The Sharpest Sicilian 2012 ( PDFDrive )

KIRIL []EORBIEV RTANAS KOLEV @,[j@f.tlP CIJess Stars The Sharpest Sicilian 2012 A Black Repertoire with 1.e4 cS 2.tlJf3 d6 GM Kiril Georgiev GM Atanas Kolev Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com Current Theory and Practice Series The Sharpest Sicilian 2012 Copyright© Kiril Georgiev and Atanas Kolev 2 0 12 Translation and editing by Semko Semkov Cover design by Kalojan N achev Printed in Bulgaria by "Simolini 94" - Sofia ISBN: 978-954-8782-90-6 Contents Foreword From the Publisher Introduction About the Structure of This Book 5 7 8 Part 1. The Poisoned Pawn 6.i.g5 e6 10 Part 2 . The Sozio 6.i.c4 e6 86 Part 3 . The Classical System I 6.i.e2 e5 116 Part 4. The Classical System II 6.a4 eS 152 Part 5. On the Path to the English Attack 6.i.e3 e5 7.lLlf3 162 Part 6. The English Attack 6.i.e3 (6.f3) 6 . . . e5 7.lLlb3 i.e6 190 Part 7. The 6.f4 System 6. f4 e5; 6 .. .'r!ffc7 218 Part 8. The Fianchetto 6 .g3 e5; 6 . . . e6 244 Part 9. Rare Variations Alternatives on move 5 and 6 260 Part 10. Early Deviations for White 3 .c3, 3 .i.c4, 3 .b4, 3 .lLlc3, 3 .b3, 3 .g3, 2 .lLlc3 a6 282 Part 11. The Moscow Variation 3 .i.b5+ i.d7 300 Index of Variations 329 Bi bliogra phy Books Experts vs the Sicilian, Quality Chess, 2004 Play the Najdorf: Scheveningen Style by John Emms, Everyman Chess 2003 Mastering the Najdorf by Arizmendi and Moreno, Gambit 2 004 Najdorffor the Tournament Player by John Nunn, Simon&Schuster 1988 The Bb5 Sicilian by Richard Palliser, Everyman Chess 2005 The Sicilian Defence by Lubomir Ftacnik, Quality Chess, 2010 Electronic/Periodicals Mega Database, Chess Base Chess Informant, Sahovsky Informator New in Chess Yearbook, Interchess Chess Today Internet resources T he Week In Chess (chesscenter.com) 10 Days (Chessmix.com) Internet Chess Club (chessclub.com) ChessPublishing.com forum Chesspro.ru Foreword Fro m the Pu blisher The idea for this book came to me shortly before finishing "The Safest Sicilian." It is good to have a solid weapon against the Sicilian, but af ter all, most of us play this opening in order to begin a hand-to-hand fight right from the first moves. So I felt bound to offer the Chess Stars fans a sharper alternative to the Taimanov. At the same time, it had to be a reliable repertoire to serve you for many years to come. Of course that could be only the Naj dorf. Fortunately, grandmaster Kiril Georgiev, ex-world junior champi on and playing coach of Bulgarian national team, agreed to write the book. Apart from being a very strong tournament player with a current Elo of 2687 (his best ranking in the world was number 9), Kiril is known as one of the best blitz players. He is a regular in the ICC battles and of ten experiments with new ideas "at highest blitz" level. I explained to him the book structure, which should follow the form of "The Safest Sicilian", and the Najdorf project was launched. Several months later I realised that it was a really huge task. There was no hesitation how to meet l.e4 c5 Vt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tl:Jxd4 tl:Jf6 5 .tl:Jc3 a6 6.�g5. All top players em ploy the Poisoned Pawn variation and Kiril has been using it with big success for twenty years already. The Sozin was also in perfect the oretical health although Nisipea nu occasionally has been trying to shake this opinion. As a publisher, I saw a problem with the treatment of the English Attack. Georgiev plays it in the Scheveningen style with . . . e6, but I did not approve of it against 6.�e2. This structure is very flexi ble. It leads to extremely complex positions which need a whole book to delve in them. At the same time, 6.i.e2 e5 is much easier to play and it may be objectively the best choice. Unfortunately, there is no way to build a repertoire based on 6.ie2 e5 and 6.ie3 e6. By changing the move order with 6.ie3 e6 7.ie2, White could easily outmanoeuvre us to unfamiliar ground. Finally we decided to advocate 6 . . . e5 to both bishop developments on move 6. That called for a co-au thor and the other coach of Bulgari an teams grandmaster Atanas Kolev (current Elo 2601) turned to be the best choice. He plays these posi tions with both colours and lately 5 Foreword has spent a lot of time analysing them. In fact he has been intrigued by the "Najdorf project" ever since its start and ardently emphasized the merits of the 6 . . . e5 approach. As an editor, I endeavoured to prune down the flood of variations which he summoned to prove his assess ments and novelties. The result of 14 month's work is an ambitious book, which aims to arm you with a complete reper toire against l.e4 cS 2.lt:lf3. All topi cal variations are covered in depth. You'll find a lot of original analysis on the most critical positions of the Najdorf. IM Semko Semkov February 2007 Five years later, the book was completely rewritten and redesigned. While remaining true to the original structure, this new edition under went major changes. The most notable one is the section devoted on the variation 6 . .ie3 eS. It was divided on two separate parts for the retreats 7.lDf3 and 7.lDb3. Both of them are totally new. For instance, Black's repertoire against 7.lDb3 .ie6 8.f3 is now based on the topical 8 . . . h5 where the authors analyse original new plans. The Poisoned Pawn section has also been considerably changed to re flect the new discoveries in the 7.f4 h6 line. The Fianchetto system now considers 6 . . . e5, together with 6.g3 e6. The 6.f4 system has been enriched with 6 .. .'ffc7 while retaining 6 . . . e5 as a main repertoire. 6.a4 is now met by 6 . . . e5, instead of 6 ... lDc6. The rare systems also underwent a major update due to the increased popularity of lines like 6.h3 and 6 .'fff3. The book now includes games played until 25.09. 2012. Special thanks to Alexandre Delchev for his contribution to the work. IM Semko Semkov September 2012 6 Introd u ction I have often heard opinions that the Najdorf was suitable only for ad vanced players. It is true that com plete beginners should start with 1 . . . e 5 and follow i n their early months of development the paths of the old maestros. Open positions help in developing basic skills of piece play. They offer ample chances to play endgames which is also good for novices. However, if they want to im prove further, they must get ac quainted with more complex type of positions. The Najdorf is one of the richest openings in chess. You can play it all your life and never get bored. I cannot think of anoth er system where you could choose between long castling, short cas tling and even leaving the king in the centre. The need of calculating a lot of variations improves tactical skills and concentration. This book is not for the lazy. It of fers the ultimate repertoire against l.e4, but it requires some effort to learn at least the "Quick Reper toire" chapters. You'll find there the essence to get you started. I made my best to point out the critical po sitions and most fashionable lines. On many occasions, the proposed repertoire has worthy alternatives. Opinions often differ, but I tried to rely on my long experience with the Najdorf to avoid recommending you short-lived variations. Of all Sicilian systems, the Naj dorf features the most active ap proach towards the centre. As early as from the fifth move, Black tries to GM Kolev's collaboration has brought in valuable fresh ideas and corrective sight. I hope that you will like our work. establish a perfect pawn duo on e5 and d5. This solid positional foun dation accounts for why the Naj dorf is the weapon of choice of the elite. Offbeat variations could reap temporary benefits, but in the long run they spoil your understanding of chess and put a break in your de velopment. Kiril Georgiev 7 About the Structure of This Book Every system is examined in a sepa rate part which contains three chap ters: "Quick Repertoire"; "Step by Step"; "Complete Games" You start with the "Qu ick Repertoire". You'll find there all the vital in formation which you need to start playing the variation. In a few pages you get explanation of typical ideas, crucial positions and topical lines. Most club players do not need anything more. We suppose that 90 percent of the games feature lines that are covered in these chapters. "Step b y Step" chapters fol low the usual layout of Chess Stars books with main lines that branch to sub-lines. Here, we try to analyse 8 as many of White's options as pos sible. You can use these chapters as a reference book or if you liked to learn more. Finally, every part ends with "Complete Games" We tried to avoid repeating fa mous games which you have prob ably seen already. We chose mostly recent games with typical ideas or pawn structures. All the chapters complement one another. In the "Quick Repertoire" you'll find explanations of the gene ral ideas which are omitted in the reference chapter. You start with the basic information and practice will show where you need addition al knowledge. Part 1 The Poisoned Pawn 1 .e4 c5 2. �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ig 5 e6 Pa rt 1 Qu i c k re perto ire l.e4 c5 2.�fJ d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .tg5 My database shows his consider able advantage in latest practice. Second players not only neutralised White's novelties, they have even developed a brand new way to fight 6 . .ig5 which was named The De layed Poisoned Pawn Variation : 7 . . . h6 8 .i.h4 \!;!!b 6 6.i.g5 has always been sup posed to be the potential buster of the Najdorf. My favourite weapon against it is the so-called Poisoned Pawn Variation (PP) which arises after: 6 . . . e6 7.f4 1fb6 ! ? This amazing move i s a brain child of Bronstein, but it has be come extremely popular thanks to the games of Fischer and Kasparov. Five years ago Black suffered a temporary crisis due to new ideas in the line 8.\!;!fd2 \!;!fxb2 9 J�bl \!;!fa3 10.e5, but he quickly recovered. 10 I would like to make it clear right away - I do not advocate this popular move order. Not because it is dubious, but because it of fers White more possibilities to try his luck fishing in muddy waters. Computer analyses and decades of practical tests at top level have ex tremely narrowed the safe path for White in the PP. Let him show what he found in the main line. If he were just bluffing, you'd be in the The Poisoned Pawn excellent position of playing for a win in a better position. The only reason to choose The Delayed Poisoned Pawn could be to avoid the "big theory" of the varia tion 7 . . . �b6 8.�d2 �xb2 9J�bl �a3 lO.fS. Note that in the diagram posi tion, after 9.�d2 �xb2 lOJ�bl �a3 , White can still play ll.fS fi..e 7 12 .fxe6 fxe6 and make a nearly forced draw with 13.fi..c4 lbxe4 14.lt:lxe4 fi.xh4+ 15.g3 etc. Therefore, The Delayed PP does not help much in avoiding forced draws, it only saves some learning. However, Black still has to be acquainted with a big deal of the "old theory" because after 7 . . . h6 8.fi..h 4 �b6, White can play 9 . .ixf6 gxf6 10.�d2 �xb2 . Here, ll.ll:bl �a3 12 ./i.e2 hS transposes to line Dll from the "Step by Step" chapter while ll.lbb3 �a3 1 2 .fi..e 2 hS is considered in line D2. In the latter line (with the pawn on h7), I prefer plans with . . . lbc6 and short castling, instead of . . . hS. However, this is only a small disad vantage of the The Delayed PP. A bigger drawback is White's possibility to exploit 7 . . . h6 by de veloping the queen on d3 or chaos- ing 9.a3, followed by i.h4-f2 which would be impossible stayed the bishop on gS. Black looks fine there, but we are still to see how these two variations will develop in future. In conclusion, if you already knew the old theory, you should probably stay away from the De layed PP. Then you should migrate only if White found something real ly nasty against the main line D13. Let us now return to the main line: If White refrained from sacking the b2-pawn and retreated 8 .lbb3, he would get worse versions of the other 7th move Black alternatives because the knight is passive on b3 and there is nothing to sacrifice on bS or e6. Tony Kosten writes about 8.lbb3 in Chesspublishing.com: "I feel that if everyone played this as White then everyone would play 7... �b6 as Black!" The only serious test for the PP is: 8.Yfd2 8.�d3 looks similar, but from this square the queen impedes its own rook to reach quickly the king11 Part 1 side via the third rank. Many recent games have reached the following topical position: 8 . . . �xb2 9.�b1 �a3 10.f5 i.e7 ll .fxe6 fxe6 12 .!e2 �a5 13.i.d2 �c7 14.g4 h6 18.'tt> h l 18 ... �g4 19.h3 (19.i.xg4 eS) 19 . . . e5 2 0 .�a4 �a7 21.hxg4 exf4 2 2 .�b6 i.e6 ! 23.�xa8 hb3 24.axb3 �xa8= . Black is holding here, but you should check line C for more detail. 13 ... dxe5 14 . .ixf6 gxf6 15.�e4 8 . . . Yltxb2 By capturing the b2-pawn, Black disrupts his opponent's plan of castling long. Now let's learn by heart one really vital variation: For half a century, the first play ers have been digging mostly in one direction in their attempts to refute the seemingly insane raid of Black's queen: 10.f5 �c6 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.�xc6 bxc6 13.e5 13 ..ie2 !e7 14.0-0 0-0 15.�b3 �cS+ 16.!e3 �eS 17.!f4 �cS+ is just another way for White to force a draw. Note, however, the recent try of Ivanchuk: 12 Back in 1988, Nunn predicted that one day a computer will tell us what the result should be after lO.fS. Although White is still kicking, the draw is looming after: 15 . . . �xa2 ! 16.�d1 fa.e7 17.fa.e2 0-0 18.0-0 �a7 19.�f3 'tt> h 8 (I chose against Brkic 19 . . . �d7 !?. This is a reliable back up to the main line.) 2 0 .�g3 �d7 2 1.�h6 �f7 2 2 .�h5 �xd1+ 23 . .ixd1 �as 24.'tt> f1 �d8 25.�xf7 �xdl+ with a perpetual in Vallejo Pons Kasparov, Moscow 2 004. If White tried to escape this forced draw, we would get fairly The Poisoned Pawn good chances for winning. My ex perience shows that every deviation from the well trodden path could cost the first player dearly. In my practice, I have scored 65% against an opposition of 2570 average rat ing and 75% against grandmasters above 2600 Elo. I could only dream of such results against 6 . .ie3, 6 . .ie2 , 6.f3 o r even 6.g3. A new attempt to keep on fight ing was undertaken in Danin-Dvoi rys, Vladimir 2009: 20.�h6 (instead of 2 0 J�g3) 20 ... \Wxc2 2 U�xf6 Motylev-Anand saw 20 . . . l'!d8?. Black even won, but a few days lat er it was discovered that White's at tack was devastating. Anand-Van Wely went 20 . . . l!Jc6 21.i.xf8?! l!Jxf8 22 .0-0 when Kolev's novelty 22 ... �e5 ! maintains the balance. Later White learned to keep the d6-bish op with 22.0-0! l!Jce5 23.l'!ddl ! ? . This line needs more testing. I think that Black should devel op his queen's knight to d7: 20 f5 21 . .txf8 ltlxf8 22.ltld6 ltlbd7, followed up by ti'c5 or YBe5. •.• ••. ••• Stohl suggests 2l...l'!g8 ! ? 22.l!Jg5 l'!g7 23.l'!dfl .ix£6 24.�xf6 �c5+ 25.'it>hl �e7 26.�xe5 l'!d7= . White's hottest idea in the last years has been brought to the fore by the Corus tournament in Wijk aan Zee 2 0 07, where Anand won two games with both colours. They ran identically up to move 2 0 : This position is currently un explored. It is not forced and sub sequent play is not so computer dependent as the other lines. Check line D141 for detail. Black has better tested and more reliable equalisers, but they require more memorization. 9.gbl �a3 10.e5 h 6 ll . .th4 dxe5 12.fxe5 ltlfd7 13.ltle4 �xa2 14.gdl Wd5 15.ti'e3 Wxe5 16 .le2 .tc5 17 .tg3 .ixd4 18.�d4 ti'a5+ 19.gd2 0 - 0 20 .td6 • • • 13 Part 1 He scores very well in this position with 10 . . . h6 ll . .ih4 dxe5 12 .fxe5 tt:ld5 ! ? or 12 . . . g5. These options are considered in line Dl42. 13.�e3 E:c8 14.tt:lb1 Your next step should be to learn to cope with : 9.tt:lb3 This line is essential as it is una voidable by the modern Delayed PP. 9 . . . �a3 10 . .ixf6 gxf6 ll .ie2 c!t:lc6 • When the enemy knight has left d4 and cannot capture on c6, this move ensures simplest and fast est development. The bishop goes to d7, the rook to c8, and the king gets a back door to the queenside via d8-c7-b8. ll . . . h5 is another de cent set-up. 12. 0 - 0 .id7 In this line, Black does not risk to be crushed right in the open ing. Instead, he has two other ma jor concerns: 1) The queen on a3 might be trapped. A typical scenario is: 14 This manoeuvre in a simi lar position was a revelation when Spassky introduced it in the 28th game against Fischer, Reykjavik 1972. Fisher panicked and quick ly lost. Note that it is effective only when White's queen is on e3 to control the retreat square b6. Later Black learned to neutralise this ma noeuvre, but only to the extent of repetition of moves after 14 . . . �a4= 15.tt:lc3 �a3 . Deviation is risky by White (16.E:fd1 tt:l a5 17.tt:lb1 �b4 !+) as well as by Black. (14 ... �b2 15.tt:l 1d2 b5 16.c4 tt:lb4oo) Still, if you badly need a win, you could venture into the latter variation. 2) In the long run, Black's king is uncomfortable in the centre. The ideal haven for it is h8, but short castling is good only if White had played 14.tt:ld1 which I consider be low. More often Black is trying to sneak out to the queenside via d8c8 (after . . . E:c7 first). He should not distract his attention from his gene ral aim, namely to ensure good pro tection to his king. Losing the pawn on d6 in the process is not a prob lem, since without queens the bish op pair unleashes its true power. The Poisoned Pawn On the contrary, snatching a second pawn usually wastes time and badly uncovers Black's king: Kotro n i as-Froe h l ich L i n a res 2002 13.'it>h1 1'k8 14.lL:ld1 i.g7 15.lL:le3 Luther chose 17.gd3 and follow ing 17 . . . gc7! began repeating moves with 18.tilb1 '!Wa4 19.tilc3. I could have declined the draw by 18 . . . '1Wb4 19 .tilc3 tila5 ! ?+. 17.gg3 !? has more venom, but my analysis shows that 17 . . . gc7! 18.gg7 tila5 19 . .ixt7 '!Wb4 leads to a pleas ant endgame for Black. In the overwhelming majority of games lately, White plays the flexi ble move : 13.'it>hl when 13 . !k8 leads to a crucial juncture (line D2). . . 15 .. .'1Wb4? 16.c3 �xe4 17.tilc4 .if8 18.tilb6 '!Wg6 19.tilc5±. Black should have prevented the threat of tilc4 by 15 . . . b5 ! and castled as in game 9 Sedlak-Kiril Geor giev, Vrnjacka Banja 2005: 16 . .ih5 0-0 17.gad1 gfd8+. Here is an example where Black's king escaped to the queenside: Luther-Kiril Georgiev Fra nce 2003 16 . . . 'it>d8 ! Now plausible choices are: 14 . .ih5? ! ; 14.tild1; 14.f5?! ; 14.gf3 ; 14.gadl. The first two options allow Black to castle after 14 . . . i.g7 (and 15 . . . b5 in the case of tild1-e3). He could fol low up with . . . tile7. Play opens up and the bishop pair normally en sures Black some edge. Obviously, White needs more enterprising measures to prevent castling. His most straightforward plan is to push 14.f5, but this move enables Black to realise in full the potential of his rook on c8. He an swers with 14 . . . tile5 ! 15.fxe6 fxe6 1 6 . .ih5+ 'it>d8+ 15 Part 1 Black is behind in development. Therefore, we should focus first on neutralising the enemy's initi ative. The text discourages 15.l"!af1 h4 16.f5 in view of 16 . . . i.h6 ! 17.W/d1 ltleS -+. 15J3dl .ie7 Now 17.l"!xf6 fails to the thema tic hit 17 . . . W/b4 while 17.ltle2 gives Black time to complete evacuation ofthe king to the queenside: 17 . . . \!;>c? 18.ltlf4 \!;>b8 19.W/f2 .ih6+, LigterinkE. Geller, Wijk aan Zee 1977. The last example shows why Lu ther recommends : It squelches all Black's hopes for castling. At the same time the rook defends the knight on c3 and charges some tactical devices based on the opposition with the queen along the third rank. From f3, the rook could go to d3, e3, h3 or g3, increasing the pressure against our king. Finally, White prepares also to double his rooks on the f-file, open it by f4-f5-fxe6 and capture on f6. What could we do in response? 14 ... h5! The opening stage is over. Black is not in an imminent danger and he keeps his extra pawn and bishop pair. Before claiming an advantage, however, he must return his queen to b6 or c7. See game 10 Pitigala Novik, FIDE.com 2 0 0 2 . I assume that you are already sufficiently armed against the PP variation. Now I'm going to dis cuss some typical plans when White avoids sacrificing the b2-pawn. He can achieve that either by playing 8.a3 or 8.ltlb3, or by delaying 7.f4. All these lines are not very sharp and both sides have a wide choice of more or less equal plans. There is no place for panic if you forgot "the main line" You can then try to reach some of the model positions which I consider below. Here are the most important plans of Black: Dark-squared strateg y with h6-g5 Game 1 . Kreiman-Novi kov San Diego 2006 6..ig5 e6 7.f4 'M>6 8.a3 ltlc6 9.ltlb3 .ie710.W/f3 .id711.0-0-0 Y!!c7 12.g4 16 The Poisoned Pawn Queenside castl ing 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 Wl'b6 8.a3 lt:Jc6 9.lt:Jb3 .ie710.�f3 �c711.0-0-0 .id7 12 .g4 h6 13 .i.xf6 .ixf6 14.h4 0-0-0 12 . . . h6 13 . .ih4 gS ! 14.fxg5 lt:JeS 1S.WI'g3 lt:Jfxg4, with initiative. See the "Complete Games" chapter. This plan is one of the strongest weapons in Black's possession against the advance g4. Its effectiveness does not depend much on the position of Black's queen's knight. It could be on c6 or d7. Despite looking very attractive, however, I recommend using it only when White has committed him self with g4. Otherwise Black could turn out to have only one good cen tral outpost on eS in return for a split kingside. Do not persist with it if White had chosen 12 .�h4 instead of 12 .g4. Then 12 . . . h6 (12 .. J'k8 ! ?) could be met with 13 . .if2 gS 14.g3 and White maintains the tension in the centre. This position is about equal. White has more space, but without the dark-squared bishop he cannot use the weakness of the b6-square. Queenside attack by . . . b5 6.�g5 e6 7.f4 �b6 8.lt:Jb3 fi.e7 9.�f3lt:Jbd710.0-0-0 �c711 . .id3 bS Caution! If Black's pawn were on bS, White could meet . . . h6 by capturing on f6. Then . . ..if6 weakens d6 and too of ten the sacrifice i.xbS gives White three pawns for the piece and the initiative. In an endgame, the three passed pawns, supported by the king, are likely to prevail. Should White allow b5-b4 or should he prevent it by 12 .a3? There is still no definite answer to that question. a) 12.a3 E:b8 ! ? This move has been popularised by Kasparov and follows the latest 17 Part 1 trends in the Najdorf. 12 . . . �b7 is also good. 13.:1!he1 b4 This is a consistent move, but apparently White can use the ad vanced position of the rook on b4 to achieve a draw. 13 . . . h 6 ! ? in or der to define the centre first, is seen in game 4 Leko-Judit Polgar, Linares 2001. 14.axb4 gxb4 1S.c;!;>b1 .ib7 16 .h3 tt:lcS 17.tt:lxc5 '\Wxc5 ! = Black has active pieces. H e needs only to castle. b) 12 .ghe1 White's concept is to retreat the knight to e2 and continue its march toward d4. I discuss this position in detail in the "Step by Step" chapter. 18 After 12 . . . b4 13.ttle2 .ib7 14.tt:led4 tt:lcS 1S.c;!;>b1 0-0 16.g4, we reach a critical position which seems promising for Black. His queenside pawns run unimpeded, see game 5 Kamsky-Vallejo Pons, Khanty Mansyisk 2005. I think that when you have read these few pages and played through the complete games, you'll be suffi ciently armed in order to feel con fident in the PP variation. When I started playing it a few decades ago I had certainly a lesser knowledge. Part 1 Ste p by Ste p l.e4 c5 2 . ti)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ti)xd4 ti)f6 5. ti)c3 a6 6.i.g5 e6 This move underlines a major difference in favour of the Najdorf in comparison to the Richter- Rau zer Variation - White's most dan gerous set-up with 7.'Wd2 stumbles into 7 . . . h6 8 .�h4 l!Jxe4 ! = . sy bishop on gS. On that square, it impedes the thematic pawn storm with the h- and g-pawns. If the bish op retreated to e3, White would be a tempo down in comparison to the main lines of the English Attack. Its placement on gS could prove useful only if Black was overhasty in push ing . . . dS. I recommend to complete development first and only then think about the central break . . . dS : 8 . . . b5 ! 9.0-0-0 i.b7 10.g4 (or 10.'it>b1 l!Jbd7 1 l.h4 Elc8 12 .g4 l!Jb6, Tonteri Balashov, Kuopio 1992 , 13.i.d3 l!Jc4 14.i.xc4 Elxc4oo) 10 . . . l!Jbd7 1 1 .i.e3 l!Jb6 12.a3 l!Jfd7 13.l!Jb3 Elc8 14.l!Ja5 i.a8 15 .h4 0-0 16.g5 dSi. Moeller Vogt, Leutersdorf 2003. b) 7.i.c4 bS 8.i.b3 i.e7 is a sub line of the Sozin Attack. 7.f4 White has tested more than twenty ( ! ) other continuations. I di vide them into two groups : White develops his queen in order to cas tle long, and all the rest: a) 7.f3 i.e7 8.'Wd2 is an attempt to play the English Attack with a dum- c) 7.i.e2 does not fit well with White's previous aggressive move. Black can follow typical Sicilian schemes with 7 . . . i.e7 8.'Wd2 (8.f4!? h6 9.i.h4 'Wb6oo is unexplored. No tice that 9 . . . l!Je4? ! is dubious be cause White gets full compensation for the pawn) 8 . . . b5 9.a3 .ib7 10 . .if3 l!Jbd7 1 l.Eld1 l!JeS+, Stock-Kir. Geor giev, San Bernardino 1989. 19 Part 1 d) 7.a4 fJ..e 7 8 .fJ..c4 0-0 9 . 0-0 ll:\c6 10J�e1 'fffc7 does not face Black with problems - ll.ll:\b3 b6 12 ..if1 .ib7 13J�e3 l"i:fd8 14.'%!fe2 l"i:ac8+, Ljuboje vic-Tukmakov, Madrid 1973. As a whole, the above-men tioned options lead to relatively quite play where Black easily com pletes development. He can put the bishop on b7, the rook on c8, the queen's knight usually goes to d7. Our next step could be to prepare a breakthrough on the queenside by . . . b5-b4 or in the centre by . . . d6-d5. Now let's move on to the more enterpnsmg developments of White's queen: e) 7.'fffd 2 h6 8 . .ixf6 (8 . .ih4 ll:\xe4 ! = ) 8 . . . 'fffxf6 This position is widely assessed as good for Black. It may be so, but I think I should advise you a little fur ther. I recommend a plan with re treat of the queen to c7 via d8. Then Black can castle on the same wing as the opponent. The bishop pair should secure him from trouble: 9. 0-0-0 fJ..d 7 10.f4 ll:\c6 ll.ll:\f3 'fffd B 12.c;t>b1 'Wc7 13 .g3 0-0-0 14.h4 c;t>bs 15.l"i:h2 fJ..e 7 16.'%!fe3 ll:\a5 20 17.l"i:hd2 l"i:c8 18.'fffd 4 l"i:hg8oo, Popil sky-Ter Sahakyan, Albena 2011; 9.f4 'fffd 8 10. 0-0-0 ll:\c6 ll . .ic4 '%!fc7 12.f5 fJ..e 7 13.ll:\f3 .id7 14.c;t>b1 0-0- 0 =, Bontempi-Lazarev, Porto San Giorgio 1998. f) 7.'fffd 3 White's reasoning is clear since 7.'fffd 2 allows 7 . . . h6 8 . .ih4 ll:\xe4 ! , then the queen will go a lit tle further. The obvious downside of this move is that ll:\d7-c5 will be with a tempo, but that does not bother White since the queen has a good retreat square on e3. Moreover, it is arguable that the knight is better placed on c5 than on d7. Black usu ally needs the c-file free for thre �t ening the exchange sac on c3 With . . . l"i:c8xc3. White's queen manoeu vre has a less conspicuous, but more important drawback - it plugs the fl-bishop, depriving the first player of dangerous destructive sacrifices on b5. This circumstance greatly re duces the dynamic options of White and gives Black time for a normal development. However, things are not that clear: 7 . . . b5 The Poisoned Pawn The move order is not too im portant. Black could begin with 7. . . lLlbd7. 8.a3 This seems indispensable or Black gains space on the queenside. He could put his queen on aS and castle long, or fight for the dark squares on the other wing: 7 . . . lLlbd7 8.0-0-0 bS 9.f4 b4 Kovalev-Bolo �!;!faSt 10.lLlce2 gan, Minsk 2000, or 7 . . . bS 8.f4 b4 9.lLlce2, when 9 . . . lLlbd7 10.0-0-0 l!;!faS transposes to the same game. The piece sac 8.f4 lLlbd7 9. 0-0-0 b4 lO.lLldS does not bring White good results, e.g. lO . . . exdS ll.exdS .!lJcS 12 .1'!e1+ <i!fd7 13.1!;!rc4 i.b'T+, Hagarova-Womacka, Pardubice 2000. balanced. White's domination along the d-file and the active knight on d6 are compensated by counterplay against b2, e.g. 19 . . . 1'!ab8 20.1'!hd1 b4 21.axb4 E1xb4 22 .1!;!rc3 1!;!fb6. ll . . . h6 restrains White's choice. Then 12 . .ih4? fails to 12 . . . gS 13.fxgS lLlcS 14.1!;!re3 lLlfxe4+, while 12 .hf6 lLlxf6 (12 . . . i.xf6? loses to 13.lLlxe6) 13.eS dxeS 14.fxeS lLldS= is about equal, e.g. 1S.lLlxe6 fxe6 16.1!;!rg6+ <i!fd7 17.i.g4 <t!fc7 18.1!;!rxe6 igS+ 19.<i!fb1 lLlxc3+ 20.bxc3 ic8 21.1'!xd8 .b:e6 22.1'!xh8 E1xh8 23 . .b:e6 if4=. 11.. .1!;!fb6 12.0-0-0 8 . . . lLlbd7 9.f4 In the game Walek-Kalod, Czechia 2 006, White tried unsuc cessfully short castling: 9 .i.e2 i.b7 10.0-0 i.e7 11.1!;!rg3 E1c8 12.i.xf6 i.xf6 13.1'!ad1 1!;!fb6+. 9 . . . i.b7 10.i.e2 White's attempt to regroup with 10.1!;!fh3? ! i.e7 ll.i.d3 E1c8 12. 0-0-0 stumbles into the typical exchange sac 12 . . . 1'!xc3 ! 13.bxc3 lLlcS�, W. Arencibia-lvanchuk, Luzern 1997. 10 . . . i.e7 ll.i.f3 11.0-0-0 is not too dangerous. Arizmendi/Mareno suggest ll . . . lLlcS 12 .1!;!fe3 lLlfxe4, when 13.lLlxe4 lLlxe4 14.if3 .bgS 1S.fxgS lLlcS 16.lLlfS 0-0 17.lLlxd6 Vf!c7 18.1'!d2 .h£3 19.gxf3 is 12 . . . h6 This move is very committing. It offers Black more possibilities for counterplay, based on . . . g7-gS, but at the same time it weakens the kingside and especially the hS-e8 diagonal. Black should be constant ly on guard for a hit on e6. 12 . . . 0-0 is worth consideration. Then 13.1'!he1 lLlcS 14.1!;!re3 h6 1S ..ih4 (1S.hf6 .b:f6 16.g4 b4 17.axb4 1!;!fxb4--+) 1S . . . b 4 16.axb4 1!;!fxb4 17.eS dxeS 18.fxeS lLlg4+ is in Black's favour. 13.1!;!fe2 could be met by 13 . . . lLlcS 14.eS dxeS 1S.fxeS lLldS 16 . .ixe7 lLlxe7, with a comfortable game. 21 Part 1 13 . .ih4 White should not expect to get an advantage with 13 . .ixf6 .ixf6 14.e5 lt'lcS 1S.�e2 dxeS 16.fxe5 .ie7=. 13 . . J3c8 Play is balanced, with mutual chances. For instance: 14J3he1 gS 15.e5 ! deS ! 16.fxe5 (16 ..ixb7 �xb7 17.fxe5 :!3xc3+) 16 . . . lt'lxe5 (16 . . . .ixf3 17.�xf3 gxh4 18.exf6 lt'lxf6 19.'i!lb1oo) 17.:!3xe5 .bf3 18.�xf3 gxh4. 18 .i.e2 lt'lhf6 19.:!3hd1 lt'le8 2 0 . a4 b6 2 1 .b3 :!3a7 2 2 . 'i!lb2 :!3c7 23.:!3d4 i.b7 24.lt'ld2 :!3g8 25.g3 :!3g5 26.:!3c4 draw, Short-Kir. Georgiev, Elenite 1995. Black should pay special at tention to the piece sacrifice after 7 . . . i.e7 8. 0-0-0 �c7 9.�g3 lt'lbd7 10 .i.e2 ! ? bS (It is a grave mistake to prepare this move by 10 . . . :!3b8? ll.f4 bS due to 12.e5 ! + - as I was to discover in 2011 at my own expense against Van Riemsdijk.) ll . .bbS axbS 12.lt'ldxb5 g) 7.�f3 The obvious aim of this move is to avoid the Poisoned Pawn Varia tion. Many years ago I played it (as White ! ) and even now I think that it has some venom. In my opinion, Black has two good approaches. 1. 7 . . . .ie7 8. 0-0-0 �c7 9.�g3 (9.g4 lt'lc6) 9 . . . lt'lbd7. Now 10.f4 h6 ll.i.h4 gS (more risky is 11 . . . :!3g8 12 .i.e2 gS 13.fxg5 lt'leS 14.lt'lf3oo Ra dulski-Franic, Zadar 2 0 04) trans poses to the Brawn system after Nunn's terminology, where Black has no problems after 12.fxg5 lt'lhS 13.�e3 �cs 14.�d2 .ixgS 1S . .ixg5 �xgS 16.lt'lf3 �xd2+ 17.:!3xd2 'i!le7 22 The first thing Black should re member is to avoid the endgame with a piece for three pawns after ll . . . �b8 12.lt'lxd6+ .bd6 13.�xd6 �xd6 14.:!3xd6, Bronstein-Naj dorf, Buenos Aires 1954. An inter esting way to escape from this sce nario is 12 . . . �b7 13.lt'lxd6+ .ixd6 14. �xd6 :!3a6. The only practical test was Magyar-Aczel, Hungary 2010, which went 1S.�d4 (1S.�g3 0-0 16.:!3xd7 lt'lxd7 17.i.h6 g6 18 . .bf8 'i!lxf8) 15 . . . e5 16.�e3 O-m=. 2 . 7 . . . h6 is trendy. This move has been recommended by Kasp arov and all the theoreticians. It aims to squelch the ideas with �g3 if White persists with the pin by The Poisoned Pawn 8.i.h4. Then Black follows up with 8 ... tt::lb d7 9 . 0-0-0 Wfc7 10.W/h3 i.e7 ll.f4 bS 12.a3 l"!b8 . The thematic threat o f b5-b4 forces White to venture into action in the centre: 13.e5 dxeS 14.fxe5 ll:\xeS 15 . .ig3 b4 16.axb4 l"!xb4+, Milov-Ruck, Griesheim 2002. One year later Korchnoj-Sadvaka sov, Astana 2003, saw 10 . .ie2 ie7 ll.l"!he1 and again 11 . . . /"!bB turned well for Black: 12 .Wfh3 bS 13.f4 b4 14.tt::lb 1 .ib7t. In my opinion, White should retreat to e3 and castle short, try ing to exploit the weakness of the kingside caused by 7 . . . h6: 8 . .ie3 ! ? (Bartel-Esen, Plovdiv 2 012, saw 8 . .id2 , preventing any ideas with ... l"!c8xc3. Perhaps Black should drive the d4-knight back by 8 .. .'\1�'b6 9.tt::lb3 tt::lb d7oo.) 12 . . . tt::le 5 13.W/g3 tt::lxe4 14.tt::lxe4 .ixe4 15.f4 (15.i.d2iii) 15 . . . tt::lc4 16.a4 b4 17 . .if2iii ; 12 . . . tt::l c5 13 .i.d3 JJ.e7 14.W/g3. I would not say that White is bet ter, but this plan does set concrete problems for solving. In the diagram position, Black has also tested : 8 . . . e5 9.tt::lb3 .ie6 10.h3 tt::lb d7 11.0-0-0 l"!c8. In Werndl-Loginov, Oberwart 1995, White ignored the typical exchange sacrifice on c3 and got an advantage after 12 .g4?! when 12 ... 1"!xc3 13.bxc3 W/c7 offers considerable compensation for the exchange : 14.Wb2 (14.i.g2 aS; 14.g5 hxgS 15 . .ixg5 W/c6 16 . .ig2 i.eToo ) 14 . . . WI'c6. Perhaps White should anticipate the sacrifice by 12 .tt::ld5 .ixdS 13.exd5 W/c7 14.i.d3 g6oo. In conclusion, 7.W/f3 leaves plenty of room for creativity for both sides. h) 7.Wfe2?! A rather clumsy way to cre ate threats in the centre. Analy sis shows that the ensuing tactical clash is in Black's favour. You may find this move assessed as dubious, but the plan with short castling is in fact an uncharted ter ritory. The fine point of White's de sign is to meet .ie7 with Wfg3. Black could confront that with: 8 . . )!)bd7 9 ie2 Wfc7 10 0-0 bS 11 a3 ! i.b7, when in I . Zaitsev-Loginov, Moscow 1999 White played 12 .W/h3 i.e7 13.1"!ae1 llJc5 14.i.d3 d5= . More testing is 12 .1"!fe1, for instance: 7 . . . h6! (7 . . ..ie7 is playable, but not best) 8 . .ih4 .ie7 23 Part 1 9.f4 White's hopes to revive the vari ation are connected with this pawn sacrifice. 9 . 0-0-0 lL\xe4 10 .he7 lL\xc3 ll.i.xdS (11.�c4 lL\xa2 +) 11...lLlxe2 + 12.lLlxe2 <;t>xdS 13.gxd6+ <;t>e?+, Wir schell-Van Wely, Antwerp 1996, or 9 . .ig3 e5 ! 10.lLlb3 b5 ll.f4 0-0 ! +, Smyslov-Portisch, Tilburg 1979 do not even equalise. 9 . . . lL\xe4 10 .he7 lL\xc3 11.'?9c4 <;t>xe7 12.'?9xc3 i.d7 ! ? White counts o n the weakness of g7, but we are not going to defend it! 12 . . . ges may also be good, but it is passive. The king's rook is more functional on cS, or gS if White cap tures on g7. 13.0-0-0 pawn with 16 . . . �xf4 17.g3 '?9b4. As an improvement, I can suggest 14.'?9e3 ! ? �aS (14 . . . �c5? 15.b4 �xb4 16.lLlf5+ <;t>fs 17.lL\xd6-.) 15.i.c4 gcs 16.i.b3 lL\c6, with good piece play, e.g. 17.g4 (17.ghe1 �c5 1S.<;t>b1 <;t>fS) 17 . . . <;t>fS 1S.<;t>b1 �c5 19.c3 (19.ghe1 lL\xd4 20.gxd4 a5 21.c3 a4 2 2 .i.c2 a3) 19 . . . lL\xd4 20.gxd4 a5 2 1.�d2 a4 2 2 .i.c2 a3+. 14.lL\xc6+ hc6 15.�xg7 �a5 16.�d4 �c5 17.�d2 �d5 1S.�b4 '?9c5 (1S . . . '?9xa2 19.�xd6+ <;t>eS 2 0 .�e5 ggs 2 1.i.d3 gxg2 2 2 .b3 <;t>e7 23.f5 gds 24.fxe6 gd5=) 19 .'?9e1 gagS 2 0 .�h4+ f6+, Ziatdinov-Browne, Los Angeles 2001. (20 ... <;t>d7+). You should remember two things about the position on the last dia gram: Do not defend the g7-pawn; Do not play d6-d5. It is better to return the pawn than close the main diagonal to our light-squared bishop. Activate your queen and rooks and do not con cede the initiative. 7 Wb6 ! (Bronstein ! ) ••• 13 . . . lLlc6 13 ... �b6 might prove to be even better. Kleiser- Freitag, Austria 2006, went on 14.lL\f3 lLlc6 15.<;t>b1 (15.�xg7 �e3+ 16.<;t>b1 gagS+) 15 . . . �b4 (15 . . . �c5+) 16.�d3, when Black should have taken a second 24 Recently, Black has been experi menting a lot with the tricky move order 7 . . . h6 S.i.h4 �b6. The insertion of 7 . . . h6 got the name of The Delayed Poisoned Pawn Variation. In the next section I will try to out line it so you have a choice for your repertoire. The Poisoned Pawn Delayed Poisoned Pawn 7 h6 8 .ih4 YHb6 .•• • In fact, this move order does not have an independent value as play often transposes to sub-varia tions of line D. Its main attraction is the fact that Black avoids the bulk of theory in the variation 7 . . . �b6 8.\!!Yd 2 '1Wxb2 9.l'!bl '1Wa3 lO.fS. Instead, it is enough to learn only the game Vallejo Pons-Morozevich, Reggio Emilia 2011: a) 9.\!!Yd 2 \!!Yxb2 lO .gbl \!!Ya3 ll.f5 (ll.eS dxeS 12 .fxe5 - line Dl42) ll . . . .ie7 12.fxe6 '1We7 18.'1Wd5 '1Wxe6 19.'1Wxe6+ he6 2 0.i.xe6=, However, White can also try 16.l!Jxe6 he6 17.hd5 0-0 18.i.xe6+ �h8 19.l'!fl (19 . .td5 tt:lc6 2 0 .gxh4 l'!ad8 2l.l'!fl l'!xfl+ 22.�xfl '1Wh3 + 23.�gl l!JeS 24.'1Wg2 �xg2+ 25.�xg2 l'!xdS 26.l'!xb7 l'!d4=) 19 . . . l!Jc6 2 0 .gxh4 l'!fe8 2 l.if5oo. 16.c!Oxg5 hxg5 17.c!Oxe6 he6 18.he6 \!!Yxg3+ 19.hxg3 g:xhl+ 20 . �e2 gh2 + 21.�el gxd2 22.�xd2 ga7 23 .id5 c!Od7 24.gxb7 gxb7 25.hb7 c!Oc5 26.-ifJ <,!ld7= • b) 9 .h:f6 gxf6 10.�d2 �xb2 • Or 12.l'!b3 \!!Ya S 13.�f2, Abduma lik-Schut, Athens 2 0 12, 13 . . . e5 ! 14.tt:lf3 l!Jbd7 15.ic4 l!JcS 16.hc5 �xc5 17.id5 idS+. 12 . •• fxe6 13 .ic4 • ll.l!Jb3 '1Wa3 12 .ie2 hS - line D2; ll.l'!bl '1Wa3 12 .ie2 hS - line Dll. c) 9.a3 .ie7 1 0 .if2 �c7 • The main equaliser here is : 13 l!Jxe4 15.g3 .ig5= ••• 14.c!Oxe4 hh4+ 15 . . . d5 does not avoid the draw because of 16.gxh4 dxe4 17.l!Jxe6 White has been fervently dig25 Part 1 ging in this direction lately, but he has not shown anything fearsome so far: 12 .h3 (12. 0-0-0 ll:\xd4 13.l'!xd4 bS 14.g4 eS+!, Kotronias-Hagen, Plo vdiv 2012) 12 . . . b5 13.g4 i.b7 14.i.g2 l'!c8 15.ll:\xc6 �xc6 16.0-0-0 V;Yc4 c1) 11.�f3 bS (the set-up with 11 . . . ll:\c6 was tested in Naiditsch Vachier Lagrave, Melilla 2011. The game was balanced after 12. 0-0-0 i.d7 13.i.e2 Ek8 14.g4 ll:\xd4 15J:!xd4 i.c6 16.g5 hxgS 17.fxg5 ll:\d7 18.�g3 lLlcS 19.i.f3 ll:\a4 20.lLlxa4 i.xa4 2 1.c3 i.d7) 1 2 . 0-0-0 i.b7 13.g4 llJ bd7 14 .i.g2 It is risky to keep the queens with 17.l'!d3 0-0, followed up by . . . dS, but 17J:!he1 �xe2 18J!xe2 ll:\d7 19.i.g3 lLlb6 was fine for Black in Nepomniachtchi-Dominguez Pe rez, Havana 2012. d) 9.'ti'd3 'ti'xb2 l O .l'!bl �a3 ll.f5 Black's counterplay here is based on the breakthrough . . . gS. It would be interesting to test it af ter 14 . . . ll:\ c5 15J�he1, e.g. 15 . . . g5! ? . Naiditsch-Guliyev, Le Port-Marly 2012 saw instead: 14 . . . g5 ! ? 15.h4 gxf4 16.g5 lLleS 17.V;Yxf4 lLlhS = . Critical is perhaps 15.f5 lLleS (15 . . . e5 16.lLlb3oo) 16.V;Yg3 (16.V;Ye2 i.c8 17.h3 l'!b8 18.lLlf3 ll:\fd7) 16 . . . i.c8 17.h4 ll:\fxg4 18.hxg5 i.xgS+ 19.�b1oo. c2) 1 1.V;Ye2 ll:\c6 (11 . . . e5 12 .lLlf5 i.xf5 13.exf5lLlc6 14.0-0-0 0-0 15.g4 exf4 16.h4 f3 17.V;Yxf3 lL\eS 18.V;Yf4 ll:\exg4 19.i.d4 lLleS 20.l'!g1 �h8 2 1.i.g2 l'!ac8 2 2 .�b1 bSoo, Kokarev S.Zhigalko, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 011) 26 11.e5 dxeS 12 .fxe5 gS is good for Black. n . . . J.e7 12.fxe6 12 ••• 1x:e6 This seems trendy, but remem ber that this variation is nearly un- The Poisoned Pawn explored so any new top level game can change its status. 12 . . .fxe6 13 . .ie2 0-0 14.0-0 'it>h8 15.'it>h1 A. 8.a3 ; B. 8.tl:\b3; C. 8.�d3 ; D. 8.�d2 Inferior alternatives are: 8.f5?! �xb2 9.tl:\a4 �a3 10.c3 .id7 ll.fxe6 (12 .hf6 gxf6 13 .�h5+ 'it>e7 14 ..ic4 �xa4+, Murey-Pinter, Malta 1980) ll . . . fxe6 12.tl:\xe6 ha4 13.�f3 Y9b2 14.l'k1, Fernandez de Pablo- Rueda Erazo, Galapagar 2 005, 14 . . . Y9b6 15 . .ixf6 gxf6 16 . .ic4 tl:\d7 17.�h5+ 'it>e7 18.tl:\d4 tl:\e5+; This is another critical position. 15 . . . �a5 16.e5± and 15 . . . tl:\bd7 16.tl:\xe6! tl:\e5 17.tl:\xf8 tl:\xd3 18.tl:\g6+ 'it>h7 19 . .ixd3�, Bobras Maksimenko, Berlin 2012 are dubi ous, but: 15 . . . e5 16.hf6 hf6 17.tl:\b3 tl:\d7 looks quite solid. 14.Ae2 fxe6 13.�xe6 �bd7 15. 0 - 0 ,;cs 16.gb3 Yeas 17.YlYh3 ti'e5oo, Solodovnichenko Sandipan, Nancy 2012. Back to the Poisoned Pawn! 8 . .ixf6 gxf6 9 ..ie2 �xb2 10.tl:\a4 �a3 ll.c3 tl:\d7 12.0-0 b5 13 . .ih5 .ib7 14.�g4 0-0-0 15 . .ixt7 �xa4 16.�xe6 �c4+, Hector-Naiditsch, Wijk aan Zee 2 003. A. 8 a3 �c6 Black attacks the d4-knight im mediately. The attempt to reach a typical Najdorf set-up by 8 . . . tl:\bd7 can transpose to the Delayed PP with 9 . .ih4 (9.f5 ! ?) 9 . . . .ie7 10 . .if2 �c7 11.g4. 9.�b3 27 Part 1 9 . .ie7 . . Luther claims that Black has no problems in the endgame after 9 . . . '1We3+ 10 .�e2 �xe2+ ll.he2 . Nijboer-Van Wely, Netherlands 1995, saw further ll . . . b5 12.0-0-0 h6 13.hf6 gxf6 14 . .ih5. In my opin i?n without queens Black has very : hm1ted chances to win because his pawn chain lacks flexibility. He has too many pawn weaknesses to think about. 1 0 .Y«f3 From d2, the queen does not support a kingside attack so well as from f3. That makes short castling possible and Black usual ly has good play after 10.'1Wd2 0-0 ! ? 11. 0-0-0 :B:d8 12 . .ie2 (12 .hf6 hf6 13.g4 should be met by 13 . . . .ih4=.) 12 . . . �c7 13.ll:ld4 .id7 14.'1We3 :B:ac8 15.<it>b1 h6 16.h4 ll:lxd4 17.:B:xd4 �b6 18.�d3 .!c6+, Sedlak-Smirnov Moscow 2006. White's pieces ar� scattered all over the board without much coordination. 10 .'1Wd2 h6 1l.hf6 (ll . .ih4 ll:le4! ) ll . . . hf6 i s similar to the main line: 1 2 . 0-0-0 .ie7 13.h4, when 13 . . . h5 ! ? stops White's kingside expansion. 1 0 . . . Y«c7 11. 0 - 0 - 0 .id7 12.g4 White's only active resource is to push the g-pawn up to g5. If he de layed this advance, Black would get more possibilities which are practi cally unexplored. For instance, he could leave the king in the centre 28 and play . . J:k8, . . .b S . However, I do not see any reason to abandon our main plan with h6 and g5: 12 .id3 h6 13 . .!h4 g5 14 . .ig3 gxf4 15.hf4 lLleS 16.he5 dxe5 17.:B:hf1 0-0-0, Cavanagh-Rowson, Dundee 1996. Black is already slightly bet ter. 12 . .ie2 h6 13 . .ih4 (13.hf6 .ixf6 14.h4 0-0-0 is similar to the main line) 13 . . . g5 14.fxg5 lLle5 The only way for White to steer the game into a different direction is: 12 .ih4. Then 12 . . . h6 is not so ef fective due to 13.if2 g5 14.g3 . Ap parently, Black should abandon his plan of castling long and choose 12 . . . :B:c8. Murey-Sigurjonsson, Ran ders 1982, saw further: 13.g4 h6 (the thematic 13 . . . ll:lxe4? ! fails to 14.ll:lxe4 dS 15.ll:lg5 h6 16.ll:lxf7 lLleS 17.�e2 lLlxf7 18 .he7�) 14.ig3 (14.ie2 g5 15.fxg5 lLleS 16.�g2 ll:lh7 17.ig3 hxgS) 14 . . . e5 15.g5 (15.f5 bS) 15 . . . ig4 16.�g2 hxg5 17.fxg5 lLlhS 18.lLld5 hg5+ 19.<it>bl �d8 2 0 .ie2 .ixe2 21.�xe2 lLlf6oo. The Poisoned Pawn 12 ••• h6 13 .hf6 • After White has played g4, he is forced to part with his dark-squared bishop or he loses control over the central dark squares: 13.i.h4 gS 14.fxg5 tl:\e5 15.�g3 tl:lfxg4, with ini tiative, see game 1 Kreiman-No vikov, San Diego 2006. 13 ••• .hf6 14.h4 0 - 0 - 0 It seems that White has an ex tra tempo in comparison to line A. However, that is arguable since now Black's queen's knight is able to pur sue its natural route in the Najdorf - to d7 and eventually to cS or eS. 8 This position is roughly equal. White has more space, but he can not exploit the weakness of the b6square without the dark-squared bishop. He could try to achieve some bind by �e3 and tl:\a4, but Black is able to prevent that with lLlaS or other tactical means. 15.i.g2 i.e7 16.g5 tl:\a5 17. tl:\xa5 �xa5 18.�bl �b8 The bishop pair and the open c file make Black's game preferable. Gruenfeld-Adamson, Philadelphia 1994. .•• i.e7 There is nothing wrong with the move order starting with 8 . . . tl:\bd7. The text is obviously aimed against 9.�e2 , which could be met by 9 . . . h 6 10.i.h4 tl:\e4. However, 8 . . . tl:\bd7 9.�e2 �c7 10 .g4 i.e7 is hardly dan gerous for Black. 8 . . . �e3 + 9.�e2 �xe2+ 10 .i.xe2 tl:\bd7 is playable, although White retains some initiative. Ortiz Su arez-Hernandez Carmenates, Ba dalona 2011, continued ll.i.f3 h6 12 .i.h4 �g8 13.i.f2 gS 14.g3 hS lS.�dl (lS.tl:laS ! ? , intending 0-0-0, is more testing.) 15 ... h4 16.tl:\a5 g4 17.i.e2 b6 18.tl:\c4 i.b7 19.tl:\xd6+ i.xd6 20.�xd6 i.xe4= . 29 Part 1 9.'fff3 The set-up with .ie2-f3 is sel dom seen: 9 . .ie2 lLlbd7 10.�d2 From this square, the queen protects the f4-pawn in the event of e6-eS, and controls aS where the b3-knight is ready to jump should Black castled queenside. Ljubo ievich and Shabalov tried against me 10 .'1Mfd3 which did not set prob lems - 10 . . . 1Mic7 ll ..if3 h6 12 . .ixf6 lLlxf6 13.0-0-0 eS ! . See game 2 Shabalov-Kiril Georgiev, Elis ta 1998. for another plan - with a queenside castle. 1l...h6 12 . .if6 lLlf6 12 . . . .ixf613. 0-0-0 .ixc3 14.bxc3 <tle7 is playable, but I suppose that White should be somewhat bet ter with a solid central strategy 1S.c4t. 13.0-0-0 .id7 13 . . . eS 14.Wb1 bS 1S.g4t Bo. Vuckovic-Arsovic, Bar 2 006, or 13 .. J:!b8 14.g4 are too risky. 10 . . . 1Mic7 Black could try to use the po sition of the queen on b6 by 10 . . . h 6 11..if6 ( 1 l . .ih4? lLle4 ! ) 11 . . . lLlf6. Now if White played "routinely" 12 . .if3? ! , then 12 . . . eS 13.0-0-0 aS ! ? would b e very promising. The fine point is that White's queen deprives its own knight of the d2-square. M ter 14.1Mid3 a4 1S.lLld2 0-0 16.lLlc4 �cS 17.feS deS 18.lLldS, Shredder S-Nimzo 8/Cadaques 2001, Black would have gained the initiative with 18 . . . lLldS 19.edS a3t. Therefore, White should play 1 2 . 0-0-0!, when 12 . . . eS could be met by 13.g4 ! ? 1Mic6 14J:!he1, with unclear play. Still, the queen looks strange on c6. ll . .if3 This is the fine point of White's set-up. Black is deprived of his usu al counterplay with bS. He must opt 30 14J'!he1 Black is only one move shy of castling, so 14.g4 is not too danger ous. After the thematic 14 . . . gS 1S.h4 0-0-0 16.hxgS (or 16.fxgS hxgS 17.hS Wb8 18.Wb1 .ie8 =) 16 . . . hxgS 17.fS Wb8, the game is balanced. The text move is aiming to lift the rook to the queenside through the third rank. 14 . . . 0-0-0 1S.Wb1 1SJ'!e3 sets the threat of 16.lLldS. It must be answered by 1S ... <tlb8! transposing to the main line. 1S . . . 'i!ib8 16.g3 White is trying to improve on The Poisoned Pawn the game Cela-Shahade, New York 2001, which had seen 16J:!e3 g5 17.g3 gf4 18.gf4 e5 ! 19.tt'ld5 tt'lxd5 20.exd5, when 20 . . J!c8 ! = would have equalised. (Black chose instead 20 . . . !f6?! which could have given White some edge after 2U''lc 3 �b6 22tt'la5! .ia4 23J''lc4! e4 24J!b4 i.b5 25 . .ixe4 �xa5 26.a4 13c8 27.axb5 axb5 28.i.d3 13c5 29 .c3::!::) . 16.g3 anticipates 16 ... g5 which would be met by 17.e5 dxe5 18 .fxe5 ic8 19.�e3 tt'ld7 20.tt'la4 .ib4 2 1 .c3 ie7 2 2 .tt'ld4 tt'lf8 23.b4::!:: , Holz ke-Zhang Zhong, Port Erin 2 004. However, that move provides us with a tempo for: 16 . . . e5 ! Black has achieved a perfect set up. Earlier, when his king was still on c8, . . . e6-e5 was not good because White had time to push c2-c4, but now that is not possible: 17.fxe5 dxe5 19.exd5 .id6= , or: 18.tt'ld5 tt'lxd5 17 .tt'ld5 tt'lxd5 18.exd5 i.f6 = . The bishop pair makes Black's position even slightly preferable. 10. 0-0-0 O r 10 .g4 h 6 11.hf6 ixf6 12 .h4 �c7 13 . 0-0-0 .ixc3 14.bxc3 b6 15.�d3 i.b7+, Bojkovic-Gligoric, Vrnjacka Banja 1962. 1 0 .i.d3 has more venom. Then 10 . . . h6 11 i.h4 (11.�h3 tt'lg4 12 .ixe7 �f2 + 13.1!1d1 tt'le3+ 14.1!1c1 1!1xe7 15 �g3 = , Kozirev-Fokin, Ekaterinburg 1996) 1 1 . . . tt'lxe4 ! ? 12 . .ixe7 tt'lxc3 13.bxc3 1!1xe7 14.0-0-0 leads to a messy position where Black may be better after 14 . . . �c6 ! ?. This sharp variation is far from obligatory as Black could choose also the typical 10 . . . �c7. Short castling in this line is ineffective. That was shown by the game Tosic-L. Spassov, Vrnjac ka Banja 1984: 11.0-0 b5 12.f5 tt'le5 13.�h3 b4 14.tt'le2 exf5 15.exf5 tt'lxd3 16.cxd3 0-0�. That's why White tried a few times 11 .a4, facing the opponent with the already familiar dilemma - to snatch a pawn by 11 . . . h 6 12 .�h3 13g8 1 3 . .ixf6 ixf6 14.0-0 ixc3 15.bxc3 �xc3oo, Belov-Zagre belny, rapid Sochi 2004, or stick to a more routine development by 11 . . . b6 12.0-0 i.b7 13.�h3 h6 14.f5 (14 . .ih4 0-0oo, Sax-Nunn, Hastings 1977) 14 . . . exf5 15.exf5 0-0=. 31 Part 1 10 • . • 19c7 The natural counterplay of Black is connected with b7-b5. 10 . . . h6 first is also known to be reliable after ll.i.h4 �c7 12 .i.g3 bS 13.e5 i.b7 14.�e2, Karpov-Quin teros, Leningrad 1973, when in stead of14 . . . dxe5 15.fe5;!;, Black had 14 . . . 4Jd5! 15.4Jxd5 i.xdS 16J!xd5 exdS 17.e6 4Jf6 18.exf7+ l!?xf7 19.4Jd4 �c8 . White is to prove that he has enough compensation for the exchange. appealing for him so probably he planned 12.f5, when 12 . . . b4 13.fxe6 fxe6 14.4Je2 ltJeS leads to a com plex position where Black should be okay with his knight in the cen tre, e.g. 15.4Jf4 4Jxe4 16 .he7 �xe7 17.�e3 4Jf6 18.�d4 0-0+. n . bs . . n.J.d3 The typical retort to ll.g4 is ll . . . h6 12 .i.h4 gS?, but it is bad here owing to 13 .fxg5 ltJeS 14.�g3 4Jfxg4 15.gxh6 gxh6 16.i.xe7 �xe7 17.!e2±. The position of the knight on b3 leaves the d-file open thus giving White strong pressure on the d6-pawn. Black should opt for: l l ... bS 1 2 .hf6 (12 .a3 does not change much the position. For in stance, 12 . . . .ib7 13.!xf6 could be met by 13 . . . !xf6 14.hb5 axbS 15.4Jxb5 �c6 16.4Jxd6+ l!?f8oo.) 12 . . . 4Jxf6 (12 . . . hf6 ! ? 13.hb5 axbS 14.4Jxb5 �c6 15.4Jxd6+ l!?f8 16.1!?b1 4Jb6oo) 13 .g5 4Jd7 14.a3 gb8= . See more details on this line in the com ments to game 3 Topalov-Kas parov, Novgorod 1997. Naiditsch-Smeets, Wijk aan Zee II 2006, saw the novelty: 11. �h3, but I'm not quite sure what White had in mind against the natural ll . . . bS. Then 12.a3 .ib7 13.f5 exf5 14.exf5 0-0 does not seem 32 Should White allow b5-b4 or prevent it by 12.a3? There is still no definite answer to this question, but Kamsky's weapon of choice was 12.ghel. Bl. 12.a3 ; B2. 12 .ghe1 Bl. 12.a3 gb8!? This move has been popular ised by Kasparov. It follows the lat est trends in the Najdorf. Black re nounces all plans with long castling in favour of a queenside attack. 12 . . . 1b7 is a decent option which has passed successfully the test of time. If this typical Naj dorf move was bad, then Black should look for another opening. In fact, Black achieves comparable results in both variations. By developing the bish- The Poisoned Pawn op, he keeps all options open. Play usually continues with : 13.l3he1 (13 . .ixf6 tLlxf6 14.f5 exfS 15.Y!/xf5 g6=, Nunn) 13 . . . tLlc5. White has tried here different moves, but without success: 20.l3xc8+ hc8+, Staroverov-Pana rin, Krasnodar 2 004. 14.\1;!fh3 lt::lxb3+ (14 . . . 0-0-0 is saf er, but less active - 1S.lt::lxc5 dxcS 16.e5 tLldS 17.lt::lxd5 i.xdS 18 .he7 \1;!fxe7 19 .\1;!fe3 l:!d7 draw, Spassky Portisch, Tilburg 1979.) 1S.cxb3 dS 16.e5 (or 16.�b1 lt::lxe4 17.lt::lxe4 dxe4 18 .i.xe7 \1;!fxe7 19.he4 he4+ 20.l3xe4 0-0 21.f5 eS=) 16 . . . d4 17.exf6 gxf6 18.i.h6 0-0-0 19.l:!e2 dxc3 2 0.l3c2 �b8 2l.l3xc3 = . 14.lt::lxc5 (This transformation of the pawn structure is dubious be cause Black has just enough time to repel the enemy knight from c3 .) 14... dxc5 15.\1;!fg3 b4 ! 16.axb4 cxb4 17.lt::le 2 (17.hf6 hf6 18.e5 bxc3 19.exf6 gxf6) 17 . . . tLlxe4 18.i.xe4 he4 19.tLld4 hgS 20.l3xe4 if6+, Karjakin-Fedorchuk, Kharkov 2001. 14.�b1 tLla4 ! ? (The c3-knight is a much more important target than its neighbour. In Kamsky-Smirin, Khanty Mansyisk 2 005, Black lost a tempo on 14 . . . l3b8 and only af ter 15.\1;!fh3 he opted for 1S . . . lt::la4 16.hf6 gxf6. At this moment, 17.lt::le 2 dS gave him counterplay, but 17.lt::l a 2 ! ? i.c8 18 \1;!fhS:t would have been more testing.) 1S.lt::le 2 (Of course, White should have tak en on a4 - 1S.lt::lxa4 bxa4 16.lt::ld4 l:!b8 17.�g3 \1;!fb6 18.hf6 gxf6 19.c3, with double-edged play after 19 . . . i.xe4 2 0. l3d2 i.xd3+ 2l.�xd3 dSoo.) 15 . . J�c8 16.lt::l e d4 tLlcS 17.i.xf6 lt::lxd3 18.cxd3 .ixf6 19.l3c1 11;!fb6 I n the freestyle game Poweron off-Engineer, playchess.com 2007, White tried to attack on the kingside with 13. �b1 b4 14.axb4 l3xb4 1S.lt::la2 l3b8 16.We2 0-0 17.g4 tLlcS 18.lt::lxc5 \1;!fxc5 19.e5 dxeS 20 .fxe5 tLldS 2l.h4 ib7 22 .l3h3 ic6, but Black's threats proved to be stronger. 13 ... b4 13 . . . h6!? is a good alternative. Its idea is to stabilise the centre be fore proceeding with b5-b4. Play through game 4 Leko-Judit Pol33 Part 1 Linares 2001. It shows well the possibilities of both sides in the pawn structure where Black's pawn is on eS and White's f-one is on fS. gar, 14.axb4 gxb4 15.�bl .lb7 Black's plan is straightforward and easy to understand. He intends to hurl all his pieces against the ene my king. However, the rook on b4 is a bit clumsy and could be trapped. 16.�h3 To 16.'�e2, I recommend 16 . . . h6! The game Luther-Marjanovic, Ath ens 2001, followed up with 17 . .ixf6 (17.�h4 0-0 !?) 17 . . . hf6 18.e5 dxeS 19.f5 exfS 2 0.ha6 0-0 2 1.hb7 �xb7 22.lt:ld5 ge4 23.'�'f3, when 23 .. _gxe1 would have been at least equal. 16 . loc5 17.l0xc5 �xeS! . • In Leko- Kasparov, Linares 2001, was ll . . . dxcS?! 18.e5;!;. Perhaps White should repeat moves here by 18./0a2 ga4! 19./0c3, 34 because 18.e5 dxeS 19.fxe5 lOdS 20./0xd5 hd5 21.i.xe7 �xe7+t looks in Black's favour. He needs only to castle, which could be achieved af ter 2 2 .c3 gh4! 23.�g3 (23.�e3 0-0+) 23 . . . 0-0. This line is more enterprising. Instead of playing 12 .a3 and keep ing both knights on the queenside to protect the king, White hopes to free one of them for an attack. He intends to retreat the knight to e2 and continue its march toward d4. If Black braces himself for e6-e5, then the knight goes to g3. In this set-up, White's queen belongs to h3 from where it would be eyeing h7. Black's chance is to create quick ly counterplay against the e4-pawn and down the c-file. It is essential to catch the right moment for . . . tOeS or . . . 0-0. The order of the next 3-4 moves is very important. Here is some practical advice: 1 . Do not overestimate the pawn storm on the queenside. Pushing The Poisoned Pawn the pawns to b4 and a4 does not automatically win the game. If you achieve it at the cost of the centre, these pawns could become even weaknesses. 2. If you happen to thrust the pawn up to a4, stop there ! As at tractive as . . . a4-a3 may seem (com puters like it very much ! ) , this is usually a false trail. Black needs its pawn on a4 in order to be able to open the a-file in future. In such po sitions best for Black is to put pres sure on the centre by . . . ltJcS, .. .1'l:fc8, maintaining both options . . . a3 and . . b3 open. When White tries to bar ricade the c-file by placing a minor piece on c4, we'll attack it by . . ..b6, forcing b2-b3. Our goal is to obtain something similar to the position on the following diagram: . Kamsky-Topalov Sofia 2006 17 ... 0-0! 18.lLle2 !!feB 19.ltJg3 g6 20.luc4 .ia6 21.b3 axb3 (stayed our pawn on a3, White's fortress would have been unassailable) 2 2 .cxb3 tt:lc5 23.lLle2 ltJfxe4-+ 24.i.xe7 W!xe7 25.i.xe4 ttJxe4 2 6.lLlb6 W/a7 etc. Note that Black achieved his aim so early due to Kamsky's un fortunate manoeuvres in the opening. If you are still not convinced about . . . a3, look at another exam ple from the same tournament: Svid ler-Topalov Sofia 2006 The English Attack has eventu ally led to the same pawn formation as in the previous example. 26 . . . i.d8 ! 27.b3?! (White loses patience and decides to bolster up its bishop) 27 . . . i.b6 28.l3d3 axb3 29.cxb3 l3a8 30.l3cl W/aS 3Uk2 <Jle7 3 2 .lLld5+ hdS 33 ..b:d5 l3ac8 34.l3xc8 l3xc8+. White's king is very weak. If Black's queen penetrates the enemy camp through the diag onal a7-gl, the effect will be devas tating. Even in an endgame, Black would retain the advantage, be cause the b4-pawn is paralysing the whole queenside. 3. If you hesitate about includ ing . . . h6/.ih4, my advice is to re frain from it. This is a controver sial topic and my suggestion is far from being "a rule of thumb". How ever, I think that White's bishop has more options on h4 (for instance, to go to f2 or even to g3 to enhance the threat of e4-e5) and we should not urge it to go there. Now let's delve deeper: 35 Part 1 12 • • • b4 I suppose that 12 . . . .ib7 should transpose to the sideline of vari ation B1 after 13.a3. We saw that Black successfully solves the open ing problems there, but White prob ably would feel relieved that he side stepped the sharper .. J'!b8 followed by . . . b5-b4. 13.g4 b4 14.lt::J e 2 h6 is of independent significance, but it is hardly good for White. In his game against Kamsky in Sofia 2006, Topalov chose 12 . . ..ib7 to meet 13.'\Wh3 ? ! with 13 . . . b4 ! . Then White discovered that 14.lt::J e 2 was no longer possible and he was worse after 14.lt::J b 1 e5 ! (in order to control d4) 15.lt::J 1d2 a5 16.'it>b1? ! (16.lt::J c4 a4 17.lt::J b d2 0-0t) 16 . . . a4 17.lt::J c 1 0-o:i= . Kamsky said after the game that the correct move order was 13.'it>bl. It transposes to the main line follow ing 13 . . . b4 14.lt::J e 2, see the notes to 14.lt::J e d4. 13.1t�e2 13.lt::l b 1? ! .ib7 14.'\Wh3 e5 ! leads to the above-mentioned game Kam sky-Topalov. 13 • • • .ib7 14.lt::J ed4 14.g4 is inconsistent since White's last moves have been di rected toward the centre. In answer, we should attack immediately the dark squares by 14 . . . h6! (14 . . . a5 has also been tried, but this move has a major drawback - it weakens the square b5 and the whole queenside.) 36 15 . .ih4 (15.i.xf6 i.xf6 16.ll:led4 lt::J c5 17.'\Wg3 e5 deprives White of active ideas. After 18.lt::J f3 lt::J xd3 + 19J';xd3 l'!c8 20 l'!d2 aS+, Shushpanova-Bir iukov, St. Petersburg 2 005, Black's attack seems more dangerous.) 15 . . . g5 16.i.g3 gxf4 17.hf4 lt::J e 5 18.he5 dxe5= , keeping the option for long castling open, Crouan-Colovic, Sau tron 2005. 14.mbl could be the best move order for White. The fine point is that 14 . . . lt::J c5 is met by 15.lt::J xc5 dxc5 16.hf6 i.xf6 17 . .ic4 0-0 18.'\We3 ! However, even here White is not better after 18 . . . 13fd8 19.e5 l'!xd1+ 20.13xd1 l'!d8 2 1.13xd8+ i.xd8 2 2 .f5 .ic8 23 .fxe6 he6 24.he6 fxe6 25.lt::J f4 '\Wfl 26.g3 .igS 27.b3 h5=. In my opin ion, 14.®b1 is best met by 14 . . . a5 (Sakaev included 14 . . . h6 16 ..ih4 against Kamsky in Khanty Mansy isk 2 0 05, but in that setting White's bishop could be transferred to the diagonal gl-a7 later) 15.lt::J e d4 a4 16.lt::J b 5 �b6 with double-edged play where Black has some initia tive, e.g. 17.lt::J d 2 0-0 18.'\Wg3 .ia6+. By planting a knight on d4, White discourages e5 in view of lt::J f5, but the other typical manoeuvre, . . . lt::J c5, The Poisoned Pawn gains in strength because .!Llb3xcS dxcS would be with tempo. The unassuming 1S . . . h6 16.ih4 0-0-0?! reduces Black's risk to get mated, but the a6 pawn is weak. That was immediately underlined in Kamsky-Novikov, San Diego 2006, - 17 �fU, with unpleasant pull. 16.g4 Wongwichit-Zong Zhao, Syd ney 200S, saw 16.hf6 hf6 1 7.�h3 I!Jxd3 18.cxd3 aS 19.eS dxeS 2 0.fxeS ie7+. Black has nothing to worry about, having the bishop pair and no weaknesses around the king. Black's bishop pair. Game 5 Kam sky-Vallejo Pons, Khanty Man syisk 2 00S, is a good example of the possibilities of both sides after 16 . . J�ac8. I would like to propose in the di agram position: 16 ••• gfc8 The reason behind this move is to free the f8-square for the bishop, leaving the other rook on a8 to sup port the pawn storm against the en emy king. Play may continue with 17.hf6 i.xf6 18.gS ie7 19.h4 aS 2 0 . .!LlxcS �xeS (or 2 0 . . . dxcS 21..!LlbS �b6+±) 21.�e3 a4+±, where Black's pieces are nicely placed. c. 8.Yfd3 Kasparov described this move as a worse version of 8.�d2. The queen has not a direct access to the critical square h6 and it hampers its own bl-rook to reach quickly the kingside via the third rank. How ever, due to the decline of 8.�d2 , White has been intensively testing new ideas lately. Whose attack is more effective? By allowing b4, White practically engaged himself in a double-edged race where the fastest wins. Black's queenside pawns run unimpeded, White's g- and f- (or h-) pawns fol low a step behind. If White switched to more positional play, he could not hope for an advantage against 8 . . . Ybb2 8 . . . .!Llc6?! 9.hf6 gxf6 is similar to game 6 VI. Dimitrov-Kiril Georgiev, Plovdiv 2004, except that the queen is on d3 instead of d2. White is deprived of ideas with gfl-f3-d3 or gb3 at some moment. However, he obtains the manoeu37 Part 1 vre \!;!fd3-h3. Look at the game Sherbakov-Nepomniachtchi, Mos cow 2010 : 10.lt:lb3 hS ll.i.e2 i.d7 12J:Ul lt:l aS 13. 0-0-0 lt:lxb3+ 14.axb3 0-0-0 1S.I!?b1 i.e7 16.f5 \!;!fa5 17.\!;!Th3 b5 18 .hh5±. 9.gbl \!;!fa3 1 0 .f5 10.i.e2 allows 10 . . . lt:lbd7 after which White is unable to generate concrete threats : 11 0-0 \!;!fcS 12 l!?h1 ie7 13 a4 (or 13 Ei:bd1 0-0 14 \!;!Tg3 l!?h8+) 13 . . . \!;!Tc? 14 Ei:f3 h6 15 Ei:h3, Nieuwenhuis-Nunn, Utrecht 1986, when 15 . . . Ei:g8+ would have been good for Black as Nunn points out. 10 ••• ie7 In principle, it is good to re duce the enemy's attacking forces, but 10 ... lt:lc6? ! ll.fxe6 fxe6 12.lt:lxc6 bxc6 13.i.e2 i.e7 14.i.h5+ ! favours White: 14 . . . lt:lxh5 14 . . . g6 walks into lS.eS ! lt:ldS 16.Ei:b3 ! \!;!fcS 17.lt:le4 lt:lb4 18.Ei:xb4 \!;!Txb4+ 19.c3--+. 15.he7 lt:lf4 16.\!;!fd4 eS 17.\!;!fxeS dxeS 18.ha3 lt:lxg2+ 19.1!lf2 lt:lf4 38 2 0 .lt:la4 ! , Carlsson-Claros Egea, Malaga 2010. Black is unable to find decent places for his rooks. Af ter this game, Black has been delay ing the development of his knight. Still, we should not reject alto gether the idea with . . . lt:lc6, only we should play first: 10 . . . \!;!TaS ! ? . Now ll.ie2 lt:lc6 1 2.lt:lxc6 bxc6 should be okay for Black so White commonly answers with 11.\!;!fc4 when ll . . . lt:lbd7 12 .fxe6 \!;!fxgS 13.exf7+ l!?e7 14.\!;!fe6+ l!?d8 15.\!;!fe8+ lt:lxe8 16.lt:le6+ l!?e7 17.fx e8\!;!f+ l!?xe8 18.lt:lxg5 led to a bal anced endgame in Gao Rui-Andri asian, Beijing 2012. This variation may displace the currently fashion able 10 . . . ie7 because it has accu mulated too much theory. ll.fxe6 ll.i.e2 \!;!laS ! 12 .id2 \!;!fc7 13.fxe6 fxe6 transposes to the main line. ll fxe6 12 .ie2 \!;!laS 13 .id2 \!;!fc7 14.g4 h6 ••• • • The Poisoned Pawn The current status of this topical position is satisfactory for Black. Line c may lead to a perpetual check, the other options are also balanced. The secret of Black's in vulnerability is his central pawn pair which keeps the enemy forces at bay. a) 15.g5 hxgS 16.e5 dxeS 17.'2lf3 e4 18.'2lxe4 lt:Jxe4 19.'1Wxe4 0-0 20.'2lxg5 .b:gS 21..b:g5 lt:Jc6 2 2 J�b3 �eS 23.'\WxeS lt:JxeS 24.!l:g3=, Gashi mov-Grischuk, Amber-blindfold Nice 2010. b) 15.e5 dxeS 16.'1Wg6+ lt>f8 17.'2lf3 �d7 18.g5 �e8 19.'1Wd3 hxgS 20.'2lxg5 lt>g8 21.!l:g1 '\Wc8 (This move is preferable to 2 1 . . .'1Wd7 as Black needs his quee n for a pro tection of the b7-pawn, and a fu ture counter-attack.) 22 .'1Wg3 lt:Jbd7 23.'2lxe6 g6 18.0-0 18.!l:f1 should be met by 18 ... !l:e8 ! 19.'2ld5 �d8, underlining the vulnerable position of White's king in the centre. Then 20.'2lxd8? '\WxdS favours Black: 21.'1Wxc8? '\Wxe4 22. !l:f2 '1Wh1+ 23.!l:f1 '\Wxh2 24.!l:f2 '1Wh1+ 25.!l:f1 '\We4 26.!l:f2 '2lbd7 27.'\Wxa8 '1Wh1+ 28.!l:f1 '1Wg2 29.!l:f2 '1Wg1+ 30.!l:f1 '\Wg4 ! 31.!l:f2 !l:xe2 +, winning, or 21.exd5 �xh3 22.'2lxb7 .b:fl ! 23.\t>xf1 '2le4 24.�b4 aS ! so White should opt for a perpetual check with 20.!l:xf6 .b:f6 21.'2lxf6+ gxf6 2 2 .'1Wh6 !l:xe6 23.'1Wg6+ 'it>f8 24.'\Wh6+ lt>g8 = . 18 . . . d 5 19.exd5 lt:JxdS 20.'2lxd5 '\WxdS 21.�d3 !l:xf1+ 22.M1 �c5+ 23.�e3 .b:e3+ 24.'\Wxe3 '\Wxe6 25.�c4 '\Wxc4 26.'1We8+ 'it>h7 27.'\WhS+ lt>g8 draw, Gashimov-Karjakin, Nice 2010. The g6-pawn is a solid shield be fore the black king. The immediate attack 24.�d3 fails to 24 . . . e4 while 24.'1Wd3 !l:h7 25.'2lg5 !l:xh2 26.'2ld5 idS 27.'2lxf6+ lt:Jxf6 28.'1Wb3+ 'it>h8 is dynamically balanced. c) 15.'\Wh3 17.'2lxe6 11*rc6 0-0 16.g5 hxgS D. 8.�d2 �xb2 You must be well aware that by playing this move, you should be ready to concede a forced draw in line D13. 39 Part 1 The only way to avoid it would be 15 . . . .ie7, but I'm afraid that fu ture analyses will show that it is also a more or less forced draw if not better for White. If you feel so much stronger than your opponent that a draw as Black does not suit you, then the only rea sonable alternative is 8 . . . tLlc6. I do not recommend it, however, be cause of 9 . .hf6 ! gxf6 10.tLlb3. The position is typical for the Rauzer variation. Black's pawn formation lacks flexibility which makes it diffi cult to win. At the same time, White has a clear-cut plan for attacking e6 with the help of f4-f5. Many good players resort to that line in order to escape the draw, but I think that ob jectively White retains some edge. You'll find more explanations in the "Complete Games" section - game 6 VI. Dimitrov-Kiril Georgiev, Plovdiv 2004. The good news is that White of ten chooses 9. 0-0-0 which is rough ly equal after 9 . . . �xd4 while 9.tLlb3?! tLlg4 10.i.h4 �e3+ leaves Black some hopes to gain the initiative, Hector Hillarp Persson, Malmo 2006. After 8 . . . �xb2, White chooses between : Line D2 is of extreme impor tance since it may arise from the popular Delayed PP after 7 . . . h6 8 ..ih4 �b6 9 . .ixf6 gxf6 10.�d2 �xb2 ll.tLlb3. 40 Dll. 10.i.xf6 ; 012. 10 . .ie2 ; 013. lO.fS ; 014. lO.eS Dll. 10 .ixf6 gxf6 ll . .ie2 • ll •.• h5 This line is crucial for the PP as Black cannot sidestep it with 7 . . . h 6 8 . .ih4 �b6 due t o 9 . .ixf6 gxf6 10 .�d2 �xb2 ll.Eib1 �a3 12 . .ie2 hS. In a similar pawn structure with 9.tLlb3 played instead of The Poisoned Pawn 9J:!b1, I prefer to develop the bish op on g7 aiming for a short castle. In the concrete position, however, White's knight is much more active on d4. Although some good play ers do opt for ll . . . .ig7, I do not like the ending that arises after 12. 0-0 fS 13J!fd1 0-0 14.exf5 exfS 15.�d5 ltlc6 16.�xc6 bxc6 17.�e7+ 'i!?h8 18.ltlxc8 gaxc8 19.W'xd6;!;, Groszpe ter-Schlosser, Austria 2 004. The op ponents agreed to a draw here, but it is only White who could play for a win. It seems that the breakthrough f6-f5 is insufficient for equality, so the whole set-up with i.g7 is prob ably not the best. I'm going to pro pose you a sharper set-up which in volves long castling at an opportu nity. Black's king could also stay in the centre because the bishop pair and the pawn fence provide a solid protection. ll.. .�c6 is more popular, but White's attack runs smoothly af ter 12.�xc6 bxc6 13 .0-0 i.e7 14.'i!?h1 %Ya5 15.f5. We often observe in prac tice that Black fails to cope with the defence, for instance 15 . . . h5 16 i.f3 'i!lf8 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 eS±, At. Kolev Calaf Rellver, Montcada 1999. 12. 0 - 0 �d7 This is the natural square for the knight in the Najdorf. From cS, it prevents the enemy c3-knight to reach e4 (after the break e4-e5) which is the main White's threat in this line. It also protects the pawn on b7 making long castling possi ble. Note that the f6-pawn in that variation is not too important and could be sacrificed. It would be much more vital to complete devel opment. White is still not ready for more concrete action. 13.gf3 V9a5 14.gh3 h4 15.�f3 �cS 16.gxh4? gxh4 17.�xh4 not only loses the initiative, but stum bles into the typical blow 17 . . . �a4 18.gb3 dS ! which uses the pin of the c3-knight. 13.i.f3 �cS 14.e5 is more con sistent. It had been considered bet ter for White until my game 7 Hra cek-Kiril Georgiev, Batumi 1999 which saw 14 . . . dxe5 15.fxe5 i.h6 16.�e1 fS !, with good counterplay. See my annotations in the "Com plete Games" section. You'll find a lot of instructive ideas in that typi cal for the Poisoned Pawn encoun ter. 13 ••• J.e7 14.gfJ V9a5 15.gh3 h4 41 Part 1 Black successfully avoided the most dangerous tricks of the oppo nent and now he is able to complete development of the queenside. The game Videki-Szekely, Solymar 1996, saw further: 12.tL\a4 V!Jc7 13.f5 e5 14.tL\e6 is plain bluff, 14...fxe6 15.fxe6 ttJxe4 16.V!Je3 ttJdf6-+, Loehn-Roeder, Aachen 1993. 12 ••• .le7 16.�e1 tL\cS 17 f5 id7 18 tL\b3 ttJxb3 19 :gxb3 when 19...ic6+ would have gained the initiative. 16.ig4 tL\c5 17.tL\b3 ttJxb3 18.cxb3 id719.b4 �b6 20.:gd3 :gcs , Ter Sahakyan-Ochsner, Albena 2011, was also in Black's favour. D12. 10 .1e2 • This is a tricky move which counts mostly on the trap 10....ie7 11.0-0 ttJbd7? ! 12.e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 tL\xe5 14.hf6 .bf6 15.:gxf6 gxf6 16.tL\e4--+. Another favourite idea of White is to play f5 to meet ...e5 by tL\e6. This one however is not dangerous if we return the gift swiftly. Black has plenty of good options. I'll examine one of them. Firstly we should deal with White's possibil ity of doubling our f-pawns. Well, he could have done it on the previ ous move, but since he missed his chance, we'll not serve him a sec ond one. 13.£5 Commonly, White bases his hopes on this attack on the e6square, but analysis shows that Black is able to neutralise it. 13.if3 leads to a typical Najdorf position, where the rook on the semi-open b-file hardly compen sates for the missing pawn: 13...0-0 14.ih4 The bishop's retreat enables g2-g4-g5. White could switch also to a plan with e4-e5 by .ig3 and :gbe1. Here I propose: 14.. ,:ge8 ! ? 10 . . . �bd7 11. 0 - 0 '!'c5! Before developing the bishop, Black should take control of e5. 12.®hl 42 The idea behind this move i s to free the f8-square for the bishop on e7 or for a knight, for instance: 15.g4 (15..1g3 e5 16.�f5 .1f8) 15...h6 16.g5 �h717..if2 hxg5+. The Poisoned Pawn 13 �b6! ••• e5 14.�e6 fxe6 15.fxe6 There is no reason to play for equality with 15 . . . 0-0 16.exd7 hd7 17J"1xb7 �g4 =. 20 ti'c4! ••• The last touch which seals Black's advantage. From this point on, he has different ways to retain the edge. D13. 10.f5 This continuation was once White's main weapon against the Poisoned Pawn Variation, but now adays it has faded out of fashion. 16 .hf6 • Alternatively: 16.l"ixf6 hf6 17.hf6 (17.ih5+ i>d8 18.e7+ �d7 19.hf6 gxf6+) 17 ... gxf6 18.'1Wh6 �xc3 19.�xf6 he6 20.�xe6+ �d8 2 l.l"idl ltJd7 22 .ig4 lt>c8 23.�xd7+ �b8 24.�xd6+ lt>a7+, Holzke-Buss, Rijeka 2010; 16.�d3 ! ? he6 17.ie3 18.�d2 �c8 19.l"ixb6 o-m=. ic4 16 gxf6! ••• Black should keep the bishop on e7 as a blocker. 16 . . . hf6 fails to 17.l"ixb6 (17.l"ixf6 gxf6 18 .i.h5+ �d8 19.e7+ 'it>d7+) 17 . . .�xb6 18.ltJd5. 17.gxb6 tbb 6 18.ltJd5 �c5+ 19.ih5+ �d8 20.ti'h6 Or 20 ..if7 h5-+ , Brodt-Szilagyi, corr. 1984. 1 0 . . . �c6 lO . . . bS? ! is nearly unexplored. I have spent a lot of time analysing it to finally convince myself that Black is in trouble. The advance of the b pawn is a consistent continuation of the daredevil tactic proclaimed with 7 . . . �b6 (and even 5 . . . a6 !?). With his last move, White hit the most sensitive point in the enemy position. He is threatening to take on e6 and play .ic4. lO . . . ltJc6 antici pates this threat by destroying the dangerous knight on d4. 43 Part 1 10...bS retains moretension while still controlling c4. Since 1l.l!JcxbS? axbS 12.i.xbS+ .id7 13.fxe6 fxe6 14.l!Jxe6 fails to 14...'�xa2- + , Kosa novic-Marjanovic, Budva 1986, White chooses: ll.fxe6 1U3b3 �aS 12..bf6 gxf6 is un clear. ll...fxe6 The refutation of Black's idea is the manoeuvre of White's bishop to f3. The fine point of Black's de fence is to meet .if3 with id7 and sacrifice the exchange. In that line, White suffers from uncoordinated pieces and numerous pawn weak nesses. The c3-knight lacks a good retreat square after ...b4. The idea of this positional sacrifice has been mentioned by Nunn, without fur ther detail. H owever, White has a way to get the edge, which has nev er been tried in practice! ltlc6 19..bc6 i.xc6 20.0-0 0-0� 2l.�e3 (2l.�gS l:!f7 22.'�f4 �d8 23.h3 b4 24.ltle2 �ds 2S.'�f3 .id6i') 21...ltlg4 22.:!!xf8+ .ixf8 23.�e2 eSi' ; o r 14.eS dxeS 1S..ixf6 (1S..ba8 exd4 16.'�xd4 ltlc6�) 1S ...gxf6 16.l:!b3 (16.ihS+ �d8 17.ltlxe6+ �c8 is tangled, but hardly too dangerous for Black: 18..if7 ltlc6 19.itldS �b7 20.c4 .be6oo) 16...�d6 17.ltldxbS '?9xd2+ 18.�xd2 axb5 19..ba8 b4 20.ltle2 ltlc6+. Best is 14.0-0 !± 0-0 transposing to the 13.0-0 line. 13...0-0 Several books recommend 13... b4? missing 14.:!!b3 '?!faS 1S..ihS+ ! ! ltlxhS 16..be7 bxc3 17.'?9f2-+. 12..ie2 ! .ie713.0-0 Two games have seen 13 ..if3 : 13... :!! a7 14..ie3 b4 1S.:!!b3 �aS 16.ltld1 ! is grim for Black, e.g. 16... dS (16... :!!b7 17.a3 dS 18.axb4 ixb4 19.c3 .id6 20.:!! xb7 i.xb7 2l.ltlxe6±) 17.exdS ltlxdS 18.ltlxe6 .be6 19..ba7±. 13....id7 is also possible. The forced play leads to unclear posi tions with good compensation for the exchange: 14.:!!b3 �cS (14...�aS? 1S.O-O ltlc6 16.ltlxc6 .bc6 17.eS .ixf3 18.exf6 gxf6 19..ixf6-+) 1S..ie3 �c8 16.eS dxeS 17. .ba8 exd4 18.i.xd4 44 14..if3 ! The main diagonal is weak and eS is difficult to prevent. 14..ig4 ( ! - Nunn) 14...�cS 1S.�h1 '?9c4 is about equal, 16.�d3 �xd3 17.cxd3 eS 18.ltle6 :!!a7 19.if5 :!!e 8=. 14.:!!b3 �cS 1S..ie3 '?9c7 16..if3 .id7 is inaccurate, 17.eS dxeS 18.ltldxbS (18. .ba8 exd4 19.ixd4 ltlc6 20..bc6 ixc6�) 18... axbS 19..ixa8 b4 20.ltle4 ltlg4�. After the text, I could not find a good defence for Black: The Poisoned Pawn 14 . . . b4 15.t!Jce2 .id7 16.e5 ! (16J'!b3 Wfa5 17.e5 dxe5 18 . .ixa8 exd4 19 ..hf6 ixf6 2 0.t!Jxd4 Wfc5 21.!'lxf6 !'lxf6 2 2 .'%lrxb4 .ib5 23 . .if3 Wfa7oo or 16.t!Jf4 Wfxa2 17.'%lrxb4 aS 18.Wfc3 !'lc8 19.'%lrd3 t!Ja6 2 0.!'la1 '%lrc4 21.Wfxc4 !'lxc4 2 2 . t!Jfxe6 !'le8 23.!'lxa5 ttlc5 24.t!Jxc5 dxc5, with further ex changes) 16 . . . dxe5 17.i.xa8 exd4 18.tt:lxd4 Wfxa2 19.@hl±; a) 13 .ie2 ! ? was used until 2010 as just another way for White to force a draw after 13 . . . .ie7 14.0-0 0-0 15J'!b3 Wfc5+ 16.ie3 Wfe5 17.id4 Wfa5 18 . .ib6 Wfe5=, but we have seen new developments lately. 14 . . . i.d7 15.e5 dxe5 16 . .ixa8 exd4 17.t!Je4± .ic6 18 ..hf6 .ixf6 19.!'lb3 Wfe7 2 0 .i.xc6 t!Jxc6 21.!'lbf3±. 14.13b3 is premature: 14 ... Wfa5 (on the next turn this would be bad due to ll:\d5 ! ) 15 . .ih5+ (15.0-0 !'la7) 15 . . . g6 16 ..if3 0-0. ll.fxe6 11.ll:\xc6?! bxc6 12 .fxe6 allows 12 ... .ixe6. ll ...fxe6 12.ll:lxc6 12 .ic4 t!Jxd4 13 .Wfxd4 .ie7 14.0-0 dS is not winning for Black due to 15.'tt h 1 dxc4 16.e5, but 14 . . . 0-0! 15.'tt h 1 @h8 16.!'lf3 Wfa5 17.e5 Wfxe5 18.�h4 h6 proved to be awkward and White was struggling in Sul skis-Areshchenko,Gibraltar 2008. 12 bxc6 ••• 13.e5 13 . . . ie7 14.0-0 14 ... 0-0 Tony Kosten suggests 14 ... Wfa5 as the only, although very risky, at tempt to play for a win. I would say, this is a suicidal behaviour since 15 . .if3 ! l':'!a7 16.e5 ! is more than grim for Black: 16 . . . dxe5 17 . .ixf6 .ixf6 18 .i.xc6+ @f8 19.l':'!f6 ! gxf6 20.Wfh6 @f7 21.ll:\e4 or 16 . . . Wfxe5 17 . .if4 WfaS 18 . .ixc6+ id7 19.l':'!b8. In both var iations, you should get such posi tions as Black only by accident. 15.l':'!b3 Or 15.@h1 !'la7 16.Wfe3 l':'!d7 17.l':'!b8 @h8 18.e5 dxe5 19.ll:\e4 '%lrxe3 20 ..ixe3 l':'!g8+. 15 . . . Wfc5+ (15 . . . Wfa5? 16.ll:\d5) 45 Part 1 16 . .ie3 16.mh1 offers Black a wide choice. He can capture the pawn: 16 . . . '119e S 17 . .if4 lt:\xe4 18.lt:\xe4 (18.�e3 l'%xf4 19.'119xf4 '119xf4 2 0 .l'%xf4 lt:\xc3 lt:lcS ! 21.l'%b6 d5+) 18 . . . �xe4 19 . .ixd6 l'%xfl+ 2 0 . .ixfl .if6 2 1.i.d3, with a tangled position ; Similar is: 16 . . . l'%f7! ? 17 . .ie3 '119e5 18 . .id4 lt:\xe4 19 .�e3 l'%xf1+ 20 ..ixf1 �f5 2 1..id3 e5 2 2 .'119xe4 '119xe4 23 . .ixe4 exd4 24 . .ixc6 .ie6=, Alsina Leal Palac, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010; Ivanchuk-Grischuk, Dagomys 2010 saw: 16 ... d5 17.e5 lt:\d7 18.l'%xf8+ mxf8 19 . .ie3 '119 a5 2 0 . .ig4 me8 ! ? 2 1..ixe6 lt:\c5 22 . .ixc5 '119xc5 23 ..ixc8 l'%xc8 24.'119 d 3 (24.lt:\e2 '119c4 25 . .tt::\ g3 g6 2 6.h3 ic5 27.l'%b7 �d4=) 24 . . . �c4 25.'119f3 , when Stohl suggests 25 ... g6 ! 26.l'%b7 �h4 27.g3 �d4 28.e6 '119f6 29.�xf6 .ixf6 30 . .tt::\ a4 ie5 31.l'%xh7 l'%b8+! ; 16 . . . �e5 17 . .if4 (17 . .id4=) 17 ... '119c5+ I tried to avoid repetition by 17 . . . .tt::\ xe4 18 . .tt::\ xe4 �xe4 19 . .ixd6 l=%xf1 + 2 0 . mxf1 .if6 21.i.a3 c5 (21.. .�f5+ 2 2 .l'%f3 �d5 also leads to repetition, 23.l'%d3 �f5+ 24.mg1 c5 25.l'%d8+ .ixd8 26 �xd8+ �f8 27 '119c7 '119f7 =.) 2 2 .if3 �c4+, Sax Kiril Georgiev, Wijk aan Zee 1989, but Black has no chance to win af ter 23.�d3 ! �xd3+ 24.cxd3 l'%a7 25 ..ixc5 l'%c7 26.d4 mf7 27.me2 .id7 28 ..ie4 i.c6 29 . .ixc6 l'%xc6 3 0 . md3 e5 31.l'%b6 l'%xb6 32 ..ixb6 me6 33.me4 exd4 34.hd4 .ixd4 46 35.mxd4 md6 36.g4 h6 37.h3 g5 38.me4 me6 39.a3 h5 ! ! 40.gxh5 mf6=, Morgado-Pecha, corr/1998. So let us assume that Black can not avoid the draw and answers 17.i.f4 with: 17 . . . �c5+. At this point White can interrupt the repetition with : 18.mh1 18 . . . .tt::\ g4 Correspondence games suggest that Black can hold on after 18 . . . d5 19.e5 .tt::\ d7 20 . .tt::\ a4 �a7 21.'119c3 .tt::\ cS 22 . .tt::\ xc5 .ixc5 23.�h3 l'%b8, but top players prefer the knight sortie. 19 .h3 (19 . .ixg4 e5) 19 . . . e5 20 . .tt::\ a 4 �a7 21.hxg4 exf4 2 2 . .tt::\ b 6 ie6 ! 23 . .tt::\ xa8 .ixb3 24.axb3 �xa8=, Ivanchuk-Grischuk, Nice rapid 2 010. b) 13 . .ixf6 gxf6 14 ..ie2 is rare ly seen. Black has several good op tions, for instance, 14 . . . �a5 15.0-0 ie7 16.l'%b3 0-0 17J!f3 mh8+, Za kharov-Nevostrujev, Moscow 1995. 13 ... dxe5 13 . . . .tt::\ d5 is not topical, but it is still hiding some blank spots. The Poisoned Pawn White's attack is very strong after 14.lLlxd5 cxdS 15 . .id3 dxeS 16.0-0 �a7 17. �h1, but 16 ... i.e7 is less clear. Papp-Nevednichy, Paks 2 0 07, saw 17.i.xe7 �xe7 18.�c3 �d6 19J!be1 id7 20J'!xe5 l'!c8 when 2 1.�e1 would have retained the tension. Critical is perhaps 17.c4 ! ? e4 18.i.e2 �cS+ 19.�h1 d4 2 0.i.xe7 �xe7 21.�f4 l'!a7 2 2 .�xe4. Black may not be losing by force, but I would not like to be in his shoes. could cost the first player dearly. It had been thought for decades that Black had another decent option, namely: 15 . . . ie7. Many games ran: 16.ie2 hS until in the summer of 2003 the game Ibraev-Kokarev introduced an amazing manoeuvre which has gravely shaken Black's trust in 15 . . . ie7: 17.l'!fl f5 18.l'!f3 �xa2 19.l'!fb3 ! 14 .ixf6 gxf6 15.c!i�e4 . 15.ie2? lets Black's queen return home: 15 . . . �d6 16.i.h5+ (16.�e3 �c5+ or 16 . . . �d4+) 16 . . . �e7 17.�e3 �d4+. Black's queen is locked out of play which makes the defence dif ficult. I suppose that the draw still could be reached, but to win with such a naked king seems impossi ble: 15 ... �xa2 Back in 1988, Nunn predict ed that one day computer analysis may lead the line lO.fS to exhaus tion. Well, it seems that it has hap pened, at least from this position. The text is Black's main equalis er in the Poisoned Pawn Variation. My experience shows that every de viation from the well trodden path a) 19 ... fxe4 20.�c3 .id8 21.�xc6+ i.d7 22 .�xe4. My proposition here was 22 . . . �e7, but again I should stress that all that is not worth the effort, because 23.l'!d1 �a4 24.l'!b4 iaS 25.�h4+ (25.c3 l'!c8 26.�g6 l'!f8=) 25 . . . �e8 26.ixh5+ l'!xhS 27.�xh5+ �e7 28.�h4+ �f7 29.�h7+ was a perpetual in Bobras Wojtaszek, Germany 2009. b) 19 ...�a4 20.lLld6 ixd6 21.�xd6 �as 22.�fl l'!a7! 23.l'!b6 ! �ds 24.�b8 �d7 25.�xe5 0-0 47 Part 1 19.gf3 ! 19.�h6? �xc2 ! i s i n Black's fa vour. There is no perpetual and the a-pawn becomes a mighty trump. You can see game 8 Mamedov Kiril Georgiev, Dubai 2005 for recommendations how to play fur ther with Black. I suppose that Black can defend this position, but I cannot recom mend this variation as main line in our repertoire. Black is so passive and his dark squares so weak that he cannot hope to win, for instance 2 6.1'�6b3 h4 27 . .tc4. Of course, you should stay tuned to the development of this line in or der to have it as a last winning at tempt. 16.gd1 19 �h8 ••• 16.lLlxf6+? fails to 16 . . . 'it>f7 17J'�b3 VMa1+ 18.'it>e2 �d4 19.VMg5 e4 ! 20.lLlg4 i.g'l+, according to Nunn . 16 ••• J.e7 17.J.e2 17 . .id3 ? ! 0-0 18.0-0 f5 19J�f3 (19.VMh6 �f7 2 0 .�f3 .id7+) 19 . . . 'it>h8 ! 2 0.VMh6 i.d7 i s i n Black's favour. 17 ••• 0 - 0 18. 0 - 0 ga7 Black is unable to evade the draw after 1 8 .. .f5 19.VMh6 VMxc2 20.�d3 VMxe2 2 l.�g3+ 'it>f7 22.�xf5+ exf5 23.�g7+ 'it>e8 24.VMxc6+ 'it>d8 25. VMb6+ = , Velimirovic-Ftacnik, Vrsac 1981. 48 I chose against Brkic 19 . . . �d7!?. This is a reliable backup to the main line. The game finished in a draw after 2 0.�h6 �xd1+ 21.hd1 �f7 22 .�g3+ 'it>h8 23.VMh5 VMd5 24.VMxf7 �xd1+ 25.'it>f2 �xc2 + . Critical i s : 20 .id3 f5 2 l.VMh6 �f7! 22.�g3+ 'it>h8 23.lLlg5 �g7 2 4 .lLlxe6 �f7 = The Poisoned Pawn Now 25.1tifl i.h4 ! and 25.1tihl W/c4 26.!'1bl !'1xd3 27.!'1g7 !'1h3 28.gxh3 �d5+ are fine for Black so you should follow the development of the line 25.!'1g7 i.cS+ 26.tLlxc5 l"!xg7 27.tLlxd7 \1;Yd5 28 .!'1d2 , Lekic Huber, Kerner 2 0 09, when 28 . . . ixd7! 29.i.xf5 \1;Yc5+ 30.1tihl �bS 31.!'1dl �e2 ! ends White's attack. He should be able to save the game though: 32 .!'1gl i.xfS 33.\1;Yf6 �g4 34.�f8+ !'1g8 35.�f6+ \1;Yg7 36.\1;Yxf5. This position has arisen in Da nin-Dvoirys, Vladimir 2009. The game went 2 l .. .!c5+?! 22.lLlxc5 �xeS+ 23.1tihl !'1g8 24 . .ih5 �c2 25.!'1g6 �xdl + 26.hdl !'1xg6 27.�f8+ !'1g8 28.�f6+ !'1gg7 29.i.h5 cS 30.h4 and Black failed to un tie his rooks : 30 . . . c4 31.�f8+ !'1g8 32.�f6+ !'1ag7 33.i.dl hS 34 . .ic2 !'1e8 35.i.g6 !'1eg8 36.g4! 1-0. Stohl suggests the improvement: 21 gg8!? 22.tLlg5 gg7 23.gdfl .bf6 24.'frxf6 ti'c5+ 25.1tihl ti'e7 26. ti'xe5 gd7 ••• 20.Yflt6 A new attempt to keep on fight ing. 20.!'1g3 leads to an inevitable draw. The first game to finish like that was Vallejo Pons-Kasparov, Moscow 2004: 20 ... !'1d7 (20 . . . !'1g8? 21.�h6+-) 2 1.�h6 !'1f7 22 .\1;Yh5 l"!xdl+ 23.hdl �aS 24.1tifl \1;Yd8 25.�xt7 �xdl+ 26.1tif2 �xc2+ 27.1!if3 �dl+ 28.1tif2 �c2 + 29.1tie3 icS+ ! 30.tLlxc5 \1;Yxc5+ 31.1tid2 (3l.l!if3 e4 !) 31...\1;Yf2 + 32.1tic3 \1;Yd4+ 33.1t>c2 �f2+ 34.1tic3= . 20 ..• Black should not have problems here after 27 . .ic4 h6 or 27.tt:lt7+ �xt7 28.!'1xt7 !'1dxt7 29.h4 ltig8 . D14. 10.e5 �xc2 2U�xf6 Five years ago this was the hit of the day. In the last two years, how ever, Black has finally cracked it and even scores well over the 50%. 10 ••• dxe5 49 Part 1 Black often uses 10 . . . h6 in order to avoid complications after 13 ..ib5 (although I think that we should encourage White to chose that line and not avoid it). 10 . . . h6 ll . .ih4 transposes to the main line while: ll . .ix£6 gxf6 is tangled, but satis factory for Black: was a draw in Weiland-Kamps, Leiden 2009. It is worth consider ing 2 2 . . . .ie7, intending 23 . .ie2 lt::l eS 24.E:b6+ lt::l c 6 25.c4 �a3+. In conclusion, the choice be tween 10 . . . h6 and 10 . . . dxe5 is a matter of taste. ll.fxe5 a) 12.exd6 lt::l d 7 (12 . . . �xd6 13.lt::l e 4 �dB 14.�c3 .ie7 15 . .ie2oo, Del Rio Angelis-Vallejo Pons, Leon 2 006) 13 . .ib5 f5 14 . .ixd7+ .ixd7 15J:%xb7 �xd6. b) 12.exf6 lt::l d 7 13.f5 eS 14.lt::l d 5 exd4 (14 . . . �xa2 15.lt::l c 7+ @dB 16.lt::l d e6+ fxe6 17.lt::l x e6+ @eB 1B.lt::l c7+ @dB led to a perpetual check in Kozirev-Lastin, Samara 2011) 15.lt::l c 7+ @dB 16J:%b3 (16. lt::l x aB �xa2 17J:%d1 bS) 16 ... �xa2 17.lt::l x aB bS 1B.�xd4 dS--+. c) 12.lt::l e 4 fxe5 13 J:%b3 �a4 14.fxe5 dxeS 15.lt::l f6+ @e7 Only five years ago Black au tomatically answered here with ll . . . tt::J fd7, but now he has a wider choice: D141. ll . . . lt::l fd7; D142. ll . . . h6 ll . . . h6 has been the hottest idea in the Naidorf in the last years, but it may soon be analysed up to a draw. Perhaps ll . . . lt::l fd7 is the only way to play some chess and eventu ally prevail over the opponent with out computer help. 16.lt::l f5+ @xf6 (16 . . . exf5 17.lt::l d 5+ = ) 17.�dB+ @xfS 1B . .id3 + e 4 19.0-0+ @e5 2 0.�f6+ @d6 21.�xhB lt::l d 7 2 2 . E:xf7. Here, 2 2 . . . exd3 23.E:xd3+ @c6 24.E:xfB lt::l xfB 25.�xfB @b6 2 6.�f2 + @c7 27.�g3+ 50 0141. ll •.• tt::J fd7 12.lt::l e4 White is denied the luxury of nor mal development like 12 . .ie2 , be cause he has too many weaknesses. The Poisoned Pawn After 12 . . .'�a5 ! ? Black successfully evacuates the queen and gains the upper hand: 13.0-0 (or 13.llJb3 §'c7! 14 0-0 ti:lc6+, Santaella Amate-1. Herre ra, Malaga 2002) 13 . . . i.c5 ! 14.\t;hl ixd4 1S.§'xd4 llJc6 16.�f2 0-0 17.ti:le4 §'xeS 18.i.d3 fS+, Dworzyn ski-Walther, Moscow 1956. with a bishop on h4 so White should look for other attacking resources. 12 .i.c4 hides more venom since the bishop is eyeing e6 and fl. Black can follow the same policy as in the previous example - 12 . . . �a5 ! 13.0-0 ti:lxeS, when all sacrifices on e6 or c3 lose by force. Allegedly best is 14Jl:be1 llJxc4 15.'&f4 llJd6 16.llJe4 §'c7 17.c4, but 17 ... llJb5 ! 18.cxb5 §'xf4 19 . .hf4 f6+, Jepson-Hultin, Burgas 1993, led to a better endgame. a) 13 . . . hxg5 14.Eib3 axbS?! 15.Eixa3 i.xa3. He opted for 16.llJxb5? when 16 . . . 0-0! would have been in Black's favour. However, all this seems dubious to me now in view of 16.�xg5 Eia4 17.�xg7 Eif8 18.llJd6+ hd6 19.exd6. Black will spend a lot of time setting up coordination be tween his pieces while the enemy's h-pawn will be running fast. The game Shabalov-Areshchen ko, Port Erin 2006, shows that Black is okay in that line with: 14 . . . �xa2 ! 15.�c3 axbS (Golubev in Chess Today suggests 15 . . . llJc6 16.hc6 bxc6 17.0-0! lt:\xeS ! ?) 16.�xc8+ \t;e7 17. 0-0 (17.llJd6? llJc6 18.0-0 llJcxeS !) 17 . . . �a7! 18.Eid3 ! llJxeS 19.llJc5 (According to Gol ubev, 19.Eixf7+ lt:lxfl 2 0.�xe6+ \!;dB 21.\t;fl §'a1+ 2 2 .\t;e2 �a2 ! 23.llJb3+ llJd6! 24.llJxd6 �xc2 + should be in Black's favour) 19 . . . llJbd7 20.lt:lf5+ ! exfS 21.Eixd7+ \t;f6 22.Eixf7+ ! \t;g6 23.�xf5+ \t;h6 and draw by perpe tual. 12 ... h6! A very important move ! We can understand the reason be hind it on the example of the vari ation 12 . . . §'xa2 13.Eib3 §'al+ 14.\t;f2 '&a4 15.llJxe6 fxe6 16.llJd6+ hd6 17.�xd6 Eif8 + 18.\t;g3 llJf6 19.exf6±. This would have been impossible 13 .ih4 . 13.i.b5 is very interesting. In 2004, I won a blitz game against Sadler placing my trust in the most popular: The older variation: b) 13 . . . axb5 ! requires less mem orization. It was tested for the first time in the game Platonov-Minic, Sochi 1968 : 14.lt:lxb5 hxgS 15.llJxa3 Eixa3 51 Part 1 This move is indispensable in view of the threat lbxe6! which happened in the blitz game Radja bov-Anand, Rishon le Zion 2006: 13 ... 1Mfa4? 14.i.e2 lbc6 15.lbxe6+ - . 14.gdl Three minor pieces are normal ly stronger than a queen. It all de pends on the safety of Black's king. If we succeeded to capture the eS pawn by knight and bolster it up by f6, we would have an edge. The rook on h8 could be activated through h4. 16.0-0 Alternatively: 14.l'!b3 'W'a1+ 15.'it>f2 1Mfa4 has been known to favour Black since the game Korchnoi-Tolush 1958. 14 . . . �d5 ! 15.1Mfe3 Or 15.1Mff4? gS 16.lbf6+ lbxf6 17.�xf6 i.b4+ 18.'it>f2 l'!f8+. 15 . . . �xe5 16.J.e2 J.c5 17.J.g3 hd4 18.gxd4 �a5+ 19.gd2 0 - 0 2 0 . .td6 16.lbd6+ is a difficult decision since without his knight White would be unable to create threats to the enemy king. 16 . . . hd6 17.exd6 (17.1Mfxd6 :!! a S) 17 .. .f6. Black's game is somewhat easier. His rooks are more active - do not forget about . . . l'!h4 ! 16.l'!b5 lbc6 17. 0-0 l'!a4 (If you had strong nerves you could venture into 17 . . . l'!xa2 18.�xg5 lbd4 19.:1!bb1 l'!xc2 2 0. 'it>h1 lbc6+.) 18.lbd6+ hd6 19.exd6 f6. 16 . . . lbc6 17.l'!b5 l'!a4 18.lbxg5 lbdxeS 19.l'!xe5 lbxeS 2 0.�c3 lbc6 2l.l'!xf7 :!! a S 2 2 . l'!xg7 i.cS + , Stellwa gen-Anand, Germany 2009. Black is better. 13 . . . Yba2 52 The threat on the f8-rook can be ignored as Black's three pawns are sufficient compensation for the ex change. Even more, Black should be happy to trade his rook for the mighty dark-squared bishop. His real problem is how to improve the coordination between his piec es. Black has been struggling for The Poisoned Pawn six years to find the best set-up for his knights. I think that the queen's knight should go to d7 in order to enable exchange of queens through cS: 20 ... f5 ! ? I t would take a long story t o ex plain why 20 .. J'!e8 or 20 .. J�d8 are dubious. The short answer is, be cause these moves waste time and the queenside remains undevel oped. The main alternative to the text is: 20 ... lt:lc6 Then 2l . .ixf8?! lt:lxf8 22.0-0 as in Anand-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2007, was put under doubt in the first edition of this book by the idea of Atanas Kolev: 2 2 . . . \1;Ye5 ! . . . e5. Black's queen has two possible retreats from e5. If the a-pawn had advanced sufficiently, it could give it a hand from c3 or b2. Else, c7 is a safer square. Kolev's novelty was tested in Hammer-Elsness, Hamar 2 007: 23.�f2 f6 24.lt:ld6 aS 25.ic4 a4 26J�el �b2+. I'll save you the rest of Kolev's analysis, because White soon struck back with an ear lier improvement: 21.0-0! White keeps the tension. It turns out that Black has not too many sensible moves. Most often he an swers with : 21...lt:lce5, but again, instead of grabbing the rook, White improves his pieces: 22 .!Mdl! 2 2 .i.xf8 lt:lxf8 23.lt:ld6 f6 24.c4 \1;Yc7 is fine for Black, but now his task is difficult. It is amazing how nimble is the queen! Its task is to hinder White's play. You may ask how this move helps the development of the c8bishop. The fine point of Kolev's idea is that Black is not in a rush to move it from c8 ! The distant pas ser will distract the enemy from our king and when he moves away his nasty knight, we could think about Practical experience has seen Black struggling after: 22 .. J:!e8 23.c4 lt:lg6 24.c5 lt:lh4, Magem Badals-Alsina Leal, Bar celona 2009, when 25.g4--+ would have been awkward. 53 Part 1 22 .. .f5 23.hf8 (23.ltlc5 leads to a draw endgame after 23 ... W/b6 24.hf8 Wxf8 25J�xd7 .ixd7 26.i.c4 ltlxc4 27.ltlxd7+ We7 28.W/xb6 ltlxb6 29.ltlxb6 �d8 30J�b1 l3d2 31.ltla4 bS 32.ltlc5 �xc2 33.ltlxa6 gS 34.l3xb5 l3cl+ 35.Wf2 l3c2 +=) 23 . . . Wxf8 24.ltld6 W/c5, Karjakin-Koka rev, Sochi 2012. Now, instead of 25.ltlxf5? with a better endgame for Black, Karjakin should have kept the queens by 25.l3d4, followed by 26.g4, with a strong attack. These examples show that Black should force the events as soon as possible. Dt42. n . h6 t2.J.h4 ctJdS ! ? .. This looks the simplest way to wards the draw. 12 ... g5 is more tangled, with tons of computer games which point to a balanced game with strong drawish tendencies: 13.exf6 a) 13.i.g3 ltlhS 14.ltle4 is a rare guest in tournaments, but Black has not found yet a convincing defence. He starts with 14 ... �xa2 (14 . . . ltld7 15.l3b3 W/xa2oo) 15.l3b3 ltld7 21.i.xf8 ctJxf8 22.ltld6 ctJbd7 16.�c3 I have also analysed 16.i.e2 �a1+ 17.i.d1 ctJcS 18.ltlxc5 ltlxg3 19.l3xg3 .ixcS 2 0.c3 i.d7 21. 0-0 0-0-0. White cannot prevent ... WfcS or . . . WfeS (23.0-0 �cS 24.l3d4 bSoo; 23.l3d3 b6 24.�bl l3b8oo ). Kosintse va-Paikidze, Gaziantep 2 012, saw 23.g4 fxg4 24 ..ixg4 (24.h3 Wfa1+) 24 . . . W/a1+ 25.l3d1 W/a5+ (25 ... W/e5oo) 2 6.c3 WfeS 27.�xe5? ctJxeS+. Of course, White should have come closer to the centre with 27. We2, but I doubt that he has any advantage. 54 16 ... b6 (perhaps 16 ... b5 is bet ter) 17.tt:ld6+ hd6 18.exd6 W/aS 19.l3b4, Sjugirov-Nepomniachtchi, St. Petersburg 2009. Here, 19 . . . W/c5 20.�c4 �aS would have been level. b) 13.i.f2 tt:lg4 14.i.g3 tt:ld7 15.i.e2 tt:lgxeS 16.0-0 i.g7+, Anand Nepomniachtchi, Mainz 2 0 09. 13 ... gxh4 The Poisoned Pawn 14.c4? tl:Jc6 15.cxd5 tl:Jxd4 16.�xd4 i.c5 17.�d2? (17.�e4 id7 18.i.d3 ib5+) 17 .. .'�a4 and White resigned! 14 ••• he6 15.tl:Jxe6 fxe6 14.ie2 14.tl:Je4? ! occurred in the game Bok-Edouard, Antwerp 2011. It went on 14 . . . tl:Jd7 (14 .. .'�xa2 15J�dl l!Jd7 also questions White's play.) 15J:!dl l:!g8 16.i.d3 h3+. 14 ... �a5 15.0-0 tl:Jd7 16.'it>hl a) 16.tl:Jb3 is senseless due to 16 . . . �g5 when 17.tl:Je4 �xd2 18.tl:Jbxd2 l!Jc5 19 .i.f3 is equal, e.g. 19 . . . i.d7 20.'it>hl tl:Jxe4 21.i.xe4 l:!b8 2 2 .i.xb7 h3 23.i.f3 hxg2+ 24.i.xg2 l:!c8. b) 16.�d3 �e5 17.tl:Je4 tl:Jc5 18.tt'lxc5 ixc5 19.c3 h3+, Ter Sa hakyan-Swiercz, Chennai 2011. 16. . . �g5 17.l:!f4 e5 18.tl:Jd5 exd4 19.%Vxd4 'it>d8 This position has been exten sively tested in computer and cor respondence games. Black has de cent chances and he often emerges victorious from the complications. See game 11 Nisipeanu-Wojta szek, Aix-les-Bains 2011, for more detail. 13.tl:Jxd5 exd5 14.e6 The curious miniature Obregon Delgado, Asuncion 2012, featured 16.ie2 Current trend is to develop the bishop on e2. White has often tried 16.i.d3, but there is not a signifi cant difference. Both moves lead to similar positions where the draw is the most logical outcome: 16.i.d3 ie7 17.ig6+ 'it>d8 18.ixe7+ �xe7 19.0-0 tl:Jd7 2 0 .l:!f7 %Vc5+ 21.'it>hl l:!f8 2 1 . . .l:!c8 ! ? is more risky, but cor respondence games suggest that the game remains balanced. An OTB ex ample is 2 2 .�el �c6 23.�h4+ 'it>c7 24.�g3+ with a perpetual check in Mamedov-Safarli, Baku 2011. 22.l:!xg7 l:!f6 23.l:!g8+ (23.�xh6 fff8 24.h4 tl:Je5=) 23 . . . l:!f8 24.l:!g7= . Forsaa beat Kosintseva with 24 . . . 'it>c7? ! , but I cannot recommend this move as 25.i.f7 will leave Black's rook passive. 55 Part 1 16 .J.e717.J.h5+ �d8 18 .ixe7+ Yfxe7 19. 0 - 0 /Od7 20.�b7 •• • 20.EU7 \Wc5+ ·2 1.�hl allows not only 21..J�f8 2 2 . �xg7 �c8 23.h3 �c6 24.\Wxh6 \t>c8 25.�g4 \Wxc2 2 6.�el \Wc3 =, Kosintseva-Hou Yi fan, Rostov on Don 2011, but also 2 1 . . .�c8?. Black has consolidated and ob tained a better endgame in Shirov Hou Yifan, Caleta 2012. The onus is on White in this topical line. D2. 9./0b3 Yfa3 In general, endgames are good for Black, so the inclusion of 2 0.\WaS+ \t>c8 is not impres sive: 21.�t7 \Wc5+ 2 2 .\WxcS+ tUxeS 23.�xg7 bS 24.�fl :gb8 25.�a7 and the correspondence game Ould Ahmed-Slawinski 2008, finished here in a draw. 20 Yfc5+ 2 1.\!/hl 22.l:;xb8 + /Oxb8 ••• l:;b8 lO.h£6 a) 10 . .id3 .ie7 11.0-0 h6! is in Black's favour, because White has to trade his bishop: 12 . .ixf6 12 .�h4 tUxe4! 13.tLlxe4 hh4 14.f5 exfS 15 . .ib5+ axbS 16.tLlxd6+ \t>f8 17.tLlxc8 tLlc6+ is well known since the match Spassky-Fischer, game 28, Reykjavik 1972 . 12 . . .hf6 13.e5 dxeS 23.ti"e2 Olthof only mentions here 23.�b1 as deserving attention, but after 23 . . . tLld7 24 . .ig4 �e8 the black king is well protected behind the central pawns. 23 56 ••• Yfb5 Timman suggests 13 . . . .ie7! ?, but no one has tested it in practice, probably because capturing on eS is good and safe enough. 14.tLle4 ttJd7 15.f5 exfS 16.�xf5 �e7 17.\Wf2 17.ic4 conceals a trap - 17 . . . ttJf6 18.fue5 tLlxe4? 19.ht7+ ! --t. Tal-Zaid, Moscow 1973. Instead, 18 . . . 0-0 ! The Poisoned Pawn completes development, retain ing the advantage, e.g. 19J'Ul lt:lxe4 20.gxe4 i.e6 2 1.he6 fxe6 2 2 . gxe6 ic5+ 23.lt:lxc5 1Mfxc5+ 24.!!e3 !!xfl+ 25.'i!?xf1 1Mfc4++. 17... ltlf6 18.ltlxf6+ .hf6 19.!!xf6 gxf6 20.1lNxf6 !!g8+. Black plays simply . . . i.e6 and . . . 'Wie7 after which long castling becomes possible. To 21.ih7, Psakhis reasonably sug gests 2l.. .!!g5 ! ? 2 2 .h4 !!g4 as best. b) 10.i.e2 is seldom seen. From this square, the bishop is not ob structing the pressure on d6. That makes the typical method of push ing ... h6 followed by capturing on e4 dubious. 10 ....ie7 11.0-0 ltlc6 Developing the knight on d7 is not so good here. The game Zakharov-E. Geller, Moscow 1976, saw 11. ..ltlbd7 12 .i.f3 0-0 13.!!ae1 ti:lc5 14.e5 lt:lxb3 15.cxb3 dxeS 16.fxe5 lt:ld7, when 17.i.xe7 'Wixe7 18.'i!lh1� would have given White a considerable spatial advantage. move ensures natural and fast de velopment. The bishop goes to d7, the rook to c8 and the king gets a back door to the queenside via d8-c7-b8 in the event of urgency. I'm perfectly happy with this set up, but: ll . . . hS is also bringing Black good results. This set-up is indis pensable in the event of the Delayed PP, because the pawn on h6 cancels all the plans with short castling. The main line then is: 12.0-0 lt:ld7 13.<t>h1 The game I. Popov-Shomoev, Dagomys 2008, saw 13.f5 i.e7 14.1Mfd4 bS 15.<t>h1 lt:leS 16,gf4 h4 17.!!afl i.d7 18.lt:ld1 !!c8 19.ltle3 1lNa4 2 0.fxe6 fxe6 2 1.1Mfd1 h3 and Black has a decisive advantage. 13 . . . h4 14.h3 Black meets all other moves, in cluding 14.i.g4, with 14 . . . h3 ! 14 . . . i.e7 15.!!ad1 bS ! 12 .if3 Or 12.gf3 (13 ... lLlxe4? ! 15.ti:lxd6+ ). h6 13.ih4 0-0! 14.lt:lxe4 i.xh4 12 . .. 0-0 13.<t>h1 !!d8 14.!!ae1 h6 15.ih4 dS and I took over the ini tiative, Sahl-Kiril Georgiev, Fuegen 2006. 10 ... gxf6 ll.i.e2 �c6 When the enemy knight has left d4 and cannot capture on c6, this 15 . . . b6 is bad, since the pawn is hanging in some variations. It is im portant to keep the white bishop out of reach of the e6-square. There fore, fS should always be met by 57 Part 1 . . .liJeS. White has not found so far a good continuation : 16.§'e3 i.b7 17.f5 lLleS+, Pruijss ers-Senff, Dieren 2005; 16.§'d4 .ib7 17.lLlbl �a4; 16.f5 lLleS 17.fxe6 fxe6 18J!f4 i.d7 19.§'e1, Cela-Vouldis, Athens 1997, 19 . . . lLlg6 20J3g4 @fl+. The only drawback of ll . . . h5 is that it commits Black's king to the centre, which raises up the cost of every move. 12. 0 - 0 White should not hurry to put his bishop on h5 if Black's bishop is still on f8. The game Guerin-Ma gerramov, Montpellier 1999, went 12 .i.h5?! i.g7! 13.0-0 0-0 14J!ad1, when best would have been 14 . . .f5 15.exf5 exf5+. 12 . . . .id7 a) 13.lLlbl? ! '?9b4 14.�e3 lLle7! Making room on c6 for the queen and preparing . . .f5. 15.c4 This move supposedly improves on the game Matulovic-Lederman, Le Havre 1977, which went on 15.a3 �a4 16.f5 �c8 17.i.d3 e5? ! 18.lLl1d2 d5 19.exd5 lLlxdS+, with excel lent play on the dark squares, e.g. 20 .�g3 i.h6 21.�ae1 @f8 . However, Black carries on the other thematic breakthrough and gains the initia tive: 15 . . . f5! 16.a3 �a4 17.lLlc3 �c6 18.�ad1 i.g7+, Matulovic-Marjano vic, Jugoslavija 1978. b) 13.�e3 �c8 14.lLlb1 faces Black with the usual dilemma of the second player: to repeat moves by 14 . . . �a4= (In Sampouw-Ribli, Surakarta 1982 , it was White who deviated from the repetition af ter 15.lLlc3 �a3, but 16.�fd1 lLlaS 17.lLlb1 �b4 !+ probably would have made him regret his decision), or to venture into the extremely risky 14 . . . �b2 15.lLl1d2 b5 16.c4 lLlb4oo. c) 13.f5 h5 White has also tried: 58 A good way to complete develop ment. 13 . . . 4Je5 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.i.h5+ @dB is more risky. White quickly develops pressure on e6 by 16.lLle2 �c8 17.lLlf4 i.g7 18.lLld4 @e7oo. Al though everything is currently pro tected, Black's king is somewhat awkward in the centre. The Poisoned Pawn 14.fxe6 fxe6 15J'!xf6 0-0-0. The bishop pair promises Black the bet ter chances. L. Roos-Ribli, Baden Baden 1981, continued with 16J�d1 ig7 17J'!f3 i.eS 18.i>h1 h4 19.'?9e3 gdfs+. d) 13 . .ih5. I mentioned be fore that it was not sensible to put there the bishop if Black could cas tle: 13 ...i.g7 14.f5 0-0 15.:B:f3 i>h8+ or 15.. J:1ac8. It is essential to keep the knight on c6 in order to meet tt'lb1 by ... %Yb4. Recently, White tested 14.:B:f3 instead of 14.f5. Zambrana-Vesco vi, Bogota 2010, went on 14 . . . 0-0 15.gaf1 :B:ac8 16.:B:g3 i>h8 17.:B:ff3 4Je7 18.f5 d5 19.:B:xg7 i>xg7 20.:B:g3+ 4Jg6 21.fxg6 hxg6 22.exd5 '?9d6= , but 18 . . . exf5 would have questioned White's conception. e) 13.:B:f3 :B:c8 14.i>h1 transposes to the main line. 13 .•. l::l c8 Again, 13 . . . h5 is a decent al ternative (see the notes to Black's move 11). D21. 14.tt'ld1; D22. 14.:B:f3; D23. 14J'!ad1 14.ih5 ig7 15J!f3 ! ? 0-0 was dis cussed earlier. D21. 14.�dl i.g7! White has achieved two goals by retreating his knight: 1. He avoided the pin . . . �b4 which is one the most dangerous counter-resource of Black. 2. The c2-pawn is free to ram Black's centre. In these circumstances, we should not leave the king in the middle. The enemy's manoeuvre ensured us two tempi which are just enough for castling. 15.�e3 (15.:B:f3 fS+) 15 . . . b5! Black has restricted the enemy knight and he has a good position. See game 9 Sedlak-Kiril Geor giev, Vrnjacka Banja 2005. 59 Part 1 D22. 14JU'3 Luther suggests this as best, without arguments though. White is planning to create tactical threats linked with the X-ray of the rook on the a3-queen. 14 •.• lS.l'!afl h4 16.f5 does not achieve its goal due to 16 . . . .ih6. You see here another positive side of the move . . . hS - Black's bishop sud denly pops up on h6. 17.V9dl lt:leS 18.fxe6 .ixe6- + . h5! 15 ••• .ie7 Black is very solid in the cen tre and has an extra pawn. In the game 1 0 Pitigala-Novik, FIDE. com 2 0 0 2 , White failed to gener ate enough counterplay - see the "Complete Games" section. 14 ... b5? ! is a conceptual error. This pawn should not move without an utmost necessity. It only weak ens the queenside and deprives the a3-queen of the retreat . . . V9b4-b6. As a result, White obtains good at tacking prospects: lSJ'!afl .ie7 16.f5 b4 17.ltldl lt:leS 18.fxe6 fxe6 (18 ... .ixe6? ! 19 J'!g3 V9xa2 2 0 .ltld4 hS 2 l.�xb4±, Berg-Sadvakasov, Moscow 2006) 19J'!xf6oo. Black's king has no safe haven. 19 . . . V9xa2 (Or 19 . . . <;t>d8 20.l'!h6--+ when White is threatening with �d4 or lt:ld4) 2 0 .1'!6f2 hS (20 . . . a S 2 l.�d4±) 2l.ltle3 ! ? (This move maintains the initiative. 2 l.V9xb4 V9a4 2 2 .�xa4 ha4 is equal) 21.. .�a4 2 2.�d4 l'!h7 23.ltlc4 lt:lxc4 24.hc4 �c6 25 . .id3 V9c3 26.V9b6t. 60 Played against me by Thomas Luther in 2003. Perhaps that is the best move order in White's posses sion. Now 14 . . . .ig7 fails to lS.lt:lbl! which breaks the contact of Black's queen with d6. Probably 14 ... h5 is a good an swer because White has committed The Poisoned Pawn his rook to dl so he cannot carry on the manoeuvre tt'lc3-dl-e3 . lS.eS fxeS 16.tt'le4 looks very dangerous over the board, but computer anal ysis does not find anything deci sive for White, e.g. 16 . . . .ie7 17.tt'lbc5 dS 18.tt'lxd7 'it>xd7 19.fxe5 'it>c7+. In the game, I chose the solid continu ation: 14 ®d8 ! ••• J.e7 15.J.h5 :S:f8 16.:S:f3 18 . . . 1M/a4, both 19.e5 fxeS 20.1"1xd6 and 19.1:!xd6 hd6 2 0.1Mfxd6 tt'le7 2l.tt'ld4 1M/aS 2 2 .g4 eS 23.tt'lf5 lMfcS 24.%Vxf6 l:!c6 2S.tt'ld6 %Vf2 26.fxe5 1Mfxf6 27.exf6 tt'lg6+ would have been in Black's favour. Instead of piling his heavy piec es on the d-file, White should have tried to attack fl: 17.:S:g3 ! ? :S:c7! Black is lucky to have this move. In all other variations White's initi ative is gradually increasing: 17 . . . 'it>c7? stumbles into 18.lLld5+ ! exdS 19.exd5± lLleS 20 .fxe5 fxeS 2l.tt'la5 2l.l:!c3 + ? "wins" the queen, but at a high price: 21.. .'it>b8 22.lLlc5 %Vxc3 23.1M/xc3 l:!xcSt. 21.. .1M/a4 22 J'1bl 1Mfxa2 23.1:!xb7+ 'it>d8 24 . .idl l:!cS 2S.tt'lb3 l:!c7 26.1:!b6 l:!c4 27,1:!c3±; Remember this manoeuvre ! When your king begins feeling shaky in the centre, you can run away to the queenside. For that aim, you should be very careful while moving the b-pawn to bS, because it would deprive you of that possi bility. Luther chose here 17J�1d3 and af ter 17 . . J1c7 18.tt'lbl %Va4 19.tt'lc3 1M/a3 20.lLlbl a draw was signed. Now I think that Black could have declined the draw by 18 . . . 1M/b4 19.lLlc3 tt'laS ! ? (or 19 . . . 'it>c8+ 2 0.1M/e3 tbd8) 20.1:!g3 tt'lxb3 2l.cxb3 'it>c8+. For his part, White was right to repeat moves because following 17 ... tt'la5 is a typical manoeuvre, but eventually Black's king is left in the centre which spells trouble: 18.f5 Or 18.tt'lb5? ! lLlxb3 19.1:!xb3 lMfcS 20.tt'lxd6 hd6 21.1Mfxd6 1Mfxd6 22 .1:!xd6 'it>e7+. 18 ... tt'lxb3 Or 18 . . . 1Mfb4 19.tt'ld4 tt'lc4 20 .1Mfcl tt'leS 2l.tt'lce2±. 19.cxb3 (19.axb3? ! �b4) 19 ... 1:!c7 2 0.tt'le2t. 18.:S:g7 tt'la5 White's rook committed itself to the kingside so we can start the of fensive on the opposite wing. 61 Part 1 In the arisen sharp endgame, Black has two very strong trumps up his sleeve. He can organise a dis tant passed pawn on the a-file, and his rook on c7 is much more active than its counterpart on d2. Or 23.lbd4 i.f8 24.ggs gxg8 25.i.xg8 '.t>e7 26.hh7 ih6 27J3f2 mm and White's bishop is caged. 19 .hf7 • 23 ••• gxg8 24 hg8 aS! Remember the rule to start with the pawn without an opposition. 19.lbbl lbxb3 2 0 .cxb3 �c5 2 1..ixf7 \Wc2 , threatening to capture on e4, is about equal. Then 2 2 .ih5 �d2 (22 . . . �e4?? 23J�e7!) 23.lbd2 ghs is balanced, while 2 2 .�el f5 23.e5 d5 unleashes Black's bish op pair, 24.ih5 .ic5 25.gxh7 �xa2 26.lbd2 '.t>c8+. I do not see how White could stop the pawn. Passive defence does not help, for example: 19 'M>4 20.lbe2 Vxd2 2U�xd2 �xb3 22.axb3 ghs 26.f5 a4 27.'tt>g l a3 28.c3 b4 29.cxb4 d5!+. ••. 62 25.hh7 b5iii Part 1 Co m plete G a m es 1 . Kre i m a n - N ov i kov S a n D iego 2006 1 .e4 cS 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ig 5 e6 7.f4 eb6 8 . a 3 �c6 9 . � b3 .ie7 1 0 .Wf3 .id7 1 1 .0-0-0 Wc7 1 2 .g4 h6 1 3 . .ih4 If White exchanged his bishop, he should not obtain an edge. His advantage in space and develop ment is easily neutralised with long castling. Our hedgehog pawns on the sixth rank ensure a solid shield. The picture would have been much different had Black already castled short. Then the dynamic factors would have been more important than our bishop pair. Now Black executes the most typical break through in the Najdorf: 1 3...g5! Commonly, we see this hit with the knight on d7, but eventually there is no big difference. Black gets control of the central dark squares. This plan is especially effective when the g-pawn is committed to g4, because it is a sensitive target there and it weakens the neighbour ing squares f3 and f4. Imagine that the pawn was on g2, for instance if White had played 12 .i.d3. Then af ter 12 . . . h6 13.i.h4 gS 14.i.g3 gxf4 15.i.xf4 lt:Je5, White would have had 16.�h3, with some initiative. 1 4.fxg5 �es 1 S.eg3 �fxg4 1 6.gxh6 hh4 1 7 .Wxh4 �xh6 1 s .w9s �9s 1 9.eh4 gh& 2o .eg s gg6 2 1 .Wh4 Wd8 ! i A complete triumph of the dark squared strategy! White would have been happier without his pawn on e4 which deprives his c3-knight and the fl-bishop of any prospects. 22 .Wh8+ 24.ee 1 <ll e 7 23 .eh4+ <llf8 Black has played well so far and owns the initiative. Had he found 24 . . .!%£6! , he would have increased his advantage. Then 25.i.e2 lt:Jf2 26.Eixd6 �xhH simply loses the 63 Part l exchange so 25J!xd6 looks the only move, when 25 .. .'�c7 26.'�d2 @e'l+ leads to a position where the two black knights dominate the ene my rook, 27J!d5 (or 27J!d4 ll:\f3 28.l!xd7+ �xd7 29.Wig2 ll:\e3 30.�e2 tt:lxfl 3l.Wfxfl Wlc7+) 27 ... �c6 28J!c5 b6+. Instead, Novikov chooses a false trail and White manages to cov er both weak squares - f2 and f3 : 2 4 . . . ftb6? 25.�d4 �c6?! 28.i.h3? The bishop blocks the way to his h-pawn. In this typical posi tion White has two active plans. He should aim either for doubling his rooks on the d-file or for push ing the h-pawn up to hS or even to h6. The first plan is inefficient in the concrete situation because White's pieces are not fit for it. The march of the h-pawn however is obligato ry! It messes Black's intention to put his king to g7 and calmly pro cess the enemy weaknesses. It also ensures an ideal place for the queen on h4. In some cases the h-pawn could be used to divert the oppo nent's forces to the kingside while trying to attack in the centre : 2 8.h4 ! @e7 29.h5 Black continues with his po sitional plan, but he should have probably tried to connect his rooks by 25 . . . @g7 26.h3 �h8 2 7.�gl ll:\f6 28.�xg6+ tt:\xg6= . The fine point is that the text allows White to disrupt the coordination between the oppo nent's pieces by 26.h3 ! ll:\geS (It is more dangerous to open up the h fille.) 27.ll:\xc6 �xc6 2 8.h4±. The game is balanced: 29 ... �f6 30.Wih4 ll:\e5 31.i.g2 �h8 32 .�fl ll:\d7 33.ll:\d5+ exdS 34.exd5 i.bS 35.�el + @f8 36.a4 .id3 37.�xd3 Wlf2 38. Wle4 ll:\eS�; 26 �xc6 .ixc6 27 gd2 Wc5 Black has finally set his pieces on their ideal places and is clearly bet ter. The rest of the game is a reali sation of his positional advantage. 29 . . . �h6 30.�h4+ ll:\f6 3 1 . .ie2 �g8 32.�hdl WigS= . 28 . . . � e 5 29.IU1 @gn 3 0 . �e2 i.b5+ 3 1 .ftf2 gh8 32 .�f4 gxh 3 33.�xg6 ftxf2 34.gfxf2 �xg6 35.gxd6 i.c6 36.gda be4 37 ,gd7 �e5 38.gc7 i.c6 39.ge2 @f6 0-1 64 The Poisoned Pawn 2 . S h abalov-Kiril Georgiev E lista (ol) 1 998 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ig5 e6 7.f4 ti'b6 8 . � b 3 .ie7 9 . .ie2 �bd7 1 0 .Ylrd3 ti'c7 I put a diagram here because it illustrates one typical approach of Black - firstly we clog the e4pawn, and after 15.f5 we simpli fy by 15 . . . �c5 16.lLlxc5 (16.�e3 �xb3+ 17.cxb3 stumbles in the thematic blow 17 . . . lLlxe4 18.i.xe7 lLlxc3 19.bxc3 �xe7 20 .i.xb7 �xb7 2U:!xd6 l:!ac8+) 16 . . . dxc5 17 . .bf6 i.xf6 18.�d7= , Yilmaz-Urushadze, Batumi 2002. 1 1 . .if3 We follow one and the same set up leaving to the enemy the task of finding new idea since the old ones are harmless. The reason behind 9.i.e2 is to impede our plans by placing the bishop on f3. Then . . . bS would be impossible for a while and White hopes to use this time for ad vancing the g-pawn. This idea has a downside - White is forced to trade his gS-bishop after ll . . . h6 or lose the battle for the eS-square. Con versely, he could save the bishop by ll . .ih4, when ll . . . h6 is met by 12.i.f2 , but then we achieve ll . . . bS. Play may continue with 12 .a3 i.b7 13.i.f3 0-0 14. 0-0-0 ll.g4 is commonly met by ll ... h6 12 .i.h4 gS 13.i.g3 gxf4 14.i.xf4 lLle5 15.he5 dxeS 16.0-0-0 i.d7 17.h4 0-0-0+, Petrushin-Mikhalichenko, Kharkov 2004. 22 . . . h 6 1 2 . .ixf6 12 .i.h4 gS 13.fxg5 lLleS 14.�d4 lLlfd7= is a good version of the typi cal plan with gS. 1 2 . . . �xf6 1 3.0-0-0 e5 Of course, I could have prepared . . . bS by 13 . . . l:!b8, but it is better to restrain the enemy in the centre. 1 4.f5 b5 At the Olympiad in Novi Sad 1990, I obtained a good game against Ljubojevic after 14 . . . i.d7?! 15.'it>b1? bS. I intended to meet 15.a3 by 15 . . . l:!b8 and . . . b4 to follow. How ever, 15.g4! bS 16.a3;!; l:!b8 17.h4 earns the initiative because White gets first to the critical square dS. 65 Part l 1 5.a3 h 5 ! Black fights for every inch of space . ... hS becomes trendy in many Najdorf positions. The knight on f6 is a very important piece and it should be bolstered up with all means. The advance of the g-pawn cannot be prevented, but the text delays it with one move since White has to play g3 first. 1 6.g3 The only way to achieve g4. Af ter 16.h3 h4 17J'l:hgl .ib7 18.g3 hxg3 19J'l:xg3 gh7 2 0 .gdgl .if8?, Black's pawn formation is more flexible. 16.tLid5? ! tLixdS 17.'1Wxd5 .ib7 18.Wfd2 aS turns the tables. Black may even castle short in order to in clude the second rook in the attack. 1 6 . . . .ib7 1 7. 'i!? b 1 The opening i s over and I had to make an important decision. 17 . . . 0-0-0, followed up by 'i!?b8 and gcs, is possible and about equal. However, most Najdorf players prefer to leave the king in the cen tre rather than evacuate it to the queenside. This approach is more risky, but could be more rewarding. 1 7 . . J�c8 1 8. h 3 �d7 18 ... h4 ! ? 19 .g4 tLih7 would have kept the blockade on the dark squares. That would allow me to castle and join the second rook to the queenside attack. However, I had other plans for my knight. 1 9.g4 �b6 20.�a5?! The knight is misplaced here. It does control c4, but my real threat is . . . tLia4. 2 0 .gxh5 ! tLic4 2l.tLid5 ! (21 .'i!?a2? tLixa3+) 2 1 . . . .ixd5 2 2 . exd5 is about equal. White will try to swap my knight, reducing my chances for an attack. 20 . . . .ia8 2 1 .%Yd2? 'ed8 ? This is a misconception. My chances are on the queenside and the queen is best placed on c7 , eye ing c2 . It is a tactical mistake too, because I missed the opportunity to punish the opponent's mistake with 2 1 . . .tLia4 ! + 2 2 .tLixa4 (22 .tLia2 .igS ! ) 22 ... bxa4 23.gxh5 gbs 24.'i!?al gbs. Dr. Tarrasch was quite right about the knights at the edge of the board! White is forced to compro mise his castling position which would provide me with an ample choice of attacking options, 25.b4 axb3--+ 2 6.tLixb3 dS (or 26 . . . a5, or 26 . . . gb6) 27.exd5 gh6 . Black would have been clearly better. 22J�hg 1 22.gxh5 ! 66 tLic4 23.tLixc4 gxc4 The Poisoned Pawn 24.1M'f2 looks deplorable for Black. Now the game is level again until White's final mistake: 22 . . . hxg4 23 . .bg4 �c4 24.�xc4 �xc4 25 . .te2 �d4 26 . .td3 .tf6 27.1M'e3 'f!/c7 28.b3 Best is 28.lLle2 :!'!a4 29.lLlc3 :!'!d4=. 28 . . . 1M'c5 29.�g3?? (29.'tt> b 2 b4=) 29 . . . 'f!/xc3 0-1 3. Topalov-Kas parov Novgorod 1 997 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .tg5 e6 7.f4 'f!/b6 8 . � b 3 .te7 9.'f!/f3 'f!/c7 1 0 .0-0-0 � b d 7 1 1 .g4 1 1 . . . b5 1 2 . .bf6 12.a3 is too passive. Black could develop by 12 . . . .tb7 and castle long later. 1 2 . . . �xf6 Against such an inventive player as Topalov, Kasparov opts for a re liable and tested plan. It has always been thought that 12 ... .bf6 is dubi ous because of the sacrifice 13.hb5 (13.e5 .tb7 14.lLle4 .be4 15.1M'xe4 dSoo should be safe for Black) 13 ... axbS 14.�xb5 1M'c6 15.lLlxd6+ . It seems that Black would be un able to connect his rooks. Howev er, modern engines are very scepti cal about White's position. They fol low up with 15 . . . 'it>f8 16. 'tt>b l lLlb6oo (or 16 . . . .ie7!? 17 lLlxc8 :!'!xeS 18.lLld4 1M'b7) preferring Black. It is not easy to judge what is the truth in that case . . . 1 3.g5 �d7 1 4.a3 gba 1 5.h4 b4 1 6.axb4 gxb4 This is the main plan in the 6 . .ig5 Najdorf. White is intending to gain space on the kingside by i.xf6, gS, eventually h4, and fS, hitting e6. In this scheme the bishop goes to a striking position on h3. In the cur rent situation, however, the knight is not on his usual place d4, but on the considerably more passive square b3. Therefore, Black could be reassured about his position. Both sides have completed the obligatory program and it is time for Topalov to uncork his home preparation. 67 Part 1 1 7.c!Lla2 Topalov trades queens hoping to exploit the weakness of the a6pawn. In such endgames , White is usually better because his king is closer to the arena of the fu ture battle. It not only protects the pawns, but helps pushing them. In the game Kasparov proves able to maintain balance by creating ten sion on the kingside with . . . h7-h6. It had been tried before 17J�d4 l'%xd4 18.c!Llxd4 �b6 and now: 19.�d1 .ib7 2 0 ..ic4 �b4 21..ia2 (21.�d3 lt:lc5 2 2 .�e2 ltlxe4 23.lt:lxe4 .ixe4 24.c3 �b7 2S . .ixa6 �aS 2 6.!%e1 dS 27.f5 0-0t) 2 1 . . .ltlc5 ! with initia tive (22.!%e1 h6 or 22 . . . .ia8, intend ing to castle - 23.f5 eS 24 . .hf7+ �xf7 2S.�h5+ �f8 26.ltle6+ lt:lxe6 27.fxe6 g6+. The threat of . . . a5-a4a3 provides Black with counterplay. 19.lt:lb3 .ib7 2 0.h5 Now is the right moment for Black to undermine the enemy kingside by: Instead, the game Akopian-Col linson, Oakham 1992 , saw 20 . . . lt:lc5 2 1..ic4 lt:lxe4? ! 2 2 .ltlxe4 dS 23 . .id3 dxe4 24 . .ixe4 .ixe4 25.�xe4 0-0 when 26.h6! g6 27.!%dl± would have been awkward for Black due to his weak back rank. 1 7 .. J�b6 1 8 .ti"c3 �xc3 1 9 . c!Ll xc3 h6 20.Ae2 Ab7 Black's knight would be very strong on g6, but White is able to prevent that - 20 . . . ltlf8 21.gxh6 21.!%xh6 2 2 .h5;!;. 2 1 .c!Lla5 Aa8 2 2 . c!Llc4 gc6 23. 'it>b1 Kasparov suggests 23.b3 ! as more accurate. The king reaches b2 in one step, thus rendering the rook's manoeuvre that happened in the game impossible because of the hanging a6-pawn. However, Black can still trade his knight which is enough for equality - 23 . . . ltlb6 24.�b2 ltlxc4+ 2S ..ixc4 �d7 26.!%a1 i.b7= . 23 . . . c!Llb6 24.b3 c!Llxc4 2 5.Axc4 gcs r Ensures the c6-square for the bishop and prepares . . . a5-a4. 25 . . . 'it>d7 26.'it>b2 i.b7 27.!%a1 g6 is also comfortable for Black. 26.'it>b2 aS 27.Ad 3 Ac6 2 8 .c!Lla4 ha4 2 9 .bxa4 %-% 20 . . . h6!? 21.g6 fS 22 . .ig2 fxe4 23.tt:\xe4 .idS 24.!%e1 0-0 with good counterchances. 68 The Poisoned Pawn 4. Leko-Polgar L i n a res 2001 1 .e4 c5 2.c�:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ig5 e6 7.f4 Wb6 8 . � b 3 .ie7 9.Wf3 �bd7 1 0.0-0-0 Wc7 1 1 . .id3 b5 1 2 .a3 l:'ib8 1 3.l:'ihe1 h 6 1 ? 15.g4 does not work, because Black attacks the pawn immediately by 15 . . . lbb6 (15 . . . b4�) 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.i.xf6 .ixf6 18.lbdS lbxd5 19.exd5 0-0, with a preferable game, I. Zait sev-Mitenkov, Moscow 1996. 1 5 . . . b4 1 6.axb4 l:'ixb4 1 7 .id2 . 1 7 . . . �b6 In the first round o f the same tournament, Kasparov chose 13 . . . b4 which I consider a s main line. Judit decides to define the pawn structure in the centre first. 1 4.Wh3 14.i.h4 g5 leads to another typi cal position where Black gains con trol over e5 at the cost of some weak ening of the kingside. In practice White players usually avoid these structures. 15 . .if2 ! ? (or 15.fxg5 lbe5 16.'We2 lbfd7 17.'Wh5 lbg6 18 . .ig3 hxg5+) 15 . . . gxf4 16.Wxf4 lbe5 17.c;!.>b1 b4 18.axb4 E:xb4oo. White has a spa tial advantage, but it is unclear how he could make any progress, for in stance, 19.i.f1 i.b7 20.E:d4 E:xd4 21.i.xd4 lb ed7= . 1 4 . . . e51 1 5.f5 I like more another set-up which involves 17 . . . .ib7!? 18.c;!.>b1 (18. g4 E:xb3 ! 19.cxb3 lbc5�) 18 ... lbc5 19.lbxc5 'Wxc5. Black has sufficient counterplay here: 20.lba2? fails to 20 . . . E:xe4�; 20.E:e3 'Wb6 21.i.c1 aS ; after 20.g4 0-0, Black's attack runs faster, e.g. 21.E:g1 E:fb8 or 22.'We3 'Wc7! 23.E:g1 d5! Judit prefers to trade her knight for the light-squared bishop, but that deprives her of attacking chances. 1 8 .g4 l:'ig8 The first consequence of the pre vious move. Black cannot castle, be cause her pieces on the queenside are not set for a direct attack and she would risk to get crushed be fore rearranging them. 69 Part 1 1 9.�b1 ! The impatient 19.g5 would have enabled the route of Black's knight to a4: 19 . . . hxg5 2 0.hg5 .ib7 2 1 . �b1 tl:Ja4!�. If Black attempts the same after the text, for instance, 19 . . . i.b7 (19 . . . tl:Ja4 20.tl:Ja2 �b8 2 1 .�£3, in tending h4), then 2 0 . tl:J a5 would give White an edge. 1 9 . . . �c4 20 . .ixc4 gxc4 2 1 . g 5 hxg5 2 2 . .ixg5 .lb7 2 3 . .ixf6 5. Kamsky -Vallejo Pons Khanty M a n s y isk 1 4. 1 2 .2005 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ig5 e6 7.f4 ti'b6 8 . � b 3 �bd7 9.ti'f3 Ae7 1 0 .0-0-0 ti'c7 1 1 . .id3 b5 1 2 .ghe1 b4 1 3.�e2 Ab7 This position is topical lately thanks to Kamsky. White is luring the enemy pawns into his territory, hoping to prove that they are over extended. White's position looks prefera ble at a cursory glance, but in fact Black has sufficient counterplay. The menace on e4 forces Leko to part with his bishop, for 24.�g2 would allow the exchange sacrifice on c3. 23 . . . .ixf6 24.�d5 .ixd 5 25.gxd5 �e7= Black's king is untouchable here. He even participates actively in the play protecting the d6-pawn. Of course, 25 . . . �xc2? 26.�d3 �c6 27.tl:Ja5 �cS 28.�xc5 dxcS 2 9.�xa6± would have been disastrous. Black's major pieces are some what more active, but the weakness of the pawns a6 and d6 neutralis es that. White has no active plan ei ther. 70 White's reasoning is quite logi cal. He has an advantage in the cen tre, therefore Black's pawn storm should not be too dangerous. Mov ing forward the pawns loses control over the squares c4 and bS which could be occupied by White's mi nor pieces. In that event White's grip on the centre would become even stronger. The game Kamsky Sakaev, Khanty Mansyisk 2 0 05, gives us an idea of White's aim: 14.�b1 ! ? h6 15 . .ih4 aS 16.ltJed4 a4 17.ltJb5 �b8 18.ltJ3d4 lLlcS 19.g4 b3 20.c4 bxa2+ 21. Wxa2 0-0 2 2 .g5 hxgS 23.hg5 �c8 24.�h3 lLlxd3 25.�xd3 �cS 26. Wa1 .id8 27.e5 dxeS 28.fxe5t. The Poisoned Pawn 1 6 .. J�ac8 1 7.Yfh3?! This is inconsistent. 16.g4 launched a pawn storm which log ical continuation would have been 17 . .ixf6 .ixf6 18.g5 .ie7 (or 18 . . ..ixd4 19.lLlxd4 eS 20.�f5oo) 19.h4 a5oo. Now he suddenly decides to hit h7. I think that Black should re frain from . . . h6 and castle, in order to bring the rook into play, for in stance, 14 . . . a5 15.llJed4 a4 16.llJb5 Wfb6, with double-edged play e.g. 17.llJd2 0-0 18.Wfg3 .ia6+. Against Vallejo, Kamsky tries to improve with 14.llJed4, but I fail to understand the need for this move. White was hardly afraid of 14.@bl eS because the knight would get an excellent square on g3 : 15.Wfh3 0-0 (or 15 ... a5 1 6.fxe5 dxeS 17.llJg3 a4 18.llJd2 0-0 19.lLlfs�) 16.llJg3, when 16 . . . g6 weakens f6 significantly, 17.fxe5 dxeS 18J'UU. 1 4.�ed4 �c5 1 S . @ b 1 0-0 1 6.g4 This position seems to be critical for Kamsky's plan. Black could treat it very sharply: 16 .. JUc8 ! ? 17.i.xf6 .ix£6 18.g5 j,e7 19.h4 aS?. 1 7 . . . �xd3 1 8.cxd3 aS 1 9 . .bf6 .ixf6 20.g5 .le7 ? ! Vallejo loses precious tem pi and gets an inferior position. 20 . . . i.xd4 21.lLlxd4 a4 22 .Wfe3 ia6+ would have earned him the initia tive, mostly due to the vulnerable kingside pawns of White. 2 1 .Yfe3 .la6 22.lac1 Yfb6 23.�f5 23J'!xc8 �xeS 24.llJf5 25.llJxe7+ @fB 26.�xe3 27.�xa5± was simpler. Wfxe3 <Jlxe7 23 . . . laxc 1 + 24.�xc1 25. �xe7+ Yfxe7 26.Yfb6 27.lae2 eS 28 .f5? 'f!lc7 l::! a 8 White was still better, but he had to prove that by a couple of con crete moves: 28.fxe5! WfxeS (28 ... dxeS 29.l::! c 2 a4 30.l::! c 6t) 29.Wfc6 �a7 30.l::! c 2 g6 31.'%lfb6 l::! a8 32 .h4;!;. Black's bishop is shaky and that ties down the queen with its defence. After the text, the roles are reversed again. 28 ... Yfxg5 29.Yfxd6 'f!ld8 30.Yfxd8+ laxd8 3 1 .l::! c2 hS 32.l::!c5 .ixd3+ 33.�xd3 l::! x d3 34.l::!x a5 f6 71 Part 1 The endgame is very interesting and complex. I do not know who is bet ter, but I'm pretty sure that Kam sky should not have allowed the en emy pawn on b3 with his next move. His last chance to stay in the game was 35J'!a4 �d4 3 6.a3 �xe4 37.�xb4 �el+. Black chooses this variation when he wants to avoid possible forced draws in the main PP. How ever, if White is well prepared, he should be able to retain a slight edge due to his flexible pawn formation. 35.a4 b3 36J:�c5 gd 1 + 37.gc1 gd4 The arising pawn structure is typical for the Rauzer variation. Black's biggest problem in it is the h-pawn. On h5 it could be attacked by a rook on h3 and a bishop on e2. One square further, on h4, it is as weak because of Wl'f2 or �el . The other concern of Black is the safe ty of his king. White often finishes off the enemy by placing a rook on b3, with numerous tactical possibil ities. Therefore, we should be hap py to trade queens after 9. 0-0-0?! Wl'xd4 10.�xd4 �xd4 ll.�xd4 .id7= . White is probably beyond salva tion already. 38.a5 gxe4 39.a6 ga4 40.gcs h4 41 .�c1 ga2 42.gb6 � h 7 43.�d2 gxb2+ 44.�c3 gb1 45.a7 ga 1 46.gb7 e4 47.�b2 gas 48.�xb3 e3 49.�c2 ga2+ 5 0 . � d 1 �h6 5 1 . h 3 � g 5 52.gxg7+ �xf5 53.gg4 �e5 54.gxh4 f5 55.a8ti' gxa8 56. �e2 f4 57.�f3 ga 1 ss.ghs+ �d4 59.ghs gf1 + 60. �e2 gf2+ 6 1 .�e1 gh2 62.h4 f3 0-1 6. V I . D i m itrov- Kiril Georg iev P lovd iv 2004 1 .e4 c5 2 .�f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ig 5 e6 7.f4 'ff b 6 8 .ti'd2 �c6 9 . .ixf6 ! 9 . . . gxf6 1 o . � b3 .id7 Sutovsky employed another move order. He firstly pushed his h-pawn up to h4, but I do not see any difference. 1 1 .0-0-0 ll.i.e2 ! is more accurate, aiming to meet ll . . . �g8 with 12 . .ih5. 1 1 . . . 0-0-0 A few years ago I liked the plan with ll.. .�g8? ! , but lately I changed my mind. In some lines this move makes White lose a tempo on g3, 72 The Poisoned Pawn but this is still insufficient for a full equality. Sooner or later he will achieve the set-up with .th5, g3g4, f4-f5 which is most unpleasant. This plan was employed in some re cent games after: .!tla5 17 . .!tld5) 15.i.h5 l'l:g7 16 . .!tlxa5 �xa5 17.g4 i.c6 18.l'l:he1 l'l:c8 19.h4 �c5 20.f5 b5 21.a3 ib7 22.�e3;!;. 11 . . . 0-0-0 12 .i.e2 l'l:g8 13 . .th5 �g7 14.b1 b8 15.l'l:he1 (15. g4 !)15 . . . .!tl a5 16 . .!tlxa5 ! �xa5 17.g4 ! (17 . .tf3 f5oo) I do not see how Black could evade this scenario, so he should probably forget the plan with ... �g8. 1 2 .Ae2 h 5 ! 1 3J�hf1 ®b8 Black is deprived of any coun terplay: 17 . . . i.e7 Or 17 . . . l'l:c8 18.h3 .tc6 19.f5 �c5 (19 ... �e5 2 0 . .!tld5t, Groszpeter Padmini, Kecskemet 2010) 20.a3 aS 21.h4t. 18.l'l:e3 l'l:c8 19.l'l:d3 �b6 20.h3 (20.f5 ! ) 20 . . . l'l:c4?! 2 1.f5 i.f8 22 .�h6 %Yd8 23.l'l:xd6 i.xd6 24.l'l:xd6t, Fier Rodi, Sao Paulo 2011. The plan with .th5, g4 is ex tremely unpleasant even with an extra tempo after 11 ... l'l:g8 12.b1 0-0-0 13.g3 b8 (13 ... h5 14.i.e2 �h8 15.h4 b8 16.i.f3 .!tla5 17.�e2 /.l)xb3 18.axb3 �c5 19.f5±, Padmini Adhiban, Aurangabad 2 011) 14.i.e2 /.l)a5 (14 . . . i.e7 15.ih5 l'l:gf8 16.l'l:he1 The game Nataf-Damaso, Evo ra 2006, saw the novelty 13 ... .!tle7!?. In the event of 14.�xd6 �xd6 15.fud6 .!tlg6 16.l'l:d2 i.h6 17.g3 e5 18 . .!tld5 exf4 19.gxf4 (19 . .!tlxf4 h4�) 19 ... i.c6 20.l'l:d4 f5 Black would have full compensation, but criti cal is 14.b1! when 14 .. .f5? fails to 15.exf5 .!tlxf5 16 . .!tld5! Another fresh idea is 13 ... h4, aiming to meet 14.l'l:f3 with 14 ... .!tle5 15.l'l:ff1 (15.�h3 .!tlg6=) 15 ... .!tlc6, Charbonneau-Sutovsky, Montre al2 006. White avoids it by 14.'it>b1 b8 15.l'l:f3, when 15 ... i.e7 transpos es to the stem game. 1 4. 'it> b 1 Ae7 1 5JU3 Black is at an important junc ture. Analysis of practical experi ence convinced me that Black could hardly maintain his h-pawn safe on 73 Part 1 hS. Instead, he should choose the best way to sacrifice it, trying to obtain counterplay with his bish op pair, or push it further. Let me explain first why it is so difficult to keep the status quo. 19.i.e2 since the g2-pawn would be protected. 19.tt:\d5 Suppose that Black begins with : 15 ... E!dg8 in order to repel the bishop to f1 and only after: 16 . .if1 activate the rook: 16 ... E!c8. The problem is that on f1 the bish op is located even better than on e2, because the queen could go to f2 at an opportunity. The game Yudasin Paschall, New York 2003, went on with 17.E!d3 ! ? and Black is lacking a good plan, for instance, 17 . . . tt:\b4 18.E!h3 h4 19.�e1 or 17 . . . E!c7 18.E!h3 ! E!cc8 19 .V9e2 h4 2 0.�e1t. White's rook is extremely mobile along the third rank. A better approach is to push the h-pawn to h4, in order to enable ... E!hS and .. .f6-f5. At least Black would have an active plan, based on .. .fS: 16 ... h4 17.\1;!/e1 E!hS 18.E!h3 fS This is possible because the queen is on el. Stayed it on f2 , White would have been better with 74 J. Todorovic-D. Popovic, Vrn jacka Banja 2005 , saw 19.\1;!/e2 E!gh8 20.tt:\d5 exdS 2l.exd5 tt:\eS 2 2 .fxe5 f4iii . 19 . . . exd5 20.exd5, Tiviakov Spoelman, Germany 2010, when 2 0 . . . .id8 would be double-edged: 2l.dxc6 .ixc6 22.E!xd6 .ic7 23.E!d1 \1;!/g1�. In this line, however, 17.E!d3 (in stead of 17.\1;!/e1) is awkward since 17 . . . �c7 allows 18.�f2 . Thus, the best move order is 15 h4! at once and if 16. \1;!/e1 E!g8 17 ..ifl E!hS, sidestepping the above mentioned 17.E!d3 ! . ••. Another option i s 16.i.fl E!hS. The Poisoned Pawn Now Black is threatening with ... f5. The fine point is that 17J!d3 is harmless here in view of 17 . . . ll:\a5 ! so i n the source game Stripun sky-Jakobsen, Copenhagen 1994, was 17J�l:h3 B:dh8 (17 ... ll:\a5 meets 18.ll:\d4, but 17 .. J!g8 is interesting. If White goes on with prophylaxis as 18.a3, 18 . . . ll:\a5 becomes good due to 19.ll:\d4? ! dS ! ) 18.Wfe1 ll:\a5 19 . .ie2 l:!5h6 20.ll:\a4 (the ending is good for Black, 20.ll:\d4 ! ? !k8oo) 2 0 . . . .ixa4 21.Wfxa5 WfxaS 2 2 .ll:\xa5 B:c8 = . M y choice against Dimitrov was less accurate: 1 5 . . J�c8 ? ! This move was not a novelty. I was impressed by the game Ker sten-Gutman, Altenkirchen 1999, in which Black had a very strong initiative after 16 .B:h3 ll:\a5 (16 ... h4 17.Wfe1) 17 . .ixh5 ll:\c4 18.Wfe1?! (18.Wfd4 Wfc7) 18 ... d5 ! 19.exd5 ib4 20 .g4 eS and Black won con vincingly. In his comments to the game, Gutman assessed 17.B:xh5 ! tDc4 "with compensation", but now I have reasonable doubts in such evaluation. White is better after 18.'�d3 B:xhS 19 . .ixh5 ll:\e3 2 0.B:c1, e.g. 20 .. .f5 2l.exf5 ll:\xg2 22 .fxe6 fxe6 23.'Wfh7±. Perhaps my oppo nent was also influenced by Gut man's evaluation since he chose a "solid" continuation. 1 6.1'!d3?! Yff2 ! Suddenly it turns out that White has to trade queens. 1 7 . .Af3 Wxd2 1 8 .1'!3xd2 !!cg8 1 9 . h 4 .Ac8 20.ll:\e2 bS?I 2 0 ... b6 was more to the point, but I was still trying to win this equal ending which explains my terrible "active" move. 2 1 . � bd4 .ib7 22.�xc6+ .Axc6 23.f5 eS 24.�c3 !!c8 25.�d5 .ixdS 26.1'!xd5 gc6 The bishops of opposite colour helped me hold this position. 27.c3 <tlc7 28.<tlc2 <tld7 29.a4 b4 30.1'!1 d3 .id8 31 .a5 .ic7 32 .Ae2 <tle7 33.<tlb3 bxc3 %-% . 7. H racek- Kiril Georg iev Batu m i 1 999 1 .e4 cS 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.,ig 5 e6 7.f4 ti'b6 8 .ti'd2 Wxb2 9.1'!b1 Wa3 1 O .ixf6 gxf6 1 1 . .ie2 • This variation is similar to 9.ll:\b3. At first it might even look as a better version of it, because the knight is more active on d4 and, as a bonus, the b1-rook is on a striking 75 Part 1 position. However, Black's queen is also considerably more dangerous. It can easily return home via aS or c5. The other big difference is that Black is able to develop his knight to d7 which is my favourite square for the knight in the Najdorf. That's the reason why ll.f5 is the main line. 1 1 . . . h 5 1 ? 1 2 .0-0 �d7 1 3 . .if3 13. h1 .ie7! sidesteps all tactical tricks. Then Black completes devel opment by ... �c5, i.d7-c6. Hracek attempts to refute directly my set up. 1 3 . . . �c5 1 4.e5 dxe 5 ! Opening up the centre is usually disastrous in the PP variation. The game L.Spasov-Tukmakov, Ybbs 1968 saw 14 . . . fxe5? 15.fxe5 dxe5 (15 ... d5 fails to keep play closed due to 16.i.xd5 ! exd5 17.lt:lxd5 i.h6 18.'�f2+-) 16.�b3 �b4 17. h1 �a4 18.ti:Jxa4 �xa4 19.�g5 !±. 1 5.fxe5 .ih6 1 6.�e 1 f5 1 7 . � h 1 .id7 ! We should not cling t o the extra pawn in the PP variation ! We ate on b2 not hoping to con vert a material advantage in a deep ending. We aimed to destroy the ene my queenside and weaken the whole complex of dark squares in the cen tre. Our first objective in the ensu ing play should be activity and good coordination between pieces. Now 18.i.xb7 ti:lxb7 19.gxb7 would even the pawns, but our long-range piec es would be in control, e.g. 19 ... �c5! (19 . . . gc8? 2 0 .ti:Jd5 exd5 2 1.e6--+) 2 Q ,gf3 ggst. Hracek chooses to pre serve his bishop. 1 8 . .ixh 5 .ig 7 1 9 . .if3 gca In only two moves the roles re versed and I already have the initi ative. The knight on c3 is hanging and Hracek decides to relocate it. 20 .. . �xa2 !?+ is commonly good for Black because it not only pro duces a dangerous passer, but acti vates further the queen. 2 1 .�f2 �xa2 22.g4 �f8 ! The position is unbalanced, but my rooks are evidently more func tional. However, the big difference is made by my dark-squared bishop which has no decent counterpart. 2 3 J � g 1 �e4 25.�xe4 Yed5 ! 24. �xe4 fxe4 A typically "human" approach! The endgame is much better with 76 The Poisoned Pawn no risk at all. 25 . . J'k5 is possible too, of course. 26.'ti'xd5 exd 5 27J�ge1 ge8 28 . .ixd5 gxe5 29,gxe5 .ixe5 30.c!bf3 .ic3 ! 44.gc1 <j;d7 45.<j;e4 aS 46.<j;d3 b4-+ 47,gg 1 q;ds 48.gg8 .id7 49.ga8 gh3+ SO.<j;c2 a4 51 J�as 0-1 gh2+ 52,<j;d3 b3 8 . Mamedov-Kiril Georg iev D u ba i 2005 1 .e4 cS 2 . c!bf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. c!Dxd4 .!Df6 5.c!bc3 a6 6 . .ig5 e6 7.f4 'ti'b6 8 .'!'d2 '!'xb2 9.gb1 '!'a3 1 0 .f5 c!Dc6 1 1 .fxe6 fxe6 1 2 .c!Dxc6 bxc6 1 3.e5 dxeS 1 4 ..ixf6 gxf6 1 5.c!De4 'ti'xa2 1 6.gd 1 .ie7 1 7 . .ie2 0-0 1 8 .0-0 ga7 After seeing this diagram, White players will probably think twice be fore taking on f6 next time. I must note that this pattern is quite typi cal for the PP variation if Black sur vives the opening stage. 3 1 . c!b g 5 .ixg4 32 . .ixf7 <j;e7 33.<j;g2 .id2 34,<j;g3 .if5 35.gf1 .ixc2 36. c!bf3 <j;xf7 ? ! 1 9 .'!'h6?! 3 6 . . . .ia5(b4)-+ was better. With the disappearing of the bishop pair, White obtains some hopes. Luckily, my endgame technique has always been quite reliable. 37. c!Dxd2+ 39. <j;f4? <j;e7 38.ga1 gh& White hopes to sacrifice his knight for the pawns, but that turns to be unachievable. 39 . . ,gxh2 40. c!bf3 gh& 41 .c!Dd4 gh4+ 42. <j;e5 ghs+ 43.<j;f4 .ia4 White deviates from the famous drawing line 19 .E!.f3 �h8 (19 ...E!.d7 2 0 .VMh6 l'%xdl+ 21.hdl E!.f7 2 2 .E!.g3+ 'kt>h8 23.VMh5 VMdS is similar: 24.�xf7 VMxdl+ 25.'kt>f2 VMxc2 +, Brkic-Kiril Georgiev, Fuegen 2006.) 20J"lg3 E!.d7 2 l.'ti'h6 E!.f7 22 .'!'h5 E!.xdl+ 23 . .ixdl VMaS 24.'kt>fl �d8 ! = Vallejo Kasparov, Moscow 2004. 1 9 . . . 'ti'xc2 1 19 . . . E!.d7 20J'l:d3 E!.xd3 21..ixd3 fS 22.c!bg5 .ixgS 23.'!'xg5+ ended in a 77 Part 1 draw in Topalov-Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 1998. 20.�xf6+ (or 20 ..id3 �a4+) 20 . . . bf6 20 ... �h8 2l..id3 WicS+ 2 2 . �h1 .b:f6 23J�xf6 �g7 is similar to the game. 2 1 J�xf6 23.ic4? Mc5+ 22.�h 1 gg7 In the current situation, best is 23J(xf8+ !Wxf8 24.1Wh5, Bender Senff, Zagreb 2006, e.g. 24 . . . �e7 ! ? 25.Wixe5 c S 2 6 . .ic4 �h8. The a pawn still exists and White has to sweat out the draw. 23.'�h4 .id7 24 . .ba6 �e7+ leaves Black a slight edge. 2 5.J.xe6+ .ixe6 26. �xe6+ gf7 27.gd7! e4 28.gc7 �g7 29.�e5+ �g8 30 .�e6 �g7 3 1 .�e5+ �g8 32 .ee& Yz-% 9. Sed lak-Kiril Georg iev Vrnjacka Banja 2005 1 .e4 c5 2 . � f3 d6 3 . d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.J.g5 e6 7.f4 �b6 8 .�d2 �xb2 9 . � b3 ea3 1 0.J.xf6 gxf6 1 1 . .ie2 �c6 1 2.0-0 J.d7 1 3 . � h 1 gcs 1 4 . � d 1 This manoeuvre i s more danger ous against 13 . . . hS because Black has weakened his kingside and can not castle. In the current position, it gives me just enough time to shel ter my king. 23 . . . ee7 Black is already better. 23 . . . �h8 would have led to similar positions : 24J�xf8+ (or 24.�df1 �fg8 25 . .id3 '!;Vd4-+ ; 24.id3 �fg8-+) 24 . . . '!;Vxf8 25.1:\{1 (25.Wfh4 Wff4 26.�d8+ �g8 27.'!;Vc7 Wfe4 28 . .ifl c5- + ) 25 ... Wfe7 26.'!;Ve3 '!;Vd6+. 24.�xf8+ �xf8? After this mistake I cannot es cape the bind. 24 ... �xf8 ! 25.'!;Ve3 EigS ! would have ensured breath ing space to my king. Objectively White should be lost there, 26.Wd2 (26.Wb6 .id7 27.Wxa6-+) 26 . . . �g7 27.Wd8 Wxd8 28.�xd8 �g4 29 . .if1 Eif4 30.�g1 �f8 3l.Eid6 aS-+ . 78 1 4 . . . .ig 7 ! 1 5.�e3 b5! I'll repeat once again: Black's paramount aim must be activi ty. If you can capture the central pawn, resist the temptation ! You risk to be crushed like in Kotroni as-Froehlich, Linares 2002 which went on 15 . . . Wb4 16.c3 �xe4 17.tLlc4 .if8 18.tLlb6 �g6 19.tLl c5. The Poisoned Pawn 1 6 . .ih 5?1 1 6 . . . 0 - 0 1 7.!11 a d1 !llfdS; 1 8.'fff2 �e7 This bishop is better located on e2 than on h5 if Black can castle. Alternatives are: a) 16.E:adl 0-0 17.�xd6 1M!xd6 18.E:xd6 E:fd8+. Regaining the pawn does not solve White's problems be cause the black bishop pair shows its real force in the endgame. b) 16.c4 ! ? 16 . . . 1Mlb4 ! ? The aim o f this move i s to pro tect the bS-pawn. Instead, 16 . . . 0-0 17.cxb5 axbS 18.hb5t is unappeal ing; 16 .. .f5 17.cxb5 axbS 18.exf5 ixa1 19.E:xal is hazy, but White has sufficient compensation for the ex change, e.g. 19 . . . �b4 2 0 .1Mfb2 E:f8 2 1.�g4 �dB 2 2 .1Mlg7 �c7 23.�f6 Wlxf4 24.E:cl WlxfS 25.�d4 WleS 26.�xb5+ �b7 27.E:bl ! � . Remember this manoeuvre! Black prepares . . .f5 or even ... d5 at an opportunity. 18 . . .f5!? 19.exf5 exfS 20.�d5 .ie6+ or 18 . . . a5+ may be objectively better, but over the board the experienced player re lies on proven and familiar plans. After my last move I'm assured of a better game because the oppo nent is unable to prevent the open ing of the centre. Then I'll have no fear of a kingside attack, while my bishop pair is likely to prevail in the long run. 1 9 .f5 exf5 20.exf5 d5 21 .�xd5 �xd5 22J!�xd5 .ic6 23.!11x d8+ !llx d8 24.�a7 !ll d 7 Remember game 7 against Hra cek? Again play has simplified in my favour and the bishop pair is un leashed. 17.E:adl 0-0 18.1Mlxd6 E:fd8 19.f5 The position is about equal, but White can easily get a worse ending, for instance, 19.�c5 .ie8 2 0 .�b6 bxc4 2l.�xc4 �xb6 2 2 . �xb6 E:b8+. 19 . . . �xd6 2 0 E:xd6 �e5 = . 25.'ff b 6 'ff d 6 26.c!>g 1 27.�a5 .ie4 28.'ti'f2 'ffd4 .ih6 The human approach again! 28 . . . �c7 was winning the c2-pawn, but I'm not in a hurry. Trading 79 Part 1 queens is equivalent to a sure point for me in these endings. 29.�b3 ti'xf2+ 30.�xf2 .ixc2 3 1 .�c5 gd2+ 32.�g3 .if8 33.�b3 !d&+ 34. � h 3 gds 35 . .tt3 gd3 36.gc1 gc3 37.�h4 gc4+ 0-1 1 0 . Pitigala-Novik D u ba i 2002 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ig5 e6 7.f4 ti'b6 8 .Yfd2 Yfxb2 9 . � b 3 ti'a3 1 0 .ixf6 gxf6 1 1 .ie2 �c6 1 2 .0-0 .id7 1 3.gf3 gcs 1 4. � h 1 h 5 1 s.gd 1 ie7 1 6. � c 1 It is pointless to back this as sessment with many variations. It is based on the weakness of White's queenside pawns and the awkward position of the knight on b2. Final ly, it is always good to have an extra pawn if the opponent has no clear compensation. Play may continue 23.lt:\d4 lt:lcS 24.lt:\xc6 '1Wxc6 25.e5 '1Wb6 26.exd6 gds 27.ti'e1 ti'xb2+. 1 6 ... ti'a5 1 7 .�b3 ti'a3 1 8 .�c1 ti'a5 1 9 .�b3 ti'c7 ! This is a frank attempt to make a draw by repetition. Alternatives are: a) 16 !!h3 h4 is good for Black. He is intending �d8. Drei-Krupk ova, Montecatini Terme 1998, saw 17.g3? lt:laS+. b) 16.!!e3 Yfb4 17.a3 Yfb6 17 ... Yfxa3? ! gives White an at tack thanks to 18.lt:\d5! exdS 19.exd5 lt:leS 20 .c4 (or 2 0.fxe5 fxeS 2l.c4 igS 22.!!xe5+ dxeS 23.\WxgS 'it>f8 24.Yfxe5 !!h7 25.c5=) 20 . . . a5 21.fxe5 fxeS 22.lt:\xa5 'IWcS 23.lt:\xb7 '1Wb6 24.lt:\a5oo. After the queen's re treat, the game Sedlak-D. Popo vic, Subotica 2002 lasted only one more move: 18.!!h3, and the oppo nents agreed to a draw. In my opin ion Black has the better game: 18 ... h4 19.lt:\a4 '1Wc7 2 0.lt:lb2 lt:\b8 2l.c4 ic6 22 .if3 lt:ld7+. 80 I t is not easy to give White good advice. If he diverted his rook to win the nasty h-pawn, he would lose con trol of the c-file: 20.!!h3 h4 21.\Wel lt:laS 22Jidd3 bS 23.!!xh4 !!xh4 24."1Wxh4 lt:\xb3 25.cxb3 b4 26.i.h5 "1Wxc3!-+. Pitigala finds an interest ing way to rearrange his pieces, but that does not improve his game. 20.ge3 h4 ! White hoped to get some counterplay after 20 . . . b5 21.a4. Now the threat is 2 l . . .h3. 2 1 . .ig4 b5 22. �e2 22.!!de1 would not have dis couraged Black from 22 . . . b4 since The Poisoned Pawn 23.tt:\d5 exd5 24.exd5 tt:\e5 25.hd7 + �xd7 26.fxe5 fxe5 27.tt:\a5 h3+ is ex cellent for him. 22 . . . a5 23. �ed4 �xd4 24.�xd4 b4 25.'t;Ye1 �c5+ 25 . . . �c4 26.a3 bxa3 27.E:xa3 a4+ was more direct, but Novik prefers to improve his position patient ly. The h4-pawn is unimportant 26.E:h3 E:g8 27.E:xh4 '119c 4+. 26J�ed3 E:c7 27.c3 bxc3 28.E:c1 ti'b4 29.E:dxc3 E:xc3 30.�xc3 �xc3 31 .E:xc3 The bishop pair is a decisive factor in these endgames. Black needs only to activate his rook and he achieves it without counting the pawns. Simplest is 39 . . . ha2-+ and Black is winning despite the scarce material, 40.exd6+ l!fxd6 41..if5 a4 42.\!fgl a3 43.E:al E:b 2 44.ie4 1!fc5. 40 . 1!f g 1 .ixh3 41 .gxh3 rtle6 4V.!?f2 E:b2+ 43 .1!fg1 E:xa2 44.!'�e4 a4 45.E:xh4 a3 46 .!''! a 4 E:a1 + 47 .<it>g2 a2 48 .h4 l!ff6 49J!a6+ <it>g7 50.E:a7+ <it>g6 51 .E:a6+ l!fh5 52.<it>h3 e4 53.E:a5+ rtih6 54J�a6+ <it>h7 55.E:a7+ <it>g8 56J�a8+ rtlf7 57.E:a7+ <it>f6 58.E:a6+ rtlf5 59J�a5+ <it>f4 60.E:a4 <it>f3 61 . h 5 e3 62 J!a3 <it>f4 63.E:a4+ l!ff5 64.E:a5+ rtlf6 65.E:a6+ <it>f7 66.E:a7+ <it>gB 67J!a8+ <it>h7 68.E:a7+ <it>h6 69.E:a6+ rtlxh5 70 .E:a5+ <it>g6 7 1 .E:a6+ l!ff5 72.E:a5+ <it>f4 73.E:a4+ <it>f3 7 4.E:a3 rtlf2 75.E:a7 e2 76.E:f7+ <it>e3 77.'fJ:.e7+ <it>d3 78.E:d7+ <it>c4 0-1 This game gives a good idea of Black's possibilities in this line. Novik achieved all his major aims: He pushed the h-pawn to h4 to constantly threaten ... h3, then gained space on the queenside, trad ed queens and finally penetrated with his rook to the second rank. 31 . . . f5 ! ? 32.exf5 .if6 33.E:d3 rtle7 34.fxe6 fxe6 35.�xe6 E:g8 36 . .ih3 36 . .idl does not help either: 36 ... he6 37.E:e3 h3! 38.g3 .id4 39.E:e4 .ie5 40 . .ib3 E:b8-+. 3 6 . . . E: b 8 37.E:d 1 .ixe6 38.E:e1 .ie5 39 .fxe5 dxe5 1 1 . Nis ipea n u-Wojtaszek Aix-les-Bains 31 .03.201 1 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 5. �c3 a6 6 . .ig5 e6 7.f4 h6 8 . .ih4 ti'b6 9.ti'd2 ti'xb2 1 0 .E:b1 Va3 1 1 .e5 dxe5 1 2 .fxe5 g5 1 3 .exf6 gxh4 14 ..ie2 VaS 1 5.0-0 �d7 1 6 . <it> h 1 ti'g 5 1 7.E:f4 e5 1 8. c!Dd5 exd4 81 Part 1 Black has to prove that his at tack compensates for his material deficit. Probably he can maintain the balance here, e.g. 2 2 .h3 tLlxf6 23.tLlb6 hh3 24.lt:la4 lt:lh5 25.tLlxc5 tLlxf4 26.gxh3 'i;Yf5 = . 1 9 . . . �d8 1 9.Vxd4 a) 19.tLlc7+ �d8 2 0 .tLlxa8 d3 21.hd3 i.d6 2 2 .1!bfl i.xf4 23.1!xf4 was seen in Bromberger-Aresh chenko, Germany 2010. Black chose 23 . . . h3 and was bet ter after 24.h3, but 24.i.f5 ! hxg2 25. mg1 Yffxf6 26.hd7 gives White some initiative. It is sensible to de velop the rook with : 23 ... 1!e8 ! ? 24.h3 1!e6 where White's knight looks hopelessly cut off. b) 19 .i.f3 i.c5 (White has good compensation for the piece after 19 ...!d6 20.Yffxd4 tLlcS 21.1!e1+ mf8 22 .g3) 20.tLlc7+ (20.'i;Ya5 b6 21.1!xb6 0-0 22.1!g4 'l;Yxg4 23.hg4 tLlxb6 24.Yffxc5 tLlxdS 25.'i;Yxd5 hg4 26.Vffxd4 i.e6 27.'l;Yxh4 �h7 28.Yffe 4+ is a draw.) 20 . . . �f8 21.lt:lxa8 1!g8 turns the tables. Now 82 Computers also like 19 ... !c5+, but the text is more flexible. 2 0 .lt:le7 plugs the f8-bishop, but it allows centralisation of Black's queen : 2 0 . . . Vffe 5 (20 . . . 'i;Yc5) 21.Vffd2 he7 2 2 .fxe7+ Yffx e7 23 . .ig4 f5 ! This aims to prolong the seventh rank for the queen. In Kosteniuk Ju,Wenjun, Nalchik 2011, Black saved the pawn with 23 . . . 1!e8 24.1!c4 b6 25.1!d1 aS and White could have punished it immediately with 26 . .ixd7 .ixd7 27.1!e4 ! . 24.1!xf5 1!e8 25.1!d1 mc7 26.1!£7 'l;Yxt7 27.'i;Yd6+ �d8 2 8.Wb6+ me7 29.1!e1+ �f8 3 0 .Wxh6+ mg8 31.1!xe8+ 'l;Yxe8 32 . .ie6+ Wxe6 33.'l;Yxe6+ mg7 Many computer games proved that this position is roughly equal. The Poisoned Pawn Well, in the precomputer era such endgames were assessed as more pleasant for the queen. 20 . . . h 3 2 1 .g3 J.d6 22 J�e4 an endgame: 26.�c4 rll e7 27.�xc5 hc5 28.:gel rll d6 29.if3 ltlg4=. Still, that would be White's best op tion as his king is in a: precarious situation with queens on the board. 26.Vd3 me7 27.if3 hS (27 ... i.e6 ! ) 28 .Ve2+? ie6 22 .. J:�e8 22 ...i.c5 23 ."r9c3 b6 24.ltlxb6 ixb6 25.�c6 :gbs 26.:ge7 .id4 27.�d4 :gbl + 28.i.dl �g4 29.:gexd7+ ixd7 30."r9a8+ rll c7 31.�a7+ rll d 8 is a draw. 2 3 . ltl b6 gxe4 25.ltlxa8 ltlxf6 24.Vxe4 %YeS Black has full compensation. His h3-pawn is very strong even in White's position is already dif ficult. The rest of the game has no theoretical value. 29 . .ixb7 �g4 30,gf1 h4 31 .gxh4 �xh2? 32,gg 1 ? mf8 33,ggs %Yb4 34.Ve4 'f!rb 1 + 3S.gg 1 �f1 36.%Yc6 �g3+ 37.mh2 �t1 + 3S.mh1 "ed 1 39.Vf3 'ed2 0-1 83 Part 2 The Sozin 1 .e4 cS 2 . tll f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tll x d4 tll f6 5. tll c 3 a6 6 . .ic4 Part 2 Q u ick Reperto i re l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .Ac4 obtain fair chances of gaining the initiative. This book is a practical guide so I'll not elaborate on the name of the analysed system. You can call it the Sozin or the Fischer Attack. 6 This is the most natural and ag gressive development of the bish op. White's favourite set-up envis ages .igS (or e3), 1Mff3, 0-0, E:el and a piece attack in the centre. In this scheme, White typically sacrifices a piece on e6 or dS, sometimes on fS. It is very important that his light squared bishop exerts strong pres sure on the enemy position and does not obstruct the action of the rooks along the central files. The g-pawn could also be used to gain space on the kingside. This approach is in many as pects similar to 6.ig5. The two sys tems sometimes interweave at the early stage of the opening. The oth er common thing between them is that if Black survived the first 20 moves, he would usually 86 .•• e6 7 .ib3 (7. 0 - 0 b5) 7 b5 • .•• Initially, White tried to attack e6 by his f-pawn : A. 8.f4 .Ab7 9.f5 e5 10.lt'lde2 Black has learnt to compensate The Sozin 6 . .ic4 the weakness of dS by counterplay against the e4-pawn. His most im portant trump is the semi-open c file where he should put a rook be fore castling: 10 . . . lLlbd7 ll . .igS .ie7 12 . .bf6 (12 .lLlg3 stumbles into 12 . . . h5 13.h4 b4) 12 . . . lLlxf6 13.\Wd3 (13.lLlg3 hS) 13 ... l3c8 14.0-0 \Wc7 ! , with pressure down the c-file. When it became clear that the positional plan of occupying dS is ineffective, the first players elabo rated more destructive methods: 9. 0 - 0 J.e7 a) 10 .he6 fxe6 ll.lLlxe6 '?9b6+ 12.'it>hl. White has some practi cal chances, but Black's extra piece should prevail, see game 12 Voigt Wahls, Bundesliga 2001. 12 . . . lLlc6 (12 ... .txd4 is simpler.) 13.exf6 .txd4 14.fxg7 .ixe3+ 15.'it>h1 l!g8 16.'?9f3 1!xg7 17 . .txe6 \We7 18 . .id5 lLld4 19.\Wh3 .id2+, Zaichik Lukov, Tbilisi 1988. Apparently, White must develop firstly, but the weakening of the e4pawn cannot be repaired: 10 . .le3 b4 ll.e5 The thematic ll.lLldS exdS 12 .e5 dxeS 13.fxe5 is best met by 13 ... 0-0! ll.lLla4 .be4 is a hard test of White's attacking possibilities. The principle of the defence is simple we take all and press home our ma terial advantage. The first players tried different versions of the sac on f7, but only one good knight on e6 is unable to win the game. See game 13 Forster-Gavrikov, Biel 1994 for detail. ' ll ...bxc3 12.exf6 J.xf6 13.bxc3 0 - 0 14.'?9d2 '?9c7 15.1!ad1 b) 10.e5 dxeS ll.fxeS .icS 12 . .ie3 15 . . . d5! Ruling out all tactical tricks linked with lLlxe6. White should think how to equalise. 87 Part 2 B. 8 . .tg5 .te7 9.V!ff3 V!fc7 tileS 14.f4 b4 15.tila4 i.d7 16.tilxc5 dxc5 17.tilf3 i.b5+. However, White possesses another way to put your memory to the test: ll.e5 Or ll.i.xf6 tilxf6 12 .g4 b4 13.tilce2 tild7 14.tilf4 tileS, with a fine game. 9 . . . �b6 can save you from learn l l . . . .tb7 13.i.xe6 1 2 .�g3 �xeS! ing a lot of theory, but objectively the queen is better placed on c7 in the set-up with i.g5. Still, this move can keep you going until you find more time for studying 9 . . . V!fc7. See game 16 Berbatov-Gopal, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010. 10.0-0-0 10.e5 i.b7! ll.exd6 i.xd6 12.'ff e 3 was considered dangerous for Black, but nowadays 12 . . . .ic5 seems good enough for obtaining a good game. See "Step by Step" chapter, line Bl about White's tricky sacri fices. 10.i.xf6 i.xf6 11. 0-0-0 was quite topical, but I have some doubts about its future. I propose ll .. J::1 a 7! ? - see line B2 i n the "Step by Step" chapter. 10 ••• �bd7 Typically for the Sozin, Black would be fine if he completed devel opment. His queenside play is clear and straightforward, for instance, ll.l':!hel 0-0 12.'ffg3 �c5 13 . .ih6 88 13 ••• fxe6 13 . . . 0-0 ! ? is a valuable alterna tive. It leads to a balanced game al though at first sight White appears to be somewhat better. 14.f4 i.c8 ! 15.fxe5 dxe5 Black has covered all critical squares and the bishop pair should secure the safety of his king. Per haps White can hold the balance, but that is hardly a reason to play this variation on a regular basis. You can find a detailed analysis of this position in the "Step by Step" chapter. When the first players real ised that the tactic of randomly The Sozin 6 . .tc4 sacrificing pieces around Black's king is not too rewarding, they be gan looking for new, positional ways for converting their lead in de velopment: C. 8. 0 - 0 J.e7 9.'lffJ eb6 10.J.e3 Be sure to avoid the trap lO.J.gS '?t/xd4? ll.eS±. Instead, we simply develop by 10 . . . 0-0 1U!adl lilbd7= . 10 ••• White does not achieve anything substantial by opening the c-file: 14J!acl lile5 15.c4 bxc3 16J!xc3 eb7 U.'ifg3 ll . . . b4 It is important to repel the knight at this very moment or we might not have such a possibility anymore! 12.�a4 �bd7 13.fJ ! 0 - 0 16 . . . l!b8 ! (Enabling ... J.d7 which was still bad due to 17.lilb6.) 17.l!fcl J.d7 18.l!c7 %!/b4 19.l!lc3 l!bc8=. The most interesting plan is con nected with a3. One possible imple mentation is: 14.l!fdl ltle5 15.a3 ! (15.lilb6 lilh5) 15 . . . bxa3 16.l!xa3 White has opted for a very so lid positional plan. He bolstered the centre and now he is planing to open up the queenside using his c or a-pawn. This set-up is strategi cally justified by the unhappy posi tion of the c8-bishop which is still stuck on its initial square. 89 Part 2 16 . . . .id7 Black has good piece play, see game 14 Mueller-Wahls, Ham burg 1995. The modern treatment is: 14.a3 ! ? Then 1 4 . . .bxa3 15J�xa3 lbcS i s playable, but I prefer: 14 ••• a5! ? 15.c4 bxc3 16./0xc3 /Oc5 17 .ic4 .id7! 18./0db5 • 90 18 . . . d5! Black takes over the initiative thanks to its central pawn. Part 2 Step by Step l.e4 c5 2.tof3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ic4 e6 7. .ib3 This move is considered the White's most flexible option. The alternatives are seldom seen: a) 7.a4. It is logical to restrain Black's queenside expansion, but this move weakens the b4-square and, more importantly, it spends a tempo. In the Sicilian that is of ten enough to lose the initiative. Black can choose between differ ent set-ups, but note that 7 . . . llJxe4 is risky. So we play 7 . . . .ie7 8.0-0 0-0 when 9 ... llJxe4 is already a re liable equaliser to most options, for instance: 9. Whl lLlxe4 10.lLlxe4 dS ll . .id3 dxe4 12 .he4 fS 13.if3 eS 14.�b3, Areshchenko-Zufic, Rijeka 2010, when 14 . . . e4 would be most consistent. Only 9 . .ia2 prevents the hit on e4, but then 9 . . . lLlc6 ! lO.Whl id7 ll.f4 l3c8 12.ie3 �a�, Feygin-Is tratescu, Belgium 2011, offers Black easy development. b) 7 .a3 is ultra solid, but too timid. Black could follow the usu al scheme with 7 . . . ie7 8.0-0 0-0 9 . .te3 bS (or 9.ia2 bS 10.f4 ib7 ll.�e2 �c7! 12 .id2 lLlbd7 13.l3ael lLlcS 14.�f3 aS ! ) 10.ia2 ib7 ll.f3 llJbd7 12 .�el l3e8 13.l3dl ifB 14.�f2 �c7=, Nevanlinna- Stohl, Rethym non 2003. c) 7.�e2 in Velimirovic style is not effective as Black quickly organ ises counterplay on the queenside: 7 . . . b5 B . .tb3 .te7 91 Part 2 9.i.g5 Alternatives are : 9.g4 b4 10.lDa4 i.b7 (10 . . . d5 11.e5 lDfd7 is also tempting) 11.f3 lDc6 12 ie3 lDd7 13 0-0-0 0-0� ; 9.f3 lDbd7 10.1e3 lDcS 1 1 . 0-0-0 Wffc 7 12 .g4 i.e7 13.g5 lDfd7; 9.1e3 counts only on the tacti cal trick lDb6. Black answers with 9 . . . 0-0 10. 0-0-0 b4 11.lDa4 VNaS ! ? to take over the initiative. 1 2. c3 (12 .g4 i.d7 13.lDb6 Wffxb6 14.lDxe6 VNbS+; 12.lDf3 lDbd7t) 1 2 ... bxc3 13.lDxc3 i.b7 14.f3 lDbd7t. 9 . . . b4 (9 . . . lDbd7 is also good) 9.lDa4 i.e7 10 .Wffe 2 i.b7 1 1.f3 (11.0-0-0 WaS) 11 . . . 0-0 12.c3 bxc3 13.lDxc3 lDxe4+, Feygin-Shirov, Germany 2009. d) 7.0-0 bS 8 .i.b3 :li.e7 transpos es to our main line. 7. . . b5 A. 8.f4 Initially, White was connecting 6 . .ic4 with the pawn thrust f4-f5. Later it turned out that Black an swers it with . . . e6-e5 and the weak ness of dS is amply compensated by the more tangible weakness of the e4-pawn. Sometimes Black even sacrifices the exchange on c3 in or der to capture the enemy central pawn. As a whole, this plan is too committing and offers Black a clear target early in the opening. Late ly White seems unable to come up with new ideas. Black has a number of decent approaches. One of them is to castle quickly and only then turn his attention to e4. I'll focus on a more active development which features . . . .ib7 before castling. 8 . . 1b7 9. 0 - 0 . Black learned long ago how to draw the sting of: 9.f5 eS 10.lDde2 lDbd7 11 . .ig5 .ie7 12 . .ixf6 Main branches are: A. 8.f4; B. 8.i.g5 ; C. 8.0-0 92 12.lDg3 stumbles into 12 . . . h5 (o: 12 . . Jk8 13 ..ixf6 lDxf6 14.lDh5 l'!xc: The Sozio 6.i.c4 15.bxc3 tt:lxe4 !+) 13.h4 b4 14.tt:ldS tt:\xdS 1S . .txdS i.xgS 16.hxgS �xgS 17.hb7 �xg3+ 18. i?fl �f4+ 19.�f3 l"!a7+, Sigurj onsson-Tukmakov, Ybbs 1968. 12 ... tt:lxf6 13.�d3 (13.tt:lg3 hS) 13 .. Jk8. The pressure along the c file ensures Black some initiative: 14. 0-0 After 14. 0-0-0 0-0 1S.g4, Black can take the gift: 1S . . . tt:lxg4 16.�g3 igS+ 17.i?b1 tt:le3 18J�d3 tt:lxfS , Sawatzki-Sutovsky, Internet ICC 2000. 14 . . . �c7! 14 . . . 0-0 1S.tt:lg3 �b6+ 16.i?h1 \Wd4! 17.�f3 b4 18.1!fd1 �cS 19.tt:ldS hdS 20.exdS aS 21.tt:le4 tt:lxe4 22 .�xe4 i.gS has been known to be equal since the game Kuczynski-H. Gruenberg, Polanica Zdroj 1989. The text attacks c2 thus prevent ing piece recaptures on dS: 1S.1!ad1 hS! 16.tt:ldS tt:lxdS 17.exdS �b6+ 18.'tt> h 1 aS 19.a4 (19.c3 h4 ! ) 19 . . . ia6 20.axbS �xbS 2 1.�g3 �xe2 22 .�xg7 l'!f8 23.f6 �g4 24.�xg4 hxg4 2S.fxe7 i?xe7+. Or 1S.tt:lg3 hS. 15.a4 ! ? b4 16.tt:ldS �cS+ ! 17.i?h1 hdS 18.exdS aS. Black has an easy game. 9 ••• .le7 9 . . . b4 runs into 10.eS ! t (10.tt:la4 ixe4) 10 . . . bxc3 ll.exf6 and Black misses his bishop on e7 to recap ture with it. Al. 10.he6; A2 . 10.e5 ; A3. 10 .i.e3 10 .fS is no better than on the pre vious move : 10 . . . e5 11 tt:lde2 tt:lbd7. At. 10 .lxe6 fxe6 ll.ctlxe6 'ml6+ 12.i?hl • White has some practical chan ces, but Black's extra piece should prevail. Play through game 12 Voigt Wahls, Bundesliga 2001. 12 ctlxe4 (12 . . . mt7!?) t3.ctld5 .ixd5 14.'exd5 'ec6 15.ctlxg7+ Wd8 16.'ef5 ctld7 17.ctle6+ 'tt> c8=i=. ••• 93 Part 2 A2. 1 0 .e5 dxe5 ll.fxe5 J.c5 12 .le3 • -Sadorra, Manila 2 007) 17 . . . We7 transposes to the main line. 16.�h5 l3xg7 17 . .ixe6 ll::l e 5 !+ un derlines the fact that White's king is also a target. 16 . . . gxg7 17 .lxe6 Ve7 18 .ld5 �d4 19.Wh3 .ld2+. • • This position occurred for the last time in Zaichik-Lukov, Tbilisi 1988. A3 . 10 .le3 b4 • 12 .•• �c6 12 ... hd4 13.hd4 ll::l c 6 has less theory to learn : 14 . .ic5 ll::l xeS 15 Wxd8+ l:!xd8 16.a4 l:!d2 17.l:!f2 l:!xf2 18.'i!lxf2 bxa4 19J�xa4 'i!ld7 and Black is still a pawn up. 14.exf6 �xd4+ 15.�xd4 ll::l xd4 16J'U4 ll::l xb3 17.fxg7 l:!g8+, Von thron-Gopal , Gibraltar 2008. 13.exf6 hd4 14.fxg7 This way White prevents the swap of queens after 14.�e1 (or 14.We2) 14 ... .ixe3+ 15.�xe3 �d4 which has been found to be okay for Black. It is important to remember that the king is needed in the centre. 14 ... .he3+ 15.�hl gg8 16.Wf3 16.ixe6 l:!xg7 17.Wf3 (17 . .ixf7+ l3xt7 18.Wh5 ll::l e S 19.�xe5+ �e7 20.Wh5 �f8 21.Wxh7 .ld4+, Li Chao 94 ll.e5 The thematic ll.ll::l d S exdS 12 .e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 is best met by 13 . . . 0-0! 14.exf6 (14.ll::l f5 ll::l e 8 15 . .ixd5 ll::l c 6+) 14 . . . .ixf6 15.�g4 ll::l c 6, with an ini tiative. 11.ll::l a4 .ixe4 is a stern test of White's attacking possibilities. (11 ... 0-0 is playable, only Black must meet 12 .e5 with 12 ... ll::l d5 ! 13 . .ixd5 .ixdS 14.ll::l f5 ll::l d 7, with complex play. ) The first players tried dif ferent versions of the sac on t7, but The Sozin 6.i.c4 apparently only one good knight on e6 is unable to win the game: 12.f5 e5 13.i.xf7+ (13.l2Jf3 LLlbd7 14.LLlg5 d5oo) 13 . . . @xf7 14.LLle6 Wfd7 15.LLlg5+ @fB 16.LLlxe4 LLlxe4 17.LLlb6 Wlc6+; 12.c3 a5 ! ? (keeping control of c3) 13.he6 (13.cxb4 axb4 14.f5 e5 15.hf7+ <J?xf7 16.LLle6 Wfa5+ - see game 12 Forster-Gavrikov, Biel 1994) 13 . . . f:xe6 14.LLlxe6 WlcB+. ll . . . bxc3 Now that the bishop is already on e7, this capture equalises. 12.exf6 i.xf6 13.bxc3 13.f5? ! e5 14 . .ia4+ <J?e7 15.LLle2 cxb2+ gives Black the better pawn structure. 13 . . . 0 - 0 14.Wfd2 Or 14.f5 e5 15.LLle2 Wlc7+. 14 . . . Wfc7 15J�ad1 d5! 15 . . . LLld7? 16.£5 e5 17.LLle6 f:xe6 18.fxe6 gave White the edge in Velimirovic-Andersson, Moscow 1982. After the text move, White should think about equalising, for 16.g4 LLld7 17.f5 (17.g5 .idS 18.f5 e5 19.LLlf3 LLlb6 2 0.f6 gxf6 2 1.gxf6 hf6 22.'1Wf2 LLlc4 23 . .ih6 <J?h8 24.i.xf8 E1xf8+) 17 . . . LLlc5+ does not work. Black's next moves are LLld7-c5 while White's play is not obvious at all. I have also analysed 16.f5 e5 17.LLle2 .E!d8 18.LLlg3 LLld7 19.Wif2 ! ? .ie7! 20.LLlh5 ( 2 0 . .ixd5 hd5 21..E!xd5 LLlf6 22 J''\xd8+ .E!xd8+) 20 ... LLlf6 ! 21..ib6 l'Nc6 22.LLlxf6+ h£6 23.i.xd8 .E!xd8�. The c3-pawn is doomed, the passed e-pawn is a strong trump. B. 8 . .ig5 .ie7 9.Wff3 After 7 . . . LLlbd7 8..ig5 b5, White gains the initiative by 9.f4 ! . In our case, 9 .f4? ! is dubious due to 9 . . .b4 10.LLla4 LLlxe4 ll..be7 W/xe7 12.W/f3 .ib7. 9 . . . WI'c7 9 . . . .ib7? stumbles into 10.he6! fxe6 ll.LLlxe6 Wfd7 12.LLlxg7+ �f7 13.hf6 hf6 14.LLlh5�. 9 . . . '1Wb6 is an interesting alterna tive which rules out all sacrifices on e6. Its flip side is that after 10.0-0-0 Black will have to expand on the queenside by . . . b4 when LLla4 would win a tempo. Besides, the black queen often needs to go back to c7 anyway. Nevertheless, Black seems to have a fine game: 10. 0-0-0 LLlbd7 ll . .E!he1 0-0 12 .'1Wg3 LLlc5. 95 Part 2 We could migrate to that line if Nisipeanu or Ivanchuk displayed yet another amazing novelty in the 9 . . . 'i!!c7 variation ! See See game 16 Berbatov Gopal, Khanty-Mansiysk 20 1 0 . @ hS 16.lLle4 l3gS 17.g3 !i.e7 is obvi ously pleasant for Black. 13 . . . �c6 White retains a strong initia tive after 13 . . . lLlbd7 14.he6 0-0 15.hd7 lLlxd7 16.'i!!h 3 l3aeS 17.lLlf5. 14.hf6 The incredible queen sacrifice of Ivanchuk was quickly neutralised : 14.'i!!x e6+ fxe6 15.lLlxe6 B1. lO .eS; 10. 0-0-0 B2. 10 . .hf6; B3. B1. 1 0 .e5 .tb7! 10 ... dxe5 is suitable only for blitz, e.g. 1l.<�)dxb5 axbS 12.'i!!x aS 0-0 13.'i!!f3 .tb7 14.'i!!h 3;!;. ll.exd6 hd6 12.'i!!e3 Black has an ample choice, but I'll focus only on: 12 ... .tc5 It is good enough for obtaining a fine game. 13. 0 - 0 - 0 13J3d1 0-0 14.hf6 gxf6 15.0-0 96 15 . . . 'i!!e 7! 15 . . . �d6 16.l3he1 @d7 17.lLlxc7 @xc7 1S.hf6 gxf6 19.lLld5+ @bS 2 0 .lLlb6 .if4+ 2 1.@b1 l3a7 2 2 .lLld7+ @aS 23.lLlb6+ @bS 24.lLld7+ @aS 25.lLlb6+ @bS, Karjakin-Gashimov, Nice 2010, looks like a suitable way to make a GM draw. 16.l3he1! Ftacnik also considers 16.lLld5 lLld4 or 16 . . . lLlxd5 with a safe posi tion for Black. 16 . . . 'i!!xe6 ! 17.l3xe6+ lLle7 1S.l3de1! Or 1S . .hf6 gxf6 19.l3de1 @d'l+, Andrews-Gopal, Philadelphia 2 00S. The Sozio 6.!c4 The latest attempt af White to improve on: 15.t!:le4 .ixd4 16J'!xd4 ttlxd4 17.lbxf6+ �f8 18 . . . 0-0- 0 ! Ftacnik recommends 18 . . J'�d8 19.a4 b4 2 0 . .ixf6 gxf6 2 1.lbe4 .ixe4 22 JHxe4 i.d6 aiming to keep the king in the centre, but then White's a-pawn could be dangerous: 23.a5! fS 24J'l:d4 !cS 25J'k4 !!dS 26.:!3xa6. This should be a draw, but White retains the initiative. I prefer to connect the rooks and bring the king closer to the a-file. After the castling, White still have to struggle for the draw in varia tions like: 19.:!3xe7 he7 20.:!3xe7 :!3he8 2l.ie6+ �b8 2 2 .i.f4+ �a8 23.:!3xe8 l"!xe8 24.i.h3 or 19.hf6 gxf6 2 0.lbe4 .ixe4 21.:!31xe4 :!3d7. 14 ... gxf6 Ftacnik suggests here a straight forward way to the draw: 17 ... me7 18.�xd4 !!ad8 19.�h4 md6 20.:!3dl+ �cs 2 l.�g5+ �b6 22 .%Ye3+ mc6 23.%Yc3+ �b6 24.lbd7+ l"!xd7 25.:!3xd7 �xd7 26.%Yxh8 aS 27.c3 �d3 = . The text keeps the fire on. 18.�xd4 !!dB 19.�h4 h6 20.c3 Now Black can make a draw with: a) 2 0 . . . �e5 21.lbh7+ me8 22.lbf6+ , Kogan-Sutovsky, Ash dod 2006, or 2l . . . �g7 22 .ic2 l"!he8 23.�g4+ mhs 24.�Wh4 mg7= . b) 2 0 . . . .ixg2 !?. I have analysed this in detail. It should also lead to a draw, but play is not so simple as in the previous line: 2 1.:!3gl ih3 ! ! 22.ic2 ! (22. lbhS ifS 23.%Yf6 :!3h7 24 ..ixe6 .ixe6 25.lbf4 :!3d6 26.ttlg6+ �e8 27.lbe5 !g4 ! ! 28.lbxg4 mf8 29;%Yf3 :!3g7; 22.%Yb4+ %Yd6 23.l"!dl %Yxb4 24.:!3xd8+ �e7 25.:!3d7+ �xf6 97 Part 2 26.cxb4 :gg8) 2 2 . . .i.f5 (Last at tempt, 22 . . .'�xh2 23.lL'lh7+ @e8 24.lL'lf6+ @f8 is the usual perpet ual.) 23.lL'lh5 :ggs 24.:gxg8 + @xg8 25.�f6 @f8 2 6.�xh6+ @e7 27.i.xf5 exf5 28.�f6+ @d7 29 .�xf7+ @c6 30.�xf5 �d6 31.�e4+ �dS = . to make the draw. Ftacnik consi ders only 18 . . . :gxa8 19.ghe1 hg2 2 0 .:ge3. 15 . . . �e5! This is simpler than 15 . . . �d8 which is also balanced, but Black needs to remember a couple of ac curate moves: 16. �f4 (16.c3 tLlxd4 17.cxd4 i.a7+) 16 . . . tLlxd4 (16 . . . hd4=) 17.tL'lxf6+ @e7 18.�g5 ib6 19.lL'ld5+ @f8 2 0 .�h6+ @ e8 21.tL'lf6+ @e7 2 2 . :ghe1 i.xg2 23 .c3 if3 24.i.xe6 fxe6 25.�g7+ @d6 26.�g3+ @e7= . The game Fernandez Cardoso Hernandez Carmenates, Balaguer 2011, saw 19.ghg1 ha8 2 0 .:gg7? ! (20.gg3 f5 21.a4 tLlg4 2 2 .gc3 .ib6 23.f3 tLlxh2 24.axb5 axbS 25.tLlxe6 fxe6 26.ge1 .id4 27.gxe6+ @d7 2 8.:gd3 tLlxf3 29.:gee3 @c7 30.gxf3 hf3 31.gxf3 f4 3 2 .@d2 i.e3+ 33.@e2 hS+) 2 0 . . . hd4 21.gxd4 tL'lg6 22 .h4 i.f3+. 16.Bxe5 /t)xe5! 17./t)c7+ After the text, the white knight cannot escape anyway as 19.tL'lc7? fails to 19 . . . hh1 2 0 .lL'ldxe6 fxe6 21.:gxh1 tLlc4 2 2 . lL'lxa6 i.xf2 . Perhaps best is 19.:ghe1 .hd4 20 . gxd4 lL'lf3 21.:gxe6+ fxe6 2 2 . gg4 gxa8 23.gxg2 @f7= . Or 17.f4 0-0-0 18.fxe5 fxeS 19.lL'lf3 exdS 20.lL'lxe5 :ghe8= . B2. 10 .hf6? ! .hf6 11. 0 - 0 - 0 • 17 . . . @e7 18./t)xa8 ll.eS !xeS ! 12 .�xa8 hd4iii is known to be good for Black. After the text, White is threatening to push e5, or capture on bS. 18 . . . hg2 ! This intermediate move takes over the initiative. Now it is White 98 The Sozin 6 . .ic4 ll . . ga7! ! . This incredible move draws the sting of both enemy threats. 12.'!We3 may be wiser, but the bishop pair promises Black fair chances: 12 . . . �c5 13 J�he1 0-0 14.f4 gds 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 i.e7oo. 12 ••• axb5 13.t0xb5 '!Wc5 ll.e5 a) u.ghe1 is too slow for this position. Black is fine after 11 .. 0-0 12 .�g3 tLlc5 13.!J..h6 (After 13 .i.d5, both captures and even 13 . . . .ib7 are good.) 13 . . . t0e8 14.h4 (or 14.f4 b4+, e.g. 15.tLla4 !J..d7 16.tLlxc5 dxc5 17.t0f3 !J..b 5 18.t0e5 c4 19.!J.xc4 ixc4 20J�d7 �c5 21.tLlxc4 !J..h4 22 .�xh4 '!Wxc4 23.b3 �c6 24.gd3 f6+) 14 . . . \t>hS ! 15.i.g5 t0f6 16.e5 dxe5 17.�xe5 �xeS 18.l'�xe5 !J..d6 19.ge2 !J.c7 2 0.a3 !J..b 7, G. Hernandez-Gel fand, Merida 2 003. . b) 1l.�g3 tLlcS 12.id5 gb8 ! 13.!J..c 6+ lt>f8 left White wondering what to do with his stray bishop in Illescas Cordoba-Gelfand, Linares 1990. c) 1l.!J.xf6 lLlxf6 12 .g4 is a dubi ous hybrid between the Sozio and the 6 .!J..g5 system. White is faced with a difficult choice. In either case, he cedes the initiative: 14.t0xa7 �xa7 15,gxd6 !J..e 7 16,gd3 0-0. All Black pieces are ready to attack the enemy king; 14.t0xd6+ lt>e7-F. 83. 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 t0bd7 Keep in mind the tactical trick 10 . . . 0-0? ll.e5 !J..b 7 12.exf6 ! !J.xf3 13.fxe7, with a dreadful initiative. 12 . . . b4 13.tLlce2 (13.ia4+ tLld7 14.e5 !J..b 7 15.tLle4 0-0oo) 13 . . . tLld7 14.t0f4 tLlc5 15.1t>bl. The game Firman-Makarov, Sochi 2005, saw here 15 . . . tLlxb3 with approximate equality. 15 . . . 0-0+, threatening with a 99 Part 2 queenside pawn storm, looks more ambitious. ll ••• 12 J.b7 12. ti'g3 ••• c!Oxe5! Ftacnik also considers 12 . . . dxe5 13 .be6 fxe6 14 lt:lxe6 ti'c6 15 lt:lxg7 + 'i!lt7 16 .bf6 ! lt:lxf6 (16 . . . .bf6 17.lt:lf5 ti'xg2D 18.lt:ld6+ @f8 19.lt:lxb7�) 17.lt:lf5 J.f8 18.�xe5 ges 19.'Wf4 'WeB. However, after 2 0 .gd6 'WxfS 21.ti'xf5 .bd6 2 2 . gd1, White's prac tical chances are higher, especially in rapid games. White is willing to exchange rooks when Black's coor dination would not be that easy. Of course, this is of no concern for the engines, but humans are less accu rate in such positions. 13.J.xe6 fxe6 13 . . . 0-0 ! ? is a valuable alter native. It avoids forced draws and leads to a balanced game although at first sight White appears to be somewhat better. A closer look re veals good counter-chances for Black: 100 14.hf6 (14.f4? lt:lhS! 15.�h4 lt:lxf4 ! turned bad for White in Tukhaev-Mikkelsen, Belfort 2 0 05) 14 . . . .bf6 15 . .id5 (15.lt:ld5 hdS 16.hd5 gac8 is fine for Black) 15 . . . gae8 ! 16.lt:lf5i.c8 17.lt:le4hf5 18.lt:lxf6+ 1!1h8 19.ie4 he4 2 0 .lt:lxe4oo. The d6-pawn is weak, but it bolsters the eS-outpost. As a rule, Black has nothing to fear in the Sicilian with this centralised knight. 14.f4 14.lt:lxe6?! fails to 14 . . . 'Wc8 15.lt:lxg7+ 1!1t7 16.hf6 (or 16 f4.lt:le4 17.lt:lxe4 .be4 18 .'Wb3+ lt:lc4 19.he7 'Wg4+) 16 . . . J.xf6 17.lt:lh5 'WfS, Lahno -Novikov, Montreal 2 0 04. The Sozio 6 . .ic4 14 ••• .ic8 ! Black can afford to play for a win. 14 . . . 'it>f7 15.fxe5 dxeS 16.lLlxe6 ! (16.lLlf3 ghd8 17.lLlxe5+ 'it>g8) 16 . . . 'it>xe6 17.�h3+ 'it>f7 18.i.xf6 gxf6 19.gd7 forced a draw in Nisipeanu Karjakin, Foros 2006. 14 . . . lLlc4 is not an improvement for White obtains sufficient chanc es for a draw, at least: 15.lLlxe6 �d7 16.ghe1 'it>f7 17.lLlc5 �c7 (17 . . . �c6 18.gxe7+ 'it>xe7 19.lLld5+oo) 18.lLle6 %Ya5 19.lLlxg7 i.d8 2 0 .lLle6 �b4 21.lLla4, with different ways to draw by perpetual check. 15.fxe5 dxe5 Black has covered all critical squares and the bishop pair should secure the safety of his king. Per haps White can hold the balance, but that is hardly a reason to play this variation on a regular basis: 16.i.xf6 i.xf6 17.lLle4 0-0 18.lLlxf6+ gxf6 19.ghe1 (19.ghfl gg6; 19.lLlf3 i.b7 20.lLlxe5 i.e41') 19 ... gg6 2 0 .�xe5 �xe5 2l.gxe5 gxg2 ; C. 8. 0 - 0 .ie7 9.\l;Y£3 9.f4 .ib7 is the juncture point of line A. 9 . .ie3 0-0 10.f4 (10.a4?! b4 ll.lLla2 .ib7 12.lLlxb4 lLlxe4 13.a5 lLlc5) is a particular move order which trows us out of the repertoire in line A. However, this is its only positive side, because Black obtains good play in different ways: 10 . . . b4 ll.lLla4 .ib7 (ll . . . lLlxe4? 12.f5 d5 13.fxe6 fxe6 14.lLlf5 .ig5 15.i.xg5 lLlxg5 16.�d4 gf7 17.%Yb6±) 12 .e5 lLld5 13.i.xd5 hd5 14.ltJf5 ltJd7oo or: 10 . . .�c7 (preventing e5) 1l.f5 (ll.a3 .ib7 12.f5 e5 13.lLlde2 lLlbd7=) ll . . . b4 12 .lLla4 e5 13.lLle2 lLlbd7 14.lLlg3 i.b7 15.�f3 .ic6. This is a good occasion to remind you the famous game Fischer-Tal, Candi dates Tournament Bled/Zagreb/ Belgrade 1959 which went on with 16 . .if2 �b7 17.gfe1 d5! , with a terri ble initiative. 16.a3 ga7 17.ltJb3 0-0; 16.ghe1 b4! ? 1 6 . . . 0-0 17.�xe5 �xe5 18.gxe5 .id6 19.ge2 hh2 2 0 . lLlxe6 ges 2l..if4 ixe6 2 2 .hh2 was equal in Doghri-Bluvshtein, Turin 2006. 17.i.xf6 gxf6 18.lLle4 gfs 19.lLlf3 .ib7, with very active pieces 20.gd3 .id5 2 l.�g4 0-0-0. 9 ••• Wb6 101 Part 2 I chose this move for the main line due to several reasons : 10 . .ig5?! , counting on 10 . . . ffxd4? 11 eS±, is inaccurate: a) I have been playing it all my life so I know it better. 10 . . . 0-0 ll.�ad1 tLlbd7 12 .'1Wg3 b) It is slightly less popular than 9 . . . f!c7 and the variations I sug gest could be a surprise to White players. At the same time, the line is extremely demanding from both sides, especially if you opt for the aggressive option ll . . . ttJbd7. c) This is the most active option. White's main plan in the 8.0-0 line is to play f!g3, .ih6 (in one move ! and with tempo), �ad1, �fe1 and then either trade the dark-squared bishop (meeting . . . \t>h8 with .1\gS) and hit d6, or concentrate more forces against Black's king by lifting a rook via the third rank. 9 .. .'\Wb6 ! ? aims t o prevent this course of events by attacking the d4-knight. Although Black is not threatening 10 . . . ffxd4? yet in view of ll.eS±, it does prevent 10.\Wg3 and lO .�el. The downside of the move is that White gets a tempo on 10 . .ie3 and his huge lead in development might convert into a crushing attack. If you prefer quieter scenarios, you should pay more attention to 9 . . . f!c7. Then 10.f!g3 tLlc6! 11.tLlxc6 ffxc6 12.�e1 .ib7 13.a3 �d8 14.f3 0-0 15.ih6 tLle8 16.�ad1 .if6 ! is roughly equal. In my opinion, Ni sipeanu's pet move 10.�fel ! sets more problems. 10 .ie3 . 102 12.�fe1 reveals the fact that White lacks a clear plan. Black has different ways of obtaining com fortable equality: 12 . . . tLle5 ! ? 13 f!g3 .id7 14 \t>h1?! b4 15 tLlb1 aS+ Mirabile-Novikov, Nassau 2001; 12 . . . .ib7 13.'1Wg3 lLlcS 14 . .ih6 tLle8 15 ..ie3 ffc7 16.f3 �c8 17.a3 tLlxb3 18.cxb3 \t>h8= , Bakhmatov-Ghaem Maghami, Paris 2 0 05. 12 ... tLlc5 ! ? 13 . .ih6 tLle8 14 . .1\dS 14.�fe1 ib7 would transpose to Bakhmatov-Ghaem Maghami. Black has also another good option: 1 4 . . . .id7 when 15.tLlf5?! exfS 16.tLld5 \Wd8 17.tLlxe7+ (17.exf5 .if6 18.�xe8 �xeS 19.h:g7 .l\h4 ! ! ) 17 . . . ffxe7 18 . .ig5 'IWeS 19.ffxe5 dxeS 2 0 .ie7 tLlxb3+ turned bad for White in the game Meinhardt-Schlosser, Ger many 2 005 14 . . . i.b7! 15.b4 ! ? 15.hb7 ffxb7 16.f3 .if6 1 7. .ig5 .ieS 18.fff2 h6 19 . .ie3 b4 2 0 .tLlce2 �c8 is fine for Black. The Sozio 6.ic4 15 . . . lt:ld7! White should trumpet a total re call since 16.ie3 exdS ! 17.lt:le6 fxe6 18 . .b:b6 lt:lxb6 19.1Mlh3 lt:lc7 is bad for him. 10 .•• 1M!b7 11.1Mlg3 ! a) ll.a3 0-0 12.:B:fe1 lt:lbd7 13.ig5 (13.1M/g3 'tt> h 8=) does not set seri ous problems to Black. Nisipeanu -Agrest, Mainz 2 0 05, saw fur ther 13 . . . lt:le5 14.1M/g3 lt:lg6 15.:B:ad1 ltJhS 16.1M/g4, when 16 . . . lt:lf6 17.1M/f3 h6 18.ie3 .id7= would have been about equal. Swapping the bishops by 16 . . . i.xg5 ? ! 17.1M/xg5 lt:lf6 is posi tionally sound, but tactically dubi ous in view of 18.lt:lf3 1M/c7 19 .1Mld2t with a bind. b) ll.:B:fe1 does not create any threat so Black could go for ll . . . b4 12.lila4 lt:lbd7 or ll . . . lt:lbd7 12.1Mlg3 b4 13.lt:la4 1M/xe4 with double-edged play. opinion, Black is worse in this line after: 12 .i.h6 lile8 13.:B:ad1 ! . Ftacnik continues here with 13 ... 'tt> h 8?! 14.i.g5 lt:lf6, when the simple 1S.i.xf6 ! wins a pawn as 15 . . . gxf6?! 16.lt:ld5 exd5 17.hd5 1M/a7 18.:B:d3 of fers White a strong attack. 13 ... id7 is relatively better, but not enough for equalisation after 14.:B:fe1 �h8 ! (14 . . . lt:lc6 15.lt:ld5 idS 16.lilf5 exf5 17.exf5 lt:le5 18.:B:xe5 dxeS 19.f6 g6 2 0 .lt:le7+) lS.i.gS i.xg5 (15 ... lt:lc6 16.lt:lxc6 .b:c6 17. .b:e7 1M/xe7t) 16.1M/xg5 lt:lc6 17.:B:e3t b4 18.lt:lce2t. ll . . . lilbd7 is a risky provocation. It may pay off in the event of 12.lilf5 exfS 13.1M/xg7 :B:f8 14.lt:ld5 fxe4 1S.lt:lxe7 'tt> xe7 16.:B:ad1 aS! 17.i.g5 (or 17.i.f4 :B:a6 18.-igS 1M/b6 19.:B:d5 h6! 20.1Mfxh6 'tt> e 8co) 17 . . . 1M/b6. 12.:B:fe1 is not dangerous either due to 12 . . . b4 ! 13.lt:la4 1M/xe4co. Critical is 12.1M/xg7 or 12.f3 lt:lc5 [Black could try to switch over to the main line with 12 . . . b4 13.lila4 (13.lt:lce2 0-0 14.a3 lt:lcS=) 13 . . . 0-0] 13.1M/xg7. 12.lt:la4 ll . . . b4! Ftacnik recommends in his repertoire book 11 . . . 0-0? ! . In my Zapolskis pleasantly surprised me in 1999 with the gift 12.lilf5? which I took, of course: 12 . . . bxc3 13.lt:lxg7+ 'tt> d 7 14.e5 lt:ldS 1S.bxc3 lt:lxc3+. In the next year Voekler played the even stronger 15 . . . :B:g8 16 . .ia4+ lt:lc6+ and buried the var iation for good, I suppose. 12 . . . l0bd7 13.f3! 103 Part 2 a) 13.f4?! 0-0 questions the fu ture of the e4-pawn. b) 13J!fe1?! �xe4 14 lLlxe6 fxe6 15 i.f4 �g6 saw White struggling in Emms-King, Gausdal 1993. c) 13.�xg7 E:g8 14.�h6 lLlg4 (Emms suggests 14 ... �xe4) 1S.�f4 lLldf6 16.�f3 i.d7!?� provides ade quate compensation for the pawn. 13 . . . 0 - 0 To 15.c3, Black can test besides 15 . . . bxc3 also 15 . . . i.d7 16.lLlb6 lLlhS 17.�h3 �xb6 18.�xh5 lLld3 19.lLlf5 exfS 2 0 .hb6 lLlf4 2 1 .i.a4 lLlxhS 22 . .hd7 bxc3 23.E:xc3 fxe4 24.fxe4 E:ab8= (Golubev) . Other options are: 1S.E:fd1 i.d7 (1S . . . E:b8 16.c3 - see the main line) . In an old game of mine, Ayap bergenov played 15.lLlb6 E:b8 (15 . . . lLlhS=) 16.lLlxc8 E:bxc8 17.lLlxe6 fxe6 18 . .he6+ \t>h8 19 .i.xc8 �xeS. This position is roughly balanced, but my opponent managed to lose it in a couple of moves: 2 0 .c3? lLld3 2 1.E:c2 dS 2 2 .i.d4 .tcs 23.E:d2 lLlxb2 24.\t>h1 h:d4 0-1. 15 . . . bxc3 Cl. 14.E:ac1; C2. 14.E:ad1; C3. 14.E:fd1; C4. 14.a3 14.i.h6 fails to 14 . . . lLlhS 15.�h3 gxh6 16.�xh5 �a7, Ju. Polgar-Gel fand, Dos Hermanas 1994. Cl. 14.gacl ltle5 In the game Rublevsky-Pono mariov, wch. Candidates s/f Elis ta 2007, Black introduced the new move 14 .. J!b8, which transposed after 15.c3 bxc3 16J'!xc3 lLleS to our main line. 15.c4 104 15 . . . lLld3 is inferior due to 16.E:cd1 (16.E:c2 lLlhS 17.�g4 lLlhf4 18 . .ixf4 eS 19.lLlf5 .ixfS 2 0 .�xf5 lLlxf4+) 16 . . . lLlh5 17.�g4 lLlhf4 18 ..hf4 eS 19.lLlfS .h£5 2 0 .exf5 lLlxf4 21.f6 .ixf6 2 2 .E:xd6 i.e7 (The endgame after 22 . . . �e7 23.E:d7 hS 24.�f5 g6 25.E:xe7 gxfS 26.E:b7 has a drawish tendency, but White retains a small edge. ) 23.E:d7 i.cS+ 24.\t>h1 �c6 2S.lLlxcS �xeS 2 6.g3 lLle6 27.E:d5 �e3 28 .�e4 �xe4 29.fxe4;!;. Against Reinderman at the Eu ropean championship in Warsaw 2 005, I followed up routinely with 16 . . . i.d7? 17.lLlb6! lLlhS 18.�h3 lLlf4 19 ..ixf4 �xb6 2 0.i.e3 �b7 2 1.f4 lLlc6 2 2 . lLlxc6 h:c6. This plan com- The Sozin 6.�c4 monly equalises and the game only strengthened this conviction of mine. It went on 23 J'=!fcl? l'!ac8 24.f5 exfS ! = . While writing this book however, I discovered that Rein derman could have dealt the blow 23.f5 ! with a terrible attack: 23 . . . exfS 24.i.d4-+ ; 23 . . . i.xe4 24.fxe6±; 23 . . . e5 24.l'!fcl l'!ac8 25.f6 ! i.xf6 26.�d5±. As a result, I had to do some fixes in my repertoire against 14.l'!acl. 16 . . . gb8 ! The reason behind this enigmat ic move is to enable . . . i.d7 which was bad due to 17.tt:lb6. Now the queen is defended so 17.lt:lb6 is met by 17 .. .'�xb6 18.lt:lxe6 'Wxe3+ 19.l'!xe3 fxe6oo. This hazy position offers good chances to the better player, but it is fun to have three pieces for a queen when our king is safe. 18 . . . ti'b4 19.glc3 gbc8 = Black can even try to get the upper hand with 19 � .. 'Wa5, when 20J�xd7 (20 .�d2 i.xa4 21.l'!xe7 ixb3 22.axb3 'Wal+ 23.1Wel ti'xb2 24.l'!a7 l'!a8 25.l'!ac7 l'!fb8+) 20 . . . lt:lfxd7 21.f4 fails to 2 1 . . .l'!b4+. The rook abandons the queen side and dooms the a4-knight to a grim future. The idea behind this move is to exploit the "automatic" answer lS . . . lt:leS? ! with 15.lt:lb6 lt:lh5 16.'�el 'Wxb6 17.lt:lxe6 ti'b8 18.lt:lxf8 hf8 19.f4 lt:lc6 2 0.e5 g6 21.id5 id7. It is very difficult to evaluate this unbalanced position. If Black consolidated, his minor pieces would be stronger than the rook. 22.c4 bxc3oo or 2 2 .f5 lt:lxeS 23.fxg6 hxg6 24.ha8 'Wxa8 25.1Wxb4oo. Still, White's initiative looks men acing and all top players prefer to anticipate the enemy attack by: Or 18.lt:lb6 'Wxb6 19.lt:lxe6 lt:lh5+; 18.'Wel i.d8 19.'Wdl i.aS=, Rub levsky-Ponomariov, Elista 2 007; 18.'kt>hl l'!fc8= . 105 Part 2 15.�h1 a) 1S.lt:le2 is innocuous : 1S .. JWb8 (or 1S . . . aS 16.c4 bxc3 17.lt:laxc3 :Bb8 18.\t>h1 �a8 19.lt:la4 .ia6 20 . :Bfe1 :Bfc8 21.lt:lec3 :Bb4 2 2 . .ic2 �b8 23 . .ib1 lt:leS 24.f4 lt:lg6 2S . .ic1, lstra tescuV.Dimitrov, Debrecen 1992 , 2 S . . . lt:ld7+) 16.c3 bxc3 17.lt:lexc3 aS 18.:Bf2 .ia6 19.�h3 lt:leS 20 . .id4 lt:lc6 21..ie3 lt:leS 2 2 ..id4 lt:lc6 23 . .ie3 lt:leS 24 . .id4 draw, Mitkov-Gelfand, Moscow 1994. 1S.lt:lb6 lt:lh5 16.�h3 17.�xhS �b7! 18.a3 aS ! = . �xb6 15.:Bac1 .id7 ! . 15 •. . bxa3 16.:Bxa3 16 •.. .id7 17. �e2 b) 1S.:Bfe1 :Bb8 16.\t>h1 lt:leS 17.lt:le2 �c7 18.c3 .id7 and White is already on the defensive, Short Kasparov, London 1993. 15 .. .l:'Ib8 16.�e1 Or 16.lt:le2 aS 17.:Bfe1 �a8 18.c3 .ia6 19. lt:lf4 bxc3 20 . lt:lxc3 :Bfc8. 16 ... �a8 17.c4 bxc3 18.�xc3 .tb7 19.�d2 lUeS The game is level, Hamdouchi Topalov, Cap d'Agde 1994. C3. 14.:Bfd1 �e5 Against Votava I chose 14 . . . \t>h8 which is a bit passive. See detailed annotations in the "Complete Games" chapter - game 15 Vota va-Kiril Georgiev, Skopie 2006. 15.a3 ! Opening the a-file. Alternatives are: 106 Alternative are: a) 17.lt:\c3 :Bfc8 18.:Baa1 aS 19.f4 :Bxc3 ! gives Black the initiative be cause the a-pawn is verey strong. : 2 0 .bxc3 lt:\xe4 21 .�h3 a4 2 2 .fxeS dxeS. b) 17.lt:lb6 hS ! 18 .�h3 �xb6 19.�xhS �b7 ! . Black has strong counterplay with the a-pawn: 20 .lt:le2 aS 21.lt:lc3 a4 or 20 . .igS .b:gS 21.�xgS aS 2 2 .f4 h6 23.�g3 lt:\c6. 17 .tb5 ••• Black has good piece play, see game 14 Mueller-Wahls, Ham burg 199S. The Sozin 6.i.c4 C4. 14.a3 ! ? 15 ... bxc3 16.ltlxc3 ltlc5 17.!c4 !d7! 18.c!Odb5 We have seen i n the previous lines that opening the c-file does not promise White something more than only a temporary initiative. Recent games show a turn towards the a-file. In that event, it is bet ter to play a3 immediately than af ter 14J:!fdl, because in some lines White puts his king's rook on al to hit a6. 14 . . . a5 ! ? I cannot claim that 1 4 . . . bxa3 15J::i:x a3 ltJcS 16.4Je2 4Jxa4 17 ..txa4 !d7 1SJ::i:b 3 WcS 19 . .txd7 Wxd7 20.ih6 ltJeS 2 1 .l'!dl l'!cS 22 .1'!d2 is bad for Black. On the contrary, he has the common counterplay with ... aS, or even 22 .. .f5 23.exf5 l'!xfS 24.i.e3 dS. However, his winning chances seem very slim in these variations. 15.c4 15.l'!fdl lLlc5 16.e5 (16.4Jxc5 dxcS 17.4Je2 �bs 1S.l'!d2 E!dS=) 16 . . . 4Jh5 17.Wh3 dxeS lS.ltJxcS .txcs 19.�xh5 hd4 2 0 .hd4 exd4 is level. 18 . . . d5! This is stronger than lS . . . ltlhS as played in Tomczak-Wojtaszek, Chotowa 2 009. 19.exd5 exd5 20.!e2 Here, Black can choose the tac tical path 2 0 . . . l'!feS 21.l'!adl .ifS 2 2 .Wf2 4Jb3 23.hl hb5 24.ltlxb5 d4 25 . .ixd4 4Jxd4 26.4Jxd4 i.cS when White survives with only moves: 27.i.c4 !!adS 2S.b4 axb4 29.axb4 Wxb4 3 0.Wa2 .ixd4 31..ixf7+ <±>hS 32 . .txeS !!xeS, or maintain tension with 20 . . . l'!acS 21.l'!adl lLle6=. 107 Part 2 Co m plete G a m es 1 2 . Voigt-Wa h ls Germany 2001 1 .e4 c5 2 . ttlf3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4. ll:lxd4 ttlf6 5.ttlc3 a6 6 . .tc4 e6 7.0-0 b5 8 . .tb3 .te7 9.f4 .tb7 1 O ..txe6 fxe6 1 1 . ttlxe6 ti'b6+ 1 2.�h1 In the Sozin Attack, White has many ways to sacrifice a piece on e6. That is often not entirely cor rect, but we should be acquainted with the main principles of defence. The first choice in such positions is where to hide the king. Common ly Black could stay on fl, or run to the queenside. Both options should be considered. The latter is slower, but safer if things come to realisa tion of material advantage. In this position, 12 . . . '\t>fl! ? (Emms) keeps the centre closed and in the long run may prove enough to repel the onslaught: 13.ll:\d5 (or 13.ll:\g5+ 'it>g8 108 14.ttld5 ll:\xdS 15.exd5) 13 ... .hd5 14.ttlg5+ 'it>e8 15.exd5 'Wb7. Wahls eliminates the central pawn. 1 2 . . . ttlxe4 1 3 . ll:\xe4 It is a mistake to leave Black's bishop alive on the main diagonal. No matter how many pawns White collects for the piece, he'll be ex posed to an attack on g2 . The only sensible option was 13.tt:ld5 �xdS 14.'Wxd5 ti'c6 15.tt:\xg7+ 'it>d8 16.'Wf5 tt:ld7 17.tt:\e6+ 'it>c8. I suppose that Black gradually will tame the ene my initiative: 18 .tt:\d4 'Wc4 19 .�e3 tt:lef6 20.a4 b4 2 l .c3 'it>b7+. 1 3 . . . .be4 1 4.f5 h5 1 5.ttlxg7+ @f7 1 6 .ll:\xh5 As a rule, if White is unable to open up the f-file, his attack quickly The Sozin 6.�c4 evaporates: 16.f6 .if8+. In line B we examined similar positions where White still had his e-pawn and could push it forward. Without this resource, he is lost: 1 6 . . . Yfc6 1 7 . �f4 (17J:U2 d5+) 1 7 . . . �d7-+ 1 S .Yfe2 Wfc4 1 9J�e 1 Y!Yxe2 20J�xe2 dS 2 1 . .te3 .id6 22.'.!?g 1 �es 2 3 . h 3 gagS 24. '.!?f1 ggs 2SJ�f2 gxfs 26.gd 1 �c4 27.�xd S gh h S 2S.b3 gxf2+ 29. '.!?xf2 gxd S 30 .gxdS .txdS 3 1 . bxc4 .txc4 32.a4 b4 33 . .id4 .idS 34.'.!?e3 .txg2 3S.'.!?d2 '.!?e6 36.h4 '.!?dS 37 . .tf6 .tf3 3S.'.!?c1 '.!?c4 39. '.!?b2 .tcs 40 . .tg 7 as 4 1 .c3 .te7 0-1 1 3. Forster-Gavri kov B iel 1 994 1 .e4 cS 2 . �f3 d6 3 . d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 S.�c3 a6 6 . .ic4 e6 7 ..te3 bS S . .ib3 b4 9 . �a4 .ib7 1 0 .f4 .txe4 1 1 .0-0 .ie7 Inexperienced players tend to overestimate the attacking potential of White's pieces. It is true that the e6-square is a sore point, but sev eral long-term factors are in Black's favour. One of them is the missing central pawn. Without it, the f6knight is well entrenched which sig nificantly restrains White's queen. The other one is the knight on a4. It is out of play and usually the bat tle is about enabling its retreat to c3. The alternatives are simply bad : 12 . .be6? fxe6 13.�xe6 Wfd7 14.ltJxg7+ '.!?t7 15.ltJb6 Wfb5-+ ; 12.f5 e5 13.ltJe6 fxe6 14.fxe6 0-0 15.lLlb6 ltJc6+, Alaan-Arnason, Novi Sad 1990. 1 2 .c3 a S ! ? 12 . . . d5 13.f5 e5 14.lLlf3 ltJbd7 15.ltJg5 0-0 was about equal in Todorovic-Ilincic, Belgrade 1995. I do not see a reason to return the extra pawn by 12 . . . ltJc6 13.ltJxc6 .bc6 14.cxb4. 12 . . . a5 not only keeps the material advantage, but also makes room for the aS-rook on a6. White's best try would have been now 13.f5 e5 14 . .bf7+ (or 14.ltJf3 0-0 15.lLlg5 .ic6 16.lLlb6 �a6 17 ..bf7+ �xt7 18.lLle6 Wfxb6 19 . .ixb6 �xb6+) 14 . . . 'it>xt7 15.ltJe6 Wfd7 16.ltJg5+ 'it>f8 17.ltJxe4 ltJxe4 18. ltJb6 Wfc6+. In stead, White opens up the c-file, but lets loose Black's queen. 1 3 .cxb4 axb4 1 4.fS eS 1 S . .ixf7+ '.!?xf7 1 6 .�e6 WfaS 1 7 .�gS+ (17.ltJb6 �a6) 1 7 . . . '.!?eS 1 S .�b6 ga6 1 9.�xe4 �xe4+ 20.gc1 gxb6 2 1 .gcs+ .idS 22 .Wfg4 gb7 23.Wfxe4 WfbS The smoke has cleared and White can resign. 24.gfc 1 �d7 2s.g1 c6 26.Wfc2 '.!?e7 27.Y!Yb3 Y!YdS �f6 0-1 109 Part 2 1 4. M uel ler-Wa h ls H a m b u rg 1 995 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d 6 3 . d 4 cxd4 4 . �xd4 �f6 5 . � c 3 a 6 6 . .ic4 e6 7.0-0 b 5 8 . .ib3 .ie7 9 . ti'f3 ti'b6 1 0 . .ie3 ti'b7 1 1 .�g 3 b4 1 2 . � a 4 � b d 7 1 3 .f3 o - o 1 4 J :Ud 1 � e 5 1 5.a3 18 . . . lt:\fd7 is more natural. One knight will cover the b6-square while the other will be eyeing c4. I suppose that Wahls left the f6knight on place in order to keep . . . d5 in reserve. 1 9 J::�a2 gfc8 20.�f2 .ic4 2 1 . .ixc4 gxc4 22.i>h 1 gcs 23 . .id4 �c7= 24.ti'g 3 gcs 25.�f2 gbs 26 .ti'e2 ti'c8 27 ..if2 .if8 Both sides are manoeuvring, awaiting a mistake. However, Black has more active options in store so Mueller braces himself for an active plan. He is preparing e5, but now the dozing knight on f6 begins to play an important role. This move has similar ideas as 15.c3. It aims to ensure a retreat square for the a4-knight. Its down side is that White's rooks remain passive. Black gets time to complete development and arrange his rooks on the semi open b- and c-files. 1 5 . . . bxa3 15 ... a5 is also possible, because 16.li:J b 6 can be parried by 16 . . . lt:\h5 17.Wfh3 Wxb6 18 .Wfxh5 Wb7= . 1 6J�xa3 1 8 .�ec3 .id7 1 7 . �e2 110 White's pieces are uncoordi nated, but he is still far from losing. Some solid move like 32 .b3 would have been appropriate. Instead, he seems to get bored of his position and overlooks a piece. 32 . . . gcc4+ 33. �xd5? gxa4 34.gxa4 gxa4 35.b3 ga2 36.�xf6+ 0-1 �xf6 37 .c4 Wg4 .ib5 18.lt:\ac3 allows 18 . . . lt:\c4 19 . .ixc4 .ixc4, when 20.b3 .ixe2 2 1.lt:\xe2 d5 underlines the clumsy position of the a3-rook. 1 8 . . . �ed7 28 .f4 gb4 29 .Wf3 h6 30 . .ig3 d5 3 1 .exd5 exd 5 32 . .if2 1 5. Votava-Kiri l Georg iev Neum 2000 1 e4 c5 2 . tilf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttlxd4 ttlf6 5.ttlc3 a6 6 . .ic4 e6 7 . .ib3 b5 8.0-0 .ie7 9 .ti'f3 ti'b6 The Sozio 6.�c4 1 0 . .ie3 �b7 1 1 .�g3 b4 1 2.c � a4 �bd7 1 3.f3 0-0 1 4J�fd 1 15.a3 ! ? is a rare, but logical plan : 15 . . . a5 (15 . . . bxa3 16J%xa3 dS 17.exd5± ha3 18.bxa3 ltJxd5 19.ltJf5 g6 2 0 .lLld6 �c6 2l.i.h6) 16. axb4 axb4 17.tt:ie2. Commonly Black has nothing to worry about in such a structure, but his c8-bishop is stuck on the back rank. 1 5 . . . �c5 1 6.�xc5 dxc5 1 7 .�e2 .id7 1 8 .c4 White displays his intention to play in the centre and on the queenside. He would like to trade dark-squared bishops in order to underline the weakness of the d6pawn. That could be achieved by 15.�h6 tt:ie8 16.�g5 so I decided to deprive the opponent of that option. 1 4 . . . <Ji h 8 Against 14J'!ad1, the king's re treat is probably best. When the oth er rook is still on fl, we should not underestimate pawn thrusts like f4. On the other hand, Votava has al ready committed his king's rook to the other flank and I could have saved a tempo and play 14 . . . lLie5 ! ? . I n that event 15.a3 bxa3 i s game 14 Mueller-Wahls, Hamburg,1995. More testing is 15.tt:ib6 tt:ih5 16.�h3 (16.'\1�'e1 �xb6 17.tt:ixe6 �b8 18.tt:ixf8 hf8oo) 16 . . . tt:if4 17 . .hf4 �xb6 18 . .!e3 �c7 19.c3 lLic4 2 0 . .!xc4 V9xc4 2l.cxb4 , but 2 1 . . .i.f6 ! equalises. Af ter the text, White has a small edge. 1 5.gac1 1 8 . . . bxc3 We should always be looking for counterplay on the queenside, even at the cost of split pawns. Follow ing 18 . . . i.c6 19.e5 tt:id7 20.i.c2 l'!fd8 2l.l'!d2 �c7 (21...lLlf8 22 .l'!cd1 fud2 23.l'!xd2) 22.l'!cd1 ltJxeS 23 . .if4 f6 24.�h4 g6 25.hg6 ltJxg6 26 . .hc7 l'!xd2 27.�e1 l'!xb2 28 . .!dM, Black has many weak points around the king. 1 9 . � xc3 (or 1 9 . . . .ic6 20 .�f2 19.l'!xc3 .ib5) White could also regroup by 2 0 .lLib1 aS 2 l.l'!d2 a4 2 2 .i.c4 ltJd7. 20 . . J �ac8 2 1 . .ic4 111 Part 2 Or 21.lL!a4 ha4 2 2 .i.xa4 c4;t;. My c-pawn is more vulnerable than b2, but I have no other weakness es. Such games are decided by bet ter calculation. 21 . . . .ib5 22 .We2 On every move White has sev eral good options. Paradoxical ly, that makes his game exhaust ing while my task is only to defend the c-pawn: 2 2 .i.e2 he2 23.Wixe2;t;; 2 2 .i.xb5 axbS 23.a4 b4 24.lL!bS c4 2S.lL!d6 .bd6 26J��xd6 V;!/a8 27.Wie2 Wlxa4 28Jgxc4;t;. 22 . . . .ixc4 24.Wxa6 ? ! 23 .Wxc4 Wxb2 White's hesitation to push 24.e5 costs him the advantage: 24 . . . lL!g8 25.Wlxa6;!;. Now I'm the active side. This is a fair alternative to the main line 9 . . . Wlc7. It takes the sting of many White tactical threats. 1 0 .0-0-0 c!Dbd7 1 1 J�he1 White cannot afford to lose a tempo by ll . .ie3 V;!/b7 12 .V;!/g3 .!DeS 13.:1!hel .id7! with an initiative, e.g. 14.Wlxg7 :B:g8 15.V;!/h6 b4 16.c!Dce2 :B:g6 17.Wlh3 c!Dxb3 + 18.axb3 V;!/xe4 19.lL!g3 Wlg4+. 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 .ti'g3 c!Dc51 24 . . . :B:a8 25.Wd3 :B:fd8 26.Wc2 gxd 1 + 27 .Wx d 1 h 6 28 .Wc2 Wb7 (28 . . . Wla3 !+) 29.:B:b1 Wa6 30.:B:b5 �d7 3 1 .f4 .idS 32.e5 .ia5 33.:B:b2 .ixc3 34.Wxc3 � b6 35.Wc1 :B:c8 36.f5? (36Jk2 c4 37.i.xb6 V;!/xb6+ 38.1!lfl+) 36 . . . exf5 37 . .ixh 6 �a4 38.:B:b3 gxh6 39.:B:h3 gc6 40 .Wf4 :B:g6 0-1 1 3 J�e3! 1 6. Berbatov-Gopal K h anty-M a nsiysk 25.09.20 1 0 1 .e4 c5 2 . c!Df3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. c!Dxd4 c!Df6 5.c!Dc3 a6 6 . .lc4 e6 7 . .ib3 b5 8 . .ig5 .le7 9 .ti'f3 %Yb6 112 13 . .ih6 is more frequent in prac tice, but then Black possesses two good options: a) 13 . . . c!Dxb3 + ! ? 14.axb3 c!De8 lS.lL!fS?! The Sozin 6.ic4 Or 1S.f4 ib7 16.eS (16.fS WhB 17.ie3 WfdB 1B.fxe6 ih4 19.Wff3 ixe1 2 0 Jl:xe1 Wfe7 2 UU1 WgB 22.lLldS ixdS 23.ltJfS Wfxe6 24.exdS �d7 2S.id4 f6 26Jl:e1 :!l:f7) 16 . . . dxeS 17.fxeS :!l:dB. 1S ... exfS 16.exfS (16.lLldS WfdB 17.exfS if6 1B.:!l:xeB :!l:xeB 19.ix:g7 ih4-+) 16 . . . dS ! Black repulses the attack: 17.if4 if6 1B.lLlxdS Wfc6 19.ieS hfS 2 0.ic3 ig6 - + ; 17.ixg7 ltJxg7 1B.:!l:xe7 ixfS 19.lLlxdS Wfh6+ . b ) 1 3 . . . ltJeB 14.f4 (14.lLlfS? exfS lS.exfS dS ! favours Black, but 14.idS ! ? ib7! 1S.a3oo deserves attention.) 14 . . . id7! 1S.eS dxeS 16.fxeS aS 17.ltJe4 ttJxe4 1B.:!l:xe4 a4 19.:!l:g4 g6+, Philippe-Alsina Leal, Donostia 200B. 1 3 . . ..i b 7 1 4.Wfh4 :!l:fc8! 1 5.:!l:g3 White can play for a draw with 1S.:!l:h3 WfB 16.:8:£3, aiming to sacri fice the exchange on f6 and achieve a perpetual check on the dark squares. Black can prevent it only by 16 . . . �dB when 17.eS ltJeB 1B.ixe7+ Wfxe7 leads to a balanced endgame. The cS-knight is more useful than the b3-bishop as it defends e6. That is essential in variations like 1S . . . ttJxb3+ ? ! 16.axb3 WfB 17J"1f3 �cS 1B.ixf6 ixf6 19J�xf6 gxf6 20.lLlxe6+ fxe6 21.Wfxf6+= or 17.f4!? h6 (17... :!l:xc3 !) 1B.ixh6 gxh6 19.ltJxe6+ fxe6 20.Wfxh6+ WeB 21.eS+-. 1 6. @ b 1 White can always make a draw by sacrificing the exchange on f6: 16.:!l:f3 b4 17.ltJa4 (17.lLldS exdS 1B.ixf6 ixf6 19.:!l:xf6 gxf6 20.ltJf5 is insufficient. Black's king es capes to the queenside: 20 ... Wfc7 21.:!l:d2 WeB 2 2 .Wfxh7 Wd7 23.�xf7+ Wc6 24.Wfxf6 ttJxb3+ 2S.axb3 �fB 26.exdS+ Wb6.) 17 . . . ltJxb3+ 1B.axb3 Wfc7 19.ixf6 ixf6 20.�xf6 gxf6 21.Wfxf6 WgB= . Note that 21...\t>eB would be too dangerous. White has fine compensation after 22.�d2 when 22 . . . ixe4? ! 23.:!l:e2 idS 24.ltJfS :!l:abB 2S.Wb1 leaves Black without any useful move. 1 6 . . . h6? 113 Part 2 A strange provocation from Go pal. White is impatient to sacrifice something in the vicinity of the black king so there was no need to urge him. Correct was 16 . . .'1Wc7! as in the later game Berbatov-Di Nicol antonio, Vaujany 20 1 1 : 17.hf6 (17. �f3 l!1g8 18 . .b:f6 .b:f6 19.�xf6 gxf6 2 0 .'�xf6 �d8 21.�f4 �f8 22 .f3�) 17 . . . .ixf6 18.�xh7 tt::l xb3 (18 . . . b4 19.tt::l d5 exdS 2 0.tt::l f5) 19.axb3 1!1e7 (19 . . . b4 ! 20.tt::l c e2 1!1e7 21.�xg7 :1J..xg7 2 2 .�xg7 .he4 23.�g5+ 1!1d7. White has probably sufficient compensa tion.) 20.�xg7 :1i.xg7 21.�xg7 when 21.. .�g8 would have maintained the balance. 1 7 .gf3? 114 Young Berbatov sets a trap in which the experienced GM un expectedly falls. The straight forward 17.:1i.xh6 gxh6 18.tt::l xe6+ tt::l x e6 19.:1J..xe 6 was clearly bet ter for White: 19 . . . fxe6 (19 . . . 1!1e8! 20 ..ixc8 �xc8 2 1.e5 dxeS 2 2 .�xh6 i.f8 23.�g8 1!1e7 24.�g5 �e6 25.�h8 1!1e8 26.�el±) 2 0 .e5± �xf2 21.exd6+. 1 7 . . . hxg5?? Black could have tamed the at tack with cold-blooded 17 . . . �d8 ! 18 . .b:h6 gxh6 19.�xh6+ 1!1e8. The rest of the game is of no interest: 1 8 .ti'h8+ �g8 1 9 . .ixe6+- .if6 20. tt::l d 5?? (20.�xf6) 20 . . . .ixd5 2 1 . .ixd 5 �d7 22.e5 dxeS 23.Wfh5 tt::l h 6 24. �f5 e4 25 . .ixa8? exf3 26.�xh6 gxh6 27.ti'xh6+ .ig7 28 .ti'xb6 �xb6 29 . .ixf3 �a4 30.c3 b4 31 . .ig4 gba 32.1!1c2 bxc3 33.b3 tt::l b 6 34.gd6 1!1e7 3s.gcs �d5 36.a3 gda 37 .b4 .ieS 3 8 . h 3 �f4 0-1 Pa rt 3 The Classical System I 1 .e4 c5 2.c�f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tbxd4 tbf6 5.tbc3 a6 6 . .ie2 e5 Part 3 Q u i c k Reperto ire l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie2 e5 It is often said that choosing be tween 6 . . . e6 or 6 . . . e5 is a matter of taste. Well, that is not entirely true. Opening theory is whimsical and in different times the status of the two moves varies significantly. Lately Black has no serious problems in the 6 . . . e5 lines, es pecially against 6 . .ie2 . O n the contrary, the Schevenin gen is struggling and his reputation is shaken. Against the English At tack 6 . . . e6 seems alive and promis ing, mostly thanks to the efforts of Topalov. Unfortunately, we are un able to propose a decent move order which would allow you to build a repertoire based on 6 . .ie3 e6 while meeting 6 . .ie2 by 6 . . . e5. 116 The problematic move order is 6.i.e3 e6 7.i.e2 and White has tricked us. Play may continue then with 7 . . . .ie7 8 . 0-0 0-0 9.a4 which is a pure Scheveningen. There is an other possibility - to meet 6.i.e3 by 6 . . . tt:lg4. White can avoid it by 6.f3, but in that event he cannot switch to i.e2 plans. We hesitate to approve that approach since 6.i.e3 tt:\g4 7.i.g5 h6 8.i.h4 is probably slight ly better for White. All these considerations are ir relevant if we stop our choice in both variations on 6 . . . e5. Now 7.tt:\f3 is ineffective because the light-squared bishop is already committed to e2 while it should be on c4. We follow up with 7 . . . h6! and develop after the standard Najdorf schemes with . . . i.e7, . . . i.e6, ... tt:\bd7, . . . 'Wffc 7. 7.tt:\f5 dS ! is even slightly better for Black, so the only reasonable an swer is : 7.�b3 .ie7! The positional system with 6.i.e2 had its glorious days in the The Classical System 6 . .ie2 70s when Karpov and his coach Efim Geller discovered many sub tleties and whole new plans. A topi cal line then was 7 . . . .ie6 8.f4 V!fc7, but later it disappeared from prac tice owing to the sharp 9.g4. 7 . . . .ie7 is more flexible. It leaves open the possibility of fianchettoing the oth er bishop if White rushes with f4. In the diagram position, White is at an important juncture: He has to define where he wants to castle. There is no reason to remember many things about the inferior al ternatives: 8.g4 should be answered by 8 . . . h6! followed b y . . .b S . The pressure on e4 will force the enemy to pro tect the pawn by f3, when the typ ical for the English Attack picture is marred by the placement of the bishop on e2. 8.f4 is also seldom seen due to 8 ... 0-0 9.g4 dS ! Let's consider now long castling from White. It is aimed at complet ing the development and putting some pressure on the centre. If the centre opens, Black should avoid trading queens because his right wing could prove vulnerable : 8 . .ie3 .ie6 9.f4 exf4 10.hf4 lt:lc6 ll.V!fd2 dS ! 12.exd5 lt:lxdS 13.lt:lxd5 V;VxdS 14. 0-0-0 V;Ve4 t=. White has also tried 9.V;Vd2, but then Black gets time to achieve the dream Najdorf set-up with 9 ... lt:lbd7 10.f4 bS ll.0-0-0 l:!c8 We consider this position in the part about the English Attack. However, White has already com mitted himself with .ie2?! while the bishop should go to d3 in that line. Apparently, 6 . .ie2 does not fit well to schemes with long castling. 8. 0 - 0 0 - 0 ! White has now two approaches. One of them is to push f4. The oth er one counts on the better pawn structure. White bolsters up the e4-pawn with .tf3 or f3 and tries to cramp us on the queenside. 117 Part 3 White play s f4 This move needs a preparation be cause the immediate 9.f4 is coun ter-attacked by 9 . . . bS ! , when the e4pawn becomes a target: 10.a3 (10.a4 .ib7!) 10 . . . .ib7 ll.i.f3 lilbd7 12 .%Yel !'k8 13.'1Wg3. Black is first to create threats by 13 ... a5 or even 13 ... l"!xc3! ? 14.bxc3 lilxe4. Therefore: 9 . .te3 .ie6 1 0 .f4 exf4 11 . .ixf4 �c6 12.'i!.>hl (12 .%Yel d5= ) 12 . . . d5! lileS 14.l"!b4 %Yc7 15.a4. Although the rook is very active, the whole pawn structure is generally good for Black. If White has not some thing concrete, Black will obtain a pleasant game by playing on the e file and on the dark squares. This is a good version of a typical Sche veningen position. You should look through game 18 Mortensen Karpov, Plovdiv 1983, to better understand it. White is able to prevent the free ing . . . ds by: This breakthrough is the typical equaliser against f4. It also occurs with a pawn on a4 after the move order 9.a4 .ie6 10.f4 exf4 ll.hf4 lilc6 12.'.!lhl dS ! The game may take on a differ ent course if White captured on f4 by rook: 1U::lxf4 Now 9 . . . .ie6 10.f4 exf4 ll . .ixf4 gives White an extra tempo com pared to the lines which we have ana lysed, while 9 . . . b5 would weaken the queenside. In the latter case White would refrain from f4 in favour of f3 and an attack with a4. 9 . . . b6 10 ..ie3 .ib7 ll.f3 bS is more reasonable, but our recommendation is: 9 . . . �c6 1 0 .f4 Or 10 . .ie3 .ie6 with further . . . dS. 10.f3 .ie6 11.lild5 stops the break in the centre, but then Black gets counterplay by ll . . . aS ! 10 . . . b5 ! White's main idea is to meet ll . . . lilc6 by 12.lild5 .ixdS 13.exd5 118 The e4-pawn is hanging. It can be attacked with the bishop from b7 and a rook from e8. The knight will move from c6 to aS or eS in order to open the main diagonal. The Classical System 6.�e2 who has clear counterplay on the queenside: 14 . . . .lb7 15.%1/g3 Wh8 16 . .le3 8:ac8 17.8:ae1 %1/bB! 18.%1/h3 aS ! , Karjakin-Kovchan, Kramatorsk 20 0 2. P l a n s without f4 9.a4 ll . .lf3 ll . .ie3 exf4 12.8:xf4 ttleS ! leads to a typically good position for Black. ll.a4 b4 12 .ttld5 is a natural at tempt to punish ... bS. Play simplifies then to an equal endgame: 12 ... ttlxe4 13.i.f3 f5 14.ttlxe7+ ttlxe7 15.fxe5 dxeS 16. %1/xdB 8:xd8, see game 20 Kayumov-Kulaots, Paks 2003. ll . . . ttla5 12.ttlxa5 ti'xa5 The game is balanced. If White plugs the hole on dS by: 13.ttld5 ttlxdS 14.exd5, then 14 . . . exf4 equalises, Kramnik-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2 004. 13.fxe5 dxeS 14.ttld5 ttlxdS 15.%1/xdS %1/c7! 16.ti'xa8 .lb7 17.%1/xf8+ .txfB is unclear, but Black is not worse with his active queen. 13.ti'e1 ti'c7 14.a3 maintains ten sion, but that is in Black's favour White's strategy is to restrict any counterplay of the opponent. He re inforces the e4-pawn, which is com monly the most sensitive point in his position, and tries to suffocate Black on the queenside. The b3knight is looking for routes to dS. That could be ttlb3-c1-a2-b4 (or c1-d3-b4) as well as ttlb3-d2-fl-e3. Black should not stay entirely pas sive, because he lacks enough room for manoeuvring. His chances are connected with . . . bS, but this break through should be realised only af ter a thorough preparation. 9 . . . .le6 10 .lf3 • This is a modern and quite un pleasant plan. It is becoming popu lar in different settings, for instance after 6.g3 eS 7.ttlb3 and later .lg2, 8:e1, ttlb3-d2-fl-e3. 119 Part 3 White has also tried 10 . .ie3 itJbd7 1l.a5, but the pawn on aS is hanging in some variations which gives Black sufficient counterplay. 10 :�c7 1U1�el �k8 ! •• This is the best place for the rook since f4 is no longer a threat. 12 .te3 itJbd7 13.a5 h6! ? • Black's standard plan here has been . . . b5, but game 21 Aresh Burgas chenko-Cheparinov, 2012, shows new horizons before him. Topalov's main assistant ful filled the manoeuvre (after 14 \Wc6) ... itJd7-f8-g6-h4 and shifted the focus of the game to the king side. It turned out that White's con struction with .if3 was rather arti ficial. ... White has not shown valuable new ideas in the 6 . .ie2 e5 line for quite a long time. Still, this system remains popular as White does not risk to lose right in the opening and he can hope of outplaying the oppo nent in the middlegame. Conclusions: Black must move first the bishop to e7 and castle. When White plays f4 before developing the bishop to e3, Black counterattacks with . . . b5, . . . itJd7-c5, ... .ib7. Against .te3, he develops the bishop to e6 in order to support the freeing . . . d6-d5, while the queen's knight is best placed on c6. If White refrained from f4, we play . . . .ie6, . . . itJd7 and prepare counterplay on the c- and b-files. We meet the flexible 9.�h1 by 9 ... ./tJc6, followed up by 10.f4 b5. 120 Part 3 Step by Ste p 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 s.�c3 a6 6 . .le2 e5 He counts on the dS-knight, but Black is able to undermine its sup port from both sides with . . . b5 and . . . f5, for instance: 1 2.lDg3 (12.lDxd4 exd4 ! 13.'l;\'xd4 i.b4+ 14.\t>fl 0-0! 15.�f6+ 'it>h8 16.lDd5+ f6 17J��d1 'i;\'d6+) 12 . . . .ig7 13.0-0 0-0 14.c5 (14 . .if3?! .ie6 15.lDe2 lDd7 16.�c1 �cS 17.b3 b5 1S . .ie2 fS+, Lanzani-Constantini, Montecatini Terme 2001) 14 . . . .ie6 15 . .ic4 Main moves here are: A. 7.�f3 and B. 7.�b3. 7.�f5 is seldom seen as White is struggling after 7 . . . d5! S . .igS d4 9.ixf6 (9.lDd5?? ixf5-+) 9 .. .'l;\'xf6 lO.�dS 'i;\'dS ll.c4 (ll.lDg3 g6 12.0-0 ig7 13.f4 exf4 14.lDxf4 0-0 15Jl:b1 tt:\c6 16.a3 lDe5 17.'it>h1 bS+) ll . . . g6. 15.lDb6 �a7 16 . .ic4 (16.�c1? ! .ih6 17.�a1 lDd7 1S.lDxd7 'i;\'xd7 and Black was better in Zelcic-Bukic, .iled 1993) 16 . . . lDd7 17.�xd7 (17. .ixe6 lDxc5 1S.ixf7+ �xf7 19.�d5?! lDxe4+) 17 ... 'l;\'xd7 1S.ixe6 'i;\'xe6+. 15 . . . lDd7 16.b4 'it>hS 17.�e1 b6 (Black can also play around the d5-knight with 17 . . . 'i;\'h4 ! ? followed by . . . �adS and . . . f5) 1S.lDxb6 lDxb6 19.ixe6 fxe6 20.cxb6 'i;\'xb6 21.'i;\'d2 h5 22.�ec1 �acS 23.a3 'it>h7 24.'i;\'d3 .ih6 25.�xcS �xeS 26.�e2 'i;\'bS+ Smeets-L'Ami, Nijmegen 2001. In Part 5 about the variation 6 . .ie3 eS 7.�f3. we advise you to 121 Part 3 refrain from this move for it weak ens the light squares around Black's king. However, in that line the en emy bishop reaches c4 in one move while, on the contrary, �e3-g5 would lose a tempo. In the current position the situation is reversed and it is better to prevent the po sitional threats of .icl-gS or lt:lgS to . . . �e6. 8. 0 - 0 If White still persisted with 8 . .ic4, we could try to use the ex tra tempo for gaining the initiative by 8 . . . lt:lbd7!? (8 . . . �e7, intending 9 . . . .ie6, is also fine for Black: 9.h3 �e6 10 .'l;!ie2 lt:lc6 11.0-0 l'!c8 12 . .ib3 lt:la5 13 . .ixe6 fxe6 14.l'!d1 'l;!ic7 15.l'!d3 lt:lc6 16.lt:lh4 rnt7! 17.l'!g3 lt:ld4 18.'l;!id1 gS !+, Drimer-Bronstein, Budapest 1961) 9.�e3 bS ! lO.�dS (10 ..ib3 .ib7) 10 . . . l'!b8 11 . .ta7 (11. 0-0? ! b4 12.lt:le2 lt:lxdS 13.'l;!ixd5 .tb7t , Pow ell-Lesiege, North Bay 1994 was bad for White) 11 . . . lt:lxd5 12.lt:lxd5 l'!b7 13.�e3 lt:lf6, with a fine g �me. 8 . . ..te6 9.,;et .te7 lO .ifl • White was very passive in Ga shimov-Bologan, Minsk 2000: 10 .h3 o-o 11 . .tfl lt:lbd7 12 .b3 Or: 12.lt:ld5 lt:lxdS 13.exd5 .tfS 14.c4 aS 15 . .ie3 b6 16.b3 .th7+; 12.lt:lh2 ? ! l'!c8 13.lt:lg4 lt:lxg4 14.hxg4 lt:lf6 15.g5 hxgS 16 ..ixg5 'l;!ib6 ! 17J�b1 lt:lg4 ! 18 . .ie3 lt:lxe3 19.l'!xe3 g6t, Havlikova-Golichen ko, Olomouc 2008. 12 ... b5 13 . .ib2 'l;!ic7 14.a3 Black got the edge with natural play on the queenside: 14 ... l'!fc8 1S.'l;!id2 �c6 ! 16.l'!ad1 l'!ab8 17.l'!e2 .if8 18.'l;!ie3 (18.lt:ld5? lt:lxe4 19.l'!xe4 .ixdS 2 0 .�xd5 'l;!!xdS 21.l'!xd5 lt:lf6-+) 18 . . . a5t. 10 ••• 0 - 0 ll.a4 Iordachescu-Bologan, Kishinev 1998, saw the fianchetto 11.b3 lt:lbd7 12 .a4 �c7 13 . .ib2 'l;!ic6 ! 14.�d2 l'!fc8 15.l'!ad1 l'!ab8 16.l'!e2 .ig4 17.�e3 bS 18.axb5 axbS 19.h3, when 19 . . . .te6 retains Black's initiative. ll .•. �c7! 12.a5 12.lt:ld5 would admit the failure of White's strategy. Black is fine af ter 12 . . . lt:lxd5 13.exd5 �g4. 12 . . . ,;c8 ! 13.Ae3 �bd7 We have been following the game Zapata-Milos, Yopal 1997. Black has the easier game. He can 122 The Classical System 6 . .ie2 play . . . lt)cS or set up . . . . dS with the help of .. .'�c6. B. 7.�b3 .ie7 The old 7 . . . .ie6 8.f4 W!c7 has dis appeared owing to 9 .g4 . 10.lt)dS is dubious : 10 ... .ixd5 ll.exdS lt)bd7 12.c4 W!c7 13.l:!cl aS 14.a4 b6 15.f3 lt)cS 16.lt)d2 �fd7 17.�b1 �dB+; 10.l:!g1 �bd7 ll.h4 is more pur poseful, but ll . . . �h7! effectively parries the threat of g4-g5, for ex ample: 12.g5 hxgS 13.hxg5 .ixgS 14 . .ixg5 �xg5 15.W!xd6 �h3 16.l:!xg7 (16.l:!h1 l:!h6 17.Wid2 W!f6 18.l:!fl W!f4 19. 0-0-0 l:!c8+, Campora-Moreno, Seville 1999) 16 . . . W!f6 17.l:!g2 �f4t, Short-Palac, Gibraltar 2003. 10 ... �bd7 n.W!e2 (11.�ds .ixds 12.exd5 lt)b6 13.W!d3 l:!c8 14.0-0-0 �c4 15.g5?! e4 !t) ll . . . �b6 12.0-0-0 12.lt)aS stumbles into 12 ... �a4! 13.�xa4 (13.�xb7? ! W!d7 14.�xa4 W!xa4+) 13 . . . W!xa5+ 14.�c3 l:!c8+. Bl. 8 .g4; B2 . 8.f4 ; B3. 8 . .ig5; B4. 8 . .ie3 ; BS. 8.0-0 12 . . . lt)c4 Bl. 8.g4 This modification of the English Attack does not achieve its goals due to the simple : 8 . . . h6 9.f4 Black has good prospects: � \ Alternatives ar a) 9.h4 .ie6 (9 . . . b5 10 . .if3 b4 11.lt)dS lt)xdS 12 .'�'xd5 l:!a7 13 . .ie3 .ie6 14.Wid2 l:!b7co) 10 . .if3 lt)bd7 ll.gS (ll . .ie3 lt)b6 ! ) ll . . .hxgS 12.hxg5 l:!xh1 + 13 . .ixh1 lt)h7! and Black is at least equal here. b) 9 . .ie3 .ie6 10 . .if3 13.ll)dS ll)xe3 14.�xe3 �d7+!; 13.h4 �d7 14.g5?! hxgS 15.hxg5 l:!xh1 16.l:!xh1 .ixg5 17.l:!h8+ �f8+. 9 . . . b5! The pressure on e4 impedes White's plan of gaining space on the kingside. 123 Part 3 10.g5 10.0-0?! offers Black the initia tive: 10 . . . i.b7 11 . .!f3 'i;Vb6+ 12 .�hl b4 13.iLld5 ltJxdS 14.exd5 ltJd7 15.!1el aS+, Panjwani-Sandipan, Edmonton 2005. 10 ••• hxg5 lO . . . ltJfd7! ? also seems to give Black good chances : 11.iLld5 Or 11.0-0 hxgS 12 .fxg5 .ib7 13.g6 fxg6 14.�d3 lLlf6 15.�g3 0-0 16.�xg6 ltJbd7 17.i.h6 (17 . .ie3? ! �e8 18.'i;Vg2 !1c8 19.a3 .!d8+, Sakaev-Alekseev, Khanty-Mansiysk 2007) 17 . . . !1fl+. 11 . . ..ib7 1 2 . 0-o .txds 13 .�xd5 lLlb6 14.�b7 ltJ8d7?. ll.fxe5 ll.fxgS led White into trouble in Janturin-Borovikov, Pardubice 2004: ll . . . liJh7 12 . .ie3 (12 .�d5 ga7 13 . .ie3 .ie6 14.�d3!1d7+) 12 . . . hg5 124 13.�d5 he3 ! 14.�xa8 i.d7! lS.'i;VdS b4 16.'i;Vd3 �h4+ 17.�d1 bxc3 18. 'i;Vxe3 iLlf6, with an attack. ll . . . dxe5 12. Wxd8+ hd8 13.hg5 iLlbd7 14 .tf3 .ib7 15. 0 - 0 - 0 �k8 • White's split pawn formation will tell after a few exchanges. B2. 8.f4 This is a rare alternative which usually transposes to other lines. We give here one independent line: 8 . . . 0 - 0 9.g4 Or 9.a4 exf4 10.i.xf4 liJc6 11.0-0 i.e6 12 .�hl d5= . 9 . . . d5 At first sight White is about to be crushed, but things are not that simple. 9 . . . liJc6 lO.gS liJd7 is a rea sonable alternative. The Classical System 6.i.e2 10.�xd5 (lO.exdS i.b4 ! ) 10 ltlxd5 ll.exd5 (11.�xd5 �b6! ) l l .th4+ 12.�fl f5 13.g5 ! ••• ••• White has tested only 1 3 . �g2? when best is 13 . . . fxg4 ! . Strange ly enough, no one has played this obvious move after which White's position is crumbling down, e.g. 14.fxe5 .tfs. 13 exf4 14 .txf4 .ixg5 15.bg5 Yfxg5 16.ggl ••• • It is windy around White's king, but important positional factors are balancing that for now. The first player has an impressive advantage in the centre, good places for his pieces (�d4, i.f3) and a lead in de velopment. An endgame would fa vour him so Black should keep his queen away from exchanges: 16 �h6 17.�g2 f4 (17 . . . lL\d7! ? 18.�d4 {\f6 19.l"!afl lL\e4oo) 18.�hl i.f5 19.i.f3 /tld7 2 0 .�d4oo 9.hf6 9.lLld2 is slow. It allows Black to connect his knights by 9 ... lL\bd7, when an exchange on f6 would only replace one knight by another. For instance: 10.lLlc4 0-0 11 . .ixf6 ll.lLlxd6?! 1does not win a pawn due to 11 . . . �b6. ll.lLle3 l"!c8 leads to a typical Najdorf position where White cannot follow his main plan of exchanging most minor pieces through dS because of the hanging c2-pawn. Black was better after ll . .txf6 lLlxf6 12.lLle3 �b6 13.l"!b1 �c5 14.0-0 bS 15.a3 .idS ! in Masserey-Galla gher, Geneve 1995, because his pre sumably bad bishop shifts to an operational diagonal while the only weaknesses on d6 is not endan gered at all. ••• The whole line with 8.f4 is not topical and perhaps there is no need to invest much time in it, but it sure ly leads to highly unbalanced and unexplored positions. B3. 8.i.g5 i.e6 8 . . . lLlbd7 9.a4 h6 10.i.h4 b6 ll.lLld2 i.b7 1 2 .lLlc4, Nisipeanu-Na kamura, Bazna Kings 5th Medias 2011, is slightly better for White. 9 ••• .ixf6 10.�d3 lO.llJdS only reduces the pres sure on d6: 10 . . . lL\d7 11.0-0 ll.a4 l"!c8 12 .c3 0-0 13.a5 is pointless without a dark-squared bishop. Black answers 13 . . . i.g5, fol lowed up by . . . lLlf6, for example: 14.l"!a4 {\f6 15.l"!b4 .ixdS 16.exd5 l"!c7 17.0-0 g6 18.l"!a4 l"!e8 19.c4 e4 20.lLld4 hS 21.b4 if4 22.l"!a3 e3t, Martin del Campo-De Firmian, Li nares 1994. 11 . . . 0-0 12 .�d3 (12 .ig4?! igS 125 Part 3 13.ix:e6 fxe6 14.ltJc3 ltJb6 15.ltJa5 \Wd7 16.'1We2 1'!ac8 17.1'!ad1 i.e7 18.1'!d3 ltJa4 19.lDd1 fffc7 2 0 .fffg4 1'!f6 21.1'!g3 i.f8+, Abramovic-Savon, Yerevan 1982) 12 . . . 1'!c8 13.c3 i.gS 14.1'!ad1 g6 15.'it>h1 i.h6 16.ltJe3? ! (16.f4 exf4 17.ltJxf4 ixf4 8.1'!xf4 ltJcS) 16 . . . ltJf6 17.i.f3 1'!c6. Black has the better control of the centre, Un zicker-Fischer, Santa Monica 1966. ll . . . ltJc6 12.a3 ! There i s unanimous consent that 12.fffx d6 \Wxd6 13.1'!xd6 'it>e7 14.1'!d1 ltJb4 gives Black ample compensa tion for the pawn. 12 . . . 0-0 ! ? 10 ... .ie7 This does not look too active, but it enables the manoeuvre . . . ltJd7-f6. The arising positions with opposite castles offer mutual chances. 10 ... .ig5 is a rare move which prevents long castling. It is abso lutely playable, but I'm not sure that we should prevent this sharp move at all. White could respond by: 11.1'!d1 Normal development with 11.0-0 ltJc6 12.lDd5 ltJe7! 13.ltJxe7? ! \Wxe7 14.1'!fd1 1'!d8 15.ltJa5 0-0 16.ltJc4 dS ! t faced White with prob lems in the famous game Arnason Kasparov, Dortmund 1980. 126 Arizmendi/Mareno suggest 12 . . . 1'!c8, but this move i s not neces sary. It only gives White the oppor tunity to trade light-squared bish ops with 13.0-0! !J.e7 14.fffg 3 0-0 15.i.g4;!;. Perhaps 14 . . . .ixb3 15.cxb3 ltJd4 holds on, but usually Black is not happy to play with opposite col oured bishops in this structure. 13.0-0 13.'1Wxd6?! is dubious: 13 ... ltJd4 14.\WxeS .if6 15.fffg 3 ltJxc2+ 16.\t>fl Wb6t. 13 . . . i.e7 14.ltJd5 .igS= . Another interesting option is 10 . . . 0-0 when 11.1'!d1 i.e7 transpos es to the main line while 11.0-0-0 may be countered by ll ... fffb 6 !? (ll . . . i.e7 = ). ll.c�:Jd5 Here is the only chance for the knight to pass through dS without The Classical System 6 . .ie2 being killed on the spot. 11. 0-0-0 liJd7 12.lbdS .ixdS 13.WxdS Wc7 has been tried many times. Black has a comfortable position, for instance: 14.ci!?b1 liJf6 1S.Wd3 0-0 16.liJd2 l"1fd8 17 . .if3 WcS 18.WI'e2 l'!ac8 19.liJfl (19.liJb3? ! Wl'c7 2 0.c3 bS 21.liJa1 aS 2 2 .liJc2 b4 23.cxb4 dS 24.exdS axb4 25.liJe3 e4 26 . .ig4 l'!a8�, Guliev Cheparinov, Gibraltar 2 010) 19 . . . d5 20.exdS liJxdS 2 1.i.xdS l'!xdS 2 2 .l'!xdS WxdS 23.liJe3 Wl'e6 = . veals too early his plans about the centre. It enables the typical equal ising breakthrough 9 . . . exf4 10 ..bf4 liJc6 1l.Wd2 dS ! ll ... �d7! 12.exdS Black has sufficient counter chances. See game 17 Tissir Kolev, Navalmoral 2007. B4. 8 .ie3 .ie6 • 12.0-0-0 dxe4 13 .We3 WeB is fine for Black. White can easily get into trouble if he plays too ambitiously: 14.Wg3?! 0-0 1S . .ih6 liJe8 16.liJxe4? .ixb3 !-+ Kuzmin-Zhelnin, 1989. 12 . . . liJxdS 13.liJxdS WxdS 14.Wxd5 Or 14.0-0-0 We4! Black avoids trading queens because it will be difficult for him to retain his bish op pair safe. 1S . .if3 Wl'c4=, R. By rne-King, London 1991. The black bishops are about to unleash their power. 14 . . . .ixd5 1S.O-O 0-0=. 9.Vd2 a) 9.liJdS liJbd7 10.Wd3 0-0 is covered in the English Attack sec tion, line B. See game 29 Nisipe anu-Hamdouchi, Cannes 2002. b) 9 .f4 is not flexible. White re- c) 9.g4 h6 10.liJdS liJbd7 ll.f3 .ixdS 12.exdS liJh7 13 . .if2 .ih4+, Polgar-Karjakin, Benidorm, rapid 2003. 9 ..• �bd7 1 0 .f4 b5 11. 0 - 0 - 0 l l.fS .ic4 12 . .if3? ! b4 13.liJdS liJxdS 14.exdS aS is great for Black. u . . . gcs 12.'at>bt o - o 127 Part 3 Ponomariov, rapid 2006: 10 . . . h6 ll.g5 hxg5 12.fxg5 lt'lh7 13.h4 lt'lf8 14.lt'ld5 �d8 15.�e1 ! lt'lbd7 16.\1;Yf2t. 13.h3 Or 13.f5?! i.c4 14.g4 he2 15.\1;Yxe2 13xc3 ! 16.bxc3 lt'lxe4 17.13d3 \1;Ya8 18.13g1 13c8 19.i.d2 h6+. 13 . . . ti'c7 14.ghel 14.g4 b4 15.lt'ld5 loses a pawn to 15 . . . lt'lxd5 16.exd5 i.xd5 ! . 1 4. . . tJb6 15.f5 (15.g4 b4 16.hb6 bxc3 ! ) 15 . . . i.d7! 16.g4 .ic6 Black has a clear plan on the queenside, Arizmendi-Andersson, Pamplona 1997. BS. 8 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 I used to play a lot 8 . . ..ie6. The idea behind this flexible move or der is to delay castling in favour of developing the queenside first. The problem is that White gains the ini tiative with the unpleasant 9.f4 �c7 10.g4 ! . One example is Moreno128 White has tried nearly all possible moves here. I'll examine: B51. 9.f4; B52. 9.13e1; B53. 9.a4; B54. 9 . .ie3 ; B55. 9.ti'd3 ; B56. 9.'i!?h1 B51. 9.f4 b5! 1 0 .a4 The pawn on e4 is an easy tar get. If White tries to defend it, he loses the initiative which is gener ally fatal in the Sicilian: 10 .a3 ib7 ll . .if3 From d3, the bishop does not control d5 : ll . .id3 lt'lbd7 12.'i!?hl (12 .�e2 13c8 13.'i!?h1 13e8 14 . .ie3 d5 ! t ; 12.ie3 13c8? 13.f5? d5 14.exd5 lt'lb6t) 12 . . . 13c8 13.fxe5 lt'lxe5 14.if4 lt'lc4, with an excellent play for Black. ll . . . lt'lbd7 12 .'i!?h1 12 .\1;Ye1 13c8 13.\1;Yg3 aS (13 . . . 13xc3 ! ? 14.bxc3 lt'lxe4 15.�e1 fs;;) The Classical System 6.i.e2 14.fxe5 lLlxe5 15.lLld4 lLlxf3+ 16.gxf3 b4 is good for Black. 12 .. J�c8. Black can count on tak ing over the initiative: 13. '\!!lfe 2 White should seek simplifica tion with 14.fxe5 dxeS 1S . .ig5= since 14.'\!!l/d 3 b4 15.lLld5 hdS ! gave Black a small edge in Bode-King, Germany 1992. Or 13.i.e3 '\!!lfc7 14.'�el lLlb6t· 13.'�el �e8 14.f5?! i.f8 1S.i.g5 '\!!l/c7 16.�d1 dS ! t . 1 3 . . . �e8 14.f5 lLlb6 15.lLla5 .ia8 16.i.g5 dS !+, Zozulia-Del Rio, Salou 2005. 10 . . . .tb7 ll.axb5 ll.'�d3 b4 12 .lLld5 lLlbd7 13.a5 ttJxdS 14.exd5 '\!!lfc7 1S ..id2 �ac8 16.�ac1 lLlf6 and ll . .if3 lLlbd7 12.lLldS lLlxd5 13.exd5 '\!!lfb 6+ 14.�h1 if6 are good for Black. ll . . . Yfb6 + l l . . . axbS allows elimination of two heavy pieces after 12 .�xa8 ha8 13.fxe5 dxeS 14.Wxd8 i.xd8 1S.i.e3 b4 16.lLla2 i.e7= , Dvoirys-Novikov' Vilnius 1984. This move initiates a very solid plan of queenside play. White aims to gain space with a4-a5 and lLldS. The el-rook defends e4 and keeps an eye on eS should Black decide to free himself by . . . dS. In these cir cumstances, we must remember the rule to avoid moving pawns where we are weaker . . . . bS would cause weaknesses which could be attacked with a4. 9 . . . .le6 lO . .lfl (10 . .if3 Wc7 ll.a4 transposes to line B53.) 10 �bd7 ... White must occupy the centre right now or he'll have problems de fending his pawns, for instance: 129 Part 3 ll.a4 l'!c8 1Vt:ld5 12.a5 loses control of d5: 12 . . . W!c7 13.h3 (13.f3 h6 14.i.e3 Wc6 15.Wd2 d5+) 13 . . . Wc6 ! 14.i.d2 (14. i.g5 h6 15.i.h4 l'!fe8 16.tt'ld2 .idS and Black is fine.) 14 . . . d5, Smagin Yermolinsky, URSS-ch 1986. 12 ... i.xd5 13.exd5 tt'lb6 and White has to weaken his kingside in order to save the d5-pawn: 14.g4 h6 15 . .ig2 Wc7 16.a5 tt'lbd7 Rawson Gallagher, London 1994. 9 . . Ae6 . 9 . . . tt'lc6 is a reasonable alterna tive. White does get additional pos sibilities like 10.i.g5 (10.i.f3 ! ? i.e6 ll.tt'ld5 i.xd5 12.exd5 tt'la5 13.tt'ld2 l'!c8 14.b3 Wc7oo, Ponomariov-Gris chuk, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 05) 10 ... i.e6 ll.i.xf6 i.xf6 12.tt'ld5, but Black has enough resources. ll ... tt'lxd5 12.exd5 Af5 13.a4 l'!c8 14.c3 Ag6 15.a5 f5 1 0 .f4 Alternatively: We have reached a typical Sici lian pawn structure whi�h deserves special attention. See game 19 E. Geller-Lutz, Dortmund 1991 for detailed explanation of the plans of both sides. I prefer Black because his target is the enemy king. B53. 9.a4 Play often transposes to other lines. 130 a) 10 . .ie3 tt'lbd7 ll.f4 (ll.a5 l'!c8 12 .Wd2 transposes to B54.) ll . . . exf4 12.i.xf4 tt'le5 13.'>t>h1 l'!c8 14.We1 (14. tt'ld4 W!b6 ! ) 14 . . . tt'lfd7 15.1'!d1 l'!e8�. b) 10 . .if3 This new and dangerous plan has earned me several victories on the White side of this variation. He avoids making weaknesses and aims to cramp the opponent on the queenside. Black should be seeking counterplay by . . . b5, but only after having set up properly his pieces: 10 . . . Wfc7 11.1'!e1 The Classical System 6 . .ie2 ll . . J�� c 8 ! This is the best place for the rook since f4 is no longer a threat. The standard set-up with . . . lt:lbd7, ... l':iac8 is analysed in the annotat ed game 22 Kolev-Hernandez, Leon, 2 008. 12 . .ie3 12 .a5 lt:lbd7 13.lt:ld2 b5 14.axb6 tt:lxb6 15.li:lfl li:lc4 16.b3 li:lb6 17 . .ib2 a5 18.li:le3 .id7 19 .�d3 a4 was bal anced in Smirin-Ruck, Plovdiv 2012. 12 ... lt:lbd7 13.a5 h6!? White cannot make progress without lt:ld5, but the knight is still nailed to its place because of the hanging pawn on c2. Black uses this to insert some good prophy lactic moves before defining his further plan. White has not a wide choice, for his other knight is best off on b3, waiting to jump to a5 af ter . . . b5. Then it would become the most dangerous white piece. See game 21 Areshchenko-Chepa rinov, Burgas 2012. 10 d5! ••• exf4 ll .ixf4 �c6 12.�hl • The possibility of this break through in the centre is the essence of Black's set-up. Of course, he could maintain tension with 12 . . . l':ic8 or 12 . . . lt:le5, but then White retains a� obvious spatial advantage. 13.e5 13.exd5 leads to a mass elimina tion after 13 . . . lt:lxd5 14.lt:lxd5 V9xd5 14 . . . hd5 is also level - 15 . .if3 (15.c3 l':ie8) 15 . . . hf3 16.V9xf3 V9d7 17.l':iadl V9f5 = . 15.V9xd5 hd5 16.l':iadl (16 . .if3 l':iad8 = ) 16 . . . .ie4 ! 17.l':id7 (17 . .id3?! hd3 18.l':ixd3 l':iad8 19.l':ifdl tt:Jb4 20.l':ixd8 l':ixd8 21.l':ixd8+ hd8 2 2 .c3 lt:ld3 23 . .icl a5 24.c4 f5 25.g3 g5 26.�g2 'it>f7+) 17 . . ..ixc2 18.l':ixb7 hb3 19.l':ixb3 lt:ld4 20.l':ie3 tt:Jxe2 21.l':ixe2 .ib4 2 2 .l':ie4 a5= . 1 3 . . .fod7 15.c4 14.�xd5 �dxe5 The centralised knight is at least a match to the e7-bishop. After 131 Part 3 1S.tL)xe7+ V!!x e7 16.V!!e 1 (or 16.ll:ld4 !'1ad8 17.ll:lxc6 ll:lxc6 18.V!!e 1 i.fS 19.c3 !'1fe8, when Black has very active pieces. Frolyanov-Sakaev, Sochi 2 005, followed with 2 0 .i.h5 (20 . .tf3 i.e4=) 2 0 . . . i.g6 2 l.Wfxe7 ll:lxe7 2 2 .i.f3 ll:ld5 23.i.g3 i.e4=) 16 . . . f6 (Nunn) 17.Wfg3 !'1ad8= , the situa tion is reversed - Black's knight is not worse than the f4-bishop. 15 . . . .ig5 In most Najdorf positions it is good to trade dark-squared bish ops. Still, 15 . . . !'1e8 16.V!!d 2 .tf8, re taining more pieces on the board, is also playable. 16.W!'cl The chase of the bishop continue after 16 . .ig3 i.h4 i.gS = . 16.Wfd2 is an inferior due to 16 . . . hf4 17.!'1xf4 ll:le7! i.xdS 19.cxd5 V!!d 6+. would 17.i.f4 option 18.!'1d1 16 . . . .ixf4 Simplest, but not the only way to equalise: 16 . . . h6 17.!'1d1 !'1c8 18.ll:lc5 hdS 19.cxd5 ll:lb4 = . 17.�xf4 .ig4 18 . .bg4 �xg4 = , Dvoyris-Razuvaev, Sochi 1992 . 854. 9 . .ie3 .te6 10.'f!rd2 The older plan 10.f4 has seen better times. After 10 . . . exf4 White has two options: 132 a) 11.!'1xf4 The main idea of White is to meet 11...ll:lc6 by 12.ll:ld5 hdS 13.exd5 ll:le5 14.!'1b4 V!! c7 15.a4. Look through game 18 Mortensen Karpov, Plovdiv 1983 to better un derstand this position. ll ... ll:lbd7 is another decent alter native. It takes the sting of 12 .ll:ld5 since ll . . .i.xdS 13.exd5 is not with tempo and Black continues devel oping by 13 . . . !'1c8 14.!'1b4 V!!c7 15.c3 !'1fe8f±. 12.a4 ll:le8 13.!'1f1 i.gS= does not set any problems either. The only evident downside of ll . . . ll:lbd7 is that the knight does not control d4 so let us consider: 12.ll:ld4 ll:leS 13.a4 (Black would be happy to exchange one ofWhite's knights in case of 13.ll:lf5 i.xfS 14.!'1xf5. With this strong knight on eS he should be optimistic about the future. Play may continue with 14 . . . !'1c8 15.i>h1 V!! d 7 16.V!!d 4 Wfe6 17.!'1afl !'1fe8f±.) 13 . . . Wfc7 14.i>h1 !'1ad8 ! 15.Wfg1 (15.ll:lf5 ll:lg6 16.!'1f1 dS= ) 15 . . . !'1d7 16 !'1d1 !'1e8f±, Karpov Polugaevsky, Candidates match 1974. Although theoretically Black is okay, he should be constantly The Classical System 6.ie2 watching out for tLlf5 or tLlxe6. b) ll . .txf4 tLlc6 12.'it>h1 (12 .�e1 d5 13.exd5 tLlxd5 14.tLlxd5 �xd5 15J!d1 �e4=) 12 . . . d5 ! This leads to nearly the same position as in the previous line. The only difference is the a-pawn. Here it is on a2 which is generally in White's favour, but this nuance is too small to affect the evaluation of the position. Black is fine: 13.e5 (13.exd5 tLlxd5=) 13 ... tLld7 14.tLlxd5 tLldxe5 15.c4 (15.tLlxe7+ Vffxe7 16.c3 l!fd8 17.�c2 l!ac8=) 15 . . . �g5 (15 ... a5 ! ? is sharper: 16.tLld4 hd5 17.cxd5 tLlxd4 18.�xd4 tLlg6 19 ..ig3 �d6 =) 16.tLlc5 .ixf4 17.tLlxe6 fxe6 18.tLlxf4 l!f6= (18 . . . �xd1!?= Psakhis-Gurevich, New York 1992). lO .•. tLlbd7 ll.a4 ll . . . tLlb6 12.a5 tLlc4 13.hc4 .bc4 14.gfd1 gcs. Here 15.tLlc1, int�nding tLld3-b4d5, was suddenly met in Leko-Shi rov, Dortmund 2002, by the novel ty 15 . . . d5! 16.ib6 �e8 17.exd5 ib4 18.d6 �d7=. Arizmendi/Mareno correctly point out that 15.ig5 is a sterner test of Black's strategy. They assume that 15 . . Jk6 is too passive, but 16.tLlc1 h6 17.hf6 hf6 18.tLld3 ie6 19.tLlb4 l!c4 20.tLlbd5 ig5 is absolutely playable, e.g. 21.Wie2 l!c5 22 .b4 gc6 23.tLla4 f5?. In sim ilar positions Black's bishops often prove to be difficult to restrain. On the contrary, their sug gestion 15 . . . ie6 ! ? (planning .. .f5 without spending a tempo with . . . h6) 16.ixf6 .txf6 17.�xd6 Wfxd6 18.l!xd6 l!fd8 could be not to any one's taste. After 19.l!xd8+ ixd8 20.tLlc1 Black's bishop pair should compensate for the missing pawn, but still White could be able to re tain his material advantage for many moves ahead. 12.a5 After 12.l!fd1 tLlb6 13.a5 tLlc4 14.ixc4, Black can recapture by 14 . . . l!xc4. 12 A�c5 14.�xd8 •• u . . . gcs Black wants to play . . . tLlb6-c4 and capture on c4 by rook. Natural ly, White opposes this plan by 12.a5 so let us consider: 14.l!fd1 �xd2 15.l!xd2 c4 is simi lar to the main line: 16.f3 (16Jla4 l!fd8 17.l!xd8+ ixd8=) 16 . . . gfd8=. With queens White's pawns are more vulnerable: 14.�e1 c4 ! 15.ib6 133 Part 3 (15.f3 .ib4 16 . .ib6 .icS++) 15 . . . �d6 16.f3 �b4 = . 14 ••• lUxd8 15.f3 c4! = 9 Practice has shown that this endgame is balanced, for instance: a) 16.lLJa4 lLJd7 17J:!fd1 (17. @f2 @f8 18J3fd1 l'!c6 19.lLJc3 lLJf6 2 0.l'!xd8+ .ixd8 21.l'!a4 lLJe8 ! 2 2 . lLld5 lLJd6 23 . .id2 \t>e8 24 . .ib4 lLJbS 25.id2 lLJd6 26.ic3 f6 27.ib4 lLJbS=, Leko-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2004) 17 . . . ib4 18 . .id2 (18.lLJc3 .icS 19.\t>f2 @f8 2 0 .lLJd5 .ixe3+ 21.\t>xe3 l'!c5= Geller-Portisch, Las Palmas 1976.) 18 . . . .ixd2=, Laznicka-Bara midze, Obrenovac 2004. b) 16.l'!fd1 @f8 17.l'!xd8+ l'!xd8 18.\t>f2 l'!c8 19.lLJb1 .icS 2 0 .c3 lLJe8 ! 21.lLld2 lLld6=, Kuczynski-Heine mann, Bundesliga 2007. B55. 9.t&'d3 White is planning the queen lift '%Yd3-'%Yg3 and f2-f4. 134 ••• ie6 1 0 .f4 lO.lLldS has no bite due to 10 . . . lLJbd7. The inclusion o f 10 .�g3 \t>h8 ll.f4 does not seem promising after ll . . . �c7 12.f5 (12 . .ie3 lLJbd7 13.if3 l'!ac8 14.l'!fe1 bS 15.a3 aS+) 12 . . .i.c4 13.hc4 �xc4 14.i.g5 lLJbd7 15.�d3 l'!ac8= . 10 ••• b5 11.a4 Alternatively: a) U.lLJdS h:dS 12.exd5 lLJbd7 13.a4 '%Yc7?; b) 11.'%Yg3 b4 12 .fxe5 bxc3 13.exf6 hf6 14.bxc3 .ieS 15 . .if4 �c7 16.lLJd4 lLJd7 17 . .ixe5 lLJxe5�. ll . . . lLJc6! 12 .ie3 • White can easily end up in a difficult position: 12.axb5 lLJb4 13.�d1 '%Yb6+ 14.\t>h1 axbS 15.l'!xa8 l'!xa8 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.hb5 l'!c8t or 12 .lLJd5 h:dS 13.exd5 lLJb4 14.�d2 �b6+ 15.\t>h1 bxa4 16.l'!xa4 lLJbxd5t 17 . .if3? '%Yb5-+. The Classical System 6 . .ie2 12 . . . exf4 13.hf4 �e5 .ic8 2 0.c5! dxc5 21.d6 V!Jd8 22 .a5 .ib7 23.tt'lxc5±, Hansen-Sprenger, Bundesliga 2 006) 19 ... .ic8 20.c5!, Jakovenko-FedoroWicz, Montreal 2 0 05. In both examples White's most powerful weapon was the breakthrough c4-c5 so Black's last move addresses this problem. Black has sufficient counterplay: a) 14.he5 dxe5 15.axb5 (15. �xd8 l'!axd8 16.axb5 axb5 17.hb5 l'!b8�) 15 . . . �xd3 16.hd3 axb5 17.l'!xa8 l'!xa8 18.hb5 (18.tt'lxb5 .ixb3 19.cxb3 .ic5+ 2 0 .1!i>hl tt'lg4) 18 . . . l'!b8= . b ) 14.�d2 i.c4=. (or 1 4 . . . bxa4 15.tt'ld4 l'!b8 16.l'!tbl i.d7�) B56. 9.1!i>hl �c6 9 . . . b6 is the most popular op tion. I was not very fond of this concept, but Vachier Lagrave has found a fresh idea which saves the day: 10 . .ie3 .ib7 ll.f3 b5 (ll . . . tt'lbd7 12.a4 V!Jc7 13.l'!f2;!; is too passive.) 12.a4 b4 13.tt'ld5 tt'lxd5 14.exd5 tt'ld7 15.c3 bxc3 16.bxc3 .ig5 17 . .if2 l'!c8 ! Arizmendi/Moreno suggested 17 . . . V!Jc7 18.c4 l'!tb8 ! ? , but Black is cramped after 19.a5 (19.l'!a2 ! ? 18.c4 tt'lb6 19.tt'ld2 The stem game Calistri-Vach ier Lagrave, France 2007, saw 19.tt'la5? ! .ia8 2 0.V!Jel V!Jc7 21 .l'!a2 l'!b8 22 . .id3 tt'ld'T+ Calistri-Vachier Lagrave, 2 007. 19 . . . hd2 2 0.hb6 V!Jxb6 2 1.�xd2 �c5 2 2 .l'!abl l'!c7 23.V!Jb4 i.c8. White's rook is active, but Black can hold on. 10.f4 The other approach is to play on the queenside, but it does not work. The only way to prevent 10 . . . .ie6 and . . . d5 is to put a knight there: a) 10.f3 .ie6 ll.ll'ld5, but then Black gets counterplay by ll . . . a5 ! . The advance o f the a-pawn against the b3-knight is a well-known idea from the Classical Boleslavsky sys tem. It provokes a4, when the c6135 Part 3 knight would get a perfect outpost on b4. 1S . . . exd4 16.\!;Yxd4 V;}'aS gives Black sufficient compensation for the pawn due to his active pieces: 17.gdl (17.c4 lt:ld7 18.gbl gfe8 19.i.d3 i.f6 2 0 .V;}'f4 gel!�) 17 . . . lt:ld7 18.gbl gfe8 (18 . . . i.f6 19.V;}'f2 gfc8 20.i.d3 g6 2 1.a3 V;}'xdS 2 2 . lLle2 %YeS = , Bezgodov-Sakaev, Russian tch. 2 006) 19.b4 axb3 2 0 .lt:lxb3 \!;Yc�. Adams-Karjakin, Wijk aan Zee 2006. 12 .i.e3 1Vilxe7+ \!;Yxe7 13.i.gS h6 14.kh4 (14.hf6?! \!;Yxf6 1S.\!;Yxd6 gac8 16.c3 a4 17.lt:lcl gfd8 18.V;}'a3 gd2t) 14 . . . a 4 1S.lt:ld2 d S was level i n Short Svidler, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 0S. The other alternatives do not impede . . . dS: b) 10 .�e3 i.e6 12 .c3 also loses control ofdS : 12 ... a4 13.lt:lxf6+ hf6 14.lLld2 lLle7 1S.a3 h6 16.i.d3 dS 17.exdS lLlxdS 18.lt:le4 i.e7 19.V;}'e2 V;}'c7 2 0.ge1 gfd8+, Tse shkovsky-Akopian, Sochi 2 00S. 12 .a4? ! is a strategic mistake: 12 . . . hdS 13.exdS lt:lb4 14.c4 lt:l a6 1S.i.d2 b6 16.V;}'c2 lt:ld7 17.f4 lilacS 18.lLlxcS lLlxcS 19.ga3 exf4 20 . .ixf4 i.gS 2 1.\!;YfS hf4 2 2 .V;}'xf4 ga7, with an obvious positional edge in Ni thander-Berg, Gothenburg 2011. 12 ... a4 13.lt:lcl i.xdS 14.exdS lLld4 1S.i.xd4 Or 1S.c4 lt:ld7 16.�d3 g6 17.f4 f5 18.g4 fxg4 19.hd4 exd4 20.V;}'xg4 i.f6 21.lLle2 lLlcS 2 2 .gadl, Timofeev Leitao, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009, when 2 2 . . . V;}'c8 favours Black as 23.fS? fails to 23 . . . lt:lxd3 24.gxd3 V;}'xc4. 136 11.\!;Yd2 Or ll.f3 dS 12.exdS lLlxdS 13.lLlxdS .ixdS ! 14.c3 (14.c4 i.e6 lS.lLlcS .ifS=) 14 . . . gcs lS V;}'el lLlaS! 16 gdl lt:lxb3 17 axb3 V;}'aS= , Kram nik-Vallejo, Linares 2 004; ll.i.f3 is seldom seen in this move order. Black can continue with ll.. .aS 12.lLldS a4 13.lt:lcl i.xdS 14.exdS lt:ld4 (or consider the quiet 14 . . . lt:lb8 with a complicated strug gle) 1S.hd4 exd4 16.\!;Yxd4 lt:ld� with typical dark-squared play. ll . . . bS 12.f3 dS 13.exdS lLlxdS 14.lLlxdS V;}'xdS 1S.V;}'xdS i.xdS 16.gfdl The Classical System 6 . .ie2 (16 c3J:Ud8 17J!fdl ie6 = , Dervishi Huzman, Istanbul 2003) 16 . . . ic4! 17.hc4 bxc4 18.lL'ld2 lLlb4 19.lLlxc4 lLlxc2 2 0 J!ac1 lLlxe3 21.lLlxe3 .igS 22J!c3 .ixe3 23J!xe3 l!fd8=, Wang Zili-Xu Jun, Xiapu 2 005. ideas are the same as after ll ... exf4. The game went 12 .a4 exf4 13.l!xf4 lLle5 14.V9d4 lL'lc6 15.Wd2 lLle5=. c) 10.a4 i.e6 11.f4 exf4 12.hf4 d5! = transposes to B53. 10 . . . b5 16.axb5? ! (16.lL'ld4 was easi ly neutralised in Popov-Kokarev, Sochi 2012: 16 . . . lLlg6 17.l!ffl lLlxe4 18.lLlxe4 he4 19.lL'lf5 if6 20.lLlxd6 ic6 = . ) 16 . . . axb5 17.l!e1 lL'lg6 18.l!ffl b4 19.lL'ld5 lLlxe4 20.lL'lxe7+ V9xe7 2 1.V9xb4 lLlh4 2 2 .if3 lLlxf3 23.gxf3 Y;\'d7 ! , with an initiative. 1 2.l!xf4 lLle5! White has taken measures against the freeing . . . dS, but his e4pawn becomes a target. It can be at tacked by the bishop from b7 and a rook from e8. The knight will move from c6 to aS or eS in order to open the main diagonal . White has to look for some play in the centre be cause ll.fS? ! ib7 12 .if3 l!c8 13.g4? walks into 13 . . . d5 ! while ll.a3 .ib7 or ll.fxeS lLlxeS do not impede Black's plan at all. ll.if3 a) 11 i.e3 exf4 11 . . . ib7 came to the fore after Carlsen's loss as white to Nepom niachtchi, Wijk aan Zee 2011. The This leads to a typically good position for Black. He could put his bishop to b7 and a rook to e8 while the centralised knight neutralis es all kingside threats of the ene my: 13.V9d2 (13.lLld4? ! b4 ! ) 13 . . .ib7 (or 13 . . . 1!e8 ! ? 14 l!afl ib7) 14.lLld5 Wang Pin-Huang Qian, Wuxi 2006, when 14 ... lLlxd5 15.exd5 ig5 16.l!d4 he3 17.V9xe3 l!e8 would have been fine for Black. b) ll.a4 b4 12 .lL'ld5 is the most purposeful attempt to punish our last move, but: 12 . . . lL'lxe4 13.if3 fS 14.lLlxe7+ (14.V9e2 �h8 15.he4 fx.e4 16.V9xe4 ifS+ Savickas-Zagorskis, Vilni us 2006) 14 . . . lLlxe7 15.fxe5 dxeS 137 Part 3 16.§'xd8 !!xd8 simplifies to an equal endgame: 17.he4 17.ltlc5 ? ! ltlxcS ! 18 . .ixa8 f4t gave Black more than enough compen sation in Wang Zili-Zhang Zhong, Shenyang 1999 while 17 ..ig5 !!a7 transposes to 17.he4. 17 . . . fxe4 game 20 Paks 2003. 18 ..ig5 !!a7= , see Kayumov-Kulaots, c) ll.ltldS is very similar to the previous line. a4 is not inserted, but that does not give White any ben efits, ll . . . ltlxe4 12 . .if3 fS 13.ltlxe7+ ltlxe7 14.fxe5 dxeS 15.\�!fxd8 !!xd8= . 12 .g4? ! seems really dubious. In Damaso-Talla, Vila Nova de Gaia 2010, Black made good use of the weakness of White's kingside: 12 . . . ltlxb3 13.axb3 .ib7 14.g5 ltld7 1S.ltld5 exf4 16.hf4 ltleS 17.ltlxe7+ '\Mfxe7 18 . .ig2 !!ad8 19.'1Mfd4 ltlg6 2 0 . .id2 ltlh4+. 12 .Yba5 •• 13.Wel a) 13 .ltld5 ltlxdS 14.exd5 exf4 equalised in Kramnik-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 04 : 15.hf4 .ifS 16 . .ig4 .ixg4 (16 . . . .ig6 !?) 17.�xg4 �d8 ! 18.c3 .if6 19.a4 (19.�g3 .ih4) 19 . . . '\Mfc7 2 0 . .ig3 .ieS= . b) More testing i s 13.fxe5 dxeS 14.ltld5 14 ..ig5 offers Black at least two good options : 14 . . . .ib7 1S.hf6 .ixf6 16.ltld5 .igS= and 14 . . . !!d8 ! ? 15.�e1 .ib7 16.ltld5 (16.'1Mfg3 b4 17.ltld1 �c7 18.ltlf2 ltle8 19 .he7 '!Mfxe7 20 . .ie2 ltlf6 2 1..id3 ltlh5 2 2 .�f3 ltlf4 23 . .ic4 !!d2t, Quparadze-Sutovsky, Baku 2011.) 16 . . . �xe1 17.ltlxe7+ 'i!lfB 18J�fxe1 'it>xe7 with a nice endgame for Black. 14 . . . ltlxd5 15.�xd5 '!Mfc7! 16.'\MfxaS .ib7 17.�xf8+ .ixf8. (Gangu ly-Feldman, Mumbai 2 0 04, saw 17 . . . 'it>xf8 18 . .ie3 and here 18 . . . �c4 19.b3 �c3� should give sufficient counterplay). The queen is not worse than the two rooks. Black will attack e4 having in mind . . .fS at an opportunity. Play might continue with 18 . .ie3 �c4 19 .b3 §'c3 20.!!ae1 fS 21.exf5 .ixf3 2 2 .gxf3 '!Mfxc2 �. c) 13.a3 .ib7 14 . .ie3 !!ac8 1S.�d2 !!fe8 16.�f2 §'c7 17.!!ad1 .ic6�, Gan guly-Khusnutdinov, Kolkata 2009. Black is planning . . .'!Mfb7 and aS. After 13 . . . b4 the pawn is pinned and White gets the edge: 14.ltld5 ltlxdS 15.exd5 if6 16 . .id2 (16.a3 138 The Classical System 6 . .ie2 ifS ! 17.ie4 ixe4 18.�xe4 �bS?) 16 . . . �c7 17.i.xb4 exf4 18.ia3. 15.f5 .ic4 16 . .ie2 14.a3 .ie6 14 . . . .ib7 has proved to be solid, too : 1S.�g3 (1S.fS aS ! 16.llJxbS �xc2 17 .llJc3 �b3 gave Black a good game, Adams-Svidler, Madrid 1998.) 16 . . . d5! 17 . .ixc4 �xc4 18 . .ig5 d4 1S ... \!?h8 16 . .ie3 l::!. ac8 17.l::!. a el %Yb8 ! 18 .�h3 aS ! , Karjakin-Kov chan , Kramatorsk 2 0 0 2 . Black has realised a thematic Sicilian idea. Be side . . . b4, he can think about . . . l::!. c4, hitting the sensitive pawn on e4. Black owns the initiative and went on to win in Smirin-Grischuk, Kallithea 2008. The game conti nued: 19 .hf6 hf6 20 . .!t'ld5 I!Mxc2 21 . .!t'lxf6+ gxf6 22 .'!Mh4 'itlg7 23.'!Mg4+ \!?h8 24.�h4 l::!.g 8 2S.�xf6+ l::!.g7 26J!g1 ge8 27.�xa6 �xe4. 139 Part 3 Co m p l ete G a m es 1 7. Tissir-Kolev Nava l m o ra l 2007 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie2 e5 7 .�b3 .ie7 8 . .ig5 .ie6 9 . .ixf6 .ixf6 1 0 . � d 5 �d7 1 1 .'tYd3 .ie7 1 2 J:�d 1 White's play is in the centre and on the queenside so 12.0-0-0 would be strategically ungrounded. We can eat the opponent's only active piece on dS and organise a queenside attack. 12.ll:\xe7 Wffxe7 13J':ld1 is more challenging: 13 . . . ll:\f6 14.'tYxd6 White does not achieve any ad vantage with 14.0-0 �d8 15.c4 0-0 16.ll:\d2 because his bishop is too passive. We can underline it with the manoeuvre 16 . . . ll:\d7 17.ll:\b1 ll:\b8 ! 18.ll:\c3 ll:\c6 19.�d2 Wffg5 20.�fd1 140 ll:\d4, occupying the dark squares. Then we can break in the centre: 2 1.b3 fS 2 2 .exf5 i.xfS 23.'tYg3 Wffh6 24 . .id3 hd3 25.�xd3 (25.Wffxd3? �f3 26.gxf3 Wffh 3+) 25 . . . b5+±. 14 . . .Wxd6 15.�xd6 ll:\xe4 16.�b6 0-0-0 The king arrives just in time to defend the b7-pawn. Now 17 . .if3 ll:\d6 18.ll:\c5 �c7 19.�b4 .ic8 20.�b3 b6 would hand Black the initiative so in the game Ganguly-Gopal, New Delhi 2006, White chose the forced variation 17.ll:\a5 �d7 18.ll:\xb7 �xb7 19 .ha6 ll:\c5 = . 1 2 . . . .ixd 5 1 3 .'tYxd 5 tvc7 1 4.c3 Kovchan-Bodnaruk, St. Peters burg 2011 saw 14.'tYd3 0-0 15.0-0 bS 16.c3 ll:\b6 17.a3 �adS ! ? , prepar ing to take over the initiative with . . . d6-d5. The Classical System 6.i.e2 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5.0-0 �f6 In the game Jakovenko-Karja kin, Moscow 09.08.2012, Black sent the knight to the queenside: (move numbering is different due to the particular move order) 17 . . . b5 18.lLld2 l2Jb6 19.WI'b3 �ac8 20.�fe1 i.g5 2 1..!2Jf3 i.e7 2 2 . .!2Jd2 i.g5 23 . .!2Jf3 ie7 24 . .!2Jd2, draw. A serious strategic mistake. White discovered that the planned 22 . .!2Je3 would fail to 22 .. .l':lb5!, and h e apparently lost the thread of the game. Of course, he should have played something like 22 .!!d3, maintaining the balance. I was so pleased to see all those weak dark squares on the kingside that I failed to find the simple tactical hit 22 ... d5! 23.exd5 �b5t. 1 &.ed3 �uds 1 7 . .tt3 WTb& ! ? 22 ... h 6 23.gd3 �h7 24.�e3 �g5 25 . .ig2 �e6 26.�ds eds 21.ed 1 .tgs 28.h3 i>g7 29 . .if1 gsc6 30.gf3 .if4 3 1 .eb3 bs 32 .ed 1 e9s I felt it was time to begin acti vating my pieces. The queen is now eyeing b2. 1 8 .gfe 1 gac8 1 9 .Wb1 g6 2 0 . � a 1 Another possible route 20 . .!2Jd2 i.f8 21.lLlf1 ih6 = . 20 . . . g c s 2 1 .�c2 gdc8 is I have achieved all my positional goals and the initiative is mine. Still, White could have defended with 33.i.g2 when 33 . . . h5? ! would be bad due to 34.gxh5. Instead, White let me place . . . h5 in a favour able set-up: 33.gd3 h 5 ! 34 . .ig2 aS? This horrible move turns the ta bles. 34 . . . �c5 35.�f3 hxg4 36.hxg4 �h8 would have tied down the op ponent. 22.g4? 35.gxh5 b4 36.hxg6 fxg6 Yz-Yz. 141 Part 3 1 8 . Mortensen-Ka rpov P lovd iv 1 983 1 .e4 cS 2 . �f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 s.�c3 a6 6 . .ie2 es 7 . � b3 J.e7 8 .0-0 0-0 9 . .ie3 .ie6 1 0 .f4 exf4 1 U '�xf4 �c6 1 2 . � d 5 .ixd S 1 3.exd5 � e s 1 4J!lb4 Y!lc7 1 5.a4 The pawn structure on the queenside is the same as in the pre vious game. In the centre, howev er, the situation is different. The e5-pawn is missing and that rules out plans with . . . f7-f5, for White's knight will land on e6 through d4. Therefore, Black should try to dou ble rooks on the e-file and trade some light piece on e4 or e3 in or der to reduce the significance of the enemy's spatial advantage. White's strategic aim is to exchange the queens. Thus he would be safe on the kingside while his pawn ava lanche on the left wing, backed by the bishop pair, will smash Black's resistance. Note that direct attack on b7 only wastes tempi: 15 . .ib6 \!9c8 16.a4 ges 17.lt'la5 lt:lfd7 18 . .if2 \!9c7+, Korzubov-Gavrikov, Tallinn 1983. Before finishing with this pawn 142 structure, I'd like to mention a third version of it where White's f-pawn is on f5 : Kolev-Anand V i l l a rrobledo 2001 It is clearly better for White, for Black is deprived of counterplay op. the e-file, nor could he advance the f-pawn. After 2 0 . . . gac8 21.c4 igS I chose 2 2 .b3? ! and the game fin ished in a draw, since Anand got counterplay with . . . b5. Instead, 22 .ixg5 ! \!9xg5 23.lt:le4 \!9e7 24.b3;!: would have been more precise, e.g. 24 . . . lt:lf6 25.gf1 gbs 2 6.\!9e3 lt'lxe4 27.\!9xe4 (threatening f6) 27 . . . \!9f6 28.ga4 b5 (28 . . . gcs 29.gf3 \!9g5 30.h4) 29.axb6 gxb6 30.b4, with an edge. Now back to Mortensen-Karpov: 1 5 . . . �fd 7 1 6.a5 gfe8 1 7.c3 1f6 1 8 . .if2 .ig S 1 9.�d2 �f6 20.�e4 lt:lxe4 2 0 .lt'lf3 allows two exchanges: 2 0 . . . lt'lxf3+ 2 1 .bf3 i.e3+. 2 1 .gxe4 fS 22 .gb4 ge7 23.h3 gae8 24 . .if1 The Classical System 6 . .te2 tt:ld8 29.Yfa4 .td2 30 .Y!Yxd7 �xd7 3 1 .�d4 .tgS 32J�d 1 tt:lf7 33.�b3 .tf6 24 .•• g6?! I get the impression that Karpov was waiting to reap the point with out exerting himself at all. His last move is without any plan. Instead, he should have set his mind about some urgent matters : a) how to defend the b7-pawn. After all White is preparing to trip pie (!) his heavy pieces on the b-file. b) how to advance on the kingside in order to distract the op ponent from the other half of the board. The solution is 24 . . JU8 ! (on the previous move it was good too, but it is preferable to have the enemy bishop on fl where it is more pas sive). From f8, the rook could help the defence of the b7-pawn and at the same time support the f-pawn: 25.�b3 (25J!aa4 tt:ld7+) 25 . . .£4, with some edge. With a few precise moves, Kar pov defended his weaknesses and escaped the worst. Now Mortens en should have exchanged one pair of rooks by 33.gel! remaining with the more active pieces. Instead, he makes an incredible move which is a grave positional mistake: 34 . .td4 .txd4+ 35.�xd4 �e1 36.gd b4 tt:ld8 37.�a3 gde7 38.c4 gc1 39.�f3 tt:lf7 40 J U4 lilg5 41 .�h2 13ee 1 42 . .td3 13cd 1 43. h4 13h 1 + 0-1 1 9 . Efi m Gel ler-Lutz Dortm u nd 1 99 1 1 .e4 cS 2 . lilf3 d6 3 . d 4 cxd4 4. lilxd4 lilf6 5. lilc3 a6 6 . .te2 eS 7.lilb3 .te7 8.0-0 0-0 9.13e1 .te6 1 O .tf1 lilbd7 1 1 .lild5 lilxdS 1 2 .exd5 .tfS 1 3 .a4 13c8 1 4.c3 .tg6 1 5.a5 fS • 25.Yfb3 Yfc8? ! This i s a mistake which turns the tables in White's favour. Karpov suggests 25 . . . tt:lf7 in Informator 35. 26J�b6 lilf7 27 .13a4 Yfd7 28.13ab4 1 6.13a4 White's set-up looks too artificial to me. His attack on the b7-pawn is 143 Part 3 easily parried, while Black's mobile centre is not easy to blockade. For instance, 16.f4 could be answered by 16 . . . tt:lf6 ! exploiting the weak ness of the dS pawn. Then 17.fxe5?! dxeS 18J3xe5 i.d6 19J3el tt:\g4 gives Black a dangerous initiative. 16 .•• tDf6 1 7J�b4 Vfd7 1 8 .f3 18.f4 only helps Black develop his initiative after 18 .. Jke8+. 1 8 . . . .tf7 Perhaps Lutz should have spent two more tempi to improve his piec es before committing to concrete play: 18 . . J3ce8 19.i.e3 i.d8. exchange, but White's pieces also obtain freedom. 28 .txb3 29.gxb3 g c s 30.�e4 gxa5 3 1 .gb7 tDg6 32.lDg5 'ec8 33.gb3 gcs?l .•• Black is afraid to play for a win with 33 . . . E!a4. 34 . .th3 1Yc7 35.lDe6 'ea7 36.tDxf8 gxc4+ 37.Yff2 gc1 + 38.if1 1Yxf2+ 39. c,t>xf2 c,t>xf8 40,gb6 gc2+ 41 .c,t>e3 lDf4 Yz-Yz 20. Kayumov-Ku laots Paks 2003 1 9 .c4 tD h S 20 . .te3 i.h4! Black's task is to provoke weak nesses on the kingside. Now White cannot answer 2 1.i.f2 i.xf2 + 2 2 .c,t>xf2 due to 2 2 . . . e4 23.fxe4 fxe4t 1 .e4 c5 2 . tDf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tDxd4 lDf6 5.tDc3 a6 6 . .te2 eS 7 . tD b3 .te7 8.0-0 0-0 9 . � h 1 �c6 1 O .f4 b5 1 1 .a4 b4 1 2 . tD d 5 2 1 .g3 f4 22.gxh4 fxe3 23J�xe3 tDf4 24.lDd2 i.g6 25J�b6 gc7 This is a bit timid. 25 .. JU6 26.tt:\e4 i.xe4 27.fxe4 Wff7+ is more purposeful. 26.1Ye1 1Yd8 I prefer 26 . . . E!f6 27.c,t.hl W/c8+. 27.geb3 .tc2 28 .gxb7 A good practical attempt to change abruptly the game course. Black may be better with the extra 144 1 2 . . . tDxe4 1 3 .i.f3 f 5 1 4. tDxe7+ tDxe7 1 5.fxe5 dxe5 1 6.1Yxd8 gxd8 1 7 .J.xe4 (or 17.i.g5 E!a7 18 .i.xe4) 1 7 . . . fxe4 1 8 . .tg 5 ga7 1 9.gae1 Or 19.tt:\c5? ! h6 2 0 .i.xe7 E!xe7 21.tt:\xe4 i.b7 2 2 .E!ael E!c7t (Ftac nik). The Classical System 6.�e2 1 9 . . . h6 20.�e3 Alternatively: 2 0 .he7 Ei:xe7 21.Ei:xe4 Ei:c'T+; 2 0 .i.d2 aS 21.Ei:xe4 tt:Jc6 2 2 .i.e3 Ei:fl, with a better end game for Black in Dervishi-Kobali ja, Istanbul 2003. 2 0 . . . Ei:ad7 2 1 .�b6 3 0.@h2 �bs 31.g4 Ei:d7 32.@g3 Ei:d2 33 . .ia3 Ei:d4 34.Ei:fS i.c6 3S.Ei:f8+ @h7 36.Ei:f4 Ei:d3+ 37.@f2 aS 38.c;!;>e2 Ei:g3 39.@f2 Ei:g2 + 40.@e3 Ei:h2 41.g5 hxgS and a draw on move 58. If2-lf2 2 1 . Areshchen ko-C heparinov B u rgas 1 3.09.20 1 2 1 .e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6 . .ie2 e5 7.tLlb3 .ie7 8.0-0 o-o 9 J�e1 .ie6 1 O ..if3 W/c7 1 1 . .ie3 tLlbd7 1 2 .a4 Ei:fc8 1 3.a5 h6 1 4. h 3 21 . . . Ei:e8 21.. .Ei:f8?! loses the b4-pawn: 2 2 .Ei:xf8+ @xf8 23 .i.cS @fl 24.hb4 lLJdS 2S.i.aS. 22.Ei:xe4 tLld5 Only here the forced sequence is over. The endgame is balanced and the opponents signed a draw in Zelcic-Ribli, Austria 2006. 23.aS or 23.i.gl would prove that, but Kayu mov made one more "active" move and lost a pawn after: 23.�c5 Ei:c7 24.Ei:fe 1 �f5 25.Ei:xe5 l::!xe5 26.Ei:xe5 .ixc2 27 .Ei:xd5 hb3 28 .Ei:e5 .ixa4 29.h4 b3 The remaining moves are irrel evant for the opening. I must only say that probably it is still a draw: Another waiting option of White is 14.W/d2 i.f8 lS.Ei:ecl, and now 15 . . . b S equalises: 16.axb6 tLlxb6 17.tLlaS Ei:ab8 18.Ei:cbl tt:lc4 19.tt:lxc4 hc4 2 0 .i.e2 he2 21.�xe2 W/c4=. Chepa rinov shows a new plan, based on a kingside activity: 1 4 . . . W/c6 ! ? Until this game, Black was stak ing on the breakthrough . . . bS: 14 . . . b5 1S.axb6 tt:lxb6 16.lLlaS tt:lc4 17.tt:lxc4 W/xc4= , Malakhov Bologan, Sibenik 2010. In the game Efimenko-Berkes, Paks 2 0 06, Black delayed it a little: 145 Part 3 14 . . . i.f8 1S.�d2 (lS.llJd2 can be attacked by lS . . . bS 16.axb6 llJxb6 17.'�e2 aS+±.) 1S .. J!ab8 16J!ecl rooks. I'd say that we have a com fortable equality here. Of course, the a6-pawn is untouchable, due to . . . l!xc3. 1 5J�e2 llJf8 1 6.gd2 16 . . . bS ! The only way to obtain counter play. The semi open b- and c-files compensate for the weak a6-pawn. 16.llJdS could be met by 16 ... i.d8 17J'!d2 .b:dS 18.exdS Wd7, but as far as I know Cheparinov, he would happily throw in the exchange with 16 . . . llJg6 ! ? 17.llJb6 llJh4 18.llJxa8 l!xa8, with a long-term initiative, e.g. 19.llJd2 llJxf3+ 20.llJxf3 llJxe4 21.llJd2 llJf6 2 2 .c4 llJd7 23.l!el fS�. 1 6 . . . llJg6 1 7 . llJ c 1 llJh4 1 8 .tL!d3 WeB 17.axb6 llJxb6 18.llJaS (18J'!xa6 llJc4 19.�e2 llJxe3 2 0 .Wxe3 hb3 21.cxb3 l!xb3=) 18 . . . llJbd7! White seems a little better due to his knight on aS. However, Berkes finds a way to neutralise it with the manoeuvre llJd7-cS-b7, and he gradually equalises. 19Jkbl llJcS ! 21. llJxb7 'ffxb7 2 0.'9'e2 llJb7 For only a couple of moves, Black's knight has reached h4 and it is ready to kill one of the defen ders of the e4-pawn. The thematic manoeuvre 19.tL!b4 is now point less due to 19 . . . l!c4 2 0 .tL!bdS hdS 21 .llJxdS llJxdS 2 2 .exdS llJxf3+ 23.�xf3 l!ac8+. 1 9.tL!a4 .idS 20 . .lb6 tL!xf3+ 2 1 . 'ff xf3 gc4 22 . .lxd 8 gxd8 23.tL!c3 White's pawn structure is still better, but this is completely com pensated by Black's more active 146 Black has won the opening bat· tle. He can now push . . . dS: 23 . . . d� The Classical System 6 . .ie2 24.exd5 hdS 25.l2Jxd5 (25.W/e3 l2Je4 26.l2Jxe4 gxe4+) 25 . . . gxd5, but Cheparinov prefers to increase pressure gradually. 23 .. J3dc8 Y!/c7 26.f4 24.�e3 ti'c6 2S.f3 White's nerves give up and he decides to provoke a crisis. Af ter 26 . . . exf4 27.l2Jxf4 ges 28.gadl ifS+, Black would have a nice edge, but Cheparinov feels more comfort able in irrational positions with an initiative. 26 . . . gxc3? ! 28.gf1 ? 2 7 . bxc3 a4 38.gb6 .ldS 39.1tld3 a3 40 .1tlb4 .te4 41 .ga1 a2 42 . �f1 gd8 43.g3 gd2 44.1tlxa2 ltldS 4S.gb3 bc2 46.gxb7 c!Oe3+ 47.�e1 gh2 48.gc1 .ld3 49 .1tlc3 ltlc2+ SO.<.!ld 1 ltld4 S1 .gd7 gh 1 + S2 .<.!ld2 1tlf3+ S3.<.!le3 gxc 1 S4.gxd3 tOeS SS,gd8+ �h7 S6.c!Oe2 gh1 S7.h4 gf1 S8.<.!le4 c!Og4 S9. 1tlf4 gf2 so.ga8 g6 61 .ga7 <.!lg8 62.ga8+ <.!lg7 63.ga7 gb2 64. �f3 1tl h 2 + 6S.<.!le4 1tlf1 66.1tle6+ �f6 67.1tld8 ltlxg3+ 68.<.!lf3 gb3+ 69.<.!lg2 ltlfS 70.gxf7+ �eS 7 1 .hS gb2+ 72.<.!lf3 gS?? 73.1tlc6+ <.!le6 74.1tld8+ <.!leS 7S.Itlc6+ <.!le6 %-% 22. Kolev-Herna ndez Leon 22.04.2008 1 .e4 cS 2 . c!Of3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. c!Oxd4 ltlf6 S.ltlc3 a6 6 . .ie2 eS 7.1tlb3 .ie7 8 . 0-0 0-0 9 .a4 .ie6 1 0 . .if3 W/xc3 A serious mistake. 28.gddl gc4 29.fxe5 dxeS 30.Wfel would have forced Black to struggle for equal ity: 30 . . . W/d4+ (30 . . . l2Jxe4 3l.W/xc3 Elxc3 3 2 .l2Jxe5) 3 1.�h2 l2Jxe4 32.l2Jf4;!;. The next part of the game went under a total Black's control and only the blunder on move 72 deprived him of a full point. 28 . . . gc4 29.fxes c!Oxe4 3o .ge2 dxeS 3 1 . gfe 1 W/xaS 32 .ti'a7 Y!ldS 33.Y!Ib8+ gc8 34.ti'xeS ti'xe5 3S.ItlxeS ltlc3 36.gd2 aS 37.gd6 I analyse this position in line B53. I recommend the set-up with 10 . . . ti'c7!? u.gel gcs which is ideal for generating counterplay on the queenside. The annotations to this game cover the more typical Sicil ian development with . . . gac8. 147 Part 3 Black now remains somewhat cramped. It would have been better to try to trade a pair of knights by: ll . . . llJb6 12.llJd2 �c8 Now, 13.a5 llJc4 14.llJxc4 �xc4 should be about equal : 15 . .ie3 Y!Jc7 16 . .ib6 \Wc6 17.Yfld2 �c8 18.llJd5 hdS 19.exd5 Y!JeB 2 0.c3 .idS ! 21.i.e3 �a4 2 2 .b4 �xa1 23J:!xa1 WbS+±. White can retain some pull with 13.llJf1 ! , heading for e3-d5. Another attempt to exchange the knight is ll . . . llJcS. Then 12.llJxc5 is not convincing although it brought me a full point against Felecan, Chicago 2008, af ter 12 . . . dxc5 13.\We2 (13.llJd5 hdS 14.exd5 \Wc7 15.c4 .id6 safely block ades the centre) 13 . . . Wc7 14.i.e3 c4 (14 . . . h6; 14 . . J"!ad8) 15.a5 i.b4 (15 . . . .icS 1 6 . .ig5 .ie7 17.llJd5 ! ) 16 . .ib6 Yflc6 17.llJd5 llJxdS 18.exd5 .ixdS 19.hd5 WxdS 2 0 .\WxeS. Here, 20 . . . Y!Jc6 21 . .id4 f6 22 .Y!Je6+ Y!Jxe6 23.�xe6 �fd8 24.c3 .if8 would have been equal, but instead Black committed several small mistakes and gradually lost after 2 0 . . . Y!Jxe5 21.�xe5 �feB (21... �ac8 2 2 .�d1 f6 23.�ed5;!;) 2 2 .�e8+ �xeS 23.'i!! fl �e6 24.c3 .ie7 25.�a4 �c6 26.'i!! e 2 f5 27.'i!! e 3 .if6 2 8.i.d4. Again, it is better for White to maintain more pieces with 12.llJd2! �c8 Or 12 . . . d5 13 .exd5 llJxd5 14.llJxd5 .ixdS 15. �xe5 .ie6 (15 . . . i.xf3 16.Y!Jxf3 Y!Jc7 17.�e1 �ae8 18.llJfl .if6 19 . .if4;!;) 16.�e1 .if6 17.llJe4;!;. 13.a5 Y!Jc7 14.llJf1 Wc6 15.llJd5 .ixdS 16.exd5 Wc7 17.c4 e4 18 . .ie2 llJfd7 19.b4. Black can win now the c4-pawn, but at the expense of his kingside's integrity: 19 . . ..if6 2 0.�a3 llJd3 21 . .ixd3 exd3 2 2 .llJe3 llJeS (22 . . . .ig5 23.llJf5!) 23 ..ib2 llJxc4 24.llJxc4 Wxc4 25 . .ixf6 gxf6 26.�xd3;!;. 1 2 .a5 White has gained space on the queenside. 148 The Classical System 6 . .ie2 2 2 .c4 g6 23.b4 �g7 24J�a3 W/b8:;!;. b) 14 . . . h6 15.llJd2 W/c6 16.ltlfl .if8 17.llJh2. The knight removes one of the defenders of the dS-square. 17 . . . :Ba8 18.llJg4 llJxg4 19 ..bg4 ltlf6 20 . .ib6 :Bdc8 He can later improve the pros pects of his b3-knight with the ma noeuvre llJb3-c1-d3/a2-b4-d5, for instance: 12 . . J'l:e8 13 . .ie3 g6 14.h3 h5 15.llJc1 llJh7 16.llJd3 .igS (16 . . . tl:lg5 17. llJb4:;!;) 17.llJb4 .be3 18.!Uce3 lk5 19.'!Wxd6 :BxaS 20 .:Bd1 W/b6 2l.W/xb6 llJxb6 2 2 .b3:;!;. 1 2 . . . Wc7 1 3 . .ie3 gfe8 Black often prefers 13 . . . :Bfd8 with the following options: a) 14.llJd2 h6 15.llJfl llJh7 16.llJg3 ig5 17.llJf5 .be3 18.llJxe3 llJhf6 19.W/d2 llJcS 20.llJcd5 2 U�e3 ! I'm following my game Kolev lotov, Sunny Beach 2007. Now 2 1 . . .llJd7 2 2 . .be6 fxe6 23.W/g4 :Be8 24.llJa4 is clearly better for White as the c2-pawn is immune. My op ponent chose: 2 1 . . .W/d7 2 2 ..if3 .ie7 (intending . . . .id8) 23.:Bd3 :Bc6 24.i.e3 :Bac8 25.llJa4 .id8 26.llJc5 W/e7 27.llJxe6 fxe6 28.b3, with an advantage. Black should seek counterplay on the queenside, but 28 . . . b6 29.axb6 .bb6 30 . .ixb6 :Bxb6 3 U�a4 ltld7 32 .b4:;!; still leaves White on top. 1 4.�d2 .if8 1 5. �f1 h6 1 6.h3 Wc6 1 7. � h 2 �c5 Whte has a slight edge because 20 ... llJcxe4? does not work due to 21.he4 llJxe4 2 2 .W/d3 .ixdS (22 . . . tl:lc5 23.llJxc7 llJxd3 24.llJxe6 llJxe1 25.li)xd8+-) 23. llJxd5 llJc5 24.W/f5±. Svidler-Maslak, Moscow 2008, saw instead 21 . . . hd5 21.exd5 llJcd7 149 Part 3 1 8 . .ic1 ! The e4-pawn needs additional protection. I could have played 18.ll:lg4 right away, but after 18 . . . ll:lxg4 19.hxg4 (19.ix:g4 ll:lxe4) 19 . . . .ie7 20.ll:ld5 hdS 21.exd5 'IWbS 2 2 J3a2 .if6 Black would have good counterplay. The text enables 19.ll:lg4 so the opponent decided to open the queenside: 1 8 . . . b5 1 9 .axb6 Wxb6 20.ll:lg4 .ixg4 2 1 . .ixg4! gc6 2 1 . . . ll:lxg4 2 2 .\Wxg4 ll:le6 23.ll:ld5 \Wd8 24.c3 is positionally grim for Black. 2 2 . � d 5 �xd5 23.'ffx d5 ! Time t o take stock. Black's pawn structure on the queenside is ru ined and he has not any threats to 150 compensate for that. The a6-pawn is isolated and very weak. The f8bishop has no prospects. 23 . . . gc7 24.ga2 ll:le6 25.c3 l'b5 26.ti'd 1 ll:lc5 27 . .ie2 Wc6 (27 . . . 1'b6 2 8 . .ic4 aS 29 . .ie3) 28 . .ic4 gba 29 . .id5 ti'b5 3 0 . b4 ll:ld3? This loses a piece, but 30 ... ll:le6 is also difficult: 31.ti'f3 Eibc8 32 .id2 ll:lf4 33 . .ixf4 exf4 34.ti'xf4 �h8 35.Eia5 Wb6 36 . .ixf7 Eixc3 37 . .ie6. 3 1 .gas 1 -0 Part 4 The Classical System I I 1 .e4 cS 2 . c!Llf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. c!Llxd4 c!Llf6 5.c!Llc3 a6 6.a4 Part 4 Q u i c k Reperto ire l.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.a4 In the open Sicilian, prophy lactic moves usually cost White the initiative. With 6.a4, however, things are different. This move is not any worse than 6 . .ie2 . In some aspects it is even more ambitious. The fine point of White's plan is to trick Black with the move or der, taking him out of his familiar schemes. 6.a4 is aimed specifically against . . . eS-set-ups. White's rea soning is simple: if he played 6 . .ie3 eS 7.lDf3, in the forthcoming battle for the dS-square the bishop would often lose a tempo to reach gS in two steps. Similarly, after 6 . .ie2 , 152 it is the light-squared bishop which has lost a tempo going to e2 instead of c4. So White dreams of keeping both options open while having made a useful move. This is a smart strategy which has no apparent flaws. At a higher level against oppo nents with a wide Sicilian reper toire, 6.a4 may lack venom since Black might choose the Sche veningen or the Dragon without having to worry about the most principled variations against these systems. However, if Black wants to stay in the Najdorf waters, he has to oblige and answer: 6 ••. e5 In the first edition, we analysed 6 . . . lDc6, but the high-level game Kamski-Topalov, Web. Candidates match, Kazan 2011, made us recon sider. White chose 7.a5 ! ? e6 when 8.lDb3 .ie7 9 . .ie3 0-0 10 . .ie2 , leads to a rare line of the Scheveningen. 7.lDb3 .ie6 8 . .ig5 has no bite due to 8 . . . lDbd7. 6.a4 e5 7. . . flc7 7. . . ie7 is a fair, but more pas sive alternative. See game 23 Kamsky-Nakamura, Saint Louis 2012 for details. The queen move assumes a more active set-up with ... tLlbd7. We would like to draw your at tention to a key plan of Black: re routing the dark-squared bishop to the queenside via d B : 12 .fle2 ie7 13.0-0 0-0 14J�fd1 l:!ac8 15.ib3 Wic6! 16.lDfl .id8 ! . 8.ig5 8.ie2 usually transposes to the line 6.i.e2 eS 7.lDf3 h6. Black i s threatening with . . .iaS so: 17.a5 WicS 18 . .b:e6 fxe6 19.tLld2 ic7 20.'it>h1 dSt, Volokitin-Kaljakin, Sochi 2 006. The critical position for 7 ... Wic7. Now 10.ih4 gS ll . .ig3 llJcS is dou ble-edged. White's king is not safe on the kingside in view of . . . h6-h5. Positional treatment as 10 . .ixf6 1Dxf6 ll.ic4 ie6 puts the focus on the centre. White hopes to complete development and generate pressure down the d-file. Or 12 .ib3 ie7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Wif3 idS ! ? 15.fld3 l:!c8 16.a5 Wic6 17.l:!a4 ic7 and in Heberla-Dziuba, War saw 2010, the bishop even reached a7 to balance the game. A key position in the 6.a4 sys tem is shown on the next diagram. Areshchen ko-Karjakin Sochi 2006 White had played ig5xf6, then Black exchanged his dark-squared 153 Part 4 bishop via f6-g5xd2 . White's last knight was swapped through c4b6xd7. Without minor pieces, Black can easily get into a very passive posi tion. Therefore, he must seek coun terplay on the queenside. After 22 . . .b5 ! the open b- and c files should allow him to maintain the balance. He cannot afford to stay passive, for White has a clear plan: to triple the heavy pieces on the d- file and push b3-c4, watching his time for the decisive break c4-c5. 23.axb6 !!bxb6 24.h4 h6 25.h5 '%!fb7 26.'it>h2 !!b3 27.!!adl Wffe7 28.!!d3 !!cb6 29.!!1d2 ? ! Areshchenko forgets that White needs a rook on al not only for at tacking, but also for defensive pur poses! Now he gets trapped into a passive set-up and the tables turn after 29 . . . a5 ! 30.g3 a4 when Black has some initiative. Conclusions: Generally, Black should play for equalisation against 6.a4 eS 7.lt:lf3. He should aim to complete development and exchange the opponent's active minor pieces. The only sharp variation is 7 . . . fffc7 8.i.g5 lt:lbd7 9.lt:ld2 h6 10 ..ih4 when he can show activity on the kingside with lO . . . gS ! 154 Part 4 Ste p by Ste p l.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.a4 we decided to stick to more familiar pawn structures. 7.ltlb3 .ie6 8..ig5 ltlbd7 has no bite, while 8 . .ie2 will probably transpose to line B53 from Part 3. 7 'f!Jc7 ••• 7 . . . i.e7 is a decent, but more passive alternative. See game 23 Kamsky-Nakamura, Saint Louis 2012 for details. 6 . e5 .. 8 .lg5 . In the first edition, we consi dered 6 . . . ltlc6 for our repertoire. This move is still topical. Our main motivation to change recommenda tions to 6 . . . e5 is the game Kamski Topalov, Wch. Candidates match, Kazan 2011, where White chose 7.a5!? e6 8.ltlxc6 bxc6 9. i.d3 i.e7 10.0-0 c5 ! ? , with a complex game. This does not seem fearsome for Black, but he might have another problem - in the event of 8.ltlb3 i.e7 9.i.e3 0-0 10.i.e2 he lands in a rare line of the Scheveningen, which ir. outside the scope of this book. So 8.ie2 usually transposes to the line 6.i.e2 e5 7.ltlf3 h6. We would also offer the game Adams-Aresh chenko, Germany 2010: 8 . . . ltlbd7!? 9 ..ie3 ltlc5 10.ltld2 .ie6 11.0-0 .ie7 12 .a5 d5 ! ? 13.exd5 .ixd5 14.if3 i.e6 15.ltlde4 ltlfxe4 16.ltlxe4 ltlxe4 17.he4 f5 18 . .ib6 1lffc8 19 . .id5 'f!Jd7 2 0.l'!e1 if6 21..ixe6 1lffxe6 22 .'f!Jh5+ g6 23.1lffh 6 l!lt7 24.l'!ad1 .ig7 25.'f!Jh3 l'!he8. Black's central pawns assure him of good counterchances. 155 Part 4 b) 10 . .ie3 lLlc5 ll.i.c4 (ll.lLldS lLlxdS 12 .exd5 .ifS 13.a5 .ie7 14.fi..e2 .igS 15.0-0 fi.xe3 16.fxe3 .ih7=) 11 ... lLlcxe4 12.lLlcxe4 lLlxe4 13.lLlxe4 �xc4 14.lLlxd6+ fi.xd6 15.�xd6 f6=, Westerinen-Brunner, Gausdal 1991. 10 . . .g5 ll . .ig3 �c5 12.a5 lO . .ih4 Alternatively: a) 10 . .ixf6 lLlxf6 ll . .ic4 .ie6 12 .�e2 (in the event of 12 . .ib3 fi..e 7 13.0-0 0-0 14.�f3, Black can activate his dark-sqaured bishop through . . . a7! as in Heberla-Dziuba, Warsaw 2 01 0: 14 . . . .id8 ! ? 15.1!ffd 3 gcs 16.a5 '<lffc 6 17.ga4 .ic7 18.gfa1 gfd8 19.lLld5 .ixdS 2 0 . .ixd5 lLlxdS 2l.exd5 '<lffd 7 2 2 .lLlc4 '<lffe 7 23.gb4 .ib8 24.1lffb 3 gc7 25.lLlb6 .ia7= .) 12 ... fi..e 7 13.0-0 0-0 14.gfd1 gac8 15.fi..b 3 �c6 ! 16.lLlf1 .idS ! . The same manoeuvre ! Black is threatening with . . . .laS. 17.a5 �c5 18.fi.xe6 fxe6 19.lLld2 .ic7 20.�hl dSt, Volokitin-Kaljakin, Sochi 2006. 156 a) 12.1!fff3 has disappeared from tournament practice lately. Af ter 12 . . . .ie7 13 . .ic4 i.e6 14.a5 �c8 15.i.xe6 lLlxe6 16.�d3, Black should anticipate h4 by 16 . . . gg8 ! ? (or 16 ... �f8 17.h4 �g7) The game Zinchenko-Aresh chenko, Rivne 2005, saw further: 17.f3 (17.h3 �f8 ! ?) 17 . . . h5 18.if2 (18.0-0 h4 19.i.f2 lLlf4 2 0 .1lff e 3 g4t) 18 . . . lLlf4 19.1!fffl dS 20.exd5 i.b4t. The main idea of 16 . . . �g8 is seen in the line 17.h4 lLlhS 18.hxg5 (18 . .ih2 gxh4) 18 . . . lLlxg3 19.1!ffxg3 hgS�. b) 12 . .ic4 leads to the forced line 12 . . . lLlcxe4 13.lLlcxe4 lLlxe4 14.lLlxe4 (14.i.xf7+ �xf7 15.lLlxe4 .ie7 is good for Black: 16.0-0 .ie6 17.h4 �g7+.) 14 . . . �xc4 15.lLlxd6+ fi.xd6 16.1lffxd6 .ie6 17.�xe5 0-0 where Black has an excellent compensation. 6.a4 e5 c) 12 .h4 g4 13.h5 �e6 14.�h4 li.:lcd7 turned out fine for Black in Hracek-Gordon, Bundesliga 2010. 12 ..• i.e6 White has not a clear plan here because he cannot castle queenside. For instance: a ) 13.h4 �g7 14.hxg5 (14J'1a3?! d5 15.exd5 li.:lxd5 16.1i.:lxd5 ixd5 17.c4 �c6 18.b4 li.:le6+) 14 . . . hxg5 15.Elxh8+ ixh8= when 16.�c4? ! loses a pawn to 16 . . . hc4 17.1i.:lxc4 li.:lcxe4 18.1i.:lxe4 li.:lxe4 19.1i.:lb6 Eld8 2 0.�d3 f5. b) 13.�f3 li.:lcd7 14.�d3 �c5 15.�e2 Elc8 16.h4 g4 17.h5 fJ.e7 18.f3 gxf3 19.gxf3 Elg8 20.�f2 �b4! 2 l.li.:ld1 d5t, Li-Negi, Gaziantep 2008. 157 Part 4 Co m p l ete G a m es 2 3 . Kamsky-N a ka m u ra S a i n t Louis, 1 8.05.20 1 2 1 .e4 c 5 2 .�f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.a4 e5 7 .�f3 J.e7 8 .J.c4 8 .i.g5 .ie6 9 ..ixf6 (anticipat ing 9 . . . �bd7) 9 . . ..bf6 10.�d5 lt:ld7 11.i.c4 l"!c8 ! is another topical line. 1 0 . .ib3 The most popular move is 10.�e2 �c7! Black held his own in the latest games: 12 .b3 �aS+ 13.�d2 �xd2+ 14.ltlxd2 .ig5, Kamsky-Topalov, Wch. Candidates Kazan 2011 or: 12 .�e2 lt:lb6 13.ltlxf6+ �xf6 14.he6 �xe6 15.b3 0-0 16.l"!dl l"!c6, draw, Svidler-Grischuk, FIDE World Cup Khanty-Mansiysk 2011. 8 ... 0-0 9.0-0 J.e6 158 10 . . . ltlc6 is less accurate due to 11 . .ig5 (11.l"!dl l"!c8 12 . .ia2 �c7 13 . .ig5 ltlb4 14 . .ib3 l"!fd8 15.h3 h6 16 . .bf6 hf6 17.l"!acl �b6=) 11 ... l"!c8 12.hf6 .ixf6 13.lt:ld5 lt:lb4 14.lt:lxf6+ �xf6 15 . .ixe6 �xe6 16.c3 ltlc6 17.l"!fda. 11 . .ib3 (11 . .ixe6? ! fxe6 lVZlgS �d7 13.�c4 d5 14.�b3 h6 15.ltlf3 ltlc6 16.l"!dl d4't) 11 . . . ltlc6 12.ltld5 (12 . .ig5 l"!ac8 13.l"!fdl ltla5 14 . .id5 h6 15 . .ixf6 .ixf6?) 12 . . . .ixd5 13.exd5 ltla5 14 . .ia2 b5 15.axb5 axb5 16.i.g5 ltlc4?. Black has a comfortable po sition here. Rare continuations are: 10.�d3 ltlc6 11.he6?! f:xe6 6.a4 e5 12 .Wfc4 (12 .l!jg5?! Wfd7 13.Y9h3 ltld4 14.�e3 h6 15.i.xd4 exd4+) 12 . . . d5t; 10 .i.a2 ltlc6 (10 . . . h6 ll.ltld5 E:c8 13.c3 leaves White more hopes for achieving an advantage.) 1l.�g5 ll:\b4 1 2 .hf6 i.xf6 13.ltld5 lt:lxa2 14.E:xa2 E:c8 15.b3 i.e7 16.c4 E:c5 with the idea of idea of breaking through with . . . b5. lO ... 1 6. �f1 tfb6 ! Black has already a tangible ini tiative on the queenside. 1 7J�b1 �c4 1 8."Be2 .th6 1 9.h4 'ff b 4 20.g3 gc7 lLlc6 1 1 .�g 5 ltla5 1 2 . .ixf6 .bf6 2 1.ltlh2? loses 2 2 .ltld1 E:xc2 ! . 21.. .ltlxb2 22 . . . �b6 22 . .tb3 .txb3 1 3 . .td5 13.ltld5 ltlxb3 14.cxb3 E:c8 15.W/d3 looks equal. Instead, 15.ltlxf6+ Y9xf6 16.Wfxd6 hb3 17.Y9b4 (17. Y9xe5 Y9xe5 18.ltlxe5 E:fe8=) 17 . . . �c2 18.Wfxb7 E:b8 19.W/d5 E:xb2 20.ltlxe5 �dB even favours Black who has a bishop vs. knight in an open posi tion. 1 3 .. .l:�c8 ig5 to 1 4.ltld2 ftc7 1 5J�e 1 The integrity of the kingside pawn structure is more important than the pawn in the variation 15 . . . ixd5? ! 16.ltlxd5 Wfxc2 17.ltlxf6+ gxf6 18.Wfg4+ @h8 19.ltlfl�. We believe that the best contin uation of Black's exemplary open ing play was : 22 . . . ltlc4! with the fol lowing options : 23.ltlh2 �d2 24.ltla2 WfcS 25 . .ixc4 (25.E:ed1 .ta5) 25 . . .Wfxc4 26.Y9xd2 W/xa2t ; 23 . .bc4 23 . . . E:xc4 24.ltle3 .ixe3 (or 24 . . J'!xe4 25.ltlxe4 Wfxe4+ 26.@g1 Y9xa4� 27.E:bd1 l3d8) 25.\Wxe3 f5 26.exf5 l3xf5+. Black has left with the good bishop which can help in the attack against the weak ened castling position of White. 2 3.cxb3 25.�h2 g6 tfxb3 24.a5 �a4 159 Part 4 After 25 . . . tt:Jxc3 26.bxc3 �xc3 27.tt:Jg4 �xa5 28.tt:Jxh6+ gxh6 29.�g4+ lt>h8 30.�f5 f6 3U'!edl, Black would face serious technical problems because of the shaky po sition of his king and very passive heavy pieces. l"lxf2 + 3 2 .\t>gl �c2 33.l"lecl l"lg2+ (33 . . . tt:Jxc1 34.l"lxcl) 34.1t>fl l"lf2 + . 29 . . . �xe3 30.llJgxe3 �d2 3 1 . llJc4 �d4 32.llJxd6 �dB 33.b4 llJd3 34.llJxb7 llJxe 1 + 35.�xe1 �as 36.f3? �c2 Kamsky decides to activate his rook, but this turns out to be a mistake. 36.tt:Jc5 should have kept the balance, for instance: 35 ... �f8 (36 . . J'!a7 37.l"lal �f8 38.tt:Jxa6 l"lxa6 39.b5 l"la8 40.b6�; 36 ... gxh5 37.tt:Jc7) 37.l"lhl (37.l"lal bcS 38.bxc5 lt>f8) 37 . . J'!a7 (37 . . . hc5 38.bxc5 f5 39.hxg6 hxg6 40.tt:Jb6 l"la7 41.c6 fxe4 42.l"lcl l"lc7 43.tt:Ja8 l"lc8 44.tt:Jb6= ) 38.hxg6 hxg6 (38 ... fxg6? ! 39.tt:Je6 l"lxe4 40.l"lcl�) 39.tt:Jf6+ lt>g7 40.tt:Je8 + = . White had a curious way to force a draw with 29.tt:Jgf6+ lt>h8 (29 . . ..bf6 3 0.tt:Jxf6+ lt>g7 31.lt:Jh5+ gxh5=) 30.tt:Jd7! tt:Jd3 (30 ... �xe3 31.tt:Jxe3 ; 30 . . . l"lc8 31.lt:Jxc5 �xe3 32 .l"lxe3 l"l8xc5 33 .l"lb3) 31.lt:Jxf8 36 ... .if8 37 .�c 1 .ixb4 38.�c7 gxh5 39.\t>h3 lt>g7 40.\t>h4 �a7 ! 41 .\t>xh5 �xd5 1 42.exd5 .ixa5 43.�e7 .ib6 44.d6 a 5 45.\t>g5 a4 46. \t>f5 a3 47.lLld8 a2 48.lLle6+ lt>h6 49.llJg5 a 1 � 50.lLlxf7+ lt>g7 0-1 26.llJg4 .ig 7 28.ti'e3 llJc5 2 7 . llJ d 5 29.h5 160 Pa rt S On the Path to the English Attack 1 .e4 c 5 2 . �f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a 6 6 . .ie3 e5 Part S Q u i c k Reperto ire l.e4 c5 2 .ltlf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ltlxd4 ltlf6 5.ltlc3 a6 6 .ie3 e5 • We should learn to cope with dif ferent move orders and various approaches that range from a so lid positional treatment with short castling to vehement kingside at tacks without castling at all. This is a huge task and we had our hes itations how to present most clear ly the maze of variations stored in our computers. We decided to treat 7.lLlf3 and 7.lLlb3 in separate parts while 6.f3 eS 7.lLlb3 i.e6 8.i.e3 transposes to the main lines. 6 . . . e5 In Part 3 we explained some of the reasons for choosing 6 . . . e5 in stead of 6 . . . e6. One of them is to avoid playing the Scheveningen 162 against schemes with i.e2 , as in the case of 6 . .ie3 e6 7 . .ie2 . This retreat i s not a s aggressive as 7.lLlb3, but it has the advantage of restricting Black's counterplay. White plans to reinforce his clamp on dS by means of .ic4, �e2 , E!:fdl, i.gS. Should Black weaken more light squares in his camp, his game could become quite difficult. In general, White's play is on the queenside and in the centre. Kingside activity could be danger ous only if Black has weakened his castling position with the move h7h6. Black's main problem is the worse pawn structure with a strand ed pawn on d6. This defect becomes more pronounced without minor 6 . .ie3 eS 7.lLlf3 pieces although a single weakness is usually easy to protect. Here is a game which reveals everything White strives for in this line: Timofeev-Van H aastert Feugen 2006 l.e4 cS 2 .lLlf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 S.lLlc3 a6 6 . .ie3 eS 7.lLlf3 .ie7 8 . .ic4 0-0 9 . 0-0 .ie6 10.'tVe2 'tVc7 (10 . . . .ixc4) ll . .ib3 E:e8 Aimed against 12 . .ixe6 fxe6 13.lLlg5, but this threat is not dan gerous against ll . . . lLlc6 owing to 13 . . . 'tVc8 14.lLla4 idS. Anyway, the rook move is a waste of time. The last link i n White's plan i s to redeploy the f3-knight. Common ly it follows the route lLlf3-h4-fS or lLlf3-h2 (after h3)-fl-e3. In the cur rent game, Timofeev finds another way to e3 via h4-g2. 14 . . . g6 In the event of 14 . . . lLlc5, White follows up with his light-squared strategy: 1S.i.xf6 .ixf6 16.lLlfS i.xfS 17.exf5 'tVd7 18.lLle4t. 15.g3 lLlb6?! (lS . . . lLlcS 16.lLlg2) 16.lLlg2 lLlhS 17 ..ih6 .if8 18 . .ixf8 E:xf8 19.lLle3 lLlf6 20.E:d3 12.E:fdl Black is tied down to the defence of the d6-pawn. The worst thing is that exchanges of light pieces do not ease his task. White is consistently directing his pieces toward the dS-square. 12 . . . lLlbd7 13.ig5 E:ac8 14.lLlh4 ! ? 2 0 . . . lLlc4 21.'tVf3 'tVe7 22 . .ixc4 hc4 23.lLlxc4 E:xc4 24.E:adl E:d8 25.'\1!!fe 2 bS? ! Our understanding of this vari ation tells us that Black should play . . . bS only with concrete variations in mind. If he is passive, the pawn must stay on b7 to avoid making new weaknesses. 26.lLldS lLlxdS 28.E:Sd2 'tVe6 29.a3 27.E:xd5 E:cS 163 Part S We have a typical position which arises from different variations of the Sicilian. Such set-ups are unpleasant to defend, but if Black has no other weaknesses, for instance his pawn is on b7, he retains good chances to hold on. However, his next despe rate attempt to get "counterplay" deteriorates his position even more. 29 .. .fS?! 3 0.exfS gxfS 31 .�e3± �cc8 32 .�b6+ - e4 33.�xd6 �xd6 34.�xd6 �eS 3S.c3 aS 36.�d7 1-0 Timofeev played this game "by the book" and deservedly won with out exerting himself too much. And we have observed all White's major ideas in the tt:\f3-line. Now it is time for some positive examples. 9 . . . J.e6 is not refuted, but 10 .he6 fxe6 ll.tt:\a4 leaves Black struggling for the draw only. I cover this variation in detail in game 25 Kolev-Alsina Leal, Navalmoral 2 007. 10.J.b3 10 .�e2 .ie6 11.he6 fxe6 12.lt:lg5 �c8 ! 13.tt:\a4 i.d8 is fine for Black. to ... J.e6 n:ee2 Black neutralises tt:\h4 by . . . g6. ll .. .c!i�c6 12.lUdl gac8 13 .tg5 tt:\a5 • 7 J.e7 •.. 7 . . . �c7 prevents 8 .i.c4, but Black's set-up is a little passive. In game 24 Papadopoulos-Kolev, Acropolis Chalkida 2009, we pro pose a new idea, which faces White with complex tactical problems and can serve as a surprise weapon. 8 .tc4 0 - 0 9. 0 - 0 Y!Yc7!? • 164 The game is balanced. Black can meet 14.�acl by 14 . . . tt:\xb3 1S.axb3 tt:\hS while 14.i.xf6 is covered in game 26 Balogh-Najer, Moscow 2006. 6.�e3 e5 7.ltJf3 Some genera l cons iderations and more key positions piece and should be protected from exchanges if possible. The 7.ltJf3 line is perhaps the most solid system against the Najdorf. White avoids opposite castles, pawn attacks or other double-edged plans that are the heart and soul of the 7.ltlb3 line, not to mention the Poi soned Pawn Variation. He does not make any weaknesses, even the f pawn remains on its initial place. In such circumstances Black's only correct approach is to aim for equalisation. Only when he com pletes his "obligatory programme" should he think about displaying some activity by . . . b5 or . . . f5. The first task on his to do list is to castle and quickly develop his minor pieces with . . . i.e6, . . . ltJc6-a5. Then he should try to trade dark squared bishops by . . . ltJd7 or . . . ltJhS. Thus the assignment of Black's minor pieces is as fol lows: 1. The ltJc6 knight is meant to control the b3-bishop, but there is no urgent need to exchange it. In some variations the knight may plug the bishop from c4. This is especial ly useful when Black had played b5 and an exchange on b3 would ren der the a6-pawn very weak after Let's see examples where Black fails to accomplish point 3 and 4 of his "to do" list, but still keeps coun ter-chances: game 26 Balogh-Najer Moscow 2006 18 . . . f5 ! 19 J!5d2 fxe4 2 0 .Wi'xe4 Wi'c6= . Basically, i t i s good for White to remain with a knight vs. a dark squared bishop. Stayed the knight on c3, White would have been clear ly better. However, in the concrete situation he is left with the "wrong" f3-knight which has no prospects. T. Kos intseva-Hou Yifan Erg u n 2006 axb3. 2. The i.e6 is destined to go for one of the enemy knights on d5 or f5. 3. The i.e7 naturally should be swapped for the enemy dark squared bishop. 4. The f6-knight is a precious 165 Part S In this example White had rushed to jump to d5 without reap ing any benefits from that. 14 .. J''! a c8 (the plan with . . .f5 is a fair alternative: 14 . . ..ixd5 15J'!xd5 ltJc4 16.c3 f5) 15.c3 ltJc4 16J'!acl b5 17.b3 ltJxe3 18.§'xe3 Wfc5= . Finally, some comments o n the active plans in Black's possession. It is difficult to recommend some thing concrete, for the second play er has no clear plan of his own. His first task is to equalise and then to play chess. Still, there are positions where he has a fair choice, like in the above game T. Kosintseva-Hou Yifan. In most such cases queenside play is a safer and perhaps objec tively the better option. Howev er, sometimes .. .f5 is the only way for Black to distract the opponent from the sensitive d5-square and the even more sensitive pawn on d6. Suppose White has traded his dark-squared bishop for the f6knight. Then our whole plan to con tend for the d5-square becomes ir relevant and we should look for counterplay along the f-file. 166 game 28 lva n c h u k-Kasparov New York (rapid) 1 995 2 0 ... f5oo. The b-pawn would have been better on b7 of course, but its posi tion on b5 is not fatal. Have in mind that .. .f5 is not exactly the start of a kingside pawn storm, but rather a sort of counter-weight to the en emy's advantage in the centre. So Black should not be burning bridg es behind him. He should be ready to play all over the board, using the potential of his long-range pieces. In conclusion, the 7.ltJf3 system leaves good chances for the better player to win. It requires little theo ry, but a good deal of understanding. Part 4 Step by Step l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e5 7.lLlde2 is seldom seen, but Ni sipeanu refreshed this line with new ideas. He won in 2 006-2 007 several exemplary games applying a purposeful light-squared strate gy. In these encounters he reached an endgame with major pieces and a knight vs. a dark-squared bishop. Avoid such positions. In practice Black players obvi ously feel uncomfortable in the untrod territory and often fail to equalise. In the match Nisipeanu Topalov, Bucharest 2006, the world champion tried out a logical set-up with 7 . . . lLlbd7 8.li)g3 g6 with unclear consequences, but eventu ally White got the edge. 7 . . . lLlg4 is positionally dubious as Black goes halfway to the en emy's plan, wasting tempi at that. 8.�d2 lLlxe3 9.Vxe3 .ie6 10.f4 !ie7 ll.f5 enabled White to torture the opponent for many moves in Tim man-Vazquez, Amsterdam 2006. Ftacnik offers as an improve ment 10 . . . g6 with the following il lustrative variation: 11.0-0-0 lLlc6 12 .fxe5 lLlxeS 13.�d4 .ie7=. We have doubts about Black's position though. 10 . . . g 6 created a serious weakness which White can use by ll.�f3 ! ? . Then 1l...exf4 12.lLlxf4 lLlc6 13.lLlxe6 fxe6 14.�h3 �d7 15.!ic4 lLld8 16.i.b3t, is very different from Ftacnik's proposition because the knight had 167 Part S to go to d8. Perhaps Black should develop: ll . . . tt:\c6, but 12 .fS .id7 13.0-0-0 gxfS 14.'it>b1 assures White of an excellent compensation for the pawn. Our recommendation goes for the most natural continuation : 7 . . . i.e6 8.f4 8.tt:\g3 could be immediately at tacked with 8 . . . hS 9 .h4 (9 .ie2 h4 lO.tt:lhS tt:lbd7) 9 . . . tt:\bd7 10 . .ie2 g6 11.ygd2 l:'!:c8 1 2 . 0-0-0 WaS 13.rit>b1 ie7 14.f4 exf4 1S . .b:f4 :i:'!:xc3 ! , with an initiative in Nisipeanu-Najer, Rogaska Slatina 2011. 8 . . . tt:\bd7 8 . . . g6 only compromises Black's kingside. Then 9.h3 hS 10 .g3 tt:\bd7 ll . .ig2 bS 12 .b3 tt:lcS 13.0-0 was in White's favour in Nisipeanu Dominguez Foros 2 0 07. Ftacnik proposes 12 . . . b4, but this is not much of an improvement due to 13.tt:\a4 ! . 9.fS ic4 lO.tt:lcl The knight is heading for b3. From this square, it protects the 168 king in the event of long castling, but also threatens to jump to aS. Still, the mere fact that the knight reaches b3 in three steps instead of landing there right on the 7th move casts a shadow of doubt on the whole manoeuvre. Alternatively: 10 .b3 loses the grip over dS due to 10 . . . he2 ll.he2 ygas 12 . .id2 :i:'!:c8 13 .ic4 1!Nc5t. 10.tt:\g3 was tested in Weide - Naiditsch 2003, when 10 . . . :i:'!:c8 ll.hc4 :i:'!:xc4 12 .1!Nd3 1!Nc7 13.0-0 .ie7 assured Black of good control over the critical square dS. Naiditsch soon took over the initiative thanks to the pressure down the c-file: 14.:i:'!:ac1 0-0 1S.tt:ldS tt:\xdS 16.exd5 tt:lf6 17.c3 :i:'!:c8+. lO . . . dS Cutting across White's plan of occupying dS with a piece. 10 . . . ygc7 is another decent op tion. White fails to clamp on dS, for example: ll.hc4 ygxc4 12 .ygd3 :i:'!:c8 13.tt:\b3 1!Nxd3 14.cxd3 dS! 1S.exd5 (1S.tt:lxd5 tt:\xdS 16.exdS tt:lf6) 1S ....ib4 16 i.d2 i.xc3 17 bxc3 tt:\xdS= or 11.tt:lb3 .ie7 12 . .ixc4 ygxc4 13.1!Nd3 1!Nxd3 14.cxd3 dS 1S.exdS .ib4, Socko-Kempinski, Opole 2 007. Note that we should not trade bishops ourselves. After lO . . . .ixfl ll.:B:xfl :i:'!:c8 12.tt:\b3 bS 13.a3 .ie7 14.ygd3 1!Nc7 1S. O-O-O ygc4 16 ..ig5 h6 17 . .ih4 0-0 18.ygxc4 l:'!:xc4?! 19.tt:laS ! ;t; things turned bad for Black in In Nisipeanu-Areshchen ko, Foros 2006. 6.i.e3 eS 7.ll:lf3 ll.i.xc4 dxc4 12 .�f3 bS 13.ll:\1e2 b4 14.ll:ld5 ll:lxd5 15.exd5 ll:lf6 16.:B:d1 (Nisipeanu attempts to improve on his game vs. Topalov where he cas tled queenside under attack.) 16 . . . e4 17.�h3 �aS 18.0-0 = , Nisipeanu Burg, Plovdiv 2010. Now simplest is 18 . . ..ic5 19.c.t>h1 he3 2 0 .�xe3 0-0. from the variation 6.a4) is widely assessed as equal. Here are some variations: 9 . . . .ie6 10 . .ixf6 .ixc4 ll.he7 �xe7 12 .ll:ld5 (12 .b3 i.e6 13.ll:ld5 hdS 14.�xd5 :B:c8 15.c4 :B:c5 16.�d2 b5=) 12 . . . .ixd5 13.�xd5 :B:c8 14.c3 ll:ld7! 15J':%d1 ll:lf6 16.Vf!'xd6 �xd6 17.:B:xd6 ll:lxe4 18.:B:b6 !k7 19.c.t>e2 (19.0_,0 f6 20 .:B:d1 'tt> f7 =, planning :B:e8-e6) 19 ... :B:d8 =. 7 J.e7 .•• 9 ... �c7!? 7 . . . �c7 prevents 8 . .ic4, but Black's set-up is a little passive. I (AK) propose a new idea, based on an exchange sacrifice. It faces White with complex tactical prob lems and can serve as a surprise weapon - see game 24 Papado poulos-Kolev, Acropolis Chalkida 2009. 8 .ic4 0 - 0 • This clever move order has come into fashion because 9 . . . .ie6 10 . .ixe6 fxe6 ll.ll:la4 does not give him realistic chances to fight for more than a draw. I cover this vari ation in detail in game 25 Kolev Alsina Leal, Navalmoral 2007. The queen move aims to trans pose to the line 9 . . . .ie6 10 . .ib3. It has been adopted by Anand and Karjakin - both are great Naidorf experts. We'll focus on: A. 10.ll:ld5; B. 10.�e2 ; C. 10 . .ib3 Minor alternatives are: a) lO . .idS .ie6. 9. 0 - 0 It is strange to see White oc casionally playing 9 . .igS if we take into account that a similar position with an extra tempo (which arises b) 10 .�d3 bS The point of this move is the exchange sac after ll.ll:ldS bxc4! 12.ll:lxc7 cxd3 13.ll:lxa8 .ib7 14.ll:lb6 dxc2 15.:B:ac1 he4, with excellent compensation. ll . .idS ll:lc6 12 .a3 .ie6 13 . .ig5 b4 is also fine for Black. Guliyev-Gru enfeld, Corsica 2009, saw: 169 Part S ll . .ib3 .ie6 12 .a4 .ic4 13 . .ixc4 bxc4 14.Wie2 ll:lbd7 1S.ll:'ld2 �feB 16.aS �ab8 and the weakness of b2 balances the pawn on c4. c) 10.b3 .ie6 ll.ll:'ldS ll:lxdS 12 . .ixdS .!l:ld7 13.c4 ig4 14.h3 .ihS=, Kurmann-Gallagher, Flims 2012. A. �d7 Our idea is to provoke c4 in or der to bar the .ib3 . Possible conti nuations are: a) 14 . .igS .tbs 1S.c4 .ic6?. b) 14.a4 .ic6 1S.�d2 bS 16.�fd1 (16 . .igS .!l:lhS=) 16 . . . h6=. c) 14.�fe1 !bS 1S.c4 .ic6 16.ll:'ld2 ll:ld7= . 10 .�d5 �xd5 ll .ixd5 • B. 1 0 . Wfe2 .te6 ll.he6 fxe6 12.�g5 12 .ll:'la4? ! is no longer dangerous as 12 . . . ll:lbd7 13.ll:lgS '!Wc614.ll:lc3 d5 is better for Black. 12 . . . '1Wc8 ! 13.�a4 .td8 12.Wid3 Alternatively: a) 12 .c4 ll:'lf6 13 .Wfb3 ll:lxdS 14.cxdS bS 1S.�fc1 Wib8 16.'1Wc3 fS 17.'�c7 �fl+. Nepomniachtchi Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2011. b) 12 .ll:'ld2 ll:'lf6 13 . .ib3 bS (Mind the positional trap 13 . . . h6?! 14.ll:lc4 ll:lxe4? 1S.ll:lb6 �b8 16.ll:ldS±.) 14.!gS ib7 1S . .ixf6 .ixf6 16.Wie2 aS !?, Bukavshin-Naroditsky, Ke rner 2 0 07. 12 . . . �f6 13.ib3 .td7 170 White's main threats are neu tralised and his pieces lack co ordination: 14 . .ib6 (14.ll:'lb6 .ixb6 1S . .ixb6 h6 16.ll:'lh3 Wic6+) 14 ... h6 1S . .ixd8 �xd8 16.ll:'lf3 (16.ll:'lb6 '!Wc6 17.ll:lxe6 Wixb6 18.ll:lxd8 '!Wxd8 19.�ad1 ll:lc6 2 0 .c3 Wid/+) 16 ... \Wc6 17.ll:'lc3 �bd7+. 6 . .ie3 e5 7.lt:\f3 C. 10 .ib3 .ie6 ll.ti'e2 • a) ll . .ixe6 is not effective any more. After ll . . . fxe6 12.lt:lg5 Wd7 or even 12 . . . Wc4 13.Wd3 E:c8 14.Wxc4 l'!xc4 15.lt:lxe6 lt:lbd7 16.f3 h6, Black is fine. b) ll . .ig5 lt:lbd7 12 .lt:lh4 is an swered by the natural 12 . . . g6 when the strategic manoeuvre lt:lh4-g2-e3 is too slow: 13.g3 b5 14.lt:lg2 b4+. lt:lc6 1l.We2 lt:la5 12.E:fd1 Wc7 13.i.g5 E:ac8, but Black has side-stepped the exchange on e6. 14.ixf6 is not impressive. Black obtains sufficient counterplay with the breakthrougb . . . f7-f5. See game 26 Balogh-Najer, Moscow 2006. 14 c!Llxb3 15.axb3 (15.cxb3 ti'b6=) 15 c!Llh5 16.1fd2 ••• c) ll.lt:lh4 g6 12.f4 exf4 13 . .b:f4 �bd7 14.lt:lf3 E:fe8 15.lt:ld4 .ic4 16.E:e1 E:ac8 led to a typical Sicili an middlegame with passive white pieces in Shirov-Gallagher, Caleta 2012. This move order is more ac curate than 12 . . . lt:la5 which offers White the additional option of 13.lt:ld5. 13 .ig5 c!Lla5 • ••• This is the latest try to extract some edge from this position. White had played previously: 16 . .ie3 lt:lf6 17.h3 h6 18.lt:lh2, heading for g4 or fl-e3. Then it would be good to display activity on the queenside by: 18 . . . b5, because the attempt to prepare . .. d5 or .. .f5 with 18 . . . Wc6 only misplaces the queen: 19.Wd3 (19. Wf3 lt:lh7! intending ... f7-f5; 19.f3?! dS+) 19 ... b5 2 0 .lt:ld5 and Black can not take by knight. After 20 ... .ixd5 21.exd5 Wb7 2 2 .lt:lf1! lt:lh5 23.c4;!; White's position is preferable. 19.lt:lg4 lt:ld7 The game has transposed to the variation 8 . . . .ie6 9 ..ib3 0-0 10.0-0 171 Part S White cannot occupy d5 with a piece: 18 �f6 19.�h4 2 0.ti'xe7 �xe7= ••• �d5! a) 2 0.lLld5? ! i.xd5 21J3xd5 h5 ! . b ) 2 0 . .id2 %Yb7 21.lLle3 lLlf6 2 2 .%Yd3 !k5? 23.i.e1 (23.b4 .ic4 24.lLlxc4 gxc4) 23 . . . b4 24.lLlcd5 lLlxdS 25.exd5 .id7. c) 2 0 .f3 'iMb7 2 l..if2 b4 2 2 .lLld5 i.xd5 23.exd5 %Yb5 !?. 16 gfd8 18.ti'g5 ••• 17 .ixe7 • ti'xe7 Or 18.%Ye3 lLlf6 19.gd3 %Yc7 20.gcd1 b5= . 172 The game Frolyanov-Karjakin, Sochi 2012, went 21.lLlf3 f6 22.gd2 b5 23.b4 �f7 24.gcd1 lLlc6 25.gxd6 gxd6 26.gxd6 �e7 27.gd2 lLlxb4+. Part 4 Com p l ete Ga mes 24. Papadopou los-Kolev Acropolis C h a l kida 2009 1 .e4 c5 2 . c!Llf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!Llxd4 c!Llf6 5.c!Llc3 a6 6.J.e3 e5 7.c!Llf3 V!Jc7 This line is considered inferior (compared to 7 . . . .ie7), but the new idea, introduced in this game, sets up practical problems to White. Still, I would suggest it mostly as a surprise weapon, since if White is very well prepared, he will keep an initiative in the complications that arise after the exchange sacrifice. 8.a4 8 . .ig5 has lost appeal due to 8 . . . ttlbd7 9.a4 h6 10 .i.h4 g5 l l.i.g3 lLlc5 12 .lLld2 i.e6 13.i.e2 0-0-0. White's bishop is out of play, his castling position will soon be compro- mised. Despite Topalov's win over Kaijakin in Benidorm 2003, Black should be happy with the outcome of the opening: 14.0-0 (14.b4 lLlcd7 15.lLldb1 d5 16.exd5 lLlb6 was out right bad for White in Matsuura Mecking, Guarapuava 2 006) 14 . . . h 5 ( 1 4. . . d 5 15.exd5 lLlxd5 16.lLlxd5 .b:d5, Kobalia-Onischuk, Moscow 2009, is also pleasant for Black) 15.h4 .ih6 16.b4 (Topalov chose 16J'!a3 g4 17 . .id3 'i!;>b8 18J:!e1 .if4+.) 16 . . . lLlcd7 17J'!a3 l"i:dg8 18.a5 'i!;>b8, when all the black pieces are very active. 8 . . . .te7 9.a5 White can set us problems only by cramping our queenside. 9.i.e2 0-0 10.0-0 b6 11.119d3, intending to go to c4, is too artificial. Black can put this manoeuvre to the test with ll . . . lLlc6 12 .119c4 (or 12 .lLld5 lLlxd5 13.exd5 lLlb8) 12 . . . 119b7. 9 . . . o-o 1 o . .te2 It is hard to expect any advan tage if White neglects development: 10 .i.b6 119c6 ll.lLld5 Black is fine after ll.l"i:a4 i.e6 12.lLlg5 lLlbd7 13.lLlxe6 lLlxb6! 173 Part S 14.axb6 fxe6 15 . .ic4 dS ! 16.exd5 V9xb6, for example: 17. 0-0 (17. dxe6? V9xb2 18.11Na1 V9xa1+ 19J'!xa1 .ib4+; 17.d6 .ixd6 18 . .ixe6+ 'tt> h 8 19.0-0 i.cSt) 17 . . J':l:ad8. ll . . . lt'lxdS 12.exd5 11Ne8 13.ll'ld2 Or 13.i.e2 lt'ld7 14 . .ic7 lt'lf6 15.0-0 .ig4 16.c4? ! .ixf3 17 . .ixf3 E:c8. 13 . . . lt'ld7 14.lt'lc4 14.i.c7 lt'lf6 15.lt'lc4 V9d7 16.lt'lb6 11Nxc7 17.lt'lxa8 is punished by 17 . . . V9c5 18.lt'lb6 lt'le4 19.V9e2 i.h4 ! , with a devastating attack. 14 . . . lt'lxb6 15.lt'lxb6 E:b8. Black has no reason to complain. 1 0 . . . �bd7 10 ... lt'lc6 is a solid variation, but it is a bit too passive. 174 1 1 .�d2! This continuation is the only real challenge to Black's idea. White should not expect any advantage af ter 11.0-0 lt'lcS 12 .lt'ld5 12 .ll'ld2 is too passive. Black has a comfortable game after 12 ... .ie6 13 . .if3 (13 . .ig5 lt'lcd7 leaves White with the only plan of bring ing the lt'ld2 to dS via l':l:e1, lt'lf1, but it is rather slow and Black scores heavily from this position: 14.l':l:el h6 15 . .ixf6 lt'lxf6 16.lt'lfl V9c5 17.lt'le3 .idS+; 14.l':l:a4 E:ad8 15 ..ixf6 lt'lxf6 16 . .ic4 dS ! t ; 14 . .if3 l':l:ac8 15.11Ne2 E:fe8 16.E:fc1 .if8 17.g3 g6 18 . .ie3 .ig7 19.l':l:a3 hS 2 0 .b4 lt'lg4+!.) 13 ... 11Nc6 ! ? (Taking dS under a firm control. Be sure to avoid posi tions like: 13 . . . E:fd8? ! 14.b4 lt'lcd7 15.lt'ld5.) 14.V9e2 (or 14 . .ig5 E:fe8 15.i.xf6 .ixf6 16.lt'ld5 i.xdS 17.exd5 11Nc7 18.b4 e4! ) 14 . . . h6 15.E:fd1 E:ac8 16.l':l:acl lt'la4 ! 17.lt'lxa4 V9xa4. Black has gained the initiative. 12 . . . lt'lxd5 13.exd5 .ifS It is a dubious idea from a stra tegic point of view to play 13 . . .i.g4 14.ll'ld2 i.xe2 15.V9xe2 fS 16.f3 and White's play on the queenside is crystal clear. 13 .. .f5 ! ? is more to the point. Af ter: 14.lt'ld2 (14.b4 lt'le4 15.c4 tt'lc3 leaves White without the important .ie2 . Then, even if he succeeded in pushing c4-c5-c6, the a6-pawn would not be a target.) 14 . . . tt:Jd7 15.f3 b6 16.axb6 (Leko tried 16.c4 bxaS 17.lt'lb3 E:b8 18.l':l:a2, when 18 ... a4 19.l':l:xa4 lt'lb6 2 0.E:b4 .id7 would 6 . .ie3 e5 7.ll:lf3 have given Black counterplay.) 16 . . . ltlxb6 17.c4 aS= , Black builds u p a solid blockade on the queenside. ll . . .b5 12.axb6 ll:lxb6 13.0-0 is a well known position, which I dislike. 14.c4 As I had mentioned before, 14.b4 ll:le4 15.c4 ll:lc3 16.WI'd2 ll:lxe2+ 17.%be2 �ac8 18.ll:ld2 (18.c5 Wl'd7! ; 18.�fcl Wl'd7+t) 18 . . . WI'd7 is fine for Black. 14 . . . e4 Black has chronic problems due to the weak a-pawn and sensitive light squares. More importantly, he is deprived of real counterplay so the 0-1 result seems like an impossi ble dream here. Still, many players enter this position so I will consider some of the most important lines: Black has enough resources to avoid landing into a cramped posi tion after b2-b4: 15.ll:ld4 Or 15.ll:le1 i.f6 16.�a2 �ac8 17 ..id4 (17.b4 ll:ld3 18.ll:lxd3 exd3 19 ..bd3 .bd3 2 0J!!lfx d3 Wl'xc4 21.%Yxc4 �xc4 was equal in Gopal Sadvakasov, Calicut 2 0 07.) 17 . . . WI'e7 18.b4 ll:ld7 19.ll:lc2 (19 . .ixf6 Wl'xf6 20.lLlc2 lLle5 2 1.%Yd4 i.g6 2 2 .c5 dxc5 23.bxc5 ll:ld3 !+) 19 . . . .ie5 2 0.ll:le3 ig6, followed up by ... f5, with an excellent game. 15 . . . .ig6 16.b3 (16.b4 ll:ld3 ! 17.h:d3 exd3 18.�c1 .if6+) 1 6 . . . �ac8 17.%Yd2 .if6 18.�a3 �feB. Black has bright prospects. 11 ... �c51? a) 13 . . . .ib7 14 . .ixb6 %Yxb6 1S.ll:lc4 Wc7 Alternatively: a1) 15 . . . Wd4 16.ll:la5 �fb8 (The endgame after 16 ... Wxd1 17.�fxd1 .ixe4 18.ll:lxe4 ll:lxe4 is gloom. White gains an edge with both 19.f3 !? ll:lcS 2 0.b4 ll:le6 21.ll:lc6 .igS 22.c3;t or 19.ll:lc6 ! ? .if6 2 0 . .ic4 ! ? aS 2l..idS ll:lc5 2 2 .ll:lxa5±.) 17.�a4;t. a2) 1S . . . Wc5 16.�aS Wc7 (16 ... Wc6 17 . .id3 .idS 18.�a3 aS 19.ltle3 �b8 2 0.�b3 @h8 2 l.Wf3 .ib6 22.lLlfS .ic5 23.Wg3±, Garbisu-Dominguez, Havana 1999) 17.WI'd3 �fd8 18 ..if3 �ac8 19.b3;t, Delchev-Galagher, Lu gano 2 0 07. 16.ll:le3 �feB Or 16 . . . ll:lxe4 17.ll:led5 ixdS 18.lLlxdS Wb7 19 . .if3 fS 20.�a4;t; 16 . . . �fb8 17 . .ic4 ! ll:lxe4 18.ltlcdS 17S Part S Wid8 19.lDfS, with total domination ; 16 . . J'�ab8 17.ha6 lLJxe4 18.lLJcdS hdS 19.lLJxdS Wid7 2 0 .b3;!;. 17.l3a4 ! ? (17.i.d3 aS 18.W/f3 .ic6 19 . .ic4;!;) 17 . . . aS 18.i.c4 l3ab8 (18 . . . .ic6 19.lLJedS W/b7 20.l3a2 a4 2 1.Wld3;!;) 19.b3;!;. b) 13 . . . l3d8 14.hb6 W/xb6 1S.lLJc4 W/b4 16.W/d3 .ie6 17.lLJe3;!;. c) 13 . . . aS! ? 1 2 . . . �cxe41 ? The point of my idea. 12 . . . .ie6 13.lDb6 l3ae8 is passive: 14.f3 lLJcd7 1S.lLJbdS lLJxdS 16.lDxd5 .ixdS 17.W/xdS Wixc2 18.Wf2 ! and Black's queenside pawns are unde fendable. However, in this variation af ter 13.lDb6, Black can sacrifice the exchange by 13 . . . lLJcxe4 ! 14.lLJxe4 lLJxe4 1S.lDxa8 l3xa8 16.c3 dS 17.0-0. This i s the latest trend, but it has not changed my evaluation: 14.lLJbS ! 14.hb6 W/xb6 1S.lLJc4 WicS 16.lLJa4 is roughly equal: 16 . . . Wic7 17.lLJab6 l3b8 18.lDxc8 l3fxc8 19.W/d3 W/c6 20.l3xaS W/xe4= . 14 . . . W/b7 The queen has not a safe square : 14 . . . Wib8 1S.c4;!;; 14 . . . Wic6 1S.l3a3 ! .id7 16.l3c3 Wib7 17.l3b3t. 1S.lDxd6 .bd6 16 . .ixb6 .ib4 17 . .ie3 .ixd2 (17 . . . l3d8 18.c3±) 18.Wixd2 lLJxe4 19.Wid3 .ifS (19 . . . fS 2 0 . f3 lLJf6 21.Wic3±) 2 0 .Wia3;!;. White's bishop pair in an open po sition assures him of the edge. 176 It is unclear whether White can make any progress from here. Per haps Black's centre balances the game. 1 3. �xe4 �xe4 1 4.�b6 1 5.�d5 Wfd7 1 6 . .ia7 l3b8 White could include 16 . .if3 ll:lf6 17 . .ia7 when best is 17 . . . e4! with the following possibilities : 6 . .ie3 eS 7.t2Jf3 a) 1S . .ie2 ? ! t2Jxd5 19 . .ixbS t2Jf4 20.0-0 'if!fS 2 1..ia7 .if6 2 2 .c3 .ieS, with a dangerous initiative. b) 1S . .ixbS? exf3 19.'if/xf3 t2Jxd5 20 .'if/xd5 bS ! 21.'iffd 3 (21.axb6 .ib7) 21...'if!h7, capturing the bishop. c) 1S.t2Jxf6 + ? ! .ixf6 19 ..ixbS (19. .ixe4 :BaS 2 0.i.e3 .b:b2+) 19 ... exf3 20.0-0 fxg2 2 1.:Be1 i.eS+. d) 1S.t2Jb6 'if/dS 19 ..ixbS exf3 20.gxf3 (20.0-0 fxg2 2 1.:Be1 i.e6 22 .i.a7 dS+) 20 . . . .ih3 2 1.i.a7 dS�. e) 1S ..ig4 t2Jxg4 19.hbS .igS 20.0-0 (20 .h3 ? ! t2Jxf2 ! 21.'it>xf2 �fS+ 2 2 .'it>g1 .ie6+; 2 0 .h4 .idS 21.�d4 :BeS�) 20 .. .'\1Ne6 2 1.i.a7 (21. t2Jc3 e3 2 2 .f4 'if/h6 ! 23.h3 i.h4--+; 2 1.h3 e3 2 2 .'if/xg4 �xdS 23.�d1 �e4�) 2 1 . . .'iffe 5 22 .g3 .ie6�. In all these variations Black's centre and active pieces assure him of an excellent compensation. 1 6 . . :Ba8 1 7 .t2Jb6 . 17 . .ie3 deserves consideration as White has clear compensation after 17 . . . i.dS 1S. O-O t2Jf6 19.i.f3. Still, Black is a central pawn up. 1 7 . . . t2Jxf2 1 8.t2Jxd7? 18.�d2 t2Je4! 19.t2Jxd7 (19.�e3 'if/c6 20.t2JxaS .ih4+!+; 19.�d5 'iffe 6 2 0.'if/xe6 .ixe6 21.t2JxaS :BxaS 22 . .ie3 dS+; 19.Wd3 .ih4+ ! 20.g3 Wc6 2 1..if3 t2Jc5+) 19 . . . t2Jxd2 20.t2JxfS :Bxa7 21.'it>xd2 'it>xfS was in my favour, but 1S.Wd5 ! should be considered as a sterner test of my combination. Let's move further: 1S . . . 'if/eS I have analysed other possibili ties, too, but they are probably not too good: a) 1S . . . We6 19.\Wxe6 .ixe6 20.t2JxaS t2Jxh1 21.t2Jc7 .ifS 22 .t2Jd5 .igS 23.c4±. t2Jh1 is in a very bad shape. b) 1S . . . 'if/dS 19.t2JxaS t2Jxh1 [19 . . . .ie6 20.'if/xb7 t2Jxh1 21.t2Jc7 .igS 22 .t2Jxe6 ! fxe6 23.g3 :Bf7 (23 . . . .ih6 24.:Ba3 \Wg5 25.i.e3 Wg6 26 . .ixh6 'if/xh6 27.\Wxh1 Wc1+ 2S . .id1 Wxb2 29.:Bf3±) 24.'if/bS WxbS 25 . .b:bS :Bf2 26.:Ba3±] 2 0 . .ib6 Wd7 21.g3 t2Jxg3 22 .hxg3 .igS 23.t2Jc7 Wh3 24.:Ba3±. c) 1S . . . Wf5 19.t2JxcS ! :BaxcS 2 0 . .ixf2 (20.0-0? We4) 20 . . . :Bxc2 21.\Wxb7±. 19.t2JxaS t2Jxh1 177 Part S cl) 2 0 .lt'lc7 \Mfd7 21.\Mfc4 W/fS 2 2 .lt'ld5 i.gS 23 .g4 \Mfg6 24 . .if3 .id7 25.hhl !1c8 2 6.W/d3 when 26 . . . i.h4+ 27.'i!ld2 W/xg4 28.!1gl .tgS+ 29 .\!lel ih4+ 30.'i!ld2 is a draw, but 26 . . . \Mfh6 ! ? maintains the tension. c2) 2 0 .lt'lb6! i.h4+ ( 2 0 . . . .ie6 21.\Mfxb7 W/d8 2 2 .lt'ld5 ! ) 2l.g3 lt'lxg3 2 2 . hxg3 .b:g3+ 23.\!ldl W/e6 24.!1a3. This position is difficult to evaluate - although Black has four pawns for the piece, White's forces are ac tive. 1 8 . . . lt'lxd 1 20 .gxd 1 'i!lxf8 1 9 . lt'lxf8 gxa7 he 1 37.i.xb3 i.f2 38 .i.d5 gc2 39.b3 f5 (Black should be winning easily here, but I was not too ac curate.) 40.i.c4 e4 4 1 .gds �f6 42.g4 g6 43,gd6+ 'i!le5 44.gxg6 f4 45,ge6+ �d4 46,gxh6 f3 47.gd6+ 0-1 'i!le3 48.g5 i.g3 25. Kolev-Aisina Leal N ava lmora l 2007 1 .e4 c5 2 . lt'lf3 d6 3.d4 �f6 4.�c3 cxd4 5.�xd4 a6 6.i.e3 e5 7 .�f3 .te7 8.i.c4 o-o 9 . 0-0 .te6 1 0.he6 I think that only Black has some winning chances in this endgame. The rest is a technical stage which has little importance for the open ing theory. (The computer suggests 2l. .. g6 2 2 . 0-0 fS, but as a mere human I prefer to set up co ordination of my pieces.) 22.0-0 f6 23.gxd6 (23.b4 'i!le7 24.c3 b6+) 2 1 .i.c4 i.d8 23 . . . i.xa 5 24.c3 'i!le7 25.gd2 b5 26.i.g 8 i.b6+ 27.'i!lh 1 h 6 (27 . . . h5 ! ) 28.i.h7 i.e6 29.ge1 a S ! 30 .i.c2 gc7 3 1 . h 3 b4 32.cxb4 axb4 33.i.e4 b3 34.gd d 1 i.d4 35.i.d5 i.f2 36.he6 178 10 .i.b3 has no bite. 1 0 . . . fxe6 1 1 .�a4 �fd7 ll . . . lt'lg4 has lost appeal after the fine positional game Ivanchuk Topalov, Morelia-Linares 2007. It saw 12 .\Mfd3 ! and Black soon dis covered that he was unable to show any activity. To be fair, Black has been defending successfully after 12 . . . lt'lxe3 13.\Mfxe3 bS 14.lt'lb6 �a7 15.lt'ld5 �b7 16.W/d3 'i!lh8 (16 . . . \Mfd7 17.lt'lxe7+ \Mfxe7 18.!1fdl �b6 19.�acl lt'ld7 2 0.b4 lt'lf6 2 l.c4;!;, Adams- 6 . .ie3 e5 7.tt:lf3 Leitao, Istanbul 2012) 17.tt:lxe7 "i!/xe7 18J�fd1 �b6, Negi-Burg, An dorra la Vella 2012, but still White's game is somewhat easier. In the first edition of this book I recommended ll . . . tt:lfd7 and this game offered me a chance to test it in practice albeit as White. The truth is, Black might have fair chances for equalising, but still he is playing for two results only. This is the main reason I recommend in this edition 9 .. .'�c7!?. 1 2 .c4 Actually, 12 .'�d3 brings White better practical results, but I think that after 12 . . . b5 Black has no prob lems: 13.'�b3 Trying to benefit from the awk ward placement of the black pieces. 13.tt:lc3 tt:lf6 14.a4 b4 15.tt:le2 (15. ltlb1 d5=) 15 ... tt:lc6 is roughly equal. 13 . . . bxa4 ! 14.'�b7 (14.'�xe6+? �h8 15.'�d5 tt:lb6 16.i.xb6 �xb6 17.�xa8 looses to 17 ... tt:lc6) 14 ... �xf3! The key of Black's counterplay! 15.gxf3 (15.'�xa8? �xe3) 15 . . ..ig5 Unexpectedly, White discovers that he cannot capture the aS-rook, because 16.�xa8? .,ixe3 17.fxe3? �c7 wins the queen. The alterna tives also favour Black: a) 16.�ad1 .be3 17.fxe3 tt:lb6 18.c4 tt:l8d7 19.�xd6 �b8 20.�xa6 (20 .�c6 �c8 2 l.�b7 �c7 22 .�xa6 tt:lxc4+) 20 . . . �e7! , with a difficult position for White as his queen is badly placed, for example: 2l.�fd1 �g5+ 22 .�h1 �xe3 23.�xd7 tt:Jxd7 24.�xd7 �xf3 + 25.�g1 "i!/g4+ 26.�h1 �xe4+ 27.�g1 �e1+, mat ing in a few moves. b) 16 ..ixg5 �xg5+ 17.�h1 �d8! 18.�ad1 tt:lb6, with an edge, Kislik Denisov, Budapest 2009. 16 ... exf4 17 . .id4 f3 18.�h1 (18. �xa8?? .if4) 18 ... e5 ! 19.�xa8 (19 . .ie3? ! .ixe3 20.fxe3 tt:lb6+ ; 19.�g1 exd4 2 0.�xa8 tt:lb6 2 l.�b7 tt:l8d7+) 19 . . . exd4 2 0.�d5+ �h8 2 l.�xd6 .if6. I prefer the three black pieces vs. the two rooks here. 1 2 . . . tt:lc6 1 3.Ylt'b3 16.f4 The most interesting move. White is fighting for an advantage in a very concrete manner. 179 Part S Alternatives are: a) 13.%Ye2? ! �e8 ! , followed by llJcS and Y«g6, gives Black fine play. b) 13.cS llJxcS 14.hcS (14. llJxcS dxcS 1S.Y«b3 Y«d6+) 14 . . . dxcS 1S.Y«b3 �d6 16J�ac1 llJd4 17.llJxd4 cxd4= . c ) 13.b4 llJxb4 14J!b1 [14.�b3 llJc6 1S.cS (1S.�xb7 llJaS 16.%Yb4 dS 17.cS �b8t) 1S . . . dxcS 16.�xe6+ �h8 17.�abl �b8+] 14 . . . llJc6 1S.�xb7 llJaS 16.�xd7 (16.�b4 �c7+) 16 . . . %Yxd7 17.llJb6 �c6 18.llJxa8 llJxc4 19.i.gS i.f6 2 0.i.xf6 gxf6 2 1.llJh4 �xa8 2 2 .%Yg4+ �f7 23.�hS+ (23.f4? llJe3 24.\!«hS+ �g8 2S.fxeS �cS ! -+) 23 . . . �g7 24.\!«g4+ �f7= . d) 13.�c1 is the most logical move, but Black maintains equality by 13 . . . llJcS 14.llJxcS (Black would be glad to keep the queens after 14.llJc3 �e8 1S.a3 �g6 16.�e1 aS?) 14 . . . dxcS 1S.%Yxd8 �axd8 16.�cd1 (16.�fd1 llJd4 17.ixd4 exd4 18.llJeS i.d6 19.llJd3 eS= , with a level game.) 16 ... b6 ! . Clogging even more the e7bishop, but building a solid defen sive line. 17.�fe1 [or 17.�xd8 �xd8 18.g3 llJb4 (18 . . . �d3 ! ? 19.�c1 �f7 2 0 .llJe1 �d7 21.�fl gS 2 2 .g4 �g6=) 19.a3 llJc2 2 0 .llJxeS i.f6 21 .llJf3 ixb2 2 2 .�b1 i.xa3 23.�xb6 llJxe3 24.fxe3 aS=] 17 . . . i.d6 ! 18.�e2 llJd4 19.�ed2 llJxf3+ 2 0 .gxf3 i.c7 21.�d7 �xd7 22.�xd7 �f7= . 1 3 . . . llJ a 5 1 4.�d3 YHc7 14 . . . llJc6 ! ? is less ambitious. Black wants to play . . . llJcS and hold on a slightly inferior ending. 180 1 5J�ac1 :aac8 1 6.c5 16.�fd1 b6 17.llJc3 (17.i.gS? �xf3; 17.llJgS �f6) 17 . . . %Yb7? offers Black enough counterplay in a complex position. 1 6 . . . dxc5 1 7 .b4 c4 1 8 .�c3 b5 1 9. bxa5 bxa4 In the first edition, I stopped here, concluding that Black should be able to hold this position. When Alsina Leal entered it, the whole analysis was still fresh in my memory. This was my main advan tage, although White has not any thing tangible from a chess point of view. The engines even claim that the game is totally even. However, Black still has to find a couple of ac curate moves . . . 20.�fd1 llJf6 21.llJd2 llJg4 22 .i.b6 .tcS ! is a draw: 23.ixc7 llJxf2 24.�xc4 llJh3+ 2S.�h1 llJf2+ 26.�g1 llJh3 + = . 20 . . . �b7 2 1 .:ab1 �c6 Or 21 . . . \!«aS 2 2 .�fc1 �fd8= . 6 . .ie3 e5 7.tt:lf3 22.gfc1 .ic5 2 3.Yfxc4 .ixe3?! This natural move faces Black with difficulties. 23 . . . Yfd6 24.Yfe2 ixe3 25.Yfxe3 Yfd4 ! ? should hold the position. 24.Yfxc6 gxc6 25.gxc6 gxf2 26.�c4! gb2+ 27. tt:lxe3 gxb 1 + 28.'ot>f2 gb2+ 29.'ot>f3 gxa2 30 ,gxa6 was much more active and the doubled pawns on e6 and e5 were vulnerable. However, my brain was not "warmed up" and ready for cal culation yet. When my opponent pushed his passer, I had to sit down and take my time to analyse care fully the situation. Then I would have found the easy win 3U!a8+ cj;>f7 32.a6 l'!b2 33.a7 tt:lb6 34J�b8 a2 35.a8�, with an extra piece. In stead, I had to resign after: 3 1 ... tt:lb8 32 .gc4 tt:la6 33.gc3 ga 1 34.'ot>e2 tt:l b4 35.a6 �xa6 36.�c2 gg 1 37. 'ot>f3 a2 38.ga3 �b4 0-1 A very tricky endgame has aris en. Black should look for survival. I was blitzing up to this move, having spent about 5-7 minutes while my opponent had 5 minutes left until the end. At that moment I was to tally bored and exhausted of end less walks around the playing hall. I was seeing already the point in the score table, when the long awaited decisive mistake finally came: 30 . . . a3? 3 1 .gc6?? The moral of this game is that even if you are perfectly prepared for the opening, you should stay concentrated, double-checking the variations. Thus you will be better fit for the fight when it does begin. 26. Balogh-Najer Aeroflot, M oscow 1 4.02.2006 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 tt:lf6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e5 7 . tt:lf3 J.e7 8 . .ic4 .le6 9 . .ib3 0-0 1 0 .0-0 �c6 1 1 .Yfe2 �as 1 2 .gfd 1 Y!fc7 1 3 . .lg 5 gac8 1 4 . .ixf6 .ixf6 The origins of this horrible mis take was . . . my perfect home prepa ration and the resulting lack of concentration. I knew that in the diagram position Black's only de fence was 30 .. J�b2, when 3Uk6 a3 32J�c3 a2 33J!a3 cj;>f7 34.a6 tt:lb6 35.a7 tt:la8 36J'!a6 maintained the initiative because White's knight 181 Part S turbing the enemy. First of all, it is good to widen the scope of the battle. Black has decent counterplay after 15.�acl tl:\xb3 16.axb3 �c6 17.tt:ld5 .td8 18.c4 f5. It is curi ous that in Kamsky-Gelfand, Web Candidates, rapid tie-break Kazan 2 0 11, White continued with a blun der: 19.exf5?? which passed unno ticed not only by Gelfand, but also by Marin who later annotated the game: 19 . . ..ixd5 20 . �xd5 (20.cxd5 �xcl 2l.�xcl �xcl+ 2 2 .tl:\el i.a5-+) 20 . . . �xd5-+. 1 8 . . . f5 ! 1 9 J�5d2 19.exf5 �xf5 2 0 .�e3 (20 .tt:ld2 �c2) 2 0 . . .'�c2 21.�5d2 �c6= leads to a similar position. 1 9 ... fxe4 20.�xe4 �c6 2 1 .�g4 gf6 22.gd3 1 5 ... .ixd5 1 6J�xd5 tl:\xb3 1 7 .cxb3 J.e7 1 8 J�ad 1 This diagram is a good illustra tion of our opinion that it is unpro ductive to ponder over pawn struc tures in general. It all depends on the placement of the pieces and who possess the initiative. In this line White dreams about playing with a knight against a dark-squared bi shop without other minor pieces on the board. However, in the cur rent game Black is not worse at all. That is due to the position of the f3knight which cannot reach c3 or e4 through d2. The open c-file is an other major trump of Black. Still, he has to play actively, constantly dis182 Both white rooks are idle, hitting d6 which is defended by one mi nor piece. Understandably, Balogh plans to trade one of them along the c-file. Perhaps Najer should have opposed this idea by 22 . . . �c2 ! ? 23.h3 !'k 7 24.�3d2 �c6, with a nice game. Instead, he puts his rook on g6 where it risks to become isolated from the other wing. 22 . . . gg6 23 .�b4 �d7 24.�e4 �c6 25. ti'b4 Wd7 26.gc3 White takes risk declining the repetition. 26 . . . gxc3 2 7 . bxc3 Wc6 28.�f1 J.d8 29.c4?1 29.tt:lxe5 �xg2+ 30.�e2 l!e6 3l.�c4 �f8 32.�xe6 �e4 + = is a 6 . .te3 e5 7.tt:lf3 draw. Now Black activates his bish op and gets the better chances, but the game is suddenly over, rather prematurely: 29 . . . .tb6 %-% 30J�d5 !U6 3 1 .Yfe 1 27. Anand-Leko Corus Wij k aan Zee 1 9 . 0 1 .2006 1 .e4 c5 2 .lilf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. c!Llxd4 lilf6 5.lilc3 a6 6 ..ie3 e5 7.c!Llf3 .te7 8 . .ic4 0-0 9 . 0-0 .te6 1 o . .tb3 lilc6 1 1 . .tg 5 counterplay quickly, his major piec es will be bound with the defence of d6. It is better to have one "bad" piece instead of two or three. 1 1 . . . til d 7 ! Despite the above consider ations, this is a good move, but only in conjunction with the manoeu vre which Leko employed against Svidler one month after the current game. ll...tt:la5 complies with White's design: 12.hf6 .ixf6 13.tt:ld5 with an easier game. 1 2 . .ixe7 Yfxe7 1 3.tild5 White attempts to reduce the number of defenders of d5. In fact, he agrees to trade his allegedly bet ter dark-squared bishop for its black counterpart. Such a decision could seem positionally wrong, but the e3-bishop was good only on the ory. It had no targets and was hin dering the redeployment of the f3knight to e3 via h2-fl-e3 or h4-g2e3. We can also think of another ar gument in favour of such exchange. Black's only weakness is the d6pawn. Without the protection of the e7-bishop, it would be more vulner able. Should Black fail to organise Practical experience has shown that Black can balance the pressure on d6 by the breakthrough .. .f5, for instance, 13.Yfd2 tt:lc5 14.l''!: a dl �adS 15.Yfe3 tt:lxb3 16.axb3 f5= , Predo jevic-Shirov, Sarajevo 2005, or 13.tt:ld5 Wfd8 14.Yfe2 tileS 15.�fdl 'it?h8 16.c3 f5= , De la Riva-Bologan, Olite 2006. Anand counts on a slower, but insidious light-squared strategy. He improves his queenside before starting the manoeuvre tt:lf3-h2-fl e3. 18?, Part S 1 3 . . . Yfd8 !1lc8 1 6. h 3 1 4.c3 �a5 1 5J�e 1 �fd8 21.ltlh2 lt:l ac4 2 2 .lt:lg4 lt:lxd5 23.WfxdS lt:lb6 24.Wfd3 Black could have even intercepted the initia tive by 24 . . . dS ! while 17.lt:lh2 lt:lc4 18 . .ixc4 bxc4 was drawn in Svidler Leko, Morelia/Linares 2006. 1 7 .�xb6 �xb6 1 8 . .ixe6 fxe6 1 9 .!1le2 1 6 . . . �b6 This is a subtle positional mis take with far-reaching consequen ces. In general, White would be glad to exchange all minor pieces or at least three of them. However, if he takes on e6, Black gets a semi-open f-file and his knight would reach f4 with nice counterplay. Leko's move allows the exchanges in a situation where his only remaining knight is on aS. Thus Black can never man age to create any threat and he will be doomed to passive defence. In this scenario the pawn on e6 is not a plus at all. On the contrary, it weakens the kingside where Anand opens up a second front. That's why in the "Quick Repertoire" chapter I recommended another assignment for Black's pieces - a knight on dS should be controlled (and killed in case of necessity) by the e6-bishop, whereas the king's knight should be kept for counterplay. The game Brkic-Senff, Zagreb 2006, introduced 16 . . . bS which ap pears to be the equaliser in the di agram position. After 17.lt:le3 lt:lb6 18.�e2 Wfe7 19.lt:ldS .ixdS 20 . .ixdS 184 Anand avoids committing him self with pawn moves on the queenside, but perhaps he should have tried to build the same pawn formation as in the game with b3-c4. That could be achieved by 19.�cl ! ? �c6 2 0 .b3 Wfc7 21.c4 since 2 1 . . .bS 2 2 .cxbS brings about a slight edge. 1 9 . . . !1lc6 20 .W/d 3 2 0 .�cl Wlc7 2 1.b3 bS 2 2 .�e3 res tricts Black's knight. Later White could try to disturb Black's kingside. 20 . . . �c7 2 1 .!1ld 1 �c4? ! Black provokes the opponent to push b3, but after that he is even more passive. 2 1 . . .bS ! would have prevented White from expanding on the queenside leaving him with only a tiny edge. 2 2 . b 3 ! �b6 23.c4 �c8? One bad piece ruins the whole game. 23 . . . lt:ld7! leads to a defend able position. Then 24.lt:lgS is well answered by 24 . . . �e8 so White would have to regroup by 24.�e3. Then the fight would be still ahead. 6 . .ie3 eS 7.lt:lf3 Now White is clearly on top. 24J�ed2 h6 2 5.Yfe2 Wh7 30 . . . �e7 3 1 .l\'g4 gf6 32.b41 d5 33.�xe5 Wa4 34.Wg3 gca 35. �g4 gf7 36.Wd6 gcf8 37.lrxe6 'ti'xb4 38.exd5 lrxc5 39.d6 �c6 40.d7 �d8 41 .Yfe4+ lrf5 42 .ge2 ! lrxe4 43J�xe4 b5 44.f3 aS 45. �e5 I!f6 46.�g6 gga 47.gea gf7 4a.gds b4 49.�e7 1 -0 28. lvanchu k-Kasparov PCA/Intei-G P New York 1 995 26.h4! The first impression from the di agram is that Black's pieces are mis placed and unco-ordinated, but that all the critical squares are covered. Anand's last move fixes another weakness - on g6, and Leko's for tress begins to crumble. The main theme in White's play is the break trough c4-c5 which undermines eS. 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.i.e3 e5 7 . �f3 i.e7 8 .i.c4 o-o 9.0-0 i.e6 1 O .i.bl �c6 1 1 .i.g5 �as (ll . . . lt:ld7!) 1 2.i.xf6 i.xf6 1 3 .�d5 �xb3 1 4.axb3 i.g 5 1 5.lrd3 i.h6 1 6.gad 1 26 . . . Wb6 2 7 . h 5 Wc5 28.�e1 gc7 In Informator 96 Anand shows that 28 . . . b6 does not prevent c4-c5 owing to 29 lt:ld3 \1;lfa3 30 Wg4 l'U6 31 cS ! bxcS 32 lt:lxe5 dxeS 33 gd7+-. 29 . � d 3 Wc6 30.c51 16 .•• gc8 ! Black's only active plan is, of course, . . .f5. However, this move alone does not automatically create threats. It should be well timed and based on an objective assessment of the position. First of all, we must weigh up the activity that our piec es will obtain in result of that break. If they are very passive and unco ordinated, . . .fS would only open up 185 Part S play in enemy's favour. In such cir cumstances it would be better to re frain from deteriorating our posi tion and avoid making new weak nesses. We suppose that Kasparov de layed 16 .. .fS in vew of 17.lild2 ! ? , when White would b e grateful for the e4-square. 17.ll:lc3 bS ! 18.�xd6 �xd6 19J'!xd6 b4 should be enough for a draw: 2 0 .lildS l3xc2 21 .lilxb4 l3xb2 2 2 .lild3 l3xb3 23.ll:lcS l3b4 24.ll:\xe6 fxe6. 17 ..• b5 Black should not allow the oppo nent to link his knights by lilc4-e3 . 17 . . . .ixdS? 18.�xdS ! l3xc2 ? loses to 19.lilc4 bS 2 0 .�d3±. 1 8 .c3 <i!>h8 Remember what I told you about . . . fS. Until the knight is on d2, this break is contra-indicated. 1 9 . b4 1 9 .. J'�a81 2 0 . lil b3 fS At last! You might ask what is the difference with the situation from some five moves ago. Well, the mere fact that variations like 2 l.lild2 aS 2 2 .exfS .ixfS 23.�xb5 �c2 24.lilb6 l3a7 2S.bxaS e4 26.b4 l3at7+! are possible, is quite signifi cant. Ivanchuk fails to respond ade quately to the sudden change in the game's dynamic. 2 1 . lil a 5 l3c8 22.�h3 White is faced with tactical problems. For instance, 2 2 .lile3 fxe4 ! 23.�xd6 encounters 23 . . . he3 24.fxe3 l3xfl+ 2S Wxfl �gS ! ! t when 26.�xe6 loses to 26 . . . l3f8+ 27.\t>gl �xe3+ 28.Whl �f2 29.l3gl e3. So he switches over to defence. 22 J3f7 23J3fe 1 �e8 24.t?h4 �f8 25.exf5 .• Kasparov's patience yields a con crete result. It is normal that White wants to petrify the queenside, but this idea, especially in connec tion with his next move, is dubi ous. Black gets a possibility to fi nally show some activity by prepar ing . . . aS. We'd prefer 19.l3fel having lilfl-e3 in mind. 186 2S.f3?! fxe4 2 6.fxe4 27.exdS l3f4 2 8.�h3 l3c7+. .hdS 25 . . . .bf5 26. f3 .lc2 27 J�a 1 .if5 28.h3? This move is not losing the game, but the tables are beginning to turn, 6 . .Ae3 e5 7.�f3 because Black succeeds to activate his queen. White is not better at all, for he is unable to improve his posi tion. For instance, 28.�b3 concedes some space to 28 . . . l::k4 29.§'g3 .ie6 30.ttle3 l::k 6 t. Therefore, 28J3adl was logical and indispensable, in order to prevent 2 8 ... §'e8 (29.�b6 Eid8 30.13xe5+-). 28 . . . ti'e8 1 29.ti'f2 Perhaps Ivanchuk had overesti mated the plan 2 9.b3 We6 3 0.c4 and only now he discovered 30 . . . §'g6 ! 31.ttle7 l3xe7 32.Wxe7 .txh3�, with a strong attack. 32 . . . .Ac2-+ 33.13d2 .Axd2 34.ti'xd2 'trg3 35.�b7 l3xb7 0-1 The moral of this game is that the bishop pair balances the weak ness of the d6-pawn, provided Black chooses the right moment for ... f5. Here is an additional example : lsupov-Dvoirys Novgorod 1 997 29 . . . ti'e6 30J:�ad1 Here is the second critical mo ment of the game. 30.�e3 ! would have allowed White to maintain the balance. After the text his position is already difficult. Black's bishop pair unleashes his power while the aS-knight is a ridiculous sight. 18 . . . f5 ! This breakthrough comes when White is unable to use the e4-square to plant a knight there. 19.�d2 fxe4 20.Wxe4 l3b8 2 1.�e3 Wb6 2 2 .g3 .tgS 23.h4 !h6 24.b4 l3f7 25.c;bg2 l3bf8 26.f3 ic8 27.13fl .ib7 30 . . . ti'g6 3 1 . c;b h 1 �cf8 32.h4 32.�e3 fails to 32 ... .txh3 ! 33.gxh3 l3xf3 34.§'g2 l3g3- +. Unlike Kasparov, Dvoirys does not catch the opportunity to acti vate the queen by 27 ... Wa7! 28.13f2 Wd'T+. Instead, he parts with the bishop pair which is enough only for equality. 28.�d5 .txd2 29.13xd2 Wc6 30.b3 Wd7 31.13d3 We6 32.c4=. 187 Pa rt 6 The English Attack 1 .e4 c 5 2 . c!Of3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4. c!Oxd4 c!Of6 5. c!Oc3 a 6 6 . .ie3 e5 7 .c!Ob3 .ie6 Pa rt 6 M a i n I d eas I n this part, we deal with the most popular system against the Naj dorf. Short, Nunn and Chandler de veloped and popularised the plan with f3-g4 pawn storm against the . . . e6-set-up, but it has become pop ular against 6 . . . e5, too. Sometimes White begins with 6.f3, but we con sider only 6.�e3 since this move or der is much more flexible and offers a number of dangerous plans which do not involve f3 at all. Lately, Black has been experi encing difficulties in the sharpest variations with pawn races on op posite flanks. Accordingly, second players sought ways to avoid this scenario. Thus fashion has brought to the limelight Topalov's pet set up with . . . hS: Note that the sortie of the h pawn does not completely renounce the option of castling short. On the contrary, should White evacuate his king on the right wing, we fol low his example. Then our pawn may receive a new assignment and instead of staying to prevent g4, it may proceed further to h4 and even h3. White castles long 9.�M2 �bd7 l t.c�bl .ie7 10. 0 - o - o gcs l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 .ie3 (6.f3 eS 7.�b3 �e6 8 .�e3 transpo ses) 6 e5 7.�b3 .ie6 8.f3 h5 • ••• 12 .id3 • 12.�d5 is attacked by 12 . . . hd5 13.exd5 �b6 when White has to make concessions: 14 . .ixb6 Wfxb6 15 . .id3 0-0; 14.W/a5 Wfc7! 15.c3 .idS. 12 b5 13.h3 h4! 14.f4 Y!Jc7 15.ghel ••• 190 6.�e3 e5 7.tt:Jb3 �e6 Model position 1 This position is quite topical. I (KG) played 15 . . . �c4 in 2003, but after 16.a3 , Black is somewhat worse. We think that Black should not leave his king in the centre. He must organise the breakthrough ... d5 with .. J�fd8 so castling looks indispensable. 15 . . . 0 - 0 ! Look at the detailed analysis of this position in game 30 Chak kravarthy-Prasad, Bikaner 2004. Another version of Model Posi tion 1 arises when White plays f4 in one step. Then our pawn remains on h7. Most players consider this to be in Black's favour because the h pawn is not weak and White cannot easily open the g-file : Model position 2 Black has completed develop ment and now he can chose be tween several good continuations: 14 .. J�fd8 (having in mind to meet 15.a3 by 15 . . . d5 or 15 ... tt:Jc5), 14 ... tt:Jb6 15.hb6 �xb6 16.tt:Jd5 �d8 17.tt:Jxf6+ hf6 18.f5 = , or the forced 14 . . . b4 15.tt:Jd5 when both captures are playable. We have dealt so far only with examples where White was main taining tension in the centre. An other approach is to gain more space on the kingside by f5, g4. White can do it on move 10 or on the next turn, for instance: 9.f4 b5 10.f5 �c4 11.0-0-0. 8.�d2 tlJbd7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 �c8 10.f4 b5 l l.<�?bl �c7 12 ..id3 .ie7 13.�he1 0 - 0 ! ? 14.h3 ! Note that we follow the same set-up as in the previous example we develop the rook on c8, then the bishop on e7 and castle. However, this move order is not accurate as Black can win the pawn race with 11.. .gb8! 12.�b1 �e7 13 . .id3 a5. 191 Part 6 White's plan hides more venom when we have put already our rook on eS : s.ti'd2 �bd7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 gcs 10.f4 b5 ll.�bl ti'c7 12.f5 IJ.c4 13.a3 ! ? 8.ti'd2 �bd7 9. 0 - o - o gcs 10.f4 b5 ll.f5 .Ac4 12.�bl IJ.e7 13.g4 Model Position 3 13 . . . h6! Practical experience of 13 ... �xg4 is not reassuring at all. It is easier to play without taking the pawn. 14,ggl (14.ti'g2 b4! 15.tLld5 tLlxdS 16.exd5 .ixfl 17.l'!dxfl aS 18.h4 a4+) 14 . . . .ixfl t5,gdxfl b4 16.�d5 Our only counterplay is based on . . . b4, so we should redeploy the rook: 13 . . . l'!b8, intending 14 . . . a5. This position has not been tested. Finally, we'll mention the plan with early tLldS. It is not impressive in conjunction with long castling due to . . . ttJb6, and the attack on dS levels the game: 8.f3 h5 9.�d5 IJ.xd5 10.exd5 �bd7 ll.ti'd2 g6 12. 0 - 0 - 0 �b6 16 . . . a5! 17.�xe7 �xe7! Perhaps White's best version of the fS-plan is: 192 13.ti'a5 .Ah6! 14.bh6 gm6 15.�bl �f8= . 6 . .!e3 eS 7.tt:lb3 .!e6 White castles short 8.f3 h5 9.1t:Jd5 .Axd5 10.exd5 10bd7 11."frd2 g6! Character of play is completely dif ferent in this scenario. White com monly forbids the freeing break through . . . d6-dS by playing tLldS. We should take by bishop (Alas, at the Olympiad in Istanbul 2012 I KG experimented with . . . tLlxdS, but it was a bitter experience.), when a typical Najdorf structure arises: - - 8.tt:ld5 tt:lbd7! 10.Ae2 0 - 0 9.1rd3 .!e7 Do not take o n dS before White has castled because you could land under attack after lO . . . hdS ll.exdS 0-0 12 .g4 ! 11. 0 - 0 .Axd5 12.exd5 Model Pos ition 4 Black's main strategic task in this structure is to trade bishops through h6. It could be achieved with the help of . . . tt:lf6-g8, but we should execute this manoeuvre only when White misplaced his queenside pieces, as in the follow ing example : 12.Ae2 "frc7! (aiming to pro voke c4) 13.c4 a5! 14.�:kl (or 14.0-0 a4 1S.tt:lc1 �aS 16.�xaS E:xa5 17.i.f2 ih6 18.i.d3 0-0=) 14 ... a4! 15.tt:lal flra5 l6,gc3 The endgame poses no prob lems : 16.�xaS E:xaS 17.E:d1! (17.l!Jc2 .ih6) 17 . . . ih6 18 . .if2 0-0 =. 16 . . .c!i:Jg8 ! Firstly, Black should tame White's queenside activity by .. J"k8, . . . b6, . . . aS. Then he will pro ceed with his own play on the op posite flank. It assumes a trade of the dark-squared bishops from gS and an attack helped by the strong pawn duo eS-f5. See game 29 Ni sipeanu-Hamdouchi, Cannes 2002. Model Position 5 193 Part 6 Remember this manoeuvre ! It is extremely important to remove White's bishop from the board. That will underline the weakness of the kingside dark-squares and reduce White's pressure on the other wing. 17.tlc2 .ih6 18.tla3 19.Vbe3 tle7 20.tlb5 tlf5 15. 0 - 0 exf3 16.gxf3 16.hf3 0-0 17.b4 Eife8 ! assures access of Black's knights to two cen tral squares. 16 ••• 0 - 0 17.b4 Eife8 ! he3 Black's pieces are well set. The b5-knight is mostly decorative. 8.f3 h5 9.tld5 .ixd5 10.exd5 tlbd7 ll.Yfd2 g6! 12.tla5 ti'c7 13.c4 ! J.g7 (13 . . . e4 ! ?) 14.J.e2 Model Pos ition 6 We'll double the rooks on the e file and activate the queen via c8-f5. 18.Eiac1 ge7 19.lUe1 gae8 2 0 .J.g5 ti'c8 2t.c!>g2 h4! 14 ••• e4! The only possible activity in these circumstances. White's knight has taken an attacking position, but it will be missing on the kingside. Our task should be to shift the focus of the battle. 194 Now 2 2 .hh4 .!h6 23.�xh6 Eixe2+ 24.'it>hl tl:\hs� is gloom for White, but it is difficult to offer him good advice. Part S Step by Ste p l.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 .ie3 • 6.f3 e5 7.lLlb3 .ie6 8 .i.e3 trans poses to the main line while 8 .g4? ! .ie7 9 . .ie3 d5 ! is known to be in Black's favour. 6 •.• e5 7.c!Llb3 .ie6 a) 8.V9e2 ? ! This not only hampers the de velopment of i.fl, but it also miss es control over important dark squares on the queenside. In some variations White lacks the resource lLlaS. Black can continue develop ment: 8 . . . lLlbd7 9.0-0-0 ii.e7 or 9.f4 exf4 10.i.xf4 ii.e7=, but he has an even better option. It consists of the typical Sicilian sacrifice on c3 : 8 . . . lLlbd7 9.f4 Or 9. 0-0-0 l'!c8 10.f3 l'!xc3 ! ll.bxc3 d5 and Black is in total com mand, e.g. 12.exd5 lLlxdS 13 ..id2 V9c8 14.c4 lLl5b6 15.lLla5 lLla4. This move enables 10 . . . d5 in line A, which effectively levels the game. A. 8 .f4; B. 8 .V9d2 ; C. 8.f3 Of course White has a great number of other plans which are not so popular. We'll mention three of them: 9 . . . l'!c8 lO.fS .ic4 ll.V9f3 d5 ! White has wasted time on V9e2-f3 in the opening and that is punished by this standard breakthrough. b) 8 .lLld5. White aims to gain space on the queenside after the im minent exchange on d5. This plan is not dangerous, for Black is able to restrain the enemy pawn advance: 8 . . . lLlbd7! 195 Part 6 A. 8.f4 This is a very natural plan. White immediately attacks Black's centre trying to exploit his better deve lopment. The early clash of the ar mies promises an interesting battle where Black has to be very precise. 8 . . exf4 . 9.'�d3 (9.f3 hdS 10.exd5 hS 11.Wfd2 transposes to the main line.) 9 . . . JJ..e 7 10 . .ie2 0-0 Do not take on dS before White has castled because you could land under attack after 10 . . . hd5 ll.exdS 0-0 12 .g4 ! 11.0-0 Or ll.c4 bS ! 12.cxb5 axbS 13 .0-0 hdS 14.exd5 tLlb6oo. 11 . . . hd5 12.exd5 Firstly, Black should tame White's queenside activity. Then he will proceed with his own play on the opposite flank. It assumes a trade of the dark-squared bishops from gS and an attack helped by the strong pawn duo eS-fS. See a nicely implemented example in game 29 Nisipeanu-Hamdouchi, Cannes 2 0 02 . c) 8.i.e2 has n o independent sig nificance. After 8 . . . .ie7, play trans poses to line B4 from the Classical System. This typical Najdorf exchange is the only reasonable option of Black. He cannot allow fS, for the enemy bishop is still on f1 and will take on c4 in one step. That would ensure an extra tempo for White compared to the 6.i.e2 variation : 8 . . . b5? 9.f5 i.c4 10 .hc4 bxc4 1l.tLld2 dS 12.tLlxd5 tLlxdS 13.exd5 V;l/xdS 14.Wfg4±; 8 . . . Wfc7 9.f5 i.c4 10 .'�f3 (10.g4!? h6 ll.hc4 Wfxc4 12 .'�e2 �xe2+ 13.s!?xe2 tLlbd7 14.s!?f3 �c8 15.�adl g6 16.h3 �g8 17.�h2 �c4 18.tLld2 �c6 19.tLlf1 bS 20.a3±, Vachier La grave-Gashimov, Lausanne 2 006) 10 . . . tLlbd7 11.0-0-0 bS 12.s!?b1 b4 13.hc4 Wfxc4 14.tLld2 �c7 15.tLld5 tLlxdS 16.exd5 i.e7 17.g4 �c8 18.�cl h6 19.h4 aS 2 0.g5±, Dominguez Quezada, Holguin City 2 0 0 2 ; 8 . . . tLlg4, manoeuvring the knight to eS, is more consistent. Still, los ing a tempo in such a dynamic posi tion, is troublesome for Black: 9.i.d2 exf4 Or 9 . . . �b6 10.Wff3 exf4 1l.�xf4 tLld7 12 .h3 tLlgeS 13. 0-0-0 ie7 14.JJ..e 3 �c7 15.tLld4 0-0 16.tLlf5 i.f6 196 6.i.e3 eS 7.l!Jb3 i.e6 17.g4! l!Jc4 18 ..ixc4 i.eS 19.'11l!/g5 �xc4 2 0.i.d4±, Kaminski-Szelag, Zakopane 2 0 0 0 . 10 . .ixf4 l!J c 6 ll.i.e2 l!JgeS 12.'!1l!/d2 l!JaS 13.l!Jd5 l!Jac4 14 . .ixc4 lLlxc4 15.'11l!/d 4 l3c8 16. 0-0! f6 17.'11l!/f2 ie7 18.l!Jd4±, Alekseev-Negi, Wijk aan Zee 2005. 9 . .lxf4 l!Jc6 has good control of the centre, the bishop pair, more space and almost all future endgames should be bet ter for him. Avoid this position! Istratescu has fared quite well with 12 . . . 0-0 (instead of 12 . . . 13c8), but 13.l!Jf5 (13.ll::l x e6 fxe6 14.g3 �a5 15.i.h3 mt7 16.13hfl ll::l c4 17.�d4 l3ac8=) 13 . . . .ixf5 14.exf5 �c8 15.h3 ! 'i!!xf5 16.g4 is murky for Black. Svidler-Topalov, rapid, Monte Carlo 2006, saw further 16 . . . �g6 (or 16 . . . 'i!/e6 17.i.g2) 17.i.g2 h6. We do not like Black's position. For in stance, 18.13hg1, aiming for g4g5, gives White more than enough compensation. Black should not en ter such a dangerous position. Our advice is to keep away from it! 11. 0 - 0 - 0 The only way to fight for an opening advantage. Alternatively: Al. 10 .�d2 ; A2 . 10 .�e2 At. 1 0.'Bd2 dS! In our opinion, Black should contest the enemy's spatial advan tage and the breakthrough in the centre serves perfectly this goal. 10 . . . i.e7 11. 0-0-0 l!JeS 12.l!Jd4 leaves Black somewhat cramped. Arizmendi/Mareno recommend here 12 . . . 13c8 13 l!Jf5 (13.l!Jxe6?! fxe6 14.g3 �aS threatening . . . l3c3 only justifies Black's strategy) 13 . . . .ixf5 14.exf5 bS and they evaluate this position as complicated. In fact, all positional factors favour White. He ll.exd5 l!Jxd5 12.l!Jxd5 �xd5 13.�xd5 13.0-0-0 �xd2+ 14J'!:xd2 l3d8 or 13 . . . 0-0-0 is completely level. 13 . . . .ixd5 14.0-0-0 0-0-0. This leads to an endgame which presents no problems to Black: 15.g3 Or 15 . .ie2 g6 ! 16.13hg1 i.e7 17.g3 :!'!:he8= , Yudasin-Gelfand, Biel 1993. 15 . . . .id6 ! 16 . .ixd6 After 16.i.h3+ mc7 17.:!'!:hfl .ixf4+ 18.:!'!:xf4 .ixb3 ! 19.axb3 :!'!:xd1 + 20 . mxd1 :!'!:d8+ 21.mc1 l!Jes, Black had already a tiny edge in I<lovans Dvoirys, Budapest 1992. 197 Part 6 16 . . . fud6 17.i.c4 .ixh1 18.i!xd6 llJeS 19.i.e2 i!e8 2 0.i!d1 i.g2 21.llJd4=, Malisauskas-Dvoirys, Biel 1993. ll . . . �xe4 ll . . . i.b4 12 .�d3 is not to our taste. We believe that White has a small, but stable edge in the posi tion after 12 . . . hc3 13JWxc3 0-0. 12.�xe4 dxe4 13.ti'e3 ti'f6 16.�f3 , when Black has a choice be tween : 16 . . . 0-0, which leads to a posi tion with mutual chances, for exam ple: 17.i.d3 (17.g4? ! .ixc2+ ! 18 .�xc2 gS) 17. . . hd3 18.i!xd3 i!ad8 19.i!hdl i!xd3 20.i!xd3 gS ! ?oo, and: 16 . . . llJb4 17.llJd4 .ig6. This variation ends in a draw by perpetual following 18.a3 i!d8 19.axb4 i!xd4 20.i!xd4 Wxd4 2 l.�xb7 �d1+ 2 2 .�a2 0-0 23.Wfxe7 �xc2 (or 23 . . . .ixc2 24.i.c4 Wxhl 25.i.d6 i!c8D 26.Wfxf7+ �h8 27.ie5 �xg2 28.�d7 i!f8 29.�d6=) 24.�a3 �d1= . 15 ••• .Ad5 15 . . . llJb4 seemingly keeps more tension, but it is more risky as well: 16.i.e5 14.Ybe4 14.llJd2? ! permits 14 . . . .ic5 ! ; 14.h4 also fails to impress us: 14 ... i.e7 15.i.e2 and now Black can immediately start a queenside offensive by 15 . . . i!c8, threatening . . . llJb4, or play more conservatively 15 . . . 0-0 with a good position since 16.g4 is met by 16 ... hb3 17.axb3 i.cS ! 14 ••• i.e7 15 .Ad3 • 15.�b1 (hoping for 15 . . . 0-0 16 . .Ad3) is best answered by 15 ... .if5 198 lordachescu-Hansen, Malmo/ Copenhagen 2 005, went 16.llJd4 .idS 17.Wf5 llJxd3+ 18.i!xd3 0-0 ! . This small tactical finesse rescues the king and saves the day. Black has little to fear anymore. 16 . . . �g5+ 17.�b1 i.d5 18.Wfe1 In practice, Black failed to equalise after 18 . . . i!d8 and 18 ... hb3. Ftacnik suggests 18 ... 0-0 when both 19 .h4 �g4 20.ixg7 �xg7 2 1.Wfxe7 and 19.a3 llJxd3 20.i!xd3 hb3 2l.i!xb3 leave Black no winning chances at all. The text is more safe. 16.Ybd5 Yfxf4+ 17.�bl 0 - 0 ! 6.i.e3 e5 7.lt:lb3 i.e6 An improvement on the game Alekseev-Pliester, Wijk aan Zee 2005, 17 .. J'!d8 18.%lfe4 %lfxe4 19.i.xe4 E:xd1+ 20.E:xd1 h5 ! , which should also be drawish. 18.19'e4 'lbe4 19 ..be4 gfd8 20 .c3 gac8 The game Kryvoruchko-Pono mariov, Kiev 2011, was soon drawn after 21J'!hf1 l:k7 22J!xd8+ lt:lxd8 23.lt:ld4 g6 24.c;t>c2 c;t>g7 25.a4. A2. 10.ti'e2 not a waste of time at all. It supports g4 and is a very useful move by all means. As a whole, 10.%lfe2 is a dan gerous weapon which brings White impressively good practical results. 10 . . . .ie7 The game Shirov-lvanchuk, Lu zern 1993 saw the interesting idea: 10 . . J�c8 ll.h3 g6 It turns out that 12. 0-0-0 is du bious due to 12 . . . lt:lh5 13.i.h2 lt:lg3 ! Now we understand why Ivanchuk delayed . . . .ie7. Shirov chose : 12 .g4, when 12 . . . h5 13.g5 lt:ld7 14.0-0-0 !J..e 7 allowed Black to block the kingside and castle safely there. He went on with 15J'!g1 lt:lce5 16.'lt:ld5 .ixd5 17.E:xd5 0-0 18 .h4 lt:lb6 19.E:d1 lt:lbc4 2 0 .i.h3 E:c6 2l.E:g3 %lfb6 22 .c3 E:e8 ! when Black is no worse. This original idea hides a lot of venom. White prevents the free ing . . . d5 by placing heavy pieces on both central files. We have heard opinions that the queen is bad ly placed on e2 because White will need the prophylactic move h3 in order to castle. We think that is not true. In fact, the queen has a strong impact over Black's centre and it is restricting considerably the enemy counterplay. At the same time, h3 is Black has also won the later game Lanka-Savchenko, Germa ny 2009: 15.%lfe3 lt:lce5 16.c;t>b1 0-0 17.E:h2 E:e8 18.�g3 i.f8 19.E:f2 %lfc7 2 0 .i.e3 lt:lb6 21.i.d4 lt:lbc4 22.lt:ld5 .ixdS 23.exd5 i.g7= . In Svidler-Morozevich, Dago mys 2008, White refrained from 12 .g4 in favour of 12 .%lfd2 lt:lh5 13.§J..g5 %lfb6 14.0-0-0 .!t'lg3 15 . .ie3 %lfc7 16.E:gl i.g7 17 ..if4 i.e5=. Still, 10 ... .ie7 is more popular, probably because it does not make any weaknesses. ll.h3 �d7 199 Part 6 Playing without a plan is a sure way to get soon into trouble: 11 . . . 0-0 12. 0-0-0 Vf!c7 13.g4 l:!fe8 14.g5 llJd7 15.h4 bS 16.h5 llJceS 17.1&3 i.f8 18.liJd5±, Gofshtein-Petkevich, Gro ningen 1993. strategy is t o restrain Black's bish op: 14 . . . 0-0 15.h4 1:!c8 16.g4 intend ing gS. However, if we extended this variation only one move further: 12. 0 - 0 - 0 �ce5 12 . . . llJde5 reduces the function of lDc6 to mere defence and ob structs the c-file. 16 . . . i.f6 ! 17.g5 llJc4 ! , we'd see that Black has achieved every thing he wanted: 18 .c3 i.e5 19.he5 llJdxeS= . 13.'it»bl a) 13.tt'ld4 deprives White of the possibility to recapture on dS by rook. So: 13 . . . 1:!c8 ! with the un pleasant threat of sacrificing on c3. 14.llJd5 .ixdS 15.exd5 0-0 16.liJf5 i.gS or 16.'it»b1 i.f6. In both varia tions Black's dark-squared bishop enters play effectively. Critical for 16 . . . .if6 ! is 17.Vf!d2 llJb6 18.1:!xd6 Vf!c7 19.1:!xf6 (19.c3 liJbc4 20.i.xc4 llJxc4 2 1.1:!d7 Vf!c6+) 19 . . .gxf6 2 0 .g5 (20.'it»b1 1:!fd8) 20 . . . fS. Black's castling position is ru ined, but his pieces are so active that the enemy king is in much big ger danger, e.g. 2 1.@b1 fxe4 2 2 .Vf!h2 l:!fe8 23.i.h3 l:!cd8 24 . .ig2 Vf!e7+. In the diagram position, some engines advocate 16 . . . i.xh4, but 17.Vf!h2 gS 18.i.xe5 leads to a weird position where Black's pieces are scattered all around without any co ordination. b) 13.g4 l:!c8 14.Vf!e1 0-0. c) 13.lDd5 hdS 14.1:!xd5 was played in Shirov-Gelfand, Chalkidi ki 1993. White gains the bish op pair advantage without having to plug the d-file. The point of his 200 There were no volunteers to test 14.g4 l:!xc3 ! ? . 1 4 J.xd5 15.fucd5 0 - 0 16.g4 �b6 17.l1ldl ••• 6 . .ie3 eS 7.lt:lb3 .ie6 Or 17J:!d4 lt:lbc4 18.�dl �b6 19.h4 aS, with an initiative. 17 ..• lt:lbc4 The only reasonable plan for Black is to attack with pieces the most sensitive point in the ene my camp, namely b 2 . For this pur pose, the queen goes to b6 while the a-pawn is used to repel the knight from b3. 18.h4 a5 19.g5 White can change the character of the position by exchanging his bishop on eS . This leads to a bal anced game: 19.he5 lt:lxe5 2 0 .lt:ld4. tion lO . . . dS. However, this move cuts off the plan with f3 where the early . . . b5 is probably not best. So we can try: 9 . . . b5 ! ? . 9 . . J"1c8 i s also possible, intend ing to meet 10.f5 by 10 . . . hb3 11 axb3 d5! . 10.f5 10.0-0-0 E1c8 transposes to the main line, but we can choose 10 ... .ie7, keeping all the options before our queen's rook open, for exam ple, 11.f5 .ic4 12 .g4 (12.'i!lb1 \Wc7) 12 . . . h6=. 10 ... .ic4 11.0-0-0 19 a4 20.lt:ld4 t\'b6 21.c3 l:!fe8 ! 22.lt:lf5 .if8oo. .•• Black's pieces are well targeted against b 2 , c3 and e4 and they gene rate sufficient counterplay. B. 8.�d2 lt:lbd7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 A tricky move order which leaves open the possibility to choose be tween f2-f4 or f2-f3 . The flip side is that White commits his king so he cannot answer b7-b5 by a2-a4. Alternatively: a) 9.f4 is an attempt to enter the line 8.f4 ef4 9 . .if4, followed up by 10.�d2, avoiding Black's best op- Now we can put the rook on b8, instead of c8. This is a major achievement compared to the main line where Black often has to spend a tempo on E1c8-b8 ! ll . . . E1b8 ! . This move fits best Black's plan for a queenside attack. The game Balogh-Stocek, Pardubice 2002 is a perfect example how quickly he could get a very dangerous initia tive: 201 Part 6 12.@bl i.e7 13.i.d3 aS 14.Wfe2 a4 1S.l!Jd2 WfaS ! 16.a3 0-0 17.l!Ja2 dS ! and White is in trouble. b) 9.f3 transposes to line C. 20.1'!xdS i.e7 2 l .h4 1'!c6 2 2 .1'!h3 W/b6 23.1'!c3 cxb3 24Jl:xb3 Wfc7 2S.l!Jd3 aS 26.1'!dbS, when best is 26 . . . W/a7! 27.1'!b8+ .id8 28.W/dl W/d4 29.l!Jb2 W/xdl+ 30.l!Jxdl 1'!c4?. 9 .. J:�c8 The rook move will cost us a tempo in the event of White play ing f4-fS, followed up by a3, but 9 . . . b S also has drawbacks. We d o not like 10.f3! hS ll.l!JdS ! ? with a slight positional plus for White. 10.f4 b5 Main continuations now are: a) 13.h3 dS (13 . . . hS is also possi ble : 14.hc4 bxc4 1S.l!Jcl h4 16.1'!hel 1'!b8 17.i.gS W/b6 18.b3 Wfc6 19.hf6 l!Jxf6 20 .l!JdS l!JxdS 2 l.W/xdS W/c7 2 2 .@al 0-0 23.W/xc4 W/xc4 24.bxc4 1'!fc8+, Gharamian-Esen, Aix-les Bains 2011.) 14.l!Jxd5 (14.exd5 i.b4) 14 . . . l!Jxe4 15.W/el i.xd5 16.1'!xd5 W/c7 17.c3 0-0+. (Ftacnik) It is premature to define the pawn structure in the centre: 11. fS i.c4 12.@bl i.e7 12 . . . hS ! ? fits well into the spirit of the book. Black anticipates g4. Ter Sahakyan-Areshchenko, Plov div 2012, went 13.i.xc4 bxc4 14.l!Jcl W!c7 lS.i.gS Wfb7 16.Wfe2 1'!b8 17.b3 1'!c8 (17 . . . W/c7 18.l!JdS l!JxdS 19.1'!xdS aS?) 18.hf6 l!Jxf6 19.l!JdS l!JxdS 202 b) 13.g4 h6 This move effectively stops White's advance. It was introduced in the game Grischuk-Alekseev, Sochi 2006, which went on 14.a3 ? ! l!Jxg4 15.1'!gl l!Jxe3 1 6 .W/xe3 .ig5 17.W/f3 hf1 18.1'!dxfl l!Jb6 19.h4 .if6 2 0 .l!Jd2 W/c7 2 l.W/d3 @e7 2 2 .l!Jd5+ l!Jxd5 23.exd5 h5, with a sound ex tra pawn. Apparently, White should support his g-pawn : 14.1'!gl After 14.W/g2 b4 ! 15.l!Jd5 l!Jxd5 16.exdS hf1 17.1'!dxfl a5 18.h4 a4+, Black's pawns have won the race. 14 . . . hf1 15.1'!dxfl b4 16.l!Jd5 6 .i.e3 eS 7.ltlb3 .ie6 13 . . . l:!b8 White retains some initiative after 13 . . . i.e7 14.g4 h6 lS.l:!gl ltlb6 16.ltlaS .ixf1 17.l:!gxfl ltlbd7 18.ltlb3 �b8 19.�d3, Wang Hao-Ji Dan, Xinghua 2010. 16 . . . aS ! This is more accurate than 16 . . . li:lxdS 17.�xdS �c7 18.�d3, Mastro vasilis-Damlj anovic, Valjevo 2011, which would also have been okay for Black after 18 . . . aS 19.ltld2 a4!oo. After the text, Black inter cepts the initiative: 17.ltlxe7 <t!.?xe7! 18.%Yd3 (18.gS hxgS 19.i.xgS �b6) 18 ... a4 19.ltld2 �c7 2 0 .h4 ltlcS 2U.xcS �xeS. ll . . . �c7 12.J.d3 12.fS .ic4 13.a3 ! ? is a strategi cally sound alternative. 13.h3 allows 13 . . . b4 14.ltldS ltlxdS lS.exdS .ixf1 16.l:!hxfl aS 17.�d3 J.e7 18.g4 h6 19.ltld2 , Zinchenko-Kova lyov, Dos Hermanas, Internet blitz ICC 2009, when trading bishops by 19 ... .igS would have been the best strategic-decision. 14.l:!gl aS lS.ltldS ltlxdS 16.exdS .ixf1 17.l:!dxfl b4 18.a4 .ie7 19.g4 h6 2 0 .�d3. This variation has not been tested yet. Black can hold on with 20 . . . .ih4 2 l.l:!f3 <t!.?e7 22 ..if2 .ixf2 23.l:!xf2 �b6 24.l:!fg2 ltlcS 2S.ltlxcS �xeS 26.h4 l:!bc8= , where our king can escape to the queenside. 12 . . . J.e7 13.ghel The latest fashion is to keep the tension in the centre. This position also occurs with pawns on h3 vs.h4. Alternatively: 13.fS .ic4 14.h3 14.g4 b4 lS.ltldS ltlxdS 16.exdS .ixdS 17.l:!hfl aS 18 . .ia6 l:!a8 19.�xdS l:!xa6 2 0 .gS a4 2 l.ltld2 was tested in Bartel-Areshchenko, Bud va 2009: Black has sufficient counterplay with queens (21...l:!aS 2 2 .�c4 �b7 203 Part 6 23.f6 gxf6 24.gxf6 .if8 2S . .ih6 dS), or without them (21.. .WI'c6 2V iJc4 '!WxdS 23J:1xdS .Ek6 24.b3 f6 ! 2S.h4 0-0). 14 . . . b4 14 ... hS 1S.a3 ! (Or 1SJ:1hg1 b4! ? 16.liJdS .ixdS 17.exdS ttJxdS 1 8 . .ixa6 ttJxe3 19 . .ixc8 tlJxd1 2 0 . .ixd7+ Wl'xd7 2l.l!xd1 '!WxfS 2 2 . '\Wxb4 0-0oo.) 1S ... h4 is also interesting. 1S.tlJdS (1S.tlJe2 aS 16.g4 a4 17.ttJbc1 dS) 1S . . . .ixdS Or 1S . . . ttJxdS 16.exdS .ixd3 17.Wfxd3 0-0 18 .g4 aS 19.tlJd2 a4 ! (19 . . J!fe8 2 0 .gS i.f8 2l.tlJe4 '!Wc4 2 2.b3 '!Wxd3 23J!xd3 gave White a strong positional grip in S.Zhigalko Sidorenja, Minsk 2 0 09.) 19 . . . a4 2 0.gS f6 2 l.h4 a3 2 2 .b3 '!Wc3oo. 16.exdS ttJxdS 17.i.xa6 ttJxe3 18 . .b:c8 tlJxd1oo. 13 . . . 0 - 0 ! ? 14.h3 ! gS ! ? f6 19 . .ixa6 .ie4 2 0 .tlJcS J.xf5 2 l..ixc8 E:xc8 2 2 . tlJxd7 Wfxd7 23.gcl dS 24.gxf6 gxf6--+) 18 . . . .ie4 (18 ... .if3) 19 . .ixc8 E:xc8�. He has also tried 1S . .igS b4 16.tlJe2 E:fe8 (16 . . . aS) 17.tlJg3, A. So kolov-Vulevic, Basel 2009, 17 ... d5!. 14 . . . b4 Kovchan-Onischuk, Kharkov 2011, saw : 14 . . . ttJb6 1S . .ixb6 Wfxb6 16.tl)d5 '!Wd8 17.tlJxf6+ .ixf6 18.fS = . Another decent option is: 14 ... E:fd8 ! ? 1S.a3 tlJcS 1S . . . dS 16.exdS ttJxdS 17.tl)xd5 .ixdS 18 ..ifS .ic6 19.tlJaS .ie4 also gives Black nice compensation for the pawn: 2 0 . .ixe4 tlJf6 2 l..id3 e4 2 2 .E:c1 exd3 23.cxd3 Wfd7 24.tl)b3 tlJdS 2S . .icS i.h4� 26.E:e4 (26J''lfl E:e8 27.g4 h6) 26 . . .fS 27.E:eS V!Jfl 28 .d4 g6 or 2 0 . .ixd7 i.xc2 + 21.mal .ixd1 2 2 .E:xd1 .if6t. 16.ttJxcS dxcS 17.fxeS b4 18.axb4 cxb4 19.exf6 bxc3 20.'\Wxc3 VfJxc3 21.bxc3 .ixf6 2 2 . .id4 (22 . .ixa6 E:b8+ 23.�c1 .ixc3 24.E:xd8+ E:xd8) 2 2 . . . E:b8+ 23.�c1 .ih4 24.E:e2 a5 2S. �d2 a4 2 6.E:a1 E:a8�. This end game is rather drawish. 14.fS .ic4 leads White nowhere as 1S.g4?! b4 16.tlJdS ttJxdS 17.exdS .ixdS is fine for Black: 18 . .ixa6 (18. 204 The text forces play: 1S.tl)d5 when both captures are playable: 1S ... ttJxdS 16.exdS i.xdS 17 . .ixa6 E:a8 (17 . . . .ib7) or 1S . . . .ixdS ! ? 16.exd5 ttJxdS 17 . .ifS (17.i.xa6 ttJxe3 18.E:xe3 E:a8 19.i.d3 '!Wa7 2 0.tlJc1 tlJcS) 17... tlJxe3 18.'\Wxe3 E:cd8 19.i.xd7 E:xd7=. 6.i.e3 eS 7.tt:lb3 .ie6 c. 8.f3 h5 This pet line of Topalov has be come the cutting edge of modern theory. The other set-ups are too deeply analysed by computers and leave little room for independent play. The main advantage of 8 . . . h5 is that it denies White the luxury of attacking following a deeply inves tigated and simple plan. We'll consider here : Cl. 9.tt:ld5; C2. 9 .'1Wd2 The set-up with a4 has faded out of fashion: 9 . .ie2 tt:lbd7 10.0-0 .ie7 ll.a4 'ffc7 12.a5 0-0 13.'1Wd2 E:ac8 14Jlfdl E:fd8 gives Black a comfort able game. White is unable to pre vent the freeing . . . dS: 15.-ifl dS 16.exd5 tt:lxdS 17.tt:lxd5 hd5 18.\WxdS tt:lf6 19.'1Wc4 E:xd1 20J:lxdl '1Wxc4 2 1..bc4 E:xc4 22 .c3 l!if8= , Kryvoruchko-Nyzhnyk, Pol tava 2008 ; 15.lt:\c1 dS ; lS.'ffe l '1Wc6 16 . .ig5 dS. Ct. tt:lbd7 9.tt:ld5 .ixd5 10.exd5 1l.c4 g6 (hoping for . . . .ih6) 12.'1Wd2 transposes. ll . . g6! . 11 . . . '1Wc7 12 .c4 aS ! will probably transpose to our main line, but 12. 0-0-0 tt:lb6 13.\WaS sets some problems since Black fails to ex change the dark-squared bish ops in the line 13 . . . E:c8 14.c3 tt:lc4 15.'1Wxc7 E:xc7 16 . .bc4 E:xc4 17.tt:la5 E:c7 18.c4 ! g6 19.Wbl±, Socko-Mini boeck, Istanbul 2000. In general, Black is struggling in such end games if he cannot trade bishops. After 11 . . . g6, White has two main plans - with long castling, which we consider in line Cll. 12.0-0-0, and with short castling - C12. 12.tt:la5 and C13. 12 . .ie2 . 12.c4 i s seldom seen. We can prevent tt:laS by 12 . . . a5 ! ? (12 . . . '1Wc7 i s our main line), preparing a 205 Part 6 blockade on the dark squares after trading bishops via h6: 13.Ei:c1 (13. �d3 a4 14.ll:Jcl '!WaS 1S.'!WxaS Ei:xaS 16.ll:Je2 �h6) 13 . . . a4 14.ll:Ja1 ll:Jg8 ! 1S.i.d3 i.h6 16.hh6 ll:Jxh6 17.ll:Jc2 lLlcS 18.lLla3 lLlxd3 + 19.'1Wxd3 ll:JfS. 16.c4 �g7 17.g3 :Sh8 18.l�k1 en. 12. 0 - o - o .!Db6 Another possible set-up is 12 . . . i.g7 13.'\Wb4 '!Wc7 14.ll:JaS b S 1S.�b1 0-0 16.ll:Jc6 Ei:fe8 17.c4 bxc4 18 . .ixc4 aS. 13.'\WaS 13.c4 Ei:c8 14.lLlaS lLlfxdS 1S.i.gS '!WxgS 16.'\WxgS i.h6 17.�xh6 Ei:xh6 18 . .!Dxb7 �d7 is balanced. 13.�b 1 ! ? lLlbxdS 14.�gS �e7 1S.g3 0-0 16.f4 aS 17.�g2 a4 17 . .ixdS= , Leko-Giri, London 2 0 1 2 . 13 .th6 14.hh6 gm6 15. �b1 ••• In Leko-lvanchuk, Mukachevo 2009, White included h4, but af ter 1S.h4 �f8 16.g3 �g7 17.�b1 Ei:h8 18.c4 Ei:e8 19 .i.e2 Ei:c8 2 0 .Ei:c1 e4 21.f4 e3 2 2 .Ei:hg1 .!be4 it became obvious that the pawn would have stood better on h2. 15 ••• �£8 1S . . . Ei:c8 16.�b4 ll:JfxdS ? ! does not equalise due to 17.Ei:xdS lLlxdS 18.�d2 '!Wc7 (18 . . .ll:Jf4 19.g3 '!Wf6 2 0 .gxf4 '!Wxf4 2 l.�dS Ei:c7 2 2 .ll:Jd2;t) 19.c4 .!Df4 2 0.g3 bS 2l.cxbS ll:Je6 2 2 .i.e2 Ei:h8 23.Ei:cl± so Black hur ries to connect his rooks. 206 18 ••• .!Dbd7= Black has a good centre and safe stands for his knights. A possible breakthrough c4-cS would only weaken dS. The game Nijboer-Hillarp Pers son, Wijk aan Zee 2009, has de monstrated another approach: 18 Ei:c8 19.'\Wb4 '!Wc7 2 0 .�h3 tt:lxc4!? 2 l..ixc8 Ei:xc8 2 2 .ttld2 bS 23.tt:lxc4 bxc4 24.Ei:hd1 aS, with sufficient compensation for the exchange. ... C12. 12 .!Da5 '!Wc7 13.c4! • 13.i.e2 b6! sends the white knight back since 14.tt:lc6 drops a pawn to 14 . . . tt:lxdS 1S.'!WxdS lLlf6 16.'1Wb3 �xc6. After 14.ttlb3 ig7 1S.a4 0-0, Bologan-Dominguez, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011, White had no clear plan while Black can ma noeuvre to trade his dark-squared bishop through h6 or seek counter play with . . . e4. 13 ••• J.g7 (13 . . . e4! ?) 14.J.e2 6 . .ie3 e5 7.ltlb3 i.e6 a) 18.E:acl ltle5 19.c5 ltlxf3+ 20.E:xf3 ltle4 21.W/d3 dxc5. b) 18.c5 ltle4 19.ixe4 E:xe4 20.E:acl E:ae8 21..if4 .ie5 22�.ixe5 ltlxe5 23.E:cel E:xel 24.E:xel b6= , e.g. 25.cxd6 W/xd6 26.ltlc6 <J;; g7 27.W/d4 f6 28.ltlxe5 E:xe5 29.E:xe5 fxe5 30.W/c4 b5 31.W/c5 Wfd7 32 .W/c6 �g4, with perpetual check. 14 ••• e4! 16 .•• 0 - 0 17.b4 gfe8! We do not like passive waiting with 14 . . . b6 since White takes over the initiative. Instead, we should attack him in the centre before he consolidated. 15. 0 - 0 15.f4? ! ltlg4 ! 1 6 . .b:g4 hxg4 17.0-0 ltlc5 ! gives Black an edge: 18.E:abl ltld3 19 .b4 b5 ! 2 0 .c5 E:h5! or 18.f5 i.e5 19.g3 gxf5 2 0 .E:xf5 f6+. 15 . . . exf3 16.gxf3 This recapture is more challeng ing than 16.hf3, but it also offers Black more winning chances. After 16.ixf3 0-0 17.b4 E:fe8 ! , White is at a juncture: Black's position may seem a little cramped, but it is like a tight spring ready to jump against the enemy king. We have analysed : a) 18.E:ael ltlxd5 ! ! 19.cxd5 i.c3 2 0 .Wfcl E:ac8 2 1.i.dl ltle5 22 .E:e2 ltld3 23.�bl ltlxb4 24.ltlb3 ltlxd5oo. b) 18 . .id4 facilitates the ex change of bishops after 18 ... E:e7 (or 18 . . . ltlh7 19.E:ael hd4+ 20.W/xd4 ltlhf6) 19.E:ael E:ae8 20.rt;hl <J;; h7 21..idl ltlg8. c) 18.E:acl E:e7 19.E:fel E:ae8 20 ..ig5 WeB 21.rt;g2 h4! . 207 Part 6 All of a sudden, Black launches a kingside attack. Now 2 2 . .ixh4 .ih6 23.W/xh6 �xe2+ 24.<;!1h1 lt:lhS__. is gloom for White, but it is difficult to offer him good advice. The whole complex of squares around his king is weak: 13.0-0 drops a pawn to 13 . . . lt:lb6! 14.c4 (14 . .ixb6 W/xb6+ 1S.'i!lh1 .ih6) 14 . . . lt:lxc4 1S . .ixc4 W/xc4 16.�fdl �bS where White cannot extract something substantial from his ini tiative. 13.lt:la5?! was seen in Bologan Dominguez, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011. After 13 . . . b6 ! , White did not find anything better than return on b3 as 14.lt:lc6 lt:lxd5 would cost a pawn. 13 . . . a5! 2 2 .h3 'i!lh7 23 ..ifl lt:leS (intend ing . . . W/fS) 24.f4? (24.W/f2 W/fS 25.W/xh4+ lt:lhS 26 . .ixe7 �xe7t) 24 . . . lt:leg4 25.hxg4 W/xg4+ 26.'i!lh1 W/f3+ 27 . .ig2 �xe1+ 2 8.�xe1 �g3 29.�xe8 lt:lg4-+ ; 2 2 .c5 dxcS 23.d6 �eS; 2 2 .lt:lb3 h3+ 23.'i!lg1 lt:le5 24.lt:ld4 lt:leg4. C13. 12 . .te2 ti'c7! We would like to gain space on the queenside with 12 . . . a5, but this move is still premature as White's bishop is able to entrench itself on bS with a4, followed up by c4. Such positions are unpleasant for Black because the e-file is forbidden for his rook so he cannot generate enough counterplay. The text aims to provoke c4. 13.c4 208 We do not like the passive wait ing tactic with . . . b6. 14.lkl Enabling the route lt:lb3-a1-c2· a3-b5. Alternatively: 14.0-0 a4 1S.lt:lc1 W/aS (The main idea of the march of the a-pawn is to trade queens. However, Black can also maintain tension with 15 .. �g7 16.lt:ld3 e4 17.lt:lb4 exf3 18.gxf3 ll:le5 19.�ac1 lt:lfd7 2 0 . 'i!lh1 0-0.) 16.1�ha5 �xaS 17 . .if2 ih6 18 . .id3 0-0=; . 14.a4?! is a strategic mistake as White deprives himself of his most 6.i.e3 eS 7.ttJb3 i.e6 dangerous plan with b4, cS. 14 . . . b6 1S.O-O i.g7 16J3ae1 0 - 0 17.h3 ltlcS 18.ttJxcS bxcS= , Nolte-Geetha, Olongapo 2 01 0. 14 ... a4! 15.ti�al a) 17.lDc2 .be3+ 18.ttJxe3 ttJgf6 19.f4 Or 19.i.d3 h4 (Our king will be safe on g7.) 20 .lDg4 (20 .f4 e4 21.i.b1 WcS 2 2 .<;t>h1 <;t>fS) 20 . . . ltJhS 2 1.WgS ltJf4. 19 . . . lDe4 2 0.We1 exf4 2U3xf4 iDeeS 2 2 .Wc3 iDeS 23.b4 axb3 24.axb3 Wb6. 15 ••• Wfa5 It is also very interesting to test 15 . . ltJg8 ! ? . I t i s s o important t o swap the bishops that we can even indulge in spending two tempi in order to fulfil that strategic aim. The isola tion of the white knight on a1 justi fies our arrogant attitude towards development. If meanwhile we manage to trade queens, too, via cS, we'd be perfectly happy. In fact, 1S . . . WaS does not re nounce the manoeuvre . . . ttJg8. It only changes Black's order of pri orities. 16.0-0 (or 16.lDc2 i.h6 17.lDa3 .be3 18.Wxe3 �cS 19J''k3 Wxe3=) 16 ... i.h6 Our analysis branches here to: b) 17 ..bh6 ttJxh6 18.i.d3 Wb6+ 19.<;t>h1 lt'lcS 2 0.i.b1 fS. c) 17.f4 ltJe7 18 .fxeS (18.i.d3 exf4 19 . .bf4 i.xf4 2 0 ..!3 xf4 iDeS; 18.cS 0-0) 18 . . . .be3 + 19.Wxe3 ttJxeS 2 0.lDc2 Alternatively: 2 0J3c3 ttJfS 21.Wf2 <;t>fs 2 2 .lDc2 <;t>g7 23.lDd4 ttJxd4; 2 0.i.d3 :!3c8 21.b3 (21.<;t>hl WcS 2 2 .Wd2 0-0) 21.. .Wc5. 2 0 . . . ltJfS 21.�c3 �aS= (or 21... �cS+ 2 2 .<;t>h1 h4� 23.i.g4 ltJg7). 209 Part 6 16J:�c3 The endgame poses no prob lems: 16.�xa5 l:'!xa5 17.l:'!dl ! (17.tt:lc2 .th6) 17 ... .th6 18 . .if2 0-0 19.tt:lc2 l:'!c8 20.tt:la3 tt:lcS 2 1.tt:lb5 l:'!a6 2 2 . 0-0 tt:lfd7= . If White tries to set up b4, we get counterplay with .. .fS, for example, 23.l:'!bl fS 24.b4 axb3 25.axb3 e4 2 6.b4 tt:ld3 = . 16 .•• /(jgS with a balanced game, for example, 25.l:'!bl l:'!xa2 26 . .tfl 0-0 27.l:'!xb2 l:'!xb2 28.�xb2 tt:lcS 29.'1Wb6 l:'!a8 3 0.g4 hxg4 31.fxg4 tt:le3 3 2 .'\Wxd6 l:'!al 33.'\Wb8+ �h7 34.�f2 tt:Jxfl 35.�f8 = . However, we d o not see any reason to enter forced play. Black stands positionally well and he can afford quite manoeuvring: 2 2 .0-0 0-0 23.l:'!el (23.l:'!bl l:'!fe8 24.b4 axb3 25.axb3 tt:ld4 26.b4 '!Wa2) 23 . . . h4�. C2. 9.�d2 l(jbd7 10. 0 - 0 - 0 gcs u.�b1 (ll.h3 bS) u. . .J.e7 12 .td3 • Or 17. 0-0 .ih6 18.tt:lc2 (18 . .ixh6 tt:Jxh6 19.tt:lc2 '!Wb6+ 2 0.ll'le3 tt:lfS 21.f4 e4) 18 . . . .txe3+ 19.tt:lxe3 tt:Jgf6. 17 .ih6 18./(ja3 ••• Or 18.f4 tt:Jgf6 19 . .tf3 0-0 2 0 .0-0 exf4 21.hf4 hf4 22.'\Wxf4 '!Wb6+ . 18 .ixe3 19.�xe3 /(je7 20./(jb5 /(jf5 21. �f2 /(jc5 ••• The engines also like: 2 l . ..a3 2 2 . 0-0 (22 .b3 tt:ld4) 2 2 . . . axb2 23.l:'!a3 '!Wxa3 24.tt:lxa3 l:'!xa3 210 Alternatively: a) 12.tt:ld5 is innocuous here. Af ter 12 . . . J\xd5 13.exd5 tt:lb6 14.ixb6 (Possible trade of queens after 14.�a5 �c7! 15.c3 .idS favours Black.) 14 . . . �xb6 15 . .id3 0-0 the black pieces stand harmoniously, e.g. 16.l:'!hel l:'!fe8 17.f4 .if8=. 12 b5 13.h3 h4! 14.f4 "erc7 15.ghe1 ••• 6 .ie3 eS 7.l2Jb3 ie6 We have reached the same posi tion as in line B, only the black pawn is on h4! Obviously White players consider this pawn a weakness. 15 ... 0-0! I played 15 . . . ic4 as early as 2 0 03. Ftacnik even advocates it in his book. This move would be jus tified in variations like 16.'&f2 b4 17.l2Jd5 l2Jxd5 18.exd5 hd3 19.Ei:xd3 0-0 2 0.Ei:cl aS or 16.if2 hd3 17.cxd3 b4 18.l2Je2 '&b7 19.Ei:cl 0-0 2 0.fxe5 dxeS 21.Ei:xc8 Ei:xc8 2 2 .Ei:cl Ei:xcl + 23.l2Jexcl l2Jh5, but it proves to be a waste of a tempo in the event of: 16.a3 ! Now the only sensible idea is queenside attack with : a 16 . . . Ei:b8 17.if2 ! and Black is worse: 17 . . . hd3 18.'&xd3 exf4 19 .'&d2± or 17 . . . a5 18.fxe5 dxeS 19.l2Jd5 l2Jxd5 2 0.exd5±. We think that Black should not leave his king in the centre any more. He must organise the break through . . . dS with . . . :B:fd8 so cas tling looks indispensable. Look at the detailed analysis of this position in game 30 Chak kravarthy-Prasad, Bikaner 2 0 04. Part S Co m p l ete G a m es 29. Nis ipea n u -H a m d o u c h i C a n nes 2 0 0 2 lLlc5 ! ? as 13.lLlxc5 dxc5 is rather safe for him. 1 .e4 cS 2 .�f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie2 eS 7.�b3 i.e7 8 ..ie3 .ie6 9.�d5 � b d 7 1 0 .Yfd3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 After ll.c4? ! b5 12.cxb5 ax:b5 13.0-0 .ixd5 14.exd5 lLlb6 15.1!9xb5 lLlbxd5 16 . .id2 gb8 17.'?9d3 1!9d7, White was already struggling in Ata bayev-Cheparinov, Istanbul 2012. 1 1 . . . i.xd 5 1 2 .exd 5 gcs Black has favourable experience in this pawn structure. He will en trench himself on the queenside with . . . aS, . . . b6, while in the centre he has his own play with . . . e4. In general, he should be glad to trade dark-squared bishops. Lately Black prefers the straightforward 12 . . . 212 14.c4 (In Solak-Amonatov, Is tanbul 2012, White played 14.i.f3 when 14 . . . 1!9c7 looks the most ac curate answer.) 14 . . . e4 15.'?9c3 Wic7 16.a3 i.d6 17.h3 lLld7 18.f4 exf3 19.i.xf3 gae8 2 0.gae1 Wid8 2l.b4 b6, Paragua-Bu Xiangzhi, Beijing 2008. The only small drawback of this variation is that White can easily make a draw by exchang ing his bishop for the f6-knight: 13.lLlxc5 dxc5 14.gad1 i.d6 15.i.g5 ge8 16.1!9f5 = , Ivanchuk-Gelfand, Cap d'Agde 1998. In that aspect, 12 ... gc8 retains more tension. Note that if White does not take on c5, he will get a worse version of our main game: 12 . . . lLlc5 13.\Wd2 lLlfe4 14.Wb4 aS 15.1!9b5 \Wc7 6.i.e3 eS 7.tt:lb3 .!e6 1 3 . . . a51 In Ponomariov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2011, White could not find any active plan and he got gradually crushed on the kingside after: 16.\Wc4 E:ac8 17.E:fd1 fS 18.c3 �d8 19.\WbS b6 2 0 .tt:ld2 tt:lxd2 21..bd2 .if6 2 2 .E:ab1 e4 23.b4 tt:ld7 24.E:b3 .ieS 25.a3 E:f7 26.c4 axb4 27.axb4 E:a8. 1 3 .c4 We see a typical Sicilian posi tion which could arise after various move orders. White's only sensible plan is to prepare c4-c5. According ly, Black will expand with f7-f5 and will try to open the e-file. As a rule, if he achieved to neutralise the ini tiative of the first player in the cen tre, then his kingside activity would prove difficult to restrain. There fore, he should seek to consolidate first. Unlike other variations where Black uses this pawn to gain space on the queenside, here it is as signed purely defensive functions. Of course, it cannot completely prevent b2-b4, but at least White will have to spend one extra tem po on b3, a3 in order to avoid be ing blocked in the event of ...a5-a4. The later game Short-Chepa rinov, Wijk aan Zee 2008, saw 14.\t>hl. Then the most consistent plan seems 14 ... tt:le8, aiming for . . . .!gS, .. .fS. Black chose instead 14 ... E:e8 15.E:ad1 .if8 16.tt:ld2 g6 17.b3 i.g7 18.a3 h5 19.f3 when the natural 19 ... tt:lcS 2 0 .1Wc2 e4 ! would have given him sufficient counterplay. 1 4 . . . b6 tt:lfd 7 1 5.tt:ld2 tt:lc5 1 6.Yfb1 The dark-squared fence is com pleted and Black is ready to launch his own attack. Hamdouchi conducts it with inspiration and confidence. 1 7. �f3 f5 1 8 .b3 e4 213 Part 6 Black does not bother to pre pare the attack with 18 .. .'11;Ye 8 19.a3 e4 2 0.ltld4 f4. I suppose that Ham douchi had already in mind the fol lowing exchange sacrifice. 7 . � b 3 J.e6 8.f3 h 5 9.Wd2 �bd7 1 0 .0-0-0 gcs 1 1 . � b 1 .ie7 1 2 .h3 Wc7 1 3 . .id3 h4 1 4.f4 b5 1 5J�he1 o-o 1 9 .ltld4 f4 2 0 . ltlc6 We8 21 . .ixc5 �xes 22JUe 1 Perhaps 2 2 .i.g4 was prefera ble, but Black has good compensa tion after both 22 . . . if6 ! ? or 22 .. Jk7 23.ltld4 f3 (23 . . . Wg6 24.f3) 24.gxf3 Wg6 25 �hl i.f6iii . 22 . . . .ih4 2 3 . .ig4 1 6. g 3 A very consistent plan ! Chak kravarthy tries to exploit the cas tling by opening the g-file, but the tempi are not in his favour. A simi lar idea is : a) 16.f5 i.c4 17.g4 17.a3 is no good due to 17 ... d5! 18.exd5 i.xa3 23 . . . YlYg6 ! 24 ..ixc8 gxc8 2 5.gcd 1 f3 26.g3 Wg4 2 7 . � h 1 .ig5 2 8.Wc2 White has nothing to oppose to the pawn duo: 28.ltld4 e3-+ ; 28 .:gd4 fle8 29J!gl Wh5 3 0.'�fl e3. 28 . . , gfs 29 .gd4 Wh3 30.I;g 1 �U6 3 1 .�e7+ � h 8 32.I;xe4 �xe4 0 - 1 30. D . C h a kkravarthy-A. P rasad B i ka n e r 2004 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e5 2 14 17 . . . hxg3 ! (17 . . . b4 18.ltld5 ixd5 19.exd5 ltlxd5 2 0 .g5 ltlxe3 21.Wxe3 gave White a strong attack in Shy am-Berg, Dubai 2011.) 18.:ggl b4 19.ltld5 ltlxd5 2 0 . exd5 .ih4 21.ig5 .ixd3 2 2 . cxd3 i.xg5 23.Wxg5 f6 24.Wxg3 ltlb6 6 . .ie3 eS 7.ll'lb3 .ie6 The weakness of the dS-pawn and the imminent march of the a6pawn compensate for White's pres sure down the g-file: for White; 19 . . .�fd8 2 0 .�:xg3 lLlhS 21.�ggl if8 2 2 .W/f2 ll'ldf6 is also passive) 2S.h4 aS 2 6.hS a4 27.h6 (27. tLlal a3 2 8 .h6 axb2 29.�xg7+ W/xg7 30J'!xg7+ 'i!?h8 31.ll'lc2 lLlxdS=) 27 ... axb3 28.hxg7 �f7 29.W/h4 E:xg7 3 0 .�xf6 W/c2 + 31.'i!?al �g2 32.�xg2+ �xg2 33.W/xd6 �a8= . b ) 16.a3 This move is rather unpleasant against 1S . . . .tc4, but it is less effec tive here due to : 16 . . . �fd8! 16 . . .�b8 may be enough for keeping the balance, but Black has to play a series of accurate moves to survive: 17.fS !c4 [17 . . . .b:b3 18.cxb3 b4 19.axb4 19 . . . �xb4 (19 . . . dS 20.exdS hb4 21.if2 �fc8 2 2 .i.c4 ll'lb6 23.d6 ll:\xc4 24.dxc7 ll'lxd2+ 2S.�xd2 �xc7 26.E:c2 hc3 27.�xc3 �xc3 28.bxc3 !3xh3+ 29.'i!?c2 �a3 30.'i!?b2 �aSt) 20 ..tc4 aS 2 1.�d3 ! , preserving the powerful bishop on c4.] 18.g4 hxg3 19.�gl lLlhS ! (the endgame after 19 . . . hd3 2 0.�xd3 �c4 21.-tgS �xd3 2 2 . �xd3 is better 20 . .ie2 ( 2 0 .hc4 bxc4 21.ll'ldS �b7 22 .ll'lxe7+ 'i!?h7 23.W/e2 ll'ldf6 24.�xc4 W/xe7 2S.igS aS 26.ixf6 W/xf6 27.lLlxaS E:fc8 28.W/fl �c3 29.�d3 �xd3 3 0 .W/xd3 W/d8 31.W/dl �xaS 32 .�xhS+ 'i!?g8 33.W/gS W/xa3 34.�d8+ �xd8 3S.bxa3 dS 36.exdS �xdS and this endgame is probably drawn.) 2 0 . . . ll'ldf6 21.igS ixe2 22 .�xe2 E:fc8 23.hf6 ll'lf4 24.W/d2 ixf6 2S.�xg3 �b6. White has the initiative, but perhaps it is not easy to convert it, e.g. 26.h4 ixh4 27.E:g4 if6 28.ll'ldS lLlxdS 29.exdS Wd7 3 0 .W/f2 �cbS 31.�hl b4 32.�h6 'i!?f8 33.�h8+ 'i!?e7 34.�xb8 �xb8 3S.lLlaS �bS 36.ll'lc6+ 'i!?f8 = . Let u s return t o 16 . . . �fd8 ! It is unclear how White should proceed from this point. 21S Part 6 Both 17 . .if2 l2Jc5 18.l2Jxc5 dxc5 19.£5 .id7 2 0 .l2Jd5 l2Jxd5 21.exd5 �d6 2 2 .�c3 i.f6 23 .i.e4 b4 and 17.£5 i.c4 18 . .if2 d5 19.exd5 .ixd5 2 0.i.xh4 i.b7 2l.�e2 b4� are plea sant for Black. c) 16.i.f2 b4 17.l2Jd5 l2Jxd5 18.exd5 i.xd5 19 . .b:a6 �a8� (19 . . . .ixg2 !?). Such sharp positions should be played by concrete calculations be cause every tempo is fateful. White should have recaptured 23 . .!Dxd3 .!Dxe4 24.'�'c1 when the black queen has not a good square. He can still hold on by 24 . . . �c4 25.�g4 i.f6 26 . .!Dg3 .!Dxg3 27.�xc4 �xc4oo. 2 3 .. J�c7 24.�h6 �c2+ 25.�a1 .!ilea 1 6 . . . b4 1 7 .l2Je2 a5 1 8 .gxh4 a 4 1 9 . .!Llbc1 .!Llc5 20 .ixc5 20 .. .'�xc5? We do not understand why Black rejected the natural 2 0 . . . dxc5. The only way t o neutralise the threat of . . . c4 would be 2 l.c4 bxc3 22.l2Jxc3 , but then 22 . . . exf4 is ob viously in Black's favour. Perhaps he missed 2 1.£5 .b:a2 + ! with an edge, e.g. 2 2 . l2Jxa2 c4 23.�g1 cxd3 24.cxd3 �fd8+. 2 1 .f5 23.cxd3? 216 ic4 22J�g 1 ixd 3 The terrible threat of . . . a3 makes White seek an endgame where he is objectively doomed, but after 26.�e3 a3 27.bxa3 bxa3 28.!'1d2 �c6, Black has an attack for free . 26J�d2 �xc 1 + 27 . .!Llxc1 gxc 1 + 28.gxc 1 g x h 6 29.gg2+ �h7 30,gc4 d5 3 1 .exd5 .!Llf6 32.ge2 ggs 33.�b1 .id6 34,gc6 gds 35,ga6 .!Llxd5 36.gxa4 .!Llf4 37 ,gel �g7 38 ,ga7 �f6 39.gf3 .ic5 40J�c7 gxd3 41 . gxf4 exf4 42.gxc5 f3 43J�c1 �xf5 44.�c2 ge3 45.�d2 ge2+ 46.�d3 gxb2 47.�e3 f2 48.�f3 gxa2 49.gcs+ �e6 50.�g2 b3 0-1 Pa rt 7 1 .e4 c5 2 . liJf3 d 6 3 . d4 cxd4 4. llJxd4 liJf6 5.llJc3 a6 6.f4 Part 7 M a i n I d eas l.e4 c5 2.�f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.f4 In this new edition of the book, we have also included the alternative set-up with 6 . . . '<&c7. Black follows the scheme . . . g6, ... ig7, . . . tt:Jbd7, . . . tt:lcS and castles left or right, depending on White's play. It is a reliable repertoire, too. 6 . . . e5 7.�f3 �bd7 8.a4 This system had its peak of popu larity some twenty years ago. At that time Kasparov breathed a new life into the Scheveningen and White players were eager to find new ways of challenging Black's set up. It looked very tempting to de velop the bishop to d3 in one step and retreat the knight to f3. Then the queen would reach the kingside via e1-g3 and White's attack would shape up in a flash. That might work against a passive set-up, but Black soon found how to counterattack in the centre. The typical N ajdorf plan with . . . eS and . . . �bd7 turned out to be more effective than ever. 218 Saving a tempo with 8.id3 does not help much. After 8 . . . ie7 9.0-0 0-0 10.�h1 bS, White has nothing better than ll.a3, when ll .. J'!e8 continues Black's main plan of as saulting the e4-pawn. See illustra tive game 31 Van der Wiel-Por tisch, Amsterdam, 1990. 8 . . . .ie7 This position is the subject of line B in the "Step by Step" chapter. Main branches are: The 6.f4 System pieces, Mertens-Cheparinov, Rey kjavik 2012. B1. 9 .tc4 ti'a5 • B2. 9 .td3 0-0 1 0 . 0 - 0 exf4 • Black does not miss his chance to hit e4 thus taking control of e5 with a tempo. His plan involves ... exf4, . . . tt:le5 and development of the light-squared bishop. At the same time, the queen prevents the cramping a4-a5. The most testing continuation. White is at a juncture. B21. ll.i>h1 10.ti'e2 (10 . .td2 exf4 ! ) 10 11. 0 - 0 exf4 12 .txf4 tOeS ••• 0-0 • This is rather slow and allows Black to exchange a couple of pieces: ll ••• t0h5 12.t0d4 12 . .ie2 ! ? is an interesting at tempt to trick us with the move order. Perhaps Black should an swer 12 . . . tt:lc5 13.tt:ld4 tt:lf6 14.if3 d5 15.exd5 .id6oo. Black is ready to develop his bishop to e6. The imminent ex changes of minor pieces will sim plify to a balanced game. The game Leko-Kasparov, Sa rajevo 1999, serves as a model how to neutralise 13.tt:ld5: 13 . . . tt:lxd5 14 ..lxd5 .te6 15 . .lxe6 tt:lxf3+ 16.ti'xf3 fxe6 17.ti'b3 ti'c5+ 18.i>h1 ti'c8 = . After 13 . .ib3 i.g4 14.i>h1 gac8, Black has good stands for his 12 ••• g6 13 . .te2 t0df6 219 Part ? 14.�f5 .ie6 15.�xe7+ Ybe7 16 . .ixh5 �xh5 17 . .ixf4 �xf4 18.gxf4 gac8 = . 12.@hl .ig4! Typically for this line, Black is not afraid to part with his dark squared bishop since White will also have to give up his own one in order to recapture the f4-pawn . B22. ll ..ixf4 �c5 In the "Step by Step" chapter we recommend ll . . . �b6+ 12 .@hl \Wxb2. It is more testing, but also more demanding. Have also in mind that White can make a forced draw by repetition of moves with 13.ttJd5 ttJxdS 14.exd5 ttJcS 15J!bl \Wxa2 16.l'!al = . Perhaps you should learn ll . . . ttJcS first in order to build a reliable repertoire, and pay more attention to ll . . . �b6 + when you could spare some extra time. The bishop is better placed on g4 than on e6, because it does not ob struct the e-file and it could be also used to increase the pressure on e4 after . . . .ig4-h5-g6. White usually tries to stay compact and maintain the tension with : 13 . .ie3 l'!c8 ! (defending the cS knight) 14.\Wd2 ttJxd3 15J�'xd3 (15. cxd3 d5 16 . .id4 dxe4+) 15 ... ie6 16.l'!fdl ( 16.ttJd5 .ixdS 17.exd5 \Wc7=) 16 . . . ttJg4 17 . .igl .if6. Black has a slight initiative. Conclusions: Against 6.f4, most tangled and unclear is 6 . . . '1Wc7. 6 ... e 5 7.ttJf3 ttJbd7 8.a4 JJ..e 7 9 . .ic4 \WaS ! followed b y . . . exf4, ... lLleS, . . . iJ..e 6 is rather drawish. We have no remedy for that. 3. 9.i.d3 0-0 10.0-0 exf4 is by far the most popular line nowadays. It gives Black fair chances for a fight. After ll . .ixf4, it is possible to capture on b 2: ll . . . �b6+ 12 .@hl \Wxb2, conceding a draw with 13.ttJd5 ttJxdS 14.exd5 ttJcS 15.l'!bl. Instead of taking the b2-pawn, Black could continue in a Najdorf Scheveningen style with ll . . . ttJcS planning to attack e4. Then his light-squared bishop finds a good place on g4 from where it could reinforce the kingside defence after . . . iJ..g 4-h5-g6 . . 220 Part 7 Ste p by Ste p l.e4 c5 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6.f4 We'll present two totally differ ent set-ups so you can follow your taste : A. 6 . . . \Wc7; B. 6 . . . e5 A. 6 .. .\Wc7 Al. 7 . .ie2 ; A2 . 7.a4; A3. 7 . .id3 Minor alternatives are: a) 7.lLJf3 lLJbd7 and play trans poses to the other main lines since 8.'1We2 ? ! is well met by 8 . . . e5. White chooses this system when he wants a clear attacking plan without the overwhelming amount of theory in the schemes with op posite castles. The classic Najdorf retort would be 6 . . . e5, but we would also like to offer you an alternative - 6 . . . Wfc7, followed up by . . . g6. It could be psychologically awkward to White as he should reconsider his plans on the kingside. It is also very easy to play as Black employs the same set-up against all White's plans. b) 7.Wff3 This plan has faded out of fash ion. 7 . . . .ig7 8 . .ie3 8.h3 only wastes a tempo : 8 . . . lLJbd7 9 . .ie3 b 5 10. 0-0-0 .ib7 ll.a3 .ig7 12 .g4 lLJc5 13.lLJd5 (13 . .id3 0-0 14.g5 lLJfd7 15.h4 e5+) 13 . . . lLJxd5 14.exd5 Ei:c8 15.@b1 0-0 16 . .ig2 lDa4 17.'1Wf2 (17.h4? hd4 18.hd4 e5-+) 17 ... \Wc4t, Popilski-Sasikiran, New Delhi 2012. 8 . . . b5 9 . .id3 221 Part 7 9.a3 is a bit passive: 9 . . . l2Jbd7 10.g4 ltJcS ll.gS l2Jfxe4 12.l2Jxe4 (12. ltJdxbS �b7 13 . .ig2 axbS 14.l2Jxe4 l2Jxe4 1S. �xe4 �xe4 16.he4 !!a4 17. .id3 i.d7=) 12 . . . l2Jxe4 13.�xe4 i.b7 14.ltJxbS axbS 1S.�d4 (1S. hbS+ ? Wd8 16.�d4 �aS+ 17.b4 �xbS-+) 1S . . . hh1 16.�xh8 with a sharp position. White's queen is ob viously stuck away from the main battle, though. Al. 7 i.e 2 g6 . Following the main set-up. However, this is a risky approach! 7 . . . eS is a safer option : 9 . . . i.b7 a ) 8.ltJfS hfS 9.exfS ltJc6 10.0-0 White is underdeveloped for moves like 10.g4. We take over the initiative with 10 . . . dS ! l l.i.f3 (11.g5 d4) 11 . . . 0-0-0 12 .fxeS �xeS+ 13.Ml hS 14.gS ltJe4+. 10.g4 10.0-0 is too timid. Black was even better after 10 . . . l2Jbd7 ll.a3 i.g7 12 . Wh1 0-0 13 . .ig1 l2Jb6 14.�e2 l2Jfd7+, Stefansson-Kasparov, rapid, Reykjavik 199S. 10 ... b4 11.l2Jce2 .ig7 12.0-0-0 0-0 ! This move order is more precise than 12 . . . l2Jbd7 13.gS ltJhS 14.l2Jg3 when 14 . . . l2Jxf4 does not solve all the problems due to 1S. �xf4 eS 16.l2Je6! fxe6 17.�g4. After the text, 13.gS ltJhS 14.l2Jg3 (or 14.fS l2Jd7 1S.Wb1 ltJeS 16.�g2 l2Jxd3 17.cxd3 dS) 14 . . . l2Jxf4 ! 1S.�xf4 e S 16.l2Je6! �c6 ! 17.�g4 i.c8 18.ltJfS ! he6 19.l2Je7+ Wh8 2 0.�xe6 fxe6 is roughly equal. 222 10 . . . 0-0-0 Black is ahead in development and he has an advantage in the cen tre. That makes the long castling possible. ll.ltJdS (11. Wh1 dS 12 .fxeS l2Jxe5 13 ..if4 d4 14.l2Ja4 Wb8�) 11...l2Jxd5 12 .�xdS ltJb4 13.�b3 dS 14.c3 ic5+ 1S.Wh1 l2Jc6 16.fxeS �xeS 17.id3 �c7 18.i.f4 .id6= , Abreu-Quesada, Yucatan 2 0 04. b) 8.l2Jf3 .ie7 9.0-0 0-0 10.a4 l2Jbd7 1l.Wh1 ltJcS = . White should define the pawn structure in the centre. c) 8 .l2Jb3 bS 9.a3 (9.0-0 ib7 10.�d3 l2Jbd7 ll.a3 .ie7�) 9 ..ib7 1 0 .i.f3 l2Jbd7 11.0-0 .ie7 12.Wh1 0-0 . The 6.f4 System 13.g4 (13.1!;!ie2 :gfe8 14.g4 d5 15.exd5 b4 16.axb4 hb4 17.d6 hd6 18.hb7 �xb7+ 19.�g2 1!;!lxg2+ 20.'it>xg2 exf4=) Now Black can show nerves of steel and play for an edge with 13 ... ttlb6 14.g5 lLlfd7 15.f5 lLla4, but the safe, "human" approach is a break in the centre: 13 . . . d5 14.exd5 (14.g5 dxe4 15.i.g2 lLle8 16.lLla5 1!;!lxa5 17.1!;!ixd7 V9c7 18.�xc7 lLlxc7 19.fxe5 lLle6=) 14 . . . exf4 ! (14 . . . e4 15.i.g2 lLlb6 16.d6! ix:d6 17.lLla5 is rather unclear.) 15.g5 lLle8 16.i.g2 hgS 17.1!;!lg4 h6 18 . .txf4 .tx£4 19.1!;!fxf4 :gcs = . 8.g4 The most challenging continu ation. The same idea has no bite if White lost a tempo with 8 .a4, e.g. 8 .. .tg7 9 .i.e3 lLlbd7 1 0 . 0-0 0-0 ll.g4 eS ! . . e 6 9.g5 lLlfd7 10.i.e3 b S ll.a3 i.b7 12.0-0 :ggS ! ? and Black went on to get an edge, but such a set-up looks excessively provocative. 9.g5 9.i.f3 lLlc6 10.lLlb3 i.g7 11.i.e3 is too slow. We can try ll . . . lLlaS (11 . lLlb4 12 .i.d4! i s unclear) although 12 .e5 dxeS 13.g5 lLld7 14.l!�d5 1!;!id8 15.lLlxa5 1!;!lxa5+ 16.i.d2 1!;!fd8 17.ib4 e6 18.i.e7 1!;!ia5+ 19.i.b4 leads to a forced draw. .. 9 hxg5 1 0 .fxg5 �fd7 11.i.e3 e6 12.ti'd2 b5 13.a3 i.b7 14.h4 �c5 15.h5 �bd7 16. 0 - 0 - 0 ••• Play i s double-edged, A.Sokolov Van Wely, France 2000. 8 . . . h6 A2. 7.a4 g6 8 . .id3 We cannot keep our knight in the centre, but at least we should get some trade-off, like the eS-square, for example. The game Socko-Na kamura, Gibraltar 2 0 09, saw 8 . . . 8.i.e2 ig7 9.i.e3 �bd7 10.0-0 0-0 ll.g4 is dubious due to ll ... eS ! 12 .fxe5 lLlxeS, Wang-Hess, Phila delphia 2010. 223 Part 7 8 J.g7 9.�fJ �bd7 1 0 . 0 - 0 b6 ll.ti'el J.b7 ••• initiative with 13 ... ti'c5+ 14.1!/hl ti'h5 15.ti'g3 ll'lc5, Tiviakov-Gormal ly, Bunratty 1999. ll ... dxe5 12 .fxe5 ll'lg4 13.e6 fxe6 14.'�e4 ti'a7+ 15.�h1 ll'ldf6 16.'i9el 0-0 and Black has castled safely, remaining with active pieces, e.g. 17.'Wh4 (17.h3 ll'lh6 18.ll'lg5 ltlfS 19.ll'lxe6 ll'lg3+ 2 0 .'Wxg3 .ixe6=) 17 . . . i.b7+, Polzin-Van Wely, Fuegen 2006. 9 Black has completed develop ment and his position is comfor table. See game 34 Hamdouchi Kolev, Malaga 1998 ••• �bd7 1 0 .ti'el b5 11.�f3 ll.a3 i.b7 12.ll'lf3 ll'lc5 gives Black a tempo to activate his pieces, see game 33 Zozulia-Kolev, Sa lou 2005. ll •.• i.b7 A3. 7.J.d3 g6 8. 0 - 0 J.g7 12.e5 12 .i.d2 allows 12 . . . b4 (12 . ltlc5 13.b4 ll'lxd3 14.cxd3 0-0 15J'k1 %Vd7 is balanced.) 13.ll'ld1 ll'lc5 14.ltlf2 aS 15 . .ib5+ ll'lfd7 16.c3 0-0 and Black's pieces are very active: 17J''k1 (or 17.cxb4 axb4 18 . .ixb4 .ixb2) 17... gac8 18.cxb4 axb4 19.b3 %Vb6 .. Let us see what would happen if White tried to save this prophylax is : 9,l[jf3 ll'lbd7 10 .'�e1 bS ll.e5 In the event of ll.i.d2 .ib7 12 .a3 0-0 13.ti'h4, Black takes over the 224 The 6.f4 System 20.ic4 ( 2 0 . .b:d7? .!Llxd7 2l.E:xc8 !"ixc8 22 . .b:b4 E:c2 23.a4 J\a6-+) 20 ... .!Llf6. 15 ...J.xe4 16.�xe4 0 - 0 17.�d5 Or 17.E:ad1 %lfc4; 17.E:fe1 f6 18 . .!Lld5 �c5 19 . .ie3 %lfd6= . 12 ... dxe5 13.fxe5 �g4 1 7. . . 'ffd6 19.l:i:fel f6= . 18.l:i:adl l:i:ae8 B. 6 . . . e5 14 . .te4 14.e6 fxe6 leaves White wonder ing how to neutralise the threat of . . . .b:f3. 1S.i.e4? .b:c3 16.bxc3 0-0 revives the mating threat (17. h:b7? E:xf3-+) when 17.�h4 he4 18.%lfxg4 idS is clearly better for Black. 15.%l/h4 .b:f3 ! 16.E:xf3 (16. gxf3 �geS 17.i.e4 E:d8 18.i.h6 .b:h6 19.�xh6 �f6+) 16 . . . tt:lge5 17.E:f2 (17.�g3 E:c8 18.i.f4 0-0) 17 . . . tt:lxd3 18.cxd3 .!Llf6 19 . .!Lle4 (19.%lfh3 %lfd7) 19 . . . 0-0+ also favours Black. 14 . . . �gxe5 ! 15 . .tf4 15.tt:ld5 �d6 16.tt:lf6+ exf6 17.i.xb7 E:b8+ or 15.tt:lxe5 .heS 16 . .ih6 .hc3 17.bxc3 fS 18 . .b:b7 %lfxb7 19.�e6 �e4 2 0.�xe4 fxe4 2l.E:ae1 .!LlcS 2 2 .i.e3 E:c8+ favour Black. 7.tt:lb3 tt:lbd7 leaves White won dering how to justify the early ex pansion with the f-pawn. After 8.%lff3 bS !i.lack's play is easy and natural - he is fighting for the d5-square. 8 . .ie2 fi.e7 9.g4 h6 puts a stop to White's pawn storm. The game Caldeira-Leitao, Serra Negra 2002, went 10.f5? bS 11.0-0 ib7 12.i.f3 E:c8 13.E:e1 tt:lb6 (intending . . . dS) 14.tt:la5 (or 14.a3 tt:la4 15.tt:lxa4 bxa4 16.tt:ld2 dS 17.exd5 hd5 18.E:xe5 i.xf3 19.%lfxf3 E:xc2-+) 14 . . . ia8+. 225 Part 7 10J'�g1 is more positional. The game Sax-H. Olafsson, Hastings 1990, saw further 10 . . . �b6 (10 . . . lLlh7 ! ? looks even better) 1 U�g2 exf4 12 .hf4, when 12 . . . lLle5 13.�d2 i.d7= would have been balanced. 8.a4 does not hamper Black's development: 8 . . . i.e7 9 .i.e2 b6 10.0-0 i.b7 ll.i.f3 0-0 12.'it>h1 l:!c8 13.�e1 l:!e8 14.f5 dS+ . 7 ••• lLlbd7 8.a4 This move restricts . . . bS, but weakens the b4-square which could be used by Black's queen. The set up without a4 has his own adepts : a) 8 . .id3 .ie7 (8 . . . b5 right away is good, but we suppose that if White wanted to play a4, he would have done it on the previous move.) 9 . 0-0 0-0 10.'iflh1 bS Practice has shown that White has not a clear active plan from this position. ll.a4 is rather pointless since Black is able to pursuit his main plan with extra tempi after ll . . .bxa4 (ll . . . b4 12.lLle2 i.b7 13.li:lg3 lLlcS 14.fxe5 lLlfxe4 was equal in Ponk ratov-Kokarev, Voronez 2010.) 226 12 .'\We1 i.b7 13.l:!xa4 (13.lLlxa4 l:!e8 14.lLlc3 lLlcS= ) 13 . . . lLlc5 14.l:!a1 exf4 15.i.xf4, Fedorchuk-Jobava, Ohrid 2001, 15 . . . l:!e8. ll.�e1 allows ll ... b4 with full equality after 1 2 .lLld5 lLlxdS 13.exd5 i.b7 14.fxe5 lLlxeS 15.lLlxe5 dxe5 16.�e4 g6 17.i.h6 l:!e8= , Marya sin-Najer, Ashdod 2 004, although 11.. .i.b7 is an absolutely sound op tion which maintains the tension, for instance 12 .fxe5 (12.lLlh4 b4 13.lLld1 lLlcSt) 12 . . . lLlxe5 13.tt:lxe5 dxeS 14.a3 �d6 15.�g3 'i!?h8 16.ie3 l:!ad8 17.l:!ad1 �e6= . Finally, ll.a3 l:!e8 i s also pleasant for Black who focuses on the e4-tar get. Then 12 .fxe5 dxeS 13.lLlh4 does not work due to 13 . . . lLlc5 14.%Vf3 .ig4 15.�g3 �d7 16.h3 i.e6+. 12 .%Vel ib7 13.fxe5 is not any better: 13 ... dxe5 14.'\Wg3 (14.i.g5 �b6 15.tt:lh4 g6 16.l:!d1 lLlhS+) 14 . . . lLlc5 15.ih6 .if8 16.l:!ad1 �c8+. For 12 .'i9e2, look at game 31 Van der Wiel Portisch, Amsterdam, 1990. In these examples we see White un able to create threats while his dark squares are very sensitive. b) 8 . .ic4 bS 9 . .id5 (9.ib3 ie7 10.�e2 0-0 11.0-0 .ib7 12.'i!?h1 tt:lc5) 9 . . . l:!b8 lO.lLlgS lLlxdS 11.Wxd5 (11. lLlxdS .ie7 12 .'\WhS hg5 13.fxg5 lLlcS+ , Tseshkovsky-Vitiugov, Sochi 2 007) ll . . . �e7 forces White to shift into reverse: 1 2 . 0-0 (or 12.'\Wd3 li:lf6 13.0-0 h6 14.lLlf3 b4 15.lLld5 tt:lxd5 16.�xd5 '\Wc7+; 12 .�d1 lLlf6 13.0-0 h6 14.lLlf3 �c7=) 12 . . . h6 13.lLlf3 b4+, Kortschnoj-Hort, Zuerich 1984. The 6.f4 System Several good players tried quick long castling hoping for a kingside pawn storm: c) 8 .�e2 bS 9 .i.e3 i.b7 10. 0-0-0 �aS�, Firman-Efimenko, Warsaw 200S. The game Volokitin-Harikrishna, Cap d'Agde 2006, introduced the amazing move : d) 8 .g4 in the diagram position. The weak est point of the enemy set-up is the e4-pawn, so: 8 ... lt:lc5 ! is the logical follow up of Black's previous move. We have no clue what Volokitin had in mind since both 9.gS or 9.fxeS meet 9 . . . lt:lxe4 and we do not see how White could justify his flank assault. 8 . . . .le7 At first glance it seems more like a bluff suitable for the rapid control. Black boldly, but probably unnecessarily, accepted the chal lenge and quickly gained the up per hand: 8 . . . lt:lxg4?! 9.i.c4 lt:lb6 10.i.b3 i.e7 11.lt:lgS? ! 0-0 (ll . . . exf4 ! ? is roughly balanced, 12.lt:lxt7 i.h4+ 13. 'it>fl �f6 14.lt:lxd6+ 'it>f8 1S.lt:lxc8 lt:le3+ 16 . .he3 fxe3+ 17. 'lt>g2 :B:xc8 18.:B:f1 i.f2 19.�hS g6 2 0 .eS l!Nc6+ 2l.�f3 + = , or 13 . . . lt:lf2 14.�d4oo ih3 + 1S.'it>e2 f3+ 16.'1t>xf3 :B:f8) 12.fS lt:lf6 13.a4 h6 14.h4 dS 1S.aS d4 16 axb6 dxc3 17.l!Nf3, when 17 . . . �xb6+ is clearly better for Black. However, in his monthly up date to Chesspublishing.com, Tony Kosten pointed out that ll. :B:g1 was probably stronger and we can only agree with him ! I think that Black should be looking for improvement Bl. 9.i.c4 B2. 9.i.d3 Bl. 9 . .lc4 �a5 10.�e2 10.i.d2 exf4! is similar to the main line. Attempts to exploit the placement of Black's queen on aS have not been successful: ll.'!Ne2 Or ll.lt:ldS l!NcS 12.lt:lxe7 'it>xe7 13.�e2 lt:leS 14 . .id3 i.g4 (14 . . . gS ! ? 1S.b4 lt:lxf3+ 16.gxf3 l!NeS 17J!a3 l!Nb2 18.:B:c3 i.d7� is too extreme.) 1S . .ixf4 :B:he8 = . 227 Part 7 ll . . . lLleS 11 ... 0-0 12 .lLldS �d8 13.hf4 lLlxdS 14 . .ixdS lLlf6 1S . .ib3 leaves some initiative to White, 1S . . . �aS+ 16 . .id2 �cs 17. 0-0-0 .ie6 18 . .ixe6 fxe6 19.eS dxeS 2 0 . lLlxeS. 12 ..ib3 Wfc7! There is no need to let the ene my knight pass through dS : 12 . . . 0-0 13.lLldS �d8 14.lLlxf4 .id7 1S . .ic3 .ic6 16.0-0-0. tiative into concrete variations. Our analysis runs: 2 0.Wfh3 exf4 2 l..ixf4 lt>g8 2 2 . .ie3 �xb2 23 . .id4 (23.lLlf3 .ixe4 24.lLlxg7 lt>xg7 2S.�xh6+ lt>g8 2 6 . .id4 �xc2 = ) 23 . . . Wfxc2 24.lLlxh6+ (24.lLlxg7 hxgS= ) 24 ... gxh6 2S.Wfxh6 .ixe4 26.lLlxe4 gxe4 27.�gS+ 'it>h7 2 8.gxe4 Wfxe4 29.hf6 lLlxf6 30.Wfxf6 �g6 3 1.�h4+ lt>g7=. Anyway, it is better to avoid this po sition. 12 . .ixf4 lLle5 13 . .ixf4 0-0 14.0-0-0 bS ! and Black is ahead. 10 . . . 0 - 0 11. 0 - 0 l l . .ia2 is just a waste of time: ll . . . exf4 12.0-0 lLleS. ll . . . exf4 We would have liked to suggest a sideway which would bring about more complex play, but unfortunate ly ll . . . bS? ! is quite dubious due to 12.lLldS bxc4 (or 12 . . . lLlxdS 13.hdS i.b7 14.hb7 �b6+ 1S.lLld4 ! ? Wfxb7 16.lLlfS;t) 13.lLlxe7+ 'it>h8 14.�xc4. The game Stellwagen-Spoelman, Netherlands 2 0 0S, went on with 14 . . . .ib7 1S.tt:JgS WfcS+ 16.WfxcS. White has a strong initiative thanks to his passed queenside pawns. More tangled is 14 ... Wfb6+ 1S.rit>h1 aS 16.ge1 .ia6 17.Wfc3 .ib7 18.lLlgS gae8 19.lLlfS h6. It is unbelievable that Black could survive the attack of all White's pieces. We could not find a direct refutation, but perhaps somebody could shape White's ini2 28 13.i.b3 13.heS dxeS 14.'it>h1 Wfc7 1S.lLldS lLlxdS 16.hdS .ie6 was equal in Stellwagen-Nunn, Am sterdam 2 0 0 6 after 17.he6 fxe6 18.gfd1 gad8 19.gd3 gxd3 2 0 .Wfxd3 gd8= . 16 . . . i.d7 is more flexible and certainly not worse. The game Leko-Kasparov, Sa rajevo 1999, serves as a model how to neutralise 13.lLldS : 13 . . . lLlxdS 14 . .ixdS .ie6 1S ..ixe6 lLlxf3+ 16.Wfxf3 fxe6 17.�b3 WfcS+ 18.'it>h1 Wfc8 19.gad1 (19.h3 Wfd7 2 0.gad1 bS=) 19 . . . bS ! 20.axbS axbS 2l.WfxbS gb8=. The 6.f4 System 13 . . . .tg4 14.'it>hl �ac8 Black has found good stands for his pieces, Mertens-Cheparinov, Reykjavik 2 0 1 2 . B2. 9 .id3 0-0 10. 0 - 0 exf4 ll . . .tiJh5 ll . . . 'Llc5 12 ..b:f4 �g4 is roughly equal and it maintains niore ten sion. We consider this position in the comments to 11. . . �b6+ in line B22. 12.c!iJ d4 White can recapture the f4pawn also with the manoeuvre 'Lle1-d3, but then he loses control of the centre and Black could break trough by . . . d5 : There is no need to rush with ll . . . 'Llc5. In some variations the knight could go to e5 or even to f6 as in line B 2 2 . On the other hand, we still can turn to that idea as in line B21. Now White can sacrifice a pawn or delay recapturing on f4 at the cost of allowing exchanges of minor pieces: B21. 1l.i>h1; B22. l l . .b:f4 B21. ll.'it>hl In most games White prefers to avoid the pawn sacrifice which is the subject of line B 2 2 . However, this approach does not give him a chance for even the slightest advan tage after: a) 12 .'Lle1 'Lle5 (12 . . . g6 13.�e2 'Lldf6 14.'Lld3) 13.�e2 'Llf6 14 . .b:f4 (14.'Lld3 g5 is awkward, e.g. 15.g3 fxg3 16 . .b:g5 �h3 17.hxg3 'Llxe4+) 14 . . . �e6 (14 . . . �b6 is usually good when the enemy rook had left al. Otherwise aS would be with a tem po : 15.'Lld3 'Llc4 16.�el �e6 17.a5t) 15.'Lld3 'Llg6 16.�g3 d5 17.�f3 d4= Bauer-Gelfand, France 2000. b) 1 2 .'Lld5 'Lldf6 13.'Llxf4 al lows Black to employ a typical for this line manoeuvre : 13 . . . �g4. The reason behind it is to increase the pressure on e4 with the help of . . . �g4-h5-g6, for instance: 14.�el E\e8 15.�d2, Gross-Navara, Czechia 2002, 15 . . . 'Llxf4 16.�xf4 �h5 17.E\dl �b6= . c) 12 .�e2 ! ? is an interesting at tempt to trick the opponent with the move order. For instance, 12 . . . 'Lldf6 will b e strongly met by 13.'Llel g6 14.'Lld3, transposing to a sideline of variation a. Hamdouchi-Istratescu, Bergara 229 Part ? 2010, went 14 . . . !!e8 15.tt'lxf4 tt'lxf4 16.ix:f4 i.e6 17.�d4 !!c8 18.ih6;!;. Perhaps Black should choose: 12 . . . tt'lc5 13.tt'ld4 tt'lf6 14.i.f3 dS 15.exd5 id6oo. 12 .. .1t�df6 12 . . . g6 leads to the same posi tions after 13 . .ie2 g6, but White can also try the active 13.tt'lf5 which is best met with 13 . . . tt'ldf6 14.tt'lxe7+ �xe7 15.hf4 tt'lxf4 16.M4 .ie6 17.�e2, Dvoirys-Averchenko, Tomsk 1997. Here, 17 . . . tt'ld7 leads to a typi cal Scheveningen position where Black has managed to swap the dark-squared bishops, e.g. 18 . .ic4 tt'lb6 = . 13.i.e2 g6 can achieve this with a knight on c3, or with a knight on d4 after 14.ixh5 tt'lxhS 15.tt'ld5 igS 16.tt'lxf4 (16.�f3 .id7) 16 . . . tt'lxf4 17.hf4 .ixf4 18.:gxf4 when the e4-pawn is weak. In the game Fressinet-Relange, Meribel 1998, Black gradually gained the initiative after 18 ... �b6 19.b3 .id7 20.�d3 :gae8 21.!!afl 'iJ,e7 22.!!f6 �cS 23.h3 �es 24.!!6f4 :gfe8 25.c3 dSt. 14 . . . .ie6 15.�xe7+ Y!rxe7 16 .ixh5 �xh5 17. .ixf4 �xf4 18.gxf4 gac8 = • White has no chances for attack nor could he bind the enemy with the defence of the d6-pawn. At the same time, Black retains possibili ties for a queenside activity. Tivia kov-S. Atalik, Turin 2 0 06. B22. ll . .ixf4 YHb6+ If White offers us a pawn, why not taking it? ! There is no refuta tion and the subsequent variations are logical enough. You do not need some heavy memorization at all. However, White can make a forced draw by repetition of moves after 12.'>!lh1 �xb2 13.tt'ld5 lL'lxd5 14.exd5 lL'lc5 15.!!b1 �xa2 16.:ga1=. We have reached the crucial po sition for the 11. '>!lh1 line. In the next few moves most of the minor pieces will be swapped and White will re main with a knight vs. a bishop. He 230 The alternative ll . . . tt'lcS is solid and well tested. It leads to quite balanced positions : 1 2. '>!lh1 .ig4! The 6.f4 System 13.i.e3 :1:1c8 ! (defending the cS knight) 14.�d2, when Black chooses between 14 . . . :1:1e8 = , Ye Jiangchuan Vachier Lagrave, Paris 2006, or the simpler 14 . . . lt:ixd3 15JWxd3 (15.cxd3 dS 16 . .td4 dxe4+) 15 . . . i.e6 16.:1:1fd1 (16.lt:id5 i.xdS 17.exd5 �c7= ). Black has a slight initiative here. He could use it to force play with 16 . . . lt:ig4 17.i.g1 i.f6 18.:1:1ab1 lt:ieS 19.�xd6 �xd6 20.:1:1xd6. Now 20 . . . lt:ixf3 21.gxf3 i.xc3 2 2 .bxc3 :1:1xc3 is pleas ant for him, but rather drawish. He could also struggle for the initiative with 2 0 . . . :1:1fe8 ! , for instance 2 1.:1:1b6 ti:\xf3 2 2 .gxf3 i.xc3 23.bxc3 :1:1xc3 24.:1:1xb7 :1:1xf3 25.:1:1b8 i.c8 26.:1:11b6 Elc3 27.:1:1xa6 :1:1xc2 28.a5 hS 29.:1:1aa8 @h7+. 12.�hl �xb2 13.Wfd2 is bad, since the queen cannot reach the kings ide from d2 : 13 . . . �b6 14.lt:id5 lt:ixdS 15.exd5 lt:icS 16.lt:ig5 (16.:1:1ae1 �d8 17.h3 i.d7 18.a5 :1:1c8 19.:1:1e2 lt:ixd3 20.cxd3+, Adams-Van Wely, rapid, Germany 1994) 16 . . . i.xg5 17 . .txg5 f6+, Vogt Gelfand, Halle 1987. 13.�e1 is popular, but dubious. We answer 13 . . . �b6 ! In this line, 13 . .. lt:ic5? ! is bad. White gets an unpleasant grip over the centre with 14.:1:1b1 lt:ixd3 15.cxd3 Wfc2 16.:1:1d1 Wfb3 17.lt:id4 �b6 18.i.e3�. 14.lt:id5 14.i.g5 Wfd8 (Valeanu-M.Hoff mann, Rogaska Slatina 2011, saw 14 . . . lt:ic5 15.lt:id5 lt:ixdS 16.exd5 lt:ixd3 17.cxd3 i.xgS 18.lt:ixg5 \Wd8 19.\Wg3 h6 20.lt:ie4 fS 21.lt:ixd6 f4=.) 15.Wfh4 :1:1e8 16.e5 This posi tion is evaluated by Boensch in the Informator as clearly better for White. Indeed, 16 . . . dxe5 17.i.xf6 lt:ixf6 18.lt:ixe5 i.e6 19.:1:1ae1, Kveynis-Van Welly, Moscow 1994, looks dread ful, but contemporary engines eas ily refute White's threats: 19 ... h6!+ 2 0.lt:ig6 (or 2 0 .i.c4 i.d6; 20.lt:ie4 lt:ig4) 20 . . .i.c5 2l.lt:if4 i.d7. 14.:1:1b1?! only urges the queen to its best defensive place : 14 ... Wfd8 15.e5 dxeS 16.lt:ixe5 lt:icS ! 17.i.c4 i.e6+, Zarnicki-Dvoirys, Biel 1993. 14 ... lt:ixd5 15.exd5 �d8 231 Part 7 would have equalised: 33 l:!f7 + �d6 34 l:!xf8 l:!xf8 35 l:!xf8 l:!h4= . 19.l:!ae1 .tg6 2 0 .hg6 fxg6+, Panchanathan-Saravanan, Nagpur 2002. 1 3 . . . lLlxd5 14.exd5 lLlc5 We see the downside of the queen being on e1 compared to the mainline, where it can go to e2, en abling l:!ael. This circumstance pro vides the vital tempo which Black needs to set up coordination be tween his pieces. De Firmian-Van Wely, Akureyri 1994, saw further 16.%Yg3 lLlcS 17.l:!ae1 lLlxd3 18.cxd3 ifS+. Apparently, White has to waste a tempo in order to secure his light-squared bishop which is es sential for the attack: White has not been able to prove an advantage so far. In fact I'm not sure whether he has a full compen sation. Black's extra pawn could be come an important factor. 14 . . . �b6?! is too passive. White dominates after 15.�e2 .if6 16.l:!ab1 %Yc7 17.ig5 �d8 (the exchange sac rifice 17 . . . g6 18 . .ih6 �d8 19.hf8 tLlcS is not sufficient for equality 19.hf8 Wxf8 2 0.lLld2 Wg7 21.lLlc4±, Li,Chao-Gashimov, Khanty-Mansi ysk 2009.) 18 %Ye4 g6 19 %Yh4 hS 20 hf6 lLlxf6, Filippov-Al Modiahki, Hyderabad 2 005, 21.lLle5 ! ? �g7 2 2 . lLlc4t. 16.c4 lLlc5 17.ic2 ig4 18.%Yg3 (or 18.l:!a3 %Yd7 19.l:!e3 l:!ae8) 18 . . . ih5 ! The typical bishop manoeuvre ic8-g4-h5-g6 saves Black from trouble. This is the only way for Black to obtain an advantage. Much more popular is: 18 ... ixf3? ! 19.l:!xf3 ih4 2 0 .%Yh3 g6 21.ih6 .tf6 2 2 .l:!af1 ig7 23.g4 ! and now only 23 . . . f6 ! tames the at tack. 24.b:g6 hxg6 25.hg7 'i!?xg7 26.g5 l:!h8 27.gxf6+ 'i!?f7 28 .%Yg3 ! lLld7 29.%Yxd6, Jepson-Am. Rodri guez, Mondariz 1994, ended well for White, but 29 . . . lLlf8 ! 30J!�'e5 l:!hS 31.%Ye7+ %Yxe7 32 .fxe7+ Wxe7 232 15.%Ye2?! The wisest decision is: a) 15.l:!b l ! �xa2 16.l:!a1 with a draw. Alternatively: The 6.f4 System b) 15J3el? .ig4 ! and Black solves the problems of development, Tischbierek-Lutz, Hamburg 1995. c) lS . .igS hgS 16.llJxg5 g6 17.�f3 fS 18J'!ael �f6+. d) 15.�e 1 ! ? l3e8 (15 . . . llJxd3 16.cxd3 i.f6 17.l3bl �a3 18.llJd2 ! practically forces Black to sacri fice the exchange with 18 . . . �xd3 19 . .ixd6 .ifS 20 ..ixf8 l3xf8�. Al though his bishop pair possibly pro vides an adequate compensation, the text move is even more inter esting. ) 16.hh7+ (16.hd6 llJxd3 17.cxd3 is unclear, for instance 17. . . �f6oo or 17 . . . .ih3 18.l3f2 �b6 19 . .ixe7 l3xe7=) 16 . . . 'i!?xh7 17.hd6 ixd6 18.�xe8oo .ig4 19.�xa8 i.xf3 20.�d8 .ixg2 + 2l.'i!?xg2 �xc2+ 22.l3f2 �e4 + = . In the last variation, 18 ... �f6 maintains tension, but it is doubtlessly very risky. 15 . . . llJxd3 16.ti'xd3 ti'b4! Black's queen is extremely agile. It combines attack with defence and disturbs the coordination between the enemy pieces. We could safely assess the position as slightly better for Black here, but still it would be good to see another practical test. 15 . .ig5 Boensch' suggestion 17.c4 is per haps White's best chance to strug gle for equality: 17 . . . l3e8 18.l3fe1 ig4 19.l3eb1 �cs 20.l3xb7 .if6=/+. The exchange of the dark-squared bishops is positionally correct, but by reducing the number of minor pieces White looses his last chances for attack. 15 . . ..tg5 (Paradoxical 17. . .f6!? seems good too.) 18.�xg5 18 . . . Yfh4 White hopes to weaken the dark squares around the enemy king. The best defence is probably 18 ... fS ! ? taking e4 under control. This ugly move is tactically based on the weakness of White's first rank: 19.l3fe1 .id7 20.l3e7 l3ae8 ! . Instead, he can try 2 0.l3ab1 �h4 2 l.llJe6 l3f7+ or 19.a5 l3e8+. Sooner or later Black will trade his bishop for the knight, remaining a sound pawn up in a heavy pieces ending. In the stem game Leko-Gelfand, Belgrade 1995, which we have been following, Gel fand came to that idea in a much worse setting. 19.�e4 Or 19.�e3 fS. After the knight move, Gelfand should have contin ued with 19 . . . �e7 20.l3ae1 fS=. In stead, he chose 19 . . . l3d8?! 20.�e3 ! fS? (20 . . . h6 2l.�b6 .ih3 ! ! =) 2l.llJxd6 �f6, which gave White an edge after 22.llJc4. 233 Part 7 Co m p lete G a m es 3 1 . Va n der Wiei-Portisch Amsterd a m , 1 990 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.f4 e5 7 . �f3 �bd7 8.J.d3 b5 9.a3 J.e7 1 0 .0-0 o-o 1 1 . h 1 gea as the c8-bishop is still controlling fS. After 13 . . . tt:lc5 14.�f3 i.g4 15.�g3 �d7 16.h3 i.e6, Black is already slightly better. Therefore, White should wait for . . . i.b7. His only use ful moves are with the queen since 12 .i.e3 wastes a tempo in the event of 12 . . . exf4. 12 .�el i.b7 13.fxe5 dxeS 14.�g3 looks natural, but on g3 the queen is exposed to attacks from Black's knight, 14 . . . tt:lc5 15 . .th6 i.f8 16.l'!adl �cS:t. On the other hand, 14.i.g5 �b6 15.tt:lh4 g6 16.l'!dl tt:lhS+ is also awkward for White. Finally, remains the move made by Van der Wiel. 1 2.YlYe2 12 .f5?! is dubious in this struc ture, because White would be un able to prevent the breakthrough . . . dS. Therefore, his only sensible plan should involve fxeS aiming to activate the dark-squared bishop. White has two important decisions to make: 1. When to take on eS 2 . Where to shift the queen - to el or e2. 12.fxe5 dxeS 13.�h4 seems con sistent, but in fact it is not effective 234 1 2 . . . .tb7 1 3 .fxe5 White has to swap central pawns to avoid counterplay against e4. 1 3 . . . dxe5 1 4. tt:l h 4 g 6 1 5.J.g5 YlYb6 The 6.f4 System Black's only tangible weakness is f7. Portisch finds a way to protect it with his queen, e.g. 16.'i;!ff3 \We6+, intending . . . ltlhS. lS . . . ltlhS was also very good. We suppose that Portisch did not want to let the enemy knight to fS after 16.he7 'i;!lxe7 17.lLlfS, but 17. . . \Wf8 18.g3 ltldf6 would be in his favour. 22 . . . 'f!Yc6? ! Merciless computer quick ly finds the killing 22 . . . hg2 + ! 23.�xg2 'i;!lg6+ 24.�h3 (24.�hl 'i;!le4+ 2S.�gl �h8) 24 . . . 'it>h8 ! ! 2S.!!f3 dxc2 26.ltld2 'i;!lh6+ 27.'i;!lh4 Wxd2-+. The human move 1s not so efficient, but it still keeps the ad vantage. 1 6.a4? ! 23J:�g 1 16J�f3 allows 16 . . . lLlhS ! +, when the knight on hS is not hanging in the variation 17.i.xe7 !!xe7 18.lLlfS?? gxfS. Realizing that his kingside ex pansion has reached an impasse, White tries to activate his bishop. This idea proves to be too slow. 1 6 . . . b4 1 7. c!O b 1 c!O h 5 1 8 . .be7 l!!!x e7 1 9. c!Of5? Loses by force, but 19.ltld2 ltlf4t is not appealing either. 1 9 . . . gxf5 20 .\Wx h 5 fxe4! Portisch suggests 2 0 ... \Wg6, but it is unnecessarily solid. White can survive the ending after 2 1.'i;!fxfS �xfS 2 2 . !!xf5 lLlcS�. 2 1 .Wh4 exd3 22.Wxe7 23.Wxf7+ ? �h8 24.!!gl !!g8-+. 23 ... dxc2 24.c!Od2 a5 Simplest would have been to trade knights with 24 . . . 'i;!ldS ! 2S.l!:le4 \Wxe4 26. 'i;!lxd7 !!c8. This position is technically won. 24 . . . !!c8 24.!!acl aS transposes to the game while 2S.Wxb4?! lLlcS ! ! 26.'i;!lc3 'i;!ldS un expectedly creates another mating threat - . . . lLlcS-d3-f2 # ! 25J�ac1 gcs 26.c!Ob3 'f!Yxa4?? Portisch overlooks a small com bination and the game abruptly finishes with perpetual check. Ex change of queens by 26 ... 'i;!le6! 27.Wxe6 (27.WgS+ �h8 28.'i;!le3 i.dS+) 27 . . . fxe6 28.!!gel (28.lLlxaS .idS-+) 28 . . . i.dS 29.!!e3 ix:b3 30.!!xb3 e4 would have converted Black's advantage. 27.gxc2 ! gxc2 28.'f!Yg5+ 'it>h8 %-% 23S Part 7 32. Gallagher-Wojtkiewicz Neuchatel 1 996 1 .e4 cS 2. /0f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.10xd4 /0f6 5./0c3 a6 6 .f4 eS 7 . /0f3 10bd7 8.a4 J.e7 9.J.d3 0-0 1 0.0-0 exf4 1 1 . .ixf4 'ft'b6+ 1 2.mh 1 'ft'xb2 hurry up back home: 13 . . . �b6, benefitting from the fact that White cannot place a second hit on e7 af ter 14.ltlxd5 ltlxd5 15.exd5 �dB. 1 3 . . . /0xdS 1 4.exd5 /0c5 14 ... �b6?! wastes too many tempi : 15.�e2 .if6 16J!abl �c7 17 . .ig5 �dB. White owns the initia tive after 18.�e4. 1 5.�e 1 White gets a serious positional compensation for the pawn. It is a result of the great spatial advan tage which hinders Black's develop ment. The second player has two main problems to solve: to employ somehow the cB-bishop, and to set up connection between the rooks. As we see, these tasks are linked to gether. On the other hand, Black has al ready castled and he has no weak nesses on the kingside. We can assume that he should be able to withstand a direct attack. If he sur vived the next few moves, he could hope of obtaining counter-chances based on White's split pawn forma tion on the queenside. White cannot make progress without this move, but he could de lay it by 13.�el. Then Black should 236 15.�e2 ltlxd3 16.�xd3 �b4! is considered in the "Step by Step" chapter. Perhaps objectively best is lSJ!bl �xa2 with a repetition of moves after 16J!al. 1 5 . . . ltlxd3 lS . . J!eB ! ? could lead to compli cations that most probably should finish with a draw: 16.i.xh7+ lt>xh7 17.i.xd6 i.xd6 18.�xeB .ig4 19.�xaB .b£3 2 0 . �dB i.xg2+ 2l.lt>xg2 �xc2+ 22J!f2 �e4+ with perpetual check; 16 . .ixd6 ltlxd3 17.cxd3 ih3 1B.l3f2 �b6 19 . .ixe7 l3xe7=. 1 6.cxd3 J.f6 The 6.f4 System The critical moment of the game. White could have stayed in the game only with 17J�bl �a3 18.ttld2 ! which forces 18 .. .'i-Yxd3 19.ix:d6 i.f5 20.ix£8 l':MSiii . Many Topalov's games show that the bishop pair in an open position could be difficult to tame. Perhaps we should assess this position as balanced. 1 7. �e4? 1 9J!xb7 .id7 1 8J:lab1 1 0 .Wfe 1 b5 1 1 .a3 .ib7 1 2 .�f3 �c5 �a3 White has temporary evened the pawns, but lost the initiative. Now the bishop pair quickly decides the game. 19 . . .l:�� fe8 20 .Wfc4 .ixa4 2 1 . .ic 1 i'a 1 22 .Wfc7 .ie7 23.Wfc4 .ib5 24.Wff4 Wff6 25.�d4 .ixd 3 26J!d 1 i'g6 2 7 . �c6 .if8 2 8 . h 3 ge2 29.�f3 This game illustrates two impor tant principles of Black's opening strategy: 1. Quick development of the queen's knight to d7-c5 while the king remains in the centre. 2. Meeting f4-f5 by . . . d5. 1 3 . .id2 gcs It was interesting to bring yet an other hit on e4 : 13 . . . �c6 ! ? 14.ttld4 �d7, improving the queen's place ment for free since White's knight will have to return to f3 anyway. 1 4.f5 d 5 ! 1 5.exd5 �xd5 1 6.gc1 o-o 1 1. �h4 �xd3 29 . . . gxg2 30 .Wfxg2 .ie4 3 1 .gb2 ges 32. i>h2 .ixg 2 33.gxg2 Wff5 0-1 34 . .ib2-'g 6 33. Zozu l i a - Kolev Salou 2005 1 .e4 c5 2 .�f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.f4 Wfc7 7 . .id3 g6 8.0-0 .ig7 9 . i> h 1 �bd7 Black has to play concrete chess: 17 . . JUd8? 18.fxg6 hxg6 19.ttlxd5 .bd5 20.ttlg5 ! or 17 . . . ltlxc3?! 18 . .bc3 .bc3 19.bxc3 (19.ltlg5 h5 2 0 .bxc3 �d6) 19 . . . e5 20.f6 would have lost the opening battle. 1 8.cxd3 Wfd7 1 9 .�e4? 19.fxg6 fxg6 2 0.ltlg5? loses to 20 .. J:!xfl+ 21.!!xfl h6 22.ltlge4 (22. ltlf7 !!f8 ! ) 2 2 ... ltlxc3 23 . .ixc3 �xd3. 237 Part 7 We should also analyse White's most straightforward attempt to build an attack: 19.ih6 f6 29.ti'e2 gd7 30 . .if4 fS 3 1 .e5 h6 32.a4 gd4 33.ti'e3 ti'd5 34.�f3 gd3 35.ti'b6 Yfc6 36.ti'f2 ti'c3 37.�d2 0-1 Yfb4 38 . .ie3 ti'g4 34. H amdouch i - Kolev M a laga 1 998 1 .e4 cS 2 . �f3 d 6 3 . d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.f4 ti'c7 7.a4 g6 8 . �f3 �bd7 9 . .id3 .ig7 1 0 .0-0 b6 1 1 .ti'e 1 .ib7 White's threats look dreadful, but in fact Black easily deflects them. He can follow with : a) 19 . . . c!Llxc3 2 0 .i.xg7 (20. bxc3 i.f6 21.c!Llg5 �d5+) 2 0 . . . <.!.>xg7 21.bxc3 f6 ! 22.c!Lld4 gxf5 23.c!Llxf5+ i>h8+, or: b) 19 . . . i.f6 ! ? This move breaks White's co-ordination: 20.!g5 �xf5+; 20.c!Llg5 !1fd8 2 1.fxg6 (21.i.f8?? hg5) 21.. .fxg6 2 2 .c!Llce4 !1xcl 23.!1xcl Wff5 24.c!Llxf6 + c!Llxf6+; 20.Wff2 c!Llxc3 2 1 ..txf8 <.!.>xf8 22 .bxc3 Wfxd3, with a terrific com pensation: 23.fxg6 hxg6 24.c!Llg5 (24.c!Lld4 !1xc3+) 24 . . . <.!.>g7 and .. J:lh8 to follow. White is beyond salvation. 1 9 .. J�xc 1 20 . .txc 1 ti'xfS I have grabbed a pawn with a safe position. 2 1 .�fd2 �c8 2 2 . � b 3 �f6 23 . .ie3 �xe4 24.dxe4 ti'c4 25.�d2 Yfe6 26 . .tgs gds 27.b3 gd3 28.ti'f2 238 We should not fear a gradual at tack because our bishop on g7 en sures sufficient protection. The acid test of our set-up is a break in the centre. Fortunately, we are able to cope successfully with it: 1 2 .e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 c!Llg4 14.e6 fxe6 The 6.f4 System 15.Y,Yh4 15 ..!e4? has been tested in sever al games. Van der Weide answered 15 . . . 0-0 ! ? when 16 . .ixb7? loses to 15 . . .id4 + ! (16 . . J�xf3? 17.Y,Yxe6+ h8 18.E:xf3) 17.@h1 E:xf3-+ . Also good is 15 . . . .!d4+ 16. @h1 .ixc3 17.bxc3 0-0 18.Y,Yh4 .ixe4 19.Y,Yxg4 Y;l!c6 2 0.if4 hf3 2 l.E:xf3 E:fS+. 15 . . . hf3 16.gxf3 (16.E:xf3 llJgeS 17.E:fl llJxd3 18.cxd3 llJf6+) 16 . . . tt:JgeS with a slight edge, for ex ample: 17 . .if4 Y,Yc5+ 18.@h1 llJxd3 19.cxd3 0-0+; 17 . .ie4 E:d8 18.ih6 hh6 19.Y,Yxh6 llJf7 2 0.Y,Ye3 0-0+; 17 . .ie2 �c5+ 18.@g2 0-0+. 1 2 . . . llJc5! My way of handling this position is to build up pressure on White's central pawn e4 while delaying castling. Thus White cannot follow his thematic scheme with Y,Yh4. 1 3 .f5? ! This i s consistent, but inaccu rate. It is better to finish develop ment with 13 . .id2 E:c8 14.b4 llJxd3 15.cxd3 0-0. Black has enough counter chances connected with . . . d6-d5-d4 or counterplay down the c-file: a) 16.Y,Yh4 dS ! ? This way 1\\ack intercepts tbe initiative for a pawn. 16 . . . l\Vd7 17.£5 E:c7!? is even more challenging. White should prove that he has an attack or he may quickly tum to be the defensive side. 17.e5 d4 18.llJe2 (18.llJxd4 Y,Yd7 19.llJde2 llJdS 2 0.llJe4 llJc7) 18 ... hf3 19.E:xf3 llJdS 20.llJxd4 e6. White's has no longer an attack, so his queen is misplaced on h4. The strong knight on dS completely bal ances the game. 2 l .b5 (2l.E:ff1 Y,Yd7 22 .b5 axbS 23.axb5 :B:fe8�) 2 l . . . axb5 22.axb5 (22.llJxb5 Y,Yc2�) 22 . . . :B:a8 There is no reason to enter the unclear complications after 23 . . . �c5 24.f5! exfS 25.llJxf5 gxf5 26.:B:h3. 23.E:ffl (23.E:cl Y,Yd8 24.Y,Yel Y,Yd/oo) 23 . . .Y,Yc5 24.Y,Yf2 E:fd8. Black has a long-term compen sation. b) 16.f5 gxfS ! 239 Part 7 The open g-file will be in Black's favour! 17.exf5 �d7 24.llJd4 �xa4 25.�f4 (25.�g3 �a2 2 6 . .ie3 i.f7 27.h3 l'!e8 2 8.i.gl �d5?) 25 . . . l'!e8?. Or: 17.�h4 fxe4 18.llJxe4 �c2 ! 19.llJfg5 .he4 2 0 . dxe4 �xd2 21.:1!xf6 h6; 17.llJh4 e6 18.exf5 e5 19.llJe4 .he4 2 0.dxe4 �b7; 17. llJd4 llJxe4 18.llJxe4 hd4 19.�g3+ 'it>h8 20.llJg5 .if6 2 1.:1!xf5 �c2 ! . 17. . . �d7 19.�xd8 Or 19 . .ig5 .if6 2 0.g4 .hg5 2 1.�xg5 (21.llJxg5 h6) 2 1 .. .�xg5 2 2 .llJxg5 llJg7 23.f6 llJe8?. 19 ... l'!fxd8 2 0 .fxe6 fxe6 21.llJg5 .ih6 2 2 .g4 llJg7 23.'it>gl l'!d7= . 18.llJd4 (18.llJh4 e5 19.fxe6 fxe6) 18 . . . 'it>h8 ! 19.�h4 :1!g8 20.:1!f2 llJg4 2 1.�xg4 .ie5 2 2 .�h4 i.f6 23.�f4 .ig5-+. c) 16J�!acl �d8 (16 . . . �d7 17.�f2) 17.�h4 17.f5 is commonly met by 17 . . . e6 18.�h4 (Or 18.i.g5?! h6 19 . .ih4 exf5 20.exf5 g5; 18.fxg6 fxg6 19.�h4 �d7 20.�h3 e5=) 18 . . . llJh5 18 . . . exf5 ! ? is also possible here: 19.exf5 (19.i.g5 h6 2 0.hh6 llJg4 2 1.i.g5 f6 2 2 .i.d2 fxe4 23.dxe4 llJeS=) 19 . . . llJd5 2 0 . .ig5 (20.llJg5 h6 2 1.fxg6 fxg6 ; 2 0 . llJxd5 l:!xcl 21..hcl �xh4 2 2 .llJxh4 .hd5 23.f6 i.h8 24.i.g5 :1!e8 25.llJf3 :1!e2) 2 0 . . . f6 21.llJxd5 .hd5 2 2 .i.d2 ( 2 2 . :1!xc8? ! �xeS) 2 2 . . . :1!xcl 23.:1!xcl J 240 17 . . . d5 ! A standard tactical motif in this structure. Black effectively cuts across the opponent's attacking plan. 18.e5 d4! 19.llJe2 l'!xcl 2 0 .llJxcl (or 20.l'!xcl hf3 ! ? 2 1.gxf3 llJdS 2 2 .llJxd4 �d�) 2 0 . . . llJd5 2 1.�el (21.llJxd4 llJxb4) 2 1 . . . �d7 2 2.a5 bxa5 23.bxa5 �a4 24.llJe2 llJe3 25 . .he3 dxe3 26.�cl �xa5+, Mateo-Kolev, San Sebastian 1999. The 6.f4 System 1 3. . .d51 This counter-blow is especially effective when Black has not castled yet. Thus my king is able to retreat to the queenside. 1 4.e5 like 19.a5 bS 20.�xb5 axbS 2l.a6 .laB 22 . .ixb5 .ih6 23.a7 �b6+. 1 9 J::l a e1 l!?b8 20.�e2 d41 2 1 .�f4 �xf4 22.ti'xf4 f5 23.Vg3 23.lt:\xd4 i.h6 24.�f2 !!d5 25. t!Jf3 loses to 25. . . .if4 26. Wgl :Sxe5 27.t!Jxe5 i.xh2+. Trying to keep the centre closed. My pieces would be very active af ter 14.exd5 lt:\xd5 15 . .ig5 (15.lt:\xd5 .bd5 16.i.g5 0-0 17.�xe7 �c6t) 15 ... 0-0 16.fxg6 hxg6 17.lt:lxd5 .ixdS 18.%Yxe7 �c6. 1 4 . . . lt:lfe4 1 5.fxg6 hxg6 1 6 . .lf4 �e6 1 7 . .ig3 �xg3+ During the game, the variation 17.. .f5 18.exf6 (18.lt:\e2 gSt) 18 . . . �xg3+ 19.�g1 lt:lxf1 2 0 .i.xg6+ (20. fxg7 lt:\xg7 2 l..ixg6+ �d7 2 2 .�xfl l"!af8+) 2 0 . . . �d7 did not look clear to me. The postmortem showed that Black was better: 2 l .i.t7 �c5+ 2 2 .�xfl i.xf6 23.�xe6+ �c7 24.�xd5+ i.xdS 25.�xd5 .ixb2+. 23 ... e61 24.ti'xg6 gh& 25.Vg3 gdh8 26.ge2 After 26.h3 .if8 27.l=!e2 �h7 28.lt:\g5? �g6 I'm winning a piece: 29.�g1 .ie7. 26 . . ..tf8 27.ti'f4 gg& 28.Vxd4 .ic5 29.Vc3 ggh6 30.g3 Vg7 3 1 .ti'e 1 Vg4 1 8 .Vxg 3 0-0-0 My pieces are better coordinated so I was afraid of desperado-attacks A memorable position! Ham douchi is completely crushed so he resigned. 241 Part S The Fianchetto 1 .e4 c5 2 .li� f3 d 6 3 . d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.g3 Part S Q u ick Re perto i re l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.g3 6 . . . e5 In the "Step by Step" chapter, we also consider 6 . . . e6. It leads to rich play with many different plans for both sides. Its learning curve is also much steeper so we'll focus here only on the typical Najdorf set-up with 6 . . . e5. After this move, White chooses between 7.tt::l b 3 and 7.lt:lde2. White is planning to manoeuvre the knight to d2-c4 (or fl) and play mostly on the queenside. 7 .ie7! 8 .ig2 b5! ••• • This is the point of our recom mended set-up. White could not 244 hamper it as 8.a4? ! tt::l c 6 ! 9 . .ig2 tt::l b 4 would have been pleasant for Black. Now White can continue deve lopment or try to exploit our early commitment with . . . bS : al) 9.0-0 tt::l b d7! (connecting the knights for a better control over dS) 10 . .id2 0-0 l U�el tt::l b 6 12.a4 b4 13.tt::l d 5 tt::l bxdS 14.exd5 .ig4 15.£3 i.fS+. a2) 9.a4 b4 lO.ti:ldS ll.�xdS :!! a 7 12 . .ie3 .ie6 tt::l xdS The Fianchetto 6 .g3 Black's pieces are harmoniously developed while the only weakness on b4 is easy to protect with the rook. See game 35 Smirin-Belov, Biel 2008. 14.Wfd2 1!c8 15.0-0-0 1!c4, followed by . . . V!!c 7. b) 7A.)de2 J.e7 8.J.g2 Similarly to the previous line, we meet 8.a4 by 8 .. .ll:lc6 9 . .ig2 ll::l b 4 10.0-0 .ie6 10 ••• b4 ll.lLld5 lLlxd5 12.exd5 a5 8 ••• b5 9.h3 lLlbd7 10.g4 Black's centre is very stable so he can afford to leave the king un castled in the variation 10.a3 .ib7 ll.g4 ll::l c5 12.ll::l g 3 g6 13 . .ih6 ll::l e 6 The threat of 13 . . . .ia6 urges White to castle, but his king will not be much safe on the wing due to 13.0-0 h5 ! . See game 36 Alek seev-Dominguez, Biel 2008. 245 Part S Ste p by Step l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.g3 Players that choose 6 .g3 com monly seek quiet positional play which involves minimal risk and little theory. They are usually better prepared against 6 . . . e5 for it is seen three times more frequently. We'll cover this move, but we'll also of fer an alternative - 6 . . . e6. It is more flexible and leads to double-edged play. A. 6 . . . e6; B. 6 . . . e5 A. 6 . . . e6 7.J.g2 J.e7 8. 0 - 0 Y!Jc7 8 . . . 0-0 may pay off if White decided to punish it by 9 .g4 �c6 246 10.�xc6 (10 .g5 llJxd4 ll.�xd4 tLld7 12 .h4=) 10 . . . bxc6 11.g5 llJd7 12.f4 f6 13 h4 fxg5 14 hxg5 e5+. 9.a4 has no bite either due to 9 . . . tLlc6 lO .lLlb3 (10.lLlc6 bxc6 ll.e5 dxe5 12 .hc6 is not appealing for White due to the weakness of his queenside, 12 .. J'!b8 13.�xd8 l'!xd8 14.l'!dl l'!xdl+ 15.lLlxdl lLld5 16.lLle3 lLlb4 17 . .ig2 f5=) 10 . . . llJa5 ll.lLlxa5 �xa5, but: 9 . .ie3 is a sterner test of Black's move order. Now 9 . . . �c7? ! 10.g4! tLlc6 ll.g5 llJd7 12.f4 l'!e8 13.�h5 gives White a clear-cut plan for a direct attack. If you have doubts in the potential of White's assault, look at these two games: Fressinet-Cvitan, Kusadasi 2006: 13 . . . g6 14.�h3 i.f8 15.a4 i.g7 16.l'!adl �xd4 17.l'!xd4 tLlb6 18.e5 dS 19 . .if2 .id7 2 0 .f5 gxf5 21.1'!h4-+; The Fianchetto 6.g3 Movsesian-Hoeksema, Ensche de 2006: 14.�h4 lLlb6 15.'it>h1 llJc4 16.ig1 ttJxb2 17JU3 llJc4 18J!h3 hS 19.if3 i.f8 2 0.i.xh5 i.g7 2 1 .£5± gxfS 22.exf5 ttJxd4 23.i.xd4 eS 24.llJd5 W/c6 25.if3 1-0. Black should meet 9 . .ie3 by 9... ttlc6 when after 10.ttlxc6 bxc6 ll.es dxeS 12 .i.xc6 gbs 13.�xd8 l'!xd8 14.b3 .ib7 15.i.xb7 gxb7 16.ttla4 llJdS 17 . .id2 ttlb4 Anisi mov vs. Alekseev, St. Petersburg 2 006 signed a draw. Indeed, Black has active pieces, but, on the other hand, White's better pawn forma tion allows him to keep on playing without any risk. By 8 . . . �c7, Black prepares . . . ttlc6 on the next move. Al. 9.g4; A2 . 9.£4 ; A3 . 9 . .ie3; A4. 9.a4 This set-up allows Black to see White's plan before deciding where to develop the queen's bishop. Should White begin a pawn storm on the kingside, it would go to b7. Another point of Black's move order is delaying castling with the hope to discourage an immediate pawn storm on the kingside. As we'll see later, White can still launch that at tack, but at least he'll have to reckon with possible counterplay by ... h6. Al. 9.g4 This is probably the most con sistent objection to Black's move order. Against a knight on c6, such an attack needs a long preparation by h3 and probably ttld4-e2 . Now Black is faced with a dilemma. If he gave up space on the kingside, he'd have to play a known Scheveningen line without a tem po: 9 . . . llJc6 10.g5 llJd7 11.'it>h1 ! ll.tt'lde2 ? ! , ll.b3? ! and oth er moves face ll . . . h6!, with good counterplay, e.g. ll.tt'lde2?! h6 12 .gxh6 gxh6 13.tt'lg3 ttlf6 14.f4 hS !+ Inkiov-Epishin, Bratto 2000. After the text, ll ...h6 12.gxh6 gxh6 13.£4! is in White's favour, so Black has probably to answer ll . . . ttJxd4 12 .�xd4 0-0 13.f4oo, Pop ovic-Cvitan, Novi Sad, 1985. Any247 Part 8 way, there is something dubious about Black's set-up. In my opin ion, Black should stop the advance of the g-pawn with: 9 . . . h6 even at the cost of some weak ening of the kingside. Furthermore, h6 might turn useful later. 14 . . . 0 - 0 ! ? should b e the safer option. A similar position without the inser tion of g4 h6 occurred in the game Tal-Darga, Hamburg 1960. We an alyse it in line A2 . The text leads to double-edged play where I do not see an advan tage to White: 15.�e4 (15.Wf3 �xeS 16.�g3 �a7++; 15.We1 i.b7 16.l:'1dl !!adS) 15 . . . �xe5 16.Wd4 f6. A2. 9.f4 �c6 Now critical is : 1 0 .f4 �c6 11.�xc6 Common approach leaves White without a clear plan, e.g. 1l.�b3 !!b8 12 .\!;Ye2 bS 13.a3 �d7 14.�h1 i.f6�, Smirin-Ibraev, Calvia ol. 2 0 04. u ... bxc6 12.e5 (12 i.e3 !!b8oo) 12 . . . dxe5 13.fxe5 �d7 14 . .if4 The game Rublevsky-Volokitin, Sochi 2006, saw further 14 . . .i.b7 15.\!;Yf3 (15.�e4 �xeS 16.�d4 f6 17.�c5 !!d8 18.Wc3 .ixc5+ 19.�xc5 We7) 15 . . . !!b8 when 16.�e4 ! ?oo would have given White some initi ative. We suppose that: 248 1 0 .�b3 Like in the previous line, White can open up the centre by 10.�xc6 bxc6 ll.eS (ll.g4 is pointless while Black has not castled yet.) ll . . dxeS 12.fxe5 �d7! 13.i.f4 0-0. Apparent ly, Black holds this position. Tal Darga, Hamburg 1960, went on 14.�e4 (14.!!e1 .ib7 15.�h5 c5=), when 14 ... �xe5 15.�d4 (15.�h5 fS) 15 . . . f6 would have been about equal, 16.!!ad1 (16.�g5 h6) 16 . . . !!d8 17.he5 fxe5 18.Wf2 !!f8 19.�e3 .id7= . . The Fianchetto 6.g3 10 ••• b5 (10 . . . 0-0 ! ?) ll.a3 i.b7 The game Reshevsky-Najdorf, Buenos Aires 1970, went 12 .i.e3 gds (12 ... 0-0 13.g4 gfe8 is more natu ral) 13.'tMfe2 0-0 14.g4. Here, 14 . . . h6 is worth consideration, 15.g5 (15. h4 dS) 15 ... hxg5 16.fxg5 lt:Jh7 17.h4 ltJeS, with tangled play. A3. 9 .le3 lt:Jc6 • Cornette-Velikov, Evry 2002 : 14 . . . hc5 15.tt:Jxc5 0-0 16.'1We2 gds 17JUd1 Wc7 18. tt:Jxb7 \Wxb7 19.Wxe5 \Wb6 2 0 .�£3;!;. 12.c4 c5 13.b3 This is a useful move in all events. In Ahmed-Ghaem Maghami, Abu Dhabi 2 003, White tried to save it, but 13.'1We2 0-0 14.lt:Jc3 i.b7 15.g4 tt:Jd7 16.f4 �f6 turned bad for him after 17.'1Wd2? hc3 18.\Wxc3 ll'lf6+. 13 10.lt:Jb3 could be answered with lO ... bS. 10.'tMfe2 0-0 u.gad1 lt:Jxd4 (ll ... i.d7=) 12.i.xd4 eS 13.�e3 �e6 offers Black a comfortable game. 10 ••• bxc6 ll.c!i�a4 gbs This rook belongs to d8, but ll.. .i.b7 is met by 12 .�b6 '1Wb8 13.e5 ! dxeS 14.�c5. White maintains an noying pressure due to his better pawn formation: Vasiukov-J. Adamski, Zalaeger szeg 1977: 14 .. .'1Wc7 15.1Wf3 0-0 16.gad1 i.xcS 17.tt:Jxc5;!;; 15 ••. ••• .lb7 14.c!Llc3 0 - 0 15.g4 h6!? This move is a novelty. Practi cal experience has seen Black re treating the knight to d7 and setting up a defence line with .. J'!e8, ... g6, . . . i.f8-g7, or seeking counterplay by . . . fS. We are afraid that both meth ods have their flip sides. Our sug gestion faces White with the task of finding new plans without the help of the Megabase. That is not so sim ple, for instance: 16.f4 c!Llh7 249 Part S Now the attempt to prepare h4 by 17.�e1 if6 18 .h4 fails to 18 . . . ix:c3 19.'\1�hc3 tt'lf6+, with a double attack. 17J'k1 1'!fe8 18 .'We1 (18.�d2 if6 19.1'!fd1 1'!bd8 2 0 .h3 tt'lf8oo) 18 . . . .if6 19.if3 is not much better due to 19 . . . id4 2 0 1'!d1 eS+. 10 . . . b6 is often seen, but one should be a very ardent fan of the Scheveningen to play this posi tion without a tempo, ll.f4 ib7 (or 11 . . . 1'!b8) 12 .ie3 0-0 13.g4 1'!fe8 14.g5 tt'ld7. In the main line Scheve ningen it is Black to move ! ll.a5 A4. 9.a4 �c6 1 0 . �b3 You may wonder why not ll.f4, what is the difference with the pre vious note. Black uses the extra tem po to prepare a counter-strike in the centre : 11 . . . 1'!d8 ! ? 12 .g4 (12 .ie3 dS) 12 . . . d5 (The tricky 12 . . . h6!? may be even better. Then 13.h4? ! would enhance the effect of 13 . . . d5, while 13.a5 tt'ld7 14.'We1 bS 15.axb6 tt'lxb6 is double-edged.) 13.e5 tt'ld7oo. This line is the acid test for Black's set-up. White is intending to clamp on b6 by 11.a5. Alternatives : a) 10.tt'lce2 0-0 l l .b3 eS ! ? (11 . . . d S 12.exd5 tLlxdS) 1 2.tt'lxc6 bxc6 13.c4 1'!b8 14.h3 .ie6 15.tt'lc3 1'!fd8, draw, was the game Atlas-Rochev, Dun Laoghaire 2010. b) 10 . .ie3 0-0 11.f4 (11.'We2 tt'lxd4 12 . .ixd4 eS 13 . .ie3 .ie6 14.1'!fd1 1'!ac8 = ) 11 . . . 1'!e8 12.@h1 (12. tt'lb3 tt'ld7 13.g4 b6 14.g5 tt'lb4 15.1'!f2 .ib7 16.�g4 .if8 17.1'!afl g6 18.f5 tLleS 19.�h3 ig7+, Ivanchuk-Bu Xiangzhi, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011.) 12 . . . .id7 13.tt'lb3 tt'lb4 14.a5 eSoo. 10 . . . 0 - 0 250 Black prepares to recapture on b6 by knight. However, Black has not to rush with . . . bS. He can wait for the right timing. He could play firstly some useful moves like . . . 1'!b8, . . . tLl ceS, while White's plan is not too clear. The Fianchetto 6.g3 Black is assured of a satisfactory game with little risk. 12 . .1e3 12.'�e2 may be answered by 12 .. Jl:b8 (or 12 . . . b5 13.axb6 lDxb6 14J"ld1 l"lb8) 13.i.e3 lDce5. In Tseshkovsky-Rublevsky, St. Petersburg 1995, was 12.lDe2 when Black suddenly switched plans by 12 . . . lDc5 ! 13.lDbd4 l"ld8 14.i.d2 (14.'�'e1 e5= ) 14 . . . .if6 15 . .ic3 e5+. Gil. Hernandez-Galego, Maringa 1991, saw 14 . . . .if6 15J"la4 b5 16.axb6 lDcxb6! 17.l"la2 , when 17 . . . i.xc3 18.bxc3 a5t would have activated Black's light-squared bishop. B. 6 . . . e5 12 . . . �ce5! The bishop on e3 encourages Black to transfer his knight to c4. 12 ... b5? ! is a tactical mistake due to 13. axb6 lDxb6 14.lDb5 ! ? axb5 15.hbM Chiburdanidze-F. Olafs son, Vienna 1993. The b-pawn will be a constant cause of concern. Bl. 7.lDb3 ; B2. 7.lDde2 13.f9e2 �c4 14 . .1cl White is planning to manoeuvre the knight to d2-c4 (or fl). 7 . . . .te7! Black has comfortable equality: Lehmann-J. Marcus, Wijk aan Zee 1976, went on 14 . . . l"lb8 15.f4 .1f6 16.lDd1 b5 17.axb6 lDdxb6+. It is essential for Black to de lay the development of his queen's knight until . . . b5 has been played. Thus, 7 . . . lDbd7 is less accurate. We do not like Black's position af ter 8.a4 b6 9 . .ig2 i.b7 10. 0-0 .ie7 ll.l"le1 l"lc8 12.lDd2 0-0 13.lDf1 lDcS 14 . .ig5 lDe6 15.i.xf6 hf6 16.lDe3, with a firm control over the centre. 8.J.g2 251 Part S The fine point of Black's move order is seen after 8 . a4?! ttlc6 ! 9.!g2 tt:lb4, with easy play on the queenside: 10. 0- 0 !g4 l l.§'d2 :B:c8 12 .aS Wfd7 13.ttla4 §'bS+, Sharapov Gajewski, Cappelle la Grande 2 0 1 0 8 . . . b5! It is good to anticipate a4 as early as possible. Instead, 8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 tt:lbd7 turned well for Kolev after 10.:B:el bS ll.a4 b4 12.ttldS tt:lxdS 13.VBxdS :B:b8 14.h3 §'c7 1S.i.e3 ttlb6+, Pasalic-Kolev, Chicago 2 008, but 10.a4 ! would have been unpleas ant: 10 . . . b6 ll.ttld2 i.b7 1 2 .ttlc4 tt:lcS 13.i.gS tt:lfxe4 14 . .he7 Wfxe7 lS.tt:ldS .hdS 16.§'xdS ttlf6 17.§'xd6 Wfxd6 18.ttlxd6 :B:ab8 19.aS±. b) 9.0-0 tt:lbd7 This development is already good. White cannot exploit the ear ly . . . bS as 10.a4 b4 l l.ttla2 aS 12.c3 bxc3 13.ttlxc3 0-0 14.id2 ttlb6 is fine for Black, e.g. lS.tt:ldS tt:lfxd5 16.exdS tt:lc4 17.ic3 §'b6 18.ttld2 .ia6 19.ttlxc4 .ixc4 2 0.:B:el fS+. Quiet play is not promising ei ther: lO.id2 0-0 l l.:B:el (ll.a4 b4 12.ttldS tt:lxdS 13.exdS aS 14.c3 bxc3 1S . .hc3 §'b6! is similar to the pre vious example - 16.:B:a3 f5 17J!el !dB+, Socko-Kaijakin, Calvia 2004) ll.. .tt:lb6 12.a4 b4 13.ttldS tt:lbxd5 14.exdS i.g4 1S.f3 i.fS 16.g4 i.c8+. 9 ••• b4 1 0 .tt:ld5 tt:lxd5 11.Wfxd5 Black is better after l l.exdS aS 1 2 . 0- 0 0-0 13 . .id2 tt:ld7 14.c4 bxc3 1S . .ixc3 §'b6. ll •.• l3a7 12.!e3 .le6 9.a4 a) 9.!gS tt:lbd7 (9 . . . !g4 10.i.f3 ie6 is also a reliable option.) lO.tt:ldS (10.a4 .ib7 ll.axbS axbS 12.:B:xa8 Wxa8 13.ttlxbS 0-0 14.tt:lc3 tt:lxe4=) 10 . . . tt:lxdS ll.§'xdS tt:lb6 12 .he7 cJJ x e7 13.§'d2 f6 14.0-0 .ie6 1S.c3 :B:c8 occurred in Alekseev Nepomniachtchi, Moscow 2006. Black's pieces are obviously more active. 2S2 13.§'d3 The queen is eying the a6-pawn from here. The other black pawn on b4, is easily protected: The Fianchetto 6.g3 13JWd2 l:!b7 14.0-0 0-0 1S.aS ltJd7 16.l:!fd1 V!!c7 17 . .if1 l:!a8 when 18.l:!a4?! V!!c 6 19.l:!da1 (19.l:!xb4 l'!xb4 2 0 .V!!xb4 'W'xc2+) 19 . . . dSt is dubious for White. After the queen's retreat, Black has a comfortable position after 13 . . . l:!d7 ! ? or 13 . . . l:!a8. See game 35 Smirin-Belov, Biel 2008. ll.V!!xdS l:!a7 12 .i.e3 i.e6 13.'W'd3 l:!b7 14.0-0 'W'c8 1S.f4 0-0 16.fS .ic4 17.'W'd2 aS?. 9 . . . �bd7 B2. 7.�de2 J.e7 8.J.g2 This move allows 8 . . . bS, but 8.a4 also has a drawback - it weakens b4. Black can exploit that with the straightforward 8 . . . ttJc6 9 . .ig2 ttJb4 10.0-0 i.e6 ll.b3 when ll . . . dS elim inates to a drawish endgame after 12.exdS ttJfxdS 13 .i.a3 ttJxc3 14.ttJxc3 '?9xd1 1S.l:!axd1 ttJxc2 16.he7 'it>xe7 17.ttJdS+ hdS 18.l:!xdS 'it>e6 19.l:!fd1 ltJd4 2 0 .f4 l:!ad8 2l.l:!xeS+ 'it>f6, Ghaem Maghami-Vachier Lagrave, Dresden 2008. ll . . . l:!c8 ! ? keeps more pieces and seems promising. Topalov and other strong play ers successfully employ the set-up with . . . ttJbd7: 8 . . . b6 9.i.g2 i.b7 10.h3 ttJbd7 ll.g4 ttJcS 12.tLlg3 g6 13 . .ih6 (or 13.0-0 ttJe6 14.ttJdS l:!c8 1S.i.e3 ttJxdS 16.exdS ttJf4 17 . .ixf4 exf4 18.tLle2 hS!ii;, Paz Ladron de Gue vara-Kolev, Malaga 1998) 13 . . . ttJe6 14.'W'd2 l:!c8 1S.O-O-O l:!c4 16.'it>b1 '?9c7 17.l:!he1 l:!d4 18.Vf!c1 l:!b4= Kasparov-Topalov, Linares 1998. 8 . . . b5 9.h3 White has no prospects on the queenside: 9.a4 b4 10.ltJdS ttJxdS 10.g4 10.a3 does not prevent . . . b4 for long because Black can always re vive this threat with . . . l:!b8 and . . . aS. At the same time, this move might provide a lever for an attack in the event of long castling after 10 . . . .ib7 ll.g4 ttJcS 12.tLlg3 g6 13 . .ih6 ltJe6 14.Vf!d2 l:!c8 1S.O-O-O (lS.ltJdS ltJxdS 16.exdS ttJf4 17 . .ixf4 exf4 18.ltJe2 hS !?) 1S . . . l:!c4, followed by ... 'W'c7. 10 . . . b4 ll.�d5 �xd5 12.exd5 aS One of the reasons of delaying . . . .ib7 was to keep the option of de veloping the bishop to a6 open. Now the threat of 13 . . . i.a6 urges White to castle, but his king will not be much safe on the wing due to 13.0-0 hS! . See game 3 6 Alekseev-Domin guez Perez, Biel 2008. 2S3 Part S Co m p l ete G a m es 35. S m irin- Belov B iel 29.07.2008 1 .e4 cS 2 . �f3 d 6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.g3 eS 7.�b3 J.e7 8 .J.g2 bS 9 . a4 b4 1 0 . � d 5 �xd5 1 1 .Yfxd 5 ga7 1 2 .J.e3 J.e6 1 3 .'lfd3 19.l'!fc1 Vf/xd3 20.cxd3 l'!bc7=, Popov Sjugirov, rapid, Olginka 2 0 11. 1 4.0-0 0-0 1 5.f4 Y!Jc7 1 6.�d2 aS Of course, Black should not be afraid of 17.f5 .!c8 , but still, he could have opened the centre right away by capturing on f4. 1 7 .l'!f2 exf4 1 8 . gxf4 � d 7 1 9.J.d4 1 3 . . . gas It looks natural to protect the a6-pawn and enable development of queen's knight. Besides, other retreats also have turned well in practice: 13 .. J'�d7!? 14. 0-0 0-0 15.a5 Vf/c7 16.�d2 l'!c8 17.l'!fc1 Yfb7 18.c4 l'!dc7 19.f4 f6=, Kudrin-Shankland, Saint Louis 2010; 13 . . . l'!b7 14.0-0 Vf/c7 15.�d2 0-0 16.f4 l'!c8 17.f5 J.c4 18.�xc4 �xc4 254 1 9 . . . J.h4! Time to take stock. White's kingside pawns are split, and he can not use the open g-file for attack be cause his pieces are passive. The text brings even bigger disorder as 2 0 .f5 h£2 + 21.1!lxf2 ll'leS 2 2 . .ixe5 dxeS 23.fxe6 Vf/c5 + ! would be just bad. Only the d4-bishop is well placed The Fianchetto 6.g3 and it should be quickly neutralised with . . . i.f6. Every exchange would reduce White's attacking potential, leaving him only with weaknesses. In short, I'd take Black here. 2 0J�e2 gac8 20 . . .i.g4 is also consistent. Then 21.lt:lf3 is bad due to 2 1 . . . lt:lc5 22 .We3 lt:le6, so White would have to answer 2 1 ..if3 .ixf3 2 2 . lt:lxf3 i.f6. White's main problem is not that he is two pawns down, but the activity of Black's rooks·. He cor rectly attempts to set up coordina tion between his pieces, but choos es a wrong move order. 30.f5! E!f4 31. @f2 would have probably main tained the balance. 30 . . . b3 3 1 .�d4 gxf4+ 32.c!>e3 gs 33.i.ds gbs 2 1 . �f3 i.f6 1 Naturally, Belov does not hand the initiative to the opponent by 21. .i.c4?! 2 2 .�e3 .ixe2 23.lt:lxh4 and the knight lands on fS. 22.gd2 24.gad 1 i.c4 23.We3 gfe8 Smirin has fulfilled his plan. His minor pieces are already working in unison, but Black's material advan tage assures him of the advantage. He went on to win the endgame. 34.c!>d3 gb4 3S. @c3 gxa4 36.�xb3 @g7 37.ge2 gab4 38.ge7 gbs 39 .i.c4 gf3+ 40. @c2 gb4 41 .�xa5 ga4 42.i.e2 gf2 43. � b3 0-1 gxh2 44.�d2 gf4 It is already clear that White is on the defensive. Black's only prob lem is what to do with his light squared bishop. He decides to force exchanges which lead to a slightly better endgame. 24 . . . i.d5 1 ? 25 . .ixf6 �xf6 26.gxd5 �xdS 27 ,gxdS Bxc2 28.gd2 Bxe4 29.Bxe4 gxe4 30.c!>f2 36. Alekseev-Dom i n g uez Perez Biel 29.07.2008 1 .e4 cS 2 .�f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 �f6 s. �c3 a6 6.g3 es 7.�de2 J.e7 8 .i.g2 bS 9.h3 �bd7 1 0.g4 b4 1 1 .�d5 �xd5 1 2.exd5 aS 255 Part S White cannot resist the tempta tion to plant a knight on c6. If he were the attacking side, it would have been a terrific outpost, in deed. However, White should have realised that his king was in dan ger. Thus, 15.llJf4 gh4 16.llJe6 fxe6 17.dxe6 gbs 1S.Wff3 i.f6 19.i.g5 ghs 2 0 . exd7+ i.xd7 was called for. 1 3 .0-0 1 5 . . . �f6 1 6 .lLlc6 �c7 1 7 .�f3 White may have problems with his exposed king if he kept lingering with the castle: a) 13.a3 i.a6 14.i.d2 i.h4 ! +! . b ) 13.lLlg3 i.a6 14.h4 14.llJf5 0-0 15.i.e3 g6 16.llJxe7+ Wfxe7 17.�d2 gfcS 1S.h4 gc4 gave Black the initiative in Zdebskaja Dzagnidze, Moscow 2 0 0 2 ; 14.i.e3 wastes a tempo after 14 . . . i.g5 15.hg5 WfxgS 16.llJe4 Wfe7 17.�d2 0-0 lS.gS fS 19.gxf6 llJxf6t. 14 ... 0-0 15 ..ie3 �c7 16.gcl llJcS 17.b3 (17.c4 bxc3 1S.gxc3 gabS+!) 17 . . . a4 1S.Wid2 gabS 19.h5, Ye Jiangchuan-Gelfand, FIDE World Cup, Shenyang 2 0 0 0 , when Ftacnik suggests 19 . . . i.cS ! . 1 7 . . . J.f5 ! ? A solid consolidating move. Do minguez wants to keep his pieces together on the kingside. Another good, "human" move is 17 . . . 'i!?fS, keeping all options open. A com puter might have grabbed the cen tral pawn with 17 . . . i.b7 or 17 . . . e4, but such a decision is absolutely impractical as it would give White counterplay. 1 3 . . . h 5 ! 1 4.gxh5 1 8 .!1fe1 14.llJg3 hxg4 15.hxg4 llJf6 16.g5 llJg4 17.llJe4 fS 1S.gxf6 gxf6 19.gel fSt occurred in Inkiov-Ninov, San Sebastian 2009. 1 4 . . J �x h 5 1 5.�d4 256 1S.a3 b3 ! 19.Wlxb3 �d7 would be similar to the game. 1 8 . . . �d7 1 9.a3 b3 20.cxb3 J.xh 3 21 . .td2 J.xg 2 2 2 . q,xg2 The Fianchetto 6.g3 A critical moment of the game. White intends to swap the active rook on h5 with 23J'!hl. It is not easy to be in Black's shoes at this moment. If he tried 22 . . . g6 (hop ing for . . . Wf8-g7), after 23J:l:hl! e4 24.%Ve2 l:l:xd5 25.l:l:h8+ i.f8 26.i.h6 V9xc6 27.l:l:cl %Vb7 28.l:l:xf8+ We7 29.l:l:xa8 %Vxa8 30.l:l:c7+ We6 3l.Wfc4 White would take over the initiative for only one pawn. Another obvious try is 22 . . . l:l:h4 23.l:l:hl e4, but the endgame af ter 24.W/e2 W/g4+ 25.W/xg4 l:l:xg4+ 26. Wfl is impossible to assess. It might turn out that White's distant passers are stronger than Black's centre. Dominguez finds a way to maintain the tension and keep his active rook: 22 .. J;f5 1 ? 2 3.Wd3 � h 5 24J;h 1 g6 25.b4?1 This hasty move tips the balance in Black's favour. Understandably, Alekseev wants to distract the ene my from the kingside, but he should have preserved his dark-squared bishop at all cost. However, it is very difficult to find the variation 25.l:l:agl! .ig5 26.l:l:xh5 ! ! gxh5 26.Wfl f6 27.We 2 ! and it turns out that White's initiative levels the game as 27 . . . %Vf7? would stumble into 28.tt:\d4 ! . of course, black has a number of decent alternatives as 25 . . .i.f6 or 25 . . . l:l:c8, but the posi tion would have been completely unclear. Now Black's attack is de veloping irresistibly. 25 . . . .i.g5 26.b5 .bd2 27.Yfxd2 �U4 28J�h3 Wf8 ! The aS-rook joins in the attack: 29.£3 Wg7 30.l:l:ahl %Vf5 3l.Wf2 l:l:e8. 29.ga h 1 Yfg4+ 30.Wf1 �g3+ 3 1 .gxg3 Yfxg3 32.b6 Yff3 33.gh2 'it>g8 34.b7 ges 35.b4 axb4 36.axb4 Yfg3 37.gh 1 Wf3 38.gh2 Yfg3 39.gh 1 Wb3 40. b8W gxb8 41 .�xb8 gxb4 42.�d7 Yfc4+ 43 . ..t>g2 Yfg4+ 44 . ..t>h2 Wh5+ 45 . ..t>g2 gg4+ 0-1 257 Pa rt 9 Rare Variations 1 .e4 cS 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 Part 9 Q u i c k Repe rto i re The Najdorf is an ideal set-up against players who try to avoid main lines. By spending time on pawn moves like 2 . . . d6 and S . . . a6, Black defies the principle of quick development. The most logical way to punish him is to organise a head on attack without fearing sacrifices. All White attempts to outmanoeu vre the enemy with subtle move or ders and offbeat set-ups are easily parried and often cost the initiative. In fact, Black has a wide variety of effective antidotes. He may choose between good versions of the Dra gon, a pure Najdorf approach, or the Scheveningen schemes. That is due to the fact that Black has not closed the diagonal to his light-squared bishop, nor has he committed him self with moves like ... ltJc6. Black's position is very flexible and suitable for central plans with ... eS and ... dS, but it also allows fianchettoing of the dark-squared bishop. We11 propose you in the next two chapters only our favourite treat ment of the rare lines, but remember that Black has many other worthy al ternatives. 260 Here are some general sugges tions which may be useful in practice: 1. Do not open the centre by . . . dS too early. This often leads to com plex endgames where White's piec es are a little more active. 2. Play concrete chess. Some in experienced players say that they prefer a "Najdorf' development of the queen's knight (on d7) . This is a delusion. In many set-ups the knight would be better placed on c6, especially after an early a4 or .id3 , for example, 3 .d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 tl:lf6 S . .id3 ltJc6. The same is true about ... e6 and . . . eS. The Najdorf is an incredibly rich system . Sometimes . . . e6 may be better than . . . eS, for instance: 3 .d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 lLlf6 S.lLlc3 a6 6.h3 e6. 3. Whenever possible, choose the more complex and unclear op tion. Players who prefer rare lines in the Sicilian often lack confidence and aim for clear plans. Do not fa cilitate their task by giving them a chance to follow an easy path. That's why I recommend 3 .d4 cxd4 4.'exd4 a6 although 4 . . . ltJc6 is by no means a worse option. Part 9 Step by Step A.6.h3; B. 6. i.d3 ; C. 6J:�g1; D. 6.\Wf3 ; E. 5.f3 ; F. 5.i.d3 ; G. 4.'i;1/xd4 A. 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!bxd4 /t)f6 5./t)c3 a6 6.h3 ! ? One should not underestimate this system. I (KG) have tried dif ferent approaches throughout the years, only to reach to the conclu sion that the so-called "main lines" against it probably need to be re considered. I used to play before : 6 . . . e6 7.g4 d5 Ftacnik chose this line for his repertoire book on the Najdorf. The problem with it is that Black tends to get unpleasant endgames in many variations: 8.exd5 8.ttlde2 ! ? tt:lxe4 (or 8 ... i.b4 9.a3 i.xc3 + 10.tt:lxc3 d4 ll.e5 dxc3 12 .'i;1/xd8+ c;t>xd8 13.exf6 gxf6 14J::� g1 e5 15.bxc3;t) 9.tt:lxe4 dxe4 10.\Wxd8+ c;t>xd8 ll.i.e3 ! also gives White an initiative: ll . . . bS 12. 0-0-0+ tt:ld7 13.i.g2 i.b7 14.tt:lg3 c;t>c7 15J'!heH. 8 . . . /t)xdS 9.i.d2 i.b4 Ftacnik advocates 9 . . . b5 10.i.g2 i.b7 11.0-0 tt:lxc3 12.i.xc3 i.xg2 13.c;t>xg2 b4 14 . .ie1 l'!a7, but after 15.tt:lf3!;t it is not easy to defend. 10.tt:lxd5 ! i.xd2+ 11.\Wxd2 \WxdS 12.l'!g1 261 Part 9 Black is well behind in develop ment and his queenside is depres sively weak. I was not satisfied with this line so I shifted to 6 . . . e6 7.g4 h6 8.i.g2 gS, but it is risky, to say the least. The whole idea to punish White for his sixth move is probably wrong. Perhaps Black should "bor row" the set-up from the Keres At tack, moreover that he is a clear tempo up, compared to the main line of that system where White plays g2-g4-g5, h2-h4. 6 . . . e6 6 ... e5 is a solid option. Black has not serious problems after 7 . .!Llde2 hS, but his set-up is too static: 8 .i.g5 i.e6 9.hf6 �xf6 10 . .!Lld5 �d8 11..!Llec3 .!Llc6 12 . .!Lle3 g6 13 . .!Llcd5 .ih6 14.c3 0-0 15 . .ic4 �c8 16.0-0, Vallejo Pons-Shabalov, Las Vegas 2011. This position resembles the Lasker Variation, but the pawn on hS practically deprives Black of his usual counterplay with . . . fS. 7.g4 i.e7 7 . . . b5 8.i.g2 i.b7 has been ex terminated after the amazing piece sac, introduced by the game Karjakin-Van Wely, Amber rapid, Nice 2008: 9.0-0 b4 10 . .!Lld5 ! ! exdS ll.exd5±. Of course, Black can con tinue development instead of push ing 9 . . . b4, but then, this line of thinking is even more valid on the 7th move ! 262 Main branches are: A1. 8.i.g2 ; A2 . 8.g5 Al. 8.i.g2 �fd7 9.i.e3 The plan with: 9.0-0 is less testing. We should put pressure on the centre with 9 . .!Llc6 10.i.e3 .. 10.f4 offers a pawn (10 . . . �b6 ll.i.e3 �xb2), but no one has grabbed it yet, probably because the standard 10 . . . 0-0 ll.i.e3 .!Llxd4 12. �xd4 b5 13.a4 bxa4? works well, as in Nepomniachtchi-Dominguez, Havana 2010. 10 . . . .!Llde5 11.�e2 gS ! ? . White has castled so this thematic push is not too risky. White risks to re main without a plan. The game Harokopakis-Cheparinov, Bansko 2010, went 12 . .!Lla4 �b8 13.c4 .!Llxd4 14.hd4 bS 15.cxb5 axbS 16 . .!Ll c5 i.f6 17.�fd1 0-0, with double-edged play. 9 . . . �c6 1 0 .We2 �xd4 11.hd4 0 - 0 12. 0 - 0 - 0 b5 13.e5 d5 Rare Variations storm. I would like to bring your at tention to another set-up which tries to use the extra tempo for launching a direct attack on the white ·king. 9 . . . b5 �b6 ! ? This structure is known from the French Defence. Here, the bishop on g2 is misplaced so White has not enough time to organise an attack. The game Vachier Lagrave-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2011, saw further 14.f4 i.b7 15.�e3 1'k8 16.'>!lbl 'f!c7 17.l'kl i.c5 18.ttle2 aS 19.c3 i.a6= . A2. 8.g5 �fd7 9.h4 1 0 .a3 i.b7 ll.ie3 Even the most renown Naj dorf expert, Topalov, was crushed without any fight after 11 . . . 0-0. White played all the natural moves: 12.'ffd 2 ttlc6 13.0-0-0 ttlxd4 14 . .bd4 13c8 15.13gl ttle5 16.'ffe 3 ttlc4 17 . .ixc4 13xc4 18.f4 13e8 (or 18 . . . 'f!c7 19.f5 13c8 20.f6 i.d8 21.e5 g6 22 .h5 dxe5 23 . .ixe5 'ffc5 24.i.d4±) 19.f5 i.f8 2 0.f6±, Vallejo-Topalov, Leon 2012. 12.ti'd2 The hit on e6 12 .i.h3 can be ignored: 12 . . . ttlc4 13 . .be6 fxe6 14.ttlxe6 ti'd7 15.ttlxg7+ '>!ld8 16.ttld5 ttlxb2 17.'f!d4 ttlc4oo. 12 . . . �8d7 13. 0 - 0 - 0 Ik8 !? Black is just a little bit ahead with his attack. See a detailed analy sis in the annotations to game 36 Milman-Molner, Lubbock 2011. B. 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.id3 In the Keres Attack, it is White to move here! Still, even with an extra tempo, Black's task is not easy. His common set-up is . . . ttlb8-c6xd4, . . . b5, . . . i.b7, . . J::k 8 , refraining from castling under the opponent's pawn This system is similar to 6.f4. We do not see any reason for White to choose it, because it offers Black a wide range of good options. Per haps simplest is 6 . . . ttlc6 7.ttlxc6 263 Part 9 bxc6 8JWe2 g6 9.0-0 J.g7 10.<t>h1 0-0 ll.f4 tlJd7 12 .J.d2 aS, Pelikian Leitao, Sao Paulo 2 0 04. However, some players may feel uncomfort able with the bishop on g7 and an unfixed centre. That's why we'll ex amine: 13.a3, when Black is overextend ed on the queenside. Instead, we play 9 . . . tlJbd7 10.tlJg3 tlJcS ll.f4 bS, which leads us to the main line. 10.tlJg3 should be answered by l O . . . tlJcS, when 11. <t>h1 transposes to the main line. 10 . . . exf4 let through White's knight to f5 in Gallagher Karjakin, Panormo 2002: ll.tlJfS tlJeS 12.tlJxe7+ Vff/xe7 13.J.xf4, threat ening with the awkward pin J.gS. 10 b5 This move is far from obligatory. lO . . . tlJcS followed up by .. J!e8 is ab solutely playable, too. .•• 6 ..• e5 7.tlJde2 ll.a3 (or ll.tlJg3 tlJcS) ll 12.tlJg3 ••• tlJcS This knight is needed on the kingside so 7.tlJb3 looks quite sense less. Black follows his normal de velopment by 7 . . . J.e7 8. 0-0 0-0 9.f4 tlJbd7 10.<t>h1 bS. 7 J.e7 8. 0 - 0 0 - 0 9.f4 .•• 9.tlJg3 is interesting, because Black cannot continue with the usual . . . tlJbd7, while 9 . . . b5 is dubi ous due to lO.tlJhS. Perhaps 9 . . . tlJc6 is the best retort, planning to cap ture on f4 when the pawn shows up there. 9 . . . g6 is another reasonable option. Sometimes White resorts to sub tleties as: 9.®h1, hoping for 9 . . . b5? ! lO.tlJg3 b4 ll.tlJdS tlJxdS 12.exd5 fS 264 This position appears to be criti cal for the 6.J.d3 eS system. We sup pose that simplest is to take the d3bishop now or 1-2 moves later. That would give us a clear target on d3. Motylev-Najer, Linares 2 001, saw 1 2 ... tlJxd3 13.cxd3 .ig4 14.Vff/e 1 J.e6 15JWe2 (15.fxe5) exf4 16.J.xf4 Rare Variations dS= . The latest game in this line, Ponomariov-Karjakin, Cuernavaca 2006, went: 12 ••• .le6 13.fxe5 We saw in Motylev-Najer that if White maintained the tension, Black could exchange on d3, f4 and push . . . dS. 13.f5 is outright dubious due to 13 . . . .id7. 13 dxe5 14 .le3 (14.ll:lf5 i.xfS is equal.) 14 c!Ofd7 ••• • ••• 14 . . . ll:lxd3 15.cxd3 is also com fortable for Black. 15 .le2 gcs 16 .lg4 17 .ixe6 fxe6 18.ti'e2 ti'e8 • • c!Of6 • Black has the more active pieces. C. 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!Oxd4 c!Of6 5.c!Oc3 a6 6.ggl This unnatural and ugly move prepares g4-g5. Its downsides are: 1. Black is able to choose schemes where that advance is pointless, like the Dragon. No wonder Kasparov played 6 . . . g6 against Ivanchuk. Well, he lost indeed, but it was ra pid chess and he was too eager to punish the opponent for the dubi ous opening. 2. It defies the two basic princi ples in the opening, namely, to de velop quickly and to fight for the centre. Practice has shown that Black is able to exploit that by coun terattacking in the centre: 6 ••• e5 Of course 6 . . . b5 or 6 . . . e6, fol lowed by 6 . . . b5, cannot be bad ei ther. They offer rich play with mu tual chances where White's rook might not be better on gl than on its initial place. Still, White should firstly show how he handles the straightforward equaliser: 7.c!Ob3 .ie6 8.g4 d5! 9.exd5 265 Part 9 9.g5? ! 'bxe4 10.'bxe4 dxe4 ll.�xd8+ @xd8 is good for Black since he will open the h-file to his fa vour: 12 . .ie3 @c7 13 . .ig2 h6 14.gxh6 g6+, Prasad-Sasikiran, Nagpur 2002, or 12 . .ig2 @c7 13.he4 h6 14.gxh6 g6+. 9 . . )! �xd5 1 0 )L!xd5 ll . .ie3 tLlc6 12.�xd5 13. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 14 . .ie2 �xd5 hd5 Or: 14 . .ib6 l"l:d6 15.g5 .ie7= ; 14.g5 @c7 15.c4 .ie6=. 14 ... .ie7 15 . .ib6 1'M7 16.�g3 .id8 17.tLlc5 �d6 18.tLla4 8 . .ie3 Vallejo Pons beat Topalov with the experimental 8 . .ig5 �aS 9 . .ie3 0-0 10. 0-0-0 lbc6 ll.@bl This position has occurred in Nadj Hedjesi-Krivokapic, Vrnjacka Banja 2 0 05. Black has the opportu nity to take over the initiative by a pawn sacrifice: 18 . . . 'bd4 ! ? 19 .hd4 exd4 20.l"l:xd4 .igS+ 21 . @dl .if6 22 J''1 dd3 l"l:hd8�. Black's bishop pair is ruling over the board. D. 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 5.tLlc3 a6 6.�f3 This move is not a pretty sight. Whatever White may have in mind, it defies many basic chess princi ples. Perhaps the Dragon set-up is the most challenging objection be cause White's queen is totally mis placed. It neither helps the attack, nor does it defend its king against exchange sacrifices on c3. 6 g6 7.h3 .ig7 ..• 266 l l .. . .id7? ! 12.'bb3 �c7 13.g4 lbeS 14.�g2±, but we still have to see what White had up his sleeve against the standard development 8 . . . 0-0. For instance, 9 . 0-0-0 lbc6 10.'bxc6 bxc6 ll.eS 'bdS 12.exd6 �xd6 is not fun for him. Besides, in the diagram position Black has: ll . . . .ie6 12 .'bxe6 (12 .g4 E!:ac8+; 12 .'bb3 hb3 13.cxb3 E!:ac8 14 . .id2 �c7) 12 . . . fxe6 13 . .id2 �c7 14.�e3 bS, with good control of the centre and active pieces. 8 . . . 0 - 0 9. 0 - 0 - 0 .id7 10.g4 Rare Variations At the Olympiad in Istanbul 2012, J.Polgar tested vs. Swiercz a new idea with 10.lLldS lLlc6 1l.'it>b1 and obtained an attack after 11 . . . tlJeS 12.lLlxf6+ i.x£6 13.�g3 �aS 14.lLlb3 �c7 1S.f4. It would have been interesting to see how she would proceed in the event of the normal developing move 11 .. J'k8, keeping control on d4. For instance, 12.c3 lLlxd4 13.lLlxf6 + hf6 14 ..hd4 ix:d4 1SJ'!xd4 i.e6 is comfortable for Black. 10 ••• t0c6 ll.Yfg2 White wants to play i.e2 and gS. However, his castling position is too vulnerable. The exchange sac on c3 gives Black excellent compen sation in most variations: a) 11 . . . lLlxd4 12 . .hd4 �c8 13.f4 �aS 14.�g1 (14.gS lLlhS 1S.i.xg7 l!txg7 16.Yff3 �xc3) 14 . . . �xc3 (14 . . . 1!c6 ! ?) 1S.i.xc3 �xa2 16.i.d3 �c8 17.\Wb6 i.c6 18.�he1, Fedorchuk Meertens, Vlissingen 2010, 18 . . . eS! 19.gS lLld7 20.\Wb4 exf4 2 l.i.xg7 l!txg7 2 2 .i.c4 �a1+ 23.'it>d2 \Wa4oo. b) 11 . . . �c8 12 .i.e2 lLlxd4 13 . .hd4 e5 14.i.e3 14 . . . �xc3 ! 1S.bxc3 \WaS� 16.g5 lLlhS 17. .b:hS gxhS 18.\Wfl l!c8 19.c4 ie6 2 0.�d3 .hc4 21.'1Wxd6 \Wxa2 22 .�d7 \Wa3+ 23.'it>d2 1W�S+ 24.'it>cl .ie6 2S.Wfxb7 i.f8 26.�he1 i.b4, 0-1 Abergel-Negi, Cappelle Ia Grande 2010. E. 3.d4 cxd4 4.t0xd4 t0f6 5.f3 e5 White wants to apply the Mar6czy Bind with c4, t0c3. We must admit that this system consider ably restricts Black's active options and he must aim firstly to even the game before thinking of intercept ing the initiative. If you are comfortable behind the hedgehog trenches, you may consider S . . . lLlc6 6.c4 \Wb6 7.lLlc2 e6 8.lLlc3 i.e7 9.1!b1 0-0. In Mastro vasilis-Kir.Georgiev, Topola 2 004, I exchanged a pair of knights: 9 ... lLlb4 10.lLlxb4 \Wxb4 and had no difficulties of making a draw after 11 . .ie3 0-0 12 .i.e2 i.d7 13. 0-0 .ic6 14.a3 �aS 1S.b4 \Wc7 16.�c1 \Wb8 17.\Wb3 b6 18.�fd1 �d8 19.�d2 a6 2 0.lLla4 ha4 21.\Wxa4 Wc7 22.1!cd1 h6 23 . .ifl 'it>h8 24.i.f2 'it>g8 2S.h3 Wb7 26.i.g3 \Wc7 27. .if2 Wb7 28.i.g3 Wc7 29.i.f2 . 9 . . . 0-0 is double-edged. 6.t0b3 White has not a clear equali ty after 6.-ibS+ lLlbd7 7.lLlfS dS ! 8.exdS a6 9.i.xd7+ Wxd7 1 0 .lt:le3 bS 11.0-0 (or Black's initiative will rapidly grow, e.g. 11.c4 .icS 12.lLlc3 0-0 13.lLle4 lLlxe4 14.fxe4 bxc4 267 Part 9 1S.ltJxc4 fSt ; ll.a4 .i.b7 12.axbS axbS 13.gxa8+ .i.xa8 14. 0-0 .i.cS 1S.<ith1 ltJxdS 16.ltJxdS .i.xdS 17.ge1 f6+) ll . . . .i.b7 12 .ltJc3 b4 13.ltJe4 ltJxdS 14.ltJxdS .i.xdS 1S.Wie2 Wlc6 16.ltJf2 f6, with some edge due to the bishop pair, Mariotti-Kohlweyer, San Gior gio 200S. 6 ... a5! ? This i s the only way t o prevent Mar6czy Bind. Quiet a few play ers have fallen into the trap 7.c4? ltJxe4 ! . In the majority of games, Black leaves ... aS for a later stage of the opening, but that is not a matter of transpositions since it brings about totally different plans. 6 ... i.e6 7.c4 aS was introduced in the game Grosar-Wojtkiewicz, Altensteig 199S, which went 8.a4 �b6 with good play on the dark squares. Its first serious test, how ever, was in my game Rublevsky Kir.Georgiev, Budva, 1996: 8 . .i.e3 a4 9.ltJ3d2 W!aS 10 . .i.e2 ie7 11.0-0 268 I chose here ll . . . ltJc6 12.ltJa3 0-0 13.ltJdb1, when 13 . . . .i.d8 ! would have been the logical continuation of Black's strategy. It was Wojtkie wicz again who first employed this manoeuvre in Drei-Wojtkiewicz, Pula 1998: ll . . . .id8 12.ltJa3 i.b6 13 . .ixb6 Wlxb6+ 14.tith1 ltJc6 1S.tt:lb5 ltJd4+. However, White has recently discovered that he could ignore the threat of . . . a3 and play ltJc3 ! , for instance: ll . . . .id8 12.ltJc3 a3 13.b4 \Wxb4 14.ltJdS or 1 1 ...0-0 12.ltJc3 a3 13.b4 ! . Of course, Black also has 12 . . . .id8 , but 13.@h 1 ! ? leaves White in control since 13. . . .ib6 would drop a pawn. Despite that engines like Black's position, long-term po sitional factors favour White. In these variations, Black's bishop is not standing well on e6, provided that White can play ltJc3dS. Thus the trend is to leave it on c8 and execute the manoeuvre . . . .ie7-d8-b6. Still, White's play is somewhat easier. If he consolidated and tamed Black's initial initiative, he would gradually put pressure on the weak queenside pawns. Look at the game Ivanchuk Sutovsky, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011: Rare Variations 6 . . . J.e7 7.c4 aS 8.ie3 a4 9.ltlc1 ! ? (heading for e2-c3-bS) 9 . . . �aS+ 10.V;Vd2 �d8 11.ltle2 J.e6 1 2 .ltla3 V9xd2+ 13.1!?xd2 �aS+ 14.ltlc3 ltlc6 lS.ltlabS l!?e7 16.J.e2 !!hc8 17.!!hc1 ib4 18.gabl ltld7 19.1!?e1 icS 20.J.f2;t. Black's pawn formation is too static. He can do nothing but wait. 7.J.b5+ I mentioned already 7.c4? ! ltlxe4 8.fxe4 V;Vh4+ 9.1!?d2 a4 10.ltlc3 ltlc6 ll.g3 �d8 12.ltlxa4 gxa4+, Lupules cu-Burnoiu, Predeal 2 007. The ardent fan of the S.f3 sys tem, Mastrovasilis, recently chose: 7.a4 �e7 8.c4. This is a high price to reach the Mar6czy Bind as White lacks the plan with b2-b4. Black was fine after 8 . . . 0-0 9 .i.e3 ltlc6 10 .ltlc3 ie6 11.ltldS ltld7 12 .�e2 J.gS. 7 ••• ltlc6 With a good control of the centre, it makes sense to keep more pieces on the board. 7 . . . id7 8.ixd7+ ltlbxd7 9.a4 dS did not turn well in Czebe-Arun Prasad, Melaka 2 012 . After 10.exdS ltlb6 ll.V;Ve2 �xdS 1 2 . 0-0, Black has many weak pawns and he is lagging behind in development. 8.�c3 J.e7 9.J.e3 0 - 0 10 .V;Vd2 10.0-0 ltla7 11.�e2 �e6 12.V;Vd2 transposes to the main line while 12 .a4 ltlc6 13.ltlbS?! offers the ini tiative to Black due to 13 . . . dS. The clamp on d5 after 10.ltla4 ie6 11.ltlb6 gbs 12 .c4 is ineffective: 12 . . . ltld7 13.ltlxd7 ixd7 14.0-0 ie6 15.V;Vd2 gas 16.V;Vf2 , Banikas-Er dogdu, Athens 2 007, when 16 . . . a4 ! would have gained the initiative. 10 ••. J.e 6 This is the most natural develop ment, but the blunt 10 . . . ltla7 11.ie2 ltlc6 also brings good results, e.g. 12 .a3 a4 13.ltlcl i.e6 14.ltl 1a2 d5 15.exd5 ixd5= . 11.0-0-0 o r 11.0-0 also meet 1 1 . . . ltla7. 269 Part 9 n . . . �a7 12.J.d3 12 .i.e2 lLlc8 is similar, but White is deprived of the manoeuvre '\!;Yd2f2 . 12 . . . �c8 15.a4 looks better for White: 15 '\!;Yc7 16.f4 ! lLlc4 17.f5 lLlxe3 18.Y;Vxe3 .ixb3 19.cxb3;!;. ... F. 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.J.d3 �c6 13. 0 - 0 A well know alternative is 13.a4 lLlb6 14.W/f2 14.0-0 lLlc4 15 . .hc4 .ixc4 16J�fe1 h6 is pleasant for Black. Baklan Miton, Bled 2 002 , went 17.'\!;Yf2 W/c8 18.'i!lh1 '\!;Yc6 19J''1d2 bS?. 14 . . . lLlc4 15.i.xc4 i.xc4 16.i.b6 W/c8 17.lLlxa5 dS. White has won a pawn, but he needs a few accurate moves to save the game: 18.lLlxc4 W/xc4 19.lLlxd5 lLlxdS 2 0 . exd5 .!!xa4 21.c3 W/bS 2 2 .i.e3 .!! d 8 23 .W/e2 = . 13 . . . �b6 14.'\!;Yf2 Now simplest is 14 . . . lLlc4 15.i.xc4 i.xc4 16 . .!!fe1 '\!;Yc8 17.a4 W/c6= . Instead, Black often keeps the tension with 14 . . . lLlfd7, but then 270 White's fifth move is not too clear to me. Perhaps it aims at ob taining positions of the Mar6czy Bind type or building a kingside at tack with f4, b3, i.b2 . Both plans are ineffective against a Dragon fian chetto. Black could play S . . . g6 im mediately, but it is better first to de termine the fate of the d4-knight. 6.c3 is too passive. Then 6 . . . e5 7.lLlxc6 bxc6 8 . 0-0 fi.e7 is a good al ternative to . . . g6. 6.lLlb3 g6 7.0-0 i.g7 8.lLlc3 0-0 9.f4 a5 10 .a4 lLlb4= offers Black nice places for his pieces. 6.lLle2, beside 6 . . . g6, also allows 6 . . . d5= . Rare Variations 6 bxc6 7. 0 - 0 g6 8.b3 i.g7 9 ..ib2 0 - 0 1 0 . �d2 aS ..• a) 5 . .ig5 lLlc6 6.'11ffd 2 h6 7 . .ih4 g5 8 . .ig3 .ig7 9.lLlc3 .ie6 10.lLld5 (or 10.0-0-0 '\1ffa 5) 10 . . . lLlf6 ll.lLlxf6+ h:f6 12 .c3 '\1ffa5 and Black is even more active. b) 5.i.e3 lLlc6 6.'11ffb 6 6.'11ff d 2 is well met by 6 . . . lLlf6 7.lLlc3 g6, but 7 . . . e6 8.0-0-0 ie7 9 . .if4 lLlg4 10.h3 lLlge5 ll.lLlxe5 lLlxe5 12 .i.e3 b5 13.f4 lLld7 14 . .id3 .tb7oo, as in Shkapenko-Maksimen ko, Wysowa 2007, is also playable. 6 . . . �xb6 7 . .ixb6 does not ham per Black's development: 7 .. lLlf6 8.lLlc3 g6 (or 8 . . . i.g4 9.ie2 g6 10.h3 .ixf3 ll ..ixf3 �c8 12.0-0-0 .ih6+ 13.\t>b1 lLld7= , J.Polgar Carlsen, Wch blitz, Moscow 2009) 9.lLld5 (9.0-0-0 .ih6+ 10. \t>b1 .ig4=) 9 ... lLlxd5 10 .exd5 lLlb4 11. 0-0-0 .ih6+ 12.\t>b1 .if5 13.lLld4 .ie4. . Black is going to attack the b3pawn while it is still unclear what White could do. The game Bestetti Felgaer, Vicente Lopez 2000, went on with 11.lLlf3 a4 12 .c4 �b6 13.�c2 c5 14.bxa4 .id7 15.lLld2 .ixa4t. G. 3 d4 cxd4 4.Wxd4 a6 We'll consider all the retreats: Gl. 6.'11ffd 1; G2. 6.'\1ffd 2; G3. 6.'\1ffe 3 Gl. 6.'11ffd l 5.c4 Nowadays the dark-squared bishop moves are seldom seen: This retreat was employed by several grandmasters, including Kasparov albeit in a blitz game. It leaves the route to e3 open to the c1-bishop. However, common sense suggests that playing the Hedgehog with two extra tempi shouldn't be bad for Black. Or he could try to use these tempi for splitting the enemy pawn formation on the queenside: 271 Part 9 6 ••• G2. 6.ti'd2 g6 7.b3 g6 The classic Hedgehog approach is 6 . . . c!LJf6 7.c!LJc3 e6 8 .i.e2 i.e7 9.0-0 0-0 10.h3 b6 ll.i.e3 i.b7 1 2. a3 V!fc7 13J3c1 c!lJe5. Black should be careful to avoid e4-e5 which gave White a slight edge in Okladnikov Nevostrujev, Tomsk 2003, after 12 .. J3c8 13 �c1 c!LJb8 14 e5;!;. Galego-Wang Zili, Macau 1996, was similar to the previos exam ple: 10.b3 b6 ll.i.b2 i.b7 12 .�e1 �c8 13.i.fl V!fc7 14.�cl c!LJe5 15.c!lJd4 fibS 16 f4.c!LJed7 17.b4 d5 18.e5 dxc4 19.exf6 c!LJxf6oo. 7.liJc3 passes for inaccurate due to 7 . . . i.h6 8 .ffc2 i.g7 9.i.e2 ltlf6 10.0-0 0-0. Presumably, the queen is misplaced on c2 where it stays on the semi-open c-file. 7 i.g7 8.i.b2 �f6 8.�c3 ••. 7.i.e2 i.g7 8. 0 - 0 c!LJf6 8 . . . i.g4 9. c!LJc3 c!LJf6 10.i.d2 0-0 11.�cl c!LJd7 was balanced in Zvja ginsev-Zhigalko, Moscow 2009. 9.c!LJc3 0 - 0 1 0 .h3 c!LJd7 11.i.e3 Black has more than one way to obtain a satisfactory game. The most straightforward is to organise . . . b5. Another approach is to trade the light-squared bishop for the f3knight by . . . i.g4. He can even stay passively and manoeuvre, but of course, we'll not recommend it. 9 ll . . . .ixc3 ! ? 13.V!fc2 c!LJcS 15. ti'xa4 c!LJxa4 12.bxc3 14.�d4 ti'a5 ti'a4 Black has equalised in Rodri guez Vargas- Gual, Catalunya, 1996. 272 ••. 0-0 As usual, 9 . . ..ig4 is a sound al ternative. 10 .i.e2 0-0 11. 0-0 (or l l.h3 i.xf3 12.i.xf3 V!fa5 13.0-0). I won a nice game against after ll . . . �b8 12.�fe1 f!a5 13.�ad1 c!LJd7 14.a3 �fc8 15.b4 ffd8 16.c!lJd5 i.xf3 17.gxf3 i.xb2 18.f!xb2oo, Lobron Kiril Georgiev, Saint Vincent 2000, but apparently, Black does not need to prepare . . . b5. This thrust is pos- Rare Variations sible right away: ll .. .'�aS 12J!ab1 or 12J!fd1 (preventing . . . ll'lxe4) 12 . . . bS ! 13.cxbS axbSt. The text move does not com pletely renounce . . . �g4. Black could switch to that line later. 1 0 .J.e2 In the game El Taber-Kiril Georgiev, Moscow 2001, White de cided to deprive me of . . . i.g4, but he desperately fell behind in de velopment: 10 .h3 §'aS 1U!b1 (11. id3 bS= , Gallagher-L'Ami, Plovdiv 2012) ll . . . .ie6 12 .i.e2 bS 13.cxbS axbS 14.hbS ll'lxe4 1S.ll'lxe4 �xbS 16.hg7 c.t>xg7 17.ll'lc3 �a6 18.§'e2 liJb4+. 10 ••• level, see game 38 Cherniaev Sakaev, St. Petersburg 1995. ll . . . b5! ? Having provoked .B:b1, ll ... ig4 is also good. Black practically won a tempo. The text move is even better. t2.tods Or 12.cxbS axb5 13.hb5 liJxe4 14.ll'lxe4 §'xbS 1S.hg7 c.t>xg7 16.liJc3 �a6 17.a4 �fS+, Zaichik-Gufeld, Tbilisi 1980. 12 Ybd2+ 13.ll'lxd2 IL!xd5 14.hg7 c.t>xg7 15.cxd5 IL!d4 16.gcl e6+t, Genkin-Klaus Lutz, 2004. .•• §'a5! G3. 6. Ylre3 J.g4 This is a bit simplistic, but trad ing the bishop will make your game easier. The alternatives do not offer a straightforward path to equality: 6 . . . g6 7.h3 iJ..g7 8.1J..e 2 lt:lf6 9.0-0 0-0 10.ll'lc3 Black has tried two plans here: to break trough on the kingside with . . .f7-fS or to display activity on the queenside. The threat of l l . . . ll'lxe4 restrains White's choice to: lU�bl ll.ll'ldS (1U3d1 bS! 12.cxbS axbS 13..bb5 ll'lxe4 14.ll'lxe4 §'xbS 15..bg7 �) ll ...§'xd2+ 12.ll'lxd2 ll'ld7! is a) 10 . . . lt:\d7 Black is intending . . . tt:lcS fol lowed up by . . . fS. This plan works fine after the mundane lU!dl?! ll'lcS 12J'!bl aS 13.1J..d 2 fSt, Ni Hua Xiu, Xinghua Jiangsu 2011. The best set-up is: 273 Part 9 1U3bl ! aS 12 .b3 lLlcS 13.�b2. Now 13 . . .fS (13 . . . a4 14.lLlbS) 14.exf5 .ixfS lS.�bdl gives White some edge, e.g. 1S . . . a4 16.�a3 ! hc3 17.hcS �as 18.�d4 hd4 19.tt:lxd4 axb3 2 0 .axb3;t. b) 10 . . . �e6 ll.�dl lLld7 12 .�bl! The most challenging set-up. White is planning to gain space with b4. Now 12 . . . �b8 does not make much sense due to 13.b4 lLlceS 14.lLlxeS .b:eS 1S.i.d2 when 1S . . . tt:lb6 16.lLldS lLlxdS 17.cxdS i.d7 18.bS is awkward. 12 . . . �c8 9 . . . �c8 Black can maintain more ten sion with 9 . . . lLlf6 lO .�bl 0-0 ll.h3 (ll .�dl lLld7) ll . . . i.xf3 12 . .b:f3 tt:ld7 13.�dl �aS 14.i.d2 i.d4 1S.�el �c5. 1 0 .b3 Macieja has tested here : 13.b4 when 13 . . . hc4 seems to equalise easily after 14.i.xc4 lLlceS lS.lLlxeS i.xeS 16 . .b:a6 �xc3 17.i.d3 �a8, and 13.i.d2 when 13 . . . lLldeS 14.lLlxeS dxeS lS.lLldS tt:ld4 16.�fl fS is fine for Black. However, we do not like too much Black's position after 13.lLldS ! ? lLlceS (13 . . . lLlcS 14.i.d2 fS 1S.�c3 lLlxe4 16.�d3 hc3 17.tt:lxc3;t) 14.lLlxeS lLlxeS 1S.b3. 7.J.e2 g6 7. 0 - 0 J.g7 9.lLlc3 274 a) lO.�dl may lead to a forced draw after 10 . . . .b:f3 ll .i.xf3 ttle5 12 .b3 bS 13.i.b2 tt:lxf3 + 14.�xf3 bxc4 1S.lba4 i.xb2 16. tt:lxb2 cxb3 17.axb3 �c7 18.lLlc4 <Jif8 (18 ... tt:lf6 19.tt:lxd6+ exd6 2 0 .�xf6 0-0 21.�xa6 �b7 22.�axd6 �xb3;i; is also a draw.) 19.�xa6 <Jig7 20 .ttlb6 �b8 21.lLldS �c2 2 2 .b4 tt:lf6 23.ttlxf6 exf6 24.�axd6 �b2 = . b ) 10.i.d2 .b: f3 ll.i.x£3 ttle5 12 .b3 i.h6 13.�d4 i.xd2 14.�xd2 tt:lxf3+ 1S.gxf3, Macieja-Zhigalko, Warsaw 2006, should be met by 1S . . . lLlf6 16.�h6 �cS 17.lLldS lLlh5=. 10 b5 lU�bl bxc4 12.bxc4 .ixf3 13 .ixf3 �e5 14.�d5 fll f6 15.ti'a7 �xd5 16.cxd5 �xf3+ 17.gxf3 gas = , Ni Hua-Timofeev, Taiyuan 2006. ••• • Part 9 Com p l ete Ga mes 37. M i l m a n - M olner Lu bbock 1 8 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 1 1 .e4 cS 2 . lilf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lilxd4 lilf6 5.ttlc3 a6 6 . h 3 e6 7.g4 J.e7 8 . g 5 lilfd7 9 . h 4 bS 1 0 .a3 .ib7 1 1 .!J.e3 ttl b 6 ! ? 1 2 .ti'd2 lil8d7 1 3.0-0-0 h5 is less useful than . . . ti'c7 because White's most dangerous threat is f4-f5-f6. 14.f4 weakens the e4-pawn and the d7-knight finds an excel lent stand on c5 : 14 . . . ttlc5 15 . .ig2 (15.i.d3 d5 16.e5 lt:lc4 17.'�f2 b4) 15 . . . lt:lc4 16.'�e2 ti'a5 17.i.d2 lt:lxd2 18.gxd2 b4 19.axb4 ti'xb4�. This variation suggests that perhaps we should not define the queen's placement yet. It might reach a5 in one move. Thus we stop our atten tion to : 13 . . . gc8 ! 1 3 . . . ttle5?! This move is consistent, but inaccurate, because it allows f4-f5 without any preparation. Its other drawback is that Black defines the set-up of his knights prematurely. As we'll soon see, he has another in teresting manoeuvre up his sleeve - . . . ttlb6-a4. Let us investigate 13 .. .'�c7. Then 14.h5 tileS 15.f4 ttlec4 16.'�f2 gcs is a better version of the game since This choice immediately pays off in the event of 14.f4 lt:lc5 15.i.g2 lt:lc4 16.ti'el ti'b6 ! , threatening . . . b4. At the same time, White cannot indulge in preparatory moves like 14.ggl, because he will lose the initiative after 14 . . . lt:lc5 15.f3 d5 ! ? 16.e5 lt:lcd7 17.f4 b 4 . Apparently, he should proceed with: 14.h5 Now 14 . . . lt:lc5 15.f3 d5 seems to be already late due to 16.ti'g2 ti'c7 17.g6 .if6 18.Wbl and White is ahead in the race. 275 Part 9 14 . . . tt:leS 1S.f4 tt:lec4 16.�f2 16 . .bc4 tt:lxc4 17.�d3 �b6 ! ? 1B.i.f2 b4 19.axb4 �xb4 2 0.tt:lb3 0-0 2 1.g6 h6 does not disturb Black because White misses his light squared bishop. After the text, Black should make a choice: a) 16 . . .'�c7 ! ? (threatening with 17 . . . tt:lxb2) 17 . .bc4 tt:lxc4 1BJ!d3 �xc3 2 B.i.d4 �b4+ 29.Wcl i.xdS 30.l!xh6±), but Black's king re mains more exposed to threats: 2 2 . Wxb2 .bc3+ 23. Wcl �aS 24.tt:lb3 �a2 2S.hxg7 hg7 2 6.i.c5t \Wb2+ 27.Wd2 i.fB 2B.g6 .bcS 29.tt:lxc5 .ixdS 30.gxf7+ Wxf7 31.f5 Y«b4+ 32.Wcl WeB 33.l!xdS exdS 34.\We3+ WdB 3S.�gS+ weB 36.\Wf6 \Wa3+ 37.Wd2 �b4+ 3B.wdt �bl + 39.1!?e2 \Wxc2+ 40.Wf3 �xeS 41.\WxhB+ �fB 42.l!el+ Wd7 43.�xh7+ \!?dB 44.�h4+t. 19.g6 After 19.Wbl tt:lxe3 2 0.\Wxe3 hxgS 2 1.fxgS �cS, Black's pieces are very active: 2 2 .g6 f:xg6 (22 ... .if6 ! ?) 23.�g3 �gS= 24.�xgS .ixgS 2S.tt:lxe6 i.f6 26.l!hdl gxhS. 19 ... .if6 20.gxf7+ �xf7 21.\!?bl (or 21.l!gl 0-0 2 2 .fS exfS 2 2 .tt:lxf5 Wh7 23.i.d4 .igS+ 24.Wbl l!c7) 2 1 . . .0-0 2 2 .i.cl 1B . . . h6! 1B . . . b4 19.axb4 dS 20.exdS .ixb4 2 1.h6 is unpleasant. Then 2 l ... tt:lxb2 is probably best (21...g6 2 2 .tt:le4 i.e7 23.d6 tt:lxd6 24.tt:lxd6+ \Wxd6 2SJ!hdl i.e4 26.tt:lf5 �xd3 27J!xd3 .bd3 2B.tt:ld4 0-0 29.i.d2 :1UdB 30.\We3±; 21 . . . gxh6 2 2 .tt:lde2 \WaS 23.Wbl tt:lxb2 24.Wxb2 �a3+ 2S.Wbl .bc3 26.tt:lxc3 l!xc3 27.l!xc3 276 Black has a comfortable posi tion. He can open the centre with 2 2 . . . dS 23.exdS exdS 24.tt:lce2 l!ceBoo or 22 . . . eS ! ? 23.tt:lfS exf4+t. b) 16 . . . tt:la4 (targeting the e4pawn and hoping for 17.i.g2? �b6) 17.tt:lxa4 bxa4 1B.g6 .be4 Rare Variations 1 5.lre 1 Black i s holding after 15. �f2 �c7 16.i.xc4 lLlxc4 17.f5 eS 18.lLlb3 lLlxa3 19.i.b6 �c8 20.lLla5 lLlc4 2l.lLlxb7 �xb7 2 2 .lLld5 lLlxb6 23.�xb6 �a7 24.E:hfl E:b8 25.lLld5 �xf2 26.E:xf2 h6! = . 19.gxf7+ [19.h6 i.f6 2 0.hxg7 ixg7 2 l.gxf7+ l!.>xfl 2 2 .f5 �f6 (22 . . . exfS 23.lLlxf5 .hb2 + 24.\!.>b1 i.xc2 + 2S.I!.>a2 .tb3 + 26.\!.>b1=) 23.fxe6+ @e8] 19 . . . \!.>xfl 2 0.i.h3 .idS 2l.h6 (2l.f5? E:f8 ! ) 2 1 . . .i.f6 2 2 .hxg7 E:e8 23.�e2 i.xg7 24.i.xe6+ l!.>f8 ! . The computer evaluates this crazy po sition as 0 . 0 0 on the ground of the following variations: 25.f5 (25. l"lxh7 �b6 26.c3 i.xe6 27.E:xg7 'i;Vxb2+ 2 8.�xb2 lLlxb2 29.E:dg1 l"lxc3+ 30.I!.>xb2 E:xe3= ) 25 . . . lLlxe3 26.�xe3 i.xh1 27.E:xh1 �f6 28.E:xh7 l"lcS 29.c3 �xd4= . Honestly, there is not much chess in variation b). The bottom line of the above analysis is that 13 . . . E:c8 leads to complex double-edged play with fair chances for Black. It is a better option than 13 . . . lLle5. 1 5 . . J�c8 1 6 . .lf2 Critical is 16.f5 ! lLlxe3 17.�xe3 eS 18.lLJf3;!;. Black has not enough counterplay here. 1 6 . . . �c7 1 7J�h3 d S ! ? 1 8.exd5?! 18.e5 0-0 19.h5 b4 20.axb4 i.xb4 passes the initiative to Black, e.g. 2 l.b3 lLla3 2 2 .1!.>b2 �cS 23J�dd3 �as 24.g6 lLld7 25.E:dg3 ttJcs�. White should have parted with his light-squared bishop: 18.i.xc4 lLlxc4 19.exd5 �xf4+ 20.I!.>b1 0-0 2l.dxe6 E:ce8. Black's bishop pair compensates for the pawn deficit. 1 8 . . . lrxf4+ 1 9.\!.>b1 �xdS 20. �xd5 .txdS 21 . .id3 0-0 22.'ffe2 1 4.f4 �ec4 22 . . . .tcs After the simple 22 . . . g6! 23.h5 eS, Black would have been on top. 277 Part 9 2 3 . .ig3 tfe3? Now Black's edge slips away. To be fair, it was not easy to assess that he had a strong attack after the queen's sac 23 . . . tfxd4! ! 24.i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 25J'!xd4 hd4 26.1Wd3+ 'it>g8 27.1Wxd4 �fd8 : This move disturbs White's nor mal development by creating the threat ll . . . lLlxe4. 1 1 .�d5 exd2+ 1 2 . �xd2 ctld7! White can only dream about activating his light-squared bish op. Certainly Sakaev is not going to help him by taking on dS. 1 3 . .ixg 7 'it>xg7 1 4. � b 1 ? ! Cherniaev underestimates the dynamic possibilities of Black. He should have castled: 14.0-0-0, when Black should persist with his dark-squared strategy by 14 .. a5! (but not going halfway to the en emy's plan with 14 . . . �d4 15J!hel bS? 16 'it>b2 ! ) 15.'it>b2 lLlcS 16.�hel and attack in the centre by 16 .. .f5t. . White's pieces are horribly un coordinated, for example, 28.'1Wf2 .ie4. 24 . .ixc4 .ixd4 25.1Wxe3 .lxe3 26 . .ixd 5 exd5 27 . .ie5 %-% 38. C hern iaev-Sa kaev St. Peters b u rg 1 995 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.1Wxd4 a6 5.c4 �c6 6 . Y!Yd2 g6 7.�c3 .ig7 8.b3 �f6 9 . .ib2 0-0 1 O . .ie2 "if aS! Consistent, but wrong. 16.4Je3 was called for, when 16 . . . f5 17.exf5 gxfS 18.lLlc3 is holding. Still, Black should be able to get an edge by 16 . . . lLlc5 17.�c3 eS ! . White has only one good square for two knights. At the same time, the imminent .. .fS would be awkward to meet. Now the blow comes from the other side: 1 6 . . . b 5 ! i 1 7. b4 White cannot afford to open the a-file because of the hanging rook on a1: 17.cxb5 axbS 18 . .idl (18.lLlxb5? �xb3++) 18 . . . lLlc5+. 278 Rare Variations 1 7 . . . bxc4 1 8 .1tla3 ! ? O r 1 8 . .ixc4 !1b8 19.a3 fS+. 1 8 . . . 1tle5 1 9 . .bc4 It is incredible that Sakaev failed to win this game, but in the time trouble he committed several small mistakes that cost him half a point. 19.f4 was worth trying, hoping for 19 . . . olt:\xe2 2 0.fxe5 olt:\xc3 21.'>!;>xc3 dxeS, with some chances to survive. I think that Black should keep the open character of the position by 19 . . . olt:\ec6 ! ? 2 0 .olt:\xc4 eS+. 1 9 . . . f5 ! 20.exf5 gxf5 2 1 .f3 a5! 22.b5 olt:\xc4+ 23. olt:\xc4 ltlxb5 24. olt:\xb5 gxb5+ 25.'>!;>e3 .ta6 25 . . . d5! 26.olt:\e5 !1b2 27.g3 i.a6+. 26.1tlxd6 gb2 27.gac1 ga7?! 28.g4 gxa2 29 . h4 e5?! 30.ghe1 gd7 3 1 .gcd 1 'it>f8 32. 'it>e4 'it>e7?! 33.'it>xe5 ge2+ 34.gxe2 .be2 35.gd4 .txf3 36.g5 .tc6 37. 1tlc8+ 'it>d8 38.1tld6 'it>e7 39.1tlc8+ 'it>d8 40 .1tld6 'it>c7 41 .1tle8+ Yz-Yz 279 Part 10 Early Deviations for White Pa rt 10 Step by Ste p d5 10.0-0 '%!fc7 ll.E:el is more con ventional. Here you could bewilder your opponent with 11 . . . 0-0-0!? A. 3.c3 �f6 5.'%!fa4+ �c6 6 .ixf7+ �xfJ 7.ti'xe4 '%!fd7 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 '%!ff5 1 0 . ti'e2 e6 • Al. 4.e5; A2 . 4 . .ic4; A3. 4 . .ie2 ; A4. 4.�d3 ; AS. 4.h3 Al. 4.e5 dxe5 5.�xe5 e6 5 ... l!Jbd7 6.l!Jc4 e6 is a good al ternative: 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4 = . 6 .ib5+ �bd7 7.d4 8.hd7+ �xd7 9. 0 - 0 .ie7= • a6 A2. 4 .ic4 �xe4 Black has the bishop pair and good control of the centre. If he com pleted development, his game would be even preferable. So far White has not shown anything that we should be afraid of. The game Fish-Brom berger, Eppingen 2006 went: • This is the sharpest retort to White's move. 4 . . . l!Jc6 5.'%!fe2 .ig4 6.h3 .ih5 7.d3 e6 8 .�b3 .ie7 9.l!Jbd2 282 ll.�c3 .ie7 12.g4 Vg6 13.h4 e5 14.Vc4 + , when 14 Ve6!+ would have underlined the enemy's weaknesses. ••• Early Deviations for White A3. 4 .le2 • White anticipates . . .�g4, keeping d4 in mind. We believe that Black should actively hinder this plan and a good way to it is : 4 . . .id7 . 4 . . . �g4 5.0-0 e6 is possible. Apart from playing in the Ruy Lopez spi rit - 6J3el, White can also sacrifice a pawn: 6.h3 .ihS 7.d4 lt:lxe4 8.d5 tt:ld7 (or 8 . . . lt:lf6 9.dxe6 fxe6 lO.lt:lgS ixe2 ll.�xe2 eS 12 .f4t, Moroze vich-Karjakin, Tomsk 2006.) 9J3el i.e7, obtaining sufficient compen sation : 10.dxe6 (8.d5 lt:ld7 9J3el i.e7 10 ..ic4 exdS ll . .ixdS lt:lef6 12 .hb7 �b8 13.�c6 0-0 14.g4 �g6 was balanced in J.Polgar-Karjakin, Odessa 2 0 08.) 10 ... fxe6 ll.lt:ld4 ! ? (ll.�b3 c4 12 �xc4 d5 13 \Wb3 0-0+) ll . . . i.xe2 12 .�xe2 cxd4 13.�xe4 tt:lcS 14.\Wxd4. The hit on e4 forces White to re veal his plan about the centre. Glek chose against me the most direct and safe : 5.e5 dxeS 6.lt:lxe5 lt:lc6 7.lt:lxd7 V!Yxd7 8. 0-0 g6 9.d3 .ig7 10�lt:ld2 0-0 ll.lt:le4 b6 12 .lt:lxf6+ .ixf6 13.ie3 �fd8=, Glek-Kiril Georgiev, Ger many 2000. 5.Vc2 has more venom for it re vives the positional threat of d4. We should impede it by 5 . . . \Wc7 (S . . . .ic6 6.d3 lt:lbd7 7.lt:lbd2 �c8 pursues the same aim, but Black's minor piec es are not set up too harmonious ly. White is prevailing in the centre after 8 .d4 cxd4 9.lt:lxd4;J;.) 6.0-0 g6 7.d4 cxd4 8.lt:lxd4 �g7. Now 9.c4 0-0 10.lt:lc3 lt:lc6 ll.lt:ldbS, Grischuk-Potkin, FIDE World Cup Khanty-Mansiysk 2011, ll ... �aS is a good version of the Mar6czy Bind not only because of the tempo lost on c3, but also the queen is misplaced on c2 . After 9.ie3, simplest is 9 . . . d S lO.lt:lbS i.xbS ll . .ixbS+ lt:lc6 12.lt:ld2 lt:lg4, Kernazhitsky-Peter Heine Nielsen, Cappelle Ia Grande 2001, but 9 . . . 0-0 10.c4 lt:lg4 ll.ixg4 .ixg4= , Hamdouchi-Topalov, Villa rrobledo 2000, is not bad either. The third alternative: 5.d3 g6 6.0-0 ig7 7.�el 0-0 283 Part 10 8 . .if1 lilc6 9.h3 is too passive. Black seizes the centre by 9 . . . e5 and plays the King's Indian with reversed col ours: 10.lt:la3 h6 ll.lilc4 V!!c 7 12.a4 �feB 13.g3 d5 14.exd5 lt:lxd5 15 . .ig2 .ie6+, Salov-Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee blitz 1998. A4. 4 .id3 �c6 • 4 . . . i.g4 5.h3 i.h5 6 ..ic2 lt:lc6 should transpose to the main line. In Rathnakaran-Kiril Georgiev, Golden Sands 05.06.2012, my op ponent surprised me with 6.e5 dxe5 7.V!!a 4+ . Here 7 . . . lt:lbd7 is solid, but I decided to take up the gauntlet and dived into complications with 7 . . . lt:lc6 8 .lt:lxe5 a6 9.f4 e6 10.0-0 b5? ! (10 . . . �c8 ! ll.f5 c4 ! would have been fine for Black.) 11..ixb5 axb5 12.V!!xb5 �c8 13.g4?! .ig6 14.f5? V!!d 6+ and went on to win. How ever, 13.lt:lxc6 ! V!!d 7 14.lt:la7 V!!xb5 15.lilxb5 i.e2 16.a4 would have giv en White sufficient compensation for the exchange. 5 .ic2 i.g4 6.h3 .ih5 • In my earlier games, I used to play 6 . . . .txf3 7.V!!xf3 g6 8 . 0-0 .ig7 9.d3 0-0 10.lild2 b5 ll.V!!e 2 lt:ld7= . This is a good and simple plan, but it is difficult to win a game only with a flank assault. Nowadays I prefer to pay more attention to the centre and keep my bishop. That leads to more complex play. 7.d3 e6 8 .�bd2 J.e7 9.�fl 284 Protecting the light-squared bishop from exchange and control ling e5. Immediate 9 . . . d5 (9 . . . h6 !? 10.lt:lg3 .ig6 11.0-0 0-0 12.lilh2 dS 13.f4 c4! also turned in Black's fa vour in Lobzhanidze-Van Wely, Vlissingen 2001.) 10. lilg3 ig6 also fares well for Black: ll.lilh4 V!!c7 or 11.0-0 h6 12.if4 0-0 13.lile5 lt:lxeS with a balanced game, Sulskis-Kiril Georgiev, Istanbul 2003. 10. �g3 10.g4 ig6 ll.lilg3 h5 12 .ie3 hxg4 13.hxg4 l"i:xh1+ 14.lt:lxh1 \Wb6 15.ib3 0-0-0 gave Black an initia tive in Akopian-Ponomariov, Mos cow 2 0 0 2 . 10 .ig6 11.0-0 0-0 12.�h2 d5 13.f4 f5 14.exd5 exd5 15.�f3 d4= ••• Black has more space in the cen tre which amply compensates for the weak b3-g8 diagonal. See game 39 Bartel-Kiril Georgiev, War saw 2005. Early Deviations for White A5. 4.h3 10.dxc5 We saw from the previous line that Black solved the opening prob lems by developing the bishop to g4. Understandably, White wants to cut off that possibility. The flip side of his approach is that he wastes a tempo which is just enough for us to contest successfully the centre. White is unable to rejoice his centre much longer, for he is lag ging behind in development. The tempo spent on the 4th move really tells here: 10 . .ie3 cxd4 ll.tl:\xd4 dS ! and White must be careful in order to hold the balance: 12.�xc6 bxc6 13.tl:\c3 .ie6 Karolyi Jr.-Andrianov, Groningen 1980. 4 . . . g6 5 . .id3 .ig7 6 .ic2 • 10 ... dxc5 ll.�c3 .ie6 12 . .ie3 YlYa5 13.Y!Ye2 = . See game 4 0 TischbierekNordhausen Kiril Georgiev, 1987. B. 3 ..ic4 �f6 6 ••• e5! ? This move order reduces White's options. 6 . . . tl:\c6 offers a choice be tween 7. 0-0, which transposes to the main line, and 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4. Now Black commonly equalises with 8 . . . d5 9.e5 tl:\e4 10.0-0 (10.tl:\c3 �aS) lO . . . i.fS or 8 . . . tl:\b4 9.0-0 tl:\xc2 = . 7. 0 - 0 0 - 0 8.d4 exd4 9.cxd4 �c6 9 . . .cxd4 10.tl:\xd4 tl:\c6 ll.tl:\xc6 bxc6 1 2 .tl:\c3 dS was level in Zufic Bologan, Sibenik 2009. 4.d3 4.e5 dxeS S.tl:\xeS e6 6.�e2 .ie7 7.b3 looks at first glance very at tractive. White develops quickly and actively without paying atten tion to Black's moves. Then he cas tles, brings more heavy pieces on 285 Part 10 the kingside and mates ... It is dan gerous to play by general consider ations against such approach. We think that Black should not distract himself with weighing the pros and cons of the insertion of . . . a6 - a4, or pondering over where to put the bishop - on d6 or e7. Instead, we should decide what to do with the eS-knight. It is just impossible to stand it on its outpost. One radi cal way is to repel it by . . . ll:Jf6-d5 and .. .f6. We like better Tseshkovs ky's solution. He simply swaps the knight ! 7 . . . 0-0 8 . .ib2 ll:Jbd7 9.f4 ll:JdS 10.0-0 ll:JxeS ! ? ll.fxeS ll:Jb4 ! . This very important move earns the ini tiative: 12.ll:Ja3 a6 13.c3 bS 14.cxb4 cxb4t lS.ll:JxbS axbS 16 . .ixb5 .icS+ 17.1!lhl .id4, Shaposhnikov-Tsesh kovsky, St. Petersburg 2 0 04. 4 ••. because 6 ... ll:Ja5 will eat the bishop, 7.ll:Ja3 g6= . Note that the fianchetto plan is perfectly playable and much more popular: s . . . g6 6.i.b3 i.g7 7. 0-0 0-0 8.h3 (BJ:!el allows 8 . . ..ig4 9.h3 i.xf3 10.'�xf3 ll:Jd7 followed by . . . b7-b5b4), when Black follows up with 8 .. eS 9J:!el i.e6 or 8 . . . b5. Of course, the standard develop ment is also playable. I tested it in Savic-Kiril Georgiev, Cetinje 2009: s ... e6 6 . .ib3 i.e7 7. 0-0 0-0 8.l:!el b5 9.ll:Jbd2 i.b7 10.d4 dS (10 . . . cxd4!? ll.cxd4 l:!c8) ll.e5 ll:Jd7 12.ll:Jfl b4+. . 6.J.b3 J.g4 7.tbbd2 e6 8.h3 .ih5 9 .tL!fl Kobalia-Brkic, Budva 2009, saw 9.0-0 dS lO.l:!el ie7 ll.VNe2 VNc7 12 . .ic2 0-0, with a space advantage in the centre. ll:Jc6 5.c3 9 d5 1 0 .exd5 ll:Jxd5 ll.c�� g3 J.g6 12. 0 - 0 ••• S . .ib3 is often met, but it allows S . . . .ig4 which would be impossible after the text due to the double at tack 6.'1Wb3. In these Anti-Sicilians, Black commonly solves the opening problems if he achieves . . . .ig4. The game Najer-Efimenko, Sochi 2 0 06, was no exception to this rule: 6.c3 e6 7.ll:Jbd2 i.e7 8 .h3 i.hS 9.g4 i.g6 10.ll:Jh4 dS, with an excellent game. 5 . . . a6! ? A very interesting idea of Chep arinov. It enables the plan with . . . .ig4 by drawing the sting of 'M>3. White is unable to prevent it by 6.h3 286 Black has achieved a comfor table position. 12 . . . i.e7 would have been natural and strong. Even after Early Deviations for White the inaccurate 12 . . . llJb6, he held the balance after l3.lLle4 .!e7 14.W!'e2 0-0 15.!e3 llJd7 16J�adl Vf!c7=, Panbuk chian-Cheparinov, Pleven 2 0 05. it neutralises .td3. Black also should not worry about possible e4-e5-e6 which could be awkward without light-squared bishops. 6.a3 bxa3 7. 0 - 0 .tg7 C. 3.b4 cxb4 Black has no weaknesses and his only problem is the limited space for manoeuvres. Therefore, he should aim for exchanges so . . . i.g4 should be good for him : 8.�xa3 0-0 9 . .ib2 (9.W!'e2 ttlc6 lO.�dl .ig4 ll.c3 e5 12 . .ie3 d5+, Ditiatev-Zhelnin, Kaluga 2000) 9 . . . ttlc6 lO.lLlbd2 .ig4 (10 . . . ttlb4 ll . .!e2 d5 ! ?) ll.h3 .ixf3 ; 8 . .b:a3 0-0 9.ttlbd2 ttlh5 lO .�el lLlc6 ll.c3 a6 12.ttlb3 i.g4=, Del Rio Angelis-T.Andersson, Calvia 2007. In this particular version of the Sicilian gambit, White enjoys an ideal pawn centre, but it is arguable that his spatial advantage compen sates for the missing pawn. 4.d4 This move order enables White to protect his e4-pawn from d3. 4.a3 lLlf6 forces him to trade bishops by 5 . .!b5+ .id7 6 . .ixd7+ ttlbxd7 7.Vf!e2 bxa3 8 . 0-0, when simplest is 8 . . . e6+. (8 . . . g6 9.d4 .ig7 10.e5 dxe5 11.dxe5 llJg4 12.!f4 0-0oo is more tangled) 4 ••• In Basanta-Epishin, Vancouver 2000, White deprived the opponent of that possibility, but failed to show a clear plan: 8.c4 0-0 (8 ....ig4!?) 9.h3 llJc6 10.ttlxa3 b6 ll.lLlb5 i.b7 12 .d5 (12 ..!e3 llJb4) 12 ... ttla5 13 ..ib2 a6 14.ttla3 e6+. D. 3.lLlc3 lLlf6 �f6 5 .td3 g6 • Compared to the line in the previous paragraph, the bishop fianchetto is more logical, because 287 Part 10 4.e5 4 . .ic4 e6 will probably transpose to the Sozin. 4 ••• dxe5 5.1oxe5 a6 S . . . e6 is a reasonable alterna tive, for example: 6 . .ib5 tt:\bd7 7.d4 a6 8 .ixd7+ tt:\xd7 9.�h5 g6 10 .�f3 f5 1l . .ie3 .ig7oo, Davies-Navara, Bir mingham 2 0 05. 9 .ie3 • 6.a4 Alternatively: 6 . .ie2 e6 ( 6 . . . g6=) 7. 0-0 'flc7 8.f4 tt:lbd7= ; 6.g3 tt:\bd7 ! ? (6 . . . 'flc7 is risky because it leaves Black behind in development: 7.d4 cxd4 8.�xd4 tt:\c6 9.tt:\xc6 �xc6 10 . .ig5t) 7.tt:\c4 (7.d4 e6 8.tt:\xd7 'flxd7 was equal in Nikolenko-Khalifman, St. Peters burg 2 0 04) 7 . . . b5 8 . .ig2 l"!b8 9.tt:\e3 g6 10.0-0 .ig7 ll.d3 0-0 12.a4 .ib7 13 . .ixb7 l"!xb7 14.axb5 axbS 15.�f3 l"!b8= , Zvjaginsev-Nepomniachtchi, Moscow 2010. In Kotsur-Sakaev, Moscow 2004, White chose 9.tt:\e3 l"!d8 10 . .id2 g6 ll.g3 to struggle after ll . . . hS! 12 . .ig2 h4, with attack. 9 . . . .ixc4 1 0 .dxc4 e6 ll . .id3 .id6 12.g3 0 - 0 - 0 ! 13.�d2 �g4 Black has seized the initiative, Vallejo Pons-Sakaev, Izmir 2004. E. 3.b3 �c6 6 'flc7 7.tt:\c4 (7.d4 e6) 7 tt:lc6 ••• ••• Black aims to take control over the centre and fianchetto the dark squared bishop. 8.d3 .ie6 Or 8.b3 tt:\d4 9.a5 .ifS 10 .d3 e6 ll.i.e2 .ie7 12 . .id2 l"!d8= , McShaneVallejo Pons, Philadelphia 2 0 1 0 288 There is one thing you should remember about 3 .b3 - refrain from Early Deviations for White 3 . . . lt:lf6 in view of 4.e5 dxeS S.lt:lxeS e6 6.i.b2 i.e7 7.i.d3 lt:lbd7 8.f4. This variation offers a clear-cut plan for a kingside attack and is too easy to play as White. The safest treatment of posi tions with fianchetto bishop on b2 is to plug its diagonal by ... eS. That is all the more effective when White had already played lt:lf3 so he would need several tempi to achieve f4. No wonder that Kasparov answered 3.b3 with an immediate 3 . . . e5. This move order is certainly possible, but it is less flexible. We suggest to begin with 3 . . . lt:lc6, keeping the op tion of . . . eS open. 5 5.Yfe2 (or 5 . .ixc6 bxc6 6.d3 g6) .ld7 6 .lb2 e5 7. 0 - 0 j,e7= . ••• • White should think how to equal ise as the thematic 8.d3 0-0 9.c3 gave Black an initiative : 9 . . . lt:lh5 lO.i.cl fS+, Schula-Votava, Stocke rau 1991. F. 3.c4 .ig4 4 .ie2 lt:lc6 5. 0 - 0 g6 6.�c3 .lg7 7.!:�bl e 6 8.a3 �ge7 9.d3 0 - 0 1 0 .j,d2 = • Yermolinsky-Doss, Dallas, 2000 went on with lO ... dS ll.cxdS exd5= . 10 . . . .hf3= , intending t o play o n the kingside, is also good. 4.i.b5 G. 3.g3 There is no reason to be afraid of doubled pawns. In the concrete po sition, they only help us control the centre: 4.i.b2 lt:lf6 5.ltlc3 g6 6.lt:ld5 i.g7 7.lt:lxf6+ exf6 8.i.e2 0-0 9.0-0 �e8 10 .d3 fS+. We even suggest to offer the enemy to double also the c pawns: 6.i.b5 i.g7 7.lt:ld5 0-0 8.i.xc6 bxc6 when the initiative will be en tirely in Black's possession. Another common dream of White in the Anti-Sicilians is to build the Mar6czy Bind. It does not work: 4.d4 cxd4 5.lt:lxd4 lt:lf6. King's Indian with reversed colours is a popular Anti-Sicilian choice. Against 2 . . . e6, White usual ly begins his plan with 3.d3 in or der to meet . . . dS by lt:lbd2. In the current situation, such preventive measures are unnecessary. 3 ••• �c6 4.j,g2 �f6 4 ... i.d7 is flexible, but less test ing. The game is balanced after 5.0-0 lt:lf6 6.E:el e6 7 . .ib2 .ie7 8 .d4 cxd4 9.lt:lxd4 0-0 10 . .hc6 bxc6, e.g. ll.eS dxeS 12.lt:lf3 e4 13.ltle5 = . 289 Part 1 0 White is at an important junc ture here. Development in the spir it of the King's Indian with 5.d3 is quite pointless because Black fian chettoes his bishop to g7 and pre pares . . . bS with a good game. In practice, he chooses mostly between 5.lDc3, hoping to push d4 at some moment, or 5.'\We2, preparing c3, d4. Black possesses two reasonable plans which work well: 1. He leads out his bishop to g4 aiming to rule out any ideas with d4. 2. He occupies the centre by . . . eS. Then the light-squared bishop could find a nice stand on e6. Let us see some examples : o-o 10.d3 gbs ll ..ie3 lDd7 12 .%Yd2 lDd4 13.lDd1 bS 14.c3 lDc6 Adams Gelfand, Germany 1996. Objective ly, the game is balanced, but White has some initiative on the kingside. 6. 0 - 0 .te7 7.d3 0 - 0 Black is very solid. Galego-Di ogo, Vila Real 2 005, saw further 8 .h3 gbs 9.g4 (9.lDh2 bS) 9 . . . i.e6 lO.lDgS .id7 ll.f4, when ll . . . exf4+ looks nice. H. l.e4 c5 2.lbc3 After this move, we see only one way to remain true to our reper toire: Gl. 5.ti'e2 g6 2 . . a6 ! ? . 5 . . . �g4 6.c3 dS 7.d3 is possible, e.g. 7 . . . dxe4 8.dxe4 iDeS 9. 0-0 '\Wd3 10.1Wxd3 lDxd3oo. Of course, Black could maintain tension in the cen tre. 6. 0 - 0 .tg7 7.c3 0 - 0 8.h3 e5 9.d3 d5 Black was first to strike at the centre. This assured him of the in itiative in Rozentalis-Mark Tseitlin, Cappelle Ia Grande 2 0 04. G2. 5.�c3 e5 Simple and purposeful. The alternative is s . . . .tg4 6.h3 .txf3 7 . .txf3 g6 8.0-0 .tg7 9 . .tg2 290 2 . . . d 6 i s more popular, but then you should learn two complex var iations: the Dragon which arises after 3 .f4 g6 4.lDf3 i.g7 5.d4 cxd4 6.lDxd4 lDc6 7 . .ie3 lDf6 8 . .ie2 0-0 9.lDb3, and one of the main lines of the Grand Prix Attack: S . .ic4 lDc6 6.0-0 lDf6 7.d3 0-0. White's play is too easy here. 2 . . . a6 seems a clever choice. Practical experience is quite favour able to Black, too ! Although closed Sicilians are beyond the scope of this book, we'll try to offer you some guidance. Main answers now are Hl. 3.f4 and H2. 3. lDge2, aiming for a king's bishop's fianchetto. Early Deviations for White Hl. 3.f4 b5 4.�f3 4.d4 cxd4 S.§'xd4 �c6 6.�f2 is a seldom seen set-up. �d4 10.ti'f2 �f6 u.h3 gcs 12.g4 d5t, Pavlovic-Nakamura, Ohrid 2009. H2. 3.g3 b5 4.i.g2 .ib7 5.d3 e6 6.f4 Black's main task now should be to solve the problem with the g8- knight. We'll play . . . .ib7 and . . . �b4 in order to enable . . . �f6-d5 in answer to e4-e5 : 6 . . . e6 7 . .id3 .ib7 8.lt:\f3 lt:\b4 9 . .ie3 lt:\f6 10.h3 .ie7 11.0-0 0-0 12.a3 lt:\xd3 13.cxd3 d6 14.g4 l'!c8. White's space advantage on the king side is delusive. He cannot generate any threats there and should be con stantly watching out for counter-at tacks. 15.g5 lt:\d7 16.f5 drops a pawn to 16 . . . exf5 so in Jareno Badenas Bystrov, Barbera del Valles 2011, he chose 15.1'!ac1 lt:\d7 16.g5 (16.d4 fS !?) 16 . . . lt:\c5 17.§'e2 dS+. 4 ••• 5 e 6 6.ti'e2 (6.g3 dS) 6 �c6 7 .ie3 ti'b6 8. 0 - 0 - 0 ti'a5 9.�d2 ••• ••• b4! ? O f course, Black has many other decent set-ups, but the text looks the most consistent. 6 . . . d5 7.�e2 lt:\c6 8.lt:\f3 lt:\d4 9.lt:\xd4 cxd4 10.lt:\d1 dxe4 ll.dxe4 l'!c8 12.0-0 lt:\f6 13.lt:\f2 .ie7 14.b3 0-0 15 . .ib2 �b6 16.1'!ad1 l'!fd8 17.1'!d3 �c7 was level in Harikrish na-Bu Xiangzhi, Tiayuan 2005. .tb7 5.d3 5.d4 cxd4 6.lt:\xd4?! loses a cen tral pawn after 6 . . . b4. Besides, 6 . . . e6 i s also a n excellent versin of the paulsen - 7 . .id3 .icS 8 .lt:\b3 .ia7 9.�e2 b4 10.lt:\d1 lt:\f6 ll . .ie3 .ixe3 12.§'xe3 0-0 = . • 6 ••• 7.lt:\b1 would lead to the Closed Sicilian with two ( ! ) extra tempi for Black. Beside 7 . . . d5, the fianchetto 7 . . . g6 8.lt:\f3 .ig7 is also worth con sidering. The game Zvjaginsev Sasikiran, Khanty-Mansiysk 2007, went 9.0-0 lt:\e7 10.a3 aS ll . .ie3 d6 12 .c3 bxc3 13.lt:\xc3 0-0 14.d4 when 291 Part 10 14 ... ltld7! would have been awk ward for White who lacks a clear plan. 7 ••• d5 7 . . .fS ! ? may be a strong psycho attack, because it destroys White's plan to push f4-fS. Ensuing play is dynamically balanced and requires creativity from both sides: 8.ltlf3 Or 8.ltlh3 ltlf6 9.ltlf2 Wffc7 10. 0-0 hS ! ? (10 ... i.e7) ll.h3 (ll.c3 aS 12 .a3 ltla6 13.exfS i.xg2 14.\t>xg2 �b7+ 1S.'it>g1 exfSoo) ll . . . i.e7 12.a3 bxa3 13.bxa3 ltlc6oo. 8 . . . fxe4 We are following the game Cu bas-Lujan, Montevideo 2 011, which saw further 9.ltlh3 ltlh6 10.lt\egl ltlfS ll.ltlf3 ltlc6 1 2 . 0-0 Wib6 13.c3 g6 14.ltlhgS i.e7 1S.�e2 aS 16.Wff2 i.a6 17J�d1 a4+. It would be inter esting to try 8 . . . ltlh6 ! ? . H 3 . 3.ltlge2 ltlf6 3 . . . bS 4.d4 cxd4 S.ltlxd4 e6 is the Paulsen so we skip this option. 4.g3 b5 5 .lg2 .ib7 • White cannot switch to the Open Sicilian main lines anymore, because he must reckon with the pressure on e4, e.g. 6.d4 cxd4 7.ltlxd4 e6 8.0-0 b4 9.ltla4 ltlxe4 or 9 . . . i.e4. One move later it would be even more difficult in view of 6.0-0 e6 7.d4 b4! ? 8 .ltla4 i.xe4. So he develops in the spirit of the Closed Sicilian: 6. 0 - 0 e6 7.d3 d6 (7 . . . dS ! ?) 9.ltlgS The computer suggests 9.ltld2 ltlf6 10.dxe4. Black has an easy game after 9 . . . i.e7 11.0-0 ltlc6 12 .eS ltldS 13.ltlc4 ltlaS 14.ltle3 ltlxe3 1S . .he3 hg2 16.\t>xg2 Wffc 7 17.b3 �c6+ 18.'it>g1 0-0 19.a3 c4= . 9 . . . �b6 10.ltlxe4 i.e7= , Bisby Kurajica, Guernsey 20 0 8 . 8.e5 h5 292 7...b4 is premature. White seizes the initiative: 8 .a4 d6 9.a3 aS 10.c3. Early Deviations for White White has two main plans from this position: a) He plays quickly f4-fS: 8.f4 ttlc6 8 . . . ttlbd7 is also possible. It pays off in the event of 9.f5 exfS ! , but is a bit passive as a whole. 9.fS b4 lO.'Llbl exfS ll.exfS !J.e7 12.'Lld2 0-0 and Black's pieces are harmoniously placed. b) He prepars g3-g4 : 8 .h3 Black can now prevent g4 by the experimental 8 . . . hS ! ? This choice of such a prominent Sicilian expert as Ribli deserves a special attention. See game 41 Parkanyi-Ribli, Hungary 2003. Usually Black allows g4 in or der to use it later as a lever for counterplay on the kingside. His plan is to castle long or at least to delay castling as much as possible, keeping all options open. The posi tion is closed enough and his king is quite comfortable in the centre. By all means, there is no reason to hur ry with short castling. 8 . . . ttlc6 8 . . . b4 9.ttla4 hS 10.c3 aS ll.f4 ttlbd7 12 .b3 V!/c7 13 . .ib2 . .ie7 14.'i!?h2 eSt turned well for Black in Reinder man-Davies, Germany 2000, but ll.a3 would have been more testing. 9.g4 In Claesen-Kveinys, Lubniewice 1998, White obviously wanted to avoid committing himself and got an inferior position following 9 . .te3 !J.e7 1 0 .a3 W/c7 ll.'Llf4 hS 12 .h4 tLleS 13.!J.h3 ttlfg4 14.i.d2, when 14 . . . g6 ! would have left him without a clear plan. In this example we see . . . hS working well again. 9 . . . .ie7 10.ttlg3 ttld7oo Black is very flexible. He can castle on either flank: ll.f4 ih4 12.ttlce2 g6 13.fS V!!e7 or ll.ie3 g6 14.f4 !J.h4 1S.ttlce2 V!/e7. 293 Part 10 Co m p l ete G a m es 39. B a rtei-Kiril Georg iev Warsaw 2005 1 .e4 cS 2 . �f3 d 6 3.c3 �f6 4 . .id3 �c6 5.J.c2 J.g4 6.h3 .ihS 7 . d 3 e6 8 . � bd2 J.e7 9 . �f1 �d7 1 0 . � g 3 .i g 6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2 . � h 2 d S 1 3.f4 1 3 . . .f5 1 4.exd5 exdS 1 5.�f3 d4 This is consistent and purpose ful. It is always nice to gain space in the centre. Now White had to reas sess his chances and switch to main taining the balance by 16J'!el Vf!c7 17.cxd4 cxd4 18 . .id2 l'!ae8 19 .i.b3+ \t>h8. Instead, he tries to justify his previous play by gaining the bishop pair advantage, but he cedes even more space. 1 6. � g 5 ? ! .lxg S 1 7 .fxg 5 �de5 1 8 .c4? Let's assess the play of both sides so far. Black has developed his piec es to good squares. They are work ing in unison and complement each other. I am prevailing in the cen tre which gives me space for ma noeuvring. For instance, it is easy to connect the rooks after . . . 'ff c 7. On the contrary, White has spent a lot of time on artificial manoeuvres which scattered his pieces apart and slowed up his development. All his play is centred around the thrust f4-f5. Of course, I can impede it by 13 . . . 'ffc 7, e.g. 14.�f3 d4, but I decid ed to stress the futility of White's strategy by preventing fS for good: 294 Bartel commits a tactical mis take. Obviously, he missed my re ply. However, White is already ex periencing some difficulties: 18.h4 dxc3 (or 18 . . . c4 ! ? 19.dxc4 'ffb 6 2 0.\t>hl l'!ad8t) 19.bxc3 f4 2 0 .l'!xf4 .ixd3 2l.l'!xf8+ \t>xf8+. 1 8 . . . f4! 1 9J �xf4 Early Deviations for White It turns out that 19.i.xf4 runs into 19 .. J3xf4 ! 2 0 J3xf4 '\WxgS. 1 9 . . . � b4+ 20. �e4 gxf4 2 1 .J.xf4 J.xe4 22.dxe4 d3 23.J.b3 ti'd4+ 24. c;t> h 1 gfs Perhaps I could have maintained more tension by 24 . . . lt'lg6 25.J.d2 '!Wxb2 2 6J%bl '\Wd4 27.'\Wgl+, but it is always very risky to play against two bishops. One imprecision and they could unleash their power. 25.J.xe5 '\Wxe5 26.a3 �c6 27. '\Wxd 3 �d4 28.J.d 1 Wxg5 29 .J.g4 h5 30.J.f3 A beautiful position, isn't it! How often in practice one gets eve rything he wanted and fails to press home his advantage because is re luctant to touch anything in his per fect construction ! In a rapid time control, I decided to squeeze down my opponent avoiding any concrete decisions. This is often an efficient approach, but it is even better to play the best possible moves and my next one was far from that. 30 . . . We5 ? ! It was time to transform one ad vantage into another: 30 . . . lt'lxf3 ! 31.gxf3 l3d8 3 2 .f4 l3xd3 33.fxg5 l3xh3+ 34.c;t>g2 l3b3+. 3 1 .gf1 g6 32.b4 b6 33.ti'e3? A blunder which loses to 33 . . . lt'lf5-+, but I had a plan to put everything on dark squares . . . 33 . . . c;t> g 7 34.'\Wd3 gf7 35.c;t>g1 ti'g3 36.ti'e3 We5 37.'\Wd3 gf4 38.We3 gf6 39.'\Wd3 gd6 40.Ve3 �c2 41 .Wb3 �d4 42.ti'e3 ge6 43.ti'd3 ge7 44.We3 a5 45. bxa5 bxa5 46.Wd2 a4 47 .Va5 gf7 48.'\We 1 gb7 49 .J.d 1 gb2 50.'\We3 h 4 5 1 .J.g4 5 1 . . . Wg3 ! I hoped that the full point would come by itself, but Bartel was not obliging. So I finally had to take a major decision. The endgame is ex tremely unpleasant for White. 52.Wxg3 hxg3+ 53.ge1 �c2 54.gc1 �e3 55 ..if3 �xc4 56.c;t>f1 �d2+ 57.c;t>g 1 c4 58 . .id 1 ga2 59.gc2 ga1 0-1 295 Part 10 40. Tischbierek- Kiril Georg iev Nord hausen 1 987 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d 6 3.c3 �f6 4.h3 g 6 5 . .td3 .tg 7 6 ..tc2 �c6 6 ... e5 sidesteps the variation 6 . . . �c6 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4 dS 9.e5 �e4 10.0-0 which is not dangerous anyway. 23 .ti'd2 7.0-0 e5 8.d4 exd4 9.cxd4 o-o 1 0 .dxc5 dxc5 1 1 .�c3 .te6 12 . .te3 ti'a5 1 3 . ti'e2 My game tactics begins to pay off. White's last move is inaccurate. He should have prevented my knight from returning into play: 23.id6 ti'a5 24.ti'xa5 lt:\xa5 25.i.a4 �c4 26.lt:\xc4 i.xc4= . The distant passer on the a-file is a strong trump, but the h5-knight is stranded at the oth er edge of the board. 23 . . . �t4 24. m h 1 ? I was satisfied with my position and decided to impose sharper play with more calculation. 13 .. J"!:ad8 14J"!:fdl l"!:feS would have main tained the balance a little longer. 1 3 . . . � h 5 1 4J �fd 1 gadS 1 5. � d 5 .txb2 1 6.ga b 1 .tg 7 This is a sheer mistake which gives me the upper hand. 24.ti'd7! =. 2 4 . . . �e6 25 . .td6 �cd4 26 . .tb 1 ti'xd2 27.�xd2 �b5 It was time to switch to more strategical play with 27 . . . .ie2 2 8.1"!:el aS+. Now White consolidates. 16 . . . i.d4 17.lt::J xd4 lt:\xd4 18.lt:\e7+ mg7 19 . .ixd4+ cxd4 20 . 1"!:xb7= was a good alternative, but I was aim ing at a tangled position with more pieces. 28.e5 �c3 29.gc1 .ih6 30. �e4= �xb1 3 1 .gxb1 .td3 32 . �f6+ �g7 33.gd 1 .te2 34.ge1 �d4 35. �fg4 .tg 5 36.e6 f6 ! ? 1 7.gxb7 ti'xa2 1 8 .hc5 gfe8 1 9.�e3 .tcB 20.gc7 .ta6 2 1 .ti'e 1 gcs 22.gxc8 gxc8 Avoiding further simplification after 36 . . . .hg4 37.i.e5+ f6 38.i.xd4 .he6= . 296 Early Deviations for White 37J��b1 �bS 38.J.b4? 1 1 . � b 1 J.e7 1 2 .�d2 Y!Ic7 1 3.a3 aS 1 4.axb4 axb4 1 5.l;xa8+ ·J.xa8 Around the time control, Tisch bierek slips gravely. Correct was 38 . .ig3 .b:g4 39.E:xb5 = . 38 . . . h 5 3 9 . � h 2 � d 4 40J�a 1 a6? In the time trouble, we both passed by 40 . . . a5 ! 41.i.xa5 �b3 42 .E:el �xa5 43 .E:xe2 he3-+. Then the weakness of the first rank should have cost White the point. 41 J;e1 J.b5 42 . �f3 ! �xf3 42 . . . �xe6! still retained some chances. Now the game is drawn. 43.gxf3 .ic6 44.�g2 .if4 4SJ;a 1 J.b5 46 J�d 1 J.e5 47.e7 l;e8 48.l;d8 ic7 49.l;d2 %-% T i m e : 2 : 38-2 : 47 41 . Parkanyi-Ribli H u ng a ry 2003 1 .e4 c5 2 . �c3 a6 3 . g 3 b5 4.J.g2 ib7 5.d3 e6 6. �ge2 �f6 7.0-0 d6 8.h3 h S 9 . .ig5 �bd7 1 O.f4 b4 1 6. �c4 d5 1 7 .e5 dxc4 1 8 .ba8 �b6 1 9 .exf6 g xf6 20 .J.h4 �xa8 2 1 .dxc4 f5 22 .J.xe7 �xe7 23.�c1 �b6 24.b3 �d7 25.�d3 �f6 26.Y!If3 �e4 27.�e5 �d2 28 .Y!Ic6 Y!Ixc6 29.�xc6+ �f6 30.l;d1 �e4 3 1 .�h2 l;a8 32.l;d7 l;a2 33. �e5 l;xc2+ 34.�g 1 ®g7 35. �xf7 �xg3 36.�g5+ �g6 37. �xe6 �f6 38.l;d6 �e2+ 39.�f1 �xf4 40. �xc5+ �g5 41 .l;d8 �xh3 42 .l;g8+ �f4 43.�d3+ �e4 44.�xb4 l;b2 45.l;g3 l;b1 + 46.�g2 �f4+ 47.�h2 l;b2+ 48.®h1 h4 49. l;c3 �e2 50.l;c2 l;b1 + 51 . ®h2 �d4 52 .�d5 l;e 1 53.l;b2 f4 54. b4 f3 55.l;f2 l;c1 56.�h3 l;xc4 57. �f6+ �es 58. �g4+ �f4 59.�xh4 l;c8 60. �f6 l;h8+ 6 1 .�h5+ �e3 62.l;a2 f2 63.l;a 1 �f3+ 64. �g4 l;g8+ 0-1 297 Pa rt 1 1 The Moscow Variation 1 .e4 c5 2 )/jf3 d6 3 .J.b5+ Pa rt 1 1 Q u i c k Re pe rto i re l.e4 c5 2.tlf3 d6 3 .lb5+ • This check defines the some what offbeat Moscow Variation. Al though it is not considered to yield an advantage, it has a sound posi tional background. White embraces two basic principles of chess - to aim for quick development and an ideal pawn centre. However, the Sicilian is a very irregular opening with its own rules. It is rare to see Black strangled strategically. He is running much bigger dangers when submitted to head-on attacks straight in the opening. Exchanging one minor piece facilitates Black's defence. Still, in the Moscow Varia tion the second player remains with one minor piece too many. If he succeeded in trading another one, he would be perfectly happy despite the enemy's spatial advantage. Note that latest trends show White starting with 5.0-0, but trying to steer the game into favourable for him lines of the Mar6czy Bind. A. 5.c4 tlf6 Remember this move order! The queen's knight must remain on b8 in order to leave the c-file open: 6.tlc3 g6 7.d4 cxd4 8.tlxd4 .lg7 9.f3 0 - 0 10. 0 - 0 �c8 11.b3 ll . . . d5 ! ! 3 •.. .td7 4 .ixd7+ Yfxd7 • The key move. We like natural moves. The text develops the queen which is eying g4, and prepares a better future for the queen's knight on c6. At this point, White chooses between the Mar6czy Bind A. 5 c4, and B. 5 0-0. 300 12.exd5 tlxd5 13.tlxd5 e6 14 . .te3 Or 14 . .ih6 exd5 15.hg7 �xg7 16.lt::l b 5 dxc4 17.lt::l d 6 Ei:d8 18.lt::l xb7 1.e4 c5 ViJf3 d6 3.!b5+ %Yxd 1=, Lupulescu-Colovic, Subo tica 2003. 14 exd5 15.cxd5 �a6 = , Del chev-Ivanchuk, Istanbul 2003. ••• White is able to prevent Ivan chuk's idea with 10 . .ie3. Then we aim for . . . b7-b5: 10 . . . ll:'lc6 11.0-0 a6 Black's breakthrough on the queenside could be prevented only with a4, but then we get a nice ver sion of the hedgehog: 12.a4 e6 13.ll:'lde2 Now simplest is to shift the f6knight to c5 and attack b3 : 13 . . . %Yc7 ! ? 14J'!b1 ll:'ld7 15.%Yd2 (15.b3 ll:'lc5 16.h1 !!:ac8) 15 ... ll:'lc5 16.b3 !!:ac8. It is unclear how White could avoid the following combi nation : 17.!!:fd1 (17.!!:fcl ll:'la5) 17 . . . ll:'la5 18.%Ya2 ll:'lcxb3 19.!!:xb3 ll:'lxb3 2 0 .%Yxb3 %Yxc4 21.%Yxc4 !!:xc4+, Zag rebelny-Shipov, Sochi 2 0 04. White is deprived of the active plan with ll:'le1, f3. As a result, he is forced to concede an exchange of another piece and his chances for a success ful attack considerably decrease. Af ter 6 . . . ll:'lc6 7.c3 e6 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 d5 10.e5 Black could seriously contem plate 10 . . . ll:'lg8 ! ? ll.ll:'lc3 h5 ensuring the square f5 for his knight. As long as it has never been tested, we left it as a sideline to: 10 . . . ll:'le4 ll.ll:'lbd2 ll:'lxd2 12 ..ixd2 i.e7 (12 . . . i.b4!?) 13.!!:c1 0-0 14.!!:c3 14 .. .f6 15.exf6 M6! 16.!!:ce3 id6=. 6 ••• �c6 7.c3 e6 8.d4 You could also see 8.!!:dl. We continue with 8 ... i.e7 and sooner or later we'll get the same position as in the main line. 8 •.• cxd4 9.cxd4 d5 10.e5 �e4 B. 5. 0 - 0 �f6 6.%Ye2 6.!!:e1 is strategically similar to 6.%Ye2, but since e1 is occupied, 301 Part 11 ll . .le3 .le7 12.�el f6 13.f3 �g5 14.�d3 0 - 0 15 ..lf2 b6 e6 8.d4 cxd4 9.llJxd4 The arising hedgehog construction is more pas sive than the Dragon set-up with a bishop on g7. I propose to take the sting of White's plan by: 7 . . . E:c8 ! ? A waiting, but useful move. Its fine point is that 8.d4 cxd4 9.ll:lxd4 will be met with 9 . . . g6= . This position seems critical to me as it could arise after the ven omous move order with 7J'�dl ! ? (see next paragraph). Some commentators assess it as slightly better for White, per haps influenced by the outcome of game 46 Rublevsky-Sadvakas ov Poikovsky, 2 005. In our opinion, Black has fair chances and there is no reason to avoid this line. After 16.ll:\c3 ll:\t7 17.E:acl E:ac8 18.E:fdl fxeS 19.dxe5 ll:\h6 20.\Wd2 , Rublevs ky himself gives 20 . . . llJb4 with equality. Now I want to arm you against the move order: 6.Y;Ye2 ll:\c6 7.E:dl ! ? 8 .c3 e6 9.d4 cxd4 10.cxd4 dS ll.eS ll:\e4 12 . .ie3 i.e7 13.lLlel f6 14.f3 ll:\g5. We have reached a familiar posi tion from the previous example. In conclusion, some simple rules in the Moscow Variation (but be sure to look at the board before applying them, not at your thumbs ! ) : 1. I f White refrained from c 3 and chose b3 or c4 or else, we fianchetto the bishop to g7. 2. If White delayed c4 or c3 by 6.'�e2, 7.E:dl, we also do not com mit ourselves with . . . e6 or . . . g6, but respond flexibly with useful moves ( . . . llJc6, . . . E:ac8). The idea is to meet c3 with . . . e6, but c4 with . . . g6. 3 . In the French structure White hopes t o get the chance of torturing us at leisure after 7 . . . 302 l.e4 c5 2.<!i]f3 d6 3.Ab5+ we maintain the tension in the centre by attacking the e5-out post with ... f6. This is our insur ance against potentially dangerous kingside assaults. Occasionally we could close the centre at a later stage with .. .f6-f5 provided that White misplaced his pieces or offered good targets on the other flank. The oth er plan is to remain passive on the kingside and seek exchanges along the c-file, but it does not improve our winning chances while offering the enemy an initiative. 4. In the diagrammed structure nearly any exchange of minor piec es leads to a comfortable equality. 5. Finally, retreating the knight to g8 instead of e4, is a good basis for experimenting, but preferably against weaker opponents. 303 Pa rt 1 1 Ste p by Ste p l.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3 .Ab5+ .Ad7 4 . .ixd7+ ti'xd7 • 5 . . . tt:\c6 6.tt:\c3 tt:\f6 7.d4 cxd4 8.tt:\xd4 g6 9.f3 ! A. 5 c4; B. 5.0-0 A. 5 c4 �f6 For many years, Black has been trying to equalise by developing the knight to c6 and fianchettoing the bishop. Then in 2 0 03, Ivanchuk came up with a fascinating idea based on early pressure on c4. It is the approved equaliser against 5.c4 nowadays. However, I'll get you ac quainted with the old line, too. It leads to more complex play with lasting spatial advantage for White, but Black commonly obtains suffi cient counter-chances: 3 04 White has more useful moves than castling. 9.0-0 i.g7 10.tt:\de2 could be attacked with 10 .. .'1We6 !? l l .tt:\d5 �xe4 12.tt:\c7+ Wd7 13.tt:\xa8 1Wxc4 with a nice compensation for the exchange: 14.tt:\b6+ (White does not gain anything from the ex tra tempo after 14.tt:\c3 !%xa8 15.!%el !%d8 16.h3 We8 17.i.e3 d5+ so it is better to cause some damage on the enemy's pawn formation) 14 . . . axb6 15.tt:\c3 b5 15 . . . e6 16.i.e3 tt:\d5 17.tt:\xd5 �xd5 is also fine for Black: 18.1Wxd5 exd5 19.hb6 .ixb2 2 0 .!%abl i.c3 2 1.i.e3 Wc7, Turov-Andreev, Tula 2 001, 2 1 . . .!%b8+ or 18.�e2 b5 19.!%adl '!Wc4 2 0 .�d2 �b4 2 1.1Wd3 d5 2 2 .!%cl �a4 23.!%fdl b4+, Rublevsky-Motylev, Novi Sad 2 0 0 0 . l.e4 c5 V2Jf3 d6 3.ib5+ 16.i.e3 b4 17.tLla4 tLld5 18J:k1 1Wxa2 19.:Be1 e6+, Svetushkin-Ni nov, France 2008. 9 . . . i.g7 10.tLlde2 0-0 11.0-0 a6 In Ni Hua-Nepomniachtchi, ra pid Sochi 2 0 09, Black tried to save ... a6: 1l.. .e6 12 .i.g5 h6 13.i.e3 :Bad8 14.'1Wc1 'it>h7 15.:Bd1 :Bfe8 16.'it>h1 1Wc7, with ... d5 in mind. 12 .a4 (12 .i.e3 tLle5 13 .b3 b5= , Sax-Almasi, Szekesfehervar 2 006) 12 ... e6 - see game 42 Rublevsky Kiril Georgiev, Niksic 1997. 6A)c3 g6 7.d4 7.0-0 has not an independent significance except for the varia tion 7...i.g7 8.e5 dxe5 9.tLlxe5 'WeB 10 .'1Wa4+ tLlbd7 11.:Be1 0-0 12.tLlxd7 1Wxd7 13.'1Wxd7 tt'lxd7 14.:Bxe7 :Bae8 with compensation for the pawn : 15.:Bxe8 (or 15.tLld5?! tLlb6+,Czebe Lupulescu, Subotica 2005) 15 ... :Bxe8 16.f4=. Al. 10.0-0; A2 . 10.i.e3 White connects his hopes for some edge with the set-up tLlde2 and i.g5. The specific move order of Black without ... tLlc6 is aimed against it. We'll see that after 10.0-0 :Bc8 ll.b3 d5 ! ! Black suc cessfully breaks the Mar6czy Bind so let's consider 10 .i.g5. We answer it with 10 . . . tLlc6 ll.lLlde2 a6, with the clear intention to push ... b5, for instance, 13.0-0 tLle5 14.b3 b5. Thus 12.a4 looks consistent, but then Black shifts his queen to a5: 12 ...1Wc7 13.b3 1Wa5 14.1Wd2 b5 15.cxb5 axb5=, Gharamian-Savchenko, Metz 2007. Al. l 0 . 0 - 0 :Bc8 11.b3 d5! ! 7. . . cxd4 8)ilxd4 ig7 9.f3 0 - 0 The key move of Black's concept. 12.exd5 12 .e5 could put White on the de fensive after 12 ... tLle8 13.tLlxd5 e6 14.tLlc3 h:e5 15.tLlde2 b5 !t, Ulibin Buss, Biel 2004. Psakhis' suggestion 12.tLlxd5 e6 305 Part 11 13.lLixf6+ (13.ll:le3 ll:lxe4 ! 14.i.b2 ll:lcS=) 13 . . . i.xf6 14.i.e3 E:d8 15.ll:le2 was tested in Wallis-Sadorra, Kua la Lumpur 2 0 0 6 : 12 . . . §'e7! 16.§'c1 i.xa1 17.Wixa1 ll:lc6 18.ll:ld4 f6+. Black's breakthrough on the queenside could be prevented only with a4, but then Black is in com mand of the dark squares: 12.a4 e6 12 ••• lLlxd5 13.lLlxd5 e6 14.i.e3 In later games White tried 14.i.h6, but it does not change the evaluation: 14 . . . exd5 15.i.xg7 'it>xg7 16.ll:lb5 dxc4 17.tLid6 E:d8 18.lLlxb7 Wixd1 19.E:fxd1 E:xd1+ 20.E:xd1 cxb3 21.axb3 lLlc6 2 2 .E:d6 E:b8 = , Nabaty Areshchenko, Chennai 2011. 14 exd5 15.cxd5 lLla6 = , Del chev-Ivanchuk, lstanbul 2 0 03 . ••• A2. 10.i.e3 lLlc6 11. 0 - 0 a6 Black has obtained a pleasant hedgehog. He has exchanged a pair of bishops so he has enough ma noeuvring space. Besides, the c4pawn is rather weak. That forces White to take a passive stand with b3, instead of b4. The possibility of . . . bS is constantly on the agenda. The game Tiviakov-Ivanchuk, Benidorm 2008 showed a little more passive, but solid set-up: 12 ... Wid8 13.b3 §'a5 14.Wid2 E:fc8 15.E:fdl E:ab8 16.E:ab1 ll:ld7 17.ll:lde2 Wid8 18.'it>h1 ll:lc5. 13.b3 allows 13 ... d5. 13 Aiming to achieve . . . bS: 12 .Wid2 ll:lxd4 13 . .ixd4 bS and after 14.ll:ld5, Tiviakov and Dominguez Perez signed a draw in Havana 2008. 12.E:cl E:c8 13.lLlde2 (13.b3 lLlxd4 14.i.xd4 bS=) 13 . . . ll:le5 14.b3 bS= . 306 ••. lUe8 It looks logical to use the hang ing state of the e3-bishop. However, Black can begin the redeployment of his f6-knight immediately: 13 . . . §'c7 ! ? 14.E:b1 ll:ld7 15.Wid2 (15.b3 ll:lcS 16.'it>h1 E:ac8) 15 . . . ll:lc5 16.b3 E:ac8. It is unclear how White could avoid the following combi nation: 17.E:fd1 (17.E:fc1 ll:laS) 17 ... ll:laS 18.Wia2 ll:lcxb3 19.E:xb3 ll:lxb3 2 0 .§'xb3 §'xc4 2 1.§'xc4 E:xc4+, Za grebelny-Shipov, Sochi 2 0 04. 14.i.g5 h6 15.i.h4 Yfc7 l.e4 c5 2_lt:)f3 d6 3.i.b5+ Black should not compromise his kingside as in the game Ivan chuk-Dominguez Perez, Havana 2 0 1 2 : 15 . . . g5 16.i.f2 dS 17.cxd5 exdS 18.ltJg3 dxe4 19.\Wxd7 ltJxd7 20.ltJcxe4;!;. 16.c,!,>ht c!tJd7 17.gbl c!tJc5 18.f4 Black has a good game. His pie ces are well coordinated and he can choose between many attractive options. First of all, he should decide whether to allow f4-f5 or block it by . . . f7-f5. The latter opens the centre and leads to a balanced game, e.g. : 18 . . . f5 19.exf5 exfS 20.c!tJd5 Wf7. B. 5 0 - 0 c!tJf6 I (KG) have always played 5 ... lt:lc6 first. It is as good as the main line, but perhaps it incurs some learning overhead. You need to be prepared against 6.c4 and the gambit line 6.c3 lt:lf6 7.d4. Let's consider them: a) 6.c4 lt:le5 6 ... g6 ! is a decent alternative. Following 7.d4 cxd4 8.lt:lxd4 i.g7 9.c!tJe2 lt:lf6 10.lt:lbc3, play transpos es to line A. 7 . . . e6 8 . .if4 lt:lxf3+ 9.\Wxf3 lt:le7 10.c!tJc3 lt:lc6 11J'%ae1 .ie7 12.\Wg4 0-0=, Shirazi-Vachier Lagrave, Pa ris 2008 . b) 6.c3 lt:lf6 7.d4 lt:lxe4 8.d5 18 . . . c!tJb4 ! ? is more interesting, intending to meet 19.b3 by 19 .. .f5. White can push 19.f5 himself, but then 19 . . . ltJcd3 2 0.f6 i.f8 21.b3 dS ( 21 ...l:% ad8 ! ? keeps the tension.) 22.exd5 gadS puts White on the de fensive. Finally, 18 . . .l:%ac8 19.b3 fS 2 0 .exf5 occurred in Guliyev-Van Kampen, Hilversum 2012, when 20 . . . exf5 2 1.ltJd5 W/f7 2 2 .c!tJb6 !%b8 would have been balanced. 8 . . . c!tJe5 Keeping the extra pawn by 8 . . . c!tJd8 9J'!e1 lt:lf6 10.ig5 lt:lg8, as I 307 Part 1 1 successfully played against Neved nichy, is more than risky. ll.b4!� as in Glek-Klimov, Krasnoyarsk 2003, provides White with excellent com pensation, due to the futureless knight on d8. 9.gel! ll:lxf3 + Or 5 . . . ll:lf6 lO.ll:lxeS dxeS u.gxeS e6 12.c4 0-0-0 13 . .ig5 ! (13.ll:lc3 .id6 14.gel exdS 15.ll:lxd5 ll:lxd5= ) t3 . . . .id6 t4 . .txf6 gxf6 ts.ghs .ies 16.ll:lc3 fS 17.Wff3;!;, Gurgenidze Mchedlishvili, Tbilisi 20 0 1 . 10.Wfxf3 Summing up, 5 . . . ll:lc6 can be a good backup line for your reper toire. Bl. 6.e5; B2 . 6.gel; B3. 6 .Wfe2 Bl. 6.e5 dxe5 7.ll:lxe5 Wfc8 ! 8.Yff3 White is trying to hinder the normal development of the oppo nent, but his set-up seems artificial. Instead of contesting the centre or 308 developing the minor pieces, he un dertakes a manoeuvre which does not really disturb Black. Alternatively: a) 8.ll:la3 has not any pluses. It commits the knight to the square c4 which might be needed for the other knight. Black could follow the scheme with 8 . . . e6, e.g. 9.ll:lac4 b5 10 .Wff3 ll:lbd7 ll.ll:lxd7 ll:lxd7 12 .ll:le3 .ie7 13.a4 b4 14.ll:lc4 ll:lb6 15.ll:le5 0-0= , Gurgenidze-Jobava, Tbili si 2 0 0 2 . In this line, 8 . . . g6 is also possible, but it is more consistent against: b) 8 .b3 g6 9.Wfe2 (or 9.gel .ig7 10.ll:lc3 0-0 ll.Wff3, Krum Georgiev Erdogdu, Istanbul 2 0 03, ll . . . ll:lfd7=) 9 . . . .ig7 10 . .ib2 0-0 l l.ll:la3 ll:lc6 12 .ll:lxc6 Wfxc6 13.ll:lc4 gadS 14.a4 gfe8 ts.gael ll:lhS 16 . .ixg7= , Plas kett-Ftacnik, Hastings 2001. White can also open up the cen tre, counting on his lead in develop ment: c) 8.d4 e6 9 ..ig5 (9.ll:lc3 gives Black a tempo for 9 . . . ll:lc6 10 . .ie3 .ie7=) 9 . . . .ie7 10.ll:lg4 (10.ll:lc3 does not set problems, for instance: 10 . . . cxd4 ll.Wxd4 ll:lc6 12 .Wfa4 0-0 13.ll:lxc6 Wfxc6 14.Wfxc6 bxc6 15.gfdl gfd8= T. Todorov-Isonzo, Porto San Giorgio 2000). Now Black can choose between the safe 10 . . . ll:lbd7 ll.ll:lc3 0-0 12 .ll:le4 (12.gel h6) 12 . . . ll:lxe4 13.he7 ge8 14 . .ih4 ll:ld6= or 10 ... ll:lxg4 ! ? ll.he7 ll:lxh2 12 .gel ! <llx e7 13.d5 ll:ld7 with sharper play where White has probably suffi- l.e4 cS 2.lijf3 d6 3.Ab5+ cient compensation for the pawn: 14.�xh2 (14.d6+ �f8 15.�xh2 '!Wc6 16.ll:lc3oo) 14 . . J%e8 15.dxe6 �c7+ 16.�gl ltlf6 17.ll:lc3 fxe6 18.ltld5+ ll:lxdS 19.�xd5 �fl 2 0.�h5+ �g8 2U'!e5 = . 8 ••• e6 9.d3 Attempts t o disturb Black's kingside by 12.�g3 ll:lxeS 13.he5 are best parried by 13 . . . g6. 13 .. .f6 has also been tried, but positional thinking convinces us that with a dark-squared bishop the pawns should by placed on light squares: 14.ll:le4 �dB 15.i.c7 (15.�f4 f5 16.ll:lc3 ll:lc6 17J'3fe1 l'%e8 =) 15 . . . �d7 16.i.f4 ll:lc6 17.i.h6 ll:ld4 18.�h3 l'%fd8 19.c3 ltlf5t, Lanin-Zagrebelny, St. Petersburg 2 006. Even simpler is 12 ... ll:ld7 13.ltlf3 ltlf6 = . White admits the failure of his opening strategy and prepares to regroup. 13 ll:ld6 is answered by 13 . . . ll:lde5, whereas 13 ll:lbS by ll:lf6. White has some temporary ini tiative which is bound to gradually fade out. Then the better control of the centre, ensured by the c5-pawn, may turn the tables in Black's fa vour. 9 ••• Black has taken over the ini taitive, see game 43 Morozevich -Topalov, FIDE-Web. San Luis 2 005. .te7 1 0 .ltlc3 0 - 0 ! The whole set-up of White is conceived to exploit the d6-square. Black's prompt castling, however, squashes most of his hopes. 11.Af4 Or ll.AgS ll:ldS 12.ixe7 ll:lxe7 13J'!fel ltlbc6 = . An old and dull variation which could lead to dead drawn positions should Black comply. 6 ••. llJc6 7.c3 To 7.b3, we also fianchetto our bishop: 7 . . . g6 8.c3 (8.Ab2 i.g7 9.c4 e5=) 8 . . . i.g7 9.d4 cxd4 10.cxd4 d5 ll.es ll:le4 12 .i.b2 (12 .ltlbd2 al309 Part 11 lows beside 12 ... lt'lxd2 13 . .ixd2 0-0 14.l:k1 !1fc8 15.�e2 lt'ld8=, the sharper 12 . . . lt'lc3 ! ? 13.�c2 lt'lbS 14.�c5 lt'lc7 15.lt'lf1 0-0 16.�c3 f6t Leko-Kasparov, Frankfurt 2 000) 12 ... 0-0 13.lt'lbd2 lt'lxd2 14.�xd2 !1fc8 15.h3 lt'ld8 16.!1ac1 lt'le6 17.i.a3 i.f8 18.lt'lh2 !1xc1 19.!1xc1 aS= , Adams-Anand, Dortmund 2001. 7 . . . e6 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 d5 10 .e5 der control with 11.a3 ! ? . Then 11 ... hS 12.lt'lc3 i.e7, intending 13 . . . lt'lh6, leads to complex play. I was curious to test this position, but my prac tical experience has disappoint ed me. After 12 . . . lt'lh6, my oppo nent found the good idea 13.lt'le2 lt'lfS 14.lt'lg3, when I realised that 4 moves ago I declined the trade of knights in vain. Now I got a similar position, but the hS-pawn is some what weak. Still, 14 . . . lt'lxg3 15.hxg3 would have been unclear. Instead I chose 14 . . . lt'lce7? ! 15.i.g5 h4 16.lt'lxf5 lt'lxf5 17.h3 i.e7 18 . .ixe7 �xe7 19.!1c1 0-0 to draw on the 27th move, Zo. Jovanovic-Kiril Georgiev, Sibenik 2 0 06. In one game White played 11.h4 when 11 . . . h5 is a must. ll.lt'lbd2 10 . . . lt'le4 10 . . . lt'lg8 is against general chess principles and, therefore, risky. In line B32 I examine in details a simi lar position, with the queen on e2 and the rook on fl. Strategically, there is no difference. Black could try the same plan with . . . hS : 11.lt'lc3 hS (11 . . . .tb4 12 .i.d2 .ixc3 should be roughly equal.) 12.i.f4 lt'lge7 (12 . . . lt'lh6! to avoid lt'lh4 is more accurate.) 13.!1cl lt'lfS 14.a3 i.e7 15.b4 !1c8 16.lt'le2 a6 17.�d3 0-0 18.i.g5 .ixg5 = , Jevtic-Stempin, Bydgoszcz U20 1980. More often White takes b4 un310 If White intended to repel the knight by enabling f3, he should have chosen 6.�e2 which is cov ered in line B32. In the current po sition, that idea is unfortunate and could give the initiative to Black, as in Fernandez Garcia-Karjakin, Dos Hermanas 2004: 11.!1e2 i.e7 12.lt'le1 fS 13.lt'lc2 0-0 14.f3 lt'lgS 15.lt'lc3 !1ac8 16.�d3 a6 17.i.d2 lt'lf7 18.@h1 !1c7 19.!1g1 lt'lh8! 2 0.g4 lt'lg6+. ll.lt'lc3 lt'lxc3 12.bxc3 makes White's pawn formation on the queenside too static. That encour ages Black to castle long: 12 . . . i.e7 13.lt'lg5 h6 14.lt'lh3 0-0-0 ! , Oblitas Guerrero-Leitao, Sao Paulo 2001, l .e4 cS 2 .tLlf3 d6 3 . .ib5+ or 13.�d3 tLlaS 14.tLlg5 h6 15.tLlh3 0-0-0. ll ... tLlxd2 12.hd2 .ie7 Anand played 12 .. J.'l:c8 first. Perhaps it was aimed against .igS with further exchanges, but I sup pose that if White insists on 13.i.g5, Black had not a better option than 13 . . . i.e7 thus transposing to the main line. Of course, 13 . . . h6 would give more chances - to both sides ! 12 . . . i.b4 is a safe way to draw: 13J:kl .ixd2 14.�xd2 0-0 15.�d3 h6 16.a3 gac8 17.gc3 tLle7= , Wang Chen-Sandipan, Qinhuangdao 2011. 13.i.g5 steers the game to a draw, e.g. 13 . . . 0-0 14.he7 tLlxe7 15.ge3 gac8 16.gcl h6 17.gec3 gxc3 18.gxc3 gc8 = , Rasik-Kiril Georgiev, Budapest zt. 1993. 13 . . • 0 - 0 14.gc3 This breakthrough assures Black of a satisfactory game with little risk. The opposite approach assumes that White's chances for attack are not too high and could be neglect ed. Black follows the scheme: 14 . . . gac8 (or 14 .. J'!fc8, but then the risk increases as . . . f6 is no lon ger possible), 15.a3 a6 16J.3d3 �dB _ 17.h4 tLlaS as in the game De la Riva Aguado-Karjakin, Pamplona 2004. Practice has shown, however, that White often manages to shatter Black's defence. Play could contin ue with 18.tLlg5 h6 19.tLlh3 lt>h7 20 .�h5 ! (20.tLlg5+ lt>g8) 20 . . . tLlc4 21.i.cl !? (or 2l.i.g5). White has a typical at tacking set-up which is better to avoid as Black! I can suggest a good alterna tive to the main line. It is connect ed with the manoeuvre . . . idS, fol lowed by . . . tLle7. It is seen in only a few games where White was not able to create serious threats due to the presence of the e7-knight: 14 . . .gfc8 15.a3 idS 16.gd3 4Je7 14 . . . f6 17.h4 tLlfS (17 . . . h6 ! ? 18.h5 lLlfS transposes to the main line. In I. Zaitsev-Vasiukov, St. Petersburg 311 Part 11 1995 was 18 ... a5? ! 19.li)h4 ! ll::l fS 2 0 .ll::l xf5 exfS, when 2 UU3 ! would have assured White of some edge, e.g. 2l.. .l3c4 22 . .ie3 ! l'!ac8 23.ffd3;!;) 18.g4 ll::l e 7 (The knight is very im portant for the defence, 19 . . . ll::l h 4? 2 0.g5 ll::l xf3+ 21.l'!xf3 .txgS 2 2 .hg5 hxgS 23.l3h3--+) 19.h5 h6 2 0 . 'i!?h1 (20 .g5 hxgS 2 1.hg5 ll::l fS) 2 0 . . .'�b5 21..ic3 .iaS 2 2 .ffd2 i.xc3 23 .bxc3 l3f8 24.l'!g1 f6 25.exf6 l3xf6 26.ll::l e 5 112-1!2 Potkin-Ionov, St. Petersburg 2002. 15.exf6 gxf6 ! Black experiences some difficul ties if he recaptures by the bishop. This piece is always better placed on d6 in such structures. We see an improved version of the French Defence with exchanged light-squared bishops. White would be able to make progress only if he traded bishops, but that is un achievable. The game Zvjaginsev Najer, Poikovsky 2 0 06, lasted only four more moves: 2 1..id2 h6 2 2 .l'!e3 ll::l c 6 23 . .ic3 l'!e8 24.h3 112-1!2 . B 3 . 6.�e2 With the efforts of Rublevs ky, this move is currently White's weapon of choice. In the variation with c3-d4, it enables the manoeu vre ll::l f3-e1-d3. Even more interest ing is the attempt to switch to open Sicilians by 7.l'!d1 and d4. Or 16.ll::l e 5 ll::l x eS 17J!xe5 .id6 18.l'!e2 l'!af8 = , Kosanovic-Navrotes cu, Budapest 2 001. 16 .td6 17.ffe2 l3af8 18 .ic3 ll::l d 8 19.a3 .tf4 2 0 .l'!d3 .id6 ••• • B31. 7.c3 ; B32. 7.l'!d1 B31. 7.c3 e6 Black has a forced way to annihi late most of the pieces by: 312 l.e4 c5 VL'lf3 d6 3.i.b5+ 7 . . . �g4 8J'l:e1 8 d3.tl:le5 9.tl:lbd2 tl:lh5 10.d4 tl:lf4 11.�b5+ 'i!ld8 ! is deeply analysed up to a drawish endgame: 12.tl:le1 (12 .g3 tl:lh3+ 13. 'i!lg2 tl:lf4 + = is a draw by perpetual) 12 . . . tl:led3 13.f3 'Wg5 14.tl:lb3 tl:le2+ 15.'i!lh1 tl:ldxcl 16.tl:lxc1 (16.f4 ! ? �h4 17J!:xc1 tl:lg3+ 18.'i!lg1 tl:lxf1 19.tl:lf3 �g4 2 0 J�xfl 'Wd7 is rather tangled.) 16 . . . tl:lg3+ 17 hxg3 'Wh6+ 18.'i!lg1 'We3+ 19.!!:f2 �xe1+ 2 0 .�fl �xf1+ 2Ul:xf1 cxd4 2 2 .cxd4 e6=. 8 ... tl:le5 9.tl:lxe5 'Wxe2 10J�xe2 dxe5 ll.tl:la3 0-0-0 12.tl:lc4 tl:ld7 13.d4. It seems that White has the initiative, but a couple of pre cise moves balance the game: 13 . . . e6 14.i.e3 exd4 15.cxd4 b 6 16J�!:c1 'i!lb7= , Nevednichy-Moranda, War saw 2005. So the current status of this line is acceptable for Black, if you do not mind a draw. 8.d4 Sometimes White pretends that he is playing the Spanish: 8.d3 fi.e7 9.!!:e1 (or 9.!!:d1 0-0 10.tl:lbd2 b5 ll.tl:lfl b4 12.tl:lg3 !!:ab8 13.d4 bxc3 14.bxc3 cxd4 15.cxd4 !!:fc8 16 . .if4 tl:l a5 17.!!:ac1 !!:xc1 18.!!:xc1 !!:c8 = , Iordachescu-Negi, Dubai 2 010) 9 ... 0-0 10 .tl:lbd2 !!:fd8 ll.tl:lf1 !!:ac8 12.tl:lg3. We, however, like the Sicil ian plans and follow up with 12 . . . b5 13 . .ig5 b4 14.!!:ad1 bxc3 15.bxc3 h6 16.i.c1 i.f8 17.h3 tl:le5 = , Rozentalis Kiril Georgiev, ol. Turin 2006. In my opinion, White's best move order is 8.!!:d1 ! ? when 8 . . . fi.e7 9.d4 cxd4 10.cxd4 d5 transposes to the main line. Thus White side steps the idea of Ivanchuk ll .. .f5 and 12 . . . �f7! ? which I analyse as an alternative to . . .f6. 8 ... cxd4 9.cxd4 d5 10.e5 10 . . . tl:lg8 is little explored. Hav ing spent a lot of time on it, I must admit that the more I analysed it, the less I liked it. Still, I think that Black has a lot of room for exper imenting. Especially intriguing is the plan with . . . h5, tl:lh6. A major downside of 10 . . . tl:lg8 is that White retains a very solid spa tial advantage. Should Black ex change one minor piece, he would be fine, but the enemy is able to pre vent it. There are no concrete varia tions and engines enjoy the fact that White's bishop seems without fu ture. However, in the long run that very bishop might prove to be the decisive piece. Play continues with: ll.!!:d1! 313 Part 11 11.tt:lc3 .ib4 12.a3 .ixc3 13.bxc3 tt:lge7= , solves Black's development problems, Skripchenko-S. Atalik, Saint Vincent 20 0 1 . After ll . .ie3 tt:lge7, Black is threatening to ex change one of his knights, so White must play 12 .g4, but then Black gets h4 in his possession: 12 . . . tt:lg6 13.tt:le1 hS 14.h3 hxg4 15.hxg4 fS 16.f4 fxg4 17.�xg4 tt:lh4+, Rocha Romero Holmes, Lisbon 2003. This example shows how important is for White to control h4. Thus the bishop should go to g3 via f4. ll . . . hS ! ? I'd like t o propose this novelty without backing it with variations. I came upon this idea after having analysed the games with 10 . . . tt:lg8 in my database. You'll understand it better if you look at the other op tions: ll . . . tt:lge7 12.tt:lc3 tt:lfS 12 . . . h5 13.h4? tt:lfS turned well in Lopez Gracia-Guerra Bastida, O rtigueira 2 0 04, but 13.tt:lh4! im pedes Black's plan. Kasimdzhanov Topalov, FIDE-Web k.o. Tripo li 2004, saw 12 . . . tt:lc8 13.J.e3 tt:lb6. This is too good to be true. Black found a natural place for his knight and he is about to expand on the 314 queenside. However, his king has been left without defenders and the future FIDE champion gradual ly generated an unpleasant attack: 14.b3 gcs 15.'\Wb2 !J.e7 16.tt:le2 0-0 17.tt:lf4 gc7 18.�e2 gfc8 19.tt:le1 �dB 2 0.'\Wg4-+. 13.g4 tt:lfe7 14.!J.f4 ! A critical position. Black should make his mind up about which wing is safer for his king. After 14 . . . tt:lg6 15 . .ig3 J.e7, White waits for the castling with some developing move like 16.gac1 and he is ready to attack 16 . . . 0-0 by 17.h4. That's why in Baklan-Mikhail Ivanov, North eim 2 0 05, Black decided to castle on the opposite flank: 14 . . . h5 15.h3 tt:lg6 16 . .ig3 hxg4 17.hxg4 0-0-0 18.gacl and here instead of 18 . . . <;!;>b8 ? ! 19.tt:lg5! <;!;>aS 2 0 .�f3 !J.e7 2 1.tt:lxf7±, Black should have played 18 . . . !J.e7 with unclear play. Then 19.tt:lb5 <;!;>b8 2 0 . <;!;>g2 (20.tt:ld6 hd6 21.exd6 fS 2 2 . tt:le5 tt:lgxeS 23.dxe5 gS+) 2 0 . . . a 6 (20 . . . gh6 2 1.gh1 gdh8 2 2 . gxh6 gxh6 23.tt:ld6 .ixd6 24.exd6 f6 25.�c2 eS 26.�f5±) 2 1.tt:ld6 .ixd6 2 2 . exd6 fS 23.tt:le5 tt:lgxeS 24.dxe5 gdf8 ! is double-edged. However, it is possible that White has a more useful move than 2 0 .<;!;>g2 . l .e4 c5 VL\f3 d6 3 . .ib5+ Summing up, Black's knight on e7 has no bright prospects ahead. If it goes to the queenside, the king is left with out due defence. On f5 it is attacked with g4. Finally, ll . . . lLlge7 12.lLlc3 h5 is parried by 13.lLlh4! Now you understand the reasoning behind ll . . . h5 ! ? . The knight is heading for f5 via h6, for instance: ll . . . h5 12.lLlc3 (12.lLlbd2 lLlh6 13.lLlfl, intending to meet . . . lLlfS by lLlg3, could be attacked with 13 . . . .ie7 14.a3 0-0-0 and possibly . . . g5) 12 . . . .ie7 13.lLle1 l'!c8 14 . .ie3 lLlh6, with a totally unexplored po sition. Black's king could find a safe haven on f8 or g7, while the h5pawn could go further to h4. This idea could be an alternative to the main line. n . .te3 n . . . .te7 Black could begin rasping at the enemy centre by ll . . .f6 right away, since 12.exf6 gxf6 13.lLlbd2 .id6 14.lLlxe4 dxe4 15.tLld2 f5 16.f3, Jansa-Kukel, Czech Republic 2012, 16 ... exf3 ! 17.lLlxf3 0-0-0 is double edged. I recommend the plan with .. .f6 because it offers rich play with mu tual chances. Note that Black does not renounce . . .f5 as an option. He just wants to keep it should White decide to protect his e5-pawn by f4. Then closing the centre by .. .f6f5 practically squelches White's chances on the kingside, because the f4-pawn is not only plugging the e3-bishop, but it also deprives White's knight of its best square . If White refrained from f4, Black would choose the best moment for breaking the symmetry by taking on eS. Lately 1l.. .f5 is considered to be more solid, but White does not risk much with his stable centre. Note that White could avoid the manoeuvre of Ivanchuk ll ...f5 and 12 ... '\1;lff7!? by the tricky move order 8.l'!d1! !i..e7 9.d4. Let's follow now the game Rublevsky-Ivanchuk, Foros 2006: ll .. .f5 12.l'!d1 This move is indispensable be cause otherwise lLle1 could be countered by . . .f4. In a later game, Rublevsky attempted to improve White's set-up with 12.tLlfd2, but 12 . . . lLlxd2 gave Black an easy game: 13.�xd2 .ib4 14.'\1;lld3 0-0 15 . .id2 l'!ac8 16 . .ic3 l'!c7 17.a3 .ie7 18.lLld2 l'!fc8 19.lLlf3 a6 20 ..td2 lLla7 21.l'!fc1 l'!c4+, Rublevsky-Morozevich, Tomsk rapid 2006. 12 ... '\1;lff7! ? 315 Part 11 21..ixg5 lDxgS 2 2 .h4 lDe4 23.fxe4 (23.lDd3 f4 24.lDdxf4 lDg3�) 23 ... fxe4 24.�h2 �f2 - + . 18 . . . h6 19.f3 lDgS 2 0.�d2 lDc6 2 1.lDd3 l"i:fc8 22.l"i:ac1 lDh7 23.lDc5 lDfB 24.l"i:c2 i.d8 25.l=l:dc1 Or 25.lDf4 i.aS 26. �e2 1i.b4 27.h4 (27.'1Wf2 l"i:c7 28.lDfd3 aS) 27 . . . .ixc5 28.l"i:xc5 lDg6 = . The only danger for Black in this pawn structure could come from the kingside due to the pawn wedge on eS. The queen manoeu vre significantly reduces the oppo nent's chances on that flank. Previ ously Black played ll . . . i.e7 first, fol lowed by 12 . . . f5. Then the e4-knight was rerouted to g6 via e4-g5-f7h8 and on the queenside ... b6 was used to control the square cS. This scheme yields Black good results. In the current game Ivanchuk intro duces a different set-up. He leaves the pawn on b7, thus avoiding any weaknesses on the queenside, while on the opposite flank his forces are well deployed. Although White re tains a spatial advantage, it is dif ficult to break through Black's de fensive line. Keep in mind this plan if you look for quiet positional play: 13.lDc3 !i.e7 14.�b5 l"i:b8 15.lDe2 a6 16.�d3 0-0 17.lDe1 lDaS. Black has completed development and has enough counter-chances. 18.b3 White should be careful or he might land under attack: 18.f3 lDc4 19.1i.c1 l=l:bc8 2 0.�b3 (20.b3 lDaS 21.lDc2 h6 2 2 .1i.b2 lDgS = ) 2 0 . . . .ig5 316 25 . . . .ia5 2 6.'1Wd1 lDb4 27.l"i:b2 lDc6 28.l"i:bc2 lDb4 29.l=l:b2 lDc6 lf2-lf2 . 12.lDel f6 13.f3 c!Llg5 14.c!Lld3 0-0 15.1i.f2 The older approach 15.lDd2 lt:)f7 16.f4 fS gives Black a comfortable game, 17.lDf3 l"i:ac8 18.l"i:fc1 b6= See game 45 Delchev-Svetush kin, Kusadasi 2006. The idea of Rublevsky (It was first played by Barna in 1995, but the Russian champion has made it popular.), is to attack on the kingside with h4-h5 while keeping the square f4 free. l.e4 c5 2.llJf3 d6 3.i.b5+ 15 •.• b6! Six months later, Sakaev tried to avoid this move preferring a kingside play ('\l;Vd7-e8-g6-f5, hS). Howev er his set-up looks artificial. White managed to trade his bishop trough c5 and his pair of knights was more active. The next moves of Black are very consistent and natural. 16.ttlc3 ttlt7 17.gacl gac8 18.gfdl fxe5 19.dxe5 ttlh6 Black has found comforta ble places for his pieces and has a pleasant game. It would be good for him (as always in this line) to trade a pair of knights to reduce the sig nificance of White's spatial advan tage. See game 46 Rublevsky Sadvakasov, Poikovsky 2005. B32. 7.gdl 7 . . . e6 by 8.d4 cxd4 9.llJxd4 The arising hedgehog set-up without ligh-squared bishops is supposed to be "nearly" equal, but such po sitions are not to everyone's taste. White will retain a slight pull for a long time. Here is an example that simple straightforward play is not sufficient: 9 . . . JJ.e7 10.c4 0-0 l l.llJc3 llJxd4 12 J:gxd4 �c6 13.b3 1'Ud8 14.i.b2 tt:le8 15.gadl JJ.f6 16.g4d3 a6, Yu Shaoteng-Wang Zili, Suzhou 2006, when instead of 17.gh3? 17 . . . b5t, White had 17.tt:la4 hb2 18.llJxbU. The idea of activat ing the bishop to f6 turned out to be too passive. Perhaps the set-up from my game against Korchnoi is more to the point: 5.c4 tt:lc6 6.ltlc3 tt:lf6 7.d4 cxd4 8.tt:lxd4 e6 9.0-0 1e7 10 .i.e3 0-0 ll.�e2 gfd8 12.gfdl gac8 13.llJb3 b6 14.f4 �b7 15.1f2 a6 16.gacl, with mutual chances, Kor tschnoj-Kiril Georgiev, Biel 1992. Another testing option is: 7... '\l;Vg4?! White is clearly bet ter after 8.d3 tt:le5 9.tt:lbd2 tt:lhS lO.�fl ! (10.h3 tt:lf4 ll.hxg4 tt:lxe2+ 12.'itfl llJxf3 13.tt:lxf3 llJxc1 14.gaxcl g6 15.c3 i.g7 16.d4 gcs 17.e5 Majer ic-Brajdic, Zagreb 2006, is equal in view of 17 . . . h5=.) 10 . . . llJf4 u.gel ! (ll.llJxeS?? llJh3+ 12.'ithl �xdl !-+ ). White will have a better pawn for mation and a useful knight. Currently this is White's most sophisticated move order. It con ceals plenty of venom. Its main aim is to meet: 7 . . . g6 8. c3 i.g7 9.d4 cxd4 10.cxd4 d5 ll.eS llJe4 is solid, but passive. In the game Svetushkin-Esen, Ku sadasi 2006, Black had no prob lems after 12.llJbd2 llJxd2 13.ixd2 317 Part 11 0-0 14.a4 l3fc8 15 . .ic3 ltJd8 16.ltJe1 ltJe6 17.ltJc2 f6= , but White could have tried to organise a kingside at tack after 12.ltJc3 . It is committing indeed, but the pawn on c3 would bolster up the centre so White could focus on the kingside, having h4-h5 in mind. 7 . . . e5 8.c3 i.e7 9.d4 is anything but pleasant. Perhaps best is: Note also the still experimental: 7 . . . g5 ! ? 8.c3 (8.e5 dxeS 9.ltJxe5 ltJd4) 8 . . . g4 9.ltJh4 �e6 10.d3 (10.l3e1 dS 11.d3 dxe4 12.dxe4 0-0-0+, Boj kovic-Korbut, Zlatibor 2 006) 8.d4 cxd4 9.ltJxd4 will be met with 9 . . . g6= . 8.c3 e 6 9.d4 9.d3 is inconsistent. Black had a fine game after 9 . . . .ie7 10.ltJbd2 0-0 11.ltJfl �c7 12 . .if4 ltJhS 13 . .ie3 ltJf6 14.ltJg3 dS, Jones-Bogner, Solingen 2012. 9 ••• cxd4 1 0 .cxd4 10.ltJxd4 .ie7 11.c4 is too op timistic. Black could use the ex tra tempo to activate the bishop: 11 . . . ttJxd4 12.l3xd4 eS 13J%d1 �c6 14.ltJd2 .id8 = . lO . .igS .ie7 11.cxd4 h 6 i s in Black's favour: 12 . .ixf6 .ixf6 13.ltJc3 0-0 14.d5 ltJeS 15.ltJd4 a6+, Ovetch kin-Kobalia, Togliatti 2 0 03 . 1 0 d5 ll.e5 ltJe4 12 .ie3 J.e7 13.ltJel f6 14.f3 ltJg5 ••• • 10 . . . d5 ! Delchev-Morozevich, Porto Car ras 2011, saw 10 . . . 0-0-0 which al lowed 11 . .if4. After 11 . . . d5 12 .ltJd2 ltJhS 13 . .ig3 ttJxg3 14.hxg3 hS 15.ltJb3 b6 16.d4, Black should have taken on d4. White retains the ini tiative, but . . . h4 is a very strong threat, too. 11.lDd2 (11 . .ig5 0-0-0) 11. . . 0-0-0, with complex play. 7 ••• gc8 ! ? Basically, this i s a waiting, but useful move. The fine point is that 318 Now 15 . .if2 and 15.ltJc3 trans pose to line B31 which is double edged. Therefore, the diagram po sition is crucial for the whole varia tion because many paths lead to it. Part 1 1 Co m p l ete G a m es 42 . Ru blevsky- Kiri l Georg iev N i ksic 1 997 1 .e4 c5 2 .c�� f3 d6 3 . .ib5+ .id7 4 . .ixd7+ Yfxd 7 5.c4 tilc6 6.�c3 tilf6 7.0-0 g6 8.d4 cxd4 9 . tilxd4 .ig 7 1 0 . tilde2 o-o 1 1 .f3 a6 1 2 .a4 e6 1 3 . .ig5 ! 1 3 . . . Yfc7 1 4. 'it> h 1 �d7 1 5.b3 �c5 1 6J�b1 �Ue8 (or 16 ... tilb4 17.W/d2) 1 7.'ti'd2 tilb4 1 8 JUd 1 tilcd3 I could have switched here to a typical hedgehog manoeuvring with 18 . . . i.f8 19.�f4 l'!ac8 20.tilce2 ltlc6, but I wanted to precipitate a crisis in the centre. 1 9 . .ih4 W/b6 Rublevsky proved t o b e the most staunch protagonist of the Moscow Variation. He is still generating new ideas to keep it going. At the time of this game, the Ivanchuk's idea of keeping the knight on b8 in order to attack the c4-pawn by .. JUc8 was unknown and Black had to defend somewhat cramped hedgehog posi tions. With his last move, White an ticipates moves like .. J;ds, thus un derlining the weakness on d6. Black should be looking for counterplay with . . . bs or . . . ds. The first critical moment of this game. White is still able to pre vent the central breakthrough with 2 0.�cl! �xcl (The attempt to stay active with 20 . . . ltle5 21.W/xd6 W/e3 is insufficient due to 22 .W/d2 W/xd2 23.l'!xd2 tilxc4 24.bxc4 .ixc3 25.l'!d7 l'!ec8 26.ltle2 l'!xc4 27.ltlxc3 l'!xc3 28 . .if6±) 21.l'!bxcl ltlc6 22 .l'!bl. The exchange of another minor piece facilitates Black's defence, but 319 Part 11 White retains control of the cen tre. I would have to adopt a waiting strategy: 22 .. J!ac8 23.lt:le2 if8 or 22 . . . lt:le7 23.lt:le2 E:ad8 24.i.g5 E:d7. Rublevsky's next move loses hold of the centre. 30.i.f2 E:xc5 3l..ixd4 E:d5 32 .hg7 lt:ld3 33.E:xd3 E:xd3 34.i.e5 E:d8 35. 'tt> g l E:8xd6 36.hd6 E:xd6 37.b4= eliminates about everything on the board. 30 . . . �d5 3 1 .ge 1 d 3 20.�a2 d 5 ! 2 1 . �xb4 22.exd5 exd5 2 3 . � c 3 ? ! �xb4 White is trying to complicate things. 23.cxd5 lt:lxd5 24.'\WxdS E:xe2 25.a5 is rather equal. 23 . . . d4 3 l . . .h6 ! ? is very interesting, but difficult to find. Its aim is to provide a luft to the king. 32J�bd 1 a (threatening 3 2 . lt:ld8 ! ? check on e8 ! ) wins the exchange: 32 . . . E:xd8 33.i.xd8 E:xc5oo, but the game would most likely be drawn. 32 . . . .ic3 33J�xd3 .ixe 1 34.ixe 1 E:c7 ! 35. �xa5 gxc5 36. lt:lc4 My active pieces provide me with some initiative, but it is prob ably just enough to balance the game. There is one very important factor though - time . . . 24.lt:le4 After 24.lt:lb5 ! axb5 25.'\1;l/xb4 E:e2 26.'\1;l/xb5 '\1;l/xb5 27.cxb5 E:c8, Black has full compensation, but at least White could have consoled himself with a pawn. 24 . . . a5 25.'\1;lff4 f5 ! 26.'llYd 6 ga6 ? ! Now i t i s my turn t o overlook the opponent's counterplay. 26 . . . E:e6 ! 27.'\1;l/xb6 E:xb6 28.lt:lc5 lt:lc2+ would have bolstered my advantage. 27.c5! YlYc6 28.YlYxc6 29.�d6 gas 30.�xb7 320 gxc6 36 . . . �f4 37.ge3 gds 3 8 . h 3 (38. h4 ! = ) 38 . . . gcc8 39 . .ia5? This is the point of no return. In the time trouble, Rublevsky de cisively misplaces his pieces to lose the b3-pawn. 39. 'tt> h 2 or 39.i.g3 were correct. 39 . . . gd3 40.gxd3 �xd3 41 . .ib6 lt:lc1 42 .a5 �xb3 43.�d6 gc1 + 44. 'tt> h 2 ga 1 45.lt:lb7 'tt> f7 46.c.!.>g3 ga4 47.h4 'tt> e 6 48.�d8+ 'tt> d 5 49.�b7 ga2 50. 'tt> h 3 �d2 5 1 .�c5 l.e4 cS V L\f3 d6 3 . .ib5+ ctt d 6 52.c�] b7+ ctt d 7 53.t0c5+ ctt e 7 54. t0 b 7 t0c4 55.i.c5+ ctt d 7 56.i.d4 t0xa5 57 .t0xa5 gxa5 58 .i.e3 ga2 59.i.h6 ctt e 6 60.g4 ga4 6 1 . ctt g 3 gc4 62.i.f4 h 5 63.gxh5 gxh5 64 . .ib8 ctt d 5 65 . .if4 ctt d 4 66.i.b8 ctt d 3 67 . .tf4 ctt e 2 68.i.b8 gd4 69.i.e5 gd3 70. ctt f4 gxf3+ 7 1 . ctt g 5 ctt e 3 72. ctt x h 5 ctt e 4 73.i.b8 gb3 74 . .id6 f4 75. ctt g 5 gg3+ 76. cttf6 gd3 77 .i.bB gds 78 .i.a7 ctt f3 79 . h 5 ctt g 4 BO. ctt e s ges+ 8 1 . cttf6 ctt x h 5 s2. ctt ts gfs+ o-1 43. Morozevich -Topalov F I D E -Wch S a n Luis 2005 1 .e4 c5 2 . t0f3 d6 3 .i.b5+ i.d7 4.hd7+ ti'xd 7 5.0-0 t0f6 6.e5 dxe5 7.t0xe5 Yfc8 10.lbxc6 '\1;Yxc6 ll.d3 .id6 turns the tables and it's already Black who has the initiative. At a closer exam ination, we can see that Black con trols by pawns one central square more than White. This is a perfect precondition for overtaking the ini tiative should the opponent proved too absorbed by his attacking plans. 8.Yff3 e6 9.d3 ie7 1 0.t0c3 0-0 1 1 .i.f4 t0fd 7 ! We should developed, of course, but not at any price. 11...ttlbd7 12.lbc4 leaves the queen on c8 with out a good place. 1 2 . t0c4 White plays as if he had the in itiative or a spatial advantage. Per haps he should not have avoided ex changes. 12 .'\1;Yg3 tt:lxeS 13 .ixeS f6 or 13 . . . g6 looks about equal. Anoth er good option is 12 . . . tt:ld7 13.tt:lf3 tt:lf6 = . 1 2 . . . t0 c 6 1 3.gae1 ( o r 13 tt:lbS tt:lf6) 1 3 . . . t0d4 1 4.Yfd 1 White has some lead in develop ment, but practice has shown that he is unable to capitalise on it. He can try to use the relative weak ness of the square d6 with d3, .if4, lbc4, but in the meantime Black just manages to castle which draws the sting of the enemy's idea. The oth er obvious approach is to hinder the development of Black's bishop by 8 .'\1;Yf3 e6 9.'\1;Yg3. Then 9 . . . tt:lc6! "White carries on a smooth tran sition from attack to retreat", as 321 Part 11 chesspro.ru nicely put it. The sub sequent moves leave the impression of a game not from a world champi onship, but of a book lesson about the importance of the centre. Mo rozevich is carrying out senseless manoeuvres with his rook while To palov is implacably setting up co ordination between his pieces and gaining more and more space. If you look at the position ten moves later (on the next diagram), you'll see that White would have been bet ter off without moving at all ! 1 4 . . . \!!!fc 6 1 S.a4 b6 1 6.ge3 f6 1 1 .gh3 gf7 1 S .i.e3 gdS 1 9 .ge1 c!OfS 20.b3 a6 2 1 . c!Oe2 bS 22.axbS axbS 23.c!Od2 \!!!fc 7 34.fixd3 .ixb6 3S.fie3 i.c7 36.g3 fibS Despite dogged defence, Mo rozevich failed to save the game: 37.h4 \!!!fc 6 3S.f4 gd7 39.ge1 i.dS 40.c!Oc3 .ie7 41 . c!Oe4 gd4 42. c!Of2 fidS 43.c!Ob6 \!!!f b 7 44.c!Oc4 fS 4S. �f1 .if6 46. �e2 gd7 47.fif3 fib4 4S.gd 1 i.d4 49.g4 h 6 S O . h S fi b S S 1 .gd2 gf7 S2 . g S hxgS S3.fxgS \!!!i h 2 S4.�d3 fih4 SS.g6 ga7 S6. c!O d 1 fig S S7.c!Oc3 fig 1 ss.gd 1 fih2 S9.c!ObS gd7 60. c!Oxd4 fia2 6 1 .c!Od2 fib2 62 . �e2 fixd4 63.fie3 fid6 64.\!!!ff3 \!!!i h 2 + 6S.�e1 gd4 66.fib7 gd7 67.\!!!ff3 gds 6S.c!Of1 ges+ 69.c!Oe3 f4 70.gd3 fig 1 + 7 1 .�d2 fxe3+ 72.gxe3 \!!!ix e3+ 73.\!!!ix e3 gxe3 74. �xe3 c!Od7 0-1 44. D o l matov-Kru m Georg iev E U -c h U20 G ro n i ngen 1 977 Black's plan includes . . . eS, ... tt:lfe6, ... fS. I remember a num ber of model games on that theme played by Botvinnik. Morozevich understandably is fed up with this course of events and decides to stir up the centre. That costs him a pawn without alleviating his suffering. 24.c4 c!Oc61 2S.cxbS c!Ob4 26. \!!!f b 1 c!Oxd3 27.gd 1 c!O b4+ 2 S . c!Oc4 clO d S 29 . .id2 fibS 30 . .iaS g d 7 3 1 .b6 .idS 32.ghd3 c!Oxb6 33 . .ixb6 gxd 3 322 1 .e4 cS 2 . c!Of3 d6 3.i.bS+ i.d7 4 . .ixd7+ \!!!fx d7 S.0-0 c!Oc6 6.c3 c!Of6 7.d4 cxd4 S . cxd4 d S 9.eS clOgS 1 0 .a3 e6 1 1 . b4 1 1 ...hS l.e4 cS VLif3 d6 3 . .ib5+ This is one of the very few prac tical examples of Black's set-up with . . . hS, . . . lLlge7. In the concrete situa tion, Krum could have begun with ll . . . lLlge7 12.lLlbd2 lLlf5 13.lLlb3 hS. 1 2 . �bd2 1 4 . .ig 5 �h6 1 3. � b3 2 1 . . . f6 ! ? �f5 Obviously, Dolmatov wanted to trade his bad bishop. However space is more important and White should have gained as much as he could by 14.b5 lLlce7 (14 . . . lLlb8 15.a4 a6 16.�d3 i.e7 17.i.f4 0-0 18.h3 h4 19.g4t) 15.a4 lLlg6 16.i.d2. Exchang es suit Black perfectly because his only concern was where to accom modate all his pieces. 1 4 . . . .ie7 1 5.b5 �b8 1 6 . .ixe7 �xe7 1 7 .a4 �d7=. The opening stage is over. White has no targets which renders his spatial advantage rather useless. Perhaps he is already a little over extended and should think about maintaining the balance. 1 8 .a5 Y«b4 1 9.Y«d3 Or 19.E:bl �xbS 2 0.lLlc5 �c6 2 1.lLlxb7 0-0 = . gca 20.gfc 1 0-0 2 1 . �fd2 ? ! White seems disoriented. H e i s unable to improve his position and should turn to manoeuvring. I would suggest 2 l.E:abl E:fd8 (de fending the d7-knight) 22 .h3 = . The knight on f3 was on the right place. The tide is beginning to turn. Black has the more active pieces and he tries to shatter the enemy's central pawn formation. 22.exf6 lLlxf6+ would favour him. 22.f4 fxe5 23.fxe5 �b8 ! ? This i s the typ e o f moves engines underestimate. Krum understands that he cannot make progress with his knight staying unemployed on d7. It can enter play only through the queenside so Black prepares . . . a6. At the same time the knight manoeuvre opens the approach to the e6-pawn trough cS. Black's last moves have created a weakness on e6 which White should urgently at tack. For that, he must bolster up the d4-pawn first, for instance 24.lLlf3 E:c4 25.lLlbd2 when 25 .. .13cc8 main tains the balance. Another option is 24.13abl a6 25.ltJf3 which should also be equal after 25 .. .\�'xbS ! 26.�xb5 axbS 27.E:xc8 E:xc8 28.lLlc5 lLla6=. Black should not overestimate his chances in the latter line. The enemy's pawns may be weak, but his advantage in space makes his pieces more mo bile. They could quickly be thrown 323 Part 11 against the kingside at an opportu nity, e.g. 25 .. J:!xcl+ ? ! 26.l2Jxcl I!;;Yxa5 27.l2Je2 axbS 28.l2Jg5t . Young Dolmatov misses the im portance of the moment and wastes a tempo to see his game going downhill. 24.a6? bxa6 2 5 . bxa6 gc6 26.gxc6 c!Dxc6 27 .c!bf3 Yfc4+ 28.Yfxc4 dxc4 29.c!ba5 c!Dxa5 30.gxa5 gcs 3 1 .c.!>f2 (3U'!:c5 l:!xcS 3 2 .dxc5 c.!>t7 33.c.!>f2 c.!>e7+) 31 . . . c3 32.ga1 c2 33.gc1 g5 34. c!b e 1 When defending an inferior end ing, it is better to reduce the materi al. 34.h3 g4 35.hxg4 hxg4 36.li:J eH would have left more chances for the draw. c!Dxd4 35. c.!>e3 gc4 36. c.!>d3 ga4 37. c!bxc2 c!bc6 38.c.!>c3 gxa6 39.c!bd4 c!Dxe5 40 .ge1 ga3+ 4 1 . c.!>c2 c!bf7 42 .gxe6 ga2+ 43.c.!>d3 gxg2 44. c.!>e4 gxh2 45. c.!>f5 gd2 46 .c.!>g6 c!bh8+ 47.c.!>h6 gxd4 4S.ges+ c.!>f7 49.gxh8 g4 50.c.!>xh5 g3 5 1 .gh7+ c.!>f6 52.gh6+ c.!>f5 53.gg6 gds o - 1 45. Delchev-Svetu s h k i n Kusadas i 0 5.04.2006 1 .e4 c5 2 . c!bf3 d 6 3 . .ib5+ .id7 4 . .ixd7+ Yfxd 7 5.0-0 c!bf6 6 .Yfe2 c!bc6 7.c3 e6 8.d4 cxd4 9 .cxd4 d 5 1 0 .e5 c!b e 4 1 1 . .ie3 .ie7 1 2 . c!b e 1 f6 1 3.f3 c!bg5 1 4. c!b d 3 0-0 1 5. c!b d 2 c!bf7 1 6.f4 324 This game is a good example of Black's play when White puts a pawn on f4. Then we close the cen tre to underline how inefficient is the enemy bishop. Rublevsky pre fers 16 ..if2 fxeS 17.dxe5, which leads to a richer position. f5 1 7 . c!bf3 1 9 . .id2 gc7 gac8 1 8 .gfc 1 b6 Black should contemplate 19 . . . aS, aiming at ... a4-a3, but right now White could counter it by 20. I!;;Yd l, e.g. l2Jb4 21.l2Jxb4 hb4 22.hb4 axb4t. 20.h3 The whole plan with a kingside attack may be wrong. Thanks to his solid centre, White could calm ly manoeuvre on the opposite flank too, like in Kornev-Belov, Tomsk 2006, with a roughly equal game 20 . . . gfc8 Kasparov chose another set-up against Short. He played in a sim ilar position 20 . . . h6 and his op ponent refrained from 21.g4. Play could continue 2 1 . . .l2Jh8 2 2 .�g2 l!th7 23 .b4 l2Jg6oo. Svetushkin l.e4 cS 2 .lL\f3 d6 3.i.bS+ opts to stay more passively on the kings ide and the course of the game proves that White is unable to gen erate serious threats. 2 1 .g4 � h 6 22 .Wfg2 Wfe8 (22 . . . aS?). 2 3 . g 5 White could maintain the tension along the g-file, but the knight on h6 proves to be an excellent defend er. The game Chebotarev-Zakhar tsov, Tomsk 2006, confirmed that White's attack is surprisingly im potent despite the great concentra tion of striking force against Black's king. The move order was slightly different so we should go back to the 17th move : 17 . . . b6 18.h3 E!fc8 19.g4 l!Jh6 2 0.Wfg2 g6 21.Wh2 E!c7 2 2 . E!f2 l!Jb4 23.l!Jdel E!ac8 24.a3 l!Jc6 2S.l!JgS. White hopes for some tac tical chances linked with sacrifices on e6 or h7, but Zakhartsov remains unperturbed: 2S . . . l!JaS 26.E!e2 l!Jb3 27.E!dl aS 28.l!Jef3 E!c4 29.E!gl i.d8+. 23 . . . �f7 24.g6 � h 8 25.gxh7+ �xhn: rank. Without queens, that would not be a problem, but there is no way to trade them. 26.�h2 tfh5 28 .tfg3 gga 27J�g 1 �g6 Svetushkin is too solid. His last move was not really indispensable. The g7-square could have been de fended with 28 . . . i.d8 29.i.el lt:\b8 30.E!g2 E!c2 31.i.f2 lt:\d7. Anyway, White cannot use the somewhat timid play of the opponent. 29 . .le 1 �d8 30.gg2 �f7 31 .a4 aS 32.b3 ggc8 33.gaa2 fih6 34.gaf2 .lh4 34 . . . lt:\h4 seems more energe tic: 3S.ltJgS+ �g8 36.lt:\xe6 lt:\xg2 37.E!xg2 E!c2+. 35.�xh4 �xh4 36.gg1 gc2 37 . .ld2 ga2 38.�e1 �h8 39 .�h1 �8g6 40.fid3 ffh5 41 .ggf1 gb2 42 . .ie3 gxf2 43.gxf2 �e7 44JU1 �c6 45.�c2 �b4? Black overestimates the power of his rook which penetrates the sec ond rank, but at the cost of a pawn. Suddenly White's clumsy bishop obtains freedom. The blow should have been delt on the other flank: 4S . . . gS 46.fxgS ltJf3 47.�g2 lt:\xg5+. White cannot open new files on the kingside which means that his strategy was unsuccessful. His big gest concern is the weak second 46.�xb4 axb4 47 . .ld2 gc2 48 . .ixb4 ge2 49 . .le7 �g2 50.fig3 �e3 51 .gg 1 ?? A blunder. 51.fff3= would have exchanged queens. 325 Part 11 5 1 ... �g4 52.gf1 gh2+ 53.Wxh2 �xh2 54.mxh2 Yfe2+ 55.Cit>g 1 We3+ 56.Cit>g2 Wxb3 57 . .ih4 Wxa4 58 . .if2 Wc2 0-1 46. R u blevs ky-Sadvakasov Poi kovs ky, 2005 1 .e4 c5 2 . �f3 d 6 3 . .ib5+ .id7 4 . .ixd7+ Wxd 7 5.0-0 �c6 6.c3 �f6 7 .We2 e6 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 d 5 1 O . e 5 �e4 1 1 . .ie3 more important is the fact that the d3-knight is deprived of the square f4. The previous game Delchev-Sve tushkin shows that in such circum stances White is unable to generate serious threats on the kinside. 1 5 . . . b6 Closing the centre with 15 ... tt:lt7 16J3dl f5 turned well for Black in Rublevsky-Motylev, Bastia 2 004. The current game shows that Black can maintain the tension. 1 6.�c3 �f7 1 7 .gac1 gac8 1 8 .gfd 1 fxe5 1 9 .dxe5 �h6 20 .Wd2 1 1 . . . .ie7 Black often blocks the centre with ll . . .f5 and does not experience problems. The downside of this move is that White's spatial advan tage remains unchallenged which reduces Black's winning chances. The plan with .. .f6 is more dynamic. 1 2 . � e 1 f6 1 3.f3 �g5 1 4. � d 3 o - o 1 5 . .if2 Many games saw White going for a symmetrical pawn structure with 15.tt:ld2 tt:lt7 16.f4 b6 17.tt:lf3 f5. In this set-up his bishop remains boxed behind its own pawn. Even 326 20 . . . �a5?! White still has more room for manoeuvring so my rule #4 from the "Quick Repertoire" is valid. 20 . . . tt:lb4 ! = , suggested by Rublevs ky, looks very pleasant for Black indeed. Without his blockading knight, White would not allow him self the luxury of advancing his kingside pawns as Black's d-pawn would be mobile. In the game Black amazingly got gradually strangled. The exchange of rooks did not solve any problem. l.e4 cS 2.lt:lf3 d6 3.i.b5+ 2 1 .c!Cle2 c!C!fS 22J�xc8 gxc8 23.gc1 gxc 1 + 24.ti'xc1 i.f8 25.b3 c!C!c6 26.ti'c3 Now Rublevsky quickly-shatters the enemy pawn shelter. 30 . .te3 mh7 3 1 . h 5 1 26 . . . c!Cla5? This is too much. The knight at the edge of the board is really a shame, especially when it appears there for a second time ! Black's pri mary task should be not to yield any ground on the kingside. Sim ple 26 . . . i.e7 would have been safe enough: 27.g4 lt:lh4 28.i.xh4 .txh4 29.f4 !i.e7 30.c;!;>g2 g6 3l.b4 a6. I do not understand the extremely pas sive approach of Sadvakasov in this game. 27.h4 g6 28.g4t c!Cle7 29.Wd2 h6?! Creating a new weakness on g6. Black should have stayed passively. Now 3 l.. .g5 32.f4 gxf4 33.lt:ldxf4 gives White a strong attack. This var iation clearly shows that had Black kept his knight on c6, all this attack would have been much less effi cient. The final attack is impressive, but it is irrelevant to the opening. 31 . . . gxh5 32.c!Clef4 ! hxg4 3 3 . c!Cl h 5 ti'c7 (33 . . . lt:lg8 34.lt:ldf4! ti'f7 35.fxg4±) 34.fxg4 c!C!ac6 35. lLlf6+ cit>g6 36.c!Cle81 ti'b8 37.Vh2+- mf7 38.c!Cld6+ cit>g8 39.Vh5 .tg7 40.Vf7+ cit>h8 41 .c!Cle8 .txeS 42.i.xh6 1 -0 White won a good game, but the opening stage has nothing to do with the result. 327 I n d ex of Va riations Part 1. The Poisoned Pawn l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ig5 e6 7.f4 (7.f3 19, 7.i.e2 19, 7.a4 2 0 , 7.�d2 2 0 , 7.�d3 2 0 , 7.�f3 22, 7.�e2 23) 7 . . . W/b6 (7 . . . h6 8 . .ih4 �b6 9.�d2 25, 9 . .ixf6 25, 9.a3 25, 9.�d3 26) 8.a3 27 8.ll:lb3 i.e7 9.�f3 ll:lbd7 10.0-0-0 �c7 11.i.d3 bS 12 .a3 32 12J!he1 34 8.�d3 37 8.W/d2 �xb2 9J!b1 �a3 10.i.xf6 4 0 10.i.e2 42 10.f5 43 lO .eS dxeS (10 . . . h6 ll ..ixf6 50 ) 11.fx e5 ll:lfd7 50 ll . . . h6 12 . .ih4 ll:ldS (12 . . . g5 54) 54 9.ll:lb3 �a3 10 . .ixf6 (10 . .id3 56, 10.i.e2 57) 10 . . . gxf6 ll.i.e2 ll:lc6 12.0-0 .id7 13.'i!;>h1 �c8 14.ll:ld1 59 14.�f3 6 0 14.�ad1 6 0 Part 2. The Sozin 6 . .ic4 e6 7.i.b3 (7.a4 91, 7.a3 91, 7.�e2 91) 7 . . . b5 8.f4 i.b7 9.0-0 (9.f5 92) 9 . . . .ie7 10 . .ixe6 93 lO.eS 94 10.i.e3 94 8. i.gS i.e7 9.W/f3 (9 . . . �b6 95) 9 . . . W/c7 10.e5 96 10. i.xf6 98 10.0-0-0 99 8. 0-0 .ie7 9.W/f3 (9 . .ie3 1 0 1) 9 . . . �b6 10 . .ie3 �b7 1l.�g3 b4 12.ll:la4 ll:lbd7 13.f3 0-0 14.�ac1 1 0 4 14.�ad1 1 05 14.�fd1 1 0 6 14. a3 1 0 7 329 Part 3. The Classical System I 6 .ie2 e5 7.lt:lf3 121 (7.lt:lf5 121) 7.lt:lb3 il.e7 B.g4 123 8.£4 124 B .il.g5 125 B.i.e3 127 8 . 0-0 0-0 9.£4 128, 9J'!e1 129, 9.a4 13 0 , 9 . .ie3 132, 9.Wfd3 134, 9.�h1 135 • Part 4. The Classical System II 6.a4 6 . . . e5 (6 . . . lt:lc6 155) 7.lt:lf3 155 Part 5. On the Path to the English Attack 6 .ie3 e5 7.lt:lf3 (7.lt:lde2 167) 7 . . . i.e7 (7 .. .'fic7 173) 8.i.c4 0-0 9.0-0 W/c7 10.lt:ld5 170 10.Wfe2 170 10.i.b3 171 • Part 6. The English Attack 6 .ie3 (6.f3) 6 e5 7.lL!b3 .ie6 8.f4 (8.Wfe2 195, B.lt:ld5 195,212) 8 . . . exf4 9.i.xf4 lt:lc6 10.Wfd2 197 10 .W/e2 199 8.Wfd2 lt:lbd7 9 . 0-0-0 2 0 1 (9.f4 21 0 1) 8.f3 h5 9.lt:ld5 205 9 . . . i.xd5 10.exd5 lt:lbd7 11.Wfd2 g6 1 2 . 0-0-0 2 0 6 12.lt:la5 2 0 6 12 .i.e2 2 0 8 9.Wfd2 21 0 • ••• Part 7. The 6.f4 System 6.f4 6 . . . Wfc7 7.i.e2 222 7.a4 223 7.i.d3 224 330 6 . . . e5 7.tt:lf3 (7.tt:lb3 225) 7 . . . tt:lbd7 8.a4 (8.�d3 226, 8.�c4 226, 8.g4 227, 8.�e2 227) 8 . . . �e7 9.�c4 227 9 .�d3 0-0 10.0-0 exf4 1l.�h1 229 ll.hf4 23 0 Part 8. The Fianchetto 6.g3 6 . . . e6 7.�g2 �e7 8.0-0 �c7 (8 . . . 0-0 246) 9.g4 247 9.f4 248 9.�e3 249 9.a4 250 6 . . . e5 7.tt:lb3 251 7.tt:lde2 253 Part 9. Rare variations l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5.tt:lc3 a6 6.h3 e6 (6 . . . e5 262) 7.g4 �e7 8.�g2 262 8.g5 263 4.tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5.tt:lc3 a6 6 . .id3 263 4.tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5.tt:lc3 a6 6.!!g1 265 4.tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5.tt:lc3 a6 6.�f3 266 4.tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5.f3 267 4.tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 5 . .id3 270 4.�xd4 a6 5. c4 tt:lc6 6.�d1 271 6.�d2 272 6. �e3 273 Part 10. Early Deviations for White l.e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 d6 3.c3 tt:lf6 4.e5 282 4.�c4 282 4 . .ie2 283 4.i.d3 284 4.h3 285 l.e4 cS 2 .tt:lf3 d6 3 . .ic4 285 l.e4 cS 2 .tt:lf3 d6 3 .b4 287 l.e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 d6 3 .tt:lc3 287 l.e4 cS 2.tt:lf3 d6 3.b3 288 l.e4 cS 2 .tt:lf3 d6 3 .g3 tt:lc6 4.�g2 tt:lf6 5.�e2 290 5.tt:lc3 290 331 l .e4 cS V Z\c3 a6 3.f4 291 3.g3 291 3.tt:\ge2 292 Part 11. The Moscow Variation l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 d6 3 . .ib5+ 3 . . . .id7 4 . .ixd7+ W/xd7 5.c4 tt:\f6 (S . . . tt:\c6 3 0 4) 6.tt:\c3 g6 7.d4 cxd4 8 .tt:\xd4 .ig7 9.f3 0-0 10. 0-0 3 0 5 10 .i.e3 3 0 6 5 . 0-0 tt:\f6 (S . . . tt:\c6 3 0 7) 6.e5 3 0 8 6J3e1 3 0 9 6.W/e2 tt:\c6 7.c3 312 7J3d1 317 332 tournaments. H i s c u rre n t Elo i s 260 1 . He coach e d B u l g a ri a n wo m e n's n a ti o n a l tea m . H e h a s a l so writte n The Easiest Sicilian, C h ess Sta rs 2008. ISBN • •• 9 7 8-954-8 7 8 2 - 90-6

The Sharpest Sicilian 2012 ( PDFDrive )

Related documents

Products

Support

The Sharpest Sicilian 2012 ( PDFDrive )

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib