Editorial Panel: GM S.lvanov, 1M S.Soloviov, O.Biriukov Technical Editor: 1M Semko Semkov

Translation by: Natalia Alexeeva Kate Krylova Semko Semkov

Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes

Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright © 2002 by Alexander Khalifman and Sergei Soloviov

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN 954-8782-24-3

Opening for White According to Kramnik l.CDf3

Book V

Queen's Gambit Declined

Alexander Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Part 1. QGD without 3 •.• lLl f6 l.lLlf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3. c4

1 3 . . . ..tb4 4 . ..td2 ..td2 5.lLlbd2 lLlffi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 3 . . . f5 4 . ..tf4 lLlffi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3 3 . . . c6 4 .'�c2 lLlffi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4 3 . . . c5 4 .cd ed 5.lLl c3 lLl c6 6.g3 lLlffi (6 . . . cd; 6 . . . c4)

7 . ..tg2 ..te7 (7 . . . c4; 7 . . . ..te6; 7 . . . ..tg4; 7 . . . cd) 8.0-0 0-0 (8 . . . ..te6) 9 . ..tg5 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

5 3 . . . c5 4 .cd ed 5.lLl c3 lLl c6 6.g3 lLlffi 7 . ..tg2 ..te7 8.0-0 0-0 9 . ..tg5 cd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Part 2. QGD without 4 ... ..te7 l .lLlf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3 . c4 lLlffi 4.lLl c3

6 4 . . . lLlbd7 5 . ..tg5 ..tb4; 5 . . h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 7 4 . . . ..tb4 5 . cd ed 6 . ..tg5 h6 7 . ..th4 c5; 7 . . . g5 . . . . . . . . 87 8 4 . . . dc 5.e4 ..tb4 6 . ..tg5 c5 (6 . . . b5) 7 . ..t c4 cd

8.lLld4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 9 4 . . . dc 5.e4 ..tb4 6 . ..tg5 c5 7 . ..t c4 cd 8.lLld4 ..t c3 . . . 105 10 4 . . . c5 5 . cd lLld5 (5 . . . cd) 6.e4 lLl c3 7.bc cd 8.ed

..tb4 (8 . . . lLl c6) 9 . ..td2 ..td2 10.t'td2 0-0 11 . ..t c4 lLl c6 (11 . . . b6; 11 . . . lLld7) 12.0-0 b6 13 J�ad1 ..tb7 14.lifell:1.c8 15.d5 ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3

1 1 4 . . . c5 5 . cd lLld5 6 .e4 lLl c3 7 . b c cd 8.ed ..tb4 9 . ..td2 ..td2 10.t'td2 0-0 11 . ..t c4 lLl c6 12.0-0 b6 13.l:I.adl ..tb7 14. 1:i.fell:tc8 15.d5 lLla5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

5

6

Part 3. QGD. Classical Variation l .lbrn d5 2.d4 e6 3 .c4 lbffi 4.lbc3 �e7 5 . .tg5

12 5 . . . dc; 5 . . . h6; 5 . . . lbbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 13 5 . . . 0-0 6.e3 lbbd7 (6 . . . a6) 7 .'uc1 va rious . . . . . . . . . . 155 14 5 . . . 0-0 6.e3 lbbd7 7 . .ucl c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 15 5 . . . 0-0 6 .e3 h6 7.�h4 lbbd7 (7 . . . lZJe4)

8.Uc1 va rious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 16 5 . . . 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.�h4 lbbd7 8.'uc1 c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 17 5 . . . 0-0 6 .e3 h6 7.�h4 b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Index of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Preface

Dear Chessfriends

In the last book of a series "Opening for White according to Kramnik" the question will be in what ways White can struggle for an advantage in the Queen's Gambit Decline (QGD). In contra­distinction to previous four books the fifth volume includes only one opening. There is nothing surprising in it. The point is that the Queen's Gambit Declined is one of the oldest openings belonging to the closed ones. Its history has more than one hundred years. For this long period huge practical material was accumulated. Suffice it to say that all world champions played this opening for both the colours .

The structure of the Queen's Gambit Declined is various and dissimilar. In the first part of the book we will examine such lines where Black refuses from the move 3 . . . CDg8-f6. There are different reasons for it: Black can try to simplify the play by 3 . . . Si.b4+ or he can start building "a stone wall" with the help of 3 . . . f5 , or by means of 3 . . . c6 to begin attacking White's c4-pawn. A lot of typical posi­tions, arising after 3 . . . c5, lead to the Tarrasch Defense. In it Black has to pay with d5-pawn's isolation for rather a simple solution to the problem of developing his light-squares bishop.

In the second part we will examine lines in which after l .CDf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3 .c4 CDf6 4.CDc3 Black refuses from the move 4 . . . Si.e7. In these variants Black is going to create a counterplay literally from the very beginning. As a rule, the play of both the opponents is very concrete here. Quite often White has to make some material sacri­fices to obtain an opening advantage as, for instance, in Vienna Varia­tion (4 . . . dxc4 5 .e4) or in Semi-Tarrasch Defense (4 . . . c5). The play in variation 4 . . . CDbd7 5.Si.g5 .tb4 is also very dynamic, as well as in the variant with move 4 . . . .tb4.

The third part of the book is entirely devoted to classical vari­ants of the Queen's Gambit with 4 . . . .te7. In most cases the play has calm character here, in contradistinction to the variants of the sec-

7

ond part. The opponents begin active actions only after mobiliza­tion of the majority of their pieces. That is why it is no wonder that the theory of such branches ofthe Queen's Gambit as the Capablanca and Lasker's Defence, Orthodox Variation, etc. is studied for the tens moves ahead. The chapter devoted to the Tartakower Defense concludes the third part. It is possible to say without exaggeration that it is one of the most popular modern systems of the Queen's Gambit. V.Kramnik has this system in his opening repertoire for both colours and its theory is constantly updated by new ideas.

A.Khalifman, 14th World Chess Champion

8

Part 1 . QGD without 3 ... ttJf6 l.ttJf3 d5 2.d4 e6

Black immediately fortifies the d5-pawn, opening the fE-a3 diagonal for his dark-squared bi­shop. Such a move order, as a rule, shows his readiness to play positions typical of the Queen's Gambit. On Black's 3rd move it will be possible to define more precis ely, what kind of the Queen's Gambit - Declined or Accepted CQGA). However, the readers probably are already acquainted with the last one, having taken a glace at the corresponding part of the book. In this case we are interested exactly in the Queen's Gambit Declined, and its main strategic ideas are examined in this book.

So, the first thing on the dia­gram to arrest our attention is that Black's light-squared bishop after the move e7 -e6 is locked in his own camp. Black's headache and his main task in this opening is to free it from this voluntary

captivity. Black gets an oppor­tunity to develop freely other pieces as a compensation for this inconvenience. As a rule, he has no such problems with the queenside, which we could see in Book IV, when talking about the variations l .tiJf3 d5 2.d4 i.g4 and l .tiJf3 d5 2 .d4 .tf5. To the virtues of his position also can be attri­buted the fact that Black can strike a blow at White's central d4-pawn by c7 -c5 at one go, not in two moves like in the Slav De­fence (it was also examined in Book IV). In general, the result ofthe opening battle depends on whether Black will manage to get rid of the main shortcoming - his passive light-squared bi­shop and at what price he will do it. In Part 1 we will examine such opening variations of the QGD, where Black abstains from the move tiJg8-f6 for some time (i .e . he makes it after the 3rd

move or does not make it at all). All other systems of the QGD, connected with the move 3 . . . tiJf6, can be found in the following parts.

3.c4 White begins the struggle for

the centre, putting pressure on the d5-pawn and preparing the

9

move lbb1-c3. The move 3 ... i..h4+ is exa­

mined in Chapter 1, and the exa­mination of the reply 3 ... f5 when Black wants to build a "stone wall" is in Chapter 2. The varia­tion with 3 ... c6 is in Chapter 3; this move is at the turn of the Queen's Gambit and the Slav Defence, in which Black intends to take White's c4-pawn when he has the chance. In lots of opening books the Tarrasch Defence, arising after the move 3 ... c5, is singled out into a separate opening. In this book Chapters 4 and 5 are devoted to it.

In the overwhelming majority of cases the move 3 ... ..ie7 conver­ges to the other variations and does not deserve a special treat­ment since after 4.lbc3 lbf6 (if 4 ... c6 5.e4 dxe4 6.lbe4 lbf6 7 . ..id3 White immediately takes up the initiative in the centre) 5 . ..ig5 the play reaches the positions ana­lysed in details in Part 6 3.

It is worth mentioning that in case of 3 ... dxc4 4.e3 (V. Kramnik tried 4.�a4+ in a number of games but later there was found a good defence for Black, con­sisting of the variation 4 ... QJd7 5.e4 c5! 6 . ..ixc4 cxd4 7.0-0 ..ic5?) Black gains nothing if he tries to sidestep the stem lines of QGA by 4 ... b5 (the positions after 4 ... QJf6 5 . ..ixc4, 4 ... c5 5 . ..ixc4 a6 6.a4 lbf6 7.0-0 and 4 ... a6 5.a4 lbf6 6. ..ixc4 can be found in Part 2) in view of 5.a4 b4 (5 ... c6 leads to variations from Chapter 1 ) 6.

10

..ixc4 lbf6 7.0-0 ..ie7 8.lbbd2 ..ib7 9.Uel 0-0 10.e4 c5 Il.e5 and white has the upper hand after all retreats of the knight. For example, 1 1 ...lbfd7 as in the game Summerscale - Rahman, London 2000 could be met by 12.a5!?t and 1 1...lbd5 - by 12.a5 lbd7 13.lbe4;!;, intending to play 14 . ..ig5 and taking firm control of the central dark squares.

We should note also the rarely met in practice move 3 ... a6. A sensible plan for White then is to reduce the tension in the centre with 4.cxd5 (the main idea of a7-a6 was to meet 4.lbc3 by 4 ... dxc4"" switching to a pro­mising for Black line of QGA) 4 ... exd5, thus reaching the so­called Karlsbad pawn structure. We'll discuss this structure later in Part 3 when treating the classical constructions of QGD. For now we'll confine our expose in two short samples of the pos­sible development of the game in such case. Following 5.QJc3 c6 6. ..if4!? ..id6 7 . ..ig3 lbe7 (after 7 ... lbf6 8.�c2 0-0 9.e3 ..ig4 10 . ..id3 .1i.h5 1 1.0-0 ..ixg3 12.hxg3 lbbd7 13.b4 ..tg6 14 . ..ixg6 hxg6 15.a4;!; in Andreassen - Rolvaag, Nor­way 1998 White launched a pawn minority attack on the queenside) 8.e3 0-0 9. �b3 �c7 10 . ..ixd6 �xd6 1 1...id3 lbd7 12.0-0 lbf6 13. Macl ..if5 14 . ..ixf5 lbxf5 15.lba4 Mab8 1 6.lbc5;t in Uhlmann -Loeffler, Germany 1994 White kept small but lasting pressure over the Black's queenside.

Chapter 1 l.tiJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 .tb4+

4.i..d2 White is ready to trade off bi­

shops. Certainly the simplifica­tions make the defender's task easier but we should keep in mind that the light-squared bishops still remain on board and their potential is quite unequal. Mter the move e7 -e6 Black will have to face the inherent pro­blem of the Queen's Gambit Declined - how to develop the cS­bishop. In the same time White has no such concerns about finding a good diagonal for the i..f1.

4 ... i..xd2 Mter 4 ... a5 there is no sense

for White to change the bishop on b4 since Black will get the a­file open for his rook and even more important - the b4-pawn

will be strongly limiting the prospects of the white knight on b1. Mter 5.liJc3 ctJf6 6.i..g5 h6 (or 6 ... c6 7 .e3 liJbd7 S. �c2 0-0 9.i..d3 i..e7 10.0-0 dxc4 1 1.i..xc4 liJd5 12.i..xe7 �xe7 1 3J:tac 1 liJb4 14. �e4 a4 15.a3 liJf6 16. �h4 liJbd5 17.i..d3 h6 IS.liJe2± Miles - O'Cinneide, Dublin 1 993 -Black did not even try to find a place for his bishop) 7.i..xf6 �xf6 S.e3 0-0 (after S ... c5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.i..b5+ i..d7 1 1 .0-0 i..xc3 12. i..xd7+ liJxd7 13.bxc3 0-0 14.l:!.bl �c6 15.�b3 b6 16.l:!.fdU in the game Ehlvest - Aleksandrov, Moscow 1996 Black has to reckon with the White's pressure on the backward b6-pawn) 9.a3 (Dispos­sesses Black from the advantage of the two bishops. Khalifman­Lobron, Brussels (blitz) 1992 saw 9.l:!.cl c6 10.i..d3 liJd7 1 1.0-0 �e7 12.a3 i..d6 13.e4 dxc4 14.i..xc4 e5 15.d5 ctJb6 16.dxc6 bxc6 17.i..e2 a4 IS.liJd2 i..e6 19.i..g4 l:!.fd8 20.i..xe6 �xe6 21.�e2 i..c5� and the survived black bishop moved to d4, turning into a piece of great importance) 9 ... i..xc3+ 10.bxc3 dxc4 (after 10 ... liJd7 1 1.

1 1

Chapter 1

l:tb1 l:tdS 12.'�b3 a4 13.'�·a2 .l:.a5 14 . ..td3 dxc4 15. �xc4 c5 16.l:tb5 lixb5 17.�xb5 e5 lS.0-0t in 1 . Khenkin - Lehtivaara, Bolzano 1999 the light-squared bishop kept standing aloof on cS) 1 1. ..txc4 b6 12.0-0 ..tb7 13.l:.e1 1L1d7 14.e4.l:.fdS 15 . ..tb5 �e7 - Khalif­man - Gofshtein, Ubeda 1997. Black solved the development problems but only in return of yielding the centre to White's pawns. Perhaps this concession might not be very tangible but it became evident that the early march of the Black's a-pawn made problematic the key-move in such pawn structures c7-c5. This fact should have a strong impact on the assessment of the position. The game proceeded 16.'�b3 1:tabS 17 . .l:tab1..taS lS.a4 ti'fB 19.1L1d2 lLle5 20.ti'b2 lLlg6 21.£3 c5 22.1L1c4 cxd4 23.cxd4 ti'e7 24.�f2t when all white pieces took comfortable places both for attacking the black b6-pawn and for supporting the breakthrough in the centre d4-d5.

Sometimes Black plays 4 ... �e7 trying to keep the tension. Then White can fight for the advantage with 5.g3 1L1ffi 6 . ..tg2 (White coun­ters 6 ... c6 7.0-0 .txd2 S.lLlbxd2 0-0 9.�c2 lLlbd7 first with the break 10.e4! dxe4 1l.lLlxe4 1L1xe4 12. �xe4 1L1ffi 13. ti'e2 .u.dS 14JHd1 �fB 15 . .l:tac 1 .td7 16.1L1e5 ..teS 17. a3 a5 and then with the typical manoeuvre lS.c5! lLld5 19.1L1c4t in Schwing - Porubszki, St. Ingbert 1995 where White

12

took over the dark squares. 6 ... 0-0 7.0-0 dxc4 (7 ... ..txd2 S.lLlbxd2 leads to the main lines and 7 ... .l:.dS could be met by S.ti'c2 lLlc6 9.l:td1 a5 10 . ..tg5 dxc4 1l.a3

..td6 12.1L1bd2 h6 13 . ..txffi ti'xffi 14.1L1xc4 ..tfS 15.e3 a4 16 . .l:tacU as in the game Beliavsky - Krum­pacnik, Grize 1996 with some­what better chances) S. ti'c2 1L1bd7 (after S ... ..txd2 9.1L1bxd2 b5 in Zaid - Smyslov, Moscow 1972 White won back the sacrificed pawn 10.a4 c6 1l.b3 cxb3 12. lLlxb3 b4 13.1L1e5�, keeping his pieces on active positions) 9.�xb4 (9.�xc4 is less accurate in view of 9 ... ..td6! 10.1L1c3 e5 1 1.dxe5 lLlxe5 12.1L1xe5 .txe5 13 . ..tg5 c6= and in Van Driel- Jansen, Vlis­singen 1999 Black obtained for his bishop the green light along the cS-h3 diagonal) 9 .. .'�xb4 10.1L1bd2 lLlb6 1l.a3 ti'd6 12.e4 ti'e7 13JUe1 ..td7 14.1L1xc4 lLlxc4 15.�xc41:tfcS 16 . .l:tacU, Cvitan­Zelcic, Makarska Tucepi 1995. Black slightly reduced the weight of life by trading off a couple of minor pieces but is still under pressure on the queenside and his light-squared bishop remains unemployed.

5.1L1bxd2 tiJf6 6.g3 White has nothing to worry

about the fate of the c4-pawn and can safely orientate the bishop to the main diagonal.

6 . . . 0-0 7 . ..tg2 �e7 If 7 ... 1L1bd7 then S.O-O (White

does not fear the centre counter S ... c5 because after 9.dxc5 lLlxc5

10.lIcU his lead in development must prevail and S .. .'if:fe7 9.�c2 b6 10.cxd5 liJxd5 1l.e4 liJb4 12. �c3 c5 13.a3 liJa6 14.dxc5 bxc5 15.liJc4±, Capablanca - Marshall, New York 1927 led to a serious weakness of Black's queenside pawns) S ... c6 9.�c2 b6 and now there comes a typical for such positions move 10.e4! After 10 ... dxe4 (or 10 ... �a6 1l.e5 liJe4 12.liJxe4 dxe4 13.liJd2± as in the game Kragelj - Komovec, Bled 2001 Black's e4-pawn is very weak and 10 ... .i.b7 as in Krivo­nosov - Spas sky, Tallinn (active) 1995 could be met by ll.e5!? liJeS 12.lIacl :i:tcS 13.:i:tfd1 c5 14.dxc5 :i:txc5 15.b4 lIcS 16.�b2±) 11. liJxe4 ttJxe4 12. �xe4 �b7 13.:i:tacl ttJffi 14. �e3 �c7 White could play 15.c5! not only bringing out of play the dark-squared bishop but also building the fundament of his supremacy over the central dark squares. G. Agzamov - G. Gonzalez, Tunja 19S4 went on 15 ... b5 16.lIfel .:I.adS 17.lIcdl .:I.feS IS.liJe5 ttJd5 19.�d2 .:I.e7 20.f4 a5 21 . .te4± with White's edge in view of the excellent prospects for a kingside attack.

8.0·0 b6 The main issue for Black is

how to bring the cS-bishop into play. This is the reason behind the last move. If S ... .:I.dS 9.�c2 c6 10.e4 dxc4 ll.liJxc4 liJa6 12.a3 �d7 13.b4 b6 14.h4± in the game Nemec - Ferenc, Bratislava 1979 Black got into a cramped position with his bishop awkwardly placed.

l.ttJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 i..b4 4. i..d2

Note that S ... c6 9.�c2 would lead to a situation which we discussed earlier in the commentary to Black's 7th move.

9 . .li!.cl �b7 Black has only one move left

for feeling happy - d5xc4, opening up the as-hI diagonal to his bishop.

10.liJe5!? White is obstructing the

enemy's plan, pinning the d5-pawn. The less promising alter­native 10.cxd5 exd5 11.�a4 happened in the game Salov - 1. Sokolov, Amsterdam 1996. The misplaced d2-knight (the appro­priate square would have been c3) makes possible 11...c51?�, attacking White's centre.

10 ... liJbd7?! 10 ... c5 allows 11.dxc5 bxc5

12.liJb3 ttJa6 (12 ... �c7?! is refuted by 13.liJd3±) 13.ttJa5± and Black's pawn centre misses the light­squared bishop's support. If 10 ... liJa6 then 11.cxd5 exd5 12. lIel (or 12.e3 c5oo) and white is ready to meet 12 ... c5 with the counter-strike at the centre 13.e4!? After the further moves 13 ... dxe4 (bad is 13 ... cxd4?! be­cause of 14.exd5±) 14.liJxe4 liJxe4 15.�xe4 .txe4 16J:txe4 cxd4 (loses 16 ... f6?? due to 17. �b3+ 'it'hS 18.liJg6+-) 17. �xd4 liJc5 lS.lIe3±, shown by V. Kramnik, White's pieces are more active. Nevertheless such a development of the play would probably have been a better solution.

1 l.liJxd7 �xd7 12.�c2

13

Chapter 1

12.cxd5 exd5 13.�c2± was possible but White is up to more.

12 ... l:tacB

13.c5! Now the threat of a further

march of the c-pawn forces Black to shut in the white-squared bishop.

13 ... c6 To 13 ... bxc5 V Kramnik pro­

poses the continuation 14. '§xc5!? (14.dxc5 c6 15.e4± also would give White some advantage) 14 ... �a4 15.'§c3! CLld7 16.CLlb3 �a6 17J:iJe1 �c4 lS.CLla5±.

14.�a4 .!t aB 15.e4! An important strategic motif

which widens the scope of White's pieces.

15 . . . dxe4 15 .. .lUdS 16.e5±. Black has no

space nor prospects for a counter­play.

16.CLlxe4 CLlxe4 17 . � xe411fdB If 17 ... b5 IS. '§b4 (in case of

18.,§c2 ffi 19.�g2 �xd4 20.l:iJd1 '§f6 21..1:;l.d6� White has full compensation for the pawn but taking into account the Black's

14

problems it makes no sense to venture into such variations) lS ... a5 19. �c3± Black's situation would be very difficult but at least he would have avoided the immediate opening of the queen­side files.

IBJUdl �c7 19.b4 g6 The counterplay 19 ... e5? would

fail to 20.cxb6 axb6 21.d5 c5 22.d6! �bS (22 .. .lhd6 23 . .txaS+; 22 ... �d7 23.�xd7 .uxd7 24 . .tffi+­winning) 23.d7+-.

20.�a3 �e7 21.'§f3 b5 After 21...�g7 White could

launch a kingside attack by playing 22.h4±.

22.a4!±

This situation was reached in the game Kramnik - J. Polgar, Dortmund 1997. Black cannot prevent the opening of the files at the left wing, leading him to a hopeless case. In the above fra­gment White impressively succe­eded to emphasise the main drawback of the positions with e7 -e6 - the poor prospects for the cS-bishop.

Chapter 2 l.tiJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 f5

Black is building the Sto­newall, switching to Dutch De­fence.

4.i.f4 The methods of fighting

against Stonewall constructions were covered at length in book 3. There, if you remember, White was postponing the move d2-d4 till the most suitable moment, taking his time to develop the kingside - g2-g3, .ifl-g2 and 0-0, bringing some corrections in the plan depending on the position of Black's bishop - on d6 or e7. In our case White has no such possibilities but nevertheless in the diagrammed position he can choose another comfortable setup which promises good chances for "breaking the wall".

4 ... tLJf6 Black can offer to trade bi-

shops - 4 ... .td6, sparing time for c7 -c6, but it does not ensure him an easy life. Following 5.e3 tLJf6 (the exchange on f4 gives White an open e-file which, in conjun­ction with the outpost on e5, promises him a superb play) 6.tLJc3 0-0 (the situation, occu­rring after 6 ... c6 7 . .txd6 �xd6 8 . .id3, will be analysed later in the comments to Black's 6th

move) 7 . .id3 b6 8.0-0 tLJe4 9.i.xd6 �xd6 10.cxd5 exd5 1l.l:I.c1 c6 12.tLJe5:;t; in Suran - Orlowski, Bayern 1997 White took over the outpost on e5 and enjoyed a better game.

5.e3 c6 6.tLJc3 .te7 Another try is 6 ... i.d6 7 . .txd6

�xd6 8 . .id3 0-0 9.0-0 tLJe4 (if 9 ... tLJbd7 then 10.cxd5!? tLJxd5 11..l:tc1 tLJ7f6 12. �d2 i.d7 13.tLJe5 tLJxc3 14.t�hc3± G. Orlov - Piku­lev, Simferopol 1989) 10.tLJe5 tLJd7 11.f4 tLJdf6 12 . .ixe4 dxe4 13.c5 �c7 14.h4:;t; White started a queenside offensive, Hoffman -Perez Aleman, Mesa 1992.

7 . .id3 0-0 8.�c2 tLJe4 Black can hardly avoid this

move. He has to reckon all the time with a possible exchange of the pawns on d5. It is easy to

15

Chapter 2

notice that in case of taking with the e6-pawn, the f5-pawn could become short of defence. For instance, in case of 8 ... lbbd7 it is possible 9.cxd5 lbxd5 10.lbxd5 cxd5 11.0-0 lbf6 12 . .l::i.ac1 i..d6 13. i..xd6 �xd6 14.lbe5 a6 15.f3;1; and thanks to the dominance over the c-file White is better in Lapienis - Kelchner, Vienna 1996. After 8 ... lba6 9.a3 lbc7 (9 ... dxc4 10. i..xc4 b5 11.i..b3 b4 12.lbe2±) 10. 0-0 .i.d7 (10 ... lbce8 1l.cxd5 cxd5 12 . .l:.fcU) 11..l:.ac1 lbce8 White can choose 12.cxd5 lbxd5 as in the game Gorelov - D. Bronstein, Moscow 1981. Here 13 . .te5!?± deserves attention.

After 8 ... Wh8 9.h3 Black de­cided on playing 9 ... lbe4. Ho­wever 10.g4! i..d6 1l.i..xd6 lbxd6 12.lbe5lbd7 13 .0-0-0 �e7 14.cxd5 cxd5 15 .f4 lbf6 16.h4 i..d7 17 .h5� faced Black with a strong attack, Pogorelov - S. Guliev, Moscow 1996.

After 8 ... .td7 could follow 9.lbe5 .i.e8 (worse is 9 ... lbe4 in view of 10.g4! b5 11.cxd5 lbxc3 12.bxc3 cxd5 13.gxf5 exf5 14. �b3± would be very strong and 9 ... lba6 10.a3 lbc7 could be fol­lowed by 11.h3 since 1l ... lbe4 is easily refuted by 12.cxd5! exd5 13.lbxd7 �xd7 14.i..xc7 �xc7 15 .lbxd5±). The good move here is 10.g4! dxc4 (bad was 10 ... lbe4 due to 1l.gxf5 exf5 12.cxd5 lbxc3 13.bxc3 g5 14.d6 i..xd6 15.,Ug1+­as in the game Raetsky - Shumia­kina, Pardubice 1992) 11..txc4 lbd5 12.gxf5 lbxf4 13.exf4 �xd4

16

14.i.xe6+ Wh8 15.�e4 �xe4+ (if 15 ... �d8 then 16.�e3 i.h5 17. �h3t with an initiative) 16.lbxe4 lba6. This position was reached in the games Averkin - Kantoro­vich, Simferopol 1989 and S. Williams - Boe Olsen, Aarhus 1998. It seems that 17.0-0-0!?± would provide White with better chances.

9.g4! White starts the offensive at

the kingside, exploiting the placement of Black's knight on e4. Less convincing would have been the calm 9.0-0 and Black could hold the position with 9 ... lbd7 10.lbe5 (or 10.lbe2 g5 1l.i.g3 h5 12.lbe5 lbxg3 13.hxg3 lbxe5 14.dxe5 Wg7� and Black has a counterplay at the kingside, Moehrmann - Herrmann, Hass­loch 1999. Also possible is 10.h3 �e8 1l.,Uab1, E. Agdestein -Tisdall, Oslo 1985 followed by 11...i..f6� with the idea e6-e5) 10 ... lbxe5 1l . .i.xe5 i..d6 12.i..xd6 �xd6 13.lbe2 .i.d7 14.b4 Wh8 15.'uab1 IIae8 16.a4 e5 17.cxd5 cxd5 18 .dxe5 �xe5 =, Shariyazda­nov - Pres, Tomsk 1998.

Now, after g2-g4 various moves

have been tested, the main conti­nuations being: a) 9 . . . lt:l a6 and b) 9 . . :�a5. Obviously 9 ... fxg4?! is less attractive due to 10 . .ltxe4 dxe4 (10 ... gxf3 fails to 1l . .ltxh7+ 'it>h8 12Jlgl±) 11.lt:le5 It:ld7 12. 0-0-0 It:lxe5 13.i..xe5 i..d7 14Jldg1 i..f6 15 . .l:1xg4 i..xe5 16.dxe5± Psakhis - Sequera, Elista 1998.

Black can try to create some counterplay with 9 ... b5 but after 10.cxb5 cxb5 1l.gxf5 exf5 12. It:lxb5 It:la6 13.a3 �a5+ (13 ... .ltd7 14.ltJc7 ltJxc7 15. �xc7 �xc7 16. i..xc7 .l:1fc8 17 . .lte5 i..e8 18 . .l:1g1 g6 19.'it>e2± led Black in the game Garcia Vicente - Roa Alonso, Alcobendas 1994 to an inferior ending with a pawn down) 14. 'it>e2 i..d7 15.�b3 i..e6 16 . .l:1hcl±, Makarov - Vasenev, USSR 1989, Black did not get enough compen­sation for the missing pawn.

a) 9 . .. lt:l a6

IO.a3! White must cover the b4-

square, otherwise he cannot hope for anything substantial-10.gxf5 It:lb4 11.�e2ltJxc3 12.bxc3ltJxd3+ 13.�xd3 dxc4 14.�xc4 �d5 15. �xd5 exd5 16 . .l:1g1 i..xf5 = Crouch - Kuenzner, Isle of Man 1993.

1.lt:lf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 f5 4.i..f4

IO ... lt:lxc3 If 10 ... b5, White could play

11.cxb5 cxb5 12.gxf5 exf5 13.lt:lb5, transposing to a position ana­lysed above (see the note about the various possibilities of Black on move 9). Another try is 10 ... lt:lc7 but continuing 1l.gxf5 exf5 12.i..xc7 �xc7 13.cxd5ltJxc3 14. �xc3± in the game C. Flear­Cuevas Rodriguez, Chambery 1995 White emerged with an extra pawn.

If Black chooses 10 ... �a5, resuming the threat ltJa6-b4, White would have to prevent it by playing 11.'itte2!? Then could follow 11...dxc4 (or 11...lt:lxc3+ 12.bxc3ltJc7 13.c5!? ltJe8 14 . .l:1hg1 Wh8 15 . .l:1g2ltJf6 16 . .l:1ag1! � with a strong attack, D. Lima - Giar­deli, San Paulo 1993, 11...fxg4 is not better in view of 12.i..xe4 gxf3+ 13.i..xf.3 dxc4 14.i..e5! i..f6 15.i..xf6:Uxf6 16.ltJe4 .l:1ffi17 . .l:1hg1 �f5 18.i..g4 �d5 19.1tJg5± with an advantage after an analysis of I. Belov) 12.i..xc4 b5 (the game Hellsten - Straeter, Germany 2001 saw 12 ... lt:lxc3+ 13.�xc3 �b6 14.gxf5 ':xf5 15.l1hg1 ltJc7 and here 16.i..e5! ? 11f7 17.ltJg5± should earn White a clear advan­tage) 13.b4 �b6 14.i..b3 ltJxc3+ 15. �xc3 fxg4 16.ltJe5 ltJc7 17. .l:1ac1ltJd5 18.i..xd5 exd5 (if 18 ... cxd5 then 19.h3!? gxh3 20 . .l:1xh3 .l:1f5 21..l:1ch1 h6 22.i..xh6 gxh6 23 . .l:1xh6 i..f6 24.e4 i..xe5 25.exf5 �xd4 26.�xd4 i..xd4 27.fxe6±). This position was reached in the game Poluljahov - Chigvintsev,

17

Chapter 2

Smolensk 2000 where 19.'�xc6 .li e 6 2 0 . '�xb6 axb6 21.. Uc3± would give White the upper hand.

l l.bxc3 dxc4 In case of 1 1 . . . lZ'lc7 it is pos­

sible to play 12. lZ'le5!? ( 12.c5? ! is less consistent - 12 . . . .lid7 13.ct:Je5 b6 14.cxb6 axb6 15.gxf5 exf5 16. ct:Jxd7 �xd7 1 7 . .lixc7 �xc7 18. i..xf5 h6� in Briebsch - Umpfen­bach, Oberhof 1999 Black is a pawn down but the presence of opposite coloured bishops pro­mises him a nice counterplay) The text move impedes Black from completing his queenside development. For instance, 12 . . . i..d7 (with 1 2 . . . g5 13.i..g3 dxc4 14. ct:Jxc4 f4 Black can win a piece but only in return of a devastating Whites's attack - 15. i..xh7+ Wh8 1 6 . �g6 Uf6 1 7 . �h5 Wg7 1 8 . ct:Je5--7) 1 3 .ct:Jxd7 �xd7 14.gxf5 exf5 15 .�xc7 �xc7 16. i..xf5± and White is a pawn up again but in comparison to the above-men­tioned game Briebsch - Umpfen­bach, Oberhof 1999, the position is more favourable to him.

12.i..xc4lZ'lc7 After 12 . . . b5 1 3 . i..d3 ct:Jc7

14.�gl ct:Jd5 15.i..e5 �f6 16.gxf5 exf5 17.c4 bxc4 18.i..xc4t Black in Lehmann - Vogel, Germany 1996 is under strong pressure.

13.gxf 5 ct:Jd5 14.i..e5 exf5 15.l:tgl l:tf7 16.l:tg3 i..e6 17.i..d3 h6 18. l:tg6t

(diagram) All this happened in the game

Vypkhaniuk - Sitnikov, Kiev

18

2001. White succeeded to deve­lop a dangerous initiative on the kingside thanks in the first place to the open g-file.

b) 9 ... �a5

10.gxf5!? The other popular continu­

ation for White is 10.We2, the main idea behind it being to reach by transposition the lines we discussed in variation a already. In this case White should however reckon with the veno­mous reply 10 . . . i..a3 !? (outright bad was 10 . . . fxg4? due to 1 l .ct:Je5 ct:Jf6 12 .Uag1 lZ'lbd7 13.h3 g3 14. Uxg3 ct:Jxe5 15.i..xe5 l!f7 16.�hg1 �d8 17.i..xh7!+- played in the game Lauridsen - Gropp, Ham­burg 1993 and 10 . . . ct:Ja6 1 1 . a3 leads to the above-mentioned variation a). The game Shariyaz-

danov - Radjabov, Biel 2000 pro­ceeded 11..Uac1 tLlxc3+ 12.�xc3 �xc3 13.�xc3 Si.xb2 14.Ub3 fxg400 with a double-edged position.

10 ... exf5 On 10 . . . �b4 the good reply is

1 1 .'it>f1! i.xc3 12.bxc3 e5 13.tLlxe5 i.xf5 14.£3 �xc3 ( 14 . . . i.h3+? 115. 'it>e2 ! +-) 15 .'it>e2 �xc2 16.i.xc2 tLlc3+ 17.'it>d2 Si.xc2 18. 'it>xc3 ..Iif5 19.1:!.hgl;!; with a superior ending.

1 l.cxd5 cxd5 12.'it>e2 i.e6 12 . . . tLlc6? loses due to the

tactical blow 13 .tLlxd5! ..Iid6 (13 . . . �xd5 14.i.c4+-) 14 . ..Iixd6 tLlxd6 15.�c5 �xc5 16.dxc5+- Uman­sky - D . Andreev, Primorsko 1989. Also unsatisfactory would be 12 . . . b6?! owing to 13 .tLlb5! (now 13.tLlxd5?! would miss the goal in view of 13 . . . �xd5 14 . ..Iic4? ..Iia6!-+ or 14.�xb8 �e6::g and the two bishops compensate for the pawn) 13 . . . i.a6 14. �b3 :d8 1. Novikov - Dreev, Uzhgorod 1987. Here White could have presented his opponent with problems difficult to overcome: 15 .tLlc7 ! i.xd3 1 6 . �xd3 tLlc6 1 7 . :hc1 ( 1 7 .tLlxaS? tLlb4 lS . �b3 �a6� with a strong attack for Black) 17 . . . tLlb4 18.�a3+-

After 12 . . . tLlxc3+ 13 .bxc3 tLlc6 14.�b3 'it>h8 15.h4 �dS 16.h5..1if6 17 .Uag1 t in the game Rausis -Kolly, Interlaken 2001 the ini­tiative is thoroughly in White's possession.

13. �b3 tLlxc3+ 13 . . . tLld7 could be followed by

14.l:!.hg1 'it>hS 15.tLle5 tLlxc3+ (the wrong move 15 . . . �fcS? cost Black

1.tLl{3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 f5 4 . ..Iif4

a pawn after 16.i.xe4 fxe4 17. tLlxd7 �a6+ l S . �b5 i.xd7 19. �xa6 bxa6 20.tLlxd5� in Aa­gaard - N. Pedersen, Ringsted 1992) 1 6 . �xc3 i.b4 1 7 . �b3t. White has a better pawn structu­re and the open g-file allows him to exert some pressure on the kingside.

14.bxc3 b6 15.tLlg5!? This move is connected with

an ingenuous trap. In the game Volzhin - Pres, Moscow 1999 White also succeeded to keep some advantage by playing 15. l:!.hg1 .ucS 16.l:!.ac1 tLlc6 17.h4t.

15 ... i.d7 16.a4

Now in the game Shumiakina - B . Thipsay, Kishinev 1995 Black decided on the nonchalant 16 . . . h6?, missing the blow 17.i.b5! hxg5 lS . �xd5+ 'it>h7 19 .i.xbS �axbS 20.�xd7 a6 21 .�xe7 axb5 22.�b4+-which would steer the game into a won rook endgame. But even the better 16 . . . 'it>hS (instead of 16 . . . h6) after 17 . ..\tb5 a6 lS . . .Iixd7 tLlxd7 19.tLle6 l:!.fcS 20.tLlc7 l:!.xc7 21...Iixc7 �cS 22.Si.f4 �xc3 23.�b1 g6 24.�cl;!; hardly promises Black full compensation for the exchange.

19

Chapter 3 l.lLJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c6

Black is ready to capture the c4-pawn.

4:�c2 The most flexible defence.

White keeps the material balance without narrowing too much the range of his possible plans. The other way - 4.e3 - would shut in the dark-squared bishop. In the same time 4 .cxd5 exd5 would relieve Black of all concerns about the future of cS-bishop, opening up the cS-h3 diagonal. The most straightforward de­cision is 4.ltJc3 but in this case White should be prepared for a very complicated game after 4 . . . dxc4 5.a4 .i.b4 6.e3 b5 7 . .i.d2 a5 S.axb5 .i.xc3 9 . .i .xc3 cxb5 10.b3 .i.b7 1 1.bxc4 b4 12 . .i.b2 ltJf6oo.

4 .. . ltJf6 The immediate 4 . . . dxc4 allows

White to build up a strong pawn

20

centre: 5.thc4 b5 (5 . . . ltJf6 6 . .i.g5 leads to the main line) 6. �c2 .i.b7 7 . e 4 ! Now 7 . . . ltJf6 (following 7 . . . ltJd7 S . ltJc3 l:tcS 9 . a3 ltJe7 10 . .i.e3 ltJg6 1 1 ..i.e2 a6 12 .0-0 c5 13.d5t White took over the ini­tiative in the game Stohl - Kna­ak, Stara Zagora 1990 and 7 . . . a6 could be met by S.ltJc3 ltJd7 9 . .i.e2 c5 1 0 . d 5 exd5 1 l . ltJxd5 ltJgf6 12.0-0 ltJxd5 13.exd5 .i.e7 14 . .i.f4 0-0 15.l:tad1 l:teS 16.l:i.fel;!; when the passed d-pawn embittered Black's life in Fyllingen - Lah­lum, Bergen 2000) S . .i.d3 ltJbd7 9.0-0 a6 10.�e2 c5 1l . .i.g5 h6 (after 11 . . .cxd4?? 12.e5 h6 13.exf6 hxg5 14. �xe6+ ! in the game 'funik - J. Geller, Togliatty 200 1 Black resigned before getting mated by way of14 . . . fXe6 15 . .i.g6#) 12 . .i.xf6 �xf6 13.a4± faced Black with problems. His kingside is still undeveloped while the oppo­nent already started the offensive at the other wing.

Also has been tested 4 . . . ltJd7 5.iLg5 iLe7 (in case of 5 . . . iLb4+ 6.ltJbd2 ltJe7 7 .a3 .i.d6 S.e4 dxe4 9.ltJxe4 iLc7 10 . .i.h4 f6 11 ..i.g3 0-0 12 . .i.d3± White has the edge, Eingorn - Comp "Mephisto",

1 .0{3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c6 4.�c2 Ci:Jf6 S.i.gS

Pamplona 1990) 6 .i..xe7 fixe7 (if 6 . . . Ci:Jxe7 7 .e3 0-0 B.i..d3 h6 9.Ci:Jc3 �hB 10.cxd5! exd5 as in the game Kantsler - A. Rabinovich, Ramat Aviv 1 9 9 B , White could play 1 1. 0-0 lIeB 12.b4t, launching a queenside minority attack with­out any obstacles on his way) 7.e3 ( 7 . Ci:Jbd2 i s worse in view of 7 . . . Ci:Jgffj B . g3 0-0 9.i..g2 e5 10. cxd5 Ci:Jxd5 11. 0-0 'ueB= and Black obtained a comfortable play in Grooten - Van der Werf, Rotter­dam 2000) 7 . . . Ci:Jgf6 B.Ci:Jc3 0-0 9 .l:!.d1 dxc4 1 0 . i..xc4 e5 1 1 .0-0 exd4 1 2. Ci:Jxd4 (or 12 .exd4 Ci:Jb6 13JHe1 �dB 14.iLb3 i..g4co with mutual chances ) 1 2 . . . Ci:Je5 1 3 . i..b3t in Raceanu - Dulgher, Techirghiol 2000 White obtained slightly better chances thanks to the activity of his pieces.

Often can be seen 4 . . . i..d6. It could be followed by 5 .i..g5 (5.g3 allows f5 reaching the Stonewall variation. In book 3 it is consi­dered as completely satisfactory for Black) 5 . . . f6 (if 5 . . . Ci:Je7 6.e3 Ci:Jd7 7 .iLd3 dxc4 B . iLxc4 fic7 9.i..h4 Ci:Jg6 10.i.g3 0-0 1l .Ci:Jc3 a6 12 .i.d3 Ci:Jf6 13 . .fLxd6 fixd6 14. i.xg6 hxg6 15 .e4 fie7 16.e5 Ci:Jd5 17 .0-0 l:tdB 1B.Ci:Je4± White obtai­ned a tangible advantage in R. Sherbakov - A. Sokolov, Novgo­rod 1 99 7 . H ardly an impr o ­vement is also 5 . . . fi c 7 6 .e3 f5 7 .Ci:Jc3 Ci:Jd7 B.i.d3 g6 9.0-0 4:Jgf6 10.l:tac1 �bB 1 1 .g3 0-0 12 . .1i..f4 b6 13 .b4 i.b7 14 .c5 i.c7 15 .4:Je2;!; Peng Zhaoqin - Apicella, Be­nasque 199B. Without the dark-

squared bishops Black's position looks like no haven. Finally after 5 . . . Ci:Jffj 6 .Ci:Jc3 Ci:Jbd7 7 .cxd5 exd5 8.e3 h6 9.i..h4 0-0 10 . .1i..d3 fic7 1 1 .Uc1 11eB 12.0-0 fia5 13.a3;!; in S. Safin - Ali, Abu Dhabi 200 1 White can start preparing at his ease the minority attack on the queens ide . ) 6 . i..h4 Ci:Je7 (the position after 6 . . . Ci:Jh6 7 .i.g3 Ci:Jf5 8.i.xd6 is already familiar) and now the key-move is 7 . iLg3 ! (Mter 7 .e4?! dxe4 B . �xe4 g5 ! t White would have t o part with some material because the move 9.i..g3? loses to 9 . . . f5 10.fie2 f4. In case of 7.e3 Black manages to play 7 . . . Ci:Jf5 which led to a po­sition with mutual chances after 8 .i..g3 Ci:Jxg3 9.hxg3 f5 1 0 . .1i..d3 Ci:Jd7 1 l . Ci:Jc3 Ci:Jf6 12. 0-0-0 iLd7 13 .�bl fia5co in Orsag - Chaika, Polanica Zdroj 1996. ) Now fol­lows 7 . . . c5 (the alternative 7 . . . f5 8.e3 i.xg3 9.hxg3 Ci:Jd7 10.Ci:Jbd2 Ci:Jg6 l 1 . cxd5 cxd5 1 2 . g4 ! 0-0 13.iLd3 Ci:Jb6 14.a4± proved to be in White's favour in Razuvaev -Pavasovic, Bern 1995 as well as 7 . . . i.h4+ B.Ci:Jbd2 Ci:Jf5 9.a3 iLxd2+ 1 0 . fixd2 dxc4 1 1 . .1i..xbB l:txbB 12.e4 4:Jd6 13.e5 fxe5 14.dxe5 Ci:Jf7 1 5 . �xdB+ �xdB 16 . iLxc4 r:J;;e7 1 7 . 0-0-0;!;, Fominyh - Totsky, Kazan 1 9 9 5 . Finally 7 . . . 4:Jf5 B .iLxd6 Ci:Jxd6 9 . Ci:Jbd2 f5 10.g3 Ci:Jd7 1 1 . i.g2 0-0 1 2 . 0- 0 Ci:Jf6 13 .4:Je5;!; brought White a nice play against the Stonewall in Ba­ny - Moroz, Bydgoszcz 1990). B . dxc5 i.xc5 ( after 8 . . . � a 5 + 9 . 4:Jbd2 '§xc5 1 0 . i. xd6 fixd6

21

Chapter 3

1 1 .cxd5 'i:{txd5 12.e4 'i:{tc6 13.SLc4;!; White's pieces are better placed) 9.cxd5 'i:{ta5+ (A. Dreev assesses Black's position after 9 . . . SLb4+ 10.tDbd2 exd5 1 l.e3± as difficult) 10.CDbd2 exd5 1 1.e4 CDbc6 12.exd5 CDb4 13 .'i:{tc4 SLd7 (after 13 . . . SLf5 14.CDb3 CDd3+ 15 .We2 'i:{tb6 16. CDfd4!± Black is unable to un­tangle his pieces in the centre in spite of the exposed position of White's king) 14.SLe2 ':'cS 15.0-0 SLxf2+ (another lines are 15 . . . CDc2 16.CDb3 'i:{ta4 17.'i:{txa4 SLxa4 IS. ':'adl± or 15 . . . SLb6 16.'i:{te4 SLf5 17.'i:{th4 CDg6 1S.'i:{th5± White has an extra pawn. In case of 15 . . . CDbxd5 16.CDb3 'i:{tb6 17.tDxc5 ':'xc5 l S . 'i:{tb3 'i:{txb3 1 9 . axb3 a6 20 . SLc4t, shown by A.Dreev, White keeps the initiative thanks to the two bishops. ) 16.':'xf2 ':'xc4 17 . CDxc4 'i:{tdS (extremely dange­rous is 1 7 . . . 'i:{txd5 in view of lS . .l:!.dl±) lS.CDd6+ Wf8 19.CDe5� in Dreev - Grischuk, Ubeda 1999 White obtained good compen­sation for the queen. The black king is stuck in the centre and the prospects ofthe RhS coming into play are totally unclear.

Let us note that 4 ... f5 5.SLf4 CDf6 6 . e3 leads to a situation already presented in Chapter 2.

5.SLg5 At this stage we'll analyse

three main branches: a) 5 ... h6, b) 5 . . . dxc4 and c)

5 . . . tDbd7, as 5 . . . SLe7 6.e3 0-0 7 .CDc3 CDbd7 leads to a position from variation c .

22

a) 5 ... h6

6 . .th4 6.SLxf6 'i:{txf6 7 .tDc3 brings the

game to the so-called Moscow variation of Slav Defence. How to struggle for an advantage in this line we'll see Semi-Slav (Book IV) . We'll only note here that following 7 . . . dxc4!? S.e3 b5 9.a4 (9.CDxb5 cxb5 10:§e4 ..tb4+ 11 . Wd1 O-O� gives Black a strong attack) 9 . . . SLb7 10.axb5 cxb5 11 . CDxb5 SLb4+ 12 .tDc3 0-0 13.SLe2 CDd7 14.0-0 .l:!.fcS 15 . .l:!.fc1 a5 16. CDa4 ':'abS 17:�'d 1 e5 IS . .l:!.xc4 ':'xc4 19.5Lxc4 the game Beliavsky - Kramnik, Dortmund 1995 was drawn in view of the variation 19 . .. SLxf3 20. 'i:{txf3 "i:{txf3 21 .gxf3 exd4 2 2 . exd4 CDb6 2 3 . CDxb6 ':'xb6=.

6 ... dxc4 Exchanging the pawns Black

lures the queen into the centre in the hope to make the most of its exposed position and organise a counterplay. 6 . . . CDbd7 7 .e3 leads to variation c.

7:§xc4 b5 After 7 . . . �a5+ S.CDbd2 CDe4 9.

a3 CDxd2 10.CDxd2 i.d6 1 1 .b4 �h5

1 .CiJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c6 4.'rf!c2 CiJf6 s. iLgS

12.CiJe4 iLc7 13.iLg3± the swap of the dark-squared bishops earned White a better play in Loeffler -Thesing, Germany 1996.

8:rf!c2 iLb7 9.e3 Also was tested 9.iLxffi �xffi

10.e3 CiJd7 1 l .CiJc3 a6 12.kd3 i..d6 13 .0-0 �e7 14 . .l:tac1 .l:tcB 15 .lIfdl c5 16.dxc5 as in Speelman - R. Sherbakov, Calcutta 1996 where 16 . . . iLxf3!? would equalise - 17. gxf3 (after 17 .cxd6 �g5+ White has no choice but to shed an exchange) 17 . . . .l:tc5 lB. �d2 iLe5=.

9 ... CiJbd7 10.CiJbd2!? The main task for White

should be to neutralise the pos­sible Black's pawn break c6-c5 . For example, after 10 .i..d3 a6 1 l .a4 (in case of 1 1 . 0-0 as in the game Chumachenko - Beshukov, Krasnodar 1997 Black has the move l1.. .lIcB!? after which 12". c5= can hardly be prevented) 1 1 . . .c5! turns out to be possible (If l1 . . . .l:tcB?! 12.�e2 c5 13.axb5 axb5 14.kxb5 cxd4 15 .0-0 dxe3 16.CiJe5! exf2+ 17 .'iiihl± and Black is behind in development. Also dubious is l 1 . . .kh4+?! 12 .CiJbd2 c5 because of 1 3 . iLxf6 ! CiJxf6 14.axb5 kxf3 15.gxf3 0-0 16.dxc5 axb5 17JhaB �xaB 1B.'it>e2 .l:tcB 19.CiJb3 CiJd7 20 .ke4 �bB 21 .c6 CiJe5 22.CiJd4± as in M. Gurevich - Grischuk, Cannes (active) 2001 where White emerged with an extra pawn) 12 kxf6 ( 12 .axb5 , could be met by 12".g5! 13.kg3 axb5 14 . .sxaB �xaB+) 12 . . . �xffi 13.axb5 cxd4� with good counter­play.

Now Black can continue pre­paring to expand on the queen­side by means of al) lO . . . l::!.c8 and a2) lO . . . �b6. Let us note that after 10 . . . a6 1 1.a4 (or 11 .i..e2 c5 12.0-0 lIcB= and in the game A. Rychagov - Sambuev, Tula 2001 Black solved all his pro­blems) l 1 . . . .l:tcB, Ioseliani - Cos­ma, Warsaw 1999, White could steer the play in variation al by playing 12.ke2.

al) lO . . J!c8 1 1..te2 White carries on developing,

pretending to ignore the fact that Black is ready with the break­through c6-c5.

1 l ... c5?! Consistent but perhaps not

the best decision. It was played 1 1 . . .iLe7 12.0-0 c5 when in the game Izoria - Galkin, Ohrid 2001 White could gain the upper hand by 13.d5! exd5 14.kxb5±.

To 1 1 . . .a6 12.a4 c5 it is pos­sible again 13.d5! (13.axb5 cxd4+ is even more pleasant for Black) 13 . . . exd5 14.axb5 axb5 15.kxb15 �b6 16. ka4 kc6 17 .kxffi kxa4 (if 17".CiJxf6 , then 1 B . CiJe5±) 1B.�xa4 �xffi 19.0-0 iLe7 (taking

23

Chapter 3

the pawn 19 . . . t'fxb2 is dangerous on account of20.e4� with White's attack and the attempt to close the position with the help of 20 . . . d4? would cost Black the queen after 2 1 .l:!.abl �c3 2 2 . �fc1+-) 20.e4t Black i s still faced with difficulties. He cannot castle due to the hanging knight on d7 while the tension in the centre is growing up.

12 . .ixf6 gxf6 12 . . . �xf6? 13 . .ixb5 cxd4 14.

.ixd7+ 'It>xd7 15 .�a4+ ..tc6 16. �xa 7 + 'sc7 1 7 . t'fxd4+- would cost Black a couple of pawns.

13.d5! An extremely important tacti­

cal strike which is familiar to us from the comments on Black's move 1 1 . White does not let the opponent to open up the c-file. The tempting 13 . ..txb5 is not good as I3 . . . cxd4 I4.t'fa4 dxe3 15.fxe3 a6 16 . .ixd7+ t'fxd7 I 7 . t'fxd7+ Wxd7+ provides Black with an advantage.

13 ... ..txd5 After I 3 . . . a6 I 4 . dxe6 fxe6

15.t'fg6+ We7 I6.0-0t the black king is stuck in the centre which promises White a lasting ini­tiative. No improvement is also 13 . . . exd5 I4 . ..txb5 ..td6 15.0-0:t. Black has not only his pawn structure ruined but the pin along the a4-eS diagonal is a cause of troubles too.

14.i.xb5 .idS 14 . . . ggS is also bad news after

15.e4 .ib7 16.0-0:t. 15.e4 ..tcS

24

Black is struggling to escape from the dead pin along the a4-eS diagonal. Following 15 . . . ..tb7 16.lDc4 ..te7 17 J�dl.l:i.c7 IS.0-0+­the material losses are una­voidable.

IS.lDc4! The placement of Black's king

in the centre generates new tactical motifs.

IS . . . lDbS Impossible was 1 6 . . . ..txb5??

due to 17.lDxd6+ We7 Is.lDxb5+­and White is a piece ahead.

17 . .i.xcS+ l:txc6 18.0-0 We7 After IS . . . lDxc4 19.'�xc4 �b6

20.b3 gb4 21 . t'fc2:t Black's pawn structure on both wings is badly damaged.

19J::tadl lDxc4 20"�xc4 t'fb8 21.b3±

This position arose in 1. Ibra­gimov - Filippov, Elista 1996. White is clearly better thanks to the better pawn structure.

a2) 10 ... t'fb6 (diagram)

1 l . ..te2 While keeping an eye on

Black's queenside activitie s , White does not forget to develop

1.0:,f3 dS 2.d4 e6 3. c4 c6 4. fic2 CiJf6 S. i.gS

his kingside. 1 l .. .l:tcS Mter 1l . . . c5 12.a4 cxd4 13.a5

�dS 14.kxf6 gxf6 1 5 . .txb5 aB 1B.ka4 t, Bany - Seifert, Porabka 19S7 White preserved his ini­tiative.

12.fib3 White prevents the move cB­

c5 by accumulating pressure on b5.

12 . . . a5 13.a3 .te7 14.0-0 0-0 15.CiJe5 a4

In case of 15 . . . CZlxe5 1B.dxe5 CiJd5 1 7 .kxe7 CiJxe7 lS.CiJc4! fic7 19 .CiJdBt White's knight would make its way deep i nto the enemy camp (shown by L. Psa­khis).

16.�c2!? Mter lB. �d3 CZlxe5 17 .dxe5

llcdS! lS.fic2 CZld5 19.i.xe7 CZlxe7 20.CZle4 11d5 2 1 .�c3 i.aB! 22.11fe1 CZlgB 23.11ac1 ! CZlxe5 24.CZlc5 as in Psakhis - Pavasovic, Pula 2000 Black would achieve full equality by 24 . . . CZl c 4 ! ? 2 5 . CZlxaB fixaB 2B .kxc 4 bxc4 2 7 . �xc4 fixc4 2S.11xc4 llbS 29.11xa4 J:!.xb2 30. J:!.c4= (L. Psakhis).

16 ... l:ifeS Or 1B . . . J:!.fdS 1 7 .CZlxd7 J:!.xd7

lS.kxf6 gxf6 (if IS . . . .txfB then

19.CiJe4 .te7 20.CiJc5;t setting up a safe blockade on the c6-pawn thus shutting off the diagonals to the dark-squared bishop . ) 19.�d3 .ta6 20.b4! axb3 21.CiJxb3 c5 22.CiJxc5 .txc5 23.dxc5 �c6 (following 23 . . . laxd3 24.cxb6 J:!.d6 25.b7 llbS 2B.ltfdU Black pieces are badly misplaced) 24. �b3 �xc5 25J::tfdU (analysis of L. Psakhis).

If Black tries to deviate by 16 . . . g5 he should reckon with the reply 17.CZlg6! (otherwise 17.CiJxd7 CZlxd7 lS . .tg3 and now Black succeeds with lS . . . c5=) 17 . . . fxg6 (after 17 . . . I!.feS lS.CZlxe7+ laxe7 19 . .tg3 c5 20.fid3 cxd4 21 .exd4 �c6 22.kf3 CZld5 23 .lafe U the pushing ofthe g-pawn weakened Black's kingside. Another pawn step 23 . . . g4? would decide the game in White's favour following 24.kxg4 CZlf4 25.�f1 fixg2+ 26. fixg2 CiJxg2 27 Jlec 1 +- intending 2S.kh3) lS.�xg6+ 'it'hS 19.fixh6+ CiJh7 20 . .td3! CZl df6 (in case of 20 . . .lU7 White continues the attack with 21. fixeB�) 21.kxg5 fic7 22.i.f4 kd6 23.kxd6 �xd6 24.CZle4 CiJxe4 25 . .txe4 ktc7 2B. llac1 t White is enjoying a dan­gerous initiative while the three pawns compensate for the mis­sing piece.

1 7.CZlxd7 CiJxd7 l S . .t xe7 l:txe7 19.b4 e5

(diagram) We have been following the

game Podkriznik - Pavasovic, Ljubljana 2001 when 20.CiJf3! ? (inferior i s 20.dxe5 due to 2 0 . . . c5!

25

Chapter 3

2 1 . bxc5 .uxc5 22.' �b2 lOxe5 23. .ufcl .uec7 24 . .uxc5 .uxc5 25 . .ubl �g6 26.e4 kxe4 27.lOxe4 �xe4 28.kxb5 .uc2 29.�b4 �ffi= equa­lising) 20 . . . exd4 21 .exd4± would have preserved White's advan­tage. The thematic c6-c5, opening up the dark-squared bishop, would be then impossible.

b) 5 .. . dxc4

6.�xc4 White's queen is obliged to

step forward where it could come across the fire of the enemy pieces . In return comes the possibility to build a strong pawn centre.

6 .. . .te7 Black is not in a hurry to

embark upon active operations on the queenside awaiting the most appropriate moment.

Beside this move there is

26

6 . . . b5 with a play similar to variation a. For example: 7 .�c2 i.b7 8.e3 lObd7 9.lObd2 .uc8 (to 9 . . . �b6 it is possible 10.�b3 1 1.a3 as in variation a2 but only with the bishop on g5 and the pawn left on h7. Following 9 . . . a6 10.a4 �b6 as in Fominyh - Kharlov, Samara 2000 1 1 .�b3 !? deserved attention and if 1 1 . . .bxa4, then 12.�xa4± since the b2-pawn is poisonous) 9 . . . .uc8 10.a4 (Black easily equalised after 10.ke2 a6 1 1 .0-0 c5 12.�bl ke7= in Tunik - Lastin, Bor 2000) 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 . .te2 c5 12 .axb5 axb5 . At this stage the central counterstrike, as in variation aI, would provide White with the initiative: 13.d5! exd5 14.kxb5 �b6 1 5 . .ta4 kc6 16 . .txf6 .ii..xa4 1 7 . �xa4 �xf6 18.0-0 .ii..e7 19.e4t 1. Ibragimov ­Zhu Chen, Pulvermuehle 2000.

It is seen also 6 . . . �b6 when the pawn sacrifice 7.lObd2!? looks promising (not so tempting is 7.�c2 c5 8.lObd2 �a5 9.e3 lOc6 10 . .ii..xffi gxf6 1 1 .dxc5 �xc5 12. �xc5 .ii..xc5 13 .kb5 .td7 14.Mc1 .ii..e7= like in G. Danner - Roelzl, Budapest 1994). After the moves 7 . . . �xb2 8 . .ubl � a 3 9 . e 4 b6 1 0 . �c2 ka6 1l.kc4 i-xc4 ( if 1 1 . . .ke7 12.0-01' and 12 . . . 0-0?? fails to 13.e5 lOd5 14.Mb3 �a5 15 . .txd5 cxd5 16 .kxe7+- win­ning a piece) 12.lOxc4 �a6 13.0-0 lOxe4 (13 . . . lObd7 is strongly met by 14 . .txffi! and now 14 . . . lOxf6 loses to 15 .lOce5 .uc8 16.lOg5+­while 14 . . . gxf6 1 5 . d 5 t gives White the initiative) 14 . the4

l.tiJ{3 d5 2.d4 e6 3. c4 c6 4. �c2 tiJ{6 5.�g5

�xc4 S akaev - Tregubov, St Petersburg 1998. Here 15 .tiJe5!? �a6 ( 1 5 . . . �d5 leads Black to trouble in view of 16.�f4 f5 17. �h4 h5 18.tiJg6 l:th7 19.ii..e7+-) 16.tiJxc6 �b7 17 .d5 i..d6 IS.:fc1� would ensure White a good com­pensation for the pawn deficit.

7.e3 0-0 Also possible was 7 . . . b6 S.tiJc3

i..a6 ( after S . . . O-O 9 .i..e2 tiJd5 10 .i..xe7 �xe7 1 1 .:c1 ii..a6 12. ctJxd5 exd5 13.�b3 ii..xe2 14.Wxe2 �e6 15 . .l:thdl ctJd7 16.Wfl;!; the backward pawn on c6 is a source of a constant concern for Black -Ksieski - Matlak, Suwalki 1999) 9 . �a4 i..xfl 10.:xfl 0-0 (in case of 10 . . . b5 1 1 . �c2 ctJbd7 12.ii..xffi ctJxffi 13.ctJe4;!; White will immi­nently seize the c5-square) 1 1 . i..xffi �xffi 12.0-0-0!? (less precise is 12.�e2 c5 13 . .l:tfdl cxd4 14.ctJe4 e5 15 .exd4 exd4 16.ctJxffi+ �xffi 17.�xd4 �g6= Atalik - Krasen­kow, Elista (ol) 1 995) 12 . . . b5 13.�c2 ctJa6 14.�bl ctJb4 15.�e2 �a5 1 6 . ctJ d 2 i.. e 7 1 7 . f4 ctJd5 IS .l:l.cl �b6 19.ctJce4 a5 20.g4;!; in Poluljahov - Beshukov, Krasno­dar 1999 White has a small advantage. His prospects on the kingside are very real, another trump is the weakness of c5-square while it would be far more complicated for Black to imple­ment a counterplay at the oppo­site wing.

8.i..d3 h6 Also can be seen S . . . ctJa6. After

9.0-0 c5 (in case of 9 . . . �b6 might follow 10.ctJbd2 �xb2 1 l .i..xh7+!

Wxh7 12.11abl �a3 13.�c2+ �gS 14.tiJc4 ctJb4 15Jhb4 �xb4 16 . :bl tiJd5 17.lhb4 ctJxb4 1S.�b3;!;. White's queen is stronger than the two rooks passively placed on the back rank . ) 10 . dxc5 tiJxc5 11 .i..xf6 gxf6 (inferior is 11.. .i..xf6? on account of 12.ii..xh7+! �xh7 13.�xc5 ii..d7 14.ctJc3 i..c6 15J:tfdl �b6 16.�h5+ �gS 17 .:abl± and Black has no full compensation for the pawn) 12.i..c2 f5 (after 12 . . . i..d7 13.�g4+ �h8 14J:tdl f5 15. �d4+ WgS 16.ctJe5 i..eS 17 .ctJc3 �xd4 I S . exd4 ctJ d 7 1 9 . tiJ f3;!; Black's minor pieces are mis­placed and cannot prevent the pawn break d4-d5) 13J:tdl �c7 14.ctJc3 a5 ( 14 . . . i..d7 loses due to 15 .b4+-while 14 . . . tiJa6 1 5 . �e2 ii..d7 16 . .l:tac1 l1fdS 17.e4± leads to a clear White's advantage) 1 5 . e 4 fxe4 16 .tiJxe4 b5 ( after 16 . . . �f4 17. �e2 b6 18.ctJxc5 i..xc5 19. �d3 f5 20.�e2 .l:ta7 2 1 .i..b3 �e4 22 . .l:td2 a4 2 3 . i..c4± the weakness of e6-pawn is spoiling Black's life) 17. �e2;!;. In 1. Khen­kin - Tregubov, Koszalin 1999 White gained the edge thanks to the weakened Black's castle .

Another possibility is S . . . ctJbd7 9.0-0!? when 9 . . . c5 10.dxc5 tt'lxc5 l l .ii..xffi transposes to the line S . . . ctJa6, analysed above.

9.i..xf6!? White decides on parting with

his dark-squared bishop. Other­wise after 9 . i..h4 Black can achieve equality by means of 9 . . . tiJbd7 10.0-0 c5 1l .dxc5 ctJxc5 12.i..xffi i..xffi: .

27

Chapter 3

9 ... .txf6 10.tUc3 tUd7 White is slightly better after

10 . . . b6 1 1.�a4 .tb7 12 . .l:!.dU. l l .:dl �e7 1 1 . . . �b6 12 . .l:!.d2t is hardly an

improvement because the at­tempt to break free by way of 12 . . . e5?! proves to be too risky after 1 3 . dxe5 tUxe5 1 4 . tUxe5 .txe5 15.�e4 .l:!.e8 16.�h7+ 'ito>f8 17.0-0±. If 11 .. . �a5 12.0-0 .l:!.d8 13 .b4 �h5 14.tUe4t White has a firm control over the possible pawn breaks c6-c5 and e6-e5.

12 . .thl V. Kramnik rejected 12.tUe4

on account of 12 . . . e5 13.d5 cxd5 14.�xd5 �b4+! 15Jld2 tUb6 16. tUxf6+ gxf6 17.�e4 �xe4 18 . .txe4 tUc4 19.1:.c2 tUd6= .

12 ... e5 Black hurries to open up the

c8-h3 diagonal for his bishop before White completes his de­velopment. Not so good would be 12 . . . g6 13.0-0 .tg7 14.l:.feU and Black not only is locked up in the centre but also cannot make any use of his light-squared bishop which has no working diagonals. The position after 12 ... c5 13.0-0t is considered by V. Kramnik to be

28

in White's favour too. 13.0-0 The thematic 13.d5 leads here

to a levelled position after 13 . . . tUb6 14. �d3 e4!? 15.tUxe4 tUxd5= (noted by V. Kramnik).

13 ... exd4 13 . . J:td8? fails to 14.dxe5 tUxe5

15 .lIxd8+ �xd8 16 .tUxe5 .txe5 17.�e4 �f6 18.f4 .td6 19.�h7+ 'ito>f8 20.tUe4+-. In case of 13 . . . tUb6 V. Kramnik proposes 14.�d3 g6 15.dxe5 .txe5 16.tUxe5 �xe5 17. f4 t with an initiative. In reply to 13 . . . g6 V. Kramnik recommends 14.�b3!n threatening 15 . .txg6.

14.exd4! White created an isolated

pawn by his own will! The d4-pawn controls the key central squares c5 and e5 while the opening of e-file gains White a tempo for l:.fl-e1 thanks to the placement of Black's queen. The same strategical treatment could be found in Part 6 where the main themes will be Lasker Defence and Capablanca System.

14 . . . tUb6 15.\i�M3 g6 16.lifel �b4

V. Kramnik was preparing to meet 16 . . . �d8 by 17.�e3t.

17.�d2t

1.Ci:Jf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c6 4. ftc2Ci:Jf6 S. iLgS

We have been following the game Kramnik - Lautier, Til­burg 1998. It went 17 . . . Ci:Jc4? 18. �xh6 Ci:Jxb2 19.Ji.xg6 ! fxg6 20. Ci:Jg5 Ji.xg5 2 1 . ftxg6+ �h8 22. fth5+ �g8 23. ftxg5+ �f7 24 . .l:!.e3 and the French grandmaster signed his defeat in view of the variation 24 . . . Ci:Jxd1 25.ftf4+ �g7 26 . .l:!.g3+ �h7 27 .fth4#. In the postmortem V. Kramnik com­mented that even after the best defence 1 7 . . . Ji.g7 1 8 . a3 ! ? (V. Kramnik also pointed out that while 18.Ci:Je5 Ci:Jc4 19. Ci:Jxc4 ftxc4 20 .a3 Ji.g4! 2 1 .Ji.a2 fta6 22.f3 Ji.d7 23.l:te7 .l:!.ad8 24.�f4 Ji.e8 25.ftc7 �b6 26.ftxb6 axb6 27.d5 promises White an advantage in the ending, it might be not enough for a win) 18 . . . ftd6 19.Ci:Je5 Ji.e6 20. Ci:Je4 ftc7 2 1 .Ci:Jc5 Ji.d5 22.�d3 .l:!.fe8 23.f41' White retains the initiative.

c) 5 . .. tDbd7 Black refrains from activities

in the centre, aiming to complete his development first.

6.e3 Transfers the duty to defend

the c4-pawn to the light-squared

bishop. We'll follow here: c l ) 6 . . .

�a5+ and c2) 6 . . . iLe7 .

cl) 6 ... fta5+ Escaping the pin, Black comes

into the patterns of Cambridge­Springs Variation.

7.Ci:Jbd2!? When White played 6 .e3 , he

was counting on developing his knight on c3. Now he will have to introduce some corrections in the plan. The point is that 7 .Ci:Jc3 Ji.b4 transposes to a far-from-best for White lines of Cambridge­Springs Variation (Book IV).

If we compare the situation after 8 . cxd5? Ci:Jxd5=t to the si­milar position from Part 5 (l.Ci:Jf.3 d5 2 . d4 Ci:Jf6 3 . c4 c6 4. Ci:Jc3 e6 5 . Ji.g5 Ci:Jbd7 6 . e3 �a5 7 . cxd5 Ci:Jxd5 8.ftd2 Ji.b4), we'll find the only difference to be the White's queen being placed on c2 instead of d2. As paradoxical as it could seem, this proves to be a major drawback since the normal de­fending move 9J�tc1 here loses a pawn - 9 . . . ftxa2! (the knight is dead-pinned).

7 . . . Ci:Je4 Black embark upon active

actions exploiting the pinning of the d2-knight. Don't forget ho­wever that all this does not help the development at all not to mention the main source of concern in these structures - the unhappy bishop on c8. 7 . . . Ji.b4 8.a3 Ci:Je4 9.Ji.f4 would have led with a minor transposition to the

29

Chapter 3

main line. After 7 . . . �e7 S.�d3 dxc4 9.�xc4 e5 10.0-0 0-0 1 1.4.Je4 exd4 1 2 . 4.Jxd4;t in the game Meyer - Prang, Biel 1993 White is ahead in development.

8.�f4 �b4 After S . . . �e7 9 . cxd5 4.Jxd2

10.4.Jxd2 '§xd5 l l . a3 c5 12.dxc5 4.Jxc5 1 3 . e4 �c6 14 .�e2 �d7 15 .0-0 0-0 16 . .uacU White easily obtained an advantage in Matlak - Zurek, Czech Republic 1994. His pieces are more active, the black queen is far from being comfortably placed in the centre of the board.

9.a3 g5 White has only to leave the a1-

square with the rook to finally consolidate his position. That is why Black is seeking new ways to keep the fire burning. If he chooses to build up the "stone­wall" by means of 9 . . . f5, the play might develop as in the game Romm - Dudas, Budapest 1996 10 . .uc1 �e7 11 .�d3 0-0 12.0-0 g5 13.�xe4 gxf4 14.�d3 fxe3 15.fxe3 4.Jffi 16.4.Je5;t. White's knight took over the outpost on e5 while the opponent's light-squared bishop is still only dreaming for a decent future.

In case of 9 . . . 4.Jxd2 10 .4.Jxd2 dxc4 White has in possession the strong reply 11 ..ud1! (if 11 .�xc4 e5 12.dxe5 4.Jxe5 13 .�xe5 �xd2+ 14.'§xd2 '§xe5 the position from the game Timoschenko - Mala­khov, Porto San Giorgio 1999, could be assessed as equal). Now following 11 . . . �xd2+ 12 . .uxd2 e5

30

(if 12 . . . b5 then 13 . .td6� preven­ting the castle) 13 .dxe5 4.Jxe5 14. �xe5 �xe5 15 . .txc4 0-0 16.0-0 �f5 17 . ..td3 �xd3 lS. '§xd3 'uaeS 19.'ufd1 .t!.e7 20. �c4 h5 21..�,d4 g6 22.h4;t in Dreev - Malakhov, New Delhi (active ml5) 2000 White succeeded in taking over the d­file.

10.i.g3 h5 An alternative is 10 . . . g4 ll .lld1

i.e7 (after 11. . .ii.xa3 12.bxa3 gxf3 1 3 . gxf3 4.Jxd2 1 4 . �xd2 �xa3 15.c5� for a pawn White has a bishop pair, besides Black is clearly lagging behind with the queenside development) 12 .4.Je5 4.Jxg3 13.hxg3 4.Jxe5 14.dxe5 h5 15.�e2;t and in N. Davies - Ma­nor, Tel Aviv 1991 White created the unpleasant threat to capture the pawn on g4.

1 1.0-0-0 �xa3 Plunging into tactical compli­

cations . In case of retreating ll . . . �e7? 12.4.Jxe4 dxe4 13.�xe4 the attempt to trap White's bishop by the help of 13 . . . h4 would fail to 14.�e5 ffi 15. �g6+ �fS 1 6 . d 5 ! cxd5 1 7 . ..tc3 �c7 lS.4.Jxg5+- and in C . Horvath -Kuijf, Bad Woerishofen 1993 Black had nothing left but to resign. If Black wishes to keep alive by all means his dark­squared bishop he should at first to exchange on g3 - l l . . . 4.Jxg3 12 .hxg3 and now ii.e7 . There could follow 13 .�e2 g4 14.4.Je5 ..tf6 and Koniushkov - Volkov, Sochi 1997 agreed a draw though 15 .4.Jd3;t intending 16.4.Jf4 would

1. Cf:-,f3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c6 4. �c2 tiJf6 S.i..gS

be pleasant enough for White. 12.bxa3 The right taking! If 12.tiJxe4

dxe4 13.tiJd2 13 . . . h4!+ and in case of 12 .tiJb3 �b4 13.bxa3 �xa3+ 14.�b1 h4 15 . ..tc7 tiJxf'2 16.�xf'2 �xb3+oo Black is completely at ease too.

12 ... ti'xa3+ The game Vaulin - Tregubov,

Smolensk 1 9 9 7 , saw 1 2 . . . h4 13 .tiJxe4 dxe4 when the easiest way to advantage would be 14 . ..te 5 ! ? �xa3+ 1 5 . �b2 �xb2+ 1 6 .�xb2 f6 1 7 .tiJxg5 tiJxe5 18. tiJxe4±.

13.ti'b2 ti'xb2+ 14.'it>xb2 h4 15.tiJxe4 dxe4

This position was reached in Khalifman - Van der Werf, Wijk aan Zee 1995. A tempting con­tinuation looks to be 16 . ..Iie5!? f6 1 7 . tiJxg5 tiJxe5 1 8 .tiJxe4 tiJd7 1 9 . ..te2t. The compact pawn structure and better develop­ment promises White a certain positional advantage.

c2) 6 . . . i..e7 7.tiJc3 In this line nothing impedes

White's knight going to his com­mon place on c3.

7 . . . 0-0 BJ:tdl!

An important nuance. White tries to win a tempo. A similar idea could be found in Part 6 where in a number oflines White delays the development of his light-squared bishop in the hope of reaching the c4-square in one step after a possible exchange d5xc4.

Now the play could branch to four main moves: c2a) B . • . a6, c2b) B ... ti'a5, c2c) B ... b6 and c2d) B . . . h6.

We'll only add that 8 . . . dxc4 would meet halfway White's plans. Mter 9 . ..txc4 tiJd5 (Black is playing like in the Capablanca system which is still to be dis­cussed in Part 6) 10 . ..txe7 �xe7 11 .0-0 tiJxc3 12.ti'xc3 !? (in most cases if Black's a-pawn is still on its initial square White as a rule prefers to take on c3 with a piece) 12 . . . b6 13 .e4 i.b7 14.I!.fe 1 �f6 ( 1 4 . . . c5 would have been pre-mature due to 15.d5 exd5 16.exd5 ti'd6 17. �e3 and in M. Gurevich - Kundin, Antwerp 1995 White created the threat of infiltrating into enemy's camp by 18. �e7±. It would not be better to try

3 1

Chapter 3

14 . . JhcS 15.b4!? liJffi 16.�b3 �c7 17.e5 liJd5 lS.liJg5 �e7 19.1iJe4;!; as in Umansky - Ivannikov, Alushta 1997. White prevented the threat of the breakthrough c6-c5 and now the knight is going to hop to d6. The prophylactic 14 . . . a5 15.1ld3 h6 16.�b1 .l:!.feS 17 . �c2 followed by 17 . . . e5 IS. dxe5 liJxe5 19 .1iJxe5 �xe5 20 . �b3t allowed White in the game Shumiakina - Stoisavlj evic , Niksic 1997 to take over the d­file with good prospects for exploiting the weakened queen­side. Finally, after the timid 14 . . . l'lfdS Black would have to reckon with the breakthrough 15 .d5 !? liJc5 16 .dxe6 liJxe6 1 7 . �e5t, Holmes - Louis, Liverpool 1923). Here comes 15 .�c2 (if the rook is still on as the thematic for such positions break 15.b4 would run into 15 . . . a5! 16.bxa5 .l:!.xa5= as played in the game Euwe - Spielmann, Noordwijk 1938) 15 . . . l'lfdS (15 . . . c5 is not so potent here owing to 16.�b5 l'lfd8 1 7 . b4! ± and it turns out that 17 . . . cxb4? fails to lS .�c7 �c8 19.1lc6 .l:!.bS 20.liJe5+- winning material) 16.e5 �e7 17 . ..ltd3 liJf8 lS.�e4;!; Black is bound to forget about any activities in the centre.

Another possibility for Black is the awaiting move 8 . . . l:teS. White can carry on fighting for a tempo by means of 9.a3 a6 (after 9 . . . liJf8 10 . ..ltd3 dxc4 1 l.�xc4 liJd5 1 2 . 1lxe7 �xe7 1 3 . 0-0t Capa­blanca - Thomas, Hastings 1934 gave White the upper hand)

32

10.h3!? (taking off the pressure in the centre with 10.c5 encoun­ters 10 . . . e5! 1 l . dxe5 liJg4 12.�f4 1lxc5ao). Now 10 . . . liJh5 (or 10 . . . b5 n.c5 liJh5 12.�f4 liJxf4 13.exf4 �c7 14.g3 ffi 15.�d3 liJf8 16.b4 i-dS 1 7 . �f1 �b8 l S . �g2 l'la7 19.1:the1 liae7 20.l:te2 �c7 2 l . l:tde1 g6 22.a4t with a solid but rather passive position for Black, Rabar - Opsahl, Dubrovnik 1950 while 10 . . . �a5 n . cxd5 !? liJxd5 12.�xe7 l'lxe7 13 .�d3 liJxc3 14. bxc3 liJf8 15.liJe5 c5 16.0-0 �d7 17 .�b2 �c7 lS .1i.e4t also led to a small White's advantage in Cvitan - Raicevic, Zlatibor 1989) 1 l .�xe7 �xe7 12.b4 (or 12.�d3 liJhf6 13.cxd5 exd5 14.0-0 liJfS 15 .l'lfe1 liJg6ao with a double­edged game) 12 . . . liJhffi 13.�b3 b5 1 4 . cxd5 exd5 (after 14 . . . cxd5 15 . ..ltd3 liJb6 16.0-0 liJc4 17.a4;t the weakening of the queenside could tell in future) 15 . ..ltd3 a5 16.0-0 axh4 17.axb4 1i.b7 lS.l:tfe1 liJe4 19.1i.xe4 dxe4 20.liJd2 liJf6 2l.l'laU All this occurred in the game T. Petrosian - Suba, Sochi 1977. Black has nothing to boast about. The backward pawn on c6, "supported" by the unhappy light-squared bishop is not a gem in his position.

c2a) 8 . . . a6 9.a3 Ho is going to win a tempo?

Other possible ways are: 9.i.d3. Black can go to compli­

cations by 9 . . . h6 10.�h4 b5 n.c5 e5 12 . dxe5 liJeS 13 . ..ltg3 liJxc5 14 . ..lth7+ �h8 15.liJd4 �b6 16.0-0

l.Cfjf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c6 4. "ttic2 Cfjf6 5.i.g5

Cfjc7°o Polugaevsky - De Greif, Havana 1962.

9.c5. Easing the tension in the centre with 9.c5 led White after 9 . . . e5 10.dxe5 Cfje8 l 1 .i.f4 Cfjxc5 12.e4 Cfjc7 13 .i.e2 i.g4 14.exd5 lLlxd5 1 5.lLlxd5 cxd5 16.0-0 ::tc8 17 ."ttid2 Cfje6 18.i.e3 i.c5 19.i.xc5 llxc5 20.lLld4 i.xe2 21. "ttixe2 .uc4= to an equal game in Fiorito -Ricardi, San Luis 1990.

9 ... b5 If Black continues the ma­

noeuvring by 9 . . . :te8, then to.h3!? reaching the lines from pre­viously analysed S . . . :te8.

Sometimes Black includes the moves 9 . . . h6 10 .i.h4 and now 10 . . . .l:.eS (after 10 . . . dxc4 1 l .i.xc4 lLld5 12.i.xe7 "ttixe7 13 .0-0 ttJxc3 14."ttixc3t in the game Martinov­sky - Coleman, Washington 1998 Black is stuck with his light­squared bishop and in case of 1 0 . . . b 5 l l .c5 e5 1 2 . dxe5 Cfje8 13 .i.g3 Cfjxc5 14.e4 ttJc7 15.i.e2t the insertion of moves h7-h6 and .Jtg5-h4 turned out to be rather in White's favour since his bishop on g3, in place off4, is out of reach of the black knight). White can proceed by analogy playing a

useful awaiting move as l l .h3!? (if 1 l .i.d3 White has to reckon with 1 1 . . .b 5 12 .c5 e5 1 3 . dxe5 lLlg4=). The game could go on 1 l . . . b5 (after 1 l . . . dxc4 12.i.xc4 "ttia5 13.0-0 c5 14.i.a2 cxd4 15 . .uxd4 b5 16.i.b1 lLlfS 17 .ttJe4 lLld5 1 8 .i.xe7 llxe7 19 .ttJe5 .uc7 20. "ttie2t in Alekhine - Taube, Ham­burg 1930 White's pieces are very active when l l . . . lLlh5 12 . .Jtxe7 "ttixe7 13.i.d3 lLlhfB, intending to carry on e6-e5, could be met by 14 .cxd5 exd5 1 5 . 0-0t and the typical knight's transfer from d7 to g6 is impossible, due to h7-h6) 12.c5 e5 (after 12 . . . lLlh5 13.i.xe7 �xe7 White could make use of the misplaced black knight by 14.Cfje5!? Cfjxe5 1 5 . dxe5 g6 1 6 . lLlbl "ttig5 17. "ttic3t with the idea Cfjd2-f3) 1 3 . dxe5 ttJh7 14 . i.g3 i.xc5 1 5.i.d3 lLlg5 1 6.Cfjd4 i.b7 17.f4 ttJe6 18.Cfjce2 11c8 19.0-0 i.fS 2 0 . lLlxe6 llxe6 2 1 ..Jth7+ �h8 22 . .Jtf5 11eS 23 .e4;t as in Atalik ­Mastrovasilis, Ikaria 1997 White prevailed in the centre thanks to his more active pieces.

IO.c5 The exchange 1 0 . cxd5 cxd5

does not correspond to the spirit ofthe position. Following l 1.i.d3 i.b7 12.Cfje5 Black can foolproof his h-pawn with 12 . . . h6 thus creating the threat of exchanging the knights on e5. Mter 13.i.xfB i.xfB! (but not 13 . . . lLlxfB 14.0-0 i.d6 15 ."ttie2 .l:.c8 1 6.lLla2!?;t as in the game P. Nikolic - Soppe, Novi Sad 1990 the threat ofthe knight marching via c1-b3 to c5 ensured

33

Chapter 3

White an advantage) 14.ttJxd7 �xd7 15 . �d2 liacB 16.0-0 Il.fdB= Tuerk - Straeter, Dortmund 1995.

10 . . . e5 rfWhite achieves b2-b4, rein­

forcing the c5-pawn, he would cancel out any active counterplay for Black. Sometimes Black tries first to trade off the dark-squared bishops thus enhancing the threat of pushing e6-e5.

After 10 . . . ttJh5 1 l . .txe7 �xe7 12.�d3 (without the moves h7-h6 and �g5-h4 the manoeuvre 12. ttJe5 lacks in effectiveness since 1 2 . . . ttJxe5 1 3 . dxe5 g6 14 .ttJb1 allows Black to equalise with 14 . . . f6 ! 15 .exf6 ttJxf6=) 12 . . . g6 (the game B. Tiller - Lauvsnes, Kristiansand 19B7 saw 12 . . . f5 13 .b4 ttJhfB 14.a4;1; where Black's light-squared bishop is doomed to passivity) it is possible 13.0-0 e5 1 4 . ttJxe5 ttJxe5 1 5 . dxe5 �xe5 16.ttJe2 (White knight is heading to d4) 16 . . . j"g4 17 .h3 j"xe2 lB. j"xe2 ttJf6 19 . .i.f3 's'feB 20.Md4 ttJd7 2UHd1 �e7 (the attempt to impede e3-e4 by 2 1 . . . f5?? was tactically refuted with 22.�xd5+ cxd5 2 3 . MXd5 �f6 24Jhd7+­Piarnpuu - Metsalu, Tallinn 2001) 22.e4;1; the centre opens up to White's benefit.

1 0 . . . ttJeB is after the same objective but here White can avoid the exchange with 1 1 .j"f4!? (after 1l .h4 fB 12.j"d3 as in Estre­mera Panos - Bazant, Olomouc 2001 Black could significantly sharpen the play by 1 2 . . . h6

34

13 . .tf4 e5<Xl) which led to a better position for White after 1 1 . . .g5 12 . .tg3 f5 13.ttJe5 ttJxe5 14 . .txe5;J; Henley - B . Kogan, Berkeley 1984.

1 l.dxe5 White has to capture on e5

with the pawn since otherwise Black has no problems, for in­stance 1 l .ttJxe5 ttJxe5 1 2 . dxe5 ttJd7 13 . .txe7 �xe7 14 . .td3 h6 15.b4 ttJxe5=.

1l ... ttJe8 1 1 . . .ttJg4?! is dubious in view

of 12.�f4 ttJxc5 13 .h3 ttJh6 14. .i.xh6 gxh6 15.b4 ttJe6 16 . .td3± and the white pawn chain at the kingside is badly damaged.

12.i..xe7 Very tempting looks the the­

matic 12.h4. However after 12 . . . ttJxc5 (S. Ivanov pointed out that 12 . . . h6 13 .b4 hxg5 14.hxg5 g6 15.e6!� would put Black under a fierce attack) 13.e4 (in case of 13. ttJxd5 cxd5 14.�xc5 �a5+ 15.�c3 �xc3+ 16 .bxc3 �xa3 1 7 Jhd5 �e6� Black is not worse - S. Ivanov) 13 . . . ttJc7! 14.exd5 ttJxd5 15 .ttJxd5 cxd5 16.Mxd5 (after 16. �xe7 �xe7 17 .Mxd5 ttJa4 1B.ttJg5 g6<Xl White is behind in deve­lopment) 16 . . . �xd5 17. �xe7 ttJe6 1B.�fB ttJxfB 19. �d2 �b7� Black has an excellent compensation for the pawn since White still has to go a long way before completing the development of his kingside.

12 ... �xe7 (diagram)

This position was reached in the game S. r vanov - Lugovoi, St.

1.li:J{3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c6 4. �c2 li:Jf6 S.ii.gS

Petersburg 1997. White should probably choose 1 3 . ..td3 ! ? (in place of 13.b4 li:Jxe5 14 . ..te2 li:Jf6 1 5 .h3 li:Jxf3+ 16.iLxf3 �e5 17 . �d2 �e8 18.0-0 when Black could have obtained sufficient for main­taining the equilibrium counter­play by 18 . . . �g5!? 19.'�h2 iLf5�) 13 . . . h6 14.b4 a5 15.0-0 li:Jxe5 16. li:Jxe5 �xe5 since the break in the centre 17 .e4! provides him with a better play (after 17.li:Je2 Black levels the game thanks to 17 . . . axb4 18.axb4 .Jtg4 19.J::i.d2 iLxe2 20 . ..txe2 li:Jf6=) 17 . . . axb4 (or 17 . . . dxe4 1 8 . .Jtxe4 and the weakness of c6-pawn will tell eventually) 18.axb4 d4 (in case of 18 . . . ..tg4 suffices 19.£3 d4 20.li:Je2±) 19.f4 �e7 20 .li:Je2 ..tg4 2 1 .l:td2 l:td8 22.e5±.

c2b) 8 .. .'�a5

9.a3

White is trying to win a tempo as in variation c2a.

9 . .. h6 In case of 9 . . . dxc4 10 . ..txc4 e5

1 1 .0-0 exd4 12.exd4 the isolated pawn on d4 is anything but weak. The grip over c5 and e5 squares considerably hampers Black's development. Mter the further moves 12 . . . �d8 ( 12 . . . li:Jb6 13 . .Jtd3 h6 ran into 14.b4! as in Sub a -Co. Ionescu, Romania 1981 and it turned out that 14 . . . �xa3 15 . J::i.a1 �xb4 16.�fb1 �d6 17. ii.xf6 ii.xf6 18.l:txb6± would lead Black to material losses) 13 . ..ta2 li:Jb6 as in W. Cruz - Bolbochan, Mar del Plata 1947 White could obtain an advantage by playing 14.li:Je5!?±.

10 . .ih4 �e8 After 10 . . . g5? ! 1 1 . .Jtg3 li:Je4

12 . .Jtd3 li:Jxc3 13 .bxc3 dxc4 14. .Jtxc4 li:Jb6 1 5 . .Jtd3� in the game Rodriguez Cespedes - Granda Zuniga, Cienfuegos 1986 White obtained good attacking pro­spects on the kingside since the pushing of the g-pawn weakened Black's castle . Also 1 0 . . . dxc4 1 1 ..ixc4 b5 12 . ..ta2 b4 13.axb4 ..txb4 14.0-0 ..ta6 15.l:i:feU proved not enough in Richter - Ivic, Germany 1998 when it became clear that 15 . . . c5?! is quite du­bious, due to 16.li:Je5! iLb7 1 7 . ..Ili..b1� with an attack.

11.tiJd2!? White is trying to exploit the

placement of Black's queen on a5. In case of 1 1 . ..Ili..d3 he would have to reckon with 1 1 . . . dxc4 12 . ..Ili..xc4 li:Jd5 (perhaps 12 . . . b5 13 .

35

Chapter 3

�a2 b4 14.axb4 �xb4 15.0-0 �a6 16.l':.fel, Suran - Dolezal, Plzen 1996 would also equalise after 16 ... c5!? 17.tile5 �b7 18.�bl ltJf8! 19.�xf6 gxf6 20.ltJd3 cxd4 2l. ltJxb4 dxc3 22.bxc3 :ec8= be­cause in contrast to the variation from the notes to Black's move 10 the f8-square is accessible by the knight) 13 . .txe7 :xe7 14.0-0 ltJxc3 15. �xc3 �xc3 16.bxc3 'it>f8 17 .l':.d2 b6 18.:fdl .tb7 and in the game Kovacs - Radnoti, Eger 1988 Black is only one move apart to full equality - 19 ... c5=.

11 ... e5 White's knight left the f3-

square and Black wants to take advantage of it.

12.ltJb3 �b6 13.cxd5 ltJxd5 14.ltJxd5 cxd5 15.�g3

After 15 . .txe7 l:i.xe7 16.dxe5 .uxe5 17 . .te2 ltJf6 18.ltJd4 .td7 19.0-0 .l:.c8= White is far from claiming the isolated d5-pawn weak.

15 ... exd4 Worse was 15 ... e4 16 . .te2 ltJf6

17 . .tc7 !? �e6 18.0-0;1:: where Black's pieces are misplaced while White is planning to occupy the c-file.

16.ltJxd4 �c5 17 . ..te2;!;;

36

We have been following the game Psakhis - Azimi, Bad Wiessee 1999. After castling White will prepare the siege of Black's isolated d5-pawn.

c2c) B . .. b6 We have noted earlier the

main drawback of Black's po­sition in the systems featuring e7 -e6 - the light-squared bishop is shut in its own camp. In the present line Black intends to solve this problem by developing his bishop along the main a8-hl diagonal.

9 . ..td3 Completing the kingside de­

velopment. 9 ... dxc4 Now that the bishop left its

initial place, Black opens up the centre. The other line 9 ... ..tb7 10.0-0 h6 1l . ..th4 is presented in c2d.

10 . .ixc4 ltJd5 11 . ..txe7 Without the insertion of mo­

ves h7-h6 and .tg5-h4 White has no suitable way to avoid the exchange of the dark-squared bishops.

11 ... �xe7 12.0-0 ..tb7 13.e4

1.4:Jf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c6 4. 'i!ic2 4:J{6 S.i..gS

White cannot linger because 13 .l:.d2 4:Jxc3 14.'i!ixc3 c5 15 . .lte2 l:.acB= gave Black even chances in the game Heinicke - Stahl­berg, Bad Nauheim 1936.

13 ... 4:Jxc3 14.bxc3!? We mentioned (see the notes

to Black's move B) that White prefers to capture on c3 with a piece - the queen in our case. However now we are faced with an exception of the rule. It is all because 1 4 " �xc3 would make possible 14 . . . c5 ! . Further could follow 1 5 . d5 exd5 16 . .ltxd5 (or 16 .exd5 �d6 17 .l:1fe1 ItaeB lB. 4:Jg5 I:.xe1 + 19 . .l:!.xe1 4:JfB 20.ttJe4 ttJxe4 2 1 . .l:!.xe4 g6 22.I:.e5 ItdB 23.�e3 a6 24.a4 b5 25.axb5 axb5 26 . ..txb5 ..txd5= as in Lilienthal - Frydman, Ujpest 1934) 16 . . . ..txd5 1 7 .exd5 (or 1 7 . .l:!.xd5 ttJffi lB. l:.e5 'i!ib7 19 . .l:!.g5 h6 20 . .l:!.g3 'it'hB 2 I .l:.e1 .l:!.aeB 22.ttJd2 'i!ic7 23.I!.d3 l:.dB 24.e5 ttJd5 25.'i!ic4 ttJb4 26. ItxdB .l:!.xdB+ and White is even worse, Hoersch - Bantel, Germa­ny 19B9) 17 . . . 'i!id6 1B.ttJh4 (after 1B .ttJd2 'i!ixd5 19.ttJc4 in Geller ­Poliak, Kiev 1959 Black could re­pel all imminent threats by 19 . . . �c6!?C() keeping an extra pawn) lB . . . g6 19.93 ttJfB= a draw was agreed in Dobosz - Radziejewski, Jachranka 19B7 . White is bound to waste his time and energy protecting his passed d5-pawn instead of pushing it forward.

14 ... c5 The passive play 14 . . . ItfdB 15.

l:.fe1 ttJfB 16 . ..td3 h6 17.c4 'uacB 1B.e5 ttJd7 19 . ..th7+ 'it'hB 20 . .lte4

ttJfB 2 I . c5 bxc5 2 2 . dxc5 'uxd1 23.'uxd1 ,UdB 24.l:.d6± led Black in the game Petran - Gerencer, Hungary 1992 to difficulties.

1 5.d5 exd5 1 6.exd5 'i!id6 1 7.lUel .:tfeS lS.i..d3 ttJf6 19.c4

In distinction to the variation from White's move 13, the d5-pawn is now protected.

1 9 . . . h6 20.h3 'it'fS 2 1 .'i!ib2 ttJd7 22.a4 �f6 23.'i!ib5 l:txel+ 24JIxel l:tdS 25.a5;!;

Black is faced with a well protected enemy's passed pawn on d5 and to make things worse, his queenside is under pressure. (E. Vladimirov - Serper, Frunze 19BB)

c2d) S . . . h6

9.i..h4 In case of 9 . .ltf4 Black has to

reckon with 9 . . . tbh5 1 0 . ..t e 5 ttJhfB!?C(), the idea being 11 . . . CDxe5.

9 ... b6 As in line c2c Black is plan­

ning to put his bishop on the main diagonal aB-hI. The alter­natives are:

9 . . . a6 10.a3 .l:!.eB 1 I .h3!? - see the notes to Black's move 9 from line c2a.

37

Chapter 3

9 . . . �a5 10 . ..td3 gaining the upper hand after 10 . . . c5 1 1 . 0-0 cxd4 12 .tt::lxd4 dxc4 13 . ..txc4±. Note that White did not have the similar manoeuvre in variation c2b since without the moves h7-h6 and ..tg5-h4 White's bishop would be under fire on the fifth rank.

10 . ..td3 ..tb7 11.0-0 c5 The most consistent conti­

nuation aiming to open up the a8-hI diagonal for the light-squared bishop. Another possibility was 1 1 . . . l:.c8 12 . ..tg3! (not so good is 12.e4 in view of 12 . . . dxe4 13. tt::lxe4 tt::lxe4 14 . ..txe7 �xe7 15 . ..txe4 tt::lf6 16.l:.fe1 tt::lxe4 17.�xe4 and the variation 17 . . . c5 18.d5 �f6= convinced the opponents to settle to a draw in the game A. Petrosian - Doettling, Schwerin 1999) 12 . . . c5 (in case of 12 . . . tt::lh5 comes in force 13.e4!? followed by 13 . . . tt::lxg3 14.hxg3 dxe4 15.tt::lxe4 tt::lf6 16 .c5 ! tt::lxe4 17 . ..I1Lxe4 �f6 18JIfe1 �c7 19.b4 l:.fd8 20.l:.e3 b5 21.a4 a6 22.a5± and the notorious light-squared bishop remained locked down in Black's camp, T. Karolyi - Toledo Lopez, Benas­que 1998) 13.cxd5 tt::lxd5 (cannot be recommended 13 . . . exd5 14. dxc5 bxc5 1 5 . �f5 ± since the hanging pawns are too weak while 13 . . . c4 fails to intermediate 14.d6! cxd3 15. �xd3± winning a pawn) 14.tt::lxd5 exd5 (it seems that a perfect logical conclusion of the strategic plan, started on move 1 1 , would have been 14 . . . ..I1Lxd5?, but ironically 1 5 . ..ta6 l:.a8

38

16.e4 ..tc6 17.d5+- would leave the black bishop no places to escape) 15.dxc5 bxc5 Matveeva ­E. Cosma, Pula 1997 and now 16 . ..I1Lh7+! ? 'it>h8 1 7 . ..t f5 t . The white bishops form a perfect pair shooting trough Black's rear and aggravating the defence of c5-d5 pawns.

12.cxd5!? After 12.dxc5 tt::lxc5 13 . ..I1Le2 in

Issakainen - Auvinen, Helsinki 1998 Black could level the posi­tion with 13 . . . tt::lfe4 14.tt::lxe4 tt::lxe4 15 . ..txe7 �xe7 16 .cxd5 ..txd5=. Cannot be rejected 12 . ..tg3 keep­ing the initiative after 12 . . . cxd4 13.exd4 dxc4 14 . ..txc4 ..txf3 15. gxf3 tt::lh5 16.d5 tt::lxg3 17 .hxg3 exd5 18.tt::lxd5t Kasparov - Amu­ra, Buenos Aires (simultan) 1992.

12 ... tt::lxd5 12 . . . cxd4 is met by 13 .dxe6!

(only equal proved to be 13.exd4 tt::lxd5 14.�xe7 'fixe7= S. Lukas ­Klebermass, Bonn 1995) 13 . . . dxc3 14.exd7 ..txf3 15.gxf3 tt::lxd7 16. ..I1Lxe7 �xe7 17. �xc3±, enjoying an extra pawn.

After 12 . . . exd5 13.dxc5 bxc5 14 . ..I1Lf5t in Ehlvest - Vucic, San Francisco 2000 Black is expe­riencing problems defending his hanging pawns.

13 . .txe7 �xe7 14.ttJxd5 ..txd5 The light-squared bishop is

longing to break free. The alter­native 14 . . . exd5 1 5 . dxc5 bxc5 16.l:.feU allow White to start a thematic play against the hang­ing black pawns. The first target would be the pawn on c5 since its

1.11Jf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3. c4 c6 4. �c2 I1Jf6 S. i..gS

main defender - the knight on d7 - is easily attacked by White's bishop. A more detailed dis­cussion on similar positions with hanging pawns is still to come -in Part 3 .

15.e4 White obstructs the enemy's

plans, shortening the main diago­nal to Black's bishop.

15 . . . i..b7 16JUel l:.fd8 The capture 16 . . . cxd4? fails to

1 7 . �c7! .l::!.ab8 18 .i..b5 �c5 19. �xd7 ,Ufd8 20.�c 1 ! �b4 21 .a3 �xb2 22.�e7 �xb5 23.�c7 �e8 24Jhb7 +- winning material.

1 7.d5! The only way to fight for the

edge. The opposition of White's rook to Black's queen on e-file should tell when the play opens up.

17 . . . exd5 18.exd5 �f6 In case of 18 . . . �d6 19 .11Jh4

Black is unable to cover f5-square from the intrusion of White's knight by 19 . . . g6 in view of 20.i..xg6! fxg6 21 .�e6+-.

19 . .i.h7+ ..t>h8 20 . .i.e4 �d6 2 1 .l1Jh4 I1Jf6 22.l1Jf5 �e5 23. .i.f3;!;

This position arose in Ivani­sevic - Scekic, Vrnjacka Banja 1998. White's pieces are much more active in comparison with the situation from the notes to move 13 in variation c2c . Es­pecially dangerous is the d-pawn.

39

Chapter 4 1.ct:Jf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c5

Black is ready to play Tar­rasch Defence. He hopes for a good piece play in the centre in return to a possible isolated pawn on d5.

4.cxd5 This exchange removes the

top item from Black's problem's list, opening up the c8-h3 diago­nal for his light-squared bishop. However that is by no means for free. White hopes to catch the appropriate moment for d4xc5, commencing a siege of the iso­lated pawn. This strategic canvas promises a very interesting opening conflict right from the beginning. Let us note that the timid alternative 4.e3 ctJffi leaves White only a symbolic advantage of the first move in totally sym­metrical position. His dark­squared bishop would be conside-

40

rably limited in its activities. 4 . . . exd5 5.ctJc3 ctJc6 The takeover of some space at

the queenside by 5 . . . c4?! has an evident flaw - White breaks loose in the centre. Following 6 . e4 ! dxe4 7 .ctJe5 ltJc6 (in case o f 7 . . . ltJd7 as in Loebler - Pircher, Ca­orle 1988 White could play 8 . �a4!±, followed by 9 .kxc4 with the upper hand) 8 . ltJxc6 bxc6 9.kxc4 t White gains a dangerous initiative.

Another common continua­tion is 5 . . . ltJffi. This move order is less precise than the main line since it leaves White additional possibilities. By playing 6 .i.g5!? (6.g3 ltJc6 transposes to the main line) 6 . . . cxd4 (worse is 6 . . . ctJc6 allowing White to destruct Black's pawn structure on the kingside by way of 7 .i..xffi gxffi 8.e3 ke6 9.dxc5 i..xc5 10.kb5 'ug8 11 . 0-0 kb6 12.l:.e1 �d7 13 .ltJd4 0-0-0 14.ctJce2 'it'b8 15.'uc1 l:.c8 16.ltJf4± like in the game D . Marovic -Giterman, Beersheba 1976. Not much better is 6 . . . i.e7 due to 7.dxc5 0-0 8.e3 i.xc5 9.i.e2 i.e6 10.0-0 ltJc6 1 l .'uc1 ke7 12.ltJd4t. This agreeable for White situa-

1. 0,{3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 cS 4.cd ed S.tiJc3 0,c6

tion arose after a minor transpo­sition nearly hundred years ago in a game of the World's title match Em. Lasker - Janowski, Berlin (mil) 1910. Much later, but with the same outcome, was tried 6 . . . i.e6 7.e3 0,c6 8.i.e2 h6 9 . .th4 i.e7 1 1 . 0-0 'iftxc5 12 .'uc1 'ifta5 13.a3 0-0 14.0,a4 .l:tac8 15.b4 'iftd8 16.4Jc5;1;: Adorjan - Wilder, New York 1984) 7.4Jxd4 (less precise i s 7 . 'iftxd4 which led only to equality after 7 . . . i.e7 8.e3 4Jc6 9.i.b5 0-0 10.i.xc6 bxc6 11 .0-0 i. f5 1 2 .l:tfd 1 .l:te8 13 .4Ja4 0,e4 14.i.xe7 'iftxe7= as in Karpov -Armao, Bastia (simultan) 1998) 10 . . . i.e6 (As a rule, the side with an isolated pawn should avoid exchanges. The next fragment seems to confirm it : 1 0 . . . h 6 1 1 .i.h4 4Je4 12.i.xe7 4Jxe7 13. .l:tc1 'ifta5 14.'ifta4;1;:, Geller - Ma­matov, Riga 1975) 1l .'uc1 .l:tc8 12. a3 (the straightforward actions, aiming to exchange pieces, faced White with a serious counterplay after 1 2 . h3 h6 1 3 . i.xf6 iLxf6 14.4Jxe6 fxe6 15 .i.d3 d4 16 .exd4 i.xd4 17.'ifte2 lbe5 18.i.c2 'ifth4� V. Popov - Sargsjan, Cherepovets 2002) 12 . . . 4Jxd4 ( 12 . . . a6 allowed White to keep the advantage without much effort, 1 3 . 0,a4 4Jxd4 14. 'iftxd4 h6 15 .i.f4 'ifta5 16 . .l:tfd 1;l;: Bricard - Murey, Paris 1995. The best reply to 12 . . . 4Ja5 as in Froehlich - Cooke, Budapest 2000 would be 13 . 'ifta4 'iftb6 14. 'iftb5;1;:) 13. 'iftxd4 'ifta5 14JHd1 h6 15.i.f4 a6 16. 'iftd2 l:tfd8 17 . .te5 'it'f8 18.i.d4;l;: in Hort - Wocken-

fuss, Germany 1985 White rea­ched the typical position against an isolated pawn.

We only have to mention 5 . . . i.e6 6.g3 4Jc6 7 .i.g2 lbffi 8.0-0 i.e7 (8 . . . h6 is analysed in c2) coming to a position from va­riation c5a.

6.g3 Fianchettoing his light-squa­

red bishop White accumulates pressure on the d5-pawn. In the same time he does not loosen control of the key strategic square d4 even for a moment, as Black is ready to grasp any chance for an active counterplay. For in­stance, 6 .dxc5 allows 6 . . . d4 7 . 4Ja4 b5! (the ending after 7 . . . i.xc5 8.0,xc5 'ifta5+ 9 . 'iftd2 'iftxc5 10.e3 dxe3 1 1 . 'iftxe3+ 'iftxe3+ 12. i.xe3;1;: is more pleasant for White thanks to his bishop pair) 8 .cxb6 axb6 9.e3 i.b4+ 10 . .td2 i.d7 1 1 . i. b 5 4Jf6!? 12 .i.xb4 4Jxb4 1 3 . i.xd7+ 'iftxd7 14.4Jxb6 'iftb5 15 . 4Jxa8 4Jd3+ 16.'it'f1 0,f4= and per­petual check, Krasenkow - Hal­kias, Kavala 2001 .

In this position there are three main branches: a) 6 . . . cxd4, b) 6 . . . c4 and c) 6 . . . 0,f6.

41

Chapter 4

Not so popular is 6 . . . i.g4 due to 7 .i.g2 i.xf3 (for 7 . . .'�Jffi B.i.g5 see variation c) B .i.xf3 cxd4 9.lDxd5 lDge7 (the move 9 . . . lDffi?! allows White to win a pawn, completing the development -10.i.g5 i.e7 1 l .lDxe7 'ffixe7 12. ..txc6+ bxc6 13.'ffixd4 �dB 14.'ffic3 'ffid6 15 . ..txffi gxffi 16Jlc1 0-0 17. 'ffic2 'ffid5 1B.0-0 'ffie5 19.�fd1+-, Roberts - Jamilla, East Detroit 19B5) 10.lDf4! (inferior is 10.'ffib3 due to 10 . . . lDxd5 1 l . ..txd5 ..tb4+ 12.�f1 'ffie7 13 .�g2 0-0 14 . .1i.f4 .l':tadBoo with a double-edged posi­tion, Wallis - Kitto, Bourne­mouth 1939) 10 . . . g6 11 .0-0 ..tg7 12 .lDd3 (after 12.e3 0-0 13.exd4 'ffixd4 14. 'ffixd4 in the game Medic - Peng, Warsaw 2001 Black could level the chances with 14 . . . ..txd4 15.�b1 .l':tadB=. His active pieces compensate for the bishop pair. ) 12 . . . 0-0 13 . ..tg5t. After the ana­lysis of V. Mikenas the two bi­shops provide White with a better game.

a) 6 . . . cxd4 Black intends to fight for the

key square d4 right from the beginning.

7.lDxd4 'ffib6 Another way to increase the

pressure on d4 is 7 . . . .1i.c5. Then the most preci se is perhaps B . ..te3!? (a hundred years ago White opted for B.lDb3 .1i.b4 9 . ..tg2 lDge7 10 .0-0 ..txc3 l 1 . bxc3 0-0 12.i..a3t and the power ofthe two bishops prevailed over the flaws of White's queenside pawn stru-

42

cture in Marshall - Von Bardele­ben, Duesseldorf 190B) B . . . ..tb6 (B . . . 'ffib6? loses to 9 .lDxd5 'ffia5+ 10.i.d2 'ffidB 1 l .lDb5+- and B . . . ..txd4 9 . .1i.xd4 lDxd4 10. 'ffixd4 lDffi 1l . ..tg2 i.e6 12.0-0 0-0 13.l:I.fd1 'ffie7 14J:td2 ItfdB 15.llad1t led to a classical situation where the isolated pawn brings Black all but easy life, Rubinstein - Duras, Breslau 1912) 9 . ..tg2 lDf6 10.0-0 ..te6 (if 10 . . . 0-0 1 l .llc1 lDg4 12. tLlxd5 lDxe3 13.fxe3± Black has no time to use the flaws in the pawn structure on e-file since his dark­squared bishop is doomed while the immediate 10 . . . lDg4 encoun­ters the tactical operation 11.�xd5 tLlxe3 12 .lDxc6 lDxd1 1 3 . lDxdB lDxb2 14.lDxb6 axb6 15.lDxb7 �e7 16JHc1± when White is a pawn up) 1 l .lDa4 i.xd4 (after 1l . . . lDg4 in Semerene - Terrel, Guanare 2000 White would achieve clear advantage with 12 .lDxe6 fxe6 13 . ..txb6 axb6 14.e4± and 1 1 . . . 0-0 allows 12.lDxb6 axb6 13.'ffib3 lDa5 1 4 . 'ffib4±) 1 2 . ..txd4 lDxd4 1 3 . 'ffixd4 0-0 14 . .l:!.fdU. Without the dark-squared bishops Black is doomed to a sad struggle for a draw.

8.lDxc6 White changes plans in order

to complete the development as fast as possible. Ifhe is stubborn to achieve familiar position with an isolated pawn on d5 with 8 .tLlb3 ..te6 9 . ..te3 he will be deeply disappointed after 9 . . . d4! 10.tLlxd4 O-O-O!+ as in the game Vranesic - Waterman, Lone Pine

1 .0J(3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c5 4. cd ed 5. cDC3 tiJc6

1975. There was no candidate to explore the complications after B.tiJxd5 'ti'a5+ 9.tiJc3 i.b4 10.'ti'd3co. However, B.i.e3 deserved serious attention, as it was in game R. Cruz -Amada, Buenos Aires, 1963 (see Book III, page B)

8 ... bxc6 If Black tries to develop win­

ing a tempo by B . . . ..tc5, thanks to the reply 9 .tiJd4 (bad is 9.i.g2? due to 9 . . . Slxf2+ 10 .'it>f1 bxc6 1 1 .ttJa4 �d4 12.�c2 ttJe7 13.i.f4 Sle3 14.l:td1 �f6-+ when Black's bishop escapes, retaining an extra pawn) White returns his rival back to the dispute about the pros and cons of the isolated pawn. In the concrete position Black has nothing to boast about: 9 . . . i.xd4 10 .e3 i.xc3+ 1 1 . bxc3 tiJe7 (after 1 1 . . .ttJf6 12.i.a3 i.f5 13.'ti'a4+ i.d7 14.�f4 l:tcB 15 .l:tc1 l:tc6 16.i.d3t as in Koskinen -Johnsen, Gausdal 1991 Black is obliged to forget about short castle because of the strategic placement of the white bishop on a3-fB diagonal) 1 2 . i. a3 �c7 13 .i.b5+ i.d7 14.i.xd7+ �xd7 15 .i.xe7 �xe7 (after 15 . . . Wxe7 16.�d4 f6 17.0-0t the king in the centre causes Black trouble) 16 .�xd5 0-0 17.0-0 l:tacB 1B.�b3 l:tc7 1 9 . 1:tfd 1 l:tfcB 20 .l:td3 h6 21 .l:tadU in the game Huebner - Penrose, Paignton 1970 White has an extra pawn although converting it into a point might prove difficult.

9.i.g2 tiJf6 10.0-0 i.e7 The nonchalant 10 . . . i.a6 led

Black after 1 l . 'ti'a4 i.c4 (not better is 11. . . .l:1dB owing to 12.i.g5 i.b5 1 3 . ttJxb5 cxb5 1 4 . 'ti'b3±, Rotlevi - Daniuszevski, St. Pe­tersburg 1909) 12.b3 i.b5 13.�f4 i.e7 14.i.e3 �b7 15.tiJxb5 �xb5 16. �c7± to trouble in Rubinstein - Salwe, Vilno 1909.

1 l.e4! Making use of the lead in

development to shatter the black pawn chain.

1 l ... dxe4 The deviation 11 . . .i.a6 12.I!.e1

dxe4 13.tiJxe4 0-0 14.i.e3 ! also gave White the edge in Z. Gyime­si - Ponomariov, Zagan 1997 in view of 14 . . . �xb2 15.i.d4±.

12.tiJxe4 12.i.e3 is not convincing ow­

ing to 12 . . . �xb2 13 .ttJxe4 and now 1 3 . . . ttJxe4 ! ? 14 .i.xe4 0-0 15.i.d4 �b5 16.l:tb1 'ti'c4= would lead to a position where White has a compensation for the pawn but nothing more.

12 ... 0-0 After 12 . . . ttJd5 13 . i.g5 0-0

14.i.xe7 ttJxe7 15 . �c2 i.f5 16. l:tac1 l:tfdB 17 .l:tfe U, Rotstein ­Henriksson, Helsinki 1992, the weaknesses of Black's queenside

43

Chapter 4

pawns provide White with the edge.

13.i.e3 Not dangerous proved to be

1 3 .lLlxf6+ i.xf6 1 4 . i.e3 �xb2 1 5 . i.xc6 �xa1 1 6 . �xa1 �xa1 1 7 . i.xaS i.a6 l S .Uxa1 �xaS= when Mateus - Vaglio Munoz, Dubai 19S6 signed a draw in view of the opposite coloured bishops.

13 ... �xb2 It was played also 13 . . . �b5 14.

a4 �b4 (or 14 . . . �a6 15 .lLlc5 .ixc5 16 . .txc5 UeS 17 .�d6 lLld5 lS.b4 �e6 Mititelu - Georgescu, Bu­charest 1962 and now 19.b5! �a5 20 . .td4± would ensure White a big advantage) 15 . .td2 �d4 16. �c2 �a6 17.�c3 �d3 1S.lLlxffi+ .txffi 19.�xd3 i..xd3 20 . .:tfc1 i..g5 2 1 ..:td1 i..c2 22 . .l:td6± when the weak pawns at the queenside are a source of concern for Black in Gheorghiu - Remensberger, Bern 1990.

14.i.d4 �a3 15.lLlxf6+! 15.i..xffi as in the game Boles­

lavsky - Stoltz, Bucharest 1953 lacks precision. After 15 . . . gxffi!?co Black has an extra pawn and good chances to deflect White's attack.

15 . . . i..xf6 16.i..xf6 gxf6

44

This position occurred in the game Boleslavsky - Stoltz, Bu­charest 1953 already mentioned above. Continuing 17 . .txc6 .:tbS lS.�d41' White retains an ini­tiative due to the flaws in the enemy's pawn structure.

b) 6 . .. c4

White avoids the "isolator" occupying more space at the left wing. This plan was named in the literature "Swedish Variation".

7.i.g2 The main plan for White will

be connected with the e2-e4 break but firstly the development must be completed.

7 . . . i..b4 8.0-0 lLlge7 For S . . . lLlf6 9 . .tg5 see va­

riation c. 9.e4! There is no more reasons for

delaying the break. For instance, after 9 .lLle5 0-0 10 . QJxc6 bxc6 1 l .lLla4 lLlffi 12 . .td2 i..e7 13.i..c3 QJd6 14.b3 .l:tb8 15 .i..e 1 l:!.e8 16. lLlc5 i..ffi 17.e3 �ffi 18.i..c3 lLlb5 19.i..d2 QJd6co as in Tsemekhman - Jakstas, Chicago 1991 Black considerably reinforced his cen­tre. The inclusion of the moves

1.tiJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 cS 4.cd ed S.0c3 tiJc6

9.a3 il.a5 and now 10.e4 is not to be recommended, too. The point is that after 10 . . . 0-0 1 l . exd5 tiJxd5 12 .il.g5 (or 12.tiJxd5 �xd5 13.tiJe5 �b5 14.a4 �a6 15.tiJxc6 bxc6 16. �f3 il.d7 17 .il.f4 l:tac8 18.lafc1 il.e6= C. Aroura - Juarez, Buenos Aires 1992) Black has the intermediate exchange 12 . . . tiJxc3! 13 .bxc3 ill=, leading to equality.

After the pushing e2-e4 on move 9 Black has to answer a simple question: to take or not to take, namely hI) 9 . . . dxe4 or h2) 9 . . . 0-0. Note that 9 . . . 1Lxc3 does not fit into the strategic scheme. Mter 10.bxc3 dxe4 (10 . . . 0-0 also forced Black to a dull defence following 1 l . exd5 tbxd5 12.�c2 lie8 13.lib1 a6 14.1Ld2 h6 15 .tbh4 b5 16 .libe1 SLe6 17.f4t Bukal -H. Akopyan, Cannes 1997) 11 . tbd2 .1i.e6 12 .ttJxe4 0-0 (in case of 12 . . . b6 1 3 .SLg5 ill White pos­sesses a very strong reply - 14. kxf6! which convinced Black in the game P. Kondratiev - Tajma­nov, Leningrad 1950 to part with a pawn, not wishing to test the force of White's attack after 14 . . . gxill 15.tbxffi+ �f7 16. �f3�) 13.tbc5 tiJd5 14.kd2 SLc8 15.�a4

tiJa5 16 . .l:!.fel±, in the game Cvi­tan - Ceschia, Reggio Emilia 1991 Black is in deep trouble due to the lack of coordination be­tween his pieces.

hI) 9 . . . dxe4 10.tiJxe4 The c4-pawn now is weak but

the white pawn on d4 also needs protectio n . The next moves should prove which weakness is easier to exploit.

10 ... 0-0 Black's king hurries to leave

the centre. In case of 10 . . . il.g4 could follow 1 l . a3 ka5 ( after 1 1 . . .il.d6 12.d5 tbe5 13.�a4+ �f8 14.tbxe5 kxe5 15.d6± White is better, analysis of Schwarz) 12.tiJc5! (less convincing is 12.il.f4 0-0 13.tbd6 in view of 13 . . . il.c7 14.tbxb7 �b8 15.d5 kxf4 16.dxc6 tbxc6= and in Lagunov - Mikh. Tseitlin, Germany 2000 a draw was agreed) 12 . . . b6 ( 12 . . . �b6? is bad since after 1 3 . t;(a4 ! SLxf3 14.1Lxf3 nd8 15 .nd1 a6 16.�c4+­Babula - Bylino, Pula 2001 White is a pawn up) 13.tbb7 t;rd7 D. Cramling - Olsson, Karlskrona 1983 . Here White could go on 14 .ctJxa5 ! ? tbxa5 ( if 14 . . . bxa5 15 . 1Le3 0-0 1 6 .licU; the black pawns at the queenside are quite weak) 15 .tbe5 1Lxdl 16.tbxd7 l:td8 17.l:txd1 tbb3 18.lib1 lixd7 19.d5t taking over the initiative.

If Black chooses 10 . . . .tf5 there could follow 11.tbc5!? (the alter­natives being: 1 l . ctJc3 il.d3 12. lie1 0-0 13.SLe� t;ra5 14.tbe5 tbxe5 15.dxe5 tbc6 16.1Ld2 liad8°o Win-

45

Chapter 4

ter - E. Lundin, Folkestone 1933 with mutual chances or 11 .tLle5 �xd4 12. �xd4 tLlxd4 13.a3 -Itxe4 14 .-Itxe4 as in a match game Nimtzowisch - G. Stoltz, Stock­holm 1934 when Black could have equalised with 14 . . . tLlb3! 15.'ua2 -Itd2 16 . .1i.xb7 tLlxc1 17. Itxc1 .1i.xc1 18.-Itxa8 0-0 19 . .1i.f3 'uc8=. 1 1 . �e2 as in Kahn - Ber­gmeister, Bad Liebenzell 1996 could be met by 11 . . .�d5 12.tLlfd2 tLlxd4 1 3 . �xc4 �xc4 14 .tLlxc4 0-0-000) 1 1 . . .iLxc5 12.dxc5 �a5 (the ending after 12 . . . �xd1 13. 'uxdU; is better for White thanks to the bishop pair) 13.tLld4 0-0-0 (13 . . . �xc5 14.iLe3 �b4 15. �h5 tLlxd4 16 . .1i.xd4 -Itg6 17 . �e5 f6 1 8 . � c n gives White better perspectives, as well as 13 . . . 'ud8 14.tLlxc6 bxc6 15 .�h5;t) 14.tLlxc6 tLlxc6 15.�f3 -Ite6 (after 15 . . . �xc5 16 .iLe3 �a5 17.b4!� White has a dangerous initiative on the queenside that is more than compensating for the missing pawn) 16.�e3 'ud7 17.'ufd1 .l:!.hd8 18 . .l:i.xd7 'uxd7 19. �h5;t retaining a better play in Foltys - G. Stoltz, Munich 1941 . White can easier open up files toward the rival's king at the queenside. Further­more he has the advantage of two bishops which is an important factor in the position.

1 1.�c2! White makes open advances

to the c4-pawn. After n .a3 -Ita5 12. �a4 (or 12.tLle5 iLb6 13 .QJxc4 iLxd4 14.QJed6 tLlf5 15.-Itf4 �f6 16.tLlxc8 'uaxc8= as in Suney Neto

46

- O. Rodriguez, Salamanca 1990 when the power of the two bi­shops is levelled by the active placement of Black's pieces) 12 . . . .1i.g4 13.iLe3 (after 13. �xc4 .Jtxf3 14.iLxf3 tLlxd4 15.iLg2 'uc8 16.�d3 tLlc2 17.�xd8 .l:!.fxd8= P. Larsen - Holm, Copenhagen 1998 the bishop pair is neutra­lised again) 13 . . . tLlf5 14.-Itg5 (but not 14.'uad 1? ! �e8!+) . In this position from the game A. Lun­din - Hellborg, Sweden 1994 Black has in his reserve the move 14 . . . �e8!?00 with chances for both sides.

1 1...i.f5 The move 1 1 . . . �d5 would be

against the rule that a queen in the centre is an easy target. This position is no exception - 12 . ..te3 tLlg6 (after 12 . . . -Itf5 13.QJh4 QJxd4 14.-Itxd4 �xd4 1 5 . a3 iLa5 16 . QJxf5 QJxf5 17 .!tad 1 the picture of the battle is becoming more clear. Black will not be able to keep the extra pawn, the square e5 being forbidden for Black's queen in view of the double strike 'ud5, winning a piece, and 17 . . . �b6 encounters the simple 18. �xc4±) 13.QJh4 �b5 (Black could not play

1. C[jf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3. c4 cS 4.cd ed S.li:Jc3 li:Jc6

13 . . . li:Jxd4? due to 1 4 . � d 1 +-) 14.li:Jxg6 hxg6 15.a3 �e7 16.d5 li:Ja5 1 7 . d6 .l1.dB 1 B . C[jc3 �a6 19 . .l:tad1 .l1.g4 20 . .l:td4 �f5 2 l . �a4± in the widely known game Reshevsky - Stahlberg, Zurich 1953 White's passed d-pawn proved to be very powerful.

In case of 11 . . . li:Jxd4 12.li:Jxd4 (nothing promises 12 . �xc4 in view of 12 . . . li:Jec6 13 .iLg5 �e6 14. �xb4 li:Jxb4 15 . .l1.xdB li:Jxf3+ 16 . .l1.xf3 l':.axdB=) 12 . . . �xd4 13. l':.d1 �e5 14.iLf4 �h5 15 . �xc4 li:Jc6 1 6 . � d 5 �g6 1 7 . a3 �e7 1B.iLd6 l:I.eB 19.iLxe7 C[jxe7 20. �e5 �fB 2 l .l:I.d6 �f5 22. �xf5 li:Jxf5 23.l':.d2;l; the ending in the game Ogaard - E. Lundin, Gaus­dal 19B6 turned out to be in White's favour. Black's queenside is underdeveloped while in the same time the white bishop is shooting through the main diagonal without barriers on its way.

After 1 1 . . . .l1.g4 deserves atten­tion 12. �xc4!? (after 12.tZ'leg5 �f5 13.�xc4 h6 14.d5 tZ'lxd5!? 15.tZ'lh4 li:Jb6 16.�b3 .l1.d7!oo the tactical complications in the centre brought the game A. Maric - Zhu­kova, Ulcinj 199B to a double­edged position, 1. Donev's pro­position 12.a3 SLa5 13.tZ'leg5 .l1.f5 14.�xc4 h6 15.d5 li:Jxd5°o does not clarify the situation at all and, finally, 12.tZ'le5 li:Jxe5 13.dxe5 �d3 14.�a4 tZ'lc6°o as in Nesterets -Liakhovetsky, Slavutich 199B did not provide White with any ad vantage ) 1 2 . . . .l1.xf3 1 3 . �xf3

�xd4 ( 1 3 . . . tZ'lxd4 14 . .l1.g2 l:I.cB 15.�xb4 li:Jc2 encounters a sur­prise - 16.tZ'lf6+! gxf6 1 7 .�g4+ li:Jg6 1B .l':.b1± which supplied White a clear advantage in the game Pascual - Moskalenko , Paretana 2000) 14. �b3;l; Gor­denko - Arutiunov, Kiev 2002. Once again White is better thanks to his strong bishop pair.

12.tZ'lh4! A very strong reply relieving

White ofthe unpleasant pinning. 12.�e3 should be rejected as

after 1 2 . . . tZ'lg6 1 3 .l:I.ad1 � e 7 14.C[jfd2 b 5 15.a3 iLa5 16.b4 .l1.b6 17.d5 tZ'lce5 1B.iLc5 iLxc5 19.bxc5 l:I.acBoo the game Vera - Baches Garcia, Malaga 2000 came to a complicated position with chan­ces for both sides.

12 .. .!lc8?! This is the most frequently

seen move in practice but in no way could it be recommended. Black has a difficult choice to make and it is quite under­standable why he often goes astray.

For instance, if Black removes by his own will the pinning of li:Je4 by playing 12 . . . iLg4?! , after 13 .tZ'lg5! (13 .�xc4 �xd4 14. �b5 seen in the game Z. Gyimesi -Moskalenko, Balatonbereny 1994 allows 14 . . . a6!oo and White cannot capture 1 5 . �xb7? in view of 15 . . . lIa7 16 .�e3 l:I.xb7 17.�xd4 tZ'lxd4 1 B . tZ'lf6+ gxf6 1 9 .5Lxb7 �e2+) 13 . . . tZ'lg6 1 4 . d 5 ! tZ'lce5 15 .h3! �d7 16.li:Jxg6 hxg6 (after 16 . . . tZ'lxg6 17 .�xc4± White is a

47

Chapter 4

pawn up) 17. 'l';'te4 ! (threatening lB. 'l';'th4) 17 . . . ffi 1B.lLle6± in Mos­kalenko - Semenov, Alushta 1994 White seized the initiative thanks to his domination over the light squares.

Another unhappy choice would be 12 . . . 'l';'td7? ! , Butsenko ­J akymov, Simferopol 2000 when 13.lLlxf5 lLlxf5 ( 13 . . . 'l';'txf5 14. 'l';'txc4 .l:!.fdB 15 .ke3± leaves White an extra pawn) 14.d5 lLla5 15 .iLd2! kxd2 1 6 . 'l';'txd2 'l';'tdB 17 . .l:!.fdl± would supply White a nice game.

12 . . . lLlxd4?! seems mistimed after 13 .'l';'txc4 .te6 (or 13 . . . lLldc6 14.lLlffi+ 'It>hB 15.lLlxf5 lLlxf5 16. lLld5 .ta5 1 7 . l1 d l ± and in D . Cramling - Hartung, C open­hagen 19B4 Black is suffering under the pressure of centralised White's pieces) 14. 'l';'txb4 lLlc2 1 5 . 'l';'ta4 lLlxa 1 16 . .tg5 b5 (to 16 . . . f6 is possible 17 . .te3 b5 1B.'l';'ta6 iLcB 19.'l';'txb5+-) 17. iLxe7 'l';'txe7 lB. 'l';'tdl± Black's knight will not escape alive from al.

The other capture on d4 looks more playable - 12 . . . 'l';'txd4 13.lLlxf5 lLlxf5 14 . .l:td1 'l';'te5 as in Cruz Lo­pez Claret - Rodriguez Vargas, Madrid 1992 when 15 . .l:td5! (if 15.'l';'txc4, then 15 . . . .l:tadBao) 15 . . . 'l';'te6 1 6 . lLlg5 'l';'te1+ 1 7 . iLf1 g6 lB. 'l';'txc4± still promises White better chances. He enjoys a bi­shop pair and the threat of smashing Black's castle after 19 . .l:!.xf5 and 20.'l';'th4 is very real. In the same time the activity of Black's queen on the first rank is only temporary as it is easily

4B

repelled by help of lLlg5-f3. Perhaps the best decision

would be 12 . . . .txe4 13 . .txe4 g6 (or 13 . . . 'l';'txd4 14J:tdl±) 14 . .th6 l:!.e/? 15. 'l';'txc4;t but the two bishops make White's prospects brighter.

13.lLlf6+! White's knight proves to by

jumpy! 13 ... 'lt>h8 It could not be wise to ruin the

king's shelter with 1 3 . . . gxf6 14.lLlxf5 lLlxd4 (after 14 . . . lLlxf5? 1 5 . 'l';'txf5 lLlxd4 1 6 . 'l';'tg4+ 'It>h8 17 .�d1 .tc5 1B . .te3+- the black knight is doomed) 15 .lLlxd4 'l';'txd4 1 6 . .txb7 .l:tbB ( 1 6 . . . .l:tc7 as in Woller - Mikh. Tseitlin, Wies­baden 1996 should be met by 17. .l:tdl±) 17 . .l:tdl± and Black's pawn islands are difficult to defend.

14.lLlxf5 lLlxf5 15. 'l';'txf5 'l';'txf6 16.'l';'txf6 gxf6 17.ke3

White forced a good ending. 17 . . JUd8 After 1 7 . . . b6 1 B . �fc 1 lLle7

19.a3 iLd6 20 . .tb7 �bB 21 .ka6 b5 22 .a4 bxa4 2 3 . .l:!.xc4 .l:txb2 24 . .l:tcxa4± Black did not succeed in saving the a7-pawn in Campos Moreno - Rodriguez Vargas, Barcelona 1996 .

1 .CiJ{3 dS 2.d4 e6 3. c4 cS 4.cd ed S.t'tJc3 CiJc6

18JUdl!± The best decision. Also is

possible lS.d5 CiJe5 19 . .txa7 i.c5! 20 . .txc5 llxc5 2 1 .11fd1 CiJd3 22. lld2 b5± but Black manages to construct some semblance of blockade on the dark squares.

In the diagrammed position White has all reasons to be happy. Lautier - Rodriguez Vargas , Barcelona 1992 went lS . . . 11d6 (after l S . . . c3 19.bxc3 .txc3 20. l:tac1± or l S . . . b6 19 J�ac1 CiJe7 20 . .tb7 ! l:tbS 2 Uhc4 llxb7 22. llxb4 l:t c 7 2 3 . b 3 ! ± intending 24.l:tc4 White is also much better) 19.1lac1 b5 20.a3! (20.d5?! would be a bit early, due to 20 . . . CiJe7 21. .txa7 l:.aSt) 20 . . . .ta5 2 1 .d5 l:LcdS (21 . . .CiJe5 loses to 22.f4 CiJg4 23. .txa7+- analysis of J. Lautier) 22.a4! a6 (in case of 22 . . . CiJe7 23. .t c 5 It6d7 2 4 . axb5 CiJxd5 2 5 . l:txc4+- i s curtains - J. Lautier) 2 3 . axb5 axb5 24.11a 1 ! i.c7 (if 24 . . . i.b4 then 25 . .tb6 llSd7 26 . .th3+- winning - Lautier) 25. .tc5 CiJe5 (to 25 . . . 116d7 Lautier shows 26.d6! CiJe5 27.i.h3 i.xd6 2S . .txd7 .txc5 29 . .txb5+-) 26. .txd6 l:txd6 27 . .tf1!+- further in the game Lautier pushed b2-b3

and easily won. b2) 9 . .. 0-0

10.exd5 White knocks out the support

of the c4-pawn. 10 . . . CiJxd5 There is no time for 10 . . . .txc3

due to 11 .dxc6±. 1 l . .tg5!? Frequently seen is also 1 1 .

CiJxd5 �xd5 1 2 . .te3 (but not 12.a3 .ta5 13.CiJe5 �b5 14.a4 �a6 15. .te3 .te6 16. �h5 lladS 17 .l:tfd1 .td5 lS.CiJd7 Itxd7 19 . .txd5 as in the game Lautier - Conquest, Clichy 2001 Black could have launched a counterattack by 19 . . . g6 20. �f3 CiJb4 2 1 ..te4 f5 22 . .tb1 CiJd5�) trying to exploit the expo­sed placement of Black's queen in the centre. However, balancing on a tight rope, Black can count on obtaining a perfectly playable position. After 1 2 . . . .tf5 ! ( 1 2 . . . .tg4 fails t o 1 3 . CiJ e 5 ! �xg2+ 14.'it>xg2 .txdl 15. CiJxc6 bxc6 16. llfxdl i.d6 17 .1lac1 l:tfbS IS.li.xc4 llxb2 19.11xc6 l:tdS 20.Ita6± and White emerged from the opening with an extra pawn, Wintzer -Comp Fritz 3, Bonn 1995. The other deviation is hardly better

49

Chapter 4

- 12 . . . 'tJe7 13.'tJe5 �b5 14:�e2 .te6 15.b3 �acS 16. Ibb1 a5 17. ':fc1 �a6 lS.'tJxc4± Grigore - Re­don, Creon 1999) 13.'tJe5 �b5 (the tempting 13 . . . .te4?! from the game De Souza - Maia, Sao Paulo 2000 could meet a strong reply: 14.'tJxc6! �xc6 1 5 . .txe4 �xe4 16. �a4 a5 17.a3± noted by Bi­cerra Rivero) 1 4 . �f3 (not an improvement is 14.a4 �a6 15 . .txc6 bxc6 16.�f3 .td3 17.I:l.fc1 �acS lS.h4 ill 19.'tJxd3 cxd3 20. �d1 c5 21.dxc5 �fdS 22.l:tac1 d2 23.l:ta1 �d3� Chacon - Palao, Havana 1992 . The advanced pawn on d2 is a strong trump ensuring Black an excellent game) 14 .. . .td3 15. 'tJxd3 cxd3 16. �d5 (after 16.I:l.fd1 l:tadS 17.d5 'tJe5 lS.�e4 .l:.feSco the chances are mutual, Korotylev - Moska­lenko, Budapest 1994) 16 . . . �xd5 (loses 16 . . . �a6? in view of 17 . �b3 iLa5 lS . .l:.ad1 l:tadS 19.I:l.xd3 iLb6 20.I:l.fd1+- as in Bicerra - Pa­lao, Cuba 1995) 17 .iLxd5 'tJxd4! (17 . . . .l:.adS would cost a pawn -lS.iLxc6 bxc6 19 . .l:.fd1 d2 20.a3±) lS.iLxd4 .l:.adS 19.iLxfl .l:Ixfl 20. iLxa7°o following the analysis of Bicerra, White is winning a pawn but the passed d-pawn is very strong and provides Black with sufficient compensation.

We'll concentrate now after i.c1-g5 on the following lines: b2a) 1 l . . . f6 and b2b) 1 l . . . �a5. We'll add also that 1l . . . 'tJde7?! is clearly inferior, due to 12.d5! 'tJa5 13.�a4 .txc3 14.iLxe7 �xe7 15. bxc3 b6 16 .lHe 1 �c7 17 . .l:.ad1

50

.td7 lS. �b4 l:.aeS 19.d6 �bS 20. ttJe5± when in Eingorn - D. Bron­stein, Daugavpils 1975 the pas­sed d-pawn became a decisive factor.

If Black tries to interpose by the bishop - 1 l . . . .te7 White can choose 12.'tJxd5 iLxg5 (12 . . . �xd5 leads Black to deep trouble after 13.ttJe5:t) 13.'tJxg5 �xg5 and now 14.ttJe3! (B. Larsen recommended 14.ttJc3 but after 14 . . . .tg4 15.f4 like in the game Hoegerl - Vogel, Ludwigshafen 1995 Black could have obtained counter-chances with 15 . . . �g6! 16. �a4 �d3 17.d5 ttJd4�, the transition to an end­game in Krogius - Shamkovich, Leningrad 1960 also did not lead to any advantage - 14.�c1 �xc1 15 .lHxc1 iLe6 16.ttJc7 ttJxd4 17. ttJxe6 'tJxe6 lS.l:txc4 .l:.adS 19 . .l:Ia4 a6=) 14 . . . .l:IdS 15.d5t White pawn is disorganising Black's defence.

Sometimes Black resorts to the same idea like in the previous paragraph but in another stag­ing: 1l . . . 'tJxc3 12.bxc3 iLe7 (worse is 12 . . . ffi?! in view of 13.cxb4 fxg5 14. �e2 c3 15. �c4+ �hS 16.ttJe5±) 13 .iLxe7 ttJxe7 (after 13 . . . �xe7 14 .l:te1 �a3 1 5 . � c2± Black's pieces lack coordination). FUrther is possible: 14.ttJe5!? (a knight's jump to the right wing - 14.ttJg5 �a5 15.�d2 in Olivier - Schwi­cker, France 19S9 would be fen­ced offby 15 . . . ttJd5 16 . .l:Iac1 iLf5=) 14 . . . 'tJd5 15.�f3 iLe6 16 . .l:.ab1 �a5 (after 1 6 . . . I:l.bS 1 7 . .l:.b5;!; Black's knight would have to leave the blockading square d5)

l .CiJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 cS 4.cd ed S.CiJc3 CiJc6

17.CiJxc4 �xc3 IB.CiJe3 CiJxe3 19. fxe3!? (if 19.�xe3 �a5!? 20J:i.xb7 �xa2 2 1. .l::tfbl ItadB= White's d4-pawn cannot cross the demarka­tion line) 19 . . . i..xa2 20.nxb7 naeB 2IJha7 nxe3 22.�f2 and despite the reduction of material, White has preserved an obvious advan­tage. For example, 22 . . . i..b3 (if 22 . . . i..e6, then 23.d51' and the passed d-pawn moves on) 23J:ta3! (White is planning 24. i.d5) 23 . . .lUeB (23 . . . .l:.dB? fails to 24. z:tbl+- winning the black bishop in the game Malich - Baumbach, Gera 1962) 24.i..d5 i..xd5 25.z:txc3 z:txc3;!; Black still has to prove that his rook and bishop are capable to hold down the on­slaught of White's queen.

b2a) 1 1...f6

12.CiJxd5 White seeks to pull the queen

into the centre where it would be more easily attacked.

12 . . . �xd5 The reply 12 . . . fxg5 after 13.

CiJxb4 CiJxb4 14 .ttJe5 !? i..f5 1 5 . ttJxc4 i..d3 16.�b3 �xd4 17.ttJe3+ �hB IB . .l:.adl± brings White an advantage. The pin down d-file should yield White material

dividends. 13 . ..te3 13.CiJe5 is not the correct way

to advantage as after 13 . . . �b5! 14.a4 �a6 15.ttJxc6 bxc6 16.i..d2 i.xd2 17 . �xd2 i..e6 IB.nfe l in Tregubov - Moskalenko, Alushta 1994 Black could swap the active enemy's pieces IB . . . i.d5!? 19 . .l:.e7 .l:.feB=.

13 ... �f7 It is dangerous for Black to

linger in the centre. After 13 . . . i.f5 as in the game Mohr - Kunz, Stuttgart 19B5 White could ob­tain the upper hand with 14.CiJe5! i..e4 1 5.ttJxc6 bxc6 16.i..xe4 �xe4 17.�a4 a5 IB.a3±, analysis of A. Adorj an. In case of 13 . . . i.g4 14.CiJe5 ! �xg2+ 1 5 .�xg2 i..xdl 1 6 . CiJxc6 bxc6 1 7 . z:tfx d l nabB IB.z:tacl± White is better again -A. Adorjan. In both lines the c4-pawn is doomed.

14.a3!? The most promising way to

fight for an opening advantage. An immediate 14.d5 would lead after 14 . . . ttJe7! ( 14 . . . .l:.dB? was spectacularly refuted - 15.dxc6! nxdl 16 . .l:.fxdl i..a5 17.ttJd4 a6 IB.b4! i..xb4 19 . .l:.ab l a5 20.a3 bxc6 21 .axb4 axb4 22.ttJxc6 i..g4 23 .ttJxb4+- in the game Adorjan - Tisdall, New York 19B1) 1 5.a3 i..d6 16.ttJd2 ttJxd5 17 .ttJxc4 ttJxe3 IB.ttJxd6 ttJxdl 19.ttJxf7 ttJxb2 20. ttJd6 to equality after the series of exchanges in the game Polovo­din - Novik, Leningrad 19BB. Black should only find 20 . . . .l:.dB! 2 1 . CiJxcB l:I. axcB 2 2 . z:t fh l .l:.d2

5 1

Chapter 4

23.l:.a2 Itd1+ 24.:txd1 tbxd1 25. i.xb7 :!'c7=.

14 ... i.a5 The other retreat 14 . . . i.d6 is

considerably worse, due to 15. tbd2! (after 1 5 . d5 tbe7 16 .tbd2 tbxd5 we have reached a position from the above-mentioned game Polovodin - Novik, Leningrad 1988) 15 . . . i.e6 (15 . . . i.f5 could be met by 16. t'fa4! i.d3 17 JUcl± an­ticipating the capturing ofthe c4-pawn) 16.tbe4 Itad8 17.d5!± and the material losses for Black are inevitable (analysis of Adorjan).

15.d5 :d8 After 15 . . . CZJe7 16" �a4 i.d8

17 .t'fxc4 �xd5 1 8 .t'fc3 �f7 19. i.c5 i.e6 in Garcia - Naranjo, corr. 1994 White should choose 20JHe 1 !? Ite8 2 1 . Itad U. It is evident that White's pieces are more actively placed.

16.tbd4 tbe5 As Adorjan notes, 16 . . . tbxd4

1 7 . �xd4 b 5 1 8 . �c5± is not enough for equality.

17:�a4 ..tb6 In case of 17 . . . i.c7 18 .tbe6

i.xe6 19 .dxe6 �xe6 20.i.xb7;t White's bishop pair is shooting trough Black's queenside.

18.tbc6

52

At this position A. Adorjan breaks his analysis. A possible continuation could be 18 . . . bxc6 1 9 .i.xb6 axb6 2 0 . �xa8 cxd5 2 1.:tad1 tbd3 22.b3±. White is an exchange up for a pawn but even more important factor is the pinning along the 8th rank.

b2b) 1 1 . . . �a5

12.tbxd5 White is dragging the queen to

the centre like in variation b2a. 12 . . . �xd5 13.a3 Again the analogy with va­

riation b2a is evident. The im­mediate 1 3 .CZJe5 gave Black a better game after 13 . . . �b5 14.a4 �a6 1 5 .tbxc6 bxc6 1 6 . d5 cxd5 17. �xd5 l:.b8't in Tukmakov -Lputian, Tilburg 1994.

13 ... ..ta5 After 13 . . . i.d6 14.i.e3 �b5

15 .ttJd2!? (or 15 .l:.c1 i.f5 16 .d5 and here in Yakovich - Zhurina, Moscow 1996 Black should choose 1 6 . . . tbe7",) 1 5 . . . i.f5 ( 1 5 . . . i.e6 could be met by 1 6 " �e2t and Black has to find a way to defend the c4-pawn as the natural 16 . . . ttJa5? turns out to b e losing -17 .b4! ttJc6 18.d5 i.xd5 19.a4+)

1.t'iJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 cS 4.cd ed S.t'iJc3 tDrt6

16. �h5;!; The pin along the fifth Palma de Mallorca 1989 Black rank causes Black trouble. did not succeed in keeping the

14.t'iJe5 material balance , due to the Now the jump of the knight is weakness of a7 and e6 pawns.

more effective than on the pre- I9.i.n :ac8 20 . .txc4 i.xc4 vious move. 21. �xc4 h6 22.i.e3 �xb2

I4 . . :�b5 I5.a4 �a6 I6.t'iJxc6 It is not worth losing ground

with 16 .t'iJg4 i.d8 1 7 .i.f4 t'iJb4 18.i.d2. In the game Stocek -Bazant, Olomouc 1995 Black could achieve a good position by 18 . . . t'iJd3<Xl.

I6 ... bxc6 1 7. �c2!? The first item in the Black's

list is a transfer of the bishop from c8 to d5. The text is aimed against this plan by putting pressure on c4-pawn. Otherwise Black would be fine, for example 17 . i.e4 i.e6 18 .�h5 f5 19.i.g2 i.d5 20.i.f4 c3+ and Black succes­sfully put his scheme into life in A. Gavrilov - A. Rychagov, St Pe­tersburg 1994, achieving even a better play. In case of 17. �f3 i.d 7 18JUc1 'uab8 19.i.f1 i.e6 20.b3 i.d5 as in Ogaard - D. Bronstein, Oslo 1994 Black also carried into effect the same manoeuvre and after an interesting tactical clash 2 1 . � d 1 :'xb 3 ! 2 2 . �xb3 cxb3 2 3 . i.xa6 b2 2 4 . l1ab 1 bxc 1 � t 25 .i.xc1 i.b6 26.i.a3 11d8 27.i.c5 i.xc5 2 8 . dxc5 i.e4= an equal ending arose.

17 ... i.e6 18JUc1 �b7 Mter 18 . . . :'ab8 19.i.f1 �b6

20.i.xc4 �xd4 21 . ..txe6 :'xb2 22. ..te3 lIxc2 2 3 .i.xd4 :'xc 1+ 24. .uxc1 fxe6 25.lIxc6± in the game Timoscenko - Mikh. Tseitlin,

This position occurred in the game Bernard - Miralles, Val Thorens 1988. Following 23 . .ucb1!? �c3 24.thc3 i.xc3 25 . .l:i.a3 i.a5 26.l:!.b7 i.b6 27.':c3;!; White can count on some advantage mainly in view of the active position ofthe rook which managed to infiltrate into Black's camp, reaching b7.

c) 6 ... ttJf6

7.i.g2 The play branches here into

the following lines: cl) 7 . . . c4, c2) 7 . . . i.e6, c3) 7 . . . .tg4, c4) 7 .. . cxd4 and c5) 7 ... i.e7.

53

Chapter 4

cl) 7 . . . c4 Black, as in variation b ,

expands o n the queenside. 8.0-0 White completes the deve­

lopment and prepares the central breakthrough e2-e4.

8 . . . .tb4 9 . .tg5 In distinction to variation b,

the placement of the knight on f6 is clearly inadequate.

9 . . . .txc3 After 9 . . . 0-0, Borisova - Porub­

szky Angyalosine, Halle 1976 White could continue 10.fi.xf6! gxf6 1 l .e3±, damaging Black's pawn structure. If 9 . . . fi.e6, it is possible 10.e4!? (only one move later the effect of the break would not be enough for advantage, eg 10.tLle5 0-0 1l .e4 dxe4 12.tLlxc6 bxc6 13.tLlxe4 .te7 14.l:i.e1 ,Ub8 15 .l:i.b1 tLlxe4 16 . .txe7 'ffixe7 17. .txe4 'ffid6= V. Popov - I. Ibra­gimov, Smolensk 1997) 10 . . . dxe4 (following 10 . . . .txc3 11.bxc3 dxe4 12 .tLld2 'ffia5 13 . .txf6 gxf6 14. tLlxe4 0-0-0 15. 'ffif.h Marchand ­Rivera, San Juan 1965 the de­fects in Black's pawn structure make his task difficult) 11.tLlxe4 fi.e7 12.fi.xf6 gxf6 13.tLlc3 tLlb4 when in the game Naumkin - Ca­ruso, Marostica 1997 the easi­est way to advantage would be 14.'ffie2±.

10.bxc3 0-0 The game Ferrarini - Lasio,

Lunigiana 1 9 9 8 saw 10 . . . h6 11 .fi.xf6 'ffixf6 12.tLld2 'ffid6 13.e4 .te6 14.f4± and Black's defence

54

is not simple at all. For instance, 14 . . . f6?! would be refuted by 1 5 . exd5 ! .txd5 1 6 . 'ffih5+ .t f7 17J:tae1+ <ii'fS 18.'ffib5+-.

1l.tLld2!? Last arrangements before e2-

e4. Less convincing would be 1 1 .tLle5 though after 1 1 . . . 'ffid6 12.tLlxc6 in Jensen - From, Vejle 1974 even the best reply 12 . . . bxc6;!;; would leave White better chances.

1 l ... .te6 In case of 1 1 . . . .tg4 12.fi.xf6

gxf6 Black's pawn structure on the kingside is beyond repair. After 13 .':'e1 .l:.e8 14.tLlf1 'ffid6 15. 'ffid2 fi.f5 16. 'ffih6 fi.e4 17.fi.xe4 l:i.xe4 18.l:i.ab1 b6 in the game Akesson - Carlsson, Copenhagen 1981 the evident White's advan­tage could be cemented by 19.f3 l:i.e6 20.e4± .

12.e4 After this thematic move

Black's position deteriorates. 12 . . . tLle7 13 . .txf6 gxf6 14.f4

f5 15.e5 b5 16.'ffih5 <ii'h8 17JUbl Iib8 18.a4±

We followed the game Blasi ­Zichichi , Reggio Emilia 1974.

1 .0,f3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c5 4.cd ed 5.0,c3 0,c6

White has good prospects on both wings.

c2) 7 . . . �e6 Black is delaying the deve­

lopment of his dark-squared bishop. His intention is to meet White's most dangerous plan - a play against an isolated d5-pawn - having an extra tempo by capturing in one step after a possible d4xc5 .

8.0-0 h6 8 . . . i.e7 Ieads to variation c5a

which is still to come. If Black suddenly decides to change his initial plan and occupies more space on the queenside with 8 . . . c4, after 9.0,e5!? (a possible deviation is 9 .i.g5 i.e7 10.0,e5 0-0 as in the line c5b1) 9 . . . i.e7 White could choose the standard swap operation 10 .0,xc4! dxc4 1 1.d5 0,xd5 12.0,xd5 0-0 13 .i.f4± which gave him an advantage in Carvalho - D'Oliveira, Petropolis 2000. The other waiting move 8 . . . .l:!.c8 allows 9.i.g5 h6 10 . .i.xf6 �xf6 when in the game Bratanov - Billot, Metz 2002 White could take over the initiative by 1l.e4!t. The delay o f kings ide deve-

lopment is going to cause Black trouble since his king is still in the centre.

9.b3!? The pressure on d5-pawn

could be increased by creating threats to the knight on f6. The move h7-h6 has taken away already the possible attacking square g5. This is the reason White is looking for a job to his dark-squared bishop on the other wing. The diagonal a1-h8, con­trolling the important d4-square and further reaching the f6-knight, is ideal for White's plan.

Beside the text, it is possible 9.i.f4. After 9 . . . .l::!.c8 10 . .l:.c1 (fol­lowing 10.dxc5 i.xc5 1l . .l:.c1 0-0 12 .0,a4 i.e7 1 3 .0,c5 i.xc5 14. 1:!.xc5 �b6 in Belotti - Godena, Reggio Emilia 1991 a draw was agreed. Apparently the oppo ­nents did not want to try out the fate after 15 . .l:.c2 d4oo) 10 . . . a6 ( 10 . . . c4 led to a White's advan­tage - 1 l .0,e5 i.b4 12.�a4 i.xc3 13.bxc3 0-0 14.0,xc6 bxc6 15 . .l:.bU Kir. Georgiev - Lobron, Tilburg (active) 1992) 1 l .dxc5 (if 1 l .0,a4 1l . . . c4°o is now possible) 11 . . .i.xc5 12.0,e5 0-0 13.0,xc6 .l:.xc6 (after 13 . . . bxc6 14.�d3 a5 15.0,a4 i.e7 16.0,c5± White organises a suc­cessful blockade of the centre) 14.�e5 0,g4 15 . .i.d4 .i.xd4 16. �xd4 nc4! 17 .�a7 d4 18.0,e4 d3°o in the game Andersson - Murey, Moscow 1982 the isolated pawn came into motion.

9 .. J:tc8 10.i.b2 i.e7

55

Chapter 4

Eventually Black is to lose a tempo for an "extra" move with the bishop.

l 1 .dxc5 i.xc5 12J:tcl 0-0 13.lLla4 i.e7 14.lLlc5

The game Andersson - Han­doko, Indonesia 19S3 saw 14.e3 �d7 1 5 . lLld4 .tg4 1 6 . f3 when Black should have grasped the opportunity to sacrifice a pawn with 16 . . . i.h3 !? 1 7 . lLlxc6 l:txc6 lS . .txf6 .txf6 19 .i.xh3 �xh3 20"�xd5 J:.dS 2 1 .�a5 l:tcd6�.

14 ... i.xc5 After an exchange of dark­

squared bishop the strategic fight will concentrate on whether Black's d5-pawn would move on forward or would stay blockaded. In the latter case Black will be saddled with a long, prospectless defence. However, if we look closer at the position after White's move 14, we'll notice that Black is left with no sensible choice at all. 14 . . . .tf5? as in the game Rumpl - Jeraj , Finkenstein 1994 fails to 15 .lLlxb7! and it is be­coming clear that after 15 . . . �b6 Black will pay a high price for capturing White's knight. Con­tinuing 16 . .txf6 gxf6 1 7 . �xd5 .te6 lS .. i�·h5 �xb7 19.1Lld4 .td7 20. �xh6+- intending 2 1 ..te4 White should win. Not an im­provement is also 14 . . . �a5?! 1 5 . lLlx e 6 fxe 6 1 6 . i. h 3 <it> f7 1 7 . l:'!.xc6 bxc6 I S . lLle5+ <it>eS 19 . .txe6� Kanygin - Khromov, Moscow 1996 where White has a dangerous attack only for a pawn. Finally 14 . . . i.g4 as in the

56

game Lukacs - Godena, Budapest 1993 could be met by 1 5 .h3!?t. Black will have to part with his dark-squared bishop in order to save the b7 -pawn.

15J:txc5 lLle4 In case of 15 . . . �e7 it is pos­

sible 16.J:.c1 l:tfdS 17 .lLld4;!; Sader - Titz , Austria 1990. Black's pawn is safely blocked on d5, furthermore White has two bi­shops.

16.l:.cl lLlg5 After 16 . . . �a5 17 .a3 �b6 in

Kalker - Eckert, Friedrichshafen 1983 18.e3 !?;!; followed by lLlf3-d4 would lead to a long-lasting advantage for White.

17.�d2 lLlxf3+ 18.i.xf3 �b6 1 9.�c3 f6 20.�d2 �cd8 2 1 . l:tfdl;j;;

The position is from the game Strijdhorst - Helmond, Holland 1996. Thanks to the pressure on d5 and two bishops White has the edge.

c3) 7 ... ..tg4 Black not only delays the

development of the dark-squared bishop like in variation c1 but fights for control of d4 too.

l .liJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 cS 4.cd ed S. liJc3 liJc6

8.i.g5 White in his turn strikes back,

surrounding the d5-pawn. 8 ... i.xf3 8 . . . i.e7 allows 9.dxc5 d4 10.

iL.xf6 iL.xf6 1l .liJe4 0-0 12.0-0 iL.e7 1 3 . �b3 iL.e6 14.�xb7 iL.d5 15 . liJd6 i.xd6 16.cxd6 �xd6 17 .�a6 l:Iab8 18.b3 l:Ib6 19.�d3± and in the game E . Gruenfeld - Wagner, Frankfurt 1923 Black did not prove any compensation for the missing pawn. After 8 . . . cxd4 by way of9.i..xffi! gxffi 10.liJxd4 i.b4 1 1 .0-0 i.xc3 12.bxc3 i..e6 13.�a4 �d7 14 .J:.ad1 liJe7 1 5 . �a3 0-0 16.c4± Marshall - Treybal, Bre­slau 1 9 12 White created too many pawn i slands in the enemy's position.

9.i.xf3 This is the most natural but

not the only way. The little known game Goltsov - Dobrotvorsky, corr. 1964 went 9.i.xffi!? �xffi 10.i..xf3 �xd4 1 l .i.xd5 �xd1+ 12 .l!xd1 J:.c8 13.0-0 i..e7 14J::td2± with better ending for White.

9 ... liJxd4 Inconsistent is 9 . . . i.e7 10.dxc5

d4 1 1..�xf6 i.xf6 1 2 .liJd5 i.e5 13 .0-0 0-0 14. �d2± and the game Doering - Vandrey, Dortmund

1992 showed no compensation for the pawn.

lO.i.xd5 i.e7 After 10 . . . �b6 l 1 .i.xffi! gxffi

12 . �a4+ liJc6 1 3 . i.xc6+ �xc6 1 4 . �xc6+ bxc6 1 5 . 0-0-0± the whole pawn chain of Black is crippled.

1l.i.g2!? Back in the sixties the popular

move was 1 l .i.xf6 i.xf6 12. �a4+ (or 12.e3 liJc2+ 13. �xc2 i.xc3+ 14. �xc3 �xd5 15.0-0 0-0 16.l:Ifdl �f5 17.�b3 b6 18.l!d5 �ffi 19. J:.ad1 l:tad8 20.e4 l:txd5 2 1.l:txd5 g6 22.e5 �e6= Jakhin - Ravinsky, Moscow 1964. Black easily neu­tralised the symbolic White's advantage, connected with the possession of the open d-file. ) At a first glance Black's position looks dubious . Nevertheless things are not that simple. After 12 . . . b5! (it is the only move indeed since 12 . . . �d7? fails to 13.iL.xf7+ 'itd8 14.�xd7+ 'itxd7 15.0-0-0+­as in Tabrina - Flotten, Kirkenes 1997) 13 .liJxb5 0-0 14.iL.xa8 (14. liJc3 l:Ib8� gives Black a perfect compensation for the missing pawn as White is undeveloped) 14 . . . �xa8 15.0-0-0 liJxb5 16.�xb5 l:Ib8 17.�d3 (after 17 .�c4 .l:.xb2 18 .l:l.d5 in Vidmar - Schlechter, Vienna 1916 Black could proceed with the attack by means of 18 . . . �b7 !? 19 .I:!.hd 1 g6 ! , which should lead to a drawish queen's endgame 20.J:.1d3 l:Ib1+ 21 .'itd2 l:Ib2+ 22.'ite1 .l:.b1+ 23.J:.d1 iL.c3+! 24. �xc3 �xd5 25 .':'xb 1 �h1+ 26.'itd2 �xb1=) 17 . . . l!xb2 18.e4

57

Chapter 4

�b8� in the game L. Gutman -Karasev, Leningrad 1968 Black's attack more than compensates for the sacrificed exchange.

1 1...0-0 12.0-0 ttJe6 13.i.e3 Of course White will try to

keep his bishop pair. 13 . . . ttJg4 14.i.d2 i.f6 15.e3

ttJe5 16.ttJd5 ttJc6 17. �b3 lib8 18 . .l:!.adl;!;

White pieces are somewhat more active, not to mention the bishop pair (R. Stern - Rabiega, Germany 1996).

c4)7 ... cxd4 Black voluntary changes on

d4 in order to start at once the fight for the centre.

8.ttJxd4 i.c5 The other way to press on d4

would lead after 8 . . . �b6 9.ttJxc6

58

bxc6 10 .0-0 to a position from variation a.

Mter 8 . . . i.e7 9.0-0 0-0 10.i.e3 occurs a situation, similar to a variation from Chapter 5 , only without h7-h6. This nuance is obviously in White's favour. Further is possible 9 . . . .:te8 (after 10 . . . h6 1 l .'ucU White is just a tempo up compared to Chapter 5 and 10 . . . i.g4 could be met by 1 1 . � a4 planning to counter 1 1 . . . �d7 with a typical small combination 12.i.xd5!?;t winning a pawn) 1 l . .:tc1 i.g4 (in reply to a typical in variation b, Chapter 5 move 1 1 . . .i.f8 White could make use ofthe missing h 7 -h6 by 12.i.g5! i.e6 13 .�a4 ttJxd4 14. �xd4 il.e7 15.ttJb5!?;t as in Puri ­Cunningham, Chicago 1989. In case of 1 1 . . .i.e6 it is possible 12.�a4 ttJxd4 13.i.xd4 a6 14 . .:tfd1 .:tc8 15. �b3;t occurred in Ostojic - Milovanovic, Cetinj e 1990 . ) 12.h3 i.e6 13 .�a4 �d7 (Black could try to reach c4 via 13 . . . ttJe5 as in the game Hoensch - Fo­chtler, Giengen 1987 when the refutation comes in the form of 14.ttJcb 5 ! ? ttJc4 1 5 . ctJxe6 fxe6 16 .'uxc4! dxc4 ] 7.i.xb7 Mb8 18. ,Udl± Black's queen cannot find a suitable place for retreat) 14:;t>h2 a6 (or 14 . . . ctJxd4 15. �xd7 ..l1I.xd7 16 . ..l1I.xd4 il.c6 17 . .:tfdl ctJe4 18 . ..l1I.f3 a6 19.'lt>g2;t and the game Caurin - Coret Frasquet, Spain 1993 came to a better ending for White) 15.ctJxc6 bxc6 (in case of 16.ctJb1 Mec8 17 .i.c5 i.xc5 18. Mxc5 Halfdanarson - Dankert,

1.CfJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 cS 4.cd ed S.CfJc3 CfJc6

Germany 1978 Black can expel White's rook on c5 by means of 18 . . . CfJe4!? since the line 19.Ji.xe4 dxe4 20. �xe4 Ji.xh3°o does not look dangerous) 16 .Itfd 1 Iteb8 1 7 .Ji.d4 Itb4 18. �c2 Ji.f5 19.e4 l2Jxe4 20.CfJxe4 Itc4 21 .�e2 .:!.xc1 22 Jhc 1 dxe4 2 3 . Ji.xe4 �xd4 24.i.xffi g6 25.i.e4 .:!.b8 26.b3 Ji.c5 27.�g2:t. Here in the game Stohl - G. Garcia, Manila 1992 Black realised that he is about to part with some material.

9.l2Jb3! Retreating with a temp o .

Worse i s 9 .i.e3?! since 9 . . . �b6! 10.0-0 i.xd4 1 l .l2Ja4 i.xe3! 12. l2Jxb6 i.xb6+ provides Black with three pieces for the queen. After 9.l2Jxc6 bxc6 10.0-0 0-0 1 l .l2Ja4 i.b6! 1 2 . '!';i'c2 as in the game Smyslov - Keres, Amsterdam (ct) 1956, an easy way to equality would be 12 . . . i.a6!?=, noted by Keres.

We can draw now a general conclusion. Despite the rule that the exchanges are usually in favour ofthe side, playing against an isolated pawn, White is very reluctant to trade his knight on c6-square. The reinforcement of the d5-pawn after b7xc6 is not in his plans. White resorts to this method only in some concrete positions when he obtains in return undisputable strategic pluses (such as a firm grip over the dark squares in the centre, for instance).

9 ... .tb4 After 9 . . . i.b6 10.l2Jxd5!? l2Jxd5

1 1 . �xd5 '!';i'xd5 1 2 . i.xd5 CfJb4 13.i.e4 f5 14.i.b1 .te6 15 . .td2 l2Jc6 16.i.c3 0-0 17.e3 l:tae8 18. Ji.d3 i.d5 19.0-0 l2Je5 20. i.xe5 .:!.xe5 2 1 .l2Jd4± in Zamanov - A. Loginov, Moscow 1996 Black had no compensation for the pawn.

10.0-0 i.xc3 Black destructs the oppo­

nent's pawn structure in the hope to get dividends in the future. Another possibility is 10 . . . i.e6 1l .i.g5 0-0 (if 1 1 . . .Ji.xc3 12.bxc3 h6 then in Koehler - Bohne, Dei­desheim 2000 White could play 1 3 . Ji.xf6 '!';i'xf6 14 . i.xd5 i.xd5 15.�xd5 �xc3 16.Itac1 �e5 17. '!';i'xe5+ l2Jxe5 18 . .:!.c7± and the rook invades the seventh rank) 12.Itc1 (nothing promises 12.l2Jxd5 in view of 12 . . . i.xd5 1 3 . Ji.xf6 �xf6 1 4 . '!';i'xd5 �xb2 1 5 . '!';i'b5 �ab8= as in the game Uhlmann - Parma, Vrsac 1973) 12 . . . h6 13 .i.e3 Ite8 14.l2Jb5 (after 14.l2Ja4 l2Je4 15.i.c5 �f6 16 . .txb4 CfJ:ib4 1 7 . a3 l2Jc6 1 8 . e3 Itad8= in C . Hansen - Sosonko, Wijk aan Zee 1988 Black's pieces occupied good positions while White's knight is out of play on a4) 14 .. J:tc8 15.a3 i.ffi 16.i.c5 i.g4 17.�e1 a6 18. i.xffi �xffi 19.12J5d4 l2Jxd4 20. l2Jxd4 Itxc1 2 1 . '!';i'xcU Darga -Eisinger, Bad Neuenahr 1957. The mass simplification should be assessed in White's favour.

1l.bxc3 0-0 Black needs to castle. In case

of 11 . . .i.e6 White could prevent it with 12.i.a3!? (for 12.Ji.g5 see the commentary to Black's move

59

Chapter 4

10). Following 12 . . . b6 13.c4 :cB 14.cxd5 ctJxd5 15.ctJd4::!: in the old game B . Kostic - W. Winter, Hastings 1919 Black encountered big troubles. Mer 1 1 . . .ctJe4 12. ii..a3 ctJxc3 13.'�d3 ctJe4 14.ii..xe4 dxe4 15.'�xe4+ ii..e6 16.ctJc5 Black is about to regret the delay of castling, Florit Mulet - Gomez Olivares, Mallorca 2000. Note that Black can simplify the position with 16 .. .'�·d4 only at the price of a pawn - 17.ctJxb7! '§xe4 1B.ctJd6±.

12.ii..g5 ii..e6 The game J. Berry - Allan,

Calgary 1975 saw 12 . . . ii..g4 13.h3 ii..e6 14.ctJc5 .tcB 15.ii..xf6 '§xf6 16. �xd5 '§xc3 17.�fd1 l:.eB lB. e3t when White is ahead in development. In case of 12 . . . h6 13 .ii..xf6 �xf6 which occurred in the game Vadasz - Herczeg, Hungary 199 1 by way of 14. �xd5!? '§xc3 15. '§b5 I:.eB 16.e3t White could obtain an ad­vantage.

13.ctJc5 �e7 14.ctJxe6 fxe6

15.c4! Taking the opportunity to get

rid of potential weaknesses. 15 . . . dxc4 16.i.xc6 bxc6 17.

60

'§d4 �b4 Black is hanging onto the do­

omed but still extra pawn on c4. A possible deviation is 17 . . . '§dB 1B.ii..xf6 :xf6 19. �xc4 '§d5 20. :ac1 :af8 21.e4 '§h5 22.f4i when in the game Rubinstein - Mar­shall, Breslau 1912 the weakness of pawn islands a7, c6 and e6 finally prevailed.

18.i.xf6 J:xf6 19.:abl '§a4 20J:tb7 c5

The greediness 2 0 . . . '§xa2 would be punished immediately with 21 .�d7 �g6 22.'§f7+ 'iithB 23.:e7!+- winning a rook in view of the mating threat.

21.�xc5

This position occurred in the game Varnusz - Lengyel, Buda­pest 195B. Despite the material equality the activity of his pieces provides White with the ini­tiative. The black pawns are a constant source of concern. To be sure, after a possible 2 1 . . . h6 22.a3t the fight would have went on but in the game Black decided to neutralise the rook on the seventh rank with 2 1 . . .':f7 ? ! (even worse is 2 1 . . . �xa2?, due to 22 .�e7 :g6 23 . '§f7+ 'iithB 24.

1.1]jf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c5 4.cd ed 5.l]jc3 1]jc6

I!.fb I ! I!.g8 2 5 . I!.b8+-) 22.I!.xf7 \t>xf7 23.I!.c1 �xa2 24.�c7+ �f6 25. �f4+ \t>e7 26.I!.xc4±. As a re­sult, in view of the unhappy position ofthe king in the centre, Black has serious problems.

c5) 7 ... i.e7 8.0·0

The main lines here are c5a) 8 ... i.e6 and c5b) 8 . . . 0·0.

c5a) 8 ... i..e6 Black bolsters up in advance

the d5-pawn. 9.dxc5 Creating an isolated pawn.

There is no use to wait any more. For instance, after 9.i..e3 Black has 9 . . . c4 1 0.l]je5 0-0 1 1 .l]jxc4 dxc4 12.d5 I]jxd5 13.l]jxd5 i..f6 14.':c1 i..d4 15.1Lxd4 1Lxd5 16.e4 when in the famous game Bot­vinnik - Unzicker, Oberhausen 196 1 Black could achieve good game with 1 6 . . . i..e 6 ! 1 7 . i.. c3 �b6=, shown by M.Botvinnik.

9 ... i..xc5 10.i..g5 Pressing on d5. 10 ... d4 The pawn has to move for­

ward. 10 . . . 0-0 is covered in va­riation c5b2. The more passive

10 . . . i..e7 could be met by 1 1 .l]jd4!? (also deserves attention 1 1 . �a4 0-0 12.I!.ad1 �b6 13.i..xf6 i..xf6 14 .l]jxd5 i..xd5 1 5 .1i.xd5 �xb2 16Jlb5 �xe2 17 .':xb7;t with a small plus, Andersson - Unzi­cker, Wijk aan Zee 1981 ) 1 1 . . . 0-0 (The other lines are : 1 1 . . . �b6 12.l]jxc6 bxc6 13.e4! d4 14.l]ja4 �b5 15.e5 I]jd5 16. i..xe7 I]jxe7 17. �xd4 ,Ud8 Marshall - Mieses, Berlin 1908 and now 18. �f4! I]jg6 19 . � c a would ensure White some advantage since 19 . . . �xa4?? loses to 2 0 . i..xc6+-; 1 1 . . . �d7 12.l]jxe6 fxe6 13.i..h3 �f7 14.e4 d4 15.i..xf6 i..xf6 16. I]jd5 �d6 17 .l]jf4 laae8 18.l]jd3 I!.hf8 19.fM in B. Kostic - Olland, Hastings 1919 White's knight reached an excellent blockading position; 1 1 . . .h6 12.i..xf6 i..xf6 13.l]jxe6 fxe6 14.e4 d4 15. �h5+ \t>e7 16. l]je2 e5 17.i..h3t Ram­roth - Theuermeister, Seefeld 2001. Black lost the right to castle and is forced to defend) 12.tl.c1!? (a premature 12.l]jxe6 fxe6 13. i..h3 led after 13 . . . �d6! 14.l]jb5 �d7 15 .l]jd4 I]jxd4 16. �xd4 h6 17.�e5 \t>f7 18.i..e3 i..d6 19. �c3 1i.ac8 20. �b3 b6 2 1..l:l.ac1 ':xc1 22Jhc1 ':c8 23 . �d1 .l:i.xc1 24. �xc 1 �c7 25. �xc7+ iLxc7= in Boissonnier - Bravo, St Lorenzo 1995 to an ending where the black pawn centre is bullet-proof) 12 . . . .l:i.c8 (after 12 . . . h6 13.iLf4 �d7 14.l]jxe6 fxe6 15 .i..h3 g5 16.iLd2 d4 1 7 . l]ja4 l]je4 1 8 . iL e 1 � d 5 19.i..g2± i n Capablanca - Olland, Hastings 1919 Black suffered a

6 1

Chapter 4

dead-pin along the as-hI diago­nal, in case of 12 . . . §'d7 13.tDxe6 fxe6 14.ttJa4 ':acS 15.ttJc5 i..xc5 16 . .l:.xc5 b6 17.:tc3 ttJe5 IS. §'d4 l:.xc3 19.§'xc3 ttJg6 20.�xf6 ':xf6 21 .:tc1;l; which occurred in Stan­ciu - B. Thipsay, Novi Sad 1990 Black had to give up the c-file) 13 .ttJxe6 fxe6 14.i..h3 §'d6 (14 . . . <;t> f7 led t o a disaster after 1 5 . i..xf6 i..xf6 16.e4 d4 1 7 . §'h5+ <;t>e7 lS.ttJd5+ exd5 19.i..xcS+- Michell - Olland, Hastings 1919) 15.i..f4! §'d7 16.e4twith White's initia­tive.

1l.ttJe4 A very sharp position with

mutual chances arises after 1 1 .i..xf6 �xf6 12.lbe4 §'e7 13 . ttJxc5 �xc5 14.nc1 §'b6 15.ttJg5 i..xa2 ( 15 . . . 0-0? loses to 16.i..xc6 bxc6 1 7 . §'c2 g6 l S . ttJxe6 fxe6 19. �xc6 l1abS 20.b3+- Tukmakov - Guera, Crans Montana 1999 and 15 . . . i..f5 16.e4! dxe3 17.l1xc6! bxc6 lS.�d6 i..d7 19 .§'e5+ �f8 2 0 . fxe3 f6 2 1 . l:.xf6 + ! gxf6 22 . §'xf6+ �eS 23. §'xhS+ �e7 24 . �e5� ensured White a crushing attack in Marshall - Ed. Lasker, USA 1923) 16.§'a4 ( 16.l:.xc6 bxc6 17.�a4 i..b3 lS.§'xc6+ from Ed. Lasker - Michel, Vienna 1951 should be followed by IS . . . §'xc6! 19 .i..xc6+ �e7 2 0 .i..xaS l:.xaS 21 .l:.c1 a5co when the ending is not worse for Black) 16 . . . i..b3 17. �a3 0-0-0 lS.l:.c5 'it>bS 19.1:.fc1 d3 20.exd3 ttJd4co Tukmakov - P. Horvath, Lugano 1999.

1 l ... i.e7 12.i.xf6 After 12.ttJxf6+ i..xf6 13.i..xf6

62

§'xf6 14. §'a4 0-0 1 5 . §'b5 :nabS 16 . .l:.fd1 h6 17.ttJe1 .l:tfeS lS.l'!d2 i..g4 19.1:.c1 :ne5 20. §'d3 ':beS= in the game C apablanca - E m . Lasker, Havana (ml9) 192 1 Black obtained a good game. White's ambitions are restrained by the weakness of the e2-pawn.

12 ... i..xf6 13.§'d2 White achieved nothing spe­

cial after 13.§'a4 i..d5! 14.ttJxf6+ §'xf6 15 . .l:tfd1 .l:.dS 1 6 . l:.d2 0-0 17 .:tad1 a6 1S .ttJxd4 i..xg2 19. �xg2 ttJxd4 20.l:.xd4 b5 2 1 . �b4 l:.xd4 22.':xd4 §'e6 23.a4 §'xe2= in Riemersma - Welling, Wijk aan Zee 19S7. 13.ttJe1 did not pay off too - 13 . . . i..e7 14.ttJd3 llbS 15.ttJf4 i..f5 16.l:.c1 0-0 17 .ttJc5 �g5 IS. §'d2 §'e7 19.1:.fd1 l:.fdS= as in the game Korchnoi - Spas­sky, Belgrade (ml15) 1977 Black has a comfortable position.

13 ... 0-0 The manoeuvre 13 . . . i..d5 does

not save Black from difficulties: 14.ttJxf6+ §'xf6 15.e4 i..e6 16.e5 ttJxe5 17 .ttJxe5 §'xe5 l S .i..xb7 l:tdS 19.i..c6+;l;. The line 13 . . . i..e7 14JUd1 f5 15.ttJeg5 i..d5 16.ttJh3 i..f6 17.ttJf4 i..f7 lS.b4 a6 19.a4t also leaves White the initiative.

14.1:.fd1 i..d5 There is nothing better. Now

comes by force 1 5 .ttJxf6+ §'xf6 1 6 .ttJxd4

i..xg2 1 7 . <;t>xg2 1:. ad8 18. e3 ttJxd4 19.exd4 1:.d5 20.1:.ac l 1:.fd8 21. §'b4;!;;

(diagram) Swapping the light pieces

White managed to win a pawn.

l .CiJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 cS 4.cd ed S.CfJc3 CiJc6

Converting it to a whole point would not be a simple task. (Andersson - Nunn, Hastings 1979)

c5b) 8 . . . 0-0

9 . .tg5! This move has the best repu­

tation. Beside it there are other popular continuations:

9 . .te3 c4!? 10.ltJe5 h6! (l0 . . . �a5 1 1 . .tg5! ,SdS 12.e3 h6 13 . .txffi .txffi 14.f4 t gave White the initiative in 1. Ivanov - Zaltsman, New York 19S3) 11 .�a4 (Black is OK after 1 1.h3 ..tb4 12. �a4 ..txc3 13.bxc3 ..tf5 14.g4 ..th7 15 . ..tf4 'seS 16 .'sad1 a6 17 . .ig3 b5! IS. �a3 �b6°o confirmed the game Hort - Kasparov, Cologne (active mJ3) 19S5) l l . . . a6! 12 .CiJxc6 bxc6 13 .b3 ( 13 . �xc6 leads to a draw as noted by G. Kasparov - 13 . . .

..td7 14. �b7 l:.bS 15 . �xa6 UaS 16.�b7 I:tbS=) 13 . . . 'sbS! 14.bxc4 Ub4 15 .�d1 Uxc4 16.ltJa4 .tf5!= 'in B. Larsen - Kasparov, Brussels 19S7 the position is about equal.

In many games was tried 9.b3 ltJe4 10 . ..tb2 .t f6 1 l .ltJa4 'seS 12.I:tc1 (l2 .dxc5?! is dangerous due to 12 . . . ..txb2 13 .CiJxb2 ltJc3 14.�d2 ltJxe2+ 15 .'it>h1 ..tg4 16. Uae1 �ffi 17.Uxe2 ..txf3 lS.'sxeS+ I:txeS+ and White is worse, Gas­par - Lima, Loures 1996) 12 . . . b6!? 13 .dxc5 .txb2 14.CiJxb2 bxc5°o when White is going to fight against hanging pawns.

In case of9.dxc5 ..txc5 10 . .tg5, White has to reckon with the pos­sibility of 10 . . . d4. Then follows 11 ..txf6 (also not dangerous is 1 l .ltJe4 .te7 12 . .ixf6 .txf6 = ) l 1 . . . �xffi 12.ltJd5 (after 12 .ltJe4 �e7 13.ltJxc5 �xc5=) 12 . . . �dS 13.ltJd2 'seS ( 13 . . . .th3 is inferior, due to 14 . .txh3 �xd5 15. �b3!;\;) 14.'sc1 .tb6 15.ltJc4 (after 15.'se1 ..tg4 16.ltJc4 .ic5°o the d4-pawn is not weaker than e2) 15 . . . .tg4 16. 'se1 .tc5!oo (less precise is 16 . . . .ta5 in view of 1 7 .ltJxa5 �xa5 IS. b4! ltJxb4 19 . �xd4! ltJxd5 2 0 . �xg4;\;). I n the oncoming battle Black has a good counterplay.

After 9 . .ic1-g5 Black is faced with a choice: c5b1) 9 . . . c4, c5b2) 9 . . . .te6 or 9 . . . cxd4 which will be presented in a separate Chapter 10.

The move 9 . . . h6?! is hardly acceptable after 10 . ..txf6 .ixf6 ll .dxc5 .ixc3 (11 . . .d4 led Black to an impasse after 12 .CiJe4 .ie7

63

Chapter 4

13.�c2 i.e6 14.1:.fd1 f5 15.lLld6+­Kniest - Engel, Cologne 1994 while 11 . . .i.e6 12:�d2! d4 13.lLle4 i.d5 14.lLlxffi+ �xf6 15.1:.fe1 1:.fe8 16.'uad1 'uad8, Lipka - Mozny, Czech Republic 1996 could prove not much better after 17.h4!?±) 1 2 . bxc3 i.e6 ( after 12 . . . �a5 13.�xd5 i.e6 14.�e4 �xc5 15 . lLld4 i.c4 16. �c2 i.d5 1 7 . lLlb3 i.xb3 18.�xb3 lLla5 19.�h4 'uac8 20.':'ac1 IUd8 2 1 . i.e4±, Brinck Claussen - Poulsen, Copenhagen 1990 and Black has to solve a lot of problems or 12 . . . �e7 13.�xd5 i.e6 14. �d6 �f6 and in Wachin­ger - Niedermaier, Bayern 1987 15 .lLld4!?± looks very tempting) 13 .ttJd4. Black's position is diffi­cult. Further could follow: 13 . . . �a5 (after 1 3 . . . ,Uc8 14.lLlb5 ,Ub8 1 5 .'ub1 �a5 16.i.xd5 .l:i.fd8 17 . e4+- Khan - Carty, I stanbul 2000 two extra pawns proved enough for a win and 13 . . . �e7 14.lLlb3 ,Ufd8 1 5 . �c2 I:t.ac8 16. 'uad1 lLlb8 1 7.e4 dxe4 18.�xe4± which occurred in N. Pert - Par­ker, London 1999 also leaves White good prospects to score) 14. �b3 �xc5 1 5 . e4 ttJa5 1 6 . �h4 'uac8 17 .lLlxe6 fxe6 18.i.h3 .l:i.fe8 19.exd5 �xd5 20.Uad1 �h5 (20 . . . �c5 a s i n Tyni - Heino, Tampere 1989 should be countered with 2 1. .Ufel±) 21 .i.g4 �c5 22.'ufe1 �xc3 23.i.xe6+ <;i;?h8 24.a3± In the game Panno - Ingolotti , Tucuman 197 1 Black failed to organise his defence.

c5bl) 9 . . . c4

64

Black expands on the queen­side.

lO.lLle5 Black put off the tension in

the centre and White imme­diately seizes the opportunity to incorporate his knight on e5.

1O . . . i.e6 Less attractive is 1 0 . . . h6?!

1 l . i.xf6 i.xf6 1 2 . i.xd5 lLlxe5 13.dxe5 i.xe5 14.i.xc4 �c7 15. �b3± Gimenez - Capuano, Sao Caetano 1999 when Black is just a pawn down.

1l.e3!? It is good to reinforce the

centre . The standard combi­nation 1 l .lLlxc4 dxc4 1 2 .i.xf6 i.xf6 13.d5 leads only to equality after 13 . . . i.g4 14.dxc6 bxc6 15 . �c2 ':'b8=. A lot of games put to the test the position after 1 1 . lLlxc6 bxc6 12 .b3 �a5°o, but no clear trail to advantage was found. If White bolsters up the centre with 1 1 . f4 , he has to reckon in the first place with 1 1 . . .lLlg4oo with chances for both sides.

1 l ... ttJd7 After the other retreat 11 . . .lLle8

following 12.lLlxc6 bxc6 13.i.xe7

1.ttJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 cS 4.cd ed S.ttJc3 ttJc6

�xe7 White can undermine the enemy 's pawn structure with 14.b3 ! (one move later this break will be late - 14.�a4 �d7 15.b3 ttJd6 16 JHc1 .l:.abS 17.bxc4 ttJxc4 1S J:tab1 lIb6= allowed Black in Smejkal - Schmittdiel, Germany 1990 to level the game). Further is possible: 14 . . . ttJd6 (after 14 . . . � b 4 1 5 .ttJa4 ttJd6 16 .ttJc5 �f5 17.:s.e1 .l:.fe8 1S.lIc1 .l:.ac8 19.iLf1 ! White forced the variation 19 . . . cxb3 20.axb3 tLle4 2 1 .ttJd3 �b6 22.iLg2± Dautov - Dittmar, Bad Woerishofen 1997) 15 .tLla4 �f5 (or 15 . . . .l:.ab8 16.tLlc5 .l:.fcS 17JIe1 tLle4 1S .ttJxe6 �xe6 19.bxc4 dxc4 20.�c2 f5 21 ..l:.ec1 tLld6 22.�f1± Stangl - Reich, Germany 1991 and the c4-pawn cannot be saved) 1 6 .tLlc5 .l:. abS ( after 16 . . . .l:.fbS 17.lIc1 cxb3 1S.axb3 a5 19.1Ie1 �dS 20. �f3 ke4 21.tLlxe4 tLlxe4 22. �d1 �b6 23.kxe4 dxe4 24.lIc3 lIeS 25. �c2 lIabS 26 . .l:.xc6 �xb3 27. �xb3 :s.xb3 2S.lIa1 lIb5 29. :s.a6± in G. Flear - Rotstein, France 1999 Black is faced with a difficult rook endgame) 17 .lIe 1 :s.b6 (or 1 7 . . . cxb3 lS.axb3 tLle4 1 9 . tLlxe4 iLxe4 2 0 . iL xe4 dxe4 21. t'tc2 :s.b6 22.l:i.a5 .l:.fb8 23.lIea1 lIxb3 24.lIxa7 �eS 25 .:s.c7 lIb2 26.�xc6 t'txc6 27 .:s.xc6± Dizda­revic - W. Schmid, Zuerich 19S7 and White has an extra pawn in the rook endgame) lS .:s.c1 cxb3 (the exchange of pawns on b3 is small but important strategical achievement for White) 19.axb3 .l:.fbS 20.:s.a1 tLle4 21 .kxe4 iLxe4 22. t'te2 h6 23.1h3 l:i.cS 24.:s.ea1

'uc7 25.f3 �g6. Now in the game Dautov - Fogarasi, Sverdlovsk 19S9 White could take over the initiative with 26.e4!? dxe4 27. fxe4t.

In case of 1 1 . . .h6 it is possible 12.iLxffi �xffi 13.f4 securing the outpost for White's knight on e5 since it would take a lot of time for Black to prepare f7-ffi while the exchange on e5 would direct White's attention to the kingside. For example 1 3 . . . tLl e 7 ( a fter 1 3 . . . iLxe5 14.fxe5 �g5 15. �d2 lIadS 16.tLle2 �e7 17 .tLlf4 t'teS lS . .l:.ae1 ffi 19.exffi 'uxffi 20.e4 t in Newerovski - Konovalcev, Po­dolsk 1993 White took over the initiative) 14.g4 g6 (or 14 . . . �b6 15. t'te2 lIadS 16.'uad1 g6 17 .�h1 kg7 lS.h3± De Souza - Mousa, Baguio City 1987 when IS . . . ffi?! could have been refuted by 19. tLlxg6! tLlxg6 20.f5 tLlh4 2 1 .fxe6 t'txe6 22.e4 tLlxg2 23.�xg2 dxe4 and now the point 24.d5 ! t'tb6 25 .tLlxe4±) 1 5 . t'tf3 ( 1 5 .e4 from Pashikian - Schreiber, Tallinn 1997 is ill-timed, due to 15 . . . dxe4 16.ttJxe4 �g7 17.tLlc5 kxg4!oo and Black is OK. ) 15 . . . iLg7 16.lIad1:t White has a small but lasting advantage. The game G. Flear -Ballan, Creon 1 9 9 7 went on 16 . . . ffi? which turned out to be losing after 17 .tLlxg6! tLlxg6 lS.f5 tLlh4 19. t'tg3 tLlxg2 20.fxe6 tLlxe3 21. t'txe3+-.

12.tLlxc6 bxc6 13 . .1Lxe7 t'txe7 14.b3!

As we already noted in a previous comment, this pawn

65

Chapter 4

break is an important step in White's plan.

14 ... ltJb6 White has to retain control of

c4. In case of 14 . . . cxb3 White should play, of course, 15.axb3! (worse is 15 .ftxb3 liabS 16.ftc2 as in Tukmakov - J ohannsson, Reykjavik 1976 when Black could transfer his knight to c4 with the help of 16 . . . ltJb6=). Now after 1 5 . . . ftb4 ( 1 5 . . . ,UfbS 16 . ftc2 a5 17.ltJa4 �d6 l S.'ufc1 g6 19.ftxc6 �xc6 20,lhc6 lixb3 21.1!d6 ctJf6 22 .ltJc5 .:tb2 23 . ctJxe6 fxe6 24 . .th3± Dumitrache - Berges , Trignac 2001 led Black t o big problems and 15 . . . .tf5 16.ltJa4 .:tfcS 17. ftd2 h5 lS.'ufc1 h4 19.1!c3 ctJf6 20.ctJc5;!; also leaves White an

advantage, Nutu Gajic - Voiska, Jajce 19S6) 16. �c2 .:tfbS 17 . .:tfb1 a5 (if 17 . . . g6 then l S.'ua4 ftb6 19. fta2 .tf5 20J:tb2 ii.d3 21..:td2 .tf5 22.b4 �c7 23.'ud1 ftd6 24. b5!± and in the game Lautier -Koch, Besancon 1 9 9 9 White broke through Black's defence on the queenside) lS . .tfl h6 19 .1tJa4 .:tcS 20 . .:tc1 .:tabS 21 ..:tab 1 .:taS 22.h4 �d6 23 . .td3 .tg4 24 . .th7+ WhS 25 . .tf5 .txf5 26. �xf5 WgS 27 . ctJc5 ctJxc5 2S .I!.xc5;!; in the game G. Flear - Berges, Creon 2001 Black is saddled with un­pleasant defence . He has to protect two targets - the pawns on a5 and c6 while White risks only the b3-pawn.

15.bxc4 After 15 .�c2 ftd7!? 16 . .:tfc1

.th3 17 . .txh3 �xh3 IS. bxc4 ctJxc4

66

19.e4 'uadS 20.exd5 cxd5=, Ma­ghami - Grischuk, Moscow (mil) 2001 White had nothing left but to sign a draw.

15 ... ltJxc4 16:�a4!? The transfer of the knight to

c5 is not to be recommended since after 16.ltJa4 .:tabS 17.ltJc5 l:!.b2 lS.ltJd3 I!.d2 19. �b3 .tg4 20.l:!.fe1 ftf6 21 .'uac1 g5� which occurred in the game A. Petrosian - Egin, Tallinn 19S5 Black occupied the second rank and started a coun­terattack on the kingside.

16 ... ctJb6 After 16 . . J:tacS 1 7 JUc 1 f5

lS.�d1 g5 19 .1tJe2 ':'bS 20 . .:tc3 ! ii.f7 2 1 . ctJ c 1 .:tb6 2 2 . ctJd3;!; in contrast to the previous example the transfer of the knight to c5 promises White the edge, Dudas - Bock, Budapest 2000.

17. fta6 ii.f5 18.a4;!;

In the game Matamoros - 1. Rogers, Las Palmas 1995 White stays better because ofthe back­ward black pawn on c6 .

c5b2) 9 ... ii.e6 B lack i s waiting for the

White's plan, meanwhile rein­forcing the central pawn.

l.tDf3 dS 2.(jA e6 3.c4 cS 4. cd ed S.tDc3 tDc6

lO.dxc5 White chooses to play against

an isolated pawn. Waiting any more with 10.lIc1 does not help much because Black is ready with 10 . . . c4! and to 11 .ttJe5 there is 1 1 . . .':cS!? setting a trap - 12.f4? 12 . . . ttJxd4!

lO ... .i.xc5 1l .I:tcl!? The game for the World title

T. Petrosian - Spas sky, Moscow (m116) 1969 attracted attention to the endgame occurring after 1 1..�.xf6 11 . . .\�hffi 12.ttJxd5 t'fxb2 13 .tDc7 ItadS 14. t'fc1 t'fxc1 15. lIaxclt Summing up the practice from the following years we can ascertain that White is slightly better. However converting such a small plus into a point is very difficult. This is the reason why lately the focus turned to the move in the main line.

1 l . . . .i.b6 If 1 1 . . . .i.e7 12 .ttJd4 leads to

c5a - see the notes to move 10. l2.b3! White is planning to capture

the d5-pawn after an exchange on ffi. So he moves out of reach the b2-pawn.

l2 . . . d4 After 1 2 . . . h6 13 .�xffi t'fxffi

14.tDxd5 .ltxd5 15. t'fxd5 White wins a pawn since 15 . . . '�b2 is met by 16.t'fd2±. In case of12 .. J::lcS J. Piket proposes 13.�xffi �xffi 14.tDxd5 �xd5 15. t'fxd5 �b2 16. t'fd2 t'fxd2 17.tDxd2 ttJd4 lS . .i.f3±.

After 1 2 . . . tDb4 1 3 . a3 ttJc6 14.b4 a6 White forced a better endgame with 15.e3! d4 16.ttJe4 dxe3 1 7 .tDxf6 + gxf6 l S . .ltxe3 �xd1 1 9 J Hx d 1 .txe3 2 0 . fxe3 ItfdS 21 .ttJd4 tDxd4 22.lIxd4 ':'xd4 2 3 . exd4± Adla - Stripunsky, Internet 2001.

Another possibility is 12 . . . lIeS 13.e3! (creating the threat 14 . .ltxffi followed by 15. ttJxd5) 13 . . . ttJb4 (after 1 3 . . . Ii.cS 1 4 . �xf6 gxf6 15.ttJa4 t'fd6 16.ttJxb6 axb6 17.�d2 t'fa3 lS.ttJd4 ttJxd4 19.':xcS I!xcS 2 0 . t'fxd4 �xa2 2 1 .�xd5 lIdS 22.e4± Adamski - Espig, Leipzig 1977 Black has many pawn weak­nesses, if 13 . . . d4, then 14.ttJxd4 ttJxd4 1 5 . exd4 �xd4 1 6 . �xd4 .ltxd4 17.ttJb5 .tb6 lS . .txffi gxffi 19.ttJc7 .ltxc7 20.I!.xc7± in Tischer - Bachmayr, Bayern 1995 Black got into a difficult endgame and in case of 1 3 " . �g4 14.h3 �e6 15 .�xffi �xffi 16.ttJxd5 �b2 17. I!c2 t'fa3 18.ttJxb6 axb6 19.ttJd4± which occurred in P. Nielsen -Hartung Nielsen, Denmark 2000 Black is a pawn down without any compensation) 14.a3 (after 14.ttJd4 h6 15.�xffi �xffi 16.a3 ttJc6 1 7 .ttJxd5 �xd5 l S . �xd5 ttJxd4 19.exd4 .l:.e7t in Rubinstein - Em. Lasker, Berlin 1915 White won a pawn but the opposite coloured bishops does not pro-

67

Chapter 4

mise much) 14 . . . ttJc6 15.b4 ti'd6 16 .i.xf6 gxf6 17 .ttJa4 ttJe5. In Adamski - Grabczewski, Lodz 1968 deserved attention 1 8 . ttJxb6!? axb6 (if 18 . . . ti'xb6, then 19 .ttJd4;t) 19 .ttJd4;t with some advantage since 19 . . . 1ha3?? fails to the obvious 20.ttJb5+-.

13.ttJe4 Black pushed the isolated

pawn one step but in return White obtained a chance to da­mage the kingside structure of the opponent.

13 . . . ti'e7 13 . . . i.d5 as in the game Izsak

- Stripunsky, Internet (active) 2002 would allow White to win a pawn with 14.ttJfd2! l:.e8 15 . ttJxf6+ gxf6 1 6 . i.xf6 ti'xf6 17 . i.xd5±. Also dubious is 13 . . . l:.e8 14.ttJxf6+ gxfB 15.i.h6 i.g4 16. ti'd2;t when Black's kingside is too weak, Browne - Strauss, Lone Pine 1979.

14.ttJh4!? A subtle move . White pre­

vents the transfer of Black's bishop to b1-h7 diagonal where it would cement the kingside holes . Less convincing is 14. ttJxfB+ gxfB 15.i.h4 l:.ad8 16. ti'd2 �g7 17.l:!.fd1 i.f5;t in Nogueiras

68

- Vera, Cienfuegos 1983 allowing the above-mentioned transfer.

14 ... �h8 15.i.xf6 gxf6 16. ti'd2 ttJe5

16 . . . f5? loses to 17. ti'h6! fxe4 18.i.xe4 f5 19.ttJg6+-.

17.ti'h6 After 17 . ti'f4 ttJg6 18 . ti'xfB+

ti'xf6 1 9 . ttJ xf6 ttJ xh4 2 0 . gxh4 l:!.ab8� White's extra pawn on h­file is doubled and can be ne­glected.

17 ... ttJg6 18.ti'h5 .l:tad8 In case of 18 . . . ttJxh4 19. ti'xh4

�g7 White has the strong 20.g4! creating the dangerous threat ttJg3-h5�.

19.ttJf5 i.xf5 20. tftxf5 �g7 21.a4t

White possesses the initiative thanks to the weak kingside. (Korchnoi - Piket, Nijmegen (m! 3) 1993)

Chapter 5 l.tDf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.tDc3 tDc6 6.g3 tDf6 7 . .i.g2 .i.e7 8.0-0 0-0 9 . .i.g5 cxd4

Black creates himself an iso­lated pawn in the hope of ob­taining a good piece play.

1O.cuxd4 White's knight is a stable

blocker of the isolated d5-pawn. 10 ... h6 10 . . . �e6 1 1 .Mc1 transposes to

variation c5a (see the note to White's move 10) with the move order 8 . . . �e6 9.dxc5 �xc5 10.i.g5 �e7 1 1 .ctJd4 0-0 12.Mcl.

After 10 . . . l:!.e8 1 l .l:!.c1 i.g4 ( 1 1 . . .h6 12.ke3 leads to the main line) 12.h3 ke6 (in case of 12 . . . kd7 the prophylactic �h2 fails, in view of ctJg4, the correct move being 13.e3!? h6 14.kxffi �xffi 15. ctJde2 ke6 16.ctJxd5 i.xb2 17.l:!.b1 ke5 18 .ttJef4 �c8 19. �c2 �a5 20.Mfd l;!;) 13 .�a4 (the knight's trade only reinforces Black's centre - 1 3 . ctJxe6 fxe6 14.�b3

�d7 15.l:!.fd1 �h8 16.�a4 J:.ad8 1 7 . � e 3 .td6= Peelen - Van Laatum, Groningen 1990) 13 . . . ctJxd4 14. � xd4 �d7 1 5 . h4 (if 15.'it>h2 then Black can exploit the placement of White's bishop on g5 by 15 . . . ttJg4+ 16.hxg4 .txg5 17.e3 .tffiro as in Konopka - Efler, Pardubice 1996) 1 5 . . . b6 ( after 15 . . . h6 16.i.f4 ctJh5 17 . .te5 f6 18 . .tf4 ttJxf4 19.9xf4 f5 20.ctJxd5 �xd5 21 .�xd5+ �xd5 22 . .txd5+ �h7 23.h5± in the game Lukacs - Vajda, Budapest 1994 Black is a pawn down, not any better turned to be also 15 . . . 'uac8 16. �xa7 l:!.c4 17 .b3±, Stohl - Leski, Portoroz 1998) 16 .l:!.fd1 h6 1 7 . �e3;j;: Magerramov - Dumitra­che, Baku 1988. White retained an advantage. Black has nothing to oppose to White's pressure on d5.

1 1..i.e3 Retreating on e3, White bol­

sters up his knight in the centre. 1 l .. Jite8 Black prefers to refrain from

going on g4 at once. In case of 1 1 . . . .i.g4 it is possible 1 2 . �a4 ttJa5 (a key factor is that Black cannot set the battery along c8-

69

Chapter 5

h3 diagonal with 12 . . .. �d7 since 1 3 . ..Itxd5 ! lLlxd5 1 4 . lLlxd5 ..Itd8 15 .lLlxc6 bxc6 16.lLlc3 ..Itb6 1 7 . .l:.fd1 �c8 18 . ..Itxb6 axb6 19.�f4 ..Ite6 20.b3± is in White's favour, Lastin - V. Potkin, Moscow 1999 and 12 . . . lLle5 could be followed by 13.�ad1 lLlc4 14.i.c1 reaching the same position as after 12 . . . lLla5) 13 .IIad1 lLlc4 14.i.c1 �c8 (after 14 . . . lLlb6 15.�b3 �d7 16.i.e3 ..Itc5 White has the tactical dodge 1 7 . lLl e 6 ! �xe6 1 8 . i.xc5 1!fd8 19 . .l:.fe1 .l:.d7 20.i.xb6 �xb6 21 . �xb6 axb6 22J:td4 i.e6 23 . .l:.edl± with an obvious strategical ad­vantage, Vadasz - Szilagyi, Hun­gary 1974). Now follows 15 .�b5! lLlb6 16 . ..Itf4 .l:.d8 (16 . . . i.h3 in the game Cvitan - Zelcic, Forli 1993 could run into 17 . ..Itxh3 !? �xh3 18.i.c7 i.d8 19.i.xb6 i.xb6 20. lLlf3 d4 2 1 .lLla4 .l:.fd8 22.lLlxb6 axb6 23.a3± and Black is about to lose his d-pawn) 17 . .l:.c1 �d7 18.�xd7 .l:.xd7, Kasparov - Palat­nik, Moscow 198 1 . White suc­cessfully traded off queens and could seal his advantage with 19 . .l:.fdU.

12.1'tc1

A thematic move. Here is the

70

best place for White's rook. Now Black is on the crossroads:

a) 12 . . . .tg4 and b) 12 . . . .tfB.

12 ... .tg4 Black intends to set up a

battery along c8-h3 with the move 13 . . . �d7, trading off bi­shops in the appropriate moment by i.h3.

13.h3 Impeding Black's plot. The

bishop has to make choice again. 13 . .. .te6 13 . . . ..Ith5 is risky, due to 14.

lLlf5 .tf8 (clearly bad proved to be 14 . . . �d7?! 15 .lLlxe7+ lLlxe7 16 . i.d4 lLle4 when a simple strike decided the outcome - 17.i.xg7! 'iiitxg7 1 8 .lLlxe4+- Norwood -Mack, Plymouth 1989 while 14 . . . i.b4 as in the game C . Becker - P. Horvath, St. Veit 1998 should be met by 1 5 .lLlxd5 lLlxd5 1 6 . i.xd5 i.xe2 17.i.xf7± and i n case of 14 . . . i.g6 15.lLlxe7+ lLlxe7, Van der Hurk - Van Ginkel, Holland 1996 White had a promising 16. �b3!? with the idea 17 . .l:::tfdl±) 15 .g4 !? (probably better than 1 5 . lLlxd5 lLlxd5 16 .i.xd5 �f6 17.g4 i.g6 18 . .l:.xc6 bxc6 19.i.d4, Campos Moreno - Castro, Lalin 1994 when 19 . . . Ite5 !± could hold the position) 15 . . . i.g6 16.lLlxd5 i.xf5 (after 16 . . . lLlxd5 17 .�xd5 �f6 1 8 . �b5± in C azzaniga -Ruzzier, Bratto 1998 Black is a pawn down) 17 .gxf5 lLlxd5 18 . �xd5 �f6 19.�b3 lLla5 20 . �c2±, Sub a - Torres Kuckel, Suances 1997. White is a pawn ahead.

6.g3 tDf6 7.i..g2 iLe7 8.0-0 0-0 9. iLg5 cxd4 10.tDd4

14:�a4 Clearing d1-square for the

rook and pressing at the same time on Black's knight.

14 . . . tM7 An obvious mistake would be

to trade knights on d4. After 14 . . . lLlxd4?! 15.iLxd4 lLle4 16.lLlxe4 dxe4 17Jlfd1 iLd7 1B.�b3 iLg5 19.e3 b6 20.h4 iLe6 21 .�c2 iLffi 22. �xe4+- in Stohl - Grant, Isle of Man 1995 White won a pawn too easily. Perhaps it is worth mentioning once again that in positions with an isolated d5-pawn the exchanges (especially of the knights) , are in White's favour.

Let us return to the position after White's move 14. If Black decides to transfer the knight to c4 starting with 14 . . . lLla5 like in Lutz - Demuth, Germany 19BB, it would be possible 15 .l1cd1 a6 (15 . . . lLlc4? loses to 16.ctJxe6 fxe6 17.lLlxd5! exd5 1B.iLxd5+ t'txd5 1 9 . 11xd5 lLlxe3 2 0 . fxe3 lLlxd5 21 .�b3 l1adB 22 . .l:tf5! +-) 16.i.c1 b5 (if 16 . . . 11cB then 17. t'tc2 b5 1 B . lLlxe6 fxe6 19 . �g6t threa­tening 20.iLxh6) 17 . t'tc2 b4 lB. lLlxe6 (in case of 1B.ctJa4 White has to reckon with 1B . . . iLd7oo) 1B . . . fxe6 19.1Lla4t. Black should be all the time wide awake for a possible intrusion of White's queen on g6 or a breakthrough e2-e4.

With a similar goal is the move 14 . . . lLle5?! . Nevertheless it is not precise. After 15 . .l:tcd1 a6 (bad is 15 . . . iLd7, due to 16.�b3

iLc6 17.lLlf5±, 15 . . . �cB meets the simple 16.'it'h2t) White possesses a very strong reply 16.iLf4! when the natural 16 . . . lLlc4?! (or 16 . . . lLlg6 17.iLc1!± and 16 . . . b5 17.�c2 ttJc4 1B.e4±) in Avrukh - Shmuter, Israel 1997 could have been refuted by 1 7 . lLlxe6 ! fxe6 l B . lLlxd5 ! exd5 ( 1 B . . . lLl x d 5 1 9 . t'txc4+- or 1 B . . . lLlxb2 19.1Llxffi+ iLxf6 2 0 . l1xdB lLlxa4 2 1 . .l:txaB 'uxaB 22.iLxb7 l1a7 23.iLcB 'it'f7 24. iLe3 l1c7 2 5 . iLxa6 .l:tc2 2 6 . lIb1+-) 19.iLxd5+ �xd5 (if 19 . . . lLlxd5 then 20.�xc4+-) 20JIxd5 lLlb6 21 .t'tb3 tDbxd5 22.e4!+-.

Retreating in an ambush by 14 . . . Sl.d7 is not very logical since Black is moving for a third time in a row with the same piece. After 15 .lIfd1 ctJb4 16. �b3 a5 17.lLlxd5!? lLlfxd5 (if 17 . . . a4 then 1B .lLlxe7+ �xe7 19 . �a3±) l B . Sl.xd5 lLlxd5 C 1B . . . a4 Ioses i n view of 19.iLxf7+ 'it'f8 20.lLle6+ iLxe6 21 . t'txe6+-) 19. �xd5 iLxh3 20. t'txb7 t'tbB (20 . . . l1bB could be met by 2 1 . � h 1 ! �d7 22 .lLlc6 Sl.xc6 23.l1xdB iLxh1 24.'uxeB+ 'uxeB 25. 'it'xhl± with an extra pawn) 21 . t'tf3 'ua6 (but not 2 1 . . . t'txb2? 22 . g4+-) 22.b3 (wrong is 22.g4? due to 22 . . . iLxg4 2 3 . �xg4 ,Ug6-+) 22 . . . iLa3 (or 22 . . . l1ffi 23. t'th5±) 23. iLf4 t'taB (loses 23 . . . �dB? in view of 24.lLlb5+) 24 .t'txaB l1axaB 25. .uc4± in the game Spas sky - Mar­tin Gonzalez, Salamanca 1991 the bishop pair cannot compen­sate for the missing pawn.

15.'it>h2 On move 12 Black started a

71

Chapter 5

plan, aiming to create a Q+B battery along the cB-h3 diagonal. If we look at the position it seems that he carried out his intention but such a conclusion would be perfunctory. The main idea be­hind the construction was to occupy h3, exchanging the strong white bishop or to exert pressure on e2 from g4. It is obvious that Black achieved none of these objectives. There is, however, another factor to reckon with. If now White chooses the plan with 15.ltJxe6 fxe6 16 . .s.fd1 .ifSoo as in Konopka - Stettler, Germany 1992 Black has a good game. The attentive reader probably noticed already the difference in com­parison to variation c5a, Chapter 4. There White was taking on e6, obtaining a nice play mainly thanks to the manoeuvre .ig2-h3. In our case such a possibility is out of question. So the final diagnose is: provoking White's pawn on h3, Black deprived his opponent of an important plan in the fight for opening advantage.

15 ... a6 After 15 ... .s.acB 16J:Jd1 Med8

(in case of 16 ... a6 17.ltJb3 b5 1B.�xa6 MaB 19.�xb5 l1eb8 20. �d3 ltJb4 21.�d2 ltJxa2 22.l1a1 .s.xb3 23Jha2 .s.xa2 24.ltJxa2 �b7 25.�d4±, Van der Sterren - Ja­kel, Antwerp 1999 Black misses a pawn without compensation) 17.a3 �eB 18.�b5 Md7 19.ltJa4 a6 20. �b3 ltJa5, Huster - Cooke, Dortmund 1993. White could achieve a bishop pair's advantage

72

with 21.l:txcB �xcB 22.ltJb6 ltJxb3 23.ltJxcB ltJxd4 24.ltJxe7+ lhe7 25 . .ixd4±.

16.ltJxc6 A change of plans. The di­

rection of the main strike moves from the isolated d5-pawn to the backward c6-pawn.

To 16.lUd1 was possible 16 ... b5 17. �c2 ItacB (intending b4 or ltJe5-c4) as in the game Junquera - Martinez, Spain 1990. After the further moves 1B.ltJxc6 !lxc6 19.a3 J:tc4� Black obtains a real counterplay.

16 ... bxc617J:!.fd1 �b7 After 17 ... J:tabB 18.b3 .if5

19 . .1f4 Ub6 very strong is 20.e4! J:tb4 21.�xa6 ltJxe4, A. Greenfeld - Shmuter, Israel 1996 and now 22.ltJxe4! �xe4 23. �xc6+- would ensure White a decisive advan­tage. In case of 17 ... .if5 1B.i.d4 �e6 19.e3 !lecB 20.ltJe2! (in­tending 21.ltJf4) 20 ... g5, Vadasz­Nor, Budapest 1997 White should blockade at once the pawn on c6 with 21...I1.c5±.

1B.i.d4 .l:!.adB After 1B ... ltJd7 19.e4 ItedB

20.exd5 cxd5 21. �a5 i.b4 22. i.xd5 i.xa5 23.i.xb7 l1ab8 24. i.xa6 l1xb2 in 1. Novikov -Schwaegli , Bern 1994 25.a3!?± deserved attention. In the future White's distant passed pawn on a-file could play an important role.

19.e4!± (diagram)

Aiming to break the pawn's pair in the centre. After 19 ... dxe4

6.g3 tiJf6 7.i..g2 i.e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.i..g5 cxd4 1O.tiJd4

20.tiJxe4 tiJxe4 2 1 .SLxeM the bet­ter pawn structure (two pawn is­lands to three! ) promises White an advantage. In the source game Jelen - Susnik, Kranj 1999 Black made a mistake - 19 . . . c5? losing a pawn after 20.SLxffi SLxffi 21. exd5 SLf5 22.�d2 SLd4 23.�c4 �e5 24.tiJa4+.

b) 12 . . . i..fB

13.tiJa4!? White moves his knight to­

ward c5 refraining from an ex­change on c6. If he switches to a play against the pair c6+d5 with 13 .tiJxc6 bxc6 14.tiJa4 Black can struggle for equality with 14 . . . �e6!? 15.tiJc5 (after 15 .SLc5 tiJe4 16.SLxfS �xfS 17 . �d4 .Jta6 lB. �c2, 1 . Novikov - Dittmar, Bad Wiessee 1999 deserved attention 1B . . . .t!bB!? 19.�xa7 l:.aB 20.'!';'fd4

i.b5 2 1 .b3 SLxa4 22.bxa4 l1a6 23.l:tb1 �aB 24.J:!.cb2 �eB= when Black wins back the temporarily sacrificed pawn) 15 . . . SLxc5 16.lhc5 �eB 1 7 . � d 3 a5 1 B JHc1 SLa6 19.�c3 SLb5 20.SLd4 a4 21 .SLxffi .l::!.xffi 22.e3 l:tbB= as in 1. Novikov - Ivanchuk, Lvov 19BB.

Another common plan is 13. �a4!? Usually follows 13 . . . tiJe5 (after 13 . . . SLd7 14.tiJxd5 tiJxd5 15.SLxd5 tiJa5 16 .tiJb5 a6 White escapes the pinning by 17. �f4!±) 14.�cd1 tiJc4 (in case of 14 . . . SLd7 1 5 . �b3 SLc6 16 .tiJxc6 bxc6 1 7 . SL d4;t in M . Gurevich - Tal , Manila 1990 White's chances were better) 15 .SLc1ao.

Now the main branches are: b1) 13 . . . tiJg4, b2) 13 . . . �a5 and b3) 13 . . . i..d7.

A bad reputation has the move 13 . . . tiJ e 5 ? ! followed by 14.tiJb5 tiJc4 (if 14 . . . tiJc6 then 1 5.SLf4!±) 1 5 .SLd4 (threatening 1 6 . SLxf6 and 1 6 . b 3 ) 1 5 . . . SLg4 1 6 . tiJac3 tiJe5 ( after 1 6 . . . �cB 17.tiJxa7 �aB 1B.tiJab5+- in Jelen - Susnik, Bled 2000 Black lost a pawn) 17.tiJxa7 tiJc6 1B.tiJxc6 bxc6 19.h3 .Jtf5 20.a3± and in the game Sharif - V. Akobian, Abudhabi 2000 White won a pawn.

The move 13 . . . tiJxd4?! after 14.SLxd4 tiJe4 (in case of 14 . . . SLg4 could follow 15.:e1 SLb4 16.tiJc3 SLxc3 17.SLxc3 tiJe4 1B.SLd4± A. Mueller - Weiss, Wuerttemberg 1992) 15.tiJc3 tiJxc3 16.SLxc3 .fi.e6 17 . �d4 �d7 1B.e3 b6 19 . .t!fd 1 l:.adB 20.l:.d2 �c6 21 .�cdl ± led the game Linn - Kueng, E ast

73

Chapter 5

Lansing 1995 to a classical si­tuation with an isolated d5-pawn. After the exchange of the knight pair on the board remained only linear pieces (queens, rooks and bishops ) . I n such p ositions White's advantage is particularly pronounced.

Chess history is rich with examples on this theme. Let us step aside for a while and follow a game from the chess treasury­house, which is a splendid illustration of how to treat such positions and why to avoid them when playing with the isolated pawn.

Karpov - Spassky Montreal 1979

28. f1h5! a6 29.h3 f1c6 30. Wh2 f1b5 31. f4 f6 32. f1d1 f1c6 33.g4 g5 34. Wh1 a5 35. f5 �f7 36.e4! rJi;g7 37.exd5 White exploited the pinning along the d-file winning a pawn and later the game.

hI) 13 • • • lUg4 14.lUxc6 Reconstructing the pawn

structure in the centre . This decision is more or less forced since 14 . .1i.f4 cost White the initiative after 14 . . . g5! ? 15.lUxc6

74

bxc6 16.ii.d2 ii.a6 17J:te1 f1f6t in Brancaleoni - Casadei, Cesena­tico 2000.

14 ... hxc6 15.ii.c5 Organising the blockade on

the dark squares a la Nimzo­witsch. Even the least delay would allow Black to equalise. For instance, after 15 .ii.d4 ii.a6 16.l::.c2 (in case of 16.il.f3 f1d7 17 .lUc5 ii.xc5 1B.l::.xc5 lUe5 19 . il.g2 �g4 20 .l:le1 the tactical strike 20 . . . lUd3! 21 .exd3 as in the game Renaze - Konings, Lugano 19B9 should lead to full equality - 2 1 . . J:i.xe1+ 22.f1xe1 �xd4 23. l::.xc6 �xd3 24 . .1i.xd5 �xd5 2 5 . l:lxa6 f1b5=) 1 6 . . . f1a5 17.b3 .uacB 1B . .1i.c5 lUf6 19.1:le 1 as in Sum­merscale - Pullinger, St. Helier 2000 Black had a strong ma­noeuvre 19 . . . .1i.d3! 20J:tc1 .1i.e4=.

15 ... ii.a6 After 15 . . . ii.xc5 16.lUxc5 f1f6

(more accurate but also insuf­ficient is 16 . . . f1a5 1 7 . a3 f1b5 1B.lUd3 .1i.f5 19. b4 'uacB 20.':c5 f1bB 2 1 . �d2 lUf6 22.':fc1 �d6 23.lUf4;!;, Terasti - Luodonpaa, Oulu 1997 when White's grip over the dark squares promises him the edge) White has the interesting 17 .h3 ! ? (the imme­diate 17 .e4 led to equality after 17 . . . dxe4 1B.ii.xe4 ii.f5 19.�xf5 f1xf5 20 .l:tc4 lUe5 2 1 .':f4 �g6 22.lUd7 lUxd7 2 3 . �xd7 ':adB 24. f1xa7 :&laB 2 5 . f1d4 l:txa2 = , Fahnenschmidt - L . Arnold, Germany 1999) 17 . . . lUe5 1B.e4! l::.bB?! (Black should probably admit a slightly inferior position

6.g3 li.Jf6 7. i..g2 i..e7 8.0-0 0-0 9. i..g5 cxd4 10.li.Jd4

after 1 8 . . . dxe4 19.1i.Jxe4;!;) 19.b3 l:tb5 20 .exd5 cxd5 2 1 .l:!.e1 ! (2 1 . �e2 proved inaccurate, due to 2 1 . . .I!.xc5! 22.I!.xc5 i..a6 23:�d1 i..xfl 24.'it'xfl �a6+ 25.'it'gl �xa2 26.i..xd5=, Vukic - Bukic, Banja Luka 1979 with a draw) 2 1 . . .g5 (Black is strategically worse after 2 1 . . .�d6 22.li.Je4 �d8 23.li.Jc3± or 2 1 . . . �d8 2 2 . a4 l:tb6 23 . �d4± while in case of21 . . .i..xh3 22Jtxe5 l:!.xe5 2 3 .i..xh3± the two light pieces outweigh Black's rook and pawn) 22.�xd5 i..b7 (after 22 . . . i..xh3 23.li.Je4 �b6 24.li.Jf6+ �f8 25.lhe5 .l:i.xe5 26.�a8+ 'it'g7 27. li.Jh5+ 'it>h7 28.i..xh3+- White has a decisive material advantage) 23 .li.Je4 li.Jf3+ 24. 'it>h1 l:txe4 25. �xb5 li.Jxe 1 2 6 . �xb7± in the game Timman - Gligoric, Niksic 1978 Black did not obtain enough compensation for the pawn.

16 . .l:te1 The careless 16 .i..xf8?! ran

into 1 6 . . . i.. xe2 1 7 . �d4 'it'xf8 18.l:!.fe1 �f6 19.�c5+ 'it'g8 20.h3 i..b 5 2 1 .li.Jc3 l2Je5+, Fischer -Chow, USA 1996. Harmless is 16.i..f3, due to 16 . . . l2Je5 17.i..g2 l2Jg4oo, Moody - Kueng, East Lan­sing 1995.

16 ... i..xc5 After 16 . . . � f6 1 7 .i..d4 �g6

18.h3 l2Je5 19.1i.Jc5 i..xc5 20.l:!.xc5 i..b7 (terminal is 20 . . . nab8 2l .b3 ne7 22 . .l:i.a5! i..c8 23 . .l:!.xa7 �xa7 24.i..xa7 .l:i.a8 25.i..d4+- Szuha­nek - N eelakantan, Calcutta 1 99 9 ) 2 1 . l:!.a 5 a6 , C hardin -Bakus, Paris 1999 White could face his opponent with big

problems with 22.e4!±. 1 7.li.Jxc5 �f6 18.i.f3 .1c8

19.�a4;\;

This position is from the game Piscicelli - Penafiel, Mar del Pla­ta 1994. The unhappy 19 . . . h5?! led Black to difficulties after 20.li.Jd3!± since 20 . . . i..d7 fails to 2 l .i..xd5! .The other defence 19 . . . �g6 also promises White a better game - 20.li.Jd3 i..d7 2 l.li.Jf4 (2l. i..xd5 �h5!oo) 2 1 . . .�f5 22.e4 dxe4 23.i..xe4±. Black should be con­stantly on the watch for his queenside pawns.

b2) 13 . . . �a5

14.li.Jxc6 Resorting to tactics in the

pursuit of advantage. 14 . . . bxc6 15Jlxc6! White is falling into the trap.

75

Chapter 5

The timid 1 5.b3 allowed Black in Vadasz - J. Pribyl, Trnava 1981 after 1 5 . . . �b5 16. �c2 i.d7 17. liJc3 �b4 18 Jlfd1 to obtain an excellent game by the help of an exchange sacrifice - 18 . . . �xe3! 19.fxe3 liJg4 20.I:td4 �e7�.

15 ... i.d7 White's rook and knight are

hanging along the a4-e8 dia­gonal. However it is his turn.

16.i.d2! Attack is the best method of

defence.

16 ... i.h4 In case of retreat 16 . . . �b5

very attractive is the sacrifice 17Jhffi! gxffi (if Black rejects the gift by 17 . . . �xa4 18. �xa4 i..xa4 19 .'uf5 i..d7 20.l:!.xd5 i..c6 2 U:!.a5 i..xg2 22.'it'xg2 l1xe2 23.i..c3 g6 24.'it'f3+- in the game P. Wells ­Keller, Regensburg 1997 Black is a pawn down with hopeless position for compensation. ) 18. liJc3 18 . . . �xb2 (probably more chances for salvation offered 18 . . . �a6 19.1iJxd5 l:!.ac8 20.i..c3 i.g7 occurring in the game Vi­darte - Lacasa Diaz, Spain 1996 though 21 .e3!?± also would give White an advantage) 19 .1iJxd5

76

�ac8 (19 . . . i.g7 loses in view of 20.liJc3+-) 20.i.c3 l:[xc3 21.liJxffi+ 'it'g7 (21 . . .'it'h8 loses to 22.�xd7 l1e7 23. �f5+- as in Strauss -King, Brighton 1984) 22. �d4 �e6 (after 22 . . . l1xe2 23.liJxd7+ 'it'g8 24.liJffi+ 'it'h8 25.liJe4+ i..g7 26. �d8+ 'it'h7 27.liJxc3 i.xc3 28.�d7 i.g7 29. �xf7 �xa2 30.i.e4+! 'it'h8 3 1 .i.d5+- and Black resigned, Volzhin - Grosar, Ljubljana 1992) 23 .liJxd7+ 'it'g8 24.liJf6+ l1xf6 25. �xffi l1c2 26. �f5 l1xe2 27.i..d5 l:te7 28.Ii.b 1 �g7 2 9 . l:tb8 �g5 30.�f3+- Hollermann - B. Don­ner, Heiden 1987.

Finally 16 .. . �d8 can be met by 17J:tc1 �b8 18.i.c3 i..xa4 (after 1 8 . . . i..b 5 1 9 J 1 e 1 d4 2 0 . i..xd4 i..xa4 21.�xa4 11b4 22.i..xffi �xffi 23.�xe8+- White won, Stummer - Srienz, Aschach 1992) 19. �xa4 .uxe2 20. �a6 l:te7 2 1 .i..xffi gxffi 22.b3±.

17.ltc5 Another strike. 17 ... i.xa4 After 1 7 . . . �xa4 1 8 . �xa4

i.xa4 19.i..xb4 'uxe2 White has only to repel Black's rook out of the second rank. The best way to achieve it is 20 .'ua5 !? i.. c6 (or 20 . . . i..e8 21 .i..c3 11d8 22.i..f3 'ue7 23.i..xffi gxffi 24.1:.xd5 .uxd5 25. i..xd5 l1e2 26.l1c1+- and White won, Ginting - Frois, Novi Sad 1990) 21 .b3 .uc2 (following 21 . . . .ub8 2 2 . i..f3 Uc2 2 3 . i.. d 1 U c 1 24.i..d2 l1b1 i n Franco Alonso -Garcia Roman, La Algaba 2001 White could cope with the in­vader by means of 25.i..e2! lIb2

6.g3 t{jf6 7.�g2 �e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.�g5 cxd4 10.t{jd4

26 . .t f4 l:tb7 27 . .td3! +- threa­tening 2 8 . .t c 1 ) 2 2 . l:tc 5 l:txc5 23 . .txc5 ctJe4 24.l:tc1 .tb5 25.i.e3 a6 and now in the game A . Greenfeld - Illescas Cordoba, Thessaloniki 1988 the move 26. f3 !?;t, driving off Black's knight, would best suit the requirements of the position.

1 8.1ba5 .i.xdl 1 9 . .txb4 .txe2 20.!tel a6

In case of 20 . . . l:tad8 21.l:lxa7 d4 2 2 . .t e 7 d 3 2 3 . .txd8 l:txd8 White can restrain the dangerous d-pawn with the manoeuvre 24 . .l:. e 7 ! ne8 2 5 J Ixe8+ ctJxe8 26 . .tc6 d2 27.l:la1 t{jc7 2B . .ta4+­as in Estremera Panos - Monclus Domingo, Barcelona 1988.

2 1..tf1!? White parts with the two

bishops but not entirely by his own will. Mter 21..tc3 Black has a strong reply - 2 1 . . . .tb5! li­miting the movements of the rook on a5 . The following exchange operation 22.l:lxe8+ lIxe8 23.a4 .tc4 24 . .tfl ctJe4 25 . .txc4 dxc4 2 6 .lIxa6 ctJxc3 2 7 . bxc3 � e 1 + 28.'it>g2 l:.c1= led to a draw rook endgame, Jurka - Antoshik, Czech Republic 1996. In case of 2 1 .lIc5 possible is 2 1 . . .l:tad8� threatening to push d-pawn.

2 1 . .. .txfl 22.�xe8+ lilxe8 23.'it>xf1±

(diagram) The resulting endgame could

be assessed in White's favour. His pieces are more active and in perspective he can obtain a distant passed pawn on the

queenside. Then the bishop will prove his advantage over the knight.

b3) 13 . . . .i.d7

14.ctJc5 Crossing the demarkation

line . 14 ... ctJa5 In Tarrasch Defence, as a rule,

Black's dark-squared bishop is very important. It should not be traded easily. For instance, 14 . . . .i.xc5 cannot b e recommended -15.l:lxc5 �b6 (after 15 . . . �e7 in Veingold - Kiik, Savonlinna 1996 a draw was agreed but 16. ti'cl;!; would give White better chances) 16. ti'c1 ctJe5 and now 17 .ctJf3!?;t would leave White some advan­tage. Note that 17 . .txd5 is worse, due to 17 . . . ctJeg4� and 17.ctJb3 encounters 17 . . . ti'a6°o, Baron

77

Chapter 5

Rodriguez - Frois , La Coruna 1996. Exchanging the knights in the centre is unlikely to solve Black's problems. After 14 . . . lZJxd4 15 . .i.xd4 .i.c6 (intending 16 . . . lZJe4) 16:�d3 lZJe4 17.lZJb3;!; White has a small but lasting advan­tage. 14 . . . lZJe5 allows 15 .lZJxd7 (but not 1 5 . lZJxb7? in view of 15 . . .' �b6 16.'�·b3 lZJc4 17 . .i.xd5 lZJxd5 IS. 'uxc4 .l:.ebS+ and white knight is doomed) 1 5 . . .' �xd7 16.b3;!; with a bishop pair.

15.b3 White is limiting the pro­

spects of the a5-knight, keeping it out of c4. After 15.lZJdb3 .i.b5!= Black has a good game.

15 .. .l:tcS If Black wants to keep the

light-squared bishop and plays 15 . . . .i.g4, then 16.h3 .i.h5 17.lZJd3 .i.g6 lS . .i.f4;!; and White has the upper hand.

16.lZJxd7 �xd7 17.�d3 lZJc6 The active 17 . . . lZJe4?! is du­

bious due to lS . .l:.xcS .l:.xc8 19.1ZJb5 lZJc5 20 . .i.xc5 .l:.xc5 21 .lZJxa7±.

lS.lZJxc6 In case of 18 . .l:.fd1 White has

to reckon with 18 . . . .i.a3!?oo when the rook is obliged to leave c-file. That is the reason for White to take on c6.

lS ... bxc6 19JIfdl �b7 After 19 . . . .i.d6 or 19 . . . .i.a3

White can play already 20.Ii:c2;!;. 20 . .i.c5 White is ready to part with the

two bishops in order to occupy the dark squares in the centre. 20.

78

.i.d4 allows 20 . . . lZJe4 21. .i.b2 a5� with a counterplay (noted by V. Kramnik).

20 ... i.xc5 21..l:r.xc5 �e7 2 1 . . .lZJe4 22 . .i.xe4 .lhe4 23 .

UdcU would doom Black to a long, exausting defence. If Black repels the rook on c5 by 21 . . .lZJd7 after 22.Uc2 lZJe5 23. �d4;!; White is better again.

22J:tc2 �a3 22 . . . Ii:ed8 could be met by

23 . �a6 'uc7 (23 . . . c5? loses to 24 . .i.xd5! +- while 23 . . . �d7 24. e3± does not solve the problem of defending the c6-pawn) 24.e3 c5 25 .'�a5t putting pressure on c5.

Probably the relatively best decision would be to venture into a position with hanging pawns by 22 . . . c 5 but after 2 3 . e3 'uedS 24.Ii:dc1;!; White has the edge.

23.e3;!;

This position was reached in Kramnik - Illescas C ordoba , Linares 1994. After 23 . . . Ii:ed8 (or 23 . . . a5? ! 24 . fta6±) the move 24. �f5 ! t created the threat 25 . .i.xd5 which allowed White to take over the initiative.

Part 2. QGD without 4 ... .ite7

1 .ttJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ttJf6

It is possible to get this po­sition with another move order: l .lLlf.3 d5 2 . d4 lLlf6 3 .c4 e6.

4.lLlc3 White increases the pressure

on the d5-square. Such systems and variations,

where Black wants to get an active counterplay already from

the first moves, will be examined below. Variation, beginning from 4 . . . lLlbd7, will be presented in Chapter 6. The move 4 . . . iLb4, leading to positions that are typical of the Westphalia Varia­tion, is examined in Chapter 7. Chapters 8 and 9 are devoted to keen positions that are cha­racteristic of the Vienna Varia­tion, which begins from 4 . . . dxc4. The move 4 . . . c5 , leading to the improved Tarrasch Defence, is examined in Chapters 10 and 1 1 . Positions , arising after 4 . . . c6 5 .iLg5, have already been exa­mined in appropriate part of Book IV.

79

Chapter 6 l.tiJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 tiJf6 4.tiJc3 tiJbd7

5.�g5 This is a traditional move for

most variations of the Queen's Gambit Declined. White takes out his dark-squared bishop in front of the pawns' fence, before playing e2-e3 .

N ow we will examine next two basic possibilities of playing for equalizing, which Black re­sorts to: a) 5 . . . i..b4 and b) 5 . . . h6. Another popular move -5 . . . c6 leads to the Cambridge Springs Defence, which has al­ready been examined in the Book IV.

a) 5 . . . i..b4 There is a story that this

variation was named after the ocean liner "Westphalia" where Grandmasters Spielmann and Vidmar analysed it on their way

80

to the New York tournament of 1927. Black has a lot of difficul­ties in this variation, that is why it is played rather rarely in mod­ern practice.

6.cxd5 exd5 7 :�c2! After a number of V. Kram­

nik's victories this move became very popular.

Now it is worth to examine Black's answers more minutely: al) 7 . . . c5 and a2) 7 . . . h6.

The continuation 7 . . . c6 8 .e3 0-0 9.i..d3 h6 10 .�h4 l:.e8 11 . 0-0 liJf8 (in Book IV we have al­ready mentioned the position af­ter 11 . . .�a5 12.a3 i..xc3 13.bxc3 liJe4 14.c4±, where White has an advantage of the bishop pair and in his pieces' activity) 12.a3 i..e7 13 .b4t has already been exam­ined in Book IV when regarding the Cambridge Springs Defence. So-called attack of the pawn mi­nority develops successfully for White in this case.

A natural 7 . . . 0-0 8 .a3 also gives White an advantage both in case of 8 . . . �xc3+ 9.�xc3 c6 (a preliminary 9 . . . h6 does not im­prove the position. After 10.iLh4 c6 11 .liJd2 �e8 12.f3 �e6 13 .e3

1.0:,f3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 0:,f6 4.0:,c3 0:,bd7 5.i.g5

0:,b6 White's bishop goes to a con­venient stand: 14 . ..tf2;!; with an advantage , Karpov - Milov, Buenos Aires 2000) 10.llJd2 �eB ll .e3;!;, and in case ofB . . . ..te7 9.e3 c5 10 . ..te2 b6 (or 10 .. J:teB 11 .0-0 b6 12 JHd1 'i!ic7 13 J:tac1 ..tb7 14 . ..tb5;!;, White's pieces are highly active and Black's central pawns are under the threat) 11.0-0 ..tb7 12.l:1fd1 l:1cB 13 .llJe5 cxd4 14.llJxd7 'i!ixd7 15.l:1xd4;!;. In the arisen position Black got an isolated pawn with no apparent compensation, Bacrot - Gior­gadze, Groningen 1997.

at) 7 . . . c5 By the move in the main line

Black aims at an active counter­play in the centre of the board.

8.dxc5 Now Black remains with the

isolated pawn, not getting an ac­tive piece play as a compensation for it. The continuation, which was standard of the Westphalia Variation in the past: B.e3 �a5 9 . ..td3 0-0 10.0-0 c4 l1...tf5 neB 12.llJd2 g600 leads to a position with mutual chances.

First of all we will examine this two Black's responses: ala)

8 • • • 'i!ia5 and alb) 8 . • . hS. Beside these replies other

continuations were tested as well. This one is hardly worth serious attention: B . . . O-O 9.a3 i.xc5 (bad was 9 . . . ..txc3+ 10 . �xc3 llJe4 ll . ..txdB llJxc3, Visma­ra - Inkiov, Montecatini Terme 2 0 0 1 , and after 12 . ..tc7 llJe4 13.b4+- White got an easily won position) 10.e3 h6 l1 ...th4 ..te7 1 2 . n d 1 llJb6 13 . ..t e2 .te6 14. 0:,d4;!; and in the game S av­chenko - Galdunts, Darmstadt 2001, White got a classical long advantage at the expense of Black's isolated pawn and with­out any Black's counterplay.

Taking B . . . llJxc5 is also having no prospects. After 9.a3 ..txc3+ 10 .thc3 llJce4 ll . ..txffi 'i!ixffi 12. �xffi llJxffi 13.nc1;!; there is a po­sition, where Black is faced with a long and hard defence, Koma­rov - Tatai, Reggio Emilia 1996.

ala) 8 ... �a5 9 . ..td2 White gets his c3-knight of

the dead pin. N ow B lack has a certain

choice again. Below we will ex­amine as main lines the follow­ing continuations : a l a I ) 9 . . .

�xc5 and ala2) 9 . . . llJxc5. The move 9 . . . 0-0 at once gives

White the advantage of a bishop pair and control over dark squa­res in the centre; control over the d4-square is particularly signifi­cant. After 10.a3 ..txc3 l1 ..txc3 �xc5 12.b4 'i!ie7 (in case of 12 . . . 'i!ic7 1 3 . �b2 a5 14J:tcl± i n the game Ionov - R.Bagirov, France

B 1

Chapter 6

2000, White got a clear advan­tage) 1 3 .' �b 2 lLle8 1 4 . e3 lLlb6 15 .i.d4 i.f5 16.i.e2;!; in the game Wagner - V. Orlov, St. Petersburg 1996, White's chances were pref­erable. In the variation 9 . . . i.xc5 10.e3 'l';l(d8 1 1 .i.e2 0-0 1 2 . 0-0 %:le8 13 . .ufd l lLle5 after 14.i.el i.b6 15. 'l';l(b3;!; in the game Slipak - Ricardi, Buenos Aires 1998, Black encountered difficult prob­lems with the defence of his iso­lated pawn.

alaI) 9 ... �xc5 Black takes his queen away

from opposing to White's dark­squared bishop.

lO.a3 Thus White obtains the ad­

vantage of the bishop pair. 10 ... ii.xc3 1l.'l';l(xc3 0-0 After 11 . . . ttJe4 12.�xc5 lLldxc5

in the game T.Ivanov - Maksi-menko, Vladivostok 1995, White could get an advantage with the help of 13.ii.e3!? 0-0 14 . .l:.dl i.e6 15.lLld4±.

12J:tcl lLle4 1 3.�d4 �xd4 14.lLlxd4 lLlxd2

Worse was 14 . . . lLle5 15 .i.f4 lLlg6 1 6 .ii.c7± Ionov - Novgo­rodskij , St Petersburg 1998, or 14 . . . ttJdc5 15.ii.b4 b6 16 .f3± Mar­tin Luis - Martin Ojeda, Tenerife 1999, after which White kept his bishop pair and control over the central squares.

15.Wxd2 lLlf6 In case of 15 . . . b6 16.e3 lLlc5

17 .i.b5;!; like in the game Krivo­shey - Treffert, Passau 1998, Black's problems remain as well

82

because of his isolated pawn and a "bad" bishop.

16.f3 i..d7 17.e3;!;

This position appeared in the game Maric - Khurtsidze, Niksic 1997. White stood a better chan­ce thanks to Black's isolated d5-pawn.

ala2) 9 . .. lLlxc5

10.a3 Like in the variation alaI ,

White again wants to make Black define the position of his dark-squared bishop at once.

10 . . . ttJe6 The move 10 . . . i.xc3 leads to

already examined type of posi­tions , where White has two mighty bishops and absolute con­trol over the centre. After 11 . i.xc3 �a4 12. �xa4+ lLlxa4 13 .

1.4J{3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 4Jf6 4.4Jc3 4Jbd7 S.Jt..gS

.td4± White got an incontes­table advantage , Lugovoi - Ma­ksimenko, St. Petersburg 1993; and the move 10 . . . 0-0?? lost at once: l 1. .Uc1 .txc3 12 . .txc3+-, and everything was over, Din­stuhl - Bukal, Dortmund 1993.

11.0-0-0 i..e7 12.e4! dxe4 13. 4Jxe4 1f1c7 14.ltJxf6+ i..xf6 15. i..b5+ i..d7 16.1f1xc7 4Jxc7 17. i..xd7+ c,t>xd7

This position appeared in the game Khenkin - Masternak, Pardubice 1993. Despite consid­erable simplifications, Black still had problems: lS . .tc3+ 'l.te7 19. l:I.he1 ltJe6 20 .Ji.b4 <;t>eS 2 1 .ltJd4;!;.

alb) B ... h6

ala variation. 9 . . . 0-0 In case of9 . . . 4Jxc5 10.a3 .txc3

11 . .txc3 4Jce4 12.e3 0-0 13 . .td3 .t g4 1 4 . 4J e 5 4Jxc3 1 5 . ftxc3;!; Black had the same problems with his isolated pawn, Psakhis - Wirthensohn, Biel 1995.

Taking by the bishop 9 . . . .txc5 allow Black to keep some ten­sion, though here after an exem­plary 10.e3 a6 1l . .te2 0-0 12. 0-0 .td6 1 3 .Itfd 1 4Je5 14 .ftb3 .te6 1 5 .4Jd4;!; White's chances are also better.

10.e3 i..xc5 After 10 . . . IteS 1l . .te2 .txc5

12 .0-0 a6 13.ftb3 4Jb6 14.lHdU in the game Ivanchuk - Lautier, Monte C arlo (blindfold) 1995, Black would have the same prob­lems as in the main variation.

1l.i..d3 a6 In other lines the isolated d5-

pawn is also safely blocked. For example, after 1l . . .'�e7 12.0-0 4Je5 13.4Jxe5 ftxe5 14.4Je2;!; in the game Herzog - Wirthensohn, Switzerland 1997 , White ob­tained a standard of this varia­tion advantage.

12.0-0 i..a7 This is not better as well :

12 . . . .td6 13.ltJe2 ltJe5 (or 13 . . . ltJc5 14 . .tc3;!;) 14 .ltJxe5 i.xe5 1 5.i.c3 1f1e7 1 6 .i.xe5 1f1xe5 1 7 .Itac1;!; Dreev - Zvjaginsev, Elista 1997. White exchanged "unnecessary" pieces and had full control over

9.i..d2 the d4-square and the c-file. White wants to deliver his c3- 1 3 .4Je2 l':teB 1 4 .i..c 3 4JfB

knight from a dead pin, like in 15.4Jf4 i..e6 16 . .l:!.adl;!;

83

Chapter 6

That was how the game Kramnik - Lautier, Monte Carlo 1995 developed. White managed to arrange his pieces harmoni­ously and the weakness on d5 was highly perceptible already.

a2) 7 ... h6

B.i.h4 Inclusion of the moves h7-h6

and i.g5-h4 limits Black possi­bilities in the standard of this line continuation, which has al­ready been mentioned in the a1 variant and notes to White's Sth move.

B • • • c5 White also stood better after

S . . . g5 9 . .l1.g3 lbe4 10.e3 c6 1l . .l1.d3 lbxg3 12.hxg3;t Lalic - Munoz, Malaga 2002.

9.e3 0-0 In case of an immediate 9 . . . c4

S4

White got a new idea: 10 . .l1.e2 �a5 1l .lbd2! 0-0 12 . .l1.f3 ! .l1.xc3 13 .bxc3 �a3 14.0-0 b5 15J:tfbl±, and in the game Krasenkow -Garcia Ilundain, Las Palmas 1993, White obtained a consider­able advantage in view of the d5-pawn's weakness and more ac­tive pieces.

lO.i.d3 �a5 Now in response to 10 . . . c4

there was 1l . .l1.h7+ 'it>hS, and then White's bishop went to a standard position 1 2 . .l1.f5 and after 12 . . . lbb6 13 . .l1.xcS l':txcS 14.0-0 iLe7 15.a4 a5 16 .lbe5;t in the game Topalov - Giorgadze, Cala Galdana 1999, White man­age to save some advantage.

11.0-0 c4 In case of 11 . . .l':teS it is pos­

sible to play a forced line: 12. liJxd5!? lbxd5 13.a3 c4 14.iLh7+ <;t>hS 15.axb4 �b5 16 .l':ta5 �c6, and then, continuing with 1 7 . .l1.e4 liJxe3 lS . .l1.xc6 lbxc2 19.iLd5 f5 20.i.g3 liJb6 2 1 . i.f7;t, White obtains a noticeable advantage.

l2.i.f5 lteB There is no 12 . . . g6? in view of

a primitive 13.i.xg6+-. This is the main shortcoming of Black's position when he has included the moves h7-h6 and i.g5-h4.

13.lbd2 White gets down to accom­

plishment ofthe programme ad­vance e3-e4.

l3 . . . i.e7 13 . . . b5 was worse because of

the break-through 14.e4 dxe4 1 5 .lbdxe4 i.xc3 1 6 .bxc3 �b6

l .CiJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 CiJf6 4.CiJc3 CiJbd7 S. i.gS

17.a4± and in the game !zoria ­Buhmann, Patras 2001, Black got a hard position. Of course, it was impossible to move 13 . . . g6? (playing by full analogy with the standard continuation that was mentioned in the at variant, see notes to White's 8th move) be­cause of 14.i.xg6+-.

t4.l:taeU;

This position appeared in the game Kramnik - Serper, Dort­mund 1993. Despite Black's ap­parent pawn advantage on the queenside, after opening the cen­tre, White's advantage in devel­opment would make itself felt.

b) 5 . . . h6

6.i.h4 White leaves B lack's f6-

knight under the pin. 6 ... dxc4

In case of 6 . . . c6 7 . e3 i.e7 8. �c2 there is the position, which we have already examined in Part 1 (Chapter 3 , variation c), and after 6 . . . i.b4 7 .cxd5 exd5 8. �c2 it is obvious that the game passes to the above examined a2 variant.

7.e3 White wants to get the posi­

tions, analogous to those, which has already been examined in the Queen's Gambit Accepted (Book IV), with the only differ­ence that Black's knight is placed more passively on d 7. Tactical basis of Black's plan is in the fact that after 7 .e4 i.e7 8. �c2 (in case of8.i.xc4 CiJxe4!+ Black's chances are not worse at the least) 8 . . . CiJb6ao he can keep the c4-pawn for some time.

7 ... a6 After 7 . . . c5 8.i.xc4 i.e7 (in

case of 8 . . . a6 9.a4 we pass on to the position from the main line) 9.0-0 0-0 10. �e2 cxd4 (a care­less 10 . . . CiJb6? after 1l.dxc5 i.xc5 12 .lUd1 CiJbd7 13 .e4 !!i.e7 14.e5± in one of the games of the World Championship match Zukertort - Steinitz, USA (mI1 7 ) 1886, gave White an obvious advan­tage) White already is not obliged to create an isolated pawn, and he can choose 11 .lLlxd4!?, getting as a result of 1l . . . lLle5 12 .lIfdl �a5 (Black has more problems after 12 . . . lLlxc4?! 1 3 .lLlc6 �e8 14.CiJxe7+ �xe7 1 5 . �xc4±) 13 . !!i.b3 i.d7 1 4 . .tg3 a6 1 5 .lLld5 lLlxd5 16.!!i.xd5 exd5 1 7 . .txe5t a

85

Chapter 6

slightly better play owing to his more active pieces, as it was in the game Lalic - Browne, Palma de Mallorca 1989.

Defending the pawn by 7 . . . ttJb6 after 8.i.xc4 ttJxc4 9 . �a4+ i. d 7 1 0 . thc4 gives White a stable advantage, for example after 10 . . . i.e7 (if 10 . . . ,Uc8, then it is possible to play l1 .ttJe5 i.e7 12.0-0 0-0 13.'ufdl c6 14.�b3;t Illescas Cordoba - P. Nikolic, Erevan 1996) 11.0-0 0-0 12 . .l:!.acl iLc6 ( also there was 12 . . . ,Uc8 1 3 JHd 1 c6 1 4 .ttJe5;t Moritz -Becker, Frankfurt 1923) 13 .ttJe5;t Alekhine - Wolf, Vienna 1922, and White's chances are better. He simply places his rooks on the central files and puts the knight on e5. White also has a space advantage and Black's bishops are not very active.

A calm 7 . . . iLe7 8 .i.xc4 0-0 9. 0-0 a6 10.a4 b6 11 .�e2 iLb7 12. .l:!.fdl ttJe4 (or 12 . . . ,Ue8 13 . .l:i.acU with an advantage, Sorkin - 1. Sokolov, Antwerp 1998) 13.ttJxe4 i.xh4 14.d5;t also gave White an advantage in the game Hertneck - 1.Sokolov, Austria 1995.

8 . a4 c5 9.i.xc4 cxd4 10. exd4

When the moves a 7 -a6 and a2-a4 have already been played it makes sense for White to pass on to the positions with an iso­lated pawn. After 10.ttJxd4 by means of 10 . . . ttJe5 11 .i.a2 i.b4 12.0-0 (after 12Jkl to equaliz­ing of chances leads 12 . . . ttJg6 13.i.g3 e5=) 12 . . . i.xc3 13.bxc3

86

ttJe4 1 4 . iLxe6 ttJxg3 1 5 . iL xc8 lIxc8 16.hxg3 'uxc3 17 . .l:.b l �c8 18.'ub6 0-0= as a result of some tactical complications Black achieved an equal play in the game Pelletier - Piket, Bie1 1999.

10 . . . i.e7 Mter 10 . . . ttJb6 1 l .iLb3 iLe7

12.0-0 iLd7 13 .a5 ttJc8 Black did not put a safe barrier on the way of the d4-pawn and this let White obtain an advantage by means of 14.iLxf6 iLxf6 15.d5;t in the game Gritsak - Kveinys, Glogow 200 1.

1 1.0-0 0-0 12 . .l:te1 ttJb6 13. .tb3 ttJbd514.ttJe5 ttJd7

A careless 14 . . . iLd7? after 15. i.xf6 ttJxf6 16.d5 exd5 1 7 .ttJxd5 ttJxd5 18.ttJxf7! .l:i.xf7 19.thf7 �e8 19. �xb7+- in the game U. An­dersson - Kierzek, Dortmund 1978, allowed White to get a win­ning position.

15 . .tg3 ttJxc3 16.bxc3 ttJxe5 17.iLxe5 .td6 18.�f3 .txe5 19 . I;Ixe5 .td7 20 . .tc2 g6 2 1 . �g3;t

This position appeared in the game Khalifman - Vaganian, Germany 1993. White had kept the opening advantage. Black had certain difficulties with de­fence of his kingside.

Chapter 7 l.tDf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 tDf6 4.tDc3 .tb4

Strictly speaking, this move order does not lead to the West­phalia Variation itself, but the arising positions are close to it.

5.cxd5 The continuation S. '§a4+ ct:Jc6

leads to the Ragozin System, where Black has got more oppor­tunities for creating an active counterplay.

5 ... exd5 6.i.g5 h6 After 6 . . . ct:Jbd7 we have the

Westphalia Variation; and an at­tempt to get rid of the pin by 6 . . . '§d6 leads to difficulties after 7 . ct:Jd2 ct:Je4 8.ct:Jdxe4 dxe4 9.e3 0-0 1 0 . a3 i.xc3+ 1 1 . bxc3 '§dS 12 . i.f4± Psakhis - V. Gaprinda­shvili, Ubeda 2001 .

7.i.h4 Now it is worth to examine

separately two most principal continuations : a) 7 . . . c5 and b)

7 . . . g5. Let's mention also that after

7 . . . 0-0 (in case of 7 . . . c6 8.e3 i.fS 9. '§b3;;1; Black has to exchange his bishop, Notkin - Gusev, Moscow 1998; and after 7 . . . �d6 8 .e3 ct:Je4 9 .l:!.c 1 0-0 1 0 . i.d3 c6 1 1 . 0-0;;1; White's position is also prefer­able, Shabalov - Kacheishvili, Washington 1998) 8 .e3 cS (as it was already said, lines like 8 . . . c6 9.i.d3 i.e7 10 . �c2 ct:JhS 1 1 .i.xe7 '§xe7 12 .ct:JeS± lead to the wors­ened construction of the Carls­bad structure, Naumkin - Dju­ric, Formia 1994) 9.i.e2 c4 10. ct:Jd2 i.xc3 11 .bxc3 i.fS 1 2 . 0-0 l:!.e8 White has in his disposal an energetic 13 .e4! and as a result of the forced 13 . . . i.xe4 14.ct:Jxe4 �xe4 lS .i.xf6 gxf6 16 . �d2;;1; in the game Dautov - Shereshev­ski, Minsk 1988, White got an advantage, despite of being a pawn less.

a) 7 . .. c5 8.e3 While there are no straight

threats from Black's side, White starts developing his kingside.

8 . . . tbc6 In reply to 8 . . . c4 there is a

manoeuvre 9.ct:Jd2, which has al-

87

Chapter 7

ready been played in a similar position and which allows to get rid of the pin. After 9 . . . ..txc3 10.bxc3 ttJc6 11.e4 g5 12 . ..tg3 fie7 13.e5 ..tfS 14 . ..te2;t in the game Izoria - Zvj aginsev, Moscow 2002, White's position is prefer­able.

9 . ..te2 g5 In case of 9 . . . cxd4 10.ttJxd4

0-0 11.0-0;t a typical position ap­peared, where Black did not have sufficient counterplay to compen­sate the weakness on d5, Hau­schild - Joachim, Germany 1996; and the continuation 9 . . . ..te6 10.0-0 c4 11.ttJe5 0-0 12.f4;t in the game Krogius - Nikitin, Tbilisi 1959, gave White a con­siderable space advantage.

10 . ..tg3 ttJe4 llJ:1cl fia5 Black wants to increase the

pressure on the c3-square. In case of an adventurous 1l . . . h5 after a simple 12.dxc5 h4 13 . ..td6 White obtains a large advantage in all the lines: 13 . . . fif6 ( 13 . . . ttJxd6 14.cxd6± Vucic - Stripun­sky, Toronto 1998) 14.0-0 .i.xc3 15 .bxc3 g4 ( 1 5 . . . ttJxc3 16Jhc3 fixc3 17 .fixd5±) 16.ttJd4± Vucic - Inkiov, Rijeka 2001 .

12.0-0 White has to sacrifice the

pawn. 12 . . . i..xc3 1 3 .bxc3 ttJxc3

1 4 . fi e l ttJxe2 + 1 5 . fixe2 c4 16.ttJe5�

(diag) The forced play is finished.

White has a fair compensation for the pawn. For example : 16 . . .

88

ttJxe5 (in case of 1 6 . . . ..tfS 17.e4! i..e6 in the game Szukszta -Gadalinski, Glucholazy 1963, White could get an advantage by 18.ttJxc4! dxc4 19.d5;t) 17.i..xe5 'ug8 18.f4 gxf4 (or 18 . . . ..tf5 19. fxg5 :'xg5 20.h4 ..td3 2 1 . fib2± with an advantage Chekhov -Eingorn, Riga 1980) 19.exf4 ..tg4 20.fie3�, and in the game Che­khov - Inkiov, Polanica Zdroj 1981 , the threats to Black's king were more weighty than some material losses.

b) 7 .. . g5

S . ..tg3 White has no choice. S . . . ttJe4 9.ttJd2! White sacrifices the pawn in

this position as well as in the a

variant. 9 . . . ttJxc3

3.c4 0.f6 4.0.c3 i.b4 5. cd ed 6.i.g5 h6 7.i.h4

A refusal of taking the sacri­fice after 9 . . . 0.xg3 10.hxg3 gives White a stable advantage in all the variations : 10 . . . 0.c6 11 .e3 .i.xc3 12.bxc3;t Naumkin - Mika­vica, Ticino 1994; 10 . . . .i.f8 l1.e3 c6 12 . .i.d3;t Skembris - Kova­cevic, Kavala 1990; 10 . . . c6 11 . �c2 ( 1 1 .e3 i..f5 12.a3 .i.f8 13.b4 l2:ld7 14.l2:lb3 a6 IS . .i.d3;t Ovseje­vitsch - Aleksandrov, Calcutta 2002) 1 1 . . . i.e6 ( 1 1 . . . �f6 12 .e3 0.d7 13 . .i.d3;t Renet - Dorfman, France 1996) 12.e3;t Pachman ­R.Byrne, Geneve 1977. In all this examples White's advantage is determined by a better pawn structure. To a more tense strug­gle leads 10 . . . cS 1l.a3 .i.xc3 (in case of 11 . . . cxd4 12.axb4 dxc3 13. bxc3 0.c6 14.e3;t White has got a stable advantage) 12.bxc3 0.c6 13.e3 .i.fS 14 . .i.e2 �e7. Here in the game Geller - Sosonko, Biel 1976, White found a precise plan: I S . g4 .i.g6 1 6 . l2:lf1 c4 1 7 .0.g3 0-0-0 IS .0-0 �e6 19J::tel WbS 20.iLf.3;1;, White's chances are bet­ter i n view of an inevitable break-through in the centre - e3-e4.

10.bxc3 i.xc3 ll . .l::tcl i.a5 After 1 1 . . . .i.xd2+?! 12. �xd2

0.c6 13 .h4± White's compensa­tion for the pawn is more than enough. Black's kingside is chro­nically weak and to castle to a long side is also dangerous -there are too many open files and diagonals at White's disposal.

11 . . . .i.b2 is more interesting, though after 12 .iLxc7 �d7 (equi-

valent continuation is 12 . . . �e7 13.l:tb l i.a3 14 . .i.xbS l:txbS IS . ,Ub3 0-0 16.e3 i..d7 1 7 . .i.bS;t, and it is hard for Black to keep his bishop pair and pawns' weak­nesses are irreparable, Ovseje­vitsch - Lempert, Alushta 1994) 13 .�bl i.c3 (13 . . . i..xd4 leads to the piece's loss after 14.i..xb8 'uxb8 I S . e3±) 14 . .i.xb8 'uxb8 I S . e3;t in the game Ftacnik -Landa, Beijing 1996, White got better chances.

12.e3 This continuation is also in­

teresting: 12.h4 g4 13.e3 l2:lc6?! ( better is 13 . . . 0-0 14 . .i.d3 c6 , though after IS.0-0ii:i White's ini­tiative costs a pawn) 14 . .i.bS .i.d7 I S .'ucS! �e7, and in the game Khalifman - Serper, St Peters­burg 1994, after 1 6 . 0-0 .i.b4 1 7.'uxdS i..d6 18 .l2:lc4 i.xg3 19. fxg3 0-0-0 (this is not better: 1 9 . . . .i.e6 20 .'ueS± or 1 9 . . . 0-0 20 . .i.xc6 bxc6 2 1 .'ueS± with a large advantage in both cases) 20.�a4!± White obtained a large advantage.

12 ... c6 13.h4 g4 14 . .i.e2 iLe6 The continuation 14 . . . hS I S .

0-0 .i.c7 16 . .i.xc7 �xc7 only em­phasizes the benefits of White's position. Opening of the position after 17.e4± gave White a strong attack in the game Ovsejevitsch - Karmov, Krasnodar 1996.

15.0-0 h5 After IS . . . l2:ld7 (in case of

IS . . . .i.xd2 16.�xd2 l2:ld7 17.Ubl!± White's rooks and bishops put the strongest pressure on the

89

Chapter 7

queenside whereas Black has chronic weaknesses on the king­side) 1 6 .ttJb3 a forced line 17 . i.xg4 i.xg3 18.i.xe6 i.d6 19 . �h5 �e7 20.i.xd7+ �xd7 2 1.ttJc5 �e7 2 2 . e4 i.xc5 i.c7 in the game Thkmakov - Inkiov, Hania 1992, led to a position, where White missed an interesting opportu­nity - 23 .exd5! and as a result i.b4 24.a3 ! i.d2 (in case of 24 . . . i.a5 25.dxc6 b 6 26. �f5 �e6 27. �d3� White is enough compen­s ated for minimum material losses) 2 5 .1:.c2 cxd5 2 6 . Uxd2 0-0-0 27.l1e2t with dangerous threats.

16.e4! Having got an advantage in

development, White opens the centre and his initiative is in­creasing.

16 ... i.b6 In case of other continuations

the positional defects of Black's

90

position are obvious : 16 . . . i.xd2 1 7 . �xd2 dxe4 18 . �f4± or 1 6 . . . ttJd7 17.exd5 cxd5 18.ttJb3 i.b6 19.f.3 f5 20.fxg4 hxg4 21 .�el �e7 22.i.d3;!; there are chronic weak­nesses on the kingsi d e and White's bishops and rooks are aiming at the queenside.

1 7.exd5 cxd5 18.ttJb3 ttJc6 19.�d2�

In the game Gelfand - Bareev, Polanica Zdroj 1 9 9 7 , White's compensation for the pawn was more than enough.

Chapter 8 l.lLlf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 lLlf6 4.lLlc3 dxc4

The doubled-edged Vienna Variation is rather frequently played in modern practice. In­stead of making long and boring manoeuvres in the Orthodox Defence of the Queen's Gambit, Black takes the gambit pawn in order to gain time for his pieces' developing and organizing an active counterplay. Usually the play in this variation is very active and interesting; there are various tactical motifs and both the opponents should know arising po sitions well . It is interesting that one of the crea­tors of this variation, the Au­strian Grandmaster E.Grunfeld, without false modesty called it "the Grunfeld Defence in the Queen's Gambit" in his works .

5.e4 The most energetic and prin-

cipal continuation. Other ways -5.i.g5, 5 :§'a4+ or 5.e3 promise White less.

5 ... i.b4 After 5 . . . c5 6 .d5 the conti­

nuation, typical of the Queen's Gambit Accepted, arises - 1.lLlf3 d5 2 . d4 c5 3 .c4 dc4 4.lLlc3 lLlf6 5. d5 e6 6 .e4 (see Book IV). If 5 . . . a6, then by means of 6.e5! (Black's plan is disclosed in the variation 6 .i.xc4 b5 7 .i.d3 i.b7oo) 6 . . . lLld5 7 .i.xc4 lLlxc3 ( in case of 7 . . . b5 8 .lLlxd5 bxc4 9 . lLle3± White's advantage is considerable) 8 . bxc3 b 5 9.i.d3 i.b7 10.lLlg5!? i.e7 11 . t:'tg4 g6 12.h4 White obtains promising attacking position, Hertneck - Barua, Manila 1992. And in case of a modest 5 . . . i.e7 6 .i.xc4 0-0 7 .0-0;t White has an obvious advantage, thanks to better development and pawn majority in the centre.

6.i.g5 White's chances consist in

active play in the centre and on the kingside, which his opponent is often forced to weaken (after i.xf6 - gxf6). In this case it will be uneasy to find a safe refuge for the black king. If White

91

Chapter 8

continues to play in a gambit style, then he hardly can reckon on the opening advantage. For example: 6.e5 liJd5 7 .il.d2 liJb6 8 .liJe4 i..e7 9.i..c3 t'td5 10.liJfd2 il.d7 1 1 . t'tg4 il.f8 12.il.e2 il.c6+ Jakubowski - Maksimenko, Kry­nica 1998; 6 . t'ta4+ liJc6 7 .il.g5 il.d7 8.'�c2 h6 9.il.d2 b5 ! 10.liJxb5 i.xd2+ 1 1 . liJxd2 ( 1 1 . t'txd2 i s worse because o f 11 . . . liJxe4 12. "ifff4 liJd6 13.liJxd6+ cxd6 14.il.xc4 "iffa5+) 11 . . .a6 12.liJa3 liJxd4 13. t'txc4 il.b5 14.liJxb5 axb5 (Mala­niuk - Beliavsky, Odessa 1989) 15 .t'tc3= leads to equality (ana­lysed by V.Malaniuk).

Now Black most often chooses either the response a) 6 . . . b5 or the move b) 6 . . . c5.

By means of 6 . . . h6 7 .il.xf6 "iffxf6 Black can get an advantage of the bishop pair, but only for a short period of time, because he will have to exchange the b4-bi­shop for the c3-knight. For exam­ple, after 8 .il.xc4 c5 (8 . . . 0-0 9. 0-0 c5 10 .a3 the refuse to ex­change on the c 3 -square by 10 . . . cxd4 after 11 .e5! "iffe7 12 . axb4 dxc3 13 .bxc3± gives White an obvious advantage) 9.e5 fie7 1 0 . 0-0 cxd4 ( after 10 . . . i.xc3 Il .bxc3 0-0 12.t'te2 liJc6 13.a3!? nd8 14. "iff eM White's chances are better - analysed by Gipslis) 1 l . liJe4 ! ? 0-0 (after 11 . . . liJc6 12.a3 .lic5 13 .b4 i.b6 14.liJd6+ c.t>f8 15. "iffe2ii3 White's compensa­tion for the pawn is more than enough) 12 . t'txd4 nd8 13. "iffe3 .lid7 14.nadl il.c6 15.liJf6+! � in

92

the game Flear - Condie, Bath 1987, White got the strongest attack.

a) 6 . . . b5 Black defends the c4-pawn,

keeping pawns' striking force on the queenside, but he gives White his kingside for "tearing to pieces".

7.a4! White's strongest response.

Not so clear is 7.e5 h6 8 .il.h4 g5 9.liJxg5 hxg5 10.il.xg5 liJbd7 11 . "ifff3 ltb8 12.exf6 %:lg8 13.h4 i.b7ao.

7 ... c6 8.e5 h6 9.exf6! Less promising is 9.i.h4 g5

10.liJxg5 hxg5 11.i.xg5 t'ta5!ao or 10.exf6 gxh4 11 .liJe5 c5 !ao - in both cases Black's chances are not worse.

9 ... hxg5 lO.fxg7 ng8 1l.g3! Black's a8-h1 diagonal is not

defended well enough and White is going to make use of this fact, finishing his kingside develop­ment at the same time. At first sight 1 l . h4 seems the most energetic, but everything is not so easy. After 1 1 . . . g4! ( after 11 . . . gxh4 12Jlxh4 t'tf6 13.g3 liJd7 14 . .lig2 i.b7 15.c.t>f1! the position,

1 .1:iJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.e4 1:iJf6 4.l:iJe3 de 5.e4 i.b4 6. i.g5

which will be described in the comments to Black's 12th move, appears) 1 2.l:iJe5 lhg7 13 .h5 f5 14 . ..te2 fig5! (Black is not cling­ing to the material advantage; he is trying to finish his deve­lopment and to exchange his opponent's active pieces in the first place) 1 5 .'ifi'fl (the queen exchange after 1 5 . fid2 �xd2+ 1 6.'ifi'xd2 i.b7 1 7 . f3 ttJd7 IB .h6 .l:!.h7 19.ttJxd7 'ifi'xd7 20.fxg4 a6 2 1 .gxf5 exf5= led to an approxi­mately equal ending in the game Bellon - Gil, Madrid 1992) 15 . . . i.b7 16.axb5 i.xc3 17.bxc6 l:iJxc6 IB .bxc3 I:iJxe5 19.dxe5 ..td5 20. fia4+ 'ifi'f8 2 1...txc4 �d2 22 . .txd5 �xd5 23.fid4 fixd4 24.cxd4 11d7 25 . .l:!.a4 .l:!.adB= despite White's extra pawn, there was a drawn ending in the game Kramnik -Yudasin, Pamplona 1992.

1l ... ..th7 In response to 11 . . . g4 the best

is to retreat with the knight to the edge of the board 12.l:iJh4! ( s uggesting itself 1 2 . tiJe 5 is weaker because of 1 2 . . . �d5! 13.tiJxg4 fie4 14 . �e2 �xd4+ and the advantage goes to Black), guaranteeing the g2-square for his bishop's development. Mter 12 . . . ..tb7 (the exchange sacrifice after 12 . . . c5 13 .i.g2 cxd4 in the game Tyomkin - Gonzalez de la Torre, Andorra 2000, could be simply refuted by 14.i.xaB dxc3 1 5 . �xdB+ 'ifi'xdB 16.0-0-0±) 13 . i.g2 .l:!.xg7 14 .axb5 ( in case of 14.0-0 Black had a little respite, which he could use if he had

chosen 14 . . . a6co) 14 . . . �b6 15.0-0 cxb5 the break-through in the centre 16.d5! is very strong. Now as a result of i.e7 17.dxe6 fxe6 1B . .l:!.el ..txh4 19 .1:iJd5 fidB 20. htxe6+ 'ifi'f8 21.gxh4± Black's king is deprived of the pawn cover.

Mter 1 l . . . l:iJd7 1 2 . ..tg2 ..tb7 the position, which is examined in the al variation, appears.

12.i.g2

N ow let us consider Black's two main responses: al) 12 . . . tiJd7 and a2) 12 . . . c5.

12 . . . .l:!.xg7 is played consi­derably more rarely. In this case White should choose 1 3 .N e 5 ! ( 1 3 .0-0 is weaker because o f 13 . . . tiJd7!co), hampering Black's knight development. Mter 13 . . . fib6 (after 1 3 . . . a6 14.0-0 ..txc3 1 5 .bxc3 f6 16 .l:iJg4 I:iJd7 in the game Divljan - Ristovic, Canada 2002, White kept the initiative, continuing with 1 7 .lIe l :!.e7 1B.fic2t) 14.0-0� White got a suf­ficient compensation for the pawn in the game V. Dj uric -Vasic, Oropesa del Mar 199B.

a1) 12 . . . l:iJd7 13.h4! White's last move is very

93

Chapter 8

important, because it allows creating serious threats on the kingside. Some delay 13.0-0 after 13 . . . �xc3 14.bxc3 ftxg7 15.'�b1 a6 16 .lZJd2 fic7 17.axb5 cxb5 lB. -txb7 fixb7 19.1ZJxc4 fic6 20.lZJe5 lZJxe5 2 1 . dx e 5 �fB = allowed Black to equalize the play fully in the game Chernin - Kramnik, Villarrobledo (active) 199B.

13 ... gxh4 In case of 13 . . . g4, like in the

game Farago - Namyslo, Dei­zisau 2001, 14.lZJg5!?� deserves attention and Black's g4-pawn is in danger.

14.l:txh4 fif6 Thus Black is going to kill two

birds with one stone: to stave off the appearance of White's rook on hB and of his knight on the e5-square. Mter 14 . . . fib6 pos­sible is 15.lZJe5! �xg7 16 . .l:I.hB+ lZJfB 1 7 . a5 fia6 1 B . fif3 0-0-0 19.1ZJxf7 .l:i.xd4 20. fifO .l:I.xf7 (after 20 . . J:tgg4 2 1 .lZJe5 in the game Cebalo - Karer, Nova Gorica 2000, Black had to resign) 21 . �xf7 1:IdB 22 .�f1± White gra­dually realized his extra ex­change in the game Cebalo -Sulava, Pula 1993.

Als o there was 14 . . J Ixg7 15 . .l:I.hB+ -tfB. In this case White probably also should choose 1 6 . lZJ e 5 ! ? ( after 1 6 . axb5 cxb 5 17.d5 fib6 1B.fie2 0-0-0 19.�h3 �e7°o like in the game E. Bukic - J.Pinter, Bajmok 19BO, Black does not stand worse) . After 16 . . . fic7 17. fid2 lZJxe5 (Black's king is insecure on the queenside

94

after 17 . . . 0-0-0 1B .lZJxd7 fixd7 19.axb5±, and in case of 17 . . . a6 l B . fih6 � e 7 1 9 . �h4+ WeB 20 .lZJe4-7 White's pieces also disturb the king) 1B.dxe5 �xe5+ 19.Wf1! (less clear is 19 .1ZJe4 f5 20.f4 fic7 21 .lZJd6+ �e7 22.lZJxb7 fixb7oo) 19 . . . b4 2 0 . Itd 1 f6 (to defend from the mate on d 7 by 20 . . . f5 is worse because of 2 l . fih6 bxc3 2 2 . f4 !± ) 2 1 . lZJe4 c 3 22 .bxc3 bxc3 2 3 . �d3t White keeps the initiative , because Black's king feels comfortless in the centre.

15.�f1 Liberating the c3-knight from

the pin, White creates a number of serious threats . Now Black in the first instance has to decide how to defend the b5-pawn.

15 ... -txc3 15 . . . a6 could not help in view

of 16.lZJe5! lZJxe5 17 .dxe5 fixe5 1 B . axb5 axb5 ( after 1B . . J �dB 19. fia4 �xc3 20.bxc6 �xb2 21. c7+ .l:i.d7 22.IthB �xg2+ 23.�xg2 fie4+ 24. �gl +- in the game Danielian - Fridman, Alma-Ata 199 1, Black had to resign be­cause he could not cope with two white pawns on the 7th rank) 19 . 1haB+ �xaB 2 0 . fi a 1 �bB (20 . . . �b7 is losing because of 21 . fia 7 fic7 22.l:thB+-) 2 l ..l:!.hB We7 22.lZJe4 e5 (after 22 .. .lhhB 23.gxhBfi �xhB 24.fia7+- Black loses a piece) 2 3 J IxgB fixgB 24.i.h3 and in the game Bewers­dorff - D. Werner, Frankfurt 1990 (also possible was 24.�a7+ We6 and then a beautiful 25 .�d7!+-

l. liJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.e4 liJf6 4.liJe3 de 5.e4 i..b4 6.i..g5

in the game Guliev - Alavkin, Minsk 1994, made Black resign) Black acknowledged defeat be­cause he could not defend from the white que en's invasion of the a 7 -square by 24 . . . �bS in view of 25.'�cl !+-.

16.bxc3 �xg7 Black ' s counterplay is out of

the question. An active 16 . . . c5 after 17.axb5 �xg7 IS.dxc5 liJxc5 19 .11xc4 l:f.dS 20. �e2+- in the game C . Hansen - S . Hansen, Reykjavik 1995, led Black to an absolutely hopeless situation.

After 1 6 . . . a6 1 7 . liJe5 (less energetic 17.liJd2 0-0-0 IS.axb5 axb5 19.'�b U also gave White a better play in the game Sav­chenko - Cvorovic, Pula 1994) 17 . . . liJxe5 I S . dxe5 �xe5 ( 1S . . . �xg7 w a s l osing in view of 19. �d6 �cS 20.axb5 axb5 2 1 . �a7+- ) 1 9 . axb 5 �xc3 C after 19 . . . axb5 20 . .l:.xaS+ �xaS 21.�al �bS 22 . .l:.hS Wd7 23.�xgS �xgS 24.�a7+ Wd6 25. �a3+- in the game Yermolinsky - Rivas Pas­tor, Leningrad 19S4, White's queen was bursting to the fS­square with decisive threats) 20 .bxc6 �dS 2 1 . �a4 .ltcS 22 . llxc4± in the game VSherbakov - Volkov, Omsk 1996 , Black encountered difficult problems.

1 7.liJd2!? Here knight ' s traditional

manoeuvre 17.liJe5 led to equa­lity after 1 7 . . . liJxe5 I S . dxe5 �xe5 19.axb5 l:f.dS 20J:td4 lixd4 2 1 . �xd4 �xb 5 = in the game Wirthensohn - Flear, Graz 19S4.

17 .. J!b8 1 7 . . . a6 was losing because of

IS .axb5 axb5 19 .11xaS+ .ltxaS 20.�al+-.

This position appeared in the game L . Popov - W. Schmidt, Varna 1967. Continuing the play by IS.liJe4!?±, White obtained a promising position. Black could not keep his extra pawn. At the same time he had to defend dark squares constantly, and his b7-bishop was deprived of future.

a2) 12 . . . c5 In the above-examined va­

riation al Black's light-squared bishop was passive and in some cases White even organized a successful attack on it. For this reason Black wants to open the as-hI diagonal for his bishop at once.

95

Chapter 8

13.0-0! The best White can do is to

finish the development. After 13.dxc5 �xd1+ 14.'it'xd1 g4 (this line led to a complicated play with mutual chances : ] 4 . . . j"xc5 15 .tDxb5 tDa6 16.'it'e2°o Cebalo -Martic, Pula 2002) 15 .tDe1 j"xg2 16.tDxg2 bxa4 17.:xa4 tDc6 18. tDe3 :xg7 19.tDxc4 j"xc5 20.tDe4 j"d4= in the game Kantsler - on, Uzhgorod 1987, chances of the opponents were approximately equal.

13 ... g4 The principal decision. Now

very keen specific play starts. Black wants to seize the centre, having destroyed White's d4-pawn. In case of 13 .. .lhg7 White already has more reasons for playing an endgame than on the previous move . After 1 4 . dxc5 �xd1 1 5 J Hx d 1 j"xc3 1 6 .bxc3 bxa4 17.tDe5 j"xg2 18.'it'xg2;!; in the game Kaspi - K.Mueller, Ber­lin 1994, White's chances were better thanks to the weakness of Black's queenside pawns.

After 13 . . . j"xc3 14.bxc3 cxd4 1 5 . �b 1 ! ? (also there was 1 5 . tDxd4 j"xg2 16.'it>xg2 �d5+ 17 . 'it'gl, Shtyrenkov - Ishkov, Voro­nezh 2000, with White's better play) 1 5 . . . tDd7 16 .tDxd4 i.xg2 1 7 .'it'xg2t White keeps the ini­tiative.

14.tDh4 14.tDe5? was no good because

of 14 . . . j"xg2 15.'it>xg2 cxd4-+. 14 ... .Jtxg2 15.tDxg2 cxd4 After 1 5 . . J:txg7 the move

96

16.dxc5;!; is possible again. 16.tDxb5 tDc6 Black defends the d4-pawn, or

after 1 6 . . ,lhg7 1 7 . tDxd4t the initiative will be White's.

17.tbg4 a6 The d4-pawn cannot be re­

liably strengthened with the help of 17 . . . I:tc8 18.l:tad1 j"c5. After 19. tDf4 a6 by the knight sacrifice 20. tDxe6 ! fxe6 2 1 . �h5+ 'it'd 7 22 . �xc5 axb5 23.axb5 tDe7 24. �xd4 tDd5 25.f4+- White obtained a winning position in the game Shtyrenkov - Rodin, Briansk 1995, in connection with the threat of f5. This is not helpful as well: 17 . . : �b6 1 8 . �e4 j"c5. After 19.1:tac1! a6 White can gain a promising position again by a temporary piece sacrifice: 20 . tDxd4 j"xd4 2 1 .l:txc4 l:tc8 22.a5 �b5 23 .l:tfc1 �xb2 24.tDf4! �xf2+ 25 .'it'hl±.

IB.�e4 ncB After 18 . . :�'d7 19.tDxd4 l:tc8

20.l:tfd 1 +- Black's position is falling apart. In case of 18 . . . tDe7 1 9 . �xa8 �xa8 2 0 . tD c 7 + 'it'd7 2 1 .tDxa8 l:txa8 22.l:tac1± Black has no sufficient compensation for the exchange.

1 .0,f3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 0,f6 4.0,c3 dc 5.e4 i.b4 6.i.g5

19.1:.fdl! Not taking into account pos­

sible loss of a piece, White in­tends to destroy Black's central pawns. I n this moment the knight's retreat from b5 was equivalent a positional capitu­lation for him. After 19.�h7 'it>d7 20.I:Ifd1 �f6co it is also uneasy for White to find the way for de­veloping his initiative.

19 ... axb5 Only 19 . . . �c5 was played in

practice. After 20.'�h7 'it>d7 2l . 0,a3 (now when Black's king has occupied not very good position on the d7-square, this retreat is possible) 2 1 . . . �xa3 (in case of 2 1 . . . �f6 22.0,xc4 1hg7 23.'�e4� White mai ntains the attack) 22Jha3 �g5 23.0,e3 l1xg7 (the continuation 23 . . .'�·xg7 24.�xg7 l:!.xg7 25.ti:lxc4± leads to an end­ing with White's extra pawn) 24.�e4± in the game Jussupow - Van Wely, Groningen 1994, Black could not save his central pawns.

20.axb5 0,e7 After 20 . . . 0,a5 2 1 .J:lxd4 �b6

(in case of 2 1 . . .'�f6 22.ti:lf4 .lic5 2 3 . J:l d 2 c3 2 4 . bxc3 �xc3 2 5 . 'uddl± the threat o f White's knight sacrifice on the e6-square hangs over Black's position) 22.�h7 �e7 23.�h4+ 'it>e8 (after 23 . . . f6 24.ti:lf4 'ucd8 25.ti:lg6+ �e8 26. �h7 'it>f7 27Jld7+ l:!.xd7 28. ti:lh8+ 'it>e7 2 9 . �xg8+- Black cannot restrain White's g-pawn) 24.ti:le3 l:txg7 (in case of 24 . . . ti:lb3 25.l1xc4 �c5 26.ti:lg4+- Black's

position is hopeless) 2 5 . �h8+ �f8 26.0,f5 exf5 27.l:!.e1+ �e6 28Jhe6+ fxe6 29.l:td6± Black's position is difficult. It is very hard for him to arrange the coordination of his pieces, scat­tered all over the board.

2 1.l:.xd4 �b6 21 . .. �c7 does not solve all the

problems because of22.0,e3! �c5 23.l:txc4±.

22.ttJe3! White brings up the knight to

the scene of action. L.Van Wely analyses only 22.l1a8 �c5 23. l:!.xc4 �xf2+ 24.'it>f1co.

22 ... �c5 Black loses both in case of

22 .. .lhg7 23 J�a8! �c5 24.ti:lxc4 �c7 25 .b6 �xb6 26.0,d6+ 'it>f8 27.0,xc8+-, and 22 . . . f5 23 .�h4 �f7 (if 23 . . .lhg7, then 24.l:ta6 �xb5 25Jhe6+-) 24.ti:lxc4 �xb5 25.'ua7+-.

23.ttJxc4 �b8 In case of 23 . . . �xb5 decisive

is 24.l1a8!+-. 24.l:tddl �xg7 25.b6 25.b4 is not enough in view of

25 . . ..lhg3+! 26.hxg3 �xg3+ 27. �g2 �xf2+ 28.'it>f1 l:txc4p.

25 ... 0,c6 In case of 25 . . . f5 26.�f.3 0,c6

27.l�e1 'it>f8 28.�h5 oUe7 this line is leading to White's practically forced win: 29.l:te5! 0,d8 30.�h8+ 'it>f7 3 1 .l1d1 0,b7 (after 3 1 . . .�b4 deciding is 32.J:lb5 0,c6 33. �h5+ 'it>g7 34.�g5+ 'it>f8 35 .�f6+ l:!.f7 3 6 . �xe6+-) 3 2 . �h7+ 'it>f8 3 3 . �h6+ 'it>f7 34Jld7! +-.

26.b4!

97

Chapter 8

White sacrifices the pawn and thanks to that his rook can support the b6-pawn from the rear.

26 . . . .i.xb4 27.:dbl±

White has a clear advantage despite having only two pawns for Black's piece. Black cannot cope with the passed b6-pawn without material loses.

b) 6 ... c5

The initial position, which describes, as a matter offact, the Vienna Variation and is a pre­lude for its main lines. Black does not strive for obligatory keeping of the gambit pawn, but he strikes a counter-blow on White's centre, expecting to get a co un­terplay.

7.i..xc4

98

The most natural and logical . White restores the material balance and engages the bishop into the play, trying to use his advantage in development. After other continuations he cannot pretend to the opening advan­tage. So, an attempt to make use of the f6-knight's pin imme­diately after 7 .e5 is parried by 7 . . . h6 ! 8 .i..d2 (8.i..h4? g5 9.ttJxg5 �xd4-+; 8 .exf6 hxg5 9.fxg7 l:.g8 10.dxc5 �xd1+ 11.!Ixd1 l:.xg7 12. i..xc4 ttJc6 1 3 . 0-0 g4 14 . ttJd2 i..xc5 15.ttJde4 i..e7= Sideif-Sade - Dzhandzhdava , Uzhgorod 1988) 8 . . . i..xc3 9.bxc3 ttJe4 10. i..xc4 ttJc6 1 1 . 0-0 ttJxd2 ! ? 1 2 . �xd2 0-0=. Black's position is quite safe, and a straight attack does not give White more than a perpetual checkmate: 1 3 . �f4 cxd4 14 .cxd4 b6 1 5 . i..d3 i..b 7 16.�e4 g6 17 .�f4 ttJb4 18. �xh6 i..xf3 19 .i..xg6 fxg6 20. �xg6+ <;t>h8 21 .�h6+ 112-1/2 Khalifman - Magem, Dos Hermanas 1993. Or 7.dxc5 �xd1+ (also possible is 7 . . . i..xc3 + ! ? 8 . bxc3 �a5co) 8 .l:!.xd1 ttJbd7 9. i..d2 ttJxc5 1 0 . i..xc4 a6 n .e5 ttJfd7 12.a3 i..xc3 13 .i..xc3 b5 14.i..e2 i..b7 15 .0-0 i..d5= with approximately equal play, Sakaev - Ionov, St. Peters­burg 1992.

7 . . . cxd4 Dubious is 7 . . . �a5?! 8 .i..xf6

(also good is 8.0-0!? i..xc3 9.i..xf6 i..xb2 1 0 . i..xg7 l:!.g8 1 l . l:!. b l ± ) 8 . . . i..xc3+ (8 . . . gxf6 9 .0-0±) 9.bxc3 �xc3+ 10 .ttJd2 gxf6 n . dxc5 ! ttJd7 (in case of 1l . . . <;t>e7 12J�c1 �a5

1 .8{3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.e4 8f6 4.8e3 de 5.e4 �b4 6. �g5

very strong is 13.e5! fxe5 14.�h5 lidS 1 5 .�g5+ c,t>fS 16.lid1 8c6 17.0-01' Christoffel - Burghold, Montreux 1 9 3 9 ) 1 2 . li c 1 �d4 (after 1 2 . . . �a5 13 . 0-0 8xc5 14.�h51' White has a dangerous initiative) 13 . .tb5 c,t>e7 (if 13 . . . a6, then 14 . .ta4±) 14.'uc4 �b2 15 . 8b31' with White's initiative.

8.8xd4 Now much attention will be

devoted to the continuations: bl) 8 . . . 0-0, b2) 8 . . . 8bd7, b3) 8 . . . ..td7 and b4) 8 . . . �a5. The main move S . . . .txc3+ will be examined in Chapter 9 .

The response S . . . �c7?! is not a very good continuation for Black, because the move 9.�b3! , discovered by Y.Averbakh in 1946 already, faces Black with difficult tasks. After 9 . . . .txc3+ (9 . . . 8xe4 10. �xb4 8g5 ll.h4+-; 9 . . . �c5 10 . .txf6 gxf6 1 1 . 0-0 ! �xd4 12.�xb4 8c6 13 .�b3 0-0 14 .IIad l±) 1 0 . �xc3 8xe4 1 1 . 8b5! �c5 12 .�xg7 J:tfS 13.ii..h6! �xf2 (if 13 . . . 8d7, then 14.'uc1�) 14.c,t>d1 8d7 1 5 .J:te1 8ef6 (15 . . . 8ec5 1 6 . .te3 �h4 17 .8d6+-) 16 . ..txe6! �xb2 17 . .l:l.c1 +- in the game Averbakh - Estrin, Mos­cow 1964, Black resigned.

bl) 8 . . . 0-0?! This natural move leads

Black to great difficulties, as it will be seen later.

9.0-0 Before the exchange on the

c3-square, castling is in White's favour.

9 ... ..txc3 In case of 9 . . . h6 possible is

10.ii..h4 ..te7 ll.e5 8fd7 12 . ..tg3 a6 1 3 . �g4 8c6 14 .8xc6 bxc6 1 5 .'uadl± Orgovan - S ontag, Hungary 19S5 . After 9 . . . �a5 10 . .txf6 gxf6 11.'uc1 'udS 12.8cb5 8c6 (in case of 12 . . . a6 13.a3 axb5 1 4 . axb4 �xb4 1 5 . �g4+ c,t>hS 16.8xb5± White gets an appre­ciable advantage) 13. �g4+ c;i;>hS 14.�h4 ..te7 15.8xc6 bxc6 16.'uc3 ,UgS 17.e5!� in the game Osnos - G.Mukhin, Leningrad 19S4, White got the strongest attack.

10.bxc3 8bd7 1l.�xe6! A standard blow, which is

rather frequent in different lines of this variation.

1l ... fxe6 12.8xe6 �e7 Black has great problems

after 1 2 . . . �a5 1 3 .8xfS �xg5 14 . 8xd7 .txd7 1 5 . �b3+ c;i;>hS 16.�xb7±.

13.8xfB c,t>xf8 If 13 . . . 8xfS, then 14. �d4±. 14.1:te l 8e5 15.f4 8f7 16.

.th4 �c5+ 1 7.�d4 b6 18.�xc5! bxc5 19.e5 8d5 20.e6+-

This position arose in Green­feld - Zak, Israel 2000. Black is unable to repulse White's threats.

99

Chapter 8

b2) B ••• ttJbd7

9.0-0 Like in the previous variation

b I , a respite is again profitable for White.

9 . . . .txc3 9 . . . h6 10 . .th4 was risky, be-

cause in this case Black con­stantly would have to reckon with the threat of the sacrifice on e6. For example, after 10 . . . g5 (if 10 . . .'ltfc7, then 1l . .txe6!±) pos­sible was 1l . .tg3 .txc3 12.bxc3 ttJxe4 13 . .txe6!� with a strong attack.

IO.bxc3 �a5 11 . .th4! The strongest response. 11 ... 0-0 1 1 . . ,lilxe4? loses because of

12.l:.e1 ttJxc3 13.ttJxe6!+-. I2.1:te1 White's pieces are placed

more actively and he has an advantage in development, so his chances i n the forthcoming struggle are better.

I2 .• :�c5 After 12 . . . b6 13 . .tb5! Black

does not manage to finish the development successfully. As a result of 1 3 . . . a6 14 . .tc6 'ua7 15.e5! ttJxe5 16 . .tg3 ttJc4 17.ttJb3

100

�f5 1 8 . �d4 White's bishops control the whole board and that determines his undoubted ad­vantage. Then in the game Khuz­man - Kupreichik, Lvov 1988, was played 1 8 . . . ttJa5 1 9 .ttJxa5 �xa5 20.'ue5 �a3 2 1 . �xb6 1:te7 22.1:teel±.

In case of 12 . . . ttJe5 13 . .tf1 ! (the best place for the bishop) 13 . . . .td7 ( 13 . . . �xc3 14.l:.c1 �b4 15 .ttJb5t) 14.ttJb3 �d8 15 . .tg3 ttJg6 1 6 . .t d 6 1:te8 1 7 . e 5 ttJ d 5 18 .c4:;1;: a s i t was i n the game Sakaev - Kharlov, Budva 1996, the advantage was also o n White's side.

I3 . .txe6! "In some positions the com­

bination is as natural as a baby's smile," Z.Tarrash said.

I3 ... fxe6 I4.ttJxe6 �h5 After 14 . . . �c6 15 .�b3! �h8

1 6 . ttJxf8 ttJxf8 1 7 . .txf6 �xf6 18 .'uad1 �e7 19. �b4 �xb4 20. cxb4± like in the game Tukmakov - Khuzman, Sverdlovsk 1987, Black's position is hard.

15 . .txf6 �xdl 1 6.1:taxdl gxf6

1 6 . . J Ixf6 loses because of 17.ttJc7 l:.b8 18.e5 .uc6 19.e6 l:!.xc7

1.0.{3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 t'iJf6 4.t'iJc3 dc 5.e4 iLb4 6.i.g5

20.e7 t'iJf6 2 1 .:td8+ Wfl 22J:tfS+ Wg6 23.:txf6+- or 16 . . . t'iJxf6 in view of 17.t'iJxfS WxfS 18.e5+-.

1 7.t'iJxf8 Wxf8 1 8.l:te3 b6 19.1:th3 Wg7 20.:hd3 t'iJc5 21. :d8 iLb7 22.f3;;\;

This position appeared in the game Yermolinsky - Baburin, Sverdlovsk 1987. White is having more prospects in the arising ending; he has got two pawns and a rook for a couple of minor pieces.

b3) 8 ... iLd7 This idea is relatively new; it

was put into the tournament practice by A. Morozevich. Black is preparing the queen's knight developing on the c6-square.

9.0-0

White finishes the deve­lopment, taking his king away to

a safe place. 9 ... t'iJc6 10.l:tcl -0-0 In case of 10 . . . a6 possible is

1 l . a3 ! i.e7 ( 1 l . . . i.d6? is bad because of 12.t'iJf5! i.xh2+ 13. Wxh2 exfS 14.exfS 0-0 15 .t'iJd5 i.xf5 1 6 .t'iJxf6+ gxf6 1 7 .' �xd8 :1fxdB I B . i.xf6±) 1 2 . t'iJf3 t'iJg4 13.i.xe7 �xe7 14. �e2 �f6 15. :tcd l h5 1 6 .h3 tbce5 1 7 .t'iJxe5 �xe5 (if 17 . . . tbxe5, then 18.iLa2t with the idea of f2-f4, e4-e5 ) IB.g3 tbf6 19. �e3 h4 and here in the game Azmaiparashvili -Morozevich, Madrid 1996, atten­tion deserved 20.f4! 'ific7 21 ..te2 hxg3 2 2 . e 5 tbh5 ( 2 2 . . J:!.xh3? 2 3 .Wg2 1:th2+ 2 4 . Wxg3 :s.xe2 25. �xe2+-) 23.tbe4 i.c6 24.tbd6+ We7 25 .fS� with an attack (ana­lysed by Azmaiparashvili) .

In response to 10 . . . h6 there is a good 1 1 . i.f4 ! The bishop is placed in the best manner here; it is controlling an important diagonal. After 11 . . . 0-0 ( 1 1 . . . i.xc3 1 2 Jbc3 t'iJxe4 1 3 .l:!.e3ii5; 1l . . . t'iJxd4 1 2 . �xd4 .t c6 1 3 . i.d5! t ) 12.e5 'ifib8!? 13.i.g3 t'iJxe5 ( 1 3 . . . .txc3? loses because of 14.exf6+-) Black has to go under a pin, because otherwise his situation is simply bad. Now as a result of the complications after 14.l:t e l i.d6 1 5 .tLldb5 tLlxc4 (if 15 . . . i.xb 5 , then 1 6 .tbxb5 l:.d8 1 7 . tLlxd6 l:!.xd6 l B . 'ifie2 tbxc4 19 . �xc4±) 1 6 . tbxd6 tbxd6 (in case of 16 . . . tbxb2? 17 .�d4! tbh5

101

Chapter 8

18.CLlc4 CLlxg3 19 .CLlxb2!+- Black loses the piece) 1 7 . .ltxd6 �d8 18 . .ltxf8 �xf8 in the game Kram­nik - Anand, Dos Hermanas 1997, White, continuing the play by means of 19 . �d6+ 'f!1e7 20. 'f!1xe7+ �xe7 2 1 . f3± kept his chances for a victory (analysed by V.Kramnik).

1l.CLlb3!? Also possible is l1 .CLlf3 �b8

12 . .ltxf6 gxf6 13 .a3;!;. 1l ... CLle5 12.i.e2 i.c6 13.f3

�bB 14.a3

In this position the opponents agreed to a draw in the game Kramnik - Anand, Linares 1997. Black managed to re-form well, but White still kept a slight advantage due to a better control over the centre and more stable position of his minor pieces. Then it was possible to play, for exam­ple, 1 4 . . . .ltxc3 ( 14 . . . .lte7? was dangerous because of 15.f4 t with the idea of e5, and after 14 . . . .l:.d8 possible was 1 5 . �e U) 15Jhc3 CLlg6 16. �d2 .l:.d8 17. �e3;!;.

b4) B • • • 'f!1a5 A cunning move. On the one

hand, Black is trying to save his

102

dark-squared bishop and on the other hand to get a position from the main variation (see Chapter 9 - 8 . . . iLxc3 9.bxc3 'f!1a5 and so on), but more profitable for him.

9.iLd2! A principal response. If Black

does not take on c3, then White prepares to take by the bishop, which will give him an appre­ciable advantage . In case of 9 . .ltxf6 .ltxc3+! 10 .bxc3 'f!1xc3+ 11 .�f1 gxf6 we have such line of the main variation, which is considered a safe one for Black; and after 9 . .ltb5+ .ltd7 10 . .ltxf6 gxf6 White has to play 11 .0-0 iLxc3 12 .iLxd7+ CLlxd7 13 .bxc3 and so on, because there is no 1 1 . �b3 - Black will s imply smash the b5-bishop.

9 ... �c5 Black is trying to use tem­

porary defenceless of White's minor pieces. There is 9 . . . 0-0 as well; Black wants to evacuate the king from the centre quicker and to renew the threat of'f!1c5. After 1 0 . �e2 ! (weaker was 1 0 .CLlc2 i.xc3 11 ..ltxc3 �g5CX), which was played in the game Kasparov -Morozevich, S araj evo 2 00 0 ) .

l.CiJ{3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.e4 CiJf6 4.CiJe3 de 5.e4 i.b4 6. i.g5

1 0 . . J',1dS ( 10 . . . CiJc6?! is worse because of 1l .CiJxc6 bxc6 12.a3± or 10 . . . CiJbd7 1l .a3 CiJe5 12.i.a2 �b6 1 3 .CiJdb5 i.c5 in view of 14.f4! CiJeg4 15 .e5 CiJf2 16J1£1±; and in case of lO . . . e5 I1 .CiJb3 'f1.c7 12.0-0 iLg4 13 .f3 iLd7 14.l::tac1 CiJc6 1 5 . iLg5;t White's chances are also better) 1l .CiJb3! (after a timid 1l .CiJc2 interesting is 11 . . . �xd2! ? 12 .�xd2 iLxc3+ 13 .bxc3 �g5ii5) 1 1 . . . �c7 12.0-0 CiJc6 13. l1adl CiJe5 (if 13 . . . a6 , then 14. iLg5;t) 1 4 . iLb 5 iL d 7 1 5 . i..xd7 iLxc3 (in case of 1 5 . . . 'f1.xd7 pos­sible is 16.iLg5;t) 16.i..xc3 l::txd7 17 .Il.c U in the game Akopian -Piket, Dortmund 2000, White got some advantage.

1O.i.b5+ i.d7 Black also tried to cover from

the checkmate with his knight, hoping later to force the bishop back from the b5-square or to exchange it. After 1 0 . . . CiJbd7 1l.CiJb3 'f1.b6 12. 'f1.e2 a6 13.i..d3 CiJe5 14.0-0 0-0 15J:tacl iLd7 in the game Pelletier - Kasparov, Zurich ( active) 20 0 1 , White played unsuccessfully: 16 .iLg5? CiJxd3 1 7 . �xd3 iLxc3 ! IS . i..xf6 ( I S . bxc3 �b5 ! ) I S . . . i..xf6 1 9 . 'f1.xd7 iLxb2, and that led him to the loss of a pawn. 16.i..e3! is much stronger; it was played in the game Gelfand - Khalifman, Moscow ( active) 2002. White immediately emphasized that the position of the Black's queen was unsteady. Then there was 16 . . . �d6 ( or 1 6 . . . �dS 1 7 .l1fdl with unpleasant pressure along

the d-file) 17 .Il.fdl CiJeg4 IS.g3 CiJxe3 19. 'f1.xe3 CiJg4 (in case of 1 9 . . . iLxc3 20 .l::txc3 e5 2 1 .iLe2 �bS 22.CiJc5 White kept the initiative) 20.�g5. Now 20 . . . CiJe5 suggested itself, but in this case White, whose forces are better mobilized, also keeps the advan­tage : 2 1 .iLe2 'f1.bS (or 2 1 . . . f6 22Jhd6 fxg5 23Jlb6 iLxc3 24. Il.xc3 iLc6 25.CiJc5 with a better endgame) 22.f4 f6 23. 'f1.h5 iLeS 24.'f1.h3 'f1.a7+ 25 .�g2. In spite of White having slightly weakened his king's position, Black does not has the time to create threats, because his pieces are badly coordinated. For example: 25 . . . 'f1.e3 26.CiJd4! iLxc3 27.l::txc3 �xe4 2S.�f2 l1dS 29 . .l:.e3 'f1.g6 30 .CiJxe6 l::xdl 3 1 .iLxdl with a decisive advantage.

Black's move 20 . . . e5 looks risky, because all his minor pieces are in trouble : 2 1.CiJd5! h6 2 2 . 'f1.h4 . And here instead of 22 . . . �acS that after 23.iLe2 1eads Black to material losses , it is necessary to continue with 22 . . . CiJf6 23.CiJxffi+ �xf6 24.'f1.xf6 gxf6 25 .a3 iLa4! (25 . . . i..e7 26.iLxa6±) 26.iLc2 l::tfcS! (26 . . . i..e7 27.CiJa5±) 27.CiJal ! iLxc2 2S .CiJxc2 iLc5 29. \t>£1 . The endgame, of course, is advantageous for White , but Black still can put up persistent resistance.

1l.CiJb3 �e7 11 . . .'f1.b6 is weaker, because

here after 1 2 . iLd3 ! the queen goes under blows. Then it is possible to play: 12 . . . 0-0 13.0-0

103

Chapter 8

i..c6 1 4 . i..e3 �d8 1 5 . f3 �xc3 16 .bxc3 ttJbd7 17.i..e2! �c7 18. �d4;!; with an idea of 19 . .l:tfdl.

12 . ..id3! B l ack's position is con­

strained, that is why it makes sense for White to keep more pieces on the board.

12 .•• ttJc6 1 3.0-0 0-0 14.a3 ..id6

After 1 4 . . . i..xc3 1 5 . i..xc3;t White gains an advantage of the bishop pair.

15.f4!? Threatening with 16.e5, White

practically forces Black's next move. 15 . .tg5 is not so strong because of 15 . . . h6 16.i..h4 i..f4 17.ttJe2 e5 18.tbxf4 exf4 19.f3 i..e6 20.i..f2 .l:lfd8= with approximately equal play, Kramnik - Lautier, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 1998.

15 ... e5 16.f5 ttJd4 17 . ..ig5 The play develops around d5

and d4 squares, and it should not be forgotten that White has a space advantage.

17 ... ..ic6 1S.ttJd2! A very powerful manoeuvre.

Black's knight on d4 stands

1 04

beautifully, but uselessly, whe­reas White's knights constantly create different threats , making manoeuvres.

1S •. ..lUd8 After 18 . . . b5 19 .ttJd5 i..xd5

20.exd5 i..c5 2 1 .�hl .l:tfd8 22. ttJe4! �h8 23.�el a5 24.11c1 l1xd5 25.ttJxf6 gxf6 26 . ..ie4+- in the game P.Nikolic - Lautier, Monte Carlo (active) 1998, Black found himself in a hopeless situation.

1 9.'it>h1 ! ..ic7 2 0.i.c4 �d6 2 1 ...id5 l:r.d7 22.ttJc4 �e7 23. �d3 ..idS 24.�g3 ..ic7

This position appeared in the game Bacrot - Fressinet, Meribel 1998. Continuing the play by 25.i..xc6 bxc6 26 .IHd U White kept his advantage.

Chapter 9 l .liJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 liJf6 4.liJc3 dxc4 5.e4 i.b4 6.i.g5 c5 7. i.xc4 cxd4 8.liJxd4 i.xc3+

Exchanging his bishop with White's knight, Black intends to make use of some weakening of his opponent's pawn chain on the queenside in the near future.

9.bxc3 A forced response. 9 . . . �a5 Having created a white weak­

ness on c3, Black immediately attacks it, at the same time emphasizing some defenceless of his opponent's minor pieces. White has to act energetically not to lose the initiative. In case of 9 . . . liJbd7 1 0 . 0-0 with another move order there is a position from Chapter 8, variation b2. 9 . . . h 6 i s dubious, because White is not obliged to exchange on f6 . After 10.1Lh4! g5 (after 10 . . . liJbd7 1 1 . 0-0 g5 1 2 . ii.g3 liJxe4 to

White's decisive advantage leads 13 .iLxe6!+-, and in case of 11 . . . 0-0 good i s 12.f4 �c7 13.iLd3 liJc5 14.iLxf6 gxf6 15.l:tf.3 'it>h7 16.iLc2 .Jtd7 1 7 . �d2±) 1 1 . iLg3 liJxe4 12.ii.e5 f6 (if 12 . . . 0-0, then po­ssible is 13. �d3! �a5 14.liJf.3±) 1 3 . �h5+ 'it>f8 14.�f.3+- in the game Lukacs - Kallai, Budapest 1985, White achieved a deciding advantage.

IO • .Jtb5+! Practice showed that this is

the only way for White to strug­gle for an advantage. Other continuations are not dangerous for Black.

An attempt by 10.liJb5 to use the weakness of dark squares in the opponent's camp, which appeared after the exchange on c3, looks tempting but it does not lead to success. After 10 . . . liJxe4 (also not bad is 10 . . . a6 11 .liJd6+ 'it>e7or:;) 11 .ii.f4 (in case of 11 .�d4 Black manages to develop and to equalize the play by 11 . . . 0-0! 1 2 . �xe4 a6or:;) 11 . . . 0-0 1 2 . 0-0 liJd7 (also possible is 12 . . . liJc6!? 13 .i.c7 b6 14.�f.3 f5 15.Me 1 a6or:; like in the game Epishin - A. Maksimenko, Graz 1998) 13.l:tel

105

Chapter 9

tbdf6 14.a4 b6 (J.Piket recom­mends 14 . . . e5 15.Ji.xe5 a6ao) 15.f3 tbc5 16.Ji.e5 a6 1 7 .tbd6 in the game Karpov - Piket, Monte Carlo (ml2) 1999, continuing the play by 1 7 . . . tbeB!? lB. �d4 tbxd6 19.Ji.xd6 .l:!.dBao, Black could get quite a safe position. White has no more than a compensation for the pawn.

The move 10.Ji.xf6 was the main objection against playing the Vienna Variation for a long time, but then precise ways of equalizing for Black were found. After 10 . . . �xc3+ 11 .Wfl (after 1 1 . �d2 �xd2+ 1 2 .Wxd2 gxf6 1 3 . tbb 5 WdB ! 1 4 .We3 a6 1 5 . .l:!.hd1+ We7 16.tbd4 1i.dTt like in the game Seredenko - Blatny, Alma-Ata 19B9, Black's chances are even slightly better) 11 . . . gxf6! 12J:tc1 �a5 typical of such positions engaging the king rook into the play with the help of 13.h4 (in case of 13 .tbb5 good is 13 . . . a6! 14.tbd6+ We7 15 . .tb5! Ji.d7 1 6 .i.xd7 tbxd7 1 7 . tbxf7 lIheB 1B.h4 Wxf7 19.�xd7+ .l:!.e7ao Ruban - Sagalchik, USSR 19B7, and an attempt to attack directly by 13 . .tb5+ rJi;e7 14.e5 ! ? after 14 . . . fxe5 15.�h5 tbd7! 16.�g5+ WfB 1 7 . MxcB+ MxcB 1B . .txd7 �dB ! 19 .tbxe6+ fxe6 20 . �h6+ rJi;e7 21 .�xe6+ WfB 22.�f5+ We7 2 3 . �e6+ WfB 24. �f5+ in the game 011 - Dokhoian, Vilnius 19BB, led to a perpetual check only) does not promise the ad­vantage here. Black manages to finish the development succes

106

sfully and to engage his pieces into the struggle. Continuing the play by 13 . . . We7 14 . .l:!.h3 tbc6 15.tbxc6+ bxc6 16 . .l:!.d3 lIdB (also possible is 16 . . . lIbB 17 .Wg1 .udB 1B . .l:!.xdB �xdB 19. �h5 �d4 20. Ji.b3 :tb4 2 U :.xc6 Ji.d7 22.':'c7 �d6 ! 23 . .l:!.xa7 .l:!.xe4= with an equality, like in the game Dreev - Yudasin, Simferopol 19BB) 17.':'xdB �xdB 1B.�h5 �d4 19. �xh7 .ubB 20.i.b3 Ji.a6+ 2 1 .Wg1 Ji.d3� in the game Karpov -Huebner, Skelleftea 19B9, Black obtained a counterplay.

Now after White checkmated by his bishop from the b5-square, Black has two responses at his disposal: a) lO . . . tbbd7 and b) lO • • . Ji.d7.

a) lO . . • tbbd7

1l . ..txf6 It is difficult for White to find

a convenient defence for his pawns c3 and e4. That is why he prefers to sacrifice the c3-pawn, getting a long initiative instead.

1l . . . �xc3+ If you suffer, then try to suffer

for the material advantage. In case of 11 . . . gxf6? 1 2 . 0-0 rJi;e7

13Jle1 .l:tdS 14. �d2 lLle5 15.�e3 a6 16.�e2 �d7 17.f4 lLlg6 lS.f5± White attacks, having material equality, Savchenko - Raisky, Erevan 19S5.

12.Wfl gxfG 13.h4 We have already seen this

standard method of engaging the rook into the play. By comparison with the variant 10.�xf6 (see notes to White's 1 0th move), it is much more difficult for Black to develop his queenside here.

13 ... a6 All the same, Black cannot

manage without this move. Enti­rely bad is 13 . . . �a5 14.':h3 e5, hoping for an exchange on d 7, after which Black is OK. But there is a "surprise" for Black. After 15.lLlf5 ! �xb5+ 16.'it>gl!? (an immediate 16.lld3� is good as well) 16 . . . �a6 17 . .l:td3� de­spite an extra piece, Black lite­rally has nothing to move with, and he needs a piece of advice.

In case of 13 . . . We7, leaving the king in the centre while there are a lot of pieces on the board, Black risks to find himself under a strong attack. After 14 . .l:th3 �a5 15 . .:I.b1 .adS 16.�c1! (this is a move with lots of ideas ; the queen not only takes under the control important squares c5 and a3, but also reserves the oppor­tunity of a spurt to the queen­side) 16 . . . a6 (16 . . . lLle5? loses in view of 17.�c5+ lld6 1S.':d1 �b6 19 .lLlc6+! bxc6 20. �xd6+ 'it>eS 2 1. .Ug3 �xb5+ 22.Wg1 and in the game Adorjan - Chernin, Debre-

cen 1990, Black had to resign; and in case of 16 . . . �b6 17 .11d3! lLlc5 IS. �a3, played in the game Dzhandzhgava - M aliutin, USSR 199 1 , even Black's best response after lS . . . .l:td6 19.11dd1! lLlxe4 20.�e2 �c5 2 1 . �e3 lLlc3 22.lLlf5+ �xf5 23. �xc3 llc6 24. �d4± led to White's obvious advantage) 17.lla3 �b6 lS.lLlf5+! exf5 1 9 .�xd7 �d4 ( 1 9 . . . �d6 loses because of 2 0 . �xf5 b5 21.e5!+-, analysed by A.Adorjan) 2 0 . �xf5 b5 2 1 .Wgl± White's chances are evidently better.

14.':h3 �a5 Also 14 . . . �b4 was played ,

intending t o transfer the queen to d6. After 15.�e2 0-0 (in case of 15 . . . �d6 16.11c1 lLlc5 17 .':hc3 b6 lS.lLlb3! , dislodging the knight from the c5-square, after IS . . . �h2 1 9 . .l:th3 �e5 20.lLlxc5 bxc5 2 1 .Uhc3 �h2 22 .llh3 �e5 23. 'it>gl!? �b7 24.�a4+ We7 25.�a3 'uhcS 26.l:Ihc3 �d6 27.�f.3 llabS 2S.':c4!± in the game Akopian -Dzhandzhgava , Moscow (01 ) 1994, White got a better play) 16 . .l:tb1 �d6 Black's queen is placed quite well. However, with the help of 17.�d2 WhS 1S.�h6!? (White 's chances are in the attack of the black king's wea­kened position) IS . . . ':gS ( IS . . . �xd4? loses in view of 1 9 . .l:td1 �e5 20 .f4 �b2 2 1 ..l:tb3 ! �xa2 22.':xd7!+-) 19.'ud1 �f8 20.�e3 � e 7 2 1 .h5 lLle5 2 2 . � f4 � d 7 23 . .l:!.b3 b 5 24.lLlf3 ! � c 6 ( 2 4 . . . lLlxf3 ? i s bad because o f 2 5 . ':xd7!+-) 25.lLlxe5 fxe5 26.�xe5+

107

Chapter 9

f6 2 7 . tH4 e5 2 8 .' �h4;j; in the game S.Ivanov - Kosyrev, Sa­mara 2000, White managed to keep some advantage.

15.i.e2 ltJc5 Apparently, this is the only

possibility to develop the queen­side pieces. If Black manages to play .td7, %:tc8, then he has not got difficulties in the opening. King's problem cannot be solved by 15 . . . We7, because the place of Black's king in the centre looks very dangerous. After 16.ltJb3! (less precise is 16.:c 1 :d8 17. �c2iiO, though in this case White has a sufficient compensation for the pawn as well) 16 . . . �b6 (in case of 16 . . . �e5 good is 17. fid2! t with the idea of %:td1 and �b4) 17.�c1! (capturing the important a3-fS diagonal) 1 7 . . Jld8 18 .%:td3 ltJ f8 ( 1 8 . . . ltJ e 5 1 9 . fia3+ We8 20,llg3 �d6 2 1 .ltJc5!±) 19.�a3+ We8 20.':'xd8+ fixd8 21 .ltJa5 fie7 22. t'fc3± Black did not manage to solve the problem of the queen­side development in the game Akopian - S. Ivanov, St. Peters­burg 1993. White's advantage was obvious.

In case of 15 . . . 0-0, even after evacuation from the centre, the black king cannot feel safe. With the help of 16.%:tc1!? ( 16.ltJb3 is worse because of 1 6 . . . fib4!oo) 16 . . . ltJe5 (White has a fair com­pensation for the pawn after 16 . . . ltJc5 1 7.ltJb3 ltJxb3 18.fixb3iiO) 17 . fib3 (with the idea of �e3-h6) 17 . . . �d2 lS .:d1 fif4 19 .1tJf3 ! ( exchanging the strong e 5 -

108

knight, which was cementing Black's whole position) 19 . . . b5 20.ltJxe5 fixe5 2 1 . �e3 ! White still accomplishes the planned queen's transfer to the kingside. As a result of 2 1 . . . .tb7 22.�h6 i.xe4 (if 22 . . . WhS, then winning is 23.f4 �b2 24.l1b3+-) 23J�g3+ i,g6 24.h5± in the game Stefans­son - Petursson, Reykjavik 1996, Black had to part with a piece.

16.ltJb3! A standard manoeuvre, re­

moving the strong knight. 16 ... ltJxb3 1 7.fixb3 b6 Black's problem consists in

the fact that it is not so easy for him to develop his bishop and without this it is impossible to unite the rooks and to arrange his pieces' co- ordination. So, after 17 . . . e5 lS.':'£3 t'fdS 19J1c1! fie7 (in case of 1 9 . . . b 5 very strong is 20.l1c6! .te6 2 1 . �a3 fie7 22 . .txb5! �xa3 23 .l1xa6+ �e7 24.%:tfxa3±) 20.�b6 in the game Kramnik - Kaidanov, Gro­ningen 1993, even in case of Black's best answer 20 . . . �e6 with the help of 2 1 .l1xf6 fixb6 22.%:txb6± White achieved a large advantage in the ending.

6. i.g5 c5 7.iLc4 cd 8.tbd4 iLc3 9.bc �a5 lO. iLb5

After 17 . . . �c7 18 .l:td1 iLd7 19 .'!'!fb2! 0-0-0 20.l:tc1 ..tc6 by means of 21 .iLxa6! l:I.d6 22.i.e2t as it was in the game Akopian -C.Horvath, Niksic 199 1 , White kept the initiative on the queen­side.

The move in the main line is one of the latest attempts to rehabilitate the variant a, which was undertaken by the admirers of the Vienna Variation. Black intends to move the bishop to the long diagonal, thus solving his problems of development. If White wins back the b6-pawn, then there will be the queens' exchange and Black will be able not to be afraid of the endgame.

18Jldl iLb7 19 . .:!.:rn!? White ought to find other

objects for his attack. He had another possibility here: 19.�b2 '!'!feS 20. �xb6 i.xe4 2 1. .l:tg3 fS 22.'iitg1!?oo as it was played in the game Topalov - Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2001 .

19 ... 0-0 19 . . . ..txe4? is bad because of

20.I:e3 fS 2 1 . f3 ..tb7 22 . .l:.xe6+ fxe6 23 .�xe6+ 'iitf8 24J:td7+- or 19 . . . f5 in view of 20.exf5! ..txf3 2 1 . '!'!fxf3 0-0 22.fxe6 '!'!feS (22 . . . fxe6 loses because of 23 . '!'!fg3+ 'iith8 24.J::ld7 I:g8 2S.'!'!fc7+-) 23. exf7+ 'iith8 24.g3±.

(diagram after 19 . . . 0-0) This position appeared in the

game Solozhenkin - Khenkin, Reggio E milia 2 0 0 0 . Here a manoeuvre that is already known to us - 20. �e3! (see notes

to Black's lSth move) faced Black with some certain problems. After 20 . . . l:tfd8 (in case of 20 . . . '!'!feS 2U :tg3+ 'iith8 22. '!'!fh6 J::lg8 23.f4 '!'!fb2 24.l:tb3 !Ig6 2S.'!'!fxg6 '!'!fxe2+ 26.'iitxe2 hxg6 27.We3+­Black's extra pawn is not a sufficient compensation for the lost exchange) 2 1 . �h6 .laxd 1 + 22 . ..txd 1 i.xe4 23 .l:tg3+ .tg6 24.hS .lad8 2S . ..tb3 '!'!fd2 26. �xd2 !Ixd2 27.hxg6 hxg6;t in the co­ming endgame White keeps his chances for a victory, having an extra bishop for three pawns.

b) 10 ... ..td7 A calmer continuation.

1l.iLxf6 Worsening the black pawns'

location, White creates objects for his attack.

1l ... gxf6

109

Chapter 9

Losing is 11 . . "�xc3+? because of 12.'it>fl gxf6 13 . .l::i.c1 +-.

12:�b3 To maintain the pressure is

profitable for White; it is better not to give the opponent a tempo for development . In case of 1 2 . i..xd7+ ltJxd7 1 3 . 0-0 a6 ! ? 14.lIbl '?fic7 15.f4 (if 15.'?fih5, then 15 . . . �e7! ?<Xl) 15 . . . 0-0-0!?<Xl Black has a good play, Gyimesi - Acs, Lillafured 1999.

Now it is worth to consider bI) 12 . . . 0-0 and b2) 12 . . . a6.

bI) 12 ... 0-0 13.0-0 Having transferred his major

pieces along the 3rd rank, White is going to get to the black king. In some variations Black's slight delay with his kingside develop­ment tells on the play.

13 ... ltJc6 13 . . . '?fib6 was played in the

game Gelfand - Ivanchuk, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 1999. Black re­ckoned to exchange the queens, using the arrangement of white pieces, but White could make this idea dubious by 14.�fdl !? (the other rook can be useful on the a-file) . Now as a result of 14 . . . ltJc6 ( after 14 . . . ..txb5 1 5 . ltJxb5 a 6 16.ltJd6 '?fixb3 17.axb3 b6 IS .ltJc4 b5 19.1tJd6;t White has a better chance) 15.j,xc6 ..txc6 (Black has a very hard rook endgame after 15 . . . '?fixb3 16.axb3 i..xc6 1 7 . ltJxc6±) 16 . '?fic2 UfdS 17. '?fie2 '?fic5 IS .Ud3� White has good prospects for attacking Black's king.

1 1 0

In case o f 13 . . . i..xb5 14.ltJxb5 ltJc6 possible is 15.c4! UfdS 16.c5! ( creating an outpost on d 6 ) 1 6 . . . Ud2 17 .ltJd6 '?fixc5 IS.ltJxf7! '?fie7 (after IS . . . 'it>g7 19. '?fixb7! .l::i.bS a stunning effect has 20 . ltJdS+! ! .l::i.xb7 21 .ltJxe6±) 19.'?fie3 Ud7 20.ltJh6+ 'it>hS 2l ..l::i.ada and in the game M.Gurevich - Vi­darsson, Akureyri 19S5, this line gave White a better play thanks to unsafe pawn cover of the black king.

14.ltJxc6 M.Gurevich shows the possi­

bility of 14.a4 UfdS 1 5 .�ada with an idea of�d3-g3 .

1 4 . . . .txc6 I 5 .i..xc6 bxc6 I6 . .l::tael .l::tfd8 1 7.e5!

Thus White opens the 4th rank for his queen to make a transfer to the kingside.

17 • . . fxe5 18.'?fic4 lid5 19. '?fig4+ �h8

Mter 19 . . . 'it>f8 20.c4 Uc5 2 l . '?fih4� White's major pieces start an attack at the black king.

20.c4! .l:tc5 Losing is 20 . . . Ud4 2 1 . '?fig5

Uxc4 in view of 2 2 . '1fif6+ 'it>gS 23 .Uxe5+-.

21.:tdl t

6.j.g5 c5 7.ii.c4 cd 8.tiJd4 j.c3 9.bc '?;ia5 lO.j.b5

This position appeared in the game Khenkin - Rechlis, Tel Aviv 1992. There are no minor pieces on the board, but despite this White keeps his dangerous ini­tiative for the sacrificed pawn. The pawn cover of Black's king is not safe enough, besides a lot of black pawns need defence.

b2) 12 ... a6

13.ii.e2 This is giving nothing to

White: 13.j.xd7+ ttJxd7 14.ttJxe6 l:tcS! 15 .0-0 l:txc3 16.ttJg7+ �f8 17. '?;id1 �xg7 IS. '?;ig4+ '?;ig5 19. '?;ixd7 �b5! = P.Cramling - Brun­ner, Biel 1994.

13 ... lLlc6 14.0-0 '?;ic7 Black's problem consists in

only one thing: he has to decide where he can hide the king. All other attributes of his position are not worse. But the king is the main piece in chess, and the result of the game greatly de­pends on whether the position of the king is dangerous or safe. Mter 14 . . . 0-0 15.l:tad1 (with the idea of.l:!.d1-d3-g3) Black still has to play 15 . . . �c7, otherwise it is difficult to defend the b7-pawn

and the d7-bishop. However, the position of the king is defined and that gives White an oppor­tunity to concentrate his efforts on attacking the weakened king­side . This allowed White to obtain an obvious advantage with the help of 16 . '?;ib2 I!:fd8 17.'ud3 ttJe7 18.�c1! lLlg6 19J:Lg3 'it'hS 2 0 . '?;ih6 'ug8 2 1 . f4 �d6 22.e5!± in the game Eingorn -Gelfand, Debrecen 1989.

15 J::tab1 !? White has several ways of

arranging the rooks. We think that to put them on b1 and d1 is the best.

15 ... ttJa5 16. �a3 l:!.c8 Black leaves the king in the

centre for the time being and he reveals his counterplay: against the weak c3-pawn. White has to act enterprisingly and energe­tically to get to his opponent's king.

17.c4!? By this move White indirectly

defends the pawn and frees the 3rd rank for the queen's transfer to the other side. Another way -17 . .ufd1 after 17 . . . '?;ixc3 18.'?;id6 �c7 19.ttJf5! exf5 20. '?;ixf6 leads to great complications. White has sacrificed a piece and opened up the black king's shelter, but de­fensive resources are not ex­hausted yet. With the help of20 . . . .ugS!? (20 . . . 0-0? i s bad because of 21 ..ud3 f4 22 . .ud5 h6 23.�xh6 f5 24 . .ub6!+- Kasparov - Hjartar­son, Tilburg 1989) as it was played in the game Y. Shulman

1 1 1

Chapter 9

- Yakovich, New York 1998, 21 . exffi �c6! 22 . �e5+ �fB 23.i..f3 � c 7 0C) B lack repulsed direct threats, keeping the extra ma­terial.

1 7 . . • �c5 Of course, Black can enjoy

taking the pawn: 17 . . . liJxc4 18. i..xc4 �xc4, but after 19 . .l:tfd 1 White's pieces are very active. For example, after 19 . . . �c3 in the game Kramnik - Van Wely, Mo­naco 2000, continuing the play by 20 . .l:tb3! �c7 2 U:tbd3 e5 22.liJf5 i..xf5 2 3 . exf5 .l:tg8 24.h3 �c6 25.g3ro White got a fair compen­sation for the pawn. Mter 19 . . . �c5 20.�f3 ! b 5 (if20 . . . �e7, then 21 ..l:.xb7 .l:thd8;l;) 21 . �xf6 .l:.g8 22. liJf3 ! �e7 (after 22 . . . .l:.g6?! 23. �h8+ 't;e7 24.�xh7± Black's si­tuation is difficult) 23. �d4 t in the game Ribshtein - Volzhin, Budapest 2000, White also seized the initiative.

'

18.�c3 The best place for White's

queen. 18 . . . �e7

112

This move becomes possible after Black has forced White's queen out from the a3-fB dia­gonal. In case of 18 . . . e5 19.1iJb3 liJxb3 20.axb3 a5 2 UUd l i..e6 22. h3 ! ?;l; ( with the idea of i..g4) White had a slight but firm ad­vantage in the game Khalifman - J. Polgar, Las Vegas (mil) 1999.

This position appeared in the game Van Wely - Rustemov, Polanica Zdroj 1999. Now by 19 . .l:tfd 1 ! ? (with the threat of 20 .liJf5 ! exf5 2 1 ..l:td5) 19 . . . i..c6 20.e5! fxe5 (20 . . . �xe5 was bad because of 2 1 . �a3+ �e8 22.f4 �c7 23.liJxe6!+-) 2 1 .liJxc6+ bxc6 22. �g3t White maintained the pressure on Black's position.

Chapter 10 1.ct:Jf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ct:Jf6 4.ct:Jc3 c5

Black strikes at the centre with c7-c5 as in Part 1, Chapter 4-5 (Tarrasch Defence). The main difference is that the inclusion of tZJb1-c3 and tZJg8-f6 allows Black to avoid the formation of an isolated pawn on d5. That is the reason why the variation is known in the opening theory as Tarrasch Defence Improved.

5.cxd5 White eases out the conflict in

the centre, forcing Black to reveal his plans. We'll concentrate on: a) 5 . . . cxd4 and b) 5 . . . tZJxd5. Let us remind that 5 . . . exd5 leads to Tarrasch Defence where, beside the main line 6.g3, White can choose also 6.i..g5 !?, taking ad­vantage of the move order with the inclusion oftZJb1-c3 and tZJg8-

f6. We discussed this variation in Part 1 Chapter 4.

a) 5 ... cxd4 6. �xd4 The most natural move. White

can win a pawn with 6.'!'tfa4+ i..d7 7. �xd4 exd5 8.tZJxd5 but after 8 . . . �a5+ 9.tZJc3 tZJc6gg he will have to suffer for it.

6 ... exd5 Ai:; in Tarrasch Defence, Black

chooses to play with an isolated pawn. To be sure, here he has additional trumps in his hand. White's queen is quite vulnera­ble in the centre of the board and will lose a tempo for retreating.

A possible deviation is 6 . . . tZJxd5 when follows 7 . e4 tZJc6 (after 7 . . . tZJxc3 8.'!'tfxc3 arises a position which is covered in Book II, pp. 126-129) 8.i..b5 tZJxc3 9.i..xc6+!? (trading the advantage of two bishops for a better pawn struc-ture) 9 . . . bxc6 10.�xc3. Now af-ter 10 . . . �b6?! (perhaps the best move was 10 . . . c5 but even then 1 1 .0-0 i..b7 12JIe1 �b6 13.b3!n would promise White some ad­vantage due to Black's problems with the kingside development.)

1 1 3

Chapter 10

1 1 .0-0 �c5 (or 1 1 . . . .i.a6 12 . .i.e3 �c7 13 JUc1 .i.b7 as in the game Weischedel - Baumann, Germa­ny 1993 and White is better -14 . .i.d4 f6 15.e5±) 12. t;i'b3 t;i'b6 White could stake on his lead in development by choosing 13 . .i.e3! (the less committing 13. t;i'c3 .i.b7 14 . .i.e3 c5 1 5 . ttJd2;!; is also in White's favour) 13 . . . �xb3 14.axb3 a6 15.ttJe5 .i.b7 16J:tfd1 .i.e7 as in Filippov - Yin Hao, Shanghai 2000. B. Alterman recommends here 17 .lbc1!? l:.cB 1B . .l:.d7 .i.f6 19 . .l:!.xb7 .i.xe5 20 . ..tc5!±. White's rook reached the seventh rank while Black cannot castle and his kingside is stuck undeveloped.

7.e4! A surgical decision! White is

not going to explore the weakness of the isolated pawn but rather eliminate the centre in order to exploit his temporary advantage in development for a direct as­sault.

7 . . . ttJc6 Also was played 7 . . . dxe4 B.

t;i'xdB+ �xdB 9.ttJg5 ke6 10.ttJxe6 fxe6 when White can make use of his better development by 1 l . .i.g5 ! ? kb4 1 2 . 0-0-0+ �eB 1 3 . ttJxe4! ttJxe4 14 .l:.dB+ <;t>f7 15.l:.xhB ttJxg5, Bisguier - Hearst, New York 1954. Here 16 .g4!± would face Black with big prob­lems. The threat is 17 . ..tg2 in­tending not only to take the pawn on b7 for lunch but to throw in Black's knight on g5 (by the help of the move h4) too. It would be hard for Black to find a satisfac-

114

tory defence because the pin along the eighth rank severely limits his defensive capacity.

B . ..tb5 ttJxe4 The pinning of Black's knight

on c6 could be relieved by B . . . .i.d7. Then follows 9 . ..txc6 .i.xc6 10.exd5 .i.xd5 ( after 1 0 . . . ttJxd5 1 1 . 0-0 ttJf6 12.lIe1+ .i.e7 13.t;i'e5 .i.xf3 14.gxf3 �f8 15 . .i.f4 ttJd7 16. �d5± in Polugaevsky - Mascarinas, Manila 19B2 Black is unlikely to draw some benefit from the dam­aged pawn structure of White while in the same time the ex­posed position of his king in the centre is a cause of constant con­cern) 1 1.0-0 (the premature ex­change 1 1 .ttJxd5?! led White af­ter 1 1 . . . t;i'xd5 12.0-0 t;i'xd4 13 . ttJxd4 0-0-0 14 . .i.e3 ttJd5 15.l:.ac1+ �bB 1 6 . 11c d 1 ke7 1 7 . ..t c 1 a6 1B.g3 .i.f6+ in IDko - V. Zakharov, Moscow 1999 to inferior position) 11 . . . ..te7 (after 1 1. . .ke6 12.kg5 t;i'xd4 13.ttJxd4 kc5 14.ttJxe6 fxe6 as in Polak - Hausner, Zlin 1995 White is ahead in development and has a better pawn structure. That would allow him to fix his advantage with 1 5 . .l:.ac1;!;) 12 . ttJxd5 t;i'xd5 1 3 . .l:.e1 t;i'xd4 14 . ttJxd4 0-0-0 (in case of 14 . . . �f8 15.ttJf5 kc5 16.kf4 ttJd5 17.i.d6+ i.xd6 1B.ttJxd6 g6 19.1:.ad1 ttJf6 20.ttJxb7±, Malich - Moehring, Annaberg-Buchholz 1965 White has every reason to hope for con­verting his extra pawn) 15J:be7 .l:.xd4 16 . ..te3 :d7 17 .1:!.xd7 ttJxd7 1B.lk1+ �bB 19.i.f4+ <;t>aB 20.1:!.c7 1:!.dB 21 .h3;!; in the game Kram-

1 .tbf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 tbf6 4.tbc3 cS S. cd

nik - Cifuentes Parada, Villar­robledo ( active) 1 995 White achieved nice ending.

Another way for rescuing the knight on c6 lies in S . . . a6. Then could follow 9 . .lixc6+ bxc6 10.exd5 cxd5 (after 1 0 . . . lZJxd5 1 1 . 0-0 f6 12.lIdl .lib7 13.�g4 �d7 14.lIel+ �dS in Florian - Laszlo, Buda­pest 1953 when White should avoid the queen swap with 15. �c4±) 1 1 . 0-0 .lie7 12.tbe5 �d6 (12 . . . 0-0 13 .lZJc6 �d6 14.tbxe7+ �xe7 15 . .lig5± faces Black with material losses) 1 3 .lIdl SLe6 14. �a4+. Now it is clear that

15 . .lid2 a6 16 . .Jta4 b5 17 . .lidl r:.dS lS.�h5+ �e7 19.11adl l1d6 20. lIfe 1 t as in Schroer - G. Kramer, Alexandria 1996, White took over the initiative due to the fact that Black's king lost the right to castle) 1 1 .tbxe6+ fxe6 12 . .lixc6 bxc6 13 . .lig5 .lie7 14.0-0-0+ �c7 15.l1hel .lib4 and in the game C. Hoi - Rendboe, Copenhagen 2001, White could retain the ad­vantage with 16 . .td2!? .txc3 17 . .txc3 l:I.hgS l S . .te5+ �b7 1 9 . lId6;\;. White restores the materi­al balance retaining a better pawn setup and more active piec-

Black has to accept the loss of es. castle playing 14 . . . �f8 (bad is 9:�xd5 14 . . . tbd7? in view of 15 . .tf4 �b4 The transition to an endgame 16. �xb4 .txb4 1 7 .tbxd7 �xd7 after 9.tbxe4 dxe4 10.�xe4+ �e7 lS.tbxd5+-, not much better is 1 1 . �xe7+ .lixe7 is less promising. 14 . . . .lid7?! due to 15.tbxd7 �xd7 The point is that 12.tbe5 ( 12.lZJd4 16,'�xd7+ �xd7 17 . .tg5±). Here .lid7 1 3 . .lixc6 bxc6 14 .0-0 0-0 after the right move 15,'�d4!n 15.SLe3 c5 16.tbf3 l:I.fcS 17.b3 a5fl, (White should be accurate - the Mohamed - Antunes, Novi Sad tempting 15 . .tf4 runs into 15 . . . (01) 1 990 would give Black a �b4!= forcing an exchange ofthe strong counterplay due to the queens) White retains the upper strong bishops) 12 . . . 0-0 13 .tbxc6 hand because Black's king is bxc6 14.i.xc6 steers the game to stuck in the centre, cutting off a position where White is a pawn the rook's coordination. Note also ahead but not for long. Black's that if Black grabs the pawn by pieces are active and better S . . . dxe4, after the reply 9.�xdS+ placed. The game A. Kuzmin -(worse is 9 . .lixc6+ owing to 9 . . . Magerramov, Dubai 1999 went bxc6 1 0 . �xdS+ �xdS 1 l .tbg5 on 14 . . . l:I.bS 15 .0-0 .tf6 16 . .td5 �eS!=, Dodero - Castillo Lare- .tf5 17 . .tb3 l:I.b7 lS.lIel h5 19 . nas, Mar del Plata 1954 and the bishop pair is Black's insurance policy against possible problems.) 9 . . . �xdS 10.tbg5 .te6 (in case of 1 0 . . .'it'eS 1 1 . 0- 0 h6 1 2 . tbgxe4 tbxe4 1 3 . tbxe4 f5 14.tbg3 .te6

.lif4 .lixb2= restoring the balance. 9 .. :�xd5 10.tbxd5 .lid6 1 1 .

�f4 The game S. Ivanov - Komis­

sarov, Podolsk 1992 saw 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2 . lI e l when 1 2 . . . l:.eS !?=

1 1 5

Chapter 10

would neutralise the activity of White's pieces.

1 l ... i..xf4 12.lDxf4!? The intermediate 12.i..xc6+

bxc6 destructs Black's pawn chain but after 13.lDxf4 .ta6!� in Dzuban - S. Galkin, Perm 1997 White king cannot castle.

12 ... .td7 Black is planning to evaquate

his king on the queenside. Other­wise in case of 12 . . . 0-0 13 .0-0 .td7 14.lDd5 llfd8 15J;lfe1 lDf6 16 . .t xc6 bxc6 1 7 .lDxf6+ gxf6 18.11aclt in Majorovas - Legky, Cannes 1992, Black's pawn chain is sadly crippled.

1 3.0-0 0-0-0 1 4Jtac1 'it'b8 15 . .l:!.cdl .l:!.he8

Black is in a hurry to cover the e5-square since 15 . . . a6 would al­low 16 . .txc6 .txc6 17 .lDe5;l;; with a double threat on c6 and fl.

16Jtfel f5 17.h4 h6 18.l:.e3 a6 19 . .l:!.ed3 axb5 20J:txd7;l;;

This position occurred in the game Majorovas - Gefenas, Klai­peda 1 9 9 0 . In the resulting complex ending White's pieces are more active, ensuring him good chances.

116

b) 5 . . . lDxd5

6.e4 Black avoided the setup with

an isolated pawn but in return allowed White to settle his pawns in the centre.

6 . . . lDxc3 About the situation after

6 . . . cxd4 7.thd4 see book 2, pp. 126-129.

7.bxc3 cxd4 Black seeks simplification. If

he chooses, for instance, 7 . . . lDc6?! after 8.d5 ! exd5 (8 . . . lDa5? loses at once due to 9 . .tb5+ .td7 10:�a4 b6 1 1.dxe6!+- and in the game Zufic - Res, Pula 1999, Black dis­covered that 1 1 . . . fxe6 would fail to 12.lDe5 .txb5 13:�xb5+ 'it'e7 14 . .tg5+ winning the queen) 9. exd5 lDe7 10.d6!? (also possible is 10.c4 lDg6 1 l . .td3 �d6 12 . .tb2 .tg4 13.0-0± with clear position­al advantage, Martinez - Fidalgo Fernandez, Oviedo 2001) 10 . . . lDc6 (lo . . . lDf5 1 1 . .tb5+ .td7 12. �e2+­Silman - S. Kramer, USA 1987 cost Black a piece) 11 . .tf4± Black will have to overcome serious difficulties finding a way to complete his development.

l .lLlf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 lLlf6 4.lLlc3 cS S.cd

More acceptable is the move 7 . . . i.e7. However the fact that White dominates the centre in a position, populated with all piec­es, tips the balance in his favour. After B.i.d3 0-0 (possible devia­tions are: B . . . a6 9.0-0 0-0 10.i.e3 'i!ic7 1 1 . 'i!ie2 b5 12.a4 c4 13.i.c2 i.b7 14.'ufbl±, P. Dimitrov - Val. Ivanov, Pamporovo 2001; B . . . lLlc6 9.0-0 0-0 10.i.e3 'i!ic7 1 1 .'uc1 a6 12. 'i!ie2 'i!ia5 when the break in the centre 13.d5! lLldB 14.i.f4± ensured White the edge in Austin - Sidding, Novi Sad 1990; B . . . 'i!ia5 9 .i.d2 'i!ic7 10 .0-0 lLlc6 1 1 .d5 lLlbB 12 .c4 e5 13.lLle1 i.d6 14.'i!ih5 lLld7 15 .i.c3 0-0 16.f4 f6 17.ffi lLlb6 1B.'uf3t, B. Zueger ­K. Schulz , Arandjelovac 19B5. White met no obstacles develop­ing his initiative on the kingside; B . . . lLld7 9.0-0 0-0 10. 'i!ie2 b6 when the breakthrough 1 1 .d5 !? once again proves to be good for White - 1 1 . . . exd5 12.exd5 i.f6 13.'i!ic2 g6 1 4 . i.h6 l:!.eB 1 5 . i.b5 i.b7 16Jlad1 a6 1 7.i.c6 'i!icB 1B.i.xb7 'i!ixb7 19.c4± J. Fedorowicz - Mar, San Mateo 19B9) 9.0-0 cxd4 (if Black restrains from trading the pawns, the breakthrough in the centre gains in strength, for instance , 9 . . . b6 1 0 . d 5 ! ? exd5 1 1 . exd5 i.f6 12.'i!ic2 h6 13.i.f4 kg4 14.lLle5 i.xe5 15.i.xe5 .l:teB 16 . .l:tae1 lLld7 1 7 .i.g3±, Pytel -Schinzel, Graz 1979) 10.cxd4 lLlc6 (after 10 . . . b6 1 1 .'i!ie2 i.b7 12.i.b2 lLld7 13 . .l:tad1 lLlf6 14.d5 exd5 15. exd5 i.d6 in Antoshin - Pietzsch, Moscow 1963 White should play

16.i.bU, preparing to transfer the queen on the b1-h7 diagonal and focusing on the enemy 's kingside) 1 1.i.b2 i.f6 (following 1 1 . . . lLlb4 12.i.b1 b6 13.a3 lLlc6 the thematic 14.d5! exd5 15.exd5 lLla5 16. 'i!id3 ffi 17 .i.a2 'it>hB 1B.lLle5± ensured White the edge in the game Kaspret - Dudas, Frohn­lei ten 2000, a similar situation arose after 1 1 . . . b6 12.'i!ie2 i.b7 13.a3 11cB 14.'uad1 g6 15.d5 ! exd5 16.exd5 lLlbB 1 7.'i!ie5± in Jina -Foglar, Plzen 1995. A blank shot turned to be 1 1 . . . ffi 12.exffi exffi 13.'i!ib3+ 'it>hB 14.lLle5 'i!ieB 15 . 'uac1 i.f6 16Jtfe1 i.xe5 17.dxe5±, Genster - J eurissen, Baiersbronn 199B. The transfer of the queen to the kingside 1 1 . . .'i!ia5 12.a3 ltdB 13. 'i!ie2 'i!ih5, intending to breakdown White's activity at this wing, might be countered by 14.11fd1 i.f8 15.h3 g6 16.'i!ifl i.g7 17 .e5 !t when in the game De Souza Haro - Alvarez, Buenos Aires 199B it became clear that the threat g2-g4 puts the queen in a dangerous situation) White can struggle for the edge with 12 .i.b 1 ! ? (worse is 1 2 . e5 i.e7 13 .a3 i.d7 14. 'i!ie2 lLla5 15. 'i!ie4 since after 15 . . . g6 16. 'i!ig4 i.c6 17.lLld2 i.d5°o Black successfully reorganised his forces, Drasko -Keca, Nis 1996) 12 . . . i.d7 (12 . . . b6?? loses to 1 3 . e5 i.e7 14. 'i!ic2+­while 12 . . . g6 is also not enough -13.e5 i.g7 14.i.a3 IleB 15 .i.e4±) 13.e5 i.e7 14. 'i!id3 g6 15 .i.a3±. Sooner or later the weakness of Black's castle , caused by the

1 1 7

Chapter 10

move g7 -g6 in the absence of the dark-squared bishop, will prove decisive.

Let us note that 7 .. :�a5 B.�d2 cxd4 9.cxd4 �b4 leads to a situ­ation, which will be discussed in variation b2, the commentary to move 9.

8.cxd4

The play branches here to: bl) 8 . . . ctJc6 and b2) 8 . . . �b4+.

In case of B . . . � e 7 9 .�d3 0-0 10.0-0 ctJc6 1 1.. �b2 the position is familiar from the notes to Black's move 7.

bl) 8 . .. ctJc6 9.�c4 Here is the most active place

for the bishop because it will sup­port a future breakthrough in the centre d4-d5.

9 .. . b5 With the help of this little tac­

tical trick Black rejects a bit the bishop. The reverse of the medal is some weakening of the queen­side which could tell in future.

The onrush to mass simplifi­cation 9 . . . �b4+ 10.�d2 �a5 (for 10 . . . .ltxd2+ 1 1.�xd2 see variation b2, Black's move 9) 1 1. .l:!.b1 .ltxd2 12. thd2 b6 (after 12 . . . �xd2+ 13. Wxd2 0-0 14 . .l:.hc1 .l:.dB 15.We3 a6

lIB

16 . .l:.b6 ctJa5 17 . .lte2±, Panchenko - Plaum, Giessen 1995, Black's queenside is sealed down, in case of 12 . . . 0-0 1 3 .�b5 �xd2+ 14. <t>xd2 ctJa5 15 .<t>e3 b6 16 . .l:.bc1 �b7 17 .ctJe5± in Eliet - Cos son, Cannes 1992 White achieved big advantage because Black is una­ble to cover all points of in­filtration in his camp. The po­sition after 12 . . . We7 13 . .ltb5 .ltd7 14.d5 �xd2+ 15 .Wxd2 ctJa5 16 . .ltxd7 Wxd7 17.ctJe5+ We7 1B.d6+! <t>f6 19 . .l:.b5 b6 20.f4± occurred in game W. Schmidt - Abbasov, Barlinek 2001 and Black comple­tely failed to restrain the strong passed pawn on d6) 13 .d5 �xd2+ 14. <t>xd2 ctJa5 15.�b5+ We7, Vegh - Stadtfeld, St Ingbert 19B7. White has a better ending and a good way to emphasize that would be 16.We3!?i.

10 . .te2 The best place for retreat as

the tournament practice proved. To be sure, 10 . .ltxb5?? loses due to 10 . . . �a5-+. The World title match Spassky - R. Fischer, Rey­kjavik (ml9) 1972, put to test 10.�d3 but after 10 . . . �b4+ 1 1 . �d2 �xd2+ 12. �xd2 a6 13 .a4 0-0 14.�c3 (if 14 .axb5, then 14 . . . ctJxd4 15.ctJxd4 �xd4=) 14 . . . .tb7! 15.axb5 axb5 16. 0-0 (after 16. �xb5 l:txa1+ 1 7 . �xa1 �b6 lB. �d3 �b4+ 19.We2 .l:.aB1' Black's initiative more than compensates for the pawn while 16.lIxaB �xaB 17 .�xb5 ctJa 7 = leads to a material balance) 16 . . . �b6 1 7 . .l:.ab1 b4= when the future eleventh world

l .ttJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ttJf6 4.ttJc3 cS S. cd

champion reached full equality. A very logical move is 10.1i.b3,

keeping the bishop on the diago­nal and thus reviving the threat d4-d5. However, after 10 . . . 1i.b4+ 1 1..�. d2 ..txd2+ 12.�xd2 0-0 13. 0-0 ..tb7 1 4 . d5 ! ? (too slow is 14 . .l:.ad1 �b6 15 . .l:.fe 1 ,UfdB 16. �e3 ttJa5 17.1i.c2 ttJc4=, Goonetil­leka - EI Hamadi, Buenos Aires ( ol) 197B, Black's pieces occu­pied comfortable places) 14 . . . ttJa5 1 5 . dxe6 ttJxb3 1 6 . exf7 + l:!.xf7 17 .�xdB+ .l:.xdB 1B .axb3 1i.xe4 19.ttJg5 l:te7 20.ttJxe4 l:txe4 2 1 . 'uxa7 .l:.b4 (worse i s 2 1 . . . .l:.d3?! due to 22 .h3 !± , Rustemov - Feok­tistov, Moscow 1994 and Black discovered that he couldnot take on b3 in view of the transfer of White's rook f1 to the seventh rank) 22 . .l:.c1 (after 22 . .l:.a3 ,Ud3 23 . .l:.b1 .l:.bd4 24.�f1 .l:.d1+ 25. .l:.xd1 .l:.xd1+ 26.�e2 .l:.b1 27.�d3 .l:.b2= Black recovers the materi­al equilibrium) 22 . . . .l:.xb3 23.h3 �hB 24 . .l:.cc7 .l:.gB= the rook end­game is a theoretical draw.

lO . . . ..tb4+ If Black decides to keep the

dark-squared bishops, choosing 10 . . . a6, the play might develop as follows: 1 1 .0 -0 1i.e7 ( l 1 . . .1i.b7 12 . ..tb2 ..te7 13. �d2 transposes to the line 1 1 . . . ..te7) 12 .1i.b2 (the recommendation of L. Poluga­jevsky 12 .a4 b4 13.d5 did not yield much after 13 . . . ttJa5 14.1i.f4 exd5 15.exd5 0-0 16.d6 1i.f6 17. .l:.b1 ..tc3 1B . ..td3 h6 19.1i.c2 1i.e6°o in Van Wely - Ivanchuk, Monte Carlo (active) 199B) 12 . . . 0-0 (af-

ter 12 . . . 1i.f6 13 . �d2 0-0 14.l:tfd1 ..tb7, V. Bagirov - Shamkovich, Baku 1972, White should pre­pare the move a 2 - a4 by 1 5 . l:tab1 !?;t because an immediate 15.a4 would encounter 15 . . . ttJa5! threatening a knight's fork on b3) 1 3 . a4 ( l 3 . d5 at once does not reach the goal after 13 . . . ttJa5 14. �d2 exd5 15.exd5 l:!.eB 16 . .l:.fe1 1i.g4=, Mecking - Campora, Sao Paulo 1993) 13 . . . b4 14.�d2 (and again insufficient is 14.d5 exd5 15.exd5 ttJa5 16. �d4, N aumkin ­Isonzo, Arco 2001 when Black could easily equalise with 16 . . . ..tf6 1 7 . �xb4 ..txb2 l B . �xb2 �xd5 19.1Iad1 �b3 20.�e5 �e6! 21 .�xa5 �xe2=) 14 . . . ..tb7. Now that all White pieces are centra­lised at the maximum comes the time for the thematic break­through 15 .d5 !? exd5 16 .exd5 ttJa5 1 7 . .l:.ad1 1i.d6 (after 17 . . . .l:.eB 1B . .l:.fe1 t White threatens to push the d-pawn) lB. �d4 f6 19 . ..td3 g6. This position occurred in the game Brenninkmeijer - Costa, Lugano 19B9 where 20. �g4!?t would not only create the threat of bishop sacrifice on g6 but also set a trap - the natural 20 . . . ..tcB? 2 1 . �h4 ..td7 would run into 22.ttJg5! fxg5 23.�d4+-.

1 l . ..td2 �a5 Black tries to keep the fire

burning. The immediate ex­change 1 1 . . .1i.xd2+ 12.�xd2 .l:.bB (in case of 12 . . . a6 pretty good seems 13.d5!? exd5 14.exd5 ttJe7 15.d6 ttJf5 16 . .l:.d1 t with White's initiative. If Black castl e s ,

1 1 9

Chapter 10

White's d-pawn will move even further and the attempt to pre­vent its march with 16 . . . l:.a7? l o s e s in view of 1 7 . g4 ! ttJh4 lS"�e3+-) 13.d5! exd5 14.exd5 ttJe7 (impossible is 14 . . . ttJa5? due to 15.�e3+ �e7 16.�c3+-) 15.d6 ttJf5 16.Ud1 (in case of 16.Ji.xb5+?! taking is not obligatory and fol­lowing 16 . . . �fS ! = White will have to part with his main trump - the passed pawn in the centre) 16 . . . 0-0 (after 16 . . . Ji.d7 17.g4 ttJh6 IS. �e3+ �f8 19.h3± Black loses the right to castle and, moreover, everybody knows that a knight at the edge of the board is a shame.) 1 7 . d7 ! Ji.b7 (if 1 7 . . . Ji.a6 then simply lS. 0-0±) lS.0-0 �f6 19. �f4 a6 (after 19 . . JHdS 20.g4 ttJh6 2 1 .�xf6 gxf6 22.ttJd4!± Black is in a difficult situation since the d-pawn is untouchable - 22 . . . oUxd7? 23.ttJf5! .l:.xd1 24.ttJxh6+ �g7 25.ttJf5+- and Black lost a piece) 20.g4! Ji.xf3 (20 . . . ttJh6 21. �xf6 gxf6 22.h3±. Black is not able to resist due to the awkward placement of the knight on h6. ) 2 1..1i.xf3 ttJh4 22. �xf6 gxf6 23. .1l.e4± in the game Bacrot - Kor­chnoi, Albert (m!3) 1997 Black was faced with serious difficul­ties.

(diagram) 12.d5!? The prompt breakthrough in

the centre leaves White best chances in the struggle for open­ing advantage. The sidelines are:

1 2 .oUb1 .1l.xd2+ 1 3 . �xd2 a6 14.�xa5 ttJxa5 15.�d2 (also equal

120

is 15 . .1l.d3 �e7 16.oUc1 Ji.d7= T. Petrosian - Korchnoi, Ciocco (m! 2) 1977) 1 5 . . . Ji.b7 16.�e3 'i;e7 17 . .l:!.hc1 oUhcS lS.ttJd2 oUxc1 19. -Uxc1 l:tcS 20J:txcS .1l.xcS 2 1 .�d3 ttJc6 22 .�c3 e 5 ! 23 .dxe5 ttJxe5 24.f4 ttJc6= and the ending is perfectly balanced, Dorfman -Murey, France 1992. 12 .a4. Now promising looks 12 . . . bxa4!? (after 12 . . . Ji.xd2+ 13. �xd2 �xd2+ 14. �xd2 bxa4 1 5 . oUxa4! Ji.d7 1 6 . -Uha1 .l:!.bS 1 7 . d 5 exd5 lS .exd5 ttJb4 19.oUxa7 ttJxd5 20.ttJe5± the game Pogorelov - Franco Ocam­pos, Zaragoza 1994, showed that despite the simplification White has considerable chances for win. Black is unlikely to maintain the material equilibrium due to his misplaced pieces.) 13 .lha4 (or 13.0-0 a3 14.�c1 Ji.d7 15.Ji.xb4 �xb4 16.�e3 0-0 1 7 . .l:!.fb 1 �e7 lS .oUxa3 a5=) 13 . . . Ji.xd2+ 1 4 . ttJxd2 �dS 15.d5, E. Geller - Mi­khalchishin, Riga 19S5, when Black possesses the strong reply 15 . . . exd5! 16.exd5 �xd5 17 . .1l.f3 �d7 (apparently Black holds the position after 17 . . . �d6 lS.�e2+ Ji.e6 19 . .l:!.a6 .l:!.cS 20. �e4 by play­ing 20 . . . f5 ! 2 1 .�a4 Ji.d5 22.0-0 0-0=) IS. �e2+ ttJe7 (following

1 .l2J{3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 l2Jf6 4.l2Jc3 cS S.cd

1B . . . 'it'f8 19.0-0GG Black will suffer for the pawn) 19 J:te4 i..b7 20. Ihe7+ ( after 20 . .l::i.e3 i..xf3 2 l . l2Jxf3 'it' f8 22.0-0 l2Jg6= the pieces left on the board are too sparse for real threats to Black's king) 20 . . . the7 2 l . �xe7+ 'it'xe7 22. i..xb7 l:tabBoo. In the endgame the chances are mutual.

12 ... exd5 13.exd5 l2Je7 14.0-0 i..xd2

14 . . . l2Jxd5? leads to a hopeless position after 1 5 .i..xb4 l2Jxb4 16. �d6+- and Black's king could escape from the centre only at the price of huge material losses.

15.l2Jxd2 0-0 15 . . . l2Jxd5? is bad again, this

time in view of 1 6 .l2Jb3 �dB 17.i..xb5+ 'it'f8 1B.i..c6+-.

16.lLlb3 Harmless is 16.i..f3 l2Jf5 17.a4

i..d7 1B.axb5 �xb5 19.12Je4 l2Jh4 20.i..g4 i..xg4 21 .�xg4 l2Jg6 22. �f3 a5 23.d6 a4= which occurred in Polugaevsky - Ribli, London 19B4. After 16.d6 l2Jf5 17 .l2Je4 (in case of 17 .i..f3 l:tbB 1B.l2Je4, Bro­wne - D. Gurevich, USA 19B3, Black has 1B . . . l2Jh4! =) 17 .. .l::tdB 1B.�d3 i..e6 19 . .l:Ifd 1 l:tab8 20. �f3 , Stohl - Marman, Cadca 1984, Black could play 20 .. . b4!?=.

16 .. :�d8 The other retreat 16 . . . �b6 oc­

curred in AdOIjan - Luther, Bala­ssagyarmat 1 990, when after 17 .d6 lLlc6 White could put the opponent to the wall with 18.d7! i..b7 19.�d6 oUfdB 20.l2Jc5±.

17 . ..tf3 1 7 .i..xb5 i..b7 1B .l2Jc5 �xd5

19.�xd5 i..xd5=, Polugaevsky -Mecking, Petropolis (izt) 1973, led to an equal ending.

17 ... l2Jf5 Loses 17 . . . i..b7?? due to 18.d6

i..xf3 19.dxe7+-. 18.:cl Also was tried lB. �d3 l2Jd6

19.12Jd4 ..td7 20.a4 a6 when White embarked upon a combination 2 1 .lLle6 fxe6 22.dxe6, Adorjan -Farago, Hungary 1 9 9 3 . Now 22 . . . .l:Ixf3! 23.�xd6 l:f6 24.�xd7 �xd7 25.exd7 :d8 26.axb5 axb5 27JUd1 .uf7 28.l:ta7 b4= would lead by force to a simple rook end­game where the extra pawn would not be enough for win.

18 ... l2Jd6 19.�d4 �b6 A. Jussupow recommended

19 . . . �f6 but after 20.�xf6 gxf6 21.lUeU the better pawn struc­ture makes White's position pref­erable.

20.�f4! Preparing the manoeuvre

l2Jd4-c6. The position, occurring after 20.l:tc6 �xd4 2 1.l2Jxd4 l:.dB 22.l:tc7 l:.d7=, is assessed as equal by A. Jussupow.

20 .. . ..td7 2 1 .l2Jd4 lUe8 22. l2Jc6 l2Jc4 23.:fel;l;;

12 1

Chapter 10

This position was reached in Jussupow - Ribli, Montpellier 1 9 S 5 . White introduced his knight in the enemy 's camp , cutting off the coordination of Black's pieces.

h2) S . . . .th4+ Black is seeking simplifica­

tion, taking into account White's strong pawn centre and space advantage.

9 . .td2 .txd2+ More consistent seems to be

9 . . . �a5, ensuring the trade of queens, but then the lead in de­velopment could prove decisive: 10 . .s:b1! ..Itxd2+ (in case of 10 . . . ttJc6?! as in Getmanchuk - De­hesdin, Le Touquet 1995, White could gain some material, creating dangerous threats to Black's king in addition - 11..s:xb4! ttJxb4 1 2 . �b3 �xa2 1 3 . �xb4 �a1+ 14.�e2 b6 15.�e3+-) 11 . �xd2. White has many position­al factors in his favour - his king is actively placed, the pawn pair dominates the centre while b­and c-files could be exploited for pressing the queenside. For in­stance, after 1 1 . . . �xd2+ (follow-

122

ing 11 . . .ttJc6 12 . .tb5 .td7 13.d5 �xd2+ 14.�xd2 ttJdS 15 . .s:hc1 exd5 16.exd5 .txb5 17.l1xb5 �d7 lS.ttJe5+ �d6 19.ttJc4+ �d7 20. 'ua5+-, P. Cramling - Vaisser, Cap d'Agde 1996, Black is unable to deflect the strike 2 1 .ttJb6!) 12. �xd2 0-0 (possible deviations are 12 . . . �e7 13 . .td3 .s:dS 14.'uhc1 ttJc6 15 .�e3 ttJa5, Meleghegyi -Gal, Salgotarjan 1975 and White obtained a material advantage with 16.e5! h6 1 7 . ..Ite4 .s:bS IS . .s:c5+-; 1 2 . . . ttJc6 13 . ..Itb5 .td7 14 . .s:hc1 a6 15 . .td3 b5 as in Zinic - D. Teller, Germany 1990 when the p awn break 1 6 . d 5 ! exd5 1 7 . exd5 ttJe7 l S . l1 e l ± would ensure White the edge; 12 . . . b6 13 . ..Itb5+!? ..Itd7 14.':'hc1 0-0 15 . ..Itxd7 ttJxd7 16.':'c7 ttJf6 17.�d3 .s:fc8 18 . .s:bc1 ':'xc7 19.':'xc7 ttJeS 20.':'b7±, in the game Lundh -Eknor, Rodeby 1995 White has all chances to win in view of his ac­tive rook on the seventh rank) 13 . ..Itb5! (this move brings dishar­mony in Black's camp, forcing him to weaken his queenside) 13 . . . a6 (after 13 . . . b6 14.lahc1 -1ta6 15.a4 -Itxb5 16.axb5 ttJd7 the eas­iest decision is 1 7 . l1 a 1 ! ttJf6 1 8 .�d3 lafd8 1 9 . ':'c7 ttJe8 2 0 . .s:cxa7 ':'xa7 2 1 .':'xa7 ttJd6 as in V. Golod - Lobach, Bratislava 1993 where 22.ttJe5!? ttJxb5 23. ':'d7 ':'f8 24Jlb7 ':'dS 25.ttJc6+­and the extra pawn should suf­fice) 1 4 .ii.d3 ':'dS ( in case of 14 . . . b5 15 . .s:hc1 ttJd7 16.':'c7 ttJb6 17.':'bc1 f6 lS.�e3 ':'b8 19.ttJd2 .uf7 20.ttJb3±, Stohl - Plachetka,

1 .llJ{3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 llJf6 4.llJc3 cS S.cd

Prague 19S6, White rooks invade Black's camp and 14 . . . . �jd7 15. .l:.hc1 llJf6 16 . .l:.c7 llJeS, Malek -Menning, Wiesbaden 1999 could be met by 1 7 .l:te7±, emphasising White's advantage. Finally, to 14 . . .. �:Jc6, Mosser - Rehor, Austria 1992, White could achieve advan­tage with 15 . .l:.hc1 .l:.dS 16.'it'e3±.) 15 Jlhc1 llJc6 (following 15 . . . b5 16 . .l:.c7 llJd7 17 .'it'e3 llJf6 lS.llJe5 i..d7 19.94 h6 20.f4 i.eS 21 .g5 hxg5 22.fxg5 liJh7 23 .h4 ':dcS 24 . .l:.bc1+- in the game A. Rubin­stein - Schlechter, San Sebastian 1912, Black's position is virtually strangled) 16. 'it'e3 'it'fS 17.':b6 f6 (or 17 . . . .:a7 lS.l:tc5 i..d7 19.i.c4 .l:.cS 2 0 . d5 exd5 2 1 .i..xd5 l!eS 22.liJd2±, Schroll - Dueckstein, Austria 1996 and the ugly posi­tion of the rook on a7 only serves to demonstrate the problems, ex­perienced by Black in defending his queenside pawns) lS.i..c2 J:!.bS 19.i..d3 .l:!.aS 20 . .l:!.c3 g6 2 1 .i..c2 f5 22.i..b3 fxe4 23.'it'xe4±. In the game M. Makarov - Henriksson, Helsinki 1 992 Black failed to develop his queenside.

10:�xd2 0-0 It is too risky for Black trying

to develop his queenside before castling. After 10 . . . b6?! 1 1.. �b5+ i.. d7 1 2 . i.. d3 llJc6 1 3 . 0- 0 0 - 0 14 . .l:.ac1 1:'i e 7 15.e5 ':acS 16.i.b1 llJb4 1 7 .liJg5 h6 lS.liJe4± in the game Petran - Somogyi, Buda­pest 1995, White achieved his goals without resorting to high­er mathematics.

Note that 10 . . . llJc6 1l .i..c4 0-0

12.0-0 transposes to the main line.

1l.i..c4!? In variation hI we mentioned

already that c4 was the best place for the bishop in connection with White's plans for a future break­through in the centre with d4-d5. The other continuations promise less:

1 l .i..e2 liJc6 12.0-0 e5! 13.d5 i..g4 (this tactical nuance makes possible Black's move 12) 14.dxc6 �xd2 15.llJxd2 i..xe2 16 . .l:!.fe1 i..a6 17.cxb7 i..xb7 lS.J:!.ac1 .l:!.acS 19. llJc4 l:.fdS 20 .f3 f6= , Cebalo -Farago, Banja Luka 19S1 . Black equalised the game without ex­erting himself too much.

1 l .i..d3 liJc6. The pressure on d4 causes White definite prob­lems. For instance, 12.1:'ic3 (after 12.e5?! �a5 13 . .l:.d1 b6 14.i..e4 i..b7 15.0-0 �xd2 16.l:.xd2 ':fdS+ White is even worse, Qvortrup -Panchenko, Gausdal 1991 while 12.i.c2 b6 13. 0-0 i..a6 14.':fd1 .l::!.cS 15 .�ac1 liJa5 16 . �f4 i..e2 17.l:.d2 i.xf.3 lS.�xf.3 as in the game Ali - Sellos, Saint Affrique 1997, could lead to a repetition of moves after lS . . . . :t:Jc4 19 . .l:.dd1 llJb2 2 0 .l:.d2 llJc4 = ) 12 . . . i..d 7 (trading queens while White's king is still in the centre is not to be recommended - 1 2 . . . �a5 1 3 . �xa5 liJxa5 14.'it'e2 !?;t) 1 3 . l:.b1! (if White castles, then Black has nothing to fear from an endgame - 13.0-0 1:'ia5!=) 13 . . . .:cS 14. �d2 and now in the game Jus­supow - Van der Sterren, Am-

123

Chapter 10

sterdam 1994 Black could equal­ise with 14 . . . lZJa5! 1 5 . 0-0 lZJc4 16 . .txc4 (if 16 :�e2, then 16 . . . b5=) 1 6 . . Jhc4 1 7 J Ixb7 .tc6= (noted by A. Jussupow).

1 1..l:!.d1. This move is frequent­ly seen lately. The idea behind it is to meet 1 1 . . .lZJc6 by 12 . .tb5!?, obtaining a good game after the possible 12 . . . .td7 13. 0-0 lZJe5 14 . .te2 lZJxf3+ 15 . .txf3 ':c8 16. d5;!;;. Black can choose 1 l . . . b6 12.h4 �e7!? (in case of 12 . . . .ta6 13 . .txa6 lZJxa6 14.�d3 lZJb4 15. �b1 �e7 16.0-0 h6 17.d5 exd5 18.exd5 �c5 19.d6 t as in Aleksandrov -Akhmadeev, Kstovo 1994, White took over the initiative, not an improvement is 12 . . . .tb7 13 . .td3 lZJc6 14 . .tb1 �d6 15.0-0 l:[ad8 16. �g5 e5 17.d5 f6 18.�g3 lZJe7 19. i.d3 lZJg6 20.lHe1 lZJf4 2 1 .i.f1 l1c8 2 2 . lZJ d 2 'it>h8 2 3 . �b3;!;; . Later White repelled Black's knight by the help of g2-g3 and transferred his own to e3 via d2-c4, gaining the edge , Kramnik - Van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee 1998) 13. .td3 .ta6! (White eventually lost a tempo with his bishop and Black is entitled to start the sim­plification) 14.0-0 (after 14 . .txa6 lZJxa6 15.0-0 .uac8 Black is ready for the move lZJa6-b4 and the rec­ommendation of M. Gurevich 16. d5 exd5 17.exd5 �d6<XJ leads to unclear position) 14 . . . .txd3 15. �xd3 lZJd7 16 .e5 ! ? (intending lZJf3-g5, only equal is 16.d5 exd5 17 .exd5 �d6 ! = , showed by M. Gurevich) 16 . . . h6 17 .l:[fe1 .uac8 18.�e4. This position occurred in

124

the game M. Gurevich - Magem, Escaldes 1998 when Black could level the game with 1 8 . . . .uc4! since 19.�b7?! runs into 19 . . . .ue8! 20.�xa7 lZJxe5 2 1 . �xe7 lZJxf3+ 22.gxf3 .uxe7+ (M. Gurevich).

A crossroads where the main branches are b2a) 1 l . . . b6, b2b) 1 l . . . lZJd7 and b2c) 1 l ... lZJc6.

b2a) 1 l ... b6 Black develops his bishop

leaving the choice where to place the knight - on d7 or c6 - for a later time.

12.d5! Emphasizing the drawbacks

of Black's setup. The pawn on d5 is immune in view of the weak­ened a8-d5 diagonal.

12 . . . .ta6 After 1 2 . . . lZJa6 White can

choose between the unclear 13.d6 lZJc5 14.e5 .tb7<XJ and 1 3 . dxe6 fxe6, seen in J. Pribyl - Smejkal, Vrnjacka Banja 1972 when 14. �xd8 llxd8 15 .lZJe5 lZJc5 16.f3± would lead to a better ending for White.

13 . .txa6 lZJxa6 14.d6 White creates a dangerous

passed pawn. If he succeeds to

l .lLlf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 lLlf6 4.lLlc3 c5 5.cd

organise an adequate piece sup­port for it, the opening fight will be decided in his favour.

The transition to endgame with 14.dxe6 �xd2+ 15.'it>xd2 fxe6 16.�e3 lLlb4 17.l:thc1 :lacB= proved to be harmless, Gaspar -Frederiksen, Metz 1997.

14 ... lLlc5 After 14 . . . e5 15.0-0 ffi White

achieved a favourable setup with 16.lLlh4! lLlc5 17.f4 exf4 1B.'�d5+ l:tf7 19.1Llf5 �f8 20.Mxf4±, Moska­lenko - Djuric, Cienfuegos 19B9. The game Zhu Chen - Van Wely, Beijing 1997 saw 14 . . . ffi 15.0-0 �d7 1 6 . e5 MacB 1 7 JHe 1 lLlc5 when unexpectedly a draw was agreed although White has all reasons to be happy with his po­sition after 1B.'�d4!?;!;.

15.e5 f6 16.0-0 The game C. Horvath - Pco­

la, Montecatini Terme 1997 went on 1 6 . exf6 �xf6 1 7 . 0-0 1:!.adB 1B.I:.ad1 :s.n 19.11fe1 1Hd7 20.lLle5 l:hd6 21 . �xd6 :s.xd6 22.:s.xd6 h6", and it is hard to assess which side should prevail.

16,..I:!.f7 The exchange 16 . . . fxe5 1 7 .

lLlxe5 allowed White after 17 . . . � ffi (the knight fork 1 7 . . . lLle4 encounters lB. �b4!±) 1B.f4 J:.adB 19.:s.ad1 �hB 20.�d4± to increase his support to the d6-pawn, Van Wely - Gofshtein, Frankfurt 1999.

1 7J:tadl l:tc8 18.�e3 Itd7 (diagram)

This position was reached in the game Korchnoi - Mecking,

Hastings 197 1. White could ob­tain a clear advantage with 19. lLld4! fxe5 (if 19 . . . �eB, then 20. f4±, reinforcing his pawn pha­lanx) 20. �xe5 �f6 (20 . . . :s.xd6 does not promise sufficient com­pensation for the queen - 21.lLlxe6 1:!.xe6 22JhdB+ 1:!.xd8 23.�c3±) 21.f4±.

b2b) 1 l ,..lLld7

12.0-0 Completing the development. 12,..b6 After 12 . . . lLlffi 13 .'ufe1 b6 (in

case of 13 . . . .td7 White has the strong reply 14.e5! lLld5 15 . .txd5 exd5 1 6 . Ilab 1 b6 1 7 .h3 ! IlcB 1B.lLlh2 i..a4 19.'ubc1 i..b5 20.lLlg4 .tc4 21 .J:.c3 b5 22.l:tg3 �hB 23. f4±, Smyslov - T. Ernst, Subotica 19B7. White's supremacy in the centre is a premise for a dan-

125

Chapter 10

gerous attack on the kingside. ) 14.a4! .Jtb7 15.�d3 l:i.cS 16.a5 'fic7 17 .axb6 axb6 lS Jiacl 'fibS 19. 1:tb1 'fiaS 20.l:i.a1 'fibS 21 .e5 lbd5 22.lbg5 h6 23.lbe4;t in the game Jussupow - Eslon, San Picafort 19S1, White created a target on b6 and secured the d6-square for his knight.

13 . .l:.fel!? A key moment in the opening.

White is overprotecting the e4-pawn. In distinction to variation b2c (see below) the queen's rook is awaiting the right moment for moving. The absence of Black's knight from c6 makes possible another plan when White attacks the queens ide using the a-pawn as a battering ram. In this case the rook is required on its initial square. Note that the common 13. 1:tad1 after 13 . . . �b7 14.l:!.fe1 'ucS 15 .�b3 'fif6 (the famous game Keres - Fine, Ostende 1937, went 15 . . .'!2Jf6 16.�f4 'fic7 17.'fih4 l::!.fdS when ls.lbg5! would create the dangerous threat e4-e5. A possi­ble continuation could be IS . . . h6 19 .1bxe6 fxe6 20.�xe6+ \t>hS 21 . �xcS l:!.xcB 22.f3± and the rook plus two pawns outweigh Black's two pieces) 16.�b4 �f4 17.�e7 Mc7 lS.'fig5 �xg5 19. lbxg5 h6= allowed Black to equalise, Zhu Chen - Portisch, Amsterdam 2001.

13 ... �b7 (diagram)

14.a4! White wants to create a weak­

ness, using the a-pawn to shat-

126

ter Black's queenside. The central strategy in this

line is not so effective as in the other variations of Tarrasch De­fence Improved. For example, 14.d5 exd5 15 . .Jtxd5 lbc5 16.I;tad1 �xd5 17.exd5 �d6 1B.lbe5 'ufeB 19.1bc6 lbe4 20. �d4 lbf6 2 1 .1heS 'uxeS= leads to equality. The game Matlak - Pachman, Czech Republic 1992 went 22.lbxa7?? 22 . . . 'fie7-+ winning a piece.

14 ... .l:.c8 After 14 . . . �c7 15 . .l::i.ac1 �dS

(to 15 . . . 'fid6 there is 16.a5!?;t) 16 .�d3 (in case of 16.h3 l:!.cB 17.�f4 �f6 lS.�g3 'fih6 19.ctJg5 lbf6= as in Sturua - Del Rio An­gelis, Linares 2001 the game is balanced as well as after 16.a5 bxa5 17 .l:!.al 17 . . . ctJb6= attacking White's bishop ) Black cannot solve the opening problems by the break 16 . . . e5 (if 16 . . . lbf6 then 17.a5 bxa5 1B.1:taU) in view of 17 .dxe5 ctJc5 lS.�c2 �xd2 19. lbxd2 (intending lbc4) 19 . . . �a6 20.a5± with a slight advantage.

In the game Dreev - Korch­noi, Biel 2002 Black tried 14 . . . �f6 15.a5 l:!.fdS. White could keep the pressure with 16.'fie3!?± es­caping the X-ray of Black's rook

1.tD{3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 tDf6 4.tDc3 cS S.cd

on dS instead of changing on b6. 15.i.d3 e5 Black aims to stiffen White's

centre in the hope that the pro­tected passed pawn on d5 could be neutralised. The other strike at the centre 15 . . . f5? is unaccept­able in view of16.tDg5 .urn 17.exf5 exf5 lS"�a2+-, Tukmakov - Kok, Crans Montana 2000 with mate­rial losses. Overoptimistic looks 15 . . . tDbS?! due to the reply 16.a5! tDc6 1 7 . axb6 tDxd4 lS. tDxd4 �xd4 19.bxa7± and in T. Petro­sian - Tal , Moscow 1972, White is a pawn ahead. After 15 . . . �c7 16.a5 l:!.fdS 17 .axb6 axb6 in Che­khov - Aseev, Lvov 19S4 White probably should choose lS. �e3!±, reaching a position, familiar to us from the comments to move 12. It is worth mentioning that in case of 15 . . . a6 as in Schroll -Baumgartner, Finkenstein 1990, White should immediately press on b6 with 16.l:!.abU, reminding his opponent that the pawn will need a constant watch.

16.d5 White decides to put his pawns

on squares of the same colour as the bishop. This concession is amply compensated by the strong protected passed pawn. Now the outcome ofthe battle will depend on the successful regrouping of the forces. By the way, White did not have a wide choice since af­ter 1 6 . dxe5 tDc5 1 7 .i.c2 �xd2 lS.tDxd2 gfdS� Black's pieces are extremely active for only one pawn.

16 ... tDc5 17.i.c4 The manoeuvre 17Jla3?! gave

Black a nice counterplay after 17 . . . �d6 lS.�b2 f5fZ, Agdestein - C. Hansen, Groningen 1993.

17 ... f6 18.tDh4 �d7 19.�e2 White is planning to introduce

his knight on f5. It was impossi­ble right away in view of 19.tDf5? tDxe4!=F.

19 ... g6 Black is forced to weaken a lit­

tle his castle in order to cover the f5-square from White's knight. A blunder would be 19 . . . tDxa4?? due to 20.i.b5+-.

20.a5 �d6 21.h3 �b8 22.tDf3 cJitg7 23.tDd2 f5

Seeking a counterplay. After 23 . . .lHdS 24.axb6 axb6 25.i.b5± the threat tDc4 ensures White considerable pressure.

24.axb6 axb6 25.J:ta7!t

This was the game Gulko - D. Lima, Istanbul 2000. White has a dangerous initiative. Black is constantly on the guard for his pawn on b6, in the same time keeping under control the centre. White is threatening to increase the pressure on e5 after trading off pawns on f5 . The dead pin

127

Chapter 10

along the seventh rank i s cramp­ing additionally Black's position.

b2c) 1 l ... ltJc6

12.0-0 Completing the development,

as in variation b2b. 12 . . . b6 Black is aiming to put his

bishop on the main diagonal. In case of 12 . . . §'d6 could follow 13 .Uad1 UdS (after 13 . . . b6 14. l1fe1 i.b7 15 .d5 exd5 16.ii.xd5 '§e7 17 .'§f4 l:tadS lS .ltJh4 l:td7 19.1tJf5 '§e5 20. '§g5 .l:teS 21.f4 '§ffi 22.'§g4 .l:tedS 23.e5± in the game Fokin - Kovacs, Szeged 1993, White gained the upper hand. 13 . . . i.d7 as in Timoscenko - Dju­ric, Metz 1996 could be met by 14..l:Je1!?, intending to transpose after 14 . . JIfdS 15.d5 to the pre­vious example. ) 14 . .l:1fe1 (after 14.d5 exd5 15.exd5 ltJe7 16.Ufe1 in the game Adorjan - Kelecevic, Sarajevo 19S2 White offered a draw even before the evident 16 . . . i.g4=) 14 . . . i..d7. Now unex­pectedly comes to force the the­matic push in the centre 15.d5 ! . Black's defence is not a simple task. After 15 . . . exd5 16.exd5 ltJe7

12S

17.ltJg5 (intending to drive off the blockading square Black's queen with lS.ltJe4) 17 . . . i.a4 White can make use of some tactics by lS.ltJxf7! (the timid lS.l1b1 allows IS . . . b5! 19.i.xb5 i..xb5 20.lhb5 ltJxd5 2 1 .l1d1 ltJc3!=) lS . . . Wxf7 19J!e6 §'xe6 (19 . . . i..xd1 loses to 20.l:.xd6 .uxd6 21 . §'f4+ l1ffi 22.d6 WeS 23.§'e5+- and 19 . . . '§c7 en­counters 20.I!.c1! b5 2 1..1i.b3 §,xc1 22. §,xc1 ltJxd5 23.':'c6±) 20.dxe6+ WeS 21.i.d3 i.xd1 22.'§xd1 .uacS 23.h3! ltJd5 24. §'f3+-, Browne -H. Olafsson, Reykjavik 19S0 with a decisive advantage for White. Apparently Black's queen failed in his role of a blocker on d6.

1 2 . . . ltJ e 7 allows White to choose the same plan as in vari­ation b2b, trying to exploit the absence of the knight from c6: 13.a4!? (after 13.l:tfd1 b6 14 . .uac1 i..b7 15 .d5 exd5 16 .exd5 '§d6 17 .ltJd4 l:tadS lS.ltJb5 '§ffi, Piket - Korchnoi, Amsterdam 19S9 it became clear that 19.d6 was not dangerous, due to 19 . . . ltJf5 20.'§f4 a6=) 13 . . . b6 (the game Seirawan - Paglilla, Los Polvorines 19S 1 went on 1 3 . . . ltJg6 1 4 . a5 i.d7 15 .I!.ab1 l:tcS 16..lUc1 Uc7 17.d5;!; with a better position) 14.a5 i.b7 15 .i.d3 bxa5 1 6 JHb1 l:.bS 1 7 . l1xa5 ltJc6 lS.Uab5;!;, Seirawan -Korchnoi, Skelleftea 19S9.

Another plan for Black is 12 . . . e5. Then could follow 13.d5 ltJa5 14.i.e2 (or 1 4 . ltJxe5 lieS 15.§,d4 11xe5 16.'§xe5 ltJxc4 17. §'d4 b 5 ! ? l S . a4 ltJd6°o when White's rook and pawn balance

1 .ttJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ttJf6 4.ttJc3 cS S.cd

the two black pieces - noted by B. Alterman) 14 . . . f6 15.ttJe1 (af­ter 15 :�b4 b6 16.ttJd2 ttJb7 17. i.b5 �d6 1B.a3 ttJc5 19.ttJc4 �c7 20.ttJe3 i.d7 2 1 .i.xd7 �xd7 22.a4 lUcB= B l ack successfully re­grouped his forces, Huzman -Kveinys, Vilnius 1995) 15 . . . b6 16 .ttJc2 �d6 1 7 .ttJe3 f5 1B.exf5 i.xf5 19.�ac1:!;; as in Epishin -Luther, Bad Wildbad 2000.

13J�adl White carries on the centrali­

sation policy. The immediate breakthrough 13.d5 ttJa5 14.i.e2 exd5 1 5 . exd5 i.b7 1 6 . d6 �f6 1 7.lUdl I!.adB 1BJhc1 i.c6 19. �d4 �xd4 20Jhd4 l:tfeBco led the game Korchnoi - Brunner, Bern (mJ4) 1996 to unclear position. Beside the main line sometimes White plays 13.l:.fe1 which leads after 1 3 . . . i.b7 14 . .l:tad1 only to a transposition of moves.

13 ... i.b7 13 . . . ttJa5 does not change any-

thing since 14.i.d3 i.b7 15J:tfe1 j oins the main line.

14JUel A practical test passed the

break 14.d5. Then comes 14 . . . ttJa5 15.i.d3 (or 15.dxe6 ttJxc4 16.exf'7 + WhB 1 7 . �xdB IbxdB lSJhdS I!.xdS 19.e5 and Black can orga­nise a successful fight against White's passed pawns playing 19 . . JlcS! 20.e6 i.d5 2 1 .ltJg5 ttJe5 22 Jle 1 i.xe6 23 .ttJxe6 ltJxf7=) 15 . . . exd5 (also possible is 15 . . . �e7 16.:fe 1 l::i:adS 17 .ltJd4 g6 18.�h6 e5 19.1tJc2 i.c8°o Lautier - Kasim­dzhanov, Wijk aan Zee 2002, in-

tending to transfer the bishop to d7 and the knight to d6 via b7) 16.e5 and now Boleslavsky's re­commendation 16 . . . i.cB!? (clear­ly worse is 16 . . . d4? due to 17.ttJxd4 �d5 lB. �g5t when lB . . . f6? los­es right away - 19. �g4 �xe5 20.ttJf5 �c7 2 1 .�c1+- Rogozenko - Kveinys, Koszalin 199B. Notice that the pursuit of White's light­squared bishop by 16 . . . ttJc4 17 . �f4 ttJb2 gives White after lB. i.xh7+! Wxh7 19.1tJg5+ Wg6 20. h4! ! ttJxdl 21 .h5+! Wxh5 22.g4+ Wg6 23. �f5+ Wh6 24.ltJxf7 + �xf7 25. �h5# a mating attack, and 16 . . . �cB 1 7 . �f4 i.a6 lS.i.xa6 �xa6 19.1tJd4 l:laeS 20.ltJf5 lle6 21 .�g5t led to White's initiative on the kingside in Vera - Paglil­la, Merlo 1994) 17 . �f4 h6= and Black overcame the first wave of White's onslaught.

Now Black either drives off immediately the bishop leaving the rook on place in b2cl) 14 .. .

ttJa5 or delays the action toward it for a later time with b2c2) 14 ... �c8.

The alternatives allow the thematic push: 14 . . . �d6 15.d5 ! , discussed i n the commentary to

129

Chapter 10

move 1 2 , or 1 4 . . :�'f6 15 .d5! ttJa5 16 . .td3 exd5 17 .e5 'f:!.e7 (by trad­ing off queens 17 . . . 'f:!.h6 18. 'f:!.xh6 gxh6 19.ttJd4 l:tfe8 20.ttJf5 .l::te6 2l. ttJd6 f6 22.f4 fxe5 23 .ttJxb7 ttJxb7 24 . .tf5 .'I:i.e7 2 5 .lIxd5 liae8 26. �dxe5:;!;; Black avoided a direct at­tack but only to obtain a misera­ble ending in Matlak - Luczak, Porabka 1986) when in the game Flesch - Deze, Yugoslavia 1970 White choose the aggressive 18. �f4!? (a simple 18.ttJd4� would have been good enough in connec­tion with a transfer of the knight to f5) and after 18 . . . ttJc6 (in case of 1 8 . . . ttJc4 White could go the same way: 19 . .txh7+ ! �xh7 20. ttJg5+ Wg6 2 l .h4 ! ! f5 22.lid3 �b4 23.h5+ �h6 24 . .'I:i.c1�, intending to swing the rook to g3) launched a spectacular attack 19.kxh7+! c,t>xh7 20.ttJg5 �g6 2 l .h4! ! (threa­tening 22.h5+ Wxh5 23.g4+ �g6 24.�f5+ �h6 25.�h7+ �xg5 26. �h5+ �f4 2 7 . �f5#) 2 1 . . . ttJd8 (neither 21 . . .f6 helps in view of 22.h5+ �h6 23. 'f:!.f5!+- nor 21. . .f5, due to 22 . .'I:i.e3 �b4 23.h5+ Wxh5 24.'f:!.h2+ �xg5 25 . .'I:i.g3+ 'f:!.g4 26. �h7 .'I:i.g8 27 . .'I:i.xd5 ttJa5 28 . .'I:i.d4!) 22 . .'I:i.d3 Wh6 23 . .'I:i.g3 f6 24.ttJe6+-.

In the light of the above vari­ations a logical plan for Black would be to organise a blockade on the route of White's pawn. Mter 14 . . . ttJe7 15.d5 exd5 16.exd5 ttJf5 1 7 .ttJe5 (a one move delay proved enough for Black to set up his defence - 17 . .td3 ttJd6 18.ttJe5 .'I:i.e8 19 . .'I:i.e3 .'1:i.c8 20.ttJc6 .txc6 2l. dxc6 .'1:i.xe3 22.�xe3 .'1:i.xc6 23 . .te4

130

l:!.c8 24.�d3 �h4 25 . .txh7+ �xh7 26.'f:!.xd6 �c2=, Uhlmann - Kor­chnoi, Zagreb 1970) 17 . . . ttJd6 en­counters the strong reply 1 8 . ttJc6 ! . Further might follow 18 . . . �f6 (the tactical validity o f White's move lies in 1 8 . . . .txc6 19.dxc6 ttJxc4 20. �f4! ttJd6 2 l . lhd6 �c7 22.g3 h6 23.'f:!.e5 .'1:i.ac8 24.�d5 �h7 25 . .'I:i.e4 �g8 26.�g2 a6 27.h4 b5 28.g4± which occur­red in T. Petrosian - Korchnoi, Ciocco (m/6) 1977. White not only regained the material balance but thanks to the passed pawn on c6 dominates the board. ) 19 . .tb3 g6 (after 19 . . . �h8 20 . .'I:i.e3 �g5 2l .�b4 'f:!.f6 22 . .'I:i.f3 �h6 23 . .'I:i.h3 �g6 24.ttJe5 �f6 25.ttJd7+-, Sut­ter - Kelecevic, Wohlen 1993, Black suffered decisive material losses). This position occurred in Welin - Pyhala, Gausdal 1987 and White could grasp the initi­ative for long with 20. �b4! �g7 (after 20 . . . life8 2 1 ..'I:i.e3 .'I:i.xe3 22.fxe3 ttJf5 23.e4 ttJe3 24.l:!.e1± the f-file opens up to White's ben­efit) 2l .ttJe5 .tc8 (but not 2 1 . . . .'I:i.ad8? 22.ttJg4 �h4 23.g3 �h3 24.�c3+-) 22 . .'I:i.d3 .'1:i.e8 23 . .'I:i.de3t.

b2cl) 14 . . . ttJa5

1.C£J{3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ltJf6 4.ltJc3 cS S.cd

15.i.d3 White bishop retreats not to

f1 but exactly to d3 in order to preserve his chances to partici­pate in an attack toward Black's kingside.

15 ... h6 We'll discuss the rather intri­

cate variations, occurring after 15 . . . .i:.cS 16.d5 ! , in the next chap­ter. Now we'll only note that a possible sacrifice of this very bishop on h7 brought to life the prophylactic move h7-h6.

From the other continuations we can single out 15 . . .'�e7. After 16.'�f4 (Black intended to meet 16.d5 by closing the centre with 16 . . . e5oo) 1 6 . . . f6 (the careless 16 . . . .i:.adS?! turns to be quite du-bious due to 17.d5! �ffi lS.�g3 and in Huss - Grillitsch, Luxem­bourg 19S1 Black had to abandon lS . . . exd5 in view of 19.e5 �h6 20 .ltJg5 g6 2 1 .e6+-. Not an im­provement is 16 . . . .i:.fdS?! in view of the same 17.d5! and after the reply 17 . . . exd5, Shvidler - Zifro­ni, Israel 1997, White should choose the simple lS.exd5±, ex­ploiting the opposition of White's rook and Black's queen on e-file. ) 17 .�g3 (a precipitate 17.d5 al­lowed Black to even the chances after 17 . . . e5 IS. �d2 .i:.acS 19 . .i:.c1 .i:.xc1 20 . .i:.xc1 .i:.cS 21..i:.xcS+ i.xcS 22. �c3 i.g4 23.i.a6 �c5=, Ruck - A. Graf, Erevan 2001) 17 . . JHdS lS.d5 ( 1S.h4 could be countered by IS . . . .i:.acS 19.h5 l:tc3�) lS . . . e5 19.1tJh4 i.cS 20.f4 exf4 21.�xf4;t In the game Huss - Flesch, Biel

1977 White's pieces are more ac­tive.

The prophylactic 15 . . . f6 oc­curred in Cvek - Klima, Czech Republic 1 995 - 1 6 . �f4 �d7 17 .h4 l:tacS lS.h5 WhS (if lS . . . h6 Black has to reckon with the con­tinuation 19 . �g4 .i:.c3 20.d5::!;) when 19.h6t would give White an initiative on the queenside.

16.d5!? White resorts to a typical for

the variation positional pawn sacrifice. The are numerous stra­tegic reasons behind it. In first place White closes down the working diagonal to Black's bi­shop b7 while brightening up the prospects of his own on d3. The ill-knight obtains a perfect block­ading square on d4 from where it can strikes at both enemy's wings. Let us add that Black's defence can hardly be shaken by less committing methods. For in­stance, 16.�f4 �e7 17 .d5 .i:.adS lS.h4 �d6 19.e5 �xd5 20.i.h7+ Wxh 7 2 1 ..i:.xd5 i.xd5� led the game Lesiege - Nickoloff, Brant­ford 1999 to a situation where White ''won'' the queen for a rook, knight and pawn and left with­out any active plan.

16 ... exd5 The game Benjamin - D. Gu­

revich, Las Vegas 1 9 9 5 saw 16 . . . .i:.cS and White can increase his pressure with 17 . �e3 �e7 lS.ltJd4::!;.

17.e5 ltJc4 18.�e2 �c7 White was threatening to win

the c4-knight thanks to the X-

13 1

Chapter 10

ray down d-file so the queen is to wipe off everything on their running away. After a possible way. 18 . . . . �·e7 Black's queen would be more vulnerable. A. Jussupow proposes the following scenario -19.1ZJd4 Itae8 20.lZJf5 �g5 21.h4 �f4 22.g3 �xe5 23 . .i.xc4 �xf5 24. �xe8 dxc4 25 . �xf8+ 'iitxf8 26.Itd8#. Further analysis needs 18 . . . b5 19.1ZJd4 Ite8 20.f4 �b6 as in Yakovich - Khlian, Azov 1996, where the normal course of the game was abruptly cut by a draw agreement. Otherwise White would probably play 21 .�hlgg.

1 9.1ZJd4 :ae8 20.f4 b5 2 1 . �hl �b6 2 2 . .i.f5!

The bishop is heading to d7. The onrush 22.lZJf5 is not danger­ous owing to 22 . . . .i.c8 ! = and 22 . .i.bl could be met by 22 . . . lZJd6! 23. �g4 lZJe4 24.i.xe4 dxe4 25.lZJf5 �g6 26.�xg6 fxg6 27.lZJd6 .l:Ie7= (noted by B. Gulko).

22 ... lZJd6 In case of 22 . . . .i.c8 23.i.xc8

�xc8 24.f5gg the pawn avalanche would break loose. If Black pre­vents the bishop's appearing on d7 with the move 22 . . . l:.e7, 23. i.bl ! comes to force, since 23 . . . lZJd6 24. �g4!� emphasizes the awkward placement of the rook on e7.

23.i.d7 lite7 24. �g4! Considerably stronger than

24.i.xb5 tZJe4 25.�e3 �c7=. 24 ... h5 After 24 . . . a6 25 . .l:Ie3 tZJe4 26.

l:.xe4 lbd7 (26 . . . dxe4?? loses to 2 7 .lZJf5+-) 2 7 .�e3 l:.c7 28 .f5gg White's pawns e and f are ready

132

This position occurred in Gulko - Jussupow, Riga 1995. White has in his possession the strong move 25.�xh5 ! (White played instead 25. �g5 and fol­lowing �xd7 26.exd6 �xd6 27 . tZJf5 �f6 28.lZJe7+ l:.xe7! 29.:!.xe7 �xg5 30.fxg5 .i.c8 3 1 .l:.xd5 i.e6 32.lhb5 i.xa2 the extra exchange is unlikely to be converted into a whole point since after 33.:!.xa7 i.c4 34 . :!.c5 i.d3 3 5 . �gl g6= Black's fortress is storm proof) 25 . . . .uxd7 (after 25 . . . lZJe4 26.l:.xe4! dxe4 27.tZJf5 :!.xd7 28 . l:.xd7 g6 29.�g5 �f2 30.h3 e3 3 1 .lZJh6+ 'iitg7 32 .lZJxf7 i.xg2+ 3 3 . �xg2 �xg2+ 34.�xg2 :!'xf7 35.e6+- B. Gulko's analysis says White is winning) 26.exd6 �xd6 27.l:.e3 �g6 (27 . . . g6 runs into 28.�h4!+­with decisive threats down h-file while 27 . . . �xf4 fails to 28 .l:.h3 �h6 29. �f5+-) 28. �h4 b4 29.l:.h3 f5 30.nel t and White keeps a dangerous initiative on the king­side.

b2�2) 14 ... .l:!c8 The most popular reply.

1 .ttJf3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ttJf6 4.ttJc3 cS S.cd

1 5.d5! The same breakthrough again!

Material losses count for little. 15 . . . exd5 The sharp 1 5 . . .ltJa5 will be

presented in the next chapter. 16 . .1xd5 This capture ensures White a

long-lasting initiative. Very inter­esting is 16.exd5. Mter 16 . . . ttJa5 17 .i..f1 �d6 ( 1 7 . . . ttJc4 18 . .1xc4 l:!.xc4 19.d6t leaves White a ter­rible pawn on d6, note of 1. Bole­slavsky) 18.ttJg5 :'cd8 (if 18 . . . h6 19.ttJe4 �g6 20.�f4t and White is leading the play) 19.�d3 �h6 (bad is 19 . . . g6 20.�h3 h5 21.ttJe4 �e5 22.�h4± and the ending is difficult for Black - 19 . . . �g6 20.�xg6 hxg6 21 .d6± - 1. Bole­slavsky) 20. �f5 ..\tc8 21 .�f4 ttJb7! (the knight hurries to a rescue mission since 21 . . .f6 22.ttJe6 �xf4 23.ttJxf4t is too dangerous for Black) 22J:te7 f6 23.ttJe6 �xf4 24.ttJxf4 .Mfl 25.l:!.e3 (25.d6 would fail to 25 . . . WfB! 26.l:!.xfl+ Wxfl 27.i..c4+ WfB=t and the pawn is doomed) 25 . . . l:!.c7°o. In the game Khalifman - Ruban, EIista 1995 Black succeeded on balancing the game.

16 ... �e7

If Black clears the d-file with 16 . . . �c7 White should make his first choice 17.�g5! (the e-pawn onrush - 1 7 . e5 ttJe7 1 8 .i..xb7 �xb7 1 9 . e6 fxe6 20 .ttJg5 ttJg6 2 1 .ttJxe6 .ufe8: as in Nogueiras ­Tal, Brussels 1988, proved to be a strike at the air). Now after 17 . . . h6 18. �g4 1Hd8 a prophylac­tic 19.h3! would prove not only useful but very timely decision indeed (after 19. �f5 ttJb4 20.i..b3 ttJd3! in Hort - Unzicker, Palma de Mallorca 1969, it became clear that 21 .i..xfl+?! �xfl 22.�xfl+ Wxfl 23.11xd3 llxd3 24.ttJe5+ WfB 25.ttJxd3 .::tc3 26.ttJe5 i..xe4!+ was insufficient mainly because of the weak first rank). As a result in the game Kolev - Delchev, Eleni­te 1994 followed 19 . . . ttJb4 20.ttJd4!? (also good was 20.ttJh4!?) 20 . . . h5 (in case of 20 . . . ttJxd5 2 1 .ttJf5 �c3 22 .exd5± Black is in trouble) 2 1 . �g5! (but not 2 1 . �xh5 due to 2 1 . . . ttJxd5 2 2 . exd5 l:!.xd5=) 21 . . .ttJxd5 (it is sad to recommend 2 1 . . .i..xd5 22.exd5 ttJxd5 23.ttJf5 f6 24. �xh5 ttJf4 2 5 . �g4± but apparently it would have been the lesser evil) 22.exd5 f6 (or 22 . . . l:!.xd5 23.ttJf5 f6 24.ttJe7+ �xe7 25.�xd5+ i..xd5 26 . .uxe7+-) 23. �xh5 l:!.xd5 24.ttJf5 .::te5 25.l:!.xe5 fxe5 26. �g4+-and White even­tually won.

In a game for the World title Spassky - T. Petrosian, Moscow (m15) 1969 Black decided not too logically to bring the knight away from centre - 16 . . . ttJa5 1 7 . �f4 �c7 (in case of 17 . . . �e7, Brun-

133

Chapter 10

ner - Partos, Switzerland 2000, 18 .CLJd4! looks very strong, in­tending 19.CLJf5±) 18. �f5 SLxd5 1 9 . exd5 �c2 (after 19 . . . CLJc4 20.CLJg5 g6 21. �h3 h5 22.CLJe4± the dark squares around Black's king are irreparably weakened while 1 9 . . . �d6 2 0 . CLJg5 �g6 2 1 . �xg6 hxg6 22.d6! CLJb7 23.d7 �cd8 24Jle7 CLJc5 25 . .l::!.d6± leads Black to a very difficult ending since his queenside pawns are not mobile and the white d7-pawn immobilises his pieces -shown by Bondarevsky) 20. �f4!? (the endgame is also good -20. �xc2!? ':!xc2 21..l::!.e7!±, 1. Bole­slavsky) 20 . . . tha2 2 1 .d6 �cd8 22.d7�. White's position is very promising and Spassky led the game to victory. This was one of the first games with the break d5 in action which had a strong im­pact on the theory of the whole variation.

17.e5!? An alternative is 17. �f4 �c7!

(bad is 17 . . . CLJd8? due to 18 .CLJd4! CLJe6 19. �e5 .:!fe8 20.CLJf5 �c7 2 1 . �xc7 .:!xc7 22 .CLJd6+- with White's material advantage , Thorsteins - D. Olafsson, Alm­reyri 1987 or 17 . . . �ce8?! as in D. Lima - Sunye N eto, Brasilia

134

1998, when the best reply is 1 8 . CLJh4 �e5 1 9 . �xe5 .l::!.xe5 20.CLJf5±. The game Soffer - Fara­go, Budapest 1994 saw 17 . . . CLJb4 and White could keep the initia­tive with 18.CLJd4!? CLJxd5 19.exd5 �b4 20.�e5t) 18.h4 ( 18 .CLJh4 al­lows Black to play an equal end-ing with 18 . . . �e5 ! = - 1. Bole-slavsky) 18 . . . .:!fc8 Black has all chances for a successful defence - 1. Bondarevsky.

17 . . . CLJd8 Black has to secure his posi­

tion against e5-e6. In case of 17 . . . CLJa5 18 . ..ltxb7 �xb7 19.CLJdM White is better.

18.SLxb7 CLJxb7 19.CLJd4 :i.fd8 20.CLJf5 �f8 21.�g5 Wh8 22.h4 h6 23.�g4t

We have been following the game Gentes - G. Taylor, Canada 1989. Black's kingside is under considerable pressure.

Chapter 1 1 l.liJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 liJf6 4.liJc3 c5 5.cxd5 liJxd5 6.e4 liJxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 ..tb4+ 9 . ..td2 ..txd2+ 10:�xd2 0-0 11...tc4 liJc6 12.0-0 b6 13Jiadl ..tb7 14JUei ftc8 1 5.d5 liJa5

Before proceeding with the liquidation of d5-pawn, Black drives off White's bishop from its active position.

16.i.d3 As in variation b2cl from the

previous chapter White's bishop retreats to d3 where is the best place for supporting a kingside attack. Too timid would be 16.dxe6 �xd2 1 7 . exf7 + �h8 18 .tt:Jxd2 Ct:Jxc4 19.Ct:Jxc4 .s.xc4 20.e5 i.c8 2 1 . e6 i.xe6 22 . .s.xe6 g6= and Black successfully coped with the opponent's passed pawns.

16 ... exd5 A matter of principle. Black is

willing to test how strong could be White's attack. Outright bad is 16 . . . Ct:Jc4? in view of 17.i.xc4 .s.xc4 18.dxe6 �xd2 19.exf7 + .s.xf7

20 J 'hd2 .s.xe4 2 1. .Uxe4 .1i.xe4 22.Ct:Jg5+- and Black is not able to defend a rook, bishop and the last rank all in the same time.

The awaiting 16 . . . �d6 should be followed by 1 7 . dxe6 ! (after 17 . �g5 h6 18 . �g4 .s.fe8 19 .e5 �xd5 20 . .1i.h7+ �xh7 2 1 .'uxd5 ..txd5 22. �h5 �g8� Black resort­ed to the typical queen sacrifice, obtaining sufficient material equivalent in Tomaszewski - Se­queira, Skien 1979) 17 . . . fxe6 (in case of 17 . . . �xe6 18 .Ct:Jd4 �e5 19.Ct:Jf5 White intends to push his pawns to f4 and e5, providing an excellent outpost for the knight on d6 . In the game Dokhoian -S. Webb, Stockholm 1989 Black tried to prevent this plan by means of 19 . . . g6 20.Ct:Jh6+ �g7 21 .Ct:Jg4 �e6 22. �f4 f6 23.i.b5± but did not obtain an easy life) 18.i.b5;1;;. This variation is recom­mended by Y. Dokhoian. White's position looks more pleasant due to the better pawn structure (two to three pawn islands).

If Black replies 1 6 . . . � e 7 , again 17.dxe6!? deserves atten­tion (after 17. �f4 lifd8 18.i.b1

135

Chapter 1 1

lLlc4 19.1Lld4 e5 20.lLlf5 �ffi= in Tyomkin - V. Golod, Israel 1996, White did not reach anything substantial) 17 . . . fxe6 ( 1 7 . . . �xe6 1B.lLld4 leads to a position from the previous paragraph) 1B.kb5;:1;;. White is slightly better.

1 7.e5! White cleared up b1-h7 diag­

onal to his bishop for the future kingside attack. Black's task to bring the pieces for defence is considerably complicated due to White's domination in the centre.

In this position we'll concen­trate on the most frequent answers : a) 17 . . . 'f;!fe7 and b) 17 . . . lLlc4.

Possible deviations could be: 17 . . . d4. Black lengthens the

working diagonal for his light­squared bishop too. In reply White can launch a direct attack by 1 B . lLl g5 ! ? h6 1 9 . 1Llh7 lLlc4 ( 19 . . . lIeB loses to 20.lLlffi+! gxffi 2 1 .�xh6+-) 20.�f4! (20.�b4 is worse, due to 20 . . . lIeB 2 1..1i.xc4 �xh7 22.�xf7 �g5= , Poeckstein­er - Kwatschewsky, Vienna 19B6) 20 . . . lLlb2 (again 20 . . JleB is bad, this time in view of21 .lLlffi+! gxffi 2 2 . 'f;!fxh6 f5 2 3 . �xf5 'uc7 24 .

136

oUd3+- and Black is not in condi­tion to deflect the mating threats) 2 1 .lLlxfB lLlxd1 22.e6! l:.c7 (after 22 . . . 'f;!fxf8 23.exf7+ 'f;!fxf7 24 . .1i.h7+ �fB 25.�d6+- the mate is una­voidable) 23.lLlh7! (not so precise is 2 3 . �f5 'it'xfB 2 4 . �h7 lLle3 25.e7+ 'it'xe7 26.�xg7 oUc6 27.fxe3 dxe3 2B.'uxe3 + 'ue6 29 .lhe6 + 'it'xe6 3 0 . .1i.c4+ �d6 3 1 . �xf7 �c5= and in the game Gulkov - Tke­buchava, Moscow 1994 Black's king broke free) 23 . . . fxe6 (23 . . . lLlb2 fails to 24.e7 :s.xe7 25.'uxe7 �xe7 26. �bB+-) 24.'uxd1 ,Ud7 25 .�g6± White's knight is stuck on h7 but it is also an "extra" one;

17 . . . h6. Prophylactic against Ng5. White can go on lB. �f4 lLlc6 19.�f5 g6 20.'f;!fg4 �g7 2 1 .h4 h5 22.�g3 �e7 23.lLlg5 lLlb4 when in N. Popov - G. Rumiancev, USSR 197B 24.e6!? deserved attention, for instance, lLlxd3 (if 24 . . . ffi, then 25.lLlf7 tiJxd3 26.lLld6! �h7 27 . lLlxcB ':xcB 2B.':xd3± and Black is in trouble while 24 . . . f5 could meet 25.lLlf7� with the unpleas­ant threat �f4-h6) 25. �xd3 f5 (if 25 . . . ffi, then 26.lLlf7 � intending to transfer the queen to h6 via d2 or e3) 26.lLlf7 'f;!fxh4 27.'f;!fe3 ':xf7 (in case of 27 . . . f4 White has 2B.�e5+ �h7 29.lId4!±) 2B.exf7 oUfB 29. �a3 ':xf7 30.�xa7 'f;!fffi 31 .,Ub1;:l;; and Black is not able to prove a 100 percent compensa­tion for the exchange;

17 . . . g6. Another way to cover the h7-square. L. Polugaevsky recommends 1B.'f;!fh6!? f5 19.h4 (very unclear are the consequenc-

12.0-0 b6 13.�ad1 i.b7 14.�fe1 �c8 15.d5 ttJa5

es of the variation 19.exf6 �xf6 20.ttJg5 l:Ic7 2 1 . ttJe6 �xf2+ 22. �h1 l1e7! 23:�xf8+ �xf8 24.ttJxf8 �xf8 25 . .:txe7 �xe7<£J where Black has two pawns for an exchange) 1 9 . . . � e 7 2 0 . h5 �g7 2 1 . �f4� White plays as in variation a (see the note to Black's move IS);

1 7 . . . :c6. Of course Black is aware of the danger for his king and in a number of games he tried to send his cS-rook to res­cue. Here is an example: lS.ttJd4 I:th6 19.f4 ttJc6 20.ttJ£5 .:te6 21.ttJd6 lbd6 22.exd6 �xd6 23.�h1 I:tdS 24.�e3 g6 25.£5t. In the game 1. Khenkin - Straeter, Reckling­hausen 1996 Black maintained a formal equilibrium but he is still a way off the real equality. His pieces are too passive while the opponent is planning to open up the f-file in an appropriate mo­ment, clearing the path for inva­sion;

17 . . . l:I.c 7 . Now is the moment for White to think about lS.e6!? ( after I S . � f4 .tcS 19 .h4 h6°o Black has nothing to complain about, V. Loginov - Vaulin, USSR 1 9 8 5 ) . Further might follow 18 . . . h6 (18 . . . fxe6? is very danger­ous due to 19.ttJg5 .tc8 20 . .txh7 + �hS 2 1 ..tb1 I:tf6 22 . �d3 �gS 2 3 . � g3 l:I d 7 2 4 .ttJf3 ttJc4 2 5 . .tg6+-) 1 9 .� b 1 (planning 20. �d3) 1 9 . . . �f6 ( if 1 9 . . . fxe6 20. l:Ixe6� White's rook joins in the attack) 20.ttJd4 (in case of20.�d3 fxe6 21 .�h7+�f7 22.t2Je5+ c;£te8°o White threw Black's king out his castle but at the price of another

pawn) 20 . . . .ta6 (preventing the move 2 1 . �d3) 2 1 .�e3t and in view of the threat 22.lIf3 White's initiative more than compensates for the missing pawn.

a) 17 ... �e7

18.�f4!? Coming closer to the king. An alternative is 1 B .ttJd4.

Then a matter of interest is lS . . . ttJe4 (but not lS . . . g6 19.�h6 £5 20.h4 ttJc6 21.ttJb5 ttJdB 22.ttJd6 l1e5 23.h5 t2Jf7 24. �f4 .teS 25. hxg6 hxg6 26.�g3� and in Pogo­relov - Magem Badals, Sitges 1993 White obtained a very good compensation) 19.ttJf5 �dB 20. �f4 (after 20 . .txe4 I:txe4 2 1 .ttJd6 l1e7 22.ttJxb7 l:Ixb7 23. �xd5 �xd5 24.l:Ixd5 .:te8= the rook ending has a draw trend) 20 . . . l:Ie6 (or 20 . . . t2Jb2 2 1.:d2 ttJxd3 22.l:Ixd3� and the proud position of the knight on £5 ensures White a good compensation) 2 1 .�d4, Ghitescu - Vukovic, Smederevska Palanka 1971 . Here the right continuation would be 2 1 . . .I:te7 (21 . . . .:teS? lost right away to 22.e6!+-) 22.�g4 g6 when the break 23.e6 leads after 23 . . . fxe6 24 . .:txe6 .te8! 25.ttJh6+

137

Chapter 1 1

Wg7 26Jhg6+ hxg6 27 .thg6+ Wh8 28.fih5 Wg7= only to a draw.

18 ... h6 It is about time for Black to

shield the h7-square. 18 . . . lllc4, hurrying with the knight, allows 19 .ctJg5 !? (the consequences of 19 .i..xh7+ Wxh7 20.ctJg5+ Wg6 2 1.h4:0 also need analysis) 19 . . . h6 (if 19 . . . g6, then 20. fih4 h5 21 .e6� and a big crack appears on Black's castle) 20.ctJh7 lUd8 (af­ter 20 . . . Itfe8 21.ctJill+! comes with an even greater impact, since 2 1 . . . gxffi 22. fixh6 f5 23.i..xf5 ill 24.l:.d3+- loses) 2 1 .lllf6+ WfB (or 2 1 . . . gxf6?? 2 2 . exf6+- with a hopeless position) 2 2 . fif5 g6 23.fif4 Wg7 24.lllg4 fl'g5 (if 24 . . . l:.h8, then 25.e6�) 25. fid4 h5 (in case of 25 . . J1e8 26.e6+ ill 27.h4! fl'xh4 28.i..xg6� White obtains a crushing attack, since the bishop on g6 is untouchable - it would cost a queen) 26.e6+ (in case of 26.lllf6 White has to reckon with 26 . . . llld2! threatening a fork on f3 and a jump to e4) 26 . . . f6 2 7 . .ii.xc4 dxc4 2 8 . fl'xd8 l:.xd8 29.lIxd8 .ii.c6 30.llle3t. Black's position looks dangerous.

A more drastical defensive measure would be 18 . . . f5. Then 19.1tJd4 ( 19 . .ii.xf5 is weaker, since following 19 . . . g6 20. fl'g5 fl'xg5 2 1 . i.. e6+ Wg7 2 2 . lllxg5 l:.c2� Black enjoys a good counterplay in the ending) 19 . . . g6 20.h4 (if 2 0 .i..xf5?, then the easiest is 20 . . . Wh8 !-+) 20 . . . ltJc6 2 1 .ltJb5 fie6 22.h5 Ucd8 23.hxg6 hxg6 24.l:.e3 l;Id7 25.i..c2 Ug7 26 . ..\l.b3

138

l;Id8 (26 . . . g5 27. fl'h2 1Id7 leads to a position where the elegant 28.lllc7!+- decides) 27.llld6 ctJa5, V. Bagirov - V. Zhuravliov, USSR 1974. White had a strong 28. ctJxb7 ! l;Ixb7 ( after 2 8 . . . lllxb7 follows 29J�ed3 l;Igd7 30.fif3±, note of V. Bagirov) 29. fig5 l;Idd7 (after 29 . . . l;Ibd7 30.i..a4 l;Ie7 the attack could be led on by 31 .l;Ih3!? ltJc4 32J1h6 fixe5 33 .l;Ixg6+ Wfl 34.fl'h5+-) 30.i..xd5 l1xd5 31.l;Ixd5 fixd5 32. fixg6+ WfB (if 32 . . . l;Ig7, then 3 3 . fi e 8 + Wh7 3 4 J 1h3#) 33.l;Ic3! ltJc4 (33 . . . fl'd1+ 34.Wh2 fl'd7 would not help Black, due to 35.fl'f6+ We8 36.Uh3+-) 34. fl'xf5+ We7 (White wins after 34 . . . We8 35.fic8+ We7 36.fixc4 fl'd1+ 3 7 . fl'f1+-) 3 5 . l;Id3 fl'f7 (or 35 . . . fl'xe5 36.fih7+ We6 37. fl'xb7+-) 36. fl'c8+- cashing in some material.

19.h4 ltJc4 20.ctJd4 lllb2 As in many other lines of this

sharp variation Black is trying to remove the dangerous bishop.

21.ltJf5 fl'e6 22.fig3 g6

This position occurred in Norri - Hakulinen, Helsinki 1994. White should proceed with 23.ltJxh6+! 'It>h7 (after 23 . . . Wh8

12.0-0 b6 13. 'gad 1 i-b7 14.'gfe1 'gcB 15.d5 tDa5

24. '!¥tg5 tDxd1 25 .tDf5 gxf5 26. .l1.xf5 '!¥txf5 27. '!¥txf5 tDc3 2B.e6� White's onslaught is irresistible) 24.'!¥tg5 tDxd3 (24 . . .lIfeB fails to 25 .h5 tDxd1 26.tDxf7!+-and 24 . . . tDxd1 25.tDf5 'it;>gB 26.tDe7+ brings Black to impass - 26 . . . 'it;>h7 10ses to 27 .h5+- while 26 . . . 'it;>g7 27. .l1.f5 ! +- shuts the trap behind Black's queen) 25.tDg4 Ii.hB 26. tDf6+ 'it;>g7 27 . .:l.xd3t keeping a dangerous initiative.

b) 1 7 . • . tDc4 Bringing the knight back into

play.

IB.'!¥tf4 We know the picture already. 18 . . . tDb2 Black is obstinate. Knowing in

advance the course of the game, Black would have looked around for some other move. So in the game Horeczky - Csoli, Hunga­ry 1999 there was 1B . . . h6 19.'!¥tf5 g6 when the old prescription of L . Polugaevsky 2 0 . '!¥th3 Wg7 21 .e6� would give White a good compensation for the pawn. Af­ter 1B . . . f6 19.e6 '!¥te7 20.tDd4 g6 21. '!¥tg3 'it;>hB 22.h4 .1:!.gB 23.h5 tDb2 24.hxg6 CDxd1 25 .l:i.xd1 .1:!.c3 in B.

Toth - Gasthofer, Baden 2000 White could choose 26. '!¥th2� run­ning away from all kinds of pin­ning. 1B . . . '!¥te7 19.tDg5 transpos­es to variation a. lB . . . l:i.c7 allows the combination 19 . .l1.xh7+! 'it;>xh7 20.tDg5+ 'it;>g6 21 .h4! ! (threaten­ing a standard 22.h5+! 'it;>xh5 2 3 . g4+ 'it;>g6 24. '!¥tf5+ 'it;>h6 25 . '!¥th7+ 'it;>xg5 26. '!¥th5+ 'it;>f4 2 7 . '!¥tf5#) 2 1 . . . '!¥tcB 22.1:I.d3 f6 23.h5+ 'it;>h6 24.tDe6+ 'it;>h7 2 5 .CDxfB+ '!¥txffi 26.exf6 ,Uf7 27. '!¥tf5+ 'it;>gB when in Flesch - Kovacs, Buda­pest 1969, 2B.fxg7! led White to a big advantage - 1:I.xf5 (2B . . . .:l.xg7 29 . .1:!.eB+ .:l.ffi 30.l:txffi+ '!¥txffi 3 1 . 1:I.g3+- loses on the spot as well as 2B . . . 'it;>xg7 29.'!¥tg6+ 'it;>hB 30 . .uf3! 1':.xf3 3 1 .1':.eB 1:I.f4 32.h6 with the terrible threat of 33 . '!¥tg7#, after 2B . . . l:i.xg7 29.'!¥txffi+ 'it;>xffi 30.h6 1:1.d7 3 UIh3+- Black also would not escape) 29.gxffi'!¥t+ Wxffi 30.h6 .l1.c6 31 .h7 'it;>g7 32. l:i.e7+ 'it;>hB 33Jha7±. White re­tains good winning chances thanks to the strong pawn on h7.

An interesting move is 1B . . . 1:I.c6, which has not been put to test yet. White can play positionally - 19.CDd4!?� going to f5 , since the onslaught seems to miss the tar­get: 19.CDg5?! h6 20 . .l1.h7+ 'it;>hB 2 1 . CDxf7+ 'it;>xh7 22.tDxdB l:i.xf4 23.tDxb7 (L. Polugaevsky's recom­mendation 23.e6 brings White to disaster after 23 . . . 1':.ffi!+) 23 . . . 1':.e4 24.1':.xe4 dxe4°o.

19 . .l1.xh7+! Taking the way to glory.

139

Chapter 1 1

1 9 . . . 'ittxh7 20.ttJg5+ 'ittg6 There is no way back. After

20 . . . 'ittg8?? 21.'�h4 .l:.e8 22.�h7+ 'ittf8 2 3 . e6+- White is trium­phant.

21.h4!! A splendid move! The threat

is 2 2 . h5 + ! 'ittxh5 2 3 . g4+ 'ittg6 2 5 . �f5 + 'itth6 2 6 . �h7+ 'ittxg5 27.�h5+ 'ittf4 28.�f5#.

21. . ..l:tc4 After 2 1 . . .ttJxd1 22.h5+ 'itth6

(the game Jasnikowski - Votava, Warsaw 1989 saw 2 2 . . . 'ittxh5 23.g4+- and in view of the immi­nent mate Black resigned) 23. ttJe6+ 'itth7 24 .lZJxd8 l:tcxd8 25. 'uxd l +- as in D. Gurevich -Massana, New York 1985 White is going to win.

2 1 . . . f5 is not of much help since 22.l:td4! revives the threat h4-h5 ( only to a draw leads 22 .h5+ 'ittxh5 23.lZJe6 fie7 24. fih2+ �h4 25.lZJxg7+ 'ittg5 26. lZJe6+ 'itth5=) 22 . . . fie7 23.h5+ 'itth6 24.lZJf7+ 'itth7 25.�xf5+ 'ittg8 26.e6 'uxf7 (26 . . . ,Uc7 happened in Gru­en - Goehring, Germany 1983 when 27JU4 i.c6 28.h6 followed by 29.h7# mated) 27.exf7+ fixf7 2 8 . �xf7+ 'ittxf7 2 9 .'uf4+ 'ittg8

140

30.:e7 i.a6 3 1..�.fl7± Black's po­sition is not to be envied.

If Black defends with 21 . . . �d7 White is going to score by 22.e6 fxe6 23. fig4 .l:.fe8 (after the ana­lysis of L. Polugaevsky 23 . . . lIm loses , due to 2 4 . lZJxe6+ 'itth6 25.:e5 g6 26.�g5+-) 24.lZJxe6+ 'itth6 25.fig5+ 'itth7 26.�h5+ 'ittg8 27 .lZJg5 'uxe1 + 28.'uxe1 g6 29. fixg6+ �g7 30Jie8+ ':xe8 3 1 . fixe8+ fifB 32.�e6+ 'itth8 33.�d7 fig7 34.�e8+ fig8 35 . �e5+ �g7 36. fib8+- with decisive material plus.

The other queen's move is bet­ter - 2 1 . . .'�e7 but even then 22.'ue3!? (The game Cranbourne - N. Ninov, corr. 1996 went on 22.'ud4 lZJc4!? 23.h5+ 'itth6 24.lZJe6 '1t>h7 2 5 . fif5+ 'iitg8 26 .ttJg5 g6 27.hxg6 m! 28.g7 fxg5 29.gxf8fi+ 'uxf8+, not clear is also 22.h5+ 'iith6 23.ttJxf7+ 'iith7 24.e6 �mCX) 22 . . . ,Uh8 (after 22 . . . lZJxd1 23.l:tg3 l:tgS 24.h5+ 'iith6 25.lZJxf7+ 'iith7 26. fif5+ g6 27 . .l:.xg6+- or 22 . . . ,Uc4 23.h5+ '1t>h6 24.lZJe4+ 'iith7 25.'�f5 '1t>h6 26J�g3 .uxe4 27.,Ug6+ 'iith7 2S.'ue6+ 'iitgS 29Jlxe7 i.c8 30. fif.3 i.g4 3 1 . �g3 i.xd 1 3 2 . f3 .l:.e2 33 .h6 g6 34.' �h4 '1t>h7 35.e6+­White should win, analysis of Cranbourne) 2 3 . ,Ug3 ,Uh5 24 . lZJxf7 + 'iith7 25. fig4 �xf7 26.e6 fie7 27.fixh5+ 'iitg8 2S.l:te1 lZJc4 29. fig4!? ,UfB 30.h5 ,um 3 1 . fih4� White has enough compensation.

22.h5+ 'iith6 A checkmate is wating after

22 . . . 'iitxh5 23 .g4+ 'iith6 24.�h2+, Avrukh - Donk, Antwerp 1998.

12.0-0 b6 13.�ad1 �b7 14.�fe1 !:te8 15.d5 CiJa5

1-0. 23.lbxf7+ 'it>h7 24:�f5+ 'it'g8

25.e6! Only move. 25 .lbxdS? Ihf5

26.e6 iLcS 27.e7 iLd7+ and the roles changed.

25 ... ttf6 Black is also on guard. Loses

25 . . . tte7 26.h6! (the idea is 27. h7#) 26 . . . OUh4 27.oUd4!+- deciding the outcome. If 25 . . . lbxd1 White takes over the upper hand with 26.e7! tteS 27.exffitt+ ttxf8 2S.h6 oUh4 29.ttg5 ttxfl 30.h7+ 'it'xh7 3 l .ttxh4+ 'it>gS 32.oUxdl±.

26. ttxf6 gxf6 27.1:d2 In the game Naumkin - Ne­

vanlinna, Jyvaskyla 1993 White put to test the old recommenda­tion of L. Polugaevsky 27.ttJd6. As a result the game was levelled - 27 . . . tDxd1 2S.e7 oUc1 29.h6 'ubS 30.tDxb7 oUeS 3 l .tDd6 Ihe7 32. oUxe7 tDe3+ 33 .'it>h2 tDg4+ 34.'it'g3 tDxh6 35 . .lha7 oUc5=.

27 ... 1:tc6 27 . . . tDa4 gives White good

chances for a win after 2S.tDd6 iLc6 29.e7 oUeS 30 .tDxeS .i.xeS 31 Jlxd5±.

28Jaxb2

The critical position in the game Polugaevsky - Tal, Moscow 1969. In the time trouble Black made a slip with 2S . . . OUeS?! 29.ttJh6+ 'it>h7 30.tDf5 l:.exe6 3 l . l:txe6 lhe6 32.l:tc2 .uc6 33 .l:.e2 iLcs 34.oUe7+ 'it>hS? (34 . . . 'it>gS 35.tDh4±) 35.lbh4+- and lost.

Much more complicated would be 2s . . . iLcs 2 9 . e 7 ! ? ( nothing decisi ve could be found after 29.ttJh6+ 'it>h7 30.tDf5 Jhe6 31 .oUc1 'it>gS 32J::tbc2 lle5 33.tDg3 iLe6oo) 29 . . . l:I.eS 30.tDdS l:.c7 3l .!!.d2 (or 3 1 .l:tbe2 d4fZ and Black holds on) 3 1 . . . OUcxe7 3 2 ..lhe7 llxe7 3 3 . l:I.xd5;!;. Despite the fact that White is a pawn ahead Black retains his chances too. The play is on both wings and Black's bi­shop is clearly stronger than White's knight.

141

Part 3. QGD. Classical Variation

1.ct:Jf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ct:Jf6 4.ct:Jc3 iLe7

This part of the book presents classical systems of Queen's Gambit where Black plays .tfB­e7. In these systems Black is occupied, first of all, with deve­lopment of his kingside and only then he looks for a possibility to put up a fight in the centre . White's play in these variations may appear at first sight easier than in the previously analysed systems (Moscow Gambit, Bot­vinnik Variation, Vienna Game, etc.) . This apparent simplicity is illusive, however. White must watch constantly the opponent's possible activity in the centre that might provoke mass ex­changes and equalization.

5 . .tg5 In order to ensure the safety

of c4-pawn, White needs the

142

advance e2-e3. Yet an immediate 5 .e3 could considerably restrict the range of the dark-squared bishop, thus decreasing White's chances to gain an opening advantage. So first the bishop should be developed with 5 . .tg5 or 5 . .tf4. Vladimir Kramnik uses both moves in his practice, and neither he nor the chess theory give preference to any of them. So we should conclude that it is a matter of taste or tournament tactics now, which square to choose for the bishop.

Also it should be mentioned that in case of 5. ,§c2 the position is similar to the one covered in Book II, page 12 (Part 1 . Anti­Nimzo-Indian 1 .l2Jf3 l2Jf6 2.c4 e6 3.l2Jc3 .tb4 4. �c2 d5 5.a3 .te7). The only difference is that White did not not play a2-a3 this time. This nuance has a strong impact on the further development of events. For example, after 5 . . . l2Ja6! 6.a3 c5 7 .e3 cxd4 8.exd4 dxc4 9 . .txc4 l2J c 7 1 0 . 0- 0 0 - 0 11.ltd1 b6 12.l2Je5 .tb7 13 J�d3 b5 14 . .ta2 a5= Black equalized quite easily in the game Topalov - Karpov, Dos Hermanas 1999.

Chapter 12 l.ttJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ttJf6 4.ttJc3 i.e7 5 . .i.g5

N ow that White has moved his dark-squared bishop to g5, his opponent answers most often by 5 . . . 0-0 or 5 . . . h6 that leads to the main variations, analysed in Chapter 1 1-17 . Also 5 . . . lLJbd7 oc­curs frequently and results, as a rule, in the Orthodox variation of Queen's Gambit Declined (thus Black can only dream about a favourable transition to Tartakower Defence with this move order). Still, Black some­times resorts to some exotic variations which carry us away from the main lines of the classi­cal Queen's Gambit both in the diagrammed position and after 5 . . . h6 or 5 . . . lLJbd7. These very uncommon deviations will be dealt with in Chapter 1 2 : a) 5 . . . dxc4, b) 5 . . . h6 (with the idea of taking on c4 as soon as White's

bishop retreats) and c) 5 . . . lLJbd7 (intending to develop the light­squared bishop before castling).

Sometimes Black also tries to improve immediately the posi­tion of his light-squared bishop by 5 . . . a6 6.e3 (a pawn exchange in the centre usually results in simplification and equality, as it happened after 6 . cxd5 lLJxd5 7.11..xe7 '{!txe7 8.e4 1LJxc3 9.bxc3 c5 1 0 . '{!ta4+ -ltd 7 1 1 . '{!tb3 -Itc6 12 . ..lid3 0-0 13 .0-0 c4 14.-Itxc4 -Itxe4= in the game Mowla -Brestian, Novi Sad 1990) 6 . . . dxc4 7 .11..xc4!? (after 7 .a4 c5 8.11..xc4 lLJc6 9 . 0 - 0 cxd4 1 0 . exd4 0 - 0 11..l:.e 1 the play steers into a variation of Queen's Gambit Ac­cepted which is covered in Book IV) 7 . . . b5 8.11..d3 ..lib7 (in case of 8 . . . lLJbd7 9 .a4 b4 10 .lLJe4 -Itb7 1 1 . 11..xf6 lLJxf6 1 2 . lLJxf6+ Si..xf6 1 3 . :c H Black's backward c­pawn turns into a potential tar­get), but in this case White has 9.Si..xf6 gxf6 (the move 9 . . . -Itxf6, although natural-looking, is worse: White gained the upper hand by 10.11..e4! lLJc6 1l . .l:!.c1 '{!td6 12.0-0 0-0 13 . ..lib1 lLJe7 14.lLJe4 -Itxe4 15.Si..xe4 lLJd5 16. '{!tc2± in

143

Chapter 12

the game Gruenenwald - Mwan­za, Erevan 1996) 10 .il.e4 il.xe4 l1.ctJxe4 �d5 12 .ctJc3 il.b4 13.0-Oi, with superior pawn struc­ture, Vilela - Armas, Sagua la Grande 19B9.

a) 5 ... dxc4 Actually, Black yields the cen­

tre without obtaining anything in return. No wonder this line is little popular.

6.e4!? As we shall see in variation

b, this advance would be impos­sible if the white bishop were on h4, and even now White is not obliged to push his e-pawn that far. Also 6 .e3 is quite possible, and the further play develops similarly to variation b except the move h7-h6.

6 ... c5 Black can find himself in

trouble very quickly unle·ss he starts to fight against White's strong pawn centre right away. For example, Black's position was very insecure after 6 . . . b6 7 . .txc4 .tb7 B. �e2 ctJc6 9.l:Idl �d7 1 0 . 0-0 0-0 l 1 . d5± in the game Schukmann - D oerrs­chuck, Germany 1995, as well as

144

after 6 . . . 0-0 7.il.xc4 c6 (7 . . . c5 B. dxc5 �xdl 9 .l:Ixdl il.xc5 10.0-0±) B .O-O ctJbd7 9 . �e2 b6 10.l:Iadl kleB ll .e5 ctJd5 12 .ctJe4 il.xg5 13. ctJfxg5± in the game Gruenfeld -Hoenlinger, Vienna 1926.

In case of 6 . . . h6 there is 7 . .txf6 (7.il.h4? is bad because of 7 . . . ctJxe4! B.il.xe7 ctJxc3+, and in case of 7 .il.e3 or 7 . .tf4 White must reckon with 7 . . . il.b4ao) 7 . . . .txf6 B . .txc4 ctJd7 9.0-0 a6 (af­ter 9 . . . 0-0 10.e5 il.e7 11. �e2 kleB 12.kladl c6 13. �e4 �c7 14.l:Ifel ctJfB 1 5 . �g4 b 6 1 6 . �h5 il. b 7 17.kle4 il.b4 1B.klg4� White was ready to shatter Black's castle in the game Forgacs - Cohn, St Pe­tersburg 1909) 10.�e2 b5 1l .il.b3 .tb7 12JIfd1 ctJb6 13 .kld3 �d7 14.l:Iad1, and then in the forced line 14 . . . b4 15 .e5 bxc3 (in case of 15 . . . .te7 there is the unpleas­ant possibility of 16.d5!±) 16.exf6 c2 1 7 . �xc2 gxf6 1 B . d 5 ! ctJxd5 19 . .ta4 c6 20.ctJd4� White main­tained an excellent compensation for the missing pawn in the game V. Popov - Pozdniakov, St Peters­burg 199B.

7 . .txc4 There is also the interesting

option of 7.dxc5 �a5 (after 7 . . . 0-0 B . .txc4 �xd1+ 9.l:Ixd1 .txc5 10.a3 a5 ll .e5 ctJfd7 12 .ctJe4 �eB 13 . .tb5+- in the game Euwe -Aitken, B ournemouth 1 9 3 9 , Black quickly arrived t o a losing position) B .ctJd2!? �xc5 9 . .te3 . The aggressive 9 . . . �b4? was met by 10.a3 ! �d6 (in case of 10 . . . �xb2 there is a very strong an-

l. tiJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 tiJ{6 4.tiJc3 i.e7 5.i.g5

swer 1l.i.d4! , preparing to win Black's queen by 12 .tiJxc4) 11 . tiJb5 '!';'fdB 12.tiJxc4 0-0 13. �xdB i.xdB 14. i. c5 a6 1 5 . tiJc3 lIeB 16.tiJd6+- which involved mate­rial losses for Black in the game Izeta Txabarri - Jimenez Ville­na, Barcelona 2000, but in case of the correct continuation 9 . . . '!';'fc7!?oo the main fight would still be ahead.

7 . . . cxd4 Black should not linger with

the exchange on d4. After 7 . . . tiJbd7 B .O-O 0-0 9 .lIe1 b6 10.�d2 i.b7 1l .lIad1 cxd4 12.'�xd4 tiJc5 13. �e3 '!';'feB 14.i.b5± White had excellent play in the game Zovak - Niedermowwe, Bonn 1995.

8.tiJxd4 After B .'!';'fxd4 h6!? (in case of

B . . . �xd4 9 .tiJxd4 to be followed by 1 0 . f3;!; the endgame is to White's favour) 9.i.f4 (9.i.h4? is bad because of 9 . . . �xd4 10. tiJxd4 tiJxe4 1 l . i. b 5 + i.d7 1 2 . tiJxe4 i.xh4 13 .tiJd6+ We7+, and after 9 .'!';'fxdB+ i.xdB 10 .i.h4 i.a5!?oo the chances are mutual, accord­ing to M. Gurevich) 9 . . . '!';'fa5 10. 0-0 tLlc6 11. '!';'fd3 0-0 (Black is planning to complete his devel­opment by 12 . . JldB and i.d7-eB) 12 .e5 tiJh5 ( 1 2 . . J:tdB? does not work because of 13 .exf6! lIxd3 14.fxe7±) 13 .'!';'fe4 tiJxf4 14.�xf4 '!';'fb4 (threatening with 15 . . . �xb2 or 15 . . . tLla5) 15 .tiJe4 g5!? 16.�g4oo in the game M. Gurevich - Ku­preichik, Groningen 1997, the play remained unclear.

8 . . . 0-0

After B . . . h6 9 . i. e 3 tiJbd7 White played 10.i.xe6!? in the game Hachmeister - Adler, Stet­ten 19BB, counting on 10 . . . fxe6 11 .tiJxe6 '!';'fa5 12.tiJxg7+ WfB 13. tiJe6+ WeB 14.0-0gg with three pawns for a piece and potential attack to the black king, deprived of its home pawns. It should be mentioned as well that in case of B . . . �a5 White maintains a cer­tain development advantage by 9.i.d2!?±.

9.0-0 '!';'fc7 Black can't apply here the

standard tactical operation, con­nected with 9 . . . tiJxe4?, because after 1 0 . i.xe7 tiJxc3 1 l . i.xdB tiJxd1 12.lIfxd1 lIxdB White has 13.tiJxe6!±. Also the move 9 . . . b6?! which Black tried in the game Swenson - Dannenberger, Ba­denweiler 1994, can't be assessed as good because of lO.e5t. In case of 9 . . . h6 there is 1 0 . i.e3 ! ?;!; , maintaining White's develop­ment advantage and preventing any tactical tricks with the cap­ture tiJxe4.

10.'!';'fe2 tiJbd7

This position occurred in the game Venancio - Rachedi, Ma-

145

Chapter 12

nila (ol) 1992. White stands very well after 11..l:tac1 t owing to his obvious development advantage.

b) 5 ... h6 This move is quite popular,

but we shall consider now as variation b only those lines in which Black is planning to take the c4-pawn, trying to improve on a line in variation a by includ­ing h7-h6 and .tg5-h4.

6 . .1h4 Exchanging on f6 makes no

sense for White because he can't create a powerful pawn centre in this case. So, after 6 . .1xf6 .txf6 7.e4 Black got excellent play by 7 . . . dxe4 8.tt:Jxe4 lLIc6 9.lLIxf6+ (af­ter 9.d5 lLIe5 10.lLIxf6+ �xf6 11. lLIxe5 �xe5+ 12.�e2 �f6 13.g3 0-0 14 . .tg2 .l:!.e8 15.0-0 .td7= the play was equalized in the game P. Nikolic - Tal, Wijk aan Zee 1982) 9 . . . �xf6 10.'�d2 0-0 ll . .l:!.dl e5 12.dxe5 lLIxe5 13 .lLIxe5 �xe5+ 14 . .te2 .tg4 15.f3 .tf5oo 011 -

Vaganian, Moscow 1994. 6 ... dxc4 As a rule, Black plays 6 . . . 0-0

hE:re, and we'll discuss positions after 7 .e3 later in Chapter 15-16.

146

Also 6 . . . lLI bd 7 7. e3 occurs fre­quently, and you will find lines with 7 . . . 0-0 8. �cl in Chapter 15-16. It is worth mentioning as well that Black has no advanced fianchetto 7 . . . a6 on the queen­side because of 8 .c5 . Now after 8 . . . c6 (the line 8 . . . g5 9 . .tg3 lLIh5 is no better because of 10 .b4 lLIxg3 11 .hxg3 .tf6 12 .lLId2 c6 13 .lLIb3 b6 14.cxb6 �xb6 15 .a3 Ub8 16.lLIa4 '{f:fc7 17 .I!.c1;t with superior pawn structure on White's side , Zatulovskaya -Abdikasova, Grieskirchen 1998) 9.b4 lLIh5 (an attempt to play ac­tively on the queenside by 9 . . . b6 10 . .te2 a5 gives nothing after ll .a3, and after the incautious 11. . .lLIe4?! White gained a great advantage by 1 2 . lLIxe4 dxe4 13 . .txe7 �xe7 14.lLId2± in the game Oren - Gonzales, Helsinki (ol) 1952) 10 . .txe7 �xe7 1l ..te2 lLIhf6 12.0-0 0-0 13.lLIel e5 14.a4 I!.e8 15.lLIc2 exd4 16 .exd4 lLIe4 17.lLIxe4 Black's mistake 17 . . . �xe4? (in case of 17 . . . dxe4 White maintains a slight advantage by 18.lLIe3 lLIf6 19.1LIc4;t) in the game Barros - De la Hoz, Barranquilla 1999, could have encountered the strong reply 18 . .txa6!±.

In case of6 . . . lLIe4 after 7 . .txe7 �xe7 8 . .l:!.c1 0-0 9 .e3 the play steers into Lasker Defence, analysed in Chapter 15.

The move 6 . . . b6 is not very popular because of 7.�a4+!? (af­ter 7.e3 0-0 we have the Tartako­wer Defence, ref. to Chapter 17), and after 7 . . . c6 (if 7 . . . �d7, then

1 .0:{3 dS 2.d4 e6 3.c4 0,f6 4.0,c3 .i.e7 S . .i.gS

8 .�c2 dxc4 9.e3;t;, and in case of 7 . . . .i.d7 White has 8.�b3 dxc4 9 .�xc4;t;) 8.cxd5 exd5 9 .0,e5 �d6 (if 9 . . . i..b7, then 10 .e3;t;) 10.e3 i.f5 1l .i.d3 i.xd3 12.0,xd3 0-0 13.0-0 a5 14.0,e5;t; in the game I. Sokolov - Hort, Biel 1989, the weakness of Black's l ight squares, caused by the absence of the light-squared bishop, be­came significant.

7.e3 With the bishop staying on h4

the move 7 .e4? is just a blunder due to 7 . . . 0,xe4!=t=.

7 . .. c5 In case of 7 . . . a6 White has

8 . .i.xc4! ? ( also 8 . a4 c5 9 .i.xc4 0,c6 1 0 . 0 - 0 cxd4 1 l . exd4 0-0 12J::te1 is possible, this position of Queen's Gambit Accepted be-ing analyzed in Book IV) 9 . . . b5 10 .i.d3 ..tb7 (in case of 10 . . . c5 which occurred in the game Bolbochan - Rubin, Buenos Aires 1958, White can go on by 11.dxc5 i.xc5 1 2 . i.. e4;t;, and if Black chooses 10 . . . 0,bd7, then there is 11 .a4 b4 12 .0,e4 i..b7 13 .i..xf6 0,xf6 12.0,xf6+ i.xf6 13 .'uc1;t;), and now in the game Gligoric -Pilnik, Belgrade 1954, White could have continued by 11.i.xf6 gxf6 (if 11 . . . i..xf6, then 12.i.e4;t; is good as well) 12.i.e4;t;, playing similarly to the previously cov­ered variation (see the first com­mentary in Chapter 12).

We can't omit the possibility of 7 . . . 0,d5 with the same idea as in the similar knight manoeuvre in C apablanca System (see

Chapter 14). In the present case, however, after 8 . i.xe7 �xe7 9.i.xc4 (after 9. �a4+ c6 10. �xc4 0-0 1 l .I.Ic1 0,d7 12 . ..te2 0,5b6 13.�d3 e5 14.0-0 Ue8 15.e4 exd4 16 . �xd4 0,c5 ! = the play was equalized in Portisch - Agde­stein, Manila 1990) 9 . . . �b4 (S. Agdestein points out that in case of9 . . . 0,xc3 10.bxc3;t; White main­tains a certain advantage, while after 9 . . . 0,b6 10 . ..tb3 0-0 11.0-0 Ud8 12.�e2 0,8d7 13.lUd1 0,f6 14.e4;t; White's chances were just preferable with his dominance in the centre in the game Tarrasch - Noa, Budapest 1896) 10.�b3 (White can only dream of advan­tage in case of 10 . ..txd5 exd5 11.0-0 c6 12. �c2 0-0= Brkljaca ­Savicevic, Niksic 1996) 10 . . . �xb3 White can get a favourable end­ing by 1 l . axb3 ! owing to the semi- open a-file, (while after 1l .i.xb3 0,xc3 12 .bxc3= the play turns absolutely equal). This as­sessment can be proved by the development of the game Uhl­mann - Boensch, Bad N euenahr 199 1 : after 1 1 . . . c6 (in case of 11 . . .0,b4 there is 12 .'it>e2 to be followed by 'uhc1;t;) 12.'it>e2 0,d7 13.i.xd5 exd5 (if 13 . . . cxd5?! , then after 14.0,b5± Black's problems grow worse) 14.b4 (with the idea b4-b5) 14 . . . 0,b6 (the move a7-a6 does not prevent b4-b5 because of White's control of the a-file, and the blocking advance 14 . . . b5 creates weak points on Black's queenside that can be reached by 15.'uhc1 i.b7 16.0,b1 to be fol-

147

Chapter 12

lowed by ltJbd2-b3-a5±) 1 5 .b5 .id7 16.bxc6 .ixc6 (in case of 16 . . . bxc6 Black must reckon with 1 7 J:ta2 with the idea l:tha l±) 17 .ltJe5 'J;;e7 lS.l:ta5 .l:.hcS 19.Uc1 'J;;e6 20.b3;!; White kept up pres­sure upon the opponent's queen­side.

B • .ixc4 ltJc6 In case of S . . . cxd4 White has

9.ltJxd4 (there is no need to go for a position with an isolated pawn) 9 . . . 0-0 10.0-0 a6, and now in the game Riediger - Blum, Alten­kirchen 1999, there was a wor­thy option of 1l . .ie2!;!; with the idea to transfer the bishop to the main diagonal as-hl.

9.�e2! White agrees to play with an

isolated pawn, counting on seting up his pieces in the most active way: �e2 + l:tdl.

9 . . . cxd4 10J:td1 .id7 In case of 10 . . . e5 Black's pawn

structure is crippled hopelessly by 11 .exd4 exd4 12 . .ixf6±.

1l.exd4 0-0 12.0-0 .ncB 13 •

.l:!.fe l ltJd5 Black's wish to simplify is

very natural but, probably, the position after 13 . . . l:teS 14.ltJe5;!;

14S

would have been better for him . 14.i..xd5 i..xh4 15.i..e4! .if6 In case of 1 5 . . . l:teS White

should make his choice between 16.d5!? exd5 17.l:txd5 .if6 lS .ltJb5 :e7 19. �d2;!; with a slight advan­tage and 16 . .ib1 !?t to be contin­ued similarly to the current game fragment.

16.i..bl!? The slight edge after 16.d5

exd5 17 .ltJxd5 .ie6 lS .�b5;!; is already insufficient for White.

1 6 • • • .l:!.eB 1 7 .ltJe5 � e 7 l B . ltJe4t

This position occurred in the game Smejkal - Hort, Germany 19S5. Black stands quite dubi­ously already. After lS . . . l:tedS (1S . . . tL\xe5 is no good because of 19.tL\xf6+ gxf6 20.dxe5±, while after lS . . J�cdS 19.1tJxf6+ �xf6 20.ltJxd7 l:txd7 2 1 .d5 ltJbS 22. �c2t White maintains a danger­ous initiative) 19.tL\xf6+ �xf6 20.tL\xd7 l:txd7 21 .d5!± White's d­pawn stayed untouchable in the cited game.

c) 5 ... ltJbd7 6.e3

It makes sense now to cover in detail only those continuations in which Black tries to improve

l .tDf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 tDf6 4.tDc3 ii..e7 5.ii..g5

the position of his light-squared bishop on the queenside: cl) 6 ... b6 and c2) 6 . . . a6. After 6 . . . 0-0 7 . .l:tc1 the play transposes to variations of Chapter 13-14. In case of 6 . . . tDe4 7 .ii..xe7 �xe7 8.l:tcl c6 9 . .td3, if Black plays 9 . . . f5 in order to transpose into the Stone Wall (the position af­ter 9 . . . tDxc3 1 0 . lIxc3 0-0 I I . cxd5!? i s dealt with in the very beginning of Chapter 13) 10.0-0 0-0 , then White has 1l .tDe2! (White must fight against the black knight on e4 this way namely or otherwise he may even suffer as it happened after 11 .tDd2 tDdf6 12.f3 tDxc3 13.l:.xc3 e5 14.dxe5 �xe5+ in the game Tejkal - Mrva, Tatranske Zruby 2000) 11 . . .�h8 (Black had seri­ous problems when he went for creating threats on the kingside by 11 . . .. �f6 12.b4 g5 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.lac7 g4 15.�xe4 fxe4 16.tDd2 e5 17 .�b3 �d6 18 .l:tfcl± in the game Lerner - H.Schulz, Ham­burg 1999) 12.tDe5 g5 13 .f3 tDd6 14 .. �d2 �g7 15.f4 gxf4 16. exf4 .lag8 17 .lbg3 tDf6 18. � e2;!;; with an

advantage, P.Cramling - Ivkov, Aruba 1992. If Black plays firstly 6 . . . h6 7 . ii..h4, and only then 7 . . . tDe4, after 8 . .txe7 �xe7 9.l:k1 (in case of 9.tDxe4 dxe4 10 .tDd2 f5 11.�h5+ �f7 12. �xf7+ 'it'xf7= the chances are balanced) 9 . . . tDxc3 10Jlxc3 c6 11. iLd3 dxc4 (the same after 11 . . . 0-0 12.0-0) 1 2 . ii..xc4 0 - 0 1 3 . 0 - 0 we have Lasker Defence, see Chapter 15.

cl) 6 ... b6

Black wants to fianchetto his light-squared bishop. We saw al­ready this idea in variation b, ref. to the comment to Black's sixth move.

7.cxd5! A well-timed exchange. By b7-

b6 Black prepared the main diagonal a8-h 1 for his light­squared bishop. This is why the idea to make this diagonal as short as possible for the oppo­nent's bishop appears quite sound. With this aim White re­lieves the pressure in the centre in order to immobilise the d5-pawn on a long-term basis . Thus Black's own pawn on d5 will serve as a sort of muzzle for his light-squared bishop.

After White takes on d 5 , Black has to decide between cIa) 7 . . . exd5 and clb) 7 . . . CLJxd5.

cIa) 7 ... exd5? This move is a clear mistake.

Still it has a century-long history, and its popularity does not de­crease with years. This is the only reason why it is presented as a main line in this book.

8.ii..b5! This way White emphasizes

149

Chapter 12

the weakening of Black's light squares on the queenside, aggra­vated by the fact that Black's king is uncastIed. We could have put an end at this point by a la­conic ± . Yet, considering that some of our readers will have questions to this assessment, we comment this move by a ! and proceed on.

S ... O-O B . . . i.b7 is no better because of

9 .tZ:le5 0-0 10 .i.c6 ! ? (actually, there is no need to win material at any cost: White gains a huge positional advantage by 10.tZ:lc6 �eB 1 l . tZ:lxe7+ �xe7 12 .i.xd7 �xd7 13.i.xf6 gxf6 14. �f3 f5 15. 0-0-0 l:.adB 16.l:.hg1 �hB 17.g4!� as the second World Champion did in the game Em. Lasker -Maas, Great Britain (simultan) 1900) 10 . . . ii.xc6 (after 10 . . . �bB 1l . tZ:lxd7 ! tZ:lxd7 12 .i.xe7 �xe7 13.tZ:lxd5 �d6 14. �c2 ! +- Black has no compensation for the pawn) 1l .tZ:lxc6 �eB 12 .tZ:lxe7+ (there is an alternative way to win the p awn - 1 2 . �f3 i.d6 13.tZ:lxd5 tZ:lxd5 14. �xd5 but af­ter 14 . . . tZ:lbB! 15 .l:.c1 tZ:lxc6 16. l:.xc6 h6 1 7 . i.h4 �d7 1B. �c4 i.b4+ 19 .Wfl i.c5 20.d5 �f5p Black had a counterplay in the game E m . Lasker - Pavlov/ Levitsky, Moscow 1 B96) 12 . . . �xe7 13 .tZ:lxd5 �e4 14.tZ:lxf6+ tZ:lxf6 (14 . . . gxf6 turned out bad after 15.i.h6 .l:!.feB 16.0-0+- in the game Begovac - Simanjuntak, Graz 19B1) 15.i.xf6 �xg2 (this is Black's only chance to keep up

150

the material balance) 16 .�e2 �g4+ 17.�d2 �xd1+ 1BJ1hxd1 gxf6 19 . .l:!.ac1 l:i.acB 20.l:!.c6 l:tfdB 21.Udcl± Moen - Hansell, WitIey 2000. Despite the formal mate­rial balance, it's obvious that Black's numerous weaknesses will become easy targets very soon.

9.i.c6 This way! White can't but

take advantage of such holes in the opponent's camp.

9 . . J:tbS 10.0-0 White's position is to be en­

vied but everything can happen in a tournament game. So, after 10.i.xd5?? tZ:lxd5 11.tZ:lxd5 i.xg5 12.tZ:lxg5 �xg5-+ White stayed a piece down in the game Vogel -Fahrenholz, Germany 1995. In the game Padilla - Evangelista, St Feliu 1994, White won a pawn by 10. �b3 i.b7 1l .i.xb7 .l:!.xb7 12 .tZ:lxd5 tZ:lxd5 (no comments need the line 12 . . . c6 13 .tZ:lxe7+ �xe7 14.0-0+- or 12 . . . c5 13.0-0 b5 14.tZ:lxe7+ �xe7 15.dxc5 tZ:lxc5 16.�b4 tZ:lce4 17 .�xe7 l:.xe7 lB. i.xf6 gxf6 19 .1:.ac1 +- as in Heng­stIer - Benedde, Wuerttemberg 19BO) 13 . �xd5 but with 13 . . . i.b4+ 14.We2 �cB 15 .l:.acl l:.bB 16.�c4 i.d6 Black created some sort of counterplay against White's vulnerable king when White failed to find the consoli­dating move 17 . .l:!.hdl !?±.

10 . . . h6 After 10 . . . i.b7 White won a

pawn with 11. �a4 a5 12.i.xb7 .uxb7 13.�c6 .s.a7 14.tZ:lxd5 tZ:lxd5

1 .0{3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 11Jf6 4.l1Jc3 �e7 5.i.g5

1 5 .' �xd5 �xg5 16 .' �xg5 fixg5 1 7 .l1Jxg5+- Rios - Cardoso, Rio de Janeiro 1999.

1l . .th4 .ta6 This is the only possibility to

maintain the material balance. Mter 1l . . . g5 12.i..g3 ..tb7 13.fia4 a6 1 4 . i..xb7 lhb7 1 5 . fixa6+­White is a pawn ahead in the game Rabitzsch - Jeske, Schloss Schney 1997.

1 2J!e 1 i.b7 13.fia4 �xc6 14.thc6 �b4 15J!eel .txe3 16 . .l::!.xe3 lIeS 1 7.b4±

The forced sequence is over. Black still maintains the bal­ance, but it won't be for long: White is going to win material after .laacl and fib7 .

e 1b) 7 ... l1Jxd5 B l ack should go for the

knight's swap unless there is a tactical obstacle to it.

S.l1Jxd5 White can seal the main di­

agonal before the black bishop appears on b7 and he is not go­ing to miss this opportunity.

S . . . exd5 9 . .txe7 fixe7 1 0. .l::!.e1

Black should not forget about his backward c-pawn. Let him spend time to protect it.

10 ... fid6 Other continuations can lose

Black's game very quickly. So it happened, for example, after 10 . . . l1Jf6 1 l .fia4+ ..td7 12 .�b5 fid6 13 . ..txd7+ I1Jxd7 14.l::tc6 "fie7 15.:l.xc7+- in Stephan - Winkler, Germany 1995, and after 1 0 . . . fib4 1l .fid2 fixd2+ 12.Wxd2 c5 13 .�b5 cxd4 14.l1Jxd4 0-0 1 5 . lIxcB! (or 15 . ..tc6 .labB 16.i..xd5+­in the game Schramenko - Los­snitzer, Germany 199B) 1 5 . . . :taxcB 16.�xd7+-.

1l.fie2 e5 12.�b5 White is better after 12 . ..td3

�b7 13.0-0 c4 14 . ..tf5 I1Jf6 15.b3 g6 16 . ..th3 b5 17.bxc4 dxc4 lB. l1Je5 0-0 19.:tfdU, but the idea to create one or two real pawn weaknesses in Black's position is more tempting.

12 ... 0-0 In the game Knop - Schlufter,

Germany 1995, Black tried to solve all problems at once by 12 . . . c4? and he was lucky that White did not go for 13 . ..txc4! dxc4 14. fie4+ "fie7 15 . "fixaB "fib4 16.'lt>f1 0-0 17 ."fie4 �a6 1B.Wgl fixb2 19. fic2+-.

13 . ..txd7

1 5 1

Chapter 12

This way White wins a pawn. If he lingers and plays at first 13.0-0, then Black has already 13 . . . c4, and after 14.b3 a6 15 . .ltxd7 .ltxd7 1 6 . bxc4 dxc4°o it turns out that White has no 17.t'fxc4? because of 17 . . . .ltb5+. Also 13 .b3 does not work because of the simple 13 . . . .ltb7°o.

1 3 . . . ..txd7 1 4 .dxc5 bxc5 15. t'fxc5 t'fa6

Black hinders his opponent from castling, thus trying to ob­tain a compensation for the miss­ing pawn. The line 15 . . . t'fg6 16. 0-0 .lth3 makes no sense because of 17 .tiJh4 t'fg5 18.t'fd4±.

16:�a3!? 16. �xd5 is very risky: after

1 6 . . . .lte6°o White has serious problems despite his extra pawns since he can not castle or trade queens.

16 ... �xa3 After 1 6 . . . t'fg6 1 7 . 0-0 ..th3

18.tiJel± Black's initiative ex­pires.

1 7.bxa3 liab8 17 . . . ..tb5 is not dangerous be­

cause of 18.�d2± and the black bishop prevents his own rook from invading White's camp.

18.0-0;1;;

152

White's chances are prefer­able in this endgame. He still has an extra pawn, though doubled. Besides, the isolated pawn on d5 provides an excellent square on d4 for the white knight where it will dominate the position. How­ever let's make sure that Black can't restore the material bal­ance. After 18 . . JUc8 (if 18 . . Jlb2, then 19 . .uc7 ..tg4 20.tiJe5±) 19 .h3 ..tf5 (after 19 . . . l:tb2 20.tiJe5 ..te6 2 Uhc8+ ..txc8 22 . .l':[c1 .lte6 23. l:tc7 a6 White has 24.tiJxf7! .ltxf7 25 Jlc8±) 20.tiJd4 .ltd3 2 1. . Ufd1 i.c4 (in case of 2 1 . . . .uc4 White plays 22.tiJc6 l:tb2 23.tiJb4±) 22. l:td2;1;; White protects his camp against an intrusion of B lack's pieces.

c2) 6 ... a6 Preparing the advanced fian­

chetto of the light-squared bi­shop by dxc4 to be followed by b5 and ..tb7 .

7.c5!? This solution complies with

the spirit of the position in the best possible way. In case of7 . .l':[c1 White must reckon with 7 . . . dxc4 8.i.xc4 b5 9 . .ltd3 .ltb7 10 .0-0 l:k8 ( l0 . . . c5 is too early now because

1 .0{3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 0,{6 4.CiJc3 i.e7 5.3455

of 11 . .ltxf6 ! gxf6 12 . .lte4 .ltxe4 13 .0,xe4 %lcB 14.d5;1;;, and in case of 10 . . . 0-0 there is 11 . .ltxffi 0,xf6 12.0,g5! h6 13.0,ge4 :cB 14.0,xf6 .ltxffi 15 . .lte4 .ltxe4 16.0,xe4 i.e7 17.0,c5;1;;) , and after 11 . .ltxffi (in case of 11. �e2 Black equalized by 11 . . . c5 12.l:tfd1 0,d5 13 . .ltxe7 �xe7 14.dxc5 l:txc5= in the game Filipovic - Wagenlader, Germany 1995) 11" . 0,xffi 12. �e2 0-0 13. Itfd1 0,d5 14 . .ltb1 c5 15.0,xd5 �xd5 16.dxc5 �a5 17 .b3 �xf3 l B . �xf3 :xc5 1 9 Jhc5 �xc5 20. �h5 f5= with an absolutely equal position in the game Helbig - Wagenlader, Pocking 1996.

After 7 . cxd5 0,xd5 (in case of 7 . . . exd5 B . .ltd3;1;; White is better) B.�xe7 �xe7 9.Itc1 (after 9.0,xd5 exd5 10 .�d3 �b4+ 11.�d2 �xd2 12.c;t;>xd2 'i;e7 13 .lthc1 c6= White failed to create real weaknesses in Black's position in the game Iamaletdinov - Vera Insfran, Oropesa del Mar 2000) 9" . c6 10 . .ltd3 (again, White gains noth­ing by 1 0 . 0,xd5 exd5 1Ltd3 0,f6=, Gerstenhauer - Winter, Germany 1 9 9 5 ) Black main­tained the balance without great efforts by 10" . . 0,xc3 1l.1:.xc3 e5! 1 2 . dxe5 0,xe5 1 3 . 0,xe5 �xe5 14.0-0 0-0= in the game Alonso Leira - Nicolas, Madrid 1943.

7 . . . c6 In case of 7 . . . h6 White's bi­

shop is ready to retreat to the bB­h2 diagonal by B . .ltf4! prevent­ing the releaving advance e6-e5 on the one hand, and also sup­porting a possible advance of his

own pawns on the queenside, on the other hand. After B " . 0,h5 9.iLd3 0-0 10.0-0 �ffi 11.�d2 :eB 1 2 .i. e 5 iLxe5 1 3 .0,xe5 0,xe5 14.dxe5 g6 15.ltfdU White re­tained his advantage in the game Hook - Apol, Nice (ol) 1974.

Also Black does not get rid of his problems by 7 . . . 0,e4. After B . .ltxe7 �xe7 9 .0,xe4 (9.�c2 is weaker because of 9 " .f5 10.�e2 c6 1 1 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 = Rubinstein -Bernstein, St. Petersburg 1909: Black feels fine now that the ten­sion in the centre is relieved by c4-c5) 9 . . . dxe4 10 .0,d2 f5 ( l0 . . . e5 can bring Black into big trouble after 11 .0,xe4 exd4 12.�xd4 f5 13 .0,c3 0,xc5 14.0,d5 0,e6 1 5 . �e5±) 1 1 .�c4 0 - 0 1 2 . 0-0 c;t;>hB 13.f3;1;; White opens the play up in a favourable edition.

B.b4 This move is made to prepare

a pawn storm on the queenside and to fortify White's own re­doubts at the same time. An at­tempt to complete development as soon as possible by B.�d3 can be answered by the standard advance B" . e5 ! ? After 9 .dxe5 0,g4 1 0 . �f4 0,xc5 1 1 . � c2 h5 1 2 .h3 0,h6 1 3 .0,d4 g6 1 4 . 0 - 0 0,e6°o a sharp position came out in the game Sretenskij - Don­chenko, Moscow 1998. The ad­vance b2-b4 is a safe way to pre­vent Black's counterplay in the centre connected with e6-e5.

B • • • O-O One can guess easily that in

case of 8 . . . h6 White prefers to

153

Chapter 12

retreat with the bishop to the diagonal b8-h2 by 9 . .tf4. In this line Black's attempt to play ac­tively 9 . . . liJe4?! caused real dif­ficulties for him after 10.liJxe4 dxe4 1 l .liJd2 f5 12 .. �h5+ 'it'f8 1 3 . liJc4± in the game Deak -Born, Budapest 1 9 9 6 . After 8 . . . liJh5 in the game M.Novikov - Krasnov, St Petersburg 1999, White should have continued by 9 . .txe7 "iftxe7 10 . .te2 liJhf6 11. O-Oj;, similarly to the line given above in the comment to Black's sixth move in variation b.

9 . .td3 We'll see later in Chapter13,

variation b3 a similar position with the exception of White's rook staying on cl. This differ­ence makes Black's counterplay on the queenside more efficient. In the present case White not only made a better use of the tempo developing his pieces but kept the rook on a 1 where it will support the queenside pawn of­fensive.

9 . . . a5 10.a3 axb4 "Black's position is so

cramped that any exchange should be welcomed." - M. Bo­tviinnik.

1l.axb4 Thanks to the rook staying on

a1 the swap of the light-squared bishops by means of .ta6 is im­possible.

1l .. ..%ba1 12"�xa1 b6 13. .i.f4!

"It is clear that Black should

154

struggle to break free by push­ing e6-e5. White is preventing it for the meanwhile." - M. Botvin­nik.

13 . . . bxc5 14.bxc5 liJh5 15. fia7

"An important move. The dark-squared bishop, which is controlling the c7 -square, is go­ing to be exchanged so it passes the baton to the queen." - M. Botvinnik.

15 . • • liJxf4 16.exf4 f6 1 7.0-0 e5 18 . .tf5!

"Black achieved e6-e5 but it was not an end in itself. His task is to destroy White's outpost on c5 and that implies Black has to take the d4-pawn. Otherwise would follow 19 . .txd7 winning the pawn on e5." - M. Botvinnik.

18 . . . exd4 19.1iJa4±

This position occurred in the game Botvinnik - B . Yuriev, Leningrad 1928. White main­tains an obvious advantage. His pawn on c5 is in perfect safety since 19 . . .lt:lxc5? meets 20.j> xc8 liJxa4 2 1 ..te6+-. At the same time White threatens 20.liJxd4 followed by 21 .liJxc6 or 2 1 .liJe6.

Chapter 13 l.tLJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 tLJf6 4.tLJc3 .i.e7 5 . .i.g5 0-0

In this chapter, as well as in the next one, we'll discuss only the systems of the classical Queen's Gambit Declined where White tries to do without h7-h6. They are usually called the Or­thodox Defence.

6.e3 The tournament practice

branches here to a lot of varian­tions but we'll distinguish a) 6 . . . a6 and b) 6 . . . tZJbd7 as main lines. The popular move 6 . . . h6 will be analysed in Chapter 11-17. A frequent reply is also 6 . . . c6 when 7.'fic2 tZJbd7 transposes to a line already discussed in Chap­ter 3 variation c2.

Lasker's manoeuvre 6 . . . tZJe4 comes usually after h7-h6, .tg5-h4 not allowing White to win a tempo by attacking the h 7 -pawn. Ensuring a flight square could

prove usefull too. A detailed dis­cussion of Lasker Defence will be held in Chapter 15. Coming back to 6 . . . tZJe4, we see that playing similarly to Lasker D e fence 7.iLxe7 'i!txe7 8J:tc1 c6 (in case of B . . . lZJc6 9 . cxd5 tZJxc3 1 0 Jhc3 exd5 1 1 . fib3 ktdB 12 .iLb5 liJbB 1 3 . 0-0 l1d6 14.iLd3 c6 1 5 . 'i!tc2 ,Uh6 16.l1el;!;, White is way ahead in development, Pietila - Hintik­ka, Finland 1993) 9 . .td3 liJxc3 (we know already the position after 9 . . . f5 10.0-0 liJd7 11 .liJe2!;!; from Chapter 12, variation c) l1 .cxd5! ? (in case of 11 .0-0 Black has the resource 11 . . . e5! 12.dxe5 dxc4 13.l1xc4 liJxe5 14.ne4 liJxf3= equalizing the play but there is still the possibility of 11. 'i!tc2 dxc4 12.nxc4 h6 13 .liJe5! ? liJxe4 14. dxe4t, which occurred in the game Rubinstein - Spielmann, Triberg 192 1) 11 . . . exd5 12.'i!tb1 when White can proceed to a pawn minority attack with an extra tempo (because Black's h­pawn still remains on its initial position): b2-b4, a2-a4 and b4-b5. In this case Black's attempt to simplify the position by 12 . . . liJf6 13.0-0 .tg4 14.liJe5 iLh5 15 .b4 a6

155

Chapter 13

16.a4 �g6 does not solve all his problems in view of 1 7 .liJxg6 hxg6 I S .b5 axb5 19.axb5 :a3 20Jifcl 1::txc3 21 .lhc3t.

Also Black plays now and then 6 . . . liJc6. As a whole, this continuation does not comply very well with the strategic pat­tern of the variation since it leaves Black short of the oppor­tunity to d eliver a strike at White's centre by c7-c5. White can answer 7 . i.d3 (in case of 7.i.e2 White must reckon with 7 . . . h6 S .i.h4 liJe4oo, while 7 .l:i.c1 deserves attention indeed: after 7 . . . liJe4 S.i.xe7 liJxe7 9.i.d3 f5 10.0-0 c6 l1 .liJe5t White had bet­ter play in the game Vasiukov -Naranja, Manila 1974 and if Black takes on e7 with the queen, then the play reaches a position fro m the above- mentionned game Pietila - Hintikka, Finland 1993) 7 . . . liJb4 S.i.e2 dxc4 9.i.xc4 liJfd5 10.i.xe7 'f!ixe7 l1 .liJe4 liJb6 12.i.b3 i.d7 13 .a3 (in case of an immediate 1 3 . 0 -0 Black has 13 . . . i.b5 14 .l:te1 liJd3 1 5 .l:te2 liJb4 1 6 .l:i.d2 liJc4�) 1 3 . . . liJa6 14.l:i.c1 (after 14.0-0 Black equal­izes by 14 . . . c5=) 14 . . . i.b5 (in case of 14 . . . lIacS 15 .'f!ic2 i.b5 White suddenly strikes by 16.liJeg5!? g6 17.'f!ie4 c5 1S.'f!ih4 h5 19.liJxe6!±) 15 .liJe5 .l:tfdS 16.�h5! (threaten­ing 1 7 . liJf7 ) 1 6 . . . i.eS 1 7 . 0-0t Khalifman - Taimanov, St. Pe­tersburg 1995. White's last move is possible since Black has no 17 . . . f6? In view of lS . 'f!ih4 g5 19. �g3 fxe5 20 .liJxg5+-.

156

The move 6 . . . b6, though quite consistent, acquired no popular­ity in the absence of h7-h6 and �g5-h4 for the same reasons as 6 . . . liJe4 (see above). After 6 . . . b6 White can gain the edge by 7Jlc1 !? (immediate exchanges 7.cxd5 liJxd5 S.liJxd5 exd5 9.i.xe7 'f!ixe7 10 Jlc1 are a bit untimely as they enable Black to improve the position of his bishop by 10 . . . i.e6! and after 11 . �c2 .l:tcS 12. i.d3 g6 13 .0-0 c5 14.dxc5 bxc5 15. e4 liJc6!= there was an absolute equality in the game Jimenez Zerquera - J. Donner, Havana 1969, while after 7.�c2 i.b7 S. i.xf6 i.xf6 9.cxd5 exd5 10.i.d3 g6 11 .h4 c5!oo the game heats up) 7 . . . i.b7 S.cxd5 ltJxd5 (the position after S . . . exd5 9.i.e2 liJbd7 10. O-Ot is quite typical and will be discussed in detail later) 9.liJxd5 i.xd5 (after 9 . . . exd5 10 .i.xe7 'f!ixe7 1 l . i.e 2 c5 1 2 . 0- 0 liJd7 13.'f!ia4 a6 14.'f!ia3 .l:tfeS 15.b3t White's chances were preferable owing to his pressure upon the c5-pawn in the game Kijac -Djubek, Slovakia 1996) 10.i.xe7 'f!ixe7 11.i.d3 .l:tcS (Black tried also l1 . . .f5 here but after 12 .0-0 c5 13.dxc5 bxc5 14 . .l:te1 liJc6 15.e4 fxe4 16.i.xe4 i.xe4 17 . .l:txe4 1IadS in the game Calderin - Casillias Pellatt, Mexico 1995, White could have kept his advantage by IS. 'f!ie2t with a superior pawn structure) 12.0-0 i.b7 (an imme­diate 12 . . . c5?! is very risky of Black because of 13.dxc5 .l:!.xc5 14.l::txc5 �xc5 and in this position

4. CiJc3 i-e7 5. i-g5 0-0 6. e3 ltJbd7 7 . .a.c 1

in the game Jukic - Delay, Ge­neve 1992 White had an oppor­tunity to start complications by 1 5 . �b 1 !? �xf.3 16 . .l:Ic1 �f8 17. �xh7+ �hS 1S.gxf.3 g6 19.�xg6 �gS 20 . .l:Ic7 �xg6+ 21.�xg6 fxg6 22 . .l:IcS+ �g7 23.f4g,>, his chances being much better despite Black's extra piece) 13Jlc3 g6 (now Black misses an earlier h7-h6 and �g5-h4) 14. �a4 c5 15. .l:Ifc 1 ltJd7 1 6 . � a 6 �xa6 1 7 . �xa6t with fairly perceptible pressure along the c-file, Smys­lov - Zuidema, Hamburg 1965.

a) 6 . • • a6 Black wants to prepare for an

accelerated fianchetto of his light-squared bishop.

7.�c2!? Now Black will have to be con­

stantly on watch about a possible exchange on d5 and further cas­tling kingside. The plan with c4-c5, which was White's main idea in variation c2, Chapter 12, does not work as well as above now that the black knight is on bS: in case of 7 . c5 Black just plays 7 . . . a5 S . a3 ltJc6 ! ? 9 . �b5 �d7 10.�e2 ltJe4 11.�f4 �f6 12.i.d3

ltJxc3 13 .bxc3 l:.eS 14.�g3 e5� Burkart - B . Schneider, Ger­many 1990.

7 ... ltJbd7 If Black decides to proceed

with the plan, started by his sixth move, with 7 . . . dxc4 S.�xc4 b5, then White has 9 . ..id3 ltJbd7 (the advance 9 . . . h6 secures the h-pawn against the threat of be­ing taken, yet it does not prevent White's knights from occupying strongholds in the centre as it occurred after 10 . ..ixf6 ..ixf6 11 .ltJe4 ..ie7 12Jlc1 c6 13.0-0 l:.a7 14.ltJe5 .uc7 15.a4 f5 16.ltJc5± in the game So sa - Owosina, Mos­cow (01) 1994) 10.ltJe5 h6 1l.ltJxd7 ..ixd7 12.�xf6 ..ixf6 13 .ltJe4 ..ie7 14.0-0 �d6 15.f4 �cS 16.ltJc5 l:.bS 1 7 . ..i e4± and White's minor pieces got the best possible places in the game Torre - Farooqui, New York 19S5.

The move 7 . . . h6 can only as­sist White in his plan. After S .�h4 ltJbd7 9 . cxd5 exd5 (it's important that Black can't sim­plify the position by trading off a pair of knights because he loses then the c7-pawn) 10 . ..id3 c6 (in case of 10 . . . c5 1l .dxc5 ltJxc5 12. 0-0 b5 13.l:tfd1 �b7 14 . ..ig3 �b6 15 . ..if5 ltJce4 16 . ..ie5 tbxc3 17 . ..ixc3t in the game Enevoldsen - V. Hansen, Odense 1944, as well as after 10 . . . b5 1 l . a3 c5 1 2 . dxc5 tbxc5 13 . 0-0t in the game Dralle - Zabarska, Frie­drichroda 1 9 9 7 , the isolated pawn on d5 was a source of trouble for Black and after 10 . . .

157

Chapter 13

b6 11 .0-0 i.b7 12 . .l:lfd1 1:!.e8 13. i.f5 ttJe4 14.i.xe7 �xe7 15.�ac1 ttJrn 16.ttJe5± Black's backward e­pawn was his weak point in the game Feige - Prause, Oberhof 1998) there was 11.h3!? (all in all the quiet 11 .0-0, where the ad­vance a7-a6 seems expendable, is good too but the subtleties of play against a Carlsbad pawn structure is aside our theme at the moment) 11 . . . .l:le8 12.0-0-0 a5 13.g4 t in the game Mihailovs -Amin, Oropesa del Mar 1998 the h7-h6-weakening made it much easier for White to open up files down to Black's king.

8.cxd5 If the white bishop comes to

e2 or d3, then Black would fol­low his initial plan, namely an accelerated fianchetto. By this well-timed exchange in the cen­tre White is going to prove that the advance a7-a6 was unneces­sary.

8 . . . exd5 Black should not take with

the knight on d5 unless he is ready to lose a pawn.

9 . .td3

9 . . . l:te8

158

Black is on thin ice already. For instance, the evident 9 . . . c6 could encounter a sharp 10.g4 ! . After 1 0 . . . ttJxg4 (in case of 1 0 . . . h6 11.i.f4 ttJxg4 there is 12.l:!.gl-? winning back the pawn and con­tinuing the assault and after 10 . . . g6 11 .�gl ttJe8 12.i.h6 ttJg7 13 .0-0-0 b5 14.h4 b4 15 .ttJa4 c5 16.dxc5 i.b7 17.�b1 �a5 18.ttJd4 .txc5 19.ttJxc5 ttJxc5 20.h5 White launched a dangerous attack in the game Kottnauer - Polzer, Bad Gastein 1948, while Black's attempt to put up some counter­play by 10 . . . c5 failed after 1 1 . i.xf6 ttJxf6 12.g5 ttJe4 13 .ttJxd5 ttJxg5 14.ttJxe7+ ftxe7 15 .ttJxg5 ftxg5 1 6 . �xc5± in the game Feigin - Solmanis, Kemeri 1939 and in case of 10 . . . .l:le8 l1..1i.xf6 ttJxf6 12.g5 ttJe4 13 .ttJxe4 dxe4 1 4 . i.xe4 fta5+ 1 5 . � e2 .txg5 16.i.xh7± Black did not obtain sufficient compensation for the missing pawn in all lines) 11 . .1i.xh7+ 'it>h8 12.i.f4 ttJdf6 (in case of 12 . . . g6 13 .i.xg6 fxg6 14. ftxg6 ttJgf6 15.ttJg5 fte8 16. fth6+ �g8 17 .l:i.g1 +- White's attack suc­ceeds very quickly) 13 . .td3 ttJh5 (Black is unable to prevent White from mobilizing all his forces for a decisive onslaught) 14.h3 ttJgf6 15.i.e5 ttJg8 16. 0-0-0 ttJh6 1 7 . .l:ldg1-? in the game Botvinnik -Alatortsev, Leningrad 1 9 3 4 , White only needs t o play fte2 and retreat with the knight from f3 setting in order to complete his attack on g7 and the black king respectively.

4.lZJc3 .te7 S . .tgS 0-0 6.e3 tZJbd7 7.'g,c1

10.0-0-0 tZJf8 1l.h3 Intending to advance the g­

pawn driving back Black's pieces on the kingside.

1l . . . e6 Black is forced to embrace the

passive tactic. An attempt to play actively in the centre by 11. . .i.e6 1 2 . \t> b 1 tZJ6d7 1 3 . i.xe7 'ffixe7 14.g4 c5 in the game Golovko -Stolberg, Rostov 1939, encoun­tered the strong reply15.e4! dxe4 16.i.xe4 tZJf6 17 .d5t.

12.g4 i.e6 The move 12 . . . tZJe4?! turned

out too early after 13.i.xe7 'ffixe7 14.i.xe4 dxe4 15.lZJd2 f5 16.gxf5 i.xf5 17.f3 �g5 18.fxe4± with an obvious advantage to White in the game Schmitzer - Cladouras, Germany 1990.

13.'it>b1 �a5

This position occurred in the game Jonsson - Arnason, Rey­kjavik 1984. There was a worthy option of 14.tZJd2!? (after 14.lZJe5 tZJe4 15.i.xe7 .uxe7 16.lZJxe4 dxe4 17 .i.c4 i.d5 18.g5 lZJd7 19.1ZJxd7 l:txd720.i.xd5 'ffixd5= the posi­tion in the cited game got much simpler and the play equalized)

14 . . . tZJe4 15.i.xe4 (Black would welcome the simplification 15. i.xe7 lZJxd2+ 16. �xd2 ':'xe7 =) 15 . . . i.xg5 16.i.d3 i.e7 17 .lZJb3 'ffic7 18 .lZJe2t. It's difficult for Black to stir the queenside with­out creating real pawn weak­nesses, and the white knight on e2 prepares now to come closer to the black king via f4 and g3 .

b) 6 ... lZJbd7 This useful developing move

is an essential part of all ortho­dox setups (Capablanca System, Swiss Variation, Accelerated and Orthodox Fianchettos).

7.!l.e1 This continuation has been

known since 19th century yet it remains topical. First of all, the rook's move should impede pos­sible enemy's breakthroughs. To secure his centre White is even disposed to delay the develop­ment of his own kingside. An immediate development of the light-squared bishop by 7 .i.d3 allows Black to play 7 . . . h6 (the move 7 . . . a6 after 8 . c5 ! c6 9.b4 brings us to a position from the game Botvinnik - B . Yuriev,

159

Chapter 13

Leningrad 1928, familiar to us from Chapter 12, variation c2) 8.i.h4 c5! 9.cxd5 (after 9 .0-0 cxd4 10.liJxd4 dxc4 11 .i.xc4 liJb6 12. i.d3 in the game Belotti - Ste­wart, Groningen 1 984, Black could have equalized by 12 . . . liJfd5!= - pointed out by L. Por­tisch) 9 . . . cxd4 10.liJxd4 (Black is fine after 10 .exd4 liJxd5= too) 10 . . . liJxd5 11.i.xe7 liJxe7 (in case of 11 . . . �xe7 12 .liJxd5 exd5 13. :tel;!; the isolated d5-pawn pro­vides White a certain advantage) 12.0-0 liJf6! (12 . . . e5 is untimely: after 13.liJf3 followed by �e2;!; White's chances are preferable) 13.h3 (White can't play 13.�b3?? because of 13 . . . e5-+ and after 13. � e2 Black has the resource of 13 . . . e5 14.liJf3 i.g4�) 13 . . . i.d7 14. �e2 �b6 15.l:tfdl .s.fd8 16.lld2 llac8 17 .lbdl liJed5= equalizing, Skembris - Portisch, Tilburg 1994.

The continuation 7.�c2 offers some competition to 7.l:[cl. In this line, however, it's easier for B l ack to organize an active counterplay. After 7 . . . c5! (the position after 7 . . . c6 8 .l:[dl! was discussed already in Chapter 3 variation c2, the position after 7 . . . a6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.i.d3;!; can be found in variation a; in case of 7 . . . h6 Black has the resource 8.cxd5 !? and in the game Kas­parov - Portisch, Brussels 1986, the Hungarian grandmaster did not venture to accept the piece sacrifice in view of the following line: 8 . . . hxg5 9 .dxe6 fxe6 10 .

160

liJxg5 liJb6 11.h4 c5 12.h5 cxd4 13.h6!� with a strong attack but later this opportunity was suc­cessfully tested in the game Siviero - Simini, Italy 1989, with White's victory after 13 . . . dxc3 14.:tdl �c7 1 5 . hxg7 lId8 1 6 . l:th7+ Wxg7 17 . .s.h7+ WfS 18.:tf7 We8 19.i.b5+. 1-0) 8.0-0-0!? (af­ter 8.l:[dl �a5 9 .cxd5 liJxd5 10. i.xe7 liJxe7 11.i.d3 liJf6 12.0-0 cxd4 13.liJxd4 h6! 14.liJe4 liJed5 15.a3 liJxe4 16.i.xe4 liJf6 17.i.f3 lIb8 18 .lIcl i.d7 19 .�c7 �xcf1 20 Jlxc7 lUc8= there was an equal position in the game S. Ivanov - Tregubov, Samara 2000, and also in case of 8 .cxd5 Black evened the chances after 8 . . . cxd4 9 . liJxd4 liJxd5 1 0 . i.xe7 liJxe7 11 .i.e2 liJf6 12.0-0 i.d7 13. �b3 �a5 14.l:[fdl llab8 15.a3 liJed5 16 .liJxd5 liJxd5 17 .i.b5 i.xb5 18.�xb5 �xb5 19.1iJxb5 a6 20. liJd4 lIfc8= in the game P. Cram­ling - Portisch, Roquebrune 1998) 8 .0-0-0 b6 !? (in case of 8 . . . h6 Black must reckon with 9.h4 ! t while 8 . . . cxd4 meets 9 . .uxd4 �a5 10.cxd5 exd5 Il .liJd2t and after 8 . . . �a5 9 .Wb l cxd4 10Jlxd4;!; White's chances look somewhat better) 9 . e4 dxe4 10.liJxe4 i.b7ao, Ftacnik - Bala­shov, Trnava 1988, with mutual chances.

After the move 7 J ! a l - c 1 Black usually chooses one of the following continuations: b I ) 7 . . . c5, b2) 7 . . . b6, b3) 7 . . . a6, b4) 7 . . .1:te8 or b5) 7 . . . dxc4. The op­tion 7 . . . c6 will be discussed sepa-

4.l?Jc3 i.e7 5.!i.g5 0-0 6.e3 lDbd7 7.�c1

rately in Chapter 14. The posi­tion after 7 . . . h6 8 .i..h4 will be analysed in Chapter 15-16. It is worth mentioning as well that the time-wasting move 7 . . . .th4?! was refuted fairly convincingly by 8 . cxd5 .txc3+ 9 .bxc3 exd5 10 . .td3 'fie7 11 .0-0 b6 12.c4± in the game Kramnik - Guigay, Lyons (simultan) 2001 .

h I ) 7 . . . c5 Despite the preventive mea­

sure taken by White on the sev­enth move, Black tries to break free by advancing the c-pawn without any preparation.

8.cxd5 White must open up the play

if he wants to make use of his rook on c1. The question is which way is the best. As the tourna­ment practice shows, the alter­native capture 8.dxc5 is weaker due to 8 . . . dxc4 9 . .txc4 (in case of 9.c6 which White tried in the game A . S anchez - M . Diaz , Merida 2000, there is 9 . . .liJb6oo) 9 . . . lDxc5 10.0-0, Gerst - A. Stein, Germany 1995, and now there is 10 . . . a6°o with mutual chances.

8 ... lDxd5

Black wants to avoid creating pawn weaknesses in his position. After 8 . . . exd5 9.dxc5 Black's iso­lated pawn on d5 will be an obvi­ous target. Now Black has 9 . . . .txc5 ( after 9 . . . lDxc5 1 0 . .txf6 .txf6 1 l .lDxd5± in the game Dragan Anca - Peneva, H er­culane 1994, Black lost the pawn at once and in the line 9 . . . 'fia5 10.a3 �xc5 which occurred in the game Teichmann - Taubenhaus, Ostende 1905, White could have won the pawn as well by 11 . b4 'fib6 1 2 . lDxd5 lDxd5 1 3 . 'fixd5 .txg5 14. �xg5±) 10 . .td3 (win­ning the pawn immediately by 10.lDxd5 is no good because af­ter 1 0 . . . �a5+ 11 .lDc3 .tb4 1 2 . .txffi lDxffi 13 . .tc4 in the game W. Suhr - Timulis, Germany 1988, Black could have obtained sufficient compensation by 13 . . . b5�) 10 . . . .te7 11 .0-0 lDc5 ( 1 1 . . . lDb6 is not as good because of 12.�b3 .te6 13.lDd4± Marshall ­Janowski, San Sebastian 1911) 12 . .tb1 ! ? (if White triggers off exchanges by 1 2 . lDxd5 �xd5 13 . .txffi lDxd3 14 . .txe7 ne8 15. lDe1 .tf5 16.':'c5 �d7 17 .lDxd3 .txd3 1 8 .:c3 .tb5 1 9 . �x d 7 .txd7::!;, then h e will faces diffi­culties in converting his extra pawn into victory because of the opposite-coloured bishops in the ending) 12 . . . .te6 (after 12 . . . lDce4 1 3 . lDxe4 dxe4 14 . .txf6 .txf6 15 . .txe4 .txb2 16 . .txh7+ 'it>xh7 1 7 . 'fic2± or 1 2 . . . .tg4 1 3 . .txf6 .txffi 14.lDxd5± Black loses the pawn) 13 .lDd4;!; with a slight but

161

Chapter 13

stable advantage to White. The set-up of Black's pieces leaves much to be desired and after sim­plification the weakness of the d5-pawn might turn out a prob­lem.

In case of 8 . . . cxd4, in distinc­tion to the main line, White has an additional option of 9.�xd4!? (the position after 9.liJxd4 liJxd5 10.i..xe7 liJxe7 11 .i..e2 will be dis­cussed later) 9 . . . liJxd5 (Black is without compensation for the pawn deficit after 9 . . . exd5 10. liJxd5 �a5+ 1 l .liJc3 lId8 1 2 . �a4±) 10.liJxd5 i..xg5 1l .liJxg5 �xg5 1 2 .liJc7 e5 ( after 1 2 . . . �a5+?? 13.b4+- Black had to re­sign immediately in the game A. Gomez - Camacho, Ciego de Avila 1997, and 12 . . . lIb8 could meet 1 3 . �xa7 b6 14. �a4 liJc5 1 5 . �f4! t ) , and now after 1 3 . �d6!? (13 .�a4 i s not s o clear be­cause after 13 . . . l:i.b8 14.�xa7 b6� the white queen can't reach f4) 13 . . . .t!.b8 14.liJd5 �h8 15 .h4 �d8 (in case of 15 . . . �g4 Black must reckon with 16.liJe7 l:i.d8 17.lIc4t) 16. �cn Black's pieces are rather passive.

9 . .i.xe7 liJxe7 After 9 . . . �xe7?! 10.liJxd5 exd5

11 .dxc5 liJxc5 12. �xd5 liJe4 (the move 12 . . . b6?? in the game Er­hembayar - Nakagawa, Shen­yang 1999, was, evidently, a blunder: 13 .�xa8 i..b7 14.�xa7 �f6 1 5 . �a3+-) 13 .a3 l:i.d8 14 . �e5± Black simply stays a pawn down.

10 . .i.e2

162

This way exactly, keeping in touch with the long diagonal a8-hI for the time when the f3-knight moves away. After 10.i..d3 cxd4 1 l . liJxd4 liJf6 1 2 . 0- 0 e5 13 .liJb3 i..g4= Black achieved equality in the game Portisch -Pietzch, Kecskemet 1962.

10 ... cxd4 Mter 10 . . . b6 11 .0-0 i..b7 12.

dxc5 liJxc5 13 .b4 liJe4 14.liJxe4 i..xe4 1 5 . �a4 .t!.c8 1 6 . l:i.fd U White maintained pressure upon Black's position in the game Geller - B. Larsen, Copenhagen (ml8) 1966.

1l.liJxd4 liJf6 An attempt to proceed to the

accelerated fianchetto by 1 1 . . . a6?! brought Black into serious trouble after 12.0-0 b5 13 .�b3 lIb8 14.lIfd1 �b6 15. �b4!± in the game Reshevsky - Steiner, USA 1942.

12.0-0 .i.d7 In the game Ivanisevic -

Bejaoui, Istanbul (ol) 2000, Black tried to simplify by 1 2 . . . liJed5 13 .liJxd5 liJxd5 after 14.i..f3! �a5 1 5 . �b3 liJf6 1 6 . �b5 �xb5 1 7 . liJxb5 liJe8 18.l:i.fdl± but h e got a lousy endgame instead.

13.�b3t

4.tiJc3 !iJ...e7 S. i.gS 0-0 6.e3 tiJbd7 7.�c1

White's pieces are somewhat more active , ensuring him a slight edge.

b2) 7 ... b6 It should be noted that de­

spite its reputation as one of the most solid openings the Queen's Gambit Declined has one inher­ent flaw. Too often Black's light­squared bishop remains shut in Black's camp. So sooner or later Black faces the problem of its activation. Flank development with the given move order is called the Orthodox Fianchetto. Along with its obvious merits, this way of development has its dark side as well: the squares a6 and c6 are permanently weak and can become easy targets for White's forces.

8.exd5 White decreases the tension

in the centre right away as in variation el, Chapter 12. It will be easier for him now to get to the opponent's weaknesses on the queenside.

8 . . . exd5 The tactical background of

the exchange on d5 lies in the

variation 8 . . . tiJxd5?? 9 . tiJxd5 !iJ...xg5 10.tiJxc7 �b8 1l .!iJ...d3 !iJ...b7 12.tiJb5+- as it was in the game E. Cruz - Gusmao, Partida 1995.

9:�a4! The idea of this move is to

emphasize the weakness of Black's light squares on the queenside. The move 9 . !iJ...b 5 ( similarly to variation e l a, Chapter 12) is not to be recom­mended here. After 9 . . . !iJ...b7 10. 0-0 c5 !? (Black avoids the stan­dard trap: after 10 . . . a6 1l .!iJ...a4;t there is no 1l . . . c5? because of 12.!iJ...xd7 �xd7 13.tiJa4± and in case of 10 . . . c6 11..1Ld3;!; the main diagonal a8-h1 can't serve well to Black's light-squared bishop since it is stuck by the pawns on c6 and d5, making the standard manoeuvre tiJf6-e4 impossible) 1l .dxc5 bxc5 (1l . . . tiJxc5 is worse due to 12.tiJd4±) 12.!iJ...xd7 �xd7 1 3 .!iJ...xf6 !iJ...xf6 14. tiJe4 (White should not even try to win the pawn by 14.tiJa4 c4°o 15JIxc4? because after 15 . . . !iJ...a6=t= he is going to lose an exchange) 14 . . . !iJ...xb2 15 .tiJxc5 'lfJe7 16.�c2 .l::fc8 17.�xb2 .uxc5;!; White maintains a slight advantage owing to the isolated pawn on d5. However it would not be an easy task to ex­ploit it since the open files on the queenside ensure Black certain counterchances.

The move 9 .SLd3 is not ideal as well and after 9 . . . !iJ...b7 10.0-0 Black has 1O . . . tiJe4! ( l0 . . . c5 is less efficient because White's light­squared bishop comes into active

163

Chapter 13

play by 11 .i.f5! l:e8 12J:te1 lllfB 1 3 . dxc5 bxc5 14 .llla4 llle4 1 5 . iLxe7 ftxe7 16.llld2 llld6 when in the game T. Petrosian - Spassky, Moscow (ml14) 1969, White could have kept the upper hand by 1 7.iLh3!?;t) 11.i.xe7 (after 11.i..f4 c 5 1 2 .lll e 5 llldf6 1 3 . a3 lllxc3 14.J:txc3 c4 15.i..b 1 b5 16.f3 a5 17 .i.g5 b4 18.axb4 axb4 19J1c1 llld7 2 0 . i..xe7 ftxe7 2 1 . lllxd7 ftxd7a:l in the game Zhurina - A. Kharitonov, M oscow 1 9 9 6 , Black's chances were no worse, at the least) 11 . . . ftxe7 12 .ffa4 (Black had no problems after 12. ftc2 l:lfc8 1 3 . ffb3 llldf6 14.h3 c5= in the game Klempt - J. Graf, Oberstdorf Tiefenbach 1 999) 12 . . . c5 13 .l:lfd1 lllxc3 14.l:lxc3 c4 15 .i.f5 lllb8 16.l:.cc1 (the move 16.b3?? though usefully looking from the positional point of view is but a blunder in view of 16 . . . i.c6-+, c atching the white queen) 16 . . . g6 17 .i.h3 a6°o with chances for both sides in the game A. Kharitonov - A. Mikha­levski, Leeuwarden 1995. Obvi­ously, as soon as White moves his bishop to d3, he deprives himself of the opportunity to trade knights on e4 due to the pawn fork.

A simple and consistent de­viation from the main line is the continuation 9 . ..te2. Anticipating events, we'll mention now that this move will be considered as the main line in a similar posi­tion but with the inclusion ofh7-h6 and i..g5-h4 in Chapter 15

164

(variation b4). However when deciding on the ninth move be­tween developing the queen to a4 or the bishop to e2, one should remember that the former oppor­tunity is more consistent and, besides, the bishop on g5 instead of h4 involves certain tactical nuances compared to the posi­tion in Chapter 15 (variation b4). For instance after 9 .i.e2 i..b7 10.0-0 c5 (the move 10 . . . llle4 is not as efficient now as with the bishop on d3 since after 11 .i.xe7 ftxe7 12 . ffa4 c5 1 3 . dxc5 bxc5 White can exchange a pair of knights obtaining the edge after 14.lllxe4 dxe4 15 .llld2;j::) 11 . fta4 a6 (in case of 11 . . .c4?! the stan­dard 12.b3± works excellently) 12.dxc5 Black has 12 . . . lllxc5 (in the position without queens af­ter 12 . . . bxc5 13JUd1 ftb6 14.ffb3 ffxb3 15.axb3;j:: White's chances are preferable) 13.ftd1 l:lc8 14. llld4 and now in the game Zaid -

V. Mikhalevski , Israel 1 9 9 2 , Black could have equalized by 14 . . . lllce4 (attacking the bishop on g5! ) 15 . ..tf4 lllxc3=.

Let's revert now to the main line after White's ninth move ffd1-a4 and consentrate on the most frequent answers b2a) 9 . . . iLb7 and b2b) 9 . . . c5. Note that Black can't already include h7-h6 and ..tg5-h4 because in case of 9 . . . h6? ! White wins a pawn by 10.ftc6 l:lb8 11 .i.f4 l:lb7 12.lllxd5 lllxd5 1 3 . ftxd5 i.b4+ 14.llld2 lllc5 15 . ftxd8 .uxd8 16. �dl±.

4.ttJc3 i..e7 5 . ..tg5 0-0 6.e3 liJbd7 7.�c1

b2a) 9 . . . .tb7

lO . .ta6 White pays attention to

Black's vulnerable light squares on the queenside without delay. Also White can steer the game into the variation b2b by 10.i.b5 because Black has nothing bet­ter than 10 . . . c5: in case of lO . . . a6 White maintains a slight but stable advantage by 1 1 . i.xd7 liJxd7 12 .i.xe7 �xe7 13.b4::!;.

lO . . . i.xa6 Black's persistent move 10 . . .

�cS?! allowed White to gain a considerable advantage by 1 1 . i.xb7 ( an attempt t o win the pawn by 1 1 . liJxd5?! liJxd5 1 2 . i.xb7 � x b 7 1 3 . i.xe7 fails to 13 . . . b5! 14.�a3 b4 15.�a5 liJxe7 16 .':'xc7 �e4 ! p) 1 1 . . . �xb7 12 . liJe5! liJbS (the tactical operation 12 . . . liJxe5? 1 3 . dxe5 d4 14.exf6 gxffi 15.i.h6 �xg2, accomplished in the game Leskiewicz - Kwie­cien, By tom 1995, could have been refuted by the spectacular 16.�c6 ! ! �g6 1 7.i.xffi ':'xfS IS. exd4+- and in case of 12 . . JUeS? 1 3 .liJxd7 liJxd7 14.�xd7 i.xg5 1 5 . �xd5 �xd5 16 .liJxd5+- in Grabliauskas - Stanzl, Passau

1996, Black simply stayed a p a wn down as well as after 12 .. .lUdS? 13.ttJxd7 .l:lxd7 14.i.xf6 b5 1 5 .liJxb5 c6 1 6 . i.xe7 cxb5 1 7 . �b3 lhe7 l S .0-0+- in the game W. Schmidt - Cyra, Kosza­lin 1997) 13 .0-0 c5 14 . .l:.fd1 l:.dS (14 . . . c4 is met by the standard break 15.b3±) 15.dxc5 bxc5 16 . .txf6 gxffi (16 . . . .txf6? does not work because of 17.liJxd5 i.xe5 lS .liJf6+ i.xf6 19 ..lhdS+ .txdS 20.�eS#) 17.�g4+ �fS 1S.liJf3±, Kmoch - Davidson, Semmering 1926. Note that in the final posi­tion of this line Black finds no relief in lS . . . �xb2 due to 19.�f5 �g7 20.liJxd5±.

11:�xa6 c5 Quite naturally, Black does

not want to stay with the back­ward pawn on c-file and tries to improve on the queenside. Some­times he plays 11 . . .c6 with this objective. Then White can con­tinue by 12.0-0 �cS (after 12 . . . liJe4 13 .i.xe7 �xe7 White laun­ched a decisive attack by 14. �b7! UfcS 15.liJxd5! �d6 16.hc6!+- in the game Marshall - Kline, New York 1913; after 12 . . . h6 13.i.h4 g5 1 4 . i.g3 liJh5 in the game Jasnikowski - Puchala, Polanica Zdroj 1994, White could have gained from the weakening of Black's kingside position by 15.liJe2!± and in the quiet line 12 . . . .:.eS 13.l:.c2 13 . . . liJe4 14.i.xe7 ':'xe7, Bischoff - Scherer, Biel 1992, there was an opportunity to maintained White's advantage as well by 15 .l:.fc1 liJxc3 16.':'xc3

165

Chapter 13

c5 1 7 . dxc5 liJxc5 18 . '!Yfa3±) 13. '!Yfxc8 (after 13. '!Yfd3 '!Yfb7 14. '!Yff5 Ufe8 15 .liJe5 liJxe5 16.'!Yfxe5 '!Yfd7 17 . ..txffi ..txf6 18.'!Yfh5 Ue6 19.b4 a6 20.a4 b5= White did not gain much in the game Arsovic -Vebic, Kladovo 1991) 13 . . . Ufxc8 14 . .l:;!c2 'iii'fS 15 JHc1 c5 16.dxc5 .l:;!xc5, L. Szabo - Pfleger, Bam­berg 1968, with a position, simi­lar to the one to be found within the main line. By 17.liJd4;!; White maintains his advantage owing to the isolated d5-pawn and the weakness of Black's light squares.

12.0-0

12 ... h6 White's queen impedes the

normal development of Black's queenside (ofthe a8-rook, first of all), so Black should try to get rid of it immediately or after creat­ing a flight square for the king. In other lines Black encounters serious problems. So, after 12 . . . '!Yfb8 13.Ilfd1 ..td6 in the game Tselikov - Romanovsky, Moscow 1920, White could have won a pawn by 14.dxc5! liJxc5 (14 . . . bxc5 is no better because of 15.ttJxd5 liJxd5 16.I1xd5 �xb2 17 .Ilcd1 +-)

166

15.'!Yfe2 ttJce4 16 . ..txffi ttJxffi 17 . liJxd5+-. An attempt to seize more space on the queenside by 12 . . . c4 after 13 .ttJe5 liJxe5 14. dxe5 ttJe8 ( l4 . . . liJe4 is losing to 15.liJxe4 ..txg5 16.I1fd1 �e8 17.f4 ..th6 1 8 . liJd6+-, in the game Lukacs - Ermenkov, Kecskemet 1977) 15 . ..txe7 �xe7 16 .Ilfdl± gives White an obvious advan­tage, according to H. Kmoch.

The passive 12 . . . ne8 allows White to reinforce his position in the centre by 13 J:tfd1. As a re­sult, the thematic 1 3 . . . �c8 (Black received no compensation for the pawn after 13 . . . h6 14. ..txffi ttJxf6 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.lIc2 ..td6 17.I1cd2 Ue6 18 . �a4 Ilb8 19 .ttJxd5 ttJxd5 20 J:txd5 I1xb2 21.I1xc5 '!Yfffi 22.I1b5± in the game Duras - Marshall, Breslau 1912, as well as after 13 . . . cxd4 14.ttJxd4 liJc5 15. '!Yffl �d7 16.ttJde2 I1ac8 17 . ..txf6 ..txffi 18.ttJxd5± in the game Meyer - Olsen, Denmark 1997) led after 14. �xc8 I1axc8 15.dxc5 Ilxc5 16.ttJd4 Ilec8 17 . ttJb3 I15c6 1 8 . ttJxd5 ttJxd5 19 . I1xc6 I1xc6 20 . .l:;!xd5 ..txg5 2 1 . I1xd7± to a position where White had a good reason to believe him­self winning in the game Duras - Balla, Breslau 1912.

In comparison with other pos­sibilities, Black can consider as agreeable the line 12 . . . �c8 13. '!Yfxc8 .uaxc8 14.dxc5 I1xc5, Ni­klasch - Schmidt Brauns, Ger­many 1995 (an attempt to create a pair of hanging pawns by 14 . . . bxc5 15.l:tfd1 ttJb6 16 . ..txf6

4.ltJc3 .te7 S . .tgS 0-0 6.e3 ltJbd7 7 . .uc1

.txf6 1 7 . ltJxd5 ltJxd5 l S Jhd5 .txb2 19 . .l:i.cxc5± in the game Gheorghiu - M. Brunner, Men­drisio 19S9, resulted in the loss of one of them), but White's po­sition is still better after 1 5 . ltJd4;t.

13 . .th4 White can't gain profit from

the immediate exchange 13 . .txf6 kxf6 since after 14.Itfdl (in case of 14.dxc5 bxc5 15.lIfdl Black escapes by 15 . . ,' i;'fb6=) 'i;'fcS 15 . 'i;'fxcS .l:i.axcS 16.dxc5 .l:i.xc5 17.lId3 Black creates a sufficient coun­terplay by 17 . . . ltJe4!�, maintain­ing the balance.

13 ... 'i;'fcB Black can't do without this

move anyway. After 13 . . . cxd4 in the game Bonin - Kane, Parsip­pany 2000, White should have played 14.ltJxd4± with a serious advantage guaranteed.

14.'i;'fxcB l:taxcB

This position occurred in the game Goglidze - Menchik, Mos­cow 1935. Continuing 15.dxc5!? (in the cited game White pre­ferred 1 5 .ltJe5 which offered Black a chance to equalize by 1 5 . . . lHd S ! to be followed by

16.ltJb5 a6 17 .ltJa7 Ik7 lS.ltJac6 ltJxe5 19 .1tJxe5 ItdcS=) 15 . . . Itxc5 (15 . . . bxc5 should be considered weaker in view of 16J:tfd l g5 17 . .tg3 ltJb6 lS .ltJb5! when the threats of the knight jumping to d6 or a7 are very unpleasant to Black while the variation IS . . . lIfeS 19.1tJxa7 lIaS 20 .ltJc6 lIxa2 2 1 .ltJxe7+ lIxe7 2 2 . k d 6 lIb 7 23 . .txc5± is not at all attractive, too) 1 6 . ltJd4 lIfcS 1 7 . lI c d U , White could have kept a better play owing to the pressure upon the isolated d5-pawn.

b2b) 9 . . . c5 Taking into account White's

intention to trade off the light­squared bishop, Black tries to do without kcS-b7 which was, actu­ally, superfluous in the variation b2a.

1O . .tb5! This way namely. It's not so

easy to exploit the weakening of Black's queenside as it may seem at first sight. So, White can win a pawn by 10.'i;'fc6 lIbS 11.ltJxd5 ltJxd5 12.'i;'fxd5 but then he will be behind in development and after 12 . . . kb7 1 3 . kxe7 'i;'fxe7 14. 'i;'fg5 (also Black obtains a nice

167

Chapter 13

compensation for the pawn in case of 1 4 . �c4 i.xf3 1 5 . gxf3 �fd8�) 14 . . . �xg5 15.liJxg5 cxd4 16.exd4 llfe8+ 17.'�d2 (17 .'iii'd1?! is weaker due to 17 . . . I:r.ed8 18. liJf3 i.xf3+ 19.9xf3 liJe5=t, Leviti­na - Chiburdanidze, Volgograd (ml13) 1984) 17 . . . h6 18.i.b5 I:r.e7 19.�c7 hxg5 20 J:thc1 i.xg2 21 . �xd7 lhd7 22.i.xd7 'iii'fS 23.i.b5 i.d5= the game was levelled, Agostini - Trovato, Italy 1996.

Unlike in variation b2a, the manoeuvre 10.i.a6 with the idea to exchange the light-squared bishop does not work here: after 10 . . . h6 ( l0 . . . cxd4 11 .exd4 i.xa6 12. �xa6 �c8 is not as good be­cause of 13.'�a4 �b7 14.0-0 lIac8 15.liJe5 I1fd8 16.lIfel;;!; Makari­chev - Sturua, Frunze 1985, and after 10 . . . i.xa6 1 1 . �xa6 �c8 White was gaining the upper hand by 12.�xc8 z:taxc8 13.'iii'e2 c4 14.liJe5 �fd8 15.�hdl;;!;, ac­cording to an analysis by S . Makarichev) 11 .i.h4 (after 11 . i.xffi liJxffi 12.0-0 i.xa6 13.�xa6 �c8C() the position is with mutual chances) 11 . . .cxd4 12.exd4 liJh5! (by this strong move Black takes advantage of White's delay with castling) 13.i.g3 i.xa6 14. �xa6 i.g5 15JIc2 (15 J:td1?! is weaker because of 1 5 . . . I1e8+ 1 6 . 'iii'fl liJdf6+ which occurred in the game Gelfand - Short, Bruxelles (ml2) 1991) 15 . . . I1e8+ 16.z:te2 �c8 17. �xc8 I1axc8 18 .11xe8+ lIxe8+ 1 9 . 'iii' d l liJxg3 2 0 . hxg3 liJf6 = Black equalized i n the game Khenkin - I. Sokolov, Chalkidiki

168

1992. 10 • . . i.b7 1 1.0-0 h6 Black can't close the position

on the queenside by 11 . . . c4?! as in this case after 12.i.c6 i.xc6 13 .�xc6 lIc8 (the move 13 . . . �c8? is a mistake in view of the tacti­cal resource 1 4 . liJxd5+- ) 1 4 . �b5± the weakness o f his pawns becomes especially prominent.

In case of 11 . . . a6 1 2 . i.xd7 liJxd7 White has the very strong option of 13.dxc5! (after 13.i.xe7 �xe7 14.dxc5 bxc5 15.�fd1 liJf6 1 6 . �a3 �ac8 1 7 . liJa4 liJe4t Black's position was worse but still playable in the game O'Con­nell - McMahon, Ireland 1991) 13 . . . i.xg5 (in case of 13 . . . bxc5 14. �b3 Black fails to protect his bishop with the b8-rook because White's bishop retreats to f4 then, and after 1 4 . . . i.xg5 1 5 . �xb7 d4 16.liJxg5 I1b8 1 7 . �d5 dxc3 18.bxc3± White eventually wins a pawn) 13 . . . i.xg5 14.c6 (the key move of White's plan) 14 . . . liJc5 1 5 . �g4 i.f6 (if 1 5 . . . i.xc6, then 16.liJxg5±) 16 .cxb7 �b8 17.l:Ifd1 i.xc3 18Jhc3 1hb7 when in the game Podgaets -Chiburdanidze, USSR 1985, the simplest way to obtain a big ad­vantage was 19.�f5 l:td7 20 .b4 liJe4 21 .�c6±.

12.i.xd7 liJxd7 If 12 . . . hxg5, then 13.i.f5±. 13.i.xe7 �xe7 14.�a3 White's queen occupies the

ideal position for an attack to Black's c5-pawn which is some­what weakened after the ex-

4.t:tx3 i.e7 5. i.g5 0-0 6.e3 lUbd7 7.:c1

change of the dark-squared bish­ops.

14 .. Jac8 1 5 .':fdl lUf6 16. dxc5 bxc5

Well, Black certainly does not want to play a position with the isolated pawn on d5.

1 7.lUa4 lUd7 1 8 .tLld4 ':c7 19.':c2;!;;

This position occurred in the game Hertneck - Chiburdanidze, Bad Woerishofen 1986. White maintains his advantage by pressing on Black's hanging pawns (the c5-pawn, firstly).

b3) 7 . . . a6 As in variation b2, Black

wants to place his light-squared bishop on the diagonal as-hI , only this time he resorts to the accelerated fianchetto (dxc4 and b7-b5).

8.c5!? A choice of principle. White

impedes Black's plan and, at the same time, restricts him on the queenside. This move is however double-edged since Black's coun­terplay, connected mostly with the breakthrough e6-e5, becomes quite real. This variation is called sometimes the Swiss Defence and we'll use this name further.

Other ways of development on move S promise much less to White. So, after S.i.d3 Black re­plies S . . . dxc4 9.i.xc4 b5 10.i.d3 c5 11.0-0 (the tactical trick 11. i.xf6 �xf6 1 2 . dxc5 i.xc5 1 3 . �xb5 gives White nothing be­cause of 13 . . . i.xe3=) 11. . .i.b7= accomplishing the plan started on the seventh move. An attempt to spare a tempo by S.a3 fails as well: after S . . . h6 9.i.h4 dxc4 10. i.xc4 b5 11.i.e2 i.b7 12.0-0 c5 13. dxc5 lUxc5= Black had good play in the game Capablanca - Ale­khine, Buenos Aires (m/21) 1927.

We have to mention another way to counter Black's play -S.cxd5 exd5 ( 9.i.d3 c6 10 .'�c2 (if 10.i.f4, then 10 . . . lUh5 1 1 . i.e5 �xe5 1 2 . �xe5 g6 = ) 1 0 . . . l:i.e8 10.0-0 lUf8oo. This line is known as the Karlsbad Variation after the tournament held in Karlsbad in 1923. In the long run this name applied to all positions with similar pawn structure. We saw it already in variation a, and it will occur again more than once in our book. So it's high time now to sum up the features of

169

Chapter 13

this structure. By the exchange on d5 White got loose by his own will Black's cB-bishop from its prison. This is the price he paid for the opportunity to choose among several standard plans that are typical for the resulting pawn structure. The most well known of them is the pawn mi­nority attack (b2-b4, a2-a4, b4-b5 and bxc6) with the idea to cre­ate a weak pawn on c6 or d5. This plan was already mentioned in the very beginning of Chapter 13 (see move 6 . . . tiJe4). Now Black's chances lie in active play on the kingside where he has the semi­opened e-file in his possesion. Black can also equalize in many cases by exchanging minor pie­ces. As a whole, the play is about equal in this variation and a transition to this pawn structure presents some interest to us only if White obtains some additional pluses (see Chapter 13, variation a, and Chapter 15, variation hI) .

8 . . . c6 An immediate simplification

by B . . . tiJe4 does not guarantee full equality to Black since his pawn structure gets damaged, as a result . After 9 . i.xe7 'ffixe7 10 .tiJxe4 dxe4 11 .tiJd2 tiJf6 (in case of 11 . . . f5 there is 12.c6!? bxc6 1 3 Jhc6 e5 14 . .s.e6 'ffib4 1 5 . �b3 'ffixb3 1 6 . tiJxb3 exd4 1 7 . tiJxd4;t Vaganian - Csom, Hastings 1 9 74) 12 .tiJc4 �d7 13 .tiJe5 'ffieB 14.�c4 i.c6 15. 'ffic2 .td5 16.0-0 i.xc4 17.tiJxc4 'ffic6 1B.tiJe5 �d5 19.b3 1Iad8 20.'ffie2;t

170

in the game Karpov - Jakobsen, Malta 19BO, White's position was better because of his space ad­vantage on the queenside and because Black had to take a con­stant care of his advanced e4-pawn.

9 . .i.d3 Knowing about Black's wish

to create counterplay with the help of e6-e5, White plays some­times 9.b4 in order to secure the c5-pawn. In this case, however, his underdevelopment turns out considerable, and after 9 . . . a5 10.a3 axb4 11.axb4 b6 12 . .td3 (after 12.i.f4 bxc5 13.bxc5 l:ta3 14 .i.d3 'ffia5 1 5 . �d2 .ta6 16 . �xa6 'ffixa6+ Black even over­took the edge after the swap of the light-squared bishops be­cause of White's delay with cas­tling in the game Alekhine -Henneberger, Basel (simultan) 1925) 12 . . . bxc5 13 .bxc5 e5! (in spite of White's efforts) 14.dxe5 tiJe8 15.i.f4 tiJxc5 16.i.e2 tiJe6 17 .i.g3 tiJ8c7 18.0-0 c5 19.i.d3 i.a6oo Black had good play in the game Krishilovsky - Balashov, St Petersburg 1996.

Now we shall focus on the fol-

4.4Jc3 i.e7 5.i.g5 0-0 6.e3 4Jbd7 7.I1c1

lowing options: b3a) 9 . . . b6, b3b) 9 . . . e5 and b3c) 9 . . . l:.e8, all of them intended to undermine White's pawns in the centre.

b3a) 9 . . . b6 Black is dreaming to get rid

of the c5-pawn which consider­ably cramps his queenside.

1O.cxb6 White has no alternative. Al­

though Black managed to re­move the c5-pawn he is far from being completely happy. His main problem, the passive posi­tion of the c8-bishop, remains with him.

10 . . . c5 Black does not want to have

a backward pawn on the c-file. The incautious 10 . . . 4Jxb6 after 11 .0-0 4Jfd7 12.i.xe7 'f!.xe7 13 . 4Ja4± faced him with difficulties defending the c6-pawn in the game Kijac - Harasta, Slovakia 1996 . In case of the evident 10 . . . �xb6 White has the strong reply 11 .0-0! preparing 4Jc3-a4. If Black accepts now the pawn sacrifice by 11 . . . �xb2 (his best opportunity is, by the way, 11 . . . h6 1 2 . 4Ja4 'f!. c 7 1 3 . i.f4 i.d6

14.i.xd6 �xd6 15 .4Jc5 e5 16.dxe5 4Jxe5 17.i.e2;t, but even in this line White was better in the game Cvitan - Soldo, Pula 1995, because of the isolated pair of pawns c6+d5, blocked up on dark squares), then after 12.4Ja4 �b7 13 .4Je5! c5 (in case of 13 . . . 4Jxe5 14.dxe5, if the black knight re­treats passively by 14 . . . 4Je8, then the solution is 15.:b1 �a7 16. i.xe7 �xe7 1 7 . 4Jb6 I!.b8 1 8 . 4Jxd5+-, and there i s no retreat to e4 because of the exchange on e7 to be followed by f3-f3 and h2-h4; now if Black plays 13 . . . h6, then there is 14.4Jxc6 i.a3 15. i.xf6! 4Jxf6 16 . .uc3 i.d6 17. �c2± to be followed by lIfl-b1, but no 15 . . . i.xc1 because of 16.4Je7+ 'it'h8 17 .4Jc5 4Jxc5 1 8 . 'f!.h5 ! +-) 13 . . . c5 14.4Jxd7 i.xd7 15 .4Jxc5 i.xc5 (in case of 15 . . . �a7 White plays simply 16.4Jxa6±) 16.i.xf6 g:xf6 17 .'f!.g4+ 'it'h8 18.'f!.h4 f5 19. 'f!.f6+ Wg8 20.'f!.g5+ Wh8 21. �f6+ Wg8 22.dxc5± in the game Hort - Portisch, Madrid 1973, Black's position quickly deteriorated.

11.0-0 i.b7 Closing the position on the

queenside by 11 . . .c4 Black pro­vides his opponent with rich pos­sibilities for play in the centre and on the kingside . The game might proceed with 12.i.b1!? (af­ter 1 2 . i.c2 'f!.xb6 13 .Ub1 'f!.c7 14.i.f4 i.d6 15.i.xd6 'f!.xd6 16.b3 cxb3 17.i.xb3 i.b7 18. 'f!.d3 I!.fc8= Black eventually equalized the play in the game T. Ernst -Vernersson, Orebro 2000) 12 . . .

171

Chapter 13

�xb6 ( i n case of 12 . . . lDxb6 Black's control of e5 weakenes, and after 13.lDe5 i.b7 14.f4 lDfd7 15. �h5 f5 16.lDf.3t White took the initiative on the kingside in the game Langeweg - Donner, Beverwijk 1967) 13. �e2 i.b7 (if 13 . . ,'�c7, then 14.e4!±) 14.lDe5 �d8 1 5 . f4 lDxe5 1 6 . fxe5 lDe8 1 7 . i.xe7 �xe7 1 8 . e4;!:: White forced his opponent to switch to defence in the game Maksimen­ko - Petrovic, Nova Gorica 1997.

12.i.bl cxd4 13.exd4 lDxb6 14.lDe5

White has one pawn islet more than his opponent, yet this does not forcedly make his pawn structure worse. The pawn on d4 is out of reach and White's pair a2 and b2 against one black pawn on a6 even promises him good chances in an endgame. Actually the play is still far from ending and we have to take into consid­eration also the more active po­sition of White's minor pieces.

14 ... lDfd7 Black's wish to relieve the

pressure is well understandable. The following example shows how fragile Black's position might turn out in middlegame: after 14 .. J:tc8 15J�e1 lDbd7 16. �b3 ! i.a8 in the game Gavrikov - Balashov, Riga 1985, White could have won a pawn by 17. �c2! g6 (if 17 . . . lDe4, then 18. lDxd7, and now in case of 18 . . . i.xg5 White plays 19.1DxfB .txc1 20.lDxe6+- and in case of 18 . . . �xd7 h e has 1 9 . .txe7 �xe7

172

20.lDxd5!+-) 18. �e2 lDxe5 (18 . . . .tb7 runs into 19 .i.h6 lIe8 20. lDxf7+-) 19.dxe5 lDd7 20 . .txe7 �xe7 21 .�xa6±.

15 . .txe7 �xe7 16.lDa4;!::

This position occurred in the game Eingorn - Balashov, Riga 1985. After 16 . . .lbb8 (in case of 16 . . . ,Uac8 there is 17.lIxc8 l:txc8 18.�b3±, and if 16 . . . lDxa4, then 1 7 J � c 7 ! ± ) White could have maintained the initiative by 17.lDxb6!? lDxb6 18 .'uc3 t, threat­ening to launch an attack by 19.i.xh7.

b3b) 9 . . . e5 Black pays attention to the

underdefended c5-pawn and de­livers a blow at White's centre, thus opening the diagonal c8-h3 for the own light-squared bishop.

4. 0c3 i..e7 S. i..gS 0-0 6.e3 liJbd7 7.�c1

10.dxe5 This capture is practically

forced. Instead of the c5-pawn which was restricting Black on the queenside, White gets the e5-pawn which secures him advan­tage on the kingside.

10 . • . ttJe8 Mter 10 . . . ttJg4 in the game

Van der Erf - Luckans, Hercu­lane 1994, there was a nice op­portunity of 1l .i..f4 ttJxc5 12.h3;\;, and the black knight would have no convenient retreat.

1 l.h4! Only this move allows White

to struggle for an advantage. M­ter 1 1..1l.xe7 �xe7 1 2 . �c2 h6 13.0-0 ttJxe5 14.ttJxe5 �xe5 15 . �a4 ttJf6 16.�d4 ttJg4 17.'�xe5 liJxe5= in the game Estremera Panos - Spassky, Oviedo (active) 1991, Black annihilated White's e5-pawn and achieved equality, as well as after 1 l . 1i.f4 liJxc5 12.1i.b1 f5 13.exf6 ttJxf6 14.ttJd4 ttJe6 15 .1i.g3 liJxd4 16.'�xd4 1i.e6 1 7 . 0- 0 1i.d6 l S . ttJe2 1i.xg3 19 . liJxg3 a5= in the game Goldin -Ostenstad, Trnava 19S9.

11 . • . ttJxc5 Black can't avoid difficulties

in case of 1 1 . . .h6 12 .1i.f4 ttJxc5 13 .1i.b1 f5 as well. Mter 14.h5! (White gained nothing after ex­changing pawns by 14.exf6 ttJxf6 15 .ttJe5 1i.d6 16 .ttJg6 'ueS 17.0-0 i..xf4 lS.ttJxf4 ttJfe4= in the game Garza Marco - Cabello Fernan­dez, Barcelona 2000) 14 . . . ttJe4 15 .Wfl liJc7 16 .g3 liJe6 17 .ttJe2 �eS l S . Wg2 i..d7 1 9 . a3 WhS

20.ttJh4 i..xh4 21. .Uxh4 c5 22.£3 liJ4g5 23.i..a2;\; White kept his advantage in the game Rubinetti - Sabas, Buenos Aires 1985.

12.i..hl White wants to keep his light­

squared bishop alive for the forthcoming attack on Black's kingside.

12 . . . ttJe6 If Black tries to block up the

white bishop by 12 . . . f5?, then he loses the pawn after 13 .liJxd5! cxd5 14.'uxc5+-. Also the move 12 . . . f6 does not help much: after 13 .�c2 (White should not ex­change the e5-pawn without good reason like he did by 13.exf6 liJxf6 14.1i.xf6 llxf6 15 .liJd4 liJe6 16.'�d3 liJf8 17 .e4 dxe4 lS .liJxe4 llh6+ in the game 011 - Dreev, Vilnius 1988, and by 13.1i.f4 fxe5 14.1i.xe5 1i.f5 15 .1i.xf5 l:.xf5°o in the game Yuferov - Gavrilov, Moscow 1990) 13 . . . g6 14. 1i.h6 (the move 14.exf6 should be con­sidered as a concession to Black and after 14 . . . ttJxf6 15.�d2 liJfe4 1 6 . ttJxe4 liJxe4 1 7 . 1i.xe4 dxe4 l S . t:'fxdS 1i.xdS 1 9 . ttJd4 1i.a5+ 2 0 . Wfl 1i.g4= the position is equal , Wells - Bintakis , B ad Woerishofen 1 99 6 ) 1 4 . . . ttJg7 15.h5 1i.f5 16.�e2 1i.xb l 17.Itxb1 t:'feS in the game Ageichenko -Gavrilov, Moscow 1989 (when Black relieved tension in the cen­tre by 17 . . . f5 , his opponent con­stricted him at both wings most instructively by lS .hxg6 hxg6 19.ttJd4 t:'fd7 20.f4 1:1.f7 21 .g4 fxg4 22 . 1i.xg7 l!xg7 23 .b4 liJe6 24.

173

Chapter 13

�xg4 ltJf8 25 . �xd7 ltJxd7 26 . ..t>f2± in the game E pi shin -Ziatdinov, Philadelphia 1997) White could have kept his initia­tive if he had continued by 18.e4!?t.

13.�c2 When White exchanged the

dark-squ ared bishops by 1 3 . i.xe7 �xe7 14. �c2 fl5 15.0-0 ltJd8 16.ltJa4 g6 17.ltJb6 �b8 18.g3 ltJf7 19. �c3 ltJc7+ in the game Estre­mera Panos Sergio - Bruzon Lazaro, Ubeda 2001, he even en­countered problems since his e5-pawn lost an important support. Mter 13 .ltJd4 g6 14.i.h6 ltJ8g7 15.h5 i.g5 16.hxg6 hxg6 17.i.xg5 �xg5 18 .ltJf3oo in the game Kor­chnoi - Agdestein, Tilburg 1989, the opponents agreed to draw in a position with mutual chances.

There are two possible ways now which defend Black against the checkmate on h7: b3b 1 ) 1 3 ... ltJxg5 or b3b2) 13 ... g6.

b3bl) 13 ... ltJxg5?! Black annihilates one of the

white bishops and opens the free­way for his own along the c8-h3 diagonal. Everything seems fine except . . .

14.ltJxg5 g6

174

15.ltJxh7!! Plunging into tactics. White's

attack is very strong but must be led most accurately.

15 ... ..t>xh7 1 5 . . . i. f5 i s no barrier to

White's assault: after 16.e4 i.xe4 17.ltJxe4 ..t>xh7 (if 17 . . . dxe4, then 18.ltJxf8+-) 18.h5 dxe4 19.hxg6+ ..t>g7 (in case of 19 . . . ..t>g8 the so­lution is 20 . �xe4 f5 2 1 . �e3 ! when neither 2 1 . . .i.b4+ 22 . ..t>f1 �d2 23. �b3+ ..t>g7 24 . .l:td1 +- nor 2 1 . . .i.g5 22.�b3+ �d5 23 . .l:th8+! Wg7 24. �xb7+- saves Black from defeat) 19 . . . ..t>g7 20.�xe4! (after 20 . .l:th7+ ..t>g8 21.�xe4 Black es­capes by 21 . . . �d5! since 22.gxf7 + �xf7 23.�g6+ l:.g7 24.�h5 Ieads only to perpetual check 24 . . . i.b4+ 25 . ..t>e2 �d2+ 26 . ..t>f3 �d5+ 27.We2 �d2+=) 20 . . . f5 (20 . . . �d5 runs to 2 1 . �f4+- and White's queen is threatening to visit h6 with check) 2 1 . �e3 i.g5 22.f4 i.h4+ 23.g3 (after 23 . ..t>e2 ltJc7 24. �h3 .l:th8 25.g3 i.e7 26. �xf5 �d5°o the position is unclear) 23 . . . i.e7 2 4 . � e 2 ( preparing White's queen for a decisive in­trusion down the h-file) 24 . . . �d4 (in case of24 . . . i.b4+ 25 . ..t>f1 �d5 White has 26. �h5+-) 25 .J:i.h7+ Wg8 26 . ..t>f1 i.c5 (if 26 . . . �d5, then 2 7 . �h5+-) 2 7 . � h2+­Black's king is doomed.

16.h5 White is threatening to open

up the deadly file. It's very diffi­cult to find a satisfactory defence for Black now.

16 ... Wg7?!

4.tbc3 i.e7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 ttJbd7 7.�c1

This move only helps White though Black can hardly build up good defence anymore. After 16 . . . WgB 1 7.hxg6 f5 IB"�e2! (in case of 1B.exffi?! i.xffi 19.97 i..xg7 20 J�h8+ the black king runs away by 20 . . . Wf7 21.t'fg6+ WeTt) IB . . . ttJg7 19 .'�f3 f4 (otherwise White plays t'ff3-h3) 20.exf4� White has a dangerous attack, threatening to bring the queen by g2-g4 and t'ff3-h3. Also Black finds no relief in 20 . . . d4 (if 20 . . . t'fd7, then 2 1 . t'tg3+- and Black can't defend against 22. t'th2) 2 1 .Itdl t'tb6 because of 22.g4 t'txb2 23 .Ith8+! checkmat­ing.

Perhaps 16 . . . f5 is more per­sistent though even then White's attack is very strong, for instance 17.hxg6+ (17.exffi gives Black a chance to organise the defence with 1 7 . . .lhf6 IB .hxg6+ �gB 19.t'te2 ttJg7 20.Ii.h7 i.f8!? 2 1 . t'ffl ttJ e 6 22. t'f h l i.g7, forcing White to concede a draw after 23 .:xg7+ Wxg7 24. t'fh7+ �fB 25.g7+ ttJxg7 26.t'fhB+ �e7 27. t'fxg7+ :f7 2B. t'tg5+ �eB) 1 7 . . . Wxg6 I B . g4!? (Petursson gives only I B . ttJe 2 ttJg7 1 9 . 94 �f7 20.ttJg3 WgB+) IB . . . ttJg7 19.'�'e2 Wf7 20.gxf5 i..xf5 21.i.xf5 ttJxf5 22.e4!�. Black can lose by force after 22 , . . dxe4 23 .'udl t'fc7 (if 23 , . . t'ta 5 , then 24. t'fc4+ �eB 25. t't e6! +- and Black has no sat­isfactory defence against the transfer of White's queen to g6) 24.e6+! �xe6 25.t'tc4+ �e5 (25 , . .

Wf6 meets the fork 26.ttJd5+-) 2 6 . 'ud5+ Wf6 27 Jhf5 + Wxf5 2B.t'txe4+ Wg5 (2B , . .Wffi loses to 29Jlh6+ Wg5 30J::tg6+ Wh5 31 . t'tg4#) 2 9 . t'f e 6 ! (threatening 30.'ugl+) 29 , . . t'ff4 30.ttJe4+- and Black must part with the queen.

1 7.hxg6 f5 18.t'fe2! The white queen comes into

play with decisive effect. 18 . . . i.h4 19.93 nh8 20.gxh4

nxh4 2 1.t'tf3 ttJc7 In case of 21 . . .,Uxhl+ 22.t'txhl

�xg6 White plays 23 .Wd2 ttJg7 24.:g1+ Wf7 25.t'fh7+-.

22.We2 ttJe6 The advance 22, . .d4 does not

help in view of 23.:xh4 t'txh4 24.:hl t'fg4 25. t'fxg4 fxg4 26. :h7+ WgB 27.:xc7+-.

23.l:!.xh4 t'fxh4 24.l:!.hl +-

In this position Black re­signed in the game Romanishin - Ehlvest, Biel 1996. In case of 24, . .t'tg4 White wins by 25Jlh7+ �gB (if 2 5 , . . �xg6, then White wins the queen by 26. t'txg4+­since the f5-pawn is pinned up) 2 6 . t'txg4 fxg4 2 7 . ttJa4+- the endgame being absolutely hope­less for Black.

175

Chapter 13

b3b2) 13 .•. g6 Black weakens his king's

home early in this line but in re­turn he avoids a violent attack like in variation b3bl.

14.i..h6 The bishop could still be use­

ful in future. 14 ... tt:J8g7 This very knight! After 14 . . .

tt:J6g7 lS .hS i..fS 16.e4 dxe4 17. tt:Jxe4 �aS+ 1B.i..d2 t;'tdS 19. hxg6 i..xg6 (if 19" 'hxg6, then 20.i..c3 Ii.dB 21 . t;'te2±, and in case of 19 . . . fxg6 White has 20.i..c3±, pointed out by A. Kharitonov) 20.i..c3 tt:Jc7 21 .l:tdl t;'te6 22.tt:Jd4! t;'tc4 (in case of 22 . . . �xeS the solution is 23.tt:Jxc6+-, and to 22 . . . t;'tg4 fol­lows 23.m t;'tf4 24. tt:Je2±, analy­sis by A. Kharitonov) 23 .b3 t;'tdS (after 23 . . . i..xe4 24. bxc4 i..xc2 25.i..xc2+- Black can't escape despite the exchange of queens) 24. �e2 l:tadB 2S.i..c2 tt:Jce6 26. tt:JfS (with this move White forces his opponent to sacrifice the queen) 26 . . . �xd1+!? (the alter-native 26 . . . tt:JxfS 27 . .uxdS cxdS 2B.tt:Jffi+ i..xffi 29.i..xfS i..xfS 30. exffi l:tfeB 3 1 .0-0 d4 32.i..d2± still allows White to keep his advan-

176

tage, analysis by A. Kharitonov) 27 .i..xdl tt:JxfS 2B.0-0 Ii.dS 29. tt:Jffi+ i..xffi 30. exf6± in the game Izeta Txabarri - Sulskis, Erevan 1996, Black had no sufficient compensation for the queen.

15.h5 White seizes the opportunity

to open up the h-file for his rook. 15 . . Jte8 After IS . . . �aS 16. t;'td2 l:tdB

17.hxg6 fxg6 IB.a3± White's po­sition looks preferable.

16.hxg6 fxg6 1 7Jtdl t;'ta5

This position occurred in the game Lipinsky - Kharitonov, Berlin 1997. By IB.e4!?t White puts new squares in the centre under his control.

h3c) 9 . . . Ite8 Black wants to enhance the

threat of e6-eS.

4.1Dc3 i..e7 S.i..gS 0-0 6.e3 tLlbd7 7.nc1

10.0-0 Preventing e6-e5 by 10.i.f4 as

in the game Z. Polgar - Lechtyn­sky, Trencianske Teplice 19S5, White could run into the tactical trick 10 . . . i.xc5! 1l .dxc5 e5= with equality.

10 ... e5 Black should not delay this

thematic move. After 10 . . .lbfS I l . tLl e 5 tLl6d7 1 2 . i.xe7 'ffixe7 1 3 . f4 f6 14 .tLlxd7 i.xd7 1 5 .e4 Black, though late, still ventured on 1 5 . . . e5 , and after 16 .exd5 exd4 1 7 .tLle4 cxd5 IS .tLld6 'ffie3+ 19.'i¥thl l:.e7 in the game Znosko Borovsky - Bernstein, Ostende 1907, White had an opportunity to achieve decisive advantage by 20 .11£3 ! 'ffie6 2 1 .f5 'ffie5 22.�f2+-.

1l.dxe5 tLlg4 The main drawback of the

preparatory move l:.f8-eS is that the f6-knight loses the eS-square for retreat.

12.i.f4 tLlxc5 After 1 2 . . . i.xc5? 13 .i.xh7+

'i¥txh7 1 4 .tLlg5+ 'i¥tgS 1 5 .' �xg4 tLlxe5 16. 'ffih5 tLlg6 White had a winning attack in the game Eslon - Garcia, Alcobendas 1993, which could have been continued by 17 .tLlxd5! �xd5 1S.�fdl �xa2 19.'ffih7+ 'i¥tf8 20.l:.xc5 tLlxf4 21 . �e5 ! ! l1xe5 (or 2 1 . . .i.e6 22.�hS+ 'i¥te7 23.�xg7+-) 22. 'ffihS+ 'i¥te7 23.�dS#.

13.h3 Now Black will have to crip­

ple his pawn structure on the kingside quite seriously in order to save the g4-knight.

13 . . . tLlxd3 14.�xd3 g5 After 14 . . . tLlh6 15.i.xh6 gxh6

16.e4 dxe4 17. 'ffixe4 �d7 (after 17 . . . i.e6 which Black tried in the game Rasin - Woods, Boylston 1994, there was a nice option of IS .tLld4±) IS . �e3 'ffie6 19 .tLld4 'ffig6 20.f4 c5 2 1 .tLlde2 b6 22.'ffi£3 i.f5 23.tLlg3± in the game Shkliar - Erashchenkov, Toljatti 2000, Black's bishop pair did not save him from great problems caused by the weakening of his kings ide pawn structure.

15.hxg4 After 15.i.g3 tLlh6 16.tLld4 f500

the black knight safely escapes and the position is levelled.

15 ... gxf4 16.exf4 i..xg4 17. tLlh2

In case of 17 .tLld4 in the game Shchekachev - Yacob, Paris 2001, Black had an opportunity to simplify to some extent by 17 . . . i.c5 1S.tLla4 i.a7 19.�g3 hd4 20:�xg4+ 'i¥thS 21.ID'dl i.a7oo.

17 ... i.d7 18.f5t

This position occurred in the game L . Spassov - Kelecevic, Pernik 19S1. Having weakened Black's castle, White maintains the initiative.

177

Chapter 13

b4) 7 . . . :te8 This move can turn useful in

many lines, yet it can't be con­sidered a necessary one.

8.a3!? White wants to win a tempo

and, at the same time, he invites Black to demonstrate what he gained by his last move. The ex­change S.cxdS exdS is obviously to Black's advantage as it opens up the e-file for his rook. In case ofthe natural S . .td3 White must reckon with S . . . dxc4 9 . .txc4 a6 10 .a4 ( after 10 .0-0 bS 1l . .td3 .tb7 1 2 . t:lte2 cS 13 . .l:.fd 1 t:ltb6 Black is out of problems and af­ter 14.ctJeS Black equalized eas­ily by 14 . . . h6 l S .ctJxd7 ctJxd7 16.�xe7 lhe7 17.�e4 .l:.cS 1S.t:ltf3 ctJf6 1 9 . �xb7 t:ltxb7 2 0 . t:ltxb 7 .l:.xb7 21 .dxcS �xcS= in the game Rozic - Rubinstein, Rogaska Slatina 1929) 10 . . . cS 11.0-0 cxd4! (the line 1l . . . ctJb6 12.�b3 cxd4 is less accurate due to 1 3 . t:ltxd4 t:ltxd4 14.ctJxd4 Ji.d7 lS.aS::t Gel­fand - Short, Brussels (m/4) 199 1 ) 12 .exd4 (less precise is 12 .ctJxd4 t:ltaS 13.�h4 ctJb6 14. Ji.d3 Ji.d7� as it was in the game Yates - Thomas, Karlsbad 1929,

17S

and after 12. t:ltxd4 in the game 1. Novikov - Danielian, Novgorod 1995, Black could have continued 12 . . . t:ltaS as well , similarly to variation b5) 12 . . . ctJb6 13 . .1i.b3 �d7 14.ctJeS Ji.c6 the position should be estimated as approxi­mately equal. So, after lS.ctJxc6 bxc6 16 . .1i.f4 (after 16 .ctJe2 lIcS 17.t:ltd3 as= the position is equal in the game Illescas Cordoba -Nogueiras, Tarrassa 1990) 16 . . . ctJbdS 17.Ji.e5 t:ltb6 lS.'ue1 �a7 19 . .l:.e2 ItdS= the game was bal­anced, Beliavsky - C. Hansen, Essen 2000. Both sides have pawn weaknesses which balance out, and White's bishop pair can't be used at full because of the strong position of the black knight on dS.

8 ... c6 An attempt to open up the

centre immediately by S . . . cS?! cost a pawn to Black after 9.cxd5 ctJxd5 10 . .1i.xe7 t:ltxe7 (after 10 . . . ctJxc3 1l .Ji.xdS ctJxd 1 12..l:!.xd1 .l:.xdS 13.dxc5+- Black loses the pawn, and in case of 10 . . . ctJxe7 there is a very strong retort l1 .ctJbS!± which emphasizes the weak side of the move .l:.f8-eS) 1 l . ctJxdS exdS 1 2 . dxcS ctJxcS 13. t:ltxdS ctJe4 14.Ji.d3±, and his wish to get to the white king by the knight attack expired after 14 . . . ctJxf2? 15 .�xf2 t:ltxe3 + 16. �g3+- in the game Marshall -Johner, Duesseldorf 1905.

The move .l:.f8-eS turns out rather disadvantageous if Black plans to fianchetto by S . . . b6? ! :

4.lbc3 i.e7 5. i.g5 0-0 6.e3 ttJbd7 7.:s.c1

after 9 . cxd5 exd5 (in case of 9 . . . ttJxd5 10 .ttJxd5 exd5 White has a very strong 11..tf4! when Black can't preserve his pawn chain by 11 . . . c5 because of 12. i.b5 i.b7 13.t'ta4 a6 14.i.xd7 b5 15.�d1! �xd7 16.dxc5±) 10. i.b5 i.b7 11.i.xffi! i.xffi (Black can't take with the knight as long as his rook remains on eS) 12. t'ta4 .l:le7 13.i.c6± Black's light squa­res on the queenside are rather weak.

The move S . . . dxc4 yields a tempo to White. Mter 9.i.xc4 c5 (the sluggish 9 . . . c6 10.e4 b6 11.e5 ttJd5 12.ttJe4;!;; enabled White to fix the opponent's queenside in the game Dobias - Dietze, Pra­gue 1 9 3 4 ) 1 0 . 0 - 0 a6 (the ex­change 10 . . . cxd4 without pre­liminary a 7 -a6 which occurred in the game C ampos Moreno -Boudiba, Manila 1992, allowed White to prepare a convenient stand on f3 for his light-squared bishop by 11 .ttJxd4!? a6 12.SLe2;!;; which could be very useful in case of a pawn storm on the queens ide) by 1 1 . dxc5! White faces his opponent with a choice. Then, depending on Black's de­cision, White can find the best retreat for his bishop. For ex­ample, after 11 . . . ttJxc5 (in case of 11 . . . i.xc5 12.�c2 b5 White plays very efficiently 13.i.a2! , which after 13 . . . i.b7 14.�fdlt leads to a position, similar to the one con­sidered in the comment to Black's fourteenth move) 12.t'tc2 b5 there is a strong option 13.

i.e2! : after 13 . . . i.b7 14.:s.fd1 �b6 15.i.xf6! i.xf6 16.ttJxb5± Black encounters serious problems.

If Black plays S . . . a6, then, similarly to variation b3c, White continues by the sharp 9 .c5 (a move of choice is the quiet 9 .t'tc2 h6 1 0 . i.h4 dxc4 1 l . i.xc4 b 5 12 .i.a2 c 5 13.dxc5 ttJxc5 14.0-0, following the same course as the main line, only without h2-h3 which is, actually, of no special importance) 9 . . . c6 10.i.d3 (the move 10.b4 allowed Black to equalize by 10 . . . e5 1l.dxe5 ttJg4 12.i.f4 i.f8 13. t'td4 �e7 14.i.d3 tZJdxe5 15 .ttJxe5 ttJxe5= in the game Gausel - A. Graf, Jakarta 1997) 10 .i.d3 e5 1 1 . dxe5 ttJg4 1 2 . i.f4 ttJxc5 ( after 12 . . . i.xc5 13.i.xh7+ �xh7 14.ttJg5+ �gS 16. t'txg4 ttJxe5 17.�h5t the poxi­mity of White's pieces makes the black king nervous) 13 .i.b1 f6 14.0-0 ttJe6 15.i.g3;!;; Veresov - D. Bronstein, Moscow 1944.

9.t'tc2 The move 9 . i. d 3 yields a

tempo allowing Black after 9 . . . dxc4 10.i.xc4 ttJd5 11..� .. xe7 t'txe7 12.0-0 ttJxc3 13 Jhc3 e5 14.dxe5 (in case of 14.�c2 Black can re­group favourably his minor pieces by 14 . . . exd4!? 15.exd4 ttJf8 16Jle1 i.e6 17.d5 cxd5 lS.i.xd5 :i:.adS= owing to the 'superfluous' move :i:.f8-eS) 14 . . . ttJxe5 15.ttJxe5 t'txe5= to demonstrate the harm­lessness of this line in the old game Marshall - Bogoljubow, Mannheim 1914.

9 ... a6

179

Chapter 13

Black is not ready to lose the tempo struggle. Mter 9 . . . dxc4 10 .�xc4 ltJd5 (in case of 10 . . . b6 11 .0-0 �b7 12.l:tfd1 ltJd5 13.�xe7 'fftxe7 14.ltJe4;l; in the game Hage - L i e , Frederikshavn 1 9 3 1 , White's chances were preferable as he was impeding both c6-c5 and e 6 - e 5 ) 1 l . ltJe4 �xg5 1 2 . ltJexg5 ltJ f8 13.�d3 g6 ( 13 . . . h6? is just bad: after 14.�h7+ ltJxh7 1 5 . 'fftxh7+ <t>fB 1 6 . ltJe4 �a5+ 17.b4 'fftxa3 1B.0-0� White laun­ched a dangerous attack in the game Steiner - Meller, Gyor 1930) 14.0-0;l; Black lost some control over the dark squares while in the same time he can hardly count on real counterplay.

IO.h3 Continuing with the same

strategy. Note that White al­ready missed the moment for cramping Black's queenside by c4-c5. Mter 10 .c5 e5 1l.dxe5 ltJg4 12.�xe7 (in case of 12.�f4 �xc5 13.ltJg5 in the game L. Spassov ­Simic, Athens 19B1, White even ran the risk to get worse after 1 3 . . . g6+) 1 2 . . . �xe7 1 3 . �d3 ltJdxe5 1 4.ltJxe5 ltJxe5 15 .ltJe2 �h4 1 6 . 0 - 0 .l:.e6 1 7 . � f5 'uh6 IB.h3 �xf5 19.'fftxf5 'ueB= White obtained no advantage in the game Dorfman - A. Zakharov, Moscow 1976.

To be sure, White can play .tfl-d3 right away, missing the opportunity to get a free flight square for his king. In this case the play usually develops simi­larly to the main line , naturally,

1BO

without h2-h3. This is how most games continued before the middle of the 20th century. In the 2 1 st century some new ideas were found in this old variation, and one of them deserves our particular attention. Mter 10. �d3 h6 11.�h4 dxc4 12.�xc4 b5 in the game Sunye Neto - Peli­kian, Sao Paulo 2001, White tried 13 .�e2 (although the old way of 13 .�a2!? �b7 14.0-0 c5 15.dxc5, as in the main line is most prob­ably stronger) 13 . . . �b7 14.0-0 c5 15.dxc5, and Black played 15 . . . ltJxc5?! as if the white bishop had retreated to a2 (better is 15 . . . i.xc5! 1 6 . .l:.fd1 �b6= with an ap­proximately equal position), so after 16J�fdl 'fftb6 17 . .ltxffi! .ltxffi 1B.ltJxb5 (also later White played successfully 1B.b4 ltJa4 19.1tJxa4 bxa4 20. �xa4± in the game He Tianjian - Liu Pei , Suzhoul Jiangsu 2001) IB . . . axb5 19. �xc5 �xc5 20 .'uxc5 .txb2 2 1..l h b 5 i.xf3 2 2 . .txf3 .l:.abB 23.a4 .ltc3 24.'udb l 'uxb5 25.axb5± he em­merged a pawn behind.

IO ... h6 Black answers symmetrically.

His king needs a flight square too

4.CiJc3 i..e7 S.i..gS 0-0 6.e3 ttJbd7 7.�c1

before the play openes up in the centre. Black cannot avoid the latter - after 10 . . . ttJh5 n.i.xe7 �xe7 12.i..d3 g6 13 .0-0;!; in the game Karsa - Kovacs, Hungary 1996, his position was not at all improved (maybe, it was even weakened) by this slight simpli­fication and the problem of the light-squared bishop remained unsolved. A similar course fol­lowed the events after 10 . . . ttJf8 1 1 .i.. d 3 ttJh5 (after 1 1 . . . dxc4 12.i..xc4 h6 13.i.f4 b5 14.i.a2 c5 15 .dxc5 i..xc5 16.ltJe4! i..e7 17 . i..c7+- in the game Lindsay -B outquin, Saint John 1 9 8 8 , Black had t o resign because af­ter 17 . . . . �d 7 18 .ltJe5 the black queen would have had no retreat square ) 1 2 .i..xe7 Ilxe7 in the game Kupka - Kojetsky, Czekh Republic 1995 White could have kept his advantage by simply castling: 13.0-0;!;. An attempt to improve the prospects of Black's light-squared bishop by 10 . . . b5 was met by n .c5 ttJh5 12.i..f4 ttJxf4 13.exf4 a5 14.i..d3 g6 15.h4 i..f6 1 6 . h5 ttJf8 1 7 . g3t in the game Alekhine - Chajes, Karls­bad 1923 , White maintaining better chances - he had initiative on the kingside, and his oppo­nent was unable to balance it out by some particular threat at the opposite wing.

It is worth mentioning that after 10 . . . dxc4 11..�xc4 b5 ( 11 . . . c5?! i n the game Alatortsev -Riumin, Leningrad 1936, was less accurate - in case of 12 .

dxc5! t White would be able to choose between a2 and e2 for his bishop depending on Black's choice of capturing on c5) 12.i..a2 c5 13.dxc5 ttJxc5 14.0-0;!; the play develops similarly to the main line, only without a flight square in Black's position.

1l.i..h4 In case of 1 l .i..f4 dxc4 1 2 .

i..xc4 b 5 13.i..a2 (after 13 .i..e2 Black equalized by 13 . . . c5 14. dxc5 i..xc5 15.ttJe4 ttJxe4 16. �xe4 1:ta7 17 .0-0 i..b7= in the game De Boer - Cifuentes Parada, Wijk aan Zee 1993) 13 . . . i..b7 14.0-0 c5= Black has no real problems in the game Kelecevic - Bellini, Mendrisio 1988.

1l ... dxc4 As seen from the comment to

Black's tenth move, delaying this capture any longer offers no ben­efit. After the exchange on c4 Black wants to develop his light­squared bishop to the main di­agonal a8-h1 solving all his prob­lems.

12.i..xc4 b5 12 . . . c5?! is certainly less ac­

curate because after 1 3 . dxc5 White can choose where to move his bishop depending on Black's choice. For example, after 13 . . . i..xc5 (in case of 13 . . . ltJxc5 14. 0-0 b5 15.i..e2! i.b7 16J1fd1 �b6 White has 1 7 .i..xf6 ! i..xf6 1 8 . ttJxb5± with a combination, simi­lar to the one in the game Sunye Neto - Pelikian, Sao Paulo 2001, mentionned in the comment to White's tenth move) 14.0-0 b5

181

Chapter 13

lS . .ta2 .tb7 16.I:l.fd1 t could arise a position which will be analysed later in the note to Black's four­teenth move.

13 . .ta2!? In case of 13 . .te2 .tb7 14.0-0

c5 lS.dxc5 Black avoids difficul­ties by IS . . . .txc5! 16 . .l:.fd1 t::fb6=.

13 ... c5 The continuation 13 . . . .tb7

14.0-0 ( 14.b4 is hardly good as after 1 4 . . . aSfl Black creates counterplay) cS lS .dxc5 trans­poses to the main line.

14.dxc5

14 ... ttJxc5 The alternative capture 14 . . .

.txc5 , though turning good if White's bishop retreats to e2, al­lows White in the current situa­tion to start an offensive on the kingside. For example: 15.0-0 (af­ter l S . ttJe4 .te7 1 6 . .tb1 .tb7 1 7 . ttJxf6+ ttJxf6 1B . .txf6 ii.xf6 19.Itd1 t::fcB 20.t::fh7+ �f8oo in the game Subaric - Kazic, Novi Sad 1945, the white queen infiltrated Black's castle without due sup­port from other pieces) lS . . . ..tb7 16 . .l:.fd1 t::fb6 17 . .tb1 .l:.edB (in case of 17 . . . .td6 the tactics de­cides - 1B . .l:.xd6! t::fxd6 19.Itd1

1B2

t::fe7 20Jhd7! t::fxd7 21 .ttJeS t::fe7 22 . .txf6 t::fxf6 23. t::fh7+ �f8 24. ttJd7+- which occurred in the game Pirc - Steiner, Prague 1931 - White only had not made the move h2-h3 in that game, which was of no practical impor­tance anyway). This position oc­curred in the game Pasalis -Ellers, Germany 1 9 9 5 , only White's h-pawn was on its initial position. White could launch a dangerous attack with 1B.Itxd7!? l:!.xd7 19.ttJeS �c7 20 . ..txf6 gxf6 2 1 . t::fh7+ �fB 2 2 . t::fxh6+ rtJe7 23.ttJg4�.

15.0-0 The attacking plan, starting

with lS . .tb1, also deserves atten­tion although l S . . . ..t b 7 (the natural move lS . . . g6? turned out a fatal mistake in the game Silva Sanchez - Ojeda, Linares 2000, after 16.ttJeS! � with irresistible threats of 1 7 . ttJxg6+- or 1 7 . ttJxf7+-) 16.�d1 t::fb6 1 7 . .txf6 ii.xf6 lB. t::fh7 + �f8oo led to a po­sition with mutual chances.

15 ... .th7 Black can try to equalize by

15 . . . t::fd3 16 . .l:.fd1 t::fxc2 17 . .l:.xc2 ii.b7 as he did in the game Green - Reinfeld, New York 1940. Ear­lier, in the game Pirc - Vidmar, Maribor 1934, in which White had not played h2-h3 , White eventually managed to profit from his small pluses by continu­ing 1B .ttJd4 .l:.edB 1 9 . f3 .l:.acB 20 . .l:.cd2;J;.

16.lUdi t::fh6 17 . .txf6 In case of 17. b4 ttJce4= Black

4.4::Jc3 i.e7 S. i.gS 0-0 6.e3 4::Jbd7 7.�c1

has no problems. 1 7 . . . i.xf6 18.b4 Now it's not easy to find a sat­

isfactory retreat square for the black knight.

18 . . . i.xf3 19.9xf3 4::Ja4 M o st l ikely, this move i s

Black's best possibility. After 18 . . . 4::Jb 7 (the same position without h2-h3 occurred in the game Pirc - Tylor, Hastings 1932) 19 . 4::Je4 i.e5 20.f4 i.b8 21..i:!.d7t all Black's pieces are too passive.

20.4::Jxa4 bxa4 2 1 .i.bl g6 22.�xa4;!;

This position occurred in the game Hort - Toth, Biel 1982. As well as before in the game Sunye Neto - Pelikian, Sao Paulo 2001 (see the comment to White's tenth move), White is a pawn up. This time, however, it's very dif­ficult to convert it because ofthe opposite-coloured bishops and Black's counterplay against White's weak pawns.

b5) 7 ... dxc4 Black immediately opens up

the play in the centre making no fuss from the fact that the white

bishop reaches c4 by the short cut.

8.i.xc4

Let's present separately the continuation b5a) 8 ... c5 when Black tries to save a7-a6 and, respectively, the alternative pos­sibility b5b) 8 . . . a6.

b5a) 8 ... c5 This move is on Black's agen­

da. If only his light-squared bishop could be settled down to work . . .

9.0-0 While Black is still planning

the future, White completes his development.

9 ... b6 Black wants his light-squared

bishop on the long diagonal a8-hI. Another way to achieve this - 9 . . . a6 10 .a4 is mentioned in variation b5b. If Black immedi­ately relieves the tension in the centre by 9 . . . cxd4, then White can continue 10.4::Jxd4 4::Jb6 (an attempt to simplify by 10 . . . 4::Jd5 resulted in serious difficulties for Black after 1 l . i.xe7 CDxe7 12 . CDe4 CDf6 13.CDxf6+ gxf6 14.�f3 CDg6 15 .'ufdl �e7 16.i.b3± in the

183

Chapter 13

game Shalaev - Cheremin, Rus­sia 2000, and after 10 . . . lLle8 11. i..xe7 'flixe7 in the game Lowcki - Sterk, Bad Pistyan 1912, White could have continued 12. 'flih5!? lLlef6 1 3 . 'flih4;!; , not allowing Black to solve his main problem, that is to develop the c8-bishop) 11 .i..b3 lLlbd5 12.'flif3 lLlxc3 13. l:txc3 and White's major pieces were working already along cen­tral files whereas Black's c8-bishop could only dream for such fate in the game Havlickova -Gregor, Slovakia 1999.

10.'flie2 .tb7 An attempt to expand on the

queenside by 10 . . . a6 11 . .l:.fd1 b5 encountered a concrete refuta­tion 12.dxc5! 'flic7 13.i..d3 lLlxc5 14.lLlxb5± in the game Simonyi - Vebic, Yugoslavia 1994: the key is that 14 . . . axb5 meets 15.b4±.

llJUdl lLld5 Black needs to simplify the

position, yet he must be most cautious doing this. After 1 1 . . . lLle4?! 12.lLlxe4 i..xe4 13.i..f4! (no more exchanges now) the X-rays of White's two rooks down the central files are very annoying. Just a couple of further moves: 13 . . . cxd4?! 14.lLlxd4 e5, and af­ter 15 .lLle6 fxe6 16 . .txe6+ 'it>h8 17 . .l:.xd7 'flie8 18.i..xe5+- Black had every reason to resign in the game Ovod - Rubzova, St Peters­burg 1998.

12.i..xd5 After 12.i..xe7 lLlxc3 13 . .l:.xc3

'flixe7= Black feels fine. 12 . . . i..xd5 13 . .txe7 i..xf3

184

14.'flixf3 'flixe7 15.dxc5 lLlxc5 Each side has reasons to be

content now: Black achieved sim­plification while White main­tains his control of the central files.

16.b4 White takes the chance to

drive the black knight away from the centre.

16 . . . lLla6 1 7.a3 :acB

This position occurred in the game A. Mueller - Born, Wuert­temberg 1995. White could have kept a slight advantage by 18. lLlb5!?;!;. Black's task would be then to find an employment for his knight and neutralize White's pressure along the central files.

b5b) B • • • a6

4.tiJc3 Ji..e7 S.Ji..gS 0-0 6.e3 tiJbd7 7.�c1

Black has secured himself tiJg6 17.Ji..f.3 e5 1B.tiJb3 ndS 19. against c4-c5 and can proceed �e2 tiJh4 20 .Ji..e4 Ji..f5= Black with the planned advanced fian- achieved full equality in the game chetto. Lastin - Tregubov, Samara 2000)

9.a4 13 . . . tiJg6 14.Ji..g3 (White did not White prevents Black's plan obtain advantage by 14 .Ji..xf6

at the cost of a certain weaken- Ji..xf6 15. �b3 i.xd4 16. exd4 �bS ing of his queenside. After 9.i.d3 17 .tiJe4 Ji..d7 lS.tiJcS i.c6 19.�e3 cS (9 . . . b5? ! is inferior due to tiJe7 20.�fd1 �dS= in the game 1 0 .tiJe4 ! i. b 7 1 l .tiJxf6 + tiJxf6 Smyslov - Hoffman, San Martin 12 .i.xf6 i.xf6 13. �c2±) 10. 0-0 1993) 14 . . . e5 lS.tiJf.3 ndS 16.�b3 b S ! co White's position is not i.e6 17 .Ji..c4 Ji..xc4 l S . �xc4 h6 worse. 19J1fd1 J:l.dcS 20. �b3 l:i.c7 21 .tiJe2

9 ... c5 10.0-0 cxd4 11.�xd4 l:i.acS= the position was equal in An important moment. It's the game Sorin - Hoffman,

not at all easy to decide about the Matanzas 1995. best capture. In the position with 11 ... �a5 isolated pawn after 11 .exd4 tiJb6 The best square for the queen. 12.i.b3 i.d7 White has no pros- From this point it aims at the g5-pects for success. For example, bishop and can opportunely at­after 13. �d3 (after 13 .tiJeS i.c6 tack White's queenside pawns 14. �d3 tiJfdS!� Black immedi- which are slightly weakened by ately started the desired simpli- a2-a4. After 1l . . . tiJb6 12 . ..lib3 fication in the game Garcia 'i{txd4 13.tiJxd4 tiJbd7 (13 . . . l:.dS is Palermo - Hoffman, Elgoibar worse, and after 14 .�fd1 '>t>fS 1991) 13 . . . ..lic6 14 . ..tc2 Black re- lS.e4 ..td7 16.a5 tiJcS 17.eS tiJe8 plied 14 . . . g6 ! (running a few lS .tiJe4± Black was pressed back steps forward, we can mention very noticeably in the game now that a similar position is Eingorn - Dokhoian, Pamplona analysed in Chapter 15, varia- 1991 ) 14.l:.fd1 tiJcS lS . ..tc2 as tion b2, only with inclusion ofh7- 16 .e4 eS 1 7 .tiJdbS ..lid7 in the h6 and ..tg5-h4, and is estimated game Lerner - Kelecevic, Bern to be in White's favour) lS .i.h6 1993, White missed the opportu­l:.eS 16 .tiJe5 tiJbd5 17 . ..lib3 'i{tb6 nity to take the initiative by lS.tiJxd5 ..lixd5 19 . ..lixdS tiJxd5= lS.f4! 1'. and equalized the play in Temir­baev - Ubilava, Kujbyshev 19S6.

Also the knight capture 11. tiJxd4 was frequently tested. Af­ter 11 . . . 'i{ta5 12.i.h4 tiJeS 13 . ..lie2 (in case of 13.tiJe4 �dS 14.tiJxf6+ i.xf6 15 . ..txf6 �xf6 after 16.i.e2

After 11 . . . h6 which occurred in the game Sakaev - Sulskis, Linares 2001, 12 . ..tf4!? deserved attention. The play might pro­ceed 1 2 . . . � a S 1 3 . ..t d 6 i.xd6 14.'i{txd6 tiJcS 15.tiJeS!? tiJxa4 (in case of lS . . . �dS White has 16.

lS5

Chapter 13

'fien, in case of 15 . . .'�Jce4 there is 16 .8xe4 8xe4 1 7 . 'fid4 8f6 18.ii.b3 l:i.d8 19. 'fic5;!:; and after 15 . . . ii.d7 White plays 16.�bl !;!:; with the idea b2-b4) 16.8xa4 �xa4 17.1:.fdl�. Black is a pawn ahead but experiences great problems with the development of the queenside pieces.

12.e4 Mter 12.�fdl h6 13.ii.f4 (in

case of 13.ii.h4 b6 14.ii.e2 ..tb7 15.8d2 ':fd8 16.8b3 'fif5 17. 'fid3 'fixd3 18.':xd3 8e5= Black felt fine in the game Farago - Rausis, Germany 1997) 13 . . . 8c5 14.ii.d6 ..txd6 (14 . . . ':d8?? is a blunder due to 15.b4+-) 15. �xd6 ..td7= Black manages to complete the development of his queenside, unlike in the position covered in the previous comment.

12 ... .i.c5 13. 'fid2 Mter 13.'fid3 .tb4 in the game

Izeta Txabarri - San Segundo Carrillo, Elgoibar 1994, White played 14 . .txf6 (by 14. 'fie2!? he could have steered the play to a position from the main line, yet to come) 14 . . . CZlxf6 1 5 . e5 ':d8 1 6.'fic2 .txc3 17 .'fixc3 �xc3 18. ':xc3 8e4 1 9 .':e3 8c5 2 0 . a 5 ..td7=.

13 ... .i.b4 14.'fie2 8g4 Quite naturally, Black does

not want the white pawn on e5. 15.i.f4 CZlge5 16.8xe5 CZlxe5

17JHd1 CZlxc4 18.�xc4 ii.xc3

186

This position occurred in the game Tempone - Hoffman, Ar­gentina 1995. With the help of the intermediate move 19.ii.c7!? (after 19 .bxc3 e 5 20 .':d5 b 5 ! 21 .':xe5= the opponents agreed to draw in the cited game) 19 . . . 'fib4 20.l:!.xc3 'fixc4 (in case of 20 . . . 'fixb2 2 1 . a5� all Black's pieces except the queen are shut in on the last rank) 2 U�xc4 b5 22.axb5 axb5 23 .':c5 White ob­tains an ending where Black should seek a way to break free without losing a pawn. The pres­ence of opposite-coloured bishops on the board increases Black's chances to draw but, at the same time, it does not let him thor­oughly extinguish the activity of White's pieces. For example, af­ter 23 . . . ii.a6 (in case of23 . . . b4 24. �b5;!:; Black is about to lose the b-pawn, and after 23 . . . .i.b7 24.f3 l:!.fc8 25.b4 f6 26.Udc1 ..ta6 27.e5;!:; Black's rooks are sealed down rather safely) 24.f3 l:!.fc8 25.b4 ':a7 26 . ..tb6;!:; Black's problems remain despite the material bal­ance because all his pieces are very passive.

Chapter 1 4 1.ct:Jf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ct:Jf6 4.ct:Jc3 i..e7 5.i..g5 0-0 6.e3 ct:Jbd7 7.':'cl c6

One of the key positions ofthe Orthodox Defence. By the last move which overprotects his cen­tre, Black invites his opponent to demonstrate some activity, put­ting aside for a while his main problem - the development of the c8-bishop.

8 . ..td3 White completes his develop­

ment. Since Black has secured his d5-pawn by c7-c6, the strug­gle for a tempo we have seen in Chapter 13, variation b4, is less efficient now. For example, in case of 8.a3 Black can equalize with the help of 8 . . .lZJe4 9 . ..txe7 fftxe7 10 . ..td3 (after 10.tLlxe4 dxe4 11 .tLld2 f5 12.c5 e5� Black created counterplay in the game Alekhine - Newman, New York (simultan) 1932, and also he en-

countered no serious problems in the line 10. �c2 tLlxc3 11 .fftxc3 dxc4 12 . ..txc4 b6 13 . ..te2 ..tb7 14.0-0 .ufc8 15.b4 a5 16.tLld2 axb4 17.axb4 c5 18 .dxc5 bxc5 19.b5 tLlb6= in the game Keene - Pran­dstetter, Skara 1980) 10 . . . tLlxc3 11Jhc3 dxc4 12 . ..txc4 e5= where White only wasted a tempo for the unnecessary advance a2-a3.

The same refers to the move 8 . �c2 . After 8 . . . tLle4 9 . ..txe7 �xe7 10 . ..td3 (in case of 10.tLlxe4 dxe4 11. �xe4 Black has the re­source of 1 1 . . . fftb4+ 1 2 . tLld 2 �xb2 13J:tb1 when the accurate move 13 . . . ffta3 ! prevents the white bishop from getting to d3, and after 14 . .ub3 �c1+ 15 .We2 e5! � Black had good counter chances in the game Agdestein - Prandstetter, Taxco (izt) 1985) 10 . . . tLlxc3 11. fftxc3 (alteration of the pawn structure by 11 .bxc3 is usually not dangerous for Black, as it was proved after 11. . .dxc4 12 . ..txc4 b6 13 . ..td3 h6 14. 0-0 ..tb7 1 5 . a4 c5 1 6 . ..t h 7 + 'iith8 17 . ..te4 tLlf6 18 . ..txb7 �xb7= in the game D amlj anovic - Si­sniega, New York 1988) 11. . .dxc4 12 . ..txc4 b6 13.0-0 ..tb7 14 . ..te2

187

Chapter 14

lHc8 15 .l1fd 1 c5 16 . �a3 (note that we have just a case when this standard White's manoeuvre i s insufficient for advantage) 16 . . . l1c7 17 .l:tc2 C 1 7 . .Jta6 .Jtxf3 1 8 . gxf3 lId8= ) 17 . . . a5 18 . ttJd2 l1ac8 19 .11dc1 �d8= the position was soon simplified to draw in the game Nickoloff - Hynes, Thessaloniki 1988.

Now after White's eighth move .Jtfl-d3 Black can try to de­velop his light-squared bishop on the long diagonal a8-h1 by a) 8 ... b6 or proceed with relieving the tension by b) 8 . . . dxc4. The other alternative 8 . . . h6 9 . .Jth4 will be presented in Chapter 16 and 8 . . . a6 9 .c5 was discussed previously in Chapter 13, variation b3.

a) 8 ... b6

9.0-0 To be sure, an immediate ex­

change is possible too, but after 9 .cxd5 exd5 (following 9 . . . cxd5 1 0 . �a4 .Jtb7 11 .ttJe5;!; White's chances are better and when Black tried to argue against this assessment 11 . . . ttJxe5? in the game D. Biro - Gutierrez, San Agustin 2000, he lost quickly af-

188

ter 12.dxe5 ttJd7?? 13 . �h4) 10. 0-0. It deserves to be mentioned, however, that after 10 . . . ttJe4 11 ..Jtxe7 (White's refusal to sim­plify enabled Black to create counterplay after 1 l . .Jt f4 f5 12.ttJe5 ttJxe5 13 . .Jtxe5 .Jtd6 14.f4 i.xe5 15.dxe5 .Jtb7� in the game Z. Polgar - Granda Zuniga, New York 1987) 11 . . . �xe7 1 2 . �a4 .Jtb7°o the position of the white bishop on d3 is far from best in the game Ornstein - Van der Wal, Stockholm 1993. This nu­ance was discussed particularly within variation b2 in Chapter 1 3 , ( ref. to the comment to White's ninth move). The bishop would look much better on e2.

9 ... i.b7 The move 9 . . . .Jta6 results in

the exchange of the light-squared bishops, which only emphasizes the weakening of Black's queen­side, caused by b7-b6 . After 10 .cxd5 .Jtxd3 11.�xd3 exd5 (af­ter 11 . . .cxd5 12 .l1c2 h6 13.i.h4 ttJe8 14.i.g3 ttJd6 15JHcl :gc8 in the game Zaw 00 - Ma, Genting Highlands 1998, the weakness of Black's queenside could have been stressed with 1 6 . � a6± while after 11 . . . ttJxd5 12 .i.xe7 ttJxe7 13.l1fd1 ttJffi 14.ttJeM in the game Duebon - Liebl, Mehlingen 1997, Black could only dream about the break c6-c5) 11 . . . exd5 12 .:gfd1 :ge8 13.a3 ttJh5 14.i.xe7 �xe7 in the game Heise - Weyer, Germany 1998, White could have tried to get to the c6-pawn, al­ready weakened by the exchange

4.'Dc3 �e7 5.�g5 0-0 6.e3 'Dbd7 7.nc1 c6 B . .i.d3

of the light-squared bishops, by 15.'Da2 11ac8 16.'Db4;!;. The move 9 . . . dxc4 after 10.i.xc4 Ieads to a position from variation b.

lO.cxd5 At first sight this decision

looks not very logical . In the Capablanca System Black takes on c4 himself trying to simplify then by 'Df6-d5. The point is, however, that in the present case Black has already weakened his position on the queenside by b7-b6 (he can't even think now about e6-e5), so now White's immedi­ate task is to shorten the diago­nal a8-hl to Black's light-squa­red bishop as much as possible.

lO . . . exd5 Also the move 10 . . . cxd5 oc­

curred many times when Black hoped to withstand the position with symmetric pawn structure. This way is possible, but don't forget that Black's minor pieces are placed much more passively than their white opponents. M­ter 11. �e2 (if White moves the queen to b3, then Black applies successfully the plan with a7 -a6, b6-b5 and then, provided that White allows, 'Dd7-b6) 11. . .'De4 (after 11 . . .l:!.c8 12.h3 'De4 13.i.f4 'Dxc3 14.bxc3 'Df6 15 .iLa6 iLxa6 16. �xa6 �a8 17.c4 �c8 18. �a4 �b7 19 .�b3 dxc4 20.lhc4 �ac8 21 .l:tfc1;!; White maintained con­trol over the c-file in the game Muniz Giron - Menendez Fer­nandez, Asturias 1999, the timid move 11 . . 'De8 was followed by 12.iLf4 a6 13 .lifdl 'Dd6 14.'De5

f5 1 5 .'Da4 'Dxe5 1 6 . i.xe5 i.f6 1 7 .iLxf6 l1xf6 1 8 . l1c2 l1f7 1 9 . :dc 1;1; i n the game Komljenovic - Malakhov, Tucepi 1996, and White seized the c-file again. Black tried the plan with a 7 -a6 and b6-b5 in the game Zinani -Agosto, B as sano del Grappa 1998, but White gained the edge as well after 11 . . . a6 12.l1c2 'De4 13 .i.xe7 "fiixe7 14.l1fc 1 b5 owing to the well timed advance 15.a4 ! followed by 15 . . . b4 16.'Db l .ufc8 17Jhc8+ i.xc8 18 .l:.cn. Note that the battery � e 2 + i. d 3 bounds Black's pieces with the protection of a6-pawn and the white knight has a promising transfer from b l to b3 in its plans. ) 12.iLf4! (White need not trade his active minor pieces for the opponent's passive ones with­out particular profit) 12 . . . 'Ddf6 (Black should not be too persis­tent - otherwise he runs the risk to be punished, as it happened, for example, after 12 . . . iLd6? 13 .'Dxe4 i.xf4 14.exf4 dxe4 15 . i.xe4 i.xe4 1 6 . �xe4+- in the game Koliada - Nock, Ontario 1993) 13.'De5 (firstly White pre­vents 'Df6-h5. Mter 13.h3 i.d6 14.i.xd6 'Dxd6 15.!:!.c2 �e7 16. l1fcl .ufc8= Black managed to regroup his forces successfully thanks to White's delay in the game Marin - Fucaraccio, San­tiago 1994) 13 . . . 'Dxc3 14 . .uxc3 l:.c8 15.l:.fc1 �xc3 16.l:.xc3 i.d6 17 .i.g5;!; in the game Lerner -Auvinen, Helsinki 1992, White's position was fairly satisfactory:

189

Chapter 14

Black is obviously losing the struggle for the c-file.

In case of the simplifying 10 . . . CLlxd5, as mentioned above, the main diagonal a8-h1 turns out very short for the black bishop. After 11.i.xe7 'tfixe7 (in case of 11 . . . CLlxe7 12. �c2 CLlf6 13. :tfda Black experiences difficul­ties in accomplishing the c6-c5 break) 12.CLlxd5 exd5 13.'tfic2 CLlf6 14.a3;t in the game Kahlert - Rit­scher, Germany 1997, Black's ac­tivity was reduced considerably. He only was allowed to wait for White's active operations and watch out for the white knight not coming to the central square c5.

11.�c2 White prevents CLlf6-e4. He

could have emphasized the posi­tive sides of the pawn exchange on d5 by the standard 11..�f5 too (before Black closed the gap by CLlf6-e4) 1 1 . . . lIe8 ( the break­through in the centre 1l . . . c5, which Black undertook in the game Utema - Kuipers, Nijme­gen 1993, could have been put to test by 12:�a4 a6 13.dxc5 bxc5 14.:tfd 1 d4 15.exd4 i.xf3 16.gxf3 CLlb6 17. �c6 cxd4 18.i.e3±, and i n case of 1 l . . . h6 White has 12 .i.f4;t) . After 12. �c2 g6 13. i.h3 CLle4 14.i.xe7 'tfixe7 15.i.xd7 'tfixd7 16.CLle5 'tfie6 17.CLlxe4 dxe4 in the game Luik - Vester, Lyn­gby 1 9 8 8 , White could have maintained pressure on the opponent's queenside by 1 8 . b4!?t.

190

1l • • • .l:te8 Two active moves with the c­

pawn 11 . . . c5 12.oUfd 1 and 12 . . . c4 led after 13.i.f5 g6 14.kh3 :te8 15.b3 ! (a standard undermining manoeuvre) 15 . . . a6 16.bxc4 dxc4 17.CLle5 b5 to a position where White had a strong pawn centre in the game Fairhurst - Chan­dler, Upper Hutt 1976. White only should have stressed that immediately by 1 8 . e4±. After 11.. .:tc8 by the standard manoeu­vre 12.kf5! (threatening with 13 .CLle5) White made his oppo­nent 'take back'; 12 . . . :ta8 and after 13 .:tfd l± White's advan­tage was evident in the game Medina Fuentes - Carame, Los Barrios 1995.

12 . .l:.fdl g6 13.h3 .l:.c8 After 13 . . . CLle4 14.kxe7 �xe7

15.i.xe4 dxe4 16.CLld2;t Black's e­pawn needs defence.

14.kf4 CLlf8 15.�a4;t

This position occurred in the game Vl . Sergeev - Murdzia, Polanica Zdroj 1 9 9 3 . White brought his rooks to the central files and found an active position for the queen discouraging Black from playing c6-c5 .

4.l2Jc3 �e7 5. �g5 0-0 6.e3 l2Jbd7 7.�c1 c6 8.�d3

b) 8 . . . dxc4 Now that the white bishop is

on d3, Black yields the centre for some time, preparing to free his light-squared bishop.

9.�xc4

Bl ack can develop his queenside by bl) 9 . . . b5 to be fol­lowed by a7-a6, c6-c5 thus solv­ing the bishop's problem by �c8-b7. There is also a different way to improve the position of the bishop by b2) 9 . . . l2Jd5 with the idea that after the exchange of the dark-squared bishops it would be easier for Black to ac­complish the advance e6-e5 opening the diagonal c8-h3 to his undeveloped bishop. It should be noted that in case of9 . . . l2Je8 with the same idea (of exchanging the dark-squared bishops ) , after 1 0 . iH4 �d6 l 1 .�g3 �xg3 1 2 . hxg3 ffi e 7 1 3 . e4 b5 14.�b3 b4 1 5 . l2Ja4 e5 White could have gained the upper hand in the game Smejkal - Radulov, Lenin­grad 1 9 7 7 , by 1 6 . dxe5! l2Jxe5 17 :g;rd4 l2Jxf.3+ 18.gxf.3±.

Apart from tho two main con­tinuations mentioned above , there is also a popular option of

9 . . . h6, which after 10 .�h4 pro­duces a position to be analysed in Chapter 16 . 9 . . . c5 10 .0-0 was already presented in Chapter 13, variation b5a. In case of 9 . . . a6 White can try 10.e4 (also 10.a4 is possible, and in case of 10 . . . c5 1 1 .0-0 we reach a position from Chapter 13, variation b5b; the position after 1 0 . . . b5 l1 .�d3 is covered i n the comment to White's eleventh move in varia­tion b l a and after 1 0 . . . l2J d 5 11 .�xe7 ffixe7 12.0-0 l2Jxc3 White can play 13.bxc3!?, making use ofthe fact that Black's queenside is already weakened by a 7 -a6 and an attempt to improve the state of affairs by 13 . . . b5 14.�d3 �b7 brought Black to serious trouble after 15 .c4! b4 16 .c5 a5 1 7 . ffic2 g6 18 .e4 e5 19 .d5 l:.fc8 20.d6± in the game Kuligowski ­R. Byrne, Buenos Aires 1978) 10 . . . h6 (after 10 . . . b5 l1 .�d3 the play steers to variation bla and if 10 . . . c5, then simply 1 1 .e5;!;) 1 1 . �f4 (the retreat l1 .�h4 fails to 11 . . . b5!? 12.�d3 l2Jxe4!+) 1 1 . . . c5 (in case of 11 . . . b5 1 2 .�d3 we came to variation b1a again) 12 . e5;!;, forcing the black knight to retreat to the edge of the board since otherwise Black would lose a pawn. Sometimes Black plays 9 . . . b6, but after 10.0-0 �b7 1 1 . ffie2 l2Jd5 ( l 1 . . .b5 i s inconsistent and wastes time: after 12.�d3 a6 13 .l:.fd 1 t;(b6 14.e4± White ob­tained considerable advantage in the game Schnalzger - Raps , Crailsheim 2000, and Black's at-

1 9 1

Chapter 14

tempt to break free by 14 . . . c5? cost him a piece after 15.e5 cxd4 16.exf6, which made him resign on the spot) 12.�xe7 'f1xe7 (af­ter 1 2 . . . ltJxc3 1 3 . lhc3 fixe7 1 4 . � a 6 ltJf6 1 5 . �xb7 fixb7 16.ltJe5 liac8 17.ILfc1 ltJd5 18.lic4 ffi 19.1tJd3;!; Black had difficulties with the advance c6-c5 in the game Kometter - T. Toth, Eger 1997) 13.ltJxd5 White chose the symmetrical pawn structure by 13 . . . cxd5 (after 13 . . . exd5 14.�d3 c5 15 .�f5;!; White's position is somewhat better as well) , and after 14.�a6 ltJf6 15 .lic2 lifc8 16.lifc 1 l:!.xc2 17 .lixc2 ltJe8 18. ltJe5 f6 1 9 . 1tJc6 'f1c7 2 0 . �xb7 fixb7 he took the initiative by 2 1 . e4 ! t in the game Tatai -Magalotti, Andorra 1987. White's last move is possible because in case of 2 1 . . . dxe4? 22 . 'f1xe4+­Black loses material.

bl) 9 ... b5

IO.�d3 White's plan is e3-e4 and then

e4-e5, if Black allows it. In this position Black plays

usually bla) IO . . . a6 or bIb) IO ... � b 7 . The move 10 . . . h6

192

leads after 11.�h4 to a position from Chapter 16. In case of 10 . . . b4 Black's position o n the queen­side gets worse. For example, af­ter 11 .ltJa4!? (in case of 11 .ltJe4 after 11 . . .ltJxe4! 12 .�xe7 fixe7 13.�xe4 �a6 14.�xc6 liac8 15. fia4 ltJb8� Black is compensated for the pawn with White's cas­tling problem) 11 . . .�b7 (an at­tempt to exchange the light­squared bishops by 1 1 . . . 'f1a5 12.0-0 �a6 13 .�xa6 'f1xa6 14. fib3 liac8 15.�xffi gxffi 16J:tc4± just helps White to fix Black's weaknesses on the queenside) 12.0-0 .l:!.c8 13.�xffi gxffi (Black also experiences serious prob­lems after 13 .. .'�Jxf6 14.ltJe5 'f1d5 15.ltJc5± as he can't win the pawn by 15 . . . �xc5? 16 . .l:!.xc5 'f1xa2 be­cause of 17 . ltJc4!+- followed by lic5-a5) 14. ltJd2, and now Black's attempt to break free by 14 . . . c5 would cost him a pawn after 15.ltJb3 cxd4 16. fig4+ 'iith8 17. ILxc8 �xc8 18.'f1h4 f5 19.fixd4+ c;t>g8 20.fixa7±.

bla) IO ... a6 Black will be happy ifhe man­

ages to play c6-c5 now. 1l.e4! If White lingers with this ad­

vance for a single move, then Black would forget all problems. So the continuation 11 .0-0 c5= equalizes the play as shown by a number of games. Another way to struggle for advantage starts with 1l.a4 (the variation when this line includes additionally h7-

4.tbc3 i.e7 5.i.g5 0-0 6.e3 tDbd7 7.�c1 c6 B. iL.d3

h6 i.g5-h4 is considered in Chap­ter 1 6 as variation b) . After 11 . . .bxa4 (after 1l . . . b4 12 .tDe4 tDxe4 13 .i.xe7 tDxf2 14.i.xh7+! Wh8 15.i.xd8 tDxdl 16.i.e7 tDxb2 17.i.xfB Wxh7 18.l:I.c2 tDxa4 19. i.xb4 .l:lb8 20.i.d2 l:I.b1+ 21.i.cl± Black gains no sufficient com­pensation for the exchange and after 11 . . .i.b7 12.0-0 b4 13.tDe4 tDxe4 14 .i.xe7 -rffxe7 15 . i..xe4 'uac8 16.tDd2 e5 17. -rffc2 tDf6 in the game Levenfish - Kan, Le­ningrad 1934, White could have put stress on the weakness of Black's queenside by 18.dxe5! �xe5 19.i..f.3 .l:Ifd8 20.tDb3 ctJd7 2 1 .,Ufd1 to be followed by i..g4 and tDc5±) 1 2 .i.xf6 ! ( 12 . -rffxa4 c5=, in case of 12.tDxa4 Black has 12 . . . �a5+! and after 13 .ctJc3 c5 1 4 . 'ua 1 �b4 1 5 . 0-0 i..b 7 = he equalized in the game Vidmar -Em. Lasker, Nottingham 1936, while after 13 .We2 e5! 14 . ..txf6 i.xf6 15.dxe5 tDxe5 16.'uc5 -rffc7 17 .ctJxe5 i..xe5 18.�c2 g6 19.l:!.xc6 -rffd8 20.ctJb6 ,Ub8 2 1.'uxc8 -rffxb6 22.'uxfB+ WxfB� his compensa­tion for the pawn was enough to mai ntain the balance in the game Pavey - Rossetto, La Plata 1947) 12 . . . ctJxf6 (after 12 . . . i..xf6 13.-rffc2 g6 14.i.e4 ..tb7 15.0-0;!; White is better) 13.tDxa4 -rffa5+ Black practically forces his oppo­nent to venture on 14.We2!? In the search for advantage. How­ever after 14 . . . ..tb7 (in case of 14 . . . i.d7 15.tDc5 i.xc5 16Jhc5 �b4 17.�c2 'ufb8 18 . .l:!.bl± which occurred in the game Panno -

Diez del C orral , Las Palmas 1973, Black had serious difficul­ties defending his queenside pawns) 15 .tDc5 �b6 16.�c2 l:I.fd8 17 .'uhdU White's chances are somewhat better despite the loss of his right to castle.

1l . . . c5 The attempt to prepare c6-c5

by 11 . . .i..b7 fails after 12.e5 tDd5 13 . ..txe7 -rffxe7 ( 13 . . . ctJxc3? 14. i.xh7+! Wh8 15 .l:I.xc3 �xe7 16. i.e4+-) 14.tDxd5!? (after 14.ctJe4 in the game 1. Popov - Ardian­syah, Amsterdam 1974, Black had an opportunity to obtain good counterplay by 14 . . . c5! 15 . tDxc5 tDxc5 16.dxc5 tDf4�) 14 . . . cxd5 (after 14 . . . exd5 15.0-0 g6 16. 'ueU Black's backward pawn on c6 was a miserable sight in the game Koehler - Fend, Germany 1998) 15.l1c7 .l:Iab8 16.-rffb1 h6 17. O-O;!; with an edge to White . Black's light-squared bishop has no good prospects and White hopes to use c5 sooner or later as a base for his pieces.

In case of 11 . . .h6 White must play 1 2 . i. f4 ( after 1 2 . i.h4? ! Black has the typical combina­tion 12 . . . ctJxe4! 13.i.xe4 i.xh4

193

Chapter 14

14.iLxc6 laa7 IS.0-0 iLe7 16.dS and in this position in the game Lesiege - Andersson, Elista (01) 1998, he even could have reached some advantage by 16 . . .'�Jb6!+) 12 . . . cS (after 12 . . . iLb7 13.eS 'bd5 14.'bxd5 cxdS 15.0-0 'ue8 16.iLe3 'uc8 17 .laxc8 iLxc8 18.iLbl 'bfS 19.ctJd2 f5 20.exf6 iLxf6 in the game Gligoric - Stahlberg, Bel­grade (ml9) 1949, White could have fixed his achievements by 21 .f4!±) 13.e5 ctJdS (13 . . . ctJh5 is dangerous, b ecause after 14 . iLe3t Black's knight remains unemployed on h5 and an at­tempt to win a pawn by 14 . . . cxd4?? IS.ctJxd4 ctJxe5 would be punished with the simple 16. iLe4+-) 14.tt:lxd5 exdS 15 .dxcS ctJxc5 16.0-0t with an advantage owing to the superior pawn structure.

12.e5 ctJd5 The retreat 12 . . . ctJe8 after

13.iLxe7 1:f1xe7 14.dS !? ( 14.1i.e4t) 14 . . . iLb7 ( 14 . . . exd5 1 5 . ctJxd5± 1:f1e6? 16.iLf5!+-) 15 .d6 �d8 16. 1i.e4 1i.xe4 17.ctJxe4 leaves White with the strong passed pawn on d6 . An attempt to gain from White's delay with castling by 17 . . . �a5+ fails after 18 . �d2 1:f1xa2 19. ctJxc5 ctJxc5 20 Jhc5 �bl+ 21 .lac1 1:f1e4+ 22.1:f1e3 �b4+ 23. 'It>f1 1:f1xb2 24.d 7 ±.

13.iLxe7 1:f1xe7 In case of 13 . . . ctJxc3?? White

obtains a winning position by the standard manoeuvre 14.iLxh7+! 'It>h8 (after 14 . . . 'lt>xh7 15.�c2+­Black loses the queen) 15.1i.xd8

194

ctJxd1 16.1i.e4+-. Mter 13 . . . ctJxe7? 14.iLxh7+ ! 'It>xh7 15.ctJg5+ 'It>g6 (after 16 . . . 'lt>g8 17 .�h7+- White checkmates) 16. �g4 f5 17 .1:f1g3� White launches a decisive attack to Black's king.

14.'bxd5 White can win a pawn by 14.

dxc5 ctJxc3 ! ( afte r 14 . . . ctJxc5 15 .iLxh7+ 'It>xh7 16 . �c2+ 'It>g8 17 .'bxd5 'bd3+ 18.1:f1xd3 exdS 19. 0-0 iLg4 20. thd5 iLxf3 in the game Landau - Van den Bosch, Amsterdam 1934, White was winning a pawn too by 21 .1:f1xf3 �xe5 22.l:!.c2±, also 14 . . . ctJb4 is no better because of l S . iL e4 ± , pointed out by M. Taimanov, and after 14 . . . 1i.b7 1 5 .ctJxdS iLxd5 16 .b4 iLxf3 17.�xf3 �g5 in the game Barsov - Villeneuve, Le Touquet 1 9 9 9 , White had a chance for a better endgame in case of 18.�e3!? �xe3+ 19.fxe3 ctJxe5 20.1i.e4t) 15 . .uxc3 ctJxc5 16. iLxh7+ 'It>xh7 17.1:f1c2+ 'It>g8 18. laxc5. But after 18 . . . 1i.b7 19.0-0 (the line 19.'lt>e2 1i.e4 20 . .uc7 in the game Velikov - Trifunov, Pernik 1983, was no better since after 20 . . . � d8! <Xl Black's chances would be no worse, at the least, and in case of 19.1:!.c3 1i.xf3 20. .uxf3 �g5 21 .0-0 1:f1xeS= the play is absolutely equal) in the game Martin del C ampo - C asillas Pellat, Mexico 1995, Black could have obtained a fair compensa­tion for the minor material loss by 19 . . . iLxf3 ! ? 2 0 . gxf3 �gS+ 21 .'lt>h1 l:!.ad8gg.

14 ... exd5 15.dxc5 'bxc5

4.CiJc3 ii..e7 S.ii..gS 0-0 6.e3 CiJbd7 7.nc1 c6 B. ii..d3

After 15 . . . CiJxe5 16.0-0 ii..g4 17 .ii..e2± White keeps the upper hand even if all minor pieces get swapped.

16.ii..bl In case of 16 .0-0 CiJxd3 17 .

'l;;(xd3 ii..g4 18 .l:I.fel ii..xf.3 19.'£hf.3 d4= White equalizes the play.

16 ... ii..g4 1 7.0-0±

White maintains a slight ad­vantage owing to his superior pawn structure.

bIb) 10 ... .tb7 In variation bla Black was

badly missing Bc8-b7. Now he wants to save the tempo a 7 -a6.

11.0-0 After 1l .e4 h6 12.ii..f4 (in case

of 12.ii..h4 CiJxe4!+ it's White who can get into trouble) 12 . . . b4p intending c6-c5 and Black ob-

tains convenient play. I t ... a6 The attempt to loosen White's

press by 11. . .l:.c8 12.a3 a5 failed after 13 . 'l;;(c2 h6 14.ii..xf6 gxf6 1 5 . .l:I.fdl 'l;;(b6 16 . 't'fe2 l:I.fd8 17 . CiJd2 ii..f8 IB.'t'fg4+ iJ..g7 19.b4± in the game Suetin - 1 . Polgar, Kecskemet 1972.

12.i.xf6!? Black's minor pieces (the

bishop on e7 and the knight on d7) are ready to support the ad­vance c6-c5, so White tries to draw them away. After 12.CiJe4 CiJxe4 1 3 . ii..xe7 'l;;(xe7 14 .i.xe4 llacB 15.CiJd2 White managed to prevent c6-c5 but nevertheless Black obtained good game with the help of 15 . . . f5 1 6 . i. f3 e5 1 7 . e4 exd4 I B . exf5 CiJ e 5 °o in Ruzzier - Stantic, Portoroz 1996.

12 ... CiJxf6 After 12 . . . ii..xf6 1 3 . 't'fc2 g6

14.CiJe4 ii..e7 15.l:I.fdl 'l;;(c7 16.a4 b4 17 .CiJfd2 Uac8 IB .CiJb3 l:I.fdB 19.f4± in the game Gheorghiu -Avgousti, Thessaloniki 19B4, White deprived his opponent both of c6-c5 and e6-e5, which secured him a great advantage.

13.CiJe4 CiJd7 Black prepares the advance

c6-c5 which is impossible right now because of the loss of pawn. The knight's careless move in the centre 13 . . . CiJd5 allowed White after 14.CiJc5 ii..xc5 15.l:I.xc5± to close the subject about of c6-c5 in the game Padulli - Guarini, Trieste 1923. The active 13 . . . 't'fd5 was no better - after 14. 't'f c2 CiJd 7

195

Chapter 14

(in case of 14 . . . h6 15 .a3 nac8 16 .l:tfd1 'It;lh8 17.h4± White man­aged to prevent any attempt for active play on the queenside in the game Limp - Salles, Brazil 1997) 15 .ttJg3 'i!fxa2 16.�xh7+ 'It;lh8 1 7 . �e4 'i!fa5 18 . 'i!fe2 ttJf6 1 9 . ttJe 5 ttJxe4 2 0 . ttJxe4 .l:!.ac8 21 .f4± in the game Aktouf - AI Rais, Dubai 1998, White's pair of knights was obviously stronger than Black's bishops, blocked up in their own camp. In case ofthe exchange 13 . . . ttJxe4 14.�xe4 the strategic placement of White's bishop on the a8-h 1 diagonal makes the advance c6-c5 prob­lematic. Mter 14 . . J lc8 15 .ttJe5 �d6 (15 . . . 'i!fd6 16.'i!fh5 f5 17.�f3 .ltf6 1 8 . ttJ d 3 g6 1 9 . 'i!fh6 �g7 2 0 . 'i!fh4 �f6 21. 'i!fg3 'i!fxg3 22. hxg3±) 16.f4 'i!fa5 17.a3 b4 18. 'i!fb3± Black's queenside was but a source of great problems in the game Csomos - Radnoti, Hun­gary 1995. The move 13 . . . .uc8 is more dangerous but even then White has 14.ttJe5! (after 14.ttJc5 .ltxc5 in the game Morris -Hynes, Haifa 1989, the move 1 5 Jh c 5 would have enabled Black to break free and equalize by 15 . . . ttJd7 16 . .uc1 c5=) 14 . . . 'i!fd5 15.ttJc5 �xc5 16 Jhc5 'i!fxa2 and B lack's queenside remains cramped although at the price of a pawn. It proves a good bargin for White as we can see from the following continuation: 17. 'i!fd2 .ufd8 (if 17 . . . a5, then 18.l:tfcU and White can win back the miss­ing pawn at any moment) 18 . .ltb1

196

'i!fb3 19.'i!fa5 l2\d5 ( 19 . . . ttJd7? is a mistake - 20.�c2 ttJxc5 21 .�xb3 ttJxb3 2 2 . 'i!f c3 +- winning the queen in the game Michenak -Kana, Zlin 1996) 20 .ttJd3 'i!fa4 2 1 . 'i!fxa4 bxa4 22.�c2 ttJb6 23. oUaU White wins back the pawn retaining his positional advan­tage.

14.'i!fc2 After 14. 'i!fb3 in the game

Maroczy - Charousek, Budapest 1895, Black missed the opportu­nity to equalize by 14 . . . c5 15 . ttJxc5 .ltxc5 16.dxc5 .ltxf3 17.gxf3 'i!fg5 18.'lt;lh1 'i!fh5 19 . .lte2 ttJxc5=. Apart from the move in the main line, White can also continue 14.�e2 .uc8 15.l:i.fd1 'i!fb6 16.ttJc5 ttJxc5 17.dxc5 'i!fc7 18 .b4;t, which gained him slight advantage in the game Kieninger - Pfeiffer, Augsburg 195 1 .

1 4 . . . g6 15Jad1 .nc8 16.lbc5 ttJxc5 17 .dxc5

Unfortunately, White must take with the pawn, thus filling the hole in Black's position .

17 . . . 'i!fc7 18.b4 l:tcd8 19. 'i!fc3 �c8 20.'i!fe5 'i!fb7

In case of queens swap White's chances are better.

21..lte4 f6 22.'i!fg3;t

4.thc3 i..e7 5.iig5 0-0 6.e3 tiJbd7 7.�c1 c6 B. iid3

This position occurred in the game Gligoric - Bobotsov, Praia da Rocha 1969. Despite Black's bishop pair, White still maintains a certain advantage. Black's bishops are very passive and White has all the premises for a dangerous play on the kingside.

b2) 9 . . . tiJd5 Black simplifies the position

by a series of exchanges. J. R. C apablanca applied this plan regularly.

10 . .1xe7 White must exchange the

bishops - retreating to f4 causes a noticeable deterioration of his pawn structure.

10 .. :!'::i'xe7 Owing to the prophylactic

move c7 -c6 Black can take the white bishop with his queen. But he can't proceed with exchanges by 1 0 . . . tiJxc3? because after 1l . .1xd8 tiJxc3 12 . .te7+- White wins an exchange or captures the black knight in case of 12 . . J1e8 13 . .ta3.

11.0-0 In h i s h i storical match

against Capablanca ( 1927), Ale­khine was resorting to the plan

with l1 .tiJe4. 1l . . . ttJxc3 Black consistently follows his

simplification strategy. The other possible continuations are less logical, though admissible. So after 1l . . . b6 12.tiJxd5 exd5 (in case of 12 . . . cxd5 1 3 . .1d3 tiJf6 14.tiJe5 .tb7 15.'!'::i'a4 a6 16J�c3t White obviously emerges ahead in the struggle for the only open fil e ) 13 . .td3 .t b 7 1 4 . .tf5 ! ?± White created a pawn barrier on the way of Black's bishop. Also the move 11. . .tiJ7f6 is not much appreciated: the black knight on d7 often serves well the organi­zation of e6-e5 or c6-c5 . Without it Black will experience difficul­ties with these important ad­vances. By 1 2 . '!';te2 tiJxc3 (the more pieces remain on the board, the easier White can cramp his opponent as it happened, for ex­ample, after 12 . . . .td7 13.e4 tiJf4 14.'!';te3 tiJg6 15.h3 lIac8 16 . .tb3 l:tfd8 17 J:tfd1 b6 18 .lIc2 .te8 19. l1cd2 '!';tb7 20.'!';te1 '!';te7 21 .e5 ctJd5 22.ctJe4± in the game Malich -Nejjar, Lugano 1968) 13 Jhc3 ctJe4 (the mistake 13 . . . b6? cost a pawn to Black after 14.lIfc1 ctJd7 15. '!';tc2 ..tb7 16 . .td3 g6 17 . ..te4+­in the game Lezcano Montalvo -F. Martin, Gran Canaria 1989) 14 . .l::!.c2 f5 15 .ctJd2 ctJxd2 16.'!';td2;t White took the upper hand in the game Ferre - Boutet, France 1996. Black's light-squared bi­shop remains sealed down. The other knight's move features similar defects. After 1l . . . ctJ7b6

197

Chapter 14

12.iLb3 ttJxc3 (in case of 12 . . . iLd 7 13 .ttJe4 Mad8 14.ttJc5 iLc8 15.ttJe5 ffi 16.ttJed3± White's knights took firm control of c5 and e5 in the game Kraus - Pohl, Fuessen 1993) 13 J:txc3 ttJd5 14.'sc 1 ttJffi 1 5 .ttJe5 .l:td8 1 6 . '�c2± Black's light-squared bishop was still undeveloped in the game Um­pfenbach - Bergmann, Lingen 1995.

In case of the neutral 11 . . . ,Se8 White can apply the Alekhine's manoeuvre by 12 .ttJe4!? After 12 . . . ttJ5ffi (the erroneous 12 . . . e5? in the game Alekhine - Correia Neves, Estoril (simultan) 1940, allowed White to win quickly by 13.iLxd5 cxd5 14.ttJc3 e4 15.ttJxd5 � d 6 1 6 . ttJ c 7+-; after 12 . . . h6 13 . �d2 b6 14.ttJg3 iLb7 15 . e4 ttJ5f6 16.e5 ttJd5 17.ttJe4 lied8 18 .ttJd6 ttJf8 19. §e2 'sab8 20. iLxd5 cxd5 21. .�c3± in the game Garcia Vicente - Zarzo Lopez, Cala Galdana 1994, White in­structively tightened his grip over Black's position. The con­tinuation 12 . . . ttJ5b6 13 .iLb3 h6 14.ttJe5 a5 15.a3 a4 16.iLa2 .l:td8 17.f4 f5 18 .ttJg3 '>t>h7 19.§c2 g6 2 0 .ttJf3 ttJf8 2 1 . e4±, Farago -Karlik, Bayern 1993, resulted in problems for Black too) 13 .ttJg3 c5 (if Black plays passively, then White will gradually press him back by e3-e4-e5 and then ttJg3-e4-d6 as it happened after 13 . . . h6 14.e4 ttJb6 15.ii.b3 ii.d7 16.�d3 .l:tad8 1 7 . iLc2 ttJh7 18 .e5 ttJf8 19.ttJe4± in the game Mariano ­Barbafiera, Bratto 1997) 14.e4

198

'sd8 (Black admits that .l:tfB-e8 was an inaccuracy yet this is bet­ter than 14 . . . cxd4 1 5 . e5 ttJd5 16.§xd4±) 15 .e5 ttJe8 (15 . . . ttJd5 16.ii.xd5 exd5 17.ttJf5±) 16.lIe1 (there is also the interesting op­portunity of 16.�e2!? cxd4 17. ,Sfd 1 ttJb6 18 .ii.d3GG) 16 . . . cxd4 1 7 . §xd4 ttJb6 (the incautious 17 . . . b6? resulted in White's vic­tory after 18.ttJf5! �fB 19.§h4 f6 20.ii.xe6+ �h8 2L�d5+- in the game Gligoric - Ivanovic, Bu­gojno 1982) 1 8 . §e3 ttJxc4 1 9 . .l:txc4± White's chances are bet­ter owing to his space advantage and superior development.

In case of the inert 11 . . . .l:td8 White can resort to Alekhine's manoeuvre again - 12.ttJe4!? (the move 12. §c2 allowed Black to simplify by 12 . . . ttJxc3 13. §xc3 and then he fully equalized the play after 13 . . . b6 14 .b4 iLb 7 15.iLe2 .l:tdc8 16.�b2 h6 17 . .l:tfd1 .l:tc7 18 . .l:tc3 ttJf6 19 .'sdc1 'uac8 20.h3 ttJd5 21 .,Sb3 ii.a8 22 .ttJe5 c5= in the game Karpov - An­dersson, London 1 984) . After 12 . . . ttJ5ffi (after 12 . . . ttJfB 13.§e2 ii.d7 14.ttJc5 ii.e8 15.e4 ttJf4 16. �e3 ttJ4g6 17.e5!± with the idea of ttJe4-d6 Black was constricted further in the game Alekhine -Michell, Hastings 1925, and in case of 12 . . . b6 13 .ttJg3 ii.b7 14.e4 ttJc7 15. §b3 which occurred in the game Sjoberg - Kytoniemi, Bonnevoie 1998, Black had to forget about the planned 15 . . . c5 in view of 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 ttJffi 18.ttJf5 �f8 19.d6t) 13 .ttJxf6+!

4.ti::Jc3 �e7 5.�g5 0-0 6.e3 4Jbd7 7JJ.c1 c6 8. �d3

(unlike in the variation with :f8-e S , White a grees to trade knights , because now with the rook on dS Black is not ready to achieve the advance e6-e5) 13 . . . �xf6 (after 13 . . . 4Jxf6 in the game Euwe - Thomas, Hastings 1930, White should have played 14. �d3;t; cutting Black short of any plan for developing his light­squared bishop by b7-b6 and then �cS-b7) 14. �c2 �e7 (Black has no 14 . . . e5 because of 15JUd1! 'ueS 16.d5± and the move 14 . . . c5 does not suit him because of the continuation 15 .�d3 cxd4 16. 1i.xh7+ �hS 17 . .te4 dxe3 lS.fxe3 �h6 19.�d2±, pointed out by L. Spassov) 15.�fd 1 h6 16 . .tb3 llJf8 17.e4 .td7 lS.e5 .teS 19. �c3t in the game L. Spassov - Lech­tynsky, Vrnj acka Banja 19S4, White's knight headed to Black's camp via llJd2-e4-d6.

In variation b2b we shall fo­cus on a plan where Black plays e6-e5 after exchanging a pair of knights. There were, however, numerous attempts to do this without any further exchanges. With this objective Black used to retreat his knight from d5 both to the queenside and to the kingside. But this plan is rather venturesome. After 11 . . . llJ5f6 12. �c2 e5 13.�fd1 exchanging on d4 is disadvantageous to Black because, as soon as the position gets opened, White gains from his superior development and in case of 13 . . . e4 14.llJd2 �eS by 15.d5 4Jf8 16.dxc6 bxc6 17 .llJb3±

in the game Stahlberg - Puig­gros, Buenos Aires 1941 , White managed to destroy the oppo­nent's pawn structure on the queenside. The retreat 11 . . .llJ5b6 with the idea to meet 12 .�b3 by 12 . . . e5 was more popular (prob­ably, it's better for Black to de­lay the active play in the centre in favour of 12 . . . �dS but then after 13 .llJe4 llJd5 14. �c2 llJ5f6 15 .4Jg3 llJf8 16.�fdU he had no real counterplay in the game Panno - A.Fernandez, Mar del Plata 1962) . In this case after 13 .llJe4! exd4 ( after 13 . . . llJf6 14.llJxf6+ Black was forced to 14 . . . gxf6 which allowed White to gain a wealthy advantage by 15 . .tc2 e4 16.llJd2 f5 17. �e2 llJd5 lS.f3!± in the game Lehmann -Rusz, Hungary 1997; in case of 13 . . . �hS there is a strong reply 1 4 . dxe5 ! and after 14 . . . llJxe5 15.llJxe5 �xe5 16.�d6 �eS 17 . �fd1 .tg4 lS .�d4 .th5 19 .1lJg3 1i.g6 20.h4 h6 2 1 . h 5 .th7 2 2 . 'ucdl± White achieved total con­trol of the d-file in the game J. Eslon - Bjarnason, Stockholm 1975 . The prophylactic move 13 . . . h6 does not solve Black's problems as well, after 14. �d3 a5 �hS in the widely known game Capablanca - Kan, Moscow 1935, White had a chance to reach an excellent endging by 15. 4Jxe5! llJxe5 16.dxe5 �xe5 1 7 . �d6 �xd6 lS.llJxd6 f6 19.'ufd1 �bS 20.�d4±) 14.�xd4 llJf6 (af­ter 14 . . . h6 15 .'ufd1 'ueS 16.llJd6 � fS 1 7 . llJh4± the threat of

199

Chapter 14

White's knight coming to f5 and g6 was very unpleasant for Black i n the game H aag - Geyer, Wuerzburg 1987) 15.ttJxf6+ �xf6 16. �xf6 gxf6 White can trans­pose into a favourable endgame which did happen many times in the tournament practice. Events might develop as follows : 1 7 . ttJd4!? (after 17Jifd1 i.g4 18J�d6 �g7 19 .1Icd l lIfe8 20.h3 i.xf3 2 1 .gxf3 c5 22.�h2 c4 23.i.c2 lIe6 24.lI6d4 �e5 25.f4 lIb5� in the game Tarrasch - Teichmann, Nuremberg 1896, Black got a chance to organize counterplay) 17 . . . 1:!.e8 ( 1 7 . . . i.d7 18 .�c5 lIfe8 19 .a4± Vidmar - Ahues, Bad Nauheim 1936) 18.l:.fdl i.e6 (af­ter 18 . . . i.d7 19.a4 a5 20.l:l.c5 l:Ie5 21.l:.xe5 fxe5 22.ttJf3 l:ie8 23.ttJg5 l:.e7 24.ttJe4± the white knight occupied an excellent stand on e4 in the game J. Cooper - R. Tho­mas , England 1998) 19 .ttJxe6! (this move improves Black's pawn structure to some extent but now the s up eriority of White's bishop over the black knight becomes particularly no­ticeable) 19 . . . fxe6 20.l:.d6 �f7 2 1 . e4 ttJc8 22 .l:.d3 �e7 (after 22 . . . ttJb6 23 .f4 �e7 24.f5 exf5 25.exfS �f8 26.i.e6± Black expe­rienced difficulties in defending against intrusion of White's rooks in the game J . Eslon -Rodriguez Talavera, Barcelona 1988) 23 .lIh3 lIh8 24.e5± and White pressed his opponent back to the last rank in the game Portisch - Kapu, Hungary 1964.

200

12J:txc3 In case of 12.bxc3 c5= Black

equalizes easily.

Black has now two different plans for developing his light­squared bishop: b2a) 12 . . . b6 arid b2b) 12 . . . e5. I n case of 12 . . . ttJf6 (the same position as after 12 . . . ttJf6 occurred with an insignificant transposition of moves as a result of 12 . . . ttJb6 13 .i.d3 ttJd5 14Jlc5 in the game Kirste - Romaszko, Mamaia 199 1) White can try 13 .i.d3!? (immediately preventing Black from developing his l ight­squared bishop by b7-b6 and i.c8-b7) and after 13 . . . ttJd5 14. ltc5 h6 15.'�bl i.d7 16.ttJe5 i.e8 17 JUcl White did not let his op­ponent to loosen the grip and got an advantage in the game Ram­sauer - Baumgaertner, Regens­burg 1996. Black's wish to em­ploy his light-squared bishop re­sorting to 17 . . . fS allowed White to develop a strong initiative on the queenside after 1 8 .b4 a6 19.a4 �g5 20.ttJf3 �f6 2 1.b5t.

Apart from these main con­tinuations which are aimed prin­cipally at the improvement of

4.tDc3 !i.e7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 tDbd7 7.:c1 c6 B.!i.d3

Black's light-squared bishop , sometimes occures 12 . . . c5 with the idea to make some breathing space at first and then proceed­ing to the bishop's problem. In this case after 1 3 . iLb5 (after 13.dxc5 tDxc5 14. �c2 in the game Martin Gonzalez - Moloney, Cappelle la Grande 1995, Black missed a chance to get a solid equal position without any weak points by 14 . . . iLd7=) 13 . . . cxd4 14.�xd4 tDf6 15.kId1 b6 (the plan with advanced fianchetto looks tardy and after 15 . .. a6 16.iLe2 b5 in the game Reinfeld - Kupchik, New York 1940, it could have been questioned by 1 7 . �e5!;t) 16.1:.dc1 (the move 16.�e5 is not dangerous due to 16 . . . :'dS 1 7 . .l:.xdS+ .grxdS lS.tDd4 !i.b7 19. �c7 �d5 20.i.c6 !i.xc6 2 1 . �xc6 :'dS= Gotti - Long, Nice 1935) 16 .. .'�Jd5 1 7 J:t3c2 iL d 7 l S . !i.xd7 �xd7 19 .tDe5 .grb5 20.tDc6 �hS 21 .g3;t and White was better in the game Braga - Perez, Las Palmas 1991 . Black solved the problem of the light-squared bishop in that game yet other troubles arose instead. As soon as the play was opened up in the centre, White's rooks occupied the c-file and his knight found a great out­post on c6. So neutralization of White's activity is a real chal­lenge to Black.

The move 12 . . . :'dS is akin to the plan with e6-e5, familiar to us from variation b2b. In this case White can fight for advan­tage by means of 13. �c2!? e5

(Black can't switch to the plan from variation b2a by 13 . . . b6? because of 14.!i.d3+-; in case of 13 . . . tDffi 14.tDe5 f6 15 .tDd3 �hS 16.b4 e5 17 .dxe5 fxe5 lS.e4 tDg6 19 .b5;t in the game Florian -Koberl, Hungary 1951 , the delay of e6-e5 allowed White to put up activity on the queenside; after 13 . . . h6 14.a3 tDb6 15 .!i.a2 i.d7 16.iLb1 g6 17 .h4 h5 l S.e4 iLeS 19.iLa2 kIacS 20.b4 �g7 21 .kIe1 :'as 22. �b3 �d6 23.a4;t in the game Timman - Georgievski, Skopj e 1 9 7 6 , White demon­strated how Black can be left without any hope for a break, the light-squared bishop remaining imprisoned; a similar demon­stration was performed after 13 . . . tDf6 14.e4 !i.d7 15 .:'e1 iLeS 16 .i.d3 h6 17.a3 a5 lS.�e2 tDd7 19.e5 tDffi 20.�e3 :'d7 2 1 .:'ec1 kIadS 22.:'c5;t in the game Eriks­son - Malesevic, Sweden 1995) 14.h4!? (after 14. �e4 :'eS 15 .:'d1 exd4 16. �xe7 kIxe7 17.kIxd4 �ffi lS.iLb3 h6 19.kId6 tDf6 20.1:.dS+ kIeS 2 1 .:'xeS+ tDxeS 22.tDe5 tDd6 23.f3 We7 24.Wf2 a5 25.a3 iLe6= B lack held out in the game Kottnauer - Tartakower, Am­sterdam 1950, having exchanged eventually all White's active pieces) 14 . . . h6 (the move 14 . . . exd4?! after 1 5 . tDg5 tDf6 1 6 . iLxf7+ �fS 17 .exd4 h 6 lS .1:.e3 �d6 19. �g6 hxg5 20.iLc4 �c7 2 1 .kIfe 1 gxh4 22.:'e7+- allows White to develop a winning at­tack, according to an analysis by Ftacnik) 15. �e4 kIeS 16.iLd3 g6

201

Chapter 14

17 . h5 exd4 18 " �xe7 l:txe7 19. ltJxd4;t with an advantage to White in the endgame.

b2a) 12 . . . b6?! Anticipating the events, we

can mention now that Black tries to solve his problems in a simi­lar way in variation a2b, Chap­ter 15, with the distinction that he has an evident advantage of a flight square (after h7-h6) in that line. Knowing this, we can expect that the plan with b7-b6 in the current edition promises nothing good.

13.i.d3 White regroups his forces for

an attack of Black's queenside. 13 . . . c5 14:�c2 h6 In case of 14 . . . g6 the best re­

action is probably 15.i.e4!?± to be continued similarly to the main line. Also note that White can win a pawn with the help of 15 .i.b5 i.b7 ( 1 5 . . . cxd4? is bad due to 16.I!.c7 �d6 17. �c6+-, in the game Cserna - Ilievski, Ruse 1 9 8 3 ) 1 6 . .l1.xd7 i.xf3 1 7 . gxf3 �xd7 18.dxc5 bxc5 19 . .:txc5;t but winning this position would be quite a strenuous task.

202

15 . .i.h7+ White drives the opponent's

king away from the centre which can turn out useful in the end­game. By 15.i.b5 .l1.b7 16 . .txd7 .txf3 17.gxf3 �xd7 18.dxc5 bxc5 19J;Ixc5 White won a pawn in the game Najdorf - Donoso Velasco, Santiago 1971 yet he failed to convert it after 19 . . . l:tac8 20.b4 I!.xc5 2 1.bxc5 �d5 22.e4 �g5+ 23. Whl I!.c8 24.ncl l:tc6 25. �c3 e5;t. White can save the check on h7: after 15 . .l1.e4 nb8 16.l:tcl .tb7 17. .l1.xb7 l:txb7 18.dxc5 ltJxc5 19.b4 ltJa6 20 .a3 .l:i.bb8 2 1 .ltJd4 �b7 22.ltJc6 J:tbe8 23. �a4 .:ta8 24. �b5 ltJb8 25.ltJd4 ltJa6 26. 'a'c6± in the game Yermolinsky - Lein, Las Vegas 1993, he drove Black's pieces to the edge of the board while his own occupied predomi­nant places in the centre.

15 ... '>t>h8 16.i.e4 �b8 After 16 . . . .l1.a6 17 . .l1.xa8 i..xfl

18 . .l1.c6 cxd4 19.1tJxd4 .l1.a6 20.b4± every white piece is positioned more actively than it's black op­ponent.

17.l:tcl f5 In case of 17 . . . i..b7 18.i..xb7

.:txb7 19.dxc5 ltJxc5 20 .b4± the play develops similarly to the game Yermolinsky - Lein, Las Vegas 1993.

18.i.c6 i.b7 19.i.xb7 I!.xb7 20.b4!?

Everything is ready for an intrusion down the c-file, it only remains to open it up now.

20 . . . cxd4 After 20 . . . cxb4 2 1 .l:tc7 l:txc7

4.tbc3 �e7 S . .tgS 0-0 6.e3 CiJbd7 7.�c1 c6 8. �d3

22.'iftxc7 ne8 23 .tha7 CiJe5 24. "fixe7 CiJxf3+ 25 .gxf3 .l:l.xe7 26. �c4± Black would have a hard time in the ending.

2 1.CiJxd4±

This position occurred in the game Podgaets - Otero, Havana 1999. Black can't oppose any­thing to White's full control of the c-file.

b2b) 12 . . . e5 Now the path along the c8-h3

diagonal is almost free for the black bishop.

13.�b3

At this point Black must take one more important decision: he either should close the centre by b2bl) 13 ... e4 or, vice versa, open it up by b2b2) 13 ... exd4. Black is forced to choose one of these

ways because he has to move the knight away from d7 in order to develop his bishop , and the knight protects the e 5-pawn. Sometimes, however, Black lin­gers with the decision. Usually he moves in this case the king's rook to one of the central files, so as not to deteriorate the posi­tion and to maintain tension in the centre. Further might follow 13 . . . oUe8 14.' iftc2 (after 14.dxe5 lbxe5 15.lbxe5 "fixe5::: Black was fine in the game Lahiri - Mu­rugan, New Delhi 2001) 14 . . . exd4 (after 14 . . . e4 15.lbd2 lbffi 16.oUc5;!; Black was suffering without h7-h6 (in distinction to the position in variation a2a, Chapter 15) -he cannot play 16 . . . �e6? due to 17.lbxe4 and the reply 17 . . . lbd7 is simply refuted by 18.lbg5!+-) 15 .exd4 lbb6 (if 15 . . . lbfS, then 16 .d5;!;) 16Jle3 �e6 (Black can't retreat by 16 . . . "fid8?? because of 17.lbg5+) 17.�xe6 fxe6 18.oUfel lbd5 19.1::e5 h6 20."fie4;!; in the game Ogaard - Skare, Gausdal 1996, White's chances were bet­ter because his weak pawn on d4 was nevertheless stronger than Black's weak pawn on e6.

In case of 13 . . . .ud8 White can continue by 14 . .ue1 g6 (after 14 . . . exd4 15.exd4 Black is forced to play 15 . . . "fif6 in order to main­tain control over g5 but then White has the favourable oppor­tunity of 16."fie2 lbfS 17 ."fie7!±) when in the game San Segundo Carrillo - Campora, Cala Gal­dana 1999, White could have re-

203

Chapter 14

tained all his advantage by 15. �c2!?;!;.

It should be noted here as well that the prophylactic 13 . . . cJthB? is a blunder since after 14.dxe5 ltJxe5 15 .ltJxe5 �xe5 in the game Zoltek - Schlag, Bad Wildbad 1997, White could have won a pawn for nothing by 16.i.xf'7!±.

b2bl) 13 ... e4 This way the d7-knight is set

free from defending the e5-pawn.

14.ltJd2 White's aim is to to set up his

pieces in a way to bind Black at most with the defence of the e4-pawn. That would allow to pre­vent i.cB-e6, driving the white bishop away from the a2-gB di­agonal.

14 ... ltJf6 In case of 14 . . . cJthB with the

idea to reinforce the e4-pawn by f'7-f5 White has 15.�c2!? (15 . �h5 is worse because after 15 . . . f5 16.f3 Black wins a tempo by 16 . . . ltJf6 and after 17.�h4 i.e6 1B.fxe4 fxe4 19.�c5 i.d5 20.i.xd5 cxd5 2 1 JHc1 �e6= he main­tained balance in the game Fine - 1. Rabinovich, Leningrad 1937)

204

15 . . . f5 16 .f3 (this undermining advance is particularly efficient when the black pawn appeared on f5) ltJf6 (after 16 . . . exf3 17 . ltxf3;t Black must take care of the f5-pawn and also protect e5 against an intrusion of enemy's pieces) 17.fxe4 fxe4 White could have kept his advantage in the game Stahlberg - Grob, Ostende 1936, by 1B.ltf4!;t. Unfortunately he was allured by the opportu­nity 1B.ltJxe4? but after lB . . . i.f5! 19J�xf5 ltJxe4 20.l:te5 �f6 21 .h3 ltJxc3 22.bxc3 ltaeB+ he lost ma­terial instead of winning.

15.l!c5!? As soon as the black knight

left d7, White's rook came out to terrorize Black along the fifth line. The idea is very simple: to prevent the black bishop from getting to f5 or e6. The latter possibility is usually no good as the white rook arrives to e5 in this case.

15 . . . ..tg4 Driving the rook away from

the fifth horizontal is not as easy as it may seem at first sight. Af­ter 15 . . . ltJd7 16.�f5 Black had to leave it in peace: 16 . . . cJthB 17.f3 exf3 1B. �xf3 ltJf6 19 .1:te5 �b4 20 .ltJe4, and the position was opened up then to White's favour in the game Aaltio - Aakio, Fin­land 19BB. After i.g4 2 1 . �f4 ltJxe4 22. �xe4 i.e2 23.�c1 f5 24. �c2 i.a6 White had the op­tion of25.11d1!?;!; (overprotecting the d2-square against the black queen thus putting stress upon

4.0JC3 i.e7 5.i.g5 0-0 6.e3 t'iJbd7 7.nc1 c6 B.i.d3

the weaknes s of Black's f5-pawn).

16.�bl! This move is more accurate

than 16. �c2 - in the latter case White must reckon with the con­tinuation 16 . . . i.e2 17.lac1 .td3ao. With the white queen on bl in the same position White could have played i.b3-c2 then.

16 ... t'iJd7 After 16 ... I!.ae8 17 . .tc2 the e4-

pawn should be ready to suffer another attack of .l::tc5-e5 and in case of 17 . . . t'iJd7 White has 18. lIa5 ! t just to remind Black that he has more than one unde­fended pawn.

1 7.�c3 .l:!.ae8 18.�xe4!? White opens up in the hope to

make use of the superior activ­ity of his pieces. In case of 18.�c2 f5ao Black improves his position in the centre.

1 8 . . . �xe4 1 9.cLlxe4 l::txe4 20.f3 i..xf3 2 1.gxf3

The white bishop has a sort of advantage over the black knight now which can turn out crucial in this ending.

2 1 . . . .l:!.ee8 After 2 1 . . .Uh4 22.d5;!;; in the

game Lamprecht - M. Fischer, Dresden 1997, the black rook was of no use on h4. 2 1 . . Jle7 is possible but after 22 .'It>f2 t'iJf6 23 . .l:'tg1 h6 24 .a3 Ud8 25 . .l:'tc5;!;; White still was maintaining a slight advantage in the game A. Kharitonov - Pfleger, Royan 1988.

22.d5 cxd5 23.i.xd5;!;;

This position occurred in the game Lobron - Fahnenschmidt, Germany 1993. Since the centre of the board is open , White's bishop is stronger than Black's knight in the ending.

b2b2) 13 ... exd4 As well as in variation b2bl,

Black relieves his knight of the duty to defend the e5-pawn.

14.exd4! By this move White goes for

a position with isolated pawn. When taking this decision he also considers that, apart from main­taining control over the impor­tant central squares, he also gets the opportunity to occupy the e­file with a tempo. At the same time White's attempts to keep the pawn structure untouched after 14 .t'iJxd4 t'iJf6 1 5 . f3 l:.d8

205

Chapter 14

16. �c1 ttJd5 17 .�xd5 1:txd5 IS. ':'d1 c5 19.e4 cxd4 20.l:.xcS+ ':'xcS 21 .�xcS+ ':'dS= resulted in sim­plification and equalization in the game Lobron - Ree, Ter Apel 19S7, and the same happened after 14. �xd4 ttJf6 15.':'c5 �e6 16.':'e5 ttJd7 17.':'g5 f6 IS. �e4 ':'feS 19.�xe6+ �xe6 20. �xe6+ ':'xe 6 = in the game Piket -Arlandi, Oakham 19S6.

14 . . . ttJf6 After 14 . . . ttJb6 15.':'e1 �f6 (in

case of 15 . . . �d6 White has 16. ttJg5 �f5 17.':'ce3 with the idea ':'e3-e7, and the move 17 . . . h6? gets refuted by lS.ttJxf7+-) 16. �e2 �f5 17.�e7± Black was in great trouble in the game Stahl­berg - Sundberg, Orebo 1937.

15.':'el This move is better than

15 .':'e3 �d6 16.h3 which allowed Black to hold the position after 16 . . . ..ltd7 17 . .:.fe1 ttJd5 lS .':'e5 f6 1 9 . ..ltxd 5 + cxd5 2 0 . ':'e 7 ':'feS 21 .':'xeS+ .:.xeS 22.':'xeS+ ..ltxeS 23. �c2 �c6= by simplifying in the game Ubilava - A. Haritonov, Sevastopol 19S6.

15 ... �d6 16.ttJe5 White should try to keep his

knight on the board. After 16. ':'ce3 ..ltg4 17 .h3 .ltxf3 lS.':'xf3 ':'adS 19 .':'d3 ':'d7 20.�f3 �b4 2 1 . ':'ed 1 ':'fdS+ in the game V. Kahn - Maderna, Warsaw (ol) 1935, White's dynamic advan­tage of having an isolated pawn expired while its static weakness remained.

16 ... ttJd5

206

For several moves Black has been struggling for a convenient development of his light-squared bishop . Strange enough but when he eventually can do this it would be better to cancel it for some time. The move 16 . . . ..ltf5?! is no good because of the tactical blow 17 . .ltxf7+! (after 17.':'£3 �g6 lS.ttJxg6 hxg6 19. �d3 ':'aeS 20. ':'d1 ttJd5 2 1 . �d2 ':'e7 22 . �c4 ':'feS= White gained nothing in the game Boytsun - Savic, Can­nes 1997, as well as after 17.':'g3 ':'aeS IS. �f3 �g6= in the game Orso - 1. Almasi, Budapest 1991) 17 . . . .:.xf7 lS.ttJxf7 Wxf7 19. �b3+ WfS (19 . . . \t>g6 fails to 20.':'g3+ \t>h6 21. �e3+-) 20. �xb7 ':'bS 21 . �xa7 .:.xb2 22.l:.xc6 �xc6 (in case of22 . . . .:.xa2 23. �b6 �e7 24.lixf6 �xf6 2 5 . � b S + <r.t> f7 2 6 . �eS# Black is forced to choose between checkmate and loss ofthe queen) 23. �a3± with an overwhelming advantage to White. In case of 16 . . . �e6 after 17 . ..ltxe6 fxe6 IS. �b3 !? ':'abS 19.':'ce3 ttJd5 20.':'e4 ':'f6 2 1 .ttJd3 b6 2 2 . g3;!; White managed to cripple the oppo­nent's pawn structure to his favour in the game 1 . Khenkin -Sulskis, Koszalin 1995.

17.':'g3 i.f5 In case of 17 . . . f6 lS.ttJc4 �dS

19. �h5 White can develop a dan­gerous attack to the black king. For example, in case of 19 . . . g6 (Black is relatively better in the continuations 19 . . . b6 20.':'e4± or 19 . . . �d7 20.ttJd6± but still his position leaves much to be de-

4. 0c3 i.e7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 CiJbd7 7.�c1 c6 B. i.d3

sired in both lines) there is a very strong strike 20.11xg6+ ! hxg6 21. �xg6+ Wh8 when 22 . .l:!.e3! i..f5 (after 22 . . . CiJxe3 23. �h6+ Wg8 2 4 . CiJx e 3 + U f7 2 5 . �g6+ Wh8 26.i.xfl �f8 27.�xf6+ �g7 28. �d8+ Wh7 29.i.b3+- White not only maintains the material ad­vantage but also has a strong attack) 23.�xf5 CiJxe3 24.�h5+ Wg7 25.CiJxe3 f5 26.CiJxf5+ .l:!.xf5 (not 26 . . . Wf6 because of27.�h6+ Wxf5 2 8 . i.e6+ We4 29. �e3#) 2 7 . �xf5+- gives White three pawns against the exchange.

18.�f3 In distinction to the similar

position in variation a2al, Chap­ter 15 (with the black pawn on h6 instead of h7 ) , the move 18.�h5 is useless in view of the equalizing 18 . . . i.g6=.

18 ... i..g6 19.h4! White goes o n increasing

pressure on the kingside, threat­ening with h4-h5. Mter 19.i..xd5 cxd5 20.CiJxg6 hxg6= the play was equalized in the game E. Kahn -I. Almasi, Budapest 1992.

19 ... CiJf6 19 . . . �b4 does not help since

20 . .l:!.d1 tiJe7 2 1 .h5 i..f5 allows White to win material by 22 . .l:!.g5! g6 23 .hxg6 hxg6 24.tiJxfl Rxfl 25.g4+-. In case of 19 . . . h6 20.h5 i.h7 2 1 . �g4 Black faces great problems too - an attempt to de­fend g7 by 21 . . . �f6 fails because

of 22.CiJd7+-. 20.CiJxg6 hxg6 21.lIxg6 After 2 1. .Udl Wh7 22.d5 cxd5

2 3 . i.xd5 Uad8 24 . i..b3 � c 7 = White's activity expires.

21 ... �xd4 22.�g3 In case of 22.h5 Wh8 23 . .l:!.g3

.l:!.ae8 24.Udl �xb2 2 5 . h6 g6°o Black can withstand with his extra pawn.

22 ... CiJd5 23.lig5 liae8 The move 23 . . . �xb2 is dubi­

ous since after 24.Uee5� it is dif­ficult for Black to protect his king against all troubles.

24.ltee5 lixe5 25. �xe5 �xe5 26 . .l:r.xe5;!;

White's chances are some­what better in this endgame. In the play on both wings his bishop i s more useful than Black's knight. Also there is the impor­tant nuance that White can hope to create in the long run a remote passed pawn on the h-file. This circumstance may even become crucial in some lines, for example in a pawn ending.

207

Chapter 15 l.ltJf3 d5 2.d4 e 6 3.c4 ltJf6 4.ltJc3 .i.e7 5 . .i.g5 0-0 6.e3 h6

Black offers White to take decision concerning his dark­squared bishop right away.

7.i.h4 An exchange on f6 is of no

practical use for White. In any case he should not do this now.

After White's bishop retreat to h4, Black proceeds usually with one of the following devel­oping plans : a) 7 • • • ttJe4, b) 7 . . . ttJbd7 or c) 7 . . . b6. Besides, in case of 7 . . . c6 8.Itc1 ttJbd7 the play steers into a position in variation b; in case of 7 . . . dxc4 8.i.xc4 c5 9 . 0-0 cxd4 10 .ttJxd4 ( after 10. exd4 ttJc6 lI .ne1 b6 12.a3 i.b7 13.i.a2 Black played 13 . . . ttJh5 1 4 . i.x e 7 ttJxe7 1 5 . ttJ e 5 ttJf6 = when the exchange of the dark­squared bishop made his task of fighting against the isolated pawn simpler in the game Van

208

der Sterren - Skoblikov, N ether­lands 1987) 10 . . . a6 1 1 . i.e2!;!; White's light-squared bishop was ready to conquer the main diago­nal a8-h1 in the game Riediger ­Blum, Altenkirchen 1999 putting Black's queenside under serious pressure.

a) 7 • • • ttJe4 By this knight manoeuvre

Black wants to simplify the po­sition. In the chess theory this continuation is known as the Lasker Defence.

8.i.xe7 White must agree to swap the

dark-squared bishops. 8 . . • ftxe7 9 . .l:!.c1 White goes on with develop­

ment, trying to create pressure down the c-file. At the same time he also prevents c7-c5. An ex­change on e4 promises no good to White - after 9 .ttJxe4 dxe4 10 .ttJd2 e5 1l.dxe5 �xe5 12. ftc2 i.f5 13.c5 ttJd7 14.l:.c1 b6 15.b4 a5� Black obtained counterplay in the game Ftacnik - Boensch, Germany 1996. Black encoun­tered no problems after 9.cxd5 ttJxc3 10.bxc3 exd5 11. ftb3 l:.d8°o

4.lbc3 �e7 5.�g5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.�h4

12.c4 dxc4 13 .�xc4 lLIc6 14.�e2 b 6 ! 1 5 . 0-0 �b7 1 6 .l:I.ac1 lLIa5 17 .'�b2 l:I.ac8 18 .h3 c5= in the game Kramnik - Lutz, Germany 1994.

9 . . . lLIxc3 The most consistent continu­

ation, keeping to the policy of simplification which was de­clared by Black's seventh move.

In case of 9 . . . l:I.d8 10 .i..d3 4:Jxc3 11. .Uxc3 dxc4 (11 . . . c5? is a mistake because after 12 .cxd5 'uxd5 in the game Lindsay -M arsick, New Zealand 1980, White could have won a pawn by 1 3 . � e 4 not fearing 13 . . . ,Uh5 14.4:Je5+-) 12 .'uxc4 4:Jc6 13.i..e4 �d7 14JIc5 f5 15 .�d3 b6 16J:tc3 e5 in the game Autenrieth - Kai­ser, Augsburg 1984, after 17 . .i.c4+ Wh8 18.�d5± White's pres­sure along the c-file and the di­agonal a8-h1 was very promis­ing.

After 9 . . . b 6 1 0 . cxd5 ttJxc3 1l .'uxc3 exd5 12. �c2 c6 13.i..d3 �b7 14.0-0 lLId7 15 .'uc1 c5 (in case of 15 . . . l:I.fd8 16.i..h7+ 'it>h8 1 7 .�f5± White's pressure was quite perceptible in the game Bromb erger - G. S chmidt,

Bayern 1998) 16.�f5 c4 in the game M argraf - C hocholka, Passau 1998, White had an op­portunity to destroy the phalanx of Black's queenside pawns by the standard manoeuvre 17 . '�a4 lLIf6 18.b3±.

The move 9 . . . 4:Jc6 can't be con­sidered a good idea: after 10.cxd5 ttJxc3 1l .l:I.xc3 exd5 12. �b5 ttJb8 13 .�c2 c6 14.i..d3 ttJd7 15 .0-0;!; a typical position with Carlsbad structure occurred in the game Holzapfel - Runau, Germany 1990, and, obviously, moving the black knight from b8 to c6 and then back was but a waste of time.

After 9 . . . ttJf6 10 . �d3 ( after 1 0 . �b3 l:td8 1 1 .�e2 dxc4 1 2 . �xc4 a 6 13.0-0 b 5 14.�b3 �b7 15.a4 b4 16.a5 ttJc6 17.4:Ja2 1bb8 18. �a4 b3 19. �xb3 e5!oo the po­sition of White's queen provided Black with substancial counter­play in the game Beliavsky -Short, Belgrade 1987; and in case of 10 . �c2 l:I.d8 1 l . a3 dxc4 1 2 . �xc4 c5 13 .0-0 ttJc6 14.dxc5 �xc5 15 .�a2 �d7 16 .ttJd5 �xc2 1 7 . ttJxf6+ gxf6 18J:1xc2 ttJe5 19.ttJd4 'uac8= Black solved his defence problems without great efforts in the game 1. Farago - Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1988) 10 . . . lLIbd7 (in case of 10 . . . dxc4 11.�xc4 c5 12. 0-0 'ud8 13 .�e2 cxd4 14.lLIxd4 White's pieces occupy favourable positions in the centre and an attempt to limit their influence allowed White to take over d5 too after 14 . . . e5 15.4:Jb3 lL1c6 16.l:I.fd1

209

Chapter 15

.itd7 17 .h3 l:.ac8 18.a3 .ite8 19. lLld5 lLlxd5 20 .l:.xd5 l:.xd5 2 l . .itxd5;!; i n the game Taimanov -Kholmov, Baku 196 1; in case of 10 . . . l:.d8 l1 .cxd5 exd5 12.lLle5 c5 13 .0-0 lLlc6 14.lLlxc6 bxc6 in the game Vallejo Pons - Lalic, An­dorra la Vella 1999, White could have blocked up Black's isolated pair c6&d5 by 1 5 . dxc5 �xc5 16.lLle4 �e7 17.lLlc5;!;) 11.0-0 dxc4 ( 11 . . . c6 is worse because after 12.e4! dxe4 13 .lLlxe4 ':d8 14. �e2 b6 15.lLle5 .itb7 and then 16.c5! lLlxe5 17 .dxe5 lLlxe4 18. �xe4± in the game Huguet - Cherta, (Ar­gentina- Spain radio match) 1948, White managed to hinder the normal functioning of Black's light-squared bishop) 12 . .itxc4 c5 1 3 . �e2!? (after 1 3 . dxc5 lLlxc5 1 4 . lLl e 5 lLlcd 7 ! 1 5 . �d4 lLlxe5 16. �xe5 .itd7 17.lLld5 lLlxd5 18 . .itxd5 .itb5 19J:tfd1 ':ac8 20 . .i.f3 .i.a6= in the game Kotov - Naj­dorf, Groningen 1946, Black suc­cessfully extinguished the oppo­nent's activity with the help of exchanges) 13 . . . cxd4 14.lLlxd4;!; Black can get into trouble very easily - White's development is complete while Black has wasted time for knight manoeuvres (lLlf6-e4-f6), and his queens ide remains fairly underdeveloped.

It should be mentioned as well that after 9 . . . c6 10 . .itd3 (in case of 1 0 . cxd5 exd5 1 1 ..� d3 Black weakens the opponent's kingside to some extent by 11 . . . .i.g4! 1 2 . 0- 0 .i.xf3 = , and 1 3 . �xf3?? fails to 1 3 . . . lLld2 14. �f5

210

g6 15.�h3 lLlxf1 16.Wxf1 Wg7-+ as it happened in the game Reese - Tzschach, Hauenstein 199 1 ; the exchange 10.ltJxe4 dxe4 oc­curs very rarely and, for ex­ample, after l1.ltJd2 f5 12.c5 ltJd7 13.lLlc4 e5 ( 13 . . . b6) 14.lLld6 exd4 15 . .itc4+ Wh7 1 6 . �xd4 ltJ e 5 = White failed t o achieve any ad­vantage in the game Capablanca - Rubinstein, Budapest 1929) 10 . . . lLlxc3 (after 10 . . . f5 l1 .ltJe5 �f6 12 . .i.xe4 fxe4 1 3 . 0-0 lLld7 14.f4 ltJxe5 15.fxe5 �g5 16.':xf8+ Wxf8 17. �f1+ Wg8 18. �f2 .i.d7 19.1:.f1;!; the advantage of White's knight over the black bishop was obvious in the game Doncea - AI. Kharitonov, Eforie Nord 1998) 1l.':xc3 the play, with a minor change in the move order, joins the main line of the variation.

lO..lhc3 c6 1l . .ii.d3

Now Black usually proceeds with his development by a l ) 1 l . . . lLld7 or to simplification by a2) 1l . . . dxc4.

al) 1l . . . ltJd7 12.cxd5!? White chooses the Karlsbad

structure. In case of 12.0-0 White must reckon with the possibility

4.ltJc3 i..e7 S.il.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i..h4

of 12 . . . e5! and after 13.dxe5 (in case of 13.cxd5 e4 14.dxc6 bxc6 15 . SLe2 exf3 1 6 .SLxf3 ..tb7 1 7 . SLxc6 SLxc6 18.l:.xc6 .uac8co de­spite the non-standard propor­tion of material on the board the chances are mutual in the game Psakhis - Kholmov, Tallinn 1983) 13 . . . dxc4 14.i.xc4 lDxe5 15.lDxe5 �xe5 1 6 . �b3 b5 1 7 .SLe2 SLe6 1 8 . � c 2 SL d 5 = the play was quickly equalized in the game Lautier - Kramnik, Monte Carlo (active) 1999.

12 .. . exd5 13.0-0 lDf6 In case of 13 . . . .ue8 14. �b1 lDf6

(after 14 . . .. �d6 15.b4 a6 16.l:.fc1 lDf8 17.a4 f6 18.h3 SLe6 19.b5! axb5 20.axb5 SLd7 21 .�b2 .uec8 22 .bxc6 bxc6 23 .l:.b3± in the game Van Scheltinga - Szabados, Amsterdam 1950, White's minor­ity attack developed quite suc­cessfully and Black's attempt to slow down the opponent's ad­vance on the queenside by 14 . . . a5 allowed White after 15.l:.a3 �d6 16.l:.c1 �b4 17. �c2 �b6 18.l:.b1 l:.a7 19 . .uc1 l:.a8 20.h3 lDf6 21 . �c5 lDd7 22. �xb6 lDxb6 23.l:.c5 a4 24 . .uc1 SLe6 25 .lDd2 'iit>f8 26. 'iit>f1 g5 27.'iit>e2 f6 28.b4± to find an active plan namely owing to the a-pawn in the game Slipak ­Rubinetti, Mar del Plata 1999) 15 .b4 lDe4 16.SLxe4 dxe4 17 .lDd2 i.e6 18.l:.fc1 (White gains noth­ing by 18.lDxe4 because of 18 . . . SLf5 1 9 . f3 i.xe4 20.fxe4 �xe4 21 .�xe4 :'xe4= but 18.b5 is pos­sible and the p osition after 18 .. . i.d5 19.1Uc1 will be analysed

later while the continuation 18 . . . cxb5 19.�xb5 .uec8 20.lDxe4 .txa2 2 1 .l:.fc1 :.xc3 22 .lDxc3 i..e6 23 .d5± provided better chances to White in the game Bolbochan - Aaron, Stockholm 1962) 18 . . . .td5 19.b5 l:.ad8 i n the game P. Nikolic - Jussup ow, Horgen 1994, White could have went on by 20.bxc6 bxc6 21 .l:.c5 !± to be followed by lDc4-e5, thus gaining an advantage owing to the pres­sure upon the c6-pawn (21.lDc4 is an inaccuracy b ecause of 21 . . . c5 ! =).

14.�bl White avoids the pin along

the d1-h5 diagonal and at the same time prepares the minor­ity attack on the queenside. The alternative way of avoiding the pin by 14.lDe5 is less efficient -after 14 . . . lDd7 15.f4 (in case of 15 .lDxd7 i.xd7 16.a3 a5 17.�d2 f5 18.b4 axb4 19.axb4 b5 20.l:.b1 l:.a4 2 1 .l:.cc1 l:.fa8= Meduna -Inkiov, Sochi 1983 , Black's con­trol of the a-file comes out as a sufficient compensation for the weakening ofthe c6-pawn which is quite safe so far but with the help of 14.lDf3 !? White can still revert to the continuation given as the main line here) 15 . . . lDxe5 (certainly not 15 . . . f6?! since after 16.lDg6 �xe3+ 17.'iit>h U Black is going to lose an exchange as oth­erwise he loses a queen after 17 . . . l1e8? 18.lDe5!+-) 16.fxe5 f6 17.exf6 l:.xf6 18Jitxf6 �xf6 19. �h5 i..d7= Black can equalize.

14 . .. lDe4 15 . .txe4

211

Chapter 15

Otherwise the black bishop reaches f5, thus making it very difficult for White to avoid an exchange of the light-squared bishops.

15 . . . dxe4 16.4:Je5 While occupying the dominat­

ing position in the centre (by the way, the white knight feels fine on e5 just because Black had played h7-h6 making the f7-f6 highly problematic) the white knight is, at the least, no weaker then Black's bishop. Also White can continue by 1 6 . 4:Jd2 ,UeS 17 .l:f.c5 f6 lS .b4 i.d7 19.'ufc1 a6 20.a4 .l:i.adS 2 1 .4:Jc4 i.g4 22.h3 i.e2 23.�a2 i.xc4 24. �xc4+ �f7 25 .b5± like in the game Van Scheltinga - J. Donner, Birming­ham 195 1 . Even when the minor pieces leave the board, it is very difficult for Black to neutralize White's activity on the queen­side.

16 ... i.f5 After 1 6 . . . 'ueS 1 7 . 1Ifc l f6

lS.4:Jc4 c5 19.dxc5 �xc5 20 .tZJd2 �d5 21 .4:Jxe4 i.f5 22.':'c5 �xe4 23 . .l:i.xf5± Black lost the e4-pawn without any shade of compensa­tion in the game Gligoric -Horowitz , Havana 1952.

1 7.h4 f6 N ow that g6 is covered by the

bishop, Black really can afford f7-f6.

l S.4:Jc4 lHdS 19.4:Jd2 l::td5 20 . .l:Ic5 l::tadS 21..l:tfcl �eS 22. a4±

(diagram) This position occurred in the

212

game Franic - Begovac, Porec 1995. White's pawn assault on the queenside is very promising.

a2) 1l . . . dxc4

12 . .txc4 As you will see from the varia­

tions given below, Black wants to develop his bishop either to the cS-h3 diagonal after e6-e5, or to b7 after b7 -b6. The latter can be prevented by 12.':'xc4. Then the advance b7-b6 would not be very good anymore because White can combine threats to the c6-pawn engaging the rook, the e4-bishop and the knight from e5. So Black should prefer the former way of developing his bishop to the cS­h3 diagonal . H owever after 1 2 . . . lZJd7 1 3 . 0- 0 ( threats to Black's kingside had no practi­cal result after 13.i.c2 e5 14.�d3

4.ttJc3 i.e7 S.i..gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i.h4

f5 15.dxe5 ttJxe5 16.ttJxe5 �xe5 17.l:.d4 .lte6 lS.0-0 �hS 19.1:.d1 :aeS 2 0 . h 3 c 5 = in the game Christiansen - Jussupow, Ger­many 1995) 13 . . . e5 14.dxe5 ttJxe5 15J:te4 ttJxf3+ 16.thf3 .lte6 17. .ltc4 lIadS lS . .ltxe6 fxe6 19.�e2 �d5= full equality was achieved and the opponents agreed to draw in the game Sadler - Kram­nik, Tilburg 1995.

12 ... ttJd7 After 1 2 . . . b6 13 . .ltd3 kb7

14. 0-0 lIcS 1 5 " �c2 c5 16 .dxc5 bxc5 17 .ttJe5 ttJc6 18.ttJxc6 l:.xc6 19 . .lth7+ �hS 20.ke4t Black got a weak pawn on c5 in the game Uhlmann - J . Donner, Skopje 1972.

13.0-0

You may remember that a similar position occurred already in this book and was analysed as the Capablanca System in varia­tion b2, Chapter 14, with the dif­ference that Black's h-pawn did not move from its initial position on h7. Well, this time we shall follow the same two ways of de­velopment of Black's light­squared bishop - along the cS-h3 diagonal after a2a) 13 ... e5 and

to the main diagonal as-hI , in­troduced by a2b) 1 3 ... b6. Also we'll explore the impact of the "extra" move h7-h6 in this posi­tion. Note that Black is not ready for an immediate 13 . . . c5 because after 14 . .ltb5 cxd4 (Ruiz - Navar­ro, Havana 1990) White gains a certain advantage by 15 . �xd4;t, similarly to the corresponding line in the Capablanca System. After 13 . . . .l:!.dS White played 14" �c2 ttJb6 1 5 . .i.b3 a5 1 6 . a3 .ltd7 17.e4 .lteS lS.lId1 a4 19 . .lta2 �a5 20.lIe3 lIb5 21 .ttJe5;t in the game Gaj dusek - Koos, Kubin 1978, and his control of the cen­tre was the reason to estimate his chances higher than Black's.

a2a) 13 ... e5 We know this plan very well

already (see Chapter 14, varia­tion b2b).

14 . .ltb3 Still playing by analogy with

the Capablanca System. We shall concentrate on two main options a2a l ) 1 4 . . . exd4 and a2a2) 14 . . . e4 but at first let's pay at­tention to awaiting moves ofthe black rook along the last rank.

After 14 . . . .l:.eS 1 5 . 'I�f b 1 ! ? (White obtained nothing from 15.d5 cxd5 16. �xd5 since after 16 . . . ttJf6 1 7 .'ifl c5 ttJe4 l S . the7 l:txe7 19 . .l:.c2 ttJg5 20.ttJxg5 hxg5 21 .1Ifc1 .i.e6 22 . .i.xe6 lIxe6 23. �c7 �dS 24Jlxb7 �c6 2 5 . :£1 l:td2� the activity of Black's rooks on the second rank was enough in the game Dautov - Marciano,

213

Chapter 15

Germany 1999, and in case of 15 .�c2 after 15 . . . e4 16.lbd2 4:Jf6 17 . .l:i.c5 in the game Hebden -McDonald, England 2000, Black had 17 . . . .i.e6 != when lS .4:Jxe4? does not work because of IS . . . 4:JdTt) 1 5 . . . exd4 (now 15 . . . e4 is not as good already because af­ter 1 6 .4:Jd2 4:Jf6 1 7 . .l:i.fc a the move 1 7 . . . .i.e6? runs to I S . 4:Jxe4±) 16.exd4 (after 16.4:Jxd4 4:Jf6 17 .f3 c5 lS .4:Jf5 .i.xf5 19. �xf5 b6= Black is rather active in the centre which makes it dif­ficult for White to use the theo­retical advantage of his long­range bishop over the black knight) 16 . . . 4:Jf6 17 . .l:i.e3 .i.e6 (per­haps the least evil for Black is 17 . . . �d6 lS . .:txeS+ 4:JxeS 19 . .l:i.eU but don't forget that his queen­side is still underdeveloped) lS . .i.xe6 fxe6 19 . .l:i.fe a White gained an advantage in the game Hebden - A. Fox, London 2000. Black's weak pawn on e6 is more vulnerable than White's weak pawn on d4 and the white knight is highly mobile. Black's sixth move h7-h6, made for the sake of prophylactic, shows its nega­tive side in this line: the square g6 is open to access.

The other awaiting option for Black is 14 . . . .l:i.dS. Mter 15.l!I.e1 (in case of 15. �b1 exd4 16.exd4 4:JfS 17 .':e 1 .i.e6 IS. �f5 in the game Stahlberg - Gligoric, Sal­tsjobaden 1952, Black could have equalized simply by IS . . . �c7 = also after 15.�c2 exd4 16.exd4 4:Jf8 17 . .l:i.e1 .i.e6 lS.h3 .l:i.d6 19.

214

l!I.ce3 J£.xb3 2 0 . �xb3 4:Je6= White's light-squared bishop was neutralized and Black was OK in the game Izeta Txabarri - Bezgo­dov, Tunis 1997) 15 . . . exd4 16 . exd4 (an attempt to keep the pawn chain flexible by 16. �xd4 4:Jf8 17. �e5 �xe5 lS.4:Jxe5 .i.e6= brought no success to White in the game Zvjaginsev - San Se­gundo, Ohrid 2 0 0 1 ) 16 . . .' l';Id6 17. � e2 (the advance 17. d5 after 1 7 . . . cxd5 I S . �xd5 �xd5 1 9 . .i.xd5 4:JfS 20 . .i.e4 resulted in simplification and a draw in the game Zakharevich - Bezgodov, Perm 1997, and White's light­squared bishop was no problem for Black owing to the equaliz­ing 20 . . . .i.e6=; in case of 17.h3 after 17 . . . 4:Jf8! 1S.4:Je5 .i.e6 19. �h5 in the game Portisch -Chiburdanidze, Marbella 1999, Black managed to regroup his minor pieces favourably and only needed to cover the fl-pawn by 19 . . . �c7= to achieve absolute equality) 17 . . . 4:Jf8 IS. �e7! (Black only needed one more move -.i.e6 - to be happy but that is an issue now) 1S . . . 4:Je6 (by I S . . . �xe7 19 . .l:i.xe7 4:Je6 20.4:Je5! .l:i.xd4 21..l:i.£3! f6 22 . .l:i.eS+ 'iith7 23 . .i.c2+­Black wins a pawn but loses the game, pointed out by I. Donev) 19.�h4 4:Jf8 (an attempt to sim­plify with the help of the pawn sacrifice 19 . . . �f4? resulted in Black's complete crush after 20.�xdS+! 4:JxdS 21 ..l:i.eS+ 'iith7 22.l!I.xdS--t in the game Zakha­revich - O. Biriukov, St. Peters-

4.4.Jc3 .i.e7 5. i.g5 0-0 6. e3 h6 7. i.h4

burg 2000, and the greedy 19 . . . liJxd4? i s not better because af­ter 20.liJxd4 ftxd4 21 . �xd4 lixd4 22.l:teB+ �h7 the prophylactic advance 23.h3! ?� makes the pin on the back rank a source of great trouble for Black) 20 Jlce3 (if 20 .liJe5, then 20 . . . .i.e6=) 20 . . . .i.e6t White's chances are some­what better, according to I . Donev.

a2al) 14 ... exd4 Black relieves the tension in

the centre in order to free the d7-knight of his defending tasks allowing it to move, making way to the bishop along the cB-h3 di­agonal .

15.exd4! This way, of course. As we

know from our analysis of the C ap ablanca System, White agrees readily to get a slight de­fect in his pawn structure in or­der to maintain control over the open e-file. Note that by this cap­ture White shows that he is go­ing to attack on the kingside. In this line Black's prophylactic h7-h6 turns out to White's favour.

15 ... liJf6 Black frequently moves the

knight to the opposite side as well. After 15 . . . liJb6 16.�e1 �d6 (in case of 16 . . . ftdB 17 .liJe5 liJd5 1B.lig3 .1i.e6 which occurred in the game Dydyshko - Inkiov, Minsk 19B2, there was 19. ftd2!? �hB 20.liJg6+ fxg6 21.l:txe6 liJf4 22.l:te4 ftd6 23.lige3t with an advantage to White) 17.liJe5 i.f5 1B.lif3 .i.e6 (after 1B . . . .1i.g6 19. liJxg6 ftxg6 20.'ue7± White in­vades Black's camp) 1 9 . i.xe6 fxe6 (after 19 . . . ftxe6 20 .liJxf7 �xa2 21.l:te7!± Black's position is just miserable) 20.l:tg3t Black's kingside is obviously weak with the undefended g6-square.

16.l:!.el �d6 A. Jussupow points out 16 . . .

�dB but after 17.liJe5 liJd5 lB. l:tg3 the play comes to the posi­tion from the previous para­graph.

17.liJe5 liJd5?! What happens after 17 . . . i.f5?

we know well already from varia­tion b2b2, Chapter 14. After 1 B . liJxf7 ! (thirteenth World Champion missed this simple combination in the game Kaspa­rov - Benjamin, Horgen 1994) 1B . . . l:txf7 19 . .1i.xf7 + �xf7 2 0 . �b3+ <;t>f8 21.�xb7 .tlbB 22.�xa7 ':'xb2 23 .':'xc6! ':'xa2 in the game Piket - Pliester, Netherlands 1990 (not 23 . . . ti'xc6 because of 24.�a3+ �g8 25.�xb2+-) White could have won easily by 24:�b6! fte7 (after 24 . . . �d5 25 Jlxf6+ gxf6 26.�xf6+ ftf7 27.fthB+ �gB 2B.�e8+- Black loses the queen) 25 .l:txf6 + ! gxf6 (25 . . . ftxf6 2 6 .

2 1 5

Chapter 15

�b8+ r:JiIf7 27.t:'fe8#) 26.t:'fb8+ rJitf7 27Jhe7+-.

Perhaps a relatively better solution is 17 . . . i.e6 18.i.xe6 fxe6 ( after 18 . . . �xe6 1 9 . ttJg6 ttJe4 20.ttJxfB ttJxc3 21 .bxc3 �d5 22. ttJh7± White's knight got impris­oned on h7 in the game Gausel ­Lyrberg, Skei 1994 but still it was an extra knight) 19.1:tg3±, even though the hole on g6 was a doubtful achievement.

18J:tg3 i.f5 After 18 . . . i.e6 19. �d2 r:JiIh8

20.l:te4� White threatens to get to the black king quickly by transferring the rook to h6 and striking at h6.

19.�h5! In the Capablanca System,

analyzed as variation b2b2 in Chapter 14, this way of attack­ing was of little use but now it is just to the point with the black pawn on h6 instead of h7.

19 . . . i.h7 20.�g4 A new weakening of Black's

kingside is unavoidable now. 20 . . . g5 I n case of 20 . . . g6 2 1 . h4±

Black's kings ide looks as miser­able as his light-squared bishop.

2 1.h4±

216

This position occurred in the final game of the semi-final Can­didates Match Karpov - Jussu­pow, London (m18) 1989. It's re­sult influenced considerably the estimation of the whole variation with 14 . . . exd4.

a2a2) 14 ... e4 One more way to relieve the

d7-knight of his duty to support the e5-pawn. This continuation is similar to variation b2bl in Chapter 14.

15.ttJd2 Aiming at the e4-pawn. 15 ... ttJf6 In case of 15 . . . r:JiIh8 (with the

idea f5) White has 16.�c2!? (the move 16.f3 is out of place before the black pawn comes to f5 and after 16 . . . exf3 1 7 . t:'fxf3 in the game Bogoljubow - P. Schmidt, Salzburg 1942, Black had a short way to equality 17 . . . ttJf6! 18 .e4 i.e6=) 16 . . . f5 and now 17.f3 exf3 18.ttJxf3± he is slightly better.

16.l:.c5!? White impedes i.c8-e6, aimed

at the neutralization of the b3-bishop. After 16. �c2 'ue8 17 .lIc5 (in case of 17 .h3 there is 17 . . .

4.ttJc3 3Le7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.3Lh4

'iii>hS, threatening again with 3LcS­e6) 17 . . . .te6 1S.1:e5 3Lxb3 19.axb3 �b4 20.1:a1 :Xe5 21 . dxe5 ttJd7 2 2 . ttJxe4 and the opponents signed the draw in the game Polugaevsky - Mikhalchishin, Tbilisi 1975, due to 22 . . . ttJxe5=. The undermining 16.f3 without the black pawn being on f5 does not help much, as shown above, and after 16 . . . exf3 17. �xf3 3Le6 1S.e4 3Lxb3 19.:Xb3 1:adS= Black achieved equality in the game E slon - R idameya Tatche, Zaragoza 1993.

16 ... 3Lg4 With the white rook placed on

the fifth rank, 16 . . . .te6? ! turns out bad because of 17 .1:e5±. M­ter 16 . . . 1:eS?! in the game Bei­sing - Behnke, Pass au 1999, Black could have encountered serious p roblems in case of 17.1:e5 �dS 1S.h3± followed by �d1-c2. Struggling against the white rook by 16 . . . ttJd7 17.1:f5 g6 1 S . 1:a5t does not help Black while White created the concrete threat of �d1-g4.

17.�bl White's queen must retreat to

b1 in order to keep pressure upon the e4-pawn and the square c2 can be used for some other piece. After 17.�e1 ttJd7 1S.1:c3 .te6 19. �d1 ttJb6 20.1:c5 .txb3 21. �xb3 ttJd5 22.ttJb l �d7 23.l:.fc1 1:adS= in the game Gombos - Travenec, Bratislava 1996, Black accom­plished his main task, that is neutralization of the b3-bishop.

17 ... ttJd7

In case of 17 . . . 3Le2 1 S Jle1 .td3 19.3Lc2 3Lxc2 20. �xc2 Black has the opportunity to force an exchange of the light-squared bishops but in this case his prob­lem with the e4-pawn gets worse, and after 20 . . . 1:feS 2 U :ie5 �b4 22.a3 �b6 23 .1:f5 1:adS 24.b4 �c7 the sudden sacrifice 25.lhf'6! gxf6 26 .ttJxe4 �e7 27.ttJg3� al­lowed White to create serious threats in the centre and on the kingside at the cost of exchange against pawn in the game Cha­talbashev - Milliet, Montpellier 2000.

18Jlc3 3Le2 If Black tries to play exactly

like in variation b2bl from Chapter 14 - 1S . . . 1:aeS, then af­ter 19.�xe4 �xe4 20.ttJxe4 :Xe4 2 1 . f3 3Lxf3 2 2 . gxf3 t White's chances still remain preferable. Also Black can't hope for equal­ity after 1S . . . ttJf6 because of the reply 19.1:fc1t.

19JUcl The option 19.1:e1 should be

considered inaccurate because the rook has nothing to do on e1. After 1 9 . . . 3Ld3 2 0 . .1Lc2 .1Lxc2 21 .�xc2 1:feS 22.a3 ttJf6 23.1:c5 ttJd7 24.1:h5 �e6 25 . �c4 �g6 26.1:h3 ttJb6 27.�b3 1:adS 2S.1:c1 1:d5= White gained no advantage in the game Atalik - Zelcic, Bled 2000.

19 • • • .1Ld3 20.3Lc2 .txc2 2 1 . �xc2 ttJf6

The e4-pawn can't be pro ­tected by 2 1 . . . f5? because of 22.�b3+-.

2 17

Chapter 15

22.:c5 �e6 23.b4 lLld7 24. White transfers his bishop to the :a5;1; long diagonal a8-hI . A similar

This position occurred in the game P. Cramling - Marciano, France 2000. Black still has some problems - he must take care of the e4-pawn while White is threatening to expand on the queenside by b4-b5.

a2b) 13 ... b6 One more solution of the

problem with the light-squared bishop that we know from Chap­ter 14, variation b2a. As the forthcoming analysis shows, it is more successful in the present setup owing to the flight square h7.

14 . ..td3 Black has opened a little his

position on the queenside and

218

continuation exists in the Capa­blanca System as well but there Black still has to spend a tempo for the advance h7-h6.

14 ... c5 Mter 14 . . . .Jtb7 lS . .Jte4 lIac8

(in case of lS . . . .l:fc8? Black's di­agonal a8-h1 is overloaded and after 16. �c2 lLlb8 17 .lLleS lLla6 18 .lLlxc6 .Jtxc6 1 9 . .Jtxc6 .l:!.ab8 20.a3+- Black simply left a pawn behind in the game Kramer -Szabados, Amsterdam 1 9 S 0 ) with the help o f 1 6 . �a4 (after 16. �c2 .Jta6 17 . .l:c1 c5 18. �a4 cxd4 19.1Llxd4 ctJc5 20. �a3 .Jtb7= Black maintains equality) 16 . . . .l:c7 (in the line 1 6 . . . ctJf6 17 . .Jtxc6 ctJdS 18 . .Jtxd5 .JtxdS in the game Dake - Staehelin, Warsaw 1935, White could have continued by 19.ctJeS �gS 20.g3± leaving Black without sufficient compensation for the pawn) 17 . .l:!.fc1 (17. �xa 7?? loses to 17 . . . .l:!.a8-+ and the white queen is entrapped while in case of 17 . .Jtxc6 ctJcS! 18 .dxcS .Jtxc6 1 9 . �h4 �xh4 2 0 . ctJxh4 .Jt dS 21 .b4 .Jtxa2 22.c6 bS 23 . .l:!.a1 .Jtc4= White can't maintain his mate­rial advantage) 17 . . . c5 18 . ..txb7 .l:!.xb7 19.�c6 ctJf6 20.dxcS bxc5 21 .l:t3c2 (2I .b3 is worse because after 2 1 . . . lLldS 2 2 . .l:xc5 ctJb4 23.�e4 ctJxa2= the position turns equal) 21 . . .lLldS 22 . .l:d2t White can gain a slight advantage . Black's queenside pawns are weak and need constant watch.

15 . ..te4

4.0c3 i.e7 S. i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i.h4

The move 15 . .tb5 is less pro­mising. After 15 . . . ,UdS (in case of 15 . . . cxd4 16 .ttJxd4 ttJc5 17 . .tc6 �b7 lS .'�f3 �xc6 19.ttJxc6 �b7 20.ttJe5 �xf3 21 .gxf3 f6 22.ttJc6 a5 23.lId1 1If7 24JId6;!; Black had an unpleasant endgame in the game Polugaevsky - Andersson, Reggio Emilia 1991-) 16 . .tc6 (in case of 16.'�·e2 i.b7 White achie­ves nothing by 17 . .txd7 because of the intermediate capture 17 . . . cxd4! and after lS.ttJxd4 �xd7 19.a3 ':acS! ? 20.':xcS I!.xcS 21 . ,Ud1 e5+ in the game P. Cramling - Jussupow, H amburg 1 9 9 1 , Black even had a slight advan­tage while in case of 16.�c2 i.b7 17 .i.e2 he equalized confidently by 1 7 . . . e 5 ! l S . dxe5 ttJxe5 1 9 . ttJxe5 �xe5 20.':d1 �e4 21. �xe4 ':xd 1 + 22.i.xd1 .txe4 23.i.c2 ':dS 24.f3 .txc2 25.':xc2 �f8= in the game Cifuentes Parada -Andersson, Haninge 1992) 16 . . . i.a6!? (also there i s a solid but passive way of 16 . . . 1IbS 17. �c2 cxd4 lS.ttJxd4 e5! 19.ttJf5 �f6 20. ':d1 ttJc5 21..�,xdS+ �xdS 22.ttJg3 i.e6 23 .b4 ':cS 24.i.f3 ttJa6 25.a3 ':xc3 2 6 .' �xc3 "iflc7, which al­lowed Black to draw eventually in the games Bluemich - Gada­linski, Krakow 1935 and Smyslov - Kasparov, Vilnius (m/6) 19S4) 16 . . . i.a6 17 .i.xaS (after 17 .':e1 'uacS lS. "ifla4 ttJbS 19.i.e4 cxd4 2 0 . exd4 ':xc3 2 1 . bxc3 �c7= White gained nothing and agreed to draw in the game Vyzmanavin - Janjgava, Manila (ol) 1992) 17 . . . i.xfl lS . �xfl (the balance

remained undisturbed after l S . .t c6 .ta6 19. �c2 �d6 20. i.xd7 �xd7 2 1 .h3 cxd4 22. ttJxd4 I!.cS= in the game Vyzmanavin -Li Wenliang, Beijing 1991 as well as after lS .'�xfl ':xaS 19 . �c2 a5 ! = in the game Dautov - Eks­troem, Geneve 1997) lS . . . lIxaS 19.'�·a6 e5 20. �b7 J:l.eS 2 1 . dxc5 ttJxc5 22.�xe7 'uxe7 23.b4 ttJe4 24.lIcS+ �h7 25.g4 ttJf6= in the game Ftacnik - Spassky, Gjovik 19S3, the mass exchanges re­sulted in a position where White could not profit from his minor advantage in the piece activity.

15 . . Jlb8 According to A. Jussupow,

Black's manoeuvre 15 . . . i.a6, similarly to the line in the previ­ous paragraph, provides better play to White after 16 . .txaS .txfl 17.i.c6 �a6 lS.�a4 ttJbS 19.dxc5 bxc5 20.h3;!;. Black will suffer, sooner or later, from the weak­ness of his c5-pawn.

16.�c2!? The modern theory connects

White's chances to gain an ad­vantage in this opening with this very move. The old continuation 16. �a4 is out offashion now. Af-

219

Chapter 15

ter 16 . . . .1b7 (in case of 16 . . . 4Jf6 17 . .1c6 4Jd5 18 . .1xd5 exd5 19. dxc5 bxc5 20. �a3 .1e6 21 .:'fc1 :'fc8 22.b3;!;, as pointed out by Jussupow, White's pressure on the hanging pawns is quite un­pleasant but there is still the possibility of 16 . . . a5!? with the idea e6-e5, which was tested suc­cessfully in the game Chuchelov - Winants, Brussels 1998: 17. :'fc 1 e5 18 . .1c6 cxd4 1 9 . exd4 exd4 20. �xd4 4Jc5 21. �e5 �xe5 22.4Jxe5 .1e6=) 1 7 . .1xb7 �xb7 18. �c2 (the best try for White as 18. �c6 brings to equality after 1 8 . . . 4Jb8 1 9 . �e4 �c7 20 .�fc 1 �fc8 2 1 .�f4 c4= as pointed out by V. Kramnik, and in case of 18 . .l:[d1 b5 19.�b3 Black solved his problems by 19 . . . a5 !? 20.dxc5 4Jxc5 21 . �c2 4Ja6 22.a3 b4 23. �c6 �c7 != in the game Anand ­Kramnik, TV-game (active) 1996) 18 . . . a5 ! ? ( in case of 18 . . . cxd4 19.4Jxd4;!; the c-file goes under White's control and after 18 . . . �c8 19.�c1 �bc7 20.b4t in the game Kramnik - Kasparov, Las Pal­mas 1996, Black suffered from an unpleasant pin along the c-file) 19.a3 (after 19.�d1 .l:[e8 20.h3 e5 2 1 . dxe5 4Jxe5 22 .4Jxe5 �xe5 2 3 .�cd3 :'be7= in the game Anand - Kramnik, Monaco (blindfold) 200 1 , Black had no problems with maintaining the balance despite White's control of the d-file) 19 . . . :'e8!? (prepar­ing e6-e5) 20 . .l:[d1 (in case of 20.h3 e5 2 1 . �e4 Black equalizes by 2 1 . . .exd4! 22.�xb7 dxc3 23.

220

bxc3 4Je5 ! = because after 24. �xb6?! 4Jxf3 + 2 5 . gxf3 �g5 + 26.�h1 �d5 27.e4 �h5, as shown by A. Karpov, White is the only side running a risk) 20 . . . :'bb8 (in case of 20 . . . e5 2 1 . � e 4 exd4 22.�xb7 dxc3 23 .bxc3 4Je5 24. �xb6 4Jxf3+ 25.gxf3 �g5+ White has the upper hand following 26.'iii>f1 !?± 2 1 .h3 (after 2 1 . dxc5 t2Jxc5 22.b4 axb4 23.axb4 4Ja6 24.b5 4Jc5 25 .4Je5 :'a8 26.4Jc6 �f6 � Black's counterplay is enough to keep the balance) 21. . .e5 (after 2 1 . . .:'bd8 22 . .l:[cd3 .l:[c8 23 .d5 ! exd5 24 .�xd5 4Jf6 25.�e5 �c7 26.:'xe8+ :'xe8 27. a4 !;!; Black's pawn majority on the queenside was depreciated in the game Karpov - Jussupow, Dortmund 1997, whereas White maintained the opportunity to create a passed pawn on the kingside) 22.dxe5 4Jxe5 23 .4Jxe5 �xe5 24Jlcd3 A. Karpov esti­mates the position as better for White. There are some people, however, who could try to argue with this conclusion, just look at the final position of the above­cited game Anand - Kramnik, Monaco (blindfold) 2001.

16 . . . .1b7 In case of 16 . . . �a6 17 . .l:[d1 4Jf6

1 8 . dxc5 4Jxe4 1 9 . �xe4 bxc5 20.b3;!;, proposed by A. Jussupow, White maintains better chances owing to his pressure upon the c5-pawn. In case of 16 . . . a5 17.�c1 .1b7 18 . .1xb7 :Xb7 19.dxc5 4Jxc5 20.t2Je5 �f6 21 .4Jd3 �d8 22.4Jxc5 bxc5 Black obtains the weak

4.lZJc3 .te7 5 . .tg5 0-0 6. e3 h6 7 . .th4

pawn on c5 as well. After 23. �e2 .ubd7 24 . .u3c2 c4 (after 24 . . . a4 25.g3 .ud5 26 .�g2 g6 27 .a3 h5 28.�f3 �e5 29.�f4! �xf4 30.gxf4 ,UbS 3 Uhc5 l:txc5 32.l:txc5 .uxb2 33 . .uc4 l:ta2 34.'uxa4± White won the pawn after the queen ex­change in the game Karpov -Jussupow, Baden-Baden (active) 1995 ) 2 5 . g3 e5 26 . 'It;>g2 e4 27 . �g4t, which occurred in the game Khalifman - Jussupow, Germany 1 9 9 2 , the German grandmaster estimated the po­sition to White's favour.

If Black seizes space on the queenside by 16 . . . b5 17.'uc1 b4, then after lS .'ud3 tDffi 19 . .tc6 cxd4 20 Jhd4 e5 2 1 ..ud2 .tb7 22.1Lxb7 .uxb7 23.h3 g6 24.�c6 ,UfbS 25. �d6t White's chances are still better owing to his hold over two open files (c and d) , Gelfand - Kramnik Monaco (ac­tive) 200 l .

1 7 . .txb7 After 17 .l:l.c1 Black traded

bishops too hastily in the game Majorovas - Schulz, Augsburg 1991 , and after 17 . . . .txe4 IS . �xe4 tDf6 19 . �h4 cxd4 20.l:tc7 �b4 2 1 . �xd4 �a5 22.a3 .ubdS 23.�c3 �xc3 24.117xc3 tDd5 25 . .uc6t White kept his advantage owing to the control over the c­file.

1 7 ... .l:i!.xb7 18.h3 Now White need not be afraid

for his first rank. 18 .. . .l:i!.e8 19J!dl a5 20 . .l:i!.d2

order to avoid a course, similar to the game Karpov - Jussupow, Dortmund 1997 (ref. to the com­ment to White's sixteenth move) .

2 1.tDxd4 tDc5 22.tDc6 �f8 23.tDe5 ':c8 24.':d4 �e7 25.a3 ':bc7 26.b4t

This position occurred in the game Kramnik - Karpov, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 2000. White drives the black knight away from c5 maintaining slight ad­vantage.

b) 7 ... tDbd7 A frequent continuation.

Black plays similarly to variation b from Chapter 13 , hoping to profit from the advance h7-h6.

8.:cl

cxd4 As well as above in Chapter Black opens the position up in 13 variation b, we'll concentrate

221

Chapter 15

o n the following moves now: bl) 8 ... a6, b2) 8 ... dxc4, b3) 8 .. .l'le8 and b4) 8 . . . b6. The option of S . . . c6 will be discussed sepa­rately in Chapter 17. Also S . . . c5 is possible here but, actually, it brings nothing new in compari­son with the line analysed in Chapter 13 (variation bl, the same position except h7-h6 and .tg5-h4). After 9.cxd5 (in case of 9.dxc5 White must reckon with 9 . . . dxc4= Klumpp - Burczyk, Kraichtal 1987) 9 . . . lllxd5 (after 9 . . . exd5 in the game Campos Moreno - K. David, Oviedo (ac­tive) 1991, White had an oppor­tunity to press upon Black's iso­lated d5-pawn right away by 10.dxc5± and in case of 9 . . . cxd4 10.lllxd4 lllxd5 11 . .txe7 lllxe7 in the game Gerlach - Borries , Ansbach 1985, he could have transferred his bishop to the long diagonal as-hI by 12.i..e2± fol­lowed by .tf3, thus considerably impeding the development of Black's que enside) 1 0 . i..xe7 lllxe7 l1 ..te2 cxd4 (after 11 . . . b6 12.0-0 i..b7 13.dxc5 lllxc5 in the game Grechanovskaya - Bura­kovsky, Kiev 2000, the opponents signed a draw although White could have kept his pressure by 14.b4 llle4 1 5 . lllxe4 .txe4 16 . �a4 ± similarly to the game Geller - B. Larsen, Copenhagen (m/8) 1966, from Chapter 13, va­riation bl) 12.lllxd4 (the queen's capture 12. �xd4 is weaker since after 12 . . . lllf6 13. �a4 i..d7 14.

222

�b3 .tc6= in the game Bjerke -Grotnes, Kristiansand 1 9 8 7 , Black was first to bring his light­squared bishop on the long di­agonal) 1 2 . . . lllf6 1 3 . 0 - 0 i.. d 7 14. �b3± the play developed by the analogy with variation bl from Chapter 13 and Black's 'ex­tra' move h7-h6 was of no impor­tance .

bl) 8 ... a6 9.cxd5!? White chooses the Karlsbad

Structure. It can be seen easily that the moves h7-h6 and i..g5-h4 force him to introduce serious corrections in comparison with the line considered as variation b3 in Chapter 13. The point is that after 9 . c5 c6 1 0 . i..d3 e5 11.dxe5 llle8= Black wins back the temporarily sacrificed pawn without problems. Still, the ad­vance h7-h6 has minuses as well as pluses - it often ties Black's hands in his struggle against White's stronghold in the centre - the outpost on e5.

9 ... exd5 Quite naturally Black i s

dreaming to simplifY the position by swapping as many pieces as possible. But he can't take on d5 with the knight without losing the c7-pawn while the white rook is staying on c1 .

lO.i..d3 c6 Also the line 1O . . . l:te8 11.0-0

c6 12.i..g3 brings the play to the position below.

1l.i..g3

4.0.c3 i.e7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7. i.h4

1l .. Ae8 There were tries to chase

White's dark-squared bishop by 11 . . .ctJhS but after 12.�eS tZJxeS 13.ctJxeS ctJf6 (with the pawn on h7 Black could have preferred 13 . . . g6 with the idea to exchange the light-squared bishops after ctJhS-g7 but now this plan ap­pears rather risky because of 14.�xg6!? fxg6 IS.ctJxg6t White winning a rook and two pawns against two minor pieces) 14.�c2 tZJeB (in case of 14 . . . �d6 IS. '§d3 l:!. e B White overprotects his knight on eS by 16.f4 '§b6 17Jlbl cS IB.O-Ot, thus maintaining a strong position in the centre. Black's attempt to win material by IB . . . cxd4 19.exd4 �xeS 20. fxeS .uxeS? after 2 1 .tZJa4 '§a7 22.ctJcS l:!.eB 23 . .uxf6 ! gxf6 24. �h7+ Wffi 2S.�hB+ We7 26.l:!.el+ �e6 27 . .uxe 6 ! +- results in a crushing defeat) IS. '§d3 fS (now it will be very difficult for Black to drive the white knight away from eS) 16.0-0 �d6 17 .f3 �e6 IB.ctJe2 �f6 19.ctJf4 �xe5 20.dxe5 '§f7 (Black loses an exchange if he takes the pawn on eS) 21.'§b3 .ubB 22.�d3 ctJc7 23. '§b6 .ufcB 24.ctJe2 i..d7 2S.f4 ctJe6 26.bM; in

the game M. Gurevich - Shvi­dler, Tel Aviv 19B9, White's con­trol over the dark squares prom­ised him pleasant play on both flanks.

12.0-0 ctJf8 The move 12 . . . ctJhS? Fails to

the standard tactical strike 13 .tZJxdS!± and in case of 13 . . . cxdS? Black is going to lose a queen after 14 .i..c7+-. After 12 . . . i.ffi 13 .i.b l g6 14.h3 i.g7 Black's bishop left the a3-ffi di­agonal which allowed White to start playing on the queenside by IS.a3 as 16.tZJaM; in the game Gligoric - Hort, Palma de Mallor­ca 1970.

13.tZJe5 To get rid of the white knight

on eS without deteriorating his position is a difficult task for Back now.

13 ... ctJe6 In case of 13 . . . ctJ6d7 after

14. �hS (it's still too early for the concrete tactical assault 14 . tZJxf7 ? ! 'ltixf7 1 S . tZJxdS due to IS . . . tZJe6oo) 14 . . . ctJxeS I S . dxeS i..e6 16.f4 t White developed his initiative on the kings ide in the game Shipunov - Freiman, Kiev 193B.

14.i.h1 tZJg5 An attempt to exchange the

light-squared bishop in the stan­dard way by 14 . . . g6 1S .�d3 ctJg7 (with the idea �f5) allows White to launch a dangerous attack on the black king by 16.tZJxf7!� ex­ploiting the advance h7-h6.

15.'§h3 tZJh5 16.f4

223

Chapter 15

White not only supports his knight on e5 but prepares an at­tack on the kingside using it as a shield.

16 . . . ltJxg3 17.hxg3 ltJe6 18. l:tcd1 �a5 19.a3 i.d8

This position occurred in the game Tal - Hennings , Sochi 1973. As pointed out by M. Tal, the prophylactic move 20.�hl! after 20 . . . �b6 21 . �a2 ltJf8 22.e4 f6 23 .exd5 fxe5 24.fxe5� allowed White to develop a mighty attack since Black would have no 24 . . . cxd5? because of 25.ltJxd5 �e6 26.i.f5+-.

b2) 8 ... dxc4

9.i.xc4 White's bishop goes to c4 in

one move bypassing d3. 9 . . . a6

224

The transposition of moves in the line 9 . . . c5 10.0-0 a6 1l .a4 al­ters nothing.

1 0.a4 c5 1 1 .0-0 cxd4 1 2 . exd4!?

An important nuance. Unlike in variation b5 in Chapter 13 where we analysed a similar po­sition without inclusion of the moves h7-h6 and i.g5-h4, White agrees to play with an isolated pawn. He is proceeding from the asumption that h7-h6 made Black's castle more vulnerable.

12 ... ltJb6 13.i.b3 i.d7 After 13 . . . ltJbd5 14.ltJe5 ltJb4

15 .'ue1 (in case of 1 5 . �d2 a5 16.nfel b6 17.ltJb5t in the game Dreev - Epishin, Tilburg (active) 1994, White managed to take the initiative as well and Black's wish to simplify the position by 17 . . . ltJe4? 1B.�f4 i.xh4 19.�xe4 UbB 20 .g3 i.f6 turned out a mis­take because of the tactical refu­tation 2 1 . ltJxf7 ! Uxf7 22 .UxcB �xcB 23 .ltJd6+-) 15 . . . i.d7 16. �e2 i.eB 17.ncd1 (the break-through in the centre 17.d5 brings no par­ticular advantage to White after 17 . . . ltJbxd5 1B.ltJxd5 ltJxd5 19. i.xd5 i.xh4 2 0 . i.xb7 nbB 2 1 . i.xa6 i.xa4=) 17 . . . ltJbd5 1B.i.xf6 i.xf6 19.1tJxd5 exd5 20.�f3 i.c6 in the game A. Graf - Ubilava, Barnaul 19B4, White had an op­portunity to maintain pressure on the d5-pawn and, at the same time, to bring his rook closer to Black's camp by 2 1 .ltJg4!? i.e7 22.ne5t.

14.�d3

4.lZJc3 i.e7 5.45 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i.h4

The alteration of Black's queenside pawn structure which took place after 14 .lbe5 i.c6 15.lbxc6 bxc6 16.lbe2 �d7 17 . �d3 lbbd5= in the game Tukma­kov - Dokhoian, S verdlovsk 1987, provided no real chance to White to gain some advantage on it. After 14.a5 in the game Manor - Gofshtein, Tel Aviv 1991, Black had the equalizing opportunity of 14 . . . lbc8 15.lbe5 i.c6=, the bad position of the black knight on c8 would be compensated fully in this case with the weakness of White's a5-pawn.

14 ... i.c6 15.i.c2 White created a dreaded bat­

tery on the bl-h7 diagonal. In the game Kishnev - Ubilava, Bar­naul 1984, he performed not so successfully after 15 .lbe5 lbbd5 1 6 . i.xf6 ? ! lbxf6 1 7 .i.c2 �a5 18 . .l:.fe1 .l:.fd8 19.l:I.e3 �b4+ when the absence of the dark-squared bishop entailed weakness of the dark squares in White's position to start with the d4-pawn.

15 ... lbbd7 The fundamental difference

of this position (constituted by the move h7-h6) from the one considered as variation b5 in Chapter 13 shows out now in the fact that in case of 15 . . . g6 White has the strong reply 16 .lbe5�, threatening to sacrifice by lbxg6.

16.1:tfel Preparing to move the knight

to e5. In case of an immediate 16.lbe5 Black relives tension by 1 6 . . . lbxe5 1 7 . dxe5 �xd3 1 8 .

i.xd3 lbd5 19.i.xe7 lbxe7=. 16 ••. :e8

17.lbe5 When White delayed the in­

trusion to e5 in favour of 17 J:kd 1 lbrs 18.lbe5 Black managed to relieve tension in the centre, hav­ing exchanged the dark-squared bishops by 18 . . . lbd5 ! 19 .i.xe7 �xe7 20 .i.b3 lbb4 2 1 .�e3 �f6 22.lbe4 �e7= in the game Gore­lov - Basin, Minsk 1985.

17 ... lbf8 Black should not exchange on

e5 since after 1 7 . . . lbxe5 1 8 . �xe5� the white rook comes too close to his king and the defence 18 . . . g6? allows White to gain de­cisive advantage by 19 .1:!.xe6! fxe6 20. �xg6+ <&t>f8 2 1 . �xh6+ <&t>g8 22. �g6+ <&t>rs 23.i.g5+-.

18.i.bl After 18 . .l:.cd1 lbd5!= we ob­

tain the position considered in the comment to White's seven­teenth move and i n case of 18.i.g3 lbh5 19.1bxc6 bxc6 20. i.e5 lbffi 21.�f3 l:.c8 22.i.d3 �b6 23. �e2 a5ao it would be rather difficult for White to profit from the weakening of Black's queen­side pawns.

225

Chapter 15

18 ... i.d5 19:�g3 Mter 19.i.xf6 i.xf6 20.tiJxd5

�xd5 2 I .l:[c5 ftd6= White gains hold of the c-file but in return Black puts pressure upon White's isolated pawn on d4 ow­ing to the simplification of the position.

1 9 . . . tiJ6h7 2 0 .i.xe7 l:!.xe7 2 1.tiJg4

Black managed to exchange the dark-squared bishop but un­like in the similar situation, pre­sented in the comment to White's seventeenth move, his knight was forced to move to the edge of the board, instead to the cen­tre.

2 1 . . .'it>h8

This position occurred in the game Yermolinsky - Ubilava, USSR 1983. Continuing by 22. �f4!?, White maintains the ten­sion because in case of 22 . . . .l:tc8 he gains a certain advantage af­ter 23.tiJxd5 lixc1 24Jhc1 exd5 25.i.f5;t.

b3) 8 ... :l.e8 (diagram)

9.i.d3 A similar position without h7-

226

h6 and i.g5-h4 was discussed in variation b4, Chapter 13. White continued then 9.a3 with the idea to meet 9 . . . a6 by 10.c5. This way is unacceptable now, however, because in the line 10 . . . c6 I I . .i d 3 e5 1 2 . dxe5 tiJ g 4 1 3 . i.g3 i.xc5°o Black's chances are cer­tainly no worse (with Black's pawn on h7 and his own bishop on f4 instead of g3, White could strike at h7 in the corresponding line). The transition to the Carls­bad Structure by 9 . cxd5 after 9 . . . tiJxd5 10 .tiJxd5 exd5 1l .i.xe7 .l:!.xe7 allows Black to exchange a pair of minor pieces to his own favour thanks to the move Uf8-e8. After 1 2 . i.d3 tiJf6 1 3 . tiJe5 ftd6 14.0-0 tiJd7 15.f4 f6 16.tiJg6 .l:te8 (no 16 . . . .l:txe3? because of 17 . .l:!.e1 .l:txe1+ 18.�xe1 'it>f7 19. 1:ixc7 ! ± ) 1 7 . �h5 tiJf8 = Black equalized the play successfully in the game Cherepkov - Kholmov, Moscow 1968.

White also has 9 .ftc2 a6 and after 10.a3!? (in case of 10 .c5 af­ter 10 . . . c6 1l .i.d3 e5 1 2 . dxe5 tiJg4 13.i.g3 i.xc5� Black ob­tained promising counterplay in the game Shikerov - Serafimov, Sofia 1992, and after 10 .cxd5

4.lLlc3 i.e7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.SLh4

exd5 1 l .SLd3 c6 12.0-0 lLle4 13. i.xe7 'f:!;jxe7 14.lLla4 lLlg5 15.'f:!;jd1 lLlxf3+ 16.'f:!;jxf3 lLlb6 17 .lLlc5= in the game Kramnik - Eingorn, Debrecen 1992, the exchange of a couple of minor pieces deprived White of any prospect for advan­tage) 10 . . . dxc4 1l .SLxc4 b5 12. i.a2 c5 13 .dxc5 lLlxc5 14.0-0 the play steers into the position men­tioned in the comment to Black's eighth move in variation h4, Chapter 13, with the difference that White's h-pawn remains on its initial position (in the men­tioned line it was on h3).

9 ... dxc4 White bishop came to d3 and

Black finally opens up the posi­tion. In case of 9 . . . a6 White has 10.cxd5!? (after 10.c5 c6 11.0-0 e5 12.dxe5 lLlg4 13.SLg3 SLxc5 14.e4 d4 15.lLle2 SLa7 16.e6 :'xe6 17. lLlexd4 :'eB 1B.SLb1 lLlde5� in the game Romanishin - Lau, Pola­nica Zdroj 1991 , Black had suffi­cient counterplay) 10 . . . exd5 (in case of 10 . . . lLlxd5 11 .SLxe7 :xe7 White need not exchange on d5, so he can maintain his advantage by the simple 12.0-0t, making use of the awkward position of Black's rook on e7) and then 11.i.g3 ! , joining the above-men­tioned variation h I .

10.i..xc4 a6 After 10 . . . c6 11 .0-0 a6 12.a4

lLld5 13.SLg3 (White need not ex­change without particular profit) 13 . . . lLlxc3 the position of Black's pawn on a6 enabled White to take 14.bxc3!? and after 14 . . . 'f:!;ja5

15.lLld2 b5 16.i.e2 e5 17.i.f3 SLb7 1B.'f:!;jc2 SLf8 19.:a1 'f:!;jb6 20.:fbH he obtained an advantage in the game Bischoff - Proehl, Ger­many 1994. Black's attempt to do without a7-a6 when opening up in the centre after 10 . . . c5 11 .0-0 cxd4 provided White with the additional resource of 12.lLlxd4!? lLle5 ( if 12 . . . a6 , then 13.i.e2t, transferring the bishop to the long diagonal aB-h1) 13.i.b5 SLd7 14.'f:!;jb3t.

1l.a4 After 11 .0-0 b5 12.i.e2 i.b7

1 3 . 'f:!;jc2 :cB 14 .a3 c5 1 5 . dxc5 lLlxc5 16.:fd1 'f:!;jb6= Black had no problems in the game P. Mohr -M. Mueller, Hauenstein 1991 .

1l ... c5 After 11. . .lLlb6 in the game El

Kreni - Allaham, Thessaloniki (ol) 19B4, White could have con­tinued by 12.i.b3!?±:, preparing to play with isolated pawn.

12.0·0 cxd4 13.exd4 As well as in variation h2, the

inclusion of the move h7-h6 in­vites White to play with an iso­lated pawn because the pawn control of the e5-square can be useful in an attack of the black castle. After 13.lLlxd4 lLle5 14. i.e2 i.d7 15 .'f:!;jb3 'f:!;ja5 16 .SLg3 :a7 17.:fd1 lLlc6 1B.lLlf3 in the game Kasimdzhanov - Atalik, Elista (ol) 199B, the easiest way to maintain the balance for Black was 1 B . . . :cB ! ? = , also Black achieved equality without great efforts after 13.'f:!;jxd4 'f:!;ja5= in the game Komarov - Atalik, Vrnja-

227

Chapter 15

cka Banja 1998. 13 . . .tub6 14 . .i.b3 .td7 1 5 .

ltJe5 This is the move White had

in mind when he agreed to play with an isolated pawn. After 15.a5 ltJbd5 (in case of 15 . . . ltJc8 1 6 . ltJe 5 i.. c 6 1 7 . f4 ! � White threatens to launch a dangerous attack and the a5-pawn is no problem for him since after 1 7 . . . '�xa5? 18 .f5 i..d5 19 .fxe6 i..xe6 20.i..xe6 fxe6 21.i..xffi i..xffi 22.l:!.xf6 ! gxf6 23. '!¥th5 lte7 24. ltJe4+- his powerful storm of Black's home succeeds immedi­ately) 16.i..xd5 ltJxd5 (the alter­native of 16 . . . exd5?! is worse be­cause after 1 7 .i..xf6 i..xf6 18 . ltJxd5 i..b5 19 .1tJc7!? i..xfl 20. �xf1 i..g5 2 1 .l:tc4 i..f4 22.ltJxa8 �xa8 23. �d3± Black had no fair compensation for the missing pawn in the game Shchekachev - Eingorn, Metz 1998) 17.ltJxd5 exd5 18.i..xe7 l:txe7 19.1:!.c5 i..g4 20.'!¥tb3 i..xf3 2 1 . �xf3 l:!.e4 22. '!¥tc3 l1b8= White can't hope for any real advantage in the ab­sence of minor pieces.

15 . . . .i.c6

game W. Schmidt - Stempin, Slupsk 1989 White can keep a sort of pressure upon Black's po­sition by 16.'ue1 !?;l;.

b4) 8 ... b6 Black transposes into the

Tartakower Defence (see varia­tion c), but the chosen move or­der with ltJb8-d7 at first and then b7-b6 can't be claimed a happy choice. Now White has an excel­lent opportunity to stabilise the centre without exchanging minor pieces.

9.cxd5! White can't prevent the devel­

opment of the c8-bishop on the main diagonal. However he con­siderably restricts its scope by the pawn exchange in the centre. It will be blocked up now by the d5-pawn in the role of a stopper.

9 . . . exd5 In fact Black would be happy

to trade off a pair of knights on d5 but in the present position this would involve the loss of the c7-pawn, too.

10 . .i.e2 The simplest way to struggle

This position occurred in the for an advantage in this position.

228

4.0c3 i.e7 5. i.g5 0-0 6. e3 h6 7. i.h4

If White continues by 10:�a4 c5 l1.i.b5 i.b7°c similarly to the line in variation b2b, Chapter 13 , Black would have a satisfactory play owing to the move h7-h6.

Developing the bishop to d3 after 10.i.d3 i.b7 11 .0-0 allows Black to simplify by 11 . . . lbe4. The play can continue now by the following typical manoeuvre : 12.i.xe7 �xe7 13.i.bl (if l3.�a4, then 1 3 . . . c5: and in case of 13. �c2 there is 13 . . . lafcS increas­ing the threat of c7-c5) 13 . . JlfcS (after 13 . . . c5 14.dxc5 lbxc3 15. l:txc3 bxc5 16:!�fb3 l:.fbS 17.ladl g6 I S . �a4;j; in the game Dy­dyshko - Arlandi , Elista (ol) 1995, White exerted pressure upon Black's hanging pawns) 14 . �b3 lbxc3 15.laxc3 c5 16.dxc5 lbxc5 17. �c2 lbe4 IS.l:.xcS+ l:txcS 19.�d3 �b4:, and in the game M . Herzog - Hemmers , Ober­stdorfTiefenbach 1999, Black got the open c-file as a compensation for the isolation of his d5-pawn.

Sometimes White moves the bishop to b5 with the idea to pro­voke a weakening of Black's po­sition on the queenside. However after 10 .i.b5 i.b7 11.0-0 c5 (the knight's intrusion into White's camp by 11 . . . lbe4?! Encounters 1 2 .i.xe7 �xe7 1 3 . i.xd7 �xd7 14.lbe5 �e7 15.lbxe4 dxe4 16. lbc6±, 11 . . . c6 stops the X-ray of the b7 -bishop along the diagonal as-hI and after 12.i.d3 the move 12 . . . lbe4 loses its efficiency so that after 13 .i.xe7 �xe7 14.�c2 c5 1 5 . dx c 5 lbdxc5 1 6 . l:tfd U

White's chance s turned out somewhat better in the game Mongeau - McLure, Thessa­loniki 19S5) 12.dxc5 bxc5 (in case of 12 . . . lbxc5?! 13 .lbd4± Black stays without any compensation for the isolation of his d5-pawn) 13 . i.xd7 �xd7 1 4 .i.xf6 i.xf6 15 .lbe4 (in case of 15.lba4 c4°c Black's chances are equal as 1 6 . l:txc4? Fails to 16 . . . i.a6+) 15 . . . i.xb2 16.lbxc5 �e7 17 .l:tc2 l:tfcS lS .l:txb2 l:txc5 19 .�bl (in case of 19. �d3 equality can be achieved by 19 . . . l:tacS:) 19 . . . i.a6 20.l:tdl l:tacS: in the game Ado­rj an - H uebner, Oslo 1 9 S 4 , Black's activity on the c-file bal­anced the isolation of his d5-pawn.

10 ... i.b7 1 1.0-0

In this position Black chooses most often either b4a) 1l ... lbe4 or b4b) 1l ... c5. Yet let's enumer­ate the less ambitious possibili­ties before proceeding to a de­tailed analysis ofthe most active continuations. The move 11 . . . c6 is as passive as it is solid. In this case White can play 12.�c2!? (af­ter 12 .a3 lbe4 13 .i.xe7 �xe7 14.�c2 f5 15.b4 in the game E.

229

Chapter 15

Kiss - Bodnar, Hungary 1998, Black had the chance to obtain counterplay by 15 . . . a5 16.b5 c5p; 12. t'ta4 is admissible, but after 12 . . . ttJe4 13 . .1xe7 t'txe7 14.ttJxe4 dxe4 15 .ttJd2± Black can steer safely into one of the lines of variation b4a), not allowing the black knight reaching e4. Mter 12 . . . ,Ue8 13 .11fdl ttJf8 in the game Ftacnik - Lobron, Biel 1984, White missed the option of 14. t'tb1!?;t with the idea b2-b4. In this case 14 . . . ttJe4?! is refuted by 15.i.xe7 'uxe7 (the line 15 . . .. �xe7 1 6 . ttJxe4 �xe4 1 7 . t'txe4 dxe4 IB .CLle5± is no better for Black) 16.CLlxe4 dxe4 (if 16 . . . ,Uxe4, then 1 7 . ttJe S ! +- with the dreadful threat of i.e2-f3) 17 .CLle5± and Black's pawns on c6 and e4 are very weak.

In case of 11 . . .a6 White has 12. �c2 .ueB (after 12 . . . cS 13.'ufd1 ttJe4 14 . .1xe7 �xe7 15.dxc5 CLlxc3 16.�xc3 bxc5 17 .�a3 .ufcB lB . CLlel Uc7 19 . .1f3 CLlf6 20.CLld3± in the game Agdestein - Peric, Copenhagen 19B5, White's pres­sure on Black's hanging pawns was quite perceptible) 13JHdl i.d6 and now in the game Za­gorskis - Butnorius, Klaipeda 1990, White had the opportunity to activate his bishop by 14 . i.d3!?;t followed by Bf5.

The play might develop simi­larly to the previous case after 11 . . . .ucB 12. t'ta4 ( 12.CLlbS should be considered weaker since after 1 2 . . . c5 1 3 . ttJxa7 Ua8 1 4 . CLlb5 l:.xa2 IS. �b3 l:.aS 16.dxcS bxcS

230

17 .CLlc3 �aB= White obtained nothing in the game Gheorghiu - Schweizer, Lugano 1999) 12 . . . a 6 1 3 JHd U o r after 1 1 . . .11eB 12. �a4 (in case of 12 . .1g3 a6 13 .ttJe5 .1d6 14.f4 c5 lS . .1h4 i.e7 16 . .1f3 cxd4 1 7 . exd4 ttJe4 l B . .1xe7 llxe7°o White's achieve­ments were less prominent in the game Portisch - Ljubojevic , Szirak 1987) 12 . . . c6 in the game Eisele - Rother, Germany 199 1 , when White had the option of 13.UfdU, forcing the opponent to forget about any activity in the centre for a long time.

b4a) 1l ... ttJe4 12.i.xe7 The exchange of the dark­

squared bishops allows to im­prove the c o - ordination of Black's remaining pieces to some extent but now the problem of the c-pawn becomes urgent as it risks a chance to turn backward.

12 . . . �xe7

13.t'ta4!? White's queen l e aves d l ­

square to the rook and finds a more active placement. White often moves the queen to b3. Ev­ery one of the possibilities has its

4.ltJc3 i..e7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i.h4

own pros and cons. With the queen on a4 White is constantly threatening to cramp Black's queenside by b2-b4 at an oppor­tune moment. From b3 the white queen considerably impedes the advance c7 -c5 but in this case White should forget about the important resource of b2-b4 for a long time. These considerations can be illustrated by the follow­ing examples: 13 :ittb3 ltJdffi (af­ter 13 . . . c6 14JUd1 'it>hS 15.ltJxe4 dxe4 16.ltJd2 f5 in the game E. Gruenfeld - S teiner, Uj pest 1934, White had the opportunity of 17 .ltJc4 with the unpleasant threat ltJa5±) 14.ltJxe4 (White must neglect the natural 14. 'ufd 1 ? ! because of 14 . . . ltJxf2 ! 15 .'it>xf2 ltJg4+ 16.'it>g3 and now in the game Turna - Szamos, Slovakia 2001, Black could have reinforced the attack on White's king by 16 . . . 4.Jxe3�; the move 14. �a4 is but a waste oftime and after 14 . . . c5 lS.dxcS bxcS 16.i.a6 'uabS 1 7 . i.xb 7 lhb 7 I S . �a3 ,UfbS= Black overcame the open­ing difficulties in the game Gheorghiu - Neckar, Kusadasi 1990) 14 . . . 4.Jxe4 (in case of 14 . . . dxe4 l S . 4.JeS i.dS 1 6 . i.c4± Black's problems grow on) 15.'uc2 (after 15 .'ufd1 c5 16 .�a3 'ufcS 1 7 .ltJd2 ltJxd2 lS .'uxd2 in the game Hort - Beliavsky, Reggio Emilia 19S6, Black had to try to break free by I S . . . �gS!?, consid­ering the fact that in case of 19.dxcS there is 19 . . . d4!=) lS . . . cS (after lS . . . ,UfcS 16.,Ufc1 cS 17.�a3

'uc6 lS .dxcS bxc5 19 .1tJd4 ,Ug6 20.i.d3± in the game Portisch ­Vaganian, Niksic 1978, White exerted very strong pressure upon the c5-pawn) 16. �a3 (an immediate pawn exchange in the centre led to a position with mu­tual chances after 16.dxcS bxc5 17.�a3 :l.fdS 18 .':'fc1 �ffi 19.b4 c4 2 0 . ':'f1 :l.d6°o in the game Dautov - Klovans , Sverdlovsk 1 9 8 7 ) 16 . . . ,UfeS 1 7 . dxcS bxcS lS.i.b5 'uedS 19.i.d3 �e6 20.b4 cxb4 (after 20 . . . c4 21 .4.Jd4 �g6 22.i.xe4 �xe4 23.bS �g6 24. �e7 �b6 2S.a4± in the game Van der Sterren - Ljubojevic, Amsterdam 1999, Black's central pawns were safely blocked while the mobil­ity of the b7 -bishop was re­stricted) 2 1 . "ittxb4 i.a6 22 .4.Jd4 �b6t. White is better because of Black's isolated pawn on dS yet Black still has some counterplay owing to the semi-opened files on the queenside.

13 . . . c5 Black takes the chance to ad­

vance the c-pawn. Also Black plays sometimes 13 . . . c6 with the idea to support the e4-knight by £'7-f5. In this case the most prin­ciple reaction is 14.4.Jxe4 dxe4 1 5 . ltJd2 as (in case of lS . . . c5 White develops a serious initia­tive by 16 .b4! cxd4 17 .'uc7 i.cS l S . i.g4 dxe3 19 .fxe3 �d6 2 0 . �c2 t) 1 6 . a3 ,UfdS ( i n case of 16 . . . cS 1 7 . i.bS ,UfdS l S . 4.Jc4± Black's queenside is under strong pressure from White's pieces) 17.'ufd1 'uacS 18.i.g4 cS

23 1

Chapter 15

when in the game Naj dorf -Pfleger, Hastings 197 1 , White had the opportunity of 19.1bc4! cxd4 (in case of 19 . . . i.c6 there is 20.'�c2 cxd4 21. .UxCl.4±) 20 . .uxd4 lbc5 (after 20 . . . .uc7 2 1 ..ucd l± Black's knight on d7 is in trouble) 2 1 . �b5 lbd3 (after 2 1 . . ..lhd4 22.exd4 lbe6 23 . .udl± Black has problems with the b6-pawn while in case of 2 1 . . . .l:.b8 22Jbd8+ �xd8 23 .lbxb6 lbd3 24 . .uc2 .lta8 25 Jtc8 .uxc8 26.lbxc8 �c7 27 . �e8+ \tlh7 28.h3± he just loses it without sufficient compensation) 22 . .ltxc8 lbxc1 23 . .ltg4;!;, main­taining an advantage owing to the weakness ofthe Black's pawn on b6.

14.dxc5 In the abs ence of d ark­

squared bishops on the board White launches an attack to the c5-pawn. The exchange of light­squared bishops after 14 . .lta6 .ltxa6 15. �xa6 lbdf6 16.dxc5 bxc5 1 7 . lbxe4 lbxe4 18 JIfd 1 .ufd8= made Black's play easier and eventually led to a draw in the game V. Bagirov - J . Pribyl, Stary Smokovec 198 1 .

14 ... lbxc3 This intermediate exchange

saves Black considerable dam­ages to his pawn structure. M­ter 14 . . . bxc5 15.lbxe4 dxe4 16. lbd2 .ufc8 17. �a3 a5 18 . .ltg4 a4 19.1bc4 .ua6 20 . .ufdl± in the game Gheorghiu - C hudinovskih, Lenk 1991, there were numerous pawn weaknesses in Black's po­sition. In case of 14 . . . lbdxc5

232

15. �a3:t White's position looked preferable because of the isolated pawn on d 5 in the game B . Schneider - Klovans, Germany 1996.

15.lIxc3 bxc5 16.�a3!;!;

White's queen occupied the ideal square for an attack on the c5-pawn. The position of Black's bishop on b7 turns into a draw­back preventing him to organize an active counterplay - the best place for the bishop is on e6. The latter circumstance does not let Black use the semi-opened b-file in full measure. The comment to White's twelfth move shows how the central pair of Black's pawns could be shattered.

b4b) 1l ... c5

12.�a4!

4.4.Jc3 i.e7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i.h4

An immediate exchange on c5 simplifies Black's defence, pro­viding him with a convenient stand on b6 for his queen. After 12.dxc5 bxc5 13. �b3 (in case of 13 .�c2 l::tcS 14.l::tfd1 �b6 15.�b 1 l::tfdS 16 .l::tc2 �e6 17 .i.g3 4.Jh5!+ Black even obtained better play in the well known game Korchnoi - Karpov, Merano (mil) 19S1 and also after 13.l::tc2 ltcS 14J�d2 �b6 15. �b3 ltfdS 16.:'fd1 �xb3 17. axb3 4.Jb6= in the game Karpov - Kasparov, Moscow (ml25) 19S4, White did not obtain advantage) 13 . . . �b6 14 .ltfd1 l::tfdS 15.i.g3 :'acSoo with mutual chances in the game Tisdall - Wedberg, Torshavn 19S7.

12 ... a6 White was threatening to re­

inforce his position by the trans­fer of king's rook to dl . At the same time Black experiences dif­ficulties in arranging his pieces conveniently. An attempt to close the position by 12 . . . c4?! in the game Zoltek - Zigo, Pardubice 1994, could have been refuted by the standard manoeuvre 13.b3! cxb3 14.�xb3±. In case of 12 . . . 4.Je4 Black must reckon with the continuation 13 .Si.xe7 4.Jxc3 (the position after 13 . . . �xe7 14.dxc5 was covered within variation b4a) 14Jhc3!? (White is better in case of 14.Si.xdS 4.Jxa4 15 .i.h4 4.Jxb2 16.Si.b5 4.JbS 17 .dxc5 l:;i.cS;!; but the position is rather simple already) 14 . . . �xe7 15.dxc5 bxc5 1 6 . �a3;!; with a position from variation b4a.

13.dxc5 Black was threatening to

seize space on the queenside by b6-b5 and c5-c4, making use of the advanced position of the white queen.

13 ... bxc5 As a rule, Black rather agrees

to have hanging pawns in the centre (c5+d5) than to defend with an isolated pawn on d5. In the latter case after 13 . . . 4.Jxc5 14.�d1!? (the retreat 14.�c2 is possible too but after 14 . . . 4.Jfe4 1 5 . Si.xe7 �xe7 1 6 . l::tfd 1 IUdS 17 .4.Jd4 �f6 1S.Si.f3 ltacS 19.�b1 4.Jxc3 2 0 Jh c 3 4.Je4 2 1 . l:;i.xcS ltxcS;!; White had to yield the c­file temporarily in the game Stempin - Jurcisin, Denmark 1 9 9 9 ) 14 . . . lteS 1 5 . 4.Jd4 4.Jfe4 (Black's wish to play more ac­tively cost him a pawn after 15 . . . b5? 16.Si.xf6 Si.xffi 17.4.Jcxb5± in the game Gheorghiu - Shirazi, New York 19S9) 16.i.xe7 �xe7 17.i.f3 l::tadS lS.�c2 ltcS 19.l::tfd1 g6 (in case of 19 . . . 4.Jd7? after 20. i.xe4 dxe4 2 1 .4.Jf5+- to be fol­lowed by 4.Jd6 Black is losing an exchange while after 19 . . . 4.Jxc3 2 0 . �xc3 4.Je4 2 1 . �b3;!; White maintains pressure on the queenside and the d5-pawn) 20. �e2 b5 21.a3 l::tc7 22.l:;i.c2 l:;i.ecS 23.ltdc1 4.Je6 24.4.Jxe6 4.Jxc3 25. �d3 �xe6 26.:'xc3 l:;i.c4 27.b3 :'xc3 2S . l:;i.xc 3 l::txc3 29 . �xc3;!; Black experienced difficulties because of the weakness of his dark squares in the game S . Cvetkovic - J. Diaz, Trnava 19S5.

233

Chapter 15

14JUdl �b6 The pawn exchange on c5 va­

cated b6 for the black queen, so it pops there immediately. This has become the common continu­ation already. Black's attempt to go his own way by 1 4 . . . l:.e8 15.�b3 '§b8 16.i..g3 �a7 in the game Lutz - Hort, Bad Neue­nahr 1991, allowed White to cre­ate by 17.tLJh4!? g6 18.i..f.3 tLJb6 19.a4 c4 20. '§c2t two unpleasant threats - a4-a5 intending to win the d5-pawn and tLJxg6.

15.'§b3!?

This paradoxical manoeuvre when White is eager to double and isolate his pawns on the queenside is, actually, the best way to struggle for an advantage. The readers of our Book II may remember that a similar queen's manoeuvre was described there in Chapter 7 (p.4 7) and also it occurred in the illustrative game 4.

Black has three different op­tions now: to go for the queen swap by b4bl) 15 ... '§xb3, to de­lay this decision by b4b2) 15 ... J:tfd8 or to continue the play with queens by b4b3) 15 .. . '§a7.

234

b4bl) 15 ... '§xb3 Black cripples White's queen­

side pawns very noticeably but it is not at all easy to make use of this weakening. The problem of defending the pair of hanging pawns absorbs him fully now. Besides, there are two reasons that impede his possible play down the semi-opened b-file: his own bishop on b7 and White's dark-squared bishop which can take control ofb8 at any moment.

16.axb3 :!.fe8 Other possible continuations

are no better. So, after 16 . . . l:.fd8 17.tLJel tLJb6 (in case of 17 . . . g5 18.i..g3 tLJf8 which occurred in the game 1. Efimov - G. Gior­gadze, USSR 1987, White could have switched to the c5-pawn by 19 . i..c 7 ! l:.d7 2 0 . i..e5 tLJe6 2 l . tLJa4;!;) 18.i..f.3 l:.ac8 (after 1 8 . . . l:.d7 19.tLJd3 g5 20.i..g3;!; i n the game Lputian - Dorfman, Tash­kent 1984, White had an advan­tage and the incautious 20 . . . l:.c8? after 2 1 .tLJe5 l:.dd8 22.tLJc4± just worsened Black's problems con­nected with the defence of the d5-pawn) 19.i..g3 !?± White main­tains pressure upon the black hanging pawns. Note that the continuation 19.tLJd3 i..a8 20.l:.al d4 21 .i..xa8, recommended by S. Lputian, is less accurate because after 21 . . .dxc3! 22.i..b7 c2t Black takes over the initiative.

After 16 . . . tLJb6 17 .tLJel l:.ac8 18 .i..f.3 l:.fd8 19 .h3 c4 20.bxe4 tLJxc4 in the game Obodchuk -Dobias, Bratislava 1993, White

4.tLlc3 i.e7 S. i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.�h4

had the opportunity to make his opponent switch to defence of his isolated d5-pawn by 21.b3!?;!; and in case of 16 . . . g5 17 . .tg3 'ufdS in the game Gruenberg - Boensch, Zittau 19S9, lS.tLle1 !?;!; was pos­sible, vacating f3 for the bishop in the forthcoming assault on the d5-pawn.

1 7 . .t g3 ..i f8 1 8 .tLle l lie6 19 . .tf3

Now a good deal of Black's territory is under control of White's pair of bishops. White only needs to draw in knights in the attack on the opponent's hanging pawns to seal his advan­tage.

19 . . . tLlb6 20.h3 White's attempt to win a

pawn by 20 . ..ic7 fails to 20 . . . .l:I.cS 2 1 . ..ixb6 .lhb6 22 .tLlxd5 tLlxd5 23 . ..ixd5 ..ixd5 24 . .l:I.xdS .l:I.xb3=.

20 ... g5 21...ih2 White did not want to block

up the d-file by 21 .tLld3 because of 2 1 . . . hS 22 . ..ic7 .l:!.cS=.

21...lid8 At this moment 21 . . .hS does

not solve all problems in view of 2 2 . ..It c 7 g4 2 3 . ..ixb6 gxf3 24 . tLla4;!;:. In case of 21 . . . .l:I.cS the black pawn on a6 10ses one of its defenders, so White has 22 . .l:I.a1;!;:.

22.tLld3 lid7 In case of 22 . . . hS there is

23 . ..ieS ! ? g4 24 . ..ixf6 .l:I.xf6 2S. hxg4 hxg4 26 . ..ixg4 d4 27.exd4 cxd4 2S.tLle2;!;:, and Black's bishop pair is insufficient to compensate for the missing pawn.

23.tLla4 tLlxa4 24.bxa4 c4

This position occurred in the game Eingorn - Lputian, Lvov 19S4. In case of 2S .tLleS l:!.de7 26.tLlg4 tLle4 27 .i.xe4 dxe4 2S. .l:.d6!? (after 2S . ..id6 .l:1.d7 29 . ..ixfS .l:I.xd1 + 30 . .l:I.xd1 <it>xfS 3 1 .l:!.d4 hS 3 2 . tLlh2 .l:I.b6� Black obtains counterplay) 2S . . . ..ig7 29 . .l:I.xc4 fS 30 . .l:I.b4 .l:I.xd6 3 1 ...ixd6 .l:I.d7 32. tLlh2 ..ic6 33.i..cS l:!.d2 34.b3 .l:I.c2 3S . .td4;i;: White could have won a pawn deflecting Black's imme­diate threats.

b4b2) 15 .. ..lHd8

16 . ..ig3!? In case of 1 6 . �xb6 tLlxb6

17 .tLleS Black creates counter­play by the break-through 17 . . . d4� and after 16.tLld2 �a7 17 . i.g3 l:!.acS lS . ..if3 tLlb6<Xl White's knight remained on d2 without any good prospect in the game

23S

Chapter 15

Portisch - Hort, Reggio Emilia 1986.

16 ... l:tacB 17.ttJe5 After 17 .ttJe1 Black takes the

initiative by 17 . . . d4t and in case of 17 .ttJh4 White must reckon with 17 . . .. �xb3 18.axb3 g6°o.

17 ... �xb3 The position after 17 . . . �a7

18 . .tf3 is discussed in variation b4b3.

IB.axb3 The play arrives once more at

an endgame similar to the one in b4bl.

IB . ..t2lb6 In case of 18 . . . ttJxe5 19 . .txe5;!:;

White's position looks more at­tractive. After 18 . . . ttJf8 White has 19.iLf3 ( 19 .ttJa4 is less accurate and after 19 . . . ttJe4 20 . .tf3 f5= Black's knight obtained good out­post in the centre in the game Jove Grau - Oltra Caurin, Mis­lata 1992) 19 . . . ttJe6 (after 19 . . . ttJe4 20.ttJxe4 dxe4 21 .iLe2;!:; the appearance of the white bishop on c4 is unpleasant for Black) 20 .ttJc4 (in the line 20.h4 iLa8 21 .ttJa4 .tib8� Black had counter­play in the game E stremera Panos - Fraczek, Warszawa 1987) 20 . . . ttJg5 2 l .ttJb6 ttJxf3 + 2 2 . gxf3 J:.c6 2 3 . ttJbxd5 ttJxd5 24.ttJxd5 (White is a pawn up al-ready) 24 . . . ';�;f8 25 . e4 .tie6 (in case of 25 . . . i.f6 White has 26. :c2;!:;) 26.ttJe3 l:txd1+ (after 26 . . . :b6 27 .:xd8+ i.xd8 28.:d1 i.f6 29 . .td6+ �e8 30 . .tid3 i.d4 3 l . ttJc4 ':'b5 i n the game Gavrikov ­King, Palma de Mallorca 1989,

236

the little tactical trick of32 .b4!± could have brought a distinct advantage to White) 27 .l:txd1 l:tb6 28.l:td3;!:; with the idea ttJc4. White's position should be con­sidered preferable despite the two pairs of doubled pawns.

19 . .tf3 19.ttJf3 is less accurate due to

19 . . . ttJh5 20.i.e5 f6 21 .i.g3 ttJxg3 22.hxg3 g6 23.g4 �f'7 = White had to part with his dark-squared bishop in the game Anastasian -Dervishi, Yerevan 2000.

19 ... .taB After 19 . . . c4 20 .bxc4 ttJxc4

21.ttJxc4 l:txc4 22.h3 'iith7 23.i.e5 ttJe4 24.i.e2 ttJxc3 25.iLxc3 .tic6 26.iLf3;!:; the isolated pawn on d5 was exposed to strong pressure of White's pieces in the game A. Gruenfeld - Liberzon, Tel Aviv 1988.

20.:al d4 This break-through means

only that Black has nothing bet­ter to do. He is just unable to keep all his pawns. It's obvious that 20 . . . i.b7 would encounter 21.ttJc4!±.

21.exd4 cxd4 After 21 . . .i.xf3 22.ttJxf3 cxd4

23.l:txd4± Black has no compen­sation for the pawn.

22.ttJe2 .txf3 If 22 . . . iLc5, then White gains

an advantage by 23.:Xa6 i.xf3 24.gxf3±.

23.gxf3! White concedes a damage of

his pawn structure on the king­side as well. His aim is to pre-

4.tiJc3 �e7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7. �h4

vent Black from creating coun­terplay which could have hap­pened in case of the natural 23.ltJxf3 after 23 . . . d3! 24.lLlf4 d2 25 .lIxd2 :s.xd2 26.lLlxd2 1Ic2�.

23 ... ltJbd5 In case of 23 . . . lIc2 24.lLlxd4

.uxb2 25.ltJd3!+- the black rook is entrapped.

24.ltJxd4 The capture 24Jha6 is less

clear because of the possibility of 24 . . . ltJb4 25.:a7 Sl.c5 26.11xf7 d3 27.ltJf4 �e8!oo.

24 ... ltJb4 25.ltJf5;l;

This position occurred in the game Jussupow - Short, Linares 1992. Counting a pawn down, Black had to agree to 25 . . . Sl.fB 26.ltJcM; with the hope to profit eventually from the opponent's miserable pawn structure. Yet he preferred the active 25 . . . i.c5?! and after 26.:xd8+ llxd8 27.:cl :d5 28.ltJe3 Sl.xe3 29.fxe3 tiJh5 (if 29 . . . lLld3?, then 3 0 Jlc8+ Wh7 3 1 .ltJxf7+- and in case of29 . . . :d2 there is 30 .lIc8+ Wh7 3 1 .tiJc4±) 3 0 . :c 8 + Wh7 3 1 . tiJxf7 tiJxg3 32.hxg3 'udl + (if 32 . . . l:.f5, then 33.:fB Wg6 34.lLlh8+-) 33 .Wg2 :d2+ 34.Wh3 .uxb2 (in case of

34 . . Jid3? the solution lies in 35.lIh8+ Wg6 36.lLle5+-) 35.lIh8+ Wg6 36.lLle5+ wf6 37.lIb8!± en­countered even greater prob­lems.

b4b3) 15 .. :�a7

16 . ..tg3 White avoids exchanging

queens, hoping to use the dy­namic power of his hanging pawns.

16 .. J;[acB The d5-pawn often needs de­

fence of the knight from b6 and Black shields the c7 -square from White's bishop. The incautious 16 . . . :ad8?! enables White to gain the edge by 17 .lLlh4! with the idea of lLlf5, preparing an intru­sion to d6, and also with the idea of Sl.f3, threatening the d5-pawn ( 17 .ltJel is weaker because of 17 . . . d4 18.exd4 cxd4 19.1tJa4 l:Ic8 20.l:Ixc8 :xc8 21 .Sl.c4 l:tfB 22. �d3 Sl.c6 23.i.b3 ltJe4� with sufficient compensation for the pawn in the game Karpov - Kasparov, Mos­cow (m/31) 1984 and after 17.l:td2 lIfe8°o a complex position with mutual chances arose in the game Topalov - Kasparov, Sofia

237

Chapter 15

(active, mil) 1998). After 17 . . . l:.fe8 (17 . . . c4 would meet 18:�c2± and if 17 . . . g6, then 18.�£3± with the idea that 18 . . . c4 19. t'tc2 ttJc5 would allow White to launch a dangerous attack by 20.ttJxg6!--?) 18 .ttJf5 �fB 19.�£3 g6 (with the rook on d8, Black misses the standard resource of 19 . . . ttJb6 in view of 20.�c7+-) 20.ttJd6 �xd6 21 .�xd6± with serious problems because of the weakness of Black's dark squares.

16 . . . l:.fd8 is possible (unlike in the previous case, Black has now for his e7 -bishop the retreat square fB), but in this case after 17 .ttJh4 (or 17 .ttJe5 ttJb6 18.a4 �d6 19.a5 ttJc8 20.�£3 l:.b8 21 . t'ta2 when in the game Lalic -Abramovic , Yugoslavia 1989 Black had 2 1 . . .,Ue8!oo leaving White to prove that hanging pawns were weak) 17.ttJh4 �fB (if 17 . . . g6, then by 18.�£3 White fixes Black's hanging pawns, so after 18 . . . c4 19. t'tc2 ttJfB 20 . ..te2t his position should be considered advantageous) 18 . ..tf3 White forces his opponent to advance his c-pawn. Now in case of 18 . . . c4 19. t'tc2 ttJc5 20.�e5 t'tb6 21.�d4 t'te6 22.�e2t White maintains an advantage owing to the block­ade of Black's hanging pawns on the dark squares.

IV'Llh4!? After 17 .ttJe5 l:.fd8 (17 . . . l:.fe8?!

is weaker because of 18.�£3± and after 18 . . . c4 19.t'tc2 ttJfB?! in the

238

game Chekhov - Boensch, Pots­dam 1985, White could have pun­i shed Black at once by 2 0 . ttJxd5+-) 1 8 .�f3 ttJb600 i n the game Sichev - Gefenas, corr. 1993, White agreed to draw, hav­ing obtained no result from the pressure upon Black's hanging pawns.

17 ..• g6 18.�f3 ttJb6 19.a4! Attacking the knight on b6.

The move 19.e4 is not as strong leading after 19 . . . c4 20.t'tc2 dxe4 2 1 . ttJxe4 ttJxe4 22 . �xe4 �xe4 23 .'i::he4 �f6= to approximately equal position in the game Foisor - Boensch, Leipzig 1986.

19 ... a5 20.�f4 cttg7 After 20 . . . ctth7 2 1 .ttJb5 t'ta6

22 . ..td6t Black can't avoid weak­ening of his dark squares as well.

2 1.ttJb5 t'ta6 22.�d6 c4 Congratulations to White on

his first real achievement. Black's hanging pawns are neu­tralized now.

23.t'ta3 �xd6 24.ttJxd6 lIc7 25.b3;j:;

Black has problems defending his hanging pawns.

Chapter 16 l.ctJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ctJf6 4.ctJc3 .i.e7 5 . .i.g5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7 . .i.h4 ctJbd7 8J:tcl c6

Black follows the course we saw in Chapter 14, hoping to use the inclusion of h7-h6 and Bg5-h4 to his own favour.

9.i..d3 White, in his turn, completes

the development. 9 ... dxc4 Black makes the introducing

move of the accelerated fian­chetto plan, similar to the one in Chapter 14 as b1 but with inclu­sion of h7-h6 and i..g5-h4. It should be mentioned as well that in case of 9 . . . a6 White has 10. cxd5 when the line 10 . . . exd5 (af­ter 10 . . . cxd5 11.0-0;!:: Black's po­sition is somewhat passive so White's chances are better, and in case of 1 0 . . . lLJxd5 there is 1l .i..g3!? lLJxc3 12.bxc3 c5 13.a4 b6 14.0-0 i..b7 15 .�e2;!:: creating

problems for Black with the de­fence of his queenside, weakened by a7-a6 ) 11 .i..g3 Ieads to a posi­tion in Chapter 15 (variation hI).

We won't analyse the move 9 . . . b6 in detail now. The analy­sis of variation a from Chapter 14 applies fully to this position with inclusion ofh7-h6 and i..g5-h4. So we will only give several examples of the possible devel­opment of events : 10 .0-0 i..b7 1 l . cxd5 exd5 ( after 1 1 . . . cxd5 12. �e2 lLJe4 13.i..xe7 �xe7 14. lLJb5 lLJd6 15 .lIc7 lIfc8 16.lIfcU in the game G. Quinones - K. Vera, Lima 1997, White was first to take control over the c-file and in case of 11 . . . lLJxd5 1 2 .i..xe7 �xe7 which occurred in the game Comp "Junior" - Benschop, The Hague 1995, a powerful com­puter would recommend White to continue by 13 .lLJxd5 exd5 14.i..f5;!::) 12.�c2 c5 (after 12 . . . lLJh5 13.i..xe7 �xe7 14.'ufe 1 �d8 1 5 . �a4 a6 16.i..f5 g6 1 7 .i..xd7 �xd7 18. �b3 b5 19.1LJe5 �d6 20.lLJa4! +- in the game Capa­blanca - Znosko Borovsky, Lon­don 1922, Black found himself

239

Chapter 16

quickly i n a strategically hope­less position. Also the move 12 . . . l:!.eS was not enough in view of 13 .1l.f5 ttJh5 14.1l.xe7 'f!txe7 15.'ufd1 ttJhf6 16.a3 g6 17.1l.h3± as in the game Sanchez Jimenez - Almagro Mazariegos, Torredel­campo 1996) 13.'ufd1 c4 (after 13 . . . .l:.eS in the game Levitzkaja - De Blecourt, Duisburg 1992, Black could have encountered serious problems in case of 14.1l.b5! a6 15 .1l.xd7 'f!txd7 16. ttJa4±) 14.1l.f5 a6 15.a4 ttJeS (un­like in Chapter 14, there is no g7-g6 now because of the sacrifice of the white bishop on g6, and after 1 5 . . . 1l. c 6 1 6 . ttJe5 ttJxe5 1 7 . dx e 5 ttJh5 l S . 1l.x e 7 'f!txe7 19.ttJxd5 t;rxe5 20.ttJxb6+- Black suffered fatal material losses in the game Kierzek - Schiffer, Hessen 1995), when in the game Gralka - M atlak, Augustow 1996, White could have main­tained his advantage by 16.�xe7 t;rxe7 17.b3 ttJd6 lS.1l.xd7 t;rxd7 19 .ttJe5 t;re6 20.bxc4 dxc4 2 1 . .l:.ba.

10.1l.xc4 h5 In case of 10 . . .. !tJd5 it's easy to

see that by 11..�.xe7 (the situa­tion after 1l .1l.g3 ttJxc3 12 .bxc3 b6 1 3 . 0-0 1l.b7°o is less clear) 1l . . . t;rxe7 12.0-0 ttJxc3 13 . .l:.xc3 White reaches a position ana­lysed in Chapter 15 (variation a2). In case of 10 . . . a6 11.a4 c5 12.0-0 cxd4 13.exd4 there is one more familiar position from Chapter 1 5 (variation h2 this time) only it takes one more

240

move to arrive at this point. 1l . ..td3

We shall consider now Black's two basic responses like we did in variation hI in Chapter 14: a) 1l ... i..h7 and h) 1l . . . a6.

a) 1l ... ..th7 12.0-0 There are no immediate

threats to White's position, so he completes his development.

12 ... l:tc8 In case of 12 . . . b4 White should

answer by 13 .ttJa4 ( 1 3 .ttJe4 is weaker because after 13 . . . lLlxe4 14.�xe7 Iike in the game Hefter - Nguyen Tran Anh, Frankfurt 1999, Black can complicate mat­ters by 14 . . . ttJxf2! 15 .1l.h7+ 'it>hSoo) 13 . . . c5 14.1l.xf6 ! (after 14.ttJxc5 ttJxc5 15.dxc5 ':cS 16.1l.xf6 �xf6 17.'f!te2 in the game Jensen - E . Pedersen, Aarhus 1959, Black missed the opportunity to win back a pawn by 17 . . . 1l.xf.3 lS.gxf.3 'f!td5=) 14 . . . gxf6 15 .lLlxc5 lLlxc5 16.dxc5 i..xf.3 17.gxf.3 t;ra5 lS.c6 'f!txa2 19. t;re2± and despite the material balance and opposite­coloured bishops White has a dis­tinct advantage owing to his passed c-pawn.

6.e3 h6 7.j"h4 t[jbd7 8.�c1 e6 9.�d3 de 10. �e4 b5 11. j"d3

In case of 12 . . . a6 White can continue similarly to the line in Chapter 14 (variation bIb): 13. j"xf6 ! ? ( sometimes White in­cludes the preliminary 13 .a4 and then after 13 . . . b4 he plays 14. j"xffi!, not fearing the exchange 13 . . . bxa4 after the game Taima­nov - Jimenez Zerquera, Palma de Mallorca (izt) 1970, which con­tinued by 14.t[jxa4 �a5 15 .t[jd2 l:!.ac8 1 6 . t[je4±) 13 . . . t[jxf6 ( if 13 . . . j"xf6, then 14.l2le4::!;) 14.l2le4 l2ld7 (after 14 . . . t[jd5 15.t[jc5 .ixc5 16 .l:!.xc5 l:!.c8 17 . .ibl f5 18 .t[je5± in the game Wilke - Hahner, Bad Liebenzell 1996, White blocked the opponent's forces on light squares and the same happened after 14 . . . t[jxe4 15 . .ixe4 l::.c8 16.tt:Je5 .id6 17.f4 f5 18 . .i£3 .ixe5 19.fxe5± in the game Ferreira ­Silva, Lisbon 1998, while in case of 14 . . . �d5 after 15.t[jxf6+ .ixffi 16.j"bl j"e7 17. �d3 g6 18.t[je5! c5 19.f3� White's threat to sac­rifice the knight on g6 turned out irresistible in the game Tkeshe­lashvili - Socko, Tallinn 1997) and now the move 15 . .ibl (in Chapter 14 there was 15 . �c2, threatening to the h7-pawn in­directly, but now there is no pawn on that square, and after 15 . . . c5 16. dxe5 .ixe5 17 .liJxe5 CtJxe5 1 8 . j"xb5 axb 5 1 9 . �xc5 l:!.xa2= Black equalized in the game Ruck - Zhang Pengxiang, Gyula 2000) 1 5 . . . f5 16.CtJg3 c5 17.e4 fXe4 18.t[jxe4 c4 19. �c2 lIf4 20.lIfel CtJf8 2 1 . �d2 .id6 22. �e3 lIfl 23.CtJxd6 �xd6 24.CtJe5::!; in

the game De Groot - Van Does­burgh, Stockholm 1937, White's position was preferable.

1 3.�e2!? The incautious 1 3 . e4?! re­

sulted in Black's advantage af­ter 13 . . . b4 14 . .ixffi CtJxffi 15.e5 bxc3 16 .exf6 .ixf6 1 7 . lhc3 c5 18 ..lhc5 lIxc5 19.dxc5 �a5+ in the game Piket - N. Gaprin­dashvili, Wijk aan Zee 1987. Also the exchange 13 . .ixf6 CtJxffi after 14.t[je4 t[jd7 15.a3 c5! 16 .t[jxc5 CtJxc5 1 7 . dxc5 .ixf3 1 8 . gxf3 ':xc5= gained no advantage to White in the game 1. N ovikov -Ubilava, Camaguey 1987. The position remained equal after 13.a4 b4 14.CtJbl a5 15 .CtJbd2 c5 16. �e2 cxd4 17 .CtJxd4 CtJc5= in the game R. Rodrigues - Mar­tins, Lisbon 1998, as well as af­ter 13.a3 a5 14.�e2 b4 15.axb4 axb4 16 . .ixf6 gxf6 1 7 .CtJa4 c5 18 . .ia6 j"xa6 19 . �xa6 lIa8 20 . �c6 cxd4 21.t[jxd4 t[je5 22 . �c2 �a5 23.b3 �a6= in the game Huzman - Ubilava, Kujbyshev 1986 . Also the chances were equal after 13 . .ibl b4 14.l2la4 c5 15 . .ixf6 t[jxf6 1 6 . t[jxc5 .ixc5 1 7 . dxc5 �a5 18 .CtJd4 lIxc5 19.

241

Chapter 16

tDb3 .uxc1 20.tDxaS lhd1 21 ..l:txd1 i.a8= in the game Hebden -Motwani, Blackpool 1988.

13 ... b4 14.tDa4 14.tDe4 is inaccurate because

of 14 . . . tDxe4 lS .i.xe7 'fixe7 16. i.xe4 tDf6 17.i.b1 cS= as it hap­pened in the game Gausel -Hoen, Oslo 1987.

14 ... c5 Sometimes Black includes

14 . . . 'fiaS lS.b3 prior to lS . . . cS (after lS . . . gS 16.i.g3 tDhS in the game Pyykkonen - Toikkanen, Tampere 1989, White could have develop his initiative by 17 . .1i.eS g4 18.tDd2 tDxeS 19.dxeS �xeS 20. �xg4+ 'figS 21 .�h3t, weak­ening Black's kingside, and in case of 15 . . . .l:tfd8 there is 16.kxf6 kxf6 17. tDcS;!;, not allowing the important advance c6-cS). In this case White has 16.tDe5! (making use of the retreat of Black's queen, White hurries to develop initiative on the kingside, or oth­erwise after 16 .dxcS tDxcS 17 . tDxcS I!xc5 18 .I!xcS 'fixcS= the play turns absolutely equal as it happened in the game A. Geor­ghiou - Mussaileb, Elista (ol) 1998) 16 . . . tDxeS (16 . . . gS? is risky due to 17.kxg5! hxgS 18.tDxd7 tDxd7 19. 'fihS tDf6 20. �xgS+ �h8 2 1 . tDxcS k c 6 2 2 . ltc4 when White's answer to 22 . . . i.b5 or 22 . . . i.dS would be the same : 2 3 . tD d 7 ! +- ) 1 7 . dxeS tDd5 1 8 . i.xe7 tD x e 7 1 9 . f4 ( i n case of 19.tDb2 White must reckon with 19 . . . �xa2oo) 19 . . . tDdS 20.f5 exf5 2 1 .kxfS ltc7 (2 1 . . .ka6? is bad

242

because of 22. 'fif3 i.xfl 23.i.xc8 .l:txc8 24.l::txfl± - pointed out by M. Tal) 22.e6t White developed a dangerous initiative in the game Tal - Nei, Moscow 1981 .

15.i.a6! Black accomplished the stra­

tegically important advance c6-c5. Still, by his last move White demonstrates that it is insuffi­cient for absolute equality. The exchange of the light-squared bishops gives White squares for intrusion on the queenside. Be­sides, White has no alternative way to struggle for an advantage. After 15.tDxcS tDxcS 16.dxcS tDd7 17 . .1i.xe7 �xe7 18.c6 ltxc6 19. ltxc6 i.xc6 20.ltc1 i.xf3 21 . �xf3 tDeS 22. �e4 tDxd3 23. �xd3 ltd8= the position was equal in the game Franke - N . Gaprinda­shvili, Berlin-West 1988 and in case of lS .dxcS �aS 16.i.b5 tDb8 17.b3 a6 18.kd3 tDbd7 19.e4 in the game Misanovic - Kachiani Gersinska, Subotica 1991, Black could have equalized by 19 . . . tDxcs 20.kxf6 gxf6=.

15 ... i.xa6 16.�xa6;!;

This position occurred in the game Goldin - Barua, Reno

6.e3 h6 7.�h4 0:,bd7 8.1:..c1 e6 9.�d3 de 10.�e4 b5 11 .�d3

1999. The weakness of Black's light squares on the queenside makes White's position prefer­able.

b) n ... a6

12.a4!? At this point the inclusion of

h7 -h6 and i..g5-h4 proves signifi­cant. White can't play 12.e4? ! similarly to variation b1a from Chapter 1 4 because of 1 2 . . . liJxe4 ! + . Also the continuation 12.0-0 promises no good to White because of 12 . . . c5! 13 .a4 bxa4 1 4 . liJxa4 cxd4 1 5 . liJxd4 i..b 7 16.i..g3 ncs 1 7 .�a1 liJe4= with equality, Romanishin - Campo­ra, Biel 19S5. White can try to gain from the weakening of Black's castle by 12.i..b1 but in this case after 12 . . . .tb7 (the po­sition after 12 . . . c5 13.dxc5 0:,xc5 14. �c2 l:i.eS 1 5 .i..xf6 i..xf6 1 6 . �h7+ 'it'fS 1 7 . b4 liJ d 7 l S .0:,e4 liJb6 19.1iJxf6 �xf6 20.�c7 i..d7 is difficult to assess yet it looks as if Black's defence were a hard task in case of 2 1 .0-0±) 13. �c2 c5 (in the game Langeweg -Zuidema, Zierikzee 1967, Black avoided complications by 13 . . .

-UeS 14.l2le5 c5 15.nd1 liJf8 16. dxc5 �c7 1 7 . c6 i..xc6 lS.liJxc6 �xc6 19 .1iJd5 �xc2 20 .liJxe7+ I1xe7 21 .i..xc2;!;, but his knights were opposed to White's bishop pair as a result) 14.dxc5 b4! (if 14 . . . i.xc5, then 15.-Udl t ) 15.�dl (in case of 15 .l2la4 Black gets rid of the threat to his king along the diagonal b l -h7 by 1 5 . . . i..e4=) 15 . . . g5 White had to go for the piece sacrifice in order to main­tain initiative: 16.l2lxg5 hxg5 (in case of 16 . . . bxc3 17 .l2lxe6 .te4 l S . l2lxdS i..x c 2 1 9 .12lc6 .txc5 20 . .txc2 cxb2 2 1 ..tf5± Black ob­tains no sufficient compensation for the pawn) 17 . .txg5. Estima­tion of this position depends mainly on the power of White's attack after 17 . . J:teS!?oo because after 17 . . . bxc3 18.i.xf6 liJxf6 19. l:.xd8 l:.fxdS 20. �xc3 a5 21. 0-0 l:.ac8 2 2 . �xa5 l:.xc5 2 3 . � a 7 , which occurred in the game E . Vladimirov - Ubilava, Volgo­donsk 1981, White would have kept up his advantage even in case of Black's strongest continu­ation 23 . . . l:.b5!;!;.

White's twelfth move a2-a4 prevented the break-through c6-c5 for some time and Black should choose from the following options: b1) 12 ... .tb7, b2) 12 ... b4 or b3) 12 ... bxa4.

bl) 12 ... i..b7 13.0-0 The immediate threat of c6-

c5 cancelled, White castles. 13 . . . �c8 14. �e2 White prepares d l for the

243

Chapter 16

king's rook and at the same time he increases pressure on the b5-pawn as much as possible in or­der to fix its supporter - the c6-pawn.

14 ... l:.eB Preparing �d8-a5. An imme­

diate 14 . . . �a5 fails to 15.ttJe5 ! ttJb6 (Black is not lurred by an exchange on e5 because his e7-bishop would stay without pro­tection in this case) 16.ttJe4 ttJbd5 1 7 . i.xf6 ttJxf6 1 8 .ttJxf6+ .txf6 1 9 . ttJd 7 l:.fd 8 2 0 . ttJxf6+ gxf6 21 .�h5 when in the game Hen­sbergen - Luijnenburg, Utrecht 1999, even the best reply 2 1 . . . rt;g7 would not allow Black to level the game due to the weak­ness of his dark squares, for in­stance 22. �g4+ rt;f8 23 . �f3 \t>g7 24.axb5 axb5 25. �g3+ \t>f8 26. l:.c5±. Also Black's dark squares turned out vulnerable after 14 . . . ttJd5 15 . .txe7 ttJxc3 16.Zlxc3 �xe7 1 7 . Zlfc 1 g6 1 8 . SLe4 �d6 19 .axb5 axb5 20. �c2 Zlc7 2 1 . ttJd2± i n the game Bischoff -Glienke, Bremen 1998. Black's wish to play more actively after 14 . . . b4 15 .ttJe4 ( 15.CLJbl was fol­lowed by 15 . . . �a5 16.ttJbd2 c5= with equality in the game Eslon - Moreno Fuentes , Dos Her­man as 2000) 15 . . . �a5 (after 15 . . . CLJxe4 1 6 . i.xe7 �xe7 1 7 . .txe4 �d8 in the game Skacelik - Travnicek, Moravia 1994, White had the opportunity to block up his opponent on the dark squares by 18.CLJd2 e5 19. ttJb3±) 16.CLJfd2 c5 17 .ttJc4 �d8

244

(the greedy capture 1 7 . . . �xa4 after 18 . .txf6 i.xf6 19.1:.al �c6 20.CLJa5 �d5 21 .ttJxb7 �xb7 22. ttJd6+- results in a loss of ex­change for Black) 18.ttJed6 J:lb8 1 9 . ttJxb 7 Zlxb7 2 0 . ttJe5 CLJxe5 21 .dxe5 ttJd7 22 . .txa6 Zla7 23. .tg3± cost him a pawn without worthy compens ation in the game Budde - Dankert, Ger­many 1981 .

15.l:.fdl �a5 After 15 . . . b4 1 6 . .txf6 ttJxf6

17.ttJe4 ttJxe4 18 . .txe4 �b6 19. CLJe5 .td6 20. �h5 .txe5 21. �xe5± in the game C orral Blanco -Ruiz, Spain 1990, Black was blocked up on the dark squares again. In case of 15 . . . �b6 which occurred in the game Kamishov - Zagoriansky, Leningrad 1938, there was an attractive possibil­ity of 16.ttJd2!?±.

16.CLJd2 �b4 17.CLJde4 CLJd5 Annihilation of pieces by

1 7 . . . ttJxe4 1 8 . .txe7 CLJxc3 1 9 . .txb4 CLJxe2+ 20.SLxe2 bxa4 21. i..f3± brings Black to a difficult endgame.

IB.SLxe7!? It's simpler this way. Mter

1 8 . CLJa2 �xa4 19 . .txe7 Zlxe7 20.ttJd6 �xa2 2 1 . CLJxb7 in the game Ribli - Handoko, Sura­karta 1982, in case of Black's cor­rect decision 2 1 . . .l:.c7 22 .CLJc5 CLJxc5 23.l:!.xc5� White could have gained full compensation for the pawn yet he would be still far from creating serious problems to Black.

IB ... �xe7 19.ttJc5±

6.e3 h6 7.�h4 t'iJbd7 8.�c1 e6 9.�d3 de 10.�e4 b5 11 .�d3

Black fails to accomplish the desired advance c6-c5, and his bishop on b7 is out of play.

b2) 12 ... b4

13.i..xf6!? C omplications after 13 .t'iJe4

t'iJxe4 14 . i..xe7 t'iJxf2 1 5 . i..xd8 t'iJxdI 16 .Wxdl (White gained no advantage by 16 . i..e7 l:le8 1 7 . <;t>xdl .l:lxe7 1 8 . .l:lxc6 e 5 19.i..f5 g6 20.i..h3 exd4 21.exd4 .1i.b7 22.l:lc7 i..xf.3+ 23.gxf.3 l:ldB 24.<;t>d2 <;t>f8= in the game Vidmar - Asztalos, Maribor 1934) 16 . . JhdB 17.nxc6 (in case of 17.i..e4 i..b7 1B.i..xc6 1f_xc6 19.nxc6 ndcB 20.l:ld6 l:la7 21 .Wd2 t'iJf6 22.Wd3 t'iJd5 23.g3 in the game A. Zaitsev - Vecsey, corr. 1 9 6 0 , there was a very strong resource of 23 . . . b 3 ! 't ) 17 . . . i..b7 1B.l:lc7 i..xf.3+ 19.9xf.3 in the game Capablanca - Rossoli-

mo, Paris 1 9 3 8 , should have brought the opponents to an ap­proximately equal endgame after 19 . . . e5!? 20.i..e4 l:lac8 2 1 Jhc8 'uxc8 22.i..b7 'ud8= because in case of 23 . i..xa6 t'iJc5 24. i..b5 exd4p Black's counterplay would be enough to withstand.

13 ... gxf6 Black takes with the pawn in

order to retain the maximal con­trol over the c5-square. In case of 13 . . . t'iJxf6 after 14.t'iJe4 .1i.b7 15 .0-0 15 .t'iJe4 t'iJd7 ( after 15 . . . t'iJxe4 16.i..xe4 l:.c8 17 .t'iJe5 i..d6 1B.f4± in the game Ligterink -Borm, Amsterdam 197B, White secured himself well against c6-c5 and e6-e5, while in case of 15 . . . l:lcB 16. �e2 t'iJxe4 17.i..xe4 .1i.d6 1 8 .l:.c2 a5 1 9 . 1:.fc 1 �'b6 20 .t'iJd2 i..a6 2 1 .i..d3 i..xd3 22. �xd3, which occurred in the game Plaskett - Knox, Torquay 1982, Black managed to push 22 . . . e5 but it did not help much due to 2 3 . d 5 c5 2 4 . t'iJc4 �c7 25.e4±) 16.ti'e2 a5 (after 16 . . . ti'a5 17.t'iJfd2 �d5 18.i..c4 �f5 19.t'iJg3 ti'g6 2 0 . i.. d3 f5 in the game Flumbort - Alcazar Jimenez, Murek 1998, the hopelessness of Black's position could have been emphasized best of all by 2 1 . t'iJb3±) 1 7 . 'ufd 1 � b 6 I B . t'iJfd2 l:lac8 19.�h5 i..a6 20 . .1i.xa6 �xa6 21.t'iJb3±, and White maintained firm control of the c5-square in the game Baikov - Burlak, Mos­cow 1995.

14.t'iJe4 f5 15.t'iJg3 c5 Black managed to accomplish

245

Chapter 16

the strategically important ad­vance c6-cS but the fight is not finished yet. The weakening of Black's kings ide he allowed on the thirteenth move gives White hopes for developing initiative on this flank.

16.e4 The alternative aggressive

continuation is 16.dS but after 16 . . . �f6 (16 . . .'�Jb6 is weaker be­cause after 17.dxe6 fxe6 lS.0-0 c4 19.ii.xc4 �xd1 20.IUxd1 ctJxa4 21 .J::td2;t White had a slight ad­vantage in the ending in the game Volzhin - Ananchenko , Krasnodar 1997) 17 .dxe6 fxe6 l S . �b3 'it'hS ( after 19.0-0 �e7 20.ctJhS �b7 2 1 . ctJxf6 I!.xf6 22. ctJd2 l:tgS 23.g3 ctJeSt Black took the initiative on the kingside in the game Klein - Sergeant , Hastings 1935/39) 19 .ii.c4 19 . . . ctJb6 20 .�xe6 �eS !C() the play complicated very much, Portisch - Barcza, Budapest 1960.

16 ... f4 Actually this is only move. In

case of 16 . . . cxd4 17.exfS eS (also 17 . . . ctJcS was insufficient in the game Condie - Hartston, Edin­burgh 19S5, because of the con­tinuation l S .l:txcS! �xcS 1 9 . �c1!+- pointed out by W. Uhl­mann) White gained a winning position by lS.l:tc6! ctJf6 (in case of lS . . . f6 White wins by 19.ctJh4! 'it'h7 20.liJg6 �gS 21 .�c4 �g7 22. liJhS+-) 19.�c1! 'it'h7! (in case of 19 . . . ii.b7 the solution is 20.�xh6! ii.xc6 2 1 . liJgS with the idea liJhS+-) 20 .ctJxeS �b7 2 1 .�c7!

246

ii.xg2 22.':'gl �d6 (in case of 22 . . .

ii. d S the winning way is 2 3 . ctJhS!+-) 23.ctJhS!+- i n the game Ribli - Hennings, Leipzig 1973.

17.ctJe2 Now 17 .ctJhS is less efficient

because of 17 . . . cxd4 lS.g3 b3 !?C() with the unpleasant threat of �dS-aS.

1 7 . . . cxd4 1 8.ctJexd4 ii.b7 19.0-0 ctJc5

This position occurred in the game Malich - Zuidema, Siegen 1970. Continuing by 20.ii.b1 l:.cS ( after 20 . . . ctJxe4 2 1 .ctJeS� the open position of the black king promises White a successful at­tack) 2 1 . �d2 ctJxe4 2 2 . �xe4 �xe4 23.�xcS �xcS 24. �xf4;l; White maintained a slight ad­vantage despite the opponent's bishop pair. The reason is simple - Black's king is too vulnerable without the g-pawn.

b3) 12 ... bxa4 (diagram)

13.ctJxa4 After 13.�xf6 �xf6 14.ctJxa4

(in case of 14 . �xa4 there is 14 . . . ctJcS=) 14 . . . �aS+ l S . 'it'e2 Black equalizes by lS . . . eS=. The

6.e3 h6 7. iLh4 l:Dbd7 8.�c1 e6 9.iLd3 de 10.iLe4 b5 11 .iLd3

capture 1 3 . �xa4 i s obviously weaker because of 13 . . . c5 14.0-0 i.b7 15.l:.fd1 cxd4 16.�xd4 �a5= which occurred in the game Euwe - Noteboom, Amsterdam 193 1.

13 ... �a5+ After 1 3 . . . i.b4+ 14.ctJc3 c5

15.0-0 i.b7 in the game Tatai -Boensch, Budapest 19S7, White could have kept up his advantage by 16.ctJa2;1;.

14.ttJd2 An important moment. The

inclusion ofh7-h6 and i.g5-h4 in comparison with Chapter 14 (va­riation hla) makes this retreat possible . From a4 the white knight holds the important square c5 under control. This is why the alternative retreat 14.ctJc3 is weaker - Black equal­ized easily by 14 . . . i.b7 15.0-0 c5 16.i.e4 �b4 17 .i.xb7 �xb7 IS. ctJa4 cxd4 19.ctJxd4 l:.fcS= in the game Peek - Cifuentes Parada, Amsterdam 2001 .

1 4 . • . i.h4 14 . . . c5? fails in view of 15.dxc5

ctJxc5 16.ctJxc5 i.xc5 17.i.xffi gxffi lS.�g4+ �hS 19.�e4+- with the double threat of checkmating or to taking the as-rook. The inclu-

sion of 14 . . . g5 15 .i.g3 prior to 15 . . . c5 is no success as well be­cause after 16.0-0 cxd4 17.ctJc4± to be followed by e3xd4 and £2-f4 White developed a strong attack on the kingside in the game Grunfeld - Watze, Wien 1945. Another possible break-through in the centre 14 . . . e5, which Black tried in the game Adam - Hoen­linger, Vienna 1937, after 15.0-0 exd4 16.ctJc4 �b4 17.exd4 i.b7 was followed by lS.f.3!± with the most unpleasant threat of i.h4-e1, and after Black's reply IS . . . i.dS?! White could have gained decisive advantage at once by 19.i.e1 �e7 20.�b3+-. The po­sition after 14 . . . i.b7 15.0-0 l:.acS 16 .ttJe4± from the game Taima­nov - Jimenez Zerquera, Palma de Mallorca 1970, was mentioned already in variation a in the com­ment to Black's twelfth move.

15.ttJc3 The best possible move. Mter

15.1i.xf6 ttJxffi 16.ttJc5 e5 17 .ctJcb3 �b6 lS.0-0 Si.g4 19.f.3 1i.e6 20. ctJc4 i.xc4 2 l .1i.xc4 a5= the posi­tion was equal in the game Pachman - Rossetto, Buenos Aires 1960.

15 ... c5 This move is sort of achieve­

ment for Black, so the forthcom­ing conflict heats up. Black can't hope for anything good ifhe tries to do without c6-c5. So, after 15 . . . �h5 16.�xh5 ctJxh5 17.ttJa2 i.a5 in the game Foltys - Pod­gorny, Bratislava 1945, White had the opportunity to gain a

247

Chapter 16

considerable advantage by lB. b4!? .i.dB 19 . .i.xdB lhdB 20.Ct:Jc4±. Mter 15 . . . Ct:Jd5 16.0-0 .i.xc3 17. Ct:Jc4 '?:'fb4 (17 . . . '?:'f c7 is no better because of 1B.bxc3 c5 19.i.g3±) 1B .bxc3 Ct:Jxc3 19.'?:'fc2 Ct:Jd5 (after 19 . . . Ct:Jb5 20.l:!.b 1 '?:'fc3 21 . '?:'fd1 +­

the black queen was caught into a fatal trap by the threat of I&.b1-b3 in the game Stahlberg -Foltys, Munich (ol) 1936) 20.i.g3 '?:'fb7 2 1 . .i.d6 I&.eB 22.l:!.b1 '?:'fa7 23.Ct:Ja5± Black is temporarily a pawn up yet he is facing the great problem of saving his queen. Also 15 . . . .i.b7 is possible but in this case after 16.0-0 c5 (in the endgame after 16 . . . '?:'fh5 1 7 . '?:'fxh5 Ct:Jxh5 1 B . i.e2 Ct:Jhf6 19 .Ct:Jb3 a5 20.Ct:Ja4 .i.a6 21 ..i.xa6 l:!.xa6 2 2 . l:!.c2 g5 23 . .i.g3 Ct:Je4 24JHc l;!; Black had problems with his c6-pawn which turned out a target for White's attack in the game Razuvaev - Suetin, Moscow 19B1) 17.Ct:Jc4! ( 17.Ct:Jb3 is less accurate because after 15 . . . '?:'fb6! 1B.Ct:Jxc5 .i.xc5 19.Ct:Ja4 '?:'fc6 20 .f3 .i.xd4 21 .l:!.xc6 .i.xe3+ 22. �h1 i.xc6 23.I&.e 1 Ct:Jd5 24.i.b1 l:!.fc8� Black managed to improve the co-ordination of pieces with the help of the queen sacrifice in the game C. Hansen - Sigurjons­s o n , Esbj erg 1 9 B 3 ) 1 7 . . . '?:'f c7 18.Ct:Ja2 a5 19.Ct:Jxb4 axb4;t in the game Vyzmanavin - Djuric, Cap d'Agde 1994, White's position was preferable owing to his pair of bishops and the opposition of the black queen to White's rook on the c-file.

248

16.Ct:Jb3 White attacks the black queen

and the c5-pawn at the same time. The option of 16.Ct:Jc4 is less successful because the play gets equal after 16 . . . '?:'fdB=.

16 . • . '?:'fd8 In case of 16 . . . '?:'fb6 White has

1 7 . dxc5 i.xc5 1 8 . Ct:Jxc5 '?:'fxc5 19.i.g3! ? (19 .0-0 is not as effi­cient since after 19 . . . '?:'fb4! 20.i.g3 '?:'fxb2 21 .Ct:Ja4 '?:'fb7 22.'?:'fc2 in the game Schlemmermeyer - Fede­rau, Germany 1989, Black could have kept the extra pawn avoid­ing great trouble by 22 . . . e5!oo) 19 . . . i.b7 (after 19 . . . '?:'fb6 20.'?:'fe2 i.b7 21 . 0-0 Ct:Jc5 22.i.c4 gacB 23.f3 l:!.fdB 24.l:!.fd1 Ct:Jb3 25.lhd8+ .uxd8 26 .l:!.d1 l:!.xd 1 + 27 .Ct:Jxd1 Ct:Jc5 28. '?:'fd2 Ct:Jcd7 29 . .i.f2;t in the game Wegner - Foessmeier, Ger­many 1995, White maintained a slight advantage owing to his pair of bishops) 20.0-0 (in case of 2 0 . i.d6?! '?:'fg5 2 1 . i.xfB '?:'fxg2 22.l:!.f1 l:!.xf8+ Black's compensa­tion for the missing exchange is fairly enough) 20 . . . l:!.fdB (after 20 . . . .ufc8 in the game MiIic -Vukovic, Zagreb 1949, White could have kept the pair of bish­ops on the board by 21. '?:'fe2!? Ct:Je5 22.i.bl;!;) 2 1 . '?:'fe2 ! ? (the move 21 .Ct:Jb5?? in the game Stahlberg - Capablanca, Margate 1936, could have brought him to defeat after 21 . . .axb5 22.l:!.xc5 Ct:Jxc5-+, also 2 1 . '?:'fb3 gains nothing to White because of 2 1 . . .'?:'fg5 22. '?:'fxb7 tDc5=) 2 1 . . .Ct:Je5 22.i.bl;!; with a slight advantage to White

6.e3 h6 7.iLh4 ti:Jbd7 8.�c1 e6 9.iLd3 de lO.iLe4 b5 1l .iLd3

(his bishop pair). 17.0-0 Mter 17.dxcS tLlxcs 18.tLlxcS

i.xcS 1 9 . 0-0 iLb7 20.' �e2 iLe7 21. .I:.fd1 �aS 22.f3 �b4= White gained no advantage in the game Rubinetti - Toth, Sao Paulo 1986.

17 ... cxd4 The move 17 . . . iLb7 is quite

imprudent since after 18 .tLla2 Itc8 (in case of 18 . . . a5 19.dxcS tLleS 2 0 . tLlxb4 axb4 2 1 .iLb5+­Black simply lost a pawn in the game Seres - Dudas, Hungary 1995) 1 9 . tLlxb4 cxb4 20.Itxc8!? �xc8 2 1 .tLlaS � a8 22 .f3 �a7 23. �a4± Black ran the risk to get into trouble very quickly in the game Rubinetti - De las Heras, Mar del Plata 1990.

18.tLlxd4 iLb7

19.i.e4! The exchange of the light­

squared bishops should provide White with the square c6 to be used in the forthcoming invasion of the opponent's camp.

19 ... �b8 Black's defence is not as easy

as it may appear. Mter the natu­ral 19 . . . i.xe4? 20 .tLlxe4 �b6 (in case of 20 . . . .l:i.c8 White won on the

spot in the game Helmers -Stigar, Oslo 1986, by the banal fork 2 1 .tLlc6+-) 2 1 .tLlxf6+ tLlxf6 22.iLxf6 gxf6 23.Itc6 �b8 24.�hS 'itth7 (after 24 . . . Wg7 2S.Itc4 �b7 2 6 . tLlxe6+ fxe6 2 7 . :&i.g4+ Wh7 28.Itg6+- the fight exhausts very soon, too) the tactical blow 2S. ti:JfS!+- made Black resign in the game Panno - Rossetto, Buenos Aires 1989.

Protecting the bishop by 19 . . . l:i.b8?! can't b e considered a good decision. After 2 0 .i.xb7 :&i.xb7 21 .tLle4! (after 21 .tLlc6 �b6 22. ti:Jxb4 �xb4= Black gained equal­ity in the game Bolbochan -Rossetto, Mar del Plata 19S2) 2 1 . . . �a8 (after 2 1 . . .gS 22 .tLlc6 �b6 23.tLlxf6+ tLlxf6 24.iLg3 as 2S.i.eS tLle4 26.ti:Jxb4 axb4 in the game Haik - Renet, Marseille 1986, White had a chance to ex­ploit the weakening of Black's castle by 27.l:tc4 fS 28. �h5 Wh7 29 . .l:i.fcl± and in case of 21 . . .i.e7 22.tLlc6 �e8 in the game Law ­B er nat , Wijk aan Zee 1 98 1 , White could continue developing his initiative by 23.�c2! followed by 23 . . . g5 24 . .tg3 tLlxe4 25. �xe4 'uxb2 26 .tLlxe7+ �xe7 2 7 . �d4 nb5 28 . .td6+-, pointed out by C ifuentes Parada) 2 2 . tLlxf6 + ti:Jxf6 2 3 . .txf6 gxf6 24.Ilc4 Wh7 ( after 24 . . . .t e 7 2 5 . �h5 Wh7 26.tLlf5! exfS 27J:th4+- the black king can't survive for more than two moves) 25. �d3+ Wh8 (in case of 25 . . . f5 the solution is 26.tLlxf5! to be followed by 26 . . . exf5 27. �xf5+ Wh8 2 8 . �f6+ Wh7 29.

249

Chapter 16

.l:.h4+-) 26 . .t!.fc1 .l:.g8 27.g3 ,l;td8 28.'�e2 �f8 29 J::Lc6± in the game L . C hristiansen - C ifuentes Parada, Dubai (ol) 1986, Black had no chance to avoid material losses. Also defending the bishop by 19 . . J:ta7?! after 20.�xb7 Uxb7 21 .�e4! does not influence the estimation of the above varia­tion.

Contrary to the opinion ofthe modern theory, the move 19 . . . �b6 i s admissible here. However after 20,ciJa4 �a7 21 ..l:.c7! �xe4 (after 2 1 . . .�xe4 22 .1:.xa7 .l:.xa7 23.f3± in the game Stahlberg -Vidmar, Ljubljana 1955, Black's compensation for the queen was insufficient) 22.::!.xd7 a5 (if Black still wants to sacrifice the queen, he can do this by 22 . . . 4Jd2 23.�e7 �xe7 24. �xd2 ::!'fe8 25.4Jc6 �xc6 2 6 . .l:.xa 7 ::!.xa 7 , though after 27.�c3;!; White's chances remain preferable anyway) 23.�h5 �a6 (in case of 23 . . . ,l;tae8 White has 24.::!'d1 t with the idea of25.f3 or 25.�b5) 24 . .lte7 (in case of 24. 4Jxe6 �xe6 25 .::!.xb7 g6 26.�xh6 �c6 2 7 . ::!.b 6 �xa4 2 8 . f3 .ltc5 29.fxe4 �xe4� Black successfully activates his forces) 24 . . . i.xe7 (after 24 . . . ..tc6 25 .�xc6 �xc6 26 . .ltxf8 �xd 7 27 . �xg7 cJ;>xg7 28. �g4+ �g5 29 .4Jb6 f5 30. �g3 �d6 3 1 .4Jxd7 .ltxg3 32 .hxg3;!; White retains a slightest advan­tage in the ending) 2 5 .::!.xe7 (threatening with 4Jxe6) 25 . . . .ltd5 26. �e5t White maintains some initiative connected with the threat of �xe6.

250

20.�c6 After 20 . �g3 �a7 2 1 .4Jc6!

�xc6 22.�xc6 ::!.ac8 (if 23. '�f3, then 23 . . . 4Jc5=) 2 3 . 4Ja4 .l:.fd8 24.�f3 a5! = Black equalized in the game Fischer - Spas sky, Reykjavik (m112) 1972.

20 ... i.xc6 2 1.i.xc6 White has a pair of bishops

now. The only question is whether he manages to profit from this.

21. . . l:ta7 22.i.g3 �e5 Black is ready to put his

knight under a pin, hoping to restrain White's bishop pair. The move 22 . . . �b6? in the game Hjelm - Nordstrom, Haninge 1997, proved that the opponents did not know the analysis by L. Polugaj evsky who had shown that after 2 3 . 4Ja4! � a 5 2 4 . �d4!+- Black was losing an ex­change in the best possible line. In case of another queen's retreat 22 . . . �d8 after 23.�f3 (the con­tinuation 23 . .lid6 i..xd6 24. �xd6 is weaker - Black equalizes by 24 . . . �b8=) 23 . . . �b6 24.::!.fd U White's chances are better owing to his pair of bishops.

23.�d4!

6.e3 h6 7 . .i.h4 Cf'Jbd7 B.I1c1 e6 9 . .1I...d3 de lO . .1I...e4 b5 1 l . .1I...d3

White makes the best move again. After 23.Cf'Je4 Cf'Jxe4 (the line 23 . . . .1I...e7 24. �d4 Cf'Jxc6 25. l:ixc6 �b5 2 6 . �xa 7 �xc6 2 7 . �xe7 �xe4=, proposed b y the Uzbek grandmaster G. Agzamov, is still waiting its practical test) 24 . .1I...xe4 .1I...d6 25 .�e2 Cf'Jd7 26. .1I...xd6 �xd6 27 . .l:.fd1 �b8 28 . .1I...c6 .l:.c8 ! = in the game Stempin -Bozek, Poznan 1987 , Black dem­onstrated a sure way to equality. After 23.�e2 .1I...d6! 24.l:ifd1 .1I...c7 25 .Cf'Je4 Cf'Jeg4! 26 .Cf'Jxf6+ Cf'Jxf6 27 . .l:.c2 .1I...xg3 28.hxg3 a5= Black maintained the balance in the game G. Agzamov - T. Gior­gadze, Tashkent 1984, having deprived his opponent of one of his bishops.

23 ... Ji.d6 No 23 . . . Cf'Jxc6? because of

24 . .1I...xb8 Cf'Jxd4 25 . Ji.xa7 Ji.xc3 26.Ji.xd4+-.

24.Cf'Je4 After 24 . .l:.fd 1 .1I...c7 ! 25.Cf'Je4

CDh5= White was forced to ex­change one of his bishops for nothing in the game J. Pinter -A. Martin, Linz 1984.

24 . • . CDxc6 Also Black tried here 24 . . .

CDxe4 2 5 . .1I...xe4 .l:.d8. Now White has the strong resource of 26. ':fd 1 ! (in case of 26 Jicd1 .l:.ad7 27 .�a4 CDg4 28.Ji.f.3 Cf'Jf6 29 . .1I...c6 after 29 . . . .1I...xg3 30.Ji.xd7 .1I...xh2+ 3 1 .'iith 1 Ji.e5 32 .Ji.c6 l:ixd 1 33. .l:.xd1 �xb2� Black's two pawns compensated him for the missing exchange fairly well in the game Morovic Fernandez - Illescas

Cordoba, Cordoba 1995) 26 . . . .l:!.ad7 2 7 . .1I...xe5 .1I...xe5 28. �xd7 lhd7 29.l:ixd7!± and Black's po­sition is dificult, as pointed out quite correctly by A. Matanovic. To check this estimation, just consider the variation 29 ... .i.xh2? 30 .c;t>h1 .1I...e5 3 1 . .1I...b 7 ! �a7 32. .l:.c8+ 'iith7 33 . .1I...e4+-.

25.CDxf6+ gxf6 26 . .l:!.xc6 White lost the advantage of

the bishop pair but at the same time he managed to weaken Black's castle to some extent. Thus he actually converted one sort of advantage into another. In case of the straightforward 26.�xd6 �xd6 27 . .1I...xd6 l:ic8= it would be easier for Black to maintain the balance after the queen exchange.

26 ... Ji.e5 After 26 . . . .1I...xg3 27 .hxg3! (27.

fxg3 f5 28. �f6 is weaker because of 28 . . . �b5 ! 29 . .l:.fc 1 'iith7 30 . .l:.xe6 fxe6 3 1 . �xf8 �xb2 32 . �c8oo) 27 . . . f5 28 . .l:.dl± Black has serious problems.

27.�g4+ The old (almost 20 years old)

analysis by T. Giorgadze states that after 27 . .1I...xe5 fxe5 28. �h4::t White's position is preferable as well.

27 ... 'iith7 After 27 . . . �h8 28.�h4 �g7

29.f4 Ji.xb2 (after 29 . . . .1I...c7 30. .1I...e 1 �b5 31 . Ji.c3 .i.e5 32.fxe5 ! �xc6 in the game J. Gonzalez Garcia - C. Amura, Mexico 1997, White could have won by 33 . .l:!.f.3 ! .l:.g8 34.':g3+ 'iith7 35 . .l:.xg8 'iitxg8

251

Chapter 16

36.exf6 �c5 3 7 . �g3+ �g5 38. �b8!+-) 30.f5 i.e5 (after 30 . . . �b5 3 1 ..ii.f4 lIh8 32. �g4+ 'it'h7 White has 33 . .ii.xh6 ! � with a strong attack) 31 .fxe6 fxe6 (not 3 1 . . . .ii.xg3? because of 32.�xf6+ �g8 33.e7 .ii.xh2+ 34.�h1 11xe7 3 5 . �xe7 .ii.e5 3 6 .lIxh6+-) 3 2 . �g4+ �h7 3 3 . i.xe5 �xe5 34. .l:he6 �c5 35. �e2t the open po­sition of the black king leaves some chance of success to White despite the limited material.

28.�e4+

In the semi-final match of can­didates between Kamsky - Salov, Sanghi Nagar (m/3) 1995, the play continued by 28 . . . �g7 29.f4, and then Black allowed the blun­der of 29 . . . .ii.c7? (as shown by A. Matanovic, after 29 . . . .ii.xb2 30.f5 i.e5 31.fxe6 .ii.xg3 32.�g4+ �h7 33 .hxg3 fxe6 34.11xe6 White's advantage is negligible). Then White answered by 30 . .ii.e1 ! �b5 (not 30 . . . �xb2 because of31 ..ii.c3 �b8 32.11f3 lld8 33 .11g3+ �f8 34 . .ii.d4 lIb7 35 . .ii.c5+ .ii.d6 36 . 11xd6 1:.xd6 37 . .ii.xd6+ �xd6 38 . �xb7, and after 38 . . . �d1+ 39. �f2 �d2 40.�f3 �d1+ 41 .'it'e4+­White's king escapes checks as shown by L. Ftacnik) 3 1 .1:.f3! lld8 (3 1 . . . �xb2 is losing after 32.i.c3 � c 1 + 3 3 JU1 �a3 3 4 . �d4+-) 32.11g3+ �h8 (if 32 . . . �f8, then 33.i.h4+ 'it'e8 34Jhe6!+-) 33.h3 �d5 (no 33 . . . 11 d 1 because of

At this point L. Polugaevsky 34.1:.xc7 .uxe1+ 35.�h2+- and in cut short his analysis in one of case of the comparatively better the books of the Encyclopaedia 33 . . . �d3 there is 34.�xd3 lIxd3 of Chess Openings (ECO) with- 35.i.c3 .ii.d8 36.f5±) 34. �c2 .ii.d6 out evaluation. Several years 35.e4 Black resigned, not wait­later the practice said his word. ing for 35 . . . �b5 36.Ii.xd6+-.

252

Chapter 1 7 l.tiJf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 tiJf6 4.tiJc3 i..e7 5.i..g5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i..h4 b6

In this Chapter we'll present one ofthe possible ways of strug­gling against the popular Tarta­kower Defence. This issue was discussed already in Chapter 15 (variation b4) but then White could profit from the non-stan­dard move order chosen by Black (at first lDb8-d 7 and only then b7-b6).

8.i.e2 White simply carries on his

development. The old methods, familiar from Chapter 15, varia­tion b4, don't apply here. After 8 . cxd5 lDxd5 9 .i.xe7 ftxe7 10. lDxd5 exd5 White eventually forces his opponent to take on d5 with the pawn but the key point is that Black need not place his bishop on the main diagonal. There is a better square for it -e6. Many World champions from

different times left more than one bright record in the annals of Tartakower Defence.

White used to choose, as a rule , one of the following four options but none of these lines promises him more than equal­ity:

1 ) 1 l .i.e2 SL e 6 ! (this very way) 12.0-0 c5 13.lDe5 (the pawn exchange 1 3 . dxc5?! bxc5 after 14.fta4 ftb7! 15. fta3 lDd7 16.lDel a5 17 .tbd3 c4! 18.lDf4 �fb8+ pro­vided Black with excellent play along the semi-open b-file in the classical game Bertok - R. Fi­scher, Stockholm 1962. This is one more reason for developing the bishop to e6) 13 . . . tbd7 14. lDxd7 (after 14.tbd3 c4 15.lDf4 b5 16.i.f3 tbf6 17.�el �d6 18.ftc2 �fe8 19.93 a5 20.i.g2 l:tad8 2 1 .b3

253

Chapter 1 7

l:lcBt in the game Spassky - M. Damjanovic, Sochi 1965, Black even created a sort of initiative on the queenside) 14 . . . 'l;';(xd7 15. dxc5 bxc5 16 .'l;';(d2 'l;';(b7 17. l:i'.fc1 �b6 1B.l:i'.c3 l:i'.fdB 19.h3 a5= Black was fine in the game B. Larsen ­Thorsteins, Reykjavik 19B5.

2 ) 11..ltd3 c5! (also the tradi­tional ll . . . .i.e6 is no bad) 12.dxc5 (after 12.0-0, apart from the de­velopment of the black bishop to e 6 , White must reckon with 12 . . . c4!? 13 . .i.c2 tbc6 14.h4 i.d7 15 .b3 tba5 16 . .i.xd7 'l;';(xd7 17.tbe5 'l;';(e6 1B.bxc4 tbxc4 19.tbd3 :tfdB= which occurred, for example, in the game Levenfish - V. Makogo­nov, Leningrad 1947) 12 . . . bxc5 13 .0-0 i.e6 14.e4 ( 14. 'l;';(c2 tbd7 15 .l:i'.ac1 l:i'.abB=) 14 . . . :tdB!? 15 . exd5 .i.xd5 16. 'l;';(e2 'l;';(f6 17 .tbe5 (after 1 7 . .i.e4?! :teB l B . tbd2 tbc6+ Black's chances were even preferable in the game Botez -Lein, Hamburg 1965) 17 . . . tbc6= and Black's chances are not worse, at the least.

3 ) 1 1 . �d2 a5 ! (the idea of White's eleventh move is that in case of the standard 11. . . .i.e6 he has 1 2 . b 4 ! ? and after 12 . . . c6 13 .:tb1 tbd7 14 . .i.e2 c5 15 .bxc5 bxc5 16.dxc5 tbxc5 17 .0-0 tbe4 1B. 'l;';(a5 :tfcB 19 .1:lbc1 lIxc1 20. �c1± White gained a slight edge in the game T. Petrosian - Tal, Tallinn 1979) 12.lIc1 .i.e6 13 .i.e2 c5 14.tbe5 lIcB 15 .0-0 tbd7 16. tbxd7 'l;';(xd7 17 .dxc5 bxc5 1B.l:tfd1 lIabB=, Uhlmann - A. Petrosian, Schwerin 1999.

254

4) 1l .:tc1 .i.e6! 12. �a4 (after 12 . .i.e2 c5 13.b3 :tcB 14.0-0 'l;';(b7 15 .tbe5 tbc6 1 6 .tbxc6 l:i'.xc6 17 . i..b5 lIc7 1B.'l;';(e2 a6 19.i..d3 a5 20.i.b5 cxd4 2 1 . exd4 :txc1 22. �c1 l:i'.cB= the main forces were swapped in the game Goehring - Spassky, Germany 19BB) 12 . . . c5 (the English grandmaster N . Short often resorts to 12 . . . a5 !? preparing the unpleasant check 'l;';(e7-b4, which leads after 13. :tc3°o to a position with mutual chances) 13.'l;';(a3 :tcB 14 . .i.b5 (in case of the quiet 14.i..e2 Black has, at minimum, three conve­nient equalizing continuations: 14 . . . a5 15.0-0 'l;';(a7 16.b3 tbd7= Karpov - Kavalek, Linares 19B1 (first); 14 . . . �fB 15 .dxc5 bxc5 16. 0-0 a5 17.l:tc3 tbd7 1B.l:i'.fc1 l:i'.cbB 19 .1Ib3 c4 20 .l:i'.xbB+ l:i'.xbB 2 1 . 'l;';(xa5 lIxb2= Winants - Kaspa­rov, Brussels 19B7 (second); and 14 . . . 'l;';(b7 !? 15.dxc5 bxc5 16. 0-0 'l;';(b6 17.l:i'.c3 tbd7 1B.l:i'.fc1 l:i'.cbB 19. l:i'.b3 'l;';(dB 20 .lIb5 a6 2 1 . l:txbB lIxbB 22.b3 a5= Hobuss - Barsov, Bern 1 9 9 5 (third) ) 14 . . . 'l;';(b 7 ! (Black intends to accomplish c5-c4 even at a cost of a pawn. In case ofthe sluggish 14 . . . a6 after 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.0-0 l:i'.a7 17 .i.e2 tbd7 1B.tbd4! 'l;';(fB 19. tbxe6! fxe6 20.e4!t White took the initiative in the historic game Fischer -Spassky, Reykjavik (m/6) 1972) 15.dxc5 (after 15 .0-0 c4 16.'l;';(d6 a6 17 . .i.a4 b5 1B.i.c2 tbd7 19. tbh4 'l;';(bB 20. 'l;';(xbB l:laxbB 21 .f4 f6+ the threat of a pawn assault on the queens ide became urgent

4.tiJc3 �e7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i.h4 b6 8.i.e2

in the game Weisshaupt - Win­keler, Germany 1992) 15 . . . bxc5 16 .I1xc5 (the quiet 16 .�d3 after 16 . . . c4 17 .�b1 a5 18.�c3 tiJc6 1 9 . 0-0 I1ab8 2 0. I1c2 �b4+ re­sulted in pleasant play for Black in the game Rajkovic - Savicevic, Niksic 1996) 16 . . . l:.xc5 17.�xc5 tiJa6 ! ( if Black wins the pawn back immediately by 17 . . . a6 18.�d3 �xb2, then, as shown by J. Timman, after 1 9 . 0-0 tiJd7 20.�c6 .l:\.bS 21 .tiJd4 �b6 22 . .l:\.c1;t, he still experiences certain diffi­culties) lS.�xa6 ( l S .�c6 �xc6 19.�xc6 .l:\.b8 ! 20.0-0 .l:\.xb2+) lS . . . �xa6 19.�a3 �c4 20.�c3 (White exposed himselfto a devastating attack after 20 .';t>d2 �g4 21 .l:lg1 d4! 22 .tiJxd4 �h4� in the game Timman - Geller, Hilversum 1 9 7 3 ) 20 . . . �xa2 ( in case of 20 . . . �a6 White equalizes by 21 . �a3=) 21 .0-0 .l:\.bS 22.b4 �a4 23. l:la1 �xb4 24. �xb4 l:.xb4= the op­ponents agreed to draw in the game L. Szabo - Kavalek, Am­sterdam 1973, not waiting for White to win back the missing pawn.

One more possible way of struggling for advantage lies in S. �b3 . It was tested by V. Kram­nik at the Botvinnik Memorial 200 1 . Events may develop now as follows: S . . . �b7 9.�xf6 i.xf6 10.cxd5 exd5 1l .t!.d1 t!.eS 12.a3 (White would have gladly played 12 .�d3 but for 12 . . . tiJc6!? 13.0-0 tiJa5 14. �c2 c5� with counter chances by Black) 12 . . . c6 (the continuation 12 . . . c5 13.dxc5 tiJd7

14 . cxb6 tiJc5 , proposed by A. Beliavsky, was a subject of dis­cussion at one time, but after 15 .�b4 �xb6 16 .tiJxd5 �xb4+ 17.axb4 �xd5 lS.l:.xd5 tiJe4 19. �b5 t!.ec8 20.0-0 i.xb2 2 1..t d3 tiJf6 22.t!.c5± White eventually repelled the attack and kept the extra pawn in the game Cordes - Kjetzae, Hamburg 1987) 13. �d3 tiJd7 14.0-0 g6 15 .�b 1 (the thematic continuation 1 5 . e4 gains nothing to White because of 15 . . . c5! 16.exd5 cxd4 17.tiJe4 tiJc5 lS .tiJxc5 �xd5=, after 1 5 . lad2 tiJf8 16.t!.c1 tiJe6 17.�d1 �e7 18.�b 1 t!.ad8 19 .h3 c5= Black obtained convenient play in the game Piket - Kasparov, Wijk aan Zee 2001, while in case of 15.t!.fe1 tiJf8 16 .i.b1 tiJe6 17 .i.a2 �c7 ! lS.�a4 t!.ad8 19.b4 �b8 20. �c2 �c7! 21 .i.b3 in the game Kor­chnoi - Kasparov, London (milO) 19S3 , which was the first time when the plan with a2-a3 oc­curred, Black had a chance to equalize by 21 . . .c5 ! 22.dxc5 bxc5 23 .tiJxd5 �xd5 24.i.xd5 cxb4=) 15 . . . �g7 when White went for an immediate breakthrough in the centre by 16.e4 (as the next line shows, White most likely can't do without t!.f1-e1 here) . By 16 . . . i.a6 ! 17 JUe1 �c4 18.�c2 dxe4 19.t!.xe4 (in case of 19.tiJxe4 V. Kramnik did not want to encoun­ter 19 . . . i.d5=) 19 . . . t!.xe4 20.�xe4 �b3 21 .i.c2 (in case of 2 1 .t!.e1 V. Kramnik had to reckon with 2 1 . . . c5 = , Kramnik) 2 1 . . . lLlf6 = Black balanced, at minimum, the

255

Chapter 1 7

chances and draw was signed in this position in Kramnik - Kas­parov, Moscow (m/3) 2001.

8 ... ..th7 Those of our readers who

have studied already Chapter 15 (variation h4) may suspect that the move S . . . CLlbd7 is not at all Black's best option now. Mter 9 . cxd5 CLlxd5 (in case of9 . . . exd5 10. 0-0 ..tb7 1l .lIcl;;!; the play arrives to the position from the above­mentioned variation) 10. CLlxd5 ..txh4 ( 10 . . . exd5 11...txe7 fixe7 12 .0-0 ..tb7 13. fib3;!; Black had no easy way to carry out c7-c5) 1 l .CLlxh4 exd5 1 2 . CLlf3 CLlf6 (Black's decision to relieve ten­sion in the centre by 12 . . . c5 13. 0-0 and 13 . . . c4 was no success and after 14.b3 b5 15.a4 ..ta6 16.axb5 ..txb5 17.bxc4 dxc4 IS. fic2 fic7 19JHcl± White com­menced the offensive on Black's weak points on the queenside in the game Sedlakova - Petrovico­va, Trencin 199 1 ) 13.lIc1 CLle4 14.0-0 c5 15.dxc5 bxc5 16 .CLld2 fib6 17.CLlxe4 dxe4 lS .b3;!; White had an accessible target ofthe c5-pawn in the game Hadamkova ­Petrovicova, CSR 1992.

256

The early exchange on c4 frees White' hands for play in the centre after S . . . dxc4 9 . ..txc4 ..tb7 (in case of 9 . . . c5 after 10.dxc5 ..txc5 11.0-0 ..tb7 12.fie2 CLlbd7 13.l:tfd1 fic7 14.CLlb5 ..txf3 15. fixf3 fi e 5 16 . .t!.ab 1;1; White's chances were higher in the game Dobosz - Blum, Germany 1995) 10 .fic2!? CLlbd7 (in case of lO . . . a6 1l.lId1 b5 12 . ..td3 CLlc6 13 . fie2 CLlb4 14 . ..tb1 CLlfd5 15 . ..txe7 CLlxe7 16 .0-0 f5 1 7 . e4 fid6 lS .l:tfe l;;!; White was first to develop initia­tive in the centre in the game Srokowski - Behling, Germany 1994, and the immediate 10 . . . c5 could have been followed by 11 .dxc5 ..txc5 12 . .l::!.d 1 fie7 1 3 . e4;!;) 11..Ud1 (11 .0-0 c 5 12 .l:tad1 cxd4 13.CLlxd4 fic7=) 1l . . . ficS (af­ter 1l . . . CLlh5 12 . ..tg3 CLlxg3 13 . hxg3 ..tb4 14 .0-0 ..txc3 in the game Lipinski - Schraml, Krum­bach 1973, White sh{)uld have captured with the queen: 15 . fixc3;!;, not closing the c-file) 12. 0-0 c5 13.d5 exd5 14 . ..txf6 CLlxf6 15.CLlxd5 CLlxd5 16.i.xd5 ..txd5 17. .uxd5 fib7 lS.l:tfd l;;!;, White was first to double the rooks on the d-file in the game Hesselbarth ­Krumpholz, corr. 1975.

9 . ..txf6 White has to part with his

dark-squared bishop in order to make Black take with the pawn on d5, thus closing the main di­agonal as-hI. In case of 9.lIc1 Black has 9 . . . dxc4! (after 9 . . . CLlbd7 10.cxd5 exd5 11 .0-0 White, again, transposes the play into

4.lbc3 i.e7 S.i.gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i.h4 b6 8.i.e2

the position from Chapter 1 5 , variation b4) 10.i.xc4 li:Jbd7 1 1 . 0-0 c 5 = with approximate equal­ity. After 9 .0-0 , unlike in the case o f I:i.a l - c 1 , White does not threaten to exchange on d5 any­more, so Black can safely con­tinue development by li:Jbd7�.

9 ... i.xf6 10.cxd5 exd5 The move 10 . . . i.xd5 gained

no popularity. Few players were eager to weaken light squares in the centre and on the queenside without urge . After 1 1 . li:Jxd5 exd5 ( 1 1 . . . thd5?! 12 .li:Jd2 �d7 13 . .1£3 c6 14.0-0 a5 15.1:cl Ita7 16 .�b3±) 12.0-0 �d6 13.Itcl c5 in the game Razuvaev - Lutikov, Polanica Zdroj 1972, there was an interesting opportunity of 14. b3!? ttJd7 (after 14 . . . ttJc6 15.dxc5 bxc5 16 .�c2 .te7 17 .I:i.fdU the d 5-pawn was too vulnerable without protection of the light­squared bishop) 1 5 . �d2 Itac8 16.J:.fd U; with indirect pressure upon the d5-pawn, weakened by the absence of the light-squared bishop.

1 1 .0-0

Now Black usually chooses one of the following main op-

tions: a) 1l ... li:Jc6, b) 1l .. :�e7, c)1l ... c6 or d)1l ... c5. The move 11 . . . :e8 is of no individual sig­nificance and after 12.�b3 (this move order provides White with the additional possibility of 12.M c6 13.'�b3 a5 14.bxa5 I:i.xa5 15. :abl ttJd7 16.a4oo) 12 . . . c6 13.1:fel the play steers into variation c, as well as after 1l . . . ttJd7 12 .�b3 c6 13.:fe1.

a) 1 l ... li:Jc6 This plan looks somewhat ar­

tificial since sooner or later Black must advance his c-pawn.

12J!cl Everything is very simple -

White's rook takes his place on the semi-opened c-file in order to put pressure upon the opponent's backward pawn.

12 . . . l:te8 By all means the black knight

must look for a better place. The prophylactic advance 1 2 . . . a5 (with the idea to prevent White from b 2 - b 4 ) after 1 3 . ttJb 5 ;!; , pointed out by Vaganian, re­stricts Black's knight very per­ceptibly. The move 12 . . . a6 does not solve all problems as well and after 13 .ttJel ttJe7 14.ttJd3 l:rb8 15 .M ttJf5 (the advance 15 . . . c6 does not comply well with the idea of variation a and after 16.a4 b5 17.ttJc5;!;, as shown by Vaganian, White is better) 16.a4 J:.e8 (if 16 . . . c6, then 17.b5 axb5 18.axb5;!; - Vaganian) 17.b5 a5 18.iLg4 ttJd6 19. �c2 I!.e7 20 . .1£3 ttJe4 2 1 .�a2;!; in the game Vaga-

257

Chapter 1 7

nian - Lobron, Haifa 1989, White was able to press on c7 and d5 pawns. Another prophylactic move, 12 . . . Ilc8, did not allow Black to equalize after 13.a3 ttJe7 14.b4 c6 15. �a4 IIa8 16.IIfdl 11e8 17. b5;t in the game Zakharevich - 1. Zaitsev, Moscow 1995. The retreat 12 . . . ttJe7 allows White to limit the mobility of Black's queenside pawns by 13.b4!? (the move 13.t'tb3 is not as good in the variation with the black knight on c6 , which was proven by 13 . . . l:!.e8 14'llfdl c6 15 . .lid3 i.c8 16.ttJe2 t'td6 17.ttJf4 i.g4oo in the game Lechtynsky - M . Trifu­novic, Kragujevac 1984) 13 . . . a6 14.a4;t - analysis by Vaganian.

13.i.b5 White starts disturbing the

black knight. The attempt to transfer the knight to d3 by 13.ttJel, similarly to the above cited game by Vaganian resulted in equality after 13 . . . a5 14.a3 (if 14.ttJd3, then 14 . . . ttJb4!=) 14 . . . ctJe7 1 5 .ttJd3 ttJf5 16 .i.f3 ttJh4 17.i.g4 c5= in the game Timman - Short, Luzern 1989.

13 .. J:I.e6 14.i.a4 {jje7 15.b4 c6 16.i.b3 l:Ic8 1 7.e4 g6 18. .l:I.eU;

258

This position occurred in the game P. Nikolic - Short, Munich 1994. White put pressure upon the opponent's queenside and accomplished the important breakthrough in the centre by e2-e4.

b) 11 ... �e7 The black queen gives place

to the rook, preparing c7-c5.

12.t'tb3 From b3 White's queen op­

poses to the plan connected with c7 -c5 in the best possible way.

12 ... .l:I.d8 Also Black tried in this posi­

tion the less active continuation 12 . . . c6. But in this case after 13 JUei i.cS (in case of 13 . . . .l:.dS 14.l:!.adl the play steers into variation b1) 14Jbc1 .lie6 15. �a4 a5 16 . .lid3 .l:.cS he had to reckon with the standard break­through in the centre by 17.e4! dxe4 (after 17 . . . t'td8? I S . exd5 cxd5 19.ttJxd5+- Black simply lost a pawn in the game Korchnoi - Cuellar Gacharna, Leningrad 1973) I S . ttJxe4t White takes firmly the initiative.

13.�adl

4.0c3 i.e7 S.i...gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i...h4 b6 8. i.e2

White wants to set up his rooks on d1 and e1 because in this case the black queen on e7 would feel most uncomfortable after the imminent break e3-e4. Other continuations allow Black to obtain equal play without ex­cessive efforts . So, in case of 13.lUd1 after 13 . . . c6 14 . .tfl ttJa6 15.l:td2 ttJc7 16.a4 in the game Illescas Cordoba - Short, Pam­plona 1 99 9 , Black could have solved all problems by 16 . . . c5!? 1 7 . dxc5 bxc5 and if l S .' �xb7, then IS . . . .txc3 1 9 . bxc3 lldbS 2 0 .' �c6 .l:.b 6 2 1 . ti'xaS+ ttJxaS 22J::txd5 ttJc7°o. White must fol­low the correct order when plac­ing the rooks on d1 and e1 be­cause 13 . .l:.fe1 would allow Black to create counterplay in the cen­tre by 13 . . . c5. After 14.dxc5 i...xc3 15 .ti'xc3 bxc5 16JIac1 ttJd7 17. ti'a3 .l:.dcS l S .ttJd4 ti'g5 19 .ttJf3 ti' e 7 20 . .l:.c2 a5 2 1 . ttJd2 ti'h4 22 . .l:.ec1 ti'b4= White gained no advantage in the position with hanging pawns in the game Ribli - Vaganian, Niksic 1975.

Two alternatives deserve par­ticular analysis now, namely bl) 1 3 . . . c6 and b2) 1 3 . . . c5. Also

13 . . . g6?! was seen in the practice but in this case White accom­plishes a breakthrough in the centre by 14.l:tfe1 a6 15.e4! . Then 15 . . . dxe4 16.i.d3 ti'f8 (in case of 1 6 . . . .txd4 1 7 . i.xe4 i.xc3 1 8 . .txb7 .l:.xd l 19 . .l:.xd 1 Ua7 20 . .te4 i...f6 21 ..txg6 ti'e6 22.ti'xe6 fxe6 23.ttJd4± Black has a rather hard ending) 17 .iLxe4 iLxe4 18 .ttJxe4 i.g7 19 .ttJe5± led to an obvious White's advantage in J. Renet ­Meinsohn, Epinal 19S6.

bl) 13 . . . c6 Black bolsters up the d5-

pawn delaying active play in the centre.

14JUei White is preparing to break in

the centre by e3-e4. 14 . . . ttJd7 In his turn, Black completes

development. The exchange of the light-squared bishops after 14 . . . iLa6?! 15 . .txa6 ttJxa6 can only enhance the effectiveness of 16.e4! and after 16 . . . '�b4 17.�c2 ttJc7 lS.e5 i...e7 19.a3 �c4 20.e6t White developed strong initiative in the centre in the game Niklas­son - Falk, Gothenburg 1975. Also 14 . . . ttJa6?! was no success to Black. White answered again by the breakthrough 15 .e4! when 15 . . . dxe4 16.ttJxe4 ttJc7 1 7 . .tc4 ttJd5 1 8 . �c2± provided White with excellent play in the game Podgaets - Gusev, Odessa 1991. The reality ofthe threat of e3-e4 can be seen also from the fact that in case of 14 . . . g6?! (this

259

Chapter 17

move occurred i n the game Her­rera - Guindy, Moscow (ol) 1994) White has the valuable option of 15 .e4 ! dxe4 16.i.c4±. Sometimes Black tries to decrease the effi­ciency of e3-e4 by 14 . . . i.cS with the idea to transfer the bishop to the a2-gS diagonal. In this case White has the nice opportunity 1 5 . '�c2 ! , securing in time the queen against an opposition with the opponent's light-squared bishop . Note that Black can't now break free in the centre with the help of 15 . . . c5?! (after 15 . . . 'bd7 16.e4 dxe4 17.'bxe4± White maintains considerable advan­tage too and even in case of Black's strongest continuation 15 . . . .te6 White keeps his advan­tage after 16.e4 dxe4 17.'bxe4;t;) because the breakthrough 16.e4! is very efficient again. After 16 . . . dxe4 17.'bxe4 'bc6 (in case of 17 . . . i..f5 White has lS.i..d3±, after 17 . . . i..xd4 lS .'bxd4 cxd4 19 . .tf3± Black can't avoid mate­rial losses while the continuation 17 . . . cxd4 lS.'bxf6+ �xf6 19 . .l:.xd4 �fS 2 0 . �d2 .tb7 2 1 . �d6 �f5 22 . .td3± in the game Zakha­revich - Pushkov, Elista 1995, did not save Black from serious difficulties as well) lS.dxc5 i..f5 1 9 . 'bxf6 + �xf6 2 0 . �c 1 ! 'bb4 (20 . . JtdcS loses in view of21 .�d6 i.e6 22 . .ta6+- and after 20 . . . �xd 1 2 1 .�xd1 bxc5 2 2 . �xc5± White is a sound pawn ahead) 21 .cxb6 (avoiding the trap 21 .a3 'bc2!co) 2 1 . . .axb6 22 . .!:.xdS+ lhdS 23 .a3± in the game Karpov -

260

Beliavsky, Reggio Emilia 1992, White eventually converted his minimal material advantage into victory.

15.i.d3!? The move 15.i.f1 lso has good

reputation. After 15 . . . 'bfS (the line 15 . . . a5 16.a3 �d6 17.e4 dxe4 l S . 'bxe4 �c7 1 9 . .tc4 1HS oc­curred in the game Vaganian -Stefansson, Reykjavik 1990, and at this point the simplest way to maintain the initiative was 20. 'bxf6+ 'bxf6 2 1 .'be5t) the break­through 16.e4! allowed White to keep pressure upon Black's po­sition after 16 . . . dxe4 1 7 .'bxe4 'be6 lS . .tc4 .l:!eS 19. 'be5t in the games Beliavsky - T. Giorgadze, Minsk 1979, and P. Nikolic -Vaganian, Wijk aan Zee 19S9.

15 . .. �f8 In case of 15 . . . 'bfS White re­

sorts again to 16.e4 ! . After 16 . . . dxe4 17 .'bxe4 i..cS in the game Portisch - Beliavsky, Reggio Emilia 1991, White had the op­tion of I S . �c3 and in case of lS . . . .tg4, as recommended by A. Beliavsky (in case of IS . . . .td7 19.'bxf6+ �xf6 20.'be5± Black has serious problems with the defence of c6 and f7), there was 19.�xc6. The point is that in case of 19 . . . 'be6 White has 20.'bed2 ! , and Black's attempt t o restore the material balance by 20 . . . i.xd4 encounters 2 1 .�e4±.

16.e4! This breakthrough in the cen­

tre remains very efficient even now when the black queen left

4Jbc3 i.e7 5.i.g5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i.h4 b6 8. i.e2

the e-file. lS . • . dxe4 1 7.liJxe4 c5 18.d5

as 19.dS b5 20.il..b l c4 21.'§'c2 gS 22.liJxfS+ liJxfS 23.liJe5t

This position occurred in the game J. Fernandez - Pfleger, C amaguey 1 9 7 4 . Black must fight against the opponent's p a s s e d p awn and evade his threats on the kingside at the same time.

b2) 13 ... c5 This continuation is more con­

sistent because the moves 'l;;Id8-e7 l:!.f8-d8 were made namely as preparation for this advance.

14.dxc5 White chooses to struggle

against hanging pawns. Other­wise Black is able to maintain equality. For example, 14.l:!.fe1 c4 lS.'�c2 liJc6 16.b3 cxb3 17 .'l;;Ixb3

liJaS 18.'§'b 1 l:.ac8= I. Sokolov -Chandler, Hastings 2000.

14 ... il..xc3 Black avoided the hanging

pawns by 14 . . .'�xcS lS.l:.c1 liJc6 in the game Sadkowsky - Tondi­var, Antwerp 1998, yet he would not equalize after 16.liJe4!? '1!!e7 17.liJxf6+ '§'xf6 18.il..bS;t

15.'§'xc3 Mter lS .bxc3 '§'xcS 1 6 .liJeS

liJd 7 = in the game A. Martin -Garwell, Southport 1983, Black's pressure upon the c3-pawn bal­anced out the weakness of his isolated dS-pawn. Apart from the move in the main line, there is also a worthy opportunity of the intermediate 15 .c6 !? Mter I S . . . liJxc6 16. '§'xc3 d4 17.liJxd4 liJxd4 1 8 . lhd4 lhd4 1 9 . '§'xd4 .ud8 20 . '1!!f4 l:!.d2 2 1 .il..c4;!; in the game Cvitan - Van der Sterren, Bern 1 9 9 3 , the activity of Black's pieces almost compensated him for the pawn deficit.

15 ... bxc5 lS.liJe5!? The best way for White to re­

strict the opponent's counterplay connected with the dynamic power of his hanging pawns. Their mobility should not be un­derestimated, which is clear from the following example - after 16 . .l:td2 liJd7 17 . .l:tc1 as 18. '1!!a3 '§'e4!? 19.-tbS (if 19.1iJe 1 , then 19 . . . '§'b4 ! 00) 19 . . . d4! (White must constantly remember about this breakthrough when playing with similar pawn structure) 20.exd4 (White can't win the pawn by 20.i.xd7?! .l:txd7 21.'1!!xc5 because

261

Chapter 1 7

of 2 1 . . .1;lcS-+ and after 20.i..d3 �e6 21 .exd4 i..xf.3 22.gxf.3 �f6! 2 3 .11cd 1 cxd4 24 . i.. e4 CLle5 ! � Black launches a dangerous at­tack on the weakened white castle) 20 . . . CLle5!� Black created promising counterplay in the game Timman - Ivanchuk, Hil­versum (m/3) 1991.

16 .. . CLld7 Black can't allow the white

knight staying on e5 since after 16 . . . a5?! White has the most un­pleasant possibility of 17 .i..h5!±.

17.CLlxd7 �xd7 18.i..g4 �c7 Mter lS .. J:tddS 19 . .l:.c1 �h4

20.h3 h5 21 .i..e2 .l:.acS 22.�a3 d4 in the game Ribli - Vaganian, Skelleftea 1989, White could have taken the pawn by 23 . .l:.xc5!±.

1 9 .�d2 �d8 2 0 .�c l �d6 21.�dc2

White concentrates his efforts on the c5-pawn which left with­out reliable defence after the ex­change o f the dark-squared bishop. The passive play faced White in the game Zakharevich - Asrian, Smolensk 1997 after 2 1 .h3 .l:.g6 22. �d3 .l:.g5 23.�h1 .l:.e5 24 . .l:.cd1 llc6 2 5 . i..f3 .l:.f6 26 .llg1 .l:.ef5� with Blak's activ­ity on the kingside.

21...d4!? A principal decision. After

21 . . .i..cS 22 . ..txcS .l:.xcS 23.�d3 c4 24. �d4 UbS 25 .Ud2 Ua6 26.a3 Ua5 27.h3 .l:.ab5 2S .llcc2 .l:.Sb6 29.�f4 �f6 30.�xf6 llxf6 in the game P. Nikolic - Liang Jinrong, Luzern 1989, White gained a bet-

262

ter ending by the standard strike at the centre 3 1 .e4!;!;.

22.exd4 ':xd4 23.i..f3;!;

Owing to the slightly better pawn structure (two pawn islets against three by Black) White maintains a minimal advantage. Note also that it's still too early to trade the queen for two black rooks because after 23 . �xd4 cxd4 24 . .l:.xc7 Black has the good reply of 24 . . . �g5oo.

c) 1l ... c6 Black bolsters up his position

on the queenside.

12.':el The main idea ofthe move c7-

c6 is that now in case of 12.b4 Black has 12 . . . a5!. Mter 13.b5 (in case of 13 .a3 CLld7 14.�b3 .l:.eS 15 .i..d3 axb4 16 .axb4 CLlfS 17 . .l:.fd1 CLle6 lS.i..f1 �d6 19 .CLle l

4.liJc3 i..e7 S.i..gS 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i..h4 b6 8.i..e2

hS� Black obtained counterplay in the game Arkell - Short, Torquay 199B, and the continua­tion 13 .bxaS ':xaS 14.a4 cS IS . t'tb3 lLJa6 16 . .l:i.fb1 lLJb4 17.lLJa2 lLJxa2 1B . .:!.xa2 i..a6 1 9 . i..xa6 .l:i.xa6= allowed him to equalize in the game Lautier - Kramnik, Belgrade 1 9 9 7 , owing to the knight manoeuvre lLJa6-b4, quite original in the Queen's Gambit) 13 . . . cS 14.':e 1 ':eB lS . .l::i.c1 lLJd7 16 .g3 lLJf8 17 .lLJa4 (Black's posi­tion is very solid after 17 .i..f1 lLJe6= and in case of 17 .dxcS bxcS 1B.lLJa4 c4 19.1LJcS t'tb6 20.lLJxb7 t'txb7 21.a4 lLJe6�, pointed out by V. Kramnik, Black has good counterplay) 17 . . . c4 1B.i..f1 in the game Topalov - Kramnik, Lina­res 1 9 9 8 , the easiest way to maintain the balance for Black was 1B . . . t'tc7 19 .i..g2 .l::i.adB 20. lLJc3 g6= (pointed out by V. Kram­nik).

12 .. . .l::i.e8 In this variation Black often

transfers his knight to e6. From this point it impedes White's standard breakthrough e3-e4 most efficiently. However an im­mediate 12 . . . lLJa6 after 13 . .l::i.c1 lLJc7 (not 1 3 . . . cS? because of 14.i..xa6 i.xa6 lS .dxcS±) allows White to cramp Black's queen­side again by 1 4 . b 4 ! ? After 14 . . . lLJe6 (the move 14 . . . aS? is not good already because of 1S .bS cS 16.lLJa4±) l S . t'tb3 .l::i.c8 16 . .l:i.ed1 (preparing lLJ e 1 - d 3 ) 16 . . . .l::i.c7 17 .lLJe1 t'te7 1B.i..g4 (it's too early for 1 8 . b S since after 1 B . . . cS

19.dxcS Black finds the strong reply 19 . . . d4! = ) 1B . . . g6 19 .bS ! (right now ! ) 1 9 . . . cS 2 0 . lLJxdS i..xdS 2 1 . t'txdS cxd4 22 . i..xe6 :'xc1 23.':xc1 �xe6 (the piece sacrifice 23 . . . dxe3?! 24.i..g4 .l::i.dB which occurred in the game Alburt - Abramovic, Reykjavik 1982, was incorrect and Black's attack could have been repelled by 2S.t'tf3 exf2+ 26.<;t>xf2 i..d4+ 27 .<;t>f1 .l::i.d6 2B.':c6!+-, also 23 . . . fxe6?! promises n o good to Black due to 24.�e4±) 24.�xe6 fxe6 2S.e4 .:!.dB 26.lLJd3± with a better endgame by White.

13.�b3 The position after 13 . .:!.c1 lLJd7

14.b4 as lS.bS cS can be found in the comment to White's twelfth move.

13 . . . lLJd7 The line 13 . . . lLJa6 14 . .:!.ad 1

lLJc7 lS.i..f1 lLJe6 16 .g3 leads to a position still to come within the main line of the variation.

14 . .:!.adl The breakthrough 14.e4 after

14 . . . cS! lS.lLJxdS cxd4 16.lLJxf6+ (in case of 16 .i..c4 lLJcS+ in the game Matveeva - Mkrtchian, Batumi 2000, Black's chances were even slightly better) 16 . . . �xf6 17 . �a4 (no 1 7 .i..bS?! be­cause of 17 . . . lLJcS 1B.�c4 .:!.edB 19.eS �f4+ Vranesic - MacPhail, Toronto 1972) 17 . . . lLJcS lB. t'txd4 t'txd4 1 9 . 1LJxd4 .l::i.xe4 2 0 . lLJbS i..c6= resulted in equality and a draw in the game Timman -Spassky, Bugojno 19B2.

14 . . . lLJf8

263

Chapter 1 7

15.i..fl White transfers the bishop to

g2 in order to increase his influ­ence along the a8-hl diagonal. Also he can move it to the bl-h7 diagonal with the idea to support e3-e4 but after 1 5 . .td3 ttJe6 16.i..b l g6! ? ( in case of 16 . . . c5 af­ter 1 7 . dxc5 ttJxc5 1 8 . ,§c2 g6 19.ttJd4± Black got isolated pawn in the game Kavalek - Gligoric, Bugojno 1980) in the game Bi­schoff - King, Dortmund 19B9, White did not venture on 17.e4, quite correctly fearing 17 . . . c5l=.

The breakthrough 15.e4 after 15 . . . ttJe6 (no 15 . . . dxe4?! because of 16 . .tc4!�, 15 . . . g6 is possible but in this case after 16.e5 .tg7 17 .h4 h5 IB.ttJg5 ttJe6 19.ttJxe6 'uxe6 2 0 . g3 �e8 2 1 . �a4± the knight swap limited Black's op­portunities in the centre in the game N. Gaprindashvili - M . Maric, Novi Sad (ol) 1990) gives no particular advantage. Now in case of 16.e5 (after 16.exd5 cxd5 17 . .tfl I!.e7 IB.'ue2 I!.cB 19.93 'uc4 20.'ued2 a6 21 . �c2 I!.cBtz Black's pressure on the d4-pawn consid­erably tied down White in the game Malisauskas - Van der Sterren, Erevan 1996) 16 . . . i..e7

264

it's very difficult for White to improve his position without al­lowing Black to put up counter­play: 1 7 .':'d2 (after 1 7 . a3 i..fB IB.g3 I!.cB 19.I!.d2 g6 20.i..fl h5 2 1 .i..g2 I!.c7 22. �a2 Itd7 23.b4 �e7 24.l:tddl a5tz White failed to accomplish this task in the game Timman - Spassky, Hilversum (m/3) 19B3 ) encountered 1 7 . . . i..g5 ! (after 1 7 . . . c 5 ? ! I B . dxc5 ttJxc5 19.�dU the weakness of the d5-pawn becomes signifi­cant) IBJ:tddl i..e7 19 .'ud2 .tg5 20.I!.ddl= with draw by repeti­tion of the position in the game Hort - Tal, Montreal 1979.

15 ... ttJe6 16.g3 The breakthrough in the cen­

tre by 16.e4 dxe4 17..lhe4 (after 17.ttJxe4? .txd4 IB.ttJxd4 ttJxd4 19.�g3 I!.e6 20 . .tc4 c5 !=t White simply loses a pawn because 21 . .txe6?? fails to 21 . . . ttJe2+) af­ter 17 . . . c5 18.dxc5 '§bB 19.ttJd5 i..xd5 20.I!.xd5 ttJxc5 2 1 ..l:txeB+ '§xe8 22.�c2 (in case of22.'§b4?! �e6+ White ran the risk to get a worse position in the game M . Chandler - Spas sky, Germany 1981) 22 . . . .l:tdB= resulted in ab­solute equality and a draw in the game P. Nikolic - Rukavina, Borovo 19B1.

16 ... �c7 After 16 . . . ,Uc8 1 7 . .t g2 g6

1B.I!.d2 i..g7 in the game Rajkovic - Unzicker, Germany 1 9 9 2 , White had the option of 19. �a4 �c7 20.1Ic1 �bB 21 . '§d1, main­taining tension. Black's attempt to break free by 19 . . . c5 22.dxc5

4.ttJc3 i.e7 5.i.g5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i.h4 b6 8. i.e2

bxc5 2 3 .liJxd5 i.xd5 2 4 Jhd5 �xb2 25 .Irc2 �a1 26.�xa1 i.xa1 27 .Ird7 a6 28 .liJd2;t results in endgame with a slight advantage to White. The immediate 16 . . . c5 occurred in the game Piket -Topalov, Monte Carlo (blindfold) 1999, and could have been fol­lowed by 17 .dxc5 liJxc5 18.�a3 (after 18 . �c2 l!c8� the queen feels less comfortably on the c­file) 18 . . . a6 (in case of 18 . . . Irc8 White has 1 9 . i.h3 ! ± too) 1 9 . i.h3±, allowing White to assault Black's isolated pawn.

1 7.i.g2 The advance 17.e4 after 17 . . .

l:tad8 18.e5 i.e7 19.h4 (with the idea i.h3) 19 . . . c5 20.i.h3 i.f8 2 1 . .QJe2 i. c8 22 .�h2 g6 23.a3 i.g7= brought nothing to White in the game Piket - Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 1999.

17 ... !lad8 18.!ld2±

White hinders the advance c6-c5 maintaining a slight edge.

d) 1l ... c5 Unlike in variations a, b and

c, this time Black does not delay this important advance.

12.dxc5

Black has two options now: dl) 12 ... bxc5 and d2) 12 ... i.xc3.

dl) 12 ... bxc5 13.�b3 Making use of Black's incom­

plete development, White tries to increase pressure upon his hang­ing pawns.

13 ... i.c6 Black can't oppose the white

queen by 13 . . . �b6 because after 14.tZJxd5 i.xd5 15.�xd5 i.xb2 (in case of 15 . . . lad8? 16 .�xa8 tZJc6 the queen is entrapped but after 1 7 . �xd8+ tZJxd8 18 .laab 1 tZJe6 19 JUdI +- Black eventually paid too much for it in the game Cserna - Konieczka, Berlin West 1984) 16.lbb1 tZJc6 17. �e4 l!.ab8 18 .i.d3 g6 1 9 Jhb2 �xb2 20 . �xc6± he suffers material losses as it happened in the game Cvek - Flaisigova, Prague 1995.

14Jitfdl i.xc3 Black tries to weaken White's

pressure upon the d5-pawn. The move 14 . . . c4 yields the important sqrlare d4 to White and after 1 5 . �c2 �a5 ( after 15 . . . i.xc3 16 . �xc3 �c7 1 7 .tZJe5 i.b7 18 . i.f3± Black was about losing in the game Potapov - VaIden, Korinthos 2001) 16.liJd4 (this is

265

Chapter 1 7

the consequence of the advance c5-c4) 16 . . .lidB (after 16 . . . ..txd4 1 7 Jhd4 lbd7 1B . ..tf3 lbf6 19 . .l:!.adl± White's pressure upon the d5-pawn was very strong in the game Litinskaya - Baciu, Bucha­rest 1 994; the move 16 . . . i.b7 which occurred in the game Mohaupt - Bade, corr. 1974, also involved the opportunity to de­velop pressure upon the d5-pawn by 17. �f5 l:tdB 1B . ..tf3±) 17.i.f3 ..tb7 1B.lbde2± in the game Ha­lasz - Soos, Bratislava 1997, Black's pieces were tied down by the necessity to protect the d5-pawn. 14 . . . lbd7 is possible but even here after 15 .l:tab1 (compli­cations after 1 5 .i.b5 l:tb8 16 . i.xc6 l:txb3 17.axb3 in the game Piket - Yegiazarian, Ohrid 2001, should have produced an equal position in case of 1 7 . . . d4! lB. exd4 cxd4 19.1bxd4 lbbB= as 20. lbe6? would not work because of 20 . . . �c8 2 1 . lbxfB �xc6+, cat­ching the white knight; also White gains nothing in case of 15. lbxd5 l:tb8 16.�c4 l:txb2=) 15 . . . lbb6 i n the game Hulak - Galic, Pula 1993 , White could have maintained a slight advantage by 16 . ..tb5 i.b7 17.lbe4t.

15 . .grxc3 lbd7 Black should not linger with

the completion of development. Mter 15 . . . �e7 White had very strong possibility 16.lbe5!±.

16.b4!? By this move White fixes the

opponent's hanging pawns, pre­venting him from organization of

266

counterplay according to the well known script (see the comment to White's sixteenth move in variation b2), as it happened, for example, after 16 . .l:!.d2 �e7 17. l:tc2 a5 18 . .gra3 l:I.fe8 1 9 .Itac1 �e4°o in the game Muresan - L. Marin, Calimanesti 1992.

16 ... c4 1 7.b5 ..tb7 18 . .grb4 �c7 19.1bd4 g6 20.a4 a5 2 1 . �a3±

This position occurred in the game Akesson - Renman, Sun­dsvall 1989. White's pieces block up the opponent's hanging pawns on dark squares, thus re­stricting the b7 -bishop very per­ceptibly. As a whole, White's po­sition remains preferable but at the same time Black's defence is quite solid.

d2) 12 ... ..txc3

4.tlJc3 i.e7 5.i.g5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.i..h4 b6 8. i..e2

Unlike in variation d1, Black parts with his dark-squared bishop immediately. Forcing White to take on c3 with the pawn, he prevents him from at­tacking the d5-pawn along the c­file.

13.bxc3 bxc5 14 . .l:!.b1 The b-pawn has moved to the

adjacent c-file allowing White to organise some play along the b­file.

14 .. :�c7 Black's queen should stay as

close to the b7 -bishop as possible. The point is that after 14 .. .'�e7?! 15.'�· a4! ( 15.'�b3 i.c6 16. �a3 is weaker because of 16 . . . J:tc8 ! 17.ttJd4 J:Ic7 18.ttJb3 ttJd7 19.J:tfd1 ttJb6= which occurred in the game Kasparov - Torre, Moscow 1981 - 20.'�·xc5 achieves nothing now because of 20 . . . �xc5 2 l . ctJxc5 i.a4 ! 2 2 . ctJxa4 ctJxa4 = ) Black can't move the knight to d7 because of White's rook on the b-file and after 15 . . . ctJc6 16. �a3± White's pressure upon the c5-pawn turns unpleasant again.

15.ttJe5!? We know already this method

from variation b2 but now the setup is different . The black knight from b8 got unleashed and White lost every hope for an advantage. After 1 5 . �a4 ctJd7 16.J:Ifd1 ctJf6 17 .ctJd2 i.c8 18 .�c2 �e5 19.ctJf3 i.f5 20.i.d3 i.xd3 2l .�xd3 �e4= in the game Ma­lich - Neckar, Rostock 1981, the opponents agreed to draw. After 15.'�b3 i.c6 16 .c4 (White gains

nothing by 1 6 .i.b5 i..xb5 1 7 . �xb5 ctJd7 18 .'�b7 �d6=) 16 . . . dxc4 17. �xc4 ctJd7 18 .lIbel J:Iab8 19. �c3 i.d5= in the game M . Gurevich - Dolmatov, Reykjavik 1988, the black knight on d 7 se­cured excellent defence of the c5-pawn.

15 ... ttJd7 In case of 15 . . . J:te8 Black must

reckon with the sacrifice 16 . ctJxf7 ! ? ( after 16 .ttJd3 ctJd7 1 7 . �a4 J:Ie4 18.�a3 i.c6 19.ttJf4 J:ta4 20. �b3 J:Ib8= the play gradually got balanced in the game Tim­man - Vaganian, Riga 1 9 9 5 ) 16 . . . t'txf7 1 7 .i.h5 g 6 18 .i.xg6 �xg6 19 .J:Ixb7� and although White has only two p awns against knight, Black's undevel­oped queenside makes his de­fence a hard task.

16.ttJxd7 �xd7 1 7. �b3 i.c6 18.�a3 �e7 19.i.f3!?;!;

This position occurred in the game Kramnik - Khalifman, Linares 2000. White maintains pressure upon the d5-pawn and can play c3-c4 at the convenient moment. These two reasons let us claim his position slightly bet­ter.

267

Index of Variations

Part 1 . QGD without 3 •.• lbf6 . • • . • . . . • • . . • . • • . • . • • • • • . . • • . 9

Chapter 1 l .lbf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 .ib4 4 . .id2

4 . . . a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 . . . tlte7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 . . . .id2 5 .lbbd2 lbf6 6.g3 0-0 7 . .ig2 tf:!.e7 8.0-0 . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 2 l .lbf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 f5 4.ii.f4 lbf6 5 .e3

5 . . . .id6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 a) 5 . . . c6 6.lbc3 1l.e7 7.1l.d2 0-0 8. tf:!.c2 lbe4 9.g4 lba6 . . . . . 17 a) 5 . . . c6 6.lbc3 1l.e7 7.1l.d2 0-0 8.tf:!.c2 lbe4 9.g4 tf:!.a5 . . . . . 18

Chapter 3 l .lbf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 c6 4. tf:!.c2

4 . . . dc; 4 . . . lbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4 . . . .id6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

a) 4 . . . lbf6 5 . .ig5 h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 b) 4 . . . lbf6 5.1l.g5 d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 c) 4 . . . lbf6 5 . .ig5 lbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

c1) 6.e3 tf:!.a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 c2) 6 .e3 tlte7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

Chapter 4 l . lbf3 d5 2 .d4 e6 3 .c4 c5 4.cd ed 5.lbc3

5 . . . c4; 5 . . . lbf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5 . . . 1l.e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

a) 5 . . . lbc6 6.g3 cd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 b) 6 .g3 c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 c) 6 .g3 lbf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

268

c1) 7 . .ig2 c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 c2) 7 . .ig2 1l.e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 c3) 7 . .ig2 .Jtg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 c4) 7 . .ig2 cd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 c5) 7 . .ig2 1l.e7. " . . " . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

c5a) 8.0-0 .ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 c5b) 8.0-0 0-0 9 . .ig5 c4; 9 . . . .ie6 . . . . . . . 64

Index of Variations

Chapter 5 l .ltJf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3 .c4 c5 4.cd ed 5.ltJc3 ltJc6 6 .g3 ltJf6 7.iL.g2 iLe7 8.0-0 0-0 9 .iLg5 cd 10.ltJd4

10 . . . l:!.e8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10 . . . h6 1l.i.e3 iLg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

a) 10 . . . h6 1l .iL.e3 lIe8 12.l:!.c1 iLg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 b) 12 . . . iLfS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

b1) 12 . . . iL.fS 13 .ltJa4 ltJg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 b2) 13.ltJa4 'i;i'a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 b3) 13 .ltJa4 iLd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Part 2. QGD without 4 . . . i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Chapter 6 l .ltJf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ltJf6 4.ltJc3 ltJbd7 5.iLg5

a) 5 . . . iLb4 6.cd ed 7.'i;i'c2 c6; 7 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 a1) a2)

b) 5 . . . h6

7 .'i;i'c2 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7 .'�c2 h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

6.iLg5 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Chapter 7 l .ltJf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3 .c4 ltJf6 4.ltJc3 iL.b4 5.cd ed 6.iL.g5 h6 7.iL.h4

a) 7 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 b) 7 . . . g5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Chapter 8 l .ltJf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 ltJf6 4.ltJc3 dc 5.e4

5 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 a) 5 . . . iLb4 6 . .tg5 b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 b) 6 .iLg5 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

b1) 7.iLc4 cd 8.ltJd4 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 b2) 8.ltJd4 ltJbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . 100 b3) 8.ltJd4 iLd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 b4) 8.ltJd4 'i;i'a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Chapter 9 l.ltJf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3 .c4 ltJf6 4.ltJc3 dc 5.e4 iL.b4 6 . .tg5 c5 7.iLc4 cd 8.ttJd4 iLc3 9.bc

9 . . . ttJbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . 105 a) 9 . . . 'i;i'a5 10.iLb5 ltJbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 b) 10.iLb5 iLd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

269

Index of Variations

bl) b2)

11.i.f6 gf 12. �b3 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 12.�b3 a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Chapter 10 1.1tJf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3 .c4 tbf6 4 .tbc3 c5 5 .cd

a) 5 . . . cd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 b) 5 . . . tbd5 6.e4 1tJc3 7 .bc tbc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

7.bc .te7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 bl) 7.bc cd 8 .cd tbc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 b2) 8 .cd .tb4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

b2a) 8.cd .tb4 9 . .td2 .td2 10.�d2 0-0 11..�.c4 b6 . . . . . . . 124 b2b) 1l . .tc4 1tJd7 . . . . . . . 125 b2c) 1l . .tc4 1tJc6 12.0-0 b6 13 .Madl i.b7 14.Mfe 1 Mc8 15 .d5 ed . . . . 128

Chapter 11 l .tbf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 tbf6 4.ltJc3 c5 5 .cd tbd5 6.e4 tbc3 7.bc cd B.ed .tb4 9.i.d2 iLd2 10.�d2 0-0 1l . .tc4 tbc6 12 .0-0 b6 13.Madl iLb7 14.Mfe 1 McB 15.d5 ltJa5 16.i.d3

16 . . . tbc4; 16 . . . �d6; 16 . . . �e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 a) 16 . . . ed 17.e5 �e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 b) 17.e5 1tJc4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Part 3. QGD. Classical Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Chapter 12 l.tbf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 tbf6 4.ltJc3 i.e7 5.iLg5

5 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 a) 5 . . . dc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 b) 5 . . . h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 c) 5 . . . ltJbd7 6 .e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

c1) 6 .e3 b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 c2) 6.e3 a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Chapter 13 l.tbf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 1tJf6 4.tbc3 iLe7 5 . .tg5 0-0 6 .e3

6 . . . tbe4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 6 . . . ltJc6; 6 . . . b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

a) 6 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 b) 6 . . . tbbd7 7 .l:!.c1 . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

270

bl) 7.Mcl c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 b2) 7.l:!.c1 b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 b3) 7.11c1 a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Index of Variations

b4) 7 J1cl l1e8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 b5) 7 .llcl dc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

Chapter 14 1 .lbf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 lbf6 4.lbc3 lLe7 5.kg5 0-0 6 .e3 lbbd7 7.llcl c6 8.kd3

a) 8 . . . b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 b) 8 . . . dc 9 .lLC4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

bl) 9 .kc4 b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 b2) 9 .kc4 lbd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Chapter 15 1 .lbf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3 .c4 lbf6 4.lbc3 ke7 5 . ..tg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.kh4

a) 7 . . . lbe4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 b) 7 . . . lbbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

bl) 8 J�cl a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 b2) 8 J�cl dc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 b3) 8 .11cl lle8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 b4) 8 .11cl b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Chapter 16 1 .lbf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 lbf6 4.lbc3 ke7 5.kg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7 .kh4 lbbd7 8 .11cl c6 9.kd3

9 . . . a6; 9 . . . b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 a) 9 . . . dc 10 .kc4 b5 l1.i.d3 kb7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

bI) lLtd3 a6 12.a4 i..b7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 b2) 12.a4 b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 b3) 12.a4 ba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Chapter 17 1.ttJf.3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 lbf6 4.lbc3 ke7 5.kg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.lLh4 b6

8.cd lbd5 9.ke7 'ffle7 10.lbd5 ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 8.'fflb3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 8.kd3 ttJbd7; 8 . . . dc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

a) 8.kd3 i..b7 9.i.f6 iLf6 10.cd ed 11.0-0 ttJc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 b) 11 .0-0 'ffle7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 c) 11 .0-0 c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 d) 11.0-0 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

271

MIKHAIL BOTVINNIK. GAMES Volume 1 : 1 924 - 1 948 5 1 2 pages, 573 games

Volume 2: 1 95 1 - 1 970 496 pages, 591 games

ALEXANDER ALEKHINE

GAMES Vol ume 1 : 1 902 - 1 922 424 pages, 464 games

Volume 2: 1 923 - 1 934 494 pages, 484 games

For contacts:

Sergei Soloviov E-mai l :chesstars @ softhome. net; semkom @ yahoo.com

Publ ished by CHESS STARS ltd.

Printed in Bulgaria