Valery Bronznik
The Chigorin Defence
Schachverlag Kania
ISBN 3-931192-28-8 1st Edition
:�; 200 5 by:
Schachverlag Kania Originally published in German as "Die Tschigorin-Verteidigung", I S B N 3-93 1 1 92- 2 1 -0 ��; 2004/2001 by: Schachve rl ag Kania Address: Schachverlag Kania Richard-Wagner-Str. 43 0-71 701 Schwieberdingen Germany Tel./Fax +49 (0) 71 50 /3 70 98 eMail:
[email protected]. Keilhack@aol .com I nternet: www.kaniaverlag.de Typeset: Harald Keilhack Editorial office: Dieter Mohrlok, Harald Kei lhack Translation: Hans W i echert (Chapter 1 -2), Rossen Aoussev Proofreadi ng: Joh n Adam s Print & Binding: Druck Viener, V i m perk/Cz Cover design: Frank Stiefel
All rights reserved
Contents
3
Contents Contents
.. .. . . . . . . . .
Symools
...................................................................................•.•.•...................
...
Introduction .. Ad:e6 15.d5 tZJaS 16.'¥Ya4 �e8 17.'8xaS fxg6 the position is equal. 1 2 .te6 12 ...tlJg4 13.tiJg6 tiJh2 14.�h5 tiJxf1 lS.CZJxt8 �xf8 lS.:xt1 CDe7 17.ClJe4�, Dautov. 1 3 . .txe6 fxe6 14.11ad1 1:I1el, Barsov-Rahman, Dhaka 2001, and now Black could obtain considerable counterplay by Dautov's suggestion 1 � t;Jb4! 16.tiJg6 (16.'iYxb7?? c6 -+) 16... tlJfd5 17.iVg4 �f6. •••
11
out to be rather unpleasant, Arencibia Estrada, Merida 2001. But very interesting is 12... i..b4!? with the idea of exchanging the c3-knight and achieving superiority on the light central squares, e.g. 13.l':adl tZJa5 14 . .i.d3 (14..2.e2?? .i.xc3 15.bxc3 ll:Je4-+) 14... .axc3 lS.bxc3 �d5 16.�g3 .i.xd3 17.lIxd3 CDe4! 18.�xc7 Uac8 19.'§'e5 Ufd8�, Degraeve-C.Bauer, Toulouse 1995. 13 .t2Jf5 '& f6 1 4. tlJxd6 �x f3 1 5.gx f3 cxd6, and in spite of White's bishop pair Black is at least not worse, thanks to his superior pawn structure, Mencinger-Golubovic, Bled 2001. c) Recently 1 0.�c2 has been played quite often. The queen prevents 10...�f5 and points towards the g6-square, which was weakened by Black's last move. But here also Black has sufficient counter chances, e.g.: c1) 1 0 ...tiJb41 1 .'i'ib1 11.�g6 is harmless due to 11 .. J��bd5! 12.�b1 c6, Ulibin.
•..
...
b2) 11 ... .th71 2.'fi' f3 tiJd7 (� ... 'tIid8-f6). On the natural move 12...�d7 follows 13.:ad1, and the threat 14. .i.xhS turned
Black must either allow the dangerous looking bishop sacrifice on h6 or agree to a weakening of his pawn structure. But in both cases he seems to hold his own: 1 1 ... .ie6 The alternative is 11...c6 � ... ��,bd5. In
12
Chapter 1
the game Korobov-Buhmann. Patras 2001, there followed 12.i.xhS!? gxhS 13.�gS+ WhB 14.�xhS+ tiJh7 (14... WgB 1S.C2JgS �fS 1S.tlJxf7 l:xf7 17.'t!¥gS+ �B 1B.Axf7 �d3 19.Ab3! �xf1 20Jlxf1 with an advantage for White Ramirez Alvarez) 1S.8e4?! Ae7 1SJ�ae1 ttJdS 17.C2:JeS .teS 1B.�d3 j:,fS 19.'tlfhS (19.g4 �gS 20. tlJxgS+ fxgS 21.8c5 tlfG:t) 19 ....JtgG 20.�h6 tzJb4! (20... .tfS 21.'&hS �gS 22.'t':VhS kfS=) 21.St..b1 �xd4 22.eiJg3 .li.g5 (22 ... jLxb1?! 23.t2JhS idS 24.t2Jxf6 �d6 2S.tz:Jed7 tz:JdS 2G.ttxb1 C2:JdxfS 27.ti:JxfB �xfB 00) 23.tiJxgS+ fxgS 24:iWxgS �g7 25.�hS C2:Jd5 2S.tlJfS '¥Yf7=i=. However, a stronger move is Ramirez Alvarez' suggestion 15.a3. He also gives 1S...8d5 (1S... bS? 1S . .tb3 is unfavourable after 1S...ClJd3 17. .Ji..c2 .tfS 1B.�h4 or 1S...ClJa6 17.tz:Je4) 1S.tlJxd5 cxdS 1 7. �xd5 and assesses the position as unclear. 1 2.i.. xe6 fxe6 1 3Jle1 '\We8 1 4.ciJe4 14 . .td2 C2:Jbd5 15:�d3 �f7 Tkachiev Golubovic, Pula 2000. 1 4 tDbd5 1 5.tDc5 �xc5 1 6.dxc5 tlJd7 17.�c2 (according to Ramirez Alvarez this is a mistake) 1 7 ... c6 (17... ttxf3!? 1B. gxf3 �hSiiliLl19.cS 8e5 20.:XeS �xeS 21.cxb7 ttb8) lS.�e3 tIxf3 19.9xf3 �hS, and Black got more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed exchange, Ramirez Alvarez Morozevich. Bled 2002. But as it was pOinted out by Ramirez Alvarez in his analysis, White could play better: 17.c6! bxcS 18.tZJd4. He wins back the pawn and remains with a better pawn structure. In spite of his active pieces and the semi-open f-file it is not easy at all for Black to achieve effective counterplay. Therefore Sakaev/Semkov in their book "Queen's Gambit Accepted" suggest 1 6 ... c6 - now cS-cS is finally prevented, =,
••.
and Black is ready to play ...t2JfS-d7. Now 1 7.8d4 is harmless because of 1 7...'t\ff7 (+ Sakaev/Semkov). Now it would not be advisable for White to take the eS-pawn, e.g. 18.tzjxe6?! :ae8 or 18.l:xe6?! ti:Jd7 - in both cases Black obtains a dangerous initiative. c2) 1 O tZJa5 1 1 .�d3 �e6 After 11... :te8 12.JLd2 CDcS 13.a3 .teG 14.ttfe1 �d7, Leitao-C.Bauer, Wijk aan Zee 1999, an interesting exchange sacrifice followed: 1SJ�xeS!? fxeS (1S...'t'!YxeS?! 16.dS tiJxd5 17...'i.f5 CDcb4 1B.axb4 cz:Jxb4 19.'&bl �e7 20.czJe4i) 1S.:le1 fiJe7 17.j"c4 tz:JedS 18 ..ta2 a:ad8 19..tb1�. 1 2.t1e1 tDc6 1 3.a3 '&cS 1 4.tz:Jb5 The sacrifice on eS now doesn't work: 14.:Xe6? �xeSLl15.d5? C2:Jxd5 lS.i.fS C2:Jd4!-+ . 14 .. .l1dS 1S.�fl tlJcI5 16.tiJxd6 rlxdS 17 . .lid2 as!? (17... 'iWd8!? 18.l::tad1 �f6) 18.ttad1 a4 with a comfortable game for Black, EI Gindy-Gleizerov, Dubai 2003. •••
d) Also in the case of 1 0.'*'d3 there is no white advantage in prospect, e.g. 1 0 tz:Ja5 (or 10 ... tiJb4, and after 11.�b1 or 11.�gS a position from the line 10.'t!¥c2 tiJb4 arises) 1 1 . ..tb5 a6 1 2.�a4 c5 (12...�e6!? 13Jle1 . .tc4 14.'oj:!t'd1 bS lS.�c2 �e8°o. Abranlovic Matulovic. Vrnjacka Banja 1999) 1 3 . .tc2 Ue8 14.dxcS j,xcS 1S. �xd8 llxd8 16.�f4 tlJc4 17.k%ad1 .teG 18.b3 tlJa3 19.t2Je4 tiJxc2 20.tiJxc5 i..d5=, Abramovic-Stojanovlc, Belgrade 2002. ..•
Now back to the main game:
1 0 . . �f5 1 1 .b4 .
White becomes active on the queen side. Also some other continuations had been tested: a)
1 1 . I:e1 a6
1.d4 dS 2.c4 tZJcs 3J�:c3 dxc4 4.e3 Prophylaxis against Ac4-bS, which becomes real if Black moves his queen to d7. Besides, this move prevents r�!c3bS and makes ...b7-bS possible, which can be useful under some circumstan ces. 1 2.d5 (12.i.e3 Q 10.Del .tfS 11..te3 a6 12.a3) 1 2 Ci:Je7 13.b4 IleB 14..tb2 tlJg6 lS.�d4 :lxel+ lS.llxe1 �f8 17.i.cl :teB lB.:txeB '&xe8 19. �e3 tiJeS 20.i.e2 lZjxf3+ 21..ixf.3 �eS 22.'BxeS i.xeS, and the players soon agreed a draw, van der Sterren-Piket, Linares 1995. •••
b) After 1 1 .ti)h4, Damljanovic-M. Stojanovic, Valjevo 2000, I like 11 ... CDxd41? 12. .te3 ClJe8 13.�xd4 cS 14.'i:!t'dS �xh4 best, e.g. 1S..tbS i.eS 16.'1!fxb7 ti)c7 with a good game for Black.
1 1 ... ttJe4 Also playable would be 11 86 (direc ted against b4-bS and ti)c3-bS) 12.i4b2 't!¥d7, e.g. 13.dS ClJeS (13 ...ti)e7!? � ...tiJg6) 14.tZJxeS i.xeS lS.f4 j.:,dS 16. 'ft'f3 aSl? with a complicated struggle. ...
13
By the way, the text move isn't bad either, but after it the second player has to play precisely.
1 3.8b5 ! White intends to take on dS and then to accomplish d4-dS.
1 3 ... .te4? It was necessary to avoid the exchange on dS by 13 ... i.f4!, after which the posi tion would have stayed roughly equal, e.g. 14.dS ii.e4! lS.ti)xgS (lS.dxcS CDxf3+ 16.gxf3 �gS+ 17.'�h1 �fS lB.�g2 '*'gS+ with a draw) lS...�xgS 1S.Wg4 �xg4 17.hxg4 ClJe7 1B.l:Iad1 .tc2 19.:tde1 tlJcB, and Black's position is OK.
1 4.liJxg5 �xg5 1 5.�g4! :afeS 1 6.];1fe1 �xg4 17.hxg4 This position is rather uncomfortable for Black. The opponent wants to exchange on dS and then activate the b2-bishop by d4-dS.
1 2 . .tb2 ...
1 7 ... .ig6?
1 2 ... ttJg5 Safer would be 12 . �c3 13.ii.xc3 tbYf6 14.bS 'lJe7 lS.Uel (lS.tlJeS �eS) lS... �6 (lS...Uad8!? lS.tlJeS ..teS) 1S.tlJeS �e6, and Black is OK. .
.
This loses by force. 17...l:Iad8?, in order to recapture on dS with the rook, doesn't work either because of 1B.dS! tlJb8 19.tlJxdS llxdS (19...cxdS 20..i.bS+-) 20.f3 +-. Perhaps 17...aS would have been the best, but also then White keeps a clear advantage after lB.ti)xd6 cxd6 19.d5 'lJa7 20.a4.
14
Chapter 1
18.dS tiJe5 18 ... tlJe7 was bad because 19.t2Jxd6 cxd6 20.i.b5+-.
19.tiJxd6 I!ed8
cxd6
20.�bS
20.. J%e7 21.f4 +-.
21.�xeS! dxeS 22.l:Ixe5 White is a pawn up, which is a passed pawn furthermore. The game is decided.
Dunnington regards this suggestion by Watson as the best move. White gains nothing after 6 . .txc4 ti)xc4 7 : (oder 7 ...iL.d7 8.�xc4 tlJf6 9.ti:Jf3 .td6 10.0-0 0-0 ) 8:t'Yxc4 cxd5 9:�xd5 (9.tDxd5 �d6) 9... �xd5 10.tlJxd5 Ad6. =
However, an important alternative is 6:�a4+ c6 with the following variations:
22... a6 23.i.e2 Wf8 24.htc1 nac8 24 ... f6 25..1:(e3 �d5 26..a.c7 +-. 25 Jlxc8 1 :0 A.
Game 2 Chasin Boey carr. 1984 -
1.d4 d5 2.c4 t�'C6 3J�'!c3 dxc4 4.e3 e5 S.dS White conquers space and drives the knight away from the centre.
a) 7.dxc6 tDxc6 8 ..txc4 i.d6 9.tLlf3 tlJf6 =. b) 7.b4 cxb3! (Watson) 7 ...b5 ? fails to 8:�xa5 �xa5 9.bxa5 b4 10.tZJd1 cxd5 11.e4!± (Minev). 8.axb3 8.�d2 q 7..td2 �d7 9.b4 cxb3 . 8... '!'VbS 8 ... b5?! 9.ti)xb5 tDxb3 1O:�xb3 cxb5 11.it.xb5+ �d7 12.CiJf3 with the inif�tive. 9.i.d2 9.'&xa5? �xa5 10.Uxa5 �b4+ (Watson); 9.d6! ? i..xd6 (9 ... ti)xb3? 10.tZJd5 +-) 10.'&xa5 't'*'xb3 11.IIb1 '&c2 12..td2 tiJf6 13 .tlJf3 0-0 14J:lc1 (14.tiJxe5? b6 -+) 14 .. :�'f5 °o. 9 .. tlJxb3 Harding's recommendation 9.....tb4 is bad because of 10.CiJe4 ! ti)xb3 11.dxc6 it..xd2 + 12.ti)xd2 +-. 10.dxcS 10J:%b1? tlJc5+ (Watson). 1 0 ... bxcS 1 1.tlJd5 �b7 1 2.];Ib1 , .
S...tZJa5!? A sharp continuation. The knight goes to the rim in order to protect c4. Another possibility is 5... :�Jce7 � Game 3.
6/�-Jf3
1.d4 dS 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.llJc3 dxc4 4.e3
lS
'WxbS lS. �b7 �c6! White has no suf ficient compensation. 1 0 . cxdS 10...i.dS? 11 .t2Je4! AbB 12.Axa5 cxd5 13...tbS bxaS 14.liJcS tZJf6 lS.tDxd7 tDxd7 1S..tcS +-. 10...cS?! 11.i.bS f6 12.i.xd7+ 'f!¥xd7 13.tlJbS nc8 14.Axa5 bxaS 1S.tlJxa7 ±. 10 ...16!? 11.dxc6 CZJxc6 12.i.b5ijj5. 11.Ab5 ..td6 1 2.tDXdS �7 After 12...nc8 13.0-0 Black's awkward development becomes critical, e.g. 13 ... Dc5 14.t2Jc3 l::lc7 lS.t2Je4 ..txb5 16.�xbS+ tlJc6 17...tc3 tZJge7 18. t2Jxd6+ 'tj'xd6 19 . .txe5 +-. 1 3.tlJxe7 �xe7 14.i.xaS bxaS lS.0-0 :tdS 16.11fd1 0-0 17. ..txd7 '&xd7 18.�xa5 �b7 with equality, Feroul Boey, corr. 1984. ..
and now: b1) On 12 . .'6'd7?! White doesn't play 13:\i'xb3?! �xdS 14.i.c4 �d7 1S.t2Jf3 i.d6 16.0-0 because of 16... l:lbS! (16. . . tzjf6 17.�b4! iLxb4 1B.'+!i'xb455) 17.�c3 l:lxb1 1S.lhb1 �c7+, but 1 3.l:xb3! 'Bxd5 14.tZJf3 with more than sufficient compensation, e.g. 14 ...i.d7 1S.i.c4 1!i'c5 16.l:Ib7. .
Back to the main game:
b2) 12 ... tlJcSI 13.�a1 �d7 (interesting is also 13...�xb1!?+ 14.'ft'xb1 cxdS 15.�b5+ .i.d7 16.i.xd7+ tiJxd7 17. �b7 m>8 18.'ti'xd5 t2Jgf6 19.�a2 .tc5) 14. �6 axb6 1S.'fVxaS, and here besides 1 5 ... b5 16.tlJf3 i.d6 17.i.b4 f6 with unclear play, Mraz-Andersen, corr. 1990, and R.Stone-Johnstone, Canada 1995, also 1S ... tlJe4!? deserves serious attention, e.g. 16. llJf3 tiJxd2 17.t2Jxd2 b5 lB..ae2 tZJe700. c) 7 .i.d2 .td7! 8.b4 cxb3 9.axb3 b6 Up to this point this line was analysed by Watson in his book "Queen's Gam bit: Chigorin Defence". His judgement Black keeps the position - was proven right in practice. 1 0.tiJf3 After 10.dxc6?! llJxc6 11.i.b5 (Gill-Tait, corr. 1990) Black can remain with a sound extra pawn by 11.. Jlc8 12 .ClJf3 'Df6 13.0-0 .td6. Also in the case of 1 O.M cxd5 11 . .J1I.bS tiJc4 1 2 tLJ x dS �d6 13.:bd7+ �xd7 14.b5 ncB! 15.�xa7 •
.
6... a6 ! This move I didn't find in any book, although it looks logical and strong, and Black had no problems in this game. Among the authors I know it is only mentioned by Watson in his article series Chigorin Defense: Theory and Practice (1998). If Black plays different, he can quickly run into difficulties, e.g.: a) After 6 .. .16 the simplest continuation is 7.'�·a4+ c6 8.dxc6!? ,�"xc6 9.1...xc4
Chapter 1
16
with advantage due to the weakness of the a2-g8 diagonal. b) On 6 .. .�d6 7.'@a4+! (Watson) 7 c6 8.CZJe41 is very strong, e.g. S AbS (8... �c7 9.d6 Ab6 10.tlJxeS± Watson) g.b4 cxb3 1 O.axb3 �xd5 11 .tlJc3 �xb3 12. �xa5 b6 13. Wa3 'i!¥xa3 14.Axa3 •..
.••
,..
9.f4 tZJfS 10:tWf3 iLb7 11.e4 c6 with strong counterplay. Also S.i.e2 .td6 seems not to be dangerous for Black. On S.84!1 tZJb3 9.:b1 Watson proposes 9 .. :t!r'fS. The position which arises is complicated and very interesting.
8...,td6 9.14 liJf6 10.St.g2 0-0 11.0-0 'ViIe7 White's central pawns are potentially dangerous, but how to activate them? E.g. on 12.tZJf3 follows 12...b4 13.tlJe2 .td7 (directed against 14:�'a4), and the intended e3-e4 only remains an unful filled dream. 12.�e1 !? b4!
Watson assesses this position as un clear. However, Dunnington thinks that White has an advantage because his pieces stand more actively and it won't be easy for the second player to set his pawns in motion. I feel that Dunnington is more likely to be right, e.g. 14 a5 (14 .. ::-Gf6 lS..ic4; 14 .. /�7 lS. iLc4; 14...b5 1S.t2Je4, in all cases with initiative for White) 15.Ad3 C2:Jf6 (lS...�a6 16.�e4 Ab7 17.11b1 !;;..c7 18.iLcS!+-) 16.0-0 iLa6 17..txa6 nxa6 18.e4 bS (18 ... �d7 19. l:%fd1+ <Jtc8 20.tzJgS :a7 21.tzJa4l:tb7 22.l:acl cS 23.Cl:Jxb6+ llxb6 24. .it..xcSl:tcS 2S. JdS!+-) 19.:fd1, and Black's forces remain uncoordinated. •..
Black sees through his opponent's idea. On 12...AxeS?! there does not follow 13.d6? because of 13 ...i.xd6 14.i.xa8 c6-+, but 13.fxe5! �xe5 14.e4 (threatening ls.Af4 and 16.e5) 14... ti:Jh5 1S.i.t4 ti:Jxf4 16.gxf4 �d4+ 17.�h1 i.d7 18Jld1 �cS 19.eS with good compensation for the pawn.
13.tDd1 i.b7 13... iLxeS? 14.fxe5 �xe5 1S.�xb4+-.
14.e4 •
7.CDxe5 On 7:�a4+ ? follows 7 .....lid7!, and 8.�xaS?? loses because of 8 ...b6. 7.. .b5 8.g3 Nothing is gained by 8.�h5, e.g. 8 ...'@e7 (maybe the exchange sacrifice 8...g6!? 9.C2:Jxg6 fxg6 1O:�e5+ �7 l1.'ti'xhS tlJfS should be checked; playable is also 8...'�f6 9.tlJe4 �fSoo)
White has finally succeeded in pushing forward his e-pawn and obtaining a nice pawn centre. But the counter attack is not too long in coming:
14...c6!
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tzJcS 3.Cljc3 dxc4 4.e3 Aftar all, the main idea of our opening is to play against White's d-pawn, isn't it?
1S.dxc6 tlJxc6 .i.cS+ 17.tlJf2
16.tiJxc4
The two alternatives are weaker: 17.�h1 �d4 18.'2Jde3 .txe4 � or 17.Ae3 tlJd4 18.a5 i.xg2 19.�xg2 '&'b7+ 20siig1 �4 21.l:lc1 Dac8 22.t2JdS 'i!Vf3!! 23J:xf3 tiJxf3+ 24.Wt1 ClJxel 25.ClJxc8 tlJd3 26.:Xc5lLlxe3+ 27.'l:Jxe3 ClJxc5+.
17...tDd4 18.l:tb1 llJc2 19. �e2 be4 20.�xe4 �xe4 21..te3 .txe3 Y2:%
because of 22.tiJxe3 �xe3 23.�xc2=. Game 3 Christiansen - Morozevich New York (rapid) 1995
1.d4 dS 2.c4 llJc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4.e3 eS S.dS Cjjce7 This move looks more solid than 5...tZJa5. The knight heads for g6, from where it will protect e5. In the case of e3-e4 it might occupy the f4-square on the next opportunity or (what happens more often) support the manoeuvre ...tZ:Jf6-h5-f4.
6..i.xc4 tiJg6
mally recommendable with such a pawn formation in the centre. Other moves: a) 7.'&b3 i.dS (7...a6? 8.dS!±; 7... tLlf6?! 8.dS!) 8.jL,b5+ Wf8 9.e4 t2:Jf6 10A:Jge2 lLJh5 11.g3 �h3oo, Gerstner8aumhus, Germany 1991. b) 7.tiJge2 Ad6 (7...a6!? 8.0-0 .2od6) 8.e4 tiJf6 9 . .sib5+ fijd7 10.tLlg3 a6 11.i.a4 bS 12..tc2 tLlf6oo, S. Guliev Barskij. Moscow 1995. c) On 7.e4 Black can play 7... a6 (e.g. as in Potts-Watson, Philadelphia 1975) in order to prevent i.bS or tzJbS and then accomplish the standard plan .td6, tLlf6hS-f4. Also the manoeuvre ...h7-h6 follo wed by ...tZJf6-h7-g5 is to be considered. Furthermore the ideas ... b7-b5 (pOSSibly followed by ...b5-b4) and ... c7-c5 (resp. ...c7-c6) are not to be dismissed. d) 7.tLlf3 tLlf6 leads to a position of the variation 4.tLlf3 tLlf6 5.e3 e5 6.d5 (6... tLle7 7..iLxc4 tLlf6) � Game 30.
7... l1..d7 8.'+Wb3 Ub8 9.iZJge2 9.e4 a6 10.it.xd7+ 'ifYxd7 11.tLlf3 Ac5 didn't yield White anything in Jussu pow-Henley, Lone Pine 1981. There followed 12.0-0 tLlf6 13:�¥c4 (13.i.g5 lLJh5!?) 13....td6 14.tlJe2 tiJhS 15. tiJg:a liJxg3 16.fxg3 0-0 17 .Ae3 �bc8 18. tlad1 h6 19.h3 'fIIe 7 20.tiJh2 c6 21. 'iYe2 cxd5 22.l:txdS .tc5 with equality.
9...tiJf6 10.0-0 ..tc5 11.Axd7+ 'iWxd7 12.i.d2 0-0 13.11ad1
7.�b5+ With this move he wants the white-squared bishops,
to exchange which is nor-
17
18
Chapter 1
13... b5! This wing action actually belongs to the fight for the centre. Black wants to chase away White's knight from c3 by ...bS-b4, whereafter the d-pawn gets weak. Moreover, ...e5-e4 with a space advantage on the kingside will be pos sible.
14.'iYc2 14.a3 doesn't look particularly good after 14...b4 15.axb4 :Xb4 Black's rook gets very active and the b-pawn be comes weak. But the move 14.t2:Jg3 deserved attention, and on 14... b4 l S.'iJce4 in order to prevent ... eS-e4.
14 ... b4 1S.tlJa4?! This could have cost a pawn. Better would be l S.t2:Je4 iDxe4 l S.�xe4 IUd8 (16...fS 17.'�c4 i.dS 18.f300) 17.i.c1 with a passive, but solid position.
1S...Ad6 Now dS is hanging, that's why White has no time to play llJe2-g3.
16. .tc1 16.e4? tZJxe4.
16... e4 This is positionally OK and belongs to Black's plan, but why not l S.. :@'bS!? winning a pawn? (17.e4 iDxe4)
17.tlJg3 J:[fe8
Morozevich has gained a nice position. On the kingside he has a space ad vantage thanks to the e4-outpost and is able to prepare an attack there. With eS he h�s a! his disposal a fantastic square for his pieces. Nominally speaking, the c7-pawn is backward, but it is difficult for White to exploit it. Furthermore the c1-bishop is very passive, and it costs time to bring it back into play.
1S.tlJc5 'WIe7 19.tiJb3 After 19.t2:JfS 'tWeS 20.iDxd6 cxd6 21.t2:Jb3 tlJg4 Black's initiative would become too dangerous (also the simple 21... tZJxdS would be good enough).
19... iLlh4 Nothing was wrong with 19.. J:tbd8 in order to increase the pressure on dS. But Black prefers to play for an attack.
20.�d4 White vacates the dl-square for the other rook in order to protect dS, and at the same time attacks e4 once again.
20 ...l:tb5 21.�fd1 The dS-pawn is attacked twice and protected twice, and now Black has to take care of e4, too. Morozevich makes an interesting decision:
21...i..xg3!? 22.hxg3 t',f5 One attacker of the e4-pawn I is an nihilated, and it looks as if the rook had to leave the fourth rank.
23.tlc4!? The position after 23.1;4d2 seemed too passive to Christiansen. He sacrifices a pawn in order to activate his pieces.
23 ...ttxd5 24.I1xdS tlJxd5 25.l:rc5 �e6 26.�d2 It seems as if White had attained his goal. He has activated his major pieces, bro�ght his bishop back into play, and besides this 27.'i:!¥c4 is threatened.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tDcs 3.CZJc3 dxc4 4.e3
19
32.tlJf3 h3 After 32...'3'xb2 follows 33.'iVxh4 threa tening 34.:Xd5 and 34.e4.
33.gxh3?! White pays back with a counter-mistake. Correct was 33.Dc2! 'ffd 1 (33...'�VaS 34. gxh3oo) 34J�d2 (34. gxh3!?) 34 .. :�a1 (34... 'i!Va4? 35.tiJg5 gS 36.'ii'h4 +-) 35.�c4 fld6 3S.gxh3. After this the material balance is restored, and the position would be unclear.
26 ...hS! Attack is the best defence (Alekhine). Because of Black's threats on the king side the first player has no time to 'work' on the opponent's weaknesses.
27.'We4 ndB 2B. .te1 On 28.�xb4 there follows 28 ... h4!. After that 29.tZJd4 would be virtually the only move since both 29.g4 CZJdxe3!! 30. n xeS (30.fxe3 l:id 1 + 31.'�h2 'ti'dS+ -+) 30...l:ld1+ 31. �h2 tlJxg4+ 32.�h3 tDxf2+ 33.�h2 :th1# and 29.gxh4 tiJxh4 30.�d4 �g4 31. g3 tLlxb4 32.'+!Yxb4 rtd1 + 33.�h2 tL!f3+ 34.'�h3 tzJxd4 35. exd4 l:[dS -+ quickly lead to a loss. But even after 29.tlJd4 tDxd4 30.'tiYxd4 hxg3 31.fxg3 l:ld7 White's position would be extremely unpleasant because of the weaknesses on the kingside.
2B...h4 29.g4 tlJfe7 30.tlJd2 �xg4 31. �xe4 White's king is in extreme jeopardy. That's why White would like to exchange queens although one pawn down.
31...�e2? This proves to be a mistake. Correct was 31... '8d1! 32.ti:Jf3 h3! +, whereafter 33.gxh3 is bad because of 33.. .f5, e.g. 34.'&eS+ �8 35.llJe5 (35.�g2 l:ld6 -+) 35...'&'xe1+ 3S.�2 �e3+ 37.'�f3 '@'h1+ 38.we2 �f1+ 39.�xe3 �xh3+ 40.'�e2 �ih5+ 41 .We3 l:ldS 42. �c4 95 -+.
33...l:d6?! This isn't the best move either. Much stronger was 33.. .f5! 34.'iVe6+ · .tf8 35.llxd5 (35.C2:Je5 �xe1 + leads to the variation which could arise after 31 .. :�d1 !) 35 ...l:xd5 3S.�xb4 c5 -+ .
34.�h2? In the final stage of this rapid game the mistakes follow hard on each other. Ab solutely necessary was 34.:tc2.
34...kte6? 34...f5 would have won on the spot.
3S.tlJd4 'iYxe1 36.llJxe6 '&xf2+ 37.�g21 �xg2 38. �xg2 fxe6 39.e4 llJf4+ 40.�3 t2Jd3 41 J:txe7 Now there has arisen an endgame, in which White has to fight for the draw. But for the understanding of the opening and the middlegame this is no longer of interest to us. That's why the rest of the game is given without comment:
41...tZJg6 42.b3 as 43.1la7 tlJdeS+ 44.�e3 llJe6 4S.ttc7 tlJge5 46:�f4 �h7 47.Ilea �g6 4B.h4 Wf6 49.h5 g5+ 50.hxg6 tZJxg6+ 51.We3 tZJgeS 52.�c7 �g6 53.�4 �6 S4.�e3 �g5 55.IIg7+ �6 S6.�e7 V2:V2
Chapter 2
20
Chapter 2 1.d4 d5 2.c4 t1:Jc6 3.tLJc3 dxc4 4.d5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 CLJc6 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.d5
The main continuation is 5.f4 liJg4. discuss: 6.e4 e57/i�f3 Q Game 9 6.e4 e5 7.fS h5(7. /�8h6) Q Games 10-11 6.e4 e57.1.e2 Q Game 12 .
In these variations Black mostly rna· nages to maintain his knight on g4, and together with the other topical move ...:atc5 he directs a dangerous minor piece duo against f2. That's why there arose the idea of driving away the knight immediately: 6.h3 Q Game 13
The knight attacked by 4.d5 can move in different directions, and that is what characterises the different variations in this chapter - the possible locations go from a5 and b6 to g4. The classical continuation 4... tLla5 leads to some notorious variations, es pecially if the a5-knight throws itself on the sacrificial altar after b2-b4. From today's theoretical point of view Black has a hard time. 5e . 4 4, and the more principled S:�a4+ c6 6.b4 in Game 5; also possible is a tran sition to Chapter 3 (5.tLlf3 tLlf6). Nowadays more popular is 4.. .c2::;e5, which promises Black good counterplay in a very complicated struggle. White can attack the pert knight in dif ferent ways. Harmless is 5.kf4 tLlg6 6.ii:.g3 e5 Q Game 6. On 5:�d4 Black can react solidly with 5...tlJg6 (Game 7) or in ultra modern fashion with 5...f6!? (Game 8).
Finally, at the end of the chapter we have a look at the alternative 5.f4 ·��-Jd7, knight shall defend the c4-pawn on b6: 6.�a4 q Game 14 6.e4 Q Games 15-16
Game 4 Dlugy - Morozevlch Internet Chess Club 3/0 1999
t This is a blitz game played via the inter· net. Nevertheless the opening phase is highly interesting for us - especially if we remember that A. Morozevich is the world's leading Chigorin specialist. His opponent M.Dlugy is a very strong grandmaster and one of the 'star blitzers' on the Internet Chess Club ICC.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 ..:: !c6 3/>,c3 dxc4 4.d5
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.'lJc3 dxc4 4.d5
21
then ...0-0) 9 tZ:Jc6 (so far according to an analysis by Watson) 10.tlJf3 (1 0 f4 .tb4 1 1 . f5 .s&.cB! x e4) 10...l:lc8 1 1 .i g 3 h6! with complicated play. a3) 5 .1Ld7 6.e4 a31) In Marshall-Chigorin, Monte Carlo 1902, followed 6 ...e6?! 7.dxe6, and after 7 ...fxe6?? 8.'-&h5+ Black lost a piece. Correct was 7... AxeS 8.�xdB+ l:xdB! (8...�xd8 9.0-0-0+ .s&.d7 10.tLlb5 eS 11.tLldS �xdS 12.�xd6 tLlf6 13. .1ib4 b6 14.f3±) 9.Axe7 1:1cB 10.Axa5 bS 11. �xb6 axbS, and it wouldn't be that easy for White to realise his extra pawn against Black's strong bishop pair. a32) However, stronger is 6 b5! (Watson) 7.b4 tlJb7!? (7...exb3 8.axb3 e6 9.dxe6 tZJxc6 1 0 . .axb5 e6 1 1 'lJge2�) 8.a4 e6! with eounterplay. ...
.
•
...
The pawn evades the attack with tempo, and White conquers space in the centre. This continuation leads to a complicated struggle right from the start. 4 'lJa5 ...
This looks very risky - the knight goes to the rim, and there it is positioned rather unsafely -, but now and then this is played. The more popular 4...t2Je5 we will see in later games. S.e4 This continuation is probably not the strongest. The most principled 5.'gta4+ we'll analyse on the basis of Game 5. The position after 5.tZ:Jf3 tZ:Jf6 we examine under 4.�f3 'iJf6 5.d5 tlJa5. Worth mentioning are also the following possibilities: a 5.�f4, and now: a1 5 c6?! 6.e4 'iJf6 (6 ... �b6?! 7.tLJa4! r"bS 8.�e2± � t2.Jc3, 'iJd4 - Panov) 7. dxc6 CDxc6 (7 .. .'Bxd1+ 8.l:xd1 bxc6 9. c7 �b7 10.:i.xc4± Watson) 8.fi'xd8+ �d8 9. .bc4 with initiative, Soltis. a2) 5...e6 6.e4 tiJf6!? (also not bad is 6... exd5 7.'Llxd5 �d6 8.i.xd6 �xdS 9. �a4+ �6, e.g. 10.l:d1 tiJfS!A l1.tlJbS? axb6 12.�xa8 "1!¥b4+ 13.l:d2 0-0+, Po kazanjev,' resp. 10.i.xc4 tZJf6=, Minev) 7.dxe6 (7.'6a4+ c6 8.dxc6 tDxcS=) 7.. :�xd1+ (7... �xe61? 8:�xd8+ �xdB) 8.:.xd1 �xe6 9.Axc7 (9.tZJb5?! .ab4+ ...
...
.
b) 5.i.g5 Now Black has a choice: b1) 5. .c6 S.dxcS C1:JxcS 7.'&xdB+ tiJxd8!? (Watson - this is probably stronger than 7 ...'�xd8 8.e4 f6 9 . .te3 ke6 10.r.rd1+ �c8 11.f4 $.f7 12. tlJf3 e5 13.tlJdS exf4 14. .txf4 with initiative, Allen-Lazzarato, Groningen 1977) B.e4 .ad7 (8... �e6!? 9. tlJbS 1:eB) 9 . ..axc4 IleB 10.�b3 e6 with a somewhat passive, but solid position: b2) The following idea by Watson looks very good: 5...16!? S.�f4 (6.'�'a4+ c6, 6.,i.,h4 e5) S...e5 7.dxe6 '&xd1 + 8.IIxd1 .txeS 9 ..txe7 tLJe6, and Black has no difficu Ities. .
•
Chapter 2
22
5 ... c6 This move is relatively new. The alternative 5. .e6 seems to be quite good, too, e.g. : .
a) 6.'1*9a4? !+ c6 7.b4 cxb3 8.axb3 'it'b6!? (8... exdS?! 9.Ad2) 9.Ad2 �b3 1 0J1b1 tLJcS+ - Watson. b) 6.i.xc4 CZJxc4 7.'i1fa4+ c6 S:!§'xc4 cxd5 8...Ad7 leads to complete equality after 9.tZJf3 cxdS (9 ... tZJf6 1 0.d6 I?) 10.exdS exdS 11.�dS i.c6 12:�e2+ i.e7 13.�e7 �xe7 14.,te3 'i!fb4+ 1S.�d2 'iYxd2+ 16.�d2. 9.exdS
Now Black sacrificed a pawn in the game Golombek-W.Lange, Hamburg 19S5: 9 ... tZJ f 6!? (the 'normal' 9 ....td7 would have been good, too) 1 0.� bS+ Ad7 1 1 :�x b7 CZJxdS 1 2 .CZJxdS exdS.
There followed 13.�xdS?! .ib4+ 14. i.d2 0-01 l S.tZJe2 (or l S.Axb4 l:reS+ 16.'Jff1 - 1S.�d2? '!'ifS! 1 7.,tc3 iYf4+ l S.�d1 .ta4+ 1 9.b3 l:tadS -+ - 1 6... :bS 17..aaS :bS 1 8.Axd8 llxdS 19.tZJf3 AbS+ 20.Wg 1 lIdxdS�) l S...11eS 16.0-0 (1 6.i.xb4 :Xe2+ 17.�1 :Xb2+, 1S.0-0-0 llxe2 17.i.xb4 l:tc8+ 18.�b1 �fS 1 9 . .ta3 .teS with an attack) 1S ... Axd2 1 7. �xd2 i.bS 18.tlJd4 i.xf1 19.1:txf1 l:tcS+. More careful would be 1 3.tZJe2, but then too Black would have good compen sation, even after the simple 13...,te7 1 4:i!r'xdS 0-0 l S.0-0 AeS 16:i!fxdS llfxdS 17.i.f4 l:iacS l S.tLJc3 .ifS.
6.t2Jf3 tiJf6 After 6...eS 7.dxcS �xd1+ 8.�d1 �cS 9..txc4 White would stand somewhat more actively.
7.i.g5 In another blitz game of Morozevich there followed 7.i.e2 as 8.0-0 cxdS 9.exdS bS 10..tgS h6 11.Ah4 gS 12 . .tg3 i.b7 1 3..ieS i.g7, and Black
remained with a sound extra pawn, Annakov-Morozevich , ICC 3/0 1999.
7 ..h6 8 .th4 .
.
After S.i.xfS exfS 9.dxcS �xd1+ 1 0. llxd1 bxcS! 11..te2 lIb8 1 2.lId2 i.b4 13.0-0 i.eS Black keeps his material advantage and additionally has the bishop pair.
8 ... g5 S.. :iYbS!? looked good, e.g. 9:�d2 g5 1 0 . .tg3 cxdS 11.exdS .tfS 12.i.e2 i.g7 13.0-0 0-0, and White has no sufficient compensation. 9 ..tg3 cxd5 9...'i!'bS!? again was interesting. 1 0.e5? ! Stronger would be 10.AeS! with complicated struggle.
a
Now Black could get a clear advantage with 10... tZJhS 11.�xdS .te6 12.'iVc5 ( 1 2.�bS+ .td7 13.�cS eS 1 4.'We3 �c7+) 1 2...bS 13:�b4 �g3 14.hxg3 .i.g7 thanks to his extra pawn. Morozevich played 1 0 tZJe4 instead, and after 1 1 . �xd5 tZJxc3 1 2. �xd8+ �xd8 1 3. bxc3 e 6 (13....i.e6!?) 1 4.tDd2 ,td7 (14 ... bS 1S.h4 g4 16.a4) 1 S.h4 g4 ••.
1 6.CZJxc4 tZJxc4 1 7.,txc4 :cS 1 S .�e2 txxc3 1 9.i.xg4 White regained the
pawn (but lost the game anyway). ... 0: 1
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tLJc6 3.tLJc3 dxc4 4.d5 Game 5 Vera
-
Formanek
Andorra 1 996 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ClJc6 3.tzJc3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJa5 5.�a4+! This immediately wants to take advan tage of the position of the opponent's knight.
23
blockading d4-square for his pieces . After 1 0 .ttJf3 ? ! tZJf6 the advance e2-e4
is no longer possible, and Black has enough positional compensation for the minimal material loss. 1 0 ... e 6 1 1 .�e3! tZJ fS 1 2.exd5 exd5 1 3.�d4 �e 6 1 4.g3! il.e7 15. .ig2 0-0 1 6.liJe3 :t fdS ( 1 6 . . . tiJe4? 1 7.ClJxc4 +-, Hausrath-Faria, Mamaia 1 99 1 ) 1 7.�2
S . . c6 6.b4 .
To take on cS doesn't bring the first player anything, as was already shown in the old game Alapin-Chigorin, Monte Carlo 1 90 1 : 6.dxc6 tlJxc6 7 .e4 (or 7. f'lIxc4 eS) 7 . . . i.d7 B .txc4 e6 9.ttJf3 ':c8 1 0. nod1 i.b4 with a comfortable game for Black. .
6 cxb3 ...
Frequently we also find 6 ...b57.'i¥xa5'irxa5S.bxa5 b4.
White has three possibilities:
Black's pawn chain is as pretty as a picture, but immobile at the same time, and one always has to take care of d5. Although as is also weak, it seems to me that the compensation for the piece is not sufficient. It is very important that White's bishop threatens the a7-pawn, in consequence of which the secona player has problems with the develop ment of the a 8 rook and he always has to reckon with tiJxc4 . And if Black plays . . . a7-a6, the bishop can occupy bS. c) 9.tZJa4 cxd5 1 0 .e4 ! e6 1 1 . e xd5 exd5 1 2 . .i.e3 ClJf6 1 3.�e2 �e7 1 4.tLlf3 0-0 1 5 ..t c5 lle 8 1 6.CZJd4, and again White's chances are somewhat better, Komljenovic-Mellado, Linares 1 994. -
a) 9.dxc6 bxc3 1 0.e4 �a6, and the about equal, e.g. 1 1 .ttJe2 e6 1 2.tZJxc3 (1 2.l:b1 c2 ! 1 3.l:lb2 ttJe7) 12 . Ab4 13 . .td2 tlJe7 1 4.:c1 tiJxc6 1 5. � 1 .ba5 1 S.:txc4 hc4 1 7 Juc4 ClJe5 18.l:tc2 Ab6 with a drawish endgame.
chances are .
b)
.
9.�d1 cxd51 0.e4!
It is very important for White to exchange on dS. After that Black's d-pawn can become weak, furthermore he gets the
,
7.axb3 e6 Very bad is is 7... bS? because of 8.b4 tZJb7 9.'*!Yxc6+ 'tIid7 1 O.lLlbs �d8 1 1 .
tZJxa7! +-, H. Rost-Rehfeld, carr. 1 990. 8 .td2! It would be a blunder to take on a5: 8.�xa5?? �xa5 9.llxa5 �b4. .
Chapter 2
24
Also not to be recommended is 8.b4? Thanks to the reply 8 ....e· f 6! (Watson) Black brings his opponent into a critical situation, e.g. 9.Ad2 tiJc4 1 0.dxc6 b 6 (Watson's analysis ends here) 1 1 . '; !b5 Cl:lxd2 1 2.ti:Jc7+ �e7 13.b5 ( 1 3.tz:Jxa8 '&c3 1 4.�d 1 tiJe4 -+, 1 3. �xd2 �f4+ 1 4.e3 �xc7 -+) 13 '§'c3 (the computer thinks that 1 3 ... tiJe4 wins more easily) 1 4:�a3+ �xa3 1 5. l:txa3 �d8 ( 1 5 . . . tiJc4 -+) 1 6.iLJxa8 .lixa3 1 7. �xd2 8f6 1 8.f3 e5 1 9.e4 .lie6 2Q.Ad3 �c8 21 . tlJe2 �b8 -+, Berczes-D.Werner, Buda pest 2003. In Lebedev-Chigorin, corr. 1 900, 8.�b2 was played. Chigorin discovered the best response: 8... 'l!¥ b 6! 9.'tWxa5�x b3. Then came 1 OJlb1 ? ! (better would be 1 O .'i!fa2 �xa2 1 1 .tLlxa2 exd5 oo) 1 0 . . . .1i.b4 1 1 .�a1 CZJf6 ! ( 1 1 . . . exd5 1 2.8f3 ;1;) 1 2. dxc6 liJe4 1 3J1c1 a5 ! ! 1 4.tLlf3 (1 4.13 a4 ! 1 5.fxe4 a3 -+) 1 4 . . . a4 1 5.liJd4 �d5 1 6.e3 a3 1 7 . .axa3 ( 1 7. .ab5 0-0 -+) 1 7 ... tz:Jxc3 1 8 .�xb4 :Xa 1 1 9.1Ixal 8a2 +. •••
8 Cl:Jxb3 On 8 . . . b6 there again follows 9.b4. •••
9.�xb3 exd5
about equal. But what do the positional factors look like? At the moment White has a development advantage , but if he isn't able to take advantage of it, Black's pawn chain on the queenside can be come dangerous. That's why the first player has to try to open up the game as quickly as possible so as to set the stage for a kingside attack. 10.e4! Played according to the fundamental plan. Harmless would be 1 0.e3 ��':f6 1 1 . tiJf3 �d6, and Black castles without problems. 1 0... d4 In a later game Formanek now pl ayed 1 0 dxe4, Wheeler-Formanek, Chicago 1 997. There followed 1 1 .�c4! Vf!Je7 1 2.liJge2 b5? , and now with 1 3.tlJxb51 ••.
cxb5 1 4.�xb5+ �d7 1 5:�b7 .ac8 ( 1 5 .. . .ad8 1 6.0-0 8f6 17 . .axa7 �c5 1 8.l:tcl �e5 1 9.t:ta8 Ae7 2Q . .il.a5 ±) 1 6 . .i.b5 .ad8 1 7.lIxa7 White could have got the opponent into big trouble . Better was 1 2 8 f 6 but also then after 1 3.'i!Ya2! (in order to vacate the b3-square for the bishop) 1 3 . . . �e6 ( 1 3 ... b5 1 4.Ab3 b4 1 5 .8d1 .il.g4 1 6.tiJd4 c5 1 7.�a6! with an attack) 1 4.0-0 .txc4 1 5.'1!Vxc4 �c5 1 6. �b3 'ii' b4 1 7.'iVa2 Whit, would have a strong initiative. •.•
,
11.�c4! �d7
White won the opponent's knight. But i n doing so he h ad t o give three pawns, so the position is, materially speaking ,
The knight was untouchable: 1 1 ... dxc3? 1 2.Axf7+ �e7 1 3.i.xc3, winning. Also not much fun was 1 1 .. .'�e7 1 2. C2Jce2, e.g. 1 2 . . . tz:Jf6 1 3.13 c5 1 4.tLlf4 ( 1 4 .tiJh3! ?) 1 4 . . . g6 1 5.8ge2 Ag7 1 6. �b5+ tiJd7 1 7.t2Jd5, and Black cannot resist White's attack. 12.Cl:Jd51 Now 1 3.tiJb6 is threatening.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 r;; 'ICS 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.dS
2S
White develops his bishop und si multaneously drives away the eS knight which protects c4. But as we'll see, this variation is absolutely not dangerous for Black. The continuations 5.�d4 and S.f4 are shown in the following main games.
12 ... b5 1 3.i.d3 .tb7 1 4. liJf3! .sidS 1 4 ... cxdS? l s.hbS i.cS l S.tlJeS +-. 1 5.0-0! On l S.tiJxd4 follows l S ...i.eS!, where af1er the play becomes unclear. Now Black has to take the knight finally, but due to his awkward development he is not able to resist the opponent's attack anymore.
1 5 ... cxd5 l S . .txb5 .teS 1 7. .axe6 '6'xe6 1 B.rnc1 �d7 19. >H"xd5 l:[dB 20. 'Y:¥xd4 White has regained all his sacrificed material. Moreover, Black is still under developed, and two of his pawns are attacked. 20 ... .axh2+ Unfortunately this tactical possibility doesn't help him anymore either. 21 .Wxh2 �xd4 lbd4 23.�c3
22.tZJxd4
Nothing is likely to come from 5. ':; - f3 tZJxf3+ S.exf3 eS 7.i.xc4 SLdS, and the second player has no difficulties. After 5.e4 e 6 6..t f4 (S.f4 tlJgS � S.f4 t2:JgS, S...€ld3+ !? 7 . .txd3 cxd3oo) Black can play 6...�g 6 7 .i.g3 €lfS S . .txc4 exdS 9.exdS �dS =, Pisulinski-Fries Nielsen, Goteborg 1997, but also 6... i.d 6!?, e.g. 7.i.xe5 i.xeS S.i.xc4 exd5 9.exd5 �fS 10.�f3 .tg4 (1 0 . . . ..txc3+ !?) 11.h3 i.xf3 12.�xf3 0-0 with equality, Gruk-Morozevich , ICC 5/0 1999.
5 ... tiJg6 Also with tempo! 6 . .tg3 e5 This is common in such positions - Black will either lock up the g3-bishop or force White's d-pawn to be exchanged. The game Sharadorj-J . Gonzales, Mani la 2001, proceeded in another way: 6... i.d7!?
With the idea 7 ... bS. 7.a4
White prevents this, but weakens the b4-square. Moreover - and this is even more important - the insertion of ....tcS d7 and a2-a4 prevents a queen check on a4. 7 e 6 8.e4 tiJ f 6 9_.txc4 ..'ii.. b4 •••
1 :0 Game S Gligoric - Smyslov Amsterdam 1 971
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tZJc3 dxe4 4.d5 c.�e5 5.id4
Without S .. i.d717.a4 this would be impossible because of '\Wd1-a4+. 1 0.dxe 6
1 0.�b3 i.xc3+ followed by 11...t2:Jxe4. 1 0 ... Axe 6 1 1 . i.xeS 't'Ixd1+ 1 2. :txd1 fxeS 13.13, and in this roughly equal pOSition the opponents agreed a draw.
Chapter 2
26
7.dxe6 Gligoric doesn't want his bishop on g3 to stand passively, so he eliminates the eS-pawn . However. Black can now develop comfortably and even hope for a small advantage - White has to tax his brain to win back his pawn. An alternative is 7.r:� f3 �dS 8.e4, and now: ...
Axes 1 8J::tae1 tlJd7 1 9.t2JdS �g5 20. h4! +-) 1 4. a4 tlJhS 1 S.�e2 tlJxg3 1 6. hxg3 .tca 1 7.�d 1 fS 1 8.exfS .txfS 1 9 . .tg4 e4 with initiative for Black. But it isn't clear why White didn't want to take on b7 on the 1 4th or 1 Sth move. 1 0.t2Jxc4 a6 1 1 .£d3 tlJf4 ! 1 2.0-0 ( 1 2 . .txf4 exf4 1 3.0-0 bS 1 4.t2Jxd6 '&xd6 1 S.'t!7'd2 tlJg4 1 6.h3 tlJeS doesn't really look good for the first player - Black has conquered the important blockading eS square and is ready to attack the oppo nent's king; even worse would be 1 3.eS? Ile8 1 4 .�e2 �xeS 1 S.tlJxeS �d6+) 1 2 ... tlJ6hS 1 3.:c1 �gS. and in the game Vokac-Kaminski, Lazne Bohdanec 1 996, Black yielded the initiative on the kingside. b)
Also possible is 8 aS 9.,txc4 tiJ f 6 1 0.0-0 0-0 with the idea of ... tlJhS-f4. The ...
internet blitz game Lautier-Morozevich. ICC 3/0 1 999, went on as follows: 1 1 . Ile 1 �e7 (1 1 ... tzJhS? 1 2.tlJxeS tzJxg3 1 3.tlJxg6 ±) 1 2.l::lc 1 t2Jh5 1 3.tiJd2 ( 1 3 . tLlxeS?? t2JxeS -+) 1 3 ... tlJhf4 1 4 . .tf1 hS!? with an attack. These examples show us that in the 7.tlJf3-variation Black can get play on the kingside rather quickly, while the first player has no clear plan . 7... .txe6 8.�f3 tDf6 9.�d4 .td7 1 0.e3 ..lib4 1 1 .�xc4 ()..() , 1 1 . . . flJe4? 1 2.�b3 il..x c3+ 1 3.bxc3 0-0 1 4.�xb7 ±. '
a) 8 .t"2JfS 9.tlJd2 In order to take on c4 with the knight. 9 . .'iLxc4 a6 leads to variation b). ..
9 0-0 ...
In an internet blitz game against Kam sky (ICC 3/0 1 999) Morozevich played 9 . . . �e7 1 0.t2Jxc4 �b4 instead. Further followed 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 1 2.0-0 �g4 1 3. �b3 .tcS ( 1 3 ... tlJf4 1 4.�xf4 exf4 1 S. h3 ! ? � 1 S . . . .thS? 1 6.d6! �xd6 1 7.eS!
12.�C2 c6 1 3.h3 After 1 3.0-0 tzJhS 1 4Jlfd 1 tlJxg3 1 S.hxg3 C2:JeS 1 6 ..te2 �f6 Black's position would be somewhat better because of the bishop pair, that's why Gligoric vacates the h2-square for his bishop. But this decision also has its disadvantages, as we will see soon. 1 3 'We7 1 4.0-0 ...
1 .d4 d5 2.c4
t�
!O6 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.d5
27
...
1 4 ... �xc31 This was played for two reasons: W hite cannot recapture the bishop with the queen because of 1 5 . . ..:. "le4 followed by 1 6 .. J�ixg3. And after the forced 1 5. bxc3 White's pawn structure on the queenside is com promised.
Black exchanges a piece, which controls the important central e4square over which Black would like even more control. 1 5.bxc3 tlJe4 1 6.�h2 c5 ! 1 7.tlJf3 As given by Smyslov, Black has some advantage after 1 7.tLJb5 .tc6 1 8.f3 �xb5 1 9 . .txb5 tLJd6 20. .txd6 �xd6. 1 7 .tc6 ! ...
According to Nimzowitsch pieces obtain additional power from any important central square they are in contact with . Of course the magic square in this po sition is e4 . 1 8.�d3 f5 ! On the obvious 1 8 . . . 1:11e8 there follows 1 9.Clje5 CZJxe5 20 . .txe4 'iYh4 21 . ..tf4 .i.xe4 22:�xe4, and Black's pressure decreases.
1 9J1ad1 blad8 20.St.e2 �f6!
Now the weakness on c3 makes itself felt. White cannot simultaneously keep the c-pawn protected and stay on the d file with the rook. 21 .l:txd8 lIxd8 22J�rcl h6 23.�d3 He would like to drive away the knight from h is ideal position with l2lf3-e1 and f2-f3. The immediate 23.tZJe1 would be bad because of 23 .. JId2. 23 ...�h8 The king prophylactically avoids possible checks. 24.tlJe1 Now White is ready to play f2-f3. 24... c4! Smyslov doesn't g ive his opponent the
opportunity to realize his plan. The c4pawn cannot be taken: 2S . .txc4 I1d2 26.�b1 'tWh4 27.f3 tLJg5 28.i.b5 tlJxf3+ ! -+. The same move - . . . tld8-d2 - also follows in the case of the bishop moving to e2 or f1 . That's why White has only one move at his disposal. 25.�xe4 fxe4 Smyslov rejected 25 ... Axe4 because of 26:�a4. 26.�e2 b5
Chapter 2
28
Black's advantage increases more and more. Now he plans to get his knight to dS and then advance the queenside pawns. White has no counterplay - the manoeuvre tiJe 1 -c2 is impossible be cause then the c3-pawn would be lost.
With this move he hopes to hold the po sition: Everything is protected, and if the opponent attacks the c3-pawn once more by 41 . . . �f6, 42 . .ae 1 is possible. However . . .
27.i.g3 CLle71 2S:i¥b2 tZJd5 29.�a3 a5 ! 30.Wh2 This pawn could not be taken : 30.�xa5? 1:[a8, and White loses his queen. 30 h5! ...
Threatening 3 1 ... h4. To prevent that, White's h-pawn has to move one square forward, but then the g4-square becomes weak. 31 .h4 �f8! The queen is White's only active piece. That's why Smyslov wants to exchange her or chase her away from her position. 32.�b2 t2Jf6 ! 33,..e3 li)f6 (everyth i ng agai nst d5!) 1 2.0-0 ( 1 2 .0-0-0? cxd5 1 3.exd5 l:1c8 1 4.�b3 li)xd5 +, Dlugy-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999, 1 2.dxc6 .txc6 � main game, 1 2.dxe6 .txe6 1 3.�e2! ? oo) 12 �a5 1 3.l:lad1 ( 1 3.dxc6 .txc6 1 4.tZJe5 :ac8 1 5.�d4 .tb4 with counterplay) 1 3 ... cxd5 1 4.exd5 .ac8 1 5.'�·e2 .tb4 1 6 . .td4 0-0 1 7 . .txf6 gxf6 1 8. tiJe4 Jt..e7 1 9.dxe6 .tb5 20.exf7+ lixf7 2 1 .'iVe1 �xa2°o, Stem-Low, Bad Wiessee 2003. b) In Siebrecht-Wisnewski , German Championship 2000, there followed 1 1 .0-0 cxd5 1 2.exd5 l:[c8 1 3.�b3 .tc5 1 4,,�h1 tZJf6. Now W hite disliked both 1 5.'+!1'xb7?! lThB 1 6.'&a6 ti:Jxd5 � 1 7. llJxd5?? iLb5 -+ and 1 5.dxe6 �xe6 1 6. •••
1 1 ... .txc6 12 ..te3 tiJf6 After 1 2 . . .'�a5? ! 1 3.C2:Je5 �b4 1 4.�xb4 i.xb4 1 5.t[Jxc6 .txc3+ l S.bxc3 bxc6 1 7. �e2 White would get a clearly better . endgame. 1 3.0-0 1 3.tZJe5 nc8 1 4.0-0 ( 1 4 ..il.xa7 t[Jxe4! 1 5. Cljxe4 �a5+ 1 6.li)c3 'i!¥xa7) 1 4 . . . .te7 leads to transposition. 13 ...i.e7 1 4.tLJe5 �c8 1 5. ttJxc6 Also after 1 5 .i.xa 7 �xe4 1 6.'�·b5+ (or l S.�a4+ .tc6 1 7.tDxcS l:xc6=) 1 6 ... Ac6 1 7 .tDxc6 bxc6 1 8 .'�c4 0-0 followed by . . . tZJd5 Black would stand quite well. 1 5 ... h(xc6 1 6.�a4? ! 1 6.�b5 �b8 1 7 Jlad 1 0-0 led to equality.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4 .d5
16 ... a6 1 7.nad1 '.J!!i c7 1 8.h3 0-0
47
The rest we need not to give here. The game ended i n a draw. . . . 1f2:1f2
Game 1 6 Bacrot VCHESS2 'Men vs. Machine', Cap D'Agde 1 998 -
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 liJc6 3.tLJc3 d xc4 4.d5 tlJe5 5.f4 llJd7 6.e4 c(�'.b6 7.a4
Now Dlugy had to realise that he has serious problems with his e-pawn be cause of the threat 1 9 ... t.c4. However, he unearths a tactical idea.
1 9.e5 �c4 20.exf6? Now it seems that W hite will get more than enough material for his queen after 20 . . . l:xa4 2 1 .fxe7 �xe7 22.tlJxa4, but Morozevich finds a beautiful refuta tion. The lesser evi ls would be 20.'i!¥b3 l:b4 21 .'&c2 tlJd5 22 . .td4 :c8 or 20.'ti'c2 tDe4, although in both cases White's position would remain rather u ncom fortable.
20 ... .tcS ! This unexpected response leads to a material advantage.
21 .�d7 After 21 .fxg7? ! .i'.xe3+ 22s!th1 l'lxa4 23. gxf8't'!'+ �xf8 24.�a4 �c2 Dlugy would not have had many chances to save the game.
21 ... �xe3+ 22. �h1 And now White would not have any compensation for the pawn in the case of 22 ... Axf4 23.fxg7 �xg7 24.�d3 .teS. Morozevich played 22 . gxf6?!, and after 23.f5 things were not so clear anymore . ..
W ith the threat of a4-a5 W hite wants to force ... a7-a5, and after that he would like to play .sie3xb6, on which Black could only recapture with the c-pawn. The im mediate 7 ..te3 was played now and the n , e .g . 7 . . . e6 8.tLlf3 exd5 9. exd5? ! (better would be 9 . .axb6 axb6 1 0.'i:i'xd5 oo) 9 ...tLlf6 1 0 . .txb6 axb6 1 1 . .txc4 .tc5 1 2 .'/!'e2+ �e7 1 3 .'i'fxe7 + �xe7 1 4.�d2 Ud8 with i nitiative for Black, Krush-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. .
7. aS 8 . .te3 e6 ! 9 . .txb6 cxb6 1 0.Axc4 ..tb4! ..
This increases the pressure on the opponent's centre. After 1 0 . . . �c5 ? ! 1 1 . tLJf3 exd5 1 2.@xd5 �xd5 1 3 .lDxd5 �8 1 4.tLJe5 tLJh6 1 5.0-0-0± W h ite obtained a big advantage in the game Banikas-Dorfanis, Salonika 1 996.
Chapter 2
48
CDe7 00 would be possible) 1 6 .. :tIf'd2+ 1 7.c;t11 , Dlugy-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999, and now Black could win immediately by means of 17 ... .tcSl l S.tlJh3 ( l S .tiJd1 �c2 ! -+) 1 8 . . . 'iYd3+ 1 9.We1 ..td4 -+.
1 1 .. :�f8! After 1 1 ... .td7?! 1 2 .dxeS fxe6 1 3 .i¥hS+ �8 (13 ... g6 1 4.'fi'e5±) 1 4.0-0-0 �e8 1 5. 'fi'xe8+ Axe8 l S . .txe8 :XeS 1 7.tlJge2 White would stand clearly more actively.
1 1 .i.bS+ The most principled continuation - White prevents the opponent from castling. In Ivanchuk-Morozevich, New York (peA rapid) 1 995 , W hite played 1 1 .C2:Jf3. There followed 1 1 ...'lJf6 1 2.0·0 0-0 ( 1 2 ... �xc3? ! 1 3. bxc3 iDxe4 1 4. �d4 tlJf6 1 5.d6!? 0-0 1 6.tLleS±) 1 3.dxe6 i.xe6 1 4.�xe6 fxe6 (possible was also 1 4 .. :iYxdl !?, e.g. 1 5.l:axdl fxeS 1 S.tzJgS ttaeS 1 7.lIde l - 1 7.1:1fel ? .si..c5+ l S.'�h l tzJg4 1 9 .'lJh3 l:txf4 ! -+ 1 7 . . . i.cS+ l S. �h1 CZJg4 with initiative or 1 S.�xf7 + Uxf7 1 6.l:laxdl Axc3 1 7. bxc3 tzJxe4=) 1 5.'!Wb3 �h8! ( 1 5 .. :�e7 l S.tLJgS with initiative) 1 6.tLJg5 (1 6.'�xeS %%eSoo) 1 6 tlJg4 ( 1 6 . . . Ac5+? 1 7 .�h l tiJg4 1 8.'i'!¥xe6 ! ±) 1 7.tZJxe6 ( 1 7.�xe6? '8'd4+ l S.�h 1 tlJf2+ 1 9.1:W2 'tl¥xf2 +), and in stead of 1 7 . . . �h4? 1 8. h3 :laeS 1 9.ti:Je2 ! nxeS 20:�xe6 .tcS+ 21 .Whl + - , 1 7 .,tc5+ ! l S.llJxc5 ( l 8.�h l ?? �h4 1 9. h3 'iWg3 -+ ) 1 S . . . �d4+ 1 9 .�h l bxcSoo would have been correct. Dlugy tried 1 1 .dxe6 against Morozevich, but he did not get any advantage : 1 1 ... -
..•
...
..txe6 1 2.i.xe6 fxe6 1 3. �h5+ g6 1 4. '6'bS+ 'iWd7 1 S:�e5 ( 1 5:�xd7 + Wxd7
1 6.tZJge2 tlJfS 1 7.0-0-0+ �e7 = O lugy Morozevich , ICC 3/0 1 999) 15 . . . 0-0-0 1 6:�xh8? (White had to choose l S. tlJf3, after which 1 6 ... C2:JhSoo or 1 6 ...
1 2.dxe6 On 1 2.tiJge2 follows 1 2 ... exdS 1 3.exd5 (after 1 3.'�xdS i.eS 1 4:iYxd8+ Uxd8 Black's bishop pair compensates for the disadvantageous pawn structure) 1 3 . . . 1Wh4+ 1 4.g3 'i¥h3 oo.
1 2 ... i.xe6 1 3.'tWf3 Unclear play results after 1 3/; lge2 :iJf6 (interesting is also 1 3 . . . �h4+ ! ? 1 4 .g3 '§'e7 1 5.fS IId8) 1 4.fS �xd 1 + 1 5Jlxd l .tb3 1 6.lId4 lIcS. After the exchange on dS only White can get into difficu lties: 1 3.'iYxd8+?! lIxdS 1 4J�d l ? ! ( 1 4.'lJf3 CDfS 1 S .lDd2 gS 1 6.0-0-0 �g7 +) 14 ... nxd 1 + l S.'�xdl tlJfS ( l S . . . i.xc3 ! 1 6. bxc3 'lJfS 1 7.eS 'lJe4 ::t) l S.tlJge2 �e7 1 7.�cl ncs with i nitiative, F . Stephenson-W ismayer , Torquay 1 998.
1 3 ... tiJf6 1 4.f5 In the case of 1 4.Ci:Jge2 .i.g4 Black has sufficient counterplay, e.g . 1 5.'�·e3 ( 1 S.'�d3 �xd3 l S .Axd3 lldS 1 7.l:d 1 �e7=) 1 S . . . .tcS 1 6.'tI¥g3 h5!? 1 7.h3 ( 1 7.l:d l h4 ! l S:�d3 �xd3 1 9.rIxd3 h3 20.g3 i.b4 2 1 .e5 tlJe4 or l S.Iixd8+ l:[xd8 1 9 .'iWd3 lhd3 20 . .il..xd3 h3, with Black's initiative respectively) 1 7 . . . h4 l S:�d3 �xd3 1 9.�xd3 .teS 20.0-0-0 g6 oo•
1 4 ... i.d7
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t� "ICS 3.ti)c3 dxc4 4.dS
It's not easy to assess this position . Black has doubled pawns on the queenside, he cannot castle anymore, and the hS-rook is out of play for the time being. On the other hand White has not yet finished his development either, his king stands in the centre and the e4-pawn can be attacked.
1 S.tlJge2 Here 1 S.l'Id 1 was interesting, too, on which Black probably has to react with 1S . . . 1!Ve7, e.g. l S . ..txd7 tiJxd7 1 7.llJge2 tDeS l S.'i!f'g3 tiJc4 with a complicated struggle.
1 S �xbS 1 7.0-0 •••
1 6.axbS
�e7!
An alternative is 1 7.0-0-0! ? 1:e8 1 8.l:td3 ( 1 8.�d4 ..tcS 1 9 .1:c4 tZJd7 ! =F) 1 8 . . .tiJd7 (1 S . . . tiJxe4? 1 9.:e3 + - , 1 8 ... h5!?) 1 9. :ld4 with an unclear game.
1 7.. Jle8 1 8.tiJg3? ! From here the knight can easily be driven away by . . . hS-h4. So 1 8JIae1 was to be preferred, after which 1 8 . . . tlJxe4? fails d u e t o 1 9.tlJd4! (1 9.0:Jg3? tLld2 -+) 1 9 ... ..txc3 20.bxc3 hS 2 1 .'iYf4! (21 J%e2 l2JgS) 21 ... Wg8 22.f6! gxfS 23. �g4+ �8 24.l:tf4 l:1g8 25.�h4 + - .
49
1 9... hS ! After 1 9 . . . i.xc3 20.'t!¥xc3 'i!Vxb5 2 1 .11fe1 W hite would have obtained a dangerous initiative since 21 . . . 0:Jg4 22.h3 tlJe5 loses because of 23.l:dS. But now Black com bines the threats against b 5 and e 4 and puts his opponent into difficulties.
20.tiJdS 20.11fe1 would be bad because of 20 . . . iLxc3 2 1 .bxc3 (21 .�xc3 �xc3 22.bxc3 h4 +) 21 .. .'�xb5.
20 ... h4 21 .tlJxf6 gxf6 Much stronger than 21 . . . .ic5+ 22siih 1 hxg3 23 . ClJd7+ �g8 24 .h3 �xb2 2S . �xg3.
22.tlJhS j),.d6 23.nxd6? Probably caused by a miscalculation and losing immediately. Correct was 23.tLJf4, although Black would have remained with an extra pawn after 23 .. :�xb5.
23 .. :�cS+ 24.�h1 'iWxd6 2S.�g4 �d4 26:�g7+ �e7 27.eS No better would be 27.0:Jf4 �eg8 ! (may� be Bacrot overlooked this move when he played 23.l:xd6) 28.ClJgS+ We8 -+ .
27.. JlxhS 28.exf6+ 29.'*'xf7 I;Ixf5
1 8 .. :i¥eS !? 1 9.Irad1 0:1
Wd8
Chapter 3
so
Chapter 3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 C2Jc6 3.t2Jc3 dxc4 4.ClJf3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.8c3 dxc4 4.tDf3
4.t·',f3 is the most topical continuation nowadays. White develops the knight, protects the d4-pawn and leaves himself a variety of options. After 4 .. .tijf6 (4 . . . ;;"g4?! will be briefly analysed within Game 1 7) he has the following options: 5.d5 forces Black's knight (in contrast to 4.dS from Chapter 2!) to the rim (S . . . l2:JaS), o n the other hand the lines involv ing a piece sacrifice after b2-b4 are not as threatening as they are in Chapter 2, since the insertion of lDf3/t2Jf6 in this case favours Black. We will examine: 5.d5 tLJa5 6.e4 c:> Game 1 7 5.d5 tLJa5 6 .�a4+ c:> Game 1 8
You can find some additional variations such as S . .tgS in the annotations. 5.e4 is the most important continuation here - White establishes the central pawn pair d4/e4. In the main line Black exerts pressure on the centre by pinning both White's knights 5 il.g4 6.�e3 -
...
e6 7.Axc4 Ab4 8.'iVc2 0-0 9.� 1 . We will examine thoroughly this principal position along with its typical ideas in Game 22. In contrast to the hectic variations of Chapter 2 (4.d5 ,�.� !e5F��5) , here strategic schemes have priority over concrete calculations, the game develops relatively calmly. However, 'calmly' does not mean 'boring' at all, the asymmetric structure gives both sides good chances to play for a win: 5.e4 Ag4 6.d5 c:> Game 19 5.e4 Ag4 6.Ae3 i.xf3 c:> Game 20-2 1 5.e4 .tg4 6 . .te3 e6 7.�xc4 �b4 S:!!Vc2 o.() 9J:td1, and now: 9 We7 c:> Game 22-23 9 .tiJe7 c:> Game 24 9 i.xf3 � Game 25 ...
..
...
There are some more deviations for both sides in this line: 9.0-0-0 � Games 26-27 S ... 'fiIe7 � Game 28 S.iVd3 � Game 29
The alternative 5.e3 seems to be quite modest, but the idea is to give the second player fewer chances to develop counterplay. In the thematic sequence 5 . . . eS 6.dS CiJe7 7.Axc4 tZ:Jg6 B.h4, we see the typical 'Ieftwards trend' of the c6-knight, as well as the equally typical 'flirting' of White's h-pawn with the knight c:> Game 30 After 5. �'a4 we enter the area of the Queen 's Gambit Accepted, the position occurs more often from that opening. Black plays 5 ...e6 � Game 31 or 5...ClJd5
�
Game 32
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.'lJc3 dxc4 4.tz:Jf3 In conclusion, there is another ex perimental idea from correspondence chess circles 4 ... a6!? Q Game 33 Game 1 7 Adianto - Arencibia
Cap d'Agde 1 998 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ttJc6 3.0.Jc3 dxc4 4.ttJf3 ttJf6 4 .i..g 4?! makes an unfavourable •••
impression :
51
'iYxd 1 +? - 1 0 . . . bxc6 1 1 .�a4±, Henrichs Schinke, German Championship 2005 1 1 .lIxd1 bxc6 1 2.tLlbS!) 10.0-0 tlJd7 (1 0 . . . bS 1 1 .tiJxbS! axb5 1 2.i..xbS+ tlJd7 1 3.l:[c 1 :a7 1 4:�d4 'toWb8 1 S.'fYxa7! 'tIUxa7 1 6.:Xc7 �xc7 1 7.i.xc7 t2Jh4 1 8. l:[c1 t2Jf5 1 9.JL.b6 1 :0, Tukmakov-S.Vin cent, Lugano 1 986) 1 1 .11e 1 tz:Jb6 1 2. �b3 �d7 1 3.tiJa4 ( 1 3Jlc 1 ±, Hebden Notkin, Capelle la Grande 1 995) 1 3 ... tz:Jxa4 1 4.i..xa4 b5 1 5.�b3 +-, Taddei Pisk, France 2002. Back to the main game:
S.dS Axf3
5 . . t2Ja5 6:�a4+ c6 7.b4 b5 8:�xa5 'i!fxa5 9.bxa5 b4 1 0.tZJa4 cxd5 1 1 .e4! ±, Epishin-Gibney, Vancouver 2000. .
6.exf3 tz:JeS
6 . . . t2Ja5?! 7 : e6 1 0.i.d2+-, Pliasunov-Elfert, Petersburg 2000.
St.
7 . .i..f4,
•
S.d5
White gains some space and forces the knight to the rim, since now the eS square is not available, in contrast to the variation with 4.d5. There are quite a few alternatives: S.e4 (Q Games 19-29), S.e3 (Q Game 30), 5.'ti'a4 (Q Games 3 1 -32). Sometimes and now: a} 7 ... t2Jd7 8 . .i..xc4 a6 9.0-0 �f6 1 0. J:te1 ±, Donner-Keene, London 1 97 1. b) 7 ...tZJd3+ 8 . .i..xd3 cxd3 9.tLlbS ! lIc8 10.tz:Jxa7 'ifYxd5 (1 0 . . . :a8 1 1 .tLlbS 1:tc8 1 2.'ii'xd3+-) 1 1 .tlJxc8 �e6+ 1 2.�e3 'e'xc8 1 3.�xd3+-, Su.Polgar-J.H. Rudolf, North Bay 1 995. c) 7 ... tlJg6 8.JL.xc4 tLlf6 (8 ... tLlxf4? 9.i.bS+ +-) 9.i.g3 as (9 ... c6 1 0.dxc6!
S.i..g S
is played as well : a) S hS a 1) S .iixfS exf6 7.e3 a 1 1 )7 tlJa5 8.iVa4+1? (8.e4? �d7! 9. tlJd2 bS�, Cherniak-Finegold, New York 1 992, 8.t2Jd2 c6 9.tz:Jxc4 tz:Jxc4 1 0.�xc4 i..d 6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.iVhS IS 1 3.l:rad 1 '&g5=, Gausel-P.-H.Nielsen, Reykjavik 2000) 8 c6 9.b4 cxb3 1 0.axb3 �b6 1 1 . �xa5 �xa5 1 2.Dxa5 i.b4 1 3.I:1cS •••
•
.••
...
52
Chapter 3
AeS 14.eLJd2 �xc5 15.dxc5 � Gyimesi Korpics, Hu ng ary 1999, and Vareille Loiret, France 2002), 14 .. J:ld8!? a12) 7 ... Ad6 S.lLJd2 (or 8 . �xc4 0-0 9. 0-0 f5 10.:cl as 11.a3 �d7, and Black has no problems, Ostenstad-Gausel, Oslo 1985) 8...0-0 9.lLJxc4 f5 10.g3 1:1e8 11. �g2lLJe7! 12.0-0 c6!=, M. Schulze Peek, corr. 2002. a2) 6.iLh4 a21) 6 ... e6 7.e3 tLlaS 8.lLJe5 a6 9:�a4+ (9..txfS �xf6 1 0.�a4+ lLlc6 1 1.CZJxc6 �d7 12.d5 exdS 13.lLJxdS �d6 14.0-0-0 hc6 15.'�xc4 b5 16:�e4+ il..e7 17.Ae2 IId8 18.il..f3 'lWcS+ 19.'it>b1 �d5 20.IIxd5 �xdS 21.�xd5 lbd5 22..txd5 �d6=) 9 ...cS 10.lLlxc4 (10.b4?! b5 11. �xaS �xa5 12.bxa5 ..'i.b4 +) 10... CZJxc4 11:�xc4 �bS 12.0-0-0 i.d7 13.e4 '@a5 14.'H¥b3 b5°o, Dreev-Morozevich, Alushta 1994. In terestin g is, however, Breutigam's suggestion 8.�xf6!? gxfS (8.. :�xf6? 9.�a4+) 9.�a4+ c6 1 0.b4 cxb3 11.axb3 bS (11...bS 12.llJxbS! cxb5 13.�xb5+ �e7 14.�b4+ �d6 1 5.�xd6+ �xd6 lS. �a5±) 12.b4 CZJb7 13.�xcS+ 'iJNd7 14.�b5 and White has the upper hand (14...il..xb4? 15.Ilxa7!+-). a22)6 ...a61? 7.d5 On 7.'&'a4 (7.e4 i.g4) could follow the unpleasant 7...b5!? 8.CLJxb5 Ad7 9.'l:Ja3 e5!, e.g. 10:'lWxc4 il..b4+ 11.Wd1 exd4 12.lLJc2 nbS 13.tlJfxd4 0-0 with initiative. 7 .. ,tDa5 7 .. .tlJa7?! 8.e4 seems too risky for Black, e.g. 8 ...b5 9.e5 with initiative (9 ...liJd7? 10.e6 fxe6 11 :�c2!+-) or 8... C2:Jb5 9. ..'i.xc4 C2Jxc3 10.bxc3 'l:Jxe4 11 .0-0 w i th a dangerous development advantage in return for the sacrificed pawn, Bukal Peek, Lido Estensi 2002. 8.e4 c6! But not S.. . b5?! 9.e5 b4, and now White could have achieved a significan t advantage with 10.'H"a4+ cS 11.dxcS in the game V. Milov-Morozevich, Tilburg
1994, e.g. 11...bxc3 12.c7+ �d7 13. tId 1! cxb2 14.Uxd7 i.xd7 15:Wo'c2 tiJd5 lS.'�xb2 ± or 11 . . .'�b6 12.l'ld 1 bxc3 13.exf6 Cl:JxcS 14.il..xc4 gxfS 1S.bxc3 ±. 9.dxc6 't?fxd1+ 1 0.l'lxdl b5 11.e5 (11.0:Jd5 Ita7 12.C2:Jb6 nc700) 11 ...g5 12.exf6 gxh4 13.C2:Jd5 tla7 with a comp licated struggle.
b) S .tiJdS!? 6.e4 ti:Jxc3 (S...C2:JbS 7.dS C2:Jb4 8 ..axc4 tUxc4 9:�'a4+ c6 10:*"'xb4 tZJb6 10Jld1 with i n it i ative, Notkin-M. Ivanov, Moscow 1996) 7.bxc3 fS (7... tZJaS!? 8.tLJd2 b5, di C aro - M i ladinovic , Rome 200S) B.Ae3 tlJa5 9.llJd2 c6 10.ez:Jxc4 g6 (10 ... i.eS?? 11.'&h5++-, Iskusnyh-Tishin, St.Petersburg 2001) 11 :�c2 il..e6 12.tZJd2 kg7 13.il..e2 0-0 14.0-0 f5! 15.exf5 i.xf5 lS. �a4 wh8 17.nad1 b5 18.'\&'a3 �e6DO, Gelfand Miladinovic, Belgrade 1995. ••
c) 5 ... a61? 6.d5 After 6.e4 hS 7.i.xfS exf6 8.i£.xc4 .td6 9.h3 0-0 Black's pair of bishops fully com pensates for White's space advantage, C.Ha nse n - S. Hans en , Esbjerg 2002; Watson's suggestion 6 . ...tg4!? is also very interesting, after which Dautov gives the following line: 7.dS tZJe5 8. .te2 iLxf3 9.gxf3 h6 1 0..Jte3 e6 with counterplay.
cl) 6 ... ti:JaS Probably not the best con tinu ation . 7.e4 A good alternative 's 7.'tia4+ cS S.b4
1.d4 dS 2.c4 C2:Jc6 3.ilJc3 dxc4 4.C2:Jf3 bS? 9.�xaS �xaS 10.bxaS ilJxd5 11.i.d2±, Lukey-Spain, New Zealand 1992, or 8... cxb3 9.axb3 e6 10 . .ltd2! b6 11.b4 .Jixb4 12.'\Wxb4 exdS 13.e3 cS, and now, in the game P.Horvath-Antal, Budapest 2003, White could have caused some serious troubles for his opponent with 14.�b2!..114...0-0 15. €Ja4 with initiative on the queenside. 7 ... h6 7...c6 8.dxc6 �xd1+ 9J�xdl bxc6 10 ..tf4t..111.�c7, Hawksworth-Yeo, England 1986, 7 ...bS!? 8.�f4 8. ..th4 gS 9. .Jig3 c2:JhS 10.�a4+ c6 11.dxc6 C2:Jxc6 12.�eS b5? 13.ilJxb5 axbS 14.�xa8 CZJxeS lS.t2JxeS �g7 16.'iYc6 +-, Eslon-Ferron Garcia, Zara goza 1995, stronger is 12...f6 8 ... b5 (8...c6? 9.dxc6 �xd1 + 10. Uxdl bS 11.e5 tiJh5 12.tZJdS �a7 13. �e3+-) 9.e5 tzJh5 1 0.�e3 g6 11 .e611 (11.C2:Jd4!?, 11.b4!?) 11 �g7 (11 ...fxe6 12.t2Je5�) 1 2.g4 C2:Jf6 13.exf7+ �xf7 14.C2:Je5+ �g8 lS.�g2 with a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn, Khen kin-Ferron Garcia, Alcobendas 1994. 00.
...
c2) 6 .. 8a7!1 Strange as this move may seem, it is not a bad one. 7.e4 C2JbS Watson also mentions 7 ... bS!? 8.e5 tiJd7, as it was played in a computer game, after which the position was totally unclear. 8.'{Jj'c2 White does not achieve anything after 8..txf6 exfS 9.ii:.xc4 tzJxc3 10.bxc3 �d6, Watson. 8 . .txc4 ClJxc3 9.bxc3 tlJxe4°o, van der Werf-Peek, Leeuwarden 2004 - in contrast to the similar variation S hS 6.$.h4 as 7.dS C2:Ja7 here the white queen's bishop is threatened. 8...tiJxc3 9.bxc3 b5 1 0.a4 .tb7 After 10... llb8 11.axbS axbS 12.8d4 .
...
S3
.td7 13. .Jr..e2 White has very good compensation for the sacrificed pawn due to his space advantage and better development, Berkvens-Bromann, Esbjerg 2003. 11.tiJd4 tzJxd5!? (after Watson's recommendation 1 1 ...'tlfd7, 12.�bl! is very unpleasant, attacking both bS and c4) 12.exdS �xdS 13.€Jf3 e5 14JIdl �e4+ lS:�xe4 j£,xe4 with a complicated endgame, Pieterse-Boersma, Amster dam 1986. Back to the main game:
S... tLlaS S . 8b8 6.e4 e6 7.�xc4 exd5 8.exd5 Ae7 9.0-0 0-0 10 ..tf4 as leads to a somewhat passive, but nevertheless solid position, SChone-Menzel, Ger many 1991. ..
6.e4 6.b41! cxb3 7.axb3 can hardly be re commended: 7...e6 8:�d4 c6 (8...b6!?) 9.dxc6 �xd4 10.tlJxd4 ii.b4 11..ad2 tDxc6 12.C2Jxc6 bxc6+, Blees-Boersma, Amsterdam 1985. 6 . .tg5 was played in some games, but with no success - 6 hS 7. .JixfS exf6 8.e3 (White intends to place his knights on the central d4 and e4 squares and therefore 8.e4 would be wrong, since that pawn would deprive the knight of that square and d4 would not be sufficiently protected. Probably 8.�a4+ is better, but after 8...c6 9.0-0-0 �d7 10.dxcS C2:Jxc6 11.�xc4 Ae7 or 11... Ab4 Black has a comfortable game) 8 . ii.d7! 9.�e2 bS 10.0-0 ii:.b4 (10...15 11.'&d4! c5 12.�eS+ �e7 13.'t!:Vc7 �d8 14.�e5+ leads to a draw) 11.C2:Jd4 a6, and White does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn, Zuger-Ye Rongguang, Lucerne 1989. We will examine the alternative 6.'�a4+ cS in the next game. ...
. .
6. c6!? ..
Chapter 3
S4
The attack on the d-pawn is the main idea in this opening. Also possible is 6 e6 with the same idea, e.g.: •.•
a) 7.'iYa4+ cS 8.dxc6 tDxc6 9. .txc4 SLd7 10.'iYc2 %:tc8 with counterplay. b) 7 .ag5 b1) Dunnington assesses the position after 7 ...exd5 8.CZJxdS (8.eS h6 9..txfS gxf6 1 O:�xdS c6 1 1 :iYxd8+ 1C5 15.�bS �h3 Black developed a dangerous initiative for the sacrificed pawn.
7.gxf3 e5 S.d5
•••
"
Another interesting possibility is 6 e51? 7.d5, and now: ••.
a) After 7 . ..t;Z��7 (7... Axf3 8.gxf3 trans· poses to the 6... �xf3 variation) 8. .i.xc4 tLJg6 could follow 9.�b5+ .td7 10.'3'b3! - White is active, while no counterplay can be seen for Black, Bezold-Bromann, Stockholm 1998. Also strong is 9:�a4+ (instead of 9.i.bS+) 9 ... i.d7 10. .i.bS, e.g. 10... i.d6 11. i.g5!? JL.e7 12.11c1 with initiative, Flear-Libiszewski, France 2001. However, 1M Tishin's idea looks interest· ing: 8 ... aS!?, in order to prevent i.c4bS+, e.g. 9.h3 i.xf3 (but not 9... JL.hS? 10.g4 Ag6 11.till:e5, and Black loses after 11... t2:Jxe4 12.tDxe4 .txe4 13.d6, as well as after 11 ... i.xe4 12. tZ:Jxe4 fiJxe4 13.tlJxf7! �xf7 14. 'fff3+ tDf6 lS.d6+) 1 0:i!Yxf3 tDg6 11.0-0 i.d6 12. l:Uc1 0-0 13.JL.f1 tlJeB 14.g3 tlJe7 lS.h4 f5 with counterplay, Yagupov-Tishin, Tula 2001. b) 7 ... t2Jb8!? 8.�xc4 jt,dS 9.'iYb3 (on 9.JL.b5+ Black would not play 9 ... t2Jbd7 10.h3 .thS in view of 11..ligS!, but 9...c6, e.g. 10.dxc6 l2Jxc6 - 1O ...bxc6!? 11.'&a4 O-O!? 12.JL.xc6 bxc6 13.�xc6 r%c8 - 13 ... �bB!? - 14.�a4 IIb8 with compensation) 9 ... �xf3 1 0.gxf3 (10.
8 tZJe7 .••
Black wants to develop counterplay on the dark squares. The knight heads for g6, and then .. .tzJf6-hS-f4 or ... tLJg6-f4 will be possible. Another possibility is ' ...tDc8-d6. There are also some other continuations: a) 8 ... tVa5? does not make a good impression: 9.�a4+ c6 10.b4 cxb3 11. axb3 tlJd7 12.b4 (good is also 12.�d2!? tzJc5 13.�xa5 �xa5 14.nxa5 tDxb3 15. lla2, and Black has no compensation, M.Stojanovic-Tadic, Kladovo 1996) 12...cxd5 13.bxa5 d4 14 . .ah3 nc8 15. �bS a6 (15... dxe3 16Jld1 +-) 16.tLixd4 exd4 17.i.xd4 (17. lId 1 !? ii.c5 18. we2 lIc7 19.�xd4 i..xd4 20J�:xd4+-) 17... IIc6 1B.Ud1 with a big advantage, Nikolaev-C.Mann, Budapest 1990.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZ:Jc6 3.tZ:Jc3 dxc4 4. tiJf3
63
b) 8 ... tiJb8 (seems playable, but slightly passive) 9.�xc4 (9.t4!?), with the following variations:
Soltis' suggestion 9.h4!? with the idea h4-h5 is also interesting. Then the following variations are possible:
bl) On 9 ... tiJbd7?! very unpleasant is 1 0.'f1'b3! ( 1 O.11gl !?), threatening both 1 1 :if:Vxb7 and 1 1 .d6: bll) In the game Schlager-Radeker, 2nd Bundesliga 1992, Black sacrificed the b7-pawn - 1 0 .. .td6 1 1 .�xb7 0-0 but after 1 2:�c6 :b8 1 3.tZ:Jb5 i.b4+ 1 4. �e2 he did not get sufficient compen sation. b1 2) In Wijk aan Zee 2001 , Moro zevich played 1 0 . Ac5 against Anand and after 1 1 .0-0-0?! :i.xe3 1 2.fxe3 :bS achieved a relatively normal position (which nevertheless in his opinion is better for White - after the text move 1 3.d6, as well as after 1 3.�a3 a6 1 4. .tfl �e7 lS.'t'!¥xe7 �xe7 1 6s!ibl). In his analysis in Chess Informant 801387 he evaluates 1 1 .0-0-0 as a mistake and suggests the following improvement: 1 1 .�xb7 :bS 1 2. '�a6 Axe3 1 3.fxe3 l:txb2 1 4:�a3 �bS 1 5.0-0 't'f'b4 1 6. 'iYxb4 lixb4 1 7.i.e2±. Whether White has such a great advantage in the final position is probably not so clear. However, I have another suggestion: 1 4.'i¥xa7 (instead of 1 4.'ti'a3) 1 4... 0-0 1 5. '&a3, and it is doubtful whether Black would get sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, e.g. lS ... Ilg2 1 6.'�fl nc2 1 7 .i.e2 �b8 1 8.i.d 1 't!t'b2 1 9.�xb2 IIxb2 20.a4 with advantage.
a) 9 tZ:Jh5?! 1 0:�a4+ �d7 (10 ... c6 l1 JIdl b5 12:�'a6 \'VcS 1 3.'lWxc8+ tl:1xcS 1 4.dxc6 a6 1 5.ti:Jd5±), and now in the game Gawehns-Knippel, Germany 1990, White could have achieved a clear advantage with the simple 1 1 . �xc4 followed by i.h3.
.
.
-
.
b2) 9 Ad6 seems better to me, and even though White has the initiative after 1 0.W'b3 or 1 O.:gl, a difficult battle lies ahead. ••.
9.�xc4 Stronger is 9:iYa4+I , which we will analyse in the next game.
•..
b) 9 tZ:Jg6!? 10.h5 tDf4 1 1 .�xf4 exf4 1 2.'iYa4+ Ci:Jd7 ( 1 2 .. .'tIt'd7 1 3:�fxc4±). Watson now gives the variation 1 3.e5 'fi'e7 1 4.0-0-0 '¥Yxe5 1 5.:i.h3+-, but much stronger is 1 4 . . . �b4!, e.g. 1 5. �xb4 Axb4 1 6. tiJb5 i.aS with unclear play. ...
c) Watson himself prefers 9 tiJd7!? and supports it with the variations 1 O �xc4 tiJg6 1 1 .h5 tDf4 1 2 .1l..xf4 exf4 1 3JWd4 f6! 1 4. h6 g5 1 5.�b5 .ad6 1 6. i.xd7 + �xd7 0r 1 0. h5 tZ:Jc8 1 1 . i.xc4 �e7 1 2.f4 tLJd6 1 3 . .tb3 exf4 14 . .axf4 ..tt6. Black is really OK in both cases. .••
.
.
9 a6! ...
9 tiJg6 1 0:�'b3 ! (Watson). ...
1 0.a4 tlJg6 An alternative is 1 0 ... tiJc8!? � . 'lJd6. .
1 1 .'+!¥b3 i.d6 !
.
Chapter 3
64
Now in the case of 1 2.'i!Vxb7 0-0 Black has sufficient compensation, e.g.: a) 1 3.'@b3 tiJh4 14.�d1 (14.'1t'e2 tzjhS !l. ...'�f6) 14 ...tlJh5 lSJ:�gl 'fi'f6 16.�e2 tiJf4 with active play for the sacrificed pawn. b) 1 3 .ta7 ti:Jd7 14.0-0-0 \'ff6 lS. .ixa6? (on lS . .ie2 would follow lS... tZJe7! with the strong threat 16... tlJcS 17. .ixcS nfb8, but the text move loses immediately) lS... i.cS! 16.i.xcS tZJxcS 17.filxc7 tzJxa6-+, Paredes Prats-Gibbons, carr. 1985. c) 1 3.0-0-0 I:lb8 14. '@'xa6 na8 15. 't'ib7 (lS.'fi'c6 tDe7) 15 .. J�b8 16 .'Wa6 1:a8 17. .ia7 (White plays for the win - a dubious decision) 17... tZJd7! {17 ....ic5?! 18. �xc5 :txa6 19. .txa6±} 18.'i!¥b7 tLJc5 19.�xcS Axc5 20.:td2 'iWg5 21.l:tf1 tIab8 22.'fi'xc7 1:fc8 23.'Wa5 Ab4 (23... lhb2!?) 24.'�'a6 1:a8 25.iYbS llab8 26.'ii' a6 V2:V2, Mertins-Horn, corr. 1986. .
1 2.h4? ! The first player wants to play h4-h5, castle queenside and launch an attack on the kingside. However, Black con vincingly shows that this plan cannot be realized and it simply leads to a waste of time and new weaknesses .
14 ...exf4 15.0-0-0 15 .'�Wxb7 initiative.
I1b8
16.'fi'xaS
l:xb2
with
lS tlJd7 ! •••
The second player carries out his dark squares strategy - here the knight is ready to go to e5 or cS and the fS square is vacated for the queen.
16.tlJe2?1 White intends to bring his knight to d4. In the case of lS.'t§'xb7 Black can force a draw with 16... l:b8 17 :ifxa6 ·��i.Jc5 18.'i!Va5 %1a8 19.'i¥bS l1b8 or, if he wants to continue his efforts for the win . play lS...tlJe5!? 17. 'i¥b3 �f6 18.Si..e2 l:fb8 19.'Wc2 AcSi58. However, Radeker now finds an ex cellent opportunity to make use of the weakness of White's dark squares:
16... .teS! 17.tz:Jd4 'tWf61 Now 18.'iJf5 loses in view of 18...bS! 19.axbS axb5 20. .te2 (20.Axb5 I:tfb8 -+) 20... 'iJc5 21 :�b4 (21.'tr'xb5 i.d6! 22J:ldg1 rifb8-+) 21....:ta2! 22. �xc5 i.xb2+ 23.�b1 :fa8-+.
18.'HYc3
12 0-0
...
...
Showing no fear of ghosts!
13 .h5::�·lf4 The hS-pawn is threatened!
1 4 .i.xf4 .
White gets rid of the active knight, but for the price of his bishop, which could protect his dark squares. In addition, the second player gains control over the beautiful central eS-square. But what should be recommended? 14:�Wxb7 was risky in view of 14..J�b8 lS:�xaS l:1xb2, and after 14.h6 gS the kingside would be closed, after which White would have no play at all.
18...cS! 19.dxc6 bxc6 20.b4 c5! Beautifully played! White's position now collapses.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.t2Jc3 dxc4 4.t2Jf3
21.bxc5 tlJxc5 22J:Id2 )lfc8 23.�d1 tZJeS 0:1
65
the position. Inferior is 1 0.0-0-0 i�JgS (10... a6!?) or 10.i.xc4 ,!iJc8! with counter chances.
10 ...tZJc6 Game 21 Delabie - Leeuwen corr. 1991
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tZJcS 3 .tZJc3 dxc4 4.tZJf3 tZJf6 5.e4 �g4 S.Ae3 �xf3 7.gxf3 e5 8.d5 tZJe7 9.ti'a4+!? This move impedes Black's develop ment and is considered to be the best. 9...tZJd7
After 1 0 ... cxd6 11..ixc4 (threatening 12.'6'b3!) 11...d5 (the only move) 12.tZJxdS ilJcs 13.lIg1 Black has nothing to be happy about, Ligterink Bartels, Netherlands 1986.
11.dxc7 'iYxc7 12.tZJd5! In the game Flear-Bell, Blackpool 1989, 1 2.i..h3 Ab4 13.0-0-0 t2Jf6 14.C2JdS was played, and after 1 4 'iYa5? 1S.t2JxtS+ gxfS 1S.Ad7+ �e7 17.i..xc6 bxcS 18. 'i!ixcs White achieved a sig n ificant advantage. However, correct was 1 4 t2Jxd5! 1S.exdS (or 15J�xd5 0-0 16.a3 .i.a5 17.�xc4 llad8 18JIhd1 C2Jd4! 19:�xc7 Axc7=) 15..:�a5 1S.'t't'c2 (1S.Ad7+? �xd7 17.dxcS+ WeS 18. �xa5 haS 19.cxb7 �b8+) 16...C2Jd4!? 17.i..xd4 exd4 18:�'e2+ �8 19:iVxc4 i.cS, and the position is approximately equal. ...
...
After 9,..c6?! 10..ixc4 as (10... bS? 11. .i.xb5! cxb5 12.tzJxb5+- Watson) 11. dxcS tiJxcs 12JId1 'iic7 13J�g1 White is clearly better, Wegner-Baumhus, Konigslutter 1988. In the game Collaro-Bertocci, e-mail 1997, Black played 9 .. :�d7 1 0:iWxd7+ tiJxd7? and after 11.tZJbS! his position became worse. Correct was 1 0 ... �xd7! 11..ixc4 t2JgS (6 . .idS, ...tiJf4) 12. .i.bS+ d8, and White's advantage is not that great. ..
12...�d8 13.0-0-0 Delabie's suggestion 13.%1g1!? seems to be even stronger, e.g. 13... l:lc8 14. Ah3! and it is not clear how Black can develop his pieces. I
13 ... .td6 14.tZJc3!?
10.dS! White has a space advantage and the bishop pair; hence, he wants to open
14 .. /i�b6?
Chapter 3
66
Now Black can no longer save his position. Correct was 14...�e7 15.tZJd5 (15.tLJb5!?) 15...�h4 16.�xc4 0-0, although the first player would still keep the initiative.
15J�xd6! 'iWxd6 16.�xb6 0-0 1 7 .2.e3 a6 18.�xc4 White has two bishops for the rook and a practically won position. The rest was just a matter of technique. ... 1:0 •
We have seen that after B...t2:je7 9.�a4 'lJd7 the move 1 O.dS! is very unpleasant for Black. But as we said, the improve ment 9...'Wd7 10.�xd7 �xd7! is worth considering and in addition, B...tLJb8 (see Game 20) is also possible. Game 22 Ki. Georgiev - Morozevich Tilburg 1994
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tDc3 dxc4 4.tzJf3 liJf6 5.e4 i.g4 6 ..te3 e6 6...e6 is the most popular continuation the second player controls d5 and pre pares the development of the f8-bishop. 7 .txc4 .tb4 .
Black starts exerting pressure on the opponent's central pawns from the very beginning. Now things become more concrete.
13...-txf3 14.gxf3 tlJc4 (not bad is also 14...hS or even 14...fS!?). b) 9.1101 tUxe3 10.fxe3 �xf3 11.�xf3 (11.gxf3? tUxe5! 12.dxe5 �h4+) 11. . tUxe5! 12.�xb7 (after 12.dxe5? 'H¥h4+ 13.�g3 �xc4 14.li'xg7 0-0-0 White's king will not survive for long) 12...l::t b8 13.iLb5+ c6 14.'fYxa7 (14. i.xc6+? �8 -+) 14...lbb5 15.dxe5 �xc3+ lS.:Xc3 tixb2 17.0-0 0-0 18.l:xc6 ttxg2+ 19.'�xg2 'ilfd5+ 20.8!?, 11 ...i.xc3+!? 12.bxc3 tDa,5 13. i.e2 b6 .1 �7-c5 or ...tUb7-d6, 11 ...i.xt3!? 12.gxf3 tDb8.
•
Game 23 Piket - Morozevich London 1995
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.t2Jc3 dxc4 4.ClJf3 llJf6 5.e4 iog4 6.Ae3 e6 7 . .txc4 .tb4 8. �c2 0-0 9Jld1 �e7 10 ..tb5
•••
1 1 .ioxc6
1 1 . .. bxc6 1 2.dxe5 In the case of 1 2.0-0 Black has enough counterplay, e.g. 1 2 exd4 13.Axd4 (13.:Xd4?! .ad6 with initiative for Black, Lirindzakis-Miladinovic, Agios Nikolaos 1995) 1 3...i.xt3 ( 1 3... Axc3!? 14.�xc3 tDxe4) 14.gxt3 i2:Jh5 15.tDe2 '&e6 oo. Interesting is also 1 2 i.xc3!?, e.g. 1 3.bxc3 ( 13.'ti'xc3 tiJxe4 14.�xc6 .ixt3 15.gxf3 tDg500) 13 ....txt3 14.gxt3 �e6 or 14 ·� 'ld7!? with unclear play, as the weakness of Black's c-pawn is com pensated by White's compromised kingside. •••
...
...
1 2 8d7 1 3.a3 ...
With the idea of exchanging on c6 and thus decreasing Black's pressure on the centre and also weaking his pawn structure on the queenside.
10... e5!
This prevents Black's bishop from going to d6 later. In the game Vera-Sariego, Las Tunas 1996, White played carelessly 1 3.i.f4, and after 13 ... .txt3 14.gxt3 tiJxe5 15. iLxe5 '!'fxe5 16.a3 i.d6! 17J:[d3 15! he had some serious troubles.
1.d4 d5 2 c4 C2:Jc6 3.8c3 dxc4 4 8f3 .
1 3 ... �a5 1 4.i.f4 1 4.e6?! can hardly be recommended: 14 ...'iVxe6 1 5. h3 J.xf3 lS.gxf3 ,ii.:ie5 1 7.f4 CZJc4 with initiative for Black, Marjanovic-Miladinovic, Korinthos 1 999. 14 ... i.xf3 1 5 .gxf3 tlJxe5 1 6. i.xe5 'iYxeS 1 7.0-0
73
.
21 . . . �h6 21...'f:Vh4 22.�g4! . 22.1:1d3 �f6 Also possible is 22 . . . I1dS !? 23.::txdS (23.:b3 IId2 with attack, 23.I1fd1 ? Axf2+ -+) 23 . cxdS 24.'iWd7 d5 25. exd5 cxd5 2S."i!VxdS �fS with good compen sation. . .
23.�d7 g6 Depriving White's pieces of the f5square.
24.b4 1:1f4 25. '¥Iie7 White intends to play 1:d3-dS. 25.�g2 was also worth considering, in order to meet 2S J:th4 with 2S.flh 1. ..
2S ... l:th4 26.I!d8 llxdS 27.�xd8+ �g7 28.e5 The doubled pawn on the c-file is in dubitably weak, but on the other hand, the position of White's king is also dubious. Which one is more important?
1 7 .. J1ae8 !? Morozevich gathers all his forces for the attack.
1 S.tlJe2 l:[e6 18.. f5! ? .
1 9.tiJg3 'fjf4 1 9 . . J.b6 ! ? li :�f4 seems also interest ing, and then White's queen cannot go to c5 or f5. .
. .
20.�cS i.b6 On 20 ... :e5? follows 21.�e3 ! 'i¥xe3 (21 .:tWf6 22.f4 :lee8 23.e5±) 22.fxe3 with an edge. .
21 .�f5 White offers to exchange the queens, since then Black would have no compensation for his weak c-pawns.
28 . . .l:tf4? ! Morozevich is playing for the win, but that only puts him in danger. Instead, he could have forced a draw by 2S ... ::txh2 29:�f6+ �g8 30.'iWdS+ wg7 3 1 .�f6+ with a perpetual check. li
...
29.�g2 g5 g4. 30.h3 �g6 31 .l:d1 h5
This campaign seems rather bold, and indeed, with his next two moves White achieves an irresistible attack.
Chapter 3
74
32. �e71 g4 33.l:d8! gxf3+ 34.�h2 White threatens 3S.�f8, against which there is no reasonable defence. 34 .. :�Vc2 35.�g5+ �h7 36.�xh5+ �g7 37.�h8+ Black resigned. The desire for a win at any price cost him half a point. 1 :0 Game 24 van Wely - Morozevlch Amsterdam 1995
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ttJc6 3.ttJc3 dxc4 4.tiJf3 tiJf6 5.e4 �g4 6.�e3 e6 7.�xc4 ..tb4 8.�c2 0-0 9.:d1 CDe7 Black prepares the plan with ...c7-cS.
'iYxc5 1 7.tDe4 't§'bS 1 8.tlJeg5 g6 1 9. �a3!±. The immediate 10 ...c5? ! cannot be re commended either: 1 1 .dxc5 '1!!Jc7 1 2.0-0 �xc3 13. �xc3! tZ:1xe4 1 4. 'iWc4 with an obvious advantage.
1 1 .bxc3 c5 1 2.0-0 Here 1 2.dxcS !? is also worth con sidering. I used to think that after 1 2 . '8'c7 the weakness of White's doubled c-pawn compensated for Black's minimal material shortage. However, today I am not so optimistic, for instance, after 1 3.0 0 .1.h5 14.�a4! it is not so easy for Black to restore the material parity or develop any activity to compensate his missing pawn , while White has also the bishop pair and a space advantage, RohrmOller-Bromann, Copenhagen 2002, and P. Horvath Antal, Budapest 2002. ..
1 0 .te2
1 2 Vl!ic7
•
•••
/).
1 3... cxd4.
1 3.�bl 1 3.dxc5!?
�
12.dxc5.
1 3 ... b6 The second player intends to exert some pressure on the d- and c-files with ...nfd8 and . . . :ac8. White must take some active measures or his cehtre would become weak in just a few moves.
1 0 ... .txc3+ In the more recent game Soberano Vodep, ICCF e-mail 1 998, Black played 1 0 :�c8?!, in order to prepare ...c7-c5 without exchanging on c3. This idea, however, did not work very well: 1 1 .0-0 c5 1 2.dxcS i.xc5 13.e5 .tfS (or 13... i2:Jd7 1 4Jlxd7 .iLxe3 15.11fd 1 1 S.rIxe7? .ic5 - 15 .. . i.cS 1S.\!!¥a4 �f5 17.�b5±) 1 4. kd3 i.xd3 1 5. �xd3 tLle8 l S..iLxc5 ..
-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 €lc6 3.tiJc3 dxc4 4.t2Jf3
75
1 4.h3 Ah5 1 5.g4!? �g6 1 6.Ad3 lIfdBI 1 7.l2Je5 ! Now the threat is 18.f4, which Black, of course, cannot allow.
1 7 .. :�b7! l B.f3 White has gained some space on the kingside and is now prepared to start his pawn attack there. In addition, the g6-bishop is significantly limited for the moment.
1 B cxd4? ! .•.
Maybe Black opens the c-file a little early and thus gives White additional opportunities to seize the initiative. However, probably White's position is preferable anyway, e.g . : a ) According t o van Wely after 18 tLlc6 19.1lJxc6 '@xc6 20.l'fb5! 'iYc7 21.�g2 White also has the upper hand. .••
b) Also 18 ... ::'ac8 does not promise complete equality, e.g. 1 9. �b2 (19. dxcS �c7 20.14 bxc5 21.g5 �d7 ! 22.t2}xd7 .t:(xd7 23.�b5 l:1cd8°o, 19. �b5 !? cxd4 20.cxd4 iLld7 21.�xg6 hxg6 22.:c1 ! or 21 .. .tDXg6 22.f4!? with initiative) 19 cxd4 20.cxd4 �d7 21. tDxg6 hxg6 22.Wf2!? iLlb8 23.h4 with initiative, Monacel-Fester, carr. 2001. ...
1 9.cxd4 �cB 20.:c1 ! 20.�b2 or 20.'{Ji'b5 leads to positions from the above notes. The move in the game is more precise - White begins immediately the battle for the c-file. 20.. J:txc1 Interesting was also the immediate 20... ClJd7, without surrendering the c-file.
21 Jlxcl tLJd7 The eS-knight is very active, and under standably, Black wants to exchange it.
22A :xd7? ! This seems a natural move - who cares about the passive g6-bishop!? The subtlety, however, lies in the fact that the latter supports the counterplay .. . f7f5, and White did not take that into consideration. Correct was 22.xf8 39.1:1e6 CiJe7 40.tlJxh6 .txd4 41 .tlJfS .tf6 42.b3 eS 43.a4 cstf7 44.h4 tlJxf5 4S . .txfS g6 46. .tb1 Jdd1 47JI6e2 i..x h4 48.lhd1 lhd1 49.�c2 1:td6 SO.1:[e3 g5 Y2:%
Game 26 Shirov - Morozevich
Amsterdam 1 995 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tiJc3 dxe4 4.tlJf3 tlJf6 S.e4 i.g4 6.i.e3 e6 7 . .11. xc4 ..tb4 8:�C2 0-0 9.0-0..0!?
With a perfect timing, since now White can take back only with the pawn and thus weakens the position of his king. One move later and it would have been too late: 9 .. :ti'e7? ! 1 0.h3 i.xf3 1 1 .gxf3 -txc3 1 2.�xc3! ' 1 O.bxe3 �e7 1 1 .h3
After 1 1 . .td3 e5 1 2.d5 tLla5 1 3.Wb2 cS Black's attack develops faster, Bakic Zakic, Yugoslavia 1 994. 1 1 ... -txf3
In the correspondence game Carbonnel Boey, 1 973, Black avoided the exchange in order to keep the g-file closed. After 11... .ihS 12..id3 �a3+?1 1 3.'+!t'b2 �xb2+ 1 4.\t'xb2 i..g 6 1 5.lL!d2 e5 1 6.f3 the first player had an advantage as the g6-bishop is inefficient. However, better is 1 2 ... i.g6 with the idea ...1:1fb8 and ... b 7-b5, with a sharp position of mutual chances. Dunnington suggests to meet 1 1 ... .ih5 with 1 2.g4 i.g6 1 3.i.d3, which is the same as 1 2 . .td3 �g6 1 3.g4, and believes that White is better. I think that after 1 3 .. J%tb8 this statement must yet be proved, e.g. 1 4J2�5 llJxe5 1 5.dxe5 'lJd7 1 6.14 hS, and the first player has not achieved anything particular on the kingside, while Black is ready to start his counterplay on the queenside. In Landa-Pirrot, Bad Wiessee 2004, Black first swapped queens by 1 1 �a3+ 1 2. �b2 �xb2+ 1 3.'�xb2, but in this way he deprived himself of any counterplay ( 1 3 ... i.h5 14 . .td3 llJa.5 1 5 . .ig5 tLJd7 1 6.g4 ±). ...
so
Chapter 3
1 2.gxf3 ld:fb8! 1 3 . .i.d3 W ith the threat e4-e5. ...
followed 1 9.1:dg 1 't!:¥a3+ 20.�dl �e3+ 2 1 .fxe3 lh:b3 22.i.xaS l:b2 23 . ..i..e4 :Xc2 24.'�xc2 'i!¥b3+ 25 .�c l 'Wa2 26 . .tc2 CDxc4 27.11h2 'fi'a3+ 28.�d1 �xe3, and White resig ned.
1 7 ... exd5 1 8:�d2 tiJa5 1 9. �e2 tLJc4 Interesting is also 1 9 . . . bxc3 !? 20:�xc3 tijc4 2 1 .i.c1 (21 .:tb1 �e6 ! .6 ...'t!Va6) 21 ... �e6 with compensation for the missing pawn.
20.i.d2
1 3 ... b5 ! The i mmediate counter attack is more important than the h7-pawn !
1 4.eS 1 4.11dg1 � Game 27. 1 4 ... tDdS 1 5.Axh7+ �h8f In his commentary, Morozevich writes that 1 5 .�8 should also be considered. Let us analyse this variation a little bit, e.g. 1 6.�e4 b4, and now: 1 7.c4? b3 1 8.axb3 tija5 1 9 .1:1dg1 (1 9 . cxd5 tZJxb3+ -+ , 1 9 . .txd5 ti:Jxb3+ 20:iYxb3 tIxb3 21 .�xaS 'it'b4 -+) 1 9 . . . �a3+ 20.'�d1 tDxe3+ 21 .fxe3 l:xb3 22 . ..txaS l:b2 23.�xb2 �xb2 -+. 1 7.i.xdS ! exd5 1 8.�d2 tlJa5 1 9si7e2, and after 1 9 . . . tL1c4?! White has 20 . �h7 ! at his disposal, which would be i mpossible with the king on h8. There· fore, we could draw the conclusion that probably Morozevich chose the best conti n uation. ..
1 6.i.e4 b4 ! 1 7. .i.xdS ! The o n l y move. 1 7.c4? b3! 1 S.axb3 llJa5! leads to a position from the previous annotation, only with the black king on h8, which makes no difference in this case. In the game Duncan Fester, !ECG e-mail 1 997, there
20 ... cS?! This move leads to troubles for Black. Morozevich thinks that 20 l:lb6 21 .cxb4 a5 is stronger. Then 22.a31 tZJxa3 (worse is 22 . . . tlJxd2 23.:Xd2 axb4 24.axb4, e.g. 24 .. :i¥xb4 2S.'fi'xc7 'ii'bS+ 26 .�e3 1:a3+ 27.�4 'ti'b3 2S:ti'c8+ �h7 29 . '!Wc2+± or 24 . . . llxb4 25.'i'c6, and Black does not have suffiCient compensation for the pawn) 23.'iWc5 �xc5 24.dxcS oo is possible. Along with that, 21 .:&g1 or 21 .:tdg1 is also worth considering. The correspondence game Heasman Dunwoody, 1 997 had an interesting progress: 20 ...f611 2 1 .f4 fxe5 22. fxeS tU8 23.cxb4 'iWh4 24.l:thfl '\Wxd4 2S.f4 :aeS 26.i.cl :Xe5+ 27.fxe5 'iWxeS+ 28.�d3 �g3+ 29.'�d4 with a draw by repetition. ..•
21 .l:rhg1
81
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ·'i..Jc6 3."�c3 dxc4 4/i jf3 Shirov tries t o start his counterplay as fast as possible and to this end he wants to use im mediately the semi open g-file.
21 ... 11b6 21 .. .16 22.14 bxc3 23 . .txc3 cxd4 24. �d4! ±.
22.:g5 g6 23.dxc5 CDxd2 24.�xd2 bxc3?! Morozevich thinks that this move is dubious and suggests 24 .. :iWxc5 with the evaluation "unclear". However, after 25.cxb4 IIxb4 26.c;ttf 1 ! White's position would be preferable in view of the threats 27.'1!¥d5 and 27.g6.
25.�xc3 1:86 26.f4 r:tc8 26 .. .l:xa2+ 27.�1 ±.
27.l:xd5 Because of Black's inaccurate play W hite achieved a large material ad vantage and good chances for success. Afterwards, however, he also made a few mistakes. The next part of the game is not important fo r the opening and we will show it only with the brief annotations by Shirov.
27 .. :i¥e6 28.11d2 lha2 29. fLxa2 §'xa2+ 30.�1 �g8 31 .f5 lld8 32.Wg2 �d5+ 33.�h2 �e4 34.e6! '+Wf4+ 35.'tlfg3 'tiVxg3+ 36.l:txg3? 1
44.�g5 �b5 45Jla1 llg8+ 46.� �f8+ 47.'�!te5 lle8+ 48.�d5 ldd8+ 49.�e5 11e8+ 50.�d5 1:rd8+ 51 .�e4 lle8+ 52.�3 nh8 53.t'th 1 Wc5 54.f5 Wd6 55.�4 a4 5S.�g5 ..x d1 +
21 .l::!xd 1
And in view of 22 f3 lhd2! White re signed. 0:1
8 .. .0-0 I used to think that 8.. . :i.hS,
in order to increase the pressure on White's pawn centre, was equally good, e.g. 9.a3 .txc3+ 1 0 .bxc3 i.g6 1 1 . .ig5 (1 1 .tiJd2? tiJxe4! 1 2.lZJxe4 �h4+) 1 1 . . . Axe4 1 2 . .txfS �xd3 1 3.�xd8 i.xc4 1 4 . .txc7 ::'c8, and Black is better due to the weakness of White's queenside pawns, Madler-Boey, carr. 1 975. However, in the game W.Koch Bronznik, 2nd Bundesliga 2000, my op ponent found the strong reply 9.Ab5! (this idea is already familiar to us from the variations 8.'�c2 0-0 9.l:r:d 1 'i!le7 1 0. :i.b5 and 8.'�c2 0-0 9 . :i.bS! ? - White wants to fracture Black's pawn structure on the queenside by exchanging on c6).
8S
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ':�' ,c6 3/ ',c3 dxc4 4.') :-�f3 Now the following lines are possible: a) On 9 ... .tg6 now follows 1 0.tlJd2 ! ( 1 0 . .txc6+ bxcS 1 1 / 'd 2 c5 1 2 . 'a' bS+ �d7 1 3.�xd7+ tlJxd7 1 4.a3 .txc3 1 S. bxc3 f5! =) 1 0 ... 0-0 ( 1 0 . . . .txc3 1 1 .'&xc31 ) 1 1 .0-0 (but not 1 1 . .txcS?! bxc6 1 2.0-0 c5 ! , and Black develops good counter play) 1 1 ... �d7 (or 1 1 .'Wd6 1 2.CZJc4 'fYd7 1 3.13) 1 2.f3 as 1 3.i.xc6 �xc6 1 4. J:[ac1 , and Black's position is slightly worse in view of h is passive gS-bishop. ..
b) The continuation 9 ... i.xf3 does not look so good either - 1 0.i.xcS+ bxc6 1 1 .gxf3 tlJhS 1 2.'Wc4 Ji,xc3+ 1 3.�xc3 with advantage for White. c) In the game followed 9 ... 0-0 10.,txc6! bxc6 1 1 .ClJeSI cS 1 2.f3 cxd4 1 3.'1!Vxd4, and due to the weakness of the c-pawn and the passive position of the hS-bishop, White's chances are berter. The second player must now try hard to hold the position . There then came 13 cS ( 1 3 ...�xd4 1 4.i.xd4 cS 15 . .te3 f) 1 4.'ii'c4 (not bad was also 14.�xd8 l:fxd8 1 S:�f2f) 1 4 tlJd7! (this pawn sacrifice seems to be the best chance) 1 S.tlJxd7 �xd7 l S.i.xcS Ji,xc3+ 1 7. �xc3 ]:lfd8 1 B. 0-0 f6 ! 1 9. 'i'c2 as 20.:tfd1 �cS 21 .�f2 .iLe8 ! ;!;. I n the end, Black managed t o achieve a draw, but I have no desire to play 8 . . . i.gS again. ...
•••
9.a3 An interesting alternative is 9.i.bS. I had suggested this move in the first German edition, but there were no games with it then. Since Black has already castled, now he can avoid the exchange on c6: 9 .. .axc3+!? (forcing the opponent to take back with the pawn, after which 0-0-0 becomes problematic) 1 0.bxc3 .txf3 ! (after this 0-0 also becomes question able) 1 1 .gxf3 tZ:2e7. .
W hite possesses a strong pawn centre and the bishop pair; he can also hope to use the sem i-open g-file for his attack. On the other hand, Black does not have any weaknesses and can prepare counterplay in the centre with . . . c7-cS . Besides , it is difficult fo r the white king to find a safe place. In the game P.Neumann-Brunell , Pardubice 2003, followed 1 2.h4 as 1 3 . .ta4 cS 1 4 . .tc2 cxd4 1 S .cxd4 tlJh S 1 S .:g 1 DcB ( 1 S . . . tlJgS ! ?) 1 7.IIg5 g6 ( 1 7 .. :t�¥c7 ! ?) 1 B . .tb3 �d6 1 9.'�d2 IIfdB with a very sharp position with m utual chances. 9.CLld2 has also been played in some games. The idea is to drive the bishop back to hS with f2-13, where it would be passive. The correct reaction seems to be 9 . . . eS ! , e.g. 1 0.dS tlJa5 (interesting is also 1 O ... tlJe 7 ! ? 1 1 .f3 .td7 1 2.0-0 ti:JgS followed by ... tlJh5-f4 with counterplay on the kingside) 1 1 .f3 Ad7 1 2.a3 tlJxc4 1 3.axb4 ( 1 3 .liJxc4 .td6 1 4.0-0 tZJhS oo) 1 3 . . . tlJxe3 1 4.'�xe3 a6, and the position is approximately equal, Sashikiran Rahman, Calcutta 1 99B. Let us also examine in conclusion 9.0-0. In the game W . Koch-Neidhardt, 2nd Bundesliga 200 1 , after 9 .thS 1 0.a3 Axc3 1 1 .bxc3 .tg6 1 2.tlJd2 W hite achieved a slightly better positio n . However, 9 .txf3!? 1 0.gxf3 tLJh5 ! ? with counterplay on the kingside seems better to me. ...
...
Chapter 3
86 Back to the main game with 9.a3: 9 .txc3+ ! •..
After 9 ... Aa5 1 0.b4!? Axf3 1 1 .gxf3 Ab6 1 2.e5 liJd5 1 3.tlJxdS exd5 1 4 ..tb3 the b6-bishop is too passive. A fundamental note: if you play the Chigorin-counter attack, you must not be hesitant about exchanging your bishop for one of the opponent's knights. 1 0. bxc3 tilh5 !
.axf3 !?
1 1 .gxf3
The knight clears the way for the Queen and prepares to go to f4 at a given time.
A multi-purpose move. The f3-pawn is attacked, d4 remains under pressure. and the d8-square is vacated for the rook. In addition , . . .'iYf6-g6 could be also very unpleasant for White.
1 S.f4 l:1fdS 1 6.):gl
There was an interesting and tempting opportunity here - 1 6.f511. In that case Black m ust probably reply with 1 6 . . . exf5! ? 1 7 . .si.g5 'ti'g6 1 8.Axd8 l'lxd8 with a strong initiative for his minimal material shortage. 1 6 ... 'ti¥h4 1 7.ldgS b6
1 2.iYd2? !
There was n o particular necessity for this move. Of course, castling kingside seemed dangerous, but why not activate the rook - 1 2J%b1 ? 1 2 ... tiJa5!
1 S.We2
Such knig ht moves to the rim are typical for this opening. Black intends to attack White's centre with " .c7-c5. 1 3 . .ta2 cS ! 1 4J:tb1
On 1 4.dxc5 follows 1 4 . . . 'Bf6! with the idea . . .%lfd8 with more than sufficient compensation, since almost all of White's pawns are weak and his king can hardly find a safe place. 1 4 ...�f6!
With the idea of bringing the other rook over to the kingside. Interesting is also 1 8.�d1 1 8 ... g6 ( 1 8... tDxf4? 1 9J:tg4) 1 9.'8'f3 c4! (the bishop must be restricted) 20.11g2 f5 ! , and Black wins the battle for the central light squares. 1 S .. .!%acS
1 8 .. .'�xh2 would be too optimistic: 1 9. IIbg1 h6 20 . IISg2 'iYh3 21 . f5 ! exfS (21 ... cxd4 22.cxd4 exfS 23.�xh6 txe4) 22 . .txh6, and suddenly White's bishops become active. 1 9.d5 On 1 9. 11 bg 1 there could follow 1 9 ...
cxd4 20.cxd4 tiJc4 21 .�xc4 l:xc4. and
87 Black's cou nterplay is very dangerous. However. the game continuation , as we shall soon see, leads to even greater problems.
does; moreover, the c1 -bishop is tem porarily blocked. On the other hand, d4 is now securely protected.
1 9. c4 ! ..
This move performs two functions: • It neutralizes the light-squared bishop. It prevents c3-c4, which could reinforce White's centre. Now the d5-pawn is extremely weak. 20.l:Ibg1 g6? !
20 ... exdS 2 1 .exdS g6 is more precise. 21 .1;:[l g4?
The last chance to put up a struggle lay in 21 .d6, and on 21 .. :�xh2 would follow 22.eS, after which the passed pawn on d6 would be very strong . This would not have been possible had Black ex changed the pawns on d5 on the previous move. The continuation in the game is also weak because it blocks the gS-rook. 21 ... 'iYh3
Threatening 22 ... hS. 22.f51
Losing immediately. However, probably the game could not be saved anymore, e.g. 22.:lg 1 h6 23.:Sg2 exd5 24.exd5 fiJf6 with a won position. 22 ...exf5 23.exf5 h6 24.fxg6 hxgS 25.:tixgS
0:1
5 ...eS!
As it is typical for this opening, Black strives for immediate play against the d4-pawn. The position after 5 . i.g4 6.�xc4 e6 can also arise from the Queen 's Gam bit Accepted (1 .d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.tZJf3 lilfS 4.e3 �g4 5 . .txc4 e6 6.tZJc3 lilc6). Now the first player has the promising possibility 7. .tbSI at his disposal. Then Watson recommends 7 ... .tb4 8.'iYa4 �xf3 9.gxf3 't't'd6, but with 1 0.�e2! White can keep the initiative, e.g. 1 0 . . . Axc3 (1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .tiJe4! ?) 1 1 .bxc3 CZJdS 1 2:t!Vb3 (� i.a3) - White possesses the active bishop pair and a strong pawn centre, while the second player has no counterplay, C.Hansen-Brynell, Torshavn 1 997. Also in the case of 5 a6 6.Axc4 White is better, e.g. 6 . . . i.g4 7.h3 i.h5 8 .g4 i.g6 9.d5 fiJa7 (9 . . .tZJa5 1 0.i.e2 with advantage) 1 0.fiJe5 CZJd7 1 1 .tzJxg6 hxg6 1 2.e4 c6 1 3.,tf4 with initiative, Leitao Paschall, San Felipe 1 998. And definitely S ...tZJaS? cannot be re commended - 6.'ti'a4+ c6 7.b4 cxb3 8.axb3 b6 (8 . . . e6 9.b4 +-) 9.b4 tiJb7 1 O.�xcS+ �d7 1 1 .i.b5 +-, Komarov Sarakauskas, Tanta 200 1 . .
.
•••
Game 30 Beliavsky - Morozevich
Bundesliga 1 999/2000 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 �.�c6 3/�c3 dxc4 4.tDf3 tDf6 S.e3
This move does not give White as much control over the centre as S.e4
88
Chapter 3 6.d5
6..txc4 exd4 7.exd4 Ad6 transposes to the variation 4.e3 eS 5.liJf3 exd4 6.exd4 i.d6 7 . .txc4 liJf6. After 6.dxe5 '§'xd l + 7.tlJxd l tlJg4 8. .1i.xc4 �gxe5 only White can have any problems. Interesting is, however, 6.llJxe5!? tZJxe5 7.dxeS �xd 1 + 8.tiJxd l , e.g. 8 . . . .tb4+ 9.3Ld2 i.xd2+ 1 0. Chapter 6.
5 ... 'tlVxd5 6.e3 White protects d4, clears the way for the f1 -bishop and plans to develop his knight to c3 with tempo.
In his revolutionary book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (p. 1 78ff.) John Watson takes this position as a starting point for some general con siderations on the principles of playing with two bishops against two knights: According to the traditional view, the side with the bishop pair should strive to open the position, while his opponent should try to keep it closed. However, the acquisition of the bishop pair is usually accompanied by a loss of time resulting in a delay in development. And in general, the knights can be brought into action faster than the bishops, for the latter have to be located on effective diagonals first. And therefore the player with the knights should try to speed up the tempo of the game (often with a radical opening of the position), while his opponent can first act conservatively - a seem ingly closed position with an unsettled (not blocked) pawn structure,
Chapter 5
1 20
supported by the pair of bishops, can often be opened up successfully in the middlegame or in the endgame. This comes as a philosophical approach to the question whether 6 . . . e5 or 6 . . . e6 should be preferred here. Of course, there are concrete counter arguments, and in my opinion, 6 . e6 should be con sidered, as ever, the main continuation : the important d5-square remains u nder firm control, and the queen is ready to go to h5. The latter usually leads to the exchange of the q ueens after f3-f4 �h5xd 1 + � Game 43, second diagram (p . 1 33) . Amazingly, the second player manages to get ahead of White with his slow gathering of forces in the centre, by means of the crucial lever - namely, . . . hS and . . . g5. Game 46 shows the (partial) success of Black's blockade strategy. The final po sition clearly shows that the bishop pair cannot effectively open all endgame positions - as the doubled f-pawns are a noticeable disadvantage. .
.
And I would like to close the circle of arguments with that same doubled f pawns: perhaps Black can also handle the position conservatively in view of that weakness. In particular: 6 e5 7.liJc3 .i.b4 8.i.d2 .i.xc3 9.bxc3 't!Vd6 1 0.:etb1 , and now: 10 ... 0-0-0 � Game 40 (also with many previous deviations) 1 0 ... b6 ( 1 0 . . nbS) � Games 4 1 -42 •••
.
The position is characterized by an uncompromising battle for the initiative, in which neither side is reluctant to sacrifice some pawns. 6 ... e6 7.tZJc3 'it'h5 8.14 (S . .i.d2 0-0-0 9.f4 � Game 46) 8 ...�xd1 + 9.�xd1 0-0-0 1 0.i.g2 � Games 43-45
Here the manoeuvring battle is to obtain the slightest advantage in the endgame.
Game 40 Masternak - Zajaczkowski carr. 1 989
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.t�f3 .tg4 4.cxd5 Sometimes 4.tZJe5 is also played . After 4 tDxe5 5_dxe5 Black has two interest ing options: •..
a) 5 dxc4 6.'e'a4+ c6 7.'�xc4 .te6 (7 ... i.f5 8.tDc3 e6 9.e4 i.g6°o, Mammen Meuer, Mannheim 1 990) 8.'@'c3 (8 .�c2? 'ii' a 5+ 9 .i.d2 �xe5 +, Aoiz Linares Colas Longares , Zaragoza 1 992) 8 ..:iYd5!? 9.lLld2 f6 1 0.exf6 exf6=. .••
b) 5 ...d4 6.�b3 :etba 7.'iWa4+ 7.i.f4 �d7, followed by ... e7-eS, . . . tijg8e7-c6 with a good position for Black, Christodoulou-Geenen, Haifa 1 989. 7 ... i..d 7 8.�xa7 i..c 6 9.e6 9.e3 bS 1 0 .�a3 e6 1 1 .'Wd3 i..c5 1 2.exd4 'ii'x d4 1 3.'iWxd4 i.xd4 1 4.f4 f6 1 5 .exf6 tl}xfS l S.t;,Jd2 0-0 55. 9 ... g6!? 9 . . . fxe6 1 0 . .li..f4 � .li..e 5 with a positional advantage for White . 1 0. Af4 1 0.exf7+ �xf7 iii;, e.g. 1 1 .Af4 ia.g7 1 2. 'fic5 tiJfS 1 3.tZJd2 CUd7 1 4.'W'b4 e5 1 5 . .i.g3 :ete8 . 1 0... �g7 1 1 .�c5 1 1 .exf7+ �xf7 Q 1 0.exf7+. 1 1 tZJf6 1 1 . . . fxeS? ! 1 2.Ae5! 1 2.tiJd2 1 2.exf7+ �xf7, see 1 0.exf7+. 1 2 ...fxe6 1 3:�e5 :etc8 1 4.e3, and in this complicated position the opponents agreed a draw, Kouatly Geenen, Bruxelles 1 986. Further could follow e.g. 1 4 ... liJh5 ! ? 1 5.1Wxe6 'fYd7 !? 1 6. �xd7+ Wxd7 with good compensa tion for the sacrificed pawn. ...
4 ... .txf3 5.gxf3
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tDc6 3.tZJf3 .ag4 4.cxdS .axt3 S.gxf3 White achieves nothing with 5.exf3 'it'xd5 6.i.e3 e6 ( Black's quick victory after 6 0-0-0?! 7.tDc3 �aS 8 . .i.bS? ...
tZJxd4! 9 . .ii. xd4? eS 1 0. '!!¥c2 exd4 1 1 .
"'S �b8 1 2.0-0-0 tzJh6 1 3. '!!¥f4 �a3! -+
in the game Svendsen-Reefschlager, Gausdal 1 995, should not mislead us much stronger was 8.a3!, and 8 . . . tDxd4? 9 . .txd4 eS fails to 1 0.b4 +-) 7.tDc3 ib4, e.g . 8.'iWa4 �aS 9 :�xaS �xaS 1 0 .ib5 tDge7, and Black's better pawn structure completely compensates for White's pair of bishops. Also good is 6 ...e5!? (instead of 6 . . . e6) 7.tiJc3 i.b4 8 .dxeS �xe5 L\ . . tZJge7, . 0-0 - this has also been played in some games, and the comfortable development of the pieces and the better pawn structure should at least equal White's bishop pair. .
.
..
5. .:�xd5 6.e3 e5
The most active continuation. The battle for d4 is in its peak.
1 21
The move 8.a3 (the bishop remains on c1 , in order to go to b2 or a3 later) 8 . �xc3+ 9.bxc3 does not seem particu larly dangerous for Black, e.g. 9 . .tljge7 1 OJ�b1 (1 0.c4 �d6 1 1 .dS CLb8 1 2.i.b2 tiJd7 1 3.h4 0-0 1 4 . .td3 c6 ! 1 S.dxc6 �xc6 1 6 . .ae4 'iVe6 with comfortable play for Black, Moskalenko-Morozevich, Moscow 1 994) 1 0 . . . bS 1 1 .:tbS '!!¥d 6 1 2. f4 ! ? exf4 1 3.e4 a6 (1 3 . . . tDd8 ! ? L\ . cS, � .. J:-��6) 1 4.%1gS g6 with a double-edged struggle, Grabarczuk-Kaminski, Poland 1 995. ..
.
..
8... Axe3
Now any retreat of the queen is bad as well, e.g. 8 ... '!i'd6? 9 .dS! Sce7 1 0.tZJbS ! .i.xd2+ 1 1 .1Wxd2 �d7 1 2.dS! cxdS 1 3. 'iYxd6 '8xdS 1 4.tDxdS+ �8 1 S.tDxb7 Db8 1 S.tZJcS tiJfS ( 1 S ... tt>Cb2 1 7.0-0-0 +-) 1 7. b3 +- , V. Kostic-Sucher, Seefeld 1 999. 9.bxe3 ..
7.tiJc3 ..i.b4
This is the only way! Any retreat of the
queen would cost an important tempo
and bring Black into trouble, e.g. 7
•••
!'a5? 8.dS 0-0-0 9 . .ii.d 2 CD.ce7 1 0.e4
tiJg6 1 1 .a3 �b6 1 2 . .ae3 'ti'f6 1 3J�g 1 'tlf4 1 4.l:c1 ± , Babev-Fabry, Banicky Kahanec 1 978. 8 .td2 .
The first critical pOSition. The pawn structure of the first player is somewhat weak (he has the doubled f-pawns, his rook-pawns are isolated and prone to attack), but at the same time he has firm control over the centre. Moreover, the rooks can be brought to the b- and g-liles. The situation with the bishop pair - as it was briefly mentioned in the introduction to the chapter - is not so clear either.
Chapter S
1 22
On one hand, when one possesses such a treasure one should strive for open positions, since in a closed position the knights rather would have an advantage. On the other hand, Black is ahead in the development at the moment, and if the position is opened he would be better prepared to use that to his advantage.
9 'iVd6 White intends to gain some space in the centre either by c3-c4 followed by d4-dS or by e3-e4 followed by d4-dS, besides, �d1 -b3 could be quite unpleasant. Hence, the queen retreats in advance of this. Some other possibilities: ...
a) 9 exd4 1 0.cxd4 tlJge7 1 0 ... tlJf6 1 1 .Ae2 (or 1 1 .Ag2 0-0 1 2 .0-0 1:[ad8 1 3.'§'b3 ! f, Nikolaidis-Papadatos, Ikaria 1 998) 1 1 . 0-0 1 2.�b3! �d6 1 3.1:c1 1:[ab8 1 4.0-0 tt'e8 l S . .tc4 liJd8 1 6 . '6'b4 with initiative, Pogorelov-P . Roberts, Catalan Bay 2004. •..
.
.
�xd4 1 4 . .lie2 );[he88i5, Savchenko· Furhotf, Berlin 1 99 1 . a3) 1 1 .1:rc1 a31 ) 1 1 . 0-0 1 2.fIc5 ( 1 2.JLc4 �gS 1 3. �1 ttad8°o, Nadli-Bousfiha, Ronde 1 995) 1 2 .. :�xa2 1 3 . .tc4 �a3 1 4. 1:g 1 �, Mic-Timmons, Compuserve e· mail 1 996. ..
a32) 1 1 0-0-0 1 2.rIc5 'i§'xa2!? (1 2 ... �d6 1 3 ..te2 f5 1 4.f4 h6 1 5.i.f3 g5 1 6.'iWc2 !? gxf4 1 7.0-0 nhg8+ 1 8.�h1 :g7 1 9J1b 1 �, Normantas-Kahn, corr. 1 984) 1 3 .tc4 (on Dunnington's recommendation 1 3.d5 follows not 1 3 . . .lZJxdS? 1 4 . .tc4 +-, but 1 3 . lbd51 1 4.i.c4 'iVxd2 1 5.iYxd2, and now after 1 5 . . . llxc5 1 6 . .txf7 Dd8, as well as after l S ... llxd2 1 6.�xd2 f6 the position is unclear; apart from 1 4 .. :�'xd2 also 1 4 . . ,llxd2 l S . .txa2 llxd l + 1 6.�xd1 1600 is possible) 1 3 ... 'ifa3 1 4 .Axf7 :hf8 l S.j.e6+ �b8 with complicated play. •••
.
..
a33) 1 1 . . • �xa2!?
1 2 . .tc4 �a3 1 3.l:b1 ! �d6 ( 1 3 .. J�b8? 1 4.dS �c5 l S:ii'c 2 +-) 1 4.l:1xb7 0-0 1 5 .'t1Yc2 a5 ( 1 5 . . . :ab8!?) 1 6.0-0 a4 1 7.Ad3 fS oo, P.J. Clark Sowray, corr. 1 986.
a4) 1 1 .'iYb3 'fi'xf3 1 2.:1g1 0-0, and now:
a 1 ) 1 1 .Ad3 0-0-0 1 2.Ae4 �e6 1 3.'iYb3 tlJds 1 4.ttb1 b6 l S:�a4 lId6 °o, Smirin Kosten, Tilburg (rapid) 1 992. a2) 1 1 .1:g1 O-O-O!? (interesting is also 1 1 . .. 0-0 ! ?, e.g. 1 2.f4 :fe8 1 3. Ag2 'iV'S with counterplay, V. Loginov-Tishin, Tula 2002) 1 2.f4 ( 1 2.l:txg7 Dhe8 ! 1 3.:Xh7 better 1 3.�b3 tzJxd4 1 4.�xdS l:xdS = 1 3 . . . tzJxd4! 1 4 .exd4 Cl:JfS+ l S. iLe3 Cl:Jxd4ei5 Watson) 1 2 Cl:Jxd4! 1 3. exd4 •..
a41 ) 1 3.'iYxb7? �d4 1 4.'i¥b2 llJe'S! +. a42) 1 3.iLg2?! �h5 1 4.Dc1 (1 4.�1 llabB 1 5.l:1c1 llJg6 1 6.:cS '1!¥xh2 1 7.Dh 1 'tlVd6 1 8 .:tchS h6 1 9 . iLc3 0:£e7 20.dSSij, Ricardi-Sanchez Almeyra,
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tDc6 3.CiJf3 .tg4 4.cxdS j.xf3 S.gxf3 Salta 1 987, 1 4 . . . 'fYxh2! ?) 1 4 .. .'�xh2 1 5 �1 �d6 1 6.:Zc5 ( 1 S.i.xc6?! bxc6 1 7 . .tb4 1Wd8 1 8.i.xe7 �xe7 1 9.1Ixc6 'i'e41= � 20.:Xc7? l:%ab8 2 1 .�d 1 lIb 1 22.�c1 llfb8 -+ , but 1 6.�xb7 ! ? was also interesting - l S . . J%ab8 1 7.'1!¥a6 �6 1 8.'Wd3 with some compensation) 16 . l:adS 1 7 . .te4 'iYe6 1 8.�b1 f5 1 9. i.c2 bS 20.i.b3 CiJdS 21 .1:c2 rld7 22. 'i'c1 0£e7, and in the game Skalkotas Kourkounkakis, Greece 1 994, Black remained with a solid extra pawn. .
..
a43) 1 3.llg3 (thus White wins back the pawn) 1 3 ...�d5 14.�xb7. Now it all boils down to whether Black can use his development advantage before White has coordi nated his pieces. In the game Rawlings-Lenno, e mail 2001 , Black could not accomplish that: 14 ..�d6 15 . .tg2 llabS 1 6.'iWa6 :b6 1 7.�a4 IS 1 8.�c4+ e2 :1a2+ with a draw by repetition. ..
21 .trab1 ! This way W hite wins back the pawn immediately. 21 ... tlJdS Black wants to limit the effective range of the At3 immediately. 21 . . . l:lgS seems rather risky, after which could follow 22. tlJeS liJd6 23. i..a5 lIc8 24.lixc8+ �xc8 2S.:c 1 + with a strong attack. However, interesting was 21 . . . a6! ? 22.a4 b4 ! ? 22.!1xbS tlJd6 23.tlJxd6 Axd6 24.e4 tlJc7 25J%hS Threatening to claim another pawn. 25 ... eS? ! After this move Black begins to ex perience some serious problems. Correct was 25 . . . :1g6 26.�xh6 (26. :Xh6? lixhS 27.AxhS lIhB) 26 . . . lixh6 27.:XhS i.f4 28.:hc7 i.xhS (28 ...lIxd4 !?) 29.:xf7 lIxd4 with good chances for a draw. 26.dxeS �a3 27.Ilc2 /�e6 28.�e3 tlc8
1 37
The endgame with a pawn down after 28 ... tZJd4+ 29.�xd4 lIxd4 30.l:xhS pro mised Black little joy, but probably was still the lesser evil.
29.�xc8+ r;txc8 30J�xh6 .tb2 The position after 30 .. JIc2+ 3 1 .�d3 llxa2 32 . ..tg4 is equally hard to save the active bishop pair along with the passed h-pawn secures White a great advantage. But now Black loses material, which makes his situation even worse. 31 . .th5 nc2+ 31 ... i.xe5 32.i.. xf7 +-. 32.�d3 1:lxh2 33 . .txf7 �xh6 34.�xh6 tlJd8 3S.e6 �a3 36.�c4 The battle is now over. White needed only 1 3 moves more to force his oppo nent to surrender. 36 .. .tzJc6 37. ..tf4+ �c8 38.�e8 tlJe7 39.i..d 7+ �d8 40 . .te3 tlJg6 41 . .i.a4 a6 42 . .tb6+ �c8 43.�d5 �b8 44 . .te8 fiJe7+ 4S.�eS .tb2+ 46.�4 i..f6 47.i..d7 .th4 48.�g4 i.f6 49.i.d8 1 :0 Game 45 Levin Kaminski Bad Endbach 1 995 -
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJc6 3/, �f3 .tg4 4.cxd5 �xf3 S.gxf3 't!VxdS 6.e3 e6 7.tlJc3 �hS 8.f4 �xd1 + 9.�xd1 0-0-0 1 0.�g2 tjjce7 1 1 .�e2 tZJf6 1 2.i.d2 tlJf5 1 3.:hg 1 !? A remarkable idea - White plans to im pede . . .g7-g5 and exert some pressure on g7.
Chapter 5
1 3S
well enough yet - 1 5 ... g5? ! 1 6. i�e4 CLJxe4 1 7 .fxe4 ±. 1 6.tZJe4 tlJdS
After 1 6 . . . tDxe4?! 1 7.fxe4 tlJd6 1 8 .tg2 l2:Jc4 1 9 . .tc3 the white centre is too strong. Now Black i ntends to develop the bishop to e7, after which . . . g7-gS would be possible. The possible ... c7-c5 should not be neglected either. But with his next few moves Levin changes the usual course of the battle. .
1 3 ... h6
Nevertheless, Black prepares his usual counterplay. 1 3 . . . c5?! is not recommen dable, after 1 4.dxc 5 i.xc5 1 5.�c1 �bS 1 S.tZJe4! i.e7 (1 6 . . . tiJxe4 1 7 . .txe4 i.ts 1 S.Ac3 ± Bangiev) 1 7 . .tc3 Dd7 1 S . .te5+ �aS 1 9.12:JcS i.xc5 20. l:txc5 the first player has a clear advantage.
17 . .txfS exfS 1 8.tLlg3 tLle7 1 9.�c3 g6 20.e4
1 4 . .th3 !?
In the case of 1 4.l:ac1 �bS 1 5.C2Ja4 gS! 1 6.lDc5 c61 Black has sufficient counter chances, e.g. 1 7 . .tc3 i.e7 1 S . .'-� ·�3 gxf4 1 9.1iJxf4 Dhg8 20.tLld3 fIg5 21 .Af3 tZJds 22.i.a5 J:1dgS with coun terplay or 1 7.tLld3 gxf4!? ( 1 7 . . . i.d6!? 1 S.tiJe5 ndf8oo) 1 8.tLleS ( 1 8.tiJxf4? ! Ad6) 1 8 . . J1g8! ( 1 8 . . . :h7? ! 1 9 . .ixc6! i.d6 20.i.aS b6 2 1 .i.d2±) 1 9.Axc6 ( 1 9.tiJxf7? l:[d7 20.tiJe5 lldg7 -+) 19 ... l::lxg 1 20J:txg1 fxe3 21 .fxe3 bxc6 22.tlJxc6+ �c7 23.tiJxd8 b3 l2:Jc6 with counterplay) 22 .. .fxe4 23.fxe4 tZJc6 (23 .. .f5 ! ? 24.eS tiJdS) 24.dS (24.e5 Cjje7 L\ . . . tlJd5) 24 . . . .i.xc3 25.bxc3 gS ! oo. c) 21 c6!? 22.$.b4 .tfS 23.Axe7 be7 24.exfS .Ji.d6 !? 25.fxgS (25.�e3 Uge8+ +) 2S .. .fxgS 26.fS (2S.,ge7 S .td2 g6 9.b4!? (9.�h3 .tg7 1 0.cxd5 liJxd5 1 1 .C2:Jxd5 �xd5 1 2.i.g2 e5 1 3 .dxe5 0-0-0 1 4.�c3 �xe5, and the second player has nothing to complain about, Novikov-Danailov, Alicante 1 992) 9 �g7 1 0.b5 C2:Jb8 1 1 .lIcl 0-0 1 2.'�b3. and White's initiative on the queenside is unpleasant, WI.Schmidt D. Bischoff, Dortmund 1 992. •
•••
b24) 6 .. .tDf61? Q 5 ... C2:Jf6 6.tiJc3 e6. c)
S e5!? 6.dxeS �h4! .••
A rather interesting idea. Black has obtained an advantage in development for the sacrificed pawn and is ready to castle queenside. Besides, c4 is under attack. Now there can follow:
C1 ) 7.e3 d4! 8.'ti'b3 0-0-0 9.14 f;� !h6 with a dangerous initiative for the sacrificed pawn. c2) 7.i.g2!? 0-0-0 (Watson recom mends 7 . . . i.b4+ 8 . .1d2 �xc4 and evaluates the position as equal) 8.0-0 .1c5 9.f4 ':�-Jh6 1 0.e3? (this move leads to serious troubles for White, interesting is 1 0. h 3 ! ?, in order to protect g4) 1 0 ...d4! 1 1 .�b3 (1 1 . i.xc6? tiJg4 -+) 1 1 ...C2:Ja5 1 2.�b5 dxe3 1 3 . .txe3 Axe3 1 4.fxe3 C2:Jg4 - + , Etchegaray-Bukal , Cannes 1 997. c3) 7.%1g 1 !? �xh2 8 .cxd5 �xg l (8 . . . i.b4+ ! ? 9.tiJd2 �xg1 1 0.dxc6 i.xd2+ 1 1 .�xd2 b6) 9.dxc6 b6 1 0.�e3 iSi5. Dubinka-Segal. Rotterdam 1 998.
c4} 7.tlJc3 j"b4!?
7 . . . �c5 8.cxd5 �xf2+ ? ! 9.�d 1 0-0-0 1 0. �e4 C2:Jge7 1 1 .i.d2 ±, Kohler-Muse, Berlin 1 995, stronger was 8 . . . .1xf2+ 9. Game 60.
2S.d6! c6 29.cxb6 axb6 30. l:xb6 'iYxd6 31 .'iYxd6+ J:txd6 32.1:cb1 J::te7 33 . .txc6 1 :0
Game S9
Fedorowlcz - Boissonet Buenos Aires 1 99 1
1 .d4 tlJc6 2.tlJf3 d S 3.c4 eS 4.dxeS .i.b4+ S.tlJbd2 dxc4 7... b5
7 ... Ae6 was not played in any of the games I know, but it seems an interest ing move, e .g. 8.e3 '&d5 (S . . . b5 9 .b3! Ftacnik) 9.e4 (9 . .te2 b5 °o 6 1 0.a4 a6) 9 ... �b5 (9 . . . �c5? 1 0.b4) 1 0 .te2 0-0-0 (1 0 . . . tDge7 1 1 .0-0 i.xd2 1 2.Axd2 tDxe5 1 3.tDxe5 't1VxeS 1 4. i.xc4t 1 0 . . . tDxe5 1 1 .tDxe5 �xeS 1 2.f4 �bS 1 3.b4 i.b6 1 4.i.b2 f6 1 5.tDxc4 �c6 1 6.l:tc1 with initiative for White) 1 1 .0-0 Axd2 ( 1 1 . . . tDxeS 1 2.tDxeS �xeS 1 3.tDxc4 i.xc4 1 4.'�xc4�) 1 2.i.xd2 tDxe5 1 3.tDxe5 �xe5 1 4.Ac3 �g5 1 5.l:tfd1 (1 S.f4 ! ? '6'cS+ 1 6.�h l 55) 15...tlJfS 16.Axc4 .
This is very similar to the line S.i.d2 dxc4. But there are two important dif ferences : As soon as the d2-knight is unpinned the c4-pawn will be u nder attack. The dark-squared bishops are not going to be exchanged.
6.a3 White immediately clarifies the inten tions of the b4-bishop. 6.e3?! is dubious in view of 6 . . . c3, and the continuation 6.'tli'c2 will be analysed in Game 6 1 . 6 ... .taS
Axc4 1 7.Ji.xf6 �xf6 1 8:!!Vxc4 lhd1 + ( 1 8 . . .'i'Kxb2 1 9.11¥xf7oo) 1 9.1:txd1 l:td8=. S.b3 White wants to get rid of the c4-pawn as fast as possible. Now 8 ... c3? fails to 9.b4! cxd2+ 1 0.i.xd2 tlJge7 ( 1 0 . . . tlJd4? 1 1 .tlJxd4 'iYxd4 1 2:iVc6+ �8 1 3.lld1 + - , 1 0 ... tlJxb4 1 1 .axb4 Ab6 1 2.e3 ±) 1 1 . bxaS Ag4 1 2.:td1 �c8 1 3:�·cS ±. On 8.a4 Black replies with the simple 8 ... a6.
Chapter 1 0
1 90
8 t2Jd4! •••
The best reaction!
9.tZJxd4 'iYxd4 1 0.I;Ibl CiJe7
After 1 3 . .td3 bxc4 1 4.'Yi'xc4 iJ..xd3 (14 ... 0-0 = Ftacnik) l S:�'xd3 Ild8 1 6.�b5+ 'ti'xbS 1 7.r1xbS AbS the endgame is approximately equal.
1 0 ... c31 was bad again: 1 1 .liJf3 �g4 1 2. b4 iLfS 1 3.'i!Yxc3 liJe7 ( 1 3 . . . .txb1 ? 1 4.�c6+ +-) 1 4. h3 �g6 ( 1 4 ...�c4 l S.r1b3±) 1 5 .tljh4 �hS 1 6.tiJxfS �xfS 1 7. 'tifd3 ±. In the game Csonkics-Jamrich, Buda pest 1 998, was played
1 0 �xeS 1 1 .bxc4 bxc4 .••
and after 1 2. 'H¥xc4 Ad? the position was u nclear. Probably stronger was 1 2.f411, e.g . :
1 2 �xf4?? 1 3 .'tlVa4+ +-. b) 12...'ti'f5 1 3.e4 't!t'hS 1 4.i.e2 �cS
a)
•.•
l S.'i!Yxc4 ( 1 5.i.xc4 ! ? '§'e3+ 1 6.�1 ) l S . :fYxc4 1 6 . .txc4 with advantage for White. .
c) 12 ... i..fS 1 3.fi'xc4 ( 1 3.'ifa4+ ! ? iJ..d 7 1 4.'t';'xd7+ �xd7 l S.fxe5 c3 l S.tlJc4 ! ? c2+ 1 ? ttb4 i..xb4+ 1 8 .axb4) 1 3 . . :Bc3 ( 1 3 . . . i.xd2+ 1 4.i.xd2 'iYe4 l SJlb4 �xc4 1 6.:Xc4±) 1 4.�xc3 .txc3 1 S.l:lb3 iJ..d4 1 6.e3 ( 1 6.e4 ! ?) 1 6 . . . .tbS 1 7 . .tb2 with the initiative for White.
1 1 .e3 Also possible was 1 1 .bxc4. Ftacnik thinks that after 1 1 ... .tfS ( 1 1 . . . 'iWxc4 1 2.'lfxc4 bxc4 1 3 .l:lb5 t'zJcS 1 4 .l:lc5) 1 2.'t§'b2 �xb2 1 3.lb:b2 bxc4 White's position is bad, but that is apparently not true - after 1 4.l::tb S! i.c3 ( 1 4 . . ....� lc6 l S.l::tcS i.d7 1 6.(400) l S.e3, the position is u nclear.
1 1 .. :�xe5 1 1 . . . .tfS? 1 2.�xf5±.
1 2.bxc4 And so, the eS and c4 pawns fall at the same time . A logical outcome . . .
1 2 ... i.f5 1 3.�b2
1 3 .. :�Ye4? Aggressive, but incorrect. Black should have played the obvious 1 3 .. :�Yxb2 1 4. %:xb2 bxc4 1 5 .Axc4. Dunnington be lieves that this position is slightly better for White, but I would evaluate it as unclear, e.g. l S ...:dS 1 6.l:lbS (1 6.0-0 .tc3 !? 1 7.1:1a2 0-0 00, 1 S.�e2 16 ... 0-0 1 7.f3 %:feS 1 8.e4 tljc6 with counterplay) 1 6 . . . i.b6 1 7.e4 .te6 ! ? ( 1 7 . . . i.d7) 1 8. Axe6 fxe6 oo.
1 4.�xb5+ :.; " lc6 Black probably thinks that the activity of his pieces will at least compensate _for the sacrificed pawn , but he underesti· mates White's defensive resources.
1 5 . ..td3? This move looks nice, but in fact, it is a mistake. a) Dunnington suggests 1 S.l:lb3 and then analyses only l S .. :�c2 1 6.'i!Vxc6+ �d8 1 7. '&dS+ r-Jile 7 1 8. 'ti'xa5 �xc1 + 1 9. �e2 +- und 1 5 ... i.xd2+ 1 6.i.xd2 0·0 ( 1 6 . . . :b8? 1 7.�xc6+ 'ti'xcS 1 8 .l:lxb8+ �e7 1 9.:XhS +-) 1 7.'iVd5±; much better is, however, the simple 1 5 . 0-0 with good chances for Black, e.g . : ..
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tiJcS 3.·� ·,f3 e5
al ) 1 6.�d5?? �c2 -+ . a2) 1 6.l:[d3 'ileS 1 7.Dd5 i.e4 1 8.'Wb3 llabS 1 9.l::lb 5 i..xd2+ 20.�xd2 (20.i.. xd2 llxb5 21 .�xb5 I1b8 -+) 20 . . . l:xb5 2 1 .� xb5 l:dS+ 22.�el tiJd4!-+ . a3) 1 6.l::lb2 i..c3 with attack. a4) 1 6.Ad3 '!!r'xg2 1 7.'iYd5 'ili'xd5 1 8.cxd5 i.xd3 1 9.1lxd3 tlJe5 20.t1b3 l:Ifd8 21 .e4 cS with initiative for Black. b) Correct is 1 5 .tlb2 I, after which Black has real problems: bl ) 15 ...Ac3 l S.11b3 i..xd2+ ( l S . . .'t':¥c2 1 7.Dxc3, l S . . . .ta5 1 7.�d5) 1 7.i.xd2 ±, Q 1 5 .l:[b3 i..xd2+ . b2) 1 5 A xd2+ l S.Axd2 0-0 1 7.'�d5 ±. b3) 1S :i!¥e6 1 S.i..e 2 ( l S.'i¥d5? IId8 1 7.'i!'xeS+ AxeS 1 8 . .ie2 tiJe5iSi5) l S ... 0-0 1 7. i..f3 ±. Probably Fedorowicz made his move, expecting 1 5 . . . �xg2 l S.'t':¥xf5 �xhl + 1 7.�e2 .i.xd2 (1 7 . . :i!'xh2 1 S.�e4 '&dS 1 9.'1!¥b5 ±) 1 8 . .txd2 �xh2 1 9 . .te4 �d6 20.'�'b5 0-0 (20 .. .'J7d7 21 .l:b3 +-) 21 . 1!i'xc6 ±, but . . . .
•••
••
1 5 . . :iYxd3! ! A surprise. 1 S.'ti'xcS+ �d8! 1 6 . . . �e7? 1 7.'�c5+ +-. 1 7.'iYxa8+ On 1 7.:b5 or 1 7.lIb2 would follow 1 7 ... i.e4 ! 00 .
191
For the sacrificed rook Black has obtained a strong attack. White should already be looking for a way to draw the game, something that he can achieve with l S.fitf3 i.xd2+ 1 9.i.. xd2 '8xb1 + 20:�d l or 1 S:arxh8 i.xd2+ 1 9 . .ixd2 'iWxb 1 + 20.�e2 '&d3+ 21 .�e 1 �b1 + 22.�e2.
1 8.11b8? This move should cost the American grandmaster the game. 1 8 ... �g4? Soissonet overlooks a beautiful win: 1 8 'iYxc4! 1 9.Uxh8 (1 9.�d 1 i.c2+ 20.�e 1 .td3 2 1 .f3 �xc1 + 22.Wf2 Uxb8 -+) 1 9 ... �xc1 + 20.�e2 .tg4+ 2 1 . �d3 W'xd2+ 22.�c4 i.e2+ 23.�b3 (23. r:&c5 �d6#) 23 . . . �c3+ 24.\t'a4 (24.�a2 �c2+ -+) 24 .. .'tWc4+ 25.r:&xa5 �bS#. 1 9.f3 The only, but sufficient defence. • • •
1 9 .. .'tfYxe3+ 20.�d1 .td7 21 .tlb3 .,ta4 22.�b7 �d3? The final mistake. After 22 . . . i.xd2 23. '6xc7+ �eS ! (23 . . . r:&eS 24 . .txd2 �xb3+ 25.We2±) 24.,txd2 �xb3+ 25.we2 �b8! Black could exchange the queens and due to the opposite coloured bishops he would have retained good chances for a draw, despite White's extra pawn. 23.11e1 + WtS 24.'&eS+ ! 't§'d6 Or 24 ... .txcS 2S.:xd3 +-.
1 7 ...We7
25:�Wxa4 1 :0 Game 60
Izeta - Schweiger Cannes 1 999
'fr
1 .tDf3 iDe6 2.d4 d5 3.c4 e5 4.dxe5 ..tb4+ 5.ttJbd2 dxc4 6.a3 Aa5 7.b4
Chapter 1 0
1 92
1 3.i..x d2 �g4! 1 3 . . . tiJxeS? loses in view of 1 4.tlJxe5 'i¥xd2 1 5.tzJxt7! � 1 5.. :xt7 1 6.l:ad1 +-. .
1 4. .tc3 .txf3 1 5.gxf3 �g5+ 1 6.'�h1 'i¥h5 1 6 . . . tlJxe5? 1 7.'iYdS +-. 1 7.'ii'd 5 l:1feS 1 S.f4 l::[ad8 1 9.�e4
White wants to exchange the c4-pawn and thus achieve a comfortable develop ment. On the other hand, Black gets rid of his troublesome pawn .
7 cxb3 S.'iWxb3 ti.Jge7 9.e3 0-0 Breutigam believes that this n atur�1 . move is dubious ( I do not agree with his opinion) and suggests 9 �g6. He pro vides the following variation : 1 0 . .ib2!? ( 1 0 . .ib5?! 0-0 1 1 ..ixc6 bxc6 1 2.0-0 .ta6oo) 1 0 ... �xe5 1 1 .0-0-0 .txd2+ 1 2.1:xd2 �e7 1 3.�e5 liJxeS 1 4.f4iii . I would definitely not strive for the final position of the analysis if I were Black. Perhaps 1 4.'§'b5+ �c6 ( 1 4 . ..tlJd7 1 5 . .txg7 1:g8 1 6 . .ib2±) 1 5 . .ixg7 ng8 1 6. '§'b2 is even stronger - White has a clear advantage due to h is bishop pair. ...
...
1 0.i.d3 ti.Jg6 1 1 .i.xg6 Breutigam provides this move with an exclamation mark. I would not evaluate so highly the obvious and practically only possibility to save e5.
1 1 ... hxg6 1 2.0-0 Axd2!? Also playable was 12 .. :�e7, e.g. 1 3.�4 .te6 1 4 . .tb2 .tb6 1 5.'l:Va4 nte8 1 6. l:tfd1 l:ad8°o, but the game continuation (along with its idea) seems ev�� be�er to me - Black strives tor a positIon with the motif of a 'good knight versus a bad bishop'.
Black has a good position - he controls the only open file, his knight is stronger than the white bishop and White's light squares are weak. What more could one wish for?
1 9 .. .'�h7? ! This move along with the incorrect plan it pursuits - to bring the rook to h8 - is the main reason for Black's misfortu � e in this game. He could have forced a draw or tried to use his advantages, e.g.: a) 19 I:d3 20.l:ac1 (20:tWxd3 'ii'f3+=) 20 . . . l:ed8 2 1 .e6 15 22.'i¥c4 (22.'&'g2 tld 1 23.ncxd 1 nxd 1 22 . . . ne8 !?) 22 ... 'iVf3+ 23.Wg 1 'ii'g 4+ =. b) 1 9 tDe7 20.e6 16 21 .�xb7 �d5+ (21 . . . l2JdS ! ?) 22:�'xdS tlJxd5 23.i.a5 :lxe6 24.lIfd 1 :ee8 =. ...
=,
••.
c) 19 ne6!? L\ . ti.:Je7 . now e5-e6 is prevented and Black achieves good play on the light squares. ...
. .
20.�g1 �hS?
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 i::"': CS 3/-;':J3 e5 The continuation of the erroneous strate gy, which disregards the centre. It was not too late yet for 20 . . . 1:eS, and the white e-pawn would have been blocked, limiting the c3-bishop to a great extent.
21 .1:1g5 The immediate 21 .eS ! ? seems stronger to me. 21 ...�h4 22.�g2 �g8? Another and probably decisive mistake. On 22 ... 1'IheS?! follows 23.15 ! with an attack, but after 22 . . . 1:d3 ! ? the situation is still not clear. 23.e6 t:l:Je7 24.j,b4 c5? Losing immediately. More resilient was 24 . . .l2JcS or 24 ... tZJf5, but then also Black's chances for survival would have been negligible. 25 ..ixc5 27.ng4 1
l':1d2
26.nf1
f6
:0
1 93
6 �e6 •• •
On S ... b5? ! now 7.a4! is very u nplea sant, while if a2-a3 and .ib4-a5 have been played it would be harmless in view of the reply ... a7-aS.
7.e3 7.a3 i.a5 transposes to the variation S.a3 .ia5 7 .�c2 .ieS � Game 59, notes to Black's 7th move (p. 1 S9). In the game Hebert-Ghannoum, Quebec 1 999, White played 7.g3. Further followed 7 b5 S.i.g2 tZJge7 9 .0-0 tlJgS (9 . . . 0-0 1 0.a4 as 1 1 J�d1 'ifbS 1 2.tlJe4 l:dS 1 3. lbdS+ 'tfYxdS 1 4 . .ig5 with ini tiative, if 1 4 . . . hS?, then 1 5 . .ixhS!) 1 0.a4 as 1 1 .l:Id 1 �c8 1 2.tlJg5! /; ,gxe5 1 3. .i.xcS+! tDxcs 1 4. �e4 tlJa5 1 5.axb5 axb5 1 S.&ZJdf3! with a strong attack for the pawn. However, 8 ...'3'd5!? 9.0-0 O-O-O ! ? was very interesting. Breutigam suggests 7 '3'd5 instead of 7 . . . b5, but still believes that after 8.i.g2 tiJxe5 9.0-0 t2Jxf3+ 1 0.tiJxf3 White keeps the initiative due to the threats 1 1 .�a4+ and 1 1 .l2Jg5. Therefore, he evaluates the entire 7.g3-variation as better for White. However, I think that 8 &ZJd4! is m uch stronger, e.g. 9.tiJxd4 (9.�a4+? ! b 5 1 0. 'ifd1 c3! + , 9.�d 1 ? ! 0-0-0+) 9 . . . '6'xg2 1 0.:f1 b5! ? ( 1 0 . . . .ih3?? 1 1 . '6'a4+ +-) 1 1 .tlJxeS (or 1 1 .tlJxb5 .i.h3 1 2.tZJc3 0-0-000) 1 1 . . .fxeS with an un clear position. •••
•••
Game S1
T. lvanov - Legky Russia 1 995
1 .�f3 �c6 2.d4 d5 3.c4 e5 4.dxe5 .tb4+ 5.tiJbd2 dxc4 6.�c2 White starts dealing with the c4-pawn with out playing a2-a3 - as we shall soon see this can be a significant difference. ...
••.
7 ... �d5 As it turns out, White gets good chances for active play after this move. Therefore, 7 . . . b5 should be examined.
8 .te2 0-0-0 .
8 ... tlJge7 is playable, but it does not promise complete equality either, e.g. 9.0-0 i.xd2 (9 . . . tlJxe5 1 0.tlJxe5 '3'xe5 1 1 .tiJxc4 i.xc4 1 2.'3'xc4, and due to his bishop pair and superiority in the centre White is better, Avshalumov-Golikov,
Chapter 1 0
1 94
Budapest 1 989) 1 0.Axd2 tzJxe5 1 1 . tUxeS 'Wxe5 1 2 . .txc4 .i.xc4 1 3.'iJ'xc4;!;, F. Neumann-Maahs, Germany 1 995. Also 8 tZJxe5 9.liJxe5 .txd2+ (9 . . . iYxe5?? 1 0.'Wa4+) 1 0.Axd2 'ti'xe5 1 1 . .txc4 is slightly better for White. Another idea is 8 b5, but then also af ter 9.a4 tlJxe5 1 0.tlJxe5 'i!Vxe5 1 1 .axb5 White's chances are preferable . .•.
••.
9.0-0 �xd2 Or 9 . . . ClJxe5 1 O.tlJxe5 �xe5 1 1 .ClJxc4 'iVd5 ( 1 1 . . . 'Wf6 1 2.�a4 Ac5 1 3 .�a5 with initiative) 1 2. l:d 1 '6'c6 1 3.l:xd8+ �xd8 1 4. R.d2 i.. e 7 ( 1 4 . . . Axd2? 1 5 . �xd2+ gl :td8 28. l:th4 In order to activate the rook at last after 29.g5. 28...�c4! Thwarting the aforementioned idea and at the same time attacking on a4. It is obvious that Black's activity is of greater significance than White's extra pawn and the first player must struggle for a draw. 29.'fe¥a1 �c2 After 29 . . . �e2 30.'3'fS r:td2 comes 31 . llxh7 ! 'it'xh7 32.�xf7+ with a perpetual. 30.'iYf6 1:td1 + 31 .$>h2 'tWc7+ 32.�f4 iYxf4+ 33.exf4 Ila1
Chapter 1 3
27S
34.<st>g 3 a5 35. f5 lba4 36. fxg 6 hxg 6 Black has achieved a lot - he has restored the material parity and has a 'healthy' passed pawn on the queen side. However, "all rook endgames are drawn" - and unfortunately this bon mot is also true in this case. 37 .�h1 g 5 38.l:th6 J::1a3+ 39. f3 :a2 40.];Ia6 <st>g 7 41 .<st>h3 :c!:a1 42.�h2 a4 43.�g 3 a3 44.�h2 �8 4S.:a7 a2
Game 97 Wiebe - Wisnewski Kiel (rapid) 2002
The continuation 1 3 . . . :dS ! ? was sug gested by M.Breutigam CD (which I can recommend to you), as well as by myself in the first edition of the current book. At that time it was a new idea, today it is no longer a revelation. However. the last word has not been spoken yet.
1 4:'l!+'bS !? This continuation was considered neither by me, nor by Breutigam . Probably the occurring position was new to C. Wisnewski as well . But before w e continue with the analysis of the main game, let us examine some possible alternatives: a) 1 4.�b5? neS The threat to sacrifice the rook on e3 hangs in the air. 1 5 tDc:t4 This continuation leads to a disaster, but the position was bad anyway, e.g. 1 5 ..td4? tDxd4 l S.tDxd4 �a5+ 1 7.b4 'tWa3 1 B .tZJb3 llb6 -+ or 1 5 .i.c4 llxe3+ 1 6.fxe3 '6'xe3+ 1 7. 'it11 1!i'f4+ 1 8. �g 1 '{Wxc4 (threatening 1 9 ... 't!Vc5+ 20. �1 i.cB -+) 1 9 . h3 .tc8 20.'iVc7 'Wxb5 21 . .txfS gxf6, and Black is clearly winning. 1 S ... r1xe3+! 1 S.fxe3 'i!Vxe3+ 1 7.tzJe2 t2Je4 1 8.�xcS l:td8 1 9.'fVxe4 What else? 1 9 �xe4 Threatening 20 . . . l:Ie8 20.:d1 rIxd1 + 2 1 .�xd1 .txe2+, and in view of 22 . .i.xe2 'ifb 1 + -+ White resigned. And. Martin-Wisnewski, ICC 5/0 2003 . b) 1 4.h4? ! l:Ifd8! 1 S .te2 'ilVgS, and due to his uncastled king White has serious difficulties, e.g. 1 S . .txg4 �xg4 1 7.0·0 'ilVd7 ! 18 . .txfS gxfS-+ (the c7-knight will not survive this pin) or 1 6 . .txf6 .txe2 1 7 . .txd8 'iYc2 -+. c) 1 4.i.c4? ! .tc8 ! 1 5 .'iYb5 �xg2 1 6.:f1 X1fd8 with a strong attack for the sacrificed pawn. .
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 Cl:Jc6 3.cxdS 'i¥xd5 4.e3 eS 5.'iJc3 .tb4 6.�d2 .txc3 7 ..txc3 exd4 S. tLJe2 tiJf6 9.tDxd4 0-0 1 0.tlJbS 'iWg 5 1 1 /iJXC7 ,tg4 1 2.'i+'b3 l:adS 1 3:i¥xb7 l:Cd6 !?
.
.••
•
Not only to protect the c6-knight. but also to double the rooks with ... :U8-dS. Moreover, in many lines the possibilities ... :f8-bS and (if the knight abandons the c7-square) .. .I:td6-e6 are possible.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tZJc3 �b4 6.�d2 .txc3 7 . .txc3 279 d) 1 4.h3 �h4 Here the alternative 1 4 . . . llb8 ! ? is very interesting. e.g. 1 5.'iVa6 Ah5 1 6:�a4 l:bd8, and for the two pawns Black achieves a very dangerous attack against White's 'centralized' king. The im mediate 1 4 . . . Ah5 ! ? is also worth co n side ring. After 14 . . :�h4 the following variations are possible: d1 ) 1 5.tZJb5 ? ! Ile6 1 6.g3 Ilx e3+ ! 1 7.�d2 ( 1 7.fxe3? �xg3+ 1 8.�d2 '§'f2+ 1 9.�c1 .tf3 -+) 1 7 Uxg3! 1 8.fxg3 ( 1 8:ti'xc6? .tf3 1 9.�c7 llg5 20.11h2 tZJe4+ 21 .'it>c2 :c5 22:�d7 ti3xc3 23. ti3xc3 �f4-+) 18 .. J�Yg5+ 1 9.�c2 �f3 20:�c7 :i.xh 1 with initiative, 20 . . . tZJd5 ! ? .•.
d2) 1 5.g3 :fd8 1 6 . .i.e2 'iYh6 1 7.�xf6 1 7:iYb5 .txe2 1 8.'�Yxe2 tZJe4�. 1 7...:Cb8 1 8.'fi'xb8+ In the case of 1 8:�a6 :i.xe2, after 1 9 . .i.xg7 �xg7 20 . �xe2 l:lxb2 2 1 .'tiVg4 'tIixg4 22.hxg4 tZJe5 23 0 0 tDxg4 i5i5, as well as after 1 9.'iVxe2 'i¥xf6 Black has a significant initiative to compensate him for the material shortage. 1 B...tlJxb8 1 9.Axg4 (1 9.hg7?! �xg7 20 . .i.xg4 't!¥e5 2 1 .0-0 hS with an attack) 1 9 ... 'i!¥xf6 20.0-0 :d2 2 1 .llad 1 llxb2 22.tLld5 'ifd6 23 .':-�'.f4 'il'b6 24.ClJd3 :bS (24 . . . :Xa2? 2S.:b1 'i¥d6 26.:fc1 ±) 25.a4 l:tb3 26.:i.13 tZJc6 27.tiJc1 llc3 28. tDe2 llc2 29.tDd4 iDxd4 30.nxd4 g6 31 . lid7 hc7 32.Ilfd 1 l:txd7 33.l:txd7 1Wa6 34 .i.d 1 Peek Zumsande, e-mail 200 1 . .
first player repels all his threats.
1 9.f3 'ii' h 5 20.�ad1 l:[h6 21 .g4 tlJxc3 22.bxc3 fia5 23.tlJd5 Everything is clear now - White has successfully defended and should wi n. However, in the end he blundered away his queen and lost the game ... 0:1 .
And now let us return t o the position after 1 4. 'ti'bS:
-
.
=,
1 4 .. :iYh6? A mistake - the queen should have kept an eye on the g2-square at any cost! The alternatives will be analysed right at the end of the game. 1 S ..te2 l:rb8 1 6.'ii'c4 �xe2 1 7 .�xe2 �4 1 8.0.. 0 !1g6 Black tries to start an attack on the kingside, but with his next moves the
Wisnewski suggests 1 4 ...'i¥g6!? and evaluates the position as unclear. I have tried to analyse it a little further and the following variations have occurred: a) 1 5.i.e2? now fails to 1 5 ...l:1b8 (this is stronger than the immediate 1 5 ... Axe2 1 6.�xe2 �xg2 1 7.'t!¥f1 , M.Socko-C. Foisor. Athens 2004) 1 6.'iWc4 :i.xe2 1 7. '1!¥xe2 'iYxg2. b) On 1 5.:i.c4 there follows 1 5 . . .rl.b8 1 6. '6'a4 tlJe4 with a very strong initiative for the sacrificed material, where 1 7. O-O?? loses in view of 1 7 . . . �h3 1 8 .g3 tiJc5! 1 9.'iWa3 'i'e4. c) I think that the strongest continuation now is 1 5.f3! White vacates the 12square for his king with tempo. Never theless, after 1 5 ...I1c8! the position is still extremely complicated. -
Chapter 1 3
280
After 1 4.�b5! ? Black has another in teresting possibility at his disposal, namely 14 i.f5!? After that the deve lopment of the fl -bishop is still impeded, and White also cannot play f2-f3 which gives Black significant compensation for the two sacrificed pawns. I hope that future tournament practice and further analyses will help us evaluate the pOSition after 1 4. 'iib 5 ! ? more accurately. •.•
Game 98 Miladlnovlc Athens 1 999
Flear
-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.cxd5 '@txd5 4.e3 eS S'tDc3 .i.b4 6 . .ad2 Axc3 7.Axc3 exd4 8.ti)e2 tlJf6 9.tiJxd4 0 ..0 1 0. tlJb5 �g5 1 1 .C£Jxc7 �g4 1 2.�b3 11ad8 1 3.h3 Another attempt in this explosive varia tion. The most recent try was 1 3.'§'b5: 1 3 :ifYg6 Or 1 3 ...'i!VhS, e.g. 1 4.�xb7 ttJe4 1 5 . .tb5 Ad7 1 6 . .te2 �g5 with compensation for the pawns according to Ivanov in Chess Informant 92. He further gives 1 7.0-0 ttJxc3 1 8.bxc3 rIb8 1 9.'tJ'aS :fc8 20. nad1 l%xc7 21 .l:b:d7 I1xd7 22.�xc6 'ire7, and White has to struggle for the draw. 1 4.f3 .tfS 1 S.�xb7 Obviously risky. However, there are hardly sensible alternatives for White: 1 5 .e4? j,xe4, 1 5.g4? ..txg4 1 S.fxg4 (1 6.ng1 'iYh6) 1 6 ...�e4, also after 1 5.l:c1 rld7 1 6.i.xf6 �xf6 1 7.tZJd5 'i!Ve5 1 8.:d l .te6 White is in difficulties (Ivanov) . 1 5 'iVh6 16.� Or 1 6 . .ad2 ttxd2! 1 7 .�xd2 l:d8+ 1 8. �e2 tlJg4 ! winning. 16 ...l:bS 1 7.'l.4'a6 :lfcS ••
1 8 ..txf6 ? ! After l B.tZJb5 tiJb4 1 9.1lJd6 (or 1 9.�xa7 :taB, e.g. 20.1lt'e7 tiJbd5 2 1 .�e5 tlJe4+ !) 1 9 ... tZJxa6 20.tDxf5 'iVg5 2 1 .tZJe7+ �8 22.tlJxcB White has sufficient material for the queen. However, 22 . . .tlJb4 keeps a strong i nitiative. 1 8.. 'iVxf6 1 9.1lJdS �d8 20.tiJf4 tiJb4 21 :&xa7 ttJc2 22 ..te2 (or 22.:tc l .aaB 23.'iVb7 �d2+ 24.tZJe2 'i¥xe3+) 22 ... ttJxa1 23.lha1 :Xb2 24.$11 (only 24. 'iWd4 offered limited chances for resistance) 24 . . Ab1 !, and soon Black won, Bunzmann-M. M. lvanov, 2nd Bun desliga 2005. In this impressive game, White never came close to solving the problems with his development. •
.
•
.
Back to the position after 1 3.h3:
.••
1 3 . .,tc8 ..
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 liJc6 3.cxdS iYxdS 4.e3 eS S.Cl:Jc3 :.i.b4 6.:.i.d2 Axc3 7.Axc3 2B1 The bishop may have been dislodged from its active position , but on the other hand Black's queen now tangibly in hibits White's development (g2 ! ) . In the relatively 'fresh' game Banni nk Fercec, Oberwart 2003, Black went in for another retreat of the bishop - 1 3 ... :.i.h5. White replied with the careless 1 4.g4? and after 1 4 ... i.g6 fell into a critical si tuation, since his kingside squares were very weak. There then followed l S.'iYbS ( l S.�xb7 i.e4 1 S. h4 'iYxg4 1 7. Ae2 �g2 -+) l S . . . 'i!¥h4 l S.Ag2 Ad3 1 7. �xb7 Cl:Je4 1 B.flf1 fldS 1 9.Axe4 Axe4 20.Cl:JbS IId3 21 .i..d 2 Af3 22.'§'c7 flfdB 23.'tWf4 �xh3, and soon it was all over. Of course 1 4.g4? is an obvious mistake. Instead of that White could have played 14:�Vxb7, after which (by analogy with the variation 1 3 .�xb7) Black should probably choose between 1 3 . . . �cS i5ij and 1 3 . . . IldS �.
1 4.'iVb5 �g6 1 5 . .txf6 On the immediate l S.:1c 1 there would probably follow l S ... Cl:Je4! ? � 1 S.'Wb3 �fS 1 7:�c2 Ild2 ! .
1 5 ... gxf6 Also i nteresti ng is 1 S .. :§'xfS! ? l S. tlJdS (1 6.i..c4 'iYgS) 1 S . . . 'iYeS 1 7/�.f4 ( 1 7..'�lC3 �dS 1 B.l:ld 1 'iY'gS 1 9.:1xdB lbdBM) 1 7 . . . '6'dS l B.Ad3 tiJb4 with initiative for the sacrificed pawn.
1 6.l:lc1 Bad is l S.g3? �e4 1 7.l:lg 1 tiJd4 -+ and also l S .t2JdS? l:lxdS 1 7.'ii'xd5 tiJb4 1 8 . iYd1 liJc2+ 1 9.�e2 tDxa1 20.�xa1 'ttYc 2+ 21 .�3 (21 .�e1 lIdB 22. i..e2 i..fS -+ ) 21 ... Ild8 22 . .ie2 l:d2 23.'!'r'e1 AfS with a strong attack. However, l S. �a4 1 ? is worth considering , although in that case Black would also have good compensation - l S . . . l:ld7! ? ( l S . . . Af5 !?) 1 7. Cl:Jb5 l:fdB M.
1 6 ... 'iYe4!
Black has a small material shortage and a fractured pawn structure on the kingside, but his opponent is not developed yet.
1 7. .tc4 W hite is willing to return the pawn, but bring his pieces into play. 1 7...�xg2 1 8 . .td5 �g6 1 9.�e2 I nferior is 1 9 . .ixc6 bxcS 20:�xcS AfS 21 .l:lc4 in view of 2 1 . . . Axh3 ! 1l 22. l:[xh3 �g l + -+. 19 ...�h8 20Jihg1 'iYh6 An alternative was 20 .. :�h5+ 21 .Af3 'iYxh3 22.i.xcS (22.flh 1 �fSoo) 22 ... bxc6 23.�xcS �fS oo. 21 . .txc6 No better is 21 .i..g2 tlJeS with a strong initiative. 21 ... bxc6 22:i¥xc6 �h5+ 23.�e1 23 .13 ! ? �e5 24.f4 (24.l:cS 'iVh2+ -+) 24 ... �h5+ (24 ... �xb2+ 25Jlc2 i..b7 2S.'iVc5 'ii'bS 27.'t!.fxbS axbS oo) 25.�e 1 �h4+ 2S.�e2 i..x h3 (2S .. .'�hS+ 27. �e 1 ) 27.�f3 °o was worth considering. =
23 ... �e5 24.1:1g3 This is already dubious, as the further development of the game shows. White had to choose between 24.llc2 :1gB (24 . . . :.i.xh3 ! ? oo) 25.llxg8+ l::lxg8 2S.tlJd5 AeS 27.tDf4 i..xa2 °o and 24.lIc3 Ilg8
Chapter 1 3
282
(24 ... i.xh3 ! ? oo) 25.l:xg8+ llxg8 26.f4 �f5 27.�d2 l:td8+ 28.'Jtc1 �g6 29.b3 .txh3 (29 ... i.fS! ?) 30.tZJb5°o.
24 .. JIg8! 25.l:xg8+ Itxg8 White still has a material advantage, but his king is in great danger. Besides, two of his pawns are under attack.
Game 99 Kachiani-Gerslnska - Botsari
Pula 1 997
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t2Je6 3.cxd5 'iWxdS 4.e3 eS S.�e3 �b4 6.�d2 Axe3 7 . .txe3 exd4 8.tlJe2 t2Jf6 9.�xd4 0-0 1 O.tlJbS �gS 1 1 .h4!? A very interesting idea. If this pawn gets to h6 and is exchanged for the g7-pawn, the c3-bishop would be very dangerous. On the other hand , kingside castling is often no longer possible for White.
26.tlJd5 .it..e6 27.tlJe3 27.'lJf4 �xb2 28.�c2 �a3 would not have brought any relief. 27 ... ..txh3 The material parity has been restored, while the situation of the white king has not improved much . In order to mitigate the opponent's attack Flear offers to exchange the queens. 28.�d5 .ig2 !? Aggressively played. Another possibility was 28 Ae6. ...
29.'iYxeS? Although 29. �xf7 seemed very dan gerous in view of 29 . . . ..tf3 or 29 . h5, White had to play so. Now he has absolutely no chances anymore. .
29...fxe5 30.�e2 hS 31 .f3 h4 32.tlJe4 h3 33.� h2 34.tljg3 Ilxg3 35.�g3 h1� 36.ttxh1 + �xh1 37.b4 �g7 38.a4 �6 39.bS �e6 40.85 �d6 0:1
.
1 1 ...�g6 1 2.hS Seemingly logical . But probably 1 2.tlJxc7!? causes more troubles for the second player (q Game 101).
1 2 ... �gS 1 3.h6!? ,tg4 In the meantime, Black has completed her development and prepares to lau nch an attack on the uncastled white king . An alternative is 1 3 l:d8!? , as was played in the Babu ri n- Rebel exhibition game on the Internet Chess Club 1 999. There then followed 1 4.'i!Va4 (interest ing is also 1 4 .'&'c1 ! ? i.g4 1 5 .f3 .ie6 1 6.'.ti2) 1 4 .. tZJg4 1 S .te2! ( 1 5. CiJx.c7 'lJxe3 !, 1 5 . hxg 7 'lJxe3 ! !:J. 1 6 .fxe3 �g3+, 1 5 .Axg7 CiJx.e3 ! , 1 5:�r'f4 'i¥xf4 ...
.
•
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 CZJc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.tDc3 .tb4 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.Axc3 2S3 1 6. exf4 AfS 1 7.,txg7 tiJb4, in each case with an attack for Black) 15 ...ClJxh6 1 6.tiJxc7 t¥xg2 1 7Jhh6 ( 1 7.'iWh4 l:lbS 1 B . .txg7 �xg7 1 9. �xh6 'lWxh6 20.l:xh6 tlJb4 2 1 .11c l .tfS with initiative for Black) 17 gxh6 1 S.tZJxaS ( 1 8 . .af1 �g l 1 9 .tlJxa8 Ah3 20 .�e2 ..i.fS ! with an attack) 1 S .th3 1 9.'i¥c4 llxa8 20.0-0-0! �xf2 21 . .tg4 ! �xe3+ 225ii' b l i.xg4 23. �xg4+ �gS 24.�d7. White is three ( I ) pawns down, but his initiative is very dangerous . •••
.••
1 4.�c2 Let us examine the other possibilities : a) 1 4.'lWa4 :fe8! 1 5.i.c4 l:lxe3+ ( 1 5 . . . llad8! ? �) 1 6.fxe3 'lWxe3+ 1 7.'i!ff1 tlJe4 (or 1 7 . . . �f4+ 1 8:�g l 'ti'e3+ =) 1 S . .tel �f4+ ( 1 8 . . . llJe5 ! ? �) 1 9.Wg 1 �e3+ with a perpetual check. b) 1 4.'lWb3 ::tfe8 l S.,tc4 Ilxe3+ 1 6.fxe3 �xe3+ 1 7.�1 �f4+ 1 S.�g 1 'iYe3+ 1 9 . �h2 't?fxh6+ 20.�g l �e3+, again with a draw. And it is possible that Black could im prove his play in these variations. 1 4 ... g6 14 ... .i.f5 !1 � Game 100.
1 5.Ae2 It is very dangerous to accept the sacrifice: 1 5.tlJxc7 l1acS 1 6J�5 !lfdS ( 1 6 . . . :fe8 ! ?) with a strong attack for the pawn. Woman grandmaster Zhukova tried against the same opponent 1S .tc4!? Further followed l S ... i.fS 1 6.f4 �g3+ 1 7.'lWf2 ttJe4 ( 1 7 .. .'tWxf2+ 1 B.�xf2 tlJe4+ 1 9.'i!ff3 tlJxc3 20.tlJxc3;!;) 1 8''lWxg3 tlJxg3 1 9.rih2? ! (better is 1 9.11g 1 00) 1 9 ... :acS. White has the pair of bishops, but due to the bad position of the h2-rook and the weakness of the e4-square the second player has good counterplay, Zhukova-Botsari, Batumi 1 999. •
15 .tfS 1 6.�a4 Too optimistic is 1 6.i.d3? '6'xg2 1 7. 0-0-0 i.xd3 1 8.'lWxd3 DadS 1 9:�'c2 llxd l + 20Jlxd 1 ttJg4+. ...
1 6 (' !84 ...
Also interesting was 1 6 ...'fi'xg2!?, e.g. 1 7:tI1'h4 tL,e4 !? (17 .. .liJdS!? 1 8.0-0-0 't!Ye4 1 9. �xe4 i.xe4 20. f3 llJxc3 21 . bxc3 a6 22.llJxc7 :tacS 23.llJxa6 i.xf3 24.Axf3 bxa6=) 1 S.i.fl �g4 1 9. 'iixg4 i.xg4 20. CiJxc7 l:lacS 2 1 .�5 tlJxc3 22.tlJxc3 tDb4 23.:c1 IUdS with initiative for Black.
1 7.g4 17 ..tf3 will be met with 17
The position is very sharp and rich in ideas. W hite is significantly behind with her development, but she has the bishop pai r and also the c7-pawn is attacked. Which is more important?
:feS!. As happens quite often in this line Black sacrifices the c7-pawn, but obtains a dangerous attack, e.g. 1 S.llJxc7 llJxc3 (inferior is 1 8 . . . tlJcS? 1 9.ti1xe8! +- or 1 S . . . �f2?! 1 9.0-0! CZJd3 20 . .i.g7 'i!r'xe3+ 21 .�h2±) 1 9.bxc3 rbce3+! 20.fxe3 �xe3+ 21 .Ae2 (21 .�1 ?? i.d3+ -+ , 2 1 .�d 1 ? �xc3 22 . .:tcl 'ti'd3+ 23.Wel 'tWe3+ 24.�dl ::td8+ 2S.tlJdS .ie6 26. 'lWc4 AxdS 27.Axd5 'iVe5=t=) 21 ... Ad3 (21 . . . �g3+ ! ? 22.�1 �xc7 23.r1dl .te6 tii) 22.�g4 (22 .'�Yd 1 'iYg3+ 23.'�f1 �f4+ 24.Wg l �e3+ =) 22 ... .txe2 (22 . . . ttJeS 23.tlJdS! +-) 23.tixe2 1Wxc3+ 24. ..•
Chapter 13
284
�2 lDd4 25 :�e4 (25.'�e5 't!Vb2+ 26 . �e3 �c3+ =) 25 ... �b2+ 26.�g3 �c3+ 27.�2 (27.�h2 �xc7+ 28.�g 1 t2:Jf5 with initiative tor Black) 27..:�b2+ =.
1 7...tlJc5 1 8.�f4 18:�c4 �e6 19.�f4 '&xf4 20.exf400 is likewise possible.
1 8 ... �xf4 1 9.exf4 Ad3 20. Axd3 20.�1 :ac8 oo.
20 ...tlJxd3+ 21 .�1 tDxf4 Also playable was 21 .. Jlac8 !? 22.15 a6 23.ez.Jd4 �e5 and the position is unclear.
Game 100 Zakharevich - Sepman St. Petersburg 1 999
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.exd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.CZJc3 Ab4 6.i.d2 .axe3 7.�xc3 exd4 8.t2:Je2 tiJf6 9.tiJxd4 0-0 1 0. tiJbS �g5 1 1 .h4 �g6 1 2.hS 'i§'gS l 3.h6 i.g4 1 4. �c2 �t5 !? Black vacates the g4-square tor his knight with tempo.
22.tiJxc7 .ttac8 23.tlJbS �fd8 24.i.f6 lld2? 24...lId7 was better. After the text move Black loses a pawn. 00
2S.i.g5 l:1d5 26.t2:Jxa7 t2:Jxa7 27.i.. xf4 After Black's mistake on the 24th move White has achieved a material ad vantage. However, he did not continue to play accurately and the game ended with a draw. The rest follows with only brief comments :
27.. .l:tc4 28.I:le1 28. .te3!? tiJc6 29.g5 ':c2 30.b3.
28 ... 15 29.i.e3 lLlc6 30.gx15 l:txf5 31 .b3 tlc2 32J:te2 tiJb4 33J�h4 33 .tlxc2 !? 35.�xe3.
�c2
34:i!te2
tDxe3
33 ... tiJdS 33. . . Uxe2 34.Wxe2 tDxa2 35.:1c4±.
34.�d2? 34.�d4!? �c1 + 35.11e1 :c2 36.l1e8+ :f8 37.lIxf8+ �xf8 38.a4±.
34... :txa2 35Jlhe4 � 36. b4 b5 37.11d4 J:[c2 38J�te1 g5 V2: 1/2
1 5:�a4 In the case of 1 5.�b3 1:fe8 (also 1 5... tiJg4!? is interesting) 1 6.tlJxc7 %1xe3+ ! 1 7.fxe3 �xe3+ 1 8.Ae2 Ad3 1 9.�d1 �g3+ 20.�d2 (20.�1 liJg4 ! -+) 20...tiJe4+ 21.'it'c1 'i!Ve3+ 22.Ad2 �c5+ 23.�c3, Black can choose between a repetition with 23.. :�e3+ 24. .td2 �c5+ and 23 ...tlJxc3 24:�xd3 tlJxe2+ 25.�b1 t2:Jb4 26.�xe2 �f5+ 27.�c1 1:c8&5.
1 5 ...lLlg4! Now White must reckon with a knight sacrifice on e3.
1 6Jlh3 Zakharevich preferred to protect the aforementioned important square at once. Taking on g7 suggested itself,
1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 tZ:Jc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 S.tLJc3 Ab4 6 . .td2 �xc3 7.�xc3 285 but the following variations show that it would be too dangerous: a) 1 6.�xg7 :tfe8 1 7 . .td4 ( 1 7 .:h3 C2:Jxe3 1 8.11xe3 lhe3+ 1 9.fxe3 �xe3+ 20.Ae2 �g 1 + -+) 1 7 ...tlJxd4 1 8.�xd4 ( 1 8.tZ:Jxd4 ClJxf2 ! -+) 1 8 . . ..�jxe3 1 9.fxe3 'lWg3+ 20.'�e2 i-g4+ 2 1 .�d3 llad8 -+. b) 1 6.hxg7 llfe8 1 7 . .td2 ( 1 7 . .tc4 tiJxe3 1 8.fxe3 'i:Vxe3+ 1 9.�1 :e4! -+ , 1 7.I1h3 tiJxe3 1 8.fxe3 llxe3+ 1 9.�e3 ';{t'xe3+ 20 . .te2 lle8 21 .�d1 .td3 -+) 1 7 .. Jiad8 with a very strong attack.
1 6 ... l:tfe8! With the idea of sacrificing the knight on e3 or f2. 1 7.1:1g3 1 7.hxg7 tiJxe3 ! or 1 7 . .txg7 tDxe3 ! trans pose to the variation in the previous annotation. On 1 7.t2:Jxc7 follows again 1 7 . . . Cl:Jxe3 ! .
1 7... nadS Now all the pieces are developed and Black ;s ready for the decisive break through . But White, as we wil l see, achieves counter chances. An agreeable alternative was 17 ... :e4!1 1 8.�b3 llxe3+! 1 9.fxe3 �h4 20.0-0-0 �xg3 21 . .txg7 �xe3+ 22. �xe3 (22. l:d2 �xb3 23.axb3 tZ:Je3+) 22 ... tZ:Jxe3 23.I1e 1 ilJxf1 24Jbf1 Ad3 25.CDxc7 i.xf1 26.tlJxa8 .txg2 27/iJc7 15 , and the first player must struggle for a draw.
1 S ..te2 Once again White could not take on g7, e.g. 1 8. hxg7 t2Jxe3 ! 1 9.i.e2 t2Jc2+ 20.�xc2 (20.�1 �h6 -+) 20 .. .'�xg3 21 .�x15 �xg2 -+ or 1 8 . .txg7 CDxe3! 1 9.Ae2 tLlg4 -+.
On 1 9.'iVb3 Black simply plays 1 9 . . . �h6 20Jlh3 �g5 +. The line 1 9.11xg4 :Xg4 20.i.xg4 (6 20 . . . i.g4 21 . hxg7 ±) seems attractive, but then there follows 20 . . . �h4 ! 21 . hxg7 (21 . .1l.xg7 .txg4 22. �c4 l2lb4! 23.tLJd4 c5! 24.tZJf3 tlJc2+ 25.'�·xc2 '+!Vh 1 + 26.�e2 �xa 1 -+) 21 . . . �h 1 + 22.We2 iLxg4+ 23.'i!Vxg4 �xa 1 24.'iVa4 'iWb 1 +. However, White finds an interesting possibility to achieve counterplay.
1 9.�xe4! .txe4 '¥!ie7 21 .:xg7+ 21 . hxg7!?oo.
20J:txg4
21 ...�8 22 . .tc4? A serious mistake, which loses the game. The rook had to retreat from g7 at all costs. 22 ... i.g6 Now the rook is out of play and White is in serious troubles. The following desperate attempt also does not help. 23.�xf7?t .txf7 24.:xh7 �h4! The game is over. The following moves are only a formality. 2S.llJd4 �xd4 26Jlh8+ We7 27.exd4 �h1 + 2S.�d2 �xa1 29.d5 �xa2 30.dxc6 '&d5+ 31 .�c1 '&g5+
1 8 ...l:te4
0:1
Chapter 1 3
28S
All that seems good for Black, does it not? Then, unfortunately, the following game was played: Game 1 01 Cifuentes M iladinovic Dos Hermanas 2000 -
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 S.tlJc3 �b4 6.�d2 Axc3 7 . .txc3 exd4 8.tDe2 t2Jf6 9.CZJxd4 0-0 1 0.tDbS 'iWg5 1 1 .h4 'tWg6 1 2.tlJxc7!
:tac8 1 5.�fS :Xc7 1 6.:xdl +-, 1 3 . . . liJe4? 1 4.�c2 + - .
1 4.�a4 l:[ad8 After 1 4 11acS 1 S/�bS Black does not have sufficient compensation, e.g. 1S .l:tfe8 1 6.�xf6 l:xe3+ 1 7 . fxe3 '§'xe3+ 1 8.�1 �xd3+ 1 9.�2 tDe5 20. i.xeS :c2+ 21 .1Wxc2 �xc2+ 22 .�g3 �e4 23. :'�· !c3 �xeS+ 24 .�xg4 +- or 1 S t:lcdS 1 S.tlJd4! ? ±. ...
..
...
1 S.i.c2 �c8 The second player hopes to take over the initiative with 1 6 . . . llJg4, but Cifuen tes accurately proves his advantage:
1 6.l1d1 ! Simple and strong. Now both 1 6 . . . l:xd1 + 1 7 . .txd 1 and 1 6 . . . tlJg4 1 7.lIxd8 I:txd8 l S.'!!¥e 4! are u nsatisfactory for Black.
1 6 ... �d7 1 7JIxd7 ,ixd7 1 8. �c41 1 8.'iYf4? 'fi'xf4 1 9.exf4 1:c8 20 . .txf6 ClJb4! ! 2 1 .j,eS (the only move, 21 .kbl gxfS -+) 21 . . . tiJxc2+ 22.Wd2 fS 23 . .td6 tlJd4 24.��Jd5 lIc2+ 2S.�d3 l:Ixb2 ! , van Wely/Cifuentes. At first sight this continuation does not seem to be particularly dangerous. Of course, now apparently neither 1 2 . . . lId8 1 3. 'iYxdS+ tLlxd8 1 4.t"Llxa8 nor 1 2 . . . 1IbS 1 3.hS �gS 1 4.hS Ag4 ( 1 4 .. Jld8 1 S.'i¥a4 g6 1 S.�h4) l S.'t't'a4 1Ifc8 ( 1 5 . . . ttbcS 1 6. hxg7) l s.AxfS gxfS 1 7.tlJbS are recom mendable, but Black can develop his bishop with tempo and after the retreat of the queen play 1 3 . . . lIac8 or 1 3 ... l:tad8 with good compensation, right?
1 2 ... ,ig4 1 3.�d3! That is the skeleton in the cupboard! With this in-between move White gains time to mobilise h is forces. 1 3 ...�h6 Everything else loses immediately, e.g. 1 3 . . .�h5? 1 4.13 +-, 1 3 . . . ,txd1 ? 1 4.SV:gS
1 8 .. /� !Q4 With the idea 1 9 . . . tiJxe3, but this threat can be easily repelled.
1 9.veve4! b5 1:l. 20 ... b4.
20.a3 20.tz:JxbS? would have given the oppo nent a dangerous attack: 20 ... lIe8 21 . �c4 tiJxe3! 22.fxe3 �xe3+ 23.�d l l:dS! .
2 0. ..a 5 21 .tiJd5 b 4 22.axb4 axb4 23.�d2!? 23.Axb4 ::leS 24.'i!¥c4 is perhaps also possible, but White plays as safe as possible. Now 23 . . . lIeS is harmless in view of 24.�f4.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 "��:c6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.ll:Jc3 i.b4 6.i.d2 .ixc3 7 . .ixc3 287
23 ... ';iJhS Unfortunately I cannot explain Mila dinovic's intentions with this move.
. . . CZJf6-e4 ( -g4)xf2. . .. ·�' ,f6-d5(-g4) xe3, . . . :te8xe3) and on the h4-pawn (im peding the kingside castling) pawns.
24.�f4 '+!+'e6 25.tZJb6 Threatening 26.tlJxd7 �xd7 27 . .tf5. By the way, there seems to be nothing wrong with the simple 25.tlJxb4. 25 ...f5 26.0-0 The situation is now absolutely clear. White completed his development and remains with an extra pawn along with the bishop pair. The rest of the game follows with no further commentary. 2S ... .teS 27.];[a1 b3 2S.i.d1 tZJce5 29 . .txg4 tZJxg4 30. �b4 :gS 31 .i.c3 .tc6 32.btd1 'tWgS 33.l:!:dS l'i'eS 34.�c5 �e4 35."txg7+ �g7 36.l:txc6 tZJfS 37.:acS+ tlJgS 3S.g3 hS 39.�d4 'iYb1 + 40.�g2 �h7 41 .tlJd5 1 :0 After this game the defenders of Black's case were 'on the move'. The answer came out soon : Game 1 02 Rogozenko - Morozevich
Istanbul (01) 2000
1 .d4 d5 2.e4 tlJeS 3.exd5 '+1Yxd5 4.e3 e5 5.tlJe3 i.b4 6 . .ad2 .axe3 7..txe3 exd4 S.tZJe2 tZJfS 9.tZJxd4 0-0 1 0.tZJb5 �g5 1 1 . h4 'tWhS! An idea by GM Skembris. The queen does not go to g6, where it could be attacked with h4-h5 or Af1 -d3, but to another good place. Here it keeps an eye on the e3-pawn (very important in view of the tactical motif after .. J:1f8-e8. e.g.
1 2 ..te2 White spares the c7-pawn and continues with his development, preventing ....ic8-g4. The alternatives 1 2.tlJxc7 and 1 2.'!!¥f3 will be analysed in the following games.
1 2 .. J�td8 1 3.�e2 In the game Peng Zhaoqin-Botsari, Istanbul (01) 2000, 1 3.'Wa4 was played. Further followed 1 3 ... tZJd5 1 4J1d 1 .te6 1 5.h5 a6. Now White sacrificed the exchange for a pawn - 1 6.lIxd5 .ixd5 1 7.CZJxc7 trac8 1 8.CZJxd5 l:txd5 1 9.iof3 lldd8 20.0-0 - and even achieved cer tain compensation (but nothing more) . The game ended in just a few moves with a draw.
1 3 .. f· d5 Black protects c7 and plans the ex change on c3. 1 4.cid 1 The attempt t o prevent t h e exchange of the bishop would not have been efficient: 1 4.i.d2 a6 1 5.tlJa3 (1 5.CZJc3 CZJdb4 1 6. 'iVe4 f5! 1 7.�b1 'lJe5+) 1 5 . . :�f6 !?, and White has difficulties with the castling. while Black also threatens ... Ac8-f5. Probably 1 4.0-0-0 was better, e.g. 14 i.e6 ( 1 4 ... a6? ! 1 5.Uxd5 !) 1 5.g4 (1 5.a3 ! ? ••.
Chapter 1 3
288
a s 1 S.tlJd4 tlJxc3 1 7.'�xc3 tUxd4 1 8. lbd4 c500) 1 5 . . . liJdb4 1 S.i.xb4 tiJxb4 1 7 Jlxd8+ llxd8 18.g5 '8'gS 1 9. �xgS tlJxa2+ 20. Game 113. Unclear positions follow S.c3 0-0-0 (5 ... .th3! ?) 6.b4 (6.0-0 Q S.O-O 0-0-0 6. c3) 6 f6 7.lDbd2 Ah3 (7 . . . lDh6! ? S.O-O tZJf7 9.tlJb3 e5oo, Gutman-Shereshevski, URS 1 979) S .txh3 �xh3 9.b5 lDbS 1 0. �a4 e5 !? 1 1 .dxe5 �c5 1 2.liJb3 i.b6, and due to the unsafe position of the white king Black has compensation for the pawn , Oswald-Pirrot, Bundesliga 1 997. •••
.
Chapter 1 6
320
5.h31? is also played now and then, after which Black must decide on the position of the bishop:
a) 5... i4h5 al ) 6.0-0 0-0-0 7.a4 (7.c3 f6 ! ) 7 ... 16 8.a5 a6 9.i4f4 g51 (g . . . eS? ! 1 0.dxeS Axf3 1 1 . .txf3 't'fxh3 1 2.e4! ±) 1 0.Ae3 e6 1 1 .c3 tlJge7 1 2.b4 tlJfS 1 3 . .tcl .tgS 1 4. ,:' Od2 lZJd6 l S.�b3 �e4 1 6 .�d2 h5 with a good game for Black, Lopushnoy Raetsky, Smolensk 2000. a2) 6.c3 0-0-0 7.b4 f6 8.a4 (S.bS tlJbS 9.'!'ia4 a6 oo, S ...tzJaS!?) 8 �e8 9 . .ta3 eS 1 0.dxeS fxeS 1 1 .bS Axf3 1 2 . .txf3 tzJaSoo, Burmakin-Raetsky, Seefeld 2000. a3) 6.c4!? This continuation practically leads to the variation 5.c4, only with the difference that h2-h3 and i.g4-h5 have been in cluded. Unfortunately, there are not enough games with it - I have found only two: ..•
a31 ) 6 . . e6 7.0-0 dxc4 8.'iYa4 !? (a/so interesting is 8.�c3, by analogy with the variation 5.c4 e6 S.O-O dxc4 7.'?1C3) S ... .txf3 (S . . . e5, which is very good with the bishop on g4, now fails to 9.1!Vb5 !. After B . . O-O-O very unpleasant is 9.�5!? tl}xe5 1 0:1!¥xa7 with a strong attack) 9.J4xf3 l:1dB 1 O. �xc4 tiJxd4 1 1 . i.xb7 c6 1 2. .ta6 e5 1 3.Wh2, and due to the bishop pair and his better pawn .
.
structure, White's position is preferable, A. Ivanov-Raetsky, St. Petersburg 1 999. a32) 6 ...i.xf3 7.i4xf3 dxc4 S.d5 �:�'e5 9.i.g2 e6, Drasko-Flear, Montpellier 2000. Instead of what happened in the game - 1 0.i.f4 tLJg6 1 1 . .te3 (1 1 .dxe6 'i1r'xd 1 + 1 2.'i!?xd 1 0-0-0+ 1 3.wc2 tDxf4 1 4.gxf4 fxe6) 1 1 . . . 0-0·0 (1 1 ... .tb4+ ! ? 1 2.tl.Jc3 e5) 1 2.tLJc3 tlJf6 1 3.dxe6 'iixd 1 + (1 3 . . . �xe6 !? 1 4.�a4 a6 l S.0-0 i.d6) 1 4.l:xd l nxd l + l S.wxd1 fxe6 1 6.�c2 Ji..e 7, after which White had yet to prove his compensation for the pawn (which he did not manage to do in the game) , there was the interesting 1 0. 'ifd4!? , by analogy with the variation S.c4 dxc4 S.dS i..xf3 7 ..txf3 �eS 8.i.g2 e6 9.'*'d4! ? ¢ Game 1 13, line d) to Black's Sth move. b} 5 Af5 6.c4 6.tzJe5 tZJxeS 7.dxe5 0-0-0 B .tzJc3 eS 9. e4 dxe4 1 0.'i¥xd7 + l:xd7 1 1 .tlJxe4 fSoo, Villamayor-J . Gonzales, Quezon 200 1 , 6.c3 0-0-0 7.b4 f6 8 .ti�bd2 e5oo, O. Jakobsen-Kleinschroth , Copenhagen 200 1 . ••.
b l ) After 6 ... dxc4 7.tDc3 e6 (7 . . /�f6 8.d5 �b4 9 .�e5 ! �2+ 1 0.�xc2 .txc2 1 1 .ti:Jxd7 tiJxd7 1 2 . .tf4 0-0-0 1 3 .:tc1 .tf5 1 4.�bS±, Chuchelov-Gasparian , Furth 1 999) 8.e4 �g6 9.0-0 White's strong centre and better development compensate for the missing pawn , Kaidanov-Khmelnitsky, USA 1 996. b2) 6. e6 7.0-0 (7.tlJc3 i.b4! ? 8 .0-0 .txc3! 9.bxc3 �e4! 1 0.cxd5 exd5 1 1 . Wib3 0-0-0 00, Drasko-Kosic, Herceg Novi 1 999, or 8.'ifb3 tzjge7 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.a3 i.xc3 1 1 . �xc3 dxc4 1 2.'it'xc4 eS! 1 3.tlJxeS ti:JxeS 1 4.dxeS i.xh3 1 S.i.f4 .txg2 l S. �xg2 �5 with a good posi tion for Black, Moisan-Sulava, Cannes 1 999) 7. t2Jf6 8.t2Jc3 dxc4?! 9.tL1eS! t2Jxe5 1 0.dxeS tLldS (1 0. . . 'ilVxd 1 1 1 .:Xd l tlJdS 1 2.g4 .tc2 1 3.t1d2±) 1 1 .g4 AgS ..
..
1 .d4 d5 2.tlJf3 tlJc6 3.g3 1 2.tlJxd5 exd5 1 3.iVxd5±, Chuchelov Capon, Fourmies 1 998. Instead of 8 . . . dxc4? ! , B . . . .tb4 ! ? i s worth examining.
5 .. 0-0-0 Also interesting is 5 .th3!? (after 5.c4 Black does not have this possibility), e .g . 6.:e1 .txg2 7.Wxg2 0-0-0 8 . .tf4 f6 9.c3 g5 1 0 . .i.e3 h5 1 1 . h4 g4 1 2. ( jd2 e5 with active play tor Black, Lazaro-Mellado, Andorra 200 1 .
1 4 . .ta3 ·:i,',fS "'", Moscow 1 996.
321 Tregubov-Svistunov,
7.b4
.
•••
6.c3 Here also it was not too late for 6.c4: a) 6... e6 transposes to the variation 5.c4 e6 6.0-0 0-0-0. b) Another possibility is 6 dxc4 7.�a4 (but not 7.d5? e6 !), and now Black has the choice: •..
b1 ) 7 ... a6 8.tlJc3 e6 (8 ..txf3 9.exf3 tlJxd4 1 0.'iVxc4 � f4 �) 9.e3 (9 . ..tf4 .i.xf3 1 0.Axf3 tlJxd4 1 1 .'8xc4 tiJxf3+ 1 2.exf3 .td6) 9 .tb4 oo, Thorvaldsson-Johann essen, Skopje 1 972. However, probably 8.�xc41? i.e6 9:�c2 tlJxd4 1 0. tlJxd4 �xd4 1 1 . .tf4� should be preferred. ...
•••
b2) 7 �b8 8 .'tixc4 i.e6 9.'ii'c2 i.h3 (9 . . . tlJxd4 1 O. tlJxd 4 'iVxd4 1 1 .tlJc3 ijij) 1 0. tlJc3 i.. xg2 1 1 . �xg2 e6 1 2 .l:d 1 , and in view of the space advantage and the semi-open c-file White is slightly better. •••
6 . t6 ..
A multi-purpose move - Black prevents tlJf3-eS for good and prepares . . . e7-eS or ... g7-gS. In some more recent games there followed 6 ... i.h31? 7.b4 i.xg2 8.�xg2 f6, and with good results also, e.g . :
7 h5 Lorenz pins his hopes on a quick attack on the kingside. Also very interesting is 7 e5!?, e.g. 8. b5 (8.dxeS tlJxe5oo, Li Zunian-Rizzitano, Chicago 1 983) 8. . .tlJb8 (B . .tlJce7 9.dxe5 �xb5 1 0.f1:jbd2 tlJc6 1 1 .llb1 'ila6 °o, S. Kusnetsov-Makarov, corr. 1 988) 9.dxe5 �xb5 1 0.exf6 tlJxf6 1 1 .a4 'W'a6 1 2.,i,e3 fi::Jc6 1 3 .tZJa3 .txa3 1 4.llxa3 Ilhe8 °o, Vukic- Pajkovic, Vrnjacka 8anja 1 999. .•.
•.•
.
8.tlJbd2 The knight heads for c5. White could also choose the following: a) S.�a4 h4! with cou nterplay, Fancsy-Ruck, Paks 1 994. b) S.b5 tZJb8 9.'ti'a4 a6 (9 ... .th3 ! ? 1 0. .i.xh3 �xh3 1 1 :�'xa7 h4! ? � 1 2.tlJxh4 g5 1 3.f1:jf3 CZJh6 �) 1 0.tlJa3 e5 1 1 .dxe5 .txa3 1 2.i.xa3 axb5 °o.
a ) 9.b5 tlJa5 ( 9 . . . tlJb8 ! ? 1 0.a4 'iffS) 1 0 .a4 'iff5 ( 1 0 . . . e6 !? 1 1 ..i.a3 g5, 1 0 . . . g 5 ! ? ) 1 1 . .ta3 tlJc4 oo, Quinteros-Torre, Malta (01) 1 980.
8 . g5 The second player proceeds with h is main idea · attack on the white king ! Also possible is 8 . . . eS ! ? and even 8 . . . h4 ! ? 9.tlJxh4 g5 1 0.CZJhf3 .i.h3.
b) 9.tlJbd2 e5 1 0.b5 e4 1 1 . bxc6 exf3+ 1 2.tlJxf3 (1 2.exf3 1i'xc6=, Weindl-Raets ky, Biel 1 995) 1 2 .. :�xc6 1 3:ti'b3 f1:je7
The c5-square must be taken under control. Nevertheless, W h ite should
..
9.tlJb3 e6
Chapter 1 6
322
probably still play 1 0j,:jc5, and after 1D .. AxcS 1 1 .bxcS h4 1 2.�b3 hxg3 1 3.fxg3 �h7 1 4.:f2 i.fS ( 1 4 . . . eS! ?) 1 S.e3 tlJaS 1 6. �a4 b6 the position would be sharp. Unfortunately for GM Radulov, he chose another continua tion. .
1 0.l:Ib1 ? With the idea, atter 'lJb3-c5 and the following exchange ( ... j"xc5 b4xcS) to have control over the b-file. But. . .
1 0 ... �h7 ! Th e queen goes t o a wonderful attacking position, and also with tempo (the b l rook is under attack!). 1 1 . .ie3 h4 Threatening 1 2 . . . hxg3 followed by 1 3 . . . Axf3 -+ .
1 2.gxh4 1 2.:1e1 would not have helped - 1 2 . . . hxg3 1 3 . hxg3 ..th3 1 4 .Ah l ..tfS! -+ . Also after 1 2. tiJbd2 hxg3 (1 2 . . . Ad6! ?) 1 3. fxg3 (1 3 . hxg3? �h3 -+) 1 3 . . . i.d6 ( 1 3 ... Ah3! ?) White would not have had anything to be happy about.
1 2 ... .tfS ! 1 3.hxg5 1 3J�b2 or 1 3.:c1 loses immediately in view of 1 3 ... g4.
1 3 ... ..td6 ! 1 3 . . .Axb1 ? 1 4.'iVxb1 �xb1 l S.:xb1 would have been a nice present for the first player. 1 4.h4 fxgS 1 S . .txg5 tlJge7! 1 6.b5 tlJbS 1 7.l:rc1 �dgS Here only a lifeless computer could believe that White could survive the forthcoming black attack.
1 S.�d2 �xgS! 1 9:�xgS Black wins very beautifully after 1 9. tlJxg5 - 1 9 ... �xh4 20.tlJf3 Ah2+ 21 .�h 1 'iVg4! ! 22.tlJxh2 (22.'(fYd 1 Af4+ 23.�g 1 :g8 -+) 22 . . . 'iVh4 23.j"h3 '*Yxh3 24.'f¥f4 .te4+ ! 25.f3 t"lJg6 -+ .
1 9 .. .1:1gS 20.�e3 tDg6 White's position is absolutely hopeless.
21 .c4 .te4 22.�c3 22.'lJg5 tZJxh4 ! - + .
22 ...tDxh4 23Jlfd1 tlJxg2 White resigned. It is worth mentioning that the Elo difference in this game was 200 points in his favour! 0:1 Game 1 1 3 Loginov Wells Harkany 1 994 -
1 'tlJf3 d5 2.g3 tDc6 3.d4 .tg4 4 . .tg2 �d7 S.c4 !? White immediately attacks the d5pawn, which obstructs his bishop. S ... e6 Otten S dxc4 6.d5 .txf3 7. ..txf3 tlJe5 8 . .tg2 e6 is played, with the following variations: ••.
1 .d4 dS 2.liJf3 ':::"''C 6 3 .g3
323
Only a transposition is 6 ... dxc4 7.liJc3 (7:�a4? ! eS! 8.dxeS liJxeS) 7 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 .
a) 9.f4 tLJg4 1 0. h3 liJ4f6 1 1 .dxe6 'i¥xd 1 + 1 2.Wxd 1 0-0-0+ 1 3.'lt>c2 txe6°o, P. Knudsen-Rewitz, Aarhus 1 988. b) 9.liJc3 exdS (9 . . . 0-0-0 1 0.0-0 liJf6 1 1 .Af4 tDg6 1 2.�gS .i4cS oo, Tukmakov Raetsky, Biel 1 997, 1 O. 'ti'd4 ! ? liJc6 1 1 .'iVxc4 Q 9.'t!Yd4 ! ? liJc6 1 0:t'!'xc4 0-0o 1 1 .liJc3) 1 0.�xdS �xdS 1 1 . liJxdS 00-0 1 2.i.f4 iiiii V2:V2, Lopushnoy-Kharlov, St. Petersburg 1 999. c) 9 .i4f4 tlJg6 1 O.dxeS �xd 1 + 1 1 . �xd 1 0-0-0+ 1 2. �c2 tZJxf4 1 3.gxf4 fxe6 1 4.tZJd2 AdS l S.Ah3 i.xf4 ( l S . . . :le8 l S.e3 �b5 1 7.a4!) l S.e3 AeS 1 7.tZJxc4 .tt6 1 8 . .ixeS+ �b8 1 9.1Iad 1 tlJe7 K. Edvardsson-Raetsky Iceland 1 999. •
=,
I
d) 9.�d4!? liJc6 1 O:�xc4 d l ) 1 0 ... 0-0-0 1 1 . liJc3 (1 1 .e4 exd5 1 2.exd5 tlJfS 1 3.tZJc3 llJeS 1 4.�e2 i.c5 1 S.0-0 IIhe8 °o, Ledger-Pein , Hove 1 997) 1 1 . . . liJb4 1 2.0-0 exdS 1 3:�'b3 llJt6 1 4.l:tdl c6 l S.Ae3 �b8 (l S . . . c5 l S.llJxdS! liJbxd5 1 7.AgS±) 1 6.'§'a4 liJaS 1 7.b4! .ixb4 1 8.l:labl with a strong attack, Darcyl-Garbarino, Argentina 1 983. d2) 10 ...exd5 l 1 .�xdS .tb4+ 1 2.tlJc3 �xdS 1 3.Axd5 tZJge 7 1 4 . .tg2 0-0-0 l S. Ad2 tZJd4 l S.0-0-0 %:the8 ( l S ... �xc3 1 7. bxc3 llJxe2+? 1 8.�b2 +-) 1 7.l:lhel t V. Zaitsev-Raetsky, St. Petersburg 1 999.
6.0-0 0-0-0
In Larsen-Garbarino, San Martin 1 995, Black tried 6...iLlge7 7.tlJc3 h5. The Danish grandmaster played the rest of the game at one go : 8.b4! dxc4 (8 ... liJxb4 9.liJeS �d6 1 0.'�a4+ liJbc6 1 1 . .ta3 �d8 1 2 . .ixe7 Axe7 1 3 . liJxcS bxc6 1 4.�xcS+ �8 1 S . cxdS ±) 9.b5 Axf3 1 0.i.xf3 tZJxd4 1 1 . .txb7 l:bB 1 2.Ag2 g6 ( 1 2 . . . liJxbS? 1 3.tr.bl +-) 1 3.lIb1 i..g7 1 4 . .ta3 ! h4 ( 1 4 . . .0-0? l S.e3 +-) 1 5.e3 tiJdf5 16 . .ic6! liJxc6 1 7.bxc6 �xd1 1 B.lbb8+ ! '@'dB 1 9. lIfb1 ! .tf6 ( 1 9 . . . Axc3?? 20.llxd8+ �xd8 2 1 .l:lb8#, 1 9 . . .tZJe7 20.lb:d8+ �xd8 2 1 .Db8+ tlJc8 22.liJbS AtS 23. liJxa7 .ixa3 24.l:xc8+ �e7 2S . .c.xh8 c3 26.l:Ixh4 c2 27.tr.c4 cl 'tW+ 28.1lxc1 .axcl 29 .liJbs +-) 20.tZJe4 i.e7 21 .l:txd8+ .i.xd8 22.g4 !.i.Jh6 (22 . . .tlJe7 23 . .tb2 f6 24.liJxfS+ �7 2S.liJd7 l::te8 26.tZJe5+ �g8 27.l:lc1 +-) 23.tr.b8 tlJxg4 24.h3! f5 25.tZJd6+! �e7 (25 ... cxd6 26. c7 �e7 27.cS'8 +-) 26.hxg4 1 :0.
7.�-�c3 dxc4 8.'iWa4 c;t>b8 This prophylactic move is necessary. However, it can be played after ex changing on f3 first - B... Axf3 9 ..i.xf3 �b8, and now: a) 1 0.tr.d1 leads to the main game (S . . . �b8 9.l::td l Axf3 1 0 . .txf3). b) 1 0.i.e3!? liJb4 ( 1 0 . . . liJxd4 ! ? 1 1 . 'i¥xc4 liJxf3 1 2.exf3 liJfS 1 3.lIfd1 liJdS 1 4.l:lac1 c6) l 1 .�d l liJf6 l 2.b3 cxb3 1 3 .�xb3 liJbdS 1 4 . .td2 c6 1 5 .liJa4 iiiii , Loginov-Dubois, Bad Worishofen 2000 . Disaster follows B i.b4? 9.C2JeSJ liJxeS 1 0.'8'xa7! c6 1 1 ..tf4 .td6 (1 1 .. .fS 1 2.dxe5 i.xc3 1 3.bxc3 gS 1 4.Ae3 +-) 1 2.'1!¥a8+ �c7 1 3.tlJb5+ �b6 1 4.�a7+ �xbS 1 5. a4+ 1 :0, Kumaran-Miles, Dublin 1 993. •••
9.l:Id1
Chapter 1 6
324
..
Also after 1 3 . . .tiJxc3 1 4.bxc3 White keeps the initiative, e.g. 1 4 . . . .ie7 1 5. i.g5 hS ( 1 5 . . . '+lfc6 1 6.i.g2 bS 1 7.�aS) 1 6.i.xf6 i.xfS 1 7.e5 J4.e7 l B.:ab1 c6 1 9.'i¥aS.
1 4.�a6 C2Jxc3 1 5.bxc3 'iYc6
White has a dangerous initiative on the queenside for the sacrificed pawn. W ith his last move he over-protects d4 and threatens to play 1 0.t2Je5. Also interesting is 9 .te3 1? Then 9 . . . i.xf3 1 O . �xf3 transposes t o B . . . .txf3 9.i.xf3 �b8 1 0.i.e3. .
9 ... Axf3 This way Black surrenders his bishop pair, but gets rid of the threat tlJe5 and keeps h is extra pawn . Half-way measures like 9 . . . f6 or 9 . . . i.d6 are not recommendable - after 1 0 .'iYxc4 the first player achieves an active position with material parity. 9 ... tiJb4 ?? would be a blunder in view of 1 O:�xd7 l:bd7 1 1 .tlJe5 +-.
1 0 . .axf3 tDb4 1 1 :�a5! After 1 1 .'i!Vxd7?! l:bd7 1 2.e3 tlJf6 1 3. i.e2 tlJd3 1 4.�xd3 cxd3 1 5 .:xd3 c5 ! only W hite could have any problems, Sosonko-Fressinet. Cannes 1 996.
1 1 ... C2Jf6 1 2.a3 After 1 2.i.f4 ,J� 'fd5 the position is un clear, Balinov-Raetsky, Seefeld 2000. Interesting was also 1 2 . . . bS!?
1 2 .C2Jbd5 ..
1 2 . . . t2Jc2? 1 3.nb1 tlJxd4 1 4.llxd4 'tIYxd4 1 5.i.e3 +-, 1 2 ... b6? 1 3.�xa7+ ! +-.
1 3.e4 b6
1 6.a4! White wants to open the a-file as fast as possible and to this end sacrifices another pawn. 1 6 . .ig5 ! ? is not bad either, e.g. 1 S ... i.e7 1 7.d5 exd5 l B . exd5 �d7 1 9.�xc4. 1 6 .. .tiJxe4 1 7.a5 f5 1 8.axb6 axb6 1 9.i.f4 The attack becomes stronger and stronger. Now the threat is 20.Ilfb 1 . 1 9 .. :iWb7 Wells is willing to return the material, in the hope of consolidating his position . A n alternative i s 1 9 . . .i.dS, but sti ll after 20 . .ixdS cxd6 21 .'iYa7+ (21 .Ildbl �c7) 21 ... Wc8 22 . .ixe4 (22.11db1 I ?) 22 .. .fxe4 (22 .. .'ii xe4 23.d5! +-) 23:t!Vxg7 the si tuation looks dangerous for Black. 20 :�xc4 Ad6 21 .'!Wxe6 %:tde8 22.�d7? ! White succumbs to the tension o f the battle. Much better was 22. �xf5 ! Ilhf8 (22 ... i.xf4 23.:1e1 ! + - , 22 . . . g6 23 . 'iYg4±) 23.�xh7 Axf4 24.:e1 ! i.xg3 25J1xe4 nxe4 2S.'iYxe4 �xe4 27.i.xe4
325
1 .d4 d5 2.tLlf3 ttJcS 3.g3 .txf2+ 28.�g2 cS 29.�xc6 with good winning chances.
22 ... .i.xf4 23.gxf4 �hf8 Now Black can be satisfied - the po sition h as become u nclear. The rest follows without commentary:
24.�a3 �d8 25.'i¥a4 1:1f6 26.h3 bS 27.'tWaS l:tdd6 28.l;tda1 �c8 29. 'ifb4 I%h6 30.c4 �c6 31 .cxbS �c2 32 . .txe4 �xe4 33.1:[g3 l:thg6 34.:&a3 'iYxf4 3S.b6 Itxg3+ 36. fxg3 �xd4+ 37. 'iYxd4 nxd4 38.1:1a8+ �b7 39.bxc7 ttc4 40.l:tf8 J:txc7 V2: V2
As we have seen the plan with . . . 'iYd7 followed by ... 0-0-0 is rather risky for Black - due to the strong �g2 White's attack very often develops too fast. Be sides, the variation 5.h3 ! ? is qu ite un pleasant. However, the second player has another possibility at his disposal: Game 1 1 4 Razuvaev - Skembris Porto San Giorgio 1 99B
1 .tZJf3 d5 2.d4 tlJc6 3.g3 .tg4 4 . .tg2 e6 This continuation is more solid than 4 ... 'i'Vd7. S.O-O tiJf6 6.c4 An alternative is 6.b3 .td6 7.i.b2 0-0 8.c4 (S.tLle5 �xe5 9.dxe5 CZJd7 1 0 . h3 .tf5 1 1 .14 tLlb4 1 2.tLla3 c5 °o, Vaca Kram-Almeida Saenz, Mexico 2002) 8 llJe4: a) In Perez Nivar-Cuartas, Lucerne (01) 1 982, White played 9.ti:)c3, and after 9, .iLb4?! 1 0.tLlxe4 dxe4 1 1 .tiJe1 .tfS 1 2 .tLlc2 iL.e7 1 3.dS exdS 1 4.cxd5
ttJbB 1 5.:c1 i.gS l S.tiJe3 achieved a slightly better position. However, in stead of 9 ... i.b4 very interesting is 9 ...f511, e.g. 1 0 .cxdS exdS (10 .. f:::.xc3 1 1 .i.xc3 exdS 1 2.tLleS) l 1 .tiJxdS .txg3 1 2.hxg3 'i'!¥xdS Also 9 ... tZJxc31? 1 0. i.xc3 '8f6 is worth consideri ng. 00.
b) 9.CZJe1 (preparing the manoeuvre tLle1 -d3, tLlb1 -d2-f3, and also making f2-f3 possible in some variations) 9... Ah5 (9 .. .fS? 1 0.f3) 1 0/:; d2 fS!1 1 1 .tlJd3 as! 1 2.lZJf3 a41 1 3.cS (Black has good counterplay after 1 3.cxdS exdS 1 4.bxa4 tiJe7 l S.'ifb3 b6, as well as after 1 3. 'fi'c2 a3 1 4 . .tc3 �f6 l S.e3 .axf3 1 6.i.xf3 gS) 13 ... a31 1 4.Ac1 iT..e7 1 S . .te3 (l S.e3 eS ! ? 1 6.dxe5 iT..xcS) 1 S... b6 (l S ... i.fS !?) 1 6.b4 bxcS 1 7.bxc5 .tf6 1 8.�c2, Jovanic-B. Kovacevic, Zadar 2000, and now very interesting was 18 ... i.xf3!1 1 9.exf3 t2Jxd411 (1 9 . . . i.xd4! ? is also possible) 20.i.xd4 .txd4 21 .:ae1 (21 .fxe4 fxe4 22 .tLlf4 Axa1 :Xa1 23 . .:txal 'tWf6 24.lId l g5 25. tLlh3 c6+) 21 tLlc3 22.tLlf4 (22.llxe6 �d7 23J1fe1 IIae8+) 22 ... eS!1 (an alternative is 22 ... �f6, e.g. 23.tiJxe6 nf7 or 23.Dxe6 '6'17, in both cases with unclear positions) 23.tzJe6 �f6 24.tiJxf8 'ti'xfB with promising compensation for the minimal material deficit. •••
6 ....td6 It is important to control the e5-square. On 6 ... .te7 rather unpleasant would be 7.tLleS !.
7. tlJc 3 7.b3 0-0 8 . .tb2 transposes to the line 6.b3 i.d6 7.i.b2 0-0 8.c4 (see above) . 7.cxd5 Q Game 1 15.
7... 0-0
•.•
•••
7 .tLle4? ! instead is not recommendable in view of Wisnewski's suggestion 8 .cxd5 exdS 9.�b3 ! (but not 9 .tLlxdS? ! .txg3 1 0.hxg3 'i!¥xdS oo , 'Chessl P01 '..
326
Chapter 1 6
Wisnewski, ICC 5/0 2003) . On 7 . . . dxc4 follows 8 .�a4, and White wins back the pawn. But now . . . dxc4 is a serious threat and that is why the first player must do something at once.
the d5-square) 1 2.e5 tDds the second player has achieved a good position . There then followed 1 3.'�d3 .te7 1 4.a3 'ti'd7 1 5. %1a2 Ilad8 1 6.h3 i.h5 1 7.i.d2 a6 1 8. b4 h6 1 9J:tb2 liJa7 20.�b3 g5 with initiative for Black.
9 .. .th5 1 0.e4 tZJb6 1 1 .g4 Aazuvaev does not wish to tolerate the pin on the d l -hS diagonal any longer. In Todorcevic-G. Mohr, Ljubljana 1 989, 1 1 .b3 was played. We already know how Black should reply here, and in this game we see it one more time 1 1 . f5! 1 2.e5 Ae7 ( 1 2 ... i.b4 1 3.liJe2) 1 3.tDe2 tzJd5 1 4 .tb2 ( 1 4.tDf4 tlJxf4 1 5 . .txf4 liJb4 1 6.'if1'd2 tlJd5) 1 4 ... a5 ( 1 4 . . . 'i¥d7! ? 1 5.�d2 l'Iad8) 1 5.a3 liJa7 1 6.�d2 c6 1 7 .tzJe l 'i!fb6 1 8. tDc 1 :ladS with ini tiative for Black. Also interesting was 1 1 ... i.b4!? 1 2.tDe2 f5, by analogy with the game Marin-Antonio from the pre vious annotation. .
-
..
.
8.cxd5 8.b3 tlJe4 9.�b2 transposes to the va riation 6 .b3 (see above) . 9.tiJxe4 dxe4 looks too risky, e.g. 1 0.tDe1 Ac5! 1 1 . Axe4 'iVxd4, 1 0.tDd2 tiJxd4 or 1 0.tDh4 g5. 8 ... t2JxdS! Very strong ! After 8 . . . exd5 9 . .tg5 White's pressure on d5 would be un pleasant. At first sight the first player can now achieve a perfect pawn centre with e2e4, but that is a false impression - the e4+d4 pair is not as strong as it seems. Why? The rest of the game will show. 9.h3 In Marin-Antonio, Yerevan (01) 1 996, White played immediately g.e4, but after 9 ... ·�·,b6 1 0.b3 ( 1 0.Ae3 tiJc4 with comfortable play for Black, Bender Kovacevic Velika Gorica 2002) 10 ... .tb4 ( 1 0 . . .f5 ! ?) 1 1 .tDe2 f5 ! (pay atten tion to this idea - Black neutralises the opponent's pawn centre, makes the d4pawn backward and secures himself
1 1 . .si.g6 1 2.'iYe2 White's position seems to be very good - pawn centre, space advantage ... On 12 . . eS probably was planned 1 3. dxe5 tiJxe5 1 4.tZJxe5 .txe5 1 5.f4 .td4+ 1 6.i.e3 with better chances. ..
.
1 2 ...f5 ! With this appropriate and strong move the Greek grandmaster shows that, in fact, the position is by no means clear.
1 3 . .tg5? This turns out to be a serious mistake. Correct was 1 3.gxf5. The resulting va riations are too long and complicated, hence I will give only the main line with just a few side-lines : 13 ... .th5!? ( 1 3 ... exfS followed by 1 4.e5 i.e7 or 14 . . . .tb4 is also possible) 1 4.l:td1 ( 1 4.i.e3 exfS l S .e5 f4 1 6.exd6 fxe3 1 7.dxc7 exf2+ 1 8. 'iWxf2 'i¥xc7 with initiative for Black) 14 . exf5 1 5.e5, and now: ..
1 .d4 d5 2J�f3 tZJc6 3.g3
327
a) 1 5 .. ,ab4 1 6.a3 ( 1 6.dS !£'.Je7 1 7.d6 cxd6 1 8.exdG tZJcG 1 9.Af4 'iWd7 oo) 16 ... Ae7 ( 1 6 ... ,axc3 ! ? 1 7.bxc3 'fi'dS) 1 7.d5 tLJa5 °o.
1 6.tDxe6 loses immediately in view of 1 6 .. :�We5 -+.
b) 15 ... .te7 1 S.d5 ( 1 6 .a3 tZJa5 1 7.�b5 tLJac4oo� 1 S.b3?? cG -+) 1S tLJb4 1 7. d6 cxd6 1 8.exd6 .tfS 1 9.�b5 ( 1 9 . ,*,e6+ �h8 20.�xfS i.g6 2 1 .'ti'b5 tLJd3 00 � 22.lbd3? a6+) 19 ...tlJc6 20. 'it'xf5 (20 .,ae3! ? 00) 20 i.xf3 21 .i.xf3 tlJd4 22.�d5+ (22.�d3? ClJxf3+ 23. \§'xf3 i.d4 24.�xb7 �h4 2S.tlJe4 i.xf2+ 26.�g2 liaeS 27 . .tgS 't!f'hS with a decisive attack) 22 .. .'�h8 23.�d3 �xd6 24 . .txb7 lIadS, and the active position of the black pieces, along with the exposed position of White's king compensates for the missing pawn.
Black has an extra pawn, the bishop pair and 'for that' . a won position .
.
...
•••
The game continuation allows a beauti ful combination : ...
1 6 .. :iYxe5 1 7:�'xe5 �xe5 1 8.llJxe6 l:lf6
1 9.1lJc5 i.d4 More convincing was 1 9 ... 11f4 ! ? 20.95 1:g4 2 1 .tDxb7 lIxg5 -+ . Eventually White managed - of course, not without the help of his opponent - to save the game.
20.tlJb3 i.xc3 21 .bxc3 1:[f4 22.�xb7 lbg4+ 23. �h2 �f8 24.f3 hrc4 25.tlJd4 Jlxc3 26.Ilac1 l:!d3 27.tlJc6 l::rd 2+ 28.�g3 tlJd5 29.:f2 l:lxf2 30.
