Opening for White According to Anand 1. e4, Volume 8 (Repertoire Books)

Editorial Panel:

GM A.Kornev, GM M.Makarov, GM R.Ovetchkin, 1M O.Biriukov, 1M I.Smikovski, 1M S.Soloviov

Technical Editor:

1M Semko Semkov

Translation by:

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright © 2006 by Alexander Khalifman and Sergei Soloviov

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN10: 954878253-7 ISBN13: 978954878253-1

Opening for White According to Anandl.e4

Book VIII 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 Miscellaneous Nirnzowitsch-Rubinstein Variation O'Kelly Variation Sicilian Counter Attack Paulsen-Kan Variation

Alexander Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

Other CHESS STARS books

Repertoire books:

Opening for White According to Kramnik l.Nf3 voLla by Khalifman 2006 Opening for White According to Kramnik l.Nf3 voLlb by Khalifman 2006 Volume 2 : Anti-Nimzo-Indian, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango Volume 3: Maroczy, English (1.. .c5), Modern, Dutch Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman Volume 1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 ... a6 Volume 2: Ruy Lopez with 3 ... a6 Volume 3: Caro -Kann; 1...c6, 2 ... g6 Volume 4: 1.. .d6, 1.. .g6 . . . and others Volume 5: Alekhine's Defence, 1...b6 and other rare lines Volume 6: French Defence, 3.Nc3 dxe4; 3 . . . Nf6 Volume 7: French Defence, 3.Nc3 Bb4 Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, Reti Current theory and practice series:

1. The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov 2 . Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3! by Bezgodov 3. Latest trends in the Semi-Slav: The Anti-Meran by Sakaev and Semkov 4. The Safest Sicilian by De1chev and Semkov, 2006 2 . An Expert's Guide to the 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld by Sakaev, 2 0 0 6 Games collections

Bogoljubow. The Fate of a Chess Player by S. Soloviov Capablanca. Games 1901 - 1224, Second Revised Edition Capablanca. Games 1925 - 1939 Second Revised Edition Alexander Alekhine. Games Volume 1: 1902 - 1922 Volume 2 : 1923 - 1934 Volume 3: 1935 - 1946 Boris Spassky's 400 Selected Games by Soloviov, 556 pages + photos Super Tournaments 2003, 456 pages + colour photos Super Tournaments 2002, 556 pages + colour photos Super Tournaments 2000, 448 pages + colour photos Shirov's One Hundred Wins by Soloviov 316 pages, interviews, biography, photos, hardcover or softcover Leko's One Hundred Wins by S. Soloviov 340 pages, biography, photos More details at www.chess-stars.com 4

Contents Preface

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

6

Part 1. Rare Systems; Nimzowitsch-Rubinstein Variation l.e4 c5 2 .ltlf3

1 2 3 4 5

various; 2 . . :�a5; 2 . . . �b6 ; 2 ... d5; 2 ... �c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 . . . g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2 . . . b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2 . . . ltlf6 3.ltlc3 without 3 . . . d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2 . . . ltlf6 3.ltlc3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Part 2. O'Kelly Variation l.e4 c5 2 .ltlf3 a6 3.c3

6 7 8 9

3 . . . �a5; 3 . . . ltlc6; 3 . . . g6; 3 ... d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3 . . . d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 3 . . . ltlf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 6 3 . . . e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Part 3. Rare Lines; Sicilian Counter Attack l.e4 c5 2 .ltlf3 e6 3.d4

10 11 12

various; 3 . . . ltlc6 ; 3 ... a6; 3 ... d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 3 . . .cxd4 4.ltlxd4 various; 4 ... ic5 ; 4 . . . �b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 3 . . . cxd4 4.ltlxd4 ltlf6 5.ltlc3 various; 5 . . .ib4 . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Part 4. Paulsen-Kan Variation l.e4 c5 2 .ltlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ltlxd4 a6 5.id3

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

without 5 . . . ltlc6 ; 5 . . . ic5 and 5 . . . ltlf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 9 5 . . . ltlc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 0 5 . . . ic5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 1 5 . . . ltlf6 6.0-0 various; 6 . . . �c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 5 ... ltlf6 6.0-0 d6 7.c4 without 7 ... ie7 and 7 . . . b6 . . . . . . . . 276 5 . . . ltlf6 6.0-0 d6 7.c4 ie7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 5 . . . ltlf6 6.0-0 d6 7.c4 b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

Index of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 7

5

Dear readers, Our book number eight from the series "Opening for White accord­ ing to Anand - l.e4" is in your hands now. We have finally started ana­ lyzing the Sicilian Defence - the most popular opening of the second half of the 20th century and naturally in the 21st century as well. It is now even difficult to imagine that the great player Alekhine considered that opening to be a bit dubious. Theory and practice have developed tremendously since then. Naturally, Robert James Fischer and Garry Kasparov contributed greatly to the increased popularity of the Sicilian Defence, but their efforts were mostly concentrated on the Najdorf system. It is something like an opening inside another opening and we will analyze it thoroughly in one of our subsequent volumes. Meanwhile, some other lines of the Sicilian Defence enjoy quite de­ served popularity too. It is now really difficult to name a strong player who has never played with Black - l.e4 c5. The situation is more or less the same at other levels. The basic strategical idea of the Sicilian Defence can be described relatively simply in several sentences: Black is fighting active ly for the centre, avoiding symmetrical pawn-structures, which often provide White with an advantage. This approach to the opening promises Black plenty of possibilities to seize the initiative at a very early stage of the game. Accordingly, White is often forced from the first moves of the game to make sometimes very important decisions. Naturally, I recommend answering 1 . . c5 with 2.liJf3. That is the most popular and no doubt the strongest move for White. Of course, he has other moves too and some of them require much less theoreti­ cal knowledge. This is however everything that their attractiveness amounts to. In case White avoids the main lines, he can only rely on obtaining the advantage against unprepared opponents. .

6

We have analyzed some seldom played lines on move two for Black in the first part of our book. Most of these moves are quite dubious and we have mentioned them mostly because of statistics, while after 2 . g6 the game usually transposes to the Dragon variation, which will be analyzed in one of the next books. We have devoted special attention to the move 2 ... b6, which is in fact much better than its reputation as well as to the Nimzowitsch-Rubinstein system 2 . . . tDf6, in answer to which I recommend 3. tDc3, after which the game usually transposes to the main lines in most of the cases. . .

The second part of this book is devoted entirely to the relatively seldom played O'Kelly system 2 . . . a6. It is worth mentioning that al­ though it is a rare guest in the serious tournaments, it is frequently played in blitz games (including in Internet too). One of the reasons is that the standard move for White 3.d4 is absolutely harmless in that case and it can even lead to problems for White to equalize. I recom­ mend here 3.c3, which in the majority of cases leads to not so typical Sicilian positions, but the move a7-a6 often turns out to be just a loss of time and it enables White to obtain an opening advantage. -

Late r, we start analyzing the third (after 2 . d6 and 2 . tDc6) most popular answer for Black 2 . . . e6. In the third part of the book we deal with some rarely played lines and White obtains a great advantage af­ ter the majority of them with precise play. Still, the lines 2 . . . e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tDxd4 'i;Yb6 (4 ... .!CS) as well as the system with the proud name "Sicilian Counter Attack" (2 . . . e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tDxd4 tDf6 5. tDc3 �b4) re­ quire from White exact knowledge of long forced lines. ..

..

-

Finally, the fourth part of this book is devoted to the Paulsen-Kan system (2 . . . e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tDxd4 a6). I suspect that this part will at­ tract the greatest interest among our readers. This variation is in fact regula rly played by Svidler, Ivanchuk, Kamsky, Rublevsky, Smirin and many other strong grandmasters and it is one of the really popu­ lar lines of the Sicilian Defence. That system has the reputation of be­ ing like the "Najdorf system" but for the lazy players: on the one hand you can obtain a dynamic position with various available resources to seize the initiative and on the other hand it requires considerably less concrete knowledge of forced variations unlike the Najdorf system. I recommend to White to counter it with 5 . .!d3, after which there arises a "hedgehog" pawn-structure in the majority of cases. The order of moves is often not so important in that pawn-structure, but you must 7

have an excellent idea about the possible plans for you and your op­ ponent. Meanwhile, we have found plenty of new and fresh ideas in the most popular variation nowadays - S . .id3 .icS. The difference between the Sicilian Defence and the other openings for Black in answer to l.e4 is that in all other openings a capable player with White, who does not possess any theoretical knowledge, can play solid moves out of common sense and he can obtain a quite playable position in which his prospects may not be even worse. (He would not be better either, because one must study theory after all . . . ) In case you try to play with White against the Sicilian Defence out of only common sense, you might become worse sometimes as early as move ten. There are plenty of examples on that subject. I hope this book as well as our next books will help you not only to obtain positions, which will not be worse, but they will be better and in some of the cases absolutely superior.

A.Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

8

Part! 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 rare 2nd moves for Black Nimzowitsch-Rubinstein Variation 2 ttlf6 • • •

without the subsequent transi­ tion to the Dragon variation, is dealt with in Chapter 2. The other fianchetto - 2 .. b6 is analyzed in Chapter 3. Among all the lines, which we analyze in Part 1, White has great­ est problems to obtain an open­ ing advantage against the Nimzo­ witsch-Rubinstein variation 2 . . . ttlf6 (Chapters 4 and 5 ) . White has two promising plans: 3.e5 and 3.ttl c3 - and I recommend to my readers that particular latter line. .

We will analyze quite rare variations in this part of the book. You can see some really exotic lines like (2 . . . VBa5 and 2 .. VBb6 . . . ) in Chapter 1. The move 2 . . g6, .

.

9

Chapter l

l . e4 c5 2 .tLlf3

We are going to analyze in this chapter some lines, which are very seldom played in contempo­ rary tournament practice. That is hardly surprising, because plenty of them are rather dubious and questionable. The least we can say is that they are objectively much worse than the other varia­ tions for Black, which we will deal with later. Still, White must play precisely in order to maintain his opening advantage. Now, we will study something about the basic strategy for White in this opening, so that it can be easier for the readers to find their way in the numerous systems and variations in the Sicilian Defence and to understand correctly why we recommend certain schemes in the different lines. Against the 10

basic replies for Black on move two (2 . . . e6, 2 . . . lDc6, 2 . . . d6) we will an alyze the immediate pawn-ad­ vance - d2-d4. This move opens the centre and it enables White to activate quickly his forces. In case Black chooses some other lines on move two, White's option to play d2-d4 is not necessarily always correct. You have to be aware that the routine decisions are not au­ tomatically right even at such an early stage of the game. We will deal here with the following rarely played possibili­ ties for Black: a) 2 :�a5? ! , b) 2 %Yb6? ! , e) 2 d5? ! , d) 2 f1e7. Black obtains a very difficult position after the extravagant move - 2 . . .fS? 3.exfS dS (Or 3 ... d6 4.d4 hiS S.dxeS f1aS+ 6.lDc3 fixeS 7.i.e3±; 3 . . . lDh6 4.d4 lDxfS S.dS ! g6 6.h4 ! i.g7 7.hS Wb6 S.c3 e6? ! 9.hxg6 hxg6 lOJ�xhS+ ixhS 1l.g4 ! lDe7 12 .d6 lDdS 13.f1d3 1-0 Hazai - Forgacs, Hungary 199 2 ; 3 . . . lDf6 4.d4 dS S.ibS+ lDc6 6.0-0 i.xfS 7.dxcS e6 S.b4 ie7 9.lDd4 f1d7 10.:i:'!:el± Kotrot­ sos - Parginos, Athens 2005 • .

•••

. . •

.••

1.e4 c5 2. llJj3

and White has an extra pawn and initiative in the centre.) 4 . .ibS+ ! .id7 (or 4 . . . lLlc6? S.lLleS �d6 6. �hS+ g6 7.fxg6 lLlf6 8.g7+ lLlxhS 9.gxh8� lLlf6 1O.d4 cxd4 11 . .ixc6+ bxc6 12 . .if4+- Veress - Nagy, Kaposvar 1986) S.�e2 lLlf6, Nef­ fe - Meyer, Hamburg 1997 (or s . . . lLlh6 6.d4 lLlxfS 7.dxcS±; S . . . lLlc6, Drollinger - Mathe, S t In­ gbert 1988, 6.d4 cxd4 7.hc6 bxc6 8.lLlxd4±), 6.d4! c4 (or 6 .. . hbS 7.�xbS+ �d7 8.lLlc3±; 6 . . . �b6 7.hd7+ lLlbxd7 8.0-0±; 6 . . . a6 7.hd7+ �xd7 8.dxcS±) 7.lLlc3 ! ixbS 8.lLlxbS lLlc6 (White coun­ ters 8 . . . �d7? ! with the spectacu­ lar strike 9.�e6 ! and later: 9 . . . �xbS? 10.�c8+ fS S.ltJxb7 V!!c7 9.ltJxc5±, or 6 . . . d 6 , because of: 7.dxcS bxcS 8.eS±) 7.eS± provides him with an obvi­ ous advantage. Black's position is difficult too after: 4 ... g6 S . .ie3 d6 6 . .tc4 ltJd7 7.0-0± Carvajal Lowsky, Cenfotec 2 0 03 and here after the careless move 7 . . . .tg7?, White could have settled the issue by tactical means with: S.ltJgS ! ltJh6 (It i s more tenacious for Black to defend here with S ... e6, but still after 9.ltJbS+- he would hardly survive anyway ... ) 9 . .txf7+ ltJxt7 1O.ltJe6+-.

1.e4 cS 2. lLlj3 b6 3.d4 4 . .!Llxd4 ,ib7

In the game Sakharov - Gufeld, Tallinn 1965, Black played: 4 . . . lLlc6 S.lLlc3 e6? ! (about S . . . ,ib7 see 4 . . . ,ib7) and here White could have obtained an overwhelming advantage with the help of the en­ ergetic move - 6.lLldbS ! , having in mind that it would be a mistake for Black to follow with 6 . . . d6?, due to: 7.,if4 e5 8.lLldS ! +- and White would win material. 5 . .!Llc3

Black has plenty of possibili­ ties now. The basic of them are a) 5 . . .!Llf6, b) 5 g6 and c) 5 . . a6 and we will study them in details a bit later, while now we will have a look at some other minor alter­ natives. Black has problems with the development of his kingside piec­ es. For example after S . . . e6? ! , it is very good for White to follow with: 6 . .!LldbS ! d6 7.,if4 eS and now after: 8.lLldS lLla6 (or 8 . . . exf4? 9 .lLlbc7+ @d7 lO .'&g4+ @c6 1l.,ibS+ @cS 12 .h4+-) 9.,ie3 ,ie7 10 .,ic4 lLlf6 1l.lLlxf6+ gxf6 12 .'&hS 0-0 13.lLlc3 lLlcS 14.,ih6 lLle6 15.0-0-0 '&c8 16.he6 fxe6 17.�d3+- Black had .

...

.

to resign in the game Hecht - Ve­ limirovic, Budapest 1973. In case of S . . . lLlc6, it is very good for White to continue with 6.,if4 ! ' After 6 . . . �cS (Following: 6 . . . a6 7.lLlxc6 hc6 S.lLldS hdS 9.'&xdS '&cS lO.'&b3 bS Il.a4 b4 12 .id3 e6 13.aS lLle7 14.id6 lLlc6 15.ixfS @xfS 16.0-0 f6 17.f4± Black was faced with great prob­ lems in the game Howell - Alex­ andria, Spijkenisse 19S9. He did not fare any better either in the game Gullo - Fiszman, Cordoba 1965, while in case of 6 . . . lLlf6 7. lLlxc6 dxc6, White would have proceeded with S.'&f3 ! ±) there comes: 7.lLlxc6 dxc6 8 .'&f3 '&d4 (Black's position is difficult too after: 8 . . . lLlf6 9.�dl lLld7 lO.ic4 e6 1l.0-0±, because his pieces are squeezed and White's bishop on f4 deprives Black's queen of the c7-square.) 9.�dl '&cS lO.eS �dS 11.�xd8 + @xdS 12 .ie2 @eS 13.0-0 fS 14.e6 lLlf6 15.�dl lLld5 16.,ie5+- and the fight was over in the game Beliavsky - Quinter­ os, Vienna 19S6. It is possible for Black to try: 5 ... d6 6 .igS ! lLld7 (If 6 ... a6, then: 7.ic4 lLld7 S .'&e2 lLlgf6 9 . 0-0-0 bS lO.ib3 '&c7 Il.f4 e6 12.�hel± S.Novikov - Varchenko, Minsk 2 0 05 - and it becomes obvious that the move b7-b6 has turned out to be a loss of a tempo.) 7. lLldb5 ! ? (In case of: 7.lLlds a6 S.'&f3 '&c8 9 .lLlf5 g6 10.lLldxe7 he7 Il.lLlg7+ @fS 12 .lLle6+ @eS 13.lLlg7+ @fS 14.lLle6+ @eS 15. 3S

Chapter 3 lDg7+ It>f8 16. lDe6+, White had nothing better than a perpet­ ual in the game Mikhalchishin - Psakhis, Vilnius 1978.) 7 ... lDgf6 8.lDd5 i.xd5 (or 8 . . . lDxd5? 9.lDxd6+-) 9.exd5;!; - White ob­ tains not only ample space ad­ vantage, but an excellent play on the light squares, because Black's light-squared bishop is absent from the board. a) 5

•••

0-0-0 10.f4± and White main­ tains an overwhelming advan­ tage.) 8 . .bf6 gxf6 9 . .te2 a6 1O . .thS lDeS 11.f4 e6 12 .fxeS exfS 13.0-0 Wfc7 (or 13 ... i.c5+ 14.lt>h1 fxeS lSJ!xf5+-) 14.E!xfS 0-0-0 15.exf6 .td6 16.h3+- Psakhis - Dizdarevic, Palma de Mallorca 1989. 7.�xe4 he4

lDf6

This is a logical move. Black develops his knight attacking his opponent's central pawn. 6.J.g5!

That gambit idea is very prom­ ising. The e4-pawn is sacrificed for the sake of quickest mobiliza­ tion of pieces and good attacking prospects against Black's king, stranded in the centre. White could have also played the not so risky move - 6.e5 ! ? 6 . . . �xe4! ?

That is the most principled de­ cision for Black and it is possibly the best. Now, White must play very precisely. He easily obtains a great advantage if Black tries something else, for example: 6 . . . e6? ! 7.e5 ! h 6 8 ..th4 g 5 9 ..tg3 and here Black solves his problems neither with: 9 ... lDd5 10.lDe4 a6 11 . .td3±, nor with: 9 ... lDe4 10. lDxe4 i.xe4 11.h4± Leitao - Limp, Brasil 2005, or 6 . . . lDc6 7.lDf5 h6 (It is not any better for Black to try: 7 ... Wfb8 8.Wfd2 �eS, Marra Limp, Sao Paulo 2 0 04, 9.0-0-0 36

8 .�g4!

Black would counter 8 .�e2 , not with 8 . . .i.b7? 9.lDbS dS 1O . .tf4+-, but with 8 ... d5 ! oo Milos - Limp, Sao Paulo 2 0 04 and the position is with mutual chances. Instead, the move 8.Wfg4! creates much greater problems for Black. 8

.th7

.•.

This is one of the possible re­ treats of the bishop. Let's us see what might happen after Black's other possibilities : It is not good for him to play 8 . . . dS? , while White's queen is on g4, because of: 9 . .tbS+ lDd7 10.lDc6! �c7 11.lDeS+- and White wins material; Black loses too after 8 . . . .tg6?, due to 9.�f3 ! and Black is forced once again to weaken the a4-e8 diagonal: 9 ... dS 1O . .tbS+ lDd7 11.

l.e4 c5 2. ttJj3 b6 3.d4 'lWxd5 �cS 12 .ttJc6 e6 13 .'lWd2 'lWc7 14 . .tf4 'lWb7 15.ttJe5+-; After S ... .tc6?! 9.0-0-0, Black has insurmountable problems with his development. It is a disas­ ter for him to play: 9 ... g6 1O ..tc4 .tg7 11.�he1+-, as well as: 9 ... d6 1O.ttJb5 ! d5 (or 10 ... hb5 11.hb5+ ttJd7 12.�xd6+-) 11 . .tf4+-, or 9 . . . f6 1O.hf6 ! exf6 11.�e1+ .te7 (or 11 . . . �f7 12 . .tc4+ d5 13.'lWe6+ �g6 14 ..td3+-) 12 .'lWxg7 �fS 13.ttJf5+­ In case Black chooses 9 . . . 'lWc7 (That move is played with the idea to unpin the e7-pawn.), then after 1O . .tc4 e6, White can con­ tinue with: 11.he6 ! fxe6 1 2 .lilxe6 dxe6 13.'lWxe6+ .te7 14.�he1 .te4 15.�xe4 ttJc6 16.�d6+- and his at­ tack is decisive; If S . . . .td5 (with the idea to keep the bishop on the a2-gS diagonal), then White's most pre­ cise move is 9.�d1! (He plans to push c2 -c4 Iater, therefore it is bet­ ter to refrain from castling long.) Black's problems can be illus­ trated in the following exemplary variations: 9 . .f6 1O . .te3 g6 (or 1O ... e6 11.c4 .tb4+ 12 . .td2 hd2 + 13.�xd2 +-) 11.c4 .tf7 12 .'lWe4 ttJa6 (or 12 ... d5 13.cxd5 hd5 14.ttJe6 ! he4 15. �xdS+ �f7 16 . .tc4+-) 13.ttJb5 e5 14.'lWb7! +-, as well as: 9 ... h6 1O . .tf4 ttJc6 (or 1O . . . .tb7? ! 11.ttJe6 ! dxe6 12.hbS+-; 1O . . . e6 11.ttJb5±) 11.ttJf5 g6 12 .�xd5 gxf5 13.�xf5±.

knight to the d6-outpost via b5, or f5. 9 . . . 'lWc8

Black would not change any­ thing with: 9 ... ttJc6 1O.ttJb5 'lWcS - see 9 .. 'lWcS . He should not even try 9 .. .f6? in view of: 1O.hf6 ! exf6 11.�e1+ and White wins by force, while in case of: 9 . . . h6 1O . .tf4±, besides 11.ttJb5, he is also threatening 11.ttJe6 ! .

1 0 .tilb5 tt:Jc6

The other possible defence against the threat 1l.ttJd6+ is not acceptable for Black either, for example: 1O . . . e5? ! 11.'lWf5 ! f6 (or 11 ... ttJc6 12 ..tc4+-) 12 .hf6 gxf6 13.'lWxf6 �gS 14.'lWxe5+ �dS (or 14 ... �f7 15.�d4+-) 15.�e1 .th6 + 16.�b1+-; 1O . . . e6? ! 11..tf4 ttJa6 12 .ttJd6+ hd6 13.hd6 'lWc6 (13 . . . �gS 14.'lWh4+-; 1 3 . . . g6 14.'lWd4 �gS 15.'lWh4+-) 14.'lWg5 f6 15.'lWxg7 0-0-0 16.'lWxf6+-; 1O .. .f6 11 . .tf4 ttJa6 (or 11 ... e5 12 .'lWh5 + ! g6 13. 'lWh4±) 12 . .td3±.

.

9. 0 - 0 - 0

Now, Black must do something about White's plan to deploy his

1l.'lWg3 ! e5

In case of 11 . . . d6, White has the spectacular resource: 12 .he7! .txe7 13.'lWxg7 �fS 14.ttJxd6+ hd6 37

Chapter 3 lSJ!xd6 and he obtains a crush­ ing attack for the sacrificed piece. It would not help Black to try lS . . . �fS? ! , due t o 1 6 . .ibS ! �xbS (or 16 . . . @e7 17Jld2 ltJeS 1BJ�e1+-) 17J'1e1+ ltJe7 1B.�f6+-. It is more tenacious for him to defend with lS . . . '?Nc7, but even then after: 16.�h6 13dB (or 16 ... a6 17 . .id3 ltJe7 1B.13eH) 17.13xdB+ ltJxdB 1B .ibS+ ic6 19.13e1+ ltJe6 2 0.13xe6+ fxe6 21.'?Nxe6+ @dB 22 .ixc6± White remains with three pawns for the exchange and excellent winning chances. 12 .ie2± •

ltJxfS 22.'?Nd7±. Black ends up in a very difficult position after: 12 ... a6 13.ltJd6+ ixd6 14.13xd6±. b) 5

. . .

g6

Now, the position resembles a well-known line of the Drag­ on variation, under much more favourable circumstances for White. 6 .ie3 .igJ .

About 6 ... ltJf6 7.f3 ltJc6 B.'?Nd2 .ig7 - see 6 ... ig7. 7.Vi1d2

It is quite obvious now that White's initiative compensates amply his sacrificed pawn. He is threatening 13.ig4 attack­ ing d7. The complications are in favour of White, arising after: 12 . . . h6 13 ..ig4 ! hxgS 14.ixd7+ �xd7 lS.13xd7 @xd7 16.13d1+ @e7 17.�a3 + ! (It is not so clear af­ ter the seemingly attractive line: 17.ltJd6 13dB ! 1B.ltJxb7 13xd1+ 19. @xd1 @d7 - since White's knight gets trapped.) 17 . . . @f6 1B.�f3+ @g6 19.�d3+ fS (19 ... @f6?! 2 0 . ltJd6+-) 20.g4! ltJe7 21.gxfS+ 3B

White develops his forces according to the well-familiar scheme from the Dragon varia­ tion. 7

...

�f6

It is futile for Black to play the prophylactic move - 7 . . . h5, because after: B.O-O-O ltJf6 9.f3 ltJc6 1O . .ie2 13cB U.@b1 ltJeS 12 . .if4 ltJc4 13.ixc4 13xc4 14.ltJde2 '?NcB lS.e5 ltJh7 16.13he1 ltJfB 17.ltJd4 a6 1B . .ig5 ltJe6 19.1tJxe6 dxe6 2 0 . 13e3±, Black had great problems in the game Amos - Cappello, Sko­ pje 1972 . It is more or less the same following: 7 . . . ltJc6 B . .ic4 ! (This

1 . e4 c5 2. ltJj3 b6 3.d4 is more precise for White than: 8.0-0-0 Eic8, since then it be­ comes problematic for him to develop his bishop to the c4square.) 8 ... Eic8 9.ib3 ltJf6 1O.f3 0-0 11.0-0-0 ltJa5 - see 7 . . . ltJf6.

Black's king shelter is much less reliable after the trade of the dark squared bishops and his queenside counterplay becomes much less effective.

S .f3 ltJc6 9.ic4 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 ltJa5 1l.ib3

12 .loc4 13 .txc4 Eixc4 14 .txg7 r41xg7 15.e5

12 .J.b6

••

•

•

White squeezes his opponent's pieces to the eighth rank. 15 .. .fileS 16.e6 ltJd6

Black can play neither 16 . . . fxe6??, nor 16 ... dxe6??, because after 17.ltJxe6+-, he loses his queen.

1l

•••

EicS

After: 11 . . . ltJxb3+ 12.ltJxb3 d6 13.ih6 'iffc7 14.h4 Eiac8 15.h5--+, White advanced typically his h­ pawn and he had a dangerous attack in the game Ward - Inu­ merable, Chicago 1997. The place­ ment of Black's bishop on the b7square is unfavourable for Black in the Dragon variation. His position is difficult too after: 11 ... d6 12 .�6 liJxb3+ 13. ltJxb3 - see 11 ... ltJxb3+ , although White can capture on b3 with the pawn too, keeping his knight on the d4-square: 13.axb3 e6 (Black is trying to organize some coun­ terplay in the centre.) 14.h4 d5 (or 14 . . . ltJe8 15.i.xg7 r41xg7 16.ltJdb5± Stojic - Safarian, Auckland 2 005) 15.e5 ltJd7 16.hg7 r41xg7 17.h5± and White has a dangerous at­ tack.

17.exf7 Eixf7 lS.ltJcb5:t Vos­ cilla - Manievich, Pula 1994. White exerts powerful pressure against his opponent's central pawns. c) 5 . . . a6

39

Chapter 3 Black plays that move rather often i n practice. I t has become evident, from the variations above in the text, that prophylactic is necessary for Black, but still it seems to be too slow. 6 .te3 •

White develops his pieces according to the standard scheme, planning castling long and a pawn-offensive on the kingside. Instead, Black's counterplay on the queenside is much too slow, because his pawn is still on the b6-square. 6 ... e6

This is the most logical line for Black. He is not in a hurry to push his pawn to d6, so that he can preserve the active possibility - .tb4. The spirit of the fight in this line reminds us of the Paulsen variation. It is much more difficult for Black to obtain an acceptable game after his other possibilities, for example: 6 tDf6 7.eS! ? (Naturally, White can transpose to the main line, if he so wishes, after 7.f3 e6 - see 6 . . . e6.) 7 . . . tD dS 8.Wff3 ! ? e6 9.ttJxdS ixdS 1O.Wfg3 Sprenger - Certek, Vienna 2 003; 6 . . . g6 7.Wfd2 .ig7 8.0-0-0 tDf6 9.f3 d6 1O.g4± Sabel - Moser, corr. 1986; 6 ... d6 7.Wfd2 ttJf6 8.f3;1;; Tischbierek - Alexandria, Biel 1994. ••.

7.Wfd2 Wfc7

White maintains a stable edge, just like before, after: 7. . . d 6 8.0-0-0 ttJf6 9.f3;1;; Gabriel 40

- Krauth, Ditzingen 2 0 0 0 . I n case of 7 . . . .ib4 8 .f3, Black can transpose to the main line with 8 .. .'IWc7 - see 7 .. .'JjJc7. If he plays 8 . . . ttJf6, then after: 9.a3 .ixc3 10.1Wxc3 dS 1 1.eS ttJfd7 12 . 0-0-0 0-0 (Evidently, White would counter 12 . . . ttJxeS? with 13.ttJxe6 ! +-, while in case of: 12 ... ttJcS 13.f4, it is too dubious for Black to play 13 . . . 'JjJd7? ! , as it hap­ pened in the game Thorhallsson Balinov, Plovdiv 2 0 03, in view of: 14.ttJb3 ! ttJa4 1S.'lWb4 as 16.1Wd2± and White had a clear advantage.) 13.f4;1;; A.Horvath - Stanec, Saint Vincent 2 0 05 , there arises a pawn-structure quite typical for the French Defence and White has clearly better prospects thanks to his two-bishop advantage. If 7 ... ttJf6, then 8.f3. Now, it is obviously dubious for Black to continue with: 8 . . . hS? ! 9 . 0-0-0 dS 10.exdS tDxdS 1l.ttJxdS 1WxdS, Feletar - Saric, Rabac 2 0 04, 12 .1Wc3 ! 'JjJeS (or 1 2 . . . 'JjJxa2? 13. ttJbS ! + -) 13.f4 Wfe4 14.f5±, and Black's position is slightly infe­ rior after: 8 . . . dS 9.eS tDfd7 1O.f4;1;; Aleksic - Efimov, Cutro 1997, while the move 8 ... 'JjJc7, leads to a transposition of moves - see 7 ... Wfc7. 8 .f3

You will understand why White is not in a hurry to castle long in our notes to the next move. 8 . . ttJf6 .

I n case o f the immediate 8 . . . .tb4 9.a3 .ixc3 (It is not advis-

l . e4 c5 2. liJj3 b6 3.d4 able for Black to try: 9 ... ie7 10.0-0-0 bS 11.if4 �cB 12.llJ b3 liJc6 13.id6± Karjakin - Bali­ nov, Vienna 2003 and he ended up in a clearly inferior position.) 1O.�xc3 �xc3+ 11.bxc3. Here, it is essential that White can increase his queenside pressure along the b-file and that makes the end­ game preferable for him. There might follow: 11 . . . d6 (Opening of the centre is in favour of White after: l1.. .dS 12.exdS hdS 13.c4 ib7 14.gb1 liJd7 lS.cS ! lLlxcS 16. gxb6±) 12 .a4 liJd7 (or 12 ... lLle7 13.gb1 lLld7 14.aS±) 13.aS bS (In case of 13 ... bxaS, White follows with the typical knight-maneuver: 14.lLlb3 ! lLlgf6 1S.liJxaS .lcB 16.c4± - Black's pieces are immobile and he has problems protecting his d6pawn. There arises an analogous situation after: 13 ... liJe7 14.axb6 lLlcB 1S.lLlb3 ! lLlcxb6 16.lLlaS icB 17.\t>d2±) 14.c4 bxc4 1S.gb1 gbB 16.hc4 liJgf6 17.\t>d2 0-0 (Black cannot play 17 . . . \t>e7?, because of 1B.ha6 ! + -, while after 17 ... dS, he has the resource: 1B.if4 ! eS 19 . .ixeS lLlxeS 2 0.ha6±) 1B.gb4± and White maintains a great ad­ vantage.

game with good chances to equal­ ize. After 9 .g4, Black must lose a tempo in order to prevent 1O.gS. 9 . h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 .ib4 Now, it becomes clear that af­ ter 10 . . . dS, White has the move 11. eS ! and it is bad for Black to play 11 . . . �xeS? In view of 12 .if4+-. The position after 1O ... ib4, was reached for the first time in the game Landa - Bricard, France 2 0 0 2 and it followed with : 11.lLlde2 lLlc6 12 .if4 eS 13.ie3 lLle7 14.a3 icS. White has also tried in practice: 11.a3 hc3 12.�xc3 �xc3 13.bxc3 dS 14.eS lLlfd7 1S.f4 lLlc6, Rizouk - Cicak, Salou 200S. It seems to me that he has failed to obtain anything much out of the opening in both cases and therefore I recommend to White another line, which would create much more serious problems for Black. . .

9.g4

This is not only the beginning of a kingside offensive, but it is also typical tactical prophylactic against the pawn advance - d7dS. In case of 9 . 0-0-0, Black plays 9 . . . .lb4 and he is ready to continue with 1O . . . dS, as well as to trade on c3, entering an end-

1l . .!f4 !

White plans to retreat his knight to the e2-square in order to avoid numerous exchanges on c3, but he wishes to discoordinate his opponent's pieces at first. 1l . . �c8 .

41

Chapter 3 Black's queen is misplaced on cB, but that is relatively the best that he can play at the moment. His other possibilities are: it is not so good to try: 11 . . . hc3 12 .hc7 hd2 + 13J3xd2± - since White obtains the two­ bishop advantage in an endgame without compromising his pawn­ structure; after 11 . . . d6 12.liJde2 , it is ob­ vious that Black's bishop is mis­ placed on b4. In case of 12 . . . eS, White should better play: 13.gS ! hxgS 14.hgS± with a consider­ able edge; White is clearly better in the complications arising after: 11 . . . eS 12 .ig3 d S (or 12 . . . 0 - 0 13.ltJfS±; 12 . . . g6 13.gS±) 13.ltJfS g6 (or 13 . . . d4? 14.'i;!fxd4! exd4 l S . .bc7+-) 14.ltJxh6 ! ? (This move leads to a position in which White has four pawns for the sacrificed piece, but he could have also tried the more traditional line: 14.ltJe3 ixc3 lS.bxc3±) 14 ... d4 lS.'i;!fxd4 ! exd4 16.hc7 ltJfd7 (or 16 ... ltJbd7 17.ltJe2 +-) 17.ltJxf7! 'kt>xf7 lB. gxd4±. Instead of 12 ... dS, Black would not have solved his prob­ lems with: 12 . . ..bc3 13.bxc3 g6 (or 13 ... 0-0 14.gS±). Here, White has a pleasant choice between : 14.gS ltJgB (White can counter 14 . . . ltJhS? with the spectacular line: lS.gxh6 ! ltJxg3 16.hxg3 exd4 17.'<Mfxd4 gh7 1B.'<Mfg7! +-) lS.gxh6 gxh6 16.ltJb3 ltJc6 17.f4± and 14. h4 '<MfcS (Black loses after: 14 . . . dS? lS.exdS .bdS 16 . .beS ! '<Mfxe5 42

17.ge1 ltJe4 1B.id3+-; following: 14 . . . d6? ! lS.hS ! exd4 16.'i;!fxd4, Black is completely defenseless: 16 . . . ltJbd7 17.hd6 '<Mfc6 1B .hxg6 fxg6 19.9S+-, or 16 . . . '<MfdB 17.hxg6 ltJc6 1B.'<Mfc4+-; it is only slightly better for Black to try: 14 . . . ltJc6 lS.ltJxc6 dxc6 16.ih3±) lS.ltJb3 'i;!fe7 16.hS± - and the evaluation of similar variations is doubtless­ ly in favour of White. 12. ltJde2 d5

Black's other possibilities are not principled at all. White would continue with 13.a3, getting free from the annoying pin and he would obtain a clear advantage.

13 .a3 !

This move i s connected with a sacrifice of the central pawn, but after the trade of Black's bishop for White's knight the dark­ squares complex in Black's camp is compromised considerably and White obtains excellent attacking prospects. 13 . . . be3

In case of: 13 . . . ie7 14.ltJg3± White's initiative is running un­ opposed in a position with an equal material.

1 . e4 c5 2.tiJj3 b6 3.d4 14.lLlxc3 dxe4 15. lLlxe4 lLlxe4 16.fxe4 he4 17J�gl 0 - 0 Following: 17. . .lLld7 IB .g5 h5 19 . .ig2 lLl c5 (or 19 . . ..ixg2 20 .'lWxg2 0-0 2 1.g6±) 2 0 .'lW c3 0-0 21.he4 lLlxe4 2 2 .'lWf3±, White regains his pawn preserving a promising at­ tacking position. 18.g5 h5

Opening of the g-file is in favour of White: IB . . . hxg5? ! 19J':1xg5 - now after 19 ... lLld7, White's threats are impossible to parry af­ ter the trade of the light squared bishops with the move 20 . .id3 ! and later: 2 0 . . . .ixd3 2 1.'lWxd3 f6 2 2 .l'!xg7+ ! @xg7 23J':1g1+ @i7 24. �h7+ @eB 25 . .id6+-, or: 20 . . . 'lWc6 2 1.he4 �xe4 2 2 J'!el 'lWf3 23J'!g3 �c6 24J�xg7+ ! @xg7 25.i:!gl+ @hB 2 6 . .ie5+- and after 19 ... lLlc6, it is good for White to follow with 2 0 .'lWe2±. 19.�e2�

(diagram) White's initiative more than

compensates his minute material deficit. His excellent piece coor­ dination enables him to act ef­ fectively not only on the kingside, but also on the opposite side of the board and you can see that in the following exemplary variations demonstrating Black's difficulties : 19 . . . 'lWc6 2 0 .i:!g3 ! �a4 2 1 ..ie5 lLlc6 2 2 .b3 ! �xa3+ 23 . .ib2 �b4 24.c3 �xb3 25.�xe4± - White's piece is much stronger here than Black's three pawns; 19 . . . �g6 2 0.i:!g3 ! 1' and White's rook i s redeployed very efficiently on the third rank against Black's compromised queenside.

Conclusion The variation with 2 ... b6 does not enable Black to rely on obtain­ ing an equal position and therefore it is played in practice only very seldom. White maintains an advantage in the opening much easier in comparison to the main lines. The reason is that Black's cannot orga­ nize an active counterplay on the queenside, moreover that his bishop on b7 turns out to be not so well placed there in some variations.

43

Chapter 4

1.e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 tLlf6

That is a rarely played line. Black develops his king's knight attacking his opponent's central pawn. His main idea is a bit simi­ lar to the Alekhine Defence - to provoke the move e4-e5 and to exploit the exposed position of the pawn on e5 in order to create some counterplay. 3.lLlc3

This is a very reasonable move. White avoids the competition in memonzmg forced variations after 3.e5 and he simply plays a good developing move. Black has three basic defensive lines in that position: a) 3 . lLlc6, b) 3 . e6 and 3 ... d5 (Chapter 5). The move 3 ... d6 leads after 4.d4 cxd4 5.ltJxd4 - to the main theoretical lines in the Sicilian Defence for Black after 2 . . . d6. ..

.

44

.

We must also have a look at some rare and even dubious pos­ sibilities: 3 . . . g6 4.e5 ltJg4 5.d4 e6 6.i.g5 i.e7 7.i.xe7 VIffxe7, Moore - Tuck­ er, corr. 2000, 8.lLlb5+-; 3 . . . a6 4.e5 lLlg4 5.h3 ltJh6 6.d4± Eriksson - Rothen, Jonkoping 1987; 3 . . . e5 - That pawn-sacrifice is difficult to understand. 4 .ltJxe5 i.d6 5.ltJc4 i.c7, Koenig - Fekete, Germany 1997, (Black would not fare any better after: 5 . . . i.e7 6.e5± Sy - Zurowski, Email 2000.) 6.e5 ! VIffe7 7.f4 (White has a solid extra central pawn!) 7 . . . d5 8.ltJe3± he5 (That piece-sacrifice does not solve Black's problems.) 9.fxe5 VIffxe5 1O.i.b5+ White removes his king away from the centre with tempo and he obtains a winning position after 1O . . . ltJc6 11. 0-0+-; 3 ... ltJg4 (That is just a loss of time.) 4.h3 ltJf6 5.e5± - White re­ pels his opponent's knight from the centre and he thus increases his lead in development, PichI - Pimenov, corr. 2000; 3 . . . VIff c7 4.e5 ! This is simple and strong. (It is weaker for White to

l . e4 c5 2. ttJj3 ttJf6 3. ttJ c3 play 4.i.c4, as he did in the game Fati - Saleh, Dubai 1986.) 4 ... ttJg4 5.d4 cxd4 6.�xd4± - White has extra space and he dominates in the centre. Black will have to lose an additional tempo to retreat his knight from the g4-square. a) 3 . . . ttJc6

Banert - Lange, Sebnitz 1998, 5.d5±; 4 ... d6 5.d5;!;; 4 ... e6 5.d5 (Black has problems with his knight on c6.) 5 . . . ttJb4 (It is not better for Black to try 5 . . . ttJb8, Rodrigues - Martins, Portugal 1994, 6.dxe6 dxe6 7.�xd8+ 'it>xd8 8.if4±) 6.a3± Ee Xu Zhi - Mohd, Kuala Lumpur 200l. The variation 4 . . . ttJxd4 5.ttJxd4 cxd4 6.�xd4 d6 - transposes to something like the main lines of the Sicilian Defence with 2 . . . ttJc6, except that under unfavourable circumstances for Black, because he does not exchange on d4 so early. 5.exd5 tLlxd5

4.d4

That is the only way for White to fight for the advantage. After 4.i.b5 g6, his chances to maintain an edge are rather bleak. Following: 4.e5 ttJg4 5.�e2 d6 6.exd6 e6 7.�c4 ttJf6 8.'&xc5 ixd6�, there arises a complex position, in which the activity of Black's pieces more than com­ pensates his minimal material deficit. 4

•••

d5

This is the main line for Black. The variation 4 . . . cxd4 after 5.ttJxd4 transposes to the main lines of the Sicilian Defence with 2 . . . ttJc6. Now, something in short about Black's other possibilities : 4 . . . b6, Riedel - Scholtes, Ue­ berlingen 2 0 0 0 , 5.d5±; 4 . . . �a5,

It is evidently weaker for Black to play: 5 . . . cxd4 6.dxc6 dxc3 7.�xd8+ 'it>xd8 8 .ttJe5 cxb2 9.ixb2 gg8 10.ttJxi7+- Gold - Tesanyuk, Hamilton 1998. 6.dxc5 ! ?

After 6.ic4, 6 .i.b5, o r 6.ttJxd5, White can hardly obtain any ad­ vantage, while in case of: 6.ttJe4 cxd4 7.ttJxd4 ttJdb4 8.ttJxc6 �xd1+ 9.'it>xd1 ttJxc6= the position is deadly equal. 6

. . •

tLlxc3

Now, Black is forced to ex­ change. It is just terrible for him to continue with 6 . . . i.e6, Busche - Wempe, Voelklingen 2 001, 7.id2±. 7.�xd8 +

White exchanges queens and he gains time for development with the idea to protect his c5pawn. 45

Chapter 4

Now, Black has a choice - what to capture on dS with - the king or the knight? We will analyze both possibili­ ties : al) 7 cJixd8 and a2) 7 tlJxd8. .•.

• • •

al) 7 cJixd8 The main drawback of that line is that Black loses his castling rights and White can exploit some tactical motives connected with the vulnerability of the V-pawn. 8.bxc3 e5 The defect of that move is that now, in case White attacks the V-pawn with his bishop, Black cannot defend it with the move e7-e6. S . . .f6 - This is the most popu­ lar and possibly the best move for Black. Still, White's space ad­ vantage and his extra pawn more than compensate the defects of his pawn-structure, particularly if we have in mind the vulnerable light squares on Black's kingside. 9.ie3 eS 1O .ic4 cJic7 (The move 10 . . . ig4, Collins - Schalkwijk, Email 2001, is just a loss of time. Now White must simply deploy his light pieces in the centre: .•.

46

11.tlJd2 cJic7 12.f3 ifS 13.tt'le4 ie7 14.0-0-0 gadS IS.idS hS 16.h4t and Black can hardly organize any counterplay.) 1l.tt'ld2 ifS (About 11 . . . ie7 12.0-0-0 ifS - see 11 . . . ifS.) 12.0-0-0 ie7 (In answer to 12 . . . gdS, Sion Castro - Ramos Suria, Spain 1990, White has a beautiful knight-maneuver at his disposal - 13.tt'lbl ! ie7 14.tlJa3 a6 IS.idS;!; and here, because of the threat 16.tt'lc4, Black is forced to play IS ... tt'laS and after 16.ghel cJibS 17.f4t, White has a powerful positional pressure in the centre.) 13.f3 gadS 14.tt'le4;!; Black has no active possibilities, while his at­ tempt to simplify the position only increases White's advantage after: 14 . . . he4? ! IS.fxe4 tt'lbS 16. gdS tt'la6 17.ixa6 bxa6 IS.ghdl cJic6, Weichert - Moufang, Ger­ many 19S0 , 19.94±. 9.tlJg5 That is the right order of moves. If he plays immediately 9 .ic4, then after 9 .. .f6, White does not have the possibility tlJgS. 9 cJie8 1 0 .ic4 Suddenly, Black has serious problems with the defence of his V-pawn. I O tlJd8 This knight will have to retreat anyway and it is maybe best to do that immediately. Black's attempt to solve the problem in a radical fashion - by sacrificing the V-pawn is not sat­ isfactory at all: lO . . . hcS 11.ixt7+ cJie7 12 .idS ifS 13.tt'le4 ixe4 14. • • •

•••

l.e4 c5 2. CiJj3 CiJf6 3. CiJ c3 he4± White has a great advan­ tage, because of his extra pawn (despite its being doubled . . . ) and his powerful pair of bishops in an open position, Hartung - Bastian, Germany 2 0 0 2 .

1961. White won that game in­ deed, but Black's play could be easily improved. 13

.••

ixd6 14.cxd6 ixc2

Black has regained his pawn, but White's couple of bishops and his passed d6-pawn provide him with a stable advantage.

1l .ie3 •

White protects his extra c5pawn, since it might prove quite useful at some instance! 1l

•••

•

f6 12.�e4

White's knight is just excellent here - it defends the c5-pawn and it is ready to check from the d6square at any moment. 12

15 .ib5 + �c6 16. f7, Ros - Carol, Email 53

Chapter 4 2000 and here White could have obtained powerful initiative con­ tinuing 13.l':%xf6+, for example: 13 . . . Wxf6 14.lDxdS + ! cxdS 1S.W!f3+ We7 - Black loses after IS . . . Wg6 or lS ... We6 : 16.W!g4+ Wt7 17.W!fS+ We8 18.igS+- and White remains with a queen and an avalanche of pawns for two rooks - 16.W!xdS l':%d8 17.igS+ We8 18.ixd8 W!xd8 19.1':%e1+ ie7 20.W!xc5±. White's four pawns and his initiative are more than sufficient compensa­ tion for the sacrificed piece if you have in mind the unreliable place­ ment of his opponent's king. Black's defence is difficult after: 13 . . . gxf6 14.W!hS+ Wg7 lS.ih6+ Wg8 16.lDxdS± and White main­ tains a powerful pressure in a po­ sition with approximate material equality, or: 14 . . . Wg8 lS.lDxdS W!d6 16.lDe3 cxd4 17.lDfS �e6 18. ih6-+ Black's pieces are mis­ placed and particularly his rook on h8 is a sorry sight. White has excellent attacking chances, for example after: 18 . . . l':%e8 19.W!g4+ wt7 2 0.lDd6+ ! We7 2 1.�xe6 Wxe6 22 .lDxe8 ixh6 23.l':%e1+- and he remains with a solid extra pawn in an endgame.) 1l.lDa4 l':%b8 (12 ... l':%d8 13.dxcS ie7 14.lDb6± Saave­ dra - Estevez, Spain 1994) 12.dxc5 ie7 13.W!e2± and Black has no compensation for the pawn, Bello - Magide, Terrassa 1996; 7 ... cxd4 - This move seems reliable. 8.lDxd4 id7 (It is bad for Black to play: 8 ... W!d6? ! 9.l':%e1+ ie7, Jaworski - Rutter, Winnipeg S4

200S, 1O .if4 ! W!xf4 1l.lDxc6+-) 9.igS ie7 1O.ixf6 ixf6 1l.l':%e1+ Wf8 12.lDb3 ie6 13.lDa4;l; - White can hope to increase soon his ad­ vantage, because Black's king is stranded in the centre and the cS-square is very weak, Bastian - Boschma, corr. 1999. 8.dxc5 hc5

Or 8 . . . a6, Znosko-Borovsky Terrill, Birmingham 1926, 9 . ixc6+ bxc6 1O.lDd4±. After 8 . . . 0-0 9.lDd4 �c7 10. lDb3±, it is not clear how Black can regain his pawn at all, Ofstad - Kuhne, ICCF 1988. 9.ig5 fJ.e7

It is worse for Black to defend with 9 . . . ie6, Bilinski - Eigen­ mann, Biel 1979, in view of: 10. fJ.xf6 W!xf6 (In case of: 10 . . . gxf6 1l.lDd4± Black remains with too many weak pawns.) 1l.lDxdS �d8 12.lDf4±.

1 0 .hf6 ixf6, Bakhmatov - Salamone, Duisburg 2 00S and now White can capture the pawn with his knight preserving the queens on the board: 1l.tOxd5 hb2 (11.. .0-0 12.c3±) 12.gbl fJ.a3 13.gel + ie6 14.tOf4±

1.e4 c5 2JiJj3 0,f6 3JiJc3 b2) 5

•••

c!lJxd5

(After the move 9 . . . hcS, White follows with: 1O.E1e1 + iLe6 11.ie3± and he manages to trade favour­ ably the dark-squared bishops, after which he is totally dominant over the d4-square.) 1O.ie3± Pas­ tIer - Baersch, Goerlitz 1972 . 7.iLe3 cxd4

This line is more reliable for Black. He intends to exchange pieces and to save the draw by simplfying. 6.c!lJxd5

White complies with the ex­ changes, because he gains thus time to develop his pieces. 6 . . . Wxd5

It is worse for Black to play 6 . . . exdS - since there arises a posi­ tion with an isolated pawn similar to the one, which we have already analyzed. The difference howev­ er is in favour of White, because a couple of knights have been traded and that is advantageous to the side playing against the iso­ lated pawn. 7.ibS+ c!lJc6 (Black would not equalize with: 7 . . . id7 8.hd7+ c!lJxd7 9.0-0 iLe7 1O.dxcS c!lJxc5, Zuckerman - Regan, New York 1977, llJ'�e1 ! 0-0 12J�eS± and White does not block the iso­ lated pawn - he simply captures it!) 8.0-0 ie7 (Black lags in de­ velopments even more after: 8 . . . a 6 9 J:!e1+ ie7 1O.hc6+ bxc6, Ko­ rnasiewicz - Kwitek, Poland 1995, 1l.dxcS ! 0-0 12 .�e3±) 9.dxc5 0-0

That is a logical consequence of Black's previous moves. He is after exchanges and that is his ba­ sic strategy. The last move gives up deliberately the centre for Black, though . . . He has a n alternative here to try 7 . . . 0,d7 - maintaining the tension in the centre. 8.ie2 ie7 (Black can also try the plan with 8 . . . b6, for example: 9.0,d2 cxd4 1O.if3 \wfS, Magem Badals - Murey, France 2 0 0 0 , 1l.,ixa8. White captures the exchange fear­ lessly. 1l . . . dxe3 12 .fxe3 WeS - af­ ter 12 . . . �cS, or 12 . . . icS, White follows with 13.c!lJe4± - 13.\wf3 \Wxb2 14.0-0 �f6 1S.�c6±; 14 . . . 0,eS 1S.\We4 Wc3 16.c!lJf3±. White has completed his development and he has a minimal material advantage too - an exchange for a pawn, so he starts attacking.) 9 . 0-0 0-0 1O.c4 �d6 1l.dxcS ! ? - White exchanges queens and he enters an endgame with a pawn­ majority on the queenside. (White would not obtain much in the middle game after: 1l.\Wc2 cxd4 12.lL'lxd4 a6 13 .E1ac1 �c7 14.g3 0,f6 1S.if3 E1e8 16.E1fe1 ib4 17.id2 hd2 18.\Wxd2 eS 19.0,e2 id7 2 0 .0,c3 ic6 2 1.hc6 \Wxc6 2 2 .b3 S5

Chapter 4 gadS and the game Dolmatov Murey, Amsterdam 19S6 ended in a draw.) 11. . .�xd1 12.gfxd1 ttJxc5 (After 12 . . . hc5, White can even increase his advantage with the help of some tactics: 13.ttJe5 he3 14.ttJxd7 hd7 15.gxd7±) 13.gacl. The evaluation of the situation shows that White has a clear-cut plan to improve his position by creating a passed pawn on the queenside. In addition, Black has problems with his bishop on cS. Accordingly, White has a stable advantage in the endgame. He prepares the pawn-advance b2-b4 with his last move (But not 13.b4 immediately, because of: 13 . . . ttJa4 14.a3 ttJc3) . 13 ... a5 (Black pre­ vents b2-b4, but he thus weakens the b5-square and White's knight goes there outright.) 14.ttJd4 gd8 15.ttJb5;!;. White preserves a slight edge too after 7 . . .b6, Rybenko - Baranchikova, St Petersburg 1998, S.i.e2 i.e7 (or 8 . . . i.b7 9.0-0 ttJd7 1O.c4 �c6 11.�c2;!;) 9.c4 �d6 10.0-0;!; and White has a superior development and extra space.

is very difficult, because of the weakness of the d5-pawn. Black has also tried in practice to avoid the trade of queens. That does not seem to be so logical, be­ cause of White's lead in develop­ ment. It is usually more difficult to materialize the lead in develop­ ment in the endgame than in the middle game; nevertheless it is not so easy to prove White's ad­ vantage. S . . . �a5+ 9.i.d2 �c7 10. �d3 (In case of 10.0-0-0, Black plays 1O . . . ttJc6 and after: 11.�b5 �d7 12 .�c3 gcS 13.�e3 a6 14.�a4 b5 1S.�b3 ttJaS 16.�xc7 ttJxb3+ 17.axb3 gxc7 in the game Mittel­ berger, - Zsinka, Goetzis 1996, there arose an approximately equal endgame.) 1O . . . ttJc6, Walus - Baumer, Germany 1993, 11.�e4 - now Black cannot castle short. 1l . . . .id7 12. 0-0 0-0-0 13.�f4;!; - and White is better in this po­ sition, because Black's king shel­ ter is not reliable. White's plan is quite clear - he has to advance his queenside pawns. 9. ttJxd4

8.�xd4

White would not mind the exchange of queens. He is after quickest possible development. 8 . . . Ybd4

Now, there arises an end­ game. In case of: S . . . ttJc6 9.�xd5 exd5, Ambarcumova - Giria, Ser­ pukhov 1999, 1O.i.b5 a6 1l . .ia4 i.e6 12.0-0-0;!; Black's defence 56

White is clearly ahead of his opponent in development and he

l.e4 cS 2. t.Df3 t.Df6 3 . t.D c3 has seized the initiative. His main task is to create weaknesses in his opponent's camp and to try to ex­ ploit them before Black has com­ pleted his development. 9

...

a6

Black is forced to lose time in order to prevent the threat - t.Db5. 9 . . . .ic5 ! ? - That is an interest­ ing alternative. lOJ!d1 ! (White played worse in the game Ahl­ berg - Krenzisky, Gothenburg 1919, 1O.t.Db5 he3 1l.fxe3 t.Da6=, he would not obtain the advan­ tage either with: 1l.t.Dc7+ 't!td7! 12 . t.Dxa8 .if4iii - White's knight on a8 cannot be trapped indeed, but it cannot enter the actions either.) 10 . . . 0-0 (The other lines are not any better for Black: af­ ter: 10 . . . t.Dd7 1l.t.Db5± White will have numerous possibilities to bring back his knight from the a8square, since it will go there un­ avoidably. It is too late for Black to play 1O . . . a6, because of 1l.t.Dc6;!; and White obtains the two bishop advantage. Black only weakens his queenside with the premature development of his bishop: 10 . . . .id7 11 . .ie2 a 6 12.0-0;!; and h e can hardly complete his development without creating additional weak­ nesses in his position. Black might fall into a beautiful trap in that last variation: 1l . . . t.Dc6? 12 .t.Dxc6 he3 13.t.De5+- and he loses one of his bishops.) 1l . .ie2 a6 12.0-0 e5 13.t.Df5 he3 14.t.De7+ 't!th8 15.fxe3 .ie6 16 . .if3 ga7 17 . .id5±

White has a powerful pressure in the centre and excellent piece co­ ordination. 10 . 0 - 0 - 0

White not only evacuates his king, but he places his rook on d1 without delay. His subsequent plan is quite simple - he wishes to deploy his bishop on f1 to the f3square, exerting pressure against Black's b7-pawn from there and impeding the development of Black's queenside. Meanwhile, he plans to double his rooks along the d-file. 10

.••

.id7

Black intends to develop his queenside pieces. His other plan is to mobilize quickly his kingside. 10 . . . .ie7 1l . .ie2 0-0 12 .gd2 t.D d7 13.t.Db3 (After Black's knight is removed from the d7-square, White will trade bishops on cS.) 13 . . . t.Df6 14 ..if3;!; e5 15 . .icS hcS 16.t.DxcS (Now, Black must place his rook on a passive position in order to protect his b7-pawn.) 16 . . . ga7 17.ge1 b6 18.t.Dd3 (Black has solved the problem with the de­ velopment of his queenside, but trouble has come from the other side - his e4-pawn is defenseless.) 18 ... e4 19.he4 t.Dxe4 20.gxe4+­ and White should easily press his material advantage home, Holas­ zek - Gebauer, Leysin 1967. 1l .ie2 t.Dc6 12 .if3 .

•

White's pressure increases. 12

• . .

.ic5

Now, there arises almost by 57

Chapter 4 force a king and rook endgame with four rooks present on the board. 13 .tLlxc6 he3 + hc6 15.hc6 + bxc6

14.fxe3

White has a great advantage in that endgame. His rooks have oc­ cupied the only open file. 16Jl�d6 gc8 17.ghdl

White is dominant on the d-file and he must prepare the penetra­ tion of his rooks to his opponent's seventh rank! 17

•••

h5

Black is forced to bring his king's rook into the actions in that exotic fashion . . .

lost that endgame. 18.g1d4 ? ! gh6 19.9c4 gf6 20.gcxc6 gxc6 2l.gxc6 gf1+ 22.�d2 gf2 + 23.�d3 gxg2 24.gxa6 gxh2 25.a4 h4 26.a5 gh1 27.ga8+ �e7 28.gh8 g5 2 9 .b4 gal 30.�e4 �d6 3l.c4 f5+ 32 .�d3 g4 33.c5+ �c6 34.gc8+ �d7 35.gh8 g3 36.b5 g2 37.c6+ �d6 38J3d8+ �e7 39.gg8 gl� 40.gxg1 gxg1 4l.a6 �d6 0-1 Perlis - Nimzo­ witsch, Karlsbad 1911. That example shows once again that it is not enough to ob­ tain an advantage in the opening (although it is quite useful! ), but you should play well in the other stages of the chess game. 18

•••

gh6

All that is too slow. 19.9a7 gf6

18.gd7!±

Now, White has seized the sev­ enth rank too. Black's only hope is based on the well-known drawish tendencies of the king and rook endgames ... It is amazing, but in the first game played in that line, White not only did not play gd7, but he even

58

2 0 .b4

That is the right way for White, since his pawn should march closer to the square for promo­ tion ! 2 0 gf2 21.gd2 gxd2 •••

2 2 . �xd2±

Chapter 5

1 . e4 c5 2 . �f3 �f6 3 . � c3 d5

are not great at all. 4 ... lLle4 (Black would not equalize with 4 ... d4, since after: 5.exf6 dxc3 6.fxg7 cxd2+ 7.Wlxd2 Wlxd2+ S.ixd2 ixg7 9.0-0-0;1; there arises an endgame, which is preferable to White, because he has a slight lead in development and a superior pawn-structure, but it deserves at­ This is the main line for Black. tention for Black to try - 4 . . . lLlfd7 He continues actively to exert and White must sacrifice a pawn pressure against White's centre; if he wishes to avoid entering an meanwhile he opens the diagonal advantageous variation for Black for his bishop on cS. of the French Defence: 5.e6 fxe6 4.exd5 6.d4 and White doubtlessly has That is the only way for White some compensation for the pawn, to fight for the opening advan­ but it is rather unclear whether he tage. can fight for the opening advan­ I will mention some other pos­ tage.) 5.ib5+ id7!? That is the most precise line for Black. (Af­ sibilities for him too: The move 4.ib5+ - would not ter 5 . . . lLlc6 6.lLle2, Black's knight bring any advantage to White. Af­ on e4 is seriously endangered.). ter: 4 . . . id7 5.exd5 hb5 6.lLlxb5 6.ixd7+ Wlxd7 (It is also possible lLlxd5= he has not achieved any­ for Black to play 6 ... lLlxd7.) 7.lLle2 thing except exchanges and his (White is threatening d3.) 7 ... c4 knight on b5 will soon have to re­ S.d3 cxd3 9.cxd3 lLlc5 1O.ie3 lLle6 treat; (At last Black's knight has found 4.e5 ! ? - That move is interest­ a safe haven.) 11.0-0 lLlc6= - The ing and it leads to a complicated position is equal. White can hard­ fight, but White's achievements ly exploit his lead in development, 59

Chapter S because Black's position is devoid of weaknesses. 4

••.

tLlxd5

(That is it!) 1l ... l!Ic7 12J�dl fS (Naturally, Black cannot put up with the knight on e4 for long.) 13.llJd6 f4 (repelling the bishop) 14.i.c1 llJxcS (Black has achieved something, but White captures the pawn on eS in return for his cS-pawn.) 1S.llJf7 ggS 16.llJxeS;!; gS 17.i.c4 gg7 1S.0-0 - White has completed his development and he has preserved his extra pawn. Black will have a long and difficult fight for a draw in that endgame.

This is the most natural line for Black, but he has also tried 4 . . . a 6 - that move prevents the check from bS and it delays recapturing the pawn for a while. S.d4 (or S.a4 llJxdS= Raddi - Marchetti, Cor­ doba 1967) S ... tLlxdS 6.dxcS. Af­ ter that move, there arises a very complicated endgame by force. 6 ... tLlxc3 7.%lfxdS+ I!IxdS S.bxc3. White has tripled pawns indeed, 5.i.b5+ but still one of them is extra. The Black has two possibilities point is whether he will manage here: a) 5 " .llJc6 and b) 5 , . .i.d7. to preserve his pawn on cS. If he does that he will have the ad­ a) 5".c!L)c6 6.c!L)e4!? vantage; otherwise White might That is White's only road to become even worse, because of fight for the advantage. He has the vulnerability of the doubled nothing much after: 6.hc6+ c3 and c2-pawns. All that means bxc6 7.llJe4 i.f5 S.llJxcS eS 9.llJb3 that he must play very precisely in and Black has a good compensa­ order to maintain his advantage. tion for the sacrificed pawn, or: S . . . llJd7 - Black attacks his oppo­ 6.llJe5 llJxc3 7.dxc3 'lWxd1+ and nent's c5-pawn immediately and White has nothing real to rely on White's reply is forced. 9.i.e3 f6. in that endgame. It is essential for Black to restrict the mobility of White's knight. (The straightforward move 9 ... e6, leads after: 10.llJgS l!IeS 1l.llJe4± to a position with a great advan­ tage for White. He not only has an extra pawn, but he is threat­ ening after llJd6 to improve his pawn-structure considerably and to obtain the two-bishop advan­ tage.). 1O.llJd2 . Black has taken Black has tried the following the gS-square under control with moves in the diagrammed posi­ his last move and White's knight tion: al) 6 " . i.f5 a2) 6 , . .e5, a3) changes its route. 1O . . . eS 1l.llJe4 6 , . .e6, a4) 6 " . %lfb6. ,

60

l . e4 c5 2. itJj3 itJf6 3 . itJ c3 d5 4.exd5 al) 6

• . .

i.f5

This pawn-sacrifice is rather dubious. White should simply ac­ cept it. 7.tOxc5

Of course! White's previous move would be senseless in case he refrains from gobbling the pawn. 7. . . e5

Black must sacrifice another pawn in order to fight for the ini­ tiative.

not immediately 11.itJxc6 in view of .td7 and Black can still resist.) 11 . . . �c7 12.tOxc6 White has a great material advantage and he can attack his opponent's king, stranded in the centre, so his position should be easily win­ ning. -

a2) 6 . . . e5

That is an interesting pawn­ sacrifice, but it is still insufficient to equalize.

8.tOxb7

White not only captures a sec­ ond pawn, but he also plans to create some threats along the a4e8 diagonal. 8 . . :�b6 9 .e'e2

It is not so clear if White plays 9.c4 and here after 9 . . . itJc7, (but not 9 . . . itJdb4 1O.itJxe5± Beuchler - Mueller, Debrecen 1993, 10 . . . �xb7 1l.e'f3 and White wins) 10.hc6+ �xc6CX) and the activity of Black's pieces compensates the material deficit, moreover that White's knight on b7 is obviously misplaced. 9 . . . �xb7

7.itJxe5

That is the right way for White to fight for the advantage. The move 7.0-0 was played in the game Quixada Neto - Simoes, Brazil 1990 , but it led only to equality. 7. . . e'e7

The pin of the knight is Black's only chance. 8.d4 f6

It looks like Black is quite OK, but White resorts to tactics ! 9.itJxc6 �xe4+ 1 0 .t7 I4.�f3 i.e6 IS.i.d2 l:!c8 I6.l:!eU White maintains his advantage thanks to his superior pawn-structure and the vulner­ ability of Black's king.

formed miracles - it has gobbled a pawn deep in its enemy's position and now it is safely back home ... ) IS ... l:!he8 I6 ..id2 hd2 I7.�xd2± and White has an extra pawn and a solid position.

14.�a5 �b4 15. �b3 �xd3 16Jbd3 i.c5 17.i.d2;!; Black -

12.�a5

It is a mistake for White to con­ tinue with: I2 .�hS+ g6 I3.hg6+ hxg6 I4.�xh8 ixc6+, because Black is already better in that po­ sition: his couple of light pieces is stronger here than a rook and two pawns; meanwhile White's king is endangered and his rook on hI has problems entering the actions because of that. 12

••.

a3) 6

• • •

e6

cxd4 13. �xb7 l:!cS

Black cannot trap White's an­ noying knight so easy, if I3 ... l:!b8, then I4.�aS lLlb4 IS . .if4!± and White exploits the unfavourable placement of Black's rook devel­ oping his bishop with tempo and he consolidates his advantage. Following: I3 ... i>t7 14.lLlaS i.b4 IS.lLlb3 (White's knight has per62

has a couple of bishops, but that is not enough to compensate the pawn, despite White's lag in de­ velopment.

Black allows his pawns to be doubled. 7.hc6+ bxc6 S. 0 - 0 ia6

It is not better for Black to de­ fend with 8 . . . i.e7, because after: 9.l:!eI 0-0 1O.b3, White not only prepares the deployment of his

1 . e4 c5 2. 0.13 0.f6 3. 0.c3 d5 4.exd5 bishop on the long diagonal, but he prevents Black's counterplay connected with the pawn-ad­ vance c5-c4. 1O . . .f6 1l ..b3 (It is reasonable to decentralize Black's knight.) 1l, ..0.b4 12 .i.b2 e5 13.h3;!; - The game is not forced at all and White can afford a tempo for a lee­ way of his king. He has a clear and stable advantage, because Black has terrible pawn-weaknesses on the queenside. If he tries to sharpen the game with: 13, ..f5? ! , then after: 14.0.g3 e4 15.0.e5 Wic7 16.0.c4 .tf6 17 . .ixf6 gxf6 18.d3 ! exd3 19.ge8+ gf8 2 0 .gxf8+ �xf8 21.c3 0.d5 2 2 .Wxd3±, his position became tremendously difficult due to his numerous pawn-weak­ nesses on both sides of the board in the game Donskikh - Prokho­ rov, IeeF 1995. 9J:�el lJ.e7

Black would not solve his de­ fensive problems with 9 , . .c4, since after: 1O.0.e5 .td6 11.0.xd6+ Wixd6 12 .b3 0.b6 13.Wf3 0-0 14.Wixc6±, White remained with a solid ex­ tra pawn in the game Kummerow - Linke, Germany 1997.

12.d3;!; Minakova - Goreskul, Gyongyos 1996. a4) 6

0-0

11 .tb2 Wib6 •

Wib6

Black prevents his pawns from being doubled after ixc6. 7.a4 a6 S .tc4 •

Naturally, White should not capture on c6 with the black queen placed on b6. S e6 9. 0 - 0 .te7 1 0 .gel 0 - 0 1l.b3 •••

There is no better square than b2 for White's dark-squared bishop . 11

•••

WidS 1 2 .tb2;!; •

White has a slight edge thanks to his more harmoniously placed pieces; moreover that Black has problems developing his light­ squared bishop. 12

1 0 .b3

.•.

• • •

0.a5?

This is a mistake. Black ex­ changes his opponent's powerful bishop indeed, but he does not at­ tack the d4-square anymore and White breaks in the centre. It is more reliable for him to defend with 12,..0.f6;!; complying with a slightly worse, but solid enough position. 63

Chapter S 13.d4 ! �xc4 14.bxc4 �f6 15. �xc5 !

White wins a pawn. 15

• . .

material is approximately equal indeed, but Black has practically nothing to move . . .

hc5 16.dxc5 .id7

Black's position would not become any better after 16 ... �c7, be­ cause in case of 17 . .ie5± White's pawn is untouchable, since Black would lose the exchange.

b) 5

.••

.id7 6. �e5

White must play energetically in order not to dissipate his ad­ vantage. He is threatening �f3 with his last move.

17.�e5 �c7

18.ga3 ! (White's rook joins in the attack.) 18 gfd8? (This is a • • •

mistake in a difficult position.) 19. �xf7! (White destroys his op­ ponent's king shelter with the help of that knight-sacrifice.) 19 rtJ xf7 2 0 .hf6 (White annihi­ lates the last black piece, which can participate in the defence, while the rest of his opponent's forces are too far from the king­ side.) 2 0 rtJxf6 (Black is not off the hook after: 2 0 . . . gxf6 2 1.�h5+­ and White soon checkmates.) 21.gf3+ rtJe7 2 2.�d4! Black is completely helpless, Haag Cuibus, Hungary 1973. In the variation: 22 gg8 ! 23.'Ml4 + ! •..

•••

.•.

rtJ e 8 24.�xh7 rtJe7 25.flh4+ ! e8 26. flh5+ d8 27.gdl ! rtJc8 28.gf7 gd8 29.gxg7, the

64

Black has two basic defensive lines in that position: bt) 6 �f6 and bt) 6 hb5. We must have a look at some inferior alternatives for Black too: 6 . . . e6 7. �h5 - This maneuver is rather unpleasant for Black. Now, he has to place his queen rather unfavourably, because it impedes the mobility of the bishop and that hampers the development of the entire kingside. 7 . . . �e7 (It is too bad for Black to play: 7 . . . g6 8.�f3 f5 9.�xd7 �xd7 10.�xd5 exd5 11.�xd5+-, be­ cause he simply remains a pawn down, Kranz - Korhonen, Email 1998.) 8.�xd7 �xd7 9.0-0 �xc3 1O.dxc3± - White has a great lead in development and a couple of powerful bishops; meanwhile the pin of Black's knight is rather un• • •

•••

1 . e4 cS 2. tt'lj3 tt'lf6 3. tt'l c3 d5 4.exd5 pleasant for him. After the mis­ take: 1O . . . a6? 1I.i.gS �d6 12J�ad1, Black had to resign in the game Saulin - Filin, Korolev 1999; 6 ... tt'lxc3? That move is even worse for Black: 7.�f3 f6 B.�hS+ g6 9 .tt'lxg6 - Now, Black must give up plenty of material in order to avoid being checkmated: 9 . . . c;il f7 1O.tt'leS+ c;ile6 1l.i.c4+ tt'ldS 12 .hd5+- Thomas - Sapira, An­ twerp 1932. b t ) 6 . . . tt'lf6 7.�f3

White's queen is very power­ ful on that square. It exerts pres­ sure on the long diagonal and it is eyeing the f7-square too. In case Black develops his queen to c7, White can deploy his bishop on f4 with tempo.

ing the a-file for his rook. B . . . e6 9 .d3 i.e7 10.i.gS (White increas­ es his positional pressure.) 10 . . . a 6 (This move forces White to trade the light-squared bishops indeed, but it weakens the b6square.) 1l.ixd7+ tt'lbxd7 12.tt'lc4 �c7 (Otherwise Black must worry permanently about tt'lb6.) 13.0-0 0-0 14J�fel;!;. White improves patiently his position. He has an easy game and his knight on c4 is just wonderful. His advantage is only slight, but very stable. 14 . . . b 6 1 S . .tf4 Y!!d B 16.gad1 (White has developed all his pieces and he is preparing a breakthrough in the centre.) 16 . . . ga7 (Black cannot prevent the pawn-advance d3-d4.) 17.d4 cxd4 1B.gxd4 i.cs 19.9d3;!; Balogh - van Scheltinga, corr. 1950 . White's pieces are perfect­ ly placed and he exerts pressure along the d-file. Black's forces are discoordinated and he has prob­ lems to activate his rooks. Mean­ while, Black must consider the possibility of White's light pieces penetrating to the d6-square. 8. tt'lxd7 tt'lbxd7 9 . d3 a6

7

• • •

Y!!c7

We have already mentioned that now Black must consider the possibility i.f4 all the time. About 7 . . .ixbS - see 6 . . .hb5 7.Y!!f3 tt'lf6. The other possibility for Black here is : 7 .. .'%lfcB B.a4. Now, after the trade of the bishops, White will capture with his pawn, open-

After: 9 . . . e6 10.i.f4 Y!!c B 1I. tt'le4 a6 12.tt'lxf6+ gxf6 13 ..ta4 .te7 14.0-0 bS 1S . .tb3 tt'leS 16.heS fxeS 17.gfel±, the presence of op­ posite coloured bishops on the board diminishes Black's chances to defend successfully, since all heavy pieces are present on the board and his king has no reliable shelter, Ganguly - Sriram, Calicut 2 0 03. 65

Chapter S It is too risky for Black to castle long: 9 . . . 0-0-0? ! 1O.,if4 e5 (That move weakens the d5square, but the other lines are even worse for Black) 11 . .tg3 a6 12 .,ic4 (White's bishop not only controls the d5-square from here, but it forces Black to worry about the V-pawn.) 12 . . . lOb6 13 .0-0-0 id6 14.ih4 (That pin is very unpleasant for Black) 14 . . . .te7 15.ixV @b8 16.ig3+- - White has a solid extra pawn and the rest is a matter of technique, Shi­ rov - A.Fernandes, Elista 1998

vantage thanks to the superior pawn-structure. Still, White can try for more in that position. He wishes to open the centre and to attack his opponent's king posi­ tion. 13 . . . e6 14.gadl .id6 15.d4 c4

Opening of the centre is un­ derstandably in favour of White. 16.h3 .ic7 17 . .if4 hf4 18. VNxf4 §'d6

1 0 .hd7+ VNxd7

1O . . . lOxd7 - that capturing is not better for Black 11.0-0 e5 12 .id2 ,id6 13.VNg3 ! This reply is quite unpleasant for Black He cannot castle short, because he loses the exchange, while after: 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.VNxg7± he has no compensation for the pawn at all, Zacek - Bilek, Czech Republic 1995. 11 .ig5 •

Now, Black must repel White's bishop in order to complete the development of his kingside, or he must protect additionally his knight on f6. 11

•••

0-0-0

It is hardly any better for Black to try: 11.. .gd8 12 .0-0-0 lOd5 13.lOe4 VNa4 14.a3 VNc6 15.ghe1 h6 16.,ih4 g5 17.ig3 ,ig7 18.h4± Rosa - Trani, Email, 1998 . 12. 0 - 0 h6 13.,ie3

Naturally, White could have captured on f6 with a slight ad66

19.VNf3 (White avoids the ex­ change of queens, because Black's king is rather unsafe.) 19 gd7 2 0 .lOa4 �k7 21.b3 (Opening of files signals the beginning of the attack) 21 . . . cxb3 22 .VNxb3 g5 23.c4 (Black has nothing to coun­ ter White's forthcoming attack with.) 23 . . . g4 (Black's kingside counterplay is obviously too slow.) . • .

24.h4 lOd7 25.c5 §'e7 2 6.VNg3 l!g8 27J:;fel VNfS 28.d5 (This is the decisive breakthrough.) 28 . . . exd5 29.l!xd5 gg6 3 0 .§'d3 + ­

Gentinetta - Perez, corr. 2000. The unfortunate placement of Black's knight spells his demise. He has no defence against �f5, fol­ lowed by doubling of the rooks.

l . e4 c5 2. lLlf3 lLlf6 3. lLl c3 d5 4.exd5 b2) 6 . . . hb5

9 . . . g6 1 0 .lLlxg6 hxg6 1l!ixh8 1l!id7

11.

White has extra material, but the fight is far from over. White's queen is isolated on the hS-square; moreover he loses his castling rights after a line, which is forced for both sides. 12.lLlc3 1l!ie6 + 13. \t>f1

7:�ff3 f6

7 . . . lLlf6 ? ! - This move loses for Black. S:�xb7 �a6 9.1l!ixaS 1l!ic7 1O.lLlc6 lLlfd7 (10 . . . �b7 11.1l!ixbS+ 1l!ixbS 12 .lLlxbS+- Alexopoulos - Bousios, Greece 1975) 1l.lLld5 1l!id6 (It is more resilient for Black to defend with: 1l . . . 1l!ixc6 12.1l!ixc6 lLlxc6 13.lLlc7+ \t>dS 14.lLlxa6 \t>cS and White's knight seems to be endangered, but Black cannot trap it. 15J:l:b1! e5 16.a3 \t>b7 17.b4+-) 12 .lLlxbS+- A.Silva - J.Vasques, Olival Basto 2 004. 8 .lLlxb5 lLla6

But not S . . .fxe5, because of 9.1l!ixd5 ! ± Thomas - E.Steiner, Budapest 1929. Black should not be happy with S . . . lLlb4, since after: 9.1l!ixb7 lLlSa6, White has a simplifying combina­ tion reaching an endgame with extra material: 1O .lLld6+ 1l!ixd6 1l.1l!ib5+ lLlc6 12 .1l!ixc6+ 1l!ixc6 13. lLlxc6± - and White has a superior pawn-structure as well as an extra pawn. His victory is a matter of time and simple technique. 9 .1l!ih5+ White wins the exchange.

Now, Black has a choice - with which knight to go to the b4square: b2a) 13 lLl db4 or b2b) •• .

13 . . . lLI ab4. b2a) 13 . . . lLI db4 14:�h4

White's queen is back to the main battle theatre and it also protects indirectly the c2-pawn. Black cannot capture it, because of 15.1l!ia4. 14

.••

0 - 0 - 0 15 :�'e4

It is advantageous for White to trade queens, because of his ma­ terial advantage. 15 . . :�·d7

Naturally, Black avoids the ex­ change. His only chance is to at­ tack the king. 16.a3 f5 17.'�c4 lL1xc2

Black has managed to recap­ ture a pawn, but unfortunately 67

Chapter S that is insufficient. 18.l'�b1 �b8

It is possibly more tenacious for Black to defend with: 18 . . . ltJd4 19.b4 b5 20 .�f7 cxb4 21.axb4 �c6, Huschenbeth - Bach, Ham­ burg 2 005, 22 .h4 e5 23J�h3;t. 19.d3

White is ready to give up a pawn, since it is essential for him to trade queens. 19 e5 2 0 .�g5 Wlxd3 + 21. �xd3 gxd3 •••

maximum material while White has not completed his develop­ ment. 14 tvh3 .

White should be willing to give back a part of the extra material in order to exchange queens and he would not mind some weaken­ ing of his pawn-structure on the kingside. Black has a choice now - to exchange queens or not? 14

••.

Wlxh3

14 . . . �a6+ Black avoids enter­ ing a worse endgame with that move and he is trying to find some counter chances in a com­ plex middle game. Still, he is an exchange down. White should manage to neutralize gradually his opponent's initiative with an accurate play. 15.d3 ltJxc3 (Af­ ter: 15 .. J�d8 16.�g4 f5 17.tve2, Black fails to capture on c2 . 17 ... 22.h4 gd6 18.ltJxd5 c!Llxd5 19 .id2 �g7 White's main task now is to 2 0.ge1+- Carlsen - Runde, Nor­ bring his rook on h1 into the ac­ way 2002.) 16.bxc3 ltJxc2 17.gb1 tions. 22 c!Llxa3 23 .bxa3 �c3 gd8 18. �e2 (There are still plen­ 24.h5 gxh5 25.gxh5± Borriss ty of pieces left on the board, - Bartsch, Germany 2 0 03. Black but White's king enters the ac­ has already a couple of pawns for tions joining in the protection the exchange; nevertheless his of the d3-pawn.) 18 .. .f5 19JM1 position is worse. White's rooks ig7 2 0.gb2 ltJa3 21.�f1 (Now, it are tremendously active. Black's goes back into hiding!) 2 1 . . .�xc3 light pieces are misplaced. More­ 22.gb3 ib4 23.ig5 (White be­ over that he cannot prevent his gins his attack.) 23 . . . ltJb5 24.tvh7 opponent's rook from penetrating (Black is already helpless.) 24 . . . to the seventh rank. tvd6 25.gxb4 (That exchange sacrifice is decisive, White's rook b2b) 13 c!Llab4 on d1 joins in the actions.) cxb4 Black must be in a hurry, be­ 26.ge1 ! +- (It was still not too late cause he should try to recapture for White to blunder - 2 6.he7? •••

..•

68

l.e4 c5 2. lLlj3 lLlf6 3. lLlc3 d5 4.exd5 Eld7 27.�xd6 Elxh7, Sozin - Kiril­ lov, Moscow 1931) . 15.gxh3 ttJc7

After 1S . . . ttJf4, White can free his position with : 16.d4 lLlxc2 17.Elb1 ttJd3 18.dxcS eS 19.�e2 lLlxcS 20.Eld1 lLld4+ 2 1.�f1 ttJce6 2 2 .�e3;t; - and Black's compen­ sation for the exchange is insuf­ ficient, Eder P .Schmidt, Ger­ many 1971. -

16.d3 ttJxc2 17.Elbl E1dS

knights.)

24 ttJxd4 25. �g2 ElhS 2 6.!3el (White's rooks are becoming active now.) 26 ttJe6 27.ttJe2 (Naturally, White should ••.

• . .

(diagram) lS .ie3 (White is in a hurry to coordinate his pieces.) lS e5 •

•••

19.�e2 ttJe6 2 0 .!3hcl ttJcd4+ 21.�f1 f5 2 2 . !3dl �f7 23.!3bc1 .ie7 24.,ixd4 (It is reasonable

for White to trade one of Black's

not let Black's knight to the f4square.) 27 �d6 2S.!3f1;!; Black no doubt has some positional compensation for the exchange, but still White is better, Hecht - Stoll, Bad Neuenahr 1980. • • •

-

Conclusions about Chapters 4 and 5 After 2 ... ttJf6, there arise as a rule positions, which are not so well analyzed. White should try to transfer the game to more natural lines with the move 3. ttJ c3. It is quite evident that the line 2 . . ttJf6 should not be good enough to equalize for Black in case White plays precisely. You must also have in mind that some of the lines are almostforced to an endgame and White must play numerous only moves in order to prove some opening advantage. Another interesting feature of that variation is that many of the arising positions are rather similar to other openings too. Meanwhile, that usually happens in worse cir­ cumstances for Black. After 3. lLlc3, Black has three main lines: 3 . . . ttJc6, 3 . . . e 6 and 3 . . d5, but neither of them equalizes for Black, more­ over in some of the variations he is nearly losing. .

69

Part 2 O'Kelly Variation 1.e4 c5 2.tLlf3 a6

The drawbacks of that move­ order for Black should be empha­ sized with lines different from 3.d4 and in particular, besides the move in the text, it deserves attention for White to try - 3.c4, transposing to schemes more typical for the Maroczy system. 3 .c3

The move 2 . . . a6, obviously contradicts the well-known open­ ing principles; nevertheless White does not need to try to refute it immediately. It is in fact an inte­ gral part of almost all Sicilian schemes for Black; meanwhile there is an important fine point in that position. The most principled open Sicilian move for White here - 3.d4 suddenly loses the opening advantage for him after: 3 . . . cxd4 4.ltJxd4 ltJf6 S.ltJc3 (It is bad for White to play S.eS, in view of S . . . WaS.) S . . . eS ! Now, i n case of 6 . ltJfS, Black follows with 6 . . . dS, while after 6.ltJf3, or 6.ltJb3 - with 6 . . . ib4 and he has an excellent game.

70

The main idea behind the move c3 - is to push d2-d4 and to enter a fight for the cen­ tre in which the move a7-a6 for Black might turn out to be just a loss of time. The positions often resemble the lines with 2 .c3 in the Sicilian Defence, except that un­ der unfavourable circumstances for Black, because of the move a7-a6. Black has a great choice of moves in that position. We will analyze in Chapter 6 some rarely played lines. Basic alternatives: 3 . . . dS, 3 . . . ltJf6 and 3 . . .e 6 will be dealt in Chapters 7, 8 and 9 correspond­ ingly.

Chapter 6

1 . e4 c5 2 .tiJf3 a6 3 . c3

is unfavourable for White to push d2-d4 immediately, because in case of cxd4, he cannot capture on d4 with his pawn, because of the pin. Still, Black cannot pre­ vent his opponent from occupy­ ing the centre with his last awk­ ward move. 4.a3 !

Now, we will see the following lines: a) 3 Wa5, b) 3 tlJc6, c) • • •

3

. . .

g6, d) 3

. • •

• • •

d6.

Black has also tried: 3 ... Wc7 4.d4 d6 (Or 4 ... e6 5.'!d3 tlJc6 6.d5 !±; about 5 ... d6 - see 3 ... d6 4.d4 'fffc7 5.,td3 .) as for 5.,td3 - see 3 ... d6 4.d4 'fff c7 5.,td3 ; 3 ... b5 4.d4 ,tb7 5.,td3 e6 (About 5 ... cxd4 6.cxd4 lDf6 7:�e2 e6 8.0-0 - see book 5, page 2 2 .) 6.0-0 - see book 5, page 17-23; It is obviously bad for Black to play 3 ... e5, Stabenow - Rein­ hard, DDR 1978, 4.lDxe5 "fie7 5.d4 d6 6.lDf3 'fffxe4+ 7 . .!e2t, since he lags catastrophically in his devel­ opment. a) 3

..•

'fffa5? !

That move is played very sel­ dom. Its idea is that presently it

White emphasizes the odd po­ sition of Black's queen with that move. Now, the pawn-advance d2-d4 is unavoidable, since in answer to cxd4, White will have the resource b2-b4, followed by c3xd4 and clear dominance in the centre. 4 . . . e6

After 4 ... d6 5.d4 "fic7, Fogarasi - Csom, Budapest 1995, White's logical move 6.,td3 leads to po­ sitions analyzed in variation dl) - 3 ... d6 4.d4 'fff c7 5.,td3, but with an extra tempo a2-a3 for White. That presents him with additional possibilities, for example in case White wishes to occupy space on the queenside with b2-b4. Black has problems equalizing after: 4 . . . lDf6 5.e5 lDd5 6. ,tc4 e6 (It is very bad for Black to try 6 . . . 71

Chapter 6 ltJf4? 7.d4±, while after: 6 . . . ltJb6 7.b4 cxb4 8.cxb4 \Wa4 9 ..ib3 �c6 1O.0-0± his queen and knight are so badly placed that they are practically undeveloped.) 7.0-0 ltJc6 (It is not any better for Black to continue with: 7 . . . ltJb6 8 . .ie2 ltJc6 9.d4 cxd4 10.cxd4±) 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 d6 10 .�e2;t White has occupied ample space and he leads in development, while Black needs to waste another tempo in order to redeploy his queen to a more favourable square. 5.d4 d6

After: S . . . cxd4 6.b4 �c7 7.cxd4 ltJf6 8 . .id3 dS 9.eS ltJfd7 1O.0-0±, there arise positions much more typical for the French Defence, except that White has occupied the centre, he has extra space on the queenside and he leads in de­ velopment.

6 .id3 tilf6, Borge - Csom, Budapest 1998, 7. 0 - 0 cxd4 (It is even worse for Black to opt for: 7 ... JJ..e7 8.eS dxeS 9.dxeS ltJdS 10.c4±) 8.cxd4 0 - 0 9.JJ..d2 Wfb6 1 0 .tilc3± White is clearly ahead in his development and he is threatening e4-eS. •

72

b) 3 . . tilc6? ! .

This move does not combine well with Black's previous move. 4.d4 cxd4

That is Black's best now. About 4 . . . dS S.exdS �xdS 6 . .ie3 - see 3 . . . dS. It is just dubious for Black to try: 4 . . . e6 S.dS ltJce7 (or S . . . tila7 6.c4±; S . . . exdS 6.exdS \We7+ 7.ie2 ltJeS 8.0-0 d6 9J'!e1 \Wc7 1O.tilxeS dxeS 11.f4 e4 12 .\Wa4+­ Gempe - Hoppe, Germany 1996; S ... ltJb8 6 .d6 ltJc6 7.eS f6 8 . .id3 \WaS 9 .ltJbd2 fxeS 1O.ltJc4 \Wd8 11.igS+-; 9 . . . bS 10.ltJb3 \Wb6 11.JJ..e 3+- and Black is incapa­ ble of stopping his opponent's cS-pawn.) 6.c4 \Wb6 7 . .id3 ltJg6 8.ltJc3± - Looking at the position, you have the feeling that White has played 3-4 moves more than his opponent, Nickel - Harders, Schleswig Holstein 1991. It is not much better for Black to continue with: 4 . . . d6 S.dS tileS (or S . . . til a7? ! 6.c4± Consuegra - Rios, Barranquilla 1999) 6 . .ie2;t since White has extra space and a superior development. 5.cxd4 e6

l.e4 cS 2. ttJj3 a6 3.c3 About S . . . dS 6.exdS �xdS 7.ttJc3 - see 3 . . . dS. S . . . g6 6 .dS ttJa7 7.�d4±. s . . . ttJf6 6.dS ttJa7 7.ttJc3± Rensen - Naus, Netherlands 199 0 . S . . . d 6 6.ttJc3 g 6 (or 6 . . . ttJf6 7.dS±) 7.ic4 ig7 8.h3 ttJf6 9.0-0 0-0 10.�e2 bS (In case of lO ... eS 1l.E!d1, Black in fact loses the fight in the centre, Kharroubi - Ka­ lfas, New York 1998.) 1l.ib3 ttJd7 12 .E!d1 Yff c7 13.igS E!e8 14.E!acl± - White leads in development and he has complete control over the centre, Schulz Streeck - Rahimi, Germany 1996. 6.lbc3 ib4

White will follow with 7.d4dS against practically every oth­ er move for Black, for example: 6 . . . g6 7.dS±; or 6 ... d6 7.d5 ttJe5 8 .ttJxeS dxeS 9 . .ic4 exdS 1O.Yffx d5 YffxdS ll.ttJxdS:t - and White leads in development and his knight on d5 is very powerful. 7 .id3 .

7 . . h6 - That is just a loss of time. 8.0-0 ttJge7 (The more ac­ tive development of that knight leads to a very difficult position for Black after: 8 . . . ttJf6? ! 9.eS hc3 1O.exf6 hd4 11.ttJxd4 ttJxd4 12 .fxg7 E!g8 13.hh6+- Eberth Radics, Hungary 1998.) 9.a3 hc3 1O .bxc3 dS 11.eS± White has oc­ cupied plenty of space and he has the bishop pair, Theuermeister - Schett, Seefeld 2 004. 7 . . . ttJge7 - That knight is rath­ er passive here. 8.0-0 Yff aS 9 .id2 YffhS 1O.E!e1 0-0 1l.a3 hc3, Dra­ ganova - Bocheva, Vratsa 2006, 12 .bxc3 dS 13.a4±. It is very bad for Black to try: 7 . . . dS 8.eS lbge7 9 .0-0 ttJfS 1O.ie3 Yffb 6 11..ic2 .ie7 12 .hf5 exfS 13.ttJxdS �xb2 14.ttJc7+, be­ cause his position ends up in ru­ ins, Pailhe - Miu, Paris 1994. It is not advisable for him to opt for: 7 . . . bS 8.0-0 .ib7 9 .E!e1 ttJge7 10 ..igS h6 1l.ih4 E!c8 12 .dS ttJaS 13.a3 hc3 14.bxc3 gS 1S.,ig3±, because his position is very bad due to the vulnerability of his dark squares, while after 1S . . . E!xc3?? 16.,ieS+-, it became even hope­ less in the game Prusaitis - Dole­ hanty, Plymouth 1984. .

8. 0 - 0 d5

7

• . .

lbf6

Black's other moves either do not contribute to his develop­ ment, or they present White with total control over the centre.

About 8 . . . h6 9.eS - see 7 . . . h6 8 . 0-0 ttJf6 9.eS. After 8 . . . 0-0? - White has the standard sacrifice: 9 .eS ttJe8 1O .hh7+ 'it>xh7 1l.ttJgS+ 'it>g6 1 2 . Yffg4+- Breja - Baranek, Slovakia 1998. 73

Chapter 6 The move 8 . . .'�c7? ! - increases Black's lag in development. 9.e5 GLlg4 1O .h3 GLlh6 11.,bh6 gxh6, Nguyen Anh Dung - Abu Bakar, Brunei 2 001, 12.GLle4 1J.e7 13.WTc1 h5 14.WTh6+-. 8 . . . d6 - That is a very solid move - 9.igS h6 1O.1J.e3 ,bc3 11.bxc3 bS, Peurala - Haapasalo, Finland 1997, but still here after 12.a4t, White has a powerful ini­ tiative on the queenside, for ex­ ample: 12 ...b4 13.dS ! exdS 14.exdS GLlxdS 1S.1J.e4 1J.b7 16.GLld4± and he regains his pawn maintaining po­ sitional pressure. 9 .e5 lLld7 1 0 .a3 ie7 11. ie3±

4.d4 cxd4 That exchange is Black's best option. It is dubious for him to try 4 . . . WTc7, Beuchler - Strube, Germa­ ny 1998, S.dxcS '?9xcS 6.1J.e3 WTc7 7.1J.d4 f6 (or 7 . . . l2Jf6 8.eS±) 8.l2Jbd2 l2Jc6 (or 8 . . . ig7 9.l2Jc4) 9.ie3 ig7 10.lLlc4± and Black's bishop on g7 is a sorry sight; as well as : 4 . . . ig7 S.dxcS and Black cannot regain his pawn, while after: S . . . GLlc6 6.1J.d3 l2Jf6 7. 0-0 b6 8.cxb6 WTxb6 9.l2Jbd2 0-0 10.l2Jc4 WTc7 1l.igS± his compen­ sation for the pawn is obviously insufficient, Mahdi - Raschek, Vienna 1998. 5.cxd4 We will analyze now el) 5 Now, in comparison to the well-familiar variation of the ig7 and c 2 ) 5 d5. It is very questionable for French Defence (l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.GLld2 GLlf6 4.eS GLlfd7 S .1J.d3 cS Black to choose S . . . l2Jf6, Dehmel 6.c3 GLlc6 6.lLle2 1J.e7 7.0-0 cxd4 - Bentz, Bochum 1990, because 8.cxd4 0-0 9.l2Jf3), White has after White's natural move 6.eS, several extra tempi and that pro­ he cannot coordinate his pieces, vides him with a great advantage. for example: 6 . . . l2Je4? ! 7.WTa4 ! ? - White prevents d7-dS and he thus emphasizes the unfavourable c) 3 . . . g6 Black is playing according to placement of Black's knight in the the scheme of the Modern De­ centre. 7 . . . 1J.g7 8 .1J.d3 fS (or 8 . . . bS 9.,bbS±) 9.l2Jbd2 l2Jxd2 10.1J.xd2 fence. .••

• • •

74

1.e4 cS 2. ttJj3 a6 3.c3 ttJc6 1l.,if4± and White has a huge lead in development and a space advantage; 6 ... ttJdS 7.�b3 �c7 (The alternatives are even worse for Black: 7 ... ttJb6 S.dS d6 9.e6 fxe6 1O.dxe6 dS 1l.,ie3± and White's advantage increases and he has an extra pawn too; 7 ... ttJc7 S.,ic4 ttJe6 9.0-0 bS 1O.,idS ttJc6 1l.,ie3 ,ig7 12.ttJc3± White has a great space advantage.) S.ttJbd2 e6 (Black fails to solve his problems tactically with : S . . . ttJc6? ! 9.�xdS ttJb4 1O:�c4 ttJc2 + 11.mdl±, since White ends up with two pieces for a rook.) 9 .,ic4 ttJc6 (After: 9 . . . ttJb6 10.i.d3 dS 1l.exd6 hd6 12.ttJe4± Black's defence is very difficult, because of the vulnerability of the dark squares on his kingside and his lag in development.) 10.hdS exdS 11.0-0 d6 12 :�xdS± - Black has the two-bishop advantage, but that is not enough to com­ pensate his sacrificed pawn. He is not ahead in development and the dark squares in his camp are very weak. el) 5 . . . ig7 6.c!Lle3

6 . . . d6

6 . . . c!Llc6? ! - This move enables White to increase his space ad­ vantage, Emma - Ronchetti, Bari­ loche 1960, 7.dS ttJeS S.ttJxeS heS 9.f4 ,ig7 and here White's most ag­ gressive line seems to be: 1O.d6 ! ? exd6 (The other possibilities for Black are even worse: 1O ... �b6 1l.eS exd6 12.ttJdS �dS 13 .,ie3+­ and he cannot avoid huge mate­ rial losses; after: 10 ... e6 1l.i.e3 ttJh6 12 .i.e2± White trades the ac­ tive bishop on g7, while Black has no other active pieces and follow­ ing: lO . . . bS 1l.ttJdS exd6 12 .,ie3± he must play very precisely not to come under a dangerous attack. It is also bad for Black to play 10 . . . WlaS, because after 1l.eS f6 12 .WldS Wlb6 13.Wle4± White manages to keep his far-advanced pawns.) 11. ,ie3 hc3+ (Black's other moves lose immediately: 11.. .�e7 12.c!LldS �xe4 13.mf2 ! +- ; 11.. .Wlh4+ 12 .g3 Wle7 13.eS ttJf6 14.exf6 Wlxe3+ 1S. ,ie2 +-) 12 .bxc3 �h4+ 13.g3 �e7 14.,ig2 c!Llf6 1S.0-0± and Black's extra pawn cannot compensate the catastrophic vulnerability of the dark squares in his camp. 6 . . . bS 7.a3 ,ib7 S.,id3 d6 9.0-0 ttJ d7 10.E1e1 eS 1l.,ie3 ttJe7, Rouc­ house - Merlini, Cannes 1995, 12 .b4± - White thus fixes Black's queenside weaknesses and he ob­ tains an edge. 6 ... e6 7.,ie2 ttJe7 (In answer to 7 . . . bS, M .Lukas - van Leeuwen, Vlissingen 2 0 01, White maintains a great advantage by occupying additional space with S .dS, for 7S

Chapter 6

example: 8....ib7 9..tgS �b6 10. O-O±; 8...d6 9.dxe6.ixe6 1O..if4±;

7".llJf6

That is Black's most natural

8...eS 9.d6 llJf6 10.llJxeS 0-0 11. �gS±; it is even worse for Black to opt for: 9...llJc6 1O.llJdS± and he loses his castling rights; 8...b4 9.lDa4 llJf6 1O..ie3 llJg4 11.�b6±;

move. In case he delays the de­ velopment of his kingside he will have great problems. About 7...llJd7 8..id3 lDgf6 9.

8...lDe7 9.�e3 0-0 1O.�d4± and

.id3 0-0 9.0-0 lDbd7 1O.a4.

White has a space advantage in

0-0 0-0 1O.a4 - see 7...lDf6 8. The line:

7....id7 8.dS fS?!

all the variations, a lead in de­

- weakens the light squares in the

velopment and good chances to

centre and Black will have prob­

exploit the weak dark squares

lems to develop his queenside.

in his opponent's camp.) 8.0-0

9.exfS .ixfS 10.lDd4 .id7 11..ie2

dS (Black would not fare better

llJf6, Le Pennec - Michel, Guin­

with: 8...0-0 9.�e3 d6 1O.�d2

gamp 2002, 12.�b3 bS 13.0-0

ge8, Span - Do, Hengelo 1996,

0-0 14..ie3±. 7...llJc6 8.�e3 e6, Neulinger

11.�h6±) 9.eS llJbc6 (After: 9...h6, Perndl - Haider, Austria 2001, 1O.llJa4 lDbc6 11.�b3± White has

- Juritsch, Finkenstein 1998 and here White's most aggressive line

a space advantage as before and

seems to be: 9.dSllJce7 (It is worse

he can play effectively on the weak dark squares on Black's

for Black to play 9...lDeS 10.llJxeS, because now after: 10...dxeS 11.

queenside.) 1O.M4 0-0 11.�d2 f6 12.exf6 i.xf6 13..ih6 ge8 14..igS

�c4 llJf6 12.dxe6 .ixe6 13..ixe6 fxe6 14.�b3± his pawns in the

llJfS IS..b:f6 �xf6 16.gadl �d7

centre are very weak and his bish­

17.gfeU - White has a stable ad­

op is passive. Following: lO....txeS

vantage in that position of French

11.�d3 lDe7 12.dxe6 .ixe6 13.f4

Defence type, thanks to the vul­

�g7

nerability of his opponent's dark

excellent attacking chances.) 10.

squares, Flierl - GuIde, Germany

dxe6 fxe6 (It is hardly any bet­

1998.

ter for Black to opt for: 10....ixe6

7.h3

14.0-0±

White

preserves

l1.llJgS llJf6 12.lDxe6 fxe6 13.�b3 �d7 14.gdl±, since his e6 and d6pawns remain weak and White has a couple of powerful bishops.) 11.�d2 llJf6 12. .ih6±. After: 7...bS 8.�d3 llJc6 9..te3 �b7 10.0-0 llJf6, Rasillas - Diaz Illescas, Calpe 2004, White has completed his development and he is ready for active actions in

76

1.e4 c5 2. 1Of3 a6 3.c3 the centre and on the queenside. 11.dS lOaS (or 11 . . . lOeS 12.lOxeS dxeS 13.a4 b4 14.lOa2±) 12.a4 b4 13.lOa2 b3 14 .1Oc1 gbS 1S . .ta7 gaS (or 1S . . . gcS 16.lOxb3±) 16 . .td4± and Black has problems protect­ ing his b3-pawn. 8.i.d3 0 - 0 In answer to S . . . lOc6, White can follow with the aggressive line: 9 .dS lOeS (It is not better for Black to try: 9 . . . lObS, McPhee - Waka­ matsu, Canberra 2 001, because after: 10.0-0 0-0 11 . .te3 lObd7 12 .Wd2 lOeS 13 . .tc2± White has a space advantage, a superior de­ velopment and a powerful queen­ side initiative.) 1O.lOxeS dxeS 11. 0-0 lOhS 12 ..te3 lOf4 13.lLla4 bS 14.lOb6 gbS 1S.lOxcS WxcS 16.gc1 WdS 17.gc6± Black lags so much in development that he can hardly defend his queenside, Kun - Ri­ gan, Hungary 1997. 9. 0 - 0

9 lLlc6 It is weaker for Black to play 9 . . . lObd7 - since his knight on d7 does not exert any pressure against White's centre. 1O.a4 eS 11.dxeS dxeS 12 . .te3 We7 13.gc1 b6 • • •

14.iLc4;!; .tb7 1S.lOdS .txdS 16 . .txdS gacS 17.Wb3 1OxdS 1S.WxdS h6 19. gxcS gxcS 2 0 .Wb7 gbS 2 1.Wxa6 lOcS 2 2 .Wc4+- White has won a pawn with an energetic play and later the game as well, Estrada Nieto - Prada Rubin, Zaragoza 1996. The move 9 ... lLlfd7? ! is dubi­ ous, since it does not contribute to Black's development. 10 . .te3 lOc6 11.gc1 gbS 12 .Wd2 geS 13. iLe2 lOb6, Fakhiridou - Kham­ rakulova, Elista 1995 and here after: 14.dS lLleS 1S.lLlxeS dxe5 16. a4 .td7 17.aS lOcS 1S.b4± Black has problems defending against White's queenside initiative. He has no counterplay at all and his pieces are misplaced. 1S . . . lLld6? 19.iLb6+-. The move 9 . . . h6 - presents White with tempi for develop­ ment. 1O ..te3 e6 11.gc1 lLlc6 1 2 . Wd2 'it>h7 13.gfd1 e S , Blasek MeIchers, Germany 2 0 0 2 and now it is advantageous for him to open files in the centre, since his pieces are well-prepared for that. 14.dxeS dxeS 1S . .tcS geS 16.We3 WaS 17.iLc4± - and because of the threat - 1S.a3 ! , followed by .tb6 winning the queen, Black can hardly find any satisfactory de­ fence. 9 . . . bS 10 . .te3 .tb7 (After 10 . . . lOc6 - 9 . . . lO c6 1O . .te3 bS) 11.gc1 b4 -White's initiative is facilitat­ ed by Black's advancing of pawns on the queenside. 12 .Wb3 as 13.dS lLla6, Joalland - Rabineau, France 77

Chapter 6 1999 , 14.ltJa4 ltJd7 lS . .ibS Ek8 16. E:xc8 \1Mxc8 17.E:c1 \1Md8 18 .a3±. 1 0 .�e3

10

b5 Black has numerous other possibilities to choose from, in­ stead of that move, but he cannot equalize after anyone of them: 10 ... e6 11.E:c1 ltJe7 (Black has tried other moves in practice too: H . . . llJd7 - he is preparing V-fS, with the idea to organize some counterplay on the king­ side. 12. \1Md2 fS 13.exfS gxfS 14.dS llJceS lS.llJxeS llJxeS 16 . .ie2 \1Mf6, Gouma - van Swieten, Soest 1995, but here after: 17.dxe6 he6 18.llJdS hdS 19.'f1xdS± White ends up with a bishop pair and a possibility to exert pres­ sure against Black's weak pawns. H ... dS - That move is played with the idea to simplify the po­ sition by tactical means. 12 .eS llJd7 13.\1Md2 llJdxeS, McKinney - Green, Glenrothes 2 003 and here after: 14.dxeS d4 lS.llJxd4 llJxd4 16.�gS± Black lags in de­ velopment and the dark squares on his kingside are so weak that his powerful knight on d4 can-

78

...

not compensate the defects of his position.) 12 .\1Md2 bS 13 . .ih6 �b7 14 . .ixg7 \!;>xg7 lS.E:fe1 b4 16.llJb1 as 17.\1Me2 llJd7 18.llJbd2 llJb6 19. �bS llJec8 2 0 .llJf1 llJa7 2 1.�d3;!; - White is dominant in the centre and Black's far-advanced queen­ side pawns are much rather a li­ ability than an asset, Remmel - Muutnik, Tallinn 2 0 0 0 ; 1O . . . llJd7 11.E1e1 b S 12 .\1Md2 (It is also good for White to continue with: 12.a4 b4 13.llJe2;!; - and Black's queenside activity has backfired, Vujosevic - Narandzic, Tivat 1995.) 12 . . . �b7 13.�h6± White thus begins a kingside at­ tack; 1O . . . dS - Black's position gets cramped after that move. H.eS llJe8 12.E1c1 llJc7 13.E:e1 \!;>h8 14. \1Md2 f6 lS . .ih6± - and his defence is quite questionable, Schaffarczyk - Ackermann, Germany 1999; 1O ... eS - This move is not bad at all, but still Black's defence remains difficult. l1.dxeS dxeS 12 .E1c1 �e6 13.llJgS llJd4 14.llJxe6 llJxe6 lS . .ic4;!; - and his bishop on g7 can hardly enter the actions anytime soon, Guseinov - Kem­ pinski, Moscow 2 005. lUkl .tb7

l . e4 c5 2. 0,f3 a6 3.c3 12 .l:'!el ! ?;!; This i s a solid move. White's urgent task is to maintain his pawn-centre. His advantage would be indisputable after that. It is less reliable for him to play: 12 .dS llJbB 13.b4 llJbd7 14.llJd4 llJeS IS.f4 llJxd3 16.�xd3 �d7 17. llJb3 e6 IB.id4 �acB 19.1lJaS i.aB 20.�fe1 �feB 21.'it>h1 �e7 and White failed to win in the game Mastrovasilis - Khamrakulov, Oropesa del Mar 1998. c2) 5

• • •

d5

The arising positions after that move resemble the Panov attack in the Caro-Kann Defence. 6.exd5 llJf6 About 6 . . . 1i.g7 7.llJc3 llJf6 B.1i.c4 - see 6 . . . llJf6 . 7.llJc3 1i.g7 Black can also capture the pawn immediately: 7 ... llJxdS B. 1i.c4 llJxc3 (After: B ... llJb6 9.ib3 ig7 10.0-0 0-0 1l.llJeS llJBd7 12. �e2 llJf6 , Frolova - Dushinok, Sochi 2 004, 13.�dl e6 14.igS;!; White's pieces are very active.) 9. bxc3 1i.g7 1O .h4 (White begins an attack.) 1O . . . �c7 11.�b3 e6 12 .id3

llJc6 13.hS id7 14.llJgS �cB IS .liJe4 0-0 16.hxg6 hxg6 17.igS± Shirov - Kurajica, Sarajevo 2 0 0 2 . Black cannot solve his prob­ lems with: 7 . . . bS B .�b3 i.g7 9.ie2 0-0 10.0-0 �a7 11.i.f4 ib7 12 .d6 exd6 13.�a3 liJc6 14.ixd6 �eB 15. �fel i.aB 16.i.cS± - White has an extra pawn and a superior posi­ tion, Nagy - Szieberth, Heves 1997. Black's difficulties become even greater after: 7 . . . llJbd7 B.ic4 bS 9.ib3 llJb6 1O.llJeS ig7 1l.d6 e6 12 .�f3 0-0 13.i.gS h6 14.llJc6 �xd6 1S.ixf6 ib7 16.ixg7 'it>xg7 17.dS+- Abreu - Baldursson, Yu­ catan 2 004.

8.'Wb3 White has captured his oppo­ nent's central pawn and he has no intentions to give it back at all ... 8 0-0 About B ... llJbd7 9.i.gS 0-0 lO. ie2 - see B ... O-O 9.ie2 liJd7 lO.igS. 9 .ie2 llJbd7 Black compromises his queen­ side with: 9 . . . �d6 1O.llJeS llJfd7 1l.liJc4 �c7 12 .ie3 bS 13 .llJd2± De la Riva Aguado - Granados Go­ mez, Foment 1994. ••.

79

Chapter 6 1 0 . �g5 ! White i s ready to present his opponent with the two-bishop advantage in order to cling to his extra pawn. 1 0 llJb6 Black can regain his sacrificed material only at the cost of com­ promising his kingside: 10 ... h6 11.�h4 g5 12 .�g3 lLlb6, Litwin Popiolek, Polanica Zdroj 1999 and here after: 13. 0-0 lLlfxd5 (It is worse for Black to try: 13 . . . lLlbxd5 14.lLlxd5 'fixd5 15.ic4 �d8 16.a4±) 14.lLlxd5 lLlxd5 15.E1acU Black can hardly complete his development without further positional conces­ sions.

d) 3 . . . d6

•..

That is the basic defence for Black (naturally among the sel­ dom played ... ). Black under­ stands that after 2 ... a6, he might fall behind in development and he wishes at first to complete the mobilization of his forces. 4.d4 Now again, Black has a great choice between: d1) 4 ti'c7, d2) 4 cxd4 and d3) 4 �d7. He has also tried: It is obviously bad for him to play: 4 . . . �b6 5.i.e2 ! ?±; 4 . . . ig4 5.dxc5 hf3 6.Y;Yxf3 dxc5, Liss - Shutzman, Tel Aviv 1996, 7.e5 ! ? lLlc6 8.e6! (That pawn-sacrifice impedes Black's development.) 8 ... fxe6 9.�c4 �d7 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.Y;Ye3± - White has regained his pawn, preserving all the advantages of his position; After: 4 ... 'fia5 5.lLla3 cxd4 6. lLlc4 ti'c7 7.cxd4 e6 8.i.d2 lLld7 9. :ac1 ti'b8 1 O .id3 lLlgf6 11.0-0 ie7 12.e5 ! dxe5 13.dxe5 lLld5 14.:ae1 h6 15.lLld4 lLl7b6 16.lLlxb6 lLlxb6 17.'fig4± Black can hardly com­ plete his development and defend • • •

•••

1l.ixf6 exf6 12. 0 - 0 :ae8 13.:afe1 �f5 14.a4± (White not only has an extra pawn, but a powerful queenside initiative too.) 14 �c8 (After: 14 ... a5 15.lLlh4 id7 16.�b5± White exchanges advantageously the light-squared bishops.) 15.'fixb7 �d6 16.'fib3 :ab8 17.'fia3 �a5 18.�d2 Y;Yb4 19.ha6+- White soon pressed his huge material advantage home in the game Jansa - Baumhus, Eupen 1995. .•.

80

• • •

1.e4 c5 2. ltJj3 a6 3.c3 his kingside, Bogut - Damjanovic, Medulin 1997; 4 ... b6 s.i.d3 ig4 (about 5 . . . cxd4 6.cxd4 - CM . 4 .. cxd4) 6 .h3 �hs 7. 0-0 ltJd7 8.if4 hf3 9 .�xf3 cxd4 1O.cxd4 es ll.dxes dxes 12. ig3 i.cS 13.ltJc3 ltJgf6 14.�e2 bs ls.a4 b4 16.ltJdS ltJxdS 17.exds± - White's bishop pair is tremen­ dously powerful in that open posi­ tion, Zingerov - Chashchev, Kras­ nodar 2 0 0 2 ; 4 . . . ltJf6 - That move i s too dubious. After the natural move s.dxc5, Black has problems. 5 . . . ltJ c 6 (The endgame after: s . . . dxc5 6.�xd8 + @xd8, is evidently bad for Black. 7.ltJgs @e8 8.eS ltJdS 9 . id3 ltJ c 6 1O.f4 g 6 11.0-0 e6 1 2 . ltJ d 2 ie7 13.ltJge4 @f8 14.ltJc4 @g7 lS.ltJcd6± - White's prospects are clearly better, thanks to the pow­ erful knight on the d6-outpost, Payne - Franklin, Whitby 1962.) 6.ic4 dxc5 (Black's position is very difficult after: 6 . . . e6 7.�e2 ! ? dxcS, Polajzer - Grooten, Italy 1981, 8.eS ltJdS 9 .0-0 bS 1O.i.d3 i.e7 1 U�e1 0-0 12 .�e4 g6 13.i.h6 E:e8 14.ltJbd2 c4 ls.ic2 ib7 16. �g4 �c7 17.h4 - White's king­ side attack is difficult to parry.) 7.�xd8+ ltJxd8 8 .eS (White repels Black's knight.) 8 . . . ltJd7, Lelchuk - Ackermann, Ruhrgebiet 1997, 9.i.ds ! ? e6 1O.�e4 ltJc6 1l.i.xc6 ! bxc6 12 .c4 ! ± - White fixes his op­ ponent's weakness on cS. He has excellent chances to exploit the vulnerability of Black's c6 and cs­ pawns in that endgame.

dl) 4 . . . �c7 5.�d3

5 g6 About S . . . ltJd7 6.0-0 - see 4 . . . ltJd7. The other possibilities for Black are: S . . . e6 6.0-0 ltJf6 (The alter­ natives are not any better: about 6 . . . ltJd7 7.i.f4 - see 4 . . . ltJ d7 s .i.d3 e6 6.0-0 �c7 7.if4 ; the move 6 . . . c4 - creates targets for an at­ tack for White on the queenside. 7.ic2 ltJd7, E.Fischer - Springer, Bad Wildbad 1997, 8.�e2±; 6 . . . ltJ c 6 - this i s a more solid move, Borghi - Henderson, Embalse 1984, 7.if4 ltJf6 8 .ltJbd2± Black has no active play in sight, he has less space and he must worry per­ manently about the pawn-break e4-e5.) 7.e5 dxes (In answer to 7 . . . ltJfd7, V.Ivanov - Naidoski, Mos­ cow 1992 , White's simplest reac­ tion is 8.i.f4, for example after: 8 ... ltJc6 9.E:e1 d5 10.ltJbd2 �b6 1l.c4± White opens the position quite favourably.) 8.dxes ltJfd7 (It is worse for Black to opt for: 8 . . . ltJg4, Cahn - Elnecave, France 1997, after: 9.�a4+ �d7 10 .�e4± Black's pieces are totally disco...

81

Chapter 6 8.b4 ordinated.) 9 .l'�el lDc6 10 .'&e2 g6 White begins his queenside of­ 1l.lDbd2 �g7 12.lDc4 0-0 13.a4 lDb6 14.lDxb6 '&xb6, Slobodjan fensive with that move. 8 . . .li)d7 9.bxc5 dxc5 - Medancic, Arco 2 0 03, 15.ig5±; 5 ... ig4 6.0-0 e6 (Black is not out of the woods after: 6 . . . lDc6 7.ie3 lDf6 8.lDbd2 e5, Papp - Palkovi, Paks 2000, 9.d5 lDe7 10.h3 id7 11.b4± White has seized the initiative on the queenside and his castling can wait for a while !) 7.h3 �h5 8J�e1 lDd7 9.lDbd2 lDgf6 10.lDf1 �e7 11.lDg3 �g6 12 .�e3 ! ?;!; - That is the most reliable move. 1 0 .d5 ! ? White occupies ad­ (The complications arising after: 12 .d5 exd5 13.exd5 c4 14.hg6 ditional space. It is not so strong hxg6, are not advisable to White for him to follow with 10.lDbd2 , at all, Parma - Korchnoi, Bel­ Binham - Kivipelto, Finland 1995. 1 0 .. .tlje7 11.c!iJbd2 b5 12. grade 1964; 5 ... e5 6.lDbd2 lDf6 7.0-0 ie7 8. a4 (Black has problems defending dxe5 dxe5 9.lDc4 (White's knight his queenside.) 12 . . . gb8 13.axb5 is headed for the d5-outpost!) 9 ... axb5 14.Y;Ye2 c4 15.!c2 0 - 0 lDc6 10.lDe3 0-0 1l.lDd5;!; - Black 16 . .i.a3± - White's bishop oc­ cannot compensate his weakness cupies the a3-f8 diagonal with a on d5 and White has a stable ad­ great effect and Black's position vantage, Miatello - Chilingirova, becomes very difficult. Genova 2000. d2) 4 . . . cxd4 6. 0 - 0 �g7 7.ge1 White makes a useful move and he waits to see what his op­ ponent is after. 7 . . . e5 About 7 ... lDd7 - see 4 ... lDd7. After 7 ... �g4, Mrvova - Mrva, Slovakia 1998, 8.lDbd2 cxd4 9. cxd4 lDf6 (Naturally, Black loses immediately after: 9 ... hd4?? 10. '&a4+-) 10.h3 hf3 1l.lDxf3 0-0 The drawback of that move 12 .�e3± and White has a power­ ful centre and the two-bishop ad­ is that it frees the c3-square for vantage. White's knight on bl. -

82

1.e4 c5 2. 11Jj3 a6 3.c3 5.cxd4 tLlf6 Black has numerous possibili­ ties here, but he cannot equalize after anyone of them, for exam­ ple: The move 5 . . . g6 - does not have separate importance. 6.11Jc3 llJf6 (About 6 . . . .ig7 7.h3 - see 3 . . . g 6 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 !g7 6.11Jc3 d6 7.h3.) 7.h3 .ig7 8 . .id3 - see 3 . . . g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 .ig7 6.11Jc3 d6 7.h3 llJf6 8.!d3; 5 ... .ig4 6 . .ie2 llJc6 7.0-0 llJf6 8.11Jc3 g6 (or 8 . . . e6 9.d5 hf3 10 . .ixf3 11Je5 11.dxe6 fxe6 12 . .ie2± - White leads in development and he has a superior pawn-structure, J.Fischer - Thiery, Dortmund 1982.) 9.i.e3 i.g7 10.h3 hf3 (Black is forced to present his op­ ponent with the two-bishop ad­ vantage; otherwise in answer to 10 . . . i.d7? ! , Storgaard - Verendel, Email 1997. it is very strong for White to follow with: 1l.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 llJg8 13 . .ic4 e6 14.11Je4± and his lead in development might become decisive.) 1l . .hf3 0-0 12 .%Ve2 e6 13JUd1 %Ve7 14J�acl± Holoubkova - Kacincova, Brno 1991 ; The move S . . . b5 - only creates additional weaknesses in Black's camp - 6.!d3 llJf6 (About 6 . . . .ib7 7.0-0 e6 8.11Jc3 llJf6 9.d5 ! - see 5 . . . 11Jf6 6.11Jc3 e6 7 . .id3 b5 8.0-0 !b7 9.d5 ! ; 7 . . . g6 - this is too slow, Paxton - Wall, Dayton 1981 and here White's most energetic line is: 8.a4 llJd7 9.axb5 axb5 lOJ�xa8 �xa8 11.11Jc3 b4 12.11Jb5± and

Black has great problems - his b4pawn is weak and his kingside is not developed yet, while after: 8 . . . b 4 9 .�b3± Black has a single de­ veloped piece.) 7.0-0 e6 8 . .ig5 ! ? (It i s less active, but still possible for White to play: 8.11Jbd2 i.e7 9 . b 3 !b7 1O.i.b2 0 - 0 1UkU Rot­ tner - Kotter, Passau 1997.) 8 . . . .ie7 9.11Jc3;!;; 5 ... e6 - This move is too pas­ sive. 6.11Jc3 (About 6 ... 11Jc6 - see 5 ... 11Jf6; as for 6 ... 11Jf6 7 ..id3 - see 5 . . . 11Jf6; about 6 ... .ie7 7 . .id3 llJf6 8.0-0 - see 5 . . . 11Jf6; after: 6 . . . b 5 7.a3 .ib7 8 . .id3 llJe7 9.0-0 g6 10 .i.e3 11Jbc6 1l.%Vd2± White has a powerful centre and a lead in de­ velopment, Simoes - Fernandes, Lisbon 2 0 0 1) 6 . . .!d7 7.i.d3 i.e7 8.0-0 h6 9J�el i.g5 10.11Jxg5 hxgS 11.%Vg4+- Hidalgo Mena - Passo­ las, St Cugat 1994; 5 ... 11Jd7 - This is also not the most active move for Black. 6.11Jc3 g6 7 . .id3 !g7, Kaminska - Wilm­ inska, Krynica 1998, 8.0-0 llJgf6 9.e5 ! (White begins a danger­ ous attack against his opponent's king.) 9 . . . dxe5 1O.dxe5 llJg4 1l.e6 fxe6 12.%Va4 11Jge5 (The move 12 . . . llJgf6 loses material for Black by force: 13.11JgS 0-0 14.11Jxe6 llJb6 15.11Jxd8 llJxa4 16 . .ic4+ �h8 17. 1lJf7+ �xf7 18.hf7 llJxc3 19.bxc3 e6 2 0 .�e1 11Jd5 2 1..id2 +-) 13.11Jxe5 he5 14 . .ih6 %Vc7 15.h3 b6 16.�ac1 .ib7 17.�fd1 �c6 18.�g4--+ White's attack is decisive, for ex­ ample after 18 . . . 11Jf6??, Black gets checkmated in two - 19.hg6+ 83

Chapter 6 hxg6 2 0 .�xg6# 6.c!lJc3 That is a natural developing move.

6 . . . e6 Black's most important task is to complete the development of his kingside. About 6 ... g6 7.h3 ig7 8.id3 - see 3 ... g6 4.d4 cxd4 S.cxd4 ig7 6.c!lJc3 d6 7.h3 c!lJf6 8.id3. 6 . . . c!lJbd7? ! Vigfusson - Gre­ tarsdottir, Reykjavik 1996, this move is too passive, 7.eS ! c!lJg8 (It is even worse for Black to play: 7 ... dxeS 8.dxeS c!lJg8 9.e6 fxe6 10.ic4± and White's lead in devel­ opment should turn soon into an overwhelming attack.) 8.e6 fxe6 9.c!lJgS c!lJdf6 1O.�b3 dS 1l.id3± White enjoys a huge lead in devel­ opment and a better pawn-struc­ ture, while Black will unavoidably lose his e6-pawn. 6 ... c!lJc6 7.dS c!lJeS (It is bad for Black to play: 7 ... c!lJa7 8.if4 e6, Peil - Tscheuschner, Berlin 2 0 04, since after: 9.dxe6 ixe6 10.c!lJgS± White obtains the two bishop advantage.) 8.ltJd4 g6 (It is not any better for Black to try: 8 ... e6

84

9.dxe6 fxe6 1O .�a4+ id7 11.�b3 �c8 12 .ie2± - his central pawns are weak and he has not even cas­ tled yet, Vujadinovic - F .Marques, Email 2 000.) 9 .f4 ltJed7 10.ie2 ig7 11.0-0 0-0 12 .ie3± White's space advantage is so huge that Black has no active counterplay whatsoever, Pierrot - De Luca, Buenos Aires 1998. It is too risky for Black to try: 6 ... ig4 7.ie2 g6 (About 7 . . . ltJc6 8.0-0 - see S . . . ig4; after: 7 ... e6 8.0-0 ie7 9.h3 ihS 1O.�b3 �c7 1l.ie3 ltJc6 12J!fc1 0-0, Alve Makinen, Finland 2 000, 13.dS !± - Black is in for a disaster along the c-file.) 8 .ie3 ig7 9.�b3 ic8, R .Nagy - Pribula, Gyor 1997, 10. O-O ! ?±. 6 . . . bS - That move only com­ promises Black's queenside. 7.igS e6 8.id3 ie7 9.0-0 ib7 10Jk1 ltJc6 1l.ltJxbS ! (Black will hardly save the game after that temporary piece-sacrifice.) 11...axbS 12 .ixbS �b6 (That is possibly Black's best practical chance - to give back the extra piece and to try the save the game without a pawn after: 12 ... 0-0 13.ixf6 ixf6 14.ixc6 ixc6 1S.l'!xc6 l'!xa2 16.�b3±; or after: 12 . . . ltJxe4 13.ixe7 �xe7 14. dS exdS 1S.ixc6+ ixc6 16.l'!xc6 0-0 17.�xdS± - but his chanc­ es to survive in both cases are not so great after all ... ) 13.�b3 ltJd7 14.ixc6 �xb3 1S.axb3 ixc6 16.l'!xc6 f6 17.if4 + - P.Lagrain - M.Lagrain, Lommel 2001. 7.id3

1 . e4 c5 2. lLlf3 a6 3.c3

7 J.e7 That is again the best for Black. 7 . . . lLlc6 8.0-0 bS, Pamatmat Verkhovtzev, Halkidiki 2006 (About 8 . . . .ie7 9.a3 - see 7 . . . ie7 8.0-0 lLlc6 9.a3 ; after: 8 . . . VNc7 9J�e1 eS 1O.dS lLlb8, Purps Kraatz, Germany 1993, White completes his development with: 1l . .igS lLlbd7 12.Ekl± and Black has great problems on the queenside; it is not advisable for him to try: 8 . . . g6 9 . .igS ie7 1O.dS exdS 1l.exdS lLleS 12.lLlxeS dxeS 13J�el± - because he ends up with problems with his development, Rubin - Choate, California 1971; White has a great lead in develop­ ment too after: 8 . . . eS 9.dS lLle7, Perales - H.Gomez, Alzira 2 00S, 10.VNa4+ id7 11.Wb4 Wc7 12. ie3±), and here White's most en­ ergetic line seems to be: 9.eS lLld7 1O . .igS Wc7 (but not 10 . . . ie7? ! 1l.lLle4 hgS? 12.lLlxd6+ �f8 13. lLlxgS WxgS 14.Wf3+-) 1l.exd6 hd6 12.dS±. The position is opened and Black is not well-pre­ pared for that. In answer to 7 . . . g6, Del Corral Abancens - Escudero Martinez, • • •

San Jose 1997, it seems logical for White to follow with: 8.0-0 J.g7 (About 8 . . . lLlc6 9 . .igS - see 7 . . . lLlc6 8.0-0 g6 9.J.gS.) 9 .eS dxeS 10.dxeS lLlg4 1l ..igS WaS 1 2 . lLle4t White has the unpleasant threat 13.lLld6+ and a powerful initiative thanks to his superior development and the vulnerabil­ ity of the dark squares on Black's kingside. 7 . . . bS - That pseudo-active move only makes matters worse for Black. 8.0-0 .ie7 (It is bad for Black to opt for: 8 . . . ib7 9.dS ! exdS - and i n the game Alexopou­ los - Friedson, New York 1994, Black closed the centre with 9 . . . eS, but after: 10.b4 ! lLlbd7 1l.a4 bxa4 12J3xa4 ie7 13.J.d2 0-0 14.VNal± he had great problems with the defence of his a6-pawn. 10.lLlxdS lLlxdS 1l.exdS ie7 - in case of: ll . . . hdS 12 .hbS± White has a huge lead in development. 12.lLld4 0-0 - Black loses after: 12 ... hdS 13.VNhS ib7? 14.lLle6+-, while now White's initiative is tremendously powerful after 13.a4t, for exam­ ple: 13 . . .if6 14.lLlfS b4 lS.J.f4±. Black's queenside is not devel­ oped and his b4 and d6-pawns are weak.) 9 .eS - White must exploit his lead in development with im­ mediate active actions (The line : 9 .h3 .ib7 lOJ''!eU gives a small edge to White, but he should strive for more, Saxer - Fischer, Silvaplana 1993 .) 9 . . . dxeS 10.dxeS lLldS 1l.ie4 ib7 (1l . . . lLlxc3 12 .Wxd8+ @xd8 13.ha8 +-) 12.lLlxdS exdS 8S

Chapter 6 (In case of 12 . . . ,ixd5 13.,ixd5 �xd5 (13 . . . exd5 14.tUd4±) 14.�xd5 exd5 15 J�dl± White remains with an extra pawn in an endgame.) 13. �f5± and Black's bishop on b7 is terribly misplaced. 8. 0 - 0

8 ttJc6 8 ... 0-0 9.a3 b5 (About 9 ... tUc6 - see 8 . . .tUc6; after: 9 . . . ltJbd7 10.e5 dxe5 11.dxe5 tUd5 12.ltJxd5 exd5, the weakness on d5 is an important liability in Black's posi­ tion 13.�c2 tUb6 14.ltJd4 �c7 15. E!el± Datuashvili - Khukhashvili, Tbilisi 2001) 10.e5 dxe5 11.dxe5 tUd5 12.tUxd5 �xd5 (It seems pref­ erable for Black to follow with: 12 ... exd5 13.ltJd4± with a passive position, lagging in development and a weakness on d5.) 13.�c2 �b7 14.hh7+ ..t>h8 15.E!dl± - and White had an extra pawn in the game, Zatonskih - Andreescu, Bucharest 1998. The awkward move 8 ... ltJfd7 after 9.�e2 tUf8 lO .�e3± leads to a very difficult position for Black. It is also bad for him to opt for: 8 . . . h6 9.e5 dxe5 lO.dxe5 tUd5 11. �a4+ �d7 12 .�g4 g5 13.�h5± • • •

86

and Black can only dream about castling, Kaps - Vospernik, Lju­ bljana 1997. 8 . . . b5 - That is a bit too ag­ gressive. 9.e5 tUfd7, Thanner - Zankl, Germany 1997 (After: 9 . . .dxe5 lO.dxe5 ltJd5, Pastor Domingo - Rueda, Autonomica 2005, it is very good for White to continue with: 11.�e4 �b7 1 2 . ltJxd5 and here Black has great problems after: 12 . . . exd5 13 .�c2 tUc6 14.E!el±, as well as following: 12 ... hd5 13.ixd5 �xd5 14.�xd5 exd5 15.E!dl±) lO.�f4 d5 11.tUd2 ltJc6 12 .�g4± The dark squares on Black's queenside are weakened, his kingside is defenseless and he has no counterplay at aH. 8 . . . d5 - Now, there arises a pawn-structure typical for the French Defence. 9.e5 ltJfd7, Lazar - Chuah Jin, Bled 2 0 0 2 , lO.�e3 tUc6 11.E!cl±. 8 . . . ltJbd7 - This move is too passive. 9.�e2 0-0 lO .e5 dxe5 11.dxe5 ltJe8 (It is obviously bet­ ter for Black to defend with: 11 ... ltJd5 12.tUxd5 exd5 13.�c2 tUc5 14.E!dl±, although even then his pieces remain passive and his d5-pawn is weak.) 12.�f4 �c7 13. E!acl± White's lead in develop­ ment is nearly decisive, grobdeg - Rustle, internet 1998. 9.a3 0 - 0 After 9 ... �c7 1O.E!e1 �d7, Ca­ sement - Chapman, London 1998 (It is better for Black to play: 10 . . . 0-0 11.e5 - see 9 . . . 0-0 1O.E!e1 �c7 11.e5.), White breaks

l . e4 c5 2. lLlj3 a6 3.c3 in the centre emphasizing Black's 1994, 1S.exfS .txfS 16.lLlxeS+-. awkward development: 11.eS dxeS 12 .dxeS lLldS (12 . . . lLlg4 13 . .tf4±) 13.lLlxdS exdS 14.lLlgS± and White leads in development and he has a powerful initiative in the cen­ tre. Black loses immediately after: 14 . . . lLlxeS? 1S.i.f4+-. 9 ... eS lO.dS lLlb8, M.Mueller Esterluss, Hessen 1997 (lO . . . lLld4? 1l.lLlxd4 exd4 12 .�a4+) 11..te3±. H.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 lLld5 In answer to 9 . . . bS, H.Hoff­ mann - Buech, Germany 1998, 13.lLle4 f5 (In case of: 13 . . . lLlxeS White's most energetic line 14.lLlxeS 'fIxeS 1S.lLlgS� White has seems to be: lO.eS dxeS 11.dxeS a powerful attack in a position lLl d7 12 .�f4 lLlcS 13 . .tc2 i.b7 14. with material equality.) 14.exf6 b4± and he has ample space and lLlxf6 15.'fIe2± White has a stable superior development. advantage, due to his superior de­ 1 0 J:�el 'fIe7 velopment and better pawn-struc­ lO . . .bS - This move compro­ ture, Kiik - Alho, Helsinki 2000. mises Black's queenside. 11.�c2 b4 (After: 11 . . . eS? ! 12.lLlxbS± d3) 4 lLld7 This is no doubt Black's most Black had no compensation for the pawn in the game Metzger solid move. - Ernouf, Evry 2 0 03.) 12.lLla2 5.i.d3 i.b7, Benatar - Wiltenburg, email 1998 and here after: 13.axb4 �c8 14.'fIa4 dS 1S.eS± White remains with an extra pawn, despite its be­ ing doubled. 10 ... eS ll.dS lLlb8 (It is not bet­ ter for Black to defend with: 11 . . . lLl a7 12 .h3 bS, Rerabek - Simek, Plzen 2 0 0 0 , 13 . .te3±) 12 .h3 lLle8 13.i.e3± and White has extra We will deal now with: d3a) space and a lead in development and Black's attempt to organize 5 e6, d3b) 5 e5, d3e) 5 . . . b5, immediately some counterplay on d3d) 5 'fIe7 and d3e) 5 . . . g6. S . . .lLlgf6 6.eS dxeS 7.dxeS lLldS, the kingside leads to a lost posi­ tion for him: 13 .. .fS?! 14.�b3 bS, O.Yewdokimov - Bain, France Garrastacho - Kaparov, Szeged 1991, 8.e6 ! + - fxe6 9.�c2 lLl7f6 •••

. • .

•••

• • •

87

Chapter 6 1O.ig6+ hxg6 11.1!tfxg6 + md7 12 . ttJeS+ mc7 13.ttJf7 1!tfe8 14.ttJxh8. After S ... cxd4 6.cxd4 eS (about 6 ... g6 7.ttJc3 - see 4 ... cxd4 S.cxd4 ttJd7 6.ttJc3 g6 7.id3) 7.0-0 ttJgf6 8.ttJc3 ie7 9.1!tfe2 0-0 1O .dxeS dxeS 1 U�d1 1!tfc7 12 .igS h6 13.ih4 1!tfb8 14.ic4± - Black has prob­ lems completing his development Hierholz - Bossert, Germany 1994. d3a) 5 . . . e6

The main drawback of that move is that now Black must per­ manently worry about White's threat e4-eS. 6. 0 - 0 ftlgf6 Black's alternatives here are: 6 . . . ie7 7.1!tfe2 bS 8.if4 ib7 9 .eS dS 1O.ftlbd2 c4 1l.ic2:t - White's prospects on the king­ side are much more promising than Black's counterplay on the opposite side of the board, Skacel - Vesely, Kosice 1961; 6 ... b6 7.1!tfe2 ib7 8.if4 ttJgf6 9 .h3 ie7 1O.ttJbd2 cxd4 11.cxd4 0-0 12 J�ac1 bS 13 .ttJb3:t b4 14. !k2 as 1S.E!fc1 a4 16.ttJbd2 1!tfb8 17.ttJc4:t - White is dominant on 88

the c-file and Black's d6-pawn is weak, so White is clearly better, Kindermann - Schiffer, Germany 1982 ; 6 . . . 1!tfc7 (It is too dangerous for Black to delay his develop­ ment.) 7.i.f4 ttJe7 (Black's knight on f6 can come under attack af­ ter e4-eS: 7 ... ttJgf6 8.ttJbd2 ie7, Doehner - Shestoperov, Bad Li­ ebenze1l 1996, 9.eS dxeS 1O.ttJxeS �d8 1l.ttJdf3 cxd4 12 .ttJxd4 0-0 13.1!tff3t - White's pieces are much more active here. After: 7 ... eS 8.ig3 ie7 9.ttJbd2 bS 1O.a4 E!b8 1l.axbS axbS, Kislinsky - Seletsky, Alushta 2006, he should better prevent Black's pawn-advance c5-c4 - 12 .b3 ttJgf6 13.�e2± Black can hardly protect his weakness on bS, while pushing his b-pawn forward presents White with the important c4-square; 7 ... b6 - that move is solid indeed, but it is too passive. 8.ftlbd2 ttJe7 9.ig3 ttJg6 1O.a4 ie7 1l.ttJc4 0-0 12 .h4 ftlf6 13.ttJxd6 !xd6 14.eS !xeS 15. ttJxeS± White has obtained the two-bishop advantage and excel­ lent attacking chances with his energetic play, M.Maric - Trivu­ novic, Budva 2 003.) 8.ttJbd2 ftlg6 9.ig3 ie7 1O.eS dxeS ll.dxeS ttJb6 12 .c4 id7 13.ttJe4 ic6 14.�e2 ttJd7 1S.ttJd6+ ixd6 16.exd6± - White is better thanks to his powerful d6-pawn, S.Polgar - Dobos, Bu­ dapest 1991; 6 ... ttJe7 - This is the beginning of some awkward maneuvering. 7.E!e1 ttJg6 (The move 7 ... e5 - en-

l . e4 cS 2. lDf3 a6 3.c3 abIes White to organize powerful questionable, Zarezenko - Shev­ pressure on the queenside. 8.a4 chenko, Novosibirsk 2 0 0 2 . lDg6 9.lDa3 i.e7 1O.lDc4 0-0 1I. as± Kuzawka - de Marco, Orense d3b) S eS 1995; 7 . . . g6 - That move compro­ mises the dark squares and it does not contribute to Black's quickest development, Zenni - Umetsubo, Sao Caetano 1998, 8 .i.f4 lDc6 9.lDbd2 eS 1O.�gS±) 8.a4 b6 (M­ ter: 8 . . . �e7 9 .lDbd2 b6 10.lDfl i.b7 1l.dS exdS 12.exdS 0-0 13.lDe3;!; White's space advantage provides him with better prospects, Prasad Black controls the centre with - Novita, Dubai 2 0 04.) 9.i.e3 i.e7 1O .lDbd2 'fic7 1l.lDf1 i.b7 12 .lDg3 that move, but he weakens the dS­ 0-0 13.lDgS (It is also good for outpost. White to try 13.'fie2 ! ?;!;) 13 ... c4 6. 0 - 0 lLlgf6 About 6 . . . g6 7.ge1 i.g7 8.lDbd2 14.�c2 �gS 1S.hgS;!; White has a couple of powerful bishops and a - see S ... g6; as for 6 ... i.e7 7.ge1 solid pawn-centre, so his chances lDgf6 8 .lDbd2 - see 6 ... lDgf6 . I n case o f the anti-positional are preferable - Sedina - Raciop­ move - 6 . . .bS, Black might eas­ po, Turin 1998. 7.gel i.e7 ily come into a hopeless situation, But not 7 . . . bS, because of for example: 7.a4 c4 8.i.c2 �b8 9.axbS axbS 1O.b4 cxb3 1l.hb3 8.a4!±. 8 . a4 cxd4 9.cxd4b6 1 0 .lLlc3 i.e7 12.dxeS lDxeS 13.lDxeS dxeS �b7 11.'fie2 eS 12.dS 0 - 0 14.'fihS 'fib6 1S.'fixt7+- Westerin­ en - Tatenhorst, Hamburg 199 2 . 7.�el �e7 7 . . . 'fic7 8.lDbd2 - see S . . . 'fic7. 8.lLlbd2 White is preparing the stan­ dard maneuver of his knight on b1 to the g3-square. 8 0 - 0 9 .lLlfl ge8 1 0 .lLlg3 This move will always be use­ ful, contrary to 1O.a4, Zetocha 13.�e3;!; - White has ex­ - Strasil, Tatranske Zruby 2 003. tra space, while Black's counter 10 �f8 1l.h3 b6 12 .i.gS chances on the kingside are rather i.b7 13.dS ••.

• • •

..•

89

Chapter 6 Now, White can close the cen­ tre, after Black has placed his bishop on the b7-square. 13 h6 14.i.e3 g6 lS.§'d2 'it>h7 . .•

16.b4t - White has a space advantage and good attacking prospects on the queenside. d3c) S bS •••

This weakening of Black's po­ sition is unnecessary. 6.a4 Naturally, White exploits that immediately. 6 c4 That is a positional conces­ sion, but otherwise Black cannot protect his b5-pawn. 7.i.c2 i.b7 s . o - o eS In case of: 8 . . . lLlgf6 9J�e1 e5 (It

is not better for Black to defend with: 9 . . . e6 1O.lLla3 �e7 1l.i.f4 §'b6 12 .§'e2 l'!c8 13.axb5 axb5 14.d5 e5 15.i.e3 lLlc5, A.Dvoretskij - Gavrishchuk, Volgograd 1996 and here after: 16.lLld2 0-0 17.b4 cxb3 18.lLlxb3 i.a6 19.i.d3± Black is practically helpless against White's queenside initiative.) 1O .b3 �e7 1l.bxc4 bxc4 12.lLlbd2 �c8 13.�bl;!; Black's weakness on c4 is an important liability of his position, Lukianenko - Sinkev­ ich, Moscow 1996. 9.�a3 White is eyeing his opponent's b5-pawn. 9 �gf6 1 0 .i.gS 'iHb6 Black fails to protect his b5pawn tactically after - 10 . . .i.e7 1l.axb5 axb5 1 2 .lLlxb5 �xa1 13. §'xa1 he4 14.he4 lLlxe4 15.he7 'it>xe7 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.§'a3+ 'it>f6 18.lLld6 lLldc5 19.1Llxc4± - he re­ mains a pawn down and his king is seriously endangered, Pichler - Neckel, DDR 1986. . • •

.• .

90

1l.hf6 �xf6 12.axbS axbS 13.�xbS. White wins a pawn with that simple combination. 13 !i.e 7 14.l'!xaS + haS lS.�a3 §'xb2 •..

1 . e4 c5 2.ebj3 a6 3.c3 16 .ia4 c,t>f8 17.�xc4 �xc3 18. �b1 - Black has regained his pawn indeed, but he is completely helpless against White's numer­ ous threats, Roesler - Dobrovol­ sky, Dresden 1984. •

d3d) S :ilYc7 ••

This move is no doubt much more reliable than 5 . . . b5. 6. 0 - 0 � gf6 About 6 . . . e6 7.i.f4 - see 5 . . . e 6 ; a s for 6 . . . g6 7J:�e1 .ig7 (about 7 . . . �gf6 8.e5 - see 6 . . . �gf6) 8.h3 - see 5 . . . g6. Just like in many variation, which we have already analyzed, it is bad for Black to play 6 . . . b5, in view of 7.a4, for example: 7 ... c4 8 . .ic2 13b8 (Black's position is very bad after: 8 . . . i.b7 9.axb5 axb5 lOJ!xa8 + has 11.�a3 �b8, Diehl - Zilch, Bad Wildbad 2002, 12 .d5 ! �gf6 13.�d4+-, this is al­ ready familiar - Black is incapa­ ble of protecting his b5-pawn.) 9.axb5 axb5 1O.�e2± - Black's kings ide is dangerously undevel­ oped, van de Plassche - Perez Garcia, Eindhoven 1987. 7.13e1 eS

Now, we will show you once again how White obtains the ad­ vantage after 7 ... c4 and 7 . . . g6: Or 7 . . . g6 8.e5± �d5 9 . .ic4 lD7b6 1O.hd5 lDxd5 1l.c4 lDb6 12 . .if4 e6 13.exd6 hd6 14.dxc5 hf4 15.�d4 0-0 16.cxb6 �d6 17. �xd6 hd6 18.lDc3 .tb4 19.13ed1 hc3 2 0 .bxc3+- Strzemiecki Mucha, Koszalin 2005; 7 ...c4 8 . .ic2 e5 9 .lDbd2 b5 10.lDfl (1O.a4 ! ?;l;) 1O . . . g6 1l . .ig5 i.g7 12 .�c1 (12 .�d2 ! ?;l;) 12 . . . 0-0 13.�d2 .tb7 14.13adU Vedral Klicnar, Prague 2 0 0 2 . 8.lDbd2 .ie7 9.a4 0 - 0 1 0 . lDfl !:!e8 11.�g3 �f8 1l ... b6 12 .�e2 .if8 13 .d5 g6 14 . .id2 .ig7 15.b4;l; (But not 15.c4 a5= and White obviously cannot break on the queenside, Domin­ guez - Vallejo, Menorca 1996.)

12 .h3 ! ?;l; (This is prophylac­ tic.). White is better in that posi­ tion, because of his dominance in the centre. (Instead, he should not try: 12 . .td2 .ig4f± Timman - Ackermann, Essen 1994.) d3e) S g6 Black is preparing 6 . . . .ig7, • • •

91

Chapter 6 delaying the development of his knight to f6, because of White's threat e4-eS.

6. 0 - 0 J.g7 7.gel 'iNc7 In answer to 7 ... e6, R.Kaufman - Reichstein, Washington 2002, it is logical for White to provoke further advance of that pawn: B . .if4 eS 9.!g3 fiJe7 10.fiJbd2 0-0 (It is even worse for Black to opt for: 10 . . .bS 1l.a4 c4 12 . .ifl .ib7 13.b3± and his queenside ends up in ruins.) 1l.fiJc4 'iNc7 12.a4 fiJb6 (or 12 ... b6 13.b4±) 13.fiJxb6 �xb6 14.dxeS dxeS 1S.heS± White has a great advantage here, because of his powerful central­ ized pieces and the vulnerability of the dark squares in his oppo­ nent's camp. It is inconsistent for Black to continue with: 7 . . . fiJgf6 B.eS dxeS 9.dxeS fiJg4, K.Horvath - Donka, Hungary 199B, 1O.!f4 !±. On the contrary, it is possible to try: 7 ... eS B.fiJbd2 Wfc7 (Follow­ ing: B ... fiJf6 9.fiJc4 'iNc7 1O.a4 b6 1l.h4± White had powerful pres-

92

sure against Black's queenside in the game, Malysheva - Sukha­ reva, Cheboksary 2 006.) 9.dxeS dxeS 1O.a4 fiJe7 1l.fiJc4 0-0 12. as gdB 13.'iNb3 h6 14 . .te3 gbB 1S.fiJb6 fiJfB 16 ..ic4 .ie6 17.fiJd2 �c6 1B.he6 fiJxe6 19.�c4 fiJcB 20.fiJdS .ifB 2l.Wfe2 fiJc7 2 2 .fiJxc7 �xc7 23.fiJc4 !g7 24.f3± - White obtained some edge after a tough positional fight and in case his knight would manage to reach the dS-oupost, Black's defence would become tremendously difficult, Ueter - Gerusel, Germany 19BO. S.h3 e5

Or B . . . fiJgf6 9.eS±. 9 .ie3 It is premature for White to play: 9.dS fiJe7 1O.c4oo, since after Black pushes f7-fS, he will have nothing to worry about, Woolley - Palkovi, Rijeka 200l. 9 . . . fiJgf6 1 0 .fiJbd2 0 - 0 11. •

a4 b6

12 .b4t - White has seized the initiative, moreover that Black lacks space.

l.e4 c5 2.tiJj3 a6 3.c3 Conclusion We have analyzed in this chapter some rarely played lines for Black in the 2 . . . a6 system of the Sicilian Defence. White obtains the advantage in all the variations in this chapter. Meanwhile, if Black plays too risky he might be crushed right in the opening stage. Infact, his only correct strategy is to build a somewhat cramped, but defen­ sible position in the spirit of the Uitelky Defence, or the King 's Indian Defence. White still has the edge in that case too mostly because of his control over the centre, his space advantage and quick mobilization of forces with initiative on the queenside.

93

Chapter 7

1.e4 c5 2 . llJf3 a6 3 . c3 d5

a) 4 . tLJf6 Black does not wish to comply with White's plans and he intends to capture on d5 with his knight ant not with the queen. 5.d4 White should not be too greedy to keep the extra pawn presenting his opponent with some initiative. After: 5.c4 e6 ! 6.dxe6 he6 7.ie2 tLJc6 8 .tLJc3 Wfc7 9.0-0 o-o-o� Black's compensation for the pawn is more than obvious: he has dangerous pressure on the d­ file and a quick and harmonious development. Still, it is possible for White to parry Black's initia­ tive even here and to remain with a solid extra pawn. 5 cxd4 The line 5 . . . �xd5 6.ie3 leads to variation b - see 4 . . .Wfxd5 5.d4 tLJf6 6.ie3. 5 . . . e6? - Now, that pawn-sac­ rifice seems a bit strange - 6.dxe6 he6 7.ie2± J.Johansson - He­ lin, Stockholm 1992 . 5 . . . tLJxd5 - This move looks logical enough; nevertheless it is played in practice only very sel. .

Black transposes with this move to lines, which are typical for the 2 . c3 variation of the Sicil­ ian Defence. Still, White has an obvious advantage in comparison to the line 2.c3 d5 and that is the fact that Black has lost a tempo for the move 2 . . . a6 and that might become a telling factor in the fu­ ture fight. 4.exd5 This is White's most natural move. He exchanges the central pawns and expects the appear­ ance of his opponent's queen on the d5-square. He plans to gain additional tempi for development by attacking Black's strongest piece. Now, Black has a choice be­ tween: a) 4 .. tLJf6 and b) 4...WfxdS. .

94

• . .

1.e4 c5 2. lLlj3 a6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 dom. 6.dxcS e6, Pickles - Mi­ chelakis, Sydney 1991 and again here White should not keep his extra pawn, because he can obtain a slight, but stable advantage occuping additional space on the queenside: 7.a3 ixcS B.c4 '?;YaS+ (Following: B . . . lLlf6 9 . '?;YxdB+ c;t.xdB 1O.lLlc3 c;t. e7 11.b4;!; Black must defend a rather unpleasant endgame without any counter­ play.) 9.lLlbd2 lLlf6 10.�d3 0-0 11.0-0;!; and White advances un­ avoidably b2-b4 and he will have a long-lasting initiative.

6.'i'a4+ ! That powerful move creates obvious disharmony in Black's set-up. 6 '?;Yd7 This move is evidently forced. After 6 . . . lLlbd7 7.�xd4± Black has nothing for the sacrificed pawn. 6 . . .�d7? ! - That move leads to a great lag in development for Black. 7.'?;Yxd4 .ig4 B.lLleS .ifS 9 . .ic4 .ie4 1O.�gS ! hg2 1 U�g1 .ih3, Kabanov - Kurenkov, Moscow 2 00S and while Black has been busy regaining his pawn, White •••

has developed all his pieces and he can begin a decisive offensive with: 12.d6 ! i.e6 (It is a disaster for Black to try: 12 . . . e6? 13.d7+ lLlbxd7 14.lLlxd7 '?;Yxd7 1S.hf6 + ­ and h e cannot capture the bishop, because he loses a rook. It is also bad for him to opt for: 12 . . . �xd6 13.hf7+ c;t. dB 14 . .ib3± and White has numerous threats.) 13.he6 fxe6 14.ixf6 ! - That is the most energetic move for White - he ex­ changes his opponent's last devel­ oped piece and compromises the shelter of his king. 14 . . .gxf6 (or 14 . . .exf6 1S.�c4+-) 1S.�d1! hS (It is not any better for Black to con­ tinue with: 1S . . . fxeS 16.d7+ �xd7 17.'?;YhS+ c;t. dB 1B.'?;YxeS±) 16J!gB ! �xd6 17.�xd6 exd6 1BJ�1xhB±. 7.'i'xd7+ lLlbxd7 In answer to 7 . . . hd7, Efendi­ yev - Leoni, Email 1999, White can obtain powerful pressure with: B.�c4 ! dxc3 (Black only compromises his queenside with: B . . .bS 9.i.b3 dxc3 1O.lLlxc3 .ifS 11. 0-0 lLlbd7 12 .i.e3±) 9 .lLlxc3 .ig4 1O.lLld4 lLlbd7 11.h3 .ihS 1 2 .f4± and here Black can hardly save his light-squared bishop without material losses. 8.c4 b5 9.b3 bxc4 9 . . . g6? ! - That move seems strange, because Black cannot save his pawn in that fashion. 1O ..ib2 bxc4 11.bxc4 eS 12.dxe6 .ib4+ 13.lLlbd2 fxe6 14.hd4± Scheske Bitsch, Hassloch 1999. l O .bxc4 lLlc5 9S

Chapter 7 We will analyze now b1) 5 ig4 and b 2 ) 5 . . e6. Black's other possibilities are much less popular: S . . . c4, Scheer - Thoma, Erlan­ gen 1999, this move is anti-po­ sitional. 6.tOeS ! bS 7.ie2 , Now, the vulnerability of the long di­ agonal becomes decisive 7 . . . ifS 8.tOd2 !!a7 9.0-0 e6 1O.if3 �d6 1l.a4+-. Black is incapable to de­ fend his queenside; S . . .ifS 6.tObd2 e6, Krocian - Solodovnikov, corr. 1988 (It is hardly any better for Black to play: 6 ...cxd4 7.ic4 �d7 8 .lt:leS+-; 7 ... �d6 8.�b3±, because he lags considerably in development.) 7.tOc4 ! ? White does not give any respite to his opponent. 7 . . . �d8 (It is useless for Black to opt for: 7 . . . �e4+ 8 .ie3;!;) 8 .igS f6 (After 8 ... tOf6 9.dxc5 �xd1+ 10.!!xdl;!; White has a slight, but long-lasting edge in the endgame.) 9.if4 lt:lc6 1O.dxcS ixcs 1l.id6 ia7 12 .ia3 �xd1+ 13.!!xdl± ib8 14.lt:lh4 ig6 1S.lt:lb6 !!a7 16.lt:lxg6 hxg6 17.lt:ld7 ic7 18.lt:lf8 ! +- ; S . . .g 6 . After that move, Black's lag in development becomes trou­ blesome. 6.ie3 cxd4 7.cxd4 ig7 8.tOc3 �aS, Slaby - Pisk, Brno 2003, 9 .�b3 ! Black has very seri­ ous problems now. White's queen is not only attacking the f7 -square from there, but what is even more important, Black can hardly pro­ tect his weakness on b6. 9 . . . lt:lh6 (That move does not look so con­ vincing, but Black's position be. . •

.

1l,c!l:lxd4 e6, Becerra Rivero - Granados Gomez, Benasque 1995 and here White can capital­ ize on his lead in development with the line: 12.tOc3 ib7 (After: 12 . . . exdS 13.tOxdS ! tOxdS 14.cxdS ib7 1S.ic4 !!d8 16.tOc6± Black not only remains a pawn down, but he lags considerably in de­ velopment as well. It is also bad for him to continue with: 12 . . . id6 13.ie3±) 13.ie2 exd5 14. 0 - 0 ;!; - The centre has been opened and White is much better prepared for that. His light pieces are more harmoniously deployed and his rooks are ready for an offensive. Meanwhile, Black needs time to bring his rook on h8 into the ac­ tions. b) 4 Ybd5 5.d4 . • •

96

l . e4 cS 2. tDj3 a6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 comes even worse after: 9 . . . tDf6? ! 1O .tDeS 0-0 11.tDc4 �d8 12 .tDb6 �a7 13.dS and Black's rook will re­ main a prisoner on the a7-square.) 1O .tDeS heS (Black is under­ standably reluctant to give up that bishop, but following: 10 . . . 0-0 11.tDc4 �d8 12 .tDb6 �a7 13.dS ifS 14.h3+-, his rook on a7 is a sorry sight. After the move in the text, Black has at least an extra pawn to cling to.) 11.dxeS �xeS 12 .tDdS tDg4 (Black loses immediately after: 12 . . . i.e6 13.0-0-0 hdS 14.�xdS �c7+ 1S.�cS+-) 13.f4 �e4. That is Black's only possibility, which enables him to prolong his resis­ tance. (After: 13 . . . �d6 14.tDb6+-, Black suffers huge material loss­ es.) 14.i.d3 �xg2 1S.�g1 �xh2 16.�c3 �h4+ 17.lt>d2 0-0 18.�h1 tDxe3 (In case of: 18 ... tDh2 19.ig1 tDc6 2 0 . �xh2 �g4 2 1.i.b6 �f3 2 2 . �ah1+- White's attack is deci­ sive.) 19.�xh4 tDxdS 2 0.�b3 tDf6 2 1 .fS !± - and there arises a posi­ tion with a quite unusual material ratio: a queen for two light pieces and three pawns. White's attack is very powerful, while Black needs time to complete the development of his queenside pieces; S . . . tDc6 - Black presently de­ lays the development of his bishop on c8 and he increases his pres­ sure against White's centre. 6.ie3 cxd4 (After: 6 . . . ig4 7.ie2 cxd4 8.cxd4 tDf6 9 .tDc3 �aS 10.0-0 e6, Kiss - Beres, Miskolc 1999, 11.h3 ihS 12.a3 - it all comes down to a transposition of moves - see

S . . . ig4 . Instead, the move 10 . . �d8 causes a considerable lag of development for Black: 11.a3 tDdS 12 .�b3 �d7 13.tDe4 tDxe3 14.fxe3;l; e6 1S.�ac1 and Black cannot sur­ vive even if he enters an end­ game with 1S . . . �dS 16.�xdS �xdS 17.ixa6 hf3, Ketola - Graeffe, Finland 1990 and here White wins with 18.gxf3 ! +-) 7.cxd4 eS - This move is very risky. The game is opened and that is favourable for White. (About 7 . . . ig4 8 .ie2 tDf6 9.tDc3 �aS 10.0-0 - see S . . . ig4; as for 7 . . . e6 8.tDc3 - see S . . . e6.) 8.tDc3 ib4 9.dxeS tDge7 10.ie2 �aS 11.0-0 0-0 12 .tDe4 tDg6 13. a3 ie7, Ferrari - Maksimovic, Bratto 2001, 14.b4 �c7 1S.tDc3 i.e6 (Or 1S . . . tDgxeS 16.tDdS tDxf3 + 17.hf3 �eS 18.tDxe7+ tDxe7 1 9 . i.cS. Black came under a very un­ pleasant pin. 19 . . . �e8 2 0.�e1 �c7 2 1.�d6 �xd6 2 2 .hd6 ie6 23. hb7+- - and White remained with an extra pawn and a superior position.) 16.tDdS hdS 17.�xdS �ad8 18.�e4 tDgxeS 19.tDxeS �xeS 2 0.�xeS tDxeS 21.�acl± White's couple of bishops is a great asset in that position and Black must fight long and hard for s draw; The move S . . . tDf6 - is of no sep­ arate importance as a rule. (Later, Black usually plays either e7-e6, or i.g4 and we study these lines after S . . . e6, or S . . . ig4.) 6 .ie3. It is essential for White to provoke an exchange in the centre as quickly as possible in order to develop his queen's knight with tempo. (After .

97

Chapter 7 the less energetic move - 6 . .ie2 , Black can afford fiachettoeing his king's bishop with g6 ! ? 7. 0-0 .ig7oo and there arises a complex position with mutual chances.) 6 ... cxd4 (Black's defence is not any easier after: 6 . . . tLlg4 7.tLlbd2 tLlxe3 B.fxe3 .ig4? - since he lags in development considerably. He should better play B ... e6± - 9 . .ic4 hf3 1O .\Wb3 \whS l1.tLlxf3 tLld7 12 .\Wxb7+- Lisowski - Smagacz, Wysowa 2003.) 7.cxd4 tLlc6. Here, Black's knight might come under attack after d4-dS. (About 7 . . . .ig4 B.tLlc3 \Wd6 9 . .ie2 e6 - see S . . . .ig4; as for 7 ... e6 B.tLlc3 - see S . . . e6) B.tLlc3 \Wd6 9 ..ic4 e6 1O.a3 .ie7 1l.0-0 0-0 12 .\We2 bS 13.�a2 .ib7 14J'!fdl EiacB 1S.dS± and there arises a standard position with an isolated queen's pawn for White. Still, he managed to push d4dS, obtaining a slight advantage. Later, Black played imprecisely and White's advantage increased quickly after: IS ... exdS 16.tLlxdS tLlxdS 17.EixdS \WbB IB.EifS g6 19 . .if4 \WaB 2 0.tLlgS hgS 2 1.EixgS± - White had the bishop pair in an open position, meanwhile Black's pieces were tather misplaced in the game Petrushin - Polovodin, Tallinn 19B3; S ... cxd4 As a rule, that move transposes to lines, which we will analyze later. 6.cxd4 .ig4 (about 6 . . . e6 7 . .ie3 - see S . . . e6; 6 . . . tLlf6 7 . .ie3 - see S . . . tLlf6; 6 . . . .ifS - That development of the bishop seems rather odd. 7.tLlc3 \WdB B.\Wb3 -

9B

\WeB, Green - Cornford, Dune­ din 1975, 9.tLldS ! 9 . . . �e6 1O.\Wa4+ .id7 11.\WaS+ -. The move 6 . . . tLlc6 - only loses time: 7.tLlc3 \WaS B . dS± tLlb4 9 . .ic4 .if5 1O.tLld4 .ig6 11.0-0 EicB 12 . .ib3 tLlf6 13 . .id2 .id3 14.Eiel .ic4, Otero Garcia - Araiza Munoz, Mexico 1999, IS.tLlce2 ! +-) IS ... hb3 16.�xb3 e5 17.dxe6+-) 7.tLlc3 �dB B . .!c4 e6 9.h3 .ihS 1O.dS!± - White should try to open the game while Black has not castled yet - exdS 11.tLlxdS tLlf6 12 .0-0 hf3 13.\Wxf3 .ie7 14.tLlxf6+ hf6 IS.Eiel+ �fB 16.\Wxb7, White had a crushing attack in the game Baimuratov - Milanesi, Bratislava 1993 . bt) 5

...

.!g4

This is a very purposeful move. Black develops his queen's bishop before pushing e6. 6 .ie2 e6 About 6 ... cxd4 7.cxd4 e6 B. 0-0 tLlf6 9 .h3 .ihS 1O . .ie3 - see 6 . . . e6; 6 ... tLlf6 7.0 - 0 e6 B .h3 - see 6 . . . e6. After: 6 ... tLlc6 7. 0-0 cxd4 (about 7 . . . tLlc6 - see 6 . . . e6) B.cxd4, Black should better continue with : •

l . e4 c5 2. ttJj3 a6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 S . . . ttJf6 9.ttJc3 �d6 1O .ie3 e6, transposing to the lines with 6 . . . e 6 . His attaempt t o delay the de­ velopment of his knight to f6 does not equalize for him: S . . . e6 9.ttJc3 �aS (After 9 . . . �d7, White real­ izes the thematic pawn-advance immediately: 1O .dS exdS, Kredl - Pecha, Bmo 1995, 1l.ttJxdS ! ? �dS 12 .�a4 'klfxdS 13.�xg4 ttJf6 14.'klfa4;!: - and he obtains the two-bishop advantage in an open position.) 10.ie3 ttJge7, Rusakova - Grigorian, Zanka 1995 (Black is persistent, but he should have played instead: 1O . . . ttJf6 11.h3 !hS - see 6 . . . e6.) 1l.a3 ! ? �dS 12 .�b3 �d7 13.h3 ihS 14.�acl± - White's pieces are magnificently devel­ oped contrary to their black coun­ terparts. 7. 0 - 0 Illf6 About 7 . . . ltJc6 S.ie3 cxd4 9 . cxd4 ttJf6 10.ttJc3 - see 7 . . . ttJf6 ; as for 7 . . . ttJd7 S .h3 �S 9.ie3 ttJgf6 1O .c4 - see 7 . . . ltJf6 S.h3 ihS 9 .ie3 ttJbd7 1O.c4. 8 .h3 .th5 It seems less logical for Black to retreat his bishop to fS, since it does not participate in the fight for the centre from there. S . . . ifS 9.ie3 ttJbd7 10.c4 �d6 1l.ttJc3 ie7 12 .'klfd2 ttJe4 13.ttJxe4 ixe4 14. �fd1. White simply develops his pieces in the centre and he is not afraid of exchanges, since he will have the possibility to exploit his pawn-majority on the queenside in the endgame. 14 . . . �dS 1S.dxcS 'klfxd2 16.ttJxd2 ic2 17.�dc1 ig6

1S.ttJb3 if6, Glodeanu - Szakats, Romania 2 0 04, 19.if3 - White sacrifices the exchange, annihi­ lating his opponent's important b7-pawn and after that his passed pawns are unstoppable. 19 . . . ixb2 2 0 .ixb7 ixa1 2 1.�xa1 ttJeS 2 2 .c6 ie4 23.c7 ixb7 24.cxdS�+ �xdS 2S.ttJcS icS 2 6.id4± - White has a powerful c4-passed pawn and his pieces are clearly dominant. Black will have a difficult fight for a draw. I will also mention that it is bad for Black to try 2 6 . . . ttJxc4?, because of: 2 7.ixg7 �gS 2S.if6+ �c7 (or 2 S . . . �eS 2 9.�d1) 29 .�c1 and White wins. 9 ..ie3 White is threatening to cap­ ture on cS.

9 . . . cxd4 Black exchanges on d4, but as we have already mentioned numerous times, White's knight goes to the freed c3-square with tempo. Black loses a pawn after: 9 . . . ttJc6? ! 1O.dxcS ie7 11.b4 0-0 12.ttJbd2 'klfd7 13.�b3 ttJdS 14. ttJc4± - and his pieces are not more active than White's pieces,

99

Chapter 7 so Black has no compensation for the pawn, Massana - Ajo, Beni­ dorm 2 0 03. Black plays sometimes in prac­ tice 9 .. .ltJbd7 - trying to avoid ex­ changing on d4. Still, his knight is forced to occupy a passive posi­ tion on the d7-square instead of on c6. 1O.c4 (White will no wait anymore for the exchange on d4 and he frees the c3-square for the knight with his last move.) 10 ... 'Wd6 (Black's plan with a long castling seems to be anti-posi­ tional: 10 ... W1c6 lI.tlJc3 0-0-0 12 .W1b3 b6? 13.d5± Jeschon­ nek - Drexhage, corr. 1993.) I!. tlJc3 gdS (The move 1l ... ie7, after 12.dxc5;1;, leads to a slight advantage for White in an end­ game. 12 ... W1xd1 13.gaxd1 tlJxc5 14.g4 ig6 15.tlJe5 tlJcd7 16.tlJxg6 hxg6. White had the bishop pair and later Black playe so badly the he got checkmated quickly: 17.'it>g2 0-0-0 lS.a3 tlJh7? ! 19.f4 f5 2 0 .b4± ghfS 21.c5 .tf6 2 2 .tlJa4 e5 23.gd6 exf4 24 ..txf4 gfeS? 25.gc6+ bxc6 2 6 . .txa6# Bryson Dodgson, England 19S2. Follow­ ing: 1l ... W1c7, Markland - Back­ lund, Finland 1977, White should better continue with 12 .W1d2 !?, for example: 12 ... cxd4 13 . .txd4 ic5 14.gad1 0-0 15 . .txc5 tlJxc5 16.b4 gadS 17.'We3 tlJcd7 lS.c5 .txf3 19 . .txf3;1; - White has managed to advance his queenside pawns and his powerful bishop is clear­ ly stronger than any of Black's knights in a position with actions 100

on both sides of the board.) 12 .ge1 ie7 13.dxc5. We have already seen in some lines, which we have analyzed before, that White usu­ ally exchanges on c5 at an oppor­ tune moment and he transfers into a better endgame. 13 . . . W1xd1 14.gaxd1 !xc5 15 . .txc5 tlJxc5 16. fudS+ 'it>xdS 17.tlJe5 !xe2. May­ be, Black had better retreat to g6 with his bishop, complying with an inferior endgame. lS.tlJxt7+ 'it>e7. Black obviously hoped to trap his opponent's knight on hS obtaining two pieces for a rook, but he failed in that game. 19. tlJxhS .txc4 2 0 .b3 .id3 2I.g4 a5 2 2 .ge3 'it>fS 23.a3 ic2 24.b4 axb4 25.axb4 tlJa4 2 6.g5 tlJd5 27.gf3+ 'it>gS 2S.tlJxd5 exd5 2 9.gt7+- and Black cannot capture the knight, because of the checkmate, 29 . . . d 4 30.gd7+-, now White's knight comes back from its exile on hS and his rook takes care of Black's passed pawn, Marjanovic - Kura­ jica, Yugoslavia 19S4. 1 0 .cxd4 tlJc6 About 1O ... 'WdS 1l.tlJc3 i.e7 - see 1O ... i.e7. Black's other possibilities are: 1O . . . tlJbd7, Black's knight is obviously inferiorly placed here than on c6. 1l.tlJc3 'Wa5 12 .a3 id6 13.b4 'WdS 14.d5;1; - and White again manages to accomplish that favourable pawn-advance effort­ lessly - 14 ... exd5 15.tlJxd5 0-0 16.ga2, White's rook is headed for the d-file along the shortest possible route: tlJe4 17.W1d4 f5 IS.

l .e4 c5 2. lDf3 a6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 gdlt - and White's prospects are better thanks to the powerful cen­ tralization of his forces, Brustman - Erenska, Augustow 1996; 1O . . . i.e7 - Black is still not in a hurry to develop his queen's knight. 11.lDc3 'iNd8, this retreat of the queen seems to be too passive. 12 .g4 - This is the standard plan in that type of position - at first White repels his opponent's bish­ op avoiding exchanges. Later, he places his knight on as, his bishop on f3 and he exerts powerful pres­ sure against Black's queenside. Meanwhile, Black cannot exploit the vulnerability of White's king shelter, because the initiative be­ longs entirely to White. 12 ... .ig6 13.lDeS lDfd7, Tehrani - Fazeli, Iran 1993, 14.f4 lDxeS 1S.dxeSi and White's initiative on the king­ side is very powerful. Addition­ ally, Black has problems with his bishop on g6. 1l.lDc3 YHd6 1l . . . YHd8 - This move looks too passive. 12.YHb3 .id6 (Black's other moves are even worse: 12 . . . YHc7? ! - his queen's moves are harmful to his development and White is thus enabled to open the centre. 13.dS lDxdS 14.lDxdS exdS 1S.YHxdS hf3, Lednyov - Vyatkin, Dagomys 2 0 04, 16 . .ixf3±; 12 . . . gb8 - That move also delays the development of the kingside piec­ es. 13.gfd1 lDaS 14.'iNc2 .ig6 15. 'iNa4+ lD c6 16.lDeS± and White's lead in development is more than obvious, Doring - Muzikantova,

Litomysl 1994; 12 . . . .ib4, Leclercq - Dothan, Dos Hermanas 2 004, that move weakens the kingside, 13 . .igS 0-0 14.gfdl±; in answer to 12 . . . .ie7, Kapic - Ljubas, Velika Gorica 2 005, it deserves attention for White to sacrifice temporarily a pawn with 13.dS ! ? and here af­ ter: 13 . . . exdS 14.YHxb7 lDaS 1S.'iNb6 'iNxb6 16.hb6 lDc6 17. g4± Black has problems protecting his dS­ pawn, therefore it is stronger for him to play: 13 . . . lDxdS 14.gad1 lDaS 1S.'iNa4+ and now after: 15 ... �f8 16.lDxdS exdS 17.b4± White regains his pawn, maintaining the advantage thanks to the un­ favourable placement of his op­ ponent's king, while in case of: 1S . . . bS 16.YHe4 .ig6 17.YHeS 0-0 18.lDxdS exdS 19.9xdS;!; White's pieces are much more active.) 13 ..igS 0-0 (Black is so much behind in development that he can hardly prove any compen­ sation for the pawn after: 13 . . . hf3 1 4 . .ixf3 lDxd4 1S.YHxb7 gb8 16.YHxa6 lDxf3 + 17.gxf3±) 14.YHxb7 lDb4 (It seems more reliable for Black to opt for: 14 . . . lD aS 1S . .ixf6 YHxf6 16.'iNe4;!; and he has some compensation for the pawn, be­ cause of his bishop pair, but it is hardly sufficient.) 1S.hf6 gxf6 16.'iNe4 .ig6 17.'iNh4± - and Black is clearly worse, since he is a pawn down and his kingside is compro­ mised, Kindermann - Josteins­ son, Reykjavik 1982. 1l . . . YHaS - That is another possible retreat of Black's queen. 101

Chapter 7 12.a3 ! This is an important move in similar positions. White plans to deploy his queen to the b3square. (If he plays 12.1�'b3 im­ mediately, then he must consider 12 . . . '!Wb4.) 12 . . . .te7 (12 ... .td6 With that move Black is prepared to counter 13.'&b3 with 13 .. J�b8 and he preserves his b7-pawn. 13.b4 '!Wc7, Bonnaud - Lalau, In­ ternet 2 004, and here White can open the centre advantageously: 14.dS, for example after: 14 .. J'l:d8 1S.g4 lDeS 16.'&a4+ lDfd7 17J"�acl± his pieces are much more active. It is not better for Black to opt for: 14 ... ,txf3 1S.M3 gd8 16.'!We2 lDeS 17.gacl±. His most logical possi­ bility is: 14 . . . lDxdS 1S.lDxdS exdS 16.'!WxdS, but even here after: 16 ... ,txf3 17.'&xf3 0-0 18.gacU, as well as following: 16 ... .tg6 17. gael 0-0 18.lDh4t White ob­ tains the two-bishop advantage in an open position. In answer to 12 . . . lDdS, R.Smith - Nixon, Groningen 1973, White main­ tains his edge after the standard reaction 13.'&b3 and for example it is bad for Black to try: 13 ... gb8?! 14.lDeS lDxeS 1S.,txhS lDc6 16 . .tf3± and White enjoys a great lead in development. Black has problems too after: 13 . . . '&d8 ? ! 14.lDgS ! ? ,txe2 1S.'&xb7 lDce7 16. lDxe2± and White remains with a solid extra pawn, while after: 13 . . . '!Wb6 14.'!Wxb6 lDxb6 1S.gfd1 gd8 16.gacU White can seize the initiative on the queenside, despite the exchange of queens. 102

He can play b2-b4, followed by a transfer of the knight to the cS­ square.) 13.'&b3 '&c7 (Black loses a pawn after: 13 . . . gb8 14.g4 .tg6 15 . .tf4±) 14.dS exd5 1S.lDxdS lDxdS 16.'&xd5t - White is clearly ahead in development and he has the initiative, Unzicker - Steger, Munich 19S9. 12.g4 The plan for White, connect­ ed with that move, has been ex­ plained in our notes to the move 1O ... .te7. 12 . . . .tg6 13.lDe5

13 . . . .te7 Black should better think about his development in that compli­ cated position and he should pre­ pare castling short immediately. It is too dangerous for him to accept the pawn-sacrifice: 13 .. . lDxeS 14.dxeS '!Wxe5 (Mer: 14 .. . '&xd1 1S.gaxd1 lDd7 16.f4± Black will suffer in an inferior end­ game in a position with material equality.) 15.'&a4+ lDd7 16 . .tf4 '!Wc5 17.gfd1 gd8 18 . .tf3�. Black is faced with plenty of difficult problems as you can see in the following lines : 18 . . . '!Wb6 (Black

l . e4 c5 2. ltJj3 a6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 loses after: lS . . :�cS 19.a:ac1 bS terial losses indeed, but he lags in 2 0 .ltJxbS axbS 2 1.a:xcS bxa4 2 2 . development and White's threat a:xdS+ 'it>xdS 23.i.c6+-, a s well as to break through in the centre following: lS . . . eS 19.a:dS �c6 2 0 . with d4-dS, makes Black's posi­ a:xeS+ ltJxeS 2 1.i.xc6+ ltJxc6 2 2 . tion very difficult to defend. �b3 a:d7 23.a:e1+ i.e7 24.ltJdS+-; 14.i.f3 0 - 0 it is not any better for him to try: It is again too dangerous for lS . . . �b4 19.i.c7 �xa4 2 0 .ltJxa4 Black to capture on eS : 14 . . . ltJxeS i.c2 2 1 .,hdS ,ha4 2 2 .i.c7 i.xd1 lS.dxeS �xeS 16.�a4+ 'it>fS (Af­ 23.a:xdl± and he is incapable of ter 16 . . . ltJd7, Black fails to castle protecting his queenside pawns, anyway: 17.i.xb7 a:dS lS.i.f4 �cS because after 23 ... ltJcS?, White 19.a:ad1+-; He would not save the counters with 24.b4+-, while in game either after: 16 . . . bS 17.ltJxbS case of 20 . . . a:cS, White wins after: 0-0 lS .i.xaS axbS 19.�a7 i.d6 2 1.a:ac1 i.cS 2 2 .i.d6 b6 23.b4+-) 2 0.f4 �xb2± - and his attack has 19.a:d2 (White is simply doubling backfired and his compensation his rooks.) 19 . . . i.cS 2 0.a:ad1 0-0 for the exchange is evidently in­ (Black defends quite inventive­ sufficient.) 17.,ixb7± - White has ly, but still that does not help.) regained his sacrificed pawn and 2 1 .�b3 ! (The hasty move 2 1.a:xd7, he will capture the a6-pawn with loses the advantage for White af­ his next move, while Black has not ter: 21.. .�xb2 2 2 .ltJe2 i.c2oo, since completed his development yet. Black suddenly obtains coun­ 15 .if4 terplay.) 21.. .ltJf6 2 2 .�xb6 i.xb6 Black's queen is rather unsafe 2 3.i.xb7 a:xd2 24.a:xd2±. White on the d6-square. has a great advantage in that end­ 15 .!Lld5 game: all his pieces are aimed at After: lS . . .�b4 16.,hc6 bxc6 the queenside and all he needs to 17.ltJxc6;!;, Black has some chanc­ do is create a passed pawn and es to survive mostly thanks to the promote it. unsafe shelter of White's king. It seems more reliable for 16 .!Llxd5 exd5 Black to play 13 . . . a:dS, but the fact that he postpones his castling is essential, since after 14.�a4, he has problems getting rid of the dangerous pin. 14 . . . ltJd7 (After: 14 . . . i.e7 lS.ltJxc6 bxc6 16.i.f3± Black's a6 and c6-pawns are very weak.) lS.ltJxc6 ltJb6 16.�b3 �xc6 17.a:ac1 �d6 lS.a:fdlt - Black has succeeded in avoiding direct ma•

• • •

•

103

Chapter 7 17Jkl. White simply improves his position. 17 Wtf6 (In case of 17 . . . llJxe5, White follows with : 18 . .ixe5 Wtd7 19. 1=k7±, winning material.) 18.llJxc6 bxc6 19.i.e5 Wte6 2 0 J�el Wtd7 21.Wta4 �fc8 22.�c3;t. Black has problems pro­ tecting his weakness on c6. His attempt to bring his bishop into the defence would not work after: 22 f6 23.i.g3 i.e8? 24.hd5±, because Black remains a pawn down. • • •

•.•

b2) 5

• • .

e6

After that move, as a rule, there arise complex positions with a slight advantage for White. 6.i.e3 White is threatening to capture on c5. 6 cxd4 This is the main line for Black. The move 6 ... llJf6 - loses a pawn for Black. 7.dxc5 Wtxd1+ 8.�xd1 llJg4 9.b4 llJxe3+ 10.fxe3± - and he had no compensation for the pawn in the game Barlocco - Caloni, Ceriano Laghetto 1997. His other possibilities are: 6 ... b6, defending against cap. • •

104

turing on e5, but after: 7.c4 Wtd8 8.llJc3;!; White's lead in develop­ ment is considerable, Susnik Milanesi, Finkenstein 1996; The move 6 . . . llJd7 is with the same idea as 6 . . . b6 and it has been played only very seldom although it seems to be reliable enough. Black does not intend to create an isolated pawn for his oppo­ nent, until he has not developed his knight to d2 . 7.c4 - White will have to play that move sooner or later and since Black does not intend to exchange on d4 any­ way, the c3-square seems to be the most active for the knight on bI. 7 ... Wtd6 (It is not better for Black to try: 7 . . . Wtc6, Dubinin - Kriukov, corr. 1957, 8.llJc3 llJgf6 9.i.d3 cxd4 1O . .ixd4;t) 8.llJc3 cxd4 (After: 8 ... llJgf6 9.a3 �e7 10.dxc5 llJxcS ll.Wtxd6 hd6 12 .b4± White maintains powerful pressure on the queenside, Schoebel - Gern­ dorf, Ruhrgebiet 1999.) 9 .llJxd4 llJgf6 10.�e2 �e7 1l.0-0;t Black's position is a bit cramped indeed, but still it is solid enough and it is difficult for White to break it, moreover that he has no ac­ tive possibilities in sight, Totsky - Ungureanu, Cappelle la Grande 2003. 7.cxd4 llJf6 About 7 ... i.b4+ 8.llJc3 llJf6 9. i.d3 - see 7 . . . llJf6. 7 . . . llJc6 8.llJc3 i.b4 (about 8 . . . Wtd8 9.a3 llJf6 1O .i.d3 - see 7 .. . llJf6 8.llJc3 Wtd8 9.i.d3 llJc6 10. a3) 9 .i.d3 (It is not so active for

1 . e4 c5 2. ltJj3 a6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 White to play 9.�e2 , Haagen Hansen - Spiridonov, Helsinki 1961; while 9 .a3, after 9 ... ixc3 + 1O .bxc3, leads to a double-edged position with mutual chances, Zvereva - Bistrikova, St Peters­ burg 2 0 0 0.) 9 . . . ltJf6 10.0-0 �aS (It is worse for Black to play: 10 . . . ixc3 11.bxc3 0 - 0 12 .�gS± and he has problems with his knight on f6, since he cannot continue with: 12 . . . ltJe4?, due to 13.c4+-) 11.ltJe4 - see 7 . . . ltJf6 8.ltJc3 �b4 9 .�d3 �aS 10.0-0 ltJc6 11.ltJe4. 8.tOc3

We will deal in details now with: b2a) 8 . . . �d8, b2b) 8 . . . Va5, b2c) 8 . . . .ib4 and b2d) 8 . . . �d6. b2a) 8 . . . Vd8 This move is reliable, but it is somewhat passive. The queen will be completely safe on d8, so Black can gain some tempi to develop his pieces, but on the other hand the queen just retreats to its origi­ nal square. 9.�d3 tOc6 With that move Black not only starts exerting some pressure

against White's isolated d4-pawn, but he impedes the possibility for White - ltJf3-eS in many varia­ tions. The move 9 . . . bS, Ennenbach - Blechzin, St Ingbert 1994, com­ promises Black's queenside. Af­ ter: 1O.a4 b4 11.ltJe4 �e7 (Black's queenside pawn-structure be­ comes a sorry sight after: 11 . . . �b7 12 .ltJxf6+ �xf6? 13.�gS hf3 14.Vc1 +-; 12 . . . gxf6 13 .0-0;1;) 12. ltJxf6+ ixf6 13 . .ie4;1; - Black's lag in development is quite evident now. 9 . . . .ie7 - This move presents White with additional possibili­ ties. 10.0-0 0-0 (It is preferable for Black to opt for: 1O . . . ltJc6 11.a3 0-0 - see 9 . . . ltJc6.) 11.tOeS ! ? Now, it will be a problem for Black to repel that knight from its won­ derful position. 11 . . . tObd7 12 .�e2 VaS 13 ..igS (White's light pieces are perfectly placed now.) 13 . . . h6 14 ..th4 ge8 lS.gad1 ltJxeS (Black trades White's dangerous knight, but at the price of considerable positional concessions.) 16.dxeS± ltJd7 17.ixe7 gxe7 18.f4 tOf8 19.gf3 tOg6 2 0.ixg6 fxg6 21. gfd3 �h7 2 2 .Vf3 ge8 23.ltJe4 gf8 24.Ve3 �xa2 2S.VcS gxf4, Degraeve Kaabi, Cappelle la Grande 2 005, 26.ltJf6+ gxf6 (26 ... gxf6 27.Ve7+ �g8 28.gd8# ) 27.exf6 and Black is faced with a disastrous choice - to lose plenty of material, or to be checkmated. 9 . . . ltJbd7 - This knight is not so active here as on the c6-square. 105

Chapter 7 10.0-0 �e7 11.tLleS (It is also pos­ sible for White to play: 11.�c2 tLlb6 12.tLleS;!; and his chances in the forthcoming middle game will be somewhat superior thanks to the more harmonious deployment of his pieces, Landenbergue Csom, Steinbrunn 2005.) 11 . . . 0-0 12 .WIe2 - see 9 ... �e7.

1 0 .a3 That move is standard for similar positions, because White prevents Black's maneuver tLlc6b4-dS. 1 0 i.e7 About 1O . . . id7 11.0-0 ie7 12 .:1k1 0-0 - see 1O . . . ie7 11.0-0 0-0 12.:1k 1 id7 13.ib1. Black only compromises the position of his king with the line: 1O ... h6 11.0-0 id6, Brandis - Pe­ trenko, Bucharest 1998, 12 Jk1 13.ib1 id7 14.WId3;!;. White had built up the well-familiar battery queen + bishop and Black must play very carefully. 1O . . . bS - That move weakens Black's queenside. 11.0-0 �b7 12 . tLle4 tLlxe4 13.!xe4 tLlaS 14. !xb7 tLlxb7 1S.tLleS �e7? - this is a blun­ der. Instead, Black had to con•..

106

tinue with: 1S . . . WIdS 16 .WIhS tLld6 17.:Bacl;!; and White would have only a small advantage, because of his better development and his dominance over the c-file, Trinh Thi Nhu - Nguyen Thanh, Viet­ nam 2001 and here after: 16.�f3 tLld6 17.tLlc6 WId7 18.tLlxe7 @xe7 19.dS± Black's centralized king is in a precarious situation. 1O . . . �d6 - This move is less reliable than Black's main line. 11.0-0 0-0 12 .WIe2 :Be8 13.:Bad1 bS 14.tLle4 h6 (White's kingside initiative is very dangerous after: 14 . . . tLlxe4 1S.he4 ib7 16.tLlgSt) 1S.tLleS !xeS 16.dxeS tLldS 17.tLld6 :Bf8 18.f4± and White maintains clearly better chances due to his extra space and his powerful knight on the d6-outpost, Azarov - Kahraman, Cannes 1997. 11. 0 - 0 0 - 0 That is the most natural move for Black. 11. . .bS - Black compromises his queenside, Soppe - Hul­ gana, Luzern 1982, 12 .tLle4 �b7 13.tLlcSt. 11.. .tLldS - This is an at­ tempt to simplify the position, H.Karlsson - Bjornsson, Reykja­ vik 1986 and now White can pro­ voke weakening of Black's king­ side with: 12 .WIc2 h6 (Opening of the f-file is in favour of White, since that emphasizes the effect of his lead in development: 12 . . . tLlxe3 13.fxe3±) 13.tLlxdS exdS 14. :Bacl;!; and White's superior devel­ opment is quite obvious.

l . e4 c5 2. lLlj3 a6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 12Jkl Naturally, it is reasonable for White to remove his rook from aI, before playing .ibl.

12 .id7 This move is solid, but it is slightly passive. After: 12 ... bS? ! 13.lLlxbS .ib7 14.lLlc3± Black has gained sev­ eral tempi for his development at the price of a pawn, but he has no compensation for it anyway, Lengyel - Nemet, Paks 1995. 12 ... �d6? ! - Black transposes to variation b2d, having lost a tempo, Prueske - Berens, Ruhrge­ biet 1995, it is logical for White to act analogously to the abovemen­ tioned variation: 13.lLle4 lLlxe4 14. he4 13dS lS.�c2 h6 16.13fdl±. 12 . . . lLldS - Black is trying to simplify the position, but he falls behind in development, Meskhi Tavakalyan, Batumi 2 0 03, 13.'lWc2 g6 (It looks dubious for Black to go after winning material with : 13 . . . lLlxe3? ! 14.hh7+ hS 1S.fxe3 g6 16.hg6 fxg6 17.'lWxg6 13f6 IS. 'lWhS+ g7 19.1LleS-7 White's at­ tack is tremendously dangerous and the material is equal. Black . . .

would not change much with : 13 . . . h6 14.lLlxdS exdS lS.lLleS;!;) 14.lLlxdS exdS (It is worse for Black to play: 14 ... 'lWxdS lS . .ie4±) lS.lLleS;!; and White leads in devel­ opment and he dominates on the c-file. Still, Black's position looks solid despite the vulnerability of his dark squares. Black fails to equalize after: 12 . . . b6 13 . .ib1 .ib7 14.'lWd3 g6, Balashov - Siniavsky, Moscow 1972, lS . .ia2 . That is a typical idea, since after Black has played g6, White redeploys his bishop on b1 to a more promising diago­ nal. lS ... bS 16 . .ih6 13eS 17.13fdl b4 lS.lLla4 (White's knight is headed for the weak cS-square.) lS . . . 13cS 19.1LlcS hcs 2 0 J::ixc5 bxa3 2l. bxa3 �d6 2 2 . .igS lLldS 23.hdS exdS 24.13dcU - White's bishop is stronger than its counterpart and that provides him with an edge. It is too passive for Black to continue with: 12 ... 13eS 13 . .ib1 lLldS 14.lLle4 .ifS 1S.'lWd3 g6 16 . .igS f6 (Black is just forced to play that compromising move.) 17 . .id2 .ig7 lS.13fe1 �d7 19.h4 (White's h-pawn joins in the attack.) 19 . . . fS (That weakens Black's position even more.) 20.lLlc5 �d6 2l..ia2 b6 22 .lLla4 13bS 23.lLlc3 .ib7 24.13e2 h6 2S.13ce1 lLlc7 26.dS 13edS 27.hS ! (Black's position is in ruins after that move.) 27 . . . exdS 2S.hxg6± 'lWxg6 29.lLlh4 �f6 30.lLlxfS .ifS 3l.'lWg3+- Salmensuu - Erturan, Rimavska Sobota 1996. 13 .ibl �c8 .

107

Chapter 7 13 .. :�aS - This is an attempt to redeploy the queen to the hS­ square in order for it to defend the kingside, Manca - Palmiotto, Montesilvano 1992, but White can prevent the accomplishment of that idea with : 14.igS 1'3ad8 1S. �d3 g6 16.1'3fdU. 14.�d3 White is not only threatening the h7-square, but he is preparing the pawn-break d4-dS. 14 . . . tOa5 14 ... 1'3e8 1S.1'3fd1 h6 (It is not better for Black to play 1S . . . if8, because of 1 6 . .igS±) 16.dS± - White has accomplished the standard pawn-break d4-dS, for positions with an isolated queen's pawn, and he has a clear advan­ tage. Black's main problem is that his knight on f6 cannot defend the h7-square and fight against the breakthrough with d4-dS at the same time. 14 ... g6 - This move compro­ mises the dark squares on the kingside. 1S . .ia2 1'3e8 16.1'3fd1 .if8 17.igS± White's pieces are very active and he is threatening the standard break d4-dS, while Black is' doomed to a long and labori­ ous defence, Raut - Argyo, Eforie Nord 2002. It seems rather dubious for Black to try 14 . . . 1'3e8, because after 1S.dS ! he has no satisfac­ tory defence in sight, for example: 1S ... tOaS 16.d6 .if8 17 . .igS+-, or 1S.exdS 16.tOxdS g6 17 . .ib6 .ifS 18 . .txd8 .txd3 19.1Dxe7+ tOxe7 108

20.1'3xc8 .txf1 (but not: 2 0 ... tOxc8 21..txf6 .txf1 2 2 .i>xfl+-) 21.i>xfl tOd7 22 . .txe7! 1'3xc8 23 . .igS+- and White's two bishops are much stronger than Black's rook.

This position was reached in the game Schneider - Ehret, Germany, 1998 and White could have continued with the stan­ dard breakthrough in the centre: 15.d5! �c3 This is obviously the best. (After: 1S ... lDc4 16 . .igS tOxb2 17.'�c2 1'3xc3 18.�xc3 tOa4 19.�c2 g6 2 0 .dxe6+- Black is not only an exchange down, but his kingside is weakened, while in case of: 1S . . . lDb3 16.d6 lDxc1 17.1'3xc1 .txd6 18.�xd6± White's two light pieces are clearly supe­ rior to Black's rook and a pawn.) 16.�xc3 tOxd5 17.�c2 g6 18. i.h6± Black has no active play whatsoever and his extra pawn is not a sufficient compensation for the exchange. -

b2b) 8 �a5 Black's queen is much more active here than on the d8-square. On the other hand, after White plays a3 and b4, Black will have •••

l . e4 c5 2. lLlf3 a6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 to lose a tempo to retreat with his queen. 9.i.d3

9 .ll:l c6 About 9 . . . .ib4 - see S ... .ib4 9 . .id3 '\1;lfaS. 9 . . . .ie7 10.0-0 0-0 ll.a3 lLlbd7, F.Romero - Nava Baro, Pasao 1996 (about ll ... lLlc6 12 .b4 - see 9 . . . lLlc6) and here it de­ serves attention for White to fol­ low with: 12 ..igSt - since Black will have problems developing his queenside, because it is not good for him to try: 12 . . . bS? ! in view of: 13.lLleS '\1;lfc7 14.l:k1 lLlxeS 1S.lLldS lLlxdS 16.gxc7 ixgS 17.gxcS gaxcS 1S.dxeS±. 9 ... lLlbd7 - That move com­ bines rather badly with the placement of Black's queen on as. 10.0-0 .id6 (After: 10 . . . .ie7 11.'\1;lfe2 0-0, Padevsky - Blau, Moscow 19S6, 12 . .igSt White has deployed his pieces quite harmo­ niously, while Black's queenside is not developed yet.) ll ..igS 0-0 12 .�e2 g6 (Black compromises his dark squares with that move.) 13.lLle4 lLlxe4 14.�xe4 lLlb6 1S.�h4 - White is playing directly for a ••

checkmate ! - 1S . . . lLldS 16.lLld2 bS 17.lLle4± �b6 1S.lLlf6+ lLlxf6 19. ixf6 geS 2 0 J':!:fe1 .ifS 21.ge3 .ig7 2 2 .ixg7 6 6.id3 llJc6 - see S . . . llJc6 ; S . . . llJe7 (Black wishes thus to solve the problem with the de­ velopment of his knight on gB.) 6.id3 llJg6, Krnic - Baturina, Omis 200S (About 6 . . . 11Jbc6 - see S . . . llJc6; Black cannot equalize after: 6 . . . 11JfS 7.dxc5 !xcS B.O-O 0-0 9.11Jbd2 llJc6 1O.llJb3 i.b6 11.�e2;!;, it is a bit unclear after: 7.hfs exfS B. O-O;!; Methmalee - Chang, Calvia 2 0 04, White has

the superior pawn-structure in­ deed, but Black has some coun­ terplay thanks to his bishop pair.) 7.h4 !± - Black has failed to solve the problem with his unfortunate king's knight. White is threaten­ ing hS and if Black plays h7-hS himself, then his kingside will be considerably compromised; S ... llJd7 (That maneuver has a positional defect too - the knight on d7 is not attacking the key d4square.) 6 .i.d3 llJe7 - That is the essence of Black's idea - the other knight is going to c6 ! Still, all that seems to be too slow. (After 6 . . . h6, White obtains a n edge with: 7. 0-0 llJe7 BJ!el llJc6 9.11Jbd2 Wb6 1O.dxc5 !xcS Il.We2 �c7, Balashov - Szabo, Sochi 1973, 12.11Jb3!;!;; it is bad for Black to play 6 . . . ie7, Salazar - Rusinek, Lima 2 0 0 1, 7.0-0±) 7.0-0 llJc6 B. 1'!el i.e7 9.a3 c4 10.ic2 bS ll.llJbd2 i.b7 12.11Jfl as, Yano - B.Gonzalez, Curitiba 2 0 0 0 , 13.11Jg3;!; White's position is clearly better, because he has more space and he can ma­ neuver easier with his pieces; S ... c4, Now the battle is focused on the flanks. Black will push his queenside pawns, while White will attack on the kingside. 6.g3 ! ? This i s the simplest (although White can play 6.b3 or 6.i.e2) 6 . . . llJc6 7.i.g2 bS 8 . 0 - 0 ib7 9.11Jh4 Wb6 1O.f4 llJge7 1l.g4 b4 12 .�hl 0-0-0 13.fS;!; - It is quite obvious that White's kingside initiative is more dangerous than Black's ac­ tivity on the opposite side of the 127

Chapter 9 board; 5 ... cxd4 (We have already mentioned - that exchange is premature, since the c3-square becomes available to White's knight.) 6.cxd4 and here: About 6 ... lDc6 - see 5 ... lDc6 ; 6 . . . lDe7 7.i.d3 id7 8.lDc3 lDbc6 - see 5 . . . lDc6; 6 . . . id7 - Now, the plan to trade the light-squared bishops seems rather dubious. 7.lDc3 ib4 8.id3 ib5 9.hb5+ axb5 (Black has im­ plemented his plan in action, but now his pawn on b5 would need permanent protection.) 10.0-0 %Yd7 11.%Yb3 lDa6 12.a4 (White's queenside initiative increases with every move.) 12 ...bxa4 13. lDxa4 l'%b8 14.id2 hd2 15.lDb6 Wfc7 16.Wfb5+ %Yc6 17.Wfxc6+ bxc6 18.l'%xa6 ih6 19.l'%fal± and White's position is nearly winning in that endgame: his pieces are very ac­ tive, while Black has not complet­ ed his development yet, Brodsky - Dmitriev, Smolensk 2000; 6 . . .h6 (This is a loss of time.) 7.lDc3 ib4 8.id2 lDe7, Clark - Ri­ ley, Email 1998, 9.i.d3 !±; 6 ... %Yc7 (It is not so clear what Black's queen is doing on the c­ file.) 7.i.d3 !± (It is also possible for White to play 7.ie3, with the idea to put the rook on c1 as quick­ ly as possible, Mertin - Schmitz, Koblenz 2000; 6 ... ib4+7.lDc3 lDc6, Haack Schaefer, Pinneberg 1995, 8. id3 ! ?± White's bishop is more ac­ tive here than on e2 . 128

bl) 5 . . .id7 6.id3

White does not react to Black's plan and he is after quickest devel­ opment. Now, Black can choose between the immediate attempt to trade the bishops bla) 6 ib5. o r the preliminary exchange on d4 - bIb) 6 . . . cxd4. About 6 . . . lDc6 - see 5 ... lDc6. Black can try to exchange the light-squared bishops with: 6 . . . Wfb6 7 . 0 - 0 i.b5, but that i s not effective at all after: 8.dxc5 hc5 9.b4 if8 1O.ie3 %Yc7 11.hb5+ axb5, Zatonskih - Berechet, Bucharest 1998, 12.a4 lDd7 13. id4;t;. •••

bla) 6 . . J.b5 7.ic2 White avoids the trade of the bishops. He plans to repel the bishop from b5 with the pawn (a4), or with his knight. It also deserves attention for White to try the straightforward approach - 7.hb5+ axb5 8.dxc5 hc5 9.b4 ib6 1O .lDa3 %Yd7 11.%Ye2 lDe7, Cla­ ridge - Luebke, Email 1997, 12. lDxb5 0-0 13.a4 lDbc6 14. 0-0, al­ though Black has some compen­ sation for the pawn. .

l . e4 cS 2. tLlj3 a6 3.c3 e6 4.d4 7 a5 That prophylactic is quite use­ ful, since it is essential for Black to preserve his bishop on that diagonal. The careless move 7 . . . tLlc6??, after: 8.a4 �c4 9.b3+­ loses a piece for Black, while: 7 ... cxd4 8.cxd4, transposes to the variation with 6 ... cxd4, in case of 7 . . . tLld7, the effect of the develop­ 16.tOxc6. White has remained ment of the bishop to b5 is lost af­ with an extra pawn in an end­ ter: - 8.a4 i.c6 9.0-0 �c8, Neese game after that complex fight. Still, the game is far from over, - Weiss, Dresden 2004, 1O.i.e3t. 8.tOa3!? because Black's pieces are ac­ The idea behind that strong tive. 16 .. J'k8 17.tOd4 hd4 18. move is to ensure the a4-e8 di­ cxd4 �k2 19.b3 tOe7 2 0 .�d2 agonal for White's bishop. wd7 21.We2 tOf5 22.wd3 �hc8 8 . . . �a6 23.�hdl±. White has managed Klein - Pilat, Kranenburg to consolidate his position with 2 005. a series of precise moves and he 9.i.a4+ tOc6 1 0 . tOb5 has kept his extra pawn. (I would Now, the weakness of the b5- like to mention that it was still not square becomes quite obvious. too late for him to blunder with: 23.�hc1? tLlxd4 24.�xc2 tOxc2 25. 1 0 Y;Yb6 It is pointless for Black to try: �c1? tLlb4+.) 23 a4 24.g4 tOh4. 1O ... hb5 11.hb5 Y;Yb6 12 .Y;Ya4±. (After 24 . . . tLlh6 25.h3±, Black's knight would be isolated from the 11.Y;Yb3 hb5 Black has no choice. Natu­ actions for a long time.) 25.gdc1 rally, it would be a blunder for axb3 26.axb3±. White has ex­ him to continue with: 1l . . . c4?? 12. cellent chances to press the ad­ tLld6+-, while after: 1l . . .�d7 12. vantage of an extra pawn home in c4 - the position is opened quick­ that endgame. ly and with his king stranded in bib) 6 cxd4 7.cxd4 �b5 the centre Black would hardly survive for long in a position with After the preliminary ex­ so many pieces. change on d4, White can develop 12 .hb5 cxd4 his knight to a more active posi­ Black only blunders a pawn af­ tion - (to c3) . 8.i.c2 ter: 12 ... c4? 13 .hc4+-. It is better for White to avoid 13.tOxd4 �c5 14.hc6+ the exchange, just like in the varibxc6 15. Y;Yxb6 hb6 . . •

. . •

•••

• • •

129

Chapter 9 ation we have just seen. S .th4+ 9 . .td2 a5 In case of 9 . . . hd2 1O.'lWd2 , Black fails to preserve the con­ trol over the f1-a6 diagonal and to prevent White from castling short, for example: 1l . . . aS 12.lDC3 ll.a6 13.ll.a4+ tLld7 14.tLlb5±. 1 0 .tLlc3 hc3 Black leaves his bishop on the a6-fl diagonal and he does not waste tempi to retreat it. Still, after that exchange, the dark­ squares complex in Black's camp becomes too vulnerable. The other line for Black does not equalize either: 10 . . . .ta6 11.tLlgS ! ? - White forces his oppo­ nent to weaken his pawn-structure on the kingside with that knight­ maneuver. (After the calmer line: 1l.tLle2 tLlc6 12.0-0 tLlge7 13.a3 bd2 14.'lWxd2 'lWb6 15JUe1 be2, Black managed to make a draw in the game Aseev - Eingorn, Berlin 1997.) 1l . . . tLlc6 12 .'lWhS g6 13.'lWf3 'lWe7 14.'lWe3 h6 1S.tLlf3 0-0-0 (Af­ ter the moves h6 and g6, Black cannot castle short and his king would not be safe on the queen­ side either.) 16.a3 hc3 17.'lWxc3 �bB IB .b4± and White's attack is very powerful. 1l.bxc3 tLld7 It is more reliable for Black to defend with 11...h6, after which the battle is purely positional ma­ neuvering: 12.tLlgl tLle7 13.tLle2 tLld7 14J'�b1 ll.a6 IS.tLlf4 ! ? g6, E.Andreev - Anapolsky, Alushta 2 003, (or IS . . . 0-0 16.'lWg4 �hB . • .

130

17.tLlhS �gB IB.'lWh3t) 16.tLld3;!;. 12J!bl!? That is stronger than 12 .'lWb1, Jordan - Froehlich, Melbourne 2 0 0S. 12 .ta6 13.tLlg5 This maneuver is well-famil­ iar. 13 g6 Black loses outright after: 13 . . . h6? 14.'lWhS g 6 15.hg6 hxgS 16. 'lWxhB fxg6 17.'lWxgB+-. 14.%\'13 'lWe7 •••

• •

15.c4t Black's position crum­ bles after that strike in the centre. 15 h6 16.tLlh3 dxc4 17.tLlf4 g5. It is hopeless for Black to play I7 . . . 'lWdB IB.tLlxe6+-. 1S.tLle2 'lWdS 19.tLlc3 tLle7 2 0 .tLle4 tLlcS 21.h4. Black has so many weak­ nesses that he will hardly survive for long. 21 . . . gxh4 22 . .ta4 b5 23.tLlf6 + tLlxf6 24.'lWxa8 bxa4 25.'lWxa6+•••

b2) 5 ... tLlc6 6 . .td3 White develops his bishop to the d3-square, like in the major­ ity of variations. Still, in that po­ sition, the bishop impedes the queen defending the key d4-pawn

l . e4 c5 2. lLlj3 a6 3.c3 e6 4.d4 and Black's subsequent counter­ play would be based on that.

He has numerous possibili­ ties here: b2a) 6 cxd4, b2b) 6 £5, b2c) 6 tLlge7, b2d) 6 M> 6 , b2e) 6 �d7. We should mention something in short about the other less pop­ ular alternatives: 6 . . . lLlh6, Vouldis - Nikolaidis, Ilioupolis 1995, 7.hh6 gxh6 8 . 0-0;1; - White must maintain his pawn on e5; otherwise Black's bishop on c8 would become quite dangerous; 6 ... i.e7 (That is a loss of as tempo.) 7.dxc5 - This exchange was introduced into practice by A.Nimzowitsch and it became quite typical for similar positions. Its idea is to free White from the task of defending the d4-pawn. Now, his pieces will have access to the central d4, as well as to e5-squares (in case Black tries to undermine White's centre with f7-f6 and e5). 7 ... hc5 8.0-0 lLlge7, Maciejewski - Levitina, Poland 1985, 9.lLlbd2 Wic7 1O .lLlb3 i.a7 1l.Wie2 lLlg6 12 .EleU - White has the advantage thanks to his .•.

• . .

•••

. . .

• • •

harmonious development; 6 . . . c4 (The reduction of the tension in the centre is quite fa­ vourable for White.) 7.i.c2 b5 (7 . . . g6? ! Cifuentes - Kerr, Internet 2 003, 8.h4±; about 7 . . . i.e7 8.0-0 b5 - see 7 . . . b5) 8.0-0 (White has a stable edge and he does not need to sharpen the game with 8.lLlg5, Minach - Marzluf, Badenweiler 1995.) 8 . . . �e7, Tronhjem - Bia­ va, Argentina 1994. Now, White should better activate his pieces with: 9.Elel i.b7 10.lLlbd2 lLlh6 11. lLlf1 lLlf5 12 .hf5 exf5 13.lLlg3 i.c8 14.Wic2 Wid7 15.�g5t; 6 . . . h6 7.0-0 (It is too early for: 7.dxc5, Stevic - Brkic, Za­ dar 2 0 0 2 .) 7 ... �e7, Rosa - Olivei­ ra,Vitoria 1999 (In case of: 7 . . . c4 8 .�c2 lLlge7, A.Berger - D.Wag­ ner, Darmstadt 1992, it is good for White to follow with 9 .b4t, de­ priving Black of any counterplay on the queenside; about 7 . . . Wfb6 8.dxc5 hc5 9.lLlbd2 - see varia­ tion b2d) 8.dxc5!±, winning a tempo in comparison to the game Stevic - Brkic; 6 . . . b5 (That move only com­ promises Black's queenside.) 7.dxc5 hc5 8.0-0 lLlge7 9.lLlbd2 i.b6 10.Elel i.c7 1l.lLlb3 b4 12 .i.d2 (But not 12 .i.g5 bxc3 13.bxc3 and White has a weakness on c3 to worry about, Le Hetet - Nguyen Kim, Nauj ac 2000.) 12 ... bxc3 13.hc3t - and White has a su­ perior pawn-structure and more active pieces; 6 ... f6 (Black lags in develop131

Chapter 9 ment, so that move is a bit too risky.) 7.0-0 �b6, Knutsen Stenlund, Skelleftea 2000 (It is a disaster for Black to try: 7 . . . fxeS 8.ct:JxeS ct:Jf6 9.i.gS± Mantsaev Pogromsky, Smolensk 2 0 0 1.) S.ge1 (White protects the key eS-square in advance.) 8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4 fxeS 1O.ct:JxeS ct:JxeS 1l.dxeS ct:Je7 (Black loses immediately after: 11.. .ic5 12 .�hS+-) 12.ct:Jc3± and the lag in development spells Black's demise after: 12 . . . id7 13.gb1 0-0-0 14.b4 @b8 1S.bS. White's attack is crushing; 6 . . . g6 (The combination of the moves e6 and g6 is evidently very bad for Black.) 7.0-0 c4 8.ic2 hS (It is too passive for Black to try: 8 . . . ct:Jh6 9.igS �b6 10.�c1 and his knight will have to go back - 1O . . . ct:Jg8± Cifuentes Goncalves - Kerr, Dos Hermanas 2 0 03 .) and here White has an active play on the dark squares and Black is incapable of countering that with anything: 9 .ct:JgS ie7 1O .h4 ct:Jh6 1l.if4± Wold - Mogstad, Norway 2002; 6 . . . �c7 (Black's idea i s t o force the exchange of White's bishop on d3 with the line: 7 . . . cxd4 8.cxd4 ct:Jb4.) 7.a3 f6 (In case of 7 . . . c4 8.ic2 , there arises a type of po­ sition, which we analyze in the variation with 6 . . . c4 - and the minimal difference is almost im­ material here; analogously about 7 .. .fS - see variation b2b) 8.M c4 9.ic2;!; Limmer - Riedel, Bayem 1997 - while White can counter 132

9 . . .fxeS with: 10.ct:JxeS ct:JxeS ll.if4 and he maintains the advantage. b2a) 6 . . . cxd4 We have already emphasized - that exchange is in favour of White. 7.cxd4

7 c!iJge7 Black has here some other moves too, but they all lead to bet­ ter positions for White: 7 . . . �c7 8.ct:Jc3±; About 7 ... id7 8 . 0-0 - see variation b2e; 7 ... �6 8.ct:Jc3 ! (This move ensures the safety of the key d4pawn.) 8 . . . id7 9 .ib1 gc8 (It seems insufficient for Black to play: 9 . . . hS 10.0-0 g6? ! 11.ct:Ja4 �c7 12 .ct:JgS bS 13.ct:Jc3± Martidis - Manolov, Peristeri 1991.) 10. O-O;!; Martorelli - Di Lazzaro, Saint Vincent 2 0 0 0 ; 7 . . .fS (That move looks better without the preliminary exchange on d4.) 8.0-0;!; (It is also good for White to continue with 8.exf6, with the idea to exploit the weak­ ness of the eS-outpost, 8 . . . ct:Jxf6, Kyrola - Vainio, Naan 1997, •••

l . e4 c5 2. tt:lj3 a6 3.c3 e6 4.d4 9.tt:lc3 .id6 10. 0-0�) ; 7 ... tt:lb4 8 . .ie2 (That is not a loss of tempi, because after a3, Black's knight will have to re­ treat anyway.) 8 . . . tt:le7 9.0-0 tt:lfS 1O.tt:lc3 i.e7 1l.a3 tt:lc6 12 . .id3 ! ?� (The too active move - 12 .b4, Martinez - Hamrakulova, Bra­ tislava 1993, only creates addi­ tional weaknesses for White on the queenside.) 12 . . . 0-0 (It does not work for Black to play 12 ... tt:lcxd4?, because of: 13.tt:lxd4 tt:lxd4 14.�g4± and his knight and the g7-pawn are hanging simulta­ neously.) 13.i.c2 f6 14.hfs exfS lS.exf6 hf6 16.i.f4 ge8 17.�d3 i.e6 18.gfe1 l'k8 19.i.eS� and the eS-square is a gaping wound in Black's camp; 7 . . . .ib4+ 8.tt:lc3 (White has the edge and he should not allow the exchange of the dark-squared bishops - 8.i.d2, as it was played in the game Pantoja - Diego, corr. 1999.) 8 . . . tt:lge7 (It only leads to a transposition after the line: 8 ... h6 9.0-0 tt:lge7, or 8 ... i.d7 9.0-0 tt:lge7, while after: 8 .. .f6, Poliuin - Lemieux, Quebec 2 0 0S, White's simplest reaction is - 9. 0-0�) 9. 0-0 h6 (or 9 . . . 0-0, Deuker VVarnk, Bruchkoebel 2002, 10. hh7+ �xh7 1l.tt:lgS+ �g6 12. tt:le2 +-; 9 . . . .id7 1O.a3 .iaS 1l.b4 .ib6 12 .i.e3±) . Now, it is good for White to follow with 1O.a3±, as well as with : 10.tt:le2 .id7 1l.a3 .iaS 12.tt:lf4± Dudas - Lorincz, Miskolc 1998. S)Dc3 tt:lf5

The other possibilities are less logical for Black: 8 . . . i.d7 9.a3 bS (or 9 ... V9b6 1O . .ie3±) 10.0-0 V9b6 11..ie3 gc8 12.tt:lgS± Scherber - Puetz, Reck­ linghausen 2 0 0 0 ; 8 . . . tt:lg6, Endres - Schimmelp­ fennig, Landau 1996, 9.h4�; 8 ... �b6 9.0-0 i.d7 1O . .ie3 tt:lg6 (1O . . . V9xb2 11.tt:la4 �a3 12 ..ic1 V9b4 13.gb1 �aS, C.Hernandez - Mola, Onati 1994, 14.tt:lb6 ! +-) 1l.a3 f6, Barba - Garcia Munoz, Once 1993 (11.. .gc8, Gibis - Kreilinger, Ger­ many 1992 , 12.tt:la4 �c7 13.gcl±) 13.b4±; 8 . . .bS 9.0 - 0 i.b7 1O .i.e3 tt:lg6, Michaelis - i.ueckers, Muenster­ land 2 0 0 2 , 1l.tt:lgS±; 8 . . . tt:lb4, Jurga - VVinkler, Ger­ many 1991, 9 .i.bU 9.tl�e2 White fortifies the important d4-square. 9 J.e7 1 0 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 11. i.d2 f6 That move is necessary; other­ wise White will increase methodi­ cally his positional pressure rely­ ing on his space advantage. . . •

12.i.xf5 exf5. Now, Black will

133

Chapter 9 have to consider all the time the possibility for White - e5xf6, fol­ lowed by an invasion to the e5-out­ post. 13Jkl (It is also interesting for White to try 13.'lWb3 ! ?) 13 g5 14.�el f4 15.h3 .ifS 16.'lWb3 �d7 17.lLlc3 �ad8 18.lLla4 fxe5 19.1Llxe5 lLlxd4 2 0 .lLlxd7 lLlxb3 21.lLlxfS lLlxc1 22.�xe7 g"xfS 23.�e5 .ic2 24.hcl ha4 25.�xg5± and Black failed to save that endgame in the encounter Ivkov - Byrne, Sarajevo 1967. .••

b2b) 6

•••

fS

Naturally, that move is purely defensive against White's king­ side attack, but it cannot equalize for Black. 7. 0 - 0 lLlh6 That is a risky move and Black must consider the possible weak­ ening of his kingside after hh6. The alternatives for Black are : 7 . . . lLlge7, Kostro - Velimiro­ vic, Polanica Zdroj 1964, 8.dxc5 tLlg6 9.b4 tLlge5 10.tLlxe5 tLlxe5 11. hf5±; 7 ... c4 - That move seems to be too passive in combination with 6 .. .f5. Now, Black can at134

tack neither the d4-pawn, nor the e5-pawn. 8 . .ic2 b5 9 .b3 �b8 1O.g4 - White has challenged the c4-pawn with his previous move, while now he is attacking the f5pawn too. 10 . . . g6 (It is too risky for Black to play: 1O ... fxg4 1l.tLlg5 tLlh6 12 .f3 and White has an over­ whelming attack for the sacrificed pawn.) 1l.bxc4 bxc4 12 . .ia4 �b6 13.gxf5 gxf5 14.tLlg5 h5 15.g"hl h4 16.�gl--+ (White is in action on both sides of the board.) 16 . . . 'lWd7 17.tLlh3 �f7 18.tLld2 tLlh6 19.tLlg5 'lWd7, Manik - Joksic, Biel 2 0 03, 20.'lWh5 + ! and White's attack is decisive; 7 . . . .ie7, Pagnutti - Joksic, Lig­ nano Sabbiadoro 2 0 05 (We know - that is a loss of time . . . ) 8.dxc5 ! ? hc5 9.tLlbd2 tLlge7 1O.tLlb3 .ib6 1l.'lWe2 0-0 12 . .ie3 .ic7 (It is not better for Black to continue with: 12 ... he3 13.'lWxe3± and White is completely dominant on the dark squares.) 13 . .ic5± and White's pressure increases with every move. 8.dxc5 hc5 9.b4 .ie7 1 0 . .ixh6 Now, Black's king can hardly find a safe haven anywhere on the board. 1 0 gxh6 11.a3 �g8 12.�e2 �g6 13.�d1 g"t7 14.c4. Opening of the centre is the simplest way to victory for White. 14 dxc4. That is naturally a blunder, but Black had no satisfactory defence anyway. 15 .ixf5+- Ceschia Joksic, Caorle 1982. •••

•••

•

1.e4 c5 2.tiJj3 a6 3.c3 e6 4.d4 b2c) 6

• . .

�ge7

The basic idea behind that move is to bring the knight to the f5-square in order to exert pres­ sure against White's d4-pawn. 7.�a3 White's knight is headed to c2, so that he can defend that pawn ! 7 cxd4 The other possibilities for Black are: 7 . . . �f5 8.�c2 'Jf!c7 (The idea of that move is quite unclear.) 9.0-0 b5 (That is just bad!) 10.ixf5 and White begins opening the position exploiting his lead in develop­ ment, 1O . . .exf5 1l.dxc5 i.e6 12 .b4 �xe5 13.l3e1 �xf3+ 14.�xf3 i.e7 15.�d4 �c8 16.a4 bxa4 17.l3xa4 0-0 18.i.f4 l3e8, Malar - Kunak, Slovakia 1995, 19.i.eS+-, Black has avoided immediate material losses indeed, but his position is just hopeless ; 7 . . . �c7 8.0-0 � g 6 (Everything is better than b5.) 9.�c2 i.d7, Cabrera - Umeres, Cuzco 1999, 1O.h4 ! ?;\; and the standard at­ tack with the rook-pawn provides White with a clear advantage; • • •

7 ... 'Jf!b6 8.0-0 i.d7 9.dxc5 'Jf!xcS 1O.�c2 - and White main­ tains a slight edge here, thanks to his better development and superior prospects for maneuver­ ing, 1O . . . �g6 1U3e1 'Jf!b6 12 .'Jf!e2 i.c5 13.b4 i.e7 14.a3 0-0 15.i.d2;\; Batyte - Liutkute, Marijampole 2000. 8.cxd4 �f5 Black would not equalize ei­ ther after: 8 . . . i.d7 9.0-0 lLlg6 (He would not change anything much after: 9 ... h6, Karpatchev - Meij ers, Schwarzach 2 0 0 2 , 1O.lLlc2.) 1O.lLlc2 lLlb4 1l.lLlxb4 ixb4 12. �b3 �e7 (This is a blun­ der in a slightly inferior position.) 13.i.g5 f6 14.i.xg6+ hxg6 15.exf6 gxf6 16.i.xf6 'Jf!xf6 17.'Jf!xb4 1-0 John - Devin, Houston 1999. 9.�c2 �e7 The position is relatively closed indeed; nevertheless Black must complete his development sooner or later, therefore he should better not deviate from the main line: 9 . . . h6 10.0-0 gS, Rei - Ky­ toniemi, Tampere 1993, 11.i.e3;\;; 9 ... b5, Poetsch - Schulz, Griesheim 2 0 0 2 , 10.0-0;\;. 1 0 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 (10 ... �b6, Co­ sta - Pirozzi, Brazil 2000, 11. l3bU) 1l.l3e1 h6 12.i.d2 i.d7 13.i.c3 b5 14.ti}e3 b4 IS.lLlxfS exfS 16.�d2 i.e6 17.l3cU Aseev - Petrovic, Oberwart 1994. White has a superior pawn-structure; moreover Black's queenside is quite vulnerable.

13S

Chapter 9 b2d) 6 . . .'IWb6

If Black wishes to attack the d4-pawn in that fashion, he should better exchange previously on d4. 7.dxe5 Black's plans are thwarted now. 7 he5 8. 0 - 0 ti'e7 About S ... .id7 - see 6 . . . .id7. In case of S . . . h6, White has excellent chances to seize the initia­ tive: 9.tt::lb d2 gS 1O.tt::l b 3 .ifS, Spa­ sov - Varga, Budapest 2000 (or 1O . . . g4 1l.tt::l xcS gxf3 12 . .ie3 fxg2 13J'!e1 ti'c7 14.tt::l a4 bS 1S.tt::lb 6 gbS 16.tt::l xcS gxcS 17.a4±) 11.h3 with the following eventual develop­ ments: 11...ti'c7 12 .ge1 .ig7 13.ti'e2 tt::l ge7 14.tt::lbd4 .id7 1S.b3 tt::l g 6 16 ..ig6 fxg6 17 . .ia3 ti'aS 1S . .id6 ! �xc3 19.tt::l xc6 �xc6 20.�d3 \ilf7 2 1.gac1 �b6 2 2 .gad1:;g. Black's situation is not any better after: S .. .f6 9.b4 .ie7 1O . .if4 fxeS 1l.tt::l xeS tt::l xeS 12 . .ixeS. He has managed to exchange his opponent's eS-pawn, but now White's bishop has replaced it. 12 ... tt::lf6 13.tt::l d2 0-0 14.tt::l f3 .id6 1S.�c2 .ixeS 16.tt::l xeS - and then the white knight. . . ! 16 ... �c7 17.gfe1 .id7 1S.c4 gaeS 19.9ac1 . . •

136

dxc4 20 ..ixc4± Namyslo - Smuk, corr. 1999. Black's position is clearly inferior due to the chroni­ cal weakness of the e6-square. 9.gel tt::l ge7 1 0 .tt::l b d2 It is not so strong for White to follow with 10 . .ie3, Hudoba - Strachan, Slovakia 1997, be­ fore exchanging the dark-squared bishops, White wishes to win some tempi in order to bring his knight to the key d4-square. 1 0 tt::l g6 1l.tt::lb 3 .ia7 12. tt::l bd4 0 - 0 13.ti'e2 .id7 14. tt::l xe6 he6 15.h4 h6 16.h5 tt::l e 7 17 .ie3. Now, White exchanges the bishops. 17 he3 18.ti'xe3± and Black has no counterplay in that position and he is faced with a long and difficult defence. •.•

•

•.•

b2e) 6

••.

.td7

That is a flexible developing move, with which Black conceals presently his future plans. 7. 0 - 0 exd4 In case he wishes to continue with 7 ... �b6, he should better ex­ change pawns first. 7 . . . tt::l ge7 S.tt::l a3 (It is also inter­ esting for White to try: S.dxcS ! ?

l.e4 c5 2. lLlj3 a6 3.c3 e6 4.d4 lLlg6 9 . .ixg6 hxg6 10 .b4.) about 8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4 - see 6 . . . lLlge7. 7 . . . c4 8.i.c2 fie7 - see an anal­ ogous type of position in the vari­ ation with 6 . . . c4. 7 .. :Wc7, Paglilla - Schweber, Mar del Plata 1972, 8.a3 c4 9 ..ic2;!; Once again, it would have been an imprecision for Black to play 7 . . . 'I19b6, because of 8.dxc5, for ex­ ample: 8 ... .bc5 9 .'I1ge2 'I19c7 (or 9 . . . lLlh6, Dobson Aguilar - Berry, In­ ternet 2 0 04, 1O.lLlbd2 lLlfS 11.lLlb3 fie7 12 . .bfS exfS 13 ..igS±; 9 . . . .if8 1O.lLlbd2± Lamaie - Bakhtsha­ hi, Mashad 2 0 03) 10 . .if4 lLlge7 11 . .ig3 lLlg6 (or 11 ... h6 12.lLlbd2 .ia7 13.!'!:fc1 l:k8 14.a3 bS, Pav­ lovichev - Trubinkov, Moscow 1974, IS.b4, followed by 16.a4;!;) 12.lLlbd2 0-0 (12 . . . 13c8 13.lLlb3 �a7 14.13ael lLl aS IS.lLlbd4 lLlc6? ! , Parikh - Natarajan, Chennai 2 004, 16.lLlfS ! ±) 13.lLlb3 (In case of the premature move 13.h4, Black can counter with 13 .. .f6, as well as with: 13 . . .fS 14.hS f4 !) 13 ... .ia7, K.Sander - Aranovski, Tallinn 1998, (or 13 ... i.e7 14.h4± Lorinczi - Kharchi, Luzern 1982) 14.lLlfd4 13ac8 IS.a4 ! ?;!; - White prevents with that move the ap­ pearance of Black's light-squared bishop on the bS-square. 8.cxd4 ti'b6 Now, White has problems pro­ tecting his d4-pawn. The other possibilities for Black are just harmless for White: About 8 . . . lLle7 - see variation b2a;

8 . . . g6, Kuchyna - Mego, Slo­ vakia 1984, 9 .lLlc3±; 8 .. J�c8, Mathilda - Monti, In­ ternet 1999, 9 .lLlc3;!;; 8 ...-tb4 9 ..ie3 lLlge7 1O.a3 .laS 11.b4 -tb6 12.lLlc3 13c8, Zalys - Bea­ uchamp, Montreal 1989, 13.13cl±; 8 . . . lLlb4 9 . .ie2 .ibS 1O.hbS axbS 11.lLlc3 'I19d7, Tsenukov Chervonenko, Teteven 1991, 12. .ie3 (Black can counter the straightforward moves 12 .'I1ge2, or 12 .'I19b3 with 12 ... 'I19c6 13.a3 'I19c4!) 12 ... lLlc6 13.'I1ge2 b4 14.lLlbS±. 9 .ic2 That is the only way for White to fight for the opening advan­ tage! It is understandable that he is reluctant to give up his cen­ tral pawn. After the move 9.'�hl, there arise wild complications: 9 ... lLlxd4 1O . .ie3 i.c5 11.b4 (The position is no less complex af­ ter: 11.lLlxd4 hd4 12 .'I19g4 ixe3 13.'I19xg7 0-0-0 14.'I19xh8 'I19xb2 IS.fxe3 'I19xalco) 11.. .'I19xb4 12 .lLlxd4 hd4 13.'I19g4 �c3 14.'I19xg7 .bal IS.'I19xh8 O-O-Oco and it is quite difficult to evaluate correctly all these complications. 9 lil b4 White has problems proving his advantage after that move. His task is much easier after: 9 .. J!:c8 10.lLlc3;!;, or 9 . . . lLlge7 10. lLlc3 g6, Jacobs - Pots, Hengelo 2000, 11.-tgS fig7 (In case of: 11 . . . lLlfS 12.fif6 13 g 8 13.lLla4;!;, White has the advantage thanks to his powerful bishop on f6.) 12.lLla4 'I19c7 13.13cl;!; - White maintains •

• • •

137

Chapter 9 the edge. Meanwhile, Black can­ 14.a4 That is the only move for White not play 13 ... 0-0?, because of: to keep his advantage. After: 14.he7 I1Jxe7 1S.hg6+-. 1 0 .i.b3 14.gc3 .th6 1S.l1Jbd2 l1Je7 16.g4 This bishop must be preserved, 0-000 Mosconi - Borgiani, Porto since the light squares would be­ San Giorgio 2000, there arises a complex position with mutual come vulnerable without it. 1 0 i.bS 1U:�el l1Jd3 12.ge3 chances. 14 .tc6 I1Jxcl Unfortunately, White has failed to preserve his dark­ squared bishop, but Black has lost too much time going after it. 13.1bc1 g6 13 . . . l1Je7, Lacina - Dolezal, Czech Republic 2002, 14 . .tc2 , White takes control over the fS­ square, 14 ... gc8 (14 . . . l1Jc6? lS.a4 .ic4 16.b3+-) 1S.I1Jc3 .td7 16.l1Ja4 Yfffa7 (after 16 . . .ha4 17.ha4+ lS.aS. White occupies some I1Jc6 18.Yfffc2 i.e7 19.9b3 Yfff a7 20. additional space on the queenside. l3c3;!; White maintains some pres­ lS YfffdS 16.Yfffdl .ih6 17.gc3 sure along the c-file. Black cannot tDe7 lS .tc2 0 - 0 19.tDbd2. equalize with the line: 19 . . . Yfffc 7 That knight is headed for the c52 0.hc6+ bxc6 2 1.l3cl;!; and the oupost. 19 gcS 2 0 .tDb3 tDf5 weakness on c6 is quite unpleas­ 21.tDcS;!; The position is com­ ant for Black.) 17.l1JcS;!; and White plicated, but White's prospects maintains the advantage thanks are superior. He has extra space to the powerful knight on the cS­ and his knight on cS is just won­ outpost. derful. •••

• • •

•••

•

•••

-

Conclusion We have analyzed the move 3 .. . e6 in this chapter. Evidently, that is Black's best bet in the system with 2 ... a6. The point is that after he pushes d7-d5, the position remains usually closed. Black's loss of time for the flank move a6 is not so important then. Still, White can fightfor the advantage. The main idea for him is to preserve more pieces on the board and it is tremendously impor­ tant to keep the light-squared bishop from its being exchanged. White should play on both sides of the board in order to overcome gradually Black's defence. White enjoys much more space; therefore his piece­ maneuvering is more comfortable. 138

Part 3 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3 . d4

rare 3rd moves for Black 3

•.•

cxd4 4.c!l)xd4

rare 4th moves for Black Sicilian Counter Attack 4 lllf6 5.lll c3 J.b4 •••

After the standard moves: 3 cxd4 4 .lll xd4 Black has numer­ ous reasonable possibilities. The line 4 . . . c!l)c6 will be dealt with in Book 9 after the move-order: l.e4 c5 2 .c!l)f3 c!l)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!l)xd4 e6, Part 4 is devoted to the possibility 4 ... a6, while the move 4 ... c!l)f6 is dealt with in Chapter 12. You can find the anal­ ysis of some seldom played lines (among them 4 ...J.cS and 4 ... \1;l[b6) in Chapter 11. •••

Black answers with 3 ... cxd4 in almost 100% of the games, but you can encounter some other de­ cisions for him (see Chapter 10).

139

Chapter 1 0

l.e4 c5 2 .tLlf3 e6 3 . d4

We will analyze in this chapter all the moves for Black with the exception of the most popular and doubtlessly the best - 3 . . . cxd4. The overwhelming majority of these moves are dubious and they lead to difficult positions for him. Still, the most frequently played are: a) 3 tLlc6? ! ; b) 3 a6 and c) 3 dS. About 3 ... b6 4.d5 - see l.e4 b6 2 .d4 e6 3.ltlf3 c5 4.d5 - Book 5, page 27. As for 3 ... 'Wc7 4.ltlc3 - see 2 ... 'Wc7; 3 ... 'Wa5 4.ltlc3 ltlf6 5.id2 - see 2 ... ltlf6 3.ltlc3 e6 4.d4 'WaS 5.id2 . The move 3 ... ltle7? ! - loses a pawn, while Black's dark squares in the centre are very weak and he lags in development. 4.dxc5 ltlg6, Pribeanu - Berechet, Bu•••

•.•

140

•.•

charest 2 0 03, 5.�e3 Wic7 (After 5 ... 'Wa5+ 6.c3± Black can hardly regain his pawn.) 6.Wid4 ltlc6 7. 'Wc3±. 3 ... 'Wb6?! - Black's queen will be very much displaced after White closes the centre. His knight will occupy with tempo the excellent c4-outpost. 4.d5 ltlf6 (Black has tried here some other moves too: 4 ... 'Wb4+? - he thus only helps White continue with his develop­ ment. 5.ltlc3 d6 6.ie2 eS 7.0-0 a6 8.a4 ltlf6 9.ltld2 Wib6 10.ltlc4 'Wc7 11.f4± Rahn - Albrecht, corr. 1994; 4 ... d6 S.ltlc3 eS, Horwitz - Szen, London 18S1 and now, White can block his opponent's queenside with a standard ma­ neuver of his knight: 6.ltld2 ltlf6 7.ltlc4 Wic7 8.a4±) S.ltlc3 Wib4 6.a3 'WaS 7.ltld2 exdS 8.eS± Rosello - Arbelo, Benidorm 2 003. 3 ... g6? ! - Black compromises the dark squares on his kingside. 4.�e3 b6 (After: 4 . . . ig7 S.ltlc3 a6 6.dxc5 ixc3+ 7.bxc3 ltlc6 8. 'Wd6± Black failed to obtain any compensation for the sacrificed pawn in the game Foord - Rose­ brook, Flint 1991; in answer to

l . e4 cS 2. ttJj3 e6 3.d4 4 . . . 1ltib6, von Toperczer - van Orsouw, Bergneustadt 2000, it seems very good for White to continue with the non-standard move S.ttJa3 ! and here captur­ ing the pawn loses the queen for Black: S ... 1ltixb2 6.ttJc4 1ltib4+ 7.c3! 'lWxc3+ 8.id2 +-. White's lead in development is quite obvious af­ ter: S . . . d6 6.ttJc4 1ltic7 7.dxcS dxcS 8 .'lWd2±. Black's attempt not to let his opponent's knight to the c4square loses a pawn for him: S ... dS 6.exdS exdS 7.ibS+ id7 8.dxcS hcS 9.1ltixdS±) S.ttJc3 ib7, Slovik - Kramarik, Bratislava 1993 and here it is advisable for White to close the centre, since Black's light-squared bishop is bound to remain passive. 6.dS ttJf6 (or 6 ... exdS 7.ttJxdS±) 7.ic4±. 3 . . . d6? ! - That move leads to a considerable lag in develop­ ment for Black. 4.dxc5 1ltiaS+ (The exchange of queens after: 4 .. . dxc5 S.1ltixd8+ c;iJ xd8 6.if4 f6 7. ttJ c3 eS 8.0-0-0+ ttJd7 9.ie3 a6 1O.ttJdS± led to a very unpleas­ ant position for Black. His central squares were vulnerable, his piec­ es were not developed and there was no reasonable plan for him in sight. On top of that, his king was stranded in the centre and it could come under a dangerous attack in the game Pinson - Ben­ san, Auxerre 1996. 4 . . . ttJf6 - That is an interesting idea to counter­ attack the e4-pawn, but it is still insufficient for equality, Coronel - Romczyk, Buenos Aires 2 004,

because here after White's most energetic reaction - S.eS, Black is faced with a difficult choice. He must either enter a clearly inferior endgame after: S ... dxeS 6.1ltixd8+ c;iJxd8 7.ttJxeS±, or he should de­ fend a critical middle game after: S . . . ttJfd7 6.exd6 ttJxcS 7.ttJc3 !±) S.ttJc3 1ltixcS 6.ie3 1ltiaS, Comp Chess Genius - van der Berg, The Hague 1994 (It is not better for Black to try 6 . . . 1ltib4, Gonzalez Menendez - C.Rodriguez, Aviles 2 0 04, 7.ttJd2 ! ±), and here White's lead in development can be best exploited with the move 7.ttJd2 ! - Black can hardly protect his d6-pawn and pushing it forward would not save it either: 7 . . . dS 8.ttJb3 'IWc7 9.exdS ib4 1O.1ltid4±. 3 ... i.e7? ! - That development of the bishop is premature. 4.ttJc3 cxd4 (After: 4 . . . b6 S.dS d6 6 . .tbS+ id7, Vranidis - Schulz, Cologne 1996, it looks very strong for White to play 7.eS ! ?, since now Black fails to repel White's pieces with: 7 . . . hbS 8.ttJxbS a6, in view of: 9.dxe6 ! axbS 1O.exf7+-, therefore he is forced to comply with the ap­ pearance of some weaknesses: 7 . . . dxeS 8.dxe6 fxe6 9.ttJxeS±; Black transposes to a bad version of the Benoni Defence with: 4 ... a6 S.dS d6 6.a4± Siemes - Brack, Dues­ seldorf 2 0 0 0 ; the move 4 ... d6 - leads to a difficult endgame for Black: S.dxcS dxcS 6.1ltixd8+ hd8 7.ie3 i.e7, Bisco - Kubovic, Slo­ vakia 2 0 0 2 and here after 8.ttJbS ttJa6 9 .eS± Black has difficulties 141

Chapter 1 0 with his development.) S.'�xd4 ! - White activates his pieces with tempo thanks to the defenseless­ ness of the g7-square. S . . . ltJf6 (It is much worse for Black to play: S .. .f6 6.i.c4 ltJc6 7.'�·dl± Wittwer - Vokoun, Biel 1981, as well as : S ... �f6, Ebersbach - Dietz, Seb­ nitz 2004, 6.eS ltJc6 7.'?;\lf4 i.e7 8. Wg3±) 6.eS ltJc6 7.Wf4 ltJhS (It is a disaster for Black to opt for: 7 . . . ltJb4? 8.exf6 ltJxc2 + 9 .�d1 ltJxa1 1O.fxe7 Wxe7 11.�e3+-; 7 ... lt'ldS - His pawns in the centre are very weak after that move. 8.ltJxdS exdS 9.Wg3±) 8.Wa4 fS 9.�e2 0-0 1O.0-0;t Black's knight on hS is terribly misplaced, so his defence is difficult, because of that and his attempt to redeploy the knight does improve his position either: 1O . . . g6? ! 1l.�h6 ltJg7 12J�adl± Lju­ bojevic - Schauwecker, Zurieh 1970. 3 ... ltJf6?! (That move leads to positions similar to the Alekhine Defence, except that the move c5 is clearly premature.) 4.eS ltJdS (It is terrible for Black to play the pseudo-active move: 4 ... ltJe4? S.dS �e7? 6.d6 �gS 7.lt'lxgS It'lxgS 8.h4 ltJe4 9.Wg4+- Mar­ tie - Rattacher, Wattens 1997. It is not attractive for him to try: S . . . d6 6.Wd3 fS 7.ltJbd2 ltJxd2 8. hd2 �e7 9.WbS+ �f8 1O.dxe6± Satiei - Foldvary, Email 2002. 4 . . . ltJg4? ! - That move leads to the creation of new weaknesses: S.h3 ltJh6 6.�6 gxh6, Trocado - Boyer, Email 1998, 7.ltJc3±) 142

S.c4 ltJb4 (It seems dangerous for Black to try: S . . . ltJb6 6.i.gS Vlic7 7.ltJc3± Mora - Redon, Nantes 1993 ; it is too passive for Black to defend with: S ... ltJc7, Riediger - Kaunzinger, Bayern 2001, since after 6.�gS, he loses quickly in case of: 6 .. .f6? 7.exf6 gxf6 8.ltJeS ! h S 9 .Vlid3 �g8 1O .Wh7+-, but even the more resilient defence: 6 ... �e7 7.he7 Vlixe7 8.dxcS VlixcS 9.ltJc3 0-0 10.Vlid2± leads to a dif­ ficult position for him due to the vulnerability of the dark squares in the centre. In answer to 5 . . . ltJe7, Cutler - Rosebrook, Lansing 1995, White obtains a clear ad­ vantage after: 6.dxc5 WaS+ 7.ltJc3 ltJg6 8.a3±, since he leads in de­ velopment and he has extra space. He has the same advantages too after: 6 . . . ltJg6 7.i.e3 ltJc6 8.ltJc3 ltJgxeS 9.ltJxeS ltJxeS 1O.ltJbS±, or 7 . . . VliaS+ 8 .Wd2 Wxd2+ 9 .ltJbxd2 ltJc6 1O.ltJe4±) 6.dxc5 hc5 7.lt'lc3 0-0 8.a3 ltJ4c6 9 .i.d3 f6 (The move - 9 . . . dS? - enables White to continue with the standard attack: 1O.�7+ �xh7 1l.ltJgS+ �g6 12 .Vlid3+ f5 13.exf6 + ! �xf6 14.cxdS and he regains his piece, remaining with a material ad­ vantage, for example: 14 . . . ltJeS 1S.ltJge4 �f7 16.dxe6+-, or 14 . . . �e7 1S.ltJge4 Wb6 16.0-0 ! ltJeS 17.Wg3 �d4 18.ltJa4+-) 1O.exf6 gxf6 1l.b4± Black's king shelter has been compromised and his queenside pieces are totally dis­ coordinated, Conde Poderoso Shaughnessy, Email 1998.

1 . e4 c5 2. lLlj3 e6 3.d4 a) 3 . . �c6? ! .

After that, Black must play a series of only moves in order not to lose immediately and at the end he will have to comply with a very difficult position. 4.d5 exd5 The other possibilities for him are not any better: 4 ... �b4? ! 5.c3 �a6 6.d6 lDf6 7. eS lDe4 8.id3 fS 9 . .txe4 fxe4 10. lDgS h6 11.�hS+ 1-0 Klaus - Krahl, Email 1998 ; 4 . . . lD ce7? ! S.d6 lDc6 (Black's position is not good at all after: s ... lDg6 6.lDc3 a6, Gajic - Schae­ fer, Zurich 1994, 7.h4±) 6.lDc3 a6 7.eS bS, M .Ginzburg - Lopez Paz, Mar del Plata 1993 (In answer to 7 .. .f6, Gohla - Hausmann, Email 2 0 0 0, the most unpleasant line for Black seems to be: 8.id3 fxeS 9.lDgs g6 1O.lDce4±) and here af­ ter: 8.a4 b4 9 .lDe4 �a5 1O.lDed2± Black has no counterplay whatso­ ever and he can hardly complete his development; 4 . . . lDa5? ! - That is not an ac­ tive square for the knight. 5.lLlc3 b6, Rafael - Lucarz, Spain 2004, 6.if4 a6 7.dxe6 fxe6 8.�d2±;

4 . . . lDb8? ! - Black has lost a couple of important tempi for moves with that knight. 5.lDc3 d6, Schwierz - A.Vorobyov, Internet 2 0 04, 6.ibS+ id7 7.a4±. 5.exd5 �e7+ It is not good for Black to play: S . . . lDd4 ? ! 6 .lDxd4 cxd4 7.�xd4 �f6 (7 . . . d6 8.ib5+- ; 7 . . . lDf6, Holz - Matzner, Germany 1995, 8.�e3+ �e7 9.lDc3+-; 7 ... b6 8. lDc3+-) 8.�e3+ �e7 9.id3+­ Witton - Crewe, Adelaide 1887. Black's knight is out of action after: S . . . lDaS 6.lDc3 d6 7.ibS+ id7 8.�e2+ ie7, Conde Poderoso - Hebbelynck, Email 1999, 9.0-0 lDf6 10J:1el±. The retreat of the knight is too dubious for Black: S . . . lDb8 6.lDc3 d6 7.ibS+ id7 8.0-0± Schinkowski - Wesemann, Ger­ many 2001. The long maneuvering of the knight might end in a disaster for Black after: S . . . lDb4 6.c3 �e7+ (or 6 . . . lDa6 7 . .txa6 bxa6 8.d6! ib7 9.0-0 lDf6 1O.ge1+- Vennemann - Krahl, Internet 2 0 0 1, he can only survive a bit longer in case of: 8 . . .�f6 9.0-0 .txd6 1O.igS+ ­ Rau - Krahl, corr. 2001; captur­ ing with the queen would not save him either: 9 . . . �xd6 10.ge1+ �d8 1l.lDeS �e6 12 .�f3+- and Black loses a lot of material.) 7.ie2 lDa6 8.0-0 �d6 (8 . . . d6 9 . .txa6+-; 8 . . . lDf6 9 . .txa6 bxa6 1O.ge1+- Turko - Allan, Email 2001; 8 . . . �f6, Boyens - A.Mueller, Germany 1991, 9 . .txa6 �xa6 1O .:ge1+ �d8 143

Chapter 1 0 1l.lt'Je5+-) 9J:�e1 I:jj c7, Thomson - Schrader, corr. 1990 and now after 10.g3+-, Black is hopeless in view of the unavoidable threat - 1l . .if4. 6 .ie2 tDe5 The other moves for Black are clearly worse: 6 . . . l:jj d4 7.l:jj xd4 cxd4 8.0-0+­ Nigl - Eisenberg, Kassel 1994; 6 ... l:jjb 8 7.0-0 f6 8.l:jj c3+­ Chester - Sousa, Email 1999; 6 ... l:jj a5 7.0-0 I:jj f6 8 . .id3 Y;Md6 9J:�e1+ .ie7, Rudolf - Baranya, Paks 1998, 1O . .id2 b6 11.I:jj h4 g6 12.1:jj c3+-; 6 ... l:jj d 8 7.0-0 Y;Md6 8J:�e1 i.e7, Brunette - Patterson, Email 1996, 9.l:jj a3+-. White has an overwhelming lead in development in all the lines, so that Black loses mate­ rial. 7. 0 - 0 d6 That is the only move for Black, which does not lose immediately. He has also tried in practice: 7 . . . Y;Md6 8.l:jj xe5 VNxe5 9J�e1 Y;Md6 10.l:jj c3+- Marchand Stroud, corr. 1958; 7 . . . VNf6, van der Molen - Bergs­ ma, Hengelo 2004, 8.l:jj xe5 Y;Mxe5 9J:!e1+-; 7... g6, Vandetven - Wylie, Email 1999, 8.l:jj xe5 VNxe5 9J:!e1+-; 7 ... l:jj f6, Thiel - Comp Comet, San Mateo 2000, 8.l:jj xe5 VNxe5 9J:!e1 VNd6 10 . .if3 VNd6 1l.VNe2 +-. White's superior development and his threats along the e-file yield him material advantage. •

144

8.tDxe5 dxe5 9.tDc3 a6, van Veen - van Kempen, Hengelo 2000 (In answer to 9 ... l:jj f6, Gi­ accomo - Delfino, San Francisco 2002, it looks good for White to continue with 1O.f4±), and here it is advantageous for White to open files in the centre with: 1 0 .l�el J.d7 (It is worse for Black to play: 10 ... J.f5 1l.J.g4±) 1l.f4 0 - 0 - 0 12 .tt'3 ± . •

b) 3

•••

a6

After that move, White can transpose to a favourable varia­ tion for him of the Benoni De­ fence. 4.d5 exd5 4 ... b5? ! - That premature activity only creates additional weaknesses on the queenside, Kissel - Rham, Hassloch 1997,

l . e4 c5 2. ttlf3 e6 3.d4 S.a4 b4 (It is worse for Black to continue with: S ... �aS+ 6.id2 b4 7.ttla3 �c7 8.ttlc4 i.b7 9.aS±; S ... ib7 6.axbS exdS 7.exdS ttlf6 S.ttlc3±, 6 . . . axbS 7.gxaS haS S.hbS±) 6.i.c4 ttlf6 (or 6 ... d6 7.dxe6 fxe6 S.ttlgS 'lWf6 9.f4±) 7.dxe6 fxe6 8.eS±. 4 ... �c7 S.a4 ttlf6 6.ttlc3 ie7 7.i.e2 0-0 8.0-0 b6 9.ttld2 ib7 10.if3± Morgado - Biava, corr. 1980. 4 ... ttlf6, Smrcka - Szekely, corr. 1971, 5.dxe6 dxe6 (S . . . fxe6 6.eS ttldS 7.c4 ttlb6 S.a4±) 6.�xdS+ xdS 7.ttlc3 bS S.i.f4 i.b7 (or 8 . . . b4 9.ttla4 ttlxe4 10.ttlb6+-; 9 . . . ttlbd7 1O.i.d3 i.b7 1l.gd1 ic6 12 .b3±) 9.ttleS eS 10.f3 ttlc6 1l.ttlxc6 hc6 12 .a4 b4 13.ttlbl±. 4 . . . d6 5.a4 ttle7 (About S . . . exdS 6.exdS - see 4 . . . exdS; af­ ter S . . . ttlf6 6.ttlc3 'lWaS ? ! Shakhov - Esmursiev, Russia 1996, White can bring favourably his knight to the c4-square with - 7.ttld2 i.e7 S.ttlc4 'lWd8 9.aS±, it is only slight­ ly better for Black to opt for: 6 . . . g 6 , Erschbaumer - Gatterer, Bol­ zano 2000, 7.i.e2 i.g7 8. 0-0 0-0 9.ttld2 exdS 10.exdS ttlbd7 1l.ttlc4 ttl b6 12. ttle3±, since he has difficul­ ties organizing any counterplay.) 6.i.e2 exdS 7.exdS ttlg6 8.0-0 ie7 9.ttla3 ig4, G.Timoscenko - Zel­ cic, Passau 1994 and here White obtains a slight, but stable advan­ tage by completing the maneuver, started on his previous move: 1O.ttlc4 0-0 11.ttle3;!;. 5.exd5 d6 6.a4 ttlf6

Black would not change much with: 6 ... ig4 7.ie2 ttlf6 s . o-o ie7 9.i.f4 0-0 1O.ttlc3 geS, Teske - Bellon Lopez, Cienfuegos 1997, 11.ttld2±. 7.a5 �e7 S . .!Oc3 0 - 0

9 .i.e2;!; (White has a space advantage and he has a clear-cut plan to restrict his opponent's possibilities.) 9 i.g4 1 0 .!Od2 he2 1l.'lWxe2 geS 12. 0 - 0 .!Obd7 13.'!oc4 b5 14.axb6 .!Oxb6 15 . .!Oe3 'lWcS 16.'lWf3± Porreca - Monostori, corr. 1970. • • •

•

c) 3 . . . d5

Black avoids the main theo­ retical lines of the Sicilian De­ fence (3 ... cxd4 4.ttlxd4) with his last move, in the hope of obtain­ ing some counterplay in unfamil14S

Chapter 1 0 iar positions. His activity in the centre is premature, though ... After his last move; there arises a pawn-structure, which is more typical for the French Defence. The comparison however is in fa­ vour of White, because his queen's knight has not been developed yet and he can start active actions in the centre much earlier than his opponent. 4.exd5 Opening of the game in the centre is in favour of White, since he has the better development. 4 . . . exd5 White obtains the advantage even easier after Black's other possibilities: 4 ... id6 S.dxe6 !xe6, Delaire - Simon, Finistere 2000 and here after the simple line 6.dxcS± White reaches an endgame with an extra pawn; The move 4 . . . lLlf6 - also en­ ables White to simplify the posi­ tion, Rantanen - Kokko, corr. 1976, S.,ibS+ ,id7 6.hd7+ 'lWxd7 7.dxe6 'lWxe6+ B.ie3±; 4 ... cxd4 S.dxe6 !xe6 (It is even worse for Black to play S ... 'lWe7, Zaffaroni - Lewis, Email 2000, 6.ibS+ lLlc6 7.lLlxd4+-) 6.ibS+ id7 7.hd7+ 'lWxd7 B.'lWxd4± and White remained with a solid ex­ tra pawn in the game T.Asanov - Chapliev, Krasnodar 2002; 4 . . . 'lWxdS. Black regains his pawn, but not under the best cir­ cumstances. His queen remains in dS and that enables White to de146

velop his knight on c3 with tempo and to seize the initiative. S.lLlc3 'lWdB (After: S ... \Wd6 6.lLle4 'lWc6 7.lLlxcS !xcS B.dxcS 'lWxcS 9.id3± White has a space advantage and a couple of powerful bishops, Ri­ vares - Vollbrecht, corr. 1995 ; Black lags even more in develop­ ment in case of: S . . . 'lWd7 6.ibS lLlc6, Wang - Huang, Montreal 199B, 7.,if4 cxd4 - in answer to 7 .. .f6, it is strong for White to fol­ low with B.dS± opening the cen­ tre - B.lLleS and here Black loses after: B ... 'lWd6 9.'lWf3 dxc3 10.lLlxc6 cxb2 1U'�d1+-, but even after: B ... 'lWdB 9.'lWhS g6 10.'lWf3± White's advantage is more than obvious.) 6.ie3.

White's lead in development is evident and soon it will even in­ crease, because Black's cS-pawn is hanging: 6 ... lLlf6? - Black loses a pawn. 7.dxc5 'lWaS, Groselj - Marusic, Bled 1992 and now, White main­ tains his material advantage with : B.lLld2 ! lLldS 9.lLlxdS exdS 1O.c3±; 6 ... b6 7.dxcS 'lWxd1+ B.Eixd1 !xcS (It is possibly better for Black to defend with B ... bxcS,

1 . e4 c5 2. liJj3 e6 3.d4 Hill - Marquer, France 2000, although even in that case after: 9.liJbS liJa6 1O.liJeS f6 11.liJc4± Black can hardly find a satisfac­ tory defence.) 9 .hcS bxcs, Alma­ guer - Ullrich, Sebnitz 1998 and here after the simple line: 1O.liJbs liJa6 1l.liJd6+- White wins a piece; 6 ... liJd7 - That move en­ ables White to obtain a power­ ful initiative in the centre, Bellut - Mounin, Saint Quentin 1999, 7.ds exds (Black fails to close the position after 7 . . . es, in view of: 8.d6 a6 9.ic4±) 8 .if4 ! - strange­ ly enough, Black has no defence after that move, for example: 8 . . . '?MaS (Black loses immediately after: 8 ... d4 9.liJds+-, as well as following: 8 . . . liJb6 9.lDbs+-) 9. '?Md2 liJgf6 10.0-0-0 ie7 (The other possibilities are not good for Black either: 1O ... d4 1U�e1+- ; 1 O . . . liJb6 ll.ibs+ -) 1U�e1 +-; 6 . . . cxd4 - That is Black's most tenacious defence. 7.liJxd4 liJf6, Wilminski - Derdzikowski, Kryn­ ica 2001 (It is hardly any better for him to try: 7 . . . ie7, A.Garcia - Dickel, Karlsruhe 2003, 8.liJdbs id7 9.liJd6±; or 7 . . . id7 8.'?Mf3 liJc6 9.0-0-0 '!Wf6 1O.'?Mg3 a6 1l.'!Wc7± Murg - Holovaci, Deva 1999), and here the most logical varia­ tion for White seems to be the at­ tempt to exploit his lead in devel­ opment with: 8.liJdbS '!WaS (The other lines are not better for Black either: 8 . . . '!Wxd1+ 9J§:xd1 liJa6 10.

liJxa7±; 8 ... id7 9.liJd6+ hd6 10. '!Wxd6±) 9.liJd6+ hd6 1O .'!Wxd6 liJe4 ll.ibs+ id7 12 .'!Wes hbs 13.�xbs+ '?Mxbs 14.liJxbS± and he loses his a7-pawn. 5.ib5+ Now, we will analyze two possibilities for Black to defend against the check: el) 5 id7 and e2) 5 liJe6 . It is bad for him to opt for 5 . . . liJd7, Nguyen Ngoc Minh - Do Bich, Vietnam 2 0 05, because after 6.0-0 liJgf6 (Black loses if he tries to close the position with: 6 ... c4 7.liJc3 liJgf6 8.igs ie7 9.ixf6+-, or 7 ... a6 8.liJxdS axbs 9.if4+-) 7.E:e1+ ie7 8.dxcs 0-0 9.c6± and White remains with a solid extra pawn. •••

•••

el) 5

•••

Ad7 6.ixd7+

The trade of the bishops fa­ cilitates White's development and that is his best choice. Black can recapture in two ways and we will analyze both: ela) 6 '?Mxd7 and elb) 6 liJxd7. .••

• • .

147

Chapter 1 0 eta) 6 .'l!;Yxd7 7. 0 - 0 lbc6 That is Black's relatively best line. He loses an important tempo with: 7 ... �d6 S.dxcS hcS, For­ man - Fogarasi, Telfort 2002 and here White wins after: 9.lbeS �fS 1O.�xdS+-, 9 ... Wle7 10J'!e1+-, 9 ... WldS 1O.�hS �e7 11.Wlg4+-. 7 ... tDf6 S.lbeS �dS 9.lbc3± White has already completed his development, while Black still has a long way to go in order to ac­ complish that. It is still possible to play: 7 ... cxd4 8J'!e1+. White sacrifices temporarily a pawn and he starts attacking Black's king and queen without losing time: S ... �e7 9. tDeS �d6 1O.�f4 lbc6 1l.lbd2 Wle6 (It is bad for Black too if he tries: 11...tDxeS 12.ixeS �g6 13. hd4 0-0-0 14.c4+- White's initiative is running smooth­ ly, while Black's pieces remain idle.) 12.tDxc6 Wlxc6 13.lbf3 lbf6 14.lbxd4 �d7 1S.�d6 ! - That is the tactical resource of deflection: 1S . . . �xd6 16.lbfS+- and after 17. 1'!xe7+ Black's king becomes an easy prey. 8.ge1+ �e7 . •

9.dxc5 0 - 0 - 0 , P.Martynov - Tolonen, Tampere 1999, 1 0 . �e3 d4 1l . .tf4 hc5 (Black has restored the material balance, but he fails to neutralize the ac­ tivity of White's pieces.) 12.lbe5 lbxe5 13.gxe5 .tb6 14.a4 f6 15.ge1 �f5 (Black can try here to show some activity - 1S . . . gS, but it is premature and White can neutralize it quickly with: 16.aS .tc5 17 . .tg3 hS 18.h3 lbe7 19.�d3± - and he has a clear­ cut plan - as-a6, disrupting the shelter of the black king, followed by the maneuver tDb1-d2-e4 and his centralized knight paralyzes Black's game.) 16.�d2 .ta5 (This move prevents the advance of the a4-pawn, but it enables White to sacrifice spectacularly another pawn.) 17.b4! hb4 18.§'xb4 §'xf4 19.1ba3 �d6 2 0 .§'a5± White has a powerful attack and he has a considerable material superiority, since Black's knight on g8 and his rook on h8 are com­ pletely out of action. etb) 6

7

148

. • •

• • •

lbxd7 7. 0 - 0

lbgf6

l.e4 c5 2. ttJj3 e6 3.d4 Let us see now the other pos­ sibilities for Black: 7 ... tDb6? 8.13e1+ iJ.e7, Feisten­ auer - Capelja, Germany 1999, 9.dxc5 ! tDd7 1O.tDc3 tDxcS 11. tDxdS+- and White wins; 7 ... cxd4?! S.'tMfxd4 Wic7 (Black might have survived longer af­ ter: 8. .. tDgf6 9.tDc3±) 9.tDc3 tDgf6 1O.13e1+ iJ.e7 11.iJ.gS+- Wonnacott - Karlsson, Email 1995; 7 ... ie7? ! S.dxcS± and Black has problems with the protection of his dS-pawn, Shvai - Belov, Lviv 2001; 7 ... tDe7 S.lik 3 WiaS 9 .id2 Wia6 1O.Wie2 Wixe2 11.ttJxe2 13cS 12 .ttJc3 f6 13.13fel± White has pinned Black's knight on e7 and he is threatening to capture Black's dS­ pawn; 7 ... c4 S.13e1+ ie7 9.Wie2 Wic7 1O.ttJc3 ttJdf6 11.igS 0-0-0 12. ttJeS+- Knuetter - Duica, Co­ logne 1993 and Black is incapable of countering White's threat of a fork on fl, followed by ttJbS; 7 ... id6 S.dxc5 ttJxcS 9.13e1+ ttJe7 1O.ttJc3 0-0 11.g3 ic7, Kac­ zmarek - Brajkovic, London 1993 and now White's best line is: 12 .igS f6 13.ie3 ttJe4 14.ttJxe4 dxe4 1s.ic5 ! fS 16.ttJgS± and he is clearly better, because of his threats to fork on the e6-square, followed by WihS. S.1:'!el+ ie7 9.Wie2 13cS In answer to 9 ... ttJe4, Greef - Abg Zain, Denizli 2 0 03, it is very good for White to continue with 1O.ttJc3 and Black can hardly

maintain the material balance: 10 . . . ttJdf6 (After: 1O ... ttJxc3 11.bxc3 @fS 12 . .ia3 13cS 13.c4± Black's rook on hS might remain out of action altogether.) 11.WibS+ Wid7 12 .Wixd7+ @xd7 13.ttJxdS± and White preserves his extra pawn. 9 ... cxd4? ! 1O.ttJxd4± O-O? 1l.Wixe7+- Backhaus - Kothrade, Langenhagen 1999. 9 . . . @fS - That is an attempt to neutralize White's activity on the e-file. 1O . .if4 13cS 11.ttJbd2 gc6 12.c4± G.Braun - Kern, Dort­ mund 1992 . 1 0 .ttJc3 @f8 1O ... gc6 11.dxcS ttJxc5 12.ttJd4± Wikner - I .Andreasson, Gothen­ burg 1994; or: 1O . . .@fS 11.ie3 c4 12.ttJeS ib4 13.igS± W.Hort - Riepe, Email 2002. 10 . . . c4, Alonso - Mellano, Buenos Aires 1994. Now, White can create serious problems for Black by transferring his knight to the fS-square. 11.ttJh4 g6 (It is not better for Black to defend with: 11 ... @fS 12.ttJfS ib4 13.id2±) 12 .ih6 gc6 13.ttJf3 ge6 14.Wid2±. He has failed to ensure the safety of his king. 1l.ie3 c4

149

Chapter 1 0 12.ctle5 �b4, Hort - Riepe, Email 2002, White could have maintained his advantage here with the move 13.�f3 ! ± - and he would be clearly better due to the his pressure against the d5 and f7 -squares and the insecure black king. c2) 5

•..

ctlc6

Black is trying to preserve as many pieces as possible. 6. 0 - 0

Now, Black has plenty of pos­ sibilities, but he lags so much in development that his situation is desperate. We will show you how White can obtain a superior game in all the cases. 6 . . . ctlf6

In the game Sygulski - Klein, Internet 2 004, Black lost very quickly after: 6 ... g6? 7.E1el+ �e7 8.dxc5 lUf6 9.ih6+- ig4?? 10. ig7 1-0. 6 ... ig4? ! - Black can hardly make a good use out of that pin. 7.E1el + ie7 8.dxc5 ctlf6, Baethke Knyazhytsky, Mecklenburg 1998 and here it is advisable for White to impede his opponent's develop150

ment with: 9.�e2 ixf3 (The other defence for Black is not better at all: 9 . . . a6 1O .ixc6+ bxc6 1l.lUbd2 E1a7 12 .�d3±) 1O.�xf3 0-0 11.�e3 d4 12 .�g5 �a5 13.ctla3± Black can regain his pawn only at the price of compromising the shelter of his king. 6 ... �d6? ! 7.dxc5 �xc5, Ber­ czes - Ivkovic, Oropesa del Mar 2000. Now, White can emphasize the unfavourable placement of his opponent's queen with: 8.lUc3 ie6 9.lUd4 0-0-0 1O.ie3±. 6 . . . a6? ! - This is a loss of time. 7.ixc6+ bxc6 8.E1el+ ie6 9.lUg5 �f6, Strathoff - Gorval, Dort­ mund 2 0 03 and here White can best exploit the vulnerable situa­ tion of Black's king with the en­ ergetic line: 10.c4 ! , for example: 1O ... �xd4 1l.lUd2 id6 12.lUxe6 fxe6 13.E1xe6+ 'it>d7 (Black loses rapidly after: 13 ... lUe7 14.�el 0-0-0 15.E1xd6 E1xd6 16.�xe7 E1f6 17.lUf3 �dl+ 18.lUel+-) 14.�e2 E1f8 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.lUf3±. 6 ... cxd4?! 7.lUxd4 id7 8.E1el+ ie7 9.ig5 h6 ! (It is worse for Black to continue with: 9 ... �b6 1O.eIJ c3 ! �c5 1l.lUb3 �d6 12. lUxd5+- Suprun - D.Ivanov, St Petersburg 2 0 0 0 , it is not better for him to try either: 1O ... �xd4 1l.ixc6 ! �xdl 12.ixd7+ 'it>xd7 13. E1axdl +- and White wins the d5pawn.) 1O .ih4t Black has prob­ lems completing his development without some positional conces­ sions, for example: 1O ... �b6 l1.c3 0-0-0 12 .ixc6 ixh4 13.ixd7+

l.e4 cS 2. ttlj3 e6 3.d4 �xd7 14.ttld2± Black's kingside is presently static, while his dS­ pawn will be rather weak in an endgame. Meanwhile, until there are queens on the board, White can easily create threats against his opponent's king. 6 ... i.e7? ! 7.�e1 cxd4 (About 7 . . . ttlf6 8.ttleS - see 6 ... ttlf6 7.�e1+ i.e7 8.ttleS.) 8.ttlxd4 i.d7 9.i.gS - see 6 ... cxd4 7.ttlxd4 fie7 8.�e1+ fie7 9.i.gS. 6 . . . c4, Flores - Iglesias, Gua­ dalajara 1974, Black is trying to block the position, but here again his lag in development is essential and White can ob­ tain effortlessly a superior active position: 7.ttleS ttlge7 8.�e1 i.e6 9.ttlc3 a6 10 . .txc6+ ttlxc6 l1.'lWhS ttlxeS 12.�xeS g6 13.'lWf3± and Black is bound to lose his weak dS-pawn. 6 ... i.e6 7.�e1 h6? This prophy­ lactic move is a loss of time and White can sacrifice quite effec­ tively the exchange on e6 (Black should have tried to develop im­ mediately with 7 . . . ttlf6, but after, for example: 8.ttlgS cxd4 9.ttlxe6 fxe6 1O.�xe6+ <j{f7 11.�el± he would have great problems, due to his doubled isolated pawns and the insecure shelter of his king.) 8.�xe6+ ! fxe6 9.ttleS hS 1O.'lWf3 ttlf6 11.�d3 ttle4 12.ttlc3 .td6 13.ttlxc6 bxc6 14 . .txc6+- and Black is faced with unavoidable huge material losses. 6 ... .td6 7.c4 ttlge7 (It is worse for Black to defend with: 7 . . . dxc4

8.dS a6 9 . .ta4 bS 1O.dxc6 bxa4 11.ttla3 ttle7 12.ttlxc4 i.c7 13.�xa4 �dS 14.�el±, since White re­ mains with an extra pawn and a superior development, Velickovic - Lukov, Pamporovo 1981. In the game Hansen - Pedersen, Odense 1980, Black reduced a bit the tension on the queenside with the line : 7 ... a6 8.cxdS axbS 9.dxc6 bxc6 10.dxcS .txcS 11.'lWc2 'lWb6 12.ttlbd2 .te6? ! 13.ttle4 .te7 14 . .te3 'lWc7 lS.ttld4 i.c4 16.�fe1 .tb4, but he ignored the X-ray along the e-file and he overlooked a tactical strike: 17.ttlf6 + ! gxf6 18 . .tf4+-. Here, White won his opponent's queen for a rook and a bishop and his attack was even stronger.) 8.cxdS ttlxdS 9.�e1+ i.e6 (Black would not have saved his position by retreating with his king either: 9 . . . <j{f8 10.ttlc3 ttlxc3 1l.bxc3 .tg4 12 .i.a3 cxd4 13.hc6 bxc6 14.�xd4 i.xa3 lS.�xg4 �f6 16.ttleS <j{g8 17.'lWd7 i.cS 18.ttlg4 �d6 19.�e8+ �xe8 20.'lWxe8+ 'lWf8 2 1.'lWxc6+-. White has an extra pawn and he is threatening the maneuver �a1-e1-e8, while Black's pieces are almost immobile.) 10. ttlgS 'lWd7 1l.ttlc3 ttlxc3 12 .bxc3 cxd4, Rijkom - Schenning, corr. 1992 and here White had to attack his opponent's pinned bishop, fol­ lowed by the occupation of the e6-square: 13.i.c4 ! dxc3 14.ttlxe6 fxe6 lS.he6± Black fails to bring his king to safety and White's at­ tack is overwhelming. 7.l3el+ 151

Chapter 1 0 Here, White has an interesting alternative: 7.t2lc3 ! ? cxd4 S.l2lxd4 id7 9.ie2 id6 1O.if3, starting to besiege Black's isolated dS­ pawn. 10 . . . 0-0 11.l2lxdS l2lxdS 12. hdS ixh2+ 13.lhh2 �h4+ 14. �g1 l2lxd4 1S.ie3 l2lfS 16.icS EJ:fdS 17.�f3 EJ:acS 1S.ixa7± and White has won a pawn.

7 ie7 In the game Susnik - Stubljar, Grize 2 0 01, Black interposed against the check with the other bishop: 7 ... ie6 S.l2lgS �b6 (It is not better for Black to defend with: S . . . �d7, Stieber - Heimann, Bay­ ern 2 003, because after: 9.l2ld2 0-0-0 1O.l2lxe6 fxe6 1l.l2lf3± his central pawns are weak. He has no chances of equalizing following: 9 ... ie7 1O .�e2 0-0 1l.l2ldf3±; or S ... cxd4 9.l2lxe6 fxe6 1O .EJ:xe6+ �f7 11.EJ:el±. White's position is dearly superior, due to his oppo­ nent's doubled isolated pawns in the centre and his king - deprived of hits castling rights.) 9.l2lxe6 fxe6 1O .�e2 0-0-0 11.�xe6+ �c7 12 .hc6 bxc6 13.if4+ �b7 14.a4 as 1S.l2ld2 cxd4 16.ieS± - Black's pawn-structure on the queenside • . .

152

is very bad and he has problems with the protection of the f6square. 8.l2le5 .id7 The alternative for Black here is : S . . . �b6 9.�e2 0-0 1O.l2lxc6 bxc6 11.�xe7 �xbS 12.l2lc3 �aS (The other retreats of the queen are not any better: 12 . . . �c4 13.�xc5 .if5 14.�xc4 dxc4 1S.EJ:e2± White remains with an extra pawn in an endgame, or 12 . . . �b4 13.�xc5 �xcS 14.dxcS gbS 1S.b3±) 13.igS l2ld7 14.dxcS gbS 1S.gab1 (It deserves a very seri­ ous attention for White here to sacrifice temporarily a piece with 1S.l2lxdS ! ? cxdS 16.c6 �c7 17.cxd7 hd7 18.�a3 �xc2 19.b3± and he has better chances thanks to the vulnerability of his opponent's isolated pawns on a7 and dS. Black's attempt to preserve his extra piece after the retreat of the knight - 16 ... l2lb6?, leads to the loss of his rook after 17.if4, while if Black persists here again with 17 ... EJ:aS??, then White exploits the vulnerability of his opponent's last rank and he sacrifices his queen spectacularly and check­ mates in three with: 1S.�xf8 ! �xfS 19.id6+ �gS 20.geS#) 1S ... d4 16.l2le2 d3 17.cxd3 gxb2 1S.gbc1 �xa2 19.if4± - Black's initiative reaches its dead end, while his numerous weakness remain. White plans to insert a wedge in Black's position with the move if4-d6 and he is also threatening with the penetration

l . e4 c5 2.tiJj3 e6 3.d4 of his rook along the a-file after E1c1-a1xa7. 9.lLlxd7 \Wxd7 1 0 .dxc5 0 - 0 1l.h4 ! ? White occupies additional space on the queenside and he frees the excellent b2-square for his rook. 1l E1fe8 The other more active line for Black - ll . . . aS, was tested in the game Maia - Colombo, corr. 2 0 0 2 . After: 12 .c3 E1fe8 13.ib2 \wfS 14.lLld2 d4? ! 1S.cxd4 axb4 16. \Wf3 \Wc2 17.lLlc4+- White had an extra pawn and he was threaten­ ing to win his opponent's knight, pinning it after d4-dS. Black's relatively best line here is: 14 . . . lLle4 1S.f3 lLl g S 16.a3 \Wg6 17.mhl± - since White remains with an extra pawn indeed, but Black's

pieces are rather comfortably de­ ployed.

• • •

12.oih2 a6 (It is even worse for Black to continue here with: 12 . . . \Wg4? 13.\Wxg4 lLlxg4 14.ixc6 bxc6, Schulz - Gantzert, Winni­ peg 1998, because after 1S.lLld2± White remains with a solid extra pawn in an endgame.) 13.i.a4 \WfS 14.lLlc3 lLle4 15.\Wxd5 \wxf2 16.mhl lLlf6 17.\Wc4± and White is a pawn up.

Conclusion We have analyzed in this chapter some seldom played lines for Black on move three. They all lead to diffic ult positions for him and some of them are even lost. Variation b transposes from Sicilian De­ fence to schemes, which are more typicalfor the Benoni Defence and they are all rather difficult for Black. Variation c leads to positions from the French defence in which White's queen 's knight has not been developed yet and that is favourable for him. Thanks to the saved tempo, White manages to organize a powerful pressure along the open e-file.

153

Chapter 11

1.e4 c5 2 . tlJf3 e6 3 . d4 cxd4 4 . tlJ xd4

We will analyze in this chap­ ter all sensible moves for Black except the most popular - 4 . . . ttJc6, 4 . . . a 6 and 4 ... ttJf6. Natural­ ly, the vast majority of them are rather dubious, but still the most logical among these rarely played lines are a) 4 Ac5 and b) 4 •••

•••

VBb6.

About 4 ... d6 - see 2 ... d6; as for 4 . . . ttJc6 - see 2 . . . ttJc6 ; 4 ... �e7 5.ttJc3 (or 5.c4 ttJf6 6.ttJc3) 5 . . . d6 6.�e3 - see 2 . . . d6. 4 ... h6 - This move has been played in several games, but af­ ter the natural reply 5.ttJc3 (5.c4 also seems quite good) there arise standard positions of the Sicilian Defence in which Black has lost a tempo for an unnecessary move, which has compromised his king's shelter. 154

4 .. .'�a5+?! - That is hardly the best placement for Black's queen. 5.ttJc3 �b4 (About 5 ... ttJf6 6.ttJb3 - see 4 . . .ttJf6 5.ttJc3 VNa5 6.ttJb3.) 6.id2 ttJc6 7.ttJb3 �d8 8.a3 !xc3 9.,txc3± and White had the two­ bishop advantage and a lead in development in the game Power - Ellison, corr. 1998. 4 ... VNh4?! - That is an attempt by Black to win a pawn analogous­ ly to the well-familiar variation of the Scotch Game (l.e4 e5 2 .ttJf3 ttJc6 3.d4 exd4 4.ttJxd4 �h4 ! ?), but White can parry it easily with: 5.ttJc3 �b4 6.id3 a6 (or 6 . . . �f6 7.ttJdb5 ttJ a 6 8. 0-0± Suanes - Guidoux, Paris 2 00 1) 7.0-0 �f6 8.ttJce2 ttJe7 9.ie3±. White's lead in development might soon become decisive, because he has a clear-cut plan of the develop­ ment of his forces: 9 . . . 0-0 W.c3 id6 1l.VNd2 h6 12 .f4+- Stepanek - Stodola, Policka 1997. 4 ... b6? ! - This move compro­ mises Black's queenside, Guerra - Krysa, Bogota 2 0 04, 5.ttJb5 ! d5 (It is too bad for Black to play 5 . . . d 6 ? 6.�f4 e 5 7.�d5+-; his de­ fence is very difficult too after:

l .e4 c5 2. ltJj3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. ltJxd4 S . . . �a6 6.ltJlc3 ltJc6 7.�f4±) 6.�f4 ltJa6 7.exdS exdS 8.ltJlc3± and Black ends up with a weak pawn on dS and he lags in development considerably. 4 . . . �b4+? ! - Black loses too much time with that maneuver. S.c3 �cS 6.�g4 �f8 7.�d3± Gazik - Zaj ac, Slovakia 1994. 4 ... ltJe7? ! - White obtains the two-bishop advantage after that move. S.ltJbS ltJec6 (S . . . dS?? 6. �f4+-) 6.ltJd6+ hd6 7.�xd6 �aS+ 8.ltJc3 �b4, Nguyen Minh Tu - Dao Quang Minh, Ha Tinh 2 0 0 0 and here the most energetic line for White seems to be to in­ crease his lead in development with: 9.�g3 0-0 1O.�6 ! �d4 11..ie3±. 4 . . . g6? ! - That weakening of the dark squares has been tested in several games. White should better exploit it with: S .ltJbS d6 (or S . . . dS? ! 6.�d4 ltJf6 7.exdS±) 6 . .if4 eS 7.�e3± and there arises a fa­ vourable situation for him, similar to the line 1.e4 cS 2 .ltJf3 ltJc6 3.d4. cxd4 4.ltJxd4 e6 S.ltJbS d6 6.if4 eS 7.ie3, in which, instead of the developing move ltJc6, Black has played the compromising - g6. 4 ... eS? ! - Now, there arises something similar to the Kalash­ nikov variation (l.e4 cS 2 .ltJf3 ltJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 eS), except that White has an extra tempo. S.ltJbS d6 (The other possibilities for Black are clearly worse: S ... ltJf6 6.ltJd6+ hd6 7.�xd6 ltJc6, Hurst - Corrente, Email 2003, 8.

ltJc3 �b6 9.�c4±; S . . . a6 6.ltJd6+ hd6 7.�xd6 �e7 8.�xe7+ ltJxe7 9.ltJc3 ltJbc6 1O . .ie3± Dolzhikova - Chmel, Evpatoria 2 0 0 2 ; S . . . .icS, Zyrj anov - Morse, Email 2000, 6.�e3 d6? ! 7.hcS dxcS 8.�d6+-, 6 . . . he3 7.fxe3 ltJc6 8.ltJd6+ @f8 9 . .ic4+-, 7 . . . ltJf6 8.�d6 ltJa6 9. ltJlc3 �e7 1O . .ic4±) 6 .c4 (It also seems reasonable for White to try to exploit his lead in development with: 6.ltJ lc3 a6 7.ltJa3 bS 8.ltJdSt) 6 ... a6, Albert - Blaznik, Zalakaros 2 001, 7.ltJSc3 �e7 8 .ie2;j;. 4 ... dS? ! - Black's activity here is not sufficient to compensate his isolated pawn. S.�bS+ id7 6.exdS exdS 7.0-0;j;. Now, strange­ ly enough, Black has problems developing his pieces: 7 . . . icS (He loses after the natural line: 7 ... ltJf6 8J'!el+ .ie7 9 .ltJfS hbS 10.ltJxe7 @f8 1l.b3+ - Felgaer - Calderon Fernandez, Buenos Aires 2003; it is too passive for him to play: 7 ... .ie7, Carlin - Coulter, Email 1996, 8J!el ltJ c6 9 .�gS±) 8.hd7+ ltJxd7 (It is evidently the best for Black to try: 8 . . . �xd7 9 .ltJb3 �d6 10.ltJc3 ltJe7 11.�f3 ltJbc6 12 .�f4;j;) 9.ltJfS �f6 1O.�xdS± Diaz Alonso - Gallinar Canedo, Oviedo 2000. 4 ... �c7 - White's initiative is very powerful after that move: S.ltJbS �c6 (In case of: S . . . �eS 6.ltJ lc3 a6 7.f4 �cS 8.ltJd4± Black's queen is misplaced and soon it will have to go back to c7. It seems strange for Black to try S ... �d8? ! , S.Farago - Czebe, Budapest 1997, since after: 6.�f4 ltJa6 7.ltJ lc3± ISS

Chapter 11 S . . . Wfc7? ! Thoma - Broukal, White's lead in development might turn out to be overwhelm­ Bartlesville 2 0 04, Black's queen ing.) 6.i.e3 (This move is more is rather misplaced here and energetic than 6.!d3 a6 7.ltJd4 White can obtain the two- bishop Wfc7 - see 4 . . . a6 S . .td3 Wfc7.) 6 . . . a6 advantage with the line: 6.ltJdbS 7.ltJa7 Wfc7 8.ltJxc8 Wfxc8 9.ltJd2 !±. Wfb6 (It is even worse for Black to White's couple of bishops pro­ defend with: 6 . . . '?9c6 7.�f4 ltJa6 vides him with clearly superior 8.ltJd6±) 7.Wfd2 ! a6 (After 7 . . . '?9c6 chances and Black's attempt to 8.Wff4 �f8 9.!e3± White has a exchange one of the bishops had great lead in development and catastrophical consequences in Black's king remains stranded in the game D.Minic - Mihaljcisin, the centre.) 8.ltJa4 Wfc6 9.ltJxc5 Skopje 1962 after: 9 . . . �cS? 10. axbS 1O.'?ge3±. 5 . . . d6? ! , Fernandez Velasco ltJc4 ltJf6 1l.eS ltJdS 12 .iLxcS WfxcS - Menendez Villar, Trevias 2001, 13.ltJd6+ �f8 14.WfhS+-. 6.ltJb3 �b4 (After 6 . . . �b6 7.ltJbS dS 8 . .tf4± Black lags considerably a) 4 . . . .tc5 in development. The endgame is rather unpleasant for him after: 6 . . . ltJc6 7.ltJxc5 dxc5 8.'?9xd8+ �xd8 9 ..te3 b6 10.0-0-0±) 7.Wfd4 .txc3+ 8.'?9xc3 ltJf6 9 .'?9g3± White has a stable advantage thanks to his bishop pair and the vulner­ ability of Black's d6-pawn. 5 . . . Wff6?! 6 . .te3 ltJc6? - This is naturally a blunder, but Black's The main idea behind that position is already difficult any­ move is to repel White's knight way, Radolovic - Ghersinich, from the d4-square with the help Umag 2 0 0S, 7.ltJxe6 ! iLxe3 8.ltJc7 + of some threats along the g1-a7 �d8 9.fxe3+-. S . . . ltJe7 6 . .te3 �b6, Kveinys diagonal. 5.�c3 a6 - Haugli, Riga 2004 (The other It seems more logical for Black possibilities are clearly worse for to try: S ... Wfb6 6.ltJa4 - see 4 . . . Black: 6 . . . a6? 7.ltJxe6+-; 6 . . . 0-0? Wfb6 S.ltJc3 �cS 6.ltJa4. 7.ltJxe6 fxe6 8 . .txc5+- Lanzani S ... i.b6? ! - Now, White can Amoyal, St Lorrain 1999; 6 . . . '?9b6 occupy the important d6-square. - White obtains the two-bishop 6.ltJdbS �c7 7.ltJxc7+ Wfxc7 8.ltJbS advantage now. 7.ltJa4 WfaS+ 8. Wfc6, Wilms - Grasse, Dortmund c3 iLxd4 9.iLxd4 0-0, K.Novak Kanceljak, Busevec 2002, 10.i.c5 2004, 9.ltJd6+ �f8 1O.eS±. 156

l.e4 c5 2. tDj3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tDxd4 tDbc6 11 . .td6± White's dark­ squared bishop is so powerful that Black can hardly organize any counterplay. In answer to 6 . . . b6, Doerfel - Kverndal, Halle 2 0 04, it is interesting for White to play 7.�hS ! ? , because Black has problems repelling his opponent's queen from its active position. White obtains the advantage after: 7 . . . tDbc6? ! 8 .tDxc6 tDxc6 9 . .txcS g6 10.hb6! �xb6 11.�bS± and he remains with a solid extra pawn, or 7 ... 0-0 8.0-0-0 ib4 9J':id3 ! ? .ta6 1O.tDdbS tDbc6 11 . .td2 tDg6 12J�h3 h6 13.f4± and White has excellent attacking prospects.) and here White can continue with the aggressive line: 7.�hS tDbc6 8.0-0-0 0-0 (Black's attempt at simplifying the position with: 8 ... .txd4 9.hd4 tDxd4 lOJhd4 �b6 1U:id2 0-0 12 . .td3± leads to a great lag in development for him.) 9 . .tc4t - White's attacking pros­ pects here seem to be much more real than Black's counterplay. 6 .te3

6 ... tDf6? 7.tDxe6+-; 6 . . . bS? 7.tDxe6+ - ; 6 ... ib4? ! - This i s just a loss of time. 7 . .td3 tDe7 8.0-0 hc3 9.bxc3 dS 1O.exdS tDxdS 1l . .td21' - White's couple of powerful bish­ ops is an excellent compensation for the defects of his pawn-struc­ ture, Martins - Quintino Monte­ negro, Brazil 1999; 6 ... .txd4? ! 7.hd4 tDf6 8.eS tDdS 9.tDxdS exd5, Mevdev Bracco, Buenos Aires 2 0 0 2 and now after 1O .ic3±, Black loses his d5-pawn; Following 6 . . . �e7, Kranewit­ ter - Quabach, Passau 1998, it de­ serves attention for White to try: 7.e5 ! ? d5 (Black's attempt to gob­ ble his opponent's central pawn leads to an immediate disaster for him after: 7 . . . tDc6?! 8.tDe4 tDxe5 9.tDxc5 �xc5 10.tDxe6 �a5+ 11. id2 +-) 8.�g4 f5 9 .�g3±. There has arisen a pawn-structure more typical for the French Defence, but Black lags in development and his dark squares are quite vulnerable; 6 . . . �b6 ? ! - White exerts pow­ erful pressure on the queenside after that move. 7.tDa4 �a5+ 8 .c3 ia7 9.b4 �c7, Wortel - Win­ ter, Hengelo 1992 (If 9 . . . �e5 1O .id3 tDf6, Pilz - Gyorkos, Ko­ szeg 2000, then it is enough for White to complete his develop­ ment with 11. 0-0± and Black's 6 ia7 position becomes quite difficult, Black has tested some other because White controls the cen­ moves here: tre and should Black try to cap.

...

157

Chapter 11 ture his opponent's central pawn - he loses a piece after: 1l . . . tt'lxe4? 12.tt'lf3 \1;Iff5 13.ixe4 \1;Ifxe4 14.ixa7 �xa7 15.\1;Ifd6+-) Now, it might seem that Black has something to brag about - he has provoked a weakening of the c3-pawn and he has repelled White's knight to the edge of the board, but after the move 1O.b5 ! , he is suddenly in a big trouble: he loses after: 10 . . . tt'le7 Il.b6 ixb6 12 .tt'lxe6+-, in fact his only move is the awkward looking 10 ... b6, isolating his bish­ op, but White can try to exploit immediately his lead in develop­ ment with: Il.bxa6 ixa6 12 .ixa6 tt'lxa6 13.\1;Ifd3±; 6 . . . d6 7.e5 ! ? dxe5 (It is possi­ bly best for Black to play here: 7 . . . tt'le7 8.exd6 hd6 9.\1;Ifh5;!;, but still White leads in development, he dominates in the centre and his pieces are more active.) 8.tt'lxe6 �xdl+ 9.�xdl ixe6 1O.ixc5 tt'le7? (White maintains a slight, but sta­ ble advantage thanks to his pow­ erful bishop pair after: 10 . . . tt'ld7! 11.�d6 l'!c8 12 .�e2;!;) 11.tt'le4 tt'ld7 12.tt'ld6+- Moreno Tejera - Pala­ cin, Spain 1998; 6 . . .\1;Ifc7 7.\1;Ifg4 g6 (This move compromises the dark squares on Black's kingside, but it is not better for him either to continue with: 7 . . . �f8?! 8.f4 tt'lf6 9.\1;Ifg3 d6, Obregon - Diaz, Buenos Aires 2006, after 1O.�e2± White's great lead in development is more than obvious.) 8.\1;Ife2 d6 9.0-0-0 tt'lc6, Moreni - Fernandez, Pinamar 158

1975 and here White obtains practically a decisive advantage by trading his opponent's active pieces : 10.tt'lxc6 \1;Ifxc6 1l.ixc5 \1;Ifxc5 (Black can hardly protect his vulnerable dark squares after: 1l . . . dxc5 12.e5±) 12 .�d2 �e7 (It is more reliable for Black to defend here with 12 . . . tt'lf6, although after: 13.\1;Ifxd6 �xd6 14.�xd6+- White should easily press the advantage of an extra pawn home.) 13.tt'la4 �c6 14.e5 ! +-. Black will hardly manage to save that position due to his catastrophical lag in devel­ opment and the vulnerability of his dark squares. 7.�g4

7 �f6 7 . . . g6 - This move weakens considerably the dark squares. 8.0-0-0 tt'lc6, Enterfeldt - We­ sterholm, Sandviken 1983 and now White should act analogous­ ly to the main line and he obtains a great advantage: 9 .tt'lxc6 ixe3+ 1O.fxe3 bxc6 ll.e5 f5 - otherwise White's knight will occupy the e4square. 12.\1;Iff4 tt'le7 13.e4±. .•.

8 . 0 - 0 - 0 tt'lc6

Black is trying to facilitate his

l.e4 c5 2. lLlf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. lLlxd4 defence by exchanging pieces. 9.ttJxc6 he3+ 1 0 .fxe3 dxc6 Alvarino Cazon - Cueto Aller, Asturias 1996. In answer to 1O ... bxc6, Min­ chev - Canevese, corr. 1990, it is very good for White to follow with: 11.VNg3 ! ttJe7 (About 1l . . . VNg6 12. VNf4 ttJe7 13.eS - see 1l . . .ttJe7; the other moves just lose for Black: 1l . . . eS? 12 .ic4+-; H . . . dS 12.lLla4 ! lLle7 13.VNc7 0-0 14.lLlb6+-) 12. eS VNg6 13.VNf4 0-0 14.id3 fS IS. 1'!hgl± and White has excellent attacking prospects, or 13 . . . lLldS 14.lLlxdS exdS lS.id3 VNe6 16.ifS VNe7 17.e4± and White's bishop is dearly stronger than its counter­ part, while after: 14 . . . cxdS ls.id3 fS 16.exf6 VNxf6 17.VNg3 0-0 18. 1'!hf1± Black's queenside pieces will hardly manage to assist in the defence of his king.

squares on his queenside are weak and White has occupied the only open file.

b) 4 VNb6 • • •

The basic idea of that move is the same like in variation a, but Black exerts pressure earlier against White's b2-pawn and he does not determine yet the place­ ment of his dark-squared bishop. S.ttJc3 That is White's most natural response. S icS Black has tried here other moves too: About S . . . lLlf6 6.eS - see 2 . . . e 6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 S.lLlc3 VNb6 6.eS; as for S ... lLlc6 6.lLlb3 - see l.e4 cS 2 .lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 VNb6 S.lLlb3 e6 6.lLlc3; S . . . VNc7? ! - Black has lost an 1l.VNg3 lLlh6 (Black loses after important tempo already, Pe­ 1l . . . eS 12 .ic4+-; it is also insuffi­ sola - Zapolskis, Jyvaskyla 1998, cient for him to play the more nat­ 6.lLldbS VNeS 7.VNf3 lLla6 8.if4±; S ... ib4 - Black is ready to ural line: 1l . . . lLle7 12 .lLla4 ! eS 13. lLlb6 1'!b8 14.ic4 ie6 lS.1'!hf1+-) present his opponent with the 12.eS VNg6 13.VNf4±. Black's light two-bishop advantage. 6.ie3 VNaS pieces are deprived of any active 7.lLldbS lLlf6, Nejanky - Farias, possibilities, moreover the dark Humberto Primo 2002 and here • • •

lS9

Chapter 11 White's simplest decision seems to be: 8.a3 hc3+ 9.liJxc3 11Jc6 (Black loses after: 9 ... 11Jxe4? lO .'lWg4 11Jxc3 11.'lWxg7 E1f8 12 . .ih6+-. It is also too dangerous for him to play: 9 ... dS lO.eS llJe4 11.'lWg4±) 10 . .id3;!; and his powerful bishop pair pro­ vides him with a slight, but stable edge in a calm position; S ... a6 6.a3 ! ? - White plans to deploy his bishop to the e3-square and he thus ensures the safety of his b2-pawn, because of the pos­ sibility llJa4, trapping his oppo­ nent's queen. 6 . . . 11Jc6 (or 6 .. :f1c7, Alvarez Ibarra - Pavia Miralles, Valencia 2 003, 7 ..ie3 llJf6 8.f4 d6 9 . .id3;!;; it is tremendously risky for Black to play here: 6 . . . 11Je7? ! 7 . .ie3 11Jg6, Short - J.Polgar, Nov­ gorod 1996 and now White has the quite interesting tactical re­ source - 8.11Jxe6 ! ? 'lWxe6 9.11JdS, with the following eventual de­ velopments: 9 . . . 'lWxe4?! lO.llJc7+ @d8 11.11Jxa8 .icS 12 .'lWd3+- and his knight can easily be retrieved from the corner; 9 .. :f1eS lO.llJb6 .icS 11.11Jxa8 bS? ! 12 .�dS ! ? �xb2 13.�xc5! �xal+ 14.@d2 llJc6 IS. llJc7+ @d8 16.'lWb6+- and Black fails to maintain the material bal­ ance. It is slightly better for him to defend with: 11 ... 0-0 12.c3 'lWxe4 13.'lWf3±, but he will not manage to trap his opponent's knight anyway, while White pre­ serves his extra exchange; 9 ... 'lWc6 10.11Jb6 i.cS 11.11Jxa8 he3 12 .fxe3 bS 13.'lWdS 'lWxc2 14.'lWd2±; 12 ... 0-0 13.c3 �xe4 14.'lWd4 'lWe7 160

IS.11Jb6± - and White's knight on a8 comes back to the dS-square in all variations and that, in addi­ tion to the extra exchange, guar­ antees him a great advantage.) 7 . .ie3 .ic5 (After 7 ... �c7, Torres Garrigos - Coret Frasquet, Mis­ lata 2 001, 8.f4 d6 9.i.d3;!;, there arise standard positions with the extra move a3, which is quite use­ ful for White.) 8.11Ja4 �aS+, Varga - E.Balogh, Reves 1999 and here White's simplest decision seems to be: 9.c3 hd4 (It is very bad for Black to continue with: 9 . . . 11Jxd4? lO.b4 'lWc7 11.bxcS llJc6 12.11Jb6 gb8 13.11Jc4±, because his dark d6 and b6-squares are catastrophi­ cally weak and that impedes the development of his bishop on c8.) lO.hd4 11Jxd4 (It is worse for Black to play: 10 . . . 11Jf6? 11.11Jb6 E1b8 12 .eS llJxeS? 13.b4+-, 12 . . . llJxd4 13.�xd4 llJdS 14.11Jc4 �c7 IS.11Jd6+ �f8 16.i.c4± and White's advantage is close to decisive.) 11.'lWxd4 eS (l1...llJf6? ! 12.11Jb6±; 11.. .11Je7 12.11Jb6 E1b8 13.'lWxg7 E1g8 14.�d4±) 12 .�b4 �xb4 13.axb4 llJf6 14.11Jb6 E1b8 IS.f3 d6 16.bS± - and White has powerful queen­ side pressure while Black has no counterplay whatsoever. 6.11Ja4

(diagram) 6

• • •

'lWaS+

That is practically Black's only move; otherwise he is in for a big trouble: 6 . . . 'lWb4+ 7.c3 'lWaS? 8.b4 hb4 9.cxb4 �xb4+ , Verboom - De

1 . e4 c5 2. lLlj3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. lLlxd4 able exchanges with the help of a temporary pawn-sacrifice. 14 . . . lLlxb4 15.Eib1 EixcB 16.Eixb4 '
The game is slightly more forced after: 7. . . i.e7 ! ? B .lLlb5 d6 (It is more perilous for Black to follow with: B ... a6 9.b4 hb4? 10. cxb4 '
This is the main line. Black has tried in practice some other moves too: 9 ... 0-0 lO.f3 ltJc6 (His defence is not any easier after the standard reaction: lO ... dS 11 ..igS eS 12 .�f2 ltJbd7? ! 13.ltJxd7 ltJxd7 14 . .ie7 l'!e8 IS . .ib4±, or 11 ... ltJc6 12.�f2±) 11. �f2 dS 12 ..igS ltJd7 13.ltJb3 �c7 14.exdS exdS IS.0-0-0;!; Black has problems compensating the vulnerability of his dS-pawn, due to his opponent's powerful bish­ ops, Blehm - Najbar, Trzbinia 1999; 9 ...b6 lO.ltJb3 VNhS 11.f3 0-0 12 ..if4 ltJc6 (After: 12 ... dS 13 . .id6 l'!d8 14.eS ltJfd7 IS.f4;!;, White's bishop on d6 is so mighty that Black has problems organizing any counterplay.) 13.VNe3 eS 14. .igS ltJe8 (Black only creates ad­ ditional weaknesses with the combination: 14 ... ltJxe4?! IS.fxe4 h6 16 . .ixh6 �xh6 17.'1&xh6 gxh6 18 . .ic4±, since he can hardly pro­ tect now his pawns on d7, f7 and h6.) IS.g4 �g6 16.0-0-0 VNe6 17. e7 14.gdl±) 14 . .ixd6± - and White has excellent chanc­ es to exploit the power of his two bishops and to materialize his great positional advantage. a) 5 . . . a6? !

Black ignores the threat e4-eS and he prefers to control at first the bS-square, but that decision can hardly be recommended. The advance of White's central pawn has some drawbacks indeed, since it might become vulnerable and Black can undermine it later, but that reasoning is a bit too ab­ stract. White obtains a huge lead in development and that is the most important factor in the eval­ uation of the position. 6.e5! tDg8 The line: 6 ... lLldS ? ! 7.lLlxdS exdS, leads to the formation of chronical pawn-weaknesses in Black's camp and the simplest way for White to exploit that is - 8.lLlf3. Now, Black's attempt to counterattack with: 8 . . . .ic5 9.'lWxdS 'lWb6, can be refuted by White with: 10 . .ic4 ! .ixf2 + (It is hopeless for Black to try: 10 ... 0-0

l.e4 c5 2.tiJj3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4 . tiJxd4 l:iJf6 5. l:iJ c3 11.0-0+- Wheldon - El Cherif, London 1987.) 11.e2 0-0 12Jm .ic5 13.l:iJgS+- and Black is de­ fenseless. 7 .tf4 ! ? .

White has played in practice more often 7 . .td3, but that move still enables Black to push d7-d6. After 7 . .tf4 his possibilities are considerably reduced. 7 .fiJe7 ••

Black would hardly be satisfied with 7 . . . dS? ! (It is more or less the same after 7 ... d6? ! 8.exd6 - see 7 . . . dS.) 8.exd6 l:iJf6 (8 ... hd6 9. l:iJxe6!± Richter - Polzer, Bad El­ ster 1937) 9 . .ie2 l:iJbd7, SeIj akov - Fomin, Tula 2 0 03, 1O.l:iJf3 ! Wfb6 11.'lWd2 'lWxb2 12.0-0± and White has a clear advantage. In case of: 7 ... l:iJc6 8.l:iJxc6, Black is faced with a rather un­ pleasant dilemma: he can cap­ ture towards the centre - 8 . . . bxc6 9.l:iJe4±, o r h e can enter an endgame with: 8 . . . dxc6 9.'lWxd8+ xd8 1O.l:iJe4±, but both possi­ bilities are rather unfavourable for him. In the game Reefat - Moham­ mad, Dhaka 2 0 04, Black chose 7 ....tb4 and White countered that with the standard active queen­ move 8 .'lWg4 ! and after 8 ... g6 (It is a disaster for Black to play: 8 ... .txc3+ 9 .bxc3 Wfa5? 1O.Wfxg7 'lWxc3+ 11. e2 +- Noetzel - Rania, Dieren 1991.) he could have ob­ tained a very powerful initiative with: 9 .�d2 ! ? d5 10.exd6 hd6 11.0-0-0 e5 12 .Wfe2±.

S .td3 tDbc6 .

Black has also tried here 8 ... l:iJg6. In that case, it deserves at­ tention for White to follow with: 9.hg6 ! ? hxg6 (or 9 . . . fxg6 1O.0-0± and White has a huge lead in de­ velopment) 10.0-0 l:iJc6 (After 1O ... dS?, Black is left with a pawn down: 11.exd6 .txd6 12 .l:iJxe6 ! he6 13 ..txd6± KaIjakin - C.Ro­ driguez, Spain 2 0 05.) 11.l:iJf3± with a better position for White. 9 .�xc6

Now, Black has three possi­ bilities, but he cannot equalize in anyone of them. 9

•••

�xc6

If 9 . . . dxc6, as it was played in the game Edelman - Krauss, USA 1990, then White's simplest reac­ tion would have been 10.0-0 l:iJd5 (10 ... l:iJg6 11.'lWf3 'lWb6 12 .b3±) 11. 'lWg4 l:iJxf4 12 .'lWxf4± - White has a space advantage and his oppo­ nent's d6-square is very weak, so that is much more important than Black superficial two bishop-ad­ vantage. It is also possible for Black to try: 9 . . .bxc6 10.0-0 l:iJg6 11.�g3 �b8 12 .b3, but even then he has 167

Chapter 12 great difficulties to worry about. The attack of White's central pawn would not help either: 12 .. . 'lWaS 13 .lLle4 ! , planning after: 13 . . . lLlxeS 14.'lWhS± to obtain a huge advantage. 1 0 . 0 - 0 d6 1l.exd6 hd6 l2 .hd6 'lWxd6 l3.gel J.d7

After: 13 .. J':1b8 14.YMhS h6 1S. gad1 YMe7 16.lt:ldS± Black's posi­ tion is critical, Koch - Fawcett, corr. 1998.

That is a counter attacking move. Black is trying to exploit the vulnerability of the b2 and f2-pawns and thus to create some problems for White. Still, we are going to see - that strategy has considerable drawbacks. In case White plays energetically, ignor­ ing a bit the problems with mate­ rial, he might exploit the defects of Black's too early sortie of the queen. I will also mention that Black might start with S . . . J.cS?! and after: 6.eS ! YMb6 (or 6 . . . lt:ldS 7.lLlxdS exdS 8.lLlbS YMb6 9 .J.e3) that leads to a transposition of moves. 6.e5!

In case of the passive line: 6.lLlb3?! J.b4, Black's position is excellent. 6 . . AcS .

l4.YMh5± Black has managed

to push d7-d6, but that does not solve all his problems at all in similar positions. White has now a considerable lead in develop­ ment and opening of the game in the centre would help him realize the potential of his active pieces. b) 5 . . . 'm>6? !

After: 6 ... lLldS 7.lt:lxdS exdS 8. lLlbS J.cS 9.J.e3, the game trans­ poses to the main line. 7.J.e3 ! It:ld5

Black has no choice. He loses after: 7 . . . YMxb2? 8.lt:la4 J.b4+ 9. �e2 'lWa3 1O.c4+-, or 7 . . . lt:lc6? 8.lLlxc6 he3 9.fxe3 YMxb2 10. lLla4+-. Black's situation is terri­ ble too after: 7 . . . lt:lg4? 8.YMxg4 'lWxb2 9.�d2 YMxal lO.'lWxg7 gf8 1l. It:ldbS J.e7, Vandenbussche - De­ marcke, Belgium 2 0 04, since fol­ lowing 12 .J.gS+- his position crumbles. 8 .lt:lxd5 exd5 9.lt:lb5 !

That is White's most prin­ cipled decision. Of course, Black can capture on e3, but his posi168

l.e4 c5 2. 0,.13 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 0,xd4 0,j6 5. 0, c3 tion will be very difficult, because of the loss of his castling rights. 9.. 0 - 0 .

This is the least of evils for Black. If 9 . . . .he3, then 10 .0,d6+

22 .E1f7+ @h6 (22 . . . @g6 23 . .te4+ @h6 24.0,eB ! +-) 23.0,f5+ @g6 24.0,e7+ @h6 25 . .te4 ! + - with an unavoidable checkmate after 26.0,gB + . 1 0 .ixc5 'lWxc5 11.'lWd4 !

and every retreat of his king has certain drawbacks, for example: It is easier for White to exploit 10 . . . @e7 11.0,fS+ @eB 12.0,xe3 his opponent's pawn-weaknesses 'lWxb2 13.!!bl± - White captures after the exchange of queens. 11 on e3 under optimal circum­ 'lWxd4 12.f1.)xd4 fOc6 13. 0 - 0 - 0 stances and his advantage is over­ fOxe5 14.fOb5 fOg4 15.gd2± van whelming; der Wiel - Lammens, Vlissingen Or 1O @dB 1l.fxe3 'lWxe3+ 2000. White regains the d5-pawn, 12 . .te2± - and Black has prob­ maintaining a powerful presure. lems to defend his f7- square as Black is faced with a long and dif­ well as his king; ficult defence. 1O fB 11.fxe3 Wxe3+ 12 .We2 Wxe2+ 13 . .he2 0,c6 14 . .tf3 ! 0,xeS c) 5 . . . .tb4 lS . .hdS f6 16.0-0 @e7 (16 .. J:1bB 17.E1ae1 @e7 1B.0,f7 E1fB 19.0,xeS fxeS 20.E1xeS+ @d6 21.E1xfB @xeS 2 2 . .tf3+-) 17.0,fS+ @fB 1B.E1ae1 g6 (about 1B . . . E1bB 19.1lJd6 - see 16 . . . E1bB ; 1B . . . d6 19.0,xd6 @e7 20. 0,f7+-) 19.0,d6 @g7 2 0 .g4 ! and Black has no satisfactory defence against g4-gS - it would not be of any help for him if he tries: 20 ... That is no doubt the most in­ 0,xg4 2 1.E1e7+ @h6 2 2 .0,f7+-, or 20 ... h6 2 1.E1xeS ! fxeS 22 .E1f7+ @gB teresting and principled line, 23.0,e4+-, or 20 . . . gS 21.E1xeS ! fxeS among all that we analyze in this . . •

•••

•..

169

Chapter 12 chapter. Black pins the knight on c3, exerting pressure along the as­ e1 diagonal and he creates a direct threat against the e4-pawn. There were times, when that variation used to be considered as unpleas­ ant for White and it was named the Sicilian Counter Attack. 6.e5!

might get trapped and in order to save it he must allow White to cre­ ate a passed pawn on the kingside and that soon becomes a deci­ sive factor.) 1O ... �b1 11.�d3 �b6 12 .fxg7 E1gS 13.�gS ! (This is more precise than 13.�h6, because Black can counter that with 13 . . . �c5 !) 1 3 ... �dS (Black loses too af­ ter: 13 ... h6 14.�f6 �dS 15.�xdS+ \t>xdS 16.hh6 f5 17.ttJxf5 exf5 lS .�c4+- Kozakov - Todorov, Valjevo 2 0 00.) 14.�xdS+ \t>xdS lS.�g5+ \t> c7 (15 . . .f6 16.hf6+ \t> eS 17.hh7+-) 16.�f6+- Ngo Bao, Dalat City 2 0 04 and White's position is winning.

That is the only way for White to put his opponent's choice under doubt. He exploits the possibility to advance his central pawn with tempo and he is ready to prove his advantage in case the situation on the board sharpens, which is in fact quite probable. In case White tries to play sim­ el) 6 . . . lDe4? ! plier - Black's task becomes much easier. For example after: 6.�d3 That is Black's most active eS ! ? 7.ttJde2 dS= Yates - Alekhine, move, which leads to tactical com­ Hague 1921, Black managed to plications and it requires precise accomplish the freeing pawn-ad­ play from White. Some time ago, vance in the centre and he solved Black had some successes with that line, but later White found the opening problems. After 6.e5, we will analyze quite convincing ways to counter thoroughly el) 6 ttJe4? ! and c2) it. 6 ttJd5. Black falls quickly into trouble after his other moves. It is too bad for him to play 6 ... �a5? (The following lines trans­ pose to the same situation: 6 . . . �c7? 7.exf6 hc3+ S.bxc3 �xc3+, or 6 ... hc3+?! 7.bxc3 �a5 S.exf6; in that last variation Black can also try 7 ... ttJd5, but after: S.ttJb5 0-0 9.�a3± White has an overwhelm­ 7.�g4 ! ing positional advantage, Lehm­ ann - Reinhardt, DDR 1973.) White must enter the com­ 7.exf6 hc3+ S.bxc3 �xc3+ 9.�d2 plicated forced lines; otherwise �xa1 1O.c3 (Now, Black's queen Black might seize the initiative. .••

• . •

170

1.e4 c5 2. 0,.13 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 0,xd4 0,f6 5. 0, c3 7

• . •

�xc3

It is too dubious for Black to play 7 . . . f5? ! , Khaliamanis - Ma­ vridis, Athens 1983, 8.�xg7 l'U8 9.0,db5± - since he fails to orga­ nize counterplay, while White is already threatening to bring his light-squared bishop into action with .ie2 -h5. In case of 7 ... �a5 (About 7 ... hc3+ 8.bxc3 �a5 9.'i;l!xg7 - see 7 ... �a5.) 8.�xg7 hc3+ (It is in­ sufficient for Black to try: 8 ... l'!f8 9.�6, because White maintains a great advantage in all the lines: 9 ... 0,xc3 10.bxc3 hc3+ 1l.We2 .ib4 12.c3 1ie7 13.Wd2 +-; 9 ... f6, Lev - Agur, Nethanya 1973, 1O.0,db5 0,xc3 1l.bxc3+-; 9 ... 0,c6, Gonzalez - Iglesias, San Ra­ fael 1992 , 1O.�b3 �xe5 11.�xe5 �xe5 12 .1ixf8 Wxf8 13.a3+-) 9. bxc3 'i;l!xc3+ 1O.We2 and not only Black cannot protect his rook on h8, but he cannot profit from the exposed position of White's king either, for example: 10 ... 'i;l!xd4 11.�xh8+ We7 12 .1ia3+ 0,c5 13.l'!dl+- McDonald - Bak­ er, England 1996; in case of 10 ... l'!f8, White follows simply with: 1l . .ih6 'i;l!c4+ 12.We3+- Santama­ ria - Moreno, San Salvador 1994; if 1O ... 0,c6, then White's simplest line is 11.0,b5 (White should not be in a hurry to capture on h8, be­ cause his queen might come un­ der attack along the eighth rank.) 1l . . . 0,d4+ (After: 1l ... �xc2 + 12 . wf3+- White's king is quite safe and that means Black is in a big

trouble.) 12 .�xd4 b6 (12 . . . 'i;l!xd4 13.'i;l!xh8+ We7 14.1ia3+- Kamin­ ski - Walther, Germany 1962) 13 .1ie3 �xal 14.'i;l!xh8+ We7 15. �g7+- and White remains with an extra piece; 1O ... b6 11.�xh8+ We7 12 .1ia3 + ! d6 (12 ... �xa3 13.'i;l!xc8+-) 13.�c6+ ! �xc6 14. exd6+ wd7 15.�b2+- Fuchs Kander, Leipzig 1950 - White has won the exchange and he only needs to play accurately in order to press his advantage home. 8.'i;l!xg7 �f8

Black cannot obtain any­ thing special with the discovered checks, because White can always counter them with c2-c3. 9.a3

9 . A�b5+ .

That is Black's relatively best line and after it the game transfers by force into an endgame, which is clearly superior for White. Black has some other pos­ sibilities too, but they are all too dangerous for him: 9 . . .'i;l!h4 (It is the same after: 9 . . . 'i;l!b6 1O.axb4 �xd4.) 1O.axb4 'i;l!xd4 11.1ih6 'i;l!xb4 12.�xf8+ �xf8 13.hf8 Wxf8 14.bxc3+ - Sievers 171

Chapter 12 - Klostermann, Hamburg 1999; 9 ... llJc6 1O.axb4 llJxd4 l1.bxc3 ! llJxc2 + 12.@d1 llJxal 13 .�gS+- Ca­ brera - Om. Rodriguez, Camaguey 2000; 9 . . . �aS 1O.�h6 Yffe7 1l.llJb3+­ Flores - Franke, corr. 19B4; 9 . . . YffaS 1O.llJb3 YffdS (or 10 . . . llJdS+ 1l.axb4 Yffxb4+ 12 .@d1+-; 10 ... llJe4+ 1l.axb4 Yffxb4+ 12.c3 ! llJxc3 13.�h6 llJe4+ 14.llJd2 llJxd2 lS.YffxfB+ YffxfB 16.hfB llJb3 17. ga3+- Elis - Schork, Godesburg 199B) 1l.�d3± Kich - Elsner, Ber­ lin 192 2 . 1 0 .axb4 tt)xd4 1 l . .ig5 Yffb 6

Black has no other choice. If 1l ... tt)xc2 +?, then 12 .@d2 Yffb 6 (12 ... YffxgS+ 13.YffxgS tt)xaI 14 . .id3 tt)b3+ lS.@c3+-) 13.�6+-, while after 1l .. .f6? White plays: 12.hf6 gf7 13.Yffg B+ gfB 14.Yffxh7 �f6 IS. exf6+- Schuster - Drill, Germany 199B - winning in both cases. 12 .ib6 Yffxb4+ 13.c3 tt)f5 14.cxb4 tt)xg7 15 .ixg7 gg8 16. .if6± •

•

White is clearly better, because of his bishop pair. That position was reached for the first time in

172

the game Szabo - Mikenas, Keme­ ri 1939. There followed: 16 . . . llJc6 (or 16 . . . bS 17.ixbS .ib7 1B.gcl llJc6 19.9g1 ! tt)d4 20.gc7 llJxbS 21. gxb7 a6 2 2 .g4 gcB 23.@d2 d6 24.gS dxeS 2S.gc1 1-0 Pikula - Radulski, Mataruska Banja 1996; 16 . . . gg4 17 . .id3 h6 1B.bS± Novadinghian ­ Tamburini, Leipzig 1960) 17 . .id3 h6 (or 17 . . . tt)xb4 IB.,ixh7 gxg2 19 . .ie4 gg4 2 0 .f3 gxe4+ 21.fxe4 tt)c2+ 2 2 .@d2 tt)xal 23.gxal b6 24.h4 .ib7 2S.@e3+- Aveskulov - Zinchenko, Kiev 199B) IB.h3 ! tt)xb4 19.�h7 gxg2 20.@fl gg6 2 1.,ixg6 fxg6 2 2 .gg1 @f7 23.ga4 llJdS (23 ... aS 24.�dB+-) 24.gag4 gS (24 ... llJxf6 2S.gf4 ! +-) 2S.ixgS ! hxgS 26.gxgS llJe7 27.gg7+ @fB 2B.gh7 b6 29.@el as 30.h4 a4 31. hS a3 32 .h6 (White is threaten­ ing to checkmate after 33.ghB+ .) 32 . . . llJfS 33.ghB+ @f7 34.h7 axb2 3S.gfB+ @e7 36.@d2 ga2 37.@c2 .ib7 3B. hBYff and Black resigned. That game dealt a heavy blow to the reputation of the Sicilian At­ tack, so we paid a special attention to it. The Hungarian grandmaster Laslo Szabo demonstrated quite convincingly how White should react against his opponent's ag­ gressive play. Later, Black has tried to improve on that game in numerous ways, unsuccess­ fully though ... , but he has failed to change the evaluation of the entire line with 6 . . . llJe4 as very difficult for Black. Presently, it is played quite rarely.

l . e4 cS 2. 0f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4,tiJxd4 l:iJf6 S . tiJ c3 c2) 6

.•.

l:iJd5

This is the main line of the Si­ cilian Attack. That is the only way for Black to obtain some practi­ cal chances if not for equality, but for a complex and non-standard fight. There are still some unin­ vestigated lines in that ancient variation, so it has some adher­ ents nowadays too. 7 .i.d2 •

Naturally, White's pawn-struc­ ture on the queenside would be compromised and he would have to comply with that. Nevertheless, Black will have difficulties devel­ oping his pieces and that will be a much more important factor. He has two main problems: his backward d7-pawn (that becomes especially annoying if he trades his dark-squared bishop . . . ) and the vulnerability of his g7-pawn. White can exploit that last circum­ stance immediately by playing 7.�g4. That line is quite promis­ ing for White and later the game might develop in the following fashion: 7 ... 0-0 8.i.h6 g6 9 .hf8 �xf8;t - White wins the exchange, but he has no direct threats for a

while and Black can organize some counterplay, which is hardly suffi­ cient to compensate the sacrificed material anyway. Instead, I recommend another line, after which White has excel­ lent chances to organize a pow­ erful attack right in the opening. Following 7 . .id2 , he is threaten­ ing to take on d5, therefore Black is practically forced to capture White's knight on c3, otherwise he will have even greater prob­ lems, for example: 7 ... l:iJc6 ? ! 8.l:iJxd5 ixd2 + 9 . �xd2 exd5 1O.l:iJf5 0 - 0 11.f4± Drahtschmidt - Buerger, Kettig 1994; 7 ... 0-0? ! 8.l:iJxd5 ixd2 + 9. �xd2 exd5 1O.l:iJb5± Sion - Ra­ mos, Sevilla 1993; 7 . . . �c7? ! 8.l:iJxd5 hd2 + (But not: 8 . . . �xe5+ ? 9.l:iJe3 �xd4 1O.c3+-, because Black loses a piece.) 9 .�xd2 exd5 1O. 0-0-0± Vinck - Plukkel, Hengelo 2 0 0 0 ; 7 . . . �a5? ! (That move leads to a difficult endgame for Black by force.) 8.l:iJb3 l:iJxc3 9.l:iJxa5 l:iJxd1 1O.hb4 l:iJxb2 11.gb1 b6 (11. .. l:iJa4 12.l:iJc4+-) 12.gxb2 bxa5 13 .id6 l:iJc6 14.ie2± Cigan - Horvath, Gleisdorf 1989 - and Black's piec­ es are paralyzed. 7 ... d6? ! 8.l:iJxd5 ixd2+ 9.�xd2 dxe5 1O .ib5+ .id7 11.l:iJxe6 ! fxe6 12.l:iJc3 �b6 13.ixd7+ lDxd7 14. o-o-o± Sumar - Kokkoris, Tel Aviv 1964. Now, we have to deal with c2a) 7 .ixc3 and c2b) 7 l:iJxc3. • • •

• • .

173

Chapter 12 c2a) 7

•••

�xc3

It is always an important deci­ sion to trade a bishop for a knight. In this particular case, Black is de­ prived of the basic defender of his potentially weak dark squares. He intends to avoid losing any tempi and to castle short as quickly as possible. 8.bxc3 0 - 0 After Black's other possibili­ ties here, he can hardly justify his decision on the previous move. It is dubious for him to play: 8 ... a6? ! 9:�g4± Santa - Ponzo, Saladillo 1992, or 8 . . . ltJc6? ! 9 . ltJxc6 bxc6 1O.�g4± Kiss - Bazsa, Hungary 1995 - Black should ob­ viously not ignore the threat �g4. In the game Portisch - Bilek, Budapest 1955, Black chose 8 ... �h4 and White's simplest reac­ tion against that would have been: 9.�d3 0-0 10.0-0 ltJc6 1l.ltJxc6 bxc6 12.c4± with an overwhelm­ ing advantage. Black chooses sometimes here 8 ... �c7. After 9.f4, he can follow with 9 ... a6 (It is a disaster for Black to play 9 ... ltJxc3?, in view of: 1O.�f3 ltJd5 11.ltJb5 �c5 12. 174

ltJd6+ rJle7 13.c4 - and here he saves the game neither with : 13 .. . ltJb6 14.�h5+-, nor with: 13 .. . ltJb4, S.Smith - Roth, Scotland 1996, 14.ltJe4 ! �b6 15.c5 ! +-; Black has also tried: 9 ... 0-0 10.c4 - but he has great problems in all the lines: 1O . . . ltJe7 11.�b4±; 1O ... ltJb6 11.�b4± Mont'Alverne - Santos Neto, Brazil 1998; 10 ... �b6 11.c3 ltJe7 12 .�d3± Maher - Ericson, corr. 1960.) 1O.c4 ltJe7 (In case of 10 . . . �b6? ! , White has at least the possibility: 1l.ltJf5 ! ? exf5 12.cxd5± Llobel - Ibanez, Mislata 1999, while if 1O ... ltJb6, then 11.�b4 and it is bad for Black to play 1l . . . ltJxc4?, due to: 12 .�g4 g6 13.�g5+- Souleidis - Mar­ tin, Madrid 2 003 - the develop­ ments in this short game con­ firm convincingly the drawbacks the absence of his dark-squared bishop.) 11.�b4 ltJbc6 12 .ltJxc6 dxc6 (or 12 . . . �xc6 13.�d2 �e4+ 14.�e2 g5 15.he7 rJlxe7 16.0-0 gxf4 17.�xf4 �xf4 18.E!:xf4± Plo­ etz - Teufel, Bayern 1981) 13.�d6 �a5+ 14.�d2 �xd2 + 15.rJlxd2 ltJf5 16.�c5± Ripari - Dos, Bue­ nos Aires 2003. Black failed to complete his development and the trade of the queens did not improve his position at all. He has also tried the move 8 ... d6, but that usually leads to an endgame, which is favourable for White. The game Simacek - Meister, Pardubice 1998, fol­ lowed later with: 9.�g4 dxe5 (or 9 ... 0-0 1O.�h6± Perunovic

l . e4 c5 2. liJf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. liJxd4 liJf6 S. liJ c3 - P.Kazakov, Moscow 1998; 9 ... g6 1O .ibS+ id7, Drummond - Ste­ phens, Melbourne 1992 , 1l.c4 ! dxeS 12.cxdS exd4 13.�xd4±) 10. Wixg7 �f6 1l.�xf6 liJxf6 12 .liJbS liJa6 and here White could have obtained a great advantage with the help of the bishop-maneuver: 13.ic1 ! 'ttf8 14.ia3+ 'tt g7 lS.,td6 e4 16.g4± with a powerful initia­ tive. 9.c4! �e7

Black's knight is not well placed on the b6-square as usual: 9 . . . liJb6? ! 1O.ib4 ge8 1l.liJbS liJa6 12 .id6± Wrinn - Kremen, corr. 1983. The intermediate move 9 . . . Wib6 ! ? i s more justified and it was tested in the game Scherfke - Kaminsky, COIT. 1997. There fol­ lowed: 1O.c3?! liJe7 1l ..td3 liJbc6 12 . 0-0 liJxeSoo with an unclear position. White should not have covered the e1-aS diagonal for his bishop: 10.liJf3 ! liJe7 (1O ... liJc7 1l.,td3±) 1l.id3 fS (Black loses after: 11...liJbc6? 12 .ixh7+ ! 'ttxh7 13.liJgS+ 'tt g 6 14.h4 gg8 lS.gb1! ? Wia6 16.Wif3 fS 17.exf6 gxf6 18.hS+ 'tt g 7 19.h6+-, or: 13 ... 'tt g8 14.WihS gd8 lS.�h7+ 'ttf8 16.�h8+ liJg8 17.liJh7+ 'tt e 7 18.igS+-; his po­ sition is quite difficult too after: 1l ... liJg6 12.gb1 ! Wia6 13.ib4 gd8 14.liJgS ! h6 lS.liJxi7+-) 12.exf6 gxf6 13.,tgS±. 1 0 .tb4;!; •

(diagram) After White's bishop reaches the b4-square, Black can hardly

complete his development with­ out material losses. In the game Hamdouchi - Elbilia, France 1999, there followed 10 ... liJg6 (It is interesting for Black to try: 1O ... liJbc6 ! ? 1l.liJxc6 liJxc6 12 .id6 liJxeS 13.c3 !;!;, but even then he remains an exchange down with­ out a sufficient compensation.) 1l.ixf8 Wixf8 12 .ie2 liJxeS 13.0-0 liJbc6 14.liJbS± with an advantage for White. c2b) 7

. . •

�xc3

This is the basic line for Black, since he preserves his bishop, which filfills important defensive functions. Sometimes Black sacri­ fices the exchange in this line in order to hold the position, but we will deal with that later. 8 .bxc3

175

Chapter 12 Black has now several possi­ is left without sufficient defensive ble retreats of his bishop and the resources there. 9.V;Vg4 0 - 0 most popular are c2bl) 8 .ia5 It is illogical for Black to refrain and c2b2) S . . .ie7. White obtains easily the edge from castling short. His position is very difficult after: 9 . . . g6? ! 1O . .ie2 after Black's other moves: 8 ... V;Vh4? ! 9 . .id3 ic5 1O.g3 V;Ve7 a6 11.0-0 V;Vc7 12 .�g3± Nemec 11.V;Vg4± Abdulla - Ramirez, Novi - Moravcik, Slovakia 2001. He can hardly equalize too Sad 1990; 8 ... .ic5?! (That is not the best after 9 ... wf8 ? ! - since White can decision for Black, because the choose the line: 1O.lLlb5 lLlc6, En­ pressure against the f2-square is glund - Bryntse, Sweden 1973, fruitless here.) 9.V;Vg4 g6, Tuomin­ l1.V;Vg3 ! ? f6 12.exf6 �xf6 13 . .ie2± en - Eriksson, corr. 1970, 10.lLlb5 with a powerful initiative. lLlc6 11 ..ig5 V;Vb6 12 .V;Vf4±; 8 ... .if8 (The idea of that move is evident - to avoid weakening of the kingside, but Black can hardly disregard the development of his pieces and lose tempi un­ punished.) 9.V;Vg4 a6 (If 9 . . . lLlc6, then 10.lLlxc6 ! and later: 10 .. . bxc6 11 ..id3 f5 12 .�g3±, or 10 . . . dxc6 11 . .id3 V;Va5 12 .V;Vg3± with a clear advantage for White in both 1 0 .id3 cases.) 10.id3 h5, Yegiazarian Now, the majority of White's - Sulskis, Budapest 1996, 11.�e4 forces are aimed at his opponent's kingside and they look threat­ d5 12.exd6 obd6 13.0-0±. ening. Black has tried different c2bl) 8 ia5 defensive lines here, but he has Black keeps attacking White's plenty of problems in an of them. c3-pawn and he does not let his 10 d6 bishop to join in the attack. This If 10 ... �c7, then White should line used to be considered as not lose time protecting his cen­ the main during the seventies of tral pawn and he can play im­ the last century, but then White mediately: 11. 0 - 0 ! �xe5, Be­ found a clear-cut plan to obtain lotti - Dimitrijevic, Bratto 1984 the advantage. The main draw­ (11 ... lLlc6 12.lLlxc6 dxc6 13.V;Ve4± back of the move 8 . . . .ia5 is that Dlaykan - A.Fernandes, Bucara­ Black removes his bishop from manga 1992) 12 J�ae1 �c7 (12 ... the defence of the kingside and he V;Vf6? 13 .ig5+-; 12 . . . �c5? ! 13.ih6 . . .

.

.

. . .

•.•

176

l.e4 c5 2JiJj3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. CiJxd4 CiJf6 S. CiJ c3 g6 14.CiJb3+-) 13.ih6 g6 14.ixf8 It>xf8 1S.�h4 It>g8 (It is hopeless for Black to try: IS ... hc3? 16.CiJbS �cS 17.CiJxc3 �xc3 18J�le3+-, or: 1S ... �xc3? 16.Ele4+-) 16.Ele3± and White has a crushing attack. The other lines are in fa­ vour of White as well: 1O ... dS 11.0-0 fS 12.exf6 �xf6 13.Elael± Nijboer - Taeger, Groningen 1990 ; 10 ... CiJc6 1l.CiJxc6 bxc6, Py­ hala - Seppanen, Helsinki 1992 , 12 . 0-0±; 1O . . .fS 1l.exf6 �xf6 (11 . . . Elxf6 1 2 . 0 - 0 CiJc6, Wintergerst - Jennewein, Mehlingen 1992 , 13.igS±) 12 .�hS ! ? g 6 13.�xaS �xf2 + 14.i>d1 �xg2 1S.Elel± Anka - Kaunzinger, Germany 1997. 1l.11Jf3 g6

The careless move 1l ... dxeS?, loses outright after the typical combination: 12 ..ixh7+ ! It>xh7 13. �hS+ It>g8 14.CiJgS+-. It is slightly more resilient for Black to defend with: 11...fS 12.exf6 Elxf6 (But not 12 ... �xf6?, in view of 13.�hS+-), but after 13.0-0, his position is difficult anyway. White is threatening 14.igS, meanwhile it would not help him to defend with: 13 . . . h6 14.�e4 CiJd7 1S.�h7+ 1t>f7 16.igS !±, as it was played in the game Bilbao - Ramos, Ali­ cante 1989. 12 .h4!

Now, the g6-square becomes tremendously vulnerable and White brings in his rook-pawn in the attack against it. 12

• • •

dxe5

In case Black remains idle,

White wins with the help of a piece-sacrifice, for example: 12 ... dS 13.hS �e7 14.hxg6 fxg6 IS. hg6 ! hxg6 16.Elh6 ! +-. The shel­ ter of the black king has been de­ stroyed and the rest does not need any comments. 13.h5±

White's initiative is very pow­ erful. Black's defence is extremely difficult if possible at all. After 13 ... fS, White's best is 14.�g3 ! (In case of the spectacular line: 14.hfS ? ! exfS IS.�c4+, as it was played in the game Wagman - Barle, Bie1 1981, Black had bet­ ter counter that with: IS ... lt>g7! 16.hxg6 f4! 17.Elxh7+ It>xg6oo and the outcome of the fight would have remained rather unclear.) 14 ... e4 IS.hxg6 exf3 16.Elxh7 CiJd7 17.0-0-0+- with a crushing at­ tack for White. Black has also test­ ed in practice: 13 ... �c7 14.hxg6 fxg6, Warzecha - Wurdig, corr. 1994, IS.CiJgS hS 16.�g3±, as well as: 13 . . . e4 14.hxg6 fxg6, Prokopp - Hjorth, Email 2002. IS.ixe4 �f6 16.�h3±. White has an over­ whelming advantage in all the variations. 177

Chapter 12 c2b2) 8

•••

.te7

Black plays most often just like that with the idea to sacrifice the exchange on the next move. He relies on his superior pawn­ structure and safe king. Still, we are going to see that White is not forced to gobble material and he can choose an entirely different course of actions. 9 .ti'g4 0 - 0 ! ?

This move allows .th6. Black can choose some other lines here, but White obtains an overwhelm­ ing advantage throughout: Black lags so much in develop­ ment that the move 9 ... gS? ! can hardly be recommended, Grosar - De Waal, Sas Van Gent 1986, 10.llJbS hS 1l.ti'e4 llJc6 12 . .td3±; He only creates chronical weaknesses on the dark squares with the move 9 . . . g6. It is logi­ cal for White to exploit that with 1O.llJbS ! ? , so that he can prepare the exchange of Black's bishop for the knight on the d6-square. There might follow: 1O ... a6 11. llJd6+ hd6 12.exd6 �b6 (12 ... llJc6 13.h4 ti'aS 14.�gS±) 13.�b4 �xb4 14.cxb4± and White has a 178

great advantage in that endgame; 1O ... llJc6 11.�g3 �aS (It is more, or less the same after: 11 . . . a6 12 .llJd6+ hd6 13.exd6±, or 11 . . . b6 12 ..th6±) 12.llJd6+ hd6 13.exd6 0-0 14.h4± and White has excel­ lent attacking chances; 10 . . . 0-0 11.h4 ! ? llJc6 (l1. . .hS 12 .�g3±) 12. �g3± with an edge for White; We must also analyze the sel­ dom played move - 9 .. .'�f8. Black has lost his castling rights, but White must play very precisely in order to obtain an advantage. He can try just like in the previ­ ous line - 1O.llJbS ! ? - the knight is headed for the d6-square, pre­ venting the freeing move with the d-pawn in the process. After 10 ... llJc6 (or 1O . . . f5 11.exf6 hf6 12 .ti'g3 llJc6 - see 10 . . . llJc6; it is not any better for Black to con­ tinue with: 12 . . . llJa6 13.llJd6 ti'aS 14 . .ie2±) 11.�g3 f6 (The following line is in favour of White: 11 . . . a6 12.llJd6 f6 13.exf6 hf6 14 . .ie2±) 12.exf6 .txi6 13.llJd6 ti'aS (In case of: 13 . . . ti'b6 14 . .te2 , it is too risky for Black to go after material in the variation: 14 . . . �b2 IS.0-0 �xc2 16.gfdl! ? �g6 17. .te3 ! Wlxg3 18.fxg3± and White's initiative is very powerful. Black cannot solve his problems either with: 14 ... llJeS IS.llJe4!±; if 13 . . . .ieS, then 14 . .if4 and Black is not out of the woods even after the trade of the queens: 14 ... hf4 IS.Wlxf4+ �f6 16.�g3 WleS+ 17 . .te2 Wlxg3 18.hxg3 rJJ e7 19.0-0-0 h6 2 0.gd2 a6 2U'lhdl gd8 22 .f4 g6 23.g4±)

1.e4 c5 2.tilj3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 0,xd4 0,j6 5. 0, c3 14 . .id3 ! (This is stronger than: 14 . .ie2 '&e5 ! oo) 14 . . . '&e5+ (Black can try some other lines too : 14 .. . '&d5 15.0,e4 �f7 16.0-0±; 14 .. . �e7 15.0,e4±; 14 ... 0,e5 15.0-0 0,xd3 16.cxd3 �e7 17.d4±) 15.0,e4 '&xg3 (The move 15 . . . d5 can be countered by White with 16.f4±) 16.hxg3 d5 (16 . . . .ie5 17.f4 .ic7 lS. c4±) 17.0,xf6 gxf6 lS.c4 d4 (Black can deprive White of his couple of bishops, but that would not change the evaluation of the po­ sition: lS . . . 0,e5 19.cxd5 0,xd3+ 2 0 .cxd3 exd5 2 Ukl± - and the endgame is quite difficult for Black.) 19.E:xh7 E:xh7 2 0 ..ixh7± White has reached an endgame with an extra pawn and excellent winning chances. l O . .ih6 g6

That is the only move. Now, White must make a principled de­ cision and it is quite important for the type of the subsequent fight.

1l.h4 ! ?

White preserves his dark­ squared bishop with that move and he does not reduce the attack­ ing potential of his position. The most vulnerable spot in Black's

defensive set-up is the g6-square and White is attacking it with all his forces. He still might capture the exchange at some moment, but he will only do that under more favourable circumstances. Meanwhile, Black must be very careful not to come under a crush­ ing checkmating attack. It is worth mentioning that after the immediate line: 11..ixfS .ixfS 12 .'&g3;!;, tournament prac­ tice has showed that Black fails to obtain a sufficient compensa­ tion for the exchange. Still, the move 1l.h4 ! ? enables White to achieve the maximum in that po­ sition. 1l . . . �a5

This active move of Black's queen should remind White about the necessity to protect his own weak pawns. In case Black is not in a hurry to create some immedi­ ate real counterplay, his situation might soon become desperate. For example, after the passive line: 1l . . . E:eS? 12 .h5 .ifS 13.hxg6 fxg6 14 . .id3+ - Hellers - Ziska, Pohja 19S5 - Black's position is hopeless, since he has no defence against the bishop-sacrifice on the g6-square; It is only slightly better for him to try: 1l . . . 0,c6 ? ! 12.0,xc6 bxc6 13.h5 and later 13 .. .f5? ! , Lawson - Trottier, Shawinigan 2001, 14.exf6 .ixf6 (14 . . .E:xf6 15. .id3+-) 15.E:h3+-, or 13 .. .'�a5 14.'&g3 d6 (14 . . . E:dS 15.hxg6 fxg6 16 . .id3 '&xc3+ 17.�e2 d6 lS . .if4 179

Chapter 12 ia6 19.ixa6 �xc2 + 2 0.id2 dxeS 21.id3+-) lS.id3 �xc3+ (Black can save that position neither with: lS ... ia6 16.ixa6 �xa6 17. hxg6 fxg6 1B . .hfB Ei:xfB 19.exd6 if6 2 0.�h3+-, nor with: lS ... Ei:dB 16.hxg6 hxg6 17.if4 ifB 1B .ixg6 fxg6 19.�xg6+ ig7 2 0.Ei:h3 ! , af­ ter which White is threatening to check on h7 with his queen, followed by bringing the rook to f3, while if Black plays 20 ... Ei:d7, then White follows with: 21.�eB + ifB 2 2 .Ei:g3+ Ei:g7 23.Ei:xg7+ xg7 24.ih6+ ! xh6 2S.�xfB+ h7 26.0-0-0+- with an unavoid­ able checkmate.) 16.e2 - and now Black is faced with a di­ lemma, since both the lines: 16 .. . Ei:dB 17.hxg6 �xeS+ (17 . . . hxg6 1B.if4 ifB 19.�h4+-) 18.�xeS dxeS 19.9xf7+ xf7 2 0.id2 ! ?±, as well as: 16 . . . �xeS+ 17.�xeS dxeS 1B.ixfB ixfB 19.Ei:abl± lead to dif­ ficult endgames without any good prospects for Black; Black does not solve his prob­ lems with: ll .. .fS? ! 12.exf6 Ei:xf6 13.hS dS (13 ... �c7 14.id3 ! �xc3+ lS.e2 f7 16.hxg6+ hxg6 17. igS+ - Paavilainen - Pyhala, Tur­ ku 19B6) 14.�g3 ! ctJc6 (It is not good for Black to opt for: 14 . . . id6? ! lS.�h4 ie7 16.igS+-, while if 14 ... �d6, then lS.hxg6 Ei:xg6 16.�xd6 ixd6 17.id3 ! and it becomes clear that Black's de­ fence is not any easier in the endgame - since he cannot save the game with: 17 ... Ei:xg2 lB. f1 Ei:h2 19.Ei:xh2 ixh2 20.ctJf3 id6 1BO

21.e2 +-, or 17 ... Ei:g4 1B.ctJbS ieS 19.f3 Ei:a4 2 0 .f4 a6 2 1.fxeS axbS 22 .Ei:hS+- and White's ad­ vantage is decisive in both cases.) lS.id3 �aS (or lS ...id6 16.f4 ctJe7 17.igS+-) 16.ctJxc6 bxc6 17. hxg6 �xc3+ lB. e2 Ei:xg6 (lB . . . hxg6 19.id2 + -) 19.ixg6 �xg3 2 0 .ixh7+ xh7 2 1.fxg3 g6 2 2 . if4+- and White should b e win­ ning easily in that endgame; If 11.. .�c7? ! , then 12.�g3 ctJc6 (When Black's queen is on c7, he cannot play 12 ... d6, because of 13.ctJbS+-, while in case of 12 . . . Ei:eB, White follows with: 13.hS ifB 14.hxg6 fxg6 lS.ctJbS �cS 16.id3 ixh6 17.Ei:xh6+- Coelho - Yano, Rio de Janeiro 1999 with decisive threats.) 13.ctJxc6 �xc6 14.hS d6 (or 14 . . . �e4+ lS.d2 d6 16.id3 �xeS 17.f4 �dS 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.ixfB ixfB 2 0.�h4 �xg2 + 2 1.e3+-; 14 . . . Ei:dB lS.hxg6 fxg6 16.id3 �xc3+ 17.e2 +-) lS.hxg6 fxg6 (lS . . .hxg6 16.�h3 ! ih4 17. �xh4 �xc3+ 1B.d1 �xa1+ 19. ic1+ -) 16.MB ixfB 17.�h3+- ­ White has an extra exchange and a winning position; It is tremendously risky for Black to play 1l ... d6? ! , because then he has nothing to counter White's attack with: 12.hS �aS. That is Black's relatively best de­ fence. (It is too bad for him to try: 12 ... �c7? 13.ctJbS+-, while if 12 ... dxeS?, then after 13.hxg6, Black's situation is hopeless af­ ter: 13 ... fxg6, Klovans - Schein, Graz 1999, 14.ctJxe6 �d6 lS.ixfB

l . e4 c5 2JiJj3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4JiJxd4 CiJf6 5. CiJ c3 �xe6 16.�c4 �xc4 17.�xc4+ 'it>xf8 18J'%xh7 �f6 19.�c8+ �d8 20. 0-0-0+-, as well as following: 13 ... hxg6 14.�h3+ - ; Black has also tried in practice: 12 . . . CiJd7? ! 13.hxg6 fxg6, Pyhala - Kivisto, Lahti 1985, 14.exd6 �f6 15.�c4 CiJe5 16.he6+-) 13.CiJb5 a6 (13 . . . dxe5 14.id3 e 4 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.hf8 hf8 17.�xe4 �d7 18. gxh7 1-0 Baron - Llanes, Spain 1999 ; 13 . . . CiJc6 14.hxg6 fxg6, Him­ mel - Beckmann, Germany 1994, 15.M8 hf8 16.exd6+ -) 14. hxg6 fxg6 (14 . . .hxg6 15.�h3+-) 15.hf8 axb5 (After 15 ... M8, the fastest way for White to materi­ alize his advantage is: 16.gxh7! 'it>xh7 17.�d3 �g7 18.'lWxg6 + 'it>g8 19.�e8+ if8 2 0 .ig6 ! + - with an unavoidable checkmate, while in case of: 15 . . . 'it>xf8 16.gxh7+­ Black is again helpless.) 16.'it>d2 ! (After that precise move, Black's situation becomes critical, since his pieces are too far away from the kingside.) 16 . . .hf8 (16 . . . 'it>xf8 17.gxh7+-) 17.gxh7! + - . That is a typical tactical strike after which in the game Lalic - Sulava, Pula 1997, Black simply resigned and that decision was not premature at all. In case of 17 . . . 'it>xh7, White would have played: 18.id3 �h6+ 19.'it>e2 'it>g8 2 0.'lWxg6+ 'it>f8 (or 20 ... �g7 2l.'lWe8+ if8 2 2 .�h7+ ! 'it>xh7 23.�f7+ 'it>h6 24.gh1+-) 2 1.�xh6+ 'it>e8 2 2 .�g7! CiJc6 23. gh1 CiJe7 24.gh7+- and White wins. 12 J�'g3

12

. . .

d6 !

That is the best for Black. He is trying to undermine White's e5pawn in order to place his bishop on f6, from where it would protect the vulnerable dark squares and it would also exert pressure against White's queenside. That is the only way for him to create some effective counterplay and to force White to do his best in order to obtain the advantage. After Black's other possibili­ ties, White has no obstacles to de­ velop his initiative. For example after 12 ... gd8, he naturally con­ tinues with 13.h5 and later there might follow: 13 . . . CiJc6 14.CiJxc6 dxc6 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.id3 'lWxc3+ 17.'it>e2 gd5 (17 . . . gxd3 18.cxd3±) 18.�f4 gxd3 (Black has no other defence against 19.9xh7.) 19.cxd3 �b2 + 2 0.�d2± Guid - Fantin, Yerevan 1999 and White remains with an extra exchange, or 13 ... d6 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.�f4 dxe5 16.he5 gd5 17.f4 CiJd7 18.�c4. This po­ sition was reached in the game Wedberg - Pokojowczyk, Copen­ hagen 1984. Black had to lose material: 18 . . . CiJxe5 (18 ... gxe5+ 19 .fxe5 �xe5+ 2 0 .�xe5 CiJxe5 181

Chapter 12 2 1.ib3±) 19.ixd5 �xd5 2 0 .fxe5 (It also deserves attention for �e4+ 2 1.i>d2 id7 22 J�ae1 �d5 White to try here: lS.exd6 ! ? if6 and here White could have fin­ 19.ixfS EixfS 2 0 .EidU) lS ... ixfS ished his opponent off spec­ (or lS ... EixfS 19.exd6 ig5 2 0 .Eidl± tacularly with the line: 23.Eixh7! S.Hansen - Kristensen, Taastrup i>xh7 24J�h1+ i>g7 25.�h2 i>f7 1995) 19.exd6 EidS 2 0.Eid1 ig7 2l. 26.�h7+ i>eS 27.�xg6+ i>dS 2S. �d3;t P.Czarnota - Sulskis, War­ saw 2 005 - and Black is faced EihS +- Wedberg. In case of: 12 . . . ttlc6 13.ttlxc6 with a difficult fight for a draw. 13 . . . if6 bxc6 14.h5 d6, Willemze - Smits, The endgame is very difficult Hengelo 1994 (14 ... EidS 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.id3 �xc3+ 17.i>e2 ib4 for Black after: 13 ... hd6 14.�xd6 lS.Eiad1 as 19.id2 + - Teuton EidS 15.�b4 �xb4 16.cxb4 Eixd4 - Gravel, Quebec 1991) 15.hxg6 17.c3± (Wedberg) - since White fxg6 (After 15 ... hxg6, White plays has a powerful couple of bishops 16.if4+- with decisive threats in an open position and Black has along the h-file.) 16.ixfS ixfS plenty of weaknesses on the king­ 17.Eih3 ! + - and White should side to worry about. easily win with his extra ex­ change. If 12 .. .f6, then 13.hfS i>xfS 14.h5 g5 15.h6 �xe5+ 16.�xe5 fxe5 17.ttlf3± Uribe - Carrion, Bled 2002 - and White maintains excellent winning chances. 13.exd6 !?

This is the most principled decision for White. He allows Black's bishop to go to f6, but he intends to prove his advantage in the arising complications. Besides 13.exd6, White can also try 13.ttlb5. This move is quite reliable and it has been test­ ed in practice and it enables him to obtain a slight, but stable ad­ vantage. There might follow: 13 ... ttld7 (about 13 ...ttlc6 14.h5 ttlxe5 - see 13 ... ttld7) 14.h5 ttlxe5 15.f4 id7 (15 ... ttld7? 16.id3+-) 16.fxe5 ixb5 17.hb5 �xb5 lS.ixfS lS2

14. 0 - 0 - 0 !

White must act resolutely in this situation. He removes his pieces away from the danger­ ous diagonals and he protects his knight on d4. Black lags in devel­ opment so he cannot exploit the fact that White's king is a bit un­ safe. 14 . . . �d7

That is the most popular an­ swer for Black. He has numerous other possibilities, though ... :

l.e4 c5 2. liJj3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. liJxd4 liJf6 5. liJ c3 14 .. J��dB 1s.igS liJd7 (In case of: 1S ... ieS 16.f4 �a3+ 17.ltId2 , Black's position becomes criti­ cal - he cannot save the game after: 17 .. J�xd6 1B.fxeS gxd4+ 19.id3+-, or 17 . . . ixd4 1B.ixdB liJc6 19.igS+-) 16.liJb3 ! YBxa2 (or 16 . . . �a3+ 17.ltIb1+- and White's decisive attack develops effort­ lessly) 17.hS as (This attempt to organize some counterplay is too late, but Black would not fare any better after: 17 ... ixgS+ 1B.YBxgS f6 19.YBh6+-) 1B.hxg6 fxg6 (lB . . . hxg6 19.hf6 liJxf6 2 0.�h4+-) 19.9xh7! ItIxh7 2 0.ixf6 liJxf6 21. id3+- and White wins; 14 ... liJc6 lS.liJxc6 bxc6 16.ixfB �a3 + ! ? (Black forces White's king into the centre; if 16 . . . ltIxfB, then 17.d7! - after 17 . . . �a3+ White plays 1B.ltlb1 ! +-, since the bB­ square is under control, while in case of 17 ... ia6, White fol­ lows with 1B.YBd6+ ItIg7 19.ixa6 YBxa6 2 0.ltId2 ! ?± and Black has no compensation for the ex­ change.) 17.ltId2 ItIxfB 1B.hS eS (It is hopeless for Black to play: 1B ... YBxa2 19.hxg6 hxg6 2 0 .YBf3 ! igS+ 21.ItIe1+- and White has numerous threats, while after 1B ... gS, White can fix his oppo­ nent's pawn-weaknesses with the move 19.h6 ! ? and after: 19 . . . id7 20.ghS �cS 2l.f4 YBxd6 + 22 .ltIe1, Black saves the day neither with: 22 . . . �e7 23.fxgS ihB 24.id3+-, nor with: 2 2 ... �c7 23.gxgS ! ixgS 24.YBxgS ieB 2S.YBf6+-) 19.id3 YBxd6 2 0.hxg6 hxg6 2 1.ltIel± and

White has a clear advantage; 14 . . .id7 lS.ixfB ItIxfB 16.YBf3 ! ieS, Sziva - van der Linden, Netherlands 1995 (It is a disas­ ter for Black to try: 16 . . . ixd4 17.cxd4 YBxa2 1B.YBf6+-, ·or 16 . . . ItIg7 17.hS + - and White's attack is victorious.), 17.hS liJc6 1B.hxg6 hxg6 19.ic4± - White increases his pressure having a material ad­ vantage; 14 . . . YBxa2 lS . .txfB ItIxfB 16. liJ bS! (That move combines the threat 17.liJc7 with some prophy­ lactic; after the straightforward line: 16.hS eS ! 17.hxg6hxg6 1B.liJb3 if500 Black would have obtained some counterchances.) 16 . . . liJd7 (Here, it is insufficient for Black to play 16 . . . eS 17.id3±, as well as 16 . . . liJc6 17.d7 ixd7 1B.gxd7 liJeS 19.9dl±) 17.ltId2 ! ? liJc5 (or 17 ... a6 1B.liJc7 gbB 19.9h3±; 17 ... YBdS+ 1B.id3±) 1B.�f4 id7 19.ic4 YBaS 20.ga1 YBb6 2 1.ghbl± - White has mobilized his forces successfully and Black has no compensation for the exchange; 14 . . . eS lS.liJb3 YBxa2 (White's attack is very powerful after: 15 . . . YBa3+ 16.ltIbl gdB 17.hS and later there might follow: 17 ... ifS 1B .ic1 YBa4 19.hxg6 hxg6 2 0.YBh2 ! +-, or 17 ... gxd6 1B.id3±) 16.ixfB ! (In the game Prizant - Reynolds, corr. 1996, there followed: 16.id3 YBa3+ 17.ltIbl ie6 1B.ic1 �a4 19. gde1 and here Black had better continue with: 19 . . . ixb3! 2 0 .cxb3 YBxb3+ 21.ib2 liJd700 with a rath­ er unclear position.) 16 . . . ltIxfB 17. 1B3

Chapter 12 .td3 (preventing the move .tfS) 17 . . . .te6 1S.�d2 Wa3 19.Wf3± with a clear advantage for White. 15.h5 tlJc5 After the other moves for Black, it is even more difficult for him to obtain an acceptable posi­ tion. The inclusion of the moves lS . . . Wa3+?! 16.�bl is in favour of White, since it would not work for Black to follow with: 16 . . . .teS 17.f4 hd6? IS.tlJbS+-. He has no time either for IS .. .'IWxa2, due to: 16.hxg6 hxg6 17 . .tg5 !± and White has dangerous threats along the open h-file. It is also too risky for Black to try: IS .. JMS I6.hxg6 hxg6 17.tlJb3 ! (The game is unclear af­ ter: 17.tlJxe6 �a3+ IS.�d2 tlJcS ! ) 1 7. . .'�xc3 (Black risks too much with: 17 . . . Wxa2? ! IS . .tgS !±, since he removes the main defender of his king.) IS.�xc3 hc3 19.tlJd4± and White is much better in that endgame. It is not any better for Black to try: IS . . J=!eS 16 . .tc4 !± - because his eS and g6-squares are quite vulnerable. I6.�f3 �a3+

Naturally, Black cannot play: 16 . . . .tg7? 17.hg7 �xg7 IS.h6+ �gS 19.'�f6+-. His situation is practically hopeless too after: 16 . . . .teS?! 17.hxg6 hxg6 lS.hfS �xfS 19 . .tc4+- - White has an extra exchange and an attacking posi­ tion. I7.�d2 .td7 Black has protected indirectly his bishop on f6 and he plans to create some counterplay against IS4

White's king. That position was reached in the game Coenen - van der Linden, Belgium 2001 and White played rather uncon­ vincingly there: IS . .td3 .teS 19. V:lfh3?! tlJxd3 2 0 .Wxd3 gfcS+ - and Black's prospects were already su­ perior. Now, I will show you how White can play better.

IS.gel!

White is threatening again Black's bishop on f6 and it is forced to retreat to the corner. White thus seizes the initiative and that is essential, because both sides have an excellent attacking potential, due to the vulnerable kings. IS . . . J.hS I9 .J.c4!

White should not be in a hurry to capture on fS as before. I9 . . . �a4 ! ?

We will analyze at first the lines in which Black is trying to preserve the exchange, re­ moving his rook from fS. After 19 . . . gfcS, White follows wth: 20 .hxg6 fxg6 (20 . . . hxg6 21..tgS ! J.g7 22 .Wh3+-) 2 1.�d1 ! (White achieves only a draw after: 21. tlJxe6 tlJxe6 2 2 .gxe6 V:lfxc3+ ! 23.

l.e4 c5 2. 0,13 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 0,xd4 0,f6 5. 0, c3 �xc3 .b:c3+ 24.';!? d3 gxc4 ! 25.
Black fortifies his centre and he plans to advance d7-dS, but that line is played presently much less than the other capture. Robert Fischer's beautiful vic­ tory against Tigran Petrosian con­ tinues to be an excellent example how White should play in this variation and he won the game in strictly positional style. We base our analysis on that game, with some elaboration on the perfect move-order. 7. 0 - 0

After White castles, Black must seriously worry about the pos­ sible pawn-advance e4-eS. Natu­ rally, the immediate move - 7.eS? would not have worked due to 7 . . . �aS+. 7

...

dS

It only leads to transpositions if Black plays 7 .. :fff c7 - see S . . .

4. 11Jxd4 a6 S. i.d3 llJ c6 6. 11Jxc6 W!c7, as well as 7 . . . d6 8.c4 llJf6 - see Chapter 17, 7 . . . 11Jc6. It is obviously dubious for Black to try: 7 . . . �b6? ! 8.c4 i.b7 9.11Jc3± Schmied - Mashiri, Co­ penhagen 1998. It is quite interesting that in the game van der Wiel - Anand, Thessaloniki 1984, the then so 8 . . . exf4 9.hf4 i.cS+ 10.�hl young Indian grandmaster de­ fended that variation for Black llJe7 11.�hS d6 12.eS± Hunt and he played carelessly the move Dorofeeva, Elista 1998; 8 ... i.c5+ 9.�hl d6 (It is tre­ 7 . . . g6? ! , allowing 8.eS ! . After 8 . . . i.g7 9.f4 d 6 , White could have mendously risky for Black to opt solidified his advantage with: 10. for: 9 . . . 11Je7 1O.W!hS llJg6 l1.fS, af­ exd6 W!xd6 11.11Jd2 �d4+ (or 11 ... ter which it is sufficient for him llJe7 12.11Jc4 �c7 13.i.e3±) 12,cj;lh1 to play neither: 11 . . . 11Jf8 12.i.gS llJf6 13.11Jc4 llJdS 14.11Jd6+ �e7 i.e7 13.i.c4 dS 14.,txe7 �xe7 IS. IS.c3± (van der Wiel). exdS+- Amos - Zorko, Siegen After 7 . . . 11Jf6 , White can also 1970, nor: 11 . . .11Jf4 12.i.xf4 exf4 play 8.eS, for example: 8 . . . 11JdS, 13.f6 ! i.d4 14.fxg7 hg7 ISJ!xf4 Veroci - Jahn, Subotica 1991 and �e7 16.11Jc3± Ravinsky - Vorot­ here White's simplest line would nikov, Leningrad 1963.) 1O.fxeS ! be 9.a3!, restricting the mobil­ (This move is more convincing ity of his opponent's knight and than 1O.i.c4, as it was played in the game Polovoy - Siniavsky, planning c2-c4. Black has also tried: Tselinograd 1978.) 10 . . . dxeS 11. 7 ... i.c5 8 .eS llJe7 (8 . . .fS?! 9 . �hS �c7 (or 11 ... �e7 12 .i.gS �e6 �hS+ g 6 , Zaksaite - Badaljanas, 13.i.h4!±) 12 .i.f4 ! ? i.d6 (or 12 . . . Birstonas 2 0 0 2 , 1O.�e2±) 9.11Jd2 exf4 13.�xc5±; 12 . . . i.d4 13.c3±) llJg6 (9 ... dS 1O.exd6 hd6 11.11Je4 13.i.gS i.e6 14.11Jd2 llJe7 IS.i.c4± i.c7 12 .�hS± Gombac - Taylor, - and the favourable for White ex­ Yerevan 2 0 0 0) 1O.llJe4 i.e7 11.f4! change of the light-squared bish­ ops emphasizes his advantage; with an advantage for White; 8 ... d6 (That is Black's most re­ There might arise a different type of position if Black plays 7 . . . liable line, but even then White's e S himself. White must play en­ prospects are clearly superior. He ergetically in order to exploit his can trade pawns in the centre at an lead in development - 8.f4 ! and opportune moment and he thus here there might arise the follow­ creates long-term weaknesses in his opponent's camp.) 9.11Ja3 ! ? ing variations: 221

Chapter 14 lLlf6 10 .�e1! (White should not enter the rather unclear compli­ cations arising after the hasty move - 10.1L1c4 dS !oo) 10 ... �e7 11. lLlc4 �e6 (Black loses a pawn af­ ter: 11 . . . �c7 12 .fxeS dxeS 13.�g3 0-0 14.�xeS �xeS 1S.1L1xeS �cS+ 16.�h1 �e8 17.�f4 1L1hS 18.1L1xf7!± Pasalic - Davis, Chicago 2004.) 12 .fxeS dxeS 13.�e3t and White has a long-lasting positional ad­ vantage.

8.c4!

That is the best for White. He increases the tension and he pre­ pares opening of the game in the centre and that would be rather unpleasant for Black, because his pawn-structure would be com­ promised, moreover that he lags in development. 8

.••

tLlf6

Black is clearly worse is he tries to trade queens with: 8 . . . dxe4? ! 9.he4 �xd1 10.�xd1 �d7 (or 10 ... i.b7 11.1L1c3 lLlf6 12 .�f3 �e7 13.�f4± Echavarria - Santos Simao, Istanbul 2000) 11.1L1c3 1L1f6 (or 11.. .�cS 12 .1L1a4 �a7 13.�f4 1L1f6 14.�f3 0-0-0 - see 11 ... 1L1f6 ; 11 ... eS, Wittmann - Brestian, Vienna 222

1993, 12 .�f3±) 12.�f3 �cS 13.i.f4 0-0-0 14.1L1a4 �a7 1S.E!d3± Short - Stoeckmann, BRD 1986. Instead, it is more acceptable for Black to try: 8 ... dxc4 9.hc4 �xd1 10.E!xd1 1L1f6 (10 ... �cS 1l.i.f4 �b7 12 .1L1c3± Alan - Cataneo, Mexico City 2006) 1l.lLlc3 i.b4 (l1 . . . i.cS 12.�f4± Radovanovic Walther, Port Erin 2 005; 1l . . . E!b8 12 .E!b1 e5 13.il.e3 �b4 14.f3± Par­ ma - Udovcic, Amsterdam 1963; 11 . . . �e7 12.if4 0-0 13.,td6± R.Byrne - Denker, USA 1969) 12.f3 (It is also good for White to opt for 12.e5 ! ? , followed by 12 . . . lLldS 13.tLle4t, or 1 2 . . . 1L1d7 13 . .tf4t) 12 . . . �c5+ (or 12 . . . e5 13.i.e3 �e7 14.1L1a4± Vivek - De Silva, Aden 2002) 13.�f1 e5 14.�e2t. Black tries sometimes seldom to fortify his dS-square with a piece in order to avoid having there an isolated pawn, but White should not necessarily comply with his opponent's intentions. In case of 8 . . . 1L1e7, he can continue with: 9.cxd5 cxdS 10.,te3 ! ? ib7 11.tLlc3±, while after 8 . . . i.b7, it is very unpleasant for Black if White plays: 9 .�b3 ! �b8 (or 9 ... �d7 10. lLlc3 d4 1l.lLla4±) 1O.cxd5 cxd5 11. tt:lc3 ! later, Black can not solve the problems in any of the varia­ tions, for example: 1l . . . d4 12.i.f4 ! id6 (or 12 ... dxc3? 13.hb8 �xb8 14.ha6+ -) 13.�a4+ �f8 14.e5 ! dxc3 15.exd6 cxb2 16.E!ab1-+; 11 ... dxe4 12 .ha6 !±; 11 ... .tc6 12 .�c2 dxe4 (or 12 . . . d4 13.1L1e2±; 12 . . . lLlf6 13 .1L1xd5 hd5 14.exd5 lLlxd5

4. ltJxd4 a6 5. �d3 ltJc6 6. ltJxc6 1S.,ba6±) 13.ltJxe4;!;. Black pre­ served an acceptable pawn-struc­ ture in the centre in that last line, but his kingside development lags behind and he has problems pro­ tecting his a6-pawn. Black has also tried in prac­ tice the move 8 . . . d4. Following 9.eS, White has a slight but stable advantage. There might follow: 9 . . . ltJe7 (About 9 .. :i!fc7 1O.f4 cS 1l.ltJd2 ltJe7 - see 9 . . . lDe7; 9 . . . cS 1O.ltJd2 1tJe7 11.ltJe4 1tJc6 12.f4 i.e7 13.i.d2;!; Wade - Huebner, Castle­ bar 1969; 9 . . .�b7, Baron - Kom­ ljenovic, Mancha 2000, 10.ltJd2 cS 1l.ltJe4;!;; 9 .. .fS 10.exf6 ltJxf6 1l.i.gS �e7 12.'ffc 2;!; Lorincz Seehase, corr. 1980.) 1O.ltJd2 fffc 7 (White can counter 1O . . . ltJg6 with: 1l.1tJf3 ! ? cS 12 ..!e4 ! - and here af­ ter 12 . . J3b8, he has: 13.fffa4+ i.d7 14.fffxa6 Wic7 1S.g3±, while in case of: 12 . . . l3a7, he can follow with: 13.b4! cxb4 14.ltJxd4 ltJxeS lS . .!f4 ltJg6 16.'!e3± and White had a powerful initiative in the game Adams - Dao, New Delhi 2 000.) 1l.f4 cS, Stellwagen - Istratescu, Wijk aan Zee 2002, 12.ltJe4 ltJg6 (12 . . .ltJfS 13.g4±) 13.fffh S i.e7 14. id2;!; and White's chances are clearly better. After the careless move 14 . . . 0-0? ! , Black risks com­ ing under a dangerous attack: 1S.l3f3 .!b7 16.l3h3 h6 17.ltJf2 -+ and White's knight-sacrifice on h6 is forthcoming . . . 9.1tJc3

The alternative for White is the immediate: 9.cxdS cxdS 1O.exdS

(R.Fischer played like that against T.Petrosian and Black answered with 10 . . . exdS, so after 1l.ltJc3, there happened a transposition to our main line - see 9.ltJc3.) 10 . . . ltJxdS ! (This move i s more reliable for Black.) 11.i.e4 and here Black's best reaction is 1l . . . l3a7!;!;. That line was played for the first time in the game Beliavsky - Kurajica, Sarajevo 1982. White can create an isolated pawn for his opponent indeed, but he has to exchange his bishop for his opponent's knight, while after 12.fffd 4, Black has the argument 12 . . . l3c7!�, recom­ mended by GM Beliavsky. I believe that after 9.ltJc3, White should strive for more.

Now, Black has numerous pos­ sibilities and his most principled are: al) 9 . . . d4! ? and a2) 9 . . . �e7. About 9 . . . dxc4 1O .hc4 fffx d1 1l.l3xd1 - see 8 . . . dxc4. It is too dubious for Black to try 9 ... �b7? ! , G.Garcia - Mollo, Buenos Aires 1997, 1O.Wib3 Wid7 1l.if4 ie7 12 .ltJa4 dxe4 13.�e2±, as well as: 9 ... l3a7? ! 1O.cxdS cxdS 1l.�e3 l3d7 12 .Wia4± Spangenberg - Ricardi, Villa Martelli 1997. 223

Chapter 14 al) 9

•••

d4 ! ?

This principled move i s played much more rarely than 9 ... fie7. Black avoids exchanges in the centre and he obtains a protected passed pawn in the centre, but White has excellent prospects for flank operations. l O .lLla4!

The knight is placed at the edge of the board indeed, but it exerts pressure against the im­ portant cS and b6 squares and it can also be redeployed to the ideal blocking d3-square if so needed. l O . . . e5

The other possibility for Black is - 10 . . . cS ! ? (about 1O . . . lLld7 11.f4 c5 12.eS - see 10 . . . cS) 11.eS ltJd7 12.f4 (It is also possible for White to follow with: 12 . .!e4! ? �a7 13.f4;!; Anka - Zvara, Pardubice 1999). Now, it is too risky for Black to try: 12 ... .!b7? ! 13.fS ! lLlxeS (If 13 . . . exfS?! 14.hfS lLlxeS 1S.�e1, then Black cannot solve the problem with the pin of his knight: 1S . . . 'lWf6 16.fif4 fid6 17.fi.xeS heS 18. 'lWhS±, or 1S .. .'�c7 16.ltJb6 VNxb6 17.�xeS+ .!e7 18 ..!gS f6 19.'lWhS±) 14.fxe6 f6 (or 14 . . . fxe6? 1S.VNhS+-; 14 . . . .id6 1S.exf7+ ltJxf7 16.'lWhS±) 1S. fif4 ltJxd3 16.VNxd3 fic6 (It is even worse for Black to opt for: 16 ... .id6? 17.VNg3 ! .ixf4 18.'lWxg7 .ie3+ 19.@h1 �f8 2 0.VNxb7+-, or 16 . . . fie7 17.VNg3±) 17.b3 ! and Black fails to complete successfully his development. His position is bad too after: 17 ... fi.xa4 18.bxa4 fie7 (In case of 18 ... fid6 ? ! White fol224

lows again with: 19 .'lWg3 ! hf4 20. VNxg7 fie3+ 2 1.@h1 �f8 22 .�ab1 VNe7 23.'lWg4 ! +- and his threats are decisive.) 19.�abl±, since White penetrates unavoidably along the b-file, or 17 ... .!d6 18.�ae1 0-0 19. 'lWg3 hf4 2 0 .'lWxf4 'lWe7 2 1.lLlb2 fS 22 .�eS fie4 (or 2 2 . . . �f6 23.lLld3 �xe6 24.�fe1 �xeS 2S.�xeS 'lWf6 26.�xfS 'lWe6 27.'lWeS±) 23.ltJa4 �ac8 24.ltJb6± - and after White's knight joins in the actions, Black's situation becomes critical. It is more prudent for Black to try 12 . . . g6, but even then after: 13.fie4 �b8 14.'lWf3 'lWc7 1S.fid2;!;, White remains with a slight but stable advantage, Cao Sang Orso, Hungary 1996. 1l.f4

Opening of the f-file enables White to maintain his initiative, since Black fails to mobilize his forces and to stabilize the situa­ tion. 1l . . . ltJ d7

Black's pseudo-active opera­ tion ends up in favour of White after: 11 . . . ltJg4 12 .fie2 'lWh4 13.h3 ltJe3 14.he3 dxe3 1S.ltJb6 �b8 16. ltJxc8 �xc8 17.fxeS± . Black obtains an unpleasant cramped position after: 11 ... .id6 12.c5 fic7 13.fS as 14.'lWe2;!; - White prevents the trade of the bishops from a6 with his last move. l2 .fxe5 lLlxe5 l3 .!f4! ltJxd3 •

The line: 13 . . . fig4 14.VNc2 ltJxd3 1S.'lWxd3t does not win a tempo for Black, because his bishop on g4 would soon come under attack.

4. l:iJxd4 a 6 S . .id3 I:iJ c6 6. l:iJxc6 If he chooses 13 . . . .!d6, then after: 14.c5 .!c7 15 ..b:e5 .b:e5 16.1&h5 1&e7 17 ..!c4, Black will have prob­ lems with the protection of his f7-square: 17 . . . .ie6 18.�xe5 hc4 19.�xg7±, or 17 . . . 0-0 18 . .b:f7+ gxf7 19.gxf7 �xf7 2 0.�xe5±.

14.ti'xd3 c5 IS.ti'g3 ga7 16. b3 gd7 17.�b2 .lb7 18.�d3t -

White's initiative is quite danger­ ous. Black has not completed the development of his kingside and his king is uncomfortable in the centre. a2) 9

• • •

.le7

This is the main line for Black. Its main drawback is that it en­ ables White to simplify advanta­ geously in the centre. 1 0 .cxdS cxdS

About 1O . . . exd5 11.exd5 cxd5 - see 1O . . . cxd5. 1l.exdS exdS

Black complies with the for­ mation of an isolated pawn, un­ derstanding that after 1l . . . l:iJxd5, his problems would be even great­ er as a result of: 12 . .ie4 .!b7 13. 1&a4+ 1&d7 14.1&xd7+ �xd7 15.gd1. White enters an endgame with an extra pawn, although he might need to work hard to press his advantage home: 15 ... gad8 16.l:iJxd5 .b:d5 17.hd5 exd5 18.gxd5+ �e6 19J�xd8 gxd8 20 ..!e3 .if6 21.gel± Matanovic - Roos, Le Havre 1966, or 15 ... .!f6 16.ttJxd5 .lxd5 17 . .b:d5 exd5 18.gxd5+ �e6 19.9d2 ghd8 2 0.ge2 + �f5 21.'!e3± Averbakh Taimanov, Leningrad 1960. 12 .ti'a4 + ! ?

This idea belongs t o Robert Fischer. Meanwhile, that is not White's only possibility. He has a good alternative in the move 12 . .!e3. Now, after 12 . . . gb8, White has the power­ ful argument 13 . .id4! gb4 (if 13 . . . gxb 2 ? ! 14.ttJxd5±; about 1 3 . . . 0 - 0 - see 12 . . . 0 - 0 ) 14.ttJe2 .id6, Daly - Miezis, Port Erin 2 0 0 2 , 15.a3 ! gb8 (White should not b e afraid of: 1 5 . . . ,txh2 + ? ! 16.�xh2 I:iJg4+ 17.�g1 1&h4 18Jl:e1 0-0 19.ttJg3 gxd4 20 . .b:h7+ �xh7 21. 1&xd4 1&h2 + 2 2 .�fl±) 16.ge1 0-0 17. I:iJ g3± with a clear advantage for White. It is preferable for Black to defend with : 12 . . . 0-0 13 . .!d4 .!e6 (White enjoys a stable edge after the other possibilities for Black: 225

Chapter 14 13 ... E1b8, Jansa - Osmanovic, Sa­ rajevo 1981, 14.'itic2 h6 15.E1feU; 13 ... h6 14.E1c1 E1b8 15.a3 a5 16.E1eU Gaprindashvili - Kinnmark, Gote­ borg 1971; 13 ... 'itid6 14.h3 .1e6 15. E1e1 lDd7, Parma - Suetin, Havana 1969, 16 . .1c2t) 14.E1e1 .1d6 (or 14 . . . 'itia5?! 15.a3 E1ab8, Matanovic - Ree, Titovo Uzice 1966, 16.b4±) 15.'itif3t, as it was played in the game Matanovic - Castro, Luga­ no 1968. White's pieces have been perfectly deployed, he has blocked his opponent's isolated pawn and he has superior prospects in the forthcoming middle game. 12 . . . .1d7

Mer 12 . . . 'itid7, White should better avoid going after mate­ rial gains in the line: 13 . .1b5 axb5 14.'itixa8 a-at (Black has some compensations here indeed.) and he should follow the steps of the eleventh World Champion en­ tering an endgame with a con­ siderable positional advantage: 13.E1e1! 'itixa4 14.lDxa4 .1e6 15 . .1e3 0-0 (In case of 15 . . . lDd7, Zeller - Melcher, Germany 1997, it is good for White to follow with: 16.f4 ! g6 17 . .1d4 0-0 18.E1acl± Polugaevsky) 16 . .1c5 E1fe8 (or 16 ... .1xc5 17.lDxc5± Gruenfeld - Gins­ berger, Israel 1984) 17.he7 E1xe7 18.b4 !± Fischer - Petrosian, Bue­ nos Aires 1971. White has a pawn majority on the queenside, an excellent coordination of pieces and a long-term control over the dark squares. This classical game is so important for the Paulsen 226

variation that we will quote it in its entirety. There followed: 18 ... @f8 19.lDc5 .1c8 2 0.f3 E1ea7 2 1.l:!e5 .1d7 22.lDxd7+ ! (This is a timely transformation of advantages.) 22 . . . l:!xd7 23.l:!c1 l:!d6 24.l:!c7 lDd7 25.l:!e2 g6 26.@f2 h5 27.f4 h4 28. @f3 f5 29.@e3 d4+ 30.@d2 lDb6 31.l:!ee7 lDd5 32.gf7+ @e8 33.gb7 lDxb4 34 ..1c4 1-0 . 13.'itid4 i.e6

Black can ignore the pro­ tection of his central pawn, by playing 13 . . . 0-0, relying on the line: 14.lDxd5 lDxd5 15.'itixd5 ib5 16.'itixd8 l:!fxd8 17.hb5 axb5+t. Still, it is simpler for White to continue with 14.ig5 and after 14 ... ie6, there arises a transposi­ tion of moves - see 13 . . . ie6. Black has also tried in prac­ tice: 13 . . . .1c6 14 . .1g5 0-0 15.gfeU Kauppinen - Kastinen, corr. 1983, with a better game for White.

14.i.g5 0 - 0 15.b4t Persson - Friberg, Sweden 199 2 . White has a long-lasting initiative and his queen is quite comfortable as a blocker of Black's isolated pawn. Black is faced with a long passive defence.

4. ltlxd4 a6 5. id3 ltlc6 6. ltlxc6 b) 6 . . . dxc6

This line is less ambitious in­ deed, but it is quite solid. Black captures with his pawn away from the centre in order to push e6-eS later and to be able to develop his light-squared bishop comfortably. The arising positions are rather static and that is untypical for the Sicilian schemes. White should strive to exploit Black's weakened dark squares on the queenside. 7.�d2 !

White adopts a flexible strat­ egy. He should not be in a hurry to castle, because castling long might be very unpleasant for his opponent in some of the lines. Additionally, after 7.�d2, Black must worry about the possibil­ ity e4-eS. I will mention that the immediate move 7.eS? would not work, in view of 7 ... �aS+. 7 . . . e5 That is Black's most natural and logical answer, but it is worth looking at some other possibili­ ties. It is too risky for him to try: 7 . . . i.d6 ? ! 8.ltlc4 i.c7, due to 9.�g4 ! . Now, h e has great problems if

he attempts to protect his g7pawn: 9 . . . �f6? 10.eS ! ixeS 11. i.gS+-; 9 ... g6 10 . .tgS �d4, Wieweg - Lind, Oerebro 1992, 11. O-O-O±; 9 ... @f8 10 .i.gS f6 (or 10 ... ltlf6 11.�h4± Jonsson - Lind, Borlange 1992) 11.i.d2 eS 12.�f3 i.e6 13.0-0-0± Dvoreckij - Ako­ pian, Kiev 1970. It is much more interesting for him to opt for: 9 . . . ltlf6 ! ? 1O.vgxg7 gg8, but it i s far from easy to prove the correctness of that pawn sacrifice. Following: 1l.vgh6 gg6 (If 11 . . .bS 12 .ltle3 vgd4, then 13.0-0 and Black cannot play 13 . . . ltlxe4?, as it was tried in the game Moberg - Lind, Lindes­ berg 1993, because of: 14.ltlfS ! vgeS IS. ixe4 �xe4 16.ltlg7+-) 12 .vgh4 gg4 (or 12 ... bS? ! 13.eS !± Buenermann - Vetter, Germany 2 000) 13.�h3 eS 14.�f3± White's queen comes back and he maintains his advantage, Ernst Lind, Goteborg 1992. White has a clear advantage after: 7 . . . ltlf6 8.eS ltld7 9.vge2±. In the game Velicka - Solak, Interlaken 2 001, Black chose the more reasonable line 7 . . . ltl e7!?, but White should have countered that with: 8 .ltlf3 ltlg6 9.h4 ! ? hS (or 9 . . . ie7 10.hS ltleS 1l.ltlxeS vgaS+ 12 .id2 vgxeS I3.i.c3 vggS l4. vgf3±; 9 . . . id6 1O .hS ltleS l1.h6±) 1O .ie3 vgaS+ 11.c3± with a better game for him. Black plays sometimes 7 . . . vgc7, with the idea t o advance his king's pawn only after White castles short, for example: 8.0-0 227

Chapter 14 e5co, or 8.a4 tLlf6 ! ? 9.0-0 e5co. In that case, it seems very promising for White to try the following ag­ gressive scheme: 8.b3 ! ? e5 9 . .tb2 and after: 9 . . . tLle7 1O.h4 ! b5 (10 ... tLlg6 11.g3±) 11.h5 h6 12.c4 .te6 (12 . . . b4? ! 13.c5± Vogt - Gerst­ ner, Chemnitz 1998) 13.'lWc2±, or 9 ... tLlf6 1O .'lWf3 ! .td6 (1O ... .tb4 11. 'lWg3±) 11.tLlc4 0-0 (11 ... .tb4+ 12. f1 b5 13.heS±) 12.tLlxd6 'lWxd6 13.0-0 .te6 14.'lWg3;!; Black fails to solve his opening problems. 8.tLlc4 tLlf6

Black exploits the fact that his central pawn is indirectly protect­ ed and he develops his knight in the most natural fashion. It is only a transposition of moves after: 8 . . . .te6 9 ..te3 tLlf6 - see 8 . . . tLlf6. In the rest of the cases, White seizes the initiative easily: It is too passive for Black to play: 8 .. .f6? ! 9 . .te3 .te6, Reischig - Lacha, Czech Republic 1997, 1O . .tb6 'lWd7 11.'lWe2±; The move 8 ... 'lWc7? ! enables White to continue with: 9.'lWhS .td6 1O.'lWgS ! .tb4+ (1O ... g6 11..td2 .te6 12 . .taS± Mrdja - Metrangolo, Montecatini Terme 2001) 11.c3 f6 12 .'lWg3 .tf8 13.a4± T.Horvath P.Cramling, Farum 1980; In case of: 8 ... .td6 9.tLlxd6+ 'lWxd6 10. 0-0 tLlf6 11.b3 0-0 12. a4±, the absence of Black's dark­ squared bishop might be detri­ mental to his chances in the mid­ dle game, Konguvel - Gokhale, Chennai 2004; 228

Black cannot solve his prob­ lems with: 8 ... .tc5 9.'lWh5 .td4 10. c3 tLlf6 (or 1O . . . hf2 + ? ! 11.xf2 'lWxd3 12 .'lWxe5± Grabics - Robovic, Harkany 1993) 11.'lWe2 bS 12.cxd4 bxc4 13.hc4 'lWxd4 (or 13 . . . exd4 14.0-0 0-0 lS.eS :Be8 16 . .tgS±) 14.f3 :Bb8 1S.:BbU Benares - Silva, Brasilia 2000 - and White has a positional advantage thanks to his superior pawn-structure; Finally, White should coun­ ter the once popular line - 8 . . . tLle7 with a plan including cas­ tling long: 9 . .te3 tLlg6 (If 9 . . . .te6, then: 1O.'lWhS tLlg6 11.0-0-0 'lWc7 12 . .tb6 'lWb8 13.g3± Plaskett - Miles, Bergsjo 1981.) 1O.tLlb6 :Bb8 11.tLlxc8 :Bxc8 (After: 11 . . . 'lWxc8, Grzegorzewski - Lewando­ wicz, Poland 1992 , it is better for White to play: 12 . .tc4 bs 13 . .tb3 .te7 14.'lWf3 0-0 lS.0-0;!;) 12.'�g4 .td6 (or 12 ... .tb4+ 13.c3 0-0 14. :Bdl± Zeleic - Martorelli, Cutro 2 000) 13.0-0-0 0-0 14 . .tc4 'lWc7 lS.h4 bS, Timman - Miles, Bugo­ jno 1978, 16 ..tb3 h8 17.hS tLle7 18.:Bh3� and White's kingside at­ tack is very powerful. 9 .te3 !? .

This move-order is only sel­ dom used by White, but it is the most unpleasant for Black. White continues to delay his castling and he immediately attacks the weak b6-square. Depending on circumstances, he can place there his knight or his bishop as well. 9 . .te6 . .

If 9 ... tLld7, then 1O.a4± - and

4. tLlxd4 a6 S. i.d3 tLl c6 6. tLlxc6 Black's pieces stand in each oth­ er's way. White should not be afraid of 9 . . . tLlg4, in view of: 10 .�b6 'lWgS 11.h4 Yfffe 7 12 .'lWe2 �e6 13. o-o-o± Bokelbrink - Grbovic, Berlin 1988.

'lWb8, it deserves a serious atten­ tion for Black to follow with : 10 . . . �b4 + ! ? 11.c3 Yfff e 7! 12.'lWb3 tLld7= , as well as 1O . . . Yfffe 7!?oo. All that requires a more subtle treatment of that variation for White. He not only attacks the eS­ pawn with the move 1O.0-0 ! , but he is also ready to sacrifice his central pawn. 10

Yfffc7

..•

Winning the pawn with: 10 . . . ixc4 11.hc4 Yfffx d1 12.gaxd1 tLlxe4, has almost never been tested in practice. The analysis of the game Medvegy - Gara, Budapest 2 0 04, shows that Black risks a lot. After: 13.gfe1 tLld6 (or 13 .. .f6 14.f4 .!e7 10.O-O! That is another important 1S.fxe5 fxeS 16 . .!b6 tLld6 17.�e6±) fine point. In the game Pahtz 14.�b3 0-0-0 (or 14 .. .f6 1S.i.b6 - Miezis, Bad Worishofen 2 000, as 16.f4±) 15 . .!b6 gd7 (or 15 ... ge8 White obtained a very promis­ 16.ge2±) 16.gxeS± White restores ing position after: 1O . .!b6 'lWb8 the material balance and he has a 11.Yffff3 lLld7 12 .a4 f6 (or 12 . . . tLlxb6 clearly better position thanks to 13.lLlxb6 ga7 14.Yfffg3 !±) 13.aS �e7 his powerful bishop pair. White has a slight but stable 14.Yfffh 5+ g6 1S.'lWh6;!;. Some other games developed also very well advantage after: 1O . . . �d6 11. for White, but the careful analysis lLlxd6+ Yfffx d6 12.Yfffe 1! ?;!;. It seems interesting for Black showed that Black's play could be improved in many different ways. to try 10 . . . lLl d7, but after: 11.Yfffd 2 At first, the intermediate move bS 12.lLlaS Yfffc 7 (or 12 ... cS 13.b3 12 . . . i.b4+ ! changes the situation gc8 14.i.e2;!;) 13.a4 lLlcS 14.axbS considerably, since after 13.c3, cxbS (or 14 . . . axbS? 1S.lLlxc6 ! + -) Black can already play: 13 ... .!c5 1S.b4 lLlxd3 (or 1S . . . tLla4? ! 16.c4 ! 14.hcS lLlxc5 1S.�e2 (The tactical bxc4 17.ixc4 hc4 18.gfcl±) 16. idea, behind Black's line is that cxd3;!; White preserves the initia­ after 1S.tLlb6?, he has the refuta­ tive. 11.�b6 Yfffb 8 tion : 1S . . . Yfff d 8 ! 16.lLlxa8 tLlxd3+ 17. The exchange of pawns af­ �f1 tLlxb2-+) 1S . . . bS= and Black equalizes. Meanwhile, instead of ter: 11 . . . Yfffe 7 12.lLlxeS Yfffb 4 13.i.e3 the seemingly forced move - 10 ... 'lWxb2 14.tLlc4± cannot make Black 229

Chapter 14 happy at all. 12.�el!

White increases the pressure along the dark squares by bring­ ing his queen. 12

• . .

tt:ld7

In the game Yagupov - J.Iva­ nov, Ubeda 2000, Black chose: 12 . . . ,txc4 13.,ixc4 i.d6, but that was insufficient for equality. Af­ ter: 14J:!dl ! ? i.c7 (or 14 . . . 0-0 15. �e3 i.c7 16.i.c5 1=!d8 17.�b3±) 15. i.e3 0-0 16.i.g5;!; White had the two-bishop advantage and much better prospects.

17.1=!d3±, there arises a position from the game Lintchevski Beck, Pardubice 2006. White's of­ fensive is powerfully enhanced by the presence of opposite coloured bishops on the board. 14.gadl 0 - 0 15.J.e2;!;

13.�e3 ! ?

White usually plays here 13.�a5, but Black can counter that with 13 . . . tt:lxb6, without being afraid of 14.tt:lxb6 (or 14.�xb6 �e7 15.a4 0-0= Sjugirov - Chehlov, St. Petersburg 2 0 05) because of: 14 . . . �c7! 15.1=!adl i.e7 16.i.c4 i.d8oo. Therefore, he should bet­ ter elaborate on the route of his queen. 13

• • •

�e7

That is the least of evils for Black. In case of: 13 . . . ,ixc4 14.,ixc4 tt:lxb6 15.�xb6 i.d6 16.1=!adl 0-0

This position has not been tested in practice yet. Black has failed to deploy his pieces in the best fashion. His queen is terribly misplaced on the b8-square and it impedes the coordination of the rooks. White can increase his pressure by doubling of the rooks along the d-file, for example after 15 . . . a5! ? , it is very effective for him to play: 16.!;d3 ! !;a6 17.1=!fdl lDxb6 18.lDxb6;!; with excellent prospects for him.

Conclusion Black's natural move 5. . . lDc6 - is not his most popular reaction against 5. i.d3, in connection with the fact that after 6. lDxc6! White obtains a slight but stable advantage in all the variations. The lines 6 . . . bxc6 and 6 . . . dxc6 lead to radically different positions. In thefirst case, White should increase his control over the centre with the move c2-c4 and he should try to create an isolated pawn for his opponent. In the second variation, White exploits the compromised dark squares on his opponent's queenside and the maneuver lDd2-c4 helps him to do that quite effectively. 230

Chapter 15

1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3 . d4 cxd4 4 . �xd4 a6 5 . .id3 .ic5

a7-g1 diagonal before with a) 6 �a7 (or 6 ... i.b6) and that was in •••

harmony with the classical ideas of the Paulsen system. Lately, White chooses oftener the more prudent move b) 6 . . �e7. .

a) 6 . . h7 .

Black continues to exert pres­ During the 60ies of the last sure against White's kingside century, this move was regularly and he deploys his bishop in such played by GM Lev Polugaevsky, a way that he can also accomplish with very good results at that and later the thematic pawn-advance since then - S . . . i.cS became one b7-bS. I would like my readers of Black's main lines. He plays to note that I recommend the logically, developing a piece and aggressive move with White's attacking White's knight on d4, queen to g4 after every bishop's trying to force it to retreat from move. the centre. That cannot be consid­ In this order of moves, we do ered as a win of a tempo, because not need to deal in details with after White's move, Black's bish­ 6 ... i.b6, because Black plays it op comes under attack too. Mean­ only with the idea to have the while, you should also note that bishop there protected by his Black's g7-pawn has remained queen in case of White's most defenseless and White will soon popular set-up - 7.Wfe2, followed make a good use of that nuance of by 8.i.e3. After 6 . . . i.b6, White can the position. keep to the same idea as in the 6.tOb3 main line - 7.Wfg4 ! ? tLlf6 8.�g3 Now, Black can choose be­ d6 9.tLlc3 tLlc6 10.i.gS h6 1l.i.d2;!;. tween different retreats of his The placement of Black's bishop bishop. He used to keep it on the on b6 only makes it harder for 231

Chapter 15 him to organize an effective coun­ terplay on the queenside. 7.�g4!? This is White's most energetic and principled decision. He cre­ ates immediate problems and di­ rect threats for his opponent. He often plays 7.�e2 in the contem­ porary tournament practice, but we will see that the move 7.�g4 is at least as good.

7 . tlf6 ! ..

Black plays enterprisingly. The tactical idea behind that move is that after: S.�xg7? 13gS 9.%lIh6 he has 9 . . . .bf2 + ! , but naturally, White is not obliged to enter that line. White obtains the advantage easily after Black's other moves : For example: 7 . . . �fS 8.�g3 d6 9.!e3;!; Volkmann - Bezold, Bu­ dapest 1997; In the game Grischuk - Istra­ tescu, Khanty-Mansiysk 2005, Black tried: 7 . . . g6 S.�g3 llJc6 9. llJc3 d6, but here the simplest line for White would have been: 1O . .ig5 ! �c7 (It is too dubious for Black to play: 1O . . . llJge7? ! 11. !f6 0-0 12 .�g5 13eS I3.13dl±, while if: 232

1O .. .f6, then ll . .ie3 .ixe3 12 .%lIxe3;!;) 11.0-0-0. The line: 1l . . . !d7 12 . .ie2 f6 is in favour of White in view of: 13 .13xd6 ! 0-0-0 (or 13 . . . fxg5? 14.13xe6+ �dS 15.13d6 ! .ixf2 16.%lIxg5+ �cS I7.13hdl+-) 14 . .ie3 .ixe3+ 15.fxe3±, or 1l ... h6 12 . .if4 llJe5 (or 12 . . . e5 13.llJd5 %lidS 14. !d2±) 13.!b5+ ! �fS 14.13xd6 ! (White has an excellent compen­ sation for that exchange-sacri­ fice.) 14 . . ..bf2 15.�xf2 �xd6 16 . .ie2 �g7 (16 .. .f6?! 17.llJa4 !±) 17. llJd2 !±. The best line for Black 1l .. .f6 12 .!f4 llJe5 13.!e3 ixe3+ 14.%lIxe3 llJe7 15.f4;!; is also insuf­ ficient to equalize. Black plays sometimes the ag­ gressive move - 7 . . .%lIf6, but that early development of the queen can hardly be approved. After S.f4 ! ? , it is too risky for Black to play: S . . . d6 9.llJc3 llJc6, because of to.e5 ! %lIh6 (Black has nothing better: 10 . . . dxe5 1l.llJe4 %lIh6 12. fxe5+-; 1O ... llJxe5 1l.fxe5 %lIxe5+ 12 .%lIe2 +- Kurmann - Rohit, Ins­ tanbul 2 0 05; 10 . . .h5 l1.exf6 hxg4 12 .fxg7 13h5 13.llJe4+- Giaccio - Lopez Di, Buenos Aires 2 006.) 1l.f5 .ie3 12.exd6 .ixcI 13.13xcl± and White has a clear advantage, while in case of S ... h5, he fol­ lows with: 9.�h3 d6 1O.llJc3 llJc6, Shomoev - C.Hansen, Copenha­ gen 2 005, 1l . .ie3 e5 (or 1l . . . %lIh6 12 ..ixa7 fua7 13.0-0;!;) 12 .f5 llJge7 13 ..ixa7 13xa7 14.%lIe3;!; and White has a long-lasting initiative. 8.�g3 d6 In case of: S ... llJc6 9.llJc3, there

4. ttJxd4 a6 5. i.d3 i.c5 6. ttJ b3 arises a transposition after 9 . .. d6 - see 8 . . . d6, but Black can try the original idea: 9 . . . h5 10.�g5 h4 ! ? , which was tested i n the game Schaefer - Mainka, Essen 2000. Naturally, White had better cap­ ture that pawn and it would not be easy for Black to prove the cor­ rectness of that sacrifice: 11.hh4 i.b8 (or 11 . . . ttJxe4 12.ttJxe4 �xh4 13 .�xg7±; 11 . . . ttJh5 12 .�g4;!;) 12. �g5;!;.

of his king and he completes the development of his queens ide af­ ter which he might castle long if necessary. Instead, it is more pop­ ular for White to play 10.0-0, but it is not so easy for him to prove his advantage in that variation. lO ... h6

Black repels his opponent's bishop from its active position, but he weakens a bit his kingside pawn-structure. 9.ttJc3 ttJc6 His position becomes very dif­ It is too dubious for Black to ficult after the careless move: 10 . . . play 9 . . . h5? ! 1O.i.g5± - and White ttJe5? ! (Black's knight will come has a clear advantage, due to the unavoidably under attack there.) vulnerability of the g5-square, 11.i.e2 b5 12 .f4 ttJg6 13.e5 dxe5 Edouard - Barnett, Belfort 2 005. (Black's defence is not easier after: In the game Palac - Drab­ 13 . . .b4 14.exf6 gxf6 15.ttJe4 fxg5 ke, Dresden 2003, Black tried: 16.fxg5 d5 17.ttJf6+ �e7 18J!fl±) 9 . . . 0-0 1O.�g5 ttJbd7 and here 14.fxe5 h6 (White can counter White had to continue with 11. now 14 . . . b4 with the intermedi­ O-O-O ! ? (Things are far from ate move 15.�f3 ! ±) 15.exf6 hxg5 clear after: 11. �xd6 i.b8+t) 11 . . . 16.fxg7 gg8 17.gdl �b6 18.ttJe4± �b8 12 .f4t. Escobar - Ortiz, Balaguer 2006. After 1O . . . �b8 ? ! 11.f4 h6 12. i.h4 g5 13.fxg5 d5 14.�f3 ttJh7 (or 14 ... ttJxe4 15.ttJxe4 dxe4 16.he4 hxg5 17.gdl! �d7 18.�f2±) 15.exd5 ttJe5 16.�e2± White obtained an overwhelming advantage in the game Erenburg - Rahmilevitz, Ashdod 2006. Black chose 10 . . . b5 in the game Der Sterren - Blackstock, l O .�g5 ! ? London 1980 and White coun­ This i s a quite promising line tered that with 11.0-0-0 and for White, but it has not been the pawn-advance e4-e5 became tested sufficiently in practice yet. a real threat. Black cannot solve He is not in a hurry to clarify his his problems with: 11.. .h6 12 .hf6 intentions concerning the shelter gxf6 (12 . . .'!Mlxf6? ! 13.�xd6±) 13. 233

Chapter 15 i.e2 �e7 (or 13 ... iLbS 14.f4±) 14. f4: after 14 ... �b6, White has the powerful argument: 15.�g7 i.d7 16.i.h5 E1afS (if 16 ... E1hfS, then 17.tlJd5 !±) 17 . .txf7±; in case of: 14 ... E1gS 15.�h4 b4, it is very strong for White to follow with: 16.e5 ! bxc3 17.E1xd6 �c7 lS.E1hd1 �eS 19.�xf6± - threatening 2 0 . iLh5, while the move 1 9 . . . E1g6? los­ es because of: 20.�hS+ �e7 21. E1xc6 ! +-; finally in the variation: 14 ... b4 15.e5 ! bxc3 16.E1xd6 �b6 17.iLf3 ib7 18.�h4 E1h7 19.�xf6+ �fS 2 0 .E1xe6 E1cS 2 1.E1d6± White sacrifices a piece and his attack is very powerful against Black's king stranded in the centre. In the above mentioned game, Black played immediately 11 . . . b4, but White could have contin­ ued with the pawn-break in the centre even then. After: 12.e5 ! bxc3 13.exf6 gxf6 14.ii.h4 cxb2+ 15.�xb2, his initiative is quite dangerous in all the variations, for example: 15 ...!b7 16.�g7 E1fS 17.hf6 �b6 lS.E1he1 d5 (It is even worse for Black to play: lS . . . �xf2 19.!c4 tlJe5 2 0 . .txe6+-) 19. !xh7±, or 15 ... E1bS (That is rela­ tively Black's best . . . ) 16.�g7 E1fS (but not 16 ... �d7? 17.!e4 ! +-) 17. !xf6 �c7 (The line: 17 . . . �xf6+ lS.�xf6 !d4+ 19.�xd4 tlJxd4 2 0.ixh7± leads to a very diffi­ cult endgame for Black without a pawn.) lS.!xh7 hf2 19.E1hfU. Both kings are a bit endangered, but White's pieces are much more active and that is the decisive fac234

tor for the correct evaluation of the position. 1l.i.d2 c!LJh5

The following line is in favour of White too: 1l . . . e5 12.0-0-0 c!LJe7 13.h4 c!LJg4 14.E1df1 h5 15.f3± Chowdhury - Shamima, Dhaka 2005. Black still has not tested in practice the quite logical move 11 ...b5. In that case, it is sensible for White to castle short. After: 12.0-0 ! ? c!LJh5 (If 12 . . . tlJe5, then not 13.�xg7? tlJg6, but 13.a4 and White's chances are preferable af­ ter: 13 ... bxa4 14.E1xa4;!;, as well as following: 13 . . .b4 14.tlJe2;!;) 13.�f3 g6 (Black's pieces on the long di­ agonal are vulnerable and he can­ not play: 13 . . . tlJf6? 14.e5+-; it is also dubious for him to try: 13 . . . �h4?! 14.e5 d 5 15.E1fel±) 14.!e3 c!LJe5 15.�h3;!; and White plans to follow with f2-f4. After 11 . . . c!LJe5 (with the idea 12.0-0-0 b5 !oo) White should better play 12 .!e2 ! , in order to prepare the advance of his f-pawn as quickly as possible. Now, it is insufficient for Black to try 12 . . . h 5 i n view of: 13.ig5 b 5 14.f4 h4 (14 . . . tlJeg4 15.!xg4 hxg4 16.e5 dxe5 17.fxe5 �c7 lS.0-0-0 tlJd5 19.E1hf1 !b7 2 0 .tlJe4±) 15.!xf6 hxg3 16.ixdS tlJc4 17.0-0-0± Votava - Ioseliani, Czech Repub­ lic 1997 - White obtained a mate­ rial advantage. In the game Smi­ rin - Arencibia, Khanty-Mansi­ ysk 2005, Black chose 12 . . . g5, but after: 13.0-0-0 b5 (or 13 ... E1gS

4J DXd4 a6 S. id3 ic5 6 . liJ b3 14.ie3 he3+ 1S.�xe3;!;) 14.f4 gxf4 1S.hf4 �gB 16.�h3 �e7 17. a3 id7 1B.�hf1 �cB 19 .h1 eS 21.fxeS dxeS 2 2 .Elf2::t Li Chao - Papin, Istanbul 2 00S. The move 1l ... tt'lgf6, was tested in the game Kulaots - Ehlvest, Liepaja 2006 and after: 12 .i.h6 bS 13.tt'lcaS, the game could have transposed to the same variation - see 1l ... bS. 12.a4 i.b7

That position arose for the first time in the game Boudre Rubel, Bad Zwesten 2 0 04 and later it was tested in other games as well. Every time White devel­ oped somehow his queen's bish­ op, Black answered that with 13 . . . tt'lgf6 and subsequently h e ob­ tained quite satisfactory posi­ tions. It turns out however, that White's game can be considerably improved right at that moment. 13 .a5!

That is an introduction to a very promising and not so obvi­ ous pawn-sacrifice. 13

•.•

b5

Black is not inclined to opt for the rather cowardly line: 13 . . . tt'lgf6 14.axb6 tt'lxb6 1S.tt'lxb6 Vffxb6 16.tt'laS±.

4. tDxd4 a6 5. .id3 .ic5 6. lLl b3 14. � b 6 ! This i s the idea behind White's previous move. He sacrifices a pawn and he obtains the impor­ tant as-outpost for his knight. White creates numerous tactical threats and he forces his opponent to solve difficult problems with his king stranded in the centre. The subsequent analysis shows that White's compensation for the pawn is more than sufficient. 14 . . . �xb6

After 14 .. J=!dS, White plays IS. c4 bxc4 16.hc4± with a clear ad­ vantage for him. 15.axb6 'exb6

16.�a5 !

White has achieved what he wanted. Now, we must carefully analyze Black's numerous defen­ sive possibilities. 16 . . ..ic8

The transfer of the bishop from b7 to d7 is Black's most solid line. In case of 16 . . . tDf6, White not only regains the sacrificed mate­ rial by force, but he also remains with an extra pawn in the end­ game after: 17 . .ie3 Wc7 1S.hbS + ! axbS 19.'exbS + Wd7 2 0.Wxb7

Wxb7 2 1 .tDxb7. If 21.. .xh7 17.'i«e4+ 'it>g8 18.'i«xa8 "fid4+

19 .'it>hl 'i«xc4 2 0.'i«f3+-; 14 . . . li:lcS IS.11Jxd6 'i«xd6 16.ic2± Ribli) IS. b3 11JcS (or 15 ... cS? 16.ib2 ib7 17. fS ! exf5 18.l3xfS g6 19.13afl ! l3ae8 2 0."fig4� M . Rytshagov - Hellsten, Asker 1997; if Black accepts the rook-sacrifice: 19 . . .gxfS 2 0 .l3xf5 f6 21.'i«g4+ ! , then after each retreat of Black's king: 21...'it>f7 2 2 .li:lgS+ 'it>e8 23.'i«h5+ 'it>d8 24.li:le6+- or 21 . . . 'it>h8 2 2 .l3hS l3f7 23.11JgS l3g7 24.ixh7+- White wins by force, recommended by Ribli) 16.11Jxc5 ixc5+ 17.ie3 ixe3+ 18."fixe3;!; (analysis of Ribli). White main­ tains the advantage thanks to his superior pawn-structure and his light-squared bishop, which is clearly better than its undevel­ oped counterpart. After 11 . . . c5, it is again very good for White to play: 12.eS ! llJd7 13.exd6 'i«xd6 14.11Je4 'i«c7 1S. b3 ib7 16.ib2 llJf6 17.li:lgS "fic6 18.l3ae1 l3d8 19.ibl h6 2 0.11Jf3i with an initiative for White, Gin­ zburg - Belmonte, Salta 1995. In case of 11 ... 11Jd7 12 .ie3 ib7 (The careless line: 12 . . .if6 13. l3ac1 c5, Kuckel - M .Naiditsch, Bochum 2 0 03 , enables White af­ ter: 14.eS ! dxeS 15.f5 exfS 16.li:ldS "fic6 17.ixf5� to obtain good at­ tacking chances; after 12 . . . eS, the situation is quite similar to that in the main line: 13.fS llJf6 14.l3ac1 l3b8 IS.'it>hl "fib7 16.b3 'i«a8 17. li:la4 c5 18.ig5 id7 19.1i:lc3 ic6 2 0.l3cdU Roschina - M.Kunte, Moscow 1994; in case of 12 . . . 0-0, Wade - Roehrl, Siegen 1970, it 2S3

Chapter 16 looks very attractive for White to the kingside: 12 ... 1'%b8 (Black pre­ play 13.c5 ! ?±; Black has also test­ vents White's play on the queen­ ed in practice: 12 ... c5 13.a3 0-0 side, connected with the move 14J:%ac1 lLlb8 15.1'%f3 i.b7 16.1'%h3 b2-b4.) 13.ie3 as 14.1'%ac1 0-0, g6 17.f5 i.f6 18.1'%f1 lLlc6 19.�h1 Fusi - Waller, Austria 2 0 03, then lLld4 2 0 .�f2t with an initiative White can increase his pressure for White on the kingside, Sziva with 15.�h1!?± followed by 1'%f3- Kovacs-Pinter, Hungary 1990.) h3. The placement of Black's king Black must be careful about the possible strike against his centre on f8 : 12 ... h6 13.�h1 i.b7 14.ie3 �f8 15.1'%acU does not contribute from the other side - 13.c5 ! ?±. In case of 1l ... i.b7, White to the harmonious deployment of again breaks in the centre 12.e5 ! . his pieces, Kelemen - Centgraf, After 1 2 ... lLld7 (The exchange in Hungary 1998. 13 . .te3 the centre: 12 ...dxe5 13.fxe5 lLld7, The transfer of White's rook enables White's e5-pawn to be along the third rank is a typical consolidated on enemy territory: 14.if4 ic5+ 15.�h1 i.d4 16.1'%ae1t) maneuver in that position in order 13.exd6 ixd6 14.lLle4 i.e7 15.i.e3 to increase the pressure against c5 16.1'%ae1 lLlf6 17.lLlxf6+ ixf6 18. the shelter of Black's king: 13. �h1 fSt and White's pieces were much lLld7 14.i.e3 t¥d8 15.t¥g4 if6 16. more active in the game, Schaffar­ 1'%ad1 �e7 17.i.c2 0-0 18.1'%f3 1'%ad8 czyk - Gudath, Werther 2002. 19.1'%h3t Gutenev - A.Popov, Da­ gomys 2 004. 12.f5 Black has prevented the break e4-e5 indeed, but now White's fS­ pawn guarantees his advantage on the kingside. 12 . . . ib7 Black should better avoid play­ ing actively on the kingside - 12 . . . g6? ! 13.i.g5 gxf5 14.exf5 i.b7 15. 1'%ae1 1'%g8 16.ixf6 hf6 17.lLle4 i.e7 18.f6 i.f8 19.c5 dxc5 2 0.ic4± Howell - B.Schneider, Germany 13 . . . 0 - 0 1994. Black's counter strike in the His position is very difficult centre would not work yet - 13 . . . too in case of: 12 ... h5? ! 13.�h1 ! ? d5. After: 14.cxd5 cxd5 15.1'%ac1 lLlg4 14.b3 i.d8 15.c5!± Kulovana �d7 16.lLlxd5 lLlxd5 17.exd5 ixd5 - Roelli, Gothenburg 2 0 05. 18.,ixa6 0-0 19.1'%fd1 1'%fd8 2 0 .ib6 If Black evacuates his king to i.g5, Eichhorn - Bergen, St Veit 254

4J uxd4 a6 5. fid3 tuf6 6. o - o Wic7 7. Wie2 2002, 2 Uk3± White remained with an extra pawn. Black tried a similar idea to free his position after: 13 . . . WiaS 14.a3 0-0 IS.b4 Wid8 16J�adl dS. Once again, after: 17.cxdS cxdS l8.tuxdS hdS 19.exdS WixdS 20 . .ba6 Wib3 2 1.�d3 Wia4 2 2 .i.c4± White suc­ ceeded in proving his advantage in the game Arnold - B.Schneider, Mannheim 199 0 . I n case of: 1 3 . . .h S 14.h3 'it>f8 IS.�acl �e8 16.Wif2 Wib8 17.�fdl h4 18.i.e2 �d8 19 . .if3 tuhS 2 0 .c5± Black's king is vulnerable in the centre and it stands in the coor­ dination of his own pieces, Zapata - Cardona, Bogota 1991. 14.gac1 g ab8 15.b4 !?

Black has no counterplay at all. The straightforward attempt - IS.g4 h600 Savereide - Soppe, Luzern 198 2 , provides Black with a chance after 16 . . . tuh7 and 17 . . . igS t o organize a blockade o n the dark squares. 15

•••

gfd8 16.a3;l;

White has a space advantage, while Black has no counterplay at all, so White's prospects are clear­ ly preferable.

b) 8 ... g6

Black intends to build "a hedgehog" position with a bishop on g7. 9 .�c3 J.g7

Mer 9 . . . tubd7 10.�dl, the "original" move 1O . . .b6?! (about the better line for Black - 1O . . . .ig7 1l.tuf3 - see 9 . . . i.g7) 1l.i.c2 i.e7 12 .i.a4 i.b7 13.fih6, led Black to a position in which he had prob­ lems castling and his attempt to correct the situation with the help of the line: 13 . . . eS, as a result of: 14.tuc2 .if8 IS.figS i.e7 16 . .ixf6 i.xf6 17.tub4 .id8 18.Wig4 �a7 19. �acl fia8 20.tubdS Wib8 2 1 .b4 .bdS 22 . .bd7+ �xd7 23.tuxdS+­ presented White with a total con­ trol over the dS-square, Akopian - Siebrecht, Amsterdam 2005. In case of 9 . . .tuc6, Lyly Pyrich, corr. 199, White should not follow the main line, since his prospects are even better after: 1O.tuxc6 bxc6 1l.cS dS 12.exdS tuxdS 13.�xdS cxdS 14.b4 fig7 IS.fib2t. 1 0 .�dl 0 - 0

About 1 O . . . tuc6 1l.tuf3 0-0 12 .fic2 - see 10 . . . 0-0 1l.tuf3 tuc6 255

Chapter 16 12 . .ic2 ; 1O ... ltJbd7 1l . .ic2 0-0 (It is bad for Black to play 1l . . . b6?, in view of: 12.lt::l f3 .tb7 13 . .if4 .ifS 14 . .ia4 gcS IS . .igS ltJgS 16.ltJeS+­ Breyther - Klostermann, Germa­ ny 19S5.) 12 .ltJf3 - see 10 . . . 0-0 1l.ltJf3 ltJbd7 12 . .tc2 . 11. ltJf3 !

White is trying to create some pressure against Black's d6-pawn as quickly as possible.

We will analyze now bt) 11" . b6, b2) 11" .�bd7 and b3) 11" . �c6. In case of: 11...l'!dS 12 . .M4 ltJg4 13.gac1 b6, White can exploit the delay of the development of Black's knight on bS in order to organize a queenside offensive with: 14.b4! ? ltJd7 IS.ltJa4 ltJgeS, Gara - Brustkem, Budapest 1995, 16.ltJxeS ltJxeS 17.cSt. After 1l . . . ltJg4, it is possible for White to play 12 ..if4 (Until Black's knight can come to the c6-square, White should avoid exchanging on eS: 12 .h3 ltJeS 13.ltJxeS dxeS 14 . .ie3 .id7 ISJ'!ac1 ltJc6 16.ltJdS exdS 17.cxdS gfdS IS.'IWc2 gacS= Amason - Vyzmanavin, Manila 1992.) 12 ... ltJeS (about 12 . . . ltJd7 2S6

13 ..ic2 - see variation b2) 13.gac1 (After the trade of the knights: 13.ltJxeS dxeS 14 . .ie3, the other black knight can head for the d4square: 14 ... ltJc6! lS.f3 ltJd4 16.�f2 f5 17.ltJe2 gdS lS.ltJxd4 exd4 19. .igS geSoo Goloshchapov - Ko­ chyev, St Petersburg 2 0 0 2 .) 13 ... ltJbd7 (The line 13 . . . ltJbc6 14 . .ic2 has been analyzed in variation b3.) 14.ltJxeS ! (That is the right moment.) 14 . . . ltJxeS (It is unsatis­ factory for Black to capture with a pawn on eS, when his knight is on the d7-square: 14 . . . dxeS lS . .ixe3, because then he cannot exploit effectively the weakness of the d4-square, while White's pawn-majority on the queenside might become quite decisive. IS . . . b 6 16.ltJa4 .ib7 17.c5 bxc5 1S.ltJxcS ltJxc5 19.9xcS �e7 20.gdcl± Men­ de - Heinig, Germany 1993, or IS .. .fS 16.f3 ltJbS 17.b4 ltJc6 lS. ltJdS �e7 19.1tJb6 gbS, Blehm - Jaracz, Karvina 1994, 2 0.�e1 ltJd4 21.c5;!;) lS.�d2 ! ? (Whenever Black's bishop is on g7, White's main idea is to exert pressure against his opponent's d6-pawn.) lS . . . b6 (After: lS . . . gdS 16 . .igS! f6 17 . .ie3 ltJg4 lS . .if4 eS 19.1tJdS �f7 2 0 . .ig3 .ih6 21.%ll aS .ie6 22 .gc3 fS 23.exfS gxfS 24 ..te2± Black has weakened the dS-outpost in his camp considerably, Smirin - Na­ kamura, Connecticut 2003; in case of: lS ... geS I6 . .ie2 .tfS I7 . .th6 .ie7 1S.b4 ltJd7 19 ..tgS .tfS 2 0 . .tf4 ltJeS, De Vreugt - Bosboom, Dier­ en 1999, White can break through

4 . ciJxd4 a6 5. id3 tiJf6 6. 0 - 0 VNc7 7. VNe2 on the queenside with: 2 1.cS ! dxcS 2 2 .bxcS hcS 23.tiJa4 b6 24.tiJxcS bxcS 2S.VNe3±) 16.ifl !!dB, Petuk­ hov - Rogovski, AIushta 2003 and with the help of the line: 17 . .igS ! ? f6 1B.ie3t White could have maintained some pressure against Black's position. In case of: 1l . . . tiJfd7 12 .if4 tiJeS 13.!!ac1, there arises the same po­ sition as after the move 1l ... tiJg4, which we have already analyzed. bt) 11

b6 t2.M4

..•

White must force Black's piec­ es to protect the d6-pawn. t2

...

tLlh5

In case of 12 . . . tiJg4 13.'�d2 ! Black has problems defending his d6-pawn. For example: 13 . . . tiJeS (after 13 ....ib7 14 ..ifl hc3 15. bxc3 e5 16 ..tg3 he4 17.'1Wxd6± Black's b6-pawn is vulnerable) 14 . .ie2 tiJxf3 + lS.hf3 .teS 16. heS! ? (White has also tried in practice: 16 . .th6 !!dB 17 ..tgS 13d7 1B.13ac1 and here the move - lB . . . .tb7? enabled White t o continue with a typical combination: 19. tiJdS ! exdS 2 0.cxdS+ - M.Hoff­ mann - Schlosser, Germany 1996, but in case of 1B .. .'�a7;!; White would not have any direct tactical solution.) 16 . . . dxeS 17.'�·d6 13a7 1B.13ac1 tiJc6 (Black plans to occu­ py the d4-square.) 19.'�xc7 13xc7 2 0.tiJa4 13b7 2 1.13d6 .td7 2 2.cS bS 23.tiJb6 .teB 24 . .id1 with the idea to follow with 2S.a4± and then White's pawn-majority on the queenside becomes a telling fac-

tor for the future. 13 . .te3 White should not be afraid of the possible exchange on c3. 13

• • •

tiJ d7

It is too risky for Black to play: 13 . . . hc3?! 14.bxc3 tiJd7 lS . .tc2 tiJhf6 16.'�d2 .tb7 17.�xd6±, be­ cause his pieces do not coordinate well, due to the vulnerability of the d6-pawn. It is an important loss of time for Black if he plays - 13 . . . .tb7? ! After 14.�d2 ! 13d8 (In case of: 14 . . . tiJd7 lS . .te2 ! the weakness of Black's d6-pawn forces him to part with his dark-squared bish­ op: lS . . . hc3 16.�xc3 tiJhf6 17 . .th6 13feB 1B.tiJgS± van Deursen - Ma­ karczuk, COIT. 2 0 0 0 .) lS . .tgS 13cB, AI Modiahki - Ghaem Maghami, Beirut 2 0 0 0 , 16 . .ie2 ! .ifB 17.eS dxeS 1B . .tdB �c6 19.tiJel± and Black's position is rather worri­ some. White is threatening 2 0 . .if3 and h e must also consider the possibility: 2 0.hhS gxhS 2l. �gS+. Meanwhile, the defence of Black's b6-pawn is problematic too.

14:�d2 !

2S7

Chapter 16 White is attacking the d6-pawn and he only needs to remove his bishop from the d3-square. 14

•.•

gdS

Black frees the fS-square in order to be able to protect his d6pawn with his bishop. He has also tried in practice the move 14 .. J'!eS. After: 1S . .te2 .tfS 16 . .th6 .te7 17 . .tgS .tfS (M­ ter the trade of the bishops - 17 . . . hgS? 1S.lLlxgS+- Black fails to protect his d6-pawn . . . ) 18.�ac1 �bS (The standard "human" move - 1S . . .ib7, enables White to start a powerful kingside attack with: 19.eS! lLlxeS 2 0.lLlxeS dxeS 2 1 . .txhS gxhS 2 2.if6 h6 23.�d3 �c6 24.�g3+ h7 2S.�e1!± rec­ ommended by GM Nijboer.) 19.a3 (White is preparing - 19.b4.) 19 . . .f6 20 . .th4! .tb7 21.lLld4 lLlg7 2 2 .f4 �bcS 23.f5! lLlc5 (In case of: 23 . . .gxfS 24.exfS eS, White wins with: 2 S.lLle6! lLlxe6 26.fxe6 �xe6 27.lLldS �cS+ 2S ..tf2 WaS 29.b4 �xa3 30 . .tg4+- Nijboer) 24.fxg6! hxg6 2S . .txf6 eS 26.lLlf3 lLlhS (or 26 . . .�f7 27.Wh6 ! �xf6 2 S.lLlgS+­ Nijboer) 27.lLldS hdS 2S.WxdS+ Wf7 29 . .tgS± Nijboer - Smirin, Wijk aan Zee 1993 and White won a pawn. lS .te2 .tfS 16 .til6 •

•

If 16 . .tgS, then 16 .. .f6 ! ?;!; (Black loses after 16 ... lLlhf6?, due to: 17.eS ! dxeS 1S.ixf6+-). 16 .til6 .tb7 •

In case of 16 ... .te7, GM P.Le­ ko intended to continue with 17 . .tgS;!;. 2SS

17.�ac1 lLlhf6 lS .bf8 lLlxfS 19.�d4 lLleS 2 0 .b4 •

In answer to 2 0.lLla4, Black has the resource - 2 0 . . . lLld7. 2 0 gacS 2 1.�e3 lLlf6 22. lLld4 lLlSd7 • • •

23.f4;!; - Black has problems creating counterplay in the ab­ sence of the dark-squared bish­ ops, Leko - T.Bauer, Hungary 1994. I would like to show you how that game developed later, so that you can understand how White should best materialize his ad­ vantage: 23 geS (The standard counterstrike - 23 . . . eS? ! would not work here, because of: 24.lLlb3 exf4 2S.�xf4 lLleS 26.lLldS± Leko.) 24.lLlb3 (24.lLldbS? axbS 2S.lLlxbS �bS 26.lLlxd6 lLldS ! - + Leko) 24 ged8 (After the exchange o f the pawns: 24 . . . �bS? 2S.�d3 ! �edS 26.Wxd6 �xd6 27.�xd6 lLlxe4 2S.lLlxe4 he4, the pin along the d-file is decisive - 29.�cd1 �c7 30.�b6 ! + - Leko.) 2S.g4 �bS • • •

.••

26.gS lLleS 27.h4 lLlg7 2S.hSt.

White's kingside initiative is very powerful in the absence of the dark-squared bishops and he has already dangerous threats too.

4 . tiJxd4 a6 5. �d3 tiJf6 6. 0 - 0 vtic7 7. vtie2 b2) 1l

tiJbd7

After 12 . . . b6, it is possible for White to play 13.if4 ttJe5 (M­ ter the passive move - 13 . . . ttJeS, recommended by GM K.Hulak, White can fight for the advantage with the help of the line: 14.�d3 ! ? tiJc5 15.�d2 ib7 16.b4 ttJd7 17. gael �xc4 lS.,ia4 ttJe5 19.ixe5 dxe5 2 0.tiJd5 exd5 21.gxc4 dxc4 2 2 .�c2 gcS 23.a4;!;) 14.ttJxe5 dxe5 15.�e3 �b7 16.ttJa4 ttJxe4 (Black's attempt to free himself from the I2 .,lc2 ! ? White must organize some positional bind with the move 16 . . . pressure against the d6-pawn b5 a s a result of: 17.cxb5 axb5 I S . and his order of moves should be tiJc5 ,lc6 19.a3 tiJd7 2 0.id3 gfbS very precise. In case of 12 .M4, he 2 1.gacl± led to a position in which must consider the possibility: 12 . . . White was clearly dominant on the tiJh5 ! ? (about 12 . . . tiJg4 13. �c2 , see queenside, Ljubojevic - Hulak, - 12 .�c2) 13.,ie3 (After: 13.,lg5 Wijk aan Zee 19S7.) 17.ixb6 vtic6, hc3 14.bxc3 e5 15.vtid2 tiJc5 Effertz - Budde, corr.19SS, lS.f3 16.�c2 f6 17.,le3 gdSoo Kulaots tiJ d6 19.c5 tiJcS 2 0.idS;!; - Black's - Bellin, Gausdal 2000, Black's pieces are rather misplaced. The change of the pawn-struc­ position is quite acceptable.) 13 . . . hc3 ! ? (In case of: 1 3 . . .b6 14.�d2 ! ture after: 12 . . . tiJe5 13.ttJxe5 dxe5 there arises the position from 14.�e3;!; Cardenas - Esplana, Li­ variation bl.) 14.bxc3 e5 (This ma 2 0 0 0 , is evidently in favour of is stronger for Black than: 14 . . . White. Analogous structure might tiJe5? ! 15.gab1 tiJxf3+ 16.YlYxf3 e5 arise as a result of: 12 . . . geS 13.�f4 17.g4 tiJg7 lS.gb4 �e6 19.9db1 b5 tiJe5, De la Vega - Giardelli, Bue­ 2 0.,ih6 bxc4 21.,lc2 gfbS 2 2.�f6 nos Aires 19S7 and 14.�xe5 dxe5 tiJeS 23.gxbS gxbS 24.gxbS �xbS 15.�e3;!;. In case of 12 ... ttJb6, White 25.vtie7 tiJg7 26.h3± Sadvakasov - Simutowe, Minneapolis 2 005 should better protect his c4-pawn and Black's position very difficult with the move 13.�b3 ! ?;!;. 13 .tf4 �de5 despite his extra pawn. His dark About 13 . . . tiJge5 14.ttJxe5 ttJxe5 squares are just a sorry sight.) 15 . .th6 geS 16.vtie3 tiJc5 17.h3 ,ie6oo - see 13 . . . tiJ de5. 14.�xe5 �xe5 Adams - Kobalia, Las Vegas It is useless for Black to cap­ (m/2) 1999 with a complicated game. ture here with the pawn, because his knight on g4 would hardly 12 �g4 . . •

•

•••

259

Chapter 16 manage to reach the d4-square anyway. 15 .tb3 !? •

Now, White's bishop takes care of the protection of the c4-pawn. If White places his pawn on b3, then his bishop would have fewer chances to join in the actions ef­ fectively. After 15J�ac1 b6 16.b3 1!d8 17. ib1, Schaefer - Bluhm, Germany 1989, Black could have played 17. . .ib7= with a solid position. 15

•••

b6 16.gac1

White did not play so actively in the game Gallagher - I.Gurevich, London 1992 and it continued with: 16 ..tg3 .tb7 17.1!ac1 1!ad8oo. 16 gfd8

•••

.tb7 17.£3 gae8 18 •d2 •

2 0 •f2 ! ;!; White exerts pres­ sure now against his opponent's b6-pawn. Black has certain dif­ ficulties to worry about. After: 2 0 •CS (Or 2 0 . . . h6 21 . .ie3 ttJxc4 2 2 .ttJa4 b5 23.hc4 bxc4 24.ttJb6 d5 25.exd5 hd5 2 6 .ttJxd7 .xd7 27 . .td4± - and Black's compensa­ tion for the pawn is insufficient, Hawelko - Hulak, Berlin 1988.) 2 1 .te3 Yfb4 2 2 . ttJ a4 ttJxe4 23. •

-

•••

Following: 18 . . . ttJxc4 19.hc4 �xc4 2 0.hd6 gfe8 2 1.�e3, Black has no good square to re­ move his queen to. His attempt to win a pawn: 21.. .hc3 2 2 .l3xc3 �xa2 23 . .te5 �a4 24.b3 �b5 25. l3xc8 hc8 26.�g5--+ (with the idea 27 .•f6) ends up quite badly for him, since the dark squares around Black's king are quite vul­ nerable. 19 .tg5 gd7 •

After: 19 .. .f6 2 0.ie3, White's light-squared bishop is threaten­ ing to become active. He is threat­ ening c4-c5 thanks to it. Black cannot parry that threat with: 20 . . . ttJxc4 21.hc4 �xc4, because of 22 .ttJd5+-. The tactical complications: 19 . . . �c5+ 20.'Jih1 ttJd3 2 1.ie3 260

.th6, as a result of: 2 2 .,hc5 ,hd2 23.gxd2 ttJxc5 24.gcdl± end up with great problems for Black, be­ cause of the vulnerability of of his d6-pawn.

•

�e4 �e4 24.ttJxb6 gee7 25. ttJxd7 �d7 26 .td4 hd4 27. "f!Yxd4 .xd4+ 28.gxd4 �f8 29. .ta4 gd8 3 0 .gb4;1; - The arising •

endgame is evidently in favour of White. He has a pawn-majority on the queenside and his pieces are more active. b3) 1l

• • •

ttJe6 12 .te2 ! ? •

This move i s more precise than 12 . .if4, which can be coun­ tered by: 12 ... e5 ! ? 13 . .te3 ig4 14. ic2 (After: 14.h3 ttJd4 15.,hd4 .ixf3 16.�xf3 exd4 17.ttJd5 ttJxdS

4. 0.xd4 a6 5. il.d3 0.f6 6. 0 - 0 Wic7 7. Wie2 18.cxdS 'i;lfb6 19J�ab1 �Ue8 2 0 .'i;lfg3 gac8� Svidler - Ivanchuk, Mo­ naco 2 00S, Black is not worse at all.) 14 . . . gac8 1S.h3 (In case of: lS . .ib3 0.aS 16.gac1 .ie6 17.0.dS, after some exchanges: 17 . . . hdS 18.cxdS Wid7 19.0.d2 0.xb3 2 0 . axb3 gxc1 21.gxc1 gc8= Black can hold the balance.) lS . . . .ixf3 16.Wixf3 0.d4 17.hd4 exd4 18.0.e2 0.d7 19.0.xd4 0.eS 2 0.Wie2 0.xc4 21 . .ib3 gfe8 2 2 .gac1 bS 23.Wid3= and the opponents agreed to a draw in the game Shaposhnikov - Karttun en, Athens 2 0 01 . 12

•••

dxeS ! lS . .ie3 0.d4� and Black's knight would manage to occupy the d4-square. Meanwhile, the placement of Black's knight on c6 has some negative sides too, besides pluses. Black can hardly create any pres­ sure against the c4-pawn and af­ ter the retreat of White's bishop from c2, his threat �c3-d5 would become quite real. 14 �xf3+ 15.Wixf3 �d4 16. Wid3 e5 •••

�g4

About 12 . . . 0.d7 13 . .if4 0.deS (or 13 . . . 0.ceS 14. �xeS �xe5 lS ..ib3 - see variation b2) 14.gac1 - see 12 . . . 0.g4. After: 12 . . . eS? ! 13.h3 0.d7 14. 0.dS Wid8 lS ..ie3 �c5 16.b4 �e6 17 . .ib6 Wid7 18 . .ia4 f5 19.c5± Her­ rera - O .Garcia, Havana 2 0 01, the weakness of the dS-square is just crucial for Black. In case of 12 . . . 0.aS, it is possible for White to play 13.b3;!; and the combination: 13 . . . �xe4? 14.0.xe4 hal, does not work for Black be­ cause of: lS.il.a3 dS 16.ixf8 'it>xf8 17.�a1 dxe4 18.he4±.

17 .ie3 f5 18.�d5 'f!Yd8 19. 'f!Yd2;!; Dehnert - Sproed, COIT. •

1990. c) 8 . . . �bd7

13 .if4 �ge5 •

About 13 . . . 0.ceS 14.0.xeS - see variation b2. 14J�ac1

When Black's knight is on d7 (variation b2) White exchanges on eS in an analogous situation. Here, the exchange 14.0.xeS would be a mistake, because of: 14 . . .

9 .f4 ! ?

This i s a n important moment. White is reluctant to place his 261

Chapter 16 knight on c3 outright. What is the reason? The point is that the im­ mediate move 9.ltJc3, allows 9 ... ltJeS ! and later there might follow: 1O.f4 ltJxd3 11.�xd3 �e7 12 .�d2 (After: 12 .b3 0-0 13.�g3 �d7 14. eS ltJhS IS.�e3 dxeS 16.fxeS .icS� Szuk - L.Portisch, Hungary 1995; or 12.fS 0-0 13.b3 .id7 14.fxe6 fxe6 IS.�h3 dS� Correa - Tem­ pone, Sao Paulo 1989, Black's counterplay is quite sufficient.) 12 ... 0-0 13J�ael ltJd7 14.b3 b6 IS.lt>hl .if6 16JU3 .!b7 17J�h3 g6 18.�e3 �cS= Isonzo - Drabke, Saint Vincent 2 004 and Black has no problems whatsoever. Now, it is very important where Black would deploy his dark-squared bishop: cl) 9 g6 or c2) 9 .te7. The other possibilities are not so principled. Some of them are even weak. For example, after: 9 . . . ltJc5? ! 1O . .tc2 Black must defend against the pawn-advance e4-eS. He can parry it with 1O . . . eS (In case of 10 . . . g6, Mullon - Velikov, Guingamp 2 0 03, White could have created great problems for his opponent with the straightfor­ ward approach: 1l.eS ! ltJhS 12.ltJc3 ig7 13.ltJcbS axbS 14.ltJxbS �c6 IS.ltJxd6+ It>f8 16.g4±), but then as a result of: 1l.ltJfS ! .txfS I2.exfS ie7 13.ltJc3, White is totally dom­ inant on the light squares. It is difficult for Black to find an ac­ ceptable plan. He tried to evacu­ ate his king from the centre to the kingside with 13 . . . 0-0, but after: ...

.•.

262

14.g4 ! �b6 IS.gS ltJce4+ 16 . .ie3 �xb2 17.ltJxe4 ltJxe4 18.f6 ltJc3 19.hh7+- - Black came under a crushing attack and he resigned in the game Ma. Tseitlin - Forman, Panormo 2001. In case of 9 . . . hS? ! White must play the prophylactic move 10.lt>h1! (The usual move 1O.ltJc3, enables Black with the help of the line: 1O ... �6! 1l ..te3 ltJg4 12. ltJfS ltJxe3 13.ltJxe3 .!e7 14J��ael gS IS.f5 ltJeS 16.lt>hl g4<Xl to deprive White of his dark-squared bishop and thus to complicate matters considerably, R.Lau - Henrichs, Essen 1996.) and the usefulness of the move with the rook pawn becomes highly questionable. After: 10 . . .b6 1l.ltJc3 .tb7 12.fS ! Black has great problems with the protection of his e6-pawn, be­ cause of his lag in development. Its advance after 12 . . . eS (Follow­ ing: 12 . . . ltJc5 13 . .!c2 exfS 14.ltJdS hdS IS.exdS+ �e7 16.�xe7+ It>xe7 17.igS It>d8 18 . .txfS It>c7 19.b4 ltJb7 2 0J%ael+- Black's position was quickly in ruins in the game Quinteros - Debarnot, Sao Paulo 1972 .) leads to the ir­ revocable compromising of the dS-outpost. There might follow: 13.ltJc2 (White's knight is headed for the dS-square via e3.) 13 . . . ltJc5 14 . .tgS gc8 IS.hf6 gxf6 16.ltJe3 h4 17.ltJedS �d8 18.ic2 .th6 19. b4 ltJd7 2 0.ia4+- and Black's po­ sition was strategically lost in the game Gara - Lehmann, Budapest 2 0 03.

4. tOxd4 a6 S. i.d3 tOf6 6. 0 - 0 Wie7 7. Wie2 After: 9 . . . e5 10.tOf5 exf4 11. hf4 tOe5 12.tOc3 .ixf5 13.exf5 i.e7, Fogarasi - Izsak, Hungary 1998, White could have followed with: 14.b3 0-0 15.i.e4't and Black's position would seem hopeless, be­ cause of the lacking light-squared bishop for him and the vulner­ ability of the d5-square. The move 9 . . . b6 has no sepa­ rate importance. After: 1O.tOc3 ib7 (About 1O . . . ie7 11.@hl see 9 . . . ie7; the inclusion of the moves: 1O . . . tO cS 1l.ic2 ie7, only helps White to squeeze his op­ ponent's position: 12 .b4 ! ? tOcd7, Vershkov - Avakov, Dagomys 2 0 04, 13.id2 ib7 14J!ae1 0-0 15.a3 �fc8 16.id3±) 1l.@h1 ie7 12 .id2 - see variation c2a.

Black's king in the centre : 10 . . . gxf5 1l.exf5 e 5 seems t o b e very risky for him. Indeed, White has a clear-cut plan to obtain the advan­ tage in that case: 12 .tOe6 ! fxe6 (If 12 . . . Wic6 13.tOc3 i.e7 14.tOd5 fxe6 15.fxe6 tOxd5 16.cxd5 Wixd5 17. ic4 �c6 18.exd7+ hd7 19.i.f7+ @d8 2 0.i.e3 �c8 2 1.Wif2-+ Sandor - Chernuschevich, Poznan 1995, then White has a powerful at­ tack.) 13.fxe6 ig7 14.exd7+ ixd7 15.tOc3 ic6, Escobar - Filgueira, Buenos Aires 1989 and here the line: 16.ig5 ! 0-0 17 . .ixf6 .ixf6 18.ie4't leads to domination of White over the light squares. 1l.tOc2

White's knight can go easily to d5 from here via e3, or b4. 1l . . ie7 .

el) 9

g6

.•.

1 0 .f5 !

I f Black manages t o complete his development, his position would be quite acceptable. 10

...

e5

Black complies with the weak­ ening of the d5-square in his camp. Opening of the game with

Black's situation is not any better after 1l . . . i.g7. Following 12.tOc3 (White should be careful about Black's possible counter­ play on the dark squares: 12.tOe3 b6 13.tOc3 ib7 14.i.d2 0-0 15.g4 ih6 ! 16.h4 if4 17.b4 b5 18.cxb5 axb500 L.Bronstein - Panno, Rio Hondo 1987.) 12 . . . b6 (or 12 . . . 0-0 13.ig5 ! h6 14.ih4 g5 15.i.f2 b6 16.tOb4 ib7 17.�ac1 tOeS 18.i.b1 �ac8 19.�fd1 Wib8 2 0.lLlbd5 ixd5 2l.lLlxd5 lLlxd5 2 2 .�xd5± Vesco­ vi - Caj al, Americana 2 0 0 0) White prevents his opponent's counterplay with the maneuver: 13.i.g5 ! i.b7 14.�ac1 h6 15.id2 g5 16.b4 �c8 17.lLle3 �b8 18.tOcd5± P.Jaracz - Milosevic, Boeblingen 2002. 263

Chapter 16 In case of: 1l ... b6 12.lLlc3 ib7 13.ig5 ! ie7 14.lLle3 h6 15.hf6 lLlxf6 16 .fxg6 fxg6 17.lLlcd5 hd5, Kindermann - I.Farago, Deizisau 2000, 1B.lLlxd5 lLlxd5 19.cxd5± White obtains an overwhelming advantage. The unfortunate place­ ment of Black's king in the centre of the board impedes the coordi­ nation of the rest of his pieces. 12.lLlc3 gxf5 Black hopes to organize some counterplay on the semi-open g­ file. The position after: 12 . . . 0-0 13.�6 �eB 14.lLle3± cannot suit him at all. He has no compensa­ tion for the weakening of the d5square.

e7, White does not need to play the move 14.ig5. After: 14 . . . ib7 15.hf6 lLlxf6 16.lLle4 �cBoo Gon­ gora Reyes - O.Garcia, Las Tu­ nas 2002, the position became very complicated, because of the lacking dark-squared bishop for White. 14 .tb7 15. tLled5 tLlxd5 16. tLlxd5 hd5 •••

Now, Black must part with his light-squared bishop, since he cannot put up with White's knight - 16 . . . �dB 17.f6 .tfB (or 17 . . . hi6 1B.lLlxf6+ tLlxf6 19 . .ig5+-) 1B . .te4+-.

13.exfS b6

Black's pawn-sacrifice with the idea to create a powerful cen­ tre: 13 . . .b5 14.cxb5 d5 15.bxa6 �gB 16.Wh1 d4, was refuted with a temporary piece-sacrifice: 17. lLlxd4! exd4 1B.lLlb5 �e5 19.�f3 lLld5 2 0.�xd5 �xd5 21.lLlc7+ wdB 2 2.lLlxd5+- in the game Palac - Ermenkov, Osijek 1992 . After: 13 . . . lLlc5 14.lLle3 lLlxd3 15.�xd3 �c5, White settled the issue with the energetic line: 16. b4! �xb4 17.lLled5 lLlxd5 18. lLlxd5 �c5+ 19 . .!e3 �c6 2 0.ib6 idB 21. hdB wxdB 22 .�g3+- and Black had better resign in the game AdOljan - Honfi, Hungary 1973. 14.tLle3

This knight is headed for the d5-outpost. Now, when Black's bishop has occupied a passive position on 264

17.cxd5 b5 18.a4 b4 19 .te3 �a5 2 0 .gfc1± - Black's posi­ •

tion is very difficult, since his light squares are quite vulnerable, Hawelko - D.Cramling, Slupsk 19B7. c2) 9

•••

.te7 1 0 .tLlc3

(diagram) In this position, we have to analyze at first moves like: c2a) 1 0 b6 and c2b 1 0 0 - 0 . The other possibilities for Black have some obvious defects. For example, the move 10 . . . ttJc5 ? ! •••

•.•

4JiJxd4 a6 5. �d3 l:iJf6 6. 0 - 0 "fie7 7. "fie2

reduces Black's control over the eS-square. 11.�c2 0-0 (In case of: 11 . . . l:iJcd7 12.tiJh1 hS, Cabarkapa - Sanchez, Seville 1990, Black can temporarily prevent the break e4-eS, but after 13 ..td2t followed by 14J:�ae1 he has no real counter­ play at all.). Now, White has the possibility to break through in the centre: 12.eS ! l:iJe8 13.cj;lh1 g6 14 . .td2 l:iJg7 1SJ%ae1 .th4 16.gd1 gd8 17.b4 tlJd7 18.exd6 "fixd6 19. l:iJf3 .te7 2 0 . c5 'i«b8 2 1..tc1 .tf8 2 2 . l:iJe4± Kersten - Heinelt, Hessen 1999. The move 10 ... hS? ! is threat­ ening nothing. After 11 . .td2 b6 (It is essential that White should not be afraid of the move 11..."fic5, be­ cause of 12.tiJ h l ! ± and his knight is untouchable - 12 . . . 'i«xd4? los­ es because of 13 . .te3+-) 12 .b4! (White deprives his opponent's knight of the c5-square.) 12 . . ..tb7 13.fS ! Now, it becomes clear that Black has no comfortable defence of his e-pawn. He will have to push it forward 13 . . . eS, but that weak­ ens decisively the dS-outpost: 14.l:iJb3 as 1S.a3 axb4 16.axb4 gxa1 17.l:iJxa1 'i«b8 18.l:iJc2 'i«a8 19. gal 'i«b8 2 0.tlJa3 .tc6 2 1.l:iJabS h4

22 . .ie3± Ivanchuk - Sladek, Ed­ monton 2 0 0S. After 10 . . .h6, White can con­ tinue with the same plan 11 . .td2 ! ? as with a black pawn o n hS. White has tested in practice only: 11.l:iJf3 0-0 (After: 11 . . . b6 12 . .td2 .tb7 13. eS dxeS 14.fxeS l:iJg4 lS . .te4 hS 16.hb7 'i«xb7 17 . .tf4 tlJh6 Fleck - V.Savchenko, Germany 2 001, White could have maintained a dangerous initiative with the move 18.l:iJe4t) 12 .cj;lh1 ge8 and here the break in the centre: 13.eS ! ? l:iJh7 14.l:iJe4 l:iJ c5 lS.exd6 hd6 16. l:iJxd6 'i«xd6 17 ..tc2 l:iJf6 18 ..ie3 b6 19.9ad1 'i«c7 20 ..td4;!; Henrichs - V.Savchenko, Dortmund 2 0 0 0 , enabled White t o obtain the two­ bishop advantage. Black takes the fS-square un­ der control with the move 10 . . . g6. He thus wishes t o prepare the counter strike e6-eS. There might follow: 11.cj;lh1 (This prophylactic move is very useful for White.) 11 . . . b 6 (About 1 1 . . . 0 - 0 12 .l:iJf3 - see variation c2b; in case of 11 . . . eS, Hamid - Burijovich, Dubai 1986, White can follow with 12 .fxeS ! ? and now 1 2 . . . l:iJxeS? ! i s not good, due to 13 . .ih6±, while after 12 . . . dxeS 13.l:iJc2;!; White's position is preferable.) 12 . .id2 .ib7 13.gae1 0-0 (After: 13 . . . eS 14.fxeS l:iJxeS, Black's delay of castling proved to be a disaster for him: lS . .ih6 l:iJeg4 16.l:iJdS hdS 17.exdS gg8 18 . .igS cj;lf8 19."fixg4! l:iJxg4 2 0 .l:iJe6+­ Dragasevic Georgieva - Grom, Bled 1997.) 14.b4 ! ? (The neces26S

Chapter 16 sity of that move can be best seen in the following variation: 14.fS lDcS ! ? 1S.fxe6 lDxe6 16.lDxe6 fxe6 17.i-h6 l'!f7 18.l'!f2 .if8 19.i-e3 .ig7 20.l'!efl l'!af8= Kammer - Klein, Hamburg 2 0 05.) 14 ... eS 1S.lDf3 exf4 16.hf4 lDeS. It looks like Black's position is acceptable, but that is an illusion: 17.lDxeS ! dxeS 18.lDdS lDxdS 19.exdS hb4 (The least of evils for Black here was 2 0 . . .f6 2 0 .i-d2±) 2 0 . .txeS VNd7 21.l'!b1 .icS 2 2.hl-+ and White had a strong attack in the game Arakelian - Lutsker, COIT. 1991. c2a) 10

b6

•••

In this variation, we will ana­ lyze the possibilities for Black in which he refrains from castling short in favour of other ideas. 11.f8 i n view o f 19.fxe5+-, while after: 18 . . . <j;>d8 19.hh5± White maintains a considerable posi­ tional advantage.) 18.0,g5 Wid4+ (18 . . . 0,xf4 19.i.xf4 Wixd4+ 2 0.vtfe3 Wixc3 2 1.0,xf7 ! + -) 19.Wie3 Wixe3

2 0.he3 exf4, Kaiumov - Dzuban, Alma-Ata 1995. Here, the follow­ ing continuation of the attack seems to be very effective - 21. i.xf4 + ! ? <j;>f8 2 2 .i.d6+ <j;>g8 23. 0,ce4 i.d4+ 24.<j;>hl±. About 11 . . . 0-0 12 .i.d2 - see 10 . . . 0-0; as for 11 . . . g6 12 .i.d2 - see 10 . . . g6. 12 .i.d2

12

...

�k8

The move 12 . . . �d8 is worse, be­ cause of 13.f5 ! ? e5 (After: 13 . . . 0, c5 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.i.c2± Black has problems defending his e6-pawn.) 14.0,c2 0,c5, Coutinho - Rocha, Rio de Janeiro 1995 and here af­ ter 15.0,e3 !± - White's knight is headed for the d5-outpost. It is important that Black cannot play 15 ... he4? due to: 16.he4 0, cxe4 17.0,xe4 0,xe4 18.0,d5+-. Castling long might end up in a disaster for Black - 12 . . . 0-0-0?, for example after: 13.b4 h5 14.13ac1 <j;>b8 15.0,d5 exd5 16.cxd5 0,c5 17.bxc5 dxc5 18.i.xa6 0,xe4 19. vtfxe4 i.xd5 2 0 .Wie2 + - Gallagher - Ermeni, Neuchatel 2 0 03 . The situation i s more or less the same after: 12 . . . h6 13.�ae1 267

Chapter 16 0-0-0 14J'kl lLlcS Is.ibl 1:!dg8 16.b4 lLlcd7 17.lLldS ! exdS 18.cxdS lLlc5 19.bxc5 dxcS 20.lLlfS+- Mat­ suura - Cajal, Sao Paulo 2 004. About 12 ... hS 13.1:!ael h4 14. fS! (but not 14.eS?, because of 14 . . . h3 !+ An.Onischuk - Eck­ hardt, Germany 2002) - see 11 . . . h S 12 .id2 h 4 13.1:!ael .!b7. In case of: 12 ... lLlc5 13.ic2 1:!d8 (After: 13 . . .hS 14.b4 lLlcd7 1S.1:!ael h4, Mannion - Siebrecht, Car­ diff 1997, it is possible for White to continue with: 16.id3 ! ? lLlhS 17.';!;>gl - see 1l ... hS 12 .id2 h4 13.1:!ael lLlhS 14.�gl ib7 IS.b4.) 14.1:!ael 0-0 IS.b4 lLlcd7, Khol­ mov - Turner, Pardubice 1996, 16.id3 ! ? and despite the changed order of moves, there arises the same position as in variation c2b - see 10 . . . 0-0 11.�hl b6 12 .id2 .!b7 13.1:!ael 1:!ad8. The line: 12 . . .'IWc5 13.lLlf3! ? (In the game Apicella - Pevdono, Pa­ ranana 1993, the opponents pre­ ferred to continue the fight with­ out queens - 13 . .!e3 %!fhS I4.%!fxhS lLlxhSoo) 13 .. .'IWhS 14.1:!ael, in case of 14 . . . 0-0, would transpose to variation c2b - see 10 . . . 0-0 11.�hl b6 12 .id2 ib7 13.1:!ael VNcS 14.lLlf3 VNhS. Black should be careful here about the possible advance of White's e-pawn. About 12 ... g6 13.1:!ael - see 1O ... g6; as for 12 ... 0-0 13.1:!ael - see 10 . . . 0-0 ll.�hl b6 12 .id2 ib7 13.1:!ael variation c2b. 13 S!ael

When Black's rook is on c8 af268

ter: 13.fS eS 14.lLlc2 lLlcS, White's e4 and c4-pawns become vul­ nerable. After IS.b3 (In case of IS.lLle3? ! Black can collect rela­ tively unpunished his opponent's central pawn: IS . . . .ixe4 16 . .ixe4 lLlcxe4 17.lLlxe4 lLlxe400 and it re­ mains unclear whether White has a sufficient compensation for it.) IS . . . 0-0 16.lLlb4 with the help of the line: 16 . . .bS ! 17.cxbS axbS? Black can organize some counter­ play.

13

ftc5

•••

About 13 . . . 0-0 14.b4 - see variation c2b. After the move 13 . . . g6, which covers the fS-square, Black can­ not counter effectively the line: 14.eS! lLlhS IS.f5 ! lLlxeS 16.fxe6 f6 17.b3 lLlg7 18.ie4 he4 19.%!fxe4 0-0 20.lLldS VNd8 21.ih6+- Kri­ vec - Goletiani, Patras 1999. It is also evident that the pawn-advance 13 . . . eS? is a grave positional blunder. White can prove that easily: 14.lLlfS if8 IS. lLldS lLlxdS 16.exdS g6 17.fxeS lLlxeS 18.lLlh6 .!e7 19.1Llg4 lLlxd3 2 0.VNxd3 %!fxc4 21.VNe3 VNc7 2 2 . ic3+- Dukaczewski - Alizadeh,

4. l:i:Jxd4 a6 5. �d3 l:i:Jf6 6. 0 - 0 Vff c7 7. Yff e2 Istanbul 2002. The inclusion of the moves: 13 ... l:i:Jc5? ! 14.Ab1, does not in­ fluence the correct evaluation of e6-e5 (Or 14 . . . g6 15.e5 ! l:i:Jh5 16.f5 dxe5 17.fxe6 f6 1S.l:i:Jf5 ! l:i:Jxe6 19.1:i:Jd5 hd5 20.cxd5 l:i:Jc5 21.b4 l:i:Jb7 22Jk1 %Vd7 23J'!xcS+ %VxcS 24.l:i:Jxe7 �xe7 25.%Vxa6+- Krivec - Eckhardt, Halle 2 000.) 14 . . . e5 (That is a mistake, while White's knight on d4 has a free access to the f5-square.) 15.l:i:Jf5 0-0 16.b4! (White can also act in another fashion: 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.l:i:Jd5 l:i:Jxd5 1S.exd5 Af6 19.%Vg4 �hS 2 0.l:i:Jg3 Ae7 21.l:i:Jh5 g6 22 ..th6 %Vd7 23.Af5+- Scharnowski Kelbling, Kranenburg 2 005.) 16 . . . l:i:J e 6 17.fxe5 dxe5 18.l:i:Jd5 l:i:Jxd5 19.exd5 l:i:JdS 2 0.%Vd3 g6 21.d6+­ and Black resigned, Matsuura - Ikejiri, Americana 2 001. The aggressive attempt - 13 ... h5 can be put to the test by the move 14.f5! and Black is again forced to advance his e-pawn 14 . . . e5. After: 15.l:i:Jf3 l:i:Jc5 16.Ab1 h4 17.b4 l:i:Jcd7 1S.Ad3 %VbS 19.l:i:Jd5 Yffa S 20Jk1 h3, Fiorito - Campos, Buenos Aires 1992, White obtains a clear advantage after 21.g4 !±. 14.�f3 ! ?

White can try here the origi­ nal line: 14J:1f3 h5 15.�h3 l:i:Jg4 16.%Vxg4 hxg4 17.�xhS+ l:i:Jf8 IS. �e3 %Vc7 19.f5 �d7oo Beck - Ro­ hit, Oropesa del Mar 2 001, but it is hardly sufficient to obtain an edge. 14

•••

'Mt5

About 14 . . . 0-0 15.e5 - see 10 . . . 0-0 11.Wh1 b6 12 . .td2 .tb7 13.�ae1 Yffc5 14.l:i:Jf3 �acS 15.e5. 15.e5 ! ? dxe5 16.fxe5 �g4

Now after - 17.Ae4! (White must exchange Black's power­ ful bishop.) 17 ,ixe4 18.�xe4 0 - 0 19.Af4;!; White remains slightly better. •••

c2b) 1 0

.••

0-0

11.�hl

This is a thematic move. Besides 11.�h1, White often plays 1l . .te3. The basic drawback of that move is that Black should not worry about the possibility e4-e5 anymore. There might fol­ low: 11.. .�eS ! ? 12.�ac1 (In case of 12.�ad1, Meszaros - Mrva, Slova­ kia 2003, Black had better take 269

Chapter 16 care about the possible advance of White's g-pawn with 12 . . . g6 ! ? , i n order t o b e able t o counter the move 13.g4 with the resource 13 ... eS ! oo) 12 ... g6 13.s!?h1 (or 13.g4 lDcS 14.�b1 eS�) 13 ...b6 14.b4 �b7 15. a3 Elac8 16.lDf3 �f8oo and the po­ sition was with mutual chances in the game G.Hernandez - Zapata, Cienfuegos 1996. 1l

...

b6

It is not good for Black to play H . . . Eld8? ! . After: 12.g4 ! b6 (or 12 . . . eS? 13.lDfS if8 14.gS lDe8 15. lDdS+-; The effect of the presence of Black's rook on the d8-square can be seen in the variation: 12 . . . lDf8 13.gS lDSd7 and here White can get at Black's bishop with the move - 14.lDfS !t) 13.gS lDe8, Berdiugina - Muhren, Peniscola 2002 and here by playing: 14.id2 ib7 1S.b4± White could have de­ prived his opponent of any chanc­ es for counterplay. It is too dangerous for Black to lose time for the move H . . . Elb8? ! . After: 12 .id2 b6 13.Elae1 ib7, White can break in the cen­ tre: 14.eS ! lDe8 1S.fS lDxeS 16.fxe6 lDf6, Bluvshtein - Tyomkin, To­ ronto 2004. Here, the simplest way for White to consolidate his advantage is by playing 17.lDdS± or 17.if4±. In case of 11...g6, it is possible to play 12.lDf3 b6 (The inclusion of the moves: 12 . . . lDc5 13.i.c2 b6, deflects Black's knight from the control of the central squares and as a result White can again break 270

through in the centre: 14.eS ! lDhS 1S.fS exfS 16.lDdS '\1;lfb7 17.ih6 ie6 18.lDxe7+ '\1;lfxe7 19.exd6 �xd6 20.Elad1 '\1;lfc7 2 1.hf8± Cabrilo Vasiukov, Vrsac 1989 and he ob­ tains a material advantage.) 13.eS lDhS (Black's position is solid but very passive after the retreat of his knight to the eighth rank: 13 ... lDe8 14.id2 ib7 1S.Elae1 Elc8 16.b3 lDc5 17.ib1 lDg7 18.Elc1 Elfd8 19.b4 lDd7 2 0.lDe4 lDe8 21.a3;!; Pla­ chetka - Dudas, Slovakia 2 000.) 14.�d2 (White's eS-pawn squeez­ es Black and White should not be in a hurry to exchange in the centre: 14.lDgS lDg7 1S.exd6 �d6 16.lDce4 i.e7 17.b3 h6 18.lDf3 �b7 19.ib2, Hamdouchi - Spraggett, Dos Hermanas 1998, 19 . . .fSoo) 14 ... lDc5 1S.ic2 �b7 16.Elae1 lDg7 17.b4 lDd7 18.�e4 Elfc8 19.�b7 �xb7 20.exd6 �d6 21.lDe4 (M­ ter the trade of the light-squared bishops, White's knight on e4 is rock solid.) 21.. .�e7 2 2 .ic3 �c6 23.'\1;lfd3;!; and White maintains the advantage thanks to his ac­ tive pieces in the centre, Yagupov - Weiss, Moscow 2 0 04. After H . . . Ele8, White contin­ ues with his basic plan - he places his bishop on d2, he brings his queen's rook towards the centre and he prepares the pawn-ad­ vance e4-eS. The following devel­ opments are possible: 12 .id2 ! ? (The move 12 .lDf3 i s justified in case of 12 . . . b6?, because of: 13.eS ! dxeS 14.fxeS lDg4 1S.'\1;lfe4+-, but after: 12 . . . lDc5 13.ic2 e5 14.fS

4JiJxd4 a6 S. j.d3 lOf6 6. 0 - 0 Wfc7 7: �e2 bS ! , as well as after: IS.cxbS axbS 16.lOxbS Wfb7 17.lOc3 .td7 18.gbl j.c6GG, or even after the relative­ ly best for White: IS.j.gS ! ? b4 16.lOdl j.b7 17.lOf2 as? Black obtains counterplay, Morovic - Zapata, Cienfuegos 1996.) 12 . . . g6 (After: 1 2 . . . j.f8 13.gael, the only way for Black to prevent the pawn-advance e4-eS is to play 13 . . . eS himself, but then as a result of: 14.lOfS ! ? exf4 IS.j.xf4 lOeS, Opl - Scheffknecht, Austria 2 0 0 2 , White has the possibility to play 16.lOh6+ ! and Black is faced with a rather unpleasant choice between: 16 . . . �h8 17.heS dxeS 18.lOdS+-, or 16 . . . gxh6 17.heS gxeS 18.gxf6 j.g7 19.9f4±; about 12 . . . lOf8 13.gael b6 14.eS - see 1l . . .b6 12.gael ge8; 12 . . .b6 13.gael - see 1l . . . b6 12 .gael b6) 13.gael eS (about 13 . . .b6? ! 14.eS ! - see 1l . . .b6 12.gael b6) 14.1Of3 ! (It is important to take the eS-square under control. It is less precise for White to play 14.lOc2, in view of: 14 . . . exf4 IS.j.xf4 lOeS 16.h3 j.e6 17.lOe3 gac8°o Hoyos - Zapata, Buenos Aires 2 0 03.) 14 . . . exf4 IS.j.xf4 lOeS (The position after: IS . . . lOeS 16.lOxeS dxeS 17.i.gS± cannot make Black happy at all.) 16.b4 ! ? (After: 16.i.bl .te6 17.lOd4 gac8 18.b3 lOhS 19.j.e3, Black ac­ complished an original maneuver - 19 . . . .!h4 ! ? 2 0.gdl j.g3 ! 2 1.§'f3 i.eS? and he obtained some counterplay in the game Leitao - Zapata, Santos 2 0 03.) 16 . . . lOxd3 17.Wfxd3 .!e6 18.cS ! gad8

19.1OdS hdS (It is not any better for Black to try: 19 . . . ltJxdS 20.exdS j.fS 2 1.§'c3±) 2 0.exdS1' - and ac­ cording to GM Leitao's analysis White maintains the initiative. 12 .j.d2

White completes the develop­ ment of his pieces.

12

• • •

j.b7

After 12 . . . ge8 13.gael, the only interesting line for Black is - 13 . . . lO cS (about 13 . . . .tb7 14.eS ! ? - see 12 . . . j.b7 13.gael gfe8 14.eS; it is too bad for him to play 13 . . . lOf8? ! due to: 14.eS ! 106d7 15. j.e4 j.b7 16.exd6 hd6 17.lOdbS! axbS 18.lOxbS §'b8 19.hb7 E1xa2 2 0.lOxd6 §'xd6 2 1..tc3 §'c7 2 2 . j.e4 gc8 23.§'g4 g 6 24.i.d3± Mi­ los - Ayza Ballester, Ponferrada 199 2 ; in case of 13 ... g6? ! White can again break in the centre: 14.eS ! lOhS IS.exd6 hd6 16 . .te4 .!b7 17.lOdb S ! axbS 18.lOxbS §'b8 19.hb7 E1xa2 2 0.§'d3 j.f8, Chow - David, New York 2000 and here White could have won mate­ rial with the line: 2 1.Wfb3 ! ? gxb2 2 2 .§'xb2 §'xb7 23.fS±) 14.eS ! ? (The other possibility for White is not so thoroughly analyzed 271

Chapter 16 guest in the contemporary tour­ nament practice. Black has tested numerous lines here. 13 �fd8 This move has been played most of all. Black places his rook on the d-file, so that after the pawn-break e4-e5 he can exploit the unstable position of White's light pieces. About 13 . . . g6 14.b4 - see 10 . . . g6. It is too dangerous for Black to prevent the pawn-break in the centre with the help of 13 . . . e5? ! , because of: 14.ltJf5 ltJ c5 15.ltJxe7+ 1l;Yxe7 16.!b1 �feB 17.ltJd5 hd5 1B.exd5± Schmitz - Mirke, Wil­ lingen 2 004. It is amazing that even after the relatively unsatisfactory line for Black: 13 . . . �aeB? ! 14.e5! dxe5 15.fxe5, things are far from clear. Black's knight on f6 has nowhere to retreat to, since the rook on eB has deprived it of that square, but White's pieces have overbur­ dened the d-file and Black can complicate the game with: 15 . . . 1l;Yxe5 ! ? 16.1l;Yxe5 ltJxe5 17.�xe5 �dB 13J;ael 1B.ltJce2 ltJg4 19.�h5 g6 2 0 . �h3 !c5, Erturan - Itkis, Kusadasi 2006. Indeed, in case of: 2 1.�g3 ! ? hd4 (21...f5?? 2 2 .ltJxe6+ - ; 2 1 . . . h5?, then 22 .h3+-) 22.�xg4 hb2 23.�g3 !e4 24.he4 �xd2 25. ltJgl± Black's compensation for the piece is evidently insufficient. After we know that the move with a rook on eB has a definite This position is a frequent tactical drawback, it is interest-

- 14.i.b1!?, Charbonneau - Hua Lefong, Saskatoon 199B and in view of the threat e4-e5, Black is forced to play 14 . . . e5;!; himself.) 14 . . . ltJxd3 15.1l;Yxd3 (or 15.exf6?! ltJxel 16.fxe7 ltJxg200 Adams) 15 ... ltJd7 (After: 15 ... dxe5? 16.fxe5 ltJd7, White wins with the double attack: 17.1l;Yf3 ! �fB 1B.ltJxe6 fxe6 19.1l;YxaB !b7 20.�fB+ ltJxfB 21. 1l;YeB+-) 16.exd6 1l;Yxd6 (16 ... hd6 17.ltJd5 1l;Yb7 1B.ltJf5� Adams) 17. ltJe4 1l;Yc7 (The exchange of tacti­ cal strikes - 17. . . ltJc5 1B.ltJxd6 ltJxd3 19.1tJxeB ltJxe1 20.�xe1 !b7 2 1.ltJc7 �cB 22 .ltJd5+- ends up in favour of White.) 1B.f5 ltJc5 (lB . . . e 5 19.1l;Yg3t Adams) 19.1tJxc5 ! ? (In case of: 19.1l;Yf3, Adams - Sprag­ gett, Elista 199B, Black can fol­ low the recommendation of GM Adams - 19 . . . !b7! ? 2 0.fxe6 f6 21. 1l;Yg3 and here the evaluation of the line: 2 1 . . .1l;Yxg3 2 2 .ltJxg3 ltJd3 !00 is rather unclear .) 19 . . .hc5 2 0.fxe6 he6 21.ltJxe6 �xe6 2 2 . �xe6 fxe6 23.1l;Ye4;!; - and White's prospects are better thanks to his superior pawn-structure.

272

...

4JiJxd4 a6 5. id3 liJf6 6. 0 - 0 vtie7 7. vtie2 ing to see what might happen in case of 13 . . . !UeS. Here are some possible developments: 14.eS ! ? dxeS IS.fxeS vtixeS 16.vtixeS liJxeS 17J�xeS gdS IS.liJce2 liJg4 19.9hS g6 2 0.gh3 icS, H.Hunt - Ahrens, Bratislava 1993, 2 1.liJb3 ! ? liJf2 + 2 2 .gxf2 hf2 23.liJc3 fS 24.liJdl ic5 2S.liJxcS bxcS 26.i.gS;;!; - and White's chances with two pieces for a rook and a pawn are some­ what better. The move 13 . . . liJc5 - is not so good for Black, because it di­ minishes his control over the eS­ square. 14.i.bl gfdS (Or 14 . . . liJeS IS. eS g6, Nguyen Thu Trang - Do Diem, Vietnam 2 005, 16.b4 ! ? liJ d 7 17.ie4 gcS IS.bSt) IS.liJf3 (Or IS.b4 liJcd7 16.a3 gacS 17.i.d3 ifS IS.liJf3 g6 19.vtif2 i.g7 2 0.vtih4 liJfS , Berdiugina - Y.Efremova, Lviv 2 0 0 2 , 2l.fS ! ?t) IS ... ic6 16. eS liJfd7 (16 ... dxeS 17.fxeS liJg4 IS.h3±) 17.b4 liJ a4 IS.liJxa4 ha4 19.fSt and White has a power­ ful kingside initiative, Pfrommer - Zuse, Mannheim 1990. In case Black redeploys his queen to the kingside - 13 . . .vtic5 14.liJf3 vtihS (The primitive move 14 . . . eS? ! proved to be unsatisfac­ tory in view of: IS.liJdS hdS 16.cxdS bS 17.gc1 vtia7 IS.b4 gacS 19.fS vtib7 2 0 . gxcS gxcS 2 1.a4± Cheparinov - Alonso Sanchez, Pontevedra 2 003; after: 14 . . . gacS IS.eS liJeS, Tidman - Kisonova, Chalkidiki 2001, White could have emphasized the passive position of Black's knight on eS with the

line: 16.b4 ! ? vtic7 17.a3;;!;), then he must consider the line: IS.eS ! ? dxeS 16.fxeS liJg4 (After 1 6 . . . liJeS 17.ie4;;!; Black's knight on eS is evidently misplaced.) 17.i.e4 he4 IS.liJxe4 gadS 19 .if4;;!; - and Black's knight is rather unstable on the g4-square. After 13 . . . gacS, White can con­ tinue like in the main line: 14.b4 ! ? h 6 IS.a3 gfdS, Garbacki - Ma­ ternak, Ptrockigo 1997 and later 16.vtie3t followed by 17.vtih3. In case of 13 . . . gadS, it deserves attention for White to continue with 14.b4! ? , for example: 14 . . . gfeS IS.a3 (After: IS.fS ifS 16. fxe6 fxe6 17.i.gS gcS IS.liJdl h6 19.ih4 liJh7 2 0 .liJf3 liJeS+t in the game Bluvshtein - Spraggett, To­ ronto 2 0 04 , the opponents agreed to a draw, since Black had a possi­ bility to organize a good counter­ play thanks to his knight on eS.) Is ... ifS 16.vtie3 g6 17.vtih3 ig7 IS.liJb3t - Black has fortified his kingside indeed, but White can begin active actions on the other side of the board with a4-aS.

14.h4! ?

This useful move deprives 273

Chapter 16 Black's pieces of the cS-square. It Black has no counterplay whatso­ is far from simple to break Black's ever. His attempt to improve the position with a direct attack with position of the knight on fS with the help of the move 14.ltJf3. Black the move 16 . . . ltJg6, enabled White has tested in practice: 14 . . . g6 (He to develop his initiative with: can prepare a square for the re­ 17.fS ! ? exfS 1S.ltJxfS .tfS 19.1tJdS treat of the knight on f6 with the ltJxdS 20.exdS bS 21.cxbS axbS move - 14 ... ltJfS and here the 2 2.'lWd4 .ta6 23.ltJe3 ltJeS 24 . .tfS break in the centre 1S.eS ltJ6d7 gaS 2S.gc1 'lWe7 26.ltJg4t in the would not bring White anything game Gallagher - Eckhardt, Re­ after: 16.exd6 hd6 17.ltJgS ltJf6= gensburg 1995. 15.a3 ! ? Koglin - Lauterbach, Germany 2000, or: 16.j.e4 he4 17.exd6 Now, the move lS.fS is not hd6 1S.ltJxe4 tlJg6 19 .1tJxd6 so effective, because Black has 'lWxd6= Vogt - Siebrecht, Ger­ enough resources to fortify his many 2001) 1S.ltJgS h6 ! (Black central pawn: 1S . . . geS (After should not put up with his op­ 1S . . . eS? ! , White's idea triumphs: ponent's knight for long: 1S . . . .tfS 16.ltJc2 .tc6 17.gc1 'lWbS 1S.tlJe3 gcS 16.'lWf2 .tg7 17.'lWg3 ltJc5 1S.j.c2 19.94 h6 20.h4 bS 21.cxbS axbS dS 19.cxdS exdS 2 0.eS ltJfe4 21. 22 .gS hxgS 23.hxgS ltJeS 24.gf3--+ ltJcxe4 ltJxe4 2 2.he4 dxe4 23.j.c3 Aguilar - Torres Sanchez, Spain gd3 24:�h4 h6 2S.ltJxe4± Trapl 2 000.) 16.fxe6 fxe6 17 . .tc2 �hS - Tompa, Decin 1977.) 16.ltJf3 .tfS 1S.j.b3 'lWcS 19.a3 ltJeS 2 0 .tlJf3 17.gc1 j.g7 1S.j.b1 gacS 19.b3 'lWbS ltJxf3 2 1.gxf3oo Topalov - Urday 20.ltJd1 bS+± with a quite accept­ Caceres, Eigoibar 199 2 . able counterplay for Black in the game Kudrin - Dzindzichashvili, Philadelphia 1992 . 14

.tfB

•••

In case of 14 ... g6? ! , White can begin immediate active actions on the kingside with: lS.fS ! exfS 16.exfS geS 17.fxg6 hxg6 1S.hg6 ! fxg6 19.'lWe6+ �g7 2 0:�h3 ltJfS, Adla - Paramos Dominguez, Mon­ dariz 1994 and here he could have finished his opponent off with the line: 21.'lWh6+ �gS 22 .ltJe6 ltJxe6 23.gxe6+-. It is also indicative that after: 14 . . . gacS 1S.a3 tlJfS 16.'lWe3 274

1 5 gac8, Pokojowczyk - Ar­ nason, Prague 1975, 16.'lWe3t White's queen is transferred to the h3-square and then Black must fight against the dangerous pawn-breaks e4-eS and f4-fS. •••

4. l?Jxd4 a6 5. 1ld3 I?Jf6 6. 0 - 0 'Wc7 7. 'We2 Conclusion The greater number of variations which we analyze in this chapter are devoted to the so-called "hedgehog " pawn-structure. Contrary to Chapters 17-19, here the moves VPIc7for Black and VPIe2 for White are necessarily included. White's actions largely depend on the order of moves with which Black is trying to build his "hedgehog ". Tournament practice has indicated that it is very difficult for Black to build "a hedgehog " with a knight on c6 (in order to repel White's knight on d4 away from the centre). White's standard reac­ tion against the move I?J b8-c6 is practically always the exchange of knights on c6. Variation a is quite instructive in that case. Black tries to organize some counterplay in the centre by develop­ ing his dark-squared bishop along the a1-h8 diagonal. In that case, his d6-pawn becomes the Achilles heel of his position. White's task is to organize pressure against it as quickly as possible. This is how things usually develop in variation b. In variation c1 Black is trying to play trickier with the idea to choose a move-order after which White will have problems organiz­ ing pressure against the d6-pawn. Still, Black delays his development in that case and White can strike in the centre with - 1 0 .f5! Black often tries in practice to build "a hedgehog " with a bishop on e7 and he develops his knight to d7. That set-up for him is basic and it has been analyzed thoroughly in a group of variations under the index c2. In variation c2a, we have dealt with some original set-ups in which Black delays his castling or he abandons it altogether. In varia­ tion c2b, we analyze the main linefor Black with the move 1 0 ... 0 - 0 . White's actions in the numerous lines of the variation c2b are more or less standard and they are aimed at the preparation of the pawn­ break in the centre e4-e5: @h1, 1ld2, 'fJ.ae1. The critical position arises after 13. 'fJ.ae1. We have analyzed it thoroughly in greatest details.

275

1.e4 c5 2 .ttJ f3 e6 3 . d4 cxd4 4.ti::J xd4 a6 5 . .id3 lilf6 6 . 0 - 0 d6

Chapter 17

of 8 . .te3 ! ? and he has in fact lost a tempo - 8 . . . V;!lc7 (It is too danger­ ous for him to grab a pawn with 8 ... V;!lxb2, since after: 9.llJb3 V;!leS 10.f4 fihS 1l.i.e2 fih4 12.llJc3�, Black's queen is seriously endan­ gered amidst his opponent's piec­ es.) 9.llJc3 i.e7 1O.�c1 (It is also interesting for White to try: 1O.f4 b6 11.�c1 fib7 12 .fS eS 13.llJdS 7.c4 Now, just like in Chapter 16, V;!ld8, Engelbrecht - Kempe, corr. White enters "a hedgehog" pawn 1989, 14.llJe6 ! fxe6 1S.!i..xb6 V;!lc8 structure. He can also continue 16.fxe6�) 10 . . . 0-0 1l.f4 llJc6 12 . in purely Sicilian set-ups like: 7. llJb3 (White is threatening 13. f4 g6 8.llJf3 fig7 9.a4 (or 9.V;!le1 llJdS.) 12 ... �e8, Wyss - Gold­ 0-0 10.@h1 llJbd7 11.llJc3 V;!lc7 12. stern, Graechen 1999. Here, after V;!lh4 bS 13.f5 fib7 14 . .th6 �ae8oo) 13.cSt, White could have seized 9 . . . 0-0 1O.llJc3 llJbd7oo, but Black the initiative. is faced with fewer difficulties in a) 7 llJc6 that case. The developments in this line White is not threatening any­ thing at the moment, so Black has are rather similar to variation a plenty of possibilities to choose from Chapter 16. S .llJxc6 bxc6 9. llJc3 i.e7 from: a) 7 llJc6, b) 7 !i.d7, c) Black needs to play very atten­ 7 llJbd7, d) 7 g6 as well as 7 !i.e7 (Chapter 18) and 7 b6 tively now. White has some lead in development and he is ready to (Chapter 19). About 7 ... fic7 8.V;!le2 - see S ... attack his opponent's centre with his c and e-pawns. fic7. For example, in case of 9 ... g6, Black players are usually not so fond of playing 7 ... fib6, because Diaz - Lebredo, Camaguey 1974, •••

••.

•••

.•.

276

•••

•••

.••

4. ttJxd4 a6 S. id3 ttJf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 it looks good for White to con­ tinue with: 10.cS ! dxcS ll.eS ttJdS 12.ttJe4±. After 9 . . . cS, Black is in for trouble on the other side of the board: 1O.f4 ! ? !i.e7, M .Ginzburg - Belmonte, Salta 1995 (If 10 ... Wlc7, then ll.We2, threatening e4eS - see the move B . . . ttJc6, from Chapter 16.) ll.eS ! dxeS 12 .fxeS Wld4+ 13.Whl WxeS 14.if4 WlhS IS.oie2 Wg6 16 . .!f3 ga7 17.Wa4+ ttJd7 IB.ttJbS± and White wins at least the exchange. If 9 . . . eS, then it is possible for White to play 10.Wa4 ! ? (It is also interesting for him to try the move 1O.c5 ! ?t, which has not been tested in practice yet and Black is forced to comply with the ex­ change on d6, because the possi­ bility 1O . . . dS? is unacceptable for him due to: 11.exdS cxdS 12 .gel e4 13.ttJxdS ! +-) 1O . . . id7 11.cS ! dxc5 (It is even worse for Black to play: 1l . . . aS 12 .Wc2 dxc5 13.ttJa4 id6 14.ttJxc5 0-0 IS.ttJb7 Wc7 16.ttJxd6 Wxd6 17.!i.e3± McNally - Hulse, corr. 2 0 03 .) 12 .Wc2 !i.e7 13.ttJa4t and White regains his pawn remaining with a superior pawn-structure.

1 0 .f4

White has not tested in prac­ tice yet the line: 10.cS ! ? dS 11.b4 as 12 .bS hcS I3.bxc6t. 10

• • •

e5

About 10 . . . c5 ll.eS! - see 9 . . . cS; a s for 1O . . . Wc7 ll.We2 - see variation a, Chapter 16. If 1O . . . hS, then it is possible for White to play Il.Wf3 (with the idea to follow with 12.eS) 1l . . . eS 12.fS ttJg4 13.ttJa4 cS 14.ttJc3 !i.b7 IS.ic2 oic6 16.!i.a4 ha4 17.ttJxa4 .!gS IB.ttJc3 .ixc1 19.9axc1 Wh4 20.h3 ttJf6 21.gcdl gdB 2 2 . gd3± and Black has no compensation for the vulnerability of his d6pawn, Vatter - Kubacsny, Unter­ grombach 1995. In case of 10 ... 0-0, after the prophylactic move 11.Whi (If 11. We2 , then White should consider ll . . . eSoo) 11 . . . eS (Now, the threat of the pawn-break e4-eS in the centre is quite real and after: 11 . . . gbB 12 .b3 g e B 13.eS dxeS l4.fxeSt Gagliardi - Martorelli, Telese 1996, White seizes the initiative. Black plays sometimes 1l . . . ttJd7, Fogarasi - Z.Horvath, Gyor 1990 , with the idea t o redeploy his dark­ squared bishop to the al-hB diag­ onal. In that case White can fol­ low with: 12 .Wf3 ! ? if6 13.eS dxeS 14.Wlxc6t and his pieces are evi­ dently more active.) 12 .fS ib7 14. Wlf3 (The straightforward ap­ proach : 13.g4 dS 14.gS ttJxe4 IS.f6 ttJxf6 16.gf hf600 leads to a rather unclear position.) and it becomes the same as after 10 . . . eS. 277

Chapter 17 1l.f5

Now, the analogy to variation a from Chapter 16 is quite obvi­ ous. 1l . .ib7 ..

Black is planning to advance d6-dS ; otherwise he might end up without any counterplay at all and come under a positional bind: 11...0-0 12 .Wlf3 �b8 13.�f2 /t)d7 14 . .ie3 /t)c5 lS.if1 as 16.g4 .b6 17 .�d1 t Guillon - Villeneuve, Cannes 1995. 12.Wlf3

able game. 13 . . 13b8 .

It would not work for Black to play 13 ... dS? ! due to : 14.cxdS cxdS lS.exdS and he cannot fol­ low with lS . . . /t)xdS??, because of 16.ie4+-. White's plans are not changed at all after 13 .. :�b6. With 14.�b1 (with the idea lS.b4) 14 ... aS lS . .igSt, White proceeds just like in the main line of that variation. 14.�g5

If 14 . .te3, then 14 . . . dSoo. 14 . . 13e8 .

In case Black tries to trade the bishops: 14 . . . /t)d7 lS.�e3 �gS, White can counter that with: 16. �a7 �a8 17.�gl id2 18./t)a4;!;.

12 . . . 0 - 0

After: 1 2 ... dS 13.cxdS cxdS 14.exdS, Black is praeticallyforced to present his opponent with the two-bishop advantage: 14 ... hdS (It is too dubious for him to opt for 14 ... /t)xdS? ! in view of 1S.�e4±) lS./t)xdS WlxdS 16.Wle2;!;. 13. liflhl

White must be careful about the possible advance of Black's d­ pawn. For example after: 13.ie3 dS! 14.cxdS cxdS lS.exdS, Neu­ kirch - Liebert, Zinnowitz 1965, Black could have continued with: lS . . . /t)xdS 16.ie4 /t)xe3 17.Wlxe3 �b8oo obtaining a quite accept278

15.l'�abl a5 16.a3;!; - White plans to improve his position on the queenside with the move b2b4, Egger - Giardelli, Sao Paulo 1993. b) 7 . . . �d7

After the exchange of the knights on c6 and Black's captur­ ing with the pawn there, it is often very difficult for him to obtain any active counterplay. This is well il-

4. llJxd4 a6 S. i.d3 fijf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 lustrated in variation a in Chapter 16 and variation a in this chapter as well. In this case Black is trying to improve the idea with the de­ velopment of his knight to the c6square. After the move with the bishop to d7 he would not need to capture on c6 with the pawn.

8.�c3 �c6

the move 1O.a4 indeed, but then it would be difficult for him to improve his position there. See a typical example: 1O . . . b6 1l.ie3 ie7 12 .f3 0-0 13.�d2 �bB (Black cannot equalize completely with 13 ... dS, in view of: 14.exdS exdS lS.�f2;!;) 14J�fd1 �cB ls.if1 llJd7 16.igS .b:gS 17.�xgS �dB lB. We3 Wc7= Ivanchuk - Rublevsky, Montecatini Terme 2 000. White has tested i n prac­ tice numerous times: 1O .b3 i.e7 1l.i.b2 0-0 12 .�e2 �aS ! = Psakhis - Rublevsky, Polanica Zdroj 1997. Black has good chances to equal­ ize by maneuvering his queen to the hS-square. That idea is impos­ sible with a white pawn on b4.

About B . . . ie7 9 .�e2 �c6 1O.�xc6 ixc6 1l.b4 - see B ... �c6. In this sutuation, the move B . . . �c7? ! i s obviously unneccesary. After 9.ie3 �c6, R.Smith - Ben­ cini, Groningen 1973, 1O.llJxc6 hc6 1Ukl± Black had perma­ nently the threat - llJc3-dS to worry about. 9.llJxc6

This is probably the best. In case of: 9.ie3 llJeS ! ? 1O.i.e2 �cB 1l.b3 i.e7 12.f4 llJg600 it would be much more difficult to prove White's advantage. 9 . . . hc6 1 0 .b4!?

After the completion of his development, Black plans to un­ dermine White's position on the queenside with the move b7-bS. White can prevent his opponent's counterplay there with the help of

1 0 . . .b6

Black prolongs the diagonal for his light-squared bishop. It would not change anything and he would only present his op­ ponent with additional possibili­ ties if Black tries 10 . . . i.e7. After 1l.i.b2 ! ? (The move with the bish­ op to e7 forces Black to consider also the line: 1l.bS i.d7 12.a4 0-0 13.i.e3 �c7 14.aS axbS 1S.i.b6 WcB 16.llJxbSt, in which White's pieces 279

Chapter 17 are deployed much more actively, Lobzhanidze - Lastin, Kstovo 1997.) 11 ... 0-0 12 .\We2 b6 (or 12 .. . lbd7?? 13.bS+-; in case of: 12 .. . \Wb6 13.a3 as 14.bS iLe8 1S.eS dxeS 16.lba4 \Wd8 17.,ixeS lbd7 18J��fdl± Black's pieces are terribly mis­ placed, Motylev - Kotsur, Dubai 2003; after 12 . . . \Wc7 13J�ac1 l'!fe8, A.Timofeev - "Beograd", Inter­ net 2004, White can follow with the standard tactical operation: 14.lbdS ! exdS lS.cxdS±) 13.l'!ad1 and it all comes to a transposition of moves - see 1O . . . b6. 11.iLb2 �e7

In case of: 11 . . . g6 12 .\We2 iLg7 13J!ad1 \We7 14.bS axbS 15.cxbS iLb7 16.\We3 \Wd8 17.iLe2 0-0 18. iLf3 l'!e8 19.eS;1; White's pieces are much more active, Cheparinov - S.Kovacevic, Dos Hermanas 2002.

in case of: 13. a3 lbd7 14.l'!ad1, Lutz - Milov, Pula 2000, Black can successfully regroup his forces with: 14 . . . iLf6 lS.iLbl \Wc7 16.\Wc2 g6 17.\Wd2 lbeSoo.

l3 . . . lbd7

Black wishes to bring his dark­ squared bishop to the long diago­ nal. After 13 . . . 'fic7, White has the rather unpleasant resource for his opponent to bring his rook into the actions along the third rank - 14.f4 l'!ac8 (If 14 . . . l'!ad8, l2 .\We2 0 - 0 Black fails to create any coun­ then after: lS.i>h1 iLb7 16.l'!f3 g6 terplay on the dark squares, be­ 17.l'!h3-+ White's attack is very cause of his delayed castling: powerful. Now, Black loses after: 12 . . . iLb7 13.l'!ad1 lbd7 14.f4 \Wc7 17 . . . lbd7? 18.lbbS ! +- Kinder­ (14 . . .iLf6 lS.eS ! dxeS 16.iLe4 'fic7 mann - Thesing, Germany 2 0 0 1, 17.,ixb7 'fixb7 18.lbe4-+ Rublev­ in view of the variation : 18 . . . sky) 15.'fig4 iLf6 16.eS ! dxe5 17.f5 axbS 19.'fihS gxhS 20.l'!g3+ iLg5 exf5 18.hfS l'!d8 19.lbe4 ! +-. 21.l'!xg5#) 15.l'!f3 l'!fd8 16.l'!h3 h6 In case of 12 ... lbd7, White can 17.l'!g3 ! ? iLb7 (Following: 17 . . . bS follow with the standard for these 18.eS ! ? dxe5 19.fxe5 lbd7 2 0 .c5!± positions piece-sacrifice - 13. White ends up with a protected lbdS ! exd5 14.exdS iLb7 15 . .ixg7 passed c-pawn and it is essen­ l'!g8 16.iLd4± (Rublevsky). tial that the move 20 . . . lbxe5? l3.gadl would not work for him, due to It might seem that the game is 21.lbxbS ! +-) 18.a3 ! ? a5 (If 18 ... rather calm; nevertheless White Wh8, then 19 .1'!fl± with the idea to must play precisely. For example, counter the move 19 . . . iLf8? with a 280

4. ttJxd4 a6 S. id3 ttJf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 small combination: 20.ttJdS ! exdS 2 1..ixf6 gxf6 22 .'�g4+-) There might follow: 19.eS dxeS 2 0.fxeS ttJe8 21.ttJbS %Vb8, Luther - Ru­ blevsky, Yerevan 2001 (or 21... %Vc6? 2 2 .ttJa7+-) and here the line: 2 2 .i.c1! ? axb4 23.axb4 .ixb4 24.i.xh6±, recommended by GM Rublevsky, leads to a clear advan­ tage for White. 14.f4 i.b7

The move 14 . . .if6 is not so sensible at the moment. After lS.i.c2 , Black's bishop will have to retreat: lS ... i.e7 16.%Vd3 g6 17. �h3-+ - and White has the un­ pleasant threat - 18.fS. In case of: 14 . . . %Vc7 lS.ttJdS ! exdS 16.exdS i.a4 17.'�'xe7 .ixd1 18J�d1-+ (Rublevsky) White not only has a pawn for the exchange, but he has an enormous positional advantage too. His couple of bish­ ops is pointed at his opponent's kingside and things look really threatening. After 14 .. Jk8, it is again worth for White to redeploy his rook along the third rank: lSJ"�lf3 ! (It would not work for him to play lS.ttJdS?, due to: lS . . . exdS 16.exdS i.a4!+; while after: lS.c;t>h1 i.b7 16. a3 �c7 17.eS dxeS 18.fxeS 1!cd8 19.ttJb1 as 2 0.i.c3 ttJb8 ! 21.ttJd2 axb4 22.axb4 ttJc6, Kaiumov - Rublevsky, Cheliabinsk 1993, even following White's best line: 23.1!b1 ttJd4 24.'�e3 ttJf5 2 S . .ixfS exfS 26.1!xfS %Vc6� Black obtains an excellent compensation for the pawn thanks to his powerful bish-

op pair according to an analysis of 1!ublevsky.) lS ... %Vc7? ! (or lS ... g6 16.Elh3 if6 17.i.c2 ! %Vc7 18.Elhd3 i.e7 19.ttJdS exdS 20.exdS±, 18 . . . Elfd8 19.Elxd6 ie7 20.eS .ixd6 21. exd6 �b8 2 2 .ttJe4-+ Rublevsky; after lS . . . if6 16.ic2 �c7 17.1!fd3 Elfd8 18.Elxd6 i.e7 19.eS hd6 2 0 . exd6 �b8 21.ttJe4gg White has an ample compensation for the ex­ change due to his powerful d6pawn; about lS ... i.b7 16.1!h3 h6 17.ic2 - see 14 ... ib7) 16.Elh3 Elfe8 and White has a tactical solution at his disposal: 17.ttJd5 ! exd5 18.exdS ! (This is stronger than: 18.%VhS ttJf6 19.hf6 hf6 2 0 . %Vxh7+ c;t>f8 21.exdS i.d7oo) 18 . . . .tf6 1 9 . .txh7+ c;t>f8 2 0.i.e4 i.b7 2 1.Elh8+ c;t>e7 2 2 .i.d3+-.

15. l':U"3 !

White's rook joins in the king­ side attack. 15

• • •

g6? !

It is more difficult to break Black's position after: 15 . . . 1!c8 16.Elh3 h6. It looks like there is no direct solution. Meanwhile, White can continue with 17.i.c2 ! ? (If White retreats his bishop to another square, then his c4-pawn 281

Chapter 17 becomes a weakness: 17.Ab1 vtic7 1BJ:�g3 .if6 and now after: 19.vtihS 'it>hB 20.a3, it is good for Black to follow with: 20 . . .vtixc4 2 1.eS dxeS 22.gxd7 exf4 23.ggd3 Ae4+t, while if 19. WIg4 vtixc4, then Black parries the breakthrough in the centre with the help of the piece-sacrifice: 2 0 .eS tDxeS 2 1.fxeS heSoo and he can counter S.Rublevsky's recom­ mendation - 2 0.tDa4 with 2 0 . . . g6! 2 1.eS Ag7oo) 1 7. . . Wlc7 1B.gg3 (or 1B.tDdS? ! exdS 19.ixg7 'it>xg7 2 0.vtig4+ i.gS 2 1.�h6 ggB !+) lB . . . i.f6 19.Ab3 !?i and White main­ tains the initiative. He has every­ thing under control, while Black must combine the protection of his d6-pawn with the defence of his kingside. 16.gh3 .if6

This move is very attractive, since Black covers the a1-hB di­ agonal. Still, now White can or­ ganize the pawn-break e4-eS in the centre. Even if we assume that Black's last move is unsatisfac­ tory, it is quite difficult to suggest anything better for him. He loses immediately after 16 ... Wlc7?, be­ cause of: 17.tDbS ! WldB 1B.tDxd6 ! hd6 19.vtihS ! ! gxhS 2 0.gg3+ WIgS 21.gxgS#. After: 16 . . . gcB 17 . .ibl± (In case Black's queen remains on dB, White does not have the resource - 17.tDdS? exdS 1B.vtihS gxhS 19.:1;g3+, because of 19 . . . .igS-+) and Black has again dif­ ficulties to find a move, since 17 . . . vtic7? is bad in view of lB. tDbS+-. 2B2

This position was reached in my game against Rublevsky (Ka­ zan 2 001). The placement of Black's queen on dB enabled me to break in the centre: 17.eS ! dxeS 18 .Ae4 Wlc7 (After: lB . . . ixe4 19.tDxe4 .ig7 2 0 .ghd3 ga7 2 1.ixeS+- Black has no chances to save the game, because of the pin along the d-file.) 19.hb7 Yfxb7 2 0 .�e4 Ag7 (It is hardly better for Black to try: 2 0 . . . .ie7 2 1.fxeS and he loses outright after: 2 1 . ..ixb4? 2 2 . gxd7!+-, while in case of: 2 1 . ..gacB 22. ghd3 gfdB 23.tDd6 hd6 24. gxd6+- the pin along the d-file is decisive, following: 21...gfdB 22 .vtif3 gabB, White's simplest road to victory is: 23.gxh7 'it>xh7 24.vtixf7+ 'it>hB 2 S. tDd6 Wlc7 26. vtixg6 gfB 27.gd3+-, it is more te­ nacious for Black to defend with 21...gadB, but even then his posi­ tion is highly problematic, since after 22.tDd6� Black can hardly put up with Whitre's knight for long.) 21.fxeS Wlc7 (or 2 1 . . .tDxeS? 22 .tDd6+-; 21 . . .heS 2 2 .ixeS tDxeS 23.tDf6+-) 2 2 . �f6+ .ixf6 (This is forced, since the other possibility is very bad for Black:

4. lLlxd4 a6 5. �d3 lLlf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 2 2 . . . lLlxf6 23.exf6 i.hS 24.'1We3, White is threatening to bring his queen to hS and the defensive idea - 24 . . . hS would not help, be­ cause of 2SJ:!xhS+ -) 23.exf6 e5 24JU"3 ! (It is useful for White to preserve the f6-pawn, because the endgame after: 24J'�hd3 lLlxf6 2 SJ'�� d 6 Wle7 26.WlxeS WlxeS 27. heS lLlg4 2 S.�d4 l3fcS 29.h3 lLlh6 3 0 .i.f6± leaves Black with much more chances to save the day. . . ) 24 l3fd8 25.l3d5 ! (White avoids the trap : 2S.Wle3? Wlxc4 26.Wlh6 lLlxf6 ! -+) 25 h5 (or 2S . . . l3acS 2 6.Wld2 �fS 27.l3fd3 �eS 2S.l3e3 Wlxc4 2 9.l3exeS+ lLlxeS 30.l3xeS+ c;t>fS 31.Wlh6+- Shipov) 26.lUd3! lLlf8 (or 2 6 . . . lLlxf6 27.WlxeS ! WlxeS 2 S.l3xdS+ l3xdS 29.l3xdS+ WleS 3 0.i.xf6+-). White's advantage is already decisive and the simplest way for him to prevail is: 27.Wld2 ! ? �d5 (27 . . . lLle6 2 S.,ixeS+-) 28. Wih6 � e6 29.cxd5+- recom­ mended by Rublevsky. • • •

.••

develop his queen's knight in an­ other fashion. 8 . � c3 � e5

That is the only move (The line : S . . . lLlcS 9 .i.c2 i.e7, after: 1O.f4 Vff c7 11.Wle2 , might transpose to variation c2 from Chapter 16, see 6 . . . Wlc7 7.Wle2 d6 S.c4 lLlbd7 9.f4 i.e7 1O.lLlc3 lLlcS H.ic2 .), which leads to original positions after the move 7 . . . lLlbd7. The other lines lead as a rule to transpositions. For example, in case of: S . . . i.e7 9.f4, or S . . . Wlc7 9.f4 i.e7 1O.i.e3, there arise posi­ tions from variation a (Chapter 1S). Following: S ...b6 9.f4 ib7 1O.Wle2, the game transposes to Chapter 19. Black plays seldom S ... g6, but then after: 9 .�e2 ! ? ig7 1O.lLlb3t he has great problems to protect his d6-pawn. 9.i.e2

Naturally, White should better preserve that bishop. 9

c) 7 . . . �bd7

. • •

ie7

If 9 . . . .id7, then 1O.f4 ! ?t; oth­ erwise Black manages to play the useful move l3cS with tempo. For example: 1 O.�e3 l3cS 11.b3 ie7 12. f4 lLlg6CXl, we have already dealt with that position in variation b, see - 7 . . . id7 S.lLlc3 lLlc6 9.�e3 lLleS. l O .ie3

(diagram) lO

We have already seen that Black has problems developing his knight on c6, so he tries to

• • •

id7

Now, Black has two possibili­ ties to organize some counterplay: he must either prepare the pawn 2S3

Chapter 17

counter strike e6-eS, after White repels his knight to the g6-square with the move f2-f4, or he must create some pressure against the c4-pawn as quickly as possible. The first idea can be best accom­ plished with 10 ... id7, while the second - with the move 10 ... �c7. After: 11J!cl 0-0 (In case of: 11 . . . b6 12.f4 ttJed7 13.if3 ib7 14.b4 0-0 IS.g4 @h8 16.gS ttJg8 17.fS-t Black came under a deadly posi­ tional bind and he failed to pro­ tect the key e6-square, Penrose - Filip, Hastings 1957; after 11 ... �b8 12.f4, Black's attempt to de­ velop his knight with the move 12 ... ttJc6 can be countered with the standard reaction: 13.ttJxc6 bxc6 14.if3 ib7 1S.c5 dS 16.eS ttJd7 17. ttJa4± AI Modiahki - Porras Ma­ teo, Barcelona 2 0 05.) 12 .f4. Now, it is principled for Black to follow with 12 . . . ttJxc4 ! ? (about 12 ... ttJg6 13.@hl - see 10 ... 0-0; after 12 .. . ttJed7 13.g4 ! Black has tried: 13 .. . ttJcs 14.if3 and here it is a disaster for him to opt for: 14 ... eS IS.ttJfS ie6 16.b4 ixfs 17.exfS e4 18.gS ttJd3 19.9xf6 ixf6 2 0.ttJdS+- Svo­ boda - Meszaros, Slovakia 2000, while in case of: 14 ... @h8 IS.gS 284

ttJg8 16.fS �d8 17.h4± White's advantage is overwhelming, Ko­ ziak - Illijin, Ptuj 2 003; Black has also tested in practice: 13 . . . b6 14.gS ttJ e 8 IS.�el ib7 16.�h4 ttJcS, van Elst - Dautov, Porz 1991 and here: 17.b4 ! ? ttJd7 18.fS-t pro­ vides White with a powerful at­ tack.) 13.!xc4 (White can win the exchange with: 13.M2 ttJaS l4.ttJdS �d8 IS.ttJxe7+ �xe7 16.b4 eS 17. fxeS dxeS 18.ttJfS ixfs 19.ic5;!;) 13 . . .�xc4 14.ttJdS exdS (After: 14 ... ttJxdS ISJ!xc4 ttJxe3 16.�d3 ttJxc4 17.�xc4 dS 18.exdS exdS 19. �xdS;!; White remains with a queen for a rook and a bishop, A.Kovacevic - Kontic, Belgrade 1998.) IS.l!xc4 dxc4 16.�f3 ig4 17.�g3;!; and Black's compensa­ tion for the queen is hardly suf­ ficient, Kunas - Soelter, Detmold 198 2 . I t i s less principled for Black to continue with: 10 . . . 0-0 1l.f4 ttJg6 12.@hl! ? �c7 (With the help ofthe variation 12 ... id7 13.�el, Black can still transpose to the main line - see 1O . . . id7.), because of the prophylactic move 13J!cl. There has been tries here with: 13 . . . b6 (The placement of Black's queen makes his counterplay ineffective after: 13 . . . eS 14.fxeS dxeS IS.ttJfS !xfS, because of 16.ttJdS ! t) 14.b4 :B:e8, Zapata - Montiel, Caracas 1999. Now, it deserves attention for White to opt for IS.id3 ! ?;!;, fortifying the e4-pawn in advance in case of the move ic8-b7. Black has no real counterplay in simi-

4. ct:lxd4 a6 S . .td3 ct:lf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 lar positions. White can choose as a target of an attack either the e6-pawn (�f3-h3 and fS), or his opponent's queenside (ct:lb3 and a4-aS). 1l.f4

Black wanted to play with tem­ po the move 1l .. Jk8; therefore White should repel the knight from the eS-square. 1l . . . ct:lg6

After: 1l . . . ct:lc6 12 .�e1 ct:lxd4 13.i.xd4 .tc6, Boensch - Hesse, Leipzig 1979, White can continue developing his initiative with: 14.�g3 0-0 lSJ:ladlt.

ct:leS 16.1L1dS �d8 17.fxe6 fxe6 18. ct:lf4 and Black fails to hold the e6-square.) it is more precise for White to play immediately lS.�g3 ! ?;t. It is weaker for him to try lS.b3, due to lS ... �aS !oo and in the game Acs - LFarago, Lillafured 1999, White could not bring his queen to the g3-square, in view of the defenselessness of the knight on c3. 14.Wfg3 WfaS lS.1L1b3 �c7

12.h7, there arises a position from variation d, from Chapter 13. The pawn-break in the centre - 11 . . . dS? ! 12.exd5 exd5 13.cxd5 ttJb4 14.d6 �eS 15.if3± is evidently premature, Mainka - Happel, Germany 1995.) 12.c5 ! ? (By play­ ing 12 .'\1;lfd2 b6, White can trans­ pose to lines arising after 1O . . . b6, but the move c4-c5 is obviously more purposeful here.) 12 . . . ttJeS (Or 12 . . . e5 13 . .le3 ie6 14.ttJdSt and White's pieces are more ac­ tive, Feszland - Micklethwaite, corr. 1994; after the exchange of queens : 12 . . . dxc5 13.'\1;lfxdS ttJxdS 14.ttJa4 eS 1S.ttJb6 �bS 16 . .le3 ttJe6 17.ttJxc5 ttJf6 lS.�fdU, the differ­ ence of activity between the pieces is not in favour of Black either . . . , Nevanlinna - Seeman, Jyvaskyla 2 0 0 1.) 13.J.e3 fS 14.f4 ttJf7 15 . .lf3

fxe4 16.he4 dS, Gallagher - Cvi­ tan, Cannes 1996, 17 . .lf3t. 1l .lf4 ttJe8 •

Having played 11 ... eS, Black has weakened the dS-square in his camp: 12 .J.e3 J.b7 13.f3 '\1;lfc7 14.a4 ttJc6, Serper - Vyzmanavin, Pinsk 19S6. White could have ex­ ploited that with the help of the line: lS.'l:lfd2 �fcS 16.�fd1 .lfS 17. ttJdSi. 12 .'\1;lfd2 ga7

After: 12 . . . ttJc6 13.�fd1 ttJe5 14.ih6 .lb7 lS.J.xg7 'it>xg7, Trin­ gov - L.Popov, Sofia 19S1, White should have maintained his edge with: 16.f4 ttJc6 17.'\1;lfe3 �bS IS. ttJa4 .lcS 19.e5i. 13.gfdl gd7 14.Ylre3 tOe6

15. tO a4 e5

Now, Black is forced to make a concession, since after lS . . . �b7, White can follow with 16.cS±. 16.ig5 f6 17.J.h4 gb7 18.£3 .ld7 19.tOc3 tOe7 2 0 .tOd5 -

White is now quite prepared to push c4-cS. (The immediate ad­ vance: 2 0 .cS bxcS 21.ha6 gb4 22 .a3 gd4 23.'l:lfe2 �xd1+ 24.�xdU promises much less.) 2 0 tOe8 • • .

21.tOd2 tOe7 2 2 .b4 tOe6 23.tOb3

2S7

Chapter 17 �e8 24.cSt - and White could be quite happy with the outcome

of the opening battle in the game Tringov - Renet, Bulgaria 1985.

Conclusion In this chapter, we continue dealing with set-ups of the "hedgehog " type. Thefact that contrary to Chapter 1 6, the queens of both sides are still at their initial position makes the plan with the development of the knightfrom b8 to c6 much more acceptable for Black (variations a, b). In both cases, White exchanges knights on c6. Still, in variation a, there arises a change of the pawn-structure, while in variation b, you can witness how White should fight against "hedgehog" set-ups. Here, the game Khalifman - Rublevsky, Kazan 2 0 0 1 is quite impor­ tantfrom the theoretical point of view. White's treatment of the posi­ tion is an excellent example of an aggressive strategy in this line. It is worth mentioning thatfor pawn-structures of the "hedgehog " type, it is more typicalfor Black to develop his knightfrom b8 to the d7-square. In this chapter, we only analyze a relatively rarely played line, in which Black's knight does not remain on d7, but it goes im­ mediately to the e5-square (variation c). The variations in which that knight remains on its usual place are dealt with in Chapter 18. In that case, ifBlack develops his bishop along the a1-h8 diagonal (variation d) White's most urgent task is to create immediate pressure against Black's d6-pawn.

288

Chapter 18

1 . e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3 . d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 a6 5 . .id3 �f6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 .ie7

Black's bishop is a bit passive here, but it protects reliably the d6-pawn. 8.�c3

White's knight is perfectly placed on c3 - it prevents the pawn-breaks b7-b5 and d6-d5. Now, we will analyze in details the lines: a) 8 . . . �bd7 and b) 8... 0 - 0 .

About B . . . tLJc6 9.tLJxc6 bxc6 1O.f4 - see 7 . . . tLJc6 ; as for B ... b6 9.1lNe2 .tb7 10.b3 - see 7 . . .b6; B ... .td7 9 .'1We2 tLJc6 10.tLJxc6 hc6 11. b4 b6 (or 11 . . . 0-0 12 . .tb2) 12 . .tb2 - see 7 . . . .td7. The move B .. JWc7 practically does not have a separate impor­ tance. With the line 9 . .te3 (White can play 9.�e2 , transposing to variations a and c2, analyzed in Chapter 16, but still with a black

queen on c7, it seems most natu­ ral for White to place his rook on cl.) 9 ... 0-0 (Or 9 ... tLJbd7 1O.f4 see B . . . tLJbd7; in case of: 9 . . . tLJc6? ! 10.tLJxc6 ! ? bxc6 11.c5 d5 12 .f4± White's advantage is obvious; the preparation of the knight-move to c6 with 9 . . . .td7 is not effective, because of 10 Jkl, while after 10 . . . tLJc6, Livingston - Bowen, King­ ston 1997, White obtains the advantage with the help of 11. tLJd5 !±, in case of: 10 ... 0-0 11.f4 1:kB I2.�hl .tfB I3.�f3 tLJc6, V.To­ dorovic - Markov, Nis 1995, it is possible for White to play: 14.tLJxc6 bxc6 15.�g3t; and after: 9 ... b6 10J%c1 .tb7 11.f4, it is bad for Black to try 11 ... tLJc6?, in view of 12 .tLJd5+-, the line 11 ... tLJbd7 12 .b4, leads to variation a, while the line: 11 . . . 0-0 12 .f5 is analyzed in bib) 1O.f4 tLJc6 (The position after: 1O . . .b6 lU!c1, or 1O ... tLJbd7 11.g4, can be found in variation bib; in answer to: 1O .. J%eB 11.1lNf3 .tfB, Babiy - Chernozem, Kiev 2 0 06, it is very good for White to follow with: 12J%acl tLJbd7 13.g4 tLJc5 14 . .tbl e5 15.tLJf5 g6 16.g5±) 11.tLJxc6 bxc6 12.c5 ! ? e5 13.cxd6 2B9

Chapter 18 i.xd6 14.fS gdB 1S.gel ib4 16. �e2;j; Greenberg - Schulz, Winni­ peg 1999 and White maintains a slight but stable advantage.

1 0 .ie3 b6

About 10 . . . 0-0 11.g4 - see variation b. After 1O . . . .!DcS 11.ic2 , Black's knight on cS only enhances the a) 8 .!Dbd7 development of White's initiative. 11 . . .b6 (about 11 . . . 0-0 12 .g4 - see variation b) 12 .M lLlcd7 13.id3 .tb7 14.gc1 gcB 1S.fS eS 16.lLlb3 'iHdB 17.'\1;lfe2± - Black's situation is difficult, he evidently lacks space and he has no counterplay whatsoever, Janko - Todor, Slovakia 2 0 0 0 . In case Black plays tentatively: 1O . . . h6 11.gel 0-0, McDonald - L.Hansen, Gausdal 1990 , then 9.f4!? White can play 9 .ie3, allow­ White can impede the develop­ ing Black to transpose to varia­ ment of his opponent's queenside tion c from Chapter 17: 9 . . . .!DeS with the move 12. �f3t. In general, Black can hardly 1O . .te2 - see 7 . . . .!Dbd7 B . .!Dc3 .!DeS 9 . .te2 .te7 10 . .te3. By not letting change anything with 1O . . . g6, his opponent's knight to the eS­ Filipenko - Chuprov, Ufa 1999. White should not refrain from the square, White aspires for more. thematic idea - 11.gc1t. 9 'iHc7 lUkl Black wishes to develop his queenside with b6 and ib7. He This move seems to be so nat­ cannot do that immediately, be­ ural, when Black's queen is on c7. cause after 9 . . .b6? White would It is worth mentioning that while play 10.lLlc6±. Black has not castled yet, it is pre­ The move 9 . . . eS? is also a mature for White to play 11.g4, mistake, because Black does not due to: 11 . . . hS ! 12 .gS lLlg4? Kem­ control reliably the fS-square: pen - Dornieden, Templin 2 004. 1l .tb7 1O.lLlfS ifB 11.lLle3 hS 12.lLledS lLlxdS 13.lLlxdS .!Db6 14.fxeS lLlxdS About 11 . . . 0-0 12 .g4 - see 1S.exdS dxeS 16.�f3 �c7 17.h3 B . . . O-O. Following: 11 ... g6, Kuijpers icS+ 18.'i!ih1 �e7 19.ie3 he3 2 0 . �xe3 id7 2l.gae1+- Steinbach L.Popov, Wijk aan Zee 1974, it - Quaschner, Verden 2 0 04. seems attractive for White to play About 9 ... 0-0 1O.ie3 - see 12.b4 ! ?t, with the idea to answer B . . . O-O. 12 . . .ib7 with 13.lLldS ! You can see • • •

•••

•••

290

4Ji:Jxd4 a6 S. id3 tjjf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 ie7 8. tjj c3 in that variation how useful White's rook on c1 is. After: 11...h6 12 .b4 ib7 13.a3 Elc8 14.fS eS IS.tjj d S Wd8 16.tjjb3 0-0 17.Wf3 Ele8 18.tjj d 2± Black was forced to weaken the dS­ square in the game Asmundsson - Karasev, Naumburg 2 0 0 2 . In case of: 1l . . .h S 12 .h3 h 4 13. b4 ib7, Dworakowska - T.Keller, Romania 1994, White also need­ ed to force his opponent to make the same positional concession - 14.fS ! ? eS lS.tjj d S Wd8 16.tjj f3±. After: l1...tjj cS 12 .ib1 ib7 13. Wf3 0-0 14.b4 tjj cd7, Sudarkina ­ Ambarcumova, Serpukhov 2 004, White could have increased his kingside pressure with the move lS.Wh3t.

12 .h4!

White is creating the standard threat of a piece-sacrifice on dS. The usefulness of the move b2-b4 can be illustrated by the varia­ tion: 12 .fS eS 13.tjj d S \Wd8 14.tjjb3 (The retreat of the knight to b3 looks much more reasonable with a white pawn on b4.) 14 . . . tjj xdS IS.cxdS 0-000 Valvo - Lein, New York 1980 .

1 2 . Elc8 . .

Black cannot play passively anymore. In case of 12 . . . g6? ! , Nilsson - Doda, Havana 1966, White can start his typical attack with a piece-sacrifice: 13.tjj dS ! exdS 14.cxdS \Wb8 (or 14 . . . \Wd8 IS.tjj c 6 hc6 16.dxc6 tjj f8 17.c7 Wc8 18. hb6+-) lS.tjj c 6 ixc6 16.dxc6 tjjf8 17.c7 \Wb7 18.eS dxeS 19.fxeS tjj 6 d7 2 0.ic4 tjj x eS 2 1.idS+-. The move 12 . . . aS weakens the bS-square and White's knight can be deployed there. After: 13.a3 0-0 14.tjj dbS \Wc6 lS.tjj dS id8, Kuzmicz - Kidzinski, Wisla 2000, White's simplest move is 16.id4±. In case Black castles short 12 . . . 0-0, White can opt for 13. g4 ! ? (It is also good for him to fol­ low with the more prudent line: 13.fS ! ? eS 14.tjj d S Wd8 lS.tjjb 3 tjjxdS 16.cxdS Elc8 17.Wd2 ElXc1 18.Elxc1 h6 19.\We2 tjj b 8 2 0 .tjj d 2t Cvek - Bernasek, Brno 2 006.). It is worth mentioning that the move with the g-pawn is usually more effective after Black castles short, since then it is more difficult for him to find a square for the re­ treat of the knight on f6. He has tried in that situation: 13 . . . g6 (In case of: 13 . . . h6 14.gS hxgS IS.fxgS tjjh 7 16.g6 ttJhf6 17.gxf7+ i>xf7 18. WhS+ i>g8, Bognarne - Albert, Hungary 1995, White wins with the prosaic variation: 19.tjj x e6 tjjxhS 2 0.ttJxc7+- ; it is hardly any better for Black to try: 13 . . . Elfd8 291

Chapter 18 14.gS It'leS, Rihel - K.Schneider, Parsippany 1999, in view of: IS. fS eS 16.lt'ldS hdS 17.cxdS+-; af­ ter: 13 . . . �hS I4.gS lt'lgS, Koskoska - Hamid, Moscow 1994, it seems quite attractive for White to play IS.'!WhS ! -t) 14.gS It'lhS IS.fS exfS 16.exfS dS 17.lt'lxdS ixdS IS.cxdS �eS 19.�f3 ixgS 2 0.,bgS �xd4+ 2 1.�e3 �xb4 2 2 Jk4 �aS, Lehn­ berger - D.Smith, corr. 2 0 0 0 and here by playing 23.�d4 ! ?t White would maintain a powerful initia­ tive thanks to his bishop pair.

�xd5 16.exd5 ! ?t - and White has excellent prospects on both sides of the board. b) 8

••.

0-0

13.f5 e5 14.�d5 �b8

The move 14 . . . �dS (with the wishful thinking to manage somehow in the future to trade the dark-squared bishops via the gS-square) can be refuted by White with the help of: IS.�e6! fxe6 16.fxe6 0-0 (16 . . . lDfS?? 17. ixb6+-) 17.exd7 �xd7 18.�g4 �hS 19J3xfS+ ixfS 20J3fl hdS 2 1.exdS lDf6 2 2 .�fS± M.Nikolic - Srdic, Belgrade 200S.

9 . .i.e3

The other move order is less popular for White; nevertheless it is not worse at all - 9.f4 ! ? (With the move 9 ... �b6? ! Black cannot exploit the temporary weakening of the a7-g1 diagonal, because of 10.!e3 and here Black loses af­ ter: 1O . . . �xb2? 1l.lDa4 �a3 12. �b6+-, as well as following: 10 . . . lDc6? 1l.lDfS �xb2 12.�a4 �a3 13.�xe7+ lDxe7 14.!c1 �4 1S.!d2 �a3 16J3f3+-; the position after: 9 ... lDc6 10.lDxc6 bxc6 11.�h1, has been analyzed in variation a, chapter 17.) 9 ... lDbd7 (about 9 ... b6 1O.!e3 - see variation b1) 10 . .i.e3 - see variation b2. In principle, Black completes the development of his queenside with the help of b1) 9 b6 or b2) •••

(Now, the move IS.lDe6? ! does not achieve much: IS ... fxe6 16.fxe6 lDfS 17.lDxb6 lDxe6 IS.lt'lxcS hcSoo Resika - Centgraf, Hungary 2001.) 15 15.�b3

.••

292

9 . . . �bd7.

About 9 . . . E!eS 10.f4 It'lbd7 1l.�f3 - see variation b2. In case of: 9 ... �c7 10J3c1 b6 (The combination of moves: 10 . . .

4 . tiJxd4 a6 S. id3 t1Jf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 ie7 B. t1J c3 ge8 11.f4 if8 12 .�f3 and 12 . . . t1Jc6, after: 13.Wh1 t1J d 7 14.t1Jxc6 bxc6 IS.eS ib7 16.tLle4 cS 17.�h3 g6 18.t1JgS h6 19.t1Jxf7 Wxf7 2 0 . �g3+- Topalov - Ivanchuk, Mo­ naco 2 0 03, led Black to a swift catastrophe; after: 1O . . . t1Jbd7 11.f4 11.gc1 t1Jc5, White can play: 12 .ibl b6 13.b4 t1Jcd7 14.a3 ib7 1S.�f3 gac8 16.%\Ih3t and he develops a powerful kingside initiative and he creates the unpleasant threat to break through in the centre with e4-eS, Nuenchert - Wagner Michel, Strausberg 1971.) 11.f4 and the game transposes to varia­ tion bib. It seems too slow for Black to try: 9 . . . id7 1O.f4 t1Jc6. After 11.�f3 t1Jxd4 (It is obvious that the line: 11 . . . �c7 12.gac1 g6 13.tLlxc6 bxc6, Sirigos - Koyias, Komotini 1992 , is not good for Black due to 14.c5±) 12.ixd4 ic6 13.�h3 g6 14.f5 eS IS.ie3 t1JhS, Murey - Dzindzichashvili, Netanya 1977 and here it deserves attention for White to play 16.gad1 !?t with the idea to counter Black's attempt to exchange the dark-squared bish­ ops - 16 . . . igS ? ! with: 17.cS ixe3+ 18.%\Ixe3 dxc5 19.ie2 �f6 2 0.fxg6 t1Jf4 21.gxf7+ %\Ixf7 2 2 .�xc5±. Black does not play here so often 9 . . . t1Jc6. It is obvious that he is afraid of the trade on c6, but the placement of White's bishop on e3 introduces some nu­ ances here. There might follow: 1O.t1Jxc6 ! ? bxc6 11.f4 eS (About 11 . . . �c7 12.cS - see 8 . . . �c7 9 .ie3

0-0 1O.f4 t1Jc6 11.t1Jxc6 bxc6 12.cS ; Black's break in the centre - 11 . . . dS? ! seems t o b e premature after: 12 .eS d4 13.exf6 hf6 14.hh7+ Wxh7 IS.�hS+ Wg8 16.gadl g6 17.%\Ic5 d3 18.gf2 gb8 19.9fd2 �c7 2 0.t1Je4 ig7 21.gxd3+- Murey - Zapata, La Valetta 1980.) 12 .fS ib7 (It is again unsatisfactory for Black to try 12 . . . dS? ! , due to: 13.cxdS cxdS 14.t1JxdS t1JxdS IS. exdS �xdS 16.f6 ib7 17.ixh7+ Wxh7 18.�xdS ixdS 19.fxe7 gfe8 20.gfdl ie6 21.icS+- Chandler - Lavie, London 1984; after: 12 . . . gb8 13.gf2 �c7 14.gd2;!; White's rook is doing two things simulta­ neously; it protects the b2-pawn and it prevents Black's pawn­ break, Ruch - G.Davies, corr. 2 001.) 13.�e2 (After: 13.�b3 �d7 14.gadl t1Jg4 IS.ib6 igS 16.gf3 c500 Hermans - Nowicki, corr. 1998, the situation was quite complicated.) Now, the following line is critical for the evaluation of the position: 13 . . . dS 14.cxdS cxdS IS.exdS t1JxdS (if Is . . . ixdS, then 16.ixa6±) 16.t1JxdS �xdS (Black loses after: 16 . . . ixdS?, due to: 17.gadl �aS 18.f6+-) 17.gad1 �c6 (It is not advisable for Black to grab the pawn 17 . . . �xa2?, be­ cause of: 18.f6 ! ixf6 19.9xf6 gxf6 2 0.%\Ig4+ wh8 2 1.�fS e4 2 2 .�xf6+ Wg8 23.id4+-; he has tested in practice only the line: 17 . . . if6 18.b4 %\Ic6 19.9c1 �d7 2 0.ic4 gfd8, Lecroq - Godes, corr. 1984 and here after: 2 1.ib6 gdb8 2 2 . a3;!; White would have maintained 293

Chapter 18 his advantage.) lS.Elc1 �d7 (In case of lS . . .�f6, White can fol­ low with: 19.Elc7 ElfbS 2 0.i.c4t) 19.ElfdU. Black has managed to push d6-d5 indeed, but still he has not equalized. White's pieces are much more active and Black's a6-pawn needs a permanent pro­ tection. bl) 9

•••

b6 l 0 .f4

Black can continue with his development now with the moves bla) 1 0 i.b7 or bib) 1 0 •••

•••

flle7.

His problem is that he can­ not play 1O ... llJbd7??, because of 1l.llJc6 1-0 Sund - Skoglund, corr. 1900, 1l . . . �eS 12.e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 .!c5 (The knight on f6 has nowhere to retreat to.) 14.hc5 llJxc5 15.exf6 fllx c6 16.,ixh7 + �xhS 17.�h5+ �gS lS.fllg5 g6 19. �h6+-. bla) 1 0

•••

.!b7

That is the most natural move. H.eS !

This move leads t o sharp tac­ tical complications. White breaks through in the centre, exploit294

ing the fact that Black has no adequate control over the e5square. White's other possibil­ ity is 11.f5 e5 (The protection of the e6-pawn with the move 11 . . . �cS i s insufficient for Black in view of: 12 .Elc1 llJc6 13.llJd5 .idS 14.llJf3± V.Timofeev - Lukianen­ ko, Briansk 1995.) 12 .llJc2 llJbd7, Manik - Movsesian, Slovakia 1995 (After: 12 . . .b5? ! 13.cxb5 axb5 14.llJb4 llJbd7 15.,ixb5 llJxe4 16.llJxe4 he4 17.llJc6 hc6 lS. hc6± White's bishop pair and his passed pawns on the queen­ side are tremendously powerful, Kurajica - Dizdarevic, Sarajevo 19S1.) 13.llJb4;l; and White occu­ pies the d5-square and he main­ tains his advantage without risk­ ing anything. H

•••

dxeS

That is the principled decision. If Black tries to avoid exchanging on e5 and he retreats his knight immediately - 1l . . . llJfd7, that is not going to stop White: 12.llJxe6 ! (This is stronger than: 12.exd6 ,ixd6 13 ..!e4;l;) 12 . . . fxe6 13.fllh5 g6 14.hg6 hxg6 15.VMxg6+ �hS 16. llJd5 ! --+ and White's attack is very powerful (recommended by GM Smagin). Black can hardly survive White's attack: 16 . . . exd5 (about 16 . . . �4 17.Elf3 exd5 lS.Elh3 - see 16 . . . exd5) 17.Elf3 n4 lS.Elh3 VMe7 19 . .!d4 ! This is a very important move! (In case of 19.e6 VMh7, it is already not so clear if White plays: 2 0.VMg4 llJf6 21.i.d4 llJc6 22.Elxh4 llJxd4 23.Elxh7+ llJxh7

4JiJxd4 a6 5. fid3 l:iJj6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 fie7 B. l:iJ c3 24.e7 i!xf4 2S.'!Wd7 l:iJe2+ 26.�h1 l:iJf6 27:i;l[xb7 i!e8°o or 20 2 0 . .id4+ l:iJf6 21.e7 l:iJc6 2 2 .'i;l[xh7+ �xh7 23.i!xh4+ �g6 24.exf8'i;l[ i!xf8 2S ..ixf6 i!xf6 26.cxdS l:iJ e7oo) 19 ... dxeS 2 0.fxeS l:iJc6 (After: 2 0 ... 'i;l[h7 21.'i;l[g4+- White's eS-pawn precludes Black's knight from coming to the f6-square.) 2 1.'i;l[g4 i!f7 2 2 .e6+ l:iJxd4 23.exf7+-. In case of 1l ... l:iJe8, it is very strong for White to continue with: 12 .fS ! dxeS 13.fxe6 exd4 14.hh7+ �xh7 1S.'IWhS+ �g8 16.exf7+ i!xf7 17.'i;l[xf7+ �h8 18.i!adl± (Sma­ gin). 12 .fxe5 �fd7

If 12 ... �e8, then 13.'!Wg4±.

13.�xe6!

The other attacking plan is also very interesting for White: 13.i!xf7 i!xf7 (or 13 ... l:iJxeS? 14. i!xg7 ! + - ; 13 . . . �xf7? 14.'i;l[hS+ g6 lS.'i;l[xh7+-) 14.l:iJxe6. Still, it looks like Black has some chances for a successful defence. After 14 ... 'i;l[e8 ! (He has also tried: 14 ... 'i;l[c8 1S.'i;l[hS l:iJf8 16.l:iJxf8 g6 17.,txg6 hxg6 18. l:iJxg6 i!h7 19.1:iJxe7+ i!xe7 20. l:iJdS! ,txdS 21.cxdS--+ with a very strong attack for the sacrificed

rook, Smagin - S.Salov, corr. 1984.) 14 . . . 'i;l[e8 lS.l:iJc7 'i;l[c8 16. e6 ! ? (Or 16.l:iJxa8?! .icS !+) 16 ... i!f6oo and the correct evaluation of the position is rather questionable (Smagin analyzes only 16 . . . 'i;l[xc7 17.'i;l[hS--+) . 13

• • •

fxe6 14.'!Wh5 gxf1+

Black exchanges a couple of rooks in order to bring his knight into the actions. He cannot defend with the help of the move 14 ... h6, because of 1S.,txh6+-. White preserves a strong at­ tack too after: 14 ... g6 lS.,ixg6 hxg6 16.'i;l[xg6+ �h8 17.'i;l[h6+ �g8 18.'i;l[xe6+ �h8 19.'i;l[h6+ �g8 2 0 .'i;l[g6+ �h8 21.e6--+. Black has also tried in prac­ tice: 14 ... i!fS lS . .ixfS exfS 16.'i;l[xfS �c6 and here possibly White's strongest move is 17.e6 ! ? (Af­ ter 17.gad1 l:iJcxeS 18.'i;l[e6+ �h8 19J3fS .if6 20.i!xeS i.xeS 21.i!xd7 'i;l[h4 2 2.h8 24.l%h2+-) 23.�g6+ rJJh 8 24.t:iJxgS fxgS 25. l%xfS l%h7 (or 2 S ... l%g7 26.§'h6+ rJJ g 8 27.l%h2 l%h7 28.l%f8 + ! §'xf8 2 9.§'xh7#) 26.l%fxgS+- Psakhis - Sideif Sade, Moscow 1983. Black's maneuver: 1l ... t:iJfd7 12 .l%f3 i.f6, can be refuted by White with the help of the line: 13.eS ! heS (or 13 . . . dxeS 14. hh7+ ! c;t>xh7 lS.l%h3+ rJJ g 8 16. §'hS+-) 14.hh7+ rJJxh7 1S.l%h3+ rJJg 8 16.§'hS fS 17.t:iJxe6 §'xc4 18. t:iJgS+- S .Farago - Ngo, Budapest 2002. I n case o f 1l . . . l%e8, White can also start an immediate king­ side offensive - 12.g4 ! ? (he can also wait until Black plays the move t:iJb8-d7 and the following example illustrates that: 12 .b4 t:iJbd7 13.a3 .ib7 14.g4 ! t:iJf8 lS.gS t:iJ6d7, Ehlvest - Kekelidze, Ba­ tumi 2 0 0 2 and here the standard sacrifice: 16.t:iJdS ! exdS 17.cxdS §'d8 18.t:iJc6± would have led to an overwhelming advantage for White.) 12 . . . t:iJfd7 13.§'f3 .if8 14. §'h3 g6 lS.t:iJf3 t:iJcS 16 ..!b1 t:iJc6 297

Chapter 18 17.f5!t with the rather unpleas­ ant threat 18.liJg5 (The immedi­ ate move 17.liJg5, enables Black to fortify his kingside with: 17 .f6 18.liJf3 'lWg7;t; Flach - Rasch, Ger­ many 1996). . .

Following: 12 ... �d8 13.g5 liJe8, Lanzani - Mrdja, Milan 1996, in case of: 14.b4 i.b7 15.f5-+ White's attack would have been very pow­ erful too. 13 . .th1

Black's last move can be justi­ fied in case of 13.g5? ! , since Black can counter that with: 13 . . . ltJg4! 14.'lWxg4 ltJxd3 15.�c2 ltJb4 16. Ekc1 ltJd3f± Marjanovic - Rajko­ vic, Yugoslavia 1980. 13 . . ..ih7

12.g4!

The move g2-g4 is often even stronger when the d7-square is occupied by Black's other knight, since then the knight on f6 has no good square to retreat to. 12

••.

liJc5

The following game is a clas­ sic example of how to conduct White's offensive: 12 . . . g6 13.g5 liJe8 14.i.e2 i.d8 15.'lWe1 e5 16.ltJd5 �b7 17.fxe5 dxe5 18.ltJf3 'lWc6 19.'lWg3 �e6 2 0.liJd2 f5 21.gxf6 ltJdxf6 22 .c5 b5 23.a4 i.d7 24.�f5 i.c6 25.�xe5 �d7 26.axb5 axb5 27.�d1+- E.Geller - Panno, Lone Pine 1980 . Black has also tried i n prac­ tice: 12 ... ltJe8 13.'lWf3 i.b7 14.�h3 ltJc5 15.i.b1 g6 16.f5 exf5 17.gxf5 i.f6, Aewerdieck - Schroeter, Schleswig Holstein 1989 and here White's attack would have been quite dangerous after the line: 18.b4 liJd7 19.ttJd5-+. 298

In case of: 13 . . . ltJfd7 14.g5 �e8, Tamboura - Salem, Thessaloniki 1984, it is logical for White to play: 15.b4 ltJb7 16.'lWh5 liJfS 17.f5-+ and Black's knight on b7 is totally mis­ placed. 14.1«£3 g6

The combination: 14 . . . liJfxe4 15.he4 ltJxe4 16.ltJxe4 f5, is ob­ viously incorrect, in view of: 17. ltJxe6 fxe4 1S.ltJxc7 exf3 19.1tJxaS haS, Jassim - Wians, Sharjah 19S5, 20.�fd1+-. The move 14 . . . e5, enables White to increase his piece-pres­ ence in the centre with a decisive effect with the line: 15.ltJf5 exf4 16.i.xf4 �feS 17.b4 ltJe6 1S.ltJd5+­ Stypka - Grycel, Krynica 1995. After: 14 ... �fdS 15.g5 ltJeS, Stypka - Przewoznik, Gdynia 1982, it seems very strong for White to follow with: 16.b4 ltJd7 17.f5 ltJe5 18.'lWh3-+. White's c4pawn is untouchable - 1S . . . 'lWxc4, due to: 19.1tJd5 exd5 2 0 .�xc4 dxc4 2l.f6 gxf6 2 2 .liJf5 i.fS 23. hb6+-

4 . liJxd4 a6 S. id3 ljjf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 ie7 B. ljj c3 15.g5 ljj e 8 16.b4 tOd7 17. %ih3 %id8

18 .%ih6 tOg7, Lopez Rodrigu­ ez - S.Kovacevic, Mislata 1995 and here White could have continued with 19.t'5 ! -+ and Black would be faced with plenty of difficult prob­ lems to worry about. b2) 9

10

• • •

•••

c!Dbd7 1 0 .f4

ge8

Black prepares the retreat of his bishop to f8 and then he would be able to play b7-b6, without be­ ing afraid of the appearance of White's knight to c6. He can also cover the c6square with the move 1O ... IWc7, but then White's kingside of­ fensive becomes very dangerous - 1l.g4 ! (It is also good for White

to play: 1Uk1 ljj c5 12 .i.b1 b6 13. b4 ljj c d7 14.a3 ib7 15.%if3 gac8 16.IWh3t threatening 17.e5, Nu­ enchert - Wagner Michel, Straus­ berg 1971.) 1l . . . g6 (Black has no compensation for the piece af­ ter: 1l . . . e5 12.ljj f5 ljj c 5 13.g5 i.xf5 14.gxf6 hi6 15.exfS e4 16.ic2 hc3 17.bxc3 ljj d 7 18.id4+- Ria­ zuelo - Licayan, Paris 1993; in case of 1l . . . ljj c5, White should better retreat 12 .i.c2 - see 10 . . . tOc5, after 12 .g5? ! , a s i t was played in the game I .Nepomniachtchi - J.Geller, Cheboksary 2 006, Black could have continued with 12 ... ljj g 4! t) 12 .g5 ljj h5 (12 . . . ljj e 8 13.f5±) 13.ie2 ljj xf4 (After: 13 . . . ljj g 7 14.f5 id8 , the regrouping of White's heavy pieces along the h-file becomes decisive - 15.IWe1! ljj e 5 16.f6 ljj e S 17.%ih4 ljj xc4 18. gf3 ljj x e3 19.13h3+-) 14.l3xf4 e5 15.ljj d 5 %idS, Matulovic - Pikula, Arandjelovac 1997 and here White could have won spectacularly with: 16.l3xf7! ! exd4 (In case of: 16 . . . gxf7 17.ljj e 6 %ia5 18.id2 +­ Black's queen gets trapped; after: 16 . . . xf7 17.ljj e 6 ! ! xe6 lS.ljj c 7+ ! White is threatening to checkmate Black's king with the queen from the d5-square and Black's only defence: lS . . . O 19.IWd5+ g7 2 0 .ljj e 6+- still loses the queen for him.) 17.l3xe7 dxe3 lS.IWd4 l30 19.9xf7 xf7 (or 19 . . . IWxg5+ 2 0.h1 xf7 21.%ihS ! +-) 20.l3f1+ gS 2 1.%ixe3+ - . The inclusion o f the moves 1O . . . ljj c 5 1l.i.c2 , would not help 299

Chapter 18 Black that much. After: 11 .. .'�c7 (The move 11 ... hS only compro­ mises Black's king shelter: 12. h l lLlg4 13.iogl g6 14.h3 lLlh6 IS.fS g7 16.b4 lLld7 17.fxe6+- Schna­ bel - Boehme, Baunatal l999; the counter strike in the centre: 11 . . . eS 12.lLlfS .txfS 13.exfS exf4 (White's position withstands testing per­ fectly even after Black's other pos­ sibilities, for example: 13 .. :�b6 14.13bl %lIc6 IS.13cl± Comp "Deep Fritz" - Comp "Gandalf', 2001; as well as: 13 ... lLlcd7 14.b3 %liaS IS.%lId2 lLlg4 16.lLldS i.d8 17.13fdl �xd2 18.i.xd2± Comp "Junior" Comp "EXchess", Utrecht 1999.) 14.13xf4 13c8 IS.13d4 lLlcd7 16.ioe4 lLlxe4 17.lLlxe4 lLlf6 18.lLlc3 bS 19.cxbS axbS 20.lLlxbS dS, Torre - Ribli, Alicante (m/?) 1983, in case of 21.b4!±, Black's compen­ sation for the sacrificed pawn is insufficient.) and the situation re­ mains the same: 12 .g4 ! g6 (White has an overwhelming attack after the alternatives for Black too: 12 . . . b6 13.gS lLle8 14.%lIhS f6 1S.b4 lLlb7 16.eS fS 17.i.xfS g6 18.i.xg6 hxg6 19.'�xg6+ lLlg7 2 0.fS dxeS 21.fxe6 13xf1+ 22.13xfl+- Cassar - Tat­ low, corr. 1994; the counter strike in the centre - 12 ... eS would not help Black either due to: 13.lLlfS hfS 14.exfS exf4 IS.13xf4 h6 16.h4 13fe8 17.gS+- Schima - Schiller, COIT. 2003; it would not work for Black to opt for: 12 . . . dS 13.exdS exdS 14.gS lLlg4 IS.lLlxdS, because after the retreat of the queen: 15 . . . %lId8 16.i.c1 +- with the idea to 300

follow with 17.h3, Black loses a piece, while the move 17 . . . lLlxe3 loses immediately, because of: 16.hh7+ ! xh7 17.�hS+ g 8 18.lLlxc7 iog4 19:�h4+- Macieja - Gratka, Koszalin 1997.) 13.gS lLlhS 14.fS 13e8 15.b4 lLld7 (or 15 . . . eS, Brecka - Chekurov, Ostrava 1998, 16.lLldS �d8 17.f6 i.xf6 18.lLlf3+-) 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.lLlxe6 �xc4 18.iob3+-. After 10 ...g6, the fight might develop in the following fashion: 11. h l (The basic plus ofthe move g7-g6 is that it deprives White's knight of the fS-square and here after 11.g4? ! , it would be very strong for Black to play 11 . . . eS ! +±) 11 . . . 13e8 (The usefulness of White's prophylactic move with his king can be also seen in the variation: 11 ... eS I2.lLlde2 and he should not be afraid of the move of the black knight to the g4-square, while in case of: 12 . . . exf4 13.lLlxf4 lLleS 14.iod4;!; White preserves some edge.) 12.lLlf3 ! ? (White's knight is ready to support the e4-eS pawn­ advance from that square.) 12 . . . �c7 (12 . . . i.f8 13.eS lLlg4 14.iod4 fS IS.exf6 lLlgxf6 16.%lIc2 iog7 17.13ael lLlf8 18.cS dxcS 19.hcS b6, Isonzo - Mateo, Genova 2002, 2 0.i.gU) 13.%lIe2 (After the moves 13.�el b6, it would not work for White to play: 14.eS dxeS IS.fxeS lLlxeSoo 16.if4?, due to 16 . . . lLlxd3=F) 13 . . . b 6 14.eS ! ? lLlg4 ! ? (When White's queen is on e2, Black cannot play: 14 ... dxeS IS.fxeS lLlxeS?, due to 16.i.f4+-) IS.id4 (White

4 . tiJxd4 a6 5. �d3 ljjf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 �e7 8. ljj c3 should better keep his pawn on e5. Things are not so clear after: 15.exd6 hd6 16.�d4 �b7oo Tal) 15 . . . �b7 16J:1ae1 (or 16.ljj d 5? exd5 17.e6 i.f6-+) 16 .. J::1 ad8 17.�c2 (White has also tried in practice: 17.h3 ljj h 6 18.�e4 dxe5 19.fxe5 he4 2 0 .ljj xe4 ljj f5 2 1.�c3 ljj c500 Vilchez - Sunye Neto, Moron 1982.) 17. . . dxe5 18.fxe5 hf3 (In case of 18 . . . ljj c 5, it is very good for White to play 19.b4 !± recom­ mended by M .Ta!. He has a clear advantage thanks to his extra space after: 18 . . . �c5 19.hc5 bxc5 2 0.�e4;!;) 19.9xf3! (Black's knight is repelled away from White's e5pawn and the semi-open g-file might be rather useful for White in the subsequent fight. It is weaker for him to continue with: 19J::1xf3 �c5! 2 0.hc5 bxc500 M .Tal) 19 . . . ljjh 6 2 0.l3da - and White's e5pawn guarantees his advantage, Tal - Sunye Neto, Wijk aan Zee 1982.

Black inflicted the counter strike - 16 . . . e5 ! ?oo in the game Velas­ quez Ojeda - Defize, La Valetta 1980). 12 . . . ljj h5 13.'11;¥f3 in view of 13 . . . e5 !?oo. The move ll.ti'f3 implies that White plans to organize active ac­ tions on the kingside. Still, he can also try another plan, in which the target of his attack might be his opponent's queenside. See a typical example: ll.'it>h1 �f8 12.a3 g6 13.b4 �g7 14.l3c1 Wic7 (or 14 . . . e5 15.ljj d e2 ljj g4 16.�g1 exf4 17.ljj xf4;!;) 15.ljjb3 b6 16.Wie2 (It is also possible for White to play 16.a4, it is eveident that he was worried, because of 16 . . . a5, but in that case after the recommenda­ tion of GM Cebalo: 17.bxa5 bxa5 18.ljjb5 ti'b8 19.c5 dxc5 2 0 .ljj x c5t White would have maintained his initiative.) 16 . . . �b7 17.�d2 ! (That is a key-move for the plan with a4a5, since the bishop protects the b4-pawn in numerous lines and it prevents Black's counterplay.) 17 ... l3ac8 18.a4 ti'b8 19.a5 bxa5 2 0 .ljjxa5 �a8, Huebner - Sunye Neto, Wijk aan Zee 198 2 and here according to Cebalo, White would have maintained the edge after the move - 21.ljj a 4;!;. 1l . . �f8 .

1l.ti'f3

In this position, it is slightly premature for White to play: 11.g4 g6 12.g5 (After: 12.ljjb 3 b6 13.g5 ljjh5 14.�e2 ljj g7 15.h4 �b7 16.h5,

It is weaker for Black to play 11. . .ljj c5? ! 12 .�c2, since he has no more control over the e5-square anymore, while the counter strike: 12 . . . e5 13.fxe5 dxe5 14.ljj f5 hf5 15.ti'xf5 ti'c8, Comp "Fritz" - Comp "Nimzo", Stoby 1999, af301

Chapter 18 ter 16.lLldS± leaves White with an overwhelming advantage. The fS-square is still not pro­ tected and therefore it is prema­ ture for Black to play 1l . . . eS? ! in view of 12.lLlfS (The other retreats of the knight are obviously weaker: 12.lLlde2 exf4 13.lLlxf4 lLleS 14.'lUe2 lLlfg400 Hamarat - Grzeskowiak, corr. 1984.) 12 ... exf4 13.'lUxf4 lLleS 14.ie2± (An.Kharitonov). After: 1l ... lLlf8 12 .eS lLl6d7 13. exd6 hd6 14.lLle4 ie7 1S.gad1 lLlf6, Deforel - Mujica, corr. 1999, White could have continued the development of his initiative with the move - 16.fSt. He preserves the initiative too after: 1l . . . 'lUc7 12 .'lUh3 (In case of 12 .g4, it becomes possible for Black to play: 12 . . . eS ! ? 13.gS exd4 14.,bd4 'lUc6 1S.b4 b6 16.gf i.xf6oo Epinoux - Le Duigou, COIT. 2000) 12 . . . g6 13.lLlf3 eS 14.fS lLlc5 15. ic2t Loef - Ekmark, corr. 1985. 12.gadl 'lUc7 13.'lUb3 b6

It is too risky for Black to opt for 13 . . . eS? ! , because of: 14.lLlfS exf4 1S.gxf4 lLleS 16.id4 @h8 17.gh4 h6 18.gf1-+ Bertorello Wang, corr. 2000. In case of 13 . . .g6, White can follow with 14.fS ! ? (After: 14.lLlf3 b6 1S.'lUh4 ib7 16.lLlgS, it is nec­ essary for Black to defend with 16 ... ig7oo, since after the care­ less move 16 . . . h6?, White had the possibility to continue with a beautiful and spectacular attack: 17.lLlxf7! @xfl 18.eS dxeS 19.fxeS 'lUxeS 2 0 .ie4 ! @g8 21.id4 ic5 302

2 2 .ixb7± Ljubojevic - Bellon Lopez, Linares 1981.) 14 ... exfS 1S.exfS iJ.g7 16.fxg6 hxg6 17.hg6 fxg6 18.lLle6 lLleS 19.1Llxc7 ixh3 2 0 .gxh3 lLlxc4 2 1.iJ.cl± and Black loses material, Korosec - Silva Filho, COIT. 2 0 0 2 . 14.gcl! ?

This is a useful move. It would be desirable for White to deprive Black's knight of the cS-square in the future with the move b2-b4 and that is why - the knight on c3 needs a reliable support. White has not tested in practice yet the line: 14.lLlf3 ib7oo. It is prema­ ture for him to play 14.fS, because of: 14 . . . lLleS 1S.fxe6, Barnsley - Taboada, corr. 1997 and after 1S . . . fxe6oo the e6-square would be reliably protected. 14

ib7

•••

After 14 . . . lLl c5 15.ib1, White plans to repel his opponent's knight with the move b2-b4. Black fails to create threats against White's e4-pawn with the help of the move 1S . . . ib7?, because of the line: 16.eS dxeS 17.fxe5 'lUxeS 18.gxf6+-.

15.b4;!;

-

and Black has no

4 . tiJxd4 a6 5. i.d3 0,f6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 i.e7 8. 0, c3 real counterplay in sight. After lS . . . g6, White follows with 16.fSt, making use of the circumstance

that Black's light-squared bishop is incapable of protecting the e6square.

Conclusion The positions of the "hedgehog " type, with a bishop on the e7square, in which Black develops, or he plans to develop his knight on b8 to d7 are just thematic. This chapter deals exactly with them. The order of moves in the process of mobilization of Black's forces is very important here. In variation a, it becomes clear that the line with 7. . . j.e7 and 8 ... 0,bd7 impedes for Black the completion of the develop­ ment of his queenside. He cannot play b7-b6 immediately either, be­ cause of the possible move ttJ c6. If he protects the c6-square with his queen with 9 ... Vifc7, then that enables White to develop his initiative by combining the pawn-breakf4-fS with the threat of the appearance of the knight on the d5-outpost. The placement of Black's queen on c7 makes that idea even more effective for White. In variation blb you can see a similar situation, since there Black includes in that scheme the move 0 - 0 . If after the completion of the development of his king­ side (7... j.e7, 8 ... 0 - 0) Black develops his bishop on the long diagonal (9 ... b6, 1O . . . j.b7), leaving his knighton b8 to take care of the protec­ tion of the c6-square (variation bla), then White has the possibility to prepare the pawn-break e4-e5! Variation b2 is more acceptable for Black. In it, after 7. . . j.e7, 8 . . . 0 - 0 , 9 . . . 0,bd7, he regroups his forces on the kingside with 1 O . . 'Be8, 1l . . . i.j8, so that after b7-b6 he should not be afraid of the appearance of his opponent's knight on the c6square. That plan might be reliable for Black, but it is too slow. Still, it is worth mentioning that the game remains quite complex in the majority of the variations. .

303

Chapter 19

1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 e6 3 . d4 cxd4 4 . �xd4 a6 5 . .td3 �f6 6 . 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 b6

Black wishes to develop at first his queenside. 8.�c3

After the deployment of Black's bishop to b7, White's e4-pawn will come under attack, so it is useful for him to protect it in advance. 8

• • •

.ib7

The other moves for Black lead to transpositions: About 8 . . .Y!Yc7 9.Y!Ye2 - see Chapter 16; About 8 ... ie7 9.\We2 ib7 10.b3 - see variation c; About 8 . . . g6 9.Y!Ye2 .ib7 .ig7 (or 9 . . .!b7 1O.gd1 - see variation a) 10.gd1 ib7 11.tDf3 - see varia­ tion a; 8 ...id7 9.\We2 tDc6 10.tDxc6 ixc6 1l.b3 (After: 1l.f4 .ie7 12.eS dxeS 13.fxeS, Anand - Kotro304

nias, Moscow 1987, it is possible for Black to play 13 . . . tDg4 ! oo and White's eS-pawn is in a serious trouble . . . ) 1l . . . .ie7 (or 1l . . . g6? ! 12 . .ia3t) 12 . .ib2 0-0 13J�ad1 - see variation c; 8 ... tDbd7 9.f4 .ib7 (About 9 . . . Y!Yc7 1O.Y!Ye2 - see Chapter 16, variation c; in case of: 9 ... g6 1O.eS! dxe5 1l.tDc6 Y!Yc7, Westerinen Hulak, Haifa 1989, after: 12 .fxeS ! ? Y!Yxc6 13.exf6 .ib7 14.Y!Ye2 0-0-0 1S ..ie4 Y!Yc5+ 16.@hl;!; White's king is safer than its counterpart.) 1O.Y!Ye2 - see variation b. 9.Y!Ye2

Black's move order is very tricky. If he develops his bishop to g7, then White deploys his forces according to the scheme Y!Ye2, gd1 etc., while with a bishop on e7 - .ie3, f4 etc. In this case he will have to clarify his intentions first. White cannot break Black's defence by attacking directly on the queenside: 9.a4 .ie7 10.aS bxaS 1l.\Wa4+ tDfd7 12 . .ie3 0-0=. After 9.f4, White must consid­ er the possibility: 9 . . . g6 1O.Y!Ye2

4 . liJxd4 a6 S. i.d3 0,f6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 b6 B. 0,c3 (In case of: 1O.g4 i.g7 11.g5 0,fd7 12.0,f3, Shirov - Paunovic, Be­ nidorm 2 0 0 2 , 12 ... 0,c5�, Black manages to organize some counterplay against White's e4pawn; after: 1O.f5 gxf5 11.exf5 l3g8 ! ? 12 .0,f3, Magem Badals - Co.Ionescu, Manresa 1996, by continuing 12 ... 0,bd7oo Black could have obtained an accept­ able position, since opening of the g-file is not harmless forWhite at al1.) 10 . . . .ig7 11.f5 'ifie7 12.i.g5 (In case of: 12 .fxe6 fxe6 13.e5 dxe5 14.0,b3 0,bd7 15.i.g5 0-0 16.ie4 he4 17.0,xe4 h6 18.0,xf6+ 0,xf6 19 . .ixf6 l3xf6 2 0.l3xf6 'ifixf6+ Short - Co.Ionescu, Dubai 1986, Black's position is even more pleasant, because White's knight is too far away from e4.) 12 ... 0,bd7 13.0,f3 0-0 14.'ifid2 0,c5 15.ic2 'ific7oo with mutual chances, Rublevsky - Paunovic, Budva 2002.

Now, we will analyze in de­ tails the moves: a) 9 g6, b) 9 0,bd7 and c ) 9 ie7. About 9 . . . 'ific7 1O.f4 - see Chapter 16; as for 9 ... 0,c6 1O.0,xc6 hc6 1l.b3 i.e7 12 .ib2 0-0 13. l3adl - see variation c. • • •

• • •

•••

a) 9

•••

g6 1 0 .l3dl

White's urgent task is to cre­ ate pressure against Black's d6pawn. 10

• • •

tLlbd7

The move 10 . . .ig7 only weak­ ens the defence of the d6-pawn. After 1l.0,f3 (threatening 12 .e5) 1l . . . 0,g4 12.i.f4 0,c6 13.ic2 0,ge5 14.0,xe5 0,xe5 15.ia4+ �e7 16.i.g5 f6 17.ie3± Black lost his castling rights in the game Lopez Garcia - Paunovic, Zaragoza 2 0 04. 1l.tLlf3 !

That move frees the d-file and it prepares the development of the bishop to the f4-square. 1l

• • •

'ific7

It is not any better for Black to try: 1l . . . 0,g4 12 .ic2 'ific7 13.h4 l3d8 14.if4 0,ge5 15.l3acl f6 16. 0, d4 @f7 17.b4 ie7, Cabrilo Co.Ionescu, Yugoslavia 2 0 0 2 . Here, White can organize a n at­ tack against his opponent's king, stranded in the centre, with the help of the line: 18.he5 ! fxe5 (or 18 . . . dxe5 19.0,xe6 ! �xe6 2 0.0,d5 'ific8 2 1.c5 hd5 2 2 .exd5+ @f7 23. d6+-; 18 . . . 0,xe5 19.f4 0,c6 20. hc6 hc6 2 1.f5+-) 19.0,xe6 ! @xe6 2 0 .0, d5 'ific8 2 1.ib3 (threat­ ening 2 2 .c5) 21...0,c5 2 2 .bxc5 'ifixc5 2 3.l3c3-+. 12.if4 0,g4

Black can try to evacuate his king with: 12 . . . 0,h5 13.ie3 i.g7 14.'ifid2 0-0 15.ic2t, but that would not solve his problems, connected with the protection of the d6-pawn. 305

Chapter 19 b) 9

13.'!c2 !

White's bishop is headed for the a4-square. After the more inert line: 13.gac1 lDgeS 14.b3 .!g7 1S.i.b1 lDxf3+ (In case of: 1S . . . 0-0? 16.Wld2 ! lDxf3+ 17.gxf3 .!eS 18.�6± the threat 19.f4 forces Black to part with his d6pawn.) 16.%lixf3 lDeS 17.%lie2 0-0 18.Wld2 gfd800 and Black has nothing to complain about, Ar­ mas - Co.!onescu, Predeal 1988. 13

.Ae7

•••

Losing the castling rights for Black after: 13 ... gc8 14 . .!a4 Wlxc4 1S.hd7+ �xd7 16.%lid2-+ spells even greater danger for him . . . 14 .Aa4 l3dS •

Black has no time for 14 . . . 0-0, due to: 1S.hd7 Wlxd7 16.eS+-.

••.

�bd7

1 0 .f4!?

In case of 1O.b3, White must consider the possibility 10 . . . g6. There might follow: 11 ..!a3 i.e7 12 .gad1 (After: 12.f4 0-0 13 ..Ab2 lDhS 14.gad1 .!f6 1S.i.b1 i.g7oo Black manages to regroup his forces successfully by bringing his bishop to the a1-h8 diagonal, Zolnierowicz - Sznapik, Poznan 1984.) 12 . . . 0-0 13 . .Ab1 %lic7 14. gd3 gad8 1S.ge1 %lib8 16.gh3 gfe8 17.lDf3 M8 18 . .Ab2 i.g7oo and Black has a good position, Prie - Hulak, Marseille 1990 . 10

•••

g6

About 1O . . . %lic7 11.�h1 - see variation c from Chapter 16. In case of 1O ... .!e7, White can 15.e5 ! - Now, the devel­ follow with 11.f5 ! ? , forcing his opments are forced. 15 ht'3 opponent to weaken his posi­ 16.Wlxf3 �gxe5 17 .be5 dxe5 tion in the centre (It is interest­ lS.l3xd7 gxd7 19.%liaS + .AdS ing for White to try: 11.j,d2 0-0 2 0 .bd7+ %lixd7 21.l3dl %lic7 12 .b4 gc8 13.a3 %lic7 14J!ac1 gfe8 22.Wlxa6± and the arising po­ 1S.lDb3 Wlb8 16.a4 %lia8 17.aS;!; sition is definitely in favour of and he succeeded in obtaining White. He has the only open d-file an edge by playing on the queen­ under control and his queenside side in the game Suess - Zwahr, pawns might become quite dan­ Internet 2 0 04.) 11 . . . eS (After: 11 . . . lOeS 12 .fxe6 fxe6 13.'!c2± Black gerous. •••

•

•

-

306

4. f1Jxd4 a6 5. �d3 f1Jf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 b6 B. f1J c3 has problems with the protec­ tion of his e6-pawn.) 12.f1Jf3 ! h6 13.�d2 Wb8 14.b4 Wa7 1S.'it>h1 E:c8 16.E:fc1 Was 17.f1JdSt - and White seizes the initiative thanks to the vulnerability of the dS-outpost, Heynes - L.Hansen, Groningen 1985. 14.ttJxe6! This piece-sac­ rifice is the essence of White's idea. 14 . . . fxe6 (In case of: 14 . . . he3+ 1S.Wxe3 fxe6 16.WxeS 0 - 0 17.�e4 ! ?± Black will soon lose his e6-pawn.) 15.hc5 ltJfg4 (Black has so many weaknesses that his defence is hightly prob­ lematic after 15 ...bxc5 16.Wxe5±) 11.eS!

That is a new move in that quite popular position. White achieves nothing much with: ll.fS? ! Vf1e7 12.fxe6 fxe6 13. �gS �g7+ Smirin - Hellsten, Tu­ rin 2006. Black's position is quite ac­ ceptable too after: 1l.f1Jf3 �g7 12. �d2 (White has no advantage af­ ter: 12.fS 0-0 13.�gS Wc7 14.E:adl E:ae8°o Apel - Kacheishvili, Mlada Boleslav 1994.) 12 . . . 0-0 13.E:ae1 Wc7 14. 'it>h1 E:ad8oo Ig.Schneider - Serper, San Diego 2006.

16 . .te4 he4 17.ltJxe4 bxc5 1S.gad1 Vf1c7 (Black will have

to give back his extra piece after 18 ... Vf1h4 19.h3+-) 19. 1tJd6+ 'it>e7 2 0 .h3-+ White regains his piece and his attack against Black's king, stranded in the centre, is overwhelming. -

c) 9 . . . .te7

11 . . . dxeS 12.fxe5 �c5

Black loses outright after: 12 . . . f1JcS 13.f1Jxe6 f1Jxe6 14.exf6+-, as well as following: 12 ... f1JhS 13.�e4 he4 14.f1Jxe4 f1JxeS 1S.E:d1 f1Jd7 16.�gS Wc7 17.f1Jxe6 fxe6 18.f1Jd6+-. 13.�e3 ttJxeS

1 0 .b3

White wishes to complete calmly the development of his 307

Chapter 19 queenside. If he tries by all means to advance e4-eS, then see what might happen: 1O.f4 0-0 11.'it>h1 l"&e8 ! ? 12,lDf3 lt.lc6 13.eS, Kengis Nevednichy, Moscow 1983, 13 . . . dxeS 14.fxeS It.ld7 1S.'We4 It.lf8oo and Black manages to fortify his kingside, while White's queen­ side is not completely mobilized yet. 1 0 ... 0 - 0

About 1 O. . .lt.lc6 1l.lt.lxc6 hc6 12 .ib2 0-0 13.l"&ad1 and 10 . . . It.lbd7 1l.ib2 0-0 12.l"&ad1 - see 10 . . . 0-0. 1l.�b2

Black is faced with a choice about where to develop his queen's knight - cl) 1l . . . lt.lbd7 or c2) 1l . . . c!lJc6. About 1l ... l"&e8 12.l"&ad1 'Wc7 (or 12 ... lt.lbd7 13.f4 - see 1l . . . tLlbd7) 13.ib1 tLlbd7 14.f4 - see 1l . . . tLlbd7; 1l . . . 'Wc7 12.l"&ad1 tLlc6 13.tLlxc6 hc6 14.'it>h1 - see 1l . . . c!lJc6. In case of 1l ... tLlfd7, White should continue with the stan­ dard plan for his kingside offen­ sive: 12.l"&ad1 g6 (After: 12 . . . if6 13.ib1 l"&e8 14.f4 g6 1S.tLlf3 'We7, Lorenzini - Filgueira, Argentina 1998, White can play the move 16.'Wd2± emphasizing the fact that Black's d6-pawn is not reliably protected.) 13.ib1 l"&e8, Fedorow­ icz - Gheorghiu, Reykjavik 1986 and here it deserved attention for White to continue with: 14.'it>h1! ? tLlc6 1S.tLlxc6 hc6 16.f4t, fol­ lowed by l"&f3-h3. 308

cl) 1l .. . c!lJbd7 12.l"&adl

Both White's bishops are aimed at the kingside; therefore his queen's rook should be placed on the semi-open file. His rook on f1 will be busy on the kingside. 12 . . . Y«c7

Black's queen runs away from the juxtaposition with his oppo­ nent's rook in advance. It looks like Black will have to play that move sooner or later. For exam­ ple after: 12 . . . l"&e8 13.f4 'Wc7 (It is worse for Black to play 13 . . . eS? ! , because of: 14.tLlfS if8 1S.ib1 exf4 16.tLlxd6 hd6 17.l"&xd6 'Wc7 18.Y«d2± Pilaj - Aschenbrenner, Austria 2002.) 14.ib1 and there arises the same position as after 12 ... 'Wc7. In case of: 12 . . . l"&c8 13.ib1 'Wc7 (After: 13 ... l"&c7 14.f4t White has created the unpleasant threat e4-eS, and the remedy - 14 . . . eS? ! proved to be a disaster: 1S.tLlfS tLle8 16.tLldS hdS 17.exdS if6 18.tLlh6+ 'it>h8 19.tLlg4 exf4 2 0.'We4 g6 21.tLlxf6 tLlexf6 22 .'Wxf4+­ Co.lonescu - Murariu, Bucharest 2000.) 14.f4 l"&fe8 and White can again transpose to the main line

4. /1:)xd4 a6 5. id3 /1:)f6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 b6 8. /1:) c3 with the move IS.@hl if he so wishes. Black has also tried 12 ... g6, Gorbatow - Arsovic, Paks 1997. Now, White's most principled line seems to be: 13.f4 ! ? e5 14./1:)c2 (Here, contrary to the previous examples, the fS-square is unac­ cessible to White's knight thanks to Black's move g7-g6.) 14 .. exf4 1SJ3xf4 /1:)eS (White maintains the initiative after: 1S .. :rgc7 16J'Mf1 /1:)hS 17J�4f2 /1:)eS 18./1:)dS ixdS 19.cxdS bS 2 0 ./1:)d4t) 16./1:)e3 ge8 17.ib1 (The immediate move - 17.gdfl, allows Black to enter tactical complications with: 17 ... /1:)hS ! ? 18.g4f2 ih4 19.93 ixg3 2 0.hxg3 /1:)xg3oo) 17. . .if8 18.gdf1 /1:)hS 19JHf2 J.h6 2 0./1:)cdSt. 13.ibl

In this case it is not so impor­ tant with which move White will start his kingside offensive, he can try even: 13.f4 gfe8 14.@hl (But not: 14.fS ? ! if8 1S.fxe6 fxe6 16./1:)f3 /1:)eS 17.ib1 ie7 18.@h1 :1!f8oo Dutreeuw - Granda Zuniga, Manila 1992 , because that enables Black to occupy the eS-square with his knight.) 14 . . .if8 IS.ib1 - see 13.ib1. 13

•••

gfe8

After: 13 . . . gfd8 14.f4 g6 IS.fS eS 16.fxg6 hxg6 17./1:)c2 bS 18./1:)e3 bxc4 19./1:)xc4 /1:)cS 2 0./1:)dS ixdS 21.exdS± Black had great prob­ lems in the game Osterman - Ca­ brilo, Yugoslavia 1976. About 13 ... gad8 14.f4 gfe8 1S.@hl - see 13 . . . gfe8.

14.f4

In that position Black has tried in practice most often the lines: eta) 14 J:�ac8 and etb) ..

14 . . .ifS.

If 14 . . . gad8, then after IS.@hl! (It is weaker for White to play IS./1:)f3, because of: IS . . :rgcS + ! ? 16.@hl 'lWhS 17.'lWel bStt Baumeg­ ger - Lendwai, Mureck 2001.) it is too risky for Black to continue with IS . . . g6? ! (Instead, it is better for him to defend with: IS . . . if8 16./1:)f3 and that transposes to variation clb) because of: 16.fS ! ? ExfS, Sulskis - Marzolo, Warsaw 200S, 17.exfS ! t and the pawn­ break - 17. . . dS? can be refuted by White with the piece-sacrifice: 18./1:)e6 ! fxe6 19.'lWxe6+ @g7 2 0 . fxg6 hxg 6 21./1:)xdS ixdS 22.l3xdS+If 14 . . . g6, Yildiz - Ciuksyte, Chisinau 2 00S, then it is possible for White to follow with: IS.fS ! ? if8 (After: I S . . . exfS 16.exfS d S 17. /1:)xdS ixdS 18.cxdS id6 19.'lWf3 ixh2+ 2 0 . @hlt, White's pieces are much more active.) 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.b4 gac8 (Now, Black has problems to place his knight on the eS-square, because the move 309

Chapter 19 17 ... ig7 is refuted by: lS.lDdbS! axbS 19.lDxbS �bS 20.lDxd6�) lS. a3t (with the idea 19.ia2) and here the move lS ... ig7? ! does not work again, because of: 19.1DdbS ! axbS 2 0 .lDxbS �xc4 2 l.i.d3 �b3 2 2 .lDxd6±. eta) 14

gac8 15. Whl

•••

It is not precise for White to opt for lS.lDf3, in view of: lS . . . �cS+ 16.Wh1 �hSf!.

15

J.f8

•••

Black should better fortify his kingside immediately. After: lS . . .�bS 16.lDf3 g6 (about 16 . . .ifS 17.gde1 - see lS . . . ifS) the move 17.lDgS ! ? would be very unpleasant for him. Here, the move 17 . . . h6, enables White to finish the game off with a spectacular at­ tack: lS.lDxt7! Wxt7 19. eS! lDh7 2 0 .f5 ! gxf5 2 1.i.xfS Wg7 2 2 .J.xh7 Wxh7 23.�d3+ Wg7 24.gt7+ Wxt7 2S.�h7+ WfS 26.gf1+ lDf6 27.exf6 hg2 + 2 S.Wg1+- Cigan - Vombek, Austria 1995. After lS ... gcdS, Salaba - Ken­ gis, Vienna 1991, White should again prepare the pawn-advance e4-eS with the move 16.lDf3t. 310

16.tOf3

Now, Black must worry about the pawn-break e4-eS. After that White's bishops, aimed at the shelter of the Black's king, would become tremendously powerful. 16 :�b8 ••

If 16 . . . gedS, McGeary - Roper, Seattle 19S5, then it is possible for White to play 17.gde1t, preparing e4-eS. In case of 16 ... i.c6, it becomes possible for White to follow with 17.eS ! and Black's defence is quite problematic: 17. . . i.xf3 (or 17 . . . dxeS lS.fxeS tOg4 19.J.xh7+-) lS. E1xf3 dxeS 19.fxeS tOg4 ! ? (or 19 . . . �xeS 2 0.lDe4 �aS 2 l.tOxf6+ tOxf6 2 2 .E1xf6 ! gxf6 23.i.xf6+- Plachet­ ka; 19 . . . tOxe5 20.lDbS! axbS 2l. heS �e7 22.gxf6 gxf6 23.�d3 ig7 24.�xh7+ WfS 2 S.i.d6+-) 2 0 .E1xi7!? (It is also possible for White to be content with only ma­ terial gains: 2 0.�d3 fS 2 l.�xd7 �xeS 2 2 .g3 E1cdS 23.�xdS gxdS 24.E1xdS �e1+ 2S.Wg2 Wt7 26. J.xf5 exfS 27.gxfS+ tOf6 2 8 . E1fl±; or 2 0.E1xd7 �xd7 21.E1d3 �c7 2 2.�xg4 �xeS 23.�h4±) 2 0 . . . Wxt7 (or 2 0 . . . tOgxeS 2l.E1dxd7 lDxd7 2 2 .�hS ! h6 23.�g6 lDeS 24.E1xc7 lDxg6 2S.hg6 E1xc7 26. heS+-) 21.�xg4 g6 (or 2 1 ... lDxeS? 2 2 .�hS+-) 2 2 .lDe4� - and White's attack is overwhelming, Plachetka - Ravikumar, Koben­ havn 19S0 . Black's position is extremely suspicious after: 16 . . . g6 17.eS dxeS lS.fxeS lDhS, Peptan - Khurtsidze,

4. 0.xd4 a6 5. �d3 0.f6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 b6 8. 0. c3 Halle 1995 (If 18 . . . 0.g4, then 19. �e4±) and here White could have continued with 19.�e4 ! ?± and Black would have great problems to defend successfully his king­ side. 17.gdel

The immediate move 17.e5? ! would not work in view of: 17 . . . dxe5 18.fxe5 ixf3oo. 17

•••

g6

Black loses material after: 17 ... h6 18.e5 dxe5 19.fxe5 hf3 20.E:xf3 0.g4, due to 21.%Vd3 ! (That is a double attack against d7 and h7.) 21.. .f5 2 2 .Y;Vxd7 0.xe5 23.Y;Vd2 E:cd8 24.Y;Ve2 0.xf3 25.gxf3 Y;Vf4 26.�c1 �d4 27.0.a4± Hermans­ son - Olsen, Copenhagen 2 0 04. 18.e5 !

The move 18.0.g5 is not so effective, because of: 18 . . . .ih6 ! ? 19.�f2 �g7 2 0.E:dl h600 Kolbus - Bokros, Budapest 1998. 18

�h5 19.�g5 �g7

•••

Black loses after 19 . . .h6, due to: 20.0.xt7 'it>xt7 2 1 .Y;Vg4+-. In case of 19 . . ..ih6 2 0 .Y;Vd2 , Black loses his d6-pawn. After: 19 . . . d5 2 0.cxd5 exd5 2 1.%Vg4 0.c5, Dovdon - Kouwen­ hoven, Szeged 1994, White could have won very quickly with the line: 2 2 .0.xh7 cj;lxh7 23.Y;Vxh5+-. (diagram) 2 0 .gdl ! Now, it is essential that Black's knight on d7 is not reliably protected. (It is weaker for White to play 2 0 .0.xh7, be­ cause of 20 . . . dxe5oo) 2 0 �kd8, Koglin - Wege, Germany 1995 .••

(In case of: 20 ... �f8 21.0.ge4 E:c6, White wins with: 22.lDxd6 hd6 23.0.e4 ! +-) and continu­ ing 21.�ce4 ! (If 21.0.xh7? ! , then 21 . . . dxe5+; it would not work for White to try 2 1.E:xd6 ? ! , because of: 21.. .0.xf4 ! 2 2 .E:xf4 he5 23.E:xt7 Y;Vxd6 24.E:xh7 0.f8 ! 25.E:xb7 hc3 26.hc3 Y;Vdl+ 27.Y;Vel Y;Vxel+ 2 8 . hel E:d1+) 21 dxe5 22.�d6 ge7 23.fxe5± and White obtains a great advantage. Black would hardly manage to protect his fl­ pawn. •••

c1b) 14

•••

�f8

15.cj;lhl

After 15.0.f3, D.Paulsen - Pod­ zielny, Germany 1982, White must consider the transfer of Black's queen to the kingside: 15 . . . Y;Vc5 + ! ? 16.cj;lhl Y;Vh5�. 311

Chapter 19 15 .. J�ad8

We have already seen in varia­ tion c1a that after the pawn-ad­ vance e4-e5, Black's knight on d7 becomes vulnerable. Now, it has a defender in advance. About 15 .. J!acS 16.lLlf3 - see variation c1a. The move 15 ... g6, enables White to push 16.e5! without any preparation at all. After: 16 . . . dxe5 17.fxe5 lLlh5 IS.lLlf3 ! ? (It is weaker for White to play: IS.�e4 he4 19.1Llxe4 lLlxe5 2 0.g4, because of: 2 0 . . . lLlxg4! 2 1.�xg4 f5 2 2.lLlxf5 exf5 23.l"!xf5 '{gc6 24.l"!fd5 �e6 25. l"!xh5 '{gxe4+ 26.'{gxe4 l"!xe4 27.l"!e5 l"!eS= Volkmann - Rotstein, Aus­ tria 2002.) IS . . . hf3 (or IS . . . lLlf4? 19.�d2 +-; after: IS . . . i.g7 19 . .te4 he4 2 0 .lLlxe4± it does not work for Black to try the line: 20 . . . lLlxe5? 21.lLlxe5 he5 2 2 . .ixe5 �xe5 23.lLlf6+ '{gxf6 24.l"!xf6 lLlxf6 25.�f3 l"!adS 26.l"!fl+-, since he loses his key f7-pawn.) 19.1"!xf3 lLlxe5 2 0.lLlb5 axb5 21.he5 �c5 2 2 .l"!d7 (22.cxb5 l"!adS 23.l"!dfU) 2 2 . . .f5 (In case of: 2 2 . . . l"!e7 23.�d6 l"!xd7 24.hc5 hc5 25.g4 lLlg7 26. cxb5± Black's compensation for the queen is evidently insuffi­ cient.) 23.l"!c7 '{gb4 24.cxb5;!; and White maintains the edge thanks to his couple of powerful bishops. 16.tLlf3

White is planning - e4-e5. The other possibility for him to push - 16.g4, does not seem to be so convincing in view of: 16 . . . g6 17.g5 lLlh5 IS.f5 lLlg7 19.fxe6 fxe6 312

2 0 .�g2 lLle5 2 1.�h3 '{ge7oo Soltau - S.Stolyar, corr. 1995. 16 . . . g6

The counter strike 16 ... e5 would not solve Black's defensive problems on the kingside: 17.f5 g6 IS.lLlg5 .tg7 19.fxg6 fxg6 2 0.lLld5 '{gc5 21.i.c1 h6 2 2 .lLlf3 b5 23.i.e3 '{gcS 24.lLlh4± Roggon - Till, corr. 19S9. After the inclusion of the moves: 16 . . . �bS 17.l"!del and 17 . . . e5 (In case of 17 . . . g6, Kanbe­ gawa - Matthews, Dubai 19S6, White could have continued with: IS.e5 ! ? lLlh5 19.lLlg5t and he would have preserved excellent attack­ ing chances, since Black could not play: 19 . . .h6?, because of: 2 0 . lLlxf7 � xf7 21.�g4+-) Black's de­ fence is quite dubious too. White follows with: IS.lLld5 ! lLlxd5 19. exd5 exf4 2 0.�d3 g6 2 1.�d4 f7 2 2 .�xf4± and he obtains an over­ whelming advantage.

17.lLlg5 ! ?

White does not achieve much with: 17.e5 dxe5 IS.fxe5 lLlg4 19. lLle4 he4 2 0.�xe4, because of: 20 ... f5 ! 21.exf6 lLldxf6 22 .'{ge2 (In case of: 2 2 .l"!xdS lLlxe4 23.l"!xeS,

4 . tiJxd4 a6 5. �d3 t?Jf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 b6 B. t?J c3 Black can make a draw with a beautiful "drawing mechanism" : 23 . . .'�xh2 + ! 24.t?Jxh2 t?Jg3 + 25. �g1 t?Je2 =) 2 2 . . J!xd1 23J�xd1 .ic5 24J"!f1 e5f±. 17

• • •

.1g7

Black is now forced to put up with his opponent's knight at his own territory. After 17 ... h6, White has the resource: 18.e5 ! hxg5 (or 18 . . . dxe5 19.t?Jxf7! �xf7 2 0.fxe5 t?Jxe5 21.t?Jb5 .1f3 2 2 . hg6+ �xg6 23.%!fc2+ .ie4 24. �xf6+ �xf6 25.�f1 + �g7 26. %!fxe4 '\1;l[d7 2 7.'\1;l[xe5+ �h7 2 8.t?Jd6+-) 19.exf6 gxf4 20.�xf4 .th6 21..ixg6 ! .txf4 2 2 ..txf7 + �f8 23 . .ixe8-+ and Black's king shelter gets totally destroyed. After: 17 . . . .1h6 18.%!fd2 ! (The standard combination does not work for White here: 18.e5 dxe5 19.t?Jxf7 �xf7 2 0.fxe5 t?Jxe5 21. t?Jb5 axb5 22 .he5, because of: 2 2 . . . �xd1! 23.hc7 �d2 !+) 18 . . . .1f8 19.fS h6 20.t?Jxf7! �xf7 21.fxe6+ �xe6 (21.. . �xe6 22.t?Jd5+-) 2 2 . t?JdS hdS 23.exd5 �eS 24.%!fd3 and Black would hardly survive against the pressure of White's queen and two bishops. 18 .1a3 ! •

Black's bishop is now protect­ ing his kingside and the d6-pawn is vulnerable. White attacks that key-point of Black's defence and he thus disruptes his strategy. The move 18.�d2 can be played with the same idea, but it is more tentative and as a result of: 18 . . . h6 19.t?Jh3 t?Jc5 2 0 .t?Jf2 t?JhS 2 1.'\1;l[e3,

Black seized the initiative and he accomplished a pawn-break in the centre: 21...dS ! 2 2 .cxds exdS 23.eS d4 24.�xd4 fud4 2S.'\1;l[xd4 t?Je6+ Granda Zuniga - Milov, Vil­ larrobledo 1997. 18

• • •

.1fS

After 18 . . . t?JcS 19.eS dxeS (Black loses with 19 . . . t?JhS 2 0 .b4+-, since after the retreat of the knight, he loses his d6-pawn.) 2 0 .fxeS ! �d1 21.t?Jxdl t?Jfd7 (or 2 1 . . .t?JhS 2 2 .�xf7+-) 2 2 .b4! (Now, Black's knight has no comfortable square to retreat to.) 22 . . .'\1;l[xeS 23.'\1;l[xeS t?Jxe5 24.bxc5 t?Jxc4 2S.�xf7± and Black's compensation for the piece is insufficient.

19.e5 dxe5 2 0 .J.xf8 gxf8 2 1.fxe5 �h5 22.�xh7 (In case

of 22.�de1 t?Jg7oo Black consoli­ dates successfully.) 22 �g3+ • • •

23.hxg3 �xh7 24.gde1 �g7 25.�gU the complications -

are over and White has remained with an extra pawn, despite its be­ ing doubled. c2) 11

• • •

�c6 12.�xc6

White must trade knights. He has no good square to retreat to. 313

Chapter 19 12

i.xc6

•••

compensation for the queen, but not more than that. 13

13J�adl

White has also tried here 13J3ae1, with the idea 14.li)dS. Black should better counter that threat with the move 13 . . . Wfc7!? (The attractive move - 13 . . Ji!e8 reduces the protection of the fl­ pawn and that enables White to develop his initiative with the help of the line: 14.f4 ! ? li)d7 IS. eS dxeS 16.fxe5 and here the move 16 . . . li)xeS? loses for Black due to: 17.Wfxe5 Wfxd3 18.li)e4 .its 19.9f3 he4 20.gxd3 hd3 21.Wfe3+- Bojkov - S.Kovacevic, Erandio 2004, while in case of: 16 . . . icS+ 17.cJihl Wfh4 18.ie4! t it i s again bad for Black t o play 18 . . . li)xeS?! , because of: 19.ixc6 li)xc6 2 0.Wff3 li)d4 21.Wfxf7+ cJih8 22 .ge4 WfgS 23.ic1 Wfg6 24.Wfxg6 hxg6 2S.i.e3±) and the principled reaction 14.li)dS (In case of 14.f4, it is possible for Black to contin­ ue with: 14 . . . gae8 ! ? lS.eS dxeS 16.fxeS li)d7co followed by fl-fS.) 14 ... exdS lS.exdS id7 16.Wfxe7 gae8 17.M6 gxe7 18.he7 ge8co leads to a complicated situation, in which White has a sufficient 314

...

Wfc7

After 13 . . . Wfb8, Sorokin Giardelli, Buenos Aires 1998, White can follow with 14.cJih1!?;!; and then f2-f4. In answer to 13 . . . li)d7, White should better choose 14.ib1 (Af­ ter 14.f4, Black has at his disposal the counter strike: 14 . . .bS! lS.cxbS axbS, Prusikin - Pikula, Swit­ zerland 2002 and here the most principled line for White: 16.hbS Wfb6+ 17.Wff2 hbS 18.Wfxb6 li)xb6 19.1i)xbS gxa2 2 0.ia3 li)c8 21.hd6 li)xd6 2 2 . li)xd6 gb2 23. gf3 gb8= leads to an equal end­ game.) 14 . . . ge8 lS.cJih1! ?;!;, pre­ paring f2-f4 (The immediate move lS.f4, can be countered by Black with the powerful argument - lS . . .bS! ? Schoppmeyer - Ter­ reaux, corr. 1991.). 14. cJihl! ?

That is a prophylactic move aimed at the preparation of the move f2-f4. It is not worth for White to play 14.f4 immediately, because of: 14 . . .bS ! lS.h1 (After: lS.cxbS axbS 16.b4 dS 17.eS li)e4 18.ixe4 dxe4 19.a3 Wfb7co Black is not worse at all, Lalic - Rukavina, Pula 2000.) lS . . . b4 (It is also possible for Black to play: IS . . . Wfb7 16.gfe1 bxc4 17.hc4 gfd8 18.gd2 if8 19.id3 dS 2 0.eS li)e4 21.li)xe4 dxe4 2 2 .i.c4 aSco with a double edged position with mutu­ al chances, Klundt - Gheorghiu,

4. 0,xd4 a6 5. �d3 0,f6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 b6 B. 0, c3 Hannover 19S4.) 16.0,b1 0,d7 17. rook on f1 joins in the actions: 13de1 eS 1S.0,d2 exf4 19.13xf4 0,eS= 17.13f3 ! ? 13feS 1S.13h3 g6 19.YHd2 with approximate equality, Loren­ 0,f6 2 0.fSt and White developed zini - Giardelli, Lorca 2001. a dangerous kingside initiative The move 14 . .ib1, enables Black in the game Pelesev - Markauss, to organize some counterplay on corr. 19S4.) 16 . .ib1 0,hS (or 16 . . . the queenside with the move 14 . . . 'i;!fb7, Pyhala - Kivisto, Espoo gabS. White's attempt t o stop b6- 19S7, 17.eS 0,eS 1S . .ie4t) 17.13d3 bS with the help of 1S.a4, allows 0,f6 (Here, Black must play very Black to regroup comfortably his carefully, because in case of 17 . . . light pieces: 1S . . . 13feS 16.c;t>h1 0,d7 13deS?, White has the spectacu­ 17.13d3 .if6 (Black's knight will lar combination: 1S.'i;!fxhS ! gxhS attack his opponent's b3-pawn, 19.13g3+ c;t>h8 20.0,dS+-; follow­ but it is not good to play immedi­ ing 17 . . . 'i;!fb7, it is good for White ately: 17 . . . 0,c5 1S.13h3 0,xb3, be­ to play 1S.0,dS±; while if 17 . . . eS, cause of: 19.0,dS ! exdS 2 0.'i;!fhS h6 then: 1S.fxeS dxeS 19.13xdS 13xdS 2 1.hg7+-) 1S.13h3. Now, White's 2 0.0,dS hdS 21.cxdS± Matulovic threat to continue with the pawn­ - Tringov, Vrnjacka Banja 19S6.) break e4-eS is quite worrisome for 18.13h3t - and White maintains Black. His only acceptable defence the initiative. would be the move - 1S . . .h6!oo. 15.f4 � d7 After 1S ...g6? 19.'i;!fd2 'i;!fb7 (or 19 . . . After: 1S . . .MS 16.eS 0,d7 17. .ig7 2 0.0,dS+-; 1 9 . . . 13bdS 2 0.YHh6 exd6 hd6 1S.i.xh7+ c;t>xh7 19 . 0,fS 21.0,dS+-) 2 0.'i;!fxd6 13bdS 'i;!fd3+ i>gS 2 0.'i;!fxd6 'i;!fb7 21.'i;!fd2± 2 1.'i;!ff4 J.g7 22 .0,bS! axbs (or 22 . . . White remained with an extra e S 23.'i;!fh4+-) 23.hg7 c;t>xg7 24. pawn in the game Funke - Holl, 'i;!fh6+- Black was crushed quickly corr. 1993. in the game Anand - Ivanchuk, 16.J.bl Monaco 1997. White is preparing the move 14 . . . gfe8 17.'i;!fc2 in order to increase the In answer to: 14 . . .13adS 1S.f4 pressure against Black's queen­ g6 (After 1S . . . 13feS?, White breaks side. through in the centre with a de­ His attempt to redeploy the cisive effect: 16.eS ! dxeS 17.fxeS rook along the third rank prom­ 0,d7 1S.hh7+ c;t>xh7 19.'i;!fhS+ ises him less. After: 16.13f3 .ifS 17. c;t>gS 2 0.'i;!fxi7+ c;t>hS 21.13d3 J.gS 'i;!ff2 g6! 1S.13el (The direct attack 2 2 .13h3+ .ih6 23.13f6 0,xf6 24. would not work: 1S.0,dS? exdS 'i;!fxc7+- Kunche - Noroozi, Tehe­ 19.'i;!fd4 f6 2 0.exdS �b7 21.13g3, ran 2 0 0 2 ; after: 1S . . . .ib7 16 . .ib1 because of: 21 . . . 13e7!+; while Black 0,d7, Black has parried the break can counter the move 1S.YHd4, with e4-eS indeed, but now White's the help of: 1S . . . eS 19.'i;!ff2 exf4 ! = 31S

Chapter 19 Sveshnikov.) 1S . . .V9dS 19.1bd1 lbc5 20 ..tb1 and by playing 20 . . . f5 !�, Black obtained counterplay in the game Sveshnikov - Gheo­ rghiu, Novi Sad 1979.

16

• • •

J.f8

The line: 16 . . . l3acS 17.l3d3 lbc5 1S.l3h3 .tfS, Dirr - DuCret, corr. 1994, enables White to de­ velop his kingside initiative with: 19.V9h5 h6 2 0.l3g3t. After: 16 .. J'!adS 17.V9c2 .taS (In case of 17 . . ..tb7, Vallejo Pons - Ba­ khtadze, Yerevan 1999, White fol­ lows with: 1S.e5 g6 19.exd6 hd6 2 0.lbe4;!;, obtaining the two-bish­ op advantage.) 1S.e5 g6 19.exd6

hd6 2 0 .lbe4 he4 21.V9xe4;!; and White had again two powerful bishops in the game Wessendorf - Lenz, Dortmund 19S7. In case of: 16 ... g6 17.V9d3 MS (or 17 . . . l3acS ? ! 1S.V9d4 e5 19.fxe5 dxe5 2 0 .V9f2 f6 21.Vge2 lbfS 2 2 . lbd5 hd5 23.cxd5 b 5 24.a4± Zude - Raupp, Germany 1990) 1S.lbb5 hb5 (or 1S . . . axb5? ! 19.V9c3 e5 2 0 .cxb5±) 19.cxb5 axb5 2 0.V9xb5 V9b7, Nunn - Gheorghiu, Ham­ burg 19S4, it looks very good for White to play 21.a4;!;. His pawn­ majority on the queenside, com­ bined with his couple of powerful bishops should be quite important in the future fight. 17.ti'c2 gacS

Black has great problems after 17. . . g6, due to lS.lbd5±. lS.e5 g6 19.exd6 bd6 2 0 .lbe4 be4 21.ti'xe4;!; - and

White's prospects are clearly bet­ ter, thanks to his bishop pair, Grigoriants - S.Kovacevic, Lina­ res 2 003.

Conclusion Black complies with a pawn-structure of "the hedgehog" type, just like in Chapters 16-18. Here however, he chooses another move-order - (7... b6 and 8 . . . .tb7) and thatforces White to choosefirst the set-up of his pieces. In order to be able to neutralize the action of Black's dark­ squared bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal, (variations a and b) White complies with the necessity to play 9. ti'e2. This somehow increases the reliability of Black's "hedgehog " with the bishop on e7 (variation c). In general,just like in the other chapters treating "hedgehog " posi­ tions, White is mostly interested in his opponent's kingside. His ba­ sic argument is the pawn-advance e4-e5, after which White's pair of bishops, placed on adjacent diagonals, might become too dangerous for Black's king. 316

Index of Variations

Part 1. 1.e4 c5 2.tt)f3

.

.

.

.

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

•

•

•

.

.

.

.

•

•

.

•

.

•

.

•

.

.

9

Chapter 1 1.e4 c5 2.tt)f3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 . . . �a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 . . . �b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 . . . d5 3.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 c1) 3.exd5 �xd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 c2) 3.exd5 lLlf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2 . . :�c7 3.lLlc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 d1) 3.tt)c3 a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 d2) 3.lLlc3 e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 .

a) b) c) d)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 2 1.e4 c5 2.tt)f3 g6 3 . d4 1ig7 4.tt)c3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 4 . . . �a5 5.lie2 30 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 3 1.e4 c5 2 .tt)f3 b 6 3 . d4

various . 3 . . . cxd4 4.tt)xd4 �b7 5 .tt)c3 5 .tt)c3 5 .tt)c3 5.ltJc3 .

a) b) c)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

various . tt)f6 . . . g6 . . . . a6 . . . .

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . .

.

.

. . . .

34 35 36 38 39

Chapter 4 1.e4 c5 2.tt)f3 tt)f6 3 . tt) c3

a)

b)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3 . . . ltJc6 4.d4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 a1) 4.d4 d5 5.ed ltJxd5 6.dc ltJxc3 7.�xd8 @xd8 . . . . . . 46 a2) 7.�xd8 ltJxd8 . . . . . . 47 3 ... e6 4.d4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 b1) 4.d4 d5 5.exd5 exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 b2) 5.exd5 1tJxd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Chapter 5 1.e4 c5 2.tt)f3 tt)f6 3. tt)c3 d5

a) b)

4.i.b5; 4.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.exd5 ltJxd5 5.�b5 ltJc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0 5.i.b5 �d7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 317

Index of Variations Part 2. 1.e4 c5 2 .�f3 a6 3.c3

•

•

.

•

•

.

•

.

.

•

.

•

.

.

•

.

.

•

•

•

.

.

Chapter 6 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 a6 3.c3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . 'lWaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) b) 3 . . . �c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . g6 4.d4 cxd4 S . cxd4 tLlf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) S.cxd4 .tg7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c1) 5 . cxd4 dS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c2) d) 3 . . . d6 4.d4 various. . . . . . . 4.d4 V!fc7 dl) d2) 4.d4 cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d3) 4.d4 tLld7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

•

.

•

.

.

.

•

.

•

.

•

.

•

.

.

.

•

.

•

.

.

.

.

.

•

70

•

. . . . . .

71 71 72 74 7S 79 80 81 . 82 . 87

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 7 1.e4 c5 2 .�f3 a6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5

a) b)

4 . . . tLlf6 94 4 . . . 'lWxdS S.d4 various . 96 S . d4 .ig4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 bl) S.d4 e6 . 104 b2) .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 8 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 a6 3.c3 tLlf6 4.e5 tLld5 5.d4

various . . . . S cxd4 6 .ic4 various . 6 .ic4 tLlb6 7 . .ib3 various 7 . .ib3 dS 8.exd6 V!fxd6 8.exd6 e6 .

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

a) b)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

4 cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . dS S.eS various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bl) S.eS .id7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b2) S.eS tLlc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

116 117 118 119 121

Chapter 9 1.e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 a6 3.c3 e6 4.d4

a) b)

...

.

.

Part 3. 1.e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 e6 3.d4

•

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

.

.

123 126 128 130 139

Chapter 10 1.e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 e6 3.d4

various . . 3 . . . tLlc6 . . . 3 . . . a6 . . . . 3 . . . dS . . . . .

a) b) c) 318

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

140 143 144 14S

Index of Variations Chapter 11 1.e4 cS 2 .!Of3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4 .!Oxd4 •

•

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1S4 4 . . . .icS 1S6 4 ... 'lWb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1S9

a) b)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 12 1.e4 c5 2 .!Of3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4 .!Oxd4 .!Of6 S .!Oc3 •

•

•

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16S S . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 S ... 'lWb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 S ... .ib4 6.eS various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 6.eS .!Oe4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 c1) 6.eS .!OdS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 c2)

a) b) c)

Part 4. 1.e4 cS 2 .!Of3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4 .!Oxd4 a6 S .id3 •

•

•

•

•

•

187

•

Chapter 13 1.e4 cS 2 .!Of3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4 .!Oxd4 a6 S .id3 •

a) b) c)

•

.

d)

.

e) f) g)

•

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 S ... bS 6.a4 'i;Yb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 a1) 6.a4 b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 a2) 6.a4 bxa4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 S . . .b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 S . . . dS 6.exdS 'lWxdS 7.0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 c1) 7.0-0 id7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 c2) 7.0-0 .!Od7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 c3) 7.0-0 tDc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 c4) 7.0-0 tDf6 199 S . . . g6 6 . c4 ig7 7.tDb3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 1 7.tDb3 d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 1 d1) 7.tDb3 tDe7 203 d2) S ... tDe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 S . . . 'i;Yb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 8 S ... 'i;Yc7 6.0-0 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 g1) 6.0-0 tDc6 7.tDxc6 dxc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 g2) 7.tDxc6 bxc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 .

.

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

•

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 14 1.e4 c5 2 .!Of3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tDxd4 a6 S.id3 .!Oc6 6 .!Oxc6 •

•

a) b)

6 ... bxc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 0 6 ... dxc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 27

319

Index o/ Variations Chapter 15 l.e4 c5 2.Filf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Filxd4 a6 5 . .td3 .tc5 6. tiJb3

a) b)

6 . ..ta7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 6 ... i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 .

Chapter 16 l.e4 c5 2 . tiJf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tiJxd4 a6 5 . .td3 Filf6 6. 0 - 0

a) b) c)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 6 . . . V!! c7 7.V!! e 2 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 7.V!!e 2 d6 8 .c4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 8.c4 i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 8.c4 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 8.c4 tiJbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Chapter 17 l.e4 c5 2 .Filf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Filxd4 a6 5 .td3 Filf6 6 . 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 •

a) b) c) d)

7 ... Filc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . .td7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ... Filbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ... g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

276 2 78 283 285

Chapter 18 l.e4 c5 2 . Filf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Filxd4 a6 5.J.d3 Filf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 J.e7 8.Filc3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . Filbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . 0-0 9.J.e3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bl) 9.J.e3 b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bl) 9.J.e3 Filbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a) b)

.

289 290 292 294 299

Chapter 19 l.e4 c5 2 .Filf3 e6 3 .d4 cxd4 4.Filxd4 a6 5.J.d3 Filf6 6. 0 - 0 d6 7.c4 b6 8.Filc3

a) b) c)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 8 ... i.b7 9.V!!e 2 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 9.V!!e 2 Filbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 9.V!!e 2 J.e7 1O.b3 0-0 1l . .tb2 Filfd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 1l.J.b2 tiJbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 c1) c2) 1l . .tb2 Filc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313