Bauer, Christian - Play the Scandinavian

Play The Scandinavian

By

Christian Bauer

Quali ty Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk

First edition 20 1 0 by Quality Chess UK Ltd

Copyright © 20 1 0 Christian Bauer

Play the Scandinavian All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior

permission of the publisher.

Paperback ISBN 978- 1 -906552-55-8 Hardcover ISBN 978- 1 -906552- 1 1 -4

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom

Phone +44 1 4 1 227 677 1 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.qualitychess .co.uk

Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena , California , US www.scbdistributors .com

Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland

Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Proofreading by Colin McNab

Edited by Andrew Greet Cover design by Vjatseslav Tsekatovski

Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrukikoja LLC

Contents Key to Symbols used & Bibliography 4 Introduction 5

Chapter 1 - Main line 8.tDe4 & 8.tDd 5 7 Chapter 2 - Main line 8.'We2 63 Chapter 3 - White 8th Move Alternatives 91 Chapter 4 - White 6th and 7th Move Alternatives 105 Chapter 5 - 4.d4tDf6 5.tDf3 Unusual options for Black 121 Chapter 6 - 4.d4tDf6 5 . .id2 139 Chapter 7 - 4.d4tDf6 5 . .ic4 167 Chapter 8 - Black delays . . . tDf6: Die Konigspringerzuriickhaltungspolitik 187 Chapter 9 - 4 . .ic4 tDf6 5.d3 197 Chapter 10 - 4.tDf3 (and 4.h3) 215 Chapter 11 - Flank Attacks 221 Chapter 12 - 3.d4 and 3.tDf3 235 Chapter 13 - 2 .tDc3 27 5 Chapter 14 - 2nd Move Sidelines 285

Variations Index 2 9 9

Key to symbols used White is slightly better Black is slightly better

± White is better + Black is better +- White has a decisive advantage -+ Black has a decisive advantage

equality Cii with compensation f! with counterplay III unclear

a weak move ?? a blunder

a good move !! an excellent move !? a move worth considering ?! a move of doubtful value # mate

Bibliography Emms: The Scandinavian, Everyman 2004 Houska : Starting Out: The Scandinavian, Everyman 2009 Wahls: Modernes Skandinavisch, Chess gate 2006

Periodicals

Chess Base Magazine Chess Informant MegaBase New In Chess Magazine New In Chess Yearbooks (especially Prie) The Week in Chess

Introduction 1.e4 d5

a b c d e f g h

Of all the possible replies to 1 .e4, the Scandinavian is the only reputable option which creates an immediate pawn clash in the centre. This means that it differs from most other openings where a variety of pawn structures can be reached. For example, the French Defence is noted for thematic positions with a rigid pawn chain (where the white phalanx d4-e5 is blocked by Black's d5-e6) but many other structures can also be reached. In contrast, in the Scandinavian, right from the start Black breaks up the pawn structure. We will see that 2.exd5 constitutes White's only worthy reply, so players using the Scandinavian can be sure of reaching their favourite scheme. This point should be underlined, since it is a unique case among 1 .e4 openings.

The Scandinavian highlights the activity of the pieces and this factor is predominant in the first phase. Indeed, the usual pawn structure - d4 for White vs. the black duo of e6 and c6 - is unlikely to evolve in the near future. As we will see throughout this work, the assessment of the position greatly depends on the circumstances in which the d4-d5 push may be achieved. Black is often slightly behind in development, a consequence of the queen's early outing, and he must therefore be especially cautious about this central thrust, as it would open the game in favour of the white forces.

The main drawback of the Scandinavian, these lost tempos by the queen which lead to Black being behind in development, is the reason why some claim this opening is dubious. It is true

6 Play the Scandinavian

that Black disobeys two major chess principles: he commits his queen early (2 . . . Wfxd5) and then he moves the same piece again (3 . . . Wfa5) .

Despite these sins, the Scandinavian should not be dismissed, as Black acquires numerous advantages from the main line introduced by 3 . . . Wfa5 . In essence, Black hankers after an improved Classical Caro-Kann ( 1 .e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3 .liJc3 dxe4 4.liJxe4 ifS) while having avoided various White divergences on move three, notably the critical Advance Variation and the Panov Attack. If Black succeeds in developing his light-squared bishop and then completes his development without harm, he will have a perfectly sound position, without any 'bad' pieces.

Another element that one should mention in favour of the Scandinavian compared to the CaroKann, in addition to avoiding the need to study sharp theoretical systems such as the Advance Variation, concerns the white c-pawn. If White chases the enemy queen from the centre with 3 .liJc3, then the c-pawn is blocked on its original square. In consequence, White has less potential activity than in the main line of the Caro-Kann, and so it is difficult to profit from any extra tempos.

In this book, after l .e4 d5 2.exd5 Wfxd5 3 .liJc3, I shall analyse only 3 . . . Wfa5 and not 3 . . . Wfd6 or any of the sidelines such as 3 . . . Wfd8 or 3 . . . Wfe5t . The latter two moves are certainly inferior, but the reader may wonder why I have studied 3 . . . Wfa5 and not 3 . . . Wfd6, which is also popular. There is no consensus on the respective value of these two queen moves. For example, Nigel Short seems convinced that 3 . . . Wfa5 is inferior due to his system (4.i.c4 and next 5 .d3) , while Eric Prie swears by 3 . . . Wfa5 . As for me, I am certain that these two moves have roughly equal merit. As 3 . . . Wfd6 appeared more recently at grandmaster level, the theory of this variation is less developed. This has pros and cons: a greater chance of innovations but also more difficulties learning what each side should avoid. Regardless, there is plenty of interesting material to consider with 3 . . . Wfa5 without adding more about other moves.

The Scandinavian has served me well for many years. I hope the reader is equally fortunate.

Christian Bauer Montpellier, France, September 20 1 0

Chapter 1

Main line 8.ttJe4 & 8.ttJd5

l .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3.�c3 �a5 4.d4 �f6 5.�f3 .irs 6 . .ic4 e6 7 . .id2 c6

A) 8 .iLle4 AI ) 8 . . . Wd8?! A2) 8 . . . We7 A3) 8 . . . Wb6 9.iLlxf6t gx:f6 B) 8 .iLld5 Wd8 9 .iLlxf6t B I ) 9 . . . Wxf6 1 O .We2! B2) 9 . . . gx:f6 B24) 10.e3 B25) 10 . .ib3 iLld7 B25 I ) 1 1. iLl h4 B252) I I .We2

8 8

1 1 1 8 27 27 36 45 49 50 5 1


l .e4 d5 2.exd5 \Wxd5 3.llJc3 \Wa5 4.d4 llJf6 5.llJO AS 6.Ac4 c6 7.Ad2 e6

a b c d e f g h

In this, the first chapter of the book, we are jumping straight in at the deep end and analysing the variation that is most likely to appear on a Scandinavian player's board nowadays.

In the above pOSItiOn White normally chooses between the related, yet quite distinct continuations of A) 8.llJe4 and B) 8.llJd5, which will be analysed in turn.

The other main option is B .\We2, which will form the subject of Chapter 2, while the remaining alternatives will be covered in Chapter 3.

Why is the idea of exchanging knights so popular for White? For one thing, the c3-knight is traditionally a poor piece in the Scandinavian, so it is logical to take the opportunity to exchange it for the more active one on f6. Furthermore, after the subsequent llJxf6t Black will have to make a difficult decision: either he compromises his pawn structure or allows his queen to be drawn out into an exposed position.

In general terms, White's position is sound and relatively easy to handle, at least for the next few moves. From Black's point of view

the major argument lies in the solidity of his formation. Without further delay, let's see how the game may develop after the first of the aforementioned knight hops.

A) 8.llJe4

After this move Black must choose between AI) 8 ••• \Wd8?! , A2) 8 • • • \Wc7 and A3) 8 • • • \Wb6.

AI) 8 • • • \Wd8?!

a b c d e f g h

By choosing this square Black is visibly hoping for 9.llJxf6t, which would transpose into line B with B .llJd5 \WdB . Unfortunately for Black, the queen is less than ideally placed on its original post, which enables White to profit from avoiding the transposition.

9.llJg3! Ag6 Safer is:

9 . . . Ag4 The bishop will have to exchange itself for the knight on f3 in the near future, but Black's position will remain solid and only a little worse.

1 0 .c3 llJbd7 1 O . . . llJh5? ! 1 1 .\Wb3 llJxg3 1 2 .hxg3 Axf3 was tried in Golod - Sergeev, Hlohovec 1 994. Here White's strongest reply would have been 1 3 .gxf3!N (The game continuation of 1 3 .\Wxb7 Axg2 14 .:!:!h2 llJd7 1 5 .:!:!xg2 was

C.hapter 1 - Main line 8 .ltJe4 & 8 .ltJdS 9

enough for a nice edge, but the text is even more promising.) A sample continuation might be 1 3 . . . Wb6?! 1 4 .i.xe6! fxe6 1 S .Wxe6t i.e7 1 6.0-0-0 with a raging attack.

I l .h3 i.xf3 1 2 .Wxf3 i.d6

a b c d e f g

We have reached a position resembling those that may arise from the Caro-Kann, as well as the "Fort Knox" variation of the French Defence ( l .e4 e6 2 .d4 dS 3 .ltJc3 dxe4 4.ltJxe4 i.d7, intending . . . i.c6) . The bishop pair confers on White a slight but riskfree advantage, although at the same time the black fortifications are hard to shake. (There is a reason why the aforementioned variation of the French Defence received that particular moniker . . . )

1 3 .ltJe2 Wc7 1 4.g4 White is not forced to act so energetically, and he may have been better off playing more patiently with 1 3 .0-0 0-0 1 4 .�fe l .

1 4 . . . ltJdS Another game continued 14 . . . 0-0 I S .gS ltJdS 1 6.0-0-0 bS 1 7.i.d3 cS 1 8 .mb l c4 1 9 .i.e4 ltJ7b6 20.h4 �aeB 2 1 .�dgl b4 with decent counterplay for Black, Bologan -lonov, Kazan 1 995 .

I S .a4 as 1 6 .gS ltJSb6 1 7.i.b3 cS I B .h4 c4 1 9 .i.c2 ltJdS 20.hS

Y2-Y2 Movsesian - Istratescu, Ohrid 200 1 . Obviously there is a lot of play in the position, but presumably White offered a draw on the basis that he lacked any real advantage.

lO.h4! This aggressive move highlights the drawback

of Black's decision to retreat his bishop rather than exchange it. Instead the timid 1 0 .c3?! would be good enough for equality after 1 O . . . ltJbd7.

lO .. . ltJh5!? This creative solution is unfortunately

insufficient to solve Black's problems, although his position is already quite dangerous.

He should certainly avoid: l O . . . hS? 1 1 .ltJeS i.h7 1 2 .We2±

10 . . . i.d6!? This rare move may be the least of the evils. 1 1 .hS i.e4 ( l 1 . .. Lg3?? 1 2 .hxg6 i.c7 1 3 .gxf7t+-) 1 2 .ltJxe4 ( l 2 .h6!?N) 1 2 . . . ltJxe4 1 3 .i.e3 ( l 3 .h6! ?N) White maintained an edge in Zeleic - Fierro Baquero, Cannes 2007, but at least Black's position is not about to collapse any time soon.

Black's most common reply has been: 1 O . . . h6

But this has not brought him much success. 1 1 .ltJeS i.h7

1 1 . .. Wxd4? 1 2 .ltJxg6 fxg6 1 3 .We2± 1 2 .We2

We have reached the same position as in the game Nedev - Slovineanu (see variation A


in Chapter 8) except that the white knight is on eS rather than f4, turning an already promising position into an even better one.

12 . . . ltJdS 12 . . . J.d6? ? loses trivially after: 1 3 .ltJxf7 mxf7 14.'!Wxe6t mg6 I S .hS#

13.0-0-0 13 .WhS! ?N also looks dangerous.

13 . . . ltJd7 14.f4 ltJxeS Relatively best. 14 . . . J.e7?! I S .ltJhS 0-0 1 6.Wg4 g6 17.ltJg3 is clearly unappetizing for Black.

I S .fxeS I S .dxeS? ! would spoil a good part of White's advantage. I S . . . Wc7 16J::ihfl 0-0-0 1 7.5 Arakhamia - Olbrich, Yerevan (01) 1 996. Now Black could have got out of the woods with 17 . . . mb8!N (instead the game continuation of 17 . . . J.xfS 18 .ltJx5 ex5 19.!!xfS g6 20.!!f3 J.g7 2 1 .e6! yielded White a big plus) 18 .Wg4 J.cS with a decent game.

I S . . . Wc7 1 6.!!hfl 0-0-0 1 7.!!f3 bS This radical measure weakens the black queenside, but also secures the position of the knight on dS. The alternative was 17 . . . @b8 18.!!dfl !!d7 followed by passive defence.

1 8 .J.d3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

18 . . . J.g8?

a b c d e f g h

Mter this ugly move Black soon finds himself overrun on the queenside. The superior

1 8 . . . J.xd3N 19.Wxd3 fS 20.exf6 gxf61eaves White with some advantage, but a long fight lies ahead.

1 9 .c4 bxc4 20.J.xc4 J.e7 21 .ltJe41tJb6 22.J.aS J.xh4 23 .!!c3

1-0 Emms - Dunnington, London 1997. Black decided here to throw in the towel in view of the impending J.bS . It was perhaps a bit early to resign, but in any case the whole game provided a useful illustration of the kind of trouble Black must strive to avoid.

H.We21 White does best to ignore the cheeky knight,

as the exchange on g3 can bring him certain benefits.

H • • . ltJd7 The immediate exchange on g3 would

have increased White's options: 11 . . . ltJxg3?! 12.fxg3 ltJd7 (12 . . . J.xc2? loses fast: 13.ltJgS! J.e7 14.ltJxf7 mxf7 I S .Wxe6t me8 1 6.!!cl J.a4 [or 16 . . . J.g6 17.hSJ 17.Wf7t md7 1 8 .b3 J.bS 1 9 .J.xbS cxbS 20.W5t me8 2 1 .!!c8+-) 1 3 .0-0-0 ltJb6 14.hS J.fS I S .J.b3 Intending ltJeS followed by g4. I S . . . aS (1S . . . J.g4 runs into 1 6.!!h4 J.xf3 1 7.gxf3 with a great edge for White.) 16.a3 a4 17.J.a2 The counterplay was only temporary, and Black must once again worry about the opponent's easy kingside play.

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .11Je4 & 8 .11Jd5 11

12.0-0-0 i.d6 13.lLle5! lLlxg3 14.fxg3 he5 15.dxe5 h5

Better than 15 . . . h6, since White's kingside options are reduced and the bishop on g6 gains some stability.

16.i.b4!

a b c d e f g h

It may already be too late for Black to escape, as indicated by the remainder of the present game.

16 . • • Wfb6 17.Wfel ! i.f5 17 . . . 0-0-0 does not help due to: I B .i.a5 Wfc5

19 .Wfc3!± The rook on dB is under fire, and ifit moves then 20J'hd7 wins immediately, while 19 . . . b6? is also hopeless due to 20.i.b4+-.

18j�f1 Threatening l"i:xfS.

18 ••• g6 Other tries would also have been fruitless, for

instance: I B . . . lLlxe5? 19.1"i:xfS lLlxc4 20.l"i:xf7!+-; I B . . . O-O-O 19 .i.a5 Wfc5 20.Wfc3±; and finally I B . . . a5 19.i.d6± .

19.Wfc3 lLlc5 20JU4 The precipitous 20 .i.a5 ? would have

squandered almost all White's advantage after: 20 . . . lLla4 21 .Wfb4 Wfxb4 22.i.xb4 lLlb6;!;

a b c d e f g h

2o ••• lLle4 20 . . . a5 would not have improved Black's

fate after 21 .i.a3 lLld7 (or 21 . . .lLla4 22 .Wfe I ) 22.l"i:fd4 0-0-0 23 .i.e7, when White's victory would only be a matter of time.

21 .Wfe1 gh7 22.i.a5 Wfc5 23.i.d3 lLlxg3 24.i.b4 1-0

Svidler - 011, Ter Apel 1996.

A2) 8 ••. Wfc7

a b c d e f g h

Although the queen is neither exerting pressure against d4 nor on b2, this retreat is nevertheless quite okay. Indeed, Black will not have to waste another tempo with his queen and he can soon castle long after . . . lLld7.


9.lLlxf6t Less logical is:

9 .lLlg3 Compared to the previous varIatIon Al Black benefits from a full extra tempo, which renders this try harmless .

9 . . . ig6 10.h4 lLlh5 Black is already threatening . . . lLlxg3 . Another effect of the black queen's placement is that White will not be able to maintain the position of the knight on e5 for long.

11 .lLle5 lLlxg3 12.fxg3 lLld7 13 .if4 lLlxe5 14.ixe5 id6

Too many pieces get traded for White to count on an edge.

15 .Wfe2

a b c d e f g h

15 . . . 0-0-0! ?N A few games have continued with 15 . . . h5 16.0-0-0 if5 17.Wfe3 , but the resulting position is problematic for Black, for instance: 17 . . . 0-0-0 (17 .. J!:g8 was suggested as an improvement by Wahls, but the remedy is worse than the disease, since after 18 .ixd6 Wfxd6 19.d5! , intending to meet 19 . . . Wfb4 with 20.E:d4, Black is in trouble.) 18 .ixg7 ixg3 19.E:dfl E:hg8 20.if6 Black failed to equalize and eventually succumbed to the pressure along the e- and f-files in Glek -Wahls, Bundesliga 1996.

16.h5 16.0-0-0?! ixe5 17.dxe5 h5 is at least equal for Black.

16 . . . ixe5 17.dxe5 if5 18 .g4 ixg4! 19.Wfxg4 Wfxe5t

a b c d e f g h

20.ie2! ? The alternative leads to a forced draw: 20.Wfe2 Wfxb2 21 .0-0 Wfd4t 22.�h2 Wfh4t 23.�g1 Wfd4t, with a perpetual .

20 . . . f5 The evaluation is similar after 20 . . . Wfxb2 21 .0-0 f5 .

21 .Wfb4 E:d4 22.Wfc3 E:hd8°o Black has fair compensation for the sacrificed

material .

9 ... gxf6 Black is effectively a tempo up on variation

B2 (8.tLld5 Wfd8 9 .lLlxf6t gxf6) , although it is not the type of position in which a single move should make a massive difference to the overall evaluation. I suppose the present line may appeal to White players who are happy in the type of positions resulting in the . . . gxf6 pawn structure, but are, for whatever reason, reluctant to enter variation B 1 with 8 .lLld5 Wfd8 9 .lLlxf6t Wfxf6.

lO.Wfe2 It is worth mentioning that the slow l O .c3,

despite having been played by such esteemed players as Psakhis and Bologan, is a slight inaccuracy. The point is that after l O .Wfe2 the c2-pawn is poisoned, as we will see in the note to Black's next move in the main line below.

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .lLle4 & 8 .lLld5 13

1 0 .0-0 should not worry Black. 1 O . . . llJd7 I I .lLlh4 Compared with the analogous position arising in variation A3 below, the position of the queen on c7 instead of b6 will help Black in a position with mutual attacks. Thus it is logical for White to take a more positional approach. 1 1 . . . .ig6 12 .g3 0-0-0 1 3 .c3 .id6 14 .WfB �dg8

a b c d e f g h We have been following the game Compo

Mephisto Portoroz - Becher, Porz 1 989. Black's last move prepares . . . f5 , which can either be followed by . . . f4, or by . . . llJf6 without allowing the pin .igS . The position offers mutual chances.

Another option is: 1 O .llJh4 .ig6 l 1 .f4

l 1 .llJxg6 hxg6 1 2 .g3 .id6 is equal.

a b c d e f g h 11 . . . fS !

As we will see again later in the chapter, this thrust often constitutes the appropriate

reaction to f2-f4. Black intends to exploit the weakened e4-square with the manoeuvre . . . llJd7-f6-e4, and will look for the right moment to rejuvenate his moribund bishop via the hS-square. 1 1 . . . .ie4? is a serious mistake: 1 2 .f5! exf5 Jukic - Marinsek, Ljubljana 1 996, and now 1 3 .Wfe2! would have put Black under serious pressure (the game continuation of 1 3 .Wfh5 was not quite as accurate, although even that still brought White a fine position) .

1 2 . .ie2 This is directed against the aforementioned activation of the light-squared bishop. In the event of 12.Wfe2!? the simplest reply is 1 2 . . . .ie7! . Instead after 1 2 . . . llJd7 1 3 .llJxg6 hxg6 1 4 . .ixe6! fxe6 1 5 .Wfxe6t <;t>d8 1 6.Wfxg6 any result is possible.

1 2 . . . llJd7 1 2 . . . .ie7 1 3 .g3 does not help Black, as after 1 3 . . . hh4?! 14.gxh4 he has to watch for h4-hS .

1 3 . .if3 0-0-0 Black intends . . . llJf6 and later . . . c5, with a

good game, Grazinys - Turcan, e-mail 1 998.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

lO • • • llJd7 1 0 . . . .ixc2? is much too dangerous: 1 1 .�c1

.ig6 1 2 .dS cxdS (or 12 . . . eS 1 3 .0-0 followed by llJh4 and f4, with a powerful initiative in return for a meagre pawn) 1 3 . .ibSt! ( 1 3 . .ixd5? spoils


White's advantage: 13 . . . tLk6 14.ixc6t [or 1 4.lLld4 Wd7] 14 . . . bxc6 I S .lLld4 cS 16.WbSt Wd7 and Black defends.) 13 . . . lLlc6 14 .lLld4 White is close to winning, for instance 14 . . . a6 I SJ:�xc6! etc.

1 1 .0-0-0 0-0-0 1 1 . . .lLlb6!?

This should amount to a mere shufHing of the move order. If Black tries to get creative then he will wind up in difficulties.

12.ib3 cS? ! 12 . . . 0-0-0 is better, when 13.lLlh4 ig6 transposes to the line 11. . . 0-0-0 12.lLlh4 ig6 13 .ib3 lLlb6 below. The other dubious idea is: 12 . . . aS? ! 13.a3 ( l 3 .a4! ? is also not bad) 13 . . . a4 14.ia2 lLldS I S .g3 White intends to drive the knight away with c4, and l S . . . bS ? is no good due to 1 6.ixdS cxdS 17.WxbSt.

13.lLlh4!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

13 . . . c4 a b c d e f g h

The complications resulting from this move are in White's favour, but 13 . . . ig6 is not great either in view of 14.dxcS ixcs I s .ic3 with a sizeable edge for White, as I S . . . Wf4 t? 16.<it>b1 Wxh4 runs into 1 7.WbSt.

14.lLlxfS cxb3 I S .axb3 0-0-0 16.lLle3 :5xd4 17.ic3 :5xd l t l S .:5xd1

Black has a tough position, for instance: l S . . . ie7 19.WhS!

And the weak kingside pawns are a problem.

a b c d e f g h

12.lLlh4 This move will almost always feature in

White's plans. Attempting to do without it achieves nothing, for instance: 12.ib3 lLlb6 13 .g3? ! (This is too slow. Instead 1 3 .lLlh4! should transpose to normal positions after 13 . . . ig6 because 13 . . . :5xd4? is a bad idea: 14.lLlxfS exfS I S .WeSt :5dS 16.Wxf7±) 13 . . . ig6 14.if4 id6 I S .ixd6 :5xd6= 16.lLlh4 as 17.a4 lLldS I S .Wf3 We7 19.:5he1 :5hdS 20.c3 White achieved no advantage and a draw was agreed in David - Tkachiev, Cannes 1999.

12 ••• ig6 13.ib3 Retreating the bishop is a sensible precaution,

although a few other ideas have also been tried.

13 .c3 cS? ! (Black should have preferred 13 . . . <it>bS or 13 . . . lLlb6 with the possible continuation 14.ib3 cS I S .dxcS ixcS 16.lLlxg6 hxg6 with a balanced game.) 14.dS lLlb6? ( l 4 . . . exdS I S .ixdS lLlb6 16.if3;!; would have reduced the damage.) I S .lLlxg6 hxg6 1 6.dxe6! White has grabbed a pawn for nothing, Psakhis - Gausel, Ohrid 200 1 , thanks to the trick 16 . . . :5eS 17.Wg4! .

1 3 .g3 lLlb6 14.iaS This is a typical reaction against a knight on b6. From this position

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .llJe4 & 8 .llJd5 IS

I would like to focus your attention on two instructive encounters:

a b c d e f g h a) 1 4 . . . .ih6t?!

This tempting move is an inaccuracy. White will be happy to put his king on b 1 , and the bishop has little future on h6.

15 .'it>b l 5 1 6.f4 .ig7 1 7.c3 �d7 1 8 .lDg2 �hd8 1 9 .1De3 c5? !

Black is losing patience. The cautious 1 9 . . . 'it>b8N was better.

20 . .ibS �d6 2 1 .lDc4 �dS 22.lDe3 White decides to repeat the position and try something else. He could also have brought another piece into play with 22.�he l ! ?N. Indeed, after 22 . . . cxd4 23.cxd4 Black has no time to capture on either d4 or bS thanks to the unfortunate position of his king and queen on the c-file.

22 . . . �5d6 23.�c l 'it>b8 24.�hd l a6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

2S .dxcS ? a b c d e f g h

25 .ia4!N was required to keep an edge, the point being to meet 25 . . . cxd4 26.cxd4 fJe7 with 27 . .ic6! ! .

2S . . . �xd l 26.ixb6 �xcl t 27.'it>xcl fJe7 28 .hd8 fJxd8 29 . .ia4 fJa5 30.fJc4 .ifB 3 1 .fJd4 .ixcS=

Black escaped to reach a level position in Chandler - Hodgson, Scarborough 200 1 .

b) 1 4 . . . .ig7! This is a much more purposeful square for the bishop, and the text move effectively gains a tempo over option a) above.

1 5 .'it>b 1 5 1 6.c3 f4t 1 7.'it>al 'it>b8 1 8 . .ib3

a b c d e f g h 1 8 . . . �d7

This is perfectly okay, although I would have been tempted to consider 18 . . . �he8! ?N, with ideas of . . . e5 .

1 9 .fJ8 fxg3 20.hxg3 fJd8 2 1 .fJf4t 'it>a8 22.fJg4 fJc8

Threatening . . . lDdS, when the bishop on as would be stranded. White would have no choice but to respond with c4, but then the d4-pawn would become weak. So instead he exchanges his bishop.

23 . .ixb6 axb6 24.f4 �hd8 25 .fJ8 cS Black's counterplay arrives just in time before f4-5 becomes a problem.

26.lDxg6 hxg6 27 . .ia4 �e7 28.dxcS �xd l t 29 .�xd l fJxcS 30.�d8t 'it>a7 3 1 .fJdl bS 32 . .ib3 �c7

h-h Illescas Cordoba - Speelman, Leon 200 1 .

1 6 Play the Scandinavian

a b c d e f g h

13 • • • c5!? It is also quite acceptable for Black to adopt

a waiting policy with 13 .. .'it)bB just as in line B252, beginning on page 51 . The text move is a bit more enterprising, although it is by no means the only interesting continuation.

13 . . . .id6 14.g3 !!heB 14 . . . c5 15.d5 lDb6 16 . .ia5;!; is similar to Tkachiev - Ricardi (given in the note to Black's 16th move below) with the inclusion of the moves g2-g3 and . . . J.fB-d6. 14 . . . lDb6 15 .c4!? c5 16.dxc5 and now both 16 . . . Wfxc5 and 16 . . . .ixc5 17.J.c3 .ie7 result in just a marginal plus for White.

15 .!!he l f5? I t i s worth making a mental note of this instructive positional error.

a b c d e f g h

16.lDg2!

This accurate move brought White a distinct advantage in Nunn - Conquest, Hastings 1996. White is no longer interested in exchanging what is now a misplaced bishop on g6, and instead wastes no time in preventing . . . f4, which would have liberated that piece. Finally it is worth noting that Black is in no position to exploit the e4-square, which can always be covered by f2-f3 .

I would advise the reader to remember the following rule of thumb: the move .. .f6-f5 is usually an effective reaction against a pawn on f4, but should usually not be played in situations where White is able to prevent the further advance of this pawn using pieces, as was the case here.

Going back, the other main option on move 13 is: 13 . . . lDb6!? 14.Wff3 .ie7

14 . . . .ig7?! 15 . .if4 Wfd7 16.!!he l lDd5 17.J.g3 is unpleasant for Black, who will have to face the plan of c4 and later d5 , which can perhaps be preceded by lDxg6 and/or <.i?b l .

1 5 . .if4 Wfd7 16.!!he l lDd5 17 . .ig3 f5! In comparison with the analogous position arising from 14 . . . .ig7? ! , here Black can obtain counterplay based on the instability of White's kingside pieces.

I B .c4

a b c d e f g h

I B . . . .ig5t

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .etJe4 & 8 .etJd5 17

18 . . . lLlf6 was also playable. 19.c5! This is the most challenging reply, threatening %Vf4. ( 1 9 .lLlxg6 hxg6 is not dangerous after 20.dS lLle4 or 20.i.eS l'!h4. More interesting is 19.dS! ? i.hS [19 . . . lLle4!? 20.'Ji b l i.gSoo] 20.dxe6 [20.%Vf4 i.d6 21 .%Vxd6 %Vxd6 22.i.xd6 ixd l 23 .ieS i.xb3 24.axb3 lLle4 2S .i.xh8 l'!xh8=] 20 . . . %Vxd l t 21.%Vxd l i.xd l 22.lLlxfS i.b4 23 .i.xd l l'!de8! [and not 23 . . . i.xe l ?? 24.lLle7#] Black maintains the equilibrium.)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

19 . . . lLlhS (Worse is: 19 . . . lLld5? ! 20.i.xdS igst [otherwise 2 1 .%Vf4 will be annoying] 21 .i.f4 i.xf4t 22.%Vxf4 %VxdS 23.'Ji b l Black may be able to hold this position, but his bishop hardly inspires confidence. Perhaps 19 . . . b6!? could be considered though.) 20.lLlxg6 hxg6 21.i.eS i.f6 22.%Vc3 %Ve7 23.g3 White keeps just a modest edge. Black must be careful about swapping on eS, which would allow a white rook to land on d6.

19.'Ji b l lLlc7 19 . . . f4t? does not work due to 2o.lLlxg6 hxg6 21 .cxdS exdS 22.h4!+-, but 19 . . . lLlf6!?N was by no means bad.

20.lLlxg6 hxg6 21 .dS! ? White was not compelled to force events, and could instead have opted to probe the enemy position beginning with 21 .i.eSN, as suggested by Karsten Mueller in Chess Base Magazine.

2 1 . . .exdS 22.cxdS

22.i.eSN deserved consideration, intending to meet 22 .. .f6 with 23 .ixc7 %Vxc7 24.cxd5 when White maintains a slight edge.

22 . . . f4! 23.h4 23.dxc6 leads to obscure consequences: 23 . . . %VfSt 24.i.c2 l'!xd l t 2S .%Vxd l (In the event of 25 .l'!xd l ? %VeS! 26.cxb7t @b8 the piece Black is about to win will count for more than the three white pawns.) 2S . . . WcS or 26.cxb7t (after 26.%Vg4t lLle6 the evaluation is similar) @b8 27.h4 fxg3 28.hxgS gxf200

23 . . . fxg3 23 . . . cxdS 24.hxgS fxg3 2S .%Vxg3;\;

24.hxg5 We have been following the game Reichmann - Westphal, Bremen 1998. So far Black had been up to his higher-rated opponent, but he now faltered.

24 . . . gxf2? Instead both 24 . . . cxdSN and 24 . . . lLlxdSN would have led to an acceptable game for Black.

2S .%Vxf2± The attack on the a7 -pawn adds to the

defender's list of worries .

a b c d e f g h

14.dS! 14.i.e3 is not dangerous after 14 . . . cxd4

(14 . . . lLlb6!?) I S .l'!xd4 i.cS 16.l'!c4 (or 16.l'!dd l i.xe3t 17.%Vxe3 lLlcS) 17 . . . @b8 17.i.f4 eS


I B .�e3 'Wb6 1 9 J'k3 he3t 20J'he3 tDc5 2 1 .tDxg6 fXg6.

14 ... tDb6! 15 .tDxg6 This exchange has become a necessity, as

revealed by the line: 1 5 .�a5 ? ( l 5 .dxe6? c4 is also inadvisable) 1 5 . . . 'Wf4t 1 6 .�b l 'Wxh4 1 7.�xb6 axb6 I B .dxe6 �g7+

15 ... hxg6 16.�a5 e5 This time 1 6 . . . 'Wf4t 1 7.�bl;!; achieves

nothing for Black.

The second player does not quite manage to equalize with: 1 6 . . . exd5 1 7.�xd5 f5 I B .'Wf3 �g7 1 9 .c3 E:d7 20.�xb6 'Wxb6 2 1 .�c4 E:hdB 22.E:xd7 E:xd7 23.E:d l E:xd l t 24.'Wxd l 'Wc7 25 .g3 'We7 26.'Wd5 �h6t (Black must certainly avoid 26 . . . 'We l t? 27.�c2 'Wxf2t 2B .�b3 �h6 29 .'Wxf7+-, when there is no time for 29 . . . �c 1 as White is ready to strike first.) 27.�c2 �c7 2B .'Wxf7 'Wxf7 29.�xf7 g5 Black managed to hold the endgame in Tkachiev - Ricardi, Villa Martelli 1 997, although the whole line was generally a bit uncomfortable for him.

a b c d e f g h

17.h4 1 7.c4 gives Black the interesting additional

option of 1 7 . . . E:h4!?N in order to hamper the enemy advance on the kingside.

17 .. . 5 18.h5 I B .c4 �d6 is similar.

18 .. . �d6 19.c4 The position remained tense with chances

for both sides in Buraschi - Ruefenacht, corr. 2002. White's chances can be evaluated as slightly higher due to the potential of his bishop pair, although having said that, it is hard to see them causing much discomfort for Black in the near future.

A3) 8 .. . 'Wb6

8�. �.� � 7 �i';� �� 'i�_'i 6 u'[iii'� f.'�

'"�

�� 'UU�

: ��,��,�� u '� �� 3

��r� �� '� �� z '/ 2 8W� 8 � v�8� 1 �""z •• =""z.: a b c d e f g h

This is perhaps the most challenging option at Black's disposal . The second player hopes that the pressure against d4 and b2 will prove disruptive for White.

9.tDxf6t 9.tDg3

Just as in line A2 above, this move loses some of its appeal when the black queen is on a more active square than dB.

9 . . . �g4! 9 . . . �g6 is fully playable as well, but the text move is surely the best way to make use of the black's queen's active location. By contrast to the games Degraeve - Tomczak and Kramnik - Malakhov from variation Al in Chapter 6, the pressure against d4 and b2 will be quite real.

Chapter 1 - Main line B .ttJe4 & B .ttJd5 19

1O . .ib3 1 0.c3 .ixf3! ? (If Black is looking for a safer option then 1 0 . . . lLlbd7 is fine.) 1 1 .Wxf3 Wxb2 1 2.'it>e2! (This surprising move looks more appropriate than 1 2 .�d 1 lLlbd7 1 3 .0-0 .id6 1 4 . .ig5 Wb6. In this position Rogers believes that White has enough for the invested pawn, whereas Prie doubts it. I am more prone to trust my countryman's judgement on this occasion.)

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . Wb6 1 3 .�ab 1 Wc7 1 4 . .if4 WcB (After 1 4 . . . .id6 1 5 . .ixd6 Wxd6 1 6.�xb7 White recovers his pawn with some advantage.) 1 5 .�he 1 This time I would rather be White, who intends to follow with 1 6.'it>f1 with promising compensation. 1 0 .0-0! ? This sets a clever trap: 1O . . . .ixf3? ! Instead Black should choose between the natural and solid 1 0 . . . lLlbd7 and the more daring 1 0 . . . Wxb2, intending to meet 1 1 .�b 1 with 1 1 . . . .ixf3.) 1 1 .Wxf3 Wxd4?! Consistent, but bad. 1 2 .Wb3 Wb6 1 3 . .ixe6! Black can hardly accept this gift, and he is therefore in trouble.

1 0 . . . a5 Black can also consider the slightly cheeky pawn grab: 1 0 . . . .ixf3!? 1 1 .Wxf3 Wxd4 1 2 .0-0-0 lLlbd7 Mueller evaluates this position as unclear, and I agree, as White is unable to exploit the seemingly exposed black queen, while his opponent is ready to castle soon and may obstruct the d-file by . . . lLld5.

It i s worth pointing out that 1 3 .lLlf5? should be met by 1 3 . . . We4!+, rather than 1 3 . . . exf5? 14 .�he l t .ie7 1 5 . .if4 Wb6 1 6 . .id6±.

1 1 .c3 a4 1 1 . . . .ixf3! ? 1 2.Wxf3 a4 1 3 . .ic4 Wxb2 14 .'it>e2!� would be similar the 1 0 .c3 .ixf3! ? line analysed above.

1 2 . .ixa4

a b c d e f g h 1 2 . . . .ixf3!N

This is a significant improvement over 1 2 . . . Wxb2?! 1 3 .�b 1 Wa3 ( 1 3 . . . .ixf3N was again to be preferred, even though the endgame arising after 1 4.�xb2 .ixd 1 1 5 . .ixd 1 b5 is better for White. However, Black was right to avoid 1 3 . . . Wxa2? 14 .�a1 Wxa 1 [ 1 4 . . . Wb2? loses on the spot to 1 5 . .ixc6t+-J 1 5 .Wxa l b5 1 6.lLle5 when White has a powerful initiative.) 1 4 . .ib3 .id6 1 5 .h3

8 7 6 5 4 3 �ea:� dII!= ?LJ? 2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . .ixg3? (The wrong horse! Instead 1 5 . . . .ixf3N 1 6.Wxf3 lLlbd7 1 7.0-0 would


have been pleasant for White owing to his pair of bishops, but Black is far from lost.) 16.hxg4! �c7 17.g5 lLld5 (17 . . . lLle4 was no better: 18.g6 fxg6 [18 . . . lLlxd2? 19 .gxf7t] 19.VNe2 lLlxd2 20.lLlxd2±) 18 .g6! Black experienced serious difficulties which he was unable to overcome, Benjamin - Waitzkin, New York 1998.

13.gxf3 VNxb2 14.Eib1 VNxa2 15 .Eia1 VNxa1 16.VNxa1 b5 17.VNb2 Eixa4 18.0-O �a3 19 .VNb3 �e7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

Black has obtained a significantly improved version of the 12 . . . VNxb2?! 13.Eib1 VNxa2? line analysed above, and in the resulting position he is absolutely fine.

9 ...

gxf6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c e f g h

White now has to decide where he is going

to shelter his king. Either flank is possible, although the kingside comprises a bigger risk in view of the semi-open g-file. We will consider the immediate A31) 10.0-0, followed by the more flexible A32) 10.�b3, keeping both options open.

1O.�c3 is playable but toothless, as the bishop obstructs the future plan of c4 and d5. After 1O . . . lLld7 11.VNe2 0-0-0 12.0-0-0 VNc7 Black had no problems in Erler - Ochs, Germany 1995 .

1O.VNe2 lLld7 11 .0-0-0 0-0-0 12.lLlh4 �g6

a b c d e f g h

This very position is commonly reached in line B252 (beginning on page 52) except that here the black queen is on b6 instead of c7 and the white bishop is on c4 instead of b3. The overall assessment is the same: White is marginally better, but Black should not have serious problems.

13.g3 .ib4 13 . . . c5 ! ? would be a more combative and somewhat riskier approach.

14 . .if4 14.c3! ? would have been a more ambitious way to avoid the bishop exchange.

14 . . . VNa5 15 .lLlxg6 hxg6 16.a3 �f8 17.c.tl b1 �h6 18 .�d6 .if8=

Cornette - Prie, Evry 2008 .

A31) 10.0-0

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .'lJe4 & 8 .'lJd5 2 1

8 '='?� � .. W�

7 iti�� iT� 'i ""' %-;-:""L'; �� %i'0 �� 6 �.m.r� � 5 '''''%� %mJ:� ��,�� 4 ��

LJ�� 3 �� '0 �% '0 �W'0 �W'� 2 8�8 � r� 8 r�

1 ""�""% ••• :�"" a b c d e f g h

In this position Black faces a major decision. If he is willing to take a risk in order to unbalance the game, he can consider grabbing the b2-pawn. The safer option involves the straightforward completion of development, although it should be emphasized that the resulting position with opposite-sided castling will still lead to very lively play.

Ultimately I think both approaches are equally valid, and the choice will depend on one's personal taste and tournament/match tactics .

lO ... Wxb2!? I decided to give this as the main line, mainly

because the resulting complications were so interesting to analyse. Here are a couple of instructive examples involving the other plan.

10 . . . lLld? 11 .b4 �d6 12.E:e l E:g8 13.\t>h l Perhaps White would have been better off doing without this move in an effort to save time.

13 . . . 0-0-0 14.�fl This retreat is a logical choice, guarding the g2-pawn and making way for the c-pawn to advance. In some positions the bishop might re-emerge on g2, where it will carry out both attacking and defensive duties.

14 . . . eS ! ? Another option was 14 . . . �g4 15 .c3 We?

However, given the slowness of White's last couple of moves, it is quite logical for Black to play actively in the centre.

a b c d e f g h I S .c4?

Simply losing the b-pawn. Instead I S .a4! would have kept the game unclear.

l s . . . hb4! White has no convincing way to make use of the b-file.

16.E:e3 �xd2 1? Wxd2 exd4 18 .E:b3 WcS 19.Wb2 lLlb6-+

Dworakowska - ]. Houska, Germany 2000.

In the following game I opted for a similar plan, with a slight shuffiing of the move order: 10 . . . E:g8 11 .E:e l lLld? 12.b4 0-0-0 13.a4 �g4 14.aS Wc? 1 5 .b5

1 5 .a6!?N was also interesting. I S . . . �d6

Black could have considered I S . . . cS!?N. 16.\t>h l �f4!

The position is balanced on a razor-wire, and neither side can afford to make a mistake.

a b c d e f g h


17.ie3 17.bxc6?! was worse in view of 17 . . . ixd2! 18 .cxd7t E:xd7 19.WI'xd2, and now both 19 . . . ixf3 and 19 . . . WI'xc4 leave Black with a slight edge.

17 . . . cxb5 18 .ixb5 E:g5 ! Fortunately in this position my opponent was the first one to err with:

19.if1? ! The correct path was 19.ixd7t!N E:xd7 20.a6 b6 21 .h3 E:h5 with a possible repetition after: 22.rj;Jgl ih2t 23.rj;Jh l (23.rj;Jf1!? is possible, although I doubt that White is better) 23 . . . if4=

19 . . . ixe3 20.E:xe3 E:xa5 21 .WI'e l E:xa l 22.WI'xal rj;Jb8 23.E:c3 Wl'd6 24.tDd2 tDb6 25 .tDb3 e5+ 26.WI'a5 ?

26.E:d3 was more stubborn but also joyless after 26 . . . e4.

26 . . . exd4 27.tDxd4 Wl'xd4! 28 .E:d3 Wl'xf2 29 .E:xd8t rj;Jc7 30.WI'c5t Wl'xc5

0-1 Glek - Bauer, Swiss Team Ch. 2009.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

lU:!bl This natural move has been the most

common choice, although there are a couple of alternatives which also warrant attention.

I1 .WI'e2? ! Wl'xc2 12.E:fe l 12.tDh4 tDd7 13.E:fe l i s convincingly met by 13 . . . ia3! .

The text move prevents . . . WI'e4 and is optically dangerous for Black, who is far behind in development. Nevertheless the second player should be able to secure at least equal chances with correct play.

a b c d e f g h

12 . . . tDd7? This natural move leads to trouble. Black would have done better to consider both 12 . . . ig4!?N and 12 . . . ia3!?N 13.d5 cxd5 14.ib5t rj;Je7 (or 14 . . . tDc6) 15 .tDd4 Wl'e4, with an unclear position in which Black's chances are not worse.

13 .E:ac1 Wl'b2 14.tDh4 ig6?? 14 . . . 0-0-0 15 .tDxfS exfS intending . . . ib4 was compulsory.

15 .ixe6+-Black was already doomed in Nisipeanu -

Prie, Montpellier 2006.

I I .ib3! ? White safeguards the c2-pawn and consequently avoids a potential queen exchange.

11 . . .WI'a3!N The queen should waste no time returning to active duty. The one game I found in the database continued: 11 . . .E:g8 Having just snatched a pawn, it looks a bit too optimistic for Black to play an attacking move like this. 12.E:e l (The computer suggests 12.E:b l ! ?N Wl'a3 13.tDh4 ig6 14.E:e l with some initiative.)

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .tlJe4 & 8 .tlJd5 2 3

12 . . . ie7 13.'it>h l .ig4 14.h3 .ixf3 I S .VNxf3 �d7 (1S . . . VNxd4 16.�ad l ) 16.�ad l VNxd4 17 . .if4 VNcS 1 8 .�xe6! fxe6 19 . .ixe6 O-O-O? Under pressure, Black jumps from the frying pan into the fire. 20.VNd3 bS 21 .VNxd7t! �xd7 22.�xd7 1-0 Glek - Kuhn, Zurich 2001 . Another interesting line i s : 11 . . . �d7N 12.a4 .ie4 13.�e l (13 .c3 is also in White's favour, for instance: 13 . . . �g8 14.�h4 .idS I S . .ixdS cxdS 16.�b l VNa2 17.�xb7;!;) 13 . . . .ixf3 14.VNxf3 VNxd4 I S . .ic3 VNh4

a b c d e f g h

16 . .ixe6! fxe6 17.�xe6t 'it>f7 18 .VN5 VNgS 19.�xf6t VNxf6 20.VNxd7t VNe7 21 .VNfSt �g8 22.�e l VNf7 23 .VNxf7t 'it>xf7 24 . .ixh8;!; White's energetic attacking play has resulted in an endgame with an extra pawn.

12.�h4 .ig6 13 .VNf3 �d7 14.VNh3 Threatening I S .�xg6 as well as .ixe6 in some positions.

14 . . . .ihS! 14 . . . .ig7? I S . .ixe6!

I S .�5 .ig6 16.�h4= The repetition looks like a logical outcome.

1 l . . . VNxc2 12.VNxc2 After 12.VNe2? Black would reach a much

better version of the same ending by means of 12 . . . bS 13.�bc l (13 . .ib3?? VNd3-+) 13 . . . VNe4 14 . .ixbS �g8 I S .g3 VNxe2 16 . .ixe2 .ie4.

12 • • . hc2 13J�xb7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Despite the queen exchange, White's activity compensates for his pawn deficit and Black should take care over his next few moves. I believe he can defuse his opponent's initiative and obtain equal chances provided he avoids the tripwires on the path.

13 • • • �d7 The following is a perfect example of one of

the aforementioned pitfalls: 13 . . . .ie4?! 14.�e 1! .ixf3?

a b c d e f g h

I S . .ixe6!! fxe6 16.�xe6t 'it>d8 17 . .iaSt 'it>c8 18 .�c7t 'it>d8 19.�f7t 'it>c8 20.�e8#

14J�e1 The tricky 14.dS? is refuted by 14 . . . exdS!

when White does not have enough.

14 . .iaS was played in Bruening - Rennert,


e-mail 2002, and here it looks interesting to try: 14 . . . lDb6!?N I s .ixb6 axb6 16J':!:xb6 id6 17.:B:xc6 �e7 Curiously Black has gone from being a pawn up to a pawn down within a few short moves, but nevertheless the quality of his position has improved and his compensation is fully adequate.

a b c d e f g h

In this position I found a new idea:

14 • • • id6!NCD 14 . . . lDb6? has been played in a few games,

but after I S .ixe6! fxe6 16.:B:xe6t �dB 17.:B:xf6 White obtained a huge initiative in Geldner -Packroff, corr. 2000.

The text move is directed against that very idea, as we will soon see:

lS.ixe6? White should instead opt for a quieter

move, in which case he will have adequate compensation for the missing pawn, but no advantage.

lS . . . fxe6 16.gxe6t ie7 17.ib4 O-O-O! And Black wins.

A32) lo.ib3

As mentioned previously, this move theoretically maintains the possibility of castling on either wing. However, in practice the white king is more likely to castle on the queenside. The problem with short castling is that after Black castles on the opposite flank, the game will enter a phase of mutual attacks. The bishop on b3 will not be able to contribute much for either attacking or defensive purposes, and only serves to obstruct the b-pawn. We will see a good example of this in the game Schmidt Schaeffer - Vidoniak, in the note to White's 12th move below.

lO • • • aS! I prefer this over 10 . . . lDd7 I l .Wle2 ig4?!

(This is inaccurate, as it will be too risky for Black to grab the d4-pawn. The normal 11. . . 0-0-0 followed by . . . id6 was preferable, when Black has a solid position and is only a little worse.) 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.�b l ( l 3 .h3N ihS 14.g4 ig6 I s .if4 looks more accurate to me) 13 . . . id6 14.h3 ihS I S .g4 ig6 16.lDh4 Wlc7 17.Wlf3 cS I B .lDxg6 hxg6 19.dxcS ieS ? ! ( l 9 . . . ixcS was better) 20.c6 Wlxc6 21 .Wlxc6t bxc6 22.ie3 lDb6 23.:B:xdBt �xdB 24.h4 White stood visibly better and he went on to win the game Berelovich -Tikkanen, Hoogeveen 1999.

1 l .a4 lDa6

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .ttJe4 & 8 .ttJd5 25

The knight is heading for b4 and perhaps later d5. If White plays c2-c3 at some point, in order to expel the knight from b4 and/or bolster his d4-pawn, the bishop on b3 will become unstable. These factors, combined with the half open d- and g-files, make Black prospects quite interesting in my view. Let's examine some practical examples to illustrate this assertion.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12.tiJh4 Too passive is:

12.h3? �g8! 13.tiJh4 .ie4 14 . .ie3

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . 0-0-0 In his annotations Prie offered the subtle refinement: 1 4 . . . .ib4t!N 1 5 .c3 .ie7, intending to follow up with . . . f5. The idea behind inserting the bishop check is that the white queen can no longer go to h5 as the bishop on b3 is hanging.

1 5 .0-0 Wic7 1 5 . . . c5 ! ?N deserved serious consideration. In the event of 1 6.c3 Black could aim to use the c6-square, and the unprotected bishop on b3 may give White problems in some lines.

1 6.f3 .ig6 1 6 . . . Wi g3 would not have achieved the desired outcome after 1 7.Wie l ! Wixh3? 1 8 .fxe4 .id6 1 9 .e5 .

1 7 .tiJxg6 hxg6 1 8 .Wie2 tiJb4 Black was quite comfortable in Tan - Prie,

West Bromwich 2005 .

Despite the earlier comments about short castling not combining well with the earlier .ib3, White has occasionally tried: 1 2.0-0 .ig4

Another interesting game continued: 12 . . . ttJb4 13 . tiJ h4 .ig6 14 . .ie3 tiJd5 15 . .ixd5! ? cxd5 16.c4 dxc4 1 7.d5 Wic7 1 8 .dxe6 fxe6 1 9 .tiJxg6 hxg6 20.h3 This was V. Gurevich - Reinderman, Germany 2004. The rather unsafe black king gave White sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but not more.

1 3 .h3 .ih5 14.�e l 0-0-0 15 .�e4

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . .ig6 1 5 . . . f5 ! ?N also deserved consideration, when play may continue 1 6.�h4 .ixf3 17.Wixf3 .ig7 with a decent position.

1 6 .�e3 tiJb4 17 . .ixb4 1 7.c4 e5 looks nice for Black.


17 . . . ixb4 I B .c3 id6 19.tLld2 ibB 20.tLlc4 Vlic7 21 .g3 !!hgB 22.VliB

White's position is not bad in itself, but it will soon become apparent that there is no constructive plan available.

22 . . . if5 23.!!ae l h5 24.h4 !!g4 25 .mfl !!dgB 26.id l ?

The artistic 26.Vlih l ! was required, after which I do not see anything decisive for Black. After the text move, Black finishes the game in style!

a b c d e f g h

26 . . . !!xh4!! 27.gxh4 Vlih2 2B .!!e4 !!g3! !-+ 29.Vlixh5 Vlih I t 30.me2 Vlixe4t 31 .md2 if4t 32.tLle3 Vlid3t 33.mc l Vlib l t 34.md2 Vlixb2t 35 .ic2 Vlixc2#

0-1 Schmidt Schaeffer - Vidoniak, Zurich 2002.

12 • • • ig6 13.ie3 13.Vlif3 provokes early simplifications:

13 . . . Vlixd4 14.tLlxg6 hxg6 15 .0-0-0 tLlc5 ( I 5 . . . ic5 !?) 16.ig5 tLlxb3t

a b c d e f g h

17.Vlixb3 (The cheeky 17.mb1? , intending to take first on f6 and only then recapture the knight, is wrong - and for many reasons! The most convincing refutation is the cold-blooded 17 . . . Vlixa4! [Hamdouchi suggested to me the creative 17 . . . ig7! ? ; and the acrobatic 17 . . . fxg5 is also good enough: I B .!!xd4 tLlxd4 19.Vlif6 !!h4 20.g3 ie7-+] I B .cxb3 Vlib5 19.ixf6 [or 19.Vlixf6 Vlif5t] 19 . . . !!h5, followed by . . . !!d5 and Black wins.) 17 . . . Vlib4 I B .Vlixb4 axb4 19.ixf6 !!h5 In this equal position the players agreed a draw in Parligras - Hamdouchi, Cannes 2009.

13 • • • 0-0-0 14.0-0 tLlb4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a 15.h3?!

c e This move is not very useful. It was time for

White to search for a path to equality, and the following suggestion of Prie seems adequate to serve this purpose: 15 .VliB!?N ixc2 16.d5 ( I 6.Vlixf6 id6) 16 . . . c5 ( I 6 . . . Vlic7?! leads to trouble after 17.ixc2 tLlxc2 I B .!!ac l , for instance: I B . . . tLlxe3? ! [ I B . . . tLlb4! is the lesser evil] 19.dxc6 tLlxfl 20.cxb7t mbB 21 .!!xc7 mxc7 22.mxfl ±) 17.Vlixf6 id6 I B .ixc2 tLlxc2 19.!!ad l tLlxe3 20.fxe3 exd5 Now after either 21 .g3 or 21 .mh l White will recover his pawn, with a roughly equal game.

15 ... Vlic7 16.c3 tLld5 17.ixd5 gxd5 18.c4 gh5 19.tLlxg6 hxg6 20.Vlif3

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .tlJe4 & 8 .tlJdS 27

a b c d e f g h

20 ... £5 Prie thought afterwards that 20 . . . gS!?N was

stronger, as White will not be able to swap bishops . However, I am not convinced that Black can claim an edge after 2 1 .dS! (2 1 .Wxf6? g4 22 . .if4 Wd7 is perilous for White) 2 1 . . .fS 22.dxc6 bxc6 (or 22 . . . Wxc6 23 .Wxc6t bxc6 24 . .id4 g8h7 2S . .ib6) 23 . .id4 g4 24.We2 g8h7 2S . .ieS . It is true that Black will manage to play . . . gxh3 soon, but after the reply g2-g3 this will not have brought him much.

21..if4 .id6 22.h:d6 Wxd6 23.d5! White just manages to create counterplay

before his opponent's kingside attack gathers any real momentum.

23 .. . exd5 23 . . . gS!?N would have given better practical

chances to press for a win, although on the flip side Black would also have to find some accurate moves after: 24.Wc3! (24.dxc6 Wxc6 and 24.dxe6 g4 2S .Wg3 We7 26.gad l fxe6 are both a bit better for Black.) 24 . . . g4 2S .cS! Wd7!? (and not 2S . . . WxdS?? 26.gfd l We4 27.gd4 We2 28 .gad l when White's attack arrives first) 26.d6 f4! ? Now a logical continuation would be: 27.Wxa5 Wxd6 28.cxd6 gxaS 29.hxg4 �d7 Black has a tiny advantage in the endgame, but realistically a draw is by far the most likely outcome.

24.cxd5 Wxd5 25.Wxd5 cxd5 26JUdl f4 27J�ac1 t �d7 28.1::ic5 b6

A draw was agreed here in Slaby - Prie, Figueres 200S .

B) 8.lOd5 Wd8

Unlike line A above, here Black has no choice about where to place his queen.

9.lOxf6t Now Black is confronted with the dilemma

of how to recapture, so we will consider both BI) 9 • • • Wxf6 and B2) 9 • • • gxf6 in turn. The current status of theory is tipping the scales in favour of the latter, although I would still invite the reader to examine both paths and form his own conclusions .

BI) 9 ••• Wxf6

This recapture has fallen out offavour ever since the important game Sanduleac - Prie, Creon 2007. Naturally we will become acquainted with this encounter in the near future.

10.We2!

a b c d e f g h

This is by far the most common move, as well as the most dangerous. For this reason I will not spend time delving into the obscure


alternatives. In the present posltlon Black has three main moves: Bl l) 10 . . • .id6, B12) lo . .. lLld7 and B13) 10 . . • .ig4 . The latter two will often transpose, although independent possibilities do exist.

1 O . . . .ixc2?! is too risky and is only rarely seen. White has a generous selection of promising moves, including 1 1 .0-0, 1 1 ..ic3 or even l 1 .dS . In every case, at the very least White obtains excellent compensation. First, let's consider what happens if White castles :

1 1 .0-0 .id6 Little better is 1 1 . . . lLld7 1 2 .dS cxdS 1 3 . .ibS . For example, 1 3 . . . a6 14 . .ic3 and White wins a piece.

1 2 .dS cxdS 1 3 . .ixdS lLlc6? This gets blasted, but the alternatives also lead to trouble. For example, 1 3 . . . lLld7 1 4 . .ixb7 �b8 1 S . .ic6 and Black's minor pieces are all in trouble. Or 1 3 . . . 'We7 when one of White's many options is: 1 4 . .igS 'Wd7 I S . .ixe6 'Wxe6 1 6.'Wxc2 0-0 1 7.�fe l 'Wg6 1 8 .'Wxg6 hxg6 1 9 . .ie7 .ixe7 20.�xe7 With a strong grip in a simple ending.

14 . .ixc6t bxc6 I S .'Wc4 'Wxb2 Now in Jonkman - De Vreugt, Tel Aviv 2000, White could have won a piece with:

1 6 .'Wxc6t g;;e7 1 7 . .ic 1 ! The first player may also consider the rather

forcing line l 1 .dS ! ? cxdS 1 2 . .ibSt lLlc6 1 3 . .ic3 'Wg6 1 4.lLld4 'Wxg2 I S .g;;d2, which may well prove very good for him.

Bl l) 10 . . . .id6 1 1 • .ig5!?

This unusual move may well be White's most convincing route to an advantage.

It should also be mentioned that l 1 .lLleS? ! gets nowhere after: 1 1 . . .lLld7! 1 2.lLlxd7 g;;xd7 1 3 .0-0-0 �ad8 White is obviously unable to break through with d4-dS , and the position is just equal.

The most significant alternative is: 1 1 .0-0-0 O-O!

This fresh try seems to give Black better prospects than the alternatives. One such example is: 1 1 . . .'We7?! 1 2 .lLleS! Intending g4, with a powerful initiative. 1 1 . . . .ig4?! is strongly met by 1 2 .dS! , after which the d6-bishop will soon become uncomfortable. For instance: 1 2 . . . .ix8 ( 1 2 . . . cxdS 1 3 . .ixdS lLlc6 14 . .ic3 'We7 I S . .ixc6t bxc6 1 6 . .ixg7± Neukirch -Cording, Dresden 2003; 1 2 . . . eS 1 3 .h3 [ 1 3 .'Wd3! ?1 1 3 . . . .ixf3 1 4.gxf3 cxdS I S . .ixdS lLlc6 1 6.�hgl And the black monarch has no safe haven.) 1 3 .gxf3 cxdS 1 4 . .ixdS lLlc6 I S . .ic3 'Wf4t? (This unfortunate decision and the next one accelerate the fall, but Black was in serious trouble anyway. For instance, I S . . . .if4t 1 6.G;;b l eS I 7 . .ixc6t bxc6 1 8 . .ib4! With his king stuck in the centre Black will not survive for long.) 1 6.G;;b l 0-0 1 7.hc6 bxc6 1 8 .�d4 'WeS 1 9 .'Wd3 1-0 Movsziszian - Prie, Marseille 200S .

1 2 .lLleS bS 1 3 . .ib3 as 1 4.a3 This position was reached in Azarov - Repkova, Warsaw (rapid) 2009, and here Black could have obtained a decent position with:

8 7 6 5 4 3

"'''''"'''--The premature I I .dS? ! squanders White's 2 initiative after 1 1 . . .cxdS 1 2 . .ixdS 0-0 1 3 . .ic3 'We7, with a balanced game. a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 - Main line B .lLle4 & B .lLld5 29

14 . . . a4!N 1 5 .i.a2 i.xe5 1 6 .dxe5 Wfg6 Black is hitting both c2 and g2, and given time he will transfer his knight to d5.

1 7.i.f4 17 .i.b4 c5 IB . .ixc5 :i:!cB 1 9 .c3 Wfxg2 is also unclear.

1 7 . . . Wfxg2 IB .:i:!hgl Wfe4 1 9 .Wfxe4 i.xe4 20.i.h6 i.g6 2 1 .i.e3 ll'la6 22.:i:!d6

White has enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn but I doubt that he can claim any real advantage.

1 1 • • • Wfg6 12.d5! This thematic move is significantly more

effective in the present position than on the previous turn.

a b c d e f g h

12 • • • cxd5N This seems like the only chance for Black to

obtain an acceptable position.

14.hc6t bxc6 15 .Wfd2! This accurate move enables White to com

promise his opponent's structure. Were it not for this detail, his preceding moves would have made little sense.

15 • • • i.c7 16.ll'lh4 Wfh5 17.ll'lxf5 exf518.Wfe3t �d7

Appearances aside, Black's king is in no real danger. His pawn structure is a more serious problem though.

19.£3 gae8 20.0-0-0t �c8 21 .Wfd2� White has a stable advantage, with a

significantly better structure as well as the safer king.

B12) 10 • • • ll'ld7 1 1 .0-0-0

The premature I I .d5? lets the edge slip after 1 1 . . .cxd5 1 2 .i.xd5 i.e7= ( I2 . . . Wfxb2! ?N) Nataf - Waitzkin, Bermuda 1 999.

Also insufficient is 12 . . . 0-0?! 1 3 .dxe6 .ixe6 14 .i.xe6 Wfxe6 1 5 .Wfxe6 fxe6 1 6 .0-0-0 i.c5 a b c d e f g h

1 7.:i:!he l i.xf2 1 8 .:i:!xe6 h6 1 9 .i.e3 i.xe3t 1 1 • • • ll'lb6? 20.:i:!xe3, when Black faced a depressing fight for survival in Kaucher - Verhaeren, e-mail 2004.

13.hd5 ll'lc6 After 1 3 . . . ll'ld7 1 4.i.xb7 :i:!b8 1 5 .0-0-0

Black does not have enough for the pawn.

Black's best option is 1 1 . . . i.g4, which almost always transposes into line B 1 3 below after 1 2 .d5 i.xf3 1 3 .gxf3 cxd5 1 4.i.xd5. 1 1 . . . i.d6?

This has more or less been refuted. 1 2.i.g5 !

1 2 .i.c3? Wfe7 1 3 .ll'le5 ll'lxe5 14.dxe5 i.c5


gave White no more than a miniscule advantage in Bauer - Hauchard, Besancon 1 999.

1 2 . . . 'lWg6 l 3 .d5! This well-timed strike should decide the game.

l 3 . . . cxd5 l 3 . . . ttJe5 fails to rescue Black: 1 4.h4! ttJxf3 (or 1 4 . . . .ixc2 1 5 .ttJxe5 .ixd 1 1 6J''!xd 1 'lWf5 and here the cleanest should be 1 7.dxc6! 'lWxe5 1 8 .cxb7 l'!b8 1 9 . .ib5t i>f8 20.'lWxe5 .ixe5 2 1 .l'!d7+- intending ie3xa7) 1 5 .gxf3 cxd5 1 6 . .ixd5 l'!c8 1 7.'lWb5t i>f8 1 8 . .ic4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

White is winning, for example 1 8 . . . .ie7 1 9 .,ixe7t i>xe7 20.l'!d7t i>f6 2 1 .'lWb4 l'!he8 22.h5 and so on.

1 4 .l'!xd5 .ie7 14 . . . .ig4 1 5 .l'!xd6 .ixf3 1 6.'lWe3+-

1 5 .,ixe7 exd5 16 . .ixd5

a b c d e f g h

We have been following the model game Ye Jiangchuan - Hauchard, Belfort 1 999. Black

was powerless against the threat of .id6(t) followed by .ixb7, and he gave up on move 25 .

a b c d e f g h

12 • .ig5! But not 1 2 . .ib3? .ig4 l 3 .d5 ixf3 1 4.gxf3

cxd5 1 5 . .ixd5 0-0-0 1 6 . .ie4 .ic5= (Wahls) .

12 • • . 'lWg6 13.d5! Once again the proper timing of this break

through is the key to White's success.

13 • • • ttJxc4 14.'lWxc4 exd5 15J�he1 t .ie6 16Jhd5

The primary threat is l'!de5 followed by taking on e6, so Black needs to do something about the pin on the e-file.

16 • • • ie7 17.,ixe7 ad5 Black has won an exchange, but his vulner

able king will prove his undoing.

18.'lWb4 gc8 19.ttJd4 gc7 Even worse is 1 9 . . . 'lWh6t?! 20.i>b 1 a5

2 1 .'lWxb7 'lWd2 22 . .ib4! axb4 23 .'lWxc8t i>e7 24.'lWc7t i>e8 25 .ttJf3 1-0 R. Robson -R. Gonzalez, Miami 2008 .

20 • .id6 This is the quickest route to victory, al

though I also found an amusing and more

Chapter 1 - Main line B .llJe4 & B .llJdS 3 1

aesthetically pleasing alternative: 20.%Vd6!?N This should be sufficient to decide the game, although the variations are slightly more complex. 20 .. J'M7 (20 .. J'he7 loses to a long but linear sequence: 2 1 .%VbBt ..t>d7 22.%Vxb7t ..t>eB 23 .%VbBt ..t>d7 24.%Vxa7t ..t>eB 2S .%VaBt �d7 26.%Vc6t ..t>dB 27.%Vd6t ..t>eB 2B.lLlc6 %Vgst 29.f4 �d7 30.%Vb8t �d8 3 1 .fxgS �xb8 32.lLlxb8+-) 2 1 .%VeS hS ! ? 22.Ab4+- Black has no good defence against the threats of lLlfS and %Vb8t, intending to meet . . . �d8 with %Vxb7.

20 .. J�d7 21 .f4! ctt>d8?! 2 1 . . . %Vh6N would have offered slightly more

resistance, although after 22.%VcS the result is in little doubt.

The present position was reached in Maeser - Kuehn, Switzerland 2002, and now the quickest win would have been:

22.f5!N hf5 22 . . . %VgSt 23 . ..t>b l changes nothing.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

23.lLlc6t! Followed by mate in a few moves.

(although once again let me remind you that the critical position can also be reached through a move order beginning with 1 0 . . . lLld7, as noted previously) .

a b c d e f g h

H.dS! 1 1 .0-0-0?! would let Black breathe.

1 1 . . .Ae7! 1 2 .h4 ( 1 2 . ..t>bl lLld7 1 3 .Ac3 %Vf4= Collins - Prie, 4ncl 2006.) 12 . . . %VfS 1 3 .%Ve3 ( 1 3.hS lLld7 14.h6 g6= Salgado Lopez - Prie, Elgoibar 2006.) 1 3 . . . lLld7 14.Ae2 0-0-0 I S .lLlg5 Axg5 1 6 .hxg5 Axe2 1 7.%Vxe2 This was Landa - Bauer, Bundesliga 2007, and now 1 7 . . . %Vd5N would have secured a level game for Black.

H ••• he 12.gxf3 adS 13.,bdS lLld7 Black's chances are not improved by:

1 3 . . . lLlc6?! Aside from being an objectively inferior move, this also leaves less room for potential improvements as the play takes on a forced character:

1 4 .Axc6t bxc6 1 5 .%Ve4 �c8 1 5 . . . e5 1 6 .0-0-0 is better for White too, for example 1 6 . . . Ac5 1 7.Ac3 0-0 1 8 .Axe5 %Ve6 1 9 .Ad6!? Axd6 20.%Vxe6 fxe6 2 1 .�xd6 with good winning chances in the ending.

B13) lo .. . Ag4 1 6 .0-0-0 Aa3 1 7.c3 Ac5 1 8 .�hgl 0-0 1 8 . . . Axf2?? led to a quick disaster for

Finally we arrive at the most important option arguably the world's leading expert on this


whole line: 1 9 .,igS ! VNg6 20.VNxc6t! 1-0 Marciano - Prie, Narbonne 1 997.

a b c d e

1 9 .,igS ! 1 9 .,if4? ! only leads to a draw: 1 9 . . . ,ixf2 20.l::!:g2 ,ib6 2 1 .,ieS VNh6t 22.,if4 VNf6 23 .,ieS VNh6t 24.,if4 VNf6 �-� Fontaine - Prie, Narbonne 1 997. Incidentally this game was played just two rounds after the aforementioned debacle featuring 1 8 . . . ,ixf2??

19 . . . VNg6 20.VNh4 �h8 2 1 .b4!? Exploiting Black's temporary lack of harmony. A good alternative is 2 1 .,if4 VNf6 22.VNxf6 gxf6 23 .,ie3 ,ixe3t (23 . . . ,ib6N may have been a better try, although Black is still struggling) 24.fxe3 White went on to convert his obvious endgame advantage in Svidler Miklos, Darmstadt 2000.

2 1 . . .VNf5 Black is more or less forced to sacrifice a piece and hope for swindling chances. 2 1 . . .,ib6? loses by force after 22.,ie7 VNf5 23.!!gS ! (23 .,ixf8± should be good enough, but the text kills the game immediately.) 23 . . . VNxf3 24.!!xg7! VNxc3t 2S .�bl and White wins. Perhaps the best chance was 2 1 . . .f6!?N 22.,if4 VNfl 23.bxcS eS , sacrificing a piece under marginally better conditions than in the following game, although objectively his compensation can hardly be sufficient.

22.bxcS !!b8 23 .,ie3 VNb l t 24.�d2 !!b2t 2S .�el VNc2 26.VNc4

White has defended against all the major threats and is well on the way to victory, Tairi - Eklund, Sweden 200 1 .

a b c d e f g h

14.0-0-0 0-0-0 1 4 . . . ,ia3 IS .c3 0-0 is not a satisfactory option

for Black in view of 1 6.,ie4 ,ics ( l 6 . . . ,ie7 invites 1 7.h4!, and after 1 7 . . . h6 White has the gorgeous 1 8 .,igS ! hxgS 1 9 .,ih7t! �h8 20.hxgS , when according to Shirov White is winning, an assessment confirmed by the computer.) 1 7.!!hgl h6 1 8 .VNbS !!fd8 1 9 .,ie3 Psakhis - Zak, Israel 2000. Black have to repair his opponent's structure by exchanging on e3, and will shortly lose the b7-pawn as well.

15 .,ie4 I will briefly mention that Is .ixb7t?! only

leads to a draw at best after IS . . . �xb7 1 6.VNe4t �a6 (If Black is determined to play for a win he can even gamble with 1 6 . . . �c7! ?N or 1 6 . . . �c8 1 7.,ie3 eS 1 8 .VNa8t ltJb8 1 9 .La7, Traub - Jung, Germany 1 998 , both of which are risky but not yet refuted.) 1 7.VNa4t ( l 7.ic3? ! VNgst 1 8 .f4 VNbS 1 9 .a4 VNb6 is dangerous only for White, AI Sayed - Cornette, Moscow 2006.) 1 7 . . . �b7 1 8 .VNe4t �a6 1 9 .VNa4t �b7 �-Y2 Ye Jiangchuan - Malakhov, Moscow 2004.

Chapter 1 - Main line B .ltJe4 & B .ltJd5 33

15 • • • 'lWe5! The queen is urgently needed on its original

flank, as 'lWb5 would otherwise be fatal .

a b c d e f g h

16.ic3! Other moves are less dangerous. One such

example is 1 6 .f4 'lWc7 1 7.f5 exf5 I B .ixf5 g6! 1 9 .ic3! ? ( 1 9 .i.xd7t E:xd7 20.i.c3 i.h6t 2 1 .�b l E:xd l t 22.E:xd l E:dB 23.E:xdBt 'lWxdB was equal in Carmeille - Prie, Montpellier 2004. The black king is a bit more exposed, but with so few pieces left on the board this is not too relevant.) 1 9 . . . i.h6t 20.�b l gxf5 (20 . . . E:heB!?N 2 1 .ixd7t 'lWxd7 22.E:xd7 E:xe2 23.E:xf7 E:d7 with good chances to draw) 2 1 .'lWh5 'lWf4 22.i.d2?! (Better was 22.hhB E:xhB 23 .'lWxf7 lDb6 24.E:hglOO) 22 . . . 'lWxd2 23.E:xd2 ixd2 Black's rook and two pieces were stronger then the white queen in Holzke - K. Mueller, Bundesliga 2007.

16 • • • 'lWc7 17.�b1 1 7.E:hgl f6 I B .h4! ? lDc5 1 9 .E:xdBt 'lWxdB

20.'lWc4 'lWc7 2 1 .i.d4 gives White a slightly easier game, although the black position should be tenable after 2 1 . . .e5 22.i.e3 lDxe4 23.'lWxe4 �bB, Dyakov - Holzhauer, e-mail 2003.

17 • • • f6

a b c d e f g h

18.E:hgl ! Activating another piece is the most

unpleasant approach for Black to meet.

I B .i.d3 lDe5!? This surprising jump is sufficient for equality. 1 9 .i.b5 ( 1 9 .i.xe5 'lWxe5 20.'lWxe5 fxe5 2 1 .i.c4 i.c5 22.ixe6t �c7=) 1 9 . . . i.c5 20.f4 lDg6 2 1 .'lWxe6t �bB 22.f5 lDf4 23 .'lWe4 lDh3! 24.'lWg2 lDxfL 25 .E:xdBt E:xdB 26.E:e l lDd l ! 27.id2 lDe3! 2B.i.xe3 lh-lh Zhang Zhong - Bauer, Internet 2004.

It is also worth checking the following game, which featured some instructive moments : I B .f4 id6 (but not IB . . . 'lWxf4? 1 9 .i.a5 !+-) 1 9 .f5 exf5 20.ixf5 �bB 2 1 .h4 lDb6 22.h5 lDa4 23 .id4 i.c5 24.c3

a b c d e f g h

24 . . . 'lWb6 (My great opponent had overlooked 24 . . . J.a3!?N as he confessed at the post mortem.


I had rejected this option, judging it "messy" after 25 .h6. However, a closer inspection with the aid of the computer revealed an outcome of approximate equality after 25 . . . liJxb2 26.hxg7 Wfxg7 27Jl:de 1 Wfc7 28.!l: h4.) 25 .Wfc2 �xd4 26.cxd4 1'!xd4 27.1'!xd4 Wfxd4 28.1'!c l a6 29.b3 liJb6 30.Wfc7t rj:;a7 3 1 .Wfxg7 This was Shirov - Bauer, Pamplona 2006, and now the easiest manner to split the point would have been:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

3 1 . . .liJa4!N 32.bxa4 Wfb4t 33.rj:;a1 (33.rj:;c2? 1'!d8 34.�d7 Wfe4t is bad for White) 33 . . . Wfd4t with a perpetual.

a b c d e f g h

18 • • • liJc5 1 8 . . . g6 is another candidate, although one

must take care to consider the consequences of trading one weakness on g7 for another on f6. White's most challenging answer looks to be 1 9 .f4!N ( l 9 .Wfb5 �e7 20.�a5

b6 [20 . . . liJb6! ?N] 2 1 .�c3 liJc5 was equal in Knoeppel - Nucci, Internet 2005) 1 9 . . . �d6 (after 1 9 . . . Wfxf4?! 20.�a5 Black must shed an exchange) 20.�g2 ghe8 2 1 .Wfe4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h Black must find a way to parry the threat

of 1'!xd6, and 2 1 . . .�xf4? ? is certainly not an acceptable solution due to 22.1'!d4+-. Nevertheless 2 1 . . .liJc5 and 2 1 . . .�c5 both look reasonable and only moderately worse for Black.

If Black is to rehabilitate this line, his best bet may well be: 1 8 . . . rj:;b8!?N 1 9 .f4 liJc5

19 . . . Wfxf4? loses on the spot to 20.�xb7! rj:;xb7 2 1 .�a5+- since if the bishop on f8 moves then 22.1'!xg7 will hurt. 1 9 . . . g6 may be playable though, for instance: 20.�f3 �d6 2 1 .Wfxe6 �xf4 with only a slight disadvantage.

20.1'!xd8t Wfxd8 The second player should be alright. Here is one sample continuation:

2 1 .�h l ! ? With the idea of establishing a battery with Wff3 .

2 1 . . .liJa4 22.�d2 Wfb6 23.b3 g6 24.Wfc4 liJc5°o

19J::�xd8t <j;1xd8 Perhaps a better try would be 1 9 . . . Wfxd8!?N,

intending 20.Wfc4 rj:;b8 2 1 .�d4 liJxe4 22.fxe4 e5 23 .�e3 Wfd7 when Black should hold.

Chapter 1 - Main line S .ttJe4 & S .ttJd5 35

20.t.d4!

a b c d e f g h

20 . • . @c8 Black also fails to solve his problems with

20 . . . t.d6 2 1 .t.xc5 (White can also consider 2 1 .'lWc4!?N ltJxe4?! [2 1 . . .c;t>cS 22.t.xc5 leads to similar positions to the main line below] 22 .'lWxc7t t.xc7 23 .fxe4± attacking a7 and g7 simultaneously.) 2 1 . . .t.xc5 22.'lWc4 1"1:eS 23 .t.xb7 1"1:e7 24.t.e4 t.xf2!?N (24 . . . 'lWxh2 25 .1"1:fl was also unpleasant in Cornette -Bartholomew, Montreal 200S.) 25 .'lWxc7t Wxc7 26.1"1:g2 t.b6 27.t.xh7 Black has succeeded in forcing a queen exchange, but he will have a hard time fighting for a draw in the endgame a pawn down.

21.'lWc4

a b c d e f g h

21. • • a6N This is Black's best chance to resist, although

quite frankly if you are considering essaying the 9 . . . 'lWxf6 line in your own games, I would advise you to focus most of your attention on one of the potential improvements noted on moves I S and 1 9 .

It should be noted briefly that 2 1 . . .e5? only leads to an increase in Black's worries after 22.t.xc5 t.xc5 23.b4! with a marked edge to White, for instance: 23 . . . t.fS 24.'lWe6t 'lWd7 (24 .. .'itj'bS? 25 .1"1:d l +-) 25 .t.xb7t etc.

The single most significant 'landmark' game that helped to put a serious dent in Black's whole opening strategy ended as follows: 2 1 . . .'lWxh2? 22.1"1:d l 'lWc7 23.t.xc5 t.xc5 Now White was able to crush his opponent's resistance with the aid of a precise sequence:

a b c d e f g h

24.b4! (Black was banking on 24.'lWxe6t?! WbS 25 .1"1:d7?! when 25 . . . 1"1:dS! solves all his problems.) 24 . . . t.xf2 25 .'lWxe6t WbS 26.1"1:d7 'lWb6 27.'lWe7! 1-0 Sanduleac - Prie, Creon 2007.

22.t.xc5 t.xc5 23.'lWxe6t @b8 This is not the kind of position Black should

ideally be aiming for out of the opening, although at the same time White is a long way from converting his advantage.

24.a3


The evaluation is similar after 24Jl:d1 E:d8 2S .E:xd8t ¥Mxd8 26.a3 g6.

24 • • • g6!? 25.¥Mxf6 E:d8 Black will likely recover a pawn on either f2

or h2. White can play for a win without any risk, but the presence of opposite-coloured bishops is a significant drawing factor.

When opting for the recapture 9 . . . ¥Mxf6 Black leaves himself almost no opportunity to deviate from the main theoretical path. He thus condemns himself to a defensive role, with limited prospects of playing for more than a draw. That being said, there is scope for the second player to prepare in considerable detail, and with precise play Black has decent chances to neutralize his opponent's edge in the critical lines.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B2) 9 . . . gxf6

Taking back with the g-pawn carries the obvious defect of damaging the black pawnstructure. This will not only affect his chances in the endgame, but will also render short castling problematic. On the other hand the half-open g-file is a valuable source of counterplay, and Black also avoids moving his queen into an exposed position. Moreover, there is usually no harm for Black in castling long, and his

king usually ends up feeling perfectly safe on the queenside.

We have arrived at an important crossroads, from which we will analyse five main moves: B21) 10.Af4, B22) 10.0-0, B23) 10.¥Me2!?, B24) 10.c3 and finally the main line of B25) 10.Ab3.

B21) 10.Af4 tiJd7!

a b c d e f g h

White's last move is not really impressive, and Black can show more ambition than 1 0 . . . Ad6 1 1 .Ag3 Ag4 (threatening 1 2 . . . Axf3 1 3 .¥Mxf3 Axg3 followed by . . . ¥Mxd4) 1 2 .c3 ¥Mc? 1 3 .¥Me2 tiJd? 1 4.0-0-0 0-0-0= Stefanopoulos - Papaioannou, Greece 2003.

1 1 .0-0 This is White's most promising approach.

Other moves are possible, but Black is doing fine in all cases. The following lines and comments are based on Pries ChessBase annotations.

1 1 .Ad3 Axd3 1 2 .¥Mxd3 ¥Mast 1 3 .c3 0-0-0 1 4.0-0 ¥MhS! With good chances for Black.

1 1 .¥Md2 hS ! ? When the white queen does not eye hS anymore, Black may consider this move as a means of preserving his bishop against the plan of tiJh4. ( l 1 . . . tiJb6!? is a reasonable


alternative.) 12 . .ib3 Wb6 1 3 .0-0-0 h4 1 4.g3 hxg3 I S .hxg3 !!xh 1 1 6.!!xh 1 0-0-0= Kuklin -Becker, Germany 2003.

1 1 .We2 lLlb6 12 . .ib3 as! Introducing a powerful hidden resource.

1 3 .a4 1 3 .a3?! a4 Freeing the as-square for the queen. 1 4 . .ia2 lLldS 1 S . .ig3 ( 1 S .id2? ixc2) I S . . . WaSt! and 1 6.�f1 is forced in order not to lose the c-pawn.

1 3 . . . lLldS 14 .ig3 J.b4t 1 S .lLld2 1 S .c3? lLlxc3 1 6.bxc3 .ixc3t 1 7.�f1 ixa l-+

I S . . . hS+ Wallner - Lau, Vienna 1 998 .

a b c d e f g h

Curiously, the present posltlon has been reached several times via a Caro-Kann move order, typically along the lines of 1 .e4 c6 2 .d4 dS 3 .lLld2 dxe4 4.lLlxe4 lLlf6 S .lLlxf6t gxf6 6.lLlf3 .ifS 7 . .ic4 e6 8 .0-0 lLld7 9 .J.f4.

1 1 . • • lLlb6 12 • .ib3 id6 1 2 . . . .ig4!? is not a bad alternative.

However, Black does best to avoid: 1 2 . . . lLldS? !

The problem with this move is that the knight will be exposed to c2-c4.

1 3 . .ig3 .ih6 1 4.lLlh4 .ig6 1 S .c4 lLlf4 1 6.dS! cxdS

1 6 . . . ihS 1 7.f3 cxdS 1 8 .cxdS lLlxdS 1 9 . .ixdS WxdS 20.WxdS exdS 2 1 .lLlfS ifB 22.!!ac l !± Intending 23.!!fe l t �d8 24 . .ih4.

1 7 . .ixf4 .ixf4 1 8 .cxdS exdS

a b c d e f g h

1 9 .!!e 1 t!N 19 .93? ! .ieS is only marginally better for White, and after 20 . .ixdS a draw was agreed in Vallejo Pons - Akopian, Ohrid 200 1 . The text move leads to an improved version of a similar type of position.

1 9 . . . �fB 20 . .ixdS Wd6 2 1 .g3 !!d8 Or 2 1 . . . .ieS 22.Wf3 .ixb2 23 .!!ad l with a dangerous initiative.

22.ixb7 .id2 23 .!!e2 �g7 24.Wb3 Even though converting the extra pawn

will require a lot of work after 24 . . . Wb4 or 24 . . . WcS , White clearly has the upper hand.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

13.ig3


This position was reached in Kais - Brandys, Oberschwaben 1 995 (via the Caro-Kann move order noted previously) . Here the following untested approach looks quite interesting:

13 ... ,ig4!?N 14.a4 gg8!? Prie's suggestion of 14 . . . ,ixf3?! looks weaker:

1 5 .Wlxf3 hg3 1 6.Wlxg3 Wlxd4 1 7J:!ad l Wlb4 ( 1 7 . . . Wle5 ?? runs into I s .Wlg7 rj:;e7 1 9.,ixe6!+-) I S .Wlg7 And White recovers the pawn with a pleasant edge.

IS .aS liJdS With a complex and double-edged position.

B22) 10.0-0

8 i. . � �.� �.i 7 lfi"� '' ' ' '%� 'i�� 'i N '� f�f.�� 6 ��. ,

� 5 ��,��,�� : ��. N'�� W� ��,� ��,� ��,� 2 8 w[j 8 � w[j 8 w� 1 �""%.w.i�""

a b c d e f g h

With this move White obtains a better version of one of the S .liJe4 lines: compare both 1 0 .0-0 in the note to White's 1 0th move in line A2 (after S .liJe4 Wlc7 9 .liJxf6t gxf6) , as well as variation A3 1 (S .liJe4 Wlb6 9.liJxf6t gxf6 1 0 .0-0) . In the present position there is no denying that the black queen is worse on dS than it was on either c7 or b6 respectively, and Black will almost certainly have to spend a tempo on . . . Wlc7 (or . . . Wld6) in order to facilitate queenside castling. That being said, the second player is still not doing badly and the open g-file will offer plenty of counterattacking chances .

10 • • • liJd7 The following encounter was only a blitz

game, but still it provided some instructive moments. 1 O .. J:!gS ! ? 1 1 .:ge l ,ig4 1 2 .rj:;hl Wld6!

With almost all the black pieces in their starting blocks 1 2 . . . ,ixf3? 1 3 .Wlxf3 Wlxd4 was of course suicidal . The refutation would have been 1 4.,ixe6! fxe6 1 5 .:gxe6t and the black king will soon be hacked to pieces.

1 3 .b4 liJd7 1 4.b5 cxb5 1 5 .,ixb5 0-0-0 1 6.:gb l Wld5

a b c d e f g h

1 7.,if4?! The calm 1 7.,ie2!N would have reinforced the knight while clearing the b-file for the rook. In that case White's position would have been slightly better.

1 7 . . . ,ixf3 I S .gxf3 liJb6 1 9 .c3 ,id6 20.,ig3 Wlh5 2 1 .f4? Wld5t 22.rj:;gl ,ixf4 23.c4 Wlxd4-+ 24.Wlf3 ,ixg3 25 .hxg3

a b c d e f g h


25 . . .'IWc5?! 25 . . . f5 !N would have kept Black in full control. From this moment his position takes a rapid nose-dive.

26.a4 ltJd7 27 . .ta6 ltJb6?? Mter 27 . . .l:l:xg3t 28.Wxg3 bxa6 the position would have remained tenable.

28 .Wxb7# 1-0 Gashimov - Hamdouchi, Ourense

(blitz) 2009.

1 1 .�e1 We7 12.d5!? This looks like a principled attempt for

White to make use of his extra tempo over the two lines mentioned in the note to White's 1 0th move above. Nevertheless it brings him no advantage.

Alternatives such as 1 2 .ltJh4 .tg6 lead to normal play, resembling several other lines examined over the course of this chapter.

12 . • • cxd5 1 2 . . . ltJb6?! 1 3 . .ta5! is awkward.

13 . .txd5 0-0-0 14 • .te4 .tg6 15 .We2 .td6 16 • .tc3

16 ... f5! 17 . .td3 �hg8 18.ltJe5 ltJxe5 19.he5 f4

Black has obtained promising counterplay,

and in this encounter White felt compelled to take a repetition:

20 . .tf6 .te7 21 ..te5 .td6 22 . .tf6 1/2-%

Sutovsky - Ivanchuk, Sochi 2006.

B23) 10.We2

Mter this aggressive move Black must make an important decision. We will consider the playable though slightly cooperative B231) 10 • • . ltJd7 , followed by the more principled B232) 1O • • • .txe2!?

1 0 . . . .te7 1 1 .0-0-0 ltJd7 transposes to B23 1 , and was Black's chosen move order in the quoted game Roos - Prie.

B231) 10 ... ltJd7

This is perfectly playable, but Black must be a little careful as White will be able to mobilize his forces slightly faster than in lines B24 and B252.

1 1 .0-0-0 l 1 .d5? ! eases Black's task to equalize:

1 1 . . . cxd5 1 2 . .txd5 Wb6 1 3 .0-0 ( 1 3 .0-0-0!?) 13 . . . 0-0-0 14 . .te4 .txe4 1 5 .Wxe4 f5 1 6 .Wc4t Wc5 1 7.Wa4 :gg8 1 8 .b4?! ( 1 8 .:gfd 1 =) 1 8 . . . Wd5+ Vouldis - Tzermiadianos, Greece 1 998.


1 l • • • Wfc7?! This is a mistake, but I have promoted it

to main line status in order to highlight the dangers that Black faces.

One safer alternative is 1 1 . . .lLlb6!? 1 2.i.a5 Wfe7 ( 1 2 . . . Wfd6!?N looks better in terms of coordination.) 1 3 .i.b3 0-0-0 1 4.lLlh4 i.g6 1 5 .'kt>b U Saric - Tomczak, Vung Tau City 200S.

1 1 . . . i.e7 This is the soundest move, and the one I would recommend for players who, for whatever reason, do not wish to grab the pawn on c2. The following game provides a good illustration of Black's chances.

1 2J:%he 1 1 2 .lLlh4! was more thematic. Centralizing the rook looks sensible, but if White does not manage to break through with d4-d5 then it may just turn out to be a useless move.

1 2 . . . lLlb6 1 3 .i.a5 Wfd6 1 4.i.b3 lLld5 1 5 .g3 b6 1 6.i.d2 a5 1 7.lLlh4 i.g6 l s .lLlxg6

l S .a3 ! ? lS . . . hxg6 1 9 .h4 a4 20.i.c4 b5 2 1 .i.d3 b4 22.i.c4 'kt>d7 23 .Wff3 �hbS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

24.�h 1 ? !

a b c d e f g h

White was presumably reluctant to play 24.'kt>b 1 with . . . lLlc3t ideas in the air, but for the time being there was nothing to fear after 24 . . . lLlc3t? ! 25 .i.xc3 bxc3 26.Wfxc3 .

24 . . . b3! 25 .cxb3 a3! Creating awkward threats.

26.'kt>c2? The right defence consisted of 26.'kt>b 1 ! axb2 27.b4 with the point that the obvious 27 . . . lLlxb4?? runs into 2S .i.f4+-.

26 . . . axb2 27.�b 1 27.a4 was even worse: 27 . . . Wfa3! 2S .i.c3 �xa4!! 29.i.xd5 cxd5 30.bxa4 Wfxa4t followed by 3 1 . .J!:b3 -+ .

27 . . . �xa2 2S.�xb2 �xb2t 29.'kt>xb2 lLlb6+ White was unable to solve the problems

connected with his exposed king in Roos -Prie, French Team Ch. 2006.

12.lLlh4 i.g6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

13.he6! This is the reason why Black cannot afford

to react to 1 O.Wfe2 by playing bog-standard developing moves.

It is worth mentioning that 1 3 .f4! ? is also promising, for instance: 1 3 . . . f5 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 is probably the lesser evil, though after 1 4 .f5 exf5, Alvarez Ibarra - Stefanova, Terrassa 1 995, 1 5 .Wff2!N White remains on top.) 1 4.i.xe6!N (Clearly stronger than 1 4.g3? ! 0-0-0 1 5 .lLlg2 lLlf6= Timofeev -Woerdemann, Internet 2004; 1 4.g4! ? is an interesting alternative which turned out well for White in Santo Roman

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .ctJe4 & 8 .ctJd5 4 1

- Kovarcik, S t Affrique 1 999, and this would have been worth investigating had it not been for the even stronger sacrifice on e6.) 1 4 . . . fxe6 1 5 .Wlxe6t �d8 1 6.tLlxg6 hxg6 1 7.1'%he l (or 1 7.Wlxg6!?) White will likely emerge from the fray with four pawns and the initiative for a piece, or in other words, a solid plus.

13 • • • fxe6 14.Wlxe6t �d8 1 4 . . . �e7? goes down without a fight: 1 5 .1'%he l

0-0-0 (or 1 5 . . . Wld8? 1 6.�b4 c5 1 7.tLlxg6 hxg6 1 8 .dxc5) 1 6.Wlxe7 Wlxh2 1 7.1'%h l with a decisive advantage.

15.tLlxg6 hxg6 16J:!he1 �d6 17.d5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17 • . • c5 It is natural that Black should wish to keep

the centre closed. Nevertheless, he may have been better off considering: 17 . . . cxd5! ?N 1 8 .Wlxd5 a5!

According to the computer this was Black's best defensive bet. 1 8 . . . �c8 allows 1 9 .�a5 ( l 9 .1'%e3! ? is an interesting suggestion of Karsten Mueller) 1 9 . . . �f4t 20.�b l Wlc6 2 1 .Wlf7 b6 22.1'%e6 Wlc7 23 .�c3± when Black is tied down and in a difficult situation. 1 8 . . . 1'%c8 is also insufficient: 1 9 .�c3 �f4t ( l 9 . . . �e5 does not change anything) 20.�b l �e5 2 1 .Wlf7 Wlc6 22.f4! �xc3 23.bxc3

a b c d e f g h

The threat is 1'%xd7t, followed by Wlxf6t and 1'%e7. Black has no good defence, for instance: 23 . . . �c7 24.1'%xd7t Wlxd7 25 .1'%e7±

a b c d e f g h

1 9 .1'%e6 Mter 1 9 .�c3 1'%a6! Black defends.

1 9 . . . 1'%a6 20.�e3 Black is under pressure, but he may be able

to defend with computer-perfect play.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h


lS • .ih6 I B .Wff7!?N is also promising, but the text

move works just fine.

lS • • • .if4t Obviously not I B . . .1'hh6?? 1 9 .WfeB#.

Apart from the main game, I found one other practical encounter, which continued I B . . . .ie5 , Wegener - Menkowski, Dortmund 1 999. Here the strongest response would have been 1 9 .d6N Wfb6 ( 1 9 . . . Wfc6 20.f4) , and now White can break through with:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h 20.E:xe5! fxe5 2 1 ..ig7 E:eB 22 . .if6t llJxf6 23.Wfxf6t i>d7 24.Wff7t i>c6 25 .d7 White is a rook down for the time being, but the mighty d-pawn combined with Black's vulnerable king more than makes up for that. Play may continue 25 . . . E:f8 26.Wfxg6t i>c7 27.Wfg7 i>c6 2B .Wfxe5 Wfb4 29.c3! and White should win.

19.hf4 Wfxf4t 20.�b1 �cS Going for a meaningless pawn was of course

out of question: 20 . . . Wfxh2? 2 1 .Wfe7t i>cB 22.d6 E:dB 23.E:d3+- The threat is E:c3 and E:xc5t, and the attempt to defend with . . . b6 will be met by Wfe4 and Wfc6(t) with decisive threats.

21 .d6 E:dS 22.Wff7 Wfg4 23.6 Wfa4 23 . . . Wfxg2? 24.E:eB+-

24J3eS Wfa5

We have been following the game Egger - Papaioannou, Istanbul 2000. White has conducted the game perfectly so far, and at this point he could have put the icing on the cake with the following attractive idea:

a b c d e f g h

25.h4!N+-The creation of an outside passed pawn,

combined with the threats to the king, are too much for Black to handle. For instance:

25 • • J3xeS 26.WfxeSt WfdS 27.Wfxg6 And White should win.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B232) lo • • • hc2!?

a b c d e f g h

This is the principled reaction, attempting to punish White for leaving the c-pawn unguarded.


l l Jlc1 Having the rook here is useful, as it may be

able to swing along the third rank to g3 or h3 later in the game.

1 1 .0-0 This also leads to lively play, but Black seems to be doing fine in the complications, as demonstrated in the following game:

1 1 . . .ie7 1 2 .ih6 ig6 1 3 .�ad l liJd7 1 4.dS ! ? cxdS Is .ixdS

a b c d e f g h IS . . . �b6!

This move is much more pragmatic than the materialistic IS . . . exdS! ? 1 6.�xdS �b6 1 7.�fd l ! �d8 1 8 .�d6 �c7 1 9 .if4 (Karsten Mueller gives 1 9 .ig7?! �g8 20.ixf6 lDxf6 2 1 .�xd8t �xd8 22.�xd8t 'it>xd8 23 .�eS as unclear, but after 23 . . . ie4 or 23 . . . liJd7 24.�aSt b6 2S .�xa7 ie4 only Black has winning chances) 1 9 . . . �c2 ( 1 9 . . . 0-0?? 20.�xe7 �fe8 2 1 .�xd7+-) 20.�6d2 �e4 2 1 .�e I ! ! with massive complications.

1 6 .ie4 1 6.ib3! ?

16 . . . lDcS 1 7.ixg6 hxg6 1 8 .ie3 as 1 9 .�c2 �c8 20.lDd2

A draw was agreed here in Nisipeanu -Stefanova, Krynica 1 998 , but Black could have tried to make her extra pawn count after

20 . . . 0-0!

1 l • • • ig6 12.0-0 ie7 13J:Ue1 0-0 14.lDh4

14 • • J3e8 Black cannot afford to be too greedy:

1 4 . . . �xd4? IS .lDxg6 hxg6 1 6.ih6 �e8?! This loses abruptly. Black would not mind sacrificing the exchange for two pawns, but how would he complete his development?

a b c d e f g h

1 7.ixe6! fxe6 1 8 .�xe6t 'it>h7 1 9 .�f7t 'it>xh6 20.�xe8 id6 (20 . . . icS does not change much: 2 1 .�h8t 'it>gS 22.�xcSt �xcS 23.h4t+-) 2 1 .�h8t 'it>gS 22.�cd l and White wins.

15.lDxg6 hxg6 16.he6!

a b c d e f g h

16 • • • fxe6 1 6 . . . if8 ! ?

This would also have led to a balanced position after perfect play from both sides:

17 .�d3 fxe6


17 .. J'!xe6? 1 8J'!xe6 fxe6 1 9 .�xg6t i.g7 20.i.h6 �e7 2 1 .i.xg7 �xg7 22.�e8t �f8 23 .�xe6t �fl 24.�c8t+-

1 8 .�xg6t i.g7 1 9 .i.h6 l'!e7 20.l'!xe6 ClJd7 2 1 .l'!ce l ClJf8 22.l'!xe7 ClJxg6 23.l'!xg7t �h8 24.l'!xg6 �h7

After other moves White is by no means worse.

25 .l'!g4 �xh6 25 . . . �a5 comes to the same thing after: 26.l'!e7t �xh6 27.l'!e3 �h5 28.l'!g7=

26.l'!e3

a b c d e f g h

26 . . . �h5 27.l'!g7 �h6 28 .l'!g4= The game ends in an amusing repetition.

17.�xe6t q;g7 18J�c3 Worse is: 1 8 .�e3? ! g5 1 9 .h4 ( 1 9 .i.b4?

c5 20.i.xc5 ClJc6+) 1 9 . . . ClJd7 20.hxg5 fxg5 2 1 .�g3 White keeps some practical chances due to the vulnerability of the enemy king, but following 2 1 . . .ClJf8 or 2 1 . . .i.f6 Black is certainly better.

18 ... �d7 1 8 . . . �d5 should lead to a draw. 1 9 .�h3

�h5 20.�e6 �fS? (Black should settle for 20.�d5 with a repetition) 2 1 .i.h6t! This was missed by Mueller, who focused his attention on the drawish line: 2 1 .�xf5 gxfS 22.l'!g3t �fl 23 .l'!h3 i.d6 24.l'!h7t �g8 25 .l'!xe8t �xh7 26.l'!d8 i.c7 27.l'!c8=) 2 1 . . .�xh6 22.�fl

a b c d e f g h

Despite his two extra pieces Black is completely lost, for instance: 22 . . . i.b4 23 .�xe8 �g7 24.l'!c5 ! !+-

19.�e2! 1 9 .i.h6t? does not work here due to

1 9 . . . �xh6 20.�fl l'!f8! 2 1 .�xe7 �xe7 22.l'!h3t �g7 23.l'!xe7t l'!fl 24.l'!h7t �xh7 25 .l'!xflt �g8+.

19 .. . tLla6 20J�e3 q;f7 20 . . . �f8 leads to a draw after 2 1 .l'!h3 �g7

22.l'!e3, but in the present game Black is feeling more ambitious.

21 .�c4t �d5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

22.�d3? Finally White makes a clear mistake. Instead

after the correct 22.�e2!N the game would

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .lLle4 & 8 .lLld5 4S

likely have ended in a draw after 22 . . . Wd6 (or 22 . . . Wd7 23 .Wc4t=; on the other hand 22 .. .'IWdB?! looks too dangerous after 23.h4! tiJc7 24.hS tiJdS 2S .hxg6t \!;>g7 26J::le6) 23.:1!e6 Wd7 24.Wc4 WdS 2S .We2 WdB 26.Wc4=.

22 • • • .tb4 More clinical was: 22 . . . tiJc7!N-+

23J�h3?! The last chance to prolong White's resistance

would have been 23.:1!xeB :1!xeB 24.:1!xeB \!;>xeB 2S .Wxg6t, although even here Black is well and truly on top.

23 .. J:�xe1 t 24 • .txel .tf'S White's initiative is almost dead, and the

remaining moves can pass without comment.

25.gg3 f5 26.h4 ge8 27 • .tc3 .td6 28J�f3 We4 29.Wdl tiJc7 30.h5 tiJd5 31 .hxg6t \!;>xg6 32.gh3 We2 33.Wcl .tf4 0-1

This was the end of the fascinating struggle Zhang Zhong - Nisipeanu, Cap d'Agde (rapid) 2000.

B24) 10.c3

a b c d e f g h

Compared with the other big main line of B2S with 1 O . .tb3, this move has the advantage of reinforcing the d4-pawn, thus enabling the

white knight to move to h4. On the other hand the bishop is slightly more exposed on c4 than b3.

10 .. . tiJd7 l 1 .tiJh4! This is the most challenging move. 1 1 . We2

has also been quite popular, but in that case White has a slightly inferior version of variation B2S2, as the move c2-c3 is slightly less useful than .tc4-b3. (An example of a potentially significant difference is that a subsequent . . . tiJb6 cannot be met by .taS with the pawn on c3 .)

1 1 . . . tiJb6! A crucial intermediate move. Instead

1 1 . . . .tg6?! concedes White the advantage.

1 2 .Wf3 fS Another game continued 1 2 . . . Wc7 1 3 .0-0 .td6 1 4.g3 0-0-0 I S .a4 fS (What else? I S . . . eS and I S . . . cS are both visibly too weakening.) 1 6 .aS a6 1 7.:1!fe l tiJf6 I B . .tgS .te7 1 9 .tiJg2 ( I 9 . .txf6!? .txf6 20.tiJg2) 1 9 . . . tiJe4 20 . .txe7 Wxe7 2 1 .tiJf4 eS! Black must take his chance before tiJd3 takes away all possible hopes of counterplay. 22.dxeS :1!d2? ! (22 . . . WxeS!N may have been tenable for Black) 23.:1!e2 :1!hdB 24.h4 hS 2S .e6 with a considerable white supremacy, So -Megaranto, Jakarta 200B .

1 3 .Wh3 Prie mentions the following alternative: 1 3 .g3 ! ? tiJf6 1 4 . .tgS .tg7 (not 14 . . . .thS? I S . .txf6 .txf3 16 . .txdB .txh l 17 . .tf6 :1!gB I B .f3± when White will end up with two minor pieces versus rook and pawn) I S . .txf6 I do not see why White should exchange immediately. 1 5 . . . Wxf6 1 6.tiJg2 1t is true that the .tg6 is silly, but still I am not convinced that White really stands better.

1 3 . . . .tg7 1 4.0-0! tiJb6 I S . .tb3 cS I S . . . Wd6!?

1 6.tiJf3!


a b c d e f g h 1 6 . . . c4

Closing the centre and ensuring the knight of a neat outpost on dS seems logical, but the exposed c4-pawn will later become a significant problem for Black. Therefore 1 6 . . . cxd4N 1 7.lLlxd4 0-0, hoping to resuscitate the g6-bishop one day, was likely better.

1 7 . .id l ! White is already planning to utilize this bishop to attack the enemy queenside.

1 7 . . . Wic7 IB.Wih4 f6 1 9 J3e l 1flf7 20 . .if4 Wid7 2 1 ..ie2 �acB 22.lLld2 �heB 23.a4 eS

23 . . . aS runs into 24.b3! cxb3 2S . .ibS WidS 26.heBt IflxeB 27.lLlxb3! with a big plus for White.

24.dxeS fxeS 2S . .ih6

a b c d e f g h The c4-pawn remains a constant worry for Black, while after the exchange of darksquared bishops his king will also be rather exposed.

2S . . .f4

2S . . . .ixh6 26.Wixh6 as was also insufficient due to 27 . .ihS ! .

26.�ed l .if6 27 . .igS hgS 2B .WixgS 1-0 Lecroq - Danielsen, corr. 2000. It seems

early to resign, but Black does not have a good defence against the numerous threats, and the chances are swindling a quality opponent in a correspondence game are close to nonexistent.

12 • .ib3 Once again it is important for Black to be

precise here.

a b c d e f g h

12 • • • .id3! On one unfortunate occasion, yours truly

erred with 1 2 . . . .ig6? ! , and suffered one of the most painful losses of my career after: 1 3 .Wif3! .ie7 1 4.g3 Wid7 IS .0-0 f5? ! 1 6.lLlg2± Grischuk - Bauer, French Team Ch. 200S . The light-squared bishop remained a spectator for the whole game and Black was virtually a piece down.

13.Wie 1 3 . .ih6 .ixh6 1 4.Wixd3 Wic7 was about equal

in Gonzalez de la Torre - Prie, Elgoibar 200B .

A more significant option is: 1 3 . .if4 .ia6 1 4 . .ic2

In the event of 1 4 .WihS! ?N Black should


play 1 4 . . . lDd5 1 5 .J.g3 f5 intending . . . lDf6. A sample continuation is 1 6 .J.e5 ( 1 6 .lDf3! ? lDf6 1 7.'iMh3 may be better) 16 . . J'�gB! with the idea: 1 7.'iMxh7? E:g4 1 B .lDf3 E:e4t 1 9 .'it) d2 E:e2t 20.<it>c 1 'iMa5+ 1 4.'iMf3! ?N is an interesting alternative and may even be White's most promising continuation, although practical testing is needed.

1 4 . . . lDd5 1 5 .J.g3 'iMb6 1 6 . .tb3 Now Black can and should make use of an important resource:

a b c d e f g h

1 6 . . . lDb4! 1 7.'iMf3! 1 7 . .tc2? Atienza - Herbst, e-mail 1 997, 17 . . . 0-0-0N 1 B .J.e4 J.h6+ The white king is stuck in the centre, while Black's army is fully mobilized and ready to act.

1 7 . . . lDd3t 17 . . . lDxa2? 1 B .E:xa2 'iMxb3 1 9 .E:xa6+-1 7 . . . lDc2t? 1 B .J.xc2 'iMxb2 1 9 .<it>d2 0-0-0 20.lDf5!±

l B . <it>d2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

1 B . . . J.e7!N Mr. Scandinavian opted for the weaker 1 B . . . 0-0-0? in the following encounter: 1 9 .'iMxf6 lDc5 20.<it>c 1 lDxb3t 2 1 .axb3 'iMxb3 22.lDf5! J.d3 (or 22 . . . exf5 23.E:xa6! 'iMe6 24.'iMxe6t fxe6 25 .E:xa7 with an healthy extra pawn) 23.lDe3 a6 24.'iMxf7 E:d7 25 .'iMeBt E:dB 26.'iMf7 E:d7 27.'iMh5 E:d5 ? ! Libiszewski - Prie, Aix-Ies-Bains 2007. At this point White could have secured a decisive advantage with:

a b c d e f g h

2B .J.e5!N (The game continuation of 2B.'iMd 1 ? E:b5 29 .'iMxb3 E:xb3 left Black with almost adequate compensation for the sacrificed pawn.) 2B . . . J.d6 29 .'iMdl 'iMxd l t 30.E:xd 1 J.xe5 3 1 .lDxd5+-

19 .<it>c2 c5 20.dxc5 This is White's best bet. 20.E:hd 1 c4 2 1 ..ta4t <it>fB looks promising for Black, albeit still not so clear.

20 . . . 'iMxc5 2 1 .E:ad 1 0-0-0 22.<it>b 1 f5 23 .J.c2 'iMd5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h


With a small edge to Black.

13 . • • .tc4

a b c d e f g h

This position should be about equal, as practice has demonstrated.

14.hc4 1 4 .0-0-0 .te7 I S .ghe l �dS 1 6.�xdS cxdS

was equal in Cheparinov - Bauer, Kerner 2007.

White can also avoid the bishop exchange with: 14 . .tc2 .tdS I S .�g3

Or I S .�hS ! ?N lLlc4 1 6 . .tc1 (Wahls) with reciprocal chances. The present position was reached in Haist Becking, Dudweiler 1 996, and here Black could have improved with:

a b c d e f g h

I S . . . �d7N The game continuation of I S . . . .td6?! 1 6 .�g7! was unpleasant for Black. However, I S . . . lLlc4!?N 1 6 . .tc1 f5 is not a bad alternative.

1 6.b3 0-0-0! Setting a small trap.

1 7.c4? 1 7.0-0 is better, with mutual chances.

1 7 . . . .te4! 1 8 . .txe4 �xd4 1 9 .0-0 �xd2+

14 .. . lLlxc4 15 • .tc1 �d5 16.�e2 gg8 17.0-0 0-0-0

The stage is set for an exciting battle between rival attacks.

a b c d e f g h

18.g3 lLld6 19.gel h5 More peacefully inclined players might have

preferred 1 9 . . . �bSN or 1 9 . . . �c4N.

20.lLlg2 �f5 21 .a4 �h7!? Black finds a creative way of preparing

. . . h4.

22.b4 22.l!?h l was possible, when 22 . . . J.e7 looks

like a sensible reply. White must be careful as

if . . . h4 eventually does arrive on the board, its impact will be even greater with the king on h i , so on this occasion White decided to ignore it in order to focus on his own attack.


22 • • • h4 23.b5 hxg3 24.fxg3

a b c d e f g h

24 • . • c5!? Another option was 24 . . .!:!:hBN 25 .tLlh4

(25 .bxc6? ! 'lWxh2t 26.�f2 �h6 27.cxblt �bBt) 25 . . . c5 26.dxc5 tLlf5 27.tLlxf5 'lWxf5 2B .�e3 Lc5 29 .'lWc4 E:d5 30.E:ad l E:e5 3 1 .�xc5 E:xc5 32.'lWd4 with a level position.

25.a5 25 .dxc5N was playable, though a bit risky.

After 25 . . . tLlf5 26.'lWc4 E:d5 27.�a3 the computer gives a number of lines ending in a draw by repetition, usually after a knight sacrifice on g3 . Presumably White looked at this but considered it too risky to venture over the board.

25 • • J�h8 26.tLlh4?! 26.h4N should have been preferred, when

the position remains unclear.

26 . • . 'lWh5! The earlier capture fxg3 represented

something of a positional concession for White, so Black exploits the fact that the endgame would favour him.

27.'lWfl cxd4 The immediate 27 . . . tLlxb5 ! ?N may have been

a slight improvement.

28.cxd4 2B .b6!?N a6 29.cxd4 was a better bet for

White.

28 .. . tLlxb5

White did not have enough for the missing pawn in Mullon - Prie, Creon 2007.

B25) 10.�b3

This is the main line. White retreats the bishop to a more secure location, while defending the c2-pawn in preparation for 'lWe2 and 0-0-0.


the kingside with B25 1) l 1 .tLlh4. However, the most popular move by far has been B252) 1 1 JWe2.

B251) l 1 .tLlh4 ig6 12.Wff3

1 2 .f4? ! f5! We have already encountered this thematic method of preventing the nasty f4-f5 . The e4-square becomes a long-term outpost for the black knight (and potentially some other pieces later in the game) . The bishop on g6 is ugly, but even this piece is far from useless as it may help to reinforce a knight on e4. Play may continue: 1 3 .tLlf3 (White can hardly benefit from 1 3 .g3? ! tLlf6) 1 3 . . . ih5 With comfortable equality for Black.

a b c d e f g h

12 • • • a5! This seems best, although other continuations

also lead to interesting play. The following example is not of high theoretical value, but it contained some instructive and entertaining moments in the middlegame: 1 2 . . . f5 1 3 .g3? !

Better is 1 3 .Wfh3! ig7 1 4.c3!t ( 1 4 .tLlf3?! tLlf6 1 5 .0-0 ih5=) This was Landa - Prie, Bastia (rapid) 2007. White has maintained his flexibility, and the bishop on g6 is in some danger of becoming a long-term strategic liability. Contrarily to the note to White's 1 2th move above, here the . . . f5

advance might be exposed as premature as the e4-square is not permanently weakened.

1 3 . . . tLlf6 Intending . . . ih5 .

1 4.Wfe2? This pawn sacrifice is too optimistic. Better was 1 4 .tLlxg6 hxg6 1 5 .0-0-0, even though 1 5 . . . ih6! brought Black easy equality in Landa - Prie, Ajaccio (rapid) 2007.

1 4 . . . Wfxd4 1 5 .0-0-0 1 5 .ic3 ib4!

1 5 . . . Wfe4 1 6.Wffl 0-0-0 1 7.:i:!e l :gxd2! 1 8 .mxd2

1 8 .:gxe4 tLlxe4 1 9 .f3 ih6! 1 8 . . . Wfd4t 1 9 .c;t>cl

Akopian - Bauer, Paris (rapid) 2009.

a b c d e f g h

1 9 . . . ia3! !N I had spotted this move, but without managing to calculate all the lines that follow. The game continued with the less spectacular, but still not bad 1 9 . . . tLle4 20.tLlf3 i.h6t (20 . . . Wff6!) 2 1 .mb l Wfxf2 In spite of several missed opportunities Black still stood clearly better, but the game eventually ended in a draw.

20.bxa3 Wfal t 2 1 .md2 :gd8t 22.me2 22.Wfd3 :gxd3t 23.mxd3 Wfb2+

22 . . . Wfc3 23 .Wfh3 ih5t! 24.f3 24.mfl ? Wfxe l t is a cute finish!

24 . . . :gd2t 25 .mfl ixf3-+

Chapter 1 - Main line B .ltJe4 & B .ltJd5 5 1

Before moving on, I will mention that 1 2 . . . �c7 and 1 2 . . . .ie7 are both playable alternatives, but since I consider the text move to be the most promising I will not examine these moves in detail.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

13.a4 f5!N This improves over a game of a former

European Champion, which continued: 1 3 . . . �b6?! Even this slight inaccuracy does not lead to any dramatic consequences. 14 . .ic3 .ig7 1 5 .0-0-0 0-0-0 1 6.\t>b l �a6 1 7.lLlxg6 hxg6 I B .h4 lLlb6 1 9 .h5 gxh5 20.:B:xh5 lLld5 2 1 ..ixd5 cxd5 22 . .id2 f5 23 . .ig5 :B:dgB 24.:B:xhB

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

24 . . . .ixhB?! (24 . . . :B:xhB!N would have prevented White's next.) 25 .�h5 �d6 26.g3 Landa - Nisipeanu, Bundesliga 2007. Here Black should have played 26 . . . �d7!N (in the

game he erred with 26 . . . e5? 27 . .id2±) , with good chances for a successful defence.

14.�h3 1 4.g3 ! ? is another idea.

14 • • • .ig7 15.lLlB 1 5 .c3? �b6 is undesirable for White.

15 . • . lLlf6 The position is dynamically balanced, with

chances for both sides.

B252) 1 1 .�e2

8 .i � �.� �B 7 �r� i)� 'l�� 'l "" ,%� �� r �� 6 _ i _ i �� 5 �

%_ %.t_ 4 �_ �� _ ��

f��""%� �� 3 �W'0 ��'0 �W'0 �� '� 2 8 r� 8 �"iir� 8 � 1

.",,%.""'��""%� : a b c d e f g h

1 l .. . �c7 This is by far Black's most popular move, and

also the best one. Here are a few examples to demonstrate the inferiority of the alternatives :

1 1 . . . .ie7? ! 1 2 .0-0-0 �c7 1 3 .lLlh4 .ig6 1 4.lLlxg6 hxg6 1 5 .h4 0-0-0 1 6.h5;l; Hommeles - Prie, Montpellier 2006. White has obtained a slightly more comfortable version of the main line, where Black has developed his bishop on e7 prematurely.

1 1 . . . a5? ! Eric Prie made the insightful observation that this move will usually only be justified in positions where the knight can still be


developed on a6. We saw an exception in the previous variation B25 1 , after l 1 .tlJh4 i.g6 1 2 .Wff3 a5! , but the difference here is that White is not obliged to play c2-c3 . As a consequence his bishop will remain stable on b3, thus rendering the black queen's outing to b6 a shot in the dark.

1 2 .a4 i.e7 1 3 .0-0-0 tlJb6

a b c d e f g h

1 4.c4! White correctly assessed that this committal move had more pros than cons, Black being unable to profit from the weaknesses around the enemy king.

14 . . . tlJd7 1 5 .i.f4 Wfb6 1 6.i.c2 i.xc2 1 7.Wfxc2 tlJf8 1 8 .mb l tlJg6 1 9 .i.h6 0-0-0 20.h4 i.f8 2 1 .i.e3

This was Bologan - Hauchard, Belfort 1 999. White was in control and went on to win.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

12.tlJh4 1 2.0-0-0 usually only results in a

transposition after 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 1 3 .tlJh4 i.g6.

1 2 .d5? ! is never played, and is not to be feared. After 1 2 . . . cxd5 1 3 .i.xd5 the safest continuation is 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 (the more ambitious 1 3 . . . Wfxc2! ? may be objectively even better) 1 4.i.e4 ( 1 4 .ib3? tlJc5) 1 4 . . . i.xe4 ( 1 4 . . . i.g6!?) 1 5 .Wfxe4 E:g8 1 6.g3 i.c5 and Black is fine.

12 • • • i.g6 13.0-O-O Some players have experimented with

the aggressive 1 3 .f4. Black's most solid and thematic response is 1 3 . . . f5, when one game continued 1 4 .tlJxg6 ( 1 4.0-0 0-0-0 transposes to 1 4 .f4 in the note to White's 1 4th move in the main line below) 1 4 . . . hxg6 1 5 .ixe6! ? We saw a similar idea in line B23 1 , but the major difference is that here White has lost a tempo by playing ib3 before ixe6, at the expense of the much more useful 0-0-0. In short, although the idea is interesting Black should have little to fear. 1 5 . . . fxe6 1 6.Wfxe6t md8 1 7.Wfxg6

a b c d e f g h

This was Kilian - Friedrichs, Ruhrgebiet 2005 , and here Black should have played 1 7 . . . Wfd6N 1 8 .Wfxf5 ih6 1 9 .0-0 (or 1 9 .0-0-0 E:f8) 1 9 . . . mc7 with at least equal chances. White may have four pawns for a piece, but he has no attack and Black's pieces will coordinate nicely.

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .tlJe4 & 8 .tlJdS 53

13 .. . 0-0-0

a b c d e f g h

14.g3 This flexible, positionally-orientated move

has become White's main choice. Here is a summary of his other possibilities :

1 4 .ttJxg6 hxg6 I S .h4 i.h6! Black is following a well-known positional principle: when playing with bishop and knight against two bishops, it is usually helpful to exchange a set of bishops . 1 6 .i.xh6 E:xh6 1 7.g3 fS= Grosar - Rukavina, Bled 1 999. Note that when only one white bishop remains, Black's best strategy involves placing his pawns on the same coloured squares as that piece, in order to restrict it.

1 4 .g4 100ks rather artificial . 14 . . . i.d6 I S .ttJxg6 hxg6 1 6.h4 White's idea is to be able to create a passed pawn with h4-hS at any moment. However, after the following exchange of darksquared bishops, that pawn may turn out to be more of a liability than an asset. 1 6 . . . i.f4! 1 7.�b l i.xd2 1 8 .Wlxd2 cS 1 9 .Wlc3 cxd4 20.Wlxd4 �b8 2 1 .f3 ttJeS 22.Wlf4 Y2-Yl Ragger - Leon Hoyos, Budapest 2006.

1 4.f4 fS ! We have already encountered this typical response in numerous lines. 1 4 . . . i.d6 is worse, and after I S .fS ! exfS 1 6.Wlf2 White has an edge.

1 5 .h3 I S .g3 i.e7 ( 1 S . . . ttJf6!N was stronger) 1 6.ttJxg6 hxg6 17.d5 cxd5 1 8 .i.xdS i.f6= Savanovic Tzermiadianos, Korinthos 1 999.

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . ttJf6! I S . . . i.e7? ! allows the clever trick 1 6.ttJxfS!N (Instead 1 6 .ttJf3?! i.hS was at least equal for Black in Corrales - Prie, Barbera 2008.) 1 6 . . . i.xfS 1 7 .g4 i.g6 (The inferior 17 . . . i.xc2?! was Pries intention, as he confessed afterwards. Play continues 1 8 .�xc2 ttJf6 [On 1 8 . . . c5 both 1 9 .f5 and 1 9 .d5! ? , intending to meet 1 9 . . . ttJb6 with 20.dxe6 c4 2 1 .E:c l ! , are in White's favour. ] 1 9 .E:hfl ! E:xd4 Otherwise f4-f5 will put Black under heavy pressure. 20 .i.a5 Wld7 [20 . . . Wlxa5 2 1 .E:xd4 represents the lesser evil for Black, although White is still clearly better.] 2 1 .i.c3 E:xdl 22.E:xd l Wle8 23 .he6t! fxe6 24.Wlxe6t �c7 25 .g5 ttJd5 26.i.xh8 Wlxh8 27.E:xd5+-) 1 8 .fS ttJf6 1 9 .fxg6 hxg6

a b c d e f g h


20.:B:dfl !t White threatens g5, and retains the initiative. The d-pawn is defended indirectly by tactical means: 20 . . . :B:xd4? 2 1 ..ic3 :B:f4 22 . .ie5 :B:xfl t 23.:B:xfl vgdB 24.g5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 6.lLlxg6

a b c d e f g h

1 6.g4? is bad due to 1 6 . . . lLle4 1 7.gxf5 exf5 when White cannot cover the weaknesses on d4 and f4 in addition to the g3-square.

1 6 . . . hxg6 1 7.vgS 17 . .ixe6t? ! does not really work: 1 7 . . . fxe6 I B .vgxe6t lLld7 1 9 .vgxg6 .id6 White can exchange another pair of pawns with 20.vgxf5 :B:hfB 2 1 .vgd3 .ixf4, but I still prefer the knight to the three pawns.

1 7 . . . lLle4 I B . .ie3 With approximate equality.

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . c;!?b8! This prophylactic move is almost always

a good idea. Especially useful is the fact that White will be deprived of certain combinations involving .ixe6, which will no longer come with check.

1 4 . . . .id6 This is playable, but Black falls slightly short of full equality.

1 5 .lLlxg6! White plans to utilize his rook on the h-file. The following two examples demonstrate that developing it on e l is less purposeful: 1 5 .:B:he l �bB 1 6.�b l :B:cB! 1 7.lLlxg6 hxg6 I B .h4 �aB 1 9 .:B:h l l/2-Y2 Fedorov -Papaioannou, Leon 200 1 . 1 5 .�b l :B:heB 1 6.:B:he l �bB 1 7.a3 �aB I B .vgf3 :B:cB 1 9 .1Llxg6 hxg6 20.h4 f5= Adams - Radjabov, Prague (rapid) 2002.

1 5 . . . hxg6 1 6.h4

a b c d e f g h 1 6 . . .f5

1 6 . . . c5 should be met by 1 7.d5! ( l 7 . .ie3? ! i s less energetic: 17 . . . lLlb6 I B .c4 cxd4 1 9 . .ixd4 and now Black can obtain fully satisfactory play with either 1 9 . . . e5 , Dembo - Repkova, Calvia 2004, or 1 9 . . . .ie5 ! ?N 20.ie3 f5 intending . . . f4 .) 1 7 . . . lLlb6 I B . .ia5t The position resembles the game Tkachiev - Ricardi from variation A2 (see page I B) . In the present position White has been 'given' the additional moves g2-g3 and h2-h4, while Black benefits from having his bishop on d6 instead of ffi. The overall evaluation is similar in both positions.

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .ttJe4 & 8 .ttJdS 5 5

17 .J.gS! Another promising idea is 1 7.c;t>b l 1:!deB I B .c4 ! .

17 . . . 1:!deB I B .hS gxhS 1 9 .1:!xhS;!; Kasimdzhanov - Papaioannou, Bled 2002.

1 4 . . . lLlb6 This move reaches the same position as in the game Reichmann - Westphal from variation A2 (see 8 .lLle4 Vf!c7 9 .ttJxf6t gxf6 1 0 .Vf!e2 lLld7 1 1 .0-0-0 0-0-0 1 2.lLlh4 J.g6 1 3 .J.b3 lLlb6 and so on) with the inclusion of the extra tempo g2-g3 . In theory this should render 1 4 . . . lLlb6 a dubious move, nevertheless it still seems to be playable.

I S .J.aS I S .Vf!f3?! J.g7 1 6.J.f4 Vf!e7 ( l 6 . . . eS? ! is inferior due to 1 7.dxeS fxeS I B .J.gS .) 1 7.c;t>b l lLldS White cannot continue with J.g3 in the current situation, and after I B .J.d2 f5 the position is balanced. I S .f4!? is interesting though:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

I S . . . fS ( l S . . . 1:!xd4? leads to troubles: 1 6 .f5! exfS 1 7.J.f4 1:!e4 This i s the least of the evils, although the ensuing ending is still depressing for Black. [ l 7 . . . 1:!xf4?? I B .Vf!eBt Vf!dB 1 9 .Vf!xdB#; 17 . . . 1:!xd l t? I B .1:!xd l Vf!e7 1 9 .Vf!xe7 J.xe7 20.lLlxg6 hxg6 2 1 .J.xf7+-J I B .Vf!xe4 fxe4 1 9 .1Llxg6! hxg6 [ 1 9 . . . fxg6? 20.J.e6t Vf!d7 2 1 .1:!xd7 lLlxd7 22.1:!d l +-J 20.J.xc7 c;t>xc7 2 1 .J.xf7 and the extra exchange will tell sooner or later.) 1 6.J.aS

Vf!d7 (or 1 6 . . . J.g7 1 7.c3;!;) 1 7.c4;!; Bildat -M. Martin, e-mail 200 1 .

a b c d e f g h 1 5 . . . J.d6 1 6.c;t>b l c;t>bB 1 7.lLlxg6 hxg6 I B .h4

White kept a risk-free edge in Efimenko - Nakamura, Gibraltar 200S . Black is handicapped by the pin on his knight, one consequence being that the thematic plan of . . . f5 and . . . lLlf6 is impossible.

Finally, I also investigated: 1 4 . . . cS ! ?N

This does not appear to have been tried in this exact position, although it could transpose to other games after a few moves.

1 5 .dS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

I S . . . c4! ? a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . lLlb6?! is once again strongly met by 1 6 .J.aS ! ( l 6.dxe6? is tempting but squanders White's advantage: 1 6 . . . c4 1 7.J.f4 cxb3! I B .J.xc7 J.h6t 1 9 .c;t>b l bxc2t 20.Vf!xc2! [20.c;t>al 1:!xd l t 2 1 .1:!xd l cxd l =Vf!t 22.Vf!xd l


�xc7] 20 . . . �xc2t 2 1 .�xc2 �xc7 22.tDf5 �g5 [or 22 . . . fxe6 23.tDh6=] 23.exf7 E:hf8 24.h4 with equality.) 1 6 . . . e5 1 7.tDxg6 hxg6 1 8 .h4 f5 1 9 .c4 e4 ( 1 9 . . . E:h5 ! ?) 20.h5 �g7 2 1 .�b l �b8 22.E:h3! ? Wle7 23.E:dh l ± Vicary - Gonzalez, San Diego 2006.

1 6 .�xc4 Going for the endgame reduces White's winning chances: 1 6.Wlxc4 Wlxc4 1 7 .�xc4 tDb6 1 8 .tDxg6 hxg6 1 9 .�b3 tDxd5=

16 . . . tDb6 17 .tDxg6 hxg6 1 8 .�b3 tDxd5 1 9 .�b l .ic5 20.h4;t

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

White's chances are slightly higher due to his two bishops and slightly safer king, but Black has a stable position and no real weaknesses .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15.tDg2 Freeing the h-pawn in order to harass the g6-

bishop.

1 5 .tDxg6 hxg6 1 6.h4 brings White no advantage here due to the typical idea: 1 6 . . . �h6! As usual, the exchange of dark-squared bishops solves Black's problems. 1 7.h5 �xd2t 1 8 .E:xd2 gxh5 1 9 .E:xh5 f5 Followed by . . . tDf6 with equality.

1 5 .�f4?! �d6 1 6.�xd6 Wlxd6 1 7.f4 f5 ! Compared to Grischuk - Bauer from variation B24, this time Black has a guaranteed outpost on e4, while the bishop is assured of a route back into the game via h5 .

1 8 .c4 tDf6 19 .�c2 �h5 20 .tDB E:d7! Black is keeping his cards close to his chest with regard to the subsequent placement of his queen.

2 1 .E:d3 E:hd8 22.E:hd l �a8 23 .E:b3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

23 . . . Wlf8! With a fine position for Black, Ady - Prie,

Brussels 2006. White's d4-pawn has the potential to become a serious weakness, with the black queen eyeing the h8-square and the bishop ready to eliminate the B-knight at a

, . moment s notice.

Finally, White has also tried: 1 5 .�b l ! ? �d6

Black can also consider 1 5 . . . c5 , with the possible continuation 1 6.d5 e5 1 7.tDxg6 hxg6 1 8 .h4 tDb6 1 9 .c4 �h6. 1 5 . . . �a8! ? is also not bad.

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .ttJe4 & 8 .ttJd5 S7

a b c d e f g h

1 6.i.c3 This is harmless. Best was 1 6.llJxg6 hxg6 1 7.h4 with a modest edge for White, Zautzig - Peschke, e-mail 2007.

16 .. .:!:l:heB 1 7 .llJxg6 hxg6 I B .h4 fS 1 9 .i.d2 llJf6

White has obtained no advantage. 20.i.gS i.e7 2 1 .i.f4

liz-liz Edouard - Prie, Cap d'Agde 2006.

a b c d e f g h

15 . . . e5!? This is the latest trend.

As usual, I S . . . llJb6 should be met by 1 6.i.aS! (but not 1 6.i.f4?! i.d6= Arakhamia - Repkova, Triesen 2007) , when White keeps an edge. For instance: 1 6 . . . c5 1 7.dS (or 1 7.dxc5 i.xc5 I B .i.c3) 1 7 . . . e5 1 8 .�b l , with slightly better chances in a complex position.

1 5 . . . i.d6 This has been Black's most popular and heavily analysed option, but it is currently under something of a cloud due to a crucial improvement over the game Carlsson -Papaioannou, which we will soon examine under note b) below.

1 6.h4 hS So far no-one has tested 16 . . . h6!?N 1 7.llJf4 i.h7.

1 7.llJf4 i.fS I B .llJxh5 cS White has cashed in a pawn, but his knight is temporarily offside and he must now find a way to deal with the challenge to his centre. In this critical position White has two significant options .

a b c d e f g h

a) 1 9 .1lJg7!?N Playing with fire has its charms!

1 9 . . . i.h7 20.d5 llJe5 As usual, 20 . . . llJb6?! 2 1 .i.aS! does not help Black. Prie describes the position after 20 . . . llJeS as being quite dangerous for White, notably because of the idea of . . . cS-c4 followed by . . . llJd3t. He certainly has a point, although the following analysis indicates that there are all kinds of hidden resources available to both players, so digging more thoroughly may well be worth the effort.

2 1 .dxe6 A complex line is: 2 1 .i.c3 c4 22.i.a4 gdgB 23.llJhS i.d3 24.cxd3 cxd3 2S .�d2 gxh5°o


a b c d e f g h

2 1 . . .�dg8!? This can lead to mind-boggling complications, although it is hard to say if it is the best move overall. Another option that deserves attention is: 2 1 . . .c4 22.iia4 ttJd3t 23.Wb l 'lWb6 24.iic l 00

22.iih6 c4 22 . . . iig6?? 23.h5 �xh6 24.hxg6 �xh l 25 .�xh l wins for White.

23.iia4 White can also consider 23.exf7! ? 'lWxf7 24.iia4°o (But note that 24.�xd6? ! should be avoided: 24 . . . cxb3 25 .axb3 iixc2 26.'i:t>xc2 'lWclt 27.'i:t>b l 'lWxd6 28.ttJf5 'lWd7 29.'lWe4 ttJg4 and Black has the upper hand) .

23 . . . iid3 23 . . . iif8? 24.exf7±

24.'lWd2 24.'lWe3? ttJg4!

24 . . . b5 ! This position should be enough to give even the most gifted tactician a headache.

a b c d e f g h

25 .exf7!? 25 .iixb5? hands Black the advantage after 25 . . . c3 26.'lWxc3 'lWxc3 27.bxc3 iia3t 28.Wb l iixb5 . 25 .cxd3 bxa4 26.e7! ?00 i s playable though.

25 . . . 'lWxf7 26.iixb5 c3 27.'lWxc3 �c8 28.�xd3 �xc3 29.�xc3

The game remains unclear. It should be noted that in the final position Black does best to avoid:

29 . . . �xh6? ! due to:

30.ttJf5 All in all Black seems to have his share of

chances after 1 9 .ttJg7! ?N, but the position is too messy to render a definitive assessment at this stage.

b) 1 9 .94! According to the database, this is the only move to have been tried. According to my analysis, it is also the most reliable route to an advantage, although White will have to demonstrate precision at the critical moments.

1 9 . . . �xh5! Black cannot afford to dither, and must act resolutely. 1 9 . . . iig6? is refuted as follows: 20.d5 ttJe5 2 1 .ttJxf6 (2 1 .dxe6? c4 22.iia4 ttJxg4 is unclear) 2 1 . . .c4

a b c d e f g h

22.iic3! ! (but not 22.iia4? ttJd3t 23. 'i:t>b 1 iie5 with advantage to Black) 22 . . . cxb3

Chapter 1 - Main line B .tDe4 & B .tDd5 59

23.axb3 And White will emerge with a material advantage.

20.gxf5 20.gxh5 is less promising: 20 . . . cxd4 2 1 .mb l ttJe5

a b c d e f g h

Black has a compact position, his pieces being nicely centralised. The white h-pawns do not yet represent a great danger, contrarily to the looming threat of . . . d4-d3 . The compensation for the sacrificed exchange is at least adequate.

20 . . .!l:xf5 2 1 .i.e3 cxd4 22.i.xd4 22'!%xd4?! i.c5 23.l'!c4 i.xe3t Y2-Yz Van Linde - Forchert, Germany 2004.

22 . . . l'!hB Black should refrain from swapping too many pieces since this would increase the importance of the passed h-pawn. Thus after 22 . . . ttJc5 23.h5! ttJxb3t 24.axb3 l'!hB 25 .h6 i.f4t 26.i.e3, or 22 . . . ic5 23 .i.xc5 ttJxc5 24.l'!xdBt WxdB 25 .h5 , Ponomariov - Papaioannou, Plovdiv 2003, his defensive task may soon become insurmountable.

23.h5 i.h2! 24.h6 l'!xh6

a b c d e f g h

25 .i.xe6!N It is this move which has put the whole 1 5 . . . i.d6 line under something of a cloud. 25 .mb l ? ! After this inaccuracy Black can neurralize his opponent's initiative. 25 . . . tDc5 ! This was an important innovation by - who else? - Eric Prie. (25 . . . i.f4? went down to the following hammer blow: 26.l'!xh6 i.xh6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

27.i.xe6! ! fxe6 2B .Wxe6, when the lack of harmony between the Black's pieces proved fatal : 2B . . . l'!f3 29 .WeBt WcB 30.i.xa7t mc7 3 1 .Wh5 ttJe5 32.Wxh6+- Carlsson -Papaioannou, 2007.) 26.i.e3 (26.l'!dg l ? ! l'!hB! 27.l'!g2 ttJxb3 2B .axb3 WdB or else 2B .i.xf6 l'!xf6 29.l'!hxh2 l'!dB+; 26.i.c4 a6=) 26 . . . l'!h8 27.f4 l'!fh5 2B .Wg2 a6! 29 .i.xc5 Wxc5 30.l'!d7 Wb6 3 1 .a4! i.xf4 32.l'!xh5 l'!xh5 33 .WgBt ma7 34.Wxf7 l'!h l t 35 .ma2 i.e5 36.Wxe6 Wc5! This was Libiszewski - Prie, Marseille 2007. The position is equal since 37.i.d5? ? loses to 37 . . . l'!al t 38 .mb3 l'!a3t 39 .bxa3 Wc3t .

25 . . . fxe6 26.Wxe6 Just as in Carlsson - Papaioannou, Black suffers from unstable pieces and back rank problems. The following sequence is virtually forced:

26 . . . l'!fh5 27.WgBt WcB 2B .i.xa7t mxa7 29.WxcB i.f4t 30.mb l tDb6 3 1 .l'!xh5 ttJxcB 32.l'!xh6 i.xh6


a b c d e f g h

While the final outcome of this endgame is open to debate, one thing is obvious. In a practical game, Black will suffer with virtually no chance whatsoever to score a full point.

16.ic3 1 6.dxe5 £Xe5 1 7.f4 id6 gave White no

advantage in Okhotnik - Prie, Gap 200B. Black's activity is enough to compensate for his slightly worse pawn structure.

a b c d e f g h

16 • . . exd4!N This is an important improvement over one

of my own games: 1 6 . . . ih6t 1 7.lffb 1 !!heB?

Rushing into a self-pin. 1 B .!!he 1

Suddenly £2-f4 is coming and Black is already in bad shape.

1 B . . . lLlb6 1 9 .f4 c5 20.dxc5 !!xd 1 t 2 1 .!!xd 1

Wxc5 22.lLlh4 WeB 23.£Xe5 £Xe5 24.lLlxg6 £Xg6 25 .ixe5t lffaB 26.Wb5 a6

Bosiocic - Bauer, Zurich 2009.

a b c d e f g h

27.Wxb6!N In the game White failed to capitalize after 27.Wa5 ? Wg4 2B.!!e 1 Wd7 29 .if4 !!xe 1 t 30.Wxe 1 ixf4 3 1 .gxf4 Wd4;!;, after which I was eventually able to salvage a draw.

27 . . . !!xe5 2B .id5+-Black is powerless against the twin threats of

Wxa6t and ixb7(t) .

17.hd4 ic5 18.!!hel 1 B .lLlf4 !!heB 1 9 .Wg4 lLle5=

18 • • • hd4 19.!!xd4 lLlc5

a b c d e f g h

White can claim a modest advantage in view of the doubled f-pawns. At the same time these

Chapter 1 - Main line 8 .tlJe4 & 8 .tlJdS'

pawns are not such a big handicap, and Black may even benefit by utilizing the eS-square for his pieces. The position will be difficult to win for either side.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have examined the numerous methods at Black's disposal to counter 8 .lLle4 and 8 .lLldS. Clearly he should avoid 8 .lLle4 %Vd8?! because of 9 .lLlg3, when White obtains an edge. On the other hand, the retreats to b6 and c7 both seem fully satisfactory. After the more frequent 8.lLldS %Vd8 9.lLlxf6t, variation B l with 9 . . . %Vxf6 has been under a cloud ever since the game Sanduleac - Prie, which has led to line B2 with 9 . . . gxf6 becoming recognized as the main line. Although Black may fall marginally short of full equality here, his position remains safe and solid, and the ball is in White's court to demonstrate a tangible advantage.

6 1

Chapter 2

Main line 8.1We2

a b c d e f g h

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3.lDc3 �a5 4.d4 lDf6 5.lDa ifS 6.ic4 e6 7.id2 c6 8.�e2

A) 9.lLle5 64 B) 9 .0-0 65 C) 9 .0-0-0 66 C 1 ) 9 . . . lLld5! ? 67 C2) 9 . . . lLlbd7 68 C2 1 ) 1 O .lLlh4 68 C22) 1 O .'it?b 1 ! ? 7 1 D) 9 .a3 lLlbd7 1 O .0-0-0 .ixc3 1 1 ..ixc3 Wc7 1 2 .lLle5 75 0 1 ) 1 2 . . . b5 ! ? 79 02) 12 . . . lLld5 1 3 . .id2 lLlxe5 14 .dxe5 0-0-0 1 5 .g4 .ig6

1 6.f4 h5! 1 7 .h3 8 1 02 1 ) 1 7 . . . Wb6 83 022) 17 . . . hxg4! 1 8 .hxg4 E:xh 1 1 9 .E:xh 1 Wb6 86 022 1 ) 20.c3 ! ? 86


l .e4 d5 2.exd5 'lWxd5 3.ttJc3 'lWa5 4.d4 ttJf6 5.ttJa .ifS 6 . .ic4 e6 7 . .idl c6 8.'lWe2

8 ... .ib4 This standard response introduces a central

theme in the Scandinavian, namely the issue of how Black should conduct the position without his dark-squared bishop after a2-a3 .

From our starting position, the immediate 9.a3 is White's most accurate move, as by comparison with 9.0-0-0, White effectively rules out the option of 9 . . . ttJd5. If he intends to castle short then the move order is not so important, but that whole strategy is too timid to threaten the opponent.

We will examine the following approaches for White: A) 9.ttJe5, B) 9.0-0, C) 9.0-0-0 and D) 9.a3.

A) 9.ttJe5

This has been played in a lot of games, but it may be a bit too early for this move.

9 • . . ttJbd7! Black does best to challenge the dominant

knight before castling. He thus anticipates the

potential pawn avalanche of g4 and h4, while maintaining the option of castling long.

10.0-0 1 O .ttJxd7 ttJxd7 1 1 .a3 .ixc3 1 2 . .ixc3 'lWc7

1 3 .0-0-0 0-0-0

a b c d e f g h

Black is super-solid and the pair of bishops does not count for much here. One game continued 1 4 .f3 ttJb6 1 5 . .ib3 ttJd5 1 6 . .ie 1 , Sammalvuo - Relange, Halle 1 995 , and now 1 6 . . . ttJf4N 1 7.'lWfl h5 was the most accurate, in order to stabilize the light-squared bishop as well as making a future .ie 1 -g3 more difficult to achieve.

10 ... ttJxe5 l 1 .dxe5 ttJd5 12.hd5 ad5 13.a3 .ixc3 14.hc3 'lWa6 15.'lWxa6 bxa6=

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Solozhenkin - Bagirov, Jyvaskyla 1 994. The

Chapter 2 - Main line 8 .�e2 65

doubled pawns are not a real handicap, and Black has the b- and c-files for his rooks. He is thus a bit more active, but the presence of opposite-coloured bishops leaves little chances to press seriously.

B) 9.0-0

This modest approach is not very threatening for Black.

9 .. . 0-0 10.a3 We will not spend time on anything else,

as White can hardly hope to benefit from omitting this move.

10 • • • hc3 1 l .hc3 VfJc7 Practice has shown that White will have a

hard time making his bishop pair count for anything in this position. Black's formation is rock-solid, and he can look to develop active play on the light squares.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12 • .ib3 White can try just about any sensible move

here, but nothing is particularly scary for Black. Here are a few other examples:

1 2 .ttJe5 ttJbd7 transposes to the game Grischuk - Rozanov, given in variation E of Chapter 3 .

1 2 . .id2 ttJbd7 (but not 1 2 . . . .ixc2? 1 3 . .ib4) 1 3 . .ig5 h6 1 4.ih4 VfJf4 1 5 J%ac l (This is far from impressive, but the alternative 1 5 . .ig3 VfJe4 also gives White no trace of an advantage.) 1 5 . . . .ig4 1 6.VfJe3 ttJd5 1 7.VfJxf4 ttJxf4 1 8 . .ig3 ttJb6 l/2-Yz Rytshagov - Westerinen, Vantaa 1 994. White cannot keep his bishop pair because of the fork on e2, and in the event of 1 9 . .ixf4 ttJxc4 20.ttJe5 ttJxe5 2 1 ..ixe5 the position is completely equal.

12 • • • ttJbd7 13.gadl ig4?! This is far from a well-considered decision,

but I include it here as an example of what to avoid.

Another suboptimal idea is: 1 3 . . . c5?! Opening the position is hardly the best idea when one's opponent enjoys the advantage of the bishop pair, and after 1 4 .dxc5 ttJxc5 1 5 . .ie5 White has an obvious advantage.

Instead the correct approach would have involved a useful waiting move such as 1 3 . . . a5, 1 3 .. J''J:ad8 or 1 3 . . J'J:fe8, with a solid and healthy position in all cases.

14.h3 ih5 15.g4! .ig6 16.ttJe5 ttJxe5 17.VfJxe5

1 7.dxe5 ! ?N ttJd5 1 8 .f4 was a promising alternative.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h


17 • • • Wlxe5?! The ensuing endgame will be one-way traffic.

The lesser evil was 1 7 . . . Wld7N.

18.dxe5 ttJe4? I B . . . ttJd5 1 9 .iLd2 was dearly better for

White but nevertheless more tenacious. After the text move the knight is misplaced.

19.iLd4 ttJg5?! 20.f4 ttJe4 Could Black have overlooked the fact that

20 . . . liJxh3t? loses to 2 1 .'it>g2, trapping the knight?

21 .iLe3 �Ud8 22J�xd8t gxd8 23.5 exf5 24.gxf5 iLh5 25.e6 b6 26.gf4 ttJf6 27.ga4 ttJd5

a b c d e f g h

28.gxa7!+- fxe6 2B . . . ttJxe3 loses to 29.:!:'!:d7, planning e7

followed by gdB.

29.fxe6 ge8 30.iLd4 gxe6 31 .gxg7t 'it>m 32.gxh7

White soon triumphed in Nunn - Madsen, Vejle 1 994. Despite Black's unfortunate end in this game, the theoretical verdict is fine for him for the reasons discussed previously.

C) 9.0-0-0

a b c d e f g h

This is an altogether more serious proposition. Now Black can consider both CI) 9 . • • ttJd5!? and C2) 9 . • . ttJbd7.

It is worth mentioning that the naturaI 9 . . . 0-0? is already a serious mistake. 1 0 .ttJe5! (The less accurate 1 O .a3 yields no more than a slight plus for White. For instance: l o . . . iLxc3 l 1 .iLxc3 Wlc7 1 2 .ttJe5 ttJbd7 1 3 .g4 ttJxe5 1 4.dxe5 ttJxg4 1 5 .ghg l ttJh6 1 6.iLd2 'it>hB 1 7.iLxh6 gxh6 With a playable position for Black, Steingrimsson - Prie, Reykjavik 1 993.)

a b c d e f g h

1 0 . . . ttJbd7 (On 1 0 . . . ttJd5 Emms shows the way to proceed for White: l 1 .g4! iLxc3 1 2 .iLxc3 ttJxc3 1 3 .bxc3 iLg6 1 4.h4 Wlxc3 1 5 .'it>b l ±) l 1 .ttJxd7 ttJxd7 1 2 .g4 iLg6 1 3 .h4 See Jansa -Konopka, Olomouc 1 995 , in Chapter 3, line D.

Chapter 2 - Main line 8 .Wfe2 67

9 . . . bS? ! This pseudo-aggressive move is premature.

1 O .ib3 tLlbd7

a b c d e f g

1 1 .tLlh4! 1 1 .dS ! ? and 1 1 .�b l ! ? are also fairlypromising for White, but he only needs one way to meet an inferior continuation, and I believe the text move to be the most convincing one at his disposal.

1 1 . . .ig6 1 2 .tLlxg6 hxg6 1 3 .a3 ixc3 1 4.ixc3 Wfb6 l S .dS cxdS 1 6.ixdS l''k8

If 1 6 . . . tLlxdS then 1 7.E:xdS attacks bS and g7 simultaneously.

1 7.id4 Wfc7 1 8 .ib3 a6 1 9 .�b 1 0-0 1 9 . . . E:xh2?? leads to disaster after 20.E:xh2 Wfxh2 2 1 .ixe6! .

20.h4eS ? ! With hindsight 20 . . . tLlcSN was a better try. White would then have a choice between the positional 2 1 .ia2 E:fd8 22 .ieS Wfc6 23.f3;1;, and the more ambitious 22.hS! ? tLlxhS 23.g4 tLlf4 24.Wfe3 gS 2S .f3 , preparing E:d2-h2.

2 1 .ic3 E:fe8 22.hS tLlxhS 22 . . . gxhS 23 .E:xhS makes little difference.

23.E:xhS gxhS 24.WfxhS± tLlcS 2S .iaS Wfb7 26.E:h 1 �f8 27.Wfh8t �e7 28 .Wfxg7 tLle6 29.ib4t

1-0 Fercec - Mukic, Kastav 2002.

Cl) 9 • • • tLld5!?

a b c d e f g

This is an interesting attempt to exploit White's chosen move order. (As we will see in line 0, the same idea does not work against 9.a3.)

lO.tLlxd5 hd2t 1 l .tLlxd2 This is more enterprising than 1 1 .Wfxd2

Wfxd2t 1 2.E:xd2 cxdS 1 3 .ib3 �e7= Schleicher - Michaelsen, Hamburg 1 993.

1l • • • cxd5 12.tLlb3 Wfd8 1 2 . . . Wfxa2 1 3 .ixdS tLlc6 1 4.g4 ig6

l s .ixc6t bxc6 1 6.f4 0-0 1 7.h4 h6 1 8 .hS ih7 1 9 .9S gave White a dangerous attack in Ljubojevic - Kuraj ica, Bugojno 1 980.

13.ib5t

a b c d e f g h


13 • • • <if7f8! The unappealing 1 3 . . . 'it>e7?! 1 4.g4 ig6 1 5 .f4

conceded White a clear initiative in Morawietz - Wacker, Germany 1 995 .

14.<if7bl The big difference between the two king

moves is revealed after 1 4.g4? �g5t.

14 • • • h5 15 .h3 h4 16.g4 hxg3 17.fxg3 lLld7 18.Ad3 hd3 19J�xd3 gh6 20.h4 <if7g8

We have been following the game J. Polgar - Magem Badals, Pamplona 1 999. Black eventually lost that particular encounter, but in the current position he was only marginally worse, if at all .

C2) 9 • • • lLlbd7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g

From this posmon 1 O .a3 leads us into variation 0, but we should also pay attention to the following independent alternatives: C21) lo.lLlh4 and C22) IO.<if7bl!?

1 0 .lLle5 is also possible, when 1 0 . . . lLlxe5 1 1 .dxe5 lLld5 transposes to variation 0 of Chapter 3.

C21) lo.lLlh4 ig4!

This is more accurate than: 1 0 . . . Ag6 1 1 . 'it>b 1

l 1 .tLlxg6 hxg6 1 2 .'it>b 1 0-0-0 1 3 .a3 Axc3 1 4.Axc3 �c7 was seen in Vasilevich -Repkova, Sibenik 2006. The resulting position resembles the game Dolmatov -Wahls, as examined in line C22 beginning with 1 0 .'it>b 1 0-0-0.

1 1 . . .0-0-0 1 2 .a3 Axc3 1 3 . .txc3 �c7 We will now follow an instructive game, which demonstrates what may happen if White delays the move lLlxg6 for too long.

1 4.f3 lLld5 1 5 .ie 1 lLlf4 1 6 .�e3 lLlb6 1 7.Aa2 lLlbd5 1 8 .�d2

The black horses are dancing while improving their positioning. Black must continue to play purposefully, as otherwise the opposing pair of bishops could ultimately prevail.

1 8 . . . lLlf6 1 9 .Ag3 lLl6h5 20.Af2 e5 20 . . . tLlf6!?N was worth a thought.

2 1 .l:!he 1 l:!he8

a b c d 22.g4? !

22.g3!N tLlh3 23 .ie3 would have maintained a nice edge for White.

22 . . . lLlf6 So far White has not lost anything by postponing the exchange on g6, but here she begins to lose the thread.

23 .�cl 23.lLlxg6!N would have secured a slight plus. White may have been put off by 23 . . . fxg6!? , but then 24.g5 tLl6h5 25 .l:!e4 keeps an edge.

23 . . . exd4 24.Ag3?


24.llJxg6!= 24 . . . d3! 25 .llJxg6

Alternatives would have been even worse: 25 .cxd3? llJxd3 26.,bc7 llJxc1 t 27.llJxg6 E:xd l 28 .E:xd l llJxa2+; 25 .ixf4?? dxc2t-+

25 . . . E:xe l 26.ixe l 26.E:xe I ? ? d2-+

26 . . . dxc2t 27.�xc2 fXg6+ Zatonskih - Stefanova, Sovata 1 998 .

1 1 .8

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . • • ,bc3! 12.bxc3 The point behind Black's concept is seen

after 1 2 .ixc3? �g5t+.

12 • • • ih5 13.g4 1 3 .ib3! ? led to an unclear position after

1 3 . . . 0-0-0 (Black could also have considered 1 3 . . . g5 !?N, when after 1 4.g4 gxh4 1 5 .gxh5 �xh5 1 6.E:hgl h6 he seems fine.) 14 .mb2 Wic7 1 5 .g4 ig6 1 6 .llJg2°o Smagin - Levin, Novgorod 1 995 .

13 • • • ig6 14.llJxg6 The untested 1 4.mb2!?N is not a bad

alternative.

In a few games White has also tried: 1 4 .ib3 Wia3t

Another interesting approach is: 1 4 . . . b5 ! ?

1 5 .mb2 The position is quite rich, so this and the next few moves are far from forced. 1 5 . . . �c7 1 6.llJg2 a5 1 7.a3 llJd5 1 8 .h4 h6 1 9 .f4! ?oo This was Dworakowska - H. Hunt, Elista 1 998, and now 1 9 . . . 0-0!?N would have been my choice.

1 5 .mb l a5 1 6 .llJf5 The position is extremely double-edged. For the next few moves both combatants continue to play quite logically.

1 6 . . . a4 1 7.llJxg7t md8 1 8 .ic1 1 8 .ic4N was messy too: 1 8 . . . b5 1 9 .id3 E:g8 20.ixg6! ? hxg6 2 1 .llJxe6t fXe6 22.Wixe6°o

1 8 . . . WifB

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 9 .ih6??

a b c d e f g h

1 9 .1lJxe6t!N fXe6 20.ixe6 was required, when the position is unclear and hard to evaluate.

1 9 . . . axb3 20.llJxe6t fXe6 2 1 .ixfB bxc2t 22.mal cxd l =Wit 23.E:xdl E:xfB-+

We have been following the game Rytshagov - Westerinen, Parnu 1 996. For a moment it looks as though we are set for a tough battle between White's queen and Black's three minor pieces; that is, until you notice that Black has an extra rook as well . . .

14 • • • hxg6 15.ib3 Other moves do not disturb Black either.

1 5 .f4? llJb6 1 6.ib3 Wia3t 1 7.mb l llJa4 1 8 .ixa4 Wixa4 1 9 .f5? ! Hastening the end.


1 9 . . . gxfS 20.gxf5 �h5 2 1 .�dfl 0-0-0 22.�hg1 �d5 23 .i.g5 �h3 24.�g3 �xg3 25 .hxg3 'Lle4 0-1 Santo Roman - Prie, Paris 1 994.

The following game featured some instructive moments: 1 5 .<j{b 1 'Lld5 1 6.<j{a1 b5

16 . . . g5!?N was also interesting.

a b c d e f g h

1 7.i.b3?! After this inaccuracy Black gets the upper hand. The correct continuation was 1 7.i.xd5N cxd5 1 B .�b 1 . Now Black could consider sacrificing his b-pawn in order to try and bring his knight to c4, as well as the more solid 1 B . . . a6 1 9 .c4 Wb6 20.c5 Wc6, with unclear play.

1 7 . . . 'Llxc3 1 B .We l b4 1 9 .i.xc3 bxc3 20.f4

a b c d e f g h

20 . . . �h3? Black could have cemented his advantage

with 20 . . . 'Llf6!N The text move allows White to turn the tables with a powerful sacrifice.

2 1 .i.xe6! 0-0-0 Perhaps Black should have tried 2 1 . . .fxe6!? 22.Wxe6t <j{fB (but not 22 . . . <j{dB? 23.WgBt) 23 .Wxd7 Wd5 with some chances to hold.

22.i.xd7t 22.i.xf7!±

22 . . . �xd7 23.�b 1 Wc7 24.WeBt �dB 25 .We4 �d6 26.fS gxfS 27.gxf5 Wd7?

27 . . . �hB was essential . 2B .�hg1

2B .We2!+-2B . . . f6? 29.�xg7+- Wxg7 30.WeBt �dB 3 1 .Wxc6t Wc7 32.Wa6t

1-0 Apicella - Relange, Nantes 1 993.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15 • • • Wa3t 1 5 . . . 'Llb6?! is worse, especially if Black tries

to attack prematurely. For instance: 1 6 .<j{b 1 'Llfd5? ! ( 1 6 . . . 0-0-0 is preferable) 1 7.Wd3 'Lla4?? 1 B .c4+-

16.<it>bl a5 17.i.c1 Wd6 18.a3 'Lld5 19.Wd3 b5

1 9 . . . �xh2N was quite playable too, with the possible continuation: 20.c4 'Ll5f6 2 1 .g5 'Llh5 22.c5 Wg3 23.�xh2 Wxh2 24.We4 'Llg3 25 .Wf4 We200

20.c4 bxc4 21 .Wxc4 0-0

Chapter 2 - Main line 8 .We2 7 1

Another interesting possibility was 2 1 . . .a4N 22.ia2 E:h3!?

22.�al gfb8 23.ial ttJ7b6 24J&cS

26 .. . ttJxcS!N With the following possible continuation:

27.E:c4 ttJd7 28.E:xc6 ttJeS 29.hdS exdS 30.E:cS ttJxf3 31 .gxdS gc8

Dolmatov suggested 24 .. .'IWd7!N 25 .h4 WbTt White cannot conveniently protect c2 and as an improvement. In my view this would g4, for instance: have been the better practical choice, given the precarious situation of the white king. 32.�bl E:ab8t 33.ib2 gb7

2S.dxcS ttJa4 26.E:d4

a b c d e f g h

This position was reach in Barua - Speelman, Calcutta 1 996. Now instead of 26 . . . ttJac3? ! Black could have secured himself a slight edge with:

And White has problems.

e22) 10.�bm

a b c d e f g h

The idea behind this move is to prepare 1 1 .ttJh4 without being bothered by the reply 1 1 . . . ig4 1 2 .f3 ixc3 , after which 1 3 .ixc3 will no longer allow a check on g5 .


lO • • • �b6! This initiates a light-squared strategy, which

became famous thanks to the model game that constitutes the coming main line. From a practical point of view I find this the most attractive continuation, as it is always helpful to have a clear strategic objective. Nevertheless the following alternatives are also playable:

1O . . . 0-0-0! ? l 1 .a3 ixc3 1 2 .ixc3 Wc7 1 3 .id2 �d5 ( 1 3 . . . h6!N would have kept White's edge to a minimum) 1 4.�h4 ig6 1 5 .ib3 �7f6 1 6.�xg6 hxg6 1 7.g3;!; Dolmatov -Wahls, Bundesliga 1 993. White has a slightly improved version of Luther - Speelman from variation A of Chapter 3.

1 0 . . . 0-0 This is riskier but not necessarily bad.

1 1 .�h4 l 1 .a3 ! ? ixc3 1 2 .ixc3 Wc7 1 3 .�e5 also deserves attention, with a kingside attack to follow.

1 1 . . .b5 1 2 .ib3

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . ixc3! This is much safer than: 1 2 . . . ig6?! 1 3 .�xg6 hxg6 1 4.h4 Wb6 1 5 .h5 ! gxh5 1 6.g4! hxg4 1 7.f3 g3 1 8 .Wg2 �fe8 1 9 .Wxg3± White obtained a powerful attack in Apicella - Prie, France 1 994.

1 3 .ixc3 Apicella considers 1 3 .bxc3 to be strongest,

but I am not so sure, as the weakening of the queenside is quite serious. Both 1 3 . . . c5 and 1 3 . . . �e4 appear quite promising for Black, amongst others .

1 3 . . . b4 1 4 .�xf5 14 .id2!? is possible, after which 1 4 . . . ie4 is evaluated as unclear by Apicella.

14 . . . bxc3 1 5 .�e7t mh8 1 6 .�xc6 Wc7 1 7.�e5 �b6

The position remained tense but roughly equal in Kindermann - Van Wely, Garmisch Partenkirchen 1 994.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1 l .ib3 1 1 .�e5

This should not lead to any advantage, but in the following game Black reacted badly.

1 1 . . .ixc3? The correct and natural response was 1 1 . . .�xc4N 1 2.�xc4 Wc7 with equality.

1 2 .ixc3 Wa4 1 3 .ib3? ! After this inaccuracy White will "only" obtain the same position as in the main line below (Hjartarson - Cu. Hansen) with an extra tempo. 1 3 .b3! was a lot more promising, for instance: 1 3 . . . �fd5 ( 1 3 . . . Wa3 1 4.g4 ig6 1 5 .h4 is similar) 1 4 .ie l Wa3 1 5 .g4 ig6 1 6.h4 and Black is under awkward pressure.

1 3 . . . Wb5 1 4.Wxb5 cxb5 The previous mutual inaccuracies have more

Chapter 2 - Main line 8 .VNe2 73

or less cancelled each other out, resulting in approximate equality.

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .ia5 Preventing . . . a7-a5 . White's posltlon is nothing special , but it is hard to imagine that he will go down in only 20 moves from now.

1 5 . . . ttJbd5 1 6 .h3 b6 1 7 .id2 ttJe4 1 8 .ie 1 h6 Black wants to free a square for his bishop in the event of g2-g4.

1 9 .f3 Safer was 1 9 .94N ih7 20.ixd5 exd5 2 1 .8 with equality.

1 9 . . . ttJef6 20.id2 l:!c8 2 1 .l:!c l ih7 22.a4? Better was 22.ma 1 N intending c4. Even if White is left with an isolated queen's pawn, he should not be in any danger.

22 . . . a6! 23 .axb5 axb5 By this stage Black's b-pawns are not only doubled, but even isolated as well! Of course this does not worry him in the slightest. White is bound to passivity and must now solve a serious problem: how to counter the plan to double rooks on the a-file?

24.g4 l:!c7 25 .ttJd3 0-0 26.ttJb4 l:!a8 27.ixd5 ttJxd5 28.b3 ttJxb4 29 .ixb4 l:!ca7 30.ic3 l:!a3 3 1 .mb2 b4! 32 .ixb4 l:!a2t 33.mb 1 ?

The only chance was 33.mc3 l:!c8t 34.md2 ixc2+, although it was pretty grim.

33 . . . ixc2t 34.l:!xc2 l:!a1 t 35 .mb2 l:!8a2t 0-1 Nijboer - Rogers, Hertogenbosch

1 999.

a b c d e g

1 l . . . hc3 Less appropriate is: 1 1 . . .ttJbd5 ?! 1 2 .ttJxd5

(Another game continued 1 2 .ttJh4 ig4?! [ 1 2 . . . ig6 would have been safer] 1 3 .8 ixc3 1 4.bxc3 ih5 1 5 .mb2 Wfc7 1 6.c4 White was in the driver's seat in Stangl -Jackelen, Bundesliga 1 993.) 1 2 . . . cxd5 1 3 .ttJh4 ig6 14.ttJxg6 hxg6 1 5 .c3 ie7 This position was reached in Luther - Kindermann, Bundesliga 1 995 . In the game White played to open the position with 1 6 .c4! ? and eventually won, although he could also have simply sat on his position and been better thanks to the great potential of his bishop pair.

12.hc3 Wfb5 13.Wfxb5 cxb5 Not content with relinquishing the bishop

pair, Black has also compromised his pawn structure! But as the reader will no doubt have realized, it is all part of a well thought out plan based on controlling the light squares.

14.ttJe5 It is also important to consider:

1 4.d5! ? This radical measure, activating the darksquared bishop, is condemned by various sources . Nevertheless, practice has shown that White gets decent play for the pawn, and his position is easier to handle than after 1 4 .ttJe5 .


14 . . . t[)bxd5 1 5 .ixf6 t[)xf6 1 6.t[)d4 ie4 1 7.t[)xb5 ixg2 I B J�hgl is 19 .t[)c7t me7 20.E:de l ! E:agB 2 1 .t[)xe6 fxe6 22.E:xe6t mfB

The black rooks are looking stupid for the time being, which seems to provide White with full compensation for the sacrificed piece. For instance:

23.E:ge l Better than 23.E:d6? ! ic6! 24.E:e l t[)eB 25 .E:d4 g5 26.ixgB E:xgB+ Wedberg -Sjodahl, Harplinge 1 99B.

a b c d e f g h

23 . . . mf7!N Improving over 23 . . . id5? 24.E:e7 ixb3 25 .axb3 h5 26.E:xb7 E:h6, as seen in Bologan - Wahls, Biel 1 993. At this point the simple 27.E:xa7N, followed by the advance of the queenside pawns, would have given Black serious problems.

24.E:6e4t mg6 25 .E:f4 E:eB 26.E:g l t ig4 27.h3 h5 2B.S

White has a marginal plus, but Black should have few problems holding.

14 • • • a5! I like this active approach the most, although

Black can also consider: 1 4 . . . t[)bd5 ! ? 1 5 .id2 t[)e4 1 6 .ie 1 f6 (Black can safeguard his bishop by means of 1 6 . . . h6, but the text move is fine too.) 1 7.g4!? ig6 I B .t[)xg6 hxg6 1 9 .a4 a6 20.axb5 axb5 Despite White's bishop pair and Black's doubled b-pawns, the second player has a full share of the chances as he controls a lot

of key squares and his knights enjoy enough stability in the centre.

15.a3 ie4 16J�he1 0-0

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Objectively the position is only equal, but from a practical point of view I would already rate Black's chances as somewhat higher, as the light-squared strategy is so easy to follow, whereas White will have a harder time finding a constructive plan. The following game provides an excellent demonstration of how to handle the black position.

17.f3 id5 18.ixd5 t[)fxd5 19.idl t[)c4 2o.ic1 �Uc8 21 .f4 b4 22.t[)xc4 gxc4 23.�M3 bxa3 24J:�xa3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 W/h"'H. ... �

a b c d e f g h


24 .. . b5!? Black's advantage is readily apparent, as his

knight is far stronger than the white bishop. On the last move he could have plucked a pawn with 24 . . .l::ixd4N, but instead prefers to continue improving his position. I will leave you with the remainder of the game:

25.£5 b4 26J�d3 exf5 27J::�e5 gd8 28J:�xf5 a4 29 . .id2 f6 30.h3 �f7 31 .g4 g6 32JUB ge8 33.c3 ge2 34.cx:b4 lDxb4 35J�c3 gxd4 36.gc7t �e6 37 . .ic1 gdl 38.gcc3 ged2 39.gf4 lDd3 40.gc6t �d5 41 .gfxf6 gxb2t 42. �al gb5 43.gfd6t �e5 0-1

This was Hjartarson - Cu. Hansen, Reykjavik 1 995 - an impressive positional lesson from the Dane!

D) 9.a3

a b c d e f g h

This is arguably White's most accurate choice, as by comparison with 9 .0-0-0, White effectively rules out the option of 9 . . . lDd5 for reasons that will soon become apparent. If he intends to castle short then the move order does not matter so much, but we have already seen that this plan is pretty innocuous.

9 ... lDbd7 9 . . . lDd5? can effectively be refuted as follows:

1 0 . .ixd5 cxd5 (On 1 0 . . . .ixc3 the intermezzo 1 1 . .ixc6t ! cashes in a pawn.) I I .Wb5t Wxb5 1 2 .lDxb5 .ixd2t 1 3 .�xd2 lDa6 14 .llJd6t �e7 1 5 .lDxf5t exf5± Black has some chances to hold this endgame, but nobody in their right mind would deliberately aim to reach this position from the opening.

Another sub-standard move is: 9 . . . .ig4? !

This seems too artificial. 1 0 .We3!

1 0 .h3 Lc3 1 1 ..ixc3 Wh5 1 2 .0-0-0 ixf3 justified Black's ninth move and led to unclear play after 1 3 .gxB lDbd7 14 .l::idgl 0-0-0 1 5 . .id2 lDb6 1 6 . .ib3 Eihg8 in Psakhis - Kuraj ica, Sarajevo 1 98 1 .

1 O . . . .ixB Otherwise lDe5 may be nasty.

I l .Wxf3 lDd5 1 1 . . .lDbd7 1 2 .0-0-0 gives White a better version of Luther - Speelman, Hastings 1 996, as seen in variation A of Chapter 3 .

1 2 .0-0 .ixc3 1 3 .bxc3

a b c d e f g h

This position was reached in Schmittdiel -Reefschlaeger, Binz 1 994. White stands clearly better. The presence of doubled c-pawns is no nuisance at all because Black cannot anchor his centralized knight. White's plan for the next few moves will be to retreat his bishop from c4, defend its brother on d2 and then play c4. If Black tries to stabilize his knight with


. . . b5 then White can either play c4 and repeat the process, or perhaps even consider the alternative undermining plan of a4, depending on circumstances.

10.0-0-0 1 0 .0-0 will soon lead back into line B .

The text move i s much more challenging, and leads us into what has historically been one of the most important battlegrounds in the Scandinavian. It was tested extensively during the 1 990s, and was especially prevalent in the German Bundesliga. This is largely due to the influence of the German grandmaster Matthias Wahls, who employed the Scandinavian with considerable success during that period.

10 .. . hc3 1 0 . . . i.xa3? is plainly wrong: 1 1 .lLld5!?N

(The one elementary trick that White must avoid is 1 1 .bxa3 Wfxa3t 1 2 .@b 1 Wfb4t 1 3 .i.b3?? Wfxb3t! Blaas - Knijft, Haarlem 1 997. However, he can also obtain a big advantage with 1 1 .lLla2! ? i.xb2t 1 2 .@xb2 Wfb6t 1 3 .@c 1 ± Schlesinger - Henneberg, Bad Zwesten 2003.) 1 1 . . .i.b4 1 2 .i.xb4 Wfa1 t 1 3 .@d2 Wfxb2 14 .i.b3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

After a forced sequence Black must lose his queen for insufficient compensation: 14 . . . lLlxd5 (or 14 . . . i.xc2 1 5 .i.xc2 cxd5 1 6.1:'!b 1

Wfa2 1 7.E:a l } 1 5 .E:b 1 Wfxb 1 1 6.E:xb 1 lLlxb4 1 7.lLlh4 And White should win with careful play.

The above bishop sacrifice was refuted fairly easily, but the following unexpected alternative turns out to be surprisingly tricky: 1 O . . . lLlb6! ?

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 r="��(A'��:\uil·��

a b c d e f g h

This may not be 1 00% sound, but it leads to heavy complications and might appeal to players who enjoy taking risks to unbalance the game. White has three main replies :

a) He can avoid all complications with 1 1 .i.b3 , but forgoes any real chance of an opening advantage after l 1 . . .i.xc3 1 2 .i.xc3 Wfb5 . The resulting equal position is reminiscent of the game Hjartarson - Cu. Hansen, Reykjavik 1 995 , covered under variation C22 beginning with 9 .0-0-0 lLlbd7 1 0 .@b l .

b) 1 1 .lLle5! ? This was mentioned by Emms, who himself quotes the Serbian GM Solak.

1 1 . . . i.xa3 1 1 . . .i.xc3? 1 2 .i.xc3 Wfa4 1 3 .i.b4 is disastrous for Black.

1 2 .bxa3 Wfxa3t 1 3 .@b1 Wfb4t 1 4 .@a1 1 4.@c 1 Wfa3t repeats .

1 4 . . . i.xc2 1 5 .E:c 1 i.g6 Black has obtained three pawns for a piece,

and the position offers mutual chances.

Chapter 2 - Main line 8 .WI'e2 77

c) I I .axb4 This is obviously the critical test.

1 1 . . .YMal t 1 2 .tDb l tDa4 13 . .ic3 tDe4 1 4.�d3 a5 !

Black must waste no time in bringing another piece into the attack.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 5 .bxa5

a b c d e f g h

The natural-looking 1 5 .b5!?N has to my knowledge not yet been tried. Play might continue 1 5 . . . tDexc3 (Black can also consider the less forcing 1 5 . . . 0-0!?) 1 6 .bxc3 YMb2t 1 7.@d2 cxb5 1 8 . .ib3 0-0 with unclear play. Another fascinating idea is: 1 5 .d5 ! ? tDexc3 1 6.bxc3 axb4 (The alternative was 1 6 . . . 0-0!?N with the idea 1 7.dxe6 hd3 1 8 .exf7t @h8 1 9 .cxd3 YMxb l t 20.@xb l tDxc3t 2 1 .@b2 tDxe2oo) 1 7.dxe6 This was Zlatic - Saric, Novi Sad 2005 , and here Black should have played 1 7 . . . f6!N (After the game continuation of 1 7 . . . 0-0 1 8 .exf7t @h8 1 9 .YMe5 White was pulling the strings.) The clever point is revealed after 1 8 .cxb4 .ixd3 1 9 .cxd3 when Black has 1 9 . . . YMxb l t ! 20.@xb l tDc3t 2 1 .@b2 tDxe2 22.g3 b5 23 . .ib3 0-0-0 when the endgame should be equal.

1 5 . . . �xa5 1 5 . . . tDexc3 1 6 .bxc3 �xa5 comes to the same thing.

1 6 . .ib3 tDexc3 1 7.bxc3 0-0 Better than 1 7 . . . YMb2t? 1 8 .@d2 0-0

( l 8 . . . hd3 1 9 .YMxd3 is obviously better for White too) 1 9 .�e3 �d8 20.�d l tDc5 This was Smeets - Vovsha, Oropesa del Mar 1 998, and here White's most straightforward route to a clear advantage would have been: 2 1 .@e l !N tDxb3 22.cxb3 .ic2 23.c4± followed by either tDc3 or �c3, depending on Black's reply.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

We are following Fercec - Sermek, Rabac 2003. At this point White's best bet would have been:

1 8 .@d2!N The game continued: 1 8 .�hd I ? ! Giving back two exchanges was not necessary. 1 8 . . . �b5 1 9 .@d2 .ixd3 20.YMxd3 tDb2 2 1 .YMe2 tDxd l 22.YMxdl with mutual chances. I also wondered if White might improve with 1 8 .�e3, but it turns out that Black has an impressive hidden resoutce: 1 8 . . . �b5 1 9 .@d2 �xb3 20.cxb3 YMb2t 2 1 .@el .ic2! ! 22.@fl YMxb l t 23.tDel .ixb3 With a pawn for the exchange plus ongoing compensation, Black has every reason to feel happy.

1 8 . . . �d8 1 8 . . . �b5 gets nowhere after 1 9 .c4.

19 . .ixa4 �xa4 20.@e3!? 20.�c l is also good. In both cases Black is

struggling to demonstrate sufficient compensation, and will in all likelihood have to suffer in an endgame with rook versus two knights .

1 1 . .bc3 YMe7


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e 12.llJeS

Another logical idea is: 1 2 .�d2!?

f g h

Improving the poorly placed bishop. 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 .�a2

1 3 .�d3 �xd3 1 4.Wixd3 0-0 was about equal in Huebner - Wahls, Bundesliga 1 993. Avoiding the exchange is more ambitious, although the risk is that the bishop may feel uncomfortable on a2 later in the game.

1 3 . . . a5 1 3 . . . �e4!?N is also interesting.

1 4 .llJe5 Preparing the g2-g4 push.

1 4 . . . h5 Despite his opponent's aggressive intentions Black could also have considered 1 4 . . . 0-0!?N 1 5 .g4 �e4 1 6.f3 �d5 .

1 5 .f3 llJxe5 1 6 .dxe5 llJd5 1 7.g4 ig6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

We have been following the game Enders - Michaelsen, Bundesliga 1 993. The bishops find it hard to express themselves here, whereas Black's minor pieces both occupy stable posts. White can consider the plan of h3, ghfl and f4-5, but it will take some time to execute. The only fly in the ointment for Black is his king, which lacks a safe haven. Overall the position yields mutual chances.

In this position Black's two main options are the immediate counterattack with Dl) 12 • • • bS!?, and the preliminary D2) 12 • • • llJdS .

1 2 . . . llJxe5 This immediate exchange gives White the extra option of placing the dark-squared bishop on d4.

1 3 .dxe5 llJd5 14 .�d4!? 1 4.�d2 transposes to line 02 below. The text move has both pros and cons. The pressure against a7 is a plus, but on the other hand the bishop may be hit by . . . c6-c5 . Furthermore the f4-square is not covered, rendering the usual plan of g4 and f4 harder to achieve.

1 4 . . . Wia5 Obviously Black must avoid 14 . . . 0-0-0? 1 5 .�xa7.

1 5 .g4 �g6 1 6 .ghfl h5 1 7.h3 hxg4 1 8 .hxg4 gh2 1 9 .Wid2 Wixd2t 20.gxd2 llJb6 2 1 .ib3 0-0-0 22.a4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 2 - Main line 8 .Vge2 79

22 . . . llJd7 It was worth considering: 22 . . J3:g2!?N 23.a5 llJd7 24 . .ixa7 llJxe5 25Jhd8t mxd8 Black has active pieces but White's bishop pair is also strong, so the chances are about equal.

23 . .ixa7 We have been following the game T. Kosintseva - Repkova, Bid 2004. At this point it was essential to play:

23 . . J3:g2N The game continuation of 23 . . . l'!dh8? was too slow. 23 . . . llJxe5? would only have restored the material balance temporarily in view of 24.l'!xd8t mxd8 25 . .ib8 f6 26 . .ixe6.

24.l'!fd l .ie4! Black has just enough compensation, for instance:

25 . .ib6 .if3 26 . .ixd8 .ixd l 27.l'!xd l mxd8 28.f3 mc7 29.l'!e l llJc5

Black's activity is enough to maintain the balance.

Dl) 12 . . . bS!?

a b c d e f g h

13 . .id3 13 . .ib3 .ie4!

1 3 . . . llJe4?! is less suitable, and White has more than one route to a favourable position. 1 4 . .ie 1 (Also tempting is the spicy 1 4.llJxd7!? llJxc3 1 5 .bxc3 �xd7 1 6.g4

.ig6 1 7.d5! with the initiative.) 1 4 . . . llJxe5 1 5 .dxe5 �xe5 (or 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6.g4 .ig6 1 7.f3 llJc5 18 . .ia2 followed by a kingside attack) 1 6.f3 �f4t 1 7.mb l llJc5 1 8 . .ia2! with more than enough compensation for the pawn.

14 .llJxd7 1 4.l'!he l should be met by 14 . . . .id5 . (I am less fond of 1 4 . . . llJb6? 1 5 . .ib4 .id5 1 6.,ixd5 llJbxd5 1 7 . .ic5± Kraut - Lau, Bundesliga 1 995 . ) The resulting position was assessed as equal by Dautov, and indeed a game Span - lens, Leiden 1 999, ended peacefully on move 25 . The only critical-looking move is Emms' suggestion of 1 5 .llJxf7, but this leads to a draw for White at best: 1 5 . . . mxf7 1 6 . .ixd5 exd5 1 7.�e6t ( l 7.�e7t? loses to 1 7 . . . mg6 1 8 .l'!d3 l'!he8 1 9 .1'!g3t �xg3!-+) 1 7 . . . mg6 1 8 .g4 l'!he8! ? ( l 8 . . . h6 1 9 .�f5t mf7 20.�e6t is a repetition, but Black can play more ambitiously.) 1 9 .�f5t mf7 20.g5 g6 2 1 .�f3 l'!e4 Black's chances are somewhat higher.

1 4 . . . �xd7 1 5 . .ib4 .id5 1 5 . . . a5 ! ?N

1 6 . .ixd5 �xd5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

�//m.,/='�"

r'='-"" ,,,,'

a b c d e f g h 1 7.�e5!

After the inaccurate 1 7.f3? ! Black can dry up the play at once by means of 1 7 . . . a5 1 8 . .ic5 llJd7= A. Toth - Friedrichs, Budapest 1 999.

1 7 . . . a5 Another possibility is 1 7 . . . 0-0-0 1 8 . .ie7 �xe5 1 9 .dxe5 l'!xd I t 20.l'!xd 1 llJd5


(20 . . . ttJd7!?) 2 1 ..ic5 . White stands slightly better in this endgame. He can contemplate a rook lift along the third or fourth rank, and can eventually look to dislodge the mighty knight with b3 and c4. Overall Black should probably be able to withstand the pressure, but it will not be much fun for him.

1 8 . .ic5 Wfxe5 1 8 . . . Wfa2? ? 1 9 .Wfc7+-

1 9 .dxe5 Here I think Black should have played:

1 9 . . . ttJd7!?N The second player should not be in a hurry to install his equine on d5, as illustrated by the following example: 1 9 . . . ttJd5 20J!d4 f6 (20 . . . a4! ?) 2 1 .:ge 1 'if;>f7 22.b3 :ghd8 23.c4 fxe5 24.:gxe5 ttJf6 White kept some pressure in Zagrebelny - Danielsen, Schwerin 1 999. Black should be able to hold the position, but on this occasion he eventually succumbed.

20 . .id6 0-0-0 20 . . . h5 ! ? was another idea. In both cases

White's position is a little easier to play, but Black should not be in any serious danger.

a b c d e f g h

13 .. . 0-0 Black can tolerate the slight compromising

of his pawn structure, although it should be mentioned that the less common 1 3 . . . .ixd3 has scored well in practice, while the untested 1 3 . . . ttJxe5! ?N also looks quite playable.

14 • .h5 exf5 15.Wff3! ttJd5 After 1 5 . . . ttJxe5? 1 6.dxe5 ttJd5 1 7.Wfxf5

ttJxc3 1 8 .bxc3 Black has little to show for the sacrificed pawn.

16.Wfxf5 ttJxc3 17.ttJxd7 This move puts White on the good side of a

drawish ending. The same cannot be said for: 1 7.bxc3?! ttJb6

Black intends . . . f6 followed by . . . ttJc4. 1 8 .:gd3 Wfd6!

Keeping an eye on c6. This is an improvement over Dautov's recommendation 1 8 . . . Wfe7, after which 1 9 .c4! (Alternatives are worse: 1 9 .:gh3? g6 20.Wff4 f6 2 1 .ttJxc6 Wfxa3t 22.'if;>d2 :gae8+; or 1 9 .'if;>b2?! ttJc4t! 20.ttJxc4 bxc4 2 1 .:ge3 :gab8t and since 22.'if;>a2?? Wfb7 loses on the spot, White has to resort to 22. 'if;>c1 Wfxa3 t .) 1 9 . . . bxc4 20.:gh3 h6 2 1 .ttJxc6 is a bit better for White.

1 9 .:gh3 h6 20.:ge l :gae8! There is no need to take on a3 just yet.

2 1 .:ge4 :ge6 22.:gg3 :gf6 23.Wfg4 g6 Black kept some pressure and went on to

win in Laubsch - Seils, Germany 2007.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17 • • • ttJxdl The attempt to delay this capture fails:

1 7 . . . g6? ! 1 8 .ttJf6t! ( l 8 .Wff3?! ttJxd 1 1 9 .ttJxfB ttJxf2 20.Wfxf2 :gxfB=) The text move is the

Chapter 2 - Main line 8 .We2 B l

prelude to a long sequence that favours White at the end: 1 8 . . . @g7 1 9 .1LlhSt @h6 20.Wfd3 lLlxd l (after 20 . . . lLldS 2 1 .lLlg3 White keeps his extra pawn) 2 1 .Wfd2t @xhS (2 1 . . .gS?? 22.h4 gg8 23.lLlf6+-) 22.g4t @xg4 23.gg1 t @fS 24.WfgSt @e6 2S .gel t @d7 26.ge7t @c8 27.gxc7t @xc7 28 .Wfe7t @b6 29.WfcSt @b7 30.dS gfcB 3 1 .dxc6t gxc6 32.WfxbSt @c7 33 .WfaSt followed by 34.@xd l .

18.lLlxf8 gxf8 I B . . . g6? 1 9 .1Lle6! ( 1 9.Wff3?! transposes to

1 7 . . . g6 I B .Wff3? ! as mentioned in the previous note) 1 9 . . . Wfd6 20.Wff6 fxe6 2 1 .gxd l gfB 22.Wfh4 Black is a pawn down for no compensation (analysis by Dautov) .

19.9xdl 1 9 .@xd l gdB 20.Wfe4 cS 2 1 .@c1 cxd4

22.@b l h6 is equal.

19 .. . Wfxh2 The game Z. Almasi - Dautov, Altensteig

1 994, was agreed drawn here, but there is still a lot of play in the position as we will see.

2o.Wfe4 In the event of 20.g3 , Mastrovasilis -

Papaioannou, Athens 2002, Black's best response looks to be: 20 . . . Wfh6tN (The game continuation of 20 . . . gdB? ! allowed White to claim a small but pleasant edge after 2 1 .@b l Wfg2 22.ge l gf8 23.b3.) 2 1 .@b l Wfe6 22.Wfxe6 fxe6 White has little more than a symbolic advantage.

20 ... Wfh6t 21 .£4 Wfg6 2 1 .. .fS ? ! did not help Black in the following

all-computer game: 22.WfeS Wfg6 23.dS geB 24.Wfc7 cxdS 2S .Wfxa7;!; Rebel_Tiger 1 - Century, Cadaques 2000. Note that 2S . . . Wfxg2?? is impossible due to 26.gg1 +-.

2 1 . . .Wfe6!?N is a valid alternative though.

22.gel In the event of 22.Wfxg6!?N fxg6 23.dS (or

23.g3 gf5) , the game is likely to peter out to a draw, for instance: 23 . . . cxdS 24.gxdS gxf4 2S .gxbS gf1 t 26.@d2 gf2t 27.@d3 gxg2 2B .gbBt @f7 29.gb7t @f6 30.c4 and so on.

22 .. . Wfg3!? 22 . . . Wfxe4N 23.gxe4 gdB was an easier

route to half a point, but maybe Black wanted to preserve some winning chances.

23J��e3 Wfn 24.h3 h6 25J:�c3 5= 26.Wfe6t <if?h7 27.g3 Wfxd4 28.Wfxc6 a5 29.Wfc5 Wff6! 30.<if?hl a4 31 .h4 gd8 32.gd3 gxd3 33.cxd3 Wfe6 34.<if?c1 Wfe1 t 35.<if?c2 Wfe2t 36.<if?c3 Wfe1t '12-'12

Brynell - Hodgson, Germany 2002.

D2) 12 ... lLld5

a b c d e f g h

13.id2 lLlxe5 14.dxe5 1 4 .WfxeS is playable but less ambitious, and

the chances are balanced after 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 or 14 . . . WfxeS I S .dxeS 0-0-0, as the majestic knight on dS is worth just as much as a bishop.

14 ... 0-0-0 Black can ill afford to spend a tempo


preventing g2-g4, as demonstrated in the following encounter. 1 4 . . . h5? ! 1 5 .J.g5 !

Now the safety of the black king is seriously compromised.

a b c d e f

1 5 . . . b5 1 6.J.d3 1 6.J.b3 a5 gives Black some counterplay. In the present position White does not mind exchanging bishops since he also enjoys other advantages.

1 6 . . . J.xd3 1 7Jhd3 E:bB 1 B .E:hd 1 c5 1 9 .E:h3 c4 20.c3

20.E:xh5 appears tempting, but Black has good chances to defend after 20 . . . E:xh5 2 1 .Wlxh5 Wlxe5 22.f4 g6 23 .Wlh7 Wld6 24.WlhBt �d7 25 .Wlg7 WlfB.

20 . . . b4! ? 20 . . . g6 2 1 .g4 does not help Black. In the event of 20 . . . a5 2 1 .E:xh5 , a sequence similar to that seen after 20.E:xh5 may have happened:

' 2 1 . . . E:xh5 22 .Wlxh5 Wlxe5 This

time, however, White could try his luck in the endgame with 23.f4 g6 24.fxe5 gxh5 25 .E:d4 threatening both 26.a4 and 26.E:h4.

2 1 .axb4 a5 22.b5! With a marked plus to White according to Wahls, an opinion that I share. For instance:

22 . . . Wlc5 No better is 22 . . . E:xb5 23.E:d4. 22 . . . a4 is also unsatisfactory: 23.E:d4 a3 24.bxa3 E:xb5 25 .Wlxc4±

23.E:d4 23.E:xh5 is also good.

23 . . . Wlxb5 23 . . . a3 24.bxa3 E:xb5 25.Wlxc4±

24.E:xc4 White is a pawn up with a better position,

Schoenthier - Forchert, Germany 1 996.

15.g4 J.g6 16.£4 h5! It is crucial for Black to be able to swap the

rook on hB for its counterpart on h I , as the latter has far greater potential. Furthermore, the open h-file can provide a valuable source of counterplay in many cases.

17.h3

a b c d e f g h

From this position Black has often played D21) 17 • • • Wlb6 , but the best move is D22) 17 ••• hxg4! . We will analyse both moves in some detail in order to gain a better understanding of why the latter should be preferred.

1 7 . . . Wle7?! This is worse due to:

1 B .Wlf2! Targeting a7 while also supporting f4-f5.

1B . . . hxg4 1 9 .J.xd5 exd5 20.Wlxa7 gxh3? Black had to play 20 . . . i.e4!N, after which it is unclear if White can win: 2 1 .E:he 1 (or 2 1 .WlaBt �d7 22.Wlxb7t �eB 23.Wlxc6t

Chapter 2 - Main line 8 .We2 83

Y9d7°o) 2 1 . . .Y9c7 22.i.aS (In the event of 22.hxg4 b6 the black king would no longer be in danger. This, combined the presence of opposite-coloured bishops - moreover with Black's being more active - renders White's extra pawn meaningless.) 22 . . . b6 23 .Y9xb6 Y9xb6 24 . .L:b6 gxh3 2s .Axd8 h2 26.Ab6 h lY9 27.�xh l �xh l 28.�xh l i.xh l and Black can hold the ending.

2 1 .i.aS �de8? The lesser evil was 2 1 . . .Ae4, although Black is still in trouble after 22.�h2.

22.Y9a8t �d7 23 .Y9xb7t �e6 24.Y9xc6t �fS 2S .Y9xdS

1-0 Ulibin - Hauchard, Andorra 1 996.

D21) 17 • • • Y9b6

In an ideal world Black would prefer to main tain the tension on the h-file. Unfortunately in the present position this policy suffers from a concrete defect.

18.Elhf1! This is the problem. White does not mind

relinquishing the h-file, as his rook will find a much more useful purpose in helping to force through f4-fS .

With this i n mind, i t i s clear that 1 8 .�df1 ? makes little sense, and 1 8 . . . hxg4 1 9 .hxg4 �xh l ( 1 9 . . . Y9d4!? is an interesting suggestion from Wahls) 20.�xh l Black is a tempo up on line 022. Unsurprisingly this enables him to hold the balance with ease, as seen after: 20 . . . Y9d4 21 .c3 Y9cS 22.b4 Yge7 23.�b2 Y9d7 24.Ac l lLlxc3 2S .�xc3 Y9d4t 26.�b3 bS 27.�h3 bxc4t 28 .Y9xc4 Y2-l!2 Luther - Jackelen, Bundesliga 1 994.

18 • • • hxg4 19.hxg4 Y9c5! Despite the problems associated with the

coming f4-fS, Black is not without resources. Extensive practice and analysis has confirmed

that this activation of the queen is his most promising approach.

1 9 . . . Y9d4? ! , Georgiev - Henrichs, Recklinghausen 1 998, should be met by Wahls' suggestion of 20.Ab3!N when Black stands worse, as his queen will sooner or later feel the heat from the rook on d I . In the aforementioned game White got carried away with 20.fS? ! (even worse would have been 20.AaS ? lLlxf4=t) 20 . . . exfS 2 1 .AgS Y9xg4 22.Axd8 Y9xe2 23 .Axe2 �xd8 when the chances were balanced.

Another suboptimal line is: 1 9 . . . �h3 20.fS!

After 20.�de l ? ! Nijboer - Hodgson, Netherlands Team Ch. 1 995 , addressing the jump . . . lLle3, White quickly collapsed. 20 . . . Y9d4 2 1 .Aa2? (2 1 .Ab3=) 2 1 . . .�xa3! ! 22.Ab l (22.bxa3 Y9a l t 23 .Ab l Y9xa3t 24.�d l lLlc3#) 22 . . . Y9a4 23.fS �a l 24.c3 exfS 2S .gxfS AhS 26.Y9xhS Y9a2 27.�c2 Y9c4 28 .b3 lLlb4t 29.�cl �xb l t o-I 20.�f3 is also too slow: 20 . . . �xf3 2 1 .Y9xf3 Y9d4 22.i.b3 i.e4 23 .Y9g3 lLlb6= Mueller -Jackelen, Bundesliga 1 995 .

20 . . . exfS 2 1 .e6! This was recommended by both Emms and Wahls. The likely continuation would be:

2 1 . . . f4 22.AxdS cxdS 23.exf7 Axf7 24.Axf4

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

v·=?· .... . ""

a b c d e f g h

Material is level and the opposite-coloured bishops may exert some drawish tendencies in


certain types of endgames. Nevertheless Black's unsafe king renders his situation distinctly unenviable, particularly while queens remain on the board.

20 . .ib3 gh3 2I J�f3 2 1 .%Vf2 led nowhere for White after:

2 1 . . .%Vxf2 22.gxf2 .ie4 23.fS .iB 24.gg1 gdh8= Isaev- Safin, Doha 2003. (24 . . . ,ixg4!?N was another route to an equal game.)

21 . . . gdh8 22JMf1! White must play patiently if he is to obtain

an advantage. The following more direct approach is interesting, but according to my analysis Black can maintain the balance as follows: 22.f5 gh2

Black cannot do without this move: 22 . . . exfS 23.gxf5 .ixfS? (23 . . . gh2N was needed, when 24.%Vc4 %Vxc4 25 . .ixc4 takes us back to the main line) 24 . .ib4+- Wiersma - Remmel, Amsterdam 2000.

23 .%Vc4 White should not play 23 .%Vfl ? exfS 24.gxfS .ih5+, as in Shmirina - Hoffmann, Dresden 2002.

23 . . . %Vxc4 24 . .ixc4 exfS 25 .gxf5 .ih5 26 . .ixd5 cxd5 27.gc3t

a b c d e f g h

In this innocent-looking posltlon recommend the counter-intuitive:

27 . . . �b8!N

since 27 . . . �d7 28 .e6t! fxe6 29.fxe6t �xe6 30.ge I t �f6 3 1 .gc7 gave White some chances to play for a win in Garay - Ratering, corr. 1 998 .

22 . • J:1h2 23.%Vel %Vd4 23 . . . g8h3?

In his book lhe Scandinavian, John Emms rightly pointed out that this move constitutes a mistake. I reproduce here a good part of his analysis:

24.gxh3! 24.fS? ! lets Black off the hook after 24 . . . gxf3! 25 .gxB exf5 26.e6 (or 26.gxfS .ih5) 26 . . . fxg4 (26 . . . f4 also looks okay) 27.gfl f6 28 .%Vg3 gh8 29.%Vxg4 ctJe7 with an acceptable game for Black.

24 . . . gxh3 25 .fS Black has no less than four plausible continuations here, but none of them is adequate:

a b c d e f g h

25 . . . .ixfS 25 . . . .ih7 26.gh l ± 2 5 . . . exfS 26.gxfS .ih5 (after 26 . . . .ih7 the cool 27.�b l ! is tough to meet) 27.gh l gxb3 28 .gxh5 gf3 29.e6± 25 . . . gxb3 26.fxg6 fxg6 27.%Vh4 b6 28 .%Vh8t �b7 29.%Vxg7t �a6 30.%Vxg6±

26.gxfS gxb3 27.fxe6 fxe6 28 .%Vh4 gxb2. Hoping for 29.�xb2? %Vb5t . The cleanest i s now:

29 .%Vh8t �c7


a b c d e f g h

30 . .ia5t! ! %Vxa5 3 1 .E!:f7t 'tt>b6 32.%Vd8t 'tt>a6 33 .%Vxa5t 'tt>xa5 34. 'tt>xb2+-

24.f5 exf5 25.gxf5 .ih5 26J�d3 %Vg4 27.hd5

27.c4 is evaluated as slightly better for White by Psakhis, in Chess Informant 56. The assessment could be correct, although personally I would be more inclined to label the position as unclear. Black has several reasonable options including 27. J iJe7, 27 . . . ltJb6 and 27 . . . E!:e2.

27 • • J�e2 28.%Vdl ! This was an important improvement

over 2B .%Vg3, which only brought White a draw after the following reasonably accurate sequence: 2B . . . cxd5 29.E!:c3t 'tt>b8 30.b3 �a8 3 1 .e6 %Vxg3 32.E!:xg3 fxe6 33.fxe6 E!:xe6 34.E!:xg7 E!:cB 35 .E!:fg 1 E!:ec6 36.c3 d4 37.c4 b5 38.E!: l g5 .ie8 39.E!:xb5 E!:xc4t 40.bxc4 .ixb5 4 1 ..ib4 .ixc4 42.'tt>d2 .ib5 43.E!:g5 a6 44.a4 ixa4 45 . .ic5 E!:d8 �-Y2 Psakhis - Wahls, Baden-Baden 1 992.

28 • • • ad5 29 • .ie3 %Vg2 29 . . . b6? goes down to a rather funny

sequence: 30.E!:c3t 'tt>b8 3 1 .%Vxd5 %Vxf5 32.%Vd6t (32.E!:xf5? ? E!:e 1 t 33.'tt>d2 E!:d 1#) 32 . . . 'tt>a8 33 .%Vc6t 'tt>b8 34.%Vc7t 'tt>a8 35 .E!:d l E!:xe3 36.%Vc6t reverse gear! 36 . . . 'tt>b8 37.%Vd6t 'tt>a8 38 .E!:c7 and now 38 . . . %Vc8± is sadly forced.

29 . . . %Ve4! ? was suggested by Emms, but this is also insufficient to solve all of Black's problems: 30.ixa7 E!:f2 3 1 .E!:h l .ixd 1 (or 3 1 . . .E!:xf5 32.E!:e3 %Vg2 33 .%Ve 1 and the black king is by far the weaker of the two) 32.E!:xhBt 'tt>d7 33 .e6t! ? fxe6 34.fxe6t %Vxe6 35 . .ixf2 .ig4

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

t" ="'"" ,,,,

a b c d e f g h

The pair of rooks is stronger than the queen, and Black's pawns are also weak. He can obviously resist for a good while longer and might manage to hold the draw, but he will certainly suffer along the way.

30.Eigl %Ve4 31 .ha7 %Vf4t 3V.!?bl E!:xe5 33J!c3t �d7

a b c d e f g h

34 • .ie3!! hdl 34 . . . E!:xe3? ? 35 .%Vxd5t wins instantly.


38.ie3 We have been following the game Valade -

Gruber, corr. 2000, which currently represents the last word in the theoretical dispute surrounding the whole 1 7 . . JWb6 line. White has succeeded in obtaining a pleasant edge, which he duly converted.

D22) 17 • • • hxg4!

In view of the above, I consider this to be Black's most precise move.

a b c d e f g h

19 • • • 'lWb6 1 9 . . . 'lWe7?! is misguided, just as it was two

moves previously (see the note to Black's 1 7th move on page 82) . Once again the rebuttal comes in the form of 20.'lWf2! .

At this point we will analyse the modern D221) 20.c3!? followed by the more traditional D222) 20JUl .

D221) 20.c3!?

This was first introduced in 2002, and is motivated by the wish to deprive the black queen of the d4-square. The downside, apart from the lack of time, is that the influence of the bishop on g6 increases.

20 • • • 'lWa5 21 J;f1 White is all set for f4-fS, so the onus is on

Black to prepare a suitable retort.

21 . • • 'lWa4 2 1 . . .lLle7? is not only passive, but it also

fails to carry out its main purpose, and White smashes through with: 22.f5 ! exf5 23.gxfS lLlxf5 (or 23 . . . ixfS 24.ig5+-) 24.e6 lLlg3 25 .'lWg4 And Black has no good defence.

2 1 . . .lLlb6!? This seems dangerous, but according to my analysis Black can hold the balance with accurate play.

22.fS lLlxc4 22 . . . exfS? loses spectacularly: 23.e6 'lWa4 24.e7 Eie8 25 .ie6t! fxe6 26.'lWxe6t lLld7

a b c d e f g h

27.if4! ! (This was missed by Mueller, who only analyses the drawish line: 27.'lWxg6 Eixe7 28 .'lWxfS) 27 . . . Eixe7 28 .'lWd6! lLle5 29.ixe5 Eixe5 30.'lWxe5 'lWxg4 3 1 .'lWe6t ct;c7 32.'lWe7t ct;b6 (or 32 . . . ct;c8 33.Eid l ) 33 .'lWe3t ct;a6 34.Eigl 'lWh5 35 .'lWg5 and White wins.

23.'lWxc4 exfS 24.e6 The position looks perilous for Black, but not for a cybernetic eye. In fact, the machine even gives two paths to equality.

24 . . . 'lWd5 The alternative is 24 .. .f4 25 .exf7 'lWe5 26.Eixf4 EifB, intending . . . 'lWe7 followed by . . . Eixf7.


25 .Wfxd5 �xd5 26.gxf5 �h5 27.c4 �d8 The computer judges the position as equal.

22.£5 22.�e I ? ? ltJe3-+

22 . . . exf5 So far we have been following the game

Hautot - Lahtinen, Chalkidiki 2002.

23.�g5!N I consider this to be the most challenging

move at White's disposal. The continuation seen in the following game led to plenty of excitement and an eventual win for White, but we will see that Black's play can easily be improved. 23.gxf5 �h5 ! 24.Wfe4

24.Wfxh5 Wfxc4 should be equal, and the following repetition looks like a logical conclusion to the game: 25 .Wfh3 f6 26.e6 Wfe2 27.�h l ltJe7 28 .�h2 Wfd3 29.Wfxd3 �xd3 30.�h8t �d8 3 1 .�h5 �d5 (analysis by Mueller) .

24 . . . ltJb6!N 24 . . . ltJxc3? This optimistic sacrifice does not work. 25 .bxc3 (of coutse not 25 .�xc3?? �dl t 26.�xd l Wfxd l #) 25 . . . Wfxa3t 26.Q;>c2 Wfa4t 27.Q;>b l

a b c d e f g h

The d2-bishop was poisoned due to the threat of 28 .�e6t and 29.Wfxa4. Thus White has a decisive advantage, which he duly converted in Hautot - Lahtinen, Chalkidiki 2002.

25 .�d3 Wfxe4 25 . . . Wfb3!?

26.�xe4 ltJc4 27.�f4 ltJxe5 28 .�xe5 �e8=

23 .. J�e8 24.,hd5 ad5 25.gxf5 �h7 Despite the reduced material , White can still

create difficulties for his opponent.

a b c d e f g h

26.e6! Now Black must make a difficult decision.

26 ... �g8!? This should give decent chances to hold,

although the second of the following alternatives also deserves consideration.

26 . . . fxe6? ! leads to difficulties for Black. 27.fxe6 d4! ? This looks like the best attempt to stir up problems. 28 .e7 dxc3 29.�d l !

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

V,=V'"" ."J�

a b c d e f g h


White's king will be a bit exposed, nevertheless the e7-pawn is a huge asset which should offer him significant winning chances.

26 . . . Wlc4 27.Wlxc4t dxc4 28 .f6! �xe6 29.fxg7 �g6 3o.iLf6 <j{d7!

a b c d e f g h

Black must remove his king from the back rank in order to take the sting out of the planned �h 1 , which would otherwise have been fatal . In the resulting endgame the monster on g7 is safely blocked for the time being, although at this stage the draw is by no means guaranteed.

27.iLf4 WI c4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

28.Wle5!! Wlxfl t 29.�c2 Despite having gobbled a rook with check,

Black will have to sacrifice his queen to avoid

mate, although he should have reasonable chances to draw the resulting endgame.

29 ••. Wlflt 30.�bl Wlfl t 31 .�a2 Wlc4t 32.b3 Wlxf4 33.Wlxf4 fxe6

a b c d e f g h

White can continue to press for a while, but I suspect that Black should hold this ending.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

D222) 20J�fl

a b c d e f g h

2o • • • Wld4! Black indirectly protects himself from f4-fS,

as we will see, while also contemplating . . . Wle4 in certain positions.

21 .iLb3


White has tried a few other ideas, without achieving much.

2 1 .fS? ! is premature: 2 1 . . .exfS 22.gxf5 .ih5! 23 .'!Wxh5 '!Wxc4 24.'!Wh3 (In order to put this position into context, we should compare it with the line 20.c3 '!Wa5 2 1 .E:fl '!Wa4 22.fS exf5 23.gxfS .ih5 24.'!Wxh5 '!Wxc4 25 .'!Wh3, which occurred in the note to White's 23rd move in variation 022 1 above. The present position is identical , except that the white c-pawn is on c2 instead of c3 .) Guenther - Oergatschova Oaus, Germany 1 998, continued 24 . . . '!Wa2 and since 25 .c3 is now forced, Black is a full tempo up, and after 25 . . . lLlb6 she held the initiative.

2 1 .c3 is not so bad, but it brings White no advantage after 2 1 . . .'!We4 22.fS (22.'!Wxe4 .ixe4=) 22 . . . exfS 23.gxfS .ixfS 24.'!Wxe4 .ixe4 25 �E:xf7 E:h8! (Seeking counterplay ensures an easier life than 25 . . . E:e8 26 . .ifl , intending .ih3t and/or c4.) 26.md 1 E:h 1 t 27.me2 E:h2t 28.me 1 E:h 1 t 29.me2 E:h2t 30.me 1 E:h 1 t Y2-Y2 Golubovic - Wahls, Berne 1 995 .

21. .J::�e8 22.'!Wh2 22.'!Wf2!?

22 • • • .ie4 23.E:el gd8 24.'!We2 Morovic Fernandez - Wahls, Havana 1 996.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

24 • • • .ig6!N Wahls himself suggested this improvement

over the game continuation: 24 . . . .ih7? 25 .'!Wf3!±

25.'!Wf3 gh8 Black keeps sufficient counterchances .

Conclusion

In the basic position of this chapter, namely after l .e4 d5 2.exd5 '!Wxd5 3 .lLlc3 '!Wa5 4.d4 lLlf6 5 .lLlf3 .ifS 6 . .ic4 e6 7 . .id2 c6 8 .'!We2 .ib4, we should briefly recall that 9 .0-0 is not at all critical , and Black easily obtains a balanced middlegame. Instead the most promising plan for White, and also the most frequent, is linked with 0-0-0. For this purpose 9.a3 deprives Black of the option 9.0-0-0 lLld5, but at the same time White is showing his cards. Indeed, the interesting secondary lines 9 .0-0-0 lLlbd7 1 O .lLlh4 and 1 O .mb 1 disappear as possibilities.

The main line, 9 .a3 lLlbd7 1 0 .0-0-0 .ixc3 1 1 ..ixc3 '!Wc7 1 2 .lLle5, demands great accuracy from Black. The second player indeed walks a tightrope following 1 2 . . . lLld5 1 3 . .id2 lLlxe5 1 4.dxe5 0-0-0 1 5 .g4 .ig6 1 6 .f4, since the white plan of f4-fS constitutes a permanent threat. In this case 1 6 . . . h5 1 7 .h3 hxg4 1 8 .hxg4 E:xh 1 seems to be the best way to proceed, rather than 1 7 . . . '!Wb6. If Black wishes to spare himself the fastidious theoretical knowledge inherent to this variation, then 1 2 . . . b5 ! ? represents a valid escape hatch.

Chapter 3

White 8th Move Alternatives

l .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3.tL:k3 �a5 4.d4 �f6 5.�f3 �f5 6.�c4 e6 7.�d2 c6

A) 8 .liJh4 B) 8 .h3 C) 8 .a3 D) 8 .liJe5 E) 8 .0-0

92 95 96 96 99


1 .e4 dS 2.adS WxdS 3.lLlc3 WaS 4.d4 lLlf6 s.lLle ifS 6.ic4 e6 7.id2 c6

We dealt with 8 .We2 in the previous chapter, while the knight jumps 8 .lLldS and 8 .lLle4 were the topic of the first chapter. To obtain a complete view of White's options, we will now address six minor alternatives. After a brief glance at 8 .dS? ! we shall look more deeply at A) 8.lLlh4, B) 8.h3, C) 8.a3, D) 8.lLleS and E) 8.0-0.

8 .dS? ! is basically dubious, since it merely helps Black's development. However the position remains balanced after 8 . . . WcS 9 .dxc6 lLlxc6 1 O .We2. Here Black's safest option is 1 O . . . ie7, waiting to see which side White will castle. Nevertheless the more audacious 1 0 . . . 0-0-0! ? or even 1O . . . ixc2! ? could prove playable as well.

A) 8.lLlh4 ig6

This is sounder than the provocative: 8 . . . ig4!? 9 .f3 ihS

No better is 9 . . . WhS 1 O .g3 ih3 1 1 .We2 (stronger than 1 1 .lLle2 id6) . White is now ready to castle long and to redeploy his offside knight via g2. One may wonder what the black queen and bishop duo are doing on the h-file.

1 O .We2 lLlbd7 1 1 .g4 ig6 1 2 .0-0-0

White refrains from forcing matters, since 1 2 .dS? ! cxdS 1 3 .lLlxdS WcS is not clear.

1 2 . . . ib4 1 3 .@b 1 lLlb6 Or 13 . . . 0-0-0 1 4 .a3 ixc3 1 s .ixc3 and the dark-squared bishop will soon be rerouted to g3 . White has the better prospects .

a b c d e f g h

1 4 .ixe6! Otherwise Black seems okay.

1 4 . . . fxe6 1 5 .Wxe6t @f8 1 6.a3 ie7 1 7.lLlxg6t hxg6 1 8 .!l:he 1

1 8 .gS? ! lLlfdS i s less to the point. 1 8 . . . l:!e8 1 9 .9S ixa3

1 9 . . . lLlfd5?? 20.l:!eS is simply lost for Black, who is unable to prevent Wxg6 followed by l:!f5t.

20.Wb3 White recovers the invested piece with some

advantage.

Chapter 3 - White 8 th Move Alternatives 93

9.lLlxg6 hxg6 lO.�e2 Other moves do not fundamentally alter the

assessment of the position.

1 O .h3 lLlbd7 1 1 .�e2 J.b4 1 2.a3 O-O-O?! (after the more precise 1 2 . . . lLld5 or 1 2 . . . lLlb6 the game remains equal) 1 3 .0-0 J.xc3 1 4.J.xc3 �h5 1 5 .�xh5 lLlxh5 1 6.�fd 1 lLlb6 1 7.J.f1 lLlf4 1 B .b3 g5 1 9 .J.b2 lLlbd5 20.c4 CiJe7 2 1 .d5 f6 22.dxe6 �xd 1 23.�xd 1 �dB 24.�xdBt 'kt?xdB 25 .g3 lLlxe6 In T. L. Petrosian - Bauer, Paris (rapid) 2009, White had obtained a permanent and risk-free edge in the ending.

1 0 .lLld5? ! �dB 1 1 .lLlxf6t gxf6

a b c d e f g h

Black has improved his pawn structure for free. He has the simple plan of . . . f6-f5 followed by . . . lLld7-f6 at his disposal, and can even show some ambition if he succeeds in exchanging the dark-squared bishops.

1 2 .c3 lLld7 1 3 .�f3 1 3 .�e2 was played in Prie - Motwani, Clichy 1 99 1 , which saw the French GM on the white side of a Scandinavian for a change! Well, not for long in fact: 1 3 . . . �c7 1 4.g3 0-0-0 1 5 .0-0-0 J.h6 1 6.f4 f5 1 7.�g2 lLlf6 1 B .J.e2 And the game was agreed drawn.

1 3 . . . f5 1 4.0-0-0 lLlf6 1 5 .'kt?b 1 �c7 1 6.h3 0-0-0 1 7.J.g5 J.e7 1 B .g4 lLld5 1 9 .J.c1 �h4 20.J.b3 �dhB 2 1 .c4 lLlf6 22.J.f4? !

White is overestimating his position. He should have gone for the liquidation 22.d5N

with eq uali ty. 22 . . . �a5 23.d5 fxg4 24.�e2

Speculating on the weakness of the h2-bB diagonal as time-trouble was certainly looming. In the event of 24.hxg4 �xh 1 25 .�xh 1 �xh l t 26.�xh 1 cxd5 Black would just be a pawn up.

24 . . . gxh3 25 .J.h2 �dB 26.J.c2? ! White had better chances to swindle with either 26.�f3 or 26.�e5 lLld7 27.�g7.

26 . . . cxd5 27.cxd5 lLlxd5 2B .J.xg6 lLlb4 Anotherwayof maintaining an edge consisted of 2B . . . lLlc3t! ?N, when the following series of moves is virtually forced: 29.bxc3 �xd 1 t 30.�xd 1 (30.�xd 1 ? fxg6) 30 . . . �xc3 3 1 .�c2 �b4t 32.'kt?c 1 J.g5t 33.f4 hf4t 34.J.xf4 �xc2t 35 .J.xc2 �xf4

a b c d e f g h

Black is clearly on top, although he may not manage to win.

29.�c 1 t lLlc6 30.�f3 J.d6 30 . . . fxg6!? 3 1 .�xc6t 'kt?d7 32.�c7t 'kt?eB also looks good.

3 1 .J.e4 .ixh2 32.�xh2 �e5 33 .J.xc6 bxc6 34.�xc6t 'kt?bB 35 .a3 �e4t?

The last chance to battle on was 35 . . . �d6!N 36.�b5t 'kt?aB. Black's h-pawn is a big trump but his exposed king gives White decent chances to escape.

36.�xe4 �xe4 37.�xh3 �f4 3B .�b3t l!taB 39.f3 �b8

Yl-Y2 Hamdouchi - Prie, Montpellier 2006.


1 0.'lWf3 WffS 1 1 .Wfe2

a b c d e

1 1 . . .Wfg4 Black can also venture 1 1 . . .Wfxc2! ? which seems quite playable. 1 2 .t.d3 ( l 2 .dS? ! llJxdS is unconvincing, but 1 2 .:gc l ! ? may be an improvement) 1 2 . . . Wfxb2 1 3 .:gb l Wfa3 1 4.dS llJxdS (natural and good; the alternative 14 . . . cxdS I S .llJbS Wfe7 1 6.t.f4 �dB looks very scary, but is rather unclear) I S .llJxdS cxdS 1 6 .:gxb7 t.e7 17 .t.bSt �f8 I B .O-O llJc6 1 9 .:gc 1 llJdB 20.:gd7 This was Kudrin - Waitzkin, Modesto 1 995 , and now after 20 . . . a6!N Black would have been well on the way to consolidating his material advantage.

1 2 .8 Wfh4t l 3 .Wff2 l 3 .g3? is refuted by 13 . . . Wfxg3t 1 4.hxg3 :gxh l t I S .�f2 :gh2t.

l 3 . . . t.d6 Threatening 14 . . . t.g3.

1 4 .llJe2 Wfxf2t I S .�xf2 llJbd7 1 6.t.f4 t.xf4 1 7.llJxf4 gS

Black has equalized rather easily and White was unable to make any headway in the following game:

I B .llJd3 g4 1 9 .fxg4 llJxg4t 20.�f3 llJgf6 2 1 .h4 as 22.a4 �e7 23.g4 g6 24.:gae l llJdS 2S .t.b3 :gagB 26.gS �d6 27.c3 :gh7 2B .�g4 llJe7 29.llJf2 llJfS 30.t.c2 :gghB 3 1 .t.xfS exfSt

Yz-Yz J. Polgar - Cu. Hansen, Biel 1 993.

a b c d e f g h

lO • • • t.b4 1 1 .0-0-0 Or l 1 .g3 llJbd7 1 2 .0-0-0 llJb6 l 3 .t.b3

0-0-0 1 4.a3 t.xc3 I S .t.xc3 WffS= Enders -Votava, Schoeneck 1 996.

1 1 • • • llJbd7 12.�bl llJb6 1 2 . . . 0-0-0

This may be a touch less accurate, but Black keeps a rock-solid formation anyway.

1 3 .a3 hc3 1 4.t.xc3 Wfc7 I S .h3 llJb6 1 6.t.b3 Wff4 1 7.:gd3 Wfe4 I B .:ge l Wfxe2 1 9 .:gxe2 :gh4

Disrupting the plan of t.e 1 followed by c2-c4.

20.g3 :ge4 20 . . . :gxh3? ! 2 1 .:gxe6 :gh l t 22.:ge l is less advisable. Even though nothing dramatic has occurred from Black's point of view, the light-squared bishop's scope hasincreased and thus White has improved his position.

2 1 .:gxe4 llJxe4 22.t.e l :ghB 23.8 llJd6 24.h4 llJbc4 2S .g4 bS

Beginning to secure the knights' outposts . Without any possible pawn breaks, the advantage of the two bishops will remain symbolic.

26.t.g3 �d7 27.c3 llJb6 2B.:gd l llJdc4 29 .�c1 as 30.:ge l a4 3 1 .t.c2 llJdS 32.t.d3 :gh6 33.:gh l :ghB 34.:gh2 :gh6 3S .:ge2 :ghB 36.:gh2

Yz-Yz Luther - R. Gonzalez, Barcelona 2007.

Chapter 3 - White 8th Move Alternatives 95

13.Ab3 0-0-0 14.a3 hc3 15.hc3 �6 16.£3 ttlfd5 17.Ad2 ttlf4 IS.�fl g5

Just as in the example in the previous note, the knights are not really any weaker than the bishops, and in the following game Black had no problems maintaining the balance.

19.Ac1 gd7 20.h4 gxh4 21 .gxh4 gxh4 22.�xh4 ttle2 23.�hSt q;c7 24.�h4 q;cS 25.�hSt Q;c7 26.�h4 Q;cS 27.�hSt Ih_lh

Luther - Speelman, Hastings 1 996.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B) S.h3

a b c d e f g h

This move should be considered as useful, but hardly critical . White rules out . . . Ag4 and may start to think about advancing with g2-g4 if circumstances permit. Nevertheless such an aggressive thrust could also create weaknesses, and in the meantime Black's natural development will continue unhindered. We shall follow an example of an ideal turn of events from Black's standpoint.

S • • • ttlbd7 9.0-0 White decides to abandon the idea of an

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

15.c3?

a b c d e f g h

This careless move allows the following sally with the knight. Had White chosen the more circumspect 1 5 .l:hdl , covering the bishop on d2, his opponent would not have been able to activate his cavalry as the f7 -pawn would hang.

15 •.. ttle4! 16.Ae3 ttldf6 17.gfdl 1 7.Ac2 was not really a improvement, with

Black having a choice between 1 7 . . . Ah2t 1 8 .<Jih l g5 and 1 7 . . . g5 . In the latter case the tempting 1 8 .g3 turns out well for Black after 1 8 .. .l:l:xh3 1 9 .Axe4 g4 20 .�g2 1'!dh8 . Black threatens 2 1 . . .1'!h2 22 .�xh2 1'!xh2 23.<Jixh2 ttlxe4, while 2 1 .Ac2? �a5 ! followed by 22 . . . �h5 is simply hopeless for White.

17 • . • g5 Is.Ac2 EMhS! White is already powerless against . . . g5-

g4, and even 1 9 .Le4 would not change anything.

19.93 ttlxg3 1 9 .. .l:l:xh3N was perhaps even stronger, in

view of the line: 20 .Axe4 g4 2 1 .�g2 1'!h2-+

early kingside expansion. 20.fxg3 gxh3 21 .Afl ttlh5 2 1 . . . 1'!h2!N was more efficient.

9 • . . �c7 10.ttlh4 Ag6 1 l .ttlxg6 hxg6 12.�£3 0-0-0 13.Ab3 gh4 14.ttle2 Ad6 22.Q;g2 ttlf4t 23.gxf4?!


23.@n was more tenacious, even though after 23 . . .!!h 1 t 24.ig1 (or 24.tLlgl tLlh5) 24 . . . tLlxe2 25 .@xe2 hg3 Black remains in command.

23 • • J�xf3 24.�xf3 gxf4 25J�hl ggS 26.gh5 g5 27.gg1 Wla5 2S.gg4 f5 0-1

S . Salov - K. Mueller, Bremen 1 999. A picturesque finish!

C) S.a3

a b c d e f g h

Most of the comments referring to 8 .h3 above are equally applicable to the text move.

S • . • Wle7 Withdrawing the queen is not yet forced,

and 8 . . . tLlbd7 is also perfectly playable.

9.h3 h6 Another cautious move, although perhaps

it could be interpreted as Black becoming ambitious by avoiding the swap of his bishop after tLlh4.

10.Wle2 tLlbd7 1 l .g4 ig6 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.tLle5 tLlxe5 14.dxe5 tLld7?!

This retreat hands White the edge. Instead 1 4 . . . tLld5!N would present similarities to lines covered in the previous chapter, the difference

being that Black has not had to part with his dark-squared bishop.

15.f4 h5 16J�hf1 hxg4 17.hxg4 Black has to be ready to face the f4-f5

advance at any moment, his pressure on e5 not being sufficient to prevent it.

17 • • • ie7?! 1 7 . . . ttJb6 1 8 .ib3 ic5 would have kept

White's plus within acceptable proportions.

IS.Wlg2?! 1 8 .f5 ! was already strong: 1 8 . . . exf5 1 9 .if4

tLlc5 20.e6 !!xd I t 2 1 .tLlxd l id6 22.ixd6 Wlxd6 23.exf7±

IS • • J:�h4 19.ie1 gh7 2o.ig3 Wla5?! 2 1 .f5 exf5 22.gxf5 ih5 23.e6 fxe6 24.fxe6 tLlf6 25.gxdSt WlxdS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

26.Wlfl? Missing the gorgeous 26.Wlxc6t! ! bxc6

27.ia6#.

26 • • . id6 27.hd6 Wlxd6 2s.Wlxa7+-And White eventually won in Lamoureux -

A. Ledger, Oakham 1 993.

D) S.tLle5 tLlbd7

Chapter 3 - White 8th Move Alternatives 97

a b c d e f g h

9.'!Mfe2 With this move White at least lures the

enemy bishop to b4 before exchanging knights. The immediate exchange is insipid and soon led to equality in the following game: 9.liJxd7 liJxd7 10 .�e2 0-0-0 l 1 .liJdS �a4 1 2 .liJe3 .ig6 l 3 .c3 �aS 1 4 .a4 .id6 I S . .id3 �c7 1 6.h3 eS 1 7 . .ixg6 hxg6 I B .dS liJcS

I B . . . fS ! ? 1 9 .b4 liJb3 20J'!b l liJxd2 2 1 .�xd2 e4 22.bS

a b c d e f g h

22 . . . cxbS 22 . . . cxdS!N 23.b6 axb6 24.liJxdS �c6 is also playable.

23 .l'!xbS a6 24.l'!b3 .if4?! Black could have maintained equality with 24 . . . l'!hSN 2S .0-0 .ih2t 26.mh l .if4, since 27.c4?? allows 27 . . . �d7 2B.mgl l'!xh3.

2S .0-0 �cS 26.c4 l'!d7 27.l'!fb l l'!eB 2B .�b2 .ieS 29 .�c2 .id4 30.d6?

White surely missed his opponent's reply. He is not permitted to put his knight on dS, and with careful play Black could also have prevented the push c4-cS.

30 . . . l'!eS! 3 1 .�e2 3 1 .liJdS?? l'!xdS-+

3 1 . . . .ixe3 32.fXe3 �xd6 32 . . . l'!e6! represented a cleaner way to ingest the condemned pawn.

33 .�b2 �bB? 33 . . . �c7 34.�a3 �dB was more to the point; the penetration �f8t is avoided and 3S .cS is neutralized by 3S . . . l'!d l t .

34.�a3 l'!ee7 3S .cS �eS 36.c6 bxc6 37.l'!b6 cS 3B .�b3 l'!d3?

3B . . . l'!d6 was still sufficient to draw, according to the engines.

39 .l'!c6t l'!c7 40.�bBt md7 4 1 .l'!xc7t �xc7 42.l'!b7 1-0

Mainka - Wahls, Munich 1 993

9 • • • .ib4 lO.liJxd7 1 0 .0-0-0 liJxeS l 1 .dxeS liJdS= 1 2 . .ixdS

In the event of 1 2 .liJxdS several paths lead to equality. One of them is 1 2 . . . .ixd2t l 3 .�xd2 �xd2t 1 4.l'!xd2 cxdS I S . .id3 Y2-Y2 Grosar Kindermann, Ptuj 1 995 .

1 2 . . . exdS 1 3 .a3? A mistake. More appropriate was 1 3 .g4 .ie6 1 4 .f4 .ixc3 I S .hc3 �xa2 and now 1 6.b3, preparing f4-5, provides White with adequate compensation. After 1 6.fS? ! , on the other hand, 1 6 . . . d4! 17 . .ixd4 0-0-0 is slightly better for Black.

1 3 . . . .ixa3 14 .�f3 .ie6 I S .liJa2 .ib4 1 6 . .ixb4 �xa2 1 7.�e3 0-0-0 I B . .id6 b6 1 9 .md2 �xb2 20.l'!b l d4 2 1 .l'!xb2 dxe3t 22.mxe3+

]. Polgar - Cu. Hansen, Groningen 1 993.

lO • • • liJxd7 1 1 .83 The following game may serve as a warning

for Black to remain on guard: 1 1 . 0-0-0 O-O?

The white attack will clearly come first in


this situation with opposite castling. Black ought to prefer 1 1 . . .ltJb6 1 2 . .!b3 0-0-0 (or 1 2 . . . ltJd5=) 1 3 .a3 .!xc3 14 . .!xc3 Wfb5, and in the event of 1 5 .Wfxb5 cxb5 his excellent light-square control should ensure approximate equality.

1 2 .g4 .!g6 1 3 .h4 h5 1 4.a3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

I"'="''///_,,,/'''':'"''','//H//

a b c d e f g h

1 4 . . . .!xc3?! 14 . . . .!xa3! had to be tried, even though White should keep the upper hand. 1 5 .bxa3 (it seems that Black can defend after the less principled 1 5 .ltJb l .!b4 1 6 . .!xb4 Wfxb4 1 7.gxh5 .!xh5 1 8 .Wfxh5 Wfxc4 1 9 .1'%hgl f5) 1 5 . . . Wfxa3t 1 6 .�b l Wfb4t ( l 6 . . . ltJb6!?) 1 7.�a l '!xc2 1 8 .1'%c l

a b c d e f g h

The white king, surrounded by his subjects, does not face any real danger. By contrast, on the opposite flank the capture gxh5 is on the agenda, and the extra piece seems to outweigh the three pawns.

1 5 . .!xc3 Wfa4 1 6.gxh5 1 6 . .!b4!N was even stronger, but Black is in bad shape anyway.

1 6 . . . .!xc2 1 7.1'%dgl .!f5 1 8 .h6 g6 1 9 .h5 �h7 20.'!d3 1'%ae8 2 1 .hxg6t fXg6

a b c d e f g h

22.1'%xg6! Decisive!

22 . . . .!xg6 23 .'!xg6t �xg6 24.Wfg4t �f6 25 .d5t

1-0 Jansa - Konopka, Olomouc 1 995 .

1 1 .0-0 0-0 Transpositions and positions with negligible differences frequently occur in this chapter. This is the case here, as the position will soon be akin to Gdanski - Gechkov, Antwerp 1 992, and Grischuk - Rozanov, Moscow 1 995 , both games featuring in line E below.

1 2 .a3 .!xc3 1 3 . .!xc3 Wfc7 1 4.g4 .!g6 1 5 .f4 ltJf6 1 6 .1'%ae 1 1'%ad8

1 6 . . . 1'%fe8!?N may have been slightly more accurate.

1 7.Wfg2 The immediate 1 7.f5N was also worthy of consideration: 1 7 . . . exf5 1 8 .gxf5 '!h5 1 9 .Wfe5 with a small white edge.

1 7 . . . 1'%fe8 1 8 .�h l On 1 8 .1'%e5 Black had 1 8 . . . Wfb6!, contemplating the exchange sacrifice . . . 1'%xd4.

1 8 . . . ltJd5? ! Black should have stopped the advance

Chapter 3 -White 8th Move Alternatives 99

f4-f5 by mean of 1 8 . . . Wfd7!N, inviting his opponent to find another plan.

1 9 .fS exfS 20.gxfS :gxe l 2 1 .�xe l ttJe3? ?

a b c d e f g h

This blunder shortens the game. Instead Black had to play 2 1 . . . �h5 ; then 22.�g3 is fine for White but far from over, while 22.Wfg5! ? ttJf6 23 .�g3 Wfe7 24.�e5 :gxd4! ! 25 .�xd4 Wfe4t 26.Wfg2 Wfxd4 is unclear.

22.fxg6! 1-0 Gallagher - Jakob, Zurich 1 989.

1l .. . ttJf6 12.0-0 �xc3 13.�xc3 Wfe7 14.£3 0-0 15.�e1 ttJd5 16.�g3 Wfd7 17.�b3 b5!

Cementing the knight in the centre.

18.a4 a5 19.Wfd2 ttJb6 20.Wfc3 bxa4 21 .�xa4 ttJxa4 22J�xa4

8 7 6 5 4 3

2 1

a b c d e f g h

22 . • . e5!

In this way Black gains counterplay, managing to tactically hang on to his isolated a-pawn. Over the remaining course of the game he never stands more than slightly worse.

23JUal cxd4 24J�xd4 Wfb7 25.�e7 �Ue8 26J:�e4 h6 27J:�aa4 Wfd5 28J��e5 Wfdl t 29.<.t?fl ga7 30.gaxa5 gxa5 3U�xa5 he2 32.M �d3 33.h3 �f1 34.ga2 �b5 35. <.t?g3 Wfd5 36J�a7 gaS 37.gxa8t Wfxa8 38.�e5 Wff8 39.Wfd4 f6 4O.�d6 Wfe8 1fz-1fz

Stefansson - Vovsha, Cap pelle la Grande 2000.

E) 8.0-0

I!S' �JiIiW %_.%7� %,� 8 A m �U'� �.s 7 tli';� �� 'iY._'i 6 '�!�!.N '� 5 �

��

�� I�

" ."z� ��r� �� 4 _j"r� _ � 3 ��""z�� r�"' ' ' ��'0 �W'� �� '� 2 8 r� 8 � r� 8 � 1 �""%.ii.��""

a b c d e f g h

8 .. . �b4 Now that White has laid his cards on the

table by castling short, his opponent can afford the loss of time involved in playing: 8 . . . Wfc7

With this move Black intends to preserve his dark-squared bishop. A number of interesting games have been played from this position. Here are three examples that captured my attention:

a) 9.:ge l �d6 1 O .�g5 1 O .h3 0-0 I l .ttJe5 is a quieter way to handle the position. However in B. Socko


- Montero Martinez, Internet 2000, Black did not face any real difficulties, and after 1 1 . . .b5 1 2 .�d3 �xd3 1 3 .'Llxd3 'Llbd7 14-'Wf3 a6 1 5 J!ad 1 c5 the game was balanced.

1 O . . . 'Llbd7 1 1 .d5? !

a b c d e f g h

Despite White's eventual positive result in the following game, Black should manage to ward off any danger.

1 1 . . .'Llb6 1 1 . . .cxd5!N is much simpler. After 1 2 .hd5 (after 1 2.'Llb5? ! Wfb6 White has nothing for the pawn) 1 2 . . . �b4 Black has prevented 'Llb5, and he is ready to castle with no worries .

1 2 .�xf6 gxf6 1 3 .dxc6 'Llxc4 1 4.'Llb5? Mter the correct 1 4.'Lld5! Wfxc6 1 5 .'Llxf6t the computer believes that White has enough resources to compensate for his piece deficit. For instance, a pitfall Black must avoid is 1 5 .. .'j;1e7 1 6.'Lld4 Wfc5 ? 1 7.b4! .

14 . . . Wfxc6 1 5 .'Llfd4 Wfb6 1 6.'LlxfS �e5 1 7.b3 E:dB 1 B .Wfh5 E:d2 1 9 .Wfh4 exfS?!

Taking the exchange was best by 19 . . . hal ! 20.bxc4 �e5 2 1 .'Llg7t �d7-+. The white queen is tied down to the defence of fL., and the black king will find a shelter on the queenside.

20.bxc4 E:gB 20 . . . E:xc2

2 1 .'Llc7t? 2 1 .Wff4! E:xc2 22.WfxfS E:xc4 would have been unclear.

2 1 . . .�dB 22.'Lld5 Wfd4? Spoiling the edge that would have resulted from 22 . . . E:g4!+.

23.Wfxd4 �xd4 24.E:ed 1 Iuldachev - Nazarov, Shenyang 1 999. The

game stops here with the result 1-0 in my database. It is true that White stands much better in the event of 24 . . . E:xfL. 25 .g3 E:d2t 26.�h 1 �xa1 27.E:xd2, but Black's situation is not yet hopeless so the result outcome remains puzzling.

b) 9 .Wfe2 This is valid too, because Black can hardly grab the c2-pawn in view of the customary E:ac l followed by d5.

9 . . . �e7 1 O .�b3 'Llbd7 1 1 .'Lle5 h5 ! ? The point behind this creative move i s to prevent the g2-g4 push after Black has exchanged on e5 .

1 2 .�f4 'Llxe5 1 3 .dxe5 White must later have regretted this recapture. Instead 1 3 .�xe5 �d6 was equal.

1 3 . . . 'Lld7

a b c d e f g h

1 4.E:fe 1 ? ! 1 4.'Lle4! was necessary and still very playable for White: 1 4 . . . �xe4 ( 1 4 . . . 'Llxe5? wouldn't be very smart, since 1 5 .'Llg3 f6 1 6.'Llxf5 exfS 1 7.E:ad 1 offers White more than enough compensation for a mere pawn) 1 5 .Wfxe4 g5 1 6 .�d2 'Llxe5 ( 1 6 . . . Wfxe5 ? ! is inferior; after 1 7.Wfxe5 'Llxe5 1 B .�c3 �f6 1 9 .f4 White

Chapter 3 - White 8th Move Alternatives 1 0 1

recovers his pawn) 1 7.i.xe6! ! (the "obvious" 1 7.i.c3?! runs into 1 7 . . . ttlg4 1 8 .g3 i.f6, when Black keeps his extra pawn and the advantage) 1 7 . . . fxe6 1 8 .i.c3 i.d6 (after 1 8 . . . ttlf7?! 1 9 .i.xh8 ttlxh8 20.'lWxe6 Black has knight and bishop for rook and pawn, but his weak king is a concern) 1 9 .9fe l 0-0-0 20.i.xe5 i.xe5 2 1 .'lWxe5 'lWxe5 22.gxe5 gd2

a b c d e f g h

Now White cannot play the straightforward 23.gc l gfB 24.f3 because of 24 . . . g4! , and so Black will be slightly more active in the double rook ending. That said, the logical outcome should nevertheless be a draw.

1 4 . . . g5 1 5 .i.c l ? Too passive. 1 5 .i.e3 with the idea of 1 5 . . . 'lWxe5 1 6.'lWd2 represented the last chance for White to keep on fighting.

1 5 . . . 0-0-0 1 6 .a4 a5 1 7.i.c4 h4 1 8 .gb l g4 1 9 .i.f4 ttlfB 20.gbd 1 ttlg6 2 1 .gxdBt gxdB 22.i.cl i.c5+

The e5 pawn is condemned and the black offensive on the eastern front has excellent chances of bearing fruit. Victory is just a matter of time.

23.g3 hxg3 24.hxg3 ghB 25 . .ig5 gh3 26.ttle4 Wfxe5 27.ttlxc5 'lWxc5 28 .'lWd2 gxg3t 29.�f1 Wfxc4t 30.ge2 i.d3 3 1 .fxg3 i.xe2t 32.'lWxe2

0-1 Herrera - Matamoros Franco, Havana 1 999.

a brilliant idea. Although the white c-pawn will be free to advance, it will be difficult for White to make good use of this.

9 . . . i.d6 1 0 .ttlg3 i.g6 1 1 .ge1 ttlbd7 1 2.ib3 0-0-0 1 3 .'lWe2

a b c d e f g h

The current position resembles the game S . Salov - Mueller, seen in line B above. Black does not possess a semi-open h-file here, but his g6-bishop is strong and the knight on g3 invites the following thrust.

1 3 . . . h5 ! 1 4.i.g5 The "mechanical" way of calling a halt to . . . h5-h4 also deserved attention: 1 4.ttlh4 i.h7 and now 1 5 .a4 initiates some counterplay.

1 4 . . . if4 1 5 .i.xf4 'lWxf4 1 6.ttlf1 h4 1 7.h3 i.h5 1 B .ttl 1 d2

1 8 .'lWd2!? 18 . . . g5 1 9 .'lWe3 'lWxe3 20.gxe3 ghgB

a b c d e f g h

c) 9. ttle2?! 2 1 . ttlc4?! Transferring the knight to the kingside isn't A misguided attempt at gaining activity.


White should have further consolidated, by means of 2 1 .c3. In this case the black side would have been a trifle more pleasant to play, owing to the possible levers . . . g5-g4 and . . . c6-c5 , but it would be difficult to prove much advantage.

2 1 . . .c;t>c7 22.lLlce5 lLlb6 23.c4 Preventing a knight jump to d5, but at the same time seriously weakening d4.

23 . . . lLlc8 23 . . . g4!

24.E!:d I ? ! lLle7 25 . .ic2 g4 26.hxg4 lLlxg4 27.lLlxg4 E!:xg4 28.E!:e4?

28.E!:e5! would have limited the black edge to bearable proportions, whereas now the game is over.

28 . . . E!:xe4 29 . .ixe4 fS 30 . .ic2 .ixf3 3 1 .gxf3 lLlg6 32.d5 cxd5 33.cxd5 E!:xd5 34.E!:xd5 exd5 35 . .ixfS lLlf4

0-1 Player - Prie, West Bromwich 2005 .

a b c d e f g h

9.lLle5 With this configuration of pieces, White can

grab the bishop pair at any moment by means of a2-a3 . An example is the following: 9 .a3 .ixc3 1 0 . .ixc3 �c7 1 1 ..ib3

The retreat 1 1 . .id3 seems less logical : 1 1 . . . .ig4!? (or simply 1 1 . . . .ixd3) 1 2 .h3 .ih5 1 3 .E!:e l lLlbd7 14.b3. Now instead of 14 . . . lLld5 1 5 . .id2, which was a bit better for White in Grischuk - Sebastianelli, Porto San

Giorgio 1 999, Black could have continued 14 . . . 0-0N, planning to wait for the c2-c4 advance and to answer it with . . . c6-c5 .

1 1 . . .lLlbd7 1 2 .�e2 0-0 1 3 .lLle5 lLlxe5 14 .dxe5 lLle4

1 4 . . . lLld5 1 5 . .id2;!; 1 5 .g4 lLlxc3 1 6.bxc3 .ig6 1 7.f4 E!:fe8 1 8 .E!:ae l

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . �e7? 1 8 . . . h6! 1 9 .f5 .ih7 represented a more adequate way to defend. The bishop is awkwardly placed on h7, but White can hardly intensify the pressure on e6 or effectively attack the enemy king. The b3-bishop might also find itself out of play.

1 9 .f5 exfS 20.gxf5 �g5t 2 1 .�g2 �xg2t 22.c;t>xg2 .ih5 23.c;t>g3 g6 24.c;t>h4 c;t>g7 25 .f6t �h6 26.c;t>g3!

Black must now protect f7 and also be ready to face the pawn-break e5-e6. The endgame is unpleasant for him.

26 . . . g5 27.E!:e4?! Here or on the next move 27.e6! was probably stronger, even though White's advantage may not suffice for a win after 27 . . . fxe6 28.f7 E!:f8 29.E!:xe6t .ig6 30.E!:e7.

27 . . . E!:ad8 27 . . . .ig6! first was more accurate.

28 .h4 gxh4t? Increasing Whites advantage. Instead the black position remains defendable after 28 . . . E!:g8 .

29.E!:xh4 E!:xe5 30 . .ixf7 E!:f8 3 1 .c;t>f4 E!:g5 ?!

Chapter 3 - White 8th Move Alternatives 1 03

3 1 . .Jk5 was more stubborn, but probably insufficient too: 32.i.xh5 1'%xf6t 33.'kt>g3 1'%xc3t 34.i.f3t (or 34.1'%f3) and White should eventually win.

32.1'%gl 1'%c5 33 .1'%xh5t 1'%xh5 34.i.xh5 'kt>xh5 35 .mf5

1-0 Griinfeld - K. Berg, Gausdal 1 982.

9 ... tL'lbd7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

10.We2 10 .1'%e l will likely enable the white queen

to inch closer to the rival king. It is however unclear whether this makes a big difference. 10 . . . 0-0 I l .a3 i.xc3 12 .i.xc3 Wc7 13 .i.b3 1'%ad8 14.Wf3t/= Gdanski - Gechkov, Ancwerp 1 992.

On the other hand, 1 0 .tL'lxd7?! is innocuous: 1 0 . . . mxd7 I l .a3 i.xc3 1 2 .i.xc3 Wc7 1 3 .i.d3 ( l 3 .f3!?) 1 3 . . . i.xd3 14 .Wxd3 1'%ad8= Splinter Rosenfeld, Chicago 1 994.

10 ... 0-0 For 1 O . . . tL'lxe5, Solozhenkin - Bagirov,

Jyvaskyla 1 994, see variation A in Chapter 2 .

1 1 .i.b3 I l .a3 i.xc3 1 2 .i.xc3 Wc7 1 3 .tL'lxd7 Wxd7

14 .1'%fd l tL'ld5 1 5 .i.e 1;:!;/= Grischuk - Rozanov, Moscow 1 995 . White has the cwo bishops, but the black position is a tough nut to crack.

1 l . • • 1'%ad8 12.a3 hc3 13.hc3 We7 We have reached a typical Scandinavian

middlegame. The following sequence of moves is of course not compulsory, but the game seems balanced anyway.

14.1'%fdl h6 15.i.el a5 16.a4 b6 17.£3 tL'lxe5 18.dxe5 tL'ld5 19.i.g3 1'%d7 20J�d2 l:Ud8 21 .1'%adl=

a b c d e f g h

I. Gurevich - Morozevich, London 1 994. The mighty knight on d5 is worth a bishop. Trying to exploit the weakened d6-square would involve playing c2-c4, which would also concede some squares in the white camp.

Conclusion

The various alternatives presented in this chapter are not bad, but they are not as critical as the options covered in the first cwo chapters .

Black should not be afraid of his bishop being exchanged by tL'lh4xg6. Indeed, whether he obtains attacking prospects along the h-file or simply a solid position, in both cases chances will be shared after the recapture . . . hxg6.

The hasty jump of the king's knight to e5 is not to be feared either. It will generally be neutralized by the natural developing move . . . tL'lbd7.


Meanwhile the quieter moves 8 .h3, 8 .a3 and 8 .0-0 all fail to create any early challenge to the black position, and the second player can easily complete his development in peace to reach a comfortable middlegame with balanced chances .

Chapter 4

White 6th and 7th Move Alternatives

B) l .e4 d5 2.exd5 Wfxd5 3.�c3 Wfa5 4.d4 �f6 5.�f3 .irs

B 1) 6.ie2 I I I B3) 6.id3 1 12 B3) 6 .lLle5 c6 1 13 B3 1) 7.if4 1 1 3 B32) 7 .lLlc4 1 14 B33) 7.g4 1 17 B34) 7 .id3 1 18


1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 1l9xd5 3.lLlc3 1l9a5 4.d4 lLlf6 5.lLlf3 i.f5

After the above opening moves, we have spent the first three chapters of the book studying the lines where White goes on to develop his bishops by means of 6.i.c4 c6 7.i.d2 . We now turn our attention to his alternatives on both turns. In the first part of this chapter we see what happens when White varies on move 7, and then in the second part we look at lines where he refrains from developing his bishop on c4. Thus we have A) Lines with 6.i.c4 c6 and B) Alternatives to 6.i.c4.

A) 6.i.c4 c6

7.lLle5 This energetic move is arguably the most

principled alternative to 7.i.d2. White intends to launch a quick attack.

7.0-0 has been the most popular alternative to the main line, but after 7 . . . e6 Black has a solid game and no particular worries . The position can be compared with line B of Chapter 2 and line E of Chapter 3 .

Another idea i s 7.1lge2 e6 8.lLle5 This should lead to simplifications. 8 . . . lLlbd7 (8 . . . i.b4 is likely to transpose into line A of Chapter 2 after 9 .i.d2 lLlbd7) 9 .0-0 i.d6 1 0 .�e l 0-0

l l .lLlxd7 lLlxd7 1 2 .lLle4 i.e7 1 3 .i.f4 i.g6 1 4.lLld6 1l9c7 1 5 .lLlfS 1l9xf4 1 6.lLlxe7t mh8 1 7 .lLlxg6t hxg6

a b c d e f g h

Black was not especially accurate in the opening phase, but the game has turned out about level anyway, Polzin - Steiner, Augsburg 1 995 .

7 • • • e6 8.g4 This double-edged thrust constitutes the

main idea behind White's last move.

8 .. . i.g6 9.h4

8 z . �.� �.i 7 �i';� �� 'i�_'i 6 '�!�!.t� 5 &!�� . . . . . . � 4 U".'�u.!� 3 �m""�� "" 2 !�8� ��

" "�" " ��7� �W�""�� 1 � �vm � � a b c d e f g h

9 • • • lLlbd7 Black has several replies which adequately

solve the issue of his bishop. The most popular alternative has been 9 . . . i.b4, while 9 . . . i.d6 particularly deserves consideration.

Chapter 4 - White 6th and 7th Move Alternatives 1 07

9 . . . .ib4!? 1 0 . .id2 lLlbd7 (after 1 O . . . lLle4?! I I .f3! Black was in bad shape in Campora - Cu. Hansen, Palma de Mallorca 1 989) I I .lLlxd7 'kt>xd7 1 2 .h5 .ie4 This position is similar to one that arises in variation B of Chapter 5 . Here too, the black king seems safe enough and the position level.

9 . . . .id6!? This suggestion of Matthias Wahls in Modernes Skandinavisch has not been refuted so far.

1 O .h5 In general Black will be happy if he can swap the e5-knight and continue . . . h7-h5 , and so this consistent move looks critical to me. 1 0 . .if4 lLle4 (this keeps the position more complicated than 1 0 . . . .ixe5, when White should choose 1 1 ..ixe5 lLlbd7= Mahjoob - Zeleic, Calvia Olympiad 2004, rather than l 1 .dxe5? ! lLle4 1 2 J�h3 h5! Friedel -Becerra Rivero, Connecticut 2004) 1 1 .�h3?! ( l 1 .lLlxg6!=) 1 1 . . .lLld7 1 2 .WTe2?! lLlxe5 1 3 .dxe5 .ib4 1 4.'kt>fl .ixc3 1 5 .bxc3 h5 In Vega Gutierrez - Fierro Baquero, Benasque 200 1 , White had weaknesses everywhere and nothing in return. 1 0 .WTe2!? .ixe5 l 1 .dxe5 lLle4 is an interesting attempt, but now instead of 1 2 .�h3? ! h5 , as in Sudakova - Repkova, Rijeka 2004, White should play 1 2 . .id2N, intending 1 2 . . . lLlxd2 1 3 .WTxd2 WTxe5t 14 . .ie2 h6 1 5 .0-0-0.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

White has good compensation for the pawn.

1 0 . . . .ie4 1 1 .0-0 1 1 .f3 is worth a try, but after 1 1 . . . .id5 White went wrong with 1 2 . .id3? in D. Fernandez - R. Gonzalez, Lindsborg 2004. Instead 1 2 .h6N .ixe5 (or 1 2 . . . g6 1 3 . .if4) 1 3 .dxe5 .ixc4 14 .WTd4 g6 1 5 .exf6 .id5 gives mutual chances. 1 1 .�h3! ? Mazariego - Fierro Baquero, Ecuador 2003, looks less natural, but quite playable.

1 1 . . . .ixe5 Or 1 1 . . . .id5 1 2 . .id3 .ixe5 ( l 2 . . . lLlbd7 1 3 .�e l g6 14 .WTe2.ixe5 1 5 .dxe5 lLlg8 1 6 . .id2 WTc7 1 7.lLlxd5 cxd5 1 8 .c4 was suspicious for Black in Karjakin - Nakamura, Cuernavaca 2004, although he eventually won) 1 3 .dxe5 lLlfd7 14 .WTe2. Now 14 . . . WTd8?! was played in I. Schneider - R. Gonzalez, Minneapolis 2005 , when 1 5 . .ie4! would have given White an edge. Instead 14 . . . lLlc5 is unclear.

1 2 .dxe5 WTxe5 1 3 .�e l lLlbd7

a b c d e f g h

An unusual position; Black's bishop has been lured into a scary-looking pin at the cost of only one pawn. However it should be observed that the weakening of White's kingside makes it harder to profit from the pin.

1 4 .WTe2 In the event of 14 .g5 Black has a choice: a) 1 4 . . . WTf5 leads to a forced draw as follows:


1 5 .gx:f6 .iS 1 6JWd6 �g4t 1 7.�g3 �xh5 1 8 .�h2 �g4t 1 9 .�g3= b) The more ambitious 1 4 . . . .ixc2! ? reaches an unclear endgame: 1 5 .E:xe5 .ixd 1 1 6 J:%a5 ! ? (the more conventional 1 6.E:e 1 is playable too, but remaining on the 5th rank will enable White to eliminate the black bishop) 1 6 . . . .ixh5 1 7.gx:f6 ttJxf6 1 8 . .ie3 a6 1 9 .ttJe4 ttJxe4 20.E:xh5°o

1 4 . . . b5 1 5 . .ib3 1 5 .g5!?

1 5 . . . ttJc5 1 6.g5 1 6.f4!? may be more accurate, kicking the queen at a time when it cannot access 5.

a b c d e f g h

Now Black can either play 1 6 . . . E:g8 (Wahls) or 1 6 . . . b4! ? , with a complex game in both cases .

10.ttJxd7 ttJxd7 1 l .h5 .ie4

a b c d e f g h

12J:�h3 1 2 .E:g 1 ? ! The rook is less exposed here, but

also pretty useless . 1 2 . . . ttJb6 1 3 . .ie2 ttJa4 1 4 . .id2 ttJxc3 1 5 .bxc3 h6't Apicella - Prie, Brussels 1 993.

On the other hand, 1 2.0-0 is interesting: 1 2 . . . .id5 1 3 .ttJxd5 cxd5 14 . .id3 .id6 1 5 .c3 g6 (or 1 5 . . . �c7) with approximate equality, Westerinen - Prie, Andorra 1 994.

12 • • • .ig2 There is also nothing wrong with the

immediate: 1 2 . . . .id5 1 3 . .id3 .id6

Black has several other ways to reach a satisfactory position: a) 13 . . . c5 (Wahls) b) 1 3 . . . �b4!? Radic - Savic, Zenica 2005 . c ) 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 1 4 . .id2 �b6 1 5 .ttJxd5 exd5= Rublevsky - Lastin, Elista 1 995 .

1 4 . .id2 �c7 1 5 .ttJxd5 cxd5 1 6 .�e2 .if4 1 7.0-0-0

Having equalized comfortably, Black now suffered from a lapse of concentration and played:

1 7 . . . 0-0-0??

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . .ixh7!± Ochoa de Echaguen - Denker, New York

1 989.

Chapter 4 - White 6th and 7th Move Alternatives 1 09

1 3 .1:%g3 After this move a subsequent . . . id6 will gain a tempo for Black.

1 3 . . . id5 14.ixd5 14 .ie2 id6

1 4 . . . cxd5 1 5 .id2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . .'&d8?! 1 5 . . .'&b6!N is more accurate, but White returns the favour.

1 6.'\1;lfe2?! 1 6.ltJxd5 ! would have maintained the

1 3 . . . ltJb6 This move is playable, but slightly less accurate than the main line above. We will follow a model game from White.

1 4.id3! 1 4.ib3?! c5!

14 . . . ltJd5 1 5 .f3 Instead after 1 5 .1:%g3 ltJxc3 1 6 .bxc3 id5 1 7.id2 �a4 1 8 .�e2 b5 1 9 .h6 0-0-0 Black was not worse in Bauer - Prie, Auxerre 1 996. Most of the forthcoming analysis is from GM Karsten Mueller for Chess Base.

equilibrium: a) 16 . . . exd5? 1 7 .1:%e3t ie7 1 8 .ib4+- a b c d e f g h

b) 1 6 . . . ltJb8? ! 1 7.ltJc3 �xd4 1 8 .�e2 1 5 . . . ib4? leaves White with a dangerous lead in development. c) 1 6 . . . id6 1 7.ltJf4 �f6 1 8 .1:%f3 �xd4 1 9 .ic3 �e4t 20.�e2 �xe2t 2 1 .ltJxe2=

16 . . . id6 1 7.1:%f3 0-0 1 8 .g5 ltJb6 1 9 .b3 a6 20.g6?!

The beginning of all his troubles. White should have opted for the obvious 20.0-0-0 when 20 . . . ltJc4!? 2 1 .bxc4 ia3t 22.�b l �b6t 23.ltJb5 axb5 24.cxd5 (or 24.c5 �a6 25 .if4) 24 . . . exd5 25 .�e5 looks dangerous for him, but is actually okay.

20 . . . �h4! 2 1 .0-0-0 �xh5 22.�e3? 22.gxh7t is an improvement.

22 . . . �xg6-+ Fedorov - Hauchard, Belfort 1 999.

13 . . . �c7!

The outcome of the ensuing tactical skirmish was not easy to anticipate. With hindsight, Black had two superior options: a) 1 5 . . . ltJxc3 1 6.bxc3 �xc3t 1 7.id2 �xd4 1 8 .�f2 ixf3 1 9 .�xf3 ic5 20.�g2 0-0-000 with three pawns for the piece and a airy white king. b) 1 5 . . . ltJxe3 1 6.ixe3 ia3 1 7.ic1 ( 1 7.bxa3 ixf3 1 8 .�d2 ixg4 1 9 .h600) 1 7 . . . �b4 (this computer move looks more appropriate than 1 7 . . . ib4 1 8 .�f2 ixc3 1 9 .bxc3 �xc3 20.id2 �xd4t 2 1 .�xg2;!;) 1 8 .1:%b l �xd4 1 9 .bxa3 0-0-0 with a mess.

1 6 .�f2! ixc3 1 6 . . . ltJxc3? 1 7.bxc3 ixc3 1 8 .1:%b l ixd4 1 9 .�xg2 ixe3 20.ixe3±

1 7 .bxc3 �xc3 1 8 .1:%b l �xd4 1 8 . . . ltJxe3 represented the last practical

1 1 0 Play the Scandinavian

chance, even though after 1 9 .i.xe3 i.xf3 20.Wfxf3 0-0-0 there is no doubt about White's supremacy.

1 9 .!hb7

7 6 5 4 3 2

1 9 . . . gd8

a b c d e f g h

The alternatives are no better: a) 1 9 . . . i.h3 20.gxf7! c5 2 1 .gf5!! tLlxe3 (2 1 . . .c4 22.gf4+-) 22.i.xe3 Wfb2 23.gxc5 0-0 24.'kt>g3!+-b) 19 . . . tLlf4 20.i.e2+-c) 1 9 . . . e5 20.c4 0-0-0 (or 20 . . . tLlf4 2 1 .i.b2 tLlh3t 22.'kt>xg2 Wfxe3 23 .'kt>xh3 gd8 24.Wfe2+-) 2 1 .cxd5 'kt>xb7 22.dxc6t 'kt>c7 23. 'kt>xg2+-d) 1 9 . . . 0-0-0 20.gxf7 'kt>b8 2 1 .Wfg l +-

20.h6! gxh6? 20 . . . tLlxe3 was more tenacious: 2 1 .i.xe3 Wfe5 22.hxg7 gg8 23 .Wfgl i.xf3 24.'it>xf3±

2 1 .i.g6!! A beautiful finish!

2 1 . . .tLle7 2 1 . . .Wfxd l 22.gxe6t 'kt>f8 23 .i.xh6t 'kt>g8 24.i.xf7#

22.Wfxd4 gxd4 23 .gd3 gd8 24.gxd8t 'kt>xd8 25 .i.d3

1-0 Anand - Lautier, Biel 1 997.

14.f4?! Further weakening the kingside. White

should have given up any ambition of an opening edge and switched to defence by 14 .gg3, after which 14 . . . i.d5 is fine for Black.

On the other hand, the alternatives 1 4.f3? Wfh2 and 1 4.d5? tLlb6 are even worse.

a b c d e f g h

14 .. . tLlb6 15.i.b3 0-0-0 16.�f2 i.d5 17.tLlxd5 tLlxd5 18JH'3

On 1 8 .ge4 tLlf6 1 9 .gel Black has the powerful retort 1 9 . . . g5! with the point that 20.fxg5? is met by 20 . . . Wfh2t 2 1 .'it>f3 Wfh3t.

18 .. . tLlf6 19.�g3?! 1 9 .9d3 was more resilient.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

19 .. . g6!-+ 20.hxg6 hxg6 21 .g5 tLle4t 22.�g2 tLlxg5! 23.gd3

23.fxg5 ?! Wfh2t 24.'kt>f1 Wfh l t 25 .'it>e2 gh2t-+

23 ... tLle4 24.Wff3 tLld6 25.i.e3 tLlf5 26.i.f2

Chapter 4 - White 6th and 7th Move Alternatives I I I

id6 27.d5 exd5 2s.hd5 ltJh4t 29.ixh4 gxh4 0-1

Moriuchi - Prie, Saint-Sebastien 2005 . The f4-pawn is about to fall and Black's attack just keeps going.

B) Alternatives to 6.ic4

Mter the opening moves: 1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 Wxd5 3.ltJc3 Wa5 4.d4 ltJf6 5.ltJa ifS

Bl) 6.ie2 e6

Black can also consider the more ambitious: 6 . . . ltJc6!? 7.id2

This constitutes the critical test of Black's last move. Instead 7.0-0 0-0-0 is good for Black, as is 7.ib5 ltJd5 8 .id2 ltJxc3 9.ixc6t bxc6 1 O .ixc3 Wa6 (or 1 0 . . . Wd5) .

7 . . . a6! 7 . . . 0-0-0? gives Black an inferior version of the line l .e4 d5 2.exd5 Wxd5 3.ltJc3 Wa5 4.d4 ltJf6 5 .ic4 ig4 6.ltJge2 ltJc6 7.f3 if5, discussed in Chapter 1 1 . White continues: 8 .ltJb5 Wb6 9.c4 Black is compelled to sacrifice an exchange for the pawn on d4, but White has not weakened his kingside here.

8 .a3 ig6°o Clearing the fifth rank for the queen. The alternatives 8 . . . 0-0-0 and 8 . . . Wb6

are also difficult to assess . On the latter play may continue 9.ltJa4 Wa7 1 0 .ie3 ltJd5 (or 1 O .. .1:%d8OO) and Black enjoys active piece play, making up for the uncomfortable position of the queen on a7.

7.0-0 ltJbd7 S.if4

S ... oo This is not yet a mistake, but 8 . . . id6 seems

simpler.

9.ltJd2 WdS 10.ltJc4 ltJb6 1 l .ltJe3 ig6 12.ie5

White got nowhere after 1 2 .a3 ie7 1 3 .if3 0-0 14.h4 h6 1 5 .h5 ih7 16 .ltJe2 ltJbd5 17.ltJxd5 cxd5+ in Illij in - Wahls, Berne 1 995 . The f3-bishop is poorly placed and Black can implement a minority attack on the queens ide.

12 • • • ib4 13.ltJbl!? Creative and to the point. The knight will

return once the c-pawn has left its startingblock.

13 . • • 0-0?! 1 3 . . . id6 or 1 3 . . . ie7 were more

circumspect.


14.e4 e5? 15.a3 cxd4 16.axb4 dxe3 17.£3! 1 7.fxe3 would have recovered the pawn

immediately, but at the cost of a damaged structure. Minasian calculated that Black wouldn't be able to hang to his e3-pawn, and he proved right. The rest of the game features a difficult endgame which Black does not manage to save.

17 • • • Wxdl 18Jhdl �Ud8 19.1'Lla3 �dl 20.�xdl exdl 21 .�dl �d8 22.�f.Z �f8 23.�e3 l'Lle8 24.g4 h5 25.h3 l'Llh7 26.l'Llb5 f6 27.�d4 e5 28.�e5t �f7 29.l'Llxa7 b6 30.l'Llxc8 bxe5 31 .l'Llb6 cxb4 32.e5 �b8 33.�xdl l'Llf8 34.�b5 l'Lle6 35.�e4 �b7 36.�d8 ge7 37.e6 1-0

Art. Minasian - Relange, Paris 1 994.

B2) 6.�d3

8 K . �._ � '�""' ;�;n� ��f�""'��'�'" ' ' 7 � i �� i �� i

. " , , %� " " . %� " " ' %. ' ' ' ' %� 6 <,)II� �� " ' � 5 1B� ��'�� : �mt�� 0rt ' � �0% �0'" 2 f)/��f0.J��[j 1 � �iV� . :

a b c d e f g h

Just as after the similarly shy 6.�e2 (see B 1 above) , Black can choose between two very different approaches. He can opt for a rocksolid set-up, as we shall see in the model game Maus - Hansen. Or he can be more ambitious and go for a dynamic development based on . . . l'Llc6 and . . . 0-0-0. (As mentioned elsewhere, the availability of this option constitutes the main advantage of the 5 . . . �f5 move order over the equally popular 5 . . . c6.)

6 • • • l'Llc6 This is my preference, but it is perfectly

okay to play 6 . . . l'Llbd7 7.0-0 e6, when one instructive game continued as follows: 8 .�f4 c6 9.l'Lle5 l'Llxe5 1 0 .�xe5 �g6 l 1 .a3 �e7 1 2 .b4 Wd8 l 3 .We2 �xd3 14 .Wxd3 0-0 1 5 .E:fd l l'Lld5 1 6.l'Lle2 b 5 1 7.c4 bxc4 1 8 .Wxc4 Wb6

a b c d e f g h

We have been following the game Maus -Cu. Hansen, Hamburg 1 99 1 . Both sides have rather weak pawns. However after a subsequent . . . a7-a5, as in the course of the game, White will be left with one more pawn island. His passed a-pawn will then become more of a target than an asset, and in the game White was gradually outplayed.

7.0-0 7.�xf5 Wxf5 8 .�e3 followed by We2 and

0-0-0 is a bit dull, but perhaps safer.

7 . • • 0-0-0 8.�e3 8.a3 is strongly met by 8 . . . �g4! .

8 .. . �xd3 8 . . . �g4!?

9.Wxd3 e6 10.a3 Wh5 The position is similar to those arising after

l .e4 d5 2.exd5 Wxd5 3 .l'Llc3 Wa5 4.d4 l'Llf6 5 .�d2 �g4 6.�e2 �xe2 7.Wxe2 (line C3 in Chapter 6) . Here too, Black has no worries at all.

Chapter 4 - White 6th and 7th Move Alternatives 1 1 3

B3) 6.lLle5 c6

8 � . �.� �B 7 lfi"_ �_'iY._'i 6 u ,'� ,. u ,. '� 5 �� mI. 4 x�

�o"" " '� �� f"/�""x� �� 3 � . . �; _ _ �%I'� /"""�

'%1'% '%I''l.; 2 �jl]�_�.J��/j 1 � _"i8�.i.. :

a b c d e f g h

At this juncture White has a wide range of possibilities. Apart from 7.g4 and 7 . .ic4 e6 8.g4 (line A above) , most options have an essentially positional character. We will look at B31) 7 • .if4, B32) 7.lLlc4, B33) 7.g4 and B34) 7 • .id3.

7 . .ie2 is rather timid, and in the following game Black equalized comfortably. 7 . . . lLlbd7 8 .lLlc4 V!1c7 9.g3 lLldS 1 0 .lLlxdS cxdS l 1 .lLle3 (Developing with tempo by 1 1 . .if4 is sensible, but after 1 1 . . :lWc6 1 2 .lLle3 .ih3 White has failed to achieve anything.) 1 1 . . . .ie6 1 2 .c4!? Opening up the game before Black is fully mobilized seems judicious, but in practice this just leads to a level position. 1 2 . . . dxc4 1 3 .dS .ih3 1 4.Wfd4 lLlb6 I S .lLlxc4 lLlxc4 16 . .ixc4 0-0-0 1 7 . .ifl .ixfl 1 8 .'kt>xfl eS 1 9 .Wfe4 Wfd6 20 . .ie3 WfxdS 2 1 .WfxdS :B:xdS 22 . .ixa7 :B:bS 23.:B:c 1 t �d7 24.:B:c2 .id6 (Also after 24 . . . :B:aS 2S . .ib8 White should be safe.) 2S . .ie3 :B:c8 A draw was agreed here in Tisdall - K. Berg, Aarhus 1 983.

B31) 7 • .if4 e6

7 . . . lLlbd7 8 .lLlc4 Wfd8 9 . .ie2 lLlb6 1 O .lLle3 .ig6 1 1 . 0-0 e6 transposes to line B 1 , the white knight having reached the c4-square by a different route.

8.g4 .ig6 The other bishop move is inferior:

8 . . . .ie4? ! 9 .lLlc4 Wfd8 1 O.lLlxe4 lLlxe4 I 1 .Wff3 lLlf6

1 1 . . .Wfxd4? 1 2 .:B:d l ( l 2.c3?! isn't as strong, because Black has the saving resource 1 2 . . . WfdS 1 3 .:B:d l lLlgS , even if White is the only one with chances in the ending after 14 .WfxdS cxdS I S . .ixgS h6 16 . .ih4 gS 1 7 . .ig3 dxc4 1 8 . .ixc4) 1 2 . . . .ib4t 1 3 .c3 .ixc3t 1 4.bxc3 Wfxc3t I S .Wfxc3 lLlxc3 1 6 .:B:d2

a b c d e f g h

Black has obtained three pawns for the piece, but only one is passed. White's pieces are much better coordinated, granting him a clear edge.

1 2 .0-0-0 hS? 12 . . . WfdS was indispensable.

1 3 .gS WfdS 14.Wfb3+- bS I S .gxf6 Wfxh l 1 6 .fxg7 .ixg7 1 7.Wfg3 .ih6 1 8 . .ixh6 :B:xh6 19 .1LleS WfdS 20.Wfg8t �e7 2 1 .Wfxf7t �d6 22.c4

1-0 Adams - Ryan, Dublin 1 993.

9.h4 The current position is similar to those that

arise after the 4.d4 lLlf6 S .lLlf3 .ig4 variation, which is analysed in line B of Chapter S .

9 • • • .ib4 10 • .id2 Wfb6?! 10 . . . lLlbd7! should be about equal.

l 1 .h5 .ie4 12.lLlxe4 lLlxe4 13.c3 lLlxd2


14.�xd2 .id6 In comparison with the duel Motylev -

C. Horvath, Izmir 2004 (see page 1 33) , Black has gained the useful extra tempo . . . c7 -c6. However this is not quite sufficient to claim full equality.

15.0-0-0 �c7 16.�bl?! 1 6 .f4!;!;

16 • • • he5 17.dxe5 lLld7 18.£4 0-0-0 19.�e2 lLlb6 20 • .ig2 �e7

The position should be equal, but now White commits a howler.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

21 .c4?? �b4! 22.b3 lLla4 0-1

Gavrilakis - Papaioannou, Rhodes 2008.

B32) 7.lLlc4

7 . • • �d8 The other "legal" retreat can be considered

as well, even if a future .if4 may win a tempo on the queen: 7 . . . �c7 8 .g3

Or 8 .�f3 e6 9 . .if4 �d8 . Now the game Collas - Prie, Pau 2008, proceeded peacefully with 1 0 .�dl .ie7. A more enterprising continuation would have been l O .lLle3!?N, hoping for 1 0 . . . �xd4?! (Instead after the more cautious 1 0 . . . .ig6 the position remains level . ) 1 l .lLlxf5 exf5 1 2 .E:d l :

a b c d e f g h

White would play 1 3 . .id3 next, with the initiative.

8 . . . e6 8 . . . lLla6! ?

9 . .ig2 9 . .if4 �d8 does not bring White much.

9 . . . lLld5 1 0 .0-0

a b c d e f g h

1 0 . . . lLld7?!


1 O . . . ,ie7 was safer, since now White can open lines towards the enemy king.

I l .lDxd5 cxd5 1 2.lDe3 ,ig6 1 3J'%el 0-0-0 Otherwise the d5-pawn is hanging, as 1 3 . . . i>dB isn't really a candidate move.

1 4 .c4 dxc4

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .lDxc4! ! 1 5 .Wla4 lDb6 1 6.Wlxa7 l'!xd4 is not so clear.

1 5 . . . Wlxc4 1 6 .,if4? But this follow-up is misguided. Instead 1 6.,ig5 !± would have resulted in a considerable advantage for White.

1 6 . . . lDc5! 17 .,ie5 ? This second mistake tips the scales in Black's favour. The stronger 1 7 .l'!c I ! would have led to an unclear situation: 1 7 . . . Wlb4 ( l 7 . . . Wlxd4 is riskier in view of I B .Wlb3 l'!d7 and now either 1 9 .1'!c4 or 1 9 .,ie3 Wld3 20.l'!c3) I B .Wlf3 l'!xd4 1 9 .a3 Wlxb2 20.,ie5 l'!d3 2 1 .,ixb2 l'!xf3 22.,ixf3

a b c d e f g h

Black has two pawns for the exchange and a solid position. A draw is the most likely outcome.

1 7 . . . lDd3? 17 . . . f6! was winning for Black, as the d4-pawn will fall.

I B .l'!e3? I B .,if! ! is objectively better: I B . . . ,id6 1 9 .,ixg7 l'!hgB 20 .,if6 Here Black would have had to find 20 . . . ,if4! !+ to retain the advantage.

I B . . . ,id6? The correct way to neutralize the e5-bishop consisted of I B . . . lDxe5! 1 9 .1'!c3 i>bB 20.l'!xc4 lDxc4+, when the white queen is fighting a rook, knight and bishop, and can't attack b7 effectively.

1 9 .,ixg7 l'!hgB 20.,if6 ,if4? 20 . . . l'!d7=

2 1 .Wlf3 l'!d5 22.l'!xd3 ,ixd3 23.Wlxf4 l'!f5 24.Wld2 \!{bB 25 .l'!c 1 +- Wlb5 26.,ie5t i>aB

26 . . . l'!xe5 27.dxe5 l'!cB was the "slow-death" option.

27.l'!c5 Wlb6 2B .Wlc3 a5 29.Wlxd3 Wlb4 30.Wla6#

Gruenfeld - Buscara, Bastia 2009.

S.lDe3 This is the most aggressive idea at White's

disposal . The quieter option is B .,ie2 g6 9 .0-0 ,ig7 1 0 .,if3 0-0 l l .l'!e l lDa6 1 2 .,if4 lDb4


1 3 .ttJe3 .ie6 with approximate equality, Frolov - Prie, Moscow 1 994.

8 . • . .ig6 9.h4 h6 l0.g4 In the following game White opened the

centre before Black could play . . . e7-e6, but it was Black who benefited from this action: 1 0 .h5 .ih7 I l .d5 cxd5 1 2 .ttJexd5 ttJc6 13 . .ib5 ttJxd5 1 4.'1Wxd5 'lWxd5 1 5 .ttJxd5 0-0-0 16 . .ixc6 bxc6 1 7.ttJe3 e5 The bishop pair ourweighs the split pawns, Sutovsky - Rogers, West Bromwich 2005 .

10 • • • e6 1 1 ..ig2 .ib4!? An interesting, but not compulsory way to

handle the position. Developing the b8-knight is adequate too, while after Glek's suggestion of 1 1 . . . .ie7 1 2 .h5 .ih7 1 3 .f4, the simple 13 . . . ttJbd7 is okay.

12.a3 hc3t 13.bxc3 ttJbd7 14.ttJc4 'lWc7 15.a4 0-0-O

a b c d e f g h

16.a5 1 6 . .ia3 , aiming to occupy the d6-square, is

parried by 1 6 . . . ttJ b6 and Black is fine. Generally White's strategy in this game is risky because his king has no safe haven. The black position is sound and the prospects for counterplay are numerous.

16 ... ttJd5 17 • .id2 Maybe White should have inserted 1 7.h5

.ih7, although in that case Black would have . . . g7-g6 at his disposal.

17 • • • h5 1 7 . . . e5 ! ?N deserved attention, either now or

on the next move.

18.g5 .if5 19.'lWc1?! It might have proven judicious to weaken

the enemy castled position by 1 9 .a6!?N b6 20.ttJe3.

19 • • • ttJf8 20.ttJe3 ttJxe3 Black had rwo other valid options, namely

20 . . . ttJf4 2 1 ..if3 ttJ8g6 and the immediate 20 . . . ttJg6.

21 .he3 ttJg6 22.c4 Inserting 22.a6 was again useful .

22 • . • e5! 23.d5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

23 • . . cxd5!N This is an improvement over 23 . . . ttJf4?!

24 . .ixf4 exf4 25 .0-0, which was only balanced in Glek - Cu. Hansen, Copenhagen 1 995 .

24.cxd5 Or 24 . .ixd5 �xd5! 25 .cxd5 'lWc3t 26.�f1


Wc4t with tremendous compensation for the exchange.

24 • . . Wc3t 25.'it>fl 25 .�d2? Wc4 is even worse.

25 . • . 'it>b8+ White has no attack, his pieces are badly

coordinated and he is liable to lose the c2- and d5-pawns.

B33) 7.g4

a b c d e f g h

7 ... �e6 Just as in the game Adams - Ryan referenced

in variation B3 1 , Black has no reason to opt for 7 . . . �e4?! 8 .ltlc4 Wd8 9 .ltlxe4 ltlxe4 1 0 .Wd3 Madl - Repkova, Sibenik 2006, when White enjoys a pleasant edge.

8.ltlc4 8 .�c4?!

a b c d e f g h

8 . . . ltlxg4! 9.�xe6 ltlxe5 1 0 .�c8 Wc7 1 1 .�xb7 Wxb7 1 2 .dxe5 e6 is at least equal for Black.

8 .. . hc4 The most solid approach, but 8 . . . Wc7 is good

too: 9 .ltle3 g6 1 0 .�g2 �g7= Herbrechtsmeier - K. Mueller, Bundesliga 1 993.

9.�xc4 e6 10.We2 �b4 1 1 .�d2 ltld5 1 1 . . .ltlbd7 is criticized by Mueller in his

notes to the following game, but I see nothing wrong with the move. 1 2 .Ei:g 1 ! ? 0-0-0 (or 12 . . . ltlb6 first) 1 3 .a3

12.ltlxd5 Other moves do not bring any more success :

1 2 .ltle4 �xd2t 1 3 .Wxd2 Wxd2t 14 .Wxd2 We7 and 1 2 .�xd5 cxd5 1 3 .Wb5t Wxb5 14 .ltlxb5 �xd2t 1 5 .Wxd2 Wd7 are both level.

12 ... cxd5 13.�d3 hd2t 14.Wxd2 ltlc6 15.Wxa5 ltlxa5


a b c d e f g h

This was Moldovan -Ardeleanu, Calimanesti 1 999. Black had a better version of the endgame from the Hector - Hansen game, and the game ended peacefully some ten moves later.

B34) 7.i.d3 i.xd3 8JWxd3

The centralized knight seems to confer White some initiative, but this usually soon vanishes in practice. The position should be considered equal, as the following examples tend to confirm.

8 ... tt'lbd7! Challenging the mighty e5-knight as soon

as possible seems best to me. Here is a brief summary of the alternatives:

The slightly unusual but solid S . . . g6! ? was tried in Fedorchuk - Drabke, Seefeld 2003 .

S . . . Wa6!? 9 .Wg3 tt'lbd7 1 O .tt'ld3 tt'ld5 1 1 .0-0 e6 1 2 .tt'le4 Wc4 1 3 .c3 tt'l 5f6 1 4.tt'lxf6t gxf6 1 5 .tt'lf4 i.d6 1 6.Wg7 g;;e7°o Stojanovic - Savic, Sarajevo 200S .

The most natural alternative is: S . . . e6

This led to a complex struggle in the following game.

9 .0-0 tt'lbd7 9 . . . i.e7? is already a sizeable mistake in view of 1 O .Wg3 g6 1 1 .i.h6 tt'lbd7 1 2.l'l:ad 1 with a promising initiative for White, Ivanchuk -Khalifman, Tilburg 1 994.

1 O .Wg3 1 0 .tt'lxd7 <±>xd7!? 1 1 .tt'le4 tt'lxe4 1 2 .Wxe4 Wd5 was level in Medina Garcia - Larsen, Las Palmas 1 974. There are too few pieces remaining on the board to cause the black king any problems.

a b c d e f g h

1 0 . . . Wc7?! Black is playing with fire. 10 . . . tt'lxe5 1 1 .dxe5 tt'ld7 was healthier.

1 1 .l'l:e 1 g6 1 2 .tt'lxd7 1 2 .i.f4! was more promising. In this event Black should avoid 1 2 . . . tt'lh5? because of 1 3 .tt'lxf7 Wxf4 1 4.Wxf4 tt'lxf4 1 5 .tt'lxhS g;;e7 1 6.l'l:e4 i.h6 1 7.g3 .

12 . . . Wxd7 1 3 .Wf3


After 1 3 .WleS! ? i.g7 1 4.ttJe4 ttJhS Black is just holding.

l 3 . . . i.e7 1 4.i.h6 Wlxd4 I S .i.g7 I S .:gad l Wlh4!

I S . . . :ggB 1 6.:ge4 WldB 1 7.i.xf6 i.xf6 I B .:gd l Wle7 1 9 .:ge3 i.xc3

•

1 9 . . . :gdB was perhaps a more appropriate way to play for a win.

20.:gxc3 :gdB 2 1 .:gcd3 :gxd3 22.Wlxd3 In Breyther - Wahls, Berne 1 995 , Black

was a pawn up, but he faced problems with his king. Converting the material advantage is anything but easy.

9.ttJc4 Apart from this move, White has made

several other attempts:

9 .ttJxd7 is tame and doesn't put much pressure on Black. 9 . . . ttJxd7 1 0 .0-0 ttJf6 (or 1 O . . . e6 1 1 .i.f4 i.e7 1 2 .:gfe l 0-0 1 3 .ttJe4 :gfeB 1 4.c3 WlfS I S .Wlg3 ttJfB 1 6.i.d6 ttJg6 1 7.i.xe7 Y2-l!2 A. Sokolov - Prie, Noyon 200B) 1 1 .i.d2 Wlc7 1 2 .ttJe4 ttJxe4 1 3 .Wlxe4 e6 1 4 .c4 i.e7 I S .i.c3 0-0 1 6.dS l!2-Y2 Nijboer - Cu. Hansen, Groningen 1 992.

The ambitious 9 .f4 involves a degree of risk for White, especially if he then opts for queenside castling. 9 . . . e6 1 O .i.d2 :gdB l 1 .ttJe4 Wlb6 ( l l . . .WldS !?) 1 2 .ttJc4 Wlc7 l 3 .ttJgS i.e7

1 4 .0-0-0 h6 I S .ttJf3 ttJcS 1 6.Wle2 ttJce4 1 7.i.e3 ttJdS I B .ttJfeS bS 1 9 .i.d2 ttJxd2 20.ttJxd2 Shchekachev - Prie, France 1 996. Now 20 . . . ttJxf4! followed by . . . :gxd4 is clearly better for Black, meaning that White needs to find an improvement somewhere in the previous half-dozen moves ifhe is to justifY his opening play.

9 .i.f4 e6 9 . . . ttJdS should equalize too: 1 0 .Wld2 ( l 0 .i.d2?! favours Black after 1 0 . . . ttJb4 I 1 .WlfS ttJxeS 1 2 .dxeS e6 l 3 .Wle4 O-O-O!) 10 . . . ttJxf4 I 1 .Wlxf4 ttJxeS 1 2 .dxeS=

1 0 .0-0 Or 1 0 .ttJc4 WlhS 1 1 .0-0 ttJb6 1 2 .ttJd6t i.xd6 l 3 .i.xd6 0-0-0 with chances for both sides, Olivier - Prie, Pierrevert 2007.

1O . . . ttJb6 l 1 .a3 ttJbdS 1 2 .ttJxdS cxdS l 3 .b4 Wla4 1 4 .c4 dxc4 I S .ttJxc4 Wld7

Black is behind in development, but his stronghold on dS lessens the importance of this factor.

1 6.i.eS i.e7 1 7.f4 0-0 I B .fS The position was roughly equal in Gormally

- Nakamura, Gibraltar 200S , White's active pieces compensating for his isolani.

9 • . . Wlc7 lo.Wlf3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

lO • • • ttJb6!


The inaccurate 1 O . . . e6?! leads to trouble: 1 1 ..tf4 Wd8 1 2 .lLld6t .txd6 1 3 . .txd6 Delgado - Matamoros, Santa Clara 1 999. Unable to castle easily, Black has a bad version of the game Olivier - Prie from the previous note.

,.

1 l • .tf4 Wd7 12.lLle5!? Wxd4 13J�dl Wc5 14.0-0 lLlc4

1 4 . . . e6 may be a slight improvement.

15J:Uel e6 16.b4!? This is not compulsory, but in any case the

game remains balanced.

16 .•• Wxb4 17.lLlxc6 Wb6 18.lLle5 lLlxe5 19.he5 Wc6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

20.Wxc6t?! White consents to a small disadvantage in

the endgame, whereas 20.Wg3N .te7 2 1 ..txf6 .txf6 22.lLle4 would have provided him with enough play for the pawn.

20 • • • bxc6 21 .gbl lLld7 22 • .tg3 lLlb6 23.a4 .te7 24.a5 lLlc4 25.a6 lLlb6 26 • .tc7 .td8 27 . .td6 .te7 28 . .tc7 .td8 29 • .td6 .te7 30 • .tc7 1/z-1fl

Kristiansen - Kamaras, Ballerup 1 985 . Black could have carried on the fight, but converting his extra pawn would require really hard work.

Conclusion

The extremely sharp variation A, in which White hounds the black bishop by 6 . .tc4 c6 7.lLle5 e6 8 .g4 .tg6 9 .h4, has been thoroughly investigated by theory, and Black has found several ways to get a decent game.

Against the modest moves 6 . .te2 and 6 . .td3 (lines B l and B2 respectively) , White can equalize with a solid set-up based on . . . c6 and . . . e6, or can play more ambitiously with 6 . . . lLlc6 and a subsequent . . . 0-0-0. This latter possibility provides an argument for why Black should prefer the move order 5 . . . .tfS to the more limiting 5 . . . c6.

The various minor lines after 6.lLle5 c6, such as 7.g4 or 7.lLlc4, have gone out of fashion and should not be feared either. Black can rather easily reach a level game against all of these secondary variations.

Chapter 5

4.d4 tDf6 5 .tDf3 Unusual options for Black

a b c d e f g h

l .e4 dS 2.exdS YMxdS 3.tllc3 YMaS 4.d4 tllf6 s.tlla

A) 5 . . . �f5 (without . . . c6) A I ) 6.�d2 e6 7.ttJe5 A2) 6.�c4 e6 7.0-0 B) 5 . . . �g4 C) 5 . . . ttJc6?! D) 5 . . . ttJe4?!

1 22 1 22 1 24 1 28 1 33 1 3 5


1 .e4 dS 2.exdS 'WxdS 3.tLlc3 'WaS 4.d4 tLlf6 S.tLlf3

8 .i • .i..�._ �� 'If' ' ' ' ' ;�r� ��r%''' ' ' 'Y-�r%' ' ' ' ' 7 � ' r� r� ' r� '

6 " ' , ,%�

' ' ' , ,%�

" " '%. " "%�

5 &l�

��

�"

� , ,'� �� : �m '�� 2 !�8 .�D!n ""Z" , ,%W� �wr,{""%."" 1 � �V��. n

a b c d e f g h AIl we have seen in the first four chapters, the

main lines begin with 5 . . . .tf5 , which will in most cases be followed by . . . c6 on the following move. Before moving onto the main part of the present chapter, I should mention that the alternative 5 . . . c6 is equally popular, and in the great majority of cases the two moves will end up transposing. However, my personal preference is for the bishop development, as in a small minority of lines Black may still be able to benefit from the possibility of . . . tLlc6 intending . . . 0-0-0 (see, for instance, lines B 1 and B2 of the previous chapter.) For this reason I will not consider 5 . . . c6 independently.

Let us now move on to the main subject of the present chapter: Black's unusual options on move 5. Apart from the main set-up examined in the first four chapters, the second player has tried plenty of other ideas, with varying results. We will study four main branches: A) S ••• .tf5 (without an early . . . c6) , B) S • • • .tg4,

C) S • . • tLlc6?! and D) S • • • tLle4?!.

A) S . . . .tf5

Now we shall look in turn at variations where Black refrains from an early . . . c7 -c6 against both AI) 6 . .tdl and Al) 6 • .tc4 .

AI) 6 . .tdl e6 7.tLleS

Instead 7.tLle4 'Wb6 is nothing special for White.

For 7 . .tc4 .tb4 see the note to White's 7th move in line A2.

In Ljubojevic - Oil, Antwerp 1 994, White spent a tempo ruling out . . . .tb4 with 7.a3!? c6 8 .tLle4 'Wb6 9.tLlxf6t gxf6. At this point he made full use of not having developed his bishop to c4 with the consistent 1 0 .b4 tLld7 I I .c4, which was just a tad better for White.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h Instead 8 .'We2? ! tLlc6! was played in Santo

Roman - Prie, Clichy 1 993, and Black already had a slight edge. After 9.tLlxc6 'Wxc6 1 0 .'Wb5 0-0-0 1 1 .'Wxc6 bxc6 12 . .ta6t i>b8, both d4 and c2 were under attack.

8 • • • 00 This is Karsten Mueller's suggested

improvement, in his notes for ChessBase Magazine, to the game Timman - Van Wely, Breda 1 998 (see 8 . . . 'Wxd4? below) . Moving the c-pawn does indeed seem Black's best bet in the current situation, as you can conclude from the alternatives that follow, mostly based on the German GM's analysis:

Chapter S - 4 .d4 lLJf6 S .lLJf3 Unusual options for Black 1 23

S . . .'IWxb2?? 9.2"lb 1 \Wxc2 1 O .\Wxb7+-

S . . . \Wxd4? 9.�bSt! 'LJbd7 The alternatives were no better: 9 . . . <;t>e7 1 0 .0-0-0 c6 ( l O . . . \WxeS? 1 1 .\Wxb7+-) 1 1 .�f4 or 9 . . . c6 1 O .'LJxc6 'LJxc6 1 1 .�xc6t 'LJd7 1 2 .�e3 \Wb4 1 3 .�xd7t i>xd7 1 4.0-0-0t . In both cases the attack is crushing.

1 O .'LJxd7 'LJxd7 1 1 .\Wxb7 2"ldS 1 2 .0-0-0 \Wb6 1 2 . . . \Wxf2? 1 3 .�xd7t 2"lxd7 14 .\WcSt 2"ldS 1 S .\WxdSt <;t>xdS 1 6.�e3t+-

1 3 .\Wxb6! cxb6 14 .�f4 �cS 1 S .�c7 i>e7 1 6 .�xdSt 2"lxdS 1 7.f3±

Timman - Van Wely, Breda 1 995 . White is a clear exchange up in the endgame and went on to convert his advantage without hitch.

S . . . �xc2?!

8 .i. . �.� �� 7 lfi;� �� 'i�_i 6 '%B ' %� !." %� 5 ' ' '%� ��''� 4 ��" ;�� 3

�� %�I� ��" �� ,� ��,� 2 [!J w�.i..� w� [!J wl§ �" " %a" " '%�.f_�

a b c d e f g h

This suspicious-looking move probably leads only to a small edge for White. The endgame that arises is, however, rather onesided, which should discourage Black from entering it.

9 .2"lc1 �g6 9 . . . \Wxd4? loses quickly to 1 O .�bSt <;t>e7 1 1 .\Wxb7 \WxeSt 1 2 .�e2. But 9 . . . �f5 ! ? is a completely different story: 1 O .'LJc4 \Wc6 1 1 .'LJd6t and now: a) 1 1 . . .i>e7? 1 2 .'LJxfSt exfS and here 1 3 .dS! is strongest, after which White will finish his development and converge his forces

towards the poor black king. Mueller's 1 3 .\WxfS ! ? is also quite good, as Black cannot trade queens there either due to: 13 . . . \We6t 1 4 .\Wxe6t fxe6 1 S .'LJbS 'LJc6 1 6.'LJxc7 2"lcS 1 7 .'LJa6! !± (and not 1 7.'LJb5? <;t>f7 followed by 1 S . . . a6) b) 1 1 . . .\Wxd6? 1 2 .\Wxb7+-c) 1 1 . . . �xd6! looks like Black's best bet: 1 2 .�bS 0-0 1 3 .�xc6 'LJxc6

a b c d e f g h

Black only has two minor pieces and a pawn for the queen, but his position is compact and d4 is weak. White's supremacy does not look so great to me here.

1 O .'LJxg6 With his bishop on g6 rather than fS , Black can meet 1 0 .'LJc4?! \Wc6 1 1 .'LJd6t with 1 1 . . .i>e7!oo.

1 0 . . . hxg6 Now White can force a transition into a favourable endgame as follows:

8 7 6 5

4 3 2

L"",/,,,m

.""·'''·,,�,��r

a b c d e f g h


1 1 .lDa4! Wxd4 1 2.Wxb7 We4t 1 3 .Wxe4 lDxe4 14Jl:xc7 lDxd2 1 5 .',hd2 i.b4t 1 6.'tt>c2 0-0

Black will be able to dislodge the invading rook by means of . . . id6, but this will not ensure equality.

8 . . . lDbd7! ? 9 .lDc4 9 .0-0-0?! lDxe5 1 0 .dxe5 lDg4 seems okay for Black. For instance, 1 1 .ib5t c6 1 2 .lDd5 and now Black can either be adventurous with 1 2 . . . exd5 1 3 .Wxf5 lDxf2, or consent to a draw following 1 2 . . . Wd8! 1 3 .ia5 Wg5t ( I 3 . . . Wxa5 ?? 1 4 .ixc6t bxc6 1 5 .lDf6t wins for White) 1 4.id2 Wd8=

9 . . . Wc6 1 0 .Wxc6 bxc6± White has the better pawn structure,

but his opponent can use d5 as a platform for his cavalry. Moreover Black should not have a major problem getting rid of his doubled pawns with a subsequent . . . c6-c5 .

9.0-0-0 lDbd7 10.lDc4 Wd8 Or 1 0 . . . Wxd4! ? 1 1 .if4 (otherwise 1 1 . . .Wg4

is possible) 1 1 . . .Wc5 1 2 .ie3 We7. This looks somewhat uncomfortable, but Black threatens . . . ig4 or . . . lDd5, while after: 1 3 .lDd6t Wxd6 1 4 .l'!xd6 ixd6

a b c d e f g h

Material is about equal and Black is perfectly alright, as he is after I O . . . Wd8, of course.

A2) 6.ic4 e6

a b c d e f g h

7.0-0 7.lDe5? !

This is too hasty. Note that thanks to White's previous move, the knight lacks the ability to harass the enemy queen from c4.

7 . . . lDbd7 8 .if4? Supporting the knight is too ambitious. Instead White could still have maintained the balance with 8 .lDxd7 lDxd7.

8 . . . ib4 8 . . . ia3! ?

9 .WB ie4 I O .We3 ixg2 1 1 .l'!gl ixc3t 1 2 .Wxc3

Keeping queens on would not really have provided White with any better swindling chances: 1 2 .bxc3 lDxe5 1 3 .dxe5 (or 1 3 .ixe5 lDg4 followed by 1 4 . . . lDxe5) 1 3 . . . lDd5 1 4 .ixd5 ixd5 1 5 .l'!xg7 0-0-0

a b Material parity has been restored, but White's

Chapter 5 - 4.d4 ttJf6 5 .ttJf3 Unusual options for Black 125

king i s far weaker than its counterpart. 1 2 . . . �xc3t 1 3 .bxc3 i.d5

1 3 . . . tLlh5! ? 14 .tLlxd7 �xd7 1 5 .i.b5t c6 1 6.i.d3 tLlh5=+

a b c d e f g h

Large - Oliver, London 1 982. White was a pawn down for insufficient compensation and Black went on to win.

7.i.d2 i.b4!?

a b c d e f g h

This idea is rare but quite sound. Like her "big sister" , with the inclusion of �d l -e2 and . . . c7-c6 (see Chapter 2) , in this line Black is ready to jettison his bishop pair in return for good control of the light squares and a solid position.

8 .a3 i.xc3 9 .hc3 �b6 From this position White has three main

ideas.

a) 1 O .tLle5 tLlc6 1 1 .i.b3 O-O-O!

a b c d e f g h

1 2 .tLlc4 The obvious 1 2 . tLlxf7?! leads to trouble for White: 1 2 . . . tLlxd4 1 3 .tLlxd8 1'!xd8! 03 . . . tLlxb3 ? is far less efficient; 1 4 .cxb3 1'!xd8 1 5 .�f3 intending 1 5 . . . 1'!d3 1 6 .�e2) 1 4.�c 1 (or even worse 1 4 .i.xd4? 1'!xd4 1 5 .�c 1 1'!e4t 1 6 .�f1 tLlg4! 1 7.�d2 1'!d4 1 8 .�e l 1'!f4 1 9 .f3 tLle3t) 1 4 . . . �c6 with ample compensation.

12 . . . �a6 1 3 .0-0 e5 1 4.d5 tLlxd5 1 4 . . . 1'!xd5! ? 1 5 .�f3

1 5 .�f3 1 5 .i.xe5 was relatively best, even though after 1 5 . . . f6 1 6.�f3 g6 1 7.i.c3 i.xc2! Black is also on top.

1 5 . . . i.xc2 1 6.hc2 �xc4 1 7 .�xf7 1'!hf8 1 8 .�e6t �b8 1 9 .1'!fe l

This position was reached i n Maslak - Prie, Bastia 2009, and now Black could have solidified his advantage with:

a b c d e f

1 9 . . . �c5 !N Black would have taken either the f2-pawn


or the c3-bishop, simplifying the conversion of his extra material .

b) 1 0 .0-0 �c6! Preventing .tb4 and starting to put some pressure on d4. Black can place this knight on its best square because his queen is not in danger, and I I .d5? is not working due to 1 1 . . . 0-0-0.

I I .a4 1 1 .'lWe l brings White nothing after: 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 .b4 .te4 1 3 .�g5 .tf5 1 4 .�f3 .te4= Now the logical outcome would be a move repetition, as after 1 5 .�d2? .txc2 1 6 . .te2 a6 1 7.�c4 'lWa7 White had no compensation for the pawn in Naiditsch - Papaioannou, Novi Sad 2009.

1 1 . . .a5 12 . .tb5 0-0 1 3 .�d2 �b4 1 4.�c4 'lWa7 1 5 .�e3 .tg6

With roughly equal play, Bruned - Strikovic, Pamplona 2005 .

c ) 1 O .'lWe2 0-0 1 1 .0-0-0 �c6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 2 .g4?!

1" =""",,,,,

a b c d e f g h

White is of course envisaging the combined action of a rook on gl and the bishop on c3 , after a later d4-d5 . This will however remain a dream, and so the current sacrifice is objectively dubious.

1 2 . . . .txg4 1 3 .l:!hgl l:!feS! Inhibiting the aforementioned push.

14 . .td3 l:!adS 1 5 .h3 .tf5 1 6.l:!g5 .txd3

1 6 . . . �d5 was strong too. 1 7.'lWxd3 l:!d5

17 . . . e5? I S .l:!dgl g6 1 9 .l:!xg6t fXg6 20.l:!xg6t hxg6 (20 . . . 'it>hS? 2 1 .l:!xf6 is dangerous for Black) 2 1 .'lWxg6t 'it>f8 22.'lWxf6t 'it>gS would end in a perpetual check, since White runs out of fuel for the assault.

I S .h4 'lWa6 The game Andriasian - Papaioannou, Budva

2009, was agreed drawn here, despite an edge for Black in the final position.

d) The more direct move is: 1 0 .d5

This requires some accuracy from Black in order to eradicate White's slight initiative. It should lead to a level position:

1 O . . . exd5 1 O . . . �bd7 is playable as well, in which case White's only hope of an advantage is 1 1 .�d4. ( 1 1 .dxe6 .txe6 1 2 .'lWe2 0-0 13 . .txe6 l:!aeS!= or 1 1 . .td4 c5! are both harmless.)

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . . .0-0-0 ( 1 1 . . . .tg4? 1 2 .f3 exd5 1 3 .fXg4 dxc4 14 .'lWe2t 'it>f8 1 5 .0-0-0 is clearly bad for Black whose king will be a permanent concern) 1 2 .�xf5 (if 1 2 .dxe6 then Black could solve his problems by tactical means thanks to 1 2 . . . �e5! 1 3 .e7 l:!d7) 1 2 . . . exf5 1 3 .0-0 And now either 1 3 . . . l:!heS , or 1 3 . . . 'lWd6 intending 1 4 . . . �g4(e5) or 14 . . . �b6. White retains the bishop pair but his d5-pawn may soon fall.

Chapter 5 - 4 .d4 tDf6 5 .tDf3 Unusual options for Black 1 27

I I .Axd5 0-0 1 1 . . .ltJxd5? ! would not equalize in view of 1 2 .\Wxd5 \We6t 1 3 .\Wxe6t Axe6 1 4 .Axg7 ( 1 4.ltJg5!?) 1 4 . . . :B:gB 1 5 .Ae5 :B:xg2 1 6 .Axc7. However, 1 1 . . . Ae6!? represented a decent alternative. After, say, 1 2 .Axf6 gxf6, Black keeps the option of castling long.

1 2 .Axf6 gxf6 1 3 .0-0 ltJc6 1 4.Axc6 \Wxc6 1 4 . . . :B:adB! ? deserved attention. 1 5 .Ad5 c6 1 6.\Wd4 \Wxd4 (Getting rid of the queens is probably safer than 1 6 . . . :B:xd5 1 7. \Wxf6 hc2. The black king's cover would be damaged in this case, even though this might not be so relevant.) 1 7.ltJxd4 :B:xd5 I B .ltJxfS :B:xfS With excellent drawing chances .

1 5 .ltJd4 \Wd7 1 6 .ltJxfS \WxfS 1 7.\Wd2 :B:adB I B .\Wc3 :B:d6?!

A better try was I B . . . c6;±;. 1 9 .\Wxc7 :B:b6 20.b4 :B:cB 2 1 .\Wg3t \Wg6 22 .\We3 :B:xc2 23 .\WeBt 'it>g7 24.:B:ad l :B:c3 25 .\WbB :B:d3 26.:B:de l :B:xa3 27.:B:eB �h6 2B.:B:gB \We4 29.\wfBt

1-0 Magem Badals - Prie, Marseille 20 1 0

8 I. . � •• �� lfi';_�� 'iY._'i

: "� U"� rW U"1! 5 �II¥� ��'I� 4 , j.'.�.I1¥� �F/�("'%� ,�� 3 II¥¥J;J� II¥� �m'" 2 �1�A�J[!J%�Jtj 1 � �i8m � �

a b c d e f g h 7 • • • Ab4

Developing this bishop suggests that Black will likely castle short. Ifhe feels more bellicose, he can also opt for the more flexible 7 . . . c6 or 7 . . . ltJbd7.

Another option is 7 . . . Ad6!? , This is a rare

station for the dark-squared bishop in the Scandinavian, but it is not a bad choice in the present position. B .Ad2 c6 (B . . . \Wb6 would have rescued the d6-bishop, but the exchanging of this piece did not lead to any problems for Black in the following game.) 9 .ltJb5 \WdB 1 0 .ltJxd6t \Wxd6 l 1 .c3 0-0 1 2 .:B:el ltJbd7 Black had a solid position and went on to hold the draw in Karpov - Yip, Singapore (simul) 1 997.

8. ltJ e2 Instead B .Ad2 would redirect the game

towards familiar paths, since after a subsequent a2-a3 Black will have to part with the bishop pair and remove his queen. In that case B . . . ltJc6 9.a3 Axc3 1 O .Axc3 \Wb6 transposes to line b) with 7.Ad2 in the note to White's previous move, while B . . . c6 9 .a3 Axc3 1 O .Axc3 \Wc7 is also adequate.

8 ... c6 9.ltJg3 Ag4!? My personal choice would be 9 . . . Ag6, but

the text move led to interesting play in the following game:

10.h3 hB 1 l .\Wxf3 ltJbd7 12.Af4 g5!? 13.Ae5 Ae7 14.ltJh5 ltJxe5 15.ltJxf6t Axf6 16.\Wxf6 ltJg6

Despite its suspicious appearance, Black's position remains quite playable.


17JUe1 The brutal 1 7.he6! ? is not clear after

1 7 . . . fxe6 1 8 .�fe 1 eJid7! .

17 • • • VNd8 18.VNf3 After 1 8 .VNg7! ? White is threatening the

nasty 1 9 .d5 cxd5 20 . .ib5t , but 1 8 . . . �d7! avoids this and Black seems safe enough as he is about to castle long.

18 • • • 0-0 We have been following Kaminski -

Olbrich, Germany 1 998 . The position remains roughly equal, as White cannot benefit from his opponent's weaknesses on the kingside.

B) 5 . . . .ig4

a b c d e f g h This move, a favourite of the Australian GM

Ian Rogers, was rather popular in the 1 980s. Nowadays it has a bad reputation and is seldom employed, but only a minority of games have featured what I believe to be the critical test of it. Yours truly has occasionally employed this continuation, and I believe it can offer Black decent practical chances of success when used as a surprise weapon.

6.h3 Rather modest is:

6 . .ie2 ttJc6!? Black can obtain a perfectly satisfactory and solid position with 6 . . . e6 7.0-0 ttJbd7, but the text move is more enterprising.

7.h3 Now Black has to decide between the safe capture on f3 and the more ambitious retreat to h5 . Let's examine these two possibilities :

a) 7 . . . .ixS 8 . .ixS 0-0-0

a b c d e f g h

Black consents to his pawns being doubled, but in return he completes his development and acquires a strongpoint on d5 .

9 . .ixc6 bxc6 1 O .VNf3 VNa6 1 1 ..ie3 e6 White could claim an advantage if he managed to castle short, but this is easier said that done, for instance:

1 2 .ttJe2 VNa5t 1 3 .c3 VNd5 And Black is fine.

b) 7 . . . .ih5 8 .g4 8 . .id2 0-0-0 does not change anything.

8 . . . .ig6 9 . .id2 O-O-O! It is too late to have second thoughts. After 9 . . . a6? 1 0 .a3 e6 1 1 .b4 VNb6 1 2 . .ie3 ttJd5 1 3 .ttJxd5 exd5 1 4 .c4 the black queen finds itself in a precarious situation.

1 0 .ttJb5 1 0 .g5 ! ? would see the knights dancing: 1 O . . . ttJd5 1 1 .ttJb5 ttJdb4 1 2 .c4 a6 1 3 .a3 ( I 3 .d5 ! ?) 1 3 . . . ttJc2t 1 4.VNxc2 ( I 4.eJif1 ? VNa4

Chapter S - 4 .d4 lLIf6 s .lLIe Unusual options for Black 1 29

is catastrophic for White) 1 4 . . . .ixc2 1 S .llJa7t md7 1 6.llJxc6!? (After 16 . .txaS? ! llJxaS White may not lose a whole piece as the asknight is uncomfortable too, but there is no doubt that Black stands better. ) 16 .. .'IWb6 1 7.llJfeSt 'i!fe8 1 8 .llJxd8 Wfxb2 And now White can play either 1 9 .0-0 or 1 9Jkl .ig6 20.llJxb7 Wfxb7 2 1 .0-0. In either case Black will emerge with a material advantage, but his king may feel alone against White's entire mobilized army.

1 O . . . Wfb6 1 O . . . llJb4? is not advisable, since after the simple 1 1 .0-0 Black experiences serious trouble, for instance: 1 1 . . .hc2?! 1 2 .Wfe l +-

I I .a4 Inserting the moves al-a4 and . . . a7 -as looks useful to White. Indeed, it weakens the black king a bit and stabilizes the bSknight. After I I .c4 play would continue in a similar vein, although it should be note that after 1 1 . . .llJxd4 1 2 .llJfxd4 eS! l 3 .llJb3 llJe4 1 4.0-0 Black must choose 14 . . . llJxd2, since 1 4 . . . .ib4? would then be answered by I S . .ixb4, gaining three pieces for the queen.

1 1 . . . aS The exchange sacrifice 1 1 . . . llJxd4?! 1 2 .llJfxd4 ;gxd4 is insufficient. (Let us note in passing that 1 2 . . . eS? is plainly bad because of l 3 .aS WfcS 1 4.llJb3+-.) After 1 3 .llJxd4 Wfxd4 1 4 . .ic3 White is pulling the strings.

1 2 .c4 llJxd4

a b c d e f g h

1 3 .llJbxd4N After l 3 .llJfxd4?! e5 ! 1 4 .llJb3 llJe4 I S .0-0 .ib4 Black was on top in Nemec - Karnik, Czech Republic 1 998 . Incidentally I S . . . llJxd2N was playable as well, after which a sample line is 1 6.cS Wff6 1 7.llJxd2 Wff4 1 8 .Wfb3 ;gxd2 1 9 .1lJa7t mb8 20.llJc6t mc8 (20 . . . ma8? ? 2 1 ..ia6+-) with a draw by perpetual check.

l 3 . . . eS ! 1 4.llJb3 llJe4 I S .0-0 llJg3! 1 6.;ge l White has no real choice, as the threat was 1 6 . . . llJxe2t 1 7.Wfxe2 Wfxb3.

1 6 . . . llJe4 And White is forced to repeat moves with:

1 7.;ge l =

6 • • • .ih5 After 6 . . . .ixf3 7.Wfxf3 c6 Black has a solid

position, but this does not fully compensate for the enemy bishops.

a b c d e f g h

7.g4! White has to play very energetically in order

to fight for an advantage.

7 • • • .ig6 S.llJe5 With this knight jump he prepares h4-hS ,

while ideas of llJc4 and WfB are also in the air.

The following pawn sacrifice is rather venomous:


B .b4!?

a b c d e f g h

B . . . Wfb6 B . . . Wfxb4?! Taking up the gauntlet seems to provide White with too strong an initiative. 9 .i.d2 Wfd6 1 OJ:!:b l and now Black must decide whether or not to spend a tempo preserving his extra pawn: a) 10 . . . b6 1 1 .i.g2 lLlbd7 (closing the long diagonal brings no relief: 1 1 . . . c6 1 2 .lLle5 lLlfd7 13 .lLlb5 cxb5 14.lLlxg6 hxg6 1 5 .haB with an edge for White) 12 .lLle5 l::!:cB ( l 2 . . . lLlxe5 is met by the annoying 1 3 .lLlb5!) 1 3 .lLlxg6 ( l 3.lLlb5!? Wfe6 may be good for White too, but in view of the resource . . . i.e4 it does not look so clear) l 3 . . . hxg6 14.lLlb5 Wfe6t 1 5 .Wfe2 Wfxe2t 16.Wxe2 a6 1 7.lLla7 l::!:dB I B .i.f4 White recovers his pawn with dividends. b) 1 O . . . lLlc6 1 1 .l::!:xb7 a6 1 2 .i.g2 and here after 1 2 . . . e6 1 3 .0-0 i.e7 or 1 2 . . . h5 l 3 .g5 lLle4 1 4.0-0 lLlxd2 1 5 .Wfxd2 e6 Black may hold, but I wouldn't swear to it.

9.l::!:b l The less precise 9 .i.g2?! was played in Parligras - Hernando Rodrigo, Barcelona 2005 . Now instead of the game continuation of 9 . . . e6 1 0 .a3 lLlbd7 1 1 .0-0 Wfc6? 1 2 .i.b2 lLle4 l 3 .d5 ! , Black should have immediately struck at the d4-pawn by 9 . . . lLlc6!N when he seems to be fine, for instance: 1 0.a3 ( l 0 .b5

lLlb4; 1 0 .0-0 0-0-0) 10 . . . 0-0-0 l 1 .d5 lLlxd5! ( l 1 . . .lLle4!?) 1 2 .lLlxd5 Wfb5 l 3 .lLld4 Wfc4 and the tactics work out well for Black.

9 . . . lLlbd7 Black could have avoided the worst problems by playing 9 . . . e6, either here or on the next move.

1 O .i.g2 lLle4?! l 1 .lLlxe4 i.xe4 1 2 .0-0 0-0-0 1 2 . . . Wfc6 1 3 .l::!:b2 would not have improved Black's fate. In this case White would either continue 14 .l::!:e 1 , threatening lLle5, or else 1 4.c4.

l 3 .Wfe2 f5 14 .l::!:b3 1 4 .gxf5!N was even stronger. White stands much better after both 1 4 . . . lLlf6 1 5 .lLlg5 and 1 4 . . . i.xf5 1 5 .lLlg5 Wff6 1 6.Wff3 c6 1 7.b5 .

14 . . . g6 1 5 .c4 i.g7 1 6.d5 White was clearly on top in Kalegin - Azarov,

Kazan 2007. He can either push his queens ide pawns or play for lLlg5.

8 . . . e6 Alternatives are inferior:

B . . . c6?! 9 .h4 lLlbd7 1 0.lLlc4 Wfc7 l 1 .h5 i.e4 1 2 .lLlxe4 lLlxe4 l 3 .Wff3 White has the bishop pair and an easy game; he stands clearly better.

B . . . lLlbd7?! This leaves the black queen open to harassment.

9 .lLlc4 Wfa6 1 0 .i.f4 Wfe6t l 1 .lLle3 Wfb6 1 2.lLlc4

White decides to repeat moves, just to show he is in control.

1 2 . . . Wfe6t 1 3 .lLle3 Wfb6 14 .i.g2! Given his lead in development, White has every reason to continue the fight.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 5 - 4 .d4 lLlf6 5 .lLlf3 Unusual options for Black 1 3 1

1 4 . . . �xb2?! 14 . . . e6 1 5 .0-0 c6 (but not 1 5 . . . �xb2? 1 6.�e l ! and 1 7.;gb l ) may still be playable for Black.

1 5 .ltJcd5 ltJxd5 1 6 .ltJxd5 ;gc8 1 7.0-0 This yielded White a strong initiative in the game Galkin - Nadanian, Cappelle la Grande 1 999, which continued:

1 7 . . . c6 1 8 .ltJc7t c;!;>d8 1 9 .;Gb l �c3 20.;gxb7 White was already winning and the rest was

just agony.

a b c d e f g h

9.h4! This energetic move is certainly the most

challenging, although several others have been tried.

9 . .id2 does not threaten anything, and Black is fine after 9 . . . ltJbd7.

9 .ltJc4 �a6 10 . .if4 is also not to be feared after 1 O . . . �c6. One recent game continued 1 1 .;Ggl .ib4 12 . .id2 ltJbd7 1 3 .�e2 .ixc3 14 . .ixc3 ltJdS I S . .id2, Karim - Heinis, Gibraltar 2009, and now Black could even have considered the risky but not unpromising I S . . . .ixc2!?N.

9 . .ig2!? This developing move is a bit more challenging than the previous two, although from my personal experience I do not think it should bother Black too much.

9 . . . c6 1O .h4 ltJbd7! 1 O . . . .ie4?! 1 1 ..ixe4 ltJxe4 1 2 .�f3 ltJd6 1 3 . .id2 Chandler - Rogers, Nis 1 983, is slightly better for White.

I l .ltJxd7 The alternative I l .ltJc4, as played in Karpov - Larsen, Mar del Plata 1 982, resulted in an unclear game after 1 1 . . .�a6 1 2 . .ifl bS 1 3 .hS .ixc2 1 4.�xc2 bxc4 I S .gS ltJdS.

1 1 . . .c;!;>xd7! Black has to recapture this way in order to rescue his bishop. This is of course a concession, but profiting from the black king's placement is not trivial at all .

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . .id2 This is White's most frequent and logical follow-up. In the event of 1 2 .hS .ie4 1 3 .f3 .idS 1 4.gS ltJg8 (or 14 . . . ltJe8) the positive consequences of the white expansion on the kingside still need to be proven. Also there is 1 2 .dS exd5 1 3 .hS ;ge8t 1 4.c;!;>fl �a6t and now I S .ltJe2 ;gxe2 1 6.�xe2 �xe2t 17 . c;!;>xe2 Lc2 is not worse for Black, while I S . c;!;>gl ends up in a confused position: 1 5 . . . .ie4 1 6.f3 .icst 1 7.c;!;>h2 .id6t 1 8 .�h3 ( 1 8 .c;!;>gl ? �b6t 1 9 .c;!;>fl .ig3 wins for Black) 1 8 . . . .ig6 1 9 . .ifl �b6 20.c;!;>g2 White will gain a piece for two pawns but his king is not particularly safe after 20 . . . .ixhS! ? 2 1 .gxhS g6.

1 2 . . . h6 1 3 .gS


Or 1 3 .tlJdS! ? Wfa4 1 4.b3 (worse is 1 4 .tlJe3?! , Safarli - Bauer, Spain 2009, 14 . . . Wfxd4!N) 14 . . . Wfxd4 I S .tlJxf6t gx:f6 1 6.,Lh6

a b c d e f g h

1 6 . . . .td3! ! Otherwise White could count on a minimal edge. Now 1 7.Wfxd3 is practically forced, and after 1 7 . . . Wfxd3 I B .cxd3 .txh6 the position was roughly equal in Zapata -Soppe, Havana 1 99 1 .

1 3 . . . hxgS 1 4.hxgS !!xh l t I S . .txh l tlJeB 1 6 .dS

Opening up the position is perfectly normal given the precarious placement of the black royal couple. However, it surprisingly fails to bring White anything tangible.

1 6 . . . cxdS 1 7.tlJxdS Wfa4 "This sharp position is critical for the whole theoretical line" according to GM Michael Roiz in ChessBase Magazine. I can only agree with this assertion, but I shall add that Black seems to be holding his own in every single line here.

a b c d e f g h

a) I B .tlJf4 .txc2 1 9 .Wfe2 tlJd6 20.g6 eS (or 20 . . . .txg6!? 2 1 .tlJxg6 fxg6) 2 1 .tlJd3 .txd3 22.Wfxd3 Shaw - Zeidler, Birmingham 2000. Had Black now played 22 . . . e4!N 23.WfdS f5 he would have obtained a slight edge.

b) I B . .tb4 .td6 The simple I B . . . .txb4tN 1 9.tlJxb4t tlJd6 was equally good.

1 9 .b3 Wfa6 1 9 . . . .txc2 was another path to equality: 20.bxa4 .txd l 2 1 .!!xd l exdS 22.!!xdS !!cB=

20.tlJe3 .thS ! 2 1 .Wfd2 Wfe2t Not forced, but I felt my king was weaker and so I did not mind simplifications.

22.Wfxe2 .txb4t 23 .Wfd2t .txd2t 24.�xd2 tlJd6

Y2-\!2 Volokitin - Bauer, Biel 200S .

c ) I B .tlJe3 tlJd6 1 9 .c4 Wfxd l t Black could also have kept the queens on with 1 9 . . . Wfa6!?N, leading to a complex position with chances for both sides.

20.!!xdl .thS? ! 20 . . . !!cB!N i s an improvement.

2 1 .!!cl !!cB 22.cS tlJbS 23.tlJc4;!; White maintained some pressure in

the endgame in Egger - Cortes Moyano, Santiago 1 995 . He could also have considered 23.b4N;!;.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 5 - 4 .d4 'Llf6 5 .'Llf3 Unusual options for Black 1 33

9 ... Ab4 9 . . . llJbd7?!

This is less appropriate. 1 0 .llJc4

1 0 . llJxd7?! lets the advantage slip. After either 1 0 . . . llJxd7 or 1 O . . . �xd7 I 1 .Ad2 ( 1 1 .h5 Ae4) 1 1 . . .h5 1 2 .g5 llJd5 Vlad -Ignatescu, Romania 1 992, Black has nothing to complain about.

1 O . . . Wfa6 l 1 .h5 Ae4 1 2 .l:'!h3!? 1 2 .llJxe4 is also sufficient to gain an edge after 1 2 . . . llJxe4 1 3 .Wff3 Wfc6 (or 1 3 . . . llJd6 1 4.llJxd6t Wfxd6 1 5 .c3) 1 4.llJd2!;!; Cejkova - Karnik, Prague 1 992.

1 2 . . . Ad5 1 2 . . . Ab4 does not solve Black's problems after 1 3 .g5 Axc3t 1 4.bxc3 llJg8 1 5 .Af4 b5 1 6.llJe5 .

1 3 .llJxd5 exd5 14 .l:'!e3t Ae7 1 5 .llJd2 Wfb6 1 6.g5

And again White has the upper hand.

lo.Ad2 Another line runs 1 0J'!h3 Axc3t

( 1 0 . . . llJbd7!?) l 1 .bxc3 llJbd7 1 2 .llJxd7 (or 1 2 .llJxg6 hxg6 1 3 .E:b l 0-0-0 1 4.E:b5 Wfa4 with unclear play, Lobron - Rogers, Biel 1 984) 1 2 . . . llJxd7 1 3 .h5 Ae4 1 4.Ad2 0-0-0 Timman - Rogers, Reggio Emilia 1 984. Black's side seems easier to play in my opinion.

10 • • • llJbd7 Black also fails to equalize with 1 0 . . . Wfb6

l 1 .h5 Ae4 ( 1 1 . . .Wfxd4 1 2 .llJf3) 1 2 .llJxe4 llJxe4 1 3 .c3 llJxd2 1 4.Wfxd2 Ad6 ( 1 4 . . . Ae7, as in Bouaziz - Rogers, Lucerne 1 982, perhaps gives better chances to neutralize White's pull) 1 5 .0-0-0 llJd7 1 6.f4 Motylev - C. Horvath, Izmir 2004.

1 l .llJxd7 l 1 .llJc4 is safely met by 1 1 . . .Wfa6.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

12.h5

a b c d e f g h

In the event of 1 2 .Ag2 Black would reply 1 2 . . . h5 ! Then after 1 3 .Axb7 E:ab8 14 .gxh5 Axh5 1 5 .Af3 Wff5 White would have too many weaknesses to hope to keep his booty.

12 • . • Ae4 13.llJxe4 1 3 .E:h3? ! Ac6 was fine for Black in Nikolin

- M. Maric, Belgrade 1 995 .

13 • • • llJxe4 14.c3 Ad6 15.Ae3;t White has the bishop pair and will continue

with Ad3(or Ag2) and/or Wfb3 (or Wff3) .

C) 5 • . • llJc6?!

This variation has a dubious reputation on account of the main line shown below. Black


is aiming for an active set-up with long castling, but before he can do so White will create troublesome threats .

6.�d2! After this strong move the threat of lLlb5 fol

lowed by c4-c5 forces Black to lose valuable time, allowing his opponent to obtain a lead in development plus the advantage. In comparison with the main line introduced by either 5 . . . c6 or 5 . . . �f5, Black cannot conveniently retreat his queen to c7 or d8 if needed.

6.�b5 is not bad, but gives Black more prospects of reaching a decent position after any of 6 . . . �d7, 6 . . . lLld5 or 6 . . . lLle4.

It should be noted that it is already a mistake to play: 6.�c4?!

This transposes into the game Nakamura Bauer, Le Port Marly 2009, which we will now follow.

6 . . . �g4 7.�b5! ? Now 7.�d2 comes too late: 7 . . . 0-0-0 8 .lLld5 Wfa4

a b c d e f g h

And after either 9 .b3 Wfa3 or 9 .�b3 Wfa6 the white position is collapsing like a house of cards. Note that 1 0.lLlxf6 will be strongly met by 1 0 . . . exf6! .

7 . . . lLld5 8 .Wfd3 lLldb4! 8 . . . lLlxc3 is only about equal .

9 .Wfe4 �xf3?! Inaccurate. After the brave 9 . . . f5!N Black would have stood better.

1 0 .�xc6t bxc6 1 1 .gxf3 e6 Black is still doing okay, but I ended up

being outplayed.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

6 .. . a6 This precaution looks like the lesser evil.

Black will often have to cope with a worse ending, but he keeps more winning chances than after: 6 . . . �g4

This development of the queen's bishop results in a favourable endgame for White.

7 .lLlb5 Wfb6 8 .c4 �xf3 9.Wfxf3 lLlxd4 1 0 .lLlxd4 Wfxd4 1 1 .Wfxb7 Wfe4t 1 2 .Wfxe4 lLlxe4 1 3 .�e3

a b c d e f g h

White possesses the bishop pair and a superior pawn structure. His risk of losing

Chapter 5 - 4 .d4 ltJf6 5 .ltJf3 Unusual options for Black 1 35

the game is almost non-existent and he can torture his opponent at leisure.

1 3 . . . e6 Or 1 3 . . . e5 1 4.g3 .ib4t 1 5 .�e2 tLlf6 1 6 . .ig2 e4 1 7.c5 c6 1 8 .l"!ac l with a marked plus for White, Stripunsky - Khudiakov, Smolensk 1 99 1 .

1 4.g3! f5? ! In his annotations of the present game, GM Finkel identified this move as being dubious . While it is true that 1 4 . . . l"!b8!? from Ruiz - Ramiro Ovejero, Zaragoza 1 996, and 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 from Wagner -Bandza, Munich 1 992, are less committal , Black's task remain unenviable in all cases .

1 5 . .ig2 0-0-0 1 6 . .ixe4! .ib4t 1 7.�e2 fxe4 1 8 .l"!hd 1 a6 1 9 .c5 !

Macieja - Myc, Sopot 1 997. The e4-pawn is condemned and the rest of the game was rather easy for White.

7 • .ic4 �h5 The threat of tLld5 forces this additional

time-consuming move.

a b c d e f g h 8 ... �xdlt

8 . . . tLlxe5 9 .�xh5 tLlxh5 1 0 .dxe5 i s just bad for Black.

8 . . . .ig4!? This deserves some attention.

9 .tLlxg4 9 . .ixf7t? is an error as after 9 . . . �xf7 1 0.tLlxg4 (in the event of 1 0 . tLlxf7?! .ixd 1 1 1 .tLlxh8 .ixc2 Black has good chances to end up with two minor pieces for a rook) 1 O . . . �e6t 1 1 .tLle3 tLlxd4 Black is by no means worse.

9 .. .'I&xg4 1 O .�xg4 tLlxg4 1 1 ..ie2 1 1 .h3!?

1 1 . . .tLlf6 1 2 . .ie3 Agopov - I. Schneider, Berlin 2009. White

has the usual edge connected with the two bishops.

9J�xdl e6 Or 9 . . . tLld8 1 0 .0-0 Maus - Djurhuus,

Gausdal 1 993. Black has avoided his pawnstructure being wrecked, but at the price of obvious passivity.

10.tLlxc6 bxc6 Posta - Vojta, Czech Republic 2000. Here

my preferred continuation would be:

1 l .tLla4N Preventing . . . c5 and maintammg a slight

advantage. For instance:

1 l • • • tLld5 12.tLlc5 Better than 1 2 . .id3? ! tLlb4!.

12 .. . e5 13.0-0 And now after any of 1 3 . . . .id6, 1 3 . . . f6 or

1 3 . . . exd4, White would answer 1 4 .tLlb3 with a lasting advantage.

D) 5 • • • tLle4?!

This is a rather recent attempt to introduce a fresh approach to playing the Scandinavian. Like many maverick lines, this one is basically unsound. Moving the same piece twice in the


opening goes against a fundamental principle, although the player using it can at least count on the element of surprise.

8 .i • ..t. �.� �. 7 lfi';� %_'i�_'i 6 "" ' %_""'%_""'%_""'%� 5 S �� " ,3� �®'0 �� 4 _ w�4I). � 3 '�""%�� 1Ji4'n n�

�W%�IJi" 2 ()Jl!J%��,J�j�[j 1 � �V�.,t� :

a b c d e f g h

6 • .td3! The strongest continuation. White ignores

the opponent's threat and counts on a quick deployment of his forces. Others tries give Black fair chances to reach a decent position, for instance:

6 . .td2!? �xd2 7.Wxd2 e6 (7 . . . g6!?) B . .td3 .tb4 (I would prefer to put this bishop on e7 or d6, because once it disappears the kingside will be deserted) 9 .0-0 �c6 1 O .Wf4 .txc3 l 1 .bxc3

a b c d e f g h

In Chandler - Spain, Auckland 200B, White had the better prospects .

6 . .tc4!? �xc3 7.Wd2 b6!? B .bxc3 .ta6

a b c d e f g h

In Karpatchev - Prie, Rochefort 2005 , the game was balanced. White is not suffering yet from his worse pawn structure, but it could tell in the long run.

6 . . . �xc3 7.bxc3 g6 Instead after 7 . . . Wxc3t B . .td2 White enjoys

obvious compensation for a mere pawn.

Developing the king's bishop on the other diagonal does not guarantee that Black's life will be any easier: 7 . . . e6 B .O-O .te7 9.!!e l �d7 1 0 . .td2 c6 1 1 .c4 Wc7 1 2 .a4 0-0

Black's position is solid but passive, with no real counterplay in sight. White has various ways to launch a kings ide assault, a timely �g5 being a decent alternative to the game's approach.

1 3 .a5 c5 1 4.c3 !!dB 1 5 .We2 �f8 1 6.h4 .td7 1 7.h5 f6

1 7 . . . h6!? or 1 7 . . . .tf6 was perhaps better. I B .�h4 i.eB 1 9 .d5 .tfl 20.dxe6 .txe6 2 1 ..tfS .txfS 22.�xf5 .td6 23 .Wg4 �hB?

23 . . . !!d7 would have offered more resistance.

24.!!e7 Wxe7 25 .�xe7 .txe7 26.!!e l !!d7 27.h6 g6 2B .Wf3 !!eB 29 . .tg5

1-0 Nevednichy - Tratar, Cannes 2005 .

8.0-0 i.g7 9.�el Black is already experiencing an unpleasant

lag in his development.

Chapter 5 - 4 .d4 ttJf6 5 .ttJf3 Unusual options for Black 1 37

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a c d e f g h

9 .. . 0-0 Another game continued 9 . . . tL'lc6 1 0 .h3

( l O . .id2 will probably transpose to the main line below after 1 0 . . . 0-0) 1 0 . . . .if5 1 1 .E!:b l .ixd3 1 2 .WI'xd3 0-0-0 1 3 .WI'c4 e6 14 .E!:b5 Wl'a6 1 5 . .if4 E!:d7 1 6 .E!:eb l tOa5 1 7 .WI'd3 tOc6 I S .E!:xb7 Wl'xd3 1 9 . cxd3 f6 20.d5 1-0 Nevednichy - Afek, La Fere 2006. After 20 . . . exd5 then 2 1 .tOd4 would follow.

lO • .idl 1 0 .E!:xe7 is good too, although White will

have follow up precisely. 1 0 . . . tOc6 1 1 .E!:e3 Wl'xc3 12 . .id2 Wl'b2 and here White has a choice:

a b c d e f g h

a) The tempting 1 3 . .ixg6? does not work due to: 1 3 . . . tOxd4 (obviously 1 3 . . . hxg6? runs into 14 .E!:b3 trapping the adventurous queen)

1 4 .E!:b l tOxf3t 1 5 .E!:xf3 Wl'xa2 1 6.ixh7t mxh7 1 7.E!:b4? (The computer suggests that the last hope was 1 7.E!:g3! when 1 7 . . . .if5 I S .WI'h5t mgS 1 9 .E!:xg7t mxg7 20.E!:e l i s not easy to negotiate for Black. If he wants to continue battling then 20 . . . WI'b2! 2 1 .WI'xf5 E!:feS seems best.) 1 7 . . . E!:dS I S .h3 Wl'al 1 9 .WI'xal .ixal 20.E!:g3 id4 And White called it a day in Groszpeter - Reprintsev, Pardubice 1 995.

b) However, after 1 3 .c3!N Black is unable to equalize, for instance: 1 3 . . . .ih6 (no better are 1 3 . . . .ig4 1 4 .h3 ixf3 1 5 .E!:xf3, or 1 3 . . . ie6 1 4 .E!:b l Wl'xa2 1 5 .E!:xb7) 1 4.E!:e l .ixd2 1 5 .WI'xd2 Wl'xd2 1 6.tOxd2 .ie6 17 .tOe4 tOa5 I S .tOc5t

lO • • • tOc6 1 O . . . E!:eS 1 1 .E!:b l tOd7 1 2.c4 Wl'h5 ?? 1 3 .E!:e4+

Perelshteyn - R. Gonzalez, Las Vegas 2006.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1 1 .h3!

a b c d e f g h

This patient move maintains control. Alternatives are less promising:

a) I I .c4? ! spoils White's advantage after 1 1 . . . WI'a3 (the endgame arising after 1 1 . . . WI'a4?! 1 2 .c3 Wl'xdl 1 3 .E!:axd l is more pleasant for White) 1 2.c3 ( l 2.d5 tOb4) 1 2 . . . tOxd4! Dismantling the white centre. The following lines were given by Prie in ChessBase Magazine:


1 3 .lLlxd4 ixd4 1 4.cxd4 Wfxd3 1 5 .!:!:xe7 if5 ! (but not 15 . . . Wfxd4? 1 6.ih6, or 15 . . . Wfxc4? 1 6.ih6 Eid8 1 7.Wfe l ! Wfc6 1 8 .d5 ! Wfa4 1 9 .Wfe5) 1 6.ih6 Eifd8=

b) 1 1 .ie4?! proved a loss of time in the following game: 1 1 . .. lLld8 1 2 .c4 Wfa4 1 3 .id3 ig4 1 4.c3 Wfxd l 1 5 .Eiaxd l c5 1 6.ie4 Eic8 1 7.h3 ixf3 1 8 .ixf3 cxd4 1 9 .cxd4 ixd4 20.ih6 ig7 2 1 .ixg7 i>xg7 22.Eixe7 Eixc4 23 .ixb7 lLlxb7 24.Eixb7 Eia4 25 .Eidd7 Yz-Yz Dranischnikov - Prie, Germany 2005 .

l 1 . . . if5N This was an attempt to improve Black's play,

but it does not equalize. Instead after 1 1 . . . Wfd5 1 2 .if4 Wfd8 1 3 .Eib l lLla5 14 .Wfe2 Eie8 1 5 .lLle5 his position was already highly unpleasant in Dahlhaus - Klein, Dresden 2006.

12.c4 Wfa6 13 . .hf5 gxf5 14.d5!

a b c d e f g h

14 • • . lLld4 1 4 . . . ixa l ? is disastrous after 1 5 .Wfxa l ± .

15.lLlxd4 hd4 16.c3 if6 17.Wfb3! Black still has some chances to hold

the position, but it will not be without suffering.

Conclusion

The majority of the lines treated in this chapter are old-fashioned and dismissed by current theory as being bad for Black. The secondary line 5 . . . lLlc6?! is almost forgotten nowadays. White is generally aware of the nasty 6.id2, which leads to a pleasant ending for him practically by force.

The line 5 . . . lLle4?! is basically dubious. White can obtain an advantage with precise play, as his opponent will find it hard to deviate from the games Nevednichy - Afek and Dranischnikov - Prie.

On the other hand 5 . . . ig4 is not so bad. I have personally used this line in four classical games against three GM's and an 1M, and was never confronted with the critical response, which suggests that this variation may serve as a decent surprise weapon.

Chapter 6

4.d4 ttJf6 5 .�d2

A) 5 . . .1.Wb6 6.tt::lf3 A I ) 6 . . . c6?! A2) 6 . . . .ig4 B) 5 . . . .ig4 B 1 ) 6.tt::lf3 B2) 6.tt::lge2 B3) 6 . .ie2 B4) 6.f3 .if5 7.g4!? .ig6 B4 1 ) 8 .h4 B42) 8 .g5N B43) 8 .tt::lge2 B44) 8 .f4

1 4 1 1 4 1 1 44 1 46 1 47 1 48 1 5 1 1 53 1 56 1 57 1 57 1 58


We will now turn our attention to the early development of the queen's bishop with 5 .id2. This scheme of development is closely related to 5 .ic4 (the subject of the next chapter) and the two moves can frequently transpose to one another. In both cases White hopes that the delayed development of the g I -knight will give him some additional options. Black can react in a number of different ways, but I would tend to agree with the assessment of the French specialist of the Scandinavian, Grandmaster Eric Prie, who recommends a set-up founded on an immediate 5 . . . ig4. White has several possible responses, the most critical being 6.£3 if5 7.g4 ig6, and now the ultra-aggressive B .f4 e6 9 .f5! ? , which is analysed in variation B44. The resulting positions are complex and challenging for both sides, but my analysis indicates that Black's prospects are quite healthy.

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 Wfxd5 3.lLlc3 Wfa5 4.d4 lLlf6 5.id2

a b c d e f g h We will consider two main options for Black

here: A) 5 • . . Wfb6!? and B) 5 • • . ig4.

I have chosen not to spend any serious time analysing the most popular continuation of 5 . . . c6 6.ic4 if5 , when White is by no means obliged to transpose to Chapters 1 -3 with

7.lLlf3, and can instead choose between a couple of tempting options:

a b c d e f g h

a) One idea is to head for an improved version of variation B2 from Chapter 1 with 7.lLld5 WfdB B.lLlxfGt gxf6 9 .lLle2!? when the knight may be able to make use of the g3- or f4-squares.

b) 7.Wfe2! is even stronger, with the point that 7 . . . e6?! can be strongly met by B .d5 ! , opening up the centre.

In both cases Black can hope for nothing more than a transposition to a standard line, while White's move order has provided him with some genuinely promising additional options.

Before moving onto Black's two main options, it is worth seeing why the following attempt to play actively should definitely be avoided: 5 . . . lLlc6? 6.ib5!

It is quite good for White to transpose into line C of Chapter 5 with 6 .lLl£3, but the text move is even stronger. The immediate threat is 7.lLld5 Wfxb5 B .lLlxc7t .

6 . . . Wfb4 6 . . . Wfb6 7.d5 a6 B .ia4 also loses material . All that remains is 6 . . . 'kt>dB, but that deserves no comment!

7.d5!N

Chapter 6 - 4.d4 lLlf6 5 .id2 1 4 1

7.lLlge2 was played i n Delchev- Dimitrijevic, Subotica 2003. The same assessment applies here as for the note to White's previous move: good, but not best.

7 . . . a6 B . .ta4 b5

a b c d e f g h

9.lLlxb5! After this blow the tactics work in White's favour and Black is basically finished.

9 . . JWxa4 Or 9 . . . �e4t 1O .�e2 axb5 (Black is crushed after 1 0 . . . �xg2 1 1 .lLlxc7t Q;>dB 12 .lLlxaB �xh 1 1 3 .0-0-0) 1 1 .�xe4 lLlxe4 1 2 .hb5 and White has two extra pawns in the ending.

1 O .lLlxc7t Q;>dB 1 1 .lLlxaB lLlxd5 l 1 . . .lLld4 is no better due to 1 2.b3 �a3 1 3 . .te3 .

1 2 .lLle2 .tb7 1 3 .lLlc3+-The knight will escape from aB , leaving

White with a clear material advantage and an exposed enemy king.

A) 5 • • • �b6!?

This move is a bit risky, but not necessarily bad.

6.lLlf3 From here we will consider AI) 6 • • • c6?!

followed by the superior Al) 6 • • • ig4.

AI) 6 • • • c6?!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

�L-�� a b c d e f g h

The drawbacks of this slow move were convincingly exposed in the following model game of Vladimir Kramnik. Neither . . . �a5-b6 nor . . . c7 -c6 were bad moves in isolation, but together they make for a bad combination. Some of the following annotations are borrowed from Pril! in ChessBase Magazine.

7 • .tc4 .tfS 7 . . . .tg4? is hit by the trivial B . .txf7t dfxf7

9.lLle5t Q;>gB 1 0 .lLlxg4 �xd4 and now either 1 1 .lLle3 or 1 1 .lLlxf6t exf6 1 2 .0-0 gives White a sizeable edge.

Black cannot get away with taking on b2. Let's see: 7 . . . �xb2? B .lLle5!

The proof of the preceding comment! Also B J::\ b 1 ! comes to the same thing.

B . . . e6 9 .0-0 .te7 1 O .E:b 1 �a3 1 1 .E:e 1 ! 1 1 .lLlb5? would trap the queen, but the price to pay is too high: l 1 . . .cxb5 1 2 . .txb5t .td7 1 3 .lLlc4 �xa2! 1 4 .E:b2 .txb5 1 5 .E:xa2 .txc4-+

1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 .lLle4 This eliminates one of the few defenders of the black castled position, at the same time preparing a rook lift along the third rank. The whole white army will join the assault against the enemy king and there is already no satisfactory defence.

H 2 Pby the SC:l n � i n::wi : m

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . ltJxe4 Or 1 2 . . . ltJbd7 1 3 .EEb3! Wa4 1 4.ltJc3 WaS l S .ltJxd7 ltJxd7 1 6 .ltJdS Wd8 1 7.ltJxe7t Wxe7 1 8 .�b4 cS 1 9 .dxcS ltJxcS 20.WhS b6 (20 . . . fS 2 1 .EEh3 g6? 22.�xcS) 2 1 .EEh3 h6 22.EEg3+-

a b c d e f g h

The clouds drifting over the black monarch will soon burst in the form ofWxh6, �c3 or �d2xh6.

1 3 .EExe4 Wd6 Saibulatov - Geirnaert, Belgium 2006, took a slight detour by 13 . . . bS 1 4 .EEb3 Wd6 l S .WhS ! but then had exactly the same concluding moves as the French game played 4 months before!

1 4.WhS! bS l S .EEb3 f6 1 6.EEg4! fxeS 1 7.EExg7t! Wxg7 1 8 .EEg3t �h8 1 9 .�d3

In Degraeve - Tomczak, Cappelle la Grande 2006, Black threw in the towel in view of 19 . . . e4 20.�xe4 EEfS 2 1 .�xfS exfS 22.We8t �f8 23 .�f4! Wxf4 24.Wxf8#.

8.We2! Black's problems are already starting to

become apparent: the pawns on b2 or c2 are hardly edible, so White develops normally without harm. In other words, the queen's retreat to b6 has effectively wasted a tempo which could otherwise have been spent on a useful developing move.

a b c d e f g h

8 . . . e6 And now let us see what can happen if Black

takes on c2: 8 . . . �xc2 9 .ltJeS �g6

And not 9 . . . e6? 1 0 .ltJxf7 Wxf7 1 1 .Wxe6t �g6 1 2 .Wf7t WfS 1 3 .�e6#.

1 O .h4 Wxb2 l 1 .EEd l ! ! Covering the d2-bishop, but above all preparing a devilish trick to net the black queen.

1 1 . . . ltJbd7 1 2 .hS ltJxeS 1 3 .dxeS �c2 1 3 . . . ltJxhS is objectively better, but after 1 4 .EExhS �xhS l S .WxhS 0-0-0 1 6 .�xf7 White is clearly in the driving seat. For instance, 1 6 . . . EExd2? 1 7.Wh3t! �b8 1 8 .EExd2 or 1 6 . . . Wb8 1 7.WgS, releasing the d 1 -rook from its defensive duties .

1 4 .0-0 �xd 1 l S .EExd 1 0-0-0 Instead l S . . . EEd8 isn't really any better: 1 6.exf6 gxf6 1 7.ltJbS! EEd7 1 8 .Wg4 And White will very soon win material , for example 1 8 . . . cxbS 1 9 .�c3 EExd 1 t 20.Wxd 1

Chapter 6 - 4 .d4 liJf6 S .id2 1 43

Wfxc3 2 1 .ixbSt Wfc6 22.WfdS!+-. 1 6.exf6 exf6

Or 1 6 . . . gxf6 1 7.ie6t!! fxe6 I B .Wfxe6t mc7 1 9 . .if4t Eid6 20 . .ixd6t exd6 2 1 .Wfxf6 and the double threat of 22.WfxhB and 22.lLldSt wins the house.

1 7.Wfg4t mc7 1 7 . . . Eid7 loses to I B . .ic l .

I B . .if4t .id6 1 9 .Eixd6! Eixd6 20 . .ixd6t mxd6 2 1 .Wfd4t �c7 22.lLldSt cxdS 23 .Wfxb2 dxc4 24.Wfb4 a b c d e f g h

1-0 Spal - Svoboda, Czech Republic 2003. The black weaknesses on the queenside will

9.0-0-0 .ib4 If Black had not wasted a move he would

have already played . . . lLlbd7, controlling eS and not having to fear any openings of lines based on d4-dS .

a b c d e f g h

10.lLle5! lLlbd7 The most surprising thing about 1 0 . . . Wfxd4?!

is that it does not in fact lose on the spot, despite its risky appearance. Instead White must "make do" with a hugely advantageous endgame after: 1 1 .lLlbS! cxbS 1 2 . .ixb4 Wff4t 1 3 . .id2 Wfe4 14 . .ixbSt lLlc6 I S . .ixc6t bxc6 1 6 .Wfxe4 .ixe4 (or 1 6 . . . lLlxe4 1 7 . .ie3 intending to meet 1 7 . . . EicB with I B .f3 lLlf6 1 9 . .ixa7) 1 7.8 .ig6 I B .c4!± ( 1 B .lLlxc6? would lose a good part of the advantage after I B . . . .ixc2, but not I B . . . EicB? 1 9 .1Lld4 eS 20.Eihe l +-)

not be defendable in the long run.

1 l .lLlxd7 lLlxd7 12.d5! hc3 This is more or less forced, although Black is

effectively losing additional time, compared to the lines in Chapter 2 in which White had to expend a tempo on a2-a3 in order to provoke this exchange.

13.he3 cxd5 14Jhd5 0-0-0 15 JMdl lLlf6 16.6

a b c d e f g h

Black will struggle to stay afloat in the middlegame, while White benefits from the two bishops and the safer king.

16 •.• h5 17.b3 Wfe5 18.cit>b2 ghg8 19.a4 lLld5 20 • .id4 Wfa5 21 .g4! .ig6 22J�hgl hxg4 23.fxg4 gh8 24.hg7± gh3 25 • .id4 Wfe7


26.�e5 '!W c5 27 J�g3 White could also have kept a sizeable edge

by eliminating the well-placed knight with 27.�xd5! ?N �xd5 28.�xd5 '!Wxd5 29.�d l .

27 •• J�xg3 28 • .bg3 CLle3 29J��xd8t <it>xd8 30.'!Wd2t <it>e7 31 .�b5

8 7 6 5 4 3

2 1

a b c d e f g h

31. ..'!Wxc2t Taking revenge on the other pawn would not

have solved Black's worries either: 3 1 . . .CLlxg4 32.h3 a6 (or 32 . . . CLlf6 33.�f2) 33 .�h4t mf8 34.�xa6 bxa6 35 .hxg4± Nevertheless Black should have considered this, as White's advantage would have been harder to convert than in the game.

32.'!Wxc2 CLlxc2 The alternative capture 32 . . . �xc2 should be

met by 33.'it>c3! when Black will have to suffer, rather than 33 .�f2? CLldl t .

33.�fl b6 After 33 . . . a6? 34.�e2 the black knight

would likely perish soon, as 34 . . . CLlb4? allows 35 .�c5t .

34.<it>c3 CLla3 35.�d3 CLlbIt 36.<it>c2 CLla3t 37.<it>c3 CLlblt 38.<it>c2 CLla3t 39.<it>d2 CLlblt 40.<it>e3 CLlc3 41 .�h4t <it>e8 42.ixg6 fxg6 43.<it>d4 CLle2t 44.<it>e5 <it>f7

The desperate counterattack 44 . . . CLlc1 would not have saved Black either: 45 .mxe6 CLlxb3 46.mf6 CLlc5 47.mxg6 CLlxa4 48 .�g3 and the race is lost.

45.�g5 CLlgl 46. <it>e4 White has a huge advantage, based on the

potential outside passed pawn, the fragility of the opposing queens ide and the misplaced black knight.

46 ••• CLle2 47.�e3 <it>f6? Black makes a final mistake, but even after

the superior 47 . . . CLlc3t 48.me5 CLld5 49.�g5 CLlb4 50 .md6 CLlc2 5 1 .mc7 White should not have much trouble bringing home the full point.

48.<it>a 1-0

Kramnik - Malakhov, Paris 2004.

A2) 6 • • • �g4

8 x . �.� �.i 7 If.,;_�_,.y'_,, "" '%.""%� "' ' ' %.'' ' ' %� 6 "� ��" , � : �� f� 3 �m '�� W'�""' ;�(% ��l% ��l� 2 8 r� 8 � r� 8 r� 1 ""�""%�vm�� :

a b c d e f g h

7.�c4?! As we will soon see, it is more precise to

play: 7.h3!

This may not lead to an advantage, but it reduces Black's options by ruling out the setup seen in the main line below.

Chapter 6 - 4 .d4 tLJf6 S .i.d2 1 4 5

7 . . . i.hS 7 . . . i.xB 8 .WfxB lOc6? is met by the powerful 9.dS! lOd4 1 0 .Wfd3 eS l 1 .lOa4. Confronted with the threat of c2-c3 , Black now blundered by 1 1 . . .e4? 1 2 .Wfc4 1-0 Lanzani - Ricci, Milan 2004. The alternatives weren't much brighter however: 1 1 . . .Wfd6 1 2 .c3 bS 1 3 .cxd4 bxa4 1 4.WfbSt lOd7 I S .0-0-0± or 1 1 . . .Wfa6 1 2 .Wfxa6 bxa6 1 3 .0-0-0 lOxdS 1 4.i.xa6±

8 .i.c4 lObd7 8 . . . lOc6? loses a piece to 9 .g4 followed by l O .lOa4.

9 .g4!? This committal move is not strictly necessary because Black was not yet threatening . . . i.xB followed by . . . Wfxd4, but testing the viability of the black set-up is natural . In this case it will be waterproof, therefore I would suggest that the alternatives 9 .Wfe2!? and 9 .a4!? deserve attention.

9 . . . i.g6 1 0 .gS

a b c d e f g h

l O . . . lOhS! 10 . . . Wfc6? I 1 .Wfe2 i.hS 1 2 .dS is bad for Black. However l O . . . lOe4!? appears quite playable: l 1 .lOdS Wfc6 1 2 .lOeS lOxeS 1 3 .i.bS 0-0-0 14 .i.xc6 1Oxc6 I S .lOf4 i.f5!00 Black will ei ther play . . . eS or take on d4 next, depending on the circumstances. (Note that the impatient I S . . . 1'%xd4? is inferior: 1 6 .lOxg6 hxg6 1 7.Wfe2 1'%xd2 [or 17 . . . lOxd2 1 8 .0-0-0l 1 8 .Wfxe4 and

White should win in the long run. ) l 1 .lOdS Wfd6

1 1 . . .Wfe6t? 1 2 .lOeS would not be vety smart from Black.

1 2 .i.b4 Wfc6 1 3 .lOeS lOxeS 14 .i.b5 White has put all his energy into going for the enemy queen, but in doing so he has completely neglected the harmony of his position .

1 4 . . . 0-0-0 1 5 .i.xc6 1Oxc6 1 6.c4 e6 1 6 . . . 1'%xd5? 1 7.cxd5 1Oxb4 1 8 .Wfa4

1 7.i.xf8 1'%hxfB 1 7 . . . exd5! ? is also interesting. The position can be assessed as unclear,

although with . . . lOxd4 coming on the next move I would rather be Black.

7 ... e6 8.h3 ha!? 8 . . . i.h5 is similar to the previous note. The

text move, in conjunction with Black's next, is an interesting attempt to question White's chosen move order.

9.Wfxf3 1Oc6! With the d4-d5 advance prevented, this is

now playable.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

lO.d5?! This is not disastrous, but it is a bit too

ambitious. Instead White should be thinking in terms of maintaining the balance with


1 0 .ibS 0-0-0 I l .ixc6 %Yxc6 1 2 .%Yxc6 bxc6, 16 ... lLlxc3 when Black intends . . . cS with equality. Thanks to the threat of . . . lLle2t Black keeps

10 • • . lLle5 1 l .%Ye2 lLlxc4 12.%Yxc4 O-O-O!? More enterprising than the insipid 12 . . . exdS

1 3 .lLlxdS , when chances are level.

13.dxe6 %Yxb2 Another possibility is 1 3 . . J'l:d4 14.%Ye2 %Yxb2

1 S .!l:b 1 %Yxc2 1 6.!l:c l %Yg6, with unclear play.

14J�1bl %Yxc2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15.ig5? White could still have maintained the balance

with 1 s .if4! id6 1 6.ixd6 !l:xd6 1 7.0-0, for instance: 1 7 . . . fxe6!? (Black cannot win a piece with 1 7 . . . !l:c6? because 1 8 .%Yb4 would give him some problems to solve; however, he can also play 1 7 . . . %Yd3 1 8 .%YcS !l:c6 1 9 .%Yxa7 %Ya6 with approximate equality.) 1 8 .!l:fc l %Yd3 1 9 .1LlbS %Yxc4 20.lLlxd6t cxd6 2 1 .!l:xc4t �b8 This ending is not easy to assess. Black would have winning chances if he were to move, but after 22.!l:bc l White remains active enough.

15 • • . lLld5! 16.0-0 1 6.ixd8 also loses to 1 6 . . . %Yxc3t 1 7.%Yxc3

lLlxc3 1 8 .!l:b3 (or 1 8 .e7 ixe7 1 9 .ixe7 lLlxb 1 20.ib4 !l:e8t 2 1 .�d 1 !l:e4!) 1 8 . . . �xd8 1 9 .!l:xc3 ib4-+ .

a whole extra piece.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17.%Yg4 1 7.�h 1 %Yd3-+

17 ••. 5 18.%Yh4 gd4! 19.%Yh5 g6 20.%Ya lLlxbl 21 .if6 lLld2 22.%Ye2 %Yd3 0-1

Navarro Perez - Hernando Rodrigo, Castelldefels 200S .

B) 5 • • • ig4

Chapter 6 - 4 .d4 tLlf6 S .J.d2 147

do so. Let's study BI) 6.ttJO, B2) 6.ttJge2 and B3) 6.J.e2, before turning to the critical B4) 6.0.

6.ttJe4? leads to an endgame where White is fighting for a draw. 6 . . . J.xd 1 7.ttJxf6t gxf6 8.J.xaS J.xc2 9 .!:k1 (Or 9.J.xc7 ttJc6 1 0 .dS? E:c8 1 1 .E:cl J.e4 1 2 .dxc6 E:xc7+) 9 . . . J.e4 1 0 .E:xc7 ttJc6 1 1 .f3 J.dS The as-bishop is attacked and the white rook is cut off from its camp. 1 2 .J.bS ( 1 2 .J.c3 E:b8) 1 2 . . . a6! 1 3 .J.xc6t J.xc6 White is in trouble.

BI) 6.ttJO

The position after this self-pin can be categorized under the variation 4.d4 ttJf6 S .ttJf3 J.g4, as analysed in line B of the previous chapter. AB 6.J.d2 is a secondary move in that position, Black should be able to equalize rather easily.

6 .. . ttJbd7 6 . . . ttJc6? transposes into the dubious line B

of the previous chapter.

6 . . . WfhS? ! is not to be recommended either: 7.J.e2 ttJc6 8 .h3 0-0-0 9.0-0 J.xf3 (9 . . . eS? ! 1 0 .dS!) 1 O .J.xf3 WffS 1 1 .J.xc6 bxc6 1 2 .Wfe2 with a plus for White.

6 . . . e6 looks fine though. Then after 7.h3 J.hS 8 .g4 J.g6 9 .ttJeS we have reached another position that could have arisen from the aforementioned S . . . J.g4 variation, where White has opted for 9 .J.d2 instead of the critical 9 .h4! . Black can choose berween 9 . . . Wfb6 or 9 . . . ttJbd7°o.

7.h3 7.J.c4 now allows Black extra options.

Apart from 7 . . . 0-0-0 8 .J.xf7?! eS ! , he can contemplate either 7 . . . WffS or 7 . . . WfhS , after which 8 .ttJbS? is foolhardy to say the least, as Black seizes the initiative with 8 . . . 0-0-0 9.ttJxalt 'it>b8 1 O .ttJbS eS .

7 .. . J.h5 8.J.c4

6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

8 .. . 0-O-O?! Playing with fire. 8 . . . Wfb6! is okay for Black,

as we saw in variation A2.

9.g4 9.ttJb5 is interesting but not altogether

convmcmg. 9 . . . Wfb6 1 O .a4 mb8 1 1 .g4 J.g6 1 2 .J.f4 ttJe8 Black should succeed in unravelling while repelling the enemy pieces, for example: 1 3 .Wfe2 a6 1 4.a5 Wfc6 l S .ttJc3 e6 1 6.0-0-0 J.b4 1 7.dS exd5 1 8 .ttJxd5 J.d6=

9 ... J.g6 IO.Wfe2 e6?! Again the cautious 1 0 . . . Wfb6 is more to the

point.

1 1 .ttJd5! 1 1 .0-0-0?! justified Black's play after

1 1 . . .J.b4 1 2 .a3 J.xc3 1 3 .J.xc3 Wfb6, Leon Hoyos - Prie, Villeneuve Tolosane 2006. Black had good control of the light squares in return for the rwo bishops. AB pointed out by Prie, Black usually gets this kind of position with a pawn on c6 rather than c7. Thus d6 is not weakened and Black may utilize the c6-square for his pieces.

1 l ... Wfa4 12.ttJxc7!


This is critical and apparently excellent for White. 1 2 .b3? is less judicious: 1 2 . . . Wla3 1 3 .�c1 exd5 1 4.�xa3 �xa3

a b c d e f g h

And the combination of the threats . . . dxc4, . . . :B:heB and . . . �b2 make the black position quite okay.

12 • . • a6 Otherwise the equine escapes with impunity.

Black would lose his queen after 1 2 . . . �xc7? ! 1 3 .�b5 Wlxc2 1 4 .:B:c l .

a b c d e f g h

13.�b5!! This hammer-blow provides White with

a marked advantage. Instead 1 3 .�f4?! �e4 would be entirely acceptable for Black.

13 • • • axb5 14.b3 Wla3 Or 1 4 . . . Wlb4!? 1 5 .lLlxb5!+-.

15.lLlxb5 Wlb2 16.0-0!+-Black has to face the lethal combination

of Wlc4t and �f4, as well as worry about his endangered queen.

B2) 6.lLlge2!?

8 �;t1�p �;J��,JI 7 � . W� W� . W� . 6 ' ' ' , ,%� " " ,%� " " '%." "%� 5 &lllllll llllll " " 'III 4 u'IIIIII�III.'1II 3 ��""%� 1W� �% ,�"", ;� '0 ��r0 ��r� 2 8 b 8 �ttJw� 8 W� 1 ""�""%.ii=�� '�

a b c d e f g h

6 • • • lLlc6 6 . . . e6?

This looks plausible, but it is wrong. 7 .f3 �f5 B .lLlf4!

Threatening 9 .lLlcd5 . B . . . Wlb6

Or B . . . �b4 9.g4 �g6 1 O .h4 with similar consequences.

9 .g4 �g6 1 0.h4

a b c d e f g h

1 o . . . Wlxb2 The counterattack 1 O . . . Wlxd4 1 1 .h5 �c5 fails after 1 2 .:B:h2 Wlg1 1 3 .:B:g2 Wlh 1 1 4 .hxg6

Chapter 6 - 4 .d4 tLlf6 5 .id2 1 49

hxg6. Black only has two pawns for the piece and thus stands clearly worse.

1 1 .:B:b l ! Wxc2 1 2 .h5 Wxd l t 1 3 .:B:xd l ic2 14 .:B:c1 tLlc6 1 5 .�b5 !

White has a large advantage.

However 6 . . . tLlbd7! ? could be considered.

7.£3 7.h3 �xe2 The following two remarks are

from Eric Prie, both being quite relevant: "Simple, but Black can probably hope for more with either 7 . . . �h5 ! ? or 7 . . . �d7." 8 .tt:Jxe2 Wd5 9 .c3 0-0-0 1 O .tt:Jf4 Wd6 ( l 0 . . . We4t? 1 1 .�e3!) "Followed inescapably by the levelling . . . e7-e5 ."

7 .. . �f5 8.a3! �g6! The exclamation mark presupposes the

correctness of the double-edged line that follows. The alternative is: 8 . . . a6

According to Prie, with whom I agree on this point, Black's disadvantage should be small after this move. That being said, if Black can manage without spending a tempo in this way, then so much the better.

9 .g4 Black equalizes easily if his opponent does not risk this committal move, for instance: 9 .b4 Wb6 I O .�e3 e5 I l .�f2 exd4 (after 1 1 . . .0-0-0? I 2 .dxe5! ! :B:xd i 1 3 .:B:xd l the black queen is out of squares, meaning that White wins material) 1 2 .tt:Jxd4 tt:Jxd4 (on 1 2 . . . 0-0-0?? I 3 .tt:Jxf5 the previous annotation again applies) 1 3 .�xd4 Wd6=

9 . . . ig6 1 O.b4 The inclusion of I O .h4 h6 does not alter much.

1 0 . . . Wb6 I l .�e3 The alternatives are sharper: a) I l .g5 tt:Jxd4 (not I l . . .tt:Jh5? 1 2 .tt:Jd5) 1 2.tt:Jxd4 Wxd4 1 3 .gxf6 Wh4 t ( l 3 . . . 0-0-0!?) I 4.�e2 0-0-0 I 5 .We i Wxf6

8 �.�� B �� " " ''''�'w.''' ' '''�'w.' ' ' ' ' 7 � i w� w� i w� i 6 �� " %� " " %�/.' "'(" " %� i �� 'tjii � �� .. "�� 3 (/ %m�� !� ', %� " ' � / �� ,� 2 , .�J�cJi.W/J!j

� � iitt�.: a b c d e f g h

With two pawns for the invested piece and an exposed white king, Black's compensation should be adequate. b) I l .tt:Ja4 Wa7 I 2 .tt:Jc5 0-0-0 and Black will continue with . . . e7 -e5.

a b c d e f g h

After White's 1 1 th move we reach a critical position. The first player has expanded everywhere, which could be a good thing although the downside is that he has created many potential weaknesses for himself. The position is rich, but above all very concrete, as Black's offside queen is clearly a source of some concern. He now has a choice:

a) I l . . .e5 ! ? This combative move sharpens the fight.

1 2 .g5 exd4N The altetnative I 2 . . . tt:Jxd4 only gives White an additional option in I 3 .gxf6!? (The simplest reaction would be 1 3 .tt:Jxd4N exd4 I 4 .Wxd4, transposing to the main line below)


13 . . . lLlx8+ ( l 3 . . . 0-0-0!N would have kept the position unclear) 1 4.�f2 Wi'xf6 1 5 .lLld5 Wi'c6 This was Vajda - Kislinsky, Bucharest 2003, and now after the simple 1 6.�xf3N 0-0-0 1 7.c4 Black does not have enough compensation.

1 3 .lLlxd4 The attempt to deviate with 1 3 .lLla4?! Wi'b5 14 .c4 runs into 14 . . . Wi'f5 .

13 . . . lLlxd4 1 3 . . . !!d8? 14 .Wi'e2! lLlxd4 1 5 . .ixd4t Wi'e6 1 6.0-0-0±

1 4.Wi'xd4! The safest way to be on the right side of an almost level position. 1 4 . .ixd4 is less convincing: 14 . . . Wi'e6t 1 5 .)!;f2 ( l 5 .Wi'e2 lLlh5 1 6.0-0-0 Wi'xe2 1 7 . .ixe2 0-0-0 gives White a bad version of the ending that arises in the main line) 1 5 . . . lLlh5 ( l 5 . . . lLld7!?) 1 6 . .ib5t axb5 1 7.!!e 1 0-0-0 1 8 .!!xe6 fxe6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

b/�,//'��/''''H//��/'

a b c d e f g h

Black has rook and bishop plus some positional trumps for the queen. As . . . e6-e5 is looming, White's best bet may be to counterattack with 1 9 .1Llxb5 ! ? e5 20.c4.

14 . . . Wi'xd4 1 5 . .ixd4 lLlh5 After the weaker 1 5 . . . lLld7? ! 1 6.0-0-0 0-0-0 1 7.h4 (or 1 7 . .ih3) White enjoys a certain initiative.

1 6.0-0-0;t/= Black's position is certainly playable, but he

has not yet equalized fully.

b) 1 1 . . . e6 1 2 .lLla4 On 1 2 .)!;f2 Black can neutralize the d4-d5 push with either 1 2 . . . lLle7 or 1 2 . . . lLld5.

12 . . . Wi'a7 1 3 .c4 b5 13 . . . 0-0-0?! 1 4.�f2 100ks dubious for Black, who will soon be compelled to withdraw his queen to a8! At this point White came up with a fascinating concept.

1 4.lLlec3! ? 1 4.lLlac3 bxc4°o

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

b;;:;;;'/·�"h,/"W//,=h,//m//

a b c d e f g h

1 4 . . . bxc4 Accepting the gift is of course critical, but Black can be forgiven for having been cautious. Indeed, even with hindsight it is difficult to draw a definitive conclusion: 14 . . . bxa4 1 5 .Wi'xa4 Wi'b6 1 6.�f2 ( l 6 . .if2? is bad because 8 hangs: 16 . . . lLld7 1 7.d5 lLld4 1 8 .c5 .ixc5 1 9 .bxc5 lLlx8t 20.�e2 Wi'b2t 2 1 .�x8 Wi'xc3t-+) 16 . . . lLld7 ( l 6 . . . �d8 ! ? is weird, especially if Black is unable to hang on to his extra piece anyway. That said, things are unclear there too: 1 7 .d5 [or 1 7.!!d 1�1 1 7 . . . lLld4 1 8 .c5 .ixc5 1 9 .!!d lOO) 1 7.d5 lLld4 1 8 .dxe6 fxe6 1 9 .c5 .ixc5 20.bxc5 Wi'b2t 2 1 ..ie2 lLlxe2! 22.lLlxe2 .id3 23.!!ae l°o

1 5 . .ixc4 .id6 1 5 . . . !!d8N may be an improvement.

1 6.0-0 0-0 1 7 .Wi'd2;t Hector - L. Milov, Nuremberg 2006.

9.g4 gd8!

Chapter 6 - 4 .d4 tiJf6 5 .i.d2 1 5 1

The reasoning for this slightly surprIsmg move will become clear in the following note.

a b c d e f g h

lO.h4 Hunting the queen leads to unclear

consequences: 1 O .b4 Wfb6 1 1 .ttJa4 ttJxd4! 1 2 .ttJxb6 (Had Black played 9 . . . 0-0-0? instead of the "abnormal" 9 . . J:%d8! , this capture would have come with check!) 1 2 . . . ttJxf3t 1 3 .mf2 ttJxd2�

lO • • • h6°o

1 0 . . . h5? looks worse after 1 1 .b4 Wfb6 1 2 .g5 . Black could try 1 2 . . . ttJxd4!? 1 3 .ttJxd4 Wfxd4 1 4.gxf6 here, but the presence of his king in the centre renders the sacrifice hazardous.

B3) 6.i.e2

Prie sums up this move perfectly as follows: ''Avoiding complications and winning time on a short term basis. This cannot be critical however, because Black will accelerate his development too with . . . ttJc6 and . . . 0-0-0."

6 • . • he2 7.ttJcxe2!? An odd looking recapture, whose idea

consists of liberating the c-pawn. Worse is: 7.ttJgxe2? ! This creates disharmony between the white forces. 7 . . . ttJc6 8 .a4 This was Nesterenko - Redko, Minsk 2006, and here the correct continuation would have been 8 . . . Wfh5!N and only then . . . 0-0-0, with a slight plus to Black whose pieces are better placed. Instead the game saw Black fall into difficulties after 8 . . . 0-0-0? 9 .ttJb5 Wfb6 1 O .c4 .

Black i s not caused any trouble by the natural : 7.Wfxe2 ttJc6 8 .ttJf3 e6!

8 . . . 0-0-0? is wrong. 9 .ttJb5 Wfb6

a b c d e f g h

1 0 .ttJg5! E:d5 (in the event of 1 0 . . . a6 White would simply eat an exchange with 1 1 .ttJxf7, his knight escaping without damage after either 1 1 . . .axb5 1 2 .Wfe6t Wb8 1 3 .ttJxh8± or 1 1 . . .Wfxb5 1 2 .Wfxb5 axb5 1 3 .ttJxh8±) 1 1 .c4 ttJxd4 (Black is also clearly worse after 1 1 . . .E:xb5 1 2 .cxb5 ttJxd4 1 3 .Wfc4+or 1 1 . . .E:xd4 1 2 .ttJxf7 E:g8 1 3 .ttJxd4 ttJxd4 14 .Wfd3 Wfe6t 1 5 .i.e3+- or 1 1 . . .E:xg5 1 2 .,ixg5 a6±) 1 2 .ttJxd4 E:xd4 1 3 .0-0-O± Wfc5 14.ttJxf7 E:e4 ( 1 4 .. J::!:xc4t 1 5 .,ic3) 1 5 .,ie3+-


B . . . Wh5 is, on the other hand, quite playable. 9 .0-0-0 0-0-0 1 0 .llJg5 Wg6 1 1 .Wd3 Wxd3 (safer than 1 1 . .J''!:xd4 1 2 .Wxg6 fXg6 1 3 .llJe6�) 1 2.cxd3 E:xd4 1 3 . .ie3 E:d7 1 4.llJxf7 E:gB This seems level, each side having a weak pawn.

a b c d e f g h

9.0-0 Or 9 .0-0-0 0-0-0 1 O .�b l .ib4 l 1 .a3 .ixc3 1 2 .hc3 Wd5= F. Berkes - Torma, Paks 1 995 .

9 . . . Wh5 Black could also consider 9 . . . 0-0-0!?N or 9 . . . Wf5!?N.

1 0 .llJe4 0-0-0 1 1 .c3 llJxe4 1 2 .Wxe4 .id6 1 3 .E:fe l g5 ! ?

This creative idea was tried in Perlis - Mieses, Vienna 1 90B. Prie adorns this move with " ! ! " , but my computer thinks otherwise.

1 4.g4!N The aforementioned game continued 14 .E:ad l g4 1 5 .llJe5 .ixe5 1 6.dxe5 E:d5 and Black stood a bit better. The immediate 1 4 . .ixg5 would be met by 1 4 . . . .ixh2t .

1 4 . . . Wh3 1 5 .llJxg5! Very cybernetic! The French Scandinavian expert only analysed 1 5 . .ixg5 h5 ! ( 1 5 . . . E:hgB? 1 6.E:e3) 16 . .ixdB hxg4 1 7.llJe5 .ixe5 I B .dxe5 Wxh2t 1 9 .�fI E:xdB 20.E:ad l E:gB 2 1 .Wg2 Wh7: He rightly concluded that Black would have excellent compensation, due to the

continuing exposure of the white king and the vulnerability of the e5-pawn.

1 5 . . . Wxh2t 1 6.�f1

a b c d e f g h

White simply wants to grab the f7 -pawn, but he also has the positional threat of 1 7 .�e2 followed by I B .E:h l at his disposal . His king can only be tickled by the black queen, so that White is not risking much. Here is a sample line showing what Black must avoid:

1 6 . . . E:dfB 1 7.�e2 .ie7 1 B . .if4 Wh4 1 9 .f3! And White wins the queen.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

7 • • • W5!N Strangely, this active move has not yet

been tested. 7 . . . Wd5 ?! failed to equalize after B .llJf3 e6 9 .0-0 c6 1 0 .llJf4 WdB 1 1 .c4± in Riff - Lagunes, St Chely d'Aubrac 2005 .

Chapter 6 - 4.d4 tiJf6 5 .td2 I S3

Another option is: 7 . . . Wfb6?! B .llJf3 llJbd7 9 .0-0 e6 1 0 .c4! te7

1 O . . . Wfxb2 1 1 .llJc3� I l .b4!? 0-0 1 2 .a4 c6

1 2 . . . Axb4? 1 3 .aS+-1 3 .Wfc2 Wfc7

With the idea to equalize in the centre by pushing . . . e6-eS .

1 4.l':!:fe l b6 1 4 . . . eS? ! I S .llJg3

I S .aS :B:fbB Black was only marginally worse in Karpov

- Larsen, Montreal 1 979.

s.llJa It is too early for B .llJg3 Wfe6t! 9.llJ l e2

llJc6.

S • • • llJc6 9.0-0 0-0-0

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

The outcome of the opening is a roughly equal game. Black would like to play . . . eS next, so it looks logical for White to continue with:

IO.c4 Planning to meet . . . eS with dS . Therefore

Black must settle for the more modest:

IO .. . e6 Preventing both b2-b4 and d4-dS . The

position holds chances for both sides. White

may try to advance his b-pawn, and Black will prepare . . . gS-g4.

B4) 6.a

Finally we arrive at the main move.

a b c d e f g h

6 . . . AfS Black has no reason to resort to the less

active: 6 . . . Ad7 7.Ac4 Wfb6 B .llJge2 e6 9 .0-0

Planning Q;>hl and Wfe l . Instead 9 .Ae3?! llJc6 1 0 .Wfd2 llJb4! is already quite pleasant for Black. The following game ended fairly quickly: I l .Ab3 0-0-0 1 2 .llJe4 llJbdS 1 3 .Af2 llJxe4! 1 4 .fxe4 llJf6 I S .llJg3 hS 1 6 .eS llJg4 17 .Agl Ac6 I B .h3 llJxeS! 1 9 .dxeS :B:xd2 20.Axb6 :B:xg2 0-1 Pad -Prie, Chartres 200S .

9 . . . Ab4 Black cannot continue 9 . . . llJc6 because of 1 O .llJa4, which leaves the text move as the only really active idea.

1 0 .a3 ! ?N 1 0 .llJe4 represents a valid alternative, for example 1 O . . . Ae7, Bedouin - Prie, Chartres 200S , and now I l .a4!N gives White good chances for an edge after 1 1 . . .aS 1 2 .c3, or 1 1 . . .cS? ! 1 2 .aS Wfc6 1 3 .AgS ! .

10 . . . Axc3 1 1 .bxc3 AbS ! ? Intending to sacrifice the queen for close to material parity.


After other moves White can easily improve his position with moves like �b 1 , i.d3 and c4, as pointed out by Prie.

1 2 .�b l i.xc4 1 3 .�xb6 axb6 1 4.i.c l

a b c d e f g h

Black has a minimal material disadvantage, with a knight and a rook for the enemy queen. On the other hand he benefits from several positional features, such as a better pawn structure and a stronghold for a knight on d5 . Prie now analyses a dubious knight tour designed to grab the c3-pawn, but I would prefer the simple:

1 4 . . . 0-0 When White has no more than a small

edge.

7.g4!? 7.i.c4 is sensible, and is transposes to the

note to White's seventh move in line B 1 2 of

Chapter 7 . However, the text move is the most ambitious as well as the most interesting to analyse.

7 . • . i.g6 7 . . . i.d7!?

Now that White has weakened his kingside this move makes more sense.

8 .g5 ! Otherwise Black has no worries at all . 8 .i.c4 Wb6 9 .We2 (9.ttJge2? Wc6! Sanchez -Prie, Villeneuve Tolosane 2006.) 9 . . . ttJc6 1 O .d5 ttJd4 I 1 .Wd3 0-0-0 1 2.0-0-0 e5= see Mack - Prie in Chapter 7.

8 . . . ttJh5 8 . . . ttJd5! ? seems playable too: 9 .ttJe4 Wa4 1 0 .c4 [ 1 0 .ttJe2!?] 1 0 . . . Wxd l t 1 1 .�xd l ttJb6 1 2 .i.f4 ttJa6 The white position is probably slightly better because of the space advantage, but Black remains solid enough.

a b c d e f g h

From this position I am only aware of one practical example, in which White immediately chose a suboptimal continuation. I also analysed a couple of more challenging alternatives, but found that Black was holding his own in all cases .

a) 9 .ttJge2? ! This quiet move is inconsistent with White's previous play. 9 . . . e6 1 O .i.g2 ttJc6! 1 1 .ttJe4 Wb6 1 2 .c3 0-0-0 1 3 .Wc2 (After 1 3 .Wb3 Black would disturb his opponent's

Chapter 6 - 4 .d4 lDf6 S .id2 1 5 5

plan with 1 3 . . .'\&a6) 1 3 . . . h6 1 4.b3 hxgS I S .tLlxgS ie8 1 6.0-0-0 tLlaS 1 7.c4

a b c d e f g

1 7 . . . tLlxc4! ! 1 8 .%Vxc4 ibS 1 9 .%Vc3 ixe2 20.tLlxf7 Boudre - Prie, Narbonne-Plage 200S . Now, as i f the game was not already messy enough, Black chose 20 . . . %Va6!? instead of the more straightforward 20 . . . ixd I N 2 1 .!!xd l id6+.

b) 9 .f4 g6 (9 . . . ic6?? loses to 1 O .dS ixdS I l .b4 %Vxb4 1 2 .tLlxdS %Ve4t 1 3 .ie3 . ) Both sides can deviate at any moment now, so that the following line should be considered as illustrative only:

a b c d e f g h

1 O .ig2 ( l 0 .%Vf3! ?) 1 0 . . . %Vb6 ( l 0 . . . c6!?) 1 1 .tLldS %Ve6t! ( l 1 . . .%Vd6? 1 2 .ib4 %Ve6t 1 3 .�d2 tLla6 14 .'\Wfl ±) 1 2 .%Ve2 tLla6 1 3 .0-0-0 0-0-0 with balanced play.

c) 9 .ic4

a b c d e f g

9 . . . %Vb6 For once the suspicious looking 9 . . . %Vb4!? could be appropriate too. 1 0 .%Ve2 (or 1 O .b3 %Vd6 1 1 .tLlge2 e6oo) 10 . . . tLlf4 The justification of Black's previous move. The following sequence is virtually forced: 1 1 .tLldS ( l l .%Vfl ?! %Vxb2 1 2 J�b l %Vxc2 1 3 .!!d ? %Vf5 and Black is two pawns up without any counterplay; I l .ixf4 %Vxb2 1 2 .�d2? [ 1 2.tLldS %Vxal t 1 3 .%Vd l ? { 1 3 .Wf2 transposes into 1 1 .tLldS} 1 3 . . . %Vxd l t 14 .�xd l tLla6 I S .ixa6 0-0-0+ If White withdraws his light-squared bishop there follows 16 . . . ic6] 12 . . . %Vxa l ; White has no compensation for the sacrificed material) 1 1 . . .%Vxb2 1 2 .tLlxc7t Wd8 1 3 .ixf4 %Vxa l t 14.�f2 %Vxd4t I S .�g3 eS 1 6 .ie3 Wxc7 1 7.ixd4 exd4

a b c d e f g h

Materially speaking the position is balanced. Considering that Black can develop quickly and target the exposed white king, he should have plenty of chances .


1 O.'IWe2

a b c d e f g h

1 0 . . .'IWxd4 1 O . . . tLlc6? is bad: 1 1 .tLld5 Wxb2 1 2 .J.c3 Wa3 1 3 .tLlxc7t md8 1 4.tLlb5 Wa4 1 5 .J.b3 Wa6 1 6.a4 White will soon hide his king whereas the precarious situation of his vis-a.-vis will always remain a handicap.

1 1 .0-0-0! On I l .tLld5 Black has 1 1 . . .Wh4t 1 2 .mf1 md8!

1 1 . . .tLlf4 1 2 .Wf1� Summing up, the retreat of the bishop to d7

seems quite playable and should be considered a valid alternative to the main line, to which we now return.

B41) 8.h4 h6 9.f4?!

Compared with line B44 below, the inclusion of the moves h2-h4 and . . . h7-h6 suits Black well. Indeed, he does not even need to play 9 . . . e6 but can consent to let his bishop be temporarily shut in.

Black is also quite comfortable after 9 .J.c4 Wb6! (9 . . . c6? is a bad idea: 1 O .tLlh3 e6 I l .tLlf4 J.h7 12 .We2 J.b4 1 3 .g5! hxg5 14 .tLlxe6!± Spangenberg - Oral , World Ch U20 1 995) 1 O .tLlge2 e6 I l .tLlf4 tLlc6 We shall met this idea again in chapter 7. Black is fine after 1 2 .tLlxg6. The same goes if White chooses 1 2 .d5 tLld4 1 3 .tLlxg6 fxg6 1 4.J.e3 tLlxc2t 1 5 .Wxc2 Wxe3t 1 6.We2 Wxe2t 1 7.�xe2 exd5 1 8 .tLlxd5 J.d6+ Nijboer -L. Milov, Haarlem 2006.

9 .. . tLlc6! 10.£5 J.h7

a b c d e f g h

White has made some progress on the kingside, but that is where the good news ends. The d4-pawn is hanging, g4 is weak, Black is ready for . . . 0-0-0 and can soon break up the white kingside with either . . . e6 or . . . h5 . The first player also lags in development.

1 l .J.b5

Chapter 6 - 4.d4 ttJf6 5 .�d2 I S7

l 1 .lLlf3 is not really better. 1 1 . . .0-0-0 (Even the risky 1 1 . . .lLlxg4! ? deserves attention: 1 2 .lLlb5 �b6 1 3 .c4 e6 [or 13 . . . e5l intending 1 4 .c5 �xc5 1 5 .dxc5 �xc5) 1 2 .lLlb5 �b6 and now 1 3 .c4 lLlxd4 14 .lLlfxd4 :B:xd4 I S .lLlxd4 �xd4 is more than okay for Black.

1 1 ••• 0-0-0 12.hc6 bxc6 13.�f3 This position was reached in Ashton - Prie,

Cap D'Agde 2008, and here Black should have played:

13 • • J�xd4!N In the game he preferred 1 3 . . . e6 and went

on to draw.

14.�xc6 �b6 15.�a8t �b8 White has problems, as his kingside pawns

are in danger.

B42) 8.g5N

I was unable to find any practical examples of this move, but it is worth analysing as Black has rather a witty answer.

9.�b5t

9.lLle4 �a4 1 0 .c4 can be compared come to the endgame that arises after 7 . . . �d7 8 .gS lLld5 and so on. The presence of the bishop on g6 rather than d7 is in Black's favour.

9 • • • c6 10.lLlxd5 �d8

Curiously, despite his extra piece, it is White who has to be careful about equalizing here. His best bet seems to be:

1 1 .c4! cxb5 12.�f4 After 1 2 .�b3? e6 1 3 .�xb5t lLlc6 14 .�xb7

:B:c8 Black will continue 1 5 . . . lLlxd4 and hold the initiative.

12 •.• lLla6 13.�b3 e6 14.cxb5! Better than 14 .�xb5t? ! �d7 I S .�xd7t

Wxd7 1 6.lLlc3 lLlb4 when Black will recover his pawn thanks to the potential forks on c2 or d3. He will then remain with the pair of bishops and a lasting edge.

14 . • . �xd5 15.�xd5 ad5 16.bxa6 bxa6 The endgame should be about equal .

B43) 8.lLlge2

This should transpose to another line, but it is worth considering what happens if Black tries to deviate.


8 .. . e6? 8 . . . llJc6! reaches line B2 beginning with

6.llJge2.

9.h4! h5 After 9 . . . h6 the same idea of 1 0 .llJf4 .id6

l 1 .llJb5! would be strong. ( 1 1 ..ib5t? ! , on the other hand, is less clear: 1 1 . . .llJc6 [ l 1 . . .c6? 1 2 .llJxg6 fxg6 1 3 . .ic4±] 1 2 .llJxg6 fxg6 1 3 .We2 0-0 1 4.Wxe6t �h8 1 5 . .ixc6 bxc6 and Black has some compensation due to the precarious situation of the white royal couple. )

10.llJf4 .id6 Bokan - Muhutdinov, Moscow 1 990.

1 l .llJb5!N This is a significant improvement over

l 1 .llJxg6?! .ig3t 1 2 .me2 fxg6, when White can do no more than maintain the equilibrium with: 1 3J':!:h3N (In the aforementioned game he preferred 1 3 .'!e l ? , at which point 13 . . . .ixe lN would have been better for Black.) 13 . . . Wa6t ( 1 3 . . . .id6!?) 1 4 .�e3 Wd6 1 5 .llJb5 llJd5t 1 6.�d3 llJf4t 1 7.�e3=

simplified posltlon: 12 . . . Wxd6 1 3 .g5 llJd5 14 .llJxg6 Wg3t 1 5 .�e2 fxg6 1 6J':!:h3 Wd6°o

12 • . • hf4 13.hf4 llJa6 14.c5 Wc6 15.llJc3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black has no satisfactory defence against 1 6 . .ib5 .

15 ... .ic2!? This is arguably Black's best practical chance.

He is certainly not helped by 1 5 . . . Wd7? 1 6 .c6! .

A slightly better attempt is 1 5 . . . llJd5! ? 16 . .ib5 Wxb5 1 7.llJxb5 llJxf4, but this can hardly be sufficient in the long run.

16.Wxc2 Wxf3 Black is trying to stir up trouble, but White

can maintain control as follows:

17 • .ib5t c6 18J�f1 Wxg4 19.ha6 Wxh4t 2oJ:H2 bxa6 21 .0-0-0

With a near-decisive advantage.

B44) 8.f4

To quote Peie: "The critical line, and this is where the two branches 5 . .!d2 and 5 . .ic4 diverge. Here the bishop is not exposed and White is ready to castle long after a queen move."

Chapter 6 - 4 .d4 lDf6 5 .id2 1 59

9 .Wfe2?! This has been tried only once, and that was over a century ago in Leonhardt - Mieses, Karlsbad 1 907. I was able to find an immediate improvement for Black.

9 . . . ltJc6! The aforementioned game continued with the slow 9 . . . ie7?! 1 O .ig2 ltJc6 l 1 .ltJd5, and now Black could have obtained approximate equality by means of 1 1 . . .Wfxd5!N 1 2 .ixd5 ltJxd4 1 3 .ixb7 ltJxe2 14 .i.c6t! ltJd7 1 5 .ltJxe2 or 1 5 .i.xa8 ltJd4. The text move commits Black to a material sacrifice, but unfortunately for his opponent, the compensation seems more than sufficient.

1 O .ltJb5 Wfb6 l 1 .fS a6 1 2 .fxg6 hxg6! This is much stronger than taking on b5 .

1 3 .g5 Or 1 3 .ltJc3 ltJxd4 with a dangerous attack.

1 3 . . . axb5 1 3 . . . ltJd5? ! 14 .ltJc3 is unclear.

1 4 .ltJf3 The safest, although White ends up slightly worse. Mter 1 4 .gxf6?! ltJxd4 1 5 .Wfe4 gxf6 1 6 .ltJf3 ltJf5 Black would have three

pawns plus the initiative for the invested piece.

14 . . . ltJd7 1 5 .d5 ltJd8 1 6.dxe6 ltJxe6 1 7.Wfxb5 Wfa7!

The material balance has been restored, but the white king remains vulnerable.

Another idea for White is: 9 .i.g2

a b c d e f g h

9 . . . Wfa6 9 . . . Wfb6!? also deserves attention.

1 O.fS!N This pawn sacrifice looks more enterprising than the dull 1 0 .g5 ltJfd7 1 1 .d5 which resulted in equality after 1 1 . . .i.d6 1 2 .Wfe2 Wfxe2t 1 3 .ltJgxe2 exd5 14 .ltJxd5 ltJc6 in Lanka - Bacrot, Linz 1 997.

10 . . . exf5 1 1 .gxfS i.xfS!? This principled move leads to obscure consequences. 1 1 . . . i.h5 is safer, but results is a modest pull for White after 1 2 .ltJd5! �d8! ? (Black would prefer to avoid this, but after 1 2 . . . ltJxd5? ! 1 3 .Wfxh5 ltJf6 14 .Wfe2t Wfxe2t 1 5 .ltJxe2 White enjoys a risk-free edge in the ending, thanks to his bishop pair. ) 1 3 .i.f3 (the evaluation is similar after 1 3 . . . i.xf3 14 .Wfxf3) 1 3 . . . ltJxd5 1 4.i.xh5 with a slight plus for White.

1 2 .Wff3 i.d7 1 2 . . . Wfe6t?! 1 3 .ltJge2 c6 1 4.0-0-0 seems too risky. I did not check precisely if 1 4 . . . ltJa6


hoping for . . . 0-0-0, or 14 . . . %Vd7 intending 1 5 . . . i.e7 and 1 6 . . . 0-0, are viable, but I have a feeling that Black will lack time because of the imminent d4-d5 .

1 3 .0-0-0 1 3 .%Vxb7 %Vxb7 14.i.xb7 i.c6 is equal because White has to content himself with 1 5 .i.xc6t .

13 . . . llJc6 14J'l:e l t \t>d8

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

White obviously has promising compensation for the invested pawn, but the black king is well protected by his pieces and reasonably safe, at least for the time being.

9 .. . exf5

a b c d e f g h

IO.g5 White can also play 1 O .%Ve2t \t>d8 ( l 0 . . . i.e7? !

1 1 .g5 llJfd7? [ 1 1 . . . llJd5 transposes into 1 0 .g5

llJd5?! below] 1 2 .i.g2 c6 1 3 .h4 is disastrous for Black.) 1 1 .g5 llJfd7 transposing to the main line below, although via this move order Black may be able to consider 1 1 . . . llJh5!?N.

IO • • • llJfd7 Black would be ill-advised to deviate from

this path, as you can see from the following lines:

1 O . . . llJg4? After this unfortunate jump the knight will soon be trapped. The most precise way to carry out this plan consists of 1 1 .%Ve2t i.e7 1 2 .i.g2 %Va6 1 3 .h3+-.

1 O . . . llJh5? can also be refuted by an accurate response: 1 1 .i.b5t ! (A very important subtlety. Instead 1 1 .i.e2? llJc6 would be by far less clear.) 1 1 . . . c6 (even worse is 1 1 . . .llJd7? 1 2 .llJd5) 1 2 .i.e2+-

1 O . . . llJd5? ! 1 1 .%Ve2t (better than 1 1 .i.b5t? ! \t>d8! 1 2 .%Ve2 i.b4) 1 1 . . .i.e7 ( l 1 . . . llJe7 1 2 .i.g2 c6 1 3 .h4 f4 1 4 .llJe4 %Vc7 1 5 .llJh3 is also highly unpleasant. Perhaps Black's best bet is to move his king, although that is hardly ideal either. ) 1 2 .%Vb5t! %Vxb5 1 3 .i.xb5t c6 14 .llJxd5

a b c d e f g h

Now Black must play 1 4 . . . cxb5 , giving up the rook on a8 in order to trap the knight and try to salvage the position an exchange down. If instead he tries to prevent the check on c7

Chapter 6 - 4 .d4 ttJf6 5 .id2 1 6 1

with 1 4 . . . id8? he quickly ends up i n a hopeless situation after 1 5 .ia4 b5 1 6.ib3 a5 1 7.a4.

The final questionable alternative is: 1O . . . itJg8

a b c d e f g h 1 1 .'?Be2t

l 1 .h4!? is also promising. 1 1 . . .h5 This was Skytte - Danielsen, Helsinge 2003, and here White should have played 1 2 .ic4!N, for example: 1 2 . . . c6 (or 1 2 . . . '?Bb4 1 3 .'?Be2t '?Be7 1 4.ie3) 1 3 .'?Be2t itJe7 1 4.0-0-0 For a mere pawn White has acquired a decisive lead in development.

1 1 . . .ie7 1 2 .ig2! c6 1 2 . . . itJc6?! This heroic counterattack fails to bring the desired result: 1 3 .itJd5 '?Ba4 1 4.itJxc7t @f8 ( 1 4 . . . @d8? ! , making the capture on d4 even more perilous, would be worse) 1 5 .itJxa8 itJxd4

a b c d e f g h

1 6.b3! '?Be8 (After 1 6 . . . '?Bd7 1 7.'?Bc4 b5 1 8 .'?Bc3 f4 White wins with either 1 9 .�c l or 1 9 .itJf3) 1 7.itJc7 itJxe2 1 8 .itJxe8 itJd4

1 9 .ic3! itJxc2t 20.@d2 itJxa l 2 1 .ixg7t @xe8 22.ixh8 ixg5t 23 .@c3 The "prisoner swap" is just a distant dream for Black, who will remain a rook down.

1 3 .h4 h6 1 4.h5 ih7 1 5 .gxh6 Price opines that 1 5 .0-0-0 or 1 5 .d5 would have been even better, but the text move is by no means bad.

1 5 . . . itJxh6 On 1 5 . . . gxh6 there would follow 1 6.d5 '?Bc7 1 7.0-0-0 itJf6 1 8 .itJh3 itJe4 1 9 .if4+- and a double capture on e4. We have been following the game Boidman Mann, Remagen 2006, which was wirnessed by yours truly, who was playing at the time in the Bundesliga for Remagen. White has more than enough compensation for a pawn, and could have increased his advantage with the following natural and obvious idea:

a b c d e f g h

1 6.0-0-0N In the game he faltered with 1 6.itJd5? '?Bd8

1 7.ixh6 gxh6 1 8 .'?Be5 @d7!, after which he was unable to recover and went on to lose.

After the text move Black will not be able to castle for a while due to the vulnerability of the bishop on e7, and the pressure can always be augmented by �de 1 if necessary. White will easily bring his remaining pieces into play, and will have excellent chances to win via direct attack.

1 1 .Yfe2t 'if?d8


a b c d e f g h

12.ig2 1 2 .0-0-0

Here Black does best to fight for the initiative by means of:

1 2 . . . f4! Instead 1 2 . . . tt:k6?! l 3 .dS tDceS 14 .h4 would be uncomfortable for Black.

l 3 .ig2 This whole line has not been tested in many games, and some options still require investigation, in particular l 3 .ih3!?N and especially l 3 .h4!?N, intending l 3 . . . tDc6 1 4.ixf4 ib4 I S J�h3 .

l 3 . . . tDc6 14 .ixf4 Opening the b-file with 14 .ixc6?! bxc6 is not clever. More interesting is: 1 4 J�e l id6 I S .\�%S Wlb6! 1 6.ixc6? ( l 6.tDge2N was required, with decent compensation.) 1 6 . . . bxc6 1 7.Wlc4 l'!b8 1 8 .tDdl WlbS 1 9 .WlxbS l'!xbS 20.tDh3 l'!dS+ Houard - Prie, St-Affrique 2007.

14 . . . tDb4! This active move should give Black a decent share of the chances .

l S .tDbS I S .a3 leads to unfavourable complications for White: I S . . . tDxc2 1 6.tDbS l'!c8! 1 7.ixb7 tDxa3! (This looks stronger than Prie's 1 7 . . . tDb4. Then 1 8 .axb4? ixb4 1 9 .ie4 l'!e8 20.ieS ixe4 2 1 .Wlxe4 WlxbS is clearly bad

for White, but 1 8 .Wlc4! tDa2t 1 9 .Wlxa2 WlxbS 20.WldS WlxdS 2 1 .ixdS id6 confines the black advantage into bearable proportions.) 1 8 .tDxa7 Wlxa7 1 9 .ixc8 tDb6 20.ia6 tDdS According to the computer Black enjoys a marked edge here.

I S . . . id6 1 6.tDxd6 After 1 6.ixd6 cxd6 1 7.tDxd6 l'!b8 is adequate for Black.

1 6 . . . cxd6

a b c d e f g h

1 7.ixd6N This in an improvement over 1 7.l'!e l ? �c7 1 8 .Wlc4t �b6! when White was powerless against the imminent arrival of a rook on c8 in Koepke - Kislinsky, Kharkiv 2006.

1 7 . . . l'!e8! 1 8 .ixb4 1 8 .Wld2? l'!c8 1 9 .icS loses in spectacular fashion:

a b c d e f g h

1 9 . . . tDxcS 20.dxcSt tDd3t!! 2 1 .cxd3 l'!xcSt-+ 1 8 . . . Wlxb4 1 9.Wld2 l'!c8

Chapter 6 - 4.d4 lLlf6 5 .i.d2 1 63

a b c d e f g h

20.Wlxb4 Getting rid of the queens constitutes White's best chance. Instead 20.c3? ? would lead to a quick rout: 20 . . . Wlc4 2 1 .i.f1 Wld5! 22.Wlg2 Wlxa2-+.

20 . . J!xc2t 2 1 .i>b l l'k4t 22.i>al �xb4+

12 • • • lDc6

a b c d e f g h 13.hc6

White can also try 1 3 .lDB followed by hiding the king on the east. One game continued: 1 3 . . . i.b4 ( 1 3 . . . i.d6N may be better) 1 4 .0-0 �eB 1 5 .Wlf2 White had lasting compensation due to the placement of the enemy king, but Black kept her chances too in Levushkina -L. Bensdorp, Plovdiv 200B .

13 • • • bxc6 14.0-0-0 �b8 15 J'�el i.b4 It is hard to give a definitive evaluation of

this complex position, but my overall feeling is that Black has the makings of a serious attack on the queenside. If there are any opening problems for him to solve, they are more likely to be found in the previously analysed line 1 2 .0-0-0 f4, followed by one of the untested ideas 1 3 .i.h3 and 1 3 .h4.

16.lDh3 <.!?c8 Although White also had a path to equality

later on, he would probably have found it more easily had Black decided to force matters with 1 6 . . . i.xc3 1 7.i.xc3 Wlxa2 I B .lDf4 lDb6 1 9 .h4 lDa4, at which point 20.h5! leaves Black with nothing better than forcing a draw with: 20 . . . �xb2 2 1 .i.xb2 Wlxb2t 22.i>d2 Wlb4t=

17.lDf4 gd8! Black brings his last piece into play.

18.Wlc4 This is not exactly a mistake, but I think

a better practical decision would have been I B .h4!N, which enables White to generate his own threats rather than just parrying his opponent's. Following I B . . . i.xc3 1 9 .i.xc3 Wlxa2 20.h5 the bishop is trapped, but Black can obtain sufficient compensation with: 20 . . . lDc5!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

With a highly unclear position.

18 • • • c5


a b c d e f g h

19.1iJfd5? After this move White is objectively lost. The

way to maintain the equilibrium was: 1 9 .a3!N liJb6

Strangely, the tempting 19 . . . .!xa3? hands White the advantage after 20.bxa3 V;Vxa3t 2 1 .�d l �b4 22.V;Va2 V;Vxa2 23.liJxa2t. Black will have three devaluated pawns for a piece while remaining with a ridiculous bishop.

20.V;Va2 20.V;Vb3?! is worse: 20 . . . .!xc3 2 1 .'!xc3 V;Va6 22.dxc5? ! liJa4! 23 . .!b4 liJxc5 And White experiences insurmountable difficulties in preventing . . . �xb4, as 24.V;Vc3 runs into 24 . . . liJe4.

20 . . . .!xc3 2 1 .'!xc3 V;Va4 22.b3 V;Vc6 23.dxc5 liJd5 24.liJxd5 �xd5 25 .hg7 f4 26.b4 �xg5

The position is far from dead, but the evaluation is equal.

19 • • • liJb6! 20.liJe7t <l?b7 21 .V;Ve2 .bc3 22 • .bc3

22.V;Vf3t liJd5 does not change anything.

22 • • • V;Vxa2 23.V;VSt liJd5! 24J�e5 c6 25.b3 25 • • • f4!

Finally the dormant bishop makes its presence felt.

26 • .!b2 26.liJxg6 hxg6 27.dxc5 f6 was no better.

a b c d e f g h

26 • • • .bc2! 27.liJxd5 Taking the piece would have led to a quicker

defeat: 27.�xc2 liJb4t 28 .�c1 (or 28 .�c3? cxd4t 29.�xb4 �a8t 30.�c4 V;Va6t and mate next) 28 . . . �xd4 The threat of . . . liJd3t is lethal, for instance: 29.�d l �bd8 30.�ee l �d3! 3 1 .V;Vf2 V;Vxb3, or 3 1 .V;Ve2 f3-+ , or finally 3 1 .V;Vn �c3t 32 . .!xc3 V;Vc2#.

27 ••• V;Vbl t 28.<l?dl V;Vxb2 29J��e7t <l?a6 30.liJb4t

30.V;Vn t .!d3t 3 1 .�xd3 �xd5 32.V;Va l t V;Vxal 33 .�xal t �b6 34.�axa7 cxd4 35 .�xf7 <;t>c5 and Black should win the endgame.

30 • • • <l?a5 31 .liJxc6t <l?b6 32. <l?e1 As after 30.V;Vn t, 32.V;Vc3 results in a

hopeless ending: 32 . . . V;Vxc3t 33 .�xc3 �xc6 34.<;t>xc2 �xd4 35 .�xf7 �b7-+

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1""/0',,,////

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 6 - 4 .d4 ttJf6 5 .id2

32 • • J�e8?? 32 .. J!xd4! 33.lDxd4 %Vxd4 would have given

Black an advantage of decisive proportions.

33.%Vxf4?? 33.dxc5t ! would have changed the outcome

to a draw, the easiest way being 33 .. .'.t>b5 (For the record 33 .. .'.t>xc5 should also be equal according to the computer: 34.b4t �xb4 35 .�xe8 ia4! and so on, or 34 .. .'.t>b6 35 .%Vf2t �b5 36.%Ve2t �a4 37.�xe8 �xe8 38 .%Vxe8 id3!) 34.lDxa7t �a5 35 .lDc6t �b5=

33 • • J��xe7t 34.lDxe7 %Vc3t 35.%Vd2 %Val t 36.�fl %Vxd4t 37.%Vxd4 cx:d4 0-1

Golubev - Kislinsky, Kharkiv 2006. This was a fascinating struggle, despite the mutual blunders near the end.

Conclusion

The line considered in this chapter, 4.d4 lDf6 5 .id2, can be tricky if Black is unfamiliar with the nuances this move order introduces. By delaying or even omitting lDf3, White leaves his kingside pawns free to advance, which can be dangerous if Black pretends this chapter is just like the main lines we have already seen. Now 5 . . . %Vb6!? is an interesting sideline, but the main line I recommend is to cross White's plans with 5 . . . ig4. The critical line is B44, which is 6 .f3 if5 7.g4 ig6 8 .f4 e6 9 .f5! ? This is undeniably wild, but Black has level chances in the melee.

1 6 5

Chapter 7

4.d4 '2Jf6 5 .�c4

a b c d e f g h

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 V;Yxd5 3.�c3 V;Ya5 4.d4 �f6 5.i.c4

A) 5 . . . ltJc6!? 1 68 B) 5 . . . ig4 1 70 B 1 ) 6 .f3 1 7 1 B l 1 ) 6 . . . ih5 1 7 1 B 1 2) 6 . . . if5 1 72 B2) 6.ltJge2 ltJc6 7.f3 1 75 B2 1 ) 7 . . . if5?! 1 76 B22) 7 . . . ih5 1 78 B23) 7 . . . ie6!? 1 84


This move is played with the same basic idea as 5 .�d2 from the previous chapter. White hopes to obtain an improved version of a standard line by delaying the development of his knight on f3 . However, the choice to develop the light-squared bishop first this time can give rise to some independent possibilities for both sides.

As the reader may have observed throughout the previous chapter, it is in Black's interest to provoke his opponent by playing . . . �c8-g4. We saw that this might either yield a tempo to develop, while in the event of the principled reply f2-f3 White gains time for his kingside expansion but weakens the a7-g 1 diagonal as well .

l .e4 dS 2.exdS WxdS 3.4:Jc3 WaS 4.d4 4:Jf6 S.�c4

From this, our starting position for the chapter, we will begin by considering the slightly unusual A) S ••• 4:Jc6!? , before moving onto the main line of B) S •.• �g4. Before doing so, let us briefly check a few other possibilities:

5 . . . c6?! is once again unattractive, for exactly the same reasons as discussed in the previous chapter. It is a similar story after 5 . . . �f5? ! 6.�d2, when the threat of 4:Jd5 means that Black probably has nothing better than

6 . . . c6, transposing to the unfavourable variation described in the previous chapter.

5 . . . g6?! works fine when White puts his bishop on e2, but here it is dubious. 6 .4:Jf3 (the peculiar 6.4:Jge2?! �g7 7.h3 c6 8 .�d2 Wd8 9 .�b3 4:Jbd7 was okay for Black in Aleksic - Drazic, Bosnjaci 2002) 6 . . . �g7 7.0-0 0-0 8 .:B:el with a pleasant position for White, as seen in a number of games.

In a few games Black has been successful with the experimental: 5 . . . a6? !

But it is hard to believe that this can really be a good move.

6 .4:Jf3 �g4 7.h3 �h5 Or 7 . . . �xf3 8 .Wxf3 4:Jc6 9 .0-0 (9 .�e3! ?) 9 . . . 0-0-0 1 O .d5 with a white edge.

8 .g4 �g6 Fleitas - Mirzoev, Spain 2002.

9.�d2!N Better than the game continuation of

9 .4:Je5? ! 4:Jbd7 1 O .4:Jxd7 4:Jxd7 1 1 .�f4 e6 1 2 .a3 h5+. After the above improvement the black position looks rather dubious.

A) S • . • 4:Jc6!?

In the previous chapter we saw that this move was simply a mistake against 5 .�d2, but in the present position it is by no means bad.

Chapter 7 - 4 .d4 ttJf6 5 .�c4 1 69

6.d5 A principled move, but like White's other

attempts, it fails to give any advantage.

6.lLIf3? �g4 is covered in Chapter 5, under the move order 5 .lLIf3 1L1c6 6.�c4? �g4.

6.lLIge2 should be met by 6 . . . �g4, transposing to line B2 with 5 . . . �g4 6.lLIge2 lLIc6.

6.a3 �g4 7.f3 �e6! 8 .�b5 was seen in Gaston - Hernando Rodrigo, France 2002. Here Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h

8 . . . Wfb6!N With a good position. Instead the game continuation of 8 . . . �d5? ! might have run into trouble after 9 .b4!N Wfb6 1O .lLIge2 0-0-0 I l .Wfd3 a6 1 2 .lLIxd5 lLIxd5 1 3 .�a4 with a plus for White.

6 .�e3 �g4 7.lLIge2 0-0-0 8 .f3? 8 .a3 e5 9 .d5 was still acceptable for White, but he had evidently failed to consider Black's next move.

a b c d e f g h

8 . . . e5 ! ! 9 .d5 9 .fxg4 exd4 1O .lLIxd4 �c5+

9 . . . �e6 1 0.�d2 Wfc5 Black could also have snatched a pawn by means of 1 0 . . . lLIxd5N 1 1 .1LIxd5 Wfc5 .

I l .dxe6 Wfxc4 1 2 .exf7 �c5 1 3 .Wfc 1 �hf8 1 3 . . . e4!N would have been quicker but the black victory is not in question.

14 .�e3 lLId4 1 5 .b3 Wfa6 1 6.0-0 �a3 1 7.Wfb l lLIxe2t 1 8 .lLIxe2 Wfxe2 1 9 .�e l Wfa6 20.b4 Wfc4 2 1 .�c5 �xf7 22.�e3 lLId7 23.�h l lLIxc5 24.�xa3 lLIe6 25 .�xa7 �b8 26.�a3 �d2 27.Wfe l �fd7

0-1 M. Petursson - H. Danielsen, Reykjavik 2008.

6 ... lLIb4! The knight should not be afraid to take

the adventurous option. 6 . . . lLIe5? ! is less good: 7.�b3 �d7 (or 7 . . . �f5 8 .Wfe2 lLIed7 9 .�d2;:!;) 8 .Wfe2 1L1g6 9 .�d2;:!; Mueller - Biolek, Buekfuerdo 1 995 . In both cases Black will have trouble developing the fB-bishop.

a b c d e f g h

7.a3!? 7.lLIge2? loses material after: 7 . . . �f5 8 .lLId4

lLIbxd5 9 .�xd5 lLIxd5 1 O.Wff3 lLIxc3 I l .bxc3 Wfe5t 1 2 .�e3 �e4+ Dirr - Mueller, Germany 2003.

A more interesting alternative is:


7.id2 ig4! A refinement compared to 7 . . . WcS 8 .ibSt id7? (After 8 . . . c6 9 .ie3 Wd6 1 0 .dxc6 White will stand better owing to his superior structure.) 9.ixd7t 'it>xd7 1 0 .ie3 Wd6 I 1 .We2 �d8 1 2 .a3 Wa6 ( 1 2 . . . ttJbxdS ? 1 3 .ttJxdS ttJxdS 1 4.�d l +-) 1 3 .0-0-0 Wxe2 14 .ttJgxe2 ttJa6 I S .ttJbS± Lazic - Hernando Rodrigo, Chalkidiki 2002.

8.ttJf3 ixf3 9 .gxf3

a b c d e f g h

This was Hernandez Leon - Hernando Rodrigo, La Laguna 2007. Despite its perilous appearance, Black should now have opted for:

9 . . . 0-0-0N 1 O.a3 Or 1 0 .ttJbS c6 l 1 .dxc6 bxc6°o .

1 O . . . WcS l 1 .axb4 Wxc4 1 2 .�xa7 ttJxdS The position is messy and holds chances for

both sides.

7 ... c6

8.axb4!? 8 .dxc6 ttJxc6 is equal, so the text move must

be critical .

8 • • • Wxal 9.ttJa On 9.ttJge2, covering the bishop on d ,

Black would have responded with 9 . . . eS ! .

9 . . . e6 This posltlon was reached in Perez -

Hernando Rodrigo, Albox (rapid) 2002. Here White had to play:

10.dxe6N Instead the game continuation of 1 0 .d6?

ixd6 was just winning for Black.

10 . • • he6 1 1 .he6 fxe6 12.0-O The position is rather unclear, an illustrative

line being:

12 • • • hb4 B.We2 0-0 14.Wxe6t 'it>h8 15.ttJa2CD

B) 5 • • • ig4

a b c d e f g h

Just as in the previous chapter, this bishop move represents Black's most principled attempt to challenge the correctness of White's chosen move order. We will analyse both Bl) 6.a and B2) 6.ttJge2.

Chapter 7 - 4 .d4 llJf6 5 . .ic4 1 7 1

6.lDS?! lDc6 reaches a bad version o f line C of Chapter 5 for White.

6.Wd3? brings White trouble after 6 . . . lDc6, while 6.Wd2?! is almost never played and just looks too peculiar to take seriously.

BI) 6.6

After this move Black almost always chooses between BI I) 6 ••• .ih5 and B12) 6 ••• .if5.

He has no reason to restrict himself to: 6 . . . .id7

Although even here proving a white edge is not trivial.

7.lDge2 White can also consider 7 . .id2, transposing to the note to Black's sixth move in line B4 of Chapter 6.

7 . . . e6 8 .0-0 .ie7 9 .lDe4 It looks logical to utilize the position of the f-pawn to provide a solid base for the knight in the centre. 9 .a3 0-0 10 . .if4 c5 1 1 .d5 exd5 1 2 .lDxd5 lDxd5 is quite equal. Another option is 9.rJih l 0-0 1 O . .1f4 b5 1 1 ..id3 c5 1 2 .dxc5 .ixc5 1 3 .a4 ( 1 3 .a3 !?) 13 . . . b4 1 4.lDe4 lDxe4 1 5 .he4 .ic6 1 6.Wd3 .ixe4 1 7.Wxe4 lDd7 when Black had more or less equalized in Kasimdzhanov - L. Milov, Bastia (rapid) 2007.

a b c d e f g h

9 . . . .ib5 In the event of 9 . . . c5?! 1 O .lDxc5 .ixc5 l 1 .dxc5 Wxc5t 1 2 .Wd4 White would stand better in the endgame thanks to his pair of bishops.

1 O . .ib3 Wa6 l 1 .l:!e l .1c4 1 2 . .1xc4 Wxc4 1 3 .b3 Wc6 1 4.c4 0-0

Eating the pawn by means of 1 4 . . . lDxe4? ! 1 5 .fxe4 Wxe4 is of course risky: 1 6 .lDf4 WfS (or 1 6 . . . Wc6 1 7.d5 Wb6t 1 8 .rJih l 0-0 1 9 . .ib2) 1 7.l:!e5 Wf6 1 8 .lDh5 Wg6 1 9 .1:!e3 with more than enough compensation for White.

1 5 .lDf4

a b c d e f g h

Kulaots - Holmsten, Finland 2004. With d4-d5 looming, White certainly has the initiative.

BI I) 6 ••• .ih5 7.lDge2


7 • • • e6 7 . . . ttJc6 transposes to varIation B22 with

6.ttJge2 ttJc6 7.f3 .ihS .

8 • .id2 Wb6 9.g4 .ig6 10.h4 h6 1 O . . . Wxb2? loses to 1 1 ..ib3 , threatening

simultaneously 1 2 .hS and 1 2 .ttJbS followed by �b 1 .

l 1 .ttJf4 This should, at best for White, peter out in a

roughly equal ending. Other possibilities are:

I l ..ib3?! ttJc6 1 2 . .ie3 0-0-0 1 3 .Wd2 .ib4 14.0-0-0 ttJdS I S . .if2 ttJaS 1 6.hS .ih7 White has been outplayed over the last half-dozen of moves. His next move looks like a desperate try to generate some activity. 1 7.gS ttJxb3t 1 8 .cxb3 hxgS 1 9 .WxgS WaS 20.ttJxdS exdS 2 1 .a4 �he8 22.Wxg7 �xe2 23 .Wxh7 �xf2 24.WfSt �b8 2S .Wf6 �c8 26.�d3 Wb6 0- 1 Movsesian - Kogan, Nova Gorica 2000.

I I .a4 a6 (Even the suspicious-looking 1 1 . . . ttJc6 1 2 .aS Wxb2 is not so clear, although it would not be my first choice as Black.) 1 2 . .ib3 ( 1 2 .aS? Wc6Ft=) This position was reached in Rosito - A. Rodriguez, Villa Gesell 1 997, and here I suggest:

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . ttJc6!N (In the game Black obtained roughly equal chances after 1 2 . . . ttJbd7, but the text move is more active. ) 1 3 .aS Wa7 1 4 . .ia4

What else? 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 l S . .ixc6 bxc6 Black will follow up with . . . cS, after which he will obtain superb piece play. There is no way for White to profit from the rather weak black king.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1 l • • . ttJc6! 1 1 . . . .ih7?! is less judicious because of 1 2 .dS!

(instead 1 2 .We2?! ttJc6 would be at least equal for Black) 1 2 . . . eS 1 3 .We2 ttJbd7 1 4.0-0-0 0-0-0 l S .ttJd3 Wd4 Thuesen - Fries Nielsen, Copenhagen 1 99 1 , and now 1 6.ttJf2N would have yielded White a slight edge.

12.ttJxg6 fxg6 13.ttJe2 The evaluation is similar after 1 3 .ttJa4 Wxd4

14.We2 WeS , Berg - Kovacevic, Kusadasi 2006.

13 • • • e5 14.c3 exd4 15.Wb3 Wxb3 16.hb3 This was Movsesian - Azarov, Dresden

2007. White's bishop pair and better pawnstructure provides reasonable compensation for the missing pawn, but he can hardly hope for an advantage.

B12) 6 • • • .if5 7.ttJge2

7.g4 This is not great, but does not seem to lead to a worse position either: 7 . . . .id7 8 . .id2 Wb6 9 .We2 ttJc6 1 0.dS ttJd4 I 1 .Wd3 0-0-0 1 2 .0-0-0 eS 1 3 .ttJge2 Mack - Prie, West

Chapter 7 - 4 .d4 lLlf6 S .i.c4 1 73

Bromwich 2004. Here instead of 1 3 . . . lLlxe2t 14 .Wfxe2 Ad6, I would suggest either l 3 . . . AcSN or l 3 . . . hSN.

7.Ad2 Wfb6 7 . . . c6 is playable but less dynamic.

8 .lLlge2 lLlbd7 Black can also play 8 . . . e6, after which I am not convinced that White has anything better than transposing to line B 1 1 with 9 .g4 Ag6 1O .h4 h6 1 1 .lLlf4 lLlc6 and so on.

9 .Ab3 e6 1 0 .0-0 0-0-0 1 0 . . . Ad6!?

1 1 .Wfe l h5

a b c d e f g h

White may be a tad better here, but the position is so rich that Black has decent chances anyway, and the game Boudre - Prie, French Team Ch 2008, was eventually drawn after a long fight.

a b c d e f g h

7 . . . e6 Black has a couple of other playable options

as well:

7 . . . c6 8 .g4 Ag6 9 .lLlf4 (or 9 .h4 h6 1 0 .lLlf4 Ah7 1 1 .Wfe2 lLla6! 1 2 .Ae3 lLlb4 l 3 .Ab3 Palac - Prie, Nizza 1 994, 1 3 . . . 0-0-0N 1 4.0-0-0 e6 with equality.) 9 . . . lLlbd7 1 O .h4 e5 1 1 .h5

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . . . Axc2!N (Black chose the weaker 1 1 . . .Af5? 1 2 .gxf5 exf4 in Yudasin - all, Dos Hermanas 1 992, which could have led to problems after l 3 .Wfe2t!N) 1 2 .Wfxc2 exd4 Black will recover the piece while keeping an extra pawn, although White will have enough compensation to render the position unclear.

7 . . . lLlbd7 8 .g4 Ag6 9 .h4 Or 9 .lLlf4 e5 1 O .lLlxg6 hxg6 1 1 .g5? lLlh5 1 2 .Ad2, Perdomo - Peredy, Budapest 1 995 , 12 . . . Wfb6!+.

9 . . . h6 1 O.lLlf4 1 0 .Ad2 should not to be feared either: 1 0 . . . 0-0-0! ? (or 1 0 . . . Wfb6 1 1 .lLlf4 O-O-O! 1 2 .h5 [ 1 2 .lLlxg6 fxg6 l 3 .Wfe2 e5 1 4 .dxe5 lLlxe5 1 5 .0-0-0 lLlxc4 1 6.Wfxc4 Ab4=l 1 2 . . . Ah7 [ 1 2 . . .'�xd4! ?l 1 3 .Wfe2 [ 1 3 .Axf7 eSl 13 . . . e6 1 4 .0-0-0 c6 and Black is okay) 1 1 .h5 Ah7 1 2 .Axf7 e5 l 3 .d5 Wfb6 with promising compensation.

1O . . . e5 1 1 .lLlxg6 fxg6 1 2 .Ad2 O-O-O!


a b c d e f g h

1 3 .dS 1 3 .lLldS? Wa4 14 . .tb3 Wa6 I S .We2 Wxe2t 1 6.�xe2 exd4 1 7.lLlxf6 gxf6+

1 3 . . . lLlb6! 13 . . . .tb4 1 4.We2 was Kavalek - Larsen, Beverwijk 1 967, and here Black would have been fine after 1 4 . . . lLlb6N.

1 4.We2 White is not helped by 1 4.lLlbS .tb4 I S .c3 lLlxc4, or 1 4 . .tb3 .tb4 I S .a3 hc3 1 6 . .txc3 WcS 1 7 . .tb4 We3t.

1 4 . . . lLlxc4 I S .Wxc4 lLlxdS+ Y2-Y2 Cornette - Pril!, French Cup 2004.

a b c d e f g h

8.g4 The dull 8 .0-0 led to equality after 8 . . . lLlbd7

9.lLlg3 .tg6 1 0 .We2 0-0-0 I l .a3 eS in Lemmers - Mann, Germany 200S .

8 ... .tg6 9.h4

Having said ''A'' , White is committed to saying "B" . Instead 9 .lLlf4? rapidly turned into a nightmare for White in the following game: 9 . . . lLlc6 1 O.h4 (This does not help to hold the white position together, but even the superior 1 O . .tbS would not have been much fun for him.) 1 0 . . . 0-0-0 1 1 .hS l:!xd4 1 2 .We2 .txc2 1 3 . .te3 .td6 1 4.lLlg2 .tg3t I S .�fl

a b c d e f g h

I S . . . l:!xc4! 1 6.Wxc4 lLleS 1 7.WcS .td3t 1 8 .lLle2 .txe2t 1 9 .�xe2 Wa6t 20.�dl l:!d8t 0-1 Brochet - Bauer, Vandoeuvre-Ies-Nancy 2008.

9 • • • h6 9 . . . Wb4?! is inferior: 1 0 . .tb3 h6 I l .a3

We7 1 2 .lLlf4 .th7 1 3 .We2 lLlc6 1 4 . .te3 eS? ( 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 was better, although after I S .0-0-0 the whole white army is mobilized and the pawn breaks d4-dS and g4-gS are on the agenda.) I S .lLlfdS! lLlxdS 1 6.lLlxdS Wd7 1 7.dxeS 0-0-0 1 8 .0-0-0+- Gelman - Kvasov, Kstovo 1 994

lo.lLlf4 .th7 1 O . . . lLlc6? works fine after the insertion of

the moves .tcl -d2 and . . . WaS-b6, but here it is disastrous. 1 1 .lLlxg6 fxg6 1 2 . .txe6 l:!d8 1 3 .dS .td6 1 4.Wd3 lLle7 I S . .td2 c6 1 6 .0-0-0 bS 1 7.dxc6 b4 1 8 .lLlbS .tc7 1 9 .Wc4 a6 20.lLlxc7t Wxc7 2 1 . .tf4 1-0 Berg - Larino Nieto, Calvia 2007.

H.d5!?

Chapter 7 - 4 .d4 lLlf6 5 .ic4 17S

This has only been played in a few games, but it may well be critical .

It is also important to check the following alternative: I l .id2 VMb4!? 0 1 . . . VMb6 has been played a few times and has scored reasonably well, but the more adventurous queen move seems quite promising.) 1 2 .ib3 VMxd4 1 3 .VMe2 lLlc6 1 4.gS hxgS I S .hxgS id3 1 6.VMg2 VMeSt 1 7 .�d l :gxh l t I B .VMxh l ia6 1 9 .9xf6 0-0-0

a b c d e f g h

In return for the sacrificed piece Black has become dangerously active.

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . • • lLlxd5!N This is an important improvement over the

two moves that have previously been tested.

1 1 . . .exd5? , Castillo Sanz - Fernandez Garcia, Benidorm 2004, is inadvisable due

to 1 2 .VMe2t!N ie7 1 3 .g5 dxc4 1 4.gxf6 gxf6 I S .lLlfdS lLlc6 1 6.lLlxf6t �dB 1 7.lLlxh7.

1 1 . . . eS is not as bad as the above, but the move still fails to equalize after 1 2 .lLld3 lLlbd7, Nicolai - Nabuurs, Venlo 200B, 1 3 .VMe2N 0-0-0 1 4.id2 VMb6 I S .0-0-0;l;.

12.ixd5 1 2 .lLlfxdS exdS should be equal.

12 • • • exd5 13.lLlfxd5 lLlc6 1 3 . . . c6? 1 4.VMe2t �dB can be refuted

spectacularly by means of: I s .if4! ! cxdS 1 6.0-0-0+-

14.VMe2t �d7 Black will castle by hand, with . . . . :geB and

. . . �cB. I believe that Black is not worse, and his bishop pair could easily become a potent force with the centre wide open.

B2) 6.lLlge2

6 • • • lLlc6 Accelerating development and at the same

time exerting pressure on d4 represents the


most ambitious approach for Black. There is however nothing wrong with the modest 6 . . . e6 7.0-0 lDbd7 8 .f3 .ifS 9.lDg3 .ig6 1 O .lDce4 .ie7 1 1 .c3 c6 1 2 .�e2 0-0 1 3 .a4 �c7 1 4.a5 c5 1 5 .dxc5 lDxe4 1 6 .lDxe4 lDxc5 1 7.lDxc5 .ixc5t 1 8 .<t!ih1 gac8 1 9 .b3 .id6 20 . .ie3 Black had equalized but he committed here an incredible blunder:

a b c d e f g h

20 . . . .ixh2?? 2 1 .f4 .ig3 22.�g4 And the bishop was lost, Vajda - Papaioannou, Plovdiv 2008.

7.£3 This move is by now virtually forced anyway, as the following alternative leads to complications that favour Black.

7.0-0? 0-0-0 8 . .ixf7 8 .f3 .ifS (8 . . . .ie6?! is worse and above all unnecessary, and after 9 . .ixe6t fxe6 1 O .�d3 the position is unclear.) 9 . .ie3 e5 1 0 .d5 .ic5 l 1 .�c l lDb4 1 2 . .ib3 This was Belmonte -Soppe, Salta 1 995 , and here the strongest continuation would have been 1 2 . . . .ixc2!N when Black will likely end up with two extra pawns instead of only one.

8 . . . lDxd4 9.�xd4 The best practical chance, but ultimately the rook and knight will be no match for Black's queen.

9 . . . gxd4 1 0 .lDxd4 e5 1 1 .lDb3 �b4 12 . .ie3 a6 1 3 .lDd5 �d6 14.lDxf6 gxf6 1 5 .f3 �d7 1 6 .fxg4 V'Nxf7 1 7.gfS .ie7 1 8 .lDd2 �g6 1 9 .h3

a b c d e f g h

1 9 . . . h5 ! Breaking the blockade.

20.gxh5 gxh5 2 1 .gxh5 �xh5 22.gfl �e2 23 . .ih6 e4 24.gfS e3 25 .lDfl .ic5 26.gB �xf3

0-1 Dubois - Sulskis, Cappelle la Grande 200 1 .

a b c d e f g h

In this position Black can consider the standard bishop retreats of B21) 7 ••• .if5?! and B22) 7 • • • .ih5, as well as the intriguing possibility of B23) 7 ••• .ie6!?

B21) 7 • • . .if5?!

This natural move is an inaccuracy. The major drawback is that the bishop does not defend the f7 -pawn, which can lead to significant problems as we will soon see.

Chapter 7 - 4 .d4 tiJf6 5 .i.c4 1 77

8.,id2! 8 .g4?! would fail to exploit Black's mistake,

and after 8 . . . ,ig6 we reach line B22 below.

8 .,ie3 is less challenging than the main line. 8 . . . tDb4!? (This knight jump keeps the game more complicated than 8 . . . e5 9 .dxe5 tDxe5 1 0 .,ib3 l:%d8 I 1 .Wlc1 ,ic5= which occurred in Szabo - Hasangatin, Budapest 1 997.) 9 .,ib3 e6 1 0 .0-0 0-0-0 1 1 .,if2 (This prophylactic retreat is aimed at avoiding a loss of time in the event of . . . tDd5. ) 1 1 . . .c5 1 2 .Wlc1 tDc6 1 3 .l:%d l cxd4 14 .tDxd4 tDxd4 1 5 .l:%xd4 l:%xd4 1 6.i.xd4 ,ic5 Black had equalized in Fries Nielsen - Danielsen, Aalborg 2000.

8 • • • tDb4 A few other moves have been tried, but Black

falls short of equality in all cases.

8 . . . 0-0-0 9 .a3! 9 .,ixf7?! allows counterplay after either 9 . . . tDxd4 1 O .tDxd4 l:%xd4 I 1 .Wle2 e5, Rolletschek Donegani, Schwarzach 1 999, or 9 . . . e5 1 0.d5 tDd4, Schuette -Mossakowski, Germany 2007. 9 .tDd5 is also insufficient to claim an edge: 9 . . . Wla4 1 O .,ib3 Wla6 l 1 .tDe3 K. Rasmussen - Steckner, Aarhus 1 993, and now 1 1 . . . ,ig6N would have been fine for Black.

9 . . . tDxd4 1 0 .tDxd4 l:%xd4 l 1 .tDb5

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . . .Wlb6 Another option is 1 1 . . .Wlxd2t 1 2.Wlxd2 l:%xd2 1 3 .'kt>xd2. This position has been reached in the analogous situation with the bishop on h5 , but the assessment remains the same in both cases: White stands slightly better.

1 2 .tDxd4 Wlxd4 1 3 .i.xf7! Black will not obtain enough compensation after this capture, as demonstrated by the following game:

1 3 . . . Wlxb2 14 .,ib3 e5 1 5 .0-0 ,ic5t 1 6.'it>h l l:%d8 1 7.Wle2±

Kulaots - Seeman, Estonia 2004.

8 . . . Wlb4 9 .,ib3 9 .b3 is worse and only leads to unclear play after 9 . . . Wld6 1 0 .,if4 Wld7 l 1 .tDb5 l:%c8 (or 1 1 . . . 0-0-0! ? 1 2 .,ixc7 a6 1 3 .i.xd8 axb5 Kirillov - Kabanov, Novosibirsk 2002) 1 2.a3 ( 1 2 .d5? ! tDb4) 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 .tDbc3 e6= Sofrigin - Donegani , Schwarzach 1 998 .

9 . . . 0-0-0 1 0 .d5

a b c d e f g h

1 0 . . . tDe5 10 . . . tDa5? loses material after l 1 .tDa4 Wlh4t 1 2 .g3, or 1 1 . . .Wlb5 1 2 .tDd4.

l 1 .tDg3 ,id7 1 1 . . . e6 1 2 .Wle2 ,id6 1 3 .tDge4±

1 2 .Wle2 tDg6 1 3 .0-0-0± Ye Jiangchuan - Varga, Budapest 1 992. Black

cannot conveniently finish his development and his queen feels insecure.


9J�cl! Alternatives are not so clear, for instance

9 .ib3 'iWa6, or 9 .0-0 ixc2 1 0.'iWc 1 id3 1 1 .b3 ixe2 1 2 .ixe2 ttJc6.

9 . . . 'iWb6!? An attempt to avoid 9 . . . 0-0-0 l O .a3 ttJc6

when 1 1 .Eia l ! ? transposes into 8 . . . 0-0-0 in the note to Black's 8th move above.

10.a3 ttJa6 1 l .ib5t!? 1 1 .b4 was also strong.

1 l .•• id7 Black is also worse after 1 1 . . .c6 1 2 .ttJa4 'iWd8

( 1 2 . . . 'iWxb5? 1 3 .c4) 1 3 .ixa6 bxa6 14 .0-0, as the two bishops do not fully compensate for his ruined queens ide structure.

12.hd7t ttJxd7 This was Riff - Lagunes, St Chely d'Aubrac

2005 , and here White could have secured an advantage with:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

13.b4!N Preventing the freeing . . . c5 break

and highlighting the misplacement of the knight on a6. Instead the game saw 1 3 .ttJd5? ! , at which point Black could have complicated matters with 1 3 . . . 'iWxb2!N 1 4.Eib 1 'iWxa3°o.

B22) 7 • • • ih5

This is a sounder option than the previous one, and has been Black's most frequently played choice in the position.

8.id2 White does not seem to gain much from the

weakening: 8 .g4?! ig6

The piece sacrifice 8 . . . 0-0-0?! is too optimistic, even though after 9 .gxh5 ttJe5 l O .id3 (or l O .dxe5 Eixd 1 t 1 1 .cj;>xd1 'iWxe5 1 2 .ixf7) 1 0 . . . ttJxf3t 1 1 .cj;>f2 ttJxd4 1 2 .ttJxd4 Eixd4, Duras - Mieses, Karlsbad 1 907, the exposed white king gave Black something approaching sufficient compensation.

a b c d e f g h

9.h4

Chapter 7 - 4 .d4 lDf6 5 .ic4 1 79

The attempt to capture the black queen, by 9 .a3? ! 0-0-0 1 O .if4 backfired severely in the following game. (On 1 O .id2 there is 10 . . . liJxd4. Then 1 1 .liJxd4 l!xd4 1 2 .liJb5 �b6 1 3 .liJxd4 �xd4 1 4.�e2 is a bad version of the 8 .id2 line for White) 10 . . . e5 1 1 .b4 �b6

a b c d e f g h

Now in Aagaard - M. Johansen, Ringsted 1 995 , White could find nothing better than 1 2 .dxe5 . He had almost certainly intended 1 2 .liJa4, but after 1 2 . . . ixb4t! 1 3 .�f2 �a5 1 4 .axb4 �xb4 Black will recover the sacrificed piece while keeping two extra pawns.

9 . . . e5!N This strong move does not appear to have been tested. Two other moves have been tried, but since I believe my new idea to be a clear improvement, I will not explore them in too much detail here. 9 . . . 0-0-0 1 0 .h5 liJxd4 1 1 .liJxd4 e5 1 2 .hxg6 exd4 1 3 .gxf7!N ( l 3 .ixf7?? ib4 - + Chernetsky - Sherstiuk, Odessa 1 997) 1 3 . . . ic5 14 .�e2 dxc3 1 5 .b3°o The white king's safety is a concern, the f7 -pawn defended by the bishop on c4 is a mighty trump. 9 . . . h5? ! 1 O .g5 liJd7 1 1 .liJf4! ( l l .id2 0-0-0 is good for Black.) Lupu - Andreescu, Bucharest 1 993, and now 1 1 . . . if5!N would have kept the game unclear.

a b c d e f g h

1 O .id2 It makes sense to develop while also shielding the white queen in anticipation of . . . 0-0-0.

1 0 . . . exd4 1 O . . . liJb4 seems more murky, and after 1 1 .l!cl exd4 1 2 .liJb5 White threatens both a2-a3 and h4-h5 .

1 1 .liJd5 1 1 .liJb5 is met by 1 1 . . .ib4.

1 1 . . .�c5 1 2 .liJxc7t �d7 1 3 .liJxa8 �xc4 The white knight is trapped in the corner,

and thanks to the attack on c2 Black will have sufficient time to safeguard the bishop on g6. The second player stands clearly better.

8 . . . 0-0-0

a b c d e f g h

9.a3 9.liJd5? !

This already gives Black a little edge:


9 . . . 1Wa4 1 O . .ib3 l O .b3 Wfa3 I l .lDxf6 gxf6 1 2.lDf4 Rogic -Golubovic, Pula 2000 ended with a point split here, but Black, could have carried on with 1 2 . . . .ig6.

1 O . . . 1Wa6 1 1 .lDxf6 gxf6 l 2.dS The insertion of the moves 1 2 .c3 ? eS proved more useful to Black who soon netted a pawn 1 3 .dS lDaS 1 4.:1k l lDc4 I S . .ixc4 1Wxc4 1 6 .1Wb3 1Wxb3 1 7.axb3 !!xdS, Jantzen - H . Danielsen, Germany 2000. With the pair of bishops and an extra pawn in the endgame the case is settled.

l 2 . . . lDaS 1 3 .lDf4 .ig6 1 4.1We2 1Wxe2t I S .l!lxe2 lDxb3 1 6 .axb3?!

1 6.cxb3 was correct.

a b c d e f g h

1 6 . . . .ixc2!N Mter the inferior 16 . . . a6? ! 1 7.c4 a draw was agreed in Hamdouchi - Tkachiev, French Team Ch. 1 999. Instead the text move would have enabled him to claim some advantage.

1 7.!!hc l .ixb3 1 8 .!!xa7 eS There is also 1 8 . . . l!lb8 1 9 .!!a3 .ixdS 20.lDxdS !!xdS 2 1 .!!ca l , when White has good chances to hold.

1 9 .dxe6 fxe6 White will have to fight for a draw.

9 .lDbS 1Wb6 l O .a4 Instead White can take a draw by repetition from which his opponent can hardly deviate:

1 0 .lDec3 lDxd4 I l .lDa4 1Wa6 1 2 .lDcS 1Wb6= 1 O . . . lDxd4 I l .lDbxd4 eS

1 1 . . .!!xd4! ? 1 2 .lDxd4 1Wxd4 is the same as the main line below (see the game Mitkov - Golubovic, with 9 .a3 lDxd4 l O.lDbS 1Wb6 I l .lDbxd4 1Wxd4 and so on) , with the white pawn on a4 instead of a3 . This does not seem to affect the evaluation in any serious way.

1 2 .aS ! ? White can also continue in the same vein as the games featuring 9 .a3 .

1 2 . . . 1WcS 1 3 . .ie6t I!lb8 1 4.lDb3 1We7 I S . .ic4 e4 1 6 .0-0 e3 1 7.a6 exd2 1 8 .axb7

with obscure consequences.

9 • • • lDxd4

8 �.�� _ �.i '0 ��J.r

�'' ' ' 'Y-�.r�''' ' 'Y,�,�, , , , ,

7 � i w� w� i w� i . " , , %� . " , , %� " · "%r·//.{ ""%� : 5J.�� .�.i. 4 " '.'.�� 3 ��f" '�!� " ' ' ' %®'�' ' ' ' ' ;�'0 �� ®'0 2 w� 8 �ttJ. 8 w� 1 m ""%.iir'0��

'� a b c d e f g h

lO.lDb5 The other possibility is:

1 0 .lDxd4 !!xd4 On 1 O . . . 1WcS White has I l .lDe6! , when he also wins an exchange for one pawn or acquires a positional plus after 1 1 . . . fxe6 1 2 . .ixe6t I!lb8 1 3 .1We2.

1 1 .lDbS !!xd2! ? This i s an extra option compared to what Black can do after 1 0 .lDbS. However, it seems to me that Black's prospects are lower here, so he should prefer 1 1 . . . 1Wb6 which transposes into l O .lDbS.

l 2 .1Wxd2 1Wxd2t 1 3 .l!lxd2 c6 1 4.lDc3 e6

Chapter 7 - 4 .d4 tLlf6 5 .i.c4 1 8 1

Black has a pawn for the sacrificed exchange, plus the pair of bishops and a solid position . He thus has fairly reasonable drawing chances, but stands objectively worse.

10 .. .'IWb6 1 1 .tt:lbxd4 1 1 .tt:lexd4?! is inferior. Apart from the

customary 1 1 .. Jhd4, Black can also consider the extra options of 1 1 . . .a6 and 1 1 . . . e5 .

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . . J�xd4 This exchange sacrifice is critical for the

viability of the whole line, especially if White resorts to the 1 O.tt:lxd4 move order.

It should be noted that in the present position, Black has a very interesting alternative available in the piece sacrifice: 1 1 . . . eS ! ?

This leads to fascinating complications. Some of the following analysis is from Karsten Mueller in ChessBase Magazine.

a) 1 2 .tt:lb3!? e4 1 3 .tt:lf4 ( l 3 .'1Wc1 exf3 1 4.gxf3 .ixf3 I S .�fl is difficult to assess properly, but Black certainly has decent compensation for the piece.) 1 3 . . . e3 1 4 .i.d3 exd2t I S .�xd2 should be equal.

b) 1 2 .tt:lfS e4 1 3 .tt:leg3

8 7 6 5 4 3

V-='''."".,,,

2

a b c d e f g h

1 3 . . . .icS There is also 1 3 . . . exf3 1 4.gxf3 �e8t I S .�fl �c6; Mueller concludes here that Black has enough compensation, which is true. Play might continue: 1 6 . .ie2 (or 1 6 . .id3 .ixf3 1 7.tt:ld4 .ig2t 1 8 .�f2 .ics 1 9 . .ie3oo) 1 6 . . . �xe2 1 7.tt:ld4 �xd2 (or 17 . . . .icS 1 8 .tt:lgxe2 .ixd4 1 9 .tt:lxd4 �c4t 20.�g2 �xd4) 1 8 .�xd2 �dSoo

1 4.b4 1 4.tt:lxhS? is too acrobatic. 14 . . . e3 I S .tt:lhxg7 exd2t 1 6.�fl �xb2 1 7.�a2 �eS

a b c d e f g h

The white army is remarkably uncoordinated! The threat is . . . �hg8xg7 followed by . . . �e3 or . . . tt:ldS.

14 . . . .igl There is also 1 4 . . . .if2t!?N I S .�fl e3 1 6.i.d3 exd2 1 7.�xd2 i.xg3 1 8 .hxg3, when we reach an unclear position with level material .

I S .�e2 exf3 1 6.tt:le7t �b8 1 7 .gxf3 �xd2


a b c d e f g h

1 8 .1!9xd2 1 8 .'j( xd2? is inferior 1 8 . . . 1!9d4t 1 9 . .id3 1!9xa l Black is a pawn up and the pin on the .igl is counterbalanced by the adventurous knight on e7.

1 8 . . . .ixf3 1 9 .1'%d l ixd l 20.cj{xd l .ie3 2 1 .1!9d3 lDg4 22.lDe4 lDeS 23 .1!9dS .if4

According to the database the game Palac -Tkachiev, Pula 1 999, stops here with the result 1-0, which is a bit mysterious as the position remains rather murky. Perhaps he lost on time? Instead of his last move 23 . . . lDxc4 24.1!9xc4 1'%d8t was also unclear and roughly balanced.

c) 1 2 .g4?!

a b c d e f g h

Finally we have this rather creative move which, unfortunately for White, seems a bit too optimistic.

1 2 . . . lDxg4!N 12 . . . .ig6 was Black's choice in Morozevich Tkachiev, New Delhi ( 1 ) 2000, which ended

in a draw after numerous adventures. The text move is considerably stronger, and can be considered the refutation of White's last move, unless the first player can find a major improvement in what follows. Incidentally, there was even a second promising continuation in 1 2 . . . 1'%xd4!?N 1 3 .lDxd4 1!9xd4, when we have reached the same position as in the main line below (Mitkov - Golubovic) , with the addition of the moves g2-g4 and . . . e7-eS . This can hardly be advantageous to White, so Black should be quite happy here too.

1 3 .fxg4 .ixg4 1 4.lDbS a6 I S .lDbc3 .ie7 1 6.1!9c1 1!9c6

With compensation according to Morozevich. However, if we look a little deeper we will in fact see that White's best is the pretty grim:

1 7.idS 1'%xdS 1 8 .lDxdS 1!9xdS 1 9 .1Dg3 5=+ When Black is in full control.

12.lDxd4 1!9xd4 13.1!ge2 1!9xb2 14.0-0 e6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black has two pawns for the exchange but his king is rather lonely for the time being. If he can consolidate his position then he will stand at least equal, so the question is whether White can prevent that from happening.

15J:!abl !

Chapter 7 - 4.d4 lLlf6 5 .ic4 1 83

White later on tested a couple of alternatives, both of which proved inferior. Curiously, he wound up in the same type of dreadful endgame in both instances:

I S .WI'f2 ttJd7 1 6.ie3 Wl'c3 1 7.ibS c6 1 8 .id4 Wl'xd4 1 9 .WI'xd4 ics 20.WI'xcS ttJxcS Rowson Hodgson, Southend 200 1 .

I s .ib4 ttJd7 1 6.i>h l Wl'eS 1 7.WI'd2 id6 1 8 .ixd6 Wl'xd6 1 9 .WI'aS Wl'cS 20.WI'xcS ttJxcS

a b c d e f g h

Abdil - Saric, Neum 2008. In this kind of ending Black can slowly improve his position and press for a win without any risk. He converted his edge in both encounters.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15 • • • WI'd4t?! This was Black's choice in the only available

Also unsatisfactory is: I S . . . WI'xa3? !

This seems too risky. 1 6.ie3

But not 1 6.�a l ? icst 1 7 .i>hl Wl'b2. 1 6 . . . a6

In the event of 16 . . . ics the following sequence looks convincing: 1 7.�b3 Wl'aS 1 8 .�bS ixe3t 1 9 .WI'xe3 Wl'a4 20.WI'd4 Wl'xc2 2 1 .�d l And Black is unable to deal with the dual threats of 22.�bb 1 followed by 23.WI'xa7, and 22.�xhS ttJxhS 23 .WI'd7t �b8 24.WI'd8t �xd8 2S .�xd8 mate.

1 7.�fd l ics 1 8 .�d3 Wl'aS 1 9 .�db3 The black king's shelter will soon be shaken.

However, the correct continuation was I s . . . icst!N 1 6.i>h l Wl'd4, when the position remains unclear.

16.ie3 Wl'e5 Mitkov - Golubovic, Pula 2000. Here White

could have decided the game in spectacular fashion.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17.ia6!N The game continuation of 1 7.WI'f2 ended

in an eventual victory for White, but the text move crushes all resistance.

practical encounter, but it is a mistake. 17 • • • bxa6 18.WI'xa6t �d7 19.WI'a4t! �c8


19 . . . i'e7 is no better due to 20.1.Wxa7 lLld7, and now the quiet 2 1 .1'%fd 1 leaves Black powerless against 22.1'%b7xc7.

20.1.Wxa7 i>d7 21 .1.Wa4t i>c8

a b c d e f g h

22JUdl !! i.d6 Taking the bishop with check is of no help:

22 . . . 1.Wxe3t 23.i'h 1 i.d6 24.1'%xd6! cxd6 25 .1.Wc6t +-

23J�xd6 1.Wxd6 24.1.WaSt i>d7 25.1.WxhS+-Despite this beautiful finish Black need not

despair, as he has an improvement available on move 1 5 ; not to mention some earlier alternatives such as the following bishop retreat.

B23) 7 • • • i.e6!?

This unusual withdrawal of the bishop seems simpler than its alternatives, without compromising on objective correctness.

S.i.b5 8 .d5? is plainly bad: 8 . . . 0-0-0 9 .lLlf4

(or 9 .i.d2 lLlxd5! 1 O .lLlxd5 1.Wc5) 9 . . . i.xd5 1 O .i.xd5 lLlxd5 1 1 .lLlfxd5 e6 And Black ends up with an extra pawn.

The other candidate is of course: 8 .i.xe6 fxe6

From here Black will quickly succeed in swapping e6 for d4. He then remains with an isolated e-pawn, but gets good piece play in return.

9 .i.e3 Another game continued 9 .0-0 0-0-0 1 0 .1.Wd3 e5 (there is no sense in the dubious 1 O . . . lLlb4 1 1 .1.Wc4 lLlxc2?! 1 2 .1'%b l ) 1 1 .1.WfSt i'b8 1 2 .dxe5 lLlxe5 1 3 .';t>h l lLlc6 14 .1.Wxa5 lLlxa5 1 5 .i.f4 e6 1 6.1'%ad l i.c5 1 7.b3 lLlc6 1 8 .lLla4 Y2-Y2 Gross - L. Milov, Germany 2003.

9 . . . 0-0-0 1 O .1.Wc 1 e5 The position can be considered dynamically equal, and a tough fight lies ahead.

a b c d e f g h I I .dxe5 lLlxe5

1 1 . . . 1.Wxe5! ? 1 2 .0-0 lLlc4 1 3 .i.f2 e5 14 .1.Wg5 lLlxb2 1 5 .1'%ab l

This was Bologan - Tomczak, Warsaw 2006, and here Black should have played:

Chapter 7 - 4 .d4 lLlf6 5 .ic4 1 8 5

1 5 . . . lLlc4!N When it is doubtful that White has enough

compensation.

8 .i. � '�.� � '0 �::'0 '0 ��r�""" \��r�'" ' ' 7 � . � f� ' f� ' '' ' , , %� .� r.""%�

: i0'�� ' � , J��ft�� : ��N '�!� �j}Jrt N� �� j}J" 2 8/��[j 1 � �i8?< !< . : a b c d e f g h

8 • • . 0-0-0 The untested B . . .'IWb6!?N may be more

appropriate. Then 9.lLlf4 0-0-0 (or 9 . . . a6) is fine for Black. White can also try 9 .ie3 0-0-0 1 O .�d2, although here 1 0 . . . lLld5 looks satisfactory.

9 . .bc6 bxc6 10.id2 �a6 1 O . . . if5!?N could be an improvement,

intending . . . e6 or . . . e5 .

1 1 .0-0 In the following game White first set out

to neutralize his opponent's counterplay by means of 1 1 .b3 if5 1 2 .lLla4 e6 1 3 .�c 1 . He went on to seize a lasting edge after 13 . . . lLld5 ( l 3 . . . id6!N was better) 1 4.�f2 lLlb6 1 5 .lLlc5 ixc5 1 6.dxc5 lLld7 1 7 .ie3 e5 1 BJ::id l ig6 1 9 .c4;l; Sturua - Soppe, Yerevan 1 996.

1 1 • • • c5 1 1 . . .h5 ! ?N was worth considering.

12.dxc5 ic4 This was M. Socko - Sulskis, Poland 2007.

At this point White could have hung to her extra pawn with:

a b c d e f g h

13.b3!N .be2 14.lLlxe2 With b4 to follow.

The whole line with 7 . . . ie6!? requires further practical testing. It seems to me that Black's position is perfectly viable, and I have identified a number of improvements and other potential areas requiring further investigation.

Conclusion

Black has a few interesting ways to meet the system with 4.d4 and 5 .ic4. He can unbalance the game with 5 . . . lLlc6, which seems to lead to unclear complications. The more popular 5 . . . ig4 will usually provoke the weakening f2-f3 during the next move or two, thus leading to complex, double-edged positions in which Black seems to be holding his own.

Chapter 8

Black delays . . . ttJf6: Die Konigspringer

zuriickhaltungspolitik

a b c d e f g h

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 %Vxd5 3.�c3 %Va5 4.d4 c6 5 . .ic4 .if5

A) 6.i.d2 e6 AI ) 7.g4 A2) 7.d5 B) 6.VfJe2

1 88 1 90 1 92 1 94


Some players have experimented with leaving the g8-knight where it is, even though . . . lLlg8-f6 is as natural a developing move as one could wish for. This line has acquired the catchy name of the Konigspringerzuruckhal tungspolitik (which can be translated as: "policy of not developing the king's knight") variation. One of Black's ideas is to avoid lLlc3-d5xf6t, while in certain variations he might even be able to consider developing the knight on e7. This concept was recommended by GM Matthias Wahls, but the Konigspringerzuruckhaltungspolitik suffers from one essential drawback: it gives White the opportunity to seize space on the kingside, which increases his options without any significant counterbalancing gain for Black.

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3.lLlc3 �a5 4.d4 c6 5.ic4 if5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

We will now examine how White can draw profit from the absence of the enemy knight at f6. White should choose between A) 6.idl and B) 6.�e2, while instead 6 .lLlf3 would only offer Black additional possibilities, such as a later . . . lLle7. Many lines from this section are based on the analysis of Prie and Mate, in ChessBase Magazine.

A) 6.idl e6

And here we will analyse both AI) 7.g4 and A2) 7.d5 in detail, after first checking a few other possibilities.

7.�e2 should be met by: 7 . . . ib4!

a b c d e f g h

The main feature of Black's set-up. B .O-O-O

B .g4 ixc2! ? (B . . . ig6 transposes into 6.�e2 e6 7.g4) 9 .a3 ig6 l OJ%d 1 ( l 0 .f4! ?oo) 1 0 . . . ixc3 1 1 .ixc3 �c7 1 2 .d5 cxd5 1 3 .ixg7 dxc4 1 4.ixhB id3�

B . . . lLlf6 9.a3 hc3 1 O .ixc3 �c7 1 1 .d5 This active attempt does not alter the assessment of equality.

1 1 . . . cxd5 1 2 .ixd5 lLlxd5 1 3 J%xd5 0-0 1 4 .E:d2 lLlc6 1 5 .lLlf3 E:fdB=

De Firmian - Nakamura, San Diego 2004.

An unusual and very interesting idea is: 7.�f3! ?

This queen manoeuvre loses a bit of time, but is not without venom.

7 . . . ib4 7 . . . ixc2?! B .d5 (or B .E:c1 first) is obviously risky, but Black may hold after B . . . lLld7.

B .�g3 ig6 9 .0-0-0 Other moves are not troublesome for Black: 9 .lLlf3 lLld7 1 0 .a3 lLlgf6 1 1 .0-0 ixc3 1 2 .,txc3 �b6 with the idea of meeting 1 3 .ib4 with 1 3 . . . a5 1 4 .id6 lLle4 1 5 .�f4 lLlxd6 1 6.�xd6 lLlf6, intending . . . E:dB. 9 .lLlge2 lLlf6 1 O .a3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 hc3

Chapter 8 - Black delays . . . ttJf6 : Die Konigspringerzuruckhaltungspolitik 1 89

1 2 . .txc3 Wb6 1 3 .lLlf4 lLle4 1 4.Wf3 lLlxc3 1 5 .Wxc3 Wc7 1 6.lLlxg6 hxg6= Nisipeanu Mueller, Hamburg 1 998 .

9 . . . lLlf6 1 O.a3 .txa3! 1 O . . . .txc3 is playable, but leads to an inferior version of the 9 .lLlf3 note above.

a b c d e f g h

I l .lLld5? A wrong decision in this sharp position. Equally bad was I l .bxa3 Wxa3t 1 2 .�b l Wb4 t, when Black recovers the piece and remains two pawns up. One idea was I l .lLlb5! ? .txb2t 1 2 .�xb2 Wb6 1 3 . .ta5 (or else Black wins material) 13 . . . Wxa5 1 4 .lLlc7t �e7 1 5 .lLlxa8 lLlbd7 1 6.lLlc7 lLle4 and Black stands slightly better. The best option was I l .lLla2!N Wa4 1 2 . .tb3 Wa6 1 3 .bxa3 lLle4 1 4.Wf3 lLlxf2! The knight is immune due to . . . Wxa3t and . . . Wxb3t, but after 15 . .tb4 lLlxh l 1 6.lLle2:

a b c d e f g h

The situation is uncertain . 1 1 . . . .tb4+ 1 2 .lLlc7t �d7 13 . .txb4 WaI t 1 4.�d2 lLle4t 1 5 .�e3

1 5 .�e l Wxd l t 1 6.�xd l lLlxg3 1 7.hxg3 �xc7 is equally winning for Black.

1 5 . . . Wxd l 1 6.We5 Wc1 t 1 7.�f3 f6 1 8 .Wxe6t �xc7 1 9 .1Llh3 Wxc2 20.d5 2"i:e8 2 1 .d6t �d8 0-1

Klinova - Stefanova, Elista 1 998.

7 .lLlge2 lLlf6 8.lLlg3 This position has sometimes been reached via a different move order, as was the case in the main game quoted below.

8 . . . .tg6 9 .h4 h6 1 0 .lLld5 Wd8 I l .lLlf4 .th7 1 1 . . .Wxd4? 1 2.lLlxg6 fxg6 1 3 .We2 is of course out of the question for Black.

1 2 .We2

a b c d e f g h

White is a tempo up compared to a line of the Caro-Kann, namely l .e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3 .lLlc3 dxe4 4.lLlxe4 .tf5 5 .lLlg3 .tg6 6.h4 h6 7 . .tc4 e6 8 .lLlge2 lLlf6 9 .lLlf4 .th7 1 O .We2, having acquired the extra move .tc1 -d2. This argument may cool down even Scandinavian fanatics, but there is another way to look at this annoying observation. Indeed, Black is scoring well in the theoretical position (i .e . with the bishop still on c 1 ) because the white position is merely optically menacing. Sacrifices on e6 are usually unsound, which makes the black camp fairly solid.


The real question is whether the extra tempo can affect the evaluation of the position in a meaningful way. The theoretical verdict from the following encounter was anything but clear:

1 2 . . . id6 13 .ttJgh5 ttJxh5 1 3 . . . 0-0!?

1 4 .ttJxh5 1'!gB 1 5 .0-0-0 ttJd7 1 6.ixe6! ? 1 6 .d5 cxd5 1 7.ixd5 Y!Jc7 I B .ic3 0-0-0 is nothing special for White.

16 . . . fXe6 1 7.Y!Jxe6t Y!Je7! I B .1'!de l 'kt>dB I B . . . �fB? is worse due to 1 9 .Y!Jb3 Y!Jf7 20.1'!e6

1 9 .Y!Jb3 Y!JfB 20.Y!Jxb7 1'!cB

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

2 1 .g4.

a b c d e f g h

Directed against a later . . . Y!Jf5. 2 1 .Y!Jxa7 ic7 is unclear. In several variations White ends up with four pawns versus a piece but the bishop on h7 is mighty, the h5-knight is unstable and f2 is weak.

2 1 . . .Y!Jf7 2 1 . . .ttJb6N was possibly better, for instance: 22.hh6 (22.Y!Jxa7 ttJc4co) 22 . . . 1'!c7 (22 . . . gxh6 23 .Y!Jxh7 1'!xg4 24.1'!e6co) 23 .Y!JbBt 'kt>d7 24.Y!JxfB 1'!xfBco

22.'kt>b l ig6? 22 . . . Y!Jxf2N was better.

23 .Y!Jxa7 ixh5 24.gxh5± Nedev - Slovineanu, Turin (01) 2006. By

now White had four pawns plus an attack for the sacrificed piece. He went on to win on move 3B .

AI) 7.g4 ig6

B.d5 should not be too dangerous. B . . . cxd5 (B . . . Y!Jc5 seems playable too, although after 9 .Y!Je2 cxd5 1 0 .ttJxd5 Black should play 1 O . . . ttJd7N with mutual chances, rather than 1 0 . . . ttJf6? l 1 .ib4 Y!JcB 1 2.ttJxf6t gxf6 1 3 .ic3 when Black had problems in Rasmussen -Mukic, Saint Vincent 2000.) 9.ttJxd5 Y!JdB 1 0 .Y!Je2 ttJf6! l 1 .ttJxf6t Y!Jxf6 1 2 .0-0-0 ttJc6 is okay for Black; compare the position from line A2 arising after 7.d5 cxd5 B .ttJxd5 Y!JdB 9 .Y!Je2 ttJf6.

White can also try the same idea, having first inserted the moves: B .h4!? h5

And now: 9.d5 Y!Jc5

9 . . . cxd5? ! 1 0 .ttJxd5 Y!JdB? l 1 .ttJf4±. 1 0 .Y!Je2 cxd5 l 1 .ttJxd5

At this point Black must be careful. 1 1 . . .hxg4? !

He should have preferred 1 1 . . .ttJd7! in order to have the possibility of . . . 1'!cB, and after 1 2 .ttJf4 ttJe7 the position is unclear. The move played hands White the advantage.

Chapter 8 - Black delays . . . lLlf6: Die Konigspringerzuriickhaltungspolitik 1 9 1

1 2 . .tf4 .td6 The only chance, whereas the following encounter led to a swift disaster for Black: 1 2 . . . ltJc6?? 1 3 .ltJc7t ctJe7

a b c d e f g h

1 4.ltJxe6! 1-0 Leyva - Matamoros Franco, Varadero 2000.

1 3 .b4 �d4 14J%d l Also not bad is: 1 4 .c3!? �e4 1 5 . .txd6 exd5 1 6 . .txd5 �xe2t 1 7.ltJxe2 ltJc6 1 8 .ltJf4 .tc2! 1 9 .ctJd2 0-0-0 20.ctJxc2 E:xd6;!;

1 4 . . . �e4 1 5 . .txd6 exd5 1 6.hd5 �xe2t 1 7.ltJxe2 ltJc6;!;

This line was given by Finkel and Mueller for Chess Base Magazine. Indeed, after

1 8 .b5 The endgame is nasty for Black.

longer. 8 . . . .tb4?! 9 .a3 .txc3 1 O.ltJxc3 does not help him.

8 . . . �b6? is even worse and led to a quick disaster in the following game: 9.h4 h5 1 0 .ltJf4 .th7 1 1 .�e2 hxg4 1 2 .d5! cxd5 1 3 .ltJfxd5 �d8 14 . .tf4+-

a b c d e f g h

Rohl Montes - Leon Hoyos, Merida 2005 .

9.ltJf4 .tb4 9 . . . �b6!? looks interesting.

10.�e2 1 0 .f3 ! ? is possible, although it looks too slow

to cause Black any real danger. 1 O . . . ltJbd7 (Black seems to be doing okay after the other replies as well : 1 O . . . �b6 1 1 .�e2 ltJbd7; or 1 0 . . . ltJd5 1 1 ..txd5 cxd5 1 2 .h4 h6oo) 1 1 .h4 .txc3 1 2 .bxc3 ( 1 2 . .txc3 �c7) 1 2 . . . e5 with balanced play.

10 • • . ltJd5 1 0 . . . .txc2! ? looks risky but may just be

playable.

H.hd5 After l 1 .ltJfxd5 cxd5 1 2 . .txd5 ltJc6 1 3 . .txc6t

bxc6 Black has promising compensation for a mere pawn.

H • • • ad5 12.ltJxe6 White arrives too late after 1 2 .h4? ltJc6.


12 .. . fxe6 13.Wxe6t �d8 Jurkovic - Mukic, Kastav 2002. Here it was

time for White to bail out with:

a b c d e f g h

14.�g5tN Instead the game saw 14.0-0? lDd7, when

White was struggling to demonstrate enough compensation for the piece.

14 ... �c7 15.�f4t �d8 16.�g5t With a perpetual .

A2) 7.d5

While it is natural to seize the chance to open the game, the consequences of this move remain uncertain in my opinion.

a b c d e f g h

7 .. . cxd5 8.lDxd5 Wd8 An interesting alternative is: B . . . Wc5 ! ? 9 .We2

(or 9 .�b5t lDd7) 9 . . . lDd7 1 O.b4 Wc6 (even the suspicious-looking 1 O . . . Wd6, intending 1 1 .�f4 e5, is to be considered, since b4 hangs) 1 1 .lDf3 �cB. Just as after B . . . WdB, further investigation is needed to assess this variation properly.

9.We2 The alternative is:

9 .lDe3 This has seldom been played and has scored dismally for White, but is not a terrible move.

9 . . . �g6 1 0.lDf3 1 0 .We2 lDf6 reaches the note to White's 1 0th move in the main line below.

1 O . . . lDd7 1 1 .�c3 lDgf6 1 2 .lDe5 lDxe5

a b c d e f g h

1 3 .�xe5? White could have held on to equality with: 1 3 .WxdBtN �xdB 1 4.�xe5=

13 . . . Wa5t 1 4.�c3 �b4 1 5 .�xb4 Wxb4t 1 6.c3 Wxb2

White had nothing for the lost pawn and he quickly went downhill in Batyte - Dubkov, Salzburg 2004.

9 • • • lDf6! 9 . . . lDe7? is by far less judicious. 1 O .lDe3

lDbc6 1 1 .�c3! Wc7 {even worse is 1 1 . . .lDd4? 1 2 .�xd4 Wxd4 1 3 .�b5t lDc6 1 4.lDxfS Wxb2

Chapter 8 - Black delays . . . ltJf6 : Die Konigspringerzuriickhaltungspolitik 1 93

1 5 . .ixc6t bxc6 1 6.!%d 1 with a clear extra piece for White) 1 2 .0-0-0± Black is under pressure and was unable to recover in the following game: 1 2 . . . .ig6 1 3 .tLlf3 a6 1 4.h4 h6 1 5 .h5 .ih7 1 6.g4 .ie4 1 7.tLlg2 .ixf3 1 8 .'1Wxf3 :B:d8 1 9 .tLlf4 :B:xd I t 20.:B:xd 1 tLld8 2 1 .'lWe4 'lWc6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

22 . .ia5 ! b6 23 .'lWd4 1-0 Kogan - Gausel , Bergen 200 1 .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

10.tLlxf6t 1 0 .tLle3 is not dangerous: 1 O . . . ig6

1 1 .0-0-0 tLlc6 1 2 . .ib4 'lWb6 1 3 . .ixfB 'it>xfB 1 4.tLlf3 'it>e7 Connecting the rooks. Black's king is in no real danger and the chances were equal in Sermek - Mikac, Pula 1 996.

10 • • • 'lWxf6 1 l .tLla 1 1 .0-0-0 should come to the same since

1 1 . . .tLlc6 1 2 .g4 .ig6 doesn't impress.

1 l • • • tLlc6 12.0-0-0 White must avoid the unpleasant trap of

12 . .ic3? .ib4 1 3 .hb4 'lWxb2! .

a b c d e f g h

12 • • • ia3 It is useful for Black to provoke the following

pawn move, which weakens the b l -h7 diagonal and obstructs the d2-bishop, which was threatening to go to c3 .

13.d ic5 14.ig5 'lWg6 15.'lWdl 1 5 .h4 also leads to a balanced position:

1 5 . . . h6 1 6.tLle5 tLlxe5 1 7.'lWxe5 O-O! 1 8 .'lWxc5 :B:ac8 1 9 .'lWe7 :B:fe8 ( 1 9 . . . hxg5 ! ?) 20.h5 'lWxg5t 2 1 .'lWxg5 hxg5 and the ending is close to equal.

15 • . • 0-0 16.tLlh4 'lWh5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h


17.i.e2 1 7.lLlxfS exfS is also quite acceptable for

Black. Without queens the advantage of the two bishops and the better pawn structure would tell, but in the present position the white king is more exposed than his counterpart.

17 ••. i.g4! 18.£3 h6! Black succeeds in maintaining the balance.

B) 6.Wie2

a b c d e f g h

6 • • • e6 It is too late to change plans with 6 . . . lLlf6? ! ,

as 7.i.d2 e6 8 .dS! reaches the position noted at the start of Chapter 6, which is known to favour White.

7.g4! That's it! By expanding on the kingside

White targets the rival light-squared bishop and aims at opening up the position.

7 • . • i.g6 8.i.dl i.b4 9.£4! This energetic move creates serious problems

for the defender. Less incisive is: 9 .0-0-0?!

Castling is a useful move, and it also creates an indirect threat against g7, based on the sequence: 1 0 .a3 i.xc3 1 1 .i.xc3, followed by dS. However, Black can organize a successful defence as follows.

9 . . . lLlf6 Black can even try the cheeky 9 . . . hS ! ? l O .dS? ! (Or l O .lLlB when lO . . . lLld7 neutralizes the idea of lLleS and ensures Black of a solid position) . l O . . . cxdS 1 1 .lLlxdS i.xd2t 1 2 .E:xd2 lLlc6 1 3 .lLlf4 lLlge7= Koch - Prie, Chambery 1 994.

l O .lLlh3 lLlbd7 1 1 .lLlf4 lLlb6! 1 2 .i.b3 The alternative 1 2 .h4!? leads to a mess after 1 2 . . . lLlxc4 1 3 .Wixc4 lLlxg4 1 4.lLlxe6 lLlxf2 I S .hS or I S .lLlxg7t.

1 2 . . . 0-0-0

a b c d e f g h

Black has both avoided a sacrifice on e6 and being bothered by the h4-hS push.

1 3 .h4 1 3 .a3 i.xc3 1 4.i.xc3 WigS is adequate.

1 3 . . .l'hd4 1 4 .f3 Or 14 .hS i.e4.

1 4 . . . i.d6 Black is okay.

9 . . • lLle7 10.0-0-0 Black has a large choice at this juncture,

but nothing is satisfactory. The unfortunate paradox of his set-up is that the squares fS and dS are the most controlled ones of the board, and yet it is precisely the pawn breaks f4-fS and d4-dS that will hurt!

10 • . . lLld7 Let's browse through the different defensive

tries :

Chapter B - Black delays . . . 'Llf6: Die Konigspringerzuriickhaltungspolitik 1 95

In the event of 1 0 . . . Wc7?! then l 1 .fS ! looks simplest. (Instead 1 1 .ltJh3 0-0 represents a better version of 1 0 . . . 0-0 for Black, and might just be playable.) 1 1 . . . exf5 1 2 .gxfS ixf5 1 3 .ixf7t �xf7 14.Wc4t White will follow up with 1 5 .Wxb4, restoring material parity while the black king remains stuck in the centre.

Inserting 1 0 . . . b5 l 1 .ib3 prior to playing 1 1 . . .Wc7 sidesteps the aforementioned combination, but following 1 2 .h4 h5 1 3 .fS! exfS 1 4.gxfS ixfS 1 5 .1'W Wd7 1 6.1tJf3 White obtains an overwhelming attack.

Finally 1 O . . . 0-0? ! l 1 .h4 looks really scary. Black has to play 1 1 . . .h6, when White can open up the kingside at his leisure.

1 l .a3 ,hc3 In the event of 1 1 . . .ixa3? the cleanest way

to cash in the piece consists of 1 2 .f5 ! exfS 1 3 .ltJa2±.

12.,hc3 We7

a b c d e f g h

13.ltJh3! This is an excellent preparatory move, and a

clear improvement over: 1 3 .f5? !

This hasty move allows counter-chances. 1 3 . . . exfS 1 4.Eie l

White also fails to achieve anything special with 1 4.gxfS ixfS 1 5 .Eie l ltJb6 1 6 .ib4 (Or 1 6.ia5 0-0-0 1 7.ixb6 Wxb6 I B .Wxe7 Wxd4 1 9 .ib3 Wd2t 20.�b l EiheB 2 1 .Wxe8 EixeB 22.Eixe8t �d7 23.Eie2 Wdl t 24.�a2 b5°o Onder - Haug, e-mail 2002.) 1 6 . . . ltJxc4 1 7 .Wxe7t ( 1 7.Wxc4? ie6) 1 7 . . . Wxe7 I B .Eixe7t �d8 with a roughly level ending, Alvim - Dijksman, e-mail 1 999.

14 . . . ltJb6

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .ib4 Perhaps White could have considered 1 5 .ia2!?N fxg4 1 6 .ib4 ltJbc8 (and not 1 6 . . . Wf4t? 1 7 .�b l 0-0-0 1 8 .Wxe7±) 1 7.Wxg4 White has full compensation for a mere pawn, but it is not clear if he has anything more.

1 5 . . . 0-0-0 1 6.ixe7 This was Albers - Onasch, Willingen 2006, and now Black should have chosen one of the following two ideas:

1 6 . . . ltJxc4N 1 6 . . . Eixd4!?N was also playable.

1 7.Wxc4 But not 1 7.ixd8? Wf4t I B .�b l ltJd2t and 1 9 . . . Eixd8 , when Black has fantastic play for the exchange.

17 . . . Eihe8! 1 8 .ixd8 Eixe l t 1 9 .�d2 Wf4t 20.�xe l We4t 2 1 .�fL. Wxh l 22.ig5 Wxh2t 23.�f1°o

13 • • • ltJb6


a b c d e f g h

14.d5! This powerful and thematic breakthrough

creates serious problems for the defence.

14 .. . exd5 A very risky decision by Nakamura, but

Black had no way to equalize.

l4 . . . liJxc4 is met by l 5 .'?Mxc4 (or even 1 5 .dxe6!?) with a strong initiative.

1 4 . . . cxd5 1 5 .ixg7 1'!gB! ? The endgame ansmg after l5 . . . '?Mxc4? is pretty grim for Black: 1 6.'?Mxc4 liJxc4 1 7.ixhB liJe3 I B .f5! liJxd l (or l B . . . exf5 1 9 .1'!d3±) 1 9 .fxg6 liJxg6 ( 1 9 . . . liJe3?! 20.gxh7 liJg6 2 1 .id4 is even worse) 20.id4 e5 2 1 .igl liJxb2 22.mxb2 and White should win rather easily. l 5 . . . liJxc4 gives chances to muddy the water, even though after 1 6 .ixhB ie4 l 7.1'!he l 1'!cB I B .mb l ! White keeps a neat edge.

1 6.ib5t liJc6 1 7.ie5 '?Me7 I B .f5 ! I B .1'!hfl ?! i s inferior IB . . . O-O-O 1 9 .ixc6 bxc6 20.f5 exf5 2 1 .gxf5 liJc4! 22.fxg6 hxg6 23.1'!fe l 1'!deB and Black recovers the piece due to the pin.

lB . . . exf5 1 9 .95 0-0-0 20.if6 '?Mxe2 2 1 .ixe2;!; White keeps a nice edge thanks to his pair of

bishops and the wrecked black pawn structure, not to mention the misplaced bishop on g6.

15.hg7 gg8 16.ie5 '?Md7 This was Hector - Nakamura, Malmo/

Copenhagen 2005 . Here White should have preserved his important light-squared bishop with:

a b c d e f g h

17.ib3!N With a very strong initiative. Instead the

game continuation of 1 7.id3? ! allowed Black to obtain some much-needed counterplay with 1 7 . . . ixd3 l B .'?Mxd3 1'!xg4.

Conclusion

In my view the Konigspringerzuriickhaltungspolitik has not been completely refuted, but Black is walking a tightrope just to stay alive. He can hope to lure his opponent onto less well-trodden paths and confuse him, which is a reasonable idea from a practical point of view. Apart from that, a Scandinavian player will draw no benefit from keeping his gB-knight at home, while depriving himself of various useful resources.

Chapter 9

4.�c4 �f6 5.d3

a b c d e f g h

1 .e4 dS 2.exdS �xdS 3.tLlc3 �aS 4.Ac4 tLlf6 S.d3

A) 5 . . . c6 1 98 A I ) 6.'1We2 1 99 A2) 6.id2 203 B) 5 . . . ig4 205 B 1 ) 6.lOge2 205 B2) 6.f3 208 B2 1 ) 6 . . . if5 209 B22) 6 . . . id7 2 1 1


We will now examine the so-called "Short System", which is characterized by the moves l .e4 d5 2.exd5 "Wxd5 3 .tLlc3 "Wa5 4.ic4 tLlf6 5 .d3 , and is named after the British GM who helped to popularize it after winning several nice games . In comparison with variations studied so far, the outing of the light-squared bishop to c4, in conjunction with the seemingly modest d2-d3 , introduces a rather aggressive and flexible system. White will usually continue with a quick id2 followed by "We2 and 0-0-0, although short castling can sometimes be considered too. The first player enjoys maximal flexibility with his kingside pieces; thus he might play f4 followed by tLl8, or alternatively tLl8 or tLlge2 without touching the f-pawn.

Pushing the d-pawn only one square yields pros and cons for both sides. On the plus side for White, the light-squared bishop is protected, a future tLlc3-e4 is made possible and moves like . . . tLlc6 will not attack the d-pawn. On the other hand White controls less space in the centre and lacks the often powerful d4-d5 break. Black might also profit from the unguarded e5-square, which can facilitate the transfer of his pieces. For instance, the black queen will tend to be in less danger after the usual icl -d2.

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 "Wxd5 3.tLlc3 "Wa5 4.ic4 tLlf6 5.d3

a b c d e f g h

From the diagram position Black's two main options are A) 5 ••• c6 and B) 5 ••• ig4.

A) 5 • • • c6

And now White's most popular moves are AI) 6."We2 and A2) 6.id2, although some others have also been tried. Here are a few examples:

6.h3 tLlbd7 (Black also managed to equalize with the direct 6 . . . b5 7.ib3 ib7 in Magem Badals - Prie, La Reunion 1 997; however, it should be noted that 6 . . . if5?! 7 .f4 e6 8 .g4 ig6 9 ."We2 would be problematic for Black.) 7.tLl8 e6 8 .0-0 ie7 9."We2 b5 1 O .ib3 tLlc5 1 1 .ig5 h6 1 2 .ih4 b4 1 3 .tLle4 tLlcxe4 14 .dxe4 ia6 1 5 .ic4 ixc4 1 6."Wxc4 "Wb5= Galego -Hodgson, Linares 1 995 .

6.tLlge2 As in some other quiet lines of the Scandinavian, Black can now choose to fianchetto his dark-squared bishop.

6 . . . g6! ? 7 .0-0 ig7 8 .if4 After 8 .tLlg3 0-0 9 ."We2 "Wc7 1 0.l'!e 1 e6 1 1 .a4 tLlbd7 1 2 .a5 tLld5 1 3 .id2 l'!b8 1 4.ib3 tLlc5 Black was already comfortably equal and he eventually won in Leenhouts - Degraeve, Gent 2005 .

8 . . . tLld5 Or 8 . . . 0-0 9 ."Wd2 tLlbd7 1 O .tLlg3 b5 1 1 .ib3 ib7 with a roughly equal game, Belkhodja - Chabanon, Le Port Marly 2009.

Chapter 9 - 4 .�c4 tiJf6 5 .d3 1 99

9 .i.d2 Wd8 1 O .Wc l 0-0 1 1 .�h6 lDxc3 1 2 .lDxc3 lDd7 1 3 .l:'!:e l lDf6 1 4.�xg7 'it>xg7 1 5 .We3 l:'!:e8 1 6.a4 a5 1 7.Wf4 Wd6=

Arizmendi Martinez - Matamoros Franco, Cala Galdana 1 999.

6.f4!? �g4 We have reached a position from line B22 with 5 . . . �g4 6.f3 �d7 7.f4 �g4!? , with the inclusion of the extra move . . . c7 -c6. This should be generally useful to Black, although it should be pointed out that in the event of a later . . . �g4xe2 the resource . . . lDc6-d4 is missing.

7.lDge2 e6 8 .h3 �xe2 Perhaps Black could have considered 8 . . . �h5 ! ?N.

9.Wxe2 lDbd7 1 0.0-0! White acquires a small plus this way. Instead 1 O .�d2 Wc7 l 1 .g4 0-0-0 1 2 .0-0-0 b5 1 3 .�b3 lDc5 was only equal in Hernandez Del Rio Angelis, Albacete 2004.

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . 0-0-0?!

With hindsight, it transpires that 1O . . . i.c5tN 1 1 . 'it> hI 0-0 would have been safer.

1 1 .�d2 Wb6t 1 2 .'it>h l g6 1 3 .a4 Wc7 1 4.�e3 From this point White will slowly improve his position while his opponent will struggle to find a good plan.

1 4 . . . a5 1 5 .Wf2 �g7 1 6 .lDe4 lDd5 17 .�d2 lD7f6 1 8 .l:'!:ab l b6 1 9 .c3 l:'!:d7 20.Wf3 'it>d8

A bad sign, and indeed the game will be over soon.

2 1 .b4 axb4 22.cxb4 'it>e7 23.l:'!:fc l Wa7 24.a5 bxa5 25 .bxa5 l:'!:b8 26.a6 l:'!:xb l 27.l:'!:xb l Wd4 28 .�cl c5 29.�b2 We3 30.Wxe3 lDxe3 3 1 .�xf6t hf6 32.l:'!:b7

1-0 Milos - Conquest, Vila Real 200 1 .

AI) 6.We2

a b c d e f g h

6 • • • �f5 This has been the most popular move. It

seems to be okay, although Black should always take care about the development of his lightsquared bishop in this line, as White would like nothing more than to steamroll his f- and g-pawns up the board.

Here are a few alternatives:

6 . . . e6 This implies that the queen's bishop will eventually land on b7, which is not ideal, but no tragedy either.

7 .�d2 Wc7 8 .f4 �d6 9 .lDh3 0-0 1 O .lDe4 lDbd7!?

1O . . . �e7 would have been normal, but Black decides he can do without the bishop.

l 1 .lDxd6 Wxd6 1 2 .0-0 1 2 .a4!?N deserved attention, although am not convinced that White would have had better prospects here either. After the text move Black's play becomes quite easy.


12 . . . b5 13 . .tb3 .tb7 1 4.lLlg5 c5 1 5Jl:ae l l:!ae8 1 6.c3 h6 1 7.lLlB

The desirable 1 7.lLle4? would have run into 1 7 . . . tDxe4 1 8 .dxe4 .txe4, thus White had to withdraw his knight to an inferior square. After the text move the players agreed to a draw in Predojevic - Kovacevic, Kusadasi 2006. Obviously the fight could have continued, but objectively the two bishops should not provide more than a symbolic edge here.

6 . . . g6?! I already mentioned that this move can be considered in certain quiet variations of the Scandinavian, but under these exact circumstances I dislike the idea, as Black winds up in a bad version of variation B of Chapter 1 0 (3 .lLlc3 '!Wa5 4.lLlB lLlf6 5 . .te2 g6) .

7 .lLlf3 lLlbd7 7 . . . .tg7 8 .0-0 e6 was sounder, when the black position remains solid if a little passive.

8 . .td2 '!Wh5? ! 9 .h3 b5 1 0 . .tb3 lLlc5 1 1 .0-0-0 lLlxb3t 1 2.axb3 .tg7

a b c d e f g h

1 3 . .tg5 ! Black's opening has clearly been a failure, and now he must react to the threat of g4.

1 3 . . . .th6 1 4 . .txh6 '!Wxh6t 1 5 .@b l Black still cannot castle without losing e7, and in this game he never managed to do so:

1 5 . . . '!Wf4 1 6.lLle5 .tb7 1 7.lLlg4 lLlxg4 1 8 .hxg4

a5 1 9 .l:!de 1 '!W c7 20.l:!h3 a4 2 1 .l:!e3 e6 22.l:!xe6t @f8 23.l:!e7 '!Wb8 24.'!Wf3 f5 25 .'!We3

1-0 Cicak - Hernando Rodrigo, Sants 2006.

6 . . . .tg4?! This natural move can lead to early difficul ties for Black.

7.B .th5 Perhaps the bishop should retreat somewhere in the opposite direction, as it soon becomes a target on the kingside.

8 .g4 .tg6 9 .f4

a b c d e f g h

This is a perfect example of the troubles Black may experiences in the present variation. White threatens to trap the bishop with 1 O .f5, and 9 . . . e6? is of no help because of the pin along the e-file. Moving the h-pawn is thus forced in order to rescue the bishop, which will look silly on h7. The computer seems to trust Black's defensive resources, but for a human the position is obviously uncomfortable.

9 . . . h5 9 . . . h6 1 O .f5 .th7 1 1 ..td2 '!Wc7 1 2 .0-0-0 lLlbd7 13 .h4 g6? (After 1 3 . . . lLle5! 1 4 .g5 lLlxc4 1 5 .dxc4 lLld7 the black position still looks suspicious, but I see no immediate crisis.) The present position was reached in Goreskul - Kochetkov, Kiev 2004, and now 14 .g5!N would have brought White a significant plus: 1 4 . . . lLlh5 1 5 .l:!e l 0-0-0 (or 1 5 . . . lLlg3

Chapter 9 - 4 .ic4 llJf6 5 .d3 20 1

1 6.ixf7t Wxf7 17.Wfe6t i>eS I S .fxg6 igS 1 9 .97+-) 1 6.Wfg4 ttJg7 1 7.ixf7±

1 0.f5 ih7 I l .h3

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . . .ttJbd7?! Black should have preferred the resourceful 1 1 . . .igS !N, for instance: 1 2 .g5 ttJd5 1 3 .ixd5 cxd5 1 4 .ttJf3 ttJc6 White has to parry the threat of . . . d5-d4, and Black will unravel his position with . . . 0-0-0 followed by . . . e6 or . . . e5 . The situation is unclear. The text move is too slow, and in the following game Black was unable to solve his problems.

1 2 .ttJf3 igS 1 3 .l:!gl ! ? This keeps the advantage, although 1 3 .g5!N would have been even stronger.

1 3 . . . hxg4 1 4.hxg4 b5 1 5 .ib3 ttJc5 1 6.id2 ttJxb3

A better chance would have been 1 6 . . . b4!?N 1 7.ttJe4 ttJfxe4 I S .dxe4 ttJxb3 1 9 .cxb3 e5 .

1 7.cxb3 0-0-0 I S .ttJe5 Wfa6 1 9 .Wfg2 i>b7 20.a4 e6

a b c d e f g h

2 1 .axb5! ! Wfxa l t 22.We2 Wfxb2 23.l:!b l Wfa3 This was Libens - Hernando Rodrigo, France 2002, and now White could have crowned his earlier play with:

24.Wfxc6tN In the game he faltered with the disastrous: 24.bxc6t?? i>cS-+

24 . . . i>bS 25 .ttJc4 Black has no good defence- the main problem is that if4t is coming. For example:

25 . . . l:!h2t 26.i>el 'lWc5 27.if4t e5 2S .ixe5t 'lWxe5t 29.ttJxe5 l:!cS 30.ttJd7t ttJxd7 3 1 .Wfxd7 l:!xc3 32.Wfest l:!cS

Otherwise WfxfBt will be fatal . 33 .Wfe5t

And White wins.

Finally, another interesting idea is: 6 . . . ttJbd7! ? 7.id2 Wfe5

This is one example of how Black may utilize the e5-square. Still, there is no guarantee that a queen exchange will automatically lead to equality.

S .a4 Wfxe2t 9.ttJgxe2 It is remarkable how quickly White obtained a serious advantage in the following game. Obviously Black's play can be improved, but it is still instructive to see how White develops his initiative.

9 . . . a5 1 0 .0-0 e6 I l .ttJe4 ie7 1 2 .f4 ttJc5 1 3 .ttJg5 0-0 14 .ttJg3 b6?!

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .f5 ! h6 1 6.ttJf3 exfS 1 7.ttJd4 id7 I S .ttJdxfS idS 1 9 .ic3


Black was under unpleasant pressure in Short - Gonzalez, Banyoles 2007, although to his credit he eventually held on for a draw after the Englishman missed a few opportunities to clinch victory.

a b c d e f g h

7.id2 7.h3 is less precise, and after 7 . . . e6 8 .id2

ib4 Black had already equalized in Aronian -Seel, Deizisau 2002.

7 ... Wc7 8.h3 e6 9.g4 ig6 10.f4 ie7 l 1 .tiJf3 We reach an important and instructive

moment.

a b c d e f g h

1 l .. . tiJbd7? Strangely this inaccurate move has been

almost a universal choice. The problem is that

the knight obstructs the queen from defending the bishop on e7, which in turn makes it more difficult for Black to castle as f4-5 will simply win a piece.

Instead Black can maintain the balance with the energetic 1 1 . . .b5 !N 1 2 .ib3 a5! 1 3 .a4 b4 1 4.tiJe4 he4 1 5 .dxe4 tiJbd7 intending . . . tiJc5 with sufficient counterplay.

12.0-0-0 tiJb6 Now after 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 .5 gives White the

better chances.

13J�del !? 1 3J'!he l is also promising, but Short judges

that the rook has better prospects on the kingside.

13 ... �f8 14.ib3 id6 15.tiJe5 he5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

16.Wxe5!? Owing to the black king's placement,

keeping queens on may superficially appear more logical , but on the other hand the text move enables White to maintain (and increase) his advantage without allowing any kind of counterplay.

16 ... Wxe5 17.fxe5 tiJfd7 18.tiJe4 �g8 19.d4 h5 20.g5 he4 2I J�xe4 tiJd5 22J�f1 g6

Chapter 9 - 4 .ic4 ttJf6 5 . d3 203

Intending . . . llJe7-fS, which motivates the A2) 6 • .id2 following swap.

23.hd5 cxd5 Black is also not helped by 23 . . . exd5 24.gef4

gh7 25 . .ib4! . Just as in the game, White just needs to exchange his bishop for the enemy knight and he will get a big plus in the double rook ending.

24J:�ef4 E:h7 25 • .ib4 llJb8 26 • .id6 llJe6 27.E: lfj E:d8 28.b3 gd7 29.i>d2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

29 • • • llJe7 The resulting endgame is losing, but sooner

or later White would have prepared c2-c4.

30.he7 E:xe7 3 U�c3 i>g7 32.E:e8 gh8 33.E:xh8 i>xh8 34.gfj i>g8

The pawn endgame ensuing after 34 . . . gc7? 35J:'k3 gxc3 36.@xc3 is of course dead lost. This implies that Black must sit passively and await the inevitable.

35.E:c3 i>f8 36.a4 i>e8 37.E:e8t i>d7 38J�a8 a6 39.i>c3 i>e6 40.i>b4 E:e7 41 .e4 dxe4 42.bxe4 i>d7 43.gb8 i>c6 44.a5 i>d7 45.d5 exd5 46.cxd5 E:el 47.E:xb7t i>e8 48.ga7 i>f8 49.E:xa6 E:hl 50.gf6 gxh3 51 .e6 E:g3 52.E:xf7t i>e8 53.a6 1-0

Short - Liu Dede, Calvia 2004.

a b c d e f g h

6 • • • Vf!e7 6 . . . llJbd7 is not a bad move, although the

bishop on c8 might not be thrilled to see it.

7.Vf!e2 This is White's typical plan, although

occasionally he tries something different.

7 .llJf3 .ig4 8 .h3 was Milos - Campora, San Nicolas 1 993, and now 8 . . . .ih5N would have been quite alright for Black.

7 .f4!? is a more interesting attempt for an opening edge. 7 . . . .ifS (7 . . . .ig4!?) 8 .llJf3 e6 9 .0-0 .id6 1 0 .llJg5 llJbd7 1 1 .a4 llJb6 0 1 . . .0-0 was safer) 1 2.ib3 0-0-0 l 3 .a5 and White stood better in Conquest - Saptarshi, Mumbai 2004.

7 • • • llJbd7 7 . . . .ig4?! quickly led to trouble for Black in

the following game: 8 .f3 .if5 9 .g4 .ig6? 1 O .f4 h5 l 1 .fS .ih7 1 2 .g5 llJg4 l 3 . .ixf7t @xf7 1 4.g6t @e8 1 5 .gxh7 Vf!e5 1 6 .llJf3 Vf!xe2t 1 7.@xe2± Short - Reprintsev, Internet (blitz) 2000.

However, 7 . . . g6! ? is a worthy alternative, and the fianchetto set-up works better here than


after 6.�e2. Here is one example: 8 .lDf3 .ig7 9 .0-0 0-0 1 O .�fe l e6 l 1 .a4 b6 1 2 .d4 lDbd7 1 3 . .ig5 .ib7 1 4.�ad l White was just marginally better in Mortensen - L. Hansen, Tonder 1 993.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8.a4

a b c d e f g h

The alternatives do not provide White with a substantial advantage either.

8 .d4 lDb6 9 . .ib3 .if5 (9 . . . .ig4!?N was worth considering) 1 O .lDf3 e6 l 1 .lDe5 0-0-0 1 2 .g4 .ig6 1 3 . .if4 .id6 1 4.h4 lDbd5 1 5 . .ig5 lDxc3 1 6.bxc3

a b c d e f g h

This was Karpatchev - Akobian, Novgorod 1 999, and now 1 6 . . . c5!N would have given Black promising counterplay.

a b c d e f g h

8 . . . b5 ! ? If Black prefers to avoid the sacrifice on fl he can always play 8 . . . e6 first. However, the second player should avoid 8 . . . lDb6?! 9 . .ib3 as he is left without a good way to develop the light-squared bishop before playing . . . e7 -e6. For instance: 9 . . . .if5?! (9 . . . .ig4?? 10 . .ixflt) , S . Reppen - P. Ivanov, St Petersburg 2006, 1 0.lDe5!N e6 I I .g4 .ig6 1 2 .h4 and Black is in trouble.

9 . .ib3 So far no-one has tried 9 . .ixf7t!?N �xfl 1 0.lDg5t �e8 l 1 .lDe6 with unclear complications.

9 . . . e6 This position was reached in Stolz - Geus,

e-mail 2006. Black can follow up with . . . lDc5 and . . . .ib7, with mutual chances.

8 .. . e6 Black opts for simple development, with

short castling followed by positioning the light-squared bishop on b7. White's advantage is small, if it exists at all. I only found a single practical example from this position, which featured some interesting tactical fireworks.

9.lDa .ib4 10.0-0 0-0 1 l .d4 b6 12 • .id3 a5 13JUel .ib7 14.lDe5 hc3 15.hc3 c5 16.lDxd7

This move was connected with a specific tactical idea, which will however not bring more than a draw. In any case, the advantage of

Chapter 9 - 4.i.c4 ltJf6 5 .d3 205

the two bishops was not especially significant here.

16 • • • tOxd7 17.dxc5 tOxc5

a b c d e f g h

18 • .bh7t!? <i!?xh7 19.�h5t <i!?g8 2o.hg7 <i!?xg7 21 .�g5t <i!?h8 22.�h5t

Accurate was 22.:ga3!N f6 23 .:gh3t �h7 24.:gxh7t �xh7 25 .�h4t (or 25 .�h5t �g7 26.:ge3 :gO and Black defends efficiently)

a b c d e f g h

25 . . . �g7! (and not 25 . . . �g6? 26.�g3t �h6 27.:ge3+-) 26.�g3t �h8 And the most logical outcome is a draw.

22 • • • <i!?g7 23.�g5t <i!?h8 24.�h6t <i!?g8 25J�a3 f5?!

After the more judicious 25 . . . :gfd8! 26.:gh3 �e5 ! 27.:gg3t �xg3 28.hxg3 i.e4 White would have had to fight for a draw.

26J!!g3t �xg3 27.hxg3 gad8 28.�g6t <i!?h8 29.�h6t <i!?g8 30.�g6t <i!?h8 31 .g4 E!!d7 32.E!!e3 gg7 33.�h6t <i!?g8 34.g5 f4 35.ge5 E!!h7 36.�g6t E!!g7 37.�h6 E!!h7 38.�g6t E!!g7 39.�h6 gh7 40.�g6t E!!g7 Ij:z-lj:z

Benjamin - Bartholomew, Philadelphia 2003 .

B) 5 • • • i.g4

a b c d e f g h

This reply aims at provoking some weakness in White's camp, while simultaneously reducing his options. Indeed, the self-pin 6.tOf3 is not clever due to the possibility of . . . �h5 , meaning that only BI) 6.tOge2 and B2) 6.£3 are sensible.

BI) 6.tOge2

This is a slightly crafty alternative to the main line. Black is not being threatened immediately, but he must be ready to counter f2-f3 at any moment.

6 . . • tObd7 A playable but somewhat riskier alternative

is: 6 . . . e6

The problem with this move is that Black's light-squared bishop might become a target.


7.h3 There is also 7.f3 �f5 8.g4 ig6 9.h4 h6 1 0 .lLlf4 ih7 I l .id2 c6? ( l 1 . . .%Ve5t!N is only a tad worse for Black) 1 2.%Ve2 lLlbd7 T. Papp - Mate, Budapest 2008 . Here White could have put his opponent under serious pressure with:

a b c d e f g h

1 3 .g5!N hxg5 1 4.lLlcd5! %Vd8 1 5 .lLlxe6! fxe6 1 6.%Vxe6t ie7 1 7.lLlxf6t lLlxf6 1 8 .hxg5 , with a powerful attack.

7 . . . ih5 Black can also consider On 7 . . . ixe2 8 .%Vxe2, Tochtermann - Niebaum, Bad Woerishofen 2005 , and now 8 . . . lLlc6!?N looks interesting, intending to jump to d4 soon. Nevertheless White keeps an edge with 9 .ib5! , for instance: 9 . . . %Vb6 1 O .�e3 ic5

a b c d e f g h

I l .d4! ib4 ( l 1 . . .ixd4?? 1 2 . lLl a4! %Va5t 1 3 .id2+-) 1 2 .0-0 ixc3 1 3 .bxc3 And the two bishops ensure White's superiority.

8 .id2 %Vb6 9 .0-0 c6 Kucherenko - Kislinsky, Lvov 2003. Here I would suggest:

a b c d e f g h

1 0 .%Ve l !?N Intending I l .lLlf4 with a slight but stable

edge. At the very least White will be able to eliminate one of his opponent's bishops, while the second player will also have to watch out for sacrifices on e6. Nevertheless the black position remains quite solid.

A more reliable alternative is: 6 . . . c6

Black can even consider 6 . . . lLlc6! ? , for instance: 7.id2 %Vh5 8 .B id7 9 .ie3! ? e6 with an unclear game.

7.f3 The safest reaction to 7.h3 would be either 7 . . . if5 or 7 . . . ixe2! ? Instead 7 . . . ih5 8 .0-0 would be similar to 6 . . . e6 above.

7 . . . if5 8.g4 ic8! ? Black i s happy enough with the weaknesses created by White's pawn thrusts . The standard 8 . . . ig6 would be okay, although the bishop might become a target in some lines.

9 .lLlg3 e6 1 O .%Ve2 ie7 I l .id2 %Vc7 1 2 .g5 lLld5 1 3 .lLlh5 0-0 1 4.0-0-0 b5 1 5 .ib3? !

I find this move too slow, and think White would have been better off with 1 5 .�xd5N exd5 1 6J!hgl .

1 5 . . . b4 1 6.lLle4 �h8 1 7.hd5?

Chapter 9 - 4 .i.c4 tiJf6 S . d3 207

White has conceived a plan involving attacking on the dark squares, but it is too optimistic.

17 . . . cxdS I B .i.f4 %VdB 1 9 .i.eS E:gB 20.llJef6 gxf6 2 1 .llJxf6

No better is 2 1 .gxf6 i.d6 22.E:hgl E:g6 23.llJf4 i.xeS 24.llJxg6t hxg6 2S .%VxeS llJd7. With a safe king and two minor pieces for a rook, Black is clearly on top.

2 1 . . . E:xgS 22.f4 E:g6?? The correct 22 . . J!fS!N 23.llJg4t f6 24.i.xbB i.d7 would have refuted the white attack and brought Black a large advantage.

23.llJxdSt? ? White misses a golden opportunity: 23.llJxh7t! 'it>gB 24.%VhS was crushing since Black is powerless against the threats of 2S .llJgS and 2S .E:hg1 . Now, on the contrary, it is Black who wins.

23 . . .f6 24.llJxe7 %Vxe7 2S .E:hgl i.b7 26.f5 E:xgl 27.E:xgl llJc6 2B .i.f4 eS 29 .i.h6 E:gB

0-1 Satyapragyan - Filippov, Hyderabad 200S .

8 � ��p �_!-��JrJI 7 � i r��r� i r� i 6 "" ,%� "",%� ""'%.""%� &1�� ' �

: , X�,��!� 3 �m!�� '* «' U � �¥f% �W'" 2 �!�� J�j�fj 1 � �if� � �

a b c d e f g h

7.i.d2 c6 8.B if5 This move was severely criticized by Wahls

on the basis of the game Mortensen - Cu. Hansen that follows. It is true that Black experienced problems in that game, but I am more inclined to attribute these to his subsequent inaccuracies.

B . . . ihS is also not bad, although the following example soon turned pear-shaped for Black: 9 .llJf4 (9.g4 ig6 transposes to the note to White's ninth move below) 9 . . . eS? (9 . . . i.g6 was called for, leaving White with just a minimal edge after 1 O.%Ve2 %VeS 1 1 .h4 %Vxe2t 1 2 .llJcxe2 llJb6 1 3 .i.b3 as 14 .a3 eS I S .llJxg6 hxg6.) 1 0 .llJxhS llJxhS l 1 .llJe4+- Black was already left without a good defence against llJgS followed by capturing on fl, Wohl -Bellini, Schwarzach 200S .

9.llJd5 In reply to 9.g4 ig6 1 O .h4 it looks

interesting for Black to respond with 1 0 . . . llJeS! ? (another option is 1 O . . . h6 l 1 .llJdS %VdB 1 2 .llJdf4 llJeS) l 1 .llJf4 llJxc4 1 2 .dxc4 %VeSt 1 3 .%Ve2 (After 1 3 .'it>f1 hS 14 .llJxg6 fxg6 the situation of the white king compensates for Black's damaged pawn structure.) 1 3 . . . %Vxe2t 1 4.'it>xe2 eS I S .llJxg6 hxg6 with a balanced game.

9 . . . %Vd8

8 .1m �.� �� 7 .rt_i)_'i�_'i 6 "" '%� :� ""'%.", ,%�

��'I� 5 �� 4 �,�� 3 ��V �� j ��,� 2 8 r� 8 �1Ll_ 8 r� 1 ""�""%.W= �.:

a b c d e f g h

lO.llJxf6t Avoiding the knight exchange leads nowhere

for White: 1 0 .llJe3 ig6 l 1 .f4 e6 And White will have a hard time achieving the desired f4-f5 push. 1 2 .0-0 llJb6 1 3 .i.b3 i.cs Black is quite alright.


10 • • • gxf6!? 10 . . . ltJxf6 is more natural and about equal,

but the text is not bad.

1 l .ltJg3 i.g6 12.f4 f5 13.i.c3 gg8

a b c d e f g h

Black has an inferior pawn structure and a stupid-looking bishop on g6, and yet the position offers mutual chances. Black will complete development by means of .. :Wc7, . . . 0-0-0 and . . . e6, and then try to bring his knight to d5 . White, on the other hand, will find it more difficult to improve his position.

14.WfB Wfc7 15.0-0-0 e6 16.h4 h6 17.ltJe2 The immediate insertion of the moves 1 7.h5

i.h7 does not change the assessment, and after 1 B .ltJe2 0-0-0 1 9 .93 the players agreed to a draw in Kuporosov - Varga, Budapest 1 99 1 .

1 7 • . • 0-0-0 18.g3 i.d6 1 B . . . i.e7N intending . . . ltJf6 was perhaps

more to the point.

19.a4 gge8 Another idea is 1 9 . . . ltJb6N. e.g. 20.i.a5 ! ?

ggeB and from this position . . . f6 followed by . . . e5 might be next on the agenda.

20.a5 a6 2V;i;>bl i.e7 22.h5 i.h7 23.ltJc1 ltJf6 24.ltJb3

a b c d e f g h

This position was reached in Mortensen -Cu. Hansen, Graested 1 990. Black's play has not been the most accurate, and I have already mentioned some possible improvements. Nevertheless his situation is still not so bad, and at this point he should have played:

24 • • • ltJg4N When his position remains a tough nut to

crack.

Instead the game continued 24 . . . ltJd5? ! , but unfortunately the knight was arriving at the right square at too late a time, and after 25 .i.e5 White was firmly in the driving seat.

B2) 6.B

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 9 - 4 .i.c4 ltJf6 5 . d3 209

This is the obvious answer to Black's last move, even though the weakening of the a7-gl diagonal should not be underestimated. Black must now decide between B21) 6 ... i.f5 and B22) 6 ••• i.d7. Indeed, 6 . . . i.h5 only limits Black's choice afterwards, while there is no real point in stopping f3-f4.

B21) 6 • • • i.f5 7.i.d2

It looks a bit too hasty to play: 7.g4?!

White will almost always have this option during the next few moves, so it makes little sense to reveal his hand so soon.

7 . . . i.g6 7 . . . i.c8! ? and 7 . . . i.d7!? are interesting, even though in the second case Black will need to retreat his knight to an awkward square after 8 .i.d2 �b6 9.g5 .

8 .i.d2 8 .tLlge2 e5 9 .i.d2 c6 1 O .h4 h6 Galego -Rocha, Caldas de Felgueira 1 998 , was fine for Black.

8 . . . e6 9 .h4 h5

a b c d e f g h

The following sequence of moves is of course not compulsory, but it underlines the comments attached to White's fifth and sixth moves .

1 0 .tLld5 �c5 1 1 .i.b4 �xd5! ! 1 2 .i.xd5 ixb4t 1 3 .c3 tLlxd5 1 4 .cxb4 tLlxb4

Black has more than enough compensation for the sacrificed queen.

A calmer alternative is 7.tLlge2 leading to an instructive moment:

a b c d e f g h

7 . . . e5? ! This is inaccurate. We may also briefly note that 7 . . . tLlc6 8 .id2 �c5 9 .a3 is more pleasant for White. The correct idea was the flexible 7 . . . tLlbd7!N, which allows Black to choose between . . . e6 and . . . e5 depending on circumstances. In that case the chances would remain about equal .

8 .tLlg3 i.g6 9 .i.d2 tLlbd7 This was Belkhodja - Chabanon, Marseille 200 1 , and here White could have obtained a strong initiative with:

1 0 .f4!N Instead the game continuation of 1 0 .�e2? ! 0-0-0 was only equal.

1 O . . . exf4 l 1 .tLld5 �c5 1 2 .�e2t <;t>d8 1 3 .tLlxf4 i.d6 1 4.0-0-O

With an unpleasant position for Black.

a b c d e f g h


7 • • • Wb6!? This is often a risky square for the queen in

the Scandinavian, but in this position the idea is quite viable and has scored heavily in the few games in which it has been played. Nevertheless the following idea is also quite playable: 7 . . . c6 B .We2

B.llJd5 WdB 9.llJxf6t gxf6, Sammalvuo -Wegner, Jyvaskyla 1 993, is not to be feared. Black would then have obtained the same structure as in the Caro-Kann line with 1 .e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3 .llJc3 dxe4 4.llJxe4 llJf6 5 .llJxf6t gxf6, where he has avoided the nasty system with g3 and �g2.

B . . . Wc7 After the somewhat artificial B . . . h5 , Klima - Blazkova, Czech Republic 2007, it looks logical for White to play 9 .f4N.

9.g4 �cB 1 0 .0-0-0 b5 1 1 .�b3 a5 1 2 .a4 b4 1 3 .llJe4 llJbd7

a b c d e f g h

The position holds chances for both sides. In the following encounter White began to go astray.

1 4.llJg5? ! llJd5 1 5 .d4 �a6 1 6 .We4 llJ7f6 1 7.We5 e6 1 B .Wxc7 llJxc7 1 9 .1lJe4 0-0-0 20.c3 llJcd5 2 1 .c4 llJb6 22.�g5 �e7 23.llJd2 c5

Black has some advantage here, although in Hasangatin - Peredy, Heves 1 997, the players agreed to a draw.

8.We2

B.llJge2 e5 9 .llJg3 �e6 was equal in Sammalvuo - Westerinen, Gausdal 1 994.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

8 • • • llJc6! This dynamic resource is the reason why

Black should not automatically play . . . c6 in this variation. It is in any case certainly better than B . . . e6?! 9 .g4 �g6 1 0 .0-0-0 llJbd7 1 1 .h4 which gave White the initiative on the kingside in Jerez Perez - Perez Mitjans, Sitges 2007.

9.0-0-0 9.llJa4 Wd4 would leave the white equine

misplaced.

9 ••• e6 10.g4 llJd4 1 1 .Wg2 �g6 12.llJge2 1 2 .h4 h5 would suit Black well . He has an

improved version of the aforementioned note involving B . . . e6? ! ; the queen is worse on g2, the black knight well posted on d4, and the d7-square is vacant for his teammate.

12 ••• llJxe2t 13.Wxe2 0-0-0 14.h4 h5 The half-open d-file is more useful than its

neighbour and Black can decide on a timely . . . hxg4. He has at least equalized.

15.�g5 �e7 16.�b3 ghe8 17.�e3 Wa5 18.�d2 Wa6 19.�c4 Wb6 20.�e3 �c5 21 .hc5 Wxc5 22.gde1 a6

Chapter 9 - 4 . .tc4 ltJf6 S .d3 2 1 1

23.lLle4? Even though White had visibly ran out of

constructive ideas, his position had remained rather solid - but not anymore!

23 • • . he4 24.f:x:e4?! 24.dxe4 was the lesser evil and would have

given reasonable chances to survive after 24 . . . hxg4 2S .fxg4 lLlxg4 (or 2S . . .1'!d4 26 . .td3) 26 . .txe6t l'!xe6 27.Wxg4.

24 • • • lLlxg4+ 25J�efl gd7 26.gh3 ged8 27.c,bbl c,bb8 28 • .tb3 We5 29.a3 f5 30.c,ba2 g6 31 .Wel c5 32.exf5 Wxel 33.gxel exf5 34J�hhl f4 35.ghfl grs 36J�e6 f3 37.gxg6 fl 38.gg8 gxg8 39.hg8 ge7 40 • .td5 gel 41 ..tg2 gxfl 0-1

Del Dotto - Belotti, Bratto 2002.

B) 6 • . • .td7

This time the bishop retreats a safe distance from the opponent's eager kingside pawns.

a b c d e f g h

7 . .td2 This does not seem to yield any advantage,

but it is doubtful that the alternatives are any better.

7 .We2? ! is less than ideal on account of: 7 . . . lLlc6! 8 . .td2? (8 .Wf2 followed by lLlge2 would have

limited the damage. ) 8 . . . lLld4 9 .Wd l Wb6 1 O .lLlge2 lLlf5 1 1 .lLle4 e6 1 2 .a4 as 1 3 .c3 lLldS 14 . .txdS exdS I S .lLl4g3 lLlh4 1 6.@f1 .te7 With a large plus to Black, Philippe - Prie, Ajaccio (blitz) 2007.

7.lLlge2 e6 The prophylactic retreat 7 . . . Wb6, Treguer - Prie, Gap 2008, is directed against .tc l -e3 and keeps the game in "Scandinavian territory" . This is also true for the provocative 7 . . . lLlc6!? 8 . .td2 0-0-0. Then 9 .a3 WhS and 9.lLldS WcS both look unclear.

8 .0-0 8 . .te3! ? is another idea.

8 . . . .te7 9.@h l cS 1 0 .We l Wd8 Sidestepping the careless 1 O . . . 0-0?! 1 1 .lLldS! .

1 1 ..te3 0-0 1 2 .Wf2 b6 1 3 .d4 cxd4 14 .lLlxd4 We have been following the game Benjamin

- R. Gonzalez, San Diego 2004. The position looks like a peculiar type of Sicilian, in which Black has no serious problems.

7.f4!?

a b c d e f g h

Since the a7-g1 diagonal has been weakened anyway, providing the gl -knight with a nice outpost on eS makes a certain amount of sense.

7 . . . lLlc6 Insisting with 7 . . . .tg4!? deserves consideration. After 8 .lLlf3 lLlc6 (But not 8 . . . e6


9 .h3 .ih5 ? 1 O.g4 .ig6 1 1 .�e2 when Black will be spanked) 9 .h3 .ixf3 1 0 .�xf3 0-0-0 Black seems alright. For instance I I .hf7!? tiJd4 1 2 .�£1 and here either 12 . . . e5!? or 1 2 . . . e6 13 . .ie3 .ic5 1 4.0-0-0 E:d7 1 5 .fS exfS 16 . .ic4 with equality.

B .tiJf3 �b6 9.tiJe5 e6 1 O . .ib3 Intending to get rid of the black queen with tiJa4 or tiJc4. In the event of 1 0 .tiJxd7 tiJxd7 White's inability to castle is a more relevant factor than the two bishops.

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . tiJxe5? !

A lazy move. Had Black continued 1 0 . . . tiJd4N, or 1 O . . . a6N, in order to maintain the queen on the critical diagonal, he could have counted on a slight edge.

I l .fxe5 tiJd5 1 2 .tiJxd5 exd5 1 3 .�f3? ! 1 3 .d4! was a trifle better for White.

1 3 . . . .ie6 14 . .ie3 .ic5 1 5 . .ixc5 �xc5 1 6.�f4 At this point a draw was agreed in Popovic -

Cornette, Subotica 2005 .

7 . • . �b6 This is quite an attractive post for the queen

in positions where White has weakened the a7-gl diagonal with £1-f3 .

8.�e2 Another idea is:

B .f4 Black should respond carefully here. In the following game he erred with:

B . . . e6?! According to Prie Black should have preferred B . . . .ie6N 9 . .ib3 .ixb3 1 0 .axb3 e6 1 1 .tiJf3 tiJc6 with approximate equality. B . . . .ig4!?N is viable too.

9 .tiJf3 .id6 1 O.�e2 0-0 I l .tiJe5

a b c d e f g h 1 1 . . . .ieB

1 1 . . .E:dB! ? 1 2 .g4 tiJd5 1 3 .0-0-0 tiJxc3 14 . .ixc3 tiJc6 was just slightly better for White.

1 2 .g4 c5 1 3 .g5 tiJd5? Understandably Black is seeking counterplay, but this only helps White to develop his attack. He should probably have called White's bluff on the kingside, by means of 1 3 . . . .ixe5 1 4 .fxe5 tiJfd7 followed by . . . tiJc6.

14 . .ixd5 exd5 1 5 .tiJxd5 �dB This was Short - Prie, French Cup 2004, and here the Englishman missed the following devastating idea:

1 6.tiJg4!N Black is defenceless against the idea of sacrificing a knight on f6, for instance:

Chapter 9 - 4 . .tc4 tiJf6 5 .d3 2 1 3

1 6 . . . .ic6 1 6 . . . i>h8 1 7.lLlgf6 does not change much.

1 7.lLlgf6t i>h8 1 8 .V9h5 gxf6 Or 1 8 . . . h6 1 9 . .ic3 .

1 9 .1Llxf6 V9xf6 20.gxf6 .ixh l 2 1 .'it>n .ic6 22.�gl

Black is defenceless .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

8 ... lLlc6 Once again we see the thematic knight

excursion to d4.

9.0-0-0 lLld4 10.Vge5 e6 l 1 .lLle4 lLlxe4 12.dxe4 V9c5

The queen less middlegame that arises is balanced. Instead 1 2 . . .f6 1 3 .V9h5t g6 14 .V9h4 e5 would have been more entertaining, which is likely the reason why Black rejected it!

13.V9xc5 hc5 14 • .if4 0-0-0 15.c3 lLlc6 16.b4 .ie7 17.lLle2 .if6 18.a4 a6 19 . .ib3 h5

We have been following the game Mamedyarov - Prie, French Team Ch 2007. White has a clear space advantage on the queenside, so with his last move Black began to expand on the opposite flank. White eventually won this game, but at this stage Black was no more than a little worse.

Conclusion

The Short System, l .e4 d5 2 .exd5 V9xd5 3 .lLlc3 V9a5 4 . .ic4 lLlf6 5 .d3, may give rise to an early tactical skirmish. This is generally linked with Black's light-squared bishop making a provocative lunge to g4, which White usually meets with a double-edged pawn avalanche on the kingside.

In contrast to lines that include the d2-d4 push, the black queen often has the c5- and e5-squares available. As a consequence, the queen is in less danger of running short of space.

From a theoretical point of view, Black can obtain decent chances, but he has to pay close attention to the details if he embarks on . . . g7-g6 or . . . c7 -c6 prior to . . . .ig4. The games Cicak - Hernando Rodrigo and Short - Reprintsev perfectly illustrate this assertion.

Chapter 10

4.ttJf3 (and 4.h3)

a b c d e f g h

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3.ttJc3 �a5

A) 4.h3!? B) 4 .lLlf3

2 1 6 2 1 6


In this chapter we will turn our attention to a modest system of development in which White delays any action with his d-pawn. The whole idea appears rather timid, but it should not be underestimated. White keeps some flexibility regarding the future of his lightsquared bishop and d-pawn, so Black should take care not to allow a transposition into an unfavourable line.

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 Wxd5 3.lDc3 Wa5

a b c d e f g h

From here we will consider A) 4.h3 and B) 4.lDf3.

A) 4.h3!?

If White wishes to avoid the . . . �g4 pin at all costs, then this is the way to do it, although I hardly need state that it is objectively harmless . Against such a slow set-up Black can do almost anything, so I will just mention one interesting practical example.

4 ... �f5 5.b4 Wb6 6J�bl e6 7.lDf3 lDf6 8.�e2 lDbd7 9.0-0 c6 10.b5 c5 1 l .d3 h6 12.lDd2 j.e7 13.lDc4 Wc7 14J��b3!?

The start of an original piece arrangement.

14 ... 0-0 15.�b2 gad8 16.Wal lDb6 17.lDe3 �g6 18.a4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

18 .. . c4! Otherwise a5 followed by lDc4 and b6 would

give White some initiative.

19.dxc4 lDbd7 20.�a3 lDc5 21 .gbbl lDfe4 22.lDxe4 he4

We have been following the game David -Mueller, Bundesliga 1 999. The white queens ide majority is blocked and Black has easy piece play. The compensation for the sacrificed pawn seems adequate to me.

B) 4.lDf3

Chapter 1 0 - 4 .ct:lf3 (and 4 .h3) 2 1 7

This position might also b e reached via the move order l .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3.lLlf3 �g4 4.lLlc3 �a5 (see variation B2 of Chapter 1 2) , although the present sequence has enabled White to avoid the problematic 4 . . . �e6t. In any event, the following game featured an original treatment from White:

5 .h3 �h5 6.g4 �g6 7.�g2 lLlc6 S .O-O 0-0-0

The position now resembles the ones arising after 4.g3 in Chapter 1 1 . White's tempo-gaining development on the kingside has also created weaknesses, so Black certainly has a share of chances here.

9 .a3 e5? ! A reply in the centre often constitutes the correct response against action on the wing. Here, however, a counter-attack on the opposite flank was more appropriate: 9 . . . h5 !N 1 O .g5 ( l 0 .b4 lLlxb4 1 1 .1"1b l lLlc6 is not convincing for White, while after 1 0 .1"1b l ? his assault could well arrive too late, as the following sample line suggests: 1 O . . . hxg4 I l .hxg4 lLlf6 1 2.b4 �b6 1 3 .lLla4 �a6! 1 4 .lLlc5 �c4 and White is in trouble.) 10 . . . h4 with complex play.

1 O .1"1b l �c5 I l .d3 White probably rejected the tempting I l .b4!N in view of 1 1 . . .�xc3 1 2.dxc3 1"1xd l 1 3 .1"1xd 1 �xc2, but the reality is that 1 4.b5 ! i s strong. Play may continue 1 4 . . . lLldS 1 5 .1"1xdSt i'xdS 1 6.1"1b2 followed by lLlxe5 with a great plus to White.

1 1 . . .e4 1 2 .lLlh4 Not 1 2.�e3? ! exf3 when Black will obtain three minor pieces for the queen.

1 2 . . . exd3 1 3 .lLlxg6 dxc2 1 4.�xc2 hxg6 1 5 .�e3 �e5

1 5 . . . � c4 was perhaps a better defensive try. 1 6.1"1fe l �c5 1 7.b4 �xe3 I S .1"1xe3

White has an overwhelming initiative. The game ended nicely:

I S . . . �f6 1 9 .�a4 lLlge7 20.lLle4 �f4 2 1 .b5 1"1d4 22.�c2 lLld5 23.bxc6 lLlxe3 24.cxb7t i'bS 25 .lLlc5 �d6 26.fxe3 1"1xh3 27.lLla6t �xa6 2S .�xc7t i'xc7 29.bS=�t �d7

1-0 Chiburdanidze - Klaric, Banja Luka 1 9S5 .

5.�e2 This shy move allows Black more options

than the standard 5 .d4. Fianchettoing the dark-squared bishop, for instance, becomes perfectly valid.

5 ... c6 One of the points of this move is to provide

a convenient retreat for the queen in the event that White plays b4. Its small drawback, compared to the immediate 5 . . . �g4, is that White can now reply 6.h3, but that is unlikely to strike fear into the hearts of Scandinavian players. Here are some other possibilities:


5 . . . g6! ? 6 .0-0 Or 6.d4 ig7 7.0-0 0-0 8 .lDe5 ie6 9 .if3 c6 1 0 .\We2 \Wa6!? 1 1 .\We3 �d8 I 2 .�d l lDbd7 1 3 .lDd3 ig4 14.ixg4 lDxg4 1 5 .\Wxe7 i.xd4 with a level game, Emms - Westerinen, Gausdal 1 995 .

6 . . . ig7 7.�e l 0-0 7 . . . c6?! looks less precise. 8 .ifI \Wc7 9 .\We2 and at this juncture Black has to make a concession, either with 9 . . . ig4 1 0 .h3 hf3 1 1 .\Wxf3, or 9 . . . e6 Luther - Lau, Binz 1 994, when the scope of the ic8 is quite limited.

8 .ic4 ig4 8 . . . lDc6!? looks interesting.

9 .h3 ixf3 1 0 .\Wxf3 lDc6 I l .d3 lDd4 1 2 .\Wdl e6

Glek - Van der Werf, Porto San Giorgio 1 998 . White has a pair of bishops but less influence in the centre and no target for the moment. The position is close to equal.

It should be mentioned that the following continuation is not advisable: 5 . . . ig4?!

This move is premature, and enables White to fight for the initiative thanks to the possibility of b2-b4.

6.b4 6.h3 ih5 7.b4 is also possible, and leads to similar play.

6 . . . \Wb6 7.a4 c6 Another game continued 7 . . . e6 8 .a5 (8.�b l is a logical alternative, preparing b5 . ) 8 . . . \Wd6 9.b5 ie7 1 0 .h3 ih5 1 1 .�a4!? \Wd8 1 2 .g4 ig6 1 3 .h4 h6 14 .lDe5 ih7 Filipek - Nezar, Belgium 2002, and here White should have played 1 5 .if3!N intending 1 5 . . . lDd5 1 6.lDxd5 exd5 1 7.a6 bxa6 1 8 .�d4 with a large advantage.

8 .h3 ih5 9 .0-0 e6 I O .b5 ib4?! 1 1 .�b l ixc3

a b c d e f g h

1 2 .ia3! ? An aesthetic move, even if it i s objectively no stronger than the normal 1 2 .dxc3 .

1 2 . . . c5 1 3 .dxc3 0-0 14.lDd2 ixe2 1 5 .\Wxe2 lDbd7 1 6.c4

White has the more pleasant position, Seret - Tasic, Cannes 1 993.

Black's most active scheme of development is: 5 . . . lDc6 6.0-0 ig4

I am less fond of6 . . . e5? ! 7.ib5 id6 8 .d4 0-0 9.ixc6 bxc6 I O .dxe5 ixe5 I l .lDxe5 \Wxe5 1 2.�e 1 which gave White a better pawn structure and a risk-free edge in Campora -Jerez Perez, Andorra 1 999.

7.h3 ih5 8 .a3 8 .d3 leads to complex play.

8 . . . 0-0-0

9 .b4?

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

r" ' ' ' ''�//.w/.'' ;': ' ' ',w""/,,,

a b c d e

This pawn sacrifice is unjustified. And if White was planning to sacrifice the pawn

Chapter 1 0 - 4 .t2Jf3 (and 4 .h3) 2 1 9

regardless, there was not much point i n the preparatory a2-a3 .

9 . . . lLlxb4 1 O .�b l lLlbd5 1 1 .�b5 lLlxc3 1 2 .�xa5 lLlxd l 1 3 .�xd l ixf3

1 4.�xh5 lLlxh5 1 5 .lLle5 was the threat. 1 4 .ixf3 a6 1 5 .ib2 e6 1 6.ixf6 gxf6

The presence of opposite-coloured bishops gives White some chances to defend, but in this particular encounter she lost the plot.

a b c d e f g h

1 7 .d4 c6 1 8 .c3 id6 1 9 .c4?! �d7 20.g4 h6 2 1 .a4?? e5 22.dxe5 ixe5 23.�b l �c7 24.ie2 �a8

0-1 A. Wilson - Prie, West Bromwich 2004. The unfortunate placement of the rook on a5 will cost White dearly.

6.0-0 The other main possibility is:

6.h3

One might call this an attempt to "punish" Black for having refrained from . . . ig4 thus far.

6 . . . if5 7.0-0 lLlbd7 8 .d4 e6 9 .lLlh4 ig6 1 O.lLlxg6 hxg6 l 1 .if4 ib4!

The more acute 1 1 . . .0-0-0?! 1 2 .a3 g5 is rather dangerous for Black, for example 1 3 .ig3 e5 1 4.b4 �c7 1 5 .dxe5 lLlxe5 1 6.�c l ! contemplating both �xg5 and �e3 . Another suboptimal continuation is: I l . .Jl:d8?! 1 2.a3! lLlb6 1 3 .ie5 lLlbd5 1 4.lLlxd5 exd5? ! ( 1 4 . . . �xd5 was the lesser evil) 1 5 .b4 �b6 1 6 .c4! With Black's king stuck in the centre the British GM judiciously opens the position. 16 . . . dxc4 1 7.ixc4 ie7 1 8 .�c2! Short - all, Parnu 1 996. White's last move prevented castling due to the possibility of 1 9 .�xg6, and he went on to win in style.

1 2 .�d3 This position was reached in Botella Ripoll - Soria Quiles, Spain 1 997, and here Black should have played:

1 2 . . . �f5!N With equality, as recommended by Short.

8 .i • .i. �._ �� 7 �i';� �_'i�_'i 6 uu >� !� ". u>�

iI�� >u � : u ,� �� 3 �� r�""' ;W0 �W'0 �W'� 2 8 r� 8 r��r� 8 r� 1 �""%l1ii� '�=""

a b c d e f g h

6 • • • ig4 After 6 . . . if5 7.d4 e6 8 .lLlh4 ig6 9.lLlxg6

hxg6 1 O .if4 lLlbd7, Aginian - Khasaeva, Szeged 1 994, White has saved the tempo associated with h2-h3 compared to the game


Short - all, referenced above. He should therefore stand a bit better after I l .a3N.

7.b4 Vlic7 8.b5 Or 8.�b l e6 9.d3 lLlbd? 1 0 .�e l fie? with

a balanced game, Saric - Voj inovic, Budva 2003.

8 . . . 00 9J�bl White has also tried 9 .h3 fih5 1 O .lLld4, but

did not achieve much after 1 O . . . fixe2 I l .Vlixe2 a6 1 2 .bxa6 �xa6 ( 1 2 . . . lLlxa6!?) 1 3 .�e l fie? 1 4.fib2 0-0 in Dgebuadze - Nieuwenbroek, Ghent 2009.

9 • • • fie7 10.h3 fih5 1 l .d4 0-0 12.lLle5 he2 13.Vlixe2

a b c d e f g h

13 • . • lLlbd7 Another game continued 1 3 . . . a6 ( 1 3 . . . c5N

also deserves consideration) 14. b6 Vli d8 1 5 .�d 1 lLlbd? with just a minimal plus for White, A. Hunt - Rogers, Gold Coast 2000.

14.bxc6 bxc6 15.fif4 fid6 16.lLlxd7 lLlxd7 17.hd6 Vlixd6 18.lLle4 Vlic7 19.Vlia6 gab8 20.gb3 e5 21 .dxe5 lLlxe5

We have been following Areshchenko -Papaioannou, Budva 2009. The position is very close to equal, and the game was later drawn.

Conclusion

If, after the series of moves l .e4 d5 2 .exd5 Vlixd5 3 .lLlc3 Vlia5 4 .lLlB lLlf6, White restricts himself to the modest 5 .fie2, his opponent can certainly choose from a greater variety of possible replies than after the main 5 .d4 . The choice between 5 . . . c6, 5 . . . lLlc6, 5 . . . fig4 and even 5 . . . g6 is largely a matter of taste. From White's point of view, the interesting b2-b4 thrust may give some initiative on the q ueenside, once Black has developed his q ueen's bishop. Still, as long as Black takes care not to allow this idea under especially favourable conditions, he should not encounter any real problems in the opening.

Chapter 1 1

Flank Attacks

a b c d e f g h

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3.tLlc3 �a5

A) 4.b4? ! 222 B) 4.g3 223 B l ) 4 . . . g6 224 B2) 4 . . . lLlf6 226 B2 1 ) 5 .lLlf3 226 B22) 5 . .tg2 227 B22 1 ) 5 . . . e5 228 B222) 5 . . . .tg4 229 B222 1 ) 6 .lLlf3 230 B2222) 6.lLlge2 232


1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 Wi'xd5 3. tLlc3 Wi'a5

a b c d e f g h

In this chapter we will examine two very different flank systems, beginning with the sacrificial 4.b4? ! , followed by the calmer 4.g3. These two marginal lines have, perhaps not surprisingly, not been studied deeply by theoreticians . The reason in the former case is rather obvious, since White's compensation for the sacrificed pawn is questionable, particularly against a black formation including a kingside fianchetto.

In the second line, a certain amount of opening knowledge will be beneficial for both players. Black can equalize in various manners, but must avoid certain pitfalls. For instance, a premature development of the c8-bishop might run into a quick b2-b4 thrust, which would increase the influence of the bishop on g2 without losing a pawn. White should also remain cautious though, as in some cases a premature b4-b5xc6 can be answered by the simple . . . tLlxc6, when White's queenside demonstration has only helped to accelerate his opponent's development.

Without further ado, let us analyse both A) 4.h4?! and B) 4.g3.

A) 4.h4?!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This gambit, which was occasionally tested in simultaneous exhibitions by Lasker or Capablanca, is strategically unfounded. It is true that White can activate his queen's rook on b 1 this way, and thus hamper the opponent's development, but that alone is not worth a pawn. The black position contains no weaknesses and with accurate play he will be able to fight for an edge. It is worth adding that I only found a single instance in which a player rated over 2400 dared to use this gambit in a classical game.

4 • • • Wi'xb4 I am not even going to analyse 4 . . . Wi'e5t and

4 . . . Wi'b6, even though both moves have been tested. Black should definitely take the pawn -there are no two ways about it.

5J�bl Wi'd6 6.d4 6.tLlf3 will usually transpose after 6 . . . tLlf6

7.d4, as White finds it hard to do without one move or the other.

6 ••• tLlf6 7.tLla a6! I believe this to be more accurate than the

natural 7 . . . e6, when White obtains reasonable play: 8 .�d3 a6 9 .0-0 tLlbd7 1 O .ge l ( 1 0 .�g5 intending �h4-g3 and perhaps also tLle4, deserved consideration.) 10 . . . �e7 1 1 .Wi'e2 c5 1 2 .d5 ! ? With decent compensation, Lendwai

Chapter 1 1 - Flank Attacks 223

- Sommerbauer, Voitsberg 1 995 . (There was also a reasonable alternative available in 1 2 .ia3N) .

a b c d e f g h

8.g3! This is White's best chance. The situation can

be compared with the line 3 . . . �d6 4.d4 tLlf6 5 .tLlf3 a6, at which point 6.g3 is White's main line. The present position is identical , except that the white rook is on b l and the b-pawn is missing, thus making the kingside fianchetto all the more logical .

The alternatives are unappetizing for White:

8 .ic4 should be met by 8 . . . e6 (Instead 8 . . . b5? ! 9 .ib3 ib7 1 0 .0-0 e6 1 l .:i:'!e l ie7 1 2 .tLlg5! was dangerous for Black in Nakamura - Har Zvi, Internet (blitz) 2007.) 9 .0-0 ie7 1 O .:i:'!e l 0-0 when White did not have much to show for his pawn in Holving - Marder, Srockholm 2000.

The flexibility of Black's set-up becomes apparent after 8 .id3 g6! 9 .0-0 ig7, when White has problems demonstrating compensation. After castling, Black will follow up according to his opponent's reaction, by means of. . .tLlc6, . . . c5 or . . . b5 , reaching a normal looking position with a pawn safely in the bank.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8 .. . b6

a b c d e f g h

This is solid and safe, but Black can also consider the peculiar-looking 8 . . . �c6!?N, with the possible continuation 9 .�d3 ie6 1 O .ig2 ic4, impeding White's castling.

9.ig2 ib7 10.0-0 e6 1 1 .tLle5 ixg2 12.�xg2 ie7 13.�f3 ga7 14.gdl 0-0

This position was reached in Ivanets -Minakov, Kiev 2005 . White has just about enough activity to compensate for the missing pawn, but Black certainly has no complaints.

B) 4.g3

a b c d e f g h

Fianchettoing the light-squared bishop constitutes an original and interesting treatment


of the opening from White. The first player spares himself the effort of studying a lot of theory, while still maintaining the prospect of a rich struggle. Indeed, early exchanges of both pieces and pawns are rare in this system, and each camp can develop his pieces according to various schemes. Even if the white set-up is not theoretically dangerous, its flexibiliry makes it a tricky line to meet, especially if Black is unprepared.

Before moving on, it is worth noting that White occasionally plays 4.ttJge2 with the idea of following up with g3 . I will not consider this line independently, since the outcome will almost certainly be a transposition to one of the lines presented below. The only difference is that White has committed his knight prematurely, whereas in the main line he can consider putting the knight on f3 instead of e2 .

We will consider two main replies for Black. He can respond to his opponent's last move in kind with Bl) 4 ... g6, but the most natural and popular move is of course B2) 4 ••• ttJf6. Black has occasionally tested a couple of rather more exotic replies as well .

The aggressive 4 . . . h5? ! seems inappropriate with almost the entire black army still in their starting blocks . 5 .ttJf3 ttJc6 6.ig2 h4 A consistent follow-up, but Black will never get enough in return for the pawn. 7.ttJxh4 g5 8 .ttJf3 ih3 9.ixh3 Elxh3 1 0 .d3 After this simple move even covering g5 proves a challenge. 1 O . . . g4 1 1 .ttJgl Wh5 1 2 .ttJxh3 Wxh3 1 3 .ie3 Wg2 1 4.lt>d2! White was clearly on top and went on to win in Van der Wiel -Saptarshi, Vlissingen 2006.

4 . . . id7!? This looks on the contrary like a very sensible idea. Black wants to neutralize the ig2 at

once, but we will see that the idea is not without drawbacks.

5 .ig2 ic6 6.ttJf3 ttJf6 7.0-0 e6 8 .a3! The right way to proceed. The black queen will not be able to comfortably retreat to c7 after . . . c6, and, in the same breath, the b-pawn will dislodge the light-squared bishop.

8 . . . ttJbd7 9.Elb l Wh5 1 0 .b4

a b c d e f g h

1 0 . . . 0-0-0? ! This move fails to dispute White's superioriry. Instead 1 0 . . . a6N 1 1 .a4 ttJg4 would have given more chances to equalize, for instance: 1 2 .h3 (or 1 2 .Ele l ! ? ttJde5 1 3 .ttJh4 ixg2 1 4.<;t>xg2 ttJg6) 1 2 . . . ttJge5 1 3 .ttJxe5 Wxd l 1 4.Elxd l ( l 4 .ixc6?! Wxfl t 1 5 .lt>xfl bxc6 1 6.ttJxc6 White has a pawn and some positional compensation for the exchange, but he certainly cannot claim an edge) 1 4 . . . ttJxe5 1 5 .d4 ixg2 1 6.<;t>xg2 ttJc4 And Black seems alright in the endgame.

1 1 .d3 id6 1 2.h3 ixf3 1 3 .Wxf3 Wxf3 1 4.ixf3

Caruana - Munoz Pantoja, Badalona 2006. White has a pair of bishops and a risk-free edge. He went on to outplay his opponent to take the full point.

Bl) 4 • • • g6 5.ig2 ig7 6.ttJge2

The knight usually favours this square in the 4 .g3 variation. In the event of 6.d4 ttJf6 7.ttJf3


Black has the interesting option of 7 . . . �e4!? (7 . . . 0-0 was also fine of course) when one game continued 8 .0-0 �xc3 9 .�d2 �c6 1 0 .�xc3 �xc3 l 1 .bxc3 if5 1 2 .�el �a5 1 3 .�d3 0-0-0

a b c d e f g h

Schmittdiel - Wahls, Gladenbach 1 997. Objectively this endgame should be balanced, but White's doubled pawns will force him to find dynamic resources.

6 .. . �f6 7.0-O The swap of the b-pawns induced by 7.b4

�xb4 8.l:!b l �d6 9.l:!xb7 does not bring White much:

a b c d e f g h 9 . . . c6 1 O .l:!b3 ie6 l 1 .ia3 �d7 1 2 .l:!b2 0-0 1 3 .�b l �a6 1 4.l:!b7 �c7 was roughly equal in Payen - Neidig, Pardubice 1 998 . Black will easily drive the rook away by means of . . . ic4-a6 or . . . �fe8-d6.

7 .. . c6

7 . . . 0-0 will almost certainly transpose, as Black will want to fortify his queenside at some point.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8J:tbl 8.d3 0-0 9.l:!b l e5 l O.b4 �c7 l 1 .b5 ie6

1 2 .a4 1ed to an interesting middlegame in Yudasin - Herman, Parsippany 2006. White is exerting modest pressure against the enemy queenside, which is however not easy to intensify.

The following encounter, on the other hand, turned out nicely for Black: 8 .d4 0-0 9.h3 �bd7 1 O .l:!b l �d8 l 1 .if4 �b6 1 2 .�c1 ie6 1 3 .ih6 id5 1 4.,txg7 �xg7 1 5 .�xd5 cxd5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

Sommerbauer - Kotronias, Leon 200 1 White's play was not very consistent: his rook on b 1 is ridiculous and the black pawn structure is superior.


8 • • . 0-0 9.b4 Vlic7 10.d4 White may be better advised to push this

pawn only one square, thus leading to a position similar to that arising after 8 .d3 above.

10 .•• .ie6 l U�e1 gd8 12 • .if4 Vlic8

a b c d e f g h

Black can be satisfied with the outcome of the opening. He will complete his development by . . . tDd7-b6 and can subsequently hope to profit from the weakened c4-square.

13 . .igS?! In conjunction with White's next this

decision looks questionable. Indeed, later in the game White will have no compensation for having relinquished the bishop pair.

13 ... h6 14.hf6 hf6 IS.Vlid2 .ig7 16.Vlie3 tDd7 17.gbdl tDb6 18.tDf4 .ig4 19.tDce2 gS!

Restricting the white cavalry.

20.tDd3 tDc4 21 .Vlicl as! By opening the queenside Black activates his

last passive piece.

22.c3 axM 23.tDxM VlifS White is paralysed, which explains his

following attempt to get some play.

24.f3?! hf3 2S.gfl g4 26.gd3 cS! 27.gdxB gxf3 28J:ixB Vlie4 29J:ifl Vlie3 30.Vlixe3 tDxe3 31 .dxcS gdlt 0-1

Rozentalis - Kogan, Montreal 2000. An impressive performance from Kogan against a traditionally ultra-solid opponent.

B2) 4 • . • tDf6

a b c d e f g h

Here it is worth paying attention to B21) S.tDf3 as well as the most natural B22) S • .ig2.

B21) S.tDf3

The point behind developing the knight before the bishop is to discourage a quick . . . e5 . The present position can also be reached via the move order 4.tDf3 tDf6 5 .g3 .

S ... c6 This typical Scandinavian move is especially

appropriate against White's fianchetto set-up. Despite the previous comment 5 . . . e5 remains playable, although Black will have to be on guard after 6.d4!?

6 . .ig2 .ifS 6 . . . .ig4 is another option, while Black can

also consider 6 . . . g6! ? , leading back to variation B 1 .


7.b4!? White takes the opportunity to kick-start his

queens ide play. The quieter 7.0-0 e6 leads to normal positions in which Black should have no serious problems.

7 . • :�c7 S.O-O e6 9J;bl ile7 lO.b5 0-0 1 1 .d3

This position was reached in Shabalov -Minasian, New York 1 99B .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .. .a6!N It makes sense for Black to clarify the

situation on the queenside. The game continuation of 1 1 . . . ttJ bd7? led to problems for Black after 1 2 .bxc6 bxc6 1 3 .ttJd4 ilg4 1 4.Wfe l ttJd5:

a b c d e f g h

And here White could have obtained a big advantage with 1 5 .ilxd5!N cxd5 1 6.ttJxd5 exd5 1 7.Wfxe7 gfeB I B .ilf4, as pointed out by Karsten Mueller in ChessBase Magazine. Black has very little to show for the missing pawn, despite the absence of the g2-bishop.

12.b6 1 2 .a4 can of course be met by 1 2 . . . cxb5

when the c3-knight is hanging.

12 ••• WfdS 13.ilf4 a5 14.ilc7 Wfcs 15.ttJd4 ilg6

Black will follow up with . . . ttJa6, with a good game.

B22) 5.ilg2

a b c d e f g h

From here I would like to draw your attention to two active ways in which Black can handle


the position: B221) 5 • • • e5 and B222) 5 • • • .ig4. Obviously 5 . . . c6 is also perfectly playable, and can be compared with the previous section, although in the present case the g l -knight also has the option of going to e2 .

B221) 5 • • • e5

If Black wishes to play with . . . e7 -e5 , then it is not necessary to restrict the scope of the g2-bishop by means of . . . c7 -c6. On the contrary, as the following game will show, it can prove useful to have kept the c6-square vacant for the queen's knight.

6.tLlge2 6.tLlf3 is also playable. From this square the

knight exerts a slightly greater influence over the centre, but also obstructs the g2-bishop as well as the f-pawn. Play may continue 6 . . . .id6 7.0-0 0-0 8 .d4, Dvorak - Mlensky, Znojmo 2002, and here Black should proceed as in the main line below with 8 . . . tLlc6N, with the possible continuation 9.d5 (Hoping to utilize the position of the f3-knight in a positive way.) 9 . . . tLlb4 (9 . . . tLle7 is suitable too) :

a b c d e f g h

1 0 .tLlh4!? (Protecting d5 and threatening .id2 followed by a3 . In the event of 1 O .tLld2? ! , planning tLlc4, then 10 . . . .ig4 is irritating.) 10 . . . .ig4 1 1 .�d2 e4! ? With reciprocal chances. If White takes on e4 then Black responds with .. J:'1:ae8, completing his development and

activating all his forces in return for a mere pawn. Moreover the offside knight and the queen on d2 would be awkwardly placed.

6 ••• .id6 7.0-0 0-0 8.d4 tLlc6

a b c d e f g h

Black has developed naturally and has no particular worries.

9 • .ig5 Note that in the analogous position with the

knight on f3 instead of e2, this would lose a piece after 9 . . . e4.

Just as in the position with the knight on f3 , White can also consider closing the centre with: 9 .d5 tLlb8

9 . . . tLle7 1O . .ig5 .if5!? was playable as well, but allowing the doubling of the f-pawns is not to everyone's taste.

1 O .h3 .if5 1 1 .g4 .ig6 1 2 .tLlg3 The best manner to carry on with the assault. The alternative 1 2 .f4 exf4 1 3 .tLlxf4 :1'1:e8 was inferior.

1 2 . . . h6 A necessary evil in order to rescue the bishop on g6, but White can now open lines in front of the rival king.

1 3 .h4 tLlbd7 1 4.g5 hxg5 1 5 .hxg5 tLlh7 1 5 . . . tLle8 was worthy of consideration


1 6.ie4 f5 1 7.gxf6 :gxf6 Lepelletier - Prie, Auxerre 1 996. Both kings are bald at present but the queen exiled on a5 is a factor of concern, and at this point White has a natural improvement:

a b c d e f g h 1 8 .\Wg4!N

In the game White played too timidly with 1 8 .\We2? ! , and after some complications Black eventually triumphed.

1 8 . . . tLlhfB 1 9 .tLlh5 1 9 .ig5 is also promising.

1 9 . . . ixh5 20.\Wxh5 And White's position is to be preferred.

9 ••• exd4 10.ixf6 dxc3 1 1 • .hc3 \Wh5

a b c d e f g h The position is equal and will remain so for

a few more moves. The situation of the match probably led the Indian to take too many risks trying to win.

12.tLlf4 \Wxdl 13.:gaxdl ifS 14J'�d2 hf4 15.gxf4 gad8 16JUdl?!

1 6.ixc6 would have kept the game equal.

16 • • • .hc2 17.gxd8 gxd8 18.ihd8t tLlxd8 19.ie5 c6 2o.ih3 tLle6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

21 .fS?

a b c d e f g h

2 1 .ixe6 would probably still have been sufficient to split the point.

21 ...tLlgS 22.ig4 hf5!-+ We have been following the game Anand -

Ivanchuk, London rapid (4) 1 994. The game was subsequently drawn at a point where Black was completely winning, so I would assume Ivanchuk just needed to draw to reach the next stage in the competition.

B222) 5 • • • ig4

a b c d e f g h


Finally we come to a rare system, which is however quite in the "Scandinavian spirit" . Indeed, with the early . . . .tg4 and . . . lLlc6 Black speeds up his development and gives priority to dynamic piece-play. With . . . 0-0-0 he then reveals his bellicose intentions.

It is worth mentioning that Black can implement the same scheme by means of 5 . . . lLlc6, as 6 . .txc6t?! bxc6 is surely not in White's interests , while 6.h3 looks like a tempo "half-wasted" .

We now reach a final division, where White can choose either B2221) 6.lLla or B2222) 6.lLlge2.

B2221) 6.lLla lLlc6 7.h3

And not 7.0-0? Wh5 ! when White is already in trouble.

7 .•• .th5 8.0-0 0-0-0 9.d3

9 . . . g5! The major drawback of having the knight

placed on f3 becomes apparent: Black is threatening to open lines on the kingside with . . . g5-g4.

9 . . . e5

This may be acceptable too, but the following line works out in White's favour:

1 O . .td2 Wb6 1 1 .:i:!b 1 .tb4 In the event of 1 1 . . . .td6 (intending either 1 2 . . . lLld4 or 1 2 . . . e4 1 3 .dxe4 .txg3) White replies 1 2 .g4! .tg6 1 3 .g5 ttJd7 14.ttJd5 (or 1 4 .b4!?) 14 . . . Wa6 (or 14 . . . Wb5 1 5 .c4 Wa6 1 6 .b4) 1 5 .b4 with some initiative.

1 2 .a3N This is better than the weakening move 1 2 .g4? ! as played in Day - Rositsan, Toronto 1 998 .

1 2 . . . .txc3 1 3 .bxc3

a b c d e f g h 1 3 . . . Wc5

13 . . . Wa6? fails after 1 4 .g4 .tg6 1 5 .ttJxe5! This time the knight proves more useful on f3! 1 5 . . . ttJxe5 1 6 . .txb7t Wxb7 1 7.:i:!xb7 Wxb7 1 8 .f4 followed by f5, winning material .

1 4.We1 White has the two bishops and his attacking

chances against the opposing king are significantly higher.

lO.g4 Only this move seems to have been tested,

although other moves are playable as well:

1 O .Wd2 can be met by either 1O . . . h6 or 1 0 . . . .txf3 1 1 ..txf3 ttJd4 1 2 . .tg2 g4 when Black is fine .

1 O .We 1 ! ? .txf3 1 1 ..txf3 lLld4 1 2 . .td 1 Wf5 with a roughly level game.

Chapter 1 1 - Flank Attacks 23 1

1 O .a4 g4 1 1 .hxg4 .ixg4 1 2 .lLlbS a6 1 3 . .id2 Wfb6 1 4 . .ie3 Wf as and now the wisest is I S . .id2 whereas I S .c3?! axbS 1 6.b4 Wfa6 1 7.c4 bxc4 I B .bS WfaS 1 9 .bxc6 b6 should favour Black.

10 .. . .ig6 1 l . .id2 Both I I .lLlxgS or 1 1 . .ixgS can be met by

1 1 . . . hS , when Black seizes the initiative.

I I .lLld2 was a worthy alternative though. Then 1 1 . . .Wfa6, 1 1 . . .lLld4 and 1 1 . . .hS all deserve deeper investigations.

1 l ... h5 The French player Arnaud Payen has reached

this position twice with the white pieces.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

12.h4!

a b c d e f g h

This strong move was his choice in the second game. It is important for White to begin active play on the queens ide as quickly as possible.

In the first game Payen was visibly dissatisfied with: 1 2 .lLle4?!

We will now follow the course of the "all French" encounter:

1 2 . . . Wfa6 1 3 . lLl fxgS hxg4 1 4.hxg4 lLlxe4 I S .lLlxe4 e6 1 6 . .if4 .ixe4 1 7 . .ixe4 fS !

Sacrificing a second pawn in order to denude the enemy monarch.

I B .gxfS

Otherwise . . . .icS and .. J:%dgB will come anyway.

I B . . . exfS 1 9 . .ixfSt �bB 20.'kt>g2 After 20.1'%e l .ics 2 1 ..ie4 1'%hgBt 22.�f1 Black would continue 22 . . . 1'%dfB with tremendous pressure.

20 . . . lLld4 2 1 ..ie4 .id6 22 . .ig3 1'%dgB 23.1'%h l .ixg3 24.Wfg4?

After the correct 24.fxg3 Wfd6 2s .Wfg4 it is not clear whether Black can win.

24 . . . .ixf2 0-1 Payen - Prie, Cannes 1 992. It must

be said that White's resignation was wildly premature, although 2S .1'%xhB 1'%xhB 26.Wfg7 1'%cB 27.�xf2 Wfb6 should win for Black in the long run.

12 .. . Wfxb4 After 1 2 . . . lLlxb4N there could follow

1 3 .1'%b l hxg4 1 4.hxg4 lLlxg4 I S .lLlxgS and at this junction Black has a choice between I S . . . lLlf6, I S . . . lLleS and even l S . . . lLlh2!? This messy position obviously needs further analysis.

13J:�hl 1 3 .lLle4!?N was another idea.

13 ... Wfa5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

14J�h5


Another option consisted of 14 .ltlxg5 !?N hxg4 1 5 .hxg4 intending to meet 1 5 . . . Vge5 with 1 6.�e 1 .

1 4 • • • V9a6 15.V9bl b6 1 5 . . . ltld7N, preventing ltle5 ideas, has its

point too.

16.ltle2 1 6.�xg5!?N hxg4 1 7.hxg4 was possible too.

Sadly for us, the game Payen - Peredy, Budapest 1 994, was prematurely agreed drawn in this highly entertaining position . A plausible continuation would be:

16 • . • hxg4N 17.hxg4 ltlxg4 18J�xg5 ltlf6 19.V9b3

With ideas of �xg6 followed by Vge6t. The position remains unclear.

B2222) 6.ltlge2

This has been a more popular and higherscoring choice than 6.ltlf3, although that does not mean it is objectively better.

7.h3 7.0-0?! , Marek - Chretien, Gonfreville 2000,

7 . . . V9h5!N is almost as annoying as in the analogous position with the knight on f3 . Play may continue 8 .Vge l (8.f3 is no disaster but also not what White is dreaming about; 8 .d4 0-0-0 leads to sharp play where I rather fancy Black's chances. ) 8 . . . ltlb4! 9.ltlf4 V9a5 1 O .ixb7 ltlxc2 l 1 .ixa8 ltlxe l 12 .�xe l This position is hard to assess and may be playable for White.

7 • • • ih5 8.0-O 8 .b4

This is not outright bad, but it feels a bit premature.

8 . . . ltlxb4 9.i.xb7 �b8 1 O .ig2 Badjarani - Abbasov, Iran 2005 .

a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . ixe2!?N

There is nothing wrong with the quieter game continuation of 1 O . . . e6, when 1 1 .�b l N can be met by 1 1 . . . �b6. The text move is more ambitious and doubleedged.

1 1 . ct;>xe2! ? l 1 .ltlxe2?! i s inferior due to 1 1 . . .V9a4! for instance: 1 2 .ltld4?! ( 1 2 .0-0 V9xc2 is White's best, but here he is just a pawn down for not much.) 1 2 . . . c5 1 3 .ltlb3 c4 1 4.ltld4 e5 1 5 .Vge2 id6 1 6.0-0 0-0 1 7.ltlf5 ltlxc2 And Black emerges from the complications with a neat edge.

1 1 . . .V95 1 2.�b l �b6 With an unclear position.


8 ... 0-0-0 9.d3 9.b4?! llJxb4 1 0Jl:b l c6 does not give White

enough.

9.gb l also fails to impress after 9 . . . e5 1 O .a3 e4! ? ( 1 0 . . . llJd4 is also playable) as it is not clear what the rook is doing on b I . l I .llJxe4 ( 1 I .g4 ig6 1 2 .llJg3 h5; l I .b4 Wie5 1 2 .ge l iB 1 3 .d3 ixg2 14 .�xg2 Wif5) 1 1 . . .llJxe4 1 2.ixe4 llJd4 1 3 .g4 ig6 1 4.ixg6 llJBt 1 5 .�g2 llJh4t and in all cases Black is at least equal.

9 • • • e5 10.a3 1 0 .ie3!?N is another possibility, but so far

in two games White has preferred to prepare his queenside expansion.

10 • . • llJd4 1 l .g4 ig6

This position augurs a complicated middlegame with mutual chances .

12.f4 This was White's choice in the only example

from grandmaster praxis. The more patient 1 2 .ie3 was played in Demburg - Orschulik, Willingen 2007, and here it looks interesting for Black to begin his kingside play with 1 2 . . . h5 ! ?N.

12 • • . exf4

1 2 . . . h5 ! ?N deserved serious attention. 1 3 .g5 ( 1 3 .f5? is met with 13 . . . hxg4! 1 4.fxg6 gxh3 1 5 .ie4 Wib6! intending 1 6.�hl llJxe4 1 7.llJxe4 Wixg6.) and now either 1 3 . . . llJd7 or 1 3 . . . ic5 1 4.�h l llJd7, with mutual chances.

13.ixf4 llJxe2t 1 3 . . . llJe6!?N was another idea.

14.Wixe2 ic5t 15.ci!>hl id4 16.Wif3 c6 17J��ael ghe8 18.ig3

White is contemplating Wif4 with an attack, but Black is on time to deal with this threat.

18 •.• llJd7 19.h4 Wih6 20.llJe4 We have been following the game Rozentalis

- Milos, Tilburg 1 992. So far both sides have played quite accurately, and here the correct continuation for Black would have been:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

20 • • • llJe5N In the game Black erred with 20 . . . ie5 ? and

after 2 I .llJd6t ixd6 22.ixd6 Wid4 White could have obtained a big advantage with 23 .ie7!N llJe5 24.ixd8 llJxB 25 .gxe8 �d7 26.gg8 llJe5 27.ih4.

21 .Wif4 f6 22.Widl White must avoid 22.c3? ixe4! .

22 • • • Wia6 The positions remains balanced.


Conclusion

One major theme in this chapter is the b2-b4 thrust, although it seems a little premature on move 4 since after 4.b4 VNxb4 5 .E:b l VNd6 White's compensation for the pawn is uncertain.

On the other hand, pushing the b-pawn becomes stronger once White has posted his light-squared bishop on g2. From here it eyes the b7-pawn, and the attempt to bolster the diagonal with . . . c7 -c6 might eventually be met by b4-b5xc6. It is worth noting that the preparatory move E:b 1 is not always necessary, but can certainly prove useful.

Overall I would say that the g3-system may suit creative players who are keen on avoiding heavy theory, such as the Lithuanian Grandmaster Rozentalis. We have seen that Black has numetous ways to reply, and his choice is foremost a question of style. For those who are willing to try and shake their opponent, I would recommend the typically "Scandinavian" scheme of development, . . . lLlc6/ . . . .ig4 and . . . 0-0-0.

Chapter 12 3.d4 and 3.tiJf3

A) 3 .d4 A1 ) 3 . . . e5 A2) 3 . . . lL'lc6 B) 3 .lL'lf3 B 1 ) 3 . . . lL'lc6 B 1 1 ) 4.d4 B 1 2) 4.lL'lc3 B2) 3 . . . i.g4 4.i.e2 lL'lc6 5 .d4 0-0-0 B2 1 ) 6.c3? ! B22) 6.c4 B22 1 ) 6 . . . �a5t B222) 6 . . . �f5 B23) 6.i.e3 B23 1 ) 6 . . . i.xf3!? B232) 6 . . . lL'lh6!? B233) 6 . . . e5 B234) 6 . . . lL'lf6

236 237 24 1 244 244 244 246 25 1 253 255 255 256 262 262 262 264 268


By deferring the natural 3 .it:k3, White is aiming to establish a pair of pawns on c4 and d4. This would control the centre well, and often give White an initiative linked to the d4-d5 push. This pawn tandem constitutes the focal point of the entire 3 .d4/3 .tLlf3 complex, since it will also provide Black with his main target for counterplay.

White's two third moves will sometimes merge, but by starting with the development of the king's knight White avoids the interesting 3 . . . e5 . We will see over the course of the chapter that Black's most promising methods against both moves will be based on quick development combined with pressure against the enemy centre. In many cases, the presence of opposite-sided castling will add an extra level of excitement to the already tense and unbalanced positions.

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 Wxd5 If he wishes to avoid the theory inherent to

3 .tLlc3 White only has two sensible replies, A) 3.d4 and B) 3.tLlf3. These two variations often melt together if Black decides to answer them with the scheme . . . tLlc6/ig4/0-0-0, but they also contain their own individual features. Before we dive into the study of these lines, let's have a brief look at two rare alternatives:

3 .c4? This ugly-looking move may be playable in a rapid game. That is, as long as Black fails to opt for:

3 . . . \We4t! After a continuation such as 3 . . . \Wa5 4.tLlf3 there would follow ie2, 0-0, and d4, perhaps with the insertion of tLlc3 if White has to stop . . . e5-e4 at some point. In this case White's position would be just about acceptable. The text move, on the other hand, simply refutes White's third move.

4.\We2

This is more or less forced, since the alternatives 4.tLle2? \Wxc4 and 4 .ie2? ! \Wxg2 5 .if3 \Wg6 both lose a pawn for no real compensation.

4 . . . \Wxe2t 5 .ixe2 tLlc6 6.tLlf3 e5 Black stands better in this queenless

middlegame, as White has no compensation for his backward d-pawn and the weakness of the d4-square.

3 .\wf3 Strangely White feels more attracted by the aforementioned lunge with the c-pawn (97 games in my database) than by this modest move (67 instances) , although the latter at least maintains the equilibrium rather than putting White on the defensive immediately.

3 . . . tLlf6 From here a possible continuation is:

4 .tLlc3 \Wa5 4 . . . \Wxf3 5 .tLlxf3 is level.

5 .h3 ! ? tLlc6 6.ib5 id7 7.tLlge2 0-0-0 With mutual chances.

A) 3.d4

8 K _..tD.�Ii)�1 '�"" ' ;�,p; �� '%"'"��'�' ' ' ' ' 7 � ' f� � ' f� ' 6 . . . . ' %� . . . . ' %�" . . ' %� . . . . ' %�

� � � : �.�I�.�� 3 �� . . . . ��

�'jf" �� lJr �IJP 2 �j/l� �wJfl�f2Jlj l �lZJ�V�.,tm :

a b c d e f g h

From here Black will generally choose between AI) 3 ... e5 and A2) 3 ... �c6. Naturally, at such an early stage of the game Black has many options, but I want to concentrate on these two

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .tDf3 237

moves, as they are bold and ambitious. A neutral move such as 3 . . . lDf6 is not disastrous, but it is likely to allow White the set-up he wants - a solid centre with d4 and c4.

AI) 3 . . . e5

8 � .J.. �._4l� 7 .l';_�� 'l�_'l 6 '. '�� n'� 5 ��mI'0�� 4 �.�P.�.

��""�� 3 �¥4" �� rfr �¥4" 2 8Jll� �wJ[j%�J[j l �ttJ�vm.,t� .: a b c d e f g h

This energetic action in the centre usually leads to simplifications. It can thus be recommended to players who hanker for a less complex position than the ones arising from 3 . . . lDc6.

4.dxe5 The attempt to chase the enemy queen from

the centre by:

4.lDc3 Should be met by:

4 . . . i.b4 Instead, taking the d-pawn would be too risky. Now we have the possible continuation:

5 .lDf3 In the event of 5 . a3 i.xc3t 6.bxc3 lDc6 Black's healthier pawn structure and speedy development easily compensates for White's pair of bishops.

5 . . . exd4 Black can also consider 5 . . . lDc6, transposing to variation B 1 1 beginning with 3 . . . lDc6.

6.WI'xd4

6.lDxd4 transposes to 4 .lDf3 below. 6 . . . WI'xd4 7.lDxd4 lDe7

And Black is just a little worse in the queenless position.

4.lDf3 exd4 5 .lDxd4 After 5 .lDc3? Wl'e6t 6.lDe2 c5 Black was already better in Balogh - Goreskul, Gyongyos 1 999. A more reasonable alternative is 5 .WI'xd4 lDf6 6.lDc3 Wl'xd4 7.lDxd4. In this position White seems to have a small plus at first sight, but after the logical 7 . . . i.c5 B .lDdb5 (B .i.e3 invites B . . . lDg4) B . . . lDa6 9 .i.f4 0-0 (or 9 . . . i.f5 ! ?) this proves illusory.

5 . . . i.b4t!? This is intended to lure the c-pawn forwards, thereby depriving the b I -knight of its best square. The natural 5 . . . lDf6?! runs into problems after: 6 .lDc3 i.b4 7.WI'e2t! Wl'e4 (perhaps Black should consider 7 . . . i.e6 or even 7 . . . i>f8, although both of these options also have obvious defects) B .i.d2 Wl'xe2t 9 .i.xe2 And at this early stage of the game, Black found himself defending a nasty ending in Sevillano - Wahls, Biel 1 993. White has a simple and powerful plan of development involving �he 1 combined with placing his bishops on f3 and f4, from where they will exert unpleasant pressure against the enemy queenside.

6 .c3 6 .lDc3 should be met by either 6 . . . lDe7 or 6 . . . lDc6; but obviously not 6 . . . lDf6?! which would transpose to the above note.

6 . . . i.c5 7.i.e3 This position was reached in Zellweger -

Droessler, Bavaria 2002, and now after the natural 7 . . . lDf6N the position is roughly equal .

4 .i.e3


a b c d e f g h

4 . . . lDc6 This is the most enterprising option, but clearing up the situation in the centre is also good: 4 . . . exd4 5 .lDc3 Wa5 (5 . . . t.b4?! is less precise, and after 6.Wxd4 Wxd4 7.t.xd4 lDf6 8 .0-0-0 White stands a bit better. 5 . . . Wd7!? may on the other hand be quite acceptable, for example: 6 .Wxd4 Wxd4 7.t.xd4 lDc6 8 .t.e3 t.b4 9 .t.f4 lDf6! 1 O .t.c4 lDa5 1 1 .t.b5t c6 1 2 .t.d3 t.e6 1 3 .lDge2 0-0-0 Y2-Y2 Gaponenko - Varga, Balatonlelle 2008. ) 6.Wxd4 lDc6 7.t.b5 t.d7 8 .t.xc6 t.xc6 9 .0-0-0 lDf6 1 0.lDf3 t.d6! ( l 0 . . . t.e7?! 1 1 .We5 Wxe5 1 2 .lDxe5 proved better for White in the game C. Andersson - Fierro Baquero, Guingamp 2006) 1 1 .t.g5 0-0-0 1 2 .t.xf6 gxf6 1 3 .Wxf6 Wh5

a b c d e f g h

and after a subsequent . . .l''! hg8 the pressure on the white kingside will become quite strong.

5 .lDf3 5 .lDc3 can be met comfortably by 5 . . . t.b4. For example: 6 .lDge2 (not 6 .lDf3? ! Wa5 !N 7.d5 t.xc3t 8 .bxc3 lDce7 9 .l''! b 1 a6! and White has problems with his weak pawns) 6 . . . exd4 7.lDxd4 t.xc3t 8 .bxc3 a6 9 .c4 Wa5t 1 0 .Wd2 Wxd2t 1 1 .�xd2 t.d7 1 2 .t.d3 lDge7 = The game Faber - Koch, e-mail 2003, was soon drawn. Black also need not fear 5 . c4 Wa5t 6.t.d2 t.b4, when 7.d5 lDd4 is comfortable and 7.clxe5? t.f5! is close to a disaster. 5 .lDe2? ! is clearly artificial, and after 5 . . . t.g4 Black conveniently develops and is ready to castle long. It is worth adding briefly that 6 .f3? t.xf3 7.gxf3 Wxf3 would be embarrassing for White.

5 . . . t.g4 A simple and reliable option is: 5 . . . exd4!? 6.lDxd4 lDf6 7.lDc3 t.b4 8 .Wd2 t.xc3! 9.Wxc3 lDxd4 1 O .Wxd4 (keeping the queens on with 1 0 .t.xd4 O-O!oo is very murky) 1 0 . . . 0-0= One might think that White's bishop pair should secure an edge, but in fact Black's slight lead in development is enough to hold the balance. For example: 1 1 .t.c4 Wxd4 1 2 .t.xd4 l'!e8t 1 3 .�f1 t.e6

6.t.e2 0-0-0 7.lDc3

With sufficient compensation for the fi d d d

a b c d e f g h sacri ce pawn. In ee , the bishops dominate the knights in this open position, 7 . . . t.b4!?


The safest continuation is 7 . . . Wla5 , reaching a position considered in the notes to the 7th move of variation B233 on page 264. The text move unbalances the position more, without compromising on soundness.

B .O-O Axc3 9 .bxc3 This position was reached in Balla - Gereben, Budapest 1 935 , and several subsequent games. Wahls judges the white position to be preferable, but I would rather speak about mutual chances after:

9 . . . liJf6!?N Surprisingly this natural move has not yet been tested. So far Black has always played either 9 . . . e4 or 9 . . . exd4.

1 0 .c4 In the event of 1 OJ%b l Black can get away with 1 O . . . Wlxa2.

1 0 . . . WI e4 I 1 .Ad3 I I .d5 will come to the same thing after 1 1 . . .Axf3 1 2.gxf3 Wlh4 1 3 .Ad3 .

1 1 . . .Axf3 1 2 .gxf3 Wlh4 1 3 .d5 liJd4!? With the possible conclusion:

1 4 .c3 liJe6! 1 5 .dxe6 e4! 1 6 .fXe4 l:hd3 1 7.Wlxd3 Wlg4t I B .mh l Wlf3t=

And the game ends with a perpetual .

8 7 6 5 4 3

2 1

4 . . . Wfxdlt

b e e f g h

This is more ambitious, and also more reliable than 4 . . . Wlxe5t 5 .Ae2 when Black has chances to equalize but must take care,

for instance: 5 . . . Ag4 6.Ae3 (6.liJd2 liJc6 7.liJgf3 Wle6 is balanced) 6 . . . Wlxb2! ? 7.liJd2 (7.Ad4?! does not impress after 7 . . . Wlb4t B .c3 Wle7 with a healthy extra pawn, and 7.Axg4 Wlxal B .AcB does not work due to B . . . Wlb2.) 7 . . . AfS BJ:!b l And White has a dangerous lead in development for a small material investment.

5.mxdl c!t:Jc6 5 . . . Ac5 ! ? could also be considered.

6.-*.£4 This seems like the natural choice, although

several others have been tried.

It is a bit early to commit the king's knight with 6 .liJf3, and Black is doing more than okay after 6 . . . Ag4 or 6 . . . Ac5 .

6.Ab5 i s also not especially challenging after: 6 . . . Ag4t (or6 . . . Ad7 7 .liJf3 liJxe5=) 7.f3 O-o-ot B .Ad2 Ad7 9 .-*.xc6 (otherwise . . . liJxe5 will follow) 9 . . . Axc6 1 0 .liJh3 h6 (preventing the plan of liJg5 and e6) l 1 .liJf2 g5 1 2 .!!e l liJe7

a b c d e f g h

Black intends . . . Ag7, . . . liJg6 and later . . . !!heB . If he succeeds in regaining the e5-pawn then his two bishops and better-placed pieces will give him the advantage, so White definitely has some problems to solve.

6.f4!?


This move represents the only way for White to guarantee holding on to the eS-pawn. It creates serious weaknesses in White's camp and is therefore criticized by various sources. My own view is that the advance of the f-pawn does not in fact compromise White's position excessively, although I must emphasize that Black can certainly claim adequate compensation after a subsequent . . . 0 -f6, opening the centre.

6 . . . i.fS 6 . . . i.g4t 7.i.e2 O-o-ot can be adequately met by 8 .i.d2 lLlh6 9 .lLlf3 i.cs 1 O .c;t>c1 followed by lLlc3. White will try to lighten his defensive task by exchanging pieces, while parrying any direct threats as they arise.

7.lLlf3 7.c3 is less solid, as demonstrated by the following duel: 7 . . . 0-0-ot 8 .c;t>el f6 9 .i.bS fXeS 1 O .i.xc6 bxc6 1 1 .fXeS i.cS 1 2 . lLlf3? ! ( I 2 .b4 was required, with good chances to escape) 1 2 . . . lLlf6! 1 3 .i.gS h6 1 4.i.h4 gS I S .i.f2 ixf2t 1 6.c;t>xf2 lLlg4t 1 7.c;t>g3 hS! 1 8 .h4 gxh4t 1 9 .1Llxh4 i.h7! 20.lLlf3 �hg8 2 1 .�xhS? lLlf6t 22.�gS lLle4t 23.c;t>h4 lLlxgS 24.lLlxgS �d l 2S .e6 �gl 26.lLld2 �xa l 27.lLldf3 i.e4 28.lLld4 cS 29.lLlb3 �gl 0-1 De Firmian - Granda Zuniga, Amsterdam 1 996.

7 . . . 0-0-ot 8 .i.d2

a b c d e f g h

Black obviously has enough for a mere pawn, but I have not found any advantage for him.

8 . . . f6 8 . . . lLlh6 9 .h3 lLlb4 1 0 .lLle l ( I 0 .lLla3!?) 1O . . . i.cS I l .a3 lLldS 1 2 .c;t>c 1 is rather unclear. 8 . . . lLlb4 9 .lLlel (9.lLla3 is possible here too) 9 . . . f6 1 0 .i.c4 also leaves Black with decent compensation but nothing devastating.

9 .i.c4 Giving back the pawn with 9 .i.d3! ? can also be considered, in order to obtain some more freedom.

9 . . . i.g4 1 0 .�e l lLld4� In most of these lines after 6.f4, White is

somewhat passive, but provided he stays alert he should not be objectively worse.

a b c d e f g h

6 ... J.f5 Moving the other bishop is also fine:

6 . . . i.cS 7.lLlf3 lLlge7 8 .lLlbd2 i.g4 9.i.g3 0-0-0 1 0 .i.d3 lLlfS I l .h3 lLlxg3 1 2 .fXg3 ixf3t 1 3 .lLlxf3 �he8 1 4.c;t>d2 lLlxeS I S .lLlxeS �xeS And a draw was agreed in Movsesian -Istratescu, France 2003 .

7.0 O-O-Ot 8.�d2 �ge7 9.�gf3 h6 9 . . . lLlg6 1 O .i.g3 f6!? is an interesting way

to turn Black's opening into a ' real' gambit. 1 1 .exf6 gxf6 1 2.i.bS This position was reached in Tscharotschkin - Giacopelli, Tuebingen 2007, and now Black should have played:

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .llJf3 24 1

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . ttJgeS!N (The game instead saw 1 2 . . . ttJceS , at which point 1 3 .ttJd4!N would have been annoying.) After the text move Black intends . . . ttJd3 and/or . . . .ih6 with full compensation for the pawn.

10.J.c4 lOd5 1 l . .tg3 g5 12J�e1 .tg7 13 . .tb3 gheS 14.h3 a6 15.a3 .tg6 16 . .tc2 lOde7 17.hg6 lOxg6 Is.cbc2 lOgx:e5=

Guezennec - Bratanov, Fouesnant 2003. The above sequence was not forced, but neither side made any notable mistakes, and my feeling is that Black always had enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

A2) 3 ... lOc6

This position can also arise via the Nimzowitsch Defence after l .e4 ttJc6 2.d4 dS 3.exdS WxdS.

4.lOa Note that 4 . .ie3 eS would transpose to a

position we considered above in a note to move 4 of line AI .

If White is desperate, he can try a strange and unsound gambit: 4 .ttJc3 Wxd4 S .We2

White wants to win tempos with his knights; more natural-looking moves achieve nothing: S .J.e3 Wxdl t 6.!!xd l .ifS 7.ttJbS !!c8 8 .ttJf3 a6 i s harmless. If S . .id3 then S . . . ttJb4! kills all the fun, especially as 6 . .ibSt wins absolutely nothing after 6 . . . c6.

S . . . Wb6!N This is an interesting improvement. The queen is no worse on b6 than the white queen on e2. S . . . ig4 6.f3 id7 looks clever, but after 7.ttJbS Wb6 8 . .ie3 Wast 9 . .id2= Black has to agree to a repetition.

6.ttJdS Wast 7.Wd2 Wxd2t 8 .hd2 cbd8 A minor and temporary inconvenience; the

extra pawn is forever. For example: 9 .0-0-0 ttJf6 1 O .ic4 J.e6't

4 .. . .tg4 Another key move is 4 . . . eS . We shall consider

this move in variation B 1 1 on page 244 via the 3 .ttJf3 move order.

a b c d e f g h


5.c4?! This is not a great move, but it is useful to see

how Black should react. The superior 5 .ie2 will be considered in variation B 1 2 via the move order 3 .tLlB .tg4 4 . .te2 tLlc6 5 .d4.

White does have another natural-looking move: 5 .tLlc3

The problem with this move is that the early development of the bishop to g4 offers the black queen a new and appealing square:

5 . . . VNh5! Instead 5 . . . VNa5 6.ib5 could take us into territory we don't want to enter.

6.ie2 Also no problem is: 6.ib5 e6 7.ixc6t (even worse is 7.VNd3?! ixB 8 .gxB tLlge7+ as in Grushevsky - Korchnoi, Tashkent 1 958 . ) 7 . . . bxc6 8 .VNd3 ixf3 (also interesting is 8 . . . id6!?N 9 .tLld2 tLlf6 1 0.tLlde4 ifS 1 1 .tLlxd6t cxd6 1 2.VNg3 0-0 with equality) 9 .gxB 1':1:b8 1 0 .if4 id6 1 1 .ixd6 cxd6 1 2 .0-0-0 tLle7= Janousek - Voj ta, Tatranske Zruby 2005 .

6 . . . 0-0-0 7.0-0 Black is fine after 7.ie3 e5 8 .d5 tLlf6=.

7 . . . tLlf6! This is a key moment as the obvious central break runs into trouble after a novelty: 7 . . . e5? ! 8 .h3 tLlf6

a b c d e f g h

ixB 1 0.ixf3 VNfs= Schellmann - Knafo, Benasque 2000. Or 9 .hxg4? tLlxg4 1 0 .d5 tLld4! when I find it difficult to see an equalizing move for White: 1 1 .1':1:e 1 fS!N White is under a lot of pressure and I doubt his position can be held with best play. For example, 1 2 .ic4 ic5 1 3 .ie3 1':1:d6! or 1 2.ie3 tLlxf3t 1 3 .ixB VNh2t 1 4 .'it>f1 tLlxe3t 1 5 .1':1:xe3 ic5--+. ) 9 . . . ixf3 (not 9 . . . ixh3? 1 O.tLlxe5 !+- or 9 . . . id6 1 0 .d5!±) 1 0 .ixB VNfs (or 1 0 . . . VNg6 1 1 .ixc6 exd4 1 2 .ixb7t �xb7 1 3 .VNf3t with an attack) 1 1 .ixc6 exd4 1 2 .VNB VNxf3 1 3 .ixB dxc3 1 4.ixc3;!; The two bishops secure an obvious edge.

8 .h3 tLlxd4! 9 .tLlxd4 ixe2 1 O .tLlcxe2 e5 1 1 .ie3

a b c d e f g h

This has been played a number of times. Here the following flexible move is interesting:

1 1 . . .VNg6!?N The main idea is that White cannot recapture on d4 with a knight now, as there is no exchange of queens.

1 2 .VNc 1 exd4 1 3 .tLlxd4 Black has a slight edge after 1 3 .ixd4 id6.

1 3 . . . a6= Black has no problems.

5 • • • VNa5t! Luring the bishop to d2 is useful for Black as

the d4-pawn will be vulnerable in some lines.

9 .id2!!N (Black would be fine after 9.d5 Therefore 5 . . . VNf5 is less precise.

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .ltJf3 243

The acrobatic 5 . . . %Ve4t!? 6.i.e3 i.xf3 7.gxf3 %Vh4 S.d5 0-0-0 9.lLld2 lLld4 is also less convincing than the text move, and leads to complications that require thorough analysis.

6.tLlc3 So far nobody seems to have tried the

alternative: 6.i.d2N %Vf5!

The position is similar to that reached in line B222 with 3.lLlf3 i.g4 4.i.e2 lLlc6 5.d4 0-0-0 6.c4 %Vf5 , but it turns out that Black can achieve more than a simple transposition.

7.i.e2 After 7.i.e3 Black can take the aforementioned transposltlon with 7 . . . 0-0-0, but 7 . . . e5 and 7 . . . i.xf3 are both more promising. Also 7.i.c3 gives Black a pleasant choice between 7 . . . i.xf3 and 7 . . . 0-0-0 S.d5 e5 .

7 . . . i.xf3 s .i.xf3 lLlxd4 9.i.xb7 lLlc2t 9 . . . E!:bS? is worse: 1 0 .%Va4t mdS 1 1 .%Vxa7 lLlc2t 1 2 .me2 And the complications favour White, as the reader can check for himself.

1 0 .mfl ? ! After 1 O .me2 Black has a minimum of a draw with 1 O . . . lLld4t, but it is not clear ifhe has anything significantly better.

1 0 . . . %Vd3t Now White must make a difficult decision.

a b c d e f g h

l l .mgl After 1 1 .%Ve2 %Vxe2t 1 2 .mxe2 E!:bS 1 3 .i.c6t mdS 14.i.c3 lLlxal 1 5 .E!:d l t mcs Black is an exchange up in the endgame.

1 1 . . .E!:bS 1 2 .i.c6t mdS 1 3 .h4 lLlxal 14 .E!:h3 %Vd6 1 5 .i.e4 lLlf6

The position is messy but it is White who is under pressure to demonstrate sufficient compensation for the invested rook.

6 • • • 0-0-0 Now the pressure against the d-pawn forces

the following advance:

8 �.�� '� ��r%"",v-�r�"",y.�*r%" "" 7 � ' W� W� ' W� ,

6 " ' ' '%� .� ' ' ' , ,%� ' ' ' , ,%� 5

S1 111111 111� 111� 4 ul1ll !� 111111 !111 3

1IIm" u'1II �� 1II�%,u � 1110% 1110" 2 �!tlW27��w;,J�j�[j 1 � �if� !<��

a b c d e f g h

7.d5 e6 8 . .id2 ad5 9.ttlxd5 .ib4 10.i.e2 1 0.lLlxb4!? looks scary but it may enable

White to hold: 1 O . . . lLlxb4 1 1 .%Vb3 E!:xd2 ( l l . . .i.xf3!?) 1 2 .mxd2 lLle7 Black has no cunning discovered check, so the introduction of further reinforcements is logical . 1 3 .mc1


llJec6 1 4.a3 And now after 14 . . . �d8 I S .�c3, or 1 4 . . . J.f5 1 S .�c3, or finally 1 4 . . . �e8 1 S .J.d3, there is nothing decisive to be seen.

a b c d e f g h

IO .. . .bd2t!N Continuing with 1 0 . . . J.xf3? ! spoiled most of

Black's advantage in the following encounter: 1 1 .J.xf3 J.xd2t 1 2 .�xd2 �xd2t 1 3 .cJixd2 llJeS 1 4.cJic3 c6 At this point a draw was agreed in Short - Wockenfuss, Bundesliga 1 987, since I S .llJe3 llJxf3 1 6.gxf3 is nothing much for Black.

1 1 .�xd2 Wxd2t 12.ttlxd2 ttlh6 Black keeps some initiative, despite the

simplifications.

This is generally considered the more accurate of the two variations for White considered in this chapter, as now 3 . . . eS is not an option. Instead Black has two interesting replies in BI) 3 . • • ttlc6 and B2) 3 • • • .ig4.

As I said after 3 .d4, neutral moves are also possible. For example, 3 . . . llJf6 4.d4 and White will soon play c2-c4. Black can certainly play in this fashion, but I wish to concentrate on more dynamic approaches.

BI) 3 . . . ttlc6

Here White can choose between BI I) 4.d4 and B12) 4.�c3. I would tend to regard the latter as the really critical test, after which Black will have a hard time equalizing.

4 .c4? ! is unconvincing, to say the least: 4 . . . �aS S .llJc3 and now either . . . eS or . . . J.f5 is fine for Black.

Bl l) 4.d4 e5!?

4 . . . J.g4 S .J.e2 takes us into variation B2.

The text move is related to line Al with 3.d4 eS , but the additional knight moves bring certain differences.

5.ttlc3


S .dxeS 'lWxd l t 6.�xd l transposes to line Al with 3 . . . eS 4.dxeS and so on.

S • • • .tb4 6 • .td2 Here we see the first big difference from line

AI : the inclusion of the moves �gl -f3 and . . . �b8-c6 has deprived Black of the possibility of . . . 'lWxd4.

6 ... hc3 7..txc3 e4 7 . . . exd4? has been played in some games,

but I do not consider it worth analysing, as Black is clearly asking for trouble by opening the long diagonal .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8.�d2

a b c d e f g h

This is White's most ambitious reply. The alternative does not yield more than a symbolic edge: 8 .lLleS lLlxeS 9 .dxeS lLle7

Now in the event of a queen exchange on dS, the threat of . . . lLlxc3 will win a tempo. If the knight is chased from dS, by c2-c4, it will conveniently bounce back on f4 or b4. Also to be noted is the fact that Black will be able to protect the e4-pawn with . . . .tf5, and can in the meantime easily attack the intruder on eS .

1 O .'lWe2!? 1 0 .'lWxds lLlxdS 1 1 ..taS .te6 12 .c4 lLlb6 1 3 .b3 0-0-0 is approximately equal, since

the bishop pair is not too frightening. 1 0 . . . .te6

1 O . . . 'lWc6?! is less accurate, as the queen was preventing long castling on dS .

1 1 .E!:dl 'lWc6 Black should be fine, as demonstrated in

several games.

8 .. . �f6 9.�c4 9 . .tc4? 'lWgS is obviously inappropriate.

9 ... J.e6 9 . . . 0-0 is playable too, intending to meet

1 0 .lLle3 'lWgS l 1 .dS by 1 1 . . .E!:d8.

Another possibility is 9 . . . .tg4!? 1 0 .'lWd2 0-0-0 l 1 .lLle3 'lWgS 1 2.h3 .te6 1 3 .0-0-0 E!:d6 with level chances, Zhukhovitsky - Baile, Tbilisi 1 9S7.

10.�e3 White can also opt for the sharper 1 O.'lWd2

0-0 l 1 .b3 E!:fd8 1 2 .0-0-0, when the oppositesided castling promises an exciting battle, and the following game did not disappoint: 12 . . . 'lWhs 1 3 . .te2 'lWg6 1 4.lLle3 as I S .f4 lLldS 1 6.lLlxdS .txdS 1 7.'lWe3 a4 18 . .tb2 axb3 1 9 .axb3 lLlb4 20.c4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

20 . . . E!:a2! ? 2 1 .cxdS E!:da8 22.f5 'lWxf5 23.E!:hfl 'lWg6 24 . .tc4 E!:al t! 2S .,txa l ? (2S.�d2! was necessary) 2S . . . E!:xa l t 26.�b2 E!:a2t 27.�cl E!:c2t 28.�b l 'lWxg2 29 . .te2 E!:xe2 30.'lWc3 E!:c2


3 1 .�a l l"l:a2 32.�c3 l"l:a l t 0-1 Van der Wiel Reinderman, Wijk aan Zee 1 998.

10 . . . Wd7 1 1 ..ib5 a6 12 . .ia4 This position was reached in Rozentalis -

Petrov, Athens 2003, and now the following idea deserved consideration:

a b c d e f g h

12 ... b5!?N If Black is looking for a more solid alternative

then 1 2 . . . 0-0-0N is quite alright, and also improves over the game continuation.

In the game Black erred with: 1 2 . . . 0-0?!

And after: 1 3 . .ixc6 �xc6 14 . .ib4 l"l:fe8 I S .c4 White's mobile c- and d-pawns gave him some initiative. Play continued:

I S . . . �d7 Of course not I S . . . .ixc4?? 1 6.l"l:c 1 .

1 6.dS .if5 1 7.h3 .ig6 1 8 . .ic3 �e7?! Black should have let his f-pawn roll, with 1 8 . . . lLlhS!N 1 9 .�d4 f5 .

1 9 .�d4 cS 20.dxc6 bxc6 2 1 .0-0-0 White was firmly in control and duly

converted his advantage in Rozentalis - Petrov, Athens 2003 .

13 . .tb3 hb3 14.axb3 b4 15 . .td2 Wxd4 16.c!iJf5

a b c d e f g h

16 ... Wxb2 Also playable is 1 6 . . . �eS 1 7.lLlxg7t �f8

( l 7 . . . �e7) 1 8 . .ih6 l"l:g8 , but Black can get away with the pawn grab.

17.c!iJxg7t �f8 White's compensation is uncertain, although

the position remains complex and tricky for both players. The black king seems safe enough, despite appearances.

B12) 4.c!iJc3 Wa5

4 . . . �hS? ! is inadvisable due to S .lLlbS! when S . . . �d8 is forced. Losing the right to castle is far more of a concession than the time White has expended moving his knight.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .lLlf3 247

5 . .ib5! This pin represents White's most promising

attempt to challenge his opponent's chosen system.

5 .d4?! This natural move yields no advantage.

5 . . . Ag4 6.Ab5 Also harmless is 6.h3 hf3 7.Wfxf3 0-0-0 8 .Ae3 lLlxd4 9.Axd4 �xd4 1 O .Wfxf7 lLlf6=.

6 . . . 0-0-0 7.Axc6 bxc6 8 .h3 Escaping the bishop's pin by means of 8 .Wfd3 allows Black to profit from another pin with: 8 . . . c5 9.d5 lLlf6 (or 9 . . . e6! ? 1 0 .0-0 c4 1 1 .Wfxc4 Axf3 1 2 .gxf3 exd5 with approximate equality, Mastrovasilis -Vlassov, Warsaw 2008) 1 0 .0-0 c4 I 1 .Wfxc4 Axf3 1 2 .gxf3 lLlxd5=

8 . . . Wfh5 8 . . . Ah5 ?! is awkward, as after 9.g4 Ag6 1 0 .lLle5;!; as in Hanasz - Sygulski, Poland 1 987, White intends Wff3 and Ae3 with a dangerous initiative.

a b c d e f g h

9 .Wfe2 9.Wfd3 is slightly inaccurate in the sense that it increases Black's possibilities. 9 . . . Axf3 1 0.gxf3 e5 ! ? ( l 0 . . . e6 can be compared with the line 9 .Wfe2 Axf3 1 O .gxf3 e6, as analysed immediately below) I I .d5 lLle7 1 2 .Wfa6t!? (In the following game 1 2 .Ad2?! resulted in a position where only Black had winning chances: 1 2 . . . cxd5 [ 1 2 . . . lLlxd5!?]

1 3 .Wfa6t 'ttb8 1 4.lLlb5 lLlc8 1 5 .Wfc6 Ad6 1 6.0-0-0 Wfxf3 1 7.Ae3 Wfe4 1 8 .�hgl Wfc4 1 9 .Wfxc4 dxc4 20.�xg7 f5 Iordachescu -Vlassov, Moscow 1 995 . ) 1 2 . . . 'ttd7 1 3 .dxc6t lLlxc6 1 4.Ae3 Wfxf3 1 5 .�d l t Ad6 1 6.�gl ( l 6.0-0! ?N) G. Fischer - Porth, Germany 1 988 . The position remains unclear, with both kings having concerns.

9 . . . Axf3 1 O .gxf3 e6 10 . . . �xd4? is too greedy: I 1 .Ae3 �d6 1 2.lLle4 �d5 1 3 .Wfa6t 'ttd7 1 4 .lLlc5t �xc5 1 5 .Axc5 Smikovski - Solodovnichenko, Internet 2004. White is winning, since 1 5 . . . Wfxc5 runs into 1 6.0-0-0t 'tte6 1 7.Wfc8t. 10 . . . lLlf6 on the other hand, is a valid option: I 1 .Wfa6t 'ttd7 1 2 .Wfd3 e6 1 3 .Ad2 Ab4 1 4.�gl Axc3 1 5 .Axc3 �hg8 1 6.0-0-0 Wfb5 1 7.d5 Wfxd3 1 8 .dxe6t 'ttxe6 1 9 .cxd3 This was Asrian - Summerscale, Ubeda 1 999, and now after 19 . . . �d6N the ending would be very drawish.

a b c d e f g h

l 1 .lLle4 White has tried several alternatives, but nothing seems to yield any edge: I 1 .Ad2, as in Chehlov - Vlassov, Yalta 1 995 , can be met by 1 1 . . .'ttb7N=. I 1 .Ae3 Ab4 1 2 .0-0-0 Axc3 (or 12 . . . Wfa5 1 3 .�d3 Wfa6) 1 3 .Wfa6t 'ttd7 14 .bxc3 lLle7 was fine for Black in Pieper - Vlassov, Internet 200 1 . {In fact the pawn sacrifice 1 4 . . . Wfb5 ! ?N 1 5 .Wfxa7 lLle7 may have been even better. Black will install his knight on


f5 and only needs to be careful about the push d4-d5 , which would open lines . )

1 1 . . J!xd4 1 2 .ie3 \Wa5t 1 3 .c3 !'!a4

a b c d e f g h 1 4.0-0

And not 1 4.b3?? !'!xe4 1 5 .fxe4 \Wxc3t 1 6 .<j;lfl \Wxa l t 1 7.<j;lg2 \We5-+ .

1 4 . . . \Wb5 1 5 .\Wc2 tLlf6 1 6.b3 !'!a5 1 7.b4 1 7.tLlg5!?

1 7 . . . \Wa4 1 8 .\We2? 1 8 .\Wb3 \Wxb3 1 9 .axb3 !'!xa 1 20.!'!xa 1 tLld5 would have kept the game balanced.

1 8 . . . !'!h5 1 9 .tLlg3 !'!xh3! 20.<j;lg2 !'!h4 2 1 .ig5 tLld5 22.!'!fd 1

a b c d e f g h 22 . . . h6!! 23.!'!xd5 !'!h2t!!

It was not too late to go wrong: 23 . . . hxg5 ?? 24.!'!a5+-After the game continuation White resigned in Riff - Bauer, Swiss Team Ch. 2009, in view of the line:

24.<j;lxh2 hxg5t 25 .<j;lg2 cxd5 Which is disastrous for him.

8 � �� i!J-I')I 7 � i �� i �� i 6 ' ' ' , ,%� Ii� " " ,%� ' ' ' , ,%� \fil!� ��

: J� �� 3

�� l�""' ;�l0 ��'0 ��'0 2 8 �[j 8 �[j �[j 8 �� 1 �""%_.m""%� :

a b c d e f g h 5 .. . i.d7

5 . . . ig4? ! would be answered by the nasty 6.h3! .

6.d4 This natural move seems strongest.

6.\We2 a6 (6 . . . 0-0-0 is another option) 7.ia4 (7.ic4 ig4 8 .id5 tLlf6 9.ixc6t bxc6= Galkin - Vlassov, Novgorod 1 995) 7 . . . 0-0-0 8 .0-0 tLld4 (8 . . . tLlf6!?) 9 .ixd7t !'!xd7 1 O .tLlxd4 !'!xd4 With just a marginal advantage for White, Saltaev - Vlassov, Moscow 1 996.

6 .a3 0-0-0 7.!'!b 1 It seems a little strange to begin an attack before castling.

7 . . . ig4!? 8 .b4 8.ixc6 seems natural, but if one compares the position arising after 8 . . . bxc6 with the one resulting from 5 .d4 ig4 6 . .ib5 0-0-0 6 . .ixc6 bxc6, Black can hardly be frightened.

8 . . . \Wb6 9.ie2 The sequence 9 . .ixc6 \Wxc6 1 O .tLle5 .ixd 1 l 1 .tLlxc6 ixc2 1 2 .tLlxd8 <j;lxd8 1 3 .!'!b2 .id3 leaves Black with nice compensation for his minimal material deficit.

9 . . . .ixf3 1 0 . .ixf3 tLld4= Kholmov - Vlassov, Warsaw 1 99 1 . White

has no attack on the queenside, and his bishop pair does not count for much.

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .tLlf3 249

6.0-0 This will often transpose to the main line below after 6 . . . 0-0-0 7.d4. However, the text move might offer Black a little more flexibility as there is no immediate threat of d4-d5 .

6 . . . 0-0-0 Another idea is 6 . . . ttJf6 7.d3 ! ? (7.d4 Ieads to more conventional positions) 7 . . . a6 8 .i.a4 �h5? ! (8 . . . e6 was logical, but Black probably still dreamt of playing . . . i.g4 at some point) 9 .ttJe2 0-0-0 1 O .ttJg3 �a5 l 1 .c3 ttJe5 1 2 .i.xd7t ttJfxd7 1 3 .d4 ttJxf3t 14.�xf3 ttJf6 1 5 .�el e6 (or 1 5 . . . �d5 1 6.�e2) 1 6.�e5 �b6 1 7. b4 White had a space advantage and some prospects of a queenside attack in Mueller - Gross, Germany 1 99 1 .

7.a3 ! ? This i s one way in which White can derive some independent value from his chosen move order. As noted previously, 7.d4 reaches the main line below, and this is almost certainly White's strongest move.

7 . . . a6

8 7 6 5

��';:: ..al� 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

Another game continued: 7 . . . ttJf6 8 .�b 1 �b6 9 .h3 e6 1 O .d3 ttJd5 1 1 .i.d2 i.e8 1 2 .i.c4 ttJd4 1 3 .b4 ttJxc3 14 .i.xc3 ttJxf3t 1 5 .�xf3 �c6 1 6.�xc6 Y2-Y2 Khalifman -Minasian, Yerevan 1 996.

8 .b4 ttJxb4 9 .i.xd7t �xd7 1 0.axb4 �xa 1 1 1 .ttJe5 ttJf6 1 2.�e2 e6 1 3 .ttJxd7 ttJxd7 1 4.�c4

c5 1 5 .bxc5 ttJxc5! 1 6.�f4 �a5 1 7.�xf7 �c7 1 8 .�e8t �d8 1 9 .�h5 �d4

Groszpeter - Vlassov, Passau 1 994. This position seems roughly equal, although Black eventually won after an exciting fight.

a b c d e f g h

6 . . . 0-0-0 Another path starts with:

6 . . . ttJf6 This position can also arise via the move order 3 .ttJc3 �a5 4.d4 ttJf6 5 .ttJf3 ttJc6 6.i.b5 i.d7. With the present sequence Black has avoided the critical 6.i.d2! , but on the other hand he could not answer 6.i.b5 with 6 . . . ttJe4 or 6 . . . ttJd5.

7.i.d2 7.d5 is interesting but complicated.

7 . . . 0-0-0 8 .a4 �b6 9.i.e3 This seems annoying for Black.

9 . . . ttJb4 Or 9 . . . �a5 1 0 .0-0.

1 0.a5 �d6 1 1 .a6 b6 So far this is Kuzuev - Khasanova, Omsk! Perm 1 998.

1 2 .ttJe5 The initiative is clearly with White.

6 . . . a6 This has been played numerous times, but it fails to equalize.

7.i.xc6! i.xc6 8 .0-0


a b c d e f g h

8 . . . �h5 8 . . . 0-0-0 transposes to 6 . . . 0-0-0. After 8 . . . e6 9 .ttJe5 i.d6 Deviatkin - Vlassov, Moscow 1 999 White could have secured himself an edge with 1 O .ttJxc6N bxc6 1 1 .�g4.

9 .ttJe5! �xd l 1 0 .Eixd l e6 l 1 .ttJxc6 bxc6;t White's better pawn structure gives him a

slight but risk-free advantage, Mijovic - Yeke, Antalya 2009.

7.0-0 7.i.d2!? is interesting, but ultimately

less promising than the main line. 7 . . . i.g4 (7 . . . a6?! runs into the awkward 8 .a4! threatening ttJd5) 8.i.xc6 bxc6 9 .�e2 White has won an important tempo compared to the 5 .d4 i.g4 6.i.b5 variation. That being said, the black side remains fully defendable after 9 . . . ttJf6.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

7 • . • a6? This is a mistake, but in a way it is the most

consistent and principled move, as well as the most frequent choice in the position, which is why I am keeping it as the main line.

7 . . . e6 is possible, but after 8 .a3 White is poised to launch a powerful queenside offensive.

7 . . . ttJf6! is the only way I see to make the black position playable. A possible continuation is 8 .i.d2 e6 (and not 8 . . . a6? 9 .a4!) 9 .a3 a6 with chances for both sides.

8 . .bc6! Other moves fail to impress: 8 .i.a4 e6 is okay

for Black, and 8 .i.e2 e5! 9 .ttJxe5 (or 9.d5 i.e6 1 O .i.c4 ttJf6 l 1 .ttJg5 h6!) 9 . . . ttJxe5 1 0 .dxe5 �xe5 is equal .

8 ... .ixc6 9.ttJe5 .ie8 lO.b4! This is the key concept which has more or

less put 7 . . . a6? out of business.

8 �.��.i.��.i ��.r�",,

,v,�.r%'''' ' '�� '�'" ' ' 7 � ' r� r� '_'

6 r_""'h_""'h_'' ' ' ' h� 5 � � m � "" 'h�/%��/�""' ;� �� 4 if� if� _ � 3 �""��""�� " ' � �0'" �1Ji" 2 ��A�Jtl�l[j 1 � �1i. : �

a b c d e f g h

lO • • • �b6 1 O . . . �xb4 seems too dangerous for Black, as

shown by the following illustrative line: 1 1 .�f3 �xd4 1 2 .Eib l c6 1 3 .i.f4 g5 ! ? 14 .i.g3 i.g7 1 5 .Eifd l i.xe5 1 6.Eixd4 i.xd4 1 7.�f5t Eid7 1 8 .ttJe4 Material is equal but the black pieces are too badly placed to repel the assault.

Chapter 1 2 - 3.d4 and 3 .lLlf3 25 1

1 1 ..ie3 e6 1 1 . . .VNxb4 is again erroneous, this time due

to 1 2 .ttJe4 e6 1 3 .1'!b l +- intending VNf3.

12.1'!bl f6 No better is 1 2 . . . ttJf6 1 3 .VNf3 .

13.�c4 ti'c6 14.�a5 ti'xc3 15J�b3 hb4 16.gxc3 hc3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17.�xb7! �xb7 18.ti'bl t �a8 19.ti'b3 hd4

Or 1 9 . . . J.a5 20.ti'a3! , when the threatened VNfB will win a whole rook.

2o.hd4.ib5 21 .c4 .ic6 22.ti'a3 .ib7 23.ti'c5 �b8 24.gbl �c8 25.ti'a7 1-0

Emms - Kristensen, Esbjerg 1 996.

B2) 3 . . . .tg4

This is widely regarded as the most principled option at Black's disposal.

4 . .ie2 An alternative is:

4.ttJc3 This allows Black to choose between a couple of acceptable options.

4 . . . VNa5 ! ?

This keeps some complexity in the game. If Black is happy with straightforward equality then the easiest answer is 4 . . . VNe6t 5 .VNe2 VNxe2t 6.J.xe2 with a level queenless middlegame.

5 .d4 ttJc6!? 5 . . . ttJf6 transposes to 3 .ttJc3 VNa5 4.d4 ttJf6 5 .ttJf3 J.g4, as analysed in line B of Chapter 5 . From here a plausible continuation is:

6.h3 J.xf3 6 . . . J.h5? ! 7.J.b5 is problematic.

7.VNxf3 0-0-0 8 .J.e3 ttJxd4 9.J.xd4 1'!xd4 1 0 .VNxf7 ttJf6

With equality.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a 4 • • • �c6

e g

It is still too early for 4 . . . e5? ! 5 .ttJc3 VNa5 6.0-0 when White will soon develop unpleasant pressure in the centre.

5.d4 This seems best, although some other moves

have also been tried.

5 .ttJc3 The drawback of this move is that it blocks the c-pawn.

5 . . . VNd7 5 . . . VNh5 does not equalize: 6.h3 0-0-0 7.0-0 J.xf3 (The sacrifice 7 . . . ttJf6? 8 .hxg4

2S2 Play the Scandinavian

ttJxg4 is erroneous: 9 .d3 [just not 9 .ttJh4? fS 1 0.g3 gS 1 1 .i.xg4 fxg4 1 2 .ttJg2 ttJeS 1 3 .ttJel �d6] White threatens i.f4 by now and after 9 . . . e6 [or 9 . . . eS]

' 1 0 .ttJe4 is

winning for him.) 8 .i.xf3 The bishop pair makes White's position a trifle better. S . . . WaS is a reasonable alternative though.

6 .0-0 0-0-0 6 . . . ttJf6 is also not bad.

7.b4!? ttJf6 The stage i s set for a double-edged battle, but in the following encounter White became far too optimistic.

a b c d e f g h

8 .a4? 8 .bS .ixf3 9 .i.x£3 ttJd4 should be balanced.

8 . . . i.x£3 9 .i.xf3 ttJxb4! It is safe to grab the pawn here, as the knight can no longer be repelled by a2-a3 .

1 O .aS e6 Black was on top and eventually won

in Guerra Bastida - Prie, Saint Sebastien 2006.

White can also challenge the bishop immediately with: S .h3

However, the fact that White has not yet castled enables the following idea:

S . . . i.x£3 6.i.x£3 West! 7.We2 Wxe2t 8.,ixe2 ttJd4

8 . . . 0-0-0 is also playable. 9 .i.d l eS

a b c d e f g h

White's bishop pair is roughly balanced by Black's extra space and active pieces.

1 0 .0-0 1 O .c3 ! ?

1 0 . . . 0-0-0 1 1 .d3 l l .�e 1 f6 1 2 .d3 is a bit more accurate, but does not change much fundamentally.

1 1 . . .g6 1 2 .f4 i.h6 1 3 .ttJa3 i.xf4 1 4.i.xf4 exf4 1 S .�xf4 f5 1 6.�f1 ttJf6 1 7.c3 ttJc6 1 8 .i.c2 ttJdS 1 9 .�ae l �he8 20.@f2 a6 2 1 .�xe8 �xe8 22.�e 1 �xe 1 23.@xe 1

Y2-Y2 Beikert - Prie, France 1 997.

8 � ��,� �a-!)I 7 � i �� i �� i "" , %� �� "",%� ' ' ' , , %� 6 �� 5 �� I�� !� 4 ��" � �� 3 �W" �� r..", 2 8J[j� �!J[j� �[j 1 �CZJ�Vk � � � a b c d e f g h

5 . . . 0-0-0 A clear inaccuracy is:

5 . . . e6?! This move gives White time to breathe, compared to the main line where he must immediately attend to the attack on his d-pawn. Furthermore Black deprives himself

Chapter 1 2 - 3.d4 and 3 .ttJf3 253

of the opportunity to strike with . . . e7-e5 in one go.

6.h3 6.0-0 is possible too, but preventing . . . 'lWh5 may prove useful later on.

6 . . . ih5 7.0-0 7.c4 is less promising, for instance: 7 . . . 'lWd7 (Black should avoid 7 . . . 'lWa5t? 8 .id2 ib4 9.g4 ixd2t 1 O .lLlbxd2 ig6 1 1 .a3 'lWb6 1 2.d5 lLld4 1 3 .'lWa4t when White was clearly on top in Meessen - McPhillips, Fuegen 2006. However, 7 . . . ib4t is a decent alternative.) 8 .d5 exd5 9 .cxd5 ixf3 1 0.ixf3 lLle5 Black's position looks very playable.

7 . . . 0-0-0 7 . . . :!::ld8 is also best answered by 8 .ie3 . The alternative 7 . . . lLlf6 8 .c4 'lWd8 leads to a slight but risk-free edge for White. Here is one example: 9 .lLlc3 (9 .ie3! ?) 9 . . . ixf3 1 O .ixf3 lLlxd4 1 1 .ixb7 :!::lb8 1 2 .'lWa4t lLld7 1 3 .ic6 lLlxc6 1 4.'lWxc6 :!::lb6 1 5 .'lWf3 id6 1 6.:!::ld 1 Black has no compensation for his inferior structure, Afek - Ly, La Fere 2005 .

8 .ie3 lLlf6 9 .c4 'lWd7 1 0 .lLlbd2 Michielsen - Reed, Jyvaskyla 2009. White

has successfully completed his development while covering d4. His prospects of an assault on the queens ide are higher than those of Black on the other wing.

Here White must make an important choice. Some players have tried the passive B21) 6.c3?!, but the two most important moves are B22) 6.c4 and B23) 6.ie3.

B21) 6.d?!

This move is too meek, and does not even succeed in avoiding complications after Black's natural reaction.

6 . • . e5! 7.ie3 No better is:

7.c4 'lWe4! 7 . . . 'lWa5t 8 .id2 ib4 only transposes to line B233 with 6.ie3 e5 7.c4 'lWa5t .

8 .lLlbd2 ib4 9.d5 lLld4! This was criticized by Wahls back in 1 997, but it is in fact more than okay for Black.

1 0 .lLlxd4 exd4 1 1 . f3

a b c d e f g h


1 1 . . . .ixB! ! This was what the German Scandinavian expert had missed.

1 2 .gxB 'lWh4t 1 3 .'it>f1 'lWh3tN 13 . . . d3 is also strong and led to a black victory in Krulich - Sulskis, Bad Wiessee 2003, but by changing the move order around, Black slightly reduces his opponent's options.

1 4 .'it>gl 1 4.'it>f2 meets with a similar fate, while 1 4 .'it>e l ? would be even worse due to 14 . . . 'lWg2 1 5 .Ei:f1 Ei:e8 and White can already resign.

1 4 . . . d3 1 5 .lLle4 Forced, in order to prevent a nasty check from c5.

1 5 . . . dxe2 1 6.'lWxe2 lLlf6 White's position i s in shreds, with few hopes

of salvation.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

7 ... e4!

a b c d e f g h

This is much stronger than: 7 . . . exd4?! 8 .cxd4

The theoretical weakness of the isolated d-pawn is offset by the increased active possibilities for White's pieces.

8 . . . lLlf6 8 . . . 'lWd6!? was a suggestion of Wahls in ChessBase Magazine. He then rejected 9 .0-0 because of the follow-up: 9 . . . .ixf3 1 O . .ixf3 lLlxd4 1 1 ..ixd4 'lWxd4 1 2 .'lWb3 'lWb4 1 3 .'lWxf7

'lWxb2 (In view of what follows, Black should prefer 1 3 . . . lLlf6 or 1 3 . . . lLlh6, when White is not worse. ) But he missed that after 1 4.lLlc3! ! 'lWxc3 1 5 .Ei:ab l b6 1 6.'lWe6t 'it>b8 1 7.Ei:fc l Black's monarch i s irremediably weakened, making 1 7 . . . 'lWxf3 the only move. This means that 1 3 . . . 'lWxb2 is too greedy.

9 .lLlc3 'lWh5 ?! 1 0.h3 .id6 1 1 .'lWa4 .id7?! 1 2 .lLle5! 'lWfS

12 . . . lLlxe5? is also losing after 1 3 .'lWxa7 .ig4 1 4.dxe5 .ixe2 1 5 .exd6 .ia6 1 6.dxc7. This was Boudre - Hauchard, Besan�on 1 999, and here the simplest way for White to capitalize on his advantage would have been:

a b c d e f g h

1 3 .lLlxf7N Winning an exchange for very little

compensation.

8.c!l:JgI 8 .lLlfd2 he2 9.'lWxe2 f5 does not change

much, except that White will find it harder to develop his queen's knight on a decent square.

8 ... .be2N This is a simple improvement over Esser -

Stromer, Aachen 1 988 , when Black instead preferred 8 . . . .ifS.

9.c!l:Jxe2 f5 IO.c!l:Jd2 c!l:Jf6 Wahls evaluates this position as slightly

better for Black due to his space advantage; an opinion that I share.

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .llJf3 255

B22) 6.c4

Here we will consider in detail B221) 6 • • • Wa5t followed by the big main line of B222) 6 • . • WfS.

6 . . . Wd7?! is too passive. After 7.d5 .ixB B . .ixf3 lLle5 White rightly chose to sacrifice in the following game: 9 .0-0! lLlxc4 1 0 .lLlc3 lLlf6 I l .We2 lLld6 12 . .ie3 �bB 1 3 .a4 White had a strong initiative in Becerra Rivero - Sarkar, Stillwater 2007, with lLlb5 being next on the agenda.

6 . . . Wh5? ! is also not great: 7 . .ie3 e5 B .d5 e4 (B . . . lLlf6 9.lLlbd2 reaches line B234 1 with 6 . .ie3 lLlf6 7.lLlbd2) 9 .lLlg5 .ixe2 1 0 .Wlxe2 Wlxe2t 1 1 .�xe2 lLle5 1 2 .lLld2 :1!eB 1 3 .:1!hc l

1 3 . . . h6?!

13 . . . fSN would have avoided losing a pawn, although the endgame arising after 1 4 . .id4 lLlh6 1 5 .lLle6 lLlhf7 1 6.f3 remains in White's favour.

1 4 .lLlgxe4 f5 1 5 .lLlg3 f4 1 6 . .ixf4 lLlxc4t 1 7.lLlde4

White's advantage was already reaching decisive proportions in Guseinov - Stefanova, Dubai 1 999. (Incidentally the actual course of the game was l .e4 d5 2 .exd5 Wlxd5 3 .d4 lLlc6 4.lLlB .ig4 5 .c4 Wh5 [5 . . . Wla5t!] and so on. This may explain why Black ended up in this dubious variation.)

B221) 6 • • • Wa5t

7.lLlc3?! This pawn sacrifice is too optimistic.

The strongest move is 7 . .id2! , and after 7 . . . WlfS (or 7 . . . Wlh5 ?! B . .ie3 , when we reach 6 . . . Wlh5? ! as noted above) B . .ie3 we have transposed into line B222 with 6 . . . WlfS .

7 • • • .bf3 8 • .bf3 lLlxd4 9.0-0 �f6 10 • .te3 �xf3t

I prefer 10 . . . e5!N as the game continuation proved quite dangerous for Black.

1 l .Wxf3 e6 12.�b5 a6 13.b4 Wa4 14.�a7t �b8 15.b5


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h 15 • • J3d3

1 5 . . . Wxc4!?N was worth considering. Opening lines in front of Black's king brings certain risks, but on the other hand Black would have acquired the useful d5-outpost.

16.gabl J.c5 17.bxa6 It is unclear whether White would have

obtained more opportunities after 1 7.tlJc6t!?N �cB (and not 17 . . . bxc6?? I B .Wxc6 with decisive threats) I B .tlJe5 �a3 1 9 .�fd l .

a b c d e f g h

17 • . • Wxa6 18.tl:!c6t �c8 19.tlJe5 ga3 20.Wg3 tl:!e8 21 .tl:!xf7

Barrio Pareja - Tiviakov, EI Sauzal (rapid) 200B. Black eventually won, although the position at this stage is unclear and doubleedged.

B222) 6 •• .'�f5

This is the main line after 6.c4. On f5 the queen is active but not too exposed.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

7.J.e3 J.xf3 This is the critical continuation, eliminating

a defender of the d-pawn before White can consolidate with tlJbd2. Nevertheless, there are some playable alternatives.

7 . . . e5 ! ? B.d5 tlJf6 9.tlJc3 9 .0-0 transposes to 6 . . . tlJf6 7.c4 Wf5 below, while after 9 .tlJbd2 Black can respond with 9 . . . tlJb4.

9 . . . a6 9 . . . e4 is also interesting. The same goes for 9 . . . .ixf3 1 0 . .ixf3 tlJd4 1 1 ..ixd4 exd4 1 2 .Wxd4 �eBt (or 12 . . . c5 ! ?N) with decent compensation for the pawn, Lopez Martinez - De la Riva Aguado, Seville 2004.

1 0 .tlJh4 Wh5 1 1 ..ixg4t tlJxg4 1 2 .h3 Wxh4 1 3 .Wxg4t Wxg4 1 4.hxg4

All this was played in Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son - Czebe, Budapest 2007, and now Black should have played:

1 4 . . . tlJa5!N In the game he preferred the passive 14 . . . tlJbB and after 1 5 .tlJe4 White was in complete control.


I S .b3 bS ! This secures reasonable counterplay, for instance:

1 6.cxbS .ib4 1 7 . .id2 axbS With unclear play

Another idea is: 7 . . . tLlf6 8 .tLlbd2 e6! ?

8 . . . eS i s more common, but the more restrained alternative is by no means bad.

9 .a3 Most players have preferred to take control over the b4-square, but the straightforward 9 .0-0 also deserves consideration.

9 . . . tLle4 The overly creative 9 . . . .ihS ?! failed to produce the desired outcome after 1 0.h3! .ig6 1 1 .l::k 1 , when Black was missing a constructive follow-up. Mter the further 1 1 . . .hS 1 2 .b4 h4 1 3 .Wla4 tLld7 1 4.bS tLlb6 I S .Wlb3 tLle7 1 6.a4 White had successfully expanded and went on to win in Borisek -Nevednichy, Nova Gorica 2007.

1 O .h3 .ixf3 l 1 .tLlxf3 .ics 1 2 .0-0 1 2 .Wld3? would not have parried the opponent's threat: 1 2 . . . tLlxd4! 1 3 .tLlxd4 .ixd4 1 4.hd4 cS I S .f3 tLlg3! 1 6.WlxfS exfS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

v'='''' . . . . . . . .

a b c d e f g h And Black will regain the sacrificed material with interest.

1 2 . . . tLlxd4 1 3 .tLlxd4 .ixd4 14 . .ixd4 cS l S . .ig4 WIgS

Spraggett - Munoz Pantoja, EI Sauzal (rapid) 2006.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

t',="',,,,, . . . .

a b c d e f g h

1 6.Wlf3!N This is better than the game continuation of 1 6.Wla4? cxd4 1 7.Wlxa7, after which 1 7 . . . WlcS!N would have been unclear.

1 6 . . J:!xd4 1 7.Wlxf7 With a slight but risk-free edge for White .

8 . .bf3 �xd4! This pseudo-sacrifice is the reason why Black

deliberately gave up the bishop pair.

9.hd4 An interesting alternative is:

9 . .ig4 tLlc2t 1 O.Wlxc2 Wlxg4 1 1 .0-0 Here I found a new idea for Black:

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . . . e6!?N Apart from this move, 1 1 . . .tLlh6 is quite reasonable, as well as 1 1 . . .Wlg6 1 2 .Wla4 Wla6 1 3 .Wlxa6 bxa6 1 4 . .ixa7 e6 when the endgame was fine for Black in Yoos - Perez Garcia, Montreal 2007.


However, it should be emphasized that the more common 1 1 . . .a6? only gave White a target after 1 2.b4!t inTimofeev- Ovetchkin, Krasnoyarsk 2007. The point of the text move is that Black does not in fact need to safeguard the a7 -pawn for the time being, as shown by the following analysis:

1 2 .ixa7? Evidently White should prefer 1 2 .tLlc3 , with chances to demonstrate compensation.

12 . . . b6 1 3 .a4 WlfS 1 4.WlxfS No better is 1 4.Wlc3 icS ! , threatening the terrible . . . Wlxf2t .

1 4 . . . exfS I S .aS ..t>b7 1 6.axb6 cxb6 Black stands clearly better, for example:

1 7.tLlc3 E!:d2 I B .tLlbS tLlf6 1 9 .E!:fd l E!:xd l t 20.E!:xd l ics-+

9 • • .'i!Ye6t 10 . .ie2

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

10 . • • Wle4 Another reliable option is:

1 O . . . cS l 1 .tLlc3 Perhaps a stronger move is: I 1 .Wla4! This enables White to force a draw, but I do not believe he can aspire to anything greater. 1 1 . . . cxd4 1 2 .Wlxa7 tLlh6! (but not 1 2 . . . d3? 1 3 .tLlc3 dxe2 [ 1 3 . . . tLlf6 14 .0-0-0!] 1 4.WlaBt ..t>d7 I S .Wlxb7t ..t>eB 1 6.tLldS E!:cB 1 7.tLlc7t E!:xc7 I B .Wlxc7 and only White has winning

chances . ) 1 3 .tLla3 d3 14 .WlaBt (in the event of 14 .0-0 Black has a choice between 14 . . . Wla6, 1 4 . . . dxe2 and 14 . . . Wlxe2) 1 4 . . . <j;lc7 I S .tLlbSt ..t>c6 1 6 .tLla7t ..t>c7 1 7.tLlbSt And the game ends with a perpetual check.

1 1 . . .cxd4 1 2 .tLldS Wld6 1 3 .Wlxd4 e6 1 4.Wlxa7 exdS l S .cS

a b c d e f g h

I S . . . Wle7!N After this move White's compensation is in

doubt. In the game he was let off the hook after I S . . . WlxcS 1 6.Wlxcst ixcS 1 7.E!:cl b6 I B .b4 with a roughly equal endgame, Jurkovic - Nevednichy, Bizovac 200B.

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .0-0 Another reasonable continuation is l 1 .tLlc3!?

Wlxd4 1 2 .Wlc2 e6 1 3 .0-0 WleS , although it must be said that this has scored considerably less well in practice than the main line. The general

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .llJf3 259

picture, however, i s the same as in most of the lines here. White has a lead in development in return for the pawn, but must act quickly if he does not want to see the compensation vanish.

1 l • • .'i1Yxd4 12.YlYa4 e6 1 2 . . . 'i1Yxb2?? 1 3 .'i1Yxa7 is of course suicidal ,

although a 2S00-player once stumbled into this position with Black and soon lost after 1 3 . . . e6 1 4.AB llJf6 l S .llJc3! 'i1Yxc3 1 6.'i1Yxb7t md7 1 7.Ac6t rJ;;e7 1 8 .'i1Yxc7t llJd7 1 9 .E:ad l gS 20.Ld7 Ag7 2 1 .Ae8t 1-0 Meijers -Antoniewski, Martigny 200S .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

13 ... J.d6 Developing the bishop is Black's best here,

especially since he will often win a tempo by . . . 'i1YeS later on. Two other moves have been tested, but in both cases Black is struggling to equalize.

1 3 . . . llJf6 14.llJbS? ! This aggressive knight jump resulted in an eventual victory in the only available practical encounter. However, the strongest continuation was 14 .E:fd l !N 'i1Yb6 I S .E:xd8t ( 1 S .b4!?) I s . . . mxd8 1 6.b4! with a strong initiative for White.

14 . . . 'i1Yb6 I S .b4 c6

a b c d e f g h

1 6 .cS ! ? This was White's idea. It scores points for creativity, but objectively it was not quite correct.

1 6 . . . cxbS 1 7.AxbS 'i1Yc7 1 8 .'i1Yxa7 llJdS 1 9 .E:fc l 'i1Yb8 20.'i1Ya4 llJc7 2 1 .Ae2 'i1Ya8 22.'i1Yb3 Ae7 23.a4

a b c d e f g h

23 . . . E:d4?! Up to this point Black had defended well, and here he could have obtained excellent chances with the active 23 . . . E:d2!N 24.AB E:hd8 . Despite the misplacement of his queen and consequent discomfort in his position, Black's material advantage should make the difference in the long run.

24.aS llJa6?? After this blunder the game is over. On the contrary, in the event of24 . . . E:hd8 everything would have been left to play for.


25 .c6 !!hdB 26.\Wf3 'it>bB 27 . .ixa6 1-0 Vuckovic - Milanovic, Belgrade 2006.

1 3 . . . \Wb6 This is playable, but somewhat risky.

1 4.!!ad l !!xd l 1 5 .!!xd l ClJf6 1 6.b4! .ixb4 1 7.!!b l a5 I B .a3 .ixc3 1 9 .!!xb6 cxb6 20.c5 bxc5

a b c d e f g h

2 1 . .if3!N White can force a draw with 21 . .ia6 bxa6 22.\Wc6t 'it>bB 23 .\Wb6t as in Brandenburg Tiviakov, Hilversum 200B, but GM Leonid Kritz suggested in ChessBase Magazine that he could have played for more with the text move.

2 1 . . .!!dB Another option is 2 1 . . .ClJd5 22 . .ixd5 exd5 23.\Wg4t f5 (not 23 . . . 'it>bB ?? 24.\Wg3t+or 23 . . . 'it>dB? ? 24.\Wg3+-) 24.\Wxf5t 'it>bB 25 .\Wxd5 .id4 26.'it>f1

a b c d e f g h

Kritz concludes that White stands clearly better here, and this is the only point on which I disagree with him. I do not think Black is much worse, and am not sure if this position is harder to defend than the one resulting from Kritz's main line below.

22.\Wb5 ClJd5 23 .\Wxc5t 'it>bB 24.g3 ! b6 25 .\Wb5 'it>b7 26.\Wd3 .if6 27.\Wxh7

Kritz ends his analysis here. White is slightly better and can play on without risk.

a b c d e f g h

14.ClJb5 White can also consider:

1 4 .!!fd l \We5 1 5 .g3 'it>bB! 1 5 . . . a6? is a mistake, when White has two critical replies: a) 1 6 .c5? ! This looks tempting but is not best. 16 . . . .ixc5 (Riskier is: 1 6 . . . \Wxc5? ! 1 7.ClJe4 \Wb6 I B .ClJxd6t cxd6 1 9 .!!ac 1 t 'it>bB 20.!!d4 White's activity more than compensates for the two missing pawns, though I am not sure there is a forced win yet, for instance: 20 . . . ClJf6 2 1 .!!b4 \Wa7 22.!!c6 [22 . .if3! ? d5 23.!!c6 'it>aB 24.!!c7l 22 . . . ClJe4! And Black is just about surviving.) 1 7.!!xdBt 'it>xdB I B .!!d l t .id6 1 9 . .iB ClJf6 20.ixb7 White regains his pawns, but after 20 . . . 'it>e7 his edge should not be worth much. b) 1 6.!!ac I ! This simple move is the strongest. 1 6 . . . c5 (or 1 6 . . . ClJf6 1 7.b4!) 1 7 . .iB ClJe7 I B .\Wb3 !!d7 1 9 .ClJa4

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .ttJf3 26 1

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

Robson - Figler, Boca Raton 200B; White's advantage is already close to decisive and he won in short order after: 1 9 . . . i>bB 20.lLlb6 1:%hdB 2 1 .lLlxd7t 1:%xd7 22.�a4 i>cB 23.b4 lLlfS 24.bxc5 �xc5 25 .1:%b l lLld4 26 . .txb7t 1:%xb7 27.�xa6 1-0

1 6.lLlb5 If 16 . .tf3 then Black has either 16 . . . c6 or 16 . . . lLle7 1 7.lLlb5 lLlcB I B .�b3 lLlb6 1 9 .a4 �c5 .

1 6 . . . a6 The greedy 1 6 . . . �xe2? leads to disaster after 1 7 .�xa7t i>cB, at which point I B .�a5 ! is lethal .

1 7.lLlxd6 cxd6 I B . .tf3 lLlf6 I B . . . lLle7!?N was another idea.

1 9 .1:%d3

a b c d e f g h

1 9 . . . lLld7? Black should have closed the long diagonal by 1 9 . . . d5 . In the game he soon went downhill.

20.1:%b3 lLlc5 2 1 .�b4 1:%d7 22.1:%e3 �f6 23.1:%d l 1:%cB 24.�a3 1:%ddB?!

Black had to prevent b4-b5 . 24 . . . e5 25 . .tg4 lLle6 26.1:%xd6 was definitely not the solution, but 24 . . . a5 may still have been tenable.

25 .b4 lLld7 26.b5 lLlc5 27.bxa6 lLlxa6 2B . .txb7 i>xb7 29.1:%b3t i>c7 30.�xa6+-

Michna - Prie, Saint Sebastien 2009. Black is toasted and only a miracle enabled him to escape with a draw.

14 • • • 'ilYe5 15.lLlxd6t cxd6 16 • .tB 'it>b8 17J'Ue1 'ilYc5 18.b4

a b c d e f g h

18 • • • 'ilYc7! This was Pries improvement over

I B . . . 'ilYxc4? ! , which led him into trouble just a few rounds before in the same event. The game continued 1 9 . .txb7! lLle7 and now in Brunello - Prie, Arvier 2007, White could have gained a marked edge with: 20 . .ta6!N (better than the game's 20 . .tf3?!) 20 . . . �c6 2 1 .b5 'ilYb6 22 .1:%ac 1 When White's domination of the c-file is much more significant than Black's extra pawn.

19J:�ac1 �e7 20J:�e3 'ilYd7 21 .'ilYdl :!,k8 22.c5 ghd8 23J�d3 'ilYc7

We have been following the game D'Amore - Prie, Arvier 2007. Black has successfully digested his extra pawn, and kept a slight advantage which he eventually converted.


B23) 6 . .ie3

a b c d e f g h

White protects the d-pawn while at the same time developing a piece. He also remains flexible regarding his c-pawn and queen's knight. They can either contribute to the aggressive setup with c4 and ti)c3 (or sometimes ti)bd2) , or the more solid construction with c3 and ti)bd2. Black has four main responses: B231) 6 . . . hf3!? B232) 6 . . . ti)h6, B233) 6 . . . e5 and B234) 6 ... ti)f6.

B231) 6 ... hf3!? 7.hf3 Wb5

This rare continuation needs further investigation. Its logic is crystal clear: in return for the two bishops, Black eliminates a defender of d4, makes it harder for the opponent to castle and attacks b2. The idea of . . . ltJxd4 and then . . . e5 or . . . c5 is also in the air. We will follow a fresh practical example.

8.d White seems to have decent compensation

for the pawn after: 8 .ltJc3! ? 'Wxb2

And for that reason Korneev gave it a try two years after his game against Prie.

9 .ltJe2 9 .ltJa4!? is interesting too: 9 . . . 'Wb5 1 O .ltJc5 (better than 1 0 .c3? ! e5 1 1 .l'!b l 'Wc4)

1 O . . . e6 1 U l:b l 'Wc4 1 2 . .ixc6 ( 1 2.'Wd3 'Wxd3 1 3 .ltJxd3 may also be playable, but obviously Black isn't worse here) 1 2 . . . bxc6 1 3 .ltJd3 'Wc3t And now White can consider either 1 4 .�e2 or 14 . .id2 'Wxd4 1 5 .0-0 .

9 . . . e6 1 0 .0-0 ltJe5 1 1 ..ie4 c6 1 2 .l'!b l 'Wa3 1 3 J�b3 'Wa6 1 4.ltJf4 ltJf6 1 5 .ltJd3 ltJc4 1 6 . .if3 ltJd5 1 7 . .ig5 l'!d7

Korneev - Dolzhikova, Gjovik 2008. At this point the game mysteriously stops in my database, with the result 1-0, while Black still has a very playable game.

8 ... e5 8 . . . 'Wxb2?! 9 .ltJd2 seems too risky.

9.hc6 Wxc6 10.'Wg4t �b8 1 l .dxe5 ti)h6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12.'WB 1 2 . .ixh6N was critical to establish if Black

can fully equalize. After the text move he did so.

12 ... 'We6 13.ti)d2 ltJg4 14.0-0 ti)xe5 15.'Wg3 ti)d3 16.J.d4 'Wg6 17.ti)c4 .td6 18.ti)xd6 gxd6 19.h4 Wxg3 20.hxg3 f6 21 .f4 ti)xh4 22 • .ic5 112_1fz

Korneev - Prie, Villeneuve Tolosane 2006.

B232) 6 ... ti)h6!?


a b c d e f g h

This has not been hugely popular, but based on the games available thus far it looks quite promising. Black is developing with no fear of j,xh6 (he would obtain the two bishops and a half-open g-file) and he is ready to intensifY the pressure on d4 by mean of . . . ttJf5 .

7.c4 It is unclear whether White has anything

better than this move, for instance: 7 .ttJbd2! ? ttJf5 (7 . . . e5? ! 8 .c4 'lWa5 9.d5 proved unpleasant for Black in Izoria - Stopa, Richardson 2007) 8 .c4 And now either 8 . . . 'lWd6 or 8 . . . 'lWa5 9 .0-0 j,xf3 1 0 .ttJxf3 e6 should be fine for Black.

7 ... 'l:WaSt 8.ttJc3 After 8 .j,d2 Black must avoid: 8 . . . 'lWb6??

(The correct 8 . . . 'lWf5!N is likely to transpose to the main line on page 258 with the extra tempo . . . ttJh6 for Black: 9 .j,e3 j,xf3 1 O .j,xf3 ttJxd4 1 1 .j,xd4 'lWe6t 1 2 .j,e2 'lWe4 And so on.) 9 .c5 'lWxb2 1 0 .j,c3 White had trapped the enemy queen and was already winning in Gonzalez - Perez, Havana 2002.

8 . • . c!lJf5 The remaining annotations are based on

those of the German GM Karsten Mueller, who analysed this game for ChessBase Magazine.

9.dS c!lJxe3

9 . . . j,xf3! ? 1 0.j,xf3 ttJxe3 1 1 .fxe3 ttJe5 was not bad either.

10.fxe3 e6 n.c!lJgS j,xe2 12.'l:Wxe2 c!lJeS 13.0-0

8 m*�� I 7 rd. ".,'., 6 " . , , %� "".%� :� "" .%� \lID-�� %'o/. 5 8m{ � � � � �" "�� /"" . :� ��."" :� 4 m��ff;.�m�� 3 � .� '1[!y � 2 8d"'' ' ;�\W� 8� " "�""%� �� W:'f1''' ' ' 1 � � _ � �

a b c d e f g h

13 ... j,b4 1 3 . . . exd5 !?N is a possible improvement, when

play continues 1 4.ttJxf7 ttJxf7 1 5 .Elxf7 dxc4 1 6.'lWxc4 'lWe5 and Black is fine. Nevertheless, White was unable to achieve a clear edge after the text move.

14.c!lJxf7 No better was 14 .dxe6 fxe6 1 5 .ttJxe6 Eld6

1 6 .ttJxg7 j,xc3 1 7.bxc3 'lWxc3 . Black has dropped a pawn but he threatens to take revenge by grabbing c4, plus penetrating on d2 or even doubling his rooks on the g-file.

Black is also fine after 1 4 .ttJb5 exd5 1 5 .ttJxf7 ttJxc4 (and not 1 5 . . . ttJxf7? 1 6.Elxf7 when Black has problems) 1 6.ttJxh8 'lWxb5 .

14 . . • c!lJxf7 IS.Elxf7 j,xc3 The ensuing heavy piece endgame is equal

and will remain so until the end.

16.bxc3 'l:Wxc3 17J�dl exdS 18.adS Elhe8 19.e4 'it>b8 20.'i!?hl 'l:WeS 21 .'l:Wc4 �e7 22.�xe7 'l:Wxe7 23.'l:Wd4 �e8 24.�el 'lWeS 2S.'l:Wfl a6


26.h3 h5 27.V!lf7 ge7 28.V!lmt ge8 29.V!lf7 ge7 3o.V!lmt

And a draw was agreed in Dominguez -Kogan, Havana 2002.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

7.c4

B233) 6 . . . e5

a b c d e f g h

The alternatives are less challenging.

7 .ttJc3 This leads to simplifications after:

7 . . . '!MIa5 There is also 7 . . . ib4!? transposing to variation Al on page 238 beginning with 3 .d4 e5 4 .ttJf3 .

8 .ttJxe5 ixe2 9.'!MIxe2 9 .ttJxc6? just concedes the two bishops and an isolani after 9 . . . ixd l 1 O .ttJxa5 ixc2.

9 . . . ttJxe5 1 O .dxe5 '!MIxe5 1 1 .!!d l !!xd l t 1 2 .Wxd l ttJf6 1 3 .'!MIc4 '!MIe6 14.'!MIxe6t

A draw was agreed in Reinderman -Tiviakov, Hilversum 2008 . In the final position Black finds himself with an isolated pawn on e6, but he can easily cover it by . . . Wd7. As a consequence White's edge is only marginal.

7 .dxe5 also constitutes a good way to dry up the game: 7 . . . .txf3 8 .ixf3 '!MIxe5 9 .ttJd2 ic5 (9 . . . '!MIxb2? is obviously foolhardy) 1 O .ixc6 ixe3 I l .ixb7t 'tt>b8 1 2 .fxe3 '!MIxe3t 1 3 .'!MIe2 '!MIxe2t 14 .'tt>xe2 'tt>xb7 The endgame is about

equal, Pokojowczyk - Cu. Hansen, Esbjerg 1 98 1 .

7 ... V!la5t 8 . .id2 .ib4 8 . . . '!MIb6? runs into the pretty 9.c5! ixc5

1 O .dxc5 '!MIxb2 I l .ic3 !!xd l t 1 2 .'tt>xd l . The queen is caught and White remains a piece up.

Although it looks suspicious, the other 'legal' queen's move is interesting: 8 . . . '!MIa6!? 9 .c5 b5

The slightly more accurate move order of 9 . . . ixf3N 1 O .gxf3 b5 would have reduced White's options later on.

1 O .d5 !!xd5 1 1 .ttJc3 ixf3 1 2 .gxf3 !!xc5 1 3 .ttJxb5

White has reacted sensibly and a critical position has arisen.

a b c d e f g h

1 3 . . . '!MIb7?! Instead of this erroneous continuation, both 1 3 . . . '!MIb6!?N 14 .ie3 a6 and 1 3 . . . !!xb5 ! ?N 1 4.a4 ttJd4 1 5 .hb5 '!MIb7 deserved attention.

'" In both cases the position is unclear and Clifficult to assess.

1 4.'!MIa4 'tt>b8 1 5 .ie3 !!d5 1 6 .0-0 ttJf6?! 16 . . . ttJge7 was more tenacious.

1 7.!!ac l a6 1 8 .ttJxc7! 'tt>xc7 1 9 .ixa6 '!MIa8 20.ib5 ic5 2 1 .ixc5 '!MIxa4 22.ixa4

With a large advantage for White who ultimately won, Pap - Bogut, Bosnjaci 2009.

9.d5

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .lDf3 26S

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h 9 . . . hf3

9 . . . e4? does not fulfil the demands of the position, and after 1 0.tlJgS .ixe2 I 1 .Wfxe2 tlJd4 1 2 .Wfdl e3 1 3 .fxe3 tlJfS 1 4.0-0, as in Kiik - Rasch, Gibraltar 2009, White possessed a healthy extra pawn that he converted into a win on move 28 .

lo . .hf3 hd2t Black can also keep the bishops on the board

with 1 0 . . . tlJd4 l 1 .tlJc3, at which point he can choose between two reasonable options:

a) 1 1 . . .WfcS 12 . .ie2 tlJf6 1 3 .0-0 c6 Black must act this way in order to activate his forces, even if that implies weakening his king's position.

14 . .igS With a big plus for White according to the winner of the game. It may be true that Black must be careful here, but even so, I find this assessment to be rather overoptimistic.

a b c d e f g h

1 4 . . . WfaS ? ! 14 . . . hc3!N I S .bxc3 tlJe6 would have forced matters because of the pressure against dS .

I S . .ig4t �b8 1 6 .�c1 Movsesian's suggestion of 1 6.f4N could have been met effectively by: 1 6 . . . cxdS 1 7 . .ixf6 (or 1 7. tlJxdS tlJxdS 1 8 . .ixd8 �xd8 1 9 .cxdS e4 when Black will win dS and have a strong passed pawn for the exchange) 1 7 . . . gxf6 1 8 .tlJxdS WfcS 1 9 .�h l Wfxc4 And Black is not worse.

1 6 . . . hS? ! 16 . . . h6!N was a superior option: 17 . .ixf6 gxf6 1 8 .a3 .ixc3 1 9 .bxc3 And now either 1 9 . . . hS 20 . .ixhS tlJe6 2 1 ..ixf7 tlJf4, or 1 9 . . . tlJe6 20.Wff3 tlJf4 2 1 .g3 �hg8 22.�h l tlJd3. In both cases the situation remains unclear, whereas in the game White soon gained the upper hand.

1 7 . .ih3 tlJe6 1 8 .Wfe2! lDxgS 1 9 .WfxeSt Wfc7 20.WfxgS .ixc3 2 1 .bxc3 cxdS 22.Wfxg7 tlJg4 23.g3

a b c d e f g h

23 . . . dxc4 Forced, as f7 was hanging, bur now the bishop has the long diagonal.

24.�b l tlJeS? The more stubborn 24 . . . �dg8! 2S .Wfd4 �d8 26.Wfe4 �he8 27.Wfc2 �d3 28 . .ig2 b6 would have complicated White's task.

2S .i.g2 tlJc6 26.Wff6 �c8 27.�bS �he8 28 .�fb l b6 29.h4 �e6 30.Wff3 Wfe7 3 1 .�xhS


!!f6 32.!!f5 1-0 Movsesian - Papaioannou, Bled (01)

2002.

b) The other option is: 1 1 . . .'�a6 1 2 .b3

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . .'�a5 ! ? Keeping White busy on the queens ide. A queen transfer to the kingside, with the idea of preparing a counterattack, also has merit: 1 2 . . . Wg6 1 3 .0-0 tLlf6 1 4.a3 i.d6 1 5 .i.e2 e4 ( l 5 . . . h5 ! ?) 1 6.!!c 1 WfS 17.f4 exB I B .i.xB tLlxBt 1 9 .!!xB Wh5 20.i.f4 i.xa3 2 1 .!!b l This was Movsesian - Grafl, Bundesliga 2006, and now Black should have played 2 1 . . .i.c5tN 22.'kt>h l tLlg4 23.tLle4 i.b4, with the possible continuation: 24.Wd4 !!heB 25 .Wxa7 (25 .h3 Wg6 does not change anything) 25 . . . !!xe4 26.WaBt 'kt>d7 27.Wxb7 !!xf4 2B .Wc6t 'kt>cB 29.WaBt With a draw by perpetual check.

1 3 .!!c1 fS 1 4.0-0 tLlf6 1 5 .g3 White is somewhat tied down to the defence of his knight. He will need several tempos to unravel, but first he must deal with the threat of . . . e4.

1 5 . . . 'kt>bB 1 6.i.g2 !!heB Ivanchuk adopts a central strategy which seems more to the point than the direct 1 6 . . . h5 ! ? Indeed, carrying on the offensive is not trivial after 1 7.h4.

1 7.!!e l h6 I B .!!e3 a6 1 9 .h3 tLld7 20.i.e l tLlc5

a b c d e f g h

2 1 . 'kt>h l ! A necessary prophylactic move. The impetuous 2 1 .f4?? would have cost White dearly after 2 1 . . .exf4! 22.!!xeB !!xeB 23.Wxd4 tLlxb3! when the threat of24 . . . i.c5 is devastating.

2 1 . . .g5 22.f4 Now this works and the balance will be maintained until the end of the game.

22 . . . exf4 23.!!xeB !!xeB 24.Wxd4 !!xe l t 25 .!!xe l i.xc3 26.!!eBt 'kt>a7 27.Wf2 fXg3 2B.Wxg3 i.d4 29.d6 cxd6 30.Wxd6 Wc3 3 1 .'kt>h2 Wal 32.WbBt 'kt>b6 33 .WdBt 'kt>a7 34.WbBt 'kt>b6 35 .WdBt 'kt>a7

Y2-Y2 Leko - Ivanchuk, Mukachevo (rapid) 2009.

1 1 .�xd2 �d4 12.0-0 Wb4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g

13J:�el


1 3 .lLlb3 proved harmless for Black in Rogers - Matamoros Franco, Hamburg 1 999.

13 .. . �f6 Completing development looks sounder

than the following recommendation of Wah Is: 1 3 .. :�xb2?! 14J'!b 1 �xa2 l S .d6!

This natural move, which opens the bishop's diagonal, is an improvement over l S .l!a 1 ? ! �c2 1 6.l!xa7 �xd 1 1 7.l!xd 1 lLlf6 1 B .l!b 1 bS (or 1 B . . . b6) 1 9 .d6!, when the German GM concludes that the arising ending is balanced.

l S . . . c6 1 6.l!xeS l!xd6 Black has numerous alternatives, but none of them seems to equalize: 1 6 . . . lLlxf3t 1 7.�xf3 �xd2? 1 B .�f5t �bB 1 9 .�xf7 with mate to follow. 1 6 . . . �c2 1 7.�xc2 lLlxc2 1 B .l!aS l!xd6 1 9 .1Lle4 And with l!xa7 coming next, White has a venomous attack even without queens. 1 6 . . . lLlf6 17 .i.g4t lLle6 1 B .i.xe6t fxe6 1 9 .cS The d6-pawn is a fish bone in Black's throat. Combined with the threat of l!a1 xa7, it ensures White has more than enough compensation for the pawn after 1 9 . . . lLld7 20.l!gS ! .

1 7 .l!eBt �c7 1 B .cS

a b c d e f g h

1 B . . . l!e6 1 B . . . lLlxf3t? 1 9 :�xf3 l!xd2 20.�f4t �d7 2 1 .l!be 1 is curtains.

1 9 .1!fB �c2 20.�xc2 lLlxc2 2 1 .i.g4 The black rook is tied down due to the threat of l!cB mate and after:

2 1 . . .lLlh6 22.l!xhB lLlxg4 23.l!xh7 White has a good plus.

14.b3 gheS 15.a3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15 . . . 'fNc3! It is important to slow down White's

queens ide pawns. So far both sides have played quite consistently, but on the next move White began to lose the thread.

16.i.e4?! 1 6.l!a2!N �d3 was roughly equal.

16 ... �xe4 17Jl:xe4 c6 IsJkl?! A better attempt was 1 B .l!e3 �b2 (or

1B . . . �c2 1 9 .1Llf3 �xd 1 t 20.l!xd 1 cxdS 2 1 .cxdS lLlxf3t 22.l!xf3 and White should hold) 1 9 .1!b 1 �xa3 20.l!a1 �e7 2 1 .l!xa7. Black may win a pawn with 2 1 . . . cxdS, but in comparison with the game, his king is weaker. Moreover the presence of the knights increases White's potential for counterplay.

IS ... 'fNb2 19.ge3 �bS 20.�f3 cxd5 21 .cxd5 gxd5 22.�xd4 gxd4 23.�el f6 24.h3 'fNxa3

This was Predojevic - 5ermek, Portoroz 200S . By now Black is two clear pawns up and the win. is a matter of simple technique.


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B234) 6 • . • �f6

a b c d e f g h

From here White's highest scoring option has been B2341) 7.�bd2, but I would still consider the main line to be B2342) 7.0-0. Others are less dangerous :

7.c3?! e5! is already pleasant for Black.

7.h3?! .ixf3 8 . .ixf3 �b5 can be compared with variation B23 1 with 6 . . . .ixB!? Here Black practically has an extra tempo, as . . . ltJg8-f6 is obviously more useful than h2-h3.

7.c4 �a5t! ? 7 . . . �h5 8 .ltJbd2 transposes to variation B234 1 beginning with 7.ltJbd2. Perhaps the strongest move is 7 . . . �f5! when 8 .ltJc3 (8 .0-0 e5 9.d5 e4 comes to more or less the same thing) 8 . . . e5 9.d5 e4 reaches line B2342 beginning 7.0-0 �f5 .

8 .ltJc3 After 8 . .id2 the reply 8 . . . �f5! is strong.

8 . . . e5 9 .d5 .ixf3 1 0 . .ixB This position should be quite playable for Black, although he must avoid the following devilish trap:

1 0 . . . �b4? Instead 1 0 . . . .ic5 or 1O . . . ltJd4 I l .a3 �c5 should be preferred.

I l .a3! ! �xc4 1 2 . .ie2 �h4 1 3 .h3

a b c d e f g h

Now White threatens to trap the queen with g3 .

1 3 . . . ltJe8 The only chance, but there is a sting in the tail :

1 4 .�c 1 !+-

B2341) 7.�bd2

This time White reinforces the knight on f3 , and consequently the pawn on d4, before advancing in the centre.

7 .. . �f5! Directed against the positional threat of c4

followed by d5. A brief examination of the alternatives will reveal the necessity of this approach.

7 . . . e5? !·

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .lL'lf3 269

This natural reaction fails to solve Black's opening problems.

8 .c4 VNa5 9.d5 .ixf3 9 . . . e4 is no improvement: 1 O .ltJg5! .ixe2 I 1 .VNxe2 ltJe5 1 2 .0-0 And White stands much better as the e4-pawn will drop.

1 O . .ixf3 This position was reached in Bruzon -Ribeiro, Cienfuegos 1 997. Now the lesser evil was:

a b c d e f g h

1 O . . . ltJd4N Leaving White with a pleasant choice

between 1 1 .0-0 and 1 1 ..ixd4 exd4 1 2 .0-0.

7 . . . e6 8 .h3 8 .0-0! ?

8 . . . .ih5 9.c4 9 .0-0 might give Black more scope for activity by preparing the . . . g5 thrust by means of either 9 . . . h6, as in Antonio -Laylo, Quewn City 200 1 , or 9 . . Jl:g8 , as in Zagrebelny - Mevel, Cappelle la Grande 2006.

9 . . . VNd7 1 0 .a3 h6 l 1 .b4 White is well ahead in his assault against the

enemy king, Gonzales - Laylo, Quezon City 200 1 .

7 . . . VNh5? ! Just as in line B2342 with 7.0-0, redeploying the queen to h5 is unsatisfactory.

8 .c4

White can also consider 8 .h3 when the attempt to play creatively with 8 . . . g5? ! (better is 8 . . . e5 9 .0-0) soon led to a disastrous position for Black after 9 .c4 ltJd7 1 0 .c5 ltJdb8 l 1 .VNa4±, Gonzales - Antonio, Quezon City 200 1 .

8 . . . e5 9.d5

a b c d e f g h

9 . . . lL'ld4 9 . . . ltJe7 allows White to choose between several tempting options, including 1 0 .ha7!? ( l 0 .lL'lg5 should be enough for a plus without entering complications) when Black cannot trap the bishop with 1 O . . . b6?! in view of l 1 .c5 'kt>b7 l 2 .VNa4 when the black king's days are numbered.

1 0 .lL'lxd4 exd4 l 1 .fxg4t lL'lxg4 1 2 . .ixd4 Black did not have enough compensation

in Morozevich - Rogers, Bundesliga 1 999 .

8.0-0 White has also experimented with 8 .c4 , but

after the standard reaction 8 . . . e5 9 .dxe5 lL'lxe5 1 O .VNa4 a6 he got absolutely nothing in Kolev - Laylo, Chicago 2008 .

8 . . . e5 The more exotic 8 . . . h5 ! ? also deserves

attention. One game continued 9 .ltJc4 (9 . .id3 ! ? is another idea) 9 . . . e6 1 0 .c3 ltJd5 with mutual chances, Solak - Vukovic, Herceg Novi 200 1 .


a b c d e f g h

9.�xe5 If White wishes to keep more tension in the

position then he can consider: 9 .c3

This has only been tried once in this specific position, although it does immediately transpose to a few other games that featured different move orders .

9 . . . e4? ! I would prefer the more dynamic 9 . . . exd4!N.

1 0 .ltJg5 .id6 Black should probably have resorted to 1 O . . . .ixe2N 1 1 .�xe2 l'!d7, when the critical line should be 1 2 .f3 exf3 1 3 .ltJdx8 �g4 1 4 .h3 �g3 . The present position was reached in Nevednichy - Laylo, San Marino 2006. At this juncture it seems that White could have secured an edge with:

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .1tJdxe4!N .ixh2t 1 2 .�xh2 .ixe2 1 3 .�xe2 ltJxe4 1 4 .ltJxf7 ltJxc3

Or 1 4 . . . �xf7 1 5 .�g4t. 1 5 .�8 �x8 1 6.gx8 1tJd5

Black has obvious compensation for the exchange, in the form of the excellent knight on d5 and White's doubled pawns, but is it enough to hold the endgame?

9 ... �xe5 lO.dxe5 he2 1 1 .�xe2 �xe5

a b c d e f g h

Ni Hua - Smerdon, Goa 2002. Two sets of minor pieces have been exchanged and the pawn structure is �mmetrical; the game is level.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B2342) 7.0-0

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 2 - 3 .d4 and 3 .ltJf3 27 1

7 . . . ti'f5! This square is often the right one in this

variation. Below are some other attempts from Black:

7 . . . WI'd7 It looks artificial to retreat the queen voluntarily. 8 .lLlbd2 lLld5 9 .c4 lLlxe3 1 0 .fxe3 e6 I I .a3 White is planning the usual queenside expansion. 1 1 . . .g6 1 2 .WI'c2 (avoiding 1 2 .b4 .ih6 1 3 .WI'b3 lLlxd4!) 1 2 . . . .ih6 1 3 .WI'c3 White was well on top in Movsesian - Rogers, Enschede 2005 , and went on to win an interesting battle.

7 . . . WI'h5? ! 8 .h3 e5 9 .lLlbd2! The key to White's advantage is to refrain from taking the gift too early. Instead 9 .hxg4? lLlxg4 seems to provide Black with at least full compensation and the initiative after 1 0 .lLlh4 (or l O .lLlbd2 f5 !) 10 . . . f5! , Hresc - Wahls, Velden 1 996.

a b c d e f g h

9 . . . .id6 Ai; already demonstrated by Wahls, the alternatives are no picnic either: 9 . . .'i!lb8 l O .hxg4 ( l O .!!e l ! ? ) l O . . . lLlxg4 1 1 .lLle4 Followed by 1 2 .lLlg3, repelling the queen. 9 . . . exd4 l O .hxg4 lLlxg4 1 1 ..if4 and the extra

---- piece will soon tell. 9 . . . .ixf3 looks to be objectively the best option available, but after l O . .ixf3 Wl'f5 1 1 ..ixc6 exd4 1 2 .lLlb3! bxc6 ( l 2 . . . dxe3 ?

1 3 . .ixb7t!) 1 3 .lLlxd4 Black's position is unappealing.

l O .hxg4 lLlxg4 1 1 .lLle4 lLlxd4 12 . .ixd4 exd4 1 3 .lLlxd6t !!xd6 14 .lLlh4! f5 1 5 . .ixg4 fxg4 1 6.g3 g5

Or 1 6 . . . !!h6 1 7.WI'xd4. 1 7.lLlf5+-

Agter - Meijer, Hengelo 1 997.

7 . . . e6 This is a bit too passive.

8 .c4 Or 8 .lLlbd2 Wl'h5 9.h3 .id6. Now l O .lLlc4 was slightly better for White in Alonso - Cabanas Jimenez, Madrid 2000, but 1 0 .c4!N, intending to meet l O . . . .ixh3 with 1 1 .lLle5! , was even stronger.

8 . . . WI'a5 For 8 . . . WI'd7 9 .lLlbd2 see 5 . . . e6? ! in the note to Black's fifth move.

9 .lLlbd2 .ib4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 0 .h3!

V-="-""""

a b c d e f g h

The right way to secure an edge. Instead l O .c5? just loses a pawn after 1 0 . . . .ixf3 1 1 .lLlxf3 (or 1 1 ..ixf3 lLlxd4) 1 1 . . . .ixc5, Heika - Lau, Regensburg 1 998 . Mter the text move Black faces an unenviable choice:

a) Withdrawing the bishop is unsatisfactory: 1 0 . . . .ih5 1 1 .g4

1 1 .lLlb3? ! Wl'f5, with an unclear game, is less precise.


1 1 . . . ltJxg4 1 1 . . .i.xg4 1 2 .hxg4 ltJxg4 is refuted by 1 3 .c5 ! . 1 1 . . .i.g6 also runs into 1 2 .c5! with the idea of snaring the queen with ltJc4.

1 2 .hxg4 i.xg4 Black has two pawns for the piece and the white king is a little exposed. However, the following sequence clarifies matters :

1 3 .d5! exd5 1 4 .ltJb3 �a4 1 5 .cxd5 ltJe7 1 6 .�d4

White is clearly on top.

b} 1 0 . . . i.xf3 This forces White to play accurately, but Black still falls short of equality.

1 1 .ltJxf3 i.c5 1 2 .�d3 �bB Black would like to take on d4 and recover his piece by . . . e6-e5 , but before doing so he must avoid the reply WfSt.

a b c d e f g h

1 3 .a3!\ Unfortunately for Black, his queen is too

badly placed to make the aforementioned dream come true. White threatens b2-b4 and his advantage is beyond question.

8.c4 After B.h3? ! i.xf3 9 .i.xf3 ltJxd4 1 O .i.xd4

e5 Black was fine in Krapivin - Ponkratov, St Petersburg 2007.

8 ... e5 9.d5 e4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

10.ltJd4 Going backwards is inferior:

1 0 .ltJfd2 ltJe5 I l .ltJc3 i.xe2 1 2 .�xe2 i.d6 And Black maintains the balance, for instance:

1 3 .i.d4 1 3 .c5 is met by 1 3 . . . ltJf3t! 1 4 .gxf3 ( 1 4 .ltJxf3?! exf3 1 5 .�xf3 �xf3 1 6.gxf3 i.e5 is worse) 1 4 . . . i.xh2lt 1 5 .�xh2 �h5t with a draw due to the checks on h5 and g6. Or 1 3 .i.xa7 ltJf3t 1 4 .ltJxf3 exf3 1 5 .�xf3 �xf3 1 6.gxf3 b6 1 7.ltJb5 �b7 with an unclear endgame.

13 . . . �f4 1 4.i.xe5 �xe5 1 5 .g3 1:%heB With a balanced game, Loeffler - Liardet,

Cannes 2000.

10 ... �xd4 1 l . .ixd4 1 1 .i.xg4? just hands Black the initiative

after 1 1 . . . ltJxg4 1 2 .�xd4 i.d6, Vogt - Liardet, Switzerland 1 999.

1 1 . . . i.d6 12.�c3 Despite White's unimpressive statistical score

from this position, I would rate his chances as somewhat better. One interesting possibility is:

12 ... J.h3!?N This untested idea seems critical, but it meets

with a powerful retort. 1 2 . . . 1:%heB has been the


most popular move, but after 1 3 .:B:e l White is · better.

13.�b5! trg5 14.�xa7t c;,f}b8 15.g3 .ixfI 16 . .ixfI

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White has a pawn plus powerful compensation for the exchange.

Conclusion

The idea of choosing 3 .d4 or 3 .llJf3 , and then playing for a big centre with d4 and c4, represents a serious alternative to 3 .llJc3 .

After 3 .d4 llJc6 many sharp and interesting lines are possible. However, if Black does not want to bother learning the maze of variations after 3 .d4 llJc6 4.lLlf3 .ig4, then 3 . . . eS is a perfectly viable solution. The positions resulting from 4.dxeS %Vxd l t S .c;,f}xd l llJc6 offer him full compensation for a pawn, while White's other fourth moves lead to simplifications in the centre, with a satisfactory game for Black as long as he plays accurately.

Since after 3 .d4 Black can count on quite reasonable prospects after 3 . . . eS , 3 .llJf3 is generally regarded as the best way for White to execute his plan.

The response of 3 . . . llJc6 is interesting, although the entire line with 4 .llJc3 %VaS S . .ibS .id7 6.d4 0-0-0 7.0-0 was dealt a severe blow in the model game Emms - Kristensen, in which Black was crushed. However, instead of 7 . . . a6, as in the Emms game, there is 7 . . . llJf6 8 . .id2 e6, which may be playable.

A more reliable, yet still dynamic, response is 3 . . . .ig4, when play usually continues 4 . .ie2 (we saw that the minor option of 4 .llJc3 cannot trouble Black) 4 . . . llJc6 S .d4 0-0-0. In this rich position White has a couple of main tries.

The forcing option of 6.c4 %Vf5 7 . .ie3 .ixf3 7 . .ixf3 llJxd4 seems quite okay for Black, according to the current state of theory.

White can also opt for the less forcing 6 . .ie3, when there are several options available, most of which lead to rich and dynamic play. I would, however, advise the reader to pay particular attention to the rare 6 . . . llJh6 (line B232) which looks like an effective way to solve his opening problems.

Chapter 13

a b c d e f g h

1 .e4 d5 2.tLlc3

A) 2 . . . dxe4 B) 2 . . . d4 3 .ltke2 e5 B l ) 4 .f4? ! B2) 4 .tLlf3 B3) 4 .tLlg3

276 279 280 28 1 283


1.e4 d5 2.tLlc3 This move develops a piece while protecting

the e4-pawn and attacking dS, and is thus more logical than some of the other "antiScandinavians" that we will encounter in the final chapter. It is not such a bad line in my estimation, as White keeps some chances of gaining an opening advantage against an insufficiently prepared opponent, or else a balanced yet rich middlegame without having to learn too much theory.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

We will analyse two contrasting but equally effective responses: A) 2 ••• dxe4 and B) 2 • • . d4 . The choice between them is a matter of taste, but both are undoubtedly stronger options than the transpositions derived from 2 . . . e6, which comes to a French Defence, 2 . . . c6 a Caro-Kann and 2 . . . tLlf6 an Alekhine. (These are all respectable openings of course, but in each case White has reasonable chances to fight for an opening advantage, whereas the two featured options should both enable Black to equalize comfortably with correct play.)

A) 2 • • • dxe4

By exchanging pawns Black relieves the tension while opening some space for active piece play.

a b c d e f g h

3 • • . tLlc6!? Black has a wide range of alternatives at his

disposal, but not all of them lead to equality.

3 . . . f5? ! 4 .tLlg3 eS S . .ic4 can rapidly be dismissed as being too weakening.

3 . . . eS has been a popular choice, but after 4 . .ic4 Black must tread carefully as f7 is rather weak.

It is also worth considering: 3 . . . VNdS ! ?

Inviting a return to the Scandinavian, but the knight is not forced to retreat to c3 .

4 .tLlg3! ? This leads to rather unorthodox play. 4.VNf3?! is not to be recommended. 4 . . . tLlc6 S .tLle2 f5! 6.VNhSt? (6.tLlgS tLlf6 was the lesser evil, with only a marginal edge for Black) 6 . . . g6 7.tLl4c3 VNcS 8 .VNh4 eS 9 .d3 f4! Hampering White's development is more important than conceding a stronghold on e4. White quickly went downhill in the duel Kenworthy - Prie, Paris-London 1 994.

4 . . . tLlc6 S .tLlf3 eS ! ? Rather ambitious. Black can reach a position with a small but manageable disadvantage with: S . . . .ig4

Chapter 1 3 - 2 .ttJc3 277

6 . .ie2 0-0-0 7.0-0 ttJf6 S .h3 .ixf3 9 . .ixf3 �d7 1 O .c3 e5 1 1 .Eie 1 .id6 1 2 .d3;!;

6.b3! .ie7 Perhaps 6 . . . ttJd4!? is a better try. After 7 . .ic4 ttJxf3t S .gxf3 White has a certain lead in development in return for his damaged pawn structure. It is however unsure whether he can draw a substantial profit from it.

7 . .ib2 ttJh6 S . .ic4 �d6 This was Rauber - Prie, Yerevan (01) 1 996, and here White could have obtained a clear plus with:

9.h3! With the idea:

9 . . . .ie6? 1 0 . .ixe6 �xe6 1 1 .�e2 f6 1 2 .d4±

There are two other notable set-ups for Black, both of which aim to reach an improved version of a Caro-Kann.

The first is: 3 . . . .if5 This has been Black's most popular choice in the position. If we continue the analogy with the Caro-Kann variation, the main line will continue as follows: 4 .ttJg3 .ig6 5 .h4 h6 6 .ttJf3 ttJd7 7.d4 e6 S .h5 .ih7 9 . .id3 .ixd3 1 0 .�xd3 ttJgf6

a b c d e f g h

Black will achieve the . . . c7 -c5 push in one move, saving a full tempo and thus solving his opening problems. One game continued 1 1 ..id2 c5 1 2 .0-0-0 �c7 1 3 .Eihe 1 , Mestrovic - Pavasovic, Nova Gorica 2000, and now Black missed a strong opportunity in 1 3 . . . c4!N

14 .�e2 ttJd5, when the knight enjoys complete stability on its ideal central outpost.

The second Caro-type system at Black's disposal is: 3 . . . ttJd7 4 . .ic4!?

This tricky move keeps the game lively but all the same balanced. 4 .d4 leads nowhere special for White after 4 . . . ttJgf6 5 . .id3 ttJxe4 6 . .ixe4 ttJf6 7 . .if3 c6 with equality.

a b c d e f g h

4 . . . e6 It is important to note that the stereotyped 4 . . . ttJgf6? leads to material losses after: 5 . .ixf7t! \t>xf7 6.ttJg5t \t>gS 7.ttJe6 �eS S .ttJxc7 �g6 (S . . . �dS 9.ttJxaS is also clearly better for White) 9 .ttJxaS �xg2 1 0 .�f3 �xf3 1 1 .ttJxf3 b6 1 2.ttJc7 .ib7 1 3 .\t>e2 And Black's compensation is insufficient.

5 .�e2 In the event of 5 .d4 ttJgf6 Black would obtain a favourable version of the French Rubinstein, reached after 1 .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3 .ttJc3 (or 3 .ttJd2) dxe4 and so on. In such positions the bishop generally belongs on d3 rather than c4.

5 . . . ttJgf6 6.ttJg5 ttJb6 7 . .ib3 h6 S .ttJ5f3 The position can be compared with the line of the Caro-Kann beginning with the moves l .e4 c6 2 .d4 d5 3 .ttJc3 dxe4 4.ttJxe4 ttJd7 5 . .ic4, except that here Black can has not had to waste time on . . . c7 -c6.


a b c d e f g h

B . . . a5 B . . . c5 9 .d3 �d6 1 O .�e5 0-0 1 l .f4 Wc7 1 2 .�gf3 brought an original position in the game Morozevich - Malakhov, Moscow (blitz) 2005 .

9 .a4 �d6 1 O .d4 c5 1 1 .dxc5 �xc5 1 2 .�e5 0-0 1 3 .�gf3 �bd5 1 4.0-0 b6 1 5 .�c4 �b7

The position remained balanced in Bauer -Vaisser, Aix-Ies-Bains 2007.

a b c d e f g h

4.�a This natural move is White's most reliable

choice.

4.�b5? ! is well met by 4 . . . Wd5! 5 .We2 �f5 6.�g3 Wxg2 7.We5 , Plaskett - Speelman, Gibraltar 2003, and now after 7 . . . id7!N B.Wxc7 Wd5 Black stands better.

4.�c4 �f6!

Black has no reason to fear the doubled f-pawns.

5 .�xf6t This is not a bad move in itself, but Black's counterplay along the g-file should not be underestimated. 5 .�g5 was more prudent, and after 5 . . . e6 6 .�5f3 the game is level.

5 . . . gxf6 6.�f3?! 6.Wh5! would have sidestepped the assault that now arises. The tactical justification is seen after 6 . . . �e5 7.�b3 �g4? B .ixf7t md7 9.Wh4.

6 . . . E:gB 7.g3? This weakening is too much for the white position to withstand. The grim 7.0-0 �h3 B .�e1 would have limited the damage.

7 . . . Wd6 B .d4 ig4 9 .c3

a b c d e f g h

9 . . . �xd4!! 1 0 .Wa4t Or 1 O .cxd4 Wb4t.

1O . . . b5 1 1 .�xb5t �xb5 1 2 .Wxb5t c6 1 3 .Wb7 E:bB 1 4.Wxa7 �xf3 1 5 .0-0 E:dB 1 6 .E:e 1

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 3 - 2.ttJc3 279

1 6 . . . Wi'e6! And White threw in the towel in Roques

Pri<!, Villeneuve Tolosane 1 993.

4 . • . �f5 Black should not get too ambitious with

4 .. .f5? ! 5 .tLlc3, followed by �c4 or �b5 depending on Black's reply, when White stands better.

4 . . . tLlf6 is possible, but after 5 .tLlxf6t gxf6 White can benefit from the option to develop his light-squared bishop on g2, facilitating pressure along the h l -aB diagonal while the g3-pawn will conveniently barricade the g-file.

S .tLlg3 �g6 6.h4 h6 7.hS �h7 8.�bS Guyot - Prie, French Cup 1 993.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

8 .. . Wi'd6!N The game continued with the slightly

inaccurate B . . . Wi'd5 ?! 9 .c4! Wi'e6t (In the event of 9 . . . Wi'd6 now, the inclusion of the free move c2-c4 would favour White after 1 0 .d4.) 1 O .Wi'e2 Wi'xe2t 1 l .'kt>xe2 e6;!; White can at any moment damage his opponent's queenside structure, which would slightly outweigh Black's bishop pair.

After the text move Black is ready to develop active play based on . . . 0-0-0, . . . e5 , and so on. His chances are in no way inferior.

B) 2 . . . d4

a b c d e f g h

Mter this space-gaining advance the central pawn structure will remain frozen, at least for a few moves.

Before analysing the resulting posltlons in detail, I would like to highlight two important themes that we will encounter throughout the following section. The first is the possible undermining of Black's pawn centre by means of c2-c3 and/or tL-f4. The second is the question of how White plans to develop the bishop on fl . In general, he will look to develop this piece actively on c4 or b5 . Both sides should be aware that the departure of this piece from the fl -a6 diagonal can often be met strongly by . . . d4-d3 .

3.tLlce2 White can also consider the more fanciful :

3 .tLlb l After the unusual withdrawal of his knight White will be able to develop his bishop outside the pawn chain on c4. This should enable him to maintain approximate equality, but certainly no more.

3 . . . e5 I have taken a slight liberty with the move order of the present example. The game actually saw 3 . . . tLlc6 here, but in that case


White has the additional option of 4 . .ib5 . 4 . .ic4 1Of6 5 .d3 lOc6 6.lOe2

6.lOB would prevent Black's next move but at the cost of blocking the f-pawn, thus slowing down any potential activity linked with its advance.

6 . . . lOa5 Baudson - Prie, Chamalieres 2007. After

eliminating one of his opponent's important bishops, Black can look towards the future with confidence. The position may be closed for the moment, but his bishops can still hope for plenty of opportunities to make their presence felt in the future.

3 .. . e5

a b c d e f g h

This central push is Black's best option. 3 . . . c5 is of course playable, but after 4.lOg3 the light-squared bishop will be guaranteed an opportunity to reach either c4 or b5 , which is always a relief for White in this system! We will consider three responses in detail : Bl) 4.f4?!, B2) 4.1Of3 and B3) 4.1Og3 .

4 .d3 is undesirable since it voluntarily locks in the light-squared bishop. At any rate, there is no point in declaring his intentions at such an early stage.

Bl) 4.f4?!

This early actlVlty is rather risky. Indeed, White's pieces are lacking space and advancing the f-pawn makes his king feel less safe.

4 • • • lOc6 5.d3 5 .lOf3 is well met by 5 . . . .ig4! :

a b c d e f g h

6.fxe5 (Or 6.lOxe5 lOxe5 7.fxe5 �h4t 8 .g3 �h5 9 . .ig2 Schwab - Zeleic, Oberwart 1 997, 9 . . . 0-0-0!N with a marked edge for Black.) 6 . . . .ixB 7.gxB lOxe5 8 .lOg3 �f6 Black hurries to establish a blockade on the dark squares. 9 . .ie2 Brodda - Marchisotti, e-mail 2003. Now it looks logical for Black to play 9 . . . 0-0-0N 1 O.d3 lOg6 followed by . . . .id6 or . . . .ib4t and occupation of the f4-square. The bishop on e2 is pretty lifeless and there is no doubt that Black is in control.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

5 • • • .ig4!

Chapter 1 3 - 2 .tiJc3 28 1

Once again this active move proves to be a strong antidote against White's set-up.

The natural 5 . . . i.d6 gives White the opportuni ty for 6 .fXe5! (Instead 6 .f5? ! enabled Black to begin the powerful undermining operation of 6 . . . g6! 7.g4 h5 in Wantiez - Prie, Eynatten 2006.) 6 . . . i.xe5 (6 . . . lLlxe5 7.lLlxd4 i.b4t 8 .c3 %Vxd4 was Reid - Marshall, Stockholm 1 937, and here White could have obtained some advantage with 9 .%Vd2!N, rather than the game continuation of 9.cxb4 i.g4 when Black had a dangerous lead in development.) 7 .lLlf3 i.g4 8 .lLlxe5 lLlxe5 9 .i.f4 With approximate equality, Ruiz Galiano - Serrano Aspa, Spain 1 998 .

6.h3 i.hS 7.f:x:eS 7.g4? %Vh4t 8 .c;t>d2 i.xg4 is obviously no

good for White.

7.g3 is playable. 7 . . . exf4 8 .i.xf4 This was Maahs - Schulz, Hamburg 2008, and now after 8 . . . i.b4tN 9.c;t>f2 i.d6 Black has the easier game.

7 ••• lLlxeS 8.i.f4 f6 Black's nicely centralized knight gave him a

small but lasting edge in Gonzalez Somoza -Vallejo Diaz, Madrid 2006.

B2) 4.lLlf3

4 . • • f6 This is more accurate than 4 . . . lLlc6, as after

5 .lLlg3 i.e6 6.i.b5 White advantageously succeeds in developing his bishop, and, if he so wishes, in compromising his opponent's structure. One game continued 6 . . . f6 7.i.xc6t bxc6 8 .d3 c5 9 .b3 a5 1 O .a4 Rashkovsky - Kutirov, Strumica 1 995 . White's active possibilities connected with the f2-f4 thrust, combined with his superior structure, make his position preferable.

S.lLlg3 i.e6 6.i.bSt One of the drawbacks of White's chosen

move order is revealed after: 6.c3?! d3!

Compared with line B3 below, the resource of%Vf3 is missing here. 6 . . . c5? ! is playable but fails to exploit White's previous inaccuracy. I reached this position via a different move order in a blitz game several years ago, and after the further 7.%Va4t (another possibility is 7.i.b5t ! ? lLld7 8 .%Ve2) 7 . . . lLld7 8 .i.c4, Bauer - Van Wely, Kuppenheim (blitz) 2005 , the position held chances for both sides.

7.lLlh4 The sacrifice 7.lLlxe5 ? ! may look seductive, but it is wrong: 7 . . . fXe5 8.%Vh5t

a b c d e f g h

8 . . . c;t>d7! (8 . . . i.f7?! is less precise. After the sequence 9 .%Vxe5t lLle7 1 0.%Vb5t lLlbc6 1 1 .%Vxd3 %Vxd3 1 2 .i.xd3 White


possesses three pawns for the invested piece, infantrymen that he will manage to put in motion after .ie2 [or .ic2] followed by d4 and/or f4.) 9 .Wfxe5 liJc6 1O .Wfb5 .td6! ( l O . . . 'it>cB? 1 1 .Wfxd3 once again leaves White with three mobile pawns for the piece) 1 1 ..ixd3 (or 1 1 .Wfxd3 Wfh4) 1 1 . . . a6 l 2 .Wfa4 Wfh4=t Following a series of accurate moves, Black's active pieces prevent the enemy army from getting properly organized. White lacks the necessary time to put his pawns in motion and he will, in all likelihood, be overwhelmed by his opponent's forces.

7 . . . c5 ! After the superfluous precaution 7 . . . g6! ? Black would lose the pride of his position, though admittedly not without compensation: B .Wff3 .ic4 9.b3 .ia6 1 0.c4 and now the simple 1 O . . . liJc6 or the more acute 1 0 . . . f5 ! ? 1 1 .liJhxf5 h5 ! both lead to unclear play.

a b c d e f g h

B .Wfa4t This wins a pawn, and is the only way in which White can even attempt to justify his earlier play.

B . . . liJc6 9 .Wfb5 c4 1 0 .Wfxb7 liJa5 1 1 .Wfb5t .id7 l 2 .Wfa6 Wfb6!

12 . . . .icB 1 3 .Wfb5t leads to a draw by repetition, but Black has every reason to feel more ambitious.

1 3 .Wfxb6 axb6 l 4.!%b l Forced, as Black was threatening . . . liJb3.

l 4 . . . b5 Weiss - Gil , e-mail 2003 . Black has massive

compensation for a meagre pawn, with an impressive queenside pawn chain and free play for his pieces. If you require any further proof, just take a look at White's ridiculous bishops!

6 .. . c6 7 . .ia4

8 . .ib3 White would obviously prefer to exchange

this piece for the enemy bishop rather than a lowly knight.

8 ... hb3 If Black is happy with straightforward

equality then B . . . liJc5 9 . .ixe6 liJxe6 is a good alternative.

9.axb3 d3!? Attempting

development.

10.0-0!

to disrupt White's

The presence of the black d3-pawn is bearing too much upon White's position, and therefore

Chapter 1 3 - 2 .llJc3 283

1 0 .c3? is erroneous: 10 . . . Wi'd7 1 1 .b4 0,e7 1 2 .Wi'b3 h5 1 3 .h4 0,g6 1 4.0,f5 0,f4 1 5 .0,e3 (or 1 5 .g3 0,e2) 1 5 . . . 0,xg2t 1 6.0,xg2 Wi'g4 1 7.0-0 Wi'xf3 1 8 .Wi'e6t J.e7 Blacks enjoys a considerable advantage, Pytel - Prie, Rochefort 2006.

10 • • • dxc2!?N I am not sure if this new idea is an

improvement over other moves, but I found it interesting to analyse.

Another possibility is 1 0 . . . 0,b4 1 1 .0,e 1 dxc2 1 2 .0,xc2 0,d3 1 3 .0,e l ! insisting to dislodge the intruder. The position is unclear.

1 1 .Wi'xc2 0,b4 Here we see one advantage of having posted

this knight on a6 rather than d7.

12.Wi'c4 b5 12 . . . Wi'd3?! is well met by 1 3 .Wi'e6t 0,e7

1 4 .0,f5.

13.Wi'c3 c5 14.d3!? White's quantitatively superior development

should counterbalance his structural weaknesses . For instance:

14 •.• Wi'xd3 15.J.e3 Wi'xc3 16.bxc3 0,c2 17J:1a5 0,xe3 18.fxe3

a b c d e f g h

White will regain his pawn while keeping a slight initiative, although Black should not be in any danger.

B3) 4.0,g3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

This is the most popular and accurate continuation. White gives up any ambition of pushing with £2-f4 in the near future, but on the other hand he increases his chances to develop his light-squared bishop without hitch. This last point represents White's main point of compensation for having allowed his opponent to seize a space advantage in the opening.

4 • • • J.e6 5.c3!? This is perhaps the trickiest continuation at

White's disposal. Instead 5 .0,f3 f6 transposes to line B2 above.

5 • • • c5 Unlike in line B2, 5 . . . d3? does not work

here due to 6.Wi'f3 J.c4 7.b3 J.a6 8 .c4 when the d-pawn falls, after which the weakening of the d4-square will not compensate totally.

6.J.b5t 6.0,f3 f6 does not leave White with anything

better than 7.J.b5t , when 7 . . . 0,d7 reaches the main line below.


An independent idea is 6.'Wa4t! ? lDc6 7 . .tb5 ttJge7 8 .lDf3 f6 9 .cxd4 cxd4 1 0 . .tc4 'Wd7 1 1 .d3 a6 1 2 . .td2 With a roughly level game, Bauer - Van Wely, Kuppenheim (blitz) 2005 .

6 • • • lDd7 7.ttJf3 f6 8.'We2 ttJe7 9.0-0 'Wb6

a b c d e f g h

Both sides have conducted the opening sensibly, and the game should be about equal . We follow a fairly recent game.

10.a4 a6 1 1 • .tc4 g6 12.a5 'Wd6 13J�dl 1 3 .d3!?N was another idea.

13 • • • lDc6 As so often in this variation, White will

succeed in swapping the good enemy bishop at the cost of a slightly cramped position .

14.lDf1 14 . .txe6N 'Wxe6 1 5 .d3 intending lDd2-c4

was worthy of attention .

14 • • • .te7 15.he6 'Wxe6 16.d3 .td8 17.cxd4 cxd4 18 • .td2 'Wb3 19 • .te1 lDc5 20J�a3

This was Spice - C. Flear, Sunningdale 2007, and now Black could have avoided any troubles with:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

20 • • • 'Wf7N In the game she soon found herself in

trouble after 20 . . . 'Wb5? ! 2 1 .b4 ttJxb4 22.E:b l .txa5 ? (22 . . . ttJcxd3 was needed for Black to stay afloat) 23 .E:xa5 'Wxa5 24 . .txb4 and White soon won.

21 .b4 ttJe6 Black keeps a slight plus.

Conclusion

We have seen throughout this chapter that 2 .ttJc3 should not set Black serious problems.

After 2 . . . dxe4 3 .ttJxe4, whether Black hankers for an improved Caro-Kann with 3 . . . ttJd7 or 3 . . . .tf5 (with the prospect of playing . . . c7 -c5 in one move) or whether he opts for a more aggressive set-up based on 3 . . . ttJc6, he obtains easy development - the only pitfall to avoid is inviting White to transpose to a traditional Scandinavian, since after 3 . . . 'Wd5 , the reply 4 .ttJg3! is promising.

Another choice is to seize space by playing 2 . . . d4 3 .ttJce2 e5 , with a completely different kind of game and mutual chances.

Chapter 14

2nd Move Sidelines

a b c d e f g h

1 .e4 d5

A) 2.e5? ! B) 2.d3 C) 2.lt::lf3 ?! D) 2 .d4 dxe4 3 .lt::lc3 e5!? 0 1 ) 4 .dxe5 02) 4 .lt::lge2 03) 4.Wh5 04) 4 .lt::lxe4

286 288 289 29 1 293 294 295 296


In this, the 14th and final chapter, we will discuss all of White's rare options on the second move. These range from the plain weak (2.e5?!) to the timid (2.d3) to the optimistic, with the gambits 2.d4 and even 2.ttJ£3. Without dwelling on the topic, I can already tell you that each of these largely minor lines suffers from certain drawbacks, and in each case Black will have more than one way to achieve a good game.

That being said, one should not forget the importance of psychology in chess. Therefore, entering a level endgame after 1 .e4 d5 2.d3 dxe4 3 .dxe4 '?Mxd 1 t 4.@xd 1 might not be the best idea against a player who excels in simplified positions. Likewise, accepting the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit after l .e4 d5 2 .d4 dxe4 3 .ttJc3 ttJf6 4.£3 ex£3} is almost certainly Black's "best" option, but not necessarily the most appropriate when meeting a tactically skilled opponent.

1 .e4 d5

a b c d e f g h

We will analyse the quiet moves A) 2.e5?! and B) 2.d3, before moving on to the gambits C) 2.ttJ6?! and D) 2.d4.

A) 2.e5?!

This rather limp move immediately steers White towards an unfavourable version of

a French or Caro-Kann. Compared to the French, Black's light-squared bishop will be able to develop actively outside of the e6-d5 pawn chain. And compared with the CaroKann, the black c-pawn can advance to c5 in one move instead of rwo. (And depending on how the game continues, the bishop might also have the option of moving to g4 rather than the less active f5. )

2 • • • c5 Black can also develop the bishop first with:

2 . . . .if5 3 .d4 e6 4.ttJ£3 4.id3 is equally harmless. Here is one practical example: 4 . . . .ig6 (4 . . . .ixd3 followed by . . . c5 is also absolutely fine) 5 .ttJe2 c5 6.c3 ttJc6 7.0-0 'Dge7 8 .dxc5 .ixd3 9.'?Mxd3 ttJxe5 1 0.'?Mg3 ttJd7 1 1 .b4 b6 1 2 .cxb6 ttJf5 1 3 .'?Mh3 axb6

a b c d e f g h

Black already enjoys a marked advantage due to his central predominance and the weaknesses in White's queenside, Welz -Slobodjan, Bad Wiessee 2002.

4 . . . c5 This position is identical to that reached in one of the main lines of the Advance Caro Kann - except that there the white bishop would stand on e2 instead of f1 ! Readers who are interested in investigating such positions in greater detail are advised to consult Chapter 1 2 of Lars SchandorfFs Grandmaster Repertoire 7 - The Caro-Kann.

Chapter 1 4 - 2nd Move Sidelines 287

5 .i.e3 White is not ready for 5 .c4 dxc4 6.i.xc4 ttJc6, whereas 5 .c3 would restrict him to a defensive role, and Black is extremely comfortable after 5 . . . lLIc6 intending . . . lLIge7.

5 . . . Wb6 This is not the only attractive option available to Black. Schandorff's recommendation (in the position with a white bishop on e2) is 5 . . . cxd4 5 .ttJxd4 lLIe7. However, there are certain lines in which White subsequently moves his bishop from e2 to b5 . Black is still doing fine there, but as a matter of principle I prefer not to allow him the opportunity to recover the lost tempo with i.f1 -b5 .

6 .ttJc3 ttJc6 7.ttJa4 Wa5t 7 . . . Wc7N also deserves attention, for instance: 8 .ttJxc5 i.xc5 9 .dxc5 ttJge7 With mutual chances, as the e5-pawn will soon perish.

8 .c3 Galvis Pedraza - Orozco, Cali 2008. Here Black could have obtained a very comfortable game via simple means:

a b c d e f g h

8 . . . cxd4N 9.lLIxd4 lL1xd4 1 O .i.xd4 ttJe7 Intending . . . ttJc6, with a pleasant and solid

position.

3.lLIe lLIc6 If Black wishes to be ultra-cautious then he

can prevent the pin with 3 . . . a6, for instance: 4.c3 lLIc6 5 .d4 i.g4 6.i.e2 e6 With a healthy

position. Still, there is no reason to avoid the more principled developing move.

4.i.b5 i.g4!? 4 . . . i.d7, with the threat of5 . . . ttJxe5, is quieter

and more than okay for Black. However, it turns out that the second player has no reason to fear the following complications.

5.h3 i.h5 6.g4!? This is the only critical idea. Against

other moves Black will easily complete his development with at least an equal game.

6 • • • i.g6 7.e6 Without this follow-up White would have

weakened himself in vain.

7 • • • fxe6 8.lLIe5 This position was reached in Starc - Drozdov,

Eger 1 994, and here I found a nice idea:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a 8 • • • lLIf6!?N

e g

It turns out that Black can ignore the attack on c6 for the time being, although the more solid 8 . . . Wb6N is also a good move.

9.lLIxc6 Most other moves can be met by 9 . . . lLId7.

9 • • • Wb6! IO.lLIxa7t 'iflfl


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black will regain the sacrificed piece while keeping a superior position. His king is quite safe, and he enjoys a solid grip on the centre. The immediate plan will be to unravel the kingside pieces by means of . . . e6-e5 followed by . . . e7 -e6. Meanwhile it is not so easy to suggest a worthwhile plan for White.

B) 2.d3

8 � • ..t.J �.�Ii)�.i '�" " " � '�" " '%�''1f:'" ' '��'�' ' ' ' '

7 � i lf� lf� i lf� i 6 " " ,%� " " ,%� ' ' ' , ,%� " " ,%� 5 ��!� �� 4 �� !� �� : !n!' �n!� >�;{r,{W�!m"�%�m-� l �t.LJ� i§ �i� �

a b c d e f g h

This is just about the least forcing variation examined in the book. Black can play just about any sensible move that takes his fancy. The choice will depend on one's own style, as well as the identity of the opponent, tournament/ match tactics and so on.

2 . . • dxe4 This has been the most popular reaction,

and can be regarded as the 'no-nonsense' route to equality. The only drawback is that it leads to rather dry positions. Here is a brief rundown of the alternatives . (It should be noted that 2 . . . c6 and 2 . . . e6 both lead to known openings, but neither move makes much sense here.)

2 . . . e5!? reaches a kind of reversed Centre Game in which the extra move d2-d3 actually helps Black, as the natural 3 .exd5 Wfxd5 4.lLlc3 can now be met by 4 . . . .ib4! , avoiding losing time with the queen. The position holds chances for both sides.

2 . . . lLlf6 is also perfectly valid. (Interestingly, according to the database this has been played less than 30 times after 1 .e4 d5 2.d3, yet the position after 2 . . . lLlf6 has occurred in over 700 games in total! The explanation is of course that the majority of those encounters began via an Alekhine move order.) Play may continue: 3 .e5 lLlfd7 4.f4! ? (4.d4 c5 5 . c3 lLlc6 is also possible, with an unusual type of French.) 4 . . . c5 5 . .ie2 lLlc6 6.lLlf3 e6 Now if White tries to reach a French-type position with 7.c3 .ie7 8 .d4, he may have trouble developing his queenside pieces after 8 . . . Wfb6 9 .0-0 0-0.

Finally Black can also consider the more offbeat ideas of 2 . . . lLlc6!? and 2 . . . g6! ?

3.dxe4 Wfxdl t 4. �xdl e5 This endgame, or rather queen less

middlegame, is completely level. The fact that White has lost the right to castle does not change anything since his king will find a safe haven on c2. Of course, an equal position does not guarantee a draw, and a strong technician might very well try to win from either side of the board.


This gambit is dubious and unfounded. One way to look at it would be as a Budapest Gambit with reversed colours, except that Black's c-pawn is on c7 instead of c5, which might even benefit him in certain lines. Overall the most White can realistically hope for is to regain his pawn and equalize; and he might not even manage to achieve that, as we will soon see.

2 .. . dxe4 2 . . . e6 and 2 . . . c6 would only transpose to

sub-variations of the French Defence and Caro-Kann respectively. Black already has to show more ambition!

3.lL\g5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

�� a b c d e f g h

3 • • • .t5! The other automatic way of protecting

the pawn, namely 3 . . . lL\f6? ! , would let the advantage slip. After 4 . .tc4 Black is compelled to obstruct the diagonal of his light-squared bishop. The position resulting from 4 . . . e6 5 .lL\c3 .te7 6.0-0 0-0 7.lL\gxe4 would then be reminiscent of a French Rubinstein (reached after the opening moves l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 .lL\c3 [or lL\d2] 3 . . . dxe4 4.lL\xe4) . Black is certainly not in any danger, but nor is he better.

If Black is content to return the pawn, the simple 3 . . . e5 ! ? deserves attention, intending to meet 4.lL\xe4 with 4 . . . f5 ! followed by . . . .te6. The optimal development of the enemy bishop to c4 is prohibited, leaving Black with the better chances thanks to his space advantage and central control.

4.g4!? This energetic though weakening thrust

may well be the least of the evils, at least as a practical try to muddy the water. Indeed, White experiences the worst difficulties after the "normal" follow-ups:

4 . .tc4? achieves nothing after 4 . . . e6, when Black also wins an important tempo due to the attack on the g5-knight.

4 .lL\c3? ! This is not as bad as the bishop development, but it still fails to pose Black any problems.

4 . . . lL\f6 5 . .tc4 e6 6.B!? White may as well turn his opening into a 'real' gambit. He gets nowhere with: 6.'ffe2 lL\c6 (6 . . . 'ffd4! ?) 7.lL\gxe4 lL\xe4 8 .lL\xe4 lL\d4 9.'ffd3 'ffh4! 1 0 .'ffxd4 'ffxe4t 1 1 .'ffxe4 .txe4

a b c d e f g h

And the double attack on g2 and c2 ensures that Black will regain his extra pawn, in a position with no counterplay whatsoever for White.


6 . . . exf3 The tactical solution 6 . . . ic5 ! ? seems to favour Black as well : 7.fxe4 lLlxe4 8 .lLlcxe4 ixe4 9.d4 (9.lLlxe4 'lWh4t recovers the piece while keeping a solid extra pawn plus a somewhat exposed white king) 9 . . . ixd4 1 O .lLlxe4 'lWh4t 1 1 .lLlg3 ie5 !

a b c d e f g h

The point; thanks to this double attack Blacks keeps the ascendancy. 1 2 .'lWd3 ixg3t 1 3 .'lWxg3 'lWxc4 14.'lWxg7 'lWe4t followed by 1 5 . . J�f8, . . . lLld7 (or . . . lLlc6) and . . . 0-0-0. White is a pawn down and has lost the right to castle.

7.'lWxf3 lLlc6! This seems to permit a tactical shot, but Black has everything under control.

a b c d e f g h

8 .lLlxf7 Instead 8 .ib5 'lWd6 leaves White with no compensation for the missing pawn.

8 . . . 'lWd4! 9 .lLlxh8 'lWxc4

The knight is trapped and will perish after . . . id6 and . . . Q;e7, leaving a position where Black's two minor pieces should easily outclass the white rook.

8 i. . �.��.� '�" " " %i''1I'" ' '%%i'�/��;%i'�' ' ' ' ' 7 � i f� f� i f� i 6 . . . . . %� . . . . . %� . . . . . z� . . . . . z_ 5 ��'m= 4 �� !�"8� �� 3 ��.� ��.� ��.� ��.� 2 8 f� 8 f� f� f� 1 �1t5_.;'�l:� .�

a b c d e f g h

4 . • • ig6 Black could even consider 4 . . . ic8 !?N now

that White has conceded a weakness on the kingside. Still, protecting the extra pawn must be the strongest move.

5.igl lLlf6 6.lLlc3 h5! 7.lLlgxe4 7.h3N may be White's best chance to

equalize, and after 7 . . . hxg4 8 .hxg4 !!xh 1 t 9 .ixh 1 lLlc6 1 0 .lLlgxe4 his position should be just about okay, although Black is more than comfortable of course.

7 • • • lLlxe4 8.lLlxe4 Klein - Herbst, e-mail 1 999 . Here there is no

reason for Black to refrain from the natural:

8 .. . hxg4N 9.'lWxg4 9.lLlc5? ! is not to be recommended, as the

simple 9 . . . c6 1 O .'lWxg4 e6 is embarrassing. The knight is under fire and cannot contemplate either 1 1 .lLlxb7? 'lWb6 or 1 1 .lLlxe6? 'lWe7.

9 .. . lLlc6 10.d3 lLld4! This natural and energetic move renders the

defence of c2 problematic.

Chapter 1 4 - 2nd Move Sidelines 29 1

l 1 .�dl 1 1 .c;!?d2 is no picnic either.

1 l • • • i.h5 White already faces difficult problems.

To summarize, 2 .lLlf3? ! is not to be recommended. Black acquires a slight edge using simple means, either by returning his booty immediately by 3 . . . e5 ! ? , or even better by keeping it for a while with 3 . . . i.f5! .

D) 2.d4

The introduces the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, which I would tend to regard as ultimately unsound but nonetheless dangerous over the board.

2 • • • dxe4 3.lLlc3 3 .B?! is less precise due to 3 . . . e5 ! 4 .i.e3 (4 .d5

is no better after 4 . . . i.c5 or 4 . . . lLlf6) 4 . . . exd4 5 .i.xd4 lLlc6 6.i.b5 i.d7 7.i.e3 i.d6 8 .lLlc3 lLlf6! 9 .fxe4 (White is not helped by 9 .�d2 �e7 1 0 .0-0-0 0-0-0)

a b c d e f g h

9 . . . lLlxe4! This tactical flourish provides the justification for Black's earlier play. 1 O .lLlxe4 �h4t 1 1 .lLlf2 �b4t 1 2 .c3 �xb5 . White is left with no compensation for the missing pawn.

At this point I decided to recommend a move that you may find a little surprising.

3 • • • e5!? It is well known that the acceptance of the

gambit pawn leads to a position where White's compensation is technically inadequate. However, my personal view is that the practical risks of going astray while trying to neutralize the white initiative are pretty high.

Nevertheless , if the reader is determined to try and refute the gambit, I will offer a brief outline of one of Black's better defensive systems, based on the repertoire presented in Lars SchandorfFs Grandmaster Repertoire 7 -lhe Caro-Kann. 3 . . . lLlf6 4.B exB

4 . . . i.f5 is sometimes played, but after 5 .fxe4 lLlxe4 6.�B lLld6 7.i.f4 e6 8 .0-0-0 White is becoming quite active.

5 .lLlxB c6 6.i.c4 6.i.d3 is well met by 6 . . . i.g4.

6 . . . i.f5 7.lLle5 After the quieter 7 .0-0 e6 8 .lLle5 i.g6 9 .i.g5 lLlbd7 White has very little to show for the pawn.

7 . . . e6 8 .g4

a b c d e f g h

8 . . . lLlfd7! 9 .gxf5 9 .0-0? lLlxe5 1 O .gxf5 lLlxc4 I l .fxe6 f6-+ Diemer - Gunderam, corr. 1 983 .

9 . . . lLlxe5 1 0.i.e2 1 0 .dxe5 ? �h4t-+

1 O . . . �h4t 1 1 .@fl �h3t 1 2 .@gl White is also not helped by 1 2 .@el i.e7! Zilliox - Maciulewicz, corr. 1 988 .


1 2 . . . exfS Black kept a material advantage as well as

the safer king in Diemer - Gunderam, corr. 1 983 .

Further details of the above can be found in Schandorff's book. But for now, let us return to my own proposed solution.

a b c d e f g h

The text move is not an attempt to refute the gambit, but rather to draw the opponent away from his comfort wne. White can choose between four main approaches: taking the pawn with 01) 4.dxe5, developing with 02) 4.lLlge2, starting an attack with D3) 4.Wlh5 , and finally the main line of 04) 4.lLlxe4. Alternatives are clearly worse, for instance:

4 .dS? ! Relieving the central tension enables Black to choose between a few tempting continuations. Here is one of them:

4 . . . c6! ? Pinning the knight by 4 . . . .ib4 i s a good alternative.

S .WlhS ! ? This seems like a principled move, but the complications turn out favourably for Black.

S . . . cxdS 6.WlxeSt .ie6 7.lLlbS lLlc6! 8 .Wlg3

Or 8 .lLlc7t @d7 9 .lLlxe6 lLlxeS 1 0.lLlxd8 �xd8 with a sound extra pawn.

8 . . . �c8 9 . .if4 lLlf6 1 0 .lLlc7t No better is 1 O .lLld6t .ixd6 1 1 ..ixd6 lLld4.

10 . . . @d7 I l .lLlxe6 fxe6 White is a pawn down with a worse position.

The black king is safely hidden, but the opportunities to activate his army are teeming, with . . . lLld4 (or . . . lLlb4) , . . . Wlb6, and . . . lLlhS all looking rather troublesome for White.

4 . .ie3?! White develops a piece while simultaneously reinforcing the attacked pawn. This move is, however, less judicious than 4.lLlge2.

4 . . . exd4 S .Wlxd4 This gives better equalizing chances than: S . .ixd4 lLlc6 (S . . . lLlf6!?) 6 . .ibS .id7 7.lLlge2 Wlh4! The queen's outing on h4 fulfils several functions. It exerts pressure against the enemy kings ide, defends the e4 pawn and prepares long castling. This last factor is particularly important because of the impending vis-avis between the queen on d l and rook that is about to land on d8. 8 . .ic4 (8 .lLldS 0-0-0 9 . .ixc6 Lc6 is no better) 8 . . . 0-0-0! 9 . .ixf7 .ig4

a b c d e f g h

Black is about to cash in a clear piece. 1 0 . .idS (or 1 0.g3 WIgS I l .h4 WlfS 12 . .ixg8 �xg8-+) 1 O . . . lLlge7 I l .g3 WlhS 1 2 . .ixc6 lLlxc6 1 3 .Wld2 .icS 1 4.lLlbS .ixe2 0-1 Polland -Hickman, corr. 1 992.


5 . . . WI'xd4 6.ixd4 lLlc6

a b c d e f g h

7.0-0-0 7.ib5 id7 8 .0-0-0 0-0-0 does not solve White's problems.

7 . . . lLlxd4 8 .E:xd4 lLlf6! 9 .lLlb5 Perhaps White should cut his losses with 9 .lLlxe4, although after 9 . . . ie7 he has no compensation for Black's bishop pair.

9 . . . c5 1 O .E:d l �e7 Black is in no danger and will soon complete

development after . . . g6. Meanwhile White has yet to recover the lost pawn.

Dl) 4.dxe5 Wl'xdl t 5.lLlxdl

Keeping the possibility to castle is the lesser evil. 5 .�xd l ? !

After this erroneous move White experiences difficulties.

5 . . . lLlc6

a b c d e f g h

6.ib5 6 .lLlb5? would be a shot in the dark because of 6 . . . ig4t 7.B O-o-ot . 6.if4 if5 7.ic4 lLlge7 8 .ig3 lLlg6 9 .f4 ic5 is also better for Black.

6 . . . id7 7.e6?! This worsens White's situation, but his position was already unpleasant.

7 . . . ixe6 8 .ixc6t Or 8 .lLlxe4 O-o-ot .

8 . . . bxc6 The doubled pawns are totally irrelevant here, but the assault that the white king is about to endure is very real indeed. In the following encounter White lasted a mere 1 5 more moves.

a b c d e f g h

9.lLlxe4 O-o-ot 1 0 .id2 id5 l 1 .f3 ixe4 1 2 .fxe4 lLlf6 1 3 .�e2 lLlxe4 14 .ie3 ic5 ! 1 5 .ixc5 lLlxc5 1 6.lLlB E:he8t 1 7.�f1 lLla4 1 8 .b3

1 8 .E:b 1 lLlxb2-+ 1 8 . . . lLlc3 1 9 .a4 E:e2 20.E:c 1 g5 ! 2 1 .g4

2 1 .lLlxg5 E:dd2-+ 2 1 . . .f5 ! 22.E:gl

22.gxf5 g4 23.lLlgl E:ed2 24.f6 E:f8 25 .�el E:d6 26.h3 g3-+

22 . . . fxg4 23.E:xg4 E:f8 0-1 Canal Oliveras - Montoya Bello, corr.

1 995 . Black wins the B-knight, and with it the game.

5 • . • lLlc6


There is no doubt that the opening has been a success for Black, especially when one comes to the realization that the following move is White's best.

a b c d e f g h

6.lDc3! This somewhat humiliating move is the

only way for White to maintain the balance. After just six moves Black has taken over the 'advantage of the first move' , but despite this moral victory, he is unable to secure any meaningful advantage.

By contrast, the inaccurate 6.f4? ! leaves White with a weak isolated pawn. Here is one practical example: 6 . . . exf3 7.lDxf3 �g4 8 .�b5 lDge7 9 .lDe3 �xf3 1 O .gxf3 a6 1 1 .�xc6t lDxc6 1 2 .f4 0-0-0 1 3 .�d2 �c5 1 4 .lDf5 g6 1 5 .lDg3 �f2t 1 6. i>e2 �xg3 1 7.hxg3 lDd4 t 1 8 . i>f2 lDxc2 And Black went on to convert his extra pawn in Zauner - Maljutin, Werfen 1 992.

6 .. . �f5 Black can try to unbalance the position in

numerous ways, but none of them achieves the desired outcome.

6 . . . �b4 can be met either by 7.�d2, or by 7.lDge2! ? with the idea of meeting 7 . . . lDxe5 with 8 .a3 �xc3t 9.lDxc3 followed by 1 0 .�xc7 if Black defends e4.

6 . . . lDxe5 7.�f4 �d6 8 .lDxe4 lDd3t 9 .hd3 �xf4 secures the advantage of the two bishops, but in return Black is behind in development.

6 . . . lDd4 7.�b5t (7 .lDb5!? ) 7 . . . �d7 8 .�xd7t i>xd7 9 .i>d1 and White is okay.

7.�b5! Better than 7 .�f4? ! 0-0-0 when White is

slightly uncomfortable.

7 • • • lDge7

a b c d e f g h

Now both 8 .�g5 and 8 .lDge2 0-0-0 9.lDg3 should be roughly equal .

D2) 4.lDge2

a b c d e f g h


This has been the highest-scoring of White's main options, but that does not mean we should fear it.

4 • • • tOc6 4 . . . exd4? ! is too cooperative. 5 .Wxd4 Wxd4

6.tOxd4 .tb4 7.tOdb5 .ta5 8 . .tf4 tOa6 9 .0-0-0 Rasmussen - Jangaard, Tacoma 1 99 1 . This is exactly the kind of position Black should strive to avoid. His pieces are badly placed and he will not even manage to hold onto the e4-pawn.

5.d5 5 .tOxe4 is strongly met by 5 . . . f5 ! and after

the further 6 . .tg5 .te7 7 . .txe7 tOgxe7 8 .tOc5 Wd6! 9 .tOb3 .te6 Black's development was far more harmonious in Da Riva Alonso -Klausen, corr. 1 995 .

5 .. . tOce7 6.tOg3

8 • �� AI. ��rt�.�.( A � .JL �g�-=-�.�a 1'% i��'¥""'%%.·n'-:{'i""��'%'i"" 7 � � � ?' � � � % :%i % ;. : :%i %

6 " " ,%� • • " ,%� y" " , ,� " " ,%� �� !.�� : �.�.·l'.�. 3 �� ';f� � �"IJ!�N V.W 2 �Jfl� ��.Jfl�[j 1 � �V�.i,B :

a b c d e f g h

6 • • • tOf6!? This is a smart practical decision, continuing

the line of thinking that began with 3 . . . e5 ! ? The alternative 6 . . . f5 i s almost certainly a stronger move in an absolute sense, but this would only give a Blackmar-Diemer player what he hankers for: compensation in a wild position after 7 . .tg5 .

7 . .tb5t

If 7 . .tg5 ? then 7 . . . tOexd5 works out in Black's favour, as occurred in Chance - Uhlig, e-mail 1 995 .

7 • • • .td7 Black cannot hang on to his booty by

7 . . . c6 8 .dxc6 Wxd l t 9 .'it>xd l bxc6 1 O . .ta4 .tg4t 1 1 .<it>el 0-0-0, as then 1 2 .h3 recovers the pawn in an unclear endgame.

8 . .tc4 tOfs 9.tOgxe4 tOxe4 lO.tOxe4 tOd6 Black is on the comfortable side of an equal

position.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

D3) 4.Wh5

a b c d e f g h

4 • • • tOc6 This is my personal preference, although

the following two alternatives also deserve attention.

4 . . . exd4 This principled move initiates a tactical skirmish, which rather plays into the hands of the typical Blackmar-Diemer player. 5 . .tc4 We7 6 . .tg5 (6.tOd5? is just bad: 6 . . . tOf6 7.tOxe7 tOxh5 8 .tOxc8 tOc6 The c8-knight will soon perish and Black will remain a sound pawn up.) 6 . . . tOf6 7 . .txf6 Wxf6 8 .tOxe4 Wg6 Black may be okay in this unclear position, but he runs unnecessary risks.


With 4 . . . tDf6!? 5 .%Vxe5t j,e7 Black tries to turn the tables with a pawn sacrifice of his own. He certainly obtains promising compensation after 6.tDxe4?! 0-0, but a better idea for White is 6.j,f4 c6 7.%Vc7!? with interesting play.

5.dxe5 5 .d5? tDf6 and 5 .j,b5 ? exd4 are unacceptable

for White.

5 ... j,b4 6.j,d2 g6 Black cannot do without this move

indefinitely. The weaknesses it creates are at the heart of the debate for this variation. I believe that the small lead in development Black acquires, and the initiative linked to it, should prevail over these static considerations.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

7.%Ve2 7.%Vd1 tDxe5 B .tDxe4 gives Black an easy

game after B . . . j,xd2t 9.%Vxd2 %Vxd2t followed by 1 O . . . j,f5 and . . . 0-0-0.

7 • • • tDd4 8.%Vdl j,5 Threatening . . . e3 .

9.j,e3 9.:!:'k1 ! ? is playable if a little awkward

looking, and after 9 . . . %Vd7 intending . . . 0-0-0 Black has a pleasant position.

The present position was reached in Baum -Tait, corr. 1 993, and here I found a significant improvement for Black:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

9 ... c5!N In the game Black retreated the equine, but

the magnificent beast should be supported! Mter this move White does not look capable of equalizing.

10.tDge2 1 O .a3 does not solve White's problems

after 1 O . . . j,xc3t 1 1 .bxc3 %Va5 ! 1 2 .%Vd2 tDc6 intending . . . E:dB.

10 • • • %Va5! 1 1 .a3 Or 1 1 .j,xd4 0-0-0.

1 1 • • • 0-0-0 12.%Vc1 1 2 .axb4? is refuted by 1 2 . . . %Vxa1 as it will be

mate on c2.

12 ••• hc3t 13.tDxc3 tDe7 14.j,c4 tDec6 With a powerful initiative for Black.

D4) 4.tDxe4

Finally we come to White's most popular reply.


a f g h

4 • • • exd4 4 . . . �xd4!? is also playable, but it is safer to

leave the queen at home.

5.lLlf3 5 . .ib5t looks unconvincing, and the

following game did nothing to challenge that assessment: 5 . . . .id7 6.�e2 �e7 7.lLlf3 lLlc6 8 .0-0 0-0-0 9 . .ig5 lLlf6 1 0.lLlxf6 gxf6 1 1 .�xe7 .ixe7 Black's pawn-structure is wrecked but the extra pawn remains the dominant factor, Malzahn - Froemmel, corr. 1 986.

5 • . . lLlc6 6 • .ic4 6 . .ib5 .if5 (6 . . . �d5!?N 7.�e2 .ie6 8 .0-0

requires more ample investigations. After the logical 8 . . . 0-0-0 both 9 .c4!? and 9 .lLleg5 are unclear. ) 7 . .ixc6t bxc6 8 .lLlg3 �e7t 9 .lLle2 c5 1 0 .0-0 0-0-0 1 1 .l'!e l was seen in Rades - Koteski, e-mail 2005 , and here the correct continuation looks to be 1 1 . . .�d6! ?N 12 . .if4 �a6 with an unclear position in which Black's chances should at least not be worse.

6 ... .if5 7.0-0! 7.lLleg5 ?! falls short due to 7 . . . �e7t followed

by . . . lLlh6, and Black retains a marked advantage.

7 .. . ,he4 8J�e1

a b c d e f g h

8 • . • .ie7! Returning the piece is the safest course of

action.

8 . . . f5 ? ! looks too risky, and after 9 .lLlg5 .ib4 (perhaps 9 . . . lLlf6!?N could have been considered, although I do not trust the black position completely) 1 O .c3 dxc3 1 1 .�b3! Black was unable to contain his opponent's initiative in Pape - Rasmussen, corr. 1 992 .

The other option is 8 . . . lLlf6 9 . .ig5 !N (9.lLlg5? ! .ib4 1 O .lLlxf7 �e7 1 1 .l'!xe4 �xe4 1 2 .lLlxh8 lLle5 was better for Black in Riepe - Noack, e-mail 2002) 9 . . . .ie7 1 O . .ixf6 .ixf3 1 1 ..ixe7 .ixd l 1 2 . .ixd8t Now the most precise seems to be 1 2 . . .'Jid7! 1 3 .l'!axd l l'!axd8 1 4 . .ixf7 cJid6 Black should be able to hold this ending, but he has very few chances to score a full point.

9J�xe4 lLlf6 10J:1e2 0-0 1 l .�d.3 Mania - Prie, Val d' Isere 2006. White's pair

of bishops gives him reasonable compensation for the pawn, and he has good chances to restore the material balance. A logical continuation looks to be:

1 l . • . lLld7N 12 • .id2 1 2.lLlxd4? lLlce5 is not what White wants.

12 • • • lLlc5 13.�f5 g6 14.�d5 lLle6 With a solid position for Black.


Conclusion

None of the four options examined here should be of great concern to Scandinavian players. The only one that requires any serious consideration from Black is line 0, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit with 2.d4. After the usual 2 . . . dxe4 3 .llJc3, for reasons explained earlier, I find declining the gambit with 3 . . . e5 ! ? to be quite an attractive course of action for Black. White can shift gears and head for the equal ending arising after 4 .dxe5 Wfxd I t 5 .llJxd l , but who would be willing to start a game this way as White? On the other hand, we saw that after the aggressive 4.Wfh5 Black is also doing well when the game takes a tactical turn. It seems that line 04 with 4.llJxe4 represents the first player's only chance to maintain the balance. In this case he will have reasonable chances to regain his pawn to reach an equal position, but will have to kiss goodbye to any chances of launching a deadly sacrificial attack.

Variation Index Chapter 1

1 .e4 d5 2.ad5 �xd5 3.lOc3 'i'a5 4.d4 lOf6 5.lOS J.f5 6.J.c4 e6 7 . .idl c6 A) 8 .lOe4 8

A 1 ) 8 . . . �d8?! 8 A2) 8 . . . 'i'c7 1 1 A3) 8 . . . �b6 9.lOxf6t gxf6 1 8

A3 1 ) 1 0 .0-0 20 A32) 10 . .ib3 24

B) 8.lOd5 'i'd8 9.lOxf6t 27 B l ) 9 . . . �xf6 1 0.'i'e2! 27

B l l ) 1 O . . . J.d6 28 B 1 2) 1 O . . . lOd7 29 B 1 3) 1O . . . ig4 3 1

B2) 9 . . . gxf6 36

Chapter 2

B2 1 ) 1 0 .if4 36 B22) 1 0.0-0 38 B23) 1 0.'i'e2 39

B23 1 ) 10 . . . lOd7 39 B232) 10 . . . ixc2! ? 42

B24) 1 0 .c3 45 B25) 1 0.ib3 lOd7 49

B25 1 ) I l .lOh4 50 B252) 1 1 .'i'e2 5 1

1.e4 d5 2.ad5 'i'xd5 3.lOc3 'i'a5 4.d4 lOf6 5.lOa .if5 6 . .ic4 e6 7 . .idl c6 8.'i'e2 .ib4 A) 9.lOe5 64 B) 9 .0-0 65 C) 9 .0-0-0 66

C l ) 9 . . . lOd5 ! ? 67 C2) 9 . . . llJbd7 68

C2 1 ) 1 O.llJh4 68 C22) 1 O .'it>b l ! ? 7 1

0) 9.a3 llJbd7 1 0 .0-0-0 .txc3 1 1 ..txc3 �c7 1 2 .llJe5 75 0 1 ) 12 . . . b5 ! ? 79 02) 1 2 . . . llJd5 13 . .td2 llJxe5 1 4 .dxe5 0-0-0 1 5 .g4 .tg6 1 6.f4 h5! 1 7.h3 8 1

02 1 ) 1 7 . . -'�lfb6 83 022) 17 . . . hxg4! 1 8 .hxg4 gxh l 1 9 .9xh l 'i'b6 86

022 1 ) 20.c3 ! ? 86 0222) 20.gfl 88


Chapter 3

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3.tilc3 �a5 4.d4 tilf6 5.tilf3 .lf5 6 • .lc4 e6 7 • .ld2 c6 A) 8 .llJh4 92 B) 8 .h3 95 C) 8 .a3 96 D) 8.llJe5 96 E) 8 .0-0 99

Chapter 4

A) 1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 'ffxd5 3.tilc3 'ffa5 4.d4 tilf6 5.tilf3 .lf5 6 . .lc4 c6 7.tile5 1 06 B) l .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3.tilc3 �a5 4.d4 tilf6 5.tilf3 .lf5 I I I

B 1 ) 6 . .1d3 1 1 1 B2) 6 . .te2 1 1 2 B3) 6.llJe5 c6 1 1 3

Chapter 5

B3 I ) 7 . .1f4 1 1 3 B32) 7.llJc4 1 1 4 B33) 7.g4 1 1 7 B34) 7 . .1d3 1 1 8

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 'ffxd5 3.tilc3 'ffa5 4.d4 tilf6 5.tilf3 A) 5 . . . .1f5 (without . . . c6) 1 22

A I ) 6 . .1d2 1 22 Al) 6 . .1c4 1 24

B) 5 . . . .tg4 1 28 C) 5 . . . llJc6?! 1 33 D) 5 . . . llJe4?! 1 3 5

Chapter 6

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3.tilc3 'ffa5 4.d4 tilf6 5 . .ld2 A) 5 . . . 'ffb6 6.llJf3 1 4 1

A I ) 6 . . . c6?! 1 4 1 Al ) 6 . . . .1g4 1 44

B) 5 . . . .1g4 1 46 B 1 ) 6 .llJf3 1 47 B2) 6.llJge2 1 48 B3) 6 . .1e2 1 5 1 B4) 6.8 .1fS 7.g4! ? .1g6 1 53

B4 1 ) 8 .h4 1 56 B42) 8 .g5N 1 57 B43) 8 .llJge2 1 57 B44) 8 .f4 1 58

Variation Index

Chapter 7

l .e4 d5 2.ad5 �xd5 3.lLlc3 �a5 4.d4 lLlf6 5 . .!c4 A) S . . . lLlc6! ? 1 68 B) S . . . .tg4 1 70

B 1 ) 6.8 1 7 1 B 1 1 ) 6 . . . .!hS 1 7 1 B 1 2) 6 . . . .!f5 1 72

B2) 6.lLlge2 lLlc6 7.8 1 7 S B2 1 ) 7 . . . .tf5?! 1 76 B22) 7 . . . .!hS 1 78 B23) 7 . . . .!e6!? 1 84

Chapter S

1 .e4 d5 2.ad5 �xd5 3.lLlc3 �a5 4.d4 c6 5 • .!c4 .!f5 A) 6 . .td2 e6 1 88

A I ) 7 .g4 1 90 A2) 7.dS 1 92

B) 6.�e2 1 94

Chapter 9

1 .e4 d5 2.ad5 �xd5 3.lLlc3 �a5 4 • .!c4 lLlf6 5.d3 A) S . . . c6 1 98

A I ) 6 .�e2 1 99 A2) 6 . .td2 203

B) S . . . .tg4 20S B 1 ) 6.lLlge2 205 B2) 6 .8 208

B2 1 ) 6 . . . .!f5 209 B22) 6 . . . .!d7 2 1 1

Chapter 10

1 .e4 d5 2.ad5 �xd5 3.lLlc3 �a5 A) 4.h3 ! ? 2 1 6 B) 4.lLl8 2 1 6

30 1


Chapter 1 1

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 �xd5 3. lLIc3 �a5 A) 4.b4?! 222 B) 4 .g3 223

B 1 ) 4 . . . g6 224 B2) 4 . . . lLIf6 226

B2 1 ) 5 .lLIf3 226 B22) 5 . .ig2 227

Chapter 12

1 .e4 d5 2.exd5 ti'xd5 A) 3.d4 236

A I ) 3 . . . e5 237 A2) 3 . . . lLIc6 24 1

B) 3 .lLIf3 244 B 1 ) 3 . . . lLIc6 244

B22 1 ) 5 . . . e5 228 B222) 5 . . . .ig4 229

B222 1 ) 6.lLIf3 230 B2222) 6.lLIge2 232

B l l ) 4 .d4 244 B 1 2) 4.lLIc3 246

B2) 3 . . . .ig4 4 . .ie2 lLIc6 5 .d4 0-0-0 25 1 B2 1 ) 6.c3?! 253 B22) 6.c4 255

B22 1 ) 6 . . . �a5t 255 B222) 6 . . . �f5 256

B23) 6 . .ie3 262

Chapter 13

1 .e4 d5 2.lLIc3 A) 2 . . . dxe4 276 B) 2 . . . d4 3 .lLIce2 e5 279

B 1 ) 4 .f4? ! 280 B2) 4 .lLIf3 28 1 B3) 4 .lLIg3 283

B23 1 ) 6 . . . .ixf3! ? 262 B232) 6 . . . lLIh6!? 262 B233) 6 . . . e5 264 B234) 6 . . . lLIf6 268

B234 1 ) 7 .lLIbd2 268 B2342) 7 .0-0 270

Chapter 14

l .e4 d5 A) 2.e5? ! 286 B) 2.d3 288 C) 2.tDf3? ! 289 D) 2 .d4 dxe4 3.tDc3 e5 ! ? 29 1

D I ) 4.dxe5 293 D2) 4.tDge2 294 D3) 4 .�h5 295 D4) 4.tDxe4 296

Variation Index 303

Documents

Bauer, Christian - Play the Scandinavian