Andreas Tzermiadianos

how to beat the French defence the essential guide to the Tarrasch

EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2008 by Gloucester Publishers pic (formerly Everyman Publishers pic), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT

Copyright © 2008 Andreas Tzermiadianos

The right of Andreas Tzermiadianos to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re­trieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: 978 1 85744 567 1

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com; website: www.everyrnanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under licence from Random House Inc.

To Vassilios Kotronias, the leader of all Greek chess players And to Helen Bokou, the kindest person I have ever met

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed and bound in the UK by Clays, Bungay, Suffolk.

Co nte nts I

Bibliography and Acknowledgements

Preface

Part One: Genera l Themes

1 How We Work in the Opening

2 Middlegame Strategy

3 Typical Endgames

Part Two: 3rd Move Alternatives after 3 lLld2

4 Unusual 3rd Moves for Black

5 3 ... lbc6

6 3 ... a6

7 3 ... i.e7

Part Three: 3 ltJd2 cs

5

7

9

13

27

42

53

59

64

8 3 ... c5 4lbgf3: Unusual Lines 76

9 3 ... c5 4lbgf3 cxd4 5 exd5 'ifxd5 79

10 3 ... c5 4lbgf3lbc6 5 exd5 exd5 6 i.b5: Unusual Lines 121

11 3 ... c5 4lbgf3 lbc6 5 exd5 exd5 6 i.b5: Main Lines 132

12 3 ... c5 4 ltJgf3 ltJf6

Part Four: 3 tbd2 tbf6

13 3 ... ltJf6 4 e5 ltJe4 and 4 ... ltJg8

14 3 ... ltJf6 4 e5 ltJd7 5 �d3: Black Plays ... b6

15 3 ... ltJf6 4 e5 ltJd7 5 �d3: Lines without .. .£6

16 3 ... ltJf6 4 e5 ltJd7 5 �d3: Black Plays ... f6 before ... cxd4

17 3 ... ltJf6: Main Line with 8 ... 'ifb6

18 3 ... ltJf6: Main Line with 9 ... 'ii'xf6

19 3 ... ltJf6: Main Line with 11...0-0

20 3 ... ltJf6: Main Line with 1l...ifc7

Part Five: 3 tbd2 dxe4 4 tbxe4

21 Rubinstein Variation: 4th Move Alternatives

22 Rubinstein Variation: 4 ... ltJd7

Index of Variations

Index of Games

149

164

174

180

193

200

221

234

252

266

295

317

319

Bibl i o g ra phy I

Books COS-06 French Defense, Evgeny Bareev (Chess Informant 1995) Dangerous Weapons: The French, John Watson (Everyman Chess 2007) Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings, Volume C, 4th Edition, (Chess Informant 2000) French Defence: Tarrasch Variation, Raymond Keene and Shaun Taulbut (Batsford 1990) French Defence 3 ti:Jd2, Lev Psakhis (Batsford 2003) How to play the French Defence, 2nd edition, Shaun Taulbut (Batsford 1991) Mastering the Endgame, Shereshevsky and Slutsky (Pergamon 1991) Mastering the French, Neil McDonald and Andrew Harley (Batsford 1997) My System, Aron Nimzowitsch (Hays 1991) Opening for White according to Anand, Vol. 6, Alexander Khalifman (Chess Stars 2006) Pawn chains, Colin Crouch (Olbrich 1994) Play the French, 3rd edition, John Watson (Everyman Chess 2003) Simple Chess, John Emms (Everyman Chess 2001) The Complete French, Lev Psakhis (Batsford 1992) The French: Tarrasch Variation, Steffen Pedersen (Gambit 2005) The Modern French Tarrasch, Eduard Gufeld (Cadogan 1996) Winning with the French, Wolfgang Uhlmann (Batsford 1995)

Periodicals Chess Informant 1-100 Chess Today New in Chess Magazine New in Chess Yearbook 1-86 The Week in Chess 1-710

5

How to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

Databases, Software and Websites ChessPublishing.com Correspondence Database 2006 Greekbase 2007 Mega Database 2007 MegaCorr4

Acknowledgements I would like to thank:

Vassilios Kotronias, who trusted me and helped me to understand how much work was needed to become successful.

Everyman Chess, for giving me the opportunity to write a book the way I wanted to.

John Emms, for his help during the writing of this book; for providing mate-rial, interesting ideas and support in all aspects of the project.

6

Anestis Mihailidis, for helping me organize the material in Chapters 21-22. Kostis Tsiamis, for his valuable analysis in many critical variations. All my pupils, who help me every day with suggestions and ideas. My family, who have supported me throughout, and finally . . . Sweet Helen, for her patience, support and understanding.

Preface I

Theory, theory, theory! Please write a book explaining the ideas behind the opening moves. This was the reaction of my pupils after my first book, Beating the Petroff, was pub­lished in 2004. That book was co-written with a great opening expert, GM Vassil­ios Kotronias, and it was directed to chessplayers with ratings over 2200. As I promised many pupils and friends, my new book had to be different. This is what you hold in your hands. Believe me; I spoke with more than 100 chess players of varying strengths in order to find a scheme to represent the material in such a way that players of all levels would benefit from reading it!

We live in a world of widespread information, but it is very difficult to find the borderlines between theory, ideas, and instructive games that are played in each opening. In order to produce this work, many important games have been stud­ied, the existing theory has been filtered and the results were enriched by ideas from my twenty years of experience with the Tarrasch Variation. This doesn't mean that the material in this book is ' light', or that additional effort is not re­quired. The French is a very solid defence that has been used by many world champions and strong grandmasters. As a result, many interesting or unusual ideas have been played, and attention must be given to all of these.

I am sure that this book will help you to increase your chess understanding as a whole, because unlike 3 ltJc3 the Tarrasch Variation is not based on a tactical treatment of the position. With 3 ltJd2 the battle has a positional nature and there are many different pawn structures that Black can choose from . The study of differ­ent pawn structures is an indispensable way to improve your understanding of chess strategy. For instance, after we study variations with an isolated d-pawn, as in the 3 . . . c5 variation, we increase our understanding in all positions with an isolated d­pawn. In this book you will sometimes come across guidelines given in italics. Please give special attention to these, as they are rules you can apply in all phases

7

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

of your game, not just in the opening part. A characteristic I see very often in chess players is laziness. Do not trust anyone

and check everything for yourself Try to understand the ideas behind each move. Do not use analysis engines blindly, but only as an additional tool to check your analysis .

How the material is divided To begin this book, a chapter covering the way we should work in the opening

seemed highly appropriate. When I started to play chess, I wrongly devoted most of my time to openings. This was time consuming, but it was also highly educa­tive on reaching certain conclusions as a trainer. This chapter will help you realize what deserves your time and what isn't worth it at all!

The second chapter is devoted to typical middlegame positions and it contains the basic ideas that you can use in practice. These ideas are illustrated with heav­ily analysed games, in order to demonstrate some of the important nuances in French-type positions. For example, the importance of the dark squares (especially eS), Black's 'bad' bishop on c8 and the use of the d4-square by White's pieces.

The third chapter deals with typical endgames that can arise. There are exam­ples with an isolated d-pawn, the dynamic centre (d4 vs. dS and e6) and the queenside majority. The section investigating the bishop pair with a queenside pawn majority is especially instructive as this scenario can occur in other open­ings.

After these explanatory chapters, where the main ideas are clearly demon­strated, the reader will be ready to study the long theory sections. These chapters do, however, include some illustrative games with more ideas for the reader to absorb.

I hope that after reading this book your chess understanding will improve and you will be able to delve into the deepest ideas behind the Tarrasch Variation. In this way your results will improve and my aim will be fulfilled. Good luck in your games, my friends!

8

Andreas Tzermiadianos, Athens,

August 2008

Chapte r One

How We Work in the Ope n i n g

Believe those who are seeking the tru th. Doubt those who find it.

Andre Gide

Information and technology have influenced all aspects of our lives. Boris Vasilievich Spassky once said that chess is like life. As a consequence chess is quite different now when compared to the days of the past. In­formation and computers have 'forced' chess players to look for the ultimate truth, and the importance of the open­ing phase has increased. Some main lines have been refuted and additional study is required in order to play sharp openings. The most intense example of this is the 2007 World Championship in Mexico, where we saw only four games (out of the 1 12 played) with the Sicilian Defence! Why did this happen?

What is the most appropriate way to work on openings? This important topic is not clearly covered in chess literature, and I will try to give my

I

point of view here. When I started playing chess, I wrongly devoted most of my time to studying the opening. Although this is a misguided approach for a beginner, it did at least help me to find an efficient method of working on openings. I used this method to pre­pare sufficiently for my games, even when there wasn't enough time. Nowadays, this method is easier to adopt, as the collection and the check­ing of the required material demands less time.

I will use the French Defence as an example. The richness of this old open­ing will help us to understand the methods I suggest in order to be able to study any given opening.

1) Study the Classics Study the games that the world champions played in the opening in question. Start with world championship matches and continue with the games of the world champions who used the opening

9

How to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

regularly with either colour. In the French Defence there was a real fight in two matches between Karpov and Korchnoi (1974 and 1978) and these games must be studied carefully to un­derstand the deepest ideas behind the moves. After the study of these matches, continue with the games of Karpov in the Tarrasch Variation. Ana­toly Yevgenyevich was an expert on the Tarrasch, not only for his opening preparation but also because his style is suited perfectly to the strategic nature of the resulting positions. World champions who often used the French Defence with Black include Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik and Petrosian. Their games, especially their annotations, must be examined with special atten­tion.

Also study the games of famous grandmasters from the past who used this opening. Tactical motifs and stra­tegic ideas are repeated regularly and we must become familiar with them. The examination of the games of strong grandmasters like Geller, Keres and Rubinstein (to name but a few) will strongly improve our understanding of the French Defence.

2) Study the games played by the experts of that opening The study of the French Defence is not complete if we do not pay special at­tention to strong grandmasters who use the Tarrasch Variation nowadays. On the white side I follow closely games played by Svidler, Adams, Kot­ronias, Tiviakov, Motylev, Akopian,

1 0

Rublevsky, Kr. Georgiev, Rozentalis, Navara, Timofeev and Emms. From the black side I always investigate the games of Korchnoi, Uhlmann, Psakhis, Short, Dreev, Nikolic, Vaganian, Dol­matov, Yusupov, M.Gurevich, Bareev, Morozevich, Radjabov, Ulibin, Glek, Graf, Speelman, Nogueiras, Vysochin, Kiriakov, McDonald, Pert, Berg and Socko.

3) Study positions with the same pawn structure, even if they arise from a different variation In the above mentioned world champi­onship match between Karpov and Korchnoi, Karpov adopted a different variation to the one I propose in this book. This is quite understandable given that the variation most players use today hadn't even been tried in the 1970s, when these matches took place! But the study of games with an isolated pawn on d5 for Black will help us to understand better the basic ideas in similar positions. Computer programs can be very helpful with this aim, as there is an option to search games with a specific placement of the centre pawns.

4) Study the typical endings that can arise For example, in the variation with 3 . . . c5 and 5 .. .'ii'xd5 (Chapter 9), we reach a position with a queenside pawn major­ity for White. The same pawn structure can occur in many other openings and examining numerous examples of a queenside majority can be achieved via

the study of endgame books. In such a way it will become easier to decide the type of endings that favour us during the game.

5) Adjust the opening according to your style Every chess player has his own per­sonal playing style. It is very important to direct the game to the path that best suits your style. Even in the sharpest openings there is the chance to play positionally. Analyse your games, find your style of play and drive the game to­wards it.

6) Collect any available information Look extensively in the available chess databases and at the material you have on your computer. Then search the Internet, as there you can collect a lot of material even on the strangest open­ings. Be aware of new games annotated on various Internet sites and of new books that have been published on your opening. These books will help you to understand the opening, will offer many new ideas and will show you the places you must concentrate your analysis on.

7) Use your computer efficiently The computer is a very useful tool that can help in many ways. You should:

A. Learn to use a program (e.g. ChessBase) in order to improve speed and efficiency, and to make study more fun.

B. Input your analysis and ideas, us­ing words to explain important points.

How we Work in t h e Open ing

C. Use chess engines to analyse your ideas in order to avoid tactical mistakes.

8) Deviate as early as possible Find an interesting idea that deviates quickly from the main line. It is very difficult to play a strong novelty on move 25, as this position will probably never occur in your games. It's better to find a novelty around move 10 or 15, as then you will have a good chance to be able to play it over the board. Of course this depends very much on the chosen opening, but it is very impor­tant to bear this idea in mind.

These were the thoughts I wanted to share with you, my readers, and I think that these methods will help you to prepare efficiently in the opening. They might appear difficult at first glance but, believe me, this is not the case at all! Much depends upon the opening you choose. For instance, if you opt for the fashionable lines of the Sicilian your preparation will be hard, but with lesser known openings things are much easier. In recent years I have worked on the Scandinavian Defence with 3 . . . 'ii'd6, and the methods above helped me considerably. I played through the games of David Bronstein, who used this variation, studied one or two passages in books, and found some interesting new ideas. I found in my games it was possible to play nov­elties as early as the 8th move! Faced with having to analyse on their own from an early stage, my opponents

1 1

How to Beat t h e French Defe n ce

found it difficult to handle their time (many were in time trouble after the 15th move!) . Overall, my results were extremely good.

I hope that you will use my experi­ences and thoughts as guidelines to formulate your own way of studying openings and the ideas behind them

1 2

with success. Good luck, and try to work hard to fulfil your ambitions.

The man who tries something and fails is infinitely better than the man who does nothing and succeeds.

Lloyd Jones

Cha pte r Two I Mid d legame Strategy

The aim of this chapter i s to help you understand the basic ideas behind the French Defence. For this reason it is important to study some games that do not occur in our repertoire but are very instructive for the deeper understand­ing of the opening.

The most essential thing to under­stand is the importance of controlling the dark squares.

in White's control. But this is not per­manent: the battle will be decided on the dark squares, and Black will try to conquer them with the moves . . . cS and . . . f6. White, on the other hand, tries to keep his centre intact and the impor­tant base on d4 safe, in order to be able to organize an attack on Black's king.

So what do we do if Black manages to exchange the white pawns on d4 and eS?

First, do not panic! Then arrange your pieces to control the central dark squares in order to diminish the mobility of Black's pawns on dS and e6.

Let's take a great lesson on this idea from 'Professor' Nimzowitsch:

A.Nimzowitsch-G.Salwe Karlsbad 1911

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 es cs 4 c3 tLlc6 5 tLlf3 With his first two moves Black de- ,.,b6 6 ..td3 ..td7?1

dares his intentions: he plays on the 6 . . . cxd4 7 cxd4 and only then light squares, leaving the dark squares 7 . . . ..td7 was better.

1 3

How to Beat t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

7 dxcsl �xes 8 o-o f6?

Here 8 . . . a5 was stronger. Black hoped that after the exchange of the e5-pawn he could free his pieces by play­ing . . . e6-e5. However, White is ready to replace his pawns on the central dark squares with pieces, holding the e5 point. This is a very important strategic con­cept. If Black manages to exchange White's pawns on d4 and e5 and White cannot control these squares with pieces, Black is able to push his e-pawn to e5 and White's strategy completely fails.

All this is very well illustrated in Nimzowitsch's bestseller My System, the best book I've ever read. This is the first book that every chess player must read in order to improve his under­standing of the game. 9 b4!

White starts to fight for the control of the dark squares! 9 ... i.e7 10 i.f4

Overprotection of the strong point e5. This development is possible now that the b-pawn is no longer hanging. 1o ... fxes 11lL'lxes ltJxes 12 ..txes

1 4

As stated above, the white pieces replace the pawns on the central dark squares. 12 ... ltJf6

Trying to exchange the bishop with 12 . . . i.f6? is logical strategically, but it fails for tactical reasons. White wins after 13 'ii'h5+ g6 14 i.xg6+ hxg6 15 'ii'xg6+ 'it>e7 16 i.xf6+ ltJxf6 17 'iig7+. 13lL'ld21

Every White piece is coming to con­trol the important e5-square.

13 'iic2? is a big mistake as it doesn't fit in with White's basic plan. After 13 . . . 0-0! 14 i.xf6 .l:!.xf6 15 i.xh7+ 'it>h8 16 i.g6 e5!, by sacrificing a pawn Black has succeeded in freeing his posi­tion with . . . e5 and stands better, with a mobile pawn centre and very active pieces. It is important to stick consistently to your plan! 13 ... 0-0 14l"Df3 i.d6

14 . . . i.b5? is punished by 15 l"Dg5! i.c4 (15 . . . i.xd3 16 'iixd3 g6 17 'iih3! wins for White) 16 l:te1 and White will devour the e6-pawn for breakfast! 15 'iie21

A very strong move: White doesn't

lose sight of the eS-square, not even for a moment. After 15 ..td4? Black can win the battle with 15 .. .'it'c7 16 'iie2 ltJg4! 17 h3 eS!, when once again White's strategy has failed . 15 ... l:.ac8?!

I don't like this move. 15 . . . ltJg4 was Black's best defence and it's strange that this move is not mentioned any­where. For example:

a) After 16 ..txh7+?! �xh7 17 ltJgS+ �g8 18 ..txd6 'iixd6 19 'iixg4 eS! 20. 'ii'hS ..tfS Black is back in the game.

b) 16 c4! ? is a typical idea to in­crease the pressure on Black's centre, but here it doesn't promise much for White as the pawn on b4 is hanging all the time. For example, 16 . . . ltJxe5 17 ltJxeS i.xeS 18 'iixeS dxc4 19 .ixc4 'iixb4 20 ..txe6+ ..txe6 21 Wxe6+ llf7 and Black has no real problems.

c) The best choice for White is 16 lbe1 ltJxe5 (or 16 .. . llxf3!? 17 i.d4 'iid8 18 Wxf3 'ii'h4 19 h3 liJh2 20 We2 lDxfl 21 llxfl llf8) 17 ltJxe5 ..txe5 18 'fixeS .l:tf6 and White holds only a small advan­tage because Black has the f-file as compensation for the weak e6-pawn.

Middleg ame Stra tegy

16 ..td41 Only now, when the knight is ready

to jump into eS and stay there. 16 ... 'iic7 17 lDes

The reward for White's strategy. He occupies both central squares with his pieces and enjoys a clear advantage. 17 ... i.e8

What else? Black tries to activate his bishop. 18 llae1 ..txes

After 18 . . . i.h5 White can simply continue with 19 We3 a6 20 'ii'h3! llce8 21 f4 and Black will be strangled. After 21 . . .l:.e7 there follows 22 g4 i.e8 23 g5 ltJe4 24 llxe4! dxe4 25 i.xe4 g6 26 lDg4 and Black can only choose which mat­ing pattern to allow. 19 ..txes Wc6 20 i.d4 ..td7 21 'iic2

In order to start a successful attack on the opposing king it's compulsory to meet the following three conditions:

1 . Control of the centre; 2. Weaknesses around the opposing

king; and 3. More pieces than the opponent

on the side where his king is placed. In this game White has secured con-

1 5

How to B e a t t h e Fre nch Defe n ce

trol of the centre and tries to force weaknesses in Black's position. He will transfer a rook into the attack via the third rank and suddenly all the obliga­tory preconditions will be fulfilled. 21 ... .l:tf7 22 .l:.e3 ! b6 23 l:tg3

White is winning. 23 ... 'it>h8 24 i..xh7!

24 ... e5! The best practical try. If 24 . . . lt:Jxh7?

25 'ii'g6! intending 26 .l:.h3 wins. 25 i..g6?!

25 'ii'g6! .l:tc£8 26 i..xe5 lt:Jxh7 27 i..xg7+ 'it>g8 28 i..f6+ would have been quicker. 25 ... .l:.e7 26 .l:.e1 'ii'd6 27 i..e3

Nimzowitsch plays it safe. A faster way win is 27 'ii'e2! exd4 28 'ii'xe7 'ii'xe7 29 .l:.xe7 dxc3 30 i..c2 threatening 31 .l:.gxg7, and if 30 . . . d4 there follows 31 l:hd7! lt:Jxd7 32 l::th3+ 'it>g8 33 i..b3+ 'it>f8 34 l:th8+ 'it>e7 35 .l:.xc8. 27 ... d4 28 i..g5 nxc3 29 .l:.xc3 dxc3 30 'ilixc3 'it>g8 31 a3 'it>f8 32 i..h4 i..e8 33 i..f5 'ii'd4 34 'ii'xd4 exd4 35 J:txe7 'it>xe7 36 i..d3 'it>d6 37 i..xf6 gxf6 38 'it>f1 i..c6 39 h4 1-0

Black resigned, as White's h-pawn

1 6

is ready to promote. An instructive game on the subtleties of the central dark squares.

Control of the central dark squares is so important that it sometimes war­rants material investment. In the next game I sacrificed my rook for the main defender of them, the dark-squared bishop.

A. Tzermiadianos-B.Socko European Championship,

Warsaw 2005

In this position my opponent played 16 ... lt:Jxd3? and I replied with 17 cxd3 1 1. The idea behind this capture makes this game one of the best I have ever played! Instead of playing it safe with a small advantage, White goes into a position where his pieces are pinned in a seemingly deadly way! But if we take a deeper look, we notice that White simply opens the c-file in order to sacrifice his rook for Black's dark­squared bishop to gain full control of the dark squares.

After 17 'ii'xd3 White has a small advantage but it's not enough because

of the weakness of the c-file, and espe­cially the c3-square. 17 ... ltJxd4 18liJxd4 .i.cs

The position seems to be winning for Black because of the pin on the a7-g1 diagonal, but the truth is that Black must already find a unique way to sur­vive! 19 l:.c1

19 ... 'ifb6 If Black tries to avoid the exchange

sacrifice with 19 . . . .i.b6 White continues with 20 l:tg3 and now:

a) 20 . . . �h7 21 l:txg7+! �xg7 22 .i.xh6+ �£7 23 'ii'g5 and White has a winning attack. For example: 23 . . . .i.c5 (or 23 . . . .i.xd4 24 'ii'f6+ �e8 25 'ifxf8+ �d7 26 'ii'£7+ �d8 27 .i.g5 mate) 24 ltJxe6! .i.xe6 (24 . . . �xe6 25 .i.xf8 .i.xf8 26 'ii'f6+ �d7 27 e6+ �d6 28 e7+) 25 'ii'f6+ �e8 26 'ii'xe6+ .i.e7 27 .i.g5 .l:f.£7 (27 . . . 'ii'b4 28 l:tc7 l::t£7 29 l:tc8+ .l:txc8 30 'ii'xc8+ .i.d8 31 'ii'xd8 mate) 28 'ii'g6! .i.xg5 29 e6! and White wins.

b) 20 . . . l:tf7 21 .i.xh6 'ii'b4 22 .i.xg7 'ifxd4 (if 22 ... l:txg7 then 23 l:txg7+ �xg7 24 'ii'g5+ �£7 25 'iff6+ �e8 26 ltJxe6 .i.xe6 27 'iii'xe6+ devours all Black's

Middleg ame Stra tegy

pawns; 22 . . .£4 23 .i.£6+! fxg3 24 'ii'h6 l:tx£6 25 exf6 'iff8 26 'ii'g6+ �h8 27 liJf3 wins for White) 23 .i.f6+ �f8 (or 23 . . . �h7 24 'iff3 'ii'xf2+ 25 'ii'xf2 .i.xf2 26 �xf2 with a clear advantage for White) 24 'ii'h6+ �e8 25 �g1 ! ! 'ii'xf2+ 26 �h2 �d7 27 'ii'g6 l:te7 28 .i.xe7 and White wins.

The only move for Black was 19 . . . b6!, which contains four defensive ideas:

1. The seventh rank is opened for the move . . . l:ta7 protecting g7;

2. It is more difficult for White to sacrifice the exchange because Black would react with . . . bxc5 when the d4-square wouldn't be available to the white knight;

3. Black is ready to develop his bishop to a6, putting pressure on the d3-pawn (and on the king on f1 ) thus tying down White's queen; and

4. The bishop stays on the c5-square keeping e7 and f8 under control, a very important detail as we will see later. Moves that offer many ideas at the same time are always useful, and the discovery of such moves can save us from a very diffi­cult position.

After 20 .i.xh6 l::t£7 21 .l:tg3 'ii'b4 22 l:txc5 (if 22 .i.xg7 'ifxd4 23 .i.f6+ �f8 24 'ifh6+ �e8 25 �g1 'ifxf2+ 26 �h2 �d7 27 'ii'g6 l:te7 the importance of control­ling e7 with the dark-squared bishop becomes obvious) 22 . . . bxc5 23 'ifg5 f4 24 .i.xg7 fxg3 25 .i.f6+ �f8 26 'ii'h6+ �e8 27 'ii'h8+ l:tf8 28 'iih5+ neither side can escape the draw. 20 nxcs! 'ii'xcs 21 l:tg3 l:tf7 22 .i.xh6 f4?

This decoy of the dark-squared

1 7

How to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

bishop doesn't promise much. Another try for Black was 22 . . . 'il'c3, in order to create immediate counterplay based on the poor position of White's king: 23 c;!;>g1 ! 'il'a1+ 24 c;!;>h2 (White transfers his king to the safe h2-square and is ready for the final assault) 24 . . . 'il'xa2 25 'il'g5 'il'xf2 26 'il'd8+ (not 26 �xg7? 'il'xg3+! 27 'il'xg3 l:r.xg7) 26 . . . c;!;>h7 27 �e3! and Black has unsolvable problems as ltJf3-g5 is the threat: for example, 27 . . . 'il'b2 28 tt:\f3!, 27 . . . .:Id7 28 'il'e8, or 27 . . . 'il'xg3+ 28 c;!;>xg3 f4+ 29 �xf4 a2 30 tt:\c2.

The best try for Black was to con­tinue with 22 . . . b6, although after 23 c;!;>g1 he still has serious problems to solve. 23 �xf4

23 ... �d7?1 Postny gives 23 . . . Wc3 !? as winning

for Black ( ! ) but it is only a better try for the reason that White has to play accu­rately to find the win. 24 �g1 'ii'a1+ 25 c;!;>h2 'ilt'xa2 26 .:tg6! (making room for 'ii'g3) and now:

a) 26 . . . il.d7 27 h5! "ii'b1 28 h6 a2 29 'iVg3 a1'iV (29 . . . �h8 30 hxg7+ �g8 31 'ii'h4 also wins for White) 30 lhg7+

1 8

<t>h8 31 'ii'g6! 'ifxd3 (3l . . .'ifh1+ 32 <t>g3) 32 'ii'xf7! 'ifaxd4 33 �g5 and 'iif6 cannot be stopped.

b) 26 ... 1i'b2 27 il.h6 'ifxf2 (after 27 . . . "ii'c3 28 lt:Jb5 ifb4 29 'ii'g3! 1i'f8 30 lt:Jd6 .l:.d7 31 lt:Je8! all White's pieces focus on the final aim: the g7 -square) 28 'ii'g51i'f4+ 29 'ifxf4 llxf4 30 il.xf4 a2 31 lt:Jc2 at'ii' 32 lt:Jxa1 l:txa1 33 iLh6! �h7 34 l:.xg7+ �xh6 35 l1c7 l1a8 36 b4! b6 37 b5 d4 (after 37 . . . l:.b8 38 d4! Black is permanently paralyzed) 38 g4 l:tb8 39 �g3 il.b7 40 h5! il.d5 (or 40 . . . �g5 41 l:tg7+ �h6 42 l:tg6+ �h7 43 l:txe6 il.a8 44 l:td6) 41 �h4 llg8 42 l:tf7! and White wins as g5+ is coming.

c) 26 . . . b6! ? 27 1i'g3 ltaa7 28 lt:Jb5! l:tad7 (28 ... l:tae7 29 il.g5! 'ii'xb3 30 lt:Jd6 a2 31 lt:Jxf7, 28 . . . l:tab7 29 lt:Jd6 'ii'c2 30 il.h6 1i'c7 31 lt:Jxf7, and 28 . . . 1i'h2 29 lt:Jxa7 a2 30 il.h6 all win) 29 lt:Jd6 1i'c2 30 l:txe6! a2 31 l:te8+ l:tf8 32 e6 l:txe8 (32 . . . a1'ii' 33 exd7 i.xd7 34 il.e5 1i'xe5 35 l:t.xe5) 33. lt:Jxe8 l:te7 34 i.e5 and White wins.

Returning to 23 . . . .i.d7:

We are at the critical stage of the game. Material is equal, as White has a

knight and two pawns for a rook, but White's position is already winning. Why is this?

Often we forget that the chessboard consists of both light and dark squares. Essentially we are not fighting one battle, but two: one on the light squares and one on the dark squares.

In this position all the white pieces can conquer the dark squares, yet only the black queen can try to defend them - it's simply an uneven battle.

Before the final assault White must consider the only counter-chance Black has: the position of the white king. Now everything becomes clear. 24 'iii>g1!1 'ii'c3 25 'iii>h2

White has secured the position of his king and is ready for the final as­sault. 25 ••• 'ii'b2 26 �h6 :af8

Black tries to prevent the arrival of White's queen on g5, but there is no defence as we can see in the following variations.

If 26 . . . J:i.xf2, then 27 'ii'g5 is winning for White. If 26 . . . 'ii'xa2 White plays 27 lt:Je2!!, closing the queen's route to the f2-pawn after which there is no defence to 28 'ii'g5 (the immediate 27 'ikg5? is met by 27 . . . 'ii'xf2 28 iLxg7 'ikxg3+! 29 'ii'xg3 :xg7) . 27 f3 1?

A computer would play 27 'ii'g5 'ikxd4 28 :g4! (but not 28 �xg7? 'ii'f4, as after 29 'ii'xf4 l:.xf4 30 �h6+ 'iii>h7 the rook on f4 is protected and suddenly Black has a winning position - this was the idea behind 26 . . . l:taf8).

27 lt:Je2! is also winning after

Middleg ame Stra tegy

27 . . . 'ikxa2 28 'iVg5 'ifxe2 29 .i.xg7. 27 ... l:.c8

Or 27 . . . J:i.e8 28 'ii'g5 'ii'xd4 29 �xg7 'ikf4 30 'ii'xf4 J:i.xf4 31 �h6+. 28 l:tg41

The knight on d4 is protected in the simplest way and Black has no defence to 'iVg5. 28 ... �e8 29 lt:Jxe6 �d7 30 �xg7 �xe6 31 'iVh6 1-0

According to my 'no-brain' Fritz friend White has mate in seven: 3l . . .l:te7 32 'it'h8+ 'iii>f7 33 l:.f4+ �f5 34 l:.xf5+ 'iii>e6 35 'it'h6+ 'iii>d7 36 'ikd6+ 'iii>e8 37 :£8 mate.

One of my best games! My friend Mastrovasilis, who was playing against Radjabov on the same day, spent most of his time looking at my board rather than his. In body language terms this means congratulations! Thank you very much Dimitrios!

Although the main concern for both players is the control of the dark squares in the centre, most of the time the light squares also play an impor­tant role.

1 9

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h D efence

Let's take the Guimard variation af­ter 1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3ll:\d2ll:\c6!? 4ll:\gf3 ll:\f6 s es ll:\d7 6 c3 f6 .

Black's plan is clear: he will try to break White's pawn chain with . . .f6. The main problem with this plan is that White has the powerful response 7 ii.bs! protecting the e5-square. After 7 ... fxes 8 dxes .1i.e7 9 ll:\d4!

White puts additional pressure on the light squares in order to parry Black's attack on the dark ones! This remarkable idea, found by Kotronias, immediately puts Black on the back foot, as will be demonstrated in Chap­ter 5.

2 0

The idea of .1i.b5 is very strong even without a pawn on e5 - there's a battle for this square regardless of whether or not it contains a pawn . .1i.b5 can be par­ticularly effective after an exchange of dark-squared bishops, whereupon the e5-square loses its main defender. In this event White constantly uses the .1i.b5 idea in order to eliminate a second defender of e5, the knight on c6. This plan often occurs in the 3 . . . ll:\f6 varia­tion.

S. Tiviakov-A.Dgebuadze Apeldoom 2001

Black has lost valuable time in the opening and White is able to play our well-known idea: 18 ii.bs l .l:tae8 19 .1i.xc6 .1i.xc6 20 'ii'd21

After the exchange of the queens, Black has no counterplay. 20 ... 'ii'xd2 21 lbxd2 rM7 22 lLlf3 <Ji;e7 23 lbes <Ji;d6 24 f3

White has a lasting advantage in the endgame and Tiviakov converted this into a win.

Although the above idea is well known, less experienced players often

make a mistake by allowing it in a dis­guised form.

J.Thorn Leeson-A.Fediv Correspondence 2003

13 ... .!Db4? This is a bad idea. After the trade of

dark-squared bishops, Black mustn't allow the bishop for knight exchange. At the moment �b5 is prevented by the queen on b6, but Black's misguided idea does the work for White and even loses two tempi! 14 �xd6 1i'xd6

Middlegame Stra tegy

main defenders have been removed. 15 ... �d7 16 .!Des

White has secured a clear advan­tage.

Sometimes Black can induce White into playing an early .!Df3-e5, perhaps to deal with the threat of . . . e5 or the exchange sacrifice . . Jhf3. If White's control of e5 is insufficient, a trade will result in a white pawn taking the place of a piece on the beautiful outpost.

Do not lose faith in White's posi­tion! If your play has been consistent then something else must be gained to compensate for this. Do you see what this is? It's the d4-square, which is now available for the white pieces.

Let's look at some examples of this transformation from one advantage to another:

S.B.Hansen-S.Brynell Excelsior Cup, Gothenburg 1998

Although in the game White chose the logical 16 'ii'd2!, and this is the sug-

15 .Ue11 gested move in our repertoire, he has White fights for e5 now that the an interesting alternative in 16 .!DeS!? .

2 1

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

After 16 . . . t2Jxe5?! 17 dxe5 t2Jf5 18 'ii'd2 ..id7 19 .l:!.fe1 ..ib5 White can continue with 20 ..ixf5! .l:hf5 21 t2Jd4, obtaining a clear advantage as the knight is a mon­ster on d4 and White has the plan of f2-f4, g2-g4 and f4-f5 after further prepa­ration.

The idea of dxe5 can also be effec­tive if Black has moved his g-pawn and White has a knight on g3.

S.Tiviakov-T.Ciarke Kilkenny 1998

Sergei continued with: 18 tbesl tbxes 19 dxes t2Je8

Although Black has the f6-square under control for now, White can fight for it by opening the f-file. 20 f41 ..ibs 21 l:.f2 �hs

2l . . .gxf4 22 tbh5 is also a disaster for Black. 22 fSI

The problem in such positions is that White has many ideas available and Black cannot stop them all. 22 ... l::tg8 23 fxe6 'ii'xe6 24 'ii'c2 'ii'e7 25 e6 1-o

2 2

Finally, the dxe5 recapture can be used as a weapon against the activation of the black knight.

T.Nurmukhanov-D.Eiizarov Dagomys 2004

19 tbes tbxes 20 dxesl The 'normal' 20 .l:txe5 would allow

Black to activate his knight with 20 . . . t2Jd6! . On this square the knight acts like an octopus, targeting all the important light squares! 20 ... ..ic6 21 .l:.e3 1

A good move. White wants to play tbe2-d4, so the e5-pawn needs protec­tion. 21 •.. 'ii'd7 22 t2Je2 tbg7 23 tbd4 .:.ac8 24 'ii'g4

and White enjoyed a clear advan­tage, as 24 . . . t2Jf5? can be met by 25 ..ixf5! exf5 26 'ii'f4 with a strategically winning position.

Another way to prevent . . . e5 is with the manoeuvre ..id2-c3. In the follow­ing example Black unwittingly helps White to achieve this aim.

S. Tiviakov-E.Gieizerov Port Erin 2001

Black played 14 ... h6?!, dubious as the bishop is now transferred to a bet­ter square. Tiviakov gained a clear ad­vantage after 1S �d2 'ii'e7 16 �b1 �d7 17 �e31 �e8 18 'ii'd3 followed by l:tcel, achieving total control over e5 (this game is fully annotated in Chapter 20) .

White can also allow Black to play . . . e5, and then concentrate on pressur­ing the d5-pawn.

J.Timman-M.Kuijf Dutch Championship 1987

Middleg ame Stra tegy

Black continued with 13 .. Ji'd6 14 g3 es, but after 1S dxes tbxes 16 tbxes 'ii'xes 17 'iib31 �d7 18 l:tfe1 'iid6 19 l:tad1 �e6 20 .l:.e6 'iies 21 'ii'e2 'iixe2 22 �xe2 l:tae8 23 �b3 l:txe6 24 tbxe6 l:te8 2S tbd4 �d7 26 f3 White had a lasting advantage in the endgame.

Finally, White mustn't forget that the whole complex of dark squares is weak, not just the e5-square.

A. Tzermiadianos-I.Spirakopoulos Ikaros 1995

Here I concentrated my forces on the c5 outpost. After 1S tbd2! (a strong idea from Tiviakov that has obliged Black to abandon this variation) 1s ... tbf6 16 tbb3 �d7 17 tbes �xes 18 .l:.xes I had achieved a clear advantage.

Black has some typical ideas to help him to achieve the . . . e5 advance. The most noticeable of these are directed against White's knight on f3:

1 . The manoeuvre . . . �d7-e8-h5. This is often difficult to achieve, and if Black does succeed White can prepare to an­swer it with tbe5.

2 3

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

2. The exchange sacrifice on f3. This idea can be compared to . . . l::txc3 in the Sicilian Defence. It's always in the air and White should be aware of it. Let's look at two examples of . . . .Uxf3:

This is one of the main lines after l l . . .'ifc7. Here I propose 14 �b11, al­lowing the sacrifice, as Black has yet not completed his development. A sac­rifice that looks threatening may in fact be harmless if the remaining pieces are not in a position to justify it. After 14 ... l::txf3?! 15 gxf3 �xh2+ White refutes the sacri­fice with 16 'ifilh11, when the g-file is useful (see Chapter 20, Line E for de­tailed analysis).

2 4

Another way to deal with the .. .lhf3 sacrifice is to ignore it if this is possible. In the position, after 13 ... a6 14 �h41 lt:\h5 15 'ifc2 h6 16 �h7+ 'ifolhs 17 �g6 .l:txf3!?, the best move is 18 �xh51 (see Chapter 20, Line A).

If Black cannot easily organize . . . e5 he can choose a simpler plan: utilizing the semi-open f-file and the f4 outpost with . . . lt:\h5-f4. This idea is something we will become familiar with in the theory section.

In some variations (with 3 . . . �e7 or 3 . . . a6), when it's not easy to redeploy the knight on d2, White has another way to control the dark squares: ex­pansion on the queenside with a2-a3 and b2-b4. After b2-b4 (which gains a tempo by attacking a bishop on c5) and �b2, White's dark-squared bishop con­trols the important square e5.

S.Galdunts-L.Kritz Griesheim 2003

Here White continued with 9 a3 1 0-0 10 e5 lt:\g4 11 b41 �e7 12 �b2 (see Chapter 7, Line C for detailed analysis).

Middleg ame Stra tegy

In the 3 . . . ..lte7 variation White has position would be in his favour he can another idea, which is based on e4-e5. avoid the capture, leaving Black's

A. Tzermiadianos-F .Sigalas 1st Summer Cup, Litohoro 2006

9 es a4 10 lLlbd4 ttJxcs 11 o-o lLlc6 12 c3 White has secured the d4-square,

and he doesn't mind parting with his light-squared bishop. What remains on the board is important, not what is ex­changed. 12 •.. ttJxd3 13 'iixd3 ttJxd4 14 lLlxd4 'ilc7 15 :e1 b6 16 'flg31

White has the centre under control, and now he transfers his pieces to the kingside to provoke weaknesses (see Chapter 7, Line A).

Lesser Known Ideas

1) Black's ... fs answered by c4 The move .. .f5 usually presents White with a dilemma: whether to capture 'en passant' or to leave the f5-pawn alone. If White enjoys better development he can open the position with exf6 and follow up with the pawn break c4. If White is unsure whether opening the

bishop buried on c8. Even here White's basic plan is to organize c4.

S. Tiviakov-S.Lputian European Championship, Ohrid 2001

1s ... fs?! 16 exf6 gxf6 16 . . .'ihf6 is less risky, but 17 lLle5 is

still better for White. 17 c41

This idea is especially effective in positions where Black has recaptured on f6 with the g-pawn. 17 ... dxc4

17 . . . d4 loses a pawn, as after 18 ..ltxg6 hxg6 19 'i/e4 the pawns on b7, d4 and g6 are all hanging. 18 . ..ltxc4 'fle7 19 h41

White rightly increases the pressure. 19 .. J:Ife8

19 . . . 1:.£7!? can be answered by 20 l:tfdl intending lLld4 or lLld2-e4. 20 l:.fd1 �h8?

A losing move in a bad position. 21 hs ttJfs 22 ttJesl

and White was winning, as 22 . . . fxe5 is met by 23 .i.xe5+ �g8 24 'iig4+.

2 5

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

Of course sometimes . . . f5 i s a good plan for Black. When this is the case, White should try to prevent it or take prophylactic measures against it.

This position arises from the 3 . . . l2Jf6 with . . . b6 variation. With his last move, 10 . . . l2Jc7, Black protected e6 and set a positional trap. 10 .l:.e1!

10 'ii'g4? ! is met by 10 .. .£5!, but after 10 !tel the advance of the f-pawn is unwise. For example, 10 .. .£5? 1 1 exf6! 'ii'xf6 12 c4! i..e7 13 t2Jf3 dxc4 14 i..g5 'ii'f7 15 i..f4 t2Jd5 16 l2Jfg5 i..xg5 17 t2Jxg5 'ii'xf4 18 l2Jxe6 and White wins. See Chapter 14, Line C, for further analysis.

2) White plays c4 after the exchange of light-squared bishops Black's worst piece in the French is his light-squared bishop. It is therefore natural to exchange it and some varia­tions, like 3 . . . t2Jf6 with . . . b6, are based on this exchange. However, Black must pay close attention to his light squares in the centre. If White manages to play c4, Black no longer has the bishop to

2 6

defend these key squares.

Here Black should quickly bring his knight to c7 to support d5 and e6. If Black immediately starts his aggressive plan with 9 ... b5?1, White can hit all the light squares in Black's camp with 10 a41 b4 11 c41, when Black must be ex­tremely careful (see Chapter 14, Line B).

3) Checking with i..bs after ... b6 Black often tries to solve the problem of the light-squared bishop by developing with . . . b6 and . . . i..b7, but White has an annoying idea up his sleeve. For exam­ple: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 t2Jd2 b6 4 t2Jgf3 i..b7 5 i..bS+! c6 6 i..d3

With the check on b5 White pro­vokes the move . . . c6 before retreating the bishop to d3. As a result, the bishop on b7 is blocked and won't put pres­sure on the light squares in the centre (see Chapter 4, Line 01). The same idea can occur in the Rubinstein after 3 . . . dxe4 4 t2Jxe4 b6 5 t2Jf3 i..b7 6 i..b5+! c6 7 i..d3.

[ Chapte r Three I

Typica l Endgames

In this chapter we will analyse typical endings that arise in the French De­fence. The material is divided accord­ing to basic pawn structures.

1) The Classical Centre

This is a typical pawn structure in the French. It usually arises from the 3 ll)c3 ll)f6 variation, but it can also occur in the Tarrasch when White takes on cS (for example 3 ll)d2 i..e7 4 .i.d3 cS 5 dxcS). Control of the d4-square is very important and often many exchanges

take place on this square, driving the game into a slightly better ending for White. Let's look at a classic example (of course I couldn't write a book on the Tarrasch Variation without a trib­ute to Tarrasch himself! ) .

5. Tarrasch-R. Teichmann San Sebastian 1912

The main problem in Black's posi­tion is that he has played . . . h6. This gives White an easy target, and he can use this little pawn move to open up

2 7

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

the kingside with the push g3-g4-g5. Bear in mind that all the basic plans

are connected with pawn breaks, from the opening through to the endgame.

In this position other pawn breaks will just help Black to activate his bishop. Only g3-g4 and f4-f5 has some point, but then White must consider the response . . . i.c8 and . . . l:r.ce7 when Black puts pressure on the eS-pawn.

It is very useful when we enter the end­game stage to consider which exchanges favour us and which favour our opponent. In this position, if White manages to exchange all the rooks, the bishop end­ing is winning because Black's pawns are fixed on the same colour as his bishop and the cS-square allows White's monarch to invade. 26 g4!

Fixing the target on h6. White doesn't want to allow Black the oppor­tunity to play . . . hS, . . . g6, . . . <j;g7 and . . . .l:th8, creating a barrier. White would then have to play h2-h3 and g3-g4, ex­changing more pawns and making Black's defensive task easier. 26 ... i.c8 27 h4

White now threatens 28 gS. If Black takes, White will recapture with the h­pawn and invade via the h-file. If Black responds with 28 . . . h5 then 29 g6! is very strong. 27 ... g6 28 .l:thll

Now White's hidden plan comes to light! He is threatening not only g4-g5 but also h4-h5. After this move the weakness of the h6-pawn becomes ob­vious. 2s ... <j;g7 29 hs .l:ths 30 .l:tfh2 i.d7 31 gs!

2 8

White opens the kingside, where all his pieces are positioned. 31 ... hxgs 32 fxgs l:txhs 33 .l:txhs gxhs 34 .l:txhs <j;fg 35 l':E.h8+ <j;e7

White has an overwhelming advan­tage. This is the moment when usually things go wrong, as we relax and think that the position will win by itself. No! The most difficult positions to win are winning positions. 36 g6?

36 .l:th7 is the right way to win - the threat is more powerful than the execu­tion! After 36 . . . <j;f8 37 g6 fxg6 38 i.xg6 incredibly it seems that Black is zugzwang. This is the type of position that the computer cannot 'understand' at all, as it can 'see' only 3-4 moves ahead. Until we reach the final move of some magnificent analysis by Neish­tadt, the computer evaluates this posi­tion as only slightly better for White! After 38 . . . <j;g8 39 .l:tf7 b4 (39 . . . <j;h8 40 i.h7) 40 i.hS! aS 41 i.g6 a4 42 i.hS a3 43 i.g6 Black has run out of moves.

Zugzwang decides many end­games, so it is always useful to ask ourselves: If it were my opponent 's turn

to move, what would he play? 36 ... fxg6 37 Ji.xg6 b4 38 .l::th7+ 'i&i>d8 39 Ji.d3 .l::tc3?

39 . . . l:tc6 would put up tough resis­tance, as White has no clear way to tar­get the e6-pawn. White would still hold the advantage but it might not be enough for the win. 40 a3 ! as 41 .l:r.h8+ 'i&i>e7 1-0

Black resigned before White could play the decisive 42 :ta8. 4l . . .'i&i>c7 wouldn't make any difference after 42 .l::ta8 'i&i>b6 43 l:ta6+.

2) The Isolated d-pawn Centre

This pawn structure can arise after 3 c!bd2 c5 4 exd5 exd5 or 3 c!bd2 a6 4 c!bf3 c5 5 exd5 exd5. Black accepts an iso­lated pawn in order to obtain easy piece-play. But things are not so simple for Black if we compare this position with the classical isolated d-pawn posi­tions that White usually accepts. First, White's bishop on c1 is not blocked and can put immediate pressure on the dS-pawn with Ji.gS. Second, Black is a tempo down and it is not easy to or­ganize an attack.

Typic a l En dgames

It is of course impossible to analyse all the endings arising from the iso­lated d-pawn. There are some books on this subject, and a very good one is Ba­burin's Winning Pawn Structures. How­ever, we can generalize some guide­lines to help us to understand these endgames more easily.

The easiest positions to hold (as Black) are pawn endgames and knight endgames, assuming there are no fur­ther weaknesses to defend. Looking at bishop endings, Black should also hold the position without much difficulty when both sides have dark-squared bishops, or when the bishops are oppo­site coloured. However, same-coloured bishop endings where Black has the 'bad' light-squared bishop are not easy to hold, especially if Black has played the . . . b5 advance weakening the c5-square.

In contrast, endings with major pieces are difficult to hold, and the de­fender must try to keep a minor piece (especially a knight) to help.

Let's take a look at some typical ex­amples:

2 9

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

22 l:.d21

S. Tiviakov-B.Ziotnik Groningen 1991

White protects the b2-pawn and is ready to double on the d-file. 22 ... 'ili'd6

If 22 . . . tt'le4 White keeps the advan­tage with 23 l:te2, with similar ideas to those in the game. 23 'ili'd1 a6 24 tt'lc2!

Heading for e3 - a typical regroup­ing to exploit Black's weakness. 24 ... 'ili'cs 2S l:td3 'ii'c4 26 b3 'ii'cs 27 tt'le3 g6

27 . . . b5 and . . . aS is the right idea in these positions. Black must look for counterplay on the queenside. 28 'ili'f3 'itg7 29 h3 l:tes 30 'ili'g3 'ili'e7 31 f4 l:ths 32 'ili'f3 'ili'e4 33 'ii'xe4 dxe4 34 l:td6

Black has managed to change the pawn structure so there is no longer an isolated pawn to worry about. But White's position is still preferable, as he has the d-file, the better rook and an excellently placed knight in front of Black's passed pawn.

3 0

The transformation of one advantage to another is very common in positions with an isolated pawn, and we must constantly bear this in mind. 34 ... l:tas 35 a4 llcs 36 c4 tt'lhs?

Black makes a critical mistake and allows White's knight to land on the fantastic d5 outpost. Even so, the posi­tion was already difficult as White threatened to play llb6 and if 36 . . . l:tc7 37 l:txf6 wins on the spot. Maybe Black should try 36 . . . l:.c6, although after 37 .l:txc6 bxc6 38 b4 White's advantage is beyond doubt. 37 tt'lds bs 38 axbs axbs 39 g4

Goodnight, bad knight! 39 ... bxc4

Or 39 . . . tt'lg3 40 'itf2 tt'lh1 + 41 'itg2. 40 bxc4 :xc4 41 gxhs l:.d4 42 hxg6 hxg6 43 'itg2 .Ud2+ 44 'itg3 l:td3+ 45 'itg4 l:td2 46 tt'lc7 .Ug2+ 47 'ith4 e3 48 .Ud3 e2 49 l:te3 f6 so tt'le8+ 'itf7 51 tt'ld6+ 'itg7 52 tt'le4 'itf7 53 tt'lg3 e1'ili' 54 l:txel l:ta2 55 .l:.e3 l!a4 56 'itg4 l:ta8 57 h4 l:ta4 58 l:tb3 llc4 59 .l:tb7+ 'ite6 60 l:tg7 l!c3 1-0

A.Karpov-V.Hort Budapest 1973

28 f3 ! White protects the e4- and g4-

squares, and makes room for his king to enter the endgame. 28 ... .l:!.c8

Sooner or later Black will have to play this move. 29 ltxc8+ ..ixc8 30 '1ti"2 '1W7 31 'it>e3 'it>e7

3l . . .b4 is not possible due to 32 tbc6.

32 b41 White fixes Black's pawns on the

same colour as his bishop. Crucially earlier in the game Black played . . . b5, so now the c5-square is very weak. 32 ... g6 33 g4 tbd7 34 f4 tbf8 35 g5 �d6 36 �3

White is now ready to push with g2-g4 and £4-£5, mobilizing his kingside majority. Then the passed £-pawn will decide the outcome. 36 ... tbe6 37 tt:::Jxe6 ..ixe6 38 'itte3!

By simple means Karpov shows that the bishop ending is lost for Black. 38 . • . .i.g4 39 ..id3 .i.e6 40 �d4 ..ig4

Or 40 . . . ..ic8 41 .i.e2 .i.d7 42 .i.£3 .i.e6 43 g3 .i.£7 44 ..ig4 and .i.c8. 41 .i.c2 .i.e6

Typica l En dg ames

White also wins after 4l . . . ..ie2 42 £5 ..ih5 43 £6. 42 ..ib3 ..if7 43 ..id1 ..ie6 44 ..if3 ..if7 45 .ltg4 1-0

There is no defence to 45 ..ic8.

V.Kotronias-J.Kekki Rilton Cup, Stockholm 1988

Here Black's control of the e-file gives him compensation for the iso­lated pawn. Instead of occupying it with . . . .l:te8, restricting White's advan­tage to a minimum, Black has just played . . . tt:::Jc7-e6 offering White the opportunity to increase his advantage. 34 'ii'e31 'ii'xe3 35 fxe3

White has voluntarily accepted damage to his structure, but receives two major benefits from this exchange:

1 . Better control of the d4-square; and

2. The possibility to further open the position with e3-e4, after which his bishop will gain in strength. 35 ... tbc7 36 e41 .l:!.e8

The only move not to lose immedi­ately, but it is not enough. 37 'ittf3 dxe4+ 38 .i.xe4 b6 39 :d6 .l:tb8

3 1

How to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defence

40 .l:.d7 White occupies the seventh rank (in

the way Nimzowitsch showed us!) and is ready to move his bishop to the ideal square dS, targeting f7. White is simply winning. 40 • • • tt:Je6 41 .i.d5 tt:Jd8 42 'iW4 'iW8 43 'it>e5 b5 44 'it>d6

The king's invasion is decisive. 44 • • • tt:Je6 45 b4 .Ub6+ 46 .i.c6 g5 47 hxg5 hxg5 48 'it>d5 f5 49 .l:td6 tt:Jc7+ 50 'it>c5 .l:tb8 51 .l:tf6+ 'it>e7 52 llxf5 tt:Je6+ 53 'it>d5 .l:td8+ 54 'it>e4 .l:td2 55 .i.d5 'it>d6 56 .i.b3 1-0

3) The Symmetrical Centre

This pawn structure is a hybrid of the isolated d-pawn centre, which only arises if White allows Black to ex­change a piece on d4 and recaptures with the c-pawn. White normally only lets this happen if he gains some addi­tional advantage (usually a good ver­sus bad bishop, or better develop­ment) . After this exchange the pawn structure is symmetrical and very good technique is required to bring home any advantage. Perhaps unsurpris-

3 2

ingly, the example I've chosen involves the master of technique, Anatoly Yev­genyevich Karpov.

A.Karpov-L.Ljubojevic Monte Carlo (rapid) 1998

Karpov won a similar ending against Uhlmann, a great French ex­pert, in Madrid (1973), where he used two rooks to launch a deadly attack on the black king. However, this ending, which occurred from a different open­ing, is more instructive because it is a purely technical example! 25 'iW2 .i.b3 26 .l:ta7 .l:te7 27 .l:ta3 .i.c2 28 'it>e1 g5 29 'it>d2

White's idea is to bring the king to d6 via c3-b4-c5. 29 ••• .i.f5 3o g4!

Usually we shouldn't put our pawns on the same colour as our op­ponent's bishop, but this is only true when there are no other pieces on the board. When each side also has a rook (as in our example) this idea actually helps to restrict the piece. It can also be applied in opposite-coloured bishop endings.

Typica l Endgames

30 . . . �e6 31 :aS+ �g7 32 �d3 .l:tc7 33 Black has recaptured with the b-pawn . .:bs �6 34 b61

The rook must leave the c-file and White's king is ready to invade. Also, the target on b7 is now fixed. 34 . • • !te7 35 'ottc3 h5 36 h3

The idea behind the f3-g4-h3 pawn structure becomes clear. Black cannot break this chain and invade with his king. 36 ••• h4 37 �b4 'ottg7 38 �C5

White's monarch has arrived. 38 ... f5 39 gxf5 �f7 40 �b5 �6 41 'ottd6 .l:.e3 42 llxb7 .l:.b3

If 42 .. . .l:.xf3 43 .l:.xf7+! and the b­pawn promotes. 43 �c6

In reality White is fighting with an extra king and bishop! The b-pawn will win the game. 43 ... l:tb4 44 .:tbs �h5 45 �xd5 :xd4 46 b71 �f7 47 :tal :xd5+ 48 'ottc6 :d1 49 bS'ii' :c1+ 50 'ottd6 .l:.d1+ 51 'ottc5 1-o

4) The Backward c-pawn Centre This is another classic hybrid arising from the isolated pawn centre, where White has exchanged knights on c6 and

It is very important for this struc­ture which pieces have been ex­changed; usually these positions occur with a white knight on cS versus a black bishop on c8!

S.Tiviakov-J.Van der Wiel Groningen 1994

White has a strategically winning position. He controls the e-file, his knight is on the 'ultimate outpost', and Black's bishop on c8 cannot move at all. Tiviakov chooses the easiest way to the win: exchanging the major pieces. 28 'ii'xf6 :xt6 29 :es+ :ts 30 l:txfB+

3 3

How to Beat t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

'it>xf8 31 'it>g1 'it>e7 32 'it>f2 ..ltd7 33 We3 ..ie8 34 'it>d4

Even the silicon master 'feels' that the position is winning for White. 34 ••• 'it>d6 35 l2Jb7+ 'it>c7 36 ttJas 'it>d6 37 C41

When we cannot easily improve our pieces, we should consider pawn breaks. After pawn exchanges we gain more space to manoeuvre our pieces. 37 • . . dxc4

If 37 . . . ..id7 38 cxd5 cxd5 39 l2Jb7+ 'it>c6 40 l2Jc5 ..ic8 41 'it>e5; or 37 . . . ..ih5 38 c5+ 'it>d7 39 'it>e5. 38 t2Jxc4+ 'it>e6 39 'it>cs g5 40 g3 gxf4 41 gxf4

White now has many ways to win. Tiviakov chooses the simplest. 41 • • . 'it>d7 42 ttJes+ 'it>c7 43 t2Jf3 ..id7 44 l2Jd4 ..ie8 45 ttJxfs ..id7 46 l2Jxh6 ..ixh3 47 as ..ic8 48 l2Jf7 1-0

After 48 . . . ..ie6 (or 48 . . . ..id7 49 l2Je5 ..ie8 50 f5) 49 l2Jd6 ..ig4 50 f5 'it>d7 51 f6 ..if3 52 l2Jc8! Black will lose all his pawns.

5) The Dynamic Centre (d4 versus d5-e6)

l2Jd2 l2Jf6 variation, and it can also oc­cur with the black pawn on c6 instead of b7 (after the exchange ..ib5xl2Jc6 - a very typical manoeuvre).

Control of the e5-square is of para­mount importance here and this is the reason why White always tries to ex­change the dark-squared bishops, em­phasizing the weakness of this square.

S. Tiviakov-D.Komarov Kherson 1991

The position is strategically win­ning for White. Comments are based on Tiviakov's instructive notes in New in Chess magazine (3/1991) . 29 b3 l:lb6 30 f3

White's king is ready to enter the endgame battle. 30 ... 'itf8 31 'it>f2 l:ta6 32 .l:.c2

White doesn't want to play l:le2 to protect the a2-pawn, because the e2-square is needed for the transfer of the knight to c5 via e2-cl -d3. 32 . . • 'it>e7 33 l2Je2 'it>d6 34 l2Jc1 l:lb6 35 t2Jd3 ..ic8 36 'it>e3 l:lfs 37 g4?

This complicates the win considera­This pawn structure arises in the 3 bly, as the f3-pawn becomes weak and

3 4

the e5-rook is in an awkward position. 37 ... ltf8 38 h4 ltb7 39 hS I Remember, pawn breaks provide the basic plans in endgames.

39 .. J%.bf7 40 .:.t2 i..a6 41 tt:Jcs i..c8

According to Tiviakov the ideal plan is to play l::!.g5, transfer the knight to d3 and e5, exchange the h-pawn, occupy the h-file and then penetrate the enemy's camp.

But White must carry out this plan correctly. The right way is:

1 . Play b3-b4 and a2-a3 to deal with the breakthrough . . . c5;

2. Play l:.g5 and f3-f4; 3. Combine the threats of the

knight's transfer to e5 with the inva­sion down the h-file; and

4. Organize pressure on g6. It's always difficult to defend such a

position, and his opponent didn't put up very strong resistance. 42 b41

42 .:tg5?! is met by 42 ... e5! 43 hxg6! (43 ltxe5 i..xg4) 43 . . . exd4+ 44 �xd4 ltf4+, although this position is not los­ing for White as Tiviakov thought, due to the resource 45 �e3 h6! 46 .:.e5! .

Typica l En dg ames

White mustn't hurry to open the h­file because Black could then take con­trol of it himself, e.g. 42 hxg6?! hxg6 43 .:tg5 ltf6 44 tL'ld3 l:th8! 45 tL'le5 lth6. 42 ... l:tf6 43 a3 i..d7 44 f4

The first two parts of the plan have been executed. 44 ... l:tg8

44 . . . i..e8? is met by 45 g5, while if 44 . . . i..c8 45 J:lg5 with the idea tL'ld3, tL'le5 and l::!.h2 etc.

4S l:!h21 ltf7 If 45 . . . ltgf8 46 tL'ld3 i..c8 47 hxg6

hxg6 48 l:th6! ltg8 (or 48 . . . i..a6? 49 g5 lt6f7 50 ltxg6 i..xd3 51 l:texe6+) 49 l:th7 and White is simply winning, while 45 . . . gxh5 is met by 46 g5. 46 .l:.gs �e7 47 tL'ld3 �6 48 tt:Jes .:tfg7 49 hxg6 hxg6 50 lth6

The plan has been fully executed and now the win is easy. so ... i..es 51 .l:.ghs as?

This loses quickly, but Black didn't want to just sit and wait. 52. bxas lta7 53 .:.hs gxhs 54 .:txg8 hxg4 55 .:txe8 .:txas 56 J:tg8 l:txa3+ 57 tL'ld3 lta1 58 J:txg4 l:th1 59 tt:Jes lth3+ 6o tL'lf3 l:thB 61 lth4 .:.as 62 tt:Jes 1-o

3 5

How to B e a t th e Fre n c h Defe n ce

6) The Rubinstein Centre (queenside majority)

This is the kind of position we see very often as it can arise from many different openings; it is usually under the term 'queenside majority' .

In the French Defence this position can arise from:

1 . The Rubinstein Variation (3 tbd2 dxe4) after Black's . . . cS and the ex­change with the d4-pawn; and

2. The 3 tbd2 cS 4 exdS 'ji'xdS varia­tion.

This structure is supposed to favour White slightly, but is this really the case? I remember discussing this with GM John Nikolaidis, who told me he always liked this structure for Black, mainly because everybody thinks it is better for White!

There are some important factors that can turn the position in White's or Black's favour:

1. Control of the open d-file; 2. Control of the eS-square (because

with . . . eS Black can launch his major­ity); and

3. Whether Black can blockade

3 6

White's majority on the dark squares with . . . aS and . . . b6 (especially after White has played c4) .

S.Rublevsky-K.Sakaev

European Club Cup, Panormo 2001

This game decided the winner of the European Club Cup, which took place on the beautiful island of Crete. Comments are based on Rublevsky' s instructive notes in New in Chess maga­zine (7/2001) . 15 .l:.fd11 0-0

It seems illogical to move the king away from the centre as we enter the endgame, but there is hardly any other choice as after the sequence 1S . . . tbf6?! 16 .i.bS+!? �f8 (16 . . . .i.d7? 17 l:txd7! tbxd7 18 tbeS wins) 17 c4 White has a clear advantage. 16 ttJes tbf6 17 c4 l:tds

There is no time for Black to organ­ize a blockade on the dark squares, as after 17 . . . b6 18 a4! .i.cS 19 aS .i.xe3 20 fxe3 White has a serious advantage. For example: 20 . . . bxaS 21 l:txaS l:tb8 22 l:tb1 ! ? a6 23 b4; or 20 . . . .i.b7 21 a6 .i.e4 22 .i.xe4 tbxe4 23 tbc6 and 24 b4.

18 .ie2 lt:ld7 19 lt:lxd7 :txd7 19 . . . .ixd7 seems more logical, but

after 20 .if3 Black is under heavy pres­sure on the queenside. Notice the dif­ference between White's and Black's pair of bishops! For example, 20 . . . .ic6 21 .:!.xd8+ and now:

a) 2l . . . .ixd8 22 .ixc6 bxc6 23 b4! (and not 23 .l:td1 aS! ) 23 . . . .if6 24 lld1 and White advances his queenside ma­jority.

b) 21 . . .llxd8 22 .ixc6 bxc6 23 .ixa7 .if6 24 a4 .ixb2 2S .:!.b1 .ic3 26 �fl and the a-pawn is very strong. Black must always reckon with the possibility of .l:.b8, transposing into a very favourable bishop ending. 20 .if3 .l:4c7 21 c51

Not even allowing Black to think about blockading on the cS-square. 21 • • • f6

Intending . . . .id7, which was impos­sible here because of .if4. 22 b4 .id7

23 .ig41 After this great move Black's posi­

tion starts to deteriorate. There is no easy defence to l:txd7.

Typic a l En dg ames

23 . • .'it>f7 Giving up a pawn and trying to

find some counterplay. 23 . . . .ic8!? was the lesser evil, but after 24 l:.acl eS 2S .if3 Black can only observe as White makes progress. 24 .if4 e5 25 .ixe5 .ixg4

After 2S .. .fxeS 26 l:.xd7 l:txd7 27 .ixd7 l:td8 28 .ifS White is close to win­ning in spite of the opposite-coloured bishops: 28 .. .l�d4 29 a3 aS 30 .l:lb1 axb4 31 axb4 g6 32 .ic8 b6 33 c6! (Rublevsky); or 28 . . . g6 29 .ie4 .l:td4 30 .ixb7 l:txb4 31 .idS+ �f6 32 c6.

2S . . . .l:.xcS is met 26 .ihS+! (not 26 bxcS? .ixg4) . 26 .ixc7 .ixd1 27 .l:!.xd1 �e6?1

27 . . . aS? loses to 28 .ixaS .ixcS 29 .l:.d7+. 27 .. Jk8!? is the best try, but 28 .if4! (28 .id6? l:td8!) 28 . . . b6 29 .Ud7 bxcS 30 bxcS l:txcS 31 .l:Ixa7 reaches a theoretically winning endgame accord­ing to Dolmatov. 28 �1 l:!.c8

If 28 . . . aS 29 .id6! .ixd6 30 llxd6+ �eS 31 a3 axb4 32 axb4 l:ta1+ 33 �e2 l:ta2+ 34 �e3 .l:ta3+ 3S .l:td3 .l:.a4 36 f4+ and White wins: for example, 36 . . . �fS (36 . . . �e6 37 .l:f.d6+ �e7 38 .l:tb6) 37 �dS+ �g6 38 bS .l:.b4 39 b6. 29 .id61

The rook endgame is hopeless for Black. 29 • • • .ixd6 30 l:txd6+ �e7 31 l:t.d31? b6 32 l:ta3 .:.c7 33 cxb6 axb6 34 J:ta6 b5 35 �e2 l:t.c2+ 36 �e3 f5 37 a3 g5 38 l:th6!? .l:.c3+ 39 �d4 l:txa3 40 �e5 ! l:ta2 41 J:.xh7+ �e8 42 .l:th5 .l:[e2+ 43 �6 .l::!.xf2 44 .l:.xg5 f4 45 h4 f3 46 gxf3 .l:txf3+ 47 :tf5 l1h3 48 h5 1-o

3 7

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

7 ) The Bishop Pair with a Queenside Majority

The ending with a queenside major­ity and the bishop pair against bishop and knight arises very often (for exam­ple, after an exchange of a black bishop on d6 for a white knight on eS) .

We will look at a few examples, but firstly I would like to offer some guide­lines that we can use in any endgame where we have two bishops against bishop and knight:

1 . Exchange all the other pieces, leaving only the two bishops against the bishop and knight.

2. Force the opponent's pawns to move forward by threatening them, thereby leaving weaknesses behind them.

3. Open up the position further be­cause the power of the bishop pair will increase dramatically, but do not ex­change too many pawns.

4. At any given moment one of the bishops can be exchanged for either bishop or knight in order to increase or transform the advantage.

5. The basic aim is to eventually in-

3 8

vade with the king on the opposite­coloured squares to the opponent's bishop (the dark squares in the dia­gram above).

A good example of a successful strategy is the game Dolmatov­Burmakin, Elista 2001, which is ana­lysed in John Emms's very nice book Simple Chess. Here's a slightly more complicated example:

J.Smeets-U.Andersson Amsterdam 2006

19 ... .:txd1+ 20 :xd1 .:tdB 21 l:te1l? White doesn't hurry to exchange

rooks; first he wants to improve his position. However, 21 lhd8+ 'iti>xd8 22 �f8!, trying to provoke weaknesses on the dark squares, is also very logical. 21 ... li:Jd7 22 'iti>c2 f6 23 �e7 .:teB 24 �d6 li:JfB 25 �d3 'iti>d7 26 cs li:Jg6 27 'iti>c3?1

27 I:!.d1 ! is the best move, as after 27 . . . �d5! 28 'iti>c3 li:Jh4 29 �g3 Black has no time to coordinate his pieces as in the game and 29 . . . li:Jxg2 loses to 30 .:td2. 27 ... li:Jh4 28 :d1 'iti>cB!

Black could have grabbed the pawn

with 28 . . . ti'lxg2!? to complicate matters. Although White seems to keep an ad­vantage after 29 l:tg1 ! ..i.xf3 30 ..i.e2! ..i.xe2 31 lhg2 ..i.f3 32 l:txg7+ 'ittc6 33 l:tc7+! (33 l:txh7?! eS 34 .:.f7 .:.e6 leaves Black with decent counterplay) 33 . . . 'ittdS! (33 . . . 'ittbS? 34 a4+ 'ittaS 3S .:.xb7! - with the idea of 36 ..i.c7 mate -3S . . . .:.c8 36 'ittb2! ..i.xb7 37 'itta3 and Black is mated in study-like fashion) 34 ltxb7, Black can hold the position after 34 . . . h6! 3S .l::th7 eS 36 l:hh6 fS 37 b4 f4! 38 a4 ..i.g4! when there is no forced win for White: for example, 39 bS axbS 40 axbS f3 41 b6 e4 42 ..i.g3 'ittxcS 43 b7 e3 44 l:tf6 e2 4S .:.f4 ..i.d7 46 Itxf3 ..i.c6.

Of course Andersson doesn't see any reason to put himself under such a test, trying to find a series of only moves for Black. Instead he chooses the most logical and easiest path. 29 l:td2 ti'lfs 30 .lle4 l:r.d8 31 'ittb4

31 • • • hs? But this mistake gives White the

time he needs to get his king to the aS­square.

Black's salvation lies in the pawn ending after 3l . . .�xe4! 32 fxe4 ti:Jxd6 33

Typica l En dg ames

.l:.xd6! (and not 33 cxd6 b6! 34 a4 'ittd7 3S aS .l:.b8 with counterplay) 33 ... .l:.xd6 34 cxd6 b6 3S a4 'ittd7 36 aS bxaS+! 37 'ittxaS eS! and now:

a) 38 g4? even loses after 38 . . . g6 39 'ittxa6 fS 40 gxfS gxfS 41 'ittbS (or 41 exfS e4 42 f6 'ittxd6) 41 . . .£4 .

b) 38 'ittxa6 fS 39 'ittbS fxe4 40 'ittc4 'ittxd6 41 'ittc3 'ittcS 42 'ittd2 'ittb4 43 'itte3 'ittxb3 44 'ittxe4 'ittc3 4S 'ittxeS 'ittd3 46 'itte6 'itte3 47 'itt£7 gS! with a draw. 32 'ittas !

Now Black suffers as White's king enters b6. 32 ... ..txe4

32 . . . ti'lxd6 loses to 33 cxd6 'ittd7 34 'ittb6.

32 . . . ti'le7 was the last chance, but af­ter 33 a4 ti:JdS 34 b4 ti'le3 3S ..i.d3 White will finally play the decisive bS push. 33 fxe4 ti'le7

Or 33 . . . ti:Jxd6 34 cxd6 eS 3S 'ittb6. 34 'ittb6 ti:Jc6 35 l1b21 es 36 b4 g6

Black is also losing after 36 . . . h4 37 a4 ti'ld4 38 bS. 37 l:tf2

The simplest way. 37 • • • fs 38 exfs gxfs 39 l:lxfs e4 40 .Uf7 .:.d7 41 .:.xd7 'ittxd7 42 'ittxb7 ti'lxb4 43 ..i.f4 as 44 a4 ti:Jc6 45 h3 1-0

After 4S . . . ti:Jd8+ 46 'ittb6 ti'lc6 47 g4 White's second passed pawn leaves Black with no hope.

Of course things are not always so complicated. Generally we have to con­sider the basic pawn breaks, as seen in our next two examples. In the first ex­ample the break is not yet visible as Black's b-pawn hasn't moved, but in the second everything is clear.

3 9

How to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defence

22 a4!

G.Sosonko-V.Smyslov Tilburg 1982

White starts his queenside offensive. 22 ... lZ:ld7 23 lle2 lZ:lcs 24 b3 b6

Or 24 . . . h6 25 aS �f8 26 b4.

25 as l lZ:lb7 25 .. . bxa5 is met by 26 i.xa5 l:.b8 27

b4 lZ:lb7 28 i.c7 .l:lc8 29 i.g3. 26 a61 lZ:lcs 27 b4 lZ:la4 28 1:td2 .l:lc8 29 i.d4

The knight on a4 is 'sleeping with the fishes' . 29 ... i.e8 30 i.b3 �8 31 �2 f6 32 f4 bS 33 i.xa41

4 0

The simplest way. 33 ... bxa4 34 i.xa7 l:txc4 35 i.cS+ �7 36 ltd6 1-0

Preventing . . . i.c6, and 37 a7 is com­ing. There is no defence.

24 f3 ! lZ:lf6

J.Hicki-E.Kieser Bad Ragaz 1995

If 24 . . . lZ:ld2 25 i.e2!, and 24 . . . lZ:ld6 is met by 25 .l:tdl . 25 a41

The pawn break provides the plan. As the c5 break gives Black the d5-square and the rook is waiting patiently on a1, is there a more logical move? 25 ... �8 26 �2 �e7 27 as l:tc7 28 i.c3 l:td7 29 �e3 lZ:le8 30 axb6 axb6 31 i.d4

As simple as possible. 31 ... bs 32 cxbs lZ:ld6 33 i.cs �6 34 l:ta7 1-0

Okay, but I'm sure you are wonder­ing about the best way for Black to play. The answer is that he must mobi­lize his kingside pawns as quickly as possible, as he does in this example from the distant past:

P .Michei-H.Rossetto Mar del Plata 1944

1B ... fs ! 19 .if3 �7 20 g3 a6 21 .ib6 .id7 22 b4 esl 23 c4 e4 24 .ie2 ttJes 25 �c2 gS l 26 .ie3 g4

Typica l En dgames

Black has enough resources in this position, as White must always be wary of ideas connected with . . . tiJf3 or . . . tiJd3. 27 �c3 �e6?

Black chooses a 'normal' move, but he should have continued his dynamic play with 27 . . . b5! 28 cxb5 (or 28 c5 �e6) 28 . . . axb5 29 �d4 �e6. Black's position is as solid as Alcatraz, and after 30 �c5 tiJd3+ 31 �d4 (31 �b6 �d5) 3l . . . .ic6 32 .ixd3 exd3 33 �xd3 �d5 it's an easy draw. 28 bs axbs 29 cxbs �ds 30 a4 tiJd31 31 .id1! �d6 32 .ib3

White has the initiative, although in the game Black eventually managed to hold the draw.

4 1

C h a pte r F o u r

U n usua l Th i rd Moves for B lack

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d S 3 lDd2 In this chapter we will look at some

variations that are not played regularly but must still be considered:

A: 3 ... fs?! 8: 3 ... l2Je7!? C: 3 ... h6?1 D: 3 ... b61?

Less important alternatives include: a) The idea behind the paradoxical

3 . . . l2Jd7?! is to organize a quick . . . c5. White shouldn't commit his fl-bishop, only moving it to b5 after . . . c5: 4 l2Jgf3 c5 5 exd5 exd5 6 i..b5! l2Jgf6 7 0-0 cxd4 8 l:te1 +!? i..e7 9 'ii'e2 a6 10 i..xd7+ 'ifxd7!? 1 1 l2Jb3! ( 11 l2Jxd4? 0-0 12 'ifxe7 l:.e8 was the idea of 10 .. .'ii'd7) 1 1 . . . d3 12 cxd3 'ife6 13 i..g5! 'ifxe2 14 lhe2 'it>f8 15 .l:tae1 and White has a strong initiative.

b) 3 . . . g6?! is not good as it weakens the dark squares in Black's camp: 4 l2Jgf3 i..g7 (if 4 . . . l2Jf6?! there follows 5 e5 l2Jfd7 6 h4!; 4 . . . c5? ! is also inadequate

4 2

I

as this move opens the centre in White's favour: 5 exd5 exd5 6 i..b5+ i..d7 7 i..xd7+ lDxd7 8 0-0 i..g7 9 .l:.e1 + l2Je7 10 'ii'e2! and Black experienced problems in E.Ermenkov-M.Czemiak, Vratsa 1975) 5 i..d3 l2Je7 6 0-0 0-0 7 l:.e1 l2Jd7

and now: b1) 8 c4! (White strikes first in the

centre, not waiting for . . . c5) 8 . . . c5? ! (8 . . . dxe4! ? 9 l2Jxe4 e5 10 i..fl ! ? exd4 -10 .. .£5? 1 1 l2Jeg5 - 1 1 l2Jxd4 .U.e8 12 i..f4 and White has the initiative) 9 exd5

exd5 10 lZ:\b3 cxd4 1 1 ii.g5! lZ:\f6 12 lZ:\bxd4 dxc4 13 ii.xc4 lZ:\ed5 14 lZ:\e5 lZ:\b6 15 ii.b3 'ti'd6 (M.Palac-P.Levacic, Zadar 1994) 16 lZ:\b5! is very good for White.

b2) 8 exd5!? also has some point: 8 . . . exd5 (if 8 . . . lZ:\xd5, 9 lZ:\e4 preventing . . . c5 is better for White) 9 lZ:\f1 b6 10 ii.f4 lZ:\f6 1 1 lZ:\g3 c5 12 c3 lZ:\c6 13 'ifa4! ii.b7?! (13 . . . ii.d7 was better) 14 dxc5 and the Greek player enjoyed a clear advantage in M.Chatzidakis-O.Issel, German League 2003, as 14 . . . bxc5 can be met by 15 'ifb5 'ti'b6 16 ii.d6.

A) 3 .. .fs?! Black provokes White into an early

choice over the central pawn structure, but this move is dubious. 4 exfs exfs

S lDdf31 This idea of Karpov' s is the best

way of handling the position. White wants to continue with ii.d3 and lZ:\e2, and Black will have problems with the e5-square (and also sometimes with the pawn break c2-c4). s ... lZ:\f6 6 .i.d31

Karpov played 6 ii.g5, but this is the

U n u s u a l Th ird Moves for B lack

best move. 6 ... ..td6 1 lZ:\e2 o-o

After 7 . . . c6 8 0-0 'ii'c7 9 c4! 0-0 10 c5 i.e7 1 1 b4 lZ:\e4 12 a4 lZ:\d7 13 lZ:\e1 f4 14 'ii'c2 g5 15 f3 lZ:\ef6 16 g3! White enjoys a clear advantage, G.Ginsburg­E.Schmittdiel, German League 2004. 8 0-0

8 ... lZ:\e4 Alternatively: a) 8 . . . c6 9 c4! dxc4 10 ii.xc4+ �h8 1 1

lZ:\e5 lZ:\d5 12 lZ:\f4! ii.xe5 1 3 dxe5 lZ:\xf4 14 ii.xf4 'ili'e7 15 e6! is virtually winning for White, C.Kindermann-J.Vengels, Ruhrgebiet 1996.

b) 8 . . . c5! ? 9 dxc5 ii.xc5 10 c3! lZ:\c6 1 1 'ili'b3 i s slightly better for White.

c) After 8 . . . �h8 9 ..tf4 lZ:\e4 10 'ili'cl !? lZ:\d7 1 1 c3 lZ:\df6 12 lZ:\e5! lZ:\h5 13 f3 lZ:\xf4 14 lZ:\xf4 lZ:\c5 (better was 14 . . . ii.xe5 15 dxe5 lZ:\c5 16 .l:td1 c6 17 c4 with a small advantage for White) 15 'ili'e3 lZ:\xd3 16 lZ:\fxd3 g5 17 f4 I held a clear advantage in A.Tzermiadianos­G.Tantsis, Aegina 1996 - the c8-bishop will remain passive for a long time. 9 ..tf41

White doesn't know yet whether he

4 3

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

will go for c2-c3 or c2-c4, so he opts for a move he is certain he wants to play. This is a sound logic to follow in the opening. 9 ... i.e6 10 'ii'c1!

There is no need to hurry with the exchange of bishops, as then Black's queen on d6 would control the impor­tant f4-square. 10 ... tiJc6

10 . . . c5 1 1 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 12 dxc5 tLlxc5 13 'ii'f4 and 10 .. J:te8 1 1 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 12 'ii'f4 are both better for White. 11 c3 i.e71?

Black tries to avoid exchanging the dark-squared bishops. White keeps an advantage after 1 1 . . . tLle7 12 tLle5! i.xe5 13 i.xe5 tLlg6 14 tLlf4. 12 'ii'e3 i.f6 13 l:tad1!

White wants to put the bishop on e5, so he prepares for the opening of the d-file. 13 ... i.f7 14 .l:tfe1 gs 15 i.es h6 16 'ii'c1 f4 17 C4!

We have been following the game F.Sanfrutos Lopez-A.Mueck, corre­spondence 2002. White has an advan­tage here, as 17 . . . g4? can be met by 18

44

i.xe4 dxe4 19 'ii'xf4 i.e6 20 'ifxe4! gxf3 21 'ii'g6+ 'it>h8 22 tLlf4 winning easily.

B) 3 ... tLle71? This is an interesting sideline. Black

waits for White to commit to his set-up and then plays accordingly. The prob­lem is that the knight is not well placed, and after . . . tLlg6 there is always the idea of h2-h4 for White. 4 tLlgf3!

4 ... g6 Alternatively: a) 4 . . . tLlbc6?! 5 c3 tLlg6 6 h4! e5 7

exd5 'ilfxd5 8 i.c4 'ii'd7 9 tLlg5 tLld8 10 h5 tLlf4 1 1 g3 b5 12 gxf4 bxc4 13 fxe5 was winning for White in E.Prandstetter-M.Netusil, Czech League 2005.

b) 4 . . . c5?! is also dubious: 5 dxc5! tLlec6 (5 . . . tLld7? 6 i.b5!; 5 . . . 'ii'a5 6 i.d3!? 'ii'xc5 7 0-0 tLlbc6 8 a3 i.d7 9 b4 'ii'c3 10 l:!.b1 tLle5 1 1 i.b2 tLlxf3+ 12 tLlxf3 was clearly better for White in I.Donev­R.Emst, Swiss League 1996) 6 exd5 'ii'xd5 7 i.c4 'ii'xc5 8 0-0 tLld7 9 b3!? tLlf6 10 i.b2 i.e7 1 1 'iie2 0-0 12 .l::.fd1 l::td8 13 a3 tLlb8 14 tLleS tiJdS 15 'ilfhs g6 16 'ii'f3

£5 and here 17 lt:\e4! led to a win for White in N.Lakos-L.Toth, Budapest 2003.

c) 4 . . . lt:Jd7!? (another waiting move; this position can also arise via 3 . . . lt:Jd7 4 lt:\g£3 lt:\e7) 5 i.d3 c5 6 exd5! lt:Jxd5 (6 . . . exd5 7 dxc5 lt:\xc5 8 i.bS+ i.d7 9 i.xd7+ •xd7 10 0-0 lt:\c6 1 1 lt:Jb3 gives White an edge, S.Cela-B.Certic, Obren­ovac 2005) 7 0-0 i.e7 8 lt:\e4 cxd4 9 lt:\xd4 tt::\e5 10 ..tbS+ ..td7 (H.Hofstetter­M.Koch, correspondence 1990) 1 1 �5! and White has the initiative.

d) 4 . . . lt:\g6 5 h4! is a standard idea that sets Black problems:

5 .. . h5! (5 .. . c5 6 h5 lt:\e7 7 dxc5! •as 8 h6 1i'xc5 [8 . . . g6? 9 a3! 'ii'xc5 10 b4 'ii'b6 11 i.b2] 9 exd5 'ii'xd5 10 i.c4 'ii'c6 1 1 'ii'e2 with a clear advantage; or 5 . . . ..te7 6 h5 lt:\£8 7 c3 lt:Jbd7 8 i.d3 c5 9 e5 lt:Jb8 10 dxc5 i.xc5 11 1i'a4+ lt:\c6 12 'iig4 and Black's position is terrible, K.Ras­mussen-D.Rej, Copenhagen 1993) 6 g3! (the only move that poses problems to Black) 6 . . . c5 7 i.g2 (7 exd5! ? 1i'xd5 8 i.c4 looks slightly better for White) 7 . . . lt:\c6 (7 . . . cxd4 8 lt:\xd4 e5 9 lt:\£5!) 8 exd5 (8 c3! ?) 8 . . . Wxd5 (S.Garcia Marti-

U n u s u a l Th ird Moves for B lack

nez-G.Garcia Gonzalez, Havana 1978) 9 dxc5! i.xc5 10 0-0 i.e7 1 1 lt:\g5! 1i'd7 12 lt:\c4 •xd1 13 llxd1 and White has the advantage. 5 h41 h6

White has the initiative after 5 . . . h5 6 i.d3 i.g7 7 c3 lt:Jd7 8 e5 c5 (H.Schau­felberger-E.Turunen, Groningen 1969) 9 0-0 lt:\£5 10 i.x£5 gx£5 11 c4! cxd4 12 .U.el . Note that Black must not hurry to capture on d4 as this give the c3-square to White's knight: 9 . . . cxd4?! 10 cxd4 lt:Jf5 1 1 i.x£5 exf5 (or 1 l . . .gxf5 12 lt:Jb3 and i.gS) 12 lt:Jb1 ! followed by lt:\c3 to add pressure to the d5-pawn. 6 hs!?

6 i.d3 i.g7 7 c3 lt:Jd7 8 e5 c5 9 0-0 lt:\c6 10 i.b1 ! 'ii'b6 1 1 lt:Jb3 is the easy way to protect the d4-pawn and obtain a stable advantage. 6 ... gs 7 es cs s c3

8 ... cxd4 8 . . . lt:Jbc6 9 lt:Jb3 c4?! 10 lt:Jbd2 is bet­

ter for White, as b2-b3 is coming. 9 cxd4 lt:Jbc6 10 lt:Jb3 Wb6 11 i.d3 i.d7 12 o-o ..tg7 13 lt:Jh21 lt:Jxd4?

Black should play 13 . . . lt:\f5 but White is still better after 14 iLe3 0-0 15

4 5

How to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

lL!g4 l:tac8 16 'ii'd2 lL!b4 17 lLlc5. After 13 . . . lL!xd4, E.Geller-A.Maka­

rov, Ukrainian Ch., Kiev 1959, contin­ued 14 ..ie3 ..ixe5 15 lL!g4 ..ig7 16 lLlxd4 'ii'd8 (16 . . . ..ixd4 1 7 · lL!f6+ ..ixf6 -17 . . . �d8 18 lL!xd7 - 18 ..ixb6 axb6 was forced, although White would still keep a clear advantage after 19 'ii'b3) 17 lL!f3 lL!c6 18 ..ic5 'ii'c7 19 :e1 �d8 20 l:k1 'ii'f4 21 lL!fe5 lL!xe5 22 .l:lxe5 f5 23 'ii'e1 fxg4 24 1:txd5 l:tc8 25 .l:txd7+ �xd7 26 ..ib5+ �d8 27 l1d1+ �c7 28 'iia5+ and Black resigned.

C) 3 ... h6?1 Black plays a waiting move in order

to react accordingly to White's set-up. White must try to find a plan where the move . . . h6 will be of no use. 4 C31

I think this is the best move for White and it is wrongly underesti­mated by theory.

4 ..id3 c5 5 dxc5 ..ixc5 has been played many times but I don't think it's the right approach as Black's bishop has taken just one move to reach c5 (compare 3 . . . ..ie7 - Chapter 7) . We can also compare this idea with 3 . . . a6 4 ..id3 5 dxc5 ..ixc5 (Chapter 6), but I am not convinced that the move . . . h6 is less useful than . . . a6.

It is not easy for White to prove an advantage after 4 lL!gf3 lL!f6! . I think White's best shot is to concentrate on ideas with c2-c4: for example, 5 ..id3 c5 6 e5 lL!fd7 7 c4! ? (G.Ginsburg­V.Eingom, Metz 2003), or 5 e5 lL!fd7 6 c4! ? (L.Nisipeanu-S.Biro, Predeal 2007).

4 g3 is also an interesting idea:

4 6

4 . . . c5! ? (4 . . . dxe4 5 lL!xe4 transposes to a Rubinstein in which White's g3 is much more useful than . . . h6, and White has a slight advantage after 5 . . . lL!f6 6 lL!xf6+ 'ii'xf6 7 ..ig2 lL!d7 8 f4 c5 9 ..ie3) 5 exd5 'ii'xd5 6 lL!gf3 cxd4 7 ..ig2 lL!c6 8 0-0 lL!f6 9 lL!b3 d3 (9 . . . 'ii'd8?! 10 lL!fxd4 lL!xd4 1 1 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 12 lL!xd4 ..ic5 13 lL!b3 led to an advantageous ending for White in A.Kveinys-V.Sakalauskas, Vilnius 2004) 10 c3! . White has a small advantage here, as the d3-pawn will fall and the pressure of the g2-bishop on the long diagonal will be very an­noying for Black. 4 ... cs

4 . . . lL!f6? is out of question, as after 5 e5 lL!fd7 6 ..id3 c5 7 lL!e2 we reach a main line except that Black has ex­pended a move on . . . h6. This doesn't allow him to play the typical .. .£6 be­cause all the light squares on the king­side would be fatally weakened.

4 .. . dxe4 5 lL!xe4 lL!d7 transposing to Rubinstein has been proposed by some sources, but I don't like this idea.

After 6 lL!f3 lL!gf6 7 lL!xf6+ lL!xf6 (7 . . . 'ii'xf6 is inferior - as we'll see in

Chapter 21, in the variation with . . . 'iixf6 the knight must go to c6) 8 tt:'le5! we get a position very close to one reached in a very dangerous line of the Rubinstein, where c2-c3 is useful and of course . . . h6 only helps the white knight to stay on e5. Those of you curi­ous to see some ideas should look at the game G.Kasparov-R.Ponomariov, Linares 2002, where Garry demolished his young opponent. 5 exds

5 tt:'lgf3!? tt:'lf6 6 exd5! exd5 trans­poses. Instead 6 . . . tt:'lxd5 7 tt:'lb3 tt:'ld7 (G.Lane-N.Short, Calvia Olympiad 2004) 8 .ltb5! cxd4 9 'iixd4 is better for White. s ... exds

After 5 . . . Wxd5?! 6 tt:'lgf3 tt:'lc6 (or 6 . . . cxd4 7 .ltc4 and again c2-c3 is more useful than . . . h6) 7 .ltc4 'ii'd8 8 tt:'lb3! cxd4 9 tt:'lbxd4 tt:'lxd4 10 tt:'lxd4 White gets a favourable version of the line 3 tt'ld2 c5 4 tt'lgf3 cxd4 5 exd5 Wxd5, where h7-h6 is useless (compare Chap­ter 9). 6 tt:'lgf3

6 ... tt:'lc6

U n u s u a l Third Moves for B lack

After 6 . . . tt:'lf6 7 .ltb5+ .ltd7 8 .ltxd7+ tt:'lbxd7 9 0-0 I have to disagree with John Watson that this is a standard, balanced position. If we compare this to the main line in Chapter 12, after 9 . . . .lte7 10 dxc5 tt'lxc5 1 1 tt'ld4 0-0 (1 l . . .'it'd7 12 'Wf3 0-0 13 tt'lf5 is good for White, as it is not easy to remove the knight from f5 now that . . . h6 has been played) 12 tt'lf5 .ltd6 13 tt:'lb3 tt:'lce4 14 f3 tt'lg5 (D.Breder-M.Rupp, Internet 2004) 15 tt:'lxd6 Wxd6 16 .lte3 White has a solid advantage. 7 .ltbs cxd4

White gained a clear advantage in P.Roberson-M.Huerga Leache, Sibenik 2007, after 7 . . . Wb6 8 'ii'e2+! .lte6 9 0-0 tt:'lf6 10 dxc5 .ltxc5 1 1 tt:'lb3 a6 12 tt'lxc5 Wxc5 13 .ltxc6+ 'ii'xc6 14 tt'ld4 'ii'd7 15 .ltf4 0-0 16 .lte5.

s o-ol? 8 We2+ is of course at least slightly

better for White (compare the 3 . . . c5 variation).

8 tt:'lxd4 is also interesting: 8 . . . .ltd7 (if 8 . . . We7+ 9 tt:'le2 and Black's devel­opment on the kingside is terrible) 9 tt:'l2f3 .ltd6 10 0-0 tt'lge7 1 1 lle1 0-0 12

4 7

How to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

Ji.e3 and White has the advantage. 8 ... ..11i.d7

8 . . . dxc3 9 l:te1+ Ji.e7 10 bxc3 gives White a dangerous initiative, as 10 . . . ti:J£6? can be met by 11 ti:ld4 Ji.d7 12 Ji.a3.

With 8 . . . ..11i.d7 we have been follow­ing the game S.Conquest-E.Bricard, Reykjavik 2000. Here 9 .l:te1+! Ji.e7 10 cxd4 tt::l£6 11 ii.xc6 ii.xc6 12 'iie2 .:.c8 13 ti:Jb3 a6 (13 . . . llc7 is met by 14 Ji.£4) 14 ti:Jh4 g6 15 tt::l£3 'iii£8! 16 tt::le5 Ji.b5 17 'ii£3 'iitg7 18 Ji.£4 would give White a slight advantage.

D) 3 ... b61?

4 8

3 . . . b6 is not a good move, as long as White knows exactly what to do and gives special attention to some details. 4 ti:lgf3

Now we will look at:

01: 4 ... ..11i.b7 D2: 4 ... dxe4 03: 4 ... tt:Jf6

01) 4 ... ..11i.b7 5 Ji.bS+I

This is a typical check which is seen in many French lines with . . . b6. White provokes . . . c6 and then puts his bishop on d3. In this way the b7-bishop's path is blocked and Black must prepare . . . c5 to re-open it.

Although Ji.b5+ is a basic idea, White mustn't play this move without care, as in some positions Black can use the extra tempo to continue with the set-up . . . c6, . . . tt:Jd7, . . . 'iic7 and . . . 0-0-0. s ... c6 6 Ji.d3 Ji.e7

6 . . . c5 allows White to open the posi­tion with 7 exd5! . B.De Wolf­B.Coulding, correspondence 2001, con­tinued 7 . . . ..11i.xd5 8 0-0 tt::lc6 9 dxc5 il.xc5 10 a3 (10 c4! ?) 10 . . . a5 1 1 c4 Ji.xf3 12

lbxf3 lLlf6 13 i.g5 lbd4 14 lLle5! h6 (14 . . . 0-0 15 i.xf6! gxf6 16 it'g4+ 'it>h8 17 it'h5 f5 18 lDxf7+ and White wins) 15 i.h4 i.d6 16 lLlf3 lLlxf3+ 17 it'xf3 and White enjoyed a clear advantage. 7 o-o dxe4 8 lbxe4 lLlf6 9 lDxf6+ i.xf6 10 i.f4 o-o 11 it'e2

G.Kasparov-S.Agdestein, Tilburg 1989, continued 1 l . . .it'd5 12 i.e4 'ii'h5 13 a4! when White had a small advan­tage which Kasparov converted in a model game: 13 . . . lDd7 14 aS bxa5 15 i.d6 .l::tfc8 16 it'd2 i.d8 17 lDe5! lDxe5 18 dxe5 i.a6 19 l:tfe1 f5 20 exf6 i.xf6 21 l:ha5 i.b5 22 c4 and White won.

I am sure that on 1 1 . . .c5 Kasparov had prepared 12 dxc5! i.xb2 (12 . . . bxc5 13 .:ad1 it'b6 14 c3 is better for White) 13 i.xh7+! 'it>xh7 14 lDg5+ �g8 15 'tli'hs i.e4 16 lDxe4 with a winning attack, as 16 . . . i.xa1? can be met by 17 lDg5.

02) 4 ... dxe4 5 lDxe4 i.b7 6 i.bS+! c6 Sometimes Black tries to avoid play­

ing . . . c6, but without success: 6 . . . i.c6 (Black must also avoid 6 . . . lDd7? 7 lDe5! ) 7 i.d3 lDd7 (7 . . . lDf6 8 lDxf6+ gxf6 9 0-0 it'd5 10 c4 it'h5 1 1 d5! opened the posi-

U n u s u a l Th i rd Moves for B lack

tion to White's advantage in T.Hor­vath-I.Lovass, Budapest 1982) 8 it'e2! i.e7 9 lDeg5! (this is a typical idea) 9 . . . lDgf6 10 lDx£7! i.xf3 (or 10 . . . �xf7 1 1 lDg5+ �e8 1 2 lDxe6 it'c8 13 lDxg7+ with a winning attack) 1 1 'ii'xe6 lDf8 12 lDxd8 lbxe6 13 lDxe6 i.xg2 14 .l:r.g1 and Black resigned, V.Kotronias-S.Peric, Linares 2002. 7 i.d3 lDd7

Black wants to transpose to posi­tions similar to those in the Rubinstein Variation, but there is one small detail exposed by White's next move.

After 7 . . . i.e7 8 it'e2 lDf6 (compare 8 . . . lDd7 9 i.f4! lDdf6 10 lDeg5! to the main line below) 9 0-0 lDbd7 (9 . . . lDxe4 10 it'xe4! lDd7 1 1 it'g4 is good for White) 10 lDeg5 0-0 1 1 l:te1 c5 12 lDxe6! i.xf3 13 gxf3 fxe6 14 it'xe6+ �h8 15 it'xe7 it'c7 (L.Nielsen-H.Kirkmeester, Haderslev 1981) 16 l:te6! l:tae8 (16 . . . cxd4 17 it'd6) 17 it'd6 it'xd6 (if 17 . . . it'b7 18 d5) 18 l:hd6 .l:te1+ 19 �g2 cxd4 20 b3 White will continue with 21 i.b2, ob­taining a clear advantage. 8 i.f41

Now the d6-square is very weak

4 9

How to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

and Black must put his pieces in awk­ward positions. s ... lDdf6 g lbegs! lDds

9 . . . h6 loses to 10 lDxf7! 'it>xf7 1 1 lDeS+. 10 i.d2 i.e7 11 lDxf7!

This is very strong. 11 ... 'it>xf7 12 lDes+ 'it>fs 13 'iihs 'lies 14 i.g6! lDgf6 15 i.xeB lDxhs 16 i.xhs

and White was winning in Y.Gri.infeld-M.Czemiak, Biel 1979.

D3) 4 ... lDf6 s lDes l

This i s the best idea. White doesn't hurry to take on dS for a few reasons:

1 . He doesn't want to give Black the opportunity to recapture on dS with the knight.

2. He keeps the option open of play­ing e4-e5.

3. White's basic plan is to capture on dS at an appropriate moment and to establish a knight on eS. The best square for Black's dark-squared bishop is on d6 to control eS. By delaying the capture on dS White has the option of answering . . . i.d6 with lDxf7 followed by e4-e5, securing a small edge because

5 0

of the bishop pair and the insecure po­sition of Black's king. s ... i.b7

Alternatively: a) s . . . i.a6 6 i.xa6 lbxa6 7 c4! threat­

ening 'iia4+ is awkward for Black. b) If S . . . i.d6, 6 i.bS+! is stronger

than 6 lbxf7. c) After S . . . dxe4 6 i.bS+! i.d7 7

lDxd7 lDbxd7 8 i.c6 l:tc8 9 0-0 i.d6 10 :Le1 (not 10 lDxe4? lDxe4 11 i.xe4 i.xh2+!) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 lDxe4 lDxe4 12 l:txe4 White has the initiative and the bishop pair too.

d) S . . . c6 6 i.d3 and now: d1) 6 . . . dxe4?! is not a good move,

but attention is required by White: 7 lDxe4 'iixd4 8 lDxf6+ gxf6 9 lDxf7! .l:Lg8 10 'iihs .l:Lxg2

1 1 i.e3! (1 1 lDd6+ 'it>d7 12 'iif3 was given by .Khalifman in his series Open­ing for White according to Anand, but Black is doing fine after 12 . . . 'iig4! 13 'iixg4 .l:txg4) 1 1 . . .'iixb2 12 .l:!.d1 'it>e7 13 i.e2! gives White a very strong attack: for example, 13 . . . i.d7 14 lDd6 'it>d8 15 i.d4! 'iixc2 16 i.xf6+ 'it>c7 17 i.eS and Black's king will suffer for a long time.

d2) 6 . . . ..te7 7 exdS (now that the Black bishop is on e7, White is happy to exchange on dS) 7 . . . exd5 8 0-0 0-0 9 l:[e1 Wc7 10 ti:Jdf3 ..id6 (D.Batsanin­L.Totsky, Omsk/Perm 1998) 11 ..if4! l:e8 12 'ii'd2 and White has an edge. 6 ..tb5+1 c6 7 ..id3

1 • • • ..te1 7 . . . ..td6 8 ti:Jxf7! <J;xf7 9 e5 is slightly

better for White, and 7 . . . ti:Jbd7!? is cov­ered in the illustrative game Tis­chbierek-Hertneck at the end of this chapter.

7 . . . dxe4 8 tt:Jxe4 ii'xd4 9 ti:Jxf6+ gxf6 10 tt:Jxf7! .l:r.g8 1 1 Whs is even worse than in the previous note, since the bishop on b7 is hanging and the e6-pawn is unprotected. 8 exd5 exd5

After 8 . . . ii'xd5 9 ti:Jdf3 0-0 10 0-0 lLlbd7 1 1 c4 Black's queen has some difficult problems to solve. 9 0-0 0-0 10 .:te1! c5!?

10 . . . ti:Jbd7 runs into 1 1 ..ta6! ii'c7 (1 l . . . ..ixa6 12 tt:Jxc6) 12 ..ixb7 'ii'xb7 13 lLlxc6. 11 c3 ti:Jbd7 12 ti:Jdf3 ..td6 13 ..tg5 ii'c71

Black certainly shouldn't allow

U n u s u a l Th i rd Moves for B lack

13 . . . h6? 14 ti:Jxd7 ii'xd7 15 ..ixf6 gxf6 16 'ii'd2, as played in I.Zaitsev-L.Totsky, Moscow 1996. 14 tt:Jxd7 tt:Jxd7 15 ..te71

15 • • • ..txe7 15 .. J:i.fe8 loses to 16 ..txh7+! <3;xh7 17

tLlgS+ <3;g6 18 .l:te6+! fxe6 19 'ii'd3+ and it's mate in two! 16 .l:r.xe7 ii'd6

The 'logical' 16 . . . .l:tae8 loses at once: 17 ..ixh7+! <3;xh7 18 'ifd3+ g6 (or 18 .. .f5 19 tLlgS+ <3;g6 20 ti:Je6) 19 tLlgS+ <3;h6 (19 . . . <3;g7 20 tt:Je6+; 19 . . . <3;g8 20 Wh3) 20 ii'd2 .l:txe7 21 ti:Je6+ <3;h7 22 tLlxc7. 17 'ii'e2

White enjoys a definite advantage here: he controls the e-file, has the bet­ter bishop, will triple on the e-file and can consider ideas like tLlgS or 'ii'e3-g5-g3.

I l lustrative Game

R.Tischbierek-G.Hertneck Altenkirchen 2001

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ti:Jd2 b6 4 ti:Jgf3 ti:Jf6 5 ti:Je51 ..tb7 6 ..tb5+ c6 7 ..td3 ti:Jbd71?

5 1

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

Black tries to challenge White's best-placed piece. 8 ttJxd7 ltJxd7 9 es

White reaps one of the benefits of avoiding an immediate exchange on dS. He establishes a strong pawn centre now that Black's knight cannot add pressure to its base (the d4-pawn) from the c6-square. 9 ... C5 10 C3 aS 11 't!i'e2 'ifc8 12 0-0

12 ... ..te7?1 The consistent move was 12 .. . cxd4

13 cxd4 ..ta6, but White can continue his attack with 14 f4! trying to open the position with f4-f5. White enjoys better development and Black's king cannot easily find a shelter. For example, 14 . . . ..txd3 15 'ii'xd3 g6 16 g4! hS 17 fS! gxfS 18 gxfS .l:r.g8+ 19 <ith1 'ii'c6 and White retains an attack even after the queen exchange after 20 lbf3 'ii'c4 21 'ii'xc4 dxc4 22 ltJgS! . 13 'ii'g4!

Now Black has problems. 13 • . . 'iW8

5 2

If 13 . . . g6, 14 l:te1 intending lbf3 and ..tgs or ..th6. 14 l:te1!

White grabs the chance to preserve his good bishop. 14 ... ..ta6 15 ..tb1 cxd4 16 cxd4 .l:r.a7 17 lbf3 h6 18 ..td2 llc7 19 a3 'ii'e8

The basic problem in Black's posi­tion is the rook on h8. 20 h41 I:!.c6 21 'ii'f4 <itg8 22 hS gS 23 'ii'g3 <itg7 24 lbh21

Planning to open the kingside with f2-f4. Black's response looks suicidal. 24 • . . fs 25 exf6+! ..txf6 26 ..tg6 'ii'b8 27 'ii'h3 'ifd6 28 ..tc3

White's plan consists of putting the knight on g4 and doubling the rooks on the e-file. 28 ... es??

Black should have tried to defend passively with 28 . . . lbf8. 29 dxes ttJxes 30 ..txesl ..txes 31 .l:r.xes! 1-0

Black is mated after 3l . . .'ii'xe5 32 'ii'd7+ <itf6 33 lbg4 mate.

Cha pte r F ive

3 • • • ttJc6

1 e4 e 6 2 d 4 ds 3 ltJd2 ltJc6!? 3 . . . ltJc6 is the Guimard Variation.

Many strong players have adopted it occasionally, mainly because it has a unique character and quite distinctive ideas. By developing the knight on c6 Black hopes to advance in the centre with . . . e5. In the event that White plays e4-e5 himself, Black tries to break White's pawn chain with .. .£6. The main problem is that Black always has to reckon with the reply i.bS after the move .. .£6. 4 ltJgf3 ltJf6 5 es ltJd7 6 c31

I think this is the best idea. White simply plays a very useful move with­out showing his intentions. If Black doesn't play . . . f6, White will put his bishop on d3 and then castle or con­tinue with ltJd2-fl-g3.

Now we will consider:

A: 6 ... b6 B: 6 ... ..te7 C: 6 ... f6

I

Less important alternatives include: a) Trying to keep the position

closed with 6 . . . f5 is not a good idea: 7 h4! i.e7 8 i.d3 ltJcb8 9 g4! fxg4?! (9 . . . 0-0 10 gxf5 exf5 ll l:tg1 intending 1 l . . .i.xh4 12 ltJxh4 'ii'xh4 13 'it'f3! c6 14 ltJf1 'ii'e7 15 ltJg3 is clearly better for White) 10 ltJgS! i.xg5 1 1 hxg5 'ii'xg5 12 ltJf3 'it'e7 13 i.g6+! is already hopeless for Black, B.Sahl-P.Cramling, Gladsaxe 1983.

b) 6 . . . a5 7 i.d3 b6 8 'if'e2! ltJdb8!? (an interesting idea: Black keeps the knight on c6 in order to go to e7 and prevent the f4-f5 plan; 8 . . . ltJcb8 transposes to Line A, 8 . . . i.e7 9 0-0 to Line B) 9 0-0 i.a6 10 ltJe1 ltJe7 1 1 f4 i.xd3 12 ltJxd3 h5! (C.Wagener-P.Pcola, Pardubice 1998) 13 :tf3! ltJf5 14 .l:lh3 c5! ? (14 . . . h4 15 g4; or 14 . . . g6 15 ltJf1 ltJd7 16 ltJe3 with a small advantage for White) 15 dxc5 bxc5 16 ltJf2! and White is better.

c) 6 . . . ltJe7 7 i.d3 c5 8 0-0 ltJc6 9 lle1 c4 10 i.c2 b5 11 ltJ£1 aS 12 ltJgS! i.e7 13 'it'hs g6 14 'iig4 ltJ£8 (R.Tabet-B.Amin, Beirut 2000) 15 �f4! i.xg5 16 'ii'xg5

5 3

How to B e a t th e Fre n c h Defe n c e

with a clear advantage thanks to Black's weaknesses on the dark squares.

A) 6 ... b6 7 �d3 as The idea of starting an attack with

the kingside pawns after 7 . . . �b7 8 0-0 �e7 9 l:.e1 gS 10 lLlfl hS shouldn't bring success as long as White doesn't panic and avoids moving his pawns in front of his king. As a rule of thumb, we shouldn't move pawns in the area our opponent is attacking, as we would give him targets he can use to open lines in his favour. H.Vonk-H.Karssen, Goch 2005, continued 1 1 �e3 lLlf8 12 lLl3d2 'ii'd7 13 b4 0-0-0 14 a4 lLlb8 15 bS g4 16 'ii'c2 h4 17 .:tecl lLlg6 18 aS lldg8 19 axb6 axb6 20 c4 and White won the race. 8 'ii'e21

'ii'e2 is the typical reaction to Black's plan of trying to exchange his bad bishop with . . . �a6. White first obliges his opponent to play . . . lLlcb8 in order to control the a6-square one more time, and then he is ready to play c3-c4 at an appropriate moment because the pres-

5 4

sure on the d4 pawn has disappeared. 8 ... lLlcb8 9 0-0 �a6 10 c4! c6 11 b3 �e7 12 J:te1 o-o 13 lLlf1 cs

Black tries to find counterplay in a cramped position. 14 cxds �xd3 15 'ii'xd3 exds 16 lLle3 cxd4

In the game Cu.Hansen-C.McNab, Hinnerup 1979, White could have now secured a clear advantage with 17 lLlxdS! .

B) 6 ... �e7 7 �d3

7 ... as This is a logical move, but White

has more than one interesting way to respond. Alternatives include:

a) 7 . . . lLlcb8 8 1i'c2! highlights an­other benefit of 6 c3: the c2-square is available to White's queen in order to create new weaknesses in Black's camp. After 8 . . . lLlf8 9 0-0 cS 10 dxcS! White has the advantage.

b) 7 . . . b6 8 lLlfl !? (when Black plays slowly, trying to finish his develop­ment before taking action in the centre, this idea fits the position very well) 8 . . . �b7 (8 . . . a5 was better now that

White no longer has the c3-c4 idea, but 9 ._,c2! h6 10 tt'le3 i.a6 1 1 i.xa6 .l:r.xa6 12 0-0 0-0 13 i.d2 followed by c3-c4 gives White a small advantage) 9 tt'lg3 tt'lf8 10 tt'lhS forced Black to play the ugly 10 . . . .l:r.g8 in D.Janosevic­M.Schauwecker, Biel 1979.

c) 7 . . . 0-0 8 b4!? a6 (8 . . . f6 9 bS tt'laS 10 ._,c2 fS 1 1 0-0 tt'lb6 12 a4 'iie8 13 i.a3 is also better for White) 9 0-0 f6 10 exf6 tt'lxf6 1 1 ._,e2 i.d6 O.Bames-N.Salmon, Seattle 1992) 12 tt'le5! and White has everything he could possibly hope for. 8 0-0

8 ._,c2 h6 9 0-0 b6 10 'it'a4!? is an idea that White often uses in order to dis­rupt the coordination of Black's pieces:

10 . . . i.b7 (or 10 ... tt'lcb8 11 b4!? c6 12 b5 cxb5 13 i.xb5 i.a6 14 c4 and White has the advantage; White must have in mind c3-c4 every time Black tries to trade his bishop, as after the exchange Black cannot cover his weaknesses on the light squares) 1 1 l:te1 tt'la7 12 tt'lfl c6 13 lt.Jg3 h5 14 lt.Je2 h4 15 h3 lt.Jf8 16 i.e3 ._,d7 17 ._,c2 c5 18 b3 left White threat­ening c3-c4 and with a clear advantage in A.Zozulia-E.Cosma, Marseille 2006.

3 . . . ll:Jc6

8 ... b6 9 'ife2 tt'lcb8 10 tt:Je1 i.a6 P.Fedosenko-V.Eryomenko, Dni-

propetrovsk 2003, and now White should continue 1 1 c4! when he enjoys a substantial advantage.

C) 6 ... f6 7 i.bS!

This typical response adds protec­tion to the e5-pawn. It is very impor­tant that White's queen is ready to jump to a4, another advantage of 6 c3! 7 ... fxes

Alternatively: a) After 7 . . . a6?! 8 i.xc6 bxc6 9 0-0

White has an obvious lead in develop­ment, For example:

a1) 9 .. .fxe5 10 dxe5! i.e7 1 1 lt.Jd4! lt.Jxe5 12 'it'h5+ lt.Jf7 13 lt.Jxc6 'it'd6 14 lt.Jxe7 'it'xe7 15 c4 c6 16 b3! 0-0 17 i.b2 e5 18 l:.ae1 obtains a strong attack as Black's centre is under heavy pressure.

a2) If 9 . . . c5 there follows 10 l:!.e1 with an initiative.

a3) For 9 .. .f5 see the illustrative game Moroz-Kruppa at the end of the chapter.

a4) 9 . . . i.e7 10 exf6! (when Black plays . . . i.e7 White can take on f6, as

5 5

How to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

now . . . 'ii'xf6 followed by . . . ..ltd6 is no longer possible) 10 . . . lLixf6 1 1 lLieS was clearly better for White in M.Schaefer­F.Titzhoff, Muenster 199S.

aS) 9 ... aS 10 .l:te1 f5 1 1 lLifl h6 12 lLig3 ..lte7 13 lLihS with a promising attack, H.Eickhoff-T.Stenzel, Kleve 1999. Here 13 . . . g6 14 lLif6+! lLixf6 1S exf6 ..ltxf6 16 ..tf4 gS 17 ..teS would leave White with a tremendous knight against a terrible bishop.

b) 7 . . . ..te7?! 8 exf6! (of course! ) 8 . . . ..txf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 .l:te1 l:te8 1 1 lLib3 aS (ll . . . eS doesn't solve Black's problems after 12 ..txc6 bxc6 13 lLiaS! l:te6 14 dxeS lLixeS 1S lixeS! .l:!.xeS 16 lt::lxc6, S.Mladenov-F.Castaldo, Patra 2001) 12 ..li.f4 (everything points to eS) 12 . . . a4 13 lbcl lbb6 14 lbd3 with a clear advan­tage for White, P.Anisimov-N.Monin, St Petersburg 2001 . 8 dxes ..te7

8 . . . a6?! is inaccurate on account of 9 ..li.xc6 bxc6 10 0-0 cS 1 1 Wa4! and now:

a) White keeps a strong initiative af­ter 1 l . . . ..ltb7? 12 lLib3, as Black has to contend not only with the threat of the obvious tLlaS but also with a spectacu-

5 6

lar knight entrance on cS! : 12 . . . l:tb8 13 ..ltgS Wc8 (13 . . . ..te7 14 lLixcS! ..ltxgS 1S lbxe6) 14 Wg4 lLib6 1S ..lte3 lbc4 (it's positional suicide to give up the cS­pawn, but 1S . . . c4 loses to 16 lLibd4 �e7 17 tLlgS) 16 ..txcS lLixb2 17 ..ltxf8 �xf8 18 lLicS and White soon won in I.Moiseev­T.Galinsky, Kiev 2004.

b) ll . . . ..te7?! 12 Wg4! �f7 13 c4! is very good for White.

c) 1 l . . .aS! 12 lLib3 l:ta6 (or 12 . . . ..te7 13 Wg4! �f8 14 .l:.e1 a4 1S tLlgS!, M.Barnes­D.Mayers, London 1993) 13 ..tgS ..te7 and now the simplest route to an edge is 14 Wf4 a4 1S tLlbd2. g lbd4!

This strong novelty, which Kotronias unleashed against Halkias, obliges Black to take a pawn and suffer for a long time. g ... lbdxes l

This move i s forced and was also proposed by Watson in his recent book Dangerous Weapons: The French. Watson is a renowned expert on the French (everybody is aware of his excellent Play the French series) and a very brave player too, but I doubt that the result-

ing positions are to everyone's taste. Halkias did not capture on e5, an

understandable reaction to facing such a strong novelty over the board. But by declining the sacrifice Black accepts an inferior position without any counter­play: 9 . . . tt:Jxd4 10 cxd4 0-0 1 1 i.d3! c5 12 'ifu5!

12 . . . l:.f5 (after 12 . . . g6 13 i.xg6! hxg6 14 'ifxg6+ �h8 15 h4! the white rook is ready to come to h3 and there is no defence for Black: for example, 15 .. . .:tf5 16 'ifu6+ �g8 17 l:.h3 i.f8 18 .l:.g3+ �f7 19 'ifg6+ �e7 20 tt:Jf3 intending i.g5+) 13 i.xf5 exf5 14 'iff3 (14 'ifxf5 is also strong) 14 . . . tt:Jf8 15 dxc5 b6 16 0-0 bxc5 17 tt:Jc4! with a clear advantage, V.Kotronias-S.Halkias, Kalamata 2005. 10 f41

Black's idea is that 10 'ifu5+ �f8 1 1 f4!? allows him to escape via 1 1 . . .tt:Jxd4 12 fxe5 tt:Jf5! (the only move) . 1o ... a6l 11 'ifhS+ �d7

Black's king is in the centre of the board, but many defenders protect it. White must play in a positional way, and not rush. 12 ..txc6+1 tt:Jxc6 13 tiJ2f3

3 . . .ti:Jc6

White has exchanged his bishop for a knight in order to take control of the dark squares d4 and e5, and he is ready to finish his development with i.e3 and 0-0. Black is a pawn up but his pieces are undeveloped and his king is not completely safe. It is very impor­tant to remember that White must al­ways recapture on d4 with the bishop. In that case Black is obliged to ex­change it, as on d4 the bishop exerts tremendous pressure. After this ex­change Black is left with a sad bishop on c8 against a monster knight on e5. 13 ... i.d6

Crucially Black cannot take imme­diately on d4, 13 . . . tt:Jxd4? losing to 14 tt:Je5+.

The alternative is 13 . . . i.f6 14 i.e3 'ife8 15 'ifh3! (the best square for White's queen whenever Black offers an exchange with . . .• e8) 15 . . . tt:Jxd4 16 i.xd4 b6!? (planning . . . i.b7 and . . . c5; 16 . . . c5? ! is a cheap trick which only helps White to open lines after 17 tt:Je5+! [ 17 i.xc5? �c6 18 i.e3 e5! ] 17 . . . �d6 18 i.f2 b6 19 b4!, already start­ing an attack) 17 tt:Je5+ �dB (after

5 7

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

17 . . . i.xe5 18 i.xeS Black will suffer for a long time) 18 b4! . White prevents . . . cS and makes sure he can always recap­ture on e5 with his bishop. He will con­tinue with 0-0 and · l:.ae1, obtaining a strong attack. 14 i.e3 1 'ii'e8 15 'ii'h3 lt:lxd4 16 i.xd41 i.xf4 17 0-0

White enjoys very good compensa­tion for the two pawns. Here are some possible variations: 11 .. :iie1

Or 17 . . . 'it>c6 18 .txg7 .l:.g8 19 .tes with a strong bind on the dark squares. 18 l:!.ae11 .l:!f8

After 18 . . . 'it>d8 19 i.e5 i.h6 20 i.g3 White is ready to play lt:le5 and pene­trate down the f-file, while there is the additional idea of i.h4.

If 18 . . . c5 19 i.e5 i.h6 White hits the dark squares (now that the black de­fender is just an observer on h6) and obtains a strong attack with 20 b4! : for example, 20 . . . cxb4 21 cxb4 'ii'xb4 22 lt:ld4 'ii'e7 23 i.g3 when e6 is falling and with it the security of Black's king. 19 'ii'xh7 i.d6 20 lt:\e5+ i.xe5 21 i.xe5

White is playing with a rook and a bishop more!

I l lustrative Game

A.Moroz-Y.Kruppa Momotov Memorial, Enakievo, 1997

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:ld2 lt:lc6 4 lt:lgf3 lt:lf6 5 e5 lt:ld7 6 c3 f6 7 i.b51 a6 8 i.xc6 bxc6 9 o-o f5

Trying to keep the position closed. 10 lt:lb3

5 8

10 c4!? dxc4 1 1 lt:lxc4 lt:lb6 12 'ii'c2 is also better for White. 10 ... a5 11 lt:lg5l

1 1 i.g5 i.e7 12 'ii'd2 i s enough for an edge, but the text move is stronger. 11 ... 'ii'e7 12 i.e3 g6 13 f41

White begins a very deep plan. He first protects the e5-pawn. 13 ... h6 14 lt:lf3 'ifg7

15 lt:lc51 Creating an outpost on d4 after the

exchange on c5, and also producing a pawn majority on the queenside. 15 ... lt:lxc5 16 dxc5 g5 17 b4 gxf4 18 i.xf4 i.e7 19 'iWd2 i.d7 20 a4 'iii>f7 21 lt:ld4 .tg5 22 'ii'e2 'iii>e7 23 b5

White has almost effortlessly achieved a winning position. 23 ... 'iii>d8 24 bxc6 i.c8 25 c4!

Opening the d-file, so that Black's king has no place to hide. 25 ... 1i'e7 26 cxd5 'ii'xc5 27 'ii'e3 'ii'xd5 28 i.xg5+ hxg5 29 'ii'xg5+ 'it>e8 30 'ii'g6+ 'it>f8 31 'iif6+ 'it>g8 32 'ii'g6+ 'iii>f8 33 'ii'f6+ 'it>g8 34 .l:r.ad1 1-0

Note that all of the black pieces ex­cept the king and the queen are in their starting positions!

Chapte r S i x I 3 . . . a 6

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d s 3 lDd2 a61? 3 . . . a6 is a very interesting variation.

Black intends to play . . . c5 and is ready to accept an isolated pawn, but without allowing any exchanges based on i.b5+. Furthermore, after the capture on c5, the black bishop will be devel­oped in one move (compared to two in 3 . . . i.e7 lines - see Chapter 7), and it will retreat to a7 to keep pressure on the f2- pawn. 4 i.d3 !

I think this i s the most dangerous

move. White maintains all his options open and doesn't hurry to exchange on d5, thereby keeping the black bishop on c8 in its 'box' . 4 ... cs s dxcs i.xcs

After 5 . . . lL\d7?! White can play to hold on to the b4-pawn with 6 b4! . This is very logical because Black's play is based upon breaking White's pawn chain with . . . aS, and this means the earlier . . . a6 is simply a lost tempo. For example, 6 . . . a5 7 exd5 'iif6 (7 . . . exd5 8 'iie2+ i.e7 9 c3 is also clearly better for White) 8 l:tb1 'We5+ 9 lDe2 axb4 10 dxe6 'iixe6 1 1 0-0 i.xc5 12 lDf4 'iic6 13 'iie2+ with a clear advantage for White, L.Psakhis-A.Giaccio, Andorra 2000.

5 . . . lDf6!? is an interesting idea: 6 exd5 (even though 6 'iie2! ? seems more logical, it allows Black to transpose to a favourable variation after 6 . . . lDc6 7 lDgf3 i.xc5 8 0-0 'Wc7!) 6 . . . 'iixd5 7 lDgf3 i.xc5 8 'ii'e2 lDbd7 9 0-0! 0-0 (9 . . . b5 10 lDb3 i.b7 1 1 i.g5 is good for White) 10 l:td1 'ii'h5 1 1 h3 b5 12 ltjfl i.b7 13 lDg3!

5 9

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

�xf3 14 tt:\xh5 �xe2 15 �xe2 with an edge for White thanks to his bishop pair. 6 tt:\gf3

6 • • • tt:\c6 Or 6 . . . tt:\f6 7 'ife2! and now: a) 7 . . . dxe4?! 8 tt:\xe4 tt:\xe4 9 'ifxe4

tt:\d7 10 0-0 tt:\f6 1 1 'iih4 with an initia­tive for White.

b) 7 . . . 0-0 8 e5 tt:\fd7 9 tt:\b3 �e7 10 h4!? h6 1 1 :th3 f5! (a typical reaction to White's attack - Black needs space in order to organize his defence) 12 �f4 tt:\c6 13 0-0-0 aS (M.Bartel-D.Kutuzov, Calvia 2006) 14 l:!.g3! 'iti>h8! (14 . . . .i.xh4 15 .l:.g6 'iti>£7 16 tt:\xh4 'iixh4 17 .i.g3 'ifa4 18 'ifh5 wins for White) 15 �g6 a4 16 tt:\bd4 tt:\c5 17 a3 and White plans 'iie3 targeting the h6-pawn.

c) 7 . . . tt:\c6 8 exd5! (8 0-0 'iic7! is what Black is hoping for - see Line A) 8 . . . tt:\xd5 9 tt:\e4 .i.e7 (or 9 . . . tt:\d4 10 tt:\xd4 .i.xd4 1 1 0-0 'iic7 12 c3 .i.a7 13 'iih5! ) 10 c4! ? f5! ? (10 . . . .i.b4+?! 1 1 'iti>fl tt:\f6 12 tt:\xf6+ gxf6 13 .i.h6 .i.e7 14 a3 gave White an edge in K.Chernyshov­P.Kiriakov, Orel 1992 - his king will be safe after g3 and 'iti>g2; 10 . . . tt:\db4?! is

6 0

also good for White after 1 1 �b1 0-0 1 2 0-0 e5 1 3 a3) 1 1 tt:\g3 .i.b4+ 1 2 'iti>fl tt:\de7 13 a3 �d6 14 b4 b6 15 .i.b2 0-0 16 tt:\h5! with a strong initiative for White. 7 0-0

Now we will look at:

A: 7 • • • tt:\f6 B: 7 ... tt:\ge7!?

7 . . . tt:\b4?! is dubious since White can simply withdraw his bishop. After 8 .i.e2! tt:\f6 9 a3! dxe4 10 axb4 exf3 1 1 bxc5! fxe2 1 2 'iixe2 .i.d7 1 3 .:!.d1 0-0 14 tt:\c4 tt:\d5 15 tt:\e5 Black was already in serious trouble in the game V.Belikov­N.Legky, Spasskoe 1996.

A) 7 • • • tt:\f6 8 a3 ! When Black plays . . . tt:\f6 the plan of

a2-a3 and b2-b4 is very dangerous. 8 'iie2? ! is popular but I don't think

it's the best, and Black can continue with 8 . . . 'iic7! 9 a3! ? 0-0! . In general Black must be wary of castling early, as this often allows White to begin a dan­gerous attack. However, in this posi­tion castling seems fine for Black: 10 e5

lbd7! 1 1 lDb3 ii.a7! (it seems risky to move the bishop away from controlling the g5-square, but it is more important to keep the pressure on f2) 12 J:te1 ! (12 .i.xh7+ �xh7 13 lbg5+ �g6 14 �d3+ f5 isn't clear) 12 . . .f6! (12 . . . .i.b8? loses to 13 .i.xh7+!) 13 exf6 lDxf6 14 .i.e3 .i.xe3 15 �xe3 lbg4 16 �g5 e5! and Black ob­tains adequate counterplay.

8 ... 0-0 Alternatively: a) 8 . . . dxe4 9 lbxe4 lbxe4 10 .i.xe4

�xd1 1 1 l:.xd1 .i.d7 is better for White: for example, 12 lbg5 lbd8 (12 . . . h6? 13 lbxf7) 13 .i.xh7! f6 (13 . . . J:txh7? 14 lDxh7 f6 loses to the amazing 15 .i.h6!) 14 .i.g6+ �e7 15 lbe4 with a clear advan­tage, A.Stebbings-P .Chenaux, Hastings 1995.

b) 8 ... 'ii'c7 9 b4 .i.e7 10 .i.b2 dxe4 1 1 lDxe4 lbxe4 12 .i.xe4 0-0 13 c4 was slightly better for White in I.Glek­A.Blees, Lyon 1990.

c) 8 . . . ..ta7 9 b4 (9 exd5!?) 9 . . . e5! ? 10 c4! dxe4 11 lbxe4 .i.g4 (Z.Efimenko­D.Chuprikov, Alushta 2002) 12 c5! 0-0 13 .i.g5 lbd4 14 ..txf6 gxf6 15 ..te2 and White has the initiative.

3 . . . a 6

d) 8 . . . a5!? (preventing expansion on the queenside) 9 ii'e2 0-0 10 e5 lbd7 1 1 lbb3 .i.e7! (1 l . . . .i.a7? loses on the spot after 12 ..txh7+ �xh7 13 lbg5+ �g6 14 'ii'd3+ f5 15 lbxe6; Black can defend against this only with the queen on c7, so as to be able to play . . . 'ii'xe5 in simi­lar positions) 12 i.f4 a4 13 lbbd4 lbc5 14 .l:r.fd1 and White has a small edge. This position is similar to those arising after 3 . . . ..te7, and if the reader wants to be familiar with this type of position he must also study Chapter 7. 9 b4 .i.e7

After 9 . . . ..ta7 10 .i.b2 d4 (10 . . . b5! ?) 1 1 e5 lbg4 12 'ii'e2 f5 (R.Nicevski­V.Raicevic, Stip 1977) 13 h3! lDh6 14 :fd1 lbf7 15 c3! dxc3 16 .i.xc3 White has gained a clear advantage - he has managed to open the position and is well set to exploit his better develop­ment. 10 esl? lDd7

10 ... lbg4!? 11 ..tb2 b5 12 h3 lDh6 13 lbb3 is slightly better for White. 11 .i.b2 �c7 12 .l:te1

12 c4! ? is worth exploring. 12 ... b5J?

White also keeps an edge after 12 .. .f6 13 exf6 .i.xf6 14 .i.xf6 lDxf6 15 c4. 13 lDb3 ..tb7

13 .. . lDb6?! 14 lDfd4! lbc4 (14 .. . lbxe5? 15 lbxb5! ) 15 lbxc6 'ii'xc6 16 .i.d4 gave White a clear plus in R.Kholmov­P.Kiriakov, Perm 1998 - he controls the dark squares and Black's light-squared bishop is a miserable piece. 14 lDbd4 lDb6 15 lbxc6 ..txc6 16 lbd4

(I.Glek-M.Gurevich, Austrian League 2002) White has a small advan-

6 1

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

tage because there's an easy attacking plan based on 'ii'h5 (or 'iig4) followed by l:.e3-:h3 (or l:tg3). Note also that 16 . . . tt:lc4 can be met by 17 'ii'h5! g6 17 'ii'h6 tt:lxb2 18 l::te3! with a strong attack.

B) 7 ... tt:lge71? 8 c31 This is the best response when

Black plays . . . tt:lge7. 8 a3 is also possi­ble, but it's complicated and I see no reason for White to go for it. s .. . o-o g 'iie2

g ... tt:lg6 Or: a) 9 . . . ..ta7 10 lldl (10 ::tel !?) 10 . . . 'iic7

1 1 tt:lfl tt:lg6 12 ..tc2 dxe4 (12 . . . tt:lf4? 13 ..txf4 'iixf4 14 exd5 exd5 15 'iid3 g6 16 'iixd5) 13 ..txe4 f5 14 ..tc2 tt:lce5 15 tt:lxe5 'iixe5 16 'iixe5 tt:lxe5 17 ..te3 and White has a comfortable edge, F.Calandri­O.Todorov, Porto San Giorgio 2002.

b) 9 . . . ..td6!? tries to provoke White: 10 e5 (10 tt:lb3! is best, transposing after 10 . . . tt:lg6 to the main text below) 10 . . . ..tc7 1 1 tt:lb3 tt:lg6 12 ..txg6 fxg6! (a very nice idea: Black creates action down the f-file) 13 tt:lbd4 ..td7 14 a4 tt:lxd4 15 cxd4 I:lf5 and Black has good

6 2

chances for counterplay, G.Marcotulli­M.Wurschner, correspondence 2003.

c) 9 . . . 'iic7!? 10 tt:lb3 ..ta7 (or 10 . . . ..td6 11 l:tdl ..td7 12 ..te3! with a slight edge) 11 l:tel tt:lg6 12 exd5 exd5 (C.Hanley­S.Brynell, Oslo 2005) 13 ..te3! l:te8 (13 . . . ..tg4 14 ..txa7 I:txa7 15 'ii'e3 and 13 . . . tt:lf4 14 'iic2 tt:lxd3 15 'iixd3 ..tb8 16 'iixd5 are also good for White) 14 'iid2 ..txe3 15 I:txe3 .l:he3 16 'iixe3 with a solid advantage for White. 10 tt:lb3 ..td6

It is unwise to release the tension in the centre with 10 . . . dxe4? 11 ..txe4.

E.Rozentalis-P.Nikolic, Moscow Olympiad 1994, demonstrates why: 11 . . . ..td6 12 ..te3 'iic7 (12 . . . tt:lf4? is bad, after as after 13 ..txf4 ..txf4 14 ..txh7+ �xh7 15 'iie4+ Black is simply a pawn down; 12 .. .f5? 13 ..txc6 bxc6 14 I:tadl is also clearly better for White) 13 .l:tadl l:td8 (it is not easy for Black to develop his bishop on c8 as after 13 . . . e5?! 14 tt:lg5! ..te7! [14 . . . tt:lce7?! 15 c4! h6 16 c5 is very good for White] 15 'ii'h5 ..txg5 16 'iixg5 White enjoys a clear advantage thanks to his bishop pair and better de­veloped pieces) 14 'iic4! ..td7 (after

14 . . . tt:Jge7 White should continue with 15 .11L.c5! intending 15 . . . b6 16 .11L.xd6 .l:.xd6 17 tt:Jbd4! .I1L.b7 18 tt:Jg5! with a winning attack) 15 .11L.xg6 hxg6 16 tt:Jg5! when the crude idea of 'ii'h4 caused Black serious problems.

10 . . . .ta7 can be met by 1 1 .11L.e3 .11L.b8 12 .Uad1 ! tt:Jf4 13 .11L.xf4 .11L.xf4 14 .11L.b1 tt:Je7 15 c4, when the pin on the d-file is very annoying for Black. 11 I:td11

Making it difficult to take on e4. 11 .. J:te8

ll . . . tt:Jf4?! loses a pawn to 12 .11L.xf4 .txf4 13 .11L.c2 .l:r.e8 14 exd5 exd5 15 'ii'd3. 12 .tgsl

12 .. . 'iic7 is no longer possible. 12 ... f6 13 .te3 'iic7

13 . . . tt:Jf4 is still inadequate as after 14 .11L.xf4 .txf4 15 .11L.c4 tt:Je7 16 exd5 exd5 17 'ii'e4! (what a picture!) 17 . . . .tc7 18 .11L.xd5+ White again wins a pawn.

13 . . . tt:Jce5 14 tt:Jxe5! tt:Jxe5! (14 . . . .11L.xe5?! 15 exd5 exd5 16 'ii'h5) 15 .11L.c2 and White has a stable advantage. 14 exdsl

This is the move I like the most, al­though it is not the only one to give

3 . . . a 6

White the advantage. 1 4 h3!? dxe4?! was played in the game E.Rozentalis­B.Esen, Athens 2007, but it plays into White's hands: 15 .11L.xe4 f5 16 .11L.xc6! bxc6 (16 . . . 1li'xc6 is met by 17 tt:Ja5 'iic7 18 tt:Jc4) 17 .I1L.b6! 'iie7 18 tt:Ja5! e5 (if 18 . . . tt:Jf4 19 'ii'c4) 19 tbxc6 'ii'f6 20 .td8! 'iif8 21 ttJg5 .te6 22 'iih5 h6 23 1t'xg6 hxg5 24 !Ixd6 .tf7 25 .11L.e7 .l:r.xe7 26 'iixf5 and Black resigned. A superb game from a specialist of the 3 . . . a6 variation, but from the White side!

Instead of 14 . . . dxe4, 14 . . . ttJce7! ? seems best because White must now play very accurately to keep an edge: 15 a4! dxe4 16 .txe4 f5 17 .tc2 tt:Jd5 18 ttJbd4! ttJgf4 19 .txf4 ttJxf4 20 'iie3, and White has a small plus after either 20 . . . ttJd5 21 'ii'e1 or 20 . . . g6 21 .tb3 <t>f8 22 tbe2! tbxe2+ 23 'ii'xe2 e5 24 1t'd2 .11L.e6! 25 1t'xd6+ 1t'xd6 26 llxd6 .11L.xb3 27 .l:r.d7. 14 ... exds 15 .txg6 hxg6 16 .l:r.xds

White is better, as Black does not seems to have any compensation for the pawn. For example 16 . . . .11L.e6 (or 16 . . . .11L.g4 17 h3) 17 .l:r.d2 tbe5 18 tbxe5 .11L.xe5 19 h3 .11L.h2+ 20 <t>h1 .11L.xb3 21 axb3 .i.f4 22 .U.d3 and White is a pawn up.

6 3

C h a pte r Seve n I

1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 ltJd2 ..i.e7!? This variation is the latest trend

against the Tarrasch, and those defend­ing the Black side include players such as Morozevich and Radjabov. Al­though 3 . . . ..te7 leads to very interesting and unusual positions, I think that White can keep a small advantage. 4 ..td3 cs

Sometimes Black tries to exchange the white bishop on d3 with 4 . . . ltJc6!? 5 ltJgf3 ltJb4 but after 6 ..i.e2 Black faces a difficult choice:

64

a) 6 . . . c5 7 exd5 ltJxd5 8 ltJb3 cxd4 9 0-0 ltJgf6 10 ltJbxd4 0-0 1 1 c4 ltJb4 was V.Kotronias-S.Lputian, Yerevan 2000. Now 12 ..tf4!? �6 (12 . . . .i.d7 13 ltJe5; or 12 . . . ltJc6 13 ltJxc6 bxc6 14 'i¥xd8 :xd8 15 ltJe5 ..i.b7 16 ..tf3 with an ideal position for White) 13 a3 ltJc6 14 b4! ? would give White the initiative as he has the better development and a queenside pawn majority.

b) 6 . . . ltJh6!? is a logical move. After 7 c3 ltJc6 8 0-0 0-0 9 .Ue1 a6 10 ..i.d3 f5 1 1 exd5 exd5 (L.Hyldkrog-J.Hebert, corre­spondence 1985) White should con­tinue with 12 ltJb3 f4 13 ..i.d2 ..i.f5 14 'i¥e2 ..i.xd3 15 'ii'xd3 'i¥d7 16 l:te2, and by doubling rooks on the e-file he re­tains an edge.

c) 6 . . . dxe4 accepts a Rubinstein-type centre. White obtained a stable advan­tage after 7 ltJxe4 ltJf6 8 ltJxf6+ ..i.xf6 9 c3 ltJd5 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 ..i.d3 b6 12 1t'c2! g6 (12 . . . h6 is a mistake, as following 13 1t'e2! White already threatens 1Ve4 cre­ating new weaknesses) 13 .l:Ie1 ..i.b7 14

i.h6 i.g7 IS i.xg7 'iftxg7 16 i.e4 in M.Adams-Y.Seirawan, 1 st matchgame, Bermuda 2000. s dxcs

s . . . �f6 S . . . i.xcS?! is inferior, as Black has lost

a tempo when compared to the 3 . . . a6 lines, e.g. 6 �gf3 �f6 (or 6 . . . �e7 7 0-0 �bc6 8 a3! 0-0 9 b4 i.b6 10 bS �as 1 1 i.b2 when White benefits from the ab­sence of . . . a6 to gain space on the queen­side, R.Callaghan-Z.Leskowsky, corre­spondence 1971 ) 7 eS �fd7 (worse is 7 . . . �g4 8 0-0 �c6 9 'ife2 f6 10 �b3 i.b6 11 exf6 'ifxf6 12 c4! with a clear advan­tage for White, A.Kapengut-V.Kuprei­chik, USSR 1976) 8 0-0 �c6 9 �b3 i.b6 10 :et f6? (Black opens the centre even though White is better developed) 1 1 exf6 �xf6 (H.Sameeh-S.Hassan, Tanta City 2001) 12 i.gS! 0-0 13 c4 and White has a strong attack.

The idea behind S . . . �d7!? is to direct the game towards typical isolated d­pawn positions, but with the white bishop somewhat misplaced on d3 and the black knight already in touch with the important e4-square after . . . �d7xcS.

3 . . . 1L e 7

It has been used with success by Lpu­tian and other good players, but White can get a small but enduring advantage after 6 exdS exdS (6 . . . �cS?! 7 .i.bS+) 7 �b3 �cS (or 7 . . . �gf6 8 i.e3 0-0 9 �f3 � 10 0-0 �dxc5 1 1 �xeS �xeS 12 �d4 �xd3 13 'ifxd3, I.Labib-A.Minasian, Linares 2001) 8 i.e3! .

This is the best move, obliging Black to take on d3. In the resulting position Black is behind in development; he also has an isolated pawn on dS and the bishop on c8 doesn't have a good square. Play continues with 8 . . . �xd3+ 9 'ii'xd3 �f6 10 �e2!? (so that Black can­not pin with . . . i.g4; sometimes the knight can jump to c3 or f4, pressuring the dS-pawn) 10 . . . 0-0 11 0-0 and now:

a) 11 . . . 'ii'c7 12 �g3 'ifc4 13 .l:.adl i.d7 14 l:tfel l:.fe8 IS h3 l:.ac8 16 c3 .i.a4 17 'ifc2 (or 17 i.xa7!? .i.xb3 18 axb3 'ifxb3 19 i.d4 with a strong attack) 17 . . . .i.cS 18 .i.xcS l:.xel+ 19 l:.xel l:.xcS 20 %S! d4 21 �xf6+ gxf6 22 'ifd2 .i.xb3 23 axb3 'ii'xb3 24 'ifxd4 and White was clearly on top in J.Emms-A.Walton, British League 200S.

b) ll . . . .i.e6 12 c3 'ifd7?! (12 . . . 'ifc7!

6 5

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

was stronger) 13 i.cS! ( a typical ex­change) 13 . . . l:tfe8 (13 . . . i.f5! was the best, trying to activate the bishop) 14 tt:Jed4 tt:Je4 15 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 16 l:.fe1 tt:JcS 17 tt:JxcS 'ii'xcS 18 .l:te3 with a clear ad­vantage for White, V.Dimitrov­M.Castro Molero, Olot 1992. 6 'i*'e2

Now we will look at:

A: 6 . . . 0-0 7 tiJgf3 tt:Jfd71? B: 6 . . . o-o 7 tt:Jgf3 as!? C: 6 • • • tt:Jc6 7 tt:Jgf3 i.xcs 0: 6 • • . tt:Jc6 7 tt:Jgf3 tt:Jb4

Alternatively: a) 6 . . . dxe4 7 tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxe4 8 i..xe4! 0-0

(8 . . . i.xc5 9 tt:Jf3 0-0 10 i..d2!? f6 1 1 0-0-0 'ii'c7 12 h4 gave White the initiative in S.Brynell-D.Rylander, Orebro 2000) 9 tt:Jf3 tt:Ja6 10 c6! bxc6 1 1 i.xc6 tt:Jb4 12 i.e4 (White should avoid 12 i.xa8? i.a6 13 c4 tt:Jd3+ 14 'ittfl i.xc4) 12 . . . .l:.b8 (12 . . .f5 13 i.xa8 i.a6 14 c4 tt:Jd3+ 15 'ittfl i.xc4 16 b3 wins for White) 13 0-0 fS (G.Hitzgerova-S.Matveeva, Pula 1997) 14 l:tdl ! iic7 15 i.d3 tt:Jxd3 16 cxd3 and White has a stable advantage.

6 6

b) 6 . . . iia5?! 7 c3! ? iixcS 8 tL'lgf3 dxe4 9 tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxe4 10 iixe4! tL'ld7 1 1 i.e3 iiaS (if 1 1 . . .'iic7, then 12 'Yi'g4! i.f6 [12 . . . 0-0? 13 i.h6 i.f6 14 'ii'e4! ] 13 0-0 0-0 14 tt:JgS! and White has a clear ad­vantage - Rublevsky) 12 0-0 tt:Jf6 (12 . . . tt:Jc5? 13 'ireS!) 13 'ii'h4 'ifus (13 . . . 0-0? 14 i.xh7+!; 13 . . . i.d7 14 i.d4 i.c6 15 tt:JeS) 14 iixhS tt:JxhS 15 l:tfdl and White enjoys a pleasant edge, S.Rublevsky-K.Sakaev, Panormo 2001 (see Chapter 3 for analysis of this end­game).

A) 6 . . . o-o 1 tt:Jgf3 tt:Jfd71? 8 tt:Jb3 as

g esl? This is an interesting new idea that

I've tried . Theory suggests 9 exdS exdS 10 0-0 a4 1 1 tt:Jbd4 tt:JxcS 12 .:tel i.f6 13 i.f4 tt:Jc6 (13 . . . �6!? 14 �abl) 14 tt:Jxc6 bxc6 15 tt:JeS!? tt:Jxd3 16 cxd3!, when White has a small advantage because the c-pawn is now a weakness on an open file, A.Zapata-R.Knaak, Tunja 1984. 9 . . . a4 10 tt:Jbd4 tt:Jxcs 11 o-o tt:Jc6 12 c3 tt:Jxd3 13 iixd3 tt:Jxd4 14 tt:Jxd4

This is a typical position for the

3 . . . .i.e7 variation. White has stronger pieces and space to organize an attack against the king, while Black has the bishop pair and some space on the queenside. Overall, White is slightly better.

14 . • .'ii"c7 15 .l:.e1 b6 16 'iVg31 'i!?h8 17 .i.f4 .i.a6 18 l:.ad1 l:.g8 19 .i.gsl .i.xgs 20 'iVxgs a3 21 b41 h6

If 2l . . .'iVxc3 there follows 22 b5 .i.c8 (or 22 . . . .i.b7 23 'ii'e7) 23 .l:.e3 'iVb2 24 .l:.h3 with a winning attack. 22 lle31

We have been following A.Tzermia­dianos-F.Sigalas, 1 st Summer Cup, Li­tohoro 2006. White finds time to keep the c3-pawn and enjoys a strong attack (22 . . . hxg5? allows mate with 23 l:.h3).

B) 6 . . . o-o 7 ti:lgf3 asl? Black intends to capture the c5-

pawn with a knight, so he prevents the possibility of b2-b4. 8 o-o tt:la6

8 . . . a4!? is an untried alternative. After 8 . . . tt:lc6 White should reply 9

a4!, preventing potential queenside counterplay and Black's pieces from

3 . . . � e 7

becoming too active.

Now Black has a choice: a) After 9 . . . tt:ld7 White must not

hurry to trade on d5, as it is very im­portant to keep the e-file closed and the c8-bishop locked in: 10 tt:lb3 tt:lxc5 1 1 tt:lxc5 .i.xc5 12 c3 .i.d7 (White has the upper hand after either 12 . . . d4 13 e5, or 12 . . . dxe4 13 'iVxe4) 13 .i.e3! gives White a small but long-lasting advantage and Black must be careful not to drift into a difficult position. 13 .l:.dl !? is also pos­sible, while 13 l:tel 'iVb6 14 .i.f4 tt:le7 15 tt:le5 .i.c6 16 tt:lxc6 bxc6 17 .i.g3 .:tae8 18 .:tabl ! 'iVa7 19 b4 gave White a strong initiative in M.Quizielvu­A.Mikhalevski, Internet 2003.

b) 9 . . . .i.xc5 10 e5 ti:ld7 1 1 tLlb3 .i.e7 12 c3 b6 (12 .. .£6 13 exf6 tt:lxf6 14 tt:lbd4 tt:lxd4 15 tt:lxd4 'iVb6 16 .i.e3 e5 17 tLlf5 'iVe6 was S.Jackson-M.Buckley, British League 2002, and now after 18 tt:lxe7+ 'iVxe7 19 .i.d4 e4 20 f3 .i.f5 21 .i.c2, in­tending 'iVb5, Black's centre is under heavy pressure) 13 tt:lbd4 tt:lxd4 14 tt:lxd4 'iVc7 15 .:tel tt:lc5 16 .i.c2 f5 17 exf6 .i.xf6 18 tt:lb5 (18 f4!? i s slightly better for White) 18 . . . 'iVd7 19 .i.e3 e5 20

6 7

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

l:.adl ..tb7 21 ..txc5 bxc5 22 ..tb3 l:.ad8 23 ..txd5+ ..txd5 24 c4 with an edge for White, R.Seger-J.Blumenstein, Schlei­den Gmuend 2004.

c) 9 . . . lL!b4 10 tL'lb3! b6 (or 10 . . . dxe4 1 1 ..txe4 lL!xe4 12 'ifxe4 'ifd5 13 'ifxd5 exd5 14 tL'lfd4 with a clear advantage) 1 1 e5 lL!d7 12 c6 lL!xc6 (12 . . . lLlc5 13 ..tb5 lL!xb3 14 cxb3 'ifc7 15 ..te3 lL!xc6 16 l:tacl ..td7 17 l:.c3 'ifb7 18 ltfcl is a small advantage for White) 13 .l:.dl ! and now:

cl ) 13 . . . 'ifc7 14 ..tf4 tL'lb4 15 ..tb5 lL!c5 (15 . . . 'ifxc2? 16 'ifxc2 lL!xc2 17 .l:.acl lL!b4 18 l:.xc8 .:tfxc8 19 ..txd7 l:.c2 20 .l:.d2 was clearly better for White in V.Kotronias­M.Drasko, Cutro 2004) 16 tL'lbd4 ..td7 17 c3 lL!c6 18 lL!xc6! ..txc6 19 ..txc6 'ifxc6 20 lL!d4 'ifc7 21 'ifg4 .:tac8 22 tL'lb5 'ifb8 23 .l:.el ! and White builds up a strong attack with a rook transfer via the third rank.

c2) 13 . . . lL!c5! 14 lLlfd4! lL!xd4 (14 . . . lL!xb3?? loses on the spot to 15 lL!xc6) 15 lL!xd4 lL!xd3 16 'ifxd3! ..tc5 17 'ifg3 f6 18 ..tf4 'ifd7 (18 . . . �h8 19 c4!; or 18 . . . 'ife8 19 exf6 .l:.xf6 20 ..te5 ..l:.g6 21 'ife3 ..i.a6 22 .:tel) 19 .:td2! (making

6 8

room for the al-rook) 1 9 . . . ..ta6! 20 .:lel .l:tae8 21 b3 .l:f.c8 22 c3 ..txd4 23 l:.xd4 'ifc6 24 .l:.e3 and White is better - his pieces are ready to attack on the dark squares and the black bishop on a6 can only look on. 9 e5

This advance has both pluses and minuses. White gains space and control over the d4-square. On the other hand, with the centre closed Black now gets a free hand on the queenside. g • . . tL'ld7 10 c31? lL!axcs 11 ..tc2

We have reached a tabiya for the 7 . . . a5 variation. 11 . . . b6

Alternatively: a) White was slightly better after

l l . . .'ifc7 12 :tel b6 13 lL!d4 ..ta6 14 'ife3 ..l:.fe8 15 'ifh3 g6 16 f4 ..tf8 17 .:te3 ..tg7 18 lD2f3 lLlf8 19 ..td2 b5 20 'ifg3 in V.Schneider-T.Fodor, Budapest 2004.

b) l l . . .a4 12 lL!d4 f5 13 exf6 lL!xf6 14 tL'l2f3 a3 15 b4 lL!ce4 16 lL!g5! lL!xg5 17 ..txg5 l:.a6 18 ..l:.ael .l:.e8 19 f4 g6 20 l:.f3 led to a strong attack for White in M.Godena-D.Contin, Cremona 2005.

c) l l . . .f6! ? is a typical idea. At a

price of weakening the kingside, Black removes White's e5-pawn and gains more space for his pieces. This move is covered in the illustrative game Kotronias-Ni Hua (see the end of the chapter) . 12 l:te1 �a6 13 'ife3 l:r.c8

Against 13 . . . a4, 14 tt::ld4 'ifc7 15 'ii'h3! is the right plan, immediately forcing Black to choose between . . . g6 or . . . h6. White gets a strong attack, for example 15 . . . h6 (or 15 . . . g6 16 tt::l2f3 l:tfc8 17 �h6! t2Jf8 18 tt::lg5) 16 f4 l:.fc8 (16 . . . a3? ! 17 b4!) 17 l:le3 �b7 18 l:tg3.

White held a slight edge after 13 .. .f6 !? 14 exf6 (14 b4! ?) 14 . . . �xf6 15 tiJb3!? e5 16 tt::lxc5 bxc5 17 tDg5 �xg5 18 'ii'xg5 'iff6 19 'ifxf6 gxf6 20 �f5 thanks to his bishop pair in O.Wegener­T.Jackelen, German League 2006. 14 t2Jd4 t2Jb8 15 'ifh3 !

Again forcing either . . . g6 or . . . h6. Although the computer 'thinks' that . . . h6 is a better defensive measure, Black's position already seems to be losing to me. V.Kotronias-J.Lopez Mar­tinez, Kusadasi 2006, continued 15 . . . g6 16 f4 tDc6 17 tD2f3 t2Jxd4 18 t2Jxd4 tt::le4

3 . . . il.. e 7

1 9 �e3 �c5 20 tt::lf3 �e7 21 l:tad1 'ii'e8 22 'ii'h6 f5 23 exf6 �xf6 24 �d4 �b7 25 �xf6 l:txf6 26 �xe4 dxe4 27 t2Je5 and White had a winning position.

C) 6 ... tt::lc6 7 tiJgf3 �xes 8 o-o 'ifc71? Black mustn't hurry to castle, and

after 8 . . . 0-0 9 e5 tiJd7 10 tt::lb3 �e7 1 1 c3! ? White should keep a t least a small advantage.

For example, 1 l . . .b6 (or 1 l . . .f5 12 exf6 tt::lxf6 13 tt::lbd4 'ifd6 14 �g5! .:te8 15 .:tfe1 �f8 16 tt::lxc6 bxc6 17 t2Je5 'ifc7 18 tt::lxc6!, L.Maugg-L.Kritz, Bad Wiessee 2000) 12 tiJbd4 'ifc7 13 tDxc6 'ifxc6 14 �g5! (in this type of position White should always try to exchange the dark-squared bishops) 14 . . . �xg5 15 tt::lxg5 h6 16 tt::lf3 'ifc7 17 l:[fe1 tDc5 18 tt::ld4 and Black is left with a typically bad bishop on c8, C.Berczes-E.Lund, Budapest 2003. 9 a3 !

White is ready to expand on the queenside with b2-b4, and at the same time he safeguards his bishop against the idea of . . . t2Jb4. g • • • 0-0

6 9

How to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

Alternatively: a) 9 . . . i.d7?! 10 e5 tt:'lg4 1 1 b4 tt:'ld4 12

'iidl ! i.b6 (12 . . . tt:'lxf3+ 13 tt:'lxf3 i.e7 14 'iie2 f6 15 i.f4 0-0 16 exf6 'iixf4 17 fxe7 IH7 18 h3 tt:'lf6 19 c4 was better for White in V.Gaprindashvili-B.Itkis, Alushta 2000) 13 i.b2 tt:'lxf3+ 14 tt:'lxf3 i.a4! (14 . . . 0-0-0? 15 a4! ; or 14 . . . 0-0 !? 15 .:tel !, but not 15 i.xh7+? �xh7 16 tt:'lg5+ �g8 17 'iixg4 'iixc2) 15 'ii'e2 0-0-0 16 .:tacl �b8 17 h3! tt:'lh6 18 tt:'ld4! was V.Kotronias-A.Barsov, Patras 2001 . White has clearly won the opening bat­tle, as the knight on h6 remains shut out of the game.

b) 9 . . . a6?! is also dubious because Black is a tempo down on a 3 tt:'ld2 a6 line, having expended two tempi to capture on c5. S.Tiviakov-A.Minasian, Ohrid 2001, continued 10 e5!

(simple and strong) 10 . . . tt:'ld7 (10 . . . tt:'lg4 1 1 b4 i.e7 - ll . . .tt:'ld4 12 'iidl -12 i.b2 f6! ? 13 exf6 i.xf6 14 i.xf6 tt:'lxf6 15 c4 0-0 16 .l:tfel was better for White in N.Zeliakov-C.Bauer, Internet 2001) 1 1 .:tel ! b5 12 tt:'lb3 i.e7 13 i.f4 tt:'lb6 14 tt:'lfd4. 'White has a dream position: ad­vantage in space, full control of the im-

7 0

portant d4-square, and possibilities for attack on the kingside.' (Psakhis)

c) After 9 . . . a5! ? 10 exd5 tt:'lxd5 White has many routes to a small advantage: for example, 1 1 'iie4!? tt:'lf6 12 'it'c4 b6 13 tt:'le4 tt:'lxe4 14 'iixe4 i.b7 (M.Panchanathan-N.Pert, Witley 2000) 15 i.f4.

d) 9 . . . b6! ? 10 e5 (10 exd5!? tt:'lxd5 1 1 tt:'le4 i s slightly better for White) 10 . . . tt:'ld7 1 1 ltel ! i.b7 12 b4 tt:'ld4 13 'iidl tt:'lxf3+ 14 tt:'lxf3 i.e7 15 i.d2!? (15 i.b2 aS 16 'iid2 0-0 17 i.d4 is also slightly in White's favour) 15 . . . 0-0 16 tt:'ld4 .l:tfc8 (16 . . . tt:Jxe5? 17 i.f4) 17 'it'h5 and White holds the initiative. 10 esl?

10 • • • tt:'lg4 Or 10 . . . tt:'ld7 1 1 b4! i.d4 (ll . . .tt:'ld4 12

'iidl !? tt:'lx£3+ 13 tt:'lx£3 i.e7 14 i.f4!? is slightly better for White; with the bishop on f4 instead of b2 the break . . . f6 is difficult to arrange; ll . . .i.e7 is met by 12 i.b2 intending c2-c4) 12 i.xh7+ �xh7 13 'iid3+ �g8 14 tt:'lxd4 and White keeps an edge after either 14 . . . tt:'lxd4 15 'iixd4 'ii'xe5 16 'ii'xe5 tt:'lxe5 17 i.b2 or 14 . . . tt:'ldxe5 15 'iic3 tt:'lg4 16 tt:J2£3.

11 b41 i..e7 The complications are favourable

for White after l l . . . i..b6 12 i..b2 f6 13 c4! fxe5 14 c5. White is also better after 11 . . .lt:Jd4 12 1i'd1 lt:Jxf3+ 13 lt:Jxf3 i..b6 14 i..b2. 12 .tb2 f61 13 exf6 i..xf6 14 i..xf6

14 • • • gxf61 14 .. Jhf6 runs into 15 i..xh7+! 'it>h8

(or 15 . . . 'it>xh7 16 lt:Jg5+ 'it>g8 17 1i'xg4 e5 18 1i'g3 lt:Jd4 19 .l:tfe1 1i'xc2 20 lt:Jgf3 1i'd3 21 lt:Jxd4 1i'xg3 22 hxg3 exd4 23 .l:te5 and White is better) 16 h3! lt:Jd4 (16 . . . .l:txf3 17 hxg4! lt:Jd4 18 1i'd1 .l:tc3 19 i..d3 is also good for White) 17 1i'd1 ! .l:txf3 ( 1 7 . . . lt:Jxf3+?! 18 lt:Jxf3 lhf3 19 hxg4 is worse) 18 hxg4 .l:tf4 (if 18 . . . .l:tf8 19 g5! ) 19 g3! 1:.f8 (19 . . . 'it>xh7 20 gxf4 1i'xf4 21 c3 lt:Jc6 22 'it>g2! is better for White) 20 g5! 'it>xh7 (White wins after 20 . . . g6? 21 i..xg6 'it>g7 22 'it>g2! 'it>xg6 23 .l:th1) 21 'ii'hS+ 'it>g8 22 g6 lt:Je2+ 23 'it>g2! .l:tf5 24 1i'xe2 and White has a big advantage. 15 h3 lt:Jd4 16 i..xh7+ 'it>h8

16 . . . 1i'xh7? 17 lt:Jxd4 and 16 . . . 'it>xh7? 17 1i'd3+ 'it>g7 18 1i'xd4 are both clearly better for White. 17 1i'd1 lt:Jxf3+ 18 lt:Jxf3 lt:Jxf2

3 . . . il.. e 7

This is stronger than 1 8 . . . 1i'xh7 19 hxg4 'it>g7 20 g3 .l:.h8 21 lt:Jh4. 19 .l:txf2 1i'xh7 20 lt:Jesl

Now 20 . . . 1i'h6? is met by 21 .l:!.f4! 'it>h7 22 1i'f3 f5 23 c4 with a clear advan­tage. In S.Galdunts-L.Kritz, Griesheim 2003, Black opted for 20 . . . i..d7 and here 21 lt:Jxd7 1i'xd7 22 c4 l:tad8 23 .l:.f4! .:tf7 24 l:td4 would have given White an edge because Black's king is unsafe and his centre is under pressure.

D) 6 • • • lt:Jc6 7 lt:Jgf3 lt:Jb4 8 lt:Jb31

8 0-0 is a popular alternative but with 8 lt:Jb3 White keeps the c5-pawn, or at the very least forces Black to work

71

How to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

hard to regain it. 8 . . . ltJxd3+

Alternatively: a) 8 . . . aS?! 9 .i.bS+! .i.d7 10 exdS!

ltJbxdS (or lO . . . ltJfxdS 11 a4 0-0 12 0-0 'ii'c7 13 �d1 �fd8 14 .i.gS liJf6 1S liJfd4 with a clear advantage for White, D.Batsanin-A.Nikitin, Tomsk 1999) 1 1 ltJeS .i.xbS (or 1 1 . . .0-0 12 ltJxd7 ltJxd7 13 c6 bxc6 14 .i.xc6) 12 'ii'xbS+ ltJd7 13 c6 bxc6 14 ltJxc6 and White was clearly better in J.Czakon-X.Colom Andres, Castelldefels 2006.

b) 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 aS 10 .i.gS h6 (White keeps a slight edge after 10 . . . a4! ? 1 1 ltJbd2 a3 12 b3) 1 1 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 12 eS .i.e7 13 .i.bS!? a4 (13 . . . 'ir'c7?! 14 a4! is better for White) 14 liJbd4 'iic7 (14 . . . a3? is met by 1S c3 axb2 16 'ii'xb2 ltJa6 17 c6) 1S c3 ltJc6 16 'ii'e3 and White is slightly bet­ter, since 16 . . . .i.xcS? is not possible be­cause of 17 ltJxe6! . 9 cxd3 as !

This looks similar to note 'b' above, but there is the difference that neither side has castled and Black tries to bene­fit from this.

White was clearly on top in S.Fed-

72

orchuk-V.Malaniuk, Swidnica 1999, af­ter 9 . . . .i.xcS 10 ltJxcS 'ii'aS+ 1 1 .i.d2 'ii'xcS 12 0-0 dxe4 13 dxe4 .i.d7 14 �acl 'ii'bS 1S 'ii'xbS .i.xbS 16 .i.b4! aS 17 .i.a3 .i.c6 18 ltJeS. Following 18 . . . ltJxe4 (18 . . . .i.xe4? 19 .:tc7) 19 l:.c2! White is ready to continue with �acl or f2-f3, ltJc4 and �d1, bring­ing all his pieces towards the black king which is stuck in the centre. 10 a41

This is the move that White must choose to obtain an advantage. Theory used to consider 10 .i.gS as better for White, but things have changed. After 10 . . . a4! 1 1 liJbd2 h6 ( 11 . . . dxe4, 1 1 . . . 0-0 and 1 1 . . . b6 are inferior) 12 .i.xf6! .i.xf6 13 exdS, 13 . . . 0-0! is a strong novelty from Nicholas Pert which seems to equalize (13 .. .'�xdS 14 ltJe4 .i.d7!? 1S 0-0 .i.c6 was V.Kotronias-Y.Nepomni­ashchy, Moscow 2007, and here I think White keeps the advantage after 16 liJd6+) .

For example, 14 ltJe4! (14 dxe6 .i.xe6 1S ltJe4 a3 16 ltJxf6+ 'ii'xf6 17 ltJeS was given as slightly better for White by Psakhis and Watson, but in New in Chess Yearbook 84 Pert shows that after

17 . . . l:tfe8 18 0-0 'ir'f4! ! , with the idea of . . . �d5 and .. .f6, despite being two pawns up it is White who finds himself in the worse position) 14 . . . exd5 15 tiJxf6+ 'ir'xf6 16 0-0 �g4! (the best move; 16 . . . b6?! was played in E.Rozentalis­N.Pert, Dublin 2007, and here 17 cxb6! 'ir'xb6 18 'ii'e5 is slightly better for White) 17 'ii'e5 'ifc6 18 ttJd4 (18 'ir'd4?! �xf3 19 gxf3 .l:ta5 20 .l:tacl .l:tc8 and the c-pawn can't be saved) 18 . . .'ii'xc5 19 'ir'f4 �d7 20 lbcl 'i!fb6! 21 b3 axb3 22 axb3 .l:ta'r8 23 .l:.xc8 l:lxc8 24 'ir'e5 'ir'c5 and Black has equalized.

10 . • • b6 White is clearly better after 10 . . . 0-0

11 0-0 b6 12 e5 tiJd7 13 c6 tiJb8 14 tiJbd4 'ir'c7 15 tiJb5 'ii'xc6 16 �g5! 'ii'd7 17 �xe7 'iixe7 18 .l:tfcl because of the out­post on d6 and his control of the c-file.

10 . . . dxe4!? is an attempt to improve on Black's play. It has been said that Black is fine here, but this is completely inaccurate! 1 1 dxe4 0-0 ( 1l . . .b6? 12 'ifb5+) 12 0-0 (alternatively 12 ttJe5! ? with the advantage after either 12 . . . b6 13 tDc6 'ir'c7 14 ttJxe7+ 'ii'xe7 15 �g5! or 12 . . . tiJd7! 13 ttJxd7 �xd7 14 0-0) 12 . . . b6!

3 . . . i&. e 7

1 3 .l:td1 'ir'c7 14 .1Lg5! bxc5 (S.Rublevsky­T.Radjabov, Hyderabad 2002) and now White should continue with 15 e5! tt::ld5 16 �xe7! 'ii'xe7 (16 . . . tt::lxe7 17 .l:.acl �a6 18 'ir'e1 is bad for Black) 17 'ii'c2 �a6 18 tt::lxa5! tt::lb4 19 'iie4 .l:tfb8 20 b3! �d3 21 .l::txd3 lha5 22 l:td6 with a clear advan­tage. 11 es tt::ld7 12 c6 tt::lcs 13 tt::lbd4 �a6 14 tt::lbsl

14 ... tt::lb3 14 . . . tt::lxa4? is simply bad: 15 tt::ld6+

�xd6 16 exd6 tt::lc5 17 d7+ 'iii>f8 18 .l:ta3 'ii'c7 19 0-0 Wxc6 20 tt::le5 'ir'd6 (V.Gashimov-Y.Nepomniashchy, Internet blitz 2006) 21 'ii'h5! g6 (21 . . .'ii'e7 22 �g5 f6 23 tt::lg6+) 22 �h6+ 'iii>g8 23 'ii'h4 and White wins.

White is clearly better after 14 . . . d4 15 tt::lfxd4! �xb5 16 tt::lxb5 tt::lxd3+ 17 'iii>fl 0-0 18 �e3 (18 �h6!?) 18 . . . tt::lxe5 19 .l:td1 'ii'c8 (D.Barua-L.Ravi, New Delhi 2001) 20 c7. 15 l:.b1 �b4+ 16 'iW1 0-0

16 . . . tt::lxcl 17 l:txcl �xb5 18 axb5 0-0 19 g3 a4 20 'iii>g2 was much better for White in }.Estrada Nieto-L.Munoz, Santo Domingo 2006.

73

H o w to Beat t h e Fre n c h Defence

17 d4 17 'ii'c2!? is also possible: 17 ... i..xb5

18 axb5 a4 19 i..g5 (19 d4! ?; 19 i..e3! ?) 19 . . . 'ii'e8 (19 . . . it'c7! ? 20 d4 .l::ta5 21 'iid3 is slightly better for White) 20 d4 l::ta5 21 'ii'd3 f6? ! (2l . . .h6) 22 exf6 gxf6 23 i..h6 .l:tf7 24 h4! l:te7 25 .l:.h3 i..d6 26 tiJd2 tbxd2+ 27 i..xd2 and White was well on top in J.Pierrot-J.Rubinetti, Buenos Ai­res 2001 . 17 ... f61

White has managed to hold things together on the queenside for now, so Black opens a second front on the king­side. 18 'ii'd3 !

74

18 'ii'e3 i..xb5+ 19 axb5 a4 gave Black counterplay in M.Adams­A.Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2000. 18 • . • lbxc1

18 . . . fxe5? loses to 19 'ii'xb3, and 18 . . . i..xb5 19 axb5 a4 20 g3 tbxcl 21 l:txcl 'ii'e8 22 exf6 gxf6 23 c,l;g2 is a good deal better for White. 19 l:txc1 l:tc8 20 g3 1:.f71

White obtains a winning advantage after 20 . . . 'ii'e8?! 21 'ii'c2 i..b7 22 cxb7! .:Ixc2 23 .:Ixc2 'ifb8 24 .l:.c7. 21 c,l;g2 i:tfc7 22 'iic2 l:txc6 23 'ifxc6 .l:txc6 24 l:.xc6

White's rooks are stronger than Black's queen, and his superiority is beyond doubt after, for example, 24 . . . i..c8 25 l:thcl i..d7 26 l:tc7 i..f8! 27 l:tb7 i..e8 28 tiJd6! .

I l lustrative Game

V.Kotronias-Ni Hua FIDE World Cup,

Khanty Mansiysk 2005

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 tiJd2 i..e7 4 i..d3 cs s dxcs tiJf6 6 'ii'e2 0-0 7 tiJgf3 as 8 0-0

ttJa6 9 e5 ttJd7 10 C3 ttJaxc5 11 il.c2 f6!? 12 exf6 il.xf6 13 tt::lb3 b6

Black is ready to develop his bishop on the a6-fl diagonal. 14 tt::lxc5 ! tt::lxc5

15 .l:r.d11 15 l:!.e1 ! ? is also interesting, and

15 . . . il.a6 16 'ii'e3 'ili'd6 17 tt::le5 il.xe5 18 'ii'xe5 'ii'xe5 19 .l:.xe5 il.d3 (E.Chevelevitch-S.Breuer, Hamburg 2006) 20 il.d1 ! ? promises White an edge thanks to the bishop pair. 15 ... il.a6 16 'ii'e3 'ii'e8

This move looks artificial. 16 . . . g6 followed by . . . il.g7 seems more natural, and White's advantage is very small after, for example, 17 tt::le5 'ii'c7 18 l:le1 il.xe5 19 'ili'xe5 'ii'xe5 20 .l:.xe5 il.d3 21 il.dl . 11 tt::lg5! il.xg5?!

Accepting a worse position. Black could have minimized White's advan­tage by playing 17 . . . g6! ? 18 'ii'g3 'ii'e7 19 il.e3. 18 'ili'xg5 tt::le4

This was Ni Hua's idea, but he overlooked a simple reply: 19 'ii'h41

3 . . . il. e 7

Now White enjoys a significant ad­vantage. 19 .. .'iic6 20 il.e3 h6 21 'ii'g4!

Exploiting the new target on h6. 21 ... tt::lf6

After 2l . . .e5 22 il.xe4 dxe4 23 .l:r.d7 .l:r.f7 24 .l:r.xf7 'it>xf7 25 'ii'h5+ 'it>g8 (or 25 . . . 'it>f6 26 il.xh6!) 26 'ili'xe5 White is a pawn up and retains attacking chances on the dark squares. 22 'ii'g3 'it>h8 23 il.d4

White's position has become over­whelming: the bishops are exception­ally strong and Black has no real coun­terplay. 23 ... b5 24 .Ue1 'ili'e8 25 .l:.e5 'ili'f7 26 l:.ae1 il.c8 27 'iih4 il.d7 28 .l:r.1e3

Every piece has joined the attack. 28 ... b4 29 h31

Prophylaxis - White is not in a hurry. 29 ... bxc3 30 bxc3 .l:r.ab8 31 l:tg3 l:l.b2 32 il.g6 'iie7 33 llh5 'it>g8 34 llxh61

The final breakthrough, and mate is unavoidable. 34 ... gxh6 35 'iixh6 1-0

White wins after 35 'ifxh6 'ifg7 36 il.h7+.

7 5

C h a pte r E i g h t I 3 . . . c s 4 l2Jgf3 : U n us u a l Li nes

1 e4 e6 2 d 4 d 5 3 l2Jd2 c 5 4 l2Jgf31 4 l2Jgf3 is the best way to meet 3 . . . c5.

White doesn't hurry to trade on dS, and this works in his favour in many lines. In this chapter we will analyse Black's second-rate alternatives:

A: 4 ... c4?1 B: 4 ... dxe4 C: 4 ... cxd4 5 exd5 exd5

A) 4 ... c4?1 This is a playable move if White has

taken on dS (4 exdS exdS 5 l2Jgf3 c4), but here it is suspicious as White has the chance to maintain the tension in the centre or to claim more space with e4-e5. Black's idea is to restrict the fl­bishop, but ... c4 gives White an easy target for a pawn break in the middle­game (after b2-b3). 5 ..te2!

This seems to be the best continua­tion. White continues his development and is ready to castle.

7 6

5 ... l2Jc6 After 5 . . . l2Jf6 6 eS l2Jfd7 7 0-0 ..te7 8

l:te 1 0-0 9 ltJfl l2Jc6 10 l2Jg3 'iWb6 (E.Andreev-S.Larionov, Tula 2004) 1 1 c3! ? i s a safe way to a small advantage. 6 0-0

6 ... ..tb4 Provoking White into playing c2-c3

in order to gain a target of attack with a quick . . . b5-b4. Pawns breaks must always be on our minds, as they provide most of the basic plans . 7 c3 ..ta5 8 'ili'c2 l2Jge7 9 b3 cxb3 10

axb3 0-0 11 .i.d3 lt:lg6 12 .i.a3 l:te8 13 e51

The correct decision. White blocks the centre before starting an attack on the kingside with h4-h5. 13 ... .i.d7 14 h4 .:.cs 15 h5 ! lt:lf4 16 .i.xh7+

16 g3? lt:lxd4! 17 lt:lxd4 .i.xc3 was winning for Black in Ma.Tseitlin­V.Korchnoi, St. Petersburg 1997. 16 ... �h8 17 lt:lb1!

White must avoid 17 .i.b2? lt:le2+ 18 �h2 lt:lcxd4, or 17 .l:.ae1? lt:lxd4 18 lt:lxd4 l:.xc3 19 'iib1 'ii'g5. 17 ... lt:lxg21?

The best practical chance: a) 17 . . . lt:lxd4? has no point as the c3-

pawn is protected: 18 lt:lxd4 'ii'g5 19 g3. b) 17 . . . .i.b6 18 .i.cl ! lt:lxh5 19 lt:lg5

'ii'e7 20 .i.g8! f5 21 .i.f7 and White wins. b) 17 . . . lt:lxh5 18 g3! .i.b6 (18 . . . g6? 19

.i.xg6 fxg6 20 'ii'xg6 lt:lg7 21 �g2 and the rook is coming to h1) 19 .i.g6! fxg6 (19 . . . lt:lxd4 also loses after 20 lt:lxd4 .i.xd4 21 .i.xh5 'ii'g5 22 �g2 'ii'xh5 23 :h1) 20 'ii'xg6 and White is winning after 20 . . . lt:lf6 21 lt:lg5. 18 �xg2 lt:lxd4 19 cxd4 l:.xc2 20 .i.xc2

3 . . . cs 4 ll:Jgf3 : U n u s u a l L in e s

White's pieces look disorganized but there is no way for Black to exploit this. For example, 20 . . . .i.b6 21 .i.cl ! .i.b5 22 :h1 'Wc7 23 .l:ta2! f5 24 h6! gxh6 25 I;lxh6+ �g7 26 lt:lg5! 'ii'c6 27 l:.h7+ �g6 28 .i.e3 with a clear advantage for White .

B) 4 ... dxe4 5 lt:lxe4 cxd4 Or: a) 5 . . . lt:ld7?! is dubious: 6 dxc5! lt:lxc5

7 'Wxd8+ �xd8 8 .i.g5+ f6 9 0-0-0+ �e8 10 .i.b5+ �f7 (10 . . . .i.d7? 1 1 lt:lxc5 .i.xb5 12 lt:lxe6) 1 1 l:.d8! !

(a great move, leaving two pieces en prise) 1 l . . ..i.e7 (11 . . . lt:lxe4 loses after 12 lt:le5+ �e7 - 12 . . . fxe5 13 .i.e8 mate - 13 l:.e8+ �d6 14 lt:lf7+ �c5 15 .i.d3; 1 l . . .fxg5 12 lt:le5+ �e7 13 .l:.e8 is a beautiful mate) 12 lt:le5+! fxe5 13 lt:ld6+ �g6 (or 13 . . . .i.xd6 14 .i.e8+ and Black resigned in M.Pevny-E.Barta, Slovakia 2001, as he is mated after 14 .. . �f8 15 .i.g6) 14 .i.xe7 lt:lxe7 15 :xh8 and White wins, I.Pleci­L.Endzelins, Buenos Aires 1939.

b) 5 . . . lt:lf6?! is also met by 6 lt:lxc5! and after 6 . . . ..txc5 7 dxc5 'ii'xd1+ (or 7 . . . Wa5+ 8 c3 'ii'xc5 9 ..te3) 8 <,iJxd1 0-0 9

7 7

H o w to Beat t h e Fre n c h D efe n ce

3Le3 Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn.

c) 5 . . . ttJc6?! is a dubious move as Black doesn't have the luxury of being able to ignore the threat to c5 for too long: 6 �e3! cxd4 7 ttJxd4 'ii'a5+ (7 . . . i.d7? allows 8 ttJb5!; 7 . . . lDf6 8 ttJxc6 'ii'xd1+ 9 :xd1 bxc6 10 lDd6+ �xd6 1 1 .l:txd6 i s also clearly better for White) 8 c3 'ii'd5? (8 . . . �d7? 9 lDb5!; 8 . . . �e7) 9 lDb5! 'ii'xe4 10 ttJc7+ �e7 1 1 ttJxa8 'ii'e5 12 'ii'f3 'ifb8 13 0-0-0 'ii'xa8 14 �b5 lDf6 (W.Martz-N.Kleszewski, Illinois 1963) 15 �g5! is clearly better for White be­cause of his tremendous development. 6 ttJxd41

This is stronger than 6 'ii'xd4 'ii'c7! . 6 ... ttJf6

Black has to watch out for lDb5: for example, 6 . . . ttJc6?! 7 lDb5! 'ii'xd1+ 8 �xd 1 l:tb8 9 �e3 b6 10 �d3 �d7 1 1 �f4 e5 12 .l:te1 f6 13 �d2 g5 14 �c4 was clearly better for White in M.Langer­J.Acken, Oklahoma 2003.

6 . . . a6 7 �d3 �e7 8 0-0 lDf6 9 c3 0-0 10 'ife2 lDd5 11 l:td1 tDc6 12 tDxc6 bxc6 13 c4! gave White a big advantage in V.Tkachiev-A.Tardiz, Cannes (simul)

78

2004. 7 ttJxf6+1 'ii'xf6

7 . . . gxf6 8 �e3 'ii'a5+ 9 c3 a6 10 g3! ? 'ii'd5 1 1 l:tg1 ttJd7 12 �g2 'ii'c4 13 'iib3 is again clearly better for White, A.Lastin­K.Sakaev, Elista 1997. 8 ttJbsl 'ii'es+ 9 'ii'e2 �b4+ 10 c3 'ii'xe2+ 11 �xe2 �as 12 �e3 ttJc6 13 �cs

Black has problems with his king, N.Andreescu-M.Gay, Tapolca 1996.

C) 4 ... cxd4 s exds exds A rare move. 5 . . . 'ii'xd5 is normal,

and this is analysed in Chapter 9. 6 �bS+ �d7

6 ... tDc6 7 'ii'e2+!? transposes to 4 lDgf3 ltJc6 5 exd5 exd5 6 �b5 cxd4 7 'ii'e2+!? (see Chapter 10, Line C). 7 'ii'e2+!? 'ii'e7

Black accepts an inferior ending in order to neutralize White's initiative. He must be wary of ttJf5 by White as his knight will not be on the usual e7-square. 7 . . . �e7?! is bad because Black won't have time to castle: 8 0-0 lDf6 9 .l:te1 ! lDc6 10 lDb3 lDe4 1 1 �xc6 bxc6 12 lDfxd4 �d6 13 f3 'iih4 14 g3 �xg3 15 .l::r.fl ! and White will win a piece.

8 �xd7+ �xd7 Or 8 . . . ttJxd7 9 'ii'xe7+ �xe7 10 ttJxd4

tDgf6 11 lDf5! g6 12 tDxe7 �xe7 13 tDb3 .l:the8 14 0-0 �f8 15 �h6+ �g8 16 .l:tfe1 with a solid edge for White, R.Sutton­L.Cornford, Dunedin 1975. 9 'ii'xe7+ �xe7 10 ttJxd4 ttJc6 11 tD2f3 ttJf6

(L.Comas Fabrego-A.Machado Cal­deira, Lomas de Zamora 1984) White can keep an edge with 12 lDf5! �b4+!? 13 c3 l:the8+ 14 �fl �f8 15 �g5! .

Chapte r N i n e

3 . . . c s 4 lt.Jgf3 cxd4 s exd s iixd s

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 tZ:ld2 cs 4 lLlgf3 cxd4 5 exds 'iixds

This is a very interesting variation, which was proposed by Watson in the latest edition of his repertoire book Play the French. The . . . 'iixd5 lines are less explored in comparison with the other main lines after 3 . . . c5 and there is still plenty of room for analysis and new ideas. Black must always be aware that he has brought his queen out early on and he needs to be very careful. 6 ..tc4

I

The basic starting position of the . . . 'it'xd5 variation. Black can choose be­tween:

A: 6 ... 'ii'cs 8: 6 ... 'ii'd81? C: 6 ... 'ii'd6

Alternatively: a) 6 . . . 'ii'd7 has no independent

value, as the queen on d7 must move to allow other pieces to develop. After 7 0-0 tLlc6 8 tLlb3 lLlf6 9 tLlbxd4 tLlxd4 (9 . . . ..tc5 10 lLlxc6 'ii'xc6 1 1 tLle5 'ii'b6 12 'iie2 0-0 13 ..td3 is slightly better for White) 10 lLlxd4 a6 1 1 l:te1 'iic7 12 'ii'e2 we are back in Line C3.

b) 6 . . . 'iia5 also has no independent value, as the queen should end up on the c7-square: 7 0-0 lLlc6 (or 7 . . . lLlf6 8 tLlb3 'iic7 9 'ii'e2) 8 tLlb3 'iic7 (8 . . . 'iib4?! is inferior as Black's queen will lose time later on: for example, 9 'iie2 ..td7 10 lLlbxd4 lLlxd4 11 lLlxd4 .l:.c8 12 b3! ..te7 13 ..tb2 lLlf6 14 a4 'ii'a5 15 l:tad1 a6

7 9

H o w to Bea t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

16 tZ'l£3 .i.c6 17 tZ'le5 with a clear advan­tage, H.Jimenez Rojas-J.Salas Romo, Santiago 1951 ) 9 tZ'lbxd4 lZ'l£6 (9 . . . lZ'lxd4 10 'ii'xd4! lZ'l£6 1 1 .i.f4 Wc5 12 .l:tad1, P.Munar Rossello-J.Bellon Lopez, Palma de Mallorca 2000, and 9 . . . .i.c5 10 tZ'lb5! 'ii'b8 11 g3! lZ'lf6 - 1 l . . .a6? 12 .i.f4 e5 13 tZ'lxe5 - 12 'ii'e2 intending .i.f4 are both clearly better for White) 10 'ii'e2 tZ'lxd4 1 1 tZ'lxd4 a6 12 .l:.e1 and again we transpose to Line C3.

c) Black's idea with 6 . . . Wh5 is to ex­change queens after lZ'lxd4.

However, this is advantageous for White as after the exchange his bishop will reroute from e2 to f3. Then the plan is to continue with .i.f4 and l:tfd1 threatening tZ'lb5 and exerting tremen­dous pressure on the queenside. An­other idea that White can use occasion­ally is to play .i.e2, avoiding the queen exchange: 7 0-0 lZ'lc6 (Black needs to avoid 7 . . . b5? 8 tZ'lxd4!, 7 . . . e5? 8 tZ'lxe5 and 7 . . . .i.d6? 8 tZ'le4 .i.e5 9 .i.g5!; also 7 . . . lZ'lf6 8 lZ'lxd4! 'i!Vxd1 9 .l:txd1 a6! [9 . . . .i.d7 10 tZ'lb5! ] 10 .i.e2! .i.d6 11 tZ'lc4 .i.c7 12 .i.f3 0-0 13 tZ'lb3 lZ'lbd7 14 a4 or 14 tZ'ld6!? gives White a slight but last-

8 0

ing advantage) 8 lZ'lb3 .i.d7 ( 8 . . . e5? is met by 9 tZ'lxe5! Wxd1 10 .l:txd1 tZ'lxe5 1 1 .l:Ie1 f6 12 f4, a s in S.Tarrasch-Thorold, Manchester 1890) 9 lZ'lfxd4 'i!Vxd1 10 .l:txd1 tZ'lxd4 11 .l:txd4! lZ'lf6 12 .i.f4 0-0-0! (12 . . . b6? !, trying to stop tZ'la5 before playing . . . .i.c6, is inferior: 13 .i.a6 tZ'ld5 14 .i.g3 .i.c6 15 a3! .Ud8 was S.Rosselli del Turco-D.Marotti, Naples 1923, and now 16 c4! lZ'lf6 17 .l:.xd8+ \ti>xd8 18 .l:.d1 + \ti>e8 19 lZ'ld4 .i.d7 20 tZ'lb5 is clearly bet­ter for White) 13 .i.e5 .i.e7 14 .i.d3! .i.c6 15 tZ'laS and White has a slight advan­tage.

A) 6 ... Wcs 7 o-o

7 . . . tZ'lc6 Or: a) 7 ... b5?! is premature: 8 .i.d3 .i.b7

(8 ... lZ'lc6? 9 lZ'lb3 'ifb6 10 tZ'lbxd4 a6 1 1 .i.e4! .i.b7 12 tZ'lxc6 .i.xc6 1 3 tZ'leS and White wins) 9 lZ'lb3 WdS 10 tZ'lbxd4 a6 (S.Tarrasch-Eckhardt, Nuremberg 1889) 11 a4! b4 12 'ii'e2 lZ'lf6 13 .Ud1 and White has a clear advantage.

b) 7 . . . lZ'lf6 8 We2 .i.e7 9 tZ'lb3 Whs 10 tZ'lbxd4 0-0 (M.Votypka-V.BVinklarek, Czech Republic 1998) 1 1 .l::td1 ! lZ'lc6 12

lt:\xc6 bxc6 13 lt:\e5 'ii'xe2 14 .ltxe2 .ltb7 15 .ltf3 and White is much better as he controls the d-file and the c6-pawn will suffer.

c) 7 . . . .ltd7!? is interesting: 8 'ii'e2 lt:\c6 9 lt:\b3 'ii'h5 10 l:td1 lt:lf6 1 1 lt:lbxd4 .ltc5 12 lt:\b5 0-0 13 .ltg5 l:tad8 (13 . . . lt:\g4?! 14 .lth4!) 14 lt:\d6 .ltc8 (if 14 . . . lt:\a5? 15 .ltxf6! gxf6 16 lt:\xf7! ! - a bolt from the blue! - and White wins in all lines, e.g. 16 . . . .ltxf2+ 17 �xf2 'ii'c5+ 18 .l:td4 .l:.x£7 19 b4! 'ii'xb4 20 .ltxe6; 16 . . . �xf7 17 lhd7+; 16 . . . :txf7 17 .ltxe6; and 16 . . . 'ii'xf7 17 .l:.xd7) 15 lt:\xc8 Ihc8 16 .ltxf6 gxf6 17 l:r.d7 and White has just a slight plus, J.Goncalves-M.Nizynski, correspon­dence 1999. 8 1i'e2

8 . . . 'ii'b61? 8 . . . lt:\ge7? loses to 9 lt:\e4. 8 . . . e5? ! is

also bad: 9 b4! 'ii'e7 10 l:te1 f6 11 b5 lt:\a5 12 .ltxg8 Ihg8 13 lt:\xd4 and 'ii'h5+ is coming. 8 .. . a6 9 lt:lb3 'ii'd6 10 l:td1 ! b5 1 1 .ltd3 .ltb7 12 lt:lbxd4 i s clearly better for White, as Black has completely ne­glected his development. All his king­side pieces are on their initial squares! Trying to hold on to d4 after 8 . . . .lte7 9

3 . . . cs 4 tl:Jgf3 cxd4 5 exds "ikxds

lt:lb3 'ii'd6 10 l:td1 e5 also fails: 1 1 c3 .ltg4 12 .ltb5 0-0-0 13 cxd4 a6 14 .ltxc6 'ii'xc6 15 'ii'xe5 and White was much better in M.Covington-T.Doerdelmann, correspondence 2001 .

Black's main alternative is 8 . . . lt:\f6 9 lt:lb3 'ii'b6 10 .l:.d1 .ltc5 (10 . . . .lte7 1 1 lt:lfxd4 lt:\xd4?! 12 I:txd4! 0-0 1 3 .lte3 was clearly better for White in A.Osipov­C.Ventimiglia, correspondence 2003; 10 . . . .ltd6!? is an interesting choice for Black: 1 1 lt:lfxd4! lt:lxd4 12 l::txd4 0-0 13 .ltg5 lt:ld5 14 :th4 f6 15 .ltd2 'ii'c7 16 lt:\d4 .lte5 17 .ltd3 g6 18 c4 lt:\e7 19 lt:lb5 'ii'd8 20 .ltc3 .ltxc3 21 lt:lxc3 e5 22 .lte4 and White is slightly better) and here White finds a way to disorganize Black's pieces with 1 1 a4! :

a ) 1 l . . .a5?! 12 lt:\xc5 'ii'xc5 13 b3! lt:\d5 (13 . . . 'ifh5 14 .lta3! e5 15 .ltb5 .ltg4 16 'ii'xe5+! 'ii'xe5 17 lt:\xe5 .ltxd1 18 1hd1 lt:\d7 19 .ltxc6 bxc6 20 lt:\xc6 lt:lf6 21 :txd4 with a winning advantage, B .Navarro Ortiz de Orruno-J.Borisek, Oropesa del Mar 2000) 14 .lta3! lt:ldb4 (14 . . . lt:\cb4? 15 .ltxd5 'ii'xd5 16 c3! ) 15 .ltb2 with a clear advantage, P.Keres­G.Stahlberg, Buenos Aires 1939. One

8 1

H o w to Beat t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

interesting point Kotronias and I dis­covered is that Keres was so strong in the opening, almost all his ideas are correct even after being subjected to testing from today's computers!

b) 1 1 . . .ltJa5?! 12 tLlxc5 'iixc5 13 ..ib5+ ..id7 14 b4!? ..ixb5?! 15 axb5 'it'c4 16 'ii'e1 'ii'xc2 17 tLlxd4 was winning for White in K.Poznanska­L.Szymanowska, Bartkowa 2002.

c) 1 1 . . . a6 12 tLlxc5 'ii'xc5 13 b3! with a further split:

c1) 13 . . . ..id7?! 14 ..ia3 'ii'b6 15 ltJeS! 'ii'a5! 16 tLlxc6 ..ixc6 17 l:txd4 is clearly better for White.

c2) 13 . . . e5? ! 14 ..ia3 'ii'a5 15 b4! 'ii'c7 (15 . . . tLlxb4? 16 tLlxe5 0-0 17 'ii'e1 ! ) 16 b5 tLld8 17 b6! 'ii'xb6 18 'ii'xe5+ ..ie6 19 tLlxd4 with a crushing attack, A.Hennings-V.Bataev, correspondence 1963.

c3) 13 . . . 'ii'h5! ? should be met by 14 ..ia3 e5 15 h3! ..ie6!? 16 ..ixe6 fxe6 17 b4! ltJdS 18 b5! .

c4) 13 . . . ltJd5 14 ..ia3 iia5 15 ..ixd5! 'ii'xd5 16 c4 iia5 17 tLlxd4 ..id7 18 'ii'g4 0-0-0 19 tLlb5!? axb5 20 axb5 tLle5 21 'ii'xg7 tLlf3+ 22 �h1 .l:.hg8

8 2

23 ..id6! ! (an amazing move - that's why I like to see correspondence games!) 23 .. Jhg7 24 l:ha5 b6 25 .l:ta8+ �b7 26 lhd8 and White won, G.Bucciardini-A.Glorioso, correspon­dence 1988 . 9 .l:.d11

White wants to continue with l:td1 and tLlb3, but the move order is impor­tant because as long as the knight stays on d2 White is also threatening ltJe4 or ltJc4 in some variations. I think Black has more defensive resources after 9 ltJb3 ..id6! 10 l!td1 tLlge7! (rather than 10 . . . tLlf6, transposing to 8 . . . ltJf6 from the previous note). 9 . . . ttJge7

Or: a) 9 .. . ..id6?! 10 ..ib5! with a clear ad­

vantage for White as ltJc4 is coming. b) 9 . . . ..ic5!? is the move that Black

must play if he wants to exploit White's move order: 10 ..ib5! tLlf6 (10 . . . a6?! 1 1 ..ixc6+ bxc6 12 ltJe4!) 1 1 tLlb3 0-0 1 2 tLlxc5 'ii'xc5 13 ..ixc6 bxc6!? (13 . . . 'ii'xc6 14 .l:.xd4! is better for White) 14 .l:txd4! e5! ? (Black must complicate matters; 14 . . . 'ii'b6 15 b3! ..ib7 16 ..ib2 c5 17 .l:.h4 gives White a strong attack as 17 . . Jlfd8? loses to 18 ..ixf6 gxf6 19 iie3 ..ixf3 20 'ii'xf3 'iid6 21 'ii'g4+ �h8 22 �5) 15 'ii'xe5 'iixc2 16 ..ig5! tLld5 (16 . . . 'iixb2?! 17 !:tel ltJdS 18 .l:.xd5 'fixeS 19 lldxe5 f6 20 .:!.e7! fxg5 21 .l:.c7! is good for White) 17 .:tel 'iig6 18 ..id2 .U.d8 19 .l:tdc4 f6 20 'iig3 'ii'xg3 21 hxg3 and White has a small advantage.

c) 9 . . . ..ie7 10 tLlb3 ..if6 1 1 .Jil.b5! ltJge7 (1 1 . . . .J\.d7?! 12 ltJfxd4 tLlge7 13 c3 .l:.d8 14 tLlf3 0-0 was J.Cely-T.Cagasik, Czech

League 2003, and now 1S �d3! liJdS 16 'ii'e4 g6 17 �h6 l:tfe8 18 �gS! gives White a strong attack) 12 ltJbxd4 0-0 13 lbxc6 bxc6 14 �d3 cS! (F.Olafsson­D.Bronstein, Amsterdam 1954) 1S lDgS! lDfS 16 'ii'hs h6 (16 . . . �xgS 17 �xgS 'ii'xb2? loses to 18 .:tab1 Wxa2 19 �e4) 17 lDe4 �eS 18 g4! . The position is very complicated but seems to favour White after 18 . . . c4! ? 19 �xc4 �b7 20 �d3 g6 21 'ii'h3. 10 lDb3 tt::lfs 11 �d3 tt::ld6 12 a4!

12 ... a6 12 . . . �e7 13 aS Wc7 14 tt::lfxd4 tt::lxd4

1S tt::lxd4 �d7 16 �f4! lld8 17 tt::lbS �xbS 18 �xbS+ �f8 19 a6 b6 20 �d3 was clearly better for White in 'Gorodish' -'Tiger Lilly', Internet 2003. 12 . . . tt::lb4 13 aS 'ii'c7 14 �f4 tt::lxd3 1S ltxd3! is also a good deal better for White. 13 as 'ii'a7

White obtained a clear advantage after 13 . . . Wc7 14 tt::lfxd4 �e7 1S tt::lxc6 'ii'xc6 16 tt::ld4 'iVdS 17 tt::lf3 'ii'hs 18 �f4 in P.David-Z.Skyva, Karvina 1986. 14 l:ta41

All the white pieces have been de-

3 . . . c5 4 li'Jgf3 cxd4 5 exd5 'ikxds

veloped with tempo on the d4-pawn. 14 ... ltJbs 15 �xbs axbs 16 l:laxd41 lbxd4

So far we have been following A.Beliavsky-P.Nikolic, Wijk aan Zee 1984. 17 llxd41

Beliavsky chose 17 tt::lfxd4, but 17 1:txd4 is the strongest move as White threatens to mate Black immediately and there is no defence. This position is very good as an exercise to improve calculation. Cover the rest of the moves and try to analyse the position for an hour. Then compare the results. 17 ... �e7

17 .. . 'ii'a6? 18 �g5 f6 (or 18 .. . �e7 19 �xe7 �xe7 20 'ii'eS) 19 tt::leS! wins im­mediately.

White also wins after 17 .. .£6? 18 tt::leS! fxeS 19 'iWhS+ g6 (19 . . . �e7 20 �gS mate) 20 'ii'xeS 1:tg8 21 'ii'xbS+ �f7 22 �gS �d6 (22 . . . 'ii'a6? 23 l:tf4+ �g7 24 'ii'e5 mate) 23 .:txd6 .:te8 24 'ii'eS. 18 'ii'xbS+ �8 19 'ii'hs ! 'ii'a6

If 19 . . . f6 20 .l:tg4 g6 (20 . . .'ifa6 21 .:txg7!; 20 .. . h6 21 'ii'g6 .l:tg8 22 �xh6) 21 .:txg6! hxg6 22 iixh8+ �f7 23 it'h7+ �e8

83

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

24 'ir'xg6+ �d7 25 'ir'd3+ i.d6 26 i.e3 'ifb8 27 i.b6 Black's pieces are nicely gift-wrapped in a box!

19 ... e5 is a final effort to breathe but after 20 tt:'lxe5 i.e6 21 l:lf4 f6 22 tt:'ld4 all the white pieces are invited to the party, and Black can resign following 22 .. .'it'a6 23 l:te4! 'itg8 24 tt:'lf5! i.c5 25 .l:tg4. 20 .l:tf41 g6

20 .. .f5? is met by 21 tt:'le5. 21 'ir'es .:lg8

Or 2l . . .f6 22 .l:txf6+ 'ite8 23 .l:txg6. 22 ttJgs

22 ... fs After 22 .. . i.xg5 23 'ir'xg5 e5! 24 'ir'xe5

'ir'e6 25 'ir'c3 White has a crushing at­tack on the dark squares - the knight is coming to c5, the rook to d4 and the bishop to h6. 23 .l:td4 h6 24 tt:'lf3 gS 25 i.d2 'ifi>f7 26 'ir'c71 nes 27 ttJes+ 'itg8

If 27 . . . 'itf6, 28 .l:td3 and i.c3 is com­ing. 28 .l:tdSI I

Black can resign.

B) 6 ... 'ir'd81?

8 4

This move was popular ten years ago, but nowadays it is a rare guest at chess tournaments. I think that White has the same difficulty proving an ad­vantage here as he does when facing the main line, and this is quite logical given that the queen is no worse on d8 than on d6. Usually the queen will end up on c7, but with it on d8 Black has ideas based upon . . . i.c5 and also the queen is not vulnerable to tt:'lb5 ideas. The negative aspect from Black's point of view is threefold: there's no longer the possibility of .. J:td8; he cannot cre­ate instant threats on the b8-h2 diago­nal; and White can develop with i.f4. 7 0-0

Black has four main options at his disposal:

81: 7 ... tt:'le7?! 82: 7 ... tt:'lf6 83: 7 ... a6 84: 7 ... tt:'lc61

Black should avoid 7 . . . i.d6? 8 tt:'le4 and 7 .. .f6? 8 .l:tel e5 9 tt:'lxe5! .

7 . . . i.c5?! 8 tt:'lb3 i.b6 9 tt:'lbxd4 isn't

much better: for example, 9 . . . tt::\e7 10 i.e3 0-0 1 1 'ii'e2 a6 I2 .l::tadi 'ii'c7 I3 i.d3 tt::\bc6?

I4 i.xh7+! (yes, we have a classic example of the Greek gift; cover the rest of the moves and try to find them by yourself please!) I4 . . .'i1o>xh7 IS tt::\g5+ 'it>g6 I6 'ii'd3+ tt::\f5 (I6 .. .f5 loses to I7 tt::\dxe6 i.xe6 I8 tt::\xe6) I7 tt::\xf5 exf5 I8 i.xb6 'ii'xb6 I9 'ii'g3 (threatening 20 tt::\e6+) I9 .. .f4 (I9 .. J:!.e8 loses to 20 tt::\e6+ 'it>f6 2I 'ii'xg7+ 'it>xe6 22 .l:r.fei+) 20 .l:.d6+ f6 2I 'ii'h4 i.f5 22 'ii'h7+ 'it>xg5 23 h4+ 'it>g4 24 'ii'xg7+ 'it>xh4 25 'ifu6+ 'it>g4 26 'it>h2! (White covers the g3-square and is ready to mate his opponent with 27 f3) 26 .. .'ifxf2 (26 .. .f3 loses to 27 'ii'g7+ 'it>h5 28 g4+ i.xg4 29 'it>g3) 27 'ii'g7+ 'it>h5 28 .l:r.xf2 tt::\e5 29 l::!.xf4 and Black re­signed, M.Leu-P.Muck, correspon­dence I973.

81) 7 ... tt::\e7?1 8 tt::\b3 'ii'c7 White gains a dangerous initiative

after 8 . . . tt::\g6 9 tt::\bxd4 a6 IO 'ii'e2 i.e7 I I .l::tdi 'ii'c7 I2 h4! . For example, I2 . . . 0-0 (I2 . . . tt::\xh4?! 13 tt::\xh4 i.xh4 I4 tt::\f5) I3 i.d3 i.f6 (13 . . . tt::\f4? I4 i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 IS

3 . . . c5 4 li:Jgf3 cxd4 5 exd5 'ikxd5

'ii'e4+ tt::\g6 I6 h5) I4 h5 tt::\e5 IS i.f4! tt::\xf3+ I6 'ii'xf3 'ii'b6 I7 'ii'e4 g6 I8 hxg6 hxg6 I9 tt::\f3 tt::\d7 20 i.c4! i.e7 2I tt::\e5 tt::\f6 22 'ii'f3 'it>g7 23 i.e3 'ii'a5 24 i.d4 i.c5 25 tt::\c6 and Black resigned, J.Mularczyk-R.Polaczek, correspon­dence I994. 9 'ii'e2 tt::\g6 10 tt::\bxd4

10 ... a6?l Alternatively: a) IO . . . tt::\c6 1 1 tt::\xc6 bxc6 I2 b3! ?

i.d6 I3 i.b2 0-0 I4 .l::tadi i.b7 IS i.a6! was V.Kotronias-A.Daniilidis, Athens I996. IS i.a6! is a move that a com­puter will never understand. White exchanges the bishops as it leaves Black with many light-squared weak­nesses on the queenside.

b) 10 . . . i.e7 11 tt::\b5! 'ii'b6 I2 a4 a6 I3 aS 'ii'd8 I4 .l:.di i.d7 IS tt::\d6+ i.xd6 I6 .l:t.xd6 'ii'c7 I7 'ii'd3!? i.c6 I8 i.e3 i.e4 (I8 . . . tt::\d7 is met by I9 i.xe6! fxe6 20 l:r.xe6+ tt::\e7 2I .l::txe7+! 'it>xe7 22 .l:t.ei and White wins) was played in V.lsupov­M.Vitinik, Vladivostok I995, and here I9 .l::txe6+! fxe6 20 'ii'xe4 'ii'c6 (20 . . . 0-0 2I tt::\g5! ) 2I 'ii'g4 gives White a winning attack as it is not easy for Black's king

8 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

to find shelter: for example, 21 . . .0-0 22 .l:i.d1 ! 'it>h8 23 tt:lg5 tt:le5 24 'it'hS h6 25 tt:lxe6 'ii'xc4 (25 . . . tt:lxc4? 26 'ifg6 l:tg8 27 �d4) 26 tt:lxf8. 11 l:te1

White has often chosen the sacrifice 1 1 �xe6!?, but despite good results it's not that clear.

I don't see any reason for White to sacrifice, especially as there are other continuations guaranteeing some ad­vantage. The best defence is 1 1 . . . fxe6 12 tt:lxe6 �xe6 13 'it'xe6+ �e7 14 tt:lg5 tt:lc6! 15 'ii'£7+ 'it>d7 16 'ii'e6+ (16 'ii'£5+!? 'it>e8 17 tt:le6 'ifeS 18 'ifxe5 tt:lgxe5 19 tt:lc7+ 'it>f7 20 tt:lxa8 !!.xa8 21 �£4 is slightly better for White) 16 . . . 'it>e8. Now White can play 17 .l:i.e1 ! (Forster) but even though he has the initiative, nothing is clear: for example, 17 . . . tt:ld8 18 'if£5 'ii'd7 19 'iff3 'ii'c6 20 I:l.e4 h6! .

There are good alternatives to 1 1 J:tel . For example, 1 1 �g5!? tt:lc6 12 l::tad1 �e7 13 tt:lxc6 �xg5 14 tt:lxg5 'ii'xc6 15 l:.d4! 'ii'cS 16 'ife3 'ifc7 17 'ifa3 'ii'e7 18 �b5+ was clearly better for White in A.Zapata-D.Hergott, Linares 1994. Or 1 1 g3! ? �e7 12 h4 (setting Black imme-

8 6

diate problems with the g6-knight) 12 . . . tt:ld7 13 �xe6! fxe6 14 tt:lxe6 'it'b6 15 I:te1 tt:lf6 16 tt:lxg7+ was good for White in S.Robovic-H.Schneider Zinner, Wat­tens 1994 - he already has three pawns for the piece and the attack is still go­ing strong. 11 ... �e1 12 �b3 o-o 13 �gs �d6 14 'ii'd3

14 • • • h6? White is better after 14 .. . �d7 15

l:.ad1 �c5 16 tt:lh4! tt:lxh4 17 �xh4, but 14 .. . tt:lc6 15 tt:lxc6 'it'xc6 16 .l:tad1 �c7 17 c3 restricts White to a small advantage and 14 . . . tt:le5!? is also possible. 15 tt:lxe61 �xe6

15 .. .fxe6? 16 'ii'xg6 I:txf3 17 gxf3 hxgS 18 �xe6+ �xe6 19 'ii'xe6+ 'it>h7 20 'ii'£5+ g6 21 'ifh3+ 'it>g7 22 .l:te8 wins for White. 16 .l:txe61 fxe6

(V.Yandemirov-A.Nikitin, Tomsk 1997) Now 17 �xe6+ 'it>h8 (17 . . . 'it>h7? loses to 18 tt:lh4!) 18 'ii'xg6 tt:lc6 19 �fS .l:txf5 20 'ii'x£5 tt:le5 (20 . . . hxg5? 21 tt:lxg5) 21 tt:lxe5 �xeS 22 �e3 �xb2 23 .l:tb1 leaves White a healthy pawn ahead.

82) 7 • • . tt:lf6 8 tt:lb3 �e7 9 tt:lbxd4 o-o

9 . . . 'iVc7 10 'iVe2 a6 1 1 l:le1 b5 12 .i.b3 .i.b7 allows 13 llJg5! when Black comes under heavy attack, and 13 . . . tt:Jc6 14 tt:Jgxe6 fxe6 15 lDxe6 'iVa5 16 lDxg7+ �f8 17 .i.h6 was winning in Guizar­Navarro, correspondence 1999. 10 'iVe2

Black's problem is that he is behind in development and it is not easy to exchange pieces to relieve the pressure. Furthermore, the white rook is quickly going to d1, posing problems to Black's queen as she cannot easily find a safe square. 10 . . . a6

Alternatively: a) 10 . . . .i.d7? 1 1 :d1 ! llJd5 12 lDf5

.i.f6 13 .i.xd5 exd5 14 nxd5 was dearly better for White in L.Prins-A.Vinken Maastricht 1946.

b) 10 ... tt:Jc6 11 nd1 tt:Jxd4 12 l:i.xd4! 'iVb6 13 c3 .i.d7 14 .i.g5 :adS 15 :ad1 .i.c6 16 llJe5 and again White has a dear plus.

c) 10 . . . 'iVb6 11 c3 llJc6 (or 1 l . . . .i.c5 12 b4! .i.xd4 13 llJxd4 llJc6 14 .i.e3! 'iVc7 15 lDxc6 'iVxc6, W.Halser-M.Schrank, Feldbach 1997, and now 16 .i.c5! l:ld8

3 . . . cs 4 tlJgf3 cxd4 5 exds 'fixds

17 1Le7 wins the exchange) 12 .i.e3 llJxd4 13 1Lxd4 iLc5!? 14 .i.xf6 gxf6 (I.Radulov-T.Yilmaz, Bihac 1979) 15 l:lad1 ! and White has the advantage as he is ready to play %4 and l:.d3, or l:.d2 followed by :fdl . 11 :d1l 'iVc7

1l . . .'iVb6 12 llJe5 llJbd7? 13 llJx£7! �x£7 14 .i.xe6+ �e8 15 lDf5 ended in an immediate win for White in I.Oren­Shmidet, correspondence 1997. 12 tt:Jes

12 . • . tt:Jdsl Trying to prevent .i.f4. After

12 . . . .i.c5?! 13 .i.f4 .i.xd4 14 :xd4 llJc6 15 l:.d3 'iVb6 16 llJxc6 'iVxc6 17 .i.e5 llJe4 18 :e3 llJd6 19 .i.d3 White enjoyed a con­siderable advantage in T.Remille­P.Sally, Aix les Bains 2006. 13 llJdf31 lDc61

13 . . . tt:Jb6? 14 .i.d3 llJ8d7 15 'iVe4 lDf6 16 'iVh4 :ds 17 .i.g5 gave White a win­ning attack in J.Pelikian-J.Egoroff, Bra­silia 1994, as 17 . . . h6 loses to 18 .i.xh6! nxd3! (18 . . . gxh6? 19 'iVg3+ �f8 20 lDg6+) 19 .i.xg7! .:txd1+ 20 l:txd1 �xg7 21 'iVg3+ �h7 22 lDg5+. 14 .i.xd5

8 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

Also possible i s 14 .ltb3!? with the idea of c2-c4. 14 ... exds 15 ltxds .lte6 16 tL!xc6 bxc6

This is better than 16 . . . 'ii'xc6?! 17 l:td1 �f6 18 lL!d4! . 17 l:!.d1

White is a pawn up, but Black has some compensation due to his slightly better development, the bishop pair and some pressure both on the b2-f6 diagonal and the b-file. All in all, White has a slight advantage.

83) 7 ... a6 8 lL!b3

8 ... 1i'c71? Black's idea is to play . . . �d6 and

. . . lL!ge7. 8 . . . b5?! is premature, as the b5-

pawn offers White the chance to start a flank attack with a2-a4 at any given moment. One possible continuation would be 9 �d3 �b7 10 lL!bxd4 �c5 1 1 l:te1 lLif6 12 a4 b4 13 aS 0-0 14 �f4 lL!c6 15 lL!b3 �e7 16 1i'e2 and White is better.

8 . . . lL!f6?! is inferior, as Black imme­diately loses any possibilities with . . . lL!ge7. White was clearly better after 9 lL!bxd4 1i'c7 10 We2 i..e7 1 1 lte1 lL!c6 12

88

lL!xc6 bxc6?! 13 tbe5 0-0 14 .ltgS ttJdS 15 i..xe7 tbxe7 16 ltad1 lt:lg6 1 7 ttJxg6 hxg6 18 Wd3 1i'h6 19 b3 l:.a7 20 'ii'd4 in S.B.Hansen-S.Petersen, Copenhagen 1996.

In general it is very important to keep your position as flexible as possible, and not to disclose your plans to the opponent too early. 9 'ii'e2

9 1i'xd4!? lL!c6 10 1Wh4 has been tested many times. I think it also gives White a small advantage. 9 ... i..d6

9 . . . lL!c6 10 lL!bxd4 (10 l:ld1 i..d6 1 1 lL!bxd4 lL!xd4 12 lhd4 i s also possible) 10 . . . lL!xd4 1 1 lL!xd4 transposes to Line B4. 10 lL!bxd4 lL!e7 11 .l:.e11

11 ... lL!bc6 After 1 1 . . .0-0? White can begin a

maniacal attack: 12 lL!g5! h6 (if 12 . . . i..xh2+ 13 'it>h1 �d6 14 Wd3 lL!g6 15 lL!dxe6 i..xe6 16 l:txe6! ) 13 lL!xf7 'it>xf7 (or 13 .. J:txf7 14 lL!xe6 i..xe6 15 Wxe6 lL!g6 16 'ii'xg6 i..xh2+ 17 '1t>h1 'ii'xc4 18 l:te8+ ltf8 19 l:hf8+ 'it>xf8 20 'it>xh2 with a clear advantage) 14 lL!xe6 i..xe6 15

'ii'xe6+ �e8 16 Ji.xh6! l:lf6 (16 . . . gxh6 17 l:tad1) 17 'ii'g8+ �d7 18 .U.xe7+! ? Ji.xe7 19 .::td1+ �c6 (if 19 . . . J:i.d6 20 Ji.e6+ �c6 21 Ji.d5+ �d7 22 Ji.f4 and White wins) 20 'ii'd5+ �b6 21 Ji.e3+ Ji.c5 22 b4 and White is winning, R.Slobodjan­M.Kaminski, Halle 1995.

White can play similarly against 1l . . .Ji.d7 with 12 tt:'lg5 ! : for example, 12 . . . tt:'lbc6 (12 . . . 0-0? loses to 13 tt:'lxf7! l:txf7 14 tt:'lxe6; 12 . . . Ji.xh2+ 13 �h1 ! ) 13 tt:'lxc6 tt:'lxc6 ( if 13 . . . Ji.xc6 14 tt:'lxf7!) 14 'ii'h5! g6 15 'ii'h4 with the initiative. 12 tt:'lxc6 tt:'lxc6

Now we understand why the white rook belongs on the e1-square, as here it stops the defensive idea . . . tt:'le5. 13 Ji.d3 Ji.d7 14 a31?

White prevents . . . tt:'lb4, but this move also prepares the pawn roller b2-b4 and c2-c4. Now 14 . . . Ji.f4 15 b4! ? Ji.xcl 16 l:.axcl l:.d8 17 c4 Ji.c8 18 'ii'e4 tt:'le7 19 h4 f6 20 c5!, intending 21 Ji.c4, left White well on top in B.Shovunov­M.Manninen, Elista 1998.

84) 7 . • • tt:'lc61 8 tt:'lb3 tt:'lf6 Black has a few alternatives:

3 . . . cs 4 !Ogf3 cxd4 5 exds Wxds

a) 8 . . . e5? 9 .l:.e1 f6 10 tt:'lfxd4 is good for White.

b) 8 . . . Ji.e7! ? 9 'ii'e2! Ji.f6 10 l:.d1 tt:'lge7 1 1 tt:'lfxd4! Ji.xd4 12 Ji.e3 a6 (after 12 . . . tt:'lf5 13 tt:'lxd4 tt:'lcxd4 14 Ji.b5+! �e7 15 Ji.xd4 tt:'lxd4 16 'ii'e3 White has a clear advantage as 16 . . . 'ii'b6 17 l:.xd4 'ii'xb5 loses to 18 'ii'a3+ �e8 19 llad1 Ji.d7 20 lhd7 'ii'xd7 21 l:.xd7 �xd7 22 'ii'f3 when White's queen penetrates Black's camp and wins a pawn) 13 Ji.xd4!? tt:'lxd4 14 l:.xd4 'ii'c7 15 l:.ad1 0-0 16 Ji.d3 and White is much better, H.Rissanen-G.Plank, correspondence 1975.

c) 8 . . . a6!? 9 tt:'lbxd4! (now that Black has lost some time, White takes on d4) 9 . . . tt:'lxd4 10 tt:'lxd4 is important.

Black will attempt to use the extra tempo gained by not playing . . . tt:'lf6. The plan is to develop quickly with . . . 'ii'c7 and . . . Ji.d6. The question is, will White be able to offer the h2-pawn as in the main lines with 6 . . . 'ii'd6? Let's see:

cl) 10 . . . Ji.d6 11 l:.e1 'ii'c7 (Black can­not exploit the knight's absence from f6: after 1 1 . . . 'ii'h4? 12 g3 'ii'd8 13 tt:'lf5

8 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

.llf8 14 .llf4 White has a big advantage; 1 1 . . . tiJf6? is also bad for Black after 12 tiJf5!) 12 'ii'e2 reaches note 'c3' below.

c2) 10 . . . .llc5! ? 1 1 c3 tiJf6 (11 . . .'ifc7?! 12 'ii'g4! is good for White) 12 l:.e1 'ifc7 (12 . . . 0-0 13 �g5) 13 'ife2 transposes di­rectly to Line C32.

c3) 10 . . . 'ii'c7! 1 1 'ife2 �d6 12 l:.e1 tDe7 (12 . . . b5 13 �d5 .:tb8 14 tiJf5! is good for White; 12 . . . �xh2+ 13 'itth1 tiJf6 [13 . . . �d6 14 tiJf5!; 13 . . . �f4 14 �xe6!] 14 .llg5! transposes to Line C32) 13 tiJf3 0-0 14 �d3 tDg6 15 h4!? (15 �xg6 hxg6 16 'ife4 is the another typical idea, threatening 'ii'h4 and tDg5; the doubled pawns on g6 and g7 offer the knight a fantastic outpost on g5) 15 .. J:te8 16 tDg5! tiJf8 (or 16 . . . h6? 17 .llxg6 hxg5 18 �d3 gxh4 19 'ii'h5 g6 20 �xg6! fxg6 21 'ii'xg6+ 'ifilf8 22 �h6+ 'itte7 23 �g5+ 'ittd7 [if 23 . . . 'itt£8 24 .l:te3] 24 'if£7+ l:te7 25 .llxe7 �xe7 26 lhe6 and White wins) 17 �d2 �d7? (17 . . . h6) 18 'ii'h5 g6 19 'ii'h6 �b5 20 �c3 e5 21 .l:tad1 £5? 22 �x£5 and White was winning in F.Helmond­J.Sutmuller, Dutch League 1995. 9 'ii'e21

knight to f6, White doesn't hurry to recapture on d4 giving Black the op­portunity to exchange pieces. Instead he poses more problems by continuing his development, intending a quick ltdl . 9 . . . �e7

Some alternatives: a) 9 . . . 'ifb6 10 l:.d1 transposes to Line

A, note to Black's 8th move. b) 9 . . . 'ifc7 10 tiJbxd4 tiJxd4 1 1 tiJxd4

a6 12 .l:.e1 transposes to Line C. c) 9 . . . �d6 10 .l:td1 'ii'c7 11 tiJbxd4

tiJxd4 12 !hd4 0-0 13 �g5 e5 (after 13 . . . .lle7 14 l::r.ad1 a6 15 a4 tiJe8 16 �d3 h6 17 l:i.c4 �c5 18 �d8! Black resigned in P.Blazkova-M.Klimes, Plzen 1995) 14 l:th4 �£5 15 �xf6 gx£6 16 �d3 �g6 (A.Kharitonov-J .Lund, correspondence 2000) 17 .l:tg4! 'itth8 18 tiJh4 .l:tg8 19 'iV£3 �e7 20 tiJ£5 .

With the knight on f5 White has a slight but lasting advantage, as any exchange on £5 will lead to a strong attack for White due to the opposite­coloured bishops.

Opposite-coloured bishops are useful Now that Black has committed his attacking pieces in the middlegame and

9 0

useful defensive pieces in the endgame. d) 9 . . . a6?! doesn't 'fit' well with an

early . . . ltJf6. For example, 10 .l:td1 ..lte7 (10 . . . bS as usual presents an easy target for an eventual a2-a4: 11 ltJbxd4! ltJxd4 12 lhd4 'ilfb6 13 ..ltd3! ..ltcS 14 .l:th4 ..ltb7 lS a4 b4 16 aS! with advantage, G.Sax­U.Andersson, Hilversum 1973) 1 1 ltJbxd4 lt:\xd4 12 l:!.xd4 'ilfb6 13 c3 ..ltd7 14 ltJeS! ..ltbS 1S a4 ..ltxc4 16 lt:\xc4 'ili'cS! 17 ..lte3 'iihS (17 .. .'iifS? loses after 18 g4! ) 18 'ili'xhS ltJxhS 19 ltJd6+ ..ltxd6 20 .l:txd6 and White enjoyed a small but enduring advantage in A.Mestel­T.Petrosian, Las Palmas 1982. 10 l:td1 0-0

White was better after both 10 . . . ..1td7 11 ltJbxd4 'ili'c8?! 12 ..ltgS 0-0 13 lt:\xc6 ..ltxc6 14 ltJeS! (Toran-Gonzales, Spain 19S2) and 10 . . . 'ilfb6 1 1 a4! ? aS 12 ltJfxd4 ltJxd4 13 l:r.xd4 ..ltd7 14 ..lte3 'i¥c7 1S ..ltf4 'ilfb6 16 'iVeS! 0-0 17 ..lte3 'ili'd8 18 'i¥g3 (M.Brzeski-M.Pyrzynski, Leba 2006) . 11 lt:\bxd4

11 ... 'ili'c7 1 1 l . . .'ilfb6 12 c3 ..ltd7 13 ..lt£4! is

slightly better for White. After 1 1 . . .ltJxd4 12 l:.xd4! 'ilfb6 13 c3

3 . . . cs 4 l:i:Jgf3 cxd4 5 exds 'ikxds

Jl.d7 (13 . . . Jl.c5?! 14 .l::th4) 14 lt:\e5 .l::tfd8 15 lt:\xd7 .l::txd7 16 .l::txd7 lt:\xd7 17 ..lt£4 .l:td8 18 .l:!.d1 ltJf6 a draw was agreed in P.McCollum-J.Lank, correspondence 1998, although White has a small ad­vantage following 19 llxd8+ 'ili'xd8 20 h3 because of his bishop pair and queenside majority. 12 lt:\xc6

12 ltJbS!? 'ilfb8 13 ..ltg5 a6 14 ltJbd4 ..ltd7 15 lt:\xc6 ..ltxc6 16 lt:\e5 'ili'c7 17 lt:\xc6 i s another way to secure an edge . 12 ... bxc6

Worse is 12 . . . 'ili'xc6 13 ltJeS 'ili'e4 14 ..ltgS! 'ili'xe2 1S ..ltxe2 ltJd5 16 ..ltxe7 lt:\xe7 17 ltJd7! .l::te8 18 ..ltb5 ..ltxd7 19 l:txd7 llab8 20 :ad1, when White has a big advantage . 13 ..tgs ..ltb7

13 .. . ltJd5? loses a pawn to 14 ..ltxdS cxd5 15 ..ltxe7 'ili'xe7 16 .Uxd5. 14 ttJes

Now: a) 14 ... lt:\d5 again loses a pawn: 15

..ltxe7 'ili'xe7 16 lt:\xc6! (Pachman-Van Heiden, Hilversum 1947) .

b) 14 . . . l:.ad8 15 l:txd8 l:.xd8? (1S . . . ..Itxd8 16 ..lt£4 'ilfb6 is forced, al-

9 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defence

though White i s still better after 17 .l:f.d1 as 17 .. . 'ii'xb2? loses to 18 l2Jxf7!) 16 l2Jxf7! �xf7 17 'ii'xe6+ �g6 18 'ii'f7+ �xg5 19 'ii'xg7+ �f5 20 .l:.e1 J.c8 21 h4 'ii'f4 (S.Osbom-M.Watersworth, corre­spondence 1968) and now after 22 'ii'xe7! .l:.e8 23 J.d3+ �g4 24 'ii'g7+ �h5 25 l:he8 l2Jxe8 26 'ii'xh7+ 'iih6 27 J.e2+ J.g4 28 'ii'f5+ Black is mated.

c) 14 . . . c5! G.Kabon-M.Hecko, Czechoslovakia 1984) 15 l2Jd7! (15 tt:Jxf7? 'ii'c6! ) 15 . . . 'ii'c6 16 f3 .l:.fd8 17 l2Jxf6+ J.xf6 18 J.xf6 gxf6 19 'ii'e3 'ifc7 20 b3 �h8! and White has a small ad­vantage, but Black's position is very solid (instead 20 . . . 'ife5? 21 'ifxe5 fxe5 22 .l:.xd8+ .l:txd8 23 l:i.e1 ! l:.d2 24 1:txe5 .l:lxc2 25 a4 �g7 26 l:txc5 is bad for Black) .

C) 6 ... 'ifd6 7 o-o

7 • • • tt:Jf6 After 7 . . . l2Jc6?! White has a choice: a) 8 l2Jb3 obliges Black to return to

the main line, as 8 . . . e5?! 9 l2Jg5 l2Jh6 10 f4! gives White a strong attack. For ex­ample, 10 . . . 'ifb4 (10 . . . J.g4 1 1 J.xf7+!; or 10 . . . 'ifc7 11 fxe5 l2Jxe5 12 J.b5+ J.d7 13 J.xd7+ 'ifxd7, R.Seger-A.Barsov, Essen

9 2

Borbeck 1999, and now 14 l2Jf3! l2Jxf3+ 15 'ii'xf3 0-0-0 16 J.xh6 gxh6 17 .l:.ad1) 1 1 'ii'e2! f6 12 l2Jf3 is very good for White.

b) 8 l2Je4 is the way to 'punish' Black's move order:

8 . . . 'ili'd8 (8 . . . 'i!ib4 9 'ii'd3! a6 - or 9 . . . e5 10 .l:te1 ! J.e7 1 1 c3 dxc3 12 a3! 'ifb6 13 l2Jxc3 - 10 l:.d1 b5 1 1 J.b3 J.b7 12 c3! was clearly better for White in R.Buckmann-F.Mesquita, correspon­dence 2000) 9 'ii'e2 J.e7 (9 . . . l2Jf6!? 10 l:ld1 'iib6 11 a3 J.e7 12 b4 l2Jxe4 - or 12 . . . 0-0 !? 13 J.b2 e5 14 b5 l2Ja5 15 J.d3 l2Jd7 16 l2Jed2 J.f6 17 c3 with good compensation - 13 'ifxe4 J.f6 14 J.g5 J.xg5 15 l2Jxg5 h6 16 l2Jf3 J.d7 17 l2Jxd4 l2Jxd4 18 .l:txd4 and White has a pleas­ant advantage, A.Motylev-I.Buljovcic, Herceg Novi 2000) 10 .l:.d1 l2Jf6 (10 . . . 'ifb6 1 1 J.f4 J.d7 12 l2Je5 l:.d8 13 J.b3 l2Jxe5 14 J.xe5 l2Jf6 15 J.xd4 was much better for White in V.Dimitrov­E.Formanek, Castellar 1995) 1 1 c3 and now:

b1) 1 1 . . .l2Jxe4 12 'ii'xe4 0-0 13 cxd4!? is a good isolated d-pawn position for White as he is threatening to open up

with d4-d5: 13 . . . tt:lb4 14 �e1 ii.f6 15 ii.f4 lt:Jd5 16 ii.e5 iLxe5 17 dxe5 b6 18 ii.xd5 'iixd5 19 'ir'xd5 exd5 20 �acl ii.e6 21 tt:ld4 with a lasting advantage in the endgame, R.Martin del Carnpo­A.Escobedo Tinajero, Mexico 1991 .

b2) 1 1 . . . 0-0 12 tt:lxd4 tt:lxd4 13 l:.xd4 'iic7 14 tt:lxf6+!? iLxf6 15 iLf4 e5 16 iLg3 (Black has problems with the e5-pawn and the pin on the h2-b8 diagonal) 16 . . . ii.f5 17 l:te1 l:tfe8 18 ii.b5 .:te7 19 l:td5 a6 20 ii.d3 and White has a good position. 8 tt:lb3 tt:lc6 g lt:Jbxd4 lt:Jxd4 10 lt:Jxd4

This is the main starting point of the . . . 'ir'xd5 variation. Now we will ana­lyse:

C1: 10 ... iLe7 (2: 10 ... ..td7 C3: 10 ... a6

After 10 .. . 'ir'c7 11 'iie2 Black is obliged to play 1 1 . . .a6, when 12 l:.e1 transposes to the main line, as 1 1 . . . ..td6? 12 tt:lb5! 'iib8 (12 ... ..txh2+ 13 ..ti>h1 'iib8 14 g3 ..txg3 15 fxg3 'iixg3 16 ..tf4 'iih3+ 17 'iih2 wins for White) 13

3 . . . cs 4 0.gf3 cxd4 s exds 'ilxds

tt:lxd6+ 'ir'xd6 14 l:.d1 is obviously good for White. After 14 . . . 'iic7 15 b3 0-0 16 ii.a3 �d8? (to stop ..td6) 17 'ii'e5! Black resigned in M.Matulovic-G.Kool, Lon­don 1989: following 17 . . . 'iib6 18 ..tc5 'ii'a5 19 b4 he will be mated on the back rank.

C1) 10 ... ..te7 11 b31 o-o 12 ..tb2

This is a very dangerous set-up. Black's passive . . . ..te7 has given White the opportunity to develop actively and he will continue with 'iif3, l:.ad1 and .:tfel . 12 ... ..td71?

Alternatively: a) 12 . . . e5? ! is dubious as the result­

ing endgame is favourable for White -Black needs his queen to protect impor­tant strategic points: 13 tt:lb5! 'iixd1 (or 13 . . . 'ii'b8 14 'ii'e1 ! e4 15 'iic3 a6 16 lt:Jc7 b5 17 ..te2 l:ta7 18 tt:ld5 ..td8 19 f3! exf3 20 l:txf3 and White has a strong initia­tive as a sacrifice on f6 is corning) 14 l:tfxd1 ..tf5 15 .:tacl l:tfd8 16 ..txe5 l:txd1+ 17 lhd1 ..txc2 18 :tel ..tg6?! (if 18 . . . ..te4 19 tt:ld6) 19 ..te2 ..te4 20 f3 ..td5 (if 20 . . . ..tc6, 21 tt:ld4 ..td5 22 tt:lf5) 21 ..ti>f2

9 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h D efence

h6 22 lt:ld6 ..i.d8 23 ..i.d4 lt:ld7 24 ..i.c4! and White had gained a clear advan­tage in M.Tal-W.Uhlmann, Moscow 1967.

b) 12 . . . l:td8 13 'ii'f3 'ii'b6 14 l:.ad1 ..i.d7 15 ..i.d3 l:tac8 16 c4 with an edge for White, H.Bellmann-E.lhlenfeld, cor­respondence 1998.

c) After 12 ... a6 13 'ii'f3 'ii'c7 14 l:tfe1 ..i.d6 (inferior is 14 . . . b5?! 15 ..i.d3 ..i.b7 16 'ii'h3 g6 17 a4! ) 15 1i'h3! White has the initiative, as following 15 . . . e5 16 lt:lf5 there is no way for Black to exploit the pin. In order to understand this posi­tion better it is important to compare it with 12 . . . ..i.d7, where Black holds off White's attack just in time because he has an extra tempo by omitting . . . a6.

d) It is too early to activate the queen with 12 . . . 'ii'f4. White replies with 13 We2 and now:

d1) 13 . . . 1i'e4?! actually loses time af­ter 14 1i'd2! .l::td8 15 .l:t.fe1 1Wh4 16 l:tad1 as White has already finished his de­velopment and is ready to start an at­tack: 16 . . . ..i.c5 (E.Geller-R.Vaganian, Moscow 1976) and now White has a winning attack with 17 1i'a5! lt:ld7!

94

(17 . . . b6 18 'ii'xc5 ! ! bxc5 19 .!Df3; 1 7 . . . ..i.b6 18 'ii'xb6! ! axb6 19 lt:lf3) 18 lt:lxe6! ..i.xf2+ 19 'ili>h1 l:.e8 20 lt:lxg7! ..i.xe1 21 1i'd5 (Black is a rook up but there is no de­fence! ) 21 . . .lt:le5 (if 2l . . . .:tf8 22 lt:lf5) 22 .i.xe5 .i.e6 23 lt:lxe6 l:.xe6 24 'ii'xb7 .

d2) 13 . . . .i.d7 14 .l:tad1 l:tad8! (14 ... .l:tfd8?! is worse, as the black rook needs to defend £7: 15 .l:td3! e5 16 .l:tf3 .i.g4 17 .i.x£7+! 'ili>h8 18 lt:le6 .i.xf3 19 gxf3 'ii'd2 20 'ii'xe5 and White has a strong attack) 15 .l:.d3 e5! 16 .i.cl ! We4 17 'ii'xe4 lt:lxe4 18 lt:lf3 with an edge for White. 13 1i'f3 'iic7

After 13 . . .'iib6 14 a4! .i.c5 15 lt:lb5 .i.xb5 16 axb5 iLe7 17 .i.d3 :fd8 18 c4 White has an lasting advantage. 14 l:.fe1

After 14 . . . .i.d6 15 1i'h3 e5 16 lt:lf5 .l:tfe8 17 l:tad1 (17 l:.e3!?) 17 . . . .i.b4!? (or 17 .. Jlad8 18 lt:lh6+! 'ili>f8! - 18 . . . gxh6? 19 1i'xh6 gives White a strong attack - 19 1Wh4 .l:te7 20 .i.d3 and White has the initiative) 18 I:te3 k!.ad8 19 .i.d3!? Black has to always be wary of ideas such as lt::\h6+, Wh4 and ltg3.

If Black chooses 14 .. J:tfe8, the safest

route to an edge is 1S tt::lbS!? ii.xbS 16 ii.xbS l::ted8 17 ii.d3 �d7 18 .ieS 'itb6 19 ltad1, when White enjoys the bishop pair and a queenside majority.

C2) 10 ... Ji.d7 11 C3

11 . . . 1Wc7 Or: a) Against 1 1 . . .0-0-0?!, 12 1We2! is the

best reply. White doesn't hurry to play ii.b3 as the bishop is better placed on c4 for many reasons. White is always threatening the knight jump to bS, so Black feels obliged to play . . . a6. Then to add to the possibility of a sacrifice on a6, the bishop doesn't block the path of the b-pawn - the push of this pawn is a typical idea that White uses to prise open Black's king. Finally, after the push b4-bS and the opening of the b­file, on c4 the bishop is not in the way of White's rooks.

After 12 . . . hS 13 a4 a6 (or 13 . . . tt::lg4 14 f4! 1Wc7 1S h3 tt::lf6 16 aS) 14 h3 1Wc7 1S .l:te1 ii.d6

(see following diagram)

3 . . . c5 4 !Dgf3 cxd4 5 exd5 'ilxd5

16 b4! 'Ot>b8 17 bS .l:.c8 18 ii.d3 aS 19 c4 eS 20 b6! 1Wxb6 21 tt::lbS .l:the8 22 tt::lxd6 1Wxd6 23 ii.e3 1Wa6 (23 . . . e4 24 ii.c2 'itb4 2S l:teb1 1Wxc4 26 1i'e1 ! 'iic3 27 ii.d2 is strong, as 27 .. .'ii'xc2? loses to 28 ii.f4+) 24 1i'd2 llcd8 2S cS White had obtained a strong attack in M.Read­P.Svacek, correspondence 1996.

b) 11 ... ii.e7 has some point because in comparison to 10 . . . ii.e7, White can no longer play the system with b2-b3. Even so, the bishop is still passively placed on e7 and White can gain the advantage in other ways. White plays 12 1We2! and now:

b1) 12 . . . 0-0 13 l::td1 ! 'iic7 (13 . . . 1WcS 14 ii.e3!? l:tac8 1S ii.bS! is one of the few cases where ii.bS is good, as White has time to put his knight on bS: 1S . . . 'iWeS 16 ii.xd7 tt::lxd7 17 tt::lbS! with advan­tage, J.Sprenger-Y.Kruppa, German League 200S) 14 tt::lbS!? ii.xbS (14 . . . 1Wc6 1S ii.f4 l:tfc8 16 ii.d3 tt::ldS 17 ii.eS f6 18 tt::ld4 'ii'b6 19 ii.g3 ii.f8 was M.Parligras­T.Kononenko, Seville 200S, and now 20 a4! aS 21 ii.bS ii.xbS 22 tt::lxbS 'Ot>h8 23 .l:td2 would give White a clear advan­tage) 1S ii.xbS h6 16 g3 l:!.fd8 17 ii.e3

9 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

�cS (E.Carlsen-J.Neric, Herceg Novi 2006) 18 'ifc4 with an edge for White.

b2) 12 .. Jk8!? obliges White to play l:tel, as 12 l:tdl is met by 12 . . . l:txc4! and . . . eS.

So 13 l:tel 0-0 14 �d3! (much better than 14 .ltb3, as White must create threats on the kingside) 14 . . . l:tcS!? (so far this is D.Chuprikov-A.Alavkin, Moscow 199S; after 14 . . . tt:JdS lS .lte4!? l:tfd8 16 'iif3 .lte8 17 a4 a6 18 aS White has a slight plus; or 14 . . . l:tfd8 lS .ltgS .lte8 16 l:tadl 'ifcS 17 .lth4 tt:JdS 18 'i¥e4 g6 19 .ltc2 and White is ready to bring his rook into the attack with l::td3) 15 .lte3 a6 16 tt:Jf3 lidS 17 l:.adl 'i¥c7 18 .ltd4 and White has a slight advantage.

c) l l . . . h5 12 'i¥e2 a6 13 .ltg5 0-0-0 14 b4 (14 h3! ?) 14 . . . tt:Jg4! 15 g3 f6! (15 . . . I!.e8 16 h3! f6 17 hxg4 fxg5 18 b5! is better for White) 16 tt:Jxe6 l:.e8 17 .ltf4 .l:.xe6! 18 .ltxd6 .:txe2 19 .ltxf8 l::td2 20 .ltc5 tt:Je5 21 .ltb3 tt:Jf3+ 22 �g2 .ltc6 gave Black good counterplay in D.Marciano-S.Luce, French League 1991 .

d) l l . . .'ii'cS! ? is a speciality of the strong Grandmaster Alexander Graf. It has similar ideas to ll . . . �e7 12 'ii'e2

9 6

l:tc8 but seems inferior to it: 12 'iie2 .l:.c8 13 �d3 .lte7 14 .ltf4 0-0 lS .:.adl .l:.fd8 16 .lte5 .lte8 17 l:tfel ..Was 18 .ltbl fl'h6 19 l:td3 (this is the best arrangement for White: the bishop on e5 and the rook via the third rank attack Black's king) 19 . . . .:td5 20 .:th3 g6 (20 . . . h6 21 'ii'c2 �f8 22 l:the3 is also better for White) 21 a3 tt:Jd7 22 .ltf4 .ltgS 23 .ltxgS l:txg5 24 'i¥d2 .:ds 25 .lta2 l:td6 26 'i¥h6 and White had a small advantage in V.Kotronias­A.Graf, Poros 1998. 12 'i¥e2

This is the main 'starting' position of the 10 . . . .ltd7 variation. Now Black can play:

(21: 12 . . . .ltd6?1 (22: 12 . . . 0-0-0

Alternatives are weaker: a) 12 . . . .lte7?! is passive and White

can gain the initiative immediately starting with 13 lt:JbS! . For example, 13 . . . 'iii'c6 (both 13 . . . .ltxb5 14 .ltxbS+ tt:Jd7 15 l:tdl ! 0-0-0 16 .lte3 and 13 . . . 'i¥b8 14 g3!? 0-0 15 .ltf4 'i¥d8 16 ltfdl are clearly better for White) 14 �f4 0-0 15 .Uadl a6

16 lLld4 'ii'c5 17 �e5 b5 18 �d3 l:tfe8 19 _...fe1 lLld5 20 �e4! l:!.ad8 21 .l:td3 (up to this point White has played perfectly) 2l . . .g6 22 'ilr'd2?! b4 (22 . . . lLlb6! gives Black some counterplay) 23 .l:r.f3 bxc3 24 bxc3 �f8 25 h4! �c8 26 h5 f6 27 hxg6! �g7 28 �xd5 fxe5 29 �xe6+ �h8 30 .l:th3 �xe6 31 lLlxe6 l:txd2 32 l:.xh7+ �g8 33 l:.xg7+ �h8 34 l:th7+ and Black re­signed, Ye Jiangchuan-N.McDonald, London 1997. This was an excellent game by the strong Chinese GM, and a model for this type of position.

b) 12 . . . �c5?! is also inferior, as it's not a good idea to take on d4. White replies 13 �g5! and now:

b1) After 13 . . . �xd4?! 14 cxd4 0-0-0 (14 . . . 0-0?! 15 �xf6 gxf6 16 'ii'g4+ �h8 17 'ii'h4 gives White a strong initiative as 17 ... 'ii'xc4? loses to 18 'ii'xf6+ �g8 19 .:tacl and .l:tc3) 15 .l:1acl �c6 16 b4! �b8 17 b5 �e8 18 �xe6 'ii'e7 19 'ii'e5+ �a8 20 �c4 Black was already losing in M.Ferencz-Z.Molnar, Hungarian League 1999.

b2) 13 . . . 0-0?! 14 �xf6! (grabbing the chance to compromise Black's pawn structure) 14 . . . gxf6 15 'iVg4+ �h8 16

3 . . . c5 4 l"Dgf3 cxd4 5 exd5 "iixds

'it'h4 'ii'd8 (16 . . . 'ii'e5? loses after 17 lLlf3 'ii'f5 18 .Ufd1 and 19 �d3; 16 . . . �e7? is met by 17 �d3; and 16 . . . �xd4 17 'ii'xd4 e5 18 'it'h4 'ii'b6 19 l:.ad1 �f5 20 �d3 was better for White in N.Danstrup­W.Koc, correspondence 1990) 17 .l:1ad1 f5 18 'ii'h5! 'ii'e8 19 .l:1fe1 �xd4 20 .l:txd4 l:tg8 21 'ii'h4 �c6 22 'ii'f6+ l:tg7 23 g3 �g8 24 l:.ed1 .l:r.g6 (M.Geenen­J.Goormachtigh, Brasschaat 1990) and now 25 'ii'h4! �g7 26 �e2 with the idea of 27 �h5 is obviously very good for White.

b3) 13 . . . 0-0-0! ? 14 a4 h6 15 �e3 and White has a slight advantage.

c) 12 . . . l:.c8 13 �d3! �d6 14 lLlb5!

14 . . . �xh2+ 1s �h1 'fibs 16 f4! �g3 17 �e3 b6 18 'i¥f3 �h4 19 �d4 l:.c5 (White enjoys a strong attack, and 19 . . . 0-0? 20 �e5 'ii'a8 21 'iih3 is win­ning) 20 �xeS bxc5 0. Thorn Leeson­P.Van der Houwen, correspondence 2001) 21 l:.ad1 ! 0-0 22 lLld6 and now g2-g3 is coming and there is no way to prevent it: for example, 22 .. J:td8!? 23 b3! (23 g3? �xg3 24 'ii'xg3 �c6+) 23 .. .'ii'c7 24 'ii'h3 �c6 25 lLlxf7! 'ii'xf7 26 'ii'xh4 .l:1d5 27 f5! and White wins.

9 7

Ho w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

C21) 12 . . . .i.d6?!

I don't like this move because it's not in the spirit of the 10 . . . .i.d7 line. Black surrenders the bishop pair and he accepts a slightly inferior position without any real chances of counter­play. 13 lbbsl .i.xbs

13 . . . .i.xh2+ 14 �h1 Wb8 15 f4 .i.g3 16 'ii'f3 a6 17 lba3 .i.h4 18 'ili'h3 bS 19 .i.b3 gS 20 fxgS lbe4 21 'ii'xh4 lbg3+ 22 �g1 lbxfl 23 �xfl was winning for White in 'Flanker'-'ETC_Chess', Internet 2003. 14 .i.xb5+ �e7 15 g3

Black doesn't have an easy life in this variation, as White's bishop pair is very strong. White's basic plan is to play Wf3 and .l:.e1 in order to redirect his bishop to the long diagonal with .i.fl-g2. Then Black's queenside comes under pressure, while White can also start an attack on Black's king with .i.gS. 15 ... a6!?

Black inserts this move before White is able to play Wf3 and .l:!.e1, so the bishop is unable to reach f1 in one jump. Some alternatives:

9 8

a) After 15 . . . .l:tac8 16 ltd1 a6 1 7 .i.a4 'ii'c4 18 'ii'xc4 llxc4 19 .i.c2 .l:.c6 a draw was agreed in M.Geenen­J.Goormachtigh, Belgian League 2000, although White has the advantage in the endgame.

b) 15 . . . a5 16 1i'f3 l:.hd8 17 .i.e3!? (preventing . . . .i.cS as the pawn on b7 is hanging) 17 . . . .i.e5 18 l':tad1 l:txd1 19 .l:.xd1 .l:.d8 20 :e1 ! (excellent play: White exchanged one rook to reduce Black's counterplay but he needs the other one in order to be able to create threats) 20 . . . lbd5 21 .i.cl .i.f6 22 1i'e4 h6 23 .i.fl �f8 24 a3 .i.e7 25 .i.g2 bS 26 'ili'h7 .i.f6 27 l:i.d1 �e7 28 .i.f1 b4?! 29 axb4 axb4 30 c4 lbb6 31 .i.d2 .i.xb2 32 .i.xb4+ �f6 33 'ii'c2 .i.d4 34 'ii'e4 and Black resigned, K.Pilgaard-H.Sabel, correspondence 1997.

c) After 15 . . . h5 White must prevent . . . h4 with 16 h4! . Black can choose be­tween many replies but only one is re­spectable:

16 . . . tt:lg4!? (16 . . . a6? ! 17 .i.a4 l:tac8 18 .i.gS 'ii'c4 19 Wxc4 .l:txc4 20 .i.d1 �d7 21 .ie2 .l:tcc8 22 .:tad 1 �c7 23 .i.f3 gave White a clear advantage in D.Elyakim-

A.Olsson, Sweden 1992; or 16 .. .'ifcS?! 17 ..ie3 'iffS 18 ..igS l:i.ad8 19 l:tad1 ..icS 20 ..td3 'ifh3 21 'iff3 l:td7 22 ..tbs l:tc7 23 'iff4 l:thc8 24 b4 'it>f8 2S ..ixf6 and Black resigned, M.Hoffrnann-F.Holzke, Co­logne 1989) 17 'it>g2 a6 18 ..ia4 l:thc8 19 ..igS+! 'it>f8 (19 . . . f6? 20 .l:tae1 ! fxgS? 21 'ifxe6+ 'it>f8 22 ..ib3 tt:lf6 23 hxgS and White wins) 20 .nad1 bS 21 ..ic2 ..ie7! (2l . . .b4? ! 22 ..ie4 l:tab8 23 cxb4 l:txb4 24 l:i.cl ..icS was L.Psakhis-A.Herzog, Vi­enna 1991, and now after 2S a3! l::tb3 26 l:txcS 'ifxcS 27 llcl 'ifxcl 28 ..ixcl I:.xcl 29 'it'xa6 it is difficult for Black to de­fend his eighth rank) 22 'ii'f3! l:td8 (A.Stephenson-C. Ventimiglia, Internet 2004) 23 ..if4! eS 24 ..igS and White has a small advantage.

d) 1S . . . .Uhd8 16 l:te1 aS! ? (16 . . . l:tac8 17 'ilff3 a6 18 ..ifl ! 'ilfc6 19 'ilfxc6 l:txc6 20 ..ig2 l:k7 21 ..ie3 gave White an advan­tage in A.Sokolov-U.Andersson, Cler­mont Ferrand 1989; this is a typical ending for this variation and will be discussed extensively at the end of the chapter) 17 a4 ..icS 18 'ilff3 and now:

d1) After 18 . . . h6! ? White must con­tinue with 19 l:r.b1 (19 ..ifl? ! can be met

3 . . . c5 4 liJgf3 cxd4 5 exd5 'iixd5

by 19 . . . 'ifc6! - after the trade on c6 the insertion of the moves a2-a4 and . . . aS favours Black because the b2-pawn will prove to be weak) . White gains a small advantage after 19 . . . tt:ldS 20 l:te4! 'ifb6 21 c4 tt:\f6 (or 21 . . .tt:\c7 22 b3 'it>f8 23 ..ib2 tt:\xbS 24 axbS .l:.d7 2S l':.g4 fS 26 l:tg6 and White has the initiative) 22 l:th4! eS! ? 23 'it>g2 e4 24 'iffS.

d2) 18 . . . 'ifb6 19 ..igS h6 20 ..ixf6+ gxf6 21 l:tad1 l:i.d6 22 l:txd6 ..ixd6 23 'it>g2 .:h8 24 l:.e2 hS 2S h4 l::th6 26 b4! axb4 27 cxb4 .l:th8 (27 . . . ..ixb4? 28 'ilff4) 28 l:te4 with an edge for White due to his extra pawn on the queenside, G.Cardelli-C.Issler, correspondence 1999. 16 ..id3 !

This i s the right direction for the bishop - White's idea is still 'iff3, l:td1 and ..tfl-g2. 16 . • • 'ilfc61?

After 16 . . . h6 17 ..ie3 l:thd8 18 l:tad1 'it>f8 19 'iff3 White keeps a slight advan­tage.

16 . . . hS 17 ..igS! h4 18 l:tad1 (White can also play 18 'iff3!? hxg3 19 hxg3 with the idea of 'it>g2 and l:r.h1) 18 .. .'ifcS

9 9

Ho w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

was played in L.Dobrovolsky-A.Kolev, Odessa 1989, and here it's not easy for Black to prove compensation following 19 .i.xh4!? llxh4 (19 . . . g5? 20 b4) 20 gxh4 l:!.h8 21 'ii'f3 l:.xh4 22 'ii'xb7+! 'iti>f8 23 'iia8+ lbe8 24 l:!.fel .l:.xh2 25 'iif3 'ii'gS+ 26 'iti>fl .i.c5 27 .l:.e2 'iih4 28 'iti>e 1 'iih6 29 .l:.ed2 l:lhl+ 30 .i.fl . Of course it's not to everyone's taste to defend such a posi­tion, which is why White should also consider 18 'iif3 . 11 ..tfsl?

17 .l:tel !? l:r.hd8 18 .i.g5! is also prom­ising. Now that the black rook has moved away from the h-file, White's idea is to take on f6 and attack the damaged kingside.

Returning to 17 .i.f5, White intends .i.h3 followed by .i.g2. L.Gostisa­A.Praznik, correspondence 1995, con­tinued 17 . . . h5? 18 h4 (18 .i.g5!?) 18 . . . 'iib5 19 .i.d3 'iic6 20 .i.gS 'iti>d7 21 l:r.fdl .l:.ad8 22 c4 'iti>c8 23 l:.ab1 'ii'c7 24 'iif3 aS 25 a3 'iic6 (25 . . . a4? is met by 26 b3 opening the b-file) 26 .i.e2 'iixf3 27 .i.xf3 and White kept the advantage.

C22) 12 ... 0-0-0 13 a41

1 0 0

13 . . . .i.d61 Black has tried quite a few other

moves. For example: a) 13 . . . lbd5?! 14 lbb5 .i.xb5 15 axb5

.i.d6? (M.Fortin-S.Mealing, correspon­dence 1987) 16 .i.xd5 exd5 17 .l:.xa7 .i.xh2+ 18 'iti>h1 and White has a win­ning attack as there is no defence to the threats of .l:.a8, .i.e3 with l:Hal, or g2-g3.

b) 13 . . . 'iti>b8? ! is met by 14 lDb5 .i.xb5 15 axb5 h5 16 .i.e3, when both 16 . . . b6 17 h3 and 16 . . . .i.c5!? 17 .i.xcS 'ii'xc5 18 l:.a2 l:.d7 19 .l:.fa1 .l:.hd8 20 b3 are better for White.

c) The usual response to 13 . . . h5?! is 14 h3! leading to positions that can also occur via transposition, so it very use­ful to know how to handle them:

cl) 14 . . . a6 15 .i.e3 e5? 16 lbb5! (a thematic sacrifice; compare the illustra­tive game Kotronias-Bluvshtein at the end of the chapter) 16 . . . axb5 17 axb5 .i.e6 18 l:ta4! (threatening to exchange on e6 and then play .l:.c4 - in this way, White doubles on the a-file with gain of tempo) 18 . . . lbd5 (or 18 . . . .l:.d5 19 .i.xd5 .i.xd5 20 c4 .i.e6 21 .:t.d1 and White wins) 19 .l:.a8+ 'iti>d7 20 l:txd8+ 'iixd8 21

l:!.d1 �e7 22 ii.xdS ii.xdS 23 c4 f6 (23 . . . ii.xc4 loses to 24 ii.cS+) 24 l:!.xdS 'ili'c8 2S 'ii'd3 �f7 and Black resigned without waiting for 26 Ji.b6, E.Fossan­O.Dannevig, Kristiansund 1992.

c2) 14 . . . Ji.cS 1S b4! (1S lDbS?? is a typical way to lose for White: 1S . . . ii.xbS 16 axbS lDg4! 17 hxg4 hxg4 - be careful when Black has developed his bishop on cS! ) 1S . . . Ji.xd4 (1S . . . Ji.d6 16 lDbS!? Ji.xbS 17 axbS lDg4 18 l:txa7! looks very good for White) 16 cxd4.

Let's take stock of the situation. Black has lost valuable time exchang­ing his best attacking piece while also opening the c-file. If he doesn't succeed in putting his bishop on dS and stop­ping White's attack his strategy has failed. 16 . . . Ji.c6! (16 . . . �b8?! loses more time and 17 bS .l:!.c8 18 Ji.d3 lDdS 19 'ii'f3 fS 20 aS 'ii'c3 21 a6 b6 22 l:!.d1 h4 23 Ji.f4+ �a8 24 ii.eS l:!.hg8 2S 'ii'hS! 'ii'b4 26 l:.acl gS 27 l:!.xc8+ l:!.xc8 28 'ii'xgS 'ifb3 29 ii.e2 Ji.xbS 30 l:cl was winning for White in Y.Kosashvili-R.Djurhuus, Santiago 1990) 17 bS Ji.dS 18 ii.xdS lhdS (18 . . . exdS? loses to 19 'ii'f3; or 18 . . . lDxdS? 19 ii.gS! lDc3 20 'ii'f3 l:!.xd4 21

3 . . . c5 4 !i:Jgf3 cxd4 5 exd5 'ikxds

l:.fcl l::tc4 22 Ji.d2 and White wins) 19 g3! �d7 (the only move) 20 Ji.f4 'ifb6 21 l:!.acl l:ta8!? 22 l:tfd1 !, threatening ii.c7, was clearly better for White in V.Jansa­S.Marjanovic, Zenica 1986.

d) 13 ... lDg4?! 14 g3! lDeS (14 ... a6?! 1S lDbS! axbS 16 axbS �b8 17 'ii'xg4 is good for White; 14 .. . hS 1S h3 lDeS 16 Ji.f4 Ji.d6 17 ii.xeS ii.xeS 18 lDbS ii.xbS 19 axbS h4 [19 . . . �b8?! 20 b6! axb6 21 .l:ta4] was S.Kudrin-J.Bonin, Philadel­phia 1989, and now 20 l:!.xa7! hxg3 21 l:!.a8+ �d7 22 b6! gxf2+ 23 .U.xf2 'iid6 24 'ii'f3 wins for White) 1S Ji.f4 Ji.d6 16 ii.xeS ii.xeS 17 lDbS ii.xbS 18 axbS i s the kind of position that Black must avoid. White soon reached a winning position in V.Cordeiro-J.Neves, correspondence 1994, after 18 . . . b6 19 l:.a4 'ifb8 20 .:tfa1 l:td7 21 Ji.d3 Ji.f6 22 ii.e4 l:tc7 23 ii.c6 aS 24 .:t1a3 .l:ta7 2S b4. 14 h31

This is the basic position that very often arises after 10 . . . Ji.d7. 14 . . . a6!?

This is an interesting move. Black wants to stop lDbS ideas and continue with . . . �b8 and .l:tc8, bringing further

1 0 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

reserves to the defence and making the idea of b4-bS more difficult to achieve due to pressure on the bishop on c4 and the pawn on c3. The only problem is that after an eventual sacrifice on bS, the a-file will be opened!

The alternatives: a) 14 . . . 'iia5? 1S ..ie3! 'iihS 16 'iixhS

lLlxhS 17 lLlbS ..ixbS 18 axbS and Black is losing the a7-pawn without any compensation.

b) 14 . . . h5?! 1S lLlbS! ..ixbS 16 axbS ..icS (16 . . . lLlg4 is also inadequate: 17 g3 lLleS 18 ..ib3 h4 19 g4 lLld3 20 ..ie3 ..icS 21 .l:.a4! - safeguarding the f4-square and preparing to double rooks -21 . . . ..ixe3 22 'iixe3 lLlxb2 23 .l:.xa7 .l:.d3 24 ..ixe6+! fxe6 25 'iixe6+ 'iiti>b8 26 .l:.fa1 .l:.d1+ 27 .l:.xd1 lLlxd1 28 'iia2 'iixc3 29 .:as+ <j;c7 30 'iif7+ <j;d6 31 'iif4+ and Black resigned, J.Kristensen-H.Larsen, correspondence 1991) 17 .l:.a4! <j;b8 18 ..ie3 .l:.d7 19 .l:tfa1 .l:.hd8 20 ..ixcS 'fixeS 21 b4 'figS 22 .l:.xa7 and White is win­ning, M.Piper-D.Gunter, London 1994.

c) 14 . . . ..ih2+?! 15 <j;h1 ..if4 16 lLlbS! ..ixbS 17 axbS ..ixcl 18 .l:.fxcl <j;b8 19 ..id3!

1 0 2

(White must push his c-pawn very quickly) 19 . . . 'iif4? ! 20 c4! hS 21 '>t>g1 gS 22 cS h4 (22 . . . g4?! 23 .l:.c4 'figS 24 h4 'iixh4 2S 'iieS+ 'iti>c8 26 c6 and White wins) 23 c6 lLldS 24 b6! axb6 2S cxb7 'iti>xb7 26 ..ie4 l:ta8 27 ..ixdS+ exdS 28 'iie7+ 'iti>b8 29 .l:.xa8+ 'iti>xa8 30 l:ta1 + <j;b8 31 'iia7+ 'iti>c8 32 'iia8+ and Black re­signed, W .Kruszynski-A.Szypulski, Jachranka 1987.

d) White should answer 14 . . . <j;b8! ? with 15 lLlbS!, as this i s a logical con­tinuation and the main aim of White's strategy. After 1S ... ..ixb5 16 axbS ..icS 17 lta4! it's not easy for Black to find a decent plan because 17 . . . h5?! 18 ..ie3 transposes to note 'b' above.

15 b41 White immediately starts his attack.

1S ..ie3!? is also possible. 15 ... <j;bs 16 bs :cs 17 ..id3 as !

Black must avoid 17 . . . 'iixc3? 18 ..ib2 'iiaS 19 bxa6.

17 . . . e5 18 lLlfS is better for White: for example, 18 . . . ..icS 19 bxa6! e4 20 axb7 llcd8 (20 . . . llce8? 21 ..ibS! ..ixfS 22 ..ixe8 .l:.xe8 23 'iia6 'iid6 - 23 . . . 'iixb7? 24 llb1 ! - 24 'iia8+ 'iti>c7 2S llb1 .:.bs 26 'iiaS+

�d7 27 .i.f4! 'ifxf4 28 'ifxc5 and 29 l:1fd1 + wins) 21 .i.xe4 'ii'e5 22 lLlg3! 'ii'xg3 23 .i.f3 'ii'd6 (23 . . . .i.e6 24 'ifa6 'ii'd6 25 'ifa5 .i.d5 26 l:td1 also wins) 24 l:d1 'ife6 25 .i.f4+ <li>a7 26 'ifxe6 fxe6 (26 . . . .i.xe6 27 l:txd8 l:txd8 28 l:tb1 liJd7 29 .i.c7 llli8 30 l:tb5 wins) 27 .i.e5! l:thf8 (27 . . . .l:.he8 28 b8'if+ l:.xb8 29 .i.xf6 gxf6 30 l:txd7+) 28 .l:tab1 ! liJd5 29 .i.xd5 .i.xa4 30 l:.d2! exd5 31 l:.a2 and White wins. 18 .i.d2!?

The assessment of this position is critical for the whole variation. White's threat is not obvious - it's 19 b6! .

The immediate 18 b6! ? i s not as strong but Black must play very accu­rately against it. It's important for us to be familiar with this type of position, so let's delve into it: 18 . . . 'ifxc3! (18 . . .'ii'xb6 19 .l:.b1 'ifc5 20 liJb5! 'ife5 21 lLlxd6 'ifxd6 22 c4 .i.c6 23 l:td1 'ii'c7 24 .i.e3 liJd7 25 c5! promises White a strong initiative; or 18 .. .'ii'c5! ? 19 .i.a3 'ifd5 20 .i.xd6+ 'ifxd6 21 liJb5 'ifc5 22 l:tfd1 and in this complicated position White has good chances for the advan­tage) 19 .i.b2 'ifc5! (19 . . . 'ii'b4?! 20 l:tfb1 lbd5 21 .i.a3 .i.h2+!? [21 . . .'ii'xd4?! 22

3 . . . cs 4 ti:Jgf3 cxd4 5 exds 'ilxds

.i.xd6+ �a8 23 .i.e5 'ii'c5 24 .i.b5 lLlxb6 25 'ii'e1 ! is good for White] 22 �xh2 'ifxd4 23 .i.d6+ 'it>a8 24 .i.e5 'ifc5 25 l:tb5 ! !

25 . . . .i.xb5 26 axb5 "ifxb6 27 'iVe1 and White wins) 20 liJb5 .i.xb5! (after 20 . . . .i.f4 21 'iVe1 ! 'ii'xb6 22 .i.d4 'iVd8 23 .i.e5+ .i.xe5 24 'ii'xe5+ �a8 25 liJd6 'ii'c7 26 .l:.acl .i.c6 27 .i.b5 White has the ini­tiative) 21 axb5 'ii'xb6 22 .l:.a4 .l:.hd8 23 l::tfa1 .i.c7 24 .l:.xa5 'ii'xa5 25 .l:.xa5 .i.xa5 26 .i.e5+ �a7 27 'ii'e3+ b6 28 .i.e2 liJd5 29 'iig5 g6 30 .i.f3 l:td7, when the posi­tion is unclear but I would prefer to be White as it seems easier for him to cre­ate threats. 1s . . . lLlds

White plays 19 b6 against most moves:

a) 18 .. J4hd8 19 b6 (19 c4! ?) 19 . . . Wxb6 (19 . . . 'ii'c5! ?) 20 .l:.fb1 'ii'c5 21 .i.a6 .l:.c7 22 .i.e3 'ii'd5 23 l:Ib2! e5 24 liJb5 .i.c6! (24 . . . .i.xb5?! 25 l:txb5!) 25 f3! .i.xb5 26 .:r.xb5 Wc6 27 .l:.b6 'ii'xc3 28 .l:.cl ! 'ii'xcl+ 29 .i.xcl Axel+ 30 'it>h2 e4+ 31 l:txd6! l:txd6 32 .i.xb7! and White has the ini­tiative.

b) 18 . . . l:the8 19 b6! 'ifc5 (or 19 . . . 'ii'xb6

1 0 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h D efe n ce

20 .l:.fb1 'ir'cS 21 i.a6! l:tc7 22 i.e3 'ir'dS 23 l:tb2 l:r.e7 24 l:tab1 i.e8 25 tLlbS! i.xbS 26 l:txbS 'ir'e4 27 f3 'ir'xa4 28 i.b6 and White wins) 20 l:tfd1 l:ted8 21 tLlbS i.xbS 22 axbS 'ii'eS (22 . . . 'ii'xb6? 23 c4) 23 'ii'f3! 'ifu2+ 24 'it>fl is promising for White.

c) 18 . . . e5 19 b6! 'ii'xb6 20 l:tfb1 'ii'cS 21 tLlbS e4 22 tLlxd6 'ii'xd6 23 i.c4 and White is better: after 23 . . . .l:thf8 24 l:tb2! i.c6 25 l:tab1 Black cannot play 25 . . . tLld5? because of 26 i.bS! i.xbS 27 IIxbS l:k7 28 'it'xe4 .l:td8 29 c4. 19 b61 'ii'xb6 20 llfb1 'ii'c7 21 llb3

White holds the initiative in a com­plicated position. For example: 2l . . .'it>a8?! 22 l:tab1 ! l:tb8 23 tLlbS i.xbS 24 .l:.xbS l:r.hd8 25 i.e4; or 2l . . .i.c5 22 'iff3! (with the idea of i.e4) 22 . . . tLlb6 23 l:te1 ! .l:.he8 (23 . . . i.xa4? 24 i.f4; 23 . . . g5 24 i.xgS i.xd4 25 cxd4 i.c6 26 i.e4 i.xe4 27 'ii'xe4 tLldS 28 .l:.eb1 with a clear ad­vantage for White) 24 tLlbS 'ii'd8 25 c4 eS 26 i.xaS i.c6 27 'ii'g3; or finally 2l . . .b6!? 22 l:tab1 ! i.xa4 23 l13b2 'it>a7 24 .i.a6! i.h2+ 25 'it>h1 .tf4 26 c4 .teS 27 cxdS .txd4 28 l:ta2 .tc2 29 .:tel 'ii'eS 30 'ii'fl and White wins.

1 04

C3) 10 ... a6

This is Black's most common choice. 11 l:te1 'iic7

Black prepares the development of his bishop to either d6 or cS. The vul­nerable point e6 isn't in danger for the moment, but Black has to keep an eye on .tcl-gS (and .txf6 after . . . 0-0) or tLld4-f5.

1 l . . . .td7!? is a mix of two systems: Black prevents tLlbS ideas but he also wants to play for . . . 0-0-0. Play contin­ues 12 c3 'ii'c7 13 'ii'e2 and now:

a) After 13 . . . 0-0-0 14 a4! .td6! (or 14 . . . h5?! 15 h3 .td6 16 b4 'it>b8 17 bS .l:.c8 18 .td3 aS 19 c4 eS 20 ttJfS .i.b4 21 b6 'ii'cS 22 .te3 'iff8 23 .l:.ed1 and White enjoyed a big advantage in H.Krueger­S.Bosbach, correspondence 1998) 15 h3 'it>b8 16 i.e3! we reach a similar posi­tion to those discussed in Line C22 (10 . . . .td7) . In comparison this one might be a bit more favourable for Black given that White doesn't usually play l:tel . Even so, I think this nuance doesn't change the assessment that White has the initiative after, say, 16 . . . .l:.c8 17 b3! h6 (17 . . . tLld5?! 18 .txdS

exd5 19 'iif3) 18 aS (or even 18 tt:lb5! ?) . b) 13 . . . i.d6 14 i.g5 0-0 (14 . . . i.xh2+?

15 �h1 i.d6 16 i.xe6 fxe6 17 tt:\xe6 i.xe6 18 'ii'xe6+ i.e7 19 .l:tad1 tt:lg8 20 l:td4 and Black resigned, L.Enterfeldt­W.Hipfl, correspondence 1988; after 14 . . . 0-0-0 Black faced an amazing attack in V.Kotronias-M.Bluvshtein, Montreal 2002 - see the illustrative games) 15 i.d3 with a further split:

b1) 15 . . . i.xh2+? is met by 16 �h1 i.f4 17 i.xf6 gxf6 18 g3! . If we compare this to the main line (C32), the differ­ence of the extra moves c2-c3 and . . . i.d7 render this position lost for Black as there is no longer the defen­sive measure .. J::td8 hitting the d4-knight: for example, 18 . . . i.h6 (18 . . . i.d6 19 i.xh7+!) 19 'ii'hs �g7 20 �g2! l::th8 21 l:th1 i.g5 22 f4 i.c6+ 23 tt:\xc6 'ii'xc6+ 24 �fl .::lad8 25 i.e2 and White wins.

b2) 15 . . . tt:\d5!? 16 'ii'h5 g6 (16 . . . h6? loses to 17 i.xh6 gxh6 18 'ii'xh6 as the d7-bishop prevents Black's queen from aiding the defence, and 18 . . . f6? allows 19 'ii'h7 mate) 17 'ii'h4 i.f4 (V .Kotronias-J .N ogueiras, Montreal 2002) 18 ..te4! ..txg5 19 'ii'xg5 i.c6 (after

3 . . . c5 4 0Jgf3 cxd4 5 exd5 "iixd5

19 . . . f6 White is happy to exchange the queens with 20 'ii'g3! 'ii'xg3 21 hxg3 when he is threatening to take on d5, and 21 . . .tt:\c7 is met by 22 tt:lb3! .l:tab8 23 tt:\c5 i.c8 24 l:.ad1; 19 . . . tt:\f4 is answered by 20 l::tad1 e5 21 tt:le2 tbxe2+ 22 l::txe2 f6 23 i.d5+ �g7 24 'ii'e3 .l:.ad8 25 l::ted2 with a small advantage for White) 20 h4! (this is the correct plan - White must start an attack on Black's king very quickly or else Black will simply put his pieces in the centre leading to exchanges) 20 . . . ti:Jf4 21 'ti'c5 l::tac8 22 tbxc6 bxc6 23 g3 and White has a small advantage. 12 'ti'e21?

This is an exciting idea that avoids the long and complex main line (12 i.b3 i.d6 13 ti:Jf5), and it's dangerous for Black to face. Black has two main replies:

C31: 12 . . . ..tcs (32: 12 . . . ..td6

12 . . . b5! ? is an untried alternative. 12 . . . ..te7 is passive, and after 13 ..tg5! 0-0 14 ..tb3 it's not easy for Black to

1 05

Ho w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

find a decent plan. For example: a) 14 . . . l::r.e8 15 llad1 b6 16 �h4! .

This typical transfer of the bishop to the g3-b8 diagonal further improves White's position: from g3 and b3 his two bishops will dominate the whole board. The essential problem for Black is that the simple developing move 16 . . . .ib7 is not possible as it leaves e6 unprotected: 17 lLlxe6! 'ii'c6 (17 .. .fxe6? 18 'if'xe6+ 'it>h8 19 .ixf6 gxf6 20 .l:td7) 18 'ii'fl .ib4 19 lLld4! and White has a clear advantage.

b) 14 . . . .id7 15 l:tad1! 'ii'c5 (15 . . . l!ad8 16 lLlf5! exf5 17 'ii'xe7 is bad for Black) 16 .if4 l:tad8 17 c3 and White, with ideas such as .ic2, �e5 and l:td3, is on top.

c) 14 . . . lLld5 15 .ixe7 lLlxe7 16 'ii'h5! lLlg6 17 lLlf3 'ii'f4 18 .l:tad1 b6 19 l:.d4 'ii'h6?! (better was 19 . . . 'ii'f6) 20 'ii'xh6 gxh6 21 lLle5 l::r.a7 22 h4! l:tc7 23 a4 'it>g7 24 l::tb4 .l:.b7 25 lLlc4 b5 26 lLld6 l:tc7 27 axb5 and Black resigned, E.Anka­L.Lengyel, Hungarian League 2001 .

C31) 12 ... .tcs 13 c3 White protects the knight and he is

ready to continue with .ig5.

1 0 6

13 . . . h6!? Glek gives this move an exclama­

tion mark in his Chess Informant anno­tations to his game with Kotronias (Silivri 2003, drawn after 34 moves), but this verdict is optimistic to say the least. This assessment could have been questioned if Vassilios had played 14 lLlf5 0-0 15 lLlxh6+, an idea we found after the game. It seems that Black has a difficult position, and perhaps that was the reason why Speelman later opted for 14 . . . 'it>f8.

Let's take a look at the alternatives: a) 13 . . . .id7?! 14 .ig5! 0-0-0 (after

14 . . . h6?! 15 .ih4 0-0-0 16 .ig3 .id6 17 .ixd6 'ii'xd6 18 b4! 'ii'c7 19 b5 White's attack is very fast, and in this line 15 . . . .id6? 16 .ixe6! .ixe6 17 lLlxe6 fxe6 18 'ii'xe6+ .ie7 19 .l:tad1 wins as White is threatening .ig3 or l:td3-e3) 15 a4 h6 16 .ie3 is promising for White. As men­tioned earlier, White's bishop is better placed on c4 than on b3 - as well as the typical sacrifice lLlb5 there is also the idea of b2-b4-b5 (check Line C22 for a better understanding of this type of position).

b) 13 . . . 0-0?! was the main line before 13 . . . h6 arose, but is seems that White gains an enduring initiative after 14 Ji.g5. For example:

b1) 14 . . . tlJd5 15 l1ad1 i.e7? (Black was nervous about potential threats to his king: after 15 . . . b5 16 i.d3! h6 [16 . . . tlJf4 17 ii.xf4 Wxf4 18 Ji.xh7+!] 17 Wh5! White i s ready to sacrifice on h6) 16 Ji.xe7 tlJxe7 17 ii.xe6! (typically Black suffers from a sacrifice on e6) 17 . . . i.xe6 18 tlJxe6 fxe6 19 Wxe6+ .l:tf7 20 l1d7 Wf4 21 l:.xe7 Wxf2+ 22 <ifi'h1 and White con­verted his advantage in J.Emms­B.Kelly, British League 2005.

b2) 14 . . . i.e7 15 l1ad1 b5 16 i.b3 .l:.a7 17 Wf3! (with the idea of tlJc6) 17 . . . i.b7 18 Wh3 (e6 is again a target, and there is also the threat of i.c2 followed by Ji.xf6) 18 . . . tlJe4 19 i.xe7 Wxe7 20 i.c2 tlJg5? (20 . . . tlJf6 is better but White still keeps a clear advantage after 21 Wh4! with the idea of l1e3-g3) 21 'ife3 (setting up a winning double threat: h2-h4 and a discovered attack on a7) 2l . . .h6 22 h4 tlJh7 23 tiJf5 'ifc7 24 tiJxh6+ gxh6 25 Wxa7 and Black resigned, V.Kotronias­J .Sprenger, Cappelle Ia Grande 2002 - a

3 . . . cs 4 li:Jgf3 cxd4 5 exds 'ilxds

powerful performance from one of the main experts of this variation.

b3) 14 . . . Ji.xd4 15 cxd4 tiJd5 (15 . . . 'it'd8 16 We5 is also better for White) 16 l:.acl ! with a further split:

b31) 16 . . . .,6? is inferior, as after 17 'ii'g4! White carries out an instructive plan that involves the offer of a pawn to gain control of the dark squares: 17 .. .£5? (this is weakening; Black should play 17 . . . <iti'h8) 18 'ii'f3! Wxd4 19 Ji.xd5 exd5 (19 . . . 'ii'xd5 20 Wxd5 exd5 21 l1c7 also leads to a winning position) 20 .l:tc7 f4! (Black's only chance is to activate his bishop; after 20 . . . h6 21 Ji.xh6! gxh6 22 Wg3+ Wg4 23 Wd6 there is no salva­tion) 21 l1ee7 i.f5 22 'ii'c3! (a lesson on the theme 'which pieces to exchange?' - Black's queen is the only piece that controls the dark squares) 22 . . . 'ii'xc3 23 bxc3 l1ae8 24 l1xg7+ �h8.

Now in the game J.Speelman­J.Nogueiras, Barcelona 1989, it is a pity that White didn't crown his master­piece by playing 25 h3!, when there is no defence to the idea of 26 f3 followed by the transfer of White's bishop via i.h4-f2-d4 and Black will be mated.

1 0 7

Ho w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

b32) 16 . . . 'ilt'd6 has been proposed by many sources which claim the position to be equal, but this is far from the truth! I have analysed this position a great deal, and here are a few sample variations. White continues with 17 'ilt'g4! (with the idea of .1i.h6)

and now: b321) 17 .. .£5 18 'ii'f3 .1i.d7 19 .lle5 .1i.c6

(19 . . . tbb6? 20 .1i.b3! 'iixd4 21 .1i.f4! is los­ing for Black after 21 . .J::!.ad8 22 lidl 'it'xb2 23 .l:r.e2 'fif6 24 .1i.c7 or 21 . . .:ac8 22 .l:.dl 'ilr'xb2 23 'ii'xb7 llb8 24 'ii'a7) 20 �eel ! I:tae8 (20 . . . tbb6?! 21 ..ixe6+ 'iixe6 22 lhe6 .1i.xf3 23 gxf3 tbd5 24 l:td6) 21 'i¥e2 tbc7 22 'fie3,

1 0 8

when White has the advantage as Black is tied up and it's not easy to re­lease the pressure on the e6-pawn. 22 . . . .1i.d5 can be met by 23 .1i.xd5 tbxd5 (23 . . . exd5? 24 .1i.e7) 24 .llxe6! tbxe3 25 .llxd6 tbc4 26 l:tde6 .l:txe6 27 .:txe6 tbxb2 28 .:tb6.

b322) 17 .. .£6 !? 18 .1i.h4! and now: b3221) 18 . . . ..td7? is met by 19 .1i.g3. b3222) 18 . . . b5?! 19 .1i.b3 'ii'f4 20 'i¥xf4

tbxf4 21 l:.e4! tbd5 22 l:tc5! is a strong idea for White, who puts pressure on Black's best piece and aims to continue with f4-f5: for example, 22 .. J::ta7 23 f4 .:c7! (or 23 . . . f5 24 .Uel tt:Jxf4 25 .1i.g3 tbd5 - 25 . . . 4Jd3? 26 l::txc8 - 26 .1i.d6 .lld8 27 .llxc8 l::txc8 28 .llxe6 .llcl + 29 'iii>f2 and White wins) 24 f5 .l:.xc5 25 dxc5 'iii>f7 26 .1i.g3 with a clear advantage.

b3223) 18 .. .£5 19 'ilt'g3! f4 (or 19 . . . 'ii'xg3 20 fxg3! .1i.d7 21 .1i.xd5 exd5 22 .l:.c7 .l:.fe8! 23 g4! - the idea behind 20 fxg3! - 23 .. Jhel+ 24 ..ixel .1i.e6 25 .lle7! .1i.c8 - 25 ... ..tf7? 26 gxf5 l:te8 27 .lle5 - 26 .1i.g3 fxg4 27 .1i.e5 .1i.f5 28 .l:.xg7+ 'iii>f8 29 l:txb7 and White is much better) 20 'ilt'b3 (20 'ii'f3! ?) 20 . . . .1i.d7 (20 . . . b5? 21 .1i.xd5 'ili'xd5 22 'i¥xd5 exd5 23 .l:tc7) 21 Ite5! .1i.c6 22 'i¥h3 .l:!.ae8 23 .1i.d3 g6 24 'i¥g4 and White retains the initiative. c) 13 . . . b5 is an interesting option, against which White should reply 14 .1i.d3!? . In general if Black plays an early . . . b5 this is the best square for the bishop: it targets the kingside and is also ready to pressurize the b5-a6 pawn chain following a2-a4. After 14 . . . .1i.xd4!? (or 14 . . . .1i.b7 15 .1i.g5!? .1i.xd4 16 cxd4 il'c6 17 f3 'ili'd6 18 'ili'f2 .l::td8 19 Radl and White had the advantage in

Conquest-Twyble, British League 2008) 15 cxd4 Black's idea is to play in a simi­lar fashion to note 'b', as there is no longer pressure on the d5-knight: 15 . . . 0-0 16 ..ig5 ttJd5 17 l:tacl (17 'ii'e4! ? f5 18 'iih4 'it'd6 19 l:.e5 ..ib7 20 :ae1) 17 . . . 'ii'd6 (M.Adams-J.Levitt, Preston 1989) 18 'ii'e4! f5 19 'ii'e5 'ii'xe5 20 l:txe5 ..id7 21 f3 ttJb4 22 ..ib1 l:r.ac8 23 l:tec5 and White has a slight advantage. 14 ttJfs!

The real test of Black's idea. 14 . . . 0-0

14 . . . g6?! 15 tiJd4 (15 ttJxh6?! ..if8!) 15 . . . ..id6?! 16 ..ixe6! (again we see such violence! ) 16 . . . fxe6 17 ttJxe6 ..ixe6 18 'ii'xe6+ 'ii'e7! 19 ..if4! 'ii'xe6 20 l:txe6+ ..ie7 21 l:.ae1 ttJd5 (if 2l . . .tiJg8 22 l:txg6) 22 c4 ttJxf4 23 l:txe7+ �d8 24 l:t£7 g5 25 g3 ttJg6 26 l:.e6! tiJf8 27 l:td6+! (27 l:txh6?! �e8!) 27 . . . �e8 (if 27 . . . �c8 28 l:txh6) 28 l:txb7 and White has a clear advantage.

14 . . . �f8, giving up the right to cas­tle, is a familiar idea in similar posi­tions. Black wants to activate the h8-rook by pushing his h-pawn, while on the other side he gets an active bishop

3 . . . cs 4 li:Jgf3 cxd4 5 exds ilxds

on the a8-h1 diagonal after . . . b5. Also White must lose time retreating the knight.

Of course everything depends upon the time Black will need to fulfil his plans - time is a very important factor in chess, and it must not be given freely! G.Jones-J.Speelman, London 2007, continued 15 ttJd4 (15 ttJg3!? b5 16 ..id3 h5 17 ..ie3 ..id6 also slightly favours White) 15 . . . ..id7 (15 . . . b5!?) 16 ..ib3 ltc8 17 ..ie3 ..id6 18 h3,

when White had reached a better position by playing in the most straightforward way - this says some­thing about 14 . . . �f8. The game went on with 18 . . . g6?! (18 . . . e5!? is stronger, but White is still better after 19 ttJf3 ..ib5 20 'ii'd2 e4 21 l:ted1 ! l:td8 22 ..if4 .td3 23 ..ixd6+ 'ii'xd6 24 ttJe1) 19 'ii'd2 �g7 20 l:tad1 l:.cd8 21 tiJf5+ gxf5 22 'ii'xd6 'ii'xd6 23 l:txd6 ..ic6 24 l:txd8 l:txd8 25 ..id4, and by now White's advantage was substantial. 15 ttJxh6+1 gxh6 16 ..ixh61 ..ie7

After 16 . . . lld8? 17 'ii'f3 ..ie7 (17 . . . ttJe8 18 l:te4!) 18 ..ib3! White is winning as there is no defence to the powerful

1 09

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

manoeuvre l:te3, "iih3 and l:tg3! : for ex­ample, 18 . . . i..d7 (if 18 . . . l2Jh7 19 'ii'g4+) 19 l:.e3! i..c6 20 'ii'h3.

16 . . . l:.e8? is even worse, as after 17 'ii'f3 i..e7 (17 . . . i..xf2+? 18 'iii>xf2; 17 . . . i..f8? 18 'ii'xf6 'i'xc4 19 'i'g5+ 'iii>h7 20 i..xf8 l:.xf8 21 l:.e3 e5 22 .l:tg3) 18 i..b3 Black also has to deal with i..f4. 17 .l:tad1!

The strongest move. 17 i..b3? allows Black to bring the queen to the defence with 17 . . . 'iic5! 18 'iid3 'i'h5. 17 ... .l:td8

Now Black has no time for 17 .. . 'i'c5 as after 18 .l:td3! .l:td8 19 l:lg3+ Black's king cannot find shelter: for example, 19 . . . 'iii>h7 (or 19 . . . 'iii>h8 20 l:.g5!) 20 i..g5 'iii>h8 (if 20 . . . 'i'f5 21 i..b3) 21 i..xf6+ i..xf6 22 'i'g4. 18 .l:txd8+ i..xd8

White gets a winning attack after 18 . . . 'i'xd8 19 l:td1 'i'a5 (19 . . . 'i'c7 trans­poses to 18 . . . i..xd8; 19 . . . 'i'b6 20 l:td3 i..d6 21 'i'f3 i..e5 22 i..f4 wins for White) 20 l:.d3. 19 l:td11

This is a powerful new idea. Previ­ously only 19 i.d3 has been mentioned,

1 1 0

but Black again has the defensive re­source 19 . . . 'i'c5! .

19 ... i..e7 Or 19 . . . 'iii>h7 20 i..g5! i..e7 21 .l:ld3

'iii>g8 22 .l:tg3 'iii>f8 23 i..d3 i..d7 (23 . . . b5? 24 i..xf6 i..xf6 25 'ii'f3 wins for White) 24 'it'e3 e5! (forced as White was threat­ening 25 .l:.h3, e.g. 24 . . . .l:td8? 25 .l:.h3! l2Jg8 26 .l:.h8) 25 i..h4 l2Jg4 26 i..xe7+ 'iii>xe7 27 .l:.xg4 i..xg4 28 'i'g5+ 'iii>d6 29 'i'xg4 l:td8 30 h4! and White has a clear advantage. The h-pawn will run to h7, making Black's defensive task very difficult. 20 l:td41

20 .l:ld3 i..f8! 21 .l:tg3+ 'i'xg3 22 fxg3!? i..xh6 23 g4 followed by h2-h4 is also good, but the text seems stronger. 20 ... es 21 'i'e3 l2Jg4

Instead 21 . . .l2Jh5 loses to the reply 22 'iif3. 22 'i'g3 (see Diagram)

White enjoys a strong attack. For example, after 22 . . . i..f8 23 l:.xg4+ i..xg4 24 'ii'xg4+ 'iii>h8 25 i..g5 i..g7 26 h3 his two pawns for the exchange and the continued attack on the light squares promise a clear advantage.

c32) 12 . . . ii.d6 13 ..tgs

13 . . . 0-0 Black castles into a menacing attack,

but keeping the king in the centre has led to disaster:

a) Dochev played 13 . . . 'ifc5? against me but he met with a nasty surprise: 14 ii.xe6! fxe6 15 lDxe6 ii.xe6 16 'ifxe6+ �d8 (16 . . . Ji.e7 17 l:le5! shows why White does not exchange on f6 before the sacrifice, as the e5-square is pro­tected - Black can resign because 18 l:.ae1 is coming) 17 ii.xf6+ gxf6 18 l:tad1 �c7 19 Wf7+ �c6 20 l:lxd6+! 'iixd6 (20 . . . 'it>xd6 21 l:te6+ 'it>d5 22 'iid7+ cre­ates a good exercise to find a mate in

3 . . . cs 4 l1Jgf3 cxd4 5 exds 'ilxds

five moves! - 22 . . . 'it>c4 23 l::te4+ 'ii'd4 24 l:txd4+ 'it>c5 25 'ii'd6+ �b5 26 a4+ 'it>a5 27 'ii'b4 mate) 21 l:.e6 l::tad8 22 'ii'xf6 and Black resigned as there was no reason to torture himself any further (A.Tzer­miadianos-D.Dochev, Panormo 2001 ) .

b) 13 . . . SLxh2+? is also bad: 14 'it>h1 Ji.f4 (or 14 . . . Ji.d6 15 ii.xe6! fxe6 [15 . . . 0-0 16 ii.xc8 l:taxc8 17 ii.xf6 gxf6 18 .l:.ad1 is clearly better for White] 16 ltJxe6 ii.xe6 17 'ii'xe6+ ii.e7 18 l:lad1 ! l:td8 [18 . . . ltJg8 19 l:ld5! l:ld8 20 l:lf5 lDf6 21 ii.xf6 gxf6 22 'ii'xf6] 19 Ji.f4! 'ili'c5 20 Ji.d6 wins for White) 15 ii.xf6 gxf6

16 ii.xe6! 0-0 (Black is smashed to pieces after 16 . . . fxe6 17 lDxe6 ii.xe6 18 'ii'xe6+ �f8 19 'ii'xf6+ �g8 20 l:te7) 17 ..tf5 �h8 18 l:tad1 ii.e5! 19 'ii'f3 ii.xf5 20 lDxf5! 'ii'xc2 (V.Kotronias-G.Sarakaus­kas, Cork 2005) 21 g3! 'ifc6! (if 21 . . .'ii'xb2, 22 �g2 clears the way for the rook to reach h1) 22 'ifxc6 bxc6 23 b3 and White has a considerable ad­vantage despite the pawn deficit. His powerful knight on f5 will help to cre­ate mating threats and Black has four pawn islands against White's two (ask Karpov about that! ) .

1 1 1

Ho w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

14 .i.d3! This is a strong move - White pre­

pares a quick attack on h7. The loss of the h2-pawn is not important, and in some variations it helps White (after g3 and �g2) to attack down the h-file.

Black must react immediately as White intends to capture on f6 when he will have an improved version of the older 14 .i.xf6 variation. 14 . . . .i.xh2+

Alternatively: a) 14 .. .'iic5 is the way to accept an

inferior position without the 'deadly' complications, but after 15 lt:Jf3! h6 (15 . . . b5?? loses to 16 .i.xf6 gxf6 17 'ii'e4; 15 . . . .i.d7? doesn't lose immediately, but after 16 .i.xf6! gxf6 17 'ii'e4 f5 -17 . . . 'ifh5? 18 'ii'd4! - 18 'ifh4 f6 19 .i.c4! ­targeting the newly weakened e6 -19 .. J�ae8 20 l:Iad1 .i.c8 21 'ii'd4! White has a clear advantage: after 2l . . .'it'c7 there is 22 'ii'd3 .l:.f7 23 'ifb3 l::He7 24 lt:Jd4) 16 .i.e3 'ifh5 17 .td4 lt:Jd5 18 lt:Je5 (18 'ii'e4! ?) 18 .. .'�i'xe2 19 .txe2 lt:Jb4 20 :eel f6 21 lt:Jc4 i.f4 22 i.c5! i.xcl 23 .l:txcl lt:Jc6 24 lt:Jb6 I:.b8 25 lld1 Black was completely paralysed in V.Kotronias-K.Lahno, Moscow 2004.

b) It seems strange to move the knight from the kingside with 14 . . . lt:Jd5!?, but this move has some point. Black wants to play . . . lt:Jf4 or . . . lt:Jb4 and also frees the f-pawn in or­der to parry White's attack. White should continue with 15 g3! controlling the important f4-square and at the same time clearing g2 for the bishop after an eventual . . . lt:Jb4 and . . . f5. For example:

1 1 2

b1) 15 . . . h6 1 6 i.d2 is better for White, as 16 . . . lt:Jb4?! is met by 17 lt:Jb5! axb5 18 i.xb4 i.xb4 19 'ii'e4.

b2) 15 . . . lt:Jb4!? is a logical way to continue but after 16 ..te4 f5 17 i.g2 e5 18 c3! exd4 19 cxb4 i.xb4 (or 19 .. .f4 20 lled1) 20 l:Ied1 White regains the pawn and will have the upper hand as his bishops are better placed and Black is still undeveloped: for example, 20 . . . 'ii'f7! (20 . . . ..tc5? loses after 21 'ii'c4+ �h8 22 .l:.acl ) 21 l:hd4 .l:Ie8 22 'ii'c4! when White exchanges Black's best piece (the queen) and is ready to put pressure on the b7-pawn and invade Black's camp via the open c- and d­files.

b3) 15 . . . b5 16 l:tad1 i.b7 17 ..te4 J:He8 (I.Morovic Fernandez-C.Matamoros Franco, Bled Olympiad 2002) 18 'it'hS! (now that White has mobilized all his pieces, he must not lose any time and must start to attack immediately) 18 . . . h6 (18 . . . g6 19 'ifh4 eS? is not possi­ble now, as White wins after 20 lt:JfS! gxfS 21 i.xdS i.f8 22 ..tf6) 19 ..txh6! gxh6 20 'ii'xh6 f6 21 i.g6! eS (21 . . .'ii'd7 22 ..txe8 l:txe8 23 l:te4 'ii'h7 24 'ii'xh7+

�xh7 25 l:!xe6 and 21 . . Jle7 22 tt::lxe6! !th7 23 tt::lxc7 .l:i.xh6 24 tt::lxa8 l:txg6 25 tt::lb6 are both very good for White) 22 i..xe8 l:txe8 23 Wg6+ �f8 24 tt::lf5 i..c5 25 .l:.e4 and White wins: for example, 25 . . . tt::lf4 26 'ii'xf6+ �g8 27 l:txf4 exf4 28 'iii'g6+ �f8 29 tt::lh6 i..xf2+ 30 �xf2 'ii'c5+ 31 �fl 'ii'c4+ 32 l:.d3. 15 <iW1

This seems to be the best square for the king: on h1 it allows Black in some variations the defensive manoeuvre . . . 'ii'a5-h5 with tempo, or an important check on the h1-a8 diagonal. After 15 �h1 ! ? i..f4 16 i..xf6 gxf6 17 'ii'g4+! Black should continue with 17 . . . i..g5! (and not 17 . . . �h8 18 g3! i..d6 19 i..xh7 with a clear advantage for White, W.Wittmann-P.Pap, Budapest 2005) 18 tt::lf3 h6 19 tt::lxg5 fxg5 20 'ii'h5 �g7, when the position remains unclear. 15 . . . 'iii'd8

Black must be very careful here: a) 15 . . . i..d6? loses after 16 i..xf6 gxf6

17 i..xh7+! �xh7 18 'ifh5+ �g7 19 'ii'g4+ �h7 20 l:le3 i..f4 21 llh3+ i..h6 22 'ir'h4.

b) 15 . . . tt::ld5?! 16 g3! h6 (after 16 . . . e5 White has more than one promising

3 . . . c5 4 l:t:Jgf3 cxd4 5 exds "ikxds

continuation, but the best is 17 �g2! intending 17 . . . tt::lb4 18 tt::lf5! tt::lxd3 19 'ii'xd3 f6 20 i..e3 l:td8 21 'ii'e4, winning; after 16 . . . i..xg3 17 fxg3 h6 18 i..d2 'ii'xg3 19 'ii'g2 White has a clear advantage as his pieces are much better than Black's pawns) 17 i..d2 e5 18 tt::lf5 and White has a big advantage.

c) Retreating the bishop to f4 is the usual defence for Black and this case is no exception: 15 . . . i..f4! ? 16 i..xf6 gxf6 17 g3!

17 . . . ltd8! (other options lose by force: 17 . . . i..g5? 18 f4 i..h6 19 'iWh5 �g7 20 �e2 and the white rook will go to h1; or 17 . . . i..h6? 18 'ii'h5 �g7 19 I:!e4 followed by l:Ih4 with the same result) 18 c3 i..e5! 19 'ii'h5! i..xd4 (19 . . . f5? loses to 20 :txe5 'ii'xe5 21 'ii'g5+; and after 19 . . . i..d7 20 'ii'xh7+ �f8 21 tt::lf3 l:tac8 -or 2l . . .i..c6 22 tt::lxe5 fxe5 23 i..g6! - 22 tt::\xe5 fxe5 23 'ii'h8+ �e7 24 'ii'xe5 'ii'xe5 25 l:.xe5 i..c6 White has an extra pawn and a clear advantage) 20 'ii'xh7+ �f8 21 cxd4.

This is the first critical position of the whole variation. White has better prospects, even after the fall of the d4-

1 1 3

Ho w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

pawn. There are three basic plans.

1. �e4 and d4-d5 in order to open the position (if Black doesn't take the d4-pawn);

2. .l:.e4 and .l:.f4, pressuring the f6-pawn; and

3. �e2 and �h5! pressuring £7. For example, 2l . . . .:txd4 22 �e2! (22

.l:.ad1 !? is the natural move but after analysing I think that Black can just about hold with correct defence) 22. A i'e7 23 �h5 'ii'c4+ 24 'it>g1 e5 25 .l:.acl 'iid5 (25 . . . 'iie6?! 26 .l:.cd1 ! is clearly better for White; 25 . . . 'iixa2?! 26 'iih8 .l:.d8 27 l:tc7+ �d7 28 'iih7 gives White the initiative, and in this line 26 . . . 'iixb2? 27 l:tc7+ l:td7 28 .l:td1 ! is win­ning) 26 l:tc7+ �d7 27 l:.xb7! is promis­ing for White, as 27 . . . 'iixb7 loses to 28 'iix£7+ 'it>d8 29 'iixf6+ 'it>c7 30 .l:.cl + �c6 31 'iixe5+ l:td6 32 �f3. 16 .l:.ad11 �d6

16 .. . 'iixd4? 17 i.xh7+ tLlxh7 18 .l:.xd4 tLlxg5 19 'iih5 wins for White.

16 . . . �c7 is inferior to 16 . . . �d6, as af­ter 17 tLlf3 'iie7 18 tLle5 h6 19 �h4 .l:.d8 White can gain a clear advantage with 20 tLlg4.

1 1 4

17 lLlf3

17 ... h61 This is forced, as 17 . . .'iie7? loses to

18 �xh7+ 'it>xh7 19 'iid3+ . 18 i.h4 'iie71

White obtains a strong attack after 18 . . . 'iia5? ! 19 �xf6 gxf6 20 'iie4 f5 (or 20 . . . l:.d8? 21 'iih7+ 'it>f8 22 tLlh4! 'iig5 23 tLlg6+, winning) 21 'iih4 .

18 . . . .l:tb8?! is also bad, as 19 tLle5! threatens 20 tLlg4 and 19 . . . �xe5 is met by 20 �h7+ . 19 ttJes �xes

19 . . . g5! ? has some point, but after 20 �g3 White retains good compensation. Black's king is weak and he still hasn't finished his development. 20 'iixes

This is the second critical position. Black has accepted an extra pawn but White has the bishop pair and better development, and he can choose whether to attack the king or to press in the centre. The fact that in many variations White can easily regain the pawn shows that it is very easy to han­dle White's position and very difficult to defend Black's.

20 • • • l:te81 Black must protect his queen on e7

in order to have a . . . lt:Jd7 resource in some variations.

20 . . . .l:td8? is punished by 21 ..ixf6 gxf6 22 'ir'e4 'Wc5 23 'iih7+ 'ifi>f8 24 ..ig6! . If Black tries to finish his development with 20 . . . ..id7?! White replies with 21 l:te3! when Black is already under heavy attack. For example:

a) 2t . . J:Hd8 22 .l:r.g3! 'it>f8 23 .l:.f3 ..ib5 24 ..ixf6 gxf6 25 l:txf6 l:td5 26 'ir'f4 ..ixd3+ 27 .l:.xd3 l:txd3 28 cxd3 l:tc8 29 l:txh6 and White wins.

b) 2l . . . ..ib5 22 ltg3 'it>h8 23 ..ixb5 axb5 24 lhg7! ! 'it>xg7 25 l:td3 and again

3 . . . cs 4 lbgf3 cxd4 s exds 'ikxds

White wins. c) 2l . . .l:tfc8 22 l:tf3 l:tc5 23 ..ixf6 gxf6

24 l:tg3+ 'ifi>h8 (if 24 . . . 'it>f8 25 ..ih7) 25 'ii'e4 f5 26 'ii'e3 'it>h7! (26 . . . 'ii'f8? 27 'ii'd4+; or 26 .. .f4? 27 'ii'xf4 .:th5 28 'ii'g4 'ii'g5 29 'ii'e4 'ii'f5 30 'ii'xb7) 27 b4! l:td5 28 c4 and Black must give up the exchange. 21 'ifi>g1

21 .l:.e3?! allows 2l . . .lt:Jg4!, but 21 ..ie4!? is a reasonable alternative. 21 • • . ..id7 22 .l:te4 ..ic6 23 l:tf4 lt:Jd7 24 'Wh5 f61

24 .. .'ii'f8 allows 25 ..ig6! . 25 l:g4 lt:Je5 26 'ili'xe5

26 l:lg3 lt:Jxd3 27 'ii'xh6 lt:Jf4! 28 'ii'xf4 'it>f8 is okay for Black. 26 . . • fxe5 27 ..ixe7 .l:txe7 28 lie1

White will regain the pawn and keep a small edge, although Black should be able to hold the position.

I l lustrative Games

A.Sokolov-U.Andersson Clermont Ferrand 1989

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:Jd2 c5 4 exd5 'ii'xd5 5 lt:Jgf3 cxd4 6 ..tc4 'ii'd6 7 o-o lt:Jf6 8 lt:Jb3

1 1 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h D efe n ce

tiJc6 9 tiJbxd4 ttJxd4 10 ttJxd4 .i.d7 11 c3 'ii'c7 12 We2 .i.d6?1 13 ttJbsl .i.xbs 14 .i.xbS+ <j;e7 1S g3

As I mentioned in Line C21, White's basic plan is to play Wf3, l:.e1 and i.fl­g2 to pressure the queenside, and he can also start an attack on the king with i.gS. 1S .. Jlhd81? 16 lle1 l:.ac8 17 Wf3 a6 18 i.f1I Wc6

Black prevents the plan, but now White can reach a better endgame with the bishop pair and a queenside major­ity. 19 Wxc6 l:lxc6 20 i.g2 l:.c7 21 i.e3 .tcs

Black seems to be paralysed after the inferior 2l . . .l:tcd7 22 i.b6 l:.c8 23 l:tadl .

White now transforms his two­bishop advantage into a passed pawn and bishop versus knight. 22 i.xcS+ :xes 23 .i.xb7 l:.b8 24 i.xa6 J:txb2 2S a41

White's idea is to push this pawn as far as possible. 2s ... J:txc3 26 as ttJds l

A good move - Black uses his knight to stop the passed pawn.

1 1 6

26 . . . l:.cc2 would allow White to exe­cute his plan after 27 i.fl l:txf2 28 a6 tiJdS 29 a7 tL!c7 (or 29 . . . tiJb6 30 l:tecl l:ta2 31 l:.ab1) 30 l:tecl l:.fc2 31 l:txc2 %lxc2 32 i.d3 l:tcS 33 l:.b 1 . 27 i.f1 l:.c7 2 8 a 6 l:.a7 2 9 J:teb1 l:txb1 30 :xb1

Let's evaluate the position. White has the better minor piece and the black rook is passively placed. But what is White's plan? While Black marches his king close to the passed pawn, White's rook goes behind enemy lines to attack the black pawns on the kingside. 30 ... �d6 31 .Ub8 h6

32 h4! This helps White to fix a target on

g7 (with h4-h5), but it is also a pawn move that Black must consider very carefully. Why? Because after the king­side pawns fall, this pawn will threaten to become a queen! 32 ... �c7 33 .l::.g8 g6 34 .l:th8 h5

Black has managed to keep his pawn chain intact but at a cost of creat­ing weaknesses on the dark squares; White's king will try to exploit these. 35 .l:tf8 'it>c6 36 �g2 l:tc7 37 l:tb8 .l:ta7 38 .l:tf8 .l:tc7 39 .l:r.b8

When we have the advantage in the endgame, we must not hurry. White re­peats the same position in order to think further about the available plans and ideas, but he also puts additional psychological pressure on his oppo­nent. 39 ... .l:ta7 40 .ltb5+ �c7 41 I:.f8 �b6

42 l:.b8+ It's not late to blow everything, and

after 42 .lte8?? .l:ta8 it's White who loses!

It is important to stay focussed dur­ing the game and especially during the

3 . . . cs 4 li:Jgf3 cxd4 5 exds iixds

exploitation of an advantage. Don 't lose your concentration for any reason. 42 ... �c7 43 .l::.f8 �b6 44 .ltf1 l:.c7 45 �3 ttJf6 46 .l:tb8+

46 �f4 allows 46 .. . e5+ 47 �f3 ttJg4, when Black finds counterplay. When you have the advantage do not give your opponent counterplay! 46 ... �a7 47 .l:tb21

A subtle move: White temporarily uses his rook to defend f2 in order to bring his king to the £4-square. 47 ... e5

47 . . . ttJd5 48 �e4 f6 creates new weaknesses that White can exploit: the e6- and g6-pawns. 48 l:.d2 ltc3+ 49 �g2 ltc7 50 �3 l:tc3+ 51 �g2 ltc7 52 .l:.d6

As White cannot enter with his king, he tries to worsen the position of Black's pieces. 52 ... ttJe8

After 52 . . . ttJe4 White keeps the ad­vantage with 53 11d5 lte7 54 .l:td8, and if 52 . . . ltJg4 White continues with 53 .lte2 e4 54 .ltxg4 hxg4 55 .l:tf6! when his king will come to 'eat' the e4-pawn.

It is important to notice how many

1 1 7

Ho w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

transformations o f advantages Andrei Sokolov was considering. To do this you must study a lot of theoretical po­sitions in order to decide which are in your favour and which are not. 53 l:tds .l::te7 54 i.c41 �b6 55 .l:.bS+ �a7 56 �ds �b6 57 :dsl tt:Jg7

Both 57 ... tt:Jc7 58 l:!.b8+ and 57 ... ti:Jd6 58 .l:.xd6+ �c5 59 a7! ltxa7 60 l:ta6 win for White. 58 1:.b8+ �a7 59 l::tf8 tt:Je6 60 i.xe6 J:.xe6 61 llxf7+ �xa6

Now we have a rook and pawn ending! 62 'itf3 �b6 63 �e4 �c6 64 .l:.g71

Fantastic technique! White is ready to play f2-f4 and then bring his king to g5.

64 l:.a7 �d6 65 :laS does not win. Black seems to be in zugzwang but he has 65 . . . llf6! 66 l:.a6+ �e7 67 l:hf6 �xf6 68 �d5 �f5 69 f3 �f6 70 �d6 �f5 71 �e7 g5 72 hxgS �xgS 73 �e6 (73 �d6 �f6) 73 . . . e4! 74 fxe4 �g4 with a draw. It would have been unfair to omit this pawn ending, as we have seen all the other types of endgame! 64 ... �C5

1 1 8

64 . . . �d6 loses as mentioned to 65 f4 exf4+ 66 �xf4. 6S .r:l.d71

Black draws after 65 f4? exf4+ 66 �xf4 Ilf6+ 67 �g5 l:Xf3, as his king is not on the sixth rank so g6 doesn't fall with check. 6S .. JU6 66 .l:ld2 l:tfs 67 f3 �c6 68 l:la2

It's time to pick up the pawn on g6, guys! 68 ... �b7 69 l:tas l:tf6 70 l:tcs

The immediate capture with 70 l:txe5 also wins. 70 ... �b6 71 .l:.c3 .l:.fs 72 l:tc8 l:tf6 73 l:tc3 .l:.fs 74 .l:r.c8 l:tf6 75 .l:r.g8 �cs 76 �xes l:txf3 77 .:txg6

The rest is easy. 77 ... �c4 78 �e4 .:tf8 79 l:tc6+ �b4 So l:th6 .l:.g8 81 'itf4 1-0

This was an amazing endgame, bril­liantly played by Sokolov. If we look back we see that it went through the following types: two bishops; rook and bishop versus rook and knight; and finally a rook endgame. One game that will help you to improve in three as­pects of chess - thanks for the lesson, Andrei!

V .Kotronias-M.Biuvshtein Montreal 2002

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:Jd2 c5 4 exd5 'ji'xd5 5 tt:Jgf3 cxd4 6 i..c4 'ii'd6 7 o-o tt:Jf6 8 tiJb3 tt:Jc6 9 tt:Jbxd4 tt:Jxd4 10 tt:Jxd4 a6 11 1:te1 i..d7 12 c3 'ii'c7 13 'ife2 i..d6 14 i..g5 0-0-0

This involves too much risk -Black's queenside lacks protection and White can seize the initiative there. 15 h3 h6 16 i..e3

16 ... tt:Je4 White has the advantage after

16 . . . eS 17 tt:Jc2! i..c6 18 tt:Jb4 i..e4 19 .:ted1 i..e7 20 f3.

16 .. .'.tb8 17 a4 i..f4! seems best, al­though after 18 i..xf4 'ifxf4 19 aS! (19 i..xa6 bxa6 20 'ii'xa6 'ii'c7 21 l:i.a3 'ii'a7 22 'il'e2 tt:JdS 23 aS is a variation for Shi­rov-like players) 19 . . . 'ii'c7 (19 . . . .l:f.c8 20 i..d3) 20 .l:f.a3! White still enjoys some pressure. 20 .l:!a3 is a very useful multi­functional move: not only will llb3 threaten to win the a6-pawn or to es­tablish the rook on b6, but the rook on a3 protects the c3-pawn in order to start an offensive with b2-b4. Some

3 . . . cs 4 li:Jgf3 cxd4 5 exds Wxds

sample variations: 20 . . . .l:.he8 21 .l:.b3 (21 b4! ?) 2l . . .eS (better is 2l . . .�a7! 22 .l:.b6 tt:JdS 23 i..xdS exdS 24 'ii'd2 l::txe1+ 2S 'ii'xe1 l:te8 26 'ii'd2 lle4! 27 b3! - guard­ing a4 and avoiding 27 tt:Jf3 .:ta4! -27 . . . 'ii'cS 28 b4 'ii'e7 29 tt:Jf3 i..c6 30 �h2 'ii'c7+ 31 g3, restricting White to a small advantage) 22 tt:JfS! �a8! (22 . . . i..xfS? 23 i..xa6 i..c8 24 i..xb7 i..xb7 2S a6 is bad for Black, and 22 . . . �a7 23 tt:Jxg7 l:.g8 24 'ii'e3+ �a8 2S 'ii'b6! 'ifxb6 26 .l:txb6 is even worse) 23 i..xa6 i..c8 (if 23 . . . bxa6, 24 tt:Jxg7 i..bS 2S 'iif3+ wins the knight on f6) 24 i..bS i..xfS 2S a6! ! b6 26 i..xe8 i..d3 27 'ifxeS with a winning position for White. 17 a4

11 • • • e5? This was the main idea behind

Black's previous move. He hopes to advance the f-pawn after the knight's retreat, but White's typically strong reply changes the character of the posi­tion.

It would have been better to con­tinue with 17 . . . .l:f.he8, when 18 tt:Jf3 (18 aS! ? is also interesting as 18 . . . eS? loses to 19 tt:Jf3) 18 . . . tt:Jf6 (18 . . . i..c6 19 aS tt:Jcs

1 1 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

20 b4 gives White's attack too many tempi) 19 aS tt'ldS 20 ..txdS exdS 21 'iiid2, with the idea of ..td4, gives White a small advantage. 18 tt'lbsl axbs

Black must accept the sacrifice, as 18 .. .'ifb8 loses to 19 ..ta7 'ii'a8 20 ..tb6. 19 axbs

This sacrifice is quite typical and is the hidden idea behind 17 a4. White enjoys a strong attack because the a-file is opened for the rooks and the b-pawn not only controls the c6-square but is also ready to go to b6 to open the a4-e8 diagonal. Furthermore, White's dou­bling on the a-file will come with a gain of tempo after the subsequent .l:.a4 because in many cases the rook threat­ens to land on c4 with devastating ef­fect. 19 ... ..tfs

19 . . . ..te6 gives White a clear advan­tage after 20 ..txe6+ fxe6 21 l:.a4! tt'lcS 22 .l:.c4, threatening b2-b4. 20 .l:ta8+ 'it>d7 21 b6 'ii'c6 22 ..tbs .l:txa8 23 ..txc6+ bxc6

Black has got a rook and two minor

1 2 0

pieces for the queen, but his king is weak and White's b-pawn is very strong. In addition Black's forces, in contrast to White's, cannot be organ­ized effectively. 24 'ili'c4 ..tg6

24 . . . .l:thf8 2S l:td1 .:!.aS 26 b4 l:tdS 27 lta1 is also winning for White. 25 .l:td1 .l:.hd8 26 b71 .l:.ab8 27 'ii'a6 'it>e7

Setting a trap: Black would have some chances for survival after 28 ..ta7?! tt'lcS! 29 'iiixc6 ..te4 30 'ii'xd6+! l:.xd6 31 ..txcS .l:txb7 32 l:txd6 'it>e8. 28 'ii'xc61 .l::td7

29 llxd61 This final blow crushes any linger­

ing hopes for Black. 29 ... tt'lxd6

White also wins after 29 . . . l:txd6? 30 'ii'c7+ or 29 . . . .l:tbxb7 30 .l:txg6. 30 ..tcs 'it>e6

The pawn is untouchable because of 30 .. Jibxb7 31 ..txd6+. 31 ..txd6 ..te4 32 'ii'c51 1-0

Black resigned as 32 . . . .l:txd6 is met by 33 'ii'c8+. Kotronias played the whole game to perfection!

Cha pte r Te n I 3 . . . c s 4 ttJgf3 ltJc6 s exd s exd s 6 i.. b s : U n u s u a l Lines

1 e4 e6 2 d 4 dS 3 tt'ld2 c s 4 tt'lgf3 tt'lc6 5 exds exds 6 .ltbs

Now we will look at:

A: 6 ... .ltd7?! B: 6 ... a6?! C: 6 ... cxd4 D: 6 .. .'ife7+ E: 6 ... .ltd6

A) 6 ... .ltd7?1 This dubious move is played quite

often. Black loses valuable time with his development and will have prob­lems with both the open e-file and the c5-pawn. 7 0-0

Now Black has many choices but all (except one!) lead to a clear advantage for White. 7 ... cxd41

This is the only logical move: at least Black will not have to worry about the c5-pawn and can give all his attention to facing White's attack on

the e-file. Alternatively: a) 7 . . . tt'lxd4? 8 tt'lxd4 cxd4 9 �e1+

tt'le7 (9 . . . .lte7? loses on the spot to 10 'ii'g4!, D.Van Riemsdijk-R.Muller, Gua­rapuava 1992) 10 .ltxd7+ 'ii'xd7 1 1 tt'lf3 f6 (or 1 1 . . . 0-0-0!? 12 tt'le5 'ii'e6 13 .ltg5! with an initiative) 12 tt'lxd4 with a clear advantage for White, D.Minic-V.Bukal, Sarajevo 1972.

b) 7 . . . a6?! shows little respect for time, or the development of pieces! After 8 �e1+ .lte7 9 .ltxc6 .ltxc6 10 dxc5 tt'lf6 1 1 'ii'e2! Black was already strug­gling badly in A.Bonneau-M.Le Gall, Meudon 1992.

c) 7 . . . 'ii'b6?! also neglects develop­ment, and 8 'ii'e2+ .lte7 9 dxc5 'ii'xc5 10 tt'lb3 'ii'd6 1 1 .lte3! tt'lf6 12 .ltc5 'ii'c7 13 l::tfe1 led to a clear advantage for White in J.Zillmer-J.MacDonald, correspon­dence 2000.

d) 7 . . . .lte7?! 8 dxc5 .ltxc5 (8 . . . tt'lf6 9 tt'lb3 0-0 10 l:te1 transposes to 7 . . . tt'lf6, note 'e') 9 tt'lb3! .lte7 (Black has no compensation for the pawn after

1 2 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

9 . . . j_b6 10 ii'xdS, o r 9 . . . ii'b6 10 ii'xdS) 10 .l:tel ! lZJ£6 1 1 ii'e2,

and Black is a long way from cas­tling, C.Jean-S.Graille, Pierrevert 2004.

e) 7 . . . lZJf6?! 8 llel+ j_e7 (or 8 . . . Si.e6?! 9 j_xc6+ bxc6 10 lZJgS 'ifd7 11 lt:Jdf3 0-0-0 12 !lxe6! fxe6 13 lt:Je5 'iie8 14 lt:Jgf7 .Ug8 15 lt:Jxd8 'ifxd8 16 j_f4 with the idea of c2-c4 followed by 'ifa4, and White has a tremendous attack) 9 dxcS 0-0 10 lt:Jb3 and it will not be easy for Black to regain his pawn.

f) If Black tries to solve the problem of the c-pawn with 7 . . . c4?!, White can disorganize the coordination of Black's pieces with 8 l:r.el + j_e7 9 b3! when suddenly Black has big problems. For example, 9 . . . cxb3 (9 . . . c3 is a 'pawn sui­cide' after 10 lZJbl ii'aS 1 1 'ifd3) 10 axb3 �f8 1 1 j_xc6 bxc6 12 lZJeS g6 13 .l:ta6 'i'c8 14 'i'e2 with a considerable advan­tage for White, F.Gasseholm-L.Moller, Denmark 1974. 8 l:te1+ j_e7 g tt:Jb3 lt:Jf6 10 lt:Jbxd4

10 tt:Jc5!? is also possible. 1o ... o-o 11 j_gsl

White has all his pieces in their best positions.

1 2 2

11 .. Jle8 It is not advisable to release the ten­

sion with l l . . .lt:Jxd4?!, as after 12 lt:Jxd4 lt:Je4 13 j_xe7 'ii'xe7 14 j_xd7 'ii'xd7 15 'ii'h5!? b6 16 .l:!.adl l:tad8 17 .l::te3! (P.Fischer-L.Scheer, Bellheim 1994) White can combine an attack on the kingside with pressure on the isolated pawn. 12 j_xc61? bxc6 13 lt:Jes

We very often see that the exchange on c6 is accompanied by lt:Je5, putting immediate pressure on the c6-pawn. 13 ... 'ii'c7

13 ... j_d6 14 lZJxd7 l:txel+ 15 'ifxel 'ifxd7 16 j_xf6 gxf6 is better for White. 14 'iff3 l:r.ab8 15 lt:Jxd71 'ifxd7 16 lt:Jfs j_d8 17 b3 l:tb7 18 c41

White has the advantage, L.Laliga­D.Bobone Carvalho, Internet 2004.

B) 6 ... a6?! This move loses valuable time.

7 j_xc6+ bxc6 8 o-o j_d6 Alternatives demonstrate how diffi­

cult Black's position can become: a) 8 . . . j_g4? wastes more time, as af­

ter 9 l:tel+ the bishop must return to e6

3 . . . c5 4 !i::Jgf3 !i::J c6 5 exd5 exds 6 iL b 5 : U n u s u a l L i n es

because 9 . . . 1i.e7 10 dxc5 lZJ£6 1 1 'ii'e2 .l:.a7 12 h3 is bad for Black.

b) 8 . . . c4 (trying to keep the position closed but. . . ) 9 .l:te1 + and now:

bl) 9 . . . 1i.e6 10 lZJeS 'it'c7 1 1 ltldf3 1i.e7 12 ll:lgS 1i.xg5 13 1i.xg5 ll:le7 14 lt::lx£7! and White went on to win in G.Nap­J.Knoek, correspondence 1983.

b2) 9 ... 1i.e7 10 b3 cxb3 11 cxb3!? (a new idea: White wants to use the c-file to attack the c6-pawn and to control the important square c5) 1 1 . . . 1i.e6 12 ll:le5 'it'b6 13 ll:ldf3 h6 14 'ii'e2 l:!.a7 15 ltlg6! with a clear advantage, R.Band­M.Li, Ruhrgebiet 2004.

c) 8 . . . ltlf6 9 .:tel+ 1i.e7 (or 9 . . . 1i.e6 10 ltlg5! _.d7 1 1 ll:ldf3 1i.d6 12 lt::lx£7!) 10 ltle5! 1i.d7 1 1 ltlb3 0-0 (1 1 . . . c4 12 ltlc5 0-0 loses to 13 ltlcxd7 ll:lxd7 14 ltlxc6) 12 ll:lxc5 with a clear extra pawn, M.Kremer-Y.Visser, Hilversum 1982.

d) 8 . . . 1i.e6 9 l:!.el ! (not rushing to take on c5 until the f8-bishop is devel­oped) 9 . . . 1i.e7?! (9 . . . c4 was the lesser evil) 10 dxc5! 1i.xc5 1 1 ll:lb3 1i.e7 12 ll:lbd4! 1i.d7 13 ltle5 l:.c8 14 'ii'f3 ll:lf6 15 ll:lxd7 'it'xd7 16 ltlf5 and White is win­ning, P.Garre Murcia-J.Ruiz Garcia,

Totana 2003. e) 8 . . . cxd4 9 .l:tel+ 1i.e7 10 lZJb3! (it

will not be easy for Black to castle) 10 . . . 'it>f8 (or 10 . . . ll:lf6 11 ll:lfxd4 'it'c7 12 'ii'e2 l:!.a7 13 _.e5!, A.Santasiere­G.Drexel, New York 1946) 1 1 'ii'xd4 .td7 12 1i.d2 l:.b8 13 1i.a5 'iic8 14 1i.b6 h5 15 1i.c5 (an amazing journey for this bishop! ) 15 . . . 1i.e6 16 ltlg5 .l:i.b7 17 .l:.e3 1i.f5 18 l:!.ael and White's attack proved to be too strong in P.Keres-F.Koberl, Szczawno Zdroj 1950.

f) 8 . . .£6 !? is very logical. Black un­derstands that he has lost valuable time and makes a refuge for his king. After 9 l:!.el+ 'it>f7 10 dxc5 1i.xc5 1 1 ltlb3 1i.b6 12 1i.e3 ll:le7 O.Bluemhuber-P.Rutzinger, Pocking 1996) 13 1i.xb6 1t'xb6 14 l:!.cl (14 'ii'd4! ?) 14 . . . .:te8 15 c4 White's advan­tage has been restricted to a small one.

9 dxcsl i.xcs 10 ltlb3 i.d6 10 . . . i.e7 is bad, and 11 l:.el lt::l£6 12

ltle5 i.d7 13 ll:lc5 0-0 14 ll:lcxd7 forced Black to resign in P.Pister-P.Durant, correspondence 1985.

10 . . . i.b6 is also inferior: after 1 1 i.e3 i.xe3 12 l:!.el ll:le7 13 l::txe3 0-0 14 'ii'd2 ltlf5 15 .:teel Wc7 16 'ii'c3 ll:ld6 17 ll:lc5

1 2 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

White secured a pleasant advantage in M.Ferguson-I.White, Monmouth 2001 . 11 'ii'd4!

A very useful move: the queen threatens g7, controls c5 and prepares the exchange of dark-squared bishops with .llf4. 11 ... f6

1 l . . .'iff6? allows 12 'ifb6! Si.d7 (12 ... lbe7 13 .llg5) 13 l:.e1+ .lle7 (or 13 . . . lbe7 14 lbc5) 14 lbe5 'ii'd6 (14 .. J!d8 15 lba5!) 15 .llf4 after which Black can resign.

After 1 l . . .lbf6!? 12 l:te1+! .lle6 13 Si.f4! 0-0 14 .llxd6 'ii'xd6 15 c4! .l:tad8?! (best is 15 ... �fe8! ? with only a slight edge for White) 16 c5 'ii'c7 17 'ii'a4 l:ta8 18 lbe5 �fc8 19 lbd4 Si.d7 20 .l:te3 lbe4 21 lDd3 Black was completely tied up in J.Hjartarson-T.Amason, Grundar­fjordur 1986. 12 �e1+ lbe7 13 .llf4

13 c4! ? 0-0 14 c5 .llc7 15 .llf4 is also good for White. 13 ... 0-0

With Black being able to castle, there is no point in 13 . . . 'iii'f7. White se­cured a clear advantage after 14 .llxd6

1 2 4

'ii'xd6 1 5 c4 lDf5 1 6 'ii'c3 .lle6 1 7 lDfd4 lbxd4 18 lbxd4 .l:the8 19 c5 'ii'd7 20 .l::!.e3 'iii'f8 21 �ae1 in the game T.Horvath­D.Krumpacnik, Leiner 1996. 14 .llxd6 'ii'xd6 15 'iics

Now that Black has castled, White is happy to enter an ending, although other moves (e.g. 15 c4! ? and 15 lbc5!?) are also possible. 1s .. Ji'xcs 16 lDxcs

How have the exchanges affected the position? White has an edge, as the dark squares in Black's camp are very weak and the c8-bishop is a poor piece. This instructive endgame is covered in the illustrative game Gligoric­Stahlberg, Belgrade 1949 (see the end of the chapter) .

C) 6 ... cxd4 7 'ii'e2+1?

I like this move, as White gains an edge without any risk. 7 .. :iie7

Both 7 .. . lbge7?! 8 lbxd4 Si.d7 9 lbxc6!? bxc6 10 Si.d3 f6 1 1 0-0 'iii'f7 12 b3 g6 13 .llb2 (L.Roze-Y.Ryzhkov, corre­spondence 1987) and 7 . . . .lle7?! 8 0-0 lbf6 (or 8 . . . a6 9 .llxc6+ bxc6 10 lDxd4 c5

3 . . . cs 4 lt:Jgf3 lt:Jc6 5 exds exds 6 iJ.. b s : U n u s u a l L i n es

1 1 ltJc6) 9 .l:.e1 .ltg4!? 10 h3 .lth5 1 1 lDb3 .ltxf3 12 'iixf3 0-0 13 .ltxc6 bxc6 14 ltJxd4 (E.Hermansson-N.Renman, Swedish League 2001) are clearly better for White. 8 ltJxd4 'iixe2+

8 . . . .ltd7 leads to the same position after 9 lD2f3 'ii'xe2+ 10 �xe2. 9 �xe2 .ltd7 10 lD2f3

10 ... ltJxd4+ Black has many ways to reach a

slightly inferior position. For example: 10 . . . .ltd6 1 1 .l:.e1 ! lDge7 12 �fl 0-0 13 c3; 10 . . . ltJf6 11 .l:.e1 ltJxd4+?! (1 1 . . .0-0-0 12 �fl ltJxd4 seems stronger) 12 lDxd4 0-0-0 13 .ltd3 .ltc5 14 c3 .l:.de8+ 15 �fl .l:.xe1+ 16 �xe1 ltJg4! 17 .ltf4 .l:.e8+! (17 .. .f6? 18 l:td1 ltJe5 19 .ltc2 .ltxd4 20 .lhd4 was much better for White in R.Hiibner-V.Korchnoi, 7th matchgame, Merano 1980) 18 �fl lDe5 19 .ltc2 ltJc4 20 b3 .ltd6 21 lDe2!; and 10 . . . .ltc5 1 1 .lte3 ltJxd4+ 12 ltJxd4 .ltxd4 13 .ltxd7+ �xd7 14 .ltxd4, T.Ravi-S.Dolmatov, Calcutta 1996. 11 ltJxd4 .ltcs 12 l:td1 ltJe7

12 . . . .ltxd4?! 13 .ltxd7+ �xd7 14 .l:txd4 �e6 15 .ltf4 lDf6 16 .:.e1 is inferior.

13 .lte3 .ltxd4 13 . . . .ltxb5+ 14 ltJxb5 .ltxe3 15 �xe3

�d7!? is also interesting (15 . . . 0-0-0? 16 ltJxa7+ is out of the question) . 14 .ltxd7+ �xd7 15 l:txd4 l:thc8

White keeps an edge after 15 . . . �e6 16 lladl . 16 c3 l:tc4 17 l:tad1 .l:.xd4

(R.Hiibner-V.Korchnoi, 9th match­game, Merano 1980) Now 18 l:hd4! �e6! would give White a small advan­tage, and in this line 18 . . . �c6 19 l:th4! is even worse for Black.

D) 6 ... 'ii'e7+ 7 .lte21

This is the strongest move. White loses a tempo but will benefit from the awkward position of Black's queen . 7 ... cxd4

Black has quite a few alternatives: a) 7 . . . ltJxd4? is a very bad move: for

example, 8 ltJxd4 cxd4 9 0-0 'iid6 10 ltJb3 .lte7 11 ltJxd4 lDf6 12 lDb5 'iib8 13 'iid4! and White wins, M.Novak­H.Preiser, Tatranske Zruby 2005.

b) 7 . . . .i.g4? has no point, as the bishop on g4 will only help White after 8 0-0 cxd4 9 .:.e1 0-0-0 10 ltJxd4.

1 2 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

c) It's not easy to keep the position closed with 7 . . . c4?! . After 8 0-0 'ii'c7 9 .:tel i.e7 10 b3! (White usually plays b2-b3 after .:tel in order to leave the fl­square available for the d2-knight when Black reacts with . . . c3) 10 . . . b5 1 1 a4 i.f5 (after ll . . .c3 12 ltJ£1 b4 13 i.b5!? i.d7 14 i.xc6 i.xc6 15 ltJe5 i.d7 16 i.f4 'ii'b7 17 ltJd3 i.e6 18 i.e5 i.f6 19 ltJc5 White has a strong attack, P.Vecerka­A.Gottwald, Passau 1998) 12 ltJ£1 ltJb4 13 ltJe3 White was clearly better in I.Bondarevsky-G.Garcia Gonzales, So­chi 1964.

d) 7 . . . g5?! is too violent to be any good! After 8 0-0 g4 9 l:::.el ! White sud­denly obtains a very strong attack:

9 . . . i.e6! (9 . . . gxf3 is bad: after 10 i.xf3 i.e6 1 1 c4! ltJxd4 12 cxd5 0-0-0 13 dxe6 White has regained the piece and is still attacking) 10 ltJe5 ltJxeS (or 10 . . . ltJxd4 11 i.xg4 ltJf6 12 i.xe6 ltJxe6 -12 . . . fxe6 13 c3 ltJc6 14 'ii'a4 - 13 f4! and White has an enduring initiative) 1 1 dxe5 h5 12 i.b5+! (it i s important for White to exchange the light-squared bishops because his basic idea is to play c2-c4 and attack on the light

1 2 6

squares; furthermore, this is Black's only developed piece!) 12 . . . i.d7 13 i.xd7+ 'ii'xd7 14 c4 and White enjoys a big advantage.

e) 7 . . . 'ii'c7!? tries to improve the po­sition of the queen. It's true Black has lost a tempo, but White also lost one with i.b5-e2. The only drawback is that Black doesn't usually rush to develop his queen early on. White keeps a small advantage with 8 0-0 ltJf6 9 .l:tel i.e6 (White gained a clear plus after 9 . . . i.e7? 10 dxc5 i.xc5 11 i.b5+ i.e7 12 'ii'e2 i.e6 13 ltJd4 in P.Javarone­A.Glorioso, correspondence 1988) 10 dxc5 i.xc5 1 1 ltJb3 i.b6 12 ltJbd4! 0-0 13 c3 l:tae8 14 i.g5! ltJe4 15 i.e3 (W.Cruz­P.Duarte, Sao Paulo 1942) 15 . . . i.g4!? 16 h3 i.xf3 17 i.xf3 ltJxd4 18 i.xd4 .l:te6 19 l:te2! . 8 0-0

8 . . . 'ii'c7 8 . . . ltJf6 9 ltJb3 i.e6 10 ltJbxd4 'ii'd7 1 1

i.d3 i.cS 12 i.e3 i.b6 13 ltJxe6 fxe6 14

i.xb6 axb6 15 'ilke2 0-0 16 :fel nfe8 17 ltJe5 is much better for White, A.Hotting-J.Huis in't Veld, correspon­dence 1989.

3 . . . c5 4 l1Jgf3 l1J c6 5 exds exd5 6 iL b S : U n u s u a l L i n e s

Going back with the queen to its ini­tial position with 8 . . . 'it'd8 can never be good! 9 t"Llb3 ii.d6 10 t"Llbxd4 t"Llge7 1 1 b3! (the best set-up for White) 1 1 . . . 0-0 12 ii.b2 t"Llg6 13 c4! gave White the ad­vantage in M.Tal-S.Holm, Kapfenberg 1970. 9 t"Llb3 t"Llf6!?

9 . . . ii.d6?! is worse: 10 t"Llbxd4 a6 1 1 c4! t"Llge7 12 cxd5 t"Llxd5 13 t"Llb5! axb5 14 'ii'xd5 b4 (14 . . . ii.e6 15 'iVe4 l::ta4 16 'ii'c2 0-0 17 ii.xb5 l:ta5 18 a4 ii.d5 19 t"Llg5! and 14 . . . 0-0 15 l::td1 l::td8 16 'ili'h5 are also better for White) 15 l::td1 ii.e7 16 t"Llg5! 0-0 17 'iVe4 ii.xg5 18 ii.xg5 l::ta5 19 ii.f4 �6 20 ii.d6 ii.f5 21 'iVf4 .l:.c8 (Z.Nikolic-P.Nikolic, Bjelovar 1979) 22 ii.c4! and White's advantage is consid­erable. 10 t"Llbxd4 a6

10 . . . t"Llxd4?! 11 t"Llxd4 ii.d7 12 t"Llb5!? �6 13 a4 looks good for White.

11 c41 A strong move: White wants to

open the position while Black is still completing his development. 11 • • • ii.e7

1 l . . .t"Llxd4 12 'ifxd4 ii.c5 13 'iWh4 is

good for White. 12 cxds t"Llxds 13 t"Llbs axbs 14 'ii'xds b4

Black has no compensation for the pawn after 14 . . . ii.e6 15 'i¥e4 l:ta4 16 'ii'c2 0-0 17 ii.xb5.

With 14 . . . b4 we have been following the game S.Rublevsky-V.Korchnoi, St Petersburg 2001 . Here White could have seized the initiative with 15 t"Llg5! 0-0 16 'ife4 ii.xg5 17 ii.xg5 .l:la5 18 ii.f4.

E) 6 • • • ii.d6 This is by far Black's most popular

move. 7 dxcs

Now the main line runs 7 . . . ii.xc5 8 0-0 t"Lle7, which is covered in Chapter 1 1 . Here we will address two less im­portant lines:

E1: 7 • . . "fie7+ E2: 7 • • • ii.xcs 8 o-o t"Llf6?!

E1) 7 . • . "fie7+ 8 "fie2 Wxe2+ Black will be obliged to exchange

on e2 sooner or later. White keeps an edge after 8 . . . ii.xc5 9 t"Lle5 ii.d7 10 t"Llxd7 'it>xd7 1 1 t"Llb3 Wxe2+ 12 'it>xe2! l:te8+ 13

1 2 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

J;£3 it.d6 14 it.e3 a6 15 it.xc6+! bxc6 16 c4! dxc4 17 lDc5+ (17 lDa5! ?) 17 . . . it.xc5 18 it.xc5 lDf6 (I.Storm-Liermann, corre­spondence 1976) 19 it.d4! . 9 �xe2!

The bishop must stay on b5 to exert pressure, and the king is not badly placed in the centre since we are close to the endgame. 9 ... it.xcs 10 lDb3 it.b6

After 10 . . . it.d6 11 .ltg5! f6 12 it.h4 lDge7 13 il.g3 il.xg3 14 hxg3 il.g4 15 �d2! 0-0-0 16 lDfd4 lDe5 (B.Jensen­P.Wilson, correspondence 1997) 17 .l:rae1 ! White keeps a slight advantage.

11 il.e3 il.xe3

1 2 8

1 1 . . . lDf6?! allows White the oppor­tunity to damage the queenside pawns with 12 il.xb6 axb6. White gained an edge in Y.Balashov-R.Vaganian, Lenin­grad 1971, after 13 lDfd4 il.d7 14 .l:the1 0-0-0 15 £3 lDe8 16 il.d3 lDd6 17 �d2! (White's king is ready to protect the b2-pawn) 17 . . . Il.he8 18 lDb5 lDxb5 (18 . . . lDc4+ 19 il.xc4! dxc4 20 lD3d4 is also better for White) 19 il.xb5. 12 �xe3 lDge7

13 lDfd4 13 .l:I.he1 !? 0-0 14 il.xc6 bxc6 15 �d4

l:!.e8 (15 . . . lD£5+ 16 �c5 l:tb8 17 g4! lDh6 18 h3 is very bad for Black) 16 �c5 is a fascinating line: nobody can accuse the white king of being a coward! After 16 . . . l:.b8 17 lDfd4 White achieves a clear advantage - he is ready to play .l:.e3 and double rooks on the e-file, or he can target Black's kingside pawns if Black brings his king to the centre. 13 ... 0-0 14 l:i.he1

White enjoys a clear advantage after either 14 . . . lDf5+ 15 �d3 lDcxd4 16 lDxd4 lDxd4 17 �xd4 il.e6 18 c3 llac8 19 I:te5 (T.Kwong-J.Wenger, correpondence 1999), or 14 . . . il.d7 15 il.xc6 lDxc6 16

3 . . . c5 4 l:tJgf3 l:tJ c 6 5 exd5 exds 6 S.. b s : U n u s u a l L i n e s

tt:\xc6 .ltxc6 17 'it>d4 .l:.ac8 18 .U.e7 .U.fe8 19 l:.ae1 (G.Evans-E.Raffaele, correspon­dence 2003).

E2) 7 . • • .ltxcs 8 o-o tt:\f6?1

A speciality of the Latvian GM Nor­munds Miezis. 9 .l:.e1+ .lte6

After 9 . . . .lte7 10 'ii'e2! White keeps Black's monarch in the centre. For ex­ample, 10 . . . .ltg4 (10 . . . .lte6? 11 tt:\d4; 10 . . . a6 1 1 ..ltxc6+ bxc6 12 tt:\b3 tt:\e4 13 ltJfd4! 'ii'd6 14 f3 c5 15 fxe4 cxd4 16 exd5 .l:.a7 17 'iie4 ..ltb7 18 ..ltf4 wins for White, B.Trabert-C.Van der Merwe, Istanbul 2000) 1 1 h3 ..lth5 12 b3! �f8 13 ..ltb2 a6 14 ..ltxc6 bxc6 15 c4 with a clear advantage, C.Mann-F.Trommsdorf, German League 1988. 10 tt:\b3 ..ltb6

10 ... ..1txf2+? 11 �xf2 'ifb6+ loses a piece to 12 tt:\bd4. I have seen this blun­der with my very own eyes on five occasions!

After 10 . . . ..1te7? 11 tt:\fd4 Black will reach positions similar to the main lines but without the activity supplied by having the bishop on b6.

10 . . . 'ii'b6!? isn't bad: 11 tt:\xc5 'iixc5 12 .ltxc6+ (12 ..ltd3 is a way to avoid forcing lines, and White retains a small advantage after 12 . . . 0-0 13 ..ltg5 tt:\e4 14 ..lte3 'iib4 15 'ii'b1 ! l:tae8 16 c3 'ii'd6 17 'ii'c2) 12 . . . bxc6 13 tt:\d4 0-0 (if 13 . . . tt:\e4, 14 ..lte3 'ii'd6 15 f3 tt:\f6 16 tt:\f5) 14 .l:.xe6 fxe6 15 tt:\xe6 'ii'b6 16 tt:\xf8 lhf8 17 ..lte3 'ii'xb2 18 ..ltxa7 tt:\e4! 19 ..ltd4 tt:\c3 20 'ii'e1 tt:\e2+ 21 'ii'xe2 'iixd4 22 .l:.d1 left White with an edge in M.Srba­M.Ruzicka, Litomysl 2005, although it seems that Black can hold the draw with accurate play. 11 tt:\bd4

11 . . . 0-0 This sacrifice is forced, as alterna­

tives give White a big advantage. For example:

a) 1 1 . . . 'ii'd6? 12 tt:\f5 is terrible for Black.

b) 1 1 . . . ..1txd4? is also bad: 12 tt:\xd4 'ii'd7 13 ..ltg5! tt:\e4 14 tt:\xe6 fxe6 15 c4! tt:\xg5 16 cxd5 and White is almost winning.

c) 1 1 . . .tt:\e4? 12 ..lte3 'ii'c7 13 tt:\xe6 fxe6 (I.Donev-J.Svec, Trinec 1990) 14 c4! .l:.d8 (or 14 . . . 0-0-0? 15 ..ltxc6 bxc6 16

1 2 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

cxdS ii.xe3 17 l:.xe3 exdS 18 l:t.cl with a strong attack) 15 cxdS exdS 16 ii.xc6+ bxc6 (if 16 . . . 'iixc6 White has 17 li:leS 'ilt'd6 18 'ilt'a4+) 17 li:lgS! and Black is obliged to sacrifice the exchange by castling. 12 ii.xc6 bxc6 13 li:lxc6 'ilt'd6 14 li:lce5 li:lg4!

After 14 . . . ii.g4 15 ii.e3 ii.xf3 16 li:lxf3 li:lg4 17 ii.xb6 axb6 18 'ii'd4 Black has no compensation, C.Batceceg-E.Shabani, Moscow 1994. 15 li:lxg4 ii.xg4 16 'ilfd3 .:taeB

'It is time to sum up the results of the opening. White has won a pawn, but Black has a couple of strong bish­ops and some advantage in develop­ment. I am not sure that Black has enough compensation for the pawn, but White must play very carefully.' (Psakhis) 17 ii.d2!

This is better than 17 ii.e3? ii.c7. 11 ... ii.h5

17 . . . ii.c7!? 18 g3 'ii'f6 19 li:ld4 is also slightly better for White.

With 17 . . . ii.h5 we are following the game M.Prusikin-N.Miezis, Marso

1 3 0

2002. Here 1 8 ii.c3! ii.g6 1 9 'ii'd2, threat­ening ii.b4, would have given White the advantage.

I l l ustrative Game

S.Giigoric-G.Stahlberg Belgrade 1949

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 li:ld2 c5 4 li:lgf3 li:lc6 5 exd5 exd5 6 ii.b5 a6?! 7 ii.xc6+ bxc6 8 o-o ii.d6 9 dxc5! ii.xc5 10 li:lb3 ii.d6 11 'ii'd4! f6 12 l:te1+ li:le7 13 ii.f4 o-o 14 ii.xd6 'ili'xd6 15 'ii'c5 'ii'xc5 16 li:lxc5 li:lf5 17 b4 .l:.a7

17 . . . a5 plays into White hands after 18 c3 and 19 a4. 18 liJb3 l:tc7 19 c3 �7 20 liJfd4 liJd6

Against 20 . . . li:lxd4, 21 cxd4! is the easiest route to an advantage (although White can also play 21 li:lxd4!? c5 22 li:lb3 cxb4 23 cxb4, when the knight is ready to jump into c5). 21 li:lc5 .l:.eB 22 l:!.xe8 'it>xeB

23 f3 ! White doesn't hurry: after 23 a4?!

li:le4! 24 l:te1 'it>f7 25 li:lxe4 dxe4 he must find 26 li:lb3! to keep the advantage (26

3 . . . cs 4 l'i:Jgf3 l'i:Jc6 5 exds exds 6 ii. b s : U n u s u a l L i n es

:xe4 c5! allows Black counterplay) . 23 ... ct>f7 24 ct>f2 gs 25 a4 hs 26 as

Fixing the weakness on a6. 26 . . • ltlc4 27 l:.e1 ltles 28 g3 l:.e7 29 l:.e2 l:.c7 30 f4 gxf4 31 gxf4 ltlg6 32 �g3 ltle7 33 .l:.e1 l:.a7 34 <t>f2

34 �h4?! ltlg6+ 35 �xh5? ltlxf4+ even loses for White! - 36 �h6 :a8 fol­lowed by . . . i.h3 and . . . .l:.h8 mate. 34 ... .l:.a8 35 ltla4

Threatening 36 ltlb6 .l:!.b8 37 l:r.xe7+ �xe7 38 ltlxc6+. 3s ... i.h3 36 l!e3 i.d7 37 ltlb6 l:.a7 38 �e1

Avoiding 38 Ihe7+? �xe7 39 ltlc8+ i.xc8 40 ltlxc6+ �d6 41 ltlxa7 i.d7! 42 �e3 �c7 when the knight falls - a nice variation given by Ftacnik. 3B ... ltlfs 39 ltlxfs i.xfs 40 ltla4 i.d3 41 ltlcs

41 ... i.bs? This is the move that loses the

game. The bishop must go back to pro­tect the weakness on a6, and after 4l . . .i.f5! 42 h4 i.c8 it's not easy to break down Black's position. White's plan is to put his king on d4, but it's hard to achieve this aim as every time

the king goes to e3 Black will play . . . l:.e7+ leaving the white rook hanging. If White moves his rook from the e-file, Black plays . . . l:te7. Notice that . . . i.f5-c8 also stops the f4-f5 idea White uses in the game. 42 fs :as

There is no salvation for Black. For example: 42 . . . 11c7 43 ltle6 l:tc8 44 .l:tgl l:tg8 45 J:txg8 �xg8 46 �e3 �f7 47 �d4 �e7 48 �c5 �d7 49 �b6 �d6 50 ltlc7; or 42 . . . .l:.e7 43 ltle6 (again threatening .l:tgl) 43 . . . i.d3 44 ltld8+ �f8 45 Ihe7 �xe7 46 ltlxc6+ �d6 47 ltld4. 43 ltlb7! �g7 44 l:Ig1+ ct>f7 45 .l:.e1 'it>g7 46 ltld6 h4 47 ct>f3 .l:.d8 48 l:te7+ �g8 49 lle6 �g7

50 �e3 Preventing any counterplay with

. . . d4: for example, 50 �g4? d4! 51 cxd4 i.c4! 52 ltlxc4 .l:.xd4+. so . . . i.a4 51 �d4 .l:.gB 52 �cs �h7 53 ltles l:tg2 54 ltlxf6+ �g7 ss ltld7

The £-pawn is ready to promote. ss .. J:tf2 56 f6+ �g6 s7 ltles+ �hs ss f7 d4 59 l1e8 1-0

An expertly conducted endgame from the great Svetozar!

1 3 1

C h a pte r E l eve n I 3 . . . c s 4 '2Jgf3 '2Jc6 s exd s exd s 6 iL b s : Ma i n Li nes

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d s 3 l2Jd2 c s 4 l2Jgf3 l2Jc6 5 exds exds 6 ..tbs ..td6 7 dxcs ..txcs 8 o-o l2Jge7 9 l2Jb3

Now Black must make an important decision over where to retreat his bishop. The options are:

A: 9 ... ..tb6 8: g ... ..td6

A) 9 ... ..tb6 10 l:te1 White's plan is to exchange the

dark-squared bishops with ..te3, secur-

1 3 2

ing a small advantage. 10 ... 0-0

Black doesn't have the luxury of be­ing able to pin the white knight imme­diately with 10 . . . ..tg4?!, which is met by 1 1 ..tgS! f6 12 ..te3 ..txe3 13 l:txe3 0-0. White wants to play ..te2 and l2Jfd4, which is the best way to parry the pin with . . . ..tg4: he exchanges pieces and highlights the weakness of the dS­pawn. The game E.Geller-M.Matulovic, Skopje/Ohrid 1968, continued 14 ..te2! 'ifb6 15 c3 ..txf3 16 ..txf3 l:tad8 and now

3 . . . c5 4 li::Jgf3 li::J c 6 5 exds exds 6 iL b S : M a in L i n es

White could have increased his advan­tage with 17 l:.d3! aS 18 a4!, as it is dif­ficult for Black to defend his isolated pawn. 11 .i.e3

Now Black's main options are:

A1: 11 ... .i.xe3?1 A2: 11 ... .i.ts A3: 11 ... .i.g4

Alternatively: a) ll . . . �g6 12 c3 .i.g4 13 h3 a6 14

hxg4 axbS 1S .i.xb6 'ifxb6 16 'ii'xdS b4 17 'ifcS was clearly better for White in C.Horvath-D.Kontic, Amhem 1988.

b) After ll . . . l:.e8 12 .i.xb6 'ifxb6 (12 . . . axb6 13 'ifd2 h6 14 a3 'ifc7 1S .l:.e3 .i.g4 16 �fd4 is also better for White, A.Frois-M.Arribas Robaina, Havana 200S) 13 'ii'xdS! is a logical move that has never been played! Following 13 . . . .i.fS 14 'ireS .i.xc2 1S .i.xc6 'ii'xcS 16 �xeS bxc6 17 l:.e2 .i.fS 18 l:.ae1 �f8 19 �d4 White wins a pawn: for example, 19 . . . l:.ed8 20 �cb3 cS 21 �xfS �xfS 22 �xeS.

c) 1 l . . . .i.c7 12 .i.cS!

(White seizes the chance to put pressure on Black) 12 . . . l:.e8! (12 . . . .i.d6 admits the error of the . . . .i.c7 idea, and 13 .i.xd6 'ifxd6 14 c4! .i.e6 1S l:.cl a6 16 cS 'ii'f4 17 .i.xc6 �xc6 18 �bd4 .:.fe8 19 �xc6 bxc6 20 'ii'd4 left White with a small but lasting advantage in A.Murillo-M.Maia, Turin 2006) 13 �bd4 .i.d7 (if 13 . . . .i.g4?!, 14 'ifd3 'ii'd7 1S .:.ad1) 14 'ifd3 �g6! (A.Zude­T.Kabisch, German League 1988) 1S 'ii'b3! �ceS 16 �xeS .i.xeS (16 . . . �xeS? 17 'ii'xdS) 17 �f3 .i.xbS 18 'ifxbS and White secures the initiative.

A1) 11 ... .i.xe371 This is not a good move.

12 l:.xe3

Now White is ready to double on the e-file. All continuations lead to a small advantage for White (at least! ) . 12 . . . .i.g41

This move, trying to pose some problems to White's coordination, seems to be best when compared to the alternatives:

a) 12 . . . .i.fS 13 �fd4 .i.g6 14 c3 'ifd6 1S 'ife2 �xd4 16 �xd4 �c6 17 l:td1 and

1 3 3

Ho w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

White enjoyed a clear advantage in D.Pikula-Z.Jakovljevic, Vmjacka Banja 1999.

b) 12 ... a6 13 ..txc6! lLlxc6 14 Itd3 ..te6 15 1i'd2 'ifc7 16 lle1 .l:tad8 17 lLlfd4 lLlxd4 18 lLlxd4 l:He8 19 l:!.de3 'ii'c8 20 'ili'a5 (T.Oral-O.Wowk, Trencin 1995) is the kind of position that Black should avoid. White has a good knight against a bad bishop and controls the e-file. Black's only chance to draw is to sur­vive for 100 moves and hope for some inaccuracies by White.

c) 12 . . . 'Wd6 13 c3 ..td7 14 'ii'd2 lLlf5 15 .l:td3.

This is the usual square for the rook. On d3 it exerts pressure on d5 and is ready to join the attack via the third rank. After 15 . . . ..te6 16 c4 'ii'b4! (16 . . . .:tfd8 17 .l:.d1 lLlfe7 18 cxd5 lLlxd5 19 ..tc4 lLlce7 20 lLlbd4 was clearly bet­ter for White in S.Connor-J.Ludevid Masana, correspondence 1992) 17 cxd5 'ifxb5 18 dxe6 fxe6 19 .l:!.d7 White has a small advantage.

d) 12 . . . lLlf5 13 .l:.e2! sees the rook on the alternative square: it is ready to double on the d- or e-file according to

1 3 4

circumstances, and in some cases it also protects the c2-pawn or, after c2-c3, the b2-pawn. V.Jansa-J.Tisdall, Gausdal 1987, continued 13 . . . a6 14 ..txc6 bxc6 15 lLlfd4 'ii'b6 16 lLlxf5 ..txf5 17 'ii'd4!, controlling the important c5-square and securing the advantage. 13 h3 !

I like this move because Black must decide immediately what to do with his only active piece. If he chooses to maintain the pin, the bishop cannot return to help on the queenside. 13 ... -ths 14 'ii'd2 ..txf3

14 . . . a6 15 ..txc6 lLlxc6 16 lLlfd4 ..tg6 17 lLlxc6 bxc6 18 .l:.c3 'ii'b6 19 .l:.c5 ..tf5 20 'ii'c3 ..td7 21 lLld4 left White with a small plus in S.Smagin-B.Lalic, Zenica 1987. 15 .l:.xf3 'ii'b6 16 a4

'We can now state the results of the opening, and they cannot in any sense be called comforting for Black. He hasn't managed to create real counter­play, and he is forced to watch pas­sively as White improves his position.' (Psakhis) 16 ... lLles

3 . . . c5 4 li::Jgf3 li::J c6 5 exd5 exd5 6 iL b 5 : M a i n L i n es

After 16 . . . l:tad8 17 .:tel a6 18 .i.d3 lDg6 (White has the initiative following 18 . . . d4 19 .l:.f4 fS 20 aS! Wa7 - 20 . . . 'ii'c7? is met by 21 lDcS - 21 .l:.e6!) 19 .l:.fe3 Wc7 20 .i.xg6 hxg6 21 lDcS! lDaS 22 Wb4 b6 23 tDxa6 Wxc2 24 .l:.c3 'ii'd2 25 .l:.c7 Wxb4 26 tDxb4 d4 27 lDd3 l:tc8 28 l:.ee7 White had a pleasant endgame advantage in L.McShane-V .Korchnoi, Reykjavik 2003.

17 .:te3 f6 17 . . . lDc4 18 .i.xc4 dxc4 19 lhe7 cxb3

20 cxb3 Wxb3 21 .l:.a3 is also better for White, whose pieces are better placed than their counterparts. 18 .:tae1 .l:tfd8 19 lDd4 a6 20 .i.f1

20 • . • tD7c6 20 . . . 'ii'xb2? can be met by 21 .l:.b3

Wa2 22 l:txb7, when the rook's penetra­tion of the seventh rank causes Black considerable problems. 21 tDxc6 Wxc6 22 as Wcs 23 b4 Wc7 24 C3

White has a persistent advantage, J.Emms-T.Casper, German League 2002.

A2) 11 ... .i.f5 12 c3 ..te4 12 . . . ..tc7 13 ..tcs l:te8 14 lDbd4 ..te4

was D.Gruehn-J.Engels, Enger 1992, and here 15 ..txe7 .l:.xe7 16 tDxc6 bxc6 17 ..txc6 .l:tb8 18 ..txdS ..txf3 19 'ii'xf3 l:hb2 20 :1xe7 'ii'xe7 21 <iii>fl, intending l:r.e1, leaves White a pawn up and with the initiative. 13 tDfd41

13 • • • .l:.e81? After 13 . . . 'ii'd6 14 tDxc6 bxc6

(M.Vatunen-J.Kekki, Tampere 1995) 15 ..txb6! axb6 (15 . . . cxb5? 16 ..tcS Wd7 17 .i.xe7 Wxe7 18 f3 wins) 16 .l:txe4 cxbS 17 Wd3 White is much better.

White maintains an edge after 13 . . . h6 14 'ii'hS! ? - see the illustrative

1 3 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

game Kindermann-Casper at the end of the chapter. 14 a4

14 f3 i.f5 15 i.f2 ..td7 16 ..tfl ttJg6 17 .l:txe8+ i.xe8 18 ttJxc6 bxc6 19 ttJc5 'ii'd6 20 b4 h5 21 'ii'd2 is also slightly better for White, E.Miroshnichenko­V.Shtyrenkov, Alushta 2002. 14 ... a61

Now in my game against S.Brynell (Istanbul 2003) I should have played 15 i.fl ! tiJf5! (15 . . . ttJxd4 16 i.xd4 i.xd4 17 ttJxd4 'ii'b6 18 'ii'b3 i s better for White; or 15 . . . ttJe5 16 aS i.a7 17 tiJd2 and White has an edge) 16 ttJxf5 i.xf5 17 'ii'd2 i.xe3 18 .l:.xe3 'ii'b6 19 .l:.ae1 ! l:txe3 20 'ii'xe3 'ii'xe3 21 .l:he3 with an edge, as 2l . . .i.c2? is met by 22 ttJc5 b6 23 tiJd7! securing a clear advantage.

A3) 11 • • • ..tg4 12 ..txb6 'ii'xb6 12 . . . axb6 is worse: 13 c3 'ii'd6 (if

13 . . . ttJg6 14 h3! ) 14 i.e2 (preparing tiJfd4) 14 . . . ttJg6 (14 .. .llfd8 15 tiJfd4 i.xe2 16 l:txe2 ttJg6 17 tiJf5 'ii'f6 18 tiJbd4 ttJce5 19 g3 tlJc4 20 'ii'c2 ttJge5 21 b3 tiJa3?! 22 'ii'd2 tiJc6 23 .:tae1 gave White a clear plus in V.Jansa-J.Votava, Prague 1993)

1 3 6

15 h3 i.e6 16 ..tfl tiJf4 (after 16 . . . l:tfe8 17 tiJbd4 i.d7 18 l:txe8+ l:txe8 19 tiJb5 the weakness of b5 becomes obvious, F .Da Silva-G.Zavalia, correspondence 2003) 17 'ii'd2 h6 18 'ii'e3 i.f5 19 tiJfd4! ..td7 (19 .. . ..te4 20 g3! is better for White) 20 tiJe2 ttJxe2+ 21 llxe2 'ii'c7 22 l:.d2 .l:.fe8 23 'ii'f3 i.e6 24 i.b5! l:te7 25 ttJd4 ttJxd4 26 .l:.xd4 'ii'e5 27 i.a4!? .l:.a5 28 i.b3 .l:lc7 29 .:tad1 was much better for White in B.Eroshkin-C.Flores Gutierrez, corre­spondence 1984. 13 ..txc6! ttJxc6 14 'ii'xds

This is the basic position of the 1 l . . .i.g4 variation. White has won a pawn but Black obtains some counter­play; enough to destroy White's king­side pawns. 14 ... ttJb41

14 . . . .l:.fd8? 15 'ii'e4 is just bad for Black. 15 'ii'e4 i.xf3 16 gxf3 .l:.adBI?

White has the advantage because Black cannot organize an attack on the king:

a) 16 . . . .l:lac8? 17 c3 ttJxa2 (P.Chorun­O.Vovk, Oropesa del Mar 1998) loses on the spot to 18 'ii'a4! .

3 . . . cs 4 !Dgf3 !Dc6 5 exds exds 6 iL b S : M a in L i n e s

b) 16 . . . 'ii'g6+?! i s illogical a s Black exchanges his queen in a position where White's king is weak. Naturally it leads to a better ending for White: for example, 17 'it'xg6 fxg6 18 lle7! .l:.ae8 19 :xe8 :xe8 20 lDd4 .l:.d8 21 c3 lDd3 22 b3, J.Pierrot-A.De Dovitiis, Buenos Ai­res 1998.

c) 16 . . . a5?! 17 .l:tad1 ! a4 18 ltJcl liaS 19 f4 lDa6 20 ltJd3 lDc5 21 lDxc5 'ii'xcS 22 .l:i.e3 g6 23 11d7 (V.Jansa-A.Berelovich, Tegemsee 2003) and 16 . . . f5? ! 17 li'c4+ 'it>h8 18 .:te6! (M.Rytshagov-J.Kekki, Helsinki 1994) are also bad for Black. 17 .l:i.ad11

17 ... h6!? White achieved a clear advantage

after 17 .. Jhd1 18 l:txd1 lDxa2 19 .l:.d7 'ii'f6 20 ltJd4! tli'gS+ 21 'iiifl tli'cl + 22 'iiig2 'ii'xb2 23 l:hb7 'ii'c3 24 l:txa7 in S.Dvoirys-B.Tondivar, 1994. 18 a3 lDc6

Leeuwarden

(M.Wahls-T.Casper, German League 1998) Here White can keep a small advantage with 19 £4.

B) 9 ... .i.d6 10 l:te1 o-o 11 ..td3

The bishop relocates to a more ag­gressive diagonal and prevents 1 1 . . . ..tg4, which would be punished by 12 ..txh7+! 'it>xh7 13 lDg5+ and 14 'it'xg4, winning a pawn while maintaining an attack on the weakened black king.

Many interesting replies have been tried but I will give as main variations only those that have been played regu­larly:

81: 11 ... ltJg6?1 B2: 11 ... -tfs 83: 11 ... 'ii'c71? 84: 11 ... h61

Here are some rarer choices: a) 1 1 . . .ltJb4?! is dubious. When you

have an isolated pawn you should try to avoid exchanging pieces, as all end­ings are worse for the side with the isolated pawn. White replies with 12 ..tgS and now:

a1) 12 . . . h6 is met by 13 ..txe7! . It is important to remember that in order to attack Black must preserve both of his knights. This exchange simplifies the position in order to emphasize the

1 3 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h D efe n c e

weakness o f d5. After 13 . . . �xe7 14 c3 c!Dxd3 15 'it'xd3 �e6 16 c!Dbd4 White was better in H.Krueger-L.Mueller, German League 1995.

a2) 12 ... c!Dxd3 13 'it'xd3 f6 14 �h4 �f5 15 'ifd2 'it'd7 16 �g3.

This typical manoeuvre �g5-h4-g3 provided White with a small but last­ing advantage in S.Kudrin-B.Gulko, US Ch. 1988, which Kudrin converted in an exemplary manner - a good knight versus bad bishop endgame that you can find in all the manuals!

b) With 1 l . . .f6! ? Black secures the e5-square for his pieces as any ex­change on that square will be favour­able for him after .. .fxe5. On the other hand, the whole complex of the light squares around Black's king has been weakened, and especially the e6- and h7-squares: 12 h3 c!De5 13 c!Dbd4 �d7 14 c3 a6 15 �c2 'ifc7 16 �f4! l:tae8! (16 . . . tbc4? was played in R.Dineley­R.Churm, British League 2006, when White could have won on the spot with 17 l:txe7! �xf4 18 tbg5! ! �xg5 19 'it'h5 �h6 20 'it'xd5+ �h8 21 .l:.xd7) 17 �g3 with a small advantage for White.

1 3 8

c) l l . . . c!Df5!? deserves more practical tests. 12 �g5 'it'c7 13 c3 h6 14 .lld2 tbfe7 (C. Wolff-R.Bischoff, correspondence 1989) 15 h3! is better for White, who reaches Line B4 (11 . . .h6! 12 h3 'it'c7?! ) with the extra move �d2.

81) 11 . . . tbg6?1 This move fails for tactical reasons.

12 �gSI

12 . . .'ii'd7 Black has big problems here. For

example: a) 12 . . . 'it'c7 13 �xg6! hxg6 14 'it'xd5

tbb4 15 'it'd2 tbxc2 16 l:tecl �f5 17 l:txc2! �xh2+ (17 . . . 'ifxc2 18 'ii'xd6 'ii'xb2 19 'ii'd4 is also bad for Black) 18 tbxh2 'ii'xc2 19 'ii'xc2 �xc2 20 tbd4 and White has a clear advantage in the endgame.

b) 12 .. .f6 is met by 13 .i.xg6 hxg6 14 'ii'xd5+ �h8 15 l:tad1 !, Z.Slapak­V.Hrivnak, Bratislava 1989.

c) 12 . . . �e7 is a better try but White has gained valuable time for develop­ment. After 13 �xe7 tbcxe7 14 'ii'd2 �d7 15 tbe5 �c6 16 tbd4 'it'b6 17 c3 l:.ad8 18 tbxg6 tbxg6 19 �xg6 hxg6 20 .l:.e7 he stood well in H.Zschiedrich-

3 . . . cs 4 t?:!gf3 t?:Jc6 5 exds exds 6 � b s : M a in L i n e s

H.Kiesel, German League 2000. 13 c3 lLlf4

13 . . . lL!ge5 14 lLlxe5 lL!xe5 15 ..tc2 lLlc4 16 1i'd3 g6 17 i.h6 lLlxb2 18 'ii'd4 is ter­rible for Black. 14 ..if11

It is not too late to make a deadly mistake. After 14 i.c2? lL!xg2! 15 �xg2 'ii'h3+ followed by . . . i.g4 White is sud­denly losing! 14 ... 'iffs

15 i.h4 15 g3!? may be even stronger, as af­

ter 15 . . . lLlh3+ (if 15 . . . lL!e6 16 ..ie3) 16 i.xh3 'ifxh3 17 'ifxd5 i.c7 18 lLlfd4 White is a pawn up with the better po­sition. 1S ... 'ifh5 16 i.g3 i.g4 17 'ifd2 'ii'h6

17 ... lL!xg2 turns out badly after 18 i.xd6 lL!xe1 19 lLlxe1 . 18 lLlfd4

White has the advantage, V.Akop­ian-E.Vladimirov, Moscow 1990.

B2) 11 ... i.ts This is a typical tnove - Black ex­

changes his 'bad' bishop. However, much of the dynamic potential in

Black's position will be lost with this trade, and White will be left with a small positional advantage. 12 C3

12 ... 'ii'd7 After 12 . . . i.xd3 13 'ii'xd3 'ji'c7 14

i.e3 :feB 15 h3 :adS 16 .l:.ad1 lLlg6 17 lL!bd4 lL!ce5 18 lLlxe5 lL!xe5 19 'ifc2 a6 20 lLlf5 White was better in M.Michalek­J.Da Riva Alonso, correspondence 1996. Alternatively, 12 . . . i.g6 13 i.g5 'ifc7 14 i.h4 i.h5 15 i.g3 :fd8 16 ..ie2! a6 17 lLlfd4 (again we seen the way to 'handle' the pin on the h5-d1 diagonal) 17 . . . i.xe2 18 'ii'xe2 b5? (Black must be very careful about the . . . b5 push) 19 a4! b4 20 cxb4 ..ixg3 21 hxg3 'iib6 22 lL!xc6 lL!xc6 23 b5 with a considerable advan­tage for White, P.Pakenas-R.Salenga, correspondence 1994. 13 i.e3 .l:.fe8

13 . . . i.g4?! allows a favourable ex­change for White after 14 ..ic5! (S.Smagin-S.Kishnev, German League 2000).

13 .. . :ad8 14 lLlbd4 i.e4?! sees Black trying to exploit 13 ..ie3, as the rook on e1 has lost contact with e4-square, but

1 3 9

H o w to Bea t t h e Fre n c h Defence

after 15 .. lhe4! dxe4 16 lLlg5 lLlxd4 17 i.xd4 'ir'f5 18 lLlxe4 i.e5 19 'ir'b3 i.xd4 20 cxd4 lhd4 21 'iixb7 White was sim­ply a pawn up in G.Grasso-A.Pieretti, correspondence 1989. 14 lLlbd4 i.g6 15 'ifd2 .l:tad8 16 llad1 i.b8

17 i.g51 White has finished his development

and now tries to exchange pieces. 11 ... f6 18 i.h4 i.h5

White was in control after 18 . . . i.xd3 19 'iixd3 lLlg6 20 llxe8+ .l:r.xe8 21 i.g3 i.xg3 22 hxg3 lLlge5 23 'iic2 lLJc4 24 b3 lLlb6 25 lLlf5 lLJe7 26 lLle3 in I.Cavajda­M.Horvat, correspondence 1999. In this type of position e3 is a very good square for a white knight - it keeps the e-file closed while adding pressure to the d5-pawn. 19 i.e2 lLlf5 20 lLlxf5 'ii'xf5 21 i.g3 i.xg3 22 hxg3 'iid7 23 i.b51? .l:r.xe1+ 24 .l:txe1 i.xf3 25 gxf3 'ii'h3 26 f4 h5 27 i.f1 'ii'd7 28 'ii'd11 g6 29 'ii'd3 'it>g7 30 i.g2 tDe7

(W.Wittmann-A.Diickstein, Aus-trian Ch. 1991) Here White could have claimed a big advantage with 31 i.h3! .

1 4 0

83) 11 ... 'ii'c71? An interesting alternative to the

main line. White must play very accu­rately in order to keep an advantage. 12 C3

12 ... i.g41 Black sacrifices the h7-pawn, but his

idea has some point because h2 is also hanging. Alternatively:

a) 12 . . . i.f4? is a misguided idea that has been played many times in similar positions. Black wants to control the f4-square to let his queen join the attack, but he loses two tempi exchanging his best piece! After 13 g3 i.xcl 14 lhcl f5 15 lLJbd4 f4 16 lLlg5! llf6 17 'ii'h5 White was already winning in L.Chepurnoy­V.Ivanov, correspondence 1994.

b) 12 . . . lLlg6?! 13 i.xg6 hxg6 14 'ii'xd5 i.g4 15 h3 l!ad8 16 'ii'e4 i.xf3 17 'ii'xf3 lLle5 18 'iie2 lLJd3 19 .l:r.d1 ! .l:tfe8 20 i.e3 was played in A.Scuderi-T.Schmidt, correspondence 1992. Black's pieces looked menacing but there was no real compensation after 20 . . . lLJf4 21 'ii'fl .

c) 12 . . . .l:.e8 13 h3 i.d7 14 'ii'c2!? lLlg6 15 i.e3 l:f.e7 16 lLlbd4 lLlxd4 17 i.xd4 l:.ae8 18 l:he7 llxe7 19 :!.d1 a6 20 i.e3

3 . . . cs 4 t0gf3 tiJc6 5 exds exds 6 � b 5 : M a in L i n e s

l:te8 21 ..if5! (this exchange i s good for White if he can threaten the isolated d5-pawn, as the light-squared bishop is his best defender) 2l . . . ..ixf5 22 'ilr'xf5 t"De7 23 'ilr'g4 l:.f8 24 ..ig5! and Black was under considerable pressure in A.Stuart-J.Van Daatselaar, correspon­dence 2003. 13 ..ixh7+ �hB

Black can resign after 13 . . . �xh7? 14 t"Dg5+ �g8 15 'ilr'xg4. 14 ..ic2 ..ixh2+ 15 �h1 ..id6

16 t"Dbd41 A very strong novelty. Black se­

cures good counterplay after 16 ..ie3 f5! 17 ..id4 (M.Supper-D.Neuberger, corre­spondence 1991) 17 . . . t"Dxd4! 18 &Dbxd4 l:tf6. 16 ... l:tfe81

Black's rook must be ready to con­trol the e6-square. 16 . . . a6?! 17 'ilr'd3 t"Dg6 18 t"De6! leaves Black with unsolvable problems: 18 . . . ..ixe6 19 l:txe6 l:tfe8 20 l:txg6! fxg6 21 'ilr'xg6 �g8 22 'ilr'h7+ �f8 23 'ilr'h8+ �f7 24 'ilr'h5+ �f8 25 ..ig6 and White wins. 17 ..ie3 a6 18 Wd3 t"Dg6 19 t"Dfsl ..ixf3

Worse is 19 . . . ..if4 20 t"D5h4! 'Df8 21

..ixf4 'ilr'xf4 22 'ilr'xd5 l:tad8 23 Wg5, when Black has no compensation for the pawn. 20 gxf3

White has a stable advantage. Al­though it seems that White's kingside pawns are shattered, his king is actu­ally more secure than Black's. The h­file belongs to a white rook, and the bishop pair plus the beautiful knight on f5 promise White a powerful attack. For example: 20 . . . l:tad8 21 ..ig5!; 20 . . . ..ie5 21 t"Dh4! &Dce7 22 t"Dxg6+ t"Dxg6 (or 22 .. .fxg6? 23 �g2 with the idea of l:th1 and ..ib3) 23 Wf5 �g8 24 l:tad1 with a nice advantage for White; 20 . . . &Dce5 21 Wxd5 l:tad8 22 ..ie4! and once again the initiative belongs to White; and finally 20 . . . ..if4!? 21 l:tad1 l:te5 22 'ilr'fl ! (White's queen joins the attack in a most unusual way) 22 . . . l:td8 23 'ilr'h3+ �g8 24 l:tg1 with a tremen­dous attack.

84) 11 ... h61 With this move Black prevents the

..ig5-h4-g3 manoeuvre and also threat­ens . . . ..ig4. The drawback of l l . . . h6 is

1 4 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

that now the light squares around the king are weakened and White gains the attacking idea of �c2 and 'ii'd3.

White's aim is to first of all control the d4-square. Then he will try to com­bine pressure on the d-pawn with an attack on the b1-h7 diagonal, using the d4-square as a pivot for his pieces. Fur­thermore, the exchange of pieces (espe­cially knights) favours White. 12 h3 tllfs

Here's a summary of Black's main alternatives:

a) 12 . . . �e6? is just a bad move: 13 tllbd4 'ii'd7 14 'ii'e2!? tlld8 15 c3 a6 16 �c2 .l:.e8 17 'ii'd3 �f8 18 'ii'h7 tllg8 19 tllxe6+ tllxe6 20 'ii'h8 f6 21 tllh4 and Black resigned, C.De Holanda-M.Dos Santos, correspondence 1994.

b) 12 . . . 'ii'c7?! is inferior to 1 1 . . .'ii'c7 now that the pin with . . . �g4 is not pos­sible: for example, 13 c3 a6 (13 . . . �d7 is passive, and 14 �e3 .U.fe8 15 tllbd4 a6 16 �c2 l:tad8 17 'ii'd3 tllg6 18 l:tad1 tllce5 19 tllxe5 .U.xe5 20 'ii'd2! - 20 tllf3? ! �f5! - 20 . . . �c8 21 tllf3 is better for White) 14 �e3 .U.e8 (14 . . . b6? - prevent­ing .tc5 - 15 'ii'd2 l:.d8 16 tllbd4 tlla5 17

1 4 2

..txh6! gxh6 18 'ii'xh6 lt:lg6 19 tllg5 ..te5 20 ..txg6 fxg6 21 l:.xe5 and 1 -0, J.Aagaard-M.Kulagin, Stockholm 2003 - this game shows that Black doesn't have the luxury of being able to delay his development) 15 'ii'c2 (now the c8-bishop has no active squares) 15 . . . tlle5 16 tllxe5 ..txe5 17 tlld4 tllc6 18 tllf3 ..td7 was my game against S.Reutsky (Par­dubice 2004). Here the simplest way to maintain the advantage would be 19 tllxe5 tllxe5 20 ..te2! tllc4 21 �d4 'ii'f4 22 ..tf3 ..tf5 23 .l:.xe8+ 1he8 24 'ii'a4! l::td8 25 �xd5 tllxb2 26 'iib3.

c) The typical reaction to 12 . . . tllb4?! is 13 tllbd4! .

White ignores the knight jump and continues with his plan: 13 . . . tllxd3 14 'ii'xd3 tllg6 (Black tries to control e5: after 14 . . . a6 15 tlle5 'ii'b6 16 c3 tllc6 17 tlldf3 White had a slight advantage in C.Hartman-C.Bjork, Stockholm 1988) 15 tllb5 ..tf4 16 'ii'd4! ? �b8 17 b3! ..tf5?! (17 . . . a6! 18 tllc3 ..te6 19 ..te3 tlle7 20 ltad1, with a small advantage for White, seems the safest option) 18 �a3! �e4 (if 18 . . . lte8 19 ltxe8+ 'ii'xe8 20 �b2 'ii'f8 21 'ii'xd5 �xc2 22 tlla3 the bishop is

3 . . . cs 4 ti:Jgf3 ti:Jc6 5 exds exds 6 .i.. b S : M a in L i n e s

lost - this i s probably the variation that Lputian had overlooked) 19 ..ltxf8 'ifxf8 20 'ii'd1 'ii'c5 21 c4 tt:Je5 22 'iVd4! 'iVe7 23 ti:Jd2 ti:Jc6 24 'ii'e3 'it'e5 25 f4 and White was winning in V.Gashimov-S.Lputian, Athens 2005.

d) 12 . . . i.f5 can be compared to 1 1 . . . ..ltf5 - Black exchanges his 'bad' bishop and accepts a slightly worse position: for example, 13 c3 ..lte4 14 ti:Jbd4! ..ltxd3 15 'ifxd3 'ifd7 16 ..lte3 .l:!.ad8 17 .l:!.ad1 .l:!.fe8 18 ti:Jb3!? (provok­ing a weakening of the light squares a6 and b5) 18 . . . b6 19 ti:Jbd4 and White has obtained a small but enduring advan­tage, M.Adams-R.Vaganian, Manila 1990.

e) 12 . . . ..1tc7 13 ..lte3 l:te8 14 'ifd2 'ifd6 15 'ifc3! demonstrates the benefit of delaying c2-c3: 15 . . . ..1te6 (15 . . . tt:Jf5? loses to 16 ..ltxh6) 16 ..ltc5 'iVd7 17 ti:Jfd4 .l:!.ac8 18 tt:Jxe6 fxe6 19 'ii'd2 b6 20 ..lta3 tt:Je5 21 ..lta6 .l:.b8 22 c4! ti:J7c6 (V.Akopian­S.Lputian, Yerevan 1989) 23 f4 ti:Jg6 24 g3 is clearly better for White. 13 C3

Now Black can consider the follow­ing:

841: 13 • . • ..1tc7 842: 13 • • .'ii'f6!

841) 13 • • • ..tc7 Black imitates White's set-up with

. . . ..ltc7 and . . . 'ii'd6, since White has also weakened the dark squares with the move h2-h3. 14 i..c2 'ifd6 15 'ifd3 g6 16 'ifd1!

This is the best move, and much stronger than the usual 16 'ifd2 . 16 . • • h5

16 . . . ti:Jh4? was proposed by Steffen Pedersen in his book The French: Tar­rasch Variation, but it seems to be losing for Black after 17 ti:Jxh4 'ifh2+ 18 'it>fl ..ltxh3 19 gxh3! 'ifxh3+ 20 tt:Jg2 'ifh1+ 21 'it>e2 'ifxg2 22 ..lte3 l:tae8 23 'it>d2 .l:!.xe3 24 l:xe3 ..ltf4 25 'ifg1 ! ..ltxe3+ 26 'it>xe3 d4+ 27 cxd4 .l:!.e8+ 28 'it>d2.

16 . . . 'it>g7 17 'ifd2 .l:r.h8 was also pro­posed by Pedersen, but 18 l:td1 ! (Psakhis) immediately puts pressure on the d5-pawn and Black has no time to arrange his pieces effectively:

18 . . . tt:Jh4 (18 . . . ..1te6? 19 ..ltxf5 ..ltxf5 20 'ifxd5) 19 ti:Jbd4 tt:Jxf3+ 20 tt:Jxf3 ..lte6 21 'ife2! (21 c4! ?, as played in Y.Pelletier-

1 4 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

A.Gasthofer, Kusadasi 2006, is interest­ing but committal, and Black should have continued with 2l . . . .l:tad8! 22 b3 'ili'c5! 23 .ib2+ f6 24 cxd5 .ixd5 25 'iid3 .if7 26 'ili'c3 'iixc3 27 .ixc3 .l:the8 obtain­ing an equal position) 2l . . .lt:Je5 (if 2l . . . .:.he8, 22 .ie3 keeps a small advan­tage) 22 lt:Jxe5 'ii'xe5 23 'ili'xe5+ .ixe5 24 .ie3 and White keeps an edge in the endgame. 17 .tgsl .id7

17 .. .f6 is met by 18 .ie3, when White threatens .ic5 and all the black pawns on the kingside are weakened. 18 'ili'd2

White is better. See the illustrative game A.Motylev-A.Roghani, Yerevan 2001, at the end of the chapter.

842) 13 . . . 'iif61

Black places his queen actively, keeping an eye on the important d4-square and vacating d8 for his rook. 14 .ic2 lld8

14 . . . .ie6?! allows White to seize the advantage: 15 'iid3 l:tfe8 (after 15 . . . g6 16 g4! .l:tfe8 17 .lhe6! fxe6 18 gxf5 gxf5 19 lt:Jbd4 White was on top in

1 4 4

A.Altgelt-J .Von Hartlieb, German League 1994, while 16 . . . .id7 17 'ili'xd5 .ie6 18 'iid1 .l:tfd8 19 gxf5 .ih2+ 20 lt:Jxh2 l:!.xd1 21 l:!.xd1 is obviously in White's favour, even if some attention is required) 16 g4! lt:Jh4 17 'ii'h7+ 'ifi>f8 18 lt:Jxh4 'ili'xh4 19 'itg2 'ili'f6 (19 . . . lt:Je5? 20 'ii'h8+ 'ite7 21 'ili'xg7 l:!.g8 22 'ii'xh6 .l:.xg4+ 23 hxg4 'ii'xg4+ 24 'ifi>fl l:!.g8 25 'ii'h1 ! d4 26 lt:Jxd4 .ic4+ 27 lle2 .ixe2+ 28 lt:Jxe2 lt:Jf3 29 lt:Jd4 lt:Jh2+ 30 'ifi>e1 'itd8 31 .ie3 was winning in R.Helmreich-P.Welz, correspondence 1992, although strong nerves were required by White) 20 .ie3.

This is a typical position. White is better as Black will be forced to ex­change queens, reaching a passive endgame with a weak pawn on d5: 20 .. . g5 21 lt:Jd4 'iig7 22 'ili'xg7+ 'itxg7 23 lt:Jf5+ .ixf5 24 .ixf5 .l:l.ad8 25 l:!.ad1 .ie5 26 .ic2 occurred in my game against E.Palamidas (Glifada 1995) . The push . . . d5-d4 is impossible due to the pin on the e-file, and White is clearly better as his bishop is ready to jump to b3 or a4, adding further pressure to Black's posi­tion.

3 . . . cs 4 tl:Jgf3 ti:Jc6 5 exds exds 6 Ji. b S : M a in L i n e s

14 . . . lt:Jfe7 i s also insufficient. After 15 li:Jbd4 a6 16 'ifd3 lt:Jg6 17 ..lte3 ..ltd7 (White is much better following 17 . . . lt:Jce5?! 18 lt:Jxe5 'ifxe5 19 li:Jf3 'ifhs 20 .l:tad1 ..lte6 21 li:Jd4, while 20 . . . ..Itxh3? 21 'ifxd5 'ifg4 22 li:Jh2 ..ltxh2+ 23 �xh2 is winning) 18 lt:Jxc6 bxc6 19 ..ltd4 'ifd8 20 lt:JeS! ..ltxe5 21 .l:.xe5 l:te8 22 .l:txe8+ 'ifxe8 (G. Ginsburg-A.Berelovich, German League 2005) 23 b4! White enjoys a clear advantage. 15 'ifd3 g6

15 . . . ..1te6?! is bad, and after 16 g4! lt:Jh4 17 lt:Jxh4 'ifxh4 18 'ii'h7+ �f8 19 �g2 'ii'f6 20 ..lte3 �e7 21 li:Jd4 �d7 22 li:JfS ..ltxf5 23 'ii'xfS+ 'ifxf5 24 ..ltxfS+ �c7 25 l:tad1 White obtains a big advantage in the endgame, as he possesses the bishop pair and has an easy target on d5 (this was my game with K.Moutou­sis, Greek Championship 1994) .

15 . . . ..1tf8?! is also a poor move: 16 ..ltf4 (with the idea of lt:JeS) 16 . . . g6 17 ..ltc7! ? l:td7 18 ..lth2 l1d8 19 l:.ad1 ..lte6 20 lt:JeS (intending lt:Jg4 or 'ifbS) 20 . . . lt:Jfe7 (S.Zagrebelny-W.Uhlmann, Schwerin 1999) 21 lt:JcS! ..ltc8 (2l . . . ..ltf5 22 'iff3 lt:Jxe5 23 ..ltxe5 'ifc6 24 ..ltxf5 lt:Jxf5 25

lt:Jb3 is also better for White) 22 'iff3 and White gets a pleasant advantage.

15 . . . 'ifg6!? is interesting: 16 'ife2 (16 ..lte3!?) 16 . . . 'iff6 17 ..ltd2 aS 18 'ifd3 'it'g6 19 .l:tad1 a4 20 li:Jcl ..lte6 21 g4! .l:te8 22 lt:JgS lt:Jce7! 23 tt:lxe6 fxe6 24 'iffl e5 25 'ifg2 tt:lh4! 26 ..ltxg6 tt:lxg2 (J.Fazilleau­G.Stibal, correspondence 2002) 27 l:.xe5! ..ltxe5 28 ..ltxe8 tt:lh4 29 tt:ld3! ..ltf6 30 ..ltd7 a3!, and although White keeps a small advantage Black should be able to hold. 16 'ifd11

16 tt:lh2!? is a new try from Ti­mofeev, which has also been adopted by .Khalifman: 16 . . . ..1txh2+ (16 . . . d4 is inferior and after 17 tt:lg4 'ifg7 [or 17 . . . 'iih8! ? 18 tt:lxd4 tt:lcxd4 19 cxd4 ..ltf8 20 ..ltb3 'ifxd4 21 'iixd4 tt:lxd4 22 tt:lxh6+] 18 tt:lxd4 tt:lfxd4 19 tt:lxh6+ �h7 20 cxd4 tt:lxd4 21 l:te4! White's attack is unstop­pable; for example, 21 . . .tt:lxc2 22 'iixc2 -threatening 23 .l:th4 - 22 . . . 'iif6 23 tt:lxf7! 'iixf7 24 .l:.h4+ �g8 25 'iic3 'iig7 26 'iic4+ 'ii'f7 27 l:th8+ and White wins) 17 �xh2

17 . . . d4 (17 . . . tt:lh4? was played in A..Khalifman-R.Vaganian, Bazna 2007, and after 18 ..ltxh6 tt:leS 19 'ii'g3 tt:lef3+

1 4 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defence

20 gxf3 lt:'lxf3+ 21 'it>g2 Black resigned) 18 .i.f4!? b6 19 lt:'ld2! lt:'ld6 20 'iig3 dxc3 21 bxc3 (White has a strong initiative) 2l . . .g5!? 22 .i.e3 .i.f5? (Black should have taken the bull by the horns with 22 . . . 'ilhc3, although White does have very good compensation for the pawn) 23 .i.a4! b5 24 .i.b3 .i.g6 25 f4! lt:'lf5 26 fxg5 'iie7? (the final mistake; after 26 . . . 'iixc3 27 l:lacl 'iib4 28 .l:txc6! lt:'lxg3 29 nxg6+ 'itth8 30 l:lxh6+ 'ittg8 31 l:tf6 .l:.d3! 32 l:lf4! White has a powerful ini­tiative but at least there are practical chances for Black) 27 'iif2 hxg5 28 .i.f4 and Black resigned, A.Timofeev­I.Lysyj, Sochi 2007. 16 ... .i.f8 17 .i.xf5 .i.xf5 18 lt:'lbd4 .i.e4 19 .i.e3

19 • • • lt:'la5?1 19 . . . .l:.e8!? looks better, and after 20

lt:'lh2!? .i.g7 21 lt:'lg4 Wh4 22 'iid2 White has only a small advantage. 20 lt:'ld21 lt:'lc6 21 lt:'lxe41?

This move seems stronger than the older 21 lt:'lxc6 Wxc6 22 .i.d4 l:le8 23 lt:'lfl .i.£5 (T.Tolnai-W.Uhlmann, Debrecen 1988) 24 lt:'le3!? .i.e6 25 'ii£3 when White has some initiative.

1 4 6

2 1 • • . dxe4 2 2 'iig4 .l::!.eB 23 l:lad1 l:lad8 After 23 ... h5 24 We2 White's queen

is ready to jump to c4 or b5, keeping the advantage. 24 lt:'lxc6 'it'xc6 25 l:txd8 l:txdB 26 'iih4 l:!.d51 27 .i.xa7! l:ta5 28 .i.d4 l::txa2 29 Wxe4 l:txb2 30 Wxc6 bxc6 31 .l:te8

(L.Pedersen-M.Celestini, correspon­dence 1999) It isn't easy for Black to parry the threat of 32 .i.c5, and after 31 . . .l:Ib1+ 32 'itth2 l:lb5 33 c4! l:la5 34 .i.b6 l:lg5 35 .i.e3 White won the exchange .

I l lustrative Games

S.Kindermann-T.Casper German League 2002

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:'ld2 c5 4 exd5 exd5 5 lt:'lgf3 lt:'lc6 6 .i.b5 .i.d6 7 o-o lt:'lge7 8 dxc5 .i.xc5 9 lt:'lb3 .i.b6 10 l:le1 o-o 11 .i.e3 .i.f5 12 c3 .i.e4 13 lt:'lfd4! h6!? 14 'iih5 Wd6

15 a4 I do not like this move, and the way

the game continues the pawn on a4 is always vulnerable. 15 .l:tad1 ! ? may be stronger.

3 . . . cs 4 lDgf3 lDc6 5 exds exds 6 � b S : M a in L i n es

1S ... ttJxd4 1S . . . a6? 16 tbxc6 bxc6 17 �xb6 axbS

18 �cS gives White a clear advantage. 16 �xd4

16 ttJxd4!? tbc6 17 ttJfS, with a small advantage, is also possible. 16 ... a6 17 �f1 l:tfe8 18 .:te3?1

18 aS �xd4 19 ttJxd4 ttJc6 20 'i'd1 is more in the spirit of 1S a4. 18 ... i.xd4?1

18 . . . �c7! is the way to continue for Black, who gains good counterplay after 19 g3! tbc6 20 l:tae1 tbxd4 21 tbxd4 .l:teS 22 'i'h3 i.b6. 19 ttJxd4 ttJc6 20 'i'd1 �g6

20 . . . 'i'f6 21 tt::lxc6! bxc6 22 aS main­tains an edge. 21 'i'd2

21 l:f.xe8+ lhe8 22 aS! ?, fixing Black's pawns on the queenside, was worth considering. 21 ... .:.xe3 22 'i'xe3 tt::lxd4 23 'i'xd4 l:te8 24 g3

'This is a very typical position, which is still hard to assess precisely. Maybe with correct play Black can hold it, but the defence is not easy.' (Psakhis)

24 ... .:te4 25 'iVd2 'iVe6 26 f3?1 White is looking for trouble! After

the simple 26 aS! Black would be forced into passive defence. 26 ..... b6+?

Black doesn't grasp his chance! 26 . . . .l:e3!, intending 27 �f2 'i'b6!, would have seized the initiative. 27 'ii'f2 .Ue6 28 'ii'xb6 .l:txb6 29 b4 d4?

A bad mistake. After the 'normal' 29 . . . l:.c6 30 .l:ta3 White would have only a slight advantage. 30 as ! nd6

If 30 . . . .l:tf6, 31 cxd4 Ihf3 32 bS! axbS 33 i.g2 and White wins. 31 l:l.d11 d3 32 �2

Now the d3-pawn is an easy target. 32 ... .l:.c6

White also wins after 32 . . . �f8 33 �e3 .l:te6+ 34 �d2 .l:tf6 3S f4 .l:!d6 36 l:lel . 33 i.xd3 .l:.xc3 34 �xg6 fxg6 35 .l:td7 l:tb3 36 l:.xb7 gS 37 g4 �h7 38 J:lb6 �g8 39 �e2

White's king is heading for c2. 39 ... �h7 40 �d2 .:txf3 41 .l:txa6 .Uf4 42 �c3 l:txg4 43 l:.d6 l:tg2 44 l:.d2 1-0

Black resigned, as White will soon have two extra queens!

1 4 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

A.Motylev-A.Roghani World Team Championship,

Yerevan 2001

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 tbd2 cs 4 lDgf3 tbc6 5 exds exds 6 .it.bs .it.d6 7 dxcs .it.xcs 8 lbb3 .it.d6 9 0-0 tbge7 10 l:te1 o-o 11 .it.d3 h6 12 h3 ttJfs 13 c3 .it.c7 14 .it.c2 'ii'd6 15 'ii'd3 g6 16 'ii'd11 hs 17 .it.gs .it.d7 18 'ii'd2 l:tae8 19 .l:tad1

White enjoys some advantage, as Black will be forced to play the weak­ening .. .f6 in order to find counterplay. 19 •• Jlxe1+

White keeps an edge after 19 .. .f6!? 20 .it.e3 tbe5 21 tbxe5! .l:l.xe5 (or 21 . . .'ihe5 22 'ii'xd5+ 'ii'xd5 23 .l:!.xd5 .it.c6 24 .l:txf5!? gxf5 25 .it.xf5 with an initia­tive) 22 .it.xf5 .it.xf5 23 lDd4. 20 l:txe1 f6 21 .it.xfs .it.xfs 22 .it.h4

White wants to exchange the dark­squared bishops. 22 • . . .it.b6

22 ... tbe5 is not good because White can put immense pressure on Black's central pawns after 23 tbxe5 fxe5 24 .it.g3 lte8 25 lDd4! . 23 lDfd4 .it.e4

Possibly 23 . . . 'iid7!? is stronger than the text, although after 24 .it.g3 White still retains the advantage. 24 f3 .it.fs 25 .it.f2 'ii'd7

After 25 . . . tbxd4 26 tbxd4 .it.c7 27 tDxf5 gxf5 Black's kingside structure is destroyed without any compensation: for example, 28 'ii'h6 'iih2+ 29 'it>fl 'ii'h1+ 30 'it>e2 lle8+ 31 'it>d2 lhe1 32 'ii'g6+ 'it>f8 33 'ii'xf6+ 'it>e8 34 'ii'g6+ 'it>d7 35 .it.xel .

1 4 8

2 6 'it>f1 White could play 26 g4 at once, but

Motylev probably wanted to avoid the unnecessary complications after 26 . . . hxg4 27 hxg4 .it.xg4 28 fxg4 'ii'xg4+ 29 'it>fl . 26 . . • tbxd4 27 .it.xd4 .it.c7

If 27 . . . h4, 28 .it.xb6 axb6 29 lDd4 and White establishes a clear advantage according to Psakhis. 28 g4 hxg4 29 hxg4 .it.e6 30 tDcs 'ii'bs+ 31 'ii'e2 'ii'xe2+ 32 .l:txe2 .it.c8 33 tbe6 33 • • • .it.xe6

If instead 33 . . . .l:tf7 34 tbxc7 llxc7 35 .it.xf6 with a winning endgame for White. 34 1:.xe6 'it>g7 35 .it.cs l:f7 36 .it.xa7 .it.es 37 .it.e3

The position is winning for White, who will prepare the advance of his queenside pawns. 37 . . • f:.d7 38 f4 'it>f7 39 .l:tb6 .it.d6 40 'it>f2 fS 41 'it>f3 .it.f8 42 .it.d4 .it.e7 43 gxfS gxfs 44 a4 .it.h4 45 b4 .it.d8 46 f:.h6 .it.e7 47 as l:.d6 1-o

After 47 ... lld6 48 llxd6 .it.xd6 49 b5 'it>e6 50 a6 everything is crystal clear.

C h a pte r Twe lve I 3 . . . c s 4 tt:Jgf3 lt:Jf6

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 lDd2 cs 4 lbgf3 lbf6 A2: 6 ... cxd4 This is a very solid variation for

Black, but White can press for the ad- A1) 6 ... lbd7 7 g31 vantage without running any real risk. 5 exds

Black has three recaptures available to him:

A: s ... lbxds B: s .. :il'xds C: s ... exdsl (the main line)

5 . . . cxd4?! is inferior: 6 dxe6 ii.xe6 7 ii.b5+ lbc6 (or 7 . . . ii.d7 8 'ii'e2+ ii.e7 9 lbxd4 0-0 10 0-0 ii.c5 1 1 lD2f3 with a good extra pawn, R.Santiago-C.Lewis, Ann Arbor 1992) 8 0-0 ii.c5 9 lZ'lgS 0-0 10 lZ'lxe6 fxe6 1 1 lZ'lb3 ii.b6 12 'ii'e2 'ii'd6 (M.Zvarik-S.Marsina, Slovakian League 2002) 13 ii.d2 l:tae8 14 .l:tae1 ii.c7 15 f4 and White has the initiative.

A) s ... lZ'lxds 6 lZ'lb3 Now there is a further branch:

A1: 6 ... lZ'ld7

White wants to fianchetto his bishop and continue with c2-c4 and ii.f4, obtaining a small but stable ad­vantage. 1 ... ..te1

7 . . . cxd4?! is premature: 8 ii.g2 ii.b4+ 9 ii.d2 eS! ? (9 . . . d3 10 c4! ii.xd2+ 1 1 'ii'xd2 lZ'l5b6 12 'ii'xd3 i s better for White) 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 Ite1 ! f6 12 lZ'lfxd4 lZ'l7b6 13 ii.xb4 lZ'lxb4 (P.Svidler-

1 4 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

A.Beliavsky, Tivat 1995) 14 c3! li'l4d5 15 li'lb5 a6 16 li'la3 (with the idea of c3-c4) 16 . . . l:i.b8 17 li'lc5! 'ili'd6 18 b4! l:td8 19 'ili'b3 and White has obtained a strong initiative. B dxcs

8 c4!? li'l5f6 9 i.g2 0-0 10 0-0 'ili'b6 1 1 'ili'e2 aS 1 2 i.e3 a4 13 li'lxc5 li'lxc5 14 dxc5 i.xc5 15 i.xc5 'ili'xc5 16 :ad1 ! l:ta7 17 li'le5 b6 O.Franzen-L.Endzelins, cor­respondence 1972) 18 b4! is also slightly better for White. B ... tt:Jxcs 9 i.g2 o-o

Or 9 . . . li'lxb3 10 axb3 i.f6 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 'ili'e2 i.d7 (M.Calzetta-I.Padurariu, Dresden 2007) 13 :d1 'ili'c8 14 c4 li'le7 15 b4! and again White is on top. 10 0-0

10 ... 'ili'b6 Both 10 . . . li'lxb3 1 1 axb3 i.f6 12 'ili'e2

and 10 . . . i.d7 1 1 li'lxc5! i.xc5 12 c4 li'lb6 13 li'le5 are slightly better for White.

10 . . . b5! ? 1 1 li'lxc5 i.xc5 12 'iid3 'ili'b6 13 li'lg5 g6 is assessed as unclear by Navara in his notes in Chess Informant, but I think White has the edge after 14 li'le4 i.d4 15 a4! bxa4 16 l:lxa4 i.g7 17 c4.

1 5 0

11 c4 li'lxb3?! 1 1 . . .li'lf6 is best. Then 12 i.e3 i.d7 13

'ili'e2 (13 'ili'd4!? .l:tfc8 14 li'le5 i.a4 15 li'lxc5 i.xc5 16 'ili'f4 i.xe3 17 fxe3! ? in­tending g3-g4 is also interesting) 13 . . . i.c6 (or 13 . . . i.a4 14 li'lxc5 i.xc5 15 li'le5 i.xe3 16 'ifxe3) 14 i.d4 gives White a slight advantage. 12 'ibb3 1

The position i s more difficult for Black to defend without queens. 12 ... 'ii'xb3 13 axb3 li'lb4 14 i.e3 a6

14 . . . a5 ! ? intends 15 i.b6 :a6 16 i.xa5 li'lc2 17 llacl l:lxa5 18 ltxc2 .:td8, when Black tries to organize a defence on the dark squares. 15 i.b6

Now after 15 . . . i.d7? 16 li'le5 i.c6 17 :fd1 ! i.xg2 18 'it>xg2 f6 19 .l:td7 White had achieved a clear advantage in D.Navara-R.Ponomariov, Wijk aan Zee 2007. 15 .. . f6 16 li'ld4 'it>f7 17 li'lb5 i.d7 is the lesser evil, although after 18 li'la7! ltfb8 19 l:tfd1 White is still slightly bet­ter.

A2) 6 ... cxd4 7 li'lbxd4

This position often arises via the

move order 4 tlJgf3 cxd4 5 tlJxd4 tlJf6 6 exd5 ttJxd5 7 tlJ2f3. 1 ... i..e1

Alternatively: a) 7 . . . i..b4+?! is inferior, as the ex­

change of the dark-squared bishops favours White: 8 i..d2 i..xd2+ 9 'i'xd2 0-0 (9 . . . 'i'b6? 10 c4 lbf6 1 1 c5! followed by 12 lbb5 leaves White well on top) 10 i..c4! lbb6! (10 . . . b6?! 1 1 0-0-0 i..b7 12 l:thel 'i'c8 13 i..xd5 i..xd5 14 lbf5! exf5 15 1Wxd5 lbc6 16 lbe5! gave White a clear advantage in E.Kengis-I.Glek, Bonn 1993) 11 i..d3! (a strong idea that was recently discovered) ll . . .e5 (l l . . .lb8d7!?) 12 lbxeS �e7 13 'i'e2 lte8 14 f4 f6 15 1i'h5 and White has a win­ning attack, T.Petrik-V.Erdos, Brno 2006. It's a good exercise to analyse this position in order to find the critical variations. I assure you that White is winning in all of them!

b) 7 . . . i..c5 8 i..e2 0-0 9 0-0

and now White is slightly better af­ter either 9 . . . l:te8 10 c4 lbc7 ll lbb3 i..d6 12 i..d3 (I.Chalupa-S.Cifka, Karlovy Vary 2004), or 9 . . . h6 10 a3 'ii'f6 11 c4 lbf4 12 i..xf4 'i'xf4 13 b4 i..e7 14 'ii'cl

3 . . . C5 4 !1Jgf3 l1Jf6

'itf6 15 'ite3 (S.Tatai-P.Vezzosi, Chian­ciano 1989) .

c ) 7 . . . 'i'b6! ? 8 c3 (intending i..d3) 8 . . . i..d6 9 lbd2! is better for White. 8 c3 1

A logical move. Since Black's dark­squared bishop is not on d6 supporting the idea of . . . lbf4, White controls the b4-square and is ready to continue with i..d3 and 0-0. In order to equalize, Black must develop his c8-bishop with . . . b6 or . . . e5.

8 i..d3 is the main continuation, when the most interesting response is 8 . . . lbb4! even though this move is yet to be tested! 8 ... 0-0

White's advantage is substantial af­ter 8 . . . i..f6 9 i..d3 lbd7 10 0-0 i..xd4? 1 1 lbxd4 0-0 1 2 l:tel lbc5 1 3 i..bl ! (choos­ing bl over c2, so that after c3-c4 the reply . . . lbb4 will not come with tempo) 13 . . . .:te8 14 c4 lbf6 15 i..g5 h6 16 i..h4 e5 17 lbb5 i..e6 (M.Neumann-R.Fessling, correspondence 1984) 18 lbd6.

8 . . . a6 9 i..d3 'i'c7 10 0-0 0-0 11 :tel lbd7 12 i..d2 b5 13 'i'c2 lb5f6 14 lbg5! h6 15 lbgxe6 fxe6 16 lbxe6 'i'a7 17

1 5 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

�xh6! lbc5 (17 . . . gxh6? 18 �h7+ c.t>h8 19 'it'g6) 18 lbxf8 �xf8 19 �e3 was clearly better for White in D.Zaltz-O.Bruk, Ramat Gan 1992. 9 �d3 lbd7

After 9 . . . b6 10 0-0 �b7 11 .l:tel lbd7 12 'ii'c2 lb5f6 13 lbg5! (this is the basic attacking motif: 'ii'c2, !:tel and lbg5!) 13 . . . h6 14 lbgxe6 fxe6 15 lbxe6 'ii'b8 16 lbxf8 lbg4 17 �c4+ c.t>xf8 18 'ii'f5+ lbgf6 19 �f4 White was winning in G.Berard-W.Eck, correspondence 1984.

White obtains a clear advantage af­ter both 9 . . . �d7 10 0-0 lbc6 l l l:.e 1 a6 12 lbxc6 bxc6?! 13 lbe5 'ii'c7 (M.Neumann­W.Eck, correspondence 1984) 14 'ii'h5 g6 15 'iif3, and

9 . . . �f6 10 0-0 e5 1 1 lbf5 lbc6 12 �e4 �xf5 13 �xf5 lbde7 14 �e4 'iixdl 15 l:txdl l1ad8 16 �e3 b6 17 b4 g6 18 g4! �g7 19 g5 (S.Nyman-K.Mulder van Leens Dijkstra, correspondence 1986). 10 0-0

1o ... ttJcs Alternatively: a) lO . . . lD7f6 1 1 l:tel a6 12 lbe5 'ii'c7

13 'ii'f3! brings the queen into the attack and White is better.

1 5 2

b) 10 . . . .l:.e8 1 1 .l:.el �f6 12 �c2!? a6 13 'it'd3 g6 14 �h6 'ii'c7 15 l:tadl lb7b6 16 �b3 �d7 17 lbg5 'iif4? 18 lbxf7! was winning for White in Y.Yakovich­A.Budnikov, St Petersburg 1993.

c) 10 . . . �f6!? 11 'ii'e2 lbc5 12 �c2 :e8 13 lldl gives White a slight advantage. 11 �C2

Possible is 11 �bl !? intending 12 c4. 11 ... �f6

ll . . .'ii'c7 12 .::tel .l:td8 13 �d2 a6 14 'it'e2 b5 15 b4! lbb7?! (Black should play 15 . . . lba4, but White has the advantage after 16 c4! lbxb4 17 �e4 intending 18 a3 or 18 cxb5) 16 'iid3 g6 17 a4 was much better for White in D.Lansay­A.Moens, correspondence 1995. 12 1:te1 b6 13 lbes �b7 14 'it'g4 'ii'c7 15 lbdf3 g6 16 �h6 �g7 17 �xg7 c.t>xg7 18 .l:tad1 l:tad8 19 lbd4 lbf6 20 'ii'f4 lbhs

20 . . . lbfd7? allows 21 lbxg6!, as played in L.Labuz-A.Korchut, corres­pondence 1990. 21 'ii'e3

Now Black should play 2l . . .lbf6. In­stead in S.Zhukhovitsky-S.Furman, Moscow 1969, 2l . . .a6? 22 b4 won for White, as 22 . . . lbd7 is met by 23 lbxf7! .

B) s .. Ji'xds This is an interesting sub-variation

that many players have used. 6 .i.c4

Black must now choose between three queen moves:

81: 6 ... 'ii'd8 82: 6 . . . 'ii'c61? 83: 6 ... 'ii'd61

6 . . . 'ii'd7 has no independent value, since after 7 0-0 cxd4 8 tLlb3 tLlc6 9 tLlbxd4 tLlxd4 10 tLlxd4 Black's queen is poorly placed on d7 and has to move in order to let Black's pieces develop to reach familiar positions.

6 . . . 'ii'h5?! intends to exchange queens after an eventual . . . cxd4, but White is better in the resulting endgames and he has also the idea of .i.e2 available. For example, 7 0-0 tLlc6 (7 . . . .i.d6!? 8 tLlb3! b6?! 9 dxc5 .i.xc5 10 tLlxc5 'ii'xc5 11 'iie2 0-0 12 .i.e3 was clearly better for White in D.Bartoli-M.Dall' Armi, correspon­dence 1998; or 7 . . . cxd4!? 8 tLlb3 .i.e7 9 tLlbxd4 0-0 10 l:te1 'it'c5 1 1 'ii'e2 with a small advantage for White) 8 .i.e2! 'iid5

3 0 0 0 cs 4 liJgf3 liJf6

9 c4 'ii'd8 10 tLlb3 cxd4 1 1 tt'lbxd4 tt'lxd4 12 'iixd4 'ii'xd4 13 tLlxd4 .i.d6 14 .l:!.d1 a6 15 .i.f3 with a pleasant edge for White as Black must be alert to ideas involving tLlc6, W.Ehrenfeucht-L.Stanczyk, Tar­now 1979.

81) 6 ... 'ii'd8 7 0-0

and now: a) 7 . . . cxd4 is the most common

move, transposing to Chapter 9, Line B2.

b) 7 . . . .i.e7 8 dxc5! .i.xc5 9 1i'e2 0-0 10 tLlb3 .i.d6 11 .i.g5 .i.e7 12 l:lad1 'iic7 13 tLlbd4 a6 14 l:tfe1 with a strong initia­tive for White, G.Khlgatian-P.Groselj, Duisburg 1992.

c) 7 . . . .i.d7 8 dxc5 .i.xc5 9 tLlb3 .i.e7 10 tLle5 0-0 (L.Bui Kim-S.Lomibao, Ho Chi Minh City 2003) 1 1 .i.f4 is also good for White.

d) 7 . . . tLlbd7 8 tLlb3 cxd4 9 tLlbxd4 tLlb6 (9 . . . .i.c5? 10 .i.xe6! was winning for White in M.Gaspar-P.Mego, Czechoslovakia 1987) 10 .i.b3 .i.e7 11 c3 0-0 12 We2 tLlbd5 13 tLle5 .i.d6 14 l:te1 and White has a slight advantage, J.Majer-J.Spodny, Bmo 1995.

1 5 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

82) 6 ... 'ii'c61? An interesting move that was used

by the great Tigran Petrosian. 7 0-0

7 ... ttJbd7 Or: a) 7 ... b5?! is not good: 8 ttJe5 'iib6 9

i.e2 i.b7!? (9 . . . cxd4? 10 a4! bxa4 1 1 i.f3

i.b7 12 ttJdc4 'ii'c7 13 i.f4 tiJd5 14 i.g3 'ii'c8?! 15 ttJa5 was very good for White in Henink-I.Kan, correspondence 1962; 9 . . . tiJbd7? 10 a4 i.a6 1 1 axb5 i.xb5 12 i.xb5 'ii'xb5 13 'ii'f3 l:.c8 was L.Pachman­E.Richter, Prague 1945, and now 14 c4! 'ifb6 15 ttJxd7 ttJxd7 16 d5! i.e7 17 l:.el is clearly better for White) 10 a4! a6 1 1 dxc5! i.xc5 1 2 i.f3 tiJbd7 (12 . . . 0-0 13 axb5 'ii'xb5 14 c4 'ifb6 15 'ifb3! i.xf3 16 'ii'xb6 i.xb6 17 tiJdxf3 with the idea of b2-b4 favours White) 13 ttJxd7 ttJxd7 14 axb5! 'ii'xb5 15 b4! i.e7 (15 . . . i.xb4? 16 i.xb7 'ii'xb7 17 .i:.bl) 16 c4 i.xf3 17 'ii'xf3 and White has a big advantage.

b) 7 . . . i.d6 8 dxc5 'ii'xc5 9 'ii'e2 0-0 10 ttJe4 ttJxe4 1 1 'ii'xe4 tiJd7 12 i.e3 'ii'h5 13 l:tadl tiJf6 14 'ii'd4 i.e7 15 'ii'e5 Wxe5 16 ttJxe5 was slightly better for White in P.Keres-B.Katalymov, Moscow 1963.

1 5 4

c) 7 . . . a6! ? 8 i.d3 (8 :tel ! ?) 8 . . . ttJbd7 9 llel b6 10 ttJe4 i.b7 1 1 ttJe5! ttJxe5 12 dxe5 tiJd7 (V.Potkin-G.Welling, Bad Wiessee 2004) 13 tiJd6+ i.xd6 14 i.e4 'iic8 15 'iixd6! h6! (preventing i.g5) 16 i.d2 is again slightly better for White. s :e11 bs

8 . . . ttJb6 9 i.d3 cxd4 10 ttJxd4 'ii'd5 1 1 tiJ2b3 i.e7 (A.Milher-L.Astudillo, cor­respondence 1994) 12 i.f4! 0-0 13 tiJb5 gives White the initiative. 9 i.f1

9 ... i.b7 9 . . . i.e7?! 10 dxc5! is strong:

10 . . . Wxc5 (or 10 . . . i.xc5 1 1 tiJb3) 1 1 tiJb3 'ifb6 12 i.e3 and White gains many tempi for his development, obtaining a clear advantage. 10 c41? bxc4 11 ttJxc4 'ii'c7 12 ttJfes ttJxes 13 dxes ttJds 14 i.gs h6 15 i.d2 i.e7 16 !tc1 'ii'd7 17 'ii'g4

White has secured a substantial ad­vantage, P.Popovic-E.Weinzettl, Aus­tria 1998.

B3) 6 ... Wd61 This seems to be the best try, but it

is still not enough!

7 dxcs 'ir'xcs 8 o-o

8 .. .lbc6 Or: a) 8 . . . i..d7 9 'ir'e2 ..'Dc6 10 ..'Db3 'iih5

1 1 lld1 0-0-0 12 i..f4 was better for White in R.Rago-E.Suppa, Italy 1997.

b) 8 . . . ..'Dbd7 9 'i'e2 i..d6 10 .l:.d1 ..'Db6 1 1 i..b3 i..d7 12 ..'De4 ..'Dxe4 13 'ii'xe4 0-0-0 14 i..f4 was slightly in White's favour in D.Eggleston-A.Stone, Doug­las 2005.

c) 8 . . . i.d6 9 'i'e2 0-0 10 ..'De4 ..'Dxe4 1 1 'i'xe4 'i'h5 1 2 i..f4 i..xf4 13 'ii'xf4 ..'Dc6 14 .l:.fe1 ..'De7 15 l1e5 ..'Dg6 (S.Quesada­F.Pingas, Dos Hermanas 2004) 16 'i'xf7+! wins for White.

d) 8 . . . i..e7!? 9 'ii'e2 0-0 10 ..'De4! ..'Dxe4 11 'ii'xe4 is slightly better for White. 9 'ii'e2 i..d6

9 . . . g6?! 10 ..'De4! ..'Dxe4 11 'i'xe4 i..g7 12 c3 was good for White in L.Vladila­D.Duca, Techirghiol 1999.

After 9 . . . a6 10 ..'De4 ..'Dxe4 11 'ii'xe4 b5 12 i..d3 i..b7 13 a4 b4 14 i..g5 i..d6 15 l:He1 .U.b8 16 'ii'g4 ..'De5 17 ..'Dxe5 i..xe5 18 l::tad1 'ii'c7? 19 l::txe5 Black resigned in the game 'Croma' -' Armagedon_8', Internet 2004.

3 . . . cs 4 lt:Jgf3 lt:lf6

10 l:td1 ll'les White achieved a clear advantage

after 10 . . . i..c7 11 ..'De4 ..'Dxe4 12 'ir'xe4 i..d7 13 i.e3 'i'e7 14 ..'Dd4 ..'Dxd4 15 'ii'xd4 e5 16 'ii'c3 i..c6 17 i.c5 'i'g5 18 .idS in M.Moraru-C.Popescu, Bucha­rest 1998, and 10 . . . 'ili'h5!? is met by 1 1 ..'Dfl . 11 i..b5+ i..d7 12 i..xd7+ ..'Dexd7

(L.Versfeld-J.Meijering, Holland 1951) Now 13 ..'Dc4! i..c7 14 i..e3 gives White a strong initiative.

c) s • • • exds

This is a solid defence for Black and, after 3 . . . c5, the variation against which it is most difficult to prove an advan­tage. Black accepts a slightly inferior position without realistic chances to play for a win. He heads for an isolated d-pawn position with a knight on d7 instead of c6, which means he doesn't fight for the critical square d4. But as compensation Black exchanges his 'bad' light-squared bishop and his re­maining pieces reach active positions. 6 i..bS+ i..d7 7 i..xd7+ ..'Dbxd7 8 0-0 i..e7 9 dxcs ..'Dxcs

1 5 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

White generally wants to exchange pieces as the endings are better for him. But often there is no reason to hurry because his pieces can also exert pres­sure from specific positions, and this may be more unpleasant for Black (one example is a knight on f5 that isn't ex­changed for a bishop on e7 - see later) . 10 lLlb3 !

This is the best way to reach the ba­sic position. 10 l2Jb3 offers an exchange of knights, which are the most impor­tant pieces for the side with the iso­lated pawn. (A beautiful example of how to exchange the knights of the side with the isolated pawn and then to ex­ploit the advantage is the famous game Karpov-Spassky, Montreal 1979.)

10 l2Jd4, aiming for lLlf5xe7, may also reach the main line. In this varia­tion White loses considerable time ex­changing this bishop, which is not a stronger piece than the knight on c5. After 10 l2Jd4 Black has two options:

a) 10 . . . 'iid7 1 1 lLl2b3 l2Jce4 12 'iif3 transposes to the main line.

b) 10 . . . 0-0!? is an interesting alterna­tive that gives us the chance to discuss

1 5 6

some important details. In particular, White must not hurry to exchange on e7. Although in general White wants to exchange pieces, every time we must ana­lyse the specific position, not rely only on general principles .

White obtains a small advantage af­ter 1 1 l2Jf5 l:.e8! 12 lLlb3! lLle6!? (12 . . . l2Jce4 13 l2Jxe7+! 'iixe7 14 .i.e3 'iic7 15 .i.d4 lLld7 16 l:.e1 is better for White; 12 . . . .i.f8!? 13 .i.e3 l2Jcd7 14 l:.e1 ! 'iic7 15 c3 is slightly better for White) 13 .i.e3! .i.£8 14 c3 'iic7 15 'iif3 l2Je4 (Z.Ilincic­G.Dizdar, Kladovo 1990) 16 l:.ad1 ! l:.ad8 17 'iig4 g6 18 lLlfd4. 10 . . . l2Jce4

Black avoids the exchange of knights with this natural move. 10 . . . 0-0?! plays into White's hands, and after 1 1 lLlxc5 .i.xc5 12 .i.g5 White de­velops easily, simultaneously creating threats:

12 . . . l:.c8 (12 . . . d4?! 13 'iid3 h6 14 .i.h4 l:.c8 15 l:.fe1 'iib6 16 'ii'f5! was M.Matulovic-S.Puc, Yugoslavia 1970, and now 16 . . . 'iixb2! should be played, even if 17 .i.xf6 gxf6 18 I:tab1 'ii'xa2 19 l::txb7 is better for White because of the

shattered pawns) 13 c3! l:tc6 14 tt::\e5! l:te6 15 tt::\g4 i.e7 16 tt::\e3 l::te5 17 i.h4 gave White a stable advantage in M.Tal-P.Benko, Skopje Olympiad 1972. He has many ideas to increase the pressure, including i.g3, 'itd3, l:td1 and tt::lf5.

White achieved a slight advantage after 10 . . . tt::\fe4 1 1 i.e3! 0-0 12 tt::\xc5 tt::\xc5 13 c3 'itd7 14 i.xc5 .ixc5 15 'iib3 in J.Van der Wiel-L.Ljubojevic, Brussels 1987. 11 tt::lfd4

The white knight is heading for f5, and Black must take measures. 11 . . . 'itd7

11 . . .0-0?! 12 t'i.Jf5 l:.e8 13 t'Llxe7+ 'itxe7 14 .ie3 'ite5 15 .id4 'itf4 16 f3! t'i.Jd6 17 'itd2 'itxd2 18 t'Llxd2 left White well on top in B.Parma-S.Puc, Ljubljana 1969. 12 Wf3 o-o 13 tt.Jfs .ids

After 13 . . . l::tfe8 14 t'Llxe7+ l:txe7 15 .ie3 White maintains the advantage in all variations: 15 . . . a6! ? (15 . . . Wb5?! 16 .id4 .l:tae8 17 'itd3! 'itc6 18 l:tad1 ! t'Llh5 19 .ie3 t'i.Jhf6 20 t'i.Jd4 'itd7 21 h3 a6 22 l:tfe1 t'i.Jd6 23 t'Llf3 with a small advan­tage, P.Keres-B.Ivkov, Bamberg 1968;

3 . . . cs 4 tlJgf3 tDJ6

15 . . . .l:.c8?! 16 i.xa7! .l:txc2 17 i.d4 fa­vours White; and 15 . . . t'Llg4!? 16 .id4 t'Lle5 17 'ith5 t'Llc6 18 f3 t'Llxd4 19 t'Llxd4 t'i.Jf6 20 'itg5 h6 21 'itd2 gave White the edge in Brueckel-Brueckner, corre­spondence 1995) 16 l:tad1 ! was slightly better for White in V.Jansa-E.Geller, Nis 1977. The counterattack with 16 . . . 'ii'a4 doesn't gain anything after 17 'ii'f4! .l:tae8 (17 . . . 'itxa2? loses to 18 .id4 'ita4 19 .ixf6 gxf6 20 f3) 18 .id4 t'Lld7 19 l:tfe1, when White keeps a small but enduring advantage. 14 .ie3

We have reached the basic position of the variation. Black's three main moves are:

C1: 14 . . . l:te8 (2: 14 • . • g6 C3: 14 . . . l:tc81

14 . . . a5?! is a logical idea but it only makes sense after .. .l::tc8, as then Black protects the c5-square. White can take advantage with 15 t'Llc5! 'itc6 (15 . . . t'Llxc5 16 .ixc5 l:te8 17 .id4 is good for White) 16 t'Llxe4 t'Llxe4 (16 . . . dxe4 17 'itg3 g6 18

1 5 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

..td4 gives White the initiative) 17 l:tad1 ! ..tf6 (17 . . .'ii'xc2 18 l:txdS favours White, as 18 . . . l%e8? loses to 19 tt:Jxg7! �xg7 20 :tel 'ifa4 21 'ji'g4+ �h8 22 ..td4+ f6 23 l%xd8) 18 c3 with a pleasant advantage for White.

C1) 14 ... :es 15 ..td41

I like this move, which prevents . . . l:teS. The fact that White leaves gS unprotected is not so important.

White has a tiny edge after 1S l:tad1 l:!.eS! 16 tt:Jg3 tt:Jxg3 17 'ifxg3! ..tc7 18 ..td4 tt:Je4! 19 'ifh4 :te6 20 ..te3 l:.ae8 21 'ii'h3!, but Black's position remains solid. 1s ... as

White has a pleasant position after 1S . . . tt:JgS!? 16 'ii'd3 tt:Jge4 17 tt:Je3! ..tc7 18 l:tfe1 'ii'd6 19 g3 ..tb6 (19 . . . aS can be met by 20 a4!) 20 .:tad1 ..txd4 21 tt:Jxd4! (it is important to control the f3-square and render . . . tt:JgS ideas harmless) 2l . . .l:tac8 22 f3 tt:JcS 23 'ifbs a6 24 tt:JdfS! 'ifc7 2S 'ii'b4. 16 l%ad1

16 a4! ? also makes sense: White stops Black's expansion on queenside;

1 5 8

the aS-pawn may become a target; and finally bS can be a good outpost for a white knight or queen. The test of White's idea is 16 .. J:tc8 (16 . . . tt:JgS?! 1 7 'ji'd3 tt:Jge4 18 tt:Je3 ..tc7 19 l%fe1 was better for White in Rodrigo Vazquez­S.Halkias, Internet 2004) 17 tt:Je3!? (17 c3?! l:tc4) 17 . . . ..tc7, but White keeps a small advantage after 18 l:tfe1 'ifd6 19 g3 as 19 . . . tt:JgS?! can be met by 20 'ili'fS tt:Jfe4 21 'iii'g2! . 16 ... ..tc7

17 tt:Jcs l The move c2-c4 i s very committal

and White should use this only if he can gain something concrete. After 17 c4 .i.eS! 18 tt:Je3 tt:JgS! 19 'ili'e2 ..txd4 20 tt:Jxd4 dxc4 21 'ifxc4 l:!.ac8 Black has equalized. 17 . . • 'ifc6 18 tt:Jxe4 dxe4 19 tt:Jh6+ gxh6

19 . . . 'iii'f8 is worse, and 20 'ifa3+ ..td6 21 'ife3 l:r.e6 22 tt:JfS gives White a strong initiative: for example, 22 . . . .i.xh2+ 23 'iii'h1 ..teS 24 'ifa3+ 'iii'g8 2S .i.xeS l:txeS 26 tt:Je7+. 20 'ifxf6 'ifxf6 21 ..txf6

White has the advantage in this endgame.

C2} 14 . . . g6

15 4Jh6+1 This is the best square; on g3 the

knight will remain passive. 1S . . . 'it>g7 16 .l:.fd11

The eternal problem of the 'right rook' ! 16 l:tad1 ! ? is also interesting, and it is important to study it in order to be familiar with some crucial ideas:

a) 16 . . . .1i.b6 17 ttJd4 l:tac8 18 c3 l:tc4 19 h3! ..lii.c7 20 .:tfe1 ..lii.b8 21 ttJg4 ttJxg4 22 hxg4 (22 'iixg4!?) 22 . . . l:te8 23 ..lii.f4 ltcc8 24 ..lii.xb8 l:i.xb8 25 'iif4 ltbd8 was my game against the ultra-solid player Haritakis (Korinthos 1997) . Here I should have continued with 26 f3! ttJcS (26 . . . 4Jf6? 27 ttJfS+ gxf5 28 'ii'g5+) 27 g5 with a small but stable advantage.

b) 16 .. .'i'c8 can be met in an imagi­native way: 17 g4! ? 'ii'e6 18 4Jd4 'ii'e8 (H.Groetz-J.Lipka, Austrian League 2003) 19 'ii'h3! l:tc8 20 l:tfe1 'ifd7 21 f3 ttJcS 22 ttJhfS+! 'it>h8! (if 22 . . . 'it>g8, White wins with 23 g5 gxf5 24 gxf6 ..lii.xf6 25 'it>h1 ! 'it>h8 26 ttJxf5! ..lii.xb2 27 ..lii.d4+ ..lii.xd4 28 l:txd4 .l:.g8 29 l1h4) 23 'ii'h6 l:.g8 24 ttJg3 and with 25 g5 coming, White enjoys a strong attack.

3 . . . C5 4 lt::Jgj3 lt::Jj6

c) 16 . . . l:tc8 17 c3 .l:le8 18 h3 aS 19 ttJd4! b5 20 a3! with a further split:

cl) 20 . . . 'ii'b7! ? 21 ttJc2! ..tc7 (2l . . .b4? 22 axb4 axb4 23 4Jxb4 d4 24 l:txd4 ..lii.b6 was M.Mahjoob-B.Tondivar, Dubai 2004, and now 25 l:ta1 ! ..lii.xd4 26 ..lii.xd4 'it>xh6 27 ..lii.xf6 l:te6 28 ..lii.d4 wins, as 28 .. .£6 is not possible because of 29 ..lii.e3+ g5 30 l:ta7 'ii'b8 31 'iff5) 22 �.fe1 ..lii.e5 23 ttJg4 ttJxg4 24 'i'xg4 f5 25 �4 'it>g8 26 ..lii.d4 and White has an edge.

c2) 20 . . . ..te7!? (intending . . . b4) 21 ttJg4 (21 4Jc2?! b4 22 axb4 'iia4! is a tac­tical idea that Black can use when White plays l:tad1 instead of .l:.fd1) 21 . . .4Jxg4 22 hxg4! b4 (22 . . . 4Jg5? 23 ..lii.xg5 ..lii.xg5 24 4Jb3 wins a pawn) 23 axb4 axb4 24 ttJc2! (crucially gaining a tempo by threatening to take on e4) 24 . . . 'ii'b5 (Black cannot sacrifice the piece because of 24 . . . bxc3? 25 'ifxe4 dxe4 26 l:txd7 cxb2 27 ttJd4 l:la8 28 .l:.b7!) 25 ttJxb4 .i.xb4 26 cxb4 'it>g8! (26 . . . 'ii'xb4? 27 l:txd5 is good for White because the b-pawn is indirectly pro­tected) 27 .l:.d4 .l:.c2 28 l:.fd1 and White keeps the advantage since Black cannot take the b-pawn: after 28 . . . .l:.xb2? 29

1 5 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

£.xd5 'ii'xb4 30 l:.d7 'ii'b3 31 .l:t1d5 :b1+ 32 'it>h2 'ifb8+ 33 g3 f6 34 g5 f5 35 J:txf5! Black can resign.

c3) 20 . . J:t.c4! 21 lt:Jg4 h5 (21 . . .lt:Jxg4 22 'ii'xg4 'ili'xg4 23 hxg4 b4 24 cxb4 axb4 25 b3 .l:tc8 26 axb4 is better for White) 22 tt:Jxf6 i.xf6 23 lt:Jb3 l:ta4?! (23 . . . 'ii'd8!? is stronger, with just a small advantage for White) was L.Yurtaev-O.Nikolenko, Moscow 1991, and now 24 lt:Jc5! tt:Jxc5 25 .l:txd5 'ii'c6 26 i.xc5 leaves White firmly in control. 16 ••• l:c8 17 c3 .l:te8 18 h3 a5 19 lt:Jd4

1g ••. bs If 19 . . . a4?!, 20 a3! stops Black's

counterplay on the queenside. 20 a3 'ii'b7

So far this is S.Korensky-J.Prizant, Tula 2004, where White played 21 g4. 21 tt:Jg41 tt:Jxg4

White is clearly better after 2l . . .b4? 22 axb4 axb4 23 .l:ta7! 'iixa7 (23 . . . 'ifb8 is met by 24 lt:Je2 intending 25 i.d4) 24 tt:Jxf6 i.xf6 (or 24 ... 'ili'e7 25 tt:Jxe8+ 'ili'xe8 26 cxb4) 25 tt:Jf5+ gxf5 26 i.xa7 bxc3 27 bxc3 tt:Jxc3 28 l:!.d3, as Black's king is insecure (this excellent analysis is by Tsiamis).

1 6 0

22 hxg4! With this White has in mind 'ii'h3,

or g4-g5 in some variations. 22 ... i.f6

If 22 . . . i.b6 then 23 g5 b4 24 cxb4 axb4 25 a4! ? (25 axb4 !tc4 26 b5 'it>g8 27 'ili'f4 i.c7 28 'ii'h4 i.e5 29 .l:ta5 is also better for White, and in this line 26 . . . .l:te5? loses to 27 .l:ta6! tt:Jxg5 28 'ili'g3) 25 . . . .l:tc5 26 'ili'f4 'it>g8 27 f3 i.c7 28 'iih4 tt:Jd6 29 i.f2 gives White an edge. 23 tt:Jc2 h6 24 :d3 !

White intends to follow up with 25 l:tad1 and is slightly better.

C3) 14 •. J:tc8!

Mikhail Gurevich and Vaganian prefer this move, even if Black does lose the possibility of doubling his rooks quickly on the e-file in some variations. 15 C3 l:te8

Alternatively: a) Against 15 . . . b5?!, 16 �ad1 ! is

strong as Black doesn't have any . . .'ti'a4 or . . . 'itb5 ideas. White achieves a clear advantage after 16 . . . a5 17 'ifu3! a4 18 lL'lbd4 a3 19 f3! lL'lc5 20 lL'ld6! .

b) After 15 . . . l:r.c6?! 16 .l:f.fd1 l:r.e8 White can win a pawn with 17 i.xa7! b6 18 i.b8 - an amazing escape!

c) 15 . . . a5 is the main alternative: 16 lL'lbd4 a4 17 a3.

This is the usual reaction to the ad­vance of Black's a-pawn. White's queenside pawns look immobile and weakened, but on the other hand the stability of his position is maintained, the c-file is blocked, and the d5-pawn can be attacked by lL'lc2-b4 as the b4-square is now available. For example, 17 . . . g6 18 lL'lh6+ �g7 (18 . . . �h8 was played in R.Goetz-R.Knaak, German League 1991, but I think it is better for

3 . . . cs 4 l:i:Jgf3 l:i:Jf6

Black's king to be on g7; White should continue with 19 l:r.ad1 l:!.e8 20 l::tfe1 fol­lowed by 21 h3, keeping an edge) 19 l::tfe1 i.c7 20 ltad1 (20 l:te2!? l:r.fe8 21 l:r.ae1 l:r.e7? 22 lL'lhf5+! gxf5 23 lL'lxf5+ �g8 24 lL'lxe7+ 'ii'xe7 25 i.d4 and White wins because 'ifu3 - with tempo - fol­lowed by f2-f3 is coming) 20 . . . .l:.fe8 21 h3 i.e5 (2l . . .fl.e7? 22 lL'ldf5+! gxf5 23 lL'lxf5+ and White wins after 23 . . . �h8 24 lL'lxe7 'ii'xe7 25 i.d4, 23 . . . �f8 24 i.h6+ �e8 25 lL'lxe7 'ii'xe7 26 i.g7, or finally 23 . . . �g8 24 l:r.xd5 ! ! - a variation to re­member!) 22 lL'lg4 lL'lxg4 23 'ii'xg4! .

Generally White prefers to recap­ture on g4 with the queen, proposing an exchange to reach a better ending. If Black reacts with .. .£5, White's queen can retreat to f3 and Black's kingside has been weakened:

c1) White gains a clear advantage after 23 . . . 'ii'xg4 24 hxg4 .Ucd8 25 lL'lf3 i.c7 26 l:r.d4 b5 27 .l:ted1 i.b6 28 l:r.xd5 l:r.xd5 29 l:hd5 i.xe3 30 fxe3 lL'lf6 31 l:hb5 lL'lxg4 32 l:r.b4 lL'lxe3 33 .l:.xa4 lL'ld1 34 l:r.b4 l:.e2 35 a4! .

c2) White keeps a small advantage after 23 .. .£5 !? 24 'ii'f3 l:lc4 (24 . . . �g8 25

1 6 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

t2Jc2 �5 26 t2Jb4 l:!.cd8 27 'ii'e2! i s good for White) 25 tLlc2. He can continue with l2Jb4, pressuring d5, or in some positions with �d4, exchanging the defender of the weak dark squares around Black's king.

16 �d41 White doesn't allow . . J:te5, even

though 16 �d4 gives Black the option to try ideas based on . . . tLlg5.

Psakhis believes that Black still has some work ahead to equalize after 16 .l:lfd1 l:.e5! 17 tLlg3 tLlxg3 18 'ii'xg3, but I think that Black has no problems here: for example, 18 . . . �c7 19 'ii'f3 l:.h5 20 h3 'ii'd6 21 'ii'g3! ? 'iid7! 22 'ii'£3 'iid6 with a draw by repetition. 16 ... as l?

16 . . . a6 17 .Uad1 ! (17 .Ufe1 lk6 18 l:te3 h6 19 .Uae1 'ifr>h7 20 l2Jg3 �c7 21 'ifd1 l2Jg4! offered Black dangerous counter­play in D.Navara-V.Baklan, Bled Olympiad 2002) 17 . . . l:tc6! (17 . . . �c7?! 18 tLlcS! 'ii'c6 19 l2Jxe4 dxe4 20 'iih3 .:tcd8 21 'iih4 gives White a strong initiative; 17 . . . tLlgS 18 'iid3 t2Jge4 19 l2Je3 is also better for White) 18 tLld2!? is assessed as slightly better for White by Baklan

1 6 2

(18 ii'h3!? is also interesting), but let's look a bit further: 18 . . . 'ii'e6! (18 . . . �c7?! 19 l2Jxe4 dxe4 20 �xf6! is good for White) 19 l2Je3! �b6 (if 19 . . . �c7 20 l:tfe1) 20 t2Jb3! aS 21 �xb6 l:txb6 22 l:.d4 and White does have a small advan­tage.

17 .l:.ad11 This is generally the right rook for

d1 when Black plays . . . aS. 17 .U.fd1 a4 18 t2Jd2 tLlgS 19 'iid3 tLlhS 20 �e3 l2Je6 21 tLlfl was agreed drawn in S.Azarov­S.Dolmatov, Rethymnon 2003 - Black has no problems here. 11 ... a4

17 . . . 'ii'a4 loses to 18 tLlxg7! 'itr>xg7 19 'ii'g4+, winning the rook on c8. 1s lbd2 lbgs

18 . . . lbd6 is answered by 19 lbe3, and 18 . . . 'ii'e6! ? 19 lbxe4 dxe4 20 'iih3 l:.c6 21 f3! is also better for White. 19 'ii'd3 lbhs 20 .:tfe1

20 �e3 lbe6 21 l:.fe1 �c7 22 lb£3 lbh£4 23 'iid2 l:tcd8 24 g3 needs investi­gation. 20 ... �c7

20 . . . �f6 21 �xf6 tLlx£6 22 a3 is slightly better for White.

White wins a pawn after 20 . . . tt:Jf4 21 l:txe8+ ii'xe8 22 'ife3! 'ifxe3 23 Ji.xe3 lL'lge6 (23 . . . l2Jd3? loses a piece to 24 Ji.xg5 Ji.xg5 25 lL'lf3 l2Jxb2 26 l:tb1) 24 lL'ld6! .l:.c7 25 lL'lb5 !:td7 26 ..txf4! lL'lxf4 27 lL'lc4 'itf8 28 g3 lL'lg6 29 lL'le3 l2Je7 30 c4. 21 g3!

This position has been assessed as equal, but I think that more analysis is needed. 21 ... l2Je6!

White is better after 21 . . .l::.e6 22 lL'le3 l:!ce8 23 'iff5 h6 24 .l:.fl !, as the d5-pawn is threatened and 24 .. .'�c6 is met by 25 f4! (25 'ifxd5!?) 25 .. Jhe3 (25 . . . g6 26 'ii'g4 .l:txe3 27 fxg5 'ii'e6 28 'ifxe6 l:t3xe6 29 gxh6 is better for White, and Black has no compensation for the piece after 25 . . . l2Jxg3 26 hxg3 .:txe3 27 fxg5 l:t.xg3+ 28 'ith1) 26 fxg5! l:t3e7 27 lL'lf3! 'ii'e6 28 lL'lh4! .

3 . . . cs 4 Ci:Jgf3 Ci:Jf6

22 tiJf3 tt:Jxd4 23 tiJ3xd4 g6 23 . . . l2Jf6 24 'iibs! 'ii'xb5 25 l2Jxb5

l:txe1+ 26 l:txe1 'itf8 27 l:te7! g6 28 .l:txc7 .l:txc7 29 l2Jxc7 gxf5 30 f3 is good for White. 24 lL'le3 lL'lf6 25 'ii'bs Wxbs

25 . . . 'ii'h3? loses to 26 l2Jxd5 lhe1+ 27 .l:he1 l2Jg4 28 lL'lf3. 26 lL'lxbs ..tbs 27 'itg21

Threatening the pawn on d5, and 27 . . . l:tc5? is still met by 28 lL'lxd5. 27 • • • 'itf8 28 l:td4 l:te4 29 .:ted1 l:tcs 30 lL'la3 .:txd4

If 30 . . . ..ta7?! 31 l:t.b4! . 31 ltxd4

White has kept a small advantage. He has ideas such as lL'lc2-b4, or .l:tb4, or g3-g4 and h2-h4 disturbing the black knight. Black can hold the position, but a difficult defence lies ahead and ex­treme accuracy will be required.

1 63

C h a pte r T h i rtee n I 3 . . . l2Jf6 4 e s l2Je4 a nd 4 . . . l2Jg8

1 e4 e6 2 d 4 dS 3 lild2 lilf6 3 . . . lilf6 is the most tactical option for

Black. He doesn't play for a solid posi­tion but prefers to complicate matters with dynamic play. Very interesting positions arise, with rich play and fas­cinating ideas for both sides. 4 e5

In this chapter we will deal with the less important lines that Black uses in order to get away from theoretical po­sitions. We will analyse:

A: 4 ... lilg8?1 B: 4 ... lile4

A) 4 . . . lilg8?1 This is played very rarely, as White

now has a French Advance with two extra tempi! The basic problem for Black is that, in contrast to the main lines where the knights are on c6 and d7 help to accomplish the strategic breaks . . . cS and .. .£6, here they do not coordinate well as they control the

1 6 4

same squares. s J.d3

The most logical move: White ig­nores Black's artificial play and contin­ues with his development. He intends lile2, 0-0 and lildf3 as in the main line. s ... cs

Alternatively: a) s . . . 'ii'd7?! prevents a possible

'it'a4+ in preparation for . . . b6 and . . . J.a6, but this early declaration com­pletely frees White's hand. Now 6 lilgf3! b6 7 'ii'e2 aS 8 0-0 J.a6 9 c4! is a

good idea. White accepts the trade of light-squared bishops but only in ex­change for pressuring the light squares in the centre. This is very good for White: for example, 9 . . . tt:'Jc6 10 b3! dxc4 (10 . . . a4 1 1 il.b2 a3 12 il.c3 il.b4? 13 cxd5! exd5 14 il.xa6 il.xc3 15 il.b5! is excellent for White as 16 e6 is coming) 11 bxc4 tt:'Jxd4 12 tt:'Jxd4 'iixd4 13 tL'lb3 'ifd7 14 'iif3! .:t.c8 15 .l:.d1 c5! (15 . . . tt:'Je7? 16 il.e4! 'iia4 17 c5! il.c4 18 .l:td4 gave White a winning advantage in Kr.Georgiev­N.Zilberman, Manila Olympiad 1992) 16 il.c2 il.b7! (16 . . . 'ifc6? 17 'ifxc6+ .l:txc6 18 tt:'Jxa5! bxa5 19 il.a4 lL'le7 20 l:tb1; 16 . . . 'iic7? 17 lL'ld4! cxd4 18 il.a4+ b5 19 cxb5 'iid7 20 bxa6 'ifxa4 21 a7; 16 . . . 'iib7 is met by 17 'iig3 - threatening 18 tt:'Jxa5 - 17 . . . tt:'Je7! 18 l::.b1 lL'lc6 19 tt:'Jd2 with a strong initiative for White) 17 .l:txd7! il.xf3 18 .l::La7 il.c6 19 l:.a6 a4 20 lL'ld2 .l:.b8 21 l:.b1 ! and White regains the pawn with a clear advantage.

b) 5 . . . b6 6 'ife2!? c5 7 c3 tt:'Jc6 8 tt:'Jgf3 cxd4 9 tt:'Jxd4!

(freeing the f3-square for the other knight) 9 . . . tt:'Jxd4 10 cxd4 lL'le7 11 tt:'Jf3 ll'lc6 12 0-0 h6 13 il.e3 il.e7 14 l:tacl il.d7

3 . ..Cl:Jf6 4 es liJe4 a n d 4 . . . liJgB

15 a3 tt:'Ja5?! 16 lL'ld2 �f8?! 17 b4 tt:'Jc6 18 f4 g6 19 g4 l:i.c8 20 'iff2 il.h4 21 "ii'f3 lL'le7 22 'iih3 .l::Lxcl 23 l:txcl lL'lc8 24 tt:'Jf3 il.e7 25 f5 gxf5 26 gxf5 and Black resigned in Kr.Georgiev-J.Gaborit, Bihorel 1997. 6 c3 ll'lc6

Trying to exchange the light­squared bishops with 6 . . . b6?! is unwise here because the move . . . c5 enables White to open the position in his fa­vour:

7 lL'le2 'iid7 8 0-0 il.a6 9 c4! ll'lc6! (9 . . . cxd4?! 10 ll'lxd4 lL'le7 11 lL'lb5 lL'lg6 12 ll'lf3 il.e7 13 a4! 0-0 14 cxd5 exd5 15 e6! fxe6 16 il.xg6 il.xb5 was J.Fluvia Poya­tos-J.Gonzalez Rodriguez, Barcelona 2003, and here 17 il.xh7+ �xh7 18 axb5 'ii'xb5 19 lL'ld4 'ii'd7 20 'ii'e2 is good for White) 10 'ii'a4 ll'lxe5 1 1 'ii'xa6 ll'lxd3 12 cxd5 ll'lxcl 13 l:.axcl exd5 14 lL'lg3 il.e7 15 dxc5 bxc5 16 tt:'Jf5! and White has the initiative.

6 . . . 'iib6 7 ll'le2 il.d7 8 0-0 il.b5?! is dubious - the idea of . . . il.b5 is stronger after the exchange on d4 (see below). White obtains a clear plus after 9 il.xb5+ 'ii'xb5 10 a4! 'ii'c6 1 1 dxc5 lL'ld7 (L.Pantaleoni-Benfenati, correspon-

1 6 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

dence 1978) 12 b4! tt::lxe5 13 f4 tt::ld7 14 tt::ld4.

6 . . . cxd4!? 7 cxd4 'ifb6 8 tt::le2 i.d7 9 0-0 i.bS is an interesting idea:

10 i.xbS+ 'ii'xbS 11 f4! g6 12 tt::lf3 h5!? (White gains a strong initiative after 12 . . . tt::lc6 13 g4 h5 14 f5! hxg4 15 fxe6 f5! [15 . . . gxf3 16 exf7+ 'itxf7 17 tt::lc3 and 18 'ii'xf3 wins for White] 16 exf6 tt::lxf6 17 tt::lg5 tt::le4 18 tt::lc3! ) 13 tt::lc3 'i'd7 (F .De la Paz-J.Gonzalez Rodriguez, Havana 2003) 14 i.d2! tt::lh6 15 I:tcl tt::lc6 16 tt::la4! tt::lfS 17 tt::lcS i.xc5 18 dxc5 aS! 19 'ii'e2 leaves White with a solid advantage. He will continue with l:tfd1 and i.e1, and then depending on Black's reaction he can play either on the queenside with 'ifbS, a2-a3 and b2-b4 or on the kingside with tt::lg5, h2-h3 and g2-g4. 7 tt::le21 i.d7

After 7 .. . f5 8 tt::lf3! c4 9 i.c2 i.d7 10 b3! b5 11 bxc4 bxc4 12 h4 tt::lge7 13 i.g5 'ii'a5 14 'ii'd2 tt::lc8 15 h5 h6 16 i.h4 i.a3 17 l:tb1 tt::lb6 18 g4! White begins his at­tack first and obtains a clear advantage, S.Kamberi-G.Bailey, Lansing 1993.

7 . . . 'iib6 8 tt::lf3 looks like the Ad­vance Variation (3 eS) with the big dif-

1 6 6

ference that the white knight is not on b1 but e2, safeguarding the base of pawn centre on d4.

This difference clearly favours White. For example, 8 . . . i.d7 (or 8 . . . i.e7 9 0-0 f6 10 l::te1 !, keeping the tension in the centre and making it difficult for Black to develop the knight on g8) 9 0-0 cxd4 10 tt::lexd4! tt::lge7 (Black can also try to exchange pieces with 10 . . . tt::lxd4, but 1 1 tt::lxd4 tt::le7 12 i.e3! gives White the advantage as 12 . . . 'ii'xb2?! is ex­tremely risky due to 13 l:tb1 'ii'xa2 14 l:txb7 a6 15 l:txd7! 'itxd7 16 'i'h5! 'ite8 17 tt::lb5! axb5 18 i.xb5+ 'itd8 19 'ii'xf7 with a winning attack) 11 i.e3! 'i'd8 12 i.g5! 'ifb8 13 l:te1 tt::lg6 14 'ii'e2 i.c5 15 h4! and White had a strong initiative in D.Ciric­C.Cuartas, Bern 1976. 8 o-o 'ii'c7

White was clearly better in E.Geller­J.Yukhtman, Tbilisi 1959, after 8 . . . cxd4 9 cxd4 tt::lb4 10 i.b1 i.b5 1 1 tt::lf3 'ifb6 12 l:te1 (threatening to move the knight to c3) 12 . . . i.xe2 13 l:txe2 tt::le7 14 a3 tt::la6 15 i.d3 tt::lc6 16 i.e3 i.e7 17 l:tcl tt::lc7 18 l:tec2 a6 19 tt::ld2 tt::lb5 20 'ii'g4! . 9 tt::lf3

g . . . c41? With his poor development, Black

understandably wishes to keep the po­sition closed. Alternatively:

a) 9 . . . 0-0-0?! can be met by 10 ltJg5 ltJh6 1 1 ltJxh7!?.

b) 9 . . . h6 10 ..ie3 c4 11 ..tc2 0-0-0 12 b3 ltJa5 13 ltJd2 f6 14 ltJf4 ltJe7 15 exf6 gxf6 16 ltJh5 gave White the advantage in S.Conquest-A.Shabalov, Gausdal 1991 .

c) In the game J.Girardon­L.Defrance, French League 1996, Black tried 9 . . . ltJge7 10 ..if4 ltJc8?! intending . . . c4 and . . . b5 and to move the knight to b6 in order to take the sting out of the break b2-b3. White can gain the advan­tage by opening the position with 1 1 dxc5! ..ixc5 12 ltJed4, and here 12 . . . 0-0? loses to 13 ..ixh7+! 'iti>xh7 14 ltJg5+ 'iti>g6 15 'ii'd3+ f5 16 exf6+. Instead 10 . . . c4 1 1 ..ic2 ltJc8 1 2 ltJg3, with a small advan­tage for White, is the right move order. 10 ..tc2 h6

White has an edge after 10 . . . f6 11 ..if4! fxe5 (1 l . . .f5?! 12 ..ixf5! exf5 13 e6) 12 ltJxe5 ..id6 13 ltJxc6 ..ixc6 14 'ii'd2. 11 b31

3 . ..l'iJf6 4 es l"iJe4 a n d 4 . . . l"iJgB

This is the most consistent move. White starts his attack on the queen­side. 11 ... ttJas

12 .l:r.e11? Also possible is 12 b4 ltJc6 13 b5, as

in Deep Junior 7-B.Gulko, Internet 2002, but with 12 .l:te1 White avoids closing the queenside. 12 ... 0-0-0

C.Carothers-M.Joanis, correspon-dence 2002, continued 12 . . . ltJe7 13 ..ia3 ltJf5 14 ..ixf8 .l:txf8 15 ltJf4 0-0-0 (15 . . . ltJe7?! 16 ltJh5! .l:tg8 17 J::[e3! 0-0-0 18 ltJd2 and l:tg3 is coming; accepting a passive position with 15 . . . g6 16 ltJd2! 0-0-0 was forced, but not 16 . . . cxb3? 17 axb3 'ifxc3 18 ..ixf5 gxf5 19 ltJh5!) 16 ..ixf5 exf5 17 ltJxd5 'ii'b8 18 ltJe7+ 'iti>c7 19 d5 ..ie6 20 'ii'd4 and Black resigned. 13 ltJf4 ..teSI?

13 . . . 'iti>b8?! 14 b4 ltJc6 15 a4 b6 16 ..ia3 ..ic8 17 'ii'h1 was clearly better for White in S.Gregory-O.Hansen, corre­spondence 1974. 14 ltJd2 'iti>b8 15 'iff3 1

A powerful novelty, creating the threat of 16 ltJg6! .

1 6 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

15 l:te3 was played in L.Stein­V.Bagirov, Leningrad 1963, but then 15 . . . l2Je7! gains a tempo after . . . t2Jf5. 1S ... ..te71

This seems forced! 15 .. . l2Je7?! is met by 16 ..ta3!, while 15 . . . l:tc8 allows 16 b4 l2Jc6 17 l2Jg6! fxg6 18 'ii'xf8 with a clear advantage for White. 16 l:.b11

White has a strong initiative. He is ready to capture on c4 to open the b­file while Black's pieces are entangled on the kingside.

B) 4 ... l2Je4 5 ..td3 5 l2Jxe4 dxe4 6 ..tc4 is possible.

1 6 8

Now we will consider:

B1: s ... cs?l B2: s . . . fs B3: s ... t2Jxd2

81) s ... cs?l 6 t2Jxe4 dxe4 7 ..txe4 cxd4 White obtains the initiative after

7 . . . 1i'xd4?! 8 1i'xd4 cxd4 9 t2Jf3 ..tc5 10 0-0!? f5 (10 . . . ..tb6 11 l:td1 t2Jd7 12 ..tf4 l2Jc5 13 ..td3 ..td7 14 ..tfl was good for White in F.Fiorito-E.Julia, Villa Martelli 1999) 1 1 exf6 gxf6 12 ..th6 �e7 (W.Stem-D.Konca, correspondence 1989) 13 .l:.ad1 ! e5 14 l2Jh4! (the best square for the knight, ruling out defen­sive ideas based on . . . f5) 14 . . . t2Jc6 15 f4. s t2Jf3 ..tcs

8 ... ..tb4+? 9 c3! dxc3? loses to 10 'ifa4+ l2Jc6 11 ..txc6+ bxc6 12 'ifxb4.

White was better in K.Chorfi­C.Rocq, correspondence 1991, follow­ing 8 . . . 'iia5+?! 9 ..td2 �6 10 0-0! l2Jc6 (10 . . . 'ifxb2? 1 1 l:.b1 'ifxa2 12 l:.xb7! ) 1 1 c3 dxc3 12 ..txc3 ..td7 13 l2Jg5! ..te7 14 l2Jxh7 g6 15 t2Jf6+ ..txf6 16 exf6 0-0-0 17 'ifd6!, preventing . . . 'iic7. 9 o-o t2Jc6 10 a31

10 . . . as It is favourable for White to insert

the moves a2-a3 and . . . a7-a5. Black can­not allow the advance b2-b4, and White is clearly better after 10 .. .'ii'c7 1 1 b4 �b6 1 2 l:te1 �d7 1 3 �b2 0-0-0 14 .:tel �b8 15 c4! dxc3 16 l'lxc3. 11 b31? �d7 12 �b2 'ii'b6 13 'ii'd3

13 c3!? dxc3 14 �xc3 l:r.d8 15 lt::ld2! 0-0 16 lt::lc4 was agreed drawn in N.Gavrilakis-N.Skalkotas, Greek Ch., Serres 1990, but I don't understand why. White can continue the fight, and he is in control after 16 . . . 'ii'c7 17 'ii'g4! b5 18 lt::ld6 b4 19 axb4 axb4 20 �b2. 13 ... h6

After 13 . . . g6?! 14 'ii'd2! the new weaknesses on the dark squares are felt. 14 llad1 0-0 15 'ii'e2! llfd8 16 �d3 �e8 17 'ife4 g6 18 �c1 �f8 19 'ii'h4

White has a strong attack, M.Wahls­U.Kersten, Binz 1994.

82) s ... fs 6 exf61 lt::lxf6 7 lt::lgf3 �d61

7 . . . c5! ? is a very interesting idea that must be taken seriously. Instead of moving the f8-bishop Black immedi-

3 . . .tiJj6 4 es lbe4 a n d 4 . . . lbg8

ately starts to attack White's centre. If White takes on c5 then the bishop will be developed in one go. 8 iie2! is a strong novelty, trying to benefit from the fact that the bishop isn't yet devel­oped.

For example, 8 . . . lt::lc6 (8 . . . c4? 9 �f5 lt::lh5 10 lt::lfl ! is clearly better for White, as is 8 . . . �d6?! 9 dxc5 �xeS 10 lt::lb3 �d6 11 lt::lbd4 'ii'e7 12 lt::lb5! ) 9 0-0! (White continues to ignore . . . c4) 9 . . . c4! ? (9 . . . lt::lxd4 10 lt::lxd4 cxd4 l l lt::lb3) 10 �f5 'iVe7 1 1 �h3 g5! 12 lt::lxg5 lt::lxd4 13 'ii'd1 h6! 14 lt::lgf3 lt::lc6 15 l'le1 and White has the initiative. 8 0-0

8 c4! ? is another possibility. 8 ... 0-o 9 .:te1 cs 10 dxcs

Now that the bishop has already moved, this capture gains a tempo. 10 ... �xcs 11 lt::lb3

11 ... .txf2+1 This is Black's strongest continua­

tion: it is underrated by theory and demands extremely accurate play by White.

White is better after 1 l . . .�d6?! 12 lt::lbd4 lle8 13 �g5 lt::lc6 14 lt::lxc6 bxc6 15

1 6 9

Ho w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

c4 J:.b8 16 cxd5 cxd5 (H.Abdala­M.Silva, correspondence 2001) 17 lDe5!, as 17 . . . l:txb2? loses to 18 i.xh7+ 'iii>xh7 19 i.xf6 'iVxf6 20 'ifh5+.

White obtains a small advantage af­ter l l . . .i.b6 12 lDbd4 lDc6! (12 . . . lDg4 ?! 13 c3! "iff6 14 "ifc2 e5 15 i.g5 ii'd6 16 h3 is clearly better for White) 13 c3 1i'd6 (V.Anand-S.Mariotti, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988) 14 h3! . 12 'iii>xf2 1i'b6+ 13 lDbd4!

After 13 'iii>e2 e5! 14 i.e3, theory only mentions 14 . . . d4? 15 lDbxd4! exd4 16 i.c4+ 'iii>h8 17 1i'xd4 which is clearly better for White. However, 14 . . . "ifc7! is a new idea, and Black is fine following 15 'iii>fl e4 16 'iii>gl i.g4! 17 i.e2 exf3 18 i.xf3 i.xf3 19 1i'xf3 1i'xc2! 20 i.c5 .l::t£7 21 .l:tacl 1i'g6 22 'iVxd5 lDa6 23 1i'd4 lDxc5 24 lDxc5 b6. 13 ... e5

If 13 . . . lDc6, 14 c3 e5 15 1i'b3! reaches a slightly better ending for White after 15 . . . 1i'xb3 16 lDxb3 e4 17 i.fl exf3 18 gxf3 because of his bishop pair. 14 i.xh7+! 'iii>xh7 15 lDxe5 lDc6 16 lDexc6 bxc6 17 'iii>g1 'iii>g8! 18 c3 c5 19 lDf3 i.f5 20 ..tg5

1 70

Overall White is better, but the e4 outpost does give Black some compen­sation for the pawn.

83) 4 ... lDe4 5 i.d3 ltJxd2 6 i.xd2

6 ... c5 After 6 . . . b6 White can avoid the

trade of bishops with 7 c3 ii'd7 8 lDe2! i.a6 9 i.c2 c5 10 0-0 lDc6 1 1 �el l (White is ready to move the knight) and now:

a) l l . . .i.e7 12 dxc5!? bxc5 13 lDf4 g6 (or 13 . . . 0-0 14 'iih5 g6 [if 14 . . . h6 then 15 lDg6! fxg6 16 1i'xg6 .l:!.f5 17 i.xf5 exf5 18 i.xh6] 15 ifu6 with a strong attack ac­cording to Geller) 14 1i'g4 l:.b8 15 b3 .l:!.b6 16 .l:tadl 1i'c7 17 1i'g3 i.f8 18 h4! i.g7 19 lDh5 i.xe5 20 i.f4 (White sacri­fices a pawn to exchange Black's best piece) 20 . . . i.xf4 21 lDxf4 lDe7 22 'iVg5 0-0 23 'ifh6 lDc8 24 h5 and Black re­signed in E.Geller-N.Skalkotas, Athens 1988 - the only problem for White is which piece to sacrifice on g6 to force mate!

b) ll . . . i.xe2! 12 1i'xe2 cxd4 (12 . . . c4 13 f4 g6 14 b3 lDa5 15 g4 i.h6 16 'iii>hl 0-0-0 17 l:tfl 'iii>b8 18 :f3 i.g7 19 f5 was clearly better for White in G.Simms-

G.Hardman, correspondence 1991 ) 13 c4! (this is the idea that Geller had in mind) 13 . . . dxc4 (White is better after 13 . . . ti:Jb4 14 if..b3! d3 1S 'iff3 aS - or 1S . . . ti:Jc2? 16 cxdS - 16 cxdS ti:JxdS 17 'ifxd3 if..cS 18 l:tad1 0-0 19 if..c2 g6 20 if..gS) 14 'ifxc4 a6 1S .l:tacl! bS (1S . . . aS? loses to 16 if..a4 if..cS 17 'ifbs l:tc8 18 a3! and b4) 16 'ifb3 l:tc8 (16 . . . if..e7? 17 if..e4 .:c8 18 'ifg3 0-0 19 if..h6 wins the ex­change) 17 a4! and White has a strong initiative for the pawn. 7 dxcsl

7 • • • ti:Jc6 7 . . . if..xcS?! is dubious because White

can immediately start his attack with 8 'ifg4! . Then 8 . . . g6 (8 . . . 'ifb6? 9 'ifxg7 if..xf2+ 10 We2! .:f8 1 1 if..h6 if..cS 12 'ifxh7 wins the exchange; 8 . . . Wf8 9 ti:Jf3 tDc6 10 h4) 9 ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 10 0-0 fS (10 . . . 'ii'c7 1 1 l:lfe1 if..d7 12 .ltgS was good for White in A.Peredun­G.Milicevic, Toronto 200S) 1 1 'ifg3 'ifb6 12 a3 aS 13 l:tab1 ..tf8 14 .lte3 'ii'c7 1S l:!.fe1 if..g7 16 if..cS! was clearly better for White in N.Rebaudo-J.Nepper, Internet 2000.

7 . . . 'ii'c7 8 ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 9 0-0 if..xcS 10 'ii'e2

3 . . .li:'.f6 4 es lDe4 a n d 4 . . . 4J g B

f6 1 1 exf6 gxf6 12 c4! was good for White in H.lngersol-M.Decker, corre­spondence 1991 .

7 . . . ti:Jd7!? is interesting, intending . . . ti:JxcS followed by exchanging White's best piece on d3. After 8 ti:Jf3 ti:JxcS, keeping the bishop with 9 if..e2! is the easiest way to secure an advan­tage .

For example: a) After 9 . . . 'ifb6 10 0-0! if..d7 (White

has a winning advantage following 10 . . . 'i'xb2? 1 1 l:tb1 1i'xa2 12 if..c3 iVa3 13 if..b4 iVa2 14 'ii'cl ! d4 1S if..bS+ ti:Jd7 16 if..xf8 .l:txf8 17 ti:Jxd4 'ifdS 18 .l:td1 ! 'i'xeS 19 if..xd7+ if..xd7 20 l:txb7) 1 1 c4! (the basic plan in these positions) 1 l . . .dxc4! ( 11 . . . 'i'xb2 is risky, and White has the initiative after 12 cxdS exdS 13 if..e3 if..a4 14 'i'e1 if..c6 1S ti:Jd4 ti:Je6 16 'ii'd1 ti:Jxd4 17 if..xd4 'ifa3 18 if..hS! if..d7 -18 . . . g6? ! 19 e6! - 19 .l:.cl ! if..e7 20 .l:.c7) 12 if..xc4 if..c6! ? (12 . . . if..bS 13 'ii'c2 if..xc4 14 'i'xc4 was better for White in N.Delgado-J.Sequera Paolini, Santa Clara 2003) 13 if..e3 'ii'xb2 14 ti:Jd4 if..d7 1S l:tb1 'ii'c3 16 iVe2 White's initiative justifies the pawn deficit.

1 71

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

b) 9 . . . i£.e7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 i£.e3 4:'la4 (ll . . . b6 12 a4! ? i£.d7 13 c4! dxc4 14 i£.xc4 i£.c6 1S 4:'ld4 ii.dS 16 ii.xdS 'ii'xdS 17 lL'lfS is slightly in White's favour, K.Rovid­G.Portisch, Hungarian League 1993) 12 i..d4 i..d7 13 b3 lL'lcS 14 c3 'ii'c7 1S .l:t.cl bS 16 b4 4:'la4 17 i..d3 fS 18 exf6 gxf6 (Pfretzschner-Zach, German League 1994) and here 19 lL'lgS! ! wins.

For example: 19 .. .fxgS 20 i..xh7+ 'it>xh7 21 'ii'hS+ 'it>g8 22 'ii'g6 mate; 19 . . . i..c8 20 i..xh7+ 'it>g7 21 'ii'g4; and finally 19 .. .fS 20 'ii'hS i..xgS 21 'ii'xgS+ 'it>f7 22 i..xfS! exfS 23 'ii'f6+ 'it>e8 24 l:.ce1 +.

c) 9 . . . i..d7 10 0-0 i..e7 1 1 i..e3 0-0 ( 11 . . .'ii'c7! - accurately preventing 4Jd4 - 12 ltcl bS 13 lte1 0-0 14 c3 a6 1S i..fl l:.ac8 was M.Pastircak-V.Anceschi, Reggio Emilia 1989, and here 16 i..f4 offers White a slight advantage) 12 4Jd4! 'ii'c7 13 f4 a6 14 c4! ? dxc4 1S i..xc4 4:'la4 16 'ii'e2 .l:t.ac8?! 17 l:.acl 'ii'b8 18 b3 lL'lcS 19 a4 g6 20 'it>h1 .l:lfd8 21 aS bS 22 axb6 'ii'xb6 23 fS! exfS (23 . . . gxfS? 24 'ii'hs i..f8 2S lL'lxfS!) 24 e6! i..e8 (24 .. .fxe6 2S lL'lxfS! gxfS 26 l:hfS) 2S b4 'ii'xb4 26 exf7+ i..xf7 27 i..xf7+ 'itxf7 28 lL'lxfS gxfS

1 7 2

29 ltxfS+ 'it>g7 30 i£.h6+ and Black re­signed in G.Ligterink-K.Pytel, Le Havre 1977 - a superb game. 8 lL'lf3 i..xcs 9 o-o

9 . . . i..d71? 9 . . . 0-0? allows the Greek gift: 10

i£.xh7+! 'it>xh7 1 1 lL'lgS+ 'iitg6 12 'ii'g4 lL'lxeS 13 'ii'g3 and White wins. 9 . . . 'ii'b6?! plays into White's hands: 10 .l:.b1 i..d7 11 b4 i..e7 12 a4 a6 13 aS 'ii'c7 14 'ii'e2 f6 1S exf6 i£.xf6 16 lL'lgS! 'iite7 17 4:'lxh7 4:'ld4 18 'ii'hs i..bS 19 'ii'g6 l:tag8 20 l::tfe1 and White was winning in G.Hoffman­D.Petrie, correspondence 2001 . 9 . . . h6?! intending kingside castling is also in­adequate, and 10 a3! 0-0 11 b4 i..b6 12 'ii'e2 fS 13 exf6 'ii'xf6 14 c4! was better for White in B.Parma-Y.Mashian, Reg­gio Emilia 1970.

9 . . . 'ii'c7 is Black's other logical con­tinuation, but 10 'ii'e2! ? lbd4 1 1 lLlxd4 i..xd4 12 l:tae1 ! i..xb2 (A.Da Silva Filho­O.Ferreira, Brazil 2002) 13 i..b4! i..c3 14 i..d6 gives White a very strong attack. For example, 14 . . . 'ii'd8! (14 . . . 'ii'aS? loses after 1S i..bS+ i..d7 16 ..txd7+ 'iitxd7 17 l::tb1 'ii'a6 18 'ii'f3) 1S l::tb1 a6 16 'ii'g4! g6 17 'ii'f3 fS 18 l::tb3 i..aS (18 . . . d4? 19 l::txb7!

i.xb7 20 'ii'xb7 wins for White) 19 c4

i.c7 (19 . . . dxc4? 20 i.xc4 threatens :txb7) 20 c5! i.xd6 21 exd6 'ii'a5 22 'ii'e3 0-0 23 f4 'ii'xa2 24 l:Hb1 and despite the two-pawn deficit White enjoys a clear advantage, as Black can hardly breathe. 10 C3 1

10 ... h6 10 .. . a5 11 :tel h6 12 'ii'e2 Wb6 13

:tabl 0-0 14 i.c2 f6 15 exf6 ltxf6 16 i.e3 i.e8 17 i.xc5 'ii'xc5 18 'ii'e3 'ii'xe3 19 l:.xe3 �f8 20 libel cJi;e7 2l lLJe5 lLJxe5 22 .l:txe5 was slightly better for White in J.Goeth-D.Konca, correspondence 1992. 11 b41? i.b6 12 a4 a6 13 b5 axbs?l

The opening of the a-file is in White's favour. 13 . . . lt:Ja5! was best, al­though White still preserves a strong

3 . ..CiJf6 4 es 0.e4 a n d 4 . . . 0.g8

initiative after 14 lt:Jd4! 'ii'c7 15 bxa6 bxa6 16 'ii'g4! 'ii'xe5 17 l1ae1 'ii'f6 18 lt:Jf5. 14 axb5 l:txa1 15 'ii'xa1 lt:Jas 16 'ii'a41 i.cs?l

16 . . . 0-0!? would keep White's ad­vantage to a minimum. 17 l:i.a1! b6 18 'ii'g4 �8 19 .l:ta41

White will bring the rook into the attack via f4 and has a clear advantage. The game V.Akopian-I.Naumkin, Vil­nius 1988, concluded 19 . . . lt:Jb3 20 l:.a7! lt:Jxd2 21 lt:Jxd2 i.e8 22 lt:Jb3! Wb8 23 'ii'a4 i.e7 24 f4! g5 25 lLJd4! i.c5 26 cJi;hl ltg8 27 lt:Jc6! 'ii'c8 28 .l:ta8! 'ii'd7 29 .l:td8 Wb7 30 .l:tb8 'ii'd7 31 .l:td8 Wb7 32 :tb8 'ii'd7 33 'ii'a8! and Black resigned as there is no defence to the threats 34 l1d8 or 34 l1b7.

1 73

C h a pte r Fo u rtee n

3 . . . lbf6 4 e s lbfd 7 s .i.d 3 : B lack P lays . . . b6

1 e4 e6 2 d 4 ds 3 lt:Jd2 4:Jf6 4 e s 4:Jfd7 s i.d3 C5 6 C3 b6

6 . . . b6 is a very logical and positional continuation. Black exchanges his 'bad' bishop, the piece that creates most of his problems in this opening. On the other hand, this exchange loses valu­able time and Black also lacks protec­tion on the light squares. He must be very careful not to allow White to open the position with the pawn breaks c3-c4 or f4-f5, as then White's advantage in development will often play a deci­sive role.

Black can also try the immediate 5 . . . b6, but after 6 lt:Jh3! i.a6 7 i.xa6 lt:Jxa6 8 0-0 he will sooner or later be obliged to play . . . cS, and here White has the option of playing c2-c4 in one go, saving a tempo on c2-c3-c4. 7 4:Jh3!

This is the strongest continuation. The knight heads for f4 to exert pres­sure on the dS- and e6-pawns now that there's no longer a light-squared

1 74

bishop to protect them. Development via the h3-square is better than e2 be­cause the white queen can jump to g4 at an appropriate moment. 7 ... i.a6 8 i.xa6 4:Jxa6 9 o-o

Here we will analyse:

A: g . . . i.e7?1 a: g . . . bs?J C: 9 . • . 4:Jc71

Alternatively: a) 9 . . . 4:Jab8?! can be met by 10 c4! .

3 . . . l0f6 4 e5 l0fd 7 5 il. d3 : B lack Plays . . . b 6

b ) 9 . . . cxd4?! releases the tension very early and renounces any plans involving the space-gaining advance . . . c4. After 10 cxd4 tt::lb4 1 1 f4! g6! ? 12 tt::lf3 'ii'c8 13 a3 'ii'a6 14 f5! gxf5 15 tt::lfg5 (threatening 'ii'h5) 15 . . . h5 (B.Colias­A.Sandrin, Chicago 1987) 16 tt::lxf7! �xf7 17 tt::lg5+ �e7 18 axb4! 'ii'xa1 19 ttJxe6 is crushing, since 19 . . . �xe6? loses to 20 'ii'c2.

c) 9 . . . 'ii'c8? ! 10 'ii'g4 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 'ii'c2 12 tt::lf4 h5 13 'ii'g3 'iif5 14 a3 0-0-0 15 'ii'd3 'ii'xd3 16 tt::lxd3 �b7 17 tt::lf3 i..e7 18 i..g5! (this is a common idea: whereas Black has. expended consider­able time exchanging his bad bishop, White can offer to trade his own bad bishop at once)

18 . . . f6 19 exf6 gxf6 20 i..f4 tt::lf8 21 llfe1 and White was better in E.Van Beers-G.Mainka, German League 2004.

d) 9 . . . 'ii'c7?! 10 'ii'g4 tt::lab8 1 1 tt::lf3 tt::lc6 12 tt::lf4 0-0-0 13 i..d2 g6 14 h4 lLldb8 15 l::r.fcl ! (White is ready to attack with c3-c4) 15 . . . c4 16 b3 tt::la5 17 :Z.cb1 lLlbc6 18 ltJh3 tt::le7 (E.Andreev-A.She­meakin, Alushta 1997) 19 i..g5! h6 20 i.f6 l:tg8 21 tt::ld2 and White is on top.

e) 9 . . . h5?! is a crazy way to prevent 'ii'g4, and White obtained a clear ad­vantage in O.Komeev-M.Ceccarini, Lodi 2005, after 10 tt::lf3 i..e7 11 i.g5! tt::lc7 12 l:.e1 b5 13 a4 a6 14 'iid2 c4 15 'ii'f4.

A) 9 . . . i..e7?1 I don't like this move as it gives

White an easy target (g7) and it also helps White to achieve the exchange of the dark-squared bishops with i..g5 at an appropriate moment. 10 'iig41

10 . . . g6 10 . . . 0-0?! is brave but unwise - in

this variation the black king is gener­ally safer in the centre. White gains the advantage after 1 1 ltJf3 tt::lc7 12 i.h6 ltJe8 13 tt::lhg5! i.xg5 14 i.xg5 'ii'c7! ? (14 . . . 'ii'c8 15 i.e7 f5 16 'ii'h4 l:tf7 17 tt::lg5 was winning for White in D.Sermek­I.Balinov, Finkenstein 1992) 15 l:tfel . 11 ltJf3 h61

Alternatives are good for White: l l . . . 'ii'c7?! 12 i.g5!; 1 l . . .ltJc7 12 i.h6! i.f8 13 i..xf8 �xf8 14 ltJf4 c4 15 h4 h5 16 'ii'h3 lbb8 17 tt::lg5!, Z.Siklosi-V.Lisik,

1 75

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

Kecskemet 1992; 1 l . . .h5 12 'iig3 t"Dc7 13 .ig5 .ixg5 14 ti'Jfxg5 'iie7 15 li'Jf4 0-0-0 16 h4, V.Spasov-V.Dragiev, Plovdiv 1999; and finally 1 l . . . cxd4 12 cxd4 h6 13 .id2 l:tc8 14 l:tfcl ti'Jab8 15 .l:i.xc8 'iixc8 16 li'Jf4, when Black has continuous problems with e6 and g6 as a knight sacrifice is always in the air, J.Benjamin-K.Miiller, Mermaid Beach 1998. 12 t"Df4

12 • • • h5t Black's king should stay in the cen­

tre. 12 . . . ti'Jf8 13 b3 'iid7 14 .ie3 0-0-0 15 a4! gave White a strong attack in V.Simagin-G.Goldberg, USSR 1955. 13 'ii'h3

This is stronger than 13 'ii'g3?! g5. 13 ••• ti'Jf8 14 .l:i.d1 'ii'd7 15 'ii'g3 0-0-0 16 h4 cxd4 17 cxd4 'it>b7 18 t"Dh3 t"Dh7 19 tLlhg5 tLlxg5 20 .ixg5 .l:tc8 21 .l:i.ac1 tLlb4 22 a3 tLlc6 23 'ii'f4 .ixg5 24 tLlxg5 l:thf8 25 l:.c3 'ii'e7

Now in the game D.Pavasovic­A.Rodriguez Vila, Pinamar 2002, White could have gained a decisive advan­tage with 26 b4! f6 (if 26 . . . .l:i.c7 27 .l:i.f3) 27 exf6 'ii'xf6 28 'ii'd2.

1 7 6

B) g . . • b5?1

This is often played, but Black doesn't yet have the time to start a queenside offensive as he is undevel­oped. 10 a4!

I think this is the most efficient way to exploit Black's inaccuracy. 10 ••• b4

10 . . . cxd4 hasn't been tried yet, but it's a typical move. After 1 1 axb5! dxc3 12 bxc3 we have:

a) 12 . . . tLlc7 13 c4! tLlxe5 14 'ii'e2 promises White a dangerous initiative: for example, 14 . . . tLlg6!? (or 14 . . . tLlxc4 15 tLlxc4 dxc4 16 .l:.d1 tLld5 17 'ii'xc4 'ii'c8 18 'ii'g4 tLlc3 19 .l:i.d3 tLlxb5 20 1L.b2 and Black is in big trouble despite the extra two pawns) 15 1L.b2! (White mustn't allow the f8-bishop to develop) 15 . . . dxc4 16 tLlxc4 tLlxb5 17 l:tfd1 ! 'ii'c7 18 Itacl and White is winning - his tremendous development would even have made Morphy smile!

b) 12 . . . tLlac5! is the best defence, as Black must find counterplay. After 13 'ii'e2 .ie7 14 c4 tLlb6 15 lLlf4 0-0 16 l:.d1 ! dxc4 (if 1 6 . . . .ig5 there follows 17 lLlh5!

3 . . .tuj6 4 es liJfd 7 5 iL d3 : B lack Plays . . . b 6

g6 18 ..lta3) 1 7 l2'lxc4 'ii'c7 18 l2'ld6 Black should continue with 18 . . . l2'lc8! keeping White's advantage under control. In­stead 18 . . . l:tfd8? loses to 19 lLJhS! ..ltxd6 20 exd6 .:xd6 21 i.f4 ktxd1+ 22 l:txd1 'i+'c8 23 'ifg4, and 18 . . . !Iad8 19 ..lte3! l2Jcd7 20 lLJhS g6 21 i.h6 gxhS 22 .:ta3! also wins for White. 11 c41 l2'lc7!

1 l . . .l2'lb6 12 'ii'e2 l2'lc7 13 dxcS ..ltxcS was played in D.Sermek-A.Budnikov, Vienna 1991, and here 14 aS! l2'lxc4 (or 14 . . . l2Jd7 1S .:.d1 0-0 16 l2'lb3 and l2'lf4) 1S l2'lxc4 dxc4 16 .:.d1 'irb8 17 'iixc4 'irbs 18 'ii'g4 gives White a strong initiative. 12 l2'lf4

12 • • • dxc41 12 . . . l2'lb6 13 dxcS ..ltxcS (13 . . . l2Jxc4?!

14 l2'lxc4 dxc4 1S 'iif3! and .:.d1 ) 14 'ii'g4 g6 1S cxdS lLJcxdS 16 l2'le4 ..lte7 17 l2'lxe6! fxe6 was G.Petraitis-U.Baumgardt, cor­respondence 2001, and here 18 aS! l2Jc4 19 b3 lLJxeS 20 'ii'xe6 is very good for White. 13 l2Jxc4 l2'lb6 14 l2Jxb6 axb6 15 ..lte3 lLlds 16 'ii'e2 l2Jxf4 17 ..ltxf4 l:tas 18 dxcs

(M.Oleksienko-A.Hermanov, Lvov 2003) White maintains the initiative

after 18 . . . bxcS 19 .l:.fd1 'ii'c7 20 .l:.d3, as 20 . . . i.e7 allows 21 l1g3 g6 22 ..lth6.

C) 9 • • . l2'lc7! 10 l:te11

This is the best move in my opinion. White prevents any ideas based on .. .fS and clears the fl-square for his knight. That said, in many lines the knight re­mains on d2 to support (in conjunction with the e1 -rook) the idea of c3-c4. Fi­nally, now that the pawn on eS is pro­tected White can sometimes consider dxcS.

I don't like 10 'ii'g4 because of 10 .. .fS ! . This move has been played by the great Artur Yusupov and it has been shown that White can hardly achieve anything more than a symbolic edge. 10 • • • ..Ite7

Alternatively: a) lO .. .fS? is met by 1 1 exf6! 'ii'xf6

(1l . . .lZ:lxf6? 12 l2'lgS) 12 c4! : for example, 12 . . . ..1te7 (12 . . . dxc4 13 dS! lLJxdS 14 lLlxc4 is terrible for Black; 12 . . . 'ii'xd4 is met by 13 lLJgS; and 12 . . . cxd4 loses to 13 cxdS lZ:lxdS 14 'iWhS+ <it;d8 1S lLlgS) 13 l2'lf3 dxc4 (13 . . . 0-0 14 ..ltf4) 14 ..tgS 'iif7 1S

1 7 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

i..f4 tLld5 16 tLlfg5 i..xg5 17 tbxg5 'ikxf4 18 tbxe6 and White wins.

b) 10 . . . 'ii'h4? is also bad, as the black queen will feel uncomfortable on h4: 1 1 tbe4! i..e7 (11 . . .dxe4? 1 2 i..g5) 12 tLld6+ Wf8 13 'W'f3 with a winning position for White.

c) 10 .. . b5?! 11 tDfl aS 12 'W'g4 .l:.a6 13 i..g5 'W'c8 14 tbg3 c4 15 tbh5 h6 16 i..h4 g6 17 tLlf6+ tbxf6 18 i..xf6 l:tg8 19 tLlf4 Wd7 20 b3 is clearly in White's favour, M.Kuspiel-M.Carl, correspondence 1991 .

d) 10 . . . c4? ! closes the queenside very early but this gives White the op­tion of breaking the pawn chain quickly with b2-b3, especially as the white knight is still on d2.

White obtained a clear advantage in S.Martinovic-M.Despotovic, Smeder­evska Palanka 1981, after 1 1 Wg4! b5 12 b3! tLlb6 13 tLlf4 g6 14 bxc4 bxc4 15 a4! (intending to disturb the black knight on b6, and also preparing the exchange of the dark-squared bishops with i..a3) 15 . . . a5 16 g3 Wd7 17 Wd1 i..e7 18 h4 h5 19 tLlf3 Wc6 20 i..a3 i..xa3 21 .l:.xa3 tbd7? (21 . . .tbc8 intending . . . tbe7-f5 was essen-

1 7 8

tial) 22 tbg5 .l:tb8 23 Wc2 :tg8 24 l:tb1 .l:.xb1 + 25 'ii'xb1 'ii'b6 26 Wcl . 11 tLlf1

11 ... c4!? 1 1 . . .h5?! 12 tLlf4 g6 13 c4! cxd4 14

cxd5 i..b4 15 dxe6 tbxe6 16 tbxe6 fxe6 17 i..d2 ii..e7 18 'ii'a4 0-0 19 'ii'c4! was clearly better for White in A.Gutsko­A.Maiko, Kharkov 2005.

l l . . . tLlb8?! 12 'ii'g4 .l:.g8 13 tLlg5 1i..xg5 14 ii..xg5 'ii'd7 15 tbg3 tbc6 16 tbh5 tbe7 17 ii..xe7 Wxe7 was R.Csoma­T.Schreiter, correspondence 1990, and here 18 dxc5!? bxc5 19 l:te3 intending l:tg3 looks very promising for White. 12 'ii'g4 g6

12 . . . 0-0 13 i..h6 tbe8 14 .l:.e3 Wh8 15 ii..gS is good for White. 13 1i..h6 1i..f8 14 1i..xf8 .l:.xf8

After 14 . . . Wxf8 White attacks on the kingside with 15 .l:te3!? . 15 b3 b5 16 tDe3 'W'e7 17 Wd11

White transfers his operations to the queenside. 17 ... .l:.h81

Black's idea is to quickly connect the rooks by playing . . . Wf8-g7 before White opens the queenside.

3 . . .tiJj6 4 e 5 l:iJfd 7 5 iL d3 : B lack Plays . . . b 6

18 a4

White enjoys a strong initiative. The game V.Jansa-M.Despotovic, Smeder­evska Palanka 1979, continued: 18 ••• a6 19 axb5 axb5 20 lba8+ tt:Jxa8 21 bxc4 bxc4

It seems that Black is only one move away - castling kingside - from a fine position. But remember that this is im­possible as he has already moved the rook! 22 'ii'a1 lt:Jdb6?!

I don't like this move as it weakens the f6-square. Better was 22 . . . lt:Jab6 23 l:tb1 'iti>f8 24 'ii'a7 'ii'd8 25 lt:Jf4, with an initiative for White. 23 lt:Jg4 'ittf8 24 lle3 'iti>g7 25 'ii'c1 lt:Jd7 26 llf3 h6!

26 . . . h5? doesn't protect g5 and loses

after 27 tt:Jf6 lt:Jc7 28 lt:Jg5. 27 tt:Jf6 lt:Jc7 28 lt:Jf4 tt:Je81

After 28 . . . l:ta8?? Black is mated with 29 tt:J4h5+ gxh5 30 llg3+ 'iti>f8 31 'i!i'xh6 mate. 29 lt:J4h5+ 'itf8

29 . . . gxh5?? allows mate after 30 .Ug3+ 'iti>f8 31 'ii'xh6+. 30 tt:Jxd7+ 'ii'xd7 31 lt:Jf4 'iti>g8!? 32 'ii'a3 lt:Jg7 33 g4!?

33 . . . h5? Black finally cracks after having to

make so many defensive moves. He should have tried 33 . . . 'iti>h7!? . 34 gxh5 tt:Jxh5

34 . . . g5 35 lt:Jg6! wins on the spot, and 34 . . . gxh5 is met by 35 llg3. 35 tt:Jxg61 fxg6 36 'ii'f8+ 'iti>h7 37 lU7+

and White went on to win.

1 79

C h a pte r F iftee n I 3 . . . ltJf6 4 e s ltJfd 7 5 �d 3 : Li nes without . . . f6

1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 l2Jd2 l2Jf6 4 es l2Jfd7 5 launch a pawn storm on the queenside ..td3 cs 6 c3 l2Jc6 7 l2Je2 with . . . b5, . . . aS and . . . b4. White should

In this chapter we will analyse vari­ous lines where Black avoids playing an early .. .f6. These are:

A: 7 • • • .:tb81? 8: 7 • • • l2Jb6 C: 7 • • . asl? D: 7 . . • cxd4

A) 7 • • • .:tb81? With this move Black is ready to

1 80

react immediately on the other side. 8 0-0 bS 9 f41

White starts a pawn offensive on the kingside. This is the set-up I sug­gest against all lines where Black avoids . . . f6. 9 . . . g6

Alternatively: a) 9 . . . f5 is not a healthy way to stop

the pawn storm. White achieved an advantage in J.Lechner-P.Jirovec, Vi-

3 . . .&Df6 4 es liJfd 7 5 fi.d3 : L i n es with o u t . . . f6

erma 2003, after 10 exf6 tt:lxf6 11 tt:lf3 as he had total control of the important e5-square.

b) After 9 . . . b4 10 tt:lf3 'ii'a5 11 f5 bxc3 12 bxc3 cxd4 13 fxe6! fxe6 14 cxd4 tt:lb4 15 .!Dg5! White was winning in D.Navara-J.Franz, German League 2000.

c) 9 .. .'ii'b6 10 .!Df3 b4 1 1 r.ti>h1 (1 1 £5 .!Ddxe5! reveals the idea of . . . 'it'b6) 1l . . .g6 (1l . . . .i.a6 12 f5 .i.xd3 13 fxe6! fxe6 14 'ii'xd3 'it'b5 was Z.Szabo­L.Bencze, Budapest 1998, and here 15 'ii'e3 is good for White; l l . . . c4 12 .i.c2 g6 13 g4 h5 14 f5! hxg4 15 fxe6 gxf3 16 exd7+ .i.xd7 17 .!Df4 is clearly better for White) 12 c4! dxc4 (12 . . . cxd4 13 cxd5 exd5 14 l:.e1 ! .i.c5 15 f5! gxf5 16 .!Df4 o!De7 17 .!Dg5 is terrible for Black) 13 .i.xc4 cxd4 14 .!Dexd4 .!Dxd4 15 .!Dxd4 .tc5 16 .!Db3 0-0 17 'ii'e2 'ii'c7 18 .!Dxc5 'ii'xc5 19 .i.e3 and White had a clear advantage in I.Radulov-M.Garkov, Elenite 1987. 10 .!Df3 'ii'b6

10 . . . b4 11 c4! .!Db6 12 cxd5 'ii'xd5 13 b3! .i.b7 14 .i.e3 c4 15 .i.xc4 .!Dxc4 16 bxc4 'ii'xc4 17 'ii'd2 'ii'd5 18 l:.acl .i.e7 19 f5! gxf5 20 .!Df4 'ii'd8 21 d5 was crushing for White in M.Smits-S.Lausten, corre­spondence 1999.

10 . . . c4 11 .i.c2 h5 12 'ii'e1 .!Db6 13 1i'g3 'il'c7 14 .!Dg5 .!De7 15 'il'h3 .i.g7 16 b3! cxb3 17 axb3 b4 18 .i.d3 bxc3 (A.Nesterovskaya-A.Maiko, Ordzhonikidze 2004) 19 .i.a3! is very good for White. 11 .i.e3 b4

1 1 . . . .i.a6 12 dxc5!? .i.xc5 13 .!Ded4 b4 14 cxb4 .!Dxb4 15 .i.xa6 .!Dxa6 16 l:.b1 !

'ii'c7 17 a3 0-0 18 b4 i s again very good for White. 12 c41

A strong novelty. 12 • • • cxd4

12 . . . dxc4 13 .i.xc4 .!Da5 14 .i.d3 .tb7 15 l:tcl is better for White . 13 .i.f21 dxc4

13 . . . .i.c5 14 cxd5 exd5 15 .!Del fol­lowed by .!Db3 is definitely in White's favour. 14 .i.xc4 .i.cs 15 .!Dexd4 .!Dxd4 16 .!Dxd4 .i.b7 17 a41 bxa3 18 bxa3 o-o 19 'il'd3 l:.fdB 20 l:.fd1

White has a slight advantage.

B) 7 . . . lDb6 This usually leads to positions ana­

lysed in Line D, as Black should take on d4 as quickly as possible. If Black delays this capture, White will secure the e5-pawn and recapture on d4 with the knight. This capture almost always favours White as he can then use the d4-square. Black cannot release the tension by exchanging knights on d4, as then a route opens for the queen to go to g4.

1 8 1

H o w to Bea t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

8 0-0 i.d7 9 f4 g6 If 9 . . . cxd4 10 lZ'lxd4!, while 9 .. .f5 is

met by 10 exf6 'it'xf6 1 1 lZ'lf3. 10 lZ'lf3 lieS 11 g41?

We must keep in mind this violent way of forcing f4-f5. Black's basic de­fensive idea is to play . . . h5. If this is not possible (because of the answer f4-f5) then White has the advantage. 11 . . . cxd4

White wins after 1 l . . .h5? 12 f5! hxg4 13 fxg6! gxf3 (13 . . .fxg6 14 .ltxg6+ 'l;e7 15 .ltg5 mate) 14 gxf7+ 'l;xf7 15 lhf3+ 'l;g8 16 l:tg3+! .ltg7 17 .ltg5 'it'f8 18 i.f6. 12 lZ'lexd4 i.cs

O.Priebe-H.Moritz, German League 1998) White can now obtain a strong attack with 13 f5! .

c) 7 . . . asl? Black is trying to create play on the

queenside before completing his de­velopment. The drawback is that Black puts no pressure on the centre and thus White is ready to expand with f4-f5. Even so, the idea of . . . aS combined with a well-timed . . . cxd4 and . . . lZ'lb6 is very important.

1 8 2

8 0-0 cxd41 This is the best move: by capturing

early, Black doesn't have to consider a recapture on d4 with the knight. Alter­natively:

a) Closing the centre with 8 . . . c4? is unwise, even against a computer, and 9 i.c2 b5 10 b3! gave White the initiative in Hydra-R.Ponomariov, Bilbao 2005. This game is annotated at the end of the chapter.

b) After 8 . . . 'it'b6 White cannot play f2-f4 so he must continue 'normally' with 9 lZ'lf3. The benefit is that . . . 'it'b6 has left the kingside (and especially the g5-square) unprotected, and White is better after 9 . . . a4 10 l:.e1 ! cxd4 1 1 lZ'lexd4.

c) White obtained a clear advantage in T.Topi Hulmi-O.Salmensuu, Turku 2000, after 8 . . . i.e7 9 f4 g6 10 lZ'lf3 a4 1 1 i.e3 'iia5 12 lZ'lg5 lZ'lf8 13 'l;h1 h5 14 dxc5 .ltxc5 15 i.xc5 'iixc5 16 i.c2 b5 17 lZ'ld4 i.d7 18 lZ'lxc6 .ltxc6 19 a3 lZ'ld7 20 'iid3.

d) 8 . . . a4! ? is consistent, but a pawn storm on the flank cannot succeed without complete development of the

3 . . .lof6 4 es li:Jfd 7 5 iLd3 : L in e s with o u t . . .f6

pieces. White continues 9 f4! and now:

d1) 9 . . . a3 is met by 10 bxa3 ! . White damages his queenside, but this cap­ture is very logical: if Black plays . . . .i.xa3 at any moment White's worst piece will be exchanged; and White is ready to play f4-f5 destroying Black's position. White reached a winning po­sition in N .Seferjan-S.Foisor, Lorca 2001, after 10 . . . c4 1 1 SLc2 1Lxa3 12 fS tlJf8 13 ttJg3 'ifb6 14 ttJf3 'ii'aS 15 1Lxa3 'ii'xa3 16 'ii'd2 .iLd7 17 tlJhS llg8 18 ttJgS exfS 19 iLxfS .iLxfS 20 l:txfS.

d2) 9 . . . g6 10 ttJf3 hS (White was wtnnmg in A.Mijovic-S.Foisor, Obrenovac 2004, after 10 . . . a3 1 1 bxa3 c4 12 1Lc2 1Lxa3 13 ttJgS ttJe7 14 l:tf3 hS 15 llh3 l:tg8 16 'iti>h1 ttJb6 17 ttJh7 l:tg7 18 tlJf6+ 'iti>f8 19 fS! ) 1 1 ttJgS ttJe7 12 c4! (Black has wasted time manoeuvring and White exploits this by opening the position) 12 . . . 'ifb6 13 cxdS ttJxdS 14 'ifi>h1 cxd4 15 ttJxd4! ttJcS (15 . . . 'ii'xd4? 16 tbxf7 l:tg8 17 ttJh6) 16 .i.c4 1Le7 17 fS! left White on top in D.Brandenburg­J.Vogel, Dutch League 2007.

d3) 9 . . . cxd4 10 ttJxd4! ttJxd4 1 1 cxd4 'ifb6 (maybe Black's best is 1 1 . . .ttJb8!?

trying to improve the position of the knight, and 12 ttJf3 .iLd7 left White with a slight advantage in A.Rosandic­V.Macek, Zadar 1995) 12 ttJf3 ttJb8 13 1Lxh7! (D.Belik-J.Jurek, Karvina 1986) 13 . . . g6! 14 1Lxg6 fxg6 15 'ii'c2 ttJc6 16 'ii'xg6+ 'iti>d7 17 SLe3 ttJe7 18 'ii'f6 .l:lg8 19 l:!.acl 'ii'xb2 20 ttJgS and White has a winning attack. 9 cxd4

g • • • ttJb4 Black sometimes tries to combine

. .. aS with an early .. .f6, but this is com­pletely misguided. After 9 . . . f6? 10 ttJf4! ttJdxeS 1 1 dxeS ttJxeS 12 .iLbS+ 'iti>f7 13 ttJc4! ttJxc4 14 1Lxc4 .iLd6 15 ttJxdS bS 16 .iLxbS exdS 17 SLc6 llb8 18 .iLxdS+ SLe6 19 1Lxe6+ 'iti>xe6 20 l:te1+ 'iti>f7 21 'ii'dS+ White soon won in P.Spyropoulos­V.Economou, Ikaros 2000. You cannot play on the flank and in the centre at the same time!

9 . . . 1Le7 10 f4 fS! ? 11 exf6 ttJxf6 12 ttJf3 0-0 13 ttJeS was slightly better for White in K.Miiller-P.Backwinkel, Ger­man League 1995. 10 .iLb1 1Le7 11 f4 g6 12 ttJf3 ttJb6 13 ttJc3 SLd7 14 a3 ttJa6 15 b31?

1 8 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

This is a very interesting idea: White wants to prevent . . . a4 and obtain a lasting advantage. Black chooses to react immediately. 15 ... a4 16 i.d3 11c8 17 i.d2 axb3 18 'Wxb3 i.c6 19 tLJbs

White has a clear edge, A.Sokolov­G.Guggenberger, Bad Wiessee 2006.

D) 1 ... cxd4 8 cxd4 And now:

D1: 8 ... as o2: 8 ... lLJb6

D1) 8 ... as 9 o-o a4 10 f41

1 84

White doesn't lose time playing a2-a3 and plans to organize the thematic f4-f5 break as quickly as possible. However, he must also have in mind a quick lLJc3 targeting the pawn on a4; after . . . a3 he can trade pawns, exchang­ing his bad bishop on c1 and opening the b-file in his favour (he has the bet­ter development to exploit this) . 10 ... g6 11 lLJf3

1 1 g4 ?! is met by 1 1 . . . 'Wh4! . 11 ... lLJb61

The best, keeping an eye on a'4 and preparing . . . i.d7. 1 1 . . .h5 12 lLJc3!? lLJb6 13 i.bS i.d7 14 i.xa4 lLJxa4 15 lLJxa4 lLJxeS 16 fxe5! i.xa4 17 b3 i.b5 18 i.g5 'Wa5 19 l::tf2 seems good for White. 12 a3

Now that Black has accepted some weaknesses on the kingside to prevent f4-f5, White agrees to a concession on the queenside to prevent any . . . lLJb4 and . . . .td7-b5 ideas. 12 ... tLJas 13 i.c2

Attacking a4 and covering b3. 13 ... i.d7 14 lLJc3 lLJac4 15 g4!

This strong move was Gufeld's nov­elty.

3 . . .&iJf6 4 e5 li:Jfd 7 5 il.. d3 : L i n e s with o u t . . . f6

15 ... .te7l Black tries to control g5. 15 . . . h5 16 f5! hxg4? loses to 17 fxg6!

gxf3 18 gxf7+. This idea works now because Black's bishop and queen do not allow the king to escape to the queenside via d7 or d8, and 18 . . . �xf7 19 'ifxf3+ �g8 20 Wf7 is mate.

White gained a clear advantage in E.Gufeld-V.Pupols, Las Vegas 2002, after 15 . . . 'ifc7 16 f5 gxf5 (16 . . . ll'lxa3 17 fxe6! .txe6 was R.Ducic-M.Sprecic, Neum 2002, and here 18 l:.xa3! .txa3 19 ll'lb5 is good for White; in this line 17 . . . fxe6 18 .i.d3 ll'lac4 19 ll'lg5 gives White a strong attack) 17 gxf5 l:g8+ 18 �h1 h6 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 ll'lg5!, as 20 . . . hxg5? loses to 21 'ii'h5+ �d8 22 'ii'h7.

16 'ith11 White prepares the pawn break a

little more. As it is not easy for Black to improve his position, there is no need to hurry. 16 • • • hs

Black chooses to react immediately, as waiting moves would allow White to improve his position further.

17 fs exfs 17 . . . hxg4? 18 fxg6 gxf3 19 'ii'xf3 .i.c6

20 'ifxf7+ �d7 21 'ifxe6+! �c7 22 .:tf7 l:.e8 23 .i.g5 ll'lc8 24 g7 wins for White according to Geenen. 18 gxfS

18 . . . gxf5!? was played in M.Geenen­P.Giulian, correspondence 2002, and here 19 ll'le2! (intending ll'lg3) 19 . . . h4 20 l:g1 'ifc7!? 21 ll'lf4 0-0-0 (2l . . .Wc6!? 22 l:b1 ! ) 22 l:.g7 l:df8 23 b3! axb3 24 .txb3 'ii'c6 25 a4! .tb4 26 .:tb1 would give White a strong initiative.

Keeping the bishop is wise, as its exchange would allow White's queen to join the attack after 18 . . . -tx£5 19 .tx£5 gx£5 20 'ifc2 Wd7 21 ll'lg5.

D2) s • • • ll'lb6 9 o-o Now we will look at:

D21: g . • • .td7 D22: g . . • asll

Alternatives are weaker: a) 9 . . . .te7?! 10 £4 g6 11 ll'l£3 .i.d7 12

g4! . Now that the bishop is on d7, Black's king cannot escape to the

1 8 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

queenside and the idea of g2-g4 be­comes very dangerous. Another impor­tant reason to wait for . . . i..d7 before playing g2-g4 is that all the exchanges on fS render the move . . . i..d7 meaning­less.

Now 12 . . . h5 can be met by 13 fS hxg4 (13 . . . exf5 14 gxfS i..xfS 15 i..xfS gxf5 16 lt:lg3 'Wd7 17 'Wd3 lt:lb4 18 'ii'xfS is also better for White) 14 fxg6 gxf3 15 gxf7+ �f8 (15 . . . �xf7? 16 l:txf3+ �g8 17 l:tg3+ �f8 18 'Wfl +) 16 l:txf3 and White, who already threatens lt:lf4, has a very strong attack. Indeed Black seems to have no defence: for example, 16 . . . i..g5 17 �hl ! (intending 'Wgl) 17 . . . i..xel 18 'Wxel 'Wh4 19 'ii'gl ! lt:le7 20 lt:lf4 l:tc8 21 .U.afl and l:tg3 wins.

b) 9 . . . g6?! weakens the dark squares unnecessarily and White no longer needs to play f2-f4. E.Rozentalis­C.Cuartas, Quebec 2001, continued 10 lt:lf3 h5 1 1 i..gS i..e7 12 'ii'd2 i.d7 13 'Wf4 lt:lb4 14 lt:lel l:tc8 15 a3 lt:lxd3 16 lt:lxd3 i..bS 17 l:tfdl i..xgS 18 lt:lxgS 'ii'e7 19 lt:lcS lt:la4 20 lt:lxa4 i..xa4 21 l:td3 0-0, and here 22 l:tf3! ltc2 23 b3 i..bS 24 l:tel l::tfc8 25 l::txc2 l:txc2 26 h4 would give

1 8 6

White the initiative. c) 9 . . . h5?! is similarly misguided,

and 10 lt:lf3 i..d7 11 i..gS i..e7 12 h4 i..xg5 13 lt:lxgS 'ii'e7 14 l:tel 0-0-0 15 b4! f6 16 bS fxg5 17 bxc6 i..xc6 18 i..bS �b8 19 i..xc6 bxc6 20 hxgS h4 21 lt:lf4 h3 22 'Wg4 was winning for White in M.Ozolin-S.Temirbaev, Perm 1997.

d) 9 . . . lt:lb4 10 i..bl i..d7 11 a3 lt:lc6 12 b4 lt:lc4? 13 lt:lxc4 dxc4 14 lt:lc3 a6 15 l:tel ! lt:le7 16 i..gS h6 17 lt:le4 was win­ning for White in A.Hennings­M.Hoppensack, Ruhla 1957. 12: . . l:tc8 is stronger, but White keeps an advan­tage after 13 i..d3! i..e7 14 i..b2 0-0 15 .:tel f6! 16 lt:lb3! lt:la4 17 i..al 'ii'e8 18 f4.

021) 9 ... i..d7 10 f4

10 . . . g6 Some alternatives: a) Pushing the £-pawn doesn't fit

with this variation, and lO .. .fS?! 1 1 ex£6 'Wx£6 12 lt:lf3 i..d6 13 a3 lt:la5 14 b3 lt:lc8 15 i..d2 lt:lc6 16 lt:leS lt:l8e7 17 i..c3 l:td8 18 b4 left White completely in control in R.Brajovic-M.Veljkovic, Nis 1993.

b) 10 . . . lt:lb4 11 i..bl aS (ll . . .i..bS 12 fS! ) 12 a3 lt:lc6 13 f5! ? exf5 14 i..xf5 i..xf5

3 . . . l£:,f6 4 es !.C,fd 7 5 i&. d3 : L i n e s with o u t . . . f6

1S l:lxfS was B.lvkov-S.Puc, Novi Sad 19SS. Here 1S . . . i.e7! ? protects gS and leaves White slightly better.

c) 10 . . . hS has been wrongly con­demned by theory: 1 1 lt:Jf3 :lc8 12 a3 aS?! (this doesn't fit with . . . :lc8 - the rook would be better placed on a8; 12 . . . a6 13 b3 lt:Ja7 14 g3 g6 1S h3 i.bS 16 g4 is slightly better for White according to Lputian and Tavadian) 13 lt:Jc3 lt:Ja7?! (13 . . . g6 14 h3 h4 1S lt:JbS with the idea of lt:JgS and 'ii'g4 is clearly better for White; best seems to be 13 . . . .1l.e7 14 'ii'e1 intending 'ii'g3 with a small advantage, and if 14 . . . h4?! then 1S g4! hxg3 16 hxg3 with �g2 and :h1 to follow) 14 h3 lt:Jc4?! (14 . . . g6 1S g4 hxg4 16 hxg4 lt:Jc4 17 �g2 and :lh1 is clearly in White's favour; 14 . . . h4 1S lt:JgS i.e7 16 'ii'g4 i.xgS 17 fxgS g6 18 :lf6 is also very good for White) 1S fS! 'ii'b6 16 �h1 i.e7 17 'ii'e1 ! lt:Jxb2 18 i.xb2 'Wxb2 19 lt:JxdS! exdS 20 e6 i.c6 21 exf7+ �f8 22 lt:JeS l:th6 23 'ii'e3! and with :ae1 coming White was winning in S.Lputian­G.Agzamov, Riga 198S.

d) 10 . . . aS 11 lt:Jf3 a4 12 g4! hS (if 12 . . . lt:Jb4, 13 ..tb1 hS 14 fS hxg4 1S lt:JgS) 13 fS hxg4 14 lt:JgS! is a new idea, which is possible now that White has castled and Black has failed to control gS with . . . i.e7. White gains a clear advantage after 14 . . . exfS (14 . . . .1l.e7? 1S lt:Jx£7! �x£7 16 fxe6+ �g8 17 exd7) 1S i.xfS i.xfS 16 ltxfS i.e7!? (16 . . . f6 17 exf6 gxf6 18 lt:Je6 'ii'd7 19 lt:J2f4) 17 lt:Jx£7 'ii'd7 18 :lf1 0-0 19 lt:Jf4! lt:Jd8 20 lt:Jxd8 :laxd8 21 e6 'ii'c7 22 'ii'xg4. 11 lLlf3

1 1 g4?! allows 1 1 . . .'ii'h4! .

11 . . . hsl

Or: a) 1 l . . .:lc8 is met by 12 a3. b) ll . . . aS 12 lt:Jc3 a4 13 g4! hS 14 fS

hxg4 1S fxg6 fS! 16 exf6 'ifxf6 17 i.gS 'ii'g7 18 lt:JbS! (threatening lt:Jc7 mate!) 18 . . . i.e7 19 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 20 lt:Je1 ! 0-0-0 was A.Frolov-C.Daly, Cappelle la Grande 199S, and now 21 :lf7! 'ii'h4 22 'ii'c2 �b8 (22 . . . g3 23 g7! ) 23 g7 :lhe8 (23 . . . :lhg8 24 i.h7!) 24 lt:Jg2 'ii'h3 2S l:.e1 gives White a clear advantage.

c) l l . . . lt:Jb4!? 12 i.b1 i.bS (12 . . . lt:Jc4? 13 b3 lt:Jb6 14 a3 lt:Jc6 1S g4 hS 16 fS! hxg4 17 fxg6 wins for White; 12 . . . .1l.e7 13 a3 lt:Jc6 14 g4! hS 1S fS hxg4 16 fxg6 gxf3 17 gx£7+ �f8 18 lt:Jf4 also wins; 12 . . . aS is met by 13 a3 lt:Jc6 14 i.d3) 13 a3 lt:Jc6 14 :le1 i.xe2 1S 'ii'xe2 aS 16 i.d3 a4 17 i.d2 i.e7 18 .l:.acl 0-0 19 .:tc2 lt:JaS 20 i.xaS! ltxaS 21 :lecl and White was better in S.Tayeb-W.Hook, Thessalo­niki Olympiad 1988. 12 a3

White can also reach the main line via 12 lt:Jc3 lt:Jb4 13 i.b1 aS (13 . . . a6 14 b3 i.e7 1S i.d2 l:.c8 16 a4 .l:tc7 17 lt:Ja2 lt:Jxa2 18 !ha2 lt:Jc8 19 i.d3 �f8 20 'ii'e1

1 8 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

�g7 21 h3 h4 22 �h2 'ii'e8 23 i.b4 is clearly in White's favour, F.Kuijpers­H.Hecht, Bad Aibling 1968) 14 a3 (or 14 lbg5!? i.e7 15 g4!, as played in D.Wilde-U.Krause, Ratzeburg 1997) 14 . . . lbc6 15 i.d3. 12 ... as !

12 . . . lbe7 13 b3 lbf5 14 a4 .l:lc8 15 i.xf5 exf5 16 lbg5 i.e7 17 i.a3 was clearly better for White in A.Abreu­J.Nogueiras, Las Tunas 2001 .

12 . . Jk8!? 13 b3 i.g7 14 ..td2 lbe7?! 15 i.b4 is also good for White, D. Vnukov-H.J arming, correspondence 1999. 13 lbc3 a41

13 . . . ..te7 14 b3 �f8 15 g3 a4 16 b4 lba7 17 lbd2 l:tc8 18 i.b2 'ii'e8 19 'ii'e2 �g7 20 I:tacl f5 21 exf6+ i.xf6 22 lt:lf3 'ii'e7 23 lbe5 i.xe5 24 fxe5 l:tcf8 25 J:tce1 l:txfl + 26 .i:.xfl ltf8 27 .l:!.xf8 'ii'xf8 28 .tel left White in control in S.Tiviakov­C.Daly, Port Erin 1998. 14 'ii'c2!

This is the most testing move, as it immediately gives Black difficult prob­lems to solve. 14 ... .:.gs 15 'ii'f2 lbas 16 'ii'g3

1 8 8

White's idea is to break Black's po­sition with f4-f5. 16 ... ..te71

This is the best move: Black safe­guards the g5-square and threatens . . .h4.

16 . . . l:.c8?! 17 f5 exf5 18 i.g5 ..te7 19 .l:.ae1 i.e6 20 i.b5+ lbc6 21 lbxa4 is good for White, and 16 . . . lbac4?! 17 f5! exf5 18 i.xc4 dxc4 (L.Szabo­O.Troianescu, Szczawno Zdroj 1950) 19 d5 'ii'c7 20 lbgS! is even better. 17 h41

After this White is again ready to play f4-f5 (the immediate 17 f5? ! is met by 17 . . . h4). 17 . . . lbb3

17 . . J:th8?! 18 f5! exf5 19 ..tf4 i.e6 20 lbgS .l:!.g8! 21 lbb5! lbbc4 22 lbd6+ ..txd6 (or 22 . . . lbxd6 23 exd6 ..tf6 24 J:tae1) 23 exd6 'ii'b6 24 ltae1 'ii'xd4+ 25 �h1 0-0-0 26 lbxe6 fxe6 27 lhe6 is clearly better for White, as the pawns on g6 and f5 will fall. 18 l:r.b1

1S ... .:.fsl If 18 . . . l:th8 there follows 19 fS! lbxcl

20 f6! lbxd3 21 fxe7 'ii'xe7 22 lbg5 lbxe5

3 . . . t'i:Jf6 4 es t"i)jd l 5 ,j_ d3 : L i n e s with o u t . . . f6

23 'W'xeS l:tf8 24 �h7. 19 ..te3

19 fS?! �xcl 20 fxe6 �xd3 21 exd7+ 'W'xd7 22 �gS �xeS is unclear. 19 ... ..tc6

19 . . . 'ii'c7! ? 20 fS! gxfS (or 20 ... exfS 21 �bS!, heading for d6) 21 ..th6 0-0-0! (21 . . .l:th8? 22 �bS) 22 ..txf8 l:hf8 may be the lesser evil, although White is still better. He can continue with .l:.f2-c2 and �2-f4, maintaining the pressure. 20 �g51 �c4

20 . . . 1i'd7 21 �xf7! l::tx£7 22 ..txg6 ..tf8 23 fS wins for White. 21 .i.xc4 dxc4 22 l:tbd11

White has a strong initiative: for ex­ample, 22 . . . ..tdS (22 . . . 1i'd7?! 23 lLlxe6! 1i'xe6 24 dS, or 23 . . . fxe6 24 1i'xg6+ 'iitd8 2S fS exfS 26 dS) 23 fS! ? exfS (23 . . . gxfS? 24 lLlh7 l:th8 2S 1i'g7) 24 l:tfe1 intending 2S e6! to open all the lines towards Black's king.

022) g ... asl? This is a serious alternative to

9 . . . ..td7 and has gained many followers in recent years. 10 f4 g61

10 . . .fS?! 11 exf6 gxf6 can be met by 12 fS! ?, as in T.Wessendorf-T.Haub, German League 200S.

White obtained the advantage in Z.Martic-V.Bukal, Porec 1998, after 10 . . . a4! ? 1 1 lLlf3 lLlb4 12 ..tb1 .td7 13 lLlc3 l:taS 14 lLlgS g6 1S a3 lLlc6 16 'iith1 .te7 17 l:tf3 lLlc4 18 l:th3 'W'b6 19 lLle2 lLlxb2 20 .txb2 1i'xb2 21 .tc2 'W'b6 22 lLlxh7. 11 lLlf3 h5 1

This move is more or less forced be­cause every time Black plays . . . .td7, White replies with g2-g4 intending to meet . . . hS with f4-fS. The negative as­pect of . . . hS is that White will have al­ways lLlgS available.

White obtained a clear advantage in D.Zick-W.Lapham, Portland 1991, after 1l . . . .td7 12 g4! lLlb4 (12 . . . hS 13 fS! hxg4 14 fxg6 fS 1S exf6 1i'xf6 16 lLlgS wins) 13 lLlg3! (a difficult choice but a logical one: White simply stops . . . hS and is ready to continue with f4-fS) 13 . . . lLlxd3 14 'iVxd3 ..te7 1S fS 1i'c7?! 16 ..th6 0-0-0 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 lLlgS ..txgS 19 ..txgS l:tdf8 20 1i'a3.

White also gains a clear plus after 1 1 . . . ..te7 12 c;i.Jh1 a4 13 lLlc3 ..td7 14 g4! a3 (14 . . . hS 1S fS hxg4 16 fxg6) 1S bxa3! lLlaS 16 fS lLlac4 (B.Le Roy-Y.Benitah, Aix les Bains 2003) 17 'iVe2 ..txa3 18 ..tgS! .i.e7 19 .i.xe7 1i'xe7 20 fxe6 fxe6 21 lLld2 ..tc6 22 lLlxc4 lLlxc4 (22 . . . dxc4+ 23 ..te4) 23 l:tf6.

Returning to ll . . . hS: This is the basic position of the

9 . . . aS variation. White has many inter­esting ways to continue, and I'll sug­gest a few options.

1 89

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

12 h31? 12 ltJc3 i..d7 13 a3 a4! 14 ii'c2! l:tg8

15 ii'f2 ltJa5 16 ii'g3 is slightly in White's favour, L.Szabo-O.Troianescu, Szczawno Zdroj 1950.

12 a3! ? a4 13 i..c2 i..d7 14 ltJg5 ltJe7 15 l:tf3 i..h6 16 ltJc3 left White with a small advantage in S.Tiviakov-J.Vogel, Hoogeveen 2000, but it is difficult to breach Black's solid position. In the game White's advantage increased af­ter 16 . . . i..c6 17 .l:tb1 'it'd7 18 i..e3 i..xg5?! 19 fxg5 ltJc4 20 i..f2 ltJf5 21 ltJa2 0-0 22 h3. 12 ... h4 13 ttJc3 ! i..d7 14 ttJbs ltJb4 15 fs !? ttJxd3 16 'ir'xd3 gxfs 17 i..gs 'it'b8 18 ttJd6+ i..xd6 19 exd6 'it'xd6 20 .:.ae1

Amazingly, although Black has a two-pawn advantage even the com­puter realizes that White is better! 20 ... <M8

(D.Ilievski-V.Arapovic, Bjelovar 1979) Here 21 ltJxh4! would give White a very dangerous initiative. He already threatens ltJxf5, and it is not easy to find a defence for Black. For example: 2l . . .'iii>g8 22 lle3! .l:th5 23 .l:tg3 'iii>f8 24 'it'f3 .Uh7 25 �e3 and White wins;

1 9 0

21 . . .l:.h7 22 ttJxf5! exf5 23 i..e7+ 'ii'xe7 24 l:txe7 'iii>xe7 25 'ii'a3+ 'iii>d8 26 ii'd6 is good for White; finally 2l . . .ltJc8 is met by 22 ii'e3! ltJe7 23 ltJxf5 ltJxf5 24 l:txf5.

I l lustrative Game

Hydra-R.Ponomariov Man vs. Machine, Bilbao 2005

1 d4 e6 2 e4 ds 3 ltJd2 ttJf6 4 es ttJfd7 s i..d3 cs 6 c3 ttJc6 7 ttJe2 as!? 8 o-o c4?

Ponomariov closes the centre in or­der to reduce the number of concrete variations he has to consider. Although this is an understandable anti­computer strategy, in recent years computers have made considerable progress in handling closed, strategic positions.

In general . . . c4 is 'forbidden' in the French, as Black's main source of play is based on pressure against d4. After . . . c4 White gets a free hand on the kingside, while Black's counterplay on the other side of the board usually ar­rives too late. 9 i..c2 bs 10 b3!

3 . . . li::Jf6 4 es li::Jfd 7 5 � d3 : L in e s with o u t . . . f6

In previous games White had tried to play solely on the kingside, either with pawns (f2-f4) or pieces (tt:)f3, tt:)f4), but 10 b3 is very logical. Since White is better developed and has a safe king, he opens the position in order to empha­size the vulnerability of Black's king. 10 •.. tt:)b6 11 bxc4 bxc4

11 . . .dxc4 has been played in similar positions, but rarely does Black have the chance to exploit d5. After 12 tt:)f4 J.b7 13 .i.e4 White is clearly better as the queen is coming to f3 or g4. 12 l:lb1 �d71?

Ponomariov transfers his king to the safe square c7.

12 . . . .i.e7 13 tt:)f4 l:lb8 14 'ifg4, and 12 . . . .i.d7 13 tt:)f4 tt:)a7 14 'ifg4 g6 15 tt:)f3 ltlb5 16 ltlg5 are both good for White. 13 ltlf4 <j;c7 14 'iff3 .l:tb8

White gets a winning attack after 14 . . . g6 15 ltlh3 'ife7 16 tt:)g5! .i.h6 (16 . . . 'ifxg5 17 ltlxc4) 17 ltlge4! ! dxe4 18 .i.xe4 ltld5 (or 18 . . . .i.b7 19 .:txb6! <j;xb6 20 ltlxc4+ <j;c7 21 .i.xh6) 19 ltlxc4 .i.xcl 20 l:lfxcl .l:.d8 21 ltld6, as noted by Postny. 1s ltlhs1

A very strong move. White pre­pares 'ifg3 and tt:)f3, bringing more pieces into the attack. 15 ... 'ife7 16 l:le1 .i.a6?1

Why this? 16 . . . .i.d7 is more logical. 17 'ifg3 g6?

Black surrenders the f6-square. It was necessary to move the king to a safer place, although after 17 . . . �b7 18 ltlf3 �a7 White is still well in control.

Note that 18 tt:)xg7?? .l:tg8 19 ltlf5 .l:txg3 20 ltlxe7 l:txc3 21 ltlxc6 'ittxc6 would be a simple way for White to commit suicide. When you have a big advantage, do not look for unnecessary tactics! 18 ltlf6 <j;b7? 19 ltlde41

After this stunning move, Black has no defence. 19 ... �a7

Accepting the sacrifice is also hope­less: 19 . . . dxe4 20 d5 tt:)a7 (20 . . . exd5 21 ltlxd5) 21 l:lxb6+! 'ittxb6 22 d6 'W'd8 23 'W'e3+ 'ittb7 24 J.xe4+ ltlc6 25 'ii'c5 'ii'b6 26 'W'xb6+ 'ittxb6 27 ltld7+ 'ittb7 28 .i.xc6+ 'ittxc6 29 ltlxb8+ 'ittb7 30 ltlxa6 'ittxa6 31 ..tg5 and Black can resign. 20 ltld6

1 9 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

White's powerfully placed knights speak volumes for the assessment of this position.

20 ... lt:Jc8 21 ..ta3 l:lxb1 22 l:.xb1 lt:Jxd6 Or 22 . . .'iVc7 23 ..ta4.

23 ..tcs+l 'itas 24 ..ta41 White's final piece comes into play.

24 ... ..tb7 25 exd6! 'ili'xf6 26 ..txc6 ..txc6 27 d7 ..txcs 28 "iVc7 es 29 dxcs 1-0

Black resigned as mate is inevitable.

1 9 2

An impressive performance by Hydra.

'I would say that White's level of play in this game was something un­reachable. Therefore, one should not blame a human and particularly a great player like Ruslan Ponomariov for his seemingly poor performance, but praise the chess engine for the great game.' (Postny)

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 lt:Jd2 lt:lf6 4 es lt:lfd7 s .ltd3 cs 6 c3 lt:lc6 7 lt:le2

In this chapter we will discuss lines where Black plays .. .f6 without first capturing on d4. We will consider:

A: 7 ... f6?1 B: 7 ... 'ili'b6

A) 7 . . • f6?1 This has been played many times,

but it is dubious. 8 lt:Jf41

8 . • . 'ili'e71 Alternatives show that this is the

only move: a) White obtained a winning attack

in S.Garcia-C.Goldwaser, Argentina 2003, after 8 . . . fxe5? 9 lt:lxe6 'ili'b6 10 'ili'h5+ <l;e7 1 1 dxc5 lt:lxc5 12 lt:Jxc5 'ii'xc5 13 lt:lb3 'ili'd6 14 .ltg5+ <l;d7 15 'ii'£7+ lt:Je7 16 0-0-0.

b) 8 . . . cxd4? 9 lt:Jxe6 'ili'b6 10 'ili'h5+ <l;e7 11 lt::l£4 wins for White, P.Llaneza Vega-S.Nieto Jimenez, Spain 1998.

c) Black didn't get enough compen-

1 93

H o w to Bea t t h e Fre nch Defence

sation for the piece in P.Wrzesinski­A.Puksza, Leba 2006, following 8 . . . tt:ldxe5? 9 dxe5 tt:lxe5 10 'ir'h5+ <Ji;e7 1 1 .ltc2 'ii'e8 12 'ii'e2.

d) 8 . . . tt:lb6?! 9 'ifu5+ <Ji;d7 10 dxc5 .ltxc5 11 tt:lb3 .ltxf2+ 12 <Ji;xf2 tt:lxe5 13 .ltb5+ <Ji;e7 14 l:l.e1 was winning for White in V.Buturin-G.Karer, Nova Gorica 1997. 9 tt:lf3 !

9 . . . cxd41 Again Black has only one way

through the complications: a) 9 ... tt:lb6? is punished by 10 dxc5!

'ii'xc5 11 exf6 gxf6 12 0-0 intending tt:ld4. White has managed to open lines, and his development advantage will become obvious.

b) 9 . . . f5? is also bad: 10 0-0 cxd4 1 1 cxd4 tt:lb6 12 a4! aS 13 .ltb5 .ltd7 14 .ltxc6 bxc6 15 tt:ld3 'ii'd8 16 'ii'c2 .lte7 17 tt:ld2 0-0 18 tt:lb3 'ii'e8 (M.Langer­S.Galant, Stillwater 2002) 19 tt:lbc5 leaves White in control.

c) 9 . . . fxe5? ! 10 dxe5! <Ji;d8 (10 . . . tt:ldxe5?! 11 tt:lxe5 tt:lxe5 12 'ifu5+ tt:lf7 13 .ltxh7! 'ii'g5 14 Wxg5 tt:lxg5 15 .ltc2 tt:lf7 16 tt:lg6 l:tg8 17 .ltf4 was better

1 94

for White in E.Miroshnichenko­V.Borovikov, Krakow 2000) 1 1 'ii'e2 <Ji;c7 12 0-0 tt:lb6 was D.Garcia Roman­J.Borges Mateos, Alicante 2000. Here White can obtain a clear plus by start­ing an attack with 13 b4! cxb4 14 cxb4 tt:lxb4 (or 14 . . . 'ii'xb4 15 tt:lg5 'ii'e7 16 tt:lxh7) 15 .lte3. 10 cxd4 fxes 11 dxes tt:ldxes 12 tt:lxes tt:lxes 13 Whs+ tt:lf7 14 o-o

White enjoys a strong initiative in return for his pawn investment. 14 . • • g61

14 . . . .ltd7 15 l:Ie1 0-0-0?! 16 tt:lxd5 'ii'e8 17 .ltf4 .ltc6? 18 l:tacl forced Black to resign in J .Metral-B.Lucas, French League 1989, and Black will also fail to survive after 14 . . . g5? 15 tt:lxd5! exd5 16 .ltd2. 15 We2 .ltg7

15 . . . .ltd7 16 .l:.e1 0-0-0 17 .lte3 <Ji;b8?! 18 tt:lxd5 was good for White in R.Kauranen-E.Stransky, correspon­dence 1984. 16 .ltbS+ �8 17 .ltd2

A.Lastin-V.Borovikov, Marganets 1999, continued 17 . . . a6? 18 tt:lxd5! 'ii'd8 19 .ltb4+ tt:ld6 20 l:.ad1 <J;;f7 21 tt:lc7

3 . . .l1:Jf6 4 e5 li:Jfd 7 5 il. d3 c5 : B lack Plays . . .f6 b efo re . . . cxd4

'ii'xc7 22 1Lxd6 'ii'd8 23 1La4 'ii'h4 24 'ii'c2 .tf6 25 'ii'c7+ Ji.e7 26 .Ud4 and Black resigned.

Alternatively, 17 ... .te5 18 tt:\d3! .td6 (if 18 . . . Ji.f6, then 19 .tb4 tt:\d6 20 tt:\e5) 19 f4 a6 20 .ta4 gives White a strong initiative for the pawn. Maybe Black should consider taking a second pawn with 17 . . . .txb2! ?, although the risks to this move are obvious.

B) 7 . . . '1ib6 8 tt:lf3

Now we will look at two moves:

81: 8 . . . .te7?! 82: 8 . . . f6

Black main move is 8 . . . cxd4 9 cxd4, which transposes to Chapter 17.

81) 8 . . . .te7?1 This simple developing move is

misguided, as it makes the pawn break .. .f6 more difficult to achieve. Why is this? The reason is White will have the strong reply tt:lf4 at his disposal, posing Black unsolvable problems. 9 0-0

9 . . . 0-0 Black has many alternatives: a) 9 . . . g5? 10 tt:\xg5 cxd4 11 cxd4

tt:\xd4 12 tt:\xd4 Wxd4 13 tt:lxe6 wins. b) 9 .. .f5? 10 tt:lf4 tt:lf8 1 1 dxcS 1Lxc5

12 b4 .te7 13 c4! sees White opening the position to exploit his better devel­opment, K.Spraggett-R.Pageau, Mont­real 1979.

c) 9 . . . f6? 10 tt:\f4! tt:ld8 (10 . . . tt:\f8 11 exf6 .txf6 12 l:tel tt:\e7 13 dxc5 'ii'xc5 14 'iWe2 Ji.d7 15 tt:\e5 was winning in J.Katona-B.Rutter, Winnipeg 2004) 11 .:tel f5 12 iLxfS! exf5 13 tt:\xd5 'iWc6 14 tt:\xe7 rJ;xe7 15 d5 'iWa6 16 d6+ rJ;f7 17 Wd5+ rJ;e8 18 e6 tt:lf6 19 d7+ rJ;e7 20 'iWxc5+ 1-0 D.Verduga-P.Toth, Nice 1974.

d) 9 ... a5 10 b3 (very logical: White's idea is not to stop Black's expansion on the queenside, but to simply protect the b-pawn and continue with .tf4) 10 . . . cxd4 1 1 cxd4 tt:lb4 12 .tbl tt:lb8 13 a3 tt:\4a6 14 .tg5! tt:\c6 15 .td3 Ji.d7 (S.Dhar Barua-A.Konara, Chennai 2001) 16 'iWd2! and White has the initia­tive. Black cannot continue normally with 16 . . . 0-0? because of 17 .tf6! h6 18 tt:lg3 with a crushing attack.

1 9 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

e ) 9 . . . cxd4 10 cxd4 ltJb4 ( 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 'ii'c2!) doesn't gain anything after 1 1 i.b1 aS ( 11 . . .'ii'c6 12 a3 ltJa6 13 i.d3 ltJb6 14 i.d2 0-0 15 l:.cl 'ii'a4 16 'ii'xa4 ltJxa4 17 i.xa6 bxa6 18 b3 ltJb6 19 a4! was better for White in I.Zaragatski­C.Seel, German League 1996; 1 1 . . . £6 12 ltJf4! fxe5 13 dxe5 is also good for White) 12 ltJf4 'ii'd8 (L.Aquino Porro­A.Manzone, Asuncion 2001) 13 ltJh5! 0-0 14 a3 ltJc6 15 'ii'd3 g6 16 i.h6, when White has a dangerous attack. 10 l:.e1! f6 11 ltJf4!

11 • • • fxes This untested move is a computer

suggestion, but it seems to be as inade­quate as the alternatives.

H.Suechting-A.Olland, Hanover 1902, continued 1 1 . . .ltJd8 12 exf6 ltJxf6 13 ltJg5 cxd4. If White had now played 14 'ii'c2! g6 15 i.xg6 hxg6 16 'ii'xg6+ 1;h8 17 ltJh5 he would have mated his opponent in the spirit of that era. 12 dxes c4 13 i.c2 l:.f7

13 . . . ltJc5 is met by 14 b4!, while 13 . . . i.c5 14 i.xh7+! 1;xh7 15 ltJg5+ 1;g8 16 'ii'h5 i.xf2+ 17 1;f1 wins for White. 14 i.e3

1 9 6

14 ... ttJcs 14 . . . i.c5 loses to 15 i.xh7+!.

15 'ii'b1! g6 16 i.xg6 hxg6 17 'ii'xg6+ White wins after either 17 . . . l:.g7 18

'ii'e8+ 1;h7 19 i.xc5 i.xc5 20 ltJh5 i.e7 21 ltJf6+ i.xf6 22 ex£6 or 17 . . . 1;£8 18 ltJh5 1;e8 19 ltJ£6+ i.xf6 20 exf6.

82: 8 ... f6 9 exf6! ltJxf6 9 . . . gxf6? is met by 10 ltJf4! .

10 0-0

Now we will look at:

821: 10 ... c41? 822: 10 ... cxd4 823: 10 ... i.d61

3 . . .l'i:Jf6 4 e5 lDfd 7 5 ii. d3 c5 : B lack Plays . . .f6 b efo re . . . cxd4

10 . . . i..d7 11 lLlf4 0-0-0 12 :tel l:!.e8 13 lLJeS lLlxeS 14 dxeS lLlg8 lS c4! is good for White, and lO . . . aS is answered by 1 1 b3 intending ll . . . cxd4 12 lLlexd4! .

821} 10 . . . c41? 11 i..c2 i..d6 12 .I:te1 o-o 12 . . . 1i'c7 13 lLlg3 l2Je7? is met by 14

lLJgS!, while 13 . . . i..d7? 14 lLlfS! 0-0-0 lS tllxd6+ 'ir'xd6 16 tlles was good for White in M.Netzer-A.John, Glenal­mond 1996. Black should try 13 . . . 0-0, although even here 14 'ife2! is slightly better for White. 13 l:.b1

The simplest. 13 . . • 1fc7 14 tl'lg3

14 • . . e51 14 . . . i..d7 lS We2! .l:tae8 16 tl'les is

clearly better for White. 15 dxe5 ttJxe5 16 ttJxe5 i..xe5 17 i..e3 i.g4 18 f3 i.d7 19 i.d4 l:r.ae8

Against 19 . . . i..xg3? 20 hxg3 'ifxg3, White can play 21 i.xf6 .l:txf6 22 'ifxdS+ 1:.f7 23 i.xh7+. 20 i.xe5 .l:txe5 21 'ifd4 .:txe1+ 22 l:txe1

White has a slight advantage.

822) 10 . . • cxd4 11 ttJexd41

11 ... .tc5 Alternatively: a) R.Kholmov-M.Socko, Wisla 1992,

continued 1 1 . . .4Jxd4 12 cxd4! i.d6 (12 . . . i..d7 13 ttJes i.d6 14 i.gS! was very good for White in H.Arppi­S.Vankov, correspondence 1993) 13 'ife2! 0-0 14 i.e3 i.d7 lS ttJes i..e8 16 .l:tacl SLhS 17 g4 i..e8 18 gS .ltxeS 19 dxeS d4 20 gxf6 dxe3 21 fxe3 SLhS 22 .ltxh7+! and Black resigned.

b) White was clearly on top in S.Lepeshkin-N.Kurenkov, St Peters­burg 1997, after l l . . .SLd6 12 We2! 0-0 13 ttJbs .ltcs 14 b4 .lte7 lS .ltf4 4Je8 16 .ltg3 a6 17 4Jbd4 4Jxd4 18 ttJxd4 .ltf6 19 .ltes .ltd7 20 4Jb3 .ltxeS 21 'ifxeS 4Jf6 22 ttJcs l:.ae8 23 a4! l:.e7 24 aS.

c) After ll . . . .ltd7 12 .:tel 4Jxd4 13 4Jxd4 0-0-0 (W.Haerig-G.Drache, Fren­swegen 2001) 14 a4! Black has major problems defending the e6-pawn. 12 b41 .ltxd4 13 cxd4 0-0

13 . . . 4Jxb4 14 .t:r.bl 'ifd6 lS .lta3 aS 16 'ifa4+ .ltd7 17 .ltxb4 'ifb8! 18 .ltbs axb4 19 Wxb4 is good for White. 14 b5 4Je7 15 a4 i..d7 16 .lta3 l:.feB 17 4Je5 .l:tacB 18 g41 'ifdB 19 'iff3 .l:tfB 20

1 9 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

'ifh3 l2Je4 21 f3 lDgs 22 'iih4 l2Jg6 23 .ixg6 hxg6 24 .ixfB c;f;>xfB 2S lDxd7+

and Black resigned in M.Najdorf­E.Espinola, Buenos Aires 1939. A typi­caly brilliant attacking game by the great Miguel!

823) 1o ... .id6l 11 dxcsl 'ifxcs ll . . . .ixc5!? 12 b4 .id6 13 .ie3 'ifc7

14 lDed4 lDxd4 15 cxd4 is slightly better for White. 12 l2Jed4

12 b4!? 'iib6 transposes to 1 l . . . .ixc5.

'White must above all be concerned with preventing the advance of Black's e-pawn. If Black could carry out. . .e5, he would clearly gain the upper hand. The whole struggle now revolves around the square e5.' (Tarrasch) 12 . . • esl?

This move was supposed to lose, but as we will see things are far from clear.

12 . . . l2Jxd4 13 cxd4 'iib6 14 'ife2! transposes to note 'a' to Black's 11 th move in Line B22.

After 12 . . . 0-0 13 'ife2 e5! ? (13 . . . l:te8 14 .ie3 WaS was S.Tarrasch-Kurschner,

1 9 8

Nuremberg 1889, and here 1 5 b4 'ii'd8 16 lDxc6 bxc6 17 .id4 leaves White in control) 14 lDxc6 bxc6 15 lDxe5 .:le8 16 .ie3 .l:.xe5 17 .ixc5 .:lxe2 18 .ixd6 l:lxb2 19 f3 a5 20 .l:.f2 .l:.xf2 21 c;f;>xf2 .ia6 22 .ixa6 l:txa6 23 .:tb1 White has the ad­vantage in the endgame. 13 lDfSI

This is the strongest move, although further analysis is required to verify this.

13 lDxc6? bxc6 14 lDxe5 .ixe5 15 'ife2 was the 'refutation' given by Keene and Taulbut, but after 15 . . . 'ife7! 16 l:te1 .id6 it's Black who wins! 13 b4! ?, however, is an interesting alterna­tive to the text. 13 ... .ixfs

13 . . . e4 seems to lose after 14 lDxg7+ c;f;>f7 15 lDh5! ! . For example, 15 . . . l2Jxh5! (15 . . . exd3? 16 lDg5+; 15 . . . exf3 16 lDxf6 c;f;>xf6 17 'ifxf3+ c;f;>e7 18 l:te1+ c;f;>d7 19 b4 'iib6 20 'iff7+ lbe7 21 .if4) 16 .ie3! 'ifa5 17 l2Jg5+ c;f;>g6 (17 . . . c;f;>e7? 18 'ifxh5) 18 b4! 'ii'd8 19 lDxe4! .ixh2+ 20 c;f;>h1 ! (but not 20 c;f;>xh2? 'ifh4+ 21 'it>g1 dxe4) 20 . . . l2Jf4 (20 . . . 'ifh4 21 .ig5; 20 . . . .ie5 21 lDd6+ c;f;>g7 22 .ih6+ �f6 23 .ig5+;

3 . . .lt'lj6 4 e5 liJfd 7 5 �d3 c5 : B lack Plays . . .f6 befo re . . . cxd4

20 .. . ..Itf5 21 llJg3! ii.xg3 22 'ili'g4+) 21 lt.lg3+ llJxd3 22 'ili'xd3+ 'it>£7 23 'it>xh2. 14 ..\txfs o-o

14 . . . llJe7 is answered by 15 ..lte6. 15 ttJgs llJdB 16 ..lte6+ 'it>hB 11 ..ltxds 'i'xds

Black doesn't have enough for the pawn after 17 . . . llJxd5?! 18 llJe4 'ili'c6 19 lt.lxd6 llJe6!? (19 . . . 'ili'xd6 20 c4) 20 llJe4 .:ad8 21 'ili'e2 llJdf4 22 ii.xf4 llJxf4 23 'i'c2! llJd3 24 f3 'ili'b6+ 25 'it>hl . 18 'ili'xds llJxds 19 l:td1 ..tcs 20 llJe4 lt.lxc3 21 bxc3 ..ltb6

White obtains the advantage in the ending after 2l . . .llJe6 22 llJxc5 llJxc5 23 i.a3 l:Ifc8 24 l:td5 llJa4 25 l:txe5 l:txc3 26 i.b4 l:k2 27 .l:te7. The g7-pawn will be Black's weak spot following ..ltd6-e5. 22 'it>f11

White's idea is to protect the strong knight with f2-f3 and to continue with ..lta3. He maintains a small advantage after 22 . . . l:tf7 (if 22 . . . l:tc8, 23 ii.a3 l:tf4 24 f3) 23 l:tb1 llJc6 24 l:tb5 l:td8 25 l:txd8+ ii.xd8 26 c4 intending Ji.b2, l:td5 and f2-f3.

1 99

C h a pte r Seve ntee n l 3 . . . tiJf6: Ma i n Li ne with 8 . . . 1i'b6

1 e4 e6 2 d 4 ds 3 lt::ld2 lt::lf6 4 e s lt::lfd7 s .1i.d3 cs 6 c3 lt::lc6 7 lt::le2 cxd4 8 cxd4 'ii'b6

The 8 . . . Wb6 variation is very solid, and in my opinion it is the best option for Black. During its time of existence it has withstood many dangerous ideas from White.

The other main line, 8 .. .£6, is the subject of Chapters 18-20. 9 lLlf3

Now Black has two options to con­sider:

2 00

A: 9 • • • .1i.b4+ B: 9 ... f6

A) 9 ••• .1i.b4+ 10 .1i.d2! I see no reason for White to play the

alternative line with 10 �fl, as the text leads to a better ending without any risk. Anyway, isn't the exchange of dark-squared bishops what White is looking to achieve? 10 ... ..txd2+

Black has quite a few alternatives: a) 10 .. .'�i'a5?! should be met by 1 1

lt::lc3! : for example, 1 1 . . .0-0 12 .1i.xh7+! �xh7 13 lt::lg5+ �g6 14 h4! f5 15 h5+ 'iii>h6 16 lt::lxe6+ �h7 17 a3 and White wins.

b) Early aggression by 10 . . . g5?! was punished in E.Garcia Pichon-E.Rosado, Barranquilla 2000, with White reaching a winning position after 1 1 h3 h5 12 a3 .1i.e7 13 b4 a6 14 .1i.e3 l:tg8 15 g4! h4 16 'ii'd2 l:tg7 17 �fl �f8 18 lt::lxg5.

c) 10 . . . lt::lf8 intends . . . lt::lg6 to target f4 now that the dark-squared bishops will

be exchanged. Unfortunately this plan is artificial, and 11 0-0 lbg6 12 a3 i..xd2 13 'ii'xd2 i..d7 14 b4 0-0 (H.Sanz­S.Agnello, Buenos Aires 2003) 15 llacl :lacS 16 .l:tc5 is clearly better for White.

d) After 10 . . . a5 White can exploit the weakened b5-square with a well­timed lbc3-b5. White achieved a clear plus in E.Kengis-A.Kertesz, Bonn 1995, after 1 1 0-0 i..e7 12 i..e3 a4 13 a3 'ii'a5 14 'ii'c2 g6 15 h4 lL'lf8 16 lL'lc3 i..d7 17 lt:Jb5 l:lc8 18 'ii'd2 'ii'xd2 19 i..xd2, as Black is forced to cover many weaknesses.

e) 10 . . . i..e7 is a logical but timid choice. White can obtain a clear advan­tage after 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 'ii'c2! h6 13 a3 f6 14 exf6 i..xf6 15 i..e3 .l:.e8 (G.Lozano­D.Pacheco, Bogota 2004) and now 16 lt:Je5! . The X-ray effect of the bishop on e3 against the queen on b6 means that lbe5 is a typical idea in these lines.

f) 10 . . . 0-0 11 0-0 and now:

fl ) ll . . . i..e7 12 a3! f6 13 exf6 lL'lxf6 14 b4 is better for White.

f2) 1 l . . .i..xd2 12 'ii'xd2 f6! ? (weaken­ing the light squares with 12 . . . h6?! is a common mistake which makes the . . . f6 break less effective, and after 13 lt:Jf4

3 . . .!iJf6 : M a in L i n e with B . . . 'il b 6

'ii'b4 14 'ii'e3! White has the initiative, as 14 ... 'ii'xb2? 15 llfb1 wins the queen; also 12 . . . lbb4 13 i..b1 f6 can be met by 14 lbf4! fxe5 15 dxe5 h6 - preventing lbg5 - 16 a3 lbc6 17 lbxd5! exd5 18 'ii'xd5+ 'it>h8 19 'ii'd3 'it>g8 20 i..a2+ 'it>h8 21 lt:Jg5! and White wins) 13 exf6 �xf6 14 llae1 is good for White, intending to meet 14 . . . llxf3 15 gxf3 e5 with 16 'ifr>h1 ! .

f3) After 1 1 . . .£6 12 exf6! lt:Jxf6 White can benefit from the fact that the black bishop isn't on the h2-b8 diagonal by playing 13 i..f4! .

Black has many different options, but White keeps the advantage. For example, 13 . . . 'ii'd8 (13 . . . lt:Je4 14 'ii'c2!; 13 . . . lt:Jh5 14 i..e3 i..d6 15 lt:Je5! 'ii'xb2? 16 llb1 'ii'a3 17 'ii'c2 with a clear advantage for White; 13 . . . i..e7 14 'ii'd2! i..b4 15 'ii'cl i..d7 16 a3 i..e7 was R.Zens-U.Vetter, Internet 2004, and here 17 b4 is slightly better for White) 14 lbe5! i..d6 15 'ii'd2 i..d7 16 .U.acl �8 17 'ii'e3 l:te8 18 'ii'g3 lt:Jh5 (A.Le Diouron-A.Chaumont, Le Grand Bomand 2003) 19 i..xh7+ 'it>h8 (19 . . . 'it>xh7 loses to 20 'ii'g6+) 20 lt:J£7+ 'it>xh7 21 'ii'd3+ 'it>g8 22 i..xd6 'ii'c8 23 'ii'g6 and White wins.

2 0 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

g) 10 . . . f6 1 1 exf6 tt::lxf6 ( 1l . . .gxf6?! 12 0-0 tt::lf8 13 ..tf4! ..td7 14 .:tel ! .l:.c8 15 a3 ..te7 16 b4 left White well on top in L.Pachrnan-A.Tsvetkov, Marianske Lazne 1951) 12 0-0 ..txd2 Gust as in the previous note, ..tf4 is again White's intention; 12 . . . ..td6 is met by 13 b3 fol­lowed by 14 ..tf4, transposing to Line B) 13 'i¥xd2 'i¥b4 14 �e3 ..td7 15 tt::le5 tt::lxe5 (L.Rotter-L.Thomas, correspon­dence 1982) 16 dxe5! tt::le4 (16 . . . tt::lg4 17 'ii'g5 0-0 18 'ii'h4 is terrible for Black) 17 l:!.fcl 'ii'xb2 18 l:!.ab1 'ii'xe5 19 l:txb7 and with f2-f3 or l:!.cc7 to follow, White has a winning attack. 11 'ii'xd2

Now Black can play:

A1: 11 ... 0-0 A2: 11 • • • f6 A3: 11 . • • 'ii'b4!

A1) 11 • . • 0-0 12 0-0 f6 After 12 .. .£5?! White can consider

not capturing en passant, as the c8-bishop is buried alive! Indeed, White achieved a clear advantage in A.Rosandic-L.Elez, Pula 1993, after 13

2 0 2

l:lacl a6 14 .l:.c3 'ii'd8 15 h4 h6 16 tt::lf4 tt::lb6 17 h5 1:1.£7 18 l:tfcl l:tc7 19 b3 ..td7 20 ..te2 l:tac8 21 tt::le1 tt::le7 22 tt::led3 l:!.xc3 23 l:!.xc3 ltxc3 24 'ii'xc3 ..tc8 25 tt::lc5.

12 . . . tt::lb4?! 13 ..tb1 aS 14 a3 tt::lc6 15 tt::lg5! h6 16 'i¥d3 g6 17 tt::lx£7! �x£7 18 'i¥xg6+ �e7 19 'ii'xh6 was much better for White in J.Kruek-J.Toth, Lippstadt 1999, whereupon Black's 19 . . . tt::lxd4? was punished by 20 'ii'h4+.

12 . . . 'ii'b4 13 'ii'g5! ? f5 14 tt::lf4 l:!.e8 15 'ii'h5 'ii'e7 was played in D.Navara­D.Rybansky, Szeged 1994.

Here 16 ..txf5! exf5 17 tt::lxd5 'i¥d8 18 tt::lg5 tt::lf8 19 'ii'f7+ �h8 20 tt::l£6! gxf6 21 exf6 'i¥d7 (if 21 . . .l:!.e7 there follows 22 fxe7 'ii'xe7 23 d5) 22 l:tae1 ! 'ii'x£7 23 tt::lx£7+ �g8 24 tt::lh6+ �h8 25 l:!.xe8 would be winning for White. 13 exf6 l:!.xf61?

This is a recapture we do not see very often. 14 l:!.ae1! 'ii'c7 15 ..tb1 tt::lf8 16 tt::lg3 ..td7 11 tt::lhs .l:.h6 18 tt::lf4 'ii'd6 19 g3 :es 20 l:!.e3 l:te7 21 l:!.fe1 l:!.f6 22 tt::les

White has a clear F .Anderson-A. Nielsen, 1954.

advantage, Amsterdam

A2) 11 . . . f6 12 exf6 lt:Jxf6 13 o-o o-o 14 :fell ii.d7 15 .l:tac1

15 • • • l:lae8 Alternatively: a) 15 . . . e5? 16 dxe5 lt:Jg4 (J.Danes­

L.Falout, Czechia 2001) 17 lt:Jf4! l:txf4 18 'ii'xf4 'i'xf2+ (if 18 . . . lt:Jxf2, 19 ii.xh7+ 'it>h8 20 'it>fl !) 19 'it>h1 'i'xb2 20 .l:.c2 and White wins.

b) 15 . . . l:tac8 16 lt:Jc3! lt:Jb4 17 ii.b1 'ii'd6 18 lt:Je5 a6 19 l:te3 b5 20 l:tce1 l:tfe8 21 :h3 :i.e7 22 'ii'g5 lt:Jc6 23 'ifh4 h6 24 l:tg3 lt:Je4 25 lt:Jxe4 dxe4 26 'i'xe4 g5 27 lLlg4 'i'xd4 28 lt:Jxh6+ 'it>h8 29 'ii'g6 .l:!.g7 30 'i'h5 was a model attacking per­formance by White in B.Podlesnik­J.Skok, Bled 2001 . 16 liJf41 a61?

16 . . . 'it>h8 17 ii.b1 ! lt:Jxd4 18 'i'xd4 'i'xd4 19 lt:Jxd4 e5 20 lLlfe6 ii.xe6 21 lhe5 left White with a typical edge in M.Schaefer-B.Bayer, German League 1999. 17 lLlesl? ltJxes

17 . . . liJxd4?! is met by 18 'i'e3!, ex­ploiting the fact that since 16 . . . a6 the queen on b6 is no longer protected. White gains a clear advantage after

3 . ..Ci:Jf6 : M a i n L i n e with 8 . . . 'ilb 6

18 . . . 'i'b4 19 ii.xh7+! �xh7 20 'ii'h3+ 'it>g8 21 tt:Jfg6 lt:Jh7 22 l:tc3! (22 tt:Jxd7?! :f5) 22 . . . lt:Jf5 (22 . . . ii.c6 23 'i'xh7+! 'it>xh7 24 l:th3+ 'it>g8 25 l:th8 mate) 23 lt:Jxd7 .l:tf7 24 lt:Jge5 .l:Ife7 25 'iid3. 18 dxes ltJg4 19 liJh3 ii.bs 20 ii.c2

Intending 21 a4. White establishes a strong attack after 20 . . . a5 21 ii.d1 h5 22 ktc3! .l:i.f5 23 l:!g3 .l::txe5 24 l:txe5 lt:Jxe5 25 ii.xh5.

A3) 11 • . . 'ii'b41 12 .l:i.c1

12 • • • 'ii'xd2+ After 12 ... f6 13 exf6 'i'xd2+ White

continues with 14 'it>xd2! . Now that Black is committed to . . .f6, the knight is

2 03

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defence

more useful on f3, and White's plan is lL'lf4 followed by .l:tel . P.Trifunovic­D.Dimc, Sarajevo 1958, continued 14 . . . gxf6 (14 . . . lL'lxf6 15 it.b5! lL'le4+ 16 �e3 it.d7 17 it.xc6 bxc6 18 lL'le5 l:tc8 19 lL'lc3 lL'ld6 20 lL'la4 lL'lf7 21 lL'lxf7 �xf7 22 lbc5 was terrible for Black in T.Heinemann-K.Mueller Buelow, Hamburg 1993) 15 it.b5! lL'lb6?! (best was 15 . . . lL'ldb8! 16 lL'lf4 a6 17 it.d3 it.d7 18 :he1 �f7 with a small but enduring advantage for White) 16 l:txc6! bxc6 17 it.xc6+ �e7 18 it.xa8 lL'lxa8 19 .l:tcl and White was a pawn ahead with clearly the better position.

If Black doesn't capture on d2, White might avoid the exchange of queens. For example, 12 . . . 0-0 13 lL'lc3 lbb6 14 0-0 f6 15 exf6 .l:txf6 16 a3 'ife7 (M.Godena-P.Vezzosi, Montecatini Terme 1997) 17 'ii'g5! it.d7 18 lL'le5! lL'lxe5 19 dxe5 l:i.f7 20 'it'xe7 ltxe7 21 lL'le2 (intending lL'ld4 and f2-f4 with a lasting advantage) 21 . . .lL'lc4!? 22 it.xc4 dxc4 23 l:txc4 it.b5 24 l:tc2 l:td8 25 f4 and Black has no compensation for the pawn. 13 lL'lxd21

at all, even though it is much stronger than the capture with the king!

Let's try to understand White's plan. After the exchange of bishops the dark squares, especially c5, are very weak. White wants to put a knight on c5, which can be further protected by a2-a3 and b2-b4. In addition, after b2-b4 White sometimes threatens b4-b5 after which the rook on c1 is ready to enter Black's camp via c7. Finally, White's strong pawn centre can be strengthened with f2-f4, not only as a defensive measure against . . . f6 ideas, but also in some cases preparing the breakthrough f4-f5. 13 . . . a6

This typical move prevents any it.b5 ideas, but now the entire complex of dark squares on the queenside is weak. If White manages to get his knight to c5, it will be very difficult for Black to remove it, as after . . . b6 the a6-pawn will be hanging. Finally, if Black ex­changes the knight on c5, then follow­ing bxc5 the b7-pawn will become vul­nerable down the b-file.

Let's look at some alternatives: a) 13 . . .f6 !? 14 f4 lL'lb6 (14 . . .fxe5 15

fxe5 0-0 16 a3 lL'lb6 17 b4 it.d7 18 l:f.fl l:txfl+ 19 �xfl l:tc8 20 lL'lb3 lL'ld8 21 lL'lc5 it.e8 22 l:f.c2 lL'lc4 23 it.xc4 dxc4 24 lL'lf4 lt.g6 25 lL'lxg6 hxg6 26 b5 b6 27 lL'le4 lbb7 28 lL'lg5 lL'la5 29 lL'lxe6 l:te8 30 d5 l:te7 31 �e2 and Black resigned in T.Becker-H.Schulze, German League 1996 - this is a good demonstration of the problems Black faces) 15 a3 it.d7 16 0-0 l:tc8!? 17 b4 0-0 18 lL'lb3 and now we

In ECO this move is not mentioned have:

2 04

a1) 18 . . . l2Je7? 19 l2Jc5 .l:tc7 20 l2Jxd7! . Whether or not to trade on d7 is a very important decision here and in similar positions. Although White exchanges Black's 'bad' bishop, after 20 .. .lhd7 21 .i.b5 he had a winning advantage in J.Ehlert-H.Kluge, Gemuend 1999. Re­member, what remains on the board is im­portant, not what is exchanged.

a2) 18 . . . l2Ja4 19 ii.b5! (this idea is very strong as long as Black cannot take on e5, and here 19 . . . l2Jxe5 20 ii.xa4 ii.xa4 21 l2Jc5 ii.b5 22 fxe5 ii.xe2 23 l::tfe1 ii.c4 24 l2Jxb7 fxe5 25 .l:txe5 .l:tf4 26 l2Jd6 l:tcf8 27 l2Jxc4 dxc4 28 .l:txe6 l::txd4 29 l:tc6 l:td3 30 a4 leaves White a pawn up) 19 . . . l2Jb8 20 ii.xa4 ii.xa4 (B.Le Corre­J.Krauss, Avoine 2003) 21 .l:txc8! l:!xc8 22 l2Jc5 ii.b5 23 .l:te1 with a clear advan­tage for White.

b) 13 . . . l2Jb4 14 ii.b1 l2Jb6 15 a3 l2Jc6 16 0-0 ii.d7 17 b3 <j;e7 18 l::tc5 h6 19 f4 .:tac8 20 <j;f2 a6 21 <j;e3 l2Ja7 22 .l:.fcl i.c6 23 a4 .l:tc7 24 f5 .l:thc8 25 l2Jf4 l2Jd7 26 .l:.5c3 l2Jf8 27 l2Jh5 g6 28 fxg6 fxg6 29 c!bf6 with an overwhelming advantage for White, N.Mamedov-R.Othman, Dubai 2000.

3 . ..li:Jf6 : M a in L i n e with B . . ."iib 6

c) 1 3 . . . l2Jb6 1 4 0-0 .i.d7

15 a3! (15 f4? ! l2Jb4! is good for Black, as the bishop is ready to go to b5) 15 . . . <j;e7 16 f4! .l:tac8 (16 . . . f6 17 b4! aS 18 b5 l2Ja7 19 .l:.c7 is good for White; 16 . . . .l:.hc8 17 b4 l2Jd8 reaches a position similar to the one in the illustrative game Socko-Matlak - see the end of the chapter) 17 b4! a6 (17 . . . a5 18 b5 l2Ja7 19 lib1 ! - intending l2Jb3-c5 - 19 . . . a4 20 .l:.b4 .l:.c7 21 l::tf3 .l:.hc8 22 lDfl h5 23 c!be3 g6 24 g3 is good for White: Black can­not do anything on the queenside and White is ready to continue with <j;g2, h2-h3 and g3-g4, obtaining a strong initiative on the kingside) 18 l2Jb3 g6 (White wins after 18 . . . c!ba7 19 l2Jc5 ii.b5 20 .i.xb5 axb5 - or 20 . . . l2Jxb5 21 a4 l2Ja3 22 f5 - 21 f5 l2Jc4 22 l2Jxb7 l2Jc6 23 l:.c3! exf5 24 l:t.xf5 l:ta8 25 .l:.cf3 .l:.hf8 26 l2Jd6! c!bxd6 27 exd6+ <j;e6 28 .l:tg5 g6 29 l2Jf4+) 19 l2Jc5 .l:tc7 (S.Lange-J.Nabel, Hamburg 1999) 20 .l:tc2! l2Ja7 21 a4 .uhc8 22 l::tfcl and White has a clear advantage. 14 0-0 0-0

14 .. .£5 15 l2Jb3 g5 16 f4 g4 17 c!bc5 c!bxc5 18 l:r.xc5 ii.d7 19 .:.fct <j;e7 20 a3 llhc8 21 �f2 h5 (D.Campo Millan-

2 05

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

A.Sarto Ramos, Zaragoza 1999) 22 'it>g3! is clearly better for White, who has an entry route for his king. 15 f4

15 a3! ? f6 16 f4 tiJb6 17 b4 ..td7 18 tiJb3 ttJa4 19 ltJc5 ttJxc5 20 bxc5! shows how White can exploit the weakness of b7 after Black plays . . . a6. 1S ... tiJb6

As always 15 .. .£5?! is not a good idea, and White achieved a clear plus in A.Paal-I .Makai, Debrecen 1997, after 16 tiJb3 'it>h8 17 ttJc5 tDxc5 18 .l:txc5 ..td7 19 a3 .l:.g8 20 'it>f2 g5 21 'it>e3 h6 22 l:r.fcl l:tg7 23 l:t5c3 .l:l.gg8 24 b4 .ti.gc8 25 b5!? axb5 26 ..txb5 'it>g7 27 g3 'it>f8 28 fxg5 hxg5 29 h4.

15 . . . ttJb4 16 ..tb1 tiJb6 17 .l:l.f3 is also very good for White. The rook on f3 has the luxury to choose between the h3-, b3- and c3-squares.

15 .. .£6 16 exf6 tDxf6 17 h3 ..td7 18 a3 .ti.ac8 19 tiJb3 tiJb8 20 ttJc5 l:tc7 21 l:tc3 l:tfc8 22 l:tfcl ltJe8 23 lDxb7 was winning for White in J.Geske-L.Marini, Arco 2006. 16 a31 ..td7 17 tiJb31

17 b4?! tDa7! is fine for Black. White

2 0 6

must pay attention to the small details of the position: the move . . . a6 not only has drawbacks, it can also prove to be useful. 17 ... ttJa4 18 ttJcs ttJxcs 19 l:txcs .ti.fcS 20 .l:!.fc1 g6 21 'it>f2 ttJe7 22 'it>e3 l:txcs 23 .:.xes

Maybe 23 dxc5!? is even stronger, as after 23 . . . ..tb5 24 ttJd4 White enjoys a lasting advantage. 23 ... l:tc8 24 l:txc8+ ttJxcS

(H.Zieher-G.Rogg, German League 1983) This is the kind of endgame that White wants to play: there is no risk of losing and he can torture his opponent for hours! To see how White should proceed, take a look at the very similar ending in the illustrative game Socko­Matlak.

B) g ... f6 The main line after 8 . . . 'i'b6.

10 exf6 tiJxf6 11 o-o ..td6 The variation I have chosen for

White is a positional option which is very fashionable at the moment: 12 b31?

White protects the b-pawn and is

ready to continue with �f4, exchang­ing the dark-squared bishops.

Although this set-up seems very logical there are certain drawbacks too. After the exchange of bishops Black can easily arrange the liberating . . . e5, and White doesn't have the useful b3-square available for his queen. Fur­thermore, White's queenside can be­come weak in some variations, as the complex of dark squares no longer has any protection from a bishop. On the other hand, White can continue (after the exchange of the bishops) with l:tcl and 'ifd2, and has the idea of l2Jc3-a4-c5 at his disposal. In addition, sometimes White's queen can use the b2-square after an eventual . . . l2Je4. 12 . . . 0-0

The immediate 12 . . . e5 has also been played, but after 13 dxe5 l2Jxe5 14 l2Jxe5 i.xe5 15 ltb1 0-0 16 i.f4 White seems to have a stable advantage. For example:

a) 16 . . . i.xf4 17 lLlxf4 'Wd6 (17 . . . l2Jg4? 18 lLlxd5 'Wd6 19 g3 'ir'h6 20 h4 l2Je5 21 i.e4 �h3 22 l:te1 left Black with no compensation for the pawn in N.Borge­B.Leer Salvesen, Stockholm 1998) 18

3 . . . li:Jf6 : M a in L in e with B . . . W b 6

'Wd2 �d7 19 .l:r.bd1 �c6 20 lLle2 lLlg4 21 l2Jg3 l:i.ad8 22 �e2 l2Je5 23 'Wd4 a6 24 f4 l2Jd7 (G.Loew-R.Burmeister, German League 1998) 25 �f3 and White is slightly better.

b) 16 . . . Wd6!? 17 'ifd2 l2Jg4 18 i.xe5 'Wxe5 19 l2Jg3 i..d7 20 l:tbd 1 i..c6 21 �e2 l2Jh6 22 l:tfe1 Wh8 23 �f3 'ifd6 24 l:te3 .:tad8 25 l:r.d3 left White with a lasting advantage in S.Brynell-E.Rozentalis, Gausdal 2001 . 13 i..f4

At first sight Black's queen doesn't seem to be well placed on b6, but it does perform a number of tasks:

1. It puts pressure on the d4-pawn; 2. After an eventual . . . e5 it will at­

tack the f2-pawn; and 3. It prevents the important ma­

noeuvre i..b5 followed by i..xc6 which, in conjunction with the exchange of bishops, grants White absolute control of the important e5-square and leaves Black with a terrible bishop against a powerful knight on e5. 13 . . . i..xf4

Here's a summary of the alterna­tives:

2 0 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

a ) It's easy to see that 13 . . . lt:\b4? i s a bad idea once you understand point '3' above. Black allows White to achieve his aim and loses two tempi doing so!

}.Thorn Leeson-A.Fediv, correspon­dence 2003, continued 14 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 lS :tel ! i.d7 16 ltJeS l:tac8 17 'ii'd2 lt:\xd3 18 'ii'xd3 i.e8 19 l:tacl l:Ixcl 20 lhcl lt:\d7 21 �e3 lt:\xeS 22 'ili'xeS 'ii'xeS 23 dxeS l:.f7 24 lt:\d4 (White transforms his advantage) 24 . . . l:te7 2S f4 h6 26 Wf2 Wf7 27 We3 b6 28 h4! .l:tb7 29 hS aS 30 g4 (compare the very similar Tiviakov­Dgebuadze, Line C in Chapter 20: in that game White won with the break­through g4-gS, but here White chooses the equally effective f4-fS) 30 . . . i.d7 31 fS exfS 32 gxfS Wf8 33 Wf4 \t>e7 34 e6 i.e8 3S WeS i.xhS 36 ltc8 i.e8 37 a4 and Black resigned. A very well con­ducted game by White.

b) 13 . . . i.a3?! tries to exploit the weakened dark squares, but of course it is premature. For example, 14 ltJeS! i.d7 (14 . . . ltJhS?! has no point, as lS i.e3 lt:\xeS? 16 dxeS "it'c7 17 g4 wins a piece, as in D.Daulyte-Z.Severjukhina, Budva 2003; 14 . . . 4Jb4?! lS i.cl ! Ji.xcl 16 lt:\xcl

2 0 8

lt:\xd3 17 "it'xd3 i.d7 18 a4 i.e8 was O.Korneev-E.Juglard, French League 1998, and here 19 'it'e3! lt:\d7 20 lt:\cd3 would obtain a pleasant advantage because 20 . . . 'ii'xb3 21 l:Iabl 'it'xa4 22 .l:.xb7 lt:\xeS 23 'ifxeS .l:tf6 24 ltJcS "it'c6 2S l:Hbl is bad for Black) lS b4! .

This i s an amazing move, exploiting the lack of coordination between Black's pieces. The bishop on a3 has problems and Black must react imme­diately. The best he can do is lS . . . aS! (both 1S . . . lt:\xb4 16 l:tbl 'ii'd8 - 16 . . . 'it'aS? 17 lt:\xd7 lt:\xd7 18 i.d2 loses on the spot - 17 "it'b3 lt:\xd3 18 'it'xd3 and 1S . . . i.xb4 16 l:.bl WaS 17 "it'b3 are good for White) 16 bxaS "it'xaS 17 l:.bl ltJxeS 18 J..xeS bS 19 lt:\f4, but White keeps the initiative.

c) 13 . . . lt:\e4 transfers the knight to d6 with 14 i.xd6 lt:\xd6, but White keeps an edge in the endgame arising after lS ltJeS! ltJfS 16 lt:\xc6 'ii'xc6 (and not 16 . . . bxc6 17 l:Iel i.a6?! 18 i.xa6 "iixa6 19 lt:\f4, with a clear advantage for White) 17 :tel "iid6 18 Wc2 i.d7 19 'it'c7 i.c6 20 "it'xd6 lt:\xd6 21 a4.

d) 13 . . . lt:\xd4 (trying to obtain a

solid, albeit slightly inferior position) 14 tt::lfxd4 e5 15 i.e3 exd4 16 i.xd4 and here Black must choose his plan:

dl) 16 .. .'ii'd8 was assessed as equal by John Watson. I think this evaluation is optimistic: Black has an inferior pawn structure and finds it difficult to develop the c8-bishop to a useful square. Play continues with 17 tt::lg3 (preventing . . . tt::le4 and ruling out any Greek Gift ideas with . . . i.xh2+ and ltlg4+; furthermore, the knight is ready to jump to f5 at an appropriate mo-ment) 17 . . . i.d7 (17 . . . tt::lg4? 18 h3 tt::lh6 19 'ii'c2! ; 17 . . . i.e6 18 .:tel 'ii'd7 19 'ii'e2 i.g4 20 f3 i.xg3 21 hxg3 i.f5 22 i.b5 'ii'f7 23 g4 gave White the advantage in P.Wells-V.Braun, Senden 2002; 17 . . . �h8 18 .:tel i.b4 19 lle5 lle8 - 19 . . . i.d6 20 .:!15! h6 21 tt::lf5 is terrible for Black - 20 llxe8+ 'ii'xe8 was J.Shaw-U.Krause, Hastings 2002, and here 21 'ii'cl ! in­tending 'ii'g5 or 'ii'f4 would give White a strong attack) 18 l:.cl 'ii'e8 19 .l:.el 'ii'f7 20 tt::lf5 i.xf5 21 i.xf5 �h8 (].Estrada Nieto-Hoang Thanh Trang, Budapest 2001 ) 22 i.d3 is clearly better for White.

d2) 16 . . . i.c5 is logical and was as-

3 . . .&i:Jf6 : M a i n L i n e with 8 . . . 'ik b 6

sessed as equal by Pedersen, but I think White can claim a small advantage:

17 i.xc5 'ii'xc5 18 .:tel 'ii'b6! (if 18 . . . 'ii'a5, then 19 'ii'c2 i.d7 20 ltld4; or 18 . . . 'ii'd6 19 'ii'c2 i.g4 20 'ii'c7) 19 'ii'c2 i.g4 20 'ii'c7! (this strong move was not mentioned by Pedersen; White can force a slightly better ending) 20 . . . 'ii'b4 21 f3 i.d7 22 "ili'c5 "ii'xc5+ 23 l:txc5 llfc8 24 l:tfcl lhc5 25 .l:txc5 .l:tc8 26 lhc8+ i.xc8 27 �f2 �f7 28 �e3 �e7 29 h4!, D.Pavasovic-M.Sebenik, Nova Gorica 2003.

d3) 16 . . . 'ii'c7 17 tt::lg3 i.g4 (17 . . . "ili'f7 18 i.xf6! gxf6 19 'ii'f3 i.e5 20 .l:.adl �h8 21 i.f5! i.xg3 22 hxg3 i.xf5 23 'ii'xf5 l:.ad8 24 lld4 l:.fe8 25 llfdl l:te5 26 'ii'f3 gave White an edge in S.Petrosian­U.Krause, Hamburg 2000; or 17 . . . i.d7 18 i.xf6 l:txf6 19 'ii'hs .l:.h6 20 "ili'xd5+ �h8 21 i.e4 llf8 22 l:.adl ! and Black had no compensation for the pawn in O.Komeev-J.Sanchez, Linares 1994) 18 "ili'cl ! (White uses the fact that the end­ing favours him in order to gain time to transfer his queen to g5) 18 . . . "ili'f7 19 'ii'gS! and White was better in A.Berelovich-L.Geffroy, Sautron 2002.

2 09

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

e) 13 .. .'ii'c7 is met by 14 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 15 tt:\g3! .

White is ready to play .l:te1 to pre­vent . . . e5 and then organize i.b5, so Black must play . . . e5 now or not at all: 15 ... e5! (White obtained a clear advan­tage in M.Rigolot-T.Trapp, Hyeres 2002, after 15 . . . 'ii'f4 16 'it'd �xcl 17 l:taxcl i.d7 18 .l:tfe1 .l:Iac8 19 i.b5! a6 20 i.xc6 :xc6 21 .l:txc6 bxc6 22 tt:\e5) 16 dxe5 tt:\xe5 17 tt:\xe5 'ii'xe5 18 'ii'd2 i.d7 (White gets a strong attack following 18 . . . tt:\g4?! 19 :ae1 ! �f6 20 h3 tt:\e5 21 tt:\h5 'ii'd6 22 'ili'g5 tt:\g6 23 f4!) 19 .l:.fe1 'ii'd6 20 h3! ? (avoiding . . . tt:\g4 ideas) 20 . . . .l:tae8 21 :ad1 �h8 22 i.f5!? (a very interesting move: White exchanges bishops to make the d5-pawn weaker) 22 . . . l:!.xe1+ 23 l:.xe1 l:te8 24 lhe8+ i.xe8 25 'ili'd4 b6 26 b4! (White is slightly bet­ter) 26 . . . i.b5 27 a3 'ii'c7 28 �h2 �g8 29 f4 �f7? 30 i.xh7 tt:\xh7 31 'ili'xd5+ �e7 32 'ili'e4+ �f8 33 'ili'xh7 and White was winning in J.Emms-T.Thorhallsson, Kopavogur 1994. 14 tt:\xf4

A key position. Now we will look at:

2 1 0

81: 14 ... g61? 82: 14 ... �h8 83: 14 .. Ji'c7 84: 14 ... i.d7 85: 14 ... tt:\e4!

14 . . . tt:\xd4? 15 tt:\xd4 e5 is punished by 16 tt:\xd5! .

White obtains a clear advantage af­ter 16 . . . 'ili'xd4 (16 . . . tt:\xd5 17 'ili'h5!) 17 i.c4! i.e6! (17 . . . �h8? 18 'ifxd4 exd4 19 tt:\c7 l:lb8 20 l:tad1, as in M.Wahls-Chen De, Beijing 1993, wins a pawn, as does 17 . . . 'ii'xd1 ? 18 l:laxd1 �h8 19 .l:.fe1 ! ) 18 tt:\e7+ �f7 19 'ii'xd4! exd4 20 i.xe6+ �xe6 21 l:.fe1+ �f7 22 tt:\f5. For exam-

pie: 22 . . . .l:tfd8 23 l:.e7+ �g6 24 tt::lh4+ 'it'h6 (L.Trent-J.Cox, Torquay 2002) 25 .l:td1 d3 26 h3!, avoiding back rank problems and getting ready to support the knight on f5 with g2-g4; or 22 . . . .l:tad8 23 .l:te7+ �g6 24 tt::lh4+ �h6 25 .l:td1 tt::ld5 26 .l:txb7 tt::lc3 27 .l:td3 g5 28 tt::lf3 g4 29 tt::le5 :de8 30 tt::lxg4+ �g6 31 'it'fl (O.Wegener-N.Heidel, German League 1999) 3l . . .h5! 32 l:hd4 hxg4 33 .l:txg4+ �h6 34 l:.c4 and White is win­ning.

81) 14 ... g61? Blocking the b1-h7 diagonal and

thus making the threat of . . . tt::lxd4 real. 15 �C2

This is the usual way to protect the d4-pawn. 15 'ii'e2! ? offering to trade d4 for e6 is an interesting alternative, one that led to a slight advantage for White after 15 . . . tt::lxd4 16 tt::lxd4 'ii'xd4 17 tt::lxe6 i.xe6 18 'iixe6+ �g7 19 .l:tad1 'iib4 20 'iie5 l1ae8 21 'ifb2 .l:te7 22 �e2! d4 23 i.f3 l:td8 24 a3 1i'c5 25 .l:td3 .l:td6 26 .l:tfd1 .l:ted7 27 b4 'iie5 28 g3 in S.Dvoirys­S.Nadyrhanov, Bamaul 1988. 15 ... tt::le4

3 . ..tC,j6 : M a in L i n e with 8 . . . 'iib 6

Or 15 . . . �d7 1 6 l:.e1 ! ? and now: a) 16 . . . l:tae8 17 g3 tt::lxd4 (17 . . . tt::lg4 18

'iid2 tt::lh6 19 l1ad1 tt::lf5 20 �g2 �c8 21 �b1 l:te7 22 h4! �g7 23 h5 gave White a strong attack in C.Peptan-P.Blazkova, Duisburg 1992) 18 1i'xd4 1i'xd4 19 tt::lxd4 e5 20 tt::lfe6! and White keeps an edge after 20 . . . �xe6 21 .l:txe5. This tt::lfe6 idea is a typical response to the reoccurring . . . tt::lxd4 tactic.

b) 16 . . . tt::le4 is met by 17 g3!, keeping a slight advantage after 17 . . . tt::lc3 18 'iid2 tt::lb5 (18 . . . .l:tac8?! 19 �xg6! hxg6 20 'iixc3 tt::le5 21 'ife3 tt::lxf3+ 22 'iixf3 Wxd4 23 1Wg4 gives White the initiative) 19 l:.ad1 l:.ac8 20 �bl .

Note that White plays g2-g3 instead of withdrawing his knight to e2, as that would allow Black to carry out the ex­change sacrifice on f3. A rule of thumb for this sacrifice is that if Black has al­ready played . . . �d7 so the other rook can quickly reach JB, then he has compensation. Of course in each instance exact calcu­lation is required, as we will see later on. 16 g31

16 tt::le2 .l:txf3!? gives Black counter­play (even though his bishop is still on c8) and I don't see a reason to allow this. 16 ... l:.f6 17 l:.e1 tt::ld6 18 Wd2 tt::lfs 19 �xfsl

19 .l:lad1 is another route to an edge. 19 ... l1xf5 20 'iie3 �d7 21 tt::ld3 l:.xf3 22 'iixf3 tt::lxd4 23 'iid1 l:.f8

Black has a passed pawn and some activity for the exchange based on the weakness of f3, but I don't think it's enough. In comparison to lines where

2 1 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

White's pawns are shattered after . . . .l:.xf3 and gxf3, White's king is rela­tively safe. Indeed after 24 lt:'le5 �b5 25 l:.cl, as played in M.Hoffrnann­R.Meessen, German League 2001, Black's activity has diminished and White is left with a distinct advantage.

82) 14 ... �h8 Black is again threatening the d4-

pawn, but I don't like this move as White has a very strong reply: 1s lt:'lgs!

This is White's usual reaction to .. . �h8, as lt:'lxh7 is in the air. 15 �c2!? �d7 16 l:1e1, as in M.Adams­M.Sebenik, Bled Olympiad, 2002, is a quieter option. 15 ... g6

Alternatively: a) 15 . . . e5? ignores White's threat,

and following 16 lt:'lxh7! lt:'lxh7 17 'ii'h5 e4 18 lt:'lg6+ �g8 19 'ifxd5+ .l::t£7 20 �c4 lt:'ld8 21 "ii'xe4 �e6 22 d5 �d7 23 d6 Black was forced to resign in F.Da Silva-M.Novosad, correspondence 1998.

b) 15 . . . �g8? 16 'ji'c2 lt:'Je4 17 �xe4

2 1 2

ltxf4 1 8 �xd5 was winning for White in D.Mieles Palau-J.Cubas, Bled Olym­piad 2002.

c) Black has tried sacrificing the ex­change with 15 . . . 'ihd4?!, but it seems he cannot organize an attack against White's king. A.Salem-N.Pert, London 1993, continued 16 lt:'lfxe6 �xe6 17 lt:'Jxe6 'ili'h4 18 lt:'Jxf8 .l:.xf8 19 .l:tcl lt:'le5 (or 19 . . . lt:'lg4 20 h3 lt:'Jce5 21 �e2 lt:'Jxf2 22 'iie1 ! lt:'lxh3+ 23 gxh3 'iig5+ 24 �h2 and Black resigned in 'Cramneck'-'Flanker', Internet 2002) 20 �e2 h6 21 h3 lt:'lg6 22 �f3 'itg5 23 �h2 lt:'lh4 24 g3 'ii'e5 25 �h1 and White went on to win. 16 l:te11

16 �xg6?! is met by 16 . . Jlg8! . The safe way to an edge is 16 'iid2! ? �g8! (and not 16 . . . �d7 17 lt:'lxh7! obtaining a very strong attack) 17 lt:'lgxe6 �xe6 18 lt:'Jxe6 l:lfe8 19 lt:'lc5 lt:'Jxd4 20 b4.

16 ... lt:'Jxd4 16 .. .'�g8?! is met by 17 lt:'lgxe6 �xe6

18 lt:'lxe6 ltfe8 19 'iif3! . Maybe 16 . . . e5 !? 17 dxe5 lt:'lg4 is the best way to compli­cate matters. 17 lt:'lxh71 �xh7 18 lt:'Jxg6 �g7?1

18 . . . .:.£7!? seems best, and White

should reply with 19 'ifd2 tt::l£5 20 'ii'g5. 19 'ifd2

White has a strong attack, O.Komeev-J.De la Villa Garcia, Be­nasque 1996.

83) 14 .. Ji'c7 15 tt::le2!? e51 1S . . . tt::lg4 16 tt::lg3 ..td7? 17 ..txh7+

was good for White in Pham Hoai Nam-Nguyen Anh Tu, Phu Dong 2004. 16 dxe5 tt::lxe5

16 . . . tt::lg4?! should be met by 17 ..tbS! .:d8 18 .:tel tt::lgxeS 19 tt::lxeS 'ifxeS 20 i.xc6 bxc6 21 tt::ld4! with a clear advan­tage for White. 17 lillc:e5 'ii'xe5 18 tt::lg3

White has slightly the better chances here. For example, 18 . . . i.d7 19 'ii'd2 l:.ac8 20 l:tfe1 'ii'c3 21 Wxc3 .l:txc3 22 llad1 g6 23 tt::le2 lieS 24 .:c1 :tfc8 2S llxcS .l:txcS 26 £3 with a typical end­game edge, K.Malinovsky-V.Laznicka, Czechia 2001 .

84) 14 ... i.d7 15 l:te11 l:tae8 16 'ii'd2! 16 .l:tcl can be met by 16 . . . eS!

(16 .. .'i#o>h8?! 17 tt::lg5! e5 18 tt::lxh7! is good for White) 17 tt::lxeS tt::lxeS 18 .:!.xeS l:.xeS

3 . . .li::Jf6 : M a in L i n e with 8 . . . 'il b 6

19 dxe5 tt::lg4 20 'ii'£3 .l:.£7! 2 1 h3 tt::lxe5 22 'ii'xd5 'ii'f6! 23 l:te1 11i'xf4 24 'ifxe5 'ifxf2+ 25 �h2 i.c6 26 �e2 'ii'f4+ and Black has equalized. 16 ... �h8

Alternatively: a) 16 . . . 'iib4?! 17 'ii'xb4 tt::lxb4 18 i.b1

11c8 19 tt::ld3 tt::lc2 20 i.xc2 .l:txc2 21 tt::lcS i.c8 22 .l:!ecl and White is clearly bet­ter.

b) 16 . . . l:!.e7?! 17 .:.ad1 aS 18 i.b1 i.c8 19 tt::lgS tt::ld8 20 i.xh7+! tt::lxh7 21 tt::lg6 .l:tee8 22 tt::lxh7 �xh7 23 tt::lxf8+ l::txf8 24 Wc2+ and Black resigned in E.Anka­M.Zucchelli, Budapest 1996.

c) 16 . . . g6 17 i.c2 tt::lxd4 (White gets a clear advantage after 17 . . . Wb4 18 Wxb4 tt::lxb4 19 i.b1 .l:tc8 20 tt::ld3 tt::lc2 21 i.xc2 .l:txc2 22 tt::lcS i.c8 23 l:!.ecl) 18 Wxd4 'ifxd4 19 tt::lxd4 eS 20 tt::lfe6! i.xe6 21 .UxeS with an edge for White, S.Petrosian-M.Zumsande, Senden 2000.

d) Against 16 . . . 'ii'c7 White should reply 17 g3! and now:

d1) 17 . . . �h8?! 18 tt::leS Wb6 19 .:tad1 is good for White as 19 . . . 'ii'xd4? can be met by 20 tt::lxd7 tt::lxd7 21 tt::lxe6, and 19 . . . tt::lxd4? by 20 i.xh7.

2 1 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

d2) 17 . . . e5 18 dxe5 lLJxe5 19 lLlxe5 .l:txe5 20 l:l.xe5 'ii'xe5 21 l:!.e1 1i'd6 22 �fl ! (this is one idea behind g2-g3: White is ready to move his bishop to g2 increas­ing the pressure on the d5-pawn) 22 . . . �c6 23 �g2 'it>h8 24 b4 �b5 25 l:te6 'ifd7 26 'ifd4 and White enjoyed a pleasant advantage in F.Lukez­H.Elwert, correspondence 1999.

d3) 17 . . . g5!? 18 lLlg2! (18 lLlxg5 lLlxd4 19 �g6 e5! 20 :act 'ifd6 21 �xe8 .l:txe8 22 lLle2 l2Jxe2+ 23 l:r.xe2 e4 is fine for Black) 18 . . . h6 19 h4 lbg4 20 �e2 gxh4 21 lbgxh4 and again White has a small advantage. 17 l:r.ad11

Black obtains good counterplay af­ter 17 �c2 g5! 18 lbe2 e5! . 17 • • • l2Jxd4!

Black must accept the challenge. 17 . . . 'ii'b4 18 'it'xb4 lbxb4 19 lbe5 lbg4 20 lbfg6+ hxg6 21 lbxg4 was good for White in T.Luther-M.Matlak, Gronin­gen 1998. 18 l2Je5! l2Jc6 19 l2Jxd7 l2Jxd7 20 l2Jxe6 :tf6 21 l2Jg5

Pedersen stops here, concluding that the position is good for White.

2 1 4

However, I think White must play very accurately to prove an advantage. 21 . • . .l:txe1+ 22 .l:txe1 l2Jce5!

Now: a) After 23 �xh7 g6 24 h4! .l:tf5 25 h5

'iff6! 26 f4 .l:.xf4 27 'ii'xd5 'ii'b6+ 28 'it>h2 l:th4+ 29 'it>g3 l:tg4+ 30 'it>h3 l:l.h4+! White must agree to a perpetual check, as 31 'it>xh4?? loses the two minor pieces af­ter 3l . . .'iff2+ 32 'it>h3 'iff5+ 33 g4 'ifxg4+ 34 'it>h2 'ii'xh5+ 35 'it>g2 'ii'xg5+ 36 'it>h1 'it>xh7.

b) 23 �b1 ! h6 24 l2Jh3 'it'd6 (24 . . . g5 can be met by 25 'it>h1 intending f2-f4) 25 l:tdl g5! (25 . . . l2Jb6 26 a4 lbg4 27 g3! lbe5 28 'it>g2 'iic6 29 'iid4 l2Jf3 30 'iid3 is very good for White) 26 'ifxd5! 'ii'xd5 27 l:txd5 g4 28 f4! gxf3 29 �e4 fxg2 30 l:ta5! .l:ta6 31 1Ixa6 bxa6 32 l2Jf4 and White has the advantage.

85} 14 • . • l2Je41 I think this is Black's strongest con­

tinuation. 15 l2Je2

15 ... �d7! This is the best move, after which it

is very difficult for White to prove an

advantage. I will give the critical lines and some alternatives for White which

you can investigate further. Other Black options include: a) 15 .. .'ili>h8?! 16 i.xe4 dxe4 17 ltle5!

is slightly better for White. b) 15 . . . e5? ! is a way to complicate

matters, but White gains the advantage after 16 i.xe4! dxe4 17 lLlxe5 ltlxe5 18 dxe5 'ii'b5 19 .:tel 'ifxe5 20 'iVd4 'iff6 21 l:tacl .

c) Although the exchange sacrifice . . . .:.Xf3 is not so strong with the queen on b6 rather than d8, it has been played many times because it still demands extreme accuracy by White: 15 . . . l:txf3?! 16 gxf3 lLlg5 17 f4! lLlf3+ 18 �hl ! . Now:

cl) 18 . . . e5 19 ltlgl ! lLlxgl? (19 . . . lLlfxd4 is stronger, although White keeps the advantage after 20 fxe5) 20 'i'h5! �f8 21 l:txgl e4 22 l:txg7! c;i;>xg7 23 l:tgl + �f6 24 'iVh6+ �f5 25 l:tg5+ c,i?xf4 26 'iVh4+ and Black was mated in J.Skjoldborg-E.Palm, Holbaek 2001 .

c2) 18 . . . lLlfxd4 19 l:tgl (a typical idea against the exchange sac: White usually continues with �hl and obtains a strong attack down the g-file) 19 . . . ..td7

3 . . .&iJf6 : M a i n L i n e with B . . . 'il b 6

20 lLlxd4 'ifxd4 21 'ii'g4 ltlb4 22 l:tadl 'ii'f6 (or 22 . . . ltlxd3 23 l:txd3 'ii'f6 24 l:tdg3 g6 25 'ii'h5) 23 ..i.bl ..tc6 24 f3! d4 25 l:td2 :f8 26 i.e4 and White has a clear advantage.

d) 15 . . . lLld6?! is covered in the illus­trative game Hansen-Brynell at the end of the chapter. 16 'ifb11?

This is a new try, but let's first look at what White has played in practice:

a) 16 ltlg3 ltlxg3 17 hxg3 l:tf6 has been played many times and is fine for Black.

b) 16 l:lcl ! ? and now:

bl) 16 . . . l:tf6? 17 i.xe4 dxe4 18 ltlg5 is good for White.

b2) 16 . . . lLlf6 17 lLlc3!? :ae8 18 lLla4 'ii'b4 19 l:tel �h8 20 i.bl l:te7 21 ltlc5 i.c8 22 lLld3 'ifd6 23 ltlde5 was clearly better for White in A.Czaeczine­A.Albers, Dresden 2004.

b3) 16 . . . ltlb4!? has some point in this position as Black is ready to develop an initiative, but with accurate handling it proves to be inadequate: 17 ..i.bl i.b5 18 a4 i.a6 19 l:tel e5! ? (P.Acs-J.Roos, Budapest 1997) 20 lLlxe5! lLlxf2!

2 1 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

(20 . . . l:txf2? 21 aS! is good for White be­cause after Black's queen loses contact with d4, White can take on e4) 21 'ii'd2 l:tad8 22 tDg3! tDbd3 23 tDxd3 'ii'xd4 24 'ii'c3! and White wins.

b4) 16 . . . l:tad8! 17 tDg3 eS (White has an edge after 17 . . . tDxg3 18 hxg3 l:tf6 19 �el l:tdf8 20 l:cS!; maybe Black's best try is 17 . . . l:!.f4!? obliging White to find a way to avoid a repetition of moves af­ter 18 tDhs l:tfS 19 tDg3 l:tf4 20 tDhS :fs, as in M.Samraoui-A.Gaujens, corres­pondence 2004) 18 tDxe4 .i.g4 (H.Pedersen-D.Salter, correspondence 2001; 18 . . . dxe4 is met by 19 .i.c4+! 'it>h8 20 tDxeS) 19 lDegS e4 (19 . . . h6 20 tDh4! hxgS 21 'ii'xg4 gxh4 22 'it'e6+ 'it>h8 23 dxeS wins for White) 20 ..te2 exf3 21 .i.xf3 .i.xf3 22 tDxf3 .l:i.f4 23 g3 .:!.f6 (23 . . . l:tf5 24 'ii'd3 l:!.df8 25 tDh4 l:!.Sf7 26 l:.cd1) 24 l:!.e1 .l:.df8 25 tDeS 'ii'xd4 26 tDd7 'ii'xf2+ 27 'it>h1 l:!.h6 28 'ii'xdS+ 'it>h8 29 'ii'g2 'ii'xg2+ 30 'it>xg2 l:t.d8 31 h4 and White has a tiny edge, as 31 . . .l:!.d6? is bad because of 32 tDc5 l:!.d2+ 33 'it>h3.

c) 16 .i.xe4! ? is what most Black players are afraid of, but with accurate defence he can hold the position: 16 . . . dxe4 17 tDgS l:!.ad8 18 tDxe4 .i.e8! (18 . . . e5 has been the main line but it seems that White keeps an advantage after 19 dxeS ..tg4 20 'iVc2 tDxeS 21 tD2g3 tDd3 22 h3!, as in J.Rathbone­R.Vercammen, correspondence 2002) 19 tDgS l::tf6! (19 . . . tDxd4 20 tDxd4 :xd4 21 'ii'e2 was a bit better for White in F.Lukez-A.Savage, correspondence 1999) 20 'ii'd3 .i.g6 21 'ii'e3 tDb4 O.Neumann-C.Gouw, correspondence 2001) 22 l:.ad1 tDxa2 23 tDf4 .i.fS 24 l:fe1

2 1 6

tLlb4 25 tLlfxe6 tDc2 26 'ii'c3 tbxe1 27 tDxd8 tDxg2 28 'ii'c4+ 'it>f8 29 tDd£7 tDf4 30 .Ue1 .i.e6 (30 . . . 'ii'c6! ?) 31 tDxe6+ l:txe6 32 tDeS 'ii'd8 and the position is compli­cated with chances for both sides.

Returning to 16 'ifb 1 :

16 . . . l:txf31 Or 16 . . . tDf6 17 'ifb2 tDb4 18 ..tb1 .i.bS

19 .l:te1 tDe4 (19 . . . ..td3 20 a3 .i.xb1 21 'ii'xb1 tDc6 22 'ii'd3; 19 . . . tDd3 20 ..txd3 .i.xd3 21 tDeS .i.xe2 22 l:txe2 l:!.ac8 23 l:!.ae1 llc7 24 f3) 20 tDc3 .i.d3 21 a3 ..txb1 22 tDa4! 'ii'd6 23 axb4 .i.d3 24 tDcS ..tbS 25 tDxe4 dxe4 26 tDgS with an edge for White in all variations. 17 gxf3 tDd2 18 .i.xh7+ 'it>h8

19 'ii'g6 19 'ii'd3 �xfl 20 llxfl �e7 is better

for Black. 19 ... �Xd4J

19 .. . .i.e8 20 Wxe6 'it'xh7 21 'ii'h3+ �g8 22 llfdl is very good for White. 20 �xd4 'ii'xd4 21 'ii'h5 'ii'h41 22 'ii'xh4 �xf3+ 23 'it'g2 �xh4+ 24 'it'g3 g5 25 i.d3 e5 26 f3 1

26 llacl e4! (White was intending to meet 26 . . . .i.c6?! with 27 f4! ! activating the most powerful piece in the end­game - the king: 27 . . . exf4+ 28 'it'g4 l:.g8 29 llf2 .i.d7+ 30 'it'h5 .i.f5 31 .i.xf5 �xf5 32 .:c7 etc) 27 .l:.c7 �f5+ 28 'it'g2 .i.c6 is good for Black. 26 ... �g7 27 .l:.ae1

I think White has slightly the better chances. Following 27 . . . .i.c6 28 b4 a6 29 a4!, he will penetrate via the c- or a-file after an eventual b5, . . . axb5, axb5.

I l lustrative Games

B.Soeko-M.Matlak Lubniewice 2005

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 �d2 �f6 4 e5 �fd7 5

3 . . . &i:Jf6 : M a in L i n e with 8 . . . "il b 6

..i.d3 e5 6 e3 �e6 7 �e2 cxd4 8 cxd4 'ii'b6 9 �f3 .i.b4+ 10 ..i.d2 .i.xd2+ 11 'ii'xd2 'ii'b4 12 a31?

Although 12 .l:.cl is the suggested move for our repertoire, the endgame that occurs here is very similar to what can happen in our line and is very in­structive for our understanding of the position. Don 't just study variations in your repertoire; investigate the typical endgames that can occur from different variations as well. 12 ... 'ii'xd2+ 13 �xd21 �b6 14 f4

White uses the same plan as in our main line. He will continue with <ifo>f2, move a rook to c1 and then try to put a knight on c5 after b2-b4. The only dif­ference is that the hi-rook goes to cl, but this is not important given that all the rooks will be exchanged on the c­file. 14 ... .i.d7 15 <oto>f2 �e7 16 llhe1 .:thea 17 b4 �dB 18 �e3 �a41? 19 �xa4 .i.xa4 20 �e3 .i.d7 21 �b3 llxe1 22 llxe1 .l:.e8 23 :xeS .i.xe8

A typical ending for this whole variation. White is better as he has the superior bishop and more space in a

2 1 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

symmetrical pawn structure, but it is not easy to break down Black's posi­tion. White begins by gaining more space on the kingside.

24 g41 g6 After 24 . . . h6 White continues with

25 h4 b6 26 gS (26 hS! ?) 26 . . . h5 (26 . . . .i.d7!?) 27 g6 after which Black will have problems with the h-pawn as the knight is ready to come to g3 via c1 and e2. 25 h4 f51

Black cannot wait for ever. 26 exf6+1

After 26 gS?! it would not be easy for White to break through. 26 ... <li>xf6 27 lDd2

The knight is heading for the eS­square. 21 ... .i.d7 28 bsl

A very good move: White doesn't allow Black's bishop to be activated via a4 and dl . 28 . . . lbf7 29 a4 lbd6 30 lbf3 a61

Black correctly exchanges pawns. When you are worse in an ending, try to exchange as many pawns as you can .

32 bxa6 bxa6 33 .i.c2 aS! holds for Black. 32 .. .'ii?e7 33 bxa6 bxa6 34 as .i.bSI

Black finally manages to exchange his bad bishop. 35 .i.xbs lbxbs 36 <li>d3 lba7?

36 ... <li>d6! 37 lbg4 <li>e7 38 lbf6 lbd6 39 lbxh7 lbfS 40 lbf6 lbxh4 seems to hold. The big mistake Black makes in this endgame is to allow White the op­portunity to create an imbalance in the pawn structure. Asymmetry in pawn structures usually favours the side with the advantage. 37 <li>c3 <li>d6 38 lbg4 <li>e7 39 l2Jf6 lbc6 40 lbxh7 lbxas 41 lbf6

Now it is not easy for Black to pre­vent White's king from invading via the dark squares. 41 ... lbb7?

A tragic mistake, losing control of the dark squares. The best chance was 4l . . .lbc6! 42 lbg4 <li>d8 43 lbeS lbe7 (43 . . . lbxe5? 44 fxeS <li>c7 45 hS! ) 44 <li>b4 <li>c8!, when there seems to be no forced win for White. 42 lbg4 <M7 43 lbes+ <li>g7 44 <li>b4

31 lDes .i.e8 32 gS+ 44 ... lbd6

2 1 8

There is no salvation, and 44 . . . 'it>h7 is met by 45 ltJd3 �g7 46 ltJc5. White's basic plan is to offer a knight exchange (as all the pawn endings are winning) in order to invade via the dark squares. 45 �as ltJfs 46 liJf3 ltJe3 47 �xa6 ltJg2 48 'it>b6 ltlxf4

Black has managed to regain his pawn, but there is a huge difference in the activity of the kings. 49 'it>c6 'it>f7 50 'it>d6 lt!e2 51 'it>d7

White gains time repeating moves. This is a useful technique in the end­game, putting more psychological pressure on your opponent. 51 ... ltlf4 52 'it>d6 ltle2 53 ltles+ �g7 54 ltlc6 ltlf4 55 ltld8 ltlg2 56 ltlxe6+ 'it>f7 57 'it>xds ltlxh4 58 'it>d6 'it>e8 59 d5 lLlf3 60 'it>c7 'it>f7

After 60 . . . ltle5 61 d6 Black is in zugzwang. 61 d6 1-0

A well conducted endgame by Bar­tosz Socko, who is more often seen playing the Black side of the French Defence.

S.B.Hansen-S.Brynell Excelsior Cup, Gothenburg 1998

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ltld2 ltlf6 4 es ltlfd7 5 i.d3 cs 6 c3 ltlc6 7 ltle2 'ii'b6 8 ltlf3 cxd4 9 cxd4 f6 10 exf6 ltlxf6 11 o-o i.d6 12 b3 o-o 13 i.f4 i.xf4 14 ltlxf4 ltle4 15 ltlez ltld671

Although Brynell has great experi­ence in the French Defence, in this game he plays very strangely. The best move is 15 . . . i.d7! - see the analysis in Line B5.

3 . . .ti:Jj6 : M a i n L i n e with B . . .'il b 6

16 'ii'd21 16 ltlc3 is an interesting idea of La­

lic's, but I don't think it's as strong as the text move. After 16 ... ltlf5! 17 ltla4 'ii'b4 18 a3 'ii'e7 19 i.b5! i.d7, although White has a small edge, Black's posi­tion remains very solid. 16 ... i.d7 17 l:tad1 ltlfs71

Black doesn't have much for the ex­change after 17 . . . l:txf3?! 18 gxf3 llf8 19 f4 .l:tf6 20 'ii'e3; while 17 . . . llf6?! 18 ltle5! i.e8 19 i.b1, 17 . . . 'it>h8 18 .l:tfe1 ! and 17 . . . a5 !? 18 ltlc3! .l:tae8 19 litfe1 are all better for White.

17 . . . .l:tae8! is probably Black's strongest option, and 18 i.b1 a5 19 l:tfe1 ltlf5 20 ltlc3! l:lf6 21 ltla4 restricted White to a slight advantage in C.Villiere-I.Tomasouw, correspon­dence 2000. 18 i.b1 as

Black is looking for counterplay on the queenside with . . . a4. 19 ltlc31

This is the best reaction when Black adopts the . . . a5 idea. White controls the a4-square and is ready to continue with ltla4-c5.

2 1 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defence

19 ... lDce7?! Maybe 19 . . . l:tac8!? .

20 lDes i..e8 21 .l:tfe1 l:.c8 22 lDe2 The knight is heading for f4 to tar­

get the weak e6-pawn. 22 ... lZJc6

Black should at least carry out his intended plan with 22 . . . a4!? . Although White maintains an advantage after 23 lDf4! axb3 24 axb3, at least Black has some hope of creating counterplay against the b-pawn at an appropriate moment. 23 tDxc6 l:txc6 24 lDf4 i..d7 25 g3 a4 26 bxa4 l:l.c4 27 i..xfsl .:txfs 28 as 'ii'c6 29 .:tc1

I've seen literally hundreds of games with a good knight versus a bad

2 2 0

bishop in this variation. Black's posi­tion is beyond salvation. 29 ... .l:tf8 30 lDd31

The c5-square beckons. 30 .. Ji'd6 31 lDcs i..c8 32 'ii'b2 h6 33 .:tes

Even Tarrasch would have con­gratulated White on his play! 33 ... .l:txc1+ 34 'ii'xc1 b6 35 axb6 'ili'xb6 36 a4

This is White's extra pawn! 36 ... 'ii'b4 37 'ii'e3 l:tf7 38 h4 i..d7 39 lDxd7 l:.xd7 40 l:t.xe6 'ii'xa4

Black has won the dangerous pawn, but at the price of his king's safety. The emperor is naked! 41 11e8+ �h7 42 'ii'd3+ g6 43 .:te6 l:tg7 44 h5 1-0

[ C h a pte r E i g htee n I 3 • • . t2Jf6 : Ma i n Li ne with 9 . . . �xf6

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 lt:Jd2 lDf6 4 es lDfd7 s i.d3 cS 6 c3 lt:Jc6 7 lt:Je2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 'ii'xf6

This variation developed in the 1990s and for a time was very danger­ous. Nowadays, though, it is not used very often as White has found many ways to handle Black's set-up.

The idea behind the queen' s capture on f6 is to continue with . . . i.d6 and . . . 0-0, and finally to achieve the liberat­ing advance . . . e5. If Black is successful his pieces will be in very good posi­tions to organize an attack on White's king. 10 lDf3

Now we will look at:

A: 10 ... i.b4+1? B: 10 ... i.d6 C: 10 ... h6

10 . . . e5? 11 dxe5 lt:Jdxe5 12 lt:Jxe5 'ifxe5 13 0-0 i.g4 14 .l:te1 i.e7 15 f3! was winning for White in F.Tempesti-

L.Gennari, correspondence 1997.

A) 10 ... i.b4+1? This is a very interesting try, as the

variation proposed by theory doesn't promise White anything. 11 lt:Jc3 !

1 1 i.d2 is the main line but things are not clear after Black's only good reply, 1 1 . . .0-0 ! . Black quickly organizes the . . . e5 break, because after the ex­change of dark-squared bishops it is easier to achieve it. There is no hurry to

2 2 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

take on d2 because ..i.xb4, . . . lbxb4 threatens the bishop on d3, whereas after the exchange on d2 White's queen is perfectly placed protecting the b2-pawn (which is indirectly attacked by Black's queen after . . . e5) and White is ready to continue with .Uad1 adding pressure to the d5-pawn.

Black seems to be fine in all varia­tions after 1 1 . .0-0. For example: 12 0-0 e5 13 iib3 (13 dxe5 lbdxe5 14 lbxe5 ifxe5) 13 . . . ..i.xd2 14 'ii'xd5+ 'it>h8 15 lbxd2 exd4; and 12 ..i.xb4 lbxb4 13 0-0 e5 14 dxe5 lbxe5 15 lbxe5 'ii'xe5. u . . . es

ll . . . lbc5 !? 12 ..i.c2 lbe4 13 0-0! lbxc3 14 bxc3 ..i.xc3 15 ..i.g5 'ii'f7 16 .:.c1 ..i.b2 17 l:.b1 ..i.a3 18 lbe5 lbxe5 19 dxe5 gives White a dangerous initiative for the

12 . . . ..i.xc3 13 bxc3 e4 Black cannot avoid the complica­

tions with 13 . . . 0-0 as after 14 iib3 lbb6 15 dxe5 lbxe5 16 lbxe5 'ii'xe5 17 ..i.e3 ..i.f5 18 l:tad1 ! White has a solid advan­tage because of the pressure against the d5-pawn.

sacrificed pawn as Black cannot castle. 14 ii'b3l lbb61 White will continue with 'ii'd3 or .l:tb3- The best move, safeguarding the d5-f3, or even with f2-f4-f5 in some cases. pawn. 12 0-01 After 14 . . . exf3? 15 :e1+ 'it>d8 16

This novelty is the real idea behind 1 1 lbc3. White is ready to sacrifice a piece to take the initiative. 12 ..i.g5 and 12 dxe5 have been played, but Black is okay in those lines.

2 2 2

ifxd5 White enjoys good compensation for the piece: he has the bishop pair; he threatens ..i.g5; all his pieces are in fan­tastic positions; and the black king will suffer for a long time in the centre of the board. Let's analyse further: 16 . . . h6! (White is winning after 16 . . . 'it>c7 17 .l:te6 'ii'f8 18 ..i.e4! and .l:txc6+) 17 ..i.a3 fxg2 18 ..i.b5 a6 19 ..i.xc6 ifxc6 (19 . . . bxc6 20 'ii'a5+) 20 'ii'f7 'it>c7 21 .:.e6 and Black can resign.

14 . . . lbf8?! is also inferior: 15 ..i.g5! 'ii'f7 (15 . . . 'ii'f5 16 ..i.c2 lbe6 17 ..i.e3 0-0 18 lbd2 is clearly better for White: he is ready to break in the centre with f2-f3 and all the black pieces are in strange positions) 16 c4! h6 (White wins after

3 . . . li:Jf6 : M a in L i n e with 9 . . . 'Wxf6

16 . . . tLlg6 1 7 cxd5 exd3 18 l:t.fe1 + tLlce7 19 17 c41

i.xe7 tLlxe7 20 d6, or 17 . . . exf3 18 Ir.fe1+ c;Pf8 19 dxc6 'Wxb3 20 axb3 bxc6 21 i.e4) 17 cxd5 hxg5 18 .l:!.fe1 tLle7 19 l:Ixe4 with a winning attack. 1s l:.e1

15 ... i.e6l White obtains a dangerous initiative

after 15 . . . h6?! 16 i.xe4! dxe4 17 l:he4+ cJtd8 18 d5 i.f5 19 .l:.f4! tLle5 (19 . . . tLle7? 20 i.e3! �c8 21 i.xb6 'Wxb6 22 'Wa3 wins for White) 20 i.e3 �c8 21 i.d4 ll:lxf3+ 22 l::txf3 'Wg5 23 h4! 'ii'g6 24 .l:tel .

Black doesn't get enough for the pawn in the variation 15 . . . i.f5?! 16 a4! 0-0 17 i.xe4 i.xe4 18 :txe4 tLla5 19 'Wa2 ll:lac4 20 l:tel . 16 i.gs! 'Wfs

After 16 . . . 'Wg6!? 17 'Wa3 h6 (17 . . . .l:tf8?! 18 i.b5! intends 18 . . . .l:txf3? 19 'i'e7 mate) 18 i.h4 �f7 19 i.c2 tLlc4 (19 . . . .l:the8 20 tLld2) 20 'iicl 'iig4 (20 . . . .l:thf8?! 21 ll:ld2 tLlxd2 22 'iixd2 �g8 23 c4) 21 h3 'iih5 22 i.g3 White has a small advantage and will continue with tLld2. Black cannot take the piece, as 22 . . . exf3? loses to 23 'iVf4+ �e7 24 'i'c7+ �f6 25 lhe6+ �xe6 26 .Ue1+.

17 ... 0-0I Alternatively: a) 17 . . . dxc4? 18 i.xe4 'iixe4 19 'iia3!

wins for White. b) 17 . . . h6! ? 18 cxd5! i.xd5 19 i.xe4

i.xe4 20 tLlh4 'ii'd5 (20 . . . 'iixg5?! 21 lhe4+ �d8 - or 2l . . .�f8 22 l:tae1 - 22 d5 tLle5 23 .l:!.ae1 tLled7 24 d6 and White has a strong attack) 21 'iixd5 tLlxd5 22 .l:.xe4+ �f7 23 i.d2!? tLlf6 24 l:te3 tLlxd4 25 .l:.ae1 l!the8 26 .l:.xe8 l:txe8 27 lhe8 �xe8 28 i.e3 tLlc6 29 tLlf5 leaves White with a small advantage in the ending. 18 cxds

18 . . . tLlxd41

2 2 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

White gains a stable advantage after 18 . . . jj.,xd5?! 19 jj.,xe4 jj.,xb3 20 jj.,xfS lhfS 21 axb3 .l:.xf3! (or 2l . . .tt:'lxd4 22 tt:'lxd4 .l:XxgS 23 tt:'le6 l:!.fS 24 f4) 22 gxf3 tt:'lxd4 23 .l:.e3 tt:'lc2 24 .l:.aS tt:'lxe3 25 fxe3 rt>f7 26 e4. 19 jj.,xe4 tt:'lxb3

19 . . . tt:'lxf3+ 20 jj.,xf3 jj.,xdS 21 jj.,xdS+ tt:'lxdS 22 jj.,h4 is also slightly in White's favour. 20 jj.,xfs .l:!.xfs 21 axb3 jj.,xds 22 :as g6 23 h41? jj_xf3

Black will have problems with his king after 23 . . . jj.,xb3?! 24 .l:!.xfS gxfS 25 tt:'ld4 jj.,a4 26 tt:'lxfS. 24 .:txfs gxfs 25 gxf3 l:tf8 26 jj.,e3 .l:!.f6 27 jj.,cs .l:!.c6 28 :es

White has a small advantage in this ending, as 28 . . . tt:'ld7?! loses a pawn after 29 .:te8+ rt>f7 30 .:te7+ rt>f6 31 l:txd7 l:txcS 32 l:txb7. Finally, there is nothing more to analyse!

I think this really deep and inven­tive analysis clearly demonstrates the power of early deviations from theory and the type of analysis we can per­form with the assistance of a chess program.

2 2 4

B) 10 ... jj.,d6 Black allows the jj.,gS-h4-g3 ma­

noeuvre, as he doesn't want to lose valuable time by playing . . . h6. 11 jj.,gsl?

11 ... 'ili'f7 White gains a clear advantage after

1 l . . .jj.,b4+ 12 tt:'lc3 'ili'f7 13 0-0 jj.,d6 (13 . . . 0-0 14 'ili'e2!?; 13 .. . h6?! 14 'ili'c2) 14 jj.,h4 h6 (T.Topi Hulmi-G.Linqvist, Naantali 1999) 15 �1 ! . 12 0-0

12 ... 0-0 12 . . . h6? is punished by 13 'ili'b1 ! ! tt:'lf8

(13 . . . 0-0?? 14 jj.,g6) 14 jj.,h4 and White has a clear advantage. P.Svidler-

P.Zarubin, Azov 1996, continued 14 . . . .id7 15 b4! (fighting for control of e5) 15 . . . .ixb4 16 lLleS! lLlxeS 17 dxe5 aS 18 a3 g5! ? 19 axb4 gxh4 20 bxa5 .ic6 21 tt)d4 and White was winning.

With 12 . . . e5? ! Black unwisely opens the position with his king still in the middle. E.Schmittdiel-G.Hertneck, German League 1993, continued 13 dxe5 tbdxe5 14 tbxe5 .ixe5 15 f4! (White must react quickly) 15 . . . .ixb2 16 l:Lbl .if6 17 'ii'c2 g6 (17 . . . tbe7 18 .ib5+ 'iti>f8 19 .ixf6 'ii'xf6 20 .id3 �f7 21 1:tfel b6 22 tZ:lg3 .ig4 23 .l:.e5 .l:.ac8 24 'ii'b3 J:hd8 25 :bel gave White a strong ini­tiative in E.Merighi-C.Sanchez Roem­pler, correspondence 2004) 18 'ii'c5 .ie7 19 .ixe7 'ii'xe7 20 'ii'xd5 and White re­gained his pawn with some advantage. 13 .ih4 esl

This move, a speciality of Christian Maier's, is the real test of the variation. Black sacrifices the h7-pawn in the hope of disorganizing White's pieces, giving him enough time to arrange an attack.

Alternatives are inadequate: a) White is clearly better after

3 . . .li:Jf6 : M a i n L i n e with 9 . . . 'ikxf6

13 . . . g6?! 14 .ib5! e5 15 dxe5 .ixe5 (15 . . . lLldxe5? 16 tZ:lgS) 16 lLled4! lLlxd4 17 tbxe5 tbxe5 18 'ii'xd4.

b) 13 . . . 'ii'h5 14 tbg3 .ixg3 15 .ixg3 �h8 16 .l:.el is also better for White, J.Garcia-O.Leon Rodriguez, Gran Ca­naria 1989.

c) 13 . . . lDf6 transposes to well known positions, but the queen does not stand well on f7. For example, 14 .ig3 .ixg3 15 lbxg3 .id7 16 'ii'd2 l:tae8 17 .l:.ael .ic8 (M.Haygarth-P.Wallis, York 1959) 18 b4! and White has a clear advantage.

d) 13 . . . h6 14 .ig3 .ixg3 (14 . . . e5 15 'ii'b3 .ib8 16 dxe5 tZ:ldxeS 17 tbxe5 lbxe5 was H.Schussler-H.Wademark, Eksjo 1978, and here White can keep an ad­vantage with 18 .ixe5!? .ixe5 19 f4 .id6 20 f5) 15 fxg3! .

This is an idea we will see quite of­ten. White opens the f-file to exploit the fact that Black is undeveloped. In con­trast, Black cannot take advantage of the new weakness of the e4-square. V.Kuznicov-A.Tolush, Kislovodsk 1960, continued 15 . . . e5 16 'ifb3! ife6 1 7 tbc3 exd4? (1 7 . . . tLlb6! 18 dxe5 tbxe5 19 tLld4 lixf1+ 20 lhfl 'if'd6 21 .ie4 'ii'c5 22

2 2 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre nch Defe n c e

i.xdS+ 'it>h8 23 'it>h1 ! tt:'lxd5 24 'ii'xd5 'ili'xd5 25 tt:'lxd5 i.g4 26 tt:'le3 .l:td8 was best, as it is not easy to utilize the extra doubled pawn on the kingside) 18 .l:.ae1 tt:'lde5 19 tt:'lxd5 tt:'lxd3 20 .l:txe6 i.xe6 21 tt:'le7+ 'it>h8 22 tt:'lg6+ and Black resigned. 14 tt:'lgs! �f61

Alternatives are inferior: a) 14 . . . �5? 15 �xh7+ 'it>h8 16 tt:'lf4

obliged Black to resign in Horvath­A.Kiss, correspondence 1984, as 16 . . . �xd1 17 tt:'lg6 is a mate with minor pieces that even Blackbume would have been jealous of!

b) 14 . . . 'ii'e8? ! is punished by 15 dxe5! and now:

b1) 15 .. .'�i'xe5?! 16 f4! 'ii'xb2 17 �xh7+ 'it>h8 18 �g6 �cS+ 19 'it>h1 tt:'lf6 20 tt:'lf7+ %hf7 (20 . . . 'it>g8? loses because the black queen cannot protect the f6-square: 21 l:tb1 ! 'it'xa2 22 �xf6 gxf6 23 tt:'lc3 �aS 24 �5) 21 �xf7 �g4 22 'ii'cl ! �xcl 23 lbxcl .l:.f8 24 lbb3 �b6 25 �g6 lbe4 26 .l:tae1 and White has a clear ad­vantage because Black's compensation is insufficient.

b2) 15 . . . tt:Jdxe5 16 �xh7+! 'it>h8 17

2 2 6

�xd5 i.e7 1 8 f4! i.xg5 (18 . . . tt:'lg4? 19 i.b1 ! �5 20 �g3 tt:'le3 21 'ii'f3) 19 �xg5 tt:'lg4 20 �e4 lbe3 21 �d3 tt:'lxfl 22 l:lxf1 gives White tremendous compensation for the exchange: the bishop pair; two pawns; and, most importantly, the black king is very weak and will have problems both down the h-file and along the b3-g8 diagonal. 15 dxes! tt:Jdxes

15 . . . 'ii'xe5 16 f4 'ili'xb2 17 �xh7+ transposes to note 'b1 ' above, while 15 . . . �xe5 16 f4 �xb2 17 l::tb1 �a3 (17 . . . h6? 18 lLlf3 wins the bishop) 18 �xh7+ 'it>h8 19 1t'xd5 leaves White with a big advantage. 16 �xh7+ 'it>hB 17 �xds 'ili'h6

So far we have been following I. Vasilevich-E.Sukhareva, Moscow 2006. Instead of the game's 18 f4, I sug­gest: 18 g31?

Although this move looks a bit paradoxical, it certainly has many points. White's minor pieces on h7, g5 and h4 protect each other and White is ready to continue with f2-f4 or lbc3-e4 neutralizing Black's initiative.

18 . . • ..tg4 White has a clear advantage after

18 . . . lt:Je7 19 'ii'd4 .Jtf5 (19 . . . lt:J7c6? 20 'ii'e4; 19 . . . ..tg4 20 f4! ) 20 .l:.ad1 .l:.ad8 21 ..txf5 lt:Jxf5 22 'ii'e4 lt:Jxh4 23 'ii'xh4 'ii'xh4 24 gxh4. Although his pawns are shat­tered, he does have two extra ones and there is also the idea of f2-f4-f5, creat­ing a fantastic outpost on e6 for the knight. 19 liJC3 lt:Jf3+ 20 lt:Jxf3 .Jtxf3

20 . . . 'ifxh7?! 21 lt:Jg5 'ii'g6 22 l:tae1 is good for White. 21 ..te4l lt:Jes 22 .l:.ad11

22 .l:!.fe1 !? is an interesting alterna-tive. White keeps an edge after 22 . . . .l:.f5! 23 'ii'xb7 .l:.af8 24 'ii'a6! ..txe4 (24 . . . lth5? 25 l:r.ad1 ) 25 lt:Jxe4 lt:Jf3+ 26 �h1 lt:Jxe1 27 l:r.xe1 l:r.e5 28 .l:.e2 'ii'e6 29 'ii'd3 (intend­ing �g2 and f2-f3) 29 . . . 'ii'h3! 30 �g1 ltc8 31 'iii' d 1 . 22 • • • ..txe41

White is clearly better following 22 . . . ..txdl? 23 .l:.xdl, and he keeps an edge after 22 .. J1ad8 23 lt:Jb5! .1Lxe4 24 'ii'xe4 lt:Jf3+ 25 �g2 .l:.de8 26 'ii'g4. 23 lt:Jxe4 lt:Jf3+

24 �h1!

3 . . .li:Jf6 : M a in L i n e with 9 . . . 'Wixf6

This is the best move. After 24 �g2 ..te7! 25 lt:Jd2 .l:tad8! 26 'ii'xb7 White's king on g2 gives Black an additional possibility, and following 26 . . . lt:Jxh4+! 27 gxh4 ..txh4 28 lt:Je4 'ii'f4 Black gets good counterplay despite the two­pawn deficit. 24 • • • ..te7 25 lt:Jd2 lt:Jxd2

25 . . . llad8 26 'ii'xb7 lt:Jxd2 27 ..txe7 lt:Jxfl 28 l:txfl .l:t£7 29 'ii'b4 is slightly in White's favour. 26 'ii'xd21

26 .1Lxe7 lt:Jxfl 27 lhfl l:tfe8 28 'ii'xb7 'ii'e6 29 ..ta3 'ii'xa2 30 �gl is equal. 26 . • • gs 27 'ii'd7 ..tf6 28 ..txgs ..txgs 29 'ii'xb7 .l:.ab8 30 'ii'xa7 l:r.xb2 31 l:r.dSI ..tf6 32 'ii'cs �gs 33 'ii'c4

A very complicated position has arisen. White has slightly better chances because his king is safer and he has four pawns for the piece. At the very least, it is difficult to lose a posi­tion when your opponent no longer has any pawns!

C) 10 • • • h6

This is the logical way to play. Black prevents ..tg5 and is ready to continue

2 2 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

with . . . .id6 and . . . 0-0. 11 0-0 .id6 12 ltJg3 0-0

After 12 . . . g5! ? White can simply continue his development with 13 .ie3 ltJf8 (there is a trap awaiting Black if he starts an early attack: 13 . . . g4?! 14 ltJd2! h5 15 l:tel h4? 16 'ifxg4! hxg3 17 fxg3 is winning for White) and now White can exploit the negative aspects of . . . g5 with 14 ltJh5! 'ili'£7 15 ltJe5 ltJxe5 16 dxe5 .ixe5 17 f4!, obtaining a winning at­tack. 13 .ic2

This is best. White will play all the useful moves and then choose his plan according to Black's set-up. 13 . . . .:.ds

Alternatively: a) White obtained a small advan­

tage in D.Sermek-V.Dimitrov, Par­dubice 1999, after 13 . . . l:.f7?! 14 ltJh5! 'ili'd8 (if 14 . . . 'ili'e7! ? 15 l:tel ! ltJf8 [or 15 . . . .l:.xf3?! 16 gxf3 'ili'h4 17 f4 lbxd4 18 'ii'xd4 'ili'xh5 19 'ili'd3 ltJf6 20 'ii'g3] 16 ltJg3 'ii'f6 [16 . . . .id7? 17 ltJf5! ] 17 .ie3 e5! ? 18 dxe5 lbxe5 19 'ii'xd5 ltJxf3+ 20 'ii'xf3 Wxf3 21 gxf3 .ie6 22 .ie4 White has the advantage, as 22 . . . .ie5 can be

2 2 8

met by 23 lle2 g5 - stopping f3-f4 - 24 l:tael !? .ixa2?! 25 ltJf5 when Black is in trouble) 15 .ig6 l:te7?! (White keeps the advantage after 15 . . . l:tf8!? 16 l:tel lbb6 17 .ibl ! .id7 18 'ii'd3 l:tf5 19 a3! - he threatens g2-g4 and 19 .. ..lhh5? loses to 20 'ili'h7+ �f8 21 .ig6) 16 .if4! (White is better if he exchanges these bishops, as it is easier to control e5) 16 . . . ltJf8 17 lt.c2 l:t£7 18 'ifd2 .ixf4 19 ltJxf4 'ili'd6 20 lbe2. White will continue with 'ili'e3 and l:tadl, while 20 . . . l:.xf3?! 21 gxf3 e5 can be met by 22 l:tfd 1 ! .ie6 23 dxe5 lbxe5 24 'ii'f4.

b) 13 . . . ltJe7 seems inferior to the text, and 14 'ii'd3 ltJf5 15 .:.tel is the sim­plest route to an advantage. 14 l:.ell

As the d7-knight will move to f8 in order to safeguard h7, White brings another piece to control the e5-square. 14 . . . ltJf8

White achieved a clear advantage in S.Petrosian-W.Polster, Kiel 2003, after 14 . . . 'ii'f7 15 .ie3 ltJf8 16 .:tel .id7 17 a3 a6 18 'ili'd2 .te8 19 ltJe2! (preparing .if4) 19 . . . 'ii'f6 20 .if4 .ixf4 21 ltJxf4 g5 22 ltJe2 .ih5 23 ltJe5! .ixe2 24 ltJxc6 bxc6 25 l:.xe2.

14 . . . a6 15 a3 .tc7 was D.Golden­berg-D.Bunzmann, Yerevan 2000 (al­ternatively 15 . . . .ib8 16 'ii'd3! ltJf8 17 .id2; or 15 . . . ltJf8 16 ltJe5 - this is almost an automatic reaction to . . . ltJf8) and here 16 'ii'd3! ltJf8 17 .id2 is better for White. Black cannot play the liberating 17 . . . e5? ! because 18 dxe5 ltJxe5 19 lbxe5 .ixe5 20 .ia5 l:td7 21 ltJh5 'ii'g5 22 f4 .ixf4 23 ltJxf4 'iVxf4 24 l:.e8 wins for White.

15 tbesl This move seems to guarantee

White a safe edge. The point is that if

Black captures with 15 . . . tbxe5 16 dxe5

i.xe5?, there follows 17 tbh5 winning a

piece. On the other hand Black cannot

leave the white knight indefinitely on

eS, so he is more or less compelled to

give up his strong dark-squared bishop for it.

Now there is a further branch:

(1: 15 ... .i.d7 (2: 15 .. .'ti'h41

After 15 . . . .i.xe5?! 16 dxe5 'ifu4, 17 lllliS! i s a very strong move - see the illustrative game Tiviakov-Hertneck at the end of this chapter. C1) 15 ... .i.d7 16 f4 .i.eS 17 .i.e3

This is one of the basic positions of the 9 .. .'ti'xf6 variation. 17 ... Itac8

After 17 . . . tbe7 there follows 18 'iig4 liac8 19 .i.d3 .l:!.c7 20 .l:!.fl 'it>h8 21 fS ! (from now on we can understand that after this thematic break White's attack is unstoppable; we will meet this f4-f5

3 . . . lDJ6 : M a in L i n e with 9 . . . 'iixf6

idea many times in this variation) 21 . . .exf5 22 tbxf5 tbxf5 23 l:txf5 'ti'e7 24 .i.g5! and White was winning in D.Brandenburg-F.Parant, Cappelle Ia Grande 2005.

17 . . .'ii'h4 is also a typical move. Black is ready to play . . . .i.g6 and White must not allow this. Play continues with 18 l:tfl ! and now:

a) 18 . . . .i.xe5?! 19 fxe5 .i.g6? is not possible now because of 20 .l:!.xf8+! .

b) If 18 . . . l:.dc8 19 a3 tbe7 Black must be very careful as his queen can get trapped in many variations. White achieved a clear advantage in M.Maslik-M.Botvinnik jr, Tallinn 1998, after 20 .i.d3 .i.g6 (20 . . . .i.xe5 21 fxe5 .i.g6? loses to 22 l:£4) 21 tbxg6!? tbfxg6 22 tbhS tb£5 23 .i.£2 'ti'e7 24 g4 tbfh4 25 .i.g3 as he is ready to play £4-£5.

c) If 18 . . . tbe7 White can start an at­tack with the thematic 19 f5! . For ex­ample, 19 . . . .i.xe5 (or 19 . . . exf5 20 ltf4 'ti'f6 21 tbxf5 .i.xe5 22 dxe5 'ti'xe5?? and Black resigned in S.Azarov­Y.Drozdovskij, Las Palmas 2003, on account of 23 'i*'d4! 'ir'xd4 24 tbxe7+ 'it>h8 25 J::tx£8 mate) 20 dxe5 ex£5

2 2 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

(20 . . . lLlxf5 2 1 i..xf5 exf5 22 lLlxf5 ife4 23 ii'd2! is clearly better for White because of two threats: i..xh6; and �f4, . . . ifxe5, i..d4) 21 �f4 ifg5 22 ii'f3 lLleg6! (22 . . . lLle6 23 h4!; 22 . . . lLlfg6 23 lLlxf5!) 23 lhf5 ii'e7 24 l:.fl lLle6 (24 . . . i..b5 25 llf7 ifxe5 loses to 26 lLlh5! i..xfl 27 �xg7+ ..t>h8 28 ..t>xfl) 25 �h5!? lLlg5? (A.Motylev-A.Iljushin, Russian Ch., 2000) [25 . . . ii'c7 26 ifg4! is very strong] 26 i..xg5 hxg5 27 'ii'f5! .l:tac8 28 i..d3

28 . . . ifxe5?? 29 iff8+ lLlxf8 30 :h8+ ..t>xh8 31 l:!.xf8 mate. OlE�!

d) 18 . . . .Uac8!? 19 �cl ! .I:tc7 (and not 19 . . . lLlb4?! 20 i..b1 i..b5 21 �f3 I!xcl 22 'ii'xc1 lLlc6 23 i..f2! llc8 24 'Wd1 lLlxe5 25 fxe5 as White has a clear advantage) 20 ifd2 �dc8 21 i..b1 i..b4! (2l . . .i..xe5?! 22 dxe5 b6 23 b3 'ii'e7 24 f5! is strong, S.Vokarev-E.Gleizerov, Krasnodar 1998) 22 'Wd1 ! (an interesting novelty; theory gives 22 'ii'f2 lLlxe5! 23 dxe5 �xcl ! 24 �xcl �xcl+ 25 i..xcl i..g6 with equality, S.Vokarev-A.Janturin, St Pe­tersburg 2002) 22 . . . lLlxe5?! 23 lhc7! (the real idea behind 22 'ii'd1) 23 .. .lhc7 (if 23 . . . lLlg4 24 'Wxg4! 'ii'xg4 25 l:r.xc8 i..b5 26 l:r.f3 White has a strong attack as he

2 3 0

is ready to play f4-f5) 24 dxe5! (it's im­portant for White to keep the rook on the board because it helps the attack) 24 . . . i..c5 (24 . . . i..g6?! 25 f5! ) 25 i..xc5 �xeS 26 lLle2! (permitting the exchange of bishops, as Black can trade them anyway with . . . i..g6) 26 . . . i..b5 27 i..d3 i..xd3 28 'ii'xd3 �c7 29 lLld4 and White has a small but enduring advantage. 18 J:%.c1

18 • • • .l:tc7 Or: a) 18 . . . i..g6 19 lLlh5 i..xh5 20 'Wxh5

l:tc7 21 llfl .l:tdc8 22 i..b1 'We7 23 .l:tce1 i..xe5 24 dxe5 was clearly better for White in A.Motylev-S.Vysochin, Rot­terdam 1998.

b) 18 ... 'ii'h4 19 f5! ? (19 .l:.f1 is normal) 19 . . . lLlxe5 20 dxe5 i..xe5 21 fxe6 lLlxe6 22 i..f5 i..f7 23 l:.xc8 l:Ixc8 24 'ii'xd5 i..xg3 25 hxg3 'ii'b4 26 i..f2 l:r.d8 27 'ii'e5 was slightly in White's favour in J.Borisek-P.Soln, Bled 2003.

c) 18 . . . i..c7 19 i..b1 i..b6 20 ..t>h1 lLle7 21 'ii'g4 llxcl 22 l:r.xcl l::tc8 23 l::tfl ! lLlc6 24 f5 ..t>h8? (Black should head for the complications with 24 . . . lLlxe5 25 dxe5 Wxe5, although after 26 i..xh6 l:r.c4 27

i.f4 White has the initiative) 25 fxe6 "fle7 26 tt:'lf7+ and Black resigned in M.Kobalija-O.Chebotarev, Internet 2006.

d) 18 . . . a6!? 19 .l:tfl .l:tc7 20 i..b1 1:tdc8 21 'ii'g4 'it>h8 22 f5?! (an example where £4-£5 is not so dangerous) 22 . . . ltJxe5 23

dxe5 'ii'xeS (A.Ivanov-R.Yankovsky, St

Petersburg 2007) 24 i..d4 l:txcl 25 i..xe5

i.xe5 26 i..d3 exfS and the position is unclear. 19 i.b1 .:tdc8 20 .:tc21 'ii'h4 21 lU2 .ixes 22 dxes l

White is ready for f4-f5. 22 • • . 4:Jg6

If 22 . . . .ig6 there follows 23 f5! exf5 24 ltJxf5 .ixf5 25 .ixf5 .:td8 26 .ic5 with a clear advantage for White.

After 22 . . . g6 Black accepts a bad po­sition without any . . . .ig6 ideas. 23 f51

23 ... tt:Jcxes? 23 . . . ltJgxe5 24 l:tf4 with the idea of

fxe6 is clearly better for White, and 23 . . . exf5 24 ltJxf5 'ii'd8 25 ltJd6 is also good for White.

23 . . . d4! ? was best, although after 24 i.d2 another white rook is coming to

3 . ..!i:Jf6 : M a i n L i n e with 9 . . . 'Wixf6

e4, and if 24 . . . tt:'lgxe5 25 l:.e4 'ii'f6 26 i..f4 i..f7 27 'ii'el Black's position is terrible. 24 fxg6 ltJg4 25 tt:'lf1 tt:'lxf2 26 .ixf2

White is winning, S.Rublevsky­D.Jacimovic, Yerevan 2001 .

C2) 1S ... 'ii'h41 16 f4 .ixes White gets a strong attack after

16 . . . .id7 17 .ie3 l:.ac8 (17 . . . .ie8 18 lifl ! transposes to Line C1) 18 l':tcl .ic7 (R.Seger-J.Bock, Dortmund 2001) 19 :f1 ! ltJb4 20 .ib1 .ib5 21 .:tf3 .ib6 22 .:txc8 .:txc8 23 f5! . 17 dxes .id7

17 . . . b6 18 ltJh5!? .id7 19 l:te3! .ie8 20 ltJf6+ gxf6 21 .:th3 was winning for White in G.Jones-A.Cioara, Porto San Giorgio 2004. 18 .ie3

18 ... .ie8 18 . . . d4? is a mistake, as after 19 .id2

the e4-square becomes available to White and e6 may become a target in the future.

18 .. J:tac8 19 .:tel i..e8 20 f5! ? ltJxe5 21 fxe6 tt:'lg4 22 h3! ltJxe3 23 l:.xe3 d4 was Ni Hua-Zhang Pengxiang, Suzhou 2001, and here 24 .:tf3! tt:'lxe6 25 tt:'lf5

2 3 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

'ii'g5 26 h4 'ii'f6 27 lt:Jd6 �h5!? 28 lt:Jxc8 �xf3 29 'iixf3 'ii'x£3 30 gxf3 llxc8 31 �h7+ ..t>xh7 32 l:txc8 is winning for White. 19 'ii'd2 �g6

After 19 . . . lt:Jg6 White has the nice move 20 lt:Je2! . The knight is coming to d4 but White also prepares Ji.f2 to dis­turb Black's queen. White was clearly better in V.Malaniuk-T.Likavsky, Par­dubice 1998, after 20 . . . 'ii'e7 21 a3 'ii'd7 22 �f2 l:tdc8 23 b4 lt:Jge7 24 �a4 a6 25 �b3 �g6 26 lt:Jc3 (intending lt:Ja4) 26 . . . b5 27 lt:Je4! �xe4 28 l:txe4 lt:Ja7 29 .:tee1 l:tc6 30 .l:tacl .:tac8 31 .l:!c5. 20 f5

20 l:tacl !? is also possible.

20 • • • �h71? This is an interesting idea that

hasn't been tried. White obtained a nice edge in

S.Vokarev-S.Temirbayev, Nizhnij Tagil 2007, after 20 . . . �xf5 21 lt:Jxf5 exf5 22 �f2 'iih5 23 'ii'f4 lt:Je6 24 'ifxf5 'ifxf5 25 ii.xf5 l:.e8 26 .:tadl .

D.Navara-T.Radjabov, Aviles 2000, went 20 . . . exf5 21 lt:Jxf5 'ii'h5 (2l . . .�xf5 22 .i.xf5 lt:Jxe5 23 .i.xh6 'ii'£6 24 'ii'g5

2 3 2

'iib6+ 25 ..t>fl ! 'ii'a6+ 26 ..t>f2 lt:Jd3+ 27 .i.xd3 'ii'xh6 28 'ii'xh6 gxh6 29 l:te7 was clearly better for White in O.Komeev­A.Cioara, Le Touquet 2004) 22 'ii'f2 .i.x£5 23 .i.xf5 l:te8 24 .i.c5 'ii'f7 (24 . . . l:txe5? is bad after 25 .l:!.xe5 lt:Jxe5 26 .i.x£8 .:tx£8 27 .i.h7+ ..t>xh7 28 'ii'xf8) 25 �d6 lt:Jg6, and here 26 e6 'ii'f6 27 l:tad 1 would give White a big advantage. 21 �b3

21 �c5!? is another idea.

21 ... lt:Jxes 22 �gsl? 'ii'xgs 23 'Wxg5 hxgs 24 .l:t.xes lt:Jd7 25 l:txe6 lt:Jc5 26 .l:.e7

White has a slight edge.

I l lustrative Game

S. Tiviakov-G.Hertneck European Team Championship,

Leon 2001

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 lt:Jd2 lt:Jf6 4 es lt:Jfd7 5 c3 c5 6 �d3 lt:Jc6 7 lt:Je2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 'ii'xf61? 10 lt:Jf3 h6 11 o-o �d6 12

lt:Jg3 o-o 13 �c2 l:td8 14 l:te1 lt:Jf8 15 lt:Jes �xe5?1 16 dxes 1i'h4

16 . . . lt:Jxe5?? loses to 17 lt:Jh5.

17 lDhs l

This is the refutation of the early ... i.xe5 idea. White doesn't need to play f2-f4; instead he intends a rook lift via e3. 17 ... l:.d7

After 17 . . . i.d7 18 l:te3 it's difficult to find a defence for Black. For example: 18 . . ... d4 19 lDf6+ <t>h8 (19 . . . gxf6 20 .:g3+) 20 1i'h5; or 18 . . . i.e8 19 lDxg7! �g7 20 .:.113 'ii'd4 21 i.xh6+ �g8 (21 . . .<t>f7 22 'ii'f3+) 22 l:tg3+ and Black could already resign, D.Schulze­I.Baeumler, Rotenburg 2005.

After 17 . . ... d4! ? White can simply continue with 18 i.d2. 18 lle31 l:tf7 19 f4

Black is already in a very difficult position. 19 ... 'W'd8

Or:

3 . . . &i'Jf6 : M a in L i n e with 9 . . . 'ilxf6

a) 19 . . . lDe7?? again takes an escape square from Black's queen, and 20 .l:th3 traps it.

b) After 19 . . . i.d7 White wins with 20 l:tg3! 'ii'e7 21 f5! exf5 22 i.xh6 lDxe5 23 lDxg7.

c) 19 . . . 'ii'e7! ? 20 l:tg3 <t>h8 was played in S.Petrosian-T.Doeppner, German League 2003, but White dominated af­ter 21 a3 i.d7 22 b4 l:tc8 23 i.e3 b6 24 'ji'd3 1i'h4 25 l:th3 'ii'd8 26 l:tfl . 20 l:tg3

20 . .. lDe7?? A mistake in a bad position. If

20 . . . <t>h8 21 .1e3 d4 22 i.f2 White has the bishop pair and a strong attack. 21 lDf6+ 1-0

After 2l . . .<t>h8 22 1i'h5! 1i'b6+ (or 22 . . . g6 23 'W'xh6+ lDh7 24 l:.h3) 23 i.e3 'W'xb2 24 'ii'xf7 1i'xa1+ 25 <t>£2 Black will be mated.

2 3 3

C h a pte r N i n etee n I 3 . . . ttJf6 : Ma i n Li ne with 1 1 . . . 0-0

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt'ld2 tt'lf6 4 es tt'lfd7 5 ..td3 cs 6 c3 tt'lc6 7 tt'le2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 tt'lxf6 10 tt'lf3 ..td6 11 o-o o-o

By refraining from 1 1 . . .'ii'c7 (see Chapter 20) Black allows the exchange of dark-squared bishops. With 1 1 . . . 0-0 Black develops quickly in order to ob­tain active piece play as compensation for the dark-squared weaknesses in the centre. 12 ..tf4 ..txf4

Here are some alternatives: a) 12 . . . tt'lxd4?! 13 ..txh7+! 'it>xh7 (or

13 . . . tt'lxh7 14 li'xd4 ..txf4 15 tt'lx£4 'ii'f6 16 li'xf6 tt'lxf6 17 .i::tacl ! ) 14 'ilr'xd4 ..txf4 15 tt'lxf4 tt'le4 16 tt'lh5 'ii'e7 17 l:tfe1 ..td7 18 tt'le5 ..te8 19 tt'lg3 tt'lxg3 20 hxg3 and White was clearly better in 'Zynaps'­'Styx', Internet 2002 - the black bishop is not a happy piece!

b) 12 . . . 'it>h8 13 li'd2 tt'lxd4 (13 . . . tt'le4 14 'ii'e3 ..txf4 15 tt'lxf4 tt'lxd4 16 tt'lxd4 e5 17 tt'lxd5! 'ii'xd5 18 tt'lb5 is clearly in White's favour) 14 tt'lexd4 tt'le4 15 ..txe4 ..txf4 16 li'd3 dxe4 17 li'xe4 'ii'f6

2 3 4

(17 . . . 'ii'd5?! 18 l:.fe1) 18 l:.ae1 .:r.b8 19 b3 l:te8 20 tt'le5 b6 21 tt'ldc6 ..tb7 22 tt'ld7 'ii'h6 23 g3 l:tbc8 24 tt'lce5 ..txe4 25 tt'lf7+ 'it>g8 26 tt'lxh6+ ..txh6 27 l:txe4 was slightly better for White in A.Sokolov­J.Lautier, Clermont Ferrand 1989.

c) 12 . . . tt'le4 13 ..txd6 li'xd6 14 tt'lg3 tt'lxg3 15 hxg3 e5 16 tt'lxe5 tt'lxe5 17 dxe5 li'xe5 and now 18 li'b3! is the best idea for White.

Black can easily arrange . . . e5 after the exchange of the dark-squared bish­ops and White must find a way to put

immediate pressure on the dS-pawn. After 18 'ifb3 the c8-bishop cannot move and White is ready to play l:tad1,

or ii:!.ae1 to invade down the e-file as

Black's rooks cannot connect to make

. . . .l:tae8 possible. White achieved a last­ing advantage in R.Henao-A.Gomez,

Bayamo 1990, after 18 . . . �h8 19 l:r.ae1 'i'd6 20 .l:Ie2 b6 21 l:tfe1 .i.g4 22 .:.es .l:.ad8 23 'ir'a4 .i.d7 24 'ir'd4.

d) After 12 . . . lDg4 White is advised to continue with 13 .i.g3! eS! (13 . . . .i.xg3 14 lDxg3 eS? 1S dxeS lDgxeS 16 lDxeS ttJxeS 17 .i.xh7+! was U.Erhart­M.Bosbach, Templin 2004) 14 'ifb3! 'itth8 lS dxeS lDgxeS 16 lDxeS .i.xeS 17 .:.adl .i.xg3 18 lDxg3 with a small ad­vantage, as in S.Sacerdotali-M.Scacco, correspondence 2002.

e) 12 . . . lDhS!? 13 .i.xd6 'ii'xd6 14 lDg3 tt:Jf4 lS .i.bS! and now both lS . . . lDe7 16 .l:tcl lDeg6 17 .l::tel .i.d7 (R.Zelcic­S.Blanchard, Orange 1990) 18 .i.d3, and 1S . . . .i.d7 16 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 17 'ifb3 aS 18 lDeS (L.Nisipeanu-Y.Visser, Groningen 1997) are slightly better for White.

f) 12 . . . 'ir'c7 13 .i.xd6 'iWxd6 14 lDg3! iLd7 (or 14 . . . eS lS dxeS lDxeS 16 lDxeS 'i'xeS 17 'ifb3! ) lS .Uel, and now 1S .. .'ii'f4 16 'iicl ! (another common idea to remember) 16 . . . 'ii'xcl 17 .:.axel .Uac8 (R.Kholmov-M.Kislov, Warsaw 1989) 18 .i.bS is better for White, while the stronger 1S . . J:tae8! still leaves White with an edge after 16 'iid2! (16 lDeS 'i'h4; 16 .i.bS lDb4! ) 16 . . . eS 17 dxeS lbxeS 18 lDxeS .l:.xeS 19 .:.xeS 'ii'xeS 20 .:tel . 13 lDxf4

Now we will look at:

3 . . .l'iJf6 : M a in L i n e with 1 1 . . . 0 - 0

A: 13 ... 'ii'd6 B: 13 ... lDg41? C: 13 ... lDe4

Alternatively: a) 13 . . . lDxd4? 14 lDxd4 eS loses after

1S lDfe6. b) 13 . . . lDb4?! 14 :tel ! lDe4 (14 . . . lDxd3

1S lDxd3 lDe4 16 lDfeS and f2-f3 is good for White) lS .i.xe4 :xf4 16 .i.bl (Black must be careful as 'ii'd2 attacking both f4 and b4 can be very effective) 16 . . . lDc6 17 'ii'd3 g6 18 .i.c2! 'ii'f6 19 l:tadl and White has a stable advantage.

c) 13 . . . .i.d7 14 .:tel lDe4 lS .i.xe4 l:r.xf4 16 .i.c2 'ii'f6 17 'iid3 g6 18 .i.a4! is very nice for White. After the exchange on c6 the knight will jump to eS and will stay there for ever!

d) 13 . . . 'iic7 14 g3 .i.d7 (14 . . . 'ifb6 lS b3 �h8 16 lDgS! eS 17 dxeS lDxeS 18 'ii'e2 'iid6 19 l:tfel lDxd3 20 'ii'xd3 was good for White in C.Peptan-E.Cosma, Calimanesti 1992) lS .l:tel 'ifb6 16 b3 .l:tae8 17 'ii'd2 should be compared to Line B4 in Chapter 17; in this position White has the extra - and useful -move g2-g3.

2 3 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

A) 13 . . . 'ii'd6 A popular move.

14 g3

14 . . . es Black has tried quite a few alterna­

tives. For example: a) 14 . . . �h8?! 1S .l:te1 !Dg4 16 !DeS!

lDh6 (16 . . . !DgxeS? 17 dxeS lDxeS 18 ..txh7) 17 'ii'd2 lD£7 18 'ii'e2! ? !Dxd4? (18 . . . !DcxeS 19 dxeS, with a clear advan­tage for White, was forced) 19 lDx£7+ .l:.x£7 20 'ii'hs g6 21 !Dxg6+ �g8 22 iDeS .l:tg7 23 ..txh7+! and 1-0 , V.Kotronias­Kourkounakis, Ikaria 1996.

b) 14 . . . !De4?! 1S 'ii'e2! gS (1S . . . eS? 16 dxeS lDxeS 17 lDxeS 'ii'xeS 18 lDxdS! ; 1S . . . J:txf4?! 16 gxf4 'ii'xf4 17 'ii'e3) 16 ..txe4 gxf4 17 ..td3 'ii'e7 18 ..tbS! 'ii'f6 19 ..txc6 bxc6 20 .:tact ..tb7 21 !DeS and White was clearly better in C.Landenbergue-S.Ferkingstad, Ge-neva 2004.

c) 14 . . . !Dg4 1S ..txh7+! (1S .l:.e1?! l:txf4! is unclear) 1S . . . �xh7 16 !DgS+ �g8 17 'ii'xg4 eS 18 'it'hs 'ii'h6 19 dxeS .Uxf4 20 'ii'xh6 gxh6 21 gxf4 hxgS 22 fxgS !DxeS 23 f4 is good fo

.r White after

23 . . . !Dc4 24 h4 !Dd2 2S l:tfd1 !Df3+ 26

2 3 6

c;1o>f2 tZ'lxh4 27 .l:!.xdS. d) 14 . . . ..td7! ? 1S l:te1 l:tae8

(1S . . . !Dxd4?! 16 ..txh7+!) 16 !DeS! and now:

d1) 16 . . . 1fb4? 17 a3! 'ii'xb2 18 ..:tbl 'ii'xa3 19 !Dxd7 !Dxd7 20 !Dxe6.

d2) 16 . . . !Db4?! 17 ..tfl ! followed by ..tg2 is an idea to remember when White has played g2-g3.

d3) 16 . . . ..tc8?! 17 .l:!.cl .l:!.e7 (or 17 . . . !De7?! 18 'ii'c2 !DfS 19 ..txfS exfS 20 'ii'cS, C. Landenbergue-P. Lauferon, Bourbon Laney 1998) 18 !Dxc6 bxc6 19 .l:!.eS promises White a big advantage.

Here 19 . . . !Dd7? leads to a storm of sacrifices: 20 .:lxc6! 'ii'xc6 21 ..txh7+! �xh7 22 .l:!.hS+ �g8 23 .l:!.h8+! �xh8 (23 . . . <t>f7? 24 'ii'hS+) 24 !Dg6+ �g8 2S !Dxe7+ and White wins.

d4) 16 ... .l:!.e7! 17 ..tbS !De4 18 ..txc6 ..txc6 19 f3 (P.Sowray-M.Anderton, British League 2004) 19 . . . !DgS 20 .:tel and White has a stable advantage. 15 dxes !Dxes 16 !Dxes 'ii'xes 17 'ii'b3!

We've already seen in similar posi­tions the strength of this move. In fact here White already threatens to take the dS-pawn, and strangely Black has

fallen for this trap many times.

17 . . Ji'd6! Preventing both 'ilfb4 and tactical

ideas based on tLlxd5 (for example, 17 . . . i.g4? 18 llae1 ! 'ii'd4 19 tLlxd5, and 17 . . . l:e8? 18 tLlxd5 tLlxd5 19 i.c4 l:.d8 20 l:fe1).

Against 17 . . . �h8?!, 18 'ilfb4! is a very good reply. White gains a tempo hit­ting the rook, controls the d6-square and prepares l:tae1-e7. A.Naiditsch­M.Tscharotschkin, Deizisau 2004, con­tinued 18 . . . i.g4 19 l:.fe1 'ilfb8 (19 . . . 'ii'c7 20 l:e7) 20 l:.e7 b6 21 l:.ae1 'ii'c8 22 'ii'd2 'i'c5 23 h3 i.f3 24 :xg7! l:.g8 25 tLle6 'i'd6 26 'ii'h6 and Black resigned.

White also gained the advantage in K.Koegler-D.Gutsche, Internet 2003, after 17 . . . b6!? 18 'iWb4! l:.d8 19 l:.acl 'ii'd6 20 'i'xd6 lhd6 21 l:tc7 i.d7 22 h4 cJi>f8 23 f3, while 17 . . . i.d7 18 l:.fe1 (18 tLlxd5? liJxd5 19 i.c4 i.c6 was Black's idea) 18 . . . 'i'd6 19 l:.ad1 i.c6 20 l:.e6 'i'c5 21 'i'c2 'i'xc2 22 i.xc2 l:.ae8 23 i.b3 l:txe6 24 ltJxe6 l:.e8 25 tLld4 was slightly better for White in J.Timman-M.Kuijf, Dutch Ch., 1987. 18 l:fe1 'iii>h8

3 . . JiJf6 : M a in L i n e with 1 1 . . . 0 - o

18 . . . g5? loses to 19 tL"Ixd5! . 19 l:.ac1!

White's idea now that Black has lost a tempo with . . . �h8 is to penetrate down the c-file. 19 . . • gs!?

19 . . . i.d7 20 'ii'xb7 g5 21 tLlg2 l:tfb8 22 'ii'c7 'ii'xc7 23 .l:txc7 lhb2 24 l:te7 is good for White. 20 tLlg2 tLlg4 21 f4 gxf4

21 . . .'ii'h6 22 h4 gxf4 23 'ii'c3+! �g8 24 tLlxf4 l:.Xf4 25 gxf4 'ii'xh4 26 l:.c2 i.d7 27 l:.g2 is again good for White. 22 tLlxf4

Now 22 . . . .l:.xf4?! 23 gxf4 i.d7 24 'i'c3+ d4 25 'i'c7 'ili'h6 26 l:.e2! was win­ning for White in T.Emst-L.Karlsson, Stockholm 1993. Instead White only has a slight plus after 22 . . . tLle5!? 23 i.b1 ! (23 i.fl d4 24 i.g2 d3 is fine for Black - White must pay close attention to d3) 23 . . . i.d7 24 'ii'e3 l:.ae8 25 'i'd4.

B) 13 ... tLlg41? 14 g3!? gSI Both 14 . . . e5? 15 dxe5 g5 (if

15 . . . tLlgxe5 there follows 16 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 17 i.xh7+) 16 tLlxd5 tLlcxe5 17 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 18 i.e4 (V.Fedorov-N.Seferjan,

2 3 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

Budapest 1989) and 14 . . . tiJh6?! 15 .ib5 g5 16 .ixc6 bxc6 17 tiJd3 .ia6 (A.Zapata-E.Cordova, Neiva 2005) 18 .:tel are clearly better for White.

An alternative is 14 . . . 'ii'f6!? 15 h4:

a) 15 . . . g6?! 16 .ie2 lDh6 17 'ii'd2 tiJf5 18 .l:!.adl .id7 19 .l:!.fel l:l.ae8 20 .ifl l:l.f7 21 .ig2 was good for White in E.Gurbanzade-K.Gasymov, Baku 2003.

b) 15 . . . tiJh6?! 16 .l:!.el ltJf7 17 .i.b5 ltJe7 18 l:tcl ltJf5 19 .i.d3 'it>h8 20 lhc8 l:r.axc8 21 l:txe6 1 -0, A.Rizouk-H.Peco­relli Garcia, Marin 2004.

c) 15 . . . h6 16 .i.bl ! .l:!.£7 17 .i.g6 .l:!.f8 (A.Kubikova-D.Hauer, German League 2006) 18 !:tel is again good for White.

d) 15 . . . 'ii'h6 16 'it>g2!? .l:!.xf4 17 gxf4 'ii'xf4 18 'ii'cl ! 'ii'd6 (18 . . . 'ii'f6? 19 'ii'g5) 19 'ii'g5 e5 20 dxe5 lDgxe5 21 tDxe5 tDxe5 22 l:l.adl and White has an edge.

e) 15 . . . e5 16 dxe5 tDgxe5 17 lDg5 tDxd3 18 'ii'xd3 .if5 19 'ii'xd5+ 'it>h8 (M.Neila Castillo-J.Fabre Perez, Aragon 2003) 20 tDge6 l:f.f7 21 :ael and White keeps the advantage. 15 lDg2 'ii'f6

Black's plan is to exert pressure on the d4-pawn with . . . tiJh6-f5 and . . . g4.

2 3 8

White was slightly better in G.Low­A.Kaminik, Bad Wiessee 1999, after 15 . . . e5! ? 16 lDxe5 tDcxe5 17 dxe5 lDxe5 18 .i.e2 .i.e6 19 'ii'd2 lDc6 20 l:tadl d4 21 b3 'it>h8 22 f4. 16 .ie2 lDh6

White maintains a plus after 16 . . . 'iih6 17 h4 gxh4 18 lDfxh4 tiJf6 19 tiJf3 ltJe4 20 'ii'cl 'ii'g7 21 'ii'e3 e5! ? 22 dxe5 .i.h3! (22 . . . tDxe5? 23 lDxe5 'ii'xe5 24 f3) 23 l:.fdl l:tad8 24 l:l.xd5! tDxg3! (24 . . . l:l.xd5 25 .i.c4 .i.e6 26 'ii'xe4) 25 fxg3 l:l.xd5 26 .i.c4 .i.e6! 27 ltJg5 .l:!.dl+ 28 l:[xdl .i.xc4 29 b3 .i.a6 30 l:l.d5. 17 'ii'd2 1

11 . . . ttJfs The computer proposes 17 . . . g4?, but

this is refuted by 18 ltJe5 lDxe5 19 dxe5 'ii'xe5 20 'ii'xh6! 'ii'xe2 21 'ii'g5+ 'it>h8 22 'ii'e7 'it>g8 23 l:l.acl intending l:l.c7.

17 . . . ttJf7 should be met by 18 lDe3. 18 l:l.ad1 h61?

18 . . . ..td7?! 19 g4! ttJh4 20 tiJfxh4 gxh4 21 f4 h3 22 tDe3 is clearly better for White.

White kept an edge in G.Ginsburg­A.Nosenko, Simferopol 1991, after 18 . . . g4?! 19 lDe5 lDfxd4 (or 19 . . . tDcxd4

20 tbxg4 '1i'g7 21 f4 l2Jc6 22 l2J2e3, and now either 22 . . . l2Jfd4 23 'it>h1 or zz . . . tbfe7 23 b4! a6 24 a4 h5 25 b5) 20 ttJxg4 '1i'g7 21 f4 .ltd7 22 l2Je5 tbxe5 23 "i'xd4 tbc6 24 1fxg7+ 'it>xg7 25 .ltg4

.:tad8 26 ::tfe1 ::tfe8 27 tbh4 'it>f6 28 tDf3.

19 tDe3 a61 Alternatively: a) 19 . . . tbxe3 can be met by 20 1fxe3. b) White has the advantage after

19 . . . '1i'g7 20 b4! g4 21 tbxf5 exf5

(2I . .Jhf5? 22 tbh4 l::tf7 23 b5 tbe7 24 f3 is clearly better for White) 22 tbe5 lt:Jxe5 23 dxe5 .lte6 24 '1i'd4!? .

c) 19 . . . .ltd7 20 lt:Jxf5! exf5 (after 20 . . . '1i'xf5 21 '1i'e3!? White controls e5 and is better following 21 . . .ltae8 22 lt:Je5 llJxe5 23 dxe5 .ltc6 24 lld4) 21 .ltb5! f4 22 .ltxc6 .ltxc6 (22 . . . bxc6 23 lt:Je5 .lth3 24 l:.fe1 .:t.ae8 was G.Ginsburg-K.Svistun­ov, Pinsk 1993, and here 25 �c3! fxg3 26 '1i'xg3 .ltf5 27 .:tel is better for White) 23 lt:Je5 :ae8 24 ltcl l:te6 25 l:!.fe1 a6 26 l:tc3 'it>h8 27 .:tecl I:t.fe8 28 b3 .ltb5 29 l:tc7 .:t8e7 30 'ifc2 .lte8 31 ltxe7 .l:.xe7 32 '1i'c8 and White was dominating in J.Steffan-P.Backe, correspondence 2001 . 20 h4! gxh4 21 lt:Jxfs exfs

3 . . .l'Df6 : M a in L i n e with 1 1 . . . 0 - 0

22 l2Jxh4 22 1i'f4!? hxg3 23 fxg3 intending

'it>g2 and .:th1 offers White action down the h-file. 22 . • . f4 23 ..tf3 Wgs

23 . . . .lte6?! 24 lt:Jg2! fxg3 25 fxg3 1i'g5 26 lt:Jf4! 'ii'xg3+ 27 1i'g2 1fxg2+ 28 ..ixg2 .ltf7 29 lt:Jxd5 l:.lad8 30 lt:Jf6+ 'it>g7 31 d5 lt:Jb4 32 .l:.d4! gives White the initiative. 24 lt:Jg2 .lth3 25 lt:Jxf41

25 .l:f.fe1 .ltxg2! 26 'it>xg2 l:lf5 is fine for Black. 25 • • • .ltxf1 26 .ltxd5+ 'it>h8 27 ..ixc6 bxc6 28 'it>xf1

White has the advantage here, as Black's king is weak and all of his pawns are targets.

C) 13 .•. lt:Je4 14 g31 I think that 14 g3 is the most princi­

pled response to 13 . . . lt:Je4. However, as with everything in this day and age, it comes with a lot of theory. For those with limited time to study I suggest looking at 14 'ifcl lt:Jg5 15 lt:Jxg5 1fxg5 16 lt:Je2 'iff6 17 'ifd2 .ltd7 18 .ltb5!? as played in, for example, M.Adams­M.Gurevich, Turin Olympiad 2006.

2 3 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

Now we will look at:

c1: 14 ... lDgs (2: 14 .. Ji'f61? C3: 14 ... gsl

Alternatively: a) 14 . . . 'ii'b6 15 l:te1 ! (not 15 b3?!

lDxd4!) 15 . . ."ii'xb2 16 ..txe4 dxe4 17 l:lxe4 l:tf5 18 .l:.e3 'ii'b5 19 a4 'ii'a6 20 d5 exd5 21 lDxd5 'ii'a5 22 lDe7+ lDxe7 23 .l:txe7 with a strong attack, S.Aykent­G.Stueber, correspondence 1996.

b) 14 ... ..td7!? is passive: 15 lDe5! lDxe5 16 dxe5 'ii'e8?! 17 'ifg4 'ii'e7 (Black wants to play . . . 'ii'b4 now that White's queen has moved to the kingside, but this loss of time is of course unforgiv­able) 18 ..txe4! dxe4 19 .l:.fe1 ..tc6? (Black had to try finding compensation for the pawn after 19 . . . .l:tf5 20 lhe4 ..tc6 21 l:!.e3! 'ii'b4 22 'ii'e2) 20 "ii'xe6+ 'ifxe6 21 lDxe6 �f5 22 lDd4 l::!.xe5 23 lDxc6 bxc6 24 l:!.acl .l:I.b8 25 b3 I:te6 (Black is saddled with many weaknesses, and I give the remaining moves only to show a pretty final position) 26 .U.c4 .U.be8 27 '.tfl 'stf7 28 l:!.ecl l:.c8 29 'it>e2 'stf6 30 'it>e3 '.tf5 31

2 4 0

.l:.c5+ '.tg4?? (31 . . . .l:le5 32 llxe5+ '.txe5 33 llc4) 32 h3+ 'stxh3 33 l::th1 + 'stg2 (intend­ing 34 l::tch5 l:lh6, but there is another road leading to Rome . . . )

34 l:lccl ! 1 -0, A.Tzermiadianos­A.Kiriakopoulos, Kavala 1996.

c) 14 ... h6 is best met by 15 .:tel ! 'iff6 16 lDe5!, when 16 . . . lDxd4 17 lDfg6 .l:.d8 18 l:lc7! is winning for White.

c1) 14 ... lDgs Black aims for a solid position an

exchange down, but it seems that White has found a way to obtain a last­ing advantage. 1s lDes

1s . . . lbxesl Alternatively: a) 15 . . . lbxd4?! 16 �xh7+ �xh7 17

1Vxd4 l:.f5 18 lbfg6 lbf3+ 19 lbxf3 .Uxf3

20 lbe5 .Uf5 21 f4 was clearly better for White in S.Sokolov-A.Hamidullin, Ka­zan 2006.

b) 15 . . . 'ii'f6 16 .:tel ! lbxd4 17 h4 lb£7 t8 lbg4 'ii'd8 19 �xh7+ �xh7 20 'ii'xd4 is also much better for White.

c) 15 . . . ..td7! ? 16 'it>g2!? lbxe5 17 dxe5 .Uc8 (17 . . . i.c6?! 18 'iVg4 d4+ 19 f3) 18 et5 h6 19 h4 lbe4 20 'ii'g6 and White has the initiative.

d) Black can sacrifice on f4 without first exchanging on e5 by playing 15 . . . .t:r.xf4 16 gxf4 lbh3+ 17 <it>hl, but things are not rosy for him:

dl) After 17 . . . 'ilh4? White obtains the initiative with 18 Wc2! . For exam­ple, 18 . . . lbxd4 (18 . . . lbxf4 19 lbxc6! Wh3 20 ..te4! dxe4 21 lbe7+ <ifth8 22 Wxe4 wins for White, as does 18 . . . lbxe5 19 fxe5 ..td7 20 f4 l:.f8 21 l::t£3 lbxf4 22 .l::r.a£1 g5 23 -.c7 ..tc6 24 b4, and in this second line 19 .. .'ifxd4? is met by 20 f4! lbxf4 21 :xf4! Wxf4 22 .l:.fl Wh4 23 'ifc7) 19 'ifc7 Wf6 20 l:.adl ! lb£5 21 �xf5 exf5 (or

3 . . .ti:Jj6 : M a i n L i n e with 1 1 . . . 0 - 0

21 . . .'ii'xf5 22 .:td3 lbxf4 23 l:.gl) 22 l:txd5 �e6 23 l:td4.

d2) 17 . . . lbxf4 18 l:.g1 'ii'f6 19 l:.g4! lbh3 (19 . . . lbxd4 20 i.xh7+!; 19 . . . lbxe5 20 dxe5 'ii'xe5 21 'ii'a4; 19 . . . lbxd3 20 'ii'xd3 lbxe5 21 dxe5 Wxe5 22 'ili'b5! <ift£7 23 l:agl ! g6 24 .:th4 h5 25 'ili'b4) 20 ..txh7+ <iftf8 (or 20 .. .'it>h8 21 .:g2 lbxf2+ 22 l:.xf2 Wxf2 23 Wh5 and mate follows) 21 'ili'b3! lbxf2+ 22 <iftgl lbxg4 23 'iVa3+! lbe7 (23 . . . cii?e8 24 i.g6+ <iftd8 25 Wd6+) 24 :n lbxe5 25 dxe5 Wxfl + 26 <it>xfl and Black's king will not survive. 16 dxes

16 . . . .:.xf41? Alternatively: a) 16 . . . 'ili'b6?! 17 'ilh5 lbe4 18 l:ael

..td7 19 l:xe4! l:f5 20 l:b4! 'ii'xb4 21 i.xf5 exf5 22 e6 was winning for White in A.Tzoumbas-T.Goris, Komotini 1993.

b) 16 ... b6?! 17 Wh5 g6 (after 17 ... h6? 18 h4 l:xf4 19 hxg5 lXd4 20 'ii'g6 Black resigned in T.Ly-J.Vitkovsky, corre­spondence 2000) 18 Wg4 h5 19 'ifd1 l:hf4 20 gxf4 lbh3+ 21 �h1 'ilh4 22 ..txg6 �b7 23 'ifxh5 d4+ 24 f3 'ifxh5 25 ..txh5 lbxf4 26 ..tg4 �f7 27 .l:tacl and

2 4 1

H o w to B e a t th e Fre n c h Defe n c e

White was winning in A.Stiri-S,Nakas, Athens 2006.

c) 16 . . . tt::lf7? ! 17 'ii'h5 tt::lh6 18 �acl is good for White.

d) 16 . . . ..td7 17 'ilfg4! 'ilfe7 18 .l:.ae1 .l:.ae8 19 h4 tt::le4 (19 . . . tt::lf7?! 20 tt::lg6! hxg6 21 'ilfxg6 tt::lxe5 22 'ii'h7+ �£7 23 'ifu5+ g6 24 'ilfxe5 was clearly better for White in I.Sudakova-L.Zaitseva, St Pe­tersburg 2005) 20 ..txe4 dxe4 21 llxe4 ..tc6 22 .l:f.e3 l:.f5 23 lld1 and White has a clear advantage as Black is struggling to find compensation for the pawn. 17 gxf4 tt::lh3+ 18 �h1 tt::lxf4

18 . . . 'iih4? brings back fond memo­ries for me: 19 'ilff3! (intending 'ili'g3) 19 . . . tt::lxf4? (19 . . . ..td7 20 f5 l:tf8 21 'ii'g3 'ii'h6 22 f6 was also winning for White in K.Dabrowska-M.Socko, Swieradow 1992) 20 .l:.g1 (threatening �g4) 20 . . . tt::lxd3 21 :i.xg7+! and my opponent, IM Branimir Maksimovic (at Hania, 1991 ), resigned as Black is mated after 2l . . .�xg7 22 �g1+ �h6 23 'ilff8+ �h5 24 'ii'f7+ �h6 25 'ii'g7+ �h5 26 'ii'xh7 mate. 19 .l:.g1

19 ... tt:Jxd31 Other moves are weaker:

2 4 2

a) 19 . . . 1i'f8? is bad as it leaves c7 unprotected. Z.Almasi-M. Ulibin, Hrvatska 2000, continued 20 .l:tcl ! ..td7 21 .l:.c7 .l:.d8 22 .l:.xb7! g6 23 'ii'f3! 'ii'h6?! (23 . . . ..tc6 24 lk7 ..ta8 25 l:tg4!; 23 . . . tt::lxd3 24 'ifxd3 'ifxf2 25 .l:tfl Wc5 26 'iff3) 24 ..tfl ! d4 25 .l:.g4! tt::ld5 26 .l:.xd4 ..tc6 and here White could have won immedi­ately with 27 l:.h4! .

b) 19 . . . 1t'c7?! 20 �g4 'ii'xe5 21 Wa4 'ii'h5 22 'ii'xf4 e5 23 .l:.xg7+ 1-0, R.Skytte­A.Olsson, Stockholm 2000.

c) After 19 . . . ..td7?! 20 'ii'g4! 'ii'f8 White has the powerful 21 ..tf5! .l:.c8 22 'ii'xf4 'ifxf5 (22 . . . exf5 23 .l:.acl ..tc6 24 'ii'd4! is very good for White) 23 'ii'xf5 exf5 24 .l:.acl ..tc6 25 �g2! d4+ 26 �g3 �f7 (26 . . . g5 27 f4! h6 28 .l:!.gd1 is also good for White) 27 �f4 g6 28 .l:Igd1 lld8 29 .l::!.c4 d3 30 �e3 g5 31 l:td4 with a

clear advantage. 20 'ii'xd3 ..td7

Black's plan is not to put his bishop on c6 and play . . . d4, as then the d4-pawn would become weak. Instead the main idea is to establish a fortress with . . . ..te8-g6. 21 .U.g41

This is a very effective square for the rook. White threatens to double on the g-file and also controls the impor­tant d4-square so he doesn't have to worry about . . . d4. n ... i.e8! 22 .l:.ag1 ..tg6

(Z.Pakleza-R.Jedynak, Polanica Zdroj 2005) Now 23 'iie3 intending l1cl

is the simplest way to a small advan­tage.

C2) 14 ... 'iif61? This is supposed to be the main

line, although in my opinion it is more difficult to prove an advantage after 14 . . . g5! (see Line C3) .

15 h4 h6 Here's a summary of alternatives: a) 15 . . . lt::\xd4? 16 .i.xe4 dxe4 17 lt::\xd4

eS 18 lt::\d5 'ii'£7 19 lt::\b5 i.h3 20 lt::\d6 'i'd7 21 lt::\xe4 ..txfl 22 lt::\df6+ and Black resigned in H.Gastiaburo-L.Gargiulo, Ezeiza 2001 .

b) 15 . . . 'ii'h6?! (intending . . . .l:txf4 now that White has weakened his kingside with h2-h4) 16 'ifcl ! i.d7 17 .l:te1 ! .t1ac8 18 'ii'e3 lt::\d6! 19 lt::\g5 and White has the initiative.

3 . . .&iJf6 : M a i n L i n e with 1 1 . . . 0 - 0

c ) 15 . . . �h8?! 16 .:tel ! (this is also the answer to 15 . . . ..td7) 16 . . . g5 17 hxg5 lt::\xg5 18 lt::\e5! 'ii'h6! (White has a stra­tegically winning position after 18 . . . lt::\xd4 19 �g2! - threatening 'ii'hs and .l:th1 - 19 . . . �g8 20 ..txh7+ lt::\xh7 21 'ii'xd4) was played in S.Kudrin-M.De Zeeuw, Dieren 1985.

Black controls h3 (thus making it more difficult for White to play 'it>g2) and also threatens in some variations to sacrifice on f4 followed by . . . lt::\h3+ and . . . lt::\x£4 with good counterplay. White should reply 19 .i.fl ! (controlling h3) 19 . . . ..td7! 20 ..tg2 (20 lt::\xd7? .l:h£4 21 gxf4 l:.g8 wins for Black) 20 . . . lt::\xe5 21 .l:txeS with a nice advantage.

d) 15 . . . .l:td8 prepares the pseudo-sacrifice . . . lt::\xd4 after 16 l:tel, but 16 i.c2!? ..td7 17 .l:te1 ! gives White the ad­vantage.

e) 15 . . . lt::\d6 is interesting. Black has one knight on c6 to control the dark squares and puts the other on d6 to control the light squares, at the same time preventing i.bS. The drawback is that Black loses time, but accuracy is required by White. For example, 16

2 4 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

l:tcl ! g6 17 'ii'a4! .i.d7 18 'ifa3 lbe4 19 .i.b5 with a small advantage.

f) 15 . . . g5! ? 16 hxg5 lbxg5 17 �g2! ! was an amazing discovery I found more than ten years ago, but I've never had the chance to play it! White sacri­fices the d4-pawn in order to start a murderous attack with l:.hl . For exam­ple:

fl ) 17 . . . h6 18 lbxg5! hxg5 (18 . . . 'ifxg5 19 lbg6 .:td8 20 f4 'iff6 21 lbe5 is good for White) 19 'ifh5 .:tf7 20 lDh3 lDxd4 21 lbxg5 .:te7 22 ..th7+ �g7 23 .:th1 .i.d7 24 ..td3 �g8 25 l:th4 e5 26 l:.ah1 and White wins.

f2) 17 . . . :£7 18 :h1 lDxf3 19 'ifxf3 lbxd4 (or 19 . . . 'ifxd4 20 'ifg4+ �f8 21 .:txh7 .:r.xh7 22 .i.xh7 'iig7 23 'ifh4 e5 24 .:r.e1 ! .i.d7 [24 . . . exf4 leads to a nice mate after 25 Wxf4+ 'iif7 26 'ifh6+ Wg7 27 l:te8+ �f7 28 'ifh5+ �f6 29 'iif3+ �g5 30 'ii'f4+ �h5 31 'ii'h4] 25 lbg6+ �e8 [25 . . . �£7 26 l:txe5! lbxe5 27 'ili'e7 mate] 26 lbxe5 lbxe5 27 'iif4 and White wins) 20 'iig4+ �f8 (20 .. Jlg7? 21 lDh5!) 21 ..txh7! lbc6 22 'ifg8+ �e7 23 l:tae1 �d6 24 .:txe6+ .i.xe6 25 'ii'xa8 'ii'xb2 26 'ii'e8 with a winning attack.

2 4 4

f3) 17 . . . lbxf3 18 'ii'xf3 and now:

f31 ) 18 . . . 'iig7 19 :h1 h6 (19 . . . lbxd4 20 'ii'h5 lbf5 21 .:.ae1 ltf7 22 ltJxe6 .i.xe6 23 .:txe6 .:.af8 24 :hl) 20 'ii'e3! e5 (20 . . . 'ii'xd4 21 'ii'xd4 ltJxd4 22 l:txh6 and 20 . . . ltJxd4 21 lth5 ltJf5 22 .i.xf5 .l:lxf5 23 l:txf5 exf5 24 l:tcl ! are both winning for White) 21 ltJxd5 exd4 (21 . . . .i.e6 22 ltJc7! 'ii'xc7 23 .l:.xh6 wins) 22 'ii'xh6 .i.f5 23 ltJf4 with a clear advantage for White.

f32) 18 . . . ltJxd4! 19 'ii'g4+! 'ii'g7 (19 . . . �£7? 20 .:r.h1) 20 'iixg7+ �g7 21 .J:.h1 h6 (21 . . . .:th8 22 .:th4 e5 23 ltJxd5 h6 24 .l:lcl is good for White) was E.Domancich-M.Dos Santos, correspon­dence 2000, and here White can achieve a clear advantage in the endgame with 22 .:r.ae 1 ! .:tx£4! (or 22 . . . J..d7 23 .:th4! ltJf5 24 .l:lg4+ �f7 25 ltJg6 .l:lg8 26 ltJe5+ �e7 27 .i.xf5 exf5 28 .:th4) 23 gxf4 .i.d7 24 f5! :£8 25 fxe6 ltJxe6 26 �g3.

Returning to 15 . . . h6: Now I like 16 �g2!? because it of­

fers White an edge without any great risk. However, White has also played 16 .i.xe4 here, and so I've provided a brief summary of this move with a few suggestions.

C21: 16 ii.xe4 czz: 16 �gzl?

Note that 16 ll'le5 ll'lxd4 17 ll'lg4 _.dB 18 .i.xe4 dxe4 19 ll'lxh6+ �h7! 20 �5 'l'e8 was fine for Black in M.Godena­E.Gleizerov, Cattolica 1994.

C21) 16 .txe4 This is the main line. I managed to

beat 3 . . . ll'lf6 expert Mikhail Ulibin with this, but it's complicated. 16 • • • dxe4 17 ll'les l:ld8

17 . . . g5 18 ll'lh5 •f5 19 g4 Wh7 20 hxg5 hxg5 21 .:r.ct is very good for White, and 17 . . . e3 18 ll'lxc6 exf2+ 19 .:r.x£2 bxc6 20 Wa4 gives White the ini­tiative. 18 ll'lxc6 bxc6 19 'ii'a41

This was Kotronias' s invention; the idea is to prevent . . . ii.a6. 19 • • . Wxd4

Alternatively: a) 19 . . . g5?! 20 ll'lg2! (White avoids

opening the h-file, keeping it as solid as possible on the kingside) 20 . . . J:.b8 (20 . . . Wxd4!? 21 'iixc6 ii.d7 22 'ii'a6 'it'xb2 23 hxg5 hxg5 24 'it'c4 'it'e5 25 l:tfe1 .l:.ac8

3 . . .lDf6 : M a in L i n e with 1 1 . . . 0 - 0

26 'ii'xe4 Wxe4 2 7 l:txe4 �f7 2 8 l:te5 .:r.gs 29 .l:ta5 .:r.c7 30 ll'le3 �e7 31 f3 gives a tiny plus to White) 21 b3 .:r.xd4 (2l . . .'it'xd4? 22 .l:tad1) 22 'ii'xa7 .l:tb7 23 'ii'a8 .l:td8 24 .l:tad1 (24 .l:.acl !? .:r.g7 25 h5! ii.b7 26 Was .:as 27 'ii'd2 'ii'f3 28 'ii'd6! was slightly better for White in S.Rublevsky-D.Komarov, Yugoslavia 1999) 24 . . . .l:tf8 25 'it'a4 .:r.g7 was my game against Ulibin (Cappelle Ia Grande 1998).

Here I should have continued with 26 h5! killing off Black's counterplay for the small price of a pawn. After 26 . . . e5 27 l:[d2 .i.g4 28 l:tcl White enjoys a lasting advantage.

b) 19 . . . .td7! ? 20 'ii'c2 g5 (after 20 . . . i.e8 21 'ii'xe4 .:r.xd4 22 'ii'xe6+ 'it'xe6 23 ll'lxe6 l::td2 24 b3 i.f7 25 ll'lf4 .:r.ad8 [ A.Zatonskih-T.Jackson, Stillwater 2005] and now 26 h5 Black has inade­quate compensation) 21 hxg5 hxg5 22 ll'le2 _.f3 23 ll'lc3 e5 (23 . . . c5? ! 24 'it'xe4 ii.c6 25 d5! Wxe4 26 ll'lxe4 exd5 27 ll'lxc5 .l:tab8 28 b3 d4 29 f4! gxf4 30 .l:txf4 leaves White well in control) 24 'it'xe4! 'it'xe4 25 ll'lxe4 exd4 26 ll'lxg5 and White has a slight advantage.

2 4 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

c ) 19 . . . l:f.b8 20 "ifxa7! l:hb2 21 l:tad1 g5! (21 . . .l:tb4 22 l:tfe1 .l:tb7 23 "ii'a5 l:tbd7 24 l:txe4 was clearly better for White in P.Zenner-F.Pino Munoz, correspon­dence 2002) 22 hxg5 hxg5 23 tZ:lh5 'ii'g6 24 g4 l:tb7 25 'ii'a4 .l:.f7 26 l:.fe1 .l:tdf8 27 %1d2 i.b7 28 .l:tb2 .l:.d7 29 'ifc2 and White has the advantage. 20 'ifc2 !?

This is an interesting idea: White sacrifices a pawn and threatens .I:tadl .

After 20 'ifxc6 i.d7 21 'ifc2! e3! Qust in time before White plays l:.fe1) 22 .l:tad1 ! exf2+ 23 'ifxf2! 'ifxf2+ 24 :Xxf2 e5 25 tZ:lg6 i.e6 (R.Baron-M.Gonzalez, Seville 1999) 26 l:!.e1 i.xa2 27 b4 i.d5 28 l:txe5 �h7 29 h5 11ab8 30 nf4 White has a tiny edge but with accurate play Black can hold the draw. 20 ... 'ili'f6!

20 . . . e3!? 21 l:.ad1 exf2+ 22 �g2 'ii'b6! (White gains a clear advantage after 22 . . . 'ili'f6? 23 tZ:lh5! We7 24 .l:txd8+ 'ili'xd8 25 'ili'g6 'ii'd5+ 26 �h2 'ii'd4 27 .l:td1 ! fl'ii' 28 l:txf1 i.a6 29 tZ:lf6+ �f8 30 .l:.f4! 'ifxb2+ 31 �h3 'ifa1 32 �g2 'ii'b2+ 33 l:tf2 'ii'd4 34 tZ:le8+ 'ii'xf2+ 35 �xf2 J:txe8 36 'ili'e4!) 23 l:.xd8+ (or 23 'ii'g6 c5 24

2 4 6

l::txd8+ 'ii'xd8 25 .l:.xf2 'ir'e7) 23 . . .'it'xd8 24 nxf2 c5 25 'ife4 l:tb8 26 'ir'e5 'iib6 27 tZ:lg6 i.b7+ 28 �h3 l:.e8 29 'ii'f4 'ii'c6 30 'ili'f7+ �h7 31 g4 'ii'h1+ 32 �g3 'ii'g1+ leads to a draw. 21 'ir'xc6

21 l:.fd1 ! ? is another possibility. 21 ... .Ub8 22 l:.ad1 l:!.f8 23 b3

The position is unclear: for example, 23 . . . g5!? 24 tZ:lg2 i.b7 25 hxg5 hxg5 26 'ir'a4 l:.bc8 27 tZ:le3 J:tc7 28 'ii'd4 'iih6 29 �g2 i.a6 30 l:th1 'ili'g7.

(22} 16 �g21?

16 ... i.d7! After 16 . . . tZ:lxd4? 17 i.xe4 dxe4 18

tZ:lxd4 %1d8 19 tZ:lfe2 e5 20 'ii'b3+ �h8 21 tZ:lb5 i.e6 22 'ir'c2 l:.ac8 (or 22 . . . l:.d3 23 tZ:lbc3 'ili'f3+ 24 �h2 'ii'f5 25 tZ:lg1 ! ) 23 tZ:lbc3 'ii'f3+ 24 �h2 i.c4 25 tZ:lg1 ! 'ii'f5 26 .l:tfe1 i.d3 27 'ii'd2 Black has no com­pensation for the sacrificed piece.

16 . . . g5?! allows White to reveal the idea behind �g2: 17 hxg5 hxg5 18 tZ:lh5 'ii'f5! (18 . . . 'ii'xf3+?! 19 'ir'xf3 lW3 20 �xf3 is excellent for White after both 20 . . . tZ:ld2+ 21 �e3 tZ:lxfl+ 22 l:.xfl e5 23 dxe5 tZ:lxe5 24 tZ:lf6+ �f7 25 tZ:lxd5 tZ:lxd3

26 �xd3 i.e6 27 'it>e4 l::td8 28 l::td1, and 20 . . . li)xd4+ 21 �g2 .!DeS 22 i.g6 b6 23 b4 lt)d7 24 l::tacl i.a6 25 l::tfd1 e5 26 l::tc7 i.b5 27 i.d3!, as in H.Urday Caceres­J.Hemandez, Santiago 1999) 19 �e5 li)xe5 (19 . . . �xd4 20 f4!) 20 dxeS 'ii'xeS 21 1ie2 (threatening 22 f3) 21 . . .'ii'h8 (2l . . . 'ii'd4 22 .l:.ad1) 22 f4 i.d7 (22 . . . �c5

23 i.c2 i.d7 24 fxgS! d4 25 .l:.f6! i.c6+ 26 rJt>g1 :W6 27 ll)xf6+ c;t>g7 28 %5+ c;t>g8 29 i.f5! exf5 30 'ifc4+ wins for White) 23 fxg5 �xgS 24 'ii'g4 'ii'h6 25 l:.ae1 ! lb£1 26 :W1 :f8 27 ..th7+! �xh7 28 lhf8 'ifxf8 29 'ifxg5 i.e8 30 �f6+ �h8 31 g4.

White wins because he has created a bind and is ready to weave a mating net with 'ii'eS and g4-g5. Black's pieces, especially his queen, can only observe the situation, and if Black pushes his d­pawn the white king will deal with it! 17 i.bsl? �bs

17 . . . l:.ac8?! should be met by 18 Lc6 i.xc6 19 �5 i.bS 20 l:.e1 'ii'fS 21 l:r.ct ! l::txcl 22 'ifxcl g5 23 hxgS hxg5 24 �3 g4 (24 . . . �xf2 25 'ii'xg5+) 25 �f4 �gS 26 'ii'd1 and White wins a pawn.

17 . . . i.e8!? is the latest trend. White was slightly better in M.Palac-

3 . . . li:Jf6 : M a i n L i n e with 1 1 . . . 0 - 0

S.Volkov, Dresden 2007, after 18 h5 l::tb8! ? 19 l:.cl .!DgS! (or 19 . . . 'iff5 20 l:.h1 .!DgS 21 i.xc6 bxc6 22 b3 �xf3 23 'ifxf3 eS 24 dxeS 'ifxeS 25 'ii'e2 'ii'xe2 26 �xe2) 20 i.xc6 bxc6 21 �eS .l:.xb2 22 l::tc2 .l:.b4 (22 . . . .l:.xc2! 23 'ifxc2 �4 24 �xc6 i.xhS! 25 �eS i.e8 with an unclear position seems to be the logical continuation) 23 'ii'd3 .l:.a4?! 24 �fg6 i.xg6 25 hxg6 - the c-pawn will fall and Black's king will be in a mating net in the endgame. 18 i.xd71

18 'ii'b3?! gS! presents the initiative to Black. 18 ... �d7 19 h5

White has a slight advantage here -see my game against Ilandzis at the end of the chapter. 19 l:.cl !? gS 20 hxgS hxgS 21 �d3 'ii'fS 22 �feS �xeS 23 �xeS l:.ac8 (23 . . . �xf2? 24 'ii'h5) 24 £3 �d6 25 'ife2 c;t>g7 26 �g4 is also slightly better for White.

C3) 14 ... g51 Now we will look at:

(31: 15 �h5 (32: 15 �g21

2 4 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

I f nothing can be found in the main line with 15 tt:'lh5 (recently it has looked more than okay for Black), White should turn his attention to 15 tt:'lg2. I will, however, give detailed coverage of 15 tt:'lh5 so that readers can investi­gate it further themselves.

C31) 15 tt:'lhs �d7 ! 15 . . . e5? is a bad move: 16 tt:'lxe5!

tt:'lxd4! (16 . . . �h3 loses to 17 �xe4 �xfl 18 �xh7+ �xh7 19 'ifc2+ �h8 20 tt:'lg6+ �g8 21 tt:'lxf8) 17 'ifa4 'ifb6

18 �xe4! (this is the right way; 18 .l:r.ad1 ?! is proposed by theory, but it is not mentioned that after 18 . . . �f5! 19 g4 l:tae8! White has to find a way to equal­ize!) 18 . . . dxe4 19 .l:r.ad1 tt:'lf3+ (both 19 . . . tt:'le2+ 20 �g2 'ife6 21 tt:'ld7! �xd7 22 'ifxd7 and 19 . . . tt:'lf5 20 'ifxe4 'ifh6 21 g4 are good for White) 20 tt:'lxf3 exf3 21 l:tfe1 ! �f5 22 'ifc4+ .l:r.f7 23 .l:r.d5! 'ifc6 (23 . . . �g6 24 .l:r.xg5 'ifxb2 25 tt:'l£4) 24 'ifd4 'ifb6 25 'ii'd2 �g6 26 lld6! 'ii'c5 27 tt:'lf6+ �h8 28 tt:'ld7 'iff5 29 'ii'd4+ .l:r.g7 30 tt:'lf6 'ifc8 31 h3 'ii'f8 32 .l:r.e5! �f7 33 l:td7 and Black resigned in J .Schoonhoven­M.Ibar, correspondence 2002. This was

2 4 8

perfect play by White. 15 . . . h6?! wastes time, and White

gains a clear plus after 16 I!cl e5 17 tt:'lxe5 tt:'lxd4 (B.Muhren-A.Bayrak, Gothenburg 2005) 18 'ifa4! 'ifb6 19 .l:r.xc8! .l:r.axc8 20 'ilfd7 tt:'le6 21 �xe4 dxe4 22 tt:'lf6+ l:txf6 23 'ilfxc8+ .l:.f8 24 'ifc4. 16 tt:'les �e8 17 'ifg4

17 tt:'lxc6!? bxc6 18 'ifg4 �h8! 19 .l:r.acl �g6! 20 .l:r.xc6 l:.b8 21 b3 'ii'd7! 22 �xe4 'ifxc6 23 �xg6 hxg6 24 'ifxg5 is a draw.

17 . . . tt:'lxd4! A draw was agreed here in the

game V.Nevednichy-E.Gleizerov, Pre­deal 2006. Maybe White realized that the position is already better for Black! Let's see . . .

S.Rublevsky-M.Ulibin, Krasnoyarsk 2003, continued 17 . . . �h8?! 18 .l:r.ad1 tt:'lxe5!? (White is better after both 18 . . . �g6 19 tt:'lxg6+ hxg6 20 f3! tt:'lf6 21 tt:'lxf6 'ifxf6 22 �b5! .l:.ac8 23 .l:.fe1 ! 'ifxf3 24 'ifxf3 .l:.xf3 25 .l:r.xe6 �g7 26 .l:r.d6 .l:r.d8 27 .l:r.xd8 tt:'lxd8 28 �f1 ! and 18 . . . 'ife7 19 tt:'lxc6! �xc6 20 f3 tt:'ld6 21 .Ude1 llae8 22 f4 tt:'le4 23 .i.xe4 dxe4 24 'ifxg5) 19 dxe5 tt:'lc5.

Here 20 ltlf6! is a very strong move which escaped Rublevsky's attention. For example, 20 . . . ltlxd3 21 :txd3! i..bS 22 :tb3 .i.xfl 23 lLlxh7! (unbelievably Black has no defence! ) 23 . . . .i.a6 (the best try: after 23 .. .';ti>xh7 24 'ii'hS+ 'iitg8 25 1Vg6+ 'iith8 26 :txb7 Black will be mated, and 23 . . . 'ii'c7 also loses follow­ing 24 ltlxf8 :txf8 2S 'ii'hS+ 'ii'h7 26 'i'xh7+ 'iifxh7 27 :txb7+ �g6 28 �xfl) 24 'i'hs 1i'e8 2S 1Vh6 �g8 26 g4! and :th3 will be decisive. 17 . . . lLlxeS!? is interest­ing. I maintained a small plus against A.Georgiou (Ankara 199S) after 18 dxeS lLlcS 19 .i.c2 .i.xhS 20 'ii'xhS 'ii'e7 21 1i'g4 'iifh8 22 :ae1 aS 23 �h1 :tg8 24 'i'd4 :taf8 2S f3 b6 26 <itg2 :t£7 27 a3! ltld7 28 b4 :tc8 29 i..d3 1i'd8 30 l:.cl . 18 f3 1

18 .l:.ael? .i.g6 19 ltlxg6 hxg6 20 f3 gxhS 21 'ii'xhS ltlxf3+ 22 .l:.xf3 :txf3 23 'i'xf3 'ii'b6+ is clearly better for Black, while both 18 :tad1 :tfS 19 f3 :xeS 20 fxe4 .i.xhS 21 1VxhS 1Ve8 22 'ii'h6 dxe4! 23 l:.de1 'ii'g6 24 1Vxg6+ hxg6 2S .i.xe4 :td8 and 18 .i.xe4 dxe4 19 :tad1 :tfS 20 'irxe4 :xeS 21 :txd4 :txe4 22 :txd8 llxd8 23 ltlf6+ �g7 24 ltlxe4 g4! are

3 . . . ltJf6 : M a i n L i n e with 1 1 . . . 0 - 0

slightly better for Black. 18 . . . 'ii'd6!

This strong resource passes the ball back into White's court. J. Emms­T.Pelling, London 2007, continued 18 . . . -txhS?! 19 'ii'xhS 'ii'f6 and here White should play 20 i..xe4! dxe4 21 ltlg4 1Vg6 (21 . . . ltlxf3+? 22 :txf3 'ii'xf3 23 WxgS+ �h8 24 'ifeS+ wins) 22 'ii'xg6+ hxg6 23 fxe4 with a nice endgame ad­vantage because of the doubled g­pawns. 19 fxe4

19 ltld7 .i.xhS! 20 'iVxhS ltlxf3+ 21 :txf3 :txf3 22 'iVxf3 'iVxd7 23 .i.xe4 dxe4 24 'iVxe4 1i'dS is very good for Black, and 19 ltl£7! ? ltlxf3+! 20 l:lxf3 .i.x£7 21 i..xe4 dxe4 22 ltlf6+ 'ii?h8 23 ltlxe4 'ifd4+ 24 ltlf2 'ii'xb2 2S :tfl 'iVg7 also gives Black the advantage. 19 ••• 1Vxes 20 :txfl+ <itxfl 21 :tf1+

21 ltlf6 'ifxf6 22 .l:.fl lLlfS 23 exfS eS 24 'iVb4+ 'atg8 2S 'iVxb7 'ii'b6+ 26 'iVxb6 axb6 is good for Black. 21 • • • 'iife71 zz ltlf6

22 exdS loses to 22 . . . 'iVe3+. 22 • • • .i.g6

Black is clearly better.

2 4 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

C32) 15 tt:'!g2! 'ii'f6 16 tt:'!e51?

This is a new idea I 'm suggesting for White, and there is plenty of room for investigation. After 16 .i.xe4 dxe4 17 tt:'!e5 tt:'!xe5 (17 . . . l:td8?! 18 f4! tt:'!xd4 19 'ii'h5 .i.d7 20 l:tae1 .i.b5 21 l:tf2 gives White the initiative) 18 dxe5 'ii'xe5 19 tt:'!e3 (or 19 l:tcl ! ? b6 20 'ii'a4 .i.b7 21 tt:'!e3, Kadyrov-I.Cyn, USSR 1990) 19 . . . b6 20 'ii'a4 .i.b7 21 .l:tad1 .i.d5 22 .l:!.d2 l:tf7 23 l:i.fd1 White had compensa­tion for the pawn in P.Carlsson­M.Tscharotschkin, Calvia 2005, but I'm not sure whether objectively this is enough for anything more than a draw. 16 ... tt:'!xd4

White obtains good play after 16 . . . tt:'!xe5 17 dxe5 'ii'xe5 18 'ii'e2. Ideas include f2-f3, or f2-f4 to open up the kingside, and it is not easy for Black to finish his development: for example, 18 . . . b6! ? (18 . . . .i.d7 19 l:.ad1 ! ) 19 l:tad1 �h8 20 f3 'ii'd4+ 21 �h1 tt:'!c5 22 .i.b5 'ii'f6 23 b4. 17 f4 gxf4 18 gxf4 tt:'!f5

If 18 . . . tt:'!c6, 19 .i.xe4 dxe4 20 'ii'a4! is good for White. 19 .i.xe4 dxe4 20 .l:tc1

2 5 0

White enjoys good compensation for the pawn. He threatens .l:tc7, but �h1 followed by l:.g1 can also be very dangerous in many variations. Finally, the idea of .:tf2-c2 must not be underes­timated. There is plenty of room for analysis and I suspect this will be the main line in the future.

I l lustrative Game

A. Tzermiadianos-S.IIandzis Greek Team Championship 2005

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt:'ld2 tt:'!f6 4 e5 tt:'!fd7 5 .i.d3 c5 6 c3 tt:'!c6 7 tt:'!e2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 tt:'!xf6 10 o-o .i.d6 11 tt:'!f3 o-o 12 .i.f4 .i.xf4 13 tt:'!xf4 tt:'!e4 14 g3 'ii'f6 15 h4 h6 16 �g21?

16 .i.xe4 dxe4 17 tt:'!e5 .l:td8 18 tt:'!xc6 bxc6 19 'ii'a4! is the other option for White (see Line C21) . 16 . . . .i.d7 17 .i.b51? tt:'!b8 18 .i.xd71 tt:'!xd7 19 h5 tt:'!g5?1

Best was 19 . . . .l:tac8! 20 .l:tcl .l:txcl 21 'ii'xcl e5 22 dxe5 tt:'!xe5 23 tt:'!xe5 'ii'xe5 24 l:td1 ! .l:td8 25 .l:te1 ! 'ii'd6 26 f3 tt:'!f6 27 'ii'e3 a6 28 'ii'd3 with just an edge for White.

zo :c1! tt:lxf3 21 'ii'xf3 l:tfc8?1 Black should take up the challenge

with 2l . . .'ii'xd4! . For example, 22 tt:lxe6 .:X£3 23 tt:lxd4 l:ld3 (or 23 . . . l:tf7 24 f3 tt:lf6 25 g4 with an edge for White) 24 tt:lf5 .:£8 25 tt:le7+ �h7 26 tt:lg6! l:.b8 27 .:tfdl .:Xdl 28 l:txdl tt:lf6 29 tt:lf4 l:ld8 30 .:td3 and White enjoys a small but long-term

advantage. zz 'Wg41

Now White is clearly better since Black is obliged to give up control of the c-file. zz • • .:xc1 23 .:txc1 tt:lf8 24 tbd3 'ii'd8 25 liJcs 'Wb6 26 b3

26 l:lc3! is stronger. After 26 .. . 'ii'xb2 27 .:tb3 'ii'd2 28 l:lxb7 'ifgS 29 'ii'xg5 hxg5 30 l:le7! Black cannot hold. z6 .. Jie8 27 'ii'f41 .l:.e7 28 'ii'es 'ii'b4

Black should try 28 . . . l:lf7! 29 .l:.c3 'i'a5. 29 .:tc2 Was 30 tt:ld3 'ifd8 31 tt:lf4

Typically one of the main plusses for the side with the space advantage is the quick transfer of pieces from one side of the board to the other. 31 ... �7 32 .:tc31

The rook is ready to join the attack

3 . . . l'D.f6 : M a i n L i n e with 1 1 . . . 0 - o

via f3. 3Z ... tt:ld7?

Black finally cracks. 32 . . . 'ii'e8 was forced, even if Black's pieces would then be totally paralyzed. 33 'ii'd61

White wins a pawn, as the threat of 34 tt:lg6 l:.e8 35 l:lc7 is not easy to parry. 33 ... 'ii'b6 34 'ii'xb6 tt:lxb6 35 tbg6 .:tea 36 l:lc7+ �6 37 .:txb7

It's not the extra pawn but the con­trol of the seventh rank that wins the game. (Yes, Professor Nimzowitsch, once again you were completely right!) 37 ... tt:lc8 38 .:td71

Sorry my dear black knight, there's no escape for you! 38 ... as 39 g4 a4 40 tt:les lte7 41 bxa4 l:.xd7 42 tt:lxd7+ �e7 43 tt:lcs

Passed rook pawns are very dan­gerous in knight endings. Here White has two of these killers! 43 ... �d6 44 f4 tt:la7 45 �3 tt:lc6 46 �e3 �e7 47 tt:ld3 tt:las 48 tt:les �d6 49 �d3 �C7 50 �C3 �b6 51 g5 tt:lb7 52 gxh6 gxh6 53 tt:lf7 1-0

After 53 tbf7 �aS 54 'iti>b3, yet an­other killer (the h5-pawn) will appear.

2 5 1

C h a pte r Twe n ty I 3 . . . tt:Jf6 : Ma i n Li ne with 1 1 . . . "ilc7

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 ti:Jd2 tt'lf6 4 es ti:Jfd7 s ii.d3 cS 6 c3 tt'lc6 7 tt:'le2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 tt'lxf6 10 tt'lf3 ii.d6 11 o-o 'ii'c7

With 1 l . . .'ii'c7 Black prevents the ex­change of dark-squared bishops and is ready to play a middlegame with all the pieces on the board. This variation generally leads to very sharp play. 12 .tgs o-o 13 l::!.c1!

I think this the strongest continua­tion. In contrast with the 13 ii.h4 varia­tion, White doesn't yet declare his inten­tions and instead brings all his pieces into play. The rook on c1 is very annoy­ing for Black as it indirectly exerts pres­sure on e5 by pinning the knight on c6. Also in many variations White has the additional possibility of ii.b5 and ii.xc6. Even much later on - after breaking the pin - Black often cannot meet ii.b5 by moving the knight (as he does in similar positions) because l::tc7 would then cre­ate extra problems.

Now we will look at:

2 5 2

A: 13 ... a6 8: 13 ... h6 C: 13 .. . tt'lg4 0: 13 ... ii.d71? E: 13 ... tt:Jhs!

Here's a summary of alternatives: a) 13 . . . tt'le4?! is unwise. White can

simply retreat with 14 .te3! after which he is ready to play tt'lg3 to exchange knights and achieve a stable edge.

b) 13 . . . g6 is a typical move, the point of which is twofold.

Black parries threats along the bl­

h7 diagonal and also vacates the g7-

square for his queen. From g7 the

queen can exert pressure on the d4-

pawn, control the e5-square, some­

times support the . . . g5-g4 advance, and

is ready to join a kingside attack when

appropriate. S.Tiviakov-Rasidovic,

Caorle 1990, continued 14 .:.e1 lt:Jg4?

(14 . . . 'Wb6?, hitting b2 and d4, is an idea that Black often uses, but with the white bishop on g5 rather than h4 a nasty surprise awaits him after 15 lt:Jc3! 'i'xb2 16 lt:Jb5 ..ltb8 17 ..ltd2! when Black's queen is lost as it cannot escape via b4 or aS; 14 . . . ..1td7 is probably best) 15 h3 .U.xf3? 16 gx£3 lt:Jh2 17 'it>g2 e5 18 ltlg1 ! lt:Jxf3 19 lt:Jxf3 e4 20 .:.xe4! h6 (20 . . . dxe4 21 ..ltc4+) 21 .J:.e8+ 'it>g7 22 i.xg6 and Black resigned.

c) 13 . . . 'ii'f7 intends to continue with . . . 'ii'h5 but White has a good answer in 14 ..th4! .

This move is especially effective now, as Black cannot play 14 . . . lt:Jh5 due to 15 ..ltxh7+. Instead:

cl) 14 ... 'ii'h5 15 ..ltg3 is good for White.

3 . . .tDj6 : M a in L i n e with 1 1 . . . 'il c 7

c2) 14 . . . lt:Je4!? 15 i.xe4 dxe4 16 lt::ld2 'ii'g6! ? (16 .. . i.xh2+? 17 'it>xh2 'ii'hs 18 g3 g5 19 lt:Jf4! is also good for White, as is 16 . . . 'ii'h5 17 ..ltg3 ..ltxg3 18 lt:Jxg3 'ii'xd1 19 .l:.fxd1 lt:Jxd4 20 lt:Jc4) 17 lt:Jc4 ..ltc7 18 l:.c3! intending ..ltg3 gives White the initiative.

c3) 14 . . . ..\td7 15 ..ltg3 ..ltxg3 16 lt:Jxg3 h6 17 ..ltb1 g5 18 tt:Je5 tt:Jxe5 19 dxe5 tt:Je8 20 f4 ..ltb5 21 .:.f2 'it>h8 22 f5! l:tg8 23 fxe6 'ii'xe6 24 'ii'c2 'ii'e7 25 e6 was winning for White in S.Tiviakov-T.Clarke, Kil­kenny 1998.

d) 13 . . . 'it>h8

14 lt:Jc3! (White must be ready to transpose to the lt:Jc3 variation if Black plays an inferior move) 14 . . . a6 15 ..lth4 ..ltf4 16 ..ltg3 ..ltd7 17 ..ltb1 ! 'ii'd6 18 .:.e1 .:.ac8 19 .l:.c2 lt:Jh5 20 l:tce2 g6 21 lt:Ja4! lt:Jxg3 22 hxg3 ..lth6 23 lt:Jc5 gave White a clear advantage in Y.Griinfeld­C.Cuartas, Biel 1981 (with the move order 12 lt::lc3 a6 13 ..ltg5 0-0 14 ..lth4 'it>h8 15 .:.ci ) .

e) 13 . . . '1ib6!? is an idea that White must always have in mind. Here it can be answered by 14 lt:Jc3! 'ii'xb2 15 lt:Jb5 lt:Je4! (15 . . . ..\tb8? loses the queen to 16

2 5 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

il.d2!) 16 tbxd6 tbxd6 17 l:.xc6! bxc6 18

ii.e7 tbf5 19 il.xf8 �xf8 20 'ii'cl ! 'ii'xcl 21 .l:hcl when White has a strong initia­tive for the pawn.

A) 13 ... a6 14 il.h41

14 ... tt:Jhs White achieved a stable advantage

in T.Nurmukhanov-D.Elizarov, Dago­mys 2004, after 14 . . . g6 15 il.g3 il.xg3 16 tt:Jxg3 11t'g7 17 .U.e1 tt:Je8 18 il.b1 il.d7 19 tt:Je5 tt:Jxe5 20 dxe5! (20 :!.xeS tt:Jd6! is fine for Black) 20 . . . il.c6 21 l:.e3! 'ii'd7 22 tt:Je2 tt:Jg7 23 tt:Jd4.

After the alternative 14 . . . 'ii'b6!? 15 tt:Jc3 it'xb2 16 tt:Ja4 'ii'a3 17 tt:Jb6 .l:.b8 18 'ii'e2 White has good compensation for the pawn. 15 'ii'c2 h6 16 il.h7+ �h8 17 il.g6 tt:Jf4

Black can offer to sacrifice the ex­change with 17 . . . .l:txf3!?, but 18 il.xhS! .l:tf8 19 il.g3 promises White a safe ad­vantage. 18 gxf3 has been proposed by theory, but after 18 . . . il.xh2+ 19 �h1 tt:Jf4 20 tt:Jg3 'ii'd7! (Black's idea is to play . . . e5, when the queen will jump in like a ninja to kill the white monarch) 21 .l:tfd1 ! e5! 22 il.fS! 'ii'f7 23 �xh2 g5 24

2 5 4

il.xg5 hxg5 25 l:.h1 �g8! Black enjoys good counterplay. When there is an easy route to an advantage, there is no need to complicate the position. 18 tt:Jxf4 il.xf4 19 il.g3!

19 ... 'ii'e7 19 ... il.d7? ! 20 tt:Je5! il.xg3 21 fxg3!

wins the exchange. The recapture fxg3 is a common tactical idea that White should keep in mind. White has a lead in development, and if he can suddenly bring his rook into the attack the game will soon end in his favour. 20 !Ice1! il.d7

White gets a strong initiative after 20 . . . 'ii'f6 21 'ii'cS! il.d7 22 il.b1 il.xg3?! 23 fxg3 ! . 21 'ii'd11

Now that the light squares have been weakened by . . . h6, White intends to pull back his bishop to b1 and con­tinue with 'iid3 . 21 ... il.xg3!

The alternative 2l . . .'iib4? is met by 22 il.b1, and 21 . . .l:.ac8 22 il.b1 il.e8 23 'ii'd3 g6 24 il.xf4 l:l.xf4 25 'iie3 is good for White . 22 hxg3 'ii'f6 23 il.b1 g6 24 'ii'd2 �g7

zs 'iii'hzl Preparing an amazing manoeuvre.

zs . . J:r.ae8 26 'ji'e3 The immediate 26 :h1 ?! is an­

swered by 26 . . . e5. 26 ... .l:.h8 27 l:.h1

White has a strong initiative. He is ready to continue with 'iii'g1, opening the way for the rook to join the battle via h4 and f4.

B) 13 ... h6 14 ..i.h41

14 ... �h5 14 . . . �e4 i s currently out of fashion:

15 �c3 ..tf4 (15 .. J:lxf3? 16 •xf3! �d2 17 'ins �xfl 18 :xfl obtains a winning

3 . . .&i:'Jf6 : M a i n L i n e with 1 1 . . . 'il c 7

attack after, for example, 18 . . . ..i.d7 19 lt:lxdS! exdS 20 •xdS+ 'iith8 2 1 •e4 'iii'g8 22 �7+ 'iii'f8 23 ..i.c4; 15 . . . lt:lxc3 was tried against me by Spirakopoulos in the Bikos Cup, Athens 2006, and White can gain the advantage here with 16 .l:.xc3! 'ili'b6 17 ..tb1 as 17 . . .• xb2? is im­possible due to 18 l:lb3) 16 llc2! �gS!? 17 ..i.xgS hxgS 18 g3 g4 19 �h4 ..i.h6 20 •xg4! W£7 21 ..i.g6! •f6 22 .l:.d1 eS 23 �5! �xd4 (23 . . . exd4 24 �xdS •gs 25 f4 is also very good for White) 24 �xdS •gs (P.Popovic-Z.Stamenkovic, Ulcinj 1998) 25 f4! and White is winning.

14 . . . 'ili'b6!? is more attractive now that White's bishop cannot return to d2 to trap the queen. White maintains an edge with 15 b3! ? �hS (if 15 . . . ..i.d7 16 ..i.g3; 15 . . . ..i.a3 16 :b1 ..i.d7 17 ..i.g3 .:tae8 18 �e5 is also slightly better for White) 16 ..i.g6 �f4 17 �xf4 ..i.xf4 18 l:tc2. 15 ..i.g61

15 ..i.g3!? has been played by Tivia­kov and Kotronias, but it seems that Black can hold his own. V.Kotronias­E.Berg, Crete 2007, continued 15 . . . lt:lxg3 16 �xg3 W£7 17 We2!? (GM Halkias suggested 17 ..tb1 ! ?, and it does seem

2 5 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

silly to play 'iVe2, ..llb1 and 'iVd3 if you can play ..llb1 and i*'d3 immediately; even so, after 17 . . . ..1ld7 18 'iVd3 g5 19 a3 l:tae8 20 l:tce1 Black could have equal­ized in S.Tiviakov-E.Berg, Calvia Olympiad 2004, with 20 . . . a6! ) 17 . . . ..1ld7! 18 ..llb1 g5 19 l:tcd1 ..llf4 20 tt'le5 tt'lxe5 21 dxe5 ..lle8 and Black, having prevented the killing manoeuvre tt'lh5-f6 just in time, obtained a good position after 22 l:tde1 h5! . 15 ... l:txf31

The exchange 15 . . . tt'lf4 16 tt'lxf4 ..llxf4 seems to be in White's favour:

17 ..llg3 'iVb6 18 l:tc3! (White is ready to sacrifice pawns in order to gain valuable time for the attack) 18 . . . ..1lxg3 (18 . . . 'iVxb2? loses to 19 .:tb3 'ii'xa2 20 ..llb1 'ii'a4 21 'ii'd3 l:tf5 22 ..llxf4 l:hf4 23 'ii'h7+ 'iii>f8 24 .:tc3 'iVb4 25 l:txc6 bxc6 26 tt'le5; 18 . . . ..1ld7? also plays into White hands: 19 ..llb1 ..lle8 20 iid3 g6 21 .l:tb3 'ii'c7 22 ..llxf4 lhf4 23 'iVe3 ..ll£7 24 .:.xb7 'iixb7 25 'ii'xf4 and White was winning in Z.Sarakauskiene-J.De Lagontrie, Port Erin 2006) 19 fxg3! and now:

a) Black cannot take the pawn, as 19 . . . iixb2 20 l:tb3 ii'xa2 21 tt'le5 l:tf6 22

2 5 6

l:tbf3! tt'lxe5 23 l:hf6! gxf6 24 dxe5 fS (24 . . . 'iVa3 25 'ii'd2 'it'c5+ 26 l:.f2 f5 27 'ii'xh6 'ii'e7 28 g4 'ii'g7 29 'ii'h5 is good for White) 25 'ii'h5! 'iVb2 26 'ii'xh6 'iVb6+ 27 'iii>h1 'ii'c7 28 g4 'it'g7 29 'ii'h5 gives White a winning attack.

b) 19 . . . ..1ld7! was played by Markus Schaefer against me at the World Stu­dent Championship (Sofia 1994) . Here I could have obtained a strong initiative after 20 llb3 'ii'c7 21 ..llbl intending 'ii'd3: for example, 21 . . .l:tf6 22 'ii'd3 g6 23 'ir'e3 :af8 (23 . . . 'iii>g7 24 .:tel l:taf8 25 ..lld3 'iVb8 26 tt'le5 is good for White) 24 l:tcl ! and White is ready to continue with ..lld3 and tt'le5. 16 gxf3 ..llxh2+

17 'iii>g2 17 'iii>hl tt'lf4 18 ..lle8 tt'lxe2 19 'ii'xe2

'ir'f4! 20 ..llg3 ..llxg3 21 fxg3 tt'lxd4! 22 'ir'd3 'ii'xg3 23 'it'xd4 'ii'h3+ is a draw. 17 ... tt'lf4+ 18 tt'lxf4 'ii'xf4

18 . . . ..1lxf4!? is the computer's sug­gestion. White gets a small advantage after 19 ..llg3 ..lld7 (or 19 . . . ..1lxg3?! 20 fxg3 'iib6 21 .l:tf2 tt'lxd4 - 2l . . .'ii'xd4? 22 'ii'xd4 tt'lxd4 23 l:tc7 - 22 'ii'a4! tt'lc6 23 'ii'f4 'ii'd8 24 'ir'£7+ 'iii>h8 25 ..llb1 with a

clear advantage for White) 20 l:.h1 ! .l:!.f8 (20 . . . .1txg3?! 21 fxg3 ii'b6 22 'ifd2! lLlxd4 _ 22 . . . 'ihd4? 23 ifxd4 lLlxd4 24 J:k7 .ltc6

2S lld1 - 23 .l:txh6! is good for White) 21

:114. 19 .ltg3 .ltxg3 20 fxg3 ii'f6

20 . . . ifxd4? is met by 21 l:lxc6! .

21 'ii'd3!? .ltd7 After 21 . . .lLlxd4?! 22 .l:.c7 ltJc6 23

i.f7+ 'itth8 24 ii'c2 e5! 25 ii'g6! (25 .ltxd5 allows Black to escape with 25 . . . ii'd6 26 :xc6 bxc6 27 ifxc6 ifxc6 28 .ltxc6 .l:tb8

29 b3 .ltb7) 25 . . . ifxg6 26 .ltxg6 White has a clear advantage, as Black cannot develop his pieces and his king is al­ready in a mating net. 22 ltfd1 l:lf8

23 .�ths 23 f4!? ltJxd4 24 l:tc7 .ltc6 25 .lth7+

�h8 26 ifxd4 ifxd4! (26 . . . 'iti'xh7 27 ifxf6 lhf6 28 lte7! is good for White) 27 11xd4 'ittxh7 may also give White a tiny advantage. 23 .. .'ili'gsl

23 . . . 'itth8?! 24 .ltg4 was clearly better for White in R.Jedynak-D.Gumula, Po­lanica Zdroj 2005.

After 23 . . . 'iig5 White can keep a

3 . . .ti:Jf6 : M a in L i n e with 1 1 . . . 'iic 7

small advantage with 24 .l:.h1 ! (24 .ltg4 allows 24 . . . h5! ) 24 . . . llf4 (24 . . . e5 25 dxe5 'i¥xe5 26 llcd1 is better for White) 25 ii'e3 .l:.xd4 26 'ii'xg5 hxg5 27 .l:.hdl .

C) 13 ... ltJg4 14 lLlg3

14 ... g6 Alternatively: a) 14 . . . h6?! is unwise as it forces the

white bishop to move to a better square. White will continue with 15 .ltd2 intending .ltc3 to gain control of e5. For example:

a1) 15 . . . ii'b6 16 .ltc3 (White's idea is to play .ltb1 and 'iid3) 16 . . . .Jtf4 (16 . . . e5 17 dxe5 ltJcxe5 18 ltJxe5 .ltxe5 19 .ltxe5 ltJxe5 20 .ltb1 d4 21 'iie2 ltJg4? 22 .:txc8 ltaxc8 23 'iixg4 was winning for White in A.Zozulia-T.Piceu, Bruges 2006) 17 1:.c2 e5 18 dxe5 lLlcxe5 (18 . . . ltJgxe5 19 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 - or 19 . . . .1txe5? 20 'ii'h5! d4 21 .ltd2 - 20 lLlh5 is clearly better for White; maybe the best bet was 18 . . . .1txe5!? with only a slight edge for White) 19 .ltd4 'i¥a5?! 20 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 (20 . . . .1txe5? 21 .l:.xc8 .l:.axc8 22 'ii'xg4) 21 l:lc5 'iVxa2? (2l . . .'iVd8 22 .ltxe5 .ltxe5 23 l:lxd5) 22 .ltb1 'ii'a6 23 .ltxe5 and Black

2 5 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

resigned in A.Ledger-L.Johannessen, Bergen 2000.

a2) 15 . . . e5 16 dxe5 ltJgxe5 17 ltJxe5 i.xe5 18 i.bl ! ? 1'1'£7 (18 . . . i.xb2? 19 'il'c2 i.xcl 20 'ii'h7+ 'it£7 21 i.g6+ 'ite6 22 l::txcl) 19 'il'c2 g5 20 f4 i.d4+ 21 'ithl g4 22 f5 h5?! 23 f6 l:te8 24 i.h6 h4 25 i.g7 and Black resigned in A.Stiri­A.Tsiropoulas, Athens 2006.

a3) 15 . . . 'il'e7 16 i.bl ltJxd4?! (for 16 . . . i.d7 17 i.c3! see the illustrative game Tiviakov-Gleizerov) 17 ltJxd4 'ii'h4 18 h3 ltJxf2 19 l:.xf2 l:.xf2 (19 . . . 'ii'xd4 loses to 20 i.el 'ifxdl 21 .l:txf8+ 'itxf8 22 :xdl) 20 ltJhl !

(Kupreichik gave this move two ex­clamation marks, but things are not so clear) 20 . . . .l:tf6 (20 . . . .l:txd2 21 'ifxd2 i.f4 22 'ifel 'iff6 23 :dl is much better for White according to Kupreichik; Black's best is 20 ... 1:.£7! ? 21 ltJf3 'ii'f6 22 i.c3 'iff4 23 ltJf2 i.c5 24 .l:tc2 with only an edge for White) 21 ltJf3 'ii'h5 22 'il'c2! and White was on top in V.Kupreichik­A.Chemin, Sverdlovsk 1984.

b) 14 . . . e5?! opens the position to White's benefit, as he enjoys the better development. After 15 dxe5 ltJgxe5 16

2 5 8

ltJxe5 i.xe5 17 i.bl 'iff7 1 8 'il'c2 g6 19 'il'd2 White had an edge in Z.Farooqui­C.Juarez Flores, Lucerne Olympiad 1982.

c) 14 ... i.f4?! is inconsistent. Black chose l l . . .'ifc7 in order to avoid the exchange of dark-squared bishops. Now he provokes this exchange and also loses valuable time! This trade is only effective if Black gain something concrete from his control of the f4-square. 15 i.xf4 'ifxf4 16 i.bl (16 i.b5!?) 16 . . . i.d7 17 'ifd3 g6 18 .l:tcel l:t£7 19 h3 ltJxf2 20 'itxf2 ltJxd4 (better was 20 . . . l:.af8 21 'ife3 Wxd4 22 'itgl Wxb2 23 a3 with an edge for White) 21 'itgl ltJxf3+ 22 l:txf3 Wb4 23 l:h£7 Wxel+ 24 .l:tfl left White with a clear advantage in J.Emms-J.Naylor, London 1992.

d) 14 . . . i.d7!? 15 ltJd2! should be compared to the main line. White achieved a nice edge in F.Holzke­E.Berg, German League 2003, after 15 . . . ltJf6 16 ltJb3 l:ae8 17 ltJc5 i.xc5 18 l:.xc5 'iid6 19 i.c2 ltJb4 20 i.bl e5 21 i.xf6 gxf6 22 ltJf5 i.xf5 23 i.xf5.

e) 14 . . .'ii'b6!? is interesting because White no longer has ltJc3 available:

1S ttJh4! (the most dangerous reply, although other moves are available: 1S j.b1 !? 'ii'xb2 16 'ifd3 g6 17 h3 tLl£6 18 j.h6 l:te8 19 'ii'e3 iL£8 20 .l::tfe1 'ii'a3 21 'i'£4 and White is better, H.Southwell­A.Fediv, correspondence 2002; or 1S 'i'c2!? h6 16 .lte3 t2Jb4 17 .lth7+ '1t>h8 18 'i'g6 - Black must be very careful as White constantly threatens .ltxh6 -

18 . . . ..ixg3 19 hxg3 tLlxa2 20 .l::ta1 tLlb4 21 'i'xg4 'lti>xh7 22 tLleS and again White's position is preferable, K.Grimm-S.Piet­ruske, correspondence 2002) 1S . . . t2Jf6 (1S . . . eS? 16 tLlhfS was clearly better for White in M.Ferguson-G.Quillan, British League 200S) 16 tLlhS tLle4! (16 . . . t2Jxd4? loses to 17 ..ixf6; 16 . . . 'ii'xd4? is also bad due to 17 .l:!.xc6) 17 ..ixe4 dxe4 18 ..ih6!? gxh6 (18 . . . .l:tf7!? 19 ..ixg7 .l:!.xg7 20 tLlxg7 Wxg7 21 'ii'g4+ 'lti>h8 22 'ii'hS is unclear) 19 'ii'g4+ 'lti>£7 20 'ii'xe4 (the position is unclear) 20 . . . t2Je7? 21 'ii'xh7+ 'lti>e8 (B.Jobava-D.Larino Nieto, Torrelavega 2007) and here White could have gained a clear advantage with 22 'ii'g7! . 15 t2Jd2!

This idea of Tiviakov's is the strongest option available to White.

3 . . . t:Df6 : M a in L i n e with 1 1 . . ."iic 7

15 ... l2Jf6 1S . . . eS?! is met by 16 ..ie2! and now: a) 16 . . . 'ii'd7 17 t2Jb3 t2Jf6 (17 . . . t2Jxd4?

loses to 18 tLlxd4 exd4 19 l:txc8; 17 . . . exd4 18 tLlcS ..ixcS 19 .l:!.xcS leaves White with the bishop pair and Black with weak pawns on d4 and dS, but attention is required: 19 . . . tLlgeS! 20 'W'b3! 'lti>g7 21 llxdS 'iic7 22 'iic2 h6 23 ..id2 intending f2-f4 is good for White) 18 ..ixf6!? .l:!.xf6 19 dxeS ..ixeS 20 ..if3 .l:td6 21 .l:tc2 'iif7 22 .l:te1 ..if4 (22 . . . ..ig7 23 .l:td2) 23 .UcS ..ie6 24 t2Jd4 t2Jxd4 2S 'iixd4 and White is slightly better, P.Polakovic-W.Wakolbinger, corre­spondence 199S.

b) 16 ... t2Jf6 17 ..ixf6! .l:hf6 18 t2Jde4! dxe4 19 dS ..ifS (19 . . . e3? ! is unwise, and White is much better after 20 tLle4! exf2+ 21 'lti>h1 .l:tf8 22 dxc6 ..ie7 23 cxb7 'ii'xb7 24 ..ic4+ 'lti>h8 2S .idS) 20 dxc6 bxc6 21 ..ibS! .l:%.d8 22 ..ixc6 'W'b6 23 ..ixe4 ..ib4 24 'iif3 ..ic8 2S .idS+ 'lti>g7 (S.Tiviakov-N.McDonald, Bagneux 1991 ) 26 'ifb3! ..ia6 27 tLle4 ..ixfl (27 . . . .:tf4 28 tLlgS!) 28 tLlxf6 ..ie2 29 tLle4 and White has a clear advantage. 16 t2Jb3

2 5 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

This knight occupies an ideal posi­tion, meeting . . . �d7 with lL'lcS. The co­ordination of Black's pieces is broken. 16 ... �d7

Alternatively: a) 16 . . . 'iig7? is not good, and White

got a big advantage in A.Mihailidis­N.Cereijo, Kochin 2004, after 17 �bS lt'le7 18 'iid2 l:.d8 19 �f4! lL'lfS 20 lL'lxfS exfS 21 �xd6 .l:txd6 22 'iff4.

b) White reached a nice position in S.Brynell-E.Hedman, Swedish League 2001, after 16 . . . 'ifb6 17 �e3 �d7 18 l:.e1 .l:tae8 19 a3 lt'ld8 20 .l:tc3 lt'lf7 21 'ifc2 Wg7 22 lL'lcS.

c) 16 . . . eS! ? 17 dxeS �xeS 18 'ifd2 is slightly better for White. 17 lL'lcs �xes

I obtained an edge in my game against Z.Stamenkovic (World Student Championship, Sofia 1994) following 17 . . . a6 18 'ifd2 .l:tae8 19 b4 J.c8 20 bS axbS 21 �xbS. 18 .l:txcs 'ifb6 19 .:bsl

This novelty is the strongest move. Against Ioannis Spirakopoulos (Ikaria 199S) I played 19 �e3!? 'ii'xb2 20 .l:tbS 'ii'xa2 21 .l:txb7.

2 6 0

After 2l . . .�c8 22 .l:tc7 lt'lb4 23 �h6 .l:t£7 (S.Brynell-E.Hedman, Stockholm 2000/01) I had prepared the powerful move 24 .l::.x£7! Wxf7 2S 'ii'f3, when sud­denly Black has big problems because �gS is threatened. For example, 2S . . . 'ii'aS (2S . . . lt'lxd3? 26 �gS; 2S . . . 'ii'b2? 26 lt'le2! renews the threat of �gS) 26 �gS 'iid8 27 .l:tcl �d7 (27 . . . lt'lxd3? loses to 28 �xf6!) 28 �e2 aS 29 'ii'f4 (threat­ening l:c7) 29 . . . lt'lc6 30 �bS .l:tc8 31 .l:tcS 'ii'e7 32 �xc6 �xc6 33 J:haS and Black's pieces can only watch as the white rook goes to a3 and f3.

However, my opponent replied with the best move, 21 . . . .l:tab8! . After 22 l:.xb8 1hb8 23 h4! I had good compen­sation for the pawn and managed to win the game, but I'm not convinced that objectively White has enough to win. 19 ... 'iixd4 20 l:.xb7 �c8 21 l:tb3 es 22 ltJe2 'ii'cs

Or 22 . . . 'ii'g4 23 f4 exf4 (23 . . . e4 24 �bS) 24 J.xf4 with a substantial advan­tage for White. 23 l:.bsl 'ii'd6 24 �c4 �e6 25 �xf6 l:.xf6 26 �xds

White has a healthy extra pawn and a dear advantage.

D) 13 ... �d71? 14 l:le1J

I don't like 14 �h4, as I think Black can equalize after 14 . . . lbh5! 15 'ifc2 h6 16 �h7+ �h8 17 �g6 �e8! . However, 14 t£lg3!? is an interesting alternative that seems to favour White. 14 ... :ae8

Alternatively: a) 14 . . . tt:'lg4? loses valuable time af­

ter 15 h3 t£lf6. In S.Tiviakov­A.Dgebuadze, Apeldoorn 2001, White exploited this to gain control of eS with 16 t£lc3 �f4 17 �xf4 Wxf4 18 �bS! .

b ) 14 . . . t£le4 15 �h4 l:lxf3? 16 gxf3 i.xh2+ 17 �g2 t£lf6 18 �xf6 gxf6 19 l:lh1 i..f4 20 l:lxh7 1 -0, S.Tiviakov-D.Larino Nieto, Calvia 2006.

c) White gets a strong attack follow­ing 14 . . . a6 15 �h4!? Wb6 16 t£lc3! Wxb2 17 t£la4 Wb4 18 l:lb1 WaS 19 t£!b6 l:lad8 20 'ii'e2 l::tfe8 21 �xf6 gxf6 22 t£lh4.

d) 14 . . . Wb6 15 t£lc3! 'ii'xb2 16 t£lb5 t£le4 17 l:te2 Wb4 18 l:lxe4! dxe4 19 �d2 �2 20 ltc2 'ii'xbS 21 �xbS exf3 22 �c3 is clearly better for White.

3 . . .liJf6 : M a in L i n e with 1 1 . . . 'fiC 7

15 .i.b11 15 .i.h4 is met by 15 . . . Wb6!, while 15

t£lc3 allows 15 . . . t£lg4! . 15 t£lg3!? �f4 16 �xf4 Wxf4 17 �bS!

t£le4 18 l:lc2 a6 19 �xc6 �xc6 20 'ii'cl is slightly better for White. 15 .. .'ii'b8 16 t£lc3 �f4 17 �xf4 'ii'xf4

(L.Antol-M.Lednicky, Slovakian League 2000) Here 18 'ii'd3 gives White a slight advantage.

E) 13 ... t£lh5 1 14 .tb11

I really like this move. White is happy to allow the exchange sacrifice because Black has not finished his de­velopment.

2 6 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

The popular 14 tLlg3?! doesn't offer White an advantage. The main con­tinuation is 14 . . . tLlf4 15 .i.b1, but after 15 . . . .i.d7! I haven't found anything con­crete for White (and believe me, I've tried for months! ) . The critical line is 16 l:Ie1 'i'b6 17 lte3 ltac8 (17 . . . .i.e8!?) 18 l:tb3 'ifc7 19 .l:r.bc3 .i.e8 with chances for both sides, M.Van Delft-D.Stellwagen, Amsterdam 2005.

14 .i.h4!? leads to complications: 14 .. .l:txf3! (White keeps an edge after both 14 . . . g6 15 .l:.e1 'ifg7 16 .i.b5 .i.d7 17 'ifd2, H.Meyer-G.Sudan, Geneva 1999, and 14 . . . 'i'b6!? 15 'ifc2 h6 16 .i.g6 .l:.xf3 17 .i.xh5 l:If8 18 ltfd1 .i.d7 19 'ifd2) 15 gxf3 .i.xh2+ 16 �g2 .i.f4 17 l:.c3 e5 (A.Kubikova-M.Kaniak, Herceg Novi 2006) 18 tLlg3! 'iff7 (18 . . . exd4? 19 l:.xc6 'ifxc6 20 tLlxh5) 19 l:th1 !? .i.xg3 20 fxg3 tLlxd4 (20 . . . exd4 21 %:tc5! is good for White) 21 f4! exf4 (21 . . .tLlf5? 22 .i.e2! tLlf6 23 .i.xf6 gxf6 24 fxe5 fxe5 25 .i.h5 'ife6 26 'ifg4+ tLlg7 27 'ifg5 gives White has a winning attack) 22 .i.b1 tLlc6 23 g4! f3+ 24 .:!.xf3 .i.xg4 25 .l:.x£7 .i.xd1 26 .:xb7 and White is left with a slight advantage. 14 . . . g6

Alternatively: a) 14 . . . tLlf4?! plays into White's

hands, and 15 tLlxf4 .i.xf4 16 l:tc3 g6 17 h4!? 'ifg7 18 :e1 .i.d7 19 .i.xf4 .l:.xf4 O.Oneto Zarco-M.Ruiz Vinals, Palma de Mallorca 1999) 20 g3 l:tf6 21 tLle5 l:!.af8 22 f4 leads to a clear advantage.

b) 14 .. Jhf3?! is not effective here, but as always with this sacrifice great accuracy is required. After 15 gxf3 there is:

2 6 2

b1) 1 5 . . . .i.d7 16 �h1 ! l:tf8 (or 16 . . . .i.xh2?! 17 f4 .i.xf4 18 tLlxf4 tLlxf4 19 ltg1 l:tf8 20 :c3! g6 21 l:[f3) 17 f4! ! g6 (17 . . . tLlxf4 18 tLlxf4 .i.xf4 19 'ifh5! h6 20 l:tg1 .i.xg5 21 ltxg5 .l:.f6 22 l:!.g3 �f8 23 l':tf3 is also clearly better for White) 18 .i.h6 .l:.f7 19 l:tg1 and White has a dan­gerous initiative. Note that the f-pawn is taboo, as 19 . . . tLlxf4? loses to 20 tLlxf4 .i.xf4 21 .i.xg6! .

b2) 15 . . . .i.xh2+

16 �h1 ! (White needs the g-file to organize an attack on Black's king) 16 . . . .i.d6 17 f4 g6 (White is winning after 17 . . . tLlxf4? 18 tLlxf4 .i.xf4 19 .i.xh7+! �xh7 20 'ifh5+ �g8 21 'ife8+

�h7 22 l:tgl i.d7 23 i..x£4! i.xe8 24 j.xc7 tDxd4 25 i.e5 lD£3 26 l:txg7+ �h6

27 j.£6 i.g6 28 l:tc3) 18 l:.gl ! i.d7 (or 18 . . . tDxf4? 19 i.x£4 i.x£4 20 .i.xg6! i.xcl

_ 20 . . . hxg6 21 ltxg6+ 'iii>f7 22 'ii'gl ! wins _ 21 tDxcl 'ii'£4 22 'ii'hs 'iii>£8 23 'ii'xh7 with a winning attack) 19 tDc3! .

White is threatening lDbS and there is also 'ii'xh5 in some variations. How­ever, the most important idea is a well timed f4-f5 because the h5-knight or d5-pawn will be hanging: 19 . . . 'ii'a5 (19 . . . a6? allows 20 f5! ) 20 'ii'g4! 'iii>f7 (20 . . . tDxd4? is met by 21 i.xg6 hxg6 22 i.dB; 20 . . . tDg7 21 i.f6 tDe7 22 .i.eS is also good for White) 21 l:tg2! l:tf8 22 llh2 and White wins as there is no de­fence to l:.xh5.

c) 14 . . . 'ii'b6 15 'ii'd3 g6 16 tDh4! e5 (16 . . . 'ii'c7? 17 tDxg6!; 16 . . . tDb4? 17 1i'h3! e5 18 l:.xc8 l:.axc8 19 tDxg6 hxg6 20 'ii'e6+ 'iii>hB 21 •xg6) 17 dxe5 tDxeS 18 'ii'xd5+ tDf7! (the best defence; 18 . . . 'iii>h8 19 i.e3 is good for White) 19 tDf3 i.e6! 20 •e4 (20 .. d2!? tDxgS 21 tDxgS) 20 . . . l:tae8 21 i.e3 'ii'xb2 22 l:.c2 'ii'f6 23 'ii'xb7 tDeS 24 tDxeS ._xeS 25 tDg3 i.d5 26 'ifb2! tDf4 27 'ii'xe5 i.xe5 28 f3. White

3 . . .tiJj6 : M a i n L i n e with 1 1 . . . WIC 7

has parried Black's attack and has gained a clear advantage. 28 . . . tDxg2 can be met by 29 �xg2 i.xg3 30 i.h6 i.f4 31 i.xf8 �xf8 32 .:dt . 15 l:c3 1

15 tDg3!? tDg7 (15 . . . tDf4 16 i.h6 l:tf7 17 llc3 is only slightly better for White) 16 l:tel i.f4?! 17 i.xf4 'ii'xf4 18 tDe2 •f6 19 'ii'd2 i.d7 20 a3 ltac8 21 l:tc3 tDe7 22 l:txc8 i.xc8 23 tDcl tDhS 24 tDd3 was clearly better for White in N.Lakos­C.Andersson, Gothenburg 2005. 15 ... i.d7 16 a3 l:tae8 17 i.h6 l:tf6 18 :te1 •b8 19 tDg3 tDf4 20 l:.ce3

(K.Shanava-P.Simacek, Olomouc 2005) White enjoys a nice advantage here, as tDeS is coming.

I l lustrative Game

S. Tiviakov-E.Gieizerov Port Erin 2001

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tDd2 tDf6 4 e5 tDfd7 5 c3 c5 6 i.d3 tDc6 7 tDe2 cxd4 8 cxd4 f6 9 exf6 tDxf6 10 o-o .i.d6 11 tDf3 ._c7 12 i.g5 o-o 13 .:c1 tDg4 14 tDg3 h6?!

See Line C, note 'a' to Black's 14th,

2 6 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

for theoretical coverage of this move. 15 ..td2 "ike7 16 ..ltb11 ..td7

17 ..tc3 ! This was a very strong novelty.

Previously theory had considered only 17 "ikc2 g5 (after 17 . . . lt:lf6!? White can maintain an advantage with 18 .l:r.fe1 ! ) 18 "ikd3! 'ifg7, when the simplest route to an advantage is still 19 ..ltc3! . 17 . • . ..te8

17 . . . ..tf4 18 "ikd3! lt:lf6 (18 . . . ..txcl ?? al­lows mate with 19 "ikh7+ �f7 20 .ig6+ �f6 21 lt:lh5) 19 .l:tce1 is obviously good for White, while 17 . . . .ixg3 18 fxg3 lt:le3? is suicidal and punished by 19 "ikd3 lt:lxfl 20 "ikh7+ �f7 21 .ig6+ �f6 22 .l:.xfl . 17 . . . g5! ? has been suggested as an improvement, but even here 18 'iVd3 and .l:.ce1 gives White a nice advantage. 18 'iVd31 g5?1

This move is dubious here, as it only serves to weaken the b1-h7 diago­nal.

Against 18 . . . lt:lf6 Tiviakov suggests 19 lt:le5 with a clear advantage. Black should try to stay passive with 18 . . . g6!?, although White still maintains a plus following 19 .l:.ce1 h5! ? 20 h3 h4

2 6 4

21 tt:le2 .lhf3 22 'iVxf3 lt:lh2 23 'it'e3 lt:lxfl 24 .l:r.xfl . 19 l:tce1

Now Black's position starts to dete­riorate as .l:r.xe6 is in the air. 19 • • • .ixg3 20 fxg31

Once again we see this paradoxical recapture. White opens up the fl-rook and is ready to 'strip naked' the black king with h2-h4. 20 ••• lt:lf6 21 'iVe3 ..td7 22 h41?

22 lt:le5 seems easier. 22 • • • lt:lg4 23 'iVd3 .l:.f7?1

Better was 23 . . . gxh4! 24 lt:lxh4 .l:.xfl + 25 .l:.xfl 'iVg7 26 lt:lg6, when White has the advantage but there is still a lot of work to be done to convert it into a full point. 24 hxg5 hxg5 25 .id21 .l:.g7

Black can also play 25 . . . e5! ? trying to complicate the position, but this runs into 26 lt:lxg5! .l:r.xfl + 27 .l:r.xfl e4 28 'ifb3! .ie6 29 .ixe4 lt:lxd4 30 'iVd3 dxe4 31 'ifxd4. 26 ..txg5 'ife8?1

The lesser evil was 26 . . . 'ifb4!? 27 "ikd2 with a clear advantage for White. 21 ..th4 'ifh5 28 "ikd1!

After this powerful move Black is in difficulties because lt::lh2 is coming. For example: 28 .. .'ii'h6 29 lt::lh2 lt::lxh2 30 l1f6! 'i'h8 31 'iii>xh2 is winning for White; and 28 . . . lt::lh6! ? 29 ii.f6! ltf7 (29 . . . .l:txg3 30 t'LleS 'ii'xd1 31 .l:txd1 lt::lxeS 32 ii.xeS l:tg4 33 l:.cl ii.c6 34 l:tc3! intending l:.h3 is terrible for Black) 30 lt::le5 'ii'xd1 31 .l:.xd1 lt::lxe5 32 ii.xe5 l:.xfl + 33 ..l:.xfl lt::lg4 34 ii.f4 is clearly better for White. 28 • • J:tf8 29 lt::lh2 .l:.xf1+ 30 .l:txf1 es 31 'i'f31 e41

The only move: 31 . . .'ii'e8 32 lt::lxg4 .i.xg4 33 'ii'xd5+ ii.e6 34 'ii'e4; 31 . . . .:tf7 32 'i'xdS lt::lxd4 33 lt::lxg4; and 31 . . .'ii'f7 32 t'Llxg4 ii.xg4 33 ii.h7+! are all winning

3 . . .li:Jf6 : M a in L i n e with 1 1 . . . 'iiC l

for White. 32 'ii'f8+ 'iii>h7 33 lt::lxg4 ii.xg4

33 .. .'ii'xg4? is met by 34 ii.f6. 34 ii.f6 l:.g8 35 'ii'd6 'ikf7

After 35 . . . .l:tc8 White wins with 36 ii.c2! and ii.b3. 36 ii.es ii.fs 37 l:tf4! l:tg4 38 ii.c2!

38 • • • ..1:.xf4 38 . . . lt::lxe5 39 'ikxe5 ..l:.xf4 40 gxf4 is

also winning for White. 39 gxf4 lt::le7

39 ... e3? loses to 40 'ii'c7!, while 39 .. .'ii'e6 is met by 40 ii.b3! 40 ii.d1 e3?! 41 'ii'a3 1-0

(The annotations are based on notes by Tiviakov.)

2 6 5

C h a pte r Twe n ty- O n e

Ru b inste i n Va riation : Fou rth Move Alternatives

1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 tiJd2 dxe4 4 ttJxe4 3 . . . dxe4 is named after the great

Akiba Rubinstein, the strongest player never to have the chance to play for the World Championship. Whoever stud­ies his games will raise their chess level considerably.

The idea of 3 . . . dxe4 is to allow White a spatial advantage in the centre in return for some control of the light squares via piece play. Black wants to develop his 'bad' bishop on to the a8-h1 diagonal and to put pressure on the d4-pawn via the d-file.

In this chapter we will study:

A: 4 ... tiJc6 B: 4 .. .'iWds!? C: 4 ... tiJf61? D: 4 ... i.d7 E: 4 ... i.e7

Black's main choice, 4 . . . tiJd7, is the subject of Chapter 22.

Less important alternatives include:

2 6 6

a) The advance . . . c7-c5 is thematic in the Rubinstein, but not when Black has to give up the bishop pair. After 4 . . . c5?! 5 ltJxc5 i.xc5 6 dxc5 'ifa5+ 7 c3 'ifxc5 8 i.e3 'ife7 9 'ifg4! White had the initia­tive in B .Dorawa-J.Jaszczuk, Bad Worishofen 1992.

b) 4 . . . f5? ! permanently weakens the e5-square,

and after 5 liJc3! liJf6 6 tiJf3 Black al­ready has problems finding a decent plan. For example, 6 . . . i.d6 7 i.c4 0-0 8 0-0 c6 9 .U.e 1 tiJd5 1 0 ltJg5 :f6 1 1 'ifh5 h6

R u b in s te in Va ria t io n : Fo u rth M o ve A ltern a t ives

12 tbf3 it.d7 13 tbe5 it.e8 14 'ir'f3 was clearly better for the first World Champion in the game W.Steinitz­H.Bird, London 1866.

c) 4 . . . tbe7 5 it.d3 tbg6 6 lDf3 it.e7 7

h4! gives White the initiative, as 7 . . . tbxh4? 8 tbxh4 it.xh4 9 'it'g4 wins on the spot.

d) 4 . . . e5 offers a pawn sacrifice to solve the problem of the 'bad' bishop once and for all.

White should play 5 tbf3! tbc6 (5 .. .f5? loses to 6 tbxe5! fxe4 7 'ii'h5+ g6 8 tbxg6 hxg6 9 'it'xg6+ 'it>d7 10 'ii'f5+ 'tt>e8 11 'it'e5+; 5 . . . exd4 6 tbxd4 gives White two beautiful Diomedes horses in the centre of the board; 5 . . . it.g4 6 it.c4 f6 [6 . . . exd4? 7 it.xf7+] 7 0-0 tbc6 8 c3 Wd7 9 h3! it.xf3 [9 . . . it.h5? 10 tbxe5! ] 10 Wxf3 0-0-0 1 1 it.e3 exd4 12 cxd4 lbb4 13 tbc5 i.xc5 14 dxc5 was clearly better for White in Z.Plenkovic-L.Pecnik, Rabac 2003) and now 6 it.b5!, a standard idea in every . . . tbc6 variation. For example, 6 . . . i.d7 (6 . . . Wd5 7 We2 it.f5 8 tbeg5! is almost winning as it.c4 is coming; 6 . . . i.g4 7 0-0 exd4 8 l:te1 gives White a powerful initiative) 7 'ii'e2 f5 8 tbeg5 e4

9 t"Lle5! t"Llxe5 10 dxe5 c6 11 it.c4 'it'a5+ 12 it.d2 'ii'xe5 13 tbf7 'ii'xb2 14 0-0 and White was winning in P.Andrieux­J.Martenot, correspondence 1992.

e) With 4 . . . b6 Black immediately wants to solve the problem of the c8-bishop. After 5 tbf3 we have:

e1) 5 . . . it.b7?! 6 i.b5+! is analysed in Chapter 4.

e2) 5 .. . i.e7?! is met by 6 tbe5! in­tending 6 . . . it.b7? 7 Wf3. White then wins after 7 . . . Wxd4 8 'ii'xf7+ 'it>d8 9 'ii'xe6 'ii'xe4+ 10 it.e3, as 0-0-0 or tbf7+ is coming.

e3) 5 . . . i.a6?! 6 it.xa6 tbxa6 7 0-0 it.e7 8 c4 intending 'ii'a4+ gave White a clear advantage in R.Servat-M.Alurralde, Rosario 1992.

e4) 5 . . . tbd7?! 6 i.b5! lbgf6 (6 . . . i.b7?? loses to 7 tbe5!, as we've already seen in Chapter 4; 6 . . . i.e7? 7 tbe5 'tt>f8 8 tbc6 is also terrible for Black) 7 it.c6!? .l:tb8 8 tbxf6+ gxf6 (or 8 . . . Wxf6 9 tbe5 it.d6 10 'ii'e2 'ii'e7 1 1 it.d2 0-0 12 0-0-0 with a strong initiative) 9 0-0 it.b7 10 it.xb7 .l:txb7 1 1 d5 and White has a clear ad­vantage (Khalifman). The light-squared weaknesses become evident after the

2 6 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

exchange of the bishop on b7. eS) S . . . l2Jf6 6 l2Jxf6+ 'ii'xf6 7 i.gS 'ii'fS

(7 . . . 'ii'g6 8 i.d3 fS 9 h4! is terrible for Black) 8 i.d3 is clearly very good for White.

A) 4 . . . l2Jc6

The idea behind 4 . . . l2Jc6 is to organ­ize the pawn break . . . e6-e5. However, if Black doesn't succeed with his aim he will end up in a very bad position since the alternative break with . . . cS is no longer possible. 5 l2Jf3 l2Jf6

Alternatively: a) s . . . b6? doesn't belong with . . . l2Jc6

because the pin with i.bS is too power­ful: 6 i.bS! i.b7 7 l2Je5! 'ii'd5 (7 . . . l2Jge7 8 'ii'h5!) 8 'ii'e2! 0-0-0 (I.Golyak-H.Stenzel, New York 1998) 9 i.c4! 'ii'a5+ (9 . . . l2Jxd4 10 i.xd5 :Ixd5 11 'ii'd3 .UxeS 12 f3 .:td5 13 0-0 is winning for White) 10 i.d2 l2Jxd4 (if 10 . . . 'ii'a4 there follows 11 i.b3! l2Jxd4 12 i.xa4 l2Jxe2 13 Wxe2 i.xe4 14 l2Jxf7) 11 i.xa5 l2Jxe2 12 Wxe2 bxa5 13 l2Jxf7 i.xe4 14 i.xe6+ and White is winning (Khalifman) .

b) 5 . . . i.e7 6 c3 ltJ£6 7 i.d3 and now:

2 6 8

b1) 7 . . . l2Jxe4 8 i.xe4 i.d7 9 0-0 0-0 10 .Ue1 i.f6 1 1 i.f4 gave White a solid po­sitional advantage in S.Tatai­H.Camara, Netanya 1973.

b2) 7 . . . 'ii'd5 8 'ii'e2! i.d7 9 0-0 0-0-0 10 b4! l2Jxe4 11 i.xe4 'ii'h5 (Kalmar­T.Szobi, Debrecen 1956) 12 b5! i.d6! 13 h3 l2Je7 14 c4 c5 15 bxc6 i.xc6 16 :Ib1 and White has a strong attack.

b3) 7 . . . 0-0 8 0-0 l2Jxe4! (Black ex­changes before White has the possibil­ity to recapture on e4 with the queen: after 8 . . . h6? ! 9 'ii'e2 the weakening . . . h6 enables White to begin an attack with l2Jxf6+ followed by 'ii'e4 because . . . g6 is no longer possible; 8 . . . b6 9 'ii'e2 ..ib7 10 l2Jfg5!? l2Jxe4 11 'ii'xe4 g6 12 'ii'h4 gave White a powerful initiative in U.Jahr­W.Knol, Bad Wildbad 1993) 9 ..ixe4 ..i£6 (9 . . . 'ii'd6 prevents ..i£4 and intends . . . e5, but 10 ..ie3 eS 1 1 l2Jxe5! l2Jxe5 12 ..i£4 f6 13 .l:.e1 gives White a clear ad­vantage) 10 ..if4 l2Je7 11 l:te1 :Ib8 12 'ii'a4 .l:.a8 13 l:tad1 and Black couldn't develop properly in F.Barglowski­R.Muklewicz, Rowy 1998. 6 l2Jxf6+

The dilemma Black now faces is a

R u b ins te in Va ria t io n : Fo u rth M o ve A ltern a t ives

common one in the Rubinstein. Captur­ing with a piece on f6 leaves e5 without adequate control, and usually White is able to put a knight on that square.

Capturing with a pawn controls e5 but

accepts an inferior pawn structure and

Black also has to worry about king

safety. 6 . . . gxf6

6 . . . 'ii'xf6 7 ..td3 transposes to Line C2. 1 ..tbsl

7 . . . a6 White kept a slight advantage in

P.Ascic-L.Ilic, Pula 1992, after 7 . . . ..td7 8 0-0 t£Je7 9 'i'e2 a6 10 ..td3 ..tc6 1 1 c4; although Black has managed to de­velop his light-squared bishop, he has lost plenty of time and has fallen be­hind in development.

The drawback of 7 . . . 'i'd5 is that the queen can be attacked. Following 8 'ii'e2 .:tg8 9 ..tf4! l:.xg2 10 ..tg3 e5 1 1 h3 i.f5 12 dxe5! (Black is better after 12 �fl ?! Ihg3 13 fxg3 0-0-0 14 c4 'i'e6) 12 . . . 0-0-0 13 l:.d1 'i'xd1+ 14 'i'xd1 llxd1+ 15 �xd1 ..te4 16 tbd2 ..td5 17 c4 Black cannot avoid material losses. For

example, 17 . . . ..te6 18 ..txc6 bxc6 19 �e2 fxe5 20 �f3 l:.xg3+ 21 fxg3 and White has a clear advantage.

7 . . . 'i'd6!? prepares the possibility of long castling. 8 0-0 ..td7 9 I:.e1 (9 c4!? 0-0-0 10 ..te3 may be stronger) 9 . . . &£Je7! ? 10 ..td3 0-0-0 1 1 c4 .l::tg8 12 ..txh7! ? l:f.h8 13 ..te4 ..tc6 (13 .. .£5?! 14 c5) 14 'iib3 ..txe4 15 .:txe4 'i'c6 was Rybka-Zappa, Amsterdam 2007, and here the ma­chine playing White could have claimed a slight advantage with 16 d5! ? exd5 17 l:.d4 dxc4 18 l:txc4 'i'xc4 19 'i'xc4 .:td1+ 20 'i'fl llxfl+ 21 �xfl tDd5 22 ..td2. 8 ..txc6+ bxc6

Although Black's position resem­bles something you would see in a backgammon game, there is compensa­tion due to his bishop pair. 9 'i'e2 1 l:lbB

As the main line seems to lose for Black, a new possibility to investigate is 9 . . . c5! ? 10 dxc5! (10 ..te3 cxd4 1 1 t£Jxd4 was given by Khalifman, but after 1 1 . . .'i'd5! Black is fine) 10 . . . ..txc5 1 1 ..te3 ..td6 12 0-0-0 ..tb7. However, 13 c4! gives White the initiative: after 13 . . . 'i'e7 14 'i'c2 ii.c5 15 ..th6 the threat is .i.g7 and 'i'xh7. 10 o-o cs 11 l:.d1 'i'ds 12 dxcsl 'iixcs 13 .i.e3 'iibs

White wins after 13 . . . 'iih5?! 14 'iic4! ii.d6 15 .:txd6! ! cxd6 16 'iic6+ ..td7 17 'i'xd6 l:.b7 (if 17 . . . l:.b5 18 c4; or 17 . . . 'iib5 18 ..tc5 �d8 19 t£Jd4 'i'b7 20 t£Jc6+ 'i'xc6 21 'i'xb8+) 18 ..tc5 ..tc8 19 b4 l:.d7 20 'i'b8 �d8 21 tbd4 'lidS 22 c4 'i'b7 23 'i'f4. 14 c4 'i'hs

2 6 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defence

14 . . . 'ilhb2? loses to 15 'iid3 .it.d6 16 .l:tdbl . 15 .it.a7! .l:tb71

15 . . . lta8? 16 'iie4! l:txa7 (S.Rachels­Penkalski, USA 1991 ) 17 'iid4! .it.d6 18 'iixa7 is bad for Black.

16 l:td51 A powerful novelty. 16 .it.d4 .it.e7 17

'iie4 0-0 18 'iic6 e5 19 .it.c3 (Khalifman) is slightly better for White, but the text is stronger. 16 ... 'iig4 17 h3 'i!Vg7 18 .:tad1 .it.e7 19 .it.c5 c6 20 !t5d2

20 l::th5!? is also possible. 20 ... .it.xc5 21 .l:f.d8+ �e7 22 ltJh41 'iixg2+! 23 �xg2 .l:.xd8 24 ltxd8 �xd8 25 'iid3+ �e8 26 'iie4 .it.d7 27 b3

Although there seems to be material equality with rook, bishop and pawn for the queen, White enjoys a big ad­vantage because the h7-pawn will be lost and Black's piece coordination is terrible.

B) 4 ... 'iid51? This is an interesting move. Black

flouts an important opening rule, al­though given that I used to play the

2 70

Scandinavian Defence, I do admit a certain liking to . . . 'iid5!

5 .it.d3 1 White should maintain his knight in

the centre and continue development. 5 ... ltJf6

Here are some alternatives: a) The greedy 5 . . . £5? ! 6 ltJg3 'iixg2 is

punished by 7 ltJf3 (threatening .it.fl ) 7 . . . 'iih3 8 .it.fl 'ii'g4 9 .it.g5! h6 10 h3 and Black loses his queen, C.Leotard­J.Martenot, correspondence 1990.

b) After 5 ... b6?! 6 liJf3 .it.b7 7 0-0 ltJd7 8 c4 'iih5 9 d5! White threatens ltJg3 and Black's problems are already unsolvable: for example, 9 . . . .it.d6 10 .it.e2! 'ili'g6 1 1 ltJxd6+ cxd6 12 ltJg5! 'iif6 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 .it.h5+ g6 15 .il.g4 and White wins either the e- or d-pawn.

c) 5 . . . ltJd7?! intending . . . ltJgf6 doesn't fit with . . . 'iid5: for example, 6 ltJ£3 ltJgf6 7 ltJxf6+ ltJxf6 8 0-0 Jtd6 9 a3! ? Jtd7 10 c4 'iih5 1 1 Jte2 'iig6 12 c5 Jte7 13 ltJe5 'iie4 14 Jtf3 and Black's queen had no place to go in N.Engsner­J .ldlinge, Vaxjo 1992.

d) 5 . . . Jtd7?! aims to exchange light­squared bishops with . . . .it.b5. Although

R u b in s te in Va ria tio n : Fo u rth M o ve A ltern a t ives

positionally this trade suits Black, here the idea fails for tactical reasons: 6 ll'lf3 i.b5

7 c4! (no thanks!) 7 . . . i.xc4 8 ltJc3 i.b4 (Black resigned in J.Palkovi­L.Kiss, Nagykanizsa 1988, after 8 . . . 'ii'c6 9 ltJe5 due to 9 . . . 'ii'xg2 10 i.e4 'ith3 1 1 i.xb7) 9 'ii'a4+ ltJc6 10 0-0 i.xc3 1 1 i.xc4 'ii'a5 12 'ii'b3! i.b4 13 a3 b5 o.Johnstrud­B.Bascetta, correspondence 2002) 14 i.xe6! fxe6 15 'ii'xe6+ ltJge7 16 axb4 'ii'xb4 (16 . . . 'ii'xa1 ? 17 i.g5 'ii'xb2 18 ltJe5) 17 l:.e1 'ii'd6 18 'ii'b3 and White has a winning attack.

e) After 5 . . . ltJc6 (threatening . . . e5) 6 ltJf3 ltJb4 (6 . . . e5? 7 dxe5 ltJxe5 8 ltJxe5 'ii'xe5 9 0-0 i.e7 10 .l:te1 i.e6 1 1 ltJg5 'ii'd5 12 ltJxe6 fxe6 13 'ii'g4 was winning for White in T.Manescu-K.Piotrovskis, Tallinn 1997) 7 0-0 ltJxd3 8 'ii'xd3 Black has gained the bishop pair but at the price of very poor development. White obtains a slight advantage after 8 . . . ltJf6 (8 . . . i.d7?! 9 c4 'ith5 10 ltJe5 threatens to win Black's queen with 1 1 g4 'ii'h4 12 i.g5) 9 ltJxf6+ gxf6 10 c4 'ii'h5 (M.Moindrot-L.Guillard, correspon­dence 1956) 1 1 i.f4 c6 (1 l . . .i.d6?! 12

i.xd6 cxd6 13 ll'ld2! f5 14 f4 0-0 15 d5 ! is terrible for Black) 12 ll'ld2 because, as Khalifman rightly pointed out, despite the fact that more than ten moves have been played, Black's only developed piece is his queen! 6 ltJxf6+ gxf6 7 ltJf3

7 ... l:.g81 Black tries to utilize the g-file to

gain some counterplay. Alternatives are weaker:

a) 7 . . . i.d6? doesn't succeed in pre­venting i.f4, and 8 c4 'ith5 9 c5 i.e7 10 i.f4 .l:.g8 11 i.xc7 l:txg2 12 i.g3 'ii'd5 13 'ii'b3! 'ti'h5 14 ltJh4 trapped Black's rook in C.Esplana-M.Munoz Sanchez, Lima 2001 .

b) White achieved a clear advantage in C.Guerrero-F.Fiorito, Buenos Aires 1991, after 7 . . . b6?! 8 c4 i.b4+ (if 8 .. .'it'd6 9 i.e4; or 8 . . . 'ii'h5 9 i.f4) 9 i.d2 'ii'a5 10 i.e4 c6 11 a3 i.xd2+ 12 ltJxd2.

c) 7 . . . i.d7 8 i.f4! l:tg8 9 i.xc7 ltJc6 was M.Calzetta Ruiz-J.Mellado Trivino, Castellar 1996 (if 9 . . . l:.xg2 there follows 10 c4 'ii'h5 1 1 i.g3 i.c6 12 d5 i.b4+ 13 ltJd2 'ii'xd1+ 14 lhd1 exd5 15 'it>fl i.xd2 16 l:.xd2 dxc4 17 .l:te2+ 'it>f8 18 i.e4 win-

2 7 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n ce

ning the exchange) and here White wins after 10 c3 l:.xg2 1 1 �g3 e5 12 lt:Jd2 �g4 13 �e4! .

d) Maybe the best chance for Black is to complete his development with 7 . . . tt:Jc6. After 8 �f4 �d7! (8 . . . �d6 9 �xd6 'ii'xd6 10 c3 �d7 1 1 lt:Jd2 is in White's favour, and 8 . . . e5 9 dxe5 fxe5 10 'ii'e2 �g7 1 1 �e4 'ili'a5+ 12 �d2 �6 13 �c3 is clearly better for White ac­cording to Peters) 9 c4! 'ili'a5+ 10 �d2 �b4 1 1 a3 �xd2+ 12 'ili'xd2 'ili'xd2+ 13 'it>xd2 White enjoys a lasting advantage thanks to his superior pawn structure and the stronger position of his king, which will be well placed on c3. 8 0-0

8 . . . tt:Jc6 Or: a) 8 . . . �d6?! only helps to speed up

White's play: 9 c4 'ili'h5 10 c5 �e7 11 �f4 'ii'g4 12 �g3 f5 13 tt:Je5 'ili'xd1 14 l:tfxd1 lt:Jd7 (I.Buljovcic-R.Maric, Som­bor 1966) 15 �b5! a6 16 �a4 c6 17 lt:Jc4 and White has a clear advantage.

b) 8 . . . �d7?! 9 l:te1 'ii'h5 10 �e4! c6 1 1 �f4 i s terrible for Black.

c) After 8 . . . 'ili'h5 9 �f4! �d6 10 �xd6

2 7 2

cxd6 1 1 .l:.e1 �d7 (R.Bellin-N.Stull, Metz 1991) 12 d5! ? e5 (12 . . . 'ii'xd5 13 �xh7) 13 lt:Jd4 'ili'h3 14 �fl 'it>f8 15 'ii'd2! White has a powerful initiative, as it is not easy for Black to develop his pieces: for example, 15 . . . lt:Ja6 (15 . . . exd4? 16 'ii'b4! ) 16 tt:Jc6! tt:Jc5 1 7 b4 lt:Ja4 18 lt:Ja5 .l:tb8 19 g3 'ili'h5 20 lt:Jc4. g l:te1 'ili'hs

White has a winning advantage af­ter 9 . . . �d7?! 10 �e4 'ili'h5 11 d5! lt:Je7 12 dxe6 fxe6 13 �xb7 l:td8 14 'ili'd4 (Khalif­man).

9 . . . lt:Jxd4?! 10 �e4 lt:Jxf3+ 1 1 'ili'xf3 'ili'd6 12 l:td1 'ii'b6 13 �xh7 .l:tg7 14 'ii'xf6 c6 15 �h6 forced Black to resign in G.Kiener-W.Shahin, German League 2006: after 15 . . . l:.xh7 16 �xf8 'ili'c7 there comes 17 l:td6! threatening the decisive .l:.adl . 10 �e4 �d6 11 g31 fs

1 1 . . . lt:Jb4? is punished by 12 a3! f5 13 axb4 fxe4 14 :!xe4 �xb4 15 llh4! 'ili'f5 16 tt:Je5 .l:tg7 17 .l:th5 'ii'f6 18 h4, when �g5 is coming. 12 �xc6+ bxc6 13 c4

Black's compensation for his shat­tered pawns lies in the bishop pair, but

R u b in s te in Va ria t io n : Fo u rth M o ve A ltern a t ives

in order to be able to activate i t he must play . . . c5. White now threats c4-c5 him­self! 13 ... J.a6l?

After 13 . . . c5? ! 14 dxc5 J.xc5 (P.Keres-B.Katalymov, Moscow 1965) 15 'ii'd5! .l:!.b8 16 J.f4 J:hb2 (if 16 . . . J.b7 17 l:txe6+ fxe6 18 'ii'xe6+ Wf8 19 J.h6+ l!g7 20 lLlg5 J.xf2+ 21 Wfl 'ii'g6 22 'ii'xg6 hxg6 23 Wxf2 White remains a pawn up) 17 lLld4 J.xd4 18 'ii'xd4 l:tb7 19 l::tad1 'ii'h4 20 c5, according to Khalif­man White has excellent compensation for the sacrificed pawn because of Black's weak dark squares. My opinion is that the position is at least clearly better for White because of the vast difference in the activity of the bishops.

White is also clearly better after 13 . . . J.b7 14 c5 J.e7 15 J.f4 0-0-0 16 lLle5! 'ii'xd1 17 l:taxd1 f6 18 lLJ£7 .l:!.d5 19 .l:!.xe6 ..ltxc5 20 l:.de1 l:txd4 (or 20 . . . J.xd4 21 l:r.e7) 21 lLlh6 .l:!.gd8 22 lLlxf5. 14 csl?

14 'ii'a4 'ii'xf3 15 l:te3 J.b5! 16 cxb5 'ii'd5 17 bxc6 f4 is not clear. 14 ... J.e7 15 lLlesl

Not 15 J.f4?! J.c4! 16 J.xc7 J.d5 which only helps Black to activate his poor bishop. 15 ... 'ii'xd1 16 ltxd1 J.b7 17 J.f4

White has a small advantage.

C) 4 ... lLlf6!? Black tries to equalize via ex­

changes. The drawback of this move is that after 5 lLlxf6+ Black will have to either introduce his queen too early into the action or compromise his pawn structure.

s lLlxf6+ Now we consider:

c1: s ... gxf6 c2: s ... 'ii'xf6

c1) s ... gxf6 6 lLlf3

6 ... b6 Once again Black tries to solve the

main problem of the Rubinstein (and of the French!) : the development of his light-squared bishop. Here's a sum­mary of the alternatives:

a) It's too early for Black to open the position with the basic break 6 . . . c5 be­cause his development is inadequate.

2 73

Ho w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

White replies with 7 �e3! and now: al) After 7 . . . cxd4 8 tt:lxd4 'iia5+ 9 c3

a6 (9 . . . �d7?! 10 'iif3) 10 g3! ? 'iid5 11 .l:.gl tt:ld7 12 �g2 'iic4 13 'iib3 tt:le5 14 h3 tt:Jd3+ 15 �d2 tt:le5 16 .l:.adl .l:.b8 17 �cl �d7 (A.Lastin-K.Sakaev, Elista 1997) 18 .l:.gel ! ? �e7 19 'iixc4 tt:lxc4 20 �h6 White has a clear advantage (Khalifman).

a2) 7 . . . 'iib6 8 dxc5 �xeS (8 . . . 'iixb2 9 �d4 'iib4+ 10 c3 WaS 1 1 �xf6 l:.g8 12 .l:.bl ! tt:Jc6 13 tt:lg5 gives White the initiative) 9 �xeS WxcS 10 'iid2! ? tt:lc6 1 1 0-0-0 eS 12 'ii'h6 �e7 13 �d3 was agreed drawn in M.Zoldan-U.Belloni, Cortina d' Ampezzo 2004. However, White is better as he can continue with tt:lh4-f5 or tt:ld2-e4 and f2-f4, creating a dangerous attack against Black's king.

b) 6 . . . .l:.g8 7 �f4!? �d6 8 �g3 tt:ld7 9 �d3 tt:lf8 10 We2 tt:lg6 1 1 0-0-0 'iie7 12 tt:ld2! fS 13 'iif3 'iig5 14 h4 'iig4 15 Wxg4 fxg4 16 tt:le4 gave White a clear advan­tage in F.Stald-O.Larsen, correspon­dence 2001 . 'The semi-open g-file is often used by Black to organize his eventual counterplay. White has two typical ways to neutralize it. He can develop his bishop to the f4-square in order to cover the file and his kingside too with the move �f4-g3, or in case he does not have that possibility, he de­velops his kingside according to the scheme: g2-g3 and �fl-g2.' (Khalif­man)

c) After 6 . . . �d6 White should choose the second scheme of develop­ment: 7 g3!? b6 8 �g2 �b7 9 0-0 tt:ld7 10 .:tel ! ._e7 (if 10 . . . c6 1 1 tt:Jh4 'iic7 12 'ii'hS it's not easy for Black to castle long as

2 74

the f7-pawn is hanging) 1 1 tt:lh4 0-0-0 12 tt:lf5 'ife8 13 tt:lxd6+ cxd6 14 a4! and White has a strong attack.

d) 6 . . . �d7 7 �e2!? �c6 8 0-0 l:.g8 9 c4 �d6 10 'iic2 fS 1 1 dS exd5 12 'iixfS 'iid7 13 'iixh7 'iig4 14 tt:lgS led to a winning position for White in F.Samisch-J.Mieses, Baden-Baden 192S.

e) 6 . . . 'iid6!? 7 g3 �d7 8 c3 �c6 9 �g2 tt:ld7 10 0-0 0-0-0 1 1 .:tel tt:lb6 12 a4 and White has a slight advantage.

f) 6 . . . tt:ld7 7 �f4! b6 (or 7 . . . tt:Jb6 8 �d3! tt:ldS 9 i.g3 �h6 10 0-0 tt:lf4 1 1 .l:.el tt:lxd3 12 'iixd3 �d7 13 dS) 8 �d3 �b7 9 'iie2 �d6 10 �g3 'iie7 11 0-0-0 0-0-0 12 .l:.hel �xg3 13 hxg3 'iid6 14 �e4 was clearly better for White in J.Hase-H.Rossetto, Santa Fe 1973.

The position seems quite reasonable for Black, but if we look carefully the h7-pawn is extremely vulnerable and the doubled pawns on g2 and g3 kill off any hopes of counterplay down the g-file. 7 �b5+1 c6 8 �d3 �b7

After 8 . . . 'iic7 9 'iie2 �b7 10 �d2 tt:ld7 1 1 c4 0-0-0 12 b4 �b8 13 i.c3 .l:.g8 14 0-0 fS 15 cS i.g7 16 l:tfcl

R u b in s te in Va riat io n : Fo u rth M o ve A ltern a t i ves

(A.Rodriguez-D.Suarez, Buenos Aires 1997) White's attack on the queenside is faster than Black's on the other wing, and also note the poor bishop on b7. It's true that Black can use the dS­square, but this will not matter if he is mated after a2-a4 etc.

8 . . . .id6!? (to stop .tf4) 9 'iie2 lbd7 (L.Kokkinos-D.Donchev, Albena 1977) 10 .id2 .i.b7 1 1 c4 is better for White. 9 i.f41

White's bishop is very powerful on the h2-b8 diagonal and Black must ex­change it. 9 • • • .id6

9 ... lba6 can be met by 10 a3! ? lbc7 11 c4. 10 i.g3 'iic7

After 10 ... 'iie7 11 0-0 lbd7 12 l:.e1 0-0-0 13 a4 aS 14 c3 lbf8 1S b4! axb4 16 aS bS 17 a6 i.a8 18 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 19 cxb4 'iixb4 20 'iic2 White has a winning at­tack, and the bishop on a8 can only moan about inequality amongst pieces! 11 0-0 lbd7 12 a41 i.xg3 13 hxg3 lbf8?1

13 . . . cS!? 14 aS c4 is a better option. 14 'iid2 h6 15 as lbd7 16 l:tfe1

This is ].Van der Wiel-P.Troeger,

Porz 1982. White has a dear advantage because his attack is quicker than Black's.

c2) s ... 'iixf6 6 lDf3

White intends to continue with 7 .id3 and 8 i.gS trapping the queen, so Black must use up a tempo to avoid this. 6 ... h6

6 ... cS? ! 7 .tgS! 'iig6 8 i.d3 'iihs 9 0-0 f6 10 i.e3 is dearly better for White.

6 . . . 'iig6?! tries to hold back the fl­bishop, but to no avail: 7 i.d3! 'iixg2 8 l:lg1 'ii'h3 9 Ji.f4! and Black has im­mense problems. 7 .i.d3 lbc6

This is the most logical move. Black develops his knight to its most natural square, as White will now have to play c2-c3 in order to continue with 'iie2.

Here are some alternatives: a) 7 . . . lbd7?! 8 0-0 b6 is met by 9

.te4! . b) 7 . . . i.d7 8 0-0 i.c6 9 lbeS .i.d6 10

f4! i.xeS 1 1 fxeS 'ii'e7 12 'iig4 and White was dearly better in E.Maahs­R.Hommel, Badenweiler 1994.

2 75

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

c ) 7 . . . c5 8 i.e3 tt:'Jc6 ( 8 . . . tt:'Jd7?! 9 0-0 i.d6 10 i.bS! cxd4 11 i.xd4 "il'g6 12 �d2 f6 13 l:tfe1 We7 14 i.xd7 i.xd7 15 l:tad1 W£7 16 .ltc3 was winning for White in M.Diesen-G.Ross, Chicago 1973) 9 dxcS! "il'xb2 10 0-0 and White has a strong initiative: for example, 10 . . . "il'f6 1 1 tt:'Jd4 .ltd7 12 tiJbS! l:tc8 13 .lte4 "il'eS 14 'ii'f3! a6 15 l:!ad1 ! axb5 16 l:.xd7 Wxd7 17 �xf7+ .lte7 18 l:td1+ Wc7 19 .ltf4 and White was winning in D.Janosevic-S.Puc, Belgrade 1948.

d) 7 . . . .ltd6 8 0-0 and now:

d1) 8 . . . .ltf4?! is positionally suspect, with Black exchanging his good bishop for White's 'bad' one: 9 .l:.e1 .ltxcl 10 lhcl 0-0 1 1 c3 tt:'Jd7 12 i.b1 b6 13 "il'a4! aS 14 .te4 l:ta7 15 l:r.cd1 .:td8 16 tt:'Je5 tt:'JxeS 17 dxe5 'ii'e7 18 lhd8+ "il'xd8 19 :d1 'iie7 20 "il'd4 was winning for White in A.Istratescu-J.Frank, Zalakaros 1997.

d2) 8 . . . tt:'Jd7?! 9 "il'e2 "il'e7 (or 9 ... c5 10 dxcS!? tt:'Jxc5 11 .ltbS+ i.d7 12 l:td1 "il'e7 13 .ltxd7+ tt:'Jxd7 14 i.e3 with a clear advantage for White - Khalifman) frees f6 for the knight, but this is too slow to solve Black's problems. For example,

2 7 6

10 .l:te1 tt:'Jf6 1 1 tt:'Je5!? (White immedi­ately exploits the absence of the knight from d7) 1 1 . . . .ltd7 (or 1 l . . .a6 12 'ii'f3 cS 13 dxc5! i.xc5 14 'iig3) 12 'iif3 c6 13 .ltd2 0-0-0 14 a3 Wb8 15 b4 and White had a strong attack in M.Martel­G.Gonzalez, Las Palmas 1991, as c2-c4 is coming.

d3) 8 . . . .ltd7 9 "il'e2! .ltc6 is met by 10 tt:'Je5!, when Black still has problems to solve: 10 . . . .ltxe5 (10 . . . tt:'Jd7?! 1 1 tt:'Jxc6 bxc6 12 'ii'e4; 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 f4! l:td8 12 'ii'h5) 1 1 dxe5 'iih4 (after 1 1 . . .'ii'e7 White should take the c5-square away from Black's knight with 12 .ltd2!? tt:'Jd7 13 b4) 12 f4 tt:'Jd7 13 b4 a6 14 .ltb2 tt:'Jb6 15 c4 0-0 16 l:tad1 l:tfd8 17 f5! exf5 18 e6 with a clear advantage for White, G.Racz-J.Frank, Budapest 2005.

d4) 8 . . . 0-0 is met by 9 "il'e2!? prepar­ing the very strong 'ife4. For example:

d41 ) If Black tries to block the b1-h7 diagonal with 9 . . . 'iie7?! 10 'iie4 f5, the e5-square and the e6-pawn become very weak, and 1 1 'ife2 tt:'Jd7 12 .ltc4 l:tf6 13 l:te1 tt:'Jf8 14 tt:'Je5 was considerably better for White in M.Rytshagov­P.Reuter, German League 1994.

R u b ins te in Va ria t io n : Fo u rth M o ve A lterna t ives

d42) 9 . . . tt:\d7?! doesn't parry the ba­sic threat, and 10 'it'e4 l:.d8 (10 . . . 'ii'f5? 1 1 'Wh4! 'ii'f6 12 i.g5! wins on the spot) 1 1 'ifh7+ �f8 12 l:te1 g5 13 h4! i.f4 14 hxg5 hxg5 15 'Wh5 �e7 16 tt:\xg5 was win­ning for White in M.Kujovic­M.Dobrotka, Slovakian League 2001 .

d43) 9 . . . tt:\c6! 10 'it'e4 'iif5! is the best way for Black to block the diagonal: 1 1 'Wh4 i.e7 ( 1l . . .'ii'a5? 12 i.xh6! gxh6 13 'iixh6 won for White in Gajdos-Biro, Budapest 1916) 12 'it'g3 i.d6 13 i.xf5 i.xg3 14 fxg3!? (14 hxg3 exf5 1S c4 is also better for White) 14 . . . exfS 1S c3 gS (preventing i.f4) 16 dS! . 'White main­tains the advantage, despite the oppo­site-coloured bishops, mainly due to the possibility of creating a passed pawn on the queenside. On the con­trary, Black's pawn-structure on the kingside precludes him from doing the same.' (Khalifman) 8 0-0

White mustn't waste any time de­fending the d4-pawn, as it is not under attack for the moment. Every tempo is important, with the battle centring around the advance . . . e6-eS. The main

dilemma for Black is where to put his king. 8 . . . i.d61

This is the best move: Black com­pletes the development of his kingside, and as White's queen cannot yet go to e2 Black has time to play for . . . eS.

8 . . . gS?! is too macho, and White won in F.Da Silva-C.Martins Fi­gueiredo, correspondence 2000, after 9 lle1 (reserving the eS-square for the white knight in the event of . . . g4) 9 . . . i.g7 10 c3 g4 1 1 tt:\eS tt:\xeS 12 dxeS 'iih4 13 g3 'iih3 14 i.e2, as 14 . . . h5? loses to 1S i.fl .

8 . . . i.d7?! plans . . . 0-0-0 and also threatens 9 . . . tt:\xd4. However, praxis has shown the plan with long castling to be dubious: 9 c3 i.d6 (9 . . . gS?! 10 'iie2 g4 1 1 tt:\eS; or 9 . . . 0-0-0 10 'it'e2!? g5 1 1 b4 g4 12 tt:\d2!? 'iig7 13 tt:\e4 tt:\b8 14 i.f4 i.e7 1S bS! hS 16 a4 h4 17 aS and White's attack arrives first, as 18 b6 cannot be stopped and . . . g3 is ineffec­tive) 10 'iie2 0-0-0 (10 . . . eS? loses to 11 dxeS tt:\xeS 12 tt:\xeS 'fixeS 13 'it'xeS+ i.xeS 14 .l:te1 f6 1S f4) 11 b4! .

Black's main idea i s to free his light-

2 7 7

H o w to Bea t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

squared bishop with the help of . . . eS, and this is exactly what White should discourage: he intends to attack Black's knight on c6, which is ready to support that advance. Black has tried many moves here, but White's attack is al­ways much faster:

a) l l . . .eS? ! is the most principled move, but 12 bS e4 13 ..txe4 tt:laS 14 ..td2 .l:the8 15 .l:tfel ..tf4 (M.Gazivoda­M.Novkovic, Belgrade 2005) 16 ..txf4 'iWxf4 17 tt:leS is winning for White (Khalifman).

b) If l l . . .l:tde8?! White prevents . . . eS with 12 b5 tt:laS 13 tt:leS, and this led to a winning position in G.Strapko­E.Lueck, correspondence 1985, after 13 . . . 'iWe7 14 c4 b6 15 ..td2 tt:lb7 16 tt:lc6 ..txc6 17 bxc6 tt:ld8 18 cS.

c) l l . . .tt:le7 12 bS!? tt:ld5 13 c4 tt:lf4 14 ..txf4 ..txf4 (E.Ortel-K.Nagy Dani, Hun­garian League 2001) 15 g3 ..td6 16 cS ..te7 17 c6! is crushing.

d) l l . . . ..tf4 plans to exchange a piece to reduce White's potential, but 12 bS tt:\e7 13 a4 gS?! 14 aS tt:ldS 15 c4 ..txcl (U.Von Auer-J.Kolomar, Frank­furt 2002) 16 a6! b6 17 .:.fxcl gives White has a winning advantage.

e) l l . . .gS 12 bS tt:le7 13 c4 tt:lg6!? 14 c5 g4 (after 14 . . . ..txc5 15 dxc5 'iWxal 16 ..txg6 fxg6 17 c6 bxc6 18 bxc6 ..txc6 19 'iWxe6+ 'itb7 20 'iWb3+ 'itc8 21 ..tb2 ..tdS 22 l::txal ..txb3 23 ..txh8 Black loses a piece - a nice variation demonstrated by Khalifman) 15 cxd6 gxf3 16 'iWc2! c6 17 ..te4 fxg2 18 .l:.dl and White has a winning attack as the pawn on c6 can­not be protected, R.Fiacan-J.Valent, Slovakian League 1997.

2 78

9 C3J? 0-0 After 9 . . . e5? ! 10 dxeS tt:lxeS 11 tt:lxe5

..txeS 12 f4 ..td6 13 .:tel+ 'itd8 14 'iWf3 White organized a dangerous attack in G.Van Perlo-F.Boyd, correspondence 1982. 10 'iWe21?

10 tt:ld2 is the other main line, but Black is fine after 10 . . . 'iWh4! 11 g3 'iWd8 12 tt:\e4 eS 13 'iWhS! 'iWd7! 14 h4 ..te7! 15 ..txh6 'iWg4. 10 . . . es1

Black exploits the position of White's queen to play this liberating advance. After lO . . . ..td7?! 11 .:tel ! White's basic idea is to deploy his

R u b i n s te in Va riat io n : Fo u rth M o ve A lterna t ives

knight on the e5-square, thus depriving Black of any counterplay connected with . . . e5. For example:

a) l l . . . 'ili'e7?! 12 lL:leS lLlxeS 13 dxe5 i.c5 14 'ii'e4 g6 15 .i.xh6 was obviously bad for Black in V.Riff-B.Lacroix, Con­dom 2003.

b) 1 l . . .e5? ! is no longer possible: 12 dxe5 lLlxeS 13 lLlxeS .i.xe5 14 1Ve4! l:tfe8 15 'ii'h7+ �f8 16 .te3 g5 (forced; if 16 . . . b6 17 f4) 17 .tcS+ .td6 18 .td4 .tes 19 .i.xe5 l:txe5 20 l:txe5 'ili'xe5 21 'ii'xh6+ and White wins a pawn while retaining the attack.

c) 1 1 . . .lLle7 12 lLleS .i.xe5 13 dxe5 1Vh4 14 g3 'ii'a4 (after 14 . . . 'ii'h3 15 'ili'e4 g6? 16 .tfl 'ii'hs 17 .te2 'ii'h3 18 .tg4 Black resigned in A.Cemborain Ori­cain-M.Sanchez Romero, Absoluto Preferente 1999) 15 .tc2 'ili'bS (15 . . . 'ii'a5? 16 'ii'd3) 16 c4 Was 17 .td2 'ili'b6 18 .te3 'ii'c6 19 b4 and White has a clear advan­tage (Khalifman). 11 'ii'e4 g6

1 l . . .l:te8?! 12 'ii'h7+ �f8 13 .l:l.e1 gave White a strong attack in I.Gurevich-

14 i.c4!? I think this is stronger than the line

proposed by current theory: 14 i.xh6 i.f5 15 'ii'c4 b5! 16 'ii'xb5 ltfb8 17 'ii'c4 i.xd3 (17 . . . i.e6!? 18 'ili'a4 l:txb2 19 i.cl is slightly better for White) 18 'ii'xd3 l:txb2! 19 i.cl ! (White must drive away the black rook from its active position) 19 . . . .l:i.d8! 20 'ii'xd8+ 'ii'xd8 21 i.xb2 c5 has been assessed as better for White, but I disagree with this and think that Black has no real problems here. Al­though White has two rooks and a pawn for the queen, Black pieces are very active and the white rooks have yet to be mobilized. I remember some words of advice from my friend, GM Papaioannou: 'With this time limit we play, always trust the queen! ' 14 ... hs

14 . . . i.f5 15 1fxb7 i.xh2+ 16 �xh2 'ii'h4+ 17 �g1 'ii'xc4 18 i.xh6 .l:l.fb8 19 'ii'f3 was good for White in E.Shevelevich-A.Karpatchev, Simfer­opol 1989. 15 �e1 i.d6

A.Chow, New York 1994. 16 .th6! 12 dxes lL:lxes 13 lL:lxes .txes This is much stronger than 16 h3,

2 79

H o w to Beat t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

which was given by Khalifman. 16 ... .l:td8

16 . . . i.f5 17 'it'xb7 l:.fb8 (17 . . . .l:tfc8 18 'it'dS! ) 18 'ii'f3 i.xh2+ 19 'it>xh2 'it'h4+ 20 'it>g1 'it'xc4 21 .l:te7! gives White the ini­tiative. 17 'it' e 31 'it'fs

17 . . . i.xh2+? 18 'it>xh2 'it'h4+ 19 'it>g1 'it'xc4 20 'ii'eS wins for White. 18 ..tgs .l:tfs 19 b41

Taking away the squares aS and cS from the black queen. 19 ... ..td7 20 i.d3

general law of chess: when you have more space you shouldn't exchange pieces.

s . . . ..tc6 Alternatively: a) After 5 . . . i.b4+ 6 i.d2 i.xd2+ 7

'it'xd2 tt'lf6, as well as 8 tt'lxf6+ (see note 'b'), White can consider 8 tt'lc3 0-0 9 tt'lf3 cS! 10 dxcS tt'la6 1 1 iDeS tt'lxcS 12 b4! 'ii'c7 13 'it'd4 tt'la6 14 tt'lxd7 tt'lxd7 15 cS with a small advantage.

b) 5 . . . tt'lf6 6 tt'lxf6+! 'it'xf6 7 tt'lf3 i.b4+ 8 i.d2 i.xd2+ 9 'it'xd2 is the other criti-

White has the initiative. For exam- cal variation. pie, 20 . . . 'it'e6 21 'ii'd2 i.eS (21 . . .1li'd5? 22 i.f6) 22 i.f4 (22 i.e4!?) 22 . . . ..txf4 23 'it'xf4 'it'd6 (23 . . . 'iib6? 24 l:te7; 23 . . . 'it'c6 24 i.e4) 24 Wxd6 cxd6 25 lte7 leads to a small but lasting advantage, as the black bishop cannot stand safely on c6 because of b4-b5.

D) 4 ... i.d7 5 c41? A very logical continuation: White

is ready to meet . . . i.c6 by retreating the knight to c3, when the bishop will al­ways be in danger from the push d4-d5. This idea is in accordance with a

2 8 0

In openings where Black's pieces are mainly confined to the first three

R u b in s te in Va ria t io n : Fo u rth M o ve A ltern a t ives

ranks (e.g. the French, the Caro-Kann and the Scandinavian) Black is advised to relieve space problems by exchang­ing two sets of minor pieces, so that the remaining pieces do not become con­gested. Here Black has achieved his aim, but his remaining pieces are poorly placed and White can claim a small advantage.

For example, 9 . . . ttJc6! (after 9 . . . 0-0 White can continue with 10 i.d3!) 10 i.e2 0-0 1 1 l::td1 l:tad8 12 0-0 i.c8 13 'We3, V.Nevednichy-A.Negulescu, Curtea de Arges 2002.

c) 5 . . . i.e7 was played by O.Foisor against me at the Acropolis Open, Ath­ens 2004. The game continued 6 ltJf3 ltJf6 7 ltJc3 (7 ltJxf6+!? i.xf6 8 i.d3 i.c6 9 i.e3) 7 . . . 0-0 8 .ie2 'Wc8 9 0-0 l:.d8 10 'Wc2 cS 1 1 dxcS ltJc6 12 i.gS ltJb4 13 'Wb1 eS! ? 14 i.xf6 (14 ttJxeS gives Black good play with 14 . . . .if5 15 'iicl ltJc2 16 l:tb1 'We6) 14 . . . gxf6?! (better was 14 . . . .ixf6 15 ltJd2 i.e6 16 a3! ltJc6 17 i.d3 h6 18 ltJde4 with a small advan­tage for White) and here I should have played 15 l:td1 i.xcS (15 . . . i.f5 16 l:lxd8+ i.xd8 17 ltJe4 'Wc6 18 ltJfd2 planning a2-a3 is good for White) 16 a3 ltJc6 17 ltJdS 'iti>g7 18 'We4 with a promising at­tack. 6 ltJc3 ttJf6

After 6 . . . .ib4 7 a3 i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 ltJf6 (or 8 . . . i.e4 9 ltJf3 ltJf6 10 i.e2 ttJbd7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 .l:.e1 cS 13 i.f4 'Wb6 14 ltJeS %:.fd8 15 i.fl ltJf8 16 i.e3 ltJ8d7 17 ttJd3 'Wc6 18 f3 i.g6 19 ltJf4 eS 20 dS 'Wd6 21 ltJxg6 hxg6 22 a4! %:.e8 23 'Wd2 ltJhS 24 aS l:le7 25 %:.eb1 %:.b8 26 %:.b5 and White had queenside pressure in J.Nunn-

C.Lozano Arribas, Oviedo 1992) 9 ltJf3 ttJbd7 (9 . . . ttJe4 10 'ii'c2 ttJd7 11 i.d3 is better for White) 10 i.e2 i.xf3?! 1 1 i.xf3 c6 12 0-0 ltJb6 13 'Wb3 'iid7 14 l:.b1 0-0-0 15 a4! White had the bishop pair plus a strong attack in L.Alonzo­J.Martinez, Merida 1998. 7 ltJf3

7 i.e3!? is a very interesting alterna­tive that offers a small advantage. White postpones the development of the knight to f3 and it is not easy for Black to find a useful waiting move.

7 ... i.xf3 Alternatively: a) 7 . . . ttJbd7? loses a piece to 8 dS. b) 7 . . . ltJe4 8 i.d3 i.b4 9 .ixe4! i.xe4

10 0-0 i.xc3 (10 . . . .ic6? 1 1 dS!; 10 . . . .ig6? 1 1 'Wa4+ ltJc6 12 dS) 1 1 bxc3 0-0 12 .l:.e1 is slightly better for White.

c) 7 . . . i.b4 8 i.e2 is clearly better for White according to Karpov. This may be true for Anatoly Yevgenyevich, but for mere mortals this position offers a nice (but small) advantage. Of course there are other ways to play, and 8 a3 .ixc3+ 9 bxc3 ltJe4 10 'Wc2 ltJf6 1 1 i.e2 ttJbd7 12 0-0 0-0 13 i.gS i.xf3 14 i.xf3

2 8 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

c6 1S l:tfe1 'ii'aS 16 ..th4 l:tfe8 17 l:te3 was clearly better for White in ].Blanco Fer­nandez-J.Valle Abraldes, Asturias 2000. 8 'ii'xf3 lt:Jc61

8 . . . c6 accepts a passive position. Af­ter 9 ..te3 there are many options for Black but White keeps the advantage:

a) 9 . . . 'ii'b6 10 .l:.b1 ..tb4 1 1 ..td3 with a clear plus for White.

b) 9 . . . 'ii'aS 10 ..te2 ..td6 11 0-0 lt:Jbd7 12 a3 0-0 13 cS!? is a typical idea. White gives up the dS-square but intends to pawn storm with b2-b4, a3-a4 and b4-bS etc. This is justified because Black loses considerable time with his queen, and 13 . . . ..te7 14 'ii'g3 l:lfe8 1S b4 'ii'd8 16 ..tf4 l:lc8 17 l:lfe1 ..tf8 18 ..tf3 lt:JdS 19 lt:JxdS cxdS 20 ..td1 (20 bS 'iii' aS) 20 . . . bS?! 21 ..te2 a6 22 a4 gave White a clear ad­vantage in A.Mauro-A.Parrella, Italy 1998.

c) 9 ... ..tb4 10 ..td3!? eS 11 ..tc2 exd4 12 0-0-0 ..txc3 13 bxc3 0-0 14 ..txd4 We7 1S ..txf6 'ii'xf6 16 Wxf6 gxf6 17 llhe1 lt:Ja6 18 l:le3! and White will win the h7-pawn.

d) 9 . . . tt:Jbd7 10 ..te2 ..td6 11 0-0 0-0 12 cS! ? ..tc7 13 b4 (immediately starting

2 8 2

a flank attack, not giving Black time to exploit the weakened dS-square) 13 . . . a6 (White enjoys a clear plus after both 13 . . . Wb8 14 bS! cxbS [14 . . . ..txh2+? 1S ..t>h1 ..tc7 16 bxc6 bxc6 17 'ii'xc6 is bad for Black] 1S ..txbS ..txh2+ 16 ..t>h1 ..tc7 17 c6! bxc6 [17 . . . lt:Jb6 18 cxb7] 18 ..txc6, and 13 . . . eS! ? 14 ltad1 ! exd4 1S ..txd4 ..teS! 16 lt:Je4! ..txd4 17 l:txd4 lt:Jxe4 18 'ii'xe4 .l:r.e8 19 'ii'd3 'ii'e7 20 l:lxd7 'ifxe2 21 'ii'xe2 l:lxe2 22 .l:r.fd1 g6 23 .l:.xb7 lha2 24 g3 aS 2S .l:.dd7 .J:lf8 26 .:!.a7! ) 14 a4 .:le8 1S bS ..taS!? (1S . . . axbS 16 axbS ..taS 17 bxc6 bxc6 18 lt:Je4 lt:JdS 19 lt:Jd6 l:tf8 20 .ltc4 lt:J7f6 21 ..tgS was slightly better for White in J.Nunn-A.Karpov, Wijk aan Zee 1993) 16 bxc6 bxc6 17 lt:Je4 lt:Jxe4 18 'ii'xe4 Wc7 (if 18 . . . eS 19 l:r.ad1 ! 'ii'c7 20 'ii'f3! ? e4 21 'ii'h3 lt:Jf6 22 f3! exf3 23 l:Lxf3) 19 ..td3 fS 20 'ii'f3 lt:Jf6 21 ..tf4 'ii'd7 22 .l:r.fd1 ..tc7 (if 22 . . . lt:JdS 23 ..tc4!) 23 ..txc7 'ii'xc7 24 ..tc4 lt:JdS 2S aS! l:tab8 26 'ii'd3 and White has a lasting edge. 9 d5 !

g • • • lt:Jd4 9 . . . exdS?! is supposed to be good for

Black but, as we will see, things are not that easy! After 10 cxdS we have:

R u b ins te in Va ria t io n : Fo u rth M o ve A ltern a tives

a) 10 . . . tLld4 1 1 'ii'e3+! is a powerful novelty that guarantees White an end­game advantage: l l . . . 'ii'e7 12 i.d3 tLlg4 13 'ii'xe7+ i.xe7 14 0-0 tLleS 15 i.e4 (15 i.b1 ! ? 0-0 16 l:le1 i.d6 17 i.e3 is also strong) 15 . . . c5 (if 15 .. .£5 16 :d1 ! cS 17 dxc6 tLlexc6 18 i.e3! 0-0-0 19 i.dS tLlc2 20 i.e6+ �b8 21 i.f4+ 'ifi1a8 22 llacl .l:lxd1+ 23 :xd1 tLl2d4 24 i.c4 with a stable advantage) 16 :e1 ! 0-0-0 17 i.e3 fS!? (trying to complicate) 18 f4! fxe4 19 fxeS tLlc2 20 d6 i.h4 21 g3 :he8 22 gxh4 tLlxa1 23 :xa1 :xeS 24 i.f4! :fs 25 i.g3 and Black's position is horrible.

b) 10 .. .'it'e7+! 1 1 i.e3! (now 1 1 'ii'e3 tLlb4! 12 i.bS+ 'ifi1d8! is fine for Black) with a further branch:

b1 ) 11 . . . tLld4 12 'iVd1 tLlfS 13 'ii'a4+! tLld7 (after 13 . . . 'ifi1d8 14 d6! tLlxd6 15 i.d3 'ii'd7 16 'iVaS 'ifi1c8 17 0-0 'ifi1b8 18 :tacl c6 19 i.f4 Black's king will never feel safe) 14 d6! tLlxd6 15 tLldS 'ii'd8 16 0-0-0 i.e7 17 i.d3 0-0 18 'ii'c2 h6 19 :he1 and White has a very nice posi­tion which is worth at least the one­

b2) 1 1 . . .tLle5! 12 'ifu3! (White mustn't allow Black to castle queen­side) 12 . . . a6! (12 . . . 'ii'd7 is punished by 13 i.bS! c6 14 'ii'xd7+ tLlfxd7 15 i.e2 i.cS 16 i.xcS tLlxcS 17 0-0-0 0-0-0 18 b4! tLlcd7 19 f4 tLlg6 20 dxc6 bxc6 21 g3, when Black will suffer in the ending) 13 0-0-0 'ii'd7! 14 i.f4! tLlg6 (or 14 . . . 'ii'xh3?! 15 gxh3 tLlg6 16 i.xc7 'ifi1d7 17 d6) 15 'ii'xd7+ (15 'ii'e3+!?) 15 . . . 'ifi1xd7 16 i.e3 :e8 17 g3 �c8 18 .th3+ 'ifi1b8 19 i.d4 and White enjoys a slight edge. 10 'ii'd11

This is stronger than 10 'ii'd3 cS, with counterplay for Black (Karpov). White wants to leave the d3-square available for his bishop. 10 . . . cs

Also interesting is 10 . . . e5 11 i.d3 i.cS 12 0-0 0-0 13 i.e3 l:le8 14 a3! (White must prepare b2-b4) 14 . . . a5 15 :b1 c6 16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 i.a7 18 dxc6 bxc6 19 cS! i.b8 20 tLle4, when White has a small advantage in a position rich in possibilities for both sides.

pawn investment. His pieces are well 11 dxe6 posted in the centre, pointing menac- White saddles Black with a weak ingly towards Black's king. pawn on e6 and doesn't give him the

2 83

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

opportunity o f closing the position with . . . e5, which would render the bishop pair less effective. 11 ... fxe6

After 1 1 . . .lt:Jxe6 12 'iia4+ 'ii'd7 13 'iixd7+ 'it>xd7 14 i.e3 White's bishop pair offers him a small advantage. 12 i.e31

This way Black cannot put his bishop on the active d6-square. 12 ... i.e7

If 12 . . . 'ii'b6 there follows 13 'ifa4+ 'it>f7 14 0-0-0 with a nice edge. 13 i.d3 o-o 14 o-o 'ii'c7

If 14 . . . i.d6 White obtains a small plus after 15 i.xd4! cxd4 16 lt:Jb5 'ii'b6 17 lt:Jxd6 'ili'xd6 18 'ili'e2 .l:tae8 19 lbe1 e5 20 f3. 1S lDbsl

A very good move: White ex­changes the strong knight on d4, opens the c-file and makes c4 available for his bishop. Black would be okay after 15 i.xd4 cxd4 16 lt:Jb5 'ii'd7! . 1S ... lt:Jxb5 16 cxbs i.d6

Or 16 . . . l:tad8 17 'ii'e2 i.d6 18 g3, with an edge for White. 17 g3 lt:Jds 18 'ii'g4 l:taeS 19 .:tae1

2 84

White has a small advantage here. He can continue with 'ii'h4 with an at­tack on the black king, or with i.c4 and i.d2 adding pressure to the e6-pawn.

E) 4 ... i.e7

This move gives Black the option to recapture on f6 with the bishop. 5 lt:Jf3 lt:Jf6

5 . . . b6?! 6 lt:Je5! is good for White, as 6 . . . i.b7? loses to 7 'ii£3.

After 5 . . . lt:Jd7 6 i.d3 b6 White can play the strong 7 i.b5! . Then 7 . . . lt:Jgf6 (7 . . . i.b7? 8 lt:Je5 i.xe4 9 i.xd7+ 'it>£8 10 'iih5) 8 lt:Je5! lt:Jxe4 9 'ii'£3 £5 (9 . . . lt:Jd6 10 'ii'xa8 lt:Jxb5 1 1 lt:Jc6 i.b4+ 12 c3 and Black resigned in N.Kekatos­G.Papamihail, Attica 2003; 9 . . . 0-0 10 'ii'xe4 l:tb8 1 1 lbc6 i.b7 12 c3 is clearly better for White - Khalifman) 10 lt:Jc6 i.b4+ 1 1 lt:Jxb4 sees White regaining the piece with a big advantage. 6 i.d3 lt:Jbd7

Alternatively: a) 6 . . . b6?! 7 lt:Jx£6+ i.x£6 8 i.e4! c6 9

i.£4 i.b7 10 lt:Je5 0-0 1 1 'ii'd3 g6 (1 l . . .h6 12 0-0-0) 12 h4 i.xe5 13 i.xe5 £5 14 i.£3 lt:Jd7 15 i.£4 'ii'£6 16 0-0-0 gave White a

R u b in s te in Va ria t io n : Fo u rth M o ve A l tern a t ives

clear advantage in E.Preissmann­A.Von Allmen, Swiss League 1997.

b) 6 . . . .i.d7 7 ltJe5! .i.c6 8 ltJxc6 ltJxc6 9 c3 e5!? 10 ltJxf6+ .i.xf6 11 'ii'e2! 0-0 12 dxe5 ttJxe5 13 .i.e4 l:te8 14 0-0 c6 15 .i.e3 and White has a slight advantage thanks to the bishop pair.

c) 6 . . . 0-0 7 'ii'e2 a6?! 8 ltJxf6+!? .i.xf6 9 'i'e4 g6 10 .i.h6 .l:te8 1 1 0-0-0 'i'd5 12 'i'f4 ttJd7 13 'iii>b1 gives White a strong attack (Khalifman).

d) 6 . . . ltJxe4 7 .i.xe4 and now:

d1) 7 . . . 0-0 8 'ii'e2 c5 9 dxc5 .i.xc5 10 .i.d2 ltJd7 (10 . . . ttJc6 1 1 0-0-0 'i'b6 loses to 12 .ixh7+! 'iii>xh7 13 'ii'e4+! f5 14 Wh4+ 'iii>g6 15 'ili'g5+ 'ii?f7 16 'ii'h5+ g6 17 'ii'h7+ 'iii>e8 18 'ii'xg6+ l:.f7 19 ltJg5 ltJe5 20 Wh5) 1 1 0-0-0 ttJf6 12 .tg5 'i'b6 13 .txf6 gxf6 14 ltJe5! f5 15 'ii'h5 gives White a very dangerous attack, as indicated by Khalifman. For example, 15 . . . .txf2 (15 . . . fxe4 16 'ii'g5+ �h8 17 'ii'f6+ 'iii>g8 18 ltJg4) 16 'ii'g5+ <ith8 17 ltJxf7+ l:txf7 18 l:td8+.

d2) 7 . . . c5 8 0-0 ltJd7 (8 . . . ttJc6 is met by 9 dxc5!, while 8 . . . cxd4 9 lDxd4 0-0 has arisen many times but nobody has chosen 10 'ii'd3! when Black seems to

be in trouble, for example: 10 .. .f5 1 1 .i.f3 e5?! 1 2 'i'b3+ <ith8 1 3 .i.xb7; 1 0 . . . g6 11 .th6 l:te8 12 l:tad1 e5? 13 ltJf5! .txf5 14 'iixd8 .i.xd8 15 .txb7; and finally 10 . . . h6 11 l:td1 ltJd7 12 'ii'g3) 9 c3! cxd4 10 lDxd4 lDf6 (10 . . . 0-0 11 'ii'f3! 'ii'c7 12 .tf4 'i'b6 was L.Sandler-L.Fell, Sydney 1992, and here 13 a4! gives White the initiative as 13 . . . 'i'xb2? loses the queen to 14 l:tfb1; 10 . . . l2Jc5 1 1 .tc2 e5 12 ltJf5 .txf5 13 .txf5 'ii'xd1 14 l:txd1 0-0 15 .te3 gave White a stable plus thanks to his bishop pair in G.Stibal-M.Urisek, cor­respondence 2001) 1 1 .i.c2 0-0 12 'ii'e2 and we have transposed to 7 . . . l2Jd7 (note 'd3') .

d3) 7 . . . l2Jd7 8 'ii'e2 c5 (8 . . . ttJf6? 9 .txb7) 9 c3! ? lDf6 (9 . . . 0-0 10 0-0 cxd4 1 1 lDxd4 lDf6 gives White an additional possibility of 12 .tf3!? a6 - if 12 . . . 'ii'c7 13 ltJb5!? 'i'b8 14 g3 - 13 .1i.f4 with a stable advantage) 10 .tc2 0-0 1 1 0-0 cxd4 12 lDxd4 and now:

d31) 12 . . . .i.d7 13 .tf4 l:te8 14 l:tad1 'i'b6 15 .te5 .:tad8 16 l:td3! ttJd5 (16 . . . 'ii'xb2 17 lDxe6! fxe6 18 .txf6 .txf6 19 l:txd7 'ii'xc3 20 l:.xb7 is better for White, as 20 . . . l:td2? 21 Wh5 wins) 17

2 85

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

:h3 was model play by White in A.Ziegler-A.Remmel, Stockholm 1991 . He has arranged his pieces perfectly for a murderous attack on Black's king.

d32) 12 . . . 1'i'c7 13 �g5 .l:.d8 14 :ad1 a6 15 l:.fe1 �d7 16 1'i'f3! (after 16 tt'lf5!? �c6! 17 tt'lxe7+ 'ihe7 White has a slight edge but Black is solid) 16 . . . 1'i'c5 (16 . . . �c6 17 tt'lxc6 'ii'xc6 18 1'i'xc6 bxc6 19 .l:f.xd8+ Ihd8 20 l::td1 is good for White) 17 �f4 1'i'd5 18 tt'lf5! 1'i'xf3 19 tt'lxe7+ 'it>f8 20 gxf3 'it>xe7 21 �c7 .l:r.dc8 22 �d6+ 'it>e8 23 f4 and White had a strong initiative in M.Saltaev-S.Del Rio Angelis, Cappelle la Grande 1998. 7 1'i'e2!?

Now we will look at:

El: 1 . . . cs E2: 7 . . . 0-0

7 . . . tt'lxe4 is another common move, after which 8 �xe4 transposes to note 'd3' above. Lesser alternatives include:

a) 7 . . . b6?! 8 tt'le5! tt'lxe5 (8 . . . �b7? 9 tt'lxf7! wins) 9 dxe5 tt'ld7 (or 9 . . . tt'lxe4 10 �xe4 :b8 1 1 'Wg4!) 10 �f4! �b7 11 0-0-0 h6 (1 1 . . .0-0? ! plays into White's

2 8 6

hands, and after 1 2 h4 'We8 1 3 tt'lg5 �xg5 14 �xh7+ 'it>h8 15 hxg5 g6 16 �xg6+ Black resigned in Hanak­M.Pokomy, correspondence 1969) 12 h4 a6 13 'Wh5 b5 14 tt'lg5! �xg5 15 hxg5 and White had a decisive advantage in P.Dostal-W.Libura, Nachod 1998.

b) 7 . . . h6? ! offers an easy target for attack. White replies with 8 �d2 in­tending to castle queenside and to con­tinue with g4-g5 in order to exploit the newly created weakness. In order to survive Black must aim to castle long:

b1) 8 . . . c5 9 tt'lxf6+ �xf6 10 d5 tt'lf8 1 1 dxe6 tt'lxe6 12 0-0-0 was clearly better for White in Z.Szabo-I.Kincs, Kaposvar 2000.

b2) 8 . . . tt'lxe4 9 �xe4 tt'lf6 10 �d3 c6 1 1 0-0-0 0-0 12 g4! with a strong attack for White, L.Perez-J.Santos Gonzalez, Sauzal 2004.

b3) 8 . . . c6!? 9 0-0-0 1'i'c7 10 g4! tt'lxe4 1 1 �xe4 b6 12 h4 �b7 13 g5 0-0-0 14 g6! ? and White had a slight advantage in A.Hermlin-T.Lampen, Tampere 1994.

El} 7 . . . cs

R u b in s te in Va ria t io n : Fo u rth M o ve A l tern a t ives

8 ti'lxf6+1 White wants to take on cS to prove

that Black has lost a tempo with . . . ii.e7 and . . . ii.xc5. However, an immediate capture is met by 8 . . . ti'lxc5, so White first exchanges on f6. Now:

E11: s . . . ii.xf6 E12: 8 . • • ti'lxf6

E11) s . . . ii.xf6 9 ds l?

This position can also arise in the 4 . . . ti'ld7 5 ti'lg5 variation of the Caro­Kann, but with the extra move . . . h6 for Black. Even with that useful move, con­trolling the important g5-square, the evaluation is better for White, and here it's easier to prove an advantage. 9 . ..lbb6

Alternatively: a) After 9 . . . e5? ! the passed pawn on

d5 is a headache for Black. For exam­ple, 10 h4! ? 'il'e7 11 il.g5 h6 12 ii.xf6 tt::lxf6 13 d6! 'ii'xd6 14 0-0-0 'ii'e7 15 tt::\xe5 0-0 16 g4 lte8 17 l:the1 'ii'c7 18 g5 tt::\g4 19 f4 h5 20 g6! and White had a deci­sive attack in T.Horvath-S.Cigan, Aus­trian League 1995.

b) 9 . . . 'ii'e7 10 dxe6 'ii'xe6 11 'ii'xe6+ fxe6 12 0-0 ti'le5 13 ti'lxe5 ii.xe5 14 l:i.e1 ii.c7 15 ii.b5+ ..t>£7 16 ii.e3 with a nice advantage for White, V.Colmena Mar­tinez-A.Tapia Lorente, Malaga 2004.

c) 9 . . . 0-0 10 dxe6 tt::lb6 (10 .. . fxe6?! 1 1 0-0 tt::lb6 12 'ii'e4 g6 1 3 ii.h6 .l:te8 1 4 J:tad1 was terrible for Black in F .Lopez Gra­cia-A. Campos Hernandez, Aragon 2003) 1 1 ex£7+ l:txf7 (E.Chaplin­J.Ferrigno, Cannes 2000) 12 0-0! J:te7 13 ii.e3 ii.xb2 14 .:tad1 'ii'e8 15 c3 ii.a3 16 'ii'c2 (Khalifman) gives White a clear advantage as Black's king is vulner­able. 10 ii.bS+ ..Ws 11 dxe6

11 • • • ii.xe6 1 l . . .a6 12 ii.d3 ii.xe6 13 0-0 c4 14

ii.e4 'ili'e7 15 ii.e3 tt::\d5 16 ii.d4 ii.f5 was ].Conde Ponderoso-F.Martinez, corre­spondence 1999. According to Khalif­man White should continue with 17 'ili'xc4! :tc8! (17 . . . ii.xe4? 18 ii.c5; 17 . . . 'ili'xe4? 18 .l:lfe1 'ii'xc2 19 'ili'xd5) 18 'ili'xd5 Wxe4 (or 18 . . . ii.xe4 19 ii.xf6 ii.xd5 20 ii.xe7+ ..t>xe7 21 J:tfe1 + ..t>f6 22 tt::\d4) 19 'ili'xe4 ii.xe4 20 ii.xf6 ii.xf3 21 gxf3 gxf6 22 c3 with a clear advantage.

2 8 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

12 0-0 h61? This is the most challenging move.

Black safeguards the gS-square and intends to continue with . . . 'ii'c7 and . . . c4. Now we understand why the similar position arising from the Caro­Kann compares favourably for Black.

Alternatives include: a) 12 ... 'ii'c7?! can be met by 13 lL!gS! . b) 12 . . . 'ii'e7 13 c3 .l:r.d8 (after 13 . . . h6

14 �f4 g6?! lS .l:ladl l:td8 16 .l:lxd8+ 'ii'xd8 17 l:tdl 'ifc8 18 �eS �xeS 19 "xeS 'itg8 20 h4 a6 21 :td6 liJd7 22 �xd7 �xd7 23 'iff6 Black resigned in S.Mareco-G.Spata, Pinamar 2006) 14 .l:tel h6 lS �f4 liJdS 16 �g3 g6 (V.Castaldi-P.Ricci, Sorrento 19SO) 17 ltJeS! 'itg7 18 'iff3 and White has a slight advantage.

c) After 12 . . . c4 13 �e3! it's not easy for Black to hold the c4-pawn while maintaining control of gS:

cl) 13 . . . �xb2 14 l:.adl 'ii'c8 lS lLlgS! �g4 16 f3 �fS 17 a4! gives White excel­lent compensation for the pawn (Khalifman).

c2) 13 . . . a6 14 �cS+ 'itg8 lS �xb6 'ifxb6 16 �xc4 �xc4 17 'ifxc4 'ifhS (if

2 8 8

17 . . . �xb2 White has 18 11abl 'ii'f6 1 9 itb3) 18 'ifxbS axbS 19 c3 with an extra pawn for White, M.Bock-H.Lagergren, correspondence 2000.

c3) 13 . . . 'ii'c7 14 .l:ladl liJdS (if 14 . . . �xb2 lS lLlgS!; or 14 . . . c3 lS b3) lS liJd4! �xd4 16 �xd4 a6!? 17 �eS 'iic8 18 �xc4 lLlf4 19 �x£4 �xc4 20 'iieS �xfl 21 �h6! 'ii'g4 22 'iid6+ 'ite8 23 'itxfl and White was winning, A.Areshchenko­A.Ushenina, Sudak 2002. 13 c31

The best move: White limits the scope of the f6-bishop and is ready to continue with a2-a4-aS and �e3 or liJd2-e4 to target the cS-pawn. 13 ... 'ifc7

White is also better after both 13 . . . c4? ! 14 :tdl 'ifc7 lS �e3 :tc8 16 �xb6 'ifxb6 17 �d7 .:tc7 18 �xe6 'ifxe6 19 'iid2 'itg8 20 'ii'f4 and 13 . . . g6 14 �f4 'itg7 1S l:tadl 'ii'c8 16 �eS!? . 14 a4 a6 15 as!

Securing c4 for the bishop. 1s ... ttJds 16 �c4 g6 17 lL!d21 'itg7 18 ltJe4

White has the advantage, A.Kolev­F.Tejero Royo, Banyoles 2000.

R u b in s te in Va ria t io n : Fo u rth M o ve A l tern a t ives

E12} s . . . tt:'lxf6 9 dxcs 'ii'as+ T.Krempel-S.Muck, correspondence

1990, continued 9 . . . 0-0 10 �d2 �xeS 1 1 0-0-0 'ifb6 1 2 tt:'lg5 �xf2?! (12 . . . h6 1 3 h4 �xf2 14 �dfl �d4 15 c3 'ifc7 16 g4 was the lesser evil, but White still has the initiative) 13 lldfl .i.d4 14 c3 h6 15 tt:'le4 and Black resigned, as 15 . . . .i.e5 can be met by 16 tt:'lxf6+ .i.xf6 17 llxf6 gxf6 18 'ii'g4+ 'ifilh8 19 .i.xh6 l:tg8 20 'ii'h4.

Admitting a loss of tempo with 9 . . . .i.xc5 10 0-0 transposes to Chapter 22, Line Cl . 10 c3 'ii'xcs 11 .i.e3

11 • • • 1Was After 1 1 . . .'ii'h5 12 .i.d4 .i.d7 13 tt'le5

'ii'xe2+ 14 .i.xe2 tt:'ld5?! 15 tt:'lxd7 'it'xd7 (M.Maka-M.Szymanski, Wisla 2000) 16 .i.xg7! �g8 17 .i.e5 White wins a pawn for nothing as 17 . . . .l:.xg2? loses the ex­change after 18 .i.g3.

White obtained a pleasant advan­tage in H.Proehl-M.Mueller, German League 1995, after l l . . . 'ii'c7 12 .i.d4 .i.d7 13 'ii'e5! 'iixe5+ 14 tt:'lxe5 0-0 15 0-0-0. 12 .i.d4 a6 13 o-o o-o 14 .i.c2 .l:.eS

Or 14 .. J::td8 15 tt'le5 .i.d7 16 'ii'e3! (in­tending .i.b6) 16 . . . tt'ld5 17 'ii'h3 h6

(17 . . . g6? 18 tt:'lxg6! fxg6 19 �xg6) 18 'ii'd3 tt:'lf6 19 b4! 'ii'd5 20 c4 'ii'd6 21 tt:'lg4 and White wins. 15 tt:Jesl 'ii'c7 16 l:tfd1

White enjoys a clear advantage here, as Black has no easy way to con­tinue his development. For example, 16 . . . .i.d6 (16 . . . b6? 17 tt:'lc4; 16 . . . b5? 17 a4! b4 18 cxb4 .i.xb4 19 .l::tacl 'ifb7 20 tt:'lg4 tt:'lxg4 21 .i.e4; 16 . . . l:td8 17 'ii'e3! ) 17 h3 .i.d7 18 a4! .i.c6? 19 tt:'lxc6 'Wxc6 20 .i.xf6 gxf6 21 'ii'd3 and White wins.

E2} 1 ... o-o s ..tgs!

White continues to hinder the de­velopment of the c8-bishop.

2 89

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

s . . . cs Here's a summary of other options: a) 8 . . . b6?? loses to 9 lt:Jxf6+ lt:Jxf6 10

i.xf6 i.xf6 11 'ii'e4. b) 8 . . . lt:Jxe4?! 9 'ii'xe4! obliges Black

to weaken his position with 9 . . . g6. For example, 10 h4 c5 (10 . . . e5 1 1 0-0-0! is very good for White; 10 . . . lt:Jf6 1 1 i.xf6 i.xf6 12 h5 'ii'd5 13 'ii'f4 i.g7 14 hxg6 hxg6 was M.lllescas Cordoba-Falcon, Benasque 1983, and here 15 lt:Je5!? c5 16 'ii'h4 .l:.d8 17 'ii'h7+ <t>f8 18 lt:Jxf7 <t>x£7 19 'ii'xg6+ <t>f8 20 l:.h3 i.xd4 21 0-0-0 would force Black to resign) 11 0-0-0 lt:Jf6 12 ..i.xf6 .i.xf6 13 dxc5 'ii'c7 (13 . . . 'ii'a5 14 h5! 'ii'xa2 15 c3 'ii'a5 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 'ii'f4 .i.g7 18 lt:Je5 wins for White) 14 h5 with a strong attack, J.Juan Roldan-A.Alvarez Cigarria, As­turias 1986.

c) 8 . . . h6 is weakening, and White can gain a clear plus after 9 lt:Jxf6+ lt:Jxf6 (9 . . . .i.xf6? 10 'ii'e4 l:te8 1 1 'ii'h7+ <t>£8 12 .i.d2! b6 13 i.e4 l:.tb8 14 i.c6 was win-ning for White in S.Nazarevskiy­D.Logozinsky, Mariupol 2003) 10 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 11 'ii'e4 g6 12 h4

'ifxc7 i.xd4 15 lt:Jxd4 'ii'xd4 16 0-0-0 'ii'xf2 17 h5 enables White to organize a dangerous attack - Khalifman) 13 h5 f5 14 'ii'e3 g5 (I.Hausner-P.Spacek, Prague 1991) 15 c3! 'ii'd5 (15 . . . g4?! 16 lt:Jh4!) 16 0-0 f4 (16 . . . g4 17 lt:Je5 c5 18 i.c4) 17 'ii'e2 g4 18 lt:Je5 f3 19 'ii'e4 'ii'xe4 20 i.xe4.

d) 8 . . . l:.e8 9 lt:Jxf6+ i.xf6 10 h4! c5 1 1 0-0-0 cxd4 12 lt:Jxd4 h6!? (after 12 . . . i.xg5+?! 13 hxg5 'ii'xg5+ 14 <t>b1 lt:Jf6 15 lt:Jf3 'ii'c5 16 lt:Je5 h6 17 g4 lt:Jd7 18 f4 lt:Jxe5 19 fxe5 White had a win­ning attack in P.Anisimov­V.Shuvatkin, St Petersburg 2005, as 20 g5 is coming) 13 i.xf6 lt:Jxf6 14 g4! e5 15 lt:Jf5 i.xf5 16 i.xf5 'ii'a5 17 g5! e4! 18 gxf6 'Wxf5 19 fxg7 <t>xg7! 20 'ii'e3! and White is slightly better.

e) 8 . . . lt:Jd5 9 0-0-0 lt:Jb4!? (this may be the best try: 9 . . . i.xg5+? 10 lt:Jexg5 lt:J7f6 11 lt:Je5 aS 12 h4 lt:Jf4 was D.Pirrot­L.Amling, St Ingbert 1988, and here 13 i.xh7+! lt:Jxh7 14 'i'e4 lt:Jxg5 15 hxg5 lt:Jg6 16 'ii'g4 wins for White; 9 . . . e5?! 10 i.c4! c6 1 1 dxe5 lt:Jxe5 12 i.xd5 cxd5 13 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 14 lt:Jc3 lt:Jc6 15 'i'xe7 lt:Jxe7 16 lt:Jxd5 won a pawn for White in S.Gligoric-F.Planas Garcia, Havana 1952; and 9 . . . f6 10 i.d2 .l:i.f7 11 g4! in­tends g4-g5 with a strong attack) 10 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 1 1 c3 lt:Jxd3+ 12 'ii'xd3 l:.td8 (planning to meet lt:Jeg5 with . . . lt:Jf8) 13 h4! and White has the initiative. 9 dxcs lt:Jxcs

9 . . . lt:Jd5 10 h4! ? is good for White: 10 . . . f6 (White has the initiative after 10 . . . 'Wa5+ 1 1 i.d2! 'ii'c7 12 0-0-0 lt:Jxc5 13 lt:Jxc5 i.xc5 14 g4!, as 14 . . . lt:Jf4? is not possible in view of 15 i.xh7+ <t>xh7 16

12 . . . i.g7 (12 . . . 'Wd5 13 'ii'f4 <t>g7 14 'ii'e4+ f5 17 lt:Jg5+ <t>g8 18 i.xf4) 11 0-0-0!

2 9 0

R u b in s te in Va ria t io n : Fo u rth M o ve A ltern a t ives

fxg5 (or l l . . . 'ifa5 12 lbc3! lbxc3 13 'ifxe6+ 'it>h8 14 'ifxe7 lbxa2+!? [14 . . . lbxd1? 15 ii.h6! l:tg8 16 lbg5 is win­ning for White - Khalifman] 15 �b1 lbb4 16 ii.c4 l[)c6 17 'ifd6 'ii'xc5 18 'ii'xc5 l[)xc5 19 J.e3) 12 l[)exg5 l[)f4 (12 . . . �h8 13 l[)xe6 l[)f4 14 l[)xf4 l:.xf4 15 .i.b5 .i.xc5 16 'ii'e5 is also good for White) 13 'ii'e4 g6 (13 . . . l[)xd3+? loses to 14 l:.xd3 g6 15 Wxe6+ �h8 16 l[)xh7! �xh7 17 h5 g5 18 l:.hd1) 14 l[)xe6! l[)xe6 (or 14 . . . l[)xd3+ 15 Wxd3 Was 16 'ii'c4) 15 Wxe6+ �g7 16 .i.b5 l:.xf3 17 gxf3 l[)f8 18 'iVe4 'ii'c7 19 l:.d7! J.xd7 20 'ii'xe7+ c;i>h6 21 W£7! prevents . . . 'ii'f4+ and gives White a winning advantage as l:.d1 is coming. 10 l[)xcs Was+

The alternative is to accept a loss of tempo with the bishop by 10 . . . .i.xc5 1 1 0-0-0 and now:

a) ll .. .'ii'e7 12 l[)eS l:.d8 13 l[)g4 l:td5 14 l[)xf6+ gxf6 15 J.h6 f5 ('Lydeking'­'Gelus', Internet 2001) 16 .i.xf5! wins for White as 16 . . . l:.xf5 is met by 17 Wg4+.

b) l l . . . Wb6 12 .i.xf6 gxf6 13 l[)eS! f5 (if 13 . . . fxe5 then 14 .i.xh7+ �xh7 15

'it'hS+ 'itlg7 16 'ifg5+ 'itlh7 17 l:td3) 14 g4 .i.xf2 15 l[)c4 (to rule out any . . . 'ii'e3 ideas) 15 . . . Wc5 16 gxf5 exf5 17 c3 and White had a winning advantage in A.Zapata-G.Gonzalez, Valencia 1990.

c) 1 1 . . .'ii'c7 12 .i.xf6 'ii'f4+ (12 . . . gxf6 13 We4 f5 14 Wh4 We7 15 Wh3 - intend­ing g2-g4 -15 .. .£6 16 l:he1! threatens 17 J.c4 with a clear advantage: now that Black has opened the seventh rank, g2-g4 is not so strong, and it is better to change plan and attack the e6-pawn) 13 l[)d2 gxf6 14 .i.xh7+ �g7 15 .i.d3 l:.h8 16 �b1 'iVxf2 17 'ii'g4+ �f8 (Wang Yu­N.Kiseleva, Moscow 2001 ) 18 l[)f3 and White has a clear advantage because his pieces are more active and Black's king is unsafe. 11 c3 Wxcs 12 o-o-ol

This position is the 'tabiya' of the 4 . . . .i.e7 variation. 12 . . . h6

Here are some alternatives for Black:

a) 12 . . . b5? 13 J.xf6 .i.xf6 14 'ii'e4 g6 15 Wxa8 b4 16 c4 was a quick win for the legendary Fischer in a simultane­ous game against Kral (Cicero 1964) .

2 9 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

b) 12 . . . Ji.d7 also fails due to a tactic: 13 ii.xf6 ii.xf6 14 ii.xh7+ 'it>xh7 15 ltxd7. In V.Kotronias-E.Grivas, Athens 1988, Black tried to find counterplay based on . . . b5-b4, but this is too optimistic, and after 15 . . . b5 16 'ir'e3! 'ir'c6 17 l:l.hd1 'it>g8 18 g4 g6 Vassilios could have con­solidated his advantage with 19 'ir'f4 .tg7 20 J:l.c7 'ir'b6 21 :Z.dd7.

c) 12 . . . ltd8 also seems to fail tacti­cally, but things are less clear here and some accuracy by White is required: 13 .txf6 .txf6 (or 13 . . . gxf6?! 14 g4! 'it>h8 15 'ii'e4 fS 16 'ir'f4! l:tg8 17 gxfS exfS 18 .tc4 .te6 19 .txe6 fxe6 20 lthe1) 14 .txh7+ 'it>xh7 (14 . . . 'it>f8 15 l:txd8+ .txd8 16 'ir'd2 .tf6 17 Ad1 eS 18 lt:JgS was also much better for White in V.Kotrotsos­I.Poteas, Athens 2000) 15 :Z.xd8 .txd8 16 'ii'd3+ 'ii'fS 17 'ii'xd8 bS 18 'ii'e7 'ii'f4+ 19 li:Jd2 aS 20 g3 'ii'fS 21 ltd1 b4 22 'ii'h4+ 'it>g8 23 'ir'e4 'ir'xe4 24 lt:Jxe4 .tb7 25 lt:Jd6 was clearly better for White in J.Polgar-M.Rayo Gutierrez, San Sebas­tian 1991 .

d) 12 . . . a5 13 h4 a4 14 a3! (this is a key response to the . . . a5-a4 idea)

Ji.xh7+, as in J .Bednarski-P.Knudsen, Esbjerg 1980, is a trap we've already seen; 14 . . . lt:Jd5?! 15 .txe7 lt:Jxe7 16 'ife4 fS 17 'ii'd4 gives White a clear advan­tage, as 17 . . . 'ii'xd4 18 lt:Jxd4 eS can be met by 19 .tc4+ 'it>h8 20 lthe1 e4 21 f3; 14 . . . 'ir'c7 15 'it>b1 ! ? is slightly better for White) 15 'it>b1 ! ? (removing the king from the c1 -h6 diagonal creates a hid­den threat. . . ) 15 . . . b6?! 16 .txf6 .txf6 17 lt:JgS! ( . . . as the knight cannot be cap­tured with check) 17 . . . h6 (or 17 . . . g6 18 lt:Je4 'ii'e7 19 hS) 18 lt:Jh7 .:te8 19 lt:Jxf6+ gxf6 20 'ir'g4+ 'it>f8 21 'ir'f4 with a big advantage for White, T.Van Scheltinga­P.Biscay, correspondence 1948 .

e) The exchange of dark-squared bishops seems to favour White, who obtained a clear plus in the game Ma.Tseitlin-S.Kataev, Israel 1996, after 12 . . . lt:Jg4 13 .txe7 'ir'xe7 14 'ir'e4 fS 15 'ir'e2 .td7 16 h3 lt:Jh6 17 .:.he1 .l:tae8 18 lt:JeS .tc8 19 f4 a6 20 .tc4, as the e6-pawn is very weak.

f) 12 . . . lt:Jd5 13 .txe7 lt:Jxe7 (13 . . . Wxe7? runs into 14 .txh7+ ..t>xh7 15 .l:txdS) 14 h4 li:JdS! (14 . . . h6?! 15 g4! immediately shows the drawback of . . . h6) 15 lt:JgS h6 16 .th7+ ..t>h8 17 .tc2 .td7 (A.Zubarev-S.Stysiak, Wroclaw 2005) 18 .l:td4!? is slightly better for White.

g) 12 . . . Wa5 13 .tb1 ! h6 14 .th4! .l:.d8 15 lt:JeS 'ir'a4 16 ltxd8+ .txd8 17 ltd1 .tc7 18 ltd4 was clearly better for White in an all-computer clash be­tween Kallisto 66 and Fritz 3 . 13 h41?

White must keep the tension as 14 . . . .l:ta5 (14 . . . l:.d8? 15 .txf6 .txf6 16 much as he possibly can.

2 9 2

R u b i n s te in Va riat io n : Fo u rth M o ve A ltern a t ives

13 ... .td71 Black has to quickly put his bishop

on c6 in order to defend against White's basic plan of g2-g4. Here are the other possibilities:

a) 13 . . . hxg5? 14 hxg5 tl)g4 15 .i.h7+ <ilih8 16 We4 tl)h6 17 gxh6 g6 18 .i.xg6 fxg6 19 tl)e5 .l:lg8 20 h7 .l:.g7 21 f4 Wc7 22 Wxg6 led to a spectacular win for White in W.Bareiss-D.Hudak, corre­spondence 1994.

b) 13 ... tl)g4?! 14 .i.xe7 Wxe7 15 �5 tl)xe5 16 Wxe5 .i.d7 17 'ii'e4 f5 18 Wxb7 .l:.ab8 (N.Pedersen-N.Nilsson, Danish League 1996) 19 Wxa7! .l:.a8 20 Wd4 is very good for White (20 . . . .l:lxa2? 21 .i.b1).

c) 13 . . . tl)d5 14 .txe7 Wxe7 (14 . . . tl)xe7 15 g4) 15 .tc2! 'ii'c7! (15 . . . tl)f6 16 tl)es b5 17 g4 .ltb7 18 .l:.hg1 is virtually winning for White) 16 g4! Wf4+ 17 <iitb1 Wxg4 18 l:lhg1 'ii'h5 19 We4 and White has a strong attack.

d) 13 . . . l:ld8 14 tl)e5 l::td5 (14 . . . <ii?f8 15 .tf4 tl)dS? led to a quick and spectacu­lar win for White in 'Hkl' -'Ulibear', Internet 2003, after 16 'ii'h5! g6 17 .ltxh6+ <ii?e8 18 Wxg6!) 15 f4 and now:

d1) V.Huuskonen-B.Jaderholm, cor­respondence 1992, continued 15 . . . a5? 16 g4 .i.d6 17 .i.xf6 gxf6 18 g5! .txe5 19 fxe5 .l:.xe5 20 'ii'h5 'ii'f8 21 l:lhg1 <ii?h8 22 .i.c2! and Black resigned as there is no defence against 23 .l:.d8.

d2) 15 . . . Wc7 16 .txf6 .i.xf6 17 'ii'e4 g6 (17 . . . .txe5 18 fxe5 1i'xe5 19 'ii'h7+ <ilif8 20 g4! gives White a strong attack) 18 h5 .i.xe5 19 fxe5 Wxe5 (19 . . . .l:lxe5? 20 'iVf4) 20 hxg6 1i'xe4 21 gx£7+ <il?x£7 22 .i.xe4 .l:.xd1+ 23 %:txd1 and White has a clear advantage in the endgame according to Khalifman: l:ld8 is threatened and 23 . . . <ii?e7 loses the h6-pawn after 24 l:lh1 . 14 g41

2 9 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

Time i s the important factor with at­tacks on opposite wings, and so White pushes his pawns as quickly as possi­ble. 14 ... ..tc61?

I think this is the best reply: a) It's still unwise to accept the sac­

rifice. If 14 . . . hxg5?! 15 hxg5 :fd8! (15 .. . liJd5? 16 ..th7+ �h8 17 'iffl ! ) 16 gxf6 ..txf6 17 :h5 'ifc7 White has a strong attack that Black can only parry by accepting a clearly worse endgame after 18 g5 'iff4+ 19 'ife3! 'ifxe3+ 20 fxe3 ..tc6 21 :dh1 g6 22 gxf6! gxh5 23 :g1 + �f8 (or 23 . . . �h8 24 ltJe5) 24 ltJe5 :xd3 25 ltJxd3, when Black's king is in a mat­ing net and there's the constant threat of .:tg7 and ltJe5.

b) 14 . . . ltJxg4!? is not - as Khalifman claimed - dubious, because great accu­racy is needed to prove an advantage: 15 l::thg1 ! (Khalifman gives 15 i.xe7 'ifxe7 16 l:thg1 but Black is okay after 16 . . . e5! 17 'ife4 liJf6! 18 'ifxe5 'ifxe5 19 ltJxe5 i.e6) 15 . . . i.xg5+! (15 . . . hxg5?! 16 .!:!.xg4 and 15 . . . e5? ! 16 i.h7+ �xh7 17 .l:!.xd7 are both good for White) 16 ltJxg5 ltJe5 (16 . . . liJf6?! 17 ltJe4 ltJxe4 18 'ifxe4 f5 19 'ifxb7 .l:tad8 20 'ii'g2! .l:tf7 21 ..tc2 Itb8 22 ..tb3 is also good for White) 17 ltJe4! 'ife7! (17 . . . 'ifc7? is met by 18 liJd6! 'ii'c5 19 i.c2 i.c6 20 l:.g3 intending f2-f4) 18 ltJg3 gives White good compen­sation for the sacrificed pawn. He has ideas based on ltJh5, or i.b1 followed by f2-f4, while 18 . . . liJxd3+? loses to 19

2 94

.l:!.xd3! �h8 20 4:Jh5 .l:!.g8 21 'ife5. c) After 14 . . . .l:.fc8 15 �b1 ..ta4 16

.:td2 White has the initiative according to Khalifman. He also gives 15 . . . hxg5?! 16 hxg5 ltJd5 1 7 i.h7+ �f8 18 i.e4 �g8? 19 ..txd5 exd5 20 'ifd3 g6 21 ltJe5 i.e6 22 'ifh3 and White wins. However, 18 . . . ltJxc3+! is stronger, and after 19 bxc3 ..td6 20 g6! �e7 21 Wd2 i.a4 22 :ct White has the advantage as his king is safer than Black's. 15 ..te3 Was 16 gs ltJds 17 ..td21?

17 gxh6? is met by 17 .. . ltJxc3!; while 17 �b1 ltJxe3 18 fxe3 h5 19 liJd4 g6 is unclear. 11 ... Wxa2 18 ..tb1 Wa1 19 ltJes

White has excellent compensation for the pawn according to Khalifman, although there is still much to play for. White enjoys an initiative as he has already managed g4-g5, but Black is a pawn up and has interesting tactical ideas based on . . . l:tac8, . . . ..ta3 and even . . . ltJxc3 in some cases.

C h a pte r Twe nty-Two

Ru binstei n Va riatio n : 4 . . .lbd 7

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 lL!d2 dxe4 4 lLlxe4 lLld7

4 . . . lLld7 is the most popular move in the Rubinstein. Black wants to ex­change the e4-knight in the most natu­ral way, without damaging his pawn structure or losing time with his queen. After the exchange of knights Black will concentrate on the basic pawn break . . . c5 . 5 lLlf3 lLlgf6

5 . . . c5? ! transposes to 3 . . . c5 4 lLlgf3 dxe4 5 lLlxe4 lLld7 (see Chapter 8, Line B). 6 i.d3

This is the best move. White contin­ues to develop and waits for the right moment to exchange on f6. Now we have:

A: 6 • • • b6 B: 6 • • • lLlxe4 C: 6 • • • cs

A) 6 ... b6

Black wants to solve the problem of the c8-bishop as quickly as possible. In this position, ideas we've seen based on a quick lLle5 followed by i.b5+ no longer work because of the lost tempo i.fl-d3-b5. 7 ._e2!

'White must play extremely pre­cisely if he wishes to obtain maximal dividends out of his lead in develop­ment. Therefore, he should opt for a position with opposite side castling.' (Khalifman)

2 9 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

7 ... �b7 8 lDxf6+ lDxf6 After 8 . . . 'ii'xf6? 9 �g5 �xf3 10 'ii'e3!

Black loses his queen - a trap that has caught out many players. 9 �gs �e7

9 . . . h6 10 �xf6 gxf6 (10 ... 'iixf6?! 1 1 �b5+! c6 12 ltJe5 l:.c8 13 d5! gives White the initiative) 1 1 0-0-0 'ii'd6 (1 1 . . . 'ii'd5?! 12 �c4 'ii'e4 13 �b5+ �d8 14 'ii'd2 is better for White as Black's king is un­safe in the middle of the board) 12 �a6! (eliminating Black's bishop pair) 12 . . . 0-0-0 13 l:the1 c6 14 �b1 �g7 15 �xb7+ �xb7 16 c4 f5 17 d5!? cxd5 18 cxd5 exd5 19 'ii'e7+ 'ii'c7 (19 . . . �b8 20 'iVxd6+ .l:txd6 21 ltJh4 is slightly better for White) 20 ltJh4 �f8 21 'iVxc7+ �xc7 22 l:.e5 �c6 23 lDxf5!? l:.g8! 24 g3 .l::.g6 25 ltJe7+ �xe7 26 ltxe7 l:.f6 27 f4 left White with a small but lasting advan­tage in R.Pietrzak-S.Ciesla, correspon­dence 1994. 10 0-0-0

10 ... 0-0 Alternatively: a) 10 . . . ltJg4?! 11 �xe7 'iVxe7 12 �e4

c6 13 ltJe5 lDxe5 14 dxe5 0-0 15 .l:.d6 .l:.ad8 16 l:.hd1 (Khalifman) is clearly

2 9 6

better for White, who dominates the d­file.

b) If Black pursues the exchanging policy by playing 10 . . . ltJd7, then 1 1 h4! ? �xf3 12 'iVxf3 �xg5+ 13 hxg5 'ii'xg5+ 14 �b1 lld8 (E.Sutovsky-V.Akopian, Moscow (rapid) 2002) 15 .:th5 'iVf6 16 'ii'e3 promises White good compensa­tion for the sacrificed pawn according to Sutovsky.

c) 10 . . . ltJd5 1 1 h4!? and now: cl ) 11 . . . �xg5+? 12 hxg5 lDf4 13 'iVe5

ltJxd3+ (13 . . . �xf3 14 gxf3 ltJxd3+ 15 .l:.xd3 'iVd5 16 'iixg7 0-0-0 17 b3! l::tdg8 18 'iVxf7 .l:.xg5 19 ltxh7 is also good for White) 14 .:.xd3 0-0 (Z.Zhao....­I.Zvedeniouk, Canberra 2004) 15 d5! 'iVd6 16 'iVe4 g6 17 'ii'h4 h5 18 gxh6 with a decisive attack.

c2) 1 1 . . .'ii'd6?! 12 ltJe5 ltJb4 13 �b5+!? c6 14 �c4 l:[d8 15 c3 ltJd5 16 'ii'h5 is good for White.

c3) 1 1 . . .h6?! is met by 12 �d2!, after which short castling for Black is dan­gerous because of g4-g5 and �xh6 ideas.

B.Roselli Mailhe-M.Freire, Embalse 1981, continued 12 . . . 'ii'd6 13 ltJe5 (pre-

venting 13 . . . 0-0-0) 13 . . . .:tf8 (13 . . . 0-0? is punished by 14 �xh6! gxh6 15 'ifg4+ 'it>h8 16 'ifh5 'it>g7 17 l::.h3) and here 14 .i.a6! 0-0-0 15 .i.xb7+ 'it>xb7 16 c4 tLlf6 17 .i.f4 would have left Black with un­solvable problems.

c4) 1 l . . .t2Jb4!? 12 .i.e4 .i.xe4 13 'ii'xe4 'ifd5 14 'ifxd5 tLlxd5 15 c4 tLlf6 16 :he1 c6 17 d5! was better for White in C.Marzolo-T.Gouret, French League 1998.

d) Black can also simplify with 10 . . . .i.xf3 1 1 'ifxf3 'ifd5 but following 12 'ifxd5 tLlxd5 13 .i.b5+ 'it>f8 14 .i.d2 White has proved in many games that he has the advantage thanks to the bishop pair.

e) 10 . . . 'ifd6 1 1 t2Je5 0-0 12 'it>b1 :adS (V.Topalov-R.Vaganian, Novgorod 1995) 13 llhe1 ! ? (.Khalifman's 13 .i.f4 is not clear after 13 . . . t2Jd5!) 13 . . . c5 14 dxc5 'ifxc5 15 f4 h6 16 .i.h4 intends g4-g5 and is better for White.

f) 10 . . . 'ifd5 1 1 'it>b1

and now: fl ) 1 1 . . .0-0-0?! 12 t2Je5 :df8 (Black

defends with this rook, as 12 . . . llhf8 13 f3 'it>b8 can be met by 14 .i.xh7 g6 15 h4)

R u b in s te in Va ria t io n : 4 . . .tiJ d 7

13 f3 'it>b8 1 4 .i.b5 'it>a8 15 c4 'ifd6 16 c5! bxc5 17 dxc5 'ifxc5 (Limbos-Ferry, Bruges 1961) 18 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 19 t2Jd7 'iff5+ 20 .i.d3 and White wins the ex­change.

f2) 1 l . . .h6 is met by 12 .i.f4! 0-0-0 13 c4! .

f3) 1 1 . . .0-0 12 h4 with a further branch:

f31 ) 12 . . . c5? 13 .i.xf6! .i.xf6 14 tLlg5 h6 15 .i.h7+ 'it>h8 16 .i.e4 Wd7 17 dxc5 Wc7 18 .i.xb7 'ifxb7 19 Wd3 g6 20 'ii'd7 wins for White (.Khalifman).

f32) 12 . . . 'ii'a5? 13 tLle5 .:tad8 14 tLlg4 'it>h8 15 tLlxf6 .i.xf6 16 .i.xf6 gxf6 17 We3 f5 (if 17 . . . 'ifh5 18 'ii'f4) 18 'ifh6 f6 (if 18 . . . 'ii'd5 19 'ii'f6+ 'it>g8 20 llh3) 19 l:.he1 was very good for White in A.Martin­F.Mojano Morales, Barcelona 1984, as it is not easy for Black to protect the e6-pawn.

f33) 12 . . . h6?! 13 t2Je5! .l:tfd8 14 f3 l:tab8 O.Jagodzinska-B.Kaczorowska, Bydgoszcz 1990) 15 g4! is very good for White.

f34) 12 . . . :fd8 13 c4 Wd6 14 l:.he1 h6 15 .i.cl .i.f8 16 tLle5 tLld7 17 g4 gave White a strong attack in D.Bronstein-

2 9 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

I.Kan, Moscow 1947. f35) 12 . . . l:.fe8 13 tt:'le5 l1ad8 14 l1he1

a6 (14 .. .'ii'xg2 15 l:tg1 'ii'd5 16 ..th6 g6 17 h5 is winning for White) 15 ..tc4 'ii'e4 16 'ii'd2 'ii'xg2 17 'ii'f4 c5 18 d5! ..txd5 19 ..tfl 'ifh1 (P.Kondratiev-A.Beliavsky, Leningrad 1966) 20 ..td3! 'ifh3 21 l:te3 'ii'g2 22 l:!g3 wins Black's queen.

g) After 10 . . . h6 1 1 ..td2! Black doesn't want to castle kingside, but it's not easy to find an alternative plan. For example, 1 l . . .a6 (if ll . . . 'ii'd5 12 c4 'ii'h5?! White can play the thematic pawn break 13 d5!, and 13 . . . exd5 14 l:.he1 tt:'lg8 15 ..tc3 'ii?f8 16 'ii?b1 ! ..tf6 17 ..txf6 gxf6 18 h3 intending 19 g4 gave White a very dangerous attack in V.Kotronias-I.Kourkounakis, Gausdal 1990; 1 1 . . .0-0 12 'ii?b1 ! c5 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 tt:'le5 'ii'c7 was M.Borzakian­Y.Borisov, Paris 2002, and here 15 f4 l:.fd8 16 llhe1 �ab8 17 g4 gives White a strong initiative) 12 c4 b5 was A.Tzermiadianos-N.Managadze, Ath­ens Akropolis 2004.

Here I should have played 13 c5!? 'ii'd5 14 'ii?b1 0-0-0 (14 . . . 0-0 15 ..ta5! l:tac8 16 tt:'le5 l:!.fd8 17 f3 is very good for

2 9 8

White, as the aS-bishop stops the en­emy pawns from coming forward and White can easily build up his attack) 15 tt:'le5 l:thf8 16 f3 'ii?b8 (16 . . . 'ii'xd4? 17 c6! .taB 18 ..tc2 'ii'c5 19 tt:'lxf7 wins for White) 17 ..tc2. Khalifman rightly judges this to be clearly in White's fa­vour, as after ..tb3 Black's position will look rather miserable. 11 'ii?b11

White must prevent .. . c5 at all costs. 11 ... tt:'ld5

Alternatively: a) ll . . . c5? ! is not possible now, as af­

ter 12 dxc5 'ii'c7 13 tt:'le5! Black has problems. For example, 13 . . . bxc5 (if 13 . . . 'ii'xc5?!, then 14 ..txf6 ..txf6 15 tt:'ld7 'ii'b4 16 c3! ? ..txc3 17 tt:'lxf8 l:txf8 18 a3 'ii'b3 19 'ii'c2 'ii'xc2+ 20 ..txc2 ..tf6 21 f3 is the easiest route to a clear advantage; after 13 . . . l:tad8! ? 14 c6 ..txc6 15 tt:'lxc6 'ii'xc6 16 l:the1 White has a small but lasting plus thanks to his bishop pair, and here 16 . . . 'ii'xg2? loses to 17 l:tg1 'ii'c6 18 ..th6 tt:'le8 19 l:txg7+! tt:'lxg7 20 'ii'g4) 14 ..txf6 ..txf6 15 tt:'ld7 l:tfd8 16 tt:'lxf6+ gxf6 17 'ii'g4+ 'ii?f8 18 'ii'h4! 'ii?e7 (so far this is M.Vachier Lagrave-R.

Ferry, Van d'Isere 2002) and now White should play 19 f3! . 'White's ad­vantage is overwhelming, due to the vulnerable placement of Black's king and his compromised pawn­structure . . . ' (Khalifman) .

b) 1 l . . ."ifc8?! (preparing . . . c5 but. . . ) 12 lLle5! c5? (12 . . . .:d8? 13 i.xf6 i.xf6 14 i.xh7+!) 13 dxc5 bxc5 14 i.xf6 i.xf6 (or 14 . . . gxf6 15 i.xh7+ <il>xh7 16 "ifh5+ <il>g7 17 l:.d3) 15 lL!d7 l:.d8 16 lL!xf6+ gxf6 17 "ifg4+ <il>h8 18 "ifh5 f5 19 "ifxf7 and White wins.

c) 1 l . . .i.xf3?! 12 "ifxf3 "ifd5 13 'ii'g3! is very strong, as after 13 . . . lLJh5? White has 14 i.xh7+ <il>h8 15 i.xe7 lL!xg3 16 hxg3 f5 (if 16 . . . "ifd7? there follows 17 i.g5! f6 18 i.g6+ <il>g8 19 l:.h7! .!:!.fd8 20 lldh1 <ii>f8 21 i.xf6! gxf6 22 .l:lxd7 J:lxd7 23 l:th8+ <il>g7 24 .l:lh7+ <ii>xg6 25 .l:lxd7 with a winning endgame) 17 f3! g6! 18 i.xg6+ <il>g8 (or 18 . . . <il>g7? 19 :h7+ <ii>xg6 20 l;Idh1 and Black gets mated) 19 .l:f.h7! c5 20 g4! and he will soon win.

d) 1 l . . .a5!? 12 lLJe5 a4 13 a3 guaran­tees White a small advantage (Khalif­man) . 12 h4

R u b in s te in Va ria t io n : 4 . . . lU d 7

12 . . . 'ii'd61? 12 . . . h6?! only weakens the king, and

following 13 c4! lL!f6 14 g4! b5! (14 . . . lL!xg4? 15 d5! ) 15 i.xf6 i.xf6 16 g5 bxc4 17 i.e4 �xe4+ 18 "ifxe4 .lte7 19 gxh6 'ii'd5 20 'ii'e3 White's attack is quicker than Black's.

12 . . . lLJb4 tries to relieve pressure via exchanges: 13 .ltxe7 'ii'xe7 (13 . . . .ltxf3 14 'ii'xf3 'ii'xe7 15 .lte4 I:tad8 16 l:[he1 'ii'd6 17 c3 lLJd5 18 g4 was clearly better for White in J.Salai-M.Tavecchia, corre­spondence 2001) 14 lL!g5 lL!xd3 15 "ifxd3 g6 16 f4! (supporting the knight and also threatening h4-h5) 16 . . . h5! (16 . . . .ltxg2? 17 l:th2 .ltb7 18 h5! ) 17 .l:lhg1 <il>g7 (I .Johannsson-H.Besser, Halle 1967) and now White should continue with 18 "ife2! 'ii'f6 (18 . . . l:!h8? 19 d5! ) 19 g4 hxg4 20 "ifxg4 .l:.h8 (20 . . . "iif5 21 "iig3 .l:lh8 22 .l:lge1 <il>f8 23 .l:r.e5 "iif6 24 c4 .l:ld8 25 d5 is crushing) 21 h5 "iff5 (or 2l . . .l:.xh5 22 lLlxe6+ <il>h8 23 lL!g5 .ltd5 24 .l:.ge1 .l:ld8 25 l:te5) 22 'ii'xf5 exf5 23 hxg6 fxg6 24 d5 with a clear advantage. 13 lL!es lL!b4

14 .Jtxe7 14 'ii'g4!? is also reasonable.

2 9 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

14 .. .'il'xe7 15 �e4 �xe4 16 'ii'xe4 tDds 16 . . . c5? ! 17 dxc5 bxc5 18 l:td7 is ob­

viously in White's favour. 17 C4 ltJf6

(B.Spassky-Schoenhof, 1996) 18 'ii'c61 'ii'd6 19 l:.he1

Burbach

'The position has been simplified considerably, but Black is still far from equality, because he cannot easily or­ganize the pawn-advance c7-c5.' (Khalifman)

B) 6 ... tDxe4 7 �xe4 tDf6 After 7 . . . �d6 White's most logical

reaction is 8 'ii'e2, keeping all options open. Following 8 . . . 0-0 (8 . . . tDf6? 9 �xb7!) 9 �g5 �e7 (or 9 . . . tDf6 10 0-0-0) 10 h4 White has the initiative (Khalif­man). 8 �g51

White tries to complete his devel­opment as quickly as possible. Now Black can play:

81: 8 ... h6?1 82: 8 ... .ie7 83: 8 ... 'ii'd61?

3 0 0

81) 8 . . . h6? ! 9 �xf6 White's strategy is based on his lead

in development, so he mustn't waste any time. 9 ... 'ii'xf6

After 9 . . . gxf6 10 'ii'e2 White threatens the usual 1 1 .ixb7. J.Nunez Munoz­J.Hemadez Yanez, Madrid 2001, con­tinued 10 . . . c5 (10 . . . 'ii'd6 11 0-0-0 .ig7 12 �b1 0-0 13 g4! f5 14 gxf5 exf5 15 .id3 .ie6 16 l:thg1 l:tae8 17 .ic4! is clearly better for White; if 10 . . . c6 then 1 1 0-0! is best, intending a quick attack in the cen­tre with c2-c4 and d4-d5) 11 0-0-0 cxd4 12 l2Jxd4 'ii'b6 13 l:td3 and White enjoyed a tremendous lead in development. 10 'ii'e2

10 ... c6 10 . . . .id6? 11 .ixb7! .ixb7 12 'ii'b5+

�e7 13 'i'xb7 .l:.ab8 14 'i'xa7 'ii'g6 15 0-0 'iixc2 (V.Savon-E.Mochalov, Orel 1998) 16 lDe5! is clearly better for White.

Black can prevent the trick with 10 . . . a6, but this further delays develop­ment. 11 0-0-0 .id6 12 �b1 0-0 13 h4 'iie7 14 g4! f5 15 .id3 .id7? (15 . . . fxg4 was forced but after 16 lDe5 .ixe5 17 dxe5! l:tf4 18 'iie3 'ii'f8 19 .ie4! - prevent-

ing . . . �d7 - 19 . . . l:.xf2 20 .:hg1 Black is suffering) 16 gS was crushing for White in N.Short-Zhu Chen, Gibraltar 2006. 11 tLles

11 . . . i.d7 1 1 . . .l:r.b8 can be met by the very

strong 12 f4!, securing the position of the knight and preparing a pawn storm on the kingside. E.Sutovsky-E.Shachar, Tel Aviv 2002, continued 12 . . . i.b4+ (12 .. .'ii'xf4? 13 g3 'ii'g5 14 0-0 f5 15 i.xf5! exf5 16 tLlg6+ �f7 17 lLlxh8+ �g8 18 'ii'e5 l:r.a8 19 'ii'e8 wins for White) 13 c3 i.d6 14 'ii'e3 'ii'e7 15 0-0-0 i.d7 16 g4! �d8 (16 . . . 0-0? 17 g5) 17 c4 �c7, and here 18 c5! ? i.xe5 19 dxe5 .l:.bd8 20 l:r.d6 g5 21 h4 gxh4 22 'ii'h3 (Finkel) gives White a clear advantage.

1 l . . .i.d6 tries to get rid of the pow­erful knight, but 12 tLlxc6 i.d7 13 tLle5 i.xe5 14 i.xb7 l:r.b8 (14 . . . i.xd4 15 i.xa8 0-0 16 i.e4 i.xb2 17 l:r.d1 i.c3+ 18 �fl l:r.d8 19 g3 gives White the advantage) 15 dxe5 'ii'd8 16 i.e4 ltxb2 17 0-0 i.b5 18 'ii'e3 0-0 (if 18 . . . i.xfl, 19 i.c6+ �f8 20 'ii'a3+) 19 l:tfb1 ltxb1+ 20 lhb1 left White a healthy pawn up in F.Buettner­H.Rochel, correspondence 2001 .

R u b in s te in Va ria t io n : 4 . . .l'i:J d 7

1 2 0-0-01 �d6 1 3 'it>b1 0-0-0 14 f4 �e8 15 h41 'ii'e7 16 g3 'ii'c7 17 tLlc4 i.e7 18 hs

White has a nice advantage, A.Timofeev-A.Rychagov, Sochi 2006. The pawn structure is reminiscent of the 4 . . . i.f5 Caro-Kann, but here Black is saddled with a terrible bishop on e8.

82) 8 . . . i.e7 9 i.xf61 As against 8 . . . h6, White mustn't lose

any time by retreating. g . . . i.xf6

9 . . . gxf6?! is covered in the illustra­tive game Anand-Vaganian, Riga 1995. 10 'ii'd3

3 0 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

White continues his development while again threatening 1 1 i.xb7! . 10 . . . 'ii'd6

Alternatively: a) 10 . . . c5? ! lost a pawn after 1 1 'ii'bS+

in M.Chigorin-E.Schiffers, St Peters­burg 1897.

b) Against 10 . . . h6?!, 1 1 0-0-0! seems the best way to give White the initia­tive.

c) 10 . . . g6?! 1 1 h4! ( 11 i.xb7?! i.xb7 12 'ii'bS+ 'ii'd7 13 Wxb7 0-0 14 0-0 l:!.ab8 15 'ii'xa7 l:txb2 16 c3 'ii'c6 17 'ii'a3 was I.Balinov-J.Ebner, Graz 1999, and after 17 . . . .l:!.fb8! Black might have enough counterplay to hold the draw) 1 l . . .a6 12 hS cS (M.Calizaya-L.Morales, Callao 2007) 13 dxcS! i.xb2 14 .l::tb1 i.f6 (14 . . . 'ii'xd3? 15 cxd3 i.f6 16 i.xb7) 15 tLld2! is good for White, as the monster knight is coming to c4.

d) 10 . . . i.d7! ? (D.King-J.Speelman, London 1985) 11 0-0! i.c6 12 i.xc6+ bxc6 13 b4 0-0 14 l:tfe1 aS 15 a3 is slightly better for White, as Black has no pawn breaks to free his position.

e) 10 . . . c6 1 1 0-0-0 and now:

i.b7 14 i.xh7! won a pawn for White in E.Valderrama-F.Cardona, Cali 1999, as 14 . . . g6 loses to 15 i.xg6 fxg6 16 'ii'xg6+ �e7 17 l:txe6+! .

e2) 1 1 . . .Wa5?! 12 �b1 i.d7 13 lLleS i.xeS 14 dxeS 0-0-0 15 'ii'g3 g6 16 Wf4! i.e8 17 'ii'f6 was much better for White in V.Laznicka-K.Arkell, Fuegen 2006.

e3) 1 l . . .g6 12 h4! 'ifaS 13 �b1 i.d7 14 tLleS l:tf8 15 hS 0-0-0 16 f4 cS 17 tLlc4 'ii'c7 18 dxcS i.c6 19 liJd6+ was terrible for Black in J.Dworakowska-E.Sautter, Dresden 2007.

e4) 1 1 . . . h6 12 �b1 'ii'e7 13 lLleS 0-0 14 f4 cS 15 dxcS 'ii'xcS 16 l:the1 is also bet­ter for White.

eS) 1 l . . .i.d7 12 tLleS g6 13 f4 'ii'e7 (A.Galkin-H.Galavics, Oberwart 1999) 14 h4! i.g7 (14 . . . h5?! 15 'ii'c4 0-0-0 16 l:th3 and 14 . . . 0-0-0? ! 15 l:th3 i.e8 16 'ii'c4 i.g7 17 .l:tb3 both leave White with a dangerous attack) 15 hS and White has the advantage. 11 0-0-0

White castles long, but for Black it's not easy to decide where to put his king.

e1) 1 l . . .'ii'c7? ! 12 �b1 b6 13 l:the1 11 . . . i.d7

3 02

Offering a pawn sacrifice in order to complete development. Alternatives are no better:

a) After 1 l . . .c6?! 12 lbeS iLxeS 13 dxeS 'ji'xd3 14 :xd3 iLd7 15 l:.hd1 l:td8 16 l:.g3 g6 17 c4 iLc8 18 l:.xd8+ c;t>xd8 (M.Ginzburg-R.Galindo, Buenos Aires 1991) 19 l:ta3 a6 20 cS White enjoys a big advantage: all Black's pawns are on the same colour as his bishop, which can only watch the battle from its ini­tial square.

b) 1 l . . .h6 12 lbeS 0-0 13 f4 cS was D.Chuprikov-V .Zankovich, Simferopol 1989, and here 14 'ji'e2 cxd4 15 c3 l:.b8 16 l:txd4 'ji'c7 17 l:thd1 bS 18 c;t>b1 gives White the initiative.

c) 1 l . . .g6 12 'ii'e3 iLd7 13 lDe5 iLc6 14 iLxc6+ bxc6 (L.Sobolevsky-D.Kottwitz, Jena 2005) 15 �f4 iLxeS 16 dxeS 'ii'e7 17 'ii'h6 with a clear plus for White.

d) 1 l . . .c5! ? is the untried suggestion from the computer. White maintains an advantage with 12 1:the1 'ii'b6 (or 12 . . . cxd4 13 lDxd4 iLxd4 14 'ii'xd4 'ji'xd4 15 .U.xd4 c;t>e7 16 ltc4!) 13 lbeS! cxd4 14 f4 h6 15 �c4 0-0 16 .l:txd4. 12 lbes1

12 iLxb7?! .l:i.b8 13 iLe4 cS gave Black counterplay in S.Rublevsky-E.Lobron, Frankfurt (rapid) 2000. 12 ... iLxe5 13 dxes �xd3 14 l:.xd3

(A.Suarez Real-M.Llaneza Vega, Oviedo 2004) 14 ... 0-0-0 15 l:.hd1

Although Black has managed to ex­change some pieces there are still prob­lems to be solved. White threatens iLxb7+, and after 15 . . . c6 16 .l:tf3 iLe8 17 :xd8+ �xd8 18 c;t>d2 Black has to be

R u b in s te in Va ria t i o n : 4 . . .ti:J d 7

extremely careful: .:tg3, lla3 and llb3 are all possible, obliging Black to put his pawns on the same colour as his bishop.

83) 8 ... 'ii'd61? This is a very solid continuation for

Black. 9 iLxf6 gxf6 10 C3 f5

Or: a) After 10 . . . iLg7?! 11 �e2 c6 12 lDd2

iLd7 (M.Kobalija-Zhang Zhong, Khanty Mansiysk 2005) 13 lbc4!? �c7 14 'ifus White has the initiative.

b) 10 . . . iLd7 1 1 lDd2! iLc6 12 'iff3 iLe7 13 tt::lc4 'iid7 14 iLxc6 �xc6 15 �xc6+ bxc6 16 b4! l:tg8 17 g3 was clearly better for White in A.Kharlov-I.Zakharevich, Novgorod 1999: Black doesn't have any pawn breaks to free his position and is left with many weaknesses.

c) 10 . . . 'ii'b6 1 1 'ii'e2 iLg7 12 a4! aS 13 0-0 0-0 14 tt::ld2! (Khalifman) gives White the advantage, as 14 . . . 'ii'xb2? 15 'ifd3 fS (if 15 . . . 'ii'b6, 16 iLxh7+ c;t>h8 17 'ii'h3) 16 iLxfS exfS 17 :fb1 wins the black queen. 11 iLc2

3 0 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defence

11 ... ..td7!? White obtains a strong attack after

1 l . . . ..tg7?! 12 'ii'e2 0-0 (12 . . . ..td7 13 ..txf5) 13 ltg1 ! 'ii'f4 (13 . . . c5 14 0-0-0 cxd4 15 tt::lxd4 'ii'f4+ 16 �b1 e5 17 tt::lb5 is good for White) 14 h3 ..td7 15 tt:Je5 .l:tad8 16 g3! 'ii'h6 17 g4. 12 'ii'e21?

Threatening 13 ..txf5. 12 ... 0-o-o 13 tt:Jes .tea 14 ..tb3

White should avoid 14 0-0-0? 'Wd5. 14 ... f6

Black repels the knight from e5 but weakens his e6-pawn in doing so.

14 . . . ..th6 15 0-0 l:tg8 16 f4 is slightly better for White because of the monster knight. Black also has some problems after 14 . . . ..tg7 15 f4 ..txe5 16 fxe5: White's plan is 0-0-0 followed by h2-h3 and g2-g4, targeting (after the eventual . . . fxg4 and hxg4) the weak pawns on f7 and h7. 15 tt:Jc4 'Wc6 16 o-o

16 0-0-0!? is also interesting. 16 ... l:tg8 17 f4 ..td7

After 17 .. . ..th5?! 18 tt::la5! ..txe2 19 tt::lxc6 J::f.d6 20 l:!.f2 ..td3 21 .:td1 ..te4 22 tt::lxa7+ �b8 23 4:Jb5 White gains a pawn

3 04

for no compensation. 18 tt:Je3

White, who is threatening tt::lxf5, has a slight advantage according to .Khalif­man. Black's bishops are passive, and he must constantly watch out for d4-d5.

c) 6 ... cs This is the best variation for Black.

He doesn't hurry to exchange on e4 and instead plays the basic pawn break in the centre. 7 0-0

White castles quickly, ready for the centre to be opened. Black has to be careful as he is behind in development. Now we will look at:

C1: 7 ... ..te7 C2: 7 ... dxe4 C3: 7 ... 4:Jxe4

Or: a) 7 . . . b6?! is met by 8 ..tf4. b) 7 .. . 'Wc7 8 'We2 tt::lxe4 9 'ii'xe4!

(White's queen belongs on h4, making it difficult for Black to castle) 9 . . . 4:Jf6 10

'ii'h4 cxd4 1 1 tbxd4 a6 12 l:te1 i.e7 13 i.g5 h6 14 c4 l:.g8 15 i..d2 i.d7 16 i.f4! 'ifb6 17 i.e5 was D.Saulin-N.Pushkov, Elista 1995. Now that Black no longer has . . . ltld7, the bishop lands on e5 to give White a clear advantage.

C1} 7 . . • i..e7 8 ltlxcs After . . . i..e7 and . . . c5, White should

always consider taking on c5. In recap­turing Black is obliged to lose a tempo by moving his bishop again. s . . . ltlxcs

White obtained a lasting advantage in A.Strikovic-R.Gerber, Cannes 1996, after 8 . . . i..xc5 9 dxc5 ltlxc5 10 i..c4 0-0 11 'ii'e2 'ii'c7 12 ltle5 because of his bishop pair and queenside pawn ma­jority. For a better understanding of this type of position, see Chapter 3. 9 dxcs

g • • • i..xcs 9 . . . 'ii'a5 10 a3! 'ii'xc5 1 1 b4 'ii'c7 12

i..b2 0-0 13 c4 gives White a dream po­sition. His bishops are beautifully posi­tioned looking towards the black king, and his queenside majority has already been mobilized.

R u b in s te in Va riat io n : 4 . . .ti:J d 7

10 'ii'e2 o-o Black doesn't have the luxury of be­

ing able to delay castling. After 10 . . . 'ii'c7 1 1 i..g5 i..e7 12 ..tb5+! i..d7 13 ltle5 i..xb5 14 'ii'xb5+ <ittf8 (14 . . . ltld7 15 .:tad1 .:td8 16 :txd7 l:lxd7 17 l:td1 won a piece in K.Mahdi-R.Todor, Vienna 1998) 15 l:tad1 a6 16 'ii'e2 White enjoys a clear plus because of the position of Black's king. 11 --tgs

11 • • • ..te7 Alternatively: a) 1 1 . . . b6? 12 ..txf6 gxf6 13 'ii'e4 f5 14

'ii'xa8 'ii'c7 15 .i.e4! fxe4 16 'ii'xe4 i..b7 17 'ii'e5 and Black's bishop pair doesn't provide enough compensation for the material deficit.

b) 1 l . . .'ii'e7?! 12 .:tad1 l:ld8 13 ltld2! threatening 14 ltle4 is strong for White (Khalifman).

c) After 1 1 . . . 'ifb6 12 c3 ltld5 13 .:tad1 'ii'c7 (G.Newerovski-A.Feoktistov, St Petersburg 1999) White can compro­mise Black's defensive fortifications: 14 'ii'e4 g6 (if 14 .. .£5 15 'ii'h4 Black cannot trap the g5-bishop with .. .£4 since the h7-pawn would be hanging, so he is

3 05

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defence

just left with a backward e6-pawn) 15 l:tfe1 i.d7 16 tt:'le5 and White maintains pressure on the kingside (Khalifman).

d) ll . . . h6 is a committal move which must not be played without good reason. The important detail many players don't appreciate is that after . . . h6, the e5-square and the com­plex of light squares around the king are weakened. Black can never attack a knight on e5 with . . .f6 because the knight would jump to g6. The h5-square is also available to White (usu­ally for a queen or a knight) as after . . . g6 the h6-pawn would be hanging.

Play continues with 12 i.h4 i.e7 13 .l:Iad1 and now:

d1) After 13 . . . 'ii'a5?! 14 a3! l:td8 (E.Shiffers-A.Bum, Vienna 1898, went 14 . . . 'ii'h5 15 h3 l:td8 16 b4! �f8 and here 17 c4! wins as there is no defence to 18 g4) 15 tt:'le5 'ii'c7 16 l:tfe1 i.d7 17 i.g3 i.d6 18 tt:'lg4!? (18 i.g6? fxg6 19 tt:'lxd7 was proposed by Khalifman, but this loses to 19 . . . l:txd7! 20 'ii'xe6+ �h7 21 i.xd6 'ii'c6 when .. . l:tad8 wins the bishop) 18 . . . i.xg3 19 tt:'lxf6+ gxf6 20 hxg3 White has the advantage because

3 0 6

of Black's compromised pawns on the kingside.

d2) 13 . . . 'ii'b6?! 14 c3 i.d7 15 tt:'le5! i.e8 16 l:tfe1 l:td8 17 i.b1 i.b5 18 c4 llxd1 19 l:txd1 i.a4 20 b3 i.c6 21 tt:'lg6! was winning for White in A.Sigliar­J.Trippe, correspondence 1991 :

2l . . . fxg6 is met by 22 'ii'xe6+ .:lf7 23 i.xg6 i.e8 24 i.xf7+ i.xf7 25 'ii'xe7, ex­ploiting the weaknesses created by . . . h6 in the best possible way.

d3) Best is 13 . . . 'ii'c7! 14 tt:'le5 l:td8 15 c3, transposing to the main text.

e) 1 1 . . .'ii'c7 12 l:tad1 b6 (if 12 . . . tt:'ld5 White should exploit the absence of Black's knight from the kingside by playing 13 'ii'e4! f5 14 'ii'h4 tt:'lb4 15 i.b5!, threatening 16 i.d8! and obtain­ing a clear plus) 13 tt:'le5 (opening the d1-h5 diagonal for the queen and al­ready threatening a hidden combina­tion) 13 . . . i.e7 (13 . . . i.b7? loses to 14 i.xf6 gxf6 15 i.xh7+!; 13 . . . tt:'ld5? 14 c4 tt:'lb4 15 i.e4 was winning for White in A.Rubinstein-K.Sterk, Bad Pistyan 1912, as 15 . . . 1:tb8 16 i.f4 i.d6 can be met by 17 llxd6! 'ii'xd6 18 tt:'lg6 when we have an amazing position in which

all Black's major pieces are 'under ar­rest' ! ) 14 .l:.fel transposes to note 'c' to Black's 13th move. 12 .l:tad1 'ii'c7

12 . . . lbd5? 13 i..xe7 'ii'xe7 14 i..xh7+ 'it>xh7 15 :txd5 won a pawn for White in M.Macekova-M.Gunova, Trencin 1995.

After 12 . . . 'iia5 13 a3! l:td8 14 lbe5 'ii'c7 15 l:tfe1 b6! ? 16 'ii'f3 i..b7 17 'ii'h3 White has the initiative. 13 lbes

13 . . . l:td8 Alternatives demonstrate that it is

not easy for Black to complete his de­velopment:

a) 13 . . . l:tb8?! 14 i..f4! . b ) 13 . . . lbd5?! 14 i..xe7 'ii'xe7 15 'ii'e4

lDf6 16 'ii'h4 g6 17 l:tfe1 lbd5 18 'ii'h6 'ii'f6 19 i..c4 lbe7 20 lbg4 'ii'g7 21 'ii'g5 and White held a clear advantage in Lim Yee Weng-A.Ali, Yerevan Olym­piad 1996, because of the dark-square weaknesses around the black king.

c) 13 . . . b6?! 14 l:tfe1 lbd5 15 i..xe7 'ii'xe7 16 'ii'h5! h6 17 i..e4 i..b7 18 i..xd5 exd5 (18 . . . i..xd5? 19 c4) 19 lbc6 'ii'f6 20 lbe7+ 'it>h8 21 c3 and Black has prob-

R u b in s te i n Varia t io n : 4 . . .l'iJd 7

lems with his d5-pawn. d) 13 . . . a5 14 l:.fe1 a4 (D.Dieguez­

J.Padros, Spain 1999) 15 a3 lla5 16 i..b5 is clearly better for White (Khalifman).

e) 13 . . . h6 14 i..h4 b6? (14 . . . .l:.d8) 15 i..xf6 gxf6 16 'ii'g4+ 'it>h8 17 'ii'h4 'it>g7 18 'it' g3+ 'it>h8 19 lbg6+ fxg6 20 'ii'xc7 won for White in N.Neelakantan-S.Fenil, Mumbai 2004. 14 C3 h6

Or: a) 14 . . . i..d7? lost a pawn after 15

i..xf6 i..xf6 16 i..xh7+! in M.Schuette­T.Heinsohn, German League 2005.

b) 14 . . . g6? 15 .l:.fe1 lDd5 16 i..xe7 'ii'xe7 17 'ii'f3 'it>g7 18 i..e4 f6 19 lbxg6! hxg6 20 i..xd5 with a winning position for White, R.Illa-L.Palau, Carrasco 1921 .

c) After 14 . . . a5, instead of typically allowing . . . a4 and meeting it with a2-a3, White can play in another way: 15 a4 'it>f8 16 l:r.fe1 i..d7 (S.Tiviakov­F.Krudde, Dutch League 2000)

17 i..xh7! i..xa4 (17 . . . g6 18 i..h6+ 'it>e8 19 i..xg6 fxg6 20 'ii'd3; or 17 . . . lbxh7 18 'ii'h5 i..e8 19 'ii'xh7 i..xg5 20 'ii'h8+ 'it>e7 21 'ii'xg7 - threatening 22 lbg6 mate -

3 0 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defence

2l . . . .li.d2 22 l:te2 and White wins as the bishop cannot move due to tt:lg6 mate) 18 .l:i.xd8+ %hd8 (or 18 . . . .li.xd8 19 .li.d3! -preventing . . . .l:.a6 - 19 . . . .li.b3 [19 . . . .i.e7? 20 tt:lx£7!) 20 'iif3 intending 'iih3 with a strong attack) 19 tt:lxf7! tt:lxh7 (19 .. .'�xf7 allows mate after 20 'ii'xe6+ �f8 21 Ji.xf6 Ji.xf6 22 'ii'g8) 20 ii.xe7+ 'ii'xe7 21 tt:lxd8 'ii'xd8 22 'ii'e4! 'ii'd2! 23 .l:.fl ii.c2 24 'iixe6 with a clear edge for White. 15 li.h4 b6

After 15 . . . Ji.d7 White started an of­fensive on the kingside in S.Skaperdas­G.Tzouvelekis, Athens 2000, with 16 f4! ? Ji.e8 (or 16 . . . .i.a4 17 .l:.de1 ! l:!.d6 18 fS) 17 .l:.de1 Ji.f8 18 fS - a well con­ducted opening from Sotiris. 16 .l:.fe11

White's knight needs support in or­der to stay on eS where it continues to put pressure on Black. 16 ... .i.b7

White wins after 16 . . . tt:ld5? 17 ii.xe7 tbxe7 18 'iie4 fS (or 18 . . . Ji.b7 19 'iih7+ �f8 20 'iih8+ tt:lg8 21 Ji.h7) 19 'iixa8 .i.b7 20 'iixd8+ 'iixd8 21 .i.a6 'iic8 22 ii.xb7 'ii'xb7 23 .:td8+ �h7 24 .l:.d7. 17 tt:lxf71

3 08

'As Black has completed the mobili­zation of his forces, the position could have been evaluated as equal unless White had some tactical strike at his disposal.' (Khalifman) 17 ... 'ii'c6!

17 .. . �xf7? 18 'iixe6+ �f8 19 Ji.xf6 Ji.xf6 20 li.c4 wins for White, as Black must give up a lot of material in order to avoid being checkmated on g8. 18 li.e4 Wxe4

After 18 . . . tt:lxe4? 19 tt:lxd8 lhd8 20 l:t.xd8+ Ji.xd8 21 Ji.xd8 tLlgS 22 'ii'g4 Black has nothing for the material defi­cit. 19 'iixe4 l:!.xd1?1

19 . . . ii.xe4? 20 tt:lxd8 gS (I.Kashdan­E.Tholfsen, Syracuse 1934) 21 li.xg5! hxgS 22 tt:lxe6 is winning for White.

Black's best chance is 19 . . . tt:lxe4! 20 tt:lxd8 Ji.xh4 21 tt:lxb7 .i.x£2+ 22 �fl .i.xe1 23 �xe1, as played in M.Randa­W.Thrash, correspondence 1996. White has a small advantage here due to his superior pawn structure, control of the d-file and better-placed king. 20 ttJxh6+1 �8 21 'ii'xe6 l::.xe1+ 22 'iixe1 gxh6

White holds a clear advantage, with a queen and three pawns against a rook and two minor pieces, and with Black's king lacking pawn cover. The game A.Karpov-J.Speelman, Reykjavik 1991, continued 23 �xf6 (Karpov notes that 23 1i'e3!? .l:.d8 24 1i'xh6+ �£7 2S h3 l:td1+ 26 �h2 .l:tfl 27 1i'd2 is also clearly better for White) 23 . . . �xf6 24 1i'e6 �g7 (if 24 . . . �gS 2S h4! ) 2S 1i'd6+! �e8 (Black loses material no matter where his king retreats: if 2S . . . �g8 26 1i'd7 �e4 27 1i'e6+) 26 1i'g6+ �f8 27 1i'd6+ �e8 28 1i'c7 .l:td8 29 f3! giving the king breath­ing space and limiting the scope of the b7-bishop, leaving White with a close to decisive advantage. Interestingly, this game featured a completely differ­ent move order to reach our line: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 lL'ld2 dxe4 4 tL'lxe4 tL'ld7 S lL'lf3 tL'lgf6 6 tL'lxf6+ tL'lxf6 7 �d3 cS 8 dxcS �xeS 9 'ii'e2 0-0 10 �gS 'ii'aS+ 1 1 c3 �e7 12 tL'leS h6 13 �h4 l:td8 14 0-0 'ii'c7 1S .l:tad1 etc.

C2) 7 ... cxd4 8 ttJxd4

The f3-square is now available for White's light-squared bishop and we

R u b in s te in Va riat io n : 4 . . .lo d 7

will often see this piece transferred there after an exchange on e4. It is im­portant to understand when it is better to play �f3 and when White should instead retreat along the b1-h7 diago­nal, with the idea of setting up a poten­tially deadly �c2/'ii'd3 battery. 8 . . . ttJxe4

Alternatively: a) 8 . . . tL'lcS?! is premature. After 9

lL'lxf6+ gxf6 (9 .. .'ii'xf6?! 10 tL'lbS!) 10 �bS+ �d7 11 'ii'e2 a6 12 �xd7+ 'ii'xd7 13 �e3 'ii'dS 14 c4 'ii'e4 (T.Lemarschko­R.Gerber, Swiss League 1997) 1S b4! tL'la4 16 f3 White has an overwhelming advantage (Khalifman).

b) 8 . . . �e7 9 .l::te1 0-0 10 c3 and now:

b1) 10 . . . a6 1 1 'ii'f3! tL'lxe4 12 Wxe4 lL'lf6 13 1i'h4 g6 (13 . . . h6? 14 �xh6!) 14 �gS tL'ldS 1S lL'lf3 �xgS 16 tL'lxgS hS (A.Mihailidis-V.Jeremic, Kavala 2007) 17 .l:tad1 'ii'f6 18 �c4! lL'lf4 19 l:te4! eS 20 l:tde1 �d7 (20 . . . bS?! 21 �fl 'iWd6 22 g3 tL'ldS 23 :xeS f6 24 l:te8! fxgS 2S 'ii'd4 wins for White) 21 .l:txeS �c6 22 'iWg3! tL'lxg2 (22 . . . �xg2 23 tL'le6! fxe6 24 .l:txe6 tL'lxe6 2S l:txe6 wins) 23 tL'le4! 'ii'xeS (if 23 . . . �xe4 24 l:Uxe4 and the knight is

3 09

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

trapped) 24 'ifxe5 tt:Jxe1 (the queen is better than the rooks because there are weaknesses around Black's king and the combination of queen and knight is a very dangerous attacking force) 25 ti:Jf6+ <j;g7 26 ti:Je8+! <j;h6 27 'ifg7+ <j;gS 28 h4+ <j;xh4 29 'iff6+ <j;g4 30 .lle2+ .llf3 31 'ifd4+ <j;gS 32 'ifc5+ <j;g4 33 'iib4+ <j;gS 34 'ifxf8 .llxe2 35 'ife7+ <j;h6 36 'ii'xe2 and White wins.

b2) 10 . . . tt:Jxe4 1 1 .llxe4 ti:Jf6 (if 1 1 . . . tt:Jc5, 12 .llc2! is best: the white bishop should stay on the b1-h7 diago­nal to discourage . . . e5 on account of the reply ti:Jf5) 12 .llc2 and now:

b21) 12 . . . 'ir'c7 13 .llg5 h6 14 .llh4 l:td8 15 'ii'd3 was disastrous for Black in T.Antoshkova-A.Dushenok, St Peters­burg 2003 - a good demonstration of the power of the .llc2/'iVd3 battery.

b22) 12 . . . 'ifd5 13 .llf4! (it is impor­tant to control e5 because White can build an attack based on the moves 'ir'd3 and .lle5) 13 .. .'iih5 14 'ifd2 (threat­ening l:te5) 14 . . . 'ifa5 15 'ili'd3 l:td8 16 .lle5 g6 (E.Korbut-A.Dushenok, St Peters­burg 2004) 17 'ili'g3! (threatening .llc7) 17 . . . ti:Jh5 18 'ife3! . White has the initia-

3 1 0

tive here, as 1 8 . . .f6?! can be met by 19 .llc7! 'ili'xc7 20 tt:Jxe6 'ili'd6 (or 20 . . . .llxe6 21 'ifxe6+ <j;f8 22 .llb3) 21 ti:Jxd8 .llxd8 22 l:.ad1 'ii'f8 23 'ife8! .llg4 24 .l:td4 win­ning - the bishop on g4 has no squares.

b23) 12 . . . .lld7 13 'ili'd3 g6 14 'iff3! 'iib6 15 .llh6 .l:.fe8 16 .llb3 l:.ad8 17 l:te2 .llc6 18 tbxc6 'ifxc6 19 'ili'xc6 bxc6 20 h3 gave White a lasting advantage in V.Yemelin-S.Erendzhenov, Elista 1995, due to his bishop pair and queenside majority. Note that the actual move order to this game was 14 .llh6 l:.e8 15 'ii'f3, but here 15 . . . e5! (instead of 15 . . . 'iib6) intending 16 l:txe5 tbg4 is un­clear. 9 .llxe4 ti:Jf6

White keeps a solid edge after 9 . . . tt:Jc5 10 .llf3 .lle7 1 1 .llf4!?, while 9 . . . .llc5 10 'ili'd3! 'ii'h4 1 1 ti:Jf3 'ii'hs 12 tbg5 .lle7 13 .llf3 'ifg6 14 'it'xg6 hxg6 15 .l:.d1 intends tt:'Je4-d6 with advantage. 10 .llf3

White deploys his bishop on the h1-a8 diagonal, preventing the natural development of Black's queenside. 1o . . . .llcs

Or:

a) 10 . . . Ji.e7 1 1 Ji.£4 tiJdS 12 iLg3 'ifb6? (White has the initiative after 12 . . . 0-0 13 c3 - Khalifman) 13 c4 tiJf6 14 tiJbS 0-0 15 ltJc7 ltb8 (Prihoda-Hanzl, Neratov 1993) and here 16 tiJdS wins the exchange.

b) After 10 . . . a6 White places his bishops on adjacent diagonals with 1 1 i.f4!, putting tremendous pressure on Black's queenside. K.Aseev­A.Huzman, Beersheba 1998, continued l l . . . 'ifb6 12 'ifd3 i.d7 13 l:.ad1 i.cS 14 i.eS l:.d8 15 tiJb3 i.e7 16 'ifd4 'ifbs (or 16 . . . 1i'xd4 17 tiJxd4 i.c8 18 lld3 0-0 19 l:.fd1) and here 17 'ife3 0-0 18 l:td4 gives White a solid advantage, as 18 . . . i.c6? 19 a4 'ifb6 20 aS 'ifbs 21 i.e2 wins the queen. 11 i.e3

11 ... i.b6 After 1 1 . . .0-0?! 12 ttJxe6! 'ifxd1 13

l%.axd1 i.xe3 14 tiJc7 i.g4 15 fxe3 i.xf3 (15 . . . ltac8 16 i.xg4 ttJxg4 17 tiJdS ltxc2 18 tiJe7+ 'it>h8 19 llxf7 is also better for White) 16 gx£3 l%.ac8 17 tiJbS l:.xc2 18 l:.f2 .:.xf2 19 'it>x£2 a6 20 tiJd6 .:.d8 21 'it>e2 b6 22 ltcl ! tiJe8 23 l:tc8 l%.xc8 24 ltJxc8 bS 25 tiJe7+ 'it>£8 26 tiJdS White

R u b in s te in Varia t io n : 4 . . . ti:J d 7

has the advantage in the endgame. 12 C4

Depriving Black's knight the use of the dS-square. 12 tiJbS!? is another pos­sibility. 12 ... es

White maintains a stable advantage after 12 . . . 0-0 13 tiJbS i.xe3 14 fxe3 'ifb6 15 'ifd4 1Wxd4 16 exd4. 13 tiJbs i.xe3 14 fxe3 1Wxd1 15 .l:tfxd1 'it>e7 16 tiJd6 l:.b8 17 c5 l:.d8 We have been following A.Shirov­E.Bareev, Monte Carlo (rapid) 2002.

Here White can keep an advantage with 18 .l:!.acl, as Black still has some problems to solve. For example: 18 . . . tiJe8 19 tiJc4! .l:.xd1+ 20 .l:Ixd1 f6 21 ttJa5 f5! 22 c6 e4 23 i.e2 b5 24 tiJb3 ttJc7 25 tiJd4 with an edge; or 18 . . . i.g4 19 i.xg4 ltJxg4 20 l:k3 b6 21 .:tcd3 bxc5 22 tiJf5+ 'it>e8 23 ttJxg7+ 'it>e7 24 tiJf5+ 'it>e8 25 tiJd6+ <l;e7 26 b3 ttJxe3 27 l:txe3 l:txd6 28 ltxe5+ 'it>d7 29 l:txd6+ 'it>xd6 30 l:tf5 with a better endgame for White, who has two pawns islands to Black's four.

C3) 7 ... ttJxe4 By delaying the exchange on d4,

3 1 1

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

Black avoids giving White the f3-square for his pieces. 8 �xe4

8 ... lDf6 8 . . .'ifc7!? is interesting. After 9 c3!

�d6 (9 . . . lDf6 10 �d3 �d7 1 1 lbe5 cxd4 12 cxd4 �d6 13 �f4 0-0 14 .l:tcl 'ifb8 15 l1e1 �c6 16 .l:te3 l1e8 17 �g5 was very good for White in J .Koscielski­M.Cordes, Recklinghausen 2000: he has masterfully exploited the position of Black's queen on c7 by creating an iso­lated d-pawn to allow .l:tacl) 10 .l:te1 0-0 (after 10 . . . cxd4?! 1 1 'ii'xd4 0-0 12 �c2 White's queen is ready to go to h4 to start a violent attack) 1 1 �c2 l:.d8 12 'ii'e2 cxd4 13 �g5! lDf6 14 lDxd4 �xh2+ 15 'itfl �f4 16 �xf6 gxf6 17 g3 �e5 18 'ifh5 �xd4 19 'ii'xh7+ 'itf8 20 cxd4, amazingly we reach a position resem­bling one of our very main lines (Chap­ter 9, Line C32, note on 15 . . . �f4) except Black hasn't played . . . a6 and White's bishop is on c2 rather than d3. The verdict is the same: White has a prom­ising attack. 9 �g5 cxd4

Alternatively:

3 1 2

a) 9 . . . h6? ! 1 0 ..ltxf6 'ii'xf6 (10 . . . gxf6 1 1 'ii'e2 cxd4 1 2 .l::tfd1 'ifh6 1 3 lbxd4 ..lte7 was E.Gullaksen-I.Tetenkina, Stock­holm 2004, and here 14 a4! gives White the initiative) 1 1 'ii'd3! (threatening 12 'iib5+) 1 l . . .a6 12 'ilc4!? (Khalifman) 12 . . . cxd4 13 �c6+ 'it>d8 14 %:.ad1 'it>c7 15 �e4+ 'itb8 16 %:.xd4 and White has a clear advantage.

b) 9 . . . 'ii'c7 10 .l:te1 !

10 . . . lbxe4 (10 . . . �d7 1 1 lDe5! cxd4 12 �f4 'ifb6 13 'iff3 is good for White) 11 %:.xe4 �d6! (or 1 1 . . . �d7 12 �f4 �d6 13 �xd6 'ii'xd6 14 lbe5) 12 dxc5 �xeS 13 b4! �e7 14 'ii'd3 f6 15 �f4 'ii'b6 (15 . . . e5? 16 lbxe5) 16 �e3 'ii'd8 (16 . . . 'ii'c7? 17 lDd4) 17 %:.d4 'ii'c7 18 .l:th4 and White has the initiative.

c) 9 . . . �e7 10 �xf6 and now: cl) 10 . . . �xf6 11 dxc5 'ii'c7 (11 . . . �xb2

12 %:.b1 'ifxd1 13 .l:tfxd1 f5 14 .l:txb2 fxe4 15 lbe5 0-0 16 .l:tb4 is terrible for Black) 12 'ifd6 'ifxd6 13 cxd6 'iii>d7 (13 . . . �xb2? 14 l:lab1 �a3 15 .l:tfd1 was winning for White in G.Pap-J.Frank, Budapest 2002) 14 l1fd1 ltb8 15 c3 b6 16 a4 �b7 17 �xb7 .l:.xb7 18 .l:.d3 l:.c8 19 g4 h6 20 h4 g6 21 g5 hxg5 22 hxg5 �g7 23 lDd2 .l:.c5

24 lbe4 l:.dS 25 l:.ad1 was clearly better for White in R.Rabiega-D.Krumpacnik, Graz 2004.

c2) 10 . . . gxf6!? 1 1 c3 fS 12 .i.c2 cxd4 13 lLlxd4 .i.f6 14 'iVe2 0-0 (or 14 . . . .i.xd4?! 15 cxd4 0-0 16 'iVeS!) 15 l:tad1 and White had the advantage in J .Lacasa Diaz-S.Peric, Salou 2006. 10 'iVe21

This is the most dangerous line for Black. White will take on d4 with a rook, gaining additional tempi for the development of his initiative. 10 . • . il.e7

10 . . . 'iVb6 11 .i.xf6 gxf6 12 .:tfd1 i.g7 (12 . . . .i.c5!? 13 .:tab1 - intending b2-b4 -13 . . . a5 14 c3! d3 15 l:txd3 i.d7 16 lDd4 0-0-0 17 .:tbd1 i.xd4 18 l:txd4 .i.c6 19 .i.xc6 bxc6 20 'iVf3 fS 21 b3 was better for White in J.Dworakowska­U.Andersson, Gibraltar 2007) 13 lDxd4 0-0 14 c3 fS (14 . . . .i.d7 15 a4 a6 16 aS 'iVc7 17 'iVhS h6 18 l:td3 gave White the ini­tiative in A.Shirov-B.Gelfand, Monaco (blindfold) 2002) 15 i.d3 l:td8 16 i.c4 .i.d7 (or 16 . . . e5 17 lDf3 .i.e6 18 .i.xe6 'iVxe6 19 lDh4! e4 20 'it'hS f4 21 lDfS) 17 .:td2 il.a4 18 b3 .i.c6 19 :tad1 i.e4 20

R u b i n s te in Va ria t io n : 4 . . . li::Jd 7

1i"e3 1i"a5 2 1 g4 <ii?h8 22 £3 .i.dS 23 lL!xf5! was clearly better for White in E.Van den Doel-R.Van Ketel, Leiden 2007. 11 l:tfd11

This is more accurate than 1 1 .:tad1 because in the variations with . . . 0-0-0 it's useful to have a rook on al . After 1 1 .:tad1 'iVb6! 12 lDxd4! .i.d7 13 .i.xf6 gxf6 14 .:tfe1 0-0-0! 15 c3, according to Khalifman White's chances are slightly preferable thanks to his superior pawn structure. However, this is much less promising for White than 11 . . . 'iVb6 be­low. 11 . • . tDxe4

1 1 . . .'iVb6?! 12 lDxd4 .i.d7 (12 . . . 'iVxb2? 13 lDbS �f8 14 i.xb7 .i.xb7 15 l:tdb1 traps the queen) 13 a4! explains why we left the rook on a1 - White has a strong initiative here.

White also gains a clear advantage after 1 1 . . . .i.d7 12 .:txd4 lDxe4 13 'ifxe4! 'iVc7 (13 . . . .1l.xg5? 14 .:tad1) 14 .i.xe7!? i.c6 15 'iVg4! �xe7 (if 15 . . . 'ifxe7 16 'iVxg7; or 15 . . . i.xf3 16 'iVxg7 �xe7 17 'iVgS+ 'ifilf8 18 'iVf6 l::tg8 19 'iVxf3) 16 .:tadl . 12 .:Xd41

3 1 3

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n ce

12 .. Jii'xd4 White wins after 12 . . . 'iic7? 13 .i.xe7

'iixe7 (13 . . . tt:'lc3 is met by 14 'iid3 1;xe7 15 l:tc4, as there is no reason for White to spoil the queenside) 14 'iib5+! ..td7 15 'iixb7 l:tc8 16 l:.Xe4 .l:.xc2 17 tt:'ld4, while 12 . . . tt:'ld6?! 13 .i.xe7 'iixe7 14 .l:tad1 (Psakhis) is clearly better for White. 13 tt:Jxd4 tt:Jxgs

Although Black currently possesses a rook and two minor pieces for the queen, the poor positioning of the knight on g5 poses big problems. Note that the game references below arrive via 1 1 l:tad1 rather than 1 1 l:tfd1; there is no difference as White will transpose with l:td1 at some point. 14 f41

14 ... 0-0 14 . . . e5? 15 'iixe5 tt:'le6 16 tt:'lxe6 fxe6

(16 . . . ..txe6? 17 f5) 17 'iixg7 l:tf8 18 'iixh7 is clearly better for White.

After 14 . . . tt:'lh3+ 15 gxh3 0-0 16 'iie4 White's plan according to Gershon is:

1. Exchange one pair of rooks; 2. Place the knight on its best posi­

tion (possibly e5), obliging Black to trade one of his bishops for it; and

3 1 4

3. Create a passed pawn on the queenside.

Black on the other hand should try to create some counterplay using his two bishops to exploit the open posi­tion of White's king (which means ex­changing as few pieces as possible). After 16 .. . .i.f6 17 l:td1 .l:t.d8 (against Ger­shon's suggestion of 17 . . . 1;h8!? plan­ning . . . l:tg8 and . . . g5, White can keep an advantage with 18 tt:'lf3 .i.e7 19 tt:'lg5!) 18 :d3 .:lb8 19 tt:'lf3 White was a good deal better in A.Morozevich-I.Zakharevich, Krasnodar 1997. 15 fxgs ..txgs 16 tt:'lf3 ..tds

16 .. . ..te7 17 l:td1 f6 18 'iic4 .i.d8 (J.Simmelink-H.Hage, correspondence 2000) 19 1;h1 is also better for White.

17 'iie4l f6 17 . . . l:tb8? 18 tt:'lg5! .i.xg5 19 'iie5 ..td7

20 'iixg5 .i.c6 21 .:td1 is very good for White: Black no longer has the bishop pair and it's not easy to create a fortress as White has a pawn majority on the queenside. 18 c4 l:tb8 19 b4 as 20 a3 axb4 21 axb4 ..tc7 22 cs .i.d7 23 'iic4 1;h8 24 tt:'ld4 l:tfeB 25 .l:.d1

White has a clear advantage, S.Rublevsky- I.Zakharevich, Maikop 1998.

I l lustrative Game

V.Anand-R.Vaganian Tal Memorial, Riga 1995

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 tt'lc3 dxe4 4 tt'lxe4 tt'ld7 5 tt'lf3 tt'lgf6 6 .i.d3 tt'lxe4 7 .i.xe4 tt'lf6 8 .i.gSI .i.e7 9 .i.xf6! gxf6?1

After this game 10 . . . gxf6 virtually disappeared from tournament praxis. 10 'ii'e2

10 ... c6?l

R u b ins te in Va ria t io n : 4 . . .ti:J d 7

10 . . . £5? i s met by 1 1 .i.xb7!, while 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 g4 f5 12 gxf5 exf5 13 .l:!.g1 + 'Oti>h8 14 .i.x£5 .i.x£5 15 'ii'e5+ .i.£6 16 'ii'xf5 l:.e8+ (Super C-Chesscard, 1990) 17 ..ti>£1 leaves White a pawn ahead and with the attack.

10 . . . 'ii'd6!?, waiting for White to show his cards regarding which side he will castle, is Black's strongest option, and 1 1 0-0-0 c6 12 :he1 .i.d7 13 'Oti>b1 was slightly better for White in C.Deepan-V.Sevillano, Cebu City 2007. 11 0-ol

This is the move that has obliged Black to abandon 9 . . . gxf6. White is ready to push his queenside pawns in the event of Black playing .. .'it'c7, . . . .i.d7 and . . . 0-0-0. Black is fine carrying out this plan if White instead chooses 1 1 0-0-0. 11 . . . 'ii'b6

White gains the initiative after 1 l . . .'iic7? ! 12 c4 b6 (or 12 . . . .i.d7 1 3 l:tab1 and b4-b5 is coming) 13 d5! f5 14 .i.d3. 12 C4 .i.d7 13 C5

By attacking the queen White gains a tempo for a standard plan which of­ten involves b2-b4-b5. Black has no

3 1 5

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

knight to exploit the weakness o f d5. 13 ... 1i'c7 14 l:.fd1

14 b4! ? is also possible. 14 ... h5

14 . . . b6 15 b4 i s clearly better for White according to Dolmatov. 15 ltJd2 .l:.d8?

15 . . . 0-0-0 was best, although after 16 ltJc4 and b2-b4 White still has the initia­tive. 16 ltJc4 .tea

17 1i'e3 ! Anand assesses this position to be

clearly better for White. Black can't castle and White's plan of expansion on the queenside with b4-b5 will slowly decide the game. 17 ... bs 18 cxb6 axb6 19 :ac1 i..b7

If 19 . . . c5 then 20 d5! is very strong, while 19 . . . b5 20 ltJa3 i..b7 21 ltJxb5 'iib6

3 1 6

22 tLlc3 gives White a winning advan­tage according to Dolmatov. 20 1i'f31

White threatens 21 ltJe3 piling up on c6. 2o ... fs?

A simple oversight, but Black's po­sition was lost anyway. 20 . . . .l:.c8 was forced, but after 21 a4! (now that the c6-pawn is defended, 21 ltJe3? f5! al­lows Black back into the game) Black is left without a decent move. For exam­ple, 2l . . .i..a8? 22 d5! breaks through, as after 22 . . . cxd5 (22 . . . exd5 23 i..xd5 is also terrible) 23 ltJd6+ the c8-rook is unpro­tected. 21 ttJes 1-0

Black is losing the c6-pawn, after which d4-d5 will be killing and Black's king will have nowhere to hide.

I n d ex of Va r i a t i o n s I

3 lt:Jd2: 3rd Move Alternatives

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lL!d2 i..e7 3 .. .f5 - 43; 3 . . . lL!e7 - 44; 3 . . . h6 - 46 3 . . . b6 4 lL!gf3 lL!f6 - 49 (4 . . . i.b7 - 48; 4 . . . dxe4 - 48) 3 . . . lL!c6 4 lL!gf3 lL!f6 5 e5 lL!d7 6 c3 f6 - 55 (6 . . . b6 - 54; 6 . . . i..e7 - 54) 3 . . . a6 4 i..d3 c5 5 dxc5 i..xc5 6 lL!gf3 lDc6 7 0-0 lL!ge7 - 61 (7 . . . lL!f6 - 60)

4 i..d3 c5 5 dxc5 lDf6 6 'ife2 lL!c6 6 . . . 0-0 7 lL!gf3 lL!fd7 - 66 (7 . . . a5 - 67) 7 lDgf3 lL!b4 - 71 7 . . . i..xc5 - 69

3 lLld2 cs

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lL!d2 c5 4 lDgf3 cxd4 4 . . . dxe4 - 77; 4 . . . c4 - 76 4 . . . lL!c6 5 exd5 exd5 6 i..b5 i.d6 (6 . . . a6 - 1 22; 6 . . . cxd4 - 124; 6 . . . 'ife7+ - 125;

6 . . . i..d7 - 121 ) 7 dxc5 i..xc5 (7 . . . 'ife7+ - 127) 8 0-0 lL!ge7 (8 . . . lDf6 - 129) 9 lDb3 i..d6 -137 (9 . . . i..b6 - 132)

4 . . . lDf6 5 exd5 exd5 (5 . . . l2Jxd5 - 149; 5 . . . 'ifxd5 - 153) 6 i..b5+ i..d7 7 i..xd7+ lL!bxd7 8 0-0 - 155 5 exd5 'ifxd5

5 . . . exd5 - 78 6 i..c4 'ifd6

6 . . . 'ifc5 - 80; 6 . . . 'ifd8 7 0-0 lDc6 89 (7 . . . lDe7 - 85; 7 . . . lDf6 - 86; 7 . . . a6 - 88) 7 o-o l2Jf6 S lDb3 lL!c6 g lL!bxd4 lL!xd4 10 l2Jxd4 a6

3 1 7

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n ch Defe n c e

10 . . . ii.e7 - 93; 10 . . . ii.d7 1 1 c3 'i!Vc7 12 'ife2 � - 100 ( 12 . . . ii.d6 - 98) 11 l:te1 'ii'c7

ll . . . Ji.d7 - 104 12 'i!Ve2 Ji.d6 - 1 1 1 12 . . . .1i.c5 - 106

3 lbd2 lbf6

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lt:Jd2 lt:Jf6 4 e5 lt:Jfd7 4 . . . lt:Je4 - 168; 4 . . . lt:Jg8 - 164

5 .1i.d3 c5 6 c3 lt:Jc6 6 . . . b6 7 lt:Jh3 .1i.a6 8 .1i.xa6 lt:Jxa6 9 0--0 lbc7 - 1 77 (9 . . . .1i.e7 - 1 75; 9 . . . b5 - 1 76)

7 lt:Je2 cxd4 7 . . . lt:Jb6 - 181 ; 7 . . . a5 - 182; 7 . . . .l:tb8 - 180; 7 . . . £6 - 193; 7 .. .'ii'b6 8 lt:J£3 £6 - 196

(8 . . . .1i.e7 - 195) 8 cxd4 f6

8 . . . lt:Jb6 - 185 8 . . . 'i!Vb6 9 ll:l£3 £6 (9 . . . .1i.b4+ - 200) 10 ex£6 ll:lx£6 1 1 0--0 .1i.d6 12 b3- 206

9 exf6 ll:lxf6 9 . . . 'ifxf6 10 ll:l£3 h6 - 227 (10 . . . .1i.d6 - 224; 10 . . . .1i.b4+ - 22 1 )

10 o-o ..td6 11 lllf3 o-o 1 l . . .'iic7 12 .1i.g5 0--0 13 ltd - 252

12 .1i.f4 .1i.xf4 13 lllxf4 ll:le4 13 . . .. �d6 - 236; 13 . . . ll:lg4 - 237

14 g3 g5 14 . . . lllg5 - 240; 14 . . . 'ii'£6 - 243

15 lllg2 - 250 15 lllh5 - 248

3 lbd2 dxe4 4 lbxe4

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lllc3 dxe4 4 ll:lxe4 lt:Jd7 4 . . . lllc6 - 268; 4 . . . 'i!Vd5 - 270 4 . . . lllf6 5 ll:lx£6+ Wx£6 - 275 (5 . . . gxf6 - 273) 4 . . . .1i.d7 - 280 4 . . . .1i.e7 5 lll£3 ll:l£6 6 Ji.d3 ttJbd7 7 'ii'e2 c5 - 286 (7 . . . 0--0 - 289)

5 lllf3 lllgf6 6 Ji.d3 C5 6 . . . b6 - 295 6 . . . ll:lxe4 7 .1i.xe4 tlJ£6 8 .1i.g5 Wd6 - 303 (8 . . . .1i.e7 - 301; 8 . . . h6 - 300) 7 o-o ll:lxe4 - 3 1 1 7 . . . .1i.e7 - 305; 7 . . . cxd4 - 309

3 1 8

I n d ex of G a m e s I

Anand.V-Vaganian.R, Tal Memorial, Riga 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Cialdunts.S-Kritz.L, Griesheim 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Ciligoric.S-Stahlberg.Ci, Belgrade 1949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Hansen.S.B-Bryneii.B, Excelsior Cup, Gothenburg 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Hansen.S.B-Bryneii.S, Excelsior Cup, Gothenburg 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 HickiJ-Kieser.E, Bad Ragaz 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Hydra-Ponomariov.R, Man vs. Machine, Bilbao 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 90 Karpov.A-Hort.V, Budapest 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Karpov.A-Ljubojevic.L, Monte Carlo (rapid) 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Kindermann.S-Casper.T, German League 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Kotronias.V-Biuvshtein.M, Montreal 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9 Kotronias.V-Kekki.J, Rilton Cup, Stockholm 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Kotronias.V-Ni Hua, FIDE World Cup, Khanty Mansiysk 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Michei.P-Rossetto.H, Mar del Plata 1944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Moroz.A-Kruppa.Y, Mol]lotov Memorial, Enakievo, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Motylev.A-Roghani.A, World Team Championship, Yerevan 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Nimzowitsch.A-Salwe.Ci, Karlsbad 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Nurmukhanov.T-Eiizarov.D, Dagomys 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Rublevsky.R-Sakaev.K, European Club Cup, Panormo 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Smeets.J-Andersson.U, Amsterdam 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Socko.B-Matlak.M, Lubniewice 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 17 Sokolov.A-Andersson.U, Clermont Ferrand 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 15 Sosonko.Ci-Smyslov.V, Tilburg 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Tarrasch.S-Teichmann.R, San Sebastian 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Thorn LeesonJ-Fediv.A, Correspondence 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 TimmanJ-Kuijf.M, Dutch Championship1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 1 9

H o w to B e a t t h e Fre n c h Defe n c e

Tischbierek.R-Hertneck.G, Altenkirchen 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1

Tiviakov.S-Ciarke.T, Kilkenny 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Tiviakov.S-Dgebuadze.A, Apeldoom 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Tiviakov.S-Gieizerov.E, Port Erin 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Tiviakov.S-Gieizerov.E, Port Erin 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Tiviakov.S-Hertneck.G, European Team Championship, Leon 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Tiviakov.S-Komarov.D, Kherson 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Tiviakov.S-Lputian.S, European Championship, Ohrid 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Tiviakov.S-Van der WieiJ, Groningen 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Tiviakov.S-Ziotnik.B, Groningen 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Tzermiadianos.A-IIandzis.S, Greek Team Championship 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Tzermiadianos.A-Sigalas.F, 1st Summer Cup, Litohoro 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Tzermiadianos.A-Socko.B, European Championship, Warsaw 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Tzermiadianos.A-Spirakopoulos.l, Ikaros 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 2 0

e

I f you thoug ht

EVE RYMAN C H ESS books were g reat . . . they are now coming to l ife as

BOOKS Read the comp lete book, p lay through the games, ana lyse the moves us ing your favou r ite ana lys is eng ine . A l l fu l ly i nteractive i n ChessBase format .

� Quick and easy to buy - ava i l ab le for download with i n a few c l i cks . In less than a m i n ute you can be us ing the eboo k .

� Special offers - Buy 9 ebooks and get 1 ebook absolutely free.

� Free samples of every book - we are giv ing away a sample chapter of every ebook we pub l i sh , so download one now and try before you buy.

All priced at $ 1 9.95, our ebooks are available for all levels of player : Starting Out , Dangerous Weapons and Winning Chess series

. . . and many, many more at

EVE RYMAN C H ESS .CO M