to avoid the well-trod­ den theoretical paths.

For example: After White's natural response 9 .�d3, Black can continue with his pawn-storm 9 . . . h4 10.'\Wf4 (Or 10 .'\Wh3? f6 and White is in trou­ ble.) 1 0 . . . g5 l l.'\We3 tt:lg4 (It would also be interesting for Black to give further tests to 1 1 . . . tt:lf5, e.g. 12 . .bf5 exf5 13.tt:lb3 f4 14.'\Wc3 h3 15.g3 d4 16.4Jfxd4 '\Wd5 17.'\Wf3 '\Wxe5+ 18.tt:le2 �f5 19.gxf4 '\We6 2 0.Elg1 g4 2 1.'\We3 '\Wd5 2 2 .�d2 �e8 and he had a powerful initia­ tive in the game Zhang Zhong Shipov, Internet 2 0 07.) 1 2 .'\We2 .bc5. An attentive reader might have realized by now that we have already analyzed a similar posi­ tion in our notes to White's previ­ ous move, examining the conse­ quences of 8.'\Wf4. The difference is that here Black's pawn is al­ ready on h4 and this will soon be very important. 13.�fl (Now it is less attractive for White to con­ tinue with 13.0-0 tt:lxf2 14.�xf2 g4 15.b4? tt:lxb4 16.�a3 g3- + ; 15. @h1 .bf2 16.'\Wxf2 gxf3 17.tt:lxf3 h3 and the position is unclear but still quite playable for Black.) 13 . . . '\Wc7 14.tt:lb3 �e7 1 5 . .bg5 .bg5 16.tt:lxg5 '\Wxe5 and Black is at least equal. 145

Chapter 2 0 9.lt:lb3 lt:lf5 (Black has tried, without much success, the stand­ ard and logical line: 9 . . . a5 10.c3 a4 11.lt:lbd4 ixc5 12 .1d3 �b6 13. 0-0 1d7 14.1e3 lt:lxd4 15.cxd4 1e7 16.1g5 ixg5 17.�xg5± Kob­ alia - Ivanov, Togliatti 2003.) 10.�f4 (10 .�h3 ? ! aS 11.a4 b6! We already know this motif and once again it works perfectly for Black. 12.cxb6 lt:lb4 13 .1d3 lt:lxd3+ 14. cxd3 �xb6 and White is worse; 12 .c3 bxc5 13.1b5 �b6 with an ex­ cellent game for Black.) 10 .. .f6. White is forced to defend in a rather bizarre fashion against with the threat of g5. ll.h3 (Or 11.h4? ! f7 and the white pawn on h4 will soon drop.) ll . . . g5 1 2 . �h2 . You rarely see White's queen ending up on this particular square ! 12 . . . g7 (It would be pre­ mature for Black to play 12 . . . lt:lxe5 ? ! 13.lt:lxe5 fxe5 14.�xe5 1f6 15.1xg5 1xe5 16.ixd8 ixb2 17. l"lb1 1c3+ 18.d1 and White is better in this endgame.) 13 .1d3 b6gg. The situation resembles an ancient battle. Black has sacri­ ficed a small regiment of soldiers, but has also deflected his enemy's main forces away from the centre of the battlefield. How all this will end is not so easy to predict and it requires thorough practical test­ ing.

9.�f4 The following possibility does not need any further comment: 9.�g4? �c7.

9

•••

g5

Black must bite the bullet... 146

1 0 .�a4 It is simply very bad for White to play 10 .�g4?! lt:lh6 11.�h5 f5 ! It is hardly any better to con­ tinue with 10 .�e3 lt:lh6 11.h3 lt:lf5 12.�c3 f6 13.1b5 lt:lxe5 14.lt:lxe5 fxe5 15.�xe5 1f6 16.�h2 and the placement of White's queen is in sharp contrast to that of its black counterpart.

1 0 . . . .id7 Black can also try 10 . . . �c7, but after ll.lt:lb3 1d7 12 .1b5 lt:lxe5 13.lt:lxe5 �xeS+ 14.1e3 ixb5 15. �xb5 White is better.

ll . .ib5 a6 This might not be very good for Black, but it is at least his most consistent continuation. It would not do for him to try to be too tricky - ll . . . lt:lh6 12 .lt:lb3 a6 13.ixc6 ixc6 14.�b4, and White's blockade is working per­ fectly.

12 .hc6 hc6 13.'1Wd4 lLlh6 Black's wish to open the long diagonal is understandable, but it will be too difficult to accomplish this. If 13 . . . h3 14.g4 ! and the knight on g8 is going nowhere.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:J d2 i.e7 4.e5 c5 '&g4 lt:Jh6 17.'&h5 ! wg7 18.lt:Jb3±

15.'&g4 hc5

14.h3 ! This is a very important im­ provement for White. Unfortu­ nately it is becoming clear that in this variation Black needs to look for an improvement at some ear­ lier point. It is much weaker for White to play 14.lt:Jb3? ! lt:Jf5 15.'&d3 d4 (or 15 . . . i.b5 ! ? 16.'&c3 E1c8) 16.l"1g1 '&c7 17.lt:Jfxd4 '&xe5+ 18 .i.e3 '&xh2 19. 0-0-0 lt:Jxd4 20.'&xd4 E1h6 21. '&g4 '&e5 2 2 . lt:Jd4 i.f6 23.c3 '&e4 and Black had an excellent posi­ tion in the game Adams - Mo­ rozevich, Sarajevo 1999.

15 . . . lt:Jh6! This is a very good move for Black. It does not solve all his problems though . . . 16.'&h5 (16.'&b4 a5 17.'&c3 d4 18 .'&d3 E1g8�; 16.'&d4 lt:Jf5 17.'&g4 lt:Jh6 18.'&h5 and the players agreed to a draw, Fargere - Wirig, Caen 2011) 16 . . .f6 17.lt:Jd4 i.d7 18.'&e2 (18.exf6?! i.xf6 19.lt:J4b3 g4 and White has to worry about his queen) 18 . . .hc5 19.lt:J 2b3 i.a7 with a very complicated position in which Black must be on the alert for the safety of his endan­ gered king. For example, he might be in a serious trouble after 2 0 .f4 !

16. lt:Jb3 i.e7 17. 0 - 0 �g8 18.lbbd4±

14 .tlJf5 ••

Here Black has an interesting idea at his disposal, but it back­ fires after 14 . . . b6 15.cxb6 lt:Jf5 16.

It is time we came to a conclusion about the results of the opening battle. White played an important improvement on move 14 and gained a slight but stable advantage. It is rather unpleasantfor Black. However, he could and should have avoided playing into this line by deviating earlier. In that case, there would have arisen some very sharp and lively complications.

147

Chapter 21

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijd2 .ie7 4.�gf3

ter this good move it becomes clear that Black has solved all his opening problems.

This is an interesting line, one which is often used by very ag­ gressive players, since White will almost always have to sacrifice material in order to fight for the advantage.

4 .tt:l f6 5.e5 ..

White does not achieve much with the safer line 5.�d3 c5 6.exd5 (There will be only a few pieces left on the board after 6.dxc5 dxe4 7.tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 8 .he4 �xd1+ 9 . Wxd1 hc5 10. We 2 tt:ld7 1U''l d 1 11.�e3 ? ! he3 1 2 . Wxe3 tt:lc5 and only Black can think about an ad­ vantage - 1l.. .We7 12 .c4 tt:lf6 13. �c2 b6 14.b3 �b7 15.�b2 l"lhd8 16.tt:le5 h5 17.f3 and in the game Akopian - Korchnoi, Calcutta 2 0 0 0 , the players agreed to a draw.) 6 . . . �xd5 7.dxc5 tt:lbd7! Af148

Here White has tried : 8 .tt:lb3 tt:lxc5 9.tt:lxc5 �xeS 10. 0-0 0-0 11.�e3 �h5 12.l"le1 b6 13.tt:ld4 �xd1 14.l"laxdl �b7 15.c3 and the position is equal, Howell - Shulman, Philadelphia 2 007. 8 . 0 - 0 tt:lxc5 9.�c4 �d6 (It would be more ambitious but also riskier for Black to play 9 . . . �h5 ! ? 1 0.l"le1 tt:lcd7 11.b3 0 - 0 12.�b2 b5 13.�e2 �c5 - 13 . . . �b7! ? - 14.c4 b4 15.�d3 �b7 16.tt:le4 �c7 17.�c2 h6 18.l"lad1 l"lad8 19.tt:lxf6+ hf6 2 0.hf6 tt:lxf6 21.tt:le5 �c5 2 2 .�e2 l"ld6 23.�c2 l"lfd8 24.l"lxd6 l"lxd6 25.tt:ld3 �g5 26.f3 tt:ld7 2 7.�e3= Svidler - Shabalov, Odessa 2008.) 1 0.�e2 0-0 11.tt:lb3 tt:la4 12 .l"ld1 �c7 13.�b5 tt:lb6 14.tt:le5 a6 15.�d3

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lLl d2 �e7 4. lLl gj3 lLlf6 tt:lbdS 16.�d2 �d6 17J''le l tt:Jb4 18. �xb4 hb4 19 .c3 �d6 = Gufeld ­ Lputian, Las Vegas 2 0 0 1 . White's attempt t o hold o n to the extra pawn fails after 8 .b4 aS 9 .�c4 �hS 10.c3 tt:Jds 11 .hdS. Naturally, he is reluctant to give up this bishop, but he has to. (Black can counter ll.�b3 with the strong move l l . . . tt:lxc3 ! ; nor would White achieve anything with 11. tt:le4 axb4 12.cxb4 tt:Jxb4 13.tt:ld6+ hd6 14.cxd6 �cs lS. �b3 �bS ! and Black has the initi­ ative.) 11 . . . �xdS

12 .�b2 axb4 13.cxb4 Elxa2 14. Elxa2 �xa2 lS.�al �xal+ 16.hal tt:lf6 17. o-o tt:Jds 18 .hg7 Elg8 19. �d4 tt:lxb4 and Black is better, Tu­ rov - Shulman, St.Petersburg 1998. 12 .�b3 axb4 (It is also possi­ ble to maintain the tension with 12 . . .�f6 13.Elbl lLleS 14. 0 - 0 tt:ld3 1S.a3 - 1S.�a3 ! ? - lS . . . 0-0 16.Eldl tt:lf4 17.�b2 �fS 18.c4 eS 19 .�e3 �g6 2 0.g3 �fS and Black out­ played his opponent in the ensu­ ing struggle, Kholmov - Mo­ rozevich, Russia 1998.) 13.cxb4 (Not 13.�xdS? ! exdS 14.cxb4 �f6 lS.Elbl Elxa2 16.0-0 0-0 and only White will have problems in this

position.) 13 . . . �xb3 14.tt:lxb3 �f6 1S.tt:lfd4 Ela4 16.a3 tt:JxcS ! 17.tt:JxcS (After 17.bxcS hd4 18.tt:lxd4 Elxd4 Black is even slightly bet­ ter.) 17 . . .�xd4 18.tt:lxa4 hal 19. tt:lb6 �d7 2 0 . tt:lxd7 @xd7, with comfortable equality for Black. 12 .a4. This is an interesting idea. White creates a protected passed pawn and fixes two poten­ tial weaknesses in his opponent's camp on cS and aS. However, Black's position is by no means inferior, since his powerful light­ squared bishop provides compen­ sation. 12 . . . b6 13.0-0 bxcS 14.bS (14.c4 �fS lS.bS eS - 1S . . . �b7! ? 16.�e2 �b7 17.�b2 f6 18.tt:lh4 �e6 19 .f4 fS 2 0 .tt:lhf3 e4 21.tt:lb3 0-0 2 2 .tt:leS tt:JxeS 23 .heS gS 24J''l a cl gxf4 2S.hf4 Elf7 26.�e3± Solak ­ Markidis, Kavala 2 0 11) 14 . . . �b7 1S.c4 �fS 16.�b2 0-0 17.�bl �xbl 18.Elfxbl Elfd8 19.@fl tt:lb6 2 0 . @e2 f6 2 1.�c3 eS 2 2 .Eldl �c8 23.tt:lb3 tt:Jxc4 24.Elxd8 + hd8 2S. tt:JxcS �b6 26.tt:lb3 �e6 and Black's position is perfectly acceptable, Naiditsch - Edouard, Mulhouse 2 0 11.

5 .li:lfd7 ••

149

Chapter 21 6 . .id3 White sometimes plays 6.c4, against which I recommend 6 . . . 0-0. (It is also possible for Black to opt for 6 . . . dxc4 7.lLlxc4 lLlb6 8.a3 lLlxc4 9 . .ixc4 lLld7 10. 0-0 lLlb6 ll . .id3 .id7 12 . .ie4 lLld5 13 . .ixd5 exd5 14.�b3 .ic6 15 . .id2 a5 16J:Uc1 0-0 17.l"lc3 l"le8 18.l"lac1 l"la6 19 .�c2 .id7 2 0 .�b3 .ic6 2 1 . �c2 .id7 and the opponents re­ peated moves in the game An­ toniewski - Bosiocic, Austria 2008.)

This i s a position known to theory, but with a white pawn on a3. It arises in the Bogo-Indian defence. White's main idea there to advance with b2-b4. Here he does not have this resource, so I think Black's position is perfectly acceptable; for example: 7.cxd5 exd5 8 . .id3 c5 9 . 0 - 0 lLlc6 10.l"le1 �b6 ll.a3 c4 12.lLlxc4 dxc4 13. .ixc4 l"ld8 14.e6 fxe6 15.l"lxe6 Wh8 16.lLlg5 .ixg5 17 . .ixg5 l"lf8 18 . .ie7 l"lf5 19.g4 lLlf6 20 . .ic5 l"lxc5 2 1 . dxc5 �xeS and White i s lost, Zhou Weiqi - Sadorra, Kuala Lumpur 2 0 07.

6 . . c5 .

150

7.c3 Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu has played several times the appar­ ently unambitious move 7.0- 0 ! ? This fact should make u s pay seri­ ous attention to this plan. 7 . . . lLlc6 8.l"le1

The ultra-aggressive approach with 8 . . . g5 can be countered with 9.h3 h5 10.c4 ! It is not good for Black either to play 8 . . . c4 9 . .ie2 g5 10.h3 h5 ll.lLlf1 and White has the advantage . 8 . . . cxd4 9 .lLlb3 �b6 10.a4. White has lost a pawn and al­ though that is not very important at this stage, it does mean that he must play very actively. (He would not achieve much with 10 . .if4 lLlc5 ll.lLlfxd4 lLlxd4 12.lLlxd4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 'Lld2 i.e7 4. 'Ll gj3 'Llf6 i.d7=) 10 . . . a6 (It is less good for Black to play 10 . . . a5 l l.i.b5 0-0 12.i.f4 and White has promising compensation.) 11.a5 WJ.c7 12. 'Llbxd4

12 . . . 'Llxd4 (It would be too risky for Black to be tempted by the rook's pawn - 12 . . . 'Llxa5 13. i.g5 ! ? and White has good attack­ ing prospects.) 13.'Llxd4 'Llxe5 14. i.f4 i.d6 15.Wl.h5 (It is considera­ bly weaker to play 15.WJ.e2? 'Llxd3 16.hd6 WJ.xd6 17.'Llf5 WJ.f4 18. 'Llxg7+ Wf8 19.'Llh5 WJ.xf2 + ! and White has no compensation for the pawn in this endgame. It is bad for Black to continue with 15 . . . 'Llg6? 16.hd6 WJ.xd6 17.'Llf5 Wif8 18.WJ.g4? ! - 18.WJ.e3 ! ± - 18 . . .f6 19.Wl.g3 e5 and the players agreed to a draw in this position, Ni­ sipeanu - Itkis, Sovata 2 0 0 0 . ) 1 5 . . . 'Llf3 + . Here, i n the game Czar­ nota - Socko, Poznan 2 0 05, a draw was also agreed. We can al­ ready see that the variation is suitable for players who do no like to ponder over the board for long ! Leaving the humour aside, we should like to continue this varia­ tion a bit further. 16.'Llxf3 (White has also tried the rather original

line : 16.gxf3 ! ? hf4 17.'Llxe6 i.xh2 + ! Black gobbles up another pawn before retreating his bish­ op. 18.Wg2 he6 19.1''1 xe6+ Wf8 2 0 .l"lb6 i.e5 ! ; 2 0 .l"le2 i.d6 with an approximately equal position.) 16 ... M4 17.g3 (There is merely a transposition of moves after 17. WJ.xd5 0-0.) 17 . . . g6. This trick is not forced, but it is attractive. 18.WJ.xd5 0-0 19.WJ.d4 i.h6 = and Black's bishop-pair compensates for White's piece activity.

7

. . •

'Llc6

Here 7 . . . b 6 ! ? leads to a posi­ tional manoeuvring game .

White can try to create prob­ lems for his opponent by hinder­ ing the exchange of the light­ squared bishops, but he cannot 151

Chapter 21 prevent in the long run anyway. B.'�e2 aS 9.a4 ! ? (9.0-0 �a6 10.c4 lLlc6 ll.cxd5 hd3 12.1Wxd3 exd5 13.l"\e1 0-0 14.'\WfS cxd4 15.lLlb3 lLlcS 16.lL:lbxd4 1WcB 17.l2Jxc6 1Wxc6 1B.l2Jd4 1Wd7 19.1Wxd7 l2Jxd7 20.e6 l2Jc5 21.exf7+ xf7 2 2 .�e3 �f6= and Black has an excellent posi­ tion, Jones - Grigorian, Yerevan 2 0 07. White did not obtain any advantage after 13.dxc5 lL:lxcS 14.1Wb5 1Wd7 15.a4 0-0 16.!"1d1 1Wc7 17.lL:lf1 lL:lxe5 1B.lLlxe5 1Wxe5 19.�e3 l'!fdB 2 0 .�d4 1We6 and his com­ pensation for the pawn was insuf­ ficient in the game Adams - Yemelin, Ohrid 2 0 09.) 9 . . . �a6 10 .�b5 '\WeB 11.c4 �b7 (11 . . . 0 - 0 ! ? ) 12. dxc5 0-0?! Black is excessively generous. (He should calmly play 12 . . . bxc5 13.cxd5 hdS.) 13.cxb6 l2Jxb6 14.b3 and White ended up with a solid extra pawn, Fedor­ chuk - Burlai, Evpatoria 2 007. It is interesting for White to play in tactical fashion with B. l2Je4 ! ? h6? ! This move is both a loss of a tempo and weakening of the position. (Black might also have problems after B . . . h6 9.ha6 l2Jxa6 10.lLld6+ hd6 11.exd6 and suddenly his d6-pawn will soon be a great source of anxiety. The line B . . . '\Wc7 ! ? 9.lLlg3 �a6 can be recommended, but it requires practical testing.) 9 .lLlg3 �a6 10. lLlhS hd3 11.1Wxd3 fB 12.0-0 lLlc6 13.�e3 g6 14.l2Jf4 g7 15.c4 cxd4 16.cxd5 lL:lcS 17.1We2 l2Jb4 1B. lL:lxd4 lL:lxd5 19.!"1fd1 lLlxf4 2 0.hf4 '\WeB 21.lLlb5 l'!dB 2 2 .lLld6± Gopal - Drasko, Banja Luka 200B. 152

B . 0 - 0 �a6 9 .ha6 l2Jxa6 10. l'!e1 b5 11.a4 (White did not achieve much after 11.1We2 c4 12. a3 l2Jc7 13.lLlf1 lLlb6 14.g3 h6 15. h4 d7 16.lLl3h2 '\WgB ! This is a typical Botvinnik manoeuvre ! 17.lLld2 1Wh7 and Black is better, Andriasian - Nepomniachtchi, Kirishi 2 0 07.) 1 l . . .b4 12.c4 l2Jc7 13.b3 0-0 14.�b2 dxc4 15.l2Jxc4 lL:ldS 16.l"\c1 l"\cB 17.1We2 1Wc7 1B. l'!ed1 l'!fdB 19.1We4 '\WbB= Andria­ sian - Socko, Polanica Zdroj 2 007.

8. 0 - 0

This is close to becoming a tabia of this variation. Black has several interesting possibilities. All of them are based on an attack against White's key d4-pawn. Black must always keep in mind that if White manages to preserve his centre over the next few moves, he will maintain an ad­ vantage throughout the entire game. The reason for this will be Black's misplaced knight on d7 and the excellent route f1-g3-h5 for its white counterpart on d2. Meanwhile, the unfortunate

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lLl d2 ie7 4. lLl gj3 lLlf6 "French" bishop on c8 will remain a sorry sight. Therefore, all means are justified at the moment for Black to complete what he has started. We shall analyze now: a) 8 a5, b ) 8 h 5 and c ) 8 . . g5. . . .

. . .

a) 8

. . .

.

a5

This is an interesting move, al­ though a bit mysterious. It will be useful for Black in about 50% of games, but in the rest it might be useless and even harmful. Some­ times the pawn-advance a5-a4 can be very good for Black and strangely enough the factor of "having made a move" can turn out to be quite useful. The idea of g7-g5 is still on Black's agenda, but he wants to play it at the best possible moment.

1Mfxa4 18.1Mfe2 tt:Jc6 19.tt:Jbd2 1Mfa3 2 0.1Mfe3 bS and Black has the ini­ tiative, Sulskis - Lputian, Las Ve­ gas 2 001. I find it hard to evaluate the consequences of the move 9.a4 ! ? Maybe Black can rely o n the strength of the b4-square and try to continue in positional fashion with 9 . . . cxd4 (If 9 . . . g5? ! lO.dxcS and in all variations White's bish­ op on bS will be very comfortable since it is securely protected.) 10.cxd4 tt:Jb4, but still I would pre­ fer White's position. 11 .ib5 (11. ib1 b6 12.E1e1 ia6 13.tt:Jfl E1c8 14. tt:Jg3 E1c6 15.1Mfd2 1Mfc7 16.1Mff4 tt:Jd3 17.hd3 hd3 and Black is slight­ ly better, Kosteniuk - Matveeva, Elista 1997.) 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlb3 lLlb8 13 .id2 lLl 8c6 14.1Mfe2 lLla7 15.ixb4 hb4 16.id3 ie7 and the players agreed to a draw on Black's offer, Dervishi - Jacimovic, Elista 1998.

9

. . .

cxd4 1 0 .cxd4

9.E1el It is weaker for White to play 9.b3? ! , because then Black's pre­ vious move is perfectly justified : 9 . . . a4 ! 10.bxa4 c4 11.ic2 IMfaS 12. tt:Jb1 h 6 ! 13.ia3 tt:Jb6 14.h4 id7 15.h5 tt:Jxa4 16.he7 tt:Jxe7 17.ha4

10

. . .

g5

It looks logical but slightly risky for Black to play 10 . . . 1Mfb6 11.lLlb 1 ! tt:Jxd4 12.lLlxd4 1Mfxd4 13. 153

Chapter 21 'Llc3. The gaping weakness on the b5-square spells a lot of trou­ ble.

13 . . . 'W'b6 (It would be too pro­ vocative for Black to play 13 . . . i.c5 ? ! 14.'Llb5 'W'xf2 + 15.�h1 0 - 0 16.i.g5 i.b4 17Jl:fl 'W'xb2 18.a3 i.c5 19.i.f4 'Llxe5 20.i.xh7+ �xh7 2 1 . 'W'h5+ �g8 2 2 .i.xe5 'W'xb5 2 3 . i.xg7 ! + - Sutovsky - Vavrak, Plovdiv 2008.) 14.'W'g4 0-0 (Black will not have a quiet life after 14 . . . g6 15.i.h6 'Llc5 16.i.b5 + i.d7 17.a4 i.c6 18Jl:ac1 0-0-0 19 .i.e3 'W'c7 2 0 .'Lle2 i.xb5 2 l . axb5 b6 2 2 .'Lld4 'W'xe5 23.'Llc6 'W'c7 24.b4 axb4 25. �a1 b3 26.�a7 'Llb7 27.'Llxe7+ 'W'xe7 2 8 .�c1+ �b8 29.'W'a4 'Llc5 30 .�a8+ �c7 3 l.'W'a7+ �d6 3 2 . i.f4+ 1 - 0 Caruana - Vavrak, Ro­ gaska Slatina 2 0 09.) 15.i.h6 g6. Black's positional exchange-sacri­ fice is, firstly, good enough to dampen White's attacking fervour and, secondly, it gives Black the bishop-pair and control over the dark squares. 16.hf8 (Black had an excellent position after 16.'Llb5 'Llc5 17.'W'd4 i.d7. Notice that Black makes it obvious that he has no intention of moving his rook to safety! 18.hf8 �xf8 19.a4 154

f6 2 0 .exf6 hf6 2 l.'W'e3 i.xb2 2 2 . �a2 i.f6 23.�c1 d 4 24.'W'g3 'Llxd3 25.'W'xd3 i.c6 and the position was very sharp in the game Rublevsky - Lputian, New Delhi 2 000.) 16 . . . hf8 17.i.b5 ! This i s a very good decision. (White's play was much weaker in the following game : 17.'Lla4 'W'a7 18.i.b5 b6 19.hd7 i.xd7 2 0 .'W'd4 i.b4 2 l .�ecl ha4 2 2 .a3 i.c5 23.'W'xa4 hf2 + ! and Black had a clear advantage, Mkrtchian - Matveeva, Istanbul 2 0 03.) 17 . . . 'Llc5 18.a4 (White has fortified his bishop on b5 and gained an edge.) 18 . . . i.e7 19.�ad1 'W'c7 2 0 .h4 h5 2 l .'W'f4 i.d7 2 2 .�e3 i.c6 23 .i.e2 'Lld7 24.'Llb5 'W'd8 25.hh5 i.xb5 26.axb5 hh4 27. �h3 i.g5 2 8.'W'h2 'Llf8 29.f4 i.e7 3 0 .i.f3 with powerful pressure for White, Nedev - Bauer, Bled 2002.

ll.h3 It would be weaker to play 11. g4? ! h5 12 .h3 'W'b6 13.'W'a4 (The sacrifice of the central pawn is ob­ viously not in the spirit of the po­ sition - 13.'Llfl? ! hxg4 14.hxg4 'Llxd4 15.'Llg3 'Llxf3 + 16.'W'xf3 'W'd4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l/J d2 ie7 4 . l/J gf3 l/Jf6 17.ib5 and here after 17 . . . !lh4 ! ? Black could have won a second pawn. However, he also main­ tained his advantage in the game after 17 .. .'&b4 18.�e2 !lh4 19.f3 Wf8 2 0 .Wg2 l/Jc5 2 1.ie3 id7 2 2 .ixd7 l/Jxd7, Shirov - Kasim­ dzhanov, Moscow 2 0 07.) 13 . . . hxg4 14.hxg4 l/Jdb8 . A paradoxi­ cal move. (The natural move 14 . . . l/Jf8 i s less good for Black, because after 15.l/Jf1 id7 16.ie3 l/Jb4 17. �d1 l/Jxd3 18.�xd3, his knight on f8 has no good prospects.) 15.l/Jfl id7 16.ie3 l/Jb4 17.�d1 l/Jxd3 18. �xd3 ib5 19 .�c3 l/Jc6 2 0 . a3 0-0-0 and in the ensuing sharp struggle the chances of both sides are approximately equal.

to maintain an advantage in all lines . The endgame is good for Black after 16.�xg4?! �xg4 17. l/Jxg4 l/Jxd4 18.l/Jfh2 b6 19.l/Jf3 ic5 2 0 . id2 !lg8 21.l/Jfh2, with a compli­ cated position, Hracek - Kekki, Saint Vincent 2005.

16 ... f5 17.exf6 c!Llxf6 White must act very resolutely after 17 . . . id6 18 .�xg4 ! hg3 19. �g6+ Wd8 2 0 .�xg3 and as well as having enough material for the exchange, he has a powerful initi­ ative.

ll h5 12.lL!fl g4 13.hxg4 hxg4 14.lL!3h2 ib4 .•.

Black would not change the character of the fight with 14 . . . l/Jxd4 15.�xg4 (15.l/Jxg4 ! ?) 15 . . . ic5, White is better, since his king is much safer.

15.ge3 �h4 18 . .if4! Degraeve - Ganaus, Vienna 2 0 1 1 . O f course, the game is not over yet, but White's pieces are placed much more harmoniously. Black has so many weaknesses in his position that I shall refrain from further comment. . .

b) 8 16.gg3 ! It is only this original rook manoeuvre that enables White

h5 ! ?

. . •

This i s Morozevich's latest in­ vention in this line. With this move Black prepares the unavoid­ able pawn-advance g5, but he 155

Chapter 21 does not weaken his kingside as much. Of course, you can confuse your opponent by playing like this, but that's all . . .

too ambitious for Black to opt for 10 . . . g4 11.lLld4 lLldxe5 12.lLlxc6 lLlxc6 13.lLlb3 e5 and his lag in de­ velopment would be a telling fac­ tor in the future.) 11.�b5 (ll.�c2 lLld7!) 11.. .a6 12 .hc6+ bxc6 13.b4 lLld7 14.lLld4 �c7 15.:1:lel. Black's position would be quite accepta­ ble if we could ignore his king­ side pawns, since the purpose of their advance now remains a mys­ tery.

9 . . . g5

9.:1:le1 Black's idea is perfectly justi­ fied after 9 . dxc5 ? ! lLldxe5 10.t2Jxe5 lLlxe5 11.lLlb3 lLlxd3 12.�xd3 h4 13. :i:le1 h3 14.g3 a5 15.�f4 0-0 16. lLld4 hc5 17.l"le5 f6 18.:1:lxe6 he6 19.lLlxe6 �b6 2 0 .lLlxf8 hf2 + 21. f1 xf8 and Black was fighting for the advantage in the game Hracek - Morozevich, Rethym­ non 2 0 03. After 9.b3 g5 10.�b2 cxd4 11. cxd4 �b6 White has great prob­ lems with the protection of his d4-pawn. 9 .�e2 ! ? g5 (It is a matter of tempi, but his idea would not work after 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 g5 11. lLlb3 a5 12 .�e3 a4 13.lLlbd2 g4 14. lLle1 - White has parried his op­ ponent's initial pressure and is now ready to launch a counterat­ tack. Black can win a pawn, but this would be insufficient com­ pensation after 14 . . . �b6 15.lLlc2 �xb2. ) 10.dxc5 lLlxc5 (It would be 156

It is weaker for Black to play 9 . . . cxd4?! 10.cxd4 g5 11.lLlb3 g4 1 2 .lLlfd2 a5 (or 12 . . . �b6 13.lLlb1 a5 14.a4 lLld4 15.lLld4 �d4 16.lLlc3 with excellent compensation for White) 13.a4 lLlb6 (it comes to more or less the same after 13 . . . �b6 14.lLlb1 ! ) 14.lLlb1 lLlc4 15.lLlc3 �b6 16.hc4 dxc4 17.lLld2 lLlb4 18.lLlxc4 �c6 19.b3± Smirin Cheparinov, Mallorca 2 004.

10 .dxc5 g4 11.c!L!d4 c!Lldxe5

White has an additional resource in this position. 12. c!Ll 2b3 ! (He could have trans­ posed to the main line here with 12 .�b5. )

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. li.Jd2 �e7 4. li.Jgj3 li.Jf6 c) 8 . . . g5

This is the most aggressive move for Black and it creates the most problems for the opponent.

tant to give back the extra mate­ rial, but he must neutralize White's initiative at the very start. 17.li.Jxe5 hxg4 18. li.Jxg4 a6 - with chances for both sides. It would be interesting for White to try 9 .b4 ! ? cxd4 10.cxd4 li.Jxb4 l l.�e2, with the idea, hav­ ing preserved the pawn-centre, of trying to exploit the weakness on g5. The position is very compli­ cated and requires extensive practical testing at the highest possible level.

9.dxc5 Black's position is quite ac­ ceptable after 9.a3 g4 (But not 9 . . . h5? ! 10 .b4 g 4 11.b5 ! and White's idea is perfectly justified : 11 . . . li.Jxd4 12 .cxd4 gxf3 13.li.Jxf3 c4 14.�c2 a6 15J'1bl axb5 16Jl:xb5 �a3 17.li.Jg5 �cl 18.�xcl li.Jb8 19.li.Jh7 d8 24.�e3 �c7 2S.hb6± Timofeev - Bartel, playchess.com 2 0 04.) 13.f4 tt:lxd4 14.�xd7+ �xd7 1S.fxeS tt:lfS ! 16. �xg4 tt:le3 17.�g7 0-0-0 and Black's initiative is very powerful.

12

. . .

h5 1S9

Chapter 21 It is inferior to play 12 .. J !g8, because th en he loses the possi­ bility of castling kingside, no mat­ ter how ridiculous that might seem at the moment. 13.Ei:e1 'Llc4 14 . .if4 'Llxd4 15.'2lxd4 Ei:c8 16. Ei:xe6! and the issue has been al­ ready settled. (16.b3 'Lla3 17 ..id3 Ei:xc5 18 ..ixh7 Ei:g7 19 . .id3 Ei:xc3 20 . .ie5 .if6 2 l .Wfd2 .ixe5 2 2 . Ei:xe5 Wfc7 23.Ei:h5 Ei:g8 24.Ei:h7 e5 25.'2lf5 e4 2 6.Wfg5+ - Smirin - Akobian, Minneapolis 2 0 05.) 16 . . . fxe6 (16 . . . .ixb5? 17.Ei:e1 .ia6 18.'2lf5 + - ; 1 7 . . . .id7 1 8 . .id6 + - ; 1 7 . . . '2lxb2 1 8 . Wlb3 .id3 19 . .id6+-) 17.'2lxe6 .ixb5 18.'2lxd8 Ei:xd8 19.Wfe2± Black's pieces are so discoordi­ nated that they are unable to pro­ tect his king.

13.l'�el 13 . .if4 'Llg6. The move 13 .Wfe2 has been played twice, quite successfully, by Sergey Erenburg. I think Black should respond with 13 . . . a6 ! ? (13 . . . '2lxd4? ! 14.Wlxe5 .if6 15. ixd7+ i'f8 16.Wfd6+ .ie7 17.Wfe5 if6 18.Wfd6+ .ie7 19 . .ig5 .ixd6 20 . .ixd8 'Llxb3 2 L.if6 'Llxc5 2 2 . 160

.ixh8 'Llxd7 23 . .id4 and the result of the game will depend on wheth­ er White will realize his extra ex­ change or not, Erenburg - Peek, Port Erin 2 0 05. 13 . . . Ei:g8? ! 14. .ixc6 'Llxc6 15 . .if4 'Llxd4 16.cxd4 .ic6 17.Ei:fe1 .ig5 18 . .ixg5 Ei:xg5 19. Wfd2 Wff6 2 0 . Ei:e3 h4 2 l.Ei:ae1 - 21. 'Ll a5 ! ? - 2 1 . . .i'e7 2 2 . '2lc1 Ei:ag8 23. 'Lle2 i'f8 24.g3 Ei:f5 25.l2Jf4 Ei:xf4 26.gxf4 Wlxf4 27.Ei:d3 Wff6 28 .Ei:e5 Wfg6 29.Wfe3 g3 30.fxg3 hxg3 31. hxg3± Erenburg - Heberla, War­ saw 2 005. The move 13 . . . Wfc7? is just bad and after 14 . .if4 Black cannot play 14 . . . '2lf3 + ? 15.Wfxf3 ! )

1 4 . .ixc6 (White can also try to preserve this bishop by 14.'2lxc6 'Llxc6 15 . .id3, but I think that af­ ter 15 . . . e5, Black has sufficient counter-chances. If 14 . .ia4 Black can play 14 . . . Wfc7 15 . .if4 'Llf3+ 16. Wfxf3 gxf3 17 . .ixc7 'Llxd4 ! , regain­ ing the piece.) 14 . . . '2lxc6 15.Ei:e1 Wfc7 and the position is acceptable for Black (It is weaker for him to play 15 . . . '2lxd4 ?! 16.'2lxd4 .ixc5 17.Wfe5 ! ; 16 . . . Ei:c8 17.b4 and White has managed to get rid of one of his knights, since it was duplicat­ ing the functions of the other one) .

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ct:l d2 �e7 4. ct:lgf3 ct:lf6

13 )/jxd4 . .

This move forces the issue to the greatest extent. I can recommend to players who are after more complicated positions the line : 13 . . . ct:lg6 ! ? 14.c4 (Black should counter the simplifying move 14.ct:lxc6 with 14 . . . hc6 15.�d3 l"ig8 and he ob­ tains good counterplay, for exam­ ple, 16.�xg6 l"ixg6 17.�f4 �d7 18. �e2 h4 19.l"iad1 \tlf8 2 0 .�e5 �f6 2 1.�h5 \tlg7 2 2 .�e5 �d8 23.ct:ld4 �xeS 24.�xe5 + �f6 25.�c7 �d8 2 6.�e5+ �f6= Korneev - Stopa, Forni di Sopra 2011. It is worse for him to continue with 14 . . . bxc6 15.�d3 l"lg8 16.c4t, because his centre is rather unstable and his pieces are obviously very pas­ sive.)

and now: Black has tried 14 . . . a6 15.hc6 (15.cxd5 ? ! axb5 16.dxc6 hc6 17. ct:lxc6 �xd1 18.l"ixd1 bxc6 19 .�d2 h4 2 0 . ct:l a5 l"ic8 2 1 .ct:lb7 l"ih5 2 2 . �e3 l"ia8 23.a4 l"ixa4 24.l"ixa4 bxa4 25.l"ia1 h3 26.l"ixa4 l"id5 with a su­ perior endgame for Black, Naray­ anan - Shimanov, Chennai 2 0 11) 15 ... bxc6 (It is stronger to contin­ ue with 15 . . . hc6 ! ? 16. ct:lxc6 bxc6 and Black has managed to ex­ change his queen's bishop, which is usually very passive in this pawn-structure.) 16.�d2 e5 17. �a5 �b8 18.cxd5 cxd5 19.c6 �c8 2 0.c7 �b7 21.l"ic1 �d7 2 2 .ct:lc5 �xc5 23.l"ixc5 0-0 24.�b3 �xb3 25.ct:lxb3 �e6 26.l"ic6 l"lfe8 27. ct:l c5± Timofeev - Arencibia Rod­ riguez, Cappelle Ia Grande 2 004. It looks attractive for Black to play 14 . . . dxc4 15.hc4 ct:lxd4, but unfortunately White has a very powerful riposte : 16.ct:lxd4 (If 16. �xd4 �f6, and the white queen does not have a comfortable square to retreat to: 17.�d3 ct:le5; 17.�d1 �c7 with an excellent po­ sition for Black.) 16 . . . hc5 (It would be inconsistent to play 16 . . . 0 - 0 ? ! 17.�c2 ! ; while the move 16 . . . �c7 is simply very risky in view of 17.b4 0-0-0 18.�b2 .) 17.he6 fxe6 (White gains an ad­ vantage in problem-like fashion after 17 . . . he6 18 .�a4+ ! �d7 19.ct:lxe6 fxe6 2 0.�c2 ! ) 18.�c2 �e7 (Black loses after 18 . . .hd4 19.�xg6+ \tlf8 2 0.l"ie4 e5 2 1 . l"lxd4 ! ! exd4 2 2 .�f4+-) 19.�xg6+ �fl 2 0.�e4 0-0 2 1 .�e3, and 161

Chapter 21 White has a clear, if small, advantage . . . 14 . . . l/Jxd4 1S.ll:lxd4 (Or 1S. '&xd4?! .b:bS 16.cxbS .if6 and Black's position is acceptable.) 1S ... .b:cS 16.cxdS .ixbS 17.l/JxbS '&b6 ! Black's position looks peril­ ous, but in fact it is quite satisfac­ tory. 18.'&e2 (Or 18.dxe6? .ixf2 + 19.mh1 '&xbS 20 .exf7+ mf8 2 1 . l'l:f1 .id4 ! and Black neutralizes White's attack. ) 18 . . . 0-0 19 . .ih6 l'l:fe8 with counterplay.

position. The computer recom­ mends another move - 1S . . . l/Jc4.) 16 ..id2 .if6 17.l'l:c1 0-0 18.f3 eS 19.dxeS .ixeS 2 0.fxg4 hxg4 2 l..ic3 .ixc3 2 2 . l'l:xc3 l'l:ae8 23.l'l:f1 fS 24. h3t White maintains a powerful initiative, Rublevsky - Vysochin, Olginka 2011.

14 . . . hb5

15.lilxb5 ! ?

14. lilxd4 Activating the white queen with 14.'&xd4 is harmless for Black after 14 . . . .b:bS 1S.l'l:xeS (IS. '&xeS .if6 16.'&f4 '&e7) 1S ... '&d7 (It is essential not to overlook the trick 1S . . . .if6 16 . .igS ! ) 16.l'l:xdS '&xdS 17.'&xh8 + md7 18.'&d4 .ic6 19 . .if4 l'l:d8 and Black will have excellent compensation in the en­ suing endgame. 14 . .ixd7+ '&xd7 1S.cxd4 l/Jg6? ! (I believe that this is not the right square for this knight. It seems much more natural for Black to continue with 1S . . . l/Jc6 16 . .if4 .idS, reaching a very complicated 162

This i s a novelty which has not been tried in practice yet. The move 1S.l'l:xeS has been played in two games, but it does not create any serious problems for Black. 1S . . . '&c7 (Black can also try 1S . . . .id7 16.b4 .if6 17.l'l:e1 '&c7 and the players agreed to a draw in this complicated position, Emms - Lalic, Southend 2 001 .) 16 . .if4 (Here the computer recommends 16.l'l:e1 '&xeS - 16 . . . .id7! ? - 17 . .ie3 '&c4 18 .b3 '&d3 19.l/JxbS '&xbS and now the really cheeky move 2 0 . .b:a7 ! ) 16 . . .'�xcS 17 . .ie3 '&c4 18 .b3 '&d3 19. l/JxbS '&xbS 2 0 . .id4 '&d7 2 l.'&d3 h4 2 2 .f4 gxf3 23. '&xf3 f6 24.l'l:hS 0-0-0, with ad­ vantage to Black, Kolar - Boukal, Czech Republic 2 0 04.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt'l d2 i.e7 4 . tt'l gj3 tt'lf6 15

• . .

ttlg6 16.c4

19.cxd5

If 16.Wa4, Black should reply 16 . . . 0 - 0 ! without hesitation

16

. • .

i.xc5

19 .'�b6 • .

17.W c2 ! 0 - 0 It would be too risky to play 17 .. J'k8 18.l"lxe6+ fxe6 19.Wxg6+ xd1 bxc6 with a very compli­ cated endgame.) 9.�d3 1gfc7 ! ? (9 . . . a6? ! 1 0 . 0 - 0 �d6 ll.b3 b S 12.a4 b4? 13 .�b5 ! axbS 14.axb5 �xh 2 +

15.11Jxh2 1gfb7 16.l'%xa8 1gfxa8 17. 1gfd6 tiJ dS 18.1gfg3 g6 19.11Jg4 hS 2 0.�b2 0-0 21.tt:lf6+ tt:lxf6 2 2 . 1gfeS ! + - Efimenko - Ivanov, Da­ gomys, 2 009) 10.0-0 �d6 11.�g5 �d7 12 .1gfe2 tt:ldS 13.c4 tt:lf4 14. �xf4 hf4 15.g3 �d6 16.md1 l'!d8 17.l'%ac1 b6 and Black had a slight edge, McShane - Shimanov, Stockholm 2009. Of course, White was not forced to play so indifferently, but there is a feeling that after 7.11J2f3 Black should have no problems whatsoever.

7

•••

tt:\a6

Black does not really want to develop his knight to this square, but has no good alternative at this point.

8.c4 This is the only move for White which combines aggression and soundness. There are interesting develop­ ments after the gambit line : 8.�e2 �d7 9 .c4 (White even tried a "double gambit" in the following blitz game - without success, though . . . : 9 . 0 - 0 �xbS 10 .c4 hc4 11.�xc4 1gfc6 12 .1gfe2 tt:lc7 13.tt:lf3 183

Chapter 24 id6 14.ig5 0-0 15J'l:ac1 iWb6 16. .b:f6 gxf6 17.iWe4 ie7 18.iWh4 E1ad8 and the position was very complicated, Svidler - Grischuk, Moscow 2008.) 9 . . . 1Wxg2 10.if3 iWh3 1l ..b:b7

ll . . . tt:Jb4 (It is clear that Black refrained from the more forcing line starting with ll . . . tt:Jc5 because of 12.1MI'f3 iWxf3 13.ixf3 l"1b8 14. tt:Jxa7 4Jd3+ 15.�e2 with an un­ clear position. White does not achieve much with 12 . .b:a8 4Jd3+ 13.�e2 tt:Jf4=) 1 2 .4Je4 This is ad­ mittedly a bold move, but I can­ not recommend it since it is too risky. (12 . .b:a8 4Jd3+ 13. �e2 tt:Jf4=) 12 . . . 4Jd3+ (Or 12 . . . 4Jxe4 ! ? 13.ixe4 l"1c8 and Black seizes the initiative. White will remain a pawn down and that might not be the worst thing that happens to him in this position.) 13.�e2 tt:Jxe4 14 ..b:e4 tt:Jxc1+ 15.l"1xc1 E1b8 16.b3 ic5 17.4Jc7+ �e7 18.4Ja6 E1b6 19.4Jxc5 iWh5+ 2 0.f3 iWxc5 and White emerged victorious from the subsequent struggle, Ni Hua - Lysyj , Dagomys 2 0 0 8 . Black survived i n the only two games played with the variation 8.ie2 iWxg2 9.if3 iWg5 10 .a4. It is 184

amazing, but the opponents in both these games were the same !

10 . . . 1Wh4. This improvement for Black was obviously the result of home preparation. (Their pre­ vious game had continued with 10 . . . 1We5+ 1l.�f1 4Jd5 1 2 .4Jc4 iWb8 13 .ig5 h6 14.ih4 iWf4 15.4Jcd6+ .b:d6 16.ig3 iWc4+ 17.ie2 iWc6 18.4Jxd6+ �f8 19.l"1g1 tt:J ac7 2 0 . l"1a3 and White had a n over­ whelming advantage, Yemelin S.lvanov, St Petersburg 1994.) 1l.l"1g1 ic5 12.1l>lfe2 0-0 13.b3 tt:Jb4 14.4Jc4 a6 15.ig5 iWxh2 16.l"1h1 hf2 + 17. �fl iWg3 18 . .b:f6 gxf6 19.1Wxf2 iWxf2 + 2 0 . �xf2 axb5 2 1 . l"1ag1+ � h 8 2 2 .l"1h4 bxc4 23. l"1gh1 and after this wild struggle the game ended with a draw by per­ petual check, Yemelin - S.lvanov, St Petersburg 1996. However, I believe that the variation has yet not been exhausted and there are many possibilities still to be tried. It would be too optimistic for White to play 8.4Jc4 iWxd1 + 9. �xd1 ic5 10.f3 (Or 10.4Jbd6 + ? ! �e7 11. tt:Jxc8+ E1axc8 12.f3 E1hd8+ 13.id2 4Jd5 14.id3 tt:Jab4 15.�e2 b5 16. 4Ja3 tt:Jxd3 17.cxd3 ha3 18.bxa3 l"1c2 and the endgame is lost for

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3Jij d2 c5 4Jijgf3 cd S . tiJxd4 l:iJf6 White, Mannion - Hmadi, Yere­ van 1996.) 10 . . . 0-0 11.c3 l"ld8+ 12.'it>c2 l:iJdS 13.b4 il.e7 14.il.d2 i/.d7 1S.a4 i/.e8 16.i/.e2 l:iJac7 17.1:iJxc7 lLlxc7 18.l"lhd1 l"lac8 19.g3 1:iJ dS 2 0 . 'it>b3 il.f6 2 1.f4 bS, Black's position is totally dominant, Vorobiov Volkov, Krasnoyarsk 2 0 03 . 8.lLlc3 ! ? White i s planning a long struggle with this move. 8 . . . \Wd8 (An interesting for Black here is 8 . . . \WeS+ 9.i/.e2 il.b4 ! ? with a rather unclear position.)

Now: 9 . a3 il.e7 10 .i/.c4 0-0 (Or 10 . . . lLlc7 1 1 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 12.\Wf3 lLlfdS 13. lLlde4 fS 14.lLlg3 lLlxc3 1S.\Wxc3 lLldS 16.\Wf3 bS. GM Emil Sutovs­ ky usually treats the French de­ fence as a cross between the Gru­ enfeld Defence and the Najdorf Sicilian . . . 17.hbS \Wc7 18.c4 Black is unlikely to obtain compensa­ tion for his wild sacrifices, Ni Hua - Sutovsky, Wijk aan Zee 2010.) 11.0-0 (White did not achieve any advantage with the line: 11.\We2 lLlcS 1 2 . 0 - 0 a6 13.b4 lLlcd7 14.il.b2 aS 1S.bxaS \WxaS 16.lLlbS lLlb6 17. i/.c3 \Wa4 18.il.b3 \Wh4 19.1:iJc7 l"lxa3 = Timofeev - Ni Hua, Tai­ yuan 2 0 0 6 . It would be rather

half-hearted for White to play 14. lLlb3 ? ! \Wc7 1S.il.b2 lLleS 16.i/.d3 lLlxd3 17.cxd3 il.d7 18.lLle4 lLlxe4 19.dxe4 l"lfc8 20.\Wg4 eS 21.\Wg3 f6 and Black gained the advantage in the game Handke - Lysyj , Stock­ holm 2 0 0 9 . ) 1 1 . . .lLlcS. (This move is stronger than 11.. .lLlb8 1 2 .lLlde4 \Wc7 13 .i/.d3 lLlbd7 14.l"le1 b6 1S. lLlbS \Wc6 16.1:iJbd6 ! ? l:iJ cS 17. 1:iJxc8 l"laxc8 18.lLlxcS hcS 19.\We2 l"lfd8 2 0 .il.f4 il.d6 2 1.i/.d2, Lastin Alekseev, Moscow 2 0 0 8 . It seems to me that White's prospects are superior in this position. Howev­ er, his advantage might not be so easy to realize.) 12 .b4 lLlcd7 13.il.b2 aS 14.bxaS \WxaS 1S.lLlbS lLlb6 16. il.d3 il.d7 17.l"lb1 hbS 18.hbS lLla4 19 .hf6 il.xf6 2 0 .lLle4 il.e7 2 1 . i/.xa4 and Black agreed to a draw in a very comfortable position, Malak­ hov - Shimanov, Olginka 2 0 11. There appeared a fresh idea (not completely new in this posi­ tion, however . . . ), as early as the second round of the World Cup, from Peter Svidler (who won the Cup, by the way. . . ): 9.g3 il.b4 10. \Wf3 lLlc7? ! That was not the right square ! (It was stronger for Black to play 10 . . . lLlcS, protecting the b7-pawn ! , for example: 11.i/.g2 il.d7 and his position is perfectly playable ; or 11.a3 i/.xc3 12 .\Wxc3 b6? with chances for both sides. ) 11.a3 i/.e7 12 .i/.g2 . Now the game is developing in a rather unpleasant way for Black. 12 . . . 0-0 13.0-0 l"lb8 14.lLlde4 l:iJxe4 1S.\Wxe4 il.f6 16.i/.f4 il.d7 17.l"lad1 \WeB 18.i/.d6 il.c6 19.\Wf4 hg2 2 0 . 'it>xg2 hc3 18S

Chapter 24 2 l .bxc3 'LldS 2 2 . Wlf3 Wlc6 23.ixf8 Elxf8 and later, showing tremen­ dous tenacity, Black somehow managed to save the game, Svidler - Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 1 .

8

•••

Wlc6

It looks quite sensible for Black to try 8 . . . W!fS 9.ie2 ie7 10. 0-0 (10.'Llf3 0-0 11.'Lld6 WlaS+ 12 .id2 Wlb6 13.'Llxc8 8:axc8 14. Wlc2 'Llb4 1S.Wlb1 icS 16.0-0 'Llc6 17.ic3 8:fd8 18 .Wlc2 'Llb4 19 .Wlb1 'Llc6 2 0 .'f1 idS and Black exploited his advantage, So Meier, Lubbock 2010.) 16.'1t>f1 if4 17.g3 l'!d8 ! 18 .Vfie4 ! (18.c3 ? ! ih6 19.Vfih5 §J..g 7 2 0.hh7+ 'it>f8 2 1 . l'!ad1 §J..d 7 2 2 .'1t>g1 l'!ac8 , Black's position is acceptable but rather passive, Giri - Wiedenkeller, Ohrid 2009.) 18 .. .f5 19.ttJxf5 exf5 2 0 . 1Jfixf4 Vfixf4 21.gxf4 'it>g7 and the endgame is worse for Black, but still defensible.

...

.id7!?

Some ten years ago, it was very popular for Black to continue with 12 . . . id6 and although White failed to prove any advantage in the gambit which arises in the main line, Black stopped playing that line, for reasons I do not quite understand. This is quite typical of the trend of fashion in chess. It is changing and com­ pletely unpredictable. 13.ttJf5 ixh 2 + 14.'it>h1 0-0 15.ttJxg7. I be­ lieve it is not necessary to put ex­ clamation marks to well-known moves, so I shall simply show you here what theory has approved and time has tested. 15 . . . l'!d8 16. Vfif3 'it>xg7 17.ih6+ (17.g3 ? ! b5 18.'it>xh2 ib7 19.Vfif4 Vfic6 2 0 . l'!g1 l'!d1 2 1.ie3 l'!xa1 2 2 .Vfig5+ 'it>f8 23 .Vfic5+ 'it>e8 24.Vfixc6+ ixc6 25. l'!xa1 ttJg4+ with an advantage for Black, Wolff - Gulko, Durango 1992.) 17 . . . '\t>g6 18 .c3 (18.l'!ad1? l'!xd1 19.l'!xd1 e5 ! This was a very important novelty at the time. 2 0 . 'it>xh2 ttJg4+ 21.'it>g1 'it>xh6 and White had to resign, Zaw - Kha­ lifman, Bali 2000.) 18 . . . ttJh5 (18 . . . ttJd5? 19.l'!ad1 'it>xh6 20.l'!xd5 ! +-)

19.l'!e4 'it>xh6 2 0 .l'!h4 lffie 5 2 1 . 201

Chapter 26 'Wxfl (After 2 l . E:xh2? f6 2 2 .g4 �d7, Black can fight for the ad­ vantage.) 2 l . . . 'Wf5 2 2 . E:xh5+ 'WxhS 23.'Wf6+ 'Wg6 24.'Wh4+ 'Wh5 25. 'Wf6 = Geenen - Barsov, France 2 0 07. 19.�e3 fS 2 0 .g4 liJf6 2l.gxf5+ exfS 2 2 .'Wg2 + liJg4 23.f3 bS 24. �d4 'it>gS 25.�e6 �g3 26.�xc8 E:axc8 27.fxg4 �xe1 28.E:xe1 'Wc6 29.gxf5+ 'Wxg2 + 3 0 .\t>xg2 lt>xfS and the position should be techni­ cally winning for Black, Sarakaus­ kas - Dochev, Tanta 2001. 19 .�c1 �f4 2 0 .g4 liJg3 + 2 l .fxg3 �xc1 2 2 . E:axc1 b6. This move en­ sures both the development of Black's bishop on the long diago­ nal and also the c5-square for the queen. (There is nothing wrong with the less intricate 22 . . . �d7! ? 2 3 .�c2 + lt>g7 24.'We3 �c6+ 25. 'it>h2 h6=) 23.�c2 + (After 23. 'We3, a game by one of the most famous experts in this line, Ser­ gey Ivanov, proves that Black has no problems whatsoever: 23 . . . �b7+ 24.\t>h2 'Wc5 25.'Wf4 'WgS 2 6 .�c2 + 'it>h6 27.E:cd1 'Wxf4 28. gxf4 �f3 29.E:xd8 E:xd8 30.'it>g3 E:d2 = Solovjov - S. Ivanov, St Pe­ tersburg 2 005.) 23 . . . \t>g7 24.�e4 E:a7 25.E:c2 �b7 26.E:h2 �xe4 27.'Wxe4 'Wb7 28.E:xh7+ lt>g8 29. 'Wxb7 E:xb7 30.E:h2 E:d3 3l.'it>g2 E:d2 + 32.'it>h3 E:xh2 + 33. 'it>xh2 E:d7 34.E:e2 'it>g7 35. \t>h3 bS 36.b3 E:c7 37.E:e3 lt>f6 38.E:f3+ lt>g5= Brodsky - Glek, Wijk aan Zee 1999.

13.'\W£3 White achieves very little with 202

13.'We2 0 - 0 - 0 14.�e3 �d6 15.h3 'it>b8 16.a4 �h2 + 17.\t>hl �f4 18. E:ad1 h5 19.�xf4 'Wxf4 2 0.'it>g1 h4 2 l.'We3 'Wxe3 2 2 . E:xe3 = Pavasovic - Akopian, Heraklio 2 007.

13 . . . �d6 This is the right answer for Black. He must occupy the b8-h2 diagonal before his opponent does. The author of this book made a terrible mistake in the move-or­ der in one of the morning rounds of the Bundesliga. This led to six hours of hard and laborious de­ fence, but in the end it all ended successfully, by a miracle: 13 . . . 00-0? 14.�f4 �d6 15.�xd6 'Wxd6 16.E:ad1 'Wc7 17.E:e3 'it>b8 18.E:c3 'WeS 19 .�c4 lt>a7 2 0 . E:a3 ! 'We4 (20 . . . 'Wc5 2 l.'We3 ! ) 2 1.'\Wc3 (Black would have even greater prob­ lems to solve after 2 l.'Wg3 ! E:c8 2 2 .f3 'Wg6 23 .�xa6 ! 'Wxg3 24. �d3 + 'it>b8 25.hxg3±) 2 l . . . E:c8 2 2 . 'Wb4 'WeS 23.�e2 'WcS 24. 'Wxc5+ :§:xeS 25.b4 E:cc8 26.c4 E:hd8 27.f4 and White had very powerful pressure, Efimenko Vitiugov, Hamburg 2009.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.CiJ d2 c5 4.Ci:Jgf3 cd S.ed WlxdS 6. 1J.c4 Wld6 7. 0 - 0 [iJj6 14.h3 It is unsound for White to con­ tinue with 14.[iJf5? hh2 + 15. h1 0-0-0 16.[iJe7+ (Or 16.[iJxg7 ie5 and his knight on g7 does not seem to be doing anything.) 16 . . . b8 17.g3 Wffc5 ! and Black ends up with an extra pawn and a superior position. A well-known draw arises af­ ter 14.he6 fxe6 15.[iJxe6 he6 16J''l:x e6+ f7 17.Wffb 3 hh2 + ! This is an important intermediate move; otherwise Black would simply lose the bishop on d6. 18. h1 g6 19.Wffd 3+ f7 2 0 .Wffb 3 g6= 2 1.g3 ? ! This is a very risky decision for White and it cannot end well for him. 2 1 . . .hg3 2 2 . fxg3 l"l:ac8 23.if4 Wffx c2 24.Wffxb7 l"l:he8 25.Wffx a6 l"l:xe6 2 6 .Wffx e6 l"l:e8 27.Wffh 3 l"l:e2 28.l"l:c1 Wle4+ 29.g1 h5 3 0.Wfffl [iJg4 31.l"l:d1 l"l:h2 3 2 . l"l: d6+ h7 and White resigned in view of the unavoidable mate, Be­ likov - Danielian, Jurmala 1991.

15 . .ig5 Black easily solves his prob­ lems after the more modest line : 15.ie3 b8 16.c4 e5 17.c5 ixc5 18.l"l:acl (18.l"l:ec1 Wffb6 19.l"l:xc5 Wlxc5 2 0 . [iJe6 Wlc6 2 1 .Wffx c6 ixc6 2 2 . [iJxd8 l"l:xd8 23 .ixf7 [iJdS =) 18 . . . Wffb 6 19.{iJf5 he3 2 0 . l"l:xe3 hf5 21.¥flxf5 e4 22 .ixf7 l"lhf8 23 .ib3 l"l:d2 24.Wfff4+ Wffd 6 25.Wffx d6+ l"l:xd6 with an equal endgame, Pavaso­ vic - Sakalauskas, Plovdiv 2003.

15 . . . �c5 The other plan for Black does not work: 15 . . . ih2 + 16. h1 ie5 17.l"l:ad1 h6 18 .ie3 g5 19.l"l:d3. It is quite obvious that if White can manoeuvre his rook along the third rank in this variation, this causes plenty of problems for the opponent. 19 . . . b8 2 0 .l"l:c3 Wffd 6 21.l"l:d1 Wffe 7 2 2 .ic4 with a power­ ful initiative for White.

14 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 Black cannot change his mind now: 14 . . . 0-0?! 15.ig5 ie5 16. Wle3 and White obtains an advan­ tage.

16 . .ie3 It is too risky for White to gob­ ble up the gambit pawn : 16.ixf6 gxf6 17.Wffxf6 l"l:hg8 18 .l"l:ad1 l"l:g6 ! 19.Wffxf7? ! (The line 19.Wfff3 l"l:dg8 2 0.g4 h5 can hardly be consid­ ered satisfactory for White. For 2 03

Chapter 26 example : 2 l.'Wxf7 hxg4 2 2 .he6 gxh3+ 23.Whl he6 24.!'1xe6 'Wd5+ 25.f3 l"1gl + 26.!'1xgl !'1xgl + 27.Wxgl 'Wxd4+ 28 .Wfl 'Wc4+ and White is rather lucky that Black has nothing better than delivering perpetual check. .) 19 . . . !'1f8 2 0 . 'Wxh7 'WgS 2 l .g3 hg3 2 2 .'Wxd7+ Wxd7 23.'Llxe6+ Wc6 24.'Llxg5 hf2 + 25.Wh2 .bel 2 6 . !'1xel l"1xg5 and only White can lose this posi­ tion.

16 . . .'�e5 17.g3 Wfe4 18.gadl .ic6 19. Wfxe4 .ixe4

'LlhS .tg6 3l.We2= Sermek Harikrishna, Istanbul 2000.) 2 2 ... .tc7 23.c4 !'1xdl 24.!'1xdl !'1d8 25.!'1xd8+ Wxd8 . As you can see, White had some success in sever­ al games with very precise play, but I don't think Black needs to panic. 26 . .td4 eS 27 . .te3 .tas (Here Black should consider the possibility of activating his bishop with: 27 . . . .tf5 ! ?) 2 8 .c5 'Lld7 29.a3 'Llb8 30 . .td5 'Llc6 3 l.b4 .tc7 32.g4 hS 33.'Llg3 hxg4 34.fxg4 WeB 35. 'Llf5 + - Almasi - Kindermann, Germany 2 0 0 0 .

20 . . . .ig6 21.c3 .ic5 22 . .if4 ghe8 23 . .ie5 .if8 24 . .ic4

2 0 . .ig5 White might create more problems for his opponent with the line : 2 0.f3 .tg6 2 1 .'Lle2 h6 2 2 . Wg2 (White did not achieve any­ thing much after 2 2 . Wf2 .th7 23.a3 .teS 24.c3 l"1xdl 25.!'1xdl !'1d8 26.!'1xd8 + Wxd8 27.g4 hS 28.'Llf4 hxg4 29.hxg4 'Lld7 3 0 .

204

Even such an expert in posi­ tions of this type as Sergey Ti­ viakov understood that he had no winning chances here and so of­ fered a draw, Tiviakov - Kramnik, Moscow 1991.

Parts 7-9

The Classical System l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tbc3

The last three parts of our book will be devoted to the analysis of the most popular and, I believe, also the most dangerous move for Black - 3.tt:lc3 . White maintains the tension in the centre and develops his knight to a more active position, in comparison with the variation with 3.tt:ld2. Now, unless Black opts for Rubinstein's 3 . . . dxe4, which we cov­ ered in Part 4, the game continues according to one of two basic sce­ narios - 3 . . . tt:lf6 or 3 . . . .ib4. The positions arising from each of these moves are completely different; but what they have in common is the importance of handling the different pawn structures correctly, plus the tremendous importance of concrete variations in the implementa­ tion of the various plans. Thus the play involves great risks for both sides.

205

Part 7

The Winawer Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 .ib4

We shall begin with 3 . . . ib4. This principled and double-edged vari­ ation requires precise and energetic play from both sides and the re­ sulting pawn structures are so varied that they should please both the tacticians, who long for dynamic play, and the positional players who love long manoeuvring battles. I think that White can create the greatest problems for Black by playing 4.e5. After this move Black will most probably have to give up his dark-squared bishop for White's knight on c3 and then you can simply forget about symmetry until the next game . I am not going to mention here all the strategic ideas which are typical of this variation, since there are so many that systematizing them is practically impos­ sible. Sometimes Black castles queenside and sometimes kingside. There can be attacks against White's monarch and very often Black comes under attack himself. There can be games featuring a slow and patient fight for squares and outposts, as well as games with wild tacti­ cal complications, in which the value of every tempo is tremendously important. It is quite clear that whenever you play a game in the Winawer variation, you will most probably enjoy the sheer process of playing, particularly if you are well-prepared and have a deep under­ standing of the resulting positions. . .

2 06

Chapter 27

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijc3 i.b4

C/J5f6 11.c6! This is an important move, with which he maintains the advantage. 11.. .bxc6 1 2 .a3 .ie7 13.0-0-0 Wc7 14.C/Jd4 .ib7 15 . .ie2 l"lae8 16.C/Jb3 C/Jd5 17.C/Je4± Anand - Van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1990.

If White wants to avoid the main lines, he has many lines to choose from. The point is, how­ ever, that he must then rely most­ ly on the element of surprise, rather than the objective value of these sidelines. Now we shall cover: a) 4.�d3,

b) 4 . .id2, c) 4.'1Wg4, d) 4.exd5, e) 4 . .id3, f) 4.a3 and g) 4.tt::lge2.

5 ..id2 b6 6 ..ie2 0 - 0 7.a3 hc3 8 . .h:c3 a5 9.tt::lf3 tt::ld 7 1 0 . exd5 exd5 11. 0 - 0 tt::lf6 12.�dl tt::le 4 13 . .id2 l"le8 14.l"lel tt::lg6 15 . .ie3 a4 16.tt::ld 2 tt::ld 6 17.-i£3 .ie6 18.tt::lfl tt::lh4 with an excel­ lent game for Black, Anand Short, Wijk aan Zee 1990.

b) 4.i.d2 This move reminds me of those good old one-move traps.

4

. • •

dxe4 5.�g4

a) 4.�d3 This move looks a bit awk­ ward.

4

. . •

tt::le 7

White would love the game to continue with 4 . . . dxe4 5.'�xe4 C/Jf6 6.�h4 c5 7.dxc5 C/Jd5 8. �xd8+ mxd8 9.C/Jge2 C/Jd7 1 0 .id2 207

Chapter 27 White continues in the same style. He is not trying to mate his opponent right away, but some­ thing similar. . .

The resulting endgame with a material imbalance is, I believe, better for Black. The following game is an instructive example:

5 .c!iJf6 6."1Wxg7 ggs 7."\Wh6 "\Wxd4 8. 0 - 0 - 0

15 a6 !? 16.h4 b5 17.c!iJh3 b4 ts.gdfl bxc3 19.gxf6 i.g7 2 0 . gffl f5 21.i.h5+ �e7with an ad­

• •

Black has no problems at all after 8 .liJge2 "\We5 9.0-0-0 l"l:g6�, or 9.i.f4 "\Wf5 10.liJg3 Wg6 ll.Wxg6 l"l:xg6.

•••

vantage for Black, Korepanov Skomorokhin, Podolsk 1993.

c) 4."\Wg4

8 . . . .if8 Black can also play 8 . . . l"l:g6 ! ? 9.Wh4 (It i s weaker for White to play 9.Wf4?! i.d6 10.liJge2 hf4 ll.liJxd4 i.e5 and he ends up a pawn down in an endgame.) 9 . . . l"l:g4 10."\Wh3 "\Wxf2 ll.i.e2 l"l:g6 with some compensation for Black.

9."1Wh4 But not 9.Wf4? ! i.d6.

9 gh4

• • •

gg4 1 0 ."\Wh3 "!Wxf2 11.i.e2

It looks as though Black wins on the spot, but this is not the case. ll . . . l"l:g6 ! ?

12."\Wxh4 "\Wxh4 13.g3 ! Now Black's queen is trapped!

13 "\Wh6 15.�bl • •.

2 08

14.i.xh6 i.xh6+

This lively sortie by White's queen does not create any prob­ lems for Black.

4 .c!iJf6 5. "\Wxg7 ggs 6. "!Wh6 )3g6 7."1We3 c!lJxe4 8.i.d3 • •

Here it looks interesting for Black to investigate the greedy move -

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ttJ c3 �b4 s . . . gxg2 ! ? which leads to a more o r less forced line. In an encounter between two World Champions, the future President of FIDE played too rou­ tinely and was punished for it: 8 .. .f5 9.tLlge2 c5 10 . .be4 fxe4 11. �h3 ttJc6 12 .�xh7 �f6 13.tLlf4 cxd4 14.tLlxg6 dxc3 15.b3 ttJe7 16. ttJxe7 �xe7 17.h4± and later White prevailed, Alekhine Euwe, Netherlands 1935. A very unclear position arises after 8 . . . ttJc6 9.tLlge2 gxg2 10 . .be4 dxe4 1l.�xe4 �d5 12 .�xh7! ? �f3 13 .�e3 gxf2 14.�xf2 �xh1+ 15. �gl . It looks as though the most reasonable course for Black is to sacrifice a pawn for the sake of the fastest possible development 15 . . . �d7 16.0-0-0 0-0-0 17. �xt7 with a slight edge for White.

ll.tlJge2 Black equalizes in the most simple fashion after 1 l.�d2 .bc3 12 .�xc3 �d5 =

ll . . . ttJd7 12.�d2 Black has an excellent position after 12.�f4 tLlf6 13 .�d3 �d7 14. 0-0-0 �c6.

12 . . . tlJf6 13.�h4 b6 14. 0 - 0 - 0 �b7 15.ghgl .ie7 with an acceptable game, since he can counter the immediate attack - 16.d5 - with the perfectly ade­ quate resource : 16 . . . tLlxd5 17. �xh7 gxg1 18 J'1xg1 �d6 !

d ) 4.exd5 exd5

9 . .ixe4 This is White's only move.

9 . . . dxe4 1 0 .Wxe4

5 . .id3

1 0 . . . gg6 Black must play accurately: after 10 . . . �d5? 1l.�xd5 exd5 1 2 . l!?f1 ! he loses a pawn.

This is a popular move. White avoids any theoretical debates and at the same time leaves Black with some problems . . 5.�f3 ? ! This looks a s i f White is trying to set up Scholar's Mate ; Black's previous cunning moves did not allow White to develop his queen earlier to such an active po­ sition. 5 . . . �e7+ 6.tLlge2 (The line 6 .�e3 tLlf6 7.h3 would j ust lead to a transposition. Bearing in mind 209

Chapter 27 what happens later, White should think about equalizing with the move 6.�e3 .) 6 . . . ttJc6

Now: after 7.�xd5? ttJf6 8.�c4 i.e6 9.�d3 0-0-0 White will not sur­ vive for long; 7.i.e3 ttJf6 8 .h3 ttJe4 (It seems quite sensible for Black to play here 8 . . . i.xc3 + ! ? , for example : 9. ttJxc3 ttJxd4 ! or 9.bxc3 ttJe4 and White has problems.) 9.a3 (Black's play is quite easy after 9 . 0-0-0 i.xc3 10.ttJxc3 ttJxc3 11.bxc3 i.e6 12 .i.d3 0-0-0 13.2"1he1 ttJaS 14. d2 �a3 and he is in no danger, Onoprienko - Riazantsev, Biel 2 0 1 0 ; 12 .�g3 0-0-0 - 12 . . . 0- 0!? - 13.�xg7 E1dg8 14.�h6 i.fS 15. d2 �a3 16.�h5 i.e4 17.f3 i.xc2 18.xc2 �xa2+ 19.d3 E1e8 - The complications have ended in Black's favour, Lehmann - Fara­ go, Kiev 1978) 9 . . . i.a5 (It would be less ambitious to opt for 9 . . . i.xc3 + 10.Ci:lxc3 Ci:lxd4 11.i.xd4 Ci:lxc3+ 12 .�e3 �xe3+ 13.fxe3 Ci:le4 14.i.xg7 E1g8 15.i.e5 i.e6 16.g4= with an approximately equal posi­ tion.) 10.b4 ttJxc3 11 .bxa5 (11. Ci:lxc3?! ttJxd4 12 .�d1 ttJfS 13.ttJxd5 Ci:lxe3 14.ttJxe7 ttJxd1 15.ttJxc8 Ci:lc3 210

and White must fight for equality) 11...ltJb5 12 .�xd5 ttJxa3 13.�b3 �b4+ 14. d1 �xb3 15.cxb3 ttJbS with an interesting struggle in the endgame ; 7.�d3. White is trying to con­ solidate his position at the cost of a tempo. This loss of time (a sec­ ond move with the same piece in the opening, and moreover the strongest one) is unlikely to hand the advantage to Black in view of the symmetrical pawn structure. However, Black's game is com­ fortable, beyond any doubt. 7 . . . ttJf6 (It i s slightly premature to play 7 . . . g6 8.a3 i.fS 9.�e3 i.c3 10.�c3 �e4 11.i.f4 and Black fails to win a pawn.) Now any bishop development offers Black attrac­ tive possibilities. For example, af­ ter 8.i.e3 , 8 . . . g6 ! ? is already worth consideration, and in the event of 8.i.g5 Black can ask the opponent to define his intentions by 8 . . . h6. The most sensible move is 8.i.f4. It could be met by either 8 . . . 0-0, or 8 . . . i.e6, intending to castle queenside. In both cases Black is probably fine, although the fight is still ahead.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:J c3 �b4 5 . . . c6 This is a rarely played move, but one which seems to me to be perfectly reasonable in the cir­ cumstances. Black should not be disappointed that he has failed to reach the complicated positions arising after 4.e5. Instead, he should simply try to equalize with accurate play. Fans of sharp positions play here 5 . . . lt:Jc6 ! ? 6.a3 .bc3+ 7.bxc3 ct:Jge7 and later the development of the game becomes totally un­ predictable. It seems to me that Black is just asking for trouble playing like that. For example: 8 . �h5 �e6 9J�b1 b6 10.lt:Jf3 �d7 1 1 . lt:Jg5 0 - 0 - 0 12 .lt:Jxe6 �xe6+ 13. �e3 g6 14.�f3 lt:Jf5 15.0-0 ct:Jxe3 16J'!fe1 �d6 17.fxe3 f5 18.c4 dxc4 19.�xc4 and Black's king can nev­ er feel safe, Glek - Chenaux, Saint Vincent 1999.

7.�xf6 White cannot gain any ad­ vantage from 7.�f4 lt:Je7 8.�g3 lt:Jd7 9 .lt:Jge2 0-0 10.0-0-0 lt:Jg6 11.�g5 �d6 12 .�xd6 �xd6 13.h4 h6 14.�d2 lt:Jf6 15.h5 lt:Je7 16.f3 �f5= Moreno Camero - lvan­ chuk, Mallorca 2 004.

7 .. .ti:lxf6 8)l:\ge2 lilbd7 9.a3 .ie7 1 0 .f3 h5 11.h4 lilf8 12.lilf4 .id7 13.�f2 0 - 0 - 0 14.lilce2 tileS 15 . .id2 �f6 16 . .ib4 g6 17. 1::1a el lilg7 18.c3 .if5= with some chances for Black to seize the ini­ tiative, Alekseev - lvanchuk, Biel 2009.

e) 4 . .id3 White wants to maintain the tension in the centre. The idea is excellent, but this way of imple­ menting it is questionable.

6.�f3 Black equalizes easily after 6 . lt:Jge2 ct:Je7 7 .0-0 �f5 8.lt:Jg3 hd3 9.�xd3 0-0 10.lt:Jce2 lt:Ja6 ll.c3 �d6 12.�f4 lt:Jc7 13J�ae1 lt:Je6= on - Short, Parnu 1996.

6 . . . �f6

4 . . . dxe4 5 . .h:e4 lilf6 6.�f3 This move seems logical but, as often happens, such an artifi­ cial idea can only work if the op­ ponent cooperates. It is less sensible for White to opt for 6 .�d3 c5 7.lt:Jf3 (The game takes a completely different direc211

Chapter 27 tion after 7.a3 hc3 + 8.bxc3 �c7! 9.ltlf3 c4 10 . .ie2 ltld5 11.�d2 ltld7 1 2. a4 ltl7f6. Black has seized the initiative with a series of strong moves and he went on to win the game, not without some mistakes by his opponent. 13.�g5 0-0 14. �h4 ltlxc3 15J''1 a3 ltlxe2 16. Wxe2 c3 17.l"ld1 b6 18.Wf1 .ia6+ 19.Wg1 .ie2 2 0 .l"le1 .ixf3 21.gxf3 ltld5-+ V.Shcherbakov - Petrosian, Mos­ cow 1955.) 7 ... cxd4 8.ltlxd4 e5 9. ltlde2 .ig4 10.f3 .ie6 11.a3 .ie7 12 . .ie3 0-0 13.0-0 ltlbd7 14.ltlg3 .ic5 15 . .if2 hf2 + 16.l"lxf2 �b6 and Black had a slight edge in the game Renet - lvanchuk, Izmir 2 0 04.

6 ... 0 - 0 Black has a good alternative here : 6 . . . c5 ! ? 7.ltlge2 ltlc6 8.a3 .ixc3 + 9.bxc3 e5 ! 10 .hc6+ bxc6 11.0-0 exd4 1 2 .cxd4 0-0 13.l"le1 .ia6= 14.ltlg3 cxd4 15.ltlf5 l"le8 16 ..ig5 �a5 17.ltlh6+ Wf8 18. l"lxe8+ l"lxe8 19.hf6 gxf6 2 0.h4 l"le4 21.f3 l"lxh4 2 2 .ltlg4 f5 23. �xd4 fxg4 24.l"lb1 .ic8 0-1 M . Tseitlin - Yusupov, Moscow 1983.

7.li:lge2 212

7 . e5 ! ..

By playing in this energetic fashion Black obtains an excellent position.

8. 0 - 0 This is the most solid response by White. Greediness such as with 8 . dxe5 does not bring White any ad­ vantage whatsoever. 8 . . . �xd1+ 9. Wxd1 ltlg4 10 .hg4 hg4 11.f3 .if5 12 . .id2 ltlc6 13.f4 l"lad8 14.Wc1 f6 15.a3 hc3 16.hc3 .ig4 17.ltlg3 fxe5 18.fxe5 l"lf2 and Black was clearly better, Muromtsev - Lysyj, Sochi 2006. The endgame is worse for White after 8 . .ig5?! h6 9 . .ih4 exd4 10 .�xd4 �xd4 11.ltlxd4 l"le8+ 1 2 . Wf1 hc3 13.bxc3 ltle4 14.he4 l"lxe4 15 . .ig3 ltla6 16.l"ld1 .ie6 17.f3 .ic4+ 18.Wf2 l"lee8, Movsesian Shirov, Sochi 2 0 0 6 .

8

.h:c3 9 .lt:lxc3 exd4

.•.

White sacrifices a pawn and temporarily seizes the initiative.

1 0 .c!l:\b5 c5 11.i.f4 (diagram)

ll .. .ll:\e8!? The more cautious move 11 . . . a6 presents White with a slight

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltJc3 .ib4 leading to forcing lines; it formed part of the opening armoury of Robert James Fischer.

4 hc3 + 5.bxc3 dxe4 6. '%Vg4 tlJf6 7.'%Vxg7 l':1g8 8.'%Vh6 • • •

Now Black has a choice.

advantage after 12.l2:Jd6 lt:Jc6 13.c3 .ie6 14.hc6 bxc6 15.cxd4 cxd4 16.'&xd4 and here in the game Jo­ vanovic - Vaganian, Dresden 2007 the players agreed to a draw.

12.c3 White did not achieve much with 12 .Ele1 lt:Jc6 13.c3 a6 14.Elxe8 Elxe8 15.lt:Jc7 '&f6 16.'&d2 .id7 17.Eld1 Elac8 18.lt:Jxe8 Elxe8, with a solid extra pawn for Black, Sarie­ go - Diaz, Bayamo 1991.

12 a6 13.li:Ja3 tlJc6 14.l'kl .ie6 - White definitely has some •••

compensation for the pawn in­ deed, but nothing more . . .

8

• • •

tDbd7

Black has also tried 8 . . . Elg6 as well as 8 . . . c5 9.lt:Je2 cxd4 10.cxd4 lt:Jc6 11..ib2 .id7 12.0-0-0?! lt:Jg4 13. '&f4 '&g5 14.Ele1 lt:Jxf2 15.Elg1 lt:Jg4 16.h3 lt:Jh2 17.Elh1 lt:Jxfl 18 . Elhxfl lt:Je7 19 .g4 f5, with a solid extra pawn for Black, Jobava Sutovsky, Novi Sad 2009.

9.tDe2 t) 4.a3

This is a very sharp move,

I can recommend to fans of wild irrational positions the quite creative line : 9.a4 c5 10.a5. The Serbian GM Igor Miladinovic reg­ ularly plays this with White and he is a very original player. (diagram) I do not think that White can seize the initiative in this manner, but he can definitely force his opponent to solve problems over the board. I like a new and inter­ esting plan here - 10 . . . lt:Jd5!? 11.'%Vd2 lt:J7f6 12 .lt:Jh3 e3 13.'&d3 2 13

Chapter 27

exf2 + 14.tt'lxf2 i.d7 and Black ob­ tains a very promising position. However, Black might have some problems after 9.tt'lh3 c5 1 0 .i.e2 . White plays very sharply and his forces have their eye on the f7-square.

10 . . . Ei:xg2? ll.tt'lg5 �a5 1 2 . f1 ! + 10 . . . �a5 1Li.d2 Ei:xg2 12.tt'lg5 cxd4 13.�g7! (We shall analyze 13 .cxd4? ! �f5 ! a bit further on.) 13 ... Ei:xg5 14.�xg5 �xg5 15.hg5 dxc3 16.0-0-0. It looks as though Black's knight and three pawns should be sufficient to compen­ sate the missing rook, but in this open position White's long-range pieces can become very powerful. 16 . . . a6 17.Ei:hg1 b5 18.Ei:g3 tt'ld5 19. Ei:h3 f6 2 0 .i.e3 tt'lxe3 2 l.fxe3 l2lf8 2 2 .i.h5+ e7 23.Ei:g3 i.d7 24.Ei:g7+ and Black resigned, since he loses 214

his rook on the next move, Ljubo­ jevic - Korchnoi, Tilburg 1986. An interesting try for Black is 10 ... cxd4 ! ? 1l.cxd4 (White can continue in gambit fashion, but Black can defend successfully: 11.0-0 dxc3 12 .i.g5 Ei:g6 13.�h4 �a5 14.hf6 l2lxf6 15.l2lf4 Ei:g5 16. l2lh3 Ei:g6= ) 1 l . . . Ei:xg2 12.l2lg5 �aS+ 13.fl (After 13.i.d2 Black re­ sponds with 13 . . . �f5 14.0-0-0 and now it looks very attractive to play the paradoxical line : 14 . . . tt'ld5 15.i.h5 e7 16.l2lxf7l2l7f6 17. i.g5 �h3 ! It is quite unclear which side has the safer, for example: 18.f3 i.d7 19.c4 Ei:c8 2 0 .tt'le5 Ei:xg5 2l.�xg5 �xh5 2 2 .�g7+ d6 23. fxe4 Ei:g8 24.�f7 �g5+ 25.Ei:d2 l2lc3 and Black has an excellent position.) 13 . . . l2lg4 14.hg4 Ei:xg4 15.h3 �b5+ 16.e1 Ei:g2 . Surpris­ ingly, the rook on g2 is perfectly placed. It is attacking and defend­ ing at the same time. 17.i.e3 (17. l2lxe4 �c6 18.�xh7 l2lf8 19.l2lf6+ e7 2 0 .�h4 l2lg6 2 1.l2ld5+ e8 2 2 .l2lf6 + e7= ) 17 . . . b6 18 .�g7 �f5 - Now the game might end in an amusing repetition of moves : 19.fl Ei:g3 2 0 . e1 Ei:g2 =

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt:l c3 i.b4 9 . . . b6 Or 9 . . . cS ! ? 10.a4 (After 10.h3 \WaS ll.i.d2 1Wa4 12.lug3 b6 13. dxcS bxcS 14.i.e2 i.a6 1S.O-O l"1g6 16.1Wh4 i.xe2 17.lt:lxe2 1Wxc2 18. l"1ad1 lt:leS, White is deprived of active possibilities, Nepomnia­ chtchi - Ponomariov, Moscow 2 0 1 0 ; 10.g3 b6 1l.i.g2 i.a6 12 .1Wd2 1Wc7 13.0-0 0-0-0 with chances for both sides ; 13 . . . cxd4 ? ! 14.cxd4 l"1c8 1S.c3 i.xe2 16.1Wxe2 1Wxc3 and here, in the game Henris - Gdan­ ski, Cappelle la Grande 1994, White could have obtained rea­ sonable compensation for the pawn with 17.i.e3 or 17.i.f4 ! ?) 10 . . . 1Wc7 11.dxcS 'IWxcS 12 .1Wd2 lt:lb6 13.aS lt:lbdS 14.c4 lt:le7? (Black should continue here with 14 . . . 1Wxc4 1S.lt:ld4 1Wc3 16.1Wxc3 lt:lxc3 17.l"1a3 lt:lfdS 18.i.b2 eS ! This is the move I overlooked ! ) 1S.i.a3 'IWeS 16.1Wc3 1Wxc3+ 17. lt:lxc3 a6 18 .g3? (18.lt:la4 i.d7 19. lt:lb6 l"1d8 2 0 .i.d6 i.c6 2 1 .i.c7 lt:lfS and although Black has some compensation for the exchange, White has the edge, of course.) 18 . . .i.d7 19 .i.g2 i.c6 2 0 . 0 - 0 lt:lfS 2 1 . l"1ae1 lt:ld4 2 2 . lt:lxe4 lt:lxe4 23. he4? he4 24.l"1xe4 lt:lf3 + 2S. �g2 lt:ld2 and despite desperate resistance White soon lost the game, Andreikin - Vitiugov, Sara­ tov 2 0 1 1 .

10 .ig5 •

After 10.lt:lg3 i.b7 11 .i.e2 1We7 12.0-0 0-0-0 13.f3 l"1g6 14.1Wh4 exf3 1S.hf3 i.xf3 16.l"1xf3 l"1dg8 17.a4 hS 18.i.a3 1Wd8 19.l"1f2 l"1g4 2 0 .1Wh3 aS 21.l"1e1 h4, Black's ini-

tiative is growing stronger, Ker ­ Berkes, Mallorca 2 004.

10

• • •

1We 7

11.1Wh4 The seemingly logical move 11.lt:lg3? loses for White owing to the beautiful reply 1 1 . . .lt:lg4! 12. i.xe7 lt:lxh6 and White's bishop is trapped.

ll . . . i.b7 12.ttlg3

12 . . . h6! That is an important finesse.

13 .id2 •

Just as before, if 13.1Wh6 lt:lg4-+; 13.i.h6 l"1g4 14.'1Wh3 0-0-0 1S. i.e2 l"1g8�

13

•.•

gg4

Black has a good alternative 2 1S

Chapter 27 here - 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.i.e2 e3 15. fxe3 hg2 16.Elg1 i.e4 ! ?

This is a very popular move. White wants to prevent his pawns from being doubled on the c-file. He has sacrifice a pawn to achieve this though . . .

4

14.'1Wxh6 If 14.'\Wh3 Elg6 15.i.e2 0-0-0, the queen seems misplaced on h3.

•..

dxe4

Black has a serious alternative at this point; for example: 4 . . . l2l c6 5.a3 i.aS ! ? 6.b4 (6.'\Wd3 ! ? ; 6.e5 ! ?) 6 . . . i.b6 7.l2Ja4 dxe4 8 .i.b2 l2lf6 9.c4 a6 10.g3 0-0 11.i.g2 i.a7 1 2 . 0-0 '\We7 13.Ela2 Eld8 14.'\Wa1 bS and Black's chances in this com­ plicated position are not worse, Guseinov - Bauer, Heraklio 2 0 0 7.

5.a3 hc3+

14 ... 0 - 0 - 0 15.c4 �g8 16. '!We3 f5 17.ll:lh5 e5 18.dxe5 �xe5 19. 0 - 0 - 0

Here 5 . . . i.e7 is also played, but the text move is sharper.

After 19.l2lf4 Elxd2 2 0 .\ilxd2 '\Wd6+ 21 .\ilc3 l2lc6 2 2 .i.e2 Elxf4 23 .g3 Elg4 24.hg4 fxg4 Black's prospects are better in this posi­ tion with an unusual material bal­ ance. 19 .. .ll:ld 3! - + Black's attack is decisive, Romero Holmes - Mata­ moros Franco, Elgoibar 1997.

It is weaker for White to play 7.i.e3 ? ! l2lf6 8 .'\Wd2 i.d7 9.0-0-0 l2le7 lO.i.gS i.c6 l l.i.c4 '\Wd6 1 2 . Elhe1 0-0-0 13.g3 lLledS 14.l2lxe4 l2Jxe4 15.Elxe4 l2lb6 16.d5 l2Jxc4 17. Elxc4 '\WxdS and Black has a solid extra pawn, Van Mil - Korchnoi, Netherlands 1993. White's most reasonable alter­ native to the main line is 7.d5. He tries to regain his pawn and then gain the advantage thanks to his bishop pair. 7 . . . exd5 8.'\WxdS

g) 4.�ge2

216

6.l2lxc3 l2lc6 7 . .ib5

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ttlc3 �b4 8 . . . tt:lge7 ! ? This is an original move. 9 .Wxd8+ 'Llxd8 10.'Llxe4 �f5 1 l.�d3 'Lle6. There is no doubt that if White is allowed to consoli­ date his position he will have the advantage. Thus Black needs to play energetically to equalize. 12 .�d2 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 ct:Jd4 14. �b1 (14.�e3 ct:Jec6 15.f3 �g6 16. E1he1 tt:leS 17.�f1 tt:ldxf3 ! ? 18.gxf3 tt:lxf3 19.�h3 + �b8 20. 'Ll c5 'Llxe1 2 1 . !=1xe1 E1he8 with counter-chanc­ es, Ragger - Seifert, Austria 2 0 04.) 14 . . . ct:Jec6 15.f4 E1he8 16. E1de1 E1e7 17.!=1e3 E1de8 18.!=1he1 �g6= Zelcic - Psakhis, Batumi 1999. It looks more natural for Black to play 8 . . . �e6 9.Wxe4 'Llf6 10. Wh4 �fS (It is a mistake to con­ tinue with the ambitious move 10 . . . Wd4, because of 11.�g5 ! WeS+ 12 .�e2 tt:l d4 13 .0-0-0! tt:l xe2 + 14. tt:lxe2 Wxe2 15.hf6 gxf6 16.!=1he1 Wa6 17.Wxf6 E1g8 and here White could have won immediately with 18.!=1e3 ! , since after 18. .. �f8 he has the simple resource 19.!=1d8 + - . However, what h e played in the game also proved to be sufficient for victory: 18.!=1d3 �f8 19.!=1ed1 E1e8 2 0.!=1d8 �d7 2 1.Wxa6 bxa6 2 2 . E11xd7 E1xg2 23.!=1xe8 + �xeS 24. E1xc7± Zaitsev - Kosyrev, Moscow 1996.) 11.�bs o-o 12 .hc6 (12. 0-0 tt:le4 ! ? 13.Wxd8 E1axd8 14. hc6 bxc6 15.'Llxe4 he4 and maybe only Michael Adams is ca­ pable of pressure this advantage home. ) 12 . . . bxc6 13.0-0 hc2 (Black could equalize with 13 . . . tt:ldS ! ? 14.Wc4 Wd6, since White's

bishop cannot be developed to a good square, which makes up for the defects of Black's pawn struc­ ture.) 14.�g5 h6 15.�xf6 Wxf6 16. Wxf6 gxf6 17. !=1fc1 �d3 18.tt:la4 E1fe8 19.'Llc5 and the endgame was better for White, Bojkov - Gesing, Chambery 2 0 07.

7

• • •

tt:lge7 8.i.g5

Black can counter 8 . 'Ll xe4 with 8 . . . Wd5 ! Sometimes White plays imme­ diately 8 .�e3 , after which the game can transpose to the line: 8 . . . 0-0 9.Wd2 f5 10.0-0-0 etc., which we analyze below.

8

• • •

f6 9 .�e3 0 - 0

1 0 .V�!fd2 White should not try to regain his pawn : 10.tt:lxe4? fS 11.'Llg5 f4 12 .�d2 Wd5 ! 13.�xc6 ct:Jxc6 14.'Llf3 'Llxd4 1S.'Llxd4 Wxd4 16.�c3 We4+ 17.We2 Wxe 2 + 18.�xe2 eS and he has no compensation for the pawn, Thorhallsson - Moskalen­ ko, Copenhagen 1995.

10

• • •

f5

If Black wants to play more safely, then 10 . . . a6 ! ? is the right move. ll.hc6 tt:Jxc6 12.0-0-0 b6 2 17

Chapter 27 13.'Llxe4 ib7 14.f3 �d7 15.Elhe1 Elad8 16.�e2 Elfe8 17.\t>b1 �f7 18.Eld2 Ele7 19.Eled1 Eled7= Ben­ tivegna - Drasko, Cutro 2 005.

11. 0 - 0 - 0 Black can counter the prema­ ture ll.f3 with ll . . . f4 ! ? 1 2 .hf4 �xd4 13.fxe4 eS 14.ie3 �xd2+ 15.hd2 'Lld4 16.id3 ig4= Solo­ dovnichenko - Feygin, Germany 2003.

rial.) 16 . . . �d6 ( 1 6 . . . �e8? ! 17.Elhe1 'Llg6 18.h4 'Llh8 19.�h2 'Llf7 20. if4;t Jovanovic - Medic, Sibenik 2 007.) 17.Elhg1 id7 18.h4 \t>h8 19. hS h6 and Black is even slightly better.

13 J��fd7 14.d5 .•

ll . . . a6 Black can even consolidate his extra pawn with 1 1 . . .'Lld5, but this is not satisfactory. 1 2 .'Llxd5 exdS 13.ixc6 bxc6 14.�g5 �e8 15.if4 Elf7 16.h4 ie6 17.�a5 �b8 18.Elh3 �bS 19.�d2 with excellent com­ pensation for White, Hector Furhoff, Stockholm 1993.

12 .�xc6 'Llxc6

13.�g5 ! ? Black has considerably fewer problems after 13.f3 exf3 14. gxf3 eS 15.d5 'Lle7 16.ig5 (Black can answer 16.ic5 with 16 . . . Elf7 17.�e3 b6! 18.d6 bxcS 19.dxe7 �xe7 2 0 .'Lld5 �d6 2 1 . Elhe1 ib7 and he ends up with extra mate-

218

14 . . .ll:le5 ! ? This i s a n aggressive move. It would be fair to say that White maintains some initiative if Black tries to plays more quietly. 14 . . . exd5 15.'Llxd5 �f7 16.if4 ie6 (Perhaps Black can consider the exchange sacrifice 16 . . . Eld8 17. hc7 ie6 18 .hd8 Elxd8 19.c4 ixdS 2 0 .cxd5 'LleS but not every­ one would be happy to go in for a sacrifice of this type.) 17.'Llxc7 Elac8 18.'Llxe6 �xe6 19.�d7 �a2 20.�d5+ �xdS 21.Elxd5 'Lle7 2 2 . Eld7 'Ll g 6 23 .ie3 Elf7 24.Elhd1 and White still has some pressure in this endgame.

15.£3 'Llc4 15 . . . exf3? 16.Elhelt

16.�e2 b5 17.fxe4 ib7 18. exf5 exd5?, with double-edged play.

Chapter 28

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 .ib4 4.e5

This is White's most ambitious move. Now Black's knight will have no access to the f6-square and White will have excellent chances of developing a kingside initiative. However, chess is not a simple game, and even the most principled decisions can have drawbacks.

4

...

c5

After this move both sides must play very precisely. The play is completely differ­ ent after 4 . . . b6. Black is trying to encircle White's centre and his strategy is based on the exchange of the light-squared bishops. I ad­ vise you to play 4 . . . cS here, but I shall supply you with some basic theoretical variations after 4 . . . b6. S.a3

Now: Although it looks a bit exotic, it is quite reasonable for Black to play S . . . .if8 6.Li:lf3 (Or 6 . .ibS + c6 7 ..ia4 .ia6 8.Li:lce2 .ibS 9 ..ib3 cS 10 .c3 Li:lc6 ll.Li:lf3 Li:lge7 12 ..ic2 Li:lfS 13.hfS exfS 14.0-0 cxd4 1S. cxd4 .ie7 16J"1e1 .ixe2 17.l"lxe2 h6 18.iWd3 iWd7 19.l"lc2 l"lc8 and the game is equal, Dinesh Kumar Hamdouchi, Sort 2 0 07.) 6 . . . Li:le7 7.h4 (Or 7.b4 c6 8.a4 Li:lfS 9.l"lb1 Li:ld7 10 ..id3 aS 1l.bxaS l"lxaS 12 .iWe2 g6 13 .h4 h6 14.hS gS 1S.g4 Li:le7 16 . .ia3 .ib7 17. 0-0 Li:lc8 18. hf8 l"lxf8 19.Li:ld2 cS 2 0 . Li:lb3 l"la8 2l.Li:lxcS bxcS 2 2 . l"lxb7 and White went on to win, Najer - Hort, Fuegen 2006.) 7 . . . h6 8 .hS aS 9 . .ibS + c6 10 . .ia4 Li:ld7 1l .Li:le2 bS 12 . .ib3 cS 13 .c3 Li:lc6 14. 0-0 iWc7 1S.l"le1 c4 16 . .ic2 Li:lb6 17 . .if4 .ie7 18 . .ig3 l"lb8 and Black has his typ2 19

Chapter 28 ical "French" counter-chances, Kasparov - Ivanchuk, Horgen 1995; 5 ... hc3 + 6.bxc3 t'jje 7 (I think it is riskier for Black to play 6 . . . \Wd7 7.\Wg4 f5 8.\Wg3 ia6 9 .ha6 t'jjx a6 10.t'jje 2 t'jjb 8?! ll. t'jjf4 t'jjc 6? 1 2 .t'jjx e6 \Wxe6 13 .\Wxg7 0-0-0 14.\WxhS \Wg6 15.0-0 :1:'!d7 16.:1:'!e1 Wb7 17.if4 :1:'!g7 18.g3 t'jjg e7 19. \Wf8 + - Zhigalko - Mihajlovskij , Minsk 2006; 1l.c4 ! ? dxc4 12 .d5 exd5 13.t'jjd4 t'jja 6 14. 0-0 0-0-0 15.e6 \Wd6 16.if4 \Wc5 17.\Wxg7 t'jje 7 18.c3 and White had excel­ lent compensation in the game Grischuk - Dizdar, Mainz 2006; 10 . . . wf7 1l.a4 ! ? c5 12. \Wd3 \Wc8 13.!a3 t'jje 7 14.h4 t'jjc 6 15.\Wf3 :1:'!f8 16.h5 wg8 17. 0-0 :1:'!f7 18.h6 g6 19.c4 dxc4 2 0.d5 t'jjx e5 2 1.\Wc3 t'jjg4 2 2 .ib2 e5 23.:1:'!ad1 t'jjb4 24. f3 t'jjf6 25.\Wxc4 \Wa6 2 6.\Wxa6 t'jjx a6 27.he5 and White exploit­ ed his edge in this endgame, Vitiugov - Ulibin, Biel 2 007; l l.h4 c5 12 .h5 :1:'!c8 13.h6 g6 14. \Wh4 cxd4 15.cxd4 :1:'!xc2 16.:1:'!h3 \Wb5 17.t'jjc3 \Wc4 18.id2 t'jjb 8 19. :1:'!b1 t'jjc 6 2 0 .t'jjb 5 \Wa2 2 l .t'jjd 6+ Wf8 2 2 . :1:'!d1 \Wb2 23.:1:'!d3 :1:'!xd2 24.:1:'!3xd2 \Wxa3 25.:1:'!c2 1-0 Moty­ lev - Ulibin, Moscow 2 0 1 0 . White won a very good game. He sacri­ ficed a pawn for the initiative and gradually increased his pressure, while Black's kingside remained static.) 7.\Wg4 t'jjg 6 8.h4 h5 9.\Wg3 (White sometimes plays the origi­ nal line: 9.\Wf3 \Wd7 10.a4 c5 1 1 . ib5 t'jjc 6 12 .a5 \Wc7 13.t'jje 2 !d7 14.axb6 Wxb6 15.hc6 \Wxc6 16. 220

!a3 cxd4 17.t'jjxd4 t'jjx e5 18.Wg3 \Wc4 19.Wd2 \Wc7, with a very com­ plicated position, Kurnosov Ponkratov, Moscow 2 009; 9.Wd1 \Wd7 10.t'jje 2 Wc6 1l.!d2 ia6 1 2 .t'jjg3 !xfl 13. Wxfl t'jjd 7 14. t'jjx h5 0-0-0 15.\Wf3 f6 16.exf6 gxf6 17.g3 e5 18.t'jjg 7 :1:'!dg8 19.t'jjf5 \We6 2 0 .t'jje3 t'jje 7 2 l.c4 e4 2 2 .\We2 f5 with good compensation for Black, Karjakin - Grischuk, Odes­ sa 2008.) 9 . . . !a6 10.ha6 t'jjx a6 1l.!g5 \Wd7 1 2 .a4 c5 13 .\Wd3 t'jjb S 14.t'jje 2 t'jjc 6 15.0-0 :1:'!c8 16.t'jjg3 t'jjc e7 17.\Wd1 cxd4 18.cxd4 :1:'!c4 19.a5 b5 20.:1:'!a3 \Wc6 2 l .t'jjxh5 t'jjf5 with chances for both sides, Kos­ intseva - Riazantsev, Biel 2 009. I think that the move 4 ... \Wd7 only reduces Black's possibilities, because he will have to play b7-b6 anyway. Whether d7 is the right square for his queen remains un­ clear. 5.a3 and in both cases the game transposes to 4 . . . b6 5 . . . hc3+ ( 5 . . . if8 6 .t'jjf3 b 6 ) 6.bxc3

In this chapter, we shall ana­ lyze White's attempts to avoid the main line (5.a3) : a) 5.'�g4, b) 5.dxc5 and c) 5 . .id2.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt:lc3 �b4 4.e5 c5 The move 5.t2Jf3 does not lead to original positions, since after 5 . . . tt:le7 the game transposes ei­ ther to 6 .dxc5 or to 6.a3 �xc3 + 7.bxc3.

a) 5.�g4? ! This move cannot be recom­ mended to White.

5 . . .tbe7

10 .tt:lb5, and the position is dou­ ble-edged.) 9.axb4 Wc7 10.tt:lf3 cxb2 11 .�xb2 Wxc2 12 .�d4 tt:l bc6 13.�b5 '&e4+ 14.f1 tt:lf5 15.hc6+ bxc6 16 .Wd2 a5 17.b5 c5 18 .�e3 �d7 19. l"1xa5 '&b1+ 2 0 . tt:le1 l"1xa5 2 1.'&xa5 '&xb5- + Pogosian - Vy­ sochin, St Petersburg 2 0 09.

6

.. •

Wa5 ! 7.axb4

7.�d2 cxd4 8.axb4 '&xa1 + 9. tt:ld1 0-0 10.tt:lf3 f5 11 .exf6 l"1xf6 12 .�g5 e5 13.'&h5 g6 14.Wh4 l"1xf3 15.�xe7 l"1f4 16.Wg3 tt:lc6 with an absolutely hopeless position for White, Grischuk - Shipov, ches­ sassistantclub.com 2 0 04.

7 ... Wxa1 S.�dl cxd4 9.lbb5 0 - 0 1 0 .tb c7

6.a3 For 6.dxc5, see 5.dxc5. After 6 .�d2? cxd4 7.'&xd4 tt:lbc6, Black is better. 6.tt:lf3 ? ! cxd4 7.tt:lxd4 �c7! ? 8 . �b5+ �d7 9 . 0 - 0 hc3 10.hd7+ tt:lxd7 11.tt:lb5 '&b6 12.tt:lxc3 0-0 13.l"1e1 l"1fc8 14.a4 l"1c4 15.'&h3 l"1ac8 16.tt:lb5 tt:lf5 17.g4 l"1xc2 18. l"1fl tt:ld4 19.�e3 tt:le2+ 2 0 .h1 d4 0-1 Friedel - Mamedyarov, Chalkidiki 2003. 6 .'&xg7l"1g8 7.'&h6 (It would be a disaster for White to opt for 7. '&xh7? cxd4 8.a3 '&a5 9.tt:lf3 dxc3 10.b3 tt:lbc6 ll.tt:lg5 tt:lxe5 1 2 .f4 l"1xg5 13.fxg5 �d6-+ Manik - Yu­ supov, Warsaw 2005.) 7 . . . cxd4 8.a3 dxc3 (The game is rather un­ clear after 8 . . . '&a5 9.axb4 Wxa1

It is absolutely senseless for White to continue with 10.tt:lf3 tt:lbc6 1 1.�d3 tt:lg6 12.l"1e1 tt:l xb4 13.tt:la3 tt:lxd3 14.cxd3 �d7 15. tt:lxd4 l"1ac8- + Jansa - Korchnoi, Luhacovice 1969.

10 ... �d7 11.�xa8

ll . . . �a6! This accurate move was rec­ ommended by Korchnoi in the notes to his game. Black can also play here 1 1 . . .tt:lbc6 12 .b5 tt:lb4 13. 221

Chapter 28 �xd4, which was played in the game Cuijpers - Yusupov, Nether­ lands 2009 and now his simplest response would be 13 . . . tt:Ja2 14.�d2 Elxa8 with an overwhelm­ ing advantage.

12.�xd4 tt:Jc6 13.�c3 tt:Jcxb4 -White's position is hopeless.

b) 5.dxc5

avoid 7 . . . d 4 8.a3 �a5 9.b4 tt:Jxb4 10.axb4 hb4 11.0-0 hc3 12.Elb1 tt:Jc6 13.tt:Jg5 tt:Jxe5 14.�h5 g6 15.�h6 tt:Jg4 16.�b5+ �d7 17. hd7+ �xd7 18.�g7 0-0-0 19. tt:Jxf7 �c7 2 0 .�f4 �xf4 2 1.tt:ld6+ Elxd6 2 2 .�xb7+ - Zelcic - Barsov, France 2003.) 8 . 0 - 0 (8.hg6 ! ? fxg6 9 .�e3 0-0 10.0- 0 b6 11.cxb6 axb6 1 2 . tt:Jb5 �e7 13.tt:Jbd4 tt:Ja5 14.Ele1 �d7 15.b3 g5 16.h3± Yur­ taev - Dolmatov, Frunze 1983) 8 . . . tt:Jgxe5 9.tt:Jxe5 tt:lxe5 10.�f4 �xc3 (10 . . . tt:Jd7 ll. tt:Jxd5 ! exd5 1 2 . �d6 and White has a n over­ whelming initiative.) 11.bxc3 tt:Jxd3 12 .cxd3 0-0 13.Ele1 �a5 14.�d6 Ele8 15.d4 Eld8 16.Ele3± Damaso - Bartel, Evora 2006.

7 . .td3

This move has much more venom than is apparent at first sight.

5

. . •

tt:Je7 6.tt:Jf3

6.�g4 tt:Jbc6 7.�b5 (For 7.�d2 - see 5.�d2; 7.�xg7 Elg8 8.�xh7 d4 9 . a3 �a5 10.Elb1 dxc3 11.�e3 �d7 and to evaluate the position correctly you only have to add up the number of developed pieces of each side.) 7 . . . �a5 8 .hc6+ bxc6 9 .�d2 tt:Jf5 10.tt:Jge2 h5 11.�f4 �xc5 1 2.0 - 0 �a6 13.Elfe1 �c4 with a superior endgame for Black, Yudasin - Lputian, Simfer­ opol 1988.

6

. . •

tt:Jd7

It is less good for Black to play 6 . . . tt:Jbc6 7.�d3 tt:Jg6 (Black should 222

7 . . . tt:Jxc5 It makes less sense for Black to play 7 . . . �c7 8.0-0 hc3 9.bxc3 tt:Jxc5 and, since he cannot cap­ ture on e5 in any case, he might as well delay the development of his queen. 10.c4 �d7 11.�a3 h6 1 2 . Ele1 0-0 13.Elb1 b6 14.�e2 Elfe8 15.cxd5 tt:Jxd5 16.hc5 tt:Jc3 17.�e3 �xc5 18.�xc5 bxc5 19.Elb3 tt:Jd5

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. '2l c3 �b4 4.e5 c5 with an equal endgame, Zelcic Berg, Kusadasi 2006.

8.0- 0 hc3 9.bxc3 i.d7 1 0 . .ie3 �c8 ll.�bl b6 12.�b4 ll:lg6 13.a4 0 - 0 14.a5 �c7 15. axb6 axb6 16.hg6 fxg6 17.c4 dxc4 18.�xc4 i.c6, and the

�f4 �b6 14. 0-0-0?! �xf2 1S.b1 �d7 16.c3 .ie8 17.Eld2 �b6 and he has no compensation for the sac­ rificed pawn, Meister - Ionov, Sochi 2 004.) 9 . . . �b6 10.0-0-0 '2le7 11.'2lf3

players agreed to a draw, Zelcic Drasko, Bosnjaci 2 00S.

c) 5 . .id2

If White wants to avoid the doubling of his pawns at all costs, I can recommend this move. Now Black has a choice of continua­ tions.

5

..•

ll:le7

This is Black's most popular choice and it leads to very inter­ esting positions in which all three results are possible. The game is rather quieter af­ ter S . . . ll:lc6 6.ll:lbS �xd 2 + 7.�xd2 '2lxd4 8 .'2lxd4 cxd4 9.f4 (It is weaker for White to opt for 9.'2lf3 '2le7 10.�xd4 '2lc6 11.�e3 �aS+ 12 .c3 d4 13.'2lxd4 �xeS 14.�xeS ltJxeS= Frolov - S. lvanov, Sochi 2004; 11.�g4 0-0 12 .�d3 fS 13.

After 11.. .'2lc6 White can try Sergey Movsesian's patent: 12 .h4 hs 13.Elh3 g6 14.rnb1 �d7 1s.ttJgs a6 16.Elb3 �a7 17.a4 Elb8 18.'2lf3 �cS 19.'2lxd4 '2lxd4 20.�xd4 �xd4 21.Elxd4 aS 2 2 .Elb6 �c6 23. b4 axb4 24.Eldxb4 rnd7 2S.�bs rnc7 2 6 .aS Elhc8 27.rncl rnd7 2 8 . �xc6 + Elxc6 29.Elxb7+ with a win­ ning endgame for White, Movse­ sian - Hochgraefe, Hamburg 1997; or 13 . . . �d7 14.b1 a6 1S. �e2 g6 16.tt:'lh2 ! ? 0-0-0 17.Elb3 �cs 18.'2lf3 tt:'laS 19.Eld3 '2lc4 20. �e1 '2le3 21.Elc1 '2lxg2 2 2 . �f2 '2le3 23.c3 and White seized the initia­ tive in the game Movsesian Koutsin, Frydek Mistek 199S. 11.. .�d7 12 .h4 Elc8 13.'2lxd4 '2lc6 14.hS tt:'lxd4 ! ? 1S.�xd4 �xd4 16.Elxd4 h6 17.Elh3 . The Slovak grandmaster enjoyed a victory in this ending as well. Still, I think Black's position is not so bad. He can draw the endgame with accu­ rate defence, but this task was be223

Chapter 28 yond the capabilities of an ama­ teur player: 17 .. J�c7 18 .g4 f6 19. l"1e3 fxeS 20.l"1xe5 0-0 2 1.�d3 l"1f6 2 2 . cj;>d2 cj;>f8 23.cj;>e3 aS 24.a4 �c8 25.g5 hxgS 26.fxg5 l"1ff7 27.h6 gxh6 28.gxh6 cj;>g8 29.l"1g4+ cj;>h8 30 .l"1eg5 l"1f8 31.h7 d4+ 32 .cj;>e2 + ­ Movsesian - Guedon, Bourbon Laney 1997.

6.ll:l b5 This is White's most consist­ ent move. It is too provocative to play 6. f4? ! tt:lfS 7.tt:lf3 cxd4 8 .tt:lb5 �cs 9 .b4 �e7 (The complications are quite unclear after 9 . . . �b6 10. �d3 �d7 11.g4 tt:le3 12 .tt:ld6+ cj;>e7 13.�e2 �c7 14.l"1c1 tt:Jc4 15.tt:lxc4 dxc4 16.hc4 �c6 17.�d3 hS 18. 0-0 hxg4 19.tt:lg5 tt:ld7 2 0 .�xg4 l"1af8 21 . tt:le4 cj;>d8 2 2 . tt:ld6 gS with a rather messy position, Watson - Lputian, Belgrade 1988.) 10. tt:lbxd4 tt:lxd4 l l .tt:lxd4 tt:lc6 1 2 . tt:lxc6 bxc6 13 .�d3 �b6 and White should be happy if he manages to equalize, De Ia Villa Garcia - Ariz­ mendi Martinez, Palma de Mal­ lorca 2009. It is too slow and inadvisable 224

for White to play 6.tt:lf3 cxd4 7. tt:lbS hd2 + (Black can try to con­ tinue in an original fashion with 7 . . . �c5 8 .b4 a6 9.bxc5 axbS, but this would only justify White's strategy.) 8 .�xd2 0-0 9J[jbxd4 tt:lbc6 10. tt:lxc6 bxc6 11.�d3 �b6 12 .b3 �a6 13.0-0 hd3 14.�xd3 tt:lg6 and Black has no problems whatsoever, Miles - Menvielle Lacourrelle, Gran Canaria 1996. It looks interesting for White to try 6.a3 �xc3 7.hc3 . He has preserved his dark-squared bish­ op and his pawn structure is in­ tact. However, your opponent will not always let you play so conven­ tionally in the opening. 7 . . . tt:Jbc6 8.tt:lf3 cxd4 9 .tt:lxd4 (9.�xd4 tt:lxd4 10.�xd4 tt:lc6 11.�g4 0-0 12 .�d3 f6 13.�h4 h6 14.exf6 �xf6 15. �xf6 gxf6 16.0-0-0 eS= Bala­ shov - Lputian, Kiev 1986.) 9 . . . tt:lxe5 10 .tt:lxe6 he6 11.�xe5 0 - 0

This position would b e better for White if only we could ignore the dynamic factors, which are so important at the beginning of the game. 12 .�d3 tt:lc6 13.�g3 �f6 14. l"1b1 �f5 15.0-0 l"1fe8 16.hf5 �xfS 17.�d2 l"1e6 18.l"1fe1 l"1ae8 19. l"1xe6 l"1xe6 2 0 . l"1dl d4 2 1.a4 (21.l"1el h6

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tLlc3 .ib4 4.e5 c5 2 2 .f3 l'!xe1+ 23 ..b:e1 '&b5 24.b3 '&c5 25.b4 '&c4 26 ..ig3 b5 and Black's position is better, Okkes Berelovich, Netherlands 2 0 07.) 2 1 . . .h5 2 2 .f3 '&c5 23 . .if2 '&c4 24.b3 '&c5 25.h4 '&e7 26.f1 a6 27.'&g5 '&xg5 28.hxg5 \ilh7 29. .b:d4 l'!d6 30 .c3 \ilg6= Hector Rowson, York 1999. It is sharper for White to play 6.dxc5 tt::lb c6 7.'&g4 0-0

8 .tt::lf3 (White sometimes plays 8.0-0-0 f5 9.exf6 l'!xf6 10 . .id3 h6 ll.'&h5 .id7 1 2 .tt::lf3 '&f8 13.tt::le 2 .ie8 14.'&h4 tt::lg 6 15.'&g3 '&xc5 16 . .b:h6? gxh6 17.tt::lf4 '&d6 18.tt::lh 5 l'!f8 19.'&g4 tt:Jce7 and Black won easily, Bengtsson - Renman, Linkoping 1984. It looks very at­ tractive to play 8 . . . d4 ! ? 9 .tt::le 4 .b:d2 + 10.l'!xd2 tt:Jxe5 ll.'&g3 tt::l7g6 - 1 1 . . .tt::l5 g6 ! ? - 12.f4 tt::lc 6 13 ..ic4 tt::la 5 14 ..id3 '&d5 15.\ilb1 f5 16. tt::lg5 '&xc5 17.tt::l1f3 l'!f6 18 .h4 h6 19.tt::lh 3 tt::lc 6 20.l'!hd1 .id7 and al­ though White won the game, the position is rather unclear, Robson - Sevillano, Saint Louis 2009. Black can also try 8 ....b:c5 9 .tt::lf3 tt::lg 6 1 0.'�h5 .id7 n.b1 '&e8 ! ? 12 .h4 - 1 2 . .id3 ! ? - 12 . . . l'!c8 13. tt::lg5 h6 14.tt::lf3 f5 15.exf6 l'!xf6 16.

'&g4 .b:f2 17.h5 tt::lf4 18 .g3 e5 19. '&h4 tt::lx h5 2 0 .tt::lxd5 l'!xf3 with an overwhelming advantage for Black, Movsesian - Bukal, Medu­ lin 1997.) 8 .. .f5 (The author has reached this position several times: 8 . . . tt::lg 6 9 . .id3 - 9.0-0- 0 ! ? - 9 . . . f5 10.exf6 '&xf6 11.0-0 tt::lf4 12 ..b:h7+ \ilxh7 13.tt::lg5+ \ilg8 14. .ixf4 .b:c3 15 .bxc3 '&xf4 16.'&h5 l'!f5 17.'&e8+ l'!f8 18.'&h5 l'!f5 19. '&e8 + and the game ended in a draw, Savchenko - Vitiugov, Sochi 2006.) 9 .exf6 (It is weaker for White to play 9.'&g3 ? ! tt::lg 6 10 . .id3 d4 11.tt::lb 5 .ixd2+ 12 .\ilxd2 a6 13. tt::l d 6 '&a5+ 14.\ild1 '&xc5, with an excellent position for Black, Polzin - Timman, Germany 1997.) 9 . . . l'!xf6 10.0-0-0 e5 11. '&h5 l'!f5 (Black often plays the more popular line : 1l.. . .if5 12 .a3 .ixc3 13 ..ixc3 d4 14 . .ic4+ mh8 15.tt::lg5 .ig6 16.'&e2 '&f8 17 . .ie1 tt::lg8 18.h4 h6 19 . .id3 l'!d8 2 0.f3± Borgo - Huebner, Baden 1999 ; 12 . . . '&a5 ! ? 13.axb4 tt:Jxb4 14 . .ig5 '&a1+ 15.\ild2 '&xb2 16.l'!cl .ixc2 17.tt::ld 1.b:d1+ 18.\ilxd1 l'!f7 19 . .id2 l'!f5 20.'&h4 tt:Jec6 with a powerful attack. ) 1 2 .'&h4 '&f8 . This is an in­ teresting idea - Black makes sev­ eral preparatory moves before ad­ vancing his centre. 13 .'&g3 (Or 13.tt::lx d5? tt::lxd5 14 ..ic4 .ie6 15. tt::lg5 .ixd 2 + 16.l'!xd2 l'!xg5 17.'&xg5 '&xc5 18 . .ib3 l'!e8 with advantage to Black, 13.\ilb1 .ixc3 14 ..b:c3 l'!f4 ! - +; 14.bxc3 b6 15.c4 l'!xf3 16.gxf3 .if5 with acceptable com­ pensation for the exchange.) 13 . . . \ilh8 ! I t becomes evident that 225

Chapter 28 White is nearly helpless against Black's powerful central pawns. 14.�g5 e4 15.tt'ld4 tt'lxd4 16J�xd4. Here Black can make a choice be­ tween two excellent possibilities : 16 . . . �xc3 ! ? 17.�xe7 Vfixe7 18.Vfixc3 E1xf2 19.E1xd5 �e6, with a very good game, or 16 . . . �xc5 17.�xe7 �xe7 18.E1xd5 E1f4 and in this open position Black's bishop pair fully compensates for the sacrificed pawn.

6 . . . .b:d2 + 7.�xd2 0 - 0 Black should not neglect the possibility of castling.

8.f4 This is a routine move. Black has no problems in the greedy line 8.dxc5 h1 g6 19 .hg6 \We7 2 0 .\Wf4+ - Perelshteyn Berg, Southampton 2003. Black fails to solve his prob­ lems with 8 . . . ttJbc6 9.tLlf3 a6 10. tLld6 ttJxd4 11.tLlxd4 cxd4 1 2 .�d3 \Wb6 13.0-0-0 �d7 14.g4 (White's game is much easier.) 14 . . . ttJc8 1S.tLlxc8 E1axc8 16.fS �bS 17.hbS iWxbS 18 .f6 d3 19.c3 \Wa4 2 0.'it>b1 iWc2 + 2 1.\Wxc2 dxc2+ 22. 'it>xc2 and White has the edge in this endgame, thanks to his advanced kingside pawns, Landa - Marzo­ la, Paris 2006.

9.dxc5

10 . . . a6 This is a new plan for Black in this position. Or 10 ... b6 ! ? 11.iWf2 bxcS 1 2 . iWxcS tLld7 13.\Wa3 E1b8 14.hd7 \Wxd7 1S.tLlf3 E1fc8 16.0-0-0 aS and he has good play along the open files, Westermeier - Z.Med­ vegy, Austria 2 00S.

ll . .id3 .!Lld7 It is obvious that if Black re­ gains his pawn he will have an ex­ cellent position.

12.b4 a5 13.c3 axb4 14. cxb4 b6 15.cxb6 iWxb6 16 .!LlfJ E1a3 !? White has difficulties. •

-

227

Chapter 29

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)t)c3 J.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3

This is the strongest move for White and logically the main line

5...hc3+ Nowadays Black rarely plays 5 . . . i.a5 ! ?, which has been named "The Armenian variation", mostly as a tribute to its greatest expo­ nents, Rafael Vaganian and Sm­ bat Lputian. Black's position would be fine, were it not for 6 . b4 ! cxd4 (Accepting the sacrifice with 6 . . . cxb4 would be fatal for Black, because after 7.lLlb5 White's initiative is crushing.) 7. Wg4 lLle7 8.bxa5 dxc3 9.Wxg7 Ei:g8 10.Wxh7 lLlbc6 ll.lLlf3 Wc7. This position attracted a lot of atten­ tion, at various levels, but then Andrey Volokitin revealed an analysis which proved to be very unpleasant for Black. 1 2 .i.f4 i.d7 228

13.a6 ! 0-0-0 (Here Black can try 13 . . . b6, but this is hardly an im­ provement.) 14.axb7+ (White postponed this capture in the fol­ lowing game and he was almost punished for it - 14.Wd3 Ei:g4 15. i.g3 Ei:e4+ 16.'tt>d l Ei:c4 17.Wh7 Ei:e4 ! ? with rather unclear conse­ quences, Vallejo Pons - S.Volkov, Kallithea 2008.) 14 . . . 'tt>b 8 15.Wd3 Ei:g4 16.g3 lLlg6 17.Wxc3 lLlxf4 18. h3 ! lLlxh3 19.Ei:xh3 lLlxe5 20. Wxc7+ 'tt>xc7 2 1 .lLlxe5 Ei:e4+ 22. 'tt>d 2 Ei:xe5 23.i.d3± Volokitin Lputian, Mallorca 2 0 04. I think that if theory ends up in this really unpleasant endgame for Black, the variation with 5 . . . i.a5 cannot be recommended.

6.bxc3 c!L!e7 Black has some popular alter­ natives here - 6 . . . Wa5 7.i.d2 Wa4 with interesting play, as well as 6 . . . Wc7 7.Wg4 f6 (7 .. .f5 8.Wg3 cxd4 9.cxd4 lLle7 10 .i.d2 0-0 11. i.d3 b6 12.lt)e2 i.a6 13.lLlf4 Wd7 14.h4 i.xd3 15.Wxd3 lLlbc6 16.Ei:h3 Ei:ac8 17.Ei:g3 Ei:f7 18.h5 lLld8 19.c3 Ei:f8 2 0 .'tt>fl Ei:c4 2 l .'tt>g l and White has a clear-cut plan of action, Kasparov - Short, Novgorod 1997.) 8.i.b5+ 'tt>f8 9.lLlf3 WaS

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lt'J c3 1lb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc lt'Je7 10 J:'!b1 a6 1l.§ie2 \Wxc3+ 12 .§id2 \Wxc2 13.Elc1 \We4 14.\Wg3 lt'Jd7 1S. exf6 gxf6 16.\Wd6+ lt'Je7 17. 0-0 Elg8 18.Elfe1 \Wg6 19.lt'Jh4 \Wf7 20. tih6+ \ile8 2 1 .tihS+ - Vitiugov Dyachkov, Dagomys 2 0 0 8 . I shall repeat - I recommend that Black opt for another main line.

\WbS 14.ic1 \WaS 1S.id2 \WbS (lS . . . \Wb6 ! ? and Black can prolong the struggle) 16.ic1 \WaS 17.id2 and the players agreed to a draw, Short - Shulman, Dhaka 1999.

8

'tYa5

.•.

After 8 . . . c4 ! ? 9.ie2 0-0 10. 0-0 f6 ll.exf6 Elxf6 12 .lt'JeS lt'JxeS 13 .dxeS Elf8 14.igS \We8 1S.ixe7 \Wxe7 16.\Wd4 id7 17.f4 tieS 18. Elf2 ig6 19.tig4 tie4, Black ob­ tained an excellent position in the game Ju. Polgar - Sutovsky, Na­ tanya 2 0 0 9 .

9 . .id2 c4 1 0 . .ie2 .id7 11. 0 - 0 f6 12J3el fxe5 13.dxe5 0 - 0 14 . .ifl Elf5 15.g3 13af8 16.

13e3 135f7 17.§ig2 \Wc7

Now White has several op­ tions, but in fact they can be di­ vided into two groups - 7.\Wg4 and the rest: a) 7 . .id3, b) 7.h4, c) 7.a4 and d) 7.ti:lf3. We shall deal with the queen-move in the next chapter, while here we shall analyze White's possible position­ al moves. I think it will be more useful and reasonable if we focus more on the typical plans, ideas and manoeuvres and rather than concrete variations (They are not that many, in fact . . . ) .

Black's position is slightly preferable, De Firmian - Gulko, Malmo 2 0 0 1 .

b) 7.h4!? a) 7 .id3 •

Black has no serious problems after this quiet move.

7 .tbbc6 8 .tbf3 •.

Or 8.\Wg4 \WaS 9 .id2 c4 10 .ie2 0-0 1 1.h4?! f6 1 2 .f4 \Wa4 13 .id1

This is an active move, con­ nected with a pawn-sacrifice.

7 . . . tia5 After 7 . . \Wc7!? 8.Elh3 lt'Jbc6 9.hS h6 10.lt'Je2 f6 1 l .exf6 gxf6 12.Elf3 eS 13.Elxf6 ig4 14.Elxh6 .

229

Chapter 29 E1xh6 15.1xh6 ltJf5 16.ig5 exd4 17.f3 hh5 18.g4 ltJe5co, wild and unpredictable complications arise, Shukh - Shimanov, Irkutsk 2 010. 7 . . . ttJbc6 8.h5 h6 ! ? 9.'W'g4 ltJf5 10.id3 0-0 11.l2le2 cxd4 12.cxd4 'WaS+ 13 .id2 'W'a4 14.E1b1? ltJxe5 ! and Black realized his advantage, Nepomniachtchi - Savchenko, Olginka 2011.

8.i.d2 'W'a4 Or 8 . . . ttJbc6 ! ? 9.ltJf3 id7 10. h5 0-0-0 1l.id3 f6 1 2 . 0-0 c4 13 .1e2 fxe5 14.ltJxe5 ttJxe5 15.dxe5 E1df8 16.1g4 E1f7 17.'W'e2 @b8 18. @h2 @aS 19.f4 g6 2 0.ih3 ltJf5 2 l .g4 ltJe7 2 2 .h6 with a complicated position, Alekseev Grischuk, Moscow 2008 .

E1g4 cxd4 12.cxd4 b6 13 .1d3 ia6 14.hf5 exf5 15.E1xg7 'W'xd4 16.E1g3 f4 (Here, with 16 . . . 'W'e4+ ! , Black could have obtained a considerable advantage.) 17.E1f3 'W'xe5+ ? ! (17 . . . 'W'e4+ ! ?) 18.ltJe2 'W'xh5 19. ic3. White seized the initiative and went on to win, Vitiugov Lysyj , Serpukhov 2 008. The game takes a completely different course after 9.'W'b1 c4 10 .h5 h6 11.l2le2 ltJbc6 12 .g4 id7 13 .ig2 0-0-0 14.ie3 f6 15.f4 f5 16.g5 g6 and the players agreed to a draw, Motylev - Rustemov, Tomsk 2001.

9 . . .lbbc6 1 0 .h5 cxd4 This move leads to rather forcing play. I t is also possible for Black to opt for 10 . . . h6 11.E1h4 ltJf5 12.E1g4 cxd4?! (12 . . . b6! ?) 13.cxd4 b6 14. c4 ! and White obtains an edge.

9)bf3 It is not very advisable for White to try the risky line: 9 .h5 h6 (9 . . . b 6 ! ? 10.ltJf3 ia6 ll.E1h4 hf1 1 2 .@xfl ltJf5 13.E1f4 ltJc6 14.@g1 cxd4 15.g4 ltJfe7 16.cxd4 h6 17. ltJh4 E1c8 18.c3 'W'xd1 + 19 .E1xd1 ltJa5 and the endgame is excellent for Black, Sasikiran - Sutovsky, Antwerp 2009.) 10.E1h4 ltJf5 11. 230

ll.cxd4 1l.id3 dxc3 1 2 .hc3 ltJf5 13. h6. After this, the play is forced for many moves. 13 ... gxh6 14 . .ixf5 exf5 15.e6 'W'e4+ 16.@f1 'W'c4+ 17. 'W'd3 'W'xd3+ 18.cxd3 0-0 19.exf7+ E1xf7 2 0 . E1xh6 d4 ! 2 1 .hd4 ltJxd4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3JiJc3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJ e7 2 2 .liJxd4 and here, Black could have equalized with 22 . . . YJ.d7= (I played less well in the game and ended up in an inferior position after 22 . . . b6 23J'l:d6 YJ.a6 24.c8 19.i.g3 {jj c 6 2 0 .{jj f3 �hg8 2 l . lt>d2 lt>b7 2 2 .'Wh1 {jj b 5 23.{jj e 1 {jj c 7 24.{jj g 2 �e8 25.f4 f6 26.exf6 gxf6 27.{jj h 4 f5 28.{jj g 6 fxg4 29 .hg4 'Wf7 30 .'Wh3 lt>a6 31.�a1 {jj e 7 32.{jj xe7 �xe7 Black has gained an advantage, Bologan - Vitiugov, Dagomys 2 0 1 0 .

13

•..

later, for example via b5.

16.13h3 tl:lc7 17.\t>fl 13af8 18.�gl g5 Nothing new under the sun. Black's set-up has withstood the test of time.

19.tl:lf3 tl:lc6 2 0 .ttlh2 f5 21. exf6 13xf6 22.13e3 13hf8 23.£3

'Wg8 14.i.g4 �h7 15J�a2

It is difficult to tell where this rook belongs - on a2, or cl.

15 )Da6 ! ? ••

We have already explained all the previous manoeuvres. It is clear that the knight will ensure additional protection of the e6pawn, but this time from a differ­ ent square. It can be activated

23 . . . �t7 with a very good po­ sition for Black, Ki .Georgiev - Yu­ supov, Las Palmas 1993. It is ob­ vious that the position is so com­ plicated that an exhaustive analy­ sis is practically impossible. What matters is that you understand the main ideas which are typical for this rather original and non­ standard pawn structure.

235

Chapter 3 0

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lt:Jc3 .ib4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3+ 6.bxc3 �e7 7.'?Ng4

This is White's most aggres­ sive move. Black faces immediate concrete problems with the pro­ tection of his g7-pawn.

7

. . .

cxd4! ?

Black tackles his problems head on! Attack is the best form of defence. I think I ought to clarify for you the character of the arising positions. They are totally irra­ tional. Probably only the Botvin­ nik variation of the Semi-Slav de­ fence stands comparison. Black sacrifices his kings ide for the sake of obtaining a lead in develop­ ment and keeping his opponent's king stranded in the centre for a long time to come. Black's com­ pensation is temporary and main­ ly of a dynamic sort. Black should 236

be reluctant to go into the end­ game, because his opponent's passed pawns and in particular the h-pawn, perfectly supported by the rook from its initial square, can become very dangerous. White's king, however, can re­ main in danger right to the end of the game, because even if Black's first attacking wave fails, another one can follow. Nothing definite can be said to make the play easier for either side in this variation. In fact, the position will be difficult for White, owing to the necessity to defend early in the game, as well as for Black, since he is risking a lot. The concrete theory of this variation is tremendously complex and these unbalanced positions are difficult to analyse, even for today's pow­ erful computers. So, despite the fact that everything seems to be forced, there remains plenty of scope for creative endeavour. It seems to me that after you have read all this, it would be sensible for me to outline for you Black's basic plans, ideas and resources in this variation. First of all, it is less precise to

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. t:iJ c3 i2.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc t:iJ e7 7. Wg4 cd begin with 7 . . . Wc7, because then White has the additional possibil­ ity of 8 .i2.d3 ! ? cxd4 9.t:iJe2 dxc3 10.Wxg7 l"i:g8 11.Wxh7 Wxe5 1 2 .i2.f4 Wf6 13 .Wh6 t:IJg6 14.i2.g5 l"i:h8 15. i2.xf6 l"i:xh6 16 .hc3, with an ad­ vantage in the endgame, Carlsen - Sanchez Alarcos Galian, Madrid 2 008. Completely different positions result from 7 . . . 0-0, but that might be the subject of another book.

8.�xg7 It is not so good for White to play 8.cxd4? ! �c7

and now: it would be too artificial to play 9 .l"i:a2 t:IJf5 10.t:iJf3 t:IJc6 1 1 . Wd1 h5 12 .Wg5 i2.d7 13.Wf4 f6 14.exf6 Wxf4 15.hf4 gxf6 16.c3 l"i:c8 17. i2.d3 t:IJa5 18.a4 l"i:g8 19.l"i:e1 Wf7 2 0 . hf5 exf5 2 1.i2.d6 l"i:ce8 2 2 . l"i:xe8 he8 23. We1 t:IJc4 24.i2.f4 l"i:xg2 25.i2.g3 f4 26.hf4 i2.d7 and Black is better, So - Li Shilong, Manila 2 008. I t looks too provocative for White to choose 9.Wd1 h5 (Black sometimes plays 9 . . . 0-0 10 .i2.d3 f5 11.exf6 l"i:xf6 12.Wh5 h6 13.g4 e5 14.g5 hxg5 15.h4 e4 16.hxg5 l"i:g6

- 16 . . . l"i:xf2 ! - 17.i2.b5 t:IJbc6 18. t:IJe2 Wb6 19.a4 Wf7 2 0 .i2.a3? 2 0 .i2.e3 ! ± - 20 . . . t:IJxd4 2 1 .l"i:b1 i2.d7 2 2 . a5 i2.xb5 23.l"i:xb5 Wxb5 24. t:IJxd4 Wa4-+ Shirov - Zhukova, Gibraltar 2006; another interest­ ing try is 14 . . . g6 ! ? , impeding White's attack.) 10.Wf4 (Or 10. Wxg7 l"i:g8 ll.Wh6 Wc3 12.l"i:b1 Wxd4+ 13.i2.d2 Wxe5, White's king is vul­ nerable and he is a pawn down.) 10 . . . b6 11.i2.b5 + . This is a new ver­ sion of an old story. This annoy­ ing check haunts Black through­ out the entire Winawer variation. ll . . . i2.d7 ( l l . . . t:iJbc6 ! ? 1 2 .t:IJf3 a5 13. l"i:b1 i2.a6 14.ha6 l"i:xa6 15.l"i:e1 a4 16.h3 l"i:a8 17.i2.d2 l"i:c8 18.We3 t:IJa5 19 .Wd3 t:IJc4 with advantage for Black, Savchenko - Shulman, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.) 12 .i2.d3 t:IJg6 13.We3 t:IJc6 14.t:IJh3 t:IJce7 15. t:IJg5 t:IJh4 16.Wh3 t:IJhf5 17.i2.b2 f6 18.t:IJf3 0-0-0 19.l"i:e1 g5, White's position is a disaster, Savchenko - Kamsky, Baku 2009. 9 .i2.d2 Wxc2 10.l"i:c1 (10.Wxg7 l"i:g8 l l.Wh6 t:IJbc6 12.t:iJe2 i2.d7 13. i2.c3 t:IJf5 14.Wd2 Wa4 15.g3 f6? 16. exf6 e5 17.f7+ Wxf7 18 .i2.g2 t:IJcxd4 19.0-0 t:IJxe2+ 2 0.Wxe2 d4 21. i2.d2± Kokarev - Andreev, Vla­ dimir 2 0 0 8 ; 12 . . . t:IJxd4 ! ? 13. t:IJxd4 Wb2 14.i2.b5+ i2.d7 15.0-0 Wxd4 16.hd7+ Wxd7 17.l"i:fe1 Wg4 18.g3 t:IJf5 19.Wf4 Wxf4 2 0.i2.xf4 t:IJd4-+ Srinivasan - Roller, Toronto 2 0 03) 10 . . . We4+ 11.Wxe4 dxe4. Black has brought about an end­ game. He will soon have to give up his extra pawn soon, but his position will remain very good in 237

Chapter 3 0 any case. 12.lt:le2 0 - 0 13 .g4 .id7 14 . .ig2 .ic6 15 . .ie3 tt:Jd7 16.tt:lc3 f5 17.exf6 tt:Jxf6 18.g5 tt:Jfd5 19.he4 tt:Jxc3 2 0 .hc6 tt:Jxc6 21.Ei:xc3 Ei:ad8. I failed to win this position, but still Black should be quite ea­ ger to go in for it again, Kobalia Vitiugov, Tomsk 2006. White can also try the clever move order 8 . .id3 WaS 9.tt:le2 (9.Ei:bl. This is Bojan Vuckovic's excellent idea. 9 . . . Wxc3 + 10.�d1 �f8 11.tt:lf3 b6 12 .Wh5 h6 13.tt:lg5 g6 14.Wh4 Wc7 15.tt:Jxf7 �xf7 16. Wf6+ �g8 17.Ei:b3 g5 18 .hg5 hxg5 19.Wxg5+ �f8 2 0.Wf6+ �e8 2 1 . Wxh8+ �d7 2 2 . .ib5 + tt:Jbc6 2 3 . Wf6 a 6 24 . .ixc6+ Wxc6 25.h4 a5 26.Wf4 Wc5 27.�d2 .ia6. Black's pieces have great scope and are tremendously active, Vuckovic Grischuk, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010. It would be interesting to know what White had in mind against the solid move 9 . . . tt:Jg6 ! ? For example: 10.tt:lf3 Wxc3 + 11..id2 Wc7 12.0-0 tt:Jc6 13.h4 0-0 14. Wg3 f6 and Black's extra material might become the decisive fac­ tor. )

9 . . . 0-0 (I t is obviously too dangerous for Black to play 9 . . . 238

tt:Jg6 10 ..id2 dxc3 11.tt:lxc3 Wc7 12.f4 a6 13 .h4 h5 14.Wg3 tt:Jc6 15.0-0 tt:Jce7 16.tt:le2 tt:Jf5 17 . .ixf5 exf5 18.tt:Jd4 Wc5 19 . .ie3 We7 2 0 . .if2 .ie6 2 1.Ei:ab1 b 5 2 2 .a4, with a rather unpleasant position for Black, Al Modiahki - Grischuk, Sochi 2008.)

10 . .ig5 (10 . .id2 . This is an in­ teresting pawn-sacrifice, but it is not quite correct. After 10 . . . dxc3 11.hc3 Wc7 12.0-0 tt:Jbc6 13.Wh5 tt:Jg6 14.f4 d4 15 . .id2 f5 16.exf6 Ei:xf6 17.tt:lg3 tt:Jce7 18.tt:Je4 Ei:f5 19. tt:lg5 h6 2 0.hf5 exf5 2 1 .tt:lf3 White was the exchange up, Maciej a Vysochin, Warsaw 2010. It is worth considering ll . . . Wd8 ! ? 1 2 . 0-0 tt:Jd7, with the idea o f elimi­ nating White's light-squared bishop with his knight, from cS.) 10 ... tt:Jg6 ll.f4 tt:Jd7 12 .hg6 (It would be extremely risky for White to continue with 12 .h4? ! f5 13 .Wg3 Ei:f7 14.h5 tt:Jgf8 15.Wh4 tt:JcS 16 . .ie7 dxc3 17.Ei:h3 .id7 18. tt:Jd4 Ei:c8 since he obtains no com­ pensation for the two missing pawns, Short - Shulman, Ohrid 2001.) 12 . . . fxg6 13.Wxe6+ Ei:f7 14. WeB+ Ei:f8 15.We6+ Ei:f7 16.0-0 tt:Jb6 17.We8+ Ei:f8 18.We7 dxc3 19.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJc3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJ e7 7. Wfg4 cd if6 l"lf7 20 .Wie8+ l"lf8 2 1.Wie7 l"lf7 and the players did not avoid the triple repetition of the position, Svidler - Grischuk, Nalchik 2009.

l"lxa1 l"laf8 23 .f3± M atulovic Camilleri, Halle 1967. 10.l"lb 1 ! ? Wfxe5+ ll.liJe2 dxc3

8 J�g8 9.'\�!fxh7 Wfc7 • •

l O .liJe2 The following line is long out of fashion: 10. \ild1 dxc3 11.liJf3 liJbc6 1 2 .liJg5 Wfxe5 ! ? (In the past there were theoretical debates about the merits of 12 . . . liJxe5 13. f4 l"lxg5 14.fxg5.) 13.Wixf7+ \ild7 14.if4 Wfd4+ 15.\ile1 e5 16.ie3 Wfg4 17.ie2 Wff5 18.g4 Wfxc2 19. liJh7 \ilc7 2 0 .liJf6 l"ld8 2 1.if3 d4-+ Busquets - Ivanov, Irvine 1997. It is inferior for Black to play 10 . . . liJbc6 11.liJf3 and here 1 1 . . . Ci:Jxe5 (ll.. .dxc3 ! ?) presents White with a clear way to seize the initiative : 12.if4 Wfxc3 13.Ci:Jxe5 Wfxa1+ 14. ic1 l"lf8 (Black should avoid 14 . . . d 3 15.Wixf7+ \ild8 16.Wff6 - 1 6 . Wff4 ! ? - 16 . . . dxc2 + 17.\ild2 Wfd4+ 18.id3 Wfc5 19.\ile2 id7 2 0 .ie3 and White's game is much easier, Stein - Beliavsky, London 1985.) 15.id3 id7 16.\ile2 liJc6 17.Ci:Jxf7 l"lxf7 18.Wfg8+ l"lf8 19.ig6+ \ile7 2 0 .Wig7+ \ild6 2 1.if4+ l"lxf4 2 2 .

12.h4. This i s a very ambitious move and it was probably moti­ vated by the fact that the game was played in a friendly match. (12.if4 Wff6 13.h4 liJd7 14.ig5 Wfe5 15.ixe7 l"lh8 16.id6 l"lxh7 17. ixe5 liJxe5 18.Ci:Jxc3 f5 ! ? with a good endgame for Black; 12 .Wfd3 liJbc6 13.Wixc3 Wfe4 14.Wfd3 Wfxd3 15.cxd3 f6 - This position re­ quires practical tests. Black has an alternative, but I do not like it as much - 13 . . . b6 14.Wfxe5 Ci:Jxe5 15.liJd4 id7.) 12 . . . d4 13 .h5 (A po­ sition with dynamic balance arises after 13.if4 Wff5 14.Wfxf5 Ci:Jxf5 15 .Ci:Jg3 liJxg3 16.ixg3 Ci:Jc6� White's missing pawn is compen­ sated by his bishop pair and passed h-pawn.) 13 . . . Ci:Jbc6 14.h6 f5 (Here it was very strong for Black to play 14 . . . l"lg6 ! , cutting off White's queen from the main field of action.) 15.if4 Wff6 16.Ci:Jg3 Wfh8 ? ! (16 . . . Wff7) 17.Wfxh8 l"lxh8 18 .ig5t and White seized the ini­ tiative in the game Morozevich Vitiugov, St.Petersburg 2 0 1 1 .

10 .c!l:lbc6 • •

239

Chapter 3 0

ll.f4 White easily won the following game after 1l.�f4, but that was owing more to the overwhelming difference in playing-class rather than the intrinsic strength of White's move. 1 1 . . . dxc3 12.1Wd3 Elg4 (12 . . . �d7 ! ? 13.\Wxc3 0-0-0 14.l2ld4 l2lxd4 15.\Wxd4 l2lf5 16. \Wd2 �c6 17.Elb1 d4 with an excel­ lent game for Black, Lehmann Martinovic, Sibenik 20 07. Black can go into an endgame if he so wishes - 12 ... l2lxe5 13.\Wxc3 \Wxc3+ 14.l2lxc3 f6 with chances for both sides.) 13.\Wf3 Elh4 14.g3 Elh8 15. \Wxc3 l2lg6 16.l2ld4 l2lxf4 17.l2lb5 \Wb6 18.gxf4 �d7 19.a4 d4 20.\Wa3 \Wa5+ 2 1 . ciJd1 0-0-0 2 2 .l2ld6+ ciJb8 23.Elb1+- Tal - Grefe, San Francisco 1991.

ll . . .id7 .

Black can also try another ap­ proach - 11...dxc3 (diagram) Now: 12.l2lc3 a6 (There are still un­ clear issues in the variation 12 . . . l2ld4 13 .�b2 �d7 14.0-0-0 \Wb6 15.\Wd3 l2ldf5 16.l2lb5 Elc8 17.g3 Elc4 18.l2ld6+ l2lxd6 19.exd6 l2lf5 240

2 0 . ciJb1 �a4 2 l .Eld2 ciJd7f:! Kar­ jakin - Sutovsky, Poikovsky 2010.) 13.\Wd3 . White is trying an­ other line, but it is questionable whether he knows what to do fur­ ther. (13 .�b2 �d7 14. 0-0-0 0-0-0 15.\Wh4. This is a very long manoeuvre to transfer the queen to the f2-square. Is it any good for him, though . . . ? 15 . . . ciJb8 16.1Wf2 l2la5 17.ciJb1 Elc8 18 .�d3 l2lc4 19. �xc4 \Wxc4 2 0 .Eld2 l2lf5 2 1.l2le2 \We4 2 2 .l2ld4 l2le3 23.Ele1 Elxg2 24. \Wxg2 \Wxg2 25.Elxg2 l2lxg2 and Black won this endgame, Magem Badals - Stellwagen, Khanty­ Mansiysk 2010.) 13 . . . �d7 14.�d2 0-0-0 15.g3 l2lf5 16.�g2 l2la5 17. �h3 �c6 18.hf5 exf5 19.\Wxf5+ ciJb8 2 0 .\Wd3 d4 2 1 .l2le4 f5 ! Black went on to win, Kosintseva - Hou Yifan, Hangzhou 2 0 1 1 ; 12 .\Wd3 d 4 . Now Black is obliged to go in for forcing play. It is difficult to believe that White will obtain an advantage as long as Black's powerful pawn pair d4c3 remains on the board. (diagram) Here there is an interesting idea played by a young Spanish grandmaster: 13.h4 �d7 14.h5 0-0-0 15.h6 ciJb8 16.h7 Elh8 17.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ttJ c3 ii.b4 4.e5 cS 5.a3 hc3 6.bc ttJ e7 7. Wffg 4 cd

Ei:b1 ii.c8 18.g4 (As a bonus, White is able to develop his bishop on g2 . ) 18 ... b6 19.ii.g2 ii.b7 2 0 .@f2 tt:Ja5 2 1.Ei:h3 ii.xg2 2 2 . @xg2 tt:Jec6 23.a4 Wffe 7 24.Wffe4 with advantage to White, Salgado Lopez - Alek­ seev, Novi Sad 2009. In this game Black first developed his bishop to d7 and then transferred it to b7. I think I can recommend to Black the move 13 . . . b6 ! ? with the idea of saving at least a few tempi. , for example: 14.h5 ii.b7 15.h6 0-0-0 16.h7 Ei:h8 17.Ei:b1 @b8 with a com­ plicated game, or 14.0Jxd4 tt:Jxd4 15.Wffxd4 tt:Jf5 16.ii.b5+ ii.d7 17. Wffx d7+ Wffx d7 18.ii.xd7+ @xd7 19. Ei:h2 (19. @f2 Ei:g4 2 0 .ii.e3 Ei:ag8 21. Ei:ag1 tt:Jxh4 2 2 .g3 tt:Jf5 with the better endgame for Black, Bolo­ gan - Kamsky, Reggio Emilia 2010) 19 . . . Ei:g4 2 0 .h5 Ei:ag8 2 1.h6 Ei:h8 ( 2 1 . . .Ei:h4 ! 2 2 .h7 Ei:h8 23.Ei:xh4 tt:Jxh4 24.@f2 Ei:xh7 25.ii.e3 Ei:g7=) 2 2 . @f2 Ei:g6 23.h7 Ei:g7 24.ii.e3 Ei:gxh7 25.Ei:d1+ @c6 26.Ei:xh7 Ei:xh7 27.Ei:d3 and White won a pawn in the game Svetushkin - Giri, Me­ lilla 2 0 1 1 . White sometimes manoeuvres his knight all the way to the d6square: 13.0Jg3 ii.d7 14.0Je4 (It is less consistent to play 14.ii.e2

0-0-0 15.0-0 Wffb 6 16.0Je4 tt:Jd5 17.Wffb 5? Wffxb5 18.ii.xb5 @c7 19. Ei:b1 a6 2 0 .ii.d3 b5 2 1 . a4 tt:Jcb4 and White is in trouble, Khachiyan Shulman, Saint Louis 2009; 17. tt:Jd6+ @b8 18.tt:Jxf7 Ei:df8 19.0Jd6 tt:Jce7 2 0 .ii.f3 ii.c6 21.a4 tt:Jb4 2 2 .a5 Wffc5 with an excellent game for Black, Karjakin - Kamsky, Nal­ chik 2009.) 14 . . . 0-0-0 15.0Jd6+ @b8 16.Ei:b1

16 . . . b6 ! ? This idea of this move will become clear a bit later. (The main line in this position is con­ sidered to be : 16 . . . ii.c8 17.0Jxf7 Ei:df8 18.0Jd6 tt:Jg6 19.Wffe 4 tt:Jh4 2 0 . g 3 tt:Jf5 2 1.ii.g2 @a8 2 2 .0Jxf5 exf5 23.Wff d 3, but Black's compensa­ tion for the pawn is insufficient, Neelotpal - Sengupta, Mumbai 2003.) 17.0Jxf7 Ei:df8 18.0Jd6 tt:Jf5 19.0Jxf5 Ei:xf5 . Now if White plays 2 0 .g3, Black has the resource 20 . . . tt:Jxe5 ! ? 2 1.fxe5 ii.c6 ! 2 2 .Ei:g1 ii.e4 23.Wffxe4 Ei:xe5 24.Wffe 2 Ei:xe2 + 25. ii.xe2 e5 with a very sharp posi­ tion. 13.0Jxd4 tt:Jxd4 14.Wffx d4 ii.d7 15.Ei:g1 (For the main line - 15.Ei:b1 - see variation c.) 15 ... 0Jf5 (15 . . . Ei:h8 ! ? 16.h3 tt:Jf5 17.Wfff2 ii.c6 18 .g4 tt:Jh4 19.Ei:g3 Wff a5 2 0 . Ei:d3 Ei:d8 241

Chapter 3 0 21.Wg3 E1xd3 2 2 .Wxd3 �f8 23.�f2 �g7 24.Wg3 lt:Jf3 25.�d3 E1d8 26. �e3 E1xd3 ! 27.cxd3 Wb5- + Ortiz Suarez - Nogueiras Santiago, Ha­ vana 2010) 16.Wf2 Wc6 17.�d3 (17.g4 We4+ 18 .We2 Wa4 19.E1b1 �c6 2 0 .�f2 Wd4+ 2 1.�e3 lt:Jxe3 2 1 . . .Wd8 ! ? - 2 2 .Wxe3 Wxe3+ 23. �xe3 E1h8 24.h3 and White won, Volokitin - Cornette, Aix-les­ Bains 2011. It seems to me that it would be more precise for Black to continue with 18 . . . Wd5 19 .�g2 Wc5 20.Wf2 lt:Jd4 2 1.�e4 0-0-0 2 2 .�e3 �c6 ! �) 17 ... Wd5

game : 2 1 . l"1b3 Wa5+ 2 2 .�d2 Wa4 23 .�b4 a5 24.�c5 E1d5 25.E1c3 E1gd8 26.g4 lt:Jd4 27.E1c4 E1xc5 2 8. E1xa4 �xa4 29.c4 b 5 30 .�e4 bxc4 31.Wb2 + lt:Jb5 32.Wf2 E1d1+ 33. �e2 lt:Jc3+ 34.�e3 lt:Jxe4 35.�xe4 �c6-+ Pijpers - Shirov, Rogaska Slatina 2 0 11.) 2 1 . . . 2 1 . . .b6 ! ? ( 2 1 . . . E1 h 8 2 2 . l"1c5 a n d the players agreed to a draw, David - Wirig, Fourmies 2 010) 2 2 .g4 �b5 23.E1c3 lt:Jd4 24.hb5 Wxb5 25.Wfl WaS 26.�d2 Wa4 2 7.�e3?? lt:Jxc2 - + Kuipers - Stellwagen, Nether­ lands 2011.

12.'1Wd3 dxc3

18.l"1b1 (18 .�e3 lt:Jxe3 19.Wxe3 E1xg2 2 0 . l"1xg2 Wxg2 2 1.�e4 Wxh2 2 2 .0-0-0 E1d8 23.�b1 �a4 24. E1xd8+ �xd8 25.Wxa7 �d7 26. Wa5+ �e8 27.Wxc3 Wxf4 28. hb7± Robson - Shankland, Mil­ waukee 2 009; 22 . . . �c6 ! 23.�b1 he4 24.Wxe4 Wf2 = ; In principle, Black should not be afraid of 18. �xf5 exf5 19.�e3 0-0-0 2 0 .E1d1 Wc4 2 1 .ha7 �c6 2 2 . E1d4 Wa2 23. We2 Wxa3 24.E1xd8+ E1xd8-+ Spitz - Debray, Evry 2 005.) 18 . . . �c6 19.l"1b3 0-0-0 20.E1xc3 �b8 2 1.l"1c4 (At the recent European Cup, Alexey Shirov won the fol­ lowing, somewhat unbelievable, 242

This is in fact the key-position of the entire variation. Now White is faced with an important choice :

a) 13.l"1gl, b) 13.'1Wxc3, 13.gbl or d) 13.lZlxc3 .

c)

However, it is far from clear which move can be considered as best for him at this point.

a) 13.13gl This move has become popu­ lar just recently.

13

•••

0 - 0 - 0 14.g4 d4 15.h4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 . tiJ c3 il.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc tiJ e7 7. Wig4 cd It seems to me that it is illogi­ cal for White to advance his h­ pawn after it has been deprived of the support of the rook from be­ hind it. Alexey Shirov, however, is usually so good in this type of po­ sition that we should perhaps trust his choice . . .

b) 13.Wixc3 This move leads to very com­ plicated positions.

13

• . .

�£5

14.l"lb1

15

• . .

il.e8

It might be interesting for Black to play 15 . . . Wib6 ! ? with the idea of preventing the activation of White's rook on a1 to a more active position on bl.

16.h5 f6 17.exf6 �d5 18. il.h3 �b8 19 .g5 hh5 2 0 .he6 he2 21.�xe2 l"lge8 22.£5 Wie5 + Black could have won here with the surprising line : 22 . . . Wih2 + 23.�fl tiJ e 3 + 24.i!.xe3 Wih3-+

23. �f3 Wih2 24.Wifl �e3 25. he3 dxe3 26.l"ld1 e2 27.Wffx e2 �e5+ 28.�e3 Wih3+ 29.�f4 �c6 3 0 .Wffg4 Wffh 2+ 31.Wig3+­ and White's king is now quite comfortable behind its pawn bar­ rier, Shirov - Shulman, Khanty­ Mansiysk 20 07.

Or 14.l"lg1 Wib6 ! It is because of this powerful manoeuvre that White usually begins with 14.l"lb1 (Black did not solve his opening after 14 . . . l"lc8 15.l"lb1 d4 16.Wid3 �ce7 17.g4 Wixc2 18.Wixc2 l"lxc2 19. il.d2 tiJh4 20.tiJxd4± Karjakin Harikrishna, Bilbao 2 0 07.) 15. g4? ! (I am scared to recommend 15.Wib2 Wic5 16.c3, but the com­ puter programmes like this very much.) 15 . . . tiJfd4 16.l"lg3 l"lc8 17. Wffd 3 �b4 18.axb4 tiJxc2 + 19.�d2 tiJxa1 20.tiJd4 il.a4 2 l . 'it>e2 l"lxcl. White resigned. This was a very impressive blitzkrieg! A.Vlasov Ponkratov, Samara 2 004. White has at his disposal a paradoxical exchanging manoeu­ vre : 14.tiJg3 tiJxg3 (14 . . . 0-0- 0 ! ? 15.tiJxf5 exf5 16.h4 d 4 17.Wffd 3 f6 18.exf6 Wid6 and Black has com­ pensation.) 15.hxg3 l"lc8 16.l"lb1 (16. a4 Wib6 17.a5 Wid4 18 .il.d2 tiJb4 19. Wixd4 tiJxc2 + 2 0 . f2 tiJxd4 21. 243

Chapter 3 0 l"la2 a 6 22 .g4 j,b5 23.g5 with ap­ proximate equality, Frolov - Bak­ lanova, St Petersburg 1994; 16 . . . a5!?) 1 6. . .lLle7!? 17.�xc7 l"lxc7 18. j,d2 j,a4 19.j,d3 lLlf5 and Black should be able to hold this endgame. White sacrifices a pawn some­ times in order to simplify the po­ sition a little. Naturally, he does not obtain any advantage by do­ ing so. 14.g4 l"lxg4 15 .j,h3 l"lh4 ! ? 16.hf5 exf5 17.j,e3 0-0-0 18. 0-0-0 with a double-edged game. 14.g3 d4 15.�d3 0-0-0 16.j,g2 lLlce7 17.0-0 j,c6 18.hc6 �xc6 19. j,d2 b8 2 0 . l"lf2 . Black had some compensation for the pawn, but he continued sacrificing needlessly with 2 0 . . . lLld5? (20 . . . �b6 ! ? ; 2 0 . . . l"ld7!?). 2 1 .lLlxd4 �b6 2 2 .c3 lLlxc3 23 .hc3 lLlxd4 24.�e3± Fogarasi - Degraeve, Arnhem 1989.

14 . . . d4

fort 2 0 05) 17.j,d2 �b7 18 .�d3 lLlce7 with good compensation for Black. 15.�c4 �a5+ (Black failed to prove any compensation after 15 . . . 0-0-0 16.j,d2 lLlce7 17. �xc7+ xc7 18.l"lg1 j,c6 19.l"lb3 l"lh8 2 0 .g4 lLle3 2 1.he3 dxe3 2 2 .h3 l"ld2 23.l"lg3 tt:ld5 24.c4 l"la2 25.l"lb1 lLlb6 26.lLlc3 l"lxa3 27. l"lxe3 l"la5 2 8.lLlb5+ hb5 29. l"lxb5± Lukulus - Tatar, play­ chess.com 2 0 07.) 16.j,d2 �xa3 17.l"lxb7 lLle3 18.j,xe3 dxe3 19.�c3 (After 19.�b3 Black can easily transpose to the line with 19.�c3 �a5+ 2 0 .�c3 �xc3 + 2 1.lLlxc3.) 19 ... �xc3 + 20.lLlxc3 lLld4 2 1 .lLle4 j,c6 2 2 .lLld6+ d8 2 3 .lLlxf7+ and the players agreed to draw, Adoc­ chio - Krueger, Germany 1988. We can continue the variation 23 . . . e8 24.lLld6+ d8 25.c3 e2 26.cxd4 exf1�+ 27.l"lxf1 hb7 2 8 .lLlxb7+ e7 29.l"lf2 l"lab8 30. lLlc5 l"lb1+ 3 1 . e2 l"lb2 + 3 2 .f3 l"lxf2 + 33.xf2 a5, with an ap­ proximately equal endgame. White's extra material is balanced by Black's outside passed pawn.

15 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 16.:ggl

15.�d3 White just helps his opponent if he plays 15.�c5 b6 16.�c4 l"lc8 ! ? (16 . . . �b7 17.l"lg1 l"ld8 18.�d3 lLlce7 19.g4 lLlh4 2 0 .lLlxd4 j,c6 2 l . l"lg3 l"lxg4 2 2 . l"lxg4 l"lxd4 23.�h3 lLlhf5 24.j,d3+ - Brkic - Sengupta, Bel244

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3 . ti:J c3 �b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc li'J e7 7. V!ig4 cd 16 . ll:la5 • •

I think this is the best move for Black, but sometimes 16 . . .f6 or 16 . . . �e8 are also played.

17.g4 After 17.:1'1b4 Black should play 17 . . . a6 and if 18 .g4 then 18 . . . li'Je3 ! 19.�xe3 �b5 2 0 .Vfid2 dxe3 2 1 . V!ixe3 V!ixc2 22 .li'Jd4, Sharma Riedel, Bad Wiessee 2009, 22 . . . Vfih2 ! 23.�b5 a b 24.:1'1b5 V!ih4 25. mfl E1g4=

17

• • •

.ia4 18.c3

18.gxf5 E1xg1 19.li'Jxg1 �xc2 2 0 . V!ib5 . Now White obtains two bishops for Black's rook. White will have a material advantage, but the dynamic factors should enable Black to keep the game ap­ proximately balanced. 20 . . . :1'1d5 (20 . . . a6 ! ? 2 l.Vfib6 hb1 2 2 .Vfixb1 li'Jb3 23 .Wd1 V!ic3 24.fxe6 fxe6 25.Vfic2 li'Ja1 2 6.Vfid3 li'Jb3 27.Vfic2 li'Ja1 2 8.Vfib2 Wc7 - 28 . . . 2"1d7! 29.�e2 b5 30.li'Jf3 V!ic6 3l .�d2 d3 32 .�a5 + - Smirnov - Arslanov, Dagomys 2 0 09) 2 l.Vfib4 �xb1 2 2 . V!ixb1 li'Jb3 23.Wd1 li'Jxcl 24.V!ixc1 E1c5 25.Vfib2 Vfic6 26.�d3 :1'1c3 27. Wd2 Vfig2 + 28.li'Je2 Vfif2co Markin - Kanovsky, Pardubice 2009.

18

.••

.ic2 !

This is the resource that Black's strategy is based on. Now the rest of his pieces become tre­ mendously active at the cost of this bishop. An alternative is 18 . . . li'Jb3 19. gxf5 2"1g1 2 0 . cxd4 ( 2 0 .li'Jg1 dxc3 2 l.Vfie3 :1'1d1 ! + 2 2 . Wf2 c2 23.:1'1xb3 hb3 with a great advantage for Black) 2 0 . . . V!ia5+ 2 l . Wf2 E1f1 + 2 2 . Wf1 V!id5�

19.V!ixc2 d3 2 0 .Vfia2 W'c5 21. l'!g2 ll:le3 22.ll:lg3

22

• • •

l'!xg4

2 2 . . . li'J ac4? This mistake em­ phasizes once again that it is not enough to know long forcing lines, you also need to be able to remember them at the right mo­ ment. 23. li'Je4 V!ic6 24.li'Jd6+ E1xd6 25.exd6 V!ie4 26 . .ixe3 li'Jxe3 27. mf2 li'Jxg4+ 2 8 . Wg1 1-0 Ivekovic - Martinovic, Sv Filip i Jakov 2010.

23.l'!f2 ll:lac4 24.V!ib3 b6 25. V!ia4 ll:lc2+ 26.l'!xc2 dxc2 27. \!ffx c2 ll:le3 28.W'e4 l'!dl+ 29. 'it>e2 ll:ld5! 30 .id2 l'!xbl (Or •

30 . . . :1'1xd2 + ! ? 3l.Wxd2 V!ixc3+ 32. 245

Chapter 3 0 d1 b8 33 .'&d3 '&xd3+ 34.hd3 tt:lc3+ 3S.d2 tt:lxb1+ 36.hb1 :§:xf4 and the endgame is worse for White.) 31.�xbl gxf4 32. �d3 g£2 + 33.dl �xa3 and Black triumphed in the ensuing complicated struggle, Volokitin Ganguly, Moscow 2 0 07. Natural­ ly, the sharpest variation with 13. Qc3 requires a very precise play, but I think that in the pages of this book it should be sufficient for me to give you an idea of the outlines of the arising positions and schemes.

c) 13.gbl

After this useful inclusion of White's rook, Black has an inter­ esting possibility:

13 . . . d4 Now after 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.tt:lxc3 Black cannot play 14 . . . a6??, be­ cause of 1S.'&xa6 !

14.ll:lxd4 This is no doubt White's most logical reaction. He cannot obtain an advan­ tage with 14.g3 0-0-0 1S ..ig2 246

ttJaS 16.0-0 .ic6 17.hc6 ttJaxc6 1 8.'&e4 WaS 19.:§:d1 '&cS 2 0 .:1'ld3 ttJdS and Black dominates, Do­ minguez Perez - Grischuk, Al­ maty 2008. White plays 14.tt:lg3 0-0-0 1S . .ie2 (Black can counter 1S.tt:le4 with the powerful positional sac­ rifice - 1S . . . ttJxeS ! 16 .fxeS 16 . . . '&xeS 17.'&e2 .ic6 18. tt:lg3 '&h8 18 . . . WdS ! ? - 19.Wf2 :§:g6 2 0 . .id3 :§:f6 2 1.'&e2 :§:dS 2 2 .tt:le4 :§:ffS 23. d1 tt:lg6 24.g3 :§:feS 2S.Wg4 fS 2 6.Wxg6 fxe4-+ Smirin - Short, Tilburg 1992 ; White cannot be successful if he avoids the forcing lines : 16.Wxd4 .ic6 17.'&b4 aS 18. '&xc3 he4 19.Wxc7+ xc7 20. fxeS .ixc2 2 1.:§:a1 :§:d1 + 22. f2 ttJfS 23 .g3 .ie4 24.:§:g1 tt:ld4 2S . .ib2 :§:d2 - + Hou - Nepeina Leconte, Paris 2006.) 1S . . . ttJfS 16.f2 ttJce7 17.tt:le4 .ic6 18.g4 tt:lh4 19.:§:d1 b8 (19 ... .ixe4 ! ? 20.Wxe4 tt:lc6 2 1.a4 tt:lg6 with chances for both sides.) 20.:§:b4 he4 21.Wxe4 tt:lc6 2 2 .:§:b1 a8 23.a4 a6 24 ..ia3 :§:dS 2S.'&h7! - Black overlooked this simple tactical shot and the game was soon over, Ju. Polgar Schmidt, Warsaw 2 0 0 2 . White also plays here 14.:§:g1 0-0-0 1S.g4 (It is less consistent, but still playable, to opt for 1S. tt:lxd4 tt:lxd4 16.'&xd4 .ibS 17.'&xa7 .ixf1 18. xf1 Wc6 19 . .ie3 ttJfS 2 0 . f2 '&e4 21.'&cS+ b 8 22 .Wa7+ c8 23.'&a8+ Aseev - Eingorn, Odessa 1989; 18 . . . Wc4 + ! ? 19.f2 We4 2 0 .WcS+ b8 21.Wxc3 :§:c8 2 2 .:§:b4 '&h7 23.:§:c4 :§:xc4 24.'&xc4 :§:c8 2S.Wd4 :§:xc 2 + 26 . .id2 Wh4+

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4J c3 :ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc 4J e7 7. Wig4 cd 27.g3 Wixh2+ 28J�g2 Wih1 29. Wid8 + a7 30 .WiaS = ) 1S ... fJ.e8 (I do not think that Black can equal­ ize with 1S . . . liJdS 16. 4Jxd4 4Jxd4 17.Wixd4 b8 18J'lg3 ? ! 1J.c6 19. '!lieS f6 2 0 .exf6 4Jxf6 2 1.WieS liJxg4 and his position is acceptable, Dominguez Perez - Grischuk, Linares 2009; it is stronger for White to play 18.h4 ! ? 1J.c6 19.hS 4Jf6 2 0.Wixc3 4Jxg4 2 1 .1J.e2 4Jh6 2 2 .fi:xg8 fi:xg8 23.1J.e3 with an ex­ tra pawn. I can recommend for Black the multi-purpose move 1S . . . b8 ! ?) 16.fi:g3

4Jxc3 dxc3 2 2 . fi:xc3 fi:xg4 23.Wih3 Wig7 24.f2 b8 2S.fJ.e3 1J.d7 26.Wif3 fi:g8 2 7.1J.h1 fi:h4 28.fl fi:xh2 0-1 Schachinger - Marti­ novic, Rogaska Slatina 2009.) 17 ... a6 (Black is planning 18 ... :iJ.bS.) 18.4Jxd4?! 4Jac6 19.1J.e3 4Jxd4 2 0 .hd4 4Jc6 2 l . fi:b4 4Jxb4 2 2 . axb4 fJ.bS 23.Wixc3 fi:xd4 ! with the better game for Black.

14 . . . 4Jxd4 15.Wixd4 ll:lf5 16. Wi£2

16 . . . Wic6 16 .. .f6 17.exf6 liJ dS 18.Wic4 (The best move for White is 18. 4Jxd4 ! 4Jxf6 19.4JbS fi:xd3 20. 4Jxc7 fi:xg3 2 1.4Jxe8 fi:xe8 2 2 .hxg3 and Black has great problems.) 18 ... eS 19.gS 1J.f7 2 0 .Wid3 1J.g6 2 1 . fS fJ.hS 2 2 . Wie4 fi:ge8 23.f2 1J.f7 24.1J.g2 4Jb6 2S.g6 fJ.dS 26.Wig4 e4 27.f7± Svidler - Berg, Heraklio 2 007. Instead of 16 . . .f6, it looks very good to me for Black to continue with 16 . . . 4JaS ! ? 17. f2 (After 17. 1J.g2 '!lieS 18.fl:b4 4Jec6 19.fi:bS Wie7 2 0 .Wih7 Wif8, White suddenly sac­ rificed a piece, but his position was rather suspect in any case : 2 1 .

At the price of a pawn Black has gained several tempi for the development of his initiative. It would be too risky for him to play what used to be considered the main line here - 16 . . . 1J.c6 17. fi:g1 0-0-0 18.Wixa7 4Jd4 19.1J.d3 (Or 19. f2 f6 20.1J.e3? ! fxeS 2 1 . 1J.c4 Wih7 with a n overwhelming initiative for Black, Nijboer Stellwagen, Hilversum 2 007.) 19 ... hg2 and here White should continue with the brave move 2 0 .f2 (It is only a draw after 20 .Wia8 + d7 21.Wia4+ c8 2 2 . Wia8 + d 7 23.Wia4= Ri ff - Cor­ nette, Le Port Marly 2 009.) 20 . . . 247

Chapter 3 0 V1/c6 21.:E!b4 V1/f3+ 2 2 . 1!?e1 V1/d5 ( 2 2 . . . V1/h5 23 .:E!c4+ �c6 24.:E!xg8 lt:Jf3 + 25.1!?f2 V1/h4+ 26.:E!g3 V1/xh2+ 27.\!?e3 lt:Jxe5 2 8 .V1/a8+ l!?c7 29. V1/a5+ l!?c8 30.:E!xc6+ lt:Jxc6 31. V1/g5+-) 23.:E!c4+ (It is even sim­ pler for White to play 23 .V1/xd4 ! V1/xd4 24.:E!xd4 :E!xd4 25.1!?f2 +-) 23 ... Wxc4 24.�xc4 lt:Jf3 + 25.1!?f2 lt:Jxg1 26.\!?xg1 �c6 + 27.1!?f1+- Be­ rescu - Vargic, Djakovo 2005.

17J'!b4 �d5 18.:E!gl �c6

So, Black has deployed his pieces perfectly. After 19 .�d3 0-0-0, White must choose between two possi­ bilities : 2 0 .g4 and 2 0 . :E!c4 - see 19 .g4, or 19.:E!c4. The move 19 .�e2 is sensible only in connection with 19 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 2 0 .�f3, but Black can ob­ tain a good position by: 20 . . . Wd7 2 1.V1/c5 lt:Jh4, with counterplay. If 19.g4 0-0-0 2 0.�d3 ( 2 0 . �e2 V1/a2 ! ?) 2 0 . . . lt:Jd4 21.:E!xd4 V1/xd4 2 2 .V1/xd4 :E!xd4 23 .�e3 Ela4 (Black can also adopt a more modest approach - 23 . . . :E!xd3 ! ? 24.cxd3 Elh8, recapturing the h­ pawn.) 24.h4 �e4 (If White is 248

playing for a win, he should opt for: 24 . . . :E!xa3 25. 1!?f2 Ela2 26.h5 �a4 with rather unclear conse­ quences.) 25.he4 Elxe4 26.1!?e2 Ela4 27.�c1 Eld4 28 .h5 b5 29 .g5 a5 30 .�e3 Eld5 3l. l!?f3± Mitkov Lamoureux, Paris 1993. 19.Elc4 0-0-0. The game con­ tinued logically and ended in a draw, so it is clear that White needs to look for an improvement somewhere. 2 0.�d3 l!?b8 21.Elxc3 V1/a2 2 2 .�e3 ( 2 2 . :E!xc6 bxc6 23.Wfc5 :E!xd3 24.cxd3 Elxg2 =) 22 . . . lt:Jxe3 23.Wfxe3 Elxg2 24.Elxg2 hg2 25. l!?f2 �c6 2 6.�e4 �xe4 27.Wfxe4 Wfb1 28.:E!e3 Elc8 29.Ele2 Elh8 3 0. Wfg2 Wf c 1 31.Wfg3 Wfh1 32 .1!?e3 a 6 33.:E!d2 V1/c1 34.\!?e2 V1/h1 35. \!?e3 Wfc1 36.1!?e2 Wfh1 and the players agreed to a draw, Mamedyarov Alekseev, Ohrid 2009.

d) 13.lt:Jxc3 a6 White was threatening to pen­ etrate to the d6-square with his knight.

Now we shall analyze in detail

dl) 14.lt:Je2 and d2) 14.:E!bl.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJ c3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJ e7 7. '?1ig4 cd The move 14.h4 merely pre­ sents Black with some additional interesting possibilities : 14 . . . liJf5 15J�h3 0-0-0 (Or 15 . . J'k8 16.:id2 liJxe5 ! ? 17.fxe5 :ib5 18.'?1ff3 Wxe5+ 19.'i!ld1 hf1 20.'?1ixfl d4 2l.liJe2 d3 2 2 .liJc3 E\xc3 23 .hc3 Wxc3 24.E\c1 E\g4 with excellent com­ pensation ; 18.liJxb5 Wxe5+ 19. 'i!lf2 '?1ixa1 2 0 .liJc3 E\g4 2 1.h5 Wxa3 leading to a complicated position with a material imbalance. ) 16.h5 '?1ia5 ! ? White sometimes plays 14. :id2 , but I think this move will lead to original positions only if White starts looking for trouble; otherwise, after 14.E\b1 or 14.liJe2 there will be a transpositions to another variation : 14 . . . liJf5 (If 14 ... liJa5 15.h4 liJf5 16.E\h3 liJ c4 17. E\a2 0-0-0 18.h5 :ic6 19.liJe2 l!lb8 20.liJd4 Wb6 2 l.liJb3 :ib5, Black was better in the game Mor­ zywolek - Grzesik, Wroclaw 2005.) 15 .g4 E\xg4 16.:ih3 liJxe5 ! 17.fxe5 Wxe5+ 18.'i!ld1 (Or 18.'i!lf2 E\d4 19.We2 Wf6 2 0 .hf5 E\xd2 2 1.'?1ixd2 Wxf5+ 2 2 .'i!le1 We5= 23. 'i!ld1 ? ! E\c8 with the better pros­ pects for Black.) 18 . . . E\d4 19.'?1ie2 Ele4 2 0 .Wf2 liJe3 + ! (20 . . . E\c8 2 1 . hf5 exf5 2 2 .'?1if3 E\cc4 23.E\b1 :ia4 24.E\b4 + - Frackowiak - Her­ rmann, Germany 2002 ) 2 l.'i!lc1 E\c8 and Black's attack is decisive. 14.g3 liJa5 15.liJe2 (After 15. :ig2 E\c8 16.:id2 liJc4 Black's posi­ tion is quite acceptable.) 15 . . . liJf5 (Or 15 . . . :ib5 ! ? 16.Wd2 Elc8 with a complicated game.) 16.§lh3 E\c8 17.hf5 :ib5 18.Wc3 :ixe2 19.Wxc7

E\xc7 2 0 . 1!/xe2 exf5 2 l.'i!ld3 'i!ld7 2 2 .:id2 liJc4 23.:ic3 E\gc8 24.h4± Spassky - Doroshkievich, Sochi 1964.

dl) 14.c!L!e2 White's knight retreats . . .

14 . .l''k8 .

The magician from Lviv tried here 14 . . . 0-0-0 15.g3 d4 16.Wc4 liJf5 17.:ig2 liJa5 18.'?1ixc7+ l!lxc7 19.E\b1 :ic6 20 .hc6 l!lxc6 2 l .'i!lf2 d3 2 2 . cxd3 E\xd3 23.E\g1 E\h8 24. h4 liJc4 25.a4 b6 26.Eia1 \!Ids and in this endgame Black had good compensation on the light squares, Anand - lvanchuk, Nice 2009.

15.�d2 If 15.Eib1 Black must play inventively: 15 . . . liJa7 (15 . . . liJf5 ? ! 16.h3 liJce7 17.g4 liJ h 4 18.liJd4 liJc6 19.liJxc6 Wxc6 2 0.E\h2 E\h8 2 l .'i!ld1 '?1ic7 2 2 .'?1ib3 '?11c 5 2 3.'?1ib6 Wxb6 24.E\xb6± Chandler - Tim­ man, Linares 1988; Black should also consider 15 . . . liJa5 ! ? with the idea of countering 16.liJd4 with 16 . . . liJac6.) 16.:ie3 (Or 16.liJd4 249

Chapter 3 0 CL!bS 17.�d2 '\Wc5 18.lt'lxb5 hb5 19J=!xb5 axb5 20.'\WxbS+ '\WxbS 2 1 . �xb5+ f8 2 2 .g3 l"1xc2 and the endgame is winning for Black, Oliveira - Leitao, Campinas 2 009 ; 17 . . . CL!xd4 ! ? 18.'\Wxd4 CL!fS with excellent position for Black.) 16 . . . CL!b5 17.CL!g3 CL!c3 18.�b6 '\Wc6 19.l"1b4 CL!e4 2 0 .CL!h5 l"1g6 2 l.Wd1 CL!fS 2 2 .CDf6+ l"1xf6 23.exf6 d4 24. e1 '\Wxc2 25.'\Wxc2 l"1xc2 26.l"1b1 CL!c3 27.l"1a1 �c6 2 8.�d3 l"1xg2 29. l"1f1 �e4 and White resigned, Ves­ covi - De Toledo, Americana 1997.

15 .. .ll) f5

with excellent compensation.) 17.CL!d4 CL!xd4 18 .'\Wxd4 CL!bS 19. '\Wd3 '\Wxc2 2 0 .'\Wxc2 l":1xc2 2l.a4 CL!c3 2 2 . l"1xb7 CL!xa4 23 .g3 �c8 24. l"1b8 d7 25.�d3 l"1b2 26.l"1b4 §xb4 27.hb4± Khalifman - Shulman, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 005. 16.h3 CL!aS (This is a quiet and sensible decision. Black should not provoke complications with­ out urgent necessity.) 17.g4 �bS 18.�xa5 '\Wxa5+ 19 .'\Wd2 '\Wa4 2 0 . gxfS he2 2 l.�xe2 l"1xc2 2 2 .'\We3 l"1g2 23 .�d3 d4 24.'\Wf3 \WaS+ 25. fl l"1cf2 + 26.'\Wxf2 l"1xf2 + 27.xf2 '\Wd2 + 28 .�e2 d3=

16 . . . llJce7

16.l:�gl This move is rather dangerous for Black. 16 .l"1b1 CL!a7 (He should carry out the same idea but with the stronger move 16 . . . CL!ce7! 17.h3 ? ! �a4 18.c3 d4 19.CL!xd4 l"1d 8 20.h4 l"1g3 21.'\We4 CL!xd4 2 2 .cxd4 �c6 23.'\Wc2 l"1xd4 24.l"1b4 '\Wd8 25. l"1xd4 '\Wxd4 26.l"1h3 l"1xh3 27.gxh3 CL!fS and Black was better, Maslak - Averell, playchess.com 2007; 17.'\Wc3 '\Wxc3 18.�xc3 �b5 ! ; 18. CL!xc3 �c6 19.CDe2 d4 2 0 . l"1g1 �e4 250

16 . . . '\Wb6 ! ? 17.c3 CL!aS 18.l"1b1 '\Wc5 (18 . . . �b5 ! ? 19 .g4 '\Wxg1! 2 0 . l"1xb5 '\Wxg4 2 l . l"1xa5 '1Wh4+ 2 2 .d1 '\Wxh2 and Black has good com­ pensation for the sacrificed mate­ rial, thanks to the totally mis­ placed white rook.) 19.g4 �bS 2 0 .l"1xb5 axb5 2l.gxf5 l"1xg1 2 2 . CL!xg1 '\Wxg1 23.'\WxbS+ CL! c 6 24. '\Wxb7+- Anand - Baer, Frankfurt 1994. After 17.g4, Black should re­ ply with 17 . . . CL!fd4 18.l"1g3 CL!xe2 19.he2 CL!d4 (19 . . . l"1h8 ! ? 2 0.l"1h3 l"1xh3 2 1.'\Wxh3 CL!d4 and it is un­ clear whether White has anything better than perpetual check with 2 2 .'\WhS+ e7 23 .'\Wf6 + . ) 20 .�d1 l"1h8 2 l.h3 l"1c4 with good piece­ play for Black (in the endgame arising from 2 1 . . .�b5 2 2 .'\We3 CL!xc2 + 23 .�xc2 '\Wxe3 + 24.�xe3 l"1xc2 25.l"1c1 l"1xc1 + 2 6.�xc1 Black might have some difficulties).

17.�bl .ib5 18.�xb5! axb5 19.g4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ c3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc CiJ e7 7. !!lff g 4 cd tinue with 15.id 2 ? ! CiJ c4 16.CiJe2 CiJf5 17.h3 !!lffc5 (It is even stronger for Black to play here 17 . . . ib5 18.g4 �e7 ! ) 18.g4 CiJxa3 19.:1'i:b2 CiJc4 2 0 . :1'i:xb7 c!Llfe3 2 1.he3 CiJxe3 2 2 .:1'i:b3 CiJxc2 + 23.'it>d2 :Bc8 24. !!lffc 3? !!lffa 7 25.!!lffb 2 ia4 26.:1'i:c3 :Bxc3 27.!!lffx c3 'it>d7-+ and White's position is hopeless, Karjakin Ni Hua, Moscow 2 005.

15

• ..

c!Llf5 16.l':lh3 0 - 0 - 0

With energetic play White ex­ erts positional pressure against his opponent. 19 .lL1 h4 ? Black reacts in a very mediocre fashion. (He had to play boldly - 19 . . . !!lffb 6 2 0 .gxf5 :Bxg1 2 1 . CiJxg1 !!lffx g1 2 2 .!!lffxb5+ 'it>f8 23 .f6 CiJf5 24.!!lffxb7 :Be8= ) 2 0 . .•

c!Lld4 �c4 21.@f2 �xd3 22. i.xd3 'it>d7 23.c!Llxb5± Saric Vitiugov, Warsaw 2008 .

17.h5 d2) 14.l':lbl

14

• •.

c!Lla5

It would be a blunder for him to opt for 14 . . . 0-0-0 15.�xa6 !

15.h4 It is too slow for White to con-

Black's has a decent position after 17.:1'i:b4 d4 (Or 17 . . . CiJ c4 18.h5 !!lffc5? ! 19.CiJe4 !!lffg 1 2 0 . CiJg5 ib5 2 1 .!!lff e 2 !!lff c5 2 2 .!!lfff2 !!lff c7 2 3 .h6 :Bxg5 24.h7!± Alekseev - Vitiugov, Kallithea 2 0 0 8 ; he should have transposed to a theoretical posi­ tion by 18 . . . ic6.) 18.CiJe4 ib5 19. :Bxb5 (19 .c4 dxc3 2 0 .!!lffc 2 CiJc6 2 1.:1'i:xc3 'it>b8co) 19 ... axb5 2 0 .CiJf6 :Bh8 2 1.h5 CiJ c4 2 2 .g4 CiJfe3 23 .ie2 and White has compensation for the exchange, but nothing more. It would be premature for White to continue with 17.id2 CiJ c4 18.CiJe2 d4 ! , preventing White's knight from coming to the d4-outpost (After 18 . . . ib5?! 2 51

Chapter 3 0 19.a4 .ba4 20.tLld4 ttJxd4 2 1 . �xd4 .bc2 2 2 .l"kl ia4 23.h5 ic6 24.h6, White obtained good com­ pensation, Klimov - Ivanov, St Petersburg 2 005.) 19 .h5 (If 19. ttJxd4 ib5 2 0 .tLlxb5 axb5- + ; or 2 0 . tLlxf5 Ei:xd3 21.cxd3 tLlxd2 22. tLld6+ �b8 23.�xd2 �c5 and White is clearly worse.) 19 . . . ib5 with an excellent game for Black.

17

• • •

tLlc4

�c3 Ei:g4 23.h6 Ei:h8 24.h7 Ei:g7 25.Ei:b3 �a7 2 6.icl .ba4 27.�b4 b5 2 8 .Ei:h5 a5 29.�c3 Ei:gxh7, White's position was hopeless in the game Becerra Rivero - Shul­ man, Tulsa 2008.) 2 l . . .d4 2 2 .�b3 tLl a5 23.Ei:xb5 tLlxb3 24.Ei:xc5+ tLlxc5 25.tLlgl Ei:g3 26.ia3 d3 27. Ei:xg3 tLlxg3 28.cxd3 ttJxa4 29.tLle2 tLlxh5 30 .g4 Ei:xd3 31 .gxh5 Ei:xa3-+ Cheparinov - Grischuk, Baku 2008.

18.h6 White has a reasonable alter­ native here - 18.Ei:b4 ic6 19.tLle2 (Or 19.h6 Ei:g6 2 0 .h7 Ei:h8 2 1.�dl Ei:g7 2 2 .g4 tLle7 23 .id3 tLlg6 24. .bc4 dxc4 25.ie3 Ei:gxh7 26.Ei:h5 f6 ! and Black has the initiative, Chigvintsev - Pokrasenko, Novo­ sibirsk 2 0 0 2 . ) 19 . . . ib5 2 0.a4 (It is more logical for White to contin­ ue with 20.tLld4 ! ttJxe5 2 1.�c3 tLlc4 2 2 .h6 ttJxd4 23.�xd4 f5 24. Ei:bb3 and he maintains the advantage; 2 1 . . . tLlxd4 2 2 .�xc7+ �xc7 23.Ei:xd4 .bfl 24.�xfl tLlc4 with a complicated endgame; 2 1 . . . tLlc6 ! ? 2 2 . tLlxb5 axb5 23.Ei:xb5 tLld6 with some initiative for Black.) 2 0 ... �c5 2 1.�c3 ( 2 1.ia3 ic6 2 2 . 252

18 ... Ei:g6 This is one of the most impor­ tant ideas for Black in this varia­ tion. He keeps this active rook on the g-file and blocks the passed pawn with his other rook.

19.h7 ghs

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji:Jc3 ib4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc ltJ e7 7. 1Jf1g4 cd 2 0 .Y;'/f3 White fared terribly after 20.ltJe2 ibS 2 1 .ltJd4 ltJxeS 2 2 .Y;'/dl ixfl 23.'it> xfl 1Jf1c4+ 24.ltJe2 1Jf1e4 25J'!bb3 iWxg2+ 26.mel ltJc4- + Karjakin - Grischuk, Moscow 2 008. The game ends in a forced draw after 2 0 .ltJe4 dxe4 2 1.'1Wxc4 iWxc4 2 2 .ixc4 :1'1xg2 23.ha6 bxa6 24.:1'1c3+ ic6 25.:1'1xc6+ md7 26. :1'1xa6 :1'1xh7 27.:1'1a7+ mc8 2 8 . :1'1a8+ mc7 29.:1'1a7+ mc8 30 .:1'1a8+ Becer­ ra Rivero - Bhat, ICC 20 0 8 . (diagram)

2 0 )tJce3 ! ••

Or 20 . . . :1'1g7 2l.g4 ltJe7 2 2 .id3 ltJg6 23.'\Whl ltJcxeS 24.fxe5 iWxc3 + 25.mdl iWd4co Kulaots - Ivanov, Sweden 2 006.

21.i.xe3

Y;'/xc3 +

2 2 .id2 •

iWxf3 23.:1'1xf3 After 23.gxf3 :1'1g7 the endgame is better for Black. 23 :1'1xh7 and Black has a promising position, because if 24.i.xa6? he has the hidden tac­ tical resource 24 bxa6 25. :1'1c3+ .ic6! (but not 25 ... md8?? 2 6.:1'1b8+ me7 27.l'k7 +-) 26. •••

•••

:1'1xc6+ 'i!?d7-+

253

Chapter 31

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)!jc3 i.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 i.xc3+ 6.bxc3 liJc6

We shall deal in detail with a)

7.'2lf3, b) 7.a4 and c) 7.'1Wg4.

After 6 . . . '2le7 7.'\Wg4 cxd4 there arise very sharp variations, based on sacrificing the kingside pawns, so I suggest as an alternative for Black the quiet developing move 6 . . . '2lc6, which is not very popular and has not been analyzed exten­ sively yet. It leads to positions in which the objective evaluation of the position is not so important, but it becomes essential to under­ stand how to play in complicated closed pawn structures, to find the optimal squares for the pieces and discover surprising manoeu­ vres with them. This move was regularly played by the Ukrainian GM Yuri Kruppa and later it was borrowed and played in several games by the ex-World Champion Ruslan Ponomariov 254

The move 7.h4 transposes to the variation 6 . . . '2le7 7.h4 and it is not worth-while for Black to avoid this (for example: 7 . . . '\WaS 8 .�d2 iWa4 9.'2lf3 'Llge7, or 9.h5 cxd4 10.'2lf3 'Llge7) . However, depend­ ing on the move order chosen by Black, White can try some origi­ nal lines. For example: 9.'1Wg4, which Black should counter this with 9 . . . f8. White's centre is un­ der threat and Black can continue with the standard idea of b7-b6 and �c8-a6. This position re­ quires additional practical tests. If Black chooses the move order 7 . . . '2lge7 8.h5 '!WaS 9.�d2 iWa4, then, instead of 10.'2lf3, White can try 10.h6, as played in the game Volokitin - Zhang Pengxiang, Feugen 2006. Black obtained an excellent position after 10 . . . gxh6 ll.'Llf3 cxd4 12.cxd4 'Llxd4 13 .�d3 �d7 14.�b4 'Lldc6 15Jl:h4?! 'Llg6 16.�xg6 hxg6 17.�d2 iWa6.

a) 7.ll::l f3 This is a very good developing move, which is a bit stronger here in comparison to the variation 6 . . .

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l!Jc3 flb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc l!J c6 l!Je7 7.l!Jf3, because now Black cannot easily use the plan of b7b6 and flc8-a6. He has other methods of fight­ ing, though . . .

7

• • •

'1Wa5

It is sensible to postpone the development of Black's king knight for a while, since it will re­ capture on f6 if possible, or, more rarely, it can take the route l!Jg8-h6-f7. Completely different positions arise after 7 . . . l!Jge7 8 .1le2 (The move 8.1ld3 provokes c5-c4, but this pawn advance is part of Black's plan anyway: 8 . . . '\Wa5 9.1ld2 c4 10. fle2 !ld7 11.0-0 f6 12.E!e1 fxe5 13. dxe5 0-0 14.1lf1 E!f5 15.g3 E!af8 16. E!e3 E!5f7 17.1lg2 '\Wc7 and in this rather complicated position the players agreed a draw, De Firmi­ an - Gulko, Malmo 2 0 0 1 . ) 8 . . . '\Wa5 9.1ld2 (after 9. '&d2 , i t would be good for Black to play 9 . . . b6, after which the standard exchange of the light-squared bishops with !lc8-a6 solves all his opening prob­ lems) 9 . . . 1ld7 (It is difficult to as­ sess the risk involved in winning a

pawn with : 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 '&a4 1l.E!b1!? l!Jxd4 12.1ld3t, but the sta­ tistics of this variation are terrible for Black, because White's initia­ tive is very dangerous.) 10.0-0

10 . . . '&c7 (It is also interesting for Black to play 10 . . . c4. Although White has an extra in comparison with the game we have already quoted (de Firmian - Gulko), that is not so important in this closed position. Besides the plan of cas­ tling kingside which we have al­ ready seen, Black can also con­ tinue, for example, with : l!Je7-c8b6-a4, or 0-0-0 and f7-f6.) 1l.E!e1 h6 (it is possibly more accurate for him to play 1 1 . . . 0-0) 1 2 .1lfl (Here 1 2 . dxc5 ! ? is worth consid­ ering; Bologan tried out another route for his bishop : 12.a4 0-0 13. flf4 l!Jg6 14.1lg3 l!Jce7 15 .1ld3 c4 16.1lf1 l!Jf5 17.h4 l!Jxg3 18 .fxg3 f5 19.1le2 a5 2 0.h5 l!Jh8 2 l .g4 fxg4 22.l!Jh2 g3 23.l!Jfl l!Jf7 24.l!Jxg3 l!Jg5, with an excellent position for Black, Bologan - Sengupta, Cale­ ta 2 0 11.) 12 . . . c4 13.a4 0-0 14.1lc1 f5 15.1la3 E!f7 16.h4 l!Jc8 17.h5 a5 18. l!Jh4 l!Jd8 19.g4 fxg4 20.'&xg4 ha4oo with a very sharp game, Byrne - Vaganian, Vienna 1980. 255

Chapter 31

8 .id2 .

White rarely plays 8.�d2 , with the plan of developing his bishop to the a3-f8 diagonal without los­ ing any tempi. This position has not been encountered enough in games between strong players.

Black has reacted in various ways: after 8 . . . l2Jge7 White created problems for his opponent in sev­ eral games with the move 9.l"i:b1 ! ? (He does not achieve much with 9.�d3 b6 10.a4 �a6 1l.dxc5 hd3 12. �xd3 bxcS 13.0-0 c4 14.�d2 0-0= Ivanovic - Vaganian, Nik­ sic 1978 ; the move 9.a4 has been analyzed under 7.a4) . I believe Black can obtain a promising po­ sition with 9 . . . b6! lO.dxcS (White can prevent the development of 256

his opponent's bishop on a6 with the manoeuvre lO .�bS �d7 - 10 . . . �a6?! 1l .a4;t - 1l.�d3 , but Black can use the tempi to follow the plan of castling kingside and then playing the undermining move f7f6 : 1 1 . . .c4 12 .�e2 0-0 13.0-0 f6oo with a rather complicated game) 10 . . . �a6 11.ha6 �xa6 12 .�d3 �xd3 13.cxd3 bxcS 14.\t>e2 0-0. Black has a good position in this endgame, for example : 15.l"i:b5 c4 16.dxc4 dxc4 17.l"i:c5 l"i:fc8 18.l"i:xc4 lLlaS� with sufficient compensa­ tion for the pawn ; Black has also tried playing the immediate 8 . . . b6 ! ? 9.dxc5 bxcS 10.a4 �a6 11.ha6 �xa6 12 .�a3 l"i:c8 13.�d3 �xa4 14.0-0 �as 15.�e3 l2Jge7 16.l"i:fb1 lLld8 17.�b4 �c7 18.�a5 �d7 19.hd8 �xd8 20.l"i:xa7 0-0= with equali­ ty, Poulton - Pert, Birmingham 2002; 8 . . . f6 ! ? 9.l"i:b1 fxeS lO.CLJxeS l2Jf6 ll.�bS 0-0 1 2 .lLlxc6 bxc6 13. hc6 �a6� and Black has ob­ tained sufficient compensation. The game continued: 14.ha8 l2Je4 15.�e3 l"i:xf2 16.�xe4 dxe4 17.\t>xf2 �xc3 18 .he4 �xd4+ 19. lt>f3 �f6= with equal chances, Van Riemsdijk - Rodriguez Vila, Sao Paulo 2 004.

8

. . .

�a4

Black wants to transpose to the variation 6 . . . �a5 7.�d2 �a4. In the game Gashimov - Pono­ mariov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009, Black closed the position immedi­ ately: 8. ..c4 9.a4 �d7 10.g3 0-0-0 l l.h4 fS 1 2 .lLlg5 l"i:f8 13.h5 lLlh6 14.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ c3 1lb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc CiJ c6 Elh4 C/Jf7 15.C/Jxf7= with equality. The opponents agreed to a draw.

9.gbl White should also consider 9.dxc5 f6 10.C/Jd4 C/Jxd4 11.cxd4 �xd4 12 .1lb5+ �f7 13.0-0 �xe5

C/Jge7 and transpose t o the favour­ able variation 6 . . . C/Je7 7.h4. In­ stead, Black could consider the sharper 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 C/Jxd4, but White has a very powerful ri­ poste : l l.§J.b4 C/Jf3 (ll . . . C/Jc6 12. C/Jd4 ! ) 1 2 .�f3 C/Je7 13 .1J.d3 C/Jc6 14.Elb1 and his initiative at least compensates for the sacrificed pawn. Or 9 .�b1 c4 10 .g3 §J.d7 1 1.Slg2 0-0-0 1 2 . C/Jg5 Elf8 13 . 0 - 0 h6 14. C/Jh3 g5 15.f3 f6 16.exf6 C/Jxf6 with chances for both sides, Timman Vaganian, Bazna 2 007. It would be too provocative for White to choose 9 .§J.d3, when Black's simplest reaction would be 9 . . . c4 10 .1J.e2 §J.d7. In the game which we mentioned above, the ex-world champion equalized by closing the centre even without gaining a tempo. So I believe that here Black should not have any problems at all.

9 . . . c4 1 0 .�cl b6

A complicated position has arisen, which needs precise analy­ sis. White has compensation for the pawn, but possibly nothing more than that. The computer recommends the logical variation 14.c4 (Black should counter 14. c6 with 14 . . . �c7) 14 . . . d4 15.1J.a5 (Black has a very good game after 15.f4 �c7 16.1J.b4 C/Je7 17.�xd4 Eld8) 15 . . . �xc5 16.1J.b4 �b6 17. 1J.a5 ! ? = After this attractive shot a repetition of moves takes place . . After 9.h4 Black can play 9 . . .

Now White has a standard plan based on the advance of his h-pawn after ll.h4 .id7 12.h5 and the game transposes to the 257

Chapter 31 encounter Yemelin - Akopian, Moscow 2008, in which after

12 0 - 0 - 0 13J3h3 f6 14 .if4 �f8 15 . .ie2 �U'7 16 . .ih2 i>b7 17. i>fl h6 lS.i>gl ll:lge7 19.\'Nb2 �hf8 2 0 .�fl \'Na5 21..if4 �h8= .•.

•

9 . .id2 It is also quite logical for White to continue with the plan for de­ velopment based on deploying the bishop on a3 : 9.'1Wd2 .

Black obtained approximate equality and neither side could improve his position.

b) 7.a4

We have already seen this plan in action in the variation with 6 . . . ll:le7. There Black played b7-b6 and .ic8-a6, while here it results in completely different positions, which used to be popular several decades ago.

7

..•

258

ll:lge7 S.ll:l£3 \'Na5

We shall examine several pos­ sibilities for Black: here it is not so good for him to opt for 9 . . . b6 10 . .ib5 .ia6 (His po­ sition is also worse after 10 . . . .id7 11..ia3 , since it ll . . . cxd4?? runs into 12 ..ib4) 11.Ei:b1 with the bet­ ter game for White; a world-famous expert in the French Defence played here 9 .. .f6 10 . .ia3 fxe5 ll.dxe5 \Wxa4 12 . .ie2 b6 13.c4 lt:Jd8 14. 0-0 \Wd7 15.lt:Jg5 h6 16.lt:Jh3 0-0 17.Ei:fd1 tt:Jdc6 18. .ib2 .ib7 19.ll:'lf4 d4 with a slightly better position for Black, Kuijpers - Korchnoi, Wijk aan Zee 1971, but White had a very powerful counter: 10 . .ib5 .id7 11.exf6 gxf6 12.0-0 0-0-0 13 . .ia3 cxd4 14. lt:Jxd4 e5 15.lt:Jb3 \Wc7 16.lt:Jc5 with advantage to White, Felgaer Rustemov, Dos Hermanas 2005; 9 ... .id7 10 . .id3 (the position is equal after 10 . .ie2 f6 11.exf6 gxf6 12.dxc5 e5 13.0-0 0-0-0 14.c4 dxc4 15.\Wxa5 ll:lxa5 16 . .id2 lt:Jac6 17 ..ixc4 .ig4 18 . .ie3 hf3 19.gxf3

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 . lij c3 ii.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc Lt:l c6 Lt:ld4 20.f4 Lt:lxc2 = Felgaer - Ro­ jas, Santiago 2 006) 10 .. .f6 11.0-0 fxe5 1 2 . Lt:lxe5 Lt:lxe5 13.dxe5 0-0 14.c4 Wlc7 15J''1 e 1 ii.c6 16.Wle2 dxc4 17.hc4 ii.d5oo with good pros­ pects for Black, Tringov - Korch­ noi, Skopje 1972.

9

• • .

ii.d7

l O .iJ.b5 This position has been reached in more than two thousand games, but it has still not been analyzed thoroughly. Black has succeeded in obtaining a good game is several different ways. White has tried some other moves instead, but not very suc­ cessfully: 10 .h4 f6 ll .h5 fxe5 1 2 .Lt:lxe5 Lt:lxe5 13.dxe5 Wlc7 14.f4 0-0-0oo with a complicated position, Pirt­ timaki - Farago, Helsinki 1983 ; White did not achieve much with 10 .g3 0-0-0 1l.ii.h3 f5 1 2 . ii.g2 h6 1 3 . 0 - 0 ii.e8 14.Lt:le1 c4, Van der Wiel - Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 1984; Black obtains a good position after 10.ii.d3 c4 1l.ii.e2 f6. We have seen the same position in the

variation with 7.Lt:lf3, except that instead of the move a3-a4, White had played 0-0; 10 .ii.e2 f6 1l.c4 Wlc7 12.cxd5 Lt:lxd5 13.c4 (White can also try supporting his centre pawn, but this does not really benefit him: 13.exf6 gxf6 14.c3 0-0-0 15.0-0 Elhg8 16.Ele1 e5 - 16 ... Lt:lf4= 17.c4 ii.h3 18.ii.f1 Lt:lb6 19.d5 Lt:lxc4 20.dxc6 Wlxc6 2l .g3 hfl 2 2 .Elxf1 e4 23.Wlb3 Wld5+ with an edge for Black, Spassky - Korchnoi, Bel­ grade 1977.) 13 . . . Lt:lde7 14.exf6 gxf6 15.dxc5 0-0-0 16.ii.c3 e5 17.Wld6 Lt:lf5 18 .Wlxc7+ c;t>xc7 with an excellent position for Black. After 19.0-0 Lt:lfd4 2 0 . Lt:lxd4 Lt:lxd4 2 l .ii.d1 c;t>c6 22 ..bd4 exd4 23. ii.f3 + c;t>xc5 24.hb7 ii.f5, White was in trouble in the game Tim­ man - Korchnoi, Leeuwarden 1976.

10

. . .

a6

Black can also close the centre before exchanging White's bish­ op, which has remained isolated from the rest of his forces: 10 . . . c4 11.0-0 h6 1 2 . Ele1 a6 13.hc6 hc6 and the players agreed to a draw, 259

Chapter 31 Anand - Oil, Rome 1990. It is far from clear whether White's bishop is better placed on b5 than on e2 in the line 10 .. .f6 ll.c4 V/ic7 12.exf6 gxf6 13.cxd5 ltlxd5 14.dxc5 0-0-0 15.0-0 E1hg8 16.a5 e5 17.a6 ltlc3 18 . .bc3 �h3oo with a very sharp position, Nunn - Wang Hao, Amsterdam 2 006. ll . .ixc6 .ixc6 (Black has a good alternative here - 1 1 . . . ltlxc6 1 2 . 0 - 0 Wic7.) 12. 0 - 0 h6 13.

dxc5 �xeS 14.ll:ld4 0 - 0 15. �g4 l!?h7 16J3fe1 �d7 17.l'�ab1 �c7 18.E1e3 .!Llf5 = with equality, Kovalev - Tischbierek, Germany 1991.

c) 7.�g4

Black's dark-squared bishop is already absent from the board, so it would be logical to expect this standard queen-sortie to create the greatest problems for Black.

7 g6 •••

This is the key position of the variation. I believe that the most unpleasant plan for Black is the one chosen by Anand and his sec260

o n d Kasimdzhanov against Ponomariov.

in

games

8.h4 It is a bit less precise for White to follow the same idea with the move-order 8 .�d2 in view of 8 . . . f5 ! (it i s also good for Black t o play 8 . . . �d7, planning 9.h4 f5).

Now: the variation 9.V/if4 h6 10.h4 V/ib6 ll.dxc5 V/ixc5 leads to a posi­ tion we have discussed in our notes to Black's eighth move in the main line ; the pawn-sacrifice 9.Wig3 is not very dangerous: 9 . . . cxd4 10. ltlf3 (10.h4 dxc3 ll.Wixc3 d4 1 2 . Wic5 �e7oo) 10 . . . dxc3 11 . .bc3 ltlh6 and Black's position is quite reli­ able;

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. '2Jc3 Jlb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc '2J c6 after 9 .exf6 '2Jxf6 10 .�h4 eS Black has a good game: ll.dxcS (but not 11.'2Jf3, because after 11 . . . exd4 12.cxd4 0 - 0 13.Jld3 c 4 14. Jle2 JlfS 1S.c3 E1e8+ Black has a clear advantage, Andriasian Tarlev, Voronezh 2011. And after 1 1.JlbS, Black has a choice be­ tween 1 1 . . . exd4, with an approxi­ mately equal middle game after 12.cxd4 0-0 13.'2Je2 cxd4 14.0-0 '2Je4 1S.�h6 �f6 16.f3 = ; or an endgame after 11...'2Je4 12 .�xd8+ Wxd8 13.Jlxc6 bxc6 14.dxeS E1e8 1S.C2Jf3 Wd7! 16.c4 Jla6� with ex­ cellent compensation for the pawn) 11 . . . '2Je4 (it is also possible for Black to opt for ll . . . �e7 12. '2Jf3 0-0 13 .Jle2 �xeS 14.0-0 JlfSoo) 12.�xd8 + Wxd8 (12 . . . '2Jxd8 ? ! 13.Jle3) 13.'2Jf3 ltJxcS 14. E1d1 (White achieves very little with 14.JlbS Jlg4.) 14 . . . Wc7 1S.Jle3 '2Je4 16.E1xdS Jle6+! Black has good counterplay and should have no problems in the resulting endgame. White sometimes retreats his queen in order to protect his queenside. 8.�d1 �c7 ! ? (GM Kruppa has also tried the plan with 8 . . . �aS 9.Jld2 �a4 10.'2Jf3 c4 - I believe it is good for Black to play here 10 . . . b6 ! ? - 11.h4 h6 1 2 . g 3 Jld7 13.Jlg2 0 - 0 - 0 14.�c1 Wb8 1S.O-O WaS and it is unclear whether White can improve his position, but Black is very passive with his knight on g8, forced to protect the h6-pawn, Zontakh Kruppa, Kiev 2 006.) 9.'2Jf3 Jld7 10.h4 h6 ll.Jlf4

11.. .c4 (Black should have grasped the chance to activate his king's knight with 11 . . . '2Jf6 ! ? 12.dxcS ! '2Je4 13.§ld3oo) 12 .�d2 �as (12 . . . 0-0-0 13.'2Jh2) 13 .Jle2 0-0-0 (It is possibly better for Black to play an immediate 13 . . .fS with the idea of '2Jc6-d8-f7. ) 14. Wf1 fS 1S.g3 (The position is rath­ er unclear after 1S.exf6 '2Jxf6 16. Jlxh6 '2Je4 17.�e3 �xc3 18.�xc3 '2Jxc3 19.JlgS E1df8oo) 1S . . . �a4 16.Wg2 Jle8 17.'2Jg1 E1d7 18.g4 '2Jce7 19.'2Jh3± with slight pres­ sure for White, Yemelin - Krup­ pa, Amman 2008. Alexander Khalifman recom­ mends in his book "Opening for White According to Anand" (vol. 7) the variation 8.a4 �c7 (Black's most natural reaction here would be 8 .. .fs 9 .�d1 �as 10 .Jld2 '2Jge7 11.'2Jf3 c4 12 .h4 h6 13.�c1 '2Jd8 14.�a3 Jld7, Gligoric - Maksi­ movic, Yugoslavia 1991, but White's position is still preferable after 1S.Jle2 '2Jf7 16.0-0 '2Jc8 17. �b4±. As usual in this system, it seems sensible for Black to post­ pone the development of his g8knight with the move 10 . . . Jld7. Tournament practice will show whether this precision is essen261

Chapter 31 tial, but White should test the consequences of the aggressive move 11.c4 ! ? It looks as though Black's position is O.K. after 11 . . . V!ffc 7 1 2. cxd5 exd5 and White will be unable to hold his centre, for example: 13 .c3 cxd4 14.li:lf3 li:lxe5 ! 15.Vlffe 2 0-0-0 16.li:lxe5 dxc3 17. l"lc1 cxd 2 + 18.V!ffx d2 ic6ro. All this seems rather risky, but Black has two extra pawns as meaningful compensation for his difficulties. The position is unclear.) 9 .id2

9 .. .f5 (Black has also tried 9 . . . f6 10.li:lf3 fxe5 1 1 .V!ffg3 cxd4 1 2 . cxd4 li:lf6 13.ib5 0-0 14.hc6 li:le4 15.V!ffxe5 V!ffx c6 16.ih6 V!ffc 3+ 17.Wf1 l"lf7 18.l"lc1 V!ffc 7, Della Mar­ te - Lemos, Villa Ballester 2006 and now the line 19.Wg1 V!ffx e5 2 0 .li:lxe5 l"lxf2 2 1 .h4 b6 2 2 .c4ro would have led to a sharp and un­ clear endgame position. After 11. li:lxe5 li:lxe5 1 2 .V!fff4 cxd4 13.cxd4, Black should try V!ffx c2 and his ex­ tra pawn, together with the possi­ bility of exchanging queens on the e4-square, might well be suffi­ cient for equality. Nevertheless, the move 9 . . .f5 seems to be more accurate.) 10.V!ffh 4. Similar posi­ tions are very typical for this vari262

ation and are quite difficult to evaluate. It seems to me that Black's defence should be easier after he has advanced f7-f5 and White must work hard to prove any advantage. For example: 10 . . . V!ffe 7 ( 1 0 . . . h6? ! 1 l.ib5t) 1l.Vlfff4 id7 12.li:lf3 h6 13 .h4 c4 14.ie2 0-0-0ro and we reach a standard position. The deployment of Black's queen on e7, in compari­ son to the aS-square, has its plus­ es and drawbacks as well. White is not forced to protect his queen­ side and can acquire additional space there by advancing a4-a5, but castling kingside seems risky in view of Black's possible offen­ sive there, based on V!ff e 7-h7 and g6-g5 . The somewhat forgotten move 8.li:lf3 was rehabilitated by a fresh idea discovered by Andrey Volo­ kitin. 8 . . . V!ffa5 (In an earlier game, Ruslan chose 8 . . . id7 9 .V!fff4 f5 10. h4 h6 11.id2 c4 12 .a4 V!ffa5 13 .ie2 li:lge7 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.l"lfb1 l"ldg8 and Black had a comfortable posi­ tion, Cheparinov - Ponomariov, Cuernavaca 2006. However, White's play could possibly be im­ proved earlier.) 9.id2 V!ffa4 10. ie2 (It only amount to a transpo­ sition of moves after 10.:l'la2 c4 ; 10.V!fff4 c4 1l .ie2 h6 12 .h4 id7 13.0-0 l"lh7 14.li:lh2 0-0-0 15.:l'la2 l"lf8 16.li:lg4 draw, Muzychuk Rajlich, Ohrid 2009. Instead, Black should have opted for 12 . . . V!ffx c2 with very problematic com­ pensation for White.) 10 . . . c4 11. :l'la2 id7 12.V!ffh 4

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji:Jc3 �b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc 'Ll c6

This is an interesting idea. White prevents his opponent from castling in the most straight­ forward way. (He used to do that indirectly, by attacking the fl­ pawn: 12.Wf4 h6 13.h4 l"lh7. Black's rook-manoeuvre might look ri­ diculous, but is in fact quite rea­ sonable. 14.hS gS 1S.Wg3 0-0-0 16.'Llh2 fS 17.exf6 'Llxf6 18.'Llg4 'Llxg4 19.�xg4 WaS 2 0 .We3 eS and Black seizes the initiative, Aver­ janov - Kruppa, St Petersburg 2 003.) 12 . . . h6 13.0-0 'Ll ce7. This move looks artificial, but is quite well motivated. . (Black fails to equalize after 13 . . . 'Llge7 14.�gS 14.Wf6? 0-0-0 - 14 . . . 'LlfS 1S.Wh3 l"lg8 16.�f6 WaS 17.g4 Wxc3 18. gxfS gxfS+ 19.�h1 'Llxd4 2 0 .�d1 �c6 2 1 . a4 'Llxf3 22.�xf3 l"lg6 and he has some compensation, al­ though insufficient, for the piece. After 16.�d2 l"lh8 17.g4 'Llfe7 18. �gS 'Llg8, Black's achievements are rather questionable.) 14.�gS �c6 1S.g4 WaS. The manoeuvres of both sides are thematic and quite consistent. 16.l"lb1 'Llc8 17.a4 'Llb6 18.l"lb4 'Llxa4 19.�f6 'Llxf6 2 0 .exf6 bS 21.Wg3 (White occu­ pies an important diagonal. ) 2 1 . . . Wd8 (Black cannot change much

with the line : 2 1 . . Jk8 2 2 .'LleS Wc7 23.£4.) 2 2 .'LleS Wd6 (It would not work to opt for 22 . . . �d7 23.f4 a6 24.l"laxa4 ! bxa4 2S.l"lb7 l"lb8 26. l"lxd7 l"lb1+ 27.�f2 Wxd7 28.'Llxd7 �xd7 29 .hc4 dxc4 30.We3 a3 31. dS exdS 32 .Wa7+ �d6 33.Wxa6 + �d7 34.Wxa3 �c6 and White re­ tains an advantage.) 23.f4 'Llb6? After this mistake the position be­ comes difficult for Black. He should not have removed his knight from its active position , es­ pecially since from there it con­ tained the activity of the enemy rook. (or 23 . . . gS ! ? 24.Wh3 gxf4 2S.gS l"lh7 26.�g4 0-0-0 2 7.g6 fxg6 2 8.he6+ �c7, with counter­ play) 24.fS gS 2S.l"lb1 �d7 26.fxe6 Wxe6 2 7.l"le1 and White seized the initiative and went on to win, Vo­ lokitin - Ponomariov, San Sebas­ tian 2 0 1 2 . We should mention that this game was played in a tournament in which the players contested a match of two games against each other (with White and Black) simultaneously.

8

. . .

h6

It looks as though Black can2 63

Chapter 31 not solve his all problems with the move 8 . . .fS because of 9.�g3 ! (It would less convincing for him to opt for 9.�f4 h6, for example: 10.dxcS �aS 1 1.�d2 �xeS 12.li:Jf3 li:Jge7 13 .�d3 �d7 14.0-0 0-0-0. Black has sufficient counterplay on the kingside, for instance 1S. l"lfb1 gS 16.hxgS - 16.�h2 �aS after 16 . . . li:Jg6 17.�g3 hxgS 18.�e3 �e7 19 .�xgS �h7 2 0 . Wfl l"ldg8i Black has the initiative on the kingside.) 9 . . . cxd4 lO .hS gS 11. �xgS �aS 12.li:Je2 (Black obtains a good position in the endgame af­ ter 12 .�d2 dxc3 13.�xc3 �xc3 14.hc3 li:Jh6.) 12 . . . dxc3 13.li:Jf4 ! ? with advantage t o White. I t i s also very good for White to continue with 13.�xc3 �xc3+ 14.li:Jxc3 liJxeS 1S.liJbS� with a powerful initiative for the sacrificed pawn. Black's position in the main line is not very reliable, so he should consider much more care­ fully the line: 8 . . . �aS 9 .�d2 �a4 (or 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 �a4) lO .hS �xc2 (10 . . . liJxeS? 11.�g3 li:Jd7 12.hxg6 fxg6 13.l"lxh7±) 11.li:Jf3 cxd4 1 2. cxd4 h6 13.hxg6 �xg6

�d7 17.l"lh4 Wg7 18.l"lah1 l"lc8, White has full compensation for the pawn, because Black cannot untangle his kingside. Still, it is far from clear how White can in­ crease his pressure and maintain an advantage.) 14 . . . �d7 1S.l"lc1 0-0-0 16.�e2 (16.�h4 ! ?) 16 . . . Wb8 17.l"lc3 �b1 + 18 .�d1 li:Jge7oo Black obtained an excellent posi­ tion in the game Solozhenkin Kashtanov, St Petersburg 2000.

9.�d2 White has tried 9.hS gS 10.f4 �aS 11.�d2 fS 12.�g3 g4 13.dxcS �xeS 14.�d3 li:Jge7. In the game Motylev - Kruppa, Predeal 2007, Black succeeded in closing the po­ sition on the kingside and his prospects were by no means worse.

9 . . . .id7

14.�h3 (in the endgame after 14.�xg6 fxg6 1S.�d3 Wf7 16.We2 264

It is worth considering the greedy line : 9 . . . �b6 lO.dxcS (or 10.li:Jf3 �b2 11.l"lc1 c4 and Black closes the position, winning the enemy a-pawn, while White has difficulties in developing any ini­ tiative. After 12 .�e2 �xa3 13.0-0 Black, having played until now in

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji:Jc3 il.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc 'Ll c6 computer style, should continue in the same fashion : 13 .. .'11*'b 2 ! ? 14J�fd1 aSoo with a rather unclear game) 10 .. .'�b2 1Uk1 �xa3 1 2 . 'Llf3 �xeS 13.il.d3 h S 14.�f4 'Ll h 6 15.l"lb 1� White has sufficient com­ pensation for the pawn. Black has not yet tried the move 9 . . . �a5. It seems to me White has a powerful reply 10.a4, preventing �a5-a4 and b7b6.

1 0 .i/.d3

ous for White to continue with 15.�h5 because of 15 . . . l"ldf8 , with the plan of l"lhg8, 'LlfS, il.e8, for in­ stance: 16.l"lfe1 l"lhg8 17.�xh6 'LlfS 18.�f4 fxeS 19.dxe5 'Llg3 2 0 .�e3 'Llf5= and there is a repetition of moves, while after 2 0 .fxg3 l"lxf4 2 l .gxf4 'Lle7oo the position is very unclear.) 14.l"ltbl 'it>a8 15.a4, Al Modiahki - Khader, Dubai 2011. It seems to me that this was the right moment for Black to achieve the desired set-up for his pieces. He should continue with 15 . . . il.e8 ! 16.il.cl fSoo with chances for both sides. This looks to me to be the best line for him at the moment.

1 0 . . �e7 .

Black can try placing his queen on another square : 10 . . . �c7 ! ? 11.'Llf3 (There was a nice point to Black's last, natural, move. It would be a mistake for White to play 11.'Llh3? owing to ll . . . cxd4 12.cxd4 'LlxeS ! ) . The position of White's knight on f3 is less para­ lysing for Black. ll.. .c4 12 .i/.e2 0-0-0 13.0-0 'it>b8 (It would be too early for 13 .. .f6 ! ? 14.�xg6 'Llge7 15.�g3 ! l"ldg8 16.�h2 fxeS 17.'Llxe5 'LlxeS 18.il.f4t and Black's compensation for the pawn is in­ sufficient. I should like to men­ tion that it would be rather dubi-

ll.'Llh3 ! ? White plans t o deploy his knight on f4, preventing the im­ portant pawn-advance for Black in this system - f7-f5. Of course, the deployment of the knight on f4 and the queen on g3 is mainly prophylactic and it is possible that to accomplish a break on the kingside he will have to regroup his forces. Black will then have the chance to play f7-f6, or f7-f5, but it would not be very pleasant 2 65

Chapter 31 for him to await developments with a paralysed kingside.

11 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 12. 0 - 0 c4 13 . .ie2

18.'i:Jf2 l"ld7 19.'t&h3 't&d8 20.'i:ld1 h5 (planning 'i:Jg8-h6-g4), Black's position is quite trustworthy. It is also interesting to try 17 . . . .ig6 18 . .ixh4 l"l£8 and, as a reward for the risk, Black is able to activate his "French" bishop.

14.tl:lf4 'i!?b8 15.a4 'i!?a8

13 . . . .ie8 Black's position is worse after 13 . . . f5 14.1&xg6 1&xh4 15.'i:Jf4. The option 13 ... g5 ! ? deserves a thorough analysis. Strangely enough, it would be very difficult for White to prove a substantial advantage here: 14.1&h5 (after 14. hxg5 hxg5 15 . .ixg5 f6 16.exf6 'i:Jxf6 17.f4 l"ldf8� with the idea of 't&h7, Black has compensation for the pawn) 14 . . . f6. Now after 15. hxg5 Black manages to hold the balance in the forced variation 15 . . . fxe5 16.gxh6 'i:Jf6 17.1&h4 'i:Je4 18.1&xe7 'i:Jxe7 19 ..ig5 'i:Jxg5 2 0 . 'i:Jxg5 l"ldf8 21.dxe5 l"lxh6 22.f4 'i:Jg6 23 .g3 l"lg8 24.'i:Jf7 l"lh7 25.'i:Jd6+ Wc7 26.Wg2 .ic6= , with enough counterplay to draw. It looks very attractive for White to play 15.f4 .ie8 16.'t&f3 gxh4 (it is worse for Black to play here 16 . . . gxf4 17.'i:Jxf4 fxe5 18.dxe5 .if7 19. l"laeU with an edge for White) 17. .ie1 , but even then after 17 . . .f5 266

Black is still not well prepared for the freeing sacrifice which he accomplished a move later in the game Anand - Ponomariov: 15 . . . f5 16.exf6 'i:Jxf6 17.1&xe6 't&g7 18. 't&h3 .if7 (after 18 ... .id7 19.'t&g3 'i:Je4 20 .'t&h2 Wc8 2 1.l"lad1, White is better. Black's king is much saf­ er on a8.) 19 . .ig4 g5 2 0 .'i:le6 .ixe6 2 1 ..ixe6 'i:Je4 with an advantage for White after 2 2 .l"lad1, or 2 2 . .iel.

16.a5 ! This i s a n important improve­ ment, which transposes to the game Kasimdzhanov - Ponomar­ iov, Moscow 2 007. Another pos­ sible continuation is 16 . .ic1 f5 ! 17.exf6 'i:Jxf6 18.1&xe6 't&g7 19.'t&h3 .id7 2 0 .'t&g3 .if5 2 1.'i:lh5 't&e7 2 2 . 'i:Jxf6 't&xe2 and Black ended up with excellent compensation for

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. CiJc3 1J.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc CiJ c6 the sacrificed pawn, Anand Ponomariov, Leon 2007. Here it would be interesting for Black to try:

16

•..

17 . . . hxg5 18.4Jh3 f6 19.exf6 CiJxf6

g5? !

One o f the ideas behind the move 16.a5 is that now 16 .. .f5 17. exf6 4Jxf6 18.�xe6 �g7 19.a6 b6 2 0 .§J.f3 + - does not work for Black. With his pawn still on b7, he would have played here 1J.e8-f7 and g6-g5. Bearing in mind that Black fails to free his position with the move in the main text, he should consider 16 . . . �c7 17.a6 (it is also possible for White to try 17.1J.cl 4Jxa5 18.1J.a3 4Jc6 19.l"1fbl 4Jge7oo and he has obvious compensa­ tion, but Black still has an extra pawn) 17 . . . b6 18 .1J.cl White's a6pawn is weak and he has no pres­ sure on the queenside, but Black's kingside is vulnerable. Still, White's prospects seem prefera­ ble.

17.hxg5 It is less convincing for White to continue with 17.4Jh5 f5 18.exf6 �h7.

2 0 .hg5 1J.g6 2 0 . . . 1J.h5 21.�f4±

21.a6 b6 22.�f4 E1df8 23. §J.g4 e5 Black should avoid 23 ... 4Jxg4 24.he7 E1xf4 25.4Jxf4 4Jxe7 26. E1ael± and in this endgame his two minor pieces are weaker that White's rook and pawns.

24.dxe5 .!Llxe5 25.l"1ael §J.e4 Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient after White's simple response 26.-idU, but it is also good for him to opt for 26J�xe4 ! ? dxe4 27. 1J.f5t seizing the initiative.

2 67

Part S

The MacCutcheon Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)iJc3 llJf6 4..ig5 .ib4

After 4 . .ig5 I recommend that Black chooses one of two possibilities - either the sharp MacCutcheon counter-attack ( 4 . . . .ib4) or the quite reliable and advantageous transposition, under favourable circum­ stances, to the Rubinstein variation ( 4 . . . dxe4 S.tt:lxe4 tt:lbd7). Both lines have their devoted adherents and have been played successfully. In the MacCutcheon variation Black risks more, but has chances of seizing the initiative if his opponent reacts imprecisely. After the simplifying move 4 . . . dxe4, his game is safer and he focuses on neutralizing White's opening initiative. The French Defence, as an opening, is centred on the pawn-advance e4-e5. Black presents his opponent with this possibility on move three (the Advance variation) , or on move four (the Steinitz variation or the Winawer variation). If White insists on maintaining tension in the cen­ tre, then Black has the option of playing the MacCutcheon variation, in which he can combine pressure against White's centre from his knight on f6 and his bishop on b4 - a sort of combination of the Steinitz and the Winawer. This system used to be considered very risky, but recently it has gained some popularity. The dangers for Black are obvious - his king­ side has been weakened by the absence of defending pieces, and his king often has to roam all over the board in search of a safe haven. It often happens that Black has to reduce the tension in the centre by advancing c5-c4. White, in turn, has to react very precisely and ener­ getically in order to create problems for the opponent. 268

Chapter 32

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)[jc3 �f6 4 ..ig5 .ib4

5.exd5 Attempts by White to main­ tain the tension in the centre do not achieve much. After 5.�d3 Black obtains an excellent game by undermining White's centre with 5 . . . c5 (This is probably even stronger than 5 . . . dxe4 6.he4 c 5 7.'Llge2 (7.dxc5 see 5 . . . c5) 7 . . . cxd4 8.tt:Jxd4 �a5 9 .hf6 hc3 + 10.bxc3 �xc3 + 11.�d2 �xd 2 + 12.i>xd2 gxf6 13 .l':lab1 'Ll a6 and Black has at least equalized ; or 11.i>f1 gxf6 1 2 . l':lb1 'Ll d7, and White's compensa­ tion for the pawn is sufficient only for equality.) 6.dxc5 (It is rather dubious to opt for 6.e5 ? ! cxd4 7. a3 dxc3 8 . axb4 cxb2 9.l':lb1 h6.) 6 ... dxe4 7.he4 �xd1+ 8.l':lxd1 'Llbd7 9.�f3 hc3 + 10.bxc3 'Llxc5=

After 5.'Llge2 Black's most practical decision is to continue with a temporary pawn-sacrifice: 5 . . . h6 (The attempt to equalize by simplifying: 5 . . . dxe4 6.a3 �e7 7. hf6 hf6 8.tt:Jxe4 0-0 9.�d3 9.�d2 e5 - 9 . . . e5, fails owing to White's powerful resource 10. �f3 ! , played in the game S. Polgar - M.Gurevich, Breda 2 000. After 10 . . . 'Lld7, White should have cho­ sen l l.tt:Jxf6 + , for example 12 . . . gxf6 13.0-0-0;t with a slightly better endgame for White; or 1 1 . . . �xf6 12.�xf6 'Llxf6 13 .dxe5 'Llg4 14.f4 l':ld8 15.'Llc3 'Lle3 16.l':lcl l':ld4 17.g3 and Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient, or fi­ nally 1 1 . . . tt:J xf6 12 .dxe5 'Llg4 13. �c3 f6 14.exf6 'Llxf6 15. 'Llg3 and again Black does not have enough for the missing pawn .) 6.hf6 �xf6 7.a3 �a5

2 69

Chapter 32 8.exd5 (The position is very complicated but good for Black after 8.b4 ib6 9.e5 'We7 10.ti:la4 id7 11.c3 0-0 12.t2lf4 ie8 13.g3 f6 14.exf6 'Wxf6 15.1"1a2 ti:lc6 16.h4 if7 17.ig2 1"1ad8 18.0-0 e5oo Hec­ tor - Glek, Copenhagen 1995 .) 8 ... 0-0 9.'Wd3 (The game is equal after 9.'Wd2 1"1d8 10.dxe6 ixe6 11.'We3 t2lc6 1 2 . 0-0-0 ixc3 13. ti:lxc3 ti:lxd4 14.id3 c5 15.1"1d2 b6= N.Mamedov - Antic, Kavala 2 010.) 9 . . . 1"1d8 10.dxe6 ixe6 11. 0-0-0 'Wxf2 1 2 .ti:le4 'Wf5 13.t2lc5 'Wxd3 14.1"1xd3 ic8 15.g3 ti:ld7 16. b4 ib6 17.ig2 c6 18.ti:lf4 a5 19. 'it>b2 ti:lf6 2 0 .d5 axb4 2 1 . axb4 ixc5 2 2 .bxc5 if5 = Unzicker - Piskov, Germany 1991.

11.t2lg3 ti:lf8 12.ti:lf5 ixf5 13.'Wxf5 'Wd7 14.'Wxd7 t2l 6xd7= Kadziolka - Rajlich, Ostrow 2 002 ) 7 . . . ie7 8. 1"1e1 0-0 9 .id3 1"1e8 10.ti:lge2 c6 11. ti:lg3 ti:lf8 12.t2lf5 ixf5 13.ixf5 t2l 6d7 14.ixe7 1"1xe7= Black has solved all his opening problems, Galkin - Alavkin, St. Petersburg 1999.

6.hf6

a) 6 . . . hc3+ b) 6 gxf6 • • •

a) 6 . . . hc3+

5

�xd5

.•.

Black can also play the simpler 5 . . . exd5 6.'Wf3 (White has also tried 6.id3 0-0 7.ti:lge2 c6 8.0-0 1"1e8 9.t2lg3 h6 10.id2 ti:lbd7 11. ti:l ce2 ixd2 12.'Wxd2 ti:lf8 13.ti:lf4 'Wd6 14.f3 id7 and his advantage is merely symbolic, Shirov - lvan­ chuk, Morelia/Linares 2008.) 6 . . . ti:lbd7 7.0-0-0 (7.id3 0 - 0 8 . ti:lge2 c6 9 . 0 - 0 - 0 1"1 e 8 10 .h4 ie7 270

This zwischenzug is consid­ ered to be a good alternative to the immediate 6 . . . gxf6. However, giving up bishop for knight with­ out any clear necessity, or imme­ diate benefits, and especially un­ provoked, as a zwischenzug, is a positional concession for Black.

7.bxc3 gxf6 (diagram)

s:�d2 This is White's most precise move. He cannot obtain much in this pawn-structure however. It is harmless for Black for White to continue with 8.ti:lf3 b6

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJc3 li'Jf6 4. �g5 �b4 5.ed Wffxd5 6. hf6 hc3

9.�e2 �b7 10.0-0 li'Jd7 11.a4 aS and Black has a very comfortable game. An active queen-sortie is not very satisfactory for White after: 8.Wffg4 '&aS 9.li'Je2 (9.Wffg3 �d7 10. �c4 �c6 11.li'Je2 li'Jd7 1 2 .Wffg7 ct;e7 13.he6 ct;xe6 14.li'Jf4+ ct;e7 1S.O-O :1'i:af8 16.dS �a4 17.:1'i:fe1+ ct;dS 18. li'Je6+ fxe6 19.dxe6 :1'i:fg8-+ and Black has parried the attack, end­ ing up with a lot of extra material, Christiansen - Volkov, Internet 2004.) 9 . . . ct;e7 10 .g3 (White has also tried here 10.Wfff3 :1'i:d8 11.Wffe 3 cS 12 .:1'i:d1 cxd4 13.:1'i:xd4 :1'i:xd4 14. li'Jxd4, Pilavov - Kiselev, Lugansk 200S, but after the simple reply 14 . . . Wffe S+ Black's position is pref­ erable.) 10 . . . li'Jc6 11.�g2 eS 1 2 .Wfff3 li'Jxd4 13.li'Jxd4 exd4 14.0-0 Wffxc3 15.:1'i:fe1+ �e6 16.Wffxc3 dxc3 17. hb7 :1'i:ab8+ and Black's game is slightly better, Robson - Vagani­ an, Moscow 2009. Black does not have the slight­ est problem in the endgame after 8 .Wfff3 Wffxf3 9.li'Jxf3 b6 10.g3 �b7 11.�g2 li'Jc6 12 .li'Jd2 0-0-0 13. 0-0-0 e5 14.dxe5 fxe5= Feygin ­ Vallejo Pons, Emsdetten 2010.

8 . . . Wff a5 This is Black's most popular continuation - a prophylactic move against c3-c4 - but the attempt to undermine White's centre imme­ diately deserves close attention : 8 . . . c5 9.li'Je2 cxd4 10.cxd4 li'Jc6 11.Wfff4 ct;e7 12.c3 '&aS 13.g3 :1'i:d8 14.Wff e 3 eS� with sufficient coun­ ter chances, Smirin - Vaisser, Tel Aviv 199 2 ; 8 . . .e 5 9.li'Jf3 (Black has n o prob­ lems after White's active queen­ sortie 9.Wffh 6 Wffe 4+ 10.ct;d2 Wffg 6 11.Wffxg6 hxg6 12 .:1'i:e1 li'Jc6 13.dxe5 fxeS 14.�b5 :1'i:h5 15.li'Jf3 �d7, A. Sokolov - Korchnoi, Switzerland 2002.) 9 . . . li'Jc6 10.dxe5 Wffxd2 + 11. ct;xd2 fxeS 1 2 . li'Jxe5 liJxeS 13.:1'i:e1 f6 14.f4 �e6 15.fxeS 0-0-0+ 16. �d3 fxe5 17.:1'i:xe5 �xa2 18.:1'i:a1 �dS 19.:1'i:xa7 ct;bS 2 0.:1'i:a4 �xg2. White maintains some minimal pres­ sure, thanks to his well-placed bishop on d3 and the vulnerabili­ ty of Black's h-pawn, but the posi­ tion has been simplified so much that a draw seems inevitable, A. Sokolov - Kolly, Lenk 2011.

9.�d3 �d7 1 0 .ll:le2 �c6 11. tl:lf4 tl:ld7 12.c4 Wffx d2 + 13. 271

Chapter 32 'i!?xd2, A.Sokolov - S.Atalik, Ger­ many 2 003 and here it seems quite reasonable to follow GM Andrey Sokolov's recommenda­ tion: 13 . . . 4Jb6 14.c3 0-0-0� b) 6 . . . gxf6

12

7.4Jge2 After 7.'&d2 '&aS 8.4Jge2 it is good for Black to play 8 . . . 4Jd7, planning to transfer the knight via the attractive route lt:Jd7-b6-dS. 9 .'&f4 (the position is simplified and balanced after 9.0-0-0 tt:Jb6 10.'i!?b1 4JdS = ; if 9.a3 tt:Jb6 10J'1d1 !J.e7 ll.lt:Jc1 fi.d7 12.4Jb3 '&gS, Black has nothing to complain about) 9 . . . bS ! ? 10.0-0-0 !J.e7 ll.'i!?b1 b4�

7

• • •

4Jc6 8.a3

8.'&d2 '&gS 9.f4 '&g6 10.a3 !laS 11.g3 fi.d7 12 .fi.g2 0-0-0 13.b4 fi.b6 14.lt:Ja4 tt:Je7 1S.lt:Jxb6+ axb6 16. 0-0-0 §J.c6= and again, after the numerous exchanges, Black has equalized comfortably, Rabiega Huebner, Altenkirchen 2001.

8 hc3+ 9.lljxc3 '&xd4 1 0 . '&xd4 llJxd4 11. 0 - 0 - 0 c5 12. llJe4 • • •

272

• • •

b6

It is a bit less precise to play 12 . . . We7 13.4JxcS eS. In the game Safarli - Nepomniachtchi, Kirishi 2007, there followed 14.c3 lt:Je6 1S. tt:Je4 fS 16.4Jd6 4JcS 17.!J.c4 !J.e6 18. l'l:he1 Wf6. Now it seems danger­ ous for Black if White plays 19. he6 fxe6 20 .b4 4Ja4 2 1.Wc2 l'l:ag8 22 .g3 l'l:g7 23.c4, but Black can hold the balance, for example with 23 . . . 4Jb6 24.2'l:e3 tt:Jc8 2S.lt:JbS hS 26.:8:de1 a6 27.4Jc3 e4 2 8.f3 tt:Jb6=

13.c3 llJb3+ 14.Wc2 llJa5 15. b4 llJb7 16.llJxf6 + 'i!?e7 17.llJe4 .id7 18.b5 f5 Black has obtained an excel­ lent position and it is high time for White to think about fighting for equality.

19.llJg5 It is more accurate to continue with 19.4Jf6 !J.c8 2 0 .4JhS lt:Jd6, but Black has a good position in any case.

19 ghg8 2 0 .llJf3 llJd6 21. llJe5 .ie8 22.g3 •••

If 2 2 .2'l:b1 c4. 22 llJxb5 White has to fight for a draw, Morozevich - Kovalev, Moscow 1994. • • •

Chapter 33

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)2Jc3 �f6 4.i.g5 i.b4 5.e5

After 8.Wh5 Wf6 9.ltlf3 Wxg7 10.a3 .id6, White might have problems with his over-active queen.

This is a natural and princi­ pled move. Nevertheless White should think about whether it is reasonable to acquire so much space and he must try not to suc­ cumb to provocation.

5

.••

h6 6.exf6

This move is tried only very rarely in contemporary tourna­ ment practice. Its positional de­ fects are obvious and White can­ not effectively exploit the draw­ backs of Black's king being stranded in the centre, or the vul­ nerability of his kingside. Al­ though this line is not as harmless as it looks, it is not the most fearsome line that Black must face in the MacCutcheon varia­ tion.

6 . . .hxg5 7.fxg7 �g8 8.h4

8

•••

tLlc6 ! ?

This interesting move attract­ ed attention after it was played by Morozevich in his game against Landa. It was considered to be quite safe for Black to play simply 8 . . . gxh4 9.Wg4 (White does not ob­ tain much with 9.1Mfh5 Wf6 10. Ei:xh4 Wxg7 11.ltlf3 ltlc6 12 ..ib5 .id7 13.hc6 hc6 14.ltle5 0-0-0+±; 1 2 . 0-0-0 .id7 and he must make use of his control of the open h­ file in order to maintain the bal­ ance. Black has no problems at all.) 273

Chapter 33 Wgxe6+? cj;Jc7 2l.Wf4+ cj;Jb6 2 2 . Wee3 + ic5 23.g8W b1W

and here : Black plays 9 . . . ie7 only rarely. This might be owing to fear of some old but spectacular analysis by Alekhine. Many inaccuracies and mistakes have been discov­ ered in it, but still it is not every day that you see a position where, in a quite natural and logical way, five (yes five ! ! ) queens appear on the board. 10 .g3 (It would be much more unpleasant for Black for White to play simply 10.tt:lf3 if6 1l.Wf4 a6 1 2 . 0-0-0t with a powerful initiative.) 10 . . . c5 11. gxh4 (It is better for White to play here 1l .dxc5, but after ll . . . if6 Black has an excellent position, for example: 1 2 . 0-0-0 Elxg7 13. We2 We7 14.tt:lb5 cj;lfS 15.tt:ld6 tt:ld7 16.Wb5 Elb8 ! planning b6; or 1 2 . tt:lf3 Elxg7 13.Wf4 tt:l d 7 14.0-0-0 tt:lxc5? ; 12 .ib5+ id7 13.0-0-0 hg7 14.cj;Jb1 cj;lfS?) 11. . . cxd4 12. h5? ! dxc3 13.h6 cxb2 14.Elb1 Wa5+ 15.cj;Je2. Unfortunately, here Black can obtain a clear advantage, neu­ tralizing his opponent's attack with the move 15 . . . if8 ! The fa­ mous position with five queens on the board arises after 15 ... Wxa2 16.h7 Wxb1 17.hxg8W+ cj;Jd7 18. Wxf7 Wxc2+ 19.cj;lf3 tt:lc6 20. 274

24.Elh6 ! and . . . White is better. 9 . . . Wf6 10.Elxh4 (Black can counter 10.Wxh4 with 10 . . . Wxg7.) 10 . . . Wxg7 (White cannot refute 10 . . . Elxg7 11.Elh8+ cj;Je7 12 .Wh3 tt:lc6 13.0-0-0 ixc3 14.Wxc3 Elxg2, Barczay - Hoang Thanh Trang, Budapest 2001. Here he should continue with 15.ixg2 Wxh8 16.We3� with sufficient compensation for the pawn.) 11. Wxg7 Elxg7 12 .Elh8 +

12 . . .if8 (The move 12 . . . cj;Jd7 does not solve all of Black's prob­ lems: 13.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 14.0-0-0 b6 15.ib5 and here it is important that the attempt to fortify his po­ sition with 15 .. .f6 16.Elh6 ie7? fails to 17.tt:lxd5 ! exd5 18.tt:le5 + , while i f 15 . . . j,d6 16.tt:le5+ -

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.liJc3 [/Jj6 4. §ig5 §ib4 5.e5 h6 6.efhg 16. [/Je4 §ib7 - 16 . . . 1ixe5 17.dxe5 §ib7 18.Elh6 Eld8 19.[/Jxd5 exd5 2 0. c4 'it>c8 2 1.hc6 iixc6 22.Elxc6 dxc4, the forcing line has led to a complicated rook and pawn end­ ing with the better prospects for White. ) 13.0-0-0 §id7 (Black should consider the seemingly unattractive line 13 . . . [/Jd7 14.[/Jf3 c6. It appears that he can do what he likes behind his solid pawn­ chain, since White's dark-squared bishop is absent from the board, for example: 15.g3 Elg6 16.§ig2 Elh6 17.Elh1 Elxh1+ 18 .1ixh1 f6 - plan­ ning @f7 - 19.Elh7 §id6, evicting White's rook by [/Jf8.) 14.Ele1 1ic6 15.f4 [/Jd7. Black frees his position with this pawn-sacrifice. (An at­ tempt to exchange White's active bishop does not lead to quick equality for Black: 15 . . . Elg6 16.[/Jf3 Elh6 17.Elg8 [/Jd7 18.§ib5?! hb5 19. [/Jxb5 0-0-0 20.[/Jxa7+ 'it>b8 21.[/JbS [/Jf6 2 2 . Elg3 [/Je4 23.Elg8 [/Jf6 = ; 18. g4 Elh1 19.g5 0-0-0 2 0 . '\t>dU) 16. f5 0-0-0 17.f:xe6 fxe6 18.Elxe6

This position has been known for a long time and is considered equal. However, it must be admit­ ted that Black still has to play pre­ cisely: 18 . . . §ie7 (18 . . . Elg4 19.Elh5

Elxd4 2 0 . [/Jf3 Elg4 21.[/Jxd5 'it>b8 2 2 .Ele1 id6 ; 19.[/Jf3 ig7 2 0 . Elh5 [/Jf6, Belavenets - Bondarevsky, Tbilisi 1937; his compensation is sufficient for a draw, but still, af­ ter for example: 2 1.Elh2, he must take care.) 19.Elxd8+ 'it>xd8, Heu­ er - Dvoretsky, Tallinn 1976.

White has an extra pawn but he will not be able to exploit it if Black defends accurately. White cannot protect his pawns on d4 and g2 and prevent the appear­ ance of his opponent's knight on e4, all at the same time. We shall continue this variation a bit fur­ ther: 2 0 .[/Jf3 [/Jf6 2 1.Ele1 (White does not achieve much with 2 1 . [/Jh4 [/Jg4 2 2 .[/JfS ig5+ 23.'it>b1 Elg8 ; or 2 1 .[/JeS ie8.) 2 l . . .id6 ( 2 l . . .id7 ! ?) 2 2 .[/JeS he5 23.dxe5 (23.Elxe5 [/Jg4 24.Elh5 [/Je3 25.id3 Elxg2) 23 . . . [/Je4 24.[/Je2 Elg5 and Black regains his pawn. However, if the prospect of having to defend a drawish end­ game a pawn down does not ap­ peal to Black, he should pay more attention to the slightly risky move 8 . . . [/Jc6. I should mention that after the move 8 . . . Elxg7 White is not forced 2 75

Chapter 33 to advance his h-pawn, transpos­ ing to the main line. He can reach original positions by playing 9 .hxg5 'Wxg5 10.lt:lf3 1Wg6 11.'Wd2, or 9.lt:lf3.

.ixc6 bxc6 15. 0-0-0 'We7 16.!"1xh4 0-0-0, Black's pawn-structure has been disrupted but this is practically irrelevant, whereas his extra pawn might become a deci­ sive factor.

9

•••

1';xg7

9.h5 It is also good for White to play 9.'Wd3 ! ? l"\xg7 (the line 9 . . . 'Wf6 10.hxg5 'Wxg5 also deserves attention) 10.hxg5 'Wxg5 11.lt:lf3 'Wf4 12 .a3 'We4+ 13.'Wxe4 .ixc3+ 14.bxc3 dxe4 15.lt:ld2 f5 16.f3 exf3 17.lt:lxf3 lt:ld8 ! ? 18.0-0-0 lt:lf7 White's position appears to be more attractive, at least optically, but there is just too little material left on the board for him to be able to achieve anything. Black should not fear the im­ mediate 9 ..ib5 l"\xg7 10.lt:lf3, be­ cause of 10 . . .gxh4 11.lt:le5 'Wg5 ! It is also possible for play simply 9 . . . gxh4 10.'Wh5 (White's attempt to exploit his rapid development fails after 10.lt:lf3 l"\xg7 ll.l"\xh4 l"1xg2 12 .!"1h8+ .if8 13 .'Wd2 'Wf6 and his attack comes to a dead end; 11.lt:le5 .id7 12 . .ixc6 .ixc6 13.'Wh5 'Wf6 14.!"1xh4 l"\xg2 and he has nothing) 10 . . . !"1xg7 ll.'Wh8 + .if8 1 2 .lt:lf3 l"\xg2 13.lt:le5 .id7 14. 276

1 0 .h6?! The advance of White's passed pawn, in combination with an at­ tack on the advanced g5-pawn, looks quite natural, but it is prob­ ably stronger for him to opt for 10 . .ib5 .id7 1l.'Wd3 (or 11.lt:lf3 f6 ! ? 12 .'We2 'We7 13.h6 l"\h7 14 . .id3 l"\h8 15.a3 .ixc3+ 16.bxc3 o-o-m= and Black's position is preferable) 11 . . . 'Wf6 ( l l . . . 'We7 1 2 .h6 l"\g8 13.lt:lf3 f6 and Black's game is rather pas­ sive). However, Black's position would be acceptable after 12 ..ixc6 (or 1 2 .lt:lf3 .ixc3 + 13 .bxc3 g4) 12 . . . .ixc6 13.lt:lf3 @e7!?+

10 . . 1';h7 .

It is less precise for Black to play 10 . . . !"1g8 ? ! l l . .ib5.

ll.i.d3 The line ll.lt:lf3 'Wf6 ! loses the h6-pawn for White, as does ll.a3 .if8 .

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l1J c3 l1Jf6 4. �g5 iJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6.efhg He also has to fight for equali­ ty after 11.'Wd3 l"\h8 1 2 . 0-0-0 'Wf6 13.h7 iJ.d7.

ll . . . l"i:h8

13

.•.

ll::l xd4

This is an important moment. Morozevich points out that it is much stronger for Black to play here 13 . . . �d7! analyzing the fol­ lowing variations : 14.l1Jxg5 (14.a3 iJ.e7+) 14 ... 0-0-0

12.'Wh5 ! ? 1 2 .a3 iJ.f8 13.h7 l1Jxd4 14.'Wh5 (the line 14.iJ.g6 iJ.g7 is in Black's favour) 14 . . .'Wf6 15.0-0-0 iJ.d7+ with a clear advantage for Black.

12 . . . 'Wf6! It is less accurate for Black to opt for 12 . . . l1Jxd4 13 .l1Jh3 'Wf6 (af­ ter 13 . . . iJ.e7 ! ? 14. 0-0-0i White has initiative for the sacrificed pawn) 14.l1Jxg5 and there is a transposition to the game, but Black loses the possibility of im­ proving his play on move 13.

13. ll::l f3

15.l1Jxf7 iJ.e8 16.iJ.g6 iJ.xf7 17. iJ.xf7 l"ldf8+ 15.'Wh4 l1Jxd4 16.0-0-0 (16. l1Jxf7 l1Jxc2 !+) 16 . . . iJ.d6 ! + 15.0-0-0 Ei:dg8 16.l1Jxf7 iJ.e8 ; 16.l1Jf3 l"\xg2 and again h e has an excellent position. 15.1!/f1 ! ? l"ldg8 ! ? 16.l1Jf3 l1Jxd4 17.'We5 'Wxe5 18.l1Jxe5 iJ.e8. Black's position is slightly better, thanks to his powerful centre and the bishop pair. Now 19.l1Jxd5? exd5 2 0 .c3 fails to 20 .. .f6-+ We should like to show you the analysis of the less precise move played in the game and Mo­ rozevich's recommendations for White, in order to clarify what is playable in this rather non-stand­ ard position.

14.ll::l xg5 ll::l £5 It is too risky for Black to play 14 ... l1Jxc2+ 15.1!/d1 l1Jxa1 (15 ... iJ.xc3 16.l1Jxf7! 'Wxf2 17.l1Jxh8 + l!ld8 18. bxc3+-) 16.l1Jxf7. 277

Chapter 33 15 . . . hc3 + 16.bxc3 �xf5 17. l"lh3±

16.l"lh4!? 16.0-0-0 .ie7 17.lt:Jf3 �xh5 18.l"lxh5 f6 ! and Black can be very happy with his position (but not 18 . . ..if6? 19 .g4±) .

15.hf5 ! This is the correct move for White, as pointed out by Mo­ rozevich in his annotations to the game, from where we have bor­ rowed his analysis. White went wrong in the game and Black maintained an advan­ tage: 15.h7?! hc3+ 16.bxc3 �xc3+ 17.We2 �e5+ (but not 17 . . . lt:Jd4 + ? 18.Wd1 18 . . . �xa1+ 19.W d 2 lt:Jb3+ 2 0 . axb3 �f6 21.lt:Jxf7+ - ; 19 . . . �xh1 2 0.�xf7+ Wd8 21.�f6+ Wd7 2 2 .�xh8 ; 18 . . . lt:Jxc2 19 . .ib5+ c6 2 0. �xf7+ md8 2 Uk1±) 18.Wd2 �f4+ 19.We2 lt:Jd6! 2 0 . l"lae1 .id7 2 l .Wfl 0-o-m: Landa - Mo­ rozevich, Samara 1998.

15 . . . �xf5

278

16 . . . .ie7 It is bad for him to continue with 16 . . . c5? 17.l"lxb4 ! cxb4 18. lt:Jb5 me7 19.�h4 ! White is also better in the event of 16 . . . .if8 ? ! 17.h7 .ie7 18. f4.

17.f4 .id7 18. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 19.ll:le2 .ie8 2 0 .g4 �f6 21.lt:Jf3t; with somewhat better chances for White.

Chapter 34

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ll::J c3 g8 17. �f4 b6 18 .g4 Ci'Je7 19.Ei:g1 cS 2 0 . dxcS aS 2 1.ffl.c3 bxcS 2 2 .g5 Ci'JfS 2 3 . ffl.d3 hxgS 24.Ei:xg5 d 4 25.0-0-0. There arose a very sharp position. After the correct response 25 . . . �b6 ! White must defend very carefully.

b) 7 g6 8.a3 •••

It would unconvincing for White to opt for 8.Ci'Jge2 cS, or 8 . §J.d3 Ci'Jxc3 9.a3 §;.aS 10 .ffl.d2 Ci'Ja4.

8

•••

hc3+ 9.bxc3

12 )i)a4 13.l'�b1 ttJb6 14.h4 ttJc4 15.ffl.c1 ••

(diagram) This is a very typical position for the 10 . . . Ci'Jc6 variation. Black's extra pawn is irrelevant at the moment and he has no counter­ play at all . His attempt to acti­ vate his pieces ended up in White's favour: 15 c5 ! ? 16. •••

We shall analyze now bl) 9

c5 and b2) 9

b1) 9

•.•

•••

•••

ttJxc3.

c5

This is a more active plan than 9 . . . Ci'Jxc3.

1 0 .§J.d3 289

Chapter 35

1 0 . . . h5 It is slightly worse for Black to play 10 . . . tt'lxc3 ll.dxc5 tt'lc6 (11 . . . \WaS 12.1�b4 '\Wxb4 13.axb4;t; and White is a bit better, for example: 13 ... tt'lc6 14.:i'l:a3 d4 15.hd4 tt'ld5 16.c3 tt'lxd4 17.cxd4 tt'lxb4 18.�e4 �d7 19.md2 �c6 20.f3;t; Iorda­ chescu - Foisor, Naujac 2 0 0 2 ; 19.hb7? ! :i'l:b8 2 0 . :i'l:xa7 tt'l c6�, or 20 . . . �c6�) 12.tt'lf3 (12 .�d2 ! ?) 12 . . . d 4 ( 1 2 . . . '\WaS 13.0-0 '\Wa4 14.'\Wxa4 - 14.'\Wh3 ! ? - 14 . . . tt'lxa4. The end­ game is in White's favour. 15.�b5 tt'lc3 16.a4 �d7 17.:i'l:a3 tt'le4 18.:i'l:b1 tt'l a5 and Black managed to hold the position, Hracek - Vaisser, Pula 1997. However, it is more promising for White to opt for 15.:i'l:ab1 a6 16.:i'l:fc1, or 16.h4 ! ?)

'\Wf6 :i'l:h7 16.0-0 and White's com­ pensation for the pawn is more than sufficient. For some unknown reason, in practice White has preferred to go in for the less promising capture of the pawn : 13 .hd4 tt'lxd4 14. tt'lxd4 (In the endgame after 14. '\Wxd4 '\Wxd4 15.tt'lxd4 Black has no problems at all : 15 . . . �d7 16.a4 :i'l:c8 17.md2 :i'l:xc5 18.tt'lb5, Paehtz - Socko, Ekaterinburg 2 007 and here it would be correct to con­ tinue with 18 . . . tt'lxb5 19.axb5 �xb5 2 0 . :i'l:xa7 0-0 2 l.:i'l:a5 :i'l:d8 = with equality, exploiting the circum­ stance that 2 2 .:i'l:b1?? fails to 22 . . . :i'l:xc2-+) 1 4 . . . '\WdS 15.tt'lf3 '\Wxc5 16.0-0 �d7 17.'\Wh4 �c6 18.:i'l:fel. Now Black has several attractive possibilities : 18 . . . hf3 ! ? This is the simplest. (It is also possible for him to choose 18 . . . md7 ! ? Zakhartsov - Borovlev, Russia 2 0 04, or 18 . . . :i'l:d8 19.'\Wf6 0-0 ! ? 2 0 .hg6 �xf3 2 l.�xf7+ :i'l:xf7 2 2 . '\Wxd8+ :i'l:f8 23.'\Wh4 �e2 with very sharp play; 2l.�d3 :i'l:xd3 22.cxd3 �e2 ; 2 2 .gxf3 :i'l:d7 23.mh1 mh7 24. :i'l:g1 :i'l:g8 25.:i'l:xg8 mxg8 26.:i'l:g1 + mf8 = ) 19.'\Wf6 0-0 20.'\Wxf3 :i'l:ad8 ! 2 1.'\Wxb7 :i'l:d5= with equality. (diagram)

11.'\Wf4

13 .�d2 ! '\Wd5 14.'\Wf4 '\WxcS 15. 290

White can try some other re­ treats of his queen : ll.'\Wf3 tt'lxc3 12.dxc5 tt'l c6 13. '\Wf4 d4 14.�d2 g5 15.'\Wxg5 (the move 15.'\Wf6 has been analyzed in the variation with ll.'\Wf4) 15 . . . '\Wxg5 16.hg5 tt'lxe5 17.�f6 (17. tt'lf3 :i'l:g8 18.�f6 tt'lxd3+ 19.cxd3

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ c3 CiJf6 4 . ilg5 ilb4 5.e5 h6 6. ile3 CiJ e4 7. 111i g 4 g6

lt:ldS 2 0 .ilxd4 j"lxg2 with advan­ tage to Black, Sutovsky - Wang Hao, Poikovsky 2 008) 17 . . . lt:lxd3+ 18.cxd3 fi:g8 19.hd4 lt:ldS (but not 19 . . . lt:lb5 2 0.ile5 with an edge for White) 2 0.g3 ild7. In the re­ sulting endgame Black has suffi­ cient compensation for the pawn, for example: 21.ctJe2 (It is not ad­ visable for White to play here 2 1 . lt:lf3 ilc6 2 2 . ctJe5? ! 'LJb4 23.'LJxc6 lt:lc2 + 24.@d2 'LJxa1 25.lt:la5 b6 26. fi:xa1 bxaS and Black's prospects are even slightly preferable, Kos­ teniuk - Zhukova, Caleta 2 010.) 2 1 . . .f6 2 2 .f4 (22.j"lb1 eS�) 2 2 ... ilc6 23. @d2 @f7� with the idea of lt:le7-f5. An interesting try for White is the rarely played line 11.111ih 3 ! ? lt:lxc3 1 2 . dxc5 d4 13 .ild2 111i d 5 14. 'LJf3 lt:lc6 (it is also good to capture the enemy cS-pawn with one of his knights : 14 . . . 'LJe4, or 14 . . . 'LJd7.) 15.0-0 'LJxe5 16.lt:lxd4 lt:lxd3 17.ilxc3 'LJf4 18.111i g3 eS 19.fi:fe1 0-0 20.lt:lf3 f6 with a good posi­ tion for Black, Van Kampen - Ko­ tainy, Dortmund 2011.

15.�f6 (Here White has also tried 15.�g3 111id 5 16.111ixg5 16 .hg5 lt:le4 - 16 . . . 111ix e5+ 17. 'LJe2 = with equality, Nemcova Guo Qi, Gaziantep 2 0 08.) 15 �xf6 16.exf6 ci)a4 (It i s inferior for Black to continue with 16 . . . g4 17.ilxc3 dxc3 18.ctJe2 'LJeS 19.ile4 j"lb8 2 0 .h3 @d8 21. CiJxc3 §ld7 with a very complicated endgame in which Black has to fight for equal­ ity, Jakovenko - Vitiugov, Mos­ cow 2 0 07.) 17.hg5 ci)xc5 18. • • .

ci)f3 ci)xd3+ 19.cxd3 b6 2 0 .l'k1 ilb7 21.@d2 �d8 22.�c2 �d5 23. �hc1 @d7 24 .if4 �c8 = with ap­ •

proximate equality, Areshchenko - Smerdon, Port Erin 2 0 07.

b2) 9

• • •

ci)xc3 1 0 .§ld3

ll g5 12. �f3 ci)xc3 13.dxc5 d4 14.ild2 ci)c6 • • •

291

Chapter 35 10

..•

b6 ! ?

I n several games Nepomnia­ chtchi preferred the move 10 . . . t2l c 6 , but tournament practice confirmed this to be too risky: ll .h4 t2le7 12 .h5 gS 13.t2le2 t2lxe2 14 .11tixe2 and White had more than sufficient initiative for the pawn, for example : 14 . . . c5 15.dxc5 d4 16.0-0-0 .id7 17.hd4 .ic6 18 . .ic3 11tid5 19.!:'1hg1 11tixc5 20 . .ib4 11tib6 21.c4 .ia4 2 2 . 11tif3± with a clear advantage for him, Popov Nepomniachtchi, Dagomys 2008, or 14 . . . t2lf5 15.g4 Lt:lxe3 16.fxe3 cS 17.c3 c4 18 . .ic2 11tia5 19. �d2± with an edge for White, Vuckovic Nepomniachtchi, Plovdiv 2008.

Black obtained a good position after 14.hf4 �d7 15 . .id2 Lt:le4 16. he4 dxe4 17.11tixe4 �c8 18.Lt:lf3 .ib7? in the game Gashimov Nakamura, Monaco 2011.

weakness of Black's pawn on h6 is a important trump for White. Here Naiditsch recommends 2 0 . .id2 (In the game he played 2 0 . � d 2 Lt:l b S 2 1 . �e3 l:!af8?, but Black had sufficient counterplay, Naiditsch - Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2 006) 2 0 ltlb5 21 . .ie3, evaluating the position as some­ what better for White. Indeed, Black must immediately find some very precise moves. We shall try to continue that variation along the most forcing lines : 2 1 . . .

14 �d7 15.Y;bf7+ fie7 16. fixe7+ �xe7 17 .bf4 hd3

gaf8 22.gfl gh7 23.a4 gxf3 24.gxf3 ltlbxd4 25.hd4 (or

White's prospects are prefera­ ble after 17 . . . c5 18.dxc5 bxcS 19. Lt:lf3 (19.Lt:le2 .ixd3 20.cxd3 Lt:lxe2 2 1 . �xe2 Lt:lc6 2 2 . !:'1abU) 19 . . . hd3 2 0 . cxd3 Lt:ld7 21.Lt:lh4±

25.!:'1f2 LLlfS 26 . .if4 l:!g7 and White cannot unblock the kingside) 25 ltlxd4 26.gf2 and now Black can either restrain White's pawn-majority with 26 gg7!?, or he can grab another pawn for the exchange with 26 ltlc6. Fu­ ture games in this ending will in­ dicate its correct evaluation and determine whether it will become fashionable.

ll.h4 .ia6 12.h5 g5 13.f4 gxf4 14J�'g7

..•

•

18.cxd3 �d7 19.ll:lf3 ltlc6 (diagram) The evaluation of Black's de­ fensive approach depends almost entirely on the proper assessment of the resulting endgame. The

292

•..

.•.

.•.

.. •

Chapter 36

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltJC3 tt:lf6 4.i.g5 i.b4 5.e5 h6 6.i.d2 hc3

7.bxc3 The move 7.hc3 ! ? is much less popular, because it makes the standard queen-sortie �d1-g4, af­ ter Black's knight moves, sense­ less. Still, a move which keeps White's pawn-structure solid and intact should not be bad. 7 . . . tt:Je4.

Now: the awkward move 8 . .iaS with the idea of provoking b7-b6 and

preventing Black's queen-sortie to the aS-square was convincingly refuted in the famous game Fis­ cher - Petrosian, Curacao 196 2 : 8 . . . 0-0 (but not 8 . . . b6 9.�b4 cS 10.�a3) 9 . .id3 tt:Jc6 10 .�c3 tt:Jxc3 1l.bxc3 f6 12.f4 fxeS 13.fxeS tt:Je7 14.tt:Jf3 cS 1S.O-O �aS 16.�e1 �d7; 8.tt:Je2 0-0 (8 . . . cS 9.dxcS tt:Jc6 10 .�d4 �e7 - 10 . . . �c7 ! ? - 11. tt::l c 3 tt:JxcS 12.f4 0-0 13.�d2 �d7 14. 0-0-0 tt:Jxd4 1S.�xd4 j"\ac8 16. g3;t Sutovsky - Comas Fabrego, Pamplona 1998) 9.�b4 cS 10 .�a3 tt:Jc6 1l.f3 bS 12 .fxe4 b4 13.hb4 tt:Jxb4 14.c3 tt:Jc6� and Black has good compensation for the pawn, Svidler - Morozevich, Frankfurt 1999 ; 8 .�b4 cS 9 .hcS (It is very bad for White to play 9.dxcS? tt:Jxf2 . After 9 . .ia3 ? ! tt:Jc6 lO.dxcS, as played in the game Sulskis - Jes­ sel, Cappelle la Grande 2009, White faces great problems after 10 . . . �aS+ ll.c3 d4 and Black has dangerous threats.) 9 . . . tt:JxcS 10. dxcS �aS+ (Black's compensation for the pawn after 10 . . . b6 ! ? 11. cxb6 �xb6 1 2 . j"lb1 .ia6 is highly questionable. ) 1l.�d2 �xeS 12.f4 tt:Jc6 13.tt:Jf3 aS 14.�d3 b6 1S.c3 293

Chapter 36 �a6 and Black has no problems at all and can even think about fight­ ing for the advantage, Guseinov Nepomniachtchi, Porto-Karras 2011.

7

• • •

ll:le4 8.'�g4 lt>f8

9.�d3 9.lLlf3 c5 10 .�d3 t2Jxd2 1l.Wxd2 (it is not convincing for White to opt for 1l.t2Jxd2 t2Jc6, with the idea of �a5) - see 9.�d3. We should take a look at White's alternatives. If in the main line White wants to use the plan with 11.h4 and l"lh1-h3, then it would be good for him to play the immediate 9.h4, depriving Black, after 9 .�d3 t2Jxd2 10.Wxd2 , of the possible transi­ tion into an endgame with 10 . . . �g5, although, a s w e will see lat­ er, this is not good for him in any case. 9 . . . c5 10.l"lh3 t2Jc6 1l.�d3 t2Jxd2 12.Wxd2 c4 and on the board we have a position from the main line. The move 9.�f4 enables White to avoid the necessity of placing his king on d2, but his queen is re­ moved from its active position. 294

9 ... c5 10 .�d3 tt'lxd2 1l.�xd2 'Llc6 12.'Llf3 c4 13 .�e2 We7! Black im­ proves the position of his king. He has a very good plan at his dispos­ al, which is quite typical for the system with 8 . . . Wf8, in response to 6.�d2. 14.a4 Wd7 15.0-0 Wc7 16.�c1 �d7= with approximate equality, Kargin - Volkov, Mos­ cow 2008. In this position, which is very reminiscent of the Winaw­ er variation 3 . . . �b4, White's dark­ squared bishop is absent from the board, while Black has a knight, which works in Black's favour. With the intricate move 9. �c1 ! ? White reaches a position from the variation with 6.�c1, having deprived his opponent of the possibility of 6.�c1 tt'le4 7.�g4 Wf8 8.a3 �a5, and with the slight difference that his pawn is on a2 instead of a3 .

Strangely enough, this detail is very important: 9 . . . c5 10.�d3 (A continuation which was a possi­ bility in the 6.�c1 variation, 10. 'Lle2? ! , is not good here : 10 ... cxd4 ll.cxd4 �a5+ 12 .c3 tt'lc6 13.�f3 b5i and Black has the initiative. The absence of the pawn on a3 is important in the variation 13.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4:J c3 l1Jf6 4. iJ.g5 iJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6. iJ.d2 hc3 iJ.e3? !1Jb4 ! - + ) 10 . . . 4:Jxc3 (Black can also try the risky-looking line : 10 . . . 1Wa5 11.4:Je2 cxd4 1 2 . 0-0 dxc3 13 .iJ.xe4 dxe4 14.1Wxe4 4:Jc6 15.Eld1 g6. It is not clear how White can exploit the weakness of his oppo­ nent's dark squares, for example: 16.1Wf3 1Wxe5 17.4:Jxc3 1Wf5 18.1We3 eS 19.4:Je4 \ilg7oo lordachescu Vaisser, Aix-les-Bains 2 0 11.) 11. dxc5 1Wa5 We

shall

analyze

now

a)

ll . .!lJ:£3 and b) ll.h4. I should also mention that af­ ter White's immediate 1l.dxc5, trying to transpose to the game Leko - Huebner, Black has the possibility of 1 1 . . .4:Jd7!?

a) ll . .!lJ:£3 It is important here that White does not have the standard re­ source 1Wg4-b4, which is possible with a pawn on a3. 12 .iJ.d2 1Wa4 13.h3 1Wxg4 (13 . . . !1Je4 14.4:Je2 4:Jd7 15.iJ.xe4 1Wxe4 16.1Wxe4 dxe4, Klo­ vans - Dvoretsky, USSR 1974.) 14.hxg4 !1Je4 (14 ... 4:J a4 ! ?) 15.iJ.xe4 dxe4 16.f4 iJ.d7 17.4:Je2 'LJa6 18 .iJ.e3 Elc8 19 .Elb1 'LJxcS 2 0 .iJ.xc5+ ElxcS 2 l . Elxb7 \ile7= Black can hold the balance in this endgame, Hebden - Lautier, London 1988.

Now, depending on circum­ stances, White can either prevent Black's counterplay on the queen­ side, or develop his initiative by advancing his kingside pawns: h2-h4, g2-g4, g4-g5 . . .

9 ... .!lJxd2 1 0 .\ilxd2 c5 After 10 . . . '\WgS+ 11.\WxgS hxgS 12 .g4 ! f6 13.h4 ! ? fxe5 14.dxe5 4:Jc6 15.4:Jf3 gxh4 16.Elae1 h3 17.Elh2 iJ.d7 18.Eleh1 \ile7 19.Elxh3 Elxh3 2 0 . Elxh3± Black is slightly worse in this ending, Gdanski - Ditt­ mar, Saint Vincent 2 0 0 0 .

Black i s faced with a n impor­ tant choice (it is more or less a matter of style . . . ) whether to close the centre immediately (11.. .c4), 295

Chapter 36 which might lead to some difficul­ ties in advancing his queenside pawns, or to allow the typical cap­ ture on c5 after 11.. .li'lc6 12.dxc5 ! ?

ll . . . c4 11. .. li'lc6 12.dxc5 ! ? (The line : 12 .h4 c4 13 .ie2 b5 has been ana­ lyzed below after the move order: 1l. .. c4 12 .ie2 b5 13.h4 li'lc6; simi­ lar positions arise after 12.1l*'f4 c4 13 .ie2 b5.). Here, the natural moves 12 . . . 'Wa5 13.'Wf4 Wxc5 14. li'ld4 id7 (It is too passive for Black to continue with 14 . . . li'lxd4 15.Wxd4 Wxd4 16.cxd4 id7 17. Elhb1 Elb8 18.a4 r:J1e7 19.a5t with a small but stable advantage for White, Brynell - Bagirov, Lenin­ grad 1989.) 15.Elhb1 b6 (This is a recommendation in the annota­ tions to the game Leko - Hueb­ ner, instead, 15 . . . li'ld8?! 16.a4 Elc8 was tried in the game Morozevich - Vallejo Pons, Pamplona 1999, but of course with tragic conse­ quences for the Spanish grand­ master: 17.Elb3 a6 18 .h4 Elc7 19 .g4 li'lc6 2 0 . li'lxc6 ixc6 2 l.'Wb4 - here Morozevich recommends 2 l.h5t - 2 1 . . . 'Wxb4 2 2 . cxb4t and White went on to convert his minimal advantage into the full point.) 16. a4 li'la5 17.ia6 leads to a position in which White succeeds in tem­ porarily blocking his opponent's queenside, but Black's position is quite safe, Leko - Huebner, Dort­ mund 2000. Black can consider Leko's suggestions - 17 . . . Eld8 or 17 . . . 'We7.

12 . .ie2 b5

296

1 2 ... li'lc6 13.a4 a6 14.Elhb1 Elb8 15.h4 b5 16.axb5 axb5 17.'Wf4 We7 18 .'We3 r:J1e8 ! 19.h5 r:J1d8 2 0 .li'lg1 b4. White's attempts to impede Black's counterplay on the queen­ side soon led to simplification and a draw: 2 l.f4 id7 2 2 . cxb4 Elxb4 23.Elxb4 Wxb4+ 24.'Wc3 Wxc3 + 25.r:J1xc3 r:J1c7= Black easily equal­ izes in this endgame and the op­ ponents soon agreed to a draw, Khalifman - Short, Merida 2001.

13.h4 White is trying to consistently implement his plan of g2-g4-g5. He has tested some other ideas too. After 13.Elhb1 id7 14.'Wf4, Black can try 14 . . . li'l c6 ! ?, exploit­ ing the fact that after 15.Elxb5, he has the tactical shot 15 . . . g5 ! + The move 13.a4 breaks up Black's pawn-structure and pre­ vents the threat of b5-b4, but pre­ sents Black with other possibili­ ties: 13 . . . bxa4 14.Elxa4 id7 15. Elaa1 li'lc6 16.h4 aS 17.'Wf4 a4 18. g4, Ganguly - Volkov, Moscow 2 0 07. After the immediate reac-

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. liJ c3 liJf6 4. §J.g5 JJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6. JJ.d2 hc3 tion 18 . . . 4Ja7 19.gS tt:JbS, Black's position is quite satisfactory.

13

•••

tt:Jc6 14.a3

Or 14J"!hbl l"i:b8 1S.a3 aS.

14

•••

a5 15.\Wf4 i.d7

ll

•••

tl:lc6

The move 11 . . . c4 leads more or less to similar positions.

12.l"i:h3 c4

16.g4 (An equal endgame is reached after 16.l"i:hbl l"i:b8 17.hS %'fe7 1 8.g4 ..t>e8 19.\We3 @d8 2 0 . l"i:gl b 4 2 1 . axb4 axb4 2 2 . cxb4 \Wxb4+ 23.\Wc3 \Wxc3+ 24 . ..t>xc3 f6= Madl - Huebner, Loeberitz 2 001 . ) 16 b4 17.axb4 (17.gS bxc3+ 18 . ..t>xc3 4Je7+) 17 axb4

Now White can retreat his bishop to two different squares with the same effect.

•••

•••

18.cxb4 tl:lxb4 19.\We3 tl:la2 ! This is an important resource. Black's knight cannot retreat, but it turns out that it is perfectly placed on the a2-square ! 2 0 .

l"i:hbl ti'a5+ 21.c3 \!;>e7 2 2 .idl l"i:hb8 with a very good game for •

Black, Berg - Renman, Sweden 2003.

b) ll.h4 This plan is based on exerting piece-pressure against Black's kingside. White's rook is deployed on the third rank and his knight is developed on f4.

13.i.e2 An important point here is that White cannot play 13 J"!g3 cxd3 14.\Wxg7+ @e7 1S.\Wf6+ @d7 16.\Wxf7+ tt:Je7+ when Black has a big advantage, since 17J"!g6 l"i:f8 18.\Wxe6+ @e8 does not work and so White can resign, Kopec Smith, Virginia Beach 2 0 04 . 13.i.fl b S 14.l2Je2 a S (It i s also good for Black to play here 14 . . . l"i:b8 1S.a3 \WaS, exploiting the fact 297

Chapter 36 that White's rook on a1 is unde­ fended. 16.�f3 �d7 17.g4 rile? 18.�g2 b4 19.cxb4 l"1xb4 20.axb4 �xa1 2 l.�a3 �xa3 2 2 . !"1xa3 li:Jxb4 23. !"1xa7 !"1b8 24.f4 li:Jc6 25.!"1a1 f6 2 6.h5 - An equal endgame with an already familiar pawn-struc­ ture has arisen and here the play­ ers agreed to a draw, Volokitin Vallejo Pons, Wijk aan Zee 2009.) 15.a3 �d7 16.li:Jf4

ing li:Je7-c6 and later li:Ja7-b5, or �a5-b6. White prevented this, but allowed the activation of Black's rook. 23.g5 hxg5 24.hxg5 !"1h8 and he has the edge, Muzy­ chuk - Paehtz, Krasnoturinsk 2 007.) 18.�f4 b4 19 .�e2 bxc3 + (19 . . . bxa3 !?) 2 0 .rilxc3 �b6 2 1 . !"1hh1 l"1g8 2 2 .g4 li:J e7 23.!"1hb1 �a7 24.!"1b2 l"1b8 (it is also good for Black to play 24 . . . a4 ! ?) 25.!"1ab1 !"1xb2 26.rilxb2 li:Jg6 27.�d2 li:Jxh4 and Black has an extra pawn and the better prospects, Fressinet Belozerov, Izmir 2 0 04.

13 . . .b5

16 . . . !"1g8 17.!"1f3 rile? 18.li:Jh5 b4 19 .�f4 bxc3+ 2 0 .rile1 �e8 21. l"1xc3 . The position on the board is from the game Leko - Korchnoi, Essen 2 0 0 2 . Later Leko analysed the following sample variation : 2 l . . .�b6 2 2 .!"1d1 �b2 23.!"1g3 �xc2 24.li:Jxg7 !"1b8 25.li:Jf5+ exf5 26. l"1xg8 �c3 + , evaluating the posi­ tion as equal, and we agree with this. Black has a very good alterna­ tive here in 16 . . . li:Je7 (instead of 16 . . . !"1g8) and this emphasizes the reliability of his position : 17.li:Jh5 li:Jf5 (Black obtained an excellent game with 17 . . . !"1g8 ! ? 18.�f4 b4 19.axb4 axb4 2 0 . !"1xa8 bxc3 + 2 1 . l"1xc3 �xa8 22 .g4 �a5 and the awkward positioning of his pieces is only temporary. He is threaten298

14.�f4 This move is played with the idea of increasing the effect of the advance of the g-pawn by moving the bishop to the h5-square. If 14.!"1f3 a5 15.a3 �d7 16.li:Jh3 li:Je7oo Arnold - Almasi, Budapest 1997. Or 14.a3 a5 15.�f4 !"1a7 16.�h5 �e7 17.!"1g3 l"1h7 18.!"1f3 rileS 19. \Wg3 g6 2 0 .!"1f6 b4 2 l.�d1 h5 2 2 . li:Jh3 rild8 23.li:Jf4 �d7 24.\WgS bxc3 + 25. rile3 !"1c7 2 6 .li:Jxh5 gxh5 27.\Wg8+ �e8 28.\Wxh7 li:Jxd4oo

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.luc3 CiJf6 4. JJ.g5 JJ.b4 5.e5 h6 6. JJ.d2 hc3 with rather unclear complications in which Black prevailed in the end, Gashimov - Korchnoi, Dago­ mys 2008 . 14J''1 g3 l::l g 8 1S.'Wf4 (1S.CiJh3 CiJe7) 1S . . . JJ.d7 16.JJ.hS JJ.e8 17.l::lf3 fS. Black's fS-pawn can become a target for White's undermining move g2-g4 but nevertheless this typical blow is in Black's favour. 18.he8 lt>xe8 19.hS aS 2 0.g4 l::l f8 2 1.CiJh3 b4+ and his position is preferable, Shukh - Najer, Dago­ mys 2 0 1 0 .

14

• • •

Yemelin, St. Petersburg 2009. Here Black wrongly refrained from the attractive possibility of 2 l . . .l::l c 8 ! 2 2 . e1 d3, with advan­ tage to Black.

15

• • •

i.e8 16.ll:\e2 a5 17.g4 b4

i.d7

Black has also tried 14 . . . 'We7 1S.JJ.hS lt>e8 16.a3 aS 17.l::lg 3 l::l g 8 18.CiJf3 l::l a 7 19.CiJh2 'it>d8 2 0 .JJ.e2 b4 2 1 . axb4 axb4 2 2 .l::l x a7 'Wxa7 23. cxb4 CiJxd4 24.'We3 'Wa1 2S.'Wa3 CiJb3+ 26.l::lxb3 'Wd4+ 27.\t>c1 cxb3 28.'WaS+ with a draw by a perpet­ ual check, Volokitin - Korchnoi, lgualada 200S.

18.g5 The preparatory move 18.l::l a h1 was tested in the game Kinder­ mann - Reefschlaeger, Alten­ kirchen 1999: 18 . . . l::l a 7 19.gS CiJe7 2 0.JJ.g4. Here Black missed a wonderful opportunity to close the kingside with the move 20 . . . hS ! , since White would lose a piece after 2 1 .he6? 'it>g8 2 2 .JJ.fS g6.

18

• • •

hxg5

19.hxg5

'it>e7

(Now, according to an analysis by Acs and Hazai, Black can obtain a very good position with 19 . . . g6 ! ? 2 0 .l::l a h1 ! bxc3+ 2 1 .CiJxc3 'Wb6.)

15.i.h5 It is premature for White to play 1S.g4?! b4 ! 16.cxb4 'Wb6 17. l::l b 1 CiJxd4 18.c3 CiJc6 19.a4 'Wc7 2 0 .l::l e 3 d4 21.l::l e 4, Areshchenko -

2 0 .�ahl bxc3+ 21.tt:\xc3 'Wb6 22.�h4 �b8 23.i.f3 �xh4 24. �xh4 'Wb2 25.g6 tt:\b4 26.i.dl tt:\d3 Black's prospects in this rather complicated position are not at all worse, Acs - Almasi, Ohrid 2001.

299

Part 9

The Steinitz Variation l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltk3 tlJf6 4.e5

The move 4.e5 introduces the Steinitz variation and the game usu­ ally develops into the sort of complex positional struggle of which the first World Champion was so fond! Nowadays, the tabia of the varia­ tion arises after 4 . . . tt'lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt'lf3 tt'lc6 7.�e3 . All the typical fea­ tures of the French defence are displayed here - the passive bishop on c8 and the undermining pawn-breaks against White's centre, ranging from the routine f7-f6 and c7-c5 to the more classical b5-b4 and the ultra-modern g7-g5. White's plan is often based on his control of the d4-outpost; posted there, his knight is usually very powerful. His active play is usually connected with a pawn-storm on the kingside (particu­ larly in positions with opposite sides castling), or with a combination of piece-pressure and the pawn-break f4-f5. Players of the black pieces are attracted to this line because it is reliable but they can also play it actively and sharply. I believe that at present this is a very important variation of the French defence.

300

Chapter 37

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lDc3 lDf6

5.exd5 I think it is a bit artificial for White to play 5.'Llf3 cxd4 6.'Llxd4 eS (White can counter 6 . . . 'Llc6 with 7.i.b5 ! ?) 7.'Llf3 d4 (It is worse for Black to choose 7 . . . dxe4 8 . i.b5+ i.d7 9.'Llxe5 i.b4 10.'Llxd7 'Llbxd7 11.0-0 i.xc3 12 .bxc3 0-0 13 .i.a3 l"le8 14.l"lb1 and White has the initiative.) 8.'Lle2 We

shall

now

analyze

a)

4 . .id3 and b) 4.e5. White enters an inferior ver­ sion of the Exchange variation with 4.exd5 exdS S . .igS .ie7 6 .i.d3 'Llc6 7.'Llge2 'Llb4 8.'Llg3 'Lle4 9 . i.xe7 'Llxc3 10.i.xd8 'Llxd1 1U'1xd1 c;t>xd8 12.c3 'Llxd3+ 13 J''1x d3 aS 14J''1 e 3 l"la6= Short - Morozevich, Sarajevo 2 0 0 0 .

a) 4 . .id3 Sometimes White maintains the tension in the centre in this fashion.

4 . . . c5 This is the best move for Black. He tries to undermine his oppo­ nent's centre.

8 ... i.g4. This is a good move. Black exploits the fact that his eS­ pawn is taboo. 9.'Llg3 (Black ob­ tains an excellent position after 9.c3 i.xf3 10.gxf3 dxc3 11.'Llxc3 'Llc6 12.f4 i.d6 13.fxe5 i.xeS 14.f4 i.d4 15.Wf3 0-0 16.i.d2 'Llb4 17. i.b1 l"le8 18. c;t>fl l"lc8, with a con­ siderable advantage for Black, Mantell Lorenzo - Comas Fabre­ go, Linares 1998.) 9 . . . i.b4+ (This 301

Chapter 37 is a typical manoeuvre. In pawn structures of this type, which are completely untypical for the French defence, it is advanta­ geous for Black to exchange the dark-squared bishops and he can achieve this here.) 10 .id2 4Jc6 ll.ixb4 4Jxb4 1 2 . 0-0 0-0 13.a3 4Jxd3 14.cxd3 �b6 15 .h3 ixf3 16. �xf3 g6 and Black has the better position.

5 . . . cxd4

White's attack looks very danger­ ous, Von Bardeleben - Black­ burne, Frankfurt 1887. Attentive readers might have noticed that this variation was very popular in the 19th century. It is positionally solid, but the game is not very concrete or tactical. 11. 4Je2 ib4+ 12 .id2 d3 13.cxd3 'Wxd3 14.0-0 ixd2 and the players agreed to a draw, Khalikian - Stezko, Yere­ van 1980.

6 .. )l:\xd5

6)L\b5 Here White often plays 6.ib5+ id7, for example : 7.�xd4 ixb5 8 .4Jxb5 4Jxd5 9.4Je2 4Jc6 10 .�a4 a6 (After 10 . . . ic5 ! ? Black has chances of seizing the initiative.) 11.4Jbd4 4Jb6 12 .4Jxc6 4Jxa4 13. 4Jxd8 Elxd8 14.0-0 ie7 15.b3 if6 16.Elbl lLlc3 17.4Jxc3 ixc3 = Stein­ itz - Blackburne, Vienna 1873, or 7.ixd7+ 7 . . . �xd7 8.'Wxd4 4Jc6 ! 9 .�dl exd5 10.4Jf3 d4 (It would be too risky for Black to opt for 10 . . . 0-0-0?! 11.0-0 4Je4 12 .ie3 f5 13.4Jb5 a6 14.4Jbd4 id6 15. 4Jxc6 bxc6 16.�d3 �b7 17.c4 d4 18.ig5 Eld7 19.Elabl h6 2 0 .id2 ib8 2 1.b4 g5 2 2 .a4 Elg8 23.c5 and 302

7)L\f3 7.4Jxd4 e5 ! This sharp move enables Black to obtain a fine po­ sition. (If 7 . . . ib4+ 8.id2 �g5 9. ixb4 4Jxb4 10.4Jgf3 4Jxd3 + 11. �xd3 �a5+ 12 .c3 4Jc6 13.4Jxc6 bxc6 14.'Wd6 ib7 15.0-0-0 Eld8 16.'Wxd8 + 'Wxd8 17.Elxd8 + lt>xd8, Black might have problems in this endgame, Ljubojevic - Padevsky, Amsterdam 1972 .) 8.'We2 (8.4Jdf3 4Jb4 9.ic4 'Wxdl + 10.\t>xdl f6 and only Black can think about an ad­ vantage.) 8 . . . ib4+ 9.c3 0-0 10. 4Jb3 4Jxc3 (10 ... e4 ! ?) ll.bxc3 ixc3+ 12 .id2 ixa1 13.4Jxal lLlc6, Black has some initiative in a po-

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lD c3 lDf6 4.e5 lDfd7 5. LD.f3 c5 sition with equal material.

7

•..

b1 .id7 16. ghfl "MM'h5 17.a3 gac8 18. gde1 g£6 19.1M!'d2 1MI'f7 •

Black has deployed his pieces in a rather unusual fashion, but he still has a sound and solid posi­ tion.

tion with his knights developed to unusual squares. Although Black's knight on d7 is not well placed, White's knight on e2 is impeding the moves of all his pieces at the moment. I think that this variation has lost its popular­ ity because White is trying for too much, and a single inaccuracy might bring him very close to dis­ aster. Playing in that fashion is not to everyone's taste.

2 0 .c!Lle5 c!Llxe5

5

2 1.he5. This move is over­ 2l.j:\xe5 ! ? 21. gxf2 22.1MI'd1 "MM'e 7 23,gxf2 ixf2 24. gfl .ic5 25.1Mfh5 gf8 26.ge1 "MM'g5 27.1Mfxg5 hxg5 and Black re­ optimistic.

••

alized his extra pawn, Morozevich - Bareev, Sarajevo 1999.

b2) 5.c!Llce2 This move is practically White's only real alternative to the Classical system with 5.f4. He wants to play the Advance varia306

• • •

c5 6.f4

It is amazing but if White plays 6.c3, Black has more possibilities. For example, he can opt for 6 . . . cxd4 ! ? (Or 6 . . . b5 ! ? This i s a n orig­ inal and attractive move. 7.a3 ?! This is a rather feeble reaction by White. Now Black's concept is justified. White does not need to provide his opponent with a tar­ get for attack and could play 7.f4 instead. 7 . . . cxd4 8.cxd4 b4 9.a4 .ia6 10.f4 l2Jc6 11. b3 ie7 12 .l2Jf3 j:\c8 13.l2Jg3 ixf1 14.l2Jxf1 f6 ! 15. exf6?! ixf6 16.j:1b1 0-0 17.l2Je3 "MM'b 6 18 ..ib2 l2Je7 and Black can be quite happy with the outcome of the opening battle, Nepomnia-

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. l2Jc3 l2Jf6 4.e5 C2Jfd7 5. l2J ce2 c5 chtchi - Vitiugov, Moscow 2 0 10.) 7.cxd4 f6, immediately attacking White's centre.

White cannot harm his oppo­ nent with 8.exf6?! C2Jxf6 9.C2Jf3 C2Jc6 1 0. C2Jc3 �d6 ll .g3 (After 11. �d3 0-0 12.0- 0, there arises a fa­ vourable (to Black) version of the variation with 3.C2Jd2 C2Jf6, for ex­ ample: 12 . . . �d7 13.�e3 �e8 14. C2Jg5 We7 15.f4 h6 16.C2Jh3 �h5 17. �e2 �xe2 18.Wxe2 Wf7 19.E1ad1 E1ae8 2 0 . \t>h1 C2Je7 Black he has a very good game, Sevillano - Ako­ bian, Los Angeles 2003.) 1 1 . . . 0- 0 1 2 .�g2 �d7 1 3 . 0 - 0 Wb6 14.a3 E1ae8 15.b4 E1e7 16.C2Ja4 Wc7 17. l2Jc5 �e8 18 .�b2 �h5 19.Wd2 b6 2 0 .C2Jd3 C2Je4 2 l.We3 E1ef7 2 2 .C2Jfe5 he5 23.C2Jxe5 C2Jxe5 24.dxe5 �f3 0-1 Okkes - M .Gurevich, Hoo­ geveen 2 0 04. After 8.C2Jf4 Black should try to simplify the position with 8 . . . �b4+ 9 .�d2 Wb6 10 .hb4 Wxb4+ 11.Wd2 Wxd2+ 12.\t>xd2 lt>e7 13. exf6+ gxf6 14.E1e1 C2Jb6 15.C2Jf3 lt>d6. This is an important finesse. (It is less precise for Black to con­ tinue with 15 . . . l2Jc6 16.�b5 ! �d7 17.hc6 bxc6 18.E1e2 E1ae8 19.E1he1 lt>f7 2 0 . \t>c1 C2Jc4 2l.C2Jd2 and

White obtained an edge, which he converted successfully into a full point in the game Anand - Ba­ reev, Shenyang 2000.) 16.�d3 C2Jc6 17.C2Jh5 E1f8 (17 . . . e5 ! ?) 18. �xh7 e5 19.dxe5+ fxe5 2 0 . \t>c1 �g4 2 1 . l2Jg3 �xf3 2 2 .gxf3 C2J d4 with advantage to Black, Ara­ khamia-Grant - Gleizerov, Port Erin 2001. The game becomes very sharp after 8.f4 fxe5 9.fxe5 (9.dxe5 Wb6 10.C2Jc3 C2Jc6 ll.C2Jf3 �b4 12 .�d2 l2J c5 13.a3 hc3 14.hc3 0-0 15. g3 �d7 16.b4 C2Je4 17.�d4 Wd8 18 .�e3 E1c8 19 .�d3 a5 20.Wb1 C2Je7 2l.C2Jd4 C2Jf5 and the players agreed to a draw, Bologan - Short, Beijing 2 0 0 0 ; 9 . . . C2Jc6 10.C2Jf3 �b4+ ll.C2Jc3 C2Jc5 12 .�e3 Wa5 13 .Wc2 0-0 14J'k1 d4 15.C2Jxd4 C2Jxd4 16.�xd4 E1xf4 17.E1d1 'Wc7 18 .�e2 �d7. White has problems, Shirov - Ivanchuk, Tilburg 1993)

9 . . . �b4+ (Strangely enough, White gains a good position after 9 . . . Wh4+ 10. C2Jg3 �b4+ 1L it>f2 0-0+ 12.C2Jf3 C2Jc6 13.�e3, since Black's activity has ebbed away. There followed 13 . . . C2Jdxe5 14. dxe5 C2Jxe5 15.\t>g1 Wf6 16.Wd4 �d6 17.�e2 �d7 18.E1c1 b6 19.a3 307

Chapter 37 tt:Jxf3 + 2 0 .gxf3 �e5 2 1 .j!,l{d2 hb2 2 2 . Elc7 Elf7 23. 'tt> g 2 �xa3 24.Elfl and White won from this complex position, Morozevich - Gurevich, Moscow 2001.) 10. 'tt> f2 0-0+ 11. LLlf3 tt:Jc6 12.a3 (If 12 .�e3, Black can try 12 . . . tt:Jb6 ! ?) 12 . . . LLldxe5 (It looks very strong for Black to play the novelty 12 . . . �a5 ! with the idea of transferring the bishop to the b6-square, attacking White's cen­ tre and his king. 13 .�e3 �b6 14.h4 LLldxe5 15.dxe5 d4 and Black seiz­ es the initiative.) 13.axb4 (13.dxe5 �c5+ 14. 'tt> e 1 tt:Jxe5 15.tt:Jxe5 �f2 + 16. 'tt> d 2 j!,l[g5 + 17.'tt> c 2 j!,l{xe5 18. 'tt> b 1 �d7 19.LLlg3 Elac8 2 0 .�d3 �e8 2 l.�d2 �g6 2 2 .hg6 hxg6 23 .�c3 d4 24.�b4 Elf4 25.\t>a2. White realized his extra piece, Popov - Danin, Smolensk 2005.) 13 ... "*'h4+ 14. 'tt> g 1 LLlxf3 + 15.gxf3 Elxf3 16. LLlg3 LLlxd4 17.�g2 Elf7 18 .�e3 tt:Jf5 19.LLlxf5 Elxf5 2 0 .b5 �d7 21.b6 a6 2 2 .j!,l{d4 j!,l{h5 23.h3 �c6 24.'tt> h 2 and Black's compen­ sation was insufficient in the game Polgar - Hernandez, Meri­ da 2 0 0 0 .

6 . . .c!i)c6 308

In answer to 6 ... b5, the most precise line for White seems to be 7.c3 b4 (If 7 . . . tt:Jc6 then White plays 8.a3 ! , impeding Black's pawn-advance b5-b4. 8 . . . cxd4 9. tt:Jxd4 LLlxd4 10.cxd4 b4 ll.a4 j!,l{a5 12 .�d2 �e7 13.tt:Jf3 0-0 14.�b5 LLlb6 15. b3 �a6 16.ha6 j!,l{xa6 17. a5 LLld7 18 .j!,l{e2 LLlb8 19.'tt> f2 j!,l{xe2 + 2 0 . \t>xe2 tt:J c 6 2 1.Elhc1 Elfc8 2 2 .Ela2 Elc7 23.Elac2 Elac8 24.a6 and White won this endgame, Anand - Shirov, Leon 2000.) 8.cxb4 cxb4 9 . LLlf3 �e7 10.f5 exf5 ll.LLlf4 0-0 12.tt:Jxd5 tt:Jb6 13.tt:Jxe7+ j!,l{xe7 14.�d3 �e6 15.0-0 tt:Jc6 16.�e3 LLld5 17.j!,l{d2 LLlxe3 18.j!,l{xe3 Elad8 19.Elac1 j!,l{b7 2 0 . Elc5. White has gained some pressure, but it is ob­ vious that Black should be able to find an improvement, Sax Gulko, Aruba 199 2 .

7.c3 After 7.tt:Jf3 it would be quite logical for Black to play 7 . . . b5, fol­ lowed by the standard pawn-of­ fensive on the queenside and the development of the bishop to a6. (Of course, the natural move 7 . . . �e7 i s quite playable too.). 8.a3 Elb8 9 .g3 j!,l{b6 10 .c3 a5 11.�g2 b4 1 2 . axb4 axb4 13. 0 - 0 �a6 14.Elf2 cxd4 15.tt:Jexd4 �c5 16.'tt> h 1 0-0 17.�e3 bxc3 18.bxc3 �c4 and Black's position is slightly better, Tiviakov - Navara, Sibenik 2009. In this pawn structure, Black has several typical ideas and plans. He can also prepare a clas­ sic knight-sacrifice on e5 after preparation with f6, �e7, j!,l{b6 and 0-0.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lbc3 CiJf6 4.e5 CiJfd7 5. 4J ce2 c5 6f4 4J c6

7 �b6 . . .

However, Black has also tried out some other ideas. For exam­ ple : 7 .. .'�aS ! ? 8.4Jf3 bS 9 .id2 �b6 10.fS ie7 ll.CiJf4 0-0 12 .id3 cxd4 13. cxd4 4Jxd4 14.f6 4Jxf6 1S.exf6 ixf6 16. 4Jxd4 ixd4 17.We2 ib7 18.ic3 ixc3+ 19.bxc3 eS and Black's pawn-mass turned out to be stronger than White's extra piece, Hamdouchi - Gurevich, Belfort 2003. It would be very interesting for Black to opt for 7 . . . ie7 8.4Jf3 0-0

good game for Black, Socko - Gu­ revich, Venaco 2 00S.) 10 .ih3 cxd4 11.4Jexd4 4Jxd4 12 .cxd4 WaS+ 13.id2 Wb6 14.Wb3 Wxb3 1S.axb3 CiJb8 16.exf6 gxf6 17. 0-0 4Jc6 18.Elae1 f7 19.Elf2 id7 2 0 . ic3 fS and the endgame i s about equal, Palliser - Speelman, West Bromwich 2003. White can try another plan for the development of his pieces (in­ stead of 9.g3), but it looks too risky for him: 9 .a3 aS 10 .h4 f6 11. 4Jeg1 cxd4 1 2 . cxd4 Wb6 13.id3 f:xeS 14.fxeS CiJdxeS ! ? 1S.dxeS CiJxeS 16.ic2 id7 17.We2 Elac8 ! ! This is a fabulous move ! 18.ixh7 + (The essence of Black's idea can be best illustrated in the line : 18.4JxeS ixh4+ - this is another typical tactical blow in this varia­ tion - 19.d1 ia4 ! ! 20.ixa4 Wd4+ with a quick checkmate.) 18 . . . xh7 19.WxeS id6 2 0 .ie3 Wb3 2 1 .4Jd2 Elf1 ! - + Macieja - Ivan­ chuk, Moscow 2001.

8.lt:lf3 f6

9 .g3 f6 (It is also possible for Black to choose the less forcing line : 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 4Jb6 l l.ig2 aS 1 2 . 0 - 0 a4 13.g4 a3 14.bxa3 4Jc4 1SJ:!:b1 ixa3 16.Elb3 ixcl 17. 4Jxc1 b6 18.Wc2 f6 19.Wf2 fxeS 2 0.fxeS id7 2 1.Eld1 We7 with a

9.a3 This move is standard in simi­ lar positions - White prevents the 309

Chapter 37 possible check from the b4-square and prepares the pawn-advance b2-b4, seizing extra space. He has a safer plan here - 9 .g3 cxd4 10.cxd4 (10.cl e5 23J.,�xh4 i.f5 24.�dl e4 25. �xb3 axb3 26. ll::l d 2 e3 27.ll::l f3 and White realized his two extra pieces, Anand - Shirov, New Del­ hi/Teheran 2 0 0 0.

313

Chapter 38

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tiJc3 ttJf6 4.e5 ttJfd7 5.f4 c5

6.ltlf3 White should avoid the inferi­ or line 6.dxc5 'Llc6 (White can an­ swer 6 . . . ixc5 with 7.Wg4 ! ?) 7.a3 ixc5 8.Wg4 0-0 9.id3 (9J2jf3. Here it would be interesting for Black to try 9 . . . Wb6 ! ? 10 .id3 if2 + 1l.We2 f5 12 .Wh3 'Llc5 with a good position.) After 9 . . . We7 10. id2 f6 1l.Wh4 h6 1 2 .exf6 'Llxf6 13.0-0-0 e5 14.fxe5 'Llxe5 15.'Llf3 'Llxd3 + 16.cxd3 b5 17J'l:he1 Wb7 18 .ie3 ixe3 + 19.l'i:xe3 aS Black went on to gain a winning posi­ tion, but then. . . lost the game, Short - Morozevich, Reggio Emil­ ia 2 0 1 0 .

6 ... ltlc6 7.ie3 (diagram) This is the key position of the Steinitz variation. Modern chess 314

requires players to have a lot of ideas and lines in their armoury, so that they can vary their lines from game to game. I shall thor­ oughly analyze the move 7 . . . cxd4 in the next two chapters, so here I should like to recommend to Black two other back-up lines : a) 7 . . . Wb6 and b) 7 . . . a6 . Attentive readers might have noticed that recently the author of this book has been regularly playing 7 . . . ie7. I should like to leave extensive analysis of this variation for a future book of mine . . . Black sometimes plays even more extravagantly (although with the same ideas as in varia­ tion b: 7 . . . l'i:b8 8 .Wd2 (The world­ famous exponent of the French

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJc3 liJf6 4.e5 liJfd7 5f4 c5 6. liJ.f3 liJc6 7. ie3 Vf1 b6 defence, Viktor Lvovich Korch­ noi, treated this position in a very original fashion : 8 .ie2 cxd4 9 .liJxd4 ic5 10.Vfid2 0-0 1 1 .l'!d1 Vfih4+ 1 2 .if2 Vf1e7 13.0-0 liJb6 14.liJcb5 id7 15.Vf1e3 liJxd4 16. liJxd4 B:bc8 17.Vf1h3 f5 18.c3 Vf1e8 19.ih5 g6 2 0 .ie2 ixd4 2 1 . l'!xd4 ib5 and Black equalized, Landa - Korchnoi, Reggio Emilia 2 007) 8 . . . Vf1a5 9 . a3 b5

vt1xa6 13.liJf2 ie7 14.liJd3 c4 15.liJf2 c3 ! ? Vadim Zvjaginsev's ideas can often be beyond the log­ ical understanding of mortal hu­ man players, but you just have to accept that that is the way he plays. (Here, for example, he could have considered quieter moves such as 15 . . . id8 ! ?) 16.bxc3 Vf1c4 17.cxb4 ixb4 18.Vf1d3 liJb6 19.B:ab1 Vf1xd3 20.cxd3 d7 and Black survived in this endgame, Jakovenko - Zvjaginsev, Moscow 2 005.

a) 7 Vf1b6 . . .

I think you should make this move part of your opening ar­ moury. 10.l'!a2. This paradoxical ma­ noeuvre has recently become an integral part of White's strategy in the Steinitz variation. White de­ fends against b4 and leaves his rook on the a-file in case it be­ comes open. 10 . . . c4 11.f5 ie7 1 2 . fxe6 fxe6 13.g3 0 - 0 14.ig2 liJb6 15.0-0 liJa4 16.liJe2 vt1xd2 17.hd2 liJb6 18 .ih3 liJa8 19.ig4 liJc7 2 0 . h 4 a 5 2 1.c3 id7 2 2 .liJf4 liJ d 8 2 3 . l'!aa1 liJf7 24.ih3 !'!aS 25.g4 liJd8 26.g5 liJc6 27.liJh5 h8 2 8 .liJf6 ! and White triumphed i n the ensu­ ing struggle, Bologan - Korchnoi, Gibraltar 2006. If White does not hinder Black's queenside pawn-storm, he cannot count on any advan­ tage : 9 .ie2 (instead of 9.a3) 9 . . . b5 10.0-0 b4 11.liJd1 ia6 12 .ixa6

8.ll:\ a4 It is riskier for White to opt for 8.Vf1d2 vt1xb2 9.B:b1 Vf1a3 10.ib5 ! ? (10.liJb5? vt1xa2 ll.l'!c1 B:b8 12 .ie2 cxd4 13.liJfxd4 ib4 14.c3 Vf1xd2+ 15.xd2 ic5 and White has no compensation whatsoever for the two sacrificed pawns, Ragger Andreikin, Gaziantep 2008. In the game Nakamura - Mo315

Chapter 38 rozevich, Reggio Emilia 2 0 1 2 , White continued with 10.f5? ! a6 11.fxe6 fxe6 12 . .te2 .te7 13 .0-0 0-0 14. i>h1 cxd4 15.Ct:Jxd4 tt:Jdxe5, but in the resulting position he could already resign.) 10 . . . c4 (10 .. .'�a5 ? ! 11.0-0 c4 12.f5 tt:Jb6 13.\19e1 exf5 14.a4 .te6 15 . .td2 .tb4 16J''1 xb4 �xb4 17.Ct:Je4 �b2 18. Ct:Jd6+ i>f8 19 . .tc3 �xc2 2 0 .Ct:Jxb7 tt:Jxa4 2 L.tb4+ ci>g8 22 ..txc6 �c8 23.�f2 �b3 24.Ct:Ja5+- Kamslq Akobian, Saint-Louis 2011) 11.f5 tt:Jb6 12 .f6 g6 13.0-0 .td7 14.bc6 bxc6 15.Ct:Je2 h6 16 .c3 0-0-0 17. h4 ci>b7 18.Ct:Jh2 i>a8 19. Ct:Jg4 g5 2 0 .hxg5 hxg5� Sethuraman Volkov, Vrachati 2 0 1 1 . I t i s too slow for White t o play 8.a3? ! cxd4 9.Ct:Jxd4 .tc5 10.Ct:Ja4 �aS+ 1 l.c3 .txd4 12 . .txd4 Ct:Jxd4 13.�xd4 b6 14 . .te2 (White should not go into an endgame here, be­ cause his knight on a4 will be un­ able to come into play any time soon: 14.�b4 �xb4 15.axb4 ci>e7 16 ..tb5 .tb7 17. 0-0 �hd8 18.i>f2 f6 19 . .txd7 �xd7 2 0 . i>e3 �f8 2 l.b3 .tc6 2 2 .Ct:Jb2 .tbs 23.�f3 ci>d8 24. �d1 ci>e7 25.�a1 �c7 26.i>d4 .te8 27.�e1 .tg6 with advantage to Black, Nunn - Ehlvest, Reykjavik 1988.) 14 . . . .ta6 15 . .td1 �b5 16.b4 �c8 17.Ct:Jb2 �c6 18.�c1 0-0 (Black can resort to a more con­ crete response here - 18 .. .f6 19. exf6 tt:Jxf6 2 0 . .tf3 ? ! 0-0 2l.c4? �d7 2 2 . a4 .txc4 23.tt:Jxc4 �xa4 24.0-0 �xb4 and he gained a winning position in the game Gueroff - Jackelen, Germany

316

1989; 2 0 . .ta4 .tb5 2 L.tb5 �b5 2 2 . c4 dc4 23.0-0 �d5 with pressure for Black.) 19.a4 .tc4 20 . .tg4 .tb3 21.0-0 .txa4 2 2 . f5 .tb5 23.�fe1 �feB 24.�e3 f6 ! and the young Filipino player triumphed with Black over his very experienced opponent, Kamsky - So, Khanty­ Mansiysk 2009.

8 . . .'�a5+ 9.c3

9 . . . cxd4 This is an aggressive move based on a piece-sacrifice. Inci­ dentally, Black is not obliged to play so riskily. He has alternatives which lead to a quiet positional struggle. 9 . . . c4 10.b4 �c7 1 1.g3 .te7 12 . .th3 (12 . .tg2 ! ? f5 13 .0-0 tt:Jf8 14. �b1 b6 15.g4 ! fxg4 16.Ct:Jd2 Ct:Jg6? 17.f5 exf5 18.bd5 �d7 19 . .txc4 f4 20 . .txf4 Ct:Jxd4 2 L.tg3 Ct:Je6 2 2 . Ct:Je4+- Edouard - Michiels, Ant­ werp 2011. Black should have been less generous and preserved his centre with 16 . . . h5 17.f5 tt:Jd8 and Black should be able to with­ stand his opponent's initial offen­ sive.)

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. lb c3 CiJf6 4.e5 11Jfd7 5/4 c5 6. 11Jj3 CiJ c6 7. �e3 Vfff b 6 gins with the move - 1l.�e2 .

1 2 . . . 11Jf8 (One of the important guidelines for Black in this posi­ tion is not to allow his opponent to re-activate the knight on a4, which is reminiscent of Black's knight on a5 in the Ruy Lopez. 12 . . . b5? ! 13.11Jc5 a5 14.a3 axb4 15.axb4 !'lxa1 16.Vfffx a1 CiJxc5 17. dxc5 0-0 18.11Jd4 CiJxd4 19.hd4 �b7 2 0 . 0 - 0 and White enjoys a comfortable advantage, Svidler Bareev, Elista 1997.) 13.0-0 b6 14.�g2 �d8 15.CiJb2 CiJe7. It is worth noting Black's play here. It looks as though his manoeuvres are completely random and not based on any coherent idea. This assumption is entirely wrong, however . . . 16.a4 a6 17.11Jd2 !'la7 18.Vfffe 2 b5 19.�f2 �d7 2 0 .g4 (Hav­ ing seen what happens later, it can be recommended to White to play 2 0.a5 here.) 20 . . . h5 2 1.gxh5 a5 ! 2 2 . axb5 hb5 23.bxa5 !'lxa5 24.!'lfb1 CiJf5 25.11Jd1 g6 ! 2 6.hxg6 CiJxg6 27.�g3 CiJxd4 28.cxd4 c3 29.Vffff2 c2 30.11Jb3 !'la2 ! Once the position opened up, Black's play was very impressive and he soon obtained a decisive advantage in the game Bologan - Volkov, Sochi 2006. The other plan for White be-

Here a true master o f such po­ sitions, Sergey Volkov, has tried various moves. 1l.. .�e7 (He can place another piece on the e7square : 1 1 . . . 11Je7 12.0-0 CiJb8. It might look as though Black is re­ placing his pieces ready to begin the next game, but you need to have a very specific understand­ ing of these positions in order to play them successfully. 13.11Jh4 CiJg6 14.11Jxg6 hxg6 15.�g4 CiJc6 16.!'lb1 b6 17.!'lf3 �d7 18.!'lh3 !'lxh3 19 .hh3 !'lb8 2 0.�g4 a5 2 1 .bxa5 CiJxa5 2 2 .11Jb2 b5+ Salem - Vol­ kov, Dubai 2 0 0 2.) 12.0-0

12 ... 11Jf8 (12 . . .f5 13.�f2 CiJf8 14.�h4 CiJg6 15.�xe7 CiJgxe7 16. V!ffe 1 �d7 17.�d1 b6 18.V!ffg3 0-0 19.CiJb2. White has not achieved much, but Black decided to be the 317

Chapter 38 first to sharpen the game and af­ ter 19 . . . bS? ! 2 0 .a4 aS? 2 l.axbS LL'l a7 2 2 .b6! Wxb6 23 J''1 x aS, he ended up a pawn down in an infe­ rior position, Almasi - Volkov, Nakhchivan 2011.) 13.LL'lb2 �d7 14.a4. It seems that White has se­ cured his queenside and will soon begin his kingside offensive. The position on the board however, changes with dramatically speed. 14 . . . LL'lg6 1S.We1 fS 16.LL'lgS 0-0 17. Wg3 a6 18J'U3 bS 19.aS LL'lxb4 ! White's attack never even started and Black's pawn-mass settled the issue, Shomoev - Volkov, Tomsk 2006. Black can also try a very clever move order here - 9 . . . b6 10.�d2 c4 1 1.b4

ll . . . Wa6. The drawback of this move is that Black's queen is mis­ placed. (Black can sacrifice a piece here, but only with the idea of building a fortress - 1 1 . . .LL'lxb4 12. cxb4 �xb4 13 .hb4 Wxb4+ 14. �f2 bS 1S.LL'lcS LL'lxcS 16.dxcS WxcS+ 17.Wd4 Wxd4+ 18.LL'lxd4 �d7 19.�e2 �e7 2 0 .a3 aS 2 U ' 1hb1 l'J:hb8 2 2 . �e3 l'J:b6 23 .�d1 f6? ! This i s the wrong plan. Black had only to make one more useful 318

move - 23 ... l'J:ab8 ! ? and then he could just sit tight and wait. 24. �c2 h6 2S.h4 l'J:ab8 26.g4 E1f8 27. l'o:h1 fxeS 2 8 .fxeS E1bb8 29.gS. The position has been opened up in White's favour, Karjakin - Ernst, Wijk aan Zee 2 00S.) 12 .a3 �e7 13. g3 fS 14.exf6. The aggressive Finnish player obviously disliked a closed pawn structure. 14 . . . gxf6 1S.fS eS 16.�h3 �b7 17. 0-0 0-0-0. Black's queen is a sorry sight, but things were not as trag­ ic as they seem . . . 18.l"1b1 bS 19. LL'lcS LL'lxcS 2 0.bxcS l'J:he8 2 l .l'o:e1 �f8 2 2 .Wc1 LL'laS 23.Wb2 LL'lb3 24. �e3 hcS ! 2S.dxcS d4 and Black seized the initiative, Nyback Volkov, Plovdiv 2 008.

1 0 .b4 .!Llxb4 11.cxb4 .ixb4+ 12.�d2 hd2 + 13 . .!Llxd2

White's pieces seem to be mis­ placed at the moment. Can Black exploit this and if so, how? It is true that nowadays theory considers White's prospects to be superior . . .

13

. . .

b6

It has been proved that the move 13 . . . gS does not provide

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Ci'J c3 Ci'Jf6 4.e5 Ci'Jfd7 5f4 c5 6. Ci'Jf3 Ci'J c6 7. �e3 Wfb6 Black with an acceptable position. 14J"1b1 gxf4 (White won beauti­ fully after 14 . . . a6 15.�d3 gxf4 16.0-0 4Jxe5 17.4Jb6 l"lb8 18.4Jxc8 - 18.4Jf3 ! ? - 18 . . . l"lxc8 19.l"lxb7 4Jxd3 20 .Wfh5 0-0 21 . 4Je4 l"lc1 2 2 . l"lxc1 4Jxc1 23.4Jf6+ lt>g7 24. 4Je8+ Wh8 25.Wfe5+ f6 26.l"lxh7+ Kalegin - Okotchik, Russia 1992.) 15 .�b5 l"lb8 16.4Jc5 Wfc3 17.4Jd3 a6 18.l"lc1 Wfa3 19.Wfb3 Wfa5 2 0 .hd7+ �xd7 21.4Jxf4± Short - Timman, Amsterdam 1994. Another possible try for White here is 13 . . . 0- 0 ! ? 14.�d3 b5 15. Ci'Jb2 Ci'Jb6 16.0-0 (It is weaker for White to play the cautious move 16.Wfc2 Ci'Jc4 17.hh7+ Wh8 18. �d3 �d7 19.We2 l"lac8 2 0 .4Jf3 f6 2 1.hc4 bxc4 2 2 .4Jxd4 fxe5 23. fxe5 l"lf4 and White is unable to maintain the blockade, so Black's position is good enough. He has no problems either after 18.4Jbxc4 bxc4 19.0-0 d3 2 0.�xd3 cxd3 21.Wfxd3 �a6 2 2 .Wfh3 + Wg8 23. l"lf2 l"lac8 .) 16 . . . 4Jc4

17.�xh7+ ! ? This is a key point in this variation - White has a very powerful attack. (He should not change the move-order: 17. Ci'Jf3 ? ! 4Jxb2 18.hh7+ lt>h8 ! ) 17 . . .

lt>xh7 18 .Wfh5+ lt>g8 19.4Jf3 g 6 (It would possibly be more interest­ ing for Black to try 19 .. .f6 2 0 .4Jxc4 bxc4?! 21.exf6 Wfc7 2 2 . fxg7 Wfxg7 23.4Je5 l"lf5 24.Wlh4, but the ab­ sence of any pawn cover for his king might be a telling factor in the near future; but after 20 . . . dxc4 ! 2 1 .exf6 Wfc7 2 2 .fxg7 Wlxg7 23.Wfb5 White slight initiative proves to be temporary. However, White can avoid this line if he ex­ changes on c4 on move 17, when capturing with the d-pawn would not be good for Black.) 2 0 .Wfh6 Wfc7. Black's position is so dubi­ ous that I am not sure that he can hold it, so this line cannot be rec­ ommended. 2 1 .4Jh4 (21.4Jd3 ! ?) 2 1 . . .f6 ( 2 1 . . .4Jxb2 2 2 . l"lf3+-) 2 2 . 4Jxg6 Wfg7 23 .Wfh5 l"l f7 24.4Jxc4 dxc4 25.l"lf3 Wfh7 26.Wfg4 l"lg7 27. l"lg3 l"lb8 2 8.h4 f5 29 .Wfg5 l"lxg6 and the game ended in a draw by a perpetual, Quesada Perez - Cor­ dova, Havana 2009. Recently the theoretical de­ bates in this position have been focused on the move 17.4Jbxc4, for example, 17 . . . dxc4

18.�xh7 lt>xh7 19.Wfh5 lt>g8 2 0 .4Jf3 g6 2 1 .Wfh6 Wfc7 2 2 .f5 ( 2 2 . 319

Chapter 38 lt'lh4 d3 23.E1f3 E1e8 24.lt'lxg6 fxg6 25.E1g3 'Wh7 26.E1xg6+ Wh8 27. 'Wg5 E1f8 28.E1h6 E1b8 29.E1xh7+ xh7 30 .'Wh5+ g7 31.'Wg5+ h7 32.f5 E1xf5 33 .'We7+ Wg6 34.'Wc7 E1a8 35.E1b1 E1f7 36.'Wc6 d2 37.'Wa4 �d7 38.'Wc2 + Wg7 39 .'Wxd2 and White realized his advantage in the game Edouard - Hovhani­ sian, Antwerp 2011) 22 .. .f6 (22 . . . exfS 23.E1ae1 f6 24.exf6 'Wh7 25. 'Wf4 'Wf7 26.E1e7 'Wxf6 27.E1fe1 E1f7 2 8 . E1xf7 Wxf7 29.lt'lg5+ Wg7 30. 'Wc7+ h6 31.'Wh7+ xg5 32 .g3 1-0 Zherebukh - Jaiswal, New Delhi 2011.) 23 .fxg6 'Wg7 24.'Wh5 �d7 25.exf6 E1xf6 26.lt'le5 E1af8 27.E1xf6 E1xf6 28.E1b1 �e8 29.E1b8 E1f8 30.'Wh3 hg6 31.'Wxe6+ �f7 3 2 . E1xf8+ 'Wxf8 33.'Wg4+ 'Wg7 34. 'Wxd4, Black's position is accepta­ ble in this endgame, Frolyanov Danin, Belgorod 2010 .

his position; 16 . . . 'Wc3 17.We2 0-0 18.'Wb 1 ! - Black is in a big trouble.

16.i.xa6 'Wxa6 17.'1We2

17 'Wa3 • • •

Black does not achieve much with 17 . . . d3 18 .'We3 'Wa3 19.'Wd4 0-0 20.0-0 E1ac8 21.lt'ld1 E1fd8 2 2 .lt'lf2 lt'le4 ! ? This is an interest­ ing decision. He gives up a pawn with the idea of creating a power­ ful passed pawn, supported by his rooks. 23.lt'lfxe4 dxe4 24.'We3 E1c2 25.lt'lxe4 'Wb2 26.'Wf3 d2 27.E1ad1 E1d5 28.h3 h6 29.Wh2 E1c1 30.'We3 E1xd1 31.E1xd1 'Wxa2 32 .E1xd2. Black saved the game, but he was on the verge of losing throughout, Psakhis - Dizdar, Portoroz 1987.

18.'Wb5+ �e7 19. 0 - 0 White's knights are rather misplaced, but Black cannot ex­ ploit this.

19 'We3+ 21.1'!afl • • •

14.�d3 �a6 Black plays quietly, relying on his three pawns and White's un­ coordinated pieces.

15.liJb2 ttlc5 After 15 . . . hd3 16.lt'ld2 lt'lc5 17.lt'lf2 , White easily consolidates 320

2 0 .E1f2

1'!hc8

2 1.E1d1 g6 22.lt'lf1 'Wa3 23.E1xd4 'Wxa2 24.lt'lg3 'Wb3 25.'We2 White has the better prospects in the ensuing struggle, Chandler M .Gurevich, Leningrad 1987.

21. .. g6 22.ttlb3 ttlxb3 23.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ltJ c3 ltJf6 4.e5 ltJfd7 5j4 c5 6. 4Jj3 4Jc6 7. 1l.e3 a6 tbdl �e4 24. axb3 l'k5 25.�a6 @f8 26.�d2 'it>g7 27.�a4 �bl 28.�xd4± and White went on to win, S.Zhigalko - Podolchenko, Minsk 2 0 11.

b) 7 ... a6

This is a very logical move. Black's plan is extremely simple - he will advance his queenside pawns as far as the opponent per­ mits.

8.�d2 8.4Je2 ! ? This is an original and fashionable move. White is trying to emphasize that Black's last move is useless, by transposing to positions more typical of the S.lij ce2 variation. However, the point is that White's extra tempo - the move ie3 - might even turn out to be harmful for him. Black has some active, concrete possi­ bilities up his sleeve. 8 . . . �b6 (Black has a reasonable alterna­ tive here : 8 . . . ie7 9.c3 0-0 10.a3 f6 11.4Jg3 cxd4 12.cxd4 �b6 13. �d2 ltJ aS 14.:gd1 �b3 ! 1s.:gc1 4Jb6 16.:gc3 �a2 17.id3 4Jbc4 18.�c2

fS 19.ic1 bS 2 0 . 0 - 0 b4 21.axb4 hb4+ Svidler - Vitiugov, Mos­ cow 2 0 0 9 ; lO.dxcS ! ? ttJxcS 11. 4Jed4 4Jxd4 1 2 .4Jxd4 id7 13.ie2 with relatively quiet play.) 9.Wc1 (With 9.:gb1 WaS+ 10 .id2 Wc7 1 1.c3 bS 12 .f5 exfS 13.4Jf4 4Jb6 14.id3 c4 15.ic2 ie7 16.0-0 g6 17.b3 cxb3 18.axb3 0-0 19 .�e1 4Jd8 2 0 .c4 dxc4 2 1.ia5 ib7 2 2 . bxc4 hf3 23.:gxf3 Wxc4, White sacrificed too much material and went on to lose, Shirov - An­ dreikin, Plovdiv 2010.)

9 ... g5 ! This is a standard way of undermining White's centre. (The well-known French Defence expert Vladimir Potkin tried the developing move 9 . . . ie7 here and obtained a good position: 10 .g3 cxd4 11.4Jexd4 ltJcS 12 .ih3 i'h'aS + 13. Wf2 id7 14. 4Jb3 4Je4+ 15. Wg2 Wc7 16.c4 4Jb4 17.cxd5 i'h'c2 + 18. Wxc2 4Jxc2 19.ib6 4Jxa1 20.dxe6 fxe6 2 1.:gxal+ Shirov - Potkin, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.) 10 .c3 (Here 10.fxg5 cxd4 11.4Jexd4 ttJdxeS? 12.4Jxc6 ! 4Jxf3 + 13.gxf3 Wxc6 14.id4 :ggs 15.id3 and Black will have problems ; 11 . . . ttJcxeS 12.4Jxe5 ttJxeS 13.c3 4Jg4 ! ; 13.ie2 icS 14.c3 4Jc6 15.Wd2 eS 321

Chapter 38 16.Lt:l xc6 bxc6 17.�xcS ®'xeS Black's centre should compensate for the vulnerability of his king. Instead it would be interesting for Black to play: 13 . . . h6 ! ? 14.gxh6 �xh6 1S.�xh6 'Wxd4 16.'Wf4 'Wxf4 17.�xf4 'Llc6 with a very compli­ cated endgame.) 10 . . . cxd4 11.cxd4 �b4+ 1 2 . �f2 f6 13 .g3 g4 ! Mo­ rozevich improves on his own previous game. (Or 13 . . . E1f8? 14. �g2 g4 1S.l2:lh4 E1g8 16.h3 hS 17. hxg4 hxg4 18.'Llc3 fxeS 19 .fxeS 'LlcxeS 20.dxeS d4 2 1 .'Lla4 'WaS 2 2 .'Wc4 'LlxeS 23.'Wxd4 'Llf3 24. 'Llxf3 gxf3 + 2S.�f2 'Wxa4 26.�d3± Topalov - Morozevich, Morelia/ Linares 20 07.) 14.'Llh4 fxeS 1S. fxeS 'LldxeS 16.dxeS d4 17.�f4 E1f8 18.�g2 �d7 19 .h3 d3 20.hxg4 dxe2 2 1.�xe2 'Lld4, White's king is in a more perilous situation than its black counterpart, Predojevic - Morozevich, Sarajevo 2008.

8 . . . b5

9.a3 This is the most fashionable move in the position. White tem­ porarily impedes the advance of his opponent's pawns. 322

He has also tried several alter­ natives, since there are many rea­ sonable moves in this position. It would not be advisable for White to opt for 9.fS?! cxd4 10. fxe6 (10 .'Lld4 'LldxeS 1l.fxe6 he6 ! - this is the move which makes the difference - 1 2 . 0-0-0 E1c8 and it now seems a mystery why White sacrificed the pawn in the first place.) 10 . . . fxe6 11.'Llxd4 (White also played the move 11.�xd4 and it can be evaluated thus: he obtained a good game in the end, but not without effort.) 1 1 . . . 'Llxd4 (It is too risky for Black to play ll . . . 'LldxeS 1 2 .�e2 , fol­ lowed by 0-0 and White has com­ pensation, since Black's king is stranded in the centre.) 12 .�xd4 �cS, with an excellent game for Black. Having exchanged the f­ pawn, White has merely created a weakness for himself on eS. 9.g3 b4 10.'Lle2

10 ... g6. This is an important prophylactic move. (I had a game in which I played routinely and carelessly and I was punished for it. lO . . . aS? ! 1l.fS ! cxd4 12.'Llexd4 'Llxd4 13.'Llxd4 'LlxeS 14. 0-0-0 �d7 1S.�f4 'Llc4 16.'We2? - 16.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt'J c3 tt'Jf6 4.e5 tt'Jfd7 5.f4 c5 6. tt'Jf3 tt'J c6 7. .ie3 a6 .ixc4 ! dxc4 17.'1We2 and Black's position was practically hopeless - 16 . . . '1Wf6 17 . .ig2 .ie7? (17 . . . .ic5 ! ) 18 J':1he1 g 5 19 .fxe6 .ixe6 2 0.b3 gxf4 21.bxc4+- lnarkiev - Vitiu­ gov, Dagomys 2008.) 11 ..ig2 a5 1 2 . 0-0 .ia6 13J':1f2 h5 14.h3 '&b6 15.l"l:d1 l"l:c8 16.g4 hxg4 17.hxg4 .ixe2 18.l"l:xe2 cxd4 19.tt'Jxd4 tt'Jxd4 20 . .ixd4 '&xd4+ 21.'1Wxd4 .ic5 and Black has good prospects in the approaching endgame, Richards - Kiriakov, West Bromwich 2 005. For a long time White used to play here 9 .dxc5 .ixc5

10 . .ixc5 (10 . .id3 '&b6 11 . .if2 b4 1 2 . tt'J a4 .ixf2 + 13.'1Wxf2 '&xf2 + 14.�xf2 .ib7 15.l"l:ac1 0-0 16.l"l:he1 l"l:fc8 17.h4 tt'Je7 18.tt'Jd4 .ic6 19.tt'Jxc6 l"l:xc6 20 .h5 f6, with a complicated endgame, Karjakin So, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 1 ; 10. tt'Je2 b4 11..ixc5 tt'Jxc5 12 .tt'Jed4 tt'Jxd4 13.'1Wxd4 '&b6 14.tt'Jd2 l"l:b8 15.tt'Jb3 tt'Ja4 16.0-0-0 0-0 17.a3 a5 18. '&xb6 l"l:xb6 19.l"l:d4 .id7 2 0 . axb4 axb4 2 1..id3 l"l:c8 = Shomoev - Potkin, Taganrog 2 0 1 1 ; 10 . . . '&b6 11 . .ixc5 tt'Jxc5 12.tt'J ed4 .id7 13 .tt'Jxc6 .ixc6 14.tt'Jd4 0-0 15 . .id3 f6 16.exf6 l"l:xf6 17. 0-0-0 .ie8 18. l"l:hf1 l"l:c8 19 .g4 '&d6 2 0 . �b1 tt'Jxd3

21.cxd3 .id7 2 2 .tt'Je2 l"l:cf8 23.l"l:g1 d4 24.h4 .ic6 25.l"l:df1 b4 and Black was better, lnarkiev - Lysyj , Rijeka 2010.) 10 . . . tt'Jxc5 11.'1Wf2 (The ultra-modern move 11.b4 is interesting only because it is very provocative : 11 . . . tt'Jxb4 1 2 .tt'Jxb5 0-0 13.'1Wxb4 '&b6 14.a4 axb5 15. a5 '&a7 16.'1Wd4 .id7 17 ..id3 tt'Ja4 18.0-0 l"l:tb8 19.'1Wxa7 l"l:xa7 2 0 . l"l: fb 1 l"l:xa5co Safarli - Lintchevski, Kirishi 2 006) 11 . . . '1Wb6

12 . .id3 (This attempt to play tactically fails : 12 .b4?! tt'Jxb4 13. l"l:b1 d4 ! This is a nice counter­ blow. White's idea can be best il­ lustrated in the variation 13 . . . tt'Jc6 14 . .ixb5 ! - 14.tt'Jxd4 '&a5 15.'1Wd2 tt'Jxa2 16.tt'Jd1 '&xd2+ 17. �xd2 tt'Je4+ 18.�d3 .ib7 19.l"l:b2 .idS 2 0. �e3 tt'Jac3 and Black ends up with an extra pawn in this endgame, Heberla - Carlsson, Fuegen 2006. White does not achieve much with 15.tt'Jdxb5 tt'Je4 16.'1Wf3 tt'Jxa2 17.tt'Jc7+ �e7 18.'1Wxe4 l"l:a7 19. tt'Jxa6 .ixa6 - 19 . . . '1Wxc3 + ! ? 2 0 . �f2 l"l:d8 - 2 0 . .ixa6 :1'1d8 2 1 . 0 - 0 tt'Jxc3 2 2 . l"l:b7+ �f8 23 .'1Wxh7 :1'1xb7 24. .ixb7 '&b6+ 25. 'tt> h 1 '&xb7 with an extra piece for Black, Fogarasi Bhat, Budapest 2001.) 12 . . . b4 323

Chapter 38 13.4Je2 aS 14. 0 - 0 .ia6 1S.c;t>h1 4Je7

We can formulate a very spe­ cific rule for Black in this position. If White places his f-rook on d1 then, after a transition into an endgame after 4Ja4, he can open the queenside in his favour with a3. So, in that case, Black should play h6 and castle. But if White places his a-rook on d1 then the endgame is harmless for Black. 16 J'l:ad1 (Or 16.l:l:fd1 h6 17.4Jed4 0-0 18.�h4 l:l:a7 19.g4 4Jg6 2 0 . .bg6 fxg6 2 l.fS l:l:af7 2 2 .gS l:l:xfS ! with a good game for Black, Main­ ka - Glek, Recklinghausen 199S; 16.b3 h6 17.l:l:ad1 l:l:b8 18 . .ixa6 4Jxa6 19.4Jfd4 tt:JcS 20.fS 4Je4 2 1 . �f3 0-0 2 2 .4Jf4 4J c 6 23.4Jxc6 �xc6 24.fxe6 fxe6 2S.�g4 Wxc2 2 6.Wxe6+ c;t>h7 27.Wg6+ c;t>h8 28. Wg4 4Jf2+ Berndt - Glek, Germa­ ny 2003.) 16 . . . 4Ja4 17.Wxb6 4Jxb6 18 .g3 4Jd7 19 . .ba6 l:l:xa6 20.a3 bxa3 2 l . l:l:a1 4Jb8 2 2 . l:l:xa3 4Jbc6 23.4Jc1 0-0 24.4Jd3 l:l:b6 and the players agreed to a draw, Do­ minguez Perez - Nogueiras San­ tiago, Merida 2 0 0 2 . It i s also quite solid for White to play 9 . .id3, but then Black has 324

his hands free to carry out all his own ideas. 9 . . . b4 10.4Jd1 (10.4Ja4 c4 1l..ie2 c3 12 .Wd1 cxb2 13.4Jxb2 4Jb6 14.0-0 .ie7 1S . .id3 .id7 16. tt:JgS g6 17.l:l:f3 tt:J aS 18.l:l:h3 4Jbc4 19.4Jxc4 4Jxc4 20 . .ic1 .ia4 2 1.We1 Wb6 = Black has equalized com­ fortably, Nakamura - Wang Hao, Moscow 2010.) 10 . . . Wb6 11.Wf2 aS 12.0-0 .ia6 13 . .ba6 l:l:xa6 14.c3 .ie7. Black has accomplished what he wanted and the only thing White can and should do is try to sharpen the position. 1S.fS exfS 16 . .if4 cxd4 17.cxd4 0-0 18.c;t>h1 .id8 19.4Je3 4Je7 2 0 .l:l:ad1 h6 2 l.g4 fxg4 2 2 .4Jxg4 tt:JfS 23.l:l:g1 c;t>h8 24. l:l:g2 l:l:g8 2S. l:l:dg1 4Jf8 2 6.Wd2 We6 and White has no compensation for the pawn, Shaposhnikov Volkov, Samara 2 0 0 0 . White sometimes plays more cautiously: 9 . .ie2 Wb6 10.4Jd1 b4 (10 . . . cxd4 11.4Jxd4 4Jxd4 12 . .ixd4 .icS 13.c3 0-0 14.0-0 aS 1S.a3 .ib7 16.4Jf2 b4 17.4Jg4 hS 18.4Je3 g6 19.l:l:f3 .ia6 2 0 . .ba6 bxc3 2 1 . bxc3 l:l:xa6 2 2 .g4 hxg4 23.4Jxg4 l:l:b8 24.l:l:h3 Wb2 and later White ended the game with perpetual check in order to avoid the worst, Karj akin - Potkin , Moscow 2010.) 11.0-0 aS 12.c3 .ia6 13 . .ba6 Wxa6, but the character of the position remains more or less the same. 14.fS bxc3 1S.bxc3 exfS 16.4JgS 4Je7 17.dxcS h6 18.4Jf3 gS 19 ..id4 l:l:g8 2 0.4Je3 We6 2 l.a4 f4 2 2 .4Jc2 tt:JfS 23.4Ja3 l:l:c8, and after some non-standard operations, Black obtained a good position, Riazan­ tsev - Michna, Hamburg 2 00S.

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ltJ c3 ltJf6 4.e5 ltJfd7 5j4 c5 6. ltJj3 ltJ c 6 7. .ie3 a6 White sometimes tries the hy­ peractive line : 9.h4 b4 10.ltJe2 .ie7

1l.dxc5 (Or 1l .g3? ! 0-0 12 . .ih3 aS 13.dxc5 ltJxc5 14.ltJed4 ltJe4 15.Wfg2 Wfb6 16.0-0 .ic5 17. E1fd1 a4 18.Wh2 a3 19.b3 ltJc3 2 0 . E1 d 2 f6 with a n overwhelming ad­ vantage for Black, Fedorov Volkov, Samara 1998.) ll . . . ltJxc5 1 2 . ltJg3 h5 (12 . . . 0-0 ! ?) 13 . .ie2 g6 14.0-0 ltJ a4 15.c3 bxc3 16.bxc3 Wfa5 17.f1acl .id7 18 .f1c2 ltJa7 19. ltJg5 ltJb5 2 0 .f5 ! ? with a rather un­ clear game which later Black managed to win, Anand - Mo­ rozevich, Monte Carlo 2 004. It is worth noting this game, which was particularly important for the outcome of the tourna­ ment, won by Alexander Grischuk against one of the renowned ex­ perts in this variation. 9.ltJd1 ! ? b4 10 . .ie2 Wfb6? ! (Black should not have been obsessed with the quick development of his queenside. The correct move was 10 . . . .ie7.) 1l.c3 bxc3 1 2 .ltJxc3 f1b8 13.b3 Wfa5 14.f1c1 cxd4 15.ltJxd4 ltJxd4 16. .ixd4 .ia3 17.f1c2 0-0 18.ltJa4 .ib4 19 . .ic3 f6 20 . .ig4 and Black did not survive, Grischuk - Potkin,

Khanty-Mansiysk 2 011.

9

•..

Wfb6

This is just one of his possibili­ ties. It seems to me to be very log­ ical and principled. Black contin­ ues with his queenside action , in­ creasing the pressure against the d4-square in the process. The fans of really sharp play may try here the line: 9 . . . g5 ! ? 10. fxg5 cxd4 l l .ltJxd4 ltJcxe5 12 . .ie2 .ib7 13 . 0 - 0 .ig7 14. f1ae1 0-0 15. ltJd1 ltJc4 16 ..ixc4 dxc4 17. ltJf2 ltJe5 18 .Wfe2 c3 19. bxc3 f1c8 2 0 . E1 d 1 Wfd5 2 1 . ltJg4 ltJxg4 2 2 . Wfxg4 f1xc3 23.ltJe2 f1c4 24.Wfg3 Wfe5 with a better position for Black, Kar­ jakin - Morozevich, Nice 2008. Or 9 ... .ib7 10 . .id3 g5 ! ? ll.fxg5 cxd4 1 2 .ltJxd4 ltJdxe5 13 . 0 - 0 .ig7 14. ltJxc6 .ixc6 15 . .ic5 Wfc7 16.a4 ltJc4 17.Wff2 b4 18 . .ixb4 ltJxb2 19. l'lab1 ltJxd3 20.cxd3 .ie5 2 l.f1bcl and White was better in the game Jakovenko-Vitiugov, Moscow 2008. One must be very well prepared to cope with these sharp forcing lines. I think this approach is very risky and not very practical, but of course it is quite possible. 325

Chapter 38 l O . lLle2 This move is the best. Black equalizes easily after 10 .�e2 �b7 11.0-0 cxd4 1Vuxd4 �cS 13J'!ad1 !"k8 14J"\f3 CiJxd4 15. �xd4 hd4+ 16.�xd4 We7 17J"\g3 Ei:hg8 18.�xb6 CiJxb6 19.Ei:d4 and the players agreed to a draw, Na­ jer - Vitiugov, Dagomys 2009. It would be interesting for White to opt for 10.g3 cxd4 11. CiJxd4 CiJxd4 12 .�xd4 �cS 13.CiJe2 �xd4 14.�xd4 �b7 15.�xb6 CiJxb6 16.CiJd4 We7 17.�h3 g6 18.�fl CiJc4 19.b3 CiJ aS 2 0 . Wd2 CiJc6 2 l . We3 CiJxd4 2 2 .Wxd4 �c6 and his posi­ tion is passive but very solid in this endgame. 23 .�e2 hS 24.Ei:hfl �d7 25.l"i:f3 l"i:ac8 26.l"i:c1 Ei:hg8 ! This is an important manoeuvre. Black is maybe threatening gS, maybe not, but White has to con­ sider this possibility. 27.h4. I don't think White can breach Black's defences after this move, Nepomniachtchi - Grachev, Mos­ cow 2 0 1 0 .

10 ... b4! ? I was able to demonstrate this idea back in the year 2009. Black 326

opens the b-file with tempo. H e weakens the a6-pawn in the pro­ cess, but his dynamic resources compensate completely for this. Despite the fact that Kasparov himself failed to hold the position after 10 . . . c4, Black cannot equal­ ize by reducing the tension in the centre. 10 . . . c4 1l.g4. White must play aggressively, otherwise Black will continue with his queenside offensive. ll . . . hS 12 .gxh5 Ei:xhS 13. CiJg3 Ei:h8 14.f5 exfS 15.CiJxf5

1s . . . cuf6 ! 16.cug3 cug4 17.�f4 �e6 18 .c3 (White failed to achieve anything in the line: 18.�g2 0-0-0 19 .c3 CiJe7 20 .h3 cuh6 2 l . CiJg5 �d7 2 2 .0-0 f6 23.exf6 gxf6 24.CiJf3 CiJg6 with the better prospects for Black, Kurnosov - Looshnikov, Satka 2008.) 18 . . . �e7 19.CiJg5 0-0-0 (19 . . . CiJa5 ! ?) 2 0 .CiJxe6 fxe6 2 l .�e2 CiJgxeS ! ? 2 2 .�e3 (Black obtains some compensation after 2 2 .�xe5 CiJxeS 23.dxe5 �cS since White's king will remain stranded in the centre for a long time. Nev­ ertheless, White should have cho­ sen this very line, and his extra piece might then have been the decisive factor in the ensuing bat­ tle. 23 . . . �c7! ?) 2 2 . . . CiJd7 23 .�xe6

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)1jc3 ti:Jj6 4.e5 ti:Jfd7 5f4 c5 6. ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 7. .ie3 a6 .ih4 24.\Wg4 g5 25 . .id2 Ei:de8 26. 0-0-0 ti:Ja5 and Black seized the initiative and triumphed in the subsequent struggle, Kasparov Radjabov, Linares 2 003.

ll.axb4

ll . . JWxb4 This is the point.

12.c3 Some practical tests are re­ quired of the endgame arising af­ ter 12.\Wxb4 ti:Jxb4 13.Wd2 and now Black has plenty of possibili­ ties on almost every move. 13 . . . c4 (13 . . . ti:Jb6 ! ? ; 13 . . . ti:Jc6 ! ?) 14.g4 h5 (14 . . . ti:Jb6 ! ? ) 15.gxh5 Ei:xh5 with a very complicated position.

12

•.•

�b7 (diagram)

13.ti:Jcl ! ? This i s a non-standard deci­ sion. It did not bring White any success in this game, though . . . After the introduction o f this line for Black, it attracted some popularity and several very inter­ esting games have been played from the diagram position during

the last year and a half. 13.ti:Jg3 cxd4 14.ti:Jxd4 ti:Jxd4 15 . .ixd4 ti:Jc5 16.\Wc2 ti:Jb3 17.Ei:xa6 Ei:xa6 18 . .ixa6 ti:Jxd4 19.\Wa4+ \Wc6 20 .\Wxc6+ ti:Jxc6 2 1..ixc8 g5 22 . .ib7 ti:Ja5 23 . .ia6 gxf4 24.ti:Jh5 Wd8 25 ..ib5 Ei:g8 26.ti:Jxf4 .ig7 27. 0-0 We7 2 8.Ei:a1 .ixe5 29.ti:Jxd5+ exd5 30.Ei:xa5 Ei:b8 3 1..id3 Ei:xb2 32.Ei:xd5 .ixc3 33 . .ixh7= S.Zhi­ galko - Stupak, Minsk 2 0 1 1 . 13.g3 .ie7 14 . .ig2 Ei:b8 15.Ei:a2 ti:Jb6 16.b3 ti:Jd7 17.ti:Jcl cxd4 18. ti:Jxd4 ti:Jxd4 19 . .ixd4 ti:Jc5 2 0 .b4 ti:Je4 2 1.\We3 \Wb5 22 . .if1 \Wc6 23. .id3 0-0 24.0-0 f5 25.ti:Je2 .ib7 26.Ei:fa1 Ei:a8 = N. Kosintseva Zhukova, Konya 2009. 13.dxc5 ti:Jxc5 14.ti:Jed4 .ie7 15. .ie2 0-0 16.0-0 a5 17.b4 ti:Jxd4 18.ti:Jxd4 ti:Je4 19.\Wc2 axb4 2 0 . cxb4 .id7 2 1 .b5 �fc8 2 2 .\Wb2 .ic5 with the better game for Black, Li - Ding, Xinghua 2010.

13 .ie7 14 .id3 c4 15 . .ibl :Sb8 16.:Sa2 tlJb4 17.:Sal ti:Jc6 18.:Sa2 and a draw was agreed, • • •

•

Karjakin - Vitiugov, Mansiysk 2009.

Khanty­

327

Chapter 39

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ltk3 �f6 4.e5 �fd7 5.f4 c5 6.�f3 �c6 7..ie3 cxd4

for total simplification with 9 ... 4Jxd4 10.1xd4 hd4 ll.�xd4 �b6.

Black reduces the tension in the centre and plans to exchange one or two pieces on d4 later and then advance his queenside pawns. It is important to under­ stand that this plan has its posi­ tional j ustification (the exchange of the "French" bishop from the a6-square) as well as some pro­ phylactic importance (after White's queenside castling, the possibility of Black playing b4-b3 and a4-a3 would distract the op­ ponent from his kingside attack). Black sometimes succeeds in or­ ganizing an attack on the queen­ side, but this is much more often a side effect than the object of the entire plan.

10.0-0-0 If White does not wish to study theory, he has an interesting alternative here, one which should not be underestimated : 10.g3 ! ?

8.ll'lxd4 i.c5 9.'\�!fd2 0 - 0 Black's alternative here is to go 328

Black should react to i t i n one

5f4 c5 6. 11Jj3 11J c6 7. ile3 cd 8. 11Jxd4 ilcS 9. Wff d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 of two natural ways, but he must play precisely in either case : 1) 10 . . . a6 11.ilg2 11Jxd4 12 .ilxd4 ilxd4 ! This is an important mo­ ment! (The careless line : 12 . . . b5 13.11Je2 ! leads to some problems for Black. Now he must quickly construct the standard defensive set-up with a knight on e4: 13 . . . Wffc 7 14.a3 ilb7 15. 0-0 ilxd4+ 16.11Jxd4 11Jc5 and Black's position is slightly inferior but solid enough, Macieja - Brynell, Istan­ bul 2 0 03. I should like to mention that it is rather dubious for him to opt for a move which has been played in several games - 13 . . . a5? ! , because o f 14.a3 and now Black will be unable to advance with b5-b4, while White will soon play b2-b4 himself and then the weak pawn on b5 will make Black's defence rather diffi­ cult.) 13.Wffxd4 b5, or 13 . . . 11Jb8 ! ? with a n approximately equal posi­ tion. 2) 10 . . . Wff e 7 11 .ilg2 (The move 11.0-0-0 was tested in the game Kasparov - Shirov, Astana 2 0 0 1 . After 1 1 . . .11Jb6 12 .11Jb3, White gained an edge. However, if Black chooses the plan with a7a6, either immediately, or after the preliminary exchange of any of his pieces on d4, then the inclusion of the moves g3 and Wffe 7 will be in his favour.) 11 . . . l:iJb6 1 2 .b3 l2lxd4 13.ilxd4 ilxd4 14.Wffx d4 Wff a3 ! ?� Black's knight on b6 is misplaced, but the same can be said for White's pieces too.

10

. . .

a6

Here is a new and promising idea instead of the routine basic plan : 10 . . . ilxd4 11.ilxd4 Wff a5 ! ? 1 2 . � b 1 (The game ended in a spec­ tacular draw after 12 .h4 l"lb8 13 .l"lh3 b5 14.f5 l2lxd4 15.f6 b4 16. WigS l2lf5 17.ild3 h6 18.ilxf5 hxg5 19.hxg5 bxc3 2 0 .ilh7+ �h8 2 1 . ilg6+ � g 8 2 2 .ilh7+ � h 8 23 .ild3+ �g8 24.ilh7+ , draw, Shirov Grachev, Lublin 2011.) 12 . . . l"lb8

13.h4 (13.ile3 b5 14.l2le2 b4 15.l2ld4 l2lxd4 16.Wffxd4 ila6 17.f5 l"lfc8 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.Wffg4 l2lf8 2 0 . h 4 l"lc6 21.h5 l"lbc8 2 2 .ilh6 l"l8c7 23.ild2 l"lxc2 24.Wffxb4 Wffxb4 25. ilxb4 ilxfl 26. l"lhxfl l2ld7 2 7.ild6 l"lc8 28.l"lcl l"lxcl + 29 .l"lxcl l"lxc1 + 3 0 . �xcl= and after some quite logical play from both players, 329

Chapter 39 there arose an endgame in which Black managed to hold the bal­ ance convincingly, Svidler - Zv­ jaginsev, Moscow 2010.) 13 . . . b5 14 .l2le2 b4 15.l2lc1 l2lxd4 ! Black played very carefully, which should be admired (White's idea was 15 . . . �a6 16.l2lb3 ®'a4 17.f5t with initiative.). 16.®'xd4 l2lc5 17. h5 �d7 18.h6 g6 19.l2lb3 l2lxb3 2 0 . axb3 mcB 21.f5 ®'c5 2 2 .\WxcS 2:xc5 and in the resulting end­ game Black had no problems achieving a draw, Naiditsch Grachev, Sibenik 2 0 1 1 . I should like t o mention that 1 1 . . .\WaS ! ? is part of a new plan. Previously Black connected the preliminary exchange with the standard move 11 . . . a6. He pre­ vented the plan which we analyze in our next chapter - 10 . . . a6 11. l2lb3 - but as so often happens, simpler was better.

As a result White obtains a very good extra possibility: 1 2 .�f2 (or 12 .�e3) 12 . . . b5 13.l2le2 b4 14. l2ld4 l2lxd4 15.hd4 a5 16.g4 ®'c7! (the straightforward reaction 16 . . . �a6 17.�g2 ®'c7 18.Wb1 fi:fc8 19. fi:cl fi:ab8 20.f5± provided White with a better position and an easy 330

plan for its further improvement, Anand - Gurevich, Bastia 2002 ; Froljanov recommends the line: 16 .. .f6 ! ? 17.exf6 l2lxf6 18.g5 l2le4 19.®'e3 a4 2 0.�d3 b3, with coun­ terplay for Black. It seems to me, however, that White's prospects should be preferable owing to his powerful dark-squared bishop.) 17.Wb1 ! ? (after 17.�b5, Black has the resource 17. . . l2lc5 ! 18.®'e3 �a6 ! 19.hc5 2:fc8 2 0 .�xa6 2:xa6=, whereas the straightforward reac­ tion 17 . . . �a6 ? ! 18 .�xd7! ®'xd7 19. 2:hg1 2:fc8 20.f5 left Black without any counterplay in the resulting position with bishops of opposite colour, and so White retained an advantage, Svidler - Iljushin, Russia 2002) 17 .. .f6 (Black is try­ ing to deviate from the Anand Gurevich game.) 18.exf6 l2lxf6 19. �e5 ®'a7 2 0 .�d3± and White maintains a slight but stable edge. It is possible but, I think, not the best for Black, to continue with 10 . . . l2lxd4 11.�xd4 a6 with similar ideas to 10 . . . �xd4 and 11 . . . a6.

12 .®'e3 ! This is the simplest. (Here, as well as the standard moves 12 .®'f2 and 1 2 . Wb1, White

5j4 cS 6 JiJj3 CiJ c6 7. �e3 cd 8.CiJxd4 �cS 9. V!ff d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 has at his disposal a very promis­ ing variation: 12.�xc5 CiJxc5 13. l?!ffd 4, Nijboer - Gurevich, Amster­ dam 2 0 0 2 . The game continued : 13 . . . b6 14.�b1 �b7 15.�d3 l"lc8 16.l"lhe1 l?!ff c7 17.g4 f6 18.f5 CiJxd3 19.cxd3 and White had the edge, so Black had to fight for the draw.) 12 . . . l?!ffc 7 (12 . . . l?!ffe7 13 .�d3 �xd4 (13 . . . b5 14.l?!ffh 3 ! This possibility became possible thanks to the de­ ployment of the queen on e3. 14 . . . g 6 15.CiJe2t) 14.l?!ffxd4 l?!ffc5 15.CiJe2 b5) 13 .�d3 b5. White is better af­ ter this move. (However, even af­ ter 13 . . . �xd4 14.l?!ffxd4 b5t the po­ sition arising is slightly inferior for Black, and we shall cover it in the move order ll.l?!fff2 CiJxd4 1 2 . �xd4 l?!ff c 7 etc.) 14.l?!ffh 3 g6 ( 1 4 . . . h 6 15.CiJe2) 15.CiJe2 (It i s also good, but less dangerous for Black, for White to play 15.l?!ffe3 b4 16.CiJe2 a5 17.h4t, or 15 ... �xd4 16.l?!ffxd4 V!ff c5 17.CiJe2t with a slight edge. The subsequent pawn-advance h2 -h4-h5 would be rather un­ pleasant for Black, even in the endgame.) 15 . . . b4 16.l?!ffe 3t (it also looks attractive for White to opt for 16.l?!ffh 6).

After 10 ... a6 we shall deal with the moves a) ll.�f2 and b)

ll.h4. Positions of a quite different character arise after 1l. CiJb3 which we shall consider later. White cannot hurt his oppo­ nent much with 1l.CiJce2 l?!ffe 7 1 2 . CiJb3 �xe3 13.l?!ffx e3 f6 14.exf6 CiJxf6 15.h3 a5, and Black has a good game, Svidler - Morozevich, Moscow 2 005. The move 1l.�b1 seems to be more precise, but is less aggres­ sive.

We shall show you some of the possible continuations for Black: One of the fine points of 1 l . �b1 is that the plan for Black begin­ ning with 11.. .hd4?! seems rath­ er dubious: 12 .hd4 b5 13.�f2 b4 14.CiJa4 a5 15.�b5 l?!ffc 7 16.c4 ! bxc3 17.l?!ffxc3 �b7, Adla - Gomez Bail­ lo, Buenos Aires 1990, 18.l"lc1 mc8 19.l?!ff d 3 l?!ffd 8 2 0.a3± and White has a clear advantage; it is possible for Black to opt for 11. . .l?!ffc 7 12.l?!fff2 (12. CiJb3 �e7) 12 . . . CiJxd4 13.hd4 b5 14.�d3 �xd4 15.l?!ffxd4 l"lb8, transposing to a game quoted in the variation with 1l.l?!fff2 , - Smeets - Stellwa331

Chapter 39 gen, in which Black managed to equalize; a good continuation is 11.. .1!tfe7 12 .h4 (12 .tt:lb3 ! ?). Here, in com­ parison with the ll.h4 variation Black's queen is a bit misplaced on e7, but nevertheless it is ac­ ceptable for him to continue with 12 .. .f6 , or 12 . . . tt:lxd4 13.hd4 bS 14.Elh3 �b7, analogously to the variation with 11 .1!tff2 ; l l . . .tt:lxd4 12 .�xd4 b S 13 .1!tfe3 1!tfb6 ! ? 14.�xc5 tt:lxcS 15.�d3 b4 16.tt:le2 aS 17.tt:ld4 �a6 (Black can also consider the attractive line: 17 . . . a4 18.f5 exfS 19.tt:lxf5 hfS 2 0 .hf5 Elfd8? and he obtains good counterplay, Wojciechowski Scibior, Szklarska Poreba 2 0 07.) 18.f5 tt:lxd3 (or 18 . . . hd3 19.cxd3 , with an edge for White.) 19.f6 ! ? Timoshenko - Korchnoi, Panormo 2001. Now, instead of accepting the pawn-sacrifice, Black could have tried to fight for the initiative by sacrificing mate­ rial himself with 19 . . . b3 ! ? 2 0 . axb3 gxf6 21 .cxd3 a4 2 2 .exf6 �h8 23.bxa4 Eltb8 24.Eld2 eS?

a) 11.1!tff2

332

Here, Black is faced with a choice as to which piece to use to capture on d4. We shall analyze both possibilities : al) ll .. .tl:lxd4,

a2) ll . . . hd4.

al) ll . . AJxd4 12 .hd4 Now Black must again make up his mind whether to support his bishop, or continue with the exchanges. We shall deal with both lines in order to clarify for you the finer points of this posi­ tion.

12 . . .1!tfe7 The idea of this move is not to allow 1!tff2 -h4, as was played in the game Kramnik - Radjabov. It is also possible for Black to opt for the routine and rather pas­ sive move 12 . . . b6 ! ? The seemingly attractive and most popular move 12 . . . 1!tfc7 does not solve his problems either. 13.�d3 hd4. Black is forced to entice the enemy queen to the d4square. (After 13 . . . b5, White has the standard manoeuvre 14.1!tfh4 ! h6 15.tt:le2. It is interesting that

6JiJ.f3 tt:Jc6 7. �e3 cd 8. tt:Jxd4 �c5 9. V'ff d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. V'if2 Kramnik evaluates this position as "White is clearly better.", while the computer program "Houdini" considers it to be equal. We be­ lieve that artificial intelligence is still not superior to that of hu­ mans in the aspect of evaluating positions . . . After 15 .. .f6 ? ! 16.V'ffg 4 �xd4 17. tt:Jxd4 tt:Jc5 18.V'ffg 6 tt:Jxd3+ 19 J'1xd3 V'ff c4 2 0 J''1 h d1, there can­ not be any doubt that White has a great advantage, Kramnik - Rad­ jabov, Linares 2003.) 14.V'ffx d4

and now: 14 . . . V'ffc 5 15.tt:Je2 b5 16.Wb1 ! White can also play the move 16.1"\he1 and transpose to varia­ tions with 14 . . . b5, but the position now arising is one of the most im­ portant in this variation and can be reached via different move or­ ders. In fact, Black can reach it by force, if he so wishes, but this is less favourable for him. 16 . . . b4 17.1"\c1 f6. This is probably Black's most resilient defence. (He has also tried 17 . . . V'ffxd4 18.tt:Jxd4 tt:Jc5 19.1"\hd1 tt:Ja4 - otherwise c2-c3 2 0 .1"1e1 �d7 2 1.1"\e3, planning f4f5. White has a slight but stable advantage, Khalifman - Gurev­ ich, Germany 2002.) 18.exf6

V'ffxd4 19.tt:Jxd4 1"1xf6 2 0.1"\he1 tt:Jc5 2 1 .g3 a5 2 2 . 1"\e3 �a6 23.ha6. This exchange is playable, al­ though not necessary. After White's simple response 23.1"\ce1 he is obviously better. 23 . . . 1"\xa6 24.c3 (His previous move would have been perfectly justified if fol­ lowed by 24.c4, when Black would be faced with a rather difficult de­ fence.) 24 . . . tt:Je4 25.cxb4 axb4 26.1"\e2 g5 and Black managed to hold the balance in the game In­ arkiev - Rychagov, Moscow 2 0 07; it is more or less the same after 14 . . . b5 15.1"\he1 (We must mention that the move 15.Wb1 transposes to a position which is advanta­ geous for White from the game Khalifman - Gurevich, which we have already analyzed above, aris­ ing after 15 . . . V'ffc 5. However, Black has an alternative plan of devel­ opment: 15 . . . 1"\bS 16.tt:Je2 b4 17. V'ffe 3 tt:Jc5 18.h4 �d7 19.h5 a5 2 0 . h6 g 6 2 1.lt:Jd4 a 4 2 2 .V'ffg 3 a 3 2 3 . V'ffg 5 V'ff d 8 24.Wxd8 1"1fxd8 25.b3 1"1b6 2 6.Wc1 �c8 27.Wd2, draw, Smeets - Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2 005. It would not work for White to play 15.tt:Je4? ! dxe4 16.Wxe4 g6 17.Wxa8 �b7 18.V'ff a7 tt:Jc5 19.b4 tt:Ja4 20 .1"\he1 1"\a8 21. Wd4 1"\d8 2 2 .Wa1 tt:Jc3 23 .1"\d2 a5 and Black has a dangerous initia­ tive. He can also draw easily with the simple move 23 . . . �d5 if he so wishes.) 15 . . . Wc5 16.tt:Je2 b4 (Here there is a possible improvement in the shape of the prophylactic move 16 . . . 1"\eS ! ? and after 17.g4 b4 18.V'ffx c5 tt:Jxc5 19.tt:Jd4 a5 2 0.f5 333

Chapter 39 �a6 2 U!e3 a4, Black obtains sufficient counterplay, while he should counter 17.�bl with 17 . . . �b7, but not 1 7. . . b4? ! 18Jkl and the inclusion of the moves l'l:hel , 2: e8 is not in Black's favour. I n fact, his position i s bound t o re­ main worse, no matter what . . . )

response : 1S.l2Je4 ! f6 16.exf6 lLlxf6 17.lLlgS± with an obvious advan­ tage, Grischuk - Lorenz, Mainz 2 00S.

14)i:le2 !

17.fS (Black has sufficient re­ sources against the simple plan: 17jWxcS lLlxcS 18.�d2 aS 19.l2Jd4 �a6 2 0 .2:al 2:fc8 2 l .a3, Szelag Depyl, Cappelle la Grande 2001. Black could have equalized here with 2 1 . . .2:cb8 . His position is sat­ isfactory too after 20 . . . 2:tb8 2l.fS 2:b6 2 2 .fxe6 fxe6 23.2:e3 a4 24. 2:h3 g6 2S.l'l:e3 �c4= ) 17 . . .'®xd4 18.lLlxd4 2:e8 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.2:e3 lLlcS, Perpinya Rofes - Roj as Keirn, Sabadell 2009. After 2 1 . 2:h3, provoking a weakening of Black's kingside, White preserves some advantage. Black's position is quite defensible, though . . .

This is more precise than 14.�bl hd4 (the move 14 . . . b4 transposes to the game Karjakin - Iljushin, Dagomys 2008, which we quote below) 1S.\Wxd4 b4 ! ? , which we shall analyze later - see 11 . . . \We7! ?).

14 . . . b4

13.i.d3 (diagram)

13 . . . b5 We should like to highlight an important detail : if 13 . . .�xd4 14.1�hd4 bS (14 . . . \WcS 1S.lLle2 - see 12 . . . \Wc7) White has a very strong 334

15.�bl! It would be less convincing for White to choose 1S.\We3 ! ? aS 16.\Wh3 (he has a good alternative here - 16.�bS ! ) 16 . . . g6 17.'�'h6 �a6 18.h4 b3 19.cxb3 , Kulaots -

6. li'Jf3 li'J c6 7. �e3 cd 8. li'Jxd4 �c5 9. Wld2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. Wlf2 Brynell, Sweden 2006. In this po­ sition Black could have obtained sufficient counter-chances with the line : 19 . . . hd4 20.li'Jxd4 hd3 2 l . l"lxd3 li'JcS, for example: 2 2 . l"le3 a4 23.h5 axb3 24.a3 (or 24.l"leh3 bxa2 25.%lfxh7+ Wxh7 26.hxg6+ with a draw by a perpetual check) 24 . . . l"lxa3 25.bxa3 li'Je4 and the complications ended in a draw.

15 . . . a5 16 ..ib5

This is the point. After ex­ changes, White wants to obtain a superior position with a knight on d4 against his opponent's light­ squared bishop. If Black avoids that with 16 hd4 17)t)xd4 ll:lb8 18.f5± then he ended up in a clearly worse position in the game, Karjakin - Iljushin, Dago­ mys 2008. • ..

complicated position arises after 12 .�d3 f6 13.exf6 ll:lxf6 14.h3 �d6 lS.l"lhfl �d7 16.l"ldel li'Jb4 17.%lfd2 li'Jxd3+ 18.cxd3 bSoo Jakovenko Morozevich, Moscow 2 007. If 14. :§bel, as played in the rapid-chess game Karjakin - Morozevich, Tomsk 2006, Black overlooked the possibility of gaining an edge by means of the tactic 14 . . . li'Jg4 15.li'Jxc6 %lff6 ! ) .

Now Black i s forced t o ex­ change :

12 ll:lxd4 13.�xd4 b5 14. .id3 hd4 15.'1Wxd4 • • •

We have mentioned this posi­ tion in our notes to move 14 in the variation with ll...li'Jxd4 12.hd4 %lfe7 13.�d3 bS (14.\t>bl hd4 15.%lfxd4).

In view of all the variations we havejust analyzed, it seems to me that Black's best move order for the ltl c6xd4 plan is: ll . . .'�e7! ? 12.Wb1 This is already a minute achievement for White. (A very 335

Chapter 39 In fact, the point of this move order for Black is to obtain this position and to play here the move 15 . . . b4 ! ? I t looks risky, but i t cannot be refuted directly. After 1S .. .'®cS there arises a position which is disadvanta­ geous for Black and which we an­ alyzed using the move order 11. . . 'Llxd4 12 .ixd4 1l!ic7. Black has also tried 1S . . . ib7 16J''l h e1 but now he should avoid 16 . . . b4, which led to an inferior position for Black after 17.'Lle2 aS 18.1lffe 3 'LlcS 19.'Lld4 'Lle4 2 0.ixe4 dxe4, Dolmatov Korchnoi, Las Vegas 1999 and now, according to Korchnoi's rec­ ommendation, 2 l . 'LlbS idS 2 2 . 'Ll d 6 fS 23 .g4±. White's dominant knight provides him with an over­ whelming advantage. Instead, af­ ter 16 . . . 1lficS 17.'Lle2 b4 18.fS 1l!ixd4 19.'Llxd4 E\ae8 2 0 .g4 E\e7 2 1.E\e2 exfS 2 2 .e6 'LlcS 23.gxfS fxe6 24. fxe6 g6 2S.E1e3 E1f4 2 6.ie2 Wg7= Black equalizes, Hillarp Persson - Brynell, Lund 2 0 1 0 .

16.tl:le4 a5

336

17.lt:ld6 (White cannot hurt his opponent with the line: 17. 'LlgS h6 18.h4 ia6 19.'Llf3 'LlcS, with the plan of b4-b3 . An inter­ esting option for White here is 17.h4 ! ? ia6 18.'LlgS ixd3 19.1lfixd3 fS 20.exf6 gxf6 2 1 .'Llf3 'LlcS 2 2 . Vffd 4, AI Sayed - Roghani, Dubai 2003. Now Black could have cre­ ated good counterplay with the pawn-sacrifice : 2 2 . . . a4 ! ) 17 ia6 18.f5 ! ? This move leads to sim­ plification, but if White allows f7f6 then the future of his active knight on the d6-square might become highly questionable. It is difficult to see how White can im­ prove his position in any other way. 1 8 . . . .ixd3 19.l:�xd3 f6 • . .

2 0 .fxe6 exe6 2 1.exd5 exd5 22.l'�xd5 lt:lxe5. White's advan­ tage is only minimal but Black must play very accurately, Zhang Pengxiang - Lou Yiping, Hefei 2010.

Having examined the finer points of this line, which in any case sometimes leads to an infe­ rior endgame for Black, the ques­ tion arises as to whether it is re­ ally worthwhile for him to com­ plicate matters so much ?! The rather "primitive " line 12 . . . hd4 13. 1lffxd4 bS 14. id3 Vff b 6 15. 'Ll e2 E1b8, Edouard - Berend, Differ­ dange 20 0 8, does not seem infe­ rior for Black to the main varia­ tion of the 'Ll c6xd4 plan. This all requires further practical tests, though.

6.CiJj3 t2J c6 7. ie3 cd 8. t2Jxd4 ic5 9. V!Jd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11. V!1j2 a2) ll

. . .

.ixd4

This non-standard capture enables Black to easily advance his queenside pawns and develop his light-squared bishop to the a6-square without any problems.

12 ..ixd4 b5 13 ..ie3 b4 White has a slight edge after 13 . . . V!fa5 14. �b1 ib7 15.t2le4;!; Of course, it is also possible for Black to play patiently with 13 . . . ib7, for example: 14.id3 tt:Jb4 15.id4 Ei:c8 16.�bl V!1e7 17.Ei:he1 t2lc5 1 8 .hc5 V!1xc5 19.V!1xc5 Ei:xc5 2 0 .ifH with a slightly better end­ game for White. After some forty more moves Black equalized com­ pletely in the game Khalifman Iljushin, Sochi 2005.

14.�a4 White's knight is very well placed here at the edge of the board. In contrast, he does not achieve much with 14.t2le2 aS 15. t2ld4 tt:Jxd4 16.hd4 ia6 17.f5 (or 17.�b1 V!fc7 18 .h4 Ei:fc8 19.h5 t2lc5 2 0 .hc5 V!1xc5 21.V!ixc5 Ei:xc5= with an equal rook and pawn end­ ing, Shirov - Radjabov, Leon 2 0 04) 17 . . . exf5 (it is good for Black to play here 17 . . . V!fc7 ! ) 18. V!1xf5 V!1e7 19.g4 hf1 2 0 .Ei:hxf1 l"lfc8 2 1.l"lf2 t2lf8 2 2 .ie3 V!1b7 23. V!1f3 l"lc4 24.l"lxd5 l"lxg4 25.b3, Kar­ jakin - Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 05. Black eventually lost this game, but according to Karjakin's recommendation, the move 25 . . . l"lg6 would have led to a very com­ plicated position.

14

. . •

a5 15.h4

After 15.g4 ia6, the game transposes to Fedorov - Hassan, Abu Dhabi 2006, which we shall analyze below.

15

. . •

.ia6

The pawn structure seems very good for Black, but unfortu337

Chapter 39 nately for him White's knight on a4 completely paralyses Black's queenside counterplay, so he will have to resort to the undermining move f7-f6 in the majority of cas­ es. However, any opening of the position will be in White's favour, since he has an unopposed bishop.

16.h5 If Black avoids playing f7-f6, his position can become very dan­ gerous; this is best illustrated by the following game : 16.g4 .bfl (he would not change much with 16 . . . Wb8 17.h5 ! ) 17J''1hxfl Wb8? ! (Fedorov recommends here 1 7. . . f6 ! 18.exf6 Wxf6 19 .h5 Elac8 2 0 . �bl+. Predoevic analyzes : 18.ct:Jc5 We7 19.f5 exf5 2 0 .gxf5 ct:Jdxe5 2 1 . ct:J e 6 ct:Jg4 2 2 .Wg3 ct:Jxe3 23.Wxe3 . I believe that after 23 . . . ct:Jd8 24. Elxd5 ct:Jxe6 25.fxe6 Elfd8, Black can hold the balance.) 18.h5 Elc8 19.h6 g6 2 0 . �b1 Wb5 2 1 .b3 Elc7 2 2 .ct:Jb6 ct:Jxb6 23 .�xb6 Elb7 24. �c5 ct:Je7 25.f5 ! exf5 26.Wd4+ ­ with a winning position for White, Fedorov - Hassan, Abu Dhabi 2006.

Black begins the immediate preparation of the undermining move f7-f6. We must take a look at his al­ ternatives too : after 16 . . . We7 17.h6 g6 18.g4 f6 19 ..ba6 Elxa6 2 0 .�c5 ct:Jxc5 2 1 . ct:Jxc5 Ela7 2 2 .exf6 Wxf6 23.Elhf1 Elaf7 24.We2, in the game Mueller - Buhmann, Germany 2007, White ended up with a comforta­ ble advantage ; Black tried an interesting de­ fensive line in the following game : 16 . . . Wc7 17.h6 g6 18.�b1 Elfc8 19. Elcl ct:Jcb8 ! ? 2 0 .b3 (20 .g4) 20 . . . �xf1 2 1 .Elhxf1 Ela6 2 2 .g4 Elc6 23. �d4 (White can opt here for 23. f5 ! ?) 23 ... Wd8 24.f5 We7 25.Wf4 ct:Ja6 26.Elf2 ct:Jc7 27.Elcf1 ct:Jb5 2 8. �b2 ct:Ja3 + ! ? and in the position arising, White's pressure has been reduced to his control of the f-file, which is insufficient for a mean­ ingful advantage, Luther Drozdovskij , Neustadt an der Weinstrasse 2009.

17J�hxfl It is also possible for White to play 17.h6, which leads to a trans­ position of moves.

17 f6 18.h6 g6 ct:Jxf6 2 0 .We2 lt'le4 •••

16 338

• . •

.hfl

19.exf6

(diagram) This is an important position for the evaluation of the plan with �xd4. It looks a bit worse for Black, since his king is not as safe as his opponent's and White's threat of g2-g4 and f4-f5 might break up his pawn structure. It looks as though White has played

6. li'Jj3 li'J c6 7. fle3 cd 8. li'Jxd4 flc5 9. Wd2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.h4

all the best moves and deserves an edge from the opening. In the two games that have been played from this position, Black has missed at some point the correct path to equality.

21.'l;Vd3 After 21.Wb5, in the game Cheparinov - Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee 2006, Black immediately made a mistake. He should have continued with 2 1 . . .'l;Vc7 2 2 .g4 !'labS 23 .Wa6 WeB, holding the balance in the endgame.

example: 24.flb6 (after 24.fxg5 l"lxfl 25.l"lxfl li'Je5 26.Wdl li'Jc4 27.flcl Wc6� Black has nothing to complain about.) 24 . . . 'l;Vb7 25. fxg5 (Black's position is quite ac­ ceptable after 25.f5 li'Je5 2 6.\Wd4 li'Jc4 27.l"lfel e5 28 .Wxd5+ 1Wxd5 29.l"lxd5 li'Jf6.) 25 . . . li'Je5 26.Wd4 l"lxfl 27.l"lxfl li'Jc4 2 8. ci>al li'Jcd2 (but not 2 8 ... e5? 29.\Wd3 Wc6 30. flc5) 29 .We5 li'Jxfl 30.Wxe6+ ci>f8 31.fld4 l"lc7 32 .We5 l"lxc2 33.flc5+ li'Jxc5 34.Wh8+ ci>e7 35.Wxh7+ ci>d6 36.Wxc2 li'Je4 and White manages to draw, thanks to his threats against the enemy king. We shall continue this forcing line to the very end, just out of curios­ ity: 37.g6 Wb5 38.g7 li'Je3 39 .\Wcl Wd3 40. g8\W li'Jc2 + 41.Wxc2 Wxc2 42.Wf8 + ci>e6 43.Wfl Wxa4 44.h7 b3 45.a3 ( 45.\Wbl li'Jd2 46.Wf5+ ci>d6 47.a3 Wd4=) 45 . . . Wd4 46. Whl Wh8 47.\Wh6+ li'Jf6 48 .g5 Wxh7 49.Wxf6+ Wd7 with a draw.

21. . . 'l;Vc7 22.g4 �ac8 23. @bl, N. Kosintseva - Brynell, Wijk aan Zee 2007.

b) ll.h4

In this position Black has a powerful resource in 23 . . . g5! , for

After ll . . . hd4 12 .hd4 b5,

ll . . . c!ilxd4

339

Chapter 39 White has generally responded in one of the following ways :

13J:1h3 13J'l:h3 - This move seem less convincing against Black's chosen plan. 13 . . . b4 14.ct:Ja4 (14.ct'le2 aS) 14 . . . aS etc. After 13.hS, the simplest road for Black to equality is transpose favourably to the ll.h4 ct:Jxd4 vari­ ation, by playing 13 . . . b4 14.ct:Ja4 �aS 1S.b3 ct:Jxd4 16.�xd4 i.b7. Black should react similarly to 13.�b1 b4 14.ct:la4 �as 1S.b3 ct:lxd4 16.�xd4 i.b7. White has also tried the moves 13.i.g1 and 13 .i.f2 , while the na­ tural move 13 .i.e3, strangely enough, has not been sufficiently tested. Nevertheless, it would be quite interesting to see whether White can continue with 13.i.e3 b4 (13 . . . �aS 14.�b1 b4 1S.ct'le2 ct:JcS 16.�eU with an edge for White. ) 14.ct:Ja4 aS 1S.�f2 , trans­ posing to the variation with 11. �f2 i.xd4, in which Black must still play very precisely to fight for equality. We shall not examine this in detail and instead we shall try to equalize for Black using the tried and tested classical recipes.

12.hd4 b5 340

The alternatives for White would not achieve much : The move 13 .hS is not so effec­ tive and only loses time: 13 . . . b4 14.ct:Ja4 (14.ct:Je2 aS 1S.�e3 �c7 16.�b1 i.a6 17.hcS ct:JxcS 18.ct'lg3 l"1fc8 19.l"1c1 a4 2 0 .ha6 l"1xa6 2 1 . l"1hd1 a 3 2 2 .b3 l"1c6 and Black ob­ tained the better position in the game Topalov - Morozevich, Sa­ rajevo 1999. He should not fear 1S.hcS ct:JxcS 16.�e3 �b6 17.fS a4 18.�b1 b3 19.cxb3 axb3 2 0 .a3 exfS 2 l . l"1xdS, Smirin - Lputian, Rostov-on-Don 1993, because af­ ter 2 1 . . .ct'la4 Black has a good game. The surprising move 18 . . . �c7 ! ? may even help him seize the initiative ; if 19.f6 ct:Je4.) 14 . . . hd4 1S.�xd4

6JiJ.f3 lLl c6 7. .ie3 cd 8. lLlxd4 .icS 9. Wf d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.h4 1S . . . aS (It is also possible for Black to play 1S . . . W/aS 16.b3 .ib7 17.fS .ic6 18.f6 gxf6 19.exf6 mh8 20 . .id3 .ixa4 21.W/f4 Elg8 2 2 .bxa4 W/xa4 23.mb1 lLlcS and White's premature attack reaches a dead end, Gallagher - Barsov, Bern 1994. ) 16 ..ibS Elb8 17 . .id3 .ib7 18.mb1 (It would not work for White to play 18.h6 g6 19.fS, Nunn - Lputian, Manila 1992 , owing t o Nunn's recommenda­ tion 19 . . . gxfS ! 2 0 . ElhS f6+ with a clear advantage for Black; if in­ stead 18.fS WigS+ 19.mb1 Elfc8 2 0 . Eldfl .ic6 2 1 .h6 .ixa4 2 2 .hxg7 exfS 23.hfS W/xfS 24.ElxfS hc2 + Black wins, Gofshtein - Glek, Baden-Baden 2001.) 18 . . . .ic6 19. lZJcS .ibS 2 0 .l2Jxd7 W/xd7 2 l.g4 Elfc8 2 2 .fS hd3 23.cxd3 b3 24.a3 Elc2 , Black's queenside attack is much more effective than White's threats, Olenin - Zvjaginsev, Togliatti 2003. It is more interesting for White to choose 13.hcS lLlxcS 14.W/d4 Wfc7 1S.a3 .id7 16.fS Elfc8 17.f6 gxf6 18.exf6 mh8, but he is unable to organize an effective attack against Black's king. 19.mb1 (Gurevich recommends as best for White : 19 . .id3 ! aS 2 0 .hh7! eS 21.W/xdS .ie6 2 2 .lLlxbS hdS 23. l2Jxc7 Elxc7 24.ElxdS mxh7 with a very sharp endgame.) 19 . . . Elab8 20 . .ie2 aS 2 l..ihS b4 2 2 .hf7 eS 23.W/e3 .ifS and Black's advantage became decisive in the game Api­ cella - Gurevich, Clichy 2 0 0 1 . The game Kamsky - Gurevich, Belgrade 1991, continued with 13.

l2Je2 aS 14.W/e3 W/c7 (Black can also try here 14 . . . W/b6 1S.mb1 b4 16.g4 .ia6 17.hcS lZJxcS 18.l2Jg3 l2Ja4 19.W/xb6 l2Jxb6 2 0 .ha6 Elxa6= with equality, Beulen Glek, Breda 1999.) 1S . .ixcS lLlxcS 16. l2Jd4 b4 17.g4 .ia6 (It would be much more energetic and consist­ ent for Black to continue with 17 . . . a 4 18.fS b3.) 18.fS and the ex­ change of the bishops provides him with equal chances: 18 . . . hf1 19.Elhxf1 l2Je4. Black develops his pieces com­ fortably after White's natural line : 13 .W/e3 W/c7 14 . .id3 b4 1S. l2Je2 aS 16. mb1 .ia6 17.Elc1 Elfc8 18 .g4 hd4 19.W/xd4 W/cS 2 0 . Elhd1= with approximate equality, Kuczynski - Luther, Germany 1992. A comparison with the 11. W/f2 variation shows that the move h2-h4 has not been at all helpful to White.

13

. . .

b4

Black's position is quite relia­ ble and this can be best illustrated by the fact that even the prelimi­ nary move 13 . . . .ib7 is quite ac­ ceptable for him. 341

Chapter 39

We shall show you several ex­ amples without going into too many details : 14.g4 b4 15.LLle2 a5 16.g5 ia6 17.h5 l"lc8 18.1t>b1 i!tfb6 19.g6, Gru­ enfeld - Gurevich, Haifa 1995 and here Gurevich points out quite justifiably that the position would remain rather unclear following 19 . . . fxg6 2 0.hxg6 hxg6oo White's game is less comforta­ ble after his alternatives : 14.h5 b4 15.LLla4 ixd4 16.i!tfxd4 i!tfa5 17.b3 ic6 18.LLlb2 l"lfc8 ! ? ( 1 8 . . . i!tfxa2 19.LLld3�) 19.f5 i!tfc7 2 0 . i!tlxb4 LLlxe5 2 1 .h6 exf5 2 2 .hxg7 id7t Tischbierek - Knaak, Ger­ many 1993; 14.a3 i!tfe7 15.h5 ic6 16.h6 g6 17.g4 b4 18.ixc5 i!tlxc5 19.axb4 i!tfxb4 2 0 .LLle2 i!tfxd2+ 2 l . lt>xd2 ib5 = and Black has no problems in this endgame, Najer - Ry­ chagov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007; 14.l"lg3 b4 15.LLla4 ixd4 16. i!tlxd4 i!tfa5 17.b3 ic6 18.LLlb2 (White should avoid 18.f5 i!tfc7 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.LLlc5 LLlxc5 2 1 . i!tfxc5 i!tfxe5 2 2 . l"le3 i!tff4+ with a n edge for Black, Berg - Ilj ushin, Yerevan 2000.) 18 ... LLlc5 19 .id3 l"lfd8 2 0 .f5 exf5 21.ixf5 LLle4 2 2 . ixe4 dxe4 23.LLlc4 l"lxd4 24.LLlxa5 342

l"lxd1 + 25.\t>xd1 l"ld8+ and the end­ game is better for Black, Du­ treeuw - Gurevich, Brussels 1995; 14.\t>b1 ixd4 15.i!tfxd4 f6 ! ? 16. exf6 i!tfxf6 17.i!tfxf6 l"lxf6 18.LLle2 l"le8 19.l"lc3 l"lf7 2 0 . l"lc7 LLlf6 21. l"lxf7 lt>xf7 2 2 .LLlg1 lt>g6 23 .id3 + lt>h6 24.\t>c1 d4. White is unable to solidify his pawn structure in this endgame and the resulting position is favourable to Black, David - Gurevich, Vlissingen 1999.

14)!Ja4 It is no improvement for White to opt for 14.LLle2 a5 15.i!tfe3 i!tfc7 16.hc5 LLlxc5 17.LLld4 a4 18.\t>b1 (The move 18.a3 ! = would have maintained the balance.) 18 . . . a3 19.b3 ia6 and Black managed to obtain a better position : 2 0 .ixa6 l"lxa6 2 1.i!tfe1 l"lb6 2 2 . c3 i!tfb7 23.l"lc1 LLle4 24.cxb4 l"lxb4 25.l"ld3 l"lc4 ! Polgar - Shirov, Prague 1999.

14 ... hd4 15.i!tfxd4 a5 You can see one of the points of the idea h4 and l"lh3 after 15 . . . i!tfa5 16.b3 ib7 17.c3 ! l"lfc8 18.1t>b2 bxc3+ 19.l"lxc3 l"lxc3 2 0 .i!tlxc3 with the better position for White,

6.tiJ.f3 li'J c6 7. j,e3 cd 8 . tiJxd4 j,c5 9. Wff d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.h4 Nijboer - Luther, Leeuwarden 199 2 .

16 . .ib5 �b8

17.c4! This i s the only way for White to create problems for Black. 17 . .bd7 j,xd7 18.li'Jc5 Ei:c8 19. Ei:d2 Wff c 7 20 .li'Jxd7 Wffxd7 and his game is much easier, Wells Glek, Vienna 1998. White does not obtain much with 17.j,d3 .

Black's only problem here is to make the right choice between several attractive possibilities : 17 . . . Wff c 7 18 .h5 j,b7 19.Ei:e3 (af­ ter 19.g4, Fogarasi - Luther, Kec­ skemet 1993, it would be good to play 19 . . . f6 ! ) 19 . . . j,c6 2 0 .li'Jc5 li'Jxc5 2 1 .Wffxc5 Ei:fc8 2 2 .f5 j,bS 23.

Wffxc7 Ei:xc7 24.f6 .bd3 25.Ei:dxd3 Ei:bc8 26.Ei:e2 gxf6 27.exf6 Ei:c4 2 8. Ei:g3 + Wf8 29.Ei:g7 Ei:f4 30.Ei:xh7 Wg8 31.Ei:g7+ Wf8, draw, Fedorov - Akopian, Moscow 2 0 0 2 ; White was unable t o create any real problems for his oppo­ nent after the straightforward line 17 . . . j,b7 18.f5 j,c6, for example: 19.Ei:g3 (or 19.li'Jc5 Ci:lxc5 2 0 .Wxc5 Wffb 6 2 1 .Wffx b6 Ei:xb6 2 2 .Ei:f3 Ei:c8 23 .fxe6 fxe6 24.Ei:f4 j,b5= and an equal ending was reached in the game Marj anovic - Antic, Suboti­ ca 2000) 19 . . . exf5 (19 . . . Wffc 7! ?) 20 ..bf5 ( 2 0 .e6 g6 2 1.exd7 j,xa4 2 2 . .bf5 .bd7=) 2 0 . . . j,xa4 2 1 . Ei:xg7 + (Black has nothing to fear after 2 1.j,xd7 .bd7 2 2 .e6 g6 23 .exd7 Wxd7 24.h5) 2 1 . . . Wxg7 2 2 .Wffg4+ mh6 23.Wfff4+ mg7= ; even after 17 . . . Ci:lb6 18. Ci:lc5 Ci:ld7, White cannot create any meaningful threats against Black's position ; 1 7. . .f6 ! ? Black i s planning to enter a complicated endgame in which both sides have weakness­ es. White's less ambitious possi­ bilities, which we have analyzed above, lead to equality for Black without any problems, so we can conclude that the entire concept with h2-h4 and Ei:h1-h3 is harm­ less. 18.exf6 Wxf6 19.Wffxf6 Ei:xf6 20.Ei:e3 Ei:xf4 21.Ei:xe6 Ci:lf6 2 2 .Ei:d6 j,g4 23.Ei:e1 j,hSoo with a rather unclear endgame, Langheinrich Shirov, Germany 2 003.

17. . . bxc3 Here the move 17 . . . li'Jb6 ! ? is worth considering. 343

Chapter 39 18.tb xc3 \Wb6 19.\Wxb6 i'!xb6 2 0 .b3 f6 21.exf6 ltlxf6

White's game is a bit easier in this ending but, objectively speak­ ing, Black's position is quite ac­ ceptable.

White's kingside has been seri­ ously weakened by the advance of his h-pawn . 27. ltlxb5 i.d7 28.ltld4, Yur­ taev - Goloshchapov, Kolkata 2000.

22.a4 ltlg4 23.i'!d4 ltlh6 24. @b2 ltlf5 The complications after 24 . . . e 5 25.fxe5 ixh3 26.gxh3 Ei:f2 + 27.@a3 ltlf5 28.Ei:xd5 ltle3 29. Ei:d8+ Ei:f8 30.Ei:d3 Ei:f3 31.Ei:xe3 Ei:xe3 32 .ic4+ lt>f8 33.ltld5 end in White's favour. Black should not play so riskily.

25.i'!dl ltld6 26.i'!f3 (diagram)

26

•.•

ltlxb5

Black could have obtained a very good position after the at­ tractive exchange of the light­ squared bishops with 26 . . . ia6, or with 26 . . . ib7, emphasizing that

344

After 28 .ixa4 29.i'!al i.e8 3 0 .i'!xa5 i.h5 3l.i'!fl i.g4, threat­ ening e6-e5, or simply 31. . . .ig6, . • .

Black's strong bishop is sufficient to ward off any danger and the most likely result of the game is a draw.

Chapter 4 0

l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lbc3 �f6 4.e5 �fd7 5.f4 c5 6.�£3 �c6 7..ie3 cxd4 8.�xd4 .ic5 9.V«d2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.�b3

plex of "unclear spots" in this var­ iation . Black must now make his choice between four different plans: a) ll . . . b6, b) ll . . . .ixe3, c) ll . . . i.b4 and d) ll . . . i.e7 and which one he should prefer is not at all easy to decide . . .

a) l l . . . b6 This is a very fashionable re­ sponse by White. He avoids the exchange of knights and his own knights often prevent the advance of Black's a and b-pawns. The positions aris­ ing are difficult to evaluate and the correct choice of a line for Black is not at all easy. The Dutch GM Friso Nijboer has contributed greatly to the development of this variation, winning several spec­ tacular games in this fashion. The move ll.lt:Jb3 has also been rec­ ommended and analyzed as the main line for White in the book "Opening for White According to Anand". I should like to point out here Black's possible ways of creating counterplay, as well as the com-

Black is striving to complete his development as quickly as possible.

12 .h4 i.b7 13.h5 gcs 14.gh3 i.b4 After 14 .. .'&e7 15.@bl gfd8 16. lt:Je2 f6 17.lt:Jed4, White obtained a slight edge in the game Nijboer Glek, Apeldoorn 2001, analyzed in the book "Opening for White According to Anand".

345

Chapter 4 0 15 . .if2 15J'l:g3 £8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 7.Wg4 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Chapter 36 l.e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3. tlJc3 tlJf6 4 . .ig5 .ib4 5.e5 h6 6 . .id2 .ixc3 7.hc3 l2le4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 7.bxc3 l2le4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

Part 9. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.l2lc3 tlJf6 4.e5 The Steinitz Variation .

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

30 0

.

Chapter 37 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.exd5 301 4 . .id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 4.e5 l2lfd7 5.l2lf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 5.l2lce2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 .

a) b1) b2)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 38 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.e5 l2lfd7 5.f4 c5

a) b)

6.dxc5 l2lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.l2lf3 l2lc6 7 ..ie3 Elb8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . .ie3 Wb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . .ie3 a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 314 . 314 . 315 . 321

Chapter 39 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.e5 tlJfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tlJf3 tlJc6 7 . .ie3 cxd4 8.tlJxd4 .ic5 9.tM2 0 - 0

a) b)

10 .g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 10. 0-0-0 hd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 10.0-0-0 l2lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 1 0. 0-0-0 a6 11.l2lce 2 ; 11.c;t>b1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 11.Wf2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 11.h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Chapter 40 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tlJc3 tlJf6 4.e5 tlJfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tlJf3 tlJc6 7 .ie3 cxd4 8.tlJxd4 .ic5 9.tM2 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 a6 11.tlJb3 •

a) b) c) d)

360

11. .. b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 11. .. he3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 11. .. .ib4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 11. .. .ie7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351