Opalill lor ita accord I

1.84

~ Clless Stars

't'iUliptJP

Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com

Editorial Panel:

Technical Editor:

Translation by:

GM R.Ovetchkin, 1M S.Klimov, 1M S.Soloviov 1M Semko Semkov

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes

Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright 2005 by Alexander Khalifman and Sergei Soloviov

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN 954 8782 44 8

Opening for White According to Anand l.e4

Book V

1.e4 Miscellaneous l.e4 b6 2.d4

l.e4 ttJc6 2.ttJf3 l.e4 ttJf6 2.e5

l.e4 e6 2.d4 without 2 ... d5

Alexander Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

Other CHESS STARS books

Repertoire books: Opening for White According to Kramnik 1.Nf3 by Khalifman Volume 1: King's Indian, Old Indian, Anti-Gruenfeld Volume 2: Anti-Nimzo-Indian, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango Volume 3: Maroczy, English (1...c5), Modern, Dutch Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined

Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman Volume 1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 ... a6 Volume 2: Ruy Lopez with 3 ... a6 Volume 3: Caro -Kann; 1...c6, 2 ... g6 Volume 4: 1 ... d6, 1 ... g6 Next book: Volume 6: The French Defence

Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, Reti

Current theory and practice series: 1. The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, Second edition 2. How to Get the Edge Against the Gruenfeld by Sakaev 3. Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3! by Bezgodov 4. Latest Trends in the Semi-Slav: Anti-Meran by Sakaev and Semkov

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

Contents Preface ....... , ............. '" ......................... 7

Part 1. Baker's Defence; Owen's Defence l.e4 various; L.a6 2.d4; L.b6 2.d4

1 various; L.a6 2.d4 .................................. 10 2 L.b6 2.d4 various; 2 ... i.b7 3.i.d3 4:Jf6; 3 ... e6 4.4:Jf.3

without 4 ... c5 ....................................... 24 3 L.b6 2.d4 i.b7 3.i.d3 e6 4.4:Jf.3 c5 ....................... 47

Part 2. Nimzowitsch Defence 1. e4 4:Jc6 2. 4:Jf.3

4 2 ... 4:Jf6; 2 ... 5 ......................................... 72 5 2 ... d5 ............................................... 77 6 2 ... g6 ............................................... 88 7 2 ... d6 ............................................... 96

Part 3. Alekhine's Defence 1.e4 4:Jf6 2.e5

8 2 ... 4:Jg8 ............................................. 118 9 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 various; 3 ... e6; 3 ... d6 4.4:Jf.3 various ......... 125 10 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 4:Jc6 ............................ 140 11 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 de ............................... 150 12 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 g6 ............................... 168 13 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 i.g4 5.i.e2 4:Jc6 .................. 199 14 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 i.g4 5.i.e2 c6 ................... 219 15 2 ... 4:Jd5 3.d4 d6 4.4:Jf.3 i.g4 5.i.e2 e6 ................... 233

Part 4. 1.e4 e6 2.d4

16 various without 2 ... d5 .............................. 244

Index of Variations ..................................... 253

5

Preface

Dear readers,

You are now holding in your hands the fifth volume of our series "Opening for White According to Anand - I.e4". This book is de-voted to openings (to put it mildly ... ) rather exotic. In fact, most of the chess-professionals consider the systems that we have analyzed in this volume as simply incorrect. It is maybe the Alekhine De-fence, which can be spared such definite evaluation, but this would be probably only due to the reputation of this outstanding chess-genius.

It is hardly worth denying that Black would eventually fail to equalize after moves like I. .. a6, or L.b6. Nevertheless ... the chess-players, belonging to the older generations, definitely remember the famous game Karpov - Miles (Skara 1980) l.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 and ... no, not 1-0 after 20 moves, but just the opposite - after 15 moves Black was already slightly better, after 25 moves Miles was clearly dominant and White resigned on move 46. Naturally, all that does not prove that the opening l.e4 a6 is quite correct, but still it clarifies that neither the win, nor the opening advantage is irrevo-cably guaranteed even to the best players in the world. White needs some precise knowledge and energetic play to maintain his advan-tage in these somewhat inferior openings.

This small introduction should tell you that the author has had serious problems collecting practical examples (according to Anand ... ) and elsewhere at a really high level, in the process of writing this volume. The present theoretical material was not of much help either, because all these openings had never been ana-lyzed thoroughly. It became necessary to systematize the available material and to give precise recommendations to White after the numerous orders of moves that Black had at his disposal in these rare openings.

I am not so optimistic about the eventual evaluation, which this book might deserve by my colleagues - grandmasters. It would hardly be as superb as the reviews of the previous volumes. More-over, some ofthem might even pay no attention to it and that would be easily understandable. White presently has so many problems to solve, for example in the Marshall Counterattack, or in the Sicil-ian-Sveshnikov, so why bother about the fine points of the Owen's Defence (1.e4 b6), which is being played so seldom anyway?

7

Meanwhile, this book is addressed not only to grandmasters and even least of all to them. Many less experienced players have en-countered opponents at club-level who solve their opening problems once and for all, by avoiding the endless complicated lines of the Ruy Lopez, or the Sicilian Defence and instead respond to l.e4 with l...lDc6 (l...b6, l...a6, l...lDf6) and take care only about all immedi-ate refutation attempts? The author has written this book for these particular players with the hope that it might be really useful for them. I would not venture to guarantee you winning your games with White, but you are going to have the opening advantage - be sure about that!

A Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

P.S. This book has included, in a separate part, some lines after l.e4 e6 2.d4 (without 2 ... d5). The author considers that the French defence deserves a volume of its own - that is l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5, as for the lines, in which Black refrains from 2 ... d5 - that is " .oh, see the first passages of this introduction.

8

Part 1

l.e4 - Miscellaneous 1.e4 b6 2.d4

In the first chapter we will analyze some quite strange moves for Black: 1. .. f5, 1. .. g5 (Basman Defence), I. .. a6 (Baker's Defence). Only the last variation has a somewhat sen-sible idea - to follow with 2 ... b5 and to develop the bishop to the b7 -square. Such enlarged fianchetto is a bit too risky for the early stages of the opening

and White achieves a substantial advantage.

There is also another possibil-ity for Black - 1. .. b6 (Owen's Defence) with the similar idea-to develop the bishop to the b7-square. It is much more difficult for White to maintain a stable edge after that, since Black has not weakened his queenside with the move b7 -b5 and he has not lost additional time to develop his bishop (the a7 -a6-move). Black's most logical plan for the development of his pieces: l.e4 b6 2.d4 .ltb7 3 . .ltd3 e6 (pre-paring c7 -c5) 4.1ZJf3 c5 5.c3 lZJf6 is dealt with in Chapter 3, while the rest of Black's possibilities are analyzed in chapter two.

9

Chapter 1 1.e4

L.a6 This move became gradually

popular after GM Anthony Miles's sensational win with Black against Anatoly Karpov at the European Team Champion-ship in Skara in1980.

The moves 1...h5 and 1.. .a5 hardly deserve any serious at-tention, since they do not con-tribute at all to Black's develop-ment, and he is not fighting for the centre either. After 2.d4 White has a clear advantage, because no matter what popular scheme Black might try to em-ploy - his first move will defi-nitely be premature mildly speaking ...

It is obviously wrong for Black to play 1...f5 2.exf5 ct:Jf6

3.~e2, because White remains

10

with an extra pawn and better development.

White has no problems to claim the edge after: 1...ct:Ja6 2.ct:Jc3 c6 3.i..xa6 bxa6 4.l2:lf3 g6 5.0-0 i..g7 6.d4 ct:Jf6, Comp Me-phisto Genius - Van Geet, The Hague 1997, 7.e5 ct:Jd5 (7 .. .'~Jg4 8.h3 ct:Jh6 9.i..f4) 8.ct:Je4 0-0 9. c4 ct:Jb6 (9 ... ct:Jc7 10.'b3; 9 ... f5 10.l2:lc5 ct:Jb6 11. ,c2) 10.b3 d5 11.exd6 exd6 12.i..a32, and Black's bishops are rather pas-sive, while he has plenty of weak pawns to worry about.

After 1...g5 2.d4 Black usually follows with 2 ... i..g7 or 2 ... h6, but some other moves have been tried in practice too:

2 ... ct:Jf6? - is a rather strange move, because after 3.e5 Black's

knight will have to go to the centre of the board. It will come under attack just like in the Alekhine Defence, meanwhile Black will lose his g5-pawn in the process;

In answer to 2 ... e6, it is worth for White to try to exploit the weakening of Black's kingside immediately with: 3.h4!? gxh4 4. 'h5! and Black must defend very precisely against the on-coming attack. The only game played in this line followed with: 4 ... .Jie7 5.cbf3 c5 6.ltJe5 t'ta5+ 7. .Jid2 t'tb6 8. t'txf7 + ~d8 9. t'tg7 t'txb2, Kuusela - Kiltti, Tampere 1995. Now after 10.dxc5! Black either gets checkmated, or he loses plenty of material, for ex-ample: 10 ... .Jiffi (10 ... ~c7 1l . .Jif4 .Jiffi 12.ltJxd7+-) 11. t'tf8+ ~c7 12. 'd6+ ~d8 13.ltJc4 'xa1 (13 ... 'd414.t'tf8+ ~c7 15 . .Jia5+-) 14. t'tf8+ ~c7 15 . .Jia5+ b6 16.cxb6+ axb6 (White checkmates too af-ter: 16 ... ~b7 17.ltJd6+ ~c6 18. t'txc8+ ~xd6 19 . .Jib4+ ~e5 20. 'c7+) 17 . .Jixb6+ ~b7 18.'xc8+ ~xc819.ltJd6# Black thus suffers the punishment for his terrible play in the opening;

There are some games in which Black has tried the quite extravagant move 2 ... e5?, against which White should bet-ter continue his piece-develop-ment with 3.ltJf3 and then for example: 3 ... exd4 4 . .Jixg5 .Jib4+ 5.c3 dxc3 6.ltJxc3 and White's lead in development is over-whelming;

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ltJ{3 ~b7 4.~d3

2 ... ~g7 3.ltJc3 (This is White's calmest move, but it is also very good for him to play 3 . .Jixg5, al-though after 3 ... c5 the game might get too complicated.) 3 ... c5 (About 3 ... h6 - see 2 ... h6; the other moves for Black enable White to dominate in the centre completely. He has additionally a powerful pressure on the king-side, which was weakened con-siderably with Black's first move: 3 ... e6 4.ltJge2 h5 5 . .te3 d6 6. 'd2 g4 7.0-0-0 a6 8.h3 Vouldis - Papastavropoulos, Ath-ens 1996, or 3 ... c6 4 . .tc4 b5 5 . .Jib3 a5 6.a3 Sl..a6, Ginsburg -Frey, Deizisau 1998, 7 . .txg5.) 4.Sl..e3 'b6, Kottenhahn - Zoel-ler, Giessen 1997 (After 4 ... t'ta5 5.ltJge2 cxd4 6.ltJxd4 the posi-tion resembles the Accelerated Dragon variation - l.e4 c5 2.ltJf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ltJxd4 .tg7 5.ltJc3 - except that Black's pawn is on the g5-square instead of on g6. This is definitely in favour of White, since he can attack much easier on the kingside - the f5 and h5-squares are very weak now.) 5.ltJd5 t'ta5+ 6 . .Jid2 t'td8 7 . .Jic3 cxd4 8 . .txd4 and White enjoys a total control over the centre and his lead in develop-ment is overwhelming;

2 ... h6 3.4:lc3 Sl..g7 4 . .Jic4 c5 (Af-ter the rest of the moves for Black - White can easily exploit the weakening of Black's king-side with quite natural moves, for example: 4 ... e6 5 . .te3 ltJe7 6.t'te2 d6 7.0-0-0 a6 8.h4 gxh4

11

Chapter 1

9.ttJf3 ttJg6 10 . ..ltd3 ttJc6 1l.e5 Smolyaninov - Khabarov, Da-gomys 2003, Black lags in devel-opment considerably and he can hardly bring his king to safety, while in case of: 4 ... d6 5.ttJge2 ttJc6 6.0-0 e5 7. dxe5 ttJxe5 8 . ..ltb3 ttJf6 9.f4 gxf4, Mor-diglia - Faraoni, Asti 1995, the simple line 10.Ji.xf4 'f!1e7 1l.ttJg3 leads to a position, which is much more typical for the King's Gambit - White leads in devel-opment, the f-file is opened, the f5 and h5-squares are very weak, moreover White has not sacri-ficed anything whatsoever. White maintains a considerable lead in development too after: 5 ... ttJf6 6.0-0 c6 7.f4 Alvarez -Theunisse, corr. 1992.) 5.Ji.e3 ttJc6 (Mter 5 ... cxd4 6 . ..ltxd4 ..ltxd4 7. 'f!1xd4 ttJf6 8.ttJd5 Sheldrick -Williams, Mingara 2000, Black's kingside is totally destroyed; while in case of 5 ... 'f!1a5 6.ttJge2 ttJf6, Kogge - Millgramm, Pin-neb erg 2000, White fortifies his centre with 7.f3 cxd4 8.ttJxd4 d6 9. 'f!1d2 and transposes to a po-sition from the Dragon variation of the Sicilian Defence - l.e4 c5 2.ttJf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4 ttJf6 5.ttJc3 g6 6 . ..lte3 Ji.g7 7.f3 - in which Black's kingside has been weakened.) 6.ttJge2 ttJa5 (This chase of the white bishop con-sumes too much time.) 7.'f!1d3 cxd4 8 . ..ltxd4 ttJf6, Ward - Elieff, Canada 1996 (The exchange of White's light squared bishop does not help Black much: 8 ...

12

ttJxc4 9. 'f!1xc4 ttJf6 10.e5 tLlg4 1l.e6; 9 ... ..ltxd4 10.tLlxd4 tLlf6 11.h4 and White leads in devel-opment and he has a powerful initiative in the centre and on the kingside.) 9.e5 ttJh5 (in an-swer to 9 ... ttJg4, White should better follow with 10.e6 and he wins a pawn preserving a huge lead in development.) 10 . ..ltd5. White's pieces are centralized, he leads in development and he has excellent prospects for active play in the centre and on the kingside. White's advantage is overwhelming.

2.d4

2 ... b5 Mter 2 ... d5 3.exd5 'f!1xd5 4.

tLlc3 there arises a position from the Scandinavian Defence with the strange early move a6; about 2 ... d6 3.ttJc3 - see Chapter 1, vol-ume4.

In case of 2 ... e6 3.tLlf3, Black has plenty of possibilities, but they usually lead only to trans-positions: 3 ... b5 4.Ji.d3 - see 2 ... b5; 3 ... d5 4.tLlc3 - see l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ttJc3 a6; 3 ... c5 - leads to the Sicilian Defence; 3 ... tLlf6 4.e5 - transposes to the Alekhine

Defence with a move like e6, which is hardly the best and also with the inclusion of the strange a6?! - move.

Black has also tried the fol-lowing moves in this position:

2 ... h6 3.c4 cS (The attempt by Black to play symmetrically with 3 ... g6 4.ctJc3 b6 S . .lte3 .ltg7, Tid-man - Saujani, London 1999, leads after 6.f4 to a position in which White enjoys complete control over the centre; in an-swer to 3 ... bS, Helin - Marder, Stockholm 2000, White should simply capture 4.cxbS and he re-mains with a solid extra pawn.) 4.ctJf3 cxd4 (after 4 ... gS S.dxcS .ltg7 6.ctJc3 ctJc6 7 . .lte3 ctJf6 8. ctJd2 Rotman - Basman, Lon-don 1994, Black has no compen-sation for the pawn) S.ctJxd4 e6 6.ctJc3 ~c7 7 . .lte3 ctJf6 8 . .lte2 Wortel - Basman, Amsterdam 1996. There arose a position, which is typical for the Paulsen variation of the Sicilian Defence (l.e4 cS 2.ctJf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ttJxd4 a6 S.c4) except that Black has played the move h6, which is hardly the best;

2 ... cS 3.dxcS ~aS+ (It is cal-mer and safer for Black to play 3 ... e6 4 . .lte3 ~c7 S.ctJc3 .ltxcS 6 . .ltxcS ~xcS. The arising pawn-structure is more typical for the Sicilian Defence and the early exchange of the dark squared bishops enables White to either force the weakening of Black's kingside, or to prevent him from castling. 7. ~g4 ~f8 - it is possi-

l.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ctJ{3 !!i.b7 4.iLd3

bly better for Black to play: 7 ... g6 8.ctJf3 ctJc6 9 . .i.d3 bS 1O.0-0 and his queen is active, but both his flanks are weakened consider-ably - 8.ctJf3 bS 9.ii.d3 b4 1O.ctJe2 .ltb7 11.0-0 ctJc6 12. ~f4 d6 13. a3; 12 ... eS 13. ~d2 ctJge7 14.a3 Hodl - Sell, Germany 2000. White has excellent prospects on the queenside, because of the exposed position of the enemy king. Black has hardly any counterplay.) 4.ctJc3 ~xcS (The line 4 ... ctJf6 S.i.d3 e5, was played in the game Gonzalvo Lara -Cerrajeria, Zaragoza 1999. Now, it looks very attractive for White to follow with 6.i.g5!?, for ex-ample after: 6 ... .lte7 White exerts a powerful pressure: 7.ttJge2

~xc5 8.ii.xf6 .ltxf6 9.ttJd5 ii.d8 10.0-0 d6 l1.b4 ~c6 12.c4 0-0 13.f4; or 6 ... .ltxc5 7.ii.xf6 gxf6 8.a3 ~d8 9. ~g4 and Black's bishop pair does not compensate his weaknesses on the kingside and in the centre. It is even worse for him to play: 8 ... ctJc6? 9.b4 ttJxb4 10.axb4 ~xb4 11. ctJge2+-, or 8 ... ~b6 9.ctJd5 !!i.xf'2+

10.~f1+-.) 5.ii.e3 ~a5 (5 ... ~b4 6.a3 ~xb2 7.ctJd5+-; 6 ... ~a5 7.b4

~e5 8.ctJd5+-) 6.~d5 ~c7 7.~b3! This move enables White to paralyze Black's queenside com-pletely: 7 ... e6. This is Black's only move. (7 ... b5 8.ctJd5 ~aS+ 9.c3 ii.b7 10.ttJb6+-; 7 ... ctJf6 8. ii.b6 ~f4 9.ctJh3+-; 8 ... ~e5 9.ctJf3

~e6 10.ii.c4+-; 8 ... ~c6 9.ttJd5 ctJxd5 10.exd5 ~f6 11.~c4+-) 8.ii.b6 ~c6 9.ctJge2 ..It.c5 (after

13

Chapter 1

9 ... d6 10.CZ'ld4 ~d7 1l.0-0-0 .ib4+ 7.CZ'lc3 .ib7 S.O-O i..xc3 9. White's lead in development is overwhelming) 10.CZ'la4 d6 (l0 ... i..e7 11..~ .. d4+-) 1l . .txc5 dxc5 12.CZ'lb6 J::i.a7 13.~g3. White wins at least a pawn.

3.CZ'lf3

3 ... i..b7 3 ... e6 4 . .td3 c5 (about 4 ... .tb7

5.0-0 - see 3 ... .tb7) 5.c3 and now: 5 ... .tb7 6.0-0 - see 3 ... .tb7; 5 ... d6 6.0-0 ltJd7 (after 6 ... CZ'lc6

7.l:i.e1 e5 8.a4 l:(bS 9.axb5 axb5 10.h3 i..d7 11..te3 '!fic7 12.ltJbd2 there arises a pawn-structure which is typical for the Ruy Lopez, except that White has several extra tempi, Thallinger - Wiedner, Austria 1994) 7.a4 c4 S . .ic2 l:i.bS 9.axb5 axb5 10.~e1 CZ'le7, Anagnostopoulos - I vanets, Heraklio 1996, and here the best way for White to exploit his huge lead in development is to play: 1l.b3! cxb3 12 . .id3 and Black must push his b5-pawn forward in order not to lose it, meanwhile White continues with his devel-opment and Black's king is rather unsafe in the centre;

Black can reduce the tension in the centre with: 5 ... cxd4 6.cxd4

14

bxc3 '!fic7, Pucovski - Rajak, Yu-goslavia 2001, but White main-tains a steady pressure in the centre and on the queenside: 10.a4! ltJf6 (it is worse for Black to play: 10 ... d5 1l.exd5 .ixd5 12. axb5, as well as 10 ... '!fixc3 11. .if4 bxa4 12. l';t'bl+-; 1l ... CZ'lc6 12. axb5) 11.~e1 bxa4 12.e5 CZ'ld5 13.c4 CZ'lb6 14.c5 ltJd5 15.CZ'lg5;

After 5 ... c4, White has a clear plan for actions on the queen-side: 6 . .ic2 .tb7 7.0-0 ltJf6 S. l:i.e1 d6 9.b3 ~c7 10.bxc4 bxc4 11. ~e2 ltJbd7 12.ltJbd2 lIc8 13. l:i.b1 .ie7 14.ltJxc4 iLaS, Riefner - Unger, Bayern 2002 (l4 ... .ixe4 15.ltJxd6+ iLxd6 16.iLxe4 CZ'lxe4 17. ~xe4 '!fixc3 lS. '!fig4 c;t>f8 19. i..f4; lS ... g6 19.iLh6). Now, White could have preserved a solid extra pawn with: 15.ltJa3! d5 16.'!fixa6 CZ'lxe4 (It is hardly better for Black to try: 16 ... .txa3 17 . .ixa3 CZ'lxe4 lS . .ixe4 dxe4 19. ltJg5, because he remains a pawn down and his king is vul-nerable. He has no compensation for the pawn after: 16 ... ~xc3 17.e5, while in case of: 16 ... dxe4 17.CZ'lb5 ~c6 lS.'!fixc6 iLxc6 19. ltJa7 Black will have to defend a very difficult endgame.) 17. ltJb5 '!fidS lS.iLxe4 dxe4 19.1tJd2 CZ'lf6 20.iLa3.

4.i.d3 We will analyze now: a) 4 ...

CZ'lf6 and b) 4 ... e6. Black has also tried in prac-

tice: 4 ... d6 - White can now exploit

the weaknesses on Black's queenside with quite natural moves: 5.a4! b4 6.c3 c5 7.0-0 a5 B.i.b5+ i.c6 9.dxc5 dxc5 10. Y;;rxdB+ ~xdB ll.tLle5 and Black must fight for the draw in an endgame with weak queenside pawns, moreover his pieces on the kingside are not developed, Comas Fabrego - R.Valles, Spain 199B;

4 ... g6 5.a4! b4, Ferret - Gasch, Internet 1996 (it worse for Black to play 5 ... bxa4 6.0-0 tLlf6, Ga-brielson - N agley, IECC 1998, because White dominates in the centre and he has excellent at-tacking chances after: 7.e5 tLld5 B.i.e4!, for example: B ... tLle3 9.fxe3 ~xe4 10.tLlg5!+-; B ... Y;;re8 9.tLlg5! f5 1O.~xf5+-; 9 ... h6 10. tLlxf7+-; 9 ... tLlb4 10J:Ixa4 ~xe4 1l.tLlxe4) 6.0-0 ~g7 (After 6 ... tLlf6 7.e5 tLld5 8.~e4 ~c8 9.tLlg5, Black will hardly manage to de-fend against White's numerous threats and particularly against 10.Y;;rf.3.) 7.c3 bxc3 B.tLlxc3 tLlc6 9. i.e3. White's centre is very pow-erful and he enjoys a much bet-ter development.

a) 4 .. tLlf6

l.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.CiJ/3 !il.b7 4 . .1l.d3

5.CiJbd2! This move is a useful prophy-

lactic against the move c7 -c5, which White will counter now with dxc5, followed by e5 and tLle4. He saves a tempo in this fashion for the move c2-c3 in comparison to line b.

5 ... e6 In answer to 5 ... e5, which was

tested in several games, White should better capture the pawn 6.dxc5 Y;;rc7 (6 ... e6 7.e5 tLld5 8. tLle4) 7.b4 CiJc6 B.a3 and Black has no compensation.

6.0-0 c5 Black has no other active

counterplay left. About 6 ... i.e7 7 . .1:i.e1- see 4 ...

e6 5.0-0 iLe7 6.CiJbd2 CiJf6 7.lIel. 6 ... d5 7.e5 CiJfd7 (If 7 ... CiJe4,

Williamson - Schaeperkoetter, IECG 2001, then the simple line 8. Y;;re2 CiJxd2 9.i.xd2 c5 10.dxc5

~xc5 1l.b4 i.e7 12.a4 enables White to exert a powerful pres-sure on the queenside.) 8.tDb3 e5 9.dxe5 tDxc5 (It is worse for Black to play 9 ... CiJe6 10.iLe3! CiJdxe5 11.CiJxe5 CiJxe5 12.i.d4 tLle6 13.c3 ::tcB 14.f4 tDxd4 15. exd4, because White remains with an overwhelming advan-tage in the centre and he can cre-ate threats on both sides on the board, Dibley - Schaeperkoetter, mCG 2001.) 10.CiJxc5 i.xc5 11.e3 tDc6, Flear - Rossi, Asti 1997, and now the simplest way for White to exploit the weaknesses on Black's queenside is to play: 12.b4 i.e7 13.a4t.

15

Chapter 1

6 ... d6 - enables White to seize the initiative on the queenside: 7.a4 b4 (It is worse for Black to try 7 ... bxa4 8.c3 i.e7, Raisa -Kivisto, Finland 1994, because after the simple line: 9:~xa4+

~d7 10. "c2 White maintains a powerful pressure over the whole board.) 8.e5 dxe5 9.dxe5 4Jd5 10.4Je4 i.e7 11.~e2 4Jd7, Bratic - Nurkic, Neum 2003. Now, af-ter the aggressive line: 12.c4 bxc3 13.bxc3 4Jc5 14.4Jxc5 i.xc5 15.i.d2 there arises a position in which Black cannot complete his development easily, since af-ter: 15 ... 0-0 White plays 16.

i.xh7!~, while in case of 15 ... h6 16.J:::tab1~, White maintains his space advantage and he has a powerful pressure on the queen-side.

7.dxc5 i..xc5 8.e5 4Jd5 9. 4Je4 i.e7

It is quite dubious for Black to play: 9 ... "c7 10.4Jxc5 ~xc5 1l.a3 Tripoteau - Delaire, Fouesnant 2000, because White remains with the two bishop ad-vantage and dominates in the centre.

10.a4 b4 After 10 ... 4Jb4 1l.i.g5!

White manages to trade favourably the dark squared bishops.

1l.c4! bxc3 It is worse for Black to play

1l ... 4Jb6, because after 12.:tel White controls the centre and he has excellent piece coordination.

16

12.bxc3 0-0, Faibisovich -Frog, St. Petersburg 1993. (After 12 ... 4Jc6 13.i.a3 White's knight reaches the wonderful d6-square and he maintains a powerful pressure on the queenside, Fritz 6 - Wege, Kuppenheim 2000; it is hardly any better for Black to try here: 12 ... f5 13.exf6 4Jxf6 14.4Jxf6+ i.xf6 15.4Jg5 Burlant - N agley, IEee 2003, because White preserves a huge lead in development and a strong initia-tive on the kingside.) 13 . .l:!bl

~c7 (13 ... i..c6 14.4Jd4) 14.4Jd6 i.c6 15.i.c2 f5 (in case of 15 ... i.xd6 16.exd6 "a5, White plays 17.c4! 4Jf6 - Black loses after 17 ... 4Jc3? 18.i..d2+- - 18.i.b2 and Black has no compensation for White's two powerful bish-ops) 16."d4. Black cannot ac-tivate his pieces effectively. White's excellent knight on d6 paralyzes Black's forces and the exchange of that knight with Black's dark squared bishop would cause a great weakening of the dark squares. It is not clear at all how Black can com-plete his development.

b) 4 ... e6 5.0-0

5 ... c5 Black must organize some

counterplay in the centre; other-wise he will have problems with the defence of his queenside weaknesses.

About 5 ... ct:Jf6 6.ct:Jbd2 - see 4 ... ct:Jf6.

5 ... d6 6.a4! bxa4 (after 6 ... b4 7.c3 White maintains his space advantage, his lead in develop-ment and his initiative on the queenside) 7.ct:Jc3 ct:Je7 8.Jtg5 Ti-ger 9 - Goubet, Albertville 1997.

5 ... ct:Je7 6.a4! bxa4 7.c4 ct:Jg6 8.ct:Jc3 Jte7 9. ~xa4 0-0 1O.d5 c6 11.i.e3 Shabalov - Zapolskis, Liepaya 2004.

The move 5 ... i.e7looks like a waste of time, because after 6.ct:Jbd2! ct:Jf6 (6 ... c5, Trajano -Lima, Pernambuco 2000, 7.dxc5 i.xc5 8.a4) 7.l:::!.e1 c5 (in case of 7 ... d6 8.a4!t b4 9.c3 White has a powerful pressure on the queen-side and in the centre), Sundeen - Vandenburg, Lansing 1990, and here the simple line 8.e5 ct:Jd5 9.dxc5 i.xc5 10.ct:Je4 trans-poses to the variation a with an extra tempo for White.

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ct:J{3 iLb7 4 . .i.d3

Mter 5 ... d5 6.e5 c5 7.c3 ct:Jd7 (in answer to 7 ... ct:Je7, Erlandsen - Benn, Sandefjord 2002, White's simplest line is 8.dxc5, winning a pawn; the move 7 ... ~b6, Jae-ger - Fredriksen, Copenhagen 2004, enables White to seize the initiative on the queenside with: 8.dxc5 i.xc5 9.b4 i.e7 10.a4 bxa4 11.i.e3 ~c7 12.~xa4; in case of 7 ... ct:Jc6, Tatai - Bellon Lopez, Las Palmas 1975, White should again play: 8.dxc5 i.xc5 9.b4 i.b6 10.a4t) 8.ct:Jg5 and White enjoys extra space, his development is superior and his kingside initia-tive is dangerous for Black too, Stinson - Loncarevic, Chicago 1993.

6.c3 ct:Jf6 About 6 ... d5 7.e5 - see 5 ... d5

6.e5 c5 7.c3. Black loses plenty of time

after 6 ... i.e7 7.dxc5 i.xc5, Nilson - Stephenson, corr. 1993. White plays: 8.b4 Jte7 9.a4 bxa4 (it is worse for Black to try 9 ... ~c7 10.axb5 axb5 11 . .!:.xa8 Jtxa8 12. ct:Jd4, because White remains with an extra pawn) 10.':xa4 and White has a superior devel-opment and a powerful pressure in the centre and on the queen-side.

In answer to 6 ... ~b6, Brust-man - Lebel Arias, Dubai 1986, White can create dangerous threats on the queenside with: 7.dxc5 i.xc5 (or 7 ... ~xc5 8.a4 b4 9.i.e3 ~c7 10.cxb4 Jtxb4 11. ~b3 ct:Jc6 12J:tc1 Iib8 13.ct:Ja3) 8.b4 Jte79.a4.

17

Chapter 1

6 ... tDc6 enables White to occupy the centre: 7.d5 tDce7 (after 7 ... tDa5 8.l:!.e1 Yf:tc7 9.b3 Black's queenside pieces are totally misplaced) 8.c4 bxc4 9.iLxc4 tDf6 10.ttJc3 and White has a huge space advantage and better development, Flear -Wohlers, France 1998.

6 ... h6 7 :fle2 ttJf6 (it is too passive for Black to play: 7 ... iLe7, Jenni - Erenska, Bad Woeri-shofen 2001, because White can counter that with 8.dxc5 iLxc5 9.b4 iLb6 10.a4) 8.tDbd2 cxd4 (Black loses plenty of time with: 8 ... i..e7 9.dxc5 i..xc5, Pierangeli - Mazziotto, Rome 1996, and now 10.e5 ttJd5 11.tDe4 iLe7 12. a4 provides White with domi-nation in the centre and a pow-erful initiative on the queenside.) 9.cxd4 iLe7 10.a4 M 11.a5 0-0 12. e5 ttJe8 (12 ... tDd5 13.Yf:te4 g6 14. ttJc4) 13.ttJc4, Black's pieces are extremely passive and he can hardly organize counterplay any-time soon, Bengtsson - Eng-strom, Linkoping 1984.

6 ... d6 7 :fle2 tDf6 (Mter 7 ... ttJe7 8.a4 M, Levitt - Zapolskis, Plovdiv 2003, White can exploit the weakening of Black's queen-side with: 9.dxc5 dxc5 10.i:td1 Yf:tc7 11.tDbd2 ttJg6 12.CtJc4 l' and Black's defence is quite problem-atic, for example: 12 ... i..e7 13. cxb4 cxb4 14.i..e3 CtJd7 15Jhcl CtJc5? 16.iLxc5+-. It is too bad for Black to play 7 ... iLe7, be-cause after 8.dxc5 dxc5 9.e5 tDd7 10.i..e4, Black can hardly de-

18

velop his kingside, while White's queenside initiative is over-whelming, Kovalevskaya - Der-gatschova-Daus, Germany 2003. In answer to 7 ... tDd 7, Hernandez - Lucena, Havana 2003, White should better play 8.b3!? CtJgf6 9. ttJbd2 iLe7 10.a4 b4 - Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient after: 10 ... 0-0 l1.ab axb5 12.lha8 "flxa8 13.iLxb5 -11.cxb4 cxb4 12.iLb2 0-0 13. ltac1, because White can pa-tiently prepare his queenside ini-tiative making use of his domi-nation in the centre.) 8.ttJbd2 iLe7, Abello - Dunis, France 2000. White can obtain a clear advantage in the centre after: 9.dxc5 dxc5 10.c4!? b4 (10 ... bxc4 11.ttJxc4 ttJc6 12.e5 ttJd5 13.i..g5) 1l.e5 CtJfd7 12.CtJe4 "flc7 (12 ... 0-0 13.iLf4 CtJc6 14.l:tadl) 13.i..f4. White's piece-formation in the centre is so powerful that his advantage is overwhelming.

6 ... Yf:t c7 7."fl e2 ttJc6 (About 7 ... ttJf6 8.ttJbd2 - see 6 ... ttJf6 7.Yf:te2 Yf:tc7 8.tDbd2; while in an-swer to 7 ... d5, Hartmann -Stone, IEeG 2000, the simplest line for White is: 8.e5 lLlc6 9.dxc5 i..xc5 10.M i..b6 11.a4; 10 ... i..e7 1l.a4 and he exerts a powerful pressure on the queenside; in case of7 ... c4 8.i..c2 lLlf6, Hughes - Lankey, USA 1991, White can also follow with: 9.e5!? ttJd5 10.lLlg5 g6 11.lLle4; 10 ... f5 11. exf6 lLlxf6 12.f4; 10 ... d6 11.f4 h6 12.lLle4 tDc6 13.f51' and Black's defence is quite problematic. The

following line is practically forced and it leads to a calm po-sition with the bishop pair ad-vantage for White: 13 ... 0-0-0 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.lbxd6+ ~xd6 16.exd6 'xd6 17.a4 ~df8 18. .:::rxffi+ Itxffi 19.axb5 axb5 20.lba3 lbc7 21..~e3; 7 ... d6 8.dxc5 'xc5, Crafty - Guest, ICC 1999, and here after: 9.b4 'c7 10.a4 White preserves a long-lasting positional pressure; after 8 ... dxc5 9.a4 c4 10 . .ic2 lbd7 1I.lba3t Black can hardly cope with de-fending his weaknesses as well as developing his pieces too.) 8.a4 c4 9 . .ic2 lba5 10.axb5 axb5 1l . .ig5 lbf6, S.Vajda - Covlea, Bucharest 2000. The most ener-getic way for White to maintain his advantage is to play immedi-ately 12.lba3!, for example: 12 ... b4 (it is worse for Black to play 12 ... ~b6, because after 13.d5! it would be very difficult for him to activate his pieces, for example: 13 ... .ic5?! 14.lbxb5! 'xb5 15.b4) 13.cxb4 .ixb4 14. lbe5, Black's king is stranded in the centre, his c4-pawn is weak and his piece-coordination is dis-rupted.

6 ... c4 - this reduction of the tension in the centre only helps White to develop his initiative on the flanks. 7 . .ic2lbf6 (In answer to 7 ... d6, it seems very purpose-ful for White to follow with cen-tral strategy: 8. 'e2lbd7 9.lbg5!? .ie7 10.f4 h6 11.lbf3 lbgf6 12.e5 lbd5 13.f5lbffi 14.a4 'b6 15.axb5 axb5 16J~:xa8+ .ixa8, Freitag -

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.lbf3 .Jib 7 4 . .id3

Emmermann, Hessen 1995, and here White creates powerful threats after: 17 .exd6 ~xd6 18.lbe5; in case of 7 ... g6 8 . .:::re1 lbe7, Martin - O'Harney, London 2000, it is very good for White to play energetically: 9.d5 .ig7 10.a4 t; Black cannot contain White's initiative on the queen-side with the move: 7 ... .ie7, be-cause after 8.e5 f5 - or 8 ... d6 9.lbbd2 lbd7 10.lbe4 dxe5 II. dxe5 lbc5 12.'e2 - 9.b3 .id5 10.a4t White is clearly superior on the queenside, Macieja -Kania, Poland 1994; White's game is very easy after: 7 ... d5 8.e5 lbc6 9.lbg5t, since he pre-serves a powerful pressure on the kingside, Sharp - Judd, Isle of Man 1991, or 8 ... h6 9.lbbd2 g5 10.b3 g4 11.lbe1 Vouldis - Duci, Creta 1996.) 8. 'e2 .ie7 (About 8 ... ~c7 9.e5 - see 6 ... ~c7 7.~e2 c4 8.i.c2 lbf6 9.e5; after 8 ... d5 9.e5 lbfd7 - in the line 9 ... lbe4 10.i.xe4 dxe4 11.lbg5 ~e7 12. lbxe4 Black's compensation for the pawn is obviously insuffi-cient - 10.lbg5 .i.e7 11. ~h5 g6 12. ~h6 and White has a pow-erful initiative on the kingside, while Black has no counterplay whatsoever, Bernard - Bialas, corr. 1991, or 10 ... g6 1I.~g4t Mokos - Vodicka, Slovakia 2001.) 9.lbbd20-0 10.e5lbe8 (10 ... lbd5 11.lbe4 h6 12.b3t) 11.lbe4 f5 12.exf6 lbxf6 13.lbfg5t. Black lags in development so much that his defence against White's threats on the kingside is quite

19

Chapter 1

problematic, Leib - Frank, Pin-neberg 200l.

6 ... cxd4 7.cxd4 4:Jc6 (About 7 ... 4:Jf6 8:~e2 - see 6 ... 4:Jf6; in answer to 7 ... d6, Kohut - Kro-cian, Bratislava 1991, White can exploit Black's queenside weak-nesses with: 8.a4 bxa4 9.4:Jc3; 8 ... b4 9.i.f4 4:Jf6 10.4:Jbd2; after 7 ... d5 8.e5 4:Jc6 9.4:Jc3l:lc8 10.~e3 4:Jge7 11.l:tc1 4:Jg6 12.4:Jg5 ~e7

13:~h5 there arose a pawn-structure typical for the French Defence and White preserves a kingside initiative, while Black has no counterplay, Grazinys -Andersen, Email 1998; Black weakens his dark squares too much after 7 ... g6, Brock - Hippe, Neumuenster 1999, after 8.a4 bxa4 9.4:Jc3; 8 ... b4 9.~f4 White enjoys a huge lead in develop-ment.) 8.4:Jc3 4:Jb4 (Black's queenside play is absolutely in-effective after: 8 ... .I:i.c8 9.a3 ~b6

10.~e3 4:Ja5, Khazankin - Cher-netsky, Odessa 2003, because af-ter: ll.d5 ~c7 12J::tc1 4:Jc4 13. i.xc4 bxc4 14.~d4; ll ... i.c5 12.

~xc5 ~xc513J:tcl; 12 .. :~xc513. l:!.c1 4:Jc4 14 . .txc4 t'l'xc4 15.4:Je5

~c7 16.dxe6 dxe6 17.4:Jxb5+-; 14 ... bxc4 15.b4, Black's active pieces have been exchanged, his kingside is not developed well and his queenside has been weakened.) 9.i.bl d5, Utasi -Herrera Perez, Havana 1985, 10.e5 llc8 1l.a4 bxa4 12.4:Jxa4. White's development is superior, he has a space advantage, while Black's defence is difficult, be-

20

cause his a6-pawn is weak and the c5-square is vulnerable.

7. t'l'e2

7 cxd4 About 7 ... c4 8.~c2 - see 6 ... c4

7.i.c2 4:Jf6 8.~e2; 7 ... d6 8.4:Jbd2 - see 6 ... d6 7. t'l'e2 4:Jf6 8.4:Jbd2; 7 ... h6 8.4:Jbd2 - see 6 ... h6 7.~e2 4:Jf68.4:Jbd2.

After 7 .. 4:Jc6 8.e5 4:Jd5 9.~e4 cxd4 10.i.xd5 exd5 ll.cxd4 ~b6 12J:td1 ~e7 13.4:Jc3 4:Jd8 14.~g5! i.xg5 15.4:Jxg5 Black's bishop is bad, his dark squares are vulner-able and the d5-pawn is weak, Douven - Welling, Eindhoven 1983.

In answer to 7 ... t'l'b6', Zla-tanova - Botsari, Athens 1992, White should better play 8.dxc5!?

~xc5 9.e5 4:Jd5 10.a4 b4 (after 10 ... bxa4 1l.l:lxa4 t Black cannot get rid of the e5-pawn, which cramps his position a lot, for ex-ample it is too bad for him to play: ll ... d6? 12.b4! t'l'c6 13J:ta3 i.b6 14.b5 ~c8 15.exd6) ll.c4 4:Je7 12.4:Jbd2 4:Jbc6 13.4:Je4 and White has extra space, moreover Black cannot find a safe haven for his king.

7 ... i.e7 8.dxc5!? i.xc5 9.b4

.J.e7 10.a4 bxa4 (it is even worse for Black to play 10 ... a5 11.axb5 axb4 12J:txaS 1/..xaS, Mikoska -Bock, corr. 2001, after 13.e5 ctJg4 14.ctJd4; 13 ... ctJd5 14.c4 ctJb6 15.i..e3 Black has great prob-lems to develop his knight on bS) 1UIxa4 0-0 (it is better for Black to play 11...d6 12Jld1 'fic7 13. .i.f4, but White enjoys a huge space advantage as well as a powerful queenside pressure) 12.e5 ctJd5 13. 'fie4 g6 14 . .i.h6l:teS 15.'fie2 S.Nagy - A. Nagy, De-brecen 1999. Black has weak-nesses on both sides of the board, he lacks space and he has no ac-tive possibilities whatsoever.

7 . 'fic7 S.ctJbd2 cxd4 (After S ... d6, Konarkowska - Ranniku, Ohrid 1972, it deserves attention for White to follow with: 9.b3!?, so that he can prepare the un-dermining move a4, preventing Black from playing c4, for ex-ample: 9 ... 3l.e7 10.a4 cxd4 11. cxd4 bxa4 12.l:txa4 3l.c6 13.~a2 0-0 14.i.a3; 11 ... b4 12.i.b2 0-0

13J~acl and White has a clearly better position, because of his extra space and superior devel-opment. He has ample active possibilities on both sides of the board.) 9.cxd4 ctJc6 10.a3! ctJg4?! (It is better for Black to play 10 ... 3l.e7, but even then after 11.b3! 0-0 12.3l.b2;!; White main-tains a stable edge, because he has extra space, moreover Black has no active possibilities at all, for example it is too dubious for him to play: 12 ... ctJh5?! 13.d5!

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.ctJ{3 .Yl.b7 4 . .Yl.d3

ctJf4 14. ~e3 exd5 - Black loses after 14 ... ctJxd3 15.dxc6 ctJxb2 16.cxb7+-, this line, which of course is not forced, shows nev-ertheless the power of White's move 11- 15.exd5 ctJxd3 16.dxc6 ctJxb2 17.cxb7 MaeS IS. 'fie5 and White's almighty b7-pawn pro-vides him with a great advan-tage.) 11.ctJb3 i.e7 12.i.d2 and Black's defence is very difficult, because of his bad knight on g4, his cramped position and his lag in development, C.Popescu -Pessi, Bucharest 1995.

7 ... d5 S.e5 ctJfd7 (It is not good for Black to play: S ... ctJe4, Che-tverik - Krivolapov, Gyongyos 1999, because White can counter that with: 9.ctJe1!? cxd4 10.cxd4 ctJc6 11..lie3 f5 12.f3 ctJg5 13.a4 b4 14.ctJd2 and he maintains a powerful pressure on the queen-side.) 9.ltJg5 g6 (It is not any bet-ter for Black to play: 9 ... i.e7, Shim Ng Min - Smyth, Email 1999, because after 10. ~g4! Black's defence is very difficult, for example: 10 ... h5?! 11. 'fig3 h4 12.'fig4, or 10 ... ctJfS 11.~h5 i.xg5 12.i.xg5 'fic7 13.ctJd2 ctJc6 14.ltJf3; 11 ... g6 12.i.e3, and Black's kings ide in both lines is so weak that White is clearly better; it seems more reliable for Black to follow with: 10 ... g6, but Whi te has a powerful tactical strike after that - 11.ctJxe6! fxe6 12.i.xg6+ hxg6 13.~xg6+ 'iiifS 14.i..h6+ :xh6 15. 'fixh6+ 'iiif7

16.~h7+ 'iiif8 17.f4 and Black's pieces are totally discoordinated,

21

Chapter 1

so his defence is extremely diffi-cult. White's attack is very dan-gerous too after: 15 ... '>t>gS 16.

~xe6+ '>t>g717.f4~.) 10.'f3 'e7, Salmi - Bigalke, Tampere 200l. Mter 1l.,h3 i.g7 (in the line 1l ... cxd4 12.cxd4 ctJc6 13.ctJf3 i.g7 14.~h6! Black remains with a weak light squared bishop and vulnerable dark squares, particularly the c5-outpost) 12.ctJf3 h6 13.l!!.e1 ctJc6 14.ctJa3:t White's positional advantage is stable, because Black can hardly find a safe shelter for his king, meanwhile his active play on the queenside has only created ad-ditional weaknesses.

8.cxd4

8 ... ctJc6 In answer to S ... d6, Rossello

- I.Torre, IEee 2000, White can exploit the weakening of his opponent's queenside with the help of: 9.a4 b4 (9 ... bxa4 10. ctJc3) 10.i.f4 i.e7 1l.ctJbd2.

After 8 ... d5 9.e5 ctJfd7 10. ctJg5!t White's kingside initiative is very dangerous, Eslon - San-chez, Mislata 1993.

S ... i.e7 9.a4! b4 (9 ... bxa4 10.ctJc3) 10.i.g5 h6 (In answer

22

to 10 ... d6 11.ctJbd2 h6, Grabuzova - Frog, Moscow 1991, White can play the simple line 12.i.h4 ctJc6 13.ctJb3 0-0 14.~fc1 t and he maintains a powerful pressure on the queenside.) 11..~h4 ctJh5 12.i.xe7 ~xe7 13. ~e3 0-0 14. ctJbd2 ctJc6 15JHc1 ctJf6 16.ctJb3 I1fcS 17 J:tc2 Sosonko - Sahovic, Amsterdam 1979. White's initia-tive on the queenside is over-whelming, while Black has no counterplay whatsoever.

9.ctJc3 d5 In response to 9 ... 'bS, Brze-

zicki - Kubien, Wroclaw 19S0, White has a powerful counter-measure: 10.e5 ctJgS (10 ... ctJd5 1l.ctJxd5 exd5 12.i.f4) 1l.a3 ctJge7 12.i.e4 ctJg6 13.i..g5 and he has a lot of extra space and superior development.

It is not so good for Black to play 9 ... b4 10.ctJa4 d5, Juergens - Weiss, Austria 2001. After l1.e5 ctJe4 (White preserves a stable advantage too after: 1l ... ctJd7 12.i.e3 i.e7 13.ctJd2 ~a5 14.b3 0-0 15.'g4, or 11 .. . ~a5 12.b3 ctJd7 13.i.d2; 12 .. . ctJe4 13. i.xe4 de 14. 'xe4 I1dS 15.i.e3) 12.i.xe4 dxe4 13.'xe4 ctJa5 14. 'e2 ncs 15.b3 i.e7 (Black could have regained his pawn with: 15 ... i.xf3 16. 'xf3

~xd4 17.i.b2 'a7 lS.l:!acl, but his lag in development and his weak queenside qualify his posi-tion as extremely difficult.) 16.i.e3 Black's light squared bishop is very powerful indeed, but it does not compensate the

loss of a pawn, since the rest of the black pieces are completely misplaced.

10.ii.g5 tDb4 l1.e5 h6 12. ii.h4 g5

Black cannot change much, by playing: 12 ... tDxd3 13.'~xd3 g5 14.tDxg5.

(diagram) 13.tDxg5 hxg514 . .txg5 .te7

15.exf6 Harikrishna - Wohl,

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.tD{3 JLb7 4.JLd3

Torquay 2002. White preserves a solid extra pawn.

Conclusion We have analyzed some quite seldom played moves for Black in

answer to 1.e4. The "most difficult" task for White to prove his ad-vantage is connected with the move 1 ... a6, followed by 2 ... b5. Black is not fighting immediately for the centre indeed, but still he has a clear plan of mobilizing his pieces. The essential drawback of this line is the weakening of Black's queenside. In case he does not follow quickly with the move c7-c5, undermining his opponent's centre, White seizes the initiative on the queenside by playing a2-a4. If Black plays c5 prematurely - White can occupy plenty of space byexchang-ing on c5, followed by e5 and tDe4. The transposition to the French Defence is not favourable for Black either, because White can pro-ceed with his standard kingside play indeed, but he can also seize the initiative on the queens ide too due to the weakness of the c5-square. Black's light squared bishop is usually very bad in similar structures of the French Defence, but here, particularly after Black plays d7-d5 - it becomes a total disaster. The other first moves for Black that we have analyzed in this chapter enable White, with simple and logical play in the centre, to obtain easily a great advantage.

23

Chapter 2 l.e4 b6 2.d4

2 ... i.h7 This is Black's basic reply in

this position and it leads to the Owen's Defence.

After 2 ... g6 3.lLlc3 i.g7 4.f4 the positions which are reached have been analyzed in Chapter 22, book 4.

Black has also tried in prac-tice:

2 ... i.a6?! 3.i.xa6 lLlxa6 4.tDf3 cS (About 4 ... e6 S.O-O - see 2 ... e6 3.tDf3 i.a6?! 4.i..xa6 tDxa6 S.O-O. In answer to 4 ... ~c8 S. 0-0 ~b7, Nimzo 99 - Hiarcs 6.0, 1999, White's simplest line is 6.:e1 e6 7.c4 and he has a huge space advantage. It is even worse for Black to play 4 ... tDf6?! S.e5 tDd5, Sief - Dopey, Internet 1999, because White wins a piece after: 6.c4 tDdb4 7.a3 tDc6

24

8.b4+-, while after S ... tDg8 6. O-O White's lead in develop-ment is overwhelming. It is quite dubious for Black to try 4 ... d5, Hotplayer - Boson, Internet 1999, because after 5. ~e2 tDb8 6.exd5 ~xdS 7.tDc3 White's development is clearly superior.) 5.d5 e6, Hooi Soon - Chen, Sin-gapore 2003. Now after 6.0-0 tDf6 7. ~e2 tDb8 8J:td1 White enjoys a space advantage and a huge lead in development.

In answer to 2 ... cS!? it is too dangerous for White to win a pawn with: 3.dxc5 bxcS 4. ~d5 tDc6 6. ~xc5 e5:i5, because Black remains much ahead in develop-ment. It is advisable for White to play 3.tDf3 and transpose into the Sicilian Defence (l.e4 cS 2.tDf3 b6 3.d4). It is also good for White to play 3.dS transpos-ing to the Benoni Defence (l.d4 c5 2.dS b6?! 3.e4) and Black's move b6 looks dubious to say the least.

After 2 ... e6 3.tDf3 Black usu-ally transposes to the Owen's Defence with 3 ... i.b7 (about 3 ... dS 4.tDc3 - see the French

Defence) 4.Ji.d3. The rest of the moves are rather questionable:

3 ... i.h4+?! This move is typically a waste of time and White plays a useful move, fortifying his cen-tre and Black is now forced to retreat: 4.c3 i.e7 5.i.d3. We reach positions, which will be analyzed in our main line, except that White will be with an extra tempo and that enables him to play even more energetically. 5 ... d6 (5 ... ..tb7 6.0-0 d6, Goldbar - Tao, Leiden 2004, 7. ~e2 li:Jf6 8.li:Jbd2) 6.0-0 li:Jd7 7:~e2 e5 8.i.b5 ..tf6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10J:td1 CiJe7, Gras - Jamme, Aix les Bains 2003, 11.li:Jbd2. White has a huge lead in development;

3 ... CiJe7 4.i.d3 i.b7 (in answer to 4 ... i.a6, Eliet - Nemety, France 1996, White's simplest line is 5.c4 d5 - Black must try to support somehow the idea to develop his bishop to the a6-square - 6.cxd5 i.xd3 7.

~xd3 exd5 8.li:Jc3 dxe4 9. ~xe4 c6 10.0-0 and Black will have great problems to complete his development) 5.0-0 d6 6.c3 CiJd7, Mohr - Vojko, Ljubljana 1998,

7.~e2;

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ji.b7 3.Ji.d3

3 ... CiJc6?! This move enables White to obtain a great space advantage. 4.d5 exd5 (It is hardly better for Black to play 4 ... CiJce7. After 5.c4 Ji.b7 6.CiJc3 g6 7. ~d4 Rush - Mwange, Luzern 1982, White's pieces are de-ployed quite harmoniously.) 5.exd5 CiJce7 6.iLc4 d6 7.0-0 Grunberg - Lutton, Port Erin 2002. Black has lost plenty of time to place his knight to an unfavourable position and White has a space advantage and su-perior development;

3 ... CiJa6?! It is not so easy for Black's knight to enter the action from that square; moreover White can develop his pieces with tempo now. 4.c3 iLb7, Kha-lidhara - Abdallah, Sanaa 2002, 5 . ..td3;

3 ... h6?! 4 . .td3 i.b7 (after 4 ... ..te7, Hintikka - Taipale, Kuopio 1995, it is very good for White to play 5.0-0 iLb7 6.c4 and he has a great space advan-tage) 5.0-0 li:Jf6 (it is worse for Black to play 5 ... i.e7 6.c4 d6 7.CiJc3 a6 8.l:i.e1 CiJf6 9.e5 CiJfd710. d5 Puskas - Armeanu, Eforie Nord 1999, because White's lead in development is overwhelming) 6JIe1 CiJc6 7.e5 CiJd5 8.c4 CiJdb4 9.i.e4 Jaeger - Berntsen, Nor-way 1998. Black's pieces are quite misplaced, he lacks space and White's powerful centre is dominating the board;

3 ... iLa6?! Black will have problems with his knight at the edge of the board after the trade

25

Chapter 2

of the light squared bishops. 4.i..xa6 lDxa6 5.0-0 lDe7 (In an-swer to 5 ... c6, Romero - Castillo Martinez, Aragon 1995, it is ad-visable for White to play the simple 6.~e2 lDc7 7.c4 with a huge space advantage. After 5 ... h6, Cuartas - Coppini, Reggio Emilia 1981, it is also good for White to play 6.~e2 lDb8 7.d5 and Black has problems to com-plete his development. He has the same problem after: 5 ... g6 6.~e2 lLlb8 7.d5 i.g7 8.i.g5 lLle7 9.lLlc3 Sosonko - Bohm, Leeuwarden. After 5 ... c5, Zajac - Morin, corr. 1996, it is the simplest for White to occupy some additional space first with: 6.d5 lLlf6 7. ~e2 lLlbS - Black loses a piece after: 7 ... lDc7?! S.d6 - 8 . .l:tdl Black's position is cramped and he lags in develop-ment considerably.) 6.~e2 ~c8 7.lLlc3 lLlg6 8.~g5 h6 9.i..e3 iLe7 10J:tad1 0-0 l1.h4. Black's posi-tion is squeezed and his pieces are quite misplaced on the queenside, so White can start active actions on the kingside immediately. 11 ... f5 (It is too dan-gerous for Black to play: 11 ... i..xh4 12.lLlxh4 lLlxh4 13.f4 l:Ie8 14.f5 exf5 15.g3lLlg6 16.exf5lLlf8 17 .f6~; 13 ... d5 14. ~h5 lLlg6

15.f5~; 14 .. .'~dS 15.f5 dxe4 16.fxe6, White has excellent compensation for the pawn, be-cause Black's pieces are rather misplaced.) 12.h5 fxe4 13.lLlxe4 lLlhS (after 13 ... lLlf4 14.~xf4 nxf4 15.lLle5 Black can hardly coor-

26

din ate his pieces) 14.lDe5 Gli-goric - Prins, Saltsjobaden 1952. White has a space advantage and his pieces are developed much more harmoniously;

3 ... lDf6 4.iLd3 iLe7, Arouno-poulos - Gilgenbach, Dusseldorf 2000 (Black cannot change any-thing with 4 ... c5, Hahn - Kotter, Germany 1993, because after 5.e5 lDd5 6.c4 lLlb4 7.iLe4 he cannot coordinate his totally mis-placed pieces on the queenside.) 5.e5lDd5 6.c4lLlb4 7.iLe4;

3 ... g6 4.c4 iLg7 5.lDc3 lLle7 6.i.g5 i.b7, Cruz Lima - Arba-iza, Cajas 1989, 7.~d2;

3 ... c5 4.d5 (this move seems stronger for White than the transposition to the Sicilian De-fence after 4.lLlc3, or 4.c4) 4 ... d6 (It is too bad for Black to play 4 ... exd5, Klein - Christoph, Koe-nigsfeld 1969, because after

5.~xd5 lLlc6 6.iLc4 ~f6 7.iLg5 ~e6 8.lDc3 he has problems to complete his development and he has too many weak squares in the centre; after 4 ... lDf6 5.lLlc3 i.b7 6.i.c4 a6, Vergbovskij -Davidjan, Armavir 1995, White should better follow with 7.a4 exd5 S.exd5 and Black's posi-tion is quite cramped and his light squared bishop has no good prospects; it is also insufficient for Black to continue with 4 ... .ib7 5.lLlc3 exd5 6.exd5 d6 7.

~b5+ lDd7 8.0-0 a6 9 . .:t.e1+ ~e7 10.~c6 Ait Hamidou - Ben Kassem, Tripoli 2004, because he can hardly complete his develop-

ment; it is bad for Black to play 4 ... 'l;rc7 as well, Krajewska -Tomczyk, Leba 2004. After 5.ttJc3 White is threatening 6.ttJb5, and Black's attempt to prevent that move with 5 ... a6, leads after 6.e5 d6 7.i.f4 to a considerable lead in development for White.) 5.ttJc3 a6 (after 5 ... e5 6.i.b5+ ii.d7 7.i.xd7+ ttJxd7 8.ttJd2 a6 9.a4 ttJe7 10.ttJc4 Black's queenside has been weakened and he lacks space, Geenen - Onkoud, France 2003) 6.a4 ttJf6 7.i.d3 h6 8.0-0 i.e7 9.h3 0-0 10.l:.e1 exd5 11. ttJxd5 ttJbd 7 12.i.f4 ttJxd5 13. exd5 ttJf6 14.c4 Alekhine -Koutny, Prague 1935. Black's defence is very difficult. He has problems to activate his pieces, he has no counterplay and he lacks space.

3.i.d3

We will now deal in details with: a) 3 ... ttJf6 and b) 3 ... e6.

The other moves for Black are only seldom played:

After 3 ... c5 White plays 4.d5 and has clearly better prospects no matter what scheme of devel-opment Black chooses. In case of 4 ... e6 White follows with 5.c4 and

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Ji.b7 3.i.d3

the bishop on b7 will be com-pletely out of play in the nearest future. You can see some games, for example in the line: 3 ... ttJf6 4. 'l;re2 c5 5.d5;

In answer to 3 ... d5 White's simplest line is 4.e5, for example: 4 ... i.a6 (The rest of the moves for Black have no separate value, or they are just terrible: 4 ... f6? 5. 'l;rh5+ g6 6.i.xg6+- Zippy -Giffy, Internet 1993. About 4 ... ttJc6 5.c3 e6 6.ttJf3 - see l.e4 b6 2.d4 i.b7 3.i.d3 e6 4.ttJf3 d5 5.e5 ttJc6 6.c3; 4 ... c5 5.c3 ttJc6 6.ttJf3 e6 - see l.e4 b6 2.d4 i.b7 3.i.d3 e6 4.ttJf3 c5 5.c3 d5 6.e5 ttJc6; 4 ... e6 5.ttJf3 - see 3 ... e6 4.ttJf3 d5 5.e5; 4 .... ~d7 5.ttJf3 e6 - see 3 ... e6 4.ttJf3 d5 5.e5 ~d7) 5.i.xa6 ttJxa6 6.e6! This pawn-sacrifice is quite typical for similar positions. It prevents Black from completing his development; moreover White now has an excellent tar-get for attack on the e-file. 6 ... fxe6 7. ~e2 'l;rc8 S.ttJf3 c6, Schlosser - Wiedner, Austria 1994. White should not be in a hurry to regain his pawn, he must instead complete his devel-opment first. 9.i.f4 ttJf6 10.0-0;

3 ... f5? This risky move is an attempt by Black to exploit the vulnerability of White's g2-pawn. Black however, weakens his kingside and comes under an extremely dangerous attack. 4.exf5 i.xg2 (it is not any better for Black to play 4 ... ttJf6 either, because after 5.ttJf3 White's development is superior and

27

Chapter 2

he has an extra pawn that cramps Black's position consid-erably, Ploder - Daikeler, corr. 1986) 5. ~h5+ g6 6.fxg6 iLg7 (The first available game, which was played in this position, ended up in a quick checkmate after: 6 ... ttJf6 7.gxh7+ ttJxh5 8.i.g6# Greco-NN, Europe 1620) 7.~ffi! (this is White's most energetic move, although 7.gxh7 is also very good) 7 ... ttJf6 (Black loses immediately after 7 ... iLf6 8.g7! i.xg7 9. ~g5+-) 8.i.h6! iLxh6 (The next variation only trans-poses to the main line: 8 ... f8

9.~g5 iLxh110.i.xg7+ xg7 1l. gxh7+ f8 12.~h6+. After 8 ... e6

9.~g5 i.xh6 10.thg2 ttJc6 11. gxh7 rj;;e7 12.ttJf3 Ploder - We-ber, corr. 1988, White remains at least with an extra pawn, more-over Black's king is stranded in the centre: 8 ... 0-0 9.gxh7+ rj;;h8 10.iLxg7+ xg7 11.~g6+ c;t>h8 12. ~xg2 and White remains with an extra piece, Della Morte -Lopez, Villa Martelli 2000.) 9.gxh7 c;t>f8 10.~g6 SLxh1 (or 10 ... i.c1 1l.~xg2 iLxb2 12.ttJe2! and Black has no satisfactory defence against ktg1 and ttJf4 with a checkmating attack for White. It is even worse for Black to play: 11...ttJc6 12.ttJe2! iLxb2 13.ktg1 rj;;f7 14.ttJf4 l::{g8 15. iLg6!+-) 11. ~xh6+ rj;;f7 12.ttJh3 We6 (this attempt by Black to run away from the centre with his king is his most stubborn defence, because otherwise he loses immediately: 12 ... ~f8 13.

28

i.g6 ~e614.~f4! Wd5 15.~xc7+Warzecha - Rachow, corr. 1987) 13.ttJg5+ Wd5 14.ttJc3+ Wc6 15. O-O-O. Black now loses his bishop on h1, and White's pow-erful h7-pawn will yield addi-tional material gains for him in the future.

After 3 ... d6 - it is more logi-cal for White to play 4.f4, analo-gously to the Pirc Defence.

4 ... tt:ld7 5.tt:lf3 g6 6.0-0 i.g7 7.tt:lc3 - see l.e4 g6 2.d4 i.g7 3.ttJc3 d6 4.f4 b6 5.tt:lf3 i.b7 6.i.d3 ttJd7 7.0-0;

It is almost a disaster for Black to play: 4 ... f6? 5.ttJf3 ttJd7 6.ffi, because he has problems with his development and plenty of weaknesses in the centre, Lopez Escribano - Rivas Perez, Madrid 2002;

Black cannot solve his prob-lems with the purposeful move 4 ... f5, because after 5. ~e2 fxe4 6.i.xe4 iLxe4 7.~xe4 d5 8.~e2 tt:lf6 9.ttJf3 he remains with a backward e-pawn, less space and he lags in development too;

In case of 4 ..tt:lf6 5. ~e2 e6 6.tt:lf3 tt:lbd 7 7.e5 dxe5 8.fxe5 tt:ld5, Pueyo - Iglesias, Oviedo

2003, White can start a danger-ous attack with 9.CLlg5!~ and it is very difficult to find any satis-factory defence for Black, for ex-ample it is too risky for him to play: 9 ... iLe7 10.CLlxe6! fxe6 II.

~h5+ g6 (it is possibly the best for Black to play: 11...'~f8 12. 0-0+ CLl7f6 13.exf6 CLlxf6 14. iLe3) 12.iLxg6+ hxg6 13. ~xg6+ wf8 14.0-0+ CLl7f6 15.~g5! ~e8

16.~h6+ lhh617.~xh6+ Wf7 18. ~h7+ ~f8 19.c4+-;

Black has nothing else left but 4 ... e5, but White again enjoys extra space and a dangerous ini-tiative after: 5.CLlf3 CLld7 6.0-0 CLlgf6 7.CLlc3 exd4 8.CLlxd4 iLe7 9.CLlf5 Kalendovsky - Vykydal, Brno 1974.

3 ... CLlc6 4.c3 e5 (About 4 ... e6 5.CLlf3 - see 3 ... e6 4.CLlf3CLlc6 5.c3. It is not logical for Black to play 4 ... d5?! 5.e5 a6 6.CLlf3 g6 7.0-0

~g7, Lyubimov - Hbn, Internet 1998, since after 8.ttel Black has problems to organize effec-tive counterplay, because of his lag in development. In answer to 4 ... g6, Nemet-Heedt, Bie11998, White's simplest line is 5.f4 iLg7 6.CLlf3 e6 7.0-0 - and he has an obvious advantage in the centre. It is more or less the same after 4 ... d6, Costa - Gazzera, San Francisco 2001, it looks very good for White to follow with 5.f4 e5 6.CLlf3 and he dominates in the centre and his development is superior, or 5 ... e6 6.CLlf3 CLlf6 7. O-O.) 5.d5 (it is worse for White to play 5.CLlf3, because after

1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3

5 ... exd4 6.cxd4CLlb4 7.iLc4! iLxe4! 8.iLxf7+ ~xf7 9.CLlg5+ ~g6!! 10.CLlxe4 ~h4! Black still holds somehow rather surprisingly) 5 ... CLlce7 6.CLlf3CLlg6 7.0-0 CLlf6 (It is hardly advisable for Black to play 7 ... h5. After 8.CLlbd2 c6 9.CLlC4 ~c7 10.a4 h4 1l . .lIel, Black has great problems to find a safe shelter for his king, Kopec - Day, Ottawa 1984.) 8.CLlbd2 d6, Rodriguez Lopez - Munoz Mo-reno, San Sebastian 1995 (in an-swer to 8 ... c6, Turner - Stein-bacher, Krumbach 1991, White's simplest line is 9J~e1!?, for ex-ample: 9 ... ~c7 10.CLlc4 b5 11.CLle3 i.c5 12.a4t, or 10 ... .te7 1l.CLle3 0-0 12.CLlf5) 9.a4!? c6 (White's initiative develops effortlessly after: 9 ... a5 10.iLb5+ CLld7 11.CLlc4 .te7 12.b4. It is too bad for Black to play: 9 ... CLlf4 1O . .tb5+ CLld7 1l.CLlc4 a6 12.iLxd7+~xd7

13.~xf4 exf414.~d2. In the line 9 ... a6 10. ~e1 ~e7 1l.a5 b5 12.c4 bxc413.CLlxc4 Black has no com-pensation for his queenside weaknesses.) 10.dxc6 iLxc6 II.

~b5!. After the trade of the light squared bishops, White will exploit the weaknesses on d5, f5 and c6-squares even easier. Black falls back in development and he can hardly organize any effective counterplay.

3 ... g6 4.f4 ~g7 (4 ... CLlf6 5.CLlc3 e6 6.CLlf3 .tb4 - this idea to trans-pose to the French defence is dubious for Black, because the move g6 is definitely not a part of it. Mter 7.CLld2 ~e7 8.a3 ~xc3

29

Chapter 2

9.bxc3 White's centre is very powerful and he has also the two bishop advantage, so his pros-pects are clearly superior, Ben-schop - Tichelaar, Hengelo 1992; 4 ... e6 5.tDf3 c5 6.c3 c4, Brodie -Alipour, Edmondton 2000, 7. i.c2; 4 ... f5, Serpik - Blatny, Los Angeles 2003, after 5.tDd2 ctJf6

6:~e2 tDc6 7.c3 fxe4 8.tDxe4 e6 9.ctJf3;t, there arises the pawn-structure, which is typical for the Maroczy system (on opposite flanks) and White preserves a stable pressure.) 5.tDf3 d6 (about 5 ... e6 6.tDc3 - see 1.e4 g6 2.d4 i.g7 3.tDc3 b6 4. f4 i.b7 5.tDf3 e6 6.i.d3 - volume 4, Chapter 22. The next line transposes to the Benoni Defence, except that Black's bishop on b7 is mis-placed: 5 ... c5 6.d5 tDf6 7.c4 0-0 8.tDc3 d6 9.0-0 e6, Buchal -Alber, Hessen 1990. Now White has a great space advantage and better development and he can start active actions in the centre with: 10.e5, for example: 10 ... ctJe8 l1.tDg5 exd5 12.e6, or 10 ... dxe5 1l.fxe5 tDg4 12. ~e2 exd5 13.cxd5 tDd7 14.i.g5 ~e8 15.e6; 12 ... tDd7 13.i.f4 White has occupied the centre and his pieces are much better placed. Black can hardly organize any counterplay. It is now too dangerous for him to play: 13 ... exd5 14.e6 ~f6 15.tDg5! tDde5 16.~d2 'f:!.e7 17. exf7 + 'it>h8 18.ctJxd5; 15 ... ~d4+

16.~h1 tDde5 17J:lad1 tDxd3 18. l'1xd3 ~xc4 19.exf7+ ~h8 20.b3

~a6 21.ctJb5!+-. Black cannot

30

change much with: 6 ... d6 7.c4 ctJd7 8.0-0 ctJgf6 9.tDc3, and White dominates completely in the centre, Bobb - Blanco, Ushuaia 2002.) 6.0-0 tDd7 (After 6 ... c5 7.d5 tDf6 8.c4 0-0 9.tDc3 Leon Hoyos - Hernandez, Ha-vana 2005, there arises a pawn-structure, which is typical for the Benoni Defence, but Black has problems to obtain counterplay, because his light squared bishop is misplaced and he will hardly manage to play b5, while White dominates in the centre com-pletely.) 7.c3 e6 8.'f:!.e1 'f:!.e7 9.a4 0-0-0 10.a5 Karpov - Geor-gievski, Skopje 1976. White's centre is quite reliable and his attacking chances are excel-lent.

a) 3 ... tDf6 4:~e2

4 ... tDc6 About 4 ... e6 5.tDf3 - see 3 ... e6

4.tDf3 tDf6 5. ~e2. The premature move 4 ... d5?!

enables White to sacrifice a pawn quite typically in order to ham-per Black's development with 5.e5 tDg8 (it is a disaster for Black to play: 5 ... ctJe4? 6.f3+-,

l.e4 b6 2.d4 ~b7 3.il.d3 ct:Jf6 4. t;re2

because he loses a piece, but it is almost the same after: 5 ... ct:Jfd7 6.e6!) 6.e6! t;rd6 (after 6 ... fxe6 7.ct:Jf3 Black has problems to complete his development) 7. exf7+ Wxf7 8.ct:Jf3 Guennoun -Ristic, Metz 2001. Black's king is quite exposed, his e-pawn is very weak and he can hardly complete his development, so his defence is quite problematic.

In case of 4 ... d6 White should better occupy some more space with 5.f4 e5 6.c3 exf4 (after 6 ... exd4 7.cxd4 d5 8.e5 ct:Je4 9. ct:Jd2! Black's powerful central-ized knight gets exchanged and White's space advantage is quite obvious, for example: 9 ... ct:Jc6 10.ct:Jgf3 ct:Jb4 11..tbl.ta6 12. t;re3 ct:Jxd2 13 . .txd2; it is too bad for Black to play: 9 ... t;rh4+ 10.g3 ct:Jxg3? l1.-,grf2+-, it is hardly bet-ter for Black to try: 9 ... .tb4 10.ct:Jgf3 c5 11.0-0) 7 . .txf4 ct:Jc6 8.ct:Jf3 t;re7 9.ct:Jbd2, because White's pieces are deployed har-moniously and he has a better development and a powerful centre, Monsterkiller - Hehe, Internet 1999.

In answer to 4 ... c5, White should better occupy some more space with 5.d5 and he has a clear advantage, for example:

5 ... e5 6.f4!? d6 7.ct:Jc3 a6 8.a4 exf4 9 . .txf4 ct:Jbd7 10.ct:Jf3 .te7 11.0-0 0-0 12.ct:Jd2 White's de-velopment is superior and he has a space advantage too, so Black has problems to organize counterplay, Lobron - Balinas,

Manila 1982; 5 ... e6 6.c4 b5 (it is worse for

Black to play 6 ... d6 7.ct:Jc3 iLe7 8.f4 exd5 9.cxd5 0-0 10.ct:Jf3 and White's development is much better and his centre is power-ful, Vatter - Hottes, Hamburg 1987) 7.ct:Jf3 (It is too dangerous for White to accept the pawn-sac-rifice, because after: 7.dxe6 dxe6! 8.cxb5 c4 9.i.c2 ct:Jbd7 10.ct:Jc3 ct:Je5

Chapter 2

accordingly he has much better prospects.

5.c3

5 ... e5 In answer to 5 ... g6, Phillips-

Knight, Burlingame 1998, White can occupy additional space with 6.f4 .1l.g7 7.ttJf.H.

5 ... e6 6.ttJf3 .1l.e7 (Mter 6 ... d6, White can seize the initiative on the queenside with: 7.b4 a5 8.b5 lLlb8 9.0-0 ttJbd7, Gaggiottini -Nardi, Italy 1995. White has oc-cupied plenty of space on the queenside and now he can start active actions in the centre: 10 . .i:ld1 e5 11.ttJbd2 and Black can hardly protect his e5-pawn, because of his lag in develop-ment. It is even worse for him to try: 10 ... .1l.e7 ll.e5! .1l.xf3 12.gxf3 ttJd5 13.f4, because White re-mains with extra space, better development and a couple of ac-tive bishops. All that compen-sates amply the minute weaken-ing of his castling position.) 7.a3 O-O? (It is possibly better for Black to play: 7 ... d6 8.0-0 0-0 9.e5; 8 ... e5 9 . .i:ld1 0-0 10.b41'.) 8.e5 ttJe8 9.h4! White begins a kings ide attack. 9 ... ffi 10.ttJg5! g6

32

(Black gets checkmated by force after: 10 ... fxg5 l1.i..xh7+ ~xh7 12.hxg5+ ~g8 13.Mh8+! ~xh8 14. gth5+ ~g8 15.g6+-; Black's defence is also very difficult af-ter: 10 ... f5 l1.gth5! h6 12.gtg6-7) 11.ttJxh7 Mf7 12.ttJxf6+ ttJxf6 13.exf6 .i:lxffi 14. ~g4 cJitg7 15. h5+- Bley - Mayer, corr. 2004.

6.ttJf3 d6 It is worse for Black to play

here: 6 ... .1l.d6 7.0-0 h6, Leventic - Mihalecz, Kaposvar 2001, be-cause White can emphasize the unfavourable placement of Black's bishop on the d6-square with: 8.ttJbd2 0-0 9.ttJc4.

6 ... exd4 - the reduction ofthe tension in the centre is definitely in favour of White after: 7.e5lLld5 8 . .1l.e4 ttJa5 (In case of 8 ... ttJde7 9.ttJxd4 ~c8 10.0-0 ttJd8 ll.ttJd2 ttJe6 12.f4 Rade - Lovric, Pula 2000, White preserves a long-lasting positional pressure, be-cause he has superior develop-ment and extra space, besides Black's king remains stranded in the centre. It is hardly better for Black to play: 8 ... d3 9.'~xd3 ttJde7, Stefansson - Balinas, New York 1989. After 10.0-0 ttJg6

11.~e1 .1l.e7 12 . .1l.f5 Black has problems to evacuate his king away from the centre.) 9.ttJxd4 ttJe7, Koo - Blatny, Las Vegas 2001 (after 9 ... c5?! 10.lLlf5 g6 11. gtf3 Black remains with too many weaknesses, Marciano -Blatny, Internet 2001) 10 . .1l.xb7 ttJxb7 11.0-0, and White's e5-pawn cramps his enemy's posi-

1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 tbf6 4. 'ifte2

tion a lot, moreover Black's light pieces are very passive and he cannot organize any counterplay at all.

7.0-0

7 .. tbd7 Black's main idea here is to

maintain his pawn on the e5-square.

Black's main idea here is to maintain his pawn on the e5-square.

Some pawn-structure similar to the Indian Defence (1.d4 tbf6 2.c4 d6 3.tbc3 tbbd7 4.e4 e5 5.d5 i.e7), except with a weakened queenside, arises after 7 ... i.e7 B.d5 tbbB 9.c4 0-0 10.tbc3 tbbd7 1l.i.e3 tbeB 12.tbd2 g6 (Black has no other possible counter-play), but here in the game Chiburdanidze - Jachkova, Eli-sta 2004, White could have par-ried Black's possible counterplay on the kings ide with: 13.i.h6 tbg7 14.f4!? exf4 (14 ... i.f6 15.f5) 15.i.xf4 i.f6 16.tbf.3 'f:ie7 (It is worse for Black to play: 16 ... tbe5 17.tbxe5 and White's initiative on the queenside develops much faster than Black's counterplay.) 17.ltae1 tbe5 1B.tbxe5 i.xe5 19.

i.xe5 'iftxe5 20. 'iftf2 and Black is dominant over the important outpost on the e5-square, but White has instead the crucial d4-outpost and he can seize the ini-tiative on both sides of the board. Black's light pieces have no pos-sibilities to be activated.

8.tba3 h6 In answer to B .. . i.e7, Epishin

- Blatny, Bastia 2003, White's plan to bring his bishop to the d5-square seems quite effective too: 9J'~d1! i.f6 (9 ... 0-0 10.i.c4 exd4 11.cxd4 tba5 12 . .id3) 10 . .ic4 0-0 1l . .id5 f'te7 12.tbc2 exd4 13.cxd4 tba5 14 . .ixb7 tbxb7 15.tbb4, Black's c6 and d5-squares are weak and White's space advantage promises him better prospects.

9J~dl a6 10 . .ic4! White brings his bishop to the

d5-square and it exerts a power-ful pressure from there on both sides of the board.

1O f'te7 1l.tbc2 g6 12 . .Jtd5 i.g7 13.tbb4 tbdb8 14.dxe5 dxe5

15.b31 White thus completes his development. 15 ... 0-0 16. i.a3 .!:le8 17.tbc2. It becomes

33

Chapter 2

very difficult for Black now to develop his queenside pieces somehow. 17 ... tM71S.ltJe3 ~cS 19.1Llh4+-. Black's queenside pieces are isolated and they can-not join in the defence of the black king. The game soon en-tered an endgame with two ex-tra pawns for White. 19 ... b5 20. lLlxg6 b4 21.lLlf5 l:le6 22. ~g4

~h7 23.i.xe6 ~xe6 24.ltJf4 ~f6 25.lLld5 ~g6 26.~xg6+ fxg6 27. lLlxg7 ~xg7 2S.i.b2 lIa7 29. lLlxc7 ~f7 30.lLld5 a5 31.a3 1-0 Mitkov - Blatny, Kansas 2003.

b) 3 ... e6

Black takes the d5-square under control and prepares the pawn-break c7-c5. We have al-ready mentioned that 3 ... c5 im-mediately is much worse for Black, because White pushes his pawn to d5 and obtains a stable advantage.

4.lLlf3 We will analyze now: bI)

4 ... h6, b2) 4 ... lLlc6, b3) 4 ... i.e7, b4) 4 ... lLle7, b5) 4 ... g6, b6) 4 ... d6, b7) 4 ... d5 and bS) 4 ... lLlf6. Black's main defence 4 ... c5 will be analyzed in our next chapter.

34

Black has played in several games the strange move 4 ... .Jtb4+?!, but after 5.c3 White has an extra tempo in compari-son to line b3.

The move 4 ... a6 looks like a waste oftime. After 5.0-0, Black has tried many different moves, but his position is quite cramped and he lags in development in all the variations: 5 ... g6 (5 ... i.e7 6.c4lLlf6 7.ltJc3; 5 ... ltJe7, W.Stein - G.Laszlo, Eppingen 2004, 6.c4 ltJg6 7.ltJc3; 5 ... f6 6.lLlh4 ltJe7 7.e5 f5 8 . .tg5 Crafty - Guest, Internet 1999; 5 ... d6 6. ~e2ltJd7 7.c3 lLle7 8 . .tg5 ~c8 9.ltJbd2 Henri - Vantet, Noisy Ie Grand 2000) 6.c4 .tg7 7.ltJc3ltJe7 8.e5 Alexopoulos - Johnson, East Somerset 1985.

bI) 4 ... h6 This move does not contribute

to Black's development and White obtains easily a stable ad-vantage.

5.~e2

5 ... lLlf6 In answer to 5 ... c5, Fernandes

- Cordovil, Lisbon 1999, it seems logical for White to occupy some

additional space after: 6.dS exdS (I t is even worse for Black to play: 6 ... ct:Jf6 7.c4 d6 8.dxe6 fxe6 9.eS.) 7.exdS+ '?lte7 8.c4 Black's position is cramped and his light pieces have no good prospects, therefore the arising endgame is very difficult for him.

S ... d6, Romagnoli - Bini, Caorle 1989,6.0-0 g6 7.l:!.d1 iLg7 8.c3 and White has a powerful centre and a great lead in devel-opment.

S ... '?lte7 6.c4 gS 7.ct:Jc3 iLg7 8 . .te3 ct:Jc6 9.h3 White has ex-tra space and better develop-ment, Becker - Liu Xiao You, Recklinghausen 2003.

5 ... gS 6.ct:Jc3 d6 7.SLe3 SLg7 8.0-0-0 '!l!e7 9.h4 g4 10.ct:Jd2 hS 11.f3 gxf3 12.gxf3 and White has a solid centre and a power-ful kingside initiative, Bakh-matov - Liu Xiao You, Reckling-hausen 2003.

After S ... iLe7, Engerer-Joos, Eisenberg 1998, it seems very good for White to play 6.0-0 d6 7.eS and Black has great prob-lems to develop his kingside.

6.0-0 iLe7 Mayerhofer - Innreiter, Aus-

tria 2000.

l.e4 b6 2.d4 !iLb7 3.JLd3 e6 4.4'J{3

White's pieces are quite well centralized and so he can start active actions with: 7.e5 ct:Jd5 8.iLe4 b5 9.a4 b4 10.c4 bxc3 11. bxc3. White enjoys a space ad-vantage, he has better develop-ment and he can seize the initia-tive in the centre as well as on both flanks.

b2) 4 ... ct:Jc6 5.c3

5 iLe7 It looks like Black only loses

time with the move S ... h6, Po-horsky - Petek, Litomysl 1994. After 6.0-0, White is threaten-ing to push back his enemy's pieces with 7.dS.

S ... ct:Jce7 6.0-0 g6 7.J:.el iLg7 8.ct:Jbd2 f6 9.a4 Haba - Phildius, Internet 200S. White has a powerful centre and a queenside initiative.

5 ... d6 6.0-0 e5 7.'?lte2 a6 8. Itdl Wellendorf - Opitz, Ger-many 1998. Black has played the pawn-move e5 in two tempi and that makes his defence much more difficult in comparison to line a (3 ... 4:Jf6 4. '?lte2 4'Jc6 5.c3 e5).

5 ... 4'Jge7 6.0-0 4:Jg6 7 . .l:!.e1 Yl.e7, Jorma - Kalsi, Espoo 1993,

35

Chapter 2

after 8.tbbd2 0-0 9.tbf1 Black's position is solid, but very pas-sive.

5 ... h5?! 6. ~e2 i.e7 7.d5 White has a great space advan-tage and much better develop-ment, Peltomaki - Kalsi, Finland 200l.

In answer to 5 ... tbf6, White occupies additional space with 6.e5 tbd5 7.c4 tbdb4?! (it is bet-ter for Black to play 7 .. .lbde7 8.tbc3) 8.i.e2 i.e7? (Black's only defence was 8 ... a5 9.tbc3) 9.a3 tba6 10.b4 tbab8 1l.d5+- and White remained with an extra piece, Karasek - Mayer, corr. 2004.

5 ... ~e7 6.0-0 0-0-0 7.b4 h6 8.a4, White's attack on the queenside seems much more ef-fective than Black's counter threats, Lampen - Kalsi, Tam-pere 1994.

After 5 ... g6, Hewitt - Ban-kavs, Coventry 2005, it seems logical for White to play 6.i.g5

~c8 (It looks quite strange for Black to try: 6 ... tbce7 7.0-0 h6 8.i..h4, because he can hardly complete his development. It is too bad for Black to play: 6 ... tbge7 7.i..f6 .l:!.g8 8.tbg5, or 6 ... f6 7.i..e3 i..g7 8.ttJbd2 tbge7 9.h4 and White can seize the initia-tive on the kingside due to his lead in development.) 7.0-0 i..g7 8.d5.

6.0-0 d6 In answer to 6 ... tbf6 it seems

logical for White to continue with 7.e5 tbd5 8.c4 ttJdb4 9.iLe2.

36

7.d5 exd5 8.exd5 tbb8 9 . .lle1 h6

After 9 ... i..xd5 10.i..b5+ ..Iic6 1l.i.xc6+ tbxc6 12. ~d5 White regains his pawn and maintains his superior development.

10.c4 De Castro - Sin Kuen, Hong Kong 1972. White has ex-tra space and excellent develop-ment. In addition - the light squares are quite weak in Black's position.

b3) 4 ... i..e7 5.0-0

5 ... tbf6 After 5 ... h6?! 6.e5! Black has

problems to develop his kingside: 6 ... i.g5 7.ttJbd2 c5 8.tbxg5 hxg5 9.ttJe4 Bibik - Stodola, Hlinsko 1993.

5 ... d6 6.~e2 ttJd7 (about 6 ... tbf6 7.e5 - see 4 ... d6 5.0-0 ttJf6

6.'t;\[e2 ~e7 7.e5) 7.~d1tLJgf6 8.e5 tLJd5 9.~e4 c6 10.c4 tLJc7, Sou-pizon - M.Johnson, Groningen 1999. Now, after the simple line: 11.exd6 ..txd6 12.tLJe5 White maintains a stable advantage, because of the weak black c6-pawn and the passive deploy-ment of Black's pieces.

5 ... g5 6.c4 d6, Nowicki -Nagrocka, Germany 2000. White has acquired considerably more space and now it seems quite logical for him to complete his development with 7.i.e3, for ex-ample after 7 ... g4 8.tLJfd2 tLJf6 9.tLJc3 White is already quite well prepared to start active ac-tions on the queenside, while Black has not completed his de-velopment yet.

5 ... tLJh6?! 6 . ..txh6 gxh6 7:~c1 ..tg5 8.tLJxg5 hxg5 9. ~e3 ~e7 10.tLJd2 DarkUfo - Hanna, Chess.net 1998. White has a space advantage and superior development. He can proceed with active actions on both sides of the board.

After 5 ... c5, there arises a pawn-structure, which is quite typical for the Sicilian Defence, except that Black has lost time for the move i..e7 and he has failed to develop his kingside, 6.tLJc3 cxd4 7.tLJxd4 tLJc6 8.tLJxc6 ..txc6 9.e5! ~c7 10.~el d5 11.

~g4 Dietrich - Wagner, Email 2000.

6.e5tLJd5 It is too dubious for Black to

play 6 ... tLJg4?!, because after 7.h3

l.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 e6 4.tLJ(3

h5? (it is better for Black to play 7 ... tLJh6 8.c4) 8.hxg4 hxg4 9. tLJh2+- Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient, Kunte - McKay, Kapuskasing 2004.

Still, it is slightly better for Black to play: 6 ... tLJe4, Crafty -Dlugy, ICC 1998, 7.tLJbd2 tLJxd2 (7 ... d5 8.'~e2 - see line b8) 8.tLJxd2 0-0 9.'~h5t.

7.a3 c5 Or 7 ... c6 8.c4 tLJc7 9.~e2,

Slowman - Cytebs, Internet 1999.

8.c4 tLJc7 9.dxc5 ..txc5 9 ... bxc5 10.tLJc3.

10.tLJc3 d5 1l.cxd5 tLJxd5 12.tLJe4 ..te7, Schubert - Bre-beck, Ratingen 1993, and here after the simple move: 13.iLg5 White either occupies the impor-tant d6-outpost, or he weakens Black's kingside considerably.

b4) 4 ... tLJe7 5.0-0 (diagram)

5 ... tLJg6 About 5 ... tLJbc6 6.c3 - see

4 ... tLJc6 5.c3 tLJge7 6.0-0. 5 ... g6 6J~el ..tg7 7.tLJbd2 d6

8.tLJf1 tLJd7, Menacher - Tober, Austria 2002, 9.tLJg3 0-0 10.c3t:.

37

Chapter 2

White preserves a long-lasting positional pressure, because of his solid pawn-centre, besides Black has no active counterplay.

5 ... d6 6.~e1 (it is also possible for White to play 6.c4 ttJd7 - see line b6 6 ... ttJe7) 6 ... ttJd7 (6 ... g6 7.c3 .ig7, Yavas - Meyer, Ger-many 1992, 8.ttJbd2 ttJd7 9.ctJf1 0-0 10.ttJg3;j;:) 7.lDbd2 h6 (7 ... g6, Alvarado - Dive, Bled 2002, 8.ctJfl .ig7 9.ctJg3 - see 5 ... g6) 8.lDfl a6 9.ctJg3 g6, Mareco -Claverie, Buenos Aires 2004, 10 . .ie3 iLg7 11. ~d2.

6 . .ie3.ie7 It is even worse for Black to

play 6 ... c6?!, restricting his only active piece. 7.lDbd2 Koehler-Stein, Kassel 2000.

7.c40-0

8.lDc3 ctJh4. Black's knight on g6 is evidently misplaced, but its

38

exchange leads to even more powerful initiative by White. 9.ctJxh4 .ixh4 10. ~g4 Buzeti-Banic, Ljubljana 2002.

b5) 4 ... g6 5 . .ig5!?

5 ... ~c8 5 ... lDe7? This move enables

White to simply crush Black's kingside position. 6.iLf6 ~g8 7.lDg5 h6 8.ctJh7 iLg7 9.~d2 g5 10.h4 d5 11.e5 lDd7 12.hxg5 hxg5, MacDonald - Zarkovic, Auckland 1998, and here the quickest win for White was the line: 13.iLxg7 ~xg7 14.lDf6+-.

It is hardly good for Black to play 5 ... f6, because after 6.iLe3 iLg7 7 .h4 White's active plan on the kingside is easy to accom-plish, because of his dominance in the centre, Wohlfart - Ke-ckeisen, Goetzis 1997.

5 ... iLe7. This bishop-move does not combine too well with the move g6 and White easily achieves a great advantage with rather simple moves. 6.iLf4 d6 7.c4 iLf6 8.ctJc3 g5 9 . .ie3 g4 10.ctJd2 ctJc6 11.lDb3 Balinov -Wais, Vienna 1999.

6.c4 .ig7 7.lDc3 ctJc6

I t is hardly any better for Black to play: 7 ... d6 8.0-0 ct:Jd7, Torre - N.Gaprindashvili, Kuala Lumpur 1994. Mter 9. ~d2 h6 10 . .ie3 ct:Jgf6 1l.h3 White con-trols completely the centre and Black's counterplay is non-exis-tent.

B.d5 ct:Je5 9.ct:Jxe5 .ixe5 10. "i::'ld2.ig7

.i.~ . ~~~ r.~.i.lr~ iB i~ i .M ~;; _ ~

.i.i. '" -- ~ ~ .~. ~ .LS.~. ~w~m~n@iii' LSU ~~ dfJ , "li%,%0'" % '". "%if0''';

,: . ~; -"'" 11.0-0-0 h6 (1l ... ltJe7 12.

.ih6! 0-0 13.h4-t) 12 . .ih4 e5 (12 ... d6 13 . .ic2) 13.d6 g5 (13 ... cxd6 14.ltJb5 .ifS 15 . .ic2) 14 . .ig3 cxd615.ltJb5 .if816 . .ic2 Rublevsky - Chernyshov, Ohrid 2001. White regains his pawn and he remains with a great advantage, because Black has so many weaknesses to worry about.

b6) 4 ... d6 5.0-0

l.e4 b6 2.d4 i..b7 3.Jt.d3 e6 4.ct:J(3

5 . ltJd7 About S ... jLe7 6. "i::'le2 - see

4 ... jLe7 5.0-0 d6 6.~e2; S ... ct:Je7 6.ne1 - see 4 ... ltJe7 S.O-O d6 6.1:[el.

5 ... g6 6.i.g5!? f6 (It is not good for Black to play 6 ... ct:Je7 7 . .if6 Itg8, Antonini - Hirt, Paris 1994, after 8.ct:JgS! h6 9.ltJh7 White has a powerful pressure along the weak dark squares on the kingside. Mter 6 ... .ie7, Bresciani - Berlusconi, Lombardia 1991, White's most logical move seems to be 7.i.f4, because Black's bishop on e7 is obviously mis-placed, while his pawn is on the g6-square. In answer to: 6 ... "i::'lc8, Agliullin - Terpugov, Novo-kuznetsk 1998, White can trans-pose to line b5, with 7.c4 i.g7 8.ct:Jc3 ct:Jd7 9.~d2.) 7.i.e3 ct:Jh6 8. "i::'ld2 ltJf7 (8 ... ltJg4 9 . .if4 e5 10.i.g3) 9.c4 i.g7 10.ltJc3 0-0, Martin Valentin - Pertinez, Spain 1999, and here White's best move is 11.cSt, with a pow-erful initiative on the queenside.

5 ... ltJf6 6. ~e2 .ie7 (after 6 ... ltJbd7 White should better play 7.Itd1!, with the idea to follow with eS, for example: 7 ... ~e7?!, Israel- Ratel, France 2003, 8.eS! ltJdS 9.jLg5 f6 10.exf6 gxf6 11 . .id2; 8 ... dxeS 9.dxeS ct:Jd5 10.a3! - Black has great problems with the safety of his centralized knight: 10 ... ct:Jc5 1l.c4 ct:Jb3 12. cxdS ct:Jxal 13 . .ib5+-; 10 ... c5 11.c4 ct:Jc7 12 . .ie4; 10 ... "i::'ld8 11.c4 ct:Je7 12.jLe4, or 7 .... f;fc8, Souza - Koffer, Paranagua 1993,

39

Chapter 2

8.lbbd2 il.e7 9.c3 0-0 10.e5 lbd5 1l.lbe4; 8 ... e5 9.lbc4 exd4 10. lbxd4 lbe5 1l.il.g5) 7.e5 lbfd7 (7 ... de 8.dxe5 lbfd7 9.~d1! il.d5 10.lbc3 c5 1l.lbxd5 exd5 12.e6 lbf6 13.lbg5+- Wosch - Becker, Email 2002) 8.c4 0-0 (It is worse for Black to play 8 ... d5 9.cxd5

~xd5 10.lbc3 .i.b7, Poetschke -Caels, Willingen 1999, because after 1l . .i.f4 White is totally dominant in the centre and he can exert powerful pressure along the c-file. All that might combine into a dangerous king-side attack.) 9.lbc3 ~e8 10 . .i.e4 .i.xe4 11. ~xe4 lba6 12. ~g4 Demkovich - Semenova, Kiev 2003. White has a stable advan-tage, because of his extra space and kings ide pressure.

6.c4

6 ... g6 Mter 6 ... c5 7.d5 e5 B.lbc3 g6,

Exposito - Gonzalez Zamora, Manresa 199B, there arises a pawn-structure, which is typical for the Benoni Defence (the closed variation - Ld4 c5 2.d5 e5), except that White has sev-eral extra tempi and the logical way to exploit that is to play:

40

9.a3, seizing the initiative on the queenside.

6"'lbe7 7.lbc3 e5 (about 7 ... g6 8.il.g5 - see 6 ... g6; 7 ... h6 8. .i.e3 a6 9.b4 g5 10.d5 lbg6 II. lbd4 Canfell - Wohl, Auckland 2005) 8.d5 lbg6 9 . .i.e3 ~e7 10. b4 White's initiative develops obviously faster than Black's counterplay, Sicars - Konik, Wiesbaden 2000.

6 ... h6 7.lbc3 .i.e7, Benkiar -Slimani, Algiers 2000 (7 ... g6, Isonzo - Bini, Montecatini Terme 1994, 8 . .i.e3 .i.g7 9:~d2. Mter 7 ... lbe7, Schmitz-Kramps, Ger-many 1993, it is logical for White to continue with: B . .i.e3 g5 9.

~d2, and he has an extra tempo in comparison to the line 6 ... g6.) Now, it seems very good for White to play: B.d5 e5 (B ... lbgf6 9.lbd4 lbc5 10 . .i.c2) 9 . .i.e3 lbgf6 10.lbd2 and he has occupied more space and his initiative on the queenside is quite obvious.

6 ... lbgf6 7.lbc3 e5 (7 ... .i.e7 8 . .i.f4 0-0 9. ~c2 g6 10J:tadl White has a stable edge, due to his centralized pieces, Kosmow-ski - Wieszczycki, Suwalki 2000) 8.d5 .i.e7, Debowiak - Trabszys, Krynica 2001 (Black's active move B ... lbc5 only facilitates White's initiative on the queen-side: 9 . .i.c2 a5 10.lbd2 .i.e7 11. ~b1 0-0 12.a3 .i.cB 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 lbb7 15 . .i.a4 .i.d7 16. .i.c6 Bank - Lauridsen, Festuge 1991). White can now transpose to the game Chiburdanidze -Jachkova, Elista 2004, which we

8 ... l2Je7 White's initiative runs

smoothly after: 8 ... f6 9.i.e3 12Jh6 10.c5t dxc5, Grimm - Sche-rer, Stetten 1988, and now the excellent resource 11.~b3t em-phasizes Black's difficulties, caused by his lag in development and lack of space, for example: 11...l2Jf8 12.Z1ad1 cxd4 13.l2Jxd4 and Black's king remains in the centre and he has no piece-coordination at all, so his extra pawn is practically immaterial. It is even worse for Black to play: 11...~e7 12.l2Jb5t, because White regains his pawn and preserves his positional advan-tage. It is almost the same after: 1l ... cxd4 12.'i;:he6+ ~f8 (12 ... ~e7 13.l2Jxd4 12Jc5 14.i.b5+ ~f8

15.~h3~) 13.i.xd4, because Black is faced with a difficult defence in a position with mate-rial equality.

9.tM2 h6 10.i.e3l2Jf6

1.e4 b6 2.d4 iLb7 3.iLd3 e6 4.l2J(3

10 ... gS ll.dS! 12Jg6 (after 11 ... e5 12.b4l2Jg6 13.c5 bxc5 14.bc dc 15.l2Ja4 0-0 16.l2Jxc5 White's initiative is clearly ahead of Black's eventual counterplay, Marciano - Garcia Ilundain, Suances 1997) 12.l2Jd4 ~e7 13. 12Jcb5 12Jc5 14.i.c2 a5 15.b3 0-0 16.a3 a417.b4l2Jb3 18.i.xb3 axb3

19.~b2! exdS 20.exdS f5 21.~xb3 f4 22.i.d2 g4 23.l:tae1 ~h4 24.f3 011 - Spassky, Tallinn 1998. White wins a pawn and main-tains a clear advantage in the centre, while Black has problems to create any counterplay.

lO ... a6 ll.:'ad1 ~b8 (In case Black plays actively with: ll ... gS 12.h3 eS 13.iLbl 12Jg6 14.~c2 ~e7 lS.l2Jd5 he only creates ad-ditional weaknesses, Porto -Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro 2000.) 12JHe1 ~a7 13.a4 Black's strange queen-maneuver has just helped White to start active actions on the queenside, An-drade - Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro 1999.

1l.h3 d5

12.cxd5 exd5 13.e5l2Je4 14. ~c2l2Jxc3 15.bxc3 Ibragimov - Stefanova, Pulvermuehle 2000.

41

Chapter 2

White has extra space and he can build up a powerful initiative on the kingside, so his positional pressure is long-lasting.

b7) 4 ... d5 5.e5

5 ... c5 5 ... i.a6 - this idea to ex-

change the light squared bishops is losing too much time. 6.i.xa6 CDxa6 7.c4!? c6 8.cxd5 ~xd5 9. 0-0 CDe7 10.CDc3 ~d7 1l.CDe4 Pavlovic - Rosic, Yugoslavia 2000. White has extra space and he can seize the initiative on both sides of the board.

It is too passive for Black to play 5 ... CDd7, and White can ex-ploit that with the standard at-tacking move: 6.CDg5! i.e7 (6 ... g6 7.h4 fie7 8.h5; 6 ... h6 7.

~h5 ~e7 8.CDxf7+-) 7.~g4 and again White has extra space and a powerful initiative on the kingside.

5 ... CDe7 6.b4!? CDg6 7.c3 c5 8.a3 i.e7 9.h4!t White has squeezed his opponent completely on the queenside with a quite standard maneuver and now he can attack safely on the kingside. 9 ... CDxh4 10.CDxh4 JLxh4 11.fig4 JLe7 12.

42

~xg7 l:.f8 13.l:.xh7 Struik- Van Leent, Hoogeveen 2002. Black has no compensation for the pawn at all.

5 ... CDc6 6.0-0 iLe7 (in answer to 6 ... CDge7 7.c3 CDg6, Espina -Villar, Oviedo 2003, it is good for White to follow with 8.CDg5! i.e7 9.fih5 ~d7 10.CDxe6+-; 9 ... iLxg5

1O.~xg5 fid7 11.l2Jd2 and White has the two bishop advantage and extra space) 7.c3 ~d7 8.fie2 g6?! This move weakens the dark squares, but Black has problems to create counterplay anyway-White is threatening with active actions on both sides of the board. 9.b4 h5 10.a4 a5 11.b5 CDa7, Dietz - Forbrich, Germany 1989. It is very favourable for White to exchange the dark squared bishops in that position: 12.iLg5! 0-0-0 13.CDbd2 and Black has no counterplay what-soever.

6.c34Jc6 In response to 6 ... LUe7, Ja-

hangir - Flaga, Chicago 1996, White's simplest reaction is the standard move 7 .a3t.

6 ... iLe7 7.0-0 CDd7, Zila-Sandor, Hungary 2002, and again the typical move: 8.a3! c4 9.iLc2 deprives Black of any counterplay on the queenside.

The move 6 ... g6?! weakens the dark squares on the kingside: 7.0-0 4Jc6 8.i.g5! i.e7 9.i.xe7 CDgxe7 10.4Jbd2 Demko - Maj-ling, Martin 1996.

Mter 6 ... fid7 7.~e2 a5 (7 ... CDc6 8.a3 ~e7, Gaensmantel -

Seyffer, Germany 1990, 9.b4t) 8.0-0 .1a6, Gosztola - Fellegi, White obtains a powerful pres-sure in the centre and on the queenside after: 9 . .1xa6 ctJxa6 10.c4! cxd4 (1O ... dxc4 11.:d1 'c6 12.ctJbd2 ctJc7 13.ctJxc4 b5 14. ctJe3) 1l.l:!.d1 l:tc8 12.cxd5 ctJb4 13.ctJxd4 ctJxd5 14.ctJb5.

The move 6 ... ctJd7 is too pas-sive and White can proceed with the standard kingside attack with: 7.ctJg5! g6 8.h4 cxd4 9.cxd4 f6? (9 ... l:tc8 10.ctJc3; 9 ... ctJh6 1O.h5t) 10.ctJxe6+- Righi-Kgat-she, Thessaloniki 1988.

6 ... h6 7.0-0 .i.e7 (if 7 ... ctJc6, McLure - Caels, Thessaloniki 1984, then after 8.a3!t, White prevents Black's counterplay on the queenside and he has excel-lent chances to develop a power-ful initiative on the kingside) 8 . .lte3 ctJc6 9.ctJbd2 a6, Zrinscak - van Gellecom, Kleve 1999. Now after 10.a3 c4 (10 .... ~d7 11.b4) 1l . .ic2 ~d7 12.ctJel, White's kingside attack runs unopposed and Black has no counterplay at all.

6 ... cxd4 7.cxd4 .ltb4+, Arias Torio - Sanchez Gonzalez, Astu-rias 2000, and Black's bishop is misplaced on the b4-square, while its exchange for White's knight is definitely not in Black's favour. The simplest line for White should be: 8.ctJc3! ctJe7 9.0-0.

After 6 ... ~c7 7.0-0 ctJc6 8.Ji.e3 c4 9 . .ic2 b5 10.ctJg5 h6 11. 'h5 White manages to obtain the

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Jib7 3.~d3 e6 4.CiJf3

typical kingside pressure for po-sitions of this type, Brodbeck -Von Zimmermann, Wuerttem-berg 1995.

6 ... f6 7.'e2 CiJc6 8.exf6 ~xf6 9 . .i.g5 'f7 10.0-0 Haecker -Swemers, Erfurt 1998. Now, opening of files in the centre is clearly in favour of White, be-cause of his lead in development.

6 ... c4 7 . .ic2 ctJe7 (Black's de-fence is even more difficult after: 7 ... b5 8.0-0 a5 9.CiJg5 g6 10.'f3 Lipschuetz - Burille, New York 1889.) 8.0-0 CiJd7 9.CiJg5! h6 (Black can save his position against White's attack neither with: 9 ... ctJf5 10 . .1xf5 exf5 11.

e6~ Lopez Martinez - Aguilera Olivar, Zaragoza 1999, nor with: 9 ... g6 10. 'f3 ctJf5 1l . .ixf5 gxf5 12.ctJxe6+-; 1l ... exf5 12.e6~.) 10. ~h5 g6 11. ~h3 CiJf5 12 . .ixf5 gxf5 (it is too dangerous for Black to open files in the centre: 12 ... exf5 13.e6~) 13. ~h5 ~e7 14.b3! .ig7 15.ctJh3. Black has no counterplay whatsoever.

The move 6 ... ~c8 is connected with the idea to trade the "bad" bishop, but it still takes too much time: 7.0-0 .lta6 8.ctJg5 .ixd3

9.~xd3 g6, Thomas - Pueplich-huisen, Kleve 2001, and now af-ter the energetic move 10.c4!, with eventual developments like: 10 ... h6 1l.ctJf3 dxc4 12. ~xc4

~a6 13.,c2 ctJc6 14.~e4 White dominates completely in the centre.

7.0-0 ctJge7 7 ... :c8 8 . .ie3 g6 9.~e2 cxd4

43

Chapter 2

10.cxd4 CZJge7, Huistra - Amesz, Hengelo 1996. White's most di-rect way to exploit the weakness of the dark squares is: 11.i.g5 i.g7 12.CZJc3 h6 (It is worse for Black to play 12 ... 0-0 13:~e3, because White then has excellent attacking chances.) 13.~h4 0-0 (or 13 ... g5 14.li'lb5 0-0 15.CZJd6) 14.li'lb5.

7 ... cxd4 S.cxd4 a6 9.li'lc3 b5 10Jle1l:tcS 11.li'le2 i.b4 12.i.d2 li'lge7 13.l:tcl Fernando - Rita, Portugal 2000. Black's light squared bishop is very bad and his dark squares on the kingside are quite vulnerable.

7 ... i.e7 S.a3 ~d7 (it is clearly worse for Black to play S ... li'lh6, Azua - Garcia, Buenos Aires 2002, because after 9.i.xh6 gxh6 10.b4 Black's bishop pair does not compensate his kingside weaknesses), Bloemhard - Mu-ris, Soest 1999, and here after the standard reaction 9.b4t Black has no counterplay.

After 7 ... ~d7 S.l:i.e1 c4 9.i.c2 0-0-0 10.b3 White preserves excellent attacking chances, Simonsen - M.Nielsen, Copen-hagen 2002.

7 ... li'lh6 SJ:te1 g6 9.i.g5 'f:Jc7, Kuebel - Hoose, Bad Neustadt 1990, and here after the simple line: 10.i.f6 .l::!.gS 11.li'lg5 White has a powerful initiative on the kingside.

The move 7 ... c4 - reduces the tension in the centre and de-prives Black of any counterplay.

S.~c2 b5 (It is not any better for

44

Black to play: S ... CZJge7 9.~e1 li'lg6 10.CZJg5 i.e7 11. ~h5 i.xg5 12.i.xg5 ~c7 13.li'ld2 Lapis -Sviridov, Havirov 1965. White remains with a two bishop ad-vantage and a possibility for ac-tive actions on both sides of the board.) 9.li'lg5 i.e7 (the move 9 ... h6, Studer-Baertsch, Wangs Pizol 1996, loses for Black after: 10. 'f:Jh5! g6 11.i.xg6+-; 10 ... ~d7 l1.li'lxf7+-; 10 ... hxg5 11. 'f:JxhS li'lh6 12.li'ld2+-) 10.'f:Jg4 g6 (or 10 ... li'lh6 11. ~h5 and Black loses a pawn) 11. 'f:Jf4 and Black is forced to enter a very difficult endgame.

8.a3l2Jg6 In answer to S ... 'f:Jc7, Braj-

nikov - Smyth, Email 2000.itis again very good for White to play 9.b4.

S ... c4 9.i.c2 li'lf5 10.~e1 i.e7 1l.li'lbd2 0-0, Liew - Heesen, Email 1999, and now after 12. CZJf1 b5 13.li'le3t White manages to trade Black's only active piece and he can build up slowly and patiently his kingside initiative.

This position was reached in the game T.Schmid - Okan, Ger-many 1995. After White's logical

reaction: 9.b4 i.e7 10Jlel 0-0 11.tDbd2t Black has no counter-play and White's kingside initia-tive develops unopposed.

bB) 4 ... tDf6 5.~e2

This is the most popular move for White and it is his standard reaction against tDf6 in this opening.

5 ... d5 The other moves for Black are

either very dubious, or they just transpose to lines that we have already analyzed:

About 5 ... c5 6.c3 - see 4 ... c5; 5 ... d6 6.0-0 i.e7 7.e5 - see 4 ... d6 5.0-0 tDf6 6:~e2 i.e7 7.e5;

5 ... tDc6?! 6.e5 tDd5 7.c4 i..b4+? 8.'~f1 tDde7 9.a3+- Ivanchuk -Olejarczyk, Warsaw 1999;

5 ... i.b4+?! 6.c3 i.e7, Wern-smann - Westermann, Willingen 2001, 7.e5 tDd5 8.a3 c5 9.0-0 cxd4 10.c4 tDc7 11.tDxd4;

5 ... i.e7 6.0-