The Leningrad Dutch

Batsford Chess Library

The Leningrad Dutch

Jaan Ehlvest

An Owl Boo k Henry Holt an d Company New York

'\..._ .

'

Henry Holt and Cmnpany, Inc.

Publishers since 1866

115 West 18th Street New York, New York 10011 Henry Holt® is a registered trademark of Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Copyright© 1993 by jaan Ehlvest All rights reserved. First published in the Unjted States in 1993 by Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Originally published in Great Britain in 1993 by B. T. Batsford Ltd. Ubrary of Congress Catalog Card Number: 93-77841 ISBN G-8050-2944-3 (An Owl Book: pbk.) First American Edition-1993 Printed in the United Kingdom All first editions are printed on acid-free paper.

10

9

8

7

6

s

4

3

Adviser: R D. Keene, GM, OBE

2

Technical Editor: Andrew Kinsman

a::l

Contents Symbols

6

Introduction

7

Main line with 7

...

�e8

9

2 Main line with 7

...

c6

42

3 Main line with 7

...

�

61

4 Avoiding the Main lines

79

s Systems with

89

1

an

early b3

6 Systems with 4Jh3

m

7 Systems with c3

123

Index of Variations

135

Syn1bols + ++

mate !! ? ?? !? ?! ± +

± +

+-+ co

co

1-0 G-1

1f2

4

ol izt zt Ch corr

Check Double check Checkmate Good move Excellent move Bad move Blunder Interesting move Dubious move Small advantage for White Small advantage for Black Clear advantage for White Clear advantage for Black Winning advantage for White Winning advantage for Black The position is equal The position is unclear With counterplay White wins Black wins Draw Olympiad Interzonal Zonal Championship Correspondence

Introduction The Dutch Leningrad system (1 d4 fS 2 g3 4::f6 3 .Qg2 g6) was first regularly studied and played in Leningrad during the mid 1930s. For a long time it was quite unpopular, although some top players occasionally used it as a reserve opening. However, the Dutch Defence, and particularly the Leningrad system, appeared more and more often in tournaments in the 1980s. This was due to the fact that, compared to many classical openings, the Dutch Defence in general, and the Leningrad system in particular, are much less heavily analysed. Unlike many other openings, the Leningrad rarely results in symmetrical positions leading to drawish endgames; play instead revolves around strategic situations in which creative solutions are required from both sides. This book has taken into account the opinion and practice of Mikhail Botvinnik and Mark Taimanov who greatly influeneced the development of the Leningrad system. A great deal of attention has also been paid to the games of grandmasters Mikhail Gurevich and Vladimir Malaniuk - the modem innovators of the Leningrad variation. Naturally all the important games of recent years are included. How should you read this book? Dear chess-friend, you should not take the analysis presented here as the final word but learning these ideas will help to develop your skills in understanding irregular positions. One should not concentrate on memorising every variation, although their importance should not be under­ estimated, but should instead learn the meaning of plans, themes and manoeuvres. After careful study the Leningrad system will be an invaluable addition to your repertoire, leading to dynamic positions with plenty of scope for original ideas.

1 Main Line with 7 1 2 3 4 s 6 7

1 w

!!

d4 g3 ,Og2 4:13

fS 4:)£6 g6 ,Og7

c4 4Jc3

d6 �e8 (f)

o-o

o-o

...

ty e8

A

8

dS (2)

2

B

��?�}-- � �.L·m. w Il-L � w �.L� � � �1:� �:it� � -� � � N

� J. � � ��f!:J � .. .

� �. 9 8

��

.."�

� .

"'� ""� � .. .

�.r.--,. ."'"��. . ·m ��� � 9 · "� "" ' �· �.. ?'F.'" 8 �:;a.� � . . .. .

���ttm·

The system characterised by 7 ... �e8 began to appear regularly in tournaments at the start of the 1980s and has been used often and successfully by Grandmaster Vladimir Malaniuk. We will explore the following lines for White:

A 8 dS B 8 b3 C 8 �e1 D 8 4JdS E 8 �b3 F 8 e4

Here Black has:

A1 8 . . . 4Ja6 A2 8 . . . aS A1 4Ja6

8

Now White usually chooses between:

A11 9 4Jd4 A12 9 Wl1 A13 9 �e3 and others A11 9

4Jd4 (3)

In recent years 9 c£Jd4 has

10 Main line with 7 ... �e8 been seen relatively infrequent­ ly, as 9 frb1 has become the standard choice.

fxg3 17 fxg3 cxd5 18 cxd5 .Qg4 19 '/tid2 and Black has difficul­ ties in defending his pawn weaknesses; Sveshnikov Gab­ darkhmanov, USSR 1984. b) 10 e3 c6 11 b3 (More active seems 11 ;gb1!? ;gb8 {11 ... cfJc7 12 -

3 B

b4 cxd5 13 cxd5 lJ.cB 14 a4 cf)aB 15 �b3t Gavrilov - Gurevich, USSR 1982} 12 a3 {12 b4 c5} 12 ...

.Q.d7 9 Instead of thls move there has also occurred 9 . c£jc5 10 b3 (10 b4!?) 10 ... .Q.d7 11 .Q.b2 a6 12 '/tic2 ;gb8 13 gael � 4 14 e3 g5 15 b4 @4 16 {Jxa4 .Q.xa4 17 '/tie2 �d7 18 f4 with a slight advantage for White; Uebert Okhotnik, Halle 1987. 10 e4 This position has been much played and deeply analysed. Instead of 10 e4, Botvinnik has suggested 10 c£jb3. In practice four more variations have been tried: a) 10 ge14jc5 (If 10 .. c6 11 e4 fxe4 12 {Jxe4 {Jxe4 13 .O.xe4 t;J::-7 14 ;gbt c5 15 4:Je2 with equal chances, Kindermann Wegner, Hamburg 1991) 11 b3 (11 '/tic2 c6 12 c£jb3? 4jce4! 13 {Jxe4 fxe4 14 .Q.xe4 '/tif7! 15 �e3 cxd5 16 cxd5 gfc8 17 '/tid3 {Jxe4 18 '/tixe4 ,O_f5 19 '/tih4 .O.xb2+ Prak­ hov - Bertholdt, Bad Salzungen 1960) 11 . c6 12 .Q.b2 aS 13 ;gb1 g5 14 e3 f4 15 exf4 gxf4 16 4jce2 .

.

.

..

{F5 13 b4 4jce4 14 {Jxe4 {Jxe4 15 '/tid3 c5 16 � .Q.xe6 17 dxe6 cxb4 18 axb4 '/ticS 19 .Q.xe4 fxe4 20 '/tixe4 gf6 21 �b2 '/tixe6 22 '/tid3 gff8 and Black has suc­ ceeded in maintaining the balance; Knaak - Espig, East Germany 1984) 11 . . 4jc7 12 .O.b2 c5 13 4)le2? (Better would be 13 c£Jf3 bS 14 '/tic2 with the idea of 4)l2, f4, gael, e4 - Malaniuk) 13 ... b5 14 '/tic2 ;gb8. Already it is White who has problems and after 15 gael? bxc4 16 bxc4 �4 Black gained the advan­ tage in Beliavsky - Malaniuk, USSR Ch 1983. c) 10 b3 c6 (10 ... c5!? 11 4Jc2?! .

{11 dxc6 bxc6 12 1J.b2 J1c8 13 !fb1 cf'F5 14 b4 c£'Fe4 15 c£Jb3 �f7= Magai - Petelin, USSR 1988} 11 ... 4:Je4 {11 ... bS!} 12 {Jxe4 �xa1 13 c£jxa1 fxe4 14 -'lxe4 and White has a slight initiative Tukmakov) 11 .Q.b2 {F7 12 '/tid2 (12 gd ;gb8 13 '/tid2 c5 14 c£Jf3 a6

{Dubious is the immediate 14 ... bS 15 cxbS cfJxbS 16 cfJxbS !1xb5 17 1J.xf6 1J.xf6 18 �c2 with the idea of cfJi2 - c4 with a slight advantage for White according to Kremenietsky} 15 '/tic2 bS 16

Main line with 7 ... �eB 11 012 e5!? 17 dxe6 .O,xe6 18 .O,a1

{18 e4? is not suitable, e.g. 18 ... bxc4 19 bxc4 fxe4 20 cfjcxe4 !!xb2+ - Kremenietsky} 18 ... tt;Je7 and a complicated position with equal chances has arisen; F. Lengyel - Kremenletsky, Satu-Mare 1983) 12 ... cS 13 4Jf3 a6 14 gael bS 15 tt;Jd3 �8 16 .O,a1 h6 17 � �4 18 e3 (Stefanov - Marasescu, Romania 1983) and White has an opportunity to obtain a dominating position in the centre with the plan h3, f4 and e4. d) 10 �1!? (Apart from the main line, this is the most logical plan, preparing action on the queenside) 10 .. . c6 (4) (Not 10 ... c5? 11 4Je6!± ) and now:

d1) 11 b3 {[j::.7 12 b4!? (Serious attention should be paid to 12 dxc6!? bxc6 13 b4 e5 14 4Jb3 tt;Je7 15 e4!? with a somewhat better position for White. Dubious, however, is 12 .Q.b2?! c5 13 4Jf3

{13 t£1;2?! b5 14 cxb5 fjxbS 15 f)xb5 1J.xb5 16 f)a3 aS+ Larsen - Yrjola, Espoo zt 1989 or 13 fy6 1J.xe6 14 dxe6 [fbB= Cvet­ kovic - Malaniuk, Vmjacka Banja 1991} 13 ... �8 14 � b5 15 cxb5 4JxbS 16 4Jc4 g5 17 {jxbS �xbS 18 tt;Jc2 f4 19 tt:;f5 h6 20 gxf4 �d7 and Black has good prospects of counter­ play; Ryshk.ov - Zarubin, Lenin­ grad 1983) 12 . . . e5 13 dxe6 (13 dxc6 {13 cfjb3 cxdS} 13 ... exd4 14 cxd7 tt;Jxd7 15 4ja4 4Je4 16 �b2 bS+ - Tukmakov) 13 ... 4Jxe6 14 4Jh3!? (14 e3) 14 ... �4 15 �b2 4]25 16 4Jd2 with an unclear position; Tukmakov - Gurevich, USS R 1982. d2) After 11 b4 Black found the interesting 11 .. . 4Jxb4 and after 12 gxb4 c5 13 {)::b5 cxb4 14 4Jc7 tt;Jc8 15 4Jxa8 4]24 16 �xe4 fxe4 17 �5 gf7 18 4Jc2 tt;Jxa8 19 4Jxb4 .O,h3 achieved a superior position in Karasev Cherepkov, Leningrad 1984. Other games with 11 b4 show Black is able to achieve an active position, e.g. 11 ... c5 12 4Je6 cxb4 13 4Jxf8 �8 14 4Jb5 .O,xbS 15 cxbS tt;JxbS 16 tt;;d2 gc8, as in Boguslawsky - Beim, Voskresensk 1992, where Black had very active play for the exchange and went on to win. Or 11 b4 gc8 12 .O,a3 �f7 13 e3 cxd5 14 4Jxd5 gxc4 15 4Jxf6+ Roder - Santo Roman, Lyon Open 1990, with complications. d3) 11 a3 gc8 (11 ... 4Jc 7 12 e4 e5 - Meulders) 12 b4 c5 13 4Je6

12 Main Line with 7 . �eB ..

�xe6 14 dxe6 cxb4 15 axb4 gxc4 16 �xb7 gxc3 17 �xa6 with an unclear position; Shvidler - van Mil, Belgiwn 1987. Returning to the position after 10 e4 (5).

6 B

5 B

fxe4 10 Of course 10 . . . 4Jxe4 11 4Jxe4 fxe4 12 �xe4 transposes to the main line. An interesting alternative is 10 ... c5 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 exf5 gxf5 and Black had a strong centre in Vukic Holzl, Graz 1991. 11 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 This further capture is prac­ tically forced: 11 . . c5? 12 � .Q.xe6 13 dxe6 {ijc7 14 c£jxf6+ .Q.xf6 15 �e2 gb8 16 a4 � 17 h4! greatly favoured White in lvkov - Bischoff, Thessaloniki 1984. 12 .Q.xe4 (6) This is one of the critical positions of the 7 ... �e8 varia­ tion. 12 4Jc5 Alternatively: a) 12 . . c6 13 �e3 (13 dxc6 bxc6 is considered below under b' whilst 13 h4!? 4):5 14 !lg2 .

...

.

gc8 15 �e3 aS 16 �d2 a4 17 gab1 e5 led to equality in Portisch Gurevich, Moscow GMA t<J<X)) 13 ... fLF7 14 Bb1 (14 �d2 c5! 15 t;Jc2 b5 16 cxb5 !J.f5 17 �2 �b5 18 4)::3 Wd3!+ Hernandez - Chernin, Cienfuegos 1981 and 14 gel c5 15 t;Jc2 bS 16 cxb5 c£jxbSa::J K. Arkell - King, l.Dn­ don {WFW} 1991) 14 ... c5 15 {}£3 (15 4Je2!? bS 16 b3 gb8 17 Wd2 was played in DOring - Kinder­ mann, Dortmund 1992) 15 ... �4 16 gel b5! (16 ... Wf7 would have given White a plus after 17 �5 !J.xd1 18 c£jxf7 !Xxf7 19 gexd1, because of the power of the two bishops in the end­ game) 17 h3 �xh3 (More modest is 17 . . . Qxf3 18 .O,xf3 bxc4= ) 18 c£jg5 .O,f5 19 !J.f4 Wd7 20 cxbS !J.xe4 21 gxe4 Wf5? (Correct was 21 . gf5! after which White's centre would have been destroyed) Yrjola Malaniuk, Tallinn 1987. b) !2 . . c5?! 13 4:Je6! (Less promising is 13 dxc6 bxc6 14 gb1 c£jc5 {Also possible is 14 . gc8 15 �e3 'l:jfl 16 'l$e2 eS 17 4Jh3 t-;$7 18 1Jg2 dS with an ..

.

.

.

Main line with 7 ... �eB 13

obscure position; Schmidt Grigorov, Prague 1985} 15 �2 e5 16 4Je2 �e7 17 Qe3 4Je6 18 �d2 gfc8 19 ;gbd1 �f8 20 4)::1 �7 21 4Jd3 gc7 22 f4 exf4 23 �xf4 with a superior position for White; Vukic - Minic, Yugo­ slavia 1984, but as Vukic added in his comments, Black had a golden opportunity to play 18 ... c5 19 Qxa8 gxa8 with gcxxl compensation) 13 ... Qxe6 14 dxe6 �8 15 h4! bS 16 h5 gxh5 17 �g2 Qd4; van der Sterren Malaniuk, Tallinn 1987. Here White could have gained great advantage by 18 Qh6! (Kijk) , for example 18 ... gf6 19 Qg5 gf8 20 f4 bxc4 21 �1 with the idea of ;gh1 x h5 with a winning attack. Returning to the position after 12 ... 4Jc5 (7). 7 w

13 .Q.g2 14 .o,gs 14 Qe3! with the Qh6, gael - Simic. 14 15 �d2 16 �xd4 17 �c3 18 f4

aS idea of �d2,

t!Jf7 �xd4!? eS! �fS

A position with equal chan­ ces has arisen; van der Sterren - Beliavsky, Wijk aan Zee 1984.

A12 9 IDJ1 (8) A fashionable and dangerous move. 8

B

cS 9 Instead: a) 9 ... Qd7 10 b4 (10 c£jd4 transposes to the variation 9 {}l4 .(ld7 10 �1 whilst 10 b3 c6 11 .Q.b2 4Jc7 12 a3 h6 13 4Jd4 �8 14 b4 e5 15 dxe6 4:Jxe6 16 @3 'ff;e7 = Matamoros - Horvath, Gausdal 1986 and 10 gel?! also fails to cause problems for Black: 10 ... c6 11 b3 h6 12 Qb2 'ffJf7 13 4Jd4 ;gac8= Stone Chernin, St John 1988) 10 . . . c6 (10 ... c5 11 dxc6 is considered below under the move order 9 ... c5 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 b4, but not 10 .. . e5? 11 dxe6 Qxe6 12 c£jd4 Qxc4 13 Qxb7 gb8 14 Qc6± Rukavina - Cvitan, Yugoslavia 1986) 11 'ff;d3!? (Other variations are not promising for White: 11 �b3 6i:F7 12 4Jd4 c£Jfxd5 13 cxd5 �xd4 14 dxc6 .Q.e6 15 c£jd5 bxc6

14 Main line with 7 ... �eB 16 4:Jxc7 .clxb3 17 4:Jxe8 �a2 18 .clb2 .clxb1 19 .clxd4 ,O_e4 20 f3 with equal chances in Karimov - lvanchuk, Tashkent 1984; 11 dxc6 bxc6 transposes to the variation 9 .. . cS 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 b4; but recently Mikhail Gure­ vich has experimented with 11 ... .O.xc6 to avoid this variation: 12 bS .O.xf3 13 .0.xf3 4:Jc5 14 .O,e3 :9:c8 15 .O.xc5?! {15 tfjd5;t} 15 ... :9:xc5 16 �b 7 :9:xc4co Gelfand Gurevich, llnares 1991; 11 a3 4:Jc7 12 4):14 cxd5 13 cxd5 � 14 4Jb3 and a draw was agreed in Pigusov - Casper, Moscow 1987) 11 .. . 4je4 12 4Jd1 (12 4::}xe 4?? fxe4 13 �xe4 .0.f5) 12 . .. t;$.7 (If 12 . . . c5 then 13 b5 retains an edge and not 13 a3?! because after this move Black himself plays 13 . . bS) 13 .O.b2 � (13 ... cxd5 is not good: 14 .O.xg7 �g 7 15 cxd5 � 16 �5! �d5?? 17 Qxe4 fxe4 18 �c3+ and White wins - Vogt) 14 .clxg7 �g 7 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 4je3 �6 17 � 4:Jxd2 (17 ... t;$.3? 18 ;gb3 4::}xa2 19 �c2) 18 �xd2 f4 19 t;$.2 4P> 20 b5 ;gaca 21 4Jb4 �d4 22 :9:fd1± Vogt - Casper, East Germany 1987. b) 9 ... c6 10 b4 (10 dxc6 transposes to line 'c' in the next note, but more modest is 10 b3 t;$.7 {10 . J)_d7!? 11JJ.b2 cf)c5!? 12 .

.

.

b4 cf)ce4 13 cfjxe4 fxe4 14 cfE5 cxd5 15 cxd5 J;.f5 16 c£je6 i}_xe6 17 dxe6 e3 with an unclear position; Skalkotas - Kw-tesis, Greece 1988} 11 ,O.b2 h6 12 �d2 c5 {12 JJ.d7 is more natural} 13 ...

a4 Qd7 14 ;gbe1 � 15 e4 fxe4 16 4::}xe4 4Jh7 17 ;ge3 ,O.xb2 18 �b2 �g7 19 �g7+ �g7± 20 4::}xd6?? exd6 o-1 Tunoschenko - Bareev, Irkutsk 1986) 10 ... cxd5 11 4::} xd5 �4 12 4:Jg5 4:Jc3 13 4Jxc3 .O,xc3 14 �b3!? (14 c5!) 14 ... .O,.f6 (No better is 14 . .. .O.Xb4 15 c5+ �g7 16 cxd6 ,O.xd6 17 :9:fd1 and White has a good position and can exert pressure) 15 c5+ �7 16 cxd6 exd6 and Black's pawn weakness, badly positioned pieces, and open king position ensure a great advantage for White; Yrjola Gurevich, Tallinn 1987. c) 9 . . . e5 has been the sub­ ject of experimentation in the last few years: 10 dxe6 .clxe6 11 4:1f4 c6 (11 ... 4:Jc5± ) 12 b4! (12 4Jxe6 t1Jxe6 13 b3 ;gada 14 .a_a3 gfe8 15 �c2 4:Jc7= jo. Horvath - Santo Roman, Novi Sad ol 1990) 12 . . �c4 13 b5 cxb5 14 4:1fxh5 ;gda 1s .a_a3 ds 16 4Jl6 with a winning position for White; Salov - Gurevich, Reggio Emilia 1991192. Returning to the position after 9 . .. c5 (9) .

9 w

Main line with 7 ... &eB 15

10

b3

Again White has several alternatives: a) 10 a3 h6 11 b4 g5 12 e3 �h5 13 �e1 �4 14 @5 �d7 15 �b2 �xb2 16 �xb2 �fc8 17 �e2 CiY:-7 18 0Jxc7 �xc7= Jelen- Psakhis, Portoroz 1987. b) 10 �e1 �7 11 e4 fxe4 12 �5 �4 13 �xe4 �f7 14 �e2 h6 15 h3 �5 with an unclear. position; Gorin- Dzuraiev, Sim­ feropol 1989. c) Very fashionable nowa­ days is 10 dxc6!? bxc6 11 b4 (10) 10 B

vich, Manila izt 1990. In this line Black also fails to equalise after 13 ... �d8 14 bS (14 {yj4 e5 15 4:Jb3 �e6 with an unclear position - Bareev; 14 �d3 f4!, for example 15 �4? is now not possible: 15 ... {jxe4 16 .clxg7 �g7 17 �e4 Qf5 18 �d4+ e5) 14 ... � 15 a4 ;gb8 16 .cla3! with the idea of �d3± (Bareev) and not 16 �c2 f4!co, as in the game Damljanovic Bareev, Sochi 1988. Mter 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 b4 .cld7 White can also push on with 12 bS CiY:-5 13 c£jd4 4:Jfe4 (13 ... cxb5 14 .clxa8 �xa8 15 c£jdxb5 �c8 16 {yj5± Piket- Gurevich, Gronin­ gen 1992) 14 c£jxe4 {jxe4 15 bxc6 .clxc6 16 � �c8!co Hracek Malaniuk, Kecskemet 1991.

10

Mikhail Gurevich reached this position twice within a few weeks against Predrag Nikolic in 1990. In the first game he tried 11 ... c5 ( 11 . .. ;gb8 runs into trouble after 12 bS 4)::5 13 c£jd4 cxbS 14 cxb5 �f7 15 �± Cvet­ kovic- l..egky, Belgrade 1988) 12 bxc5 c£jxc5 13 �5 ,O_a6 14 �xa8 �a8 with some compensation for the exchange; Nikolic Gurevich, Moscow GMA 1990. Then he played 11 ... Qd7 12 a3 4)::7 13 �b2 �h8?! 14 c5! dxc5 15 bxc5 4Jg4 16 4::J;t4 with advan­ tage to White; Nikolic - Gure-

...

tt:Jc7

Others: a) 10 ... 4:Jh5 11 .clb2 f4 12 �4± - Gufeld. b) 10 ... h6!? 11 .clb2 g5 12 �d2 (If 12 e3 �g6 13 �e2 �f7 14 gbe1 �4 15 �c1.cld7 16 4Jd2 4Jxc3 17 �xc3 and White is slightly better; Panzalovic - Cvetkovic Yugoslavia 1991) 12 ... �h5 13 e3 �d7 14 �1 f4 15 exf4 gxf4 16 �2 fxg3 17 {jxg3 �g6 112 -if2 Novikov- Malaniuk, Lvov 1988.

11 a4 An interesting alternative is 11.clb2 b5 12 ciJxbS {jxb5 13 cxb5 �b5 14 4:Jd2 4:Jd7 15 .clxg7 �g7 16 �e1 �b4 17 e4 with advantage to White; lvanchuk - l..egky, USSR 1987.

11

b6

16 Main line with 7

...

&jeB

More promising than 11 ... �d7 12 Qb2 b6 13 Wd2! (13 e4 fxe4 14 0.g5 e3 - Garzia Mar­ tinez; 13 4:Jb5 Wd8! {13 cfjxbS 14 axbS;t} 14 f;jxc7 Wxc7 15 0.g5 h6 16 � .Q.xe6 17 dxe6 and White still has the advantage) 13 . . a6 14 e4 fxe4 15 4Jg5 h6 (15 ... e3 16 Wxe3 4Jg4 17 We2 with a great advantage to White) 16 0.gxe4 (± - Vanheste) 16 ... 4Jh7? (16 ... b5 was slightly better) 17 cbe2! and White has a clear advantage; Garcia Martin­ ez- Lin Ta, Dubai 1986.

A13 ,O.e3 (12)

9

...

.

12

e4!?

On 12 �b2 Black plays ... a?a6 and ... b7- b5.

12 13

...

4JgS

fxe4 e3!

After 13 ... �4 White retains the advantage by 14 �c2 e3 15 �e3 i:if5 16 c£Jge4 - Ttmosch­ enko.

14 15 16

,O.xe3 4Jge4 4:Jxe4

,O.fS 4:Jxe4

a6 (11)

11 w

White also hopes to seize the initiative in this position. In comparison with the well­ analysed moves 9 cbd4 and 9 �1, this variation is relatively rare. More rare is 9 Wc2 which creates no problems for Black, e.g. 9 ... Qd7 (Or 9 ... c6 10 �1 t;57 11 gd1 h6 12 b4 cxd5 13 cxd5 i:id7 14 cbd4 gc8 15 Wd2 Wf7 16 4:Jb3 4)24 17 f;jxe4 fxe4 18 �4 Wxf4 19 Qxf4 4:Jb5 20 gbc1 cbc3 21 gd2 gc4 and White's position is critical; Gladysh - lvanchuk, Tashkent 1984) 10 a3 c6 11 cbd2 gc8 12 b4 !':;5:7 13 Wb3 cxd5 14 cxd5 c£jb5 with advantage to Black; Porth - Gross, Saarlouis 1986.

9

Black's position is not worse; Timoschenko- Malaniuk, Tash­ kent 1987.

h6

The most fashionable move. Others: a) 9 ... �d7 has also been seen: 10 Wd2 4Jg4 11 .Q.f4 cbc5 12 h3 cbf6 13 cbd4 c6 with chances for both sides; Ker - Zsu. Polgar, Wellington 1988. b) 9 .. c6 10 gd (An inter­ esting possibility is 10 Wb3!? c5 .

Main line with 7 {10 l!)hB 111fae1 h6 12 1J.d4 eS 13 dxe6 �xe6co Nawnkin Tozer, London 1991} 11 gael h6 ...

12 �c1 t;J.:7 13 e4 fxe4 14 0f2

� 15 {Jdxe4 ;gb8 16 4:Jxf6+ exf6 17 i:lf4 gd8 18 �4 .klf8 19 �c3 �g7 20 b4 and Black faces serious difficulties; Naumkin Dreev, jaroslavl 1983) 10 ... 4:Jg4 (10 ... h6?! 11 cS! 112 � Petros ian - Psakhis, Erevan 1986. Sher and Lysenko considered this posi­ tion to be better for White, justifying their assessment with the following variation: 11 ... 4:Jg4 12 �d4 �xd4 {12 ... dxcS

13 1J.xg71!}xg7 14 dxc6 �c6 15 c[yS} 13 4:Jxd4 dxc5 14 dxc6 cxd4 15 cxb7) 11 Jlf4 (Also possible are 11 �d4? �h6! with the idea of ... cS or 11 �d2 t;J.:5!? with the idea of ... c£F5 - e4 Petrosian) 11 ... h6 12 h3 4Jf6 13 i:le3 gS 14 {5l4 fld7 04 ... c5!? 15 �! - Petrosian) 15 f4! (15 'ffjc2 c£jh5 intending ... f 4) 15 ... c£jh5 16 \llh2 eS!? 17 dxe6 flxe6 18 4Jxe6 t!Jxe6 19 fld4 �g6 20 �g7 �g7 21 �d4+± Petrosian - Kotronias, Lvov 1988. c) 9 ... cS 10 �d2 (Less pro­ mising is 10 �cl c£F7!? 11 �h6 b5 12 �xg7 �g7 13 cxbS ;gb8 {13 . cf)xh5!?} 14 a4 4Jcxd5 15 4JxdS 4JxdS 16 4:Jd4 ctJb4 17 t;J.:6 4Jxc6 18 flxc6 �f?= Djukanovic Blagojevic, Belgrade 1988) 10 ... i:ld7 (Dubious is 10 ... �4?! {10 .

.

cf)c7 11 a4 f;g4 12 1J.f4 1J.d7 13 e4 1J.xc3 14 �c3 and lVhite has the more active fXJSition; Pet­ rosian - Gabdrakhmanov, Pod...

. ..

�eB 17

olsk 1990} 11 �f 4. h6 12 h3 gS 13 ,O.xg5 hxg5 14 hxg4 fxg4 {14 . f4 15 cfjxgS fxg3 16 f4:t} 15 4:Jxg5 .O,h6 16 45e4 and the idea of 17 f4 gives the advantage to White - Marin) 11,klh6 �f? (11 ... bS!?) 12 �xg7 �xg7 13 4Jg5;t Marin - Timoshenko, Tallinn 1989. ..

to

f!c1

Or:

a) 10 �cl \llh7 11 ;gbt e5 12 clxe6 �xe6 13 c£jd4 c6 14 4Jxe6 tt;xe6 15 b3 4)::5 16 �c2 4Jfe4 17 c£jxe4 4Jxe4 18 �1 and White has slightly the better game; Larsen - Vasiukov, Graested 1990. b) 10 ;gb1 �h7 11 b4 e5 12 dxe6 �e6 13 cS gd8; Kalan­ tarian- Ryskin USSR Team Ch 1991, where White has good chances of an attack on the queenside.

10

...

gS

Less committal is 10 ... fld7, as in Andersson - Kasparov, Madrid (rapid) 1989, which continued: 11 a3 c5 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 b4 4:Jc7 14 c5 4Jg 4 15 fld2 d5 16 h3 {Jf6 with balanced chances.

11 12 13

�d4 .Q.xf6! 4Jd4

�hS (13) .Q.xf6

With the idea of f2- f 4.

13 14 15 16 17

a3 �xd4 f!ce1 f3

f4 .Q.xd4 4Jc5 �h3

White has a slight advantage;

18 Main line with 7 ... �eB 13 w

Petrosian - V asiukov, Novi Sad 1988.

A2 aS (14)

8 14 w

'f!;}xe4 �d8 18 �5 d5 19 cxd5 cxd5 20 'f/Je1 e4 21 Qxd8 �xd8 22 4:Jf4 Qxa1 23 'f/Ja1 'f!;jd7; Krem­ enietsky- Piskov, Moscow 1989. In view of the threat 24 ... �xf4, White has no time to deal with the black centre. The position is balanced. b) 9 �e1 4Ja6 10 e4 fxe4 11 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 12 �xe4 {jc5 13 �4 (13 �e1 'f!;}f7 with the idea of ... �4) 13 ... a4! 14 4Jd4 (The only move) 14 ... �f6 15 �6 'f!Jf7 16 Qe3 Qd7!+ Krasnov- Piskov, Moskow 1989. c) 9 e4 4Jxe4 10 4:Jxe4 fxe4 11 �S a4! (Sometimes threatening ... a4 - a3) 12 4:Jxe4 Qf5! and with .. 4:Ja6 - cS following Black is able to transfer his pieces into good positions. d) 9 ;gb14Ja6 10 b3 �d7 11 a3 (11 c£jd4 4):5 12 a3 c6 13 �b2 �c8 14 �at g5 and Black has an active position; Tunik Gagarin, Smolensk Cup 1991) 11 . . c6 12 b4 axb4 13 axb4 c5 14 bxc5 4:JxcS 15 �e3 �c8 16 �d4 h6 17 4:Jj2 g5 18 e3 f4 and Black has seized the initiative; Donchenko - Vyzmanavin, USSR 1986. e) 9 Qe3!? 4Ja6 (9 ... h6 10 4JbS {Or 10 cS fja.6 11 cxd6 exd6 .

-

.

1bis an interesting alterna­ tive to the standard 8 .. . 4Ja6. Black anticipates White's activ­ ity on the queenside and in some cases is ready to advance his pawn to a4 and a3. White's hopes are associated with activity in the centre.

9

4Jd4

No less than five other moves have been seen here: a) 9 {Je14Ja6 10 4Jd3 e5 11 e4! (11 dxe6 c6+) 11 ... c6!? 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 b3 fxe4 14 4Jxe4 4:Jxe4 15 �xe4 !J.f5 16 'f/Je2 �xe4 17

12 1J.d4 b6 fNot 12 ... bS? 13 a4 b4 14 cf)bS but playable is 12 ... gS 13 c£!12 f4 14 cf)c4?! b6 15 a4 1J.d7 16 c£)a3 �g6 with active play; A. Petrosian - Glek, USSR Team Ch 19911 13 �c2 cf}::S 14 Jjad1 1J.d7 15 cfjh4 c0£4 16 12,xg 7 (!}xg 7 17 e3 bS with a good game for Black; Haritonov -

Main lJne with 7 ... �e8 19 Rskov, Moscow GMA 1989} 10 ... � 11 �d2 c£Jg4 12 �d4 b6 and here, according to Piskov, White has a slight advantage) 10 �d2 e5 (Possible is 10 ... �d7

{Worse is 10 ... cfjg4 n 1J.f4 cf)c5 12 h3 ij6 13 JJ.h6 e5 14 dxe6 ije4 15 c£)xe4 c£)xe4 16 �e3 JJ.xh6 17 �6 and Black's king is somewhat exposed; Fo­ minyh - Szaoolcsi, Budapest 1992} 11 .Q_h6 {11 )gael!?} 11 ... 4Jc5 rn .. �17?! 12 .tJ.xg7 �xg7 13 UJ4 cfFS 14 f4! with advantage to Wflite; Kiimer - Raud, Haap­ salu 1987} 12 �xg 7 �g 7 13 4Jd4 .

e5 14 dxe6 �xe6=) 11 dxe6 �e6 12 4Jg5 �e7 (12 ... �xc4? 13 4Jd5) 13 0}5 cfjxd5 14 �xd5+ (14 cxd5 b6) 14 ... �h8 14 �xaS �xb2 and Black maintains the balance, e.g. 16 gabl �f6! Now we return to the main line with 9 0}4. Black's next move follows on naturally from 8 ... aS. 4Ja6 (15) 9

15 w

10

e4

More passive is 10 b3 �d7 11 �b2 and now: a) 11 ... g5 12 e3 (Probably better are 12 f3 or 12 f4 with advantage to White) 12 ... f4 13 exf4 gxf4 14 4:Je6 �xe6 15 dxe6 c6 16 �2 fxg3 and Black has 'good attacking chances. The game l.ukacs- Szabolcsi, Buda­ pest 1991, continued 17 hxg3 �4 18 .Q_h3 �xb2 19 .Q.xg4 �xa1 20 �xa1 �g6 21-0_h3 �h5 (}-1. b) 11 .. . 4JcS 12 0}bS �c8 intending ... e7 - e5 with equal chances. c) 11 ... c6 12 �d2 4Jc7 13 gael c5 14 4:Je{>! �xe6 (14 ... cfjxe6!?) 15 dxe6 gb8? (Slightly better was 15 ... cfjxe6 16 �xb7 gb8±) 16 e4 f4 17 �h3 and the weak­ ness of the square e6 gives White a clear advantage; Aru­ laid- Raud, Haapsalu 1987. 10 fxe4 11 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 12 .Q.xe4 ,C.h3 Not 12 ... 4Jc5 13 �2 �d7 14 �5 h6 15 �e3 a4 16 �d2 �h7 17 gael �f? 18 �2! and Black has no compensation for his posi­ tional weaknesses. 13 �2 A recent game went 13 gel!? c£J:5 14 �hl � 15 �e3 e5 16 dxe6 cfjxe6 17 �d2± Otero - L. Valdes, Cuba 1992. 13 . . . ,C_xg2 14 �g2 4JcS (16) This was the continuation of Cvitan - Piskov, Moscow GMA 1989. According to Piskov, the game should now have gone:

20 Main line with 7

...

�eB below, things are not so easy.

16

17

w

w

t/Jf7 15 �e1 16 f4 With a slight advantage for White but Black has also some hope to organise counterplay with 16 ... .,Clxd4. Not, however, 15 �e3?! �f7 (15 ... e6) 16 �1 c6!, when, as in the above­ mentioned game, Black has already gained an edge. B 8 b3 Black again has choice here: B1 B2 BJ B4

8 8 8 8

...

...

...

...

a

wide

eS �a6 h6 �c6 and others

9 dxeS dxeS 10 e4 Placing the knight in the centre gives White nothing, e.g. 10 4JlS?! {jxdS 11 �dS+ �h8 12 Qa3 �8 13 e4 t;J:i) 14 exfS gxfS 15 Qb2 tff}e7 (Thorsteins - Mala­ niuk, Warsaw 1989) 16 {]xeS (16 gfe1!?- Mala.niuk) 16 ... QxeS 17 gae1.Q.xb2 18 gxe7 �e7 19 tf}cS c£::g6 20 tf}xc7 .,CleS with an obscure position. 10 .,Cla3 also makes little headway, e.g. 10 ... gf7 11 ct:gS (11 e4 � transposes to the variation 10 e4 tLJ:i> 11 Qa3 gf7 considered below) 11 ... gd7 12 tf}c1 h6 and the position is equal. 10 �c6 (18) ...

B1 8 eS (17) this section we shall examine Black's straightfor­ ward attempt to solve his problems by advancing ... e7 eS immediately. Once it was thought that by this method Black should gain at least equality. But, as we shall see In

-­

Main line with 7 ... �e8 21 10 ... fxe4 is to be avoided, e.g. 11c£jxe4 c£jxe4 12 �d5+ �e6 13 �xe4 4Jc6 14 4Jg5± - Van­ heste. 11 4JdS Alternatively 11 .Q.a3 gf7 and now: a) 12 h3 f4 (12 ... h6!?) 13 �d3 .Q.e6 14 gadl h6 15 gfel?! (15 g4 B,d8 16 4JdS g5 with the idea of ... 4:Jh7 - f8 - g6=) 15 ... fxg3! 16 fxg3 4:Jh5 17 �h2 4Jd4 18 B,f1 B,d8+ Casafus - lin Ta, Dubai 1986. b) 12 gel f4 (A typical conti­ nuation of the attack) 13 gxf4 ?! (Here Beliavsky offers the variation 13 �5! B,d7 14 0:15 h6 15 4Jf3 g5 with equal chances; also possible is 13 4Jd5 ,Og4 14 .O,b2 4:Jh5c:o Arbakov - Malaniuk, Budapest 1990) 13 ... ,Og4 (13 ... �5 14 f5 {14 ExeS 1Jg4 1S h3

1J.xf3 16 1J.xf3 cfjf4 17)/jh2 tfjxeS}

gxf5 and Black has control of the centre; Temirbaev - Beliav­ sky, USSR Team Ch 1991. d) 12 �5 B,d7 13 �bt h6 14 4:Jf3 f4 15 gxf4 �5 with com­ plex play; Tsarev - Malaniuk, Kiev 1989. 11 �d7 (19) 19 w

Others: a) 11 ... fxe4 12 4Jg5 c£jxd5 13 cxd50i4 14 4Jxe4± . b) 11 .. gf7 12 �5 c£jxe4 (12 ... B,d7 13 exf5 gxf5 14 �b2 h6 .

14 ... gxf5 15 4Jg5 gd7 16 0:15 �g6 17 h4 4Jd4 {17 ... cfjf4 18

{No better is 14 ... cfjg4 1S h3 4Jh6 16 �e2 �g6 17 f4 )/jh8 18 exES 'lf;xfS 19 1J.e4± - Beliavsky} )/jh2 cf:£8 19 l!ad1; Lechtynsky 18 .Q.h3 B,f7 and Black has suc­ Psakhis, Tmava 1988} 15 c£jxf6+

ceeded in escaping the worst; Meduna- Beliavsky, Sochi 1986) 14 h3 (14 fxe5 c£jxe5 with the idea of 15 ... {Jh5+) 14 ... �xf3 15 Qxf3c£jd4?! (15 ... exf4!? and: 16 e5c£jxe5 17 �xb7 B,d8 18 �c2 c6 19 .O.xc6 �xc6 20 B,xe5 4Jh5 intending 21 . �f3+; or 16 0:15 4)iS 17 �b2 c6+ - Vanheste) 16 @5 with an unclear position; Balashov- Vyzmanavin, Irkutsk 1986. c) 12 exfS Qxf5 13 gel B,d7 14 �d gad8 15 4:Jh4 e4 16 4Jxf5 ..

.O,xf6 16 .O,d5+ �g7 17 4:Jf3 e4 18 .O,xf6+ �6 19 �d exf3 20 gel! - Balashov) 13 c£jxf7 � 14 Qb2 fle6 15 �e2 and Black lacks sufficent counterplay for the exchange; Balashov Y rjola, Voronez 1987. c) 11 ... c£jxd5!? 12 cxd5 (12 exd5 e4; 12 �d5+ fle6 13 �b5 a6! 14 �xb7? B,a7+) 12 . . fxe4 (12 .. {Jd4?! 13 4:Jxd4 exd4 14 Qb2 {141J_a3! 1!17 1S eS f4 16 e6 -

.

.

lfFS 17 lfc1 fxg3 18 hxg3 and ltflite has a winning position;

22 Main line with 7 ... rgyeB Baburin - Ronin, Novosibirsk 1989} 14 ... fxe4 15 .O.xd4 .0.f5 16 .O.xg7 �g7 17 �d4+ with the idea of �ae1± ) 13 4Jg5 (13 dxc6 exf3 14 .0.xf3 e4) 13 ... 4Jd4 14 {jxe4 (14 .O.a3!?) 14 ... �hS 15 .O.b2 .O.f5 16 �d (A mistake would be 16 f4?, e.g. 16 ... Qxe4 17 .O.xe4 exf4 1S �e1 �e5) 16 ... �cS (16 ... � 17 �5! b6 1S {Je6± - Blagojevid 17 �e1 � 1S f 4 �d5 19 {Jc5 e4 20 {jxe4 with an obscure position; Gav­ rikov - Blagojevic, Prague 19SS. 12 exfS Or: a) 12 {jxf6+!? .O.xf6 13 �d7 (13 .Q.h6 �eS= 14 �e1 �e7 15 �d 4:Jb4 16 c5 .O.e6 17 �c3 sition. b) 14 4)11 �d7 15 e4 fxe4 16 -

.

.

-

-

{Jxe4 again with an unclear JX>Sition, c) 14 cxb5 cxbS 15 b4 �h5 16 d5?! f4 17 4Jb3 c£:g4 18 h3 {Je5 and Black wins a pawn - Topa­ lov. 14 cxbS 15 e4 �hS 16 f4 Not 16 f3?! fxe4 17 fxe4 b4 18 �c4+ .kle6 19 'ftixc7 4Jg4 and Black gains the opJX>rtunity for an attack- Topalov. 16 gxf4 17 r!xf4 fxe4 18 4Jdxe4 (27)

,

The JX>Sition promises equal chances; Topalov Kramnik Puerto Rico 1989. -

,

B3

h6 (28) 8 The move examined in this section has all but superceded 8 ... e5 and 8 ... c£ja6. Black does not tzy to force events, but instead waits to see White's plan in order to choose the right method of counterplay. At the time of writing this modest move with the pawn

28 Main Line with 7 ... �eB

seems the surest way of con­ tinuing. 9 4JdS This is the most aggressive reaction to Black's move. Let us examine five other vari­ ations: a) 9 t§}c2 4Jc6 10 �b2 eS!? (10 . .. gS?! 11 dS 4Jb4 12 t§}d2 cS 13 dxc6 bxc6 14 {Jd4 .Q.d7 15 e4 and Black finds himself under pressure in the centre; Zak­ harov- Avshalumov, Lvov 1986) 11 dxeS dxeS 12 e4 with obscure play- Avshalumov. b) 9 .Q.a3 gS (9 ... 'gf7!? with the idea of ... eS- Shabalov or 9 . ttJ[7 10 t§}d3 gS 11 'gadt c6 12 cS 'gd8 13 cxd6 exd6CX) Blatny Malaniuk, Alma Ata 1989) 10 'get (10 e3 c6 {Not so good is 10 ..

... f4 11 exf4 gxf4 12 !;fe1 Georgiev} 11 t§}e2 � 12 'gfet ,db8 13 4Jd2 bS 14 cxbS cxbS 15 4JjS {JxdS 16 .(lxdS+ �h8 17 �act t§}d8! and Black's position is not worse; Kishnev - Shab­ alov, Debrecen 1989. Georgiev also offers another suggestion: 10 t§}d3!?) 10 ... f 4! 11 t§}d3 t§}hS 12 cS! (With the idea of making

use of the c-file after cxd6) 12 ... .Q.h3 13 cxd6 cxd6 14 �4 c0g4 (Georgiev suggests 14 ... 4Jbd7!? 15 4Jxf6+ 'gxf6 16 'gc7 �af8 17 4Jj2! with an unclear position, or 14 ... 4):6!? 15 4Jxf6+ �xf6 16 dS 4JeS 17 {JxeS �xeS 18 'gc7 �f7 19 .Q.xh3 t§Jxh3 20 t§}g6+ Bg7 21 t§}e6+ t£1xe6 22 dxe6± ) 15 'gc7 4Jc6 16 Qb2 (If 16 gxb7, then it is good to play 16 ... dS 17 4Jed2 gf7! with the idea of ... 'gaf8, . .. c£jxd4) 16 ... gf7 17 gxb7 gaf8 18 get �8?! (18 ... dS) and in any case White's position remains preferable; Kir. Georgiev - Lukov, Bulgaria 1989. c) 9 Qb2 gS (9 ... � 10 dS

{Another promising variation for Mite is 10 lfe1 gS 11 a3 �fl 12 e4 c[)xe4 13 c[)xe4 fxe4 14 tfxe4 cf:FS 15 tfe2 1Jg4 16 tfe3 tfaeB 17 h3 1J,h5 18 �e2 eS 19 g4 e4 20 cfjxgS:f: Baburin Shab­ alov, Leningrad 1989} 10 ... cS -

(Better is 10 .. . c6, keeping all options open and waiting for White to commit himself in the centre before deciding whether to take on dS or play . . . cS) 11 �1! gS 12 4Jd3 t§}g6 13 e3 f4? 14 exf4 QfS 15 4Je1 gxf4 16 {Je2!± Espig - Malaniuk, Kosz­ komot 1989) 10 dS! (Too modest is 10 e3 c£:p.6 11 dS {Preventing 11 ... eS} 11 ... Qd7 {11 ... cS!?} 12 t§}e2 c6?! {12 ... cS!?; 12 ... f)cS!?} 13 4Jj4 fLF7 {13 ... cS 14 cfy();t} 14 f4± Chekhov - Vyzmanavin, Moscow 1989) 10 ... �?! 11 4Jj4 f4 12 t§}c2 4Jg4 13 4Je4 t§}hS

A-fain

14 h3 {Je5 15 g4 �g6 16 c£jf3! 4Jxf3+ 17 .clxf3 and White has an undisputed advantage due to the unfortunate position of Black's knight; Rozentalis Galdunts, Podolsk t989. d) 9 get is interesting: 9 ... g5 tO .clb2 (tO e4? 4:Jxe4 11 {Jxe4 fxe4 12 4Jg5 .clf5 t3 ge3 c5! t4 ,O_b2 {Jc6 intending ... g4+ ) tO ... � 11 e4 fxe4 12 {Jxe4± Mag­ erramov - Vyzmanavin, Bala­ tonbereny t989, and Beliavsky Bareev, Moscow GMA t990. e) Fmally, Shirov suggests 9 �d3!? e5 tO dxe5 dxe5 11 e4 {Jc6 12 �b2± . 9 4:Jxd5 10 cxd5 (29)

LJne with 7 . �e8 29 ..

A sharp position occurs after 12 ... �h7, e.g. t3 dxc6 bxc6 (t3 ... 4:jxc6?! 14 d5± ) t4 get ,O_e6 15 e4 fxe4 t6 gxe4 Qd5 t7 gf4 �e8 t8 �c2! - Shirov. g4 13 h4!? 14 {Jet �h7 t4 ... h5 t5 Qh6!? cxd5 t6 Qxg7 �g7 t7 4Jd3 �h7 18 4:::f4 ?! (Better was t8 b4! {Jc6 19 e3= ) t8 .. . e6 t9 �a3 gd8 20 gael 4)=6 2t gfdt?! (21 e3 aS 22 gc3= ) and Black gained the advantage in Shirov - Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1989 (comments by Shirov) . 15 dxc6 15 �c4 should also be taken into consideration: 15 . .. . b5 16 �d3 cxd5 17 �xbS e6 18 �d3 Qa6 19 �e3 c£jc6 20 Qc3+ . 4:Jxc6 15 16 .Q.xc6 bxc6 17 thxc6 �8 18 �c3 ,O.b7 Black has dangerous threats - Shirov. ·

B4 8 thf7! ... 11 .Q.d2 A mistake is 11 {jet? 4Jd7 12 4):13 g5 13 'f!1c2 Jlxd4 t4 �1 4Jh6 and White has inadequate compensation for his pawn, e.g. t5 h4 Qf6 16 hxg5 hxg5 17 4Jb4 aS 18 'f!Jxc7 axb4 t9 �xb6 gxa2 20 'f!Jxb4 gxe2+ Savon - Mala­ niuk, Moscow GMA 1989. 11 c6 12 thct g5 10

4Jc6 (30)

30 w

In

addition to the other

30

Main line with 7 . tf!jeB ..

variations considered, 8 ... c6!? has been seen in recent tourna­ ment play: a) 9 �a3 h6 10 Vf}c2 (Also possible are 10 Vf;jd3 g5 11 e4 fxe4 12 4Jxe4 Vf}g6= Polugayev­ sky - Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1990, and 10 �ct � 11 Vf;jd3 g5 12 e4 fxe4 13 4Jxe4 Vf]g6 14 4Jxf6+ Vf}xf6 15 �ce1 = Gomez Sanz, Salamanca 1991) 10 ... g5 (10 ... 4:Ja6 11 e4 fxe4 12 4:Jxe4 g5 13 �ae1± Neverov - Piskov, Minsk 1990) 11 e4 fxe4 12 4:Jxe4 �g6 (12 ... 4:Jxe4 13 Vf}xe4 �f5 14 �e3 �d7! 15 �ae1co Neurohr Glek, West Germany 1991) 13 4Jxf6+ Vf}xf6 14 �ae1 and White has the advantage; Shestoperov - Makarov, Smolensk 1991. b) 9 �e1!? h6 10 e4 fxe4 11 4:Jxe4 tfff7 12 �b2 g5 13 Vf;jd2 4:Ja6 14 h4 �f5= Pigusov Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1990, and Ruban - Malaniuk, Sibenik 1990. 9 �b2 transposes to Chapter 5, variation A1111. Before moving on to the main variation we should men­ tion that 8 ... 4Jbd7 leaves Black with difficult problems: 9 4:Jh5 �d8 10 .clb2 and, as point­ ed out by Beliavsky, White has a large advantage. 9 dS! A natural reaction, but there are three other possibilities: a) The move 9 4JbS!? has also been put to test: 9 ... Vf;jd7?! (Natural and more exact would be 9 . .. Vf}d8!? as seen three

times recently: 10 �a3 {Je4 11 �b2 h6 12 e3 \tlh7 13 �ct �d7 14 4):3 4Jxc3 15 �xc3 e5 16 d5 4Je7 17 {jet and Black has a solid position; Budnikov - Vyzmana­ vin, USSR Ch 1991; 10 d5 �5 11 �b2 4Jxf3+ 12 �xf3 �d7 13 �4 Vf}e8 14 �d3 c6 15 �ab1 h5 16 �2= Dzandzgava - Ioseliani, Thilisi 1991; and finally (10 d5 �5) 11 4:jxe5 dxe5 12 �b2 a6 13 4:Ja3 e4 14 f3 exf3 15 exf3 f4 16 �e1 4Jh5 17 �xg7 with an un­ balanced position; V. Neverov Malaniuk, Warsaw 1992) 10 d5 c£:yj8 11 �b2 e5 12 dxe6 4Jxe6 13 4Jfd4 c£jc5 14 c£jc3 c6 15 �c2 Vf}e7 16 b4 c£jce4 17 4Jxe4 fxe4 18 �ad1± Vyzmanavin - Maka­ rov, Gorky 1989. b) 9 �a3 4Je4 10 �5 (Equal­ ity results from 10 ;get, e.g. 10 ... 4Jxc3 11 �xc3 f4! 12 �d3 �4 13 �d2 h6= Kiselev - Makarov, Podolsk 1989) 10 ... Vf;jd8 11 e3 (More modest is 11 �c1 aS 12 e3 e6 13 4Jf4 4Jb4 14 Vf}e2 �e7 15 �1 c6 16 f3 4Jf6 with a com­ plicated position; Gurevich Vyzmanavin, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 11 ... �e8 12 4Jd2 4:Jxd2 13 Vf;jxd2 e5 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 �ad1 �e6 16 �ct Vf}c8 17 Vf}a1 �xd5?! 18 �d5+ and White gained the advantage in Anastasian - Mak­ arov, Podolsk 1989. c) 9 c5 allows Black to carry out his plan with 9 ... e5 10 d5 c£:yj8 11 �ct. as in Summermat­ ter - Vanka, Prague 1991. 9 4Je4 ! 9 ... {Je5 i s better for White:

Main line with 7 . �e8 31 ..

10 4Jxe5 dxe5 11 a4!?± or 10 4)14!?± - Baburin. 10 4JbS The only move. .Q.xa1 10 . . . Not: a) 10 ... �d8? 11 dxc6 .O.xa1 12 �d5+ e6 13 cxb7 gb8 14 bxc8(�) �c8 15 �d3 £,lf6+ - Baburin Belousov, Voronez 1989. b) Also bad is 10 .. . gb8?! 11 .Q.e3 .O.xa1 12 �xa1 a6 (The only move) 13 4Jxc7 �d8 (13 ... �d7 14 4:Je6± ) 14 .Q.b6! �f7 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 c5! 4Jxc5 17 �5 �xb6 18 �h8+! + - Baburin. 11 ttJxc7 Less accw-ate is 11 .Q.h6 .clf6 12 4Jxc7 �d8 13 4Jxa8 �e8 14 dxc6 bxc6 15 �c2 .Q.b7 16 4Jd2 4Jxd2 17 .Qxd2 �a8 if24 Hasin Makarov, Gorky 1989. 11 �d8 12 ttJxa8 {JeS 13 .Q.h6 .Q.c3 14 ,O.xf8 �f8 15 4Jd4 .Q.d 7 16 .Q.xe4 fxe4 17 4Je6+ .Q.xe6 18 dxe6 �xa8 19 �c2 (31) -

31 B

The chaotic position of the black pieces gives White the advantage. c

8

�e1 (32)

32 B

This move, preparing to advance the e-pawn, was for some time considered the route to obtaining the advantage for White. After 8 . . . e5 (not 8 ... �4? 9 4Jxe4 fxe4 10 4:::::g5 winning) White indeed had a noticeable advantage, but soon an effective reply, 8 ... �� was found for Black and as a result the system has disappeared from practice. Nevertheless, some questions concerning this variation remain unresolved. �f7 8 Other moves: a) 8 ... e5 (White's eighth move was designed to prevent this logical reply) 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 e4 fxe4 (Somewhat better is 10 .. . 0f:iJ 11 4Jd5! fxe4 {Black

canno t avoid a disadvantage by 11 . J1f7, e.g. 12 exfS gxfS 13 �a4 ?! cf)e4 14 cfjgS cfJxgS 15 .

.

32 Main LJne with 7 ... &e8

1J.xg5 1J.e6 16 1J.e3;t Abramov Petelin, Dimitrograd 1988, or 13 tfjxe5 tfjxe5 14 ciJxf6+ 1J.xf6 15 f4±} 12 4:gS �d8 {12 . . c£yxd5 13 cxd5 014 141J.e3! c[jf3+ 15 c£yw3 exf3 16 1J.xf3! e4 ? 17 1J.c5! with a winning position} 13 {jxf6+ .

�6 14 {Jxe4 � 1S �e3! though White's position is still favourable) 11 4JgS (And not 11 4Jxe4? 12 �xe4 � when Black gets out of his difficulties) 11 ... 4.)::6 (11 ... �4 is of no use: 12 �b3 � 13 ile3! 0:14 14 Qxd4 exd4 1S 4Jcxe4 - Lukacs, and 11 .. c6 does not work either: 12 4):xe4 {Jxe4 13 4Jxe4 c£):16 14 b3 4.Jb4 1S ile3 @6 16 0:16 �e7 17 4.Jxc8 and positionally Black's set-up has no prospects; Mich­ aelsen - Lauterbach, Munich 1988) 12 Qe3! h6 13 4Jgxe4 �h7 14 4.Jxf6+! �xf6 1S 4J:lS �f7 16 h4! (33) .

White retains a slight advan­ tage; Gheorghiu - Grigorov, Prague 1985. c) Of all the options here 8 ... �!? is the most worthy of consideration: 9 dS (The varia­ tion 9 e4 4.Jxe4 10 4Jxe4 fxe4 11 �xe4 ilfS is not the best plan for White) 9 ... 4:::¢ (Weaker is 9 . .. �S 10 {:)xeS dxeS 11 cS �h8?! 12 b4 ild7?! 13 Qb2 gS 14 bS e4 1S c6 bxc6 16 bxc6± Ricardi Remon, Havana 1986) 10 b3 cS 11 Qd2 a6 12 e4 fxe4 13 4:gS Qg 4 14 �cl bS 1S 4.Jcxe4 4Jxe4 16 �xe4 QfS 17 c£je6 ilxe6 18 �xe6 ilxa1 19 �a1 4.Jb7 and White has good compensation for the sacrificed material; Petran - Grigorov, Thilisi 1986, e.g. 20 h4 4J:l8 21 ilh3 �f7 22 ilh6 with advantage to White. Now we return to the posi­ tion after 8 . . . �f7 (34). -

33

34

B

w

White has a great advantage; Lukacs - Vaiser, Sochi 1984. b) 8 ... c6 9 e4 {Jxe4 10 4.Jxe4 fxe4 11 �xe4 ilfS 12 �e3 0:17 13 b3 ,0g4 14 Qb2 Qh6 1S �e4 ilxf3 16 �xf3 �f7 17 \ttg2 eS! 18 dxeS 4JxeS 19 �xeS dxeS 20 �e2 and

9 �d3 Others: a) 9 b3?! gives Black an opportunity for a useful knight deployment: 9 ... �4 (9 ... h6 10 ilb2 gS 11 e4 fxe4 12 4Jxe4 flfS {12 . . c6 is playable: 13 �d2 cf}a6 .

Main line with 7 . �eB 33 .

14 h4 1J.f5 15 c£)xf6+ exf6 16 lfe3 lffeB= Pigusov - Malaniuk, Moscow GMA . 1990} 13 4Jxf6+ �6 14 �e3 4)ID 15 �c3 �f7 16 'ff}e2 �af8 17 get with advantage to White; Beliavsky - Bareev, Moscow GMA 1990) 10 �b2 � (Or 10 ... c5!? 11 'ffjd3 {Jc6 12 c£jxe4 fxe4 13 'ff}xe4 cxd4 14 �W !J.f5 15 'ffjd5 'ffjxd5 16 cxd5 c£jb4 with an unbalanced position in Chabanon - Hoffmann, llpp­ stadter 1991, but not 10 ... @6?! 11 'ff}c2 c£jxc3 12 �xc3 h6 13 e4!± Lukacs - Schroll, Kecskemet 1991) 11 �d (Two other alterna­ tives have been played here: 11 e3 e5 12 get 4:Jxc3 13 .O,.xc3 e4 14 4:Jj2 aS with an active position for Black in Hulak - Bareev, Marseille 1990; and 11 'ffjd3 4Jxc3 12 ,O_xc3 e5 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 �5 'ff}e7 15 �d5+ �h8 16 �xc6 bxc6 when Black has the bishop pair as compensation for his weak pawns; Shneider - Bareev, USS R Ch 1990, and Hulak Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1990) 11 . . . h6 (Vanheste analyses the variation 11 .. . e5 12 d5 6;y7 13 �ft 4:Jxc3 14 -'lxc3 h6 with a good game for Black) 12 ;g:ft (An alternative would be 12 d5!? 4Jb4 13 c£jd4 {The only move: 13

a3 JJ.xc3 14 1J.xc3 c[)a2; 13 c£)xe4 J;.xb2} 13 ... c£jxc3 14 �xc3 4Jxa2 15 ;g:e3! with an unclear position - Vanheste) 12 ... 4:Jxc3 13 �xc3 e5 and Black has equalised; Gavrikov - Malaniuk, USS R Ch 1986. b) At the cost of a pawn,

.

White hopes by 9 4Jg5!? to exploit the insecure position of the black queen: 9 ... 'ff]xc4 10 ,O_ft and now: b1) 10 ... 'ff]b4 meets more of White's needs than Black's: 11 a3 'ff]as (11 ... 'ffjb6 !? - Tukmakov) 12 b4 'ffjb 6 13 'ffjb3+ d5 14 e4! (If 14 c£jxd5, then 14 ... c£jxd5 15 'ffjxd5+ e6 with the following 16 ... �xd4 and White's initiative is neutralised - Tukmakov) 14 ... fxe4 15 {}xd5 {}xd5 16 'ff]xd5+ e6 17 'ff}xe4 'ffjxd4 18 ;g:a2 (35) 35 B

Here White has a promising position; Huzman - Vyzman­ avin, Novosibirsk 1986;. b2) The modest 10 ... �h8 should also be taken into con­ sideration: 11 d5 (11 e4!? 'ffjg8 12 e5) 11 ... 'ff}c5 12 Qe3 'ffjaS 13 a3 c6 14 b4 'ffjd8 15 dxc6 {Jxc6 16 �b3 �4! with advantage to Black; Huzman - Malaniuk, Novosi­ birsk 1986. b3) 10 ... 'ff}c6 11 e4 (Neverov suggests here 11 �b3+!? d5 12 ,Clf4) 11 ... fxe4 12 QbS �b6 13 Qc4+ �h8 14 c£jf?+ gxf7 15 �xf7 Qf5 (15 . . . ,Og4 16 �a4 {16 �b3

�! f16 ... Qf3 17 cfJdSJ 17 �b6

34 Main line with 7 ... �eB

fNot 17 cf)xe4? c£)xd4 18 rffYxb6 axb6J and in the closed position l-Vhite has difficulties in making use of his rooks} 16 ... � 17

36 B

�e3 with advantage to White, for example: 17 ... �b2 18 4Jb5 �b4 19 �xb4 4:Jxb4 20 4:Jxc7 �c8 {20 ... JjfB 21 1J_b3} 21 4Je6 4):2 22 �ad) 16 �e3 c6 (After 16 ... �lxl7 17 d5 �a6 18 �e6 �8

{18 ... JJ.xe6 19 dxe6 fJ£8 20 cf}JSJ 19 �xf5 gxf5 20 �d4 and White stands better) 17 d5 �a6 18 .0.d4 �lxl7 19 .[le6 �f8! and Black has overcome his most serious difficulties; Neverov Gurevich, Baku 1986. h6 9 Risky is 9 ... � 10 cfjg5 �b4 (10 ... �e8 11 4Jd5 4:Jxd5 12 cxd5 4):18 {12 ... c£)xd4 13 e3 cfJbS 14

a4 and Black has to give up his knight; or 12 ... c£Jb4 13 �c4± lnkacs - Espig, Leipzig 1986} 13 �c4 h6 14 �3 bS!? 15 �xc7 !J.b7 16 4Jd2 .O.xd4 17 4Jh3 �7 18 �c2 e6 19 .O,e3 �f7 20 �d2 g5 and here, in the game between Lukacs and Pyhala, Espoo 1987, White could have attempted to gain an advantage by 21 f4! Lukacs) 11 4Jxf7 4:Jxd3 12 �6+ .[lxh6 13 exd3 .clxd 14 �axd e6 (The only move) 15 f4! (There is no advantage in 15 c5!? dS 16 c6 b6! Neverov - Legky, USSR 1987) 15 ... �e8 (15 ... �d7 16 {Jb5 4je8 17 d5 exd5 18 �d5+ �h8 19 �e7± - Legky) 16 �bS (16 d5?! a6 17 dxe6 c6!) 16 ... �e7 17 d5 (36)

Legky and Moskalenko con­ sider the endgame slightly favourable for White. 10 b3 10 d5 is not suitable: 10 ... e5 11 dxe6 !lxe6 12 c5 � 13 cxd6 �ad8 14 �c2 �xd6 and Black has a slight advantage; Kotro­ nias - Casper, Moscow 1987. 10 . . . 4Jc6 Possible is 10 ... � 11 �a3 c6 12 �ad1 g5 13 e3 �7 14 4:Ji2 .cld7; Maiorov - Bareev, Minsk 1986. Another idea is 10 ... c5!?. 11 �a3 Less well analysed is 11 �b2 e5 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 e4! �e6 14 ;gad1 ;gada 15 �e2 4Jd4 16 �d4 exd4 17 exf5 .[lxf5 18 4Jd5± Hamann - Yrjola, Copenhagen 1987 . 11 4Je4 Others: a) 11 ... �e8 12 d5!. b) 11 ... g5 12 d5!. c) 11 ... aS 12 4Jb5 {je8 13 ;gad1 4Jb4 14 �b1 c6 15 �3 e5 16 dxe5 dxeS 17 �b2 e4 18 4Jd4 with chances for both sides; Neverov - Vasiukov, Voskres­ ensk 1990.

Main line with 7 d) 11 . . e5 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 �xf8 e4 14 �d2 �xf8 (14 ... exf3 15 �xg7) 15 4:Jd4 �d7 (15 ... �c5 16 4:jxc6 bxc6 17 e3) 16 {Jxc6 �xc6 17 e3 and Black has in­ sufficent compensation for his material losses - Lukacs. 12 �ad1 Or: a) 12 4Jh5 e6 13 gad1 ge8 (less dangerous is 13 . . . a6 14 {F3 4:Jxc3) 14 d5! and Black came under slight pressure in Farago - Yrjola, judenburgh 1987. b) 12 4::]xe 4 fxe4 13 �e4 �d4 14 4:Jxd4 �2+ 15 �w �d4 16 �xe7 Qf5 (16 ... �b6 17 �d5+ �h8 18 �b2! with a win­ ning position; 16 . . . gf7 17 �e8+ {17 �dB+ f!Jh7!} 17 ... gf8 18 �g6 �f5 19 �h5 gae8 20 gad1± ) 17 �xc7 .Q.e4 with a powerful attack, but not 17 ... �a1 18 .Q.d5+ �h8 19 gxa1 �xa1 20 �xd6 with better chances for White. Returning to the position after 12 gad1 (37). .

37

12 13

�xc3

4jxc3 f4

�eB 35

Also worth mentioning are: a) 13 ... e5 14 dxe5 �e5 15 {'yj4± . b) 13 ... ge8 14 e4!? (14 �c2 e5 15 d5 Ci'J27!? 16 c5! ± ) 14 ... e5! (14 .... fxe4?! 15 gxe4) 15 dxe5 dxeS 16 exf5 gxf5 (16 ... e4? 17 fxg6 �xg6 18 �e3!) 17 �e3 with an unclear position - Lukacs. c) 13 ... g5 14 e3 f4?! 15 exf4 g4 leads to an unclear position, Lukacs - van Mil, Copenhagen 1987. 14 �d2 Instead 14 e3 fxg3 15 fxg3 e5 16 d5 (16 gf1 �e8) 16 ... e4 17 {'yj4 4Jxd4 18 exd4 �4 gives nothing to White. 14 . . . �4 14 . . . g5!? deserves consideration. 15 dS {JeS 16 �xf4 �xf4 17 gxf4 �xf3 18 fxeS �xg2 19 �g2 �xeS The game is equal; Dokhoian - Malaniuk, Moscow 1989. D

8

B

...

{JdS (38)

36 Main line with 7

...

�eB

White attempts to strength­ en his central position with the exchange of knights. cfjxdS 8 It is risky to leave the knight in the centre: 8 ... 4:Ja6 ?! 9 �5 (9 c£jxf'6+ -'lxf6 10 �h6 �7 11 �d2 c6 12 b4 4):7 13 �xg7 �g7 14 d5! with the idea of continu­ ing with ;gfel and e4 and White gained the advantage in the game lllilmann - Banas, Stary Smokovec 1985) 9 ... c6 10 c£jxf6+ -'lxf6 11 -'lh6 .clg 7 12 -'lxg7 �g 7 13 �d2 tff1f7 14 ;gael and, thanks to the badly placed knight, White stands better, Knezevic Remon, Havana 1986. c6 cxdS 9 Formerly Black successfully played 9 ... �bS but the advan­ tages of the white knight re­ treat, 10 4:'Je1, became apparent: a) Simply bad is 10 �b3 �b3 11 axb3 c6 12 �5 ;9.e8 13 gfd e6 14 dxe6 �xe6 15 ;9.c3 4)17 16 -'lf4 4:Jf6! and Black has an indisputable superiority in the endgame; Zukhovitsky Mi. Tseitlin, Kalinin 1986. b) An interesting try is 10 a4!? �d5 11 4:Jg5 �c4 (11 ... �d4? 12 �b3+ �h8 13 �xb7) 12 .O,e3 c6 and now Perelstein Glek, Budapest 1991, continued 13 ;9.c1 �b4 14 b3 d5 15 h4 aS 16 4Jh3 4Jd7 17 4:Jf4 4:Jf6 and Black went on to win. c) Recently 10 4:Jg5 has come into vogue. Black has: d) 10 ... c6 11 e4!? fxe4 12 4:}xe4 �c4 13 ,O.e3± linen Bueno

- T. Georgadze, Malaga 1991. c2) 10 ... �b6 11 �e3 ;gb8 (11 ... 4:Ja6 12 �d2± ) 12 h4! aS 13 �d2 with good attacking chances for White. c3) 10 ... @6 11 h4 (11 a4 �b6 12 e3 h6 13 4Jh3 g5aJ ) 11 . c5 12 dxc6! (12 dxc5 4:}xc5 13 ;gb1 �d7 aJ Pinter - Norri, Debrecen 1992) 12 ... bxc6 13 a4 �b6 14 d5 c5 15 h5± Malaniuk. c4) 10 .. . h6!? 11 a4 �b6 12 4j-'3 aS! 13 �e3 4:Ja6 14 �d2 �h7 15 4Je1 4:Jb4 L. B. Hansen Malaniuk, Copenhagen 1992. d) 10 4)21 (39) and now Black has some interesting alter­ natives: ..

39 B

d1) 10 ... aS!? 11 e3 (Worse is 11 �e3 4:Ja6 12 �d2 !ld 7 13 6;52 c5 14 dxc5 4:Jxc5+ Dumitrache - Malaniuk, Baku 1988) 11 ... a4 12 6;52 c6 13 4:Ja3 �b6 14 b3 cxd5 15 �d5+ e6 16 �3 axb3 17 axb3 �d8 18 -'lb2 d5 with equal­ ity; Lputian - Malaniuk, Sim­ feropol 1988. d2) 10 ... c6!? 11 a4 �a6 12 e3 (12 6;52 e6 13 dxe6 �xe6 14 d5 !lf7 15 c£jb4 �b6 16 dxc6 4:}xc6 17 4Jd5± lsaev - Galdunts,

Main line with 7 ... �eB 37 Podolsk 1990) 12 . . �b6 13 aS �bS 14 �d3 Qd7 15 dxc6 �c6 16 .Q.d2 e5 17 Qxc6 bxc6 and Black seized the initiative in Groszpeter - Gurevich, Palma de Mallorca 1989. d3) 10 ... �b6 11 e3 (11 Qe3!? �b2 {11 . c6 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 .

..

!fbi aS 14 �c2 Jld7 15 cfjd3 cf)a6 16 a3 jJfcB 17 b4;t} 12 4)13 {12 a4!?} 12 . . . �a3 13 �c2 c6 and White has compensation for the saaificed pawn) 11 . . c6 12 4)13 cxd5 (12 . . �d7 13 Qd2 4Ja6 14 �b3 and according to Chek­ hov and Dautov, the position favours White) 13 Qxd5+ e6 14 �b3 (40). .

.

40 B

The diagram position appeared in the game between Dautov and Ragozin, USSR 1986, and is slightly better for White. d4) 10 . . . 4Ja6 11 a4 (11 e3 Qd7 12 4)13 {12 &b3?? &xb3 13 axb3 .Q.bSJ 12 . . c5 {12 . . c6? 13 a4 or 13 �b3} 13 dxc6 �xc6 14 �xc6 bxc6 15 �b3+ gf7! {If 15 ... &xb3 .

.

16 axb3 and White has better chances in the endgame} 16 �b5 {16 Jld2 lfbB 17 &xbS J:fxbS 18 J:ffcJ cS=} 16 . . . cxb5 17

�d2 e5 and Black has overcome his opening difficulties; Ba.la­ shov - Malaniuk, USS R Ch 1986) 11 . . . �b6 12 .(le3 �b4 (Dangerous is 12 .. �b2, e.g. 13 4)13 �c3 14 gel �a3 15 �c2 4Jb 4 16 �b4 �b4 17 Bb1! �aS 18 .(ld2 �a6 19 e3 and Black is not able to defend his queen­ side) 13 4Jd3 �d3 (Bad is 13 . .. aS 14 �b4 axb4 15 �b3) 14 �d3 aS?! (14 �d7 b4!) 15 gfd .(ld7, as in Dautov - Legky, Tashkent 1987, and now White could have played 16 gc3! gfc8 17 h4!? (Nothing is achieved by 17 Bb3 �a6 18 �a6 bxa6 19 gc3 gabS 20 b3 e5 and Black main­ tains the balance) 17 ... �a6 18 �d2 bS (Even worse is 18 . . . c5 19 dxc5! Qxc3 20 �c3 dxc5 21 _Qg5) 19 Qh6± - Dautov. Returning to the position after 9 ... c6 (41). .

10

�bJ

Also possible is 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 gel (11 �c2 {11 dS!?} 11 ... �h8 12 .(le3?! {12 Jld2!?) 12 . . 4Ja6 with ... 4Jb4 or ... �7 to fol­ low, putting pressure on the d5-square but not 12 ... �d7 13 .

38 Main line with 7 . �eB .

.

�c4+, as was played in the game between Semkov and Grigorov in Sofia in 1984) 11 ... �7 12 e4 fxe4 13 �5 cfjf6 14 4::}xe 4 4::}xe4 15 !lxe4 !ld7 16 .klg5 ;gb8 17 !lxe7!? �xb2o:J Ortega ­ Remon, Havana 1986. 10 . . . cxdS Not 10 ... �h8?! 11 4Jg5 � 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 �a4 and White enjoyed clear superiority in lllil mann - S. GrUnberg, Kecs­ kemet 1984. 11 �dS+ 11 e4!? has been suggested. �h8 11 12 .Q.d2 {}c6 {}dB 13 .Q.c3 If 13 ... �d7?! (13 ... f4!?) 14 �b3 e5 (14 ... 4:Jd8? 15 d5) 15 dxe5 dxe5 16 �xb7 gb8 17 �c7 e4 (Hjartarson - Beliavsky, Szirak izt 1987) and now 18 �fdt retains the pawn - Hjartarson. 14 �b3 In the case of 14 �ad, then 14 ... �e6 15 �aS b6 with the idea of ... �d5+ - Hjartarson. 14 eS dxeS 15 dxeS 16 e3 (42)

This position is considered as equal by Hjartarson. E

8

�b3 (43)

The queen move, introduced by Grandmaster Lerner and taken up by Anatoly Karpov, indirectly prepares the advance e2 - e4, accompanied by a dynamic development of pieces. Recently this idea has been abandoned, because Malaniuk has found excellent possibilities of organising counterplay for Black with 8 .. �8 {}a6 According to Lerner, two other lines do not enable Black to maintain the balance: 8 ... �h8 9 4:Jd5! and 8 ... �4 9 c£)xe4 fxe4 10 4:Jg5 _klxd4 11 4J.xe4. More recently 8 . . . c6 has been tried: 9 d5 4Ja6 10 .O,e3 � 4 11 .O.f4 (an attempted improvement on 11 �d4 e5 12 dxe6 c£je5! 13 gadt �e6o:; Karpov - Gurevich, Reggio Emilia 1989/90) 11 ... 4Jc5 12 �c2 h6 13 h3 e5 and Black comes .

Main line with 7 ... �e8 39 out of the complications slight­ ly better; Karpov - Gurevich, Amsterdam 1991. C3th8!? 9 .Qg S In addition to this extrava­ gant move, Black has other continuations to consider: a) 9 ... 4:Jh5 10 4Jd5 gf7 11 c5 e6 12 4Jf4 (It is not clear who will stand better after 12 4Jb4 4Jxb4 13 �b4 aS 14 �a3 ga6) 12 . . . 4Jf6! 13 �xf6 �xf6 14 cxd6 cxd6 15 h4 �g7 16 gael h6 17 gfet e5 18 dxe5 dxe5 19 4:)35 e4= Vyzmanavin - Malaniuk, Novosibirsk 1986. b) 9 . . . cS 10 .(lxf6 (10 d5!? Lerner) 10 ... .Q.xf6 11 gadt (11 gfdt .c1g7 12 e3 �h8 13 gael h6 14 dxc5 4JxcS 15 �c2 �d7 16 4):14 gb8 17 'lj}e2 a6 18 b3 g5 19 4):15 e5 20 4Jc2 bS and Black has a better position; Vainer­ man - Malaniuk, USSR 1986) 11 . . . �h8 (11 .. . .a,g 7 {11 .. . e5?! 12

dxe5 dxe5 13 e4 f4 14 gxf4 exf4 15 e5 .a,g7 16 lJfe1 and Whites superiority in the centre is decisive - Lerner} 12 4Jd5 {12 e3 [12 !Xfe1 intending e2 - e4 is worth consideration according to LernerJ 12 . .. h6 [An unclear position arises after 12 ... f/lhB 13 !Xd2 h6 14 !Xe1 rtj/7 15 c£jJ5 g5; Ubilava - Malaniuk, Tbilisi 19861 13 dxcS [13 h4!? - LernerJ 13 ... c£jxc5 14 �c21J.e6 15 b3 !XcB 16 £114 1J.f7 17 e4 ?! f17 f4J 17 ... f4! 18 fFe2 a6! when Black plans to play ... g6 - g5 and ... e7 - e5 with a complicated position; Lerner - Malaniuk,

USSR Ch 1986} 12 . .. e5? {Cor­ was 12 ... f/lhB!?} 13 dxe5

rect

dxe5 14 e4! f4 15 gxf4 exf4 16 e5 gb8 17 gfe1 �e6! {17 ... JJ.e6? 18 c£jf6+} 18 ge4 {Malaniuk claims

that White could have gained advantage by 18 �d3, when 18 ... g5? runs into 19 c£jxg5 �h6 20 c£jf6+ 1J.xf6 21 �d5+ with a decisive superiority} 18 ... g5! 19 4Jxg5 �h6 with compenstion for the sacrificed material; l.putian - Malaniuk, Novosibirsk 1986) 12 'lj}c2 (Tukmakov offers the line 12 e4 cxd4 13 4jxd4 f4 14 gxf4 4Jc5 15 'lj}c2 �xd4 16 gxd4 4:Je6+ ) 12 . . . gb8 13 e4 (13 �d2!? - Tukmakov) 13 ... fxe4 (Bad is 13 ... cxd4 14 4jxd4 f4 15 gxf4 �xd4 16 gxd4 gxf4 17 4:)35 with advantage for White - Malanuik) 14 �e4 (According to Malaniuk, on 14 4Jxe4 an equal game would be achieved by 14 ... �7; Tukmakov sug­ gests 14 ... .O,f5 15 �e2 �xe4 16 �e4 and Black has several promising replies: 16 ... 'f!ff? , 16 ... cxd4!? and 16 ... b5!?) 14 ... �d7 (Weaker is 14 ... .O,f5 15 �e3 - Tukmakov) 15 4Jd5 .O,c6 and chances are equal; Tukmakov Malaniuk, Novosibirsk 1986. Returning to the position after 9 ... �h8 (44). 10 4Jd5 If White now exchanges on f6, Black has sufficient possi­ bilities: 10 �xf6 .(lxf6 11 e4 e5 12 gfe1 (White could have tried 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 gfe1, whilst 13 exf5 gxf5 14 gfe1 4Jc5 leads to

40 Main IJne with 7

...

�eB

an unclear position) 12 . . exd4 13 exf5 �d8 14 {JbS c£jc5 15 �a3 ,O_xf5 (Weaker is 15 ... d3?! 16 fxg6 hxg6 17 �adl) 16 4Jbxd4 Qg4 17 �ad1 �d7 18 h3 �xf3 (The text move leads to a drawn endgame, but 18 ... �xh3 would have been too risky: 19 ,O.xh3 �xh3 20 b4 c£P7 21 0¢ �feB 22 4Jfg5 �xg5 23 4Jxg5 with a dangerous attack) 19 4Jxf3 �a4! 20 �a4 4Jxa4 21 b3 and the game soon ended in a draw; Lputian - Vyzmanavin, Irkutsk 1986. 10 . . . 4Jg8 Strangely enough, this retreat gives Black good chances. e5 11 -'ld2 dxe5 12 dxe5 c6 13 e4 14 4Jc3 f4 15 gxf4? A critical moment! Better . seems to be 15 4Ja4!? (4S) 15 . . . �e 7?! (15 . . . h6!?) 16 gxf4 exf4 17 ,O.c3 g5 18 c£P4 g4 19 �fe1 4Jh6 20 gad1 'ti1f7 21 e5 f3 22 e6 �h5 23 ,O.f1 and Black's attack on the kingside has failed; Kravtshenko - Malaniuk, .

Tallinn 1987. exf4 15 . . . 16 e5 g5! lbe pawn cannot be taken because of 17 ... �g6. 17 �fe1 4Jc5 18 �aJ 4Jd3 19 4Je4 White lacks sufficent coun­ terplay for the exchange; Lerner Malanluk, Tallinn 1987. No better would have been 19 �e2 g4, nor 19 �e4 �f5, nor 19 �d1 4JxeS. In each case White loses material. -

F

8

e4 (46)

46 B

In this last section we shall examine variations that have

Main line with 7 ... �e8 41 not been endorsed in master practice. The text move seems to be the most direct way to under­ mine Black's strategy. Never­ theless, White cannot achieve his goal by such unprepared pawn advances. Even if e4 is prepared by 8 �c2 Black has no problems: 8 ... eS 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 e4 ?! 4):6 11 .0.e3 f4! 12 gxf4 {Jh5, as in Reilein - Zysk, Munich 1987. Also to be considered is 8 �e3 e5 (The continuations 8 ... aS 9 d5 and 8 c6 9 d5 lead to the variations examined above, but 8 ... 4Jg4!? deserves exam­ ination) 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 .O.c5 .:§.f7 11 4Jg5 .:§.d7 12 �b3 and White has a minimal advantage. 8 fxe4 4Jc6 9 4Jg5 10 .O.e3 �4 Black can also attempt to solve his problems in the cen­ tre: 10 ... e5!? 11 d5 �4 12 �d2 �4?! 13 .O.xd4 exd4 14 �xd4 �7 15 �e3 4:Je5 16 �xe4 �f5 17 ...

�h4 h6 18 � g5 19 {jxg7 gxh 4 20 4:Jxe8 gaxe8 21 b3 h3 22 �h1 �4 23 f4 4Jd3 24 .Q.e4 4)::5 2S gael and the advantage of White's extra pawn is clear; D�uban - Legky, USSR 1985. 11 �b3 Black also has good play after 11 Wd2 Wd7 12 4Jgxe4 4:'Jxe4 13 ilxe4 .Q.f3 14 �xf3 .:§.xf3, as in Afifi - Yusupov, Tunis 1985. 11 �d7 12 4Jgxe4 4Jxe4 .Q.f3 13 .O.xe4 �xf3 14 ,O_xf3 15 �ad1 (47) 47 B

Black has a good game.

2 Main Line with 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

C D E

...

c6

8 lde1 8 b3 8 .Q.gS and others

d4 g3 .Q.g2 4:)£3

fS 4:)£6 g6 !Jg7 o-o

A

c4 4Jc3

d6 c6 (48)

8 dS Normally Black reacts to this with the immediate 8 ... eS but other lines are sometimes tried:

o-o

48 w

A1 8 . . . eS A2 8 . . . 'f!Jc7 A3 8 . . . .Q.d7 and others A1 8

eS (49)

This move has a long his­ tot)'. If we compare it with the move 7 . . . 4:):6, play is less forcing here, but unlike 7 ... �e8, where Black retains a choice of several plans, the move 7 . . . c6 is usually con­ nected with the advance ... e7 eS. The main reply for White is 8 dS, which we shall examine first, though White has several possibilities:

And now:

A 8 d5 B 8 tf1c2

A11 9 dxe6 A12 9 dxc6 and others

49 w

Main line with 7 AU dxe6 9 The most natural move. 9 �xe6 Again White has a choice here: A111 10 �d3 A112 10 bJ and others A111

�dJ (50)

10 so B

White's intention is to ex­ ploit Black's potential weak­ ness - the d6-pawn. A draw­ back of the plan is that the white queen may be vulnerable to attack by the black pieces. The basic theory of the varia­ tion was worked out many years ago, but recent tourna­ ment practice has made several important additions. 10 {Ja6 Black has tried several other moves here: a) 10 ... �h8 11 �f4 �8 (Neither will equality be achiev­ ed by 11 . 4Jh5, e.g. 12 .O,xd6 .Q.xc4 13 �c4 �d6 14 �5 �c7 15 � � 16 �b3 �e8 17 ...

..

...

c6 43

4:Jxg7 with advantage to White; Davis - Gallego, lisbon 1986, nor by 11 ... d5 12 4Jg5 Qg 8 13 cxd5 cxd5 and Black has a potential weakness on dS, Shvedchikov - Alleva, Moscow 199i) 12 4JgS ,Og8 13 e4 4Ja6 14 gad1 4)::5 15 �e2 �e7 16 gfe1 with an unclear position; HUb­ ner - Akvist, Oslo 197 4. b) 10 ... c£Jg4 11 b3 (11 �5 �e7 12 ct:P5 .Q.xd5 13 cxd5 c5 14 � and White has a strong­ hold on e6; Ostenstad - Gret­ arsson, Gausdal 1992) 11 ... 4Ja6 12 �b2 (12 .O,.f4!? 4)::5 13 �d2 �aS 14 gael± Aseev - Kalini­ chev, Berlin 1991) 12 ... 4Jc5 13 �d2 �e7 14 4Jg5 .Qc8 15 �ad1, and the position is more fa­ vourable for White; Scanavina ­ Pelikan, Argentina 1961. c) 10 ... 4je4 11 0:f4 (Accept­ ing the pawn sacrifice leads to equality: 11 4:Jxe4 fxe4 12 �e4 .Qf5 13 �h4 {13 �e3 i(gb6 f13 ...

JleB 14 i(gb3 c£)a6 15 i(gxb7 cfjc5 16 i(gb4 l!xe2 with good counter­ play for the sacrificed pawn] 14 a4 c£)a6 15 i(gxb6 axb6 and Black has sufficent compensation; Margolit - Leonidov, USSR 1960} 13 ... �4 14 4:Jxh4 .O,e6= ) 11 ... fJ.f? 12 flxe4 (12 4Jxe4 fxe4 13 flxe4 ct:P7 with counterplay for the pawn) 12 .. . fxe4 13 4:Jxe4 (13 �e4 �e8 14 �g4 ct:P7 1s �5 {Jes 16 �h4 �b6 and Black regains his pawn in a good position} 13 ... 4Jd7 14 �S (14 4:Jxd6?! 4)::5 15 4Jxf7 �xf? 16 �a3 �xd4 17 Qe3 �b2 18 �c5

44 Main line with 7 . . . dJ Vjjxe2, and the position favours Black; 14 4:Jf3 d5 15 cxd5 �xd5 16 ilg5 �b6 with counterplay) 14 ... c£)=5 15 4Jxf7 gxf7 16 �c2 �d7 17 �f4 and Black is behind in material - l.eonidov. d) 10 ... {Jlxl7 11 �f4 {Jb6 12 b3 c£je4 13 4:Jd4 {Jxc3 14 {Jxe6 �e7 15 �d2 Vjjxe6 16 .0.Xc3 gae8 17 �xg7 �g7 18 e3± Uhlmann - Zwaig, Halle 1967; Botvinnik suggests that Black should play 16 ... �xc3 17 �c3 d5!?. 11 !J.f4 White can also try to gain an advantage by 11 4Jg5 (51) : 51 B

�)! gives White a dangerous initiative; Simagin - Hasin, Moscow 1956) 12 . . . h6 13 {Jf3 Qe6? (13 ... c£je8 or 13 ... c£je4! 14 {Jxe4 fxe4 15 �e4 Qf5 16 �h4 g5 17 �h5 �6 with good com­ pensation - Bellin) 14 �xd6 �d6 15 gxd6 .0.Xc4 16 c£)=5 Qf7 17 �xh6 with an extra pawn for White; lvkov - Sahovic, Zemun 1982. b) 11 ... ge8 12 .elf4 �b6 13 b3 with a more favourable position for White; Smejkal - Lutikov, Leipzig 1977. c) 11 . . . � 12 {Jxe6 {Jxe6 13 gd1 �e8 14 b3 with a better position for White - Taimanov. d) 11 ... �e7 12 Qf4 gad8 (12 . . . c£)=8? 13 c£:P5 �xd5 14 cxd5 c5 15 � and the white knight vigorously limits Black's chan­ ces) 13 gadt {Jh5 (13 ... c0g4 14 {Jxe6 {14 f)dS!? r!fjeB 15 r!fja3 c£)e5

with complications - Knezevic}

14 ... �xe6 15 e4 {15 b3 cfy:S 16

a) 11 . . . �c8 (This bishop retreat is unpleasant for Black) 12 gd1 (12 �f4 {jh5 {12 . . . cfY:B 13 !1fd1 h6 14 fJ£3 1J.e6 15 r!fje3! JJ.xc4 16 J}.xh6± Keene - WJrthenson, Hannover 1977} 13 Vjjxd6 {No more than equality is gained by 13 J1ad1?! cfjxf4 14 gxf4 h6 15 c£)f3 J1F6 16 !1d2 J}.e6= Csom - Sax, Budapest 1973} 13 ... {Jxf4 14 �xf4 h6 15 c£jf3 g5 16 �cl �e6 17 gdt �6 18 4:Jd4 with better chances for White, because 18 ... .O.xc4 19 4Y4 fxe4 20 Vjjxc4+ 'itJh8 21

r!fjc2 r!fjf6 [16 ... §feB!?J and the game is equal; Ubilava - Knez­ evic, Trencianske Teplice 1985}

15 .. . c£jc5 16 exf5 gxf5 17 �c2 c£)=5 18 b3± Fridstein - Lutikov, Moscow 1958) 14 4:Jd5 (Too spectacular) 14 ... �d7 15 �e3 'itJh8 16 {Jf4 {Jxf4 17 gxf4 (17 �xf4!? - Suetin) 17 .. . �8 18 �c2 �c7 19 a3 4:Jc5 20 b4 4):17 21 .0.d4 4Jb6 with an excellent game for Black; Kremenietsky Berkovich, Moscow 1983. Tunid is 11 gd1 c£)::5 12 �d6 �d6 13 gxd6 �xc4 with no problems for Black; Radev -

Main line with 7 ... c6 45 Kaiszauri, USSR 1977. 11. 4Je4 This move considerably sharpens the struggle. Others are indifferent or just plain bad: a) 11 ... geS!? 12 c£jg5?! �4 13 {jxe6 gxe6 14 gad1 4:Je5 15 tf}c2 tfjaS 16 e4?! c£jxc4 and White gained no counterplay for his pawn; Bany - Kuczynsky, Pola­ nica Zdroj 19S7. b) 11 .. . tfjaS 12 �5 (Also good is 12 .Q.xd6 gfdS 13 gad1 �f7? 14 �5 4:Jes 15 4Jxf7 � 16 c5 4:'Jxc5 17 .Q.d5+ and the black king remained exposed in Shneider - Palatnik, Herson 19S9) 12 .. . gfeS (If 12 . . . 4Jc5?! 13 tf}b1! and 13 ... .Q.xc4 loses to 14 b4 tfja3 15 bxcS �xc3 16 gd tfjd4 17 .Q.e3+ -) 13 �d6 gadS 14 {jxe6 gxe6 15 b4 tfja3 16 c5± Taimanov. c) 11 ... d5?! 12 c£jg5 4Jc5 13 tf}c2 d4 14 {Ja4 4:Jfd7 15 gad1 �e7 16 4:'JxcS 4:jxcS 17 b4 4Jd7 1S e3 dxe3 19 gfe1 with advantage to White; Andersson - Marovic, Banja Luka 1979. d) 11 . . . 4jeS 12 {jg5 (Passive is 12 b3 �f6 13 gad d5 14 cxd5 4jb4 15 tfjd2 4:jxd5 16 �e5 tf}e7 17 �xg7 4:'Jxg7 1S 4Jd4 4:'Jxc3 19 gxc3 !l.f7= Neverov - Malan­ iuk, Herson 19S9) 12 ... tfjd7 (Consideration should be given to 12 ... 4Jc5 13 {jxe6 4Jxe6 Taimanov) 13 b3 h6 14 4Jxe6 '{tJxe6 15 .,Cle3 4:Jf6 with a slightly more comfortable position for White; Romanishin - Vaganian, USS R 1976.

Returning to the position after 11 ... 4Je4 {52).

w

� ::t � .�

��

��" �

� + � -� �� .... 4l � � .t: ...... �< � A"\ � � .... +�

� � �::t � �jt �4) � � �

·� �� /.'\ � 0 ·� �� �.

� �LJ 12

�

;it� �;it � � �·'/�- -'l� �g �

{jxe4 The attempt to play 12 @4 does not give anything more than equality: 12 ... Jlf7 13 4Jxe4 fxe4 14 tflxe4 45:5 15 tf}e3 �xc4. 12 . . . fxe4 13 �xe4 4Jc5 13 ... .Q.f5 14 tf}e3 flxb2 (Pos­ sible is 14 ... tfjb6 15 'ttJx.b6 axb6 16 flxd6 gfe8 17 4:Jh4 �xb2 1S 4jxf5 .Q.xa1 19 4Je7+ � 20 gxal gadS 21 .kla3 gd2 22 flh3 4Jc5 23 QxcS bxc5 24 4JcS gexe2 and the active black rooks maintain the balance; Berg - Fleck, West Germany 19S7) 15 gad1 geS 16 tfjd2 tf}f6 17 e3! Qa3 1S 4Jd4 flb4 19 tf}e2 fld7 20 h4 with good attacking chances; Vukic Kaiszauri, Skara 19SO. 14 �e3 Not 14 �c2? Qf5 15 �d2 c£je4 16 tf}e3 geS 17 tfja3 tfjb6 1S �d d5 with a strong initiative for the pawn; Nordstron1 - Niklas­ son, Sweden 197 4. �xc4 14 15 �ad1 �e8 �xe2 16 �c1

46 Main line with 7 . dj ..

17 rxxd6 �aS 18 .Q.d2 �bS 4Jd3 19 4Jd4 Weaker is 19 ... �d3?! 20 .O,e3 �4 ?! 21 gd7 c5 and now White should have played 22 gel! cxd4 23 gxg7+ �g7 24 �h6+ � 2S �4+ 4j'6 26 ,O_d5+ winning; Y usupov - Barbero, Mendoza 1985. 20 4Jxb5 4Jxc1 �xf1 21 4Jc7 rxed8 22 .Q.xf1 23 rxxd8+ rxxd8 rxd1 24 .Q.xc1 25 -'l_e3 �7 (53) 53 w

Black's chances are by no means worse in the endgame; Shneider - Berkovich, Nikolaev 1987.

54 B

h3 !JJ7 12 .O,a3 �8 13 4Jxf7 gxf7 14 gel 4:)t6 15 h4 4:)tc7 16 e4 f4+ Ribli - Sax, Hungary 1971. b) 10 4Jd2 (Artificial) 10 ... 4Jbd7 11 �c2 4Jb6 12 4:)t4 �a4 13 �a4 �e7 and White had wasted time on the queenside in Etruk - Holmov, Moscow 1%5; Botvinnik suggests 12 b3 d5 with equality. c) Nothing more than equal­ ity is gained by 10 �f4 ,O.xc4 11 .O,xd6 ge8 12 �d4 (12 �5 .O,e6 13 �d3 4Jbd7 14 �d7 {Jxd7 15 gfdl '{1Jf6= Aronson - Hasin, Moscow 1956) 12 ... -'ld5 13 .Q.xb8 �xf3 14 �xd8 gxd8 15 �xf3 gaxb8= larsen - Palatnik, Palma de Mall orca 1989. 10 4Ja6 Other moves have also been tried (Botvinnik recommends 10 ... aS!?) : a) 10 ... h6 11 �4 !J..f7 12 !J..b2 4:J:t6 13 gel ge8 (13 .. . d5!? Botvinnik) 14 gc2 d5 15 cxd5 {Jxd5 16 �d5 �xd5 17 gd2 with advantage to White; Spiridonov - Stanciu, Bucharest 1973. ...

A112 10 b3 (54) White tries to gain a posi­ tional advantage with quiet moves, not risking complicated tactical variations. Other tenth moves are not promising for White: a) 10 c:£:g5?! (The pawn sac­ rifice is incorrect) 10 . . . �c4 11

Main IJne with 7 . . c6 47 .

b) 10 ... �h8 11 �a3 (More passive is 11 �b2 4Jab 12 e3 d5 13 cxd5 4:]xd5= Najdorf - Panna, Mar del Plata 1%8) 11 ... �8 12 t/Jc2 4Jab 13 gacil t/JaS (13 ... t/Je7!? - Botvinnik) 14 �b2 gd8 15 e3 t/Jc7 16 c£je2 �5 17 4Jf4 �8 18 {JgS t/Je7 19 h4± Chap­ linsky - Dmitriev, USSR 1973. c) 10 ... �4 ?! (Unjustified active play) 11 4:]xe4 �xa1 (11 ... fxe4 12 �4 !J.f1 13 �xe4 t/Je7 14 .o,g2 cS 15 �2 �xa1 16 4:]xa1 4):.:6 17 4):2 with more than sufficient compensation; Kar­ ner - Etruk, Parnu 1%7) 12 t/Jxd6 (Alternatively: 12 {Jxd6 �7 {12 ... �e7 13 e4 with an unclear position - Botvinnik} 13 4:Jxb7 t/Jxd1 14 gxd1± Krogius Elizarov, USS R 1967; or 12 �hb � 7 13 !J.xg 7 �g 7 14 t/Jd4+ �8 15 4:]xd6 t/Je7 16 e4 fxe4 17 4:Jxe4 4:::-P7 18 ge1co Bukhman Blekhtsin, Leningrad 1%8; or 12 �5!? {12 frgS!?} 12 . . . 'lf1c7 13 t/Jxd6 - Botvinnik) 12 ... t/Jxd6 (Others are bad: 12 ... �f7 13 �5 'lf1d7 14 !J.h6± - Leonidov; or 12 .. . ge8 13 t/Jxd8 gxd8 14 4):5± ; or 12 ... t/Je8 13 4Jc5 �c8 14 !J.hb !J£7 15 �xg7 �g7 16 �5 with an attack - Malich) 13 {Jxd6 !J.c8 (13 . bb 14 �5 !J.fb ..

{14 ... JJ.c3 15 JJ.e7 cfja6 16 c[ES JJ.d7 17 jJ.xfB J1xf8 and Black has no real compensation for the pawn; Ibragimov - Beshu­ kov, Smolensk 1991} 15 �xfb gxf6 16 �8 gf7 17 �5 ge7 18 {jxeb with a decisive advantage for White - Malich) 14 .Qg5 !J.f6

15 �xf6 gxf6 16 {jxc8 �> 17 �7+ �8 18 {jxc6 bxc6 19 cfjeS with a White advantage; Syre Paehtz, East Germany 1975. Returning to the position after 10 ... {Jab (55). 55 w

11 -'lb2 Also possible are: a) 11 �e3 t/Je7 12 gel 4):5 13 �d4 �d7 (13 . .. aS!?) 14 t/Jd2 � with possibilities for both sides; Vaganian - Knezevic, Leningrad 1977. b) 11 {Jg5!? �e7 (The retreat 11 ... �c8!? deserves considera­ tion: 12 ;gb1 {12 Jlb2 cfjcS 13 �c2

�e7 14 f1ad1 Jld7 15 �d2 cfYB 16 lffe1 lfd8 17 f4 and White is on top; Gulko - Dolmatov. Mos­ cow GMA 1990} 12 ... �e7 13 'lf1c2 �d7 {13 ... h6?! 14 cfJ£3 c£)c5 15 iJ.a3? [15 cfjh4!? - Taim­ anov1 15 ... 1J.e6 16 lfbd1 JXadB 17 e31J.f7 with an excellent game for Black; Petrosian - Knezevic, Banja Luka 1979} 14 e3 gadS 15 gd1 !J.c8 16 4Jf3 gfe8 with an equal game; Paehtz - Kuczyn­ sky, Dresden 1988) 12 4:]xe6 (12 �b2 is considered under the move order 11 .O,.b2 �e7 12 4JgS)

4S Main line with 7 .. c6 .

12 ... tfitxe6 13 .cla3 gadS 14 get with an unclear position Taimanov. c) Mter the forcing 11 .cla3?! tf}aS 12 tf}xd6? gfe8 13 .clb2 4Y4 14 4Jxe4 .clxb2 15 4:JegS gadS White loses the exchange. d) 11 .clf4!? 4:JhS 12 !,ld2 (White gains nothing more than equality after 12 .QgS tf}aS 13 4):14 tf}xc3 14 4Jxe6 tfftxa1 15 tfftxa1 .klxa1 16 4jxfS _klhS 17 {Je6 geS 1S {Jf4 {jxf4 19 Qxf4 gxe2 20 �xd6 gxa2) 12 . . . c£jcS 13 tf}c2 aS 14 gadt f4 15 �c1 tf}e7 (Tuk­ makov recommends 15 ... _klfS!? 16 tf}d2 fxg3 17 hxg3 tf}b6 18 �4 _kld7CX) ) 16 4:Jd4 _kld7 17 a3 with an unbalanced position; lllil mann - Vaiser, Szirak 1985. 11 't!Je7 Very serious consideration should be given to 11 . . {JcS!? 12 4:::::g S tf}e7 13 tf}d2 gadS 14 {Jxe6 tfftxe6 15 gad1 gfe8 16 tf}c2 (56) .

56 B

12 4Jg5 12 4):14 leads to equality after 12 ... �f7 13 _kla3 c£jcS 14 gel gad8 1S e3 gfe8 16 cfFe2tf}c7 17 tf}c2 a6 1S {Jf4 c£jce4 1f2 � Pinter - Dolmatov, Beersheva 1991. A tnore complicated alter­ native is 12 tf}c2 dS 13 cxdS and now: a) 13 ... 4JxdS 14 {Ja4 (14 {JxdS _klxdS 15 Qxg7 tfftxg 7

rK.immelfeld leonidov, USSR 1969} 16 gadt when the follow­ -

ing 4JgS gives White a slightly preferable position according to Kir. Georgiev) 14 ... {Jf6 (14 ... 4]ili4= - Kir . Georgiev) 15 gadt gadS 16 c£jc3 �5 17 4Jxd5 -'lxdS 18 -'lxg7 �g 7 (1S ... tfftxg 7 19 {JxgS± ) 19 tf}c3+ tf}f6 20 Vf1e3 b6 21 {JeS {Jb4 22 f4 with slightly better chances for White; Kir. Georgiev - lvkov, Sarajevo 1986. b) 13 ... 4:Jb4! 14 tf}ct 4JfxdS 15 4)14 gadS 16 .clxg7 tf}xg7 17 a3 4JID 18 e3 -'lc8= Scheeren Kovacevic, Thessaloniki 1984. 12 cijcS Also playable are: a) 12 . . gadS!? 13 4jxe6 tfitxe6 14 tf}c2± Farago - Bomgasser, Dortmund 197S. b) 12 ... _kld7 13 tf}c2 (or 13 tf}d2 gadS 14 gad1 _klcS 15 gfet h6 16 {f3± Dorfman - Dolmato v, Moscow GMA 1990) 13 ... gadS 14 gad1 h6 15 4Jf3 ,O.e6 16 gfe1 cfF5 17 0f4 gives White a slightly better game; Farago Renner, Bad Worishofen 1991. . . .

.

This position arose in the game Bukic - Rakic, Ljubljana 1981. The situation should be con­ sidered equal, as Black's pieces control the central squares, but White has a useful bishop pair.

Main Line with 7 �d7?! 13 tt;Jc2 z;radB 14 z;radt 15 b4 4Je6 16 4:Jf3 The exchange on e6 gives Black a good game: 16 {Jxe6 �xe6 17 b5 �xc4 18 bxm bxm 19 �xm �e6 20 �bS gc8 21 �xc4 �c4= O'Kelly - Botvin­ nik, Palma de Mallorca 1%7. 16 �c8 17 e3 White has a slight spatial advantage; Uhlmann - l.utikov, leipzig 1977. A12 9

dxc6 (57)

57 B

In this section we shall examine the possibilities where White avoids the usual 9 dxe6 and chooses more off-beat continuations. Black normally achieves an equal game without too many difficulties. No problems for Black arise after 9 e4 cxd5 (9 ... c5?! 10 exf5 gxf5 11 cfjh4 {li c£Jg5!? - Botvinnik} 11 ... c£Ja6 12 f4 e4 13 �h3 �8 14 a3 t;5lc7 15 �e3 intend­ ing �h5; with a slight advan-

...

c6 49

tage for White; Bertok - Knez­ evic, Yugoslavia 1%7) 10 cxd5 {Ja6 11 exf5 (11 �5?! h6 12 Qxf6 �6 13 exf5 gxf5 and Black's chances are better; Cvetkov Kotkov, Bulgaria - USSR 1957) 11 . . gxf5 (After 11 ... �xf5 12 r0g5 �e7 13 h3 h6 14 {Jge4 White has a powerful central knight; Magerramov - Vaiser, Nimes 1991) 12 c£Jh4· (12 {Jg5!?) with possibilities for both sides - Botvinnik. 9 bxc6 Also interesting is 9 ... {Jxm 10 cfjbS?! (10 �5!?) 10 ... e4 11 4:Jfd4 d5 12 c5 4Je8 13 gb1 a6 14 cfjxm bxm 15 4:Jd4 �6 16 e3 aS+ Glek - Palatnik, Tallinn 1986. 10 b3 There is no danger in 10 �d2 e4 11 4:Jd4 �e7 12 4Jc2 �e6 13 b3 @6 14 ,O_a3 4Jc5 15 gadl gfd8 16 f3 �f7 17 �e3 with an obscure position; Chikovani - Holmov, Vani 1985. 10 e4! (58) ·.

58

w

After 10 ... e4 Black gains space for manoeuvre. Other moves are weaker:

SO

Main line with 7 . c6 ..

a) 10 ... �e8 11 �a3 d5 12 cxd5 cxdS?! 13 �d !lb7 14 4Jh5 �c6 15 {Jl6 �e6 16 c£Jc4 �4 17 �b2 and Black finds himself in a critical situation; Vogt - Cas­ per, East Germany 1979. b) 10 ... 'tfJe7 11 �a3 �d8 12 e4 4Ja6 13 �e1 {Jxe4 14 4Jxe4 fxe4 15 4:Jd2 �5 16 4jxe4 {jxe4 17 �xe4 �b7 (Dvoretsky - Kais­ zauri, Vilnius 1978) 18 'tfJf3 with a more active position for White. 11

12 13 14 15

4Jd4 -'la3 t!Jd2 !!ad1 4Ja4

the7 ,O.b7 4Ja6 r_tad8 r_tfe8

Black maintains equality; Eingom - Dolmatov, USSR Ch 1989.

A2 8

t!Jc7 (59)

59 w

variation is nowadays.

9

not often

seen

4Jd4

It is too early yet to play Y e4 cxd5 10 cxd5 fxe4 11 �5 4Ja6 (The deployment of the black bishop with 11 ... �4 12 �e1 � 13 4:J:xe4 4Jxe4 14 �e4 �fS 15 'tfJh4 h6 {S. Sokolov - Antoshin, USSR 1963} 16 4Je6 gives White a slight initiative) 12 4):xe4 {jxe4 13 {jxe4 !lf5 and, according to Antoshin, the game is equal.

cS

9

Black remains under attack following Y ... �e8?! 10 e4 fxe4 11 {jxe4 c5 12 � �xe6 13 dxeb {jxe4 14 �xe4 c£Jc6 15 h4; Chap­ linsky Yablanovsky, Moscow 1968. Even worse is Y ... e5? 10 dxe6 4Ja6 11 Slf4 4Jh5?! 12 c£jdb5! with a winning position for White; Gaprindashvili - Gurieli, USSR 1Y80. -

10

4Jc2

An inappropriate attacking move is 10 4Je6 ?! �xe6 11 dxe6 � 12 e4 (Mter 12 ;gb1 �ab8 13 b3 �c8 14 �b2 �h8 15 -'ld5 4Jf4 White lost a pawn in Barcza Antoshin, USSR 1964) 12 .. fxe4 13 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 14 .O,xe4 �h8 15 h4 �d4 16 �g2 'tfJc8 17 !ld5 {Jb4 and Black is fine; Bertok Antoshin, Zagreb 1965. .

Black avoids forcing the course of the game by ... e7 - e5. His positional plan is analogous to the variation 7 ... �e8, but in this case, if White plays accurately, Black runs into difficulties and thus this

10 11

. . .

4Jbd7

ID>t

The immediate 11 f4 is not sufficient for an advantage: 11 ... a6 12 a4 �e8 13 �d3 4Jf8= Szabo - Antoshin, Budapest

Main line with 7 . . c6 51 .

1973.

11 � 12 b3 4Je5 13 .Q.b2 ID>B Also better for White is 13 ... .Q.d7 14 f4 �g4 15 e4 gae8 16 h3 4Jh6 17 exfS gxfS 18 {Je3, as in Vyzmanavin - Antoshin, Moscow 1983. 14 f4 liJf7 15 a4 15 �d3?! (This allows Black to relieve the pressure) 15 ... bS 16 t[je3 Qd7= Toran - Tal, Skopje 1972. 15 .Q.d7 16 �d3 (60) 60 B

61 w

a) 8 . . . cxdS 9 cxdS 4.Ja6 (9 ... aS 10 Qe3 4:Jlxl7 11 �d4 {):S 12 a4 �d7 13 �xeS dxcS 14 �b3 �h8 15 gad1 �8 16 e4 with a marked advantage to White; Vaganian - Borngasser, Mex­ ico 1977) 10 !le3 (10 4514 {):S 11 h3 {11 b31J.d7 12 1J.b2 �b6 13 ;gel

aS with an equal game in Schmidt - Pytel, Poland 1974; or 11 c£)b3 cf)ce4 12 JJ.e3 cfjxc3 13 bxc31J.d7 14 lJel �eB 15 c4 b6= Kavalek - Ciocaltea, Harrachov 1966} 11 ... aS {11 ... 1J.d7 12 tf;h2 lJcB= Pytel - Eisling, Wijk aan Zee 1974} 12 �e3 !ld7 13 �h2

this Botvinnik considers position slightly preferable for White.

AJ

.Q.d7 (61} 8 In this section we shall look

at continuations for Black that lost their popularity long ago and are important only from the point of view of the de­ velopment of Leningrad theory. Here are the remaining branches on the eighth move:

4:JhS 14 f4 a4 15 gel �aS and Black has no problems; Dun­ kelblum - Ciocaltea, Netanya 1%5) 10 ... !ld7 11 �d4 h6 12 4512 gS 13 e4 fxe4 14 4:Jdxe4 !JJS 15 �d2 4:Jxe4 16 4:Jxe4 Qxd4 17 �d4 �b6= l.angeweg - Pytel, Dortmund 1975; 15 gel 4:Jc7 16 �d2 �d7 17 gael± - Botvinnik. b) 8 .. . cS?! (A clear loss of time) 9 �c2± - Botvinnik. c) 8 . . . �b6?! 9 ;gbt �d7 10 !le3 �b4 11 �d3 4Ja6 12 a3 �aS 13 b4 �d8 14 4514 and White is better; Ruehrig - Buecker,

52 Main line with 7 ... c6 West Germany 1987. d) 8 ... �aS (62) and now:

d1) Black gains a slight advantage after 9 �b3?! cxd5 10 cxd5 4:Ja6 11 �e3 �d7 12 ;gfd ;gfc8 13 �d1 [[y:_5 14 4Jd4 @4 with an active game; O'Kelly Uebert, Varna 1962. d2) Also ineffective is 9 a3 �a6 10 � cxd5 (10 ... e5 11 b4 e4! 12 dxc6 bxc6 with the initia­ tive; Dolezal - Uebert, Dresden 1957) 11 cxd5 c£jlxl7 12 a4 c£je5 13 4Jh5 �b6 14 c£Jf3 {jxf3+ 15 �xf3 �d7 16 �e3 �aS= Gheorghiu lombardy, Buenos Aires 1979. d3) Interesting is 9 �!? �a6 10 ;gb1 cxd5 11 cxd5 c£jlxl7 12 �e1 bS 13 a3 �b6 14 c£Jf3 4:J:S?! 15 ,O_e3 and Black's posi­ tion is very constricted; An­ dersson - Panna, Buenos Aires 1979. d4) Another idea is 9 �d2!? �b6 (9 ... �a6 10 b3 cxd5 11 cxd5 4:Jhd7 with equal chances; Wrrthensohn - Jansa, Caorle 1972) 10 ;gb1 �h8 11 �e3 �a6 12 b3 cxd5 13 cxd5 c£jlxl7 14 a4 and the threat of 15 4:Jh5 gives White the advantage; lvkov -

lombardy. d5) 9 4Jd4 �cS and now: d51) 10 �e3 4:}g4!? 11 {jxf5 c£jxe3 12 c£Jxe3 �h8 13 a3 aS 14 ;gc1 �a7 15 �d2 a4 with some compensation for the sacrificed pawn in Gauglitz - Lukov, Halle 1987; whilst after 10 ... �c4 White seizes a decisive initia­ tive: 11 ;gc1 �a6 12 dxc6 c£Jxc6 (12 ... bxc6 13 4)::b5) 13 �b3+ �h8 14 c£jcbS c£jxd4 15 ,O_xd4 �aS 16 {57 gb8 17 c£Je6 �xe6 18 �e6 ;gfe8 19 �c2 c£jh5 20 �xg7+ ctJxg7 21 �f7 �d8 22 ;gfd ;gf8 23 �d5. d52) 10 Qg5 Uansa) 10 ... h6 11 �xf6 �xf6 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 c£jxc6 c£jxc6 14 �d5+ �d5 15 �xd5+ �7 16 Qxc6 gb8 with counterplay for the pawn Taimanov. dS3) 10 �d3?! 4Jg4 11 c£Jf3 ( Ogaard - Akvist, Oslo 197 4) 11 ... c£Jd7 with a favourable posi­ tion for Black - Botvinnik. d54) 10 QXc6 bxc6 11 4Jdb5 �b6 with possibilities for both sides in Langeweg - Jansa, Am­ sterdam 1974, e.g. 12 c5 dxcS 13 �b3+ �h8 14 �f4 c£ja6 with an unclear position. 9 ro> t Other moves are: a) 9 4Jd4 �b6 10 e3 (10 4:Jh3 4:Ja6 11 �e3 c5 12 gb1 c£jc7 13 4):12 �a6 14 �c2 and Black has no problems; Kestler - Bueck­ er, Bundesliga 1990/91) 10 ... 4)m 11 Bb1 (11 b3 {55 12 �b2 aS= Spiridonov - Akesson, Po­ lanica Zdroj 1981) 11 ... {55 (11 ...

Main line with 7 {F7 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 b4- e5a:) Harding) 12 b4 4Jce4 13 c£yt4 �a6?! (13 ... �c7 14 f3 c£::gs 15 e4± Palatnik - Gulko, Kiev 1973; 15 ... e5!?) 14 f3 c£::g5 15 b5 cxbS 16 cxbS �aS 17 .,(ld2 Wd8 18 �b3 with a good game for White; lvkov - Buecker, Dort­ mund 1989. b) 9 �e3 4Ja6 10 �d2 0g4 11 .of4 4:Jc5 12 h3 �6 13 �h6 {Fe4 14 {}xe4 fxe4 15 4:Jh4 ?! gf7+ Kaemer - Gavrikov, Tallinn 1987. c) Also ineffective is 9 Wc2 c£yt6 10 a3 cxd5 11 cxd5 gc8 12 4)14 4:JcS+ - Harding. 9 4Ja6 10 b3 If 10 b4 {[y:.7 11 4):14 e5 12 dxe6 {}xe6 13 e3 f4 14 {[y:.e2 fxg3 15 hxg3 c:£:g5 and Black has good counterplay; Schoen Buecker, Bundesliga 1990/91. 10 {JcS 11 �b2 aS 12 �d2 �b6 13 {Jd4 (63)

...

c6 S3

14 �fd1 White's chances are slightly preferable; Ribli - Mestel, Lon­ don 1986. B 8

�c2 (64)

64 B

In the present section we discuss 8 �c2 which prepares the advance e2 - e4. In com­ parison with the usual 8 dS, this presents less difficulties for Black who usually intends to play ... e7 - e5; the surest way to equality. In practice this variation has not been particu­ larly successful for White. Black has several alternative eighth moves:

Bt 8 . . . �c7 B2 8 . . . 4Ja6 B3 8 . . . \tlh8 and others B1

13 Probably 13 worth trying.

...

�ad8?! cxdS!? is

�c7 8 e4 9 Others fail to impress: a) 9 dS does not give the advantage: 9 ... cxdS 10 cxdS 4]24 11 Qd2 Qd 7 12 gad gc8

54 Main line with 7

...

c6

with equality; Soloviev - Alek­ seev, Moscow 1972. b) 9 �S eS 10 dxeS dxeS 11 e4 � 12 exfS 1lxfS 13 �e2 gae8 14 4Jd2 {FS and the black pieces are well developed; Fuderer - Dimic, Yugoslavia 1953. c) 9 b3 eS 10 dxeS dxeS 11 1la3 gd8 ( 11 . . . ge8 12 gad1 1lf8 13 �xf8 gxf8 14 e4 f4 with an unclear position in Scherbakov - Volovic, USS R 1966) 12 e4 fxe4 13 c:£jgS £lfS 14 c:£jgxe4 c£jxe4 15 4Jxe4 4:Jd7= Keller Nilsson, Munich 1958. d) 9 gel 4:):16 10 e4 fxe4 11 c£jxe4 �fS 12 4Jh4? (Equality is achieved after 12 4:]xf6+ exf6 13 �c3 - Botvinnik) 12 ... c:£jg4 with a black initiative in Urbanec Vesely, Prague 1957. e) 9 gdl also results in equality: 9 ... aS 10 b3 � 11 a3 eS; l.Dkvenc - Hort, Marian­ ske l.azne 1962. 9 fxe4 The ilnmediate 9 ... eS!? is possible: 10 dxeS dxeS 11 exfS �S (Problems arise after 11 ... gxfS 12 gel 4Je8 13 �e2 4:Jd7 14 �S e4 15 �f4± Koblencs Ostrauskas, USSR 1961) 12 �e2 4Jhd7 13 �e3 gae8 14 h3 4Je4 15 c£jxe4 �xe4= Filip - Nei, Bever­ wijk 1966 . 10 �e4 �e4 Not bad is 10 ... 1lfS 11 4Jh4 c£jxe4 12 1lxe4 e6 13 �e3 4:Jd7 14 {jxfS exfS 15 �2 4Jf6= Starck - Uebert, East Germany 1962. 11 �xe4 .o_rs

eS 12 �h4 dxeS 13 dxeS 14 .Q.h6 4Ja6 Z;!ae8 15 Z;!ad1 .Q.xh6 16 thgS 17 �xh6 �4 �xh3 18 .Q.h3 19 thxh3 The game is equal; Gofstein - Bikhovsky, USSR 1977. B2

4Ja6 (65)

8 65 w

Black's last move leads to a slow position in which White has no reason to hope for the advantage. 9 Z;!d1 Four other possibilities have been tried without success: a) 9 dS?! eS (9 ... cxdS 10 cxdS 1ld7 with a good game for Black) 10 dxe6 �xe6 11 b3 {Jb4 ?! (11 .. . �e7 (JJ �-5} 12 £la3!? and if 12 .. . c£je4, then 13 {Jxe4 fxe4 14 �e4 �xa1 15 gxa1 and White has adequate compensa­ tion) 12 �d2 �e7 13 �a3 aS 14 4::.g S gad8 15 c£jxe6 �xe6 16 gad1± Maliutin - Oratovsky, jurmala 1989. ...

Main line with 7 b) 9 �d2?! 4:Jh5 10 d5 e5 11 dxe6 �xe6 12 b3 f4 13 gad1 .Q.f5 14 �cl g5 15 �e1 �e7 with a black initiAtive; Usitsin - Luti­ kov, USS R 1955. c) 9 a3?! �e8 (Black has several satisfactory alternatives here: 9 ... t;J::_7 10 gdt �h8 11 dS .kld7 12 dxc6 bxcb 13 h3 {Jet> 14 b4 aS= Averbakh - Hasin, USSR 1956; 9 ... 4:JhS 10 e4 ?! {10 JXdl �e8 11 dS= - Botvinnik} 10 ... f4 11 �2 e5 12 dxe5 dxeS 13 c5 �7 and Black has good prospects of becoming active on the kingside; Hernandez Knezevic, Varna 1976; or 9 ... �h8 10 .Qg5 .Q.e6 11 b3 gc8 12 �d3 .Qg8 13 gad1 �aS and after ... e7 - e5 Black's position may be considered preferable; Zam­ ikovsky - Borisenko, USSR 1956) 10 dS eS 11 dxe6 .Q.xe6 12 b3 d5 13 cxdS {Jxd5 14 .Q.b2 f4 and Black seized the initiative in Beninson - Pelikan, Argentina 1959. d) 9 b3 �e8 10 .Q.a3 gb8 11 b4 �7 12 gadt �h8 13 d5 cxd5 14 cxdS �d7 15 4:Jd4 gc8 with an equal game; Doda - Bertholdt, I..eningrad 1960.

9 10

�e8 (66} b3

Also possible is 10 dS h6?! (10 ... cxdS 11 cxdS Qd7 12 4:Jd4 gc8= ; 10 ... eS!? - Botvinnik) 11 4):14 eS 12 dxe6 .Q.xe6 13 e4 �xc4 14 exf5 with advantage to White; Eliskases - Pelikan, Argentina 1960.

10

. . .

h6

...

c6 SS

66 w

11

.0.b2

gS

11 . . . e5 should also be taken into account here: 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 e3?! (13 Qa3 gf7 14 Qd6co Botvinnik) 13 . . . e4 14 �1 4Jg4 15 �2 �5 and Black is better; Goldenberg - Pelikan, Argen­ tina 1YOO.

12 13 14 15 16

dS 4Je1 e3 exf4 �e2

cS �hS f4 gxf4

A state of dynamic equili­ brum exists on the board; Goldenberg - Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1961.

B3 8

�h8

(67)

56 Main line with

7

.

.. c6

Here we conclude our survey of the variations with 8 tf1ic2. First, we consider some ex­ amples where Black chooses rarely-seen possibilities on his eighth move. a) 8 ... h6? 9 �4 (9 gd1 tf1ie8 10 d5 cxd5 11 cxd5 4)ID 12 c£jd4 .,O.d7 13 b3 "ttff1 with equal chan­ ces; Polugayevsky - liebert, Reykjavik 1957) 9 ... tf1ie8 10 f4 with e4 to follow (;t ) liebert. b) a ... �5 9 b3 (9 d5± Botvinnik) 9 . .. e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 .,O.a3 ge8 12 gad1 �6 13 gd6 .O,.e6 (llievsky - Knezevic, Skopje 1967) 14 �5!± . 8 ... �h8 is a useful but rarely seen alternative to the popular 8 ... tf11c7 and 8 ... 4Ja6. 9 .Q.gS More solid is 9 b3 !J..e6 10 .,O.b2 (10 �5!? Qg8 11 e4 fxe4 12 4):xe4 4Jbd7 13 Qb2 worked out well for White in Neverov Savchenko, Herson 1989) 10 ... 4Jbd7 o o _ega 11 :gac11 4Jbd7 12 e3 gc8 13 4Je1 bS 14 cxb5 cxbS 15 tf1ie2 a6= Bolbochan Apschneek, Buenos Aires 1939) 11 e4 fxe4 12 4Jxe4 ,O.f5 13 4Jh4 .O,.xe4 14 .O,.xe4 4Jxe4 15 �e4 e5 16 gad1 (16 dxe5 dxe5 17 gad1± ; 16 ... 4Jxe5= ) 16 ... 4Jf6 17 tf1ig2 e4+ Arbakov - Palatnik, Uz­ gorod 1988. 9 .Q.e6 10 b3 Better than 10 d5 cxd5 11 4)i4 �8 12 cxd5 4Ja6 13 gfd1 gc8 14 tf1id2 ( 14 4)ibS 4Jb4 15 tf1Jb3 aS with equal chances -

...

Botvinnik) 14 ... 4jc5 15 4Jb3 (15 !J..xf6 .O,.xf6 16 e3= - Botvinnik) 15 . .. 4jce4 16 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 17 Qxe4 fxe4 18 Qe3 gfS with advantage to Black; Mecking Botvinnik, Hastings 1966/67. 4Jbd7 10 . . . 11 �ad1 dS! With equal chances; Beliav­ sky - Yusupov, Reykjavik 1988. c

8

�e1 (68)

In this short section we shall take a glance at the unfashion­ able rook move which, as with 8 tf1ic2, creates no serious prob­ lems for Black, as White is not easily able to achieve e2 - e4. 8 4Je4 Black takes advantage of the lack of protection of the e4square. Since e2 - e4 is not threatened hnmediately, other moves are possible: a) 8 ... 4Ja6 9 b3 (9 a3 tf11c7 {9 .(J_e6} 10 b4 ,O_d7 11 tf1ib3 gae8 12 cS+ with a better game for White - Schwarz) 9 ... tf11aS (9 ... �4!? - Botvinnik) 10 .O,.d2 tf11c7 11 e4 4Jxe4 12 4Jxe4 fxe4 13 ...

Main line with 7 . c6 57 ..

:9:xe4 �S 14 :9:e3 cS (14 ... eS!? Botvinnik) 15 .Q,c3 �4 16 h3 cxd4 17 .Q,xd4 with a slight advantage to White; Popov Eisling, Wijk aan Zee 197 4. b) 8 ... 'ffjc? (Black in his tum prepares to play ... e? - eS, relieving the pressure) 9 e4 fxe4 10 4:jxe4 4:jxe4 11 :9:xe4 eS 12 dxeS dxeS 13 .o.,gs h6 14 �d2 .O.fS 15 :9:e1 4Jd7 with the inten­ tion of ... :9:ae8= Bondarevsky llebert, Rostov 1961, c) 8 ... {JhS (With the idea of answering e2 - e4 with ... fS f4) 9 h3 (9 dS f4 10 4)14 'ffjbb 11 e3 fxg3 12 hxg3 cS 13 4Jebco K. Arkell - Pein, British Ch 1989) 9 ... eS 10 dxeS (10 e4 exd4 11 4:jxd4 f4 12 g4 4:Jf6 13 4:Jce2 'ffjb6 and Black's position is not worse; Gheorghiu - Sax, Tees­ side 1972) 10 ... dxeS 11 'ffjxd8 :9:xd8 12 e4 :9:e8 and Black maintains the balance - Taim­ anov.

9

anov.

9

10 bxc3 Or 10 'ffjxc3 eS 11 dxeS dxeS 12 e4 f4 13 cS 'ffje? 14 b4 aS 15 a3 axb4 16 axb4 :9:xa1 17 'fflxat {Jab 18 'ffja3 ,Og 4 and Black seized the initiative in Hillarp Persson - Kaiszauri, Stockholm 1988.

10 11

-

... e4

eS �aS

Botvinnik recommends two other possibilities: 11 ... fxe4!? and 11 .. dS!? . .

12

.Q.gS

dS

Not 12 .. �e8? 13 {Jh4 f4 14 gxf4 h6 15 .O,xh6 �h6 16 �g3 �7 17 'ffjxg6 :9:f8 18 4:Jf'S .Q,xfS 19 exfS e4 20 f6 and Black's game is under strong attack; Holmov Bannik , USSR 1962. .

-

13 14 15 16

�d3

Alternatively, 9 'ffjc2 4:jxc3 (9 ... dS!? 10 e3 and according to Taimanov, the manoeuvre 4:Jc3 - e2 - f4 - d3 gives a slight advantage to White. But this takes a great deal of time and evidently Black's chances of equality after ... �eb and ... 4)17 are good; or 10 �S e6 11 f3 0f6 12 b3 4Jd7 13 4:jxd7 'ffjxd? 14 .0.e3 b6 15 cxdS exdS and Black has no real weaknesses; Burmakin Vasiukov, Leningrad 1991) 10 bxc3 eS and the chances are equal according to Taim-

4jxc3

Not 9 ... {jao 10 4:jxe4 {jb4 11 {Jf6+ .Q.xf6 12 'ffjb3 4Jao 13 .O,h6 :9:e8 14 cS+ and White maintains a slight initiative; Renman Kristiansen, Copenhagen 1991.

cxdS �xe4 �c2 4JeS

fxe4 cxdS e4 4Jc6

According to Taimanov, Black has a promising game. D

8

b3

(69)

lbis is a natural developing move. We should like to call the reader's attention to the fact that in the present section variations are examined in which White is not in a hurry to move his bishop to b2. Posi-

58 Main line with 7

...

c6

69 B

tions after the premature �b2

are dealt with elsewhere.

�c7 8 Planning to meet 9 �b2 with 9 ... eS. Alternatively: a) 8 ... aS 9 �a3! (For 9 ,klb2 see Chapter 5, variation A1113) 9 ... 4:Ja6 (9 ... �e8 10 �d3 4:Ja6 11 �ad1 4Jb4 12 �b1 eS 13 dxeS dxeS 14 4ja4 e4 15 4Jd4 bS 16 4:P6 with advantage to White; Chekhov - Vasiukov, Palma de Mallorca 1989) 10 �d .O,d7 11 dS cxdS 12 4Jxd5 c£je4 13 4Jd2 �5 14 �c2 e6 15 4:Jf4 4Jb4 16 �b1 flc6 17 .O,b2 (Busch - Ditt, West Germany 1989) 17 ... eS!? 18 4):15 4Jxd5!? 19 cxdS fle8 with equal chances. b) 8 ... �aS!? 9 �b2 (An alternative is 9 .O,d2 �c7 10 dS 4YID 11 �d 0J::5 12 .O,e3 4Jce4 13 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 �d4 eS 15 dxe6 .O,xe6 16 ,O_xg7 �xg7 17 4Jd4 �ae8 with an equal game; Lerner - Dolmatov, USSR 1989) 9 ... eS 10 dxeS (10 �d2 �c7 11 dxeS dxeS 12 e4 4Ja6! 13 exfS ,O_xfS= Polugayevsky - Dolma­ tov, Reykjavik 1990) 10 ... dxeS 11 e4 (11 4ja4 4Jbd7 12 �d2 �d2

13 4Jxd2 e4 14 �fd1 �e8 15 cS bS 16 cxb6 axb6 17 4Jc4 4):15 and Black has no problems; Prze­ woznik - Dolmatov, Dortmund 1992) 11 ... f4! ( 11 . . . fxe4 12 4):12?! e3 13 fxe3 �4 14 �e1 4Jbd7 15 4):le4 4Jxe4 16 4Jxe4 �xf1+ 17 .O,xf1 �c7! with a good game for Black; H. Olafsson - Dolmatov, Moscow 1989) 12 �d6?! (Correct was 12 a3 �c7 13 b4 with an un­ balanced position - Dolmatov; not so good was 12 4ja4?! �e8 13 �e1 �4 14 �d6 4:Pd7 15 .O,c3 �dB 16 �ad1 .O,f8 17 �d3 �c7 18 gxf4 c£jh.S 19 fxeS 4Jf4 and Black has good prospects against the white king; Browne - Dolmatov, Reykjavik 1990) 12 ... 4Je8 13 �d3 4Ylli 14 a3 0J::5 15 �c2 �c7 16 b4 4Je6 17 �b3 4):16 18 cS {§7 and Black achieved his goals on the kingside; D. Gurevich - Dolmatov, Palma de Mallorca GMA 1989. c) 8 ... 4:Ja6 9 .O,b2 transposes to Chapter S, variation A1112. d) 8 .. . �e8 transposes to Chapter 1, variation B4. 9 �a3 aS Alternatively: a) 9 ... �dB 10 �c2 eS 11 dxeS dxeS 12 �ad1± - Euwe. b) 9 ... 4Jg4 10 �d2 4Jd7 11 h3 4Jh6 12 dS cS 13 4JgS {j6 14 flb2 and White has the better chan­ ces; Wojtkiewicz - Donguines, Bacolod 1991. 10 �c1 4Ja6 In this position Karpov found an important innovation. 11 �d2! (70)

Main line

with 7

...

c6 59

chapter we shall examine rare possibilities for White's eighth move. 71 B

The older move was 11 dS �S (Bad is 11 ... �dB 12 4:Jj4 eS 13 dxe6 4Jc:S 14 �d2 a4 15 b4 {}xe6 16 4JdS!± Pirc - Fuderer, Yugoslavia 1953; Taimanov recommends 11 ... !ld7!?) 12 4:Jd4 eS?! (12 ... !ld7 - Taimanov) 13 dxe6 �e8 14 4:JdbS cxbS 15 {}xbS �b6 16 �d6 �d6 17 {}xd6 {Jxe6 18 {}xe8 4:Jxe8 19 �fd1 with advantage to White; Gulko - Kaiszauri, Vilnius 1978. 11 .Q.d7 12 �fe1 4Jb4 eS? ! 13 .O.b2 A mistake would have been 13 ... 4:Je4?! 14 {}xe4 fxe4 15 �S± . Karpov recommends 13 ... �ae8!?± . 14 a3 4Ja6 15 dxeS dxeS 16 4Jb5! cxbS 17 cxbS 4Jc5 18 .Q.xeS �b6 19 .Q.xf6 White has the advantage; Karpov - Yusupov, Unares 1989. E

8

.o,gs (71J

In the last section of this

In addition to the diagram move White has chosen several other possibilities: a) 8 !lf4?! h6 9 �c2 �e8 10 dS gS 11 !ld2 �hS 12 e3 cS 13 a3 4Jbd7 14 4JbS 4)28 15 !lc3 4:JeS with initiative to Black; Stahl­ berg - Nei, Erevan 1965. b) 8 �b3?! �h8 (Consider­ ation should be given to 8 ... �b6 9 �b6 axb6= Keller Bogoljubow, Dortmund 1951; 8 ... 0Pf> also leads to equality: 9 �d1 �c7 {futvinnik recom­

mends here 9 c£F7!? and 9 'lfjeB!?} 10 dS �S 11 tfjc2 eS 12 ...

...

dxe6 !lxe6 13 !l£4 �ad8 14 {:gS tfje7= Novotelnov - Hasin, USSR 1956) 9 �d1 (9 !lf4?! h6 10 �ad1 tfjeB 11 !ld 4:Ja6 12 a3 eS 13 dS �S 14 tfjc2 cxdS 15 cxdS !ld7 with advantage to Black; Wexler - Panno, Mar del Plata 1%8) 9 ... {Jab 10 dS (10 h3?! tfjeB 11 tfja3 4:Je4 12 �S {}xc3 13 bxc3 h6 14 4Jf3 � 15 dS cS+ Naranja - Larsen, Manila 1974) 10 . . . 4Jc:S 11 tfjc2 cxdS 12 Qe3

60

Main line with 7 . . c6 .

4):e4 13 CLjxdS c£jg4 14 {}i2 62Jxe3 15 62Jxe3 �6+ Marovic Lombardy, Banja Luka 1976. c) 8 ID>1?! 4"Je4 (8 ... aS 9 a3 �4 {9 cf)hS?! 10 b4 axb4 11 ...

axb4 f4 12 e3 eS 13 cS!::t Mar­ schner - Gallinns, West Ger­ many 1988} 10 CLjxe4?! fxe4 11 4::gS dS 13 �e3 h6 13 4jl3 gS 14 cxdS �dS and Black seized the initiative in Hergott - Kuczyn­ sky, St john 1988) 9 -'lf4 h6 10 tf11c2 62Jxc3 11 bxc3 (11 �c3!? Botvinnik) 11 ... gS 12 �c1 eS 13 ,O_a3 _ID7+ Suetin - Smejkal, Ljubljana 1973. d) 8 b4 aS 9 bS eS= - Botvin­

nik. e) 8 tff1d3 �h8 9 �s Qeb 10 �fe1 @d7 11 b3 dS 12 cxdS �xdS 13 CLjxdS cxdS 14 Qf4 tff1b6 15 �eel �ac8= Bilek - Holmov, Havana 1%5. 8

4Jbd7

Alternatively: a) 8 ... tff1e 8!? Y Qxf6 Qxf6 10 e4 tff1f7 11 eS �7 12 �e2 f4 13 h3 dxeS 14 dxeS 4:Ja6 15 �ad1 h6 and Black has sufficient coun­ terplay; Sideif-Zade - MaJaniuk, Baku 1983. b) 8 ... h6!? 9 .,Clxf6 .Q.xf6 (9 ... exf6?! 10 e3 ;ge8 11 �d2 4:Jd7 12 �fd1 4Jf8 13 b4 aS 14 bS hS 15 �1± Lutckis - Pelikan, Argen­ tina 1969) 10 e4 eS 11 exfS gxfS 12 dxeS dxeS 13 �c2 4Ja6 14 �ad1 �e7 15 �h3 ( Guimard Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1%8) 15 . � 7 16 c£jh4 �6= - Botvin­

Also playable is 9 �b3 �c 7?! (Y . . h6!?) 10 gad1 eS 11 cS dS 12 {JxeS {JxeS 13 dxeS �xeS 14 .Q.e3 �e 7 15 Qd4 Qeb 16 e3 gf7 17 4Je2 gSco (17 ... 4Y4!?) Nedelj­ kovic - Fuderer, Yugoslavia 1951. .

eS

9

Alternatively, Y ... �c7 10 gad1?! (10 Qh6 eS 11 .Q.xg7 �g7 12 dxeS dxeS 13 e4! fxe4 14 �S with better prospects for White - Botvinnik> 10 ... eS 11 dxeS dxeS 12 Qh6 Qxh6 13 �6 e4 14 4:Jd4 4"JeS 15 �c1 �d7 16 b3 �ae8 and Black has the initia­ tive; Usachi - Stein, USSR 1YS7.

10

,O.h6

less effective is 10 dxeS dxeS 11 .Q.h6 e4 12 Qxg7 �xg7 13 4Y1 4YS 14 �c1 Qeb 15 b3 tf11a5 and Black has more space; Szabo Hasenfuss, Kemeri 193Y.

10 11 12 13

,O_xg7 dxeS rtad1

�e7 �g7 dxeS 4Jc5

An interesting possibility is 13 ... e4!?.

14

�d6 (72)

..

nik. 9

�d2

The game is equal; Abroshin - llebert, corr. 1957.

3 Main Line with 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

d4 g3 .OZ2 4:Jf3

fS 4:Jf6 g6 !Jg7

c4 4Jc3

d6 4Jc6 (73)

o-o

o-o

73 w

...

4Jc6

Black can choose between:

A1 8 . . . 4Je5 A2 8 . . . 4Ja5 A1 8 4Je5 The sharpest continuation which White can meet by: A11 9 {jxeS A12 9 �b3 and others A11 9

{jxeS

dxeS (74)

74 w

1bis popular system favour­ ed White in the past and seem­ ed to have been thoroughly analysed. However, a number of new ideas have been intro­ duced and now the situation is less clear. Invariably White responds 8 dS but other moves have been tried on occasion:

White must choose between:

A 8 d5 B 8 �c2 and others

A111 10 e4 A112 10 �b3 and others

A

A111 8

dS

10

e4

62 Main 11ne with 7 . . . €/:6 Here Black can choose be­ tween the sharp 10 ... f4 and the more conservative 10 ... e6.

A1111 10 A1112 10

... . ..

f4 e6 and others

A1111 10

f4! ? (75)

75 w

The question of whether the variation beginning with 8 ... �5 is playable or not largely depends on how Black's last move is evaluated. For a long time chess books unanimously considered the position after 10 ... f4 to be favourable for White. During the preparation of this book no new informa­ tion has emerged to overturn this verdict. 11 b4 White again has a choice of several alternatives: a) An immediate break­ through with 11 c5 has also been tried: 11 ... g5 12 �b3?! (12 b3 �e8 13 d6?! exd6 14 cxd6 c6 15 .cla3 �d7 16 b4 OOrillov Raud, Latvia - Estonia 1990} 16 h5!? with chances of attack for

Black) 12 . . . �h8 13 {)hS c6 14 �3 �e8 15 �dl �d7 16 b4 gd8 17 ,klb2 c2:g4 18 h3 �h5 19 gxf4 gxf4 20 hxg4 �g4 21 f3 .O,c8 22 �2 cxd5 23 Bhl �g6 24 exd5 e4 and Black gained a formid­ able attack in Wells - C. Han­ sen, Kiljava 1984. b) 11 b3 gives chances for both sides: 11 ... g5 12 .O,a3 g4 (12 . . . h5?! 13 gel h4 14 gxf4 exf4? {14 . . . gxf4} 15 e5 4Jg4 16 e6! f3 17 .O,h3 {)h6 18 �4 g4 19 ,klf1 {)f5 and it is not clear how Black can develop his queen­ side without great losses; Vukic - Knezevic, Bajmok 1975) 13 gel f3 (13 ... h5?! 14 gxf4 exf4 15 e5 {)d7 16 e6 .O,xc3 17 exd7 _klxd7 18 �d3± - Botvinnik) 14 ,klf1 h5 15 c5 (Black has satisfac­ tory replies in other variations too, for example: 15 gel h4 16 gc2 {)h7 17 c5 �e8 18 �d3 �hS {18 . .. c6 - Ciric} 19 ,O_d {Ciric

recommends 19 d6 exd6 20 cxd6 cxd6 21 'lfJxd6 with a safe position, but after 21 . . . cf::gS Black has good chances} 19 ... _kld7 20 ,O_e3 {20 c6!} 20 .. . .Q_h6 and Black has a powerful at­ tack; Sieglen - Wessein, West Germany 1989) 15 ... h4 16 d6 (Taimanov suggests 16 .clc4 but if we continue with 16 ... hxg3 17 hxg3 �h7 then it seems that Black still has a very strong attack) 16 ... hxg3 17 hxg3 c6! 18 ,O_xc4+ e6 19 �d2 _kld7 20 �g5 � (76) In the diagram position Black's attack will soon reach a critical

Main line with 7

...

cfjc6 63

d) Not to be recommended is 11 f3?! cO 12 dxcb �bb+ 13 �h1

76 w

point, when the h-file can be used to great effect; Douven Plaskett, Groningen 1980. c) 11 gxf4 {Jh5 (11 . . . exf4!? 12 e5 {12 JJ.xf4 fjxe4 13 1Jg3 �g3

14 hxg3 e6= Hodakowsky Hubner, Aibling 1965} 12 . . 4Jg4 13 e6 �5 14 ;get {14 &b3 f3 15 JJ.h3 b6! with the idea of JJ.a6+} 14 ... 4:Jxc4! {A mistake would be 14 ... f3? 15 J;_fl c££4 16 cfY4 h6 17 h3 cfY5 18 c££3 b5 JY &c2± Zajcik - Bjelajac, USSR Yugoslavia 1977} 15 ge4 4Jd6 16 .

;gxf4 cboo ) 12 fxe5 \12 f5 4Jf4 with unclear complications Avshalumov) 12 ... Qxe5 13 �2 �d6 14 f4! 4.Jxf4 15 4.Jxf4 �xf4 16 �xf4 ;gxf4 17 ;gxf4 �xf4 18 �d4 e5!? (Alternatively: 18 ... �g5 19 �h1 {19jJfJ?! 1J.h3 20 &f2

JJ.xg2 21 &xg2 &e3+ 22 �h1 jJf8 23 jJxfB+ rrt;xfB+ Taenav Raud, Estonia 1990} 19 ... ,Og4 20 e5 {20 jJfJ? JJ.e2 21 !Je1 &g4 22 h3 �h5 23 e51J.f3+} 20 ... ;gf8 21 db+ ; or 18 ... �4!? 19 ;gn �g5 20 �f2 �h3= - Avshalumov) 19 �c5 �g5! 20 �h1 �d8 21 ;gn bb 22 t/1f2 �e7 23 c5! �a6 24 �fb!± Nizynsky - jzdebski, corr 1990.

bxcb 14 b3 g5 15 .Q.a3 \ttl ! 16 gxf4 gxf4 17 {Ja4 �c7 18 �el gg8+ Hj artarson - Plaskett, Hastings 1985/86. 11 gS Black cannot afford to lose time with 11 ... e6 ?! 12 -'lb2 exd5 13 exd5 !J.f5 14 ;get and due to the control over the e4-square White's position is better; Bannik Yukhtman, Ukraine Ch 1%4. 12 l!et 12 c5 has also been played: 12 ... h5?! (12 ... g4!?) 13 -'lb2 h4 14 gxf4 h3 15 !J.f3 exf4 16 e5 4):17 17 e6 and White managed to paralyse Black's queenside in D'Amore - Fernandez, Andorra zt 1987. g4!? 12 Mter 12 . . ab 13 �b2 �e8 White can choose between: a) 14 ;gc1 4:Jg4 15 f3 (15 ;gc2?! �h5 16 h3 f3 and Black has the attack; Farago - Poutiainen, Budapest 1975) 15 ... �3 (15 ... �h5! with a difficult game Kristiansen, but after 15 ... 4:Jxh2 16 g4 Black does not have sufficient compensation for his knight) 16 ;gxe3 fxe3 17 g4 with excellent compensation; Reicher - Ungureanu, Rumania 1975. b) 14 c5 �f7 (14 .. . -'ld7?! 15 cb! bxcb 16 dxcb �xc6 17 4Jd5) with an unclear game and possibilities for both sides Kristiansen. fJ 13 cS -

.

64 Main line witl1 7 . . . fr:6

hS 14 �f1 The chances are equal; White attacks on the queenside and Black on the kingside. A1112 10

...

e6 (77)

77 w

.(ld4 ge8 14 gel b6 15 f3± Col­ lins - Sherwin, New York 1952) 12 gel (Instead of this, consid­ eration should be paid to 12 �S!? and 12 b3!?) 12 ... e4 13 f3 exf3 1 4 .klxf3 eS! 15 gxeS?! (Taimanov suggests 15 cS!?) 15 . .. cfje4 16 gxe4 fxe4 17 {jxe4 �e7 with possibilities for both sides. b) 11 b3 exd5 12 {JxdS (12 exdS) 12 . {Jxe4 (12 . . 4Jxd5 13 cxdS f4 14- ya3 ;9:f7 15 gel;±; rvteduna Pederzolll, Olmoutc 1977) 13 .O,a3 ge8 14 f3 4):l6 (14 . r$.Jf6? 15 Qe7) 15 (£jxc7 �c7 19 �xcl6 �= Taimanov. c) 11 cS exd5 12 exdS h6 13 b4. �h7 14 �b3 e4 with possibil­ ities for both sides; Berliner Hearst, Omaha 1959. d) 11 f3 exdS 12 cxdS c6 13 dxc6 �b6+ 14 �W '@ 8 dS @5 variation. White has to choose between imme­ diate action in the centre and a slower build-up aimed at exploiting the misplaced black knight on aS. Black aims for counterplay with ... a6, ... ;gb8, ... �d7 and ... bS, similar to the King's Indian Defence. a) Serious consideration should be given to 10 e4!? (91) 91 B

.

10 ... a6 (10 ... eS!?) 11 gel gb8 12 eS 4Jg4 13 �f4 bS 14 cxbS axbS 15 h3 �eS 16 �eS dxeS 17 .O.xeS �xeS 18 gxeS b4 19 4:::Ji4

76 Main line with 7 . . cfY:tj .

�d6 20 !!ae1 and Black had to face some difficulties in Saeed - Bouaziz, Damascus 1989. b) On the other hand, weaker is 10 {:g5 a6 (10 ... h6 11 CiJ=-6 .O.xe6 12 dxe6 � 13 e4± Pod­ gaets - Mozes, Ybbs 1%8) 11 e4 (Alternatively, 11 ;gb1 ;gb8 12 .Q.d2 �e8 13 b3 bS 14 a3 {:g4 15 4:Jf3 bxc4 with a black initiative in Benko - Tal, Bled 1959; or 11 �!? .O.xe6 12 dxe6 � and in Euwe's estimation both sides have chances) 11 .. . bS 12 cxb5 axbS 13 c:£jxbS fxe4 14 c:£jxe4 c:£jxe4 15 �xe4 .O.a6 16 a4 c4 and Black has counterplay for the pawn; Dely - Gufeld, Debrecen 1970. c) A fw-ther possibility is 10 .0.d2 a6 11 !!ad (11 gab1 b6 {11 ... c£y4 ? 12 cf)xe4 fxe4 13 �e4 1J.f5 14 t!$h4 1J.xb1 15 cfjg5 h6 16 cfJe6 g5 171J.xg5 t!!jeB 181J.d2:t Andric - lvkov, Yugoslavia 1953} 12 b3 ;gb8 13 4jh4?! {:g4 14 f4 bS 15 h3 4:Jh6 16 e4 bxc4 17 bxc4 ;gb4! with an unclear position in Wrrtensohn - Kanel, Switzer­ land 1976) 11 . . �d7 12 b3 ;gb8 13 e4 b5 14 e5± Bikov - Tolush, USSR 1957. d) Recently 10 ;gb1 has be­ come quite fashionable, e.g. 10 . . . 4je4 11 ct:g5! 4Jxc3 12 bxc3 �e8! 13 HbS b6 14 CiJ=-6! .O.xe6 15 dxe6 ;gb8 16 �d5± Sergeev ] . Novikov, USSR 1991. e) Fmally, White can try 10 � a6 11 a3 4Jg4 12 e3 .0.d7 13 a4± Petursson - Tisdall, Reyk­ javik 1990. .

-

a6 (92) 10 . . . Neither can Black achieve equality after 10 ... �4 11 !lb2 a6 12 gael (12 4)12 b5 13 4Jdxe4 fxe4 14 .O.xe4 bxc4 15 bxc4 ;gb8 with unpleasant threats, de­ spite the pawn deficit in Udov­ cic - Matulovic, Yugoslavia 1%0) 12 . . . bS 13 ,Cla1± - Botvin­ nik.

,IDl8 11 �b2 12 {}gS Others: a) 12 gael bS 13 -'la1 (13 cxb5 axbS 14 {jxbS {The gain of the pawn is temporary} 14 ... �a6 15 a4 �b6) 13 ... bxc4 14 bxc4 ;gb4 (14 ... e5!? - Botvinnik; 14 ... ct:g4!? - Bellin) 15 4Jd2 4Jg4 16 a3 ;gb8 17 'f!}c2 .O,d7 18 e3 4Je5 19 �2 �e8 20 ;gb1 .O,a4 21 'f!}a2 and, due to the bad position of the knight at aS, White stands better; Nikolac - Bertok, Yugo­ slavia 1%9. b) 12 4:Jd2 ,Cld7 13 gab1 (13 a4? �4! 14 ga3 {Inadequate is 14 1J.xe4 fxe4 15 �e4 .{J.fS} 14 ... �b6 - Taimanov) 13 ... bS 14 h3 (The advantage cannot be obtained with 14 e3 �c7 15 .0.a1

Main line with �4 16 4je2 4je5 17 tfjc2 bxc4 18 bxc4 zrxb1 19 gxb1 ;gb8 20 gxb8 �b8= Valvo - Ivkov, New York 1987) 14 ... tfje8 15 .0.a1 g5 16 cxb5 axb5 17 b4 4Jb7 18 a3 c4 19 tfje3 tfjg6 20 f4 with a better game for White in D. Gurevich - Kontic, Belgrade 1988. �4 12 .O.xe6 13 4je6 14 dxe6 bS axbS 15 cxbS 16 t/ic2 Thanks to the greater ac­ tivity of the his pieces, White's position is preferable; Petkevich - Arhipkin, Riga 1976.

B 8

t/ic2 (93)

93 B

Fmally, we consider the possibilities for White if he rejects the idea of immediately advancing d4 - d5. Before considering the diag­ ram position, let us tackle other possibilities: a) 8 ;gb1 4Je4 9 e3 e5 10 4Je2 �h8 11 b4 a6 12 a4 tfje8 13 bS � 14 tfjc2 ,O.e6 (Garda - Haag,

7

.

. c£Jc6 77 .

Havana 1%2) 15 dxe5 dxe5 16 � with chances for both sides - Botvinnik. b) 8 tfjb3?! (The queen is misplaced here) 8 ... 4:Je4 9 .Q.e3 c£jxc3 10 bxc3 e5 11 c5+ �h8 12 cxd6 cxd6 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 .Q.cS gf6 15 gfd1 tfje8+ Kuzminyh Vinogradov, Leningrad 1945. c) 8 h3 a6 9 Qe3 h6 10 d5 (10 gel g5 11 d5 4Je5 12 4:Jxe5 dxe5 13 c5 �h8 14 tfjb3 tfje8 15 tfjb4 f4 and Black has good possibil­ ities on the kingside; Golombek - Gufeld, Kecskemet 1%8) 10 ... �5 11 4:Jxe5 dxe5 12 f4= Botvinnik. d) 8 �5 {je4 9 {Jxe4 fxe4 10 � {Jxd4 (10 ... .O.xd4!?) 11 {Jxe4 !JJS = Cuellar - Alexand­ er, Amsterdam 1954. e) 8 b3 �4 (Possible is 8 ... e5!? 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Qa3 ge8 {Or, even 10 ... e4 11 1J.xf8 'f/xfB .12 cfJd4 c[)xd4 13 �d4 JJ.e6co Spacek - A1otwani, 11Jxembourg 19<XJ) 11 gel?! {11 e4!?} 11 ... e4· 12 4Y1 fle6 13 t;J:-2 4Jg4 14 {Ja4 tfjg5+ Voruna - Kontic, Vm­ jacka Banja 1989) 9 Qb2 e5 10 dxe5 4:Jxc3 11 Qxc3 dxeS ( 11 ... tfje8! 12 tfjc2 dxe5 13 tfjb2 tfie7 14 gfd1 g5+ Welsh - Alexander, Cheltenham 1954) 12 tfjd5+ �h8 (12 . �d5? 13 cxd5 4):14 14 Qxd4 exd4 {Thomas Seitz, Nice 1931} 15 gac1± Botvinnik) 13 �xd8 gxd8 14 �5 ge8 (Worse is 14 ... gf8?! 15 flxc6 bxc6 16 gfd1 e4 17 4Jf7 + �g8 18 .O,xg7 gxf7 19 fle5 Qe6 20 f4! �8 21 gd2 �8 22 gad1 gc8 23 �2 ..

-

-·

78 Main line with 7 .. fY::6 .

with advantage to White in Groszpeter - Videki, Kecskemet 1988) 15 �ad1 (15 .Q.xc6 bxc6 16 �ad1 e4 {16 ... f!Jg8 17 JJ.aS h6 18 4)/13 f4 19 f!Jg2:t - Botvinnik or 16 ... f4 17 f3 aS 18 lfd2 f!JgBco Vladimirov - Mi. Tseitlin, Has­ tings 1991} 17 Ci§l+ �8 18 �xg7 � 19 �h6 aS 20 �f4 �a7= ) 15 ... -'lf6!= - Taimanov. Worse are the following: 15 ... e4 16 .Q.xg7 �g7 17 f3± ; and 15 . .. h6 16 lif?+ �g8 17 .Q.xc6 bxc6 18 4:):18± Pomar - Paredes, Bar­ celona 1977. eS 8 Pointless is 8 ... �h8 9 b3 -'ld7 10 -'lb2 a6?! (10 ... e5!?) 11 d5 4::JaS 12 e4 with an obvious advantage for White; Sudoplat­ ov - Vasiukov, USSR 1960. 9 dxeS dxeS 10 �d1 (94) 94 B

10 �d7 A risky attempt to seize the initiative is 10 ... tf}e7?! 11 4:):15 4:JxdS 12 cxd5 4Jd8 (Consider­ ably worse are 12 . .. 4:Jb4? 13 tf}b3 �d6 14 4Jd2 b5 15 a3 � 16 �xbS with a winning JX>sition

for White, as in Toran - de Greiff, Mar del Plata 1955; and 12 . . 4Jd4 ?! 13 4:Jxd4 exd4 14 .O,f4!± ) 13 .O,e3 �e8 (A JX>or move is 13 ... Ci§l? 14 �act e4 15 4:):14 with a clear advantage; Benkner - Parliazos, Amster­ dam 1954) 14 gael e4 15 4:):14 c6 16 dxc6 4:Jxc6 17 4:Jxc6 bxc6 18 �cS! (Mter 18 �c6 �e6 19 b3 aS and Black has a good game for the lost pawn; Koskinen Ciocalatea, Prague 1954) 18 ... tf1f7 19 b3 !J.e6 20 e3 aS and White stood better in lisenko - Tseitlin, Lvov 1983. 11 .Q.e3 A bad mistake is 11 4JdS? e4 12 4Yd'6+ !J.xf6 13 c£je1 4Jd4 14 �d2 !J.a4 15 b3 !J.xa3!+ Bertok Ghitescu, Reggio Emilia 1968/69. �4 11 Also to be considered is 11 ... e4 12 4Jd4 4:Jg4 13 4:Jxc6 (Action with 13 t;y:6 ?! backfires after 13 ... 4:Jxe3 14 fxe3 .O,xe6! 15 �xd8 �axd8 16 4Jd5 when 16 . . . c£je5 gave Black more than enough compensation for the queen in Peev - Nikolayevsky, Varna 1968) 13 . . . 4:Jxe3 14 tf}c1 �e8 15 �e3 �xc6 16 �d2= - Botvin­ nik. 12 �s theB �c8 13 4:]dS 4:Jf6 14 h3 15 4Jxf6+ .O.xf6 16 .O.xf6 �xf6 �f8 17 thc3 With equality; Sofrevsky Matulovic, Yugoslavia 1966 . .

4 Avoiding the Ma in Lines

1 2 3 4 s 6

d4 g3 .Q.g2 4Jf3 o-o

fS 4Jf6 g6 !Jg7 o-o

c4 (95)

pity that this variation is so rarely employed in tournaments because it is very interesting. 96 w

95 B

Both White and Black can avoid the main variations which arise after 6 .. . d6 7 4Jc3, and we shall consider their possibi­ lities to do so here.

A 6 . . . c6 B 6 . . . d6 A 6 c6 (96) A shrewd move order pre­ tending to gain a tempo by 7 ... dS, but in fact the intention after 7 �3 is to equalise im­ mediately with 7 ... �4. It is a

7 dS According to Botvinnik, there is nothing to be gained by 7 4Jc3 c£je4! (7 ... dS {For 7 ... b6 8 d5, see 7 d5 b6 8 O;:JJ 8 cxd5 cxdS 9 c£jeS �e6 10 �f4 4Jc6 {]n Botvinnik 's opinion it is better to play 10 ... cfpd7!?} 11 cfja4 cf)i7 12 c£jxc6 bxc6 13 �d2 !J.f? 14 �ac1 4:Jb6 15 4Jc5 �4 16 �c3 �e8 17 cf)i3 �b6 18 e3 �ec8 19 b3± Miles - Bronstein, Hastings 1975/76) 8 �c2 (More active, but not better is 8 d5 c£jxc3 9 bxc3 4Ja6 {Risky is 9 ... JJ.xc3 10 lfb1 fY.6 11 JJ.h6 1Jg7 12 JJ.xg7 (f}xg7 13 '($d4+ f!}g8 14 e4 Sham­ kovich - Kotkov, USSR 195& 10 e4 d6= - Botvinnik) 8 ... d5

80

Avoiding the Main lines

(Possible is 8 ... c:£jxc3 9 �c3 {9 bxc3!? - Taimanov} 9 ... d6 10 b3 4)17 11 Qb2 e5 12 dxe5 {jxe5 13 4Jxe5 {13 �d2 f4!? with coun ­ terplay - Taimanov} 13 ... Qxe5 14 �d2 �f6 15 gb1 Qe6= Whiteley - Zwaig, Hastings 1976/77) 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 _klf4 4)i) 11 :Q:.fd1 Qe6 12 gac1 gc8 13 �b3 4:)aS 14 �b4 gc4 15 �a3 4)j)= langeweg - Zwaig, Am­ sterdam 1977. The possibility 7 b3 d5 8 Qb2 is considered in the next chap­ ter. 4Ja6 7 An original idea is 7 ... b6?! 8 4)::3 Qb7 (8 ... cxd5 9 cxd5 Qb7 10 e4 fxe4 11 4Jg5 4ja6 12 �xe4 gc8?! {12 cf)xe4!? - Botvinnik} 13 c:£jxf6+ exf6 14 Qe3 4Jc5 15 b4± Korchnoi - Marszalek, Oberhausen 1961) 9 4:Jd4 (9 d6!?± ) 9 ... cxd5 10 cxd5 (10 4jxd5!? 4je4) 10 ... 4Ja6 11 Qf4 (11 d6!? Qxg2 12 dxe 7 �xe 7 13 �g2 4Jc5= ; 11 �5!? h6 12 Qxf6 Qxf6 13 e3 - Tukmakov) 11 ... 4)::5 12 �d2 4)::e4 13 4Jxe4 {Jxe4 14 Qxe4 fxe4 15 d6 exd6 16 .Q.xd6 e3 17 �xe3 ge8 18 �b3+ �h8 19 gad1 aS 20 f3 with an edge for White; Rash­ kovsky - Tukmakov, Sverdlovsk 1987. If 7 ... {j€4, then Botvinnik recommends 8 4Jfd2! whilst 7 . . . d6 transposes to variation B1 below. 8 4Jc3 4JcS Or 8 ... �e8 9 gb1 eS 10 dxe6 dxe6 (10 ... �xe6 11 b3 d6 12 ...

_kla3± - Botvinnik) 11 _klf4 gf? 12 �5 ge7 13 �d6 with advantage to White; Grigorian - Kundshin, USSR 1960. 9 �e3 (97) 97 B

9 4Jfe4 No better is 9 ... �aS 10 �d2 4)14 11 c:£jxa4 �4 12 b3 �a6 13 _kld4 cxdS 14 cxd5 �d6 15 gfd1 �ds 16 �b4 � 17 �s �e8 18 .Q.xb7± Darga - Coho, Ha­ vana 1964. 10 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 cxdS 11 4Jd2 11 ... Qxb2 (11 ... Qd4!? Botvinnik) leads to great con­ fusion: 12 c:£jxe4 fxe4?! (More exact is 12 . . . .,Clxa1) 13 Qxe4? (For some reason Taimanov does not consider the possibil­ ity 13 gb1! with the idea of .Q.xe4, �d3 h4, �2 with an attack on the kingside as well as superiority in the centre) 13 ... .clxa1 14 �xa1 �e8 and now possibly 15 Qh6 gf6 or 15 �d4 d6. 12 cxdS 4Jd6 13 �b3 According to Botvinnik, the position favours White.

Avoiding the Main lines 81 B 6 d6 The standard move, after which White normally chooses between:

8 4Jd4 �b6 The main line is 8 . .. cS 9 c£]:2 (Alternatively: 9 c£jf3 {Compared to the variation 7 dS cS, lVhite has a tempo less} 9 ... h6!?} 10 4Jc3 4Jc7 4:Ja6 {9 {According to Taimanov, cor­ rect was 10 . b6} 11 a4 �h8 12 �1 b6 13 b3 a6 14 b4! and White seized the initiative in Kochiev - Tal, USSR 1978; or 9 4Je6?! {Tal} 9 ... �xe6 10 dxe6 0J:;6 11 4Jc3 �c8 12 �s �h8 13 �xf6 .clxf6 14 ,O_dS 4Jd4 and White has insufficient compen­ sation for the pawn - Taim­ anov) 9 ... bS!? (Suggested by Tal. Worse is 9 ... 4:Ja6 10 4Jc3 �8 and White has won a tempo compared to 7 dS cS 8 c£]:3 4Ja6 9 4:Je1 Bb8 10 4Jc2) 10 cxbS a6 and Black has good compensation; the position resembling that of a Benko Gambit. 9 4Jc3 9 4Jb3 is quite playable. 4Je4 9 10 4Jxe4 �xd4 More accurate than 10 ... �xd4 11 4:::gS � 7 12 �1± Borisenko - Nikolaevsky, USSR 1966 . 11 �xd4 �xd4 (99) 12 X!dt Before this game theory only considered the variation 12 4:::gS �d7 with the idea of ... 4:Ja6 (Taimanov) or 12 ... cS (Yudo­ vichl and judged the position as equal. lbis game does not alter this general assessment. ...

Bt 7 dS B2 7 b4 B3 7 4Jc3

.

A fourth possibility, 7 b3, is considered in the next chapter.

Bt dS 7 Now Black usually responds with: B11 7 . . . c6 B12 7 . . . 4Ja6 B13 7 . . . cS B11 7

c6 (98)

White's aim with his seventh move is to prevent 7 . . . 6i'.J:jJ. Mter 7 ... c6 the game need not necessarily transpose into the system 7 c£]:3 c6 8 dS, White can take the game into unusual paths.

.

82 Avoiding the Main lines 99 w

cS 12 aS 13 4Jg5 14 ID>1 4:Ja6 4Jb4 15 a4 .Q.d7 16 .a_d2 17 .Q.xb4 axb4 h6 18 b3 In the game Naumkin Berkovich, Moscow 1986, Black tried to seize the initiative by 18 ... f4, but after 19 gxf4 f;..f5 20 e3 �xbl 21 �xb1 �c3 22 4Je6 �f6 23 �e4 found himself in a difficult position. In the main line chances are equal. B12

In Taimanov's opllllon this plan is the simplest way to equalise, though 7 ... 4:Jbd7 may also lead to equality. 8 4Jd4 Mter 8 4Jc3 �e8 9 ;gb1 4Jc5 10 4)14 aS 11 b3 Qd7 12 Qa3 c6 13 �xeS dxc5 14 4P> �xe6 15 dxe6 �b8 16 4ja4 �e5 rllack has no problems; Mohr - Vasiukov, Voskresensk 1990. 8 4JcS Worthy of consideration is 8 ... �d7!? 9 4Jc3 �e8 which transposes into a well-known position of the variation 7 4Jc3 �e8 8 d5 Qd7 9 4:Jd4. aS 9 4Jc3 Also possible is the imme­ diate 9 . . . e5!?, for example: 10 dxe6 c6 11 b3 �e7 12 .Q.f4 4:Jfe4?! (12 .. �d8) 13 4:Jxe4 4:Jxe4 14 ;get ;gd8 15 �d3± Cvetkovic - llin­ dc, Yugoslavia 1992. eS! 10 b3 c6 11 dxe6 12 .a_b2 No advantage is to be had by 12 .Q.a3 �e7 13 �d2 (13 ;get a4 {Necessary is 13 . ilxe6 as the pair of bishops is no advantage} 14 b4 4:Jxe6 15 e3 {jg4 16 b5 with a White advantage; Eisen­ stadt - Novikov, Leningrad 1956) 13 ... a4!? (13 ... .clxe6) 14 ;gfcl1!? (14 b4 �e6 15 e3) 14 ... axb3 15 axb3 �xe6 with a good position for Black, Aronson - Kuzminyh, Leningrad 1958. 12 t/Je7 .a_xe6 13 e3 14 4Jxe6 �e6 .

..

7

4Ja6 (100)

Avoiding the Main lines 83 15 4Je2 a4 Black has equalised; Novikov - Kuzminyh, Leningrad 197 4. B13 7

cS (101)

101 w

Black seizes the opportunity to switch into a position remin­

iscent of the King's Indian Defence, where his advanced f-pawn may prove useful. 8 4Jc3 4Ja6 Illogical is 8 . . . 4Jhd7?! 9 '{:!Jc2 4Jb6 10 b3 e5 11 dxe6 d5 12 cxd5 0fxd5 13 �d5 �d5 14 �5! '{:!Jb6 (14 ... '{:!Jd6 15 e7 �e7 16 �ad1 '{:!Jc7 17 4Jd4 - Taimanov) 15 e7 �e8 16 gadt !J.e6 ( Minev larsen, Halle 1963) and now 17 .Q.d with a threat of 18 �5 would have given White the advantage - Taimanov. 9 Wl1 Others: a) White cannot hope for advantage by opening the cen­ tre, e.g. 9 e4 fxe4 10 4:Jg5 .Qg4 11 '{:!Jb3 '{:!Jb6 12 4:Jgxe4 �e4 13 .Q.xe4 '{:!Jxb3 14 axb3 4Jb4= Bouwmeester - Bronstein, Am­ sterdam 1968,

b) More interesting, however, and worthy of consideration is 9 {jet ;gb8 10 4:}:2 (10 '{:!Jd3?! .Q.d7 11 b3 {Je4 12 ,O_b2 {12 1J.xe4 ? fxe4 13 �c2.(J.h3 14 cf:g2 f)b4 15 �d2 e3 16 fxe3 [1xf1+ 17 f!lx£1 e6!+ Rukavina - Larsen, Lenin­ grad izt 1973} 12 c£jb4 {12 bS 13 JJ.xe4 with an unclear posi­ tion - futvinnik} 13 �e3 �c3 14 ,O.xc3 f4= - larsen) 10 . . . 0f:-7 11 a4 b6 (Incorrect is 11 . . . a6?! 12 aS 4:Jg4 13 �a3 b5 14 axb6 gxb6 15 4)14 ;gb8 16 b3 !J.d7 17 f3 ,O.xa4 18 H.xa4 0{6 19 �d3 '{:!Jd7 20 .0.d2± Vaganian - Matulovic, Vmjacka Banja 1971) 12 ;gb1 4:Jg4 (Interesting is 12 . e5 13 dxe6 ,O_xe6 or 13 b4!? with possibil­ ities for both sides - Taimanov) t3 h3 �5 14 4Ja3 a6 15 �d2 (Botvinnik believes that White has the advantage after 15 f4 {J:l7 16 e4! fxe4 17 g4! but Taimanov adds that after 15 ... c£jf7 16 e4 e5 Black has no problems) 15 . . . �d7 16 f4 c£jf7 17 �h2 e5 18 dxe6 .O.xe6= Korch­ noi - Tal, Moscow 1968. c) There is no sense in the move 9 4:Jg5?! 4:)::7 10 �c2 '{:!Je8 11 a4 h6 12 0{3 4Ja6 13 �1 c£jb4 14 '{:!Jdt g5 with an unclear game; Pavlovic - Tunoshchenko, Belgrade 1988. d) A different strategy would be called for after 9 a4 (102). This position occurred in the game Ubilava - 011, USSR 1986, which continued: 9 ... t;$,7?! (The knight could be useful on ...

...

..

84 Avoiding the �fain lines 10 B

the b4-square in order to coun­ ter Ubilava's plan. Therefore the prophylactic 9 ... �h8! is interesting) 10 �d3 ;gb8 11 ;9.a3 �h8 12 e4 fxe4 13 4:Jxe4 {jxe4 14 �e4 e6? {14 ... e5!?) 15 4::g5 t11f6 16 dxe6 h6 17 0f7+ �h7 18 t11f4 with an extra pawn for White. 9 �8 Similar play occurs after 9 ... �d7 10 b3 t;J:;7 (More accurate is 10 ... ;gb8 11 �b2 {i:J:;7 12 a4 a6 13 aS {):e8 14 ;9.a1 c£:g4 15 ga3± H. Olafsson - Larsen, Reykjavik 1985) 11 a4 a6 (Botvinnik recom­ mends 11 . . . b6!?) 12 b4! cxb4 13 ;9.xb4 ;gb8 14 �b3 and due to the pressure on the b-fue White has a slight advantage; Petrosian - Matulovic, Sarajevo 1972. 10 b3 t;jc7 11 �b2 a6 Not 11 ... b5 12 cxbS {jxbS 13 4:JxbS ;9.xbS 14 {jd2 �a6 15 ;9.e1 ;gb8 with advantage to White; Novikov - Alekseev, USSR 1974. 12 e3 Or 12 �c2 b5 13 4)12 b4 14 4:)11 e6 15 dxe6 4:Jxe6= Dunkel-

blum - Szabo, Tel Aviv 1958. bS 12 . . . aS! ? 13 t;je2 Not bad is 13 ... �d7 14 �c3 4:Ja8! (14 ... 4:J:-'e8 15 c£jg5± - Botvinnik or 15 CLJ4± Keene) 15 CLf4 (15 4jg5 �h6 leads to an unclear position; Keene - Ree, Paignoon 1970) 15 ... �4 16 �xg7 �g7 17 �c2 bxc4 18 bxc4 �aS= Keene Matulovic, Siegen 1970. a4 14 4Jf 4 15 h4 axb3 bxc4 16 axb3 �4 17 bxc4 �a6 18 t;jd2 19 �c2= Keene - Jansa, Nice 1974.

B2 7

b4 (103)

10 B

As it is not easy for White

to gain the advantage in the

main variations, new possibil­ ities are being sought all the time. One of them involves an early advance of the b-pawn. Before dealing with this pos­ sibility, let us consider the move 7 �c2. This should pre-

Avoiding the Main lines 85 sent no problems for Black, e.g. 7 ... � 8 d5 4jeS 9 4Jd4 �d7 10 gd1 cS 11 dxc6 bxc6 12 4):3 ge8 (12 ... c£jxc4 13 c£jxc6± ) 13 b3 li§7 14 4:Jf3 �a5 with an unclear position; Drasko Maksimovic, Zagreb 1982. 7 eS The most logical reply, although other possibilities have been tried too : a) Vladirnirov recommends 7 ... a5 8 bS and only then 8 ... e5. b) 7 ... �4!? 8 �b2 c5 9 b5 cf)i7 (9 ... a6!? 10 a4 axb5 11 axb5 gxal 12 ,O_xal 'f11a5 {12 . . . c[jd7!?} 13 �b2 {13 cfjlx12 cfjc3} 13 ... 'f11b4 14 tf1c2. In this complicated position White's chances are slightly preferable - Bangiev) 10 � {jb6 11 'f11c2!? cxd4 (A mistake would be 11 ... 4Jxc4? 12 c£jxe4 4Jxb2 13 4Jed2; White could gain a slight advantage after 11 . . . {}xc3 12 �xc3 4Jxc4 13 dxc5 - Bangiev) 12 {}xe4 fxe4 13 {}xd4 e5 14 {jb3 �e6 15 �xe4 c£)xc4 (15 ... gc8 16 cS!) 16 �xb7 gb8 17 �c6 and White is better; Bangiev - Karpman, Lvov 1988. 8 dxeS dxeS Worse is 8 ... 4:Jfd7?! 9 4Jc3 (9 Qg5 'f11e8 10 4Jc3 {}xeS 11 c£)xeS .O.xe5 12 4Jd5 gf7 ) 9 ... 4Jxe5 (9 ... dxe5 10 �5 Qf6 {10 . . . �eB il fjdS:t J 11 yxf6 'f11xf6 12 e4 with a slight advantage to White) 10 c£)xe5 Qxe5 (10 ... dxe5 11 �d8 gxd8 12 �5 with the idea of gad1± - Vladimirov) 11 �b2 and WPJte's lead in =

development gives him a slight advantage; Vladirnirov - Mala­ niuk, Tashkent 1987. 9 ,O.b2 Clearly bad is 9 cfjxeS? 4Jfd7 (And not 9 ... �4?! 10 'f11xd8 gxd8 11 4Jxg4 fxg4 12 �S ge8 13 cf)i2 �xa1 14 gxal with good compensation - Vladimirov) 10 'f11d5+ �h8 11 i'lf4 c6 with a win of material. 9 e4 10 4Jd4 4Ja6 Also possible is 10 . . . 'f11e7 11 'f11b3 �h8 12 @3 � 13 {jac2 �S 14 gad1 �d7 15 bS with a slight advantage to White; Bangiev - Tokariev, Simferopol 1988. 11 bS 11 'f11b3 cS! - Bangiev. 11 4.Jc5 t!;Je 7 12 4Ja3 13 4Jac2 ,O.d7 �ad8 14 ,O_a3 15 t/;Jc1 �feB 16 �d1 This position arose in Bang­ iev - Legky, Sirnferopol 1988. In Bangiev's opilllon, White's chances are somewhat better.

B3 7 4Jc3 (104) In this final section we shall deal with variations where Black rejects the classical possibilities 7 ... 'f11e8, 7 ... c6 and 7 ... � and chooses something else. To begin with, let us con­ sider two very rarely played

86 Avoiding the Main lines

possibilities: a) 7 ... �h8 8 .,Og5!? �e8 9 �d2 e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 e4 fxe4 12 {jh4 � ?! (12 . . 4):6!?) 13 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 .O.xe4 {F5 15 .,Og2 �f7 16 gae1 ge8 17 b3 t;J=:6 18 .0.h6 4:Jd4 19 �xg7+ �g7 20 f4 cS 21 fxe4 and Black has lost a pawn; Suba - Erenska, Palma de Mallorca 1989. b) 7 ... .0.d7 8 ,O.g5!? 0FfJ 9 d5 4JaS 10 �d3 cS 11 dxc6 4Jxc6 12 gad1 �aS 13 Qxf6 Qxf6 14 4Jj5 Qxb2 15 Bb1 �7 16 gxb7 gfd8 17 �5 gac8 18 6i§4 Qf6 19 Qd5 with a winning position for White; Murshed - Hjorth, Cop­ enhagen 1982. Slightly less rare, although still highly unusual are: .

a good game for Black; Cafure - Pelikan, Argentina 1%5. 4Jbd7 8 Or 8 ... {iy:fJ 9 d5 c:£je5 10 4Jxe5 dxe5 11 �d2 e4 12 gad1 (12 Qh6 .Q.xh6 13 �6 e6 14 gfd1 �e7 15 �e3 4Jg4= Rossetto Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1966) 12 ... � 4 13 f3 c:£je5 14 ru and, as in the main variation, White gains the advantage; Smyslov - Peli­ kan, Mar del Plata 1966 . c6 9 �d2 10 r!ad1 �c7 4Jb6 11 .Q.h6 12 .Q.xg 7 '3;xg 7 a4 13 b3 axb3 14 !\fe1 15 axb3 4Je4 16 �c2 White's position is more comfortable; Guimard - Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1966 .

B32 7

e6 (105)

B31 7 . aS B32 7 . . . e6 .

.

B31 aS 7 8 .Q.gS!? There is little sense in 8 �b3 4):6 9 d5 4Jb4 10 �5 � 11 .Q.e3 ( 11 �c2= - Botvinnik ) 11 . . �4 12 .Q.d2 c£'FS 13 �c2 h6 with ·

.

7 .. e6 was played by Bot­ vinnik with Black against Tal in 1960. The move is directed against the advance d4 - d5, on which Black could reply .. e6 .

.

Avoiding the Main lines 87 eS. Regrettably, this modest move is too passive and, as recent practice has shown, the advance d4 - dS is, in fact, ineffective. 8 �c2 8 b3 is passive and allows Black some chances to equalise, for example: a) 8 ... 4Jc6 9 .(lb2 (9 .(la3 �4 10 �d3 4Jxc3 11 �c3 ,O_d7 12 gad1 and White has a space advantage; lonov - Zysk, Dort­ mund 1992) 9 ... eS (Sharper is 9 ... �e7 10 dS 4Je4! 11 �d �c3 12 �xc3 c£Jd8 13 -'lxg7 �g7 14 e4 eS± Dautov - Zysk, Dort­ mund 1992) 10 dxeS dxeS 11 �d8 gxd8 12 gfd1 gxd1+ 13 gxd1 e4 14 4Je1 -'le6= lvkov Menvielle, Havana 1966 . b) If instead 8 ... �e8 9 �a3 h6 10 �c2 gS 11 gad1 c£ja6 12 gfe1 �hS 13 b4 !iJ::-7 with chan­ ces for both sides; Summer­ matter - Gavrikov, Berne 1991. 8 4Jc6 Less good is 8 ... �e7 9 e4 �e4 10 4Jxe4 fxe4 11 �e4 !iJ::-6 12 .o.,gs � 13 gad1 �d7 14 �h4 gae8 15 �h6 .0.xh6 16 �6 �g7 17 �d2 with advantage to White; Gligoric - Stoltz, Hel­ sinki 1952. 9 �d1 White has other possibilities: a) 9 dS?! 4Jb4 10 �b3 c£ja6 11 .(le3 (11 dxe6 4JcS 12 �c2 .(lxe6 13 b3 4Jfe4 14 -'lb2 �c3 15 -'lxc3 .Q.xc3 16 �c3 �4 17 �c2 �e7 18 c£Jd2 dS= Cvitan - Bjelajac, Belgrade 1988) 11 .. �4= .

Tal. b) 9 b3 �e7 10 �b2 eS 11 dxeS dxeS 12 c£JdS �d6 13 gfd1 �dS 14 cxdS 4Jb4 15 �c4± Johans­ son - Menville, Havana 1966 . 9 �e 7 {J(X))

10 ldb1 Others: a) Not good is 10 dS? 4JeS 11 dxe6 �c4 12 4JbS a6 13 �c4 axbS 14 �bS 4Je4 15 4)14 c6 16 �b3 dS+ Altshul - Vinogra­ dov, Leningrad 1940. b) Nothing more than equal­ ity is gained by 10 e4 fxe4 11 �e4 eS 12 dxeS �e4 13 �e4 dxeS= Podgaets - Tal, USSR 1%9. c) Botvinnik recommends 10 a3!?. aS 10 Other possible moves are worse: a) 10 ... eS? 11 dxeS dxeS 12 4)15 �dS 13 cxdS c£Jd8 14 b4 or 14 �e3. These are Euwe's and Filip's recommendations and both give White the advan­ tage. b) 10 ... �d7? 11 b4 gae8 12 bS 4)18 13 .Q.a3± - Botvinnik .

88 A voiding the Main lines

4Jd8 11 a3 fxe4 12 e4 12 . eS 13 ,O.gS d) 14 cS! is not helpful - Tal. 13 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 �xe4 t;}£7 Or 14 ... eS 15 dxeS .ofS 16 �dS+ � 17 ;ga1 dxeS 18 �S± - Euwe. .

.

15 .O,h3 'fbf6 16 .0.d2 dS Botvinnik suggesLc;; 16 . eS!?. 17 �e2 dxc4 4Jd6 18 .O.f4 19 4:Jg 5 White ha<s a slight advan­ tage; Tal - Botvinnik, World Ch 1960. ..

5 Systen1s w ith an early b3

1 2 3 4 s 6

d4 g3 ,O,g2 ciJ£3 o-o

fS 4jf6 g6 ,O,g7 o-o

b3 (107)

A 6 d6 Normally White now fian­ chettoes immediately but we also consider 7 c4 (which often arises via 6 c4 db 7 b3) . A1 7 .O,b2 A2 7 c4 A1 7 ,O.b2 Obviously Black has a wide choice here too: A11 7 . . . c6 A12 7 . . . �e8 and others

The development of the bishop to the b2-square has always been a popular counter to the Leningrad variation. In the lines considered in this section, move order is important, as identical positions fre­ quently arise from different sequences. The material has been ar­ ranged as follows:

A 6 . . . d6 B 6 . . . 4Je4 C 6 . . . c6 and others

A11 7

c6 (108)

w

Here White usually chooses between:

90

Systems with an early b3

A111 8 c4 A112 8 4Jbd2 A111 8 c4 Now Black has: A1111 8 . . . �e8 A1112 8 . . . 4Ja6 A1113 8 . aS ..

Simen Agdestein has suc­ cessfully tried 8 . . . �c7 here: 9 4Jbd2 {jg4!? (Not 9 ... ;ge8? 10 dS!) 10 e4 (According to Ribli White should play 10 h3 c£jh6 11 e4± ) 10 ... f4 11 �c2 (Again 11 h3 is recommended by Ribli) 11 ... fxg3 12 hxg3 eS 13 dxeS dxeS 14 cS bS 15 a4 aSco 16 b4 axb4 17 axbS ;gxa1 18 ;gxa1 cxbS 19 �b3+ �h8 20 �b4 .O,d7+ 21 ;gd � 22 �b3 h6 23 4Jb1 b4 24 4Jlxl2 gS 2S �4 i'le6 26 �d3 b3 27 4):16 4Jb4 28 �e2 4:'Ja2! 29 ;gc4 �2 30 4JxeS �h7! 31 �hS ,O.xeS 32 �xeS {jg4 33 ilh3 i'lxc4 34 �xg4 �xeS+ 0-1 Stohl Agdestein, Manila izt 1990.

A1111 8 �e8 (109) Black's last move is popular in other lines as well (compare with Chapter one, for example) . This variation is very common in modem practice. 9 4Jc3 4Ja6 illogical is 9 ... h6 10 ;gel eS 11 e4 fxe4 12 dxeS dxeS 13 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 ;gxe4 �fS 15 ;ge3 �4, as in Damljanovic - Zsu. Polgar,

Wijk aan Zee B 1990. 10 dS Alternatives are: a) 10 �c2 4Jb4? (10 ... h6!?) 11 �d2 aS 12 a3 4)l6 13 b4 with a great positional superiority for White; Zaitseva - 11torenko, Moscow 1984. b) 10 a3 leads to an unclear position: 10 ... eS 11 e3 e4 12 4):12 �e6 13 b4 �7 14 ;gel gS 15 ..(lf1 �f7 16 a4 ;gd8 17 �c2 .O,hS 18 ;gab1 ;gf7 19 aS dS 20 bS f4, as in Adonov - Ermenkov, St john 1988, when 21 a6 is possible. 10 . . -'l_d7 After 10 . . . cS 11 �d2 h6 12 ;gael �f7 13 e4 fxe4 14 4Jxe4 White stands better; Todorcevic - Arendbia, Leon 1991. 11 �c1 White may also try: a) 11 4:Jd4 also serves well in the fight for the advantage: 11 . .. 4JcS (11 ... �7 12 b4± ) 12 gb1 ;gc8 13 b4 4Jce4 (13 ... 4)l6?! 14 �2?! {More exact was 14 dxc6!? bxc6 15 bS cxbS 16 cxbS cfFS 17 4Jc6;1; - Titov} 14 ... 4Jc7 1S �d2 �7 16 f4?! {16 a4} 16 ... cxdS 17 cxdS 4)l8 18 e4 fxe4 19 .

Systems with an early b3 91 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 20 �xe4 4Jb6 21 {123 �4!+ Titov - Basin, Belgorod 1989) 14 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 (14 ... fxe4 15 � �xe6 16 dxe6 with the idea of �d4± - Titov) 15 4Je6! �xe6 16 �xg? �g? 17 dxe6 4Jf6 18 �d4 b6 19 cS �d8 20 Bfd1 bxc5 21 bxcS d5 22 gb? with advantage to White; Resh­ evsky - Vasiukov, Palma de Mallorca 1989. b) 11 �c2 h6 12 gad1 gac8 13 �b1 g5 14 014 4Jg4 15 h3 4Je5 16 f4 gxf4 17 gxf4 �6 with an unclear position; Sandie - Sav­ chenko, Belgrade 1988. c) 11 �d2 gc8 12 gad1 cxd5 13 4Jxd5 4Jxd5 14 �xg 7 {123 15 fxe3 �g7 16 e4 45:5 and Black has a good game; Danielian Rublevsky, jurmala 1991. d) 11 gb1 gc8 12 014 45:7 13 e3 c5 14 4Jc2 b5co Wl. Schmidt - Vyzmanavin, Copenhagen 1991. h6 11 Also perfectly playable are 11 .. gd8 12 -'la3 4Jc5 13 0f2 aS 14 b4 axb4 15 �xb4 e5co , as in Lobron - Yusupov, Hamburg SKA 1991; 11 ... fiF7 12 �d2 h6 13 {121 �f? 14 4Jd3 gfd8 15 gfd1;;!;; Portisch - Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1990; and 11 ... gc8!? 12 014 � 13 -'la3 g5 14 e3 f4 15 exf4 gxf4 16 4Jce2 4Jh5 17 �f3 �e5 18 �xh5 �5 19 4Jxf4 �d1 20 gfxd1 �xf4 21 gxf4 gxf4 22 gd3 �f? 23 gel gg8;;!;; Moldobaiev - Kramnik, Belgo­ rod 1989. 12 e3 More active is 12 4Jd4!? gc8 .

13 �d2 45:5 (13 . � 14 e4± ) 14 b4 45:e4 15 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 16 �xe4 fxe4 17 4Je6 �xb2 18 �b2 �xe6 19 dxe6 gf6 20 �d4 gxe6 21 �a?;;!;; - Malaniuk. 12 tic8 13 {)d4 't/1f7 cxdS 14 .O,a3 15 {)xdS {)e4 16 f3 {)ecS (110) ..

17 {)bS A suitable move for seizing the initiative is 17 e4!? - Malan­ iuk. .Q.xbS 17 18 cxbS {)c7 19 {)xc7 tixc7 20 .Q.xcS dxcS 21 f4 A draw was agreed here in Kasparov - Malaniuk, Moscow 1988. A1112 4Ja6 8 9 {)c3 (il1J lhis variation is somewhat similar to the system 7 ... c6 considered in Chapter 2. There is limited material on this variation from recent practice.

92 Systems with an early b3 The alternative knight develop­ ment 9 c£jbd2, is considered in variation A11211, whilst 9 dS cS 10 4Jc3 h6 11 gb1 gS 12 e3 �d7 was unclear in Wl. Schmidt Malaniuk, Copenhagen 1991. 111 B

E;jc7 9 Many other moves are pos­ sible here: a) Worse is 9 ... .Q.d7 10 gel bS ( 10 . .. '{f;jaS 11 e4 fxe4 12 c£jxe4 gae8 13 4JegS {Jc7 14 '{f;jd2 �d2 15 {}xd2 h6 16 4Jgf3 gS {Panna Bronstein, Amsterdam 1956} 17 ge2± - Botvinnik) 11 cxbS cxbS 12 c£jd2 gb8 13 e4± . b) 9 ... �h8 10 �d2 �7 11 dS cxdS (11 ... eS!? - Botvinnik) 12 c£jxdS 4:J:_'XdS 13 cxdS �d7 14 gael �b6 15 .Q.d4 �a6 16 gc7± Csom - Ciocaltea, Ljubljana 1973. c) 9 ... �8 10 dS (10 a4 c£jb4 11 e3 aS 12 �e2 h6 13 gad1 gS 14 dS cS 15 4Je1 f4 16 exf4 gxf4 17 4):l3 �4 with some complica­ tions; van Doeland - Bhend, Lenk 1991) 10 ... eS (10 ... .Q.d7 11 �1 cS 12 '{f;jd2 0f::-7 13 a4 b6 14 e4 fxe4 15 �S a6 16 {Jcxe4 bS 17 axbS axbS 18 .Q.c3 h6 19 c£jxf6+

exf6 20 c£jf3 with a more ad­ vantageous position for White; Schmidt - Espig, Dresden 1985) 11 dxe6 �xe6 12 c£jgS �c8 13 �d2 h6 14 c£jf3 4JcS 15 ;Q.ad1± Bir­ brager - Lutikov, USSR 1966 . d) The t.ransferrence of the knight to the wing is interest­ ing: 9 ... �S!? 10 dS eS 11 dxe6 �xe6 12 �d2 �e7 13 gad1 gadS 14 0f4 �c8 15 a3 4)::5 16 b4 4Y4 17 c£jxe4 fxe4 18 f4 exf3 19 exf3 �f7= Razuvaev - l.utikov, USS R 1976. e) 9 ... 4Y4 10 �cl eS 11 dxeS dxeS 12 c£jxe4 fxe4 13 c£jgS �h6 14 h4 �fS 15 �xeS �e7 16 �b2 gfe8 17 �e3 and White is much better; Csom - Maenner, Lenk 1991. f) 9 ... �c7 10 gel (10 ;Q.e1 eS 11 e4 and the slight lack of harmony between the 4Ja6 and �c7 gives White the better game - Taimanov) 10 ... eS 11 c£jbS?! (With this move White obtains no more than equality) 11 . . . �d8 12 dxeS dxeS 13 4):16 e4 14 4:JgS �e7 15 h4 h6 16 c£jxc8 gaxc8 17 c£jh3 c£jhS with an equal game; van Schlechtinga van der Weide, Wijk aan Zee 1973. g) 9 ... �e8 transposes to variation A1111. 10 t/Jc2 Here 10 gel, with the inten­ tion of opening the centre by e2 - e4, as &tvinnik recom­ mends, does not seem bad. ID> B 10 . . . Black has no problems either

Systems after:

a) 10 ... 4Jh5 11 d5 e5 12 dxe6

.O.xe6 13 e3 �e7 14 .Q.a3 gadS 15 �ad1 a6 16 gd2 cS 17 gfd1 bS with equal chances; Pelc Lutikov, USSR 1961. b) 10 ... �h8 11 gadl �d 7 12 e3 �e8 13 gfe1 gd8 14 gd2 4JhS 15 d5 'ff1f7 and again Black has equal chances; Brzozka - Bron­ stein, Miskolc 1963.

11 12 13 14 15 16

a4 Jjad1 dS 4Jd4 e3 Zibt

aS 4:Ja6 t(1b6 .cld7 4JcS Zibe8

Black has a sound game; Smyslov - Lutikov, Thilisi 1976.

8 9

aS 4Jc3 (112)

lbis rather solid system has not been examined recently, either in theory or in practice. The alternative, 9 c£Jd2, is con­ sidered in variation A1122 .

4:Ja6

9

Alternatively: a) 9 . . 4:Je4 has a worse .

ear�v b3 93

reputation than the text move: 10 gd d5 11 cxd5 cxd5 12 6i'f-5 .Q.e6 13 {Ja4 4Jj7 14 f3 4jef6 15 �d2± Portisch - Zwaig, Raach

1969.

b) Y ... tjc7 10 d5 {)16 11 4Jd4 �d7 ( 11 ... e5 12 dxe6 4)=5 13 gd 4Jxe6?! {13 JJ.xe6} 14 c£jxeb .Q.xe6 15 �d2 gfd8 16 gfd1 � 17 {Ja4± Csom - Casper, Berlin 1979) 12 gb1 (Approximately equivalent to the text is 12 e4 fxe4 13 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 �xe4 4)=5 15 �2 a4 with an unclear position; Baumbach - Ghitescu, Zinnowitz 1964) 12 ... 4:):5 13 �c2 f4 14 ;glxil fxg3 15 hxg3 �b6 16 �a1 gac8 17 e3 a4= Averkin - Knezevic, Dubna 1976. ...

10 A1113

with an

�c2

This is probably a better choice than: a) Unfavourable is 10 a3?! �d7 ( 10 ... �c7 11 gd e5 12 @5 �e7 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 .Q.xe5 gd8 15 �c2 f4 16 cfjbd4 fxg3 17 hxg3 4:):5 18 gcd1 �4 with active play for Black; Tosic - Berko­ vich, Pula 1990) 11 d5 4:Je4 12 4Jj4 4Jxc3 13 .Q.xc3 �b6 and the initiative is with Black, Zivko­ vic - Sahovic, Yugoslavia 197 4. b) 10 gd .Q.d7 11 tf!}c2 (11 d5?! 4:):5 12 'ft:jc2 'ft:jb6 13 c£Jd2 a4 14 bxa4 tja6 15 'ft:jbt cfjxa4 with a slight advantage to Black; Jakobsen - Zwaig, Raach 1969 or 11 �d2 ge8 12 gfd1 'ft:jc7 13 e4 gadS= Mednis - Ftacnik, Am­ sterdam 1988) 11 ... 'ft:jc 7 12 gfd1 e5 13 c5 e4 14 cxd6 'ft:jxd6 15 4:Je5 @4 16 'ft:jd2 �e6 with a good

94 Systems with an early b3 game for Black; Kozlov - Ber­ kovich, Moscow 1986. c) 10 �d2?! .(ld7 11 �fe1 b5 12 cxbS cxbS 13 �ac1 (Fauland Buecker, Budapest 1988) 13 ... ;gb8 and Black has a good position. t/Jc7 (113) 10 . . .

�xd6 13 cxd6 4Jb4 14 4JeS 15 �b1 .Q.e6 According to Botvinnik, the game is equal. A112 8 4Jbd2 (114) Mter this move, as after 8 c4, Black has a choice: 114 B

Black paves the way for equalising the chances in the centre. This is more logical than 10 . . . 4Jb4 ?! 11 �b1 with the idea of a2 - a3± - Botvinnik. 11 �adt eS There are some other pos­ sible moves: a) 11 ... �d7 12 a3 �ae8 13 d5 e5 14 dxe6 �e6 15 4:Jd4 �c8= Stoltz - Kostic, Bled 1950. b> 11 . . . �h8 12 d5 �5 13 4:Jd4 �d7 14 e3 �ac8 15 �b1 �b6= Kovacs - Knaak, Polanica Zdroj 1975. 12 cS e4 Clearly this is better than: a) 12 .. . exd4 13 cxd6 �xd6 14 4Jxd4± - Botvinnik. b) 12 . .. dxc5 13 dxe5 4::g 4 14 4Ja4 with a better position for White; Pachman - Gerusel, Mannheim 1975.

A1121 8 . . . 4Ja6 A1122 8 . . . aS A1123 8 . . . \ti>h8 and others Now White has:

A11211 9 c4 A11212 9 4Je1 and others A11211 9 c4 (115) White plays c4 having al­ ready stationed the knight on the d2-square. In spite of the somewhat passive position of the pieces White has surpris­ ingly good prospects of emerg­ ing from the opening with an advantage. 9 �e8

Systems with an early b3 95

This is the most common reply, although not necessarily the best. Instead: a) 9 ... e5?! has been tried: 10 dxe5 4)17 11 Qa3 �e5 12 �e5!? (12 �1 c£jxf3+?! {It would have been better to avoid the ex­ change by 12 . . . c£j7!?} 13 Qxf3 4):5 14 b4± ) 12 ... Qxe5 13 4:Jf3 Jlxa1 14 �a1 �5 15 gd1 �6 16 �el �e7 17 il.b2 �4 18 �e3 and Black has difficulties in defend­ ing his king; Shirov - Bareev, Lvov zt 1990. b) 9 ... Qd7 10 gel �h8 11 a3 d5 12 �c2 fle6 13 �5 gc8 14 b4 (14 c5!?) 14 ... 4:Jd7 15 4:Jd3 �b6± Mikhalchishin - Vasiukov, USSR 1982. c) 9 ... �h8 with the idea of ... ,O_e6 - g8 - Mikhalchishin. d) 9 ... �c7!? 10 a3 ,O_d7 11 b4 (11 gel gae8 12 b4 �b8 13 �b3 �h8 14 a4± Csom - Espig, Kecskemet 1972) 11 ... gae8 12 c5 �b8 13 �4 fle6 14 gel �h8 15 e3 gd8 16 �e2 Qd5 17 �5 Qxg2 18 �g2 6z5-7 19 f3 �c8 20 4Jh3= Balashov - Bareev, Mos­ cow 1989. 10 �c2

Here attention should also be paid to other possibilities: a) 10 gel 6z5-7 (10 . .. d5?! 11 �5 Qe6 12 f3 with a positional advantage to White; Stohl Kontic, Vrjncka Banja 1989) 11 e3 b5!? 12 �e2 bxc4 13 bxc4 �8 14 Qc3 Qa6 with possibil­ ities for both sides; Ilic - Geor­ giev, Wijk aan Zee 1984. b) 10 e3!? �7 11 �e2 h6 12 e4 fxe4 13 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 14 �e4 Qf5 15 �e3 and White has occupied the e-file; Akhmilov­ skaya - Stepanovaya, Sochi 1987. c) 10 gel h6 11 �c2 gS 12 gfe1 �h5 13 a3 �7 14 dS? cxd5 15 c5 �e8 and White did not obtain adequate compensation for the sacrificed pawn; Okkanen - j. Polgar, Columbia 1989. 10 . . . ti:Jc7 (116) 116 w

Instead of this, 10 . . . h6!? can be recommended, when Smejkal - Topalov, Altensteig 1990, continued 11 a3 g5 12 e3 �h5 13 2:fe1 gf7 14 4:j1 Qd7 15 ge2 gaf8 with good attacking chances for Black. White does better to prepare the e4-break

% Systems with an early b3 with 11 gael gS 12 e4 fxe4 13 {Jxe4± Dreev - Motwani, Berlin 1991. 11 !Xae1 ,O_d7 12 e4 fxe4 13 4Jxe4 !J..fS 14 4Jxf6+ .O.xf6 15 'tttd 2 �d7 16 !Xe3 z;{ae8 17 rlfe1 rlf7 18 dS cS 19 4Jh4 White's pressure on the e-ft1.e is obvious; Pigusov Odeev, Minsk 1986.

A11212 9

4Je1 (117)

White again plays 4Jb1 - d2 temporarily rejecting c2 - c4. The lines presented below are very complicated. Before the manoeuvre with the knight it is also possible to play 9 e3 �e8 and only now 10 4Je1. For ex­ ample: 10 ... gS (Possible is 10 ... eS!? 11 4).:4 exd4 12 exd4 {12 cf)xd6? �e6 13 cf)xcB dxe3! with the idea of 14 ... e2 Or 13 �xd4 cf'ftB and Black wins Ftacnik} 12 .. �d8 13 4Jd3 with equal -

.

chances) 11 {y3.3 �g6 (11 . . . �hS 12 �S 4JxhS 13 f4!? or 12 f3 and in both cases White has a slight advantage - Ftacnlk) 12 �e2 �h8?! (Ftacnik suggests 12 .. �d7!? with the idea of ... gd8) 13 gael?! (White does better to play 13 c4!? with the idea of b4 - bS) 13 ... �d7 with an unclear position. .O.e6 9 Black has two good alter­ natives: a) Consideration should be given to the possibility of 9 ... cS!? 10 dS �7 11 c4 a6 12 {y3.3 bS 13 e4 bxc4 14 bxc4 fxe4 15 {Jxe4 ;gb8 16 4Jxf6+ �xf6 17 �xf6 (118) .

17 ... gxf6?! (Preferable was the elimination of the weakness on the e-file with 17 ... exf6!?= ) 18 get with a positional advantage to White; Torre - Meulders, Brussels 1987. b) Also possible is 9 .. . fi:J::-7 10 {y3.3 �e8 11 e4 ?! (Slightly too early; 11 c4!?) 11 ... fxe4 12 {Jxe4 {Jxe4 13 �xe4 �= Espig Chekhov, Berlin 1988. 10 4Jd3 'ttth6! ?

Systems with an early b3 97 �adB 11 c4 12 �c2 Jlf7 !!feB 13 !!adt �d7 14 �ct 15 �at �dB 16 4Jf3 4Je4 With an unclear position and possibilities for both sides; Vegh - Vasiukov, Budapest 1986. A1122 B

aS (119)

Similar to 8 ... @6, this is another solid reply to the plan chosen by White. This variation makes frequent appearances in practical play. 9 c4 White has four other pos­ sibilities here: a) Seldom seen is 9 e3 @6 10 4Je1 �d7 11 tf1e2 �h8 12 c4 �7 13 4):13 a4 14 gfe1 tf1e8 15 f3 bS 16 f4 bxc4 17 bxc4 tf1f7± Bogdanovski - Kontic, Belgrade 1988. b) 9 {jet tf1c7 (Taimanov recommends 9 ... a4!?) 10 4):13 �d7 11 4:f4! �6 12 e4 fxe4 13 c:£jxe4 4Jxe4 14 .clxe4 d5 15

Dime, Yugo­ �2± Udovdc slavia 1953. c) 9 a4 {):ill 10 {Jet (10 e3 �h8 11 4Je1 4Jb4 12 c3 4Jbd5 13 4):13 tJjb6 14 gel cf57 15 c4 _kle6 with an unclear position; Milic - Bronstein, Beverwijk 1963) 10 .. . 4Jb4 (Serious consideration should be given to 10 ... e5!? 11 dxe5 0g 4 12 4Jd3 4Jxe5 13 4jxe5 dxe5 14 e4 tf1c7 15 tf1e2 f4 16 �a3 ge8 17 gadl .clf8= Romanishin - Kovacevic, Sarajevo 1988) 11 c3 �d5 12 4):13 tJjb6 13 e3 �d7 14 gd gad8 15 �a3 tJja6 16 c4± Panno - Gheorghiu, Varna 1962. d) 9 a3 4)i6 (Alternatively: 9 ... a4 {This aims to blockade the queenside and the centre} 10 b4 bS 11 c4 d5 12 c5 tJjc7 13 4Je5 �d7 14 4Jd3 4Je4 15 f3 4Jxd2 16 tJjxd2 ctf6 17 tJjf4 tJjxf4 18 gxf4 and neither side was able to break the pawn chain in Panno - Dolmatov, Moscow 1989; or 9 ... 4Je4 10 c4 tJjb6 11 e3 4Jxd2 12 4Jxd2 {):ill {12 .. cfjd7!?} 13 4Jc3 ,Cle6 14 tf1c2 �f7 15 gfbl e5 16 c5 dxc5 {16 ... �a7 17 b4;t} 17 dxe5± Ree - Bohm, Amsterdam 1980) 10 e3 (Also: 10 gel {This at­ tempt to open the centre is unsuccessful} 10 ... 4Je4 11 4jxe4 {11 e3 c£)c7 12 c4 fYB 13 �c2 cf'/Jf6 14 lfacJ c£Jg4 15 §e2 1J.d7 with a balanced position; Kallai - sax, Hungary 1991} 11 ... fxe4 12 4Jd2 d5 13 f3 exf3 14 �xf3 {14 exf3 cS - Taimanov} 14 ... 4Jc5 with an unclear position; Biel­ icki - Pelikan, Mar del Plata 1960; or 10 4Je1 tf1c7 11 4):13 �d7 -

.

98 Systems with an early b3

12 e4 fxe4 13 4Jxe4 {Jxe4 14 .O.xe4 .0.h3 15 ;Q:el �d7 and White has a vel)' slight advantage; Gerusel - Gallinnis, West Ger­ many 1988) 10 ... �7 (Or 10 ... �d7 11 �e2 �c7 12 e4 fxe4 13 {Jxe4 fl:ae8 14 gael; &lbochan - R Garcia, Mar del Plata 1Y66) 11 �e2 �h8 12 4je1 .(leb 13 c4 .Qg8 14 {Jd3 {Jd7 and White, with the plan of f2 - f4, is slightly better; Sanguinetti Pelikan, Argentina 1968.

9 10

-'le6 ( Weaker is the following continuation: 14 ... dxc5 15 dxc5 4Jxc5 16 4Jxa_S �aS 17 b4± Botvinnik) 15 gfdl �4 16 {jd2= Portisch - Uhlmann, Stockholm izt 1962.

11

dxeS

{Jd7?!

Black wo:..tld be better ad­ vised to play 11 ... {Jg4!? 12 h3 {JxeS= 13 �c2 cDxf3+ 14 cDxf3 �xb2 15 �xb2 �f6!.

4ja6 a3 (120)

12 13 14 15 16

{Jd4 tf1c2 .Q.c3 e3 �fe1?!

16 17 18 19

h3 b4 axb4

{jxeS .Q.d7 {Jc7 'tf1e7

It would be preferable to occupy space in the centre with the plan 16 h3!? intending f4, gael, e4± .

Instead of the text move, one could also try 10 �c2!?.

10

...

eS

The most logical continua­ tion. Also possible are: a) 10 ... t;J:7 11 gel (11 �c2) 11 .. . �d7 12 �c2 ;gb8? (Black canno t find a plan) 13 -'lc3 {Jab 14 �al �h8± Hofmann - Gal­ linns , West Germany 1988. b) 10 ... �c7 11 �c2 (11 gel .Q.d7 12 e4 {Jxe4 13 {Jxe4 fxe4 14 gxe4 .0.f5 15 gel gae8= Bouwmeester - Stahlberg, Zev­ enaar 1961) 11 ... .Q.d7 (11 ... �h8) 12 c5 �h8 13 gael gae8 14 4):4

4:Jg 4 4:Jf6 axb4 dS

Andersson - Dolmatov, Cler­ mont-Ferrand 1989. The game soon ended in a draw .

A1123

8

�h8 (J2V

Here we will continue to

Systems with

consider the positions ansmg after 8 l£jbd2, concentrating on those variations where Black plays neither 8 ... 4Ja6 nor 8 ... aS. The text is a popular king move, but two other examples should also be considered: a) 8 ... l£jbd7 (The start of an original manoeuvre) 9 e3 Vjjc7 10 �s 4Jb6 11 c4 h6 12 4Jf3 fle6 13 :gc1 !J.f7 14 :gc2 l£jbd7 15 :gel eS 16 dxeS dxeS 17 e4 f4 18 gxf4 4JhS 19 fS 4Jf4 20 !J.f1 gae8 21 :ge3 with a complicated posi­ tion in Orlov - Shabalov, Lenin­ grad 1989. b) 8 ... Vjjc7 9 c4 4JhS (With this move Black achieves ... e7 eS, but he does not reach equality) 10 Vj;c2 eS 11 dxeS dxeS 12 cS e4 13 4Jd4 Vj;e7 14 b4 0f7 ts 4):4 �s 16 4Jd6 b6 17 f4 exf3 18 exf3 bxcS 19 bxcS fla6 20 :gfe1 Vj;d7 21 :gad1 and Black lacks an adequate defence; Dreev - Dolmatov, USSR Ch 1989. c4 9 The most logical move in every respect. 9 :get has also been played (As d6 - dS coincides with Black's plans anyway, the move with the rook seems unneces­ sary) 9 ... dS (9 .. . aS 10 a3± Najdorf - Schweber, Mar del Plata 1968) 10 �s fle6 11 {):13 {jbd7 12 f3 Vj;b6 13 �h1 :gaes 14 c4 Vj;c7 15 Vj;c2 Vj;d6 16 :gael 4JhS 17 cxdS Vj;xdS 18 e3 �d6 19 {F4 .Q.xc4 20 bxc4 gS 21 e4?! (The

an

early

b3 99

initiative could have been gain­ ed by 21 cS!?, followed by e3 e4 - eS when Black's pieces would have bee n out of the game) 21 !J.xd4 with an un­ clear position; Ribli - Yusupov, Belfort 1988. 9 dS Black switches to a Stone­ wall formation, even at the cost of a tempo. Not good is 9 ... eS?! 10 dxeS 4Jfd7 11 fla3 {)xeS 12 l£JxeS flxeS 13 gel with the idea of {jf3± Malaniuk; or even 13 4Jf3!?. 10 {JeS �e6 {Jbd 7 11 {JdJ 12 �c1 Or 12 f3 Vj;b6 13 e3 cS!? with an unclear position - Malaniuk. 4Je4 12 �f7 13 4:]£4 cxdS 14 cxdS 4Jd6 15 fJ Chances are equal; Yusupov - Malaniuk, USSR Ch 1987. ...

A12 7

�e8 (122)

...

In this section we shall consider the variation where

100 Systems with an early b3 Black rejects the traditional advance ... c7 - c6. In addition to the text move, Black has no less than nine other possible continuations. Hrst of all we deal with the more unusual possibilities. It should be added here that Black can play 7 ... 4:Ja6 in con­ junction with the advance ... c7 - c6, transposing to material we have already covered, and can transpose to variation B1 by playing 7 ... 4Je4. a) 7 . . . e6!? (This move is not in accord with modem plans but it cannot be considered bad for this reason alone) 8 4Jlxi2 aS 9 a3 Zi56 10 gel 4Je4 with chances for both sides; Torre llmaz, Dubai ol 1986. b) 7 ... � (Provoking the advance d4 - d5 and aiming for counterplay on the queenside Taimanov) 8 d5 4:JaS 9 4Jfd2 c5 10 a4 .Q.d7 11 c3 (This square for the pawn is better than the square c4 - Taimanov) 11 ... gc8?! (Instead of this move Taimanov recommends 11 . �8!, e.g. 12 ga2 gc8 13 b4 cxb4 14 cxb4 .Q.xb2 15 gxb2 4):4 16 c£jxc4 gxc4 17 �b3 Vjjc7 with good prospects for Black) 12 b4 cxb4 13 cxb4 4):4 14 4Jxc4 gxc4 15 �b3 gc8 16 4):12 Vjje8 17 e3 h6 18 �d4 bS 19 axb5 .Q.xbS 20 gfd and Black's posi­ tion is difficult; Larsen - Reyes, illgano 1968. c) 7 . . . h6 (This move is evidently a loss of time here) 8 ..

4Jbd2 g5 9 e3 c6 10 4Jel �e8 11 4):13 'ljjg6 12 �e2 4Je4 13 4):4 4):17 14 f3 �f6 15 e4 fxe4 16 fxe4 4:Jh6 17 e5 �8 and Black remained relentless under pressure; Nogueiras - Mill , lu­ cerne 1989. d) 7 ... e5? (Too early) 8 dxe5 �4 9 h3 4Jxe5 10 �d5+ 0f7 (Mter 10 ... �h8 11 4Jxe5 dxe5 12 .Q.xe5 Black loses a pawn - Taimanov) 11 .Q.xg7 �g7 12 4):3 �6 13 �d2 4Je5 14 4):15 and White has a superiority in the centre; van Geet - van Baarle, Holland 1971. e) 7 . .. 4Jbd7?! 8 4Jbd2 ge8 (Also 8 ... �e8 9 e4 4Jxe4 10 c£jxe4 fxe4 11 �5 4Jf6 12 4Jxe4 gives White a good game; Sokolov - Simic, Yugoslavia 1971) 9 4Jc4 4Jb6 10 �d3 c6 11 a4 fle6 12 4Jxb6 Vjjxb6 13 4Jg5 .Q.d7 14 �c4+ and the initiative is with White; Najdorf - Quinter­ os, Buenos Aires 1968. f) 7 . . . aS 8 c4 (Black is fme after 8 a4 4Jc6 9 4Jlxi2 �e8 10 gel 4Je4co Tukmakov - D. Gurevich, Reykjavik 1990, and 8 4Jbd2 a4 9 c4 c6 10 �c2 �e8 11 b4 a3co Dreev - D. Gurevich, New York 1990) 8 ... 4:Ja6 9 a3 cS 10 4Jc3 4Je4 11 e3 4Jxc3 12 flxc3 ;gb8 13 �d2 b6 14 gfe1 .Q.b7 15 d5 .Q.xc3 16 �c3 4Jc7 17 b4 and White enjoys a great positional advantage; Gofstein Nevednichi, Tbilisi 1983. g) 7 ... �h8?! 8 4Jbd2 4Jc6 9 c4 e5 10 dxe5 4Jg4 11 �c2 4Jgxe5 (11 ... dxe5± ) 12 gad1 aS 13 cS±

Systems with an early b3 101 Najdorf - Canobra, Mar del Plata 1%9. h) 7 ... c£jh5!? 8 e3 Uvkov suggests 8 c4) 8 . . . tzF6 9 c£Ja3 (9 c4 e5+ - Ivkov; 9 4:Jc3 e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 �d5+ �d5 12 4:Jxd5 e4 13 4Jd4 4:Jxd4 14 .O.xd4 c6 15 c'0F7!? gb8!= Cebalo Ivkov, Cetinje 1977) 9 ... e6 10 c4 �e7 11 CiJ::,2 aS (123)

12 �d2 (lvkov and Sokolov recommend 12 a3!? with the idea of b4) 12 . . . �d7 13 Q:ab1 4:}18 14 gfd1 c£jf6 with an un­ clear position; Franco - Haag, Oberhausen 1%1. 8 4Jbd2 Also worth consideration are:

a) 8 d5 (Preventing 8 ... c'0F6) 8 ... 4Ja6 (8 . . . c6 9 c4 4Ja6 10 c'0F3 �d7 11 gel gd8 12 .Q.a3 CiJ::,5 13 4Jd2 aS 14 b4 axb4 15 -'lxb4 e5 16 4Jb3 4:Jxb3 17 axb3 c5 18 .Q.a3 e4 19 �b2 �4 and Black begins his kingside attack; Lob­ ron - Yusupov, Hamburg 1991) 9 c4 cS!? 10 c'0F3 -'ld7 11 ;gb1 (Also possible is 11 �d2 CiJ::,7 12 e4 bS?! 13 e5 �4 14 exd6 exd6 15 4JxbS 4JxbS 16 .Q.xg7 �g 7 17

gfe1 �d8 18 cxhS and Black has lost a pawn; Krasenkov - Zaru­ bin, Moscow 1984) 11 ... h6 (According to Matsukevich equality can be achieved by 11 .. : bS 12 4JxbS .O.xbS 13 cxb5 �b5 14 4:}l2) 12 4je1 gS 13 e4?! (13 �3) 13 ... �g6 14 �e2 fxe4 15 4Jxe4 .Q.g4! 16 �e3 (16 f3 cfj,xe4; 16 4jxf6+ exf6 17 �g4 �b1 18 �e6+ 2:f7 19 �c3 �7! 20 �d6 �f8 - Matsukevichl 16 ... �f5 17 f3 h5 and Black seized the initiative in Konopka - Malan­ iuk, Frunze 1987. b) 8 �d3 t;J:6 9 �c4+ e6 10 b4 a6 11 �b3 �h8 12 a4 e5 13 dxeS dxeS 14 bS �e6 15 �e3 and White has wasted valuable tempi with his queen; Muse Videki, Kecskemet 1990. c) 8 c4!? (In practice this move is the best for White) 8 ... eS?! (Better is 8 ... 4Ja6 {8 . . . h6

9 cfJc3 gS 10 e3 �hB [10 ... aSco J 11 dS! aS 12 cfj:14 led to a crush­ ing win for Mlite in Shirov Rskov, Moscow 1991} 9 0,c3 {Alternatively: 9 dS cS 10 c£Jc3 h6 11 fje1 gS 12 cf)d3 �g6 13 �d2 1J.d7 14 f4 cf:g4 and Black had sufficient counterplay in Tuk­ makov - Malaniuk, Lvov zt 1990; or 9cfjlx12 eS 10 dxeS cf::£4 11 lfb1 dxeS 12 h3 c[)h6co Velikov - Bareev, Marseille 1990} 9 ... c6 with transposition into varia­ tions already considered above; but 8 .. . c£jh5?! cannot be re­ commended: 9 c'0F3 f4 10 �d2 c6 11 dS {With simple moves

Mite gains a great advantage}

102 Systems with an ear�y b3

11 . . . � 12 c£)a4 cS 13 .Q.xg 7 �g7 14 e4 h6 15 e5. Black's knights are badly positioned on the wings and there is a threat of 16 e6 which may spoil the co-operation of his pieces. Black is thus strategically lost; Romanishin - Gurevich Tallinn 1987) 9 dxe5 c£jg4 10 4Jc3 4Jxe5 11 �d2 (White will gain a slight advantage after 11 �c2 � 12 gad1 f4 13 �5 �f5 14 �d2 fxg3 15 hxg3 gd8 16 4Jxe5 .Q.xe5 17 �3 c6 18 4Jxf5 gxf5 19 .Q.d4 b6 20 �b2± Loginov - Malaniuk, Tashkent 1987) 11 ... � 12 gadt 4Jxf3+ 13 exf3!? 4:JcS 14 gfe1 �d8 15 b4 �7 16 4Jd5 .Q.xb2 17 �b2 gt7 18 f4 c6 19 �3 {Jf6 20 b5± Lputian - Malaniuk, Sverdlovsk 1987. 8 �c6 (124)

9 �c4 Alternatively, 9 get h6! (9 ... e5?! 10 e4) 10 e4 fxe4 11 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 12 gxe4 g5! (And Black stands better already - Malaniuk) 13 �e2 (13 ge3!?) 13 ... �h5 14 gft .Qg4 15 ge3 e6! (15 ... gt7 and 15 ... �h8 are unpleasantly met with 16 d5) 16 c3 fi:.t27 17 h3

(17 c4 4::J:6 + - Malaniuk) 17 ... �xh3 18 .Q.xh3 �3 19 gxe6 �5 (Consideration should be given to 19 ... gxf3 20 gxe7 gaf8 21 ge8+ , and not 21 gxc7 h5 22 gxb7 h4 Z3 gb8 hxg3 24 gxf8+ �xf8 and Black wins) 20 4:Jh2! gf7 (20 . .. 4jf6 21 ge7± - Mal­ aniuk) 21 �g4 112 4 Yusupov Malaniuk, Moscow 1988; if 21 . . . �g4 22 4Jxg4 4Jf6 23 4Jxf6+ gxf6 24 ge7 gt7, then the game is equal. �h8 9 Other moves have also been tried: a) 9 ... h6 10 �1 (Critical is 10 d5 �b4 11 4Je3 cS 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 a3 � 14 b4 gb8 15 c4 c5o:> Efunov - Malaniuk, Kiev 1989) 10 ... g5 11 �3 �h8 12 e3 �e6 and Black has completed his development; Tal - Sakaev, Moscow 1991. b) 9 ... e6 10 a4 �d7 11 e3 h6 12 �1 g5 13 4Jd3 a6 14 aS gb8 15 �e2 �7 16 gae1 4Jg6 17 f3?! (Enklaar - Chernin, Amsterdam 1980); instead of this, Masuke­ vich recommends 17 f4!? with an unclear game. c) 9 ... .Q.e6 10 ct:g5 .Q.xc4 11 bxc4 4Jd8 12 �d3 h6 13 4Jf3 e6 14 c5 dxc5 15 dxcS 4::J:6 16 gab1 gd8 17 �b3 b6 18 gfdt gxdt+ 19 gxdt �4 20 Qxg7 �g7 21 cxb6 axb6 22 �b2+ e5 (Sosonko - Beliavsky, Tilburg 1984) 23 4:Ji2± 4Jxd2 24 .klxc6 4):4 (24 ... 'fijxc6 2S �e5+) 2S 'fijbS 'fije6 26 gd5 with advantage to White (worse would be 26 .kld5 4Jd6) .

Systems with an early b3 103 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

dS {)e1 dxc6 {)d3 {)£4 {)dS 4:Jxf6 il,xf6+

{)b4 c6 {)xc6 ,O.e6 .Q.gB �dB ,O.xf6 �xf6 (125)

The game is equal; Sosonko - Korchnoi, Brussels 1987.

7 eS Black tries to exploit the absence of the bishop at once. Also worth considering is 7 . c6 8 {jbd2 (8 ,O.b2 transposes to Atll) 8 ... e5 9 e3 e4 10 �1 d5 (White has let Black gain the upper hand in the centre) 11 a4 aS 12 4):2 .Q.e6 13 Qa3 gf7 14 tfje2 {Jbd7 15 gfb1 g5 16 f4 exf4 17 Qxf3 g4 18 .Qg2 �4 19 {Jxe4 fxe4+ Donchenko - Orlov, Bel­ gorod 1989. 8 dxeS 8 {Jc3 is not advisable, e.g. 8 ... 4Jc6 9 Bb1 e4 10 c£je1 d5 11 t;52 .Q.e6 12 ;get dxc4 13 bxc4 4)1.5 14 c£ja3 �4 15 e3 c5 with advantage to Black; Csom Planinc, Amsterdam 197 4. 8 dxeS (127) ..

A2 7

c4 (126)

Mter b2 b3 White does not need to transfer the bishop immediately to b2. This can be delayed or sidestepped alto­ gether in favour of ,O_a3!? - a possibility which we will exam­ ine here. -

Instead of the text, attention should perhaps be paid to 8 ... {:g4 9 4):3 dxe5 10 ,O_a3 e4 (According to Taimanov, worse for Black is 10 . . . ;ge8?! 11 tfjxd8 ;gxd8 12 4:Jd5 4:Ja6 13 ;gad1 �e6 14 {:g5) 11 Qxf8 tt1xf8 12 4:Jd4± e3 13 f4 4Jf2 14 gxf2 exf2+ 15 �2 4:::JID with counterplay; Wexler -

104 Systems with an early b3 Uhlmann, Buenos Aires 1960. 9 il,a3 Also fine for Black is 9 tf}c2 (9 �d8 gxd8 10 {jxe5 ge8 is bad for White) 9 ... 4jc6 10 ,kla3 Bf7 11 {2g5 gd7 12 4:Je6 4)1. 4!= Savon - Lutikov, USSR 1969. �d1 9 10 �xd1 Z!e8 11 �c3 e4 c6 12 �e1 4Jg4 13 f3 14 fxg4 .Q.xc3 15 r!ac1 .Q.xe1 16 r!xe1 fxg4 17 Z!ed1 .O,fS 18 jjd4 �d7 White has sufficent coun­ terplay for the pawn; Anasta­ sian - Malaniuk, Moscow GMA 1989.

B 6 �e4 Here we consider variations in which Black tries to interfere in White's plans by activating his king's knight. 7 .O,b2 Here Black can hold back his d-pawn or support the knight in the centre: B1 7 . . . d6 B2 7 . . . dS and others B1 7 d6 Now White has: Btl 8 c4 B12 8 �bd2

BH 8

c4 (128)

In this section, White coun­ ters Black's plan of occupying e4 by delaying the development of the queenside knight. 8 �c6 Other possibilities offer White more chances for an advantage: a) 8 . . . cS?! (There is no sense in opening the centre) 9 �d cxd4 10 {jxd4 tfjb6 (Botvinnik suggests 10 ... 4:Jd>!? as a better possibility) 11 {JbS a6 12 4JSc3 t;F> 13 {jxe4 fxe4 14 .O.xg 7 �g 7 15 ,O.xe4 and White has an extra pawn; Portisch - Gaston­ yi, Hungary 1957. b) 8 . . 4Jd7 9 �c2 0:lf6 (9 ... e6 10 {Jbd2 {jxd2 11 �xd2 tf}e7= - Bellin) 10 {Jbd2 e6 11 4Je1 {jxd2 12 �d2 �e7 13 4Jd3± Petrosian - Kaiszauri, Vilnius 1978. c) 8 .. . e6 9 4):3 {jxc3 10 .Q.xc3 4Jd7 11 gel tf}e7 12 �b4 gb8 13 ge1 b6 14 e4 fxe4 15 gxe4 .O.b7 16 d5 e5 17 ge1 ,0_h6 18 .0.d2± Gligoric - Benko, Buenos Aires 1955. .

Systems with 9 4Je1 9 c.£jbd2 is considered later under B121, whilst 9 4.):3 is considered under variation B in Chapter 3 (8 b3 4_je4 9 .O,b2) . 9 4Jg5 Or 9 .. . e5 10 d5 {[J=7 11 e3 with the idea of f3 or f4± Botvinnik. 10 e3 eS 11 dS 4Je7 12 f4 4Jf7 Conceding the centre is worse: 12 ... exf4 13 �xg7 �g 7 14 exf4± - Botvinnik. 13 4Jc3 gS 14 4Jd3 4Jg6 15 �d2 .Q.d7 16 �ae1 White has a slight advantage; Csom - Holm, Skopje 1972. B12 8 4Jbd2 Now White between:

4Jc6 choose

can

B121 9 c4 B122 9 4Jc4 and others B121

9 c4 eS (129) This is an interesting line. The viability of the whole system starting with 6 ... �4 may depend on it. However, Black can also consider 9 ... c.£jxd2 (Or 9 .. e6 10 e3 t/Je7 11 {iy1 c.£jxd2 12 tfjxd2 e5 13 f4 e4 when Black has few problems; Umanskaya - Gusev, Moscow 1991) 10 c.£jxd2 e5 when Black .

an

early b3 105

stood well in lllescas - de la Villa, Panplona 1990, and A. Sokolov - Avshalumov, Nimes 1991.

10 dxeS 10 d5 is also interesting: 10 .. . c.£jxd2 11 t/Jxd2 (11 dxc6!?) 11 .. �7 (Also fine is 10 ... 4Jb8 12 �ac1 {12 t£:£5 �e7 13 lfad1 c[ja6 .

fNot 13 ... h6 14 c£J=6 1J.xe6 15 dxe6 cfjc6 16 cS and the white pawns are penetrating Black's position; Skembris Santo Roman, Athens 19921 14 b4? cfjxb4! 15 c£jxh7 �xh7 16 �xb4 f4+ Moutousis - Santo Roman, Athens 1992} 12 ... t/Je7 13 b4 -

4517 14 cS 4Jf6 15 �fd1 f4 16 gxf4 4Je4 17 cxd6 cxd6 18 t/Jc2 �xf4 and Black's activity on the queenside and White's activity on the kingside counterbalance one another; Romanishin Casper, junnala 1987) 12 gael h6 13 �fd1 g5 14 c5 {:g6 15 e3 �f7 16 cxd6 cxd6 17 �c2 f4 18 exf4 gxf4 19 4Je1 .0.f5 and White has to organise a defence; Akhmilovskaya - Utinskaya, lbilisi 1987. 10 . . . 4Jxd2

1(() Systems with an early b3

11 �xd2 dxe5 12 �d5+ l{!th8 13 �dB �xd8 It is interesting to note that this position is analogous to the variation 6 c4 d6 7 4:):3 t;J:n 8 b3 - the only difference being that the white bishop is placed on b2 instead of c3. 14 4Jg5 14 �ad1 leads to an equal endgame: 14 ... gxd1 1S gxd1 e4 16 ,O_xg7+ �g7 17 4::P 4 4:Jxd4 18 �xd4 fle6 19 f3 exf3 20 !J.xf3 (20 exf3 gb8 21 f4 bS 22 cxbS �bS 23 �2 �aS 14 �d2 ga3 2S �c6 �aS 26 �c2 �6 27 �3 �7 28 @:14 @:16 1f2� Schoen - Mi. Tseitlin, Budapest 1989) 20 c6 21 �2 �6 22 e4 �f8 23 �3 cS 24 �d2 b6 2S h4 fxe4 with a quick draw; Polugayev­ sky - Bareev, Moscow 1987. 14 . . . �d2 (130) ...

1 30

i � j_ �

f.� +

�_(< '/1

w � ..... �.- �

� �

�

+

?.� � - ·--�� ..&.

�4) � �.L � � � � � � -�.L � - -··/.�_ _ � ;It � � � � ;It � � � �- � -

��u;�

r' fi'