boris avrukh 4 - chess96.ruchess96.ru/books/avrukh boris - 1.d4 volume two, 2010.pdf · almost...

Boris Avrukh

• 4 VOLUME TWO

Tired of bad positions? Try the main lines!

QUALITY CHESS

Grandmaster Repertoire 2

1.d4 - Volutne Tw-o By

Boris Avrukh

Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk

First English edition 20 1 0 by Quality Chess UK LLP

Copyright © 20 1 0 Boris Avrukh

Grandmaster Repertoire 2 -l.d4 volume two All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior

permission of the publisher.

ISBN 978- 1 -906552-33-6

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK LLP, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom

e-mail: [email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk

Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com

Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK LLP through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland

Typeset: Jacob Aagaard Proofreading: Andrew Greet, Colin McNab, Jacob Aagaard and John Shaw

Editing: Andrew Greet, Jacob Aagaard and John Shaw Cover design: Adamson Design

Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutriikikoja LLC

Publisher's Foreword Creating the Grandmaster Repertoire series seemed a natural idea. There is a glut of opening books at the Starting Out level. These books have certainly been refreshing, but they have almost completely replaced high-level opening books.

As chess fans, we felt we were missing out, and because we can, we decided to do something about it.

The books in the Grandmaster Repertoire series are written by grandmasters, edited by grandmasters, and will certainly be read by grandmasters. This does not mean that players who are not grandmasters cannot read them. We have worked hard to make our books clear in their presentation and to make it possible for the readers to decide the depth to which they want to study them.

When we were young and trying to be up-and-coming, we understood that you do not have to remember everything in an opening book in order to use it. It is our hope that those readers who find this repertoire too extensive and detailed, will ignore many of the details. Even now that we are grandmasters, we see the bolded moves as what we want to memorize, and the notes as explanations and illustrations.

It is our conviction that you will eventually be more successful by playing the main lines, simply because they are based on better moves. Instinctively most players know this, but they fear losing to a prepared line and thus turn to unambitious systems, or unhealthy surprises. The opponent will not be able to use his preparation but, sadly, will not need it. These sidelines generally end in uninspiring positions almost automatically.

Possibly the main reason why high-level opening books have disappeared is the rise of databases. It has been assumed that there is no point in having traditional opening books anymore, as you can look it all up in the database. Some rather lazy authors have a system: collect a few hundred games from the database, give Fritz a few moments, then hit Print. Such books add nothing to chess literature. We have seen enough of them and have never wanted to add to that pile.

In these days of multi-million game databases, we all have access to information, what is lacking is understanding. In the Grandmaster Repertoire series, very strong players will share their understanding and suggest strong new moves that are in no one else's database.

We are excited about this new series and hope that the reader will share some of that excitement.

John Shaw & Jacob Aagaard

Contents Key to symbols used & Bibliography 6 Foreword by Grandmaster Boris Gelfand 7 Bibliography 8 Foreword by the Author 9

The Bogo-Indian Defence

1 4 ... c5 13 2 4 ... �xd2t 19 3 4 ... a5 30 4 4 .. :l{life7 36

The Budapest Gambit

5 Farajowicz Variation 59 6 Classical Variation 66

Benoni Systems

7 Catalan Benoni 92 8 Snake Benoni 102 9 Benoni without ... t2Jf6 108 10 Reluctant Benoni 113 11 Czech Benoni 126 12 Old Benoni 144 13 Modern Benoni 164 14 Benko Gambit 201

The Dutch Defence 15 Stonewall Variation 221 16 Classical Variation 243 17 Leningrad Variation 262 18 St Petersburg Variation 289

The Griinfeld Defence 19 Dynamic Variation 297 20 Solid Variation 337

The King's Indian Defence 21 6 ... ig4 367 22 6 ... tLlc6 & 7 ... ig4 370 23 6 ... tLlc6 & 7 ... if5 379 24 6 ... tLlc6 & 7 ... e5 387 25 6 ... tLlc6 & 7 ... a6 400 26 6 ... tLlc6 & 7 ... �b8 414 27 6 ... c6 426 28 6 ... tLlbd7 460 29 9 ... \Wb6 491

The Modern Defence 30 Wade Defence 501 31 The Modern Defence 521

Minor Systems 32 2 ... b6 538 33 b-pawn Systems 542 34 English Defence 556 35 Black Knights Tango 572 36 Old Indian 578 37 Queen's Indian Attempt 587 38 Odd ideas 593

Index of Variations 601

Key to symbols used White is slightly better Black is slightly better

± Whi te is better + Black is better +- White has a decisive advantage -+ Black has a decisive advantage

equality iiD with compensation f! with counterplay co unclear

a weak move ?? a blunder

a good move !! an excellent move !? a move worth considering ?! a move of doubtful value # mate

By Grandmaster Boris Gelfand

Every chessplayer, from club level to World Champion, comes up against the problem of choosing an opening repertoire. How are you to keep your bearings amid the ocean of information - when hundreds of thousands of games are played worldwide every year, and the standard databases contain millions of them? Where are you to find the compass enabling you to obtain a position that suits your taste?

Should you perhaps do what some renowned specialists advise, and abandon all thoughtful study of the opening phase - or put all your trust in analysis by computer programs?

The readers of this book have hit upon the best way out of the dilemma: the brilliant theoretician and profound analyst Boris Avrukh is sharing his recommendations with them, in all the closed openings. Mikhail Botvinnik and Viktor Korchnoi used to divide chessplayers into those who create opening theory and those who utilize the results of these labours.

Boris Avrukh belongs to the small number in the former category. I have played in the Israeli team together with Boris on several occasions, and could personally observe what encyclopaedic knowledge this exceptional player possesses. Grandmasters of the highest rank have fallen victim to his opening preparation.

I am convinced that this will become a constant reference book for a great many readers.

Boris Gelfand World Championship Runner-Up 2007 and 2009 World Cup winner

Bibliography Aagaard: Stonewall II, Quality Chess 2007. Avrukh: Grandmaster Repertoire 1: 1 .d4 - Volume 1, Quality Chess 2008. Bogdanov: Chess Explained: ?he Grunfeld, Gambit 2009. Bologan: ?he King's Indian - A Complete Black Repertoire, Chess Stars 2009. Gutman: Budapest Fajarowicz, Batsford 2004. Johnsen & Bern: Win with the Stonewall Dutch, Gambit 2009. Kindermann: Leningrad System, Progress In Chess 2005. Moskalenko: ?he Fabulous Budapest Gambit, New In Chess 2007. Palliser: ?he Modern Benoni Revealed, Batsford 2005. Palliser, Emms, Ward & Jones: Dangerous Weapons: ?he Benoni and Benko, Everyman Chess

2008. Palliser, Flear & Dembo: Dangerous Weapons: ?he King's Indian, Everyman Chess 2009. Palliser, Williams & Vigus: Dangerous Weapons: ?he Dutch, Everyman Chess 2009. Pinski: ?he Benko Gambit, Quality Chess 2005. Rowson: Understanding the Grunfeld, Gambit 1999. Taylor: ?he Budapest Gambit, Everyman Chess 2009. Watson: Mastering the Chess Openings - Volume 2, Gambit 2007. Watson: ?he Gambit Guide to the Modern Benoni, Gambit 2001.

Periodicals Chess Informant Chess Today New In Chess Magazine New In Chess Yearbooks Secrets of Opening Surprises TWIC MegaBase Corr. Database

By the Author I would like to share my thoughts about the first volume of my 1 .d4 Grandmaster Repertoire. First of all, I did not expect it to be such a great success. It is remarkable that I became a "chess celebrity" thanks to my book and not my chess achievements. As far as I know English, German and Italian editions have been published, and soon Spanish and Russian versions should appear. I am really grateful to Jacob Aagaard and John Shaw, who helped me greatly in every aspect that goes into making a high-level book.

It is incredible how many people have asked me when the second volume would be out. I have to admit that, thanks to my book, I became extremely popular on the Internet, where I provide chess lessons online - the number of my students increased drastically. I was also invited to hold a chess seminar in Germany (where it seems almost everybody has my book!) working on the subject "An Opening Repertoire for White". It was a successful event, j udging by the feedback I received from the participants.

I am flattered that at every tournament I have played in since the first volume was published my colleagues have told me they admired my work. I would especially like to mention one case - at the last European Team Championship, which was held in Novi Sad, I was pleasantly surprised when Viktor Korchnoi came up to me and said that he was really impressed with the quality of the book. For me this was perhaps the most valuable opinion. I have enormous respect for Korchnoi, and I have heard he rarely hands out compliments to his colleagues! After his words I immediately remembered one of his "masterpieces" . At the Dresden Interzonal tournament in 1998, Korchnoi lost a game with White against Smirin, where Ilya sacrificed a knight in his favourite King's Indian and launched a decisive attack. Korchnoi reacted with rhe following phrase: "You are really very good in the King's Indian" and then after a few seconds pause he continued with, "when your opponent is in time trouble!"

I would also like to share wirh you various opinions of other top Grandmasters. Shortly after a famous incident in Calcutta, Vlad Tkachiev travelled alone to Israel. He relaxed for ten days at a famous Dead Sea resort, disconnecting from everybody and just working on chess with the help of my book. In our conversations he praised it highly, but at the same time he pointed out some places that were unclear in his opinion. However, his main point was how much he liked the way I cover dubious lines and that now he does not need to work on rhem, or waste time during his preparation before a game.

A Top 1 0 player (who I should not name) pointed out that for him the most important detail when he judges a book is if it contains a single idea that is good enough to be worth him playing it. As I understand it, he believes my book had several interesting ideas! I also heard a remarkable opinion from another Top 1 0 player (again I do not have permission to name him) who claimed that my book was a "crime" against my colleagues, since now it is very easy for amateurs to pose problems against grandmasters! When I asked why my book was picked out as guilty from among thousands of opening books, he responded that other books were a waste of his time.

After quoting the elite, perhaps I should offer some advice for grandmasters of my level. Writing a book is a good chance to express yourself, to make your name better known, and at the same time, if the book is successful, it might be a good earner! Players of my level rarely receive big appearance fees, since we do not often get the opportunity to play in closed tournaments.

I usually play in Open tournaments or team events. I often talk to players who are surprised that an active chess player l ike me would be willing to reveal so many new ideas. Why not keep them secret until they can be sprung on an unwary opponent? First of all, I would never start working on a book if I intended to hide the most important details or recommend second-rate moves. Secondly, I believe that if you work seriously on the openings you can always find plenty of new ideas. I give away many novelties in this book and the previous one, but I am sure I can find more! I think this is one reason why we like our game - you can never hope to give a final conclusion, as there will always be some hidden resources.

To my great surprise, during my work on this book I managed to play some good chess, sharing 1 st-2nd place in two big Opens (the Politiken Cup and the Zurich Jubilee) . I won last round games against Malakhov and Morozevich respectively. The aim of this book is to help the readers' chess, and I hope it does, but it already seems to have helped mine!

Finally, I hope that I have managed to match the level of the first book, and that the reader will enjoy the second volume as much as the first.

How I selected the repertoire

The first volume of my 1 .d4 GM Repertoire covered 1 .d4 d5 openings, while this second one is going to deal with all the rest. I would like to explain how I chose which lines to recommend for White. I select serious variations and then analyse in depth, looking for improvements. I want the readers to have a repertoire that will last, so if there is a choice between two strong lines I choose the one where the theory is less likely to change on a daily basis. Moving on to specifics, I will say a few words about my choices against the main lines.

The King's Indian Defence

The biggest part of Volume 2 is dedicated to systems where Black fianchettoes his dark-squared bishop. The key decision for me was to choose the right system versus the King's Indian Defence. Here I simply followed my experience and feelings. A few years ago I said to myself: "Why should

I allow my opponent such good attacking chances in this opening?" (Actually this happened after I got mated several times, especially by Ilya 5mirin!) "So why not secure my king by fianchettoing my light-squared bishop?" I started playing the Fianchetto Variation, scored well, and felt really comfortable in the opening part of the game.

The Griinfeld Defence

Mter choosing my l ine against the King's Indian it was easier to move forward. Obviously against the Griinfeld I was obliged to choose another fianchetto variation and I am not disappointed with my choice. I think the Griinfeld is a particularly tough opening to crack. For example, nowadays even the elite players mostly go for one-game-ideas against the Griinfeld.

The Mode rn Defence

I was a little restricted in my choice against the Modern Defence, as I could not recommend anything other than a fianchetto system, because of the possibility that otherwise we could face a transposition to a line of the King's Indian that is not part of our repertoire. Fortunately, the g3-system against the Modern is a serious weapon that leads to very rich play.

The Dutch Defence

Against all the various forms of the Dutch Defence, current theory considers a kingside fianchetto to be White's most reliable weapon. This fits with our repertoire style, so the objective merits and my taste both point towards the same lines.

The Ben ko Gambit

A similar situation arises when we face the Benko Gambit. Accepting the pawn, followed by a kingside fianchetto, is now considered to be White's most dangerous system. So it is also our system.

The Mode rn Benoni

The Modern Benoni is a particularly exciting part of this book. The fianchetto lines that I have analysed can lead to incredible complications and I suggest several key improvements. We should not worry about the complexity as, for example, I have a great score with the fianchetto system. In fact, since this line can arise via a Catalan move order we do not have much choice anyway.

In summary, I believe this book offers a strong and reliable repertoire. I hope my lines will serve the readers well.

Boris Avrukh Beer-5heva, 5th February 2010

Bogo-Indian a b c d e f g h

4 ... c5

Variation Index l .d4 ctJf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 J.b4t 4.J.d2 cS

A) 6 ... dS B) 6 ... 0-0 7.e4 d6 8.ctJe2

7 6

4 3 2

Bl) 8 ... ctJc6 B2) 8 ... eS 9.a3

B21) 9 . . . ctJa6 B22) 9 . . :�Nb6

A) after 1 l . . .:gfd8

a b c d e f g h

1 2.e4!N

S.J.xb4 cxb4 6.J.g2

B l ) after 1 l . . .tiJe7

a b c d e f g b

12 .�d2!N

B2 1 ) after 1 3. . .�b6

a b c d e f g h

1 4.c5!N

14 15 15 16 17 18

14 The Bogo-I ndian Defence

l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 ib4t This is not the traditional Bogo-Indian

Defence as White's knight has not yet emerged on f3. This is in general to White's advantage. Against a lot of lines White will play lOf3 quite soon, bur in some cases he will follow up with ig2 and e2-e4, taking advantage of the move order.

4.id2 c5

a b c d e f g h

A thematic idea taken directly from the traditional Bogo-Indian. Black wants to delay taking on d2 and prepares to capture on d4 with the c-pawn. If he had taken on d2 and then played . . . c7-c5, White would have d4-d5, but in this position this is less attractive, as either the pawn would be simply hanging, or White would have to take on b4 first, creating a square on c5 for Black. So, White is best off keeping things flexible in the centre, but without allowing Black to take on d4.

5.ixb4 As always, this exchange is the critical test of

Black's idea.

5 ... cxb4 6.ig2 As mentioned in passing above, the main

difference compared with other openings such as the main line Bogo-Indian or Queen's

Indian, where Black employs the same ideas, is that White's knight is still on g l and White has an extra option of playing e2-e4 at once, followed by developing his knight to e2.

A) 6 ... d5

This move is not the most common, as I have noticed that Black players often prefer to avoid playing the pawn to d5. It seems that now Black's pawn structure loses flexibility and White enjoys a pleasant edge. For instance:

7.lLld2 lLlc6 8.lLlgf3 0-0 9.0-0 id7 Another line runs:

9 ... b6 1 0.:1kl ib7 1 1 .e3 Wd6 1 2.Wa4 White has very easy play, while Black lacks serious counterplay. It is no wonder that Black quickly lost the thread in the following encounter:

1 2 . . . l'%fc8 1 3.l'%c2 l'%c7 1 4.l'%fc l l'%ac8 1 5 .cxd5! A well-timed decision.

1 5 . . . exd5? Black misses White's next idea. The correct recapture was 1 5 . . . lOxd5, although after 1 6.lOe 1 White retains a pleasant edge; it feels as though White is playing with an extra pawn.

1 6.ih3! lOd7 1 7.lOe5 Black cannot avoid losing material, Ivanchuk

- Gulko, New York 1 988.

Chapter 1 - 4 . . . c5 15

1O.e3 Wffe7 I 1 .Wffe2 Also 1 1 .lLle5 Elfc8 1 2.Wffe2 �e8 13 .Elacl

comes into consideration, with better chances for White.

I1 ...Elfd8 This is Braun - Jojua, Batumi 2006.

Commenting on this game in ChessBase Magazine 1 15 Braun proposed the following improvement:

B) 6 ... 0-0

A more flexible approach than the previous line, as Black can vary the destination of his d-pawn.

7.e4 d6 This is what is usually played, but in Chess

Informant 66 Beliavsky noted the following alternative for Black: 7 . . . d5

Beliavsky's line looks convincing: 8.cxd5 exd5 9.e5 lLle8 1O .lLle2 lLlc6 1 1 .0-0 CiJc7

If Black plays 1 1 . . . �g4 it can be comfortably met with 1 2.f3.

1 2.a3 Quite a natural idea, as White wants to gain the c3-square for his knight. Also worthy of consideration was 1 2. ttJd2. I examined the following approximate line: 1 2 ... �g4 1 3.ttJb3 f6 1 4.f3 �f5 1 5 .f4 b6 1 6.Elcl Wid7 1 7.ttJa 1 ! A remarkable move: White's knight is heading for e3 via c2. White is better.

1 2 . . . �f5 1 3.axb4 ttJxb4 1 4.ttJbc3 White has the advantage, thanks to his better

pawn structure.

8.tLle2

At this point Black has two serious options, B1) 8 ... tLlc6 and B2) 8 ... eS.

Bl) 8 .. . tLlc6

Seldom played. I developed this line:

9.a3 Wffb6 Instead 9 . . . bxa3 1 0.ttJxa3 Wia5t 1 1 .Wid2 is

slightly better for White.

10.0-0 eS I also examined the thematic:

1 0 . . . a5 1 1 .axb4 Wixb4 1 2.ttJa3 White's knight is heading for the weakened b5-square.

1 6 The Bogo-Indian Defence

1 2 . . . e5 Certainly Black cannot capture the b2-pawn: 12 .. . 'I'tlxb2 1 3.ttJb5 and Black's queen is in danger, for example 1 3 .. J'3:d8 1 4.ttJf4 threatening ttJd3. 1 4 . . . ttJb4 1 5 .ttJd3 ttJxd3 1 6.'I'tlxd3 Black is helpless against the threat of:Bfb l .

1 3.ttJb5 With the better prospects for White.

l 1 .dS liJe7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12.'I'tld2!N I believe this is stronger than 1 2.axb4

'I'tlxb4 1 3.'I'tld2 'I'tlxc4 1 4.:Bc1 'I'tlb3 1 5 .ttJa3 ig4, which led to unclear play in Prusikin -Laznicka, 5teinbrunn 2005 .

12 ... bxa3 Inferior is 1 2 . . . b3 1 3.'I'tlb4! when the b3-

pawn is a sitting target.

13.tLlxa3 as If Black tries 1 3 . . . ig4 then after 14.ttJc1

:Bfc8 1 5 .ttJd3 'I'tld4 1 6.:Bfe 1 , followed by 1 7.b3 and 1 8.ttJc2, White is clearly better.

14.cS! This prevents Black from seizing control of

the dark squares on the queenside (especially b4 and c5) which might happen after the

narural 1 4.ttJb5 id7 1 5.ttJec3 ixb5 1 6.ttJxb5 ttJd7, with reasonable play for Black.

14 .. .'<MrxcS Clearly bad is 1 4 . . . dxc5? 1 5 .ttJc4 and Black's

centre will be annihilated.

IS.:Bfcl W'b4 16.W'xb4 axb4 17.ttJc4 Now the following consequences are

essentially forced:

17 ... :Bxal 18.:Bxal liJe8 Much worse is: 1 8 . . . :Bd8 1 9.:Ba5 ! The idea is

to transfer the rook to b5. 1 9 . . . ttJe8 20.:Bb5 f5 2 1 .:Bxb4 fxe4 22.ttJc3 With a clear edge.

1 9.:Ba7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

White obviously has the initiative and after:

19 ... £5 20.exf5 liJxf5 21 .tLlb6 liJf6 22.:Ba4 White has an advantage.

B2) 8 ... eS

This is by far Black's main choice.

9.a3 I believe this is the most accurate move order

for White.

In fact, 9.0-0 is generally considered to be the

Chapter 1 - 4 . . . c5 17

main line, but I am slightly concerned about the position that might arise after: 9 . . . �g4 10.f3 �e6 l 1 .�d3 (or 1 1 .b3 �b6 1 2.Wh 1 a5) 1 1 . . .'IWb6 1 2.Wh1 exd4 1 3.tt:lxd4 tLlbd7 1 4.b3 This was Coelho - Leitao, Santos 2008, and now 1 4 . . . a5 would lead to double-edged play. Black's activity compensates for his damaged pawn structure.

8 A�.t� �:I.m 7 �i"� '''''/.� 'iv-wil, 6 " ��. �. 'JI1 5 �� '. �� . '��'/J""%{i ��% � 4 � 8 �� 8 m � 3 �""%.""%_��

2 ""'%��_��

1 i��_;=""%.i a b c d e f g h

After 9 .a3 Black has two main replies: B21) 9 ... tLla6 and B22) 9 ... �b6.

Of only minor importance is: 9 ... bxa3 1 O.tLlxa3 tLlc6 1 1 .0-0

In my opinion this position is favourable for White, thanks to his extra space. Let's see a couple of illustrative continuations:

1 l . . .\Wb6 1 l . . .�g4 1 2.f3 �h5 I believe this is not the best place for Black's bishop; it was better to leave it on the h3-c8 diagonal. 1 3 .�d2 \Wb6 1 4.l':1:ad1 �ad8 1 5 .Wh1 White had a positional advantage in Gleizerov - Bindrich, Stockholm 2006.

12.\Wd2 a5 1 2 . . . tLlxd4 would lead to an inferior position for Black after 1 3 .tt:lxd4 exd4 1 4.�fd 1 ±.

13.tLlb5 �d8 1 4.b3 14.tLlec3 was also very good.

14 . . . tLlb4 1 5.tLlec3± White was clearly better in A. Horvath -

Toth, Budapest 2006.

B21 ) 9 ... ttJa6 10.axb4 tLlxb4 1 1 .�d2 a5 12.0-0 �e6!?

Black tries to create some counterplay by attacking the white centre. He would be happy to see d4-d5, weakening White's dark squares.

Passive tactics would not work well for Black, as was proven by the following encounter: 1 2 . . . b6 1 3.tLla3 �a6 1 4.�ad 1 �e7 1 5 . f4 �ac8 1 6.b3 �cd8 1 7.tLlc3 White had an obvious advantage in Grischuk - Yemelin, Sochi 2004.

13.tLla3 An interesting alternative is 1 3.b3 'lWb6

1 4.tLlbc3 .

13 ... �b6

a b c d e f g h

14.c5!N This is a strong improvement over

1 4.tLlc3, which seems inaccurate, as it allows 1 4 . . . exd4!N ( l 4 . . . �xd4 1 5 .'lWxd4 exd4 1 6.tLlcb5 d3 1 7.tLlxd6 led to a favourable position for White in I. Porat - Ilincic, Budapest 2005) 1 5 .tLla4 �c6 when I do not see how White can fight for an advantage.

14 ... dxc5 15.d5 �Ud8 No better is 1 5 . . . �g4 1 6.f3 �h5, as White

has the simple 1 7.g4 �g6 1 8.tLlc4 �c7 1 9 .d6

1 8 Th e Bogo-Indian Defence

regaining the pawn and keeping a powerful position.

16.ttJc4 'l'!!fc7 17.ttJc3 I definitely prefer this move to 1 7.f4 exf4

1 8.ltJxf4 b5 with unnecessary complications. After the text move White has a clear advantage, as he is not only threatening to play Vf1 g5 regaining the pawn, but also the simple f2-f4 advance is very powerful, as I cannot imagine how Black can stop White's central pawns.

17 ... �d7 1 8.f4 White is much better.

B22) 9 ••• 'l'!!fb6

a b c d e f g h

10.0-0 After some thought I have concluded that

this is the best move order.

1 0.Vf1d2 This looks nice at first, but the problem is that Black has a very unexpected resource for this type of pawn structure:

1 0 . . . b3! This makes White's c4-pawn vulnerable and allows Black sufficient counterplay:

1 1 .ltJbc3 ltJc6 12.1"\d 1 This position was reached in Iskusnyh -

Maletin, Russia 2007, and now Black should have played:

1 2 . . . exd4N 1 3 .ltJxd4 ltJe5 1 4.ltJd5 Unfortunately White cannot play 1 4.Vf1e2 in view of 1 4 . . . ig4 1 5 .f3 id7 followed by . . . 1"\ac8.

1 4 . . . ltJxd5 1 5 .cxd5 id7 1 6.0-0 1"\ac8 With double-edged play.

10 ... 1"\e8 The main point is 1 0 . . . bxa3 1 1 .ltJxa3 Vf1xb2?

1 2.ltJb5 and Black is in trouble.

The serious alternative is: 1 0 . . . ig4 1 1 .axb4 ltJc6 ( l 1 . . .ixe2 1 2.Vf1xe2 exd4 runs into the strong 1 3.c5! dxc5 14.bxc5 Vf1xc5 1 5 .e5 ltJd5 1 6.ltJd2 and White's l ight-squared bishop should make a difference) 1 2.f3 ie6 1 3.ltJa3 exd4 1 4.<;t>h 1 Vf1xb4 1 5 .ltJxd4t White has a positional advantage.

1 1 .axb4 'l'!!fxb4 12.ttJa3 �g4 13.f3 �d7 14.b3 a5 15.'l'!!fd3 ttJa6

Both sides gradually conclude their plans.

16.1"\fc1 exd4 Probably Black should refrain from releasing

the pressure in the centre. Now White consolidates his advantage.

17.ttJc2 'l'!!fb6 18.'l'!!fxd4 tiJc5 19.1"\cb1 1"\a6 20.tiJc31;

White had an edge in Avrukh - Kosashvili, Israeli League 2004.

Conclusion:

4 . . . c5 leads to interesting positions, but White is better with accurate play. White benefits, compared to the main lines of the BogoIndian, from the increased flexibility caused by not having committed his king's knight to f3.


4 ... ixd2t Variation Index

l .d4 lDf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 �b4t 4.�d2 �xd2t

A) 5 ... 0-0 6.�g2 d6 B) 5 ... d5 6.lDa 0-0 7.�g2

7

4

2

B l) 7 ... Wie7 8.0-0 B l l) 8 ... dxc4 B 12) 8 ... b6 B 1 3) 8 ... gd8

B2) 7 ... lDbd7 8.0-0 B2l) 8 ... dxc4 B22) 8 ... Wie7 B23) 8 ..• c6

A) after I 5 . . .l/Jd7

a b c d e f g h

I 6.cxb5!N

5 JWxd2

B 1 2) after l l . . .iWe6

a b c d e f g h

I 2.iWf4!?N

B23) note to I 2 .. . dxc4

a b c d e f g h

I7.l/Jb5!N

20 21 22 22 23 24 25 25 26 28


l .d4 ttJf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 i.b4t 4.i.d2 i.xd2t

A·I1.t�*� .� � "Jj}Jt� !JI 6 ""� "� !(if "� ��'" � %

: ��!O��O 3 ��.'.�� ,� ��,� ��,J""��,� 2 8 W[j m 8 W[j W� 1 �lt).� �=j£m: / , � % ,,' � " ,

a b c d e f g h

5.�xd2 After long hesitation I decided to make my

choice in favour of recapturing with the queen. Of course the alternative is taking with the knight, and in this case I believe Black should opt for a typical Bogo-Indian pawn structure of d6 and e5 (although . . . d7-d5 is a possible option). The main point is that with his knight on d2 White would be forced to close the position with d4-d5, as he cannot hold the d4-square.

I do not see any point in going deeply into this line, but I would like to show one critical continuation: 5.ttJxd2 ttJc6 6.ltJgf3 d6 7.e4 e5 S.d5 ltJbS 9.ig2 0-0 10.0-0 as 1 1 .ltJe1 ltJa6 1 2.ltJd3 Vffe7 Finally, via a different move order, the players reached an important theoretical tabiya. I assume Black could try to play without the move . . . Vffe7 (perhaps with 1 2 . . . c6!?) . 1 3.a3 One of many possibilities for White. 1 3 . . . ig4 14. f3 id7 1 5 .b4 axb4 1 6.axb4 c6 The position was unclear in Rogozenko -Parligras, Hamburg 200S.

After the queen recaptures, the two main options are: A) 5 . . . 0-0 and B) 5 ... d5 .

A) 5 ... 0-0 6.i.g2 d6

Now I suggest a very natural continuation:

7.e4 To my great surprise this interesting try

has only appeared three times in practice. In my opinion it is very logical to benefit from not having our kingside knight on f3, and to advance quickly with e2-e4 followed by ltJe2. However, almost everyone seems to play either 7.ltJf3 or 7.ltJc3.

7 ... e5 The following line illustrates the value of

White's set-up: 7 . . . d5 This is obviously met by S.e5 ltJe4 and now I believe White can try to win a pawn with 9.ixe4 dxe4 1 0.ttJc3, not fearing 1 0 . . . b6 1 1 .ttJxe4 ib7 12 .f3. White will continue with 0-0-0 and ltJe2. I do not see anything special for Black.

7 . . . c5 might be a good option for Black if it were not for S.dxc5! dxc5 9.e5 ltJfd7 (or 9 . . . Vffxd2t 1 0.ttJxd2 ttJg4 1 l .f4;!;) 1 0.f4 and White enjoys a pleasant space advantage.

8 A_.tS ��*_ 7 .,"_""z� ',Y-�r 6 ""� ".�. "� 5 i8I �� '. � . 4

·�!.t�

·. � ·."'.·0� 3 �W� �;C",.<, . �%0,J�%0'� 2 8 W[j � W[j1Lw�

1 /g{lt)."",Z�""%�:

a b c d e f g h

8.ttJe2!?N This is my new idea. There is no point in

clarifying the pawn structure in the centre, as this would allow Black easy play. For example, S .d5 c6 9.ltJc3 cxd5 1 0.cxd5 ltJa6 1 1 .ttJge2 id7 12.0-0 b5 and Black developed promising play on the queens ide in Robatsch - Lehmann, Malaga 1 964.

Chapter 2 - 4 . . . ixd2t 2 1

The main point of this novelty is its flexibility. If the centre is closed by d4-d5 White will be able to push f2-f4 at once. Also, he need not worry about a possible . . . ig4, which usually puts additional pressure on White's centre ifhe has developed his kingside knight to f3 . Now this move would be nonsensical, as we can simply play f2-f3. This position has never been tested in practice, but I have worked out a few possible lines:

8 ... c5 If B . . . liJc6 9.liJbc3 and White enjoys a stable

edge, as I fail to see how Black can create any decent counterplay.

9.d5 tiJa6 Naturally Black starts to prepare the thematic

. . . b7-b5 advance.

10.tiJbc3 tiJc7 We have transposed to the Damljanovic

game that is quoted below.

11 .0-0 gb8 12.a4 b6 13.ttJc1 Of course White could have played the

immediate f2-f4, but it is very useful first to improve the e2-knight.

13 ... a6 14.tiJd3 b5 15.b3! It may look quite attractive to play 1 5.cxb5

axb5 1 6.b4, but it appears that Black has a fine defensive resource: 1 6 . . . c4 1 7.lLlb2 bxa4 IB.liJcxa4 White will have nothing special if Black manages to exchange all the queens ide pawns. IB . . . c3! 1 9.�xc3 lLlb5 20.�d2 itJd4 Black has plenty of counterplay for his sacrificed pawn.

15 ... tiJd7 So far this is Damljanovic - P. Popovic,

Cacak 1 995, but now that Black's knight is on d7, it is a good moment to carry out the plan mentioned in the previous note.

a b c d e f g h

16.cxb5!N axb5 17.b4 c4 18.ltlb2 White has a positional advantage.

B) 5 ... d5 6.ttJf3 0-0 7.ig2

8 � �.te ��.m 7 If,''_'''''/'� ·,v-.r 6 "�"1d !�f"� Idmld�,,�. 5 Idm!�m·1d 4 ��'m�W� 3 ��r� �� /., ./., ��Jcl % '� 2 8 W� � 8 W�� 1 �li5.'''''/'�''''%��

a b c d e f g h

This is an important tabiya. Black usually plays either Bl) 7 ... �e7 or B2) 7 ... ltlbd7, both of which lead to solid but inferior positions, as we shall see. But besides these main options, there are a few other interesting moves to consider:

7 . . . b6 This leads to a typical Queen's Indian type of position, but the absence of dark-squared bishops gives White a pleasant advantage. White now has a few promising avenues, but I like the following example best of all:


8.cxd5 exd5 9.0-0 �b7 1 0.ttJc3 ttJbd7 1 1 .:gacl :ge8 1 2.:gfd l a6

Black refrains from 1 2 . . . c5 and indeed after 1 3 .ttJh4 c4 (otherwise it is not clear how to hold the d5-pawn, as 1 3" 'ttJe4 runs into the strong 14'ttJxe4 dxe4 1 5 .ttJf50 1 4.b3 cxb3 1 5 .axb3 White has a positional advantage.

1 3 .iWc2 ttJf8 1 4.b4 iWe7 1 5 .iWb3 ttJe6 1 6.e3 White enjoyed a small but stable positional

edge in Beliavsky - Kasimdzhanov, Pune 2004.

7 . . . dxc4 This is a quite playable idea for Black.

8.ttJa3 �d7 The point. Black's l ight-squared bishop transfers to the h l -a8 diagonal, neutralizing White's Catalan bishop. Clearly worse was 8 . . . c5 9.dxc5 ttJe4 10 .iWxd8 :gxd8 I l .ttJxc4 ttJc6 1 2.0-0 ttJxc5 and now in the game Lupor - Klundt, Bad Wiessee 2000, White could have gained an advantage by simple means with 1 3.:gfd l �d7 1 4'ttJd6 with serious pressure.

9. ttJxc4 �c6 1 0.0-0 I believe White's extra space guarantees him a slight advantage.

1 0 . . . ttJbd7 1 0 . . . �d5 was recommended by Vlatko Kovacevic in Chess Informant 45. In this case White should continue with 1 1 .:gac l ttJc6 1 2.:gfd l ttJe4 1 3.iWc2, retaining the better chances.

1 1 .:gfc l �d5 1 2.b4 Gaining more space on the queens ide; the following encounter proves that Black is far from equality:

1 2 . . . iWe7 1 3 .iWb2 :gac8 1 4.ttJa5 ttJb8 1 5 .ttJe5 �xg2 1 6.Wxg2

White was significantly better in Portisch -P. Nikolic, Linares 1 988.

7 . . . c6 8.0-0 ttJbd7 does not have independent value, as it transposes to 7 . . . ttJbd7.

BI) 7 ... V!ie7

This move and all the various set-ups it leads to were quite popular in the 1 980s.

8.0-0

Once again we have reached a branching point. The three main moves here are: B I I) 8 ... dxc4, B12) 8 . . . b6 and B13) 8 ... :gd8. However, the most popular move is probably 8 . . . ttJbd7, but this move is covered by transposition in line B22 below.

Bll ) 8 ... dxc4

This always seems to me to be a concession, as it strengthens the power of White's lightsquared bishop.

9.lba3 :gd8 The alternative is:

9 . . . c5 Here the following example looks rather convincing.

1 0.dxc5 iWxc5 1 1 .:gac l ttJc6 1 2.ttJxc4 :gd8 13 .iWg5

1 3.iWf4!? might be an interesting alternative. 1 3 . . . iWxg5 1 4.ttJxg5 ttJd4

This position was reached in Aronian -Huebner, Internet (blitz) 2004. Now White should have played:

Chapter 2 - 4 ... ixd2t 23

15J:l:fd1 hG 1 5 . . . ctJxe2t? fails to 1 G.<.f'fl ttJd4 17.ttJe5 with a decisive advantage.

16.e3! hxg5 1 7.gxd4 gxd4 1 S .exd4 ttJeS Otherwise 1 9.ttJdG is very unpleasant.

19J'lc3 It is clear that White has a strong initiative.

IO.tLlxc4 c5 1 1 .gfdi ctJa6 I also checked the natural 1 1 . . .ttJcG and in

this case 12 .�e3 ttJd5 13 .�b3 would keep serious pressure.

All this was played in Speelman - Andersson, London 1 9S2. Now White should have continued:

I2 ... id7 13.ctJxd7 gxd7 I4.�a5 gadS I5.e3t

With a pleasant edge.

B I 2) S ... b6

Black always has this. This position would also be likely to arise via the 7 . . . bG move order.

9.cxd5 exd5 I O.tLlc3 ib7 I 1 .tLlh4 I like this move, as it underlines that Black's

queen is slightly misplaced on e7.

I 1 . . . �e6 This seems to be Black's best option, but let's

see why the other moves are weaker:

1 1 . . .gdS was played in Adianto - Tukmakov, Biel 1 997. For some reason White refrained from the natural 1 2.ttJf5! , which would have been very strong. Black would have been obliged to choose between the passive 1 2 . . . �fS 1 3.�f4 ttJaG 1 4.gae l , when White's position looks very promising, and the even worse 1 2 . . . �eG, which can be strongly met with 13 .�g5 gG 1 4.e4! , and Black is in serious trouble.

1 1 . . .ttJe4? is even worse. After 1 2.ttJxe4 dxe4 1 3.ttJf5 �dS 1 4.d5! Black lost his central pawn in Cvitan - Franic, Pula 1 995.

a b c d e f g h

I 2.�f4!?N This is stronger than 12.�g5 gG 1 3.�e5

'lWxe5 14.dxe5 ttJe4 when Black had a reliable position in Arencibia - Gonzalez Garcia, Yucatan 1 999.

12 ... ctJa6 13.gfdi White has many moves that will improve

his position (such as gae l , a2-a3 and b2-b4) and Black must also watch out for a ttJf5 jump. I believe White's chances are preferable.


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B13) 8 . . JU8

a b c d e f g h

9Jkl More popular is 9.Wic2, but in my opinion

our queen is not so badly placed on d2 and might be transferred to the f4- or e3-squares, and especially after 8 . . . �d8, this idea works fine for White.

9 ... c6 Black has also tried another set-up with

9 . . . ctJc6. Now I like the following plan for White: 1 0.ctJe5 id7 I 1 .Wie3 ie8 1 2.ctJd2t White had a preferable position in Suo Polgar - Garcia Trobat, San Sebastian 1 99 1 .

10.Wie3 This is a good square for White's queen,

where it controls the important central squares of e4 and e5 , and vacates the d2-square for the development of the b I -knight.

lo ... id7 Releasing the tension in the centre is hardly

a good idea: 1 0 . . . dxc4 1 1 .�xc4 ctJbd7 1 2.Wia3!?

An interesting idea, but the natural 1 2.ctJbd2 ctJd5 1 3.WieQ would also have kept a pleasant edge.

1 2 .. .'it>f8 1 3.�c1 Wixa3 1 4.ctJxa3 The endgame is already clearly favourable

for White and he managed to increase his advantage with the next series of moves: �

1 4 . . . ctJe4 1 5 .ctJc4 f6 1 6.ctJel ctJg5 17 .a4 ctJb6 1 8 .a5 ctJd5 1 9.ctJd3±

White was clearly better in Boensch -Kveinys, Augsburg 1 994.

l 1 .ctJbd2 ie8 1 2.lLlb3 A remarkable concept; White's knight is

heading for a5, where it will put additional pressure on Black's queenside. A worthy alternative is 1 2.a3 a5 1 3 .c5 a4 1 4.ctJe5t as in Timman - P Nikolic, Reykjavik 1 988.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12 . . . tLlbd7 Other options for Black are:

1 2 . . . ctJa6 1 3.a3 �ac8 This position was reached in Razuvaev - Kholmov, Moscow 1 99 1 , and now Kholmov's recommendation in Chess Informant 52 seems very good for White: 1 4.c5! White's chances are better, as he has a clear plan of a queens ide offensive (ctJa5, b2-b4, a3-a4 and so on) , while it will not be easy for Black to create counterplay in the centre.

1 2 . . . a5 1 3 .ctJc5 ctJa6 1 4.ctJd3t is a line given by Kasparov in Chess Informant 48.

13.lLla5 �ab8 14.�abl Simply preparing the b2-b4 advance.

Chapter 2 - 4 . . . ixd2t 25

14 . . J:!deS 14 . . . liJf8 1 5 .c5 liJg6 1 6.b4 would leave

White with a pleasant edge.

15.cxdS We are following a Kasparov game, and as

always he takes a concrete approach to the position. The alternative would have been IS.cS!? with a slightly better position for White, as he has a clear offensive plan on the queenside.

15 ... liJxdS I S . . . cxd5 would leave Black a pawn down

with questionable compensation after: 1 6.:t'hc8 �xc8 1 7.liJxb7 �b4 1 8.�b3 �xb3 1 9.axb3±

16.�d2 eS?! This move was condemned by Kasparov.

In Chess Informant 48, he recommended 16 . . . liJ5b6 as the road to equality, but I would like to disagree with this evaluation. Mter 17.b4 f6 1 8.e4 e5 1 9.a3 �f7 20.�e3 White seems better to me.

17.e4 lLlSbG IS.eS!

a b c d e f g h

White seized the initiative in Kasparov -Timman, Belgrade 1 989.

B2) 7 ... lLlbd7 S.o-o

a b c d e f g h

Once again we have to deal with a branch in the road. The three moves we cover here are B21) S ... dxe4, B22) S ... �e7 and B23) 8 ... eG.

8 . . . b6 is also possible, but White should react with 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.liJc3 �b7, when we reach a position from the 7 . . . b6-line, which has been examined on page 22.

B21 ) 8 ... dxe4

Here I have come up with a novelty:

9.a4!?N The main point of Black's idea is that he

meets 9 .4Ja3 with 9 . . . e5! . Now the critical line is: 1 0.dxe5 4Jxe5 1 1 .�xd8 (after 1 1 .�c3 4Jxf3t 1 2.ixf3 �e7 1 3 .4Jxc4 c6 Black achieves a perfectly playable position) 1 1 . . .4Jxf3t 1 2.�xf3 �xd8 1 3.�fd l (or 1 3.4Jxc4 �e6) 1 3 . . . ie6! Black was alright in Timman -Schebler, Antwerp 2008.

9 ... eS I also analysed two other options:

9 . . . b6 This does not solve B lack's problems. For example:

1 0.4Je5 4Jd5 1 1 .4Jxc4 �a6 1 2.4Jba3 c5 1 3.e4 4Jb4 1 4.e5 4Jd5 1 5 .4Jb5

White has serious pressure.


9 ... V!Je7 1 0.lLla3 e5 1 1 .lLlxc4 Instead 1 1 . lLlxe5 lLlxe5 1 2.dxe5 V!Jxe5 1 3 .lLlxc4 V!Je7 is not much for White, even though he managed to win a tempo with lLlxc4.

1 l . . .e4 If 1 1 . . .exd4 1 2.lLlxd4 and White's pressure is annoying.

12.lLlfe5 lLlb6 13 .lLle3 I decided to focus on this move, even though White has other ways of fighting for an advantage.

1 3 . . . te6 If 1 3 . . . c5 14.dxc5 'lfixc5 1 5 .a5! 'lfixe5 1 6.axb6 a6 17,l'l:a5 and White keeps some pressure. Also after 13 . . . a5 14.V!Jc2 c6 1 5 .V!Jc5 V!Jxc5 1 6.dxc5 lLlbd7 1 7.lLlxd7 txd7 1 8.lLlc4t White retains a pleasant advantage.

1 4.a5 lLlbd5 1 5 .a6 b6 1 6.lLlc6 V!Jd6 17.1'�fcl lLlxe3 1 8 .V!Jxe3 td5 1 9 .V!Ja3!t

White definitely has pressure, thanks to his strong knight on c6.

10.�dl The text move is best as 1 0.lLla3 allows

Black to comfortably develop his light-squared bishop with 1 O . . . b6 because 1 1 .lLle5 is now met strongly with the exchange sacrifice 1 1 . . .lLlxe5! 12 .txa8 cxd4, leading to double-edged play.

1O ... V!Je7 White was ready to meet l O . . . b6 with:

l 1 .lLle5 lLld5 1 2.e4 lLl5f6 (It is an important point that Black cannot play 1 2 . . . lLlxe5? because of 1 3 .dxe5. Here we can see the point of 10 .�d l , as Black's queen is hanging on d8.) 1 3.lLlxc4 ta6 14.lLlba3 cxd4 1 5 .V!Jxd4 White is better.

1 l .lLla3 cxd4 12.V!Jxd4 Black would have no problems after 1 2.lLlxd4

lLlc5 1 3 .V!Jb4 e5.

12 ... eS

Now White must find an accurate move.

13.V!Jc3! Tnis is a key point, as 1 3.V!Jxc4 lLlb6 does not

pose Black any problems.

13 ... e4 14.ttJd4 ttJcS Also after 1 4 . . . lLle5 1 5 .lLlxc4 lLlxc4 1 6.V!Jxc4

White is slightly better.

ls.lLlxc4 id7 16.V!Jb4 White has an edge. It is important to mention

the problem with the following natural try:

16 ... ttJdS 17.tDf5! This appealing move forces the following

sequence.

17 ... ttJxb4 18.ttJxe7t ..t>h8 19.ttJd6 White's advantage is indisputable.

B22) 8 .. ,1,We7

a b c d e f g h

9.Wfc2 This time we choose a different plan. As

we already know, White can leave his queen on d2 and continue with 9.�c l , but I failed to discover anything special for White after 9 . . . c6. Black has very easy play: after both 1 0.V!Jf4 and l O.V!Je3 his plan includes . . . b7-b6, . . . i.b7 or . . . ta6 and then eventually to carry

Chapter 2 - 4 . . . ixd2t 27

out . . . c6-c5 . I did not manage to find any ideas that pose Black problems.

9 .. . c6 The most playable alternative is 9 . . . c5,

but this seems to me to be absolutely not in the spirit of this variation. White gains the better chances by simple means: 1 0.cxd5 iZlxd5 1 1 .ttJc3 ttJxc3 1 2.'lWxc3 cxd4 1 3 .ttJxd4 iZlf6 And now in the game Gordenko -Semenov, Kiev 2006, White could have seized an advantage with 1 4.Elacl e5 1 5 .ttJb3 e4 16.Wfc7.

1 O.li:l bd2 White intends to execute the e2-e4

advance. Black has two options: either allow White to carry out his idea, or play 1 0 . . . e5 himself.

8 ��!m�/'''L}-i� 7 � i _�� i w� i "., ,%� r� ',%.""%� 6

® jIIjII!jII ' jII � � jIIjII!� jIIjII jII� jIIjII 'xjII �m� 3 ��n� �C'//;; ��J��r� 2 b w�iY�� b W��w� �.··· ·%.·· · · · ·.f�····% a b c d e f g h

lO ... e5 1O . . . b6 I l .e4

This position has occurred only twice in tournament practice and both games continued:

l l . . .dxe4 1 2.ttJxe4 ib7 In the other game Black tried 1 2 . . . ttJxe4 13.'lWxe4 ib7 and now after the best reply, 14.Elfe l , we reach the same position as after 12 . . . ib7.

13.Elfe 1 ttJxe4 14.'lWxe4

a b c d e f g h

have developed and used a method of evaluating this type of Catalan position: if Black manages to carry out the programmed . . . c6-c5 advance (then exchanges on d4 or forces White to capture on c5) then in most cases Black is alright, but if White succeeds in blocking the c6-pawn by playing c4-c5, or can meet the . . . c6-c5-advance with d4-d5, then White can fight for the advantage. In this position we have the second case and White has chances of an advantage.

1 4 . . . ttJf6 Here a draw was agreed in Vera Gonzalez - Nogueiras Santiago, Matanzas 1 994, but objectively White could pose Black definite problems.

1 5 .'lWc2 Elad8 . If 1 5 . . . c5 then White plays 1 6.d5 and is

simply better. 1 6.c5!

Black is still far from equalizing.

1 1 .cxd5 liJxd5 Nobody has tried 1 1 . . . cxd5 , which would

offer White a pleasant choice: 1 2.e4!? (or 1 2.dxe5 ttJxe5 1 3 .ttJxe5 'lWxe5 1 4.ttJf3 with nice play against the isolated pawn) 1 2 . . . dxe4 (if 1 2 . . . exd4 then 1 3.exd5 ttJxd5 14.E1fe1 'lWc5 1 5 .'lWxc5 ttJxc5 1 6.ttJxd4 with definite pressure) 1 3.ttJxe4 exd4 1 4.Elfe l White would regain the pawn and have lasting pressure.

28 The Bogo-Indian Defence

It is essential to note that 1 1 . . .e4? would be a serious mistake in view of 1 2.d6! 'We6 1 3.CtJg5 'Wxd6 14.e3! and Black loses his central pawn.

12.e4 Now Black has three options:

1 2 . . . CtJb4 1 3.'Wc3 exd4 14.CtJxd4 c5? In this case it is really not a good idea to move the c-pawn. (Correct would have been 1 4 . . . CtJb6 1 5 .a3 CtJa6 1 6.l'!ac 1::!; and White is slightly better.) 1 5 .CtJf5 'We5 1 6.CtJc4± White was clearly better in Plaskett - Hund, London 1 9S2.

12 . . . CtJ5f6 1 3 .l'!fe 1 l'!dS If 1 3 . . . exd4 14 .CtJxd4 'Wc5 1 5 .'Wxc5 CtJxc5 1 6.CtJc4, then the endgame is unpleasant for Black.

1 4.l'!ad 1 White naturally enjoys a space advantage, 'but Black's position is quite sound. We are following a Karpov game and it is really remarkable how the ex-World Champion handles this position with White.

14 . . . exd4 1 5 .CtJxd4 CtJb6 1 6.CtJ2b3 ig4 1 7.f3 ie6 1 S.'Wc5

I would also consider I S .CtJxe6 'Wxe6 1 9.CtJc5 'We7 20.f4 with the better chances, but

Karpov prefers to keep more tension. l S . . . 'WeS 1 9 .e5 CtJfd7

1 9 . . . CtJfd5 20.f4 looks much better for White.

20.'Wc1 CtJfS 2 l .f4 White had the upper hand III Karpov -

Andersson, Reykjavik 1 99 1 .

13.l'!ac1 !?N This new move was recommended by

Pelletier in ChessBase Magazine 124.

It is important for White to keep control over the c5-square, thus preventing Black's idea of a later . . . 'Wc5 trying to swap queens, as happened in the following encounter: 1 3.l'!fe1 exd4 1 4.CtJxd4 'Wc5 1 5 .'Wxc5 CtJxc5 The arising endgame appeared reliable for Black in Pelletier - Schebler, Bundesliga 200S.

I examined the following natural line:

13 ... l'!d8 14.ttJb3 exd4 15.CtJfxd4 ttJe5 Or 1 5 . . . CtJfS 1 6.l'!fe 1 and White sets the

tone.

16.f4 ttJec4 17.�e2 ttJa5 18.�fl ttJxb3 19.CtJxb3t

B23) 8 ... c6 9.ttJe5

This has only been played twice, but it seems the most promising continuation. Usually White chooses between 9.l'!c1 and 9.'Wc2, but in these lines I failed to discover many promising ideas for White; in general Black has very easy play with . . . b7-b6, . . . ib7, . . . 'We7 and then . . . c6-c5 at the right moment.

9 ... ttJxe5 It is understandable that in both games

Black went for this knight swap, as he could not execute his usual plan of fianchettoing his bishop.

Chapter 2 - 4 . . . ixd2t 29

1O.dxeS ct'ld7 l 1 .f4 ct'lb6 1 2.ctJa3

a b c d e f g h

12 ... dxc4 This capture seems to me to be a principled

approach, as otherwise Black may struggle to find any play. Let's follow a grandmaster game to see what might happen if Black does not take on c4: 12 . . . 1We7 1 3.!'Iacl !'Id8 1 4.!'Ifd 1 id7 1 5 .c5

White decides to remove the tension III

the centre and rightly so, as Black is now doomed to passivity.

15 .. . tLlc8 1 6.e4 b6 Obviously Black is seeking counter-chances. This position was reached in Dorfman - Spassky, France 2003, and now White missed a beautiful tactical solution:

17.tLlb5!N ie8 Black can try to accept the knight sacrifice with 1 7 . . . cxb5, but after 1 8 .exd5 ic6 ( l8 . . . exd5 1 9.W'xd5 !'Ib8 20.c6 is very bad for Black) 1 9.cxb6 Black has to give back the piece. Black then has two options, but they are both bad: 19 ... tLlxb6 20.!'Ixc6 tLlxd5 2 1 .W'cl or 1 9 . . . ixd5 20.!'Ic7 W'e8 21 .b7 !'Ib8 22.bxc8=W' !'Ibxc8 23.!'Ixc8 :1'i:xc8 24.ixd5 !'Id8 25 .W'g2 W'd7 26.W'h3! (a very important resource, as now White is threatening 27.if3) 26 . . . exd5 27.W'xd7 :1'i:xd7 28.i>f2± The rook endgame is difficult for Black, as White obviously has pressure.

If Black takes the c5-pawn then White has a simple but pleasing manoeuvre to switch his knight to a dominant post: 1 7 . . . bxc5 1 8.tLlc7 !'Ib8 1 9.ttJa6 !'Ib6 20.ttJxc5± With a clear positional advantage for White.

1 8 .exd5 exd5 1 8 . . . cxd5 1 9.c6 is hardly playable for Black.

1 9.cxb6 axb6 20.ttJd4 ttJa7 2 1 .!'Ie1 ! White's idea is to push the f-pawn; his

advantage is obvious.

13.gfdl W'xd2 14.gxd2 id7 l S.ctJxc4!?N I think this is White's best chance.

A few years ago I opted for 1 5 .!'Iad1 !!fd8 1 6.e4 i>f8 1 7.ifl , but after 1 7 . . . c;!;>e7 1 8.ixc4 ie8 Black was not worse in Avrukh - Khetsuriani, Athens 2005 .

I also examined 1 5 .!'Icl !'Ifd8 1 6.ttJxc4, but i t i s hard to believe White can hope for anything serious after 16 ... ttJxc4 1 7.!'Ixc4 c;!;>f8 1 8 .i>f2 i>e7 1 9.9b4 !'Iab8 20.!'Id6 ie8 2 1 .!'Ibd4 f6! .

IS ... ct'lxc4 16.gxd7 gab8 17.!'Iadl� White retains a pleasant edge.

Conclusion:

Black's exchange on d2 is not very popular nowadays, despite being quite a reliable option. Still, it seems that White retains the better chances everywhere, with the help of some improvements.

Bogo-Indian

4 . . . a5

Variation Index l .d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 ib4t 4.id2 as

S.ig2 A) S ... d6 B) 5 ... 0-0 C) S ... dS 6.�f3 0-0 7.0-0

Cl) 7 ... c6 C2) 7 ... �c6

A) after 8 ... e5 C l ) after lO . . . ib7

8 8 8

7 7 7

6 6 6

5 5 5

4 4 4

3 3 3

2 2 2

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a

9.iiJbc3!?N l l .e4!N

a b c d e f g h

C2) note to 8 . . . dxc4

b c d e f g

1 1 .a3!N

h

31 31 32 33 33

Chapter 3 - 4 . . . a5 3 1

l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 J.b4 t 4.J.d2 a5 This is the typical Bogo-Indian reaction.

Black wants to keep his bishop on b4 for a while with the idya of either provoking a2-a3, or exchanging the bishop for White's dark-squared bishop or queenside knight at a suitable moment.

5.ig2 Because of the flexible nature of the position,

Black has a number of sensible moves at this point. He can play A) 5 ... d6, B) 5 ... 0-0 or C) 5 ... d5.

A) 5 ... d6

This is quite a popular set-up for Black; next he intends ro develop his b8-knight to d7, followed by .. . e6-e5.

6.e4 We stick to the idea from the previous line.

6 ... lLl bd7 1f6 . . . 0-0 7.lLle2 e5 then we reach a position

that will be examined in line B via the 5 . . . 0-0 move order.

7.lLle2 0-0 8.0-0 e5 So far we have followed Agovic - Schein,

Graz 200 1 , but now White should vary with:

9.ClJbc3!?N Now the following line is not forced, but it

does show typical play:

9 ... exd4 10.ctJxd4 ClJe5 1 1 .b3 J.c5 1 2.ctJrs White seems to me to be better after:

12 .. . J.xfS 13.exf5 c6 14.'\W c2 White's chances are preferable, as he has a

clear plan of improving his position - first :gad1 and then h2-h3, It>h1 (or h2), f2-f4, g3-g4 and so on.

B) 5 . . . 0-0 6.e4

a b c d e f g h

This idea should now be very familiar. We benefit from our early fianchetto set-up by developing the g1 -knight to e2, while at the same time avoiding a major theoretical tabiya that could arise after 6.ltJf3 b6. The text move has only been tried twice in tournament practice, but I believe it is worthy of greater popularity.

6 . . . d5 The other game to reach this position instead

continued: 6 . . . d6 7.tiJe2 e5

Here I believe White should force Black to trade dark-squared bishops with:

8.a3


The text move is correct because after 8.0-0, as played in Housieaux - Epishin, Bethune 2005, I dislike 8 . . . exd4 9.ttJxd4 ttJc6. In this case White experiences some difficulties in arranging his pieces in an optimal way, taking into account that �xb4 is hardly a good idea, while Black's dark-squared bishop might be transferred to c5. 1 0.�c3 �d7! leads to complicated double-edged play.

8 . . . �xd2t 9.ttJxd2 I prefer recapturing with the knight to the more natural 9 .Wxd2 when Black has a nice positional idea in 9 . . . a4 1 0.ttJbc3 ttJc6 and the possibility of . . . ttJa5 is rather annoying.

9 . . . exd4 Now 9 . . . a4 is not a problem for us after 1 0.0-0. Black can then provoke us into playing d4-d5 with: 1 0 . . . ttJc6 (if 1 0 .. J"\e8 we continue 1 1 .Wc2 waiting for Black's set-up, while we can choose between the usual f4-idea and the more positional :gael and :gfd1 ) 1 1 .d5 ttJb8 Black's intention i s to transfer his knight to c5 via d7, but we can disrupt his plans with 1 2.ttJc3 �d7 and then switch to our main idea of 13 . f4, with promising play.

1 0.ttJxd4 ttJc6 1 1 .ttJb5 ttJe5 1 2.0-0 c6 1 3 .ttJc3

I prefer White due to his space advantage.

a b c d e f g h

7.eS!N

"-Certainly this is much more accurate than

7.a3 �e7 8.e5 as was played in Cipra - Willim, Bechhofen 1 994, because Black could have created excellent play after 8 . . . ttJe4!N followed by . . . c7-c5.

7 ... ctJfd7 8.adS exdS Here the play might continue:

9.ctJc3 ctJb6 Worse is 9 ... c5 1 0.a3 �xc3 1 1 .�xc3 ttJc6

1 2.f4! when White seizes the advantage.

10.ctJge2 c6 1 1 .0-0 With a very complex position, where in my

opinion White has every chance of fighting for the advantage.

C) S ... dS 6.ctJf3 0-0

The main alternative is 6 . . . dxc4 7.0-0 transposing to a position that was investigated via the Catalan move order on page 44 in GM Repertoire 1 - 1 .d4 Volume One.

7.0-0

Finally we have arrived at the main crossroads for Black. The main option remains 7 . . . dxc4, but as we know this leads to a Catalan position.

Chapter 3 - 4 . . . a5 33

The main independent options are Cl) 7 . . . c6 and C2) 7 ... ltJc6.

However, there is a third option that should also be briefly considered: 7 . . . b6

This seems inferior because of the following nice example:

8.cxd5 exd5 9 .ttJe5 �b7 1 0.�g5 h6 1 1 .�xf6 Wlxf6 1 2.ttJc3 1"ld8

Probably the lesser evil would have been 12 . . . �xc3 1 3.bxc3 �d6, although after 14.c4 White retains a pleasant advantage.

13.1"lcl ttJa6 14.e3 We6 1 5 .ttJd3 �d6 1 6.':Wb3 White was clearly better in Beliavsky -

Kallio, Copenhagen 2002.

Cl) 7 ... c6 8.Wfc2 b6

After 8 . . . ttJbd7 9 .�f4 White threatens 1 0.c5 with the idea of trapping Black's dark-squared bishop. After the more or less forced 9 . . . �e7 lO.E1dl we once again transpose to a Catalan position.

9.�g5 ie7

Or 1 0 . . . �a6 I l .ttJe5 ttJfd7 1 2.�xe7 '?f!xe7 1 3 .ttJd3!. As always, it is essential for White to keep both pairs of knights. 1 3 . . . ttJf6 This was Il incic - Raicevic, Nis 1 996, and now White should have continued 1 4.1"lacl 1"ld8 1 5 .1"lfe l ttJbd7 1 6.e4 1"lac8 1 7.e5 ttJe8 1 8.ttJf4± with slightly better chances.

1 1 .e4!N This new move is of course the critical one.

1 1 ...h6 After 1 1 . . .d:xe4 1 2.ttJxe4 ttJxe4 1 3.�xe7

'?f!xe7 1 4.�xe4 White is ready to meet 1 4 . . . c5 with 1 5 .d5! .

12.ie3! Of course White has no intention of giving

up his dark-squared bishop.

1 2 . . . ltJa6 13.1"lfdl In my opinion White has a promising version

of a Catalan position.

C2) 7 ... ltJc6 8.Wfc2

a b c d e f g h

lO.tiJbd2 8 . . . dxc4 Now Black has a choice between developing Black has also tried a couple of other moves:

his light-squared bishop to b7 or a6.

10 ... �b7 8 . . . 1"la6 can be met with 9 .a3 �e7 1 0.1"ld l when the rook is rather misplaced on a6.


8 ... �e7 9J�d l lL'lb4 9 ... E:a6 has been played by Topalov, but to tell the truth it looks too artificial to me, and after 1 0.a3 �d7 1 1 .�f4 I do not really understand what Black's rook is doing on a6.

1 0.'lWc 1 dxc4 So far this is Avrukh - Ferguson, Internet 2004. In the game I now played the inaccurate 1 1 .'lWxc4 and allowed Black to gain reasonable play after 1 1 . . . b6, while instead I had a simple improvement:

8 � �j;jiH��,)�'� 7 � ' t� � ' t� , 6 �� . .. %� 'i� . . . %� 5 ��' ...... �

.. ""% "'" �w-" �� "�

4 � , �� 3 ;'l . . . . ' :�� .... �� " �W" ��'" �!W'� . .. l:!W.� 2 fj t� � fj t�.tt� ,�tr,;tnlt� ' . .... %�,i{' .. . . �t.z.J�t§��. � 'l.

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .a3!N lL'lbd5 1 2.'lWxc4 This would secure White a pleasant

advantage, with the following point: 1 2 . . . b6

This is now strongly met by: 1 3 .'lWc2!

With the idea of 14.e4.

9.'lWxc4 �dS Black can also try 9 . . . �d6 with the idea of

carrying out the . . . e6-e5 advance, but after: 1 0.lL'lc3 e5 1 1 .d5 (also worth considering is 1 1 .E:fd l exd4 1 2.lL'lxd4 lL'lxd4 1 3.�xd4 'lWe7 14 .�g5 �e5 1 5 .'lWe3!?) 1 l . . .lL'le7 1 2.E:ac 1 In both cases . . . a7 -a5 is not exactly a move Black is happy to have played. White was better in Van der Stricht - Sarakauskiene, La Fere 2002.

1O.�xdS I believe this is the simplest road to an

advantage.

10 . . . exdS Recapturing with the knight would lead to

an advantageous position for White, as his Catalan bishop is very strong. For example, 1 0 . . . lL'lxd5 1 1 .lL'lc3 �d7 12 .E:ac 1 lL'lxc3 was Tanggaard - O.D. Larsen, Aalborg 1 993.

a b c d e f g b

Here I believe White should keep the pressure along the c-file by playing 1 3 .�xc3N with a pleasant edge after 1 3 . . . E:fd8 14.a3 �d6 1 5 .lL'ld2.

1 1 .iJ4 i.g4 12.a3 i.e7 Black has also experimented with:

12 . . . �d6 1 3 .�xd6 cxd6 Now instead of the natural 1 4.e3 White temporarily sacrificed a central pawn with:

1 4.lL'lc3 �xf3 1 5 .�xf3 lL'lxd4 1 6.�g2! Black did not manage to challenge the validity of White's idea and ended up in a

clearly worse position after: 1 6 . . . lL'lb3 1 7.E:ad l d4 1 8.lL'lb5 E:ac8 1 9.1L'lxd4 lL'lxd4 20.E:xd4 E:c2 2 1 .E:b 1 E:xe2 22.E:xd6

And once again the a5-pawn is not really helping Black, Van der Sterren - Garcia Ilundain, Linares 1 995 .

13.E:dl E:fc8 14.ltJc3 llJd8 Obviously Black wants to play . . . c7 -c6 as

soon as possible to remove White's pressure against the d5-pawn.

lS.ltJeS i.e6

Chapter 3 - 4 . . . a5

This was Vittorino - Morales Rivera, Bogota 2006, and now White could have played more strongly:

I6.ig5!?N c6 17.ltJa4 E:a6

a b c d e f g h

IS.gael White's pieces are much better coordinated.

Conclusion:

It is worth remembering that many transpositions to the Catalan are possible, but in the independent lines White retains an edge and often benefits from the early kingside fianchetto by playing e2-e4 and ltJe2. This chapter also contains some important improvements.

35


Variation Index 1.d4 ttJf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 ib4t 4.id2 fie7

5.ttJa A) 5 ... b6 6.ig2 ib7 7.0-0 37

AI) 7 ... 0-0 37 A2) 7 ... ixd2 8.fixd2 39

A2l) 8 ... d6 39 A22) 8 ... 0-0 41

B) 5 . . . 0-0 6.ig2 ixd2t 7.fixd2 d6 8.ttJc3 e5 9.0-0 43 Bl) 9 ... ttJc6 43 B2) 9 ... ig4 44 B3) 9 ... �e8 44

C) 5 ... ttJc6 6.ttJc3 45 Cl) 6 ... d5 46 C2) 6 ... 0-0 7.ig2 48

C2l) 7 ... d6 48 C22) 7 ... ttJa5 49

C3) 6 ... ixc3 7.ixc3 ttJe4 8.�cl 50 C3l) 8 ... d6 50

C32) 8 ... 0-0 9.ig2 d6 10.d5 ttJd8 1 1 .0-0 e5 12.ttJd2 ttJxc3 13.�xc3 53 C321) 13 ... b6 54 C322) 13 ... id7 55 C323) 13 ... £5 l4.c5 ttJf7 1 5.fJb3 b6 l6.cxd6 cxd6 17.fia3! 56

C323 1) 17 ... ib7 56 C3232) 17 ... e4 57 C3233) 17 ... a5 57

Chapter 4 - 4 . . . \We7 37

1.d4 tlJf6 2.c4 eG 3.g3 ib4t 4 . .td2 \We7 5.tlJ£3

5.ig2 is quite possible, but after 5 . . . ltJc6 6.lt:lf3 ixd2t it is well known that we have to recapture with 7. ltJ bxd2, which leads to a different line than planned, because 7.V:Mxd2 runs intO 7 . . . ltJe4 followed by 8 . . . V:Mb4t.

We have reached a standard Bogo-Indian position, which I am always happy to get over the board. The l ines to look at here are: A) 5 .. . b6, B) 5 . . . 0-0 and C) 5 . .. ltJc6. The last line is by far Black's most important choice, but there are a few other possibilities for Black, which include different arrangements of his pieces. It is almost impossible to cover all the lines, as the material might be enough to make a whole book, but I will try to offer a good review of the most popular of them.

A) 5 ... b6

The following set-up is in Queen's Indian style.

6.ig2 ib7 7.0-0

Now Black's best choice is to swap darksquared bishops. Having said that, there is another line to consider: AI) 7 ... 0-0 will be covered before we get to the critical A2) 7 ... ixd2.

AI) 7 ... 0-0

White can underline the drawback of Black's arrangement with:

8.ig5 White frequently opts for 8 .if4 with the

nice and tricky idea of meeting 8 . . . d5 with the strong 9.c5 when Black would face serious problems. The real problem is that after the correct 8 . . . id6 9 .ixd6 cxd6 Black has reasonable play.

8 ... h6 The most playable alternative to the text is:

8 . . . d5 In this case natural and sttong is:

9 .ltJe5 h6 Otherwise the pin along the h4-d8 diagonal is annoying.

l o.ixf6 V:Mxf6 1 1 .cxd5

a b c d e f g h Here I want to discuss two options:

a) 1 1 . . .exd5?! 1 2.\Wb3 id6 If 12 .. .'&d6 then 1 3.l'!c l ! and Black's bishop will be really misplaced on a5, as we can see from the following lines: 1 3 . . . c5 (or 1 3 . . . lLla6 14.a3 ia5 1 5 .V:Ma4 c5 16.lLlc4! Wf6 17.lLlxa5 bxa5 1 8.lLlc3 and White is clearly better) 14.a3 ia5 1 5 .l'!xc5! The tactics serve our strategy very well . 1 5 . . . bxc5 16.Wxb7 lLla6 17.V:Mxd5 V:Mxd5 18.ixd5± White has a clear advantage.


1 3.lDc3 Premature would be 1 3.ixd5 c6! 1 4.ig2 !xe5 1 5 .dxe5 Wixe5 and White is only slightly better.

1 3 . . . c6 14.f4 White's intended advance of e2-e4 will be

very powerful; he is clearly better.

b) 1 1 . . .ixd5 This seems to be the lesser evil. We have reached a position from the game Kiselev - Lorenzini , Andorra 1 996, and now I would recommend:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

"=�F"=""

a b c d e f g h

White creates the tactical threat of 1 3 .lDg5. I would suggest that the natural yet new 1 2.d5N is also worth serious consideration.

12 .. . c6 Instead 1 2 . . :�fg6?! is hardly a good idea.

After 1 3.Wixg6 fxg6 I4 .ih3 <j{f7 I 5 .d5 White was clearly better in Kulaots - Zavoronkov, Tal linn 2003.

After the text move the following line is a remarkable example of how to handle this position:

13.Ei:adl liJd7 Black has no time to play 1 3 . . . d5, as I 4.lDe5

id6 does not really help Black, in view of I 5 .e4! ixe5 I 6.dxe5 Wixe5 1 7.exd5 cxd5 I 8 .cxd5 and White is clearly better.

8

7 6

1 2.e4!N ib7 13 .lDc4 5 There is no point in entering the complica- 4 tions that arise after 13 .Wia4 c5 I 4.a3 b5! .

I3 . . . Wid8 I 4.a3 ie7 I 5 .Ei:eI 3 White has the better chances, thanks to his 2

space advantage.

9.hf6 Wix:f6 1O.a3 !e7 l 1 .lDc3 d6 Black's position would be fine if his queen

was on d8, but with his queen misplaced on f6 White has every chance of an advantage.

White is clearly better after 1 1 . . .d5 I 2.lDe5 c6 I 3.e4 Ei:d8? (somewhat better was 1 3 . . . dxc4 although after 1 4.lDxc4 White's advantage is obvious) 1 4.lDg4 Wig6 I 5 .cxd5 cxd5 I 6.exd5 exd5 17.lDe3 and Black lost his central pawn in L. Bronstein - Fuentes, Buenos Aires 1 99 1 .

12.1M'c2

a b c d e f g h

14.dS! This is the key move in White's concept.

14 . • . exdS ls.lDd4! The play of my good friend Vladislav

Tkachiev in this game made a great impression on me.

lS ... Ei:fe8 16.b4 A great positional idea; White is not satisfied

with a slight edge after 1 6.cxd5 c5 1 7.lDc6, so

Chapter 4 - 4 . . . 'lWe7 39

instead he intends to undermine Black's pawn structure and especially the d5-pawn by means ofb4-b5.

16 ... a6 17.b5 cxb5 18.cxb5 i.f8 Unfortunately for Black he cannot play

18 .. .1"!ac8 as White has the strong 1 9.i.h3 and if Black plays 19 . . . !'!c7 then 20. bxa6 �xa6 21 .1xd7 E!xd7 22.4Jxd5 is horrible for Black.

19.hd5 ixd5 20.ttJxd5 White had a clear positional advantage in

Tkachiev - Nikolaidis, Belfort 2004.

Al) 7 ... i.xd2 8.'lWxd2

8 �;t1�r�*U�p)1 7 �.tw� i � i w� i 6 " . . . % . . . . . %� ',

%.""%� 5 '.��" . 4 jIjI �� . IT ��" �

�0cr 3 ��.� �ZN./. • . ��J��.�

2 b w� � fj w��wl} ,�tt5.···· ·/..i�··· · a b c d e f g h

Black has a choice: All) 8 . . . d6 and Al2) 8 ... 0-0. We have no reason to fear any moves here, and I will mention that it is premature for Black to jump with his knight to e4: 8...tiJe4 9.1.Wf4 d5 1 0.4Jfd2

White has a good version of the Queen's Indian.

lO ... tiJxd2 1 1 .4Jxd2 0-0 1 2.!'!ac1 c5?! Much more sensible was the modest 12 . . . tiJa6. Then after 1 3.cxd5 exd5 14 .4Jc4! White would be better, with the following point: 14 .. :�xe2 1 5 .!'!fe1 1.Wh5 1 6.!'!e5 'lWg6 17.tiJe3 White will regain his pawn (on d5) with dividends, as Black cannot play 17 . . . c6, due to 1 8.!'!gS Yfle6 1 9.�h3! Yflxh3 20.Yflf6

g6 2 1 . 4JfS winning on the spot. Returning to the game, which was Poljakov - Subaric, Novi Sad 1 945 , White now overlooked a strong possibil ity:

Al l ) 8 . .. d6

This is a serious alternative to the main line.

9.ttJc3 ttJe4 I believe this is Black's best move, as the main

alternative runs into trouble: 9 . . . 0-0 1 0.dS!

It is always a good idea to shut down Black's light-squared bishop. Black still has a fairly solid position; nevertheless, White's stable positional advantage is quite obvious to me. Let's see a few possible lines:

1 0 . . . e5 1 1 .4Jh4 White has only an edge after the more positional I l .e4 4Jbd7 1 2.4Je1 as 1 3.4Jc2 4JcS 1 4.4Je3 g6 J S .b3 �c8 1 6.!'!ae l �d7 1 7.f4;1; Dreev - Kuzubov, Moscow 2006.

1 1 . . .�c8 12.e4 4Jg4 1 3 .!'!ae l 4Jh6 14.f4 4Jd7 14 . . . exf4 allows 1 5 .e5! with great effect.

1 5 .4Jf3 f6 1 6.�h3 4Jc5 1 7.�xc8 !'!axc8 1 8.fxeS fxe5 1 9.b4 4Jd7 20.4JbS

White gained a clear superiority in Prusikin - Muranyi, Germany 2007.


10.ltJxe4 he4 1 1 .'?Ne3 ih7 12.d5 Otherwise White can hardly fight for an

advantage.

12 . . . e5 If 1 2 . . . ttJd7 then White should continue

with 1 3 .b4 and after 1 3 . . . e5 (or if 1 3 . . . 0-0 then 1 4.ttJd4) 1 4.ttJd2 we will reach the same position as after 1 2 . . . e5 .

13.h4 Theory considers 1 3.ttJd2 ttJd7 1 4.f4

to be quite dangerous for Black, but I am not convinced: 1 4 . . . exf4 (instead 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 .f5 does indeed promise White good chances of developing an initiative on the kingside) 1 5 .'?Nxelt rllxe7 1 6.gxf4 And now in the game Gagarin - Cherniak, Moscow 1 990, Black should have regrouped with 1 6 . . . l:%he8!?N 1 7.e4 rllf8 with a pretty sound position.

13 ... tLld7 14.tLldl a5 1 5.a3 0-0 I do not believe Black can allow himself the

luxury of 1 5 . . . a4 (preventing ttJb3) because after 1 6.ttJe4 0-0 1 7.ttJc3 the a4-pawn becomes a serious weakness.

16.ltJh3

Black has also tried: 1 6 . . . axb4 1 7.axb4 l:%fe8

Black's main problem is that exchanging both pairs of rooks is not an ideal solution: 1 7 . . . l:%xa 1 1 8.l:%xa 1 l:%a8 This was recommended by Tisdall in ChessBase Magazine 68. White can continue 1 9J:ha8t ixa8 20.c5! and the positional idea of cutting off Black's bishop from the game by c5-c6 is very unpleasant. Of course the trick is that . . . dxc5 (at any point) will be hit by d5-d6. Let's follow this line as far as possible: 20 . . . bxc5 2 1 .bxc5 dxc5 22.d6 �e8 23.dxc7 ixg2 24.�xg2 �c8 25 .ttJxc5 �xc7 26.ttJxd7 �xd7 27.�xe5 We reach a queen ending with 4 pawns versus 3. With perfect play it should be a draw, but in a practical game trying to hold such a position is a difficult and unpleasant task. In general, we should remember that winning a game by force while still in home preparation is impossible against a sound opening. We must be ready to fight over the board.

1 8 .c5 This temporary sacrifice is interestingenough, but a more positional approach would have been 1 8.�d3 followed by e2-e4.

1 8 . . . bxc5 1 9.bxc5 ttJxc5 1 9 . . . dxc5? is impossible in view of 20.d6.

20.ttJxc5 dxc5 2 1 .l:%ab l l:%ab8 Probably the most critical line would be 2 l . . .ia6 22.d6 cxd6 23.ixa8 l:%xa8, though here White seems to control the position after 24.l:%a 1 L

22.l:%fc l ia6 23.l:%a1 l:%b6 24.l:%xc5 Despite massive exchanges White's pressure has only increased, because the c7-pawn is a serious weakness.

24 . . . ixe2 25 .l:%acl ib5 26.l:%xc7 �d6 27.l:%7c6! l:%xc6 28.dxc6

White had a decisive advantage in Neverov Brodsky, Uzhgorod 1 985 .

Chapter 4 - 4 . . . 1!fie7 41

A brilliant square for the knight, from where it puts serious pressure on Black's queenside.

18 ... ia6 19.1!fic3 f5 20.1!fic2 ixbS

a b c d e f g h

21 .cxbS White had a clear positional advantage in

Tukmakov - Onischuk, Donetsk 1 99B.

A22) 8 . .. 0-0 9.lik3

1 0 . . . exd5 would transpose to Chapter 2, page 23 [4 . . . ixd2t, 7 . . . 1!fie7]) 1 Uhc1 White's position is preferable, and now Black's best try is: 1 1 . . .ttJa6 1 2.ttJe5 c5 1 3.dxc5 ttJxc5 1 4.ttJxd5 exd5 1 5 .ttJf3 White had a slight but lasting advantage in Tukmakov - Reshevsky, Vilnius 1 97B.

1O.ttJxe4 ixe4 1 1 .1!fif4 White attacks both Black's light-squared

bishop and the c7 -pawn, so Black is almost forced to play:

1 1 . . . dS 1 1 . . . .ixf3 is plainly a concession, and arrer

1 2.ixf3 c6 1 3.)::\ac 1 ttJa6 14 .)::\c3 )::\fcB 1 5 .a3 White's advantage was obvious in Tatai -Kopec, London 1 97B.

12.)::\acl lba6 I found the following line quite interesting:

1 2 . . . c5 1 3 .cxd5 exd5 1 4.dxc5 bxc5 1 5 .1!fie3 1!fib7

This is Black's best continuation, and the alternatives are much worse: 1 5 . . . 1!fif6 1 6.)::\xc5 1!fixb2 1 7.1!fid2! White is clearly better, and after 17 . . . 1!fib7 as in Arkell - Dive, Britain (ch) 1 994, the natural 1 B .)::\fc 1 ttJa6 1 9.)::\c6 )::\acB 20.ttJd4 would have secured White's advantage. 1 5 . . . ttJa6 is also not good: 1 6.ttJd2 )::\feB 17 .ttJxe4 dxe4 I B .)::\c4 f5 1 9.94! White has a clear edge, Stupica - Lagudin, Slovenia 1 996.

9 . . . d6 10.d5 e5 has been examined in line Al 1 3

via the B . . . d6 move order. 2 9 . . . d5 10.cxd5 ttJxd5 (the more popular

a b c d e f g h


1 6.�xc5!?N I believe this new move is White's best option. To compare with 1 5 . . . �f6, now after 1 6.l"hc5 Black has the intermediate 1 6 . . . tOd7 at his disposal, which would allow him normal play. Too soft is 1 6.b3 tOa6 which gave Black a normal position in Tal - Cardoso, Las Palmas 1 975.

16 . . . �xb2 1 7.�c3!? With intention to get a favourable endgame, with Black's isolated pawn.

1 7 . . . �xa2 Black can also try to capture the other

pawn: 1 7 . . . �xe2 I S .tOd4 �h5 (White is clearly better. If I S . . . � a6 then 1 9 .ixe4 dxe4 20.tOf5 �f6 2 1 .�xf6 gxf6 22.gfe 1 ±.) 1 9.f3 ig6 20.�c7 �g5 2 1 .gfd l �d8 22.ifl White's powerful compensation is undeniable.

I S .tOd4 �a6 White was threatening 1 9.9a l , while I s ... ixg2 would lose to 1 9 .tOf5 f6 20.�c7.

1 9.ixe4 dxe4 20.tOf5 �f6 2 1 .�xf6 gxf6 22.gc4

The endgame is difficult for Black.

13.cxdS ixdS Black can recapture with the pawn as well:

1 3 . . . exd5 This was tested over the board as far back as Budo - Bondarevsky, Tbilisi 1 937. Now I believe White should play:

a b c d e f g h

1 4.ih3!?N f6 Otherwise 1 5 .tOe5 might cause Black serious problems. For example: 1 4 . . . c5 1 5 .tOe5 f6 1 6.tOc6 �eS 1 7.�d6±

1 5 .a3 Restricting the black knight and practically forcing Black to play . . . c7-c5 , as White intends to increase his pressure on the queenside by means of 1 6.b4.

1 5 ... c5 1 6.dxc5 bxc5 1 7.tOd2 ig6 l S .�a4 �b7 1 9.ig2t

In this complicated position White's chances are better.

I4.tOeS A strong and concrete plan that proves

sufficient for an advantage.

14 ... cS If 1 4 . . . ixg2 1 5 .�xg2 c5 1 6.dxc5 bxc5

(unfortunately for Black the desirable recapture with the knight does not work: 1 6 . . . tOxc5 1 7.b4 �b7t I S .�f3 �xf3t 1 9.�xf3 tOa6 20.tOc6±) 1 7.�a4 would transpose to 1 4 . . . c5.

IS.dxcS bxcS 16.�a4 hg2 17.�xg2 �b7t I8.�gl !Ud8

The b2-pawn is untouchable: I S . . . �xb2 1 9.tOc4 �b7 20.gb 1 and Black loses his knight.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 4 - 4 .. .'&e7 43

19.�d3 �d4 20.�c4 �xc4 2 1 .'lWxc4 White had a stable advantage in Huebner -

Larsen, Las Palmas 1 976.

B) 5 ... 0-0

This natural move is the start of an important line, although, as previously mentioned, l ine C is the real main line.

6.ig2 ixd2t 7.'lWxd2 d6 This is quite thematic for the 4 . . . 'lWe7

line, whereas 7 . . . d5 would uanspose to the 4 .. . ixd2t line.

8.�c3 e5 9.0-0

a b c d e f g h

The main branching point in this line; the three big moves are: Bl ) 9 . • . tiJc6, B2) 9 . • • i.g4 and B3} 9 ... �e8. Besides these, it also makes sense to have a brief look at 9 . . . c6, although this seems to be somewhat passive; White obviously sets the tone. Here is one recent example: 1 0.e4 ig4 1 1 .tiJh4 lLla6 1 2.�ae1 �fe8 13.f4 exf4 1 4.'lWxf4 with a promising position for White in Radjabov - Sadiku, Kerner 2007.

Bl } 9 .•. tiJc6

This seems to be inferior, due to:

lo.lLld5! 'lWd8 After 1 0 . . . lLlxd5 1 1 .cxd5 lLlxd4 1 2.lLlxd4

exd4 1 3.l"1ac l White gains a serious strategic advantage, due to the permanent weakness of the c7 -pawn. The game H. Olafsson - Bonin, New York 1 986, continued: 1 3 . . . l"1e8 1 4.l"1fe1 'lWf6 (this attempt to create some counterplay falls short) 1 5 .l"1xc7 b6 1 6.�c4 d3 17.l"1f4 'lWg6 18 .e4 Black's d3-pawn is fall ing.

1 1 .�adl

a b c d e f g h 1 1 . . . �e8

After the natural: 1 l . . .ig4

White favourably releases the tension in the centre with:

1 2.dxe5 lLlxd5 Also 1 2 . . . dxe5 does not solve Black's problems. White has the strong 13 .'lWe3! and he was clearly better after 1 3 . . . lLld7 14 .�d2 ixf3 1 5 .exf3! in Euwe - Henneberger, Bern 1 932, as Black fails to maintain a strong outpost on d4: 1 5 . . . ttJd4 1 6.f4 f6 1 7.fxe5 fxe5 I B.f4!±

1 3 .cxd5 lLlxe5 1 4.lLld4 Again White has a desirable type of position

with Black's c7 -pawn being a permanent target, Zirngibl - Handel, Leipzig 1 959.

12.dxe5 tiJxe5


12 ... dxe5 is met strongly by 1 3.'lWe3 fol lowed by doubling the rooks along the d-file.

13.lLlxeS dxeS 1 3 . . .%he5 1 4.lLlc3 leaves White with a

pleasant edge.

14.'lWaS lLlxdS IS.cxdS Wfd6 16Jkl !!e7 17.!!c3

White was better in J. Pinter - De Guzman, Manila (01) 1 992.

B2) 9 ... ig4 1O.lLle1 lLlc6

Again I do not see how Black can solve his problems in this line.

The key game Huzman - Azarov, Izmir 2004, continued: 1 0 ... exd4 I l .'lWxd4 lLlc6 1 2.'lWd2 'lWd7 13 .lLld5 lLlxd5 14.cxd5 lLle5 White has achieved a desirable pawn structure, but Black has some activity. I found the following improvement: 1 5.!!c1 !?N Now if 1 5 . . . 'lWb5 then 1 6.lLlf3! is very strong: 1 6 . . . �xf:3 1 7.exf3 l'!ac8 1 8.l'!c3 Followed by l'!fc 1 and f3-f4. White has serious pressure.

After the text move I found an unexpected resource.

a b c d e f g h

l 1 .lLldS!?N

The natural 1 1 .d5 should also favour White, but Black is very much in the game after 1 1 . . .lLlb8 1 2.e4 c6 1 3.lLld3 cxd5 14.cxd5 lLla6, as in Malaniuk - Moiseenko, Krasnodar 1 999.

1 1 . ..Wfd8 A vital point is that Black cannot play

1 1 . . .lLlxd5 1 2.cxd5 lLlxd4? as he loses material after 1 3.e3 lLlf5 14.h3, followed by 1 5 .g4.

1 2.dxeS dxeS After the other recapture 1 2 . . . lLlxe5, White

replies 1 3 .lLle3 attacking both the b7 -pawn and Black's light-squared bishop. 1 3 . . . ic8 1 4.l'!d 1 'lWe7 1 5 .lLld3 White definitely has pressure.

13.h3 ie6 14.l'!dl l'!e8 IS.lLlc2� White has the better chances; his centralized

knight is very annoying for Black.

B3) 9 . .. l'!e8

8 �;�!��I.*� 7 (� & r� � & �&'� & .� . 7..% &� . �.% . 6

.. ", '_

"'''/'_''''.,.� ''. ' '.'� 5 '

�� " " , %." " . . � 4 Iili !d 'ii liD < 1i''',J '�

Iiw.,D 3 ��.;lZJ�/O .LO ��J�� '� 2 � f[j Ni � f[j�� 1 �� ... . %� .. . . ;.:.i= ....

a b c d e f g h

lO.e4 ig4 1 1 .lLle1 Despite being only White's second most

popular choice, I prefer this move, as I believe the right concept is not to make it easy for Black to trade his poor light-squared bishop.

More often White chooses 1 1 .d5, but after 1 l . . .�xf3 1 2.�xf3 a5, followed by . . . lLla6, we

Chapter 4 - 4 . . . 'lWe7 45

reach a double-edged position that is thematic for this line.

l l ...ttJc6 Also possible is 1 1 . . .exd4 and here I like the

following example: 1 2.'lWxd4 ttJc6 1 3 .'lWd2 a5 14.f3 ( l4.l�kl 'lWd8 1 5 .b3 is also an option) 14 ... ie6 1 5 .ttJd5 'lWd8 16.ttJc2 ttJe5 1 7.ttJce3 White retained the better chances in T ukmakov - Kurajica, Solin 1 999.

a b c d e f g h 12.ttJc2!

The point of White's idea; he has no intention of playing d4-d5 unless it is the ideal moment.

12 ... ttJxd4 13.liJxd4 exd4 14.'lWxd4 I believe this is a favourable type of position

for White that he should aim for in this line. The main line runs as follows:

14 ... i'e5 15.i'd2 i'h5 It is no wonder Black wants to solve the

problem of his badly placed bishop.

17 ... ge7 Or 1 7 . . . �xg2 1 8 .'it>xg2 'lWe5 1 9.1'%fd l l'%ad8

20.'lWf2 and Black fails to create any play, while White naturally improves his position: 20 . . . a6 2 1 .l'%d2 b6 22.b4 ttJd7 23.ttJd5± Vyzmanavin - Landenbergue, Manila (01) 1 992.

a b c d e f g h 18.g4!

White takes the opportunity to transfer to a favourable endgame.

1 8 ... i'c5t 19.i'fl i'xflt 20.gxfl ixg2 21 .�xg2 c6

Naturally Black wants to cover the d5-square, but now the d6-pawn becomes a permanent weakness.

22.l'%d2 liJe8 23.h4 h5 24.g5 as 25.liJa4 ga6 26.gcdl �h7 27.�g3 �g6 28.c5

White had clearly gained the upper hand in Cvitan - V Kovacevic, Pula 1 996.

C) 5 ... ftJc6

Finally we have reached Black's most important 16.£3 ih3 option.

Black manages to swap his bishop, but White still retains the better chances. 6.ftJc3

In my opinion this is the most principled 17J!acl line and it gives White good chances of seizing

The idea is ttJd5 at a suitable moment. an edge. As was already mentioned, after the


natural 6.ig2 Black captures on d2, 6 ... ixd2t, forcing the knight recapture, as 7.'lWxd2 runs into 7 ... ttJe4 followed by . . . 'lWb4t.

After the text move Black has three main choices: Cl) 6 ... dS, C2) 6 .. . 0-0 and C3) 6 . . . ixc3.

Cl) 6 • • . dS

a b c d e f g h I am always somewhat sceptical about this

pawn structure once Black's knight is on c6, and in this case I do believe White has a very comfortable game.

7.a3 White not only forces Black to give up his

dark-squared bishop, but also defends the c4-pawn indirectly.

7 .. . ixc3 8.ixc3 as Sooner or later Black should opt for this

move. It would make no sense for Black to play 8 . . . dxc4, as after 9.'lWa4 White regains the pawn with dividends, as his Catalan bishop becomes very strong along the h l -a8 diagonal.

But of course Black has other options: 8 ... 0-0 9.ig2 �d8

9 . . . ttJe4 1 0.'lWc2 would lead to the same position after 1 0 . . . a5, or 1 0 . . . �d8.

1 0.0-0 ttJe4

In a recent game Black tried a queenside fianchetto but without much success: 1 0 . . . b6 1 1 .'lWc2 ib7 1 2.b3 a5 1 3.ib2 The bishop pair gives White a pleasant game. 1 3 . . . a4 1 4.b4 dxc4 1 5 .'lWxc4 ttJa7 1 6.�fcl �dc8 1 7.ttJe5 White trades light-squared bishops, but this allows him to establish control over the centre. 1 7 . . . ixg2 1 8.Wxg2 c6 1 9.'lWd3 ttJd7 20.ttJc4 �c7 2 1 .�c2 �ac8 22.�ac l ttJb5 23.e4 White was clearly better due to his extra space in Ivanchuk -Bezgodov, Khanty-Mansiysk (2) 2009.

1 1 .'lWc2 Now Black really should play 1 1 . . .a5, transposing to the 8 . . . a5-variation, as after:

1 1 . . . id7 This was C. Mueller - Heumann, Bavaria 2005, and now White should of course take the opportunity to play:

a b c d e f g h 1 2.b4!N ttJxc3

Otherwise White can keep his bishop with ib2.

1 3 .'lWxc3 White's stable advantage is obvious.

9.ig2 0-0 10.0-0 �d8 I also checked:

1 0 . . . ttJe4 1 1 .'lWc2 a4 This may look quite promising, but in fact it is nothing special, as Black can hardly carry out his idea of . . . ttJa5-b3.

1 2 .�acl id7 1 3.�fd l �fd8 1 4.iel

Chapter 4 - 4 . . . We7 47

Also worthy of consideration is 1 4.tDe5!? 14 . . . ieB 1 5'tDh4 tDf6

So far this is Babula - Vehi Bach, Dresden 2007, and here I worked out the following line for White:

16.cxd5 exd5 17.tDf5 We6 I B. f3 In such situations it is essential for White to activate his dark-squared bishop.

18 .. . g6 1 9.4Jh6t �g7 20.Wd2 tDg8 2 1 .tDxg8 \!1xgB 22.g4

White's dark-squared bishop comes to g3. White's chances are better, due to his pair of bishops and of course he should aim to open up the position in the centre with e2-e4.

11.�c2 4Je4 This is the mam arrangement of pieces

for Black. As was proven in the following encounter, this is not a good moment for Black to play l l . . .a4 12.tDe5! �d7 1 3 .�fd l �e8 14J'iacl and Black could hardly generate any activity in Razuvaev - Rashkovsky, Moscow 19B9.

12.b3

a b c d e f g h 12 ... �d7

Another idea is to exchange the knight for rhe bishop: 12 . . . 4Jxc3 1 3.Wxc3

Black can of course play 1 3 . . . �d7 here. The attempt to create immediate counterplay in the centre with:

1 3 . . . e5 ?! Falls short to:

1 4.dxe5 Also quite promising looks 1 4.tDxe5! ?N tDxe5 1 5 .dxe5 d4 16 .Wb2 Wxe5 1 7.e3 c5 1 8.�ad l .

1 4 . . . d4 1 5 .Wb2 �g4 1 6.�fd l Wc5 Of course Black can regain the pawn with 1 6 . . . �xf3 1 7.�xf3 Wxe5, but after 1 8 .�d3 his position is very unpleasant, as the d4-pawn appears to be a serious target.

1 7.�d2 a4 1 8 .b4 vtfxc4 1 9.�cl Wb3 20.Wa l ! if5

This was P. Nikolic - Adams, Hastings 1 989, and now White has an improvement.

a b c d e f g h 2 l .ttJe1 !N

This move would have been extremely strong. The idea is to play tDd3-c5, while after:

2 l . . .We6 22.�xc6 bxc6 23.�xd4 White is simply a pawn up.

13.i.b2 It is always nice to keep the bishop pair.

13 ... i.e8 14.�acl f6 Black intends to activate his bishop along the

e8-h5 diagonal, but his position in the centre appears to be vulnerable, as was shown in the following encounter:


a b c d e f g h 15.tlJh4! g5 16.cxd5 exd5 17.tlJf5 Wfe6 Is.ih3 �hS 19.£3 tlJd6 20.e4! ig6 21 .exd5

Here the computer recommends a tactical solution with 2 1 .ttJxd6 'Mrxd6 22.e5!, but my move is good enough.

21 ...Wfxd5 22.tlJe3 Wff7 23.Wffl The position opens up in White's favour,

Avrukh - Rashkovsky, Biel 2002.

C2) 6 ... 0-0 7.ig2

8 1��'-/" 'L)�;� 7 �� ' W� , � ' W� , % . , ..%� i)� ',% ..... %� : ��" �� 4 �m��*'t,;�� z�jfj��ffi ��r� 3 � � .�W� ��rr? . . . . · ;%·0 �� ·%' . . . . %�r� 2 � W� � � ��wl1 � .. .. %.jf= ... . %� 'II a b c d e f g h

Here it is possible to play C21) 7 . . . d6 or C22) 7 ... tlJa5, which is probably the most interesting side line. In general 7 . . . ixc3 8.ixc3 ttJe4 9.�c 1 would transpose to the main line, but we have to eliminate Black's other ideas:

C21) 7 ... d6

Quite a tricky move order. In my opinion White should play:

S.d5! I originally thought White should simply

castle, but then I noticed an improvement for Black on move 1 1 . The main point shows up in the following line: 8 .0-0 �xc3 9.�xc3 ttJe4 1 0.�c 1

White could keep his dark-squared bishop with l 0.�e 1 , but after 1 0 .. .f5 l l .d5 ttJdS 1 2.dxe6 ttJxe6 Black is very much in the game, thanks to his active pieces. This gives him good compensation for White's bishop pair, Gleizerov - Bocharov, Abu Dhabi 2004.

1 0 . . . e5 I l .d5 And now instead of transposing to the main line with l l . . .ttJdS 1 2.ttJd2 ttJxc3 1 3 .�xc3 f5, Black can choose:

1 1 . . . ttJbS! This seems very reasonable for Black after

either 1 2 .�e 1 f5 or 1 2.ttJd2 ttJxc3 1 3.�xc3 as.

S .. . tlJbS Black has three other possibilities to

consider:

S . . . ttJe5 9.ttJxe5 dxe5 This position has occurred in two games, but nobody has opted for 1 0.a3!N with the simple idea of taking the dark-squared bishop. 1 0 . . . �c5 (certainly White is comfortably better after 1 0 . . . �xc3 1 l .�xc3 exd5 1 2.cxd5 �dS 13 .'Mrb3) I l .ttJa4! �dS 1 2.ttJxc5 'Mrxc5 1 3.�c 1 ! White is better with his bishop pair.

8 . . . ttJd8 This does not make much sense here and after 9.ttJd4 exd5 1 0.ttJxd5 ttJxd5 I l .cxd5 �c5 1 2.�c3 White had a very pleasant advantage in Yrjola - Jouhki, Helsinki 1 995.

Chapter 4 - 4 . . . '?fife7 49

8 . . . ixc3 This is unquestionably a concession. 9.ixc3 lUb8 1 O.dxe6 (also good enough is 10.lUd4 e5 I l .lUc2) 1 0 . . . fxe6 1 1 .0-0 a5 12.ct:ld4 lUbd7 1 3 .'?fifd2 a4 This is the game Franic - P. Horvath, Croatia 2004, and now White could have secured his advantage with 14.ct:lb5N lUc5 1 5 .ixf6! �xf6 16.f4.

9.dxe6 fxe6 10.0-0 ltJc6 l 1 .ltJel! A very strong idea; the knight is heading for

c2, forcing Black to give up his dark-squared bishop and increasing the influence of White's light-squared bishop.

1l ... WhS Another game continued: 1 1 . . .ixc3 1 2.ixc3

e5 13 .lUc2 Now White's knight transfers to a powerful square on d5. 1 3 .. :�f7 1 4.ct:le3 ie6 15.ct:ld5 �ac8 In Berebora - Pacal, Hungary 1995, White could have seized the initiative with 1 6.f4!±.

12.lUc2 Ld l3.Ld id7 14.M White has a promising initiative.

14 ... �aeS 15.b5 lUdS This position was reached In Sosonko -

Langeweg, Leeuwarden 1 978, and now White could have gained an edge with:

16.f4N '?fifO 17.'?fifd3 Followed by 1 8 .�ad1 .

C22) 7 . . . lUa5 S.b3 b6 9.0-0 ib7 1O.'?fifc2

a b c d e f g h

1O .. . �acS This was played in almost every game where

the diagram position was reached.

Probably Black is not entirely satisfied with the position that might arise after 1 0 . . . c5, as in Saatdj ian - Milliet, Cap d'Agde 2008. In this case I would also recommend taking the bishop with: 1 1 .a3!?N ixc3 1 2.ixc3 cxd4 1 3 .lUxd4 ixg2 1 4.Wxg2 lUc6 1 5 .�fd 1;j;

After the text move I offer a new idea:

1 1 .a3!?N La3 The most principled reply, as if 1 1 . . .ixc3

1 2.ixc3 ie4 1 3.'?fifb2 d6 we get a rypical Queen's Indian position, but I believe White should be better after 1 4.ih3 (with the idea of playing lUd2) as Black's knight is slightly misplaced on a5.

12.e4 ib4 l3.e5 ixf3 It appears that Black has to give up his

l ight-squared bishop, as l 3 . . . lUe8 runs into the strong 1 4.lUg5 f5 1 5.ixb7 lUxb7 1 6.�xa7 regaining the pawn and keeping clearly better chances.

14.ixB ltJeS

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15 .ig2!?ii!l


White could have won the pawn back with 1 5 .ga4 c5 1 6.dxc5 ixc5 1 7.4Jb5 4Jc6 1 8.4Jxa7 4Jxa7 1 9.9xa7, but after 1 9 . . .f6 Black should be alright.

The main point of 1 5 .ig2 is to remove the bishop from the f-file, and thus be ready to meet . . . f7 -f6 with f2-f4. There are no concrete lines, but I believe White has wonderful positional compensation for the pawn, due to Black's poorly placed minor pieces.

C3) 6 ... �xc3

Black's most common choice.

7.hc3 lLle4 8.l::kl

a b c d e f g h At this point Black is all about development.

There is no need to take on c3 as of yet, so the two main moves are C31) 8 . . . d6 and C32) 8 ... 0-0. I should menrion one funny move: 8 . . . 4Jb4

This is hardly a serious option; the following example seems quite convincing:

9 .Wa4 a5 10.ig2 0-0 1 1 .4Jd2 4Jxc3 1 2.bxc3! With Black's pawn on a5, recapturing with the b-pawn looks very logical and strong.

1 2 . . . 4Jc6 1 3.c5 d5 14.cxd6 cxd6 1 5 .gb 1 Wc7 1 6.Wb3

White had much better chances in Tukmakov - Rashkovsky, Minsk 1 987.

C31) 8 ... d6 9.dS lLlxc3 1O.gxc3

a b c d e f g h This is a big theoretical tabiya. Obviously Black has two knight moves - b8

or d8. Putting the knight on e5 would quickly lead to a cramped position. White juSt takes it and is better; there is no need for further details. Amazingly one game was played between GMs with 1 O . . . 4Je5 (though admittedly just a rapid game). Benjamin was Black and eventually drew an inferior position after Sosonko played his knight to d4. Had Sosonko taken on e5 Benjamin might not have been so lucky . . .

10 .. . lLlb8 The alternative is:

1 0 . . . 4Jd8 I l .ig2 This should transpose to our main line after 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2.0-0 ( l 2.dxe6 lLlxe6 is quite playable for Black), but it is important to have a short look at:

l 1 . . .e5 Playing this before castling is dubiolls in view of the following impressive game.

1 2.c5 0-0 1 3 .cxd6 cxd6 14.Wc l id7 1 5 .0-0 f5 1 6.gc7 We8 1 7.We3

This is the point behind 14 .Wc l . 17 . . . ib5 1 8.gfc l ia6 1 9.4Jh4!

Black's bishop is missing from the defence, so White immediately starts playing on the kingside.

Chapter 4 - 4 . . .'?ffe7 5 1

1 9 . . . h6 20.ih3 �h5 2 1 .�f3! White had a decisive advantage in Yevseev -

I. Smirnov, Alushta 2002.

1 1 .d.xeG fxeG 1 1 . . . ixe6 leads to a stable advantage for

White after 1 2.tUd4 0-0 1 3 .ig2 c6 14.0-0 as in Bischoff - Spiegel, St Ingbert 1 993.

12.tiJd4 The most accurate move order.

12 . .. 0-0 13.ig2

a b c d e f g h 13 ... e5

This is Black's most popular choice.

It is important to note that 1 3 . . . tUd7? would just be a blunder, as 1 4.tUxe6!+- makes very clear. This shows that one of the ideas behind 12.1L1d4 is to prevent Black comfortably redeveloping his knight.

A more respectable alternative is: 13 . . . c6 14.0-0

Black's best option is 14 . . . e5, which transposes to J 4 . . . c6 at the top of the next page.

14 . . . a5 This seems a risky concept to me, as was shown convincingly In the following encounter:

1 5 .�d2 tUd7 1 6.Eld l tUe5 1 7.tUf3! Black's d-pawn is a serious target.

1 7 . . . tiJf7 1 8 .Ela3 �c7

a b c d e f g h

1 9.tUg5! White immediately takes the opportunity to exchange Black's knight, which will make the d6-pawn more vulnerable.

1 9 . . . d5 This is certainly not a move Black wants to play, as now his bishop remains very passive, while the weakness of the dark squares in the centre is a significant detail.

20.1''!f3 tUxg5 2 1 .Elxf8t �xf8 22.�xg5 �e7 23.�d2

In Davies - Arkell, London 1 989, Whi te gained a clear advantage, as it is very difficult for Black to develop his bishop. For instance, 23 . . . id7 just loses a pawn to 24.e4!.

14.tLlc2 tLld7 This is Black's most popular move, but let's

have a look at the others just in case:

14 . . . tUc6 1 5 .0-0 ie6 16.b4 This leads to a pleasant edge for White, as was proved in the following game:

J 6 . . . a6 Black cannot play 16 . . . a5 17.b5 tUb4, as after 1 8 .ixb 7 Elab8 1 9.ig2 tUxa2 20.Ela3 tUb4 (or 20 . . . ixc4 2 1 .tUe3 ie6 22.1L1d5±) 2 1 .Elxa5 he remains a pawn down.

17.b5 tUd8 1 8.tUb4 axb5 1 9.cxb5 �h8 20.a4


Wd7 2 l .�c2 White had a clear advantage in Malaniuk -

Fedorchuk, Ordzhonikidze 200 l .

1 4 . . . c6 1 5 .0-0 1ie6 1 6.b4 White has easy play on the queenside.

1 6 . . . a6 16 . . . a5 makes no sense, as after 1 7.b5! cxb5 l S .cxb5 1ixa2 1 9 .iDe3 White has powerful compensation, with the following nice point: 1 9 . . . a4 20.1id5t 1ixd5 2 1 .iDxd5 Wf7 22.!!f3! is winning.

1 7.iDe3 iDd7 l S.�c2 iDf6 1 9.!!d3 White doubles his rooks on the d-ule, putting pressure on Black's d-pawn.

1 9 . . . !!fdS 20.!!fd l !!d7 2 l .�b2 !!adS 22.a4 Black is pretty solid, but White obviously

had some pressure in Zakharevich - Kulikov, Tula 2002.

14 . . . iDa6 1 5 .0-0 c6 1 6.�d2 1ie6 I also examined 16 . . . iDc5 17.!!d l !!f6, when White has the neat resource I S .!!a3! . Black cannot prevent the b2-b4 advance, for example: I S . . . �O 1 9.b4 iDd7 20.iDe3 and White is clearly better, as Black does not have a proper defence against the impending 2 l .!!d3.

1 7.iDe3 !!adS I S.!!a3! White not only prepares b2-b4, but also creates some tactical ideas such as 1ixc6, or !!xa6 . . . bxa6 1ixc6.

I S . . . �f7?! I tried to improve on Black's play with I S . . . �c7 which would indeed be the best continuation, but White still retains a pleasant edge after 1 9.b4 �b6 20.!!b3 !!O 21 .a3. This position occurred in Polugaevsky -Gipslis, Moscow 1 979. Now I see nothing wrong with:

1 9.1ixc6!N bxc6 20.!!xa6 White just wins a pawn. For instance:

20 . . . 1ih3 2 l .iDg2 d5 22.cxd5 cxd5 23.!!a5

�b7 24.f3 �b6t 25.�hl Black does not have enough compensation.

1 5.0-0 ctJf6 If 15 . . . a5 White has the unpleasant 1 6.!!a3!

and he was clearly better after 1 6 . . . iDc5 17.b4 iDe6 I S.!!xa5 !!xa5 19 .bxa5 iDc5 20.iDb4 in Shneider - Naiditsch, Istanbul 2003.

16.lZ:le3 c6 Good or bad, Black has to take control over

the d5-square. However, in two games Black mistakenly opted for 1 6 . . . !!bS.

a b c d e f g h In both encounters White missed the simple

1 7.iDd5!N WO I S .iDxf6t �xf6 1 9.c5! with a

clear edge.

17.!!d3 !!d8 18.�d2 1ie6 19.!!dl lZ:le8 White has mobilized his pieces optimally, so

now is the right moment to push the b-pawn.

20.b4 !!d7 A couple of other moves are worth mentioni ng

in passing:

20 . . . !!acS 2 1 .b5 (I prefer the modest 2 1 .a4!? but the game move is good enough) 2 1 . . .cxb5 22.cxb5 !!c5 23.�b4 White was obviously better in C. Horvath - Sulc, Pula 1 995.

20 .. . a6 2 l .a4 !!d7 was played in Killer -Wehbrink, e-mail 2002. Now I did not manage to und the reason White refrained from the

Chapter 4 - 4 . . :&e7 53

natural 22.b5 axb5 23.axb5 cxb5 24.cxb5 with unpleasant pressure.

21 .b5 White combines pressure along the d-file

with activity on the white squares.

21...cxb5 22.cxb5 gc8 This is Tkachiev - Adams, Cannes 200 1 .

Now, as correctly pointed out by Ftacnik, who annotated this game in ChessBase Magazine 82, White could have increased his pressure as follows:

23.tt:Jd5!N Wd8 23 . . . ixd5 24.ixd5t <;t>h8 25 .E:a3±

24.E:a3 gc5 25.gxa7 gxb5 26.tt:Jc3 White has a clear edge.

8

7 6 5 4 3

2

C32) 8 ... 0-0 9.ig2 d6 10.d5

a b c d e f g h 1O ... tt:Jd8

This is Black's most popular move order i n this line, but he has a couple of other options as well:

10 . . . tt:Jxc3 1 1 .E:xc3 tt:Jd8 After l l . . .ttJb8 1 2.dxe6 fxe6 1 3.ttJd4! we transpose to a position that was covered via the S . . . d6 move order.

12 .0-0 e5 The waiting move 1 2 . . . a5 appears to be inferior: 1 3.ttJd2 e5 14.c5 dxc5 1 5 .ttJb3 ( 1 5 .'&c2 also looks pretty strong) 1 5 . . . a4 1 6.ttJxc5 E:a5 This is Tkachiev - Chabanon, Cannes 1 999, and now the natural 17 .Wfc2 would pose Black serious problems.

13 .ttJd2 The play would transpose to our main line.

It is very important to note that 1 3.c5 would allow Black reasonable play after 13 . . . dxc5! 14 .'&c2 e4 1 5 .ttJd2 f5 1 6.E:xc5 c6! .

In my i nitial analysis I did not pay attention to Black's other kn ight retreat: 1 0 . . . ttJb8

But then I remembered the game Laznicka Bologan, which was played in the last World Cup, so I decided to make a small review.

I l .dxe6 It is also worth considering I l .Wfc2!?

1 1 . . . fxe6 After 1 1 . . .ixe6 White should play: 1 2.ttJd4 id7 (obviously the c4-pawn is untouchable: 1 2 . . . ixc4? 1 3 .ttJf5 is simply bad for Black) 1 3.0-0 ttJc6 This is Adorjan - Bel iavsky, Hungary 2000, and now I like the following new idea: 14 .ttJb5!N E:ac8 1 5 .id4 a6 The a7 -pawn was not really hanging, but it would be annoying for Black to have to think about this every move. (For example, note that the natural 1 5 . . . E:fe8 fails to 1 6.ixa7! b6 1 7.ixb6 cxb6 1 8 .ixe4 '&xe4 1 9 .ttJxd6. Then Black cannot play 1 9 . . . Wfxe2 in view of 20.'&xe2 E:xe2 2 1 .ttJxc8 ixc8 22.E:fe l ! and, after exchanging rooks, White's queenside pawn majority should easily decide the game.) 16.ttJc3 White retains a small but lasting edge, thanks to his favourable pawn structure after either 1 6 . . . ttJxc3 17.ixc3t or 1 6 . . . ttJxd4 17.ttJxe4 ttJe6 ( l 7 . . . ttJc6 allows White to strike with 1 8 .c5!) l S .ttJc3t.

1 2.0-0 tt:Jd7 1 3 .ie l a5 14.ttJd2 ttJef6 1 5 .ttJb3 a4


This is the game I mentioned above, Laznicka - Bologan, Khanry-Mansiysk 2009, and now I found a nice improvement:

1 6.tt'la5!N tt'lc5 17.b4 axb3 1 8 .axb3 1:%a7 1 9.b4 tt'la6 20.'lWb3

White has a very pleasant game, thanks to his pressure on the queenside.

1 1 .0-0 eS 12.lLld2

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h 1 2 ... tt'lxc3

Black should take the bishop, but the alternative has also been tested: 1 2 . . . tt'lxd2

This is not such a good idea, as White's darksquared bishop will eventually become very powerful. For example:

1 3.'lWxd2 b6 1 4.b4 f5 1 5 .f4! An important move in White's strategy, as he has no intention of allowing Black to play .. .f4 himself.

1 5 . . . tt'lf7 1 6.1:%ce 1 With the intention of opening up the position with the advance e2-e4.

16 . . . e4 17 .'lWd4 tt'lh6 1 B.h3± Black had a strategically very difficult

position in Cvitan - Matijevic, Zadar 1 995. Black is tied to the defence of the g7-pawn, while White controls the long diagonal and slowly prepares c4-c5.

13.1:%xc3

At this point it probably makes most sense to get on with it on the kingside with 1 3 . . .f5, but Black also has two other reasonable options: C321) 13 ... b6, C322) 13 . . . id7 and C323) 13 ... 5.

C321) 13 .. . b6 14.f4

After 1 4.b4 a5! 1 5 .a3 axb4 1 6.axb4 f5 Black gets an improved version of our main line with a couple of pawns exchanged on the queens ide and an active rook. 1 7.c5 bxc5 I B.bxc5 tt'lf7 1 9.'lWc2 f4 20.cxd6 cxd6 2 1 .1:%c7 'lWf6 22.'lWc3 ig4 led to balanced play in Tkachiev -Benjamin, Cap d'Agde 2000.

14 .. . exf4 I believe this is critical, as after 14 . . . a5 1 5 .f5!

f6 1 6.g4 tt'lf7 17.tt'le4 White has easy play on the kings ide, while Black lacks any counterplay. In Zakharevich - Ulibin, Azov 1 996, it is not surprising that Black tried to change the course of the game with the risky 1 7 . . . h5 1 8 .gxh5 tt'lh6, but this only helped White to build his kingside offensive by 1 9.ih3 id7 20.1:%g3 ie8 2 1 .'lWd2 'it>h8 22.'it>h 1 ixh5 23.1:%fg1 with a

dangerous attack.

IS.gxf4

Chapter 4 - 4 . . . 'We7 55

After 1 5 .l'hf4 Black can set up a solid position with 1 5 .. .f6 followed by . . . 4:lf7-e5 .

15 ... 5 IG.4:lb3 White can Stop Black's idea of transferring

his knight to c5 with 1 6.4:lf3 4:lb7 17.b4, but this would allow Black to create counrerplay after 1 7 . . . a5 1 8.a3 axb4 1 9.axb4 l"i:a2 20.4:ld4 \Wf6! with a double-edged position.

16 ... 4:lb7 17.tbd4 tbe5 18.b4 tbe4

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

19.ixe4 I would also consider 1 9.1"i:e3!? with the idea

of forcing Black to recapture on e4 with the pawn, reaching the same type of position that arose in the game.

19 ... fxe4 I believe Black should have opted for

19 . . . 'lWxe4 20.l"i:ff3 \We7. Although White is better after 2 l .:i'1:g3, Black may be able to hold his position together.

20.'lWd2 i5 2 1 .gg3 White had a slight but lasting advantage,

without any risk, in Jepson - Holst, Hallsberg 199 1 .

C322) 13 ... id7

14.e5 f5 I f 1 4 . . . dxc5 then White has the e4-square for

his knight: 1 5 .4:le4 (this is more precise than 1 5 .4:lb3 ia4) 1 5 . . . b6 1 6.b4 f5 1 7.4:lxc5! bxc5 1 8 .d6 cxd6 1 9.ixa8 4:le6 2o.id5± Black has no compensation.

15.cxd6 cxd6 IG.ge7 Since the d7-bishop blocks Black's queen,

the c7-square is available for White's rook; he has seized the initiative.

16 .. J"k8 17.:i'1:xe8 Le8 1 8.'Wa4 a6 19.9c1 id7 20.'Wa5 ib5 2 1 .ifl 'Wf6 22.ge8 tiJf7

a b c d e f g h


23.V9c7! White had a clear advantage in Gyimesi -

Ikonnikov, Vlissingen 2002.

C323) 13 .. . f5

The right way to activate Black's knight.

14.cS

a b c d e f g h 14 .. . ttJ£7

Instead of the text move Black sometimes tries: 1 4 . . . dxc5 1 5 .ttJb3

Black's idea was to try to transpose to the variation 1 5 .'lWc2 e4, which was mentioned in the 1 0 . . . ttJxc3-1ine on page 53.

1 5 . . . e4 16 . ttJxc5 I believe White's chances are better, for instance:

1 6 . . . ttJf7 Or 1 6 . . . b6 17.ttJb3 �b7 I S.S! .

17 .'lWc2 'lWd6 l S.:!"ld l In both cases White's position is preferable.

ls.V9b3 There is no great difference between the text

and 1 5 .cxd6 cxd6 I 6.'lWb3.

lS . • . b6 Black has no time for the thematic attack

on the kingside: 1 5 .. .f4 1 6.cxd6 cxd6 1 7 .�fcl White is clearly better, as we can see from the following example: 1 7 . . . fxg3 I S.hxg3 Wg5 1 9.ttJe4 'lWh6 20.:!"lc7 �f5 2 1 .'lWxb7 :!"lab8 22.'lWxa7 :!"lxb2 23.'lWa3! White won a pawn and kept everything under control in Daurov - Reeh, Baden-Baden 200S.

16.cxd6 cxd6 17.V9a3! I believe this is more accurate than 1 7.:!"lfcl ,

as it does not allow Black the extra option of I 7 . . . �a6.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h Finally we have arrived at the main branching

point of rhis chapter. The three moves I have decided to look at here are: C3231) 17 ... ib7, C3232) 17 ... e4 and C3232) 17 ... aS .

C3231) 17 ... ib7

This is Black's most popular choice.

18JUcl �fc8 In his comments in ChessBase Magazine 1 06

Dautov gave the following illustrative lines:

I S ... e4 1 9.:!"lc7 'lWg5 20.f4! exf3 2 1 .ttJxf3 'lWh6 22.ttJd4 �acS 23.e3± with a big advantage.

I S . . . Wg5 I 9.e3 e4 20.f4! 'lWh5 (it seems more natural to me to try 20 . . . 'lWf6, but White carries

Chapter 4 - 4 . . . Wfe7 57

out the same idea, 2 1 .ttJb3 ixd5 22.ttJd4, with excellent compensation) 2 1 .ttJb3 ixd5 22.ttJd4 a6 23.l::k7 Despite being a pawn up, Black is almost paralysed.

19.e4 Now the key game in this line continued:

19 .. J'!xc3 Black's position is very passive after 1 9 . . . g6

20.h4 Wg7 21 .ttJc4, and it is no wonder he now committed a serious mistake: 2 1 . . .b5? 22.ttJa5 a6 23.ttJc6 ixc6 24.dxc6 In Bocharov -]. Grant, Istanbul 2003, Black was strategically lost.

20.l'!xc3 fxe4 2 1 .ttJxe4 A serious alternative is 2 1 .ixe4!?

21 ... �d8 It is easy to understand why Black was scared

of grabbing the pawn with 2 1 . . .ixd5, as after 22.ttJf6t gxf6 23.ixd5� it is very difficult to defend such a position.

� i!��.:" �""%%0'0 �%0'0 �� .. . . . %�� 6 t� t�� m •i.% zo.% � � � . . . . . /O� . . . . . '.�. 0 m� . : .��,�� /'''L';�C'�� .�� 3 � �� t�

2 "�%� . .. . . �_��.� 1 � y� �. "�f

a b c d e f g h 22.h4 a6

22 . . . ics was suggested by Dautov as an improvement over the game. I believe arrer 23.!'k6 id7 24.ttJxd6! ixc6 25.ttJxf7 @xf7 26.dxc6 White's position is almost winning.

23.�b3!

This is Dautov - Wahls, Germany 2005. White's positional advantage i s obvious. He is threatening the positional idea of ih3-e6, while after 23 . . . ics he penetrates along the c-file by means of 24.�c4 followed by �c7.

C3232) 17 ... e4

a b c d e f g h 18.l'!fcl

It is also worth considering l S.f3!?N with the idea that l S . . . exf3 1 9.ttJxf3 ttJe5 20.ttJd4 is clearly better for White, and l S . . . �e5 1 9 .1'!d l exf3 20.ttJxf3 �xe2 2 1 .l'!e l Wfa6 22.l'!e7 gives White strong compensation.

18 ... id7 19.ttJb3 �e5 Somewhat better was 19 . . . �e5, though

arrer 20.l"k7 gfdS 21 .e3 Wxd5 22.gxa7 White would enjoy a pleasant advantage.

20.�d4 l'!fe8 This is a serious error in an already very

difficult position.

21 .l'!xe8t l'!xe8 22.l'!xe8t ixe8 23.�b5 White won a pawn in Kazhgaleyev - Izeta

Txabarri, Cannes 1 999.

C3233) 17 ... a5

Black insists on playing . . . ia6.


IBJ;fcl ia6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h 19.:1:k7 'lWf6 20.e3

Certainly White has no intention of allowing Black any counterplay along the f-file, as might happen after 20.e4 f4.

20 ... e4 21 .lLlb3 'lWe5 It looks as if Black has managed to trick

his opponent and is winning the d-pawn, but Tkachiev executes a wonderful positional idea.

22.ltJd4 'lWxd5 23.f4! Taking control over the e5-square and

completely restricting the black knight. Strategically, Black's position is very difficult and in the game he failed to put up serious resistance.

23 ... lLlh6 I believe 23 . . J:'!ac8 was more tenacious,

but even so after 24.Wa4! Black is doomed to passivity.

24J'Hc6 gacB 25.'lWc3 gxc7 26.gxc7 gO 27.gc6

ll1ere are many ways White could end Black's resistance, but the moves in the game are quite elegant:

27 ... 'lWxa2

2B.h3! White consistently restricts Black's knight,

denying it the active g4-square. Black's position is hopeless.

2B ... 'lWblt 29.Wf2! Accuracy till the end! 29.�h2 would allow

Black to complicate matters with 29 . . . Elf6! creating the mating idea of . . . tUg4 t followed by . . . Elh6.

29 ... 'lWd3 30.'lWcl ! Black's queen i s trapped on d3 and there

is no defence against 3 1 .Elc3 that does not allow 3 1 .�fl , so Black resigned in Tkachiev Korchnoi, Biel 2002. I witnessed this game live and it made a deep impression on me, especially taking into account that Tkachiev played this game with one eye, after being beaten up two

days before by some criminal in a bar.

Conclusion:

The 4 . . . We7 Iine is the most important variation of the solid and respectable Bogo-Indian. With accurate play White retains an edge, but it is important that he is well prepared, as it would be easy to become confused by the various transpositional possibilities.

A) 4 ... b6 B) 4 ... ttJc6 C) 4 ... �h4 D) 4 ... d6

A) note to 6 . . . a5

7

6

4

2

a b c d e f g h

8.'lWc2!

Budapest Gambit

Fajarowicz Variation

Variation Index l .d4 ltJf6 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS ltJe4?!

4.a3

A) after l O . . . a4

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

a b c d e f g h

I I .1'!c l !

D) after 6 . . . tLlc6

a b c d e f

7.tLlh4!

g h

60 62 63 64

60 The Budapest Gambit

l .d4 ttJf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 ttJe4?! This dubious variation is rarely seen at

grandmaster level. The only value of this line might be as a surprise weapon to catch the unwary. When a player prepares his opening repertoire with White, the Fajarowicz is just the kind of l ine that might be skipped in the belief that no Black player will risk it, and then suddenly White has to starr thinking on move 4!

4.a3

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g White has a few ways of obtaining an

advantage, but I believe the text move is the easiest one. White takes control of the b4-square and prepares to challenge Black's knight with Vf1c2.

The main alternative is 4.tLlf3 with the idea that 4 . . . lLJc6 5 .a3 transposes to 4.a3, but then Black has an important alternative in 4 . . . ib4t, when there is a lot of theory, though White's chances look preferable to me.

After 4.a3 Black has many options, so we shall dedicate more space to this gambit than it deserves. The main options are: A) 4 . . . b6, B) 4 . . . ttJc6, C) 4 ... Vf1h4 and D) 4 ... d6.

4 . . . ic5 5 .e3 d6 also exists (but not 5 . . . lLJc6?

losing material to 6.Vf1d5) . After 6.id3 Black struggles to support his knight on e4, leaving White clearly better.

A) 4 ... b6

This is Black's best option according to Gutman's book on the Fajarowicz variation. But it is hard to believe Black can give away a

central pawn and then play so calmly.

5.ttJf3 ib7 6.ttJbd2

6 . . . a5 This rypical move was suggested as the best

option by Moskalenko in The Fabulous Budapest Gambit. Black has a couple of alternatives:

6 . . . ttJc5 7.b4 lLJe6 8.ib2 d6 (Or 8 . . . a5 9.b5 d6 1 0.exd6 ixd6 1 1 .g3 would lead to more or

less the same position.) And now White should continue: 9.exd6 (instead of 9.lLJb3 as was played in S . Hartmann - W. Stein, Germany 2003) 9 . . . ixd6 1 0.g3 The bishop will be much better on g2 than it would be on e2. 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .ig2 a5 1 2.b5 lLJd7 1 3.0-0 lLJdc5 Black has a nice square for his knight, but it is not enough to give real compensation. 1 4.Wc2 Vf1e7 1 5 .e3± White can gradually improve his position with mel , �ad 1 and then play lLJd4 at a suitable moment.

Chapter 5 - Farajowicz Variation 61

6 .. . lt'lxd2 7.ixd2 Now Gutman recommends:

7 . . . Wie7 7 . . . lt'lc6 8.ic3 We7 was played in Kreiling - Jaeck, Wiesbaden 1 998, and now 9.Wc2 would just transpose to 7 . . . We7. Now, after a simple developing move it is not easy to see what Black can do.

8.Wic2! Gutman only gives 8 .ic3 g6 and then Black perhaps gets some play, though I have no doubt White is still better even here.

8 . . . lt'lc6 Black cannot play 8 . . . g6? It runs into 9.ig5! Wie6 10.if6. Black's position is hopeless.

9.ic3 0-0-0 10.0-0-0 We6 1 1 .e3 ie7 12.ie2

You would need to be Lev Gutman to believe that Black has anything for the pawn in this position.

7.ttJxe4 ixe4 8.if4 This is much stronger than 8.Wd4 as Black

replies 8 . . . ib7 and will continue with the manoeuvre . . . It'la6-c5 when the queen looks vulnerable on d4.

8 ... ttJa6 After 8 . . . ie7 9.e3 It'la6 (or 9 . . . lt'lc6 10.id3±)

l o.id3 ixd3 (if 1 0 . . . ib7 then 1 1 .0-0 It'lc5 12.ic2 a4 13.lt'ld4 is clearly better for White) 1 1 .Wixd3 lt'lc5 1 2.Wc2 0-0 1 3.0-0 a4 14.�ad l ± Black has no compensation for the pawn.

9.g3 The alternative 9.lt'ld4 It'lc5 1 0.f3 ib7 l 1 .e4

a4 seems less convincing, though I am pretty sure White is still better.

9 ... ttJcS 10.ig2 Instead 1 0.b3 ie7 1 1 .ig2 d6 would allow

Black some counterplay.

10 ... a4

%: :1." � z 8 � � �*� �� 7 � �_'i/,� '�_i 6 �. '.

�. '. 5 .""�� %�� %� �� ',,, .. � · .. ·%�·0 �. 4 '�0-�-£��'� 3 � _ _ Qjif�

2 . " �� _ r;�� .� %�-i= %.n a b c d e f g h

1 1 .�cl! Certainly White should avoid the following

line: 1 1 .0-0 It'lb3 1 2 .�a2 ic5 1 3.lt'ld2 ixg2 14.Wxg2 g5 1 5 .ie3 ixe3 1 6.fxe3 �a5! 17 .lt'lxb3 axb3 1 8.Wxb3 We7 Black does have compensation in this case.

1 1 .. .ie7 Now White can comfortably meet 1 1 . . . lt'lb3

with 1 2.�c3.

1 2.0-0 0-0 13.ttJd4 ixg2 14.Wxg2 f6 ls.lLla

I do not see any real compensation for the pawn, for example:

lS ... Wh8 16.Wc2 fxeS 17.ixeS d6 18.�cdl Wd7 19.ic3±

Black has no compensation.


B) 4 . . . ltJc6 5.llJf3 d6 Two other moves also deserve attention at

This is supposed to be the main line, but in my opinion i t is completely unacceptable for Black; White gains a huge advantage.

Black's alternative is also uninspiring: 5 . . . a5 6.Wc2 d5

6 ... 4Jc5 7.4Jc3 as in Neverov - Pletanek, Pardubice 1 992, should just be a pawn up for White, although Gutman in his book Budapest Fajarowicz still believes in Black's position after 7 . . . h6. A funny move - Black is not worried about anything . . . Now I like 8 .�e3 4Je6 9.g3 with an extra pawn and a positional advantage.

7.e3 Black's extra move . . . a7 -a5 proves to be absolutely useless.

7 . . . �e6 7 . . . �g4? loses to 8 .cxd5 Wxd5 9.�c4.

8 .4Jbd2 4Jc5 So far this is Grabarczyk - Vospernik, Pula 1 998, and now simple chess is good enough:

9.�e2 �e7 1 0.0-0 0-0 l 1 .�d1 White has a clear advantage, as Black has no

compensation at all.

G.'IWc2!

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a c d e g G .•• d5

this point.

6 . . . 4Jc5 7.b4 4Je6 8 .exd6 �xd6 9.�b2 (I like the text move more than 9.e3 a5 1 0.b5 4Je5 when Black had some play in Marklund -Olsson, Sweden 2006) 9 . . . 0-0 1 0.e3 Black had no compensation in Spraggett - Milia de Marco, Madrid 2000. 1 0.4Jbd2!? is also worth a look.

After 6 . . . �f5?! 7.4Jc3! White is clearly better everywhere (less strong is 7.4Jbd2 4Jxd2 8 .Wxf5t). I analysed the following lines:

a) 7 . . . ltJxc3 8.Wxf5 4Ja4 9.g3 (9.�f4 should also be good) 9 . . . �e7 1 O.Wc2 4Jc5 l 1 .b4 4Je6 12.exd6 cxd6 1 3.�g2 White was simply a pawn up in Smejkal - P. Popovic, Novi Sad 1976.

b) 7 ... ltJg3? 8 .e4! This is the point of 6.Wc2. Now Black has rwo options; in both lines he manages to win an exchange, but this is a temporary achievement, since White will capture his knight in a few moves:

8 . . . 4Jxh 1 Or 8 . . . �xe4 9.4Jxe4 4Jxh l 1 0.�g5 (not 1 0.g3 dxe50 1 0 . . . �e7 1 1 .�xe7 Wxe7 1 2.exd6 cxd6 1 3 .0-0-0 White will continue 14.�d3 with a big advantage, as Black cannot rescue his knight from h I .

9.exf5 dxe5 The other capture is no better: 9 . . . 4Jxe5 1 0.4Jxe5 ( l O.�e3 with the idea of 1 1 .0-0-0 is also strong) 1 0 . . . dxe5 1 1 .�e3 ( l l .g3!?) 1 1 . . .Wh4 1 2.0-0-0 �e7 In Hamrakulova - Mourut, Oropesa del Mar 2000, White should have played 13 .�d3 Wxh2 14.4Jd5 �d8 1 5 .4Jxc7t! �xc7 1 6.Wa4t Wf8 17.Wb4t \t>g8 1 8.Wxb7 with a decisive advantage.

1 0.�e3 �e7 After 1 O . . . 4Jd4 1 1 .We4 4Jxf3t 1 2.gxf3 c6


1 3.f4 Black was lost in V. Georgiev - Olgag, Izmir 2006.

1 1 .gd 1 Wic8 1 2.lLld5 In S. Ford - Penoyer, California 1 992, Black

was totally helpless against White's plan, which includes g2-g3 and �g2. White could even play Wie4, �d3, and �e2.

c) 7 ... lLlxf2 8.Wixf5 lLlxh 1 9.e6 The black knight cannot escape, therefore White's advantage is indisputable (also good enough is 9.g3 g6 10.Wie4 �g7 1 1 .exd6t Wf8 1 2.�g2) . 9 . . . fxe6 (or 9 . . . Wie7 1 0.exf7t Wixf7 1 1 .Wixf7t Wxf7 12.g3 followed by 1 3.�g2) 1 0.Wixe6t Wie7 (or 1 0 . . . �e7 1 1 .g3) 1 1 .Wid5! Black cannot castle in view of ig5. There is also no defence against the idea of g2-g3 and ig2, Reshevsky - Bisguier, New York 1 955.

7.e3 Less clear is 7.lLlc3 lLlxc3 8 .Wixc3 d4.

7 . .. ig4 After 7 . . . �e6 8.lLlbd2 lLlxd2 9.ixd2 dxc4

I O.ixc4 �xc4 1 1 .Wixc4 in Fokin - Beltugov, Russia 2000, White had a clear extra pawn, as it will be defended with �c3.

7 . . . 1f5 8.id3 �g6 was played in N.V. Pedersen - Slisser, Dieren 2004, and here I believe the best continuation is 9.lLlbd2 lLlxd2 1 0.ixd2 dxc4 1 1 .ixg6 hxg6 1 2.Wixc4, followed by ic3 with a clear advantage.

8.cxdS 'lWxdS 9.�c4 'lWaSt Now White has two advantageous lines,

luckily the strongest is also the most practical:

lo.lLlbd2! This is by far the simplest way. More

complicated, bur eventually also in White's favour, is 1 0.b4 ixb4t 1 1 .axb4 Wixa 1 1 2.'lWxe4, and now my analysis continues for another page. There is no need for any of this.

8 �_ �._ �� 7 �T��_·iY._·i . . "� . . . . . "� %� ... . . "� 6 lil�a �D.�. 5 ,�� ,�� 4 ,, "�i�!�i 3 .��p� �" ,"/J!lSJ �� 2 t�iVm t� � lfb .. 'il " "r;i? . . M " ' ''WfL � ,� � �? .§

a b c d e f g h 10 ... �xf3

Or 1 O . . . lLlxd2 1 1 .ixd2 and Black is a pawn down and has a lousy position. For example: 1 t . . .Wic5 1 2.b4 Wie7 (or 1 2 . . . Wib6 1 3.ixf7t @xf7 14.Wic4t collecting the loose bishop) Now White decides the game with the nice 1 3 .�a6!.

1 1 .gxf.3 lLlxd2 12.ixd2 'lWxeS The same tactic reappears after 1 2 . . . ib4

1 3.0-0-0 �xd2t 1 4J':hd2 Wixe5 when 1 5 . .ia6! is a winner.

13.�c3 White's advantage was al ready decisive in

Fuzishawa - Borwell, corr. 2004. Black is lagging behind in development and White's in itiative is deadly.

C) 4 ... 'lWh4

Black brings his queen our immediately, tempted by the threat of mate. The popularity of this line is surprising, as the queen is awkwardly placed.

S.g3 'lWhS After the natural development of the bishop

(White has other options as well) White has a clear advantage in every line, since the black queen does not have a safe square. White will win a few tempos to develop his pieces.


6.ig2 Wfxe5 7.ttJa If the reader wishes a back-up plan then

7.Wfc2!? is also reasonable.

7 . . . Wfft> 8.Wfc2 ttJc5 9.ttJc3 ttJe6 1 0.0-0 (or 1 0.ttJd5 Wfd8) 1 0 . . . ttJc6 1 1 .ttJd5 Wfd8 12.b4 Yle7 13 .ib2 0-0 14.l"lad lWhite had a dream position in Yrjola - P. Fossan, Gausdal 1 988.

7 . . . Wfc5 8 .ttJd4 (also interesting is 8 .0-0!? with the idea of8 . . . Wfxc4 9.1lf4 with a fine initiative) 8 . . . ttJd6? (or 8 . . . ttJc6 9.1le3±, so Black should try 8 . . . ttJf6 although White is better) In Effert - Brandies, Keeskemet 1990, White could have won on the spot with 9.id5! (threatening 1 0.b4 followed by 1 1 .c5) 9 . . . ttJxc4 10.ttJb3 Wfb5 l 1 .ttJc3 Wfa6 12 .Wfd4 ttJd6 13 .Wfe5 With a decisive attack.

7 ... Wfa5t 8.ttJbd2 Ylc5? This is Pelletier -Flunkerr, France 1994, and now White missed the simple 9.b4 ixb4 10.axb4 Wfxa1 1 1 .ttJxe4 with a decisive material advantage.

7 .•• Wfe7 8.0-0 d6 9.ttJd4 c6 10.b4 ( l 0.if4 was also strong) 1 0 . . . g6 1 1 .ib2 ttJf6 ( l l . . .ig7 loses to 1 2.ttJxc6! and the bishop is hanging on g7) 1 2.ttJc3 Ylg7 1 3 .b5 c5 14 .ttJc2 0-0 1 5 .ttJd

White has gradually improved his position, and has a clear positional advantage due to the weak spot on d5, Kurirov - Kurajica, Strumica 1995.

7 ... Wfh5 This is the best square available. 8.Wfc2 ttJf6 9.ttJc3 There is no doubt White is clearly better. 9 . . . d6 10.ig5 ie7 1 1 .h4 0-0 12.0-0-0 White had a very promising position in Babula - Ramik, Czech Republic 1 998.

D) 4 . . . d6

Black's best move order.

5.ttJf3 Simple development works fine. Instead

5 .Wfc2 is met with 5 . . . ttJc5.

5 . . . ifS Anticipating 6.Wfc2. The pawn capture

has yet to be tested in tournament practice: 5 . . . dxe5N 6.Wfxd8t �xd8 7.ttJxe5 ie6 8.e3 (Less clear is 8 .g3 id6 [inaccurate is 8 ... tZlc5 9.ttJd2 id6 10.ttJef3 when White is better] 9.ig2 ixe5 1 0.ixe4 ttJc6 and Black has some activity.) 8 . . . id6 9.ttJf3 White keeps a healthy extra pawn.

5 . . . ttJc6 transposes to the 4 . . . ttJc6-line.

6.g3 ttJc6 In Volume 8 of 50S, GM Arrur Kogan

quotes the game Levin - Gutman, Germany (ch) 200 1 , which continued: 6 . . . h5 7.ig2 tZlc6 8 .ttJd4 ttJxd4 9.Wfxd4 ttJc5 1 0.Wfd dxe5 1 1 .b4 (Gutman recommends 1 1 .Wfxe5! but Levin's move is also fine) 1 l . . .ttJe6 1 2.ib2 f6 1 3.Ylxb7 l"lb8 And now instead of 14.ie4 as in the game (which allowed the clever 14 . . . ic5!) the bold 14.Wfxa7! refutes Black's play. Black has no tricks and if anything his king is more exposed than White's.

After 6 . . . ttJc6 at first sight it seems Black hal reasonable chances of gaining compensation,


but after a few minutes I found an effective antidote:

a b c d e f g h 7. ltl h4!

This is a clear improvement on previous overthe-board practice (I later found some games with 7.ltlh4 in correspondence and e-mail chess). Actually the idea of 7.ltlh4 is quite simple - White wins a few tempos to develop his pieces, while at the same time pushing back the black pieces.

After 7.exd6?! �xd6 8.�e3 (or 8.�g2 �c5!?) 8 . . . W!f6 Black has decent compensation.

7 ... ie6 7 . . . id7 does not change the evaluation, as

after 8.ig2 ltlc5 9.b4 ltle6 1 0.exd6 �xd6 (or 10 .. . W!f6 1 1 .�a2 �xd6 1 2.ltld2± intending �e4) 1 1 .�b2 0-0 1 2.ltlf3 White keeps everything under control and remains a clear pawn to the good.

8.�g2 f5 After completing my initial analysis I

discovered that Gutman in Budapest Fajarowicz had also noticed White's strong seventh move, but had drawn a different conclusion. Despite my respect for Gutman, I will choose to disagree with him on this point. I think my job of proving an advantage is easier than his

of proving compensation - I believe in White's extra pawn!

My initial analysis went: 8 .. .luc5 9.b4 ttJd7 1 0.exd6 ixd6 1 1 .ttJd2 Defending the c4-pawn. 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2.0-0 a5 1 3.b5 ttJce5 1 4.ib2 ttJc5 1 5 .'1&c2± White is simply a pawn up.

9.exf6 ttJxf6 Here I believe White has two clear paths to

an advantage, instead of the passive 1 0.ttJd2, which was examined in Gutman's book.

1O.h3 The most natural continuation. Also strong is 1 0.ttJc3 ixc4 1 1 .'I1*'a4 �e6

(after 1 1 . . .d5 1 2.b3 �a6 1 3.0-0 'I1*'d7 1 4.�g5 White wins back the pawn with dividends) 1 2.�xc6t bxc6 1 3 .'I1*'xc6t �d7 1 4.'I1*'c4 c6 1 5 .e4 with a clear advantage.

10 . . . d5 If 1 0 . . . 'I1*'d7 then 1 1 .ttJc3 0-0-0 1 2.ttJd5 and

White takes control of the d5-square when his advantage is undeniable.

1 1 .cxd5 hd5 12.hd5 �xd5 13.�xd5 ttJxd5 14.ih2 0-0-0 15.ttJd2

Even an optimistic gambit fan should dislike Black's position, as White is a pawn up without any compensating activity for Black. Also good enough is 1 5 .ttJf3 with an advantage.

Conclusion:

White has a clear advantage after the calm 4.a3, as Black fails to prove any kind of compensation. The most playable line is 4 . . . d6, since Black seems to be able to gain reasonable compensation after most continuations, therefore the strong move 7.ttJh4 is important for the evaluation of the whole line. My verdict is that White is firmly in control against the Fajarowicz variation.

Budapest Gambit

The Classical Variation

Variation Index l .d4 �f6 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS �g4

4.�f.3

a b c d e f g h

A) 4 ... i.b4t?! 67 B) 4 ... �c6 S.i.f4 i.b4t 6.�bd2 68

B1) 6 ... f6 68 B2) 6 ... fie7 7.e3! �gxeS 8.�xeS �xeS 9.i.e2 71

B21) 9 ... d6 72 B22) 9 ... b6 74 B23) 9 ... i.xd2t 76 B24) 9 ... 0-0 78 B2S) 9 ... aS! 8 1

C) 4 ... i.cS S.e3 �c6 6.�c3 0-0 7.i.e2 �gxeS 8.�xeS �xeS 9.0-0 83

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C1) 9 ... d6 84 C2) 9 .•. aS 86 C3) 9 .. J:�e8 86

B 1) note co 9 . . . d6

a b c d e f g h

1 2.ltJg5!N

C l ) after 1 l . . .ltJg4

a b c d e f g h

1 2.h3!N

C3) after 12 . . . ltJg6

a b c d e f g h

1 3 .'&d3!N

Chapter 6 - Classical Variation 67

l.d4 tt::lf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 tt::lg4 This is the starting position of the Budapest

Gambit. At the beginning of the 20th century the Budapest was played by the world elite, such as Vidmar, Mieses and Schlechter. Nowadays only a few grandmasters play this opening regularly: Mamedyarov (mostly in rapid chess) , Miezis and of course Viktor Moskalenko, who has published a lot of analysis on the Budapest.

4.tt::lf3 This is White's most common reply. Why

do I recommend this line? Firstly, because this move is objectively strong and leads to an advantage for White. Secondly, I believe the style of play that usually develops after 4.tt::lf3 is not what Black expects when choosing the Budapest Gambit - certainly he is dreaming of active piece play for the sacrificed pawn, with many tactical possibil ities. Instead we choose to return the pawn and switch to more positional play, with a small but stable advantage for White.

The main alternative is 4.if4. The problem with this move is that Black gains some additional options (not only to go for our main line after 4 . . . GLlc6 5.tt::lf3 and so on) such as 4 .. . d6 5 .exd6 Wf6, or 4 . . . g5!? 5 .ig3 ig7, which I think looks quite reliable for Black.

After 4.GLlf3, besides Black two main replies, there is a minor l ine that briefly requires our attention: A) 4 ... ib4t?!. Main are B) 4 .. . tt::lc6 and C) 4 ... ic5, which we will look at below. But first:

A) 4 ... ib4t?!

This does not look like a serious move.

5.tt::lc3 Vlie7 Or 5 . . . tt::lc6 6.ig5 ie7 7.if4± is simply bad

for Black.

Black's other try is no better: 5 . . . ixc3t 6.bxc3 Vlie7

Black's intention is to transpose to a line from the 4.if4 variation, but White has a strong reply:

7.Vlid4! It will prove useful for White to provoke . . . h7 -h5. Other moves are less clear: 7.ig5 Wa3 8.We l Wc5 and Black regains the pawn. Also 7.if4 GLlc6 transposes to a line I do not recommend for White, as Black has compensation.

7 . . . h5 Black is much worse after 7 . . . f5 ?! 8 .if4 GLlc6 9.Wd5 Wa3 1 0.Ekl followed by 1 1 h3.

8 .if4 GLlc6 9.Wd5 f6 1 0.exf6 GLlxf6 I l .Wd3 We have arrived at a position from the line

4.if4 GLlc6 5.GLlf3 ib4t 6.tt::lc3 ixc3 7.bxc3 We7 8.Wd5 f6 9 .exf6 GLlxf6 l O.Vlid3 with one serious difference - Black has the extra move . . . h7-h5, which definitely weakens the black king's position, especially ifhe castles kingside. This makes the line virtually unplayable for Black.

a b c d e f g h 6.id2!N

Very simple and at the same time very strong; 6.Wd4 h5 is less clear.

6 . . . tt::lxe5


Instead 6 .. . ixc3 7.ixc3 ttJc6 8.Wd5 is clearly in White's favour, as Black is forced to play 8 .. .f6 because 9.h3 is threatened.

7.ttJxe5 Wxe5 8.a3 ixc3 After 8 . . . ic5 9.ttJd5! followed by 1 0.ic3,

Black has serious problems.

9.ixc3 �g5 Here White has a very smooth idea:

1 1 . .. d6 1 1 . . .0-0 is strongly met by 1 2.E1g3 f6

13 .Wd5t @h8 14.h5! and White will either win material after 1 5 .id2, or push h5-h6, which would create a decisive attack.

12.E1g3 E1g8 13.E1e3t ie6 I4.�b3 b6 I5.g3 White will continue 1 6.ig2 and 0-0-0

when his advantage is undisputable.

With this out of the way, let's turn to the more theoretical lines.

B) 4 ... ttJc6

Recently this has been second popular.

5.if4 ib4t 6.ttJbd2 The play now splits depending on whether

Black wants to sacrifice a pawn or regain material equality. The lines we shall study are BI) 6 ... f6 and B2) 6 ... We7.

BI) 6 ... f6

A typical Budapest ploy; this move's over-theboard debut was in Rubinstein - Tartakower, Bad Kissingen 1 928!

7.exf6 �xf6

8.e3 The aforementioned game continued 8 .g3

Wxb2 9.ig2, but I prefer a plan based on developing the bishop on e2.

8 ... �xb2 9.ie2 d6 Castling immediately is also an option, but

it leads Black into trouble: 9 . . . 0-0 1 0.0-0 d6

This is the first critical position of the 6 . . .f6 variation. White's main problem is to choose the best move from many tempting continuations.

I I .c5! After having analysed this line for several hours I came to the conclusion that this is White's best option. The text allows White ro


exploit the disharmony of the black pieces, as well as use the a2-g8 diagonal. Other options were: I l .ltJb3, I l .ltJe4 and I l .a3. The only practical test of I I .c5 continued:

1 l . . .ixc5 Let's check out the other capture: 1 1 . . .dxc5 1 2.ltJc4 The perfect square for White's knight. 1 2 . . . 'lMrf6 1 3.a3 ia5 1 4.ltJxa5 ttlxa5 1 5 .ltJg5! (Instead 1 5 .Ek l b6 1 6.ltJg5 h6 1 7.'lMrd5t cJih8 1 8.'lMrxa8 hxg5 1 9.ixc7 ib7 20.'lMrxa7 'lMrc6 leads to unnecessary complications; and 1 5 .ixc7 b6 1 6.h3 ltJh6 is only sl ightly better for White.) 1 5 ... h6 (after 1 5 ... ltJe5 1 6.'lMrd5t ltJf7 White has the tactical blow 1 7.ltJxh7! \t>xh7 1 8 .'lMrxc5 and both the f8-rook and a5-knight are hanging, so White would remain a pawn up) 1 6.'lMrd5t cJih8 1 7.ltJe4 'lMrf7 1 8 .'lMrxf7 l'!xf7 1 9.1tJxc5 White's chances are clearly preferable in this endgame, thanks to his pair of bishops. The advance 1 1 . . . d5?! is easy to dismiss: 12.ixc7 gives White a healthy extra pawn.

a b c d e f g b

12.ttlg5!N This is a serious improvement over Wiener Raddatz, Pinneberg 1994, which continued 12.l'!b l 'lMrf6 13 .ltJe4 'lMre7 (worse is 1 3 . . . 'lMrf5? ! , as it would allow White to seize the initiative after 14 .id3 'lMrh5 1 5 .ltJxc5 'lMrxc5 16.'lMrb3t 'it>h8 17.ltJg5) 1 4.ltJxc5 dxc5 1 5 .ltJg5. And now 1 5 ... ltJf6 was the correct move with a rather unclear game.

12 . . . h6

The tactics do not work for Black: 1 2 . . . l'!xf4? 1 3 .exf4 ixf2t 1 4.cJih l ltJe3 1 5 .ic4t! and next 1 6.'lMrh5 will decide.

1 3 .ic4t \t>h8 1 4.ltJf7t l'!xf7 Instead 14 . . . \t>h7 loses after 1 5.h3 ltJge5 1 6.ixe5 ltJxe5 (or 16 . . . dxe5 1 7.l'!b l 'lMra3 1 8.'lMrh5 with a decisive attack) 1 7.l'!b l 'lMrc3 1 8.l'!b3 'lMra5 1 9.1tJxe5 dxe5 20.l'!b5 'lMra3 2 1 .ltJb l winning a piece.

1 5 .ixf7 if5 1 6.ltJc4 'lMrf6 1 7.id5 Black does not have sufficient compensation

for the exchange.

10.0-0 �ge5 This is the best try. The alternatives are much

worse:

1 0 . . . ltJf6 I l .c5! Here this typical move is extremely strong, since after: 1 1 . . .d5 (not 1 1 . .. ixc5? 1 2.ltJc4 when Black's queen is trapped) 1 2.ixc7 if5 (or 1 2 . . . ixc5 1 3.l'!c1 ie7 14 .l'!c2 'lMrb4 1 5 .ltJe5 would give White a clear positional edge playing against an isolated pawn) 1 3 .'lMrb3 ( l 3.id6 looks even stronger) 1 3 . . . 'lMrxb3 1 4.ltJxb3 0-0 1 5 .ltJfd4 White was just a pawn up in Borisenko - Shaposhnikov, Riga 1 954.

If instead: 1 0 . . . if5

Then White has the usual strong move: 1 1 .c5! ic2

1 1 . . .ixc5 loses after 1 2.ltJh4! as now this move is possible since the d2-knight is no longer attacked. 12 . . . ie6 1 3.l'!b l 'lMrxa2 14.ixg4 ixg4 1 5 .'lMrxg4 'lMrxd2 1 6.l'!xb7 is hopeless for Black.

1 2. 'IMr c 1 'IMr xc1 There is a nice variation after: 1 2 . . . ia3 1 3 .cxd6 cxd6 ( l 3 . . . 'lMrc3 1 4.ltJb l ! is a neat trick: 1 4 . . . ixc 1 1 5 .ltJxc3 ib2 16.ltJb5 and White wins material) 14 . ltJc4 'lMrxc 1 1 5 .l'!axc 1 ixc 1 1 6.l'!xc 1 ig6 1 7.ltJxd6t cJif8 1 8.ltJxb7 White will launch a decisive attack


with his minor pieces. 1 3.E!axc1 �g6 1 4.cxd6 cxd6 1 5 .tLJc4 d5 1 6.tLJd6t �xd6 17.�xd6

Once again White has the bishop pair and a clear positional advantage.

1 O . . . �d7 1 1 .c5!N Yet again we see the same method. ( l l .a3!?) 1 l . . .�xc5 (or 1 l . . .d5 1 2.�xc7 ixc5 1 3.E!b l 'lWxa2 1 4.E!xb7 and soon Black is going to lose the d5-pawn) 1 2.E!b l 'lWxa2 (Instead 1 2 . . . 'lWf6 1 3.h3 tLJge5 14.tLJe4 looks horrible for Black. Next White will capture on c5 and the b7-pawn is also fall ing.) 1 3 .tLJc4 (threatening 1 4.E!a l ) 1 3 . . . tLJb4 1 4.tLJd4! With the deadly threat ofE!a l .

This is the second critical moment. Again White has many attractive moves, but the best is a well-known idea by now:

a b c d e f g h 1 1 .c5!

1 1 .E!b 1 might be interesting as well, but I am going with this fancy version of the move we have seen many times already.

l 1 ...lbxf.H Much worse is I l . . .�xc5 1 2.tLJxe5 tLJxe5 (or

1 2 ... dxe5 1 3.tLJc4 'lWc3 1 4.E!cl 'lWb4 1 5 .a3 and the queen is trapped) 1 3.E!b I 'lWa3 14.�xe5 dxe5 1 5 .�b5t c6 1 6.'lWh5t with a decisive attack.

Or 1 l . . .dxc5 1 2.tLJxe5 'lWxd2 (or 1 2 . . . tLJxe5 1 3.tLJe4 tLJf7 1 4.�c4 is hopeless for Black) 13 .�b5 'lWxd l 14.E!fxd l �c3 1 5 .E!acl �xe5 16.�xe5 �f7 1 7.�xc7 and the c5-pawn is fal ling next.

12.lbxf3 ixc5 l3.ic4!

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h White has a very strong initiative for the

pawn; the following lines show the dangers of Black's position.

l3 ... ifS If 1 3 . . . �g4 then 1 4.E!bl 'lWc3 1 5."Wd5

0-0-0 1 6.�a6! is not so difficult, but quite a nice trick. After 1 6 . . . bxa6 1 7.'lWxc6 White has a clear advantage.

Or 1 3 . . . h6 14.tLJd4 �xd4 1 5 .E!b l 'lWc3 16.E!c 1 'lWb2 1 7.'lWh5t �d8 1 8 .exd4 and White's initiative looks very dangerous with the black king stuck in the centre.

14.lbh4! 1 4.tLJg5 'lWf6 is less clear, though White keeps

definite compensation in this case as well.

14 . . . ie4 The bishop can also retreat, but it would not

help: 1 4 . . . �d7 1 5 .�g5! Preventing Black ftom castling long, as well as taking control of the


f6-square. There is no doubt White has more than sufficient compensation for the pawn; the immediate threat is 1 6.�h5.

It is important to note that White can launch a decisive attack after: 1 5 . . . ttJe5 1 6.l'l:b l �c3 17.l'l:c 1 �b2 1 8 .l'l:c2 �b4 1 9 .�h5t g6 20.�h6 Followed by 2 1 .�g7.

Instead W. Schiller - P Rosso, e-mail 2005, continued 1 5 . . . g6 and now instead of 1 6.l'l:b 1 as in the game, also interesting is 1 6.�d5N Vflg7 1 7.f4!? and Black faces a massive attack.

15.Wfg4 d5 16.i.xdS Less clear is 1 6.�e6t ttJe7.

16 ... i.xd5 17.WfhSt i.f7 1 8.Wfxc5 WffG 1 8 ... 0-0-0 1 9.ttJf5 ! is better for White,

due to his much better-placed pieces (bishop and knight) and his attacking chances against the black king. Instead after 1 9 .l'l:ab 1 Wxa2 20.Vflb5 Wa6 2 1 .�f5t l'l:d7 22.l'l:fd l .ie8 Black somehow holds.

20 ... l'l:fc8 This is the only reliable defence. Black keeps

material equality, but White still has positional pressure.

2 1 .l'l:fdl 2 1 .�xb7 does not work, because Black has

2 1 . . . .ic4 followed by 22 . . . l'l:ab8 .

2 1 . . . l'l:ab8 22.<tlgS And White has a pleasant advantage thanks

to his dominant pieces.

B2) 6 ... Wfe7

7.e3! To tell the truth, before writing this book

I had never seriously analysed this opening. At first I did not know which move to recommend here, since 7.a3 and 7.e3 look pretty similar, and should lead to the same type of middlegame. Finally I came to the conclusion that the text is stronger and the reason is rather simple - after 7.a3 Black has an interesting set-up that promises him good counterplay. Even though it is not part of our repertoire, it is worth understanding the following line: 7.a3 ttJgxe5 8.ttJxe5

Of course not 8 .axb4?? ttJd3#. 8 . . . ttJxe5 9.e3 .ixd2t 1 0.�xd2 d6 1 1 ..ie2

After 1 1 . b4 even 1 1 . . . .ie6 1 2.l'l:c 1 ( 1 2.c5 0-0-0 is possible as well, with complicated play) 1 2 . . . 0-0-0!? comes into consideration.

l l . . .b6


This looks quite playable for Black; a recent game continued:

1 2 .b4 �b7 1 3 .0-0 ttJg6 1 4.�g3 h5! The point of Black's set-up; he startS his counterplay on the kingside, while castling long remains an option.

1 5 .c5 White has also tried other moves, but I failed to find a clear way to an advantage.

1 5 . . . dxc5 Also after 1 5 . . . h4 1 6.cxd6 �d7 1 7 . .if4 ttJxf4 1 8.exf4, as in Beltran Rueda - Moskalenko, Barcelona 2007, Black could have played 1 8 . . . 0-0-0 with roughly equal play.

1 6.bxc5 h4 Black has good play.

7 .. . llJgxe5 8.llJxe5 ttJxe5 9.i.e2 This is the real starting point of the 7.e3

line.

Black's play in this line is often based on the fol lowing strategic ideas: Black has to solve the problem of his dark-squared bishop, and in many lines he is forced to exchange it for the knight. Black's aim should be to achieve some positional rrumps from this exchange, such as fixing White's pawn structure after a2-a3 . . . .ixd2, �xd2 . . . a5-a4, or damaging White's pawn structure on the queenside. Thus Black should advance his a-pawn quickly.

Black now has a choice between no fewer than five serious lines. We shall look at B21) 9 • . . d6, B22) 9 .. . b6, B23) 9 ... i.xd2t, B24) 9 ... 0-0 and B25) 9 .. . a5!.

Before getting to the main lines, we can quickly dismiss a less serious move: 9 . . . �d6?!

I believe this is Black's worst option. 1 0.a3 �xd2t 1 1 .�xd2 �xd2t 1 2.'it>xd2

This is the most White can achieve in this line. He not only has the two bishops, but also an important tempo to play c4-c5 on the next move, restricting Black's pawn chain on the queenside.

1 2 .. .f6 Or 1 2 . . . d6 1 3.c5 ttJg6 1 4.�g3 dxc5 1 5 .ixc7 and White has a stable edge with the bishop pair.

1 3.c5 b6 1 4Jhc l Wd8 1 5 J!hd l With a clear edge, once again due to the

advantage of the twO bishops, Gladyszev -Ezsol, Budapest 1 999.

B21) 9 ... d6 10.0-0

This brings us to two interesting options:

1O ... i.d7 With the idea of meeting 1 1 .ttJb3 with

1 l . . .ia4.


There is also 1 0 . . . 0-0, which should not have independent value, as Black should not vary with: I l .ltlb3 b6?! (here Black should play 1 1 . . .ge8 , reaching a position examined in the 9 . . . 0-0 1 0.0-0 ge8 line) 1 2 .a3 i.cs 1 3 .ltlxcS bxcS ( l 3 ... dxcS? loses to 1 4.'1WdS) 1 4.b4! White had the desired play on the queenside in Karpov - Shorr, Linares ( 1 ) 1 992.

1 1 .a3 hdl As pointed out by Epishin, 1 1 . . .i.cS 1 2.ltle4

ic6 1 3 .ltlc3 is better for White.

12.'lWxdl f6 13.b4

� m .� %'''Z 8 � ��.�� .J! 7 � ' r�.t� r� ' 6 . . . . . /.� . . . . /._ .. . . . /. .. . . . /.�

@ �

jJfJ " . 'jJfJ 5 �. . �� /�'' ' ' 'M.. '0 �� 4 �� _ m � " .%" . . . "� �?*r%" .... "� 3 .�� .� . . . L'!��.0 -�'0 2 • NiL��r� � r� 1 /�� ... · '/..f� ....

a b c d e f g h 13 ... 0-0-0!?N

A very interesting idea that was mentioned by Moskalenko in his book There is no doubt this move is more appealing than the options covered below, but I still like White's position.

In lvanchuk - Epishin, Terrassa 1 99 1 Black played: 13 . . . gd8

In general, White would keep a stable advantage, bur in this particular case he managed to find a tactical solution:

14.ihSt! ltlf7 The two alternatives are both unacceptable: 14 . . . g6 I S .i.e2, as the weakening of the kingside should tell in the long term, and

14 . . . ltlg6 I S .cS i.bS 1 6.gfc 1 dxcS 1 7.'1Wa2! when the position opens up in White's favour.

I S .cS i.bS I 6.gfd l dS I7.e4! White obtained a clear advantage.

Another of Moskalenko's suggestions is the rather dubious-looking: 1 3 . . . hSN

White will play: 1 4.e4!

He should not worry about his e4-pawn, and play will continue in the same way as in the 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 variation, only with equal m aterial. Here is my brief analysis:

1 4 . . . h4 After 1 4 . . . gS I S .i.e3 ltlg4 1 6.i.d4! White keeps both bishops with an obvious advantage.

I S .f3 White's idea is to neutralize Black's activiry on the kingside (premature would be I S .h3 gS 1 6.i.e3?! g4 when Black is in the game.

I S . . . h3 1 6.g4 My iron friend does not appreciate this idea, as White seems to be weakening his kingside pawn formation. In fact I can hardly imagine how Black might break through on the kingside, while White's play on the queenside develops quickly and easily Worse is 1 6.g3 gS 17 .i.e3 g4 with counterplay.

1 6 . . . 0-0-0 1 7.bS And White seizes the initiative on the

queenside, while I do not see any real counterplay for Black

14.e4! Although this move is connected with a

pawn sacrifice, it is essential for White to keep his dark-squared bishop alive. Obviously Black was threatening to play . . . g7-gS, when White would face a dilemma - either to give up his dark-squared bishop, or to allow Black


counterplay on the kingside after, let's say, ig3 . . . h7-h5, and so on.

14 ... �g6 Black has to accept the challenge, as

otherwise White will get a free initiative on the queenside.

15 .ie3 'lWxe4 16.£3! White has very promising play. The text

move is essential, as other options are weaker: 1 6.:gfe 1 ?! 4:lh4 1 7. f3 Wg6 hands the initiative to Black, and 1 6.ixa7 :gheS 17 .id3 Wh4 l s.id 4:le5 gives him counterplay.

16 ... 'lWh4 Let's check out another queen move:

1 6 . . . We6 1 7.:gfe1 (strangely enough 17.ixa7 b6 l S .c5 Wb7 1 9.cxb6 cxb6 20.'lWd3 �xa7 2 1 .Wa6t WbS 22.Wxb6t WaS is enough only for a draw, as I failed to find a decisive idea for White) 1 7 . . . WbS 1 S.a4 ( l S.b5!?) l S . . . :gheS 1 9.if1 (threatening i.xa7) 1 9 . . . 4:le5 20.Wf2 White has the initiative.

17.:gfel �b8 18.a4 :ghe8 19.a5 Once again White seizes the initiative, while

I fai l to see Black's counterplay.

19 ... ie6 20.b5 �e5 21 .if'2 'lWh6 22.'lWd4 c5 23.bxc6 ttJxc6 24.'lWb2 �a8 25.id3

And White is much better; his attacking ideas include a5-a6 followed by ie4.

B22) 9 . • . b6 10.0-0 ixd2

Black may also decide not to exchange on d2: 1 0 . . . i.b7 1 1 .4:lb3

Less convincing for White is: 1 1 .4:lf3 4:lxf3t 1 2.ixf3 ixf3 1 3.Wxf3 0-0 White can still cause a little trouble with: 14 .Wb7! ( l 4 .:gfd 1 ic5 was Hoffmann - Forintos, Muenster 1 992) However it looks l ike Black holds afrer: 1 4 . . . :gfcS 1 5 .:gfd l a5 1 6.a3 ic5 1 7.b4

:gabS l S .Wd5 axb4 1 9.axb4 ixb4 20.�xd7 Wxd7 2 1 .:gxd7 id6 (A couple of e-mail games varied at this point with 2 1 . . .:gb7 and in both cases Black drew easily.) 22 .ixd6 cxd6 23 .:gxd6 :gxc4 24.:gxb6 :gbcS This endgame should be a draw.

1 l . . .a5 Black has an alternative, but no improvement: 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2.a3 ic5 (Clearly inferior for Black is: 1 2 . . . id6 1 3.4:ld4 [threatening 1 4.4:lf5J 1 3 . . . �f6 1 4.4:lb5± Black has to give up his bishop on d6, which will damage his pawn structure, Candela Perez - Gabriel y Galan Acevedo, Villalba 1 995 . ) 1 3 .4:lxc5 bxc5 14.b4 Again White manages to open up the queenside. 14 . . . :gabS 1 5 .bxc5 �xc5 1 6.Wd4 Wc6 17 .f3 With a pleasant edge for White, thanks to his bishop pair, Delgado Martinez, Spain 1 992.

1 2.a3 ic5 13 .4:lxc5 bxc5 14.b4 It is important to create play on the queens ide.

14 .. .f6 1 5 .bxc5 Wxc5 1 6.Wd4 White keeps a pleasant edge, as his dark

squared bishop is starting to work, Solozhenkin - Plesec, Paris 1 993.

1 1 .'lWxd2 ib7 One of the benefits of our chosen line

appears after Black's alternative move: 1 l . . .d6

The same set-up that worked perfectly for Black after 7.a3 does not achieve irs goal here, because White has not wasted a tempo on a2-a3, so the c4-c5 advance lands one move earlier, which makes a big difference.

1 2 .b4 Even 1 2.ixe5 dxe5 1 3.if3 is sl ightly better for White. For instance: 1 3 . . . :gbS 14.ic6t id7 1 5 .Wd5 ixc6 1 6.'lWxc6t 'lWd7 1 7.�e4 We6 l S.:gfd a and White will control the d-file after doubling rooks.

1 2 . . . 4:lg6 Gleizerov - Trkaljanov, Skopje 1 993,


continued: 1 2 . . . �b7 1 3.c5 dxc5 1 4.bxc5 0-0 1 5.'lWc3 f6 1 6.�ac 1 White was clearly better in view of his strong bishops and the unpleasant tension Black faces along the c-file.

13.�g3 h5 1 4.c5 Compared to the 7.a3 line, Black's bishop has yet to reach b7, and this factor is vital.

14 . . . dxc5 50 far this is Pein - 5vidler, London 1 99 1 . Here White could have played:

1 5.iWd5 �b8 1 6.'lWc6t �d7 After 1 6 . . . 'lWd7 1 7.'lWxc7 'lWxc7 1 8.�xc7 �b7 19.�d6 Black is lost.

17.iWxc7 �c8 1 8 .'lWxa7 h4 1 9.�c7 White keeps his extra pawn.

12 ... bxc5 13.�a5 tbg6 This is the critical continuation. The other

lines are simpler:

13 ... d6?! 1 4.�xe5 dxe5 (not 1 4 . . . 'lWxe5? 15 .iWb5t winning the bishop) 1 5 .�ac 1 and Black ends up with a strategically lost position.

1 3 .. .f6 14.�ac1 d6 1 5 .b4 and White breaks through on the queenside.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

14.�g3! I found this "novelty" and then discovered

it has been played in one e-mail game. In my opinion it is a serious improvement over previous over-the-board play.

In a few games White has reacted unsuccessfully with 14 .'lWxc7 lOxf4 1 5 .'lWxf4 0-0 and Black has a defendable position.

Black would gain counterplay after: 1 4.�xc7 lOh4! 1 5 .�fc 1

Retreating the bishop i s not a complete solution either: 1 5 .�g3 lOxg2 (clearly worse is 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6.�xh4 'lWxh4 1 7.'lWxc5 �fc8 1 8.'lWb5 when White is simply a pawn up) 1 6.�ac 1 lOh4 1 7.'lWxc5 lOf3t 1 8 .�xf3 �xf3 Black's light-squared bishop should give him sufficient counterplay.

1 5 . . . 'lWe4 1 6.f3 'lWxe3t 1 7.'�f1 0-0 1 8 .�xc5 �fe8 1 9 .�e1 d6

With unclear play.

14 ... d6 Black has no time for 1 4 . . . h5? 1 5 .'lWxc7 �c6

16 .�d6 'lWg5 17.e4! and White is winning, as 1 7 . . . �xe4 loses to 1 8.�f3 and Black will unavoidably lose material.


15.b4 cxb4 Instead 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6.bxc5 dxc5 1 7.Ei:fc l leaves

White with a clear positional advantage.

16.Ei:acl c6 Worse is 1 6 . . . Ei:c8?! 17.\Wxa7 �a8 1 8J�fd l

0-0 1 9.�a6 with a decisive advantage for White.

17.\Wxb4 Ei:d8 A clear mistake would be 1 7 . . . c5? 1 8.\Wb5t

�d7 1 9.�xd6 and White wins.

18.Ei:fdl

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h 18 ... d5

Black has somehow managed to keep his extra pawn; meanwhile White has gained some positional pluses, such as the rwo bishops, clear targets on the queens ide, and the opponent's badly placed pieces. These factors add up to excellent compensation for the pawn.

19.Ei:d4 1 9.Ei:b l �a8 20.�b8 Ei:d7 is less clear.

19 ... 0-0 20.\Wxe7 liJxe7 2 1 .Ei:a4 a6 Black can try 2 1 . . .4Jc8, but after 22.�e5,

with the idea of putting the bishop on d4, the overall evaluation is unchanged.

I believe that, despite his extra pawn, Black is going to suffer for a long time. Also, White has the safety net that it would be easy to regain the pawn (by taking the a6-pawn, for example) . I would not be surprised if the reader found a better way to seize the initiative, as I have the feeling that White has many ideas.

B23) 9 ... ixd2t lO.'�·xd2 d6 1 1 .0-0 0-0

a b c d e f g h According to theory this is the main position

of this line, but in my opinion Black should avoid this variation. Indeed, Black has recently played this line less frequently. White has a stable advantage and his play is extremely easy. The c4-c5 break is simple to prepare and can hardly be avoided by Black. This allows White to increase the activity of his dark-squared bishop and to stabilize his advantage.

1 2.b4 The most natural continuation; White is

simply better. For those who wish a back-up weapon, the following option is fun:

1 2.\Wd5!? This is an original move. The idea is to provoke Black into playing . . . c7-c6, when the d6-pawn will become a clear target, as White can easily put pressure along the d-file.


a b c d e f g h 12 . . . �e6

Obviously this is the critical test for 1 2.Wd5, but let's examine Black's other options all the same: a) 1 2 . . . 1"i:b8? is just bad in view of 1 3.c5 and White achieves his goal without having to bother with b2-b4. b) 1 2 . . . CLlg6 1 3 .�g3 1"i:b8 Black defended against the c4-c5 break and is ready to stabilize his pawn structure with . . . b7-b6, but now White comes round the other side: 14.Wa5 ! a6 1 5 .c5 With an advantage. c) 1 2 . . . 1"i:e8 Now the e5-knight is protected, so the c4-c5 break is not dangerous for Black. 1 3.1"i:fd l Nevertheless, White's pressure is extremely annoying as now, for example, White is threatening 1 4.c5 once again, using the weakness of the 8th rank. 13 . . . CLlg6 (After 1 3 . . . �e6 14 .Wxb7 1"i:ab8 1 5 .�xa7 1"i:xb2 1 6.�fl White has a much better version compared with 1 2 . . . �e6, as

he gets a nice square for his l ight-squared bishop on fl .) 14 .�g3 1"i:b8 And once again White has the same trick: 1 5 .Wa5! 1"i:a8 16.c5 dxc5 1 7.Wxc7 Wxc7 1 8 .�xc7 With a very pleasant endgame due to the two bishops, Cosma - Kaposztas, Hungary 1 996. d) If Black simply plays 12 . . . c6 then after 13 .�d2 f6 1 4.e4 White has a pleasant position, though Black is pretty solid.

13 .�xb7 1"i:ab8

After 1 3 . . . �xc4 14.�xc4 CLlxc4 1 5 .1"i:ael 1"i:fb8 1 6.Wc6 CLlxb2 (worse is 1 6 . . . CLle5 1 7.�xe5 Wxe5 1 8.b3 and Black is suffering with all his weaknesses on the queenside) 1 7.Wxc7 Wxc7 1 8.1"i:xc7 Black faces an unpleasant endgame. The best he can hope for is the nasty side of a "4 versus 3" endgame.

1 4.Wxa7 1"i:xb2 1 5 .1"i:fe 1 CLlxc4 Instead 1 5 . . . �xc4 1 6.�xc4 CLlxc4 1 7.1"i:ael d5 1 8 .e4 does not bring Black relief either, as he is going to lose one of his pawns (c7 or d5). Or 1 5 . . . 1"i:fb8 1 6.c5 Wd8 1 7.cxd6 cxd6 1 8.a3! and White keeps his extra pawn.

1 6.1"i:ael White again wins a pawn, Gutow -

Tsarukian, St Petersburg 2000.

12 .. J3d8 Black has a few options we should quickly

scan:

1 2 . . . 1"i:e8 1 3 .1"i:fd l CLlg6?! It was better to keep the knight on e5. 14 .�g3 a5? 1 5 .c5!± In Stohl - Manolov, Elenite 1 992, White had a clear advantage, as his dark-squared bishop is springing to life.

1 2 ... �e6 1 3.Wc3 f6 This is A. Smirnov -Miezis, Tallinn 2005, and here White should have continued according to his plan: 1 4.c5 dxc5 1 5 .bxc5 �f7 1 6.a4 With a pleasant riskfree advantage.

1 2 . . . b6 1 3 .c5 �b7 1 4.cxd6 cxd6 1 5 .a4 Black is suffering due to his weak d-pawn.

13.Wc3 f6 14. 1"i:fd1 if5 1 5.1"i:d2 ig6 16J3adl

White's chances are clearly preferable, as Black's passive position lacks any real counterplay, Bluvshtein - Miezis, Calvia (01) 2004.


B24) 9 . . . 0-0 10.0-0

1 0 . . .):!e8 This is an important line. Now I can offer a

choice between two different positions:

a) 1 1 .lLlb3 This is worth a look because it is based on a different strategy from most of the lines we have looked at in this chapter.

1 l . . .d6

a b c d e f g h

Here White has several options:

a l ) 1 2.\Wd5!?N This new move seems interesting. By analogy

with the 1 0 . . . ixd2 line, it is always useful for White to provoke . . . c7-c6, which weakens the d6-pawn.

1 2 . . . c6 1 3 .\Wd4 a5 After l 3 . . . if5 1 4.a3 ic5 White can try 1 5 .\Wc3!? (certainly 1 5.lLlxc5 dxc5 16.\Wc3 is also possible) 1 5 . . . ib6 1 6.1"!fd l and White is slightly better due to the weakness of d6.

1 4.a3 ic5 1 5 .lLlxc5 dxc5 1 6.\Wc3 We have the same position as after 1 1 .a3,

with one small difference - Black has weakened the d6-square (after I l .a3 Black's pawn stands on c7) , which clearly favours White, as he gains an additional square for his rooks to enter. Also, now White can easily improve his pawn structure with f3-e4, as Black no longer has the . . . lLlc6-d4 manoeuvre.

a2) Another option is: 1 2.\Wc2 a5 ( l 2 . . . id7?! 1 3 .a3 ic5 1 4.lLlxc5 dxc5 1 5 .b4 and opening the play on the queenside is clearly in White's favour) 1 3.1"!ad l (White can definitely play 1 3.a3 ic5 1 4.lLlxc5 dxc5 getting the type of position we will examine after 1 2.a3) 1 3 . . . a4 1 4.lLld4 a3 1 5 .b3 id7 Black has reasonable play as his dark-squared bishop is well-placed on b4, restricting White's play.

a3) 1 2.a3 ic5 1 3 .lLlxc5 dxc5 14 .\Wb3 I believe this move is stronger than the alternatives: 14 .\Wd5 lLlg6 1 5.\wf3 (We can see Black's idea in the following line: 1 5 .ig3 1"!d8 1 6.\Wf3 1"!d2 with counterplay.) 1 5 . . . a5 1 6.1"!ad l ttJxf4 And here a draw was agreed in Riazantsev - Korchnoi, Chelyabinsk 2007. White does not achieve anything with 1 4.b4?! cxb4 1 5 .axb4 \Wxb4 1 6.ixe5 1"!xe5 1 7.\Wd8t \Wf8 1 8 .\Wxc7 1"!c5 and Black is not worse.

1 4 . . . b6 1 4 . . . a5 is answered with 1 5 .a4! fixing the pawn structure on the queenside to White's advantage.


1 5.%Vc3 ib7 1 6.�ad l f6 The arising position resembles the Berlin

variation. White has an extra pawn on the kingside, but Black is extremely solid with his strong knight on e5.

b) I l .a3 The most natural continuation.

1 l . . .ixd2 1 2.Wlxd2 The inclusion of the moves . . . �e8 and a2-a3 does not change the evaluation compared to the 9 . . . ixd2t line. White is always better with his pair of bishops. Here is a typical example of how the play might go on:

12 . . . d6 1 3 .b4 if5 1 4.�fd l 14.�ac 1 i s also possible.

14 . . . �ad8 1 5 .Wlc3 f6

a b c d e f g h This position is from Nyback - Summerscale, West Bromwich 2004. Black has managed to temporarily defend against the c4-c5 advance, as he would meet it with . . . d6-d5. Accordingly, White should not rush with c4-c5 (as happened in the game). He just needs to gradually improve his position first by doubling rooks on the d-file:

16.�d2 Then he can make some more useful moves

like ig3, h2-h3, a3-a4 (also, sometimes it might be possible to play f2-f3 and e3-e4) and finally, at an appropriate moment, push c4-c5. On the other hand, Black lacks any activity and just needs to wait passively.

Quite a popular option for Black is: 1 0 . . . lLlg6 1 1 .ig3 id6 1 2.ixd6 Wlxd6

Despite the exchange of bishops, White still keeps a pleasant edge, thanks to his space advantage.

1 3.lLle4

a b c d e f g h

White is improving the position of his knight, as it was passively placed on d2. White's main alternative would be 1 3.Wlc2, but I prefer the text.

1 3 . . . Wle5 a) A possible retreat is 1 3 . . . Wle7 1 4.lLlc3 d6 when we reach a typical position for this variation. White has tried many different moves here, but I prefer the energetic play of German Grandmaster Jan Gustafsson: 1 5 .lLld5!? Wld8 1 6.Wld4 As we have noticed already, it is always useful for White to provoke . . . c7-c6, which makes the d6-pawn a clear target. 1 6 . . . c6 Sooner or later, Black has to play this move, as he cannot suffer White's knight in the centre indefinitely. 1 7.lLlc3 Wle7 1 8 .�ad l �d8 1 9.f4! Now Black has to reckon with the idea off4-f5-f6, opening up his king. 19 .. .f5 Black decides to prevent White's potential threat, but now White switches to preparing e3-e4. 20.g3 (20.�fe l was a worthy alternative) 20 . . . lLlh8 This is Gustafsson - Lamprecht, Hamburg 1 997, and now White should have continued energetically: 2 1 .e4 lLlf7 22.ih5 g6 23.if3 �e8 24.�fe l White is dominating.


b) No one has gone for the endgame after 1 3 . . . �xd l 14J!fxdl d6 for a rather obvious reason - White has a stable and risk-free advantage. He can select one of two plans: 1 5 .c5 dxc5 1 6.tt'lxc5 c6 1 7.:!!ac l with pressure, or 1 5 .tt'lc3 .ie6 1 6.:!!acl not changing the pawn structure.

14.tt'lc3 The best square for the knight. Later Black will face a dilemma: either be ready to deal with possible knight jumps to b5 and d5, attacking Black's pawns, or play . . . c7-c6 covering both squares, but getting a permanent weakness on d6.

1 4 . . . d6 14 . . . b6 can be met by 1 5.�d5 �xd5 1 6.tt'lxd5 c6 1 7.tt'lc3 and Black's d-pawn becomes a real target.

1 5 .�d2 .id7 Black can try to sacrifice a pawn for the initiative with: 1 5 . . . �a6 1 6.�xe5! I think this is the best way (if White accepts the sacrifice with 1 6.�xd7 then Black gets some counterplay: 1 6 . . . :!!adS 1 7.�a4 .ib7 1 S .:!!fd 1 tt'lh4 1 9 .:!!xdS :!!xdS 20.:!!d l :!!fS! 2 1 .e4 f5) 1 6 . . . tt'lxe5 And here 17.f4!N was extremely strong (in Stohl - Blatny, Prague 1 996, White opted for 1 7.tt'ld5) . 1 7 . . . tt'lxc4 (Otherwise l S .tt'ld5 comes with great effect, for example: 1 7 . . . tt'lc6 l S.tt'ld5 :!!acS 1 9.b4! Black cannot avoid losing material . ) l S.:!!fc l b5 1 9.tt'ld5 �b7 20 . .ixc4! This is an improvement over Stohl's annotations in ChessBase (he analyses only 20.tt'lxc7) . 20 . . . bxc4 2 1 .tt'le7t 'it>hS 22.:!!xc4 Black will lose a pawn: 22 ... c6 (or 22 ... :!!feS 23.:!!xc7 .ixg2 24.:!!xd7 .ih3 25.f5 with a winning position) 23.:!!d 1 d5 24.:!!c2 :!!feS 25 .tt'lxc6 :!!xe3 26.:!!xd5 .ixc6 27.:!!xc6 :!!e2 2S.:!!dc5 g6 29.:!!c2 :!!aeS 30.�fI This endgame should be winning for White.

1 6.:!!ac l :!!feS? ! This is Shipov - Ang. Tzermiadianos, Athens

1 997, and here White missed a great chance:.

a b c d e f g h 1 7.tt'ld5 :!!ecS

Black cannot defend with 17 . . . :!!acS? as after 1 S .f4 he loses a piece.

l S.f4 �eS 1 9. f5 1 9.e4!? is also promising.

1 9 . . . tt'le7 20.f6 tt'lxd5 2 1 .cxd5 White has an attack.

1 1 .a3 The alternative would be 1 1 .tt'lb3, but after:

1 l . . .a4 1 2.a3 ( l 2 .tt'ld4 d6 would lead to a

complicated game) 1 2 . . . .id6 (Or 1 2 . . . .ic3!? 1 3.bxc3 axb3 14 .�xb3 d6 is also quite interesting, as Black has definite compensation for the pawn, in view of White's damaged pawn structure on the queenside.) 1 3.tt'ld2 f5 The play is rather unclear.

1 1 ...i.xd2 Black can also try to keep his bishop:

1 l . . ..ic5

Chapter 6 - Classical Variation 8 1

But in this case White has a powerful idea:

12.b4! axb4 I 3 .axb4 �xa 1 14 .lMrxa1 ttJg6 Much worse is 1 4 . . . ixb4 1 5 .ixe5 ixd2 16.ixg7 and Black will not survive with such a weak king.

1 5.ixc7 ixe3 Or I 5 . . . ixb4 1 6.ia5 and White keeps a stable edge, as Black will suffer for the rest of the game, defending his weak pawns on b7 and d7.

16.fxe3 lMrxe3t 1 7.�f2 'lWxd2 1 8 .lMrd l White has more than sufficient compensation for the pawn, as Black's light-squared bishop is out of the game. Certainly Black can give up his extra pawn, but then it will be quite easy for White to create a passed pawn on the queenside. The game Leitao - Dyce, Szeged 1 994, continued:

18 . . . 'lWxd 1 t 1 9.ixd I �e8 20.c5 �e l t 2 1 .�fl �xfl t 22. <j;Jxfl

This endgame is very difficult for Black.

12.'lWxd2 d6 It makes no sense to play 1 2 . . . a4?! as White

easily achieves c4-c5, obtaining a clear edge. I3.c5 (or I 3 .1Mrc3 d6 I4.c5!) And now Black cannot play I 3 . . . lMrxc5?! I 4.�ac l , as he is losing the c7-pawn.

13.b4 �e8 The game Malaniuk -Marjanovic, Yugoslavia

1993, instead continued: 1 3 .. .f6 I 4.bxa5! <j;Jh8 (l4 .. . lLlc6? runs into I 5 .a6! �xa6 I 6.c5 with a winning position) I 5 .�fb I White was pressing on the queens ide.

14.�fc1 As always, White is better, as Black can do

nothing against the coming c4-c5, Vitiugov -Lanin, St Petersburg 2006.

B25) 9 . . . a5! 10.0-0

Or 1 O.a3 ixd2t 1 1 .1Mrxd2 d6 (only not 1 1 . . . a4? 1 2.c5 with an advantage) 1 2.0-0 ( 1 2.b3 looks a bit slow, but might be an interesting option) I 2 . . . a4 transposes to the 1 1 .a3 line below, which we wish to avoid.

10 ... d6

8 J �i:.� ��.)-7 m ' �� , �� , 6 �_ . .. . . /,.' . . . . /,� . . . . . . _ 5 .lII�r ,.lIIlII '" . . · . . /,m·�� // . . · . . ;�7� �� 4 � lS � � � "' .. �� .� ... . . �� 3 ��.%��; .. /J.�W.%�W� 2 lS �� lS �� 1 gf . . . . %.iV.im· . . ·

a b c d e f g h 1 1 .lL\bl!

This seems to be the only move that promises White better chances. Strangely enough, the text has occurred only once in tournament practice. White has several alternatives, but none of them gives White anything special.

I I .a3 ixd2 Not 1 1 . . .ic5?! 1 2.ttJe4! when White has the initiative, Epishin - Thielemann, Kiel 2004.

1 2.lMrxd2 a4! This is the point; Black fixes White's pawn chain, restricting his options on the queens ide. Now the 1 3.c5 advance would not be so clear, and instead I 3 .lMrd5 would be met by I 3 . . . ttJd7! followed by . . . ttJc5.

I 3 . . . dxc5 I 4.lMrd5 Or I4.�ac l 0-0 I 5 .lMrd5 ttJg6 1 6.ig5 (or 1 6.ig3 �a5) 1 6 . . . lMre6 I 7.�xc5 lMrxd5 I 8 .�xd5 f6 with equality.

1 4 . . . ttJg6 I 5 .ig3


1 5 .ib5t <j;>f8 is not dangerous for Black. 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6J!ac 1 !'l:a5

White's compensation was only enough for a draw in Van Wely - Bosman, Netherlands 1 989.

I also looked at the new 1 1 .tLle4, with the idea of playing a2-a3 next, but Black is in time to create counterplay: 1 1 . . .tLlg6 1 2.if3 f5! (but not 1 2 ... tLlxf4?! 1 3 .exf4 0-0 14.a3 ic5 1 5 .!'l:e 1 ib6 1 6.tLlc3 when White has pressure) 1 3 .tLlc3 (after 1 3 .ig5 Wif7 1 4.tLlc3 ixc3 1 5 .bxc3 0-0 White may soon be worse due to his weaknesses on the queenside) 1 3 . . . ixc3 1 4.bxc3 0-0 And Black is fine.

White's most popular move is: 1 1 .tLlb3

Then Black has an interesting option: 1 l . . .a4 1 2.a3 ic3!?

Instead 12 . . . ia5 1 3 .tLld4 (or 1 3 .tLlxa5 !'l:xa5 1 4.e4 0-0 1 5 .id2 !'l:a8 1 6.ic3 tLlc6 is pretty solid for Black) 1 3 . . . ib6 1 4.tLlb5! looks quite interesting for White.

1 3.bxc3 White is not better after 1 3 .Wic2 ixb2 1 4.Wixb2 axb3 1 5 .c5 ie6, M. Rodshtein -Avila Jimenez, Andorra 2007.

1 3 . . . axb3 1 4.Wixb3 0-0 1 5 .ixe5 Otherwise Black can transfer his knight to c5 with fine compensation, for example 1 5 .!'l:fd 1 tLld7.

1 5 . . . Wixe5 1 6.!'l:fd 1 b6 17.if3 !'l:a7 1 8 .!'l:d5 Wif6

I do not believe White can break through.

1 1 .. . 0-0 Quite possible is 1 1 . . .a4, but this pawn

might become a target in the long term. 1 2.a3 ic5 1 3 .tLlc3 id7 1 4.tLld5 Wid8 1 5 .Wic2 0-0 1 6.!'l:ad 1 (there is no advantage after 1 6.ixe5 dxe5 1 7.!'l:ad 1 f5 [ 1 7 . . . !'l:a6!?l 1 8.!'l:d2 !'l:a6 1 9.!'l:fd l !'l:d6 20.Wic3 !'l:e8) 1 6 . . . !'l:e8 1 7.h3

a b c d e f g h believe White is slightly better in this

position, as Black is facing a typical dilemma in this structure - What to do about the d5-knight, which obviously restricts his pieces? If . .. c7-c6, then the d6-pawn is weakened, but the manoeuvre . . . id7-c6xd5 would not bring relief either, as White would recapture with the rook and continue his pressure along the d-file. Meanwhile White can gradually improve his position, preparing the advance of the e- and f-pawns.

12.a3 ic5 13.tLlc3 ie6 The most natural move. The alternative

would be: 1 3 . . . c6 14 .Wic2 tLlg6

After 1 4 .. .f6 1 5 .!'l:fd 1 ie6 1 6.tLla4 ia7 1 7.!'l:d2, although Black's position is pretty stable, White's chances are preferable, in view of his pressure against the d6-pawn. Certainly Black can try 1 7 . . . d5, but after I 8 .cxd5 ixd5 1 9.!'l:ad 1 Wif7 20.tLlc5 ixc5 21 .Wixc5 the two bishops give White the advantage.

1 5 .ig3 f5 This is a generally desirable plan to activate the dark-squared bishop with the . . .f5-f4 advance.

1 6.tLla4 f4 If 1 6 . . . ia7 then 1 7.Wid2! attacks both the a5- and d6-pawns.

1 7.exf4 tLlxf4 1 8 .ixf4 !'l:xf4 1 9.tLlxc5 dxc5 20.id3 g6


8

7

6

5

4

3

2 r="�Ma(\Ui;: a b c d e

21 .�ae 1

f g h

White has a pleasant edge, as he has a clear plan of converting his extra pawn on the kingside.

14.h3 Premature would be 14.tOd5 i.xd5 1 5 .'lWxd5

(or 1 5 .cxd5 f5 ! when Black is not worse) 15 ... c6 1 6.'lWd2 a4! and Black had reasonable play in Shipov - Galanov, Russia 1 992.

14 ... �g6 lS . .tg3 f5 This position was reached in Van den

Bersselaar - Pelter, Netherlands 1 996.

16.'lWd2 This is a critical position for the 9 . . . a5 line.

Certainly the previous play was not all forced, but it seems to me this type of position should appear anyway. In general White's chances look preferable, as he has clear ideas of how to improve his position. He will play tOa4 (maybe even after the preparatory �fd 1 ) and then, depending on Black's reply, continue with b3-b4, or play i.f3 keeping up the pressure on the queenside. In the game mentioned above, White continued with 1 6 . .tf3, but I do not like this as Black can win a tempo by attacking the bishop with . . . tOe5 .

It is also important to realize that Black has no time to prepare the .. .f5-f4 advance:

16 ... Wf7 17.�a4 .ta7

Instead 1 7 . . .f4?! does not work: 1 8.exf4 tOxf4 1 9 . .tf3 c6 20.�fe 1 ! and Black's position collapses.

1 8 . .te c6 19.�fdl

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h White has definite pressure against the d6-

pawn.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C) 4 ... ics

a b c d e f g h This is Black's most popular continuation.

S.e3 lLlc6 6.�c3 0-0 The following move order is dubious,

according to some theorists, since it allows White an additional option:


6 . . . lUgxe5 7.lUxe5 lUxe5 8 .f4 8 .ie2 leads to the same position as in the main line, which is well worth considering. To be honest, I am not that excited about this f4-opportunity and I believe Black's position is quite reasonable in what follows.

8 . . . lUg6 Black is indeed worse in the event of: 8 . . . lUc6 9.id3 d6 1 0.0-0 0-0 l 1 .a3 a5 (Other options are no better: 1 1 . . .f5 1 2 .b4 ib6 13 .lUd5 ie6 1 4.1:%f3 and White easily develops an initiative with ib2 and :1%g3. 1 l . . .:1%e8 1 2.Wc2 h6 1 3 .:1%f3 and White has good attacking prospects.) 1 2.id2 Followed by Wf3 and :1%ae 1 .

9.id3 0-0 1 0.0-0 d6!N The negative view of 6 . . . lUgxe5 is based on only one game! Clearly inferior is 1 0 . . . f5 1 1 .Wc2 d6 I 2.lUa4! lUe7 1 3.id2 lUc6 I4.a3 a5 I 5 .lUxc5 dxc5 I 6.ic3 and White launched a decisive attack with the help of his strong dark-squared bishop Il1

Komljenovic - L.v. Martin, Spain 1 997. 1 1 .id2 id7

Not 1 1 . . . f5? ! 1 2.'it>h 1 ie6 1 3 .:1%f3, followed by :1%h3 and Wh5, with the initiative.

1 2.'it>h l Or 1 2.Wc2 f5 with unclear play.

1 2 . . . :1%e8 1 3 .e4 c6 Black has counterplay.

7.ie2 7.Wd5 is well met by 7 . . . We7.

7 ... ttJgxeS S.lUxeS Instead 8.0-0 unnecessarily gives Black an

extra option: 8 . . . lUxf3t 9.ixf3 id6!? With the idea of placing the bishop on e5. The game I. Farago - Felegyhazi, Balatonlelle 2006, continued 1 0.b3 ie5 I l .ib2 d6 1 2.Wd2 ie6 1 3 .:1%ad l with a complex game where White's chances are slightly preferable.

S ... ttJxeS 9.0-0

a b c d e f g h This is the initial position of our variation.

In my opinion the whole line promises White s lightly better chances, due to his control of the centre.

Black has a choice between CI) 9 .. . d6, e2) 9 ... aS and C3) 9 . .. :1%eS.

Cl) 9 ... d6 1O.b3

1 0.lUa4 ib6 is not clear.

1O .. .'�·h4 A typical active move for this l ine, but White

has nothing to worry about from Black's socalled threats.

Black has tried many moves here, so I have selected the ones that I believe are the most important:

a) 1 0 . . . if5 I l .ib2 a6 1 2 .Wd2 (The text move is more convincing than the alternatives: 1 2.lUa4 :1%e8 1 3.lUxc5 dxc5 is not much for White. 1 2.a3 is possible, but it is too slow in my opinion.) 1 2 . . . :1%e8 1 3.:1%ad 1 ia7 14.tt:ld5 White has reached his goal, while Black's play has failed to even get started.

b) 1 0 .. .f5 This lunge does not achieve its aim and only creates weaknesses in Black's camp: 1 1 .lUa4 ib6 1 2.ib2 ( l 2.Wd5t may be even


stronger: 1 2 ... ttJ f7 [ 1 2 ... �h8?! 1 3.c5! with a clear advantage] 1 3.ttJxb6 axb6 14 .i.b2 With a stable advantage, as Black will experience serious problems along the a l -h8 diagonal.) 12 . . :�We7 1 3:�d2 �h8 1 4.b4 i.d7 1 5 .ttJxb6 axb6 16.c5! White has fine play. 1 6 . . . bxc5 17.bxc5 i.c6 1 8.cxd6 cxd6 This is Woller -Kemna, Germany 1 985 , and here 1 9.f3 would have secured White's advantage.

1 1 .i.b2 It is too early for: 1 1 .ttJd5 c6 1 2.b4 cxd5!

(the text is more accurate than 12 .. . i.b6 1 3.g3 1Wd8 14.ttJxb6 axb6 1 5 .f4 ttJg6 1 6.i.b2t) 13.bxc5 ttJxc4 (Black fails to equalize after 13 . . . dxc4 14.cxd6 i.f5 1 5 .'lWd5 'lWe4 1 6.gd l t) 14.cxd6 i.e6=

After 1 1 .i.b2 I examined two possibilities for Black; in both of them White keeps a small but stable plus.

1 1... tlJ g4 The other line runs: 1 1 . . . i.d7 1 2.ttJd5 c6

(l2 . . .ltJg4? does not work in view of 13 .h3 and Black loses material) 13 .g3 'lWh3 14.ttJf4 This is not such a bad square for White's knight, as ftom here it restricts Black's activity on the kingside. 1 4 . . .. &f5 1 5 :�Vd2 a5 1 6.a3 White is threatening the unpleasant 1 7.b4. fu always, after . . . c7-c6 White has a clear target - the d6-pawn.

12.h3!N So far White has tried only 1 2.i.xg4. For

example: 1 2 . . . i.xg4 1 3 .'lWd2 gae8 with mutual chances, A. Williams - Barbero, Buenos Aires (ol) 1 978.

12 . . . tlJf6 Probably White was afraid of 12 .. . ttJxf2? but

it does not work: 1 3 .gxf2 i.xe3 14.'lWe l i.xh3 Otherwise there is no point to Black's previous play. 1 5 .tlJd5 ( l 5 .i.f3!?) 1 5 . . . i.c5 16.b4 i.xf2t 1 7.'lWxf2 'lWxf2t 1 8 .�xf2 i.e6 1 9.ttJxc7 gac8 20.ttJxe6 EXe6t 2 1 .�e3 With a clear advantage, as White's two bishops are obviously stronger than Black's rook and pawn.

13.if3 ge8 13 . . . 'lWg5 is powerfully met by 1 4.ttJb5! i.b6

1 5 .a4 a5 1 6.i.d4 with positional pressure.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h 14.l2Jb5

White has to watch out for tricks, such as: 1 4.'lWd2 i.xh3! 1 5 .gxh3 gxe3!! 1 6.EXe3 (not 1 6.i.g2?! gxh3, which is dangerous for White) 16 . . . i.xe3t 17 .'lWxe3 'lWg3t 1 8.';ilh 1 'lWxh3t With a perpetual check. White does not have i.g2, as his queen would be hanging.

14 . . . ge7 After 1 4 . . . i.b6 1 5 .i.d4! Black cannot defend

the c7-pawn with 1 5 . . . ge7 because of 1 6.c5!


ixc5 1 7.ixc5 dxc5 1 8.�d8t :ge8 1 9.�xc7 with a winning position.

ls.id4 White is slightly better, due to his space

advantage and very strong light-squared bishop.

C2) 9 .. . aS 10.b3 d6

After l O . . . :ga6 White has a very strong option:

a b c d e f g h

1 I .f4! lLlg6 1 2.�h l :ge8 1 3 .e4 (It is already obvious that 1 0 . . . :ga6 has failed.) 1 3 . . . b6 (if I 3 . . . ,ib4 then 14.lLld5 :gxe4 1 5 .f5! lLle7 1 6.�d3 wins an exchange) And now very strong is 1 4.f5 (rather than 14 .,id3 as in Quinteros - Szmetan, Rio Hondo 1 987) 14 . . . lLle5 1 5 .f6 creating serious threats against the black king.

1 1 .ib2 :ge8 1 2.�c2 The best square for White's queen is c2.

Less clear is 1 2.lLla4 b6 1 3.lLlxc5 bxc5 14.f4 lLld7 1 5 .,if3 :gb8°o as in Osnos - Yermolinsky, Leningrad 1 977, because this kind of pawn structure offers Black reasonable counterplay. Also not so convincing is 1 2.�d2 if5.

12 ... id7 Instead 1 2 . . . �h4 is useless after 1 3.lLld5 :ge6

1 4.g3 �d8 1 5 .:gfd l ± .

13.:gadl

a b c d e f g h Finally all the white pieces are mobilized,

and next White will jump his knight into d5. In general, we can see that White's play is quite easy, while Black is failing to create counterplay.

C3) 9 .. . :ge8

This is definitely the main continuation. Now White has a wild array of possibilities: 10.f4, 1 0.a3, 1 0.lLle4 and even the mysterious 1 0.'it>hl has been tried, but I strongly recommend a natural move:

lO.b3 I think this is the most logical move. White's

play is quite simple - he logically mobilizes his pieces with ,ib2, �c2, :gad 1 , fighting for the central squares. On every move Black must be ready for the white knight to jump to d5, e4 or even a4.

lO ... aS Black's most popular reply; the main idea is to

play . . . :ga6 and transfer the rook to the kingside (g6 or h6) creating threats against White's king. Sometimes the rook might also be useful on eG. In general I have noticed that Budapest aficionados do not like long positional struggles; usually they try to generate some kind of activiry as soon as possible.


Another common line starts: 10 . . . d6 1 1 .�b2

a b c d e f g h

This is an important moment; Black has tried several options here:

Black can try the same idea as the main line, except wi th the "wrong" rook: a) 1 l . . .:1!e6 1 2.g3!?

This interesting move has been played by strong players such as Gheorghiu and Vyzmanavin. It may look like it unnecessarily weakens the light squares near his king, but White takes control of the h4-square, preventing Black's queen jump, so Black has no time to create a real attack. Instead 1 2.4Je4 b6 13 .4Jxc5 bxc5 14.f4 liJd7 is quite double-edged, but 1 2.4Jd5 c6 13.liJf4 is worth considering. For all that, I suggest 1 2.g3 is the way to go.

12 . . . a5 12 . . . :1!h6 13 .4Je4 ( l 3.4Ja4 �d7) 1 3 . . . �d7 14.h4 gives the same evaluation as after 12 . . . �d7, which we might as well look at now as well. 12 . . . �d7 1 3.4Ja4! (the text move is stronger than 1 3.�d5 :1!h6 14.:1!fd 1 , with the idea of meeting 14 . . . �h3 with 1 5 .�g2, as in Gheorghiu - Terreaux, Mendrisio 1 985) 13 . . . :1!h6 14.h4 Taking the sting out of . . . �h3; now Black's attack goes nowhere, since his pieces are hanging in the centre. For example, Sandkaulen - R. Markus, corr.

1 990, continued 1 4 . . . �b6 and now 1 5 .c5N �b6 16.:1!cl would have been much better for White.

1 3.�c2 Not 1 3 .cj;>h I ?! b6 14.e4 :1!g6 and Black's attack was on the way in Vyzmanavin -Kotronias, Moscow 1 987.

1 3 . . . :1!h6 Another idea for Black is 1 3 . . . �d7, transferring his bishop to c6. 1 4.:1!ad 1 �c6 (once again 1 4 . . . :1!h6?! does not work in view of 1 5 .4Je4 and two of Black's minor pieces are hanging in the centre) 1 5 .4Jd5 Now 1 5 ... :1!h6 is still a failure: 1 6.�xe5 dxe5 1 7.4Jb6! And Black loses material.

1 4.:g[d 1 Following the usual central strategy.

1 4 . . . �g4 1 4 . . . �d7 1 5 .�e4! One of the key defensive resources (instead 1 5 .h4 allows Black to gain counter chances after 1 5 . . . �h3 1 6.4Jd5 4Jg4 1 7.�xg4 �xg4). 1 5 . . . �h3 1 6.�g2 �xg2t 1 7.cj;>xg2 �h3t 1 8.ct?gl And it is not so clear what Black's rook is doing on h6.

1 5 .�xg4 4Jxg4

a b c d e f g h

1 6.�f5 ! 4Jxh2 After 1 6 . . . �c8 17.�xc8t :1!xc8 1 8 .4Jd5 <;:t>f8 1 9 .h4 White is clearly better, as Black's rook is misplaced on h6.

1 7.cj;>g2 White is threatening 1 8.:1!h l , so the next series of moves is more or less forced:


17 . . . l'%f6 1 8.'We4 l'%e6 1 9.'Wxb7 4Jg4 20.4Jd5 l'%a7 2 1 .'Wc6

White is better, because of Black's weak pawns on the queenside.

b) 1 l . . ..td7 1 2.'Wc2 Also interesting is 1 2.4Jd5!? c6 (or 1 2 . . . .tc6 1 3.b4 .txd5 14 .cxd5 .tb6 1 5 .a4 a5 1 6.bxa5 .txa5 1 7.'Wb3 and White has an initiative on the queenside) 1 3.4Jf4.

1 2 . . . .tc6 1 3.l'%ad l White gradually improves his position.

1 3 . . . 4Jg6?! 1 4.4Jd5 4Jh4

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .g3! Refuting Black's idea. Much worse is 1 5 . .td3?! 'Wg5 1 6 . .txh7t? (better is 1 6.g3) 1 6 . . . �h8 17 . .te4 l'%xe4! 1 8.'Wxe4 l'%e8 and White was lost in Roeschlau - Fohler, Mengen 1 990.

1 5 ... 'Wg5 1 6.b4 .tb6 17.a4 With a large advantage.

1 1 .4Ja4! This is a very important moment. At this

point we actually deviate from the main theory line and make a very concrete move - now Black has no time for . . . l'%a6. Instead there is a lot of theory after 1 1 ..tb2 l'%a6 1 2 .4Je4 (or 1 2. 4Ja4) .

The funny thing is that after I had completed my initial analysis of this line I played in the 2009 Politiken Cup and managed to go astray

on the 1 1 th move by playing 1 1 . .tb2 instead of 1 1 .4Ja4!. During the game I was really surprised to discover that Black had interesting resources, and it was only later, when I checked my preparation, that I realized what had gone wrong! The game Avrukh - Skytte, Helsingor 2009, continued 1 l . . .l'%a6 1 2.4Je4 .ta7 13.c5 l'%h6 1 4.g3. I eventually won a nice positional game, but this was hardly connected with the opening, since here Black missed 14 ... b6! followed by . . . .tb7, which would have given him really good play.

Clearly dubious is 1 1 . . .'We7?! 1 2.4Jxc5 'Wxc5 1 3.'Wd5 !? and Black has no compensation for White's bishop pair, Gruenenwald - Goda, Switzerland 1 993. 1 3 . .tb2!? also looks good.

1 1 . . . .ta7 1 2 .c5! As always, this move works perfectly for White. 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 .cxd6 c6 (probably best is 1 3 . . . cxd6, though White has a clear posi tional advantage after 1 4 . .tb2) 1 4.�b2 b5 (Black could regain the pawn with 1 4 . . . l'%e6, but after 1 5 .'Wc2 'Wxd6 1 6.l'%fdl 'fie? 1 7.l'%acl White is much better, as Black's pieces lack coordination) 1 5 .4Jc3 Black did not get any compensation for the pawn in Skembris Mukic, Estensi 200 1 .


l l .. .d6N 1 2.ltJxc5 dxc5 And now White has a pleasant choice: 1 3 .Wixd8 (or 1 3.Wic2 id7 14 .ib2 ic6 1 5 .Wif5 and, though Black is pretty solid, the bishop pair should give White the advantage in the long term) 13 .. J'hd8 1 4.ib2 with a good endgame. For example, 14 . . . ltJd3 1 5 .l'Hd 1 if5 16.ic3.

a b c d e f g h 12.f4!

The point of White's previous move; the black knight is ejected from the centre White gains a lot of space for his pieces, especially for the bishops. One is coming to b2, while the other has a nice square on f3 .

White's other options do not look so clear, bur it may be useful to see why they do not work:

12.c5 d5 13 .ib2 0 3.cxd6 ixd6 14 .ib2 if5 is okay for Black) 1 3 . . . id7 This is playable for Black. 1 4.ltJc3 (or 14 .Wixd5 ixa4 1 5 .E1fd l �xd5 16.E1xd5 ltJg6 1 7.bxa4 ltJf4 and Black seems to hold) In Tukmakov - Forintos, Metz 199 1 , B lack played 1 5 . . . c6, but even the primitive 1 4 . . . ixc5 1 5.Wixd5 Wie7 was possible, with good play for Black.

12.e4 is a possible plan, but I prefer to avoid this, since Black will always have counterplay against the e-pawn. For example, 1 2 . . . ltJc6

1 3.id3 d6 14.ib2 ie7, followed by . . . if6 with double-edged play.

12 . . . ltJg6 The other knight retreat is also possible:

1 2 . . . ltJc6 Now 1 3.if3 leads to two interesting possibilities - one rather optimistic and unnatural, the other to a game where White has a clear improvement:

a b c d e f g h Moskalenko recommended: 1 3 . . . E1a6

Here I recommend a prophylactic move: 14.a3!?

Preventing Black's idea of . . . ltJb4 followed by . . . E1d6, activating the rook. Certainly White could also continue: 1 4.e4 ltJb4 1 5 .Wie2 d5 (or 1 5 . . . E1ae6 16.ie3 is clearly better for White) 1 6.cxd5 ltJxd5 1 7.e5 ( 1 7 .E1d I ? would be a serious mistake, as Black has 1 7 . . . Wif6 1 8.e5 ltJxf4! 19 .Wie3 ltJh3t! 20.gxh3 E1xe5 winning) 17 . . . c6 1 8 .E1d l With the better prospects for White.

1 4 . . . d6 Maybe not what Black wants to play, but what else can he do?

1 5 .Wid3 ie7 1 6.ib2 if6 17.ixf6 Wixf6 1 8 .ltJc3

White is better due to his extra space, while the . . . E1a6 move appears to be useless.

1 3 . . . d6 1 4.Wid2 Simple play, wanting to play ib2.

90 The B udapest Gambit

After 1 4.�b2 E!xe3 1 5 .Wd2 E!e8 1 6.E!ae l White has definite compensation, but it is rather complicated.

1 4 . . . �f5 This was tried in Agdestein - Haik, Marseille 1 987, rather than 1 4 . . . �e7 1 5.�b2 �f6 16.�xf6 Wxf6 17.4Jc3 when White controls all the important squares in the centre. Now White should have continued with his plan:

1 5 .�b2!N If Black tries the same . . . Wb8-a7 manoeuvre that was played in the Agdestein - Haik game, then White is ready for him.

1 5 . . . Wb8 Instead 1 5 . . . �e4?! makes no sense, as it only helps White to seize the initiative: 1 6.4Jc3 �xf3 1 7.E!xf3 and next we have E!g3 and 4Jd5 coming. Now White can simply play:

1 6.E!ael Wa7 1 7.�h l ± With an obvious advantage for White; Black

is very passive and White's plan includes 4Jc3-d5 and e3-e4.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h 13.Wd3!N

In my opinion this move is a serious improvement; White manages to reach his optimal set-up.

The main move according to theory is 1 3.Wd2

but I find it slightly inaccurate, since it allows Black to obtain some counterplay with 1 3 . . . 4Jh4!N. The main idea is to play . . . tlJf5 at an appropriate moment. Previously against 1 3.Wd2 Black has not managed to solve his opening problems:

1 3 . . . b6 1 4.�b2 �b7 1 5 .�f3 Wb8 1 6.E!adl 4Jh4 1 7.�d5!?

An interesting decision, but also reasonable is 1 7.�xb7 Wxb7 1 8.Wc2 (with the idea of playing 1 9.E!d5) and if 1 8 . . . E!xe3 1 9.1Wf2 �e7 (if 1 9 . . . 4Jf5 then 20.E!d5 wins material) 20.E!xd7 and Black is helpless against 'ge7 followed by Wh4.

1 7 . . . 4Jf5 1 8 .�xf7t! A nice tactical blow that allows White ro

develop a strong initiative. 1 8 . . . i>xf7 1 9.Wxd7t i>g6 20.g4

This is Vallejo Pons - Romero Holmes, Spain 2002.

1 3 . . . We7 14.4Jc3 Wc5 was Blazek - Ptacnik, Czech Republic 2004, and now 1 5 .4Jd5 is clearly better for White.

1 3 . . . c6 1 4.�b2 d5 1 5 .cxd5 i.f5 (after 1 5 . . . b5 1 6.4Jc3 �c5 1 7.4Jd l Wxd5 1 8.1Wc3 �f8 1 9 .�f3 White wins the c6-pawn) 1 6.id4 White was better in Cu. Hansen - Miezis, Copenhagen 2004.

So now we can understand the difference with: 1 3 . . . 4Jh4!N 1 4.�b2

14.�d3 b6 is given by Moskalenko, but instead with 1 4 . . . b5! followed by .. . ib7, Black takes over the initiative and gains a clear edge.

1 4 . . . We7 14 . . . 4Jf5 runs into 1 5 .e4! ( 1 5 .E!f3!?) 1 5 . . . 'gxe4 1 6.�d3 and Black loses the exchange.

1 5 .�d4 4Jf5 1 6.�f3 E!a6! And Black definitely has play. Note thar

Chapter 6 - Classical Variation 9 1

1 6 . . . ltJxd4 1 7.exd4 Wfe3t 1 8.Wfxe3 �xe3 19.�ael might be dangerous for Black, as he would face serious problems developing his light-squared bishop.

13 . .. d6 14.llJc3 c6 15.e4

a b c d e f g h White has a very pleasant edge, thanks to his

space advantage.

Conclusion:

The Budapest Gambit is almost a respectable opening; I doubt there is a refutation. Even in the lines where White manages to keep an extra pawn, Black always has a lot of play for it. I recommend 4.ltJf3 , which may be an unpleasant choice for Budapest lovers, as White is aiming for positional play and not heading into complications by trying to keep the extra pawn.

At move 4 there is an important crossroads -4 . . . ltJc6 or 4 . . . i.c5 (4 . . . i.b4t is hardly playable for Black, though there are some important moments to look out for) .

After 4 . . . ltJc6 White has to be familiar with the rarely-played 6 .. .f6, which does not have a clear refutation according to theory. I believe White has a clear edge in this line and the reader should remember White's key idea - the c4-c5 temporary pawn sacrifice gives plenty of scope for seizing the initiative. In the main line White often gains an advantage by forcing Black to give up his dark-squared bishop. The most important line appears after 9 . . . a5, which seems Black's best bet, yet after the smooth 1 1 .ltJb l White gets exactly the kind of pleasant space-advantage position we are looking for.

4 . . . i.c5 has been the most popular reply in recent years. In the main line I recommend the positional 1 0.b3, which promises White easy play with every chance of an advantage. The key moment is 1 1 .ltJa4! , which avoids Black's typical transfer of his queen's rook to the kingside, and allows White to reach his optimal set-up.

As things stand, White enjoys a plus in both lines, but there may still be room for improvements.

Benoni Systems

Catalan Benoni

Variation Index l .d4 lDf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 cS

4.dS exdS S.cxdS hS A) 6.e4!? lDxe4 7.rtfJe2 rtfJe7 8.i.g2

AI) 8 ... lDd6 A2) 8 ... £5!

B) 6.lDf3!?

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B l) 6 ... i.h7 B2) 6 ... d6 7.e4

B2l ) 7 ... a6 B22) 7 ... h4N

B) first note

a b c d e f g h

1 4.�xb2!N

B21 ) after 8 . . . b4?!

9.liJbd2!N

a b c d e f g h

B21 ) note to 9.liJbd2!N

13 . 0-0!N

93 94 94 95 96 97 98

100

Chapter 7 - Catalan Benoni 93

l.d4 tLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 b5

This has always been a very serious weapon against the Catalan opening. As this line is considered by some as a real headache for White, many Catalan players have tried to avoid it with the help of 4.4Jf3, but then after 4 . . . cxd4 5.4Jxd4 the game transposes to the English opening where Black has many options. Basically there is a healthy idea behind this system. Black's intention is to get a Benoni-type position with his pawn already on b5 (normally in the Benoni it takes Black a lot of time to achieve this advance) . Black will gain plenty of space on the queenside, which could ptomise him good play. But towards the end of 2007 the situation changed dramatically, as top players came up with two strong ideas for White.

a b c d e f g h In this position I have decided to recommend

6.lLlf3, which is often followed by e2-e4 and sharp play. However, it would be unnatural to avoid mentioning another very sharp option that exists in this position. So, for this reason we shall look at it first.

A) 6.e4!?

This was first played in an odd game in the 1960s, and then later investigated by 50sonko

in the late 70s, though he chucked it after a few attempts. The true revolution was 30 years later when Vladimir Kramnik used it in 2007 to secure first place in the Tal Memorial in Moscow.

Here we shall just quickly go through the ideas that are already known, as understanding these will be very useful when we go on to look at our move, 6.4Jf3 . In addition, there may be some who wish to follow Kramnik's rather than my proposal, however unlikely this might sound.

6 .. . tLlxe4 The only acceptable move seems to be to

accept the invitation. If Black does not do so, White will have been able to inconvenience him to too great an extent with the pawn push. 6 . . . ib7?! 7.ig2 d6 8.a4 b4 9.4Jd2± Manor - Greenfeld, Rishon LeZion 1 996, and 6 .. Y.fje7 7.ig2 d6 8 .4Je2 g6 9.0-0 ig7 1 0.e5! '?!fxe5 1 1 .4Jec3 0-0 1 2.4Jxb5± De Carbonnel - Wiersma, corr. 1 978, are good examples of this.

? We2 We? 8.�g2

a b c d e f g h Here it makes sense to look at two lines, AI)

8 . . . ltJd6, as played against Kramnik, and the more combative A2) 8 . . . 5.

94 Benoni Systems

AI) S ... tiJd6

This is rather passive; r am not surprised that White seems to gain an edge in this line.

9.i.e3 b4 Later an odd placement of the knight,

combined with the same advance of the b-pawn, was tried:

9 . . . tDa6 1 0.tDc3 b4 1 0 . . .l!b8 has been tried recently, but 1 1 .0-0-0!? appears to secure White an advantage. Remember, we are playing a gambit here! And this means we are aiming for quick development. For example: 1 1 . . .b4 1 2.tDa4 tDf5 1 3.d6 tDxd6 14.if4;!;

1 1 .tDa4 g6 1 1 . . .c4 is very similar to lines investigated by Sosonko in New in Chess Yearbook 86. After 1 2.tDh3 g6 l 3.0-0 ig7 ( l 3 . . . ih6? 14 .ixh6! Wixe2 1 5 .!'!fel Wixe l t 1 6.!'!xe l t It>d8 1 7.ig5t It>c7 1 8.if4+- followed by tDg5, !'!cl and other unpleasant moves) 1 4.!'!fe l 0-0 I am not sure what the evaluation of this middlegame should be. The computer suggests: 1 5 .Wifl ! ? Wid8 1 6.if4 tDf5 1 7.d6 !'!b8 1 8.g4 Wia5 1 9.9xf5 Wixa4 20.Wixc4°o

12.tDxc5 1 2.0-0-0!;!; is more aggressive.

1 2 . . . tDxc5 1 3.ixc5 a5 The accurate equalizer was 1 3 . . . ia6!.

1 4.id4;!; White had an edge in Moiseenko - Carlsson,

Plovdiv 2008.

10 . .L:c5 Wfxe2t l 1 .tiJxe2 tDa6 12.i.xd6! An improvement over 1 2.id4 tDf5 l 3.0-0?!

ic5!oo as in Sosonko - Olafsson, Wijk aan Zee 1 977.

12 ... i.xd6 13.tiJd2 !'!bS 14.tDc4 i.e7 15.d6 i.f6 16.tiJf4 lLlc5 17.0-0;:; i.a6 Is.lLld5 0-0 19.tiJxf6t gxf6 20.i.d5 tiJa4 21 .!'!fcl !'!feS

22.tiJe3 !'!b6 23.!'!c7 !'!xd6 24.!'!dl c;t>h8 25.tDrs !'!b6 26 . .L::f7 lLlxb2 27.!'!dxd7 !'!e1t 2S.i>g2 i.f1 t 29.i>S i.e2t 30. i>f4 gb8 31 .i.c4 1-0

This was the inspirational game Kramnik -Alekseev, Moscow 2007.

The critical option is:

A2) S ... £5!

It is of course impossible for me to guess what Kramnik had in mind here, bur some commentators have given some suggestions that could be considered.

9.d6! This seems to be the path forward. Other

moves offer little.

9 ... Wfe6 9 . . . Wfxd6 would now fail to 1 0.f3 ltJc6

I l .fxe4 tDd4 1 2.e5!±.

1O.lLlc3 i.xd6 l 1 .g4!? Sosonko suggests that Kramnik could

have intended: I 1 .tDxb5 ia6 1 2.ixe4 ixb5 1 3.ixf5 Wixe2t (Safer was 1 3 . . . ixe2 1 4.ixe6 ib5 1 5 .id5 ic6 1 6.�xc6 tDxc6=, but the position in the game is maybe not as clear


as Sosonko suggests!?) 1 4.ctJxe2 0-0 1 5 .�e4 ic6 1 6.�xc6 ctJxc6 1 7.�e3 ctJe5 1 8.0-0-0 ttJc4 1 9.�f4 �xf4t 20.ctJxf4 g5 2 1 .ctJh3 E!:ad8 22.E!:d5± Van Wessel - Timman, Netherlands (rapid) 2008.

1 1...g6 12.gxf5 Or 1 2.ctJh3 Wic4 1 3 .Wixc4 bxc4 14 .ctJxe4

fxe4 1 5 .�xe4 ctJc6 1 6.�g5 �e5 1 7.0-0-0�.

12 ... gxf5 13.tt.'lh3iii Timman does not fancy Black's posmon

here. I am sure we have not heard the last of this line, though my impression is that 6.ctJf3!? is at least as attractive as 6.e4.

My Recommendation

B) 6.tt.'lf3!?

8 ��.i.S*_ �� 7 ;:"""_" /.m" �-" 6 '�

��

�. '� ��r%��/""";� � 5 � i r� b • • 4

�� ''' , ,%� �� 'm 3 �� ,� �� ,g;",,��,� 2 b � • b r[!j r[!j t.�D;=�.:

a b c d e f g h Usually White has reacted with 6.�g2, but

Gelfand came up with a different concept. He believes that the l ight-squared bishop might work out well on the f1 -a6 diagonal, targeting the b5-pawn. This is the line we shall concentrate on.

Now Black has two main possibilities, Bl) 6 . . . �b7 and B2) 6 . . . d6. The latter i s probably the critical variation, though it is hard to determine, as very few games have been played

in this position at the time of writing, but who knows, maybe this book will change that?

Before studying the two main lines, we should note the problem with the following minor line: 6 ... g6?! 7.e4 ctJxe4

Now White should continued with: 8 .�d3!

The text move is more accurate than 8 .�xb5 �g7 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.E!:e1 ctJf6 1 l .ctJc3 d6°o with double-edged play, Ponfilenok -Shaposhnikov, Kazan 2008.

8 . . .f5 Much worse is: 8 . . . ctJf6? 9 .0-0 �g7 (or 9 . . . �e7 1 0.�xb5, threatening 1 1 .d6, 1 0 ... Wib6 1 1 .E!:el ! 0-0 1 2.E!:xe7 Wixb5 1 3 .ctJc3 Wib6 1 4.�h6 and Black's position is hopeless) 1 0.E!:e 1 t �f8 1 1 .�xb5 With Black's king still uncasded, Whi te's advantage is indispurable.

9.0-0 �g7 1 O.ctJbd2 0-0 1 0 . . . ctJxd2 1 1 .�xd2 0-0 1 2.�xb5 This would be a normal Benoni position, if Black's pawn was still standing on £7. 1 2 . . . Wib6 ( 1 2 . . . �a6 1 3.�xa6 ctJxa6 1 4.d6 gives a clear positional advantage for White) 1 3.a4 �a6 I 4.Wib3 d6 I 5 .Wie3! Black's weaknesses start to tell.

1 1 .ctJxe4 fxe4 1 2.�xe4 d6 1 3.ctJg5! A typical Benoni idea; White's knight is coming to e6.

I 3 . . . �xb2

a b c d e f g h

96 Benoni Systems

This position was reached in Gleizerov -Grover, Dubai 2008, and here White should have continued:

1 4.i.xb2!N Unclear is 1 4.l::&b l i.xcl 1 5 .tLle6 Wie7 1 6.Wixcl tLlc6!.

1 4" .Wixg5 1 5 .f4 Wih6 1 5" .Wie7 loses to 1 6.Wic2! with the two powerful ideas ofWic3 and i.xg6.

1 6.Wie2 White has powerful compensation for the

pawn.

Bl) 6 ... i.b7

a b c d e f g h 7.e4

White's second option is: 7.i.g5 !? Wia5t

If 7" .h6 8.i.xf6 Wixf6 9.e4 Wixb2 10 .tLlbd2 a6 1 1 .a4 b4 1 2.i.c4 and White's position looks very attractive. And now I believe White should continue:

8 .tLlbd2 Worse is 8.i.d2?! as played in Waqar -Deshmukh, India 1 999. 8" .b4 9.e4 And now Black could have taken White's central pawn with 9".tLlxe4!, as 1 0.i.f4 is hit by the computer-like refutation: 1 0" .i.d6! 1 1 .Wie2 i.xd5 1 2.i.xd6 �d8!! And Black is threatening both " .�e8 and " .b3t.

8" .tLlxd5

Obviously White has great compensation after 8" .i.xd5?! 9.i.xf6 (or 9.i.g2 i.e7 1 0.0-0 followed by e2-e4) 9" .gxf6 1 0.i.g2.

9.e4

7 ... ctJxe4 8.i.g2!? This interesting pawn sacrifice is my main

recommendation, so we will examine it deeply. Basically White's play is very simple: his d5-pawn gives him good positional compensation, restricting Black's minor pieces on the queens ide, while the open e-file allows White to generate active play and good attacking chances.

Mihail Marin's suggestion of 8 .i.xb5 also looks very interesting. 8" .Wia5t


9.lMd2! This is the point. ( Instead 9.ctJbd2 tiJxg3! is fine for Black.) Now Black's best line is: 9" .�xd5 1 0.0-0 Wxb5 I l .ctJxe4 Wc6 1 2.tiJbc3 �e6 And this is the critical position, as rightly pointed out by Marin. There is no doubt that White has a lot of play for the pawn, nevertheless Black's position is pretty solid.

8 ... �e7 S . . . �d6 does not look good. 9.0-0 0-0

1 0 .tiJh4! EleS (after 1 O . . . ctJf6 I l .ctJf5 Wb6 12 .a4! White seizes the initiative) I I .Ele1 ctJf6 12 .ElxeSt ctJxeS 13 .ctJc3 White has obvious compensation, as Black's minor pieces are out of play on the queenside. The following line shows one possible continuation: 13 ... b4 14.ctJe4 g6 1 5 .�g5 Wc7 1 6.ctJxd6 'tWxd6 17.We2 ctJa6 l S.�e7 Wc7 1 9.Ele1 White's initiative continues.

9.0-0 0-0 9 ... d6 1 O.Ele1 f5 1 1 .ctJc3 ctJxc3 1 2.bxc3 0-0

would just transpose to 9".0-0.

lO.Elel f5 Another possible line runs: 1 0" .ctJd6

1 1 .�f4 ctJa6 1 2.ctJc3 b4 1 3.ctJa4 (unclear is 13.�xd6 �xd6 14.ctJe4 Wc7) 1 3 . . . EleS 1 4.b3 ifS 1 5 .Wd3� There is nothing concrete, but White's positional compensation cannot be denied.

a b c d e f g h

1 l .ctJc3! Obviously White has to get rid of Black's

centralized knight in order to gain space for his pieces.

l 1 . .. ttJxc3 This is Black's best option. Other moves are

hardly advisable:

1 l . . .ctJa6 1 2.ctJxb5 Wb6 1 3.ctJc3 is better for White.

1 1 . . .d6 1 2.ctJxe4 fxe4 1 3.ctJd2! ctJd7 1 4.ctJxe4 c4 1 5 .�f4 ctJb6 1 6.Wg4 and White develops a dangerous initiative.

12.bxc3 d6 This is much better than: 12" .�f6?! 1 3.Elb l

�xc3 1 4.Ele3 �f6 (after 1 4".Wa5 1 5 .We2 �a6 1 6.EleS Wb6 17.ElxfSt �xfS l S.ctJg5! White has a crushing attack) 1 5.Elxb5 WcS 1 6.d6± The threat is 1 7.Elxb7; White is clearly better.

13.if4 ttJa6 Or 1 3".ctJd7 14 .We2 Elf7 1 5 .Wxb5 ctJb6

1 6.c4 �f6 1 7.Elaba with a pleasant edge.

l4.We2 if6 l 5.Wxb5 Elb8 l6.Wd3 White's chances are better i n view of Black's

weaknesses such as the d6-pawn and e6-square.

B2) 6 ... d6 7.e4

This is White's idea, which is not so different from what Kramnik played against Alekseev, but perhaps it is a better version.

Here Black has two different ways of looking after the b-pawn, both worthy of independent investigation, B2l) 7 ... a6 and B22) 7 ... b4.

I should mention that 7".ctJxe4? is simply bad:

98 Benoni Systems

8.�xbSt �d7 8 . . . lLld7 9.We2 We7 1 0.0-0 looks horrible for Black.

9.�xd7t lLlxd7 And now:

1 0.We2 This is much stronger than 1 0.0-0 �e7 l 1 .�e 1 lLlef6 1 2.We2 lLlxdS 1 3.lLlc3, as recommended by Golubev, when Black can still fight after 1 3 . . . lLlxc3 1 4.bxc3 lLlf8! .

1 0 . . . We7 Other options are even worse: 1 0 . . . lLldf6 l 1 .lLlh4! and Black cannot avoid losing material; and after 1 0 .. .fS l 1 .lLlh4 Black is losing at least a pawn.

1 1 .0-0 lLlef6 1 2.Wa6! lLlb8 Black is losing after 1 2 ... Wd8 1 3 .�e1 t �e7 14 .Wxd6.

1 3 .Wd3 Wb7 14 .�gS �e7 l S .�xf6 �xf6 1 6.�e 1 t �e7 1 7.We4

White's advantage is indisputable.

B21) 7 ... a6 8.a4!

This is White's main strategic idea. Before proceeding with normal development, White wants to gain some positional trumps on the queenside, in particular the c4-square for his knight. Instead Black is fine after 8.�d3 �g4 9.lLlbd2 lLlbd7 1 O.h3 lLleS l 1 .�c2 lLlxf3t 1 2.lLlxf3 �xf3 1 3.Wxf3 g6 1 4.a4 �g7 l S.0-0 0-0= as in Lysyj - Bocharov, Russia 2008.

a b c d e f g h 8 . . . b4?!

There is no point in 8 . . . We7? as after 9.�d3 Black still cannot take on e4 (also interesting 9.�e2!?) . 9 . . . lLlxe4? (somewhat better would be 9 . . . lLlxdS 1 O.axbS lLlb4 1 1 .0-0, but in this case White has a big lead in development with equal material) 1 0.0-0 fS l 1 .lLlc3 White will crash straight through.

Probably better was: 8 . . . lLlxe4 9.axbS �e7

This was suggested by Marin in his comments to the Gelfand - Aronian game that is mentioned below. But things are not so simple for Black, as White has a very dangerous idea at his disposal:

1 0.bxa6 0-0 The a6-pawn was untouchable in view of l 1 .Wa4t followed by 1 2.Wxe4.

1 1 .a7! This is the point; now Black needs to waste a few tempos to regain the pawn, while White gains other trumps.

1 1 . . .lLld7 Bad is 1 1 . . .lLla6 1 2.�xa6 �xa7 1 3 .Wd3 and White wins material.

1 2.�d3 fS Clearly inferior is 1 2 . . . lLlef6 1 3.0-0 �b6 (Black can try to win the dS-pawn with 1 3 . . . �b7 1 4.lLlc3 lLlb6, but White manages to seize the initiative: l s .lLlh4! lLlbxd5


16.LDf5 Black's position is very dangerous, for example: 1 6 . . . g6 1 7.LDxe7t 'lWxe7 I S.�h6 l"lfeS 1 9 .�b5 and the a7-pawn should decide the game. Also dubious is 1 3 . . . 'lWc7?! 14.LDc3 and Black cannot take on a7 in view of 1 5 .LDb5.) 14 .l"lel l"leS 1 5 .'lWa4 'lWb7 (preparing . . . LDb6) 1 6.�g5 LDb6 17 .'lWh4! The following line is a good example of how the play might continue. Black is fighting to capture the a7 -pawn, while White develops his own play. 1 7 . . . LDbxd5 Is .LDc3 h6 1 9.LDxd5 LDxd5 20.�xe7 LDxe7 2 1 .'lWe4 f5 22.'lWxb7 �xb7 23.LDd2 And White wins.

13.0-0 'lWc7 Certainly not 1 3 . . . 'lWb6 14 .'lWa4 and the a7-pawn is staying alive.

14.liJc3 White switches to positional play. Instead the game would look rather unclear after 1 4.'lWa4 �b7 1 5 .LDc3 LDb6 1 6.'lWa5 l"lxa7! 17.Wxa7 l"laS with mutual chances.

14 .. . LDxc3 1 5 .bxc3 l"lxa7 Black has succeeded in regaining the pawn, but White still has positional pressure, thanks to his extra space and the black weaknesses that were created by the . . . f7 -f5 advance. Risky is 1 5 . . . c4 1 6.�c2 l"lxa7 1 7.l"lxa7 'lWxa7 18 .We2 LDc5 1 9.�e3 and Black will lose the c4-pawn.

16.l"lxa7 Wxa7 1 7.l"lel LDb6 After 1 7 . . . LDf6 1 8.'lWc2! LDe4 1 9.�f4 sooner or later White will win a pawn, by capturing on e4.

18.c4 h6 1 9 .'lWc2 White has good positional pressure.

Now I believe that Boris Gelfand could have played a stronger move.

9.liJbd2!N This move seems to force Black to develop

his dark-squared bishop to e7, which is always inconvenient in the Benoni.

9.�d3 g6 9 . . . �g4 1 0.LDbd2 LDbd7 I l .LDc4 �e7 1 2.a5± with a pleasant edge for White.

1 0.LDbd2 �g7 I l .LDc4 0-0 1 2.�f4 LDe8 So far we have been following Gelfand -Aronian, Mexico World Championship 2007, and after the premature 1 3.a5?! Aronian obtained reasonable play with the nice 1 3 . . . �h3 1 4.LDg5 �d7, and Black's lightsquared bishop found a good square on b5. Instead Gelfand should have played:

8 � �.t�Ijj��. � ."""� ''',.%� ""'Y.?JiP'� � 7 ��p��i 6 ,. W� ., � 5 �.�%��

��.r�",,%� �?Jil'� �� 4 8 W�ltJ. 8� B -""%� �� ,:",%�,�� 3 ��'%�� 1��,� 2 W� � W� W� �m""%� 1="'%.:

a b c d e f g h 1 3 .0-0!N �g4

The point is that Black has no time for 1 3 . . . a5, as it runs into 1 4.e5! dxe5 I 5 .LD6ce5 opening up the play in White's favour.

I4 .mg2 a5 I 4 . . . LDd7 allows I 5.a5! with a clear positional advantage: 1 5 . . . We7 1 6.h3 �xf3t 1 7.'lWxf3 LDe5 I 8.�xe5 �xe5 1 9.'lWe2 White's idea is to expand his control of the centre with the pawn pushes f2-f4 and e4-e5.

I 5 .h3 �xf3t I 6.'lWxf3 LDd7 1 7,l"lael LDb6 1 8 .l"le2 LDxc4 1 9.�xc4 LDc7 20.h4

White has a stable edge.

9 ... ttJbd7 The point behind my new idea is that

9 . . . g6 does not work after:

1 0.LDc4! LDxe4 1 0 . . . LDbd7 1 1 .�g2!? LDb6 1 2.LDxb6 'lWxb6 1 3.e5 dxe5 I 4.LDxe5 with a clear advantage.

1 00 Benoni Systems

Also pretty miserable is 1 0 . . . i.g7 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 1 2.i.f4 and Black has to play 1 2 .. .lZ'leS, when he has very little to be happy about.

1 1 .i.d3 f5 Mter 1 1 . . .tDf6 1 2.0-0 i.e7 1 3 .i.h6 tDg4 1 4.'@I'd2 it is hard to believe Black can hold this with his king stuck in the centre.

1 2.0-0 i.g7 Mter 1 2 . . . i.e7 1 3 .i.h6 White has a strong initiative.

1 3.i.xe4 fxe4 1 4.i.g5 '@I'd7 1 5 .tDfd2 And Black's position collapses.

9 . . . a5 1 0.i.b5t is also a disaster for Black.

10.aS! 1 0.i.d3 would allow 1 0 . . . a5, which might

slightly ease Black's task, as he will have the important resources of . . . tDb6 and . . . i.a6, attacking the white piece that will inevitably land on c4.

10 ... i.e7 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 12.0-0 White has a dream version of the Benoni, as

his knight has a perfect ourpost on c4.

B22) 7 .. . h4N

This is Black's best option. I believe the inclusion of the moves a2-a4 and . . . a7-a6 should favour White, as he has the strong positional idea of

putting his pawn on a5, taking control of the b6-square. This would deny a potentially useful square to Black's knight, and it also makes the a6-pawn a l ikely target.

a b c d e f g h 8.i.h5t

This is a typical idea in Benoni-type positions.

S .tDbd2 is a worthy alternative, but perhaps not as strong as it would be with the inclusion of a2-a4 and . . . a7 -a6, as Black's knight can

go to b6 and White cannot prevent this with a4-a5. S . . . tDbd7 9.i.d3 (9.tDc4 is well met by 9 . . . tDb6) 9 . . . i.e7 (Black has no time to develop his bishop on g7: 9 . . . g6 1 0.tDc4 tDb6 1 1 .e5! dxe5 1 2.tDcxe5 i.g7 1 3.i.b5t i.d7 14.liJxd7 tDfxd7 1 5 .i.g5 i.f6 1 6.'@I'e2t �fS 17.�h6t i.g7 I S .i.e3 White is better as the black king is very badly placed on fS.) 1 0.0-0 0-0 l l .l'"%el tDb6 Black has a reasonable position, though I would prefer White after 12 .a3±.

8 ... i.d7 Black cannot play S . . . tDbd7? as after 9.0-0

White will decisively break through in the centre with e4-e5 .

9.i.d3 Of course White does not intend to exchange

light-squared bishops: 9.'@I'e2 i.xb5 l O.�xb5t

Chapter 7 - Catalan Benoni 10 1

CLlbd7 1 1 .ttJbd2 :1I.e7 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3 .a3 a5 Conclusion: Black would have comfortable play.

9 ... g6 Naturally Black's bishop will be more active

on g7 than it would be on e7.

10.ttJbd2 White would not achieve anything with

10.:1I.f4 ttJh5! 1 1 .:1I.g5 :1I.e7 1 2.:1I.h6 ( 1 2 . .te3 :1I.f6 is okay for Black) 1 2 . . . :1I.f8 1 3 .:1I.xf8 Wxf8 14.0-0 :1I.g4 and Black is fine after the exchange of dark-squared bishops.

10 ... ig7 1 1 .ttJc4 0-0 12.if4 If 1 2.ttJxd6?! :1I.g4 and Black obtains a good

position after either 1 3.:1I.f4 ttJh5 1 4.ttJc4 ttJxf4 1 5.gxf4 IWf6 or 1 3 .ttJc4 ttJxe4! 1 4.0-0 ttJd6.

12 ... ttJe8 13.0-0 ibS 13 ... :1I.g4 Ieads to a more complicated struggle.

14.E\e1 ttJd7 1 5 .h3 :11.xf3 1 6.IWxf3 ttJb6 1 7.E\e2 CLlxc4 1 8 .:1I.xc4t White has a pleasant edge, as Black lacks sufficient counterplay.

14.W'c2

believe White's chances are clearly preferable, as Black is really lacking his typical Benoni counterplay on the queenside, though the position remains very complicated.

This hybrid variation of the Catalan and the Benoni was once considered a serious problem for White. However, recent theoretical developments have improved White's prospects with various versions of an e2-e4 gambit. The reader even has a choice of following my repertoire or Kramnik's.

Benoni Systems a b c d e f g h

Snake Benoni

Variation Index l .d4 etJf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 ,id6

A) 7 . . . ,ie5 B) 7 .. . ,ic7 C) 7 .. J!e8

B) after 1 6 . . . 1"lb8

a b c d e f g h

1 7."Wd3!N

6JLJc3 0-0 7.,ig2

C) note to 1 0 . . . 1i.xc3

a b c d e f g h

1 7.CLld2!N

C) after, 1 2 . . . CLlc6

a b c d e f g h

1 3 ."Wb3!N

103 104 105

Chapter S - Snake Benoni 1 03

l.d4 tDf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 cS 4.dS exdS S.cxdS id6

This is the Snake Benoni system, so called because the intended path of the bishop from f8-d6-c7-a5 resembles the slithering motion of the elongated reptile. Black's main plan involves using the "Snake Bishop" to assist the majority attack with his queenside pawns. If he is given time to play . . . d6 after putting the bishop on c7, this plan has been shown to work surprisingly well in practice. Thus one of the key points of our strategy will be to play d5-d6 immediately after . . . !ibc7, which will severely hamper the development of Black's queenside.

6.tDc3 0-0 7.�g2

This is the main branching position of the whole line. Black's main choices areA) 7 ... �eS, B) 7 ... �c7 and C) 7 .. J�e8.

This move has been tried twice by Vugar Gashimov, but I am rather sceptical about Black's chances after giving up his dark-squared bishop.

s.lbf3 hc3t 9.bxc3 d6 10.0-0 tDbd7 If:

1 0 . . ':;:'leS White's play in the following encounter looks quite convincing:

1 1 .lLld2 b6 12 .e4 lLlbd7 1 3.f4 The natural 1 3.c4!? also comes into consideration.

1 3 . . . !iba6 14 .c4! This move is much stronger than 1 4.:8el id3 1 5 .c4 b5 and Black has deceht counterplay.

1 4 . . . b5 1 5 .!ibb2! The point behind the previous move. White sacrifices the c4-pawn in order to activate his dark-squared bishop.

1 5 ... bxc4 1 6.ic3 :8bS 1 7.g4 White has every chance of executing a

successful attack, while Black has no real play on the queenside, Miljkovic - Marholev, Nis Mediana 2008.

l 1 .a4 Also 1 1 .lLld2 looks quite strong, for example

1 l . . .b5 12 .a4 bxa4 1 3 .�xa4 lLlb6 14 .�a5 with a serious positional advantage, Glavina Rossi -Gashimov, Spain 2006.

I would like to point out that the naturallooking J 1 .c4 gives Black an opportunity to obtain counterplay in the style of the Benko Gambit: 1 1 . . .b5 ! ? 1 2 .cxb5 a6 1 3 .bxa6 ixa6 14.:8el :8e8�

1 l .. J!e8 1 1 . . .lLl b6 can be met comfortably by

1 2.lLlh4.

12.tDd2 :Ei:b8 Other options do not improve Black's

prospects, for example 1 2 . . . b6 1 3.c4 �e7 14.e4t, or 1 2 . . . lLle5 1 3.c4 fol lowed by ib2. I n both cases White's advantage is indisputable.

13.e4 a6

1 04 Benoni Systems

IS.axb6 ctJxb6 16.c4 as 17.'lWc2 a4 18.�b2 This was Gajewski - Janev, Lyon 2006.

White's advantage is obvious, as his darksquared bishop is tremendously powerful. Furthermore his extra central pawn on e4 is considerably more influential than the enemy wingman on a4.

B) 7 . . . �c7

This should be met by a standard reaction.

8.d6 �aS

a b c d e f g h

9.ctJh3! This leads to a clearly improved version for

White of the position from our main line, as

the knight is better placed on h3 than on B. One reason is that it does not block the lightsquared bishop, while just as importantly, it is now much easier to push the central pawns.

9 ... ltJc6 10.0-0 I regard this position to be bordering on

unplayable for Black. We will look at two recent examples, which clearly vindicate this evaluation.

10 .. J'l:e8 Mter 1 0 . . . b6 1 1 .e4 Black has very little

chance to oppose White's offensive in the centre. 1 1 . . .�a6 1 2.!"lel !"leS 1 3.f4 g6 (Somewhat stronger was 1 3 . . . h6, although White is clearly better after: 1 4.e5 �xc3 1 5 .bxc3 liJh7 1 6.�d5±) 1 4.e5 �xc3 1 5 .bxc3 tLlh5 16 .�d5 tLlg7 1 7.tLlg5 !"lfS l S .tLle4! and White easily obtained a decisive attack in Khismatullin -Stupak, Minsk 200S.

1 1 .ltJdS!

This seems very strong, as it leaves Black's dark-squared bishop somewhat misplaced on a5 and exchanges a very important defender of his kingside.

Chapter 8 - Snake Benoni 105

1 1 .. . ctJxd5? An unfortunate decision that only helps

White to increase his pressure. Relatively best was 1 1 . . .h6, but after 1 2.liJhf4 White is much better.

12.,txd5 h6 Defending against the threat of liJg5.

13.ctJf4 \WfG 1 4.,te3 ctJd4 1 5.a3! ,tb6 16J�c1 l'!b8

This position occurred in Avrukh -Khismatullin, Dresden 2007. Here I could have simply played:

17.1!Nd3!N It is difficult to find a reasonable move for

Black. He cannot play 1 7 . . . 1!Nxd6 in vIew of 1 S .b4!+- and Black unavoidably loses material.

C) 7 .. J�e8 8.ttJf3 ,te7

Black has also tried S . . . ,tfS

This looks pretty senseless to me, as I do not see any point in playing with a passive bishop on f8 instead of g7. I like the following example for White:

9.0-0

9.d6 runs into 9 . . . 1!Nb6! and Black is absolutely fine.

9 . . . d6 1 0.l'!e1 liJa6 l 1 .h3 liJc7 1 2.a4 b6 1 3.e4 ,tb7 1 4.1!Nb3 l'!b8 1 5 .,tf4 liJh5 1 6.,tg5 f6 1 7.iLe3

With a clear advantage, Cvitan - Schwab, Oberwart 1 994.

a b c d e f g h 9.d6!

This is a key move in White's strategy. It is very important not to allow Black to consolidate his position with . . . d6.

9.0-0 d6 has been played in many games, with Black achieving excellent results. If it were not for the d5-d6 idea, I would not hesitate to play this variation with Black.

9 ... ,ta5 10.ctJd2! Another key move. It is very important for

White to maintain control over the e4-square. In case of the natural 1 0.0-0 Black obtains reasonable play by means of 1 0 . . . iLxc3 1 1 . bxc3 liJe4! 1 2.1!Nd3 1!Nf6 1 3 .iLf4 liJc6 1 4.l'!ac1 b6. I was unable to find anything special for White in this position.

1O ... ,txc3 I examined three alternatives.

1 0 . . . 1!Nb6 1 1 .liJc4 iLxc3t 1 2.bxc3 1!Na6

106 Benoni Systems

This looks like an interesting way to activate the queen. At the same time, she is now a long way from the kings ide, which gives White the opportunity to play for an attack.

13 .'lWd3 ltJc6 1 4.�g5 �e6 The critical line runs 1 4 . . . b5 1 5 .ltJe3 ltJe5 (White is much better after 1 5 ... �e6 1 6.�xf6 �xf6 1 7.0-0 �b7 1 8.�fb 1 !± as was correctly pointed out by Ehlvest in Chess Informant 78) 1 6.'lWf5 �b7 1 7.�xf6 �xg2 and now White gets a winning position by 1 8 .�xe5 �xh 1 1 9.'lWg5! �xe5 20.'lWxe5+- as Black is helpless against the dual threats of 2 1 .ltJf5 and 2 1 . f3.

1 5 .�h3 Also 1 5 .�xf6!? �xf6 1 6.0-0 leads to White's clear advantage.

1 5 . . . b5 1 6.�xe6 fxe6

8 .i • .t/� � •• . ,�� f? 7 � �i. ��i 6 �� l�· " '%� �'�&¥""%� �." . . '{f� 5 � . �_ � � 4 r//.� lt5� //.� '

.... �. ��r��'� 3 � ��if. ��

2 � .. ... %. �d .... %wtf . . . . � �� (§'if" "%."·' ,� � m .: a b c d e f g h

Now in the game Gaprindashvili - Miezis, Hamburg 1 999, White should have played:

1 7.ltJd2!N Black is left without any compensation for

the exchange.

1 0 . . . ltJc6 1 1 .0-0 �xc3 1 2.bxc3 b6 1 3 .�el A final preparatory move before pushing the central pawns.

1 3 . . . �a6 Relatively best would be 1 3 . . . �b7 1 4.e4 ltJe5 1 5 .f4 ltJd3 1 6.�e3 ltJxc1 1 7.�xc 1 , though even here White enjoys a clear advantage.

1 4.f4! ?

Also strong was the natural: 1 4.e4 ltJe5 15J4 ltJd3 1 6.�e3±

14 . . . �e3 Black tries to create some counterplay, but White has a strong idea at his disposal. 1 4 . . . 'lWb8 was not much better: 1 5 .e4 \Wxd6 1 6.e5 'lWe6 1 7.ltJf3! and Black loses material in view of the threatened ltJg5.

1 5 .ltJfl ! �xc3 1 6.�b2 �c4 1 7.ltJd2 E1b4 1 8.�c3 �c8 1 9.�xb4 ltJxb4 20.a3 ltJc6 2 1 .e4

White's advantage was already close to decisive, Ehlvest - Miezis, Geneva 1 999.

1 0 . . . �e6

8 .i • .t� �.� 7 �i.i.i.r 6 "' ''%B ��r.''''%� 5 ��_ .. .. %.� .. .. ". 4 '�"'''�'! .. ,,%�

��

� • , ��:,,�/.;�� ,��

3 � ;0: . 1� ��'�"''' ;% ''//. ��'�'."%�'� 2 A tf{� ?� A �j'{� (}, tf{< o iO% .. �: 0 iO% � iO 1 ,�''''%�iV�''' '%.�

a b c d e f g h And now I like a new idea:

1 1 .ltJb3!?N Attacking the c5-pawn. Black obtained a reasonable game after l 1 .ltJc4 �xc3t 12 .bxc3 ltJc6 1 3.0-0 b6 in T unik - Matros, Chelyabinsk 1 99 1 .

1 l . . .�b6 Another option is: 1 1 . . .�xc3t 1 2.bxc3 W1b6 1 3.�f4 ltJe4 1 4.'lWc2 ltJxd6 1 5 .0-0± Despite the extra pawn Black's position looks pretty grim, as it is hard to believe he will be able to

develop his queens ide conveniently. 1 2.0-0 ltJc6

1 2 . . . c4 1 3.ltJd2 �xd6 1 4,'lWc2± followed by ltJc4 gives White a clear edge.

1 3.�f4± White's advantage is obvious, as Black has

serious problems developing his queenside.

Chapter 8 - Snake Benoni 107

l 1 .bxc3 WaS This idea has been employed three times by

Miezis, who is probably the world's foremost "Snake" expert. Attempting to play actively seems like the best chance for Black to obtain a reasonable game.

12.0-0 ttJc6 It is too risky to grab the c-pawn.

12 . . . �xc3 This not only costs time, but also clears the long diagonal for White's dark-squared bishop. Here is an illustrative example:

13.gb l �d4 1 4.�b2 �xd6 1 5 .�xf6! �xf6 1 5 . . . gxf6 1 6.tUe4�xdl 1 7.gfxd1 ± andWhite will regain the material with dividends.

16.tUe4 gxe4 Otherwise the knight comes to d6.

17.�xe4 tUc6 1 8.�d3 tUb4? If 18 ... g6 1 9.9fd 1 Black will still experience serious problems developing his queenside, but this was relatively the best option.

19.�e3! d6 20.a3 tUa2 2 1 .�xb7 �xb7 22.gxb7±

White's material advantage decided Ibragimov - Miezis, Cappelle la Grande 1 998.

given up two pawns the situation is rather double-edged, Gattea - Miezis, Bled 2002.

1 3 .. J:he2 Another line is 1 3 . . . �a6 1 4.e4 b5 1 5 .f4 tUg4

1 6.tUf3 c4 1 7.Wc2 Wb6t 1 8.�h 1 ± and White is much better positionally.

14.ttJc4 Wa6 l S.J.gS!

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h White has a powerful initiative being only a

single pawn down. Although there is nothing forced, I would not be surprised if his position is close to winning already.

Conclusion:

Although the idea of manoeuvring the bishop from f8 to a5 may appear artificial, it can prove highly effective against a stereotyped reaction from White. However, with the help of the move d5-d6 White can seriously obstruct the development of his opponent's queens ide. White must be sure to follow this idea with resolute play, and should not be afraid to sacrifice material if the position demands it. I believe that the contents of the present chapter represent quite a serious challenge to the future of the Snake Benoni, and it remains to be seen whether Black will find a way to solve his opening problems.

Benoni Systems a b c d e f g b

Benoni without . . . �f6

Variation Index l .d4 e6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 exd5 4.cxd5 d6

5.ttJc3 g6 6.ttJf3 �g7 7.g3 ttJe7 8.�g2 0-0 9.0-0 a6 10.a4 A) 10 ... h6 1 10 B) 10 ... ttJrs 1 1 1 C) 1 0 ... ttJd7 1 1 1

A) note to 1 3 . . . �d7

a b c d e f g h

16.ltlxe5!N

A) after 13 ... �d7 C) after 1 5 . . . �b7

a b c d e f g h

J 6.Wcl !N

Chapter 9 - Benoni without . . . lLlf6 1 09

l.d4 e6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 exd5 4.cxd5 d6 Another common move order to reach this

position is 1 .d4 c5 2.d5 e6 3.c4 exd5 4.cxd5 d6, although in this case White also has the chance to play 3.lLlc3, as covered in Chapter 12. Heading for the Benoni via either of these move orders gives Black additional options when developing his king's knight.

Instead 4 . . . b5? ! would be positionally suspect: 5.e4 a6 6.a4! This thematic move forces Black to give up control of the c4-square. 6 . . . b4 7.lLlf3 d6 Now I propose the following arrangement: 8.t2lbd2N lLlf6 9.id3 ie7 1 0.lLlc4 White has a clear edge, thanks to his strong knight on c4.

5.lDc3 g6 6.ttJf3 i.g7 7.g3 Usually after 7 . . . ttJf6 the game transposes to

a normal Benoni, but the black knight has two other possibilities:

7 ... lDe7 Another option is to develop this knight to

h6 after: 7 . . . a6 8 . a4 ttJh6

8 . . . ttJe7 9.ig2 0-0 1 0.0-0 would transpose to our main line.

9.ig2 0-0 1 0.0-0 ttJd7 Once again 1 0 . . . lLlf5 leads to a position we will examine in the 7 . . . ttJe7-line.

1 1 .if4N

The diagram position has been reached only twice and White's play was unconvincing in both cases. The text seems the most natural and is good enough for an advantage. I examined the following lines:

1 l . . .W!e7 1 2.h3! This important quiet move prevents the h6-knight activating via the g4-square.

1 2 . . .f6 Instead 1 2 . . . ttJf5 does not really work in view of 1 3.g4 ttJd4 1 4.ttJd2! and Black is in trouble due to the threat of 1 5 .e3.

1 3 .�b 1 This is a thematic plan in Benoni-type positions; when Black's dark-squared bishop is blocked, White starts his play on the queenside.

1 3 . . . ttJf7 1 4.b4 f5 1 5 .W!c2;!; White's chances are preferable.

8.i.g2 0-0 9.0-0

a b c d e f g h 9 . . . a6

An important alternative is: 9 . . . ttJa6 1 0.if4

This looks like the best way of fighting for an opening advantage. Black is doing fine after 1 0.ttJd2 ttJc7 1 1 .t2lc4 ttJf5 .

1 0 . . . t2lc7 1 1 .e4 ig4 Black has to do something against the threat of e4-e5 . Clearly inferior would be 1 1 . . .b5? !

1 1 0 Benoni Systems

1 2.e5 lLlf5 1 3 .g4±. 1 2.a4N

It is essential to prevent the thematic . . . b 7-b5 advance. Instead Paciencia - Efimov, Dresden (01) 2008, continued 1 2.�e1 and now I do not understand why Black refrained from the natural 1 2 . . . b5 1 3.e5 lLlf5 with typical active Benoni play.

1 2 . . .f5 It is obvious that Black must somehow j ustifY the passivity of his knights. If 1 2 . . . �d7 then White should continue 1 3.�b3 with the idea of 1 3 . . . a6?! 1 4.lLld2 b5 1 5.f3! and Black has problems.

1 3.�b3 fxe4 1 4.lLlxe4 lLlf5 An exchange sacrifice is certainly not going to work: 1 4 . . . �xf4 1 5 .gxf4 lLlcxd5 1 6.lLlc3±.

1 5.�ae1 h6 1 5 . . . b6 is met strongly by 1 6.lLleg5 and the knight penetrates effectively to e6.

1 6.h3 �xf3 1 7.�xf3 The absence of Black's light-squared bishop

will make White's chances preferable, especially in a long fight.

lO.a4

A) lO ... h6

Now our favourite move �f4 would make no sense in view of a possible . . . g6-g5 , so we switch to another thematic idea.

1 l .lLld2 lLld7 1 2.llJc4 llJb6 13.llJa3 White plays in similar style to our main line

against the Modern Benoni.

13 ... i.d7 Black has also tried a risky advance:

1 3 . . . g5 1 4.a5 lLld7 1 5 .lLlc4 We have fol lowed a very natural sequence.

1 5 . . . lLle5 Now in the game Tondivar - Dambacher, Hoogeveen 2006, White missed a great chance to develop a dangerous initiative:

a b c d e f g h

1 6.lLlxe5!N �xe5 1 7.f4! �d4t Or 1 7 . . . gxf4 1 8 .�xf4! �xf4 1 9.�xf4 lLlg6 20.�f2 f5 2 1 .�c2, followed by �af1 and e2-e4. White's initiative is extremely dangerous, due to the exposed position of the black king.

1 8.e3 �g7 1 9.e4 Also worth considering is 1 9 . fxg5 hxg5 20.�h5 f6 2 1 .e4t.

1 9 . . . lLlg6 Another possibility is: 19 . . . gxf4 20.gxf4 lLlg6 (20 . . . �d4t 2 1 .cj;Jhl f5 22.e5! is dangerous for Black) 2 l .f5 ! lLle5 22.lLla4! White is clearly better, as he successfully combines

Chapter 9 - Benoni without . . . tLlf6 I I I

tactical ideas, such as tLlb6 and f5-f6, with the simple Ela3-g3 (or h3) manoeuvre.

20.fxg5 hxg5 2 1 .�h5 g4 22.!g5 Next White will play !f6.

Returning to the main line, I do not l ike the move 14 .a5, as played in Mocanu - Grebeniuk, Ukraine 2007, as it gifts a nice square on b5 to Black's bishop, so instead I propose:

14 ... rs After 1 4 . . . �c7 White simply continues

developing his pieces with 1 5 .!e3t.

IS.aS Now is a more suitable moment for this

thematic advance.

IS ... tLlbcB 16.ctJc4 ibS 17.�b3 �d7 Or 1 7 . . . !xc4 1 8 .�xc4 b5 1 9.axb6 ct:lxb6

20.'&e2 and White is obviously better.

18.eS! ixc4 1 9.�xc4 ixeS 2o.ixh6 White is clearly better, as he has good chances

of whipping up an attack against the seriously exposed black king.

B) 10 ... ctJrs

� ETi��!a! 6 '��.��9t� 5 .�.t.f.� 4 8�"""%� �� _ �% ,,//-�� ,� 3 � � _lZJif� ��'�""';� ��,�",,%�,� 2 % " "JIlr;p ��Il�JIl 1 �� _if�M�

a b c d e f g h

l 1 .if4N Vfffe7 Premature would be 1 1 . . .h6 as after 1 2.e4!

ct:ld4 1 3 .ct:lxd4 Black cannot recapture with his bishop, since his h6-pawn would be hanging, while after 1 3 . . . cxd4 14 .ct:le2 g5 1 5 .!cl Black's position looks extremely suspect.

12.h3 This is an important move in White's

strategy; now Black must watch out for the idea of g3-g4.

1 2 ... hS After 1 2 . . . ct:ld7 White's idea works perfectly:

1 3 .g4! tLld4 1 4.tLld2± And the idea of 1 5 .e3 is annoying.

1 3.e4 Since Black has weakened his kingside it is

an especially suitable time to start active play.

13 ... ctJd4 14.tt:lxd4 hd4 Is .Vfffd2 White is much better, as illustrated by the

following possible line:

IS ... tt:ld7 16.igS! if6 17.ixf6 tt:lxf6 IB.f4± White has fantastic play.

C) 10 ... tt:ld7 1 1 .if4

Another interesting option is 1 1 .e4 with the


idea of meeting 1 1 . . .lLle5 with 1 2.lLlxe5 ixe5 1 3.ih6 Ele8 1 4.f4 id4t 1 5 .@h l with excellent attacking prospects.

13.e4 ttJh5 14.i.d2 b6 Again 14 . . . f5 does not work in view of

1 5 .exf5 gxf5 1 6.lLlh4 lLlf6 1 7.Ele l ± with a difficult position for Black.

1 5J'�el i.b7 So far this is Akesson - M. Ivanov, Gausdal

2006. White's positional advantage is obvious, due to Black's badly placed minor pieces (the b7-bishop and h5-knight) . I am really fond of the following idea:

a b c d e f g h 16.1Wcl !N @h7 17.1Wc2!

White can slowly continue his mobilization, while it is hard for Black to gain anycounterplay. Of course he cannot strike with:

17 . . . f5? Since after:

18.exfS gxf5 19.94 ttJf6 20.ltJh4± Black loses material.

Conclusion:

The lines ofthe Benoni where Blackavoids .. . tLlf6 are potentially effective as surprise weapons, but if White follows my recommended lines an edge is all but guaranteed. The unpopularity of Black's lines in this chapter is no mystery when we note that his king's knight is often a

problem piece - and it had such an appealing square available on f6.

Benoni Systems a b c d e f g h

Reluctant Benoni

Variation Index l .d4 ttJf6 2.c4 cS 3.dS d6 4.ttJc3 g6 S.ttJf3 .tg7

A) 7 ... eS 8.0-0 AI) 8 ... ttJg4 A2) 8 ... ttJa6 A3) 8 ... ttJe8 A4) 8 ... ttJhS

B) 7 . . • ttJa6 8.0-0 ttJc7 9.a4 B1) 9 ... ttJa6 B2) 9 .. ':!::!:b8

B21) 10 ... b6 B22) 10 ... .tg4

A2) after 1 2 . . . a6

a b c d e f

13 .ttJd3!N

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

6.g3 0-0 7 . .tg2

B2 1 ) note to 1 l . . .�g4

a b c d e f g h

1 7.�e3!N

B2 1 ) after 14 . . . e6

1 15 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 120 121 121 1 24

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .�f4N

1 14 Benoni Systems

l .d4 lDf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 d6 4.lDc3 g6 We shall call this line "The Reluctant

Benoni" - Black seems to be on his way to a real Benoni, but his e-pawn is not totally convinced yet. Despite being a rare guest in high-level chess, the line seems rather reliable. The play will often transpose to the Modern Benoni, but there are also independent lines with their own theory. In general there will be positional play, with many nuances that I will try to cover in this chapter.

5.lDO i.g7 6.g3 Naturally I recommend a fianchetto system,

which fits well with our repertoire.

6 ... 0-0 7.i.g2

8 :i_1.� ��._ 7 �i"� '''' '/-fifiy-.r 6 N "� �. N "flfi� 5 �.Lr." R� 4

�� ti'm �� "'m ��:,,/,,�� .� 3 � �� _lZJif� 2 8n"""8 CH"£f9 ��t"" /-W��M" " %.�% 1

� �§'� m M a b c d e f g h

This is the initial position of the whole system. Black has three possible ways to develop his play, not taking into account 7 . . . e6, which after 8 .0-0 exd5 9.cxd5 would transpose to the Modern Benoni. The main lines are A) 7 ... e5 and B) 7 ... lDa6, but first we should deal with a minor line:

7 . . . a6 It is important to understand that we should usually react to . . . a7 -a6 with a2-a4, preventing a possible pawn sacrifice in Benko-style.

8 .a4 The problem with 8.0-0 b5 9.cxb5 axb5 1 0.ttJxb5 is that besides the natural l0 ... ia6, which would transpose to a normal Benko Gambit after l l .ttJc3, Black has additional interesting options such as 1 0 . . . ttJa6 and 1 0 . . . ttJbd7.

8 . . . e5 Once again 8 . . . e6 9.0-0 exd5 1 0.cxd5 just leads to the Modern Benoni.

9 .0-0 Now I examined:

9 . . . ttJe8 1 0.e4 b6 1 l .i.e3! It is important not to allow Black an immediate . . . £7 -f5 advance. For example, l l .ttJel f5 1 2 .ttJd3 ttJf6 leads to decent play for Black.

l l . . .ttJd7 A standard point is that 1 1 . . .f5 leads to an inferior position after 1 2.exf5 gxf5 13 .ctJg5!. While after 1 1 . . .h6 1 2.iWd2 1i?h7 1 3.ctJe1 f5 14.ttJd3 a5 (White was ready to attack on the queenside with 1 5 .a5 or 1 5 .b4) 1 5.f4 White has the advantage.

12 .iWd2 �b8 1 3.ttJel ttJc7 14 .ttJd3 f5 White is j ust in time to meet 1 4 . . . b5 with the thematic 1 5 .cxb5 axb5 1 6.b4!.

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .f3!

We are following a game by Korchnoi, and this instructive move shows his deep understanding. White could not play 1 5 .b4 because 1 5 .. .f4 works fine for Black. Despite

Chapter l O - Reluctant Benoni l I S

only pushing his f-pawn to f3, White is still also considering playing the f4-break, but he is clever enough to wait for a better moment.

IS . . . aS White was of course intending to play 16.b4.

16.f4! Now this is much stronger, as White has the bonus of a fine square on bS for his knight

16 . . . exf4 1 7 . .txf4 White was clearly better in Korchnoi -

Kotkov, Molotov (4) 1 9S6.

A) 7 . . • eS

This leads to a closed position of a type that is considered favourable for White.

8.0-0 It is well known that White fails to gain

any advantage after 8.dxe6 .txe6 9.lOgS in view of the typical exchange sacrifice 9 . . . .txc4! l o.1xb7 lObd7 l l ..txa8 iWxa8 1 2.0-0 dS, with plenty of counterplay.

a b c d e f g h This is a key moment where the play divides

into four options, depending on which knight Black feels l ike moving and where. The variations are AI) 8 ... ltJg4, AZ) 8 • . . lOa6, A3) s...ttJe8 and A4) 8 .. . lOhS.

AI) 8 • . • ltJg4 9.e4 ltJh6

Black's idea is to play . . .f6, . . . 1Of7 and only then . . . fS, or . . . f7 -fS at once if White first moves his f3-knight backwards.

The immediate . . . f7-fS allows a nasty knight invasion: 9 .. .fS l O.lOgS

In general it seems Black should not allow White's knight to penetrate to e6.

1 O . . . cj;>h8 1 1 .1Oe6 1xe6 I 2.dxe6 1Oc6 Grachev - A. Zhigalko, Budva 2003. Now I recommend:

I 3.exfS ! ?N gxfS 1 4.h3 lOf6 I 4 . . . lOh6 drops a pawn after I S .lObS! .

l S.g4 fxg4 I 6.hxg4 White is in total control, due to the

disappearance of Black's light-squared bishop.

10.1Oe1 I n my opinion White's best plan is to place

his knight on d3 and then follow up with f2-f4.

10 ... £5 1 1 .ltJd3 ltJd7 12.f4 iWe7

a b c d e f g h 13J!el !?N

This is a natural improvement over the slow I 3.cj;>h I as played in B. Abramovic - N. Grigore, Obrenovac 2004.


13 ... fxe4 14.CtJxe4 1 6.�c2 E1bS 17 .b3 Now my illustrative line continues: With the following nice idea:

14 ... ctJf7 Instead 14 . . . ctJf5 only looks active, and after

1 5 .�d2 ctJd4 1 6.�c3 it is not clear how Black should proceed.

15 .id2 I believe White has the advantage, thanks to

his better coordinated pieces.

l S ... CtJb6 16.�b3 if'S 17.ic3 With a pleasant edge.

A2) S . . . CtJa6 9.e4 CtJc7

There is no need for White to prevent . . . b7-b5 with 1 0 .a4, as the following line shows:

10.ctJe1! bS Black also has 1 0 . . . E1bs and now I found

1 1 .ctJc2! (this is stronger than 1 1 .ctJd3 b5 when White has no time for b2-b4) 1 1 . . .b5 1 2.b4! with the following thematic line: 1 2 . . . bxc4 1 3.bxc5 dxc5 1 4.ctJe3 ctJfeS 1 5 .�a3 White has strong positional pressure.

1 1 .cxbS E1bS Another option for Black is:

1 1.. .a6 1 2 .bxa6 �xa6 1 3 .ctJd3 I am always rather sceptical abour Black's "Benko-style" compensation when his darksquared bishop is blocked by its own e5-pawn.

1 3 . . . ctJb5 1 4.ctJxb5 �xb5 This position was reached in Schreiner -Schwierskott, Bavaria 2004. Now I worked out the following line for White:

1 5 .a4N �a6 Or 1 5 . . . c4 1 6.ctJb4 �a5 1 7.ctJc6 �xc6 l s .dxc6 �c5 1 9 .�d2 �xc6 20.�c2 and White is better, due to his dangerous a-pawn and the bishop pair.

1 7 . . . �b6 l S .E1a3 E1fcs . . . c5-c4 looks unstoppable, but White has prepared a fine positional exchange sacrifice:

a b c d e f g h 1 9.ctJb2! �xf1 20.�xfl

I believe White's chances are much better.

12.a4 a6 And now instead of 1 3 .ctJc2, as in Pfleger

- Shirazi, Lone Pine 1 98 1 , which is probably good enough for an advantage, I prefer the more thematic:

13.CtJd3!N axb5 14.b4 We shall have a look at a few illustrative

lines:

14 ... c4 15.CtJb2 bxa4

Chapter 1 0 - Reluctant Benoni 1 1 7

1 5 . . . !d7 1 6.!d2 is simply better for White.

16.tDxc4 E1xb4 The main strategic idea is once again

connected with a positional exchange sacrifice: I6 . . . !a6 1 7.ctJa5 !xfl I S .!xfl '&d7 I9 .ctJc6 �b6 20.b5± White is clearly on top.

17.E1xa4 E1xa4 lS.'Wxa4 ia6 19.ie3 White has serious positional pressure.

A3) S ... tDeS 9.e4

Now we shall examine the three continuations that in my opinion are the most natural:

9 ... h6 If Black intends to carry out . . . 0 -f5 , then

he should cover the g5-square, because the immediate break runs into trouble: 9 . . .f5 10 . exf5 gxf5

10 . . . !xf5 does not help after I l .ctJg5 . 1 1 .ti:lg5 ctJc7

This seems to be the most stubborn. White's advantage is obvious after 1 1 . . .ctJf6 I 2 .ctJe6 !xe6 I 3.dxe6 ctJc6 1 4.ctJd5. For example, 1 4 . . . ElbS 1 5.!g5 '&eS I 6.ctJxf6t ixf6 1 7.!xf6 Elxf6 I S .'&xd6± Andreas Martin - Ebert, Germany 1 995. Now I like the following example:

I2 .ti:lb5! ctJxb5 1 3.cxb5

So far this is ] . Cobb - G. Morris, Wales (ch) 200S, and now the following line i l lustrates a typical idea for White:

I 3 . . . e4 1 4.ctJe6 !xe6 I 5 .dxe6 '&e7 I 6.'&d5 Ele8 I7 . .ih3

White has a clear advantage.

Black could try to execute his main idea with the help of trading his light-squared bishop for White's knight, but then the missing bishop will be significant later, as was shown in the following encounter: 9 . . . !g4 1 0.h3 !xf3 1 1 .'&xf3 ctJd7 1 2.'&e2 ctJc7 1 3 .!d2 '&e7

Now (and previously) Black refrains from . . . 0-f5 due to the following reaction: 13 . . . f5 1 4.exf5 gxf5 1 5 .g4± and Black loses the battle for the e4-square.

14 .Elab 1 Elac8 1 5 .Elfe l The immediate 1 5 .a3 also comes into consideration.

1 5 . . . f5 Black decides to act, but perhaps a waiting strategy was better.

1 6.exf5 gxf5 1 7.g4! <j;lh8 1 8 .gxf5 Elxf5 1 9.ctJe4

White was firmly in control in Semenyuk -S. Kogan, COlT. 1 975 .

10.tDh4 @h7 Black insists on preparing . . . 0 -f5 , but his

king will be vulnerable on h7.

It is important that White can meet 10 . . . a6 with the calm 1 1 .E1b 1 and if 1 1 . . .b5 then 1 2.b4 cxb4 1 3.Elxb4t and opening up the position on the queenside is usually in White's favour.

1 1 .id.2 ifG Black avoids 1 1 . . .f5, which is an

understandable decision, as after 1 2.exf5 gxf5 I3 .'&h5 '&f6 1 4.g4! Black is in trouble.

12.tDf3 igS


This is too artificial; the absence of darksquared bishops will be a decisive factor in what follows. Instead a better option would have been 1 2 . . . ig7, although after 1 3.CDel f5 1 4.CDd3, followed by 1 5 .f4 , the complications wil l favour White.

13.tlJxg5t hxg5 14.f4! This is the only way for White to cast doubt

on Black's strategy.

14 . . . gxf4 15.gxf4 exf4 16.%Vf3! White developed a dangerous initiative

after:

16 ... ttJd7 17.%Vxf4 tlJe5 1 8.%Vh6t <.i?g8 1 9.ig5 f6 2o.if4±

This was Avrukh - Weisbuch, Biel 2008.

A4) 8 ... tlJh5

This knight can sometimes be vulnerable on h5 , and Black wil l fail to find a good moment to play his standard idea (the . . . f7-f5 advance) .

9.e4

a b c d e f g h 9 ... h6

Covering the g5-square. Let's have a look at the other possibilities:

9 .. . f5 This will not work out well for Black.

1 0. exf5 ixf5 If 1 0 . . . gxf5 then White can play not only I l .CDg5 CDf6 1 2.CDe6 (which we have seen in the 8 . . . CDe8-linc) but also l l .liJxe5 CDxg3 1 2.hxg3 ixe5 (or 1 2 . . . dxe5 1 3 .d6! is also clearly better for White) 1 3 .ih6 l'l:e8 14 .l"lel and White's positional advantage is indisputable.

I l .CDg5 CDf6 This position is from the game Ustinov - Sanditov, St Petersburg 1 998, and now White had a simple chance:

a b c d e f g h

1 2.liJe6!N ixe6 1 3 .dxe6 CDc6 1 4.ig5 lM 1 5 .id5

This would have secured White a clear advantage.

Black has also tried to prepare the .. .0-5 advance with: 9 . . . a6 1 0.a4 tlffe8

But after: l l .a5! f5 1 2.exf5

Black has to recapture with the bishop. 1 2 . . . ixf5

The problem is that 1 2 . . . gxf5 1 3 .liJg5 Iilffi 1 4.CDa4! looks horrible for Black.

13 .liJg5 tlJf6 1 4.liJe6 In Mikanovic - Pestov, Ottawa 2007, White was clearly better, due to the followin1 variation:


14 . . . �xe6 l 5.dxe6 Wixe6 l 6.�xb7 l"i:a7 l7 .�g2 itJbd7 I 8 .Wid3

10.ttJe1 The white knight is heading for d3, where it

will help both the f2-f4 and b2-b4 ideas, while at the same time the . . . f7 -f5 advance is hardly possible.

10 ... ttJd7 l 1 .ttJd3 a6

a b c d e f g h This position was reached in Grebionkin -

Klimenko, Internet 2004, and now I believe White should play a simple developing move:

12.�e3!?N Not fearing:

12 . • . b5 As it is strongly met by:

13.cxb5 axb5 14.b4 And now if:

14 ... c4 Then White gains a clear edge as follows:

IS.ttJb2 White's next move is likely to be l 6.a4.

B) 7 ... ttJa6

This is Black's main choice according to theory, and the most flexible move in the position. Black intends to prepare the thematic . . . b7-b5 advance, which should allow him to obtain counterplay on the queenside, while at the same time he keeps the option of changing the central pawn structure with either . . . e7-e6 or . . .e7-e5.

8.0-0 ttJc7 9.a4 I decided to make my choice in favour of the

text move. Equally popular is 9.e4, although the l ines often transpose to each other.

This is an important branching point for Black. The main choices are Bl) 9 ... ttJa6 and B2) 9 ... l"i:b8 .

Before analysing them, we must deal with three minor options:

9 . . . e6 I have decided to recommend the principled l O.dxe6, which will be examined below in the 9 . . . e5-line. In order to explain my choice let's have a quick look at White's al ternatives:

I 0.e4 exd5 I l .cxd5 �g4 and Black has good play.

l O.h3 exd5 l l .cxd5 leads to the Modern Benoni, but the position is a bit different than the one I analyse in the Modern Benoni chapter.

1 20 Benoni Systems

9 . . . b6 I suggest the following line: 1 0.e4 �g4 I I .h3 �xf3 1 2.�xf3N (two games have instead continued 1 2.'@fxf3, but then it is easier for Black to prepare . . . b6-b5 with 1 2 . . . a6oo) 1 2 . . . a6 1 3.�g5 And here I believe the play should transpose to our main line after 1 3 . . J:l:b8 14 .�e2.

9 . . . e5 1 0 .dxe6 A serious alternative is 1 0.e4, but I decided to concentrate on 1 0.dxe6.

1 0 . . . �xe6 Less challenging for White is 1 0 . . . tiJxe6. White is firmly in control after I I .a5 We7 (I also checked 1 l . . .a6 1 2.'@fd3 '@fe7 1 3.!'1:d l !'1:d8 1 4.!'1:a3 with a pleasant edge) Now 1 2.'@fd3!N is a Significant improvement on 1 2 .tiJg5, as played in Tann - Bijzitter, e-mail 2002. After 1 2 . . . !'1:d8 1 3.!'1:dl White has positional pressure.

1 1 .�f4 �xc4 1 2.�xd6 !'1:e8

s .i. �.i.�� '� �z "'d" '%� ��,� � 7 � ,� _,_,

6 Z""%�/'l'' ''';��fi�� 5 � �?tr*""'''� /''' ''� 4 !�t��B � �z'''//. �� 7z.,� 3 � m �t2J7J� 2 ��L··:.�di� �:t""%.;.!�""

a b c d e f g h This position has been tested a few times and the most common move 1 3 .�xc5 has failed to pose Black any major problems. I believe a more unusual move is called for:

1 3.tiJd2!? '@fxd6 I do not see serious compensation for the pawn after 1 3 . . . �a6 1 4.�xc5 (and 1 4.tiJb3 also deserves serious consideration).

1 4.tiJxc4 '@fe6 1 5 .'@fd6! '@fxc4 1 6.'@fxc7 Black will lose the b7-pawn.

Bl) 9 . . . tiJa6

Of course the b4-square was weakened by White's last move, but the black knight will only look good on b4. In fact, it hardly has any influence on the play.

10.h3 CLlb4 1 1 .e4 e6 12.!'1:e1 Instead 1 2.dxe6 �xe6 13 .'@fe2 tiJc6! is

rather unclear, but 1 2.�g5 might be a serious alternative.

12 ... exd5 13.cxd5 !'1:e8

a b c d e f g h This position was reached in Psakhis - Ibarra

Jerez, Andorra 2003, and now I believe White can retain an edge with a simple move:

14.�f4N One point is that White is ready to meet

. . . c5-c4, as the following line shows:

14 . . . c4 Or 1 4 . . . a6 1 5 .'@fd2 is more pleasant for

White.

15.�f1! Now it is not so easy to move for Black,

as White is threatening the quiet �h2, threatening the c4-pawn.


B2) 9 .. J�b8

This is Black's main choice, according to theory.

lO.e4

a b c d e f g h This is another position where Black has a

wide choice. The main lines are B2l) lO ... b6 and B22) lO ... .ig4. But first there is a lesser line to dismiss:

1 0 . . . a6 Black quickly prepares his usual idea of ... b7-b5, but in this case it allows White a new option:

1 1 .a5 b5 1 2.axb6 �xb6 Black has executed his main idea, but he fails to gain much counterplay on the half-open b-file and his knight on c7 remains passive.

13.l"ia3 A quiet positional move with the idea of neutralizing Black's planned pressure along the b-file and on the long diagonal; White intends to play b2-b3 at a suitable moment.

13 . . . e6 The most principled move, but 1 3 . . . e5 14.dxe6 also leads to the same thing. Instead 1 3 . . . tDd7 is rather passive. White had a pleasant edge in Drasko - Bakic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 998, after 1 4.tDa4 �b8 1 5 .if4.

a b c d e f g h 1 4.dxe6!

There is no reason to allow a typical Benonitype pawn structure after . . . e6xd5.

1 4 . . . ixe6 Another option is 1 4 . . . tDxe6, but White maintains a pleasant edge after 1 5 .h3 �e8 1 6.�el ib7 1 7.b3;t.

1 5 .�d3 tDg4 1 6.tDa4 �b4 1 7.b3 White had a pleasant edge in Korchnoi -

Visier Segovia, Palma de Mallorca 1 968.

B2l) lO . . . b6

Black wants to prepare the . . . b6-b5 advance without allowing White to hobble his queens ide with a4-a5.

l 1 .�el I think this is the most promising

continuation. White not only strengthens the e4-e5 advance, but also vacates the fl -square for his bishop, where it can help stop the . . . b6-b5 advance. To gain a deeper understanding, let's have a quick look at the other options:

1 1 .e5 There is no point rushing with this move, as after 1 1 . . .tDg4 1 2.exd6 exd6 1 3.�el a6 Black obtains a perfectly playable position.

1 1 .h3 looks quite natural, taking the g4-square away from the black bishop, but Black gains normal play after 1 1 . . .a6 1 2 .e5 tDd7 1 3 .exd6 exd6 14 .if4 tDf6 and . . . b6-b5 is coming next.

1 22 Benoni Systems

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .. .ig4 Black also has a completely different plan

available: 1 1 . . .a6 1 2.i.f1

As noted above, this is one of the ideas of White's 1 1 th move.

1 2 . . . i.d7 Black plays for . . . b6-b5 , but obviously 1 2 . . . i.g4 1 3.h3 i.xf3 1 4.�xf3 would transpose to 1 1 . . .i.g4.

1 3.e5 tLlfeS 1 4.h3! This important prophylactic move stops Black getting rid of his passive light-squared bishop. Instead Black gained a defendable position after 1 4.i.f4 b5 1 5 .axb5 axb5 1 6.b3 bxc4 1 7. bxc4 i.g4 in Slepoy - A. Geller, Leningrad 1 956.

1 4 . . . b5 1 5 .b3 White has no need to surrender any space on the queens ide, though 1 5 .axb5 axb5 1 6.b3 was also possible.

1 5 . . . bxc4 Obviously closing the queenside would leave Black with a strategically difficult position: 1 5 . . . b4 1 6.tLle4 f5 1 7.exf6 (even 1 7.tLlxc5 dxc5 l S .i.e3!? comes into consideration) 1 7 . . . tLlxf6 (probably the lesser evil would have been 1 7 . . . exf6 though White is better after l S .i.f4 i.f5 1 9.Ela2! with the idea of Elae2) I S .Ela2 tLlxe4 1 9.Elxe4 i.f5 20.Ele1

tLleS 2 1 .Elae2 Elb7 22.i.g5± White is in control, Donner - Iskov, Amsterdam 1982.

1 6.bxc4 e6

a b c d e f g h

This was played in C. Gokhale - L. Davies, Canada 2006, and it looks rather principled, as Black is trying to activate his passive pieces. Unfortunately for Black, there is a

problem: 17 .i.e3!N

It is not clear how Black can save his cS· pawn.

12.h3 ixf3 1 3.W'xf3 a6 14.ifl This is an important position to understand

what is happening in this line.

Chapter 1 0 - Reluctant Benoni 1 23

convincing, so I worked out a new strategy. Before we get to that, we need to consider what happens if Black pushes the e-pawn a square further:

14 . . . e5 White could play 1 5 . .ig5 (which will transpose to our 1 4 . . . e6 main l ine!) but I would like to offer an additional possibility:

a b c d e f g h 1 5.a5 !?N

In practice White has tried only 1 5 .l:!b l and 15 . .id3, both of which look too slow.

15 . . . b5 This is the critical reply. If 1 5 . . . bxa5 then 1 6.CLldl CLld7 1 7 . .id3, followed by .id2-a5, and White regains the pawn and gains space on the queenside.

16.cxb5 axb5 The other recapture is inferior for Black: 16 . . . CLlxb5 1 7.CLlxb5 axb5 l S .a6 'lWb6 1 9.a7 �aS 20 . .ig5 CLld7 2 1 .'lWa3 Black is in trouble, for example: 2 1 . . .�fcs 22.�ecl b4 23.'lWa4 ttJf6 24 . .ixf6 .ixf6 25 .'lWa5±

17.a6 �a8 Another option is 1 7 . . . b4, but Black ends up in a difficult position after I S. CLl b 1 l:!aS 19 . .ig5! when the following line is possible: 19 . . . h6 20 . .ixf6 .ixf6 2 1 .CLld2 .ig5 22.CLlb3 �cS 23.h4 .ie7 24.a7!±

18.ttJxb5 CLlxa6

followed by 2 1 .'lWa3, White has persistent pressure.

1 9.'lWe2 This creates the threat of 20.CLlxd6.

19 .. . CLlc7 20.l:!xaS CLlxaS 2 1 ..id2 'lWb6 22.b4± White has a risk-free initiative.

1 4 . . . CLld7 This has been played only once, but it looks flexible, as Black keeps the option of playing either . . . e6 or . . . e5.

1 5 .l:!b l I like this move, as it could be useful for White to have the option of b2-b4, particularly if Black closes the centre with . . . e7 -e5.

1 5 . . . e6 1 6 . .id2 CLle5 This move is connected with a mistaken idea; probably Black should play more patiently.

1 7.'lWd1 'lWf6 Black continues down a bad road.

l S.f4 CLlxc4? Black has overlooked a straightforward refutation and now he loses material. Better was l S . . . CLld7, although after 1 9.dxe6 CLlxe6 (or 1 9 . . . fxe6 20 . .ie3) 20 . .ie3 CLld4 2 1 ..ig2 White retains a pleasant edge.

1 9.e5! dxe5 20 . .ixc4 White had a big advantage in L. Lengyel -

Ribli, Hungary (ch) 1 967.

Instead l S . . . :B:xa6 does not bring Black a b c d e f g h relief either, as after 1 9.:B:xa6 CLlxa6 20 . .id2, 15.i.f4N

1 24 Benoni Systems

White eyes the d6-pawn. Also worth considering is 1 5 .E1b 1 , in the same spirit as the 1 4 . . . ttJd7-line above.

15 . . . e5 1 5 . . . exd5 would allow White a pleasant

choice between 1 6.exd5 and 1 6.cxd5.

16.ig5! It is important for White to provoke . . . h7-

h6, which, among other points, weakens the g6-pawn.

16 . . . h6 17.id2 ctJh7 Or 1 7 . . . ttJd7 I S.h4 f5 1 9.�h3 and now

19 . . .f4 runs into 20.'lWg4! winning a pawn. This line shows the value of 1 6.�g5 .

18.h4 f5 19.exfS gxf5 2o.ih3 Wff6 21.Wfh5 Wff7 22.Wfxf7t E1xf7

a b c d e f g h

23.t2Jdl! A fine multipurpose move; White intends to

increase the pressure against the f5-pawn with ttJe3 and E1a3-f3, and he is also preparing to play on the queenside.

23 ... h5 24.b4 White has good play and retains the better

chances.

B22) 1O ... ig4 1 1 .h3 ixf3 1 2.ixf3

a b c d e f g h

12 ... b6 Black must make his usual choice - either

prevent a4-a5 (as the text move does) or simply allow it:

1 2 . . . a6 1 3 .a5 Of course this is the thematic reaction.

1 3 . . . e6 Black also has two other options: 1 3 . . . b5 1 4.axb6 E1xb6 1 5 .'lWc2 (by analogy with the 1 0 . . . a6 line, 1 5 .E1a3 also deserves serious attention) 1 5 . . . e6 This is the game Hulak - Rezan, Pula 2000, and now I spotted an interesting idea for White: 1 6.e5!?N <tlfe8 (or 1 6 . . . dxe5 1 7.�e3 ttJd7 l S.ttJa4 l"lb4 1 9.ttJxc5 exd5 20.cxd5 e4 2 1 .�xe4 l"lxb2 22.'lWc4 and it will not be easy for Black to neurralize White's passed pawn) 1 7.<tla4 l"lb4 l S.�d2 E1bS 1 9.exd6 ttJxd6 20.�a5 White has definite pressure. 1 3 . . . ttJd7 was played in Dizdar - Hick!, Austria 2002. We can also meet it with 14 .'lWc2 and if 1 4 . . . b5 then 1 5 .axb6 <tlxb6 1 6.b3± with a positional edge.

1 4.�f4 This is also a thematic idea. The pressure against the d6-pawn forces Black to clari/Y the pawn structure in the centre.

1 4 . . . exd5

Chapter 1 0 - Reluctant Benoni 1 25

Also better for White is 1 4 . . . e5 1 5 . .!g5 h6 1 6 . .!e3t.

1 5.exd5 b5 If 1 5 . . . ttJce8, as in Cosma - Gdanski, Budapest 1 993, White should continue 1 6.iWc2N ttJd7 1 7 . .!g2t with a pleasant edge.

16.axb6 �xb6 17 .ttJa4 �b4 This position was reached in Korchnoi -Byrne, Wijk aan Zee 1 980, and now White can play calmly:

1 8.'Wc2Nt This would leave White with a slight edge,

thanks to his space advantage and bishop pair.

Finally, 1 2 . . . e6 1 3 . .!f4 exd5 1 4.exd5 a6 1 5 .a5 would transpose to the 1 2 .. . a6 line we have just looked at.

13 . .!gS I like the idea of provoking . . . h7 -h6.

13 ... a6 14.J.e2 Obviously this is the way to stop the . . . b6-b5

advance.

14 ... eS Instead 1 4 . . . e6 leads to a different type of

position: 1 5 .iWd2 exd5 1 6.exd5t B ut this is favourable for White as well.

IS.@g2 �e8 I failed to find a way to improve Black's

play: 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 . .!e3 ttJd7 1 7.iWd2 �h7 1 8 .f4 exf4 1 9.9xf4 f5 20.exf5 gxf5 2 1 ..!d3 White definitely has good chances of generating a kingside attack, as also happens i n the game we are following.

16.iWc2 @h8 17.J.d2 White would also be better after 1 7.f4 ttJg8

18.f5 f6 19 . .!e3 .!h6 20 . .!f2t.

17 ... CL'Jg8 18.f4 exf4 19.9xf4 f5 20.�ael White mobilizes the last p iece.

20 ... �d7 21 .exfS Now is the right moment to clarifY the

situation with the pawn structure.

21 .. .gxf5 22.@h2

White is better due to his extra space and bishop pair, which might be an important detail in the long term. White managed to i ncrease his advantage during the next series of moves:

22 . . . �f6 23.J.d3 �bf8 24.CL'Je2 �g6 2S.etJg3 etJh6 26.�e2±

This is Ftacnik - Gdanski, Budapest 1 993.

Conclusion:

By delaying moving his e-pawn, Black keeps many transpositional possibilities, so White must be careful to avoid being tricked out of our repertoire. Although this is a respectable line for Black, following the lines I recommend should secure White an edge.

Benoni Systems

Czech Benoni

Variation Index

a b c d e f g h

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 (3 ... a6) 3 ... e5

A) 5 ... g6 6.j.e2 AI) 6 ... �bd7 A2) 6 ... a6 A3) 6 ... j.g7

B) 5 ... lL:!bd7 6.j.d3 B l) 6 ... g6 B2) 6 ... j.e7 7.lL:!ge2

B21) 7 ... g6 B22) 7 ... h5 B23) 7 ... lL:!f8 B24) 7 ... 0-0

C) 5 ... j.e7 6.g3 0-0 7.j.g2 Cl) 7 ... �a6 C2) 7 ... lL:!e8 C3) 7 ... lL:!bd7 8.lL:!ge2

C31) 8 ... lL:!e8 C32) 8 ... a6

B21 ) after 1 6 . . . Ei:eS

a b c d e f g h

1 7.Ei:dgl !N

4.�c3 d6 5 .e4

C) note to 6 . . . 0-0

a b c d e f g h

S.lLlh3!N

127 128 128 129 131 131 1 32 132 133 134 135 136 137 1 37 139 139 141

C3 1 ) Sasikiran plays my novelty!

a b c d e f g h

1 6.fxe5!

Chapter 1 1 - Czech Benoni 1 27

l.d4 1Llf6 2.c4 cS 3.dS eS Before we get to the meat of this chapter we

should briefly consider a rare move order Black may try: La6

This is undeniably a legal move. I think in reply we should play naturally.

4.a4 I do not see how Black can profit from the inclusion of . . . a7 -a6 and a2-a4, and it even allows White an extra option if Black plans to continue in the style of the Czech Benoni.

4 . . . e5 If 4 . . . e6 5 .g3 exd5 6.cxd5 �d6 7.�g2 we get a position from the Snake Benoni (see page 102) that Black could also reach from the normal Benoni move order, so I do not see much point in this 3 . . . a6 move order.

5.ttJc3 d6 Here I really l ike the following example:

6.a5!? Certainly there is nothing wrong with 6.e4 !i.e7 7.g3 transposing to our regular line against the Czech Benoni.

6 ... !i.e7 7.e4 0-0 S.h3 This is a dangerous set-up for Black.

8 . . . ttJeS 9.ltJf3 g6 1 0 .�h6 ttJg7 1 1 .g4! A key move in White's arrangement; a later . . . £7 -f5 will now expose Black's king. Also, White is likely to have the option of replying to . . . £7-f5 by capturing twice on f5 , thus creating an outpost on e4.

1 l . . .ttJd7 12 .�d3 ltJf6 1 3.Elgl <jJhS This is a thematic idea in Benoni positions - [he black knight will chase away White's dark-squared bishop, which helps Black to get in . . . £7-f5 . But in this case White can profit from the inclusion of . . . a7 -a6 and a2-a4.

14.!i.d2 ltJgS 1 5 .ltJa4! f5 This position was reached in Fedorowicz -Illescas Cordoba, Dubai (01) 1 9S6. Now I really like the computer's suggestion:

16.exf5!N

In the game White continued with 1 6.'I1h'e2, but [hen Black could have created some play with 1 6 . . . fxg4! 1 7.hxg4 ltJf6.

16 .. . gxf5 1 7.ltJb6 ElbS l S .�c3! This kills the idea of . . . e5-e4 and now White is ready to take on f5 . For example:

I S . . . ltJf6 1 9.9xf5 ltJfh5 20.ltJxcS ElxcS 2 1 .'I1h'c2 ltJf4 22.�e4±

White is solidly in control.

4.1L1c3 d6 5.e4

a b c d e f g h This is the Czech Benoni. Nowadays this

opening is rather a rare guest at grandmaster level, though there are a few strong players, such as Nisipeanu and Marin, who opt for this opening quite often. The normal move now is 5 . . . �e7, so we will save that for last.

The variations worth looking at are: A) S ... g6, B) S ... lLlbd7 and C) S ... �e7.

A) 5 ... g6

This may be heading towards a King's Indian with the inclusion of . . . c7 -c5. In fact this appears to be an inferior version for Black, as White has plenty of time and can choose between many arrangements of his pieces.

6.�e2 I am confident this is the most flexible move.

128 Benoni Systems

Obviously White is keeping the option of pushing his kingside pawns.

7 . . . a6 S .a4 ie7 IfS . . . ig7 then White can start to advance his kingside pawns with 9.g4, when Black would face a strong attack if he castled short.

9.id2! We will see this idea again in the main line. In the main line the bishop goes to e3 instead of d2, but the general point is the same: Black has been lured into placing his bishop on e7, despite having played . . . g7 -g6.

9 . . . 0-0 1 0.ih6 �eS 1 1 .g4! Black was under severe pressure in Psakhis -

Mestel, Graz 1 9S 1 .

Black is ready to meet S.ttJf3 with S . . . ttJh5, either exchanging dark-squared bishops or bringing the knight to f4.

8 . .ie3! A very strong reaction, as now Black has a

mixed-up version of a normal Czech Benoni and a King's Indian.

8 ... a6 9.a4 �b8

This position was reached in Speelman -Zilberman, London 1 99 1 . Black once again uses a waiting strategy, but I do not see any reason for White to refrain from the most natural move:

10. llJ f3N Now I have examined the following

variations:

10 ... 0-0 Instead 1 0 . . . ttJg4 1 1 .id2 h5 1 2.h3 ttJgf6

1 3 .0-0 does not make much sense for Black, as his kingside has been weakened by . . . h7-h5 .

1 1 ..ih6! Preventing a possible . . . ttJeS-g7 manoeuvre,

which might justify Black's set-up. For example, 1 1 .ttJd2 ttJeS should be fine for Black.

1 1 ...�e8 12.llJd2 .if8 13 . .ie3! Of course there is no point for White

swapping dark-squared bishops.

13 ... .ig7 14.g4!;!; White's extra space gives him the more

pleasant position.

A2) 6 . . . a6 7 . .ig5 h6 8 . .ie3


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 a b c d e f g h

8 ... ig7 8 . . . h5

This is quite thematic in such positions. 9.4:Jf3 h4

This is too bold; probably Black forgot about White's next move. Obviously Black should prefer 9 . . . ih6, although after 1 0.�xh6 :§xh6 I l .Wd2 :§h8 1 2.4:Jg5 White is clearly better, as Black has lost the right to castle.

1O .�g5 �e7? Black simply loses a pawn. Better was 10 . . . h3 even though after I l .g3 Black's h-pawn is rather weak.

1 1 .�xh4 �g4 1 2.�xf6 �xf6 1 3.4:Jd2± White was a healthy pawn up in Kramnik -

Piket, Zurich 200 1 .

9.h3 I like this natural move, taking control of the

g4-square.

9 ... tiJbd7 Or 9 . . . 0-0 1 0.Wd2 Wh7 ( l 0 . . . h5 I l .ttJf3

is favourable for White, as it will hardly be possible for Black to carry out the . . . 0-f5 advance. For example, 1 1 . . .ttJh7 1 2.g4! with the following point: 1 2 . . . hxg4 1 3 .hxg4 �xg4? 14.:§xh7! Wxh7 1 5.ttJg5t And White wins.) 1 1 .g4;!; White had a good version of the King's Indian in Raedeker - Rotstein, Halle 2007.

10.'lWd2 :§b8 This position arose in D'Israel - Marques,

Sao Paulo 2004, and here I would suggest:

l 1 .lDf3 h5 Black cannot carry out the . . . b7-b5 advance

by means of 1 1 . . .Wa5 1 2.0-0 b5, as it runs into 1 3 .ttJxb5! and White wins material.

12.lDg5 0-0 13.g4 h4 14.a3�

A3) 6 ... ig7

Sometimes Black prefers a waiting strategy, and tries to play some useful moves. To tell the truth, I do not really understand this plan. Let's have a quick look at possible developments.

7.h4! This is the difference compared to a normal

King's Indian: White uses the fact that the centre is blocked to clarifY the situation on the kingside.

7 ... h5

1 30 Benoni Systems

The only reliable continuation, as Black cannot allow White to play h4-h5 . Let's see a couple of examples of what happens if Black is careless:

7 . . . h6 8.h5 g5 9.g4 leads to a strategically difficult position for Black, as he lacks his normal play on the kingside, while White has a free hand for a queenside assault. The weakness of the f5-square was also significant in Atalik Schorr, Boston 200 1 .

After 7 . . . 0-0 8.h5 CDa6 9.ie3 CDc7 1 0.g4± White developed a dangerous offensive on the kingside in Akobian - Bachin, Istanbul 1 998.

S.tgS In general I believe this position is favourable

for White, as he has managed to provoke a pawn structure on the kingside that makes it almost impossible for Black to execute the . . . £1 -f5 advance, due to the weakness of the h5-pawn.

a b c d e f g h S .. . lbbd7

In my opinion, it would not make much sense for Black to swap dark-squared bishops in this specific situation: 8 . . . ih6 9.ixh6 �xh6 1 0.�d2 �h8

Black can no longer castle and will need to spend two more tempos securing his king

with . . . <;t>e8-f8-g7. Now I believe White should play the simple:

1 1 .0-0-0 Instead of 1 1 .CDh3 ixh3! 1 2.�xh3 a6 1 3.a3 CDbd7 1 4.b4 <;t>f8 when Black had a fairly stable position in Iashvili - Mchedlishvili, Tbilisi 1 998.

1 l . . .CDbd7 1 2.CDf3 Followed by CDg5, or CDe1 -d3 and an f2-f4

advance, either at once or after the preparatory move g2-g3. White clearly has the better chances.

9.�d2 a6 10.£'3 White intends to arrange his pieces In

Samisch-style. I would also consider the set-up with 1 0.id3 followed by CDge2.

1O ... lbfS 1 I .lbh3 lbSh7 12.te3 Black's set-up looks very strange to me with

his clearly misplaced knight on h7. No wonder White was clearly better in the following example.

12 . . . td7 I3.lbf2 0-0 14.g3 lbeS lS.a3!? White plays flexibly to retain the option of

castling queenside, but 1 5 .g4!? also deserves serious attention.

a b c d e f g h l S ... bS?

A strange pawn sacrifice. Stronger was

Chapter 1 1 - Czech Benoni 1 3 1

15 . . .f5 , although White is still better after 16.exf5 gxf5 1 7.f4! and the weakness of the h5-pawn starts to tell.

16.cxb5 axb5 17.ltJxb5 Blackwas a pawn down with no compensation

in Dorfman - Spielmann, Gonfrevil le 2006.

B) 5 . . . llJbd7

This is a modern interpretation of Black's system; Black waits to see White's set-up before choosing between fianchettoing and . . . fJ.e7.

a b c d e f g h 6.fJ.d3

After deeply investigating this line I came to the conclusion that the text is White's most promising set-up.

The fianchetto set-up (which looks quite promising after 5 . . . fJ.e7) does not work so well here, as Black can still develop his bishop to g7. For example: 6.g3 g6 7.fJ.g2 fJ.g7 8.tLlf3

There is also 8.tLlge2 0-0 9.0-0, but after 9 . . . tLle8 Black easily carries out the thematic . . . £7-f5 advance, while 1 0.f4 f5°o is already not so clear, because Black's dark-squared bishop is much more active on g7 than it would be on e7.

8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 llJe8 1 0.ie3 llJc7! It would be premature to play 1 0 .. .f5 in view of 1 1 .exf5 gxf5 1 2.tLlg5! and White's knight comes to e6.

1 1 . tLlel f5 1 2. tLld3 tLlf6 Black was all right in Hort - Tringov,

Vinkovci 1 976.

At this point we have to take the following possibilities into account: Bl) 6 . . • g6 and B2) 6 •.• ie7.

Bl) 6 . .. g6

Now the following set-up looks good for White:

7.ig5 ig7 8.8 White gains a favourable version ofa Sarnisch

type position, as Black lacks counterplay on the queenside. The following two examples clearly show Black's problems.

8 ... a6 9.llJge2 h6 Instead Perursson - Bjarnason, Reykjavik

1 989, went 9 . . . Wc7 1 0.a4 h6 1 1 .ie3 h5 1 2.Wd2 b6.

Now I believe White should have played the tricky 1 3 .tLldl !?Nt. White's knight is heading to f2, where it might help White to start an offensive (with g2-g4) if Black castles short, while the second knight will go to d. White also keeps the option of castling long. In my opinion, White is slightly better and Black does not have serious play.

10.ie3 h5 1 1 .Vfid2 It is important to prevent Black's idea of

. . . ih6.

1 1 .. .h4 Otherwise White would play h2-h4

himself.

1 32 Benoni Systems

12 .. .'IWc7 13.a4 lLlh5 An understandable try to complicate the

game, as White is clearly better after 1 3 . . . h3 14 .g4!.

14.g3 White has no intention of giving up his dark

squared bishop, although after 14.ixh4 ttJf4 1 5 .ttJxf4 §:xh4 1 6.g3 §:hS 17.ttJg2 it is not clear whether Black has sufficient compensation.

14 ... h3 This position occurred in Calvo Minguez

- Diez del Corral, Montilla 1 976, and now I believe White should have played:

1 5.lbdl!?N Followed by ttJf2 and, at some point, ttJg1

and ifl . Black's h3-pawn should fal l in the long run.

B2) 6 ... i.e7 7.lbge2

Now Black has a choice. We will examine four different moves, B21) 7 ... g6, B22) 7 ... h5, B23) 7 ... lbfS and B24) 7 ... 0-0.

B21) 7 ... g6

a b c d e f g h 8.f3 llJh5

Black has twice tried S .. . h5. In both games White continued developing his pieces with 9.ie3, which allowed Black to gain space on the kingside with . . . h5-h4. Instead it is important to prevent Black from gaining space for his p ieces by playing 9.h4!. We will examine this kind of position in line B22 (7 . . . h5).

9.i.e3 i.g5 Black executes his main idea of trading dark

squared bishops, but remains with a somewhat passive position. The following encounter proves that the position is much easier to play with White.

1O.'Wd2 i.xe3 1 1 .'Wxe3 a6 12.h4 White could also choose a very different

strategy: 12 .0-0 'Wf6 1 3 .g3 0-0 14Jlabl Beginning to play on the queens ide; White's chances are also better in this case.

12 .•• 'Wf6 White was threatening 1 3.g4.

13.g3 0-0 14.0-0-0 §:b8 1 5.f4! exf4 Black was afraid of 1 6.f5 followed by the

advance of the g-pawn.

16.gxf4 §:e8


Now in the game Harikrishna - Sahu, New Delhi 200 1 , White rushed the thematic sacrifice in the centre: 1 7.e5 dxe5 l S .ctJe4 'We7 19.f5 White eventually won a nice game, but I have failed to find anything special for White after the principled 1 9" .gxf5! .

I believe he should instead have played the improving move:

8

7 6 5 4 3

2

a b c d e f g h 17.l'!dgl!N

With two illustrative lines:

17 ... 'We7 Or if 17".i>hS then l S.e5 dxe5 1 9.f5, as

this is now much stronger and allows White to develop a dangerous initiative. For example: 19".gxf5 20.�xf5! 'Wxf5 2 1 .l'!g5 'Wf6 22.l'!xh5 White's attack is extremely dangerous.

lS.ctJg3 lLldf6 19.1Llxh5 lLlxh5 20JWf3 mhS

21 .'Wxh5 was threatened.

21 .e5! White has the initiative.

B22) 7 . . . h5

As usual, Black is planning to grab more space on the kingside with " .h5-h4, and he is also

trying to make it dangerous for White to castle short.

a b c d e f g h S.h4!

As I explained above, it is essential for White to prevent Black gaining more space on the kingside. The following is a good example of what can happen if White fails to play the prophylactic S.h4: S .f3 h4 9.�e3 g6 1 0.'Wd2 WfS 1 1 .0-0-0 Wg7 1 2.g3 a6 1 3 .l'!hg1 b5 With double-edged play, Markos - Bezold, Pulvermuehle 2006.

S ... a6 The game Hecht - Van den Berg, Italy 2004,

continued: S".g6 9.g3 WfS 1 0.f3 Wg7 1 1 .�e3 ctJeS 1 2.'Wd2 ctJc7 1 3 .Wfl (I do not see any problems with 1 3 .0-0, but the text does not change much) 1 3".ctJf6 14.Wg2 �d7 1 5 .l'!ab 1 'WeS 1 6.b4 White was better; Black's position is very solid, but he has no active plan.

9.f3 g6 10.ie3 @f8 l 1 .Wfd2 @g7 1 2.g3 Just in case, White defends the h4-pawn.

12 ... lLleS This position was reached in Iskusnyh -

Onoprienko, Moscow 2006. In my opinion White could have started to play actively on the queenside with 1 3.a3 followed by b2-b4 and so on. Just as in the previous example,

1 34 Benoni Systems

White has the better chances thanks to his space advantage.

B23) 7 ... lLlfB

Black's knight is heading for g6, where it might jump to either the f4- or h4-squares.

8.lLlg3 I believe this is the best reaction. Now Black

has a tough choice, either to allow White's knight to f5, or to play . . . g7-g6, which would restrict White's knight but also take away the g6-square from Black's own knight.

a b c d e f g h

8 ... g6 s . . . lLlg6 9.lLlf5

After these moves Black's position looks dubious to me. For example:

9 . . . 0-0 Instead 9 . . . ixf5 1 0.exf5 lLlf4 does not work in view of 1 1 .ifl ! and Black has serious problems with his f4-knight. ]. Myers -Pizzato, Australia (ch) 1 995, continued: 1 1 . .. g6 1 2.g3 lLl4h5 l 3.g4! lLlf4 14.ixf4 exf4 1 5 .g5 lLlh5 1 6.f6± White was already winning material.

1 0.g3! Now Black's knight is restricted, while White's knight on f5 is really annoying for Black. White's advantage is obvious.

1 0 . . . l:'i:eS 1 1 .Wf3 ifS Or 1 l . . .h6 1 2.h4 ifS 1 3.ie3 a6 1 4.a3 liJh7 1 5 .b4 b6 1 6.l:'i:b 1 and Black was struggling on both sides of the board in Atalik - Abdul Wahab, Moscow (ol) 1 994.

1 2.ig5 ixf5 1 3 .1Mfxf5 ie7 1 4.h4 h6 1 5.id2 White had a pleasant positional advantage in

Hauchard - Chevallier, France 1 992.

9.h4 As ever, I l ike this move, as it prevents Black

from grabbing space on the kingside with . . . h5-h4, as happened in the following game: 9.f3 h5 1 0.ie3 h4 1 1 .lLlge2 lLlh5 12.�d2 lLlh7 l 3 .g3 lLlg5 Black found some activity in Leitao - Pelikian, Sao Paulo 1 995 .

9 . . . hS I also examined 9 . . . lLlg4 1 0.h5 ig5. Black

executes his main positional idea, but the price is too high, as his position is very passive, especially his knight on fS (there is even less point to 1 0 . . . ih4 after 1 1 .lLlce2!) . 1 1 .ixg5 1Mfxg5 1 2.lLlb5 1MfdS 1 3.f3 lLlf6 14 .Wd2 (White gains nothing from 14.1Mf a4 as Black has 1 4 . . . id7) 14 . . . a6 1 5 .lLlc3 White obviously has the initiative.

1O.lLlfl Black was threatening to attack the h4-pawn

by moving his knight from f6.

1O ... lLlg4 1 1 .f3 lLlh6 12.g3 a6 It is very important that Black cannot play

1 2 . . . f5 because of 13 .ixh6! l:'i:xh6 14.exf5 gxf5 (or 14 . . . �xf5 1 5 .lLle3 leaves White with a clear positional advantage, thanks to his total control of the e4-square) 1 5 .Wc2 f4 1 6.0-0-0 and the game opening up is clearly in White's favour, as Black's king is still stuck in the centre.

l3.We2 id7 14.a3 White has stopped the . . . f7 -f5 advance ana

now starts his own play on the queenside.

Chapter 1 1 - Czech Benoni 135

14 . . . \WbS This position is from the game Szabo -

Ristoja, Helsinki 1 975. It is not clear why White refrained from the following natural move.

15 ... bS 16.bxeS dxeS 17J��b l b4 IS.axb4 cxb4 19.i.e3! \We7 20.ltJa2 as 2 1 .eS

With a clear advantage for White.

B24) 7 .. . 0-0

This is actually Black's main choice according to current theory.

S .. . ltJeS Again, this is clearly Black's first choice

according to theory and the database, but perhaps objectively it is not the best continuation. Let's check other options:

8" .g6 has only been tried once, no doubt because players are concerned about 9 .th6 l"i:e8 1 0.h4! and after 1 0" .tf8 I l .txf8 ( l l .t

'e3

would allow 1 1 . . .h5 , which slows White's kingside play) l 1 . . .ttJxf8 1 2.h5 White has good prospects of developing a dangerous offensive.

8" .l"i:e8 seems somewhat passive to me. 9.ttJf5 tf8 1 0.tg5 Now Black has to give up his l ight-squared bishop. 1 0".ttJb6 1 1 .'IMlf3 txf5 1 2.'IMlxf5t White has a pleasant edge thanks to his bishop pair, which will be an important long-term factor, J . Cohen - V Van Riemsdijk, Guarapuava 1 992.

9.ltJES Another possibility is 9 .h4 when play

might continue: 9."g6 I O.h5 tg5 1 1 .txg5 'IMlxg5 12.'IMld2 'IMlxd2t 1 3.<j;Jxd2t White has a small but stable edge, though Black's position remains solid, Katov - Janev, Razgrad 2006

9 ... i.gS 1O.i.xgS \WxgS 1 1 .g3!? Even stronger would have been: 1 1 .h4! 'IMld8

(obviously Black cannot take the g2-pawn, as after 1 1 . . .'IMlxg2 12.ttJg3! he is helpless against the idea of tfl winning the queen) 1 2.g4 Black's position looks very unpleasant.

1 1 . ..a6 12.\We2 \WdS 13.0-0-0! bS Black tries desperately to complicate matters;

after 1 3" .g6 14.ttJe3 ttJdf6 1 5 .f4 White's attack plays i tsel£

14.cxbS ltJb6 l S.bxa6 ltJe7 It looks as if Black will gain counter-chances

on the queenside, but in fact White keeps the advantage with a series of strong moves.

1 36 Benoni Systems

16.f4 ge8 White is also clearly better after 1 6 . . . tt:lxa6

1 7.fxe5 dxe5 l S.ixa6! �xa6 1 9.Wg4 g6 20.d6!.

17.ghf1 ! c4 The best chance. White would be much

better after 1 7" .�xf5 l S .exf5 exf4 1 9.tt:le4!±.

C) 5 .. . ie7 6.g3

This is considered to be the best set-up for White against the Czech Benoni.

a b c d e f g h

6 . .. 0-0 Other options are not so relevant, as they

would transpose to the 6" .0-0 line, with the possible exception of: 6".h5

I believe this should be met with: 7.h4

Now the main continuation is: 7".tt:la6

The alternative 7".tt:lbd7 is passive, and the following example looks quite convincing to me: S.tt:lh3 g6 9.f3 (there is also nothing wrong with the immediate 9.tt:lg5) 9".tLlh7 1 0.�e3 a6 1 1 .�d2 tt:ldf6 12 .ie2 �d7 13 .tLlg5 ( l 3.tt:lf2!?) 1 3".0-0 14.0-0 tt:lxg5 And here, instead of recapturing with the bishop, as happened in Browne - Finegold, Las Vegas 1 994, White could have played: 1 5 .hxg5 tt:lh7 16.f4 Now if 16" .f6 White reacts with 1 7.gxf6 ixf6 l S .f5, seizing the initiative. After the text move White has tried all sortS of replies, but no one has opted for the following natural move:

a b c d e f g h 8.tt:lh3!N

This looks very strong. White's knight is heading for g5, underlining the weak point of Black's 6th move. I examined the following line:

S" .tt:lc7 9.tt:lg5 g6 1 0.�g2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 In my opinion the inclusion of h2-h4 and

" .h7-h5 is favourable for White, and play might continue:


l l . . .ctJh7 1 2.f4! ctJxg5 1 3 .hxg5 �g4 14.Wd3 White is better.

7.�g2 7 . . . a6 is not as relevant because after S .a4

the game would transpose to other lines. So it's all about knight moves: Cl) 7 . . . ctJa6, C2) 7 ... ctJe8 and C3) 7 . . . etJbd7.

Cl) 7 . • . ttJa6

This seems very passive, although it is thematic in many Benoni-style openings.

S.ttJge2 ttJc7 9.0-0 gb8 The following alternative is an example from

my own praxis: 9 . . . a6 1 0.a4 b6

10 . . . gbS l 1 .a5 b5 1 2.axb6 gxb6 transposes to the 9 . . . gb8 main line.

1 l .f4 ctJd7 1 2.Wd3 gbS 13 .�d2 �f6 14.ga2 )':le8 1 5 .b3

Black lacks counterplay and so decides to open the centre, but this does not help much.

15 . . . exf4 1 6.gxf4 ctJfS 17.a5 b5 I S.e5! A thematic pawn sacrifice.

18 . . . dxe5 1 9.f5 Next will come ctJe4 with complete

domination, Avrukh - Veinger, Israel 1 999.

1O.a4 a6 Black can transfer his knight to the weakened

b4-square by means of . . . ctJa6-b4, but it will be out of play there. 1 0 . . . ctJa6 1 1 .f4 ctJd7 1 2.�e3 tLlb4 13 .Wd2 �f6 14.f5 White has a clear plan of a kingside offensive, while Black is doomed to passivity, Sonntag - F. Braga, Cadiz 1991 .

l1.aS bS 12.axb6 gxb6 Black has executed his idea, but he is far from

getting real counterplay on the queenside. The following two examples are fine demonstrations of White's intentions:

14.�d2 Black's main problem is the passively placed

knight on c7.

14 . . . �d7 1 S.�c3 Black should watch out for possible sacrifices

in the centre, such as ctJxc5 or �xe5.

l s ... lDfe8 16.f4 f6 17.Wl'd2 Wl'b8 18.f5 gO 19.h4

Black is clearly worse, Gulko - Mar, San Mateo (rapid) 1 989.

C2) 7 . . . ttJe8 8.ttJge2 �gS

In addition to the text move, we need to know how to deal with two other moves:

8 . . . g6 9.�h6 ctJg7 10 .Wd2 and now after 10 . . . ctJd7 (or 1 0 .. .f5 1 1 .0-0 ctJd7 1 2.f4) 1 1 .0-0, play would transpose to the 7 . . . ctJbd7 line.

1 38 Benoni Systems

S .. .f5 allows White to maintain control over the e4-square: 9.exf5 ixf5 1 0.0-0 ttJd7 l 1 .ttJe4 h6 1 2.ttJ2c3t White had a pleasant edge in Benko - Zwaig, Havana 1 966.

9.f4 The critical reaction.

9 ... exf4 10.gxf4 ih4t Otherwise it is not clear why Black released

the central tension. For example, after 1 O . . . if6 1 1 .0-0 ttJd7 12 .ie3 White had a pleasant edge in Klimov - Gubajdullin, Moscow 200S.

1 1 .ltJg3 f5 The point of Black's previous play. Instead

after 1 1 . . .ttJd7 1 2.0-0 g6 1 3.ie3 b6 1 4.VEd2 White is simply better, thanks to his superiority in the centre, Hoang Thanh Trang - Csom, Budapest 1 997.

1 2.0-0! It is important to know that the apparently

attractive pawn advance is very unclear: 1 2.e5

Black continues: 1 2 . . . dxe5 1 3.fxe5 ttJd7!

Of course 1 3 .. .f4? would be a serious mistake, as it allows White to seize a powerful initiative after 1 4.0-0 fxg3 1 5 .�xfSt <j{xfS 1 6.hxg3 ie7. The following encounter is a good

example of White's attack: 1 7.d6 ( l 7.ie3 <j{gS l S .ttJe4 is also good enough) 1 7 . . . ttJxd6 l S.exd6 VExd6 1 9.ttJd5 ttJc6 20.if4 VEd8 2 1 .VEh5 Black could not withstand White's offensive in S. Schneider - Koehn, Hallsberg 1 993.

1 4.e6 1 4.if4 obviously runs into 14 . . . g5Ft=.

1 4 . . .f4 1 5 .exd7 fxg3 With wild complications, Von Herman -

Urban, Budapest 1 99 1 .

1 2 ... fxe4 13.ttJcxe4 I believe this complex posmon is highly

favourable for White, as his pieces are much better mobilized. The following is merely an il lustrative line.

13 ... ttJd7 14.id2 ltJdf6 l S.ttJgS!

8 i:U.!.iii��.U 7 ilr _ _ .r 6 .. . . . �� 1111. "It '. s .11I1W'�K.' :t;j

W1� �'A�� W1rffi"''' ;wlt1 4 _ Q_ �O% �, 3 �

��

�� " ' "%m' ' ' ' ' ��,� ��,� ��/""" ;�,�

2 8 W� � _�W� 1 �_""%.iV� 1m""

a b c d e f g h lS ... ttJc7 1 5 . . . ig4 1 6.VEc2 VEd7?

A serious mistake, but even after the best try 1 6 . . . ttJc7 White enjoys a nice plus after: 1 7.ttJf5 ixf5 l s .VExf5 ixg5 1 9.fxg5 ttJd7 20.VEe4 ttJe5 2 1 .ic3! With the following point: 2 1 . . .VExg5 22.ixe5 dxe5 23.d6 ltle6 24.VEd5 VEg6 25 .�xfSt �xfS 26.d7 <j{h8 27.VExe5 White has a decisive advantage.

1 7.ttJe6! ixe6? Another mistake, but even after 1 7 . . . ixg3


1 8.ctJxf8 �xh2t 1 9.Wxh2 Wxf8 20J'hel C3) 7 ... ttJhd7 White's material advantage should decide the issue.

18.dxe6 V!ixe6 19.ctJf5+-Black lost his bishop In Beckemeier -

Ruehrig, Germany 1 986.

16.f5 Instead 1 6.V!ic2 is less convincing as it allows

Black to play 1 6 . . . h6 1 7.ctJf3 ctJg4.

16 ... ixg5 Black refrains from winning a pawn with

16 . . . ctJfXd5 and indeed after 17 .V!ig4 �xg5 1 8.�xg5 ctJf6 19.V!if4 White has powerful compensation as he dominates the board.

17.hg5 h6 1 8.ih4 h5 19.h4!?

a b c d e f g h A very strong positional pawn sacrifice.

19 ... cxh4 20.c5 dxc5? This is a serious mistake. Correct was

20 . . . ctJce8, although after 2 1 .c6 V!ib6t 22.Wh l White's passed pawn secures him much better chances.

21 .d6 �h8 22.dxc7 'flxc7 23.lLlh5! White was winning in Crouch - C. Cobb,

Newport 2000.

This is considered to be Black's main option.

8.lLlge2 This is White's most ambitious set-up against

the Czech Benoni. White avoids blocking the f-pawn and intends to play the active f2-f4 very soon.

a b c d e f g h

At this point we need to investigate the direct approach with C31 ) 8 ... lLle8 and the attempt to be subtle with C32) 8 ••. a6.

C31 ) 8 ... ttJe8 9.0-0 g6

Now White should take the opportunity to land his bishop on h6 with tempo. Instead 9 . . . a6 1 0.a4 does not change much.

1 0.ih6 Much less ambitious is 1 0 . .ie3. To

understand the difference let's follow a recent game: 1 0 . . . ctJg7 l 1 .V!id2 f5 1 2.f4 fXe4 1 3.ctJxe4 ctJf5 ! Of course this would be impossible with White's bishop on h6. 1 4.�f2 exf4 1 5 .ctJxf4 ctJe5 1 6.b3 �g5 17 .ctJxg5 Vffxg5 Black had a reasonable position in Roselli Mailhe -Ermenkov, Dresden 2008.

1 40 Benon i Systems

Another main line is 1 1 .f4 exf4 1 2.gxf4 f5 1 5 .�h3!?N �f6 16 .1Wc2 1 3.exf5 8:xf5 , but in my opinion this is quite White has the better chances. reliable for Black.

The immediate pawn break is considered to be inferior: l 1 . . .f5 1 2.f4 8:£7 13 .8:ael

It is difficult for Black to move. 1 3 . . . a6 14.a4 8:b8

This position is from the game Krueger -Werchan, Bad Wildbad 1 997, and now instead of the inaccurate 1 5 .ctlc1 , which allows Black to obtain a normal game after 1 5 . . . exf4! 1 6.�xf4 g5 1 7.�e3 ctle5 1 8.b3 �f6, White should continue increasing the pressure on Black's position by:

a b c d e f g h

12.h3 Obviously White has to defend against

. . . ctlg4.

12 ... �h8 White cannot play the immediate 13 .f4 in

view of 13 . . . ctlg8 when he has to give up his dark-squared bishop, so instead he waits for Black to play . . . ctlg8, meanwhile making a

useful move.

13.8:ae1 tLlg8 14.ie3 £5 15.£4 Now both sides have concluded their initial

plans. The tension in the centre is favourable for White, as after opening up the position we can see the difference between White's well-mobilized forces and Black's undeveloped queenside. The following is a good example:

15 . .. �f6

a b c d e f g h

16.fxe5! White's pieces are perfectly mobilized and

there is no point waiting any longer with 1 6.<tt>h2, as happened in a couple of games that reached this position. I found the texr move as a novelty, but then Sasikiran played ir in December 2009!

Chapter 1 1 - Czech Benoni 1 4 1

1 6 ... ixeS 17.if4! if6 The only playable answer. See for yourself:

17 . . . :8:e8 1 8 .exf5 ltJxf5 ( l 8 . . . ixf5 obviously runs into 1 9 .94!±) 1 9.1tJe4 White has a huge advantage, as Black is almost paralysed.

17 . . . td7 1 8.txe5 dxe5 1 9.exf5 gxf5 ( l 9 . . . ltJxf5 leaves Black with a weak e5-pawn and after 20.ti'le4 White's advantage is obvious) 20.ltJcl e4 2 1 .g4! Black cannot hold h i s central pawns, so White is clearly better.

The game Sasikiran - Satyapragyan, India 2009, continued: 17 ... txf4? 1 8.ltJxf4 And Black did not last long: 18 ... fxe4 1 9 .94 e3 20J'he3 td7 2 1 .ltJe4 'Wc7 22.:8:ef3 :8:fe8 23.ltJg5 :8:e7 24.ltJf7t :8:xf7 25 .ltJxg6t hxg6 26.:8:xf7 1-0

IS.exES gxfS! This is the only way Black can stay in the

game. The other options lead to critical positions for Black, for example:

18 . . . g5 1 9.te3 ltJxf5 20.tf2 te5 2 1 .g4 ltJh4 22.tg3! Black's position is very difficult due to his undeveloped queens ide. 22 . . . :8:xfl t 23.Ehfl ltJg6 24.ltJe4 h6 25 .txe5t ltJxe5 26.l2Jcl Followed by l2Jd3 with a decisive positional advantage.

After 1 8 . . . ltJxf5 1 9.1tJe4± White threatens g3-g4 and the d6-pawn is falling.

1 9.h4 White's idea is to weaken Black on the h l -a8

diagonal to increase the impact of ltJe2-f4-e6.

19 . .. b6 Obviously inferior is 1 9 . . . cxb4 20.ltJb5

followed by 'Wxb4 with a clear edge.

20.l2JbS lbeS

a b c d e f g h 2 1.ie3

Vacating the f4-square for the knight and thus preparing the manoeuvre ltJf4-e6.

21 ...a6 22.llJbc3 I believe White's chances are better. The

following line is an example of how play might continue.

22 ... :8:a7 23.llJf4 lbg7 24.if2 E:e8 2S.llJa4 E:ae7 26.E:bl

White has serious pressure.

C32) 8 . . . a6

I decided to make this move my main l ine. Usually Black's main idea is connected with the . . . 0-f5 advance. This can be achieved with the manoeuvre . . . ltJe8, . . . g7 -g6 and if necessary . . . ltJg7. On the other hand, White will always be ready to meet Black's advance with f2-f4, trying to open up the game, with the hope that the difference in activity of the minor pieces will tell. So let's have a look at what happens if Black starts to execute his main plan at once.

9.a4 I believe there is no point in allowing Black

to play a Benko-style pawn sacrifice after 9.0-0 b5 1 0.cxb5 'Wa5+!.

142 Benoni Systems

9 . . . b6 Once again, Black can go for his thematic

idea: 9 . . . ttJe8 1 0.0-0 g6 1 l ..!h6 ttJg7 12 .'Wd2 ttJf6 1 3.h3 i>h8 14.l"1ae 1 ttJg8 1 5 . .!e3 f5 16 .f4 .!f6

This position was reached in Ekstroem - V. Adas, Switzerland 2008. In fact we have the same position as in the 8 . . . ttJe8 line except with the inclusion of . . . a7 -a6 and a2-a4.

1 7.fxe5 '!xe5 1 8.'!f4 The idea from the 8 . . . ttJe8-line.

1 8 . . . .!f6 1 9.exf5 gxf5 Since in this line Black has played . . . a7 -a6, White obviously cannot play ttJb5 as he did in the previous line, bur instead the knight has a new option:

a b c d e f g h

20.a5! With the idea of ttJa4-b6 and, if necessary,

b2-b4; White has a pleasant edge. 20 . . . ttJh5 2 l .ttJa4 l"1b8 22.ttJb6 ttJxf4 23.ttJxf4

With a clear advantage.

10.0-0 ttJe8 Now this is trickier. Black makes a useful

move and does not allow White's bishop to h6. White now has two possibilities: either to play f2-f4 straightaway or wait for the h6-square to become available for his bishop by making some other useful moves. After studying [he position I have come to the conclusion that the second strategy is more dangerous for Black.

l 1 .i>hl A generally useful move.

Of course I also investigated the immediate pawn break: 1 l .f4

But it seems to me that Black now gets some play.

1 l . . .exf4 1 2.gxf4 l"1a7 Removing the rook from the diagonal and thus preventing a possible e4-e5 idea.

1 3 . .!e3 .!f6 Now Black has an easy plan of . . . g6, . . . ig7 and . . . £7-f5 . I could not find anything special for White here, for example:

14 .'Wd2 g6 1 5 .ttJc1 .!g7 1 6.ttJd3 f5 ! 17.exf5 gxf5

Black has decent play.

Chapter 1 1 - Czech Benoni 143

1 1 ...ga7 Actually this move has never been played in

tournament praxis, but it was recommended by Mihail Marin, a great specialist in the Czech Benoni with Black, in his comments to the Kasimdzhanov - Nisipeanu game.

Once again we are obliged to check the alternatives:

l 1 . . .g6 1 2.�h6 ct:Jg7 1 3.f4! White can exploit the slight weakening of the h l -a8 diagonal. (Certainly the text is more principled than "normal" play with 1 3 .Wd2.) 1 3 . . . exf4 14.gxf4 Black cannot play the desirable 14 .. .f5 in view of 1 5.e5! and White's central pawn i s untouchable because of 1 6.d6.

1 1 . . .E1b8 was tested in the old game Averbakh - Liublinsky, Moscow 1952. White can react in the same way as in our main l ine with 12.Wd3.

12.Wd3 Another useful move, as we will see later that

White's queen is well-placed on d3.

I believe it would again be premature to play 12.f4 exf4 1 3.gxf4 �f6 with a reasonable game for Black, for example 14.ct:Jgl �xc3! 1 5 .bxc3 f5. Now it seems to me Black is running out of useful moves, so he should switch to his main plan.

12 ... g6 13.�h6 ttJg7 14.f4 f5 White uses the same idea if Black chooses to

exchange on f4 first, before playing his . . . f? -f5 break: 1 4 . . . exf4 1 5 .gxf4 f5 1 6.�h3!

15 .�h3! A very strong idea, which secures White's

edge. For example:

15 ... fxe4 16.ttJxe4 exf4 17.�xd7 �xd7 18.ttJxf4 �f5 1 9.�xg7 �xg7 20.ttJe6t �xe6

a b c d e f g h 21.dxe6±

White has a vast selection of advantages - a passed pawn, an outpost on d5, a target on d6, a safer king . . .

Conclusion:

The Czech Benoni leads to closed positions where White automatically gains a space advantage. Of course Black hopes to gain counterplay, generally with an . . . f?-f5 break, but our standard kingside fianchetto both blunts Black's attacking hopes and offers White the chance of hitting back with f2-f4.

Benoni Systems

Old Benoni

Variation Index 1.d4 c5

2.d5 A) 2 ... b5 B) 2 ... £5 C) 2 ... e5 3.e4 d6 4.i.b5t!?

C1) 4 ... i.d7 5.a4! C1 1) 5 ... g6 C12) 5 ... i.e7

C2) 4 ... liJd7 D) 2 ... e6 3.liJc3

D1) 3 ... liJf6 4.e4 d6 5.i.b5t!? D l l ) 5 ... liJbd7?! D12) 5 ... i.d7

D2) 3 ... d6 4.e4 D21) 4 ... exd5 5.liJxd5 liJf6 6.liJf3

D21 1) 6 ... liJxd5 D212) 6 ... i.e7

D22) 4 ... a6 D3) 3 ... exd5

Cl l ) after 7 . . . �f6 C2) note to 5 . . . g6

a b c d e f g h

l 5 .l2lexd6!N

a b c d e f g b

D3) after 5 . . . l2lf6

145 147 149 149 150 151 151 154 155 155 156 158 158 158 160 160 162

a b c d e f g h

6.l2lxf6t!N

Chapter 1 2 - Old Benoni 145

l.d4 c5 2.d5

a b c d e f g h The initial position of what I shall call the

Old Benoni l ines (in contrast to the more popular Modern Benoni where of course Black starts with 1 . . .4Jf6) . Obviously Black has a wide choice here. I have decided to focus on the two main continuations, 2 . . . e5 and 2 . . . e6. Relatively rare moves such as 2 . . . b5 and 2 .. .f5 will also be covered, while 2 . . . g6 and 2 . . . 4Jf6 are irrelevant, as they naturally transpose to other chapters after 3.c4.

So, our choices are: A) 2 . . • b5, B) 2 ... £5, C) 2 . . . e5 and D) 2 ... e6.

A) 2 . . . b5

This rather dubious concept allows White to obtain a significant superioriry in the centre, so it is no wonder that this line is not popular with serious players.

3.e4 a6 The alternative is:

3 . . .'&b6?! But this runs into a strong reply.

4.a4! When Black has a tough choice:

4 . . . b4 This surrenders the c4-square, but so does the alternative 4 . . . bxa4, which damages

Black's queenside pawn structure even more. 5 .!%xa4 (5 .4Jc3 is a nice alternative) 5 . . . d6 6.4Jc3 4Jf6 Black commits another inaccuracy (somewhat better was 6 . . . g6 followed by 7 . . . .ig7) . 7.4Jf3 g6 8.e5! The point; now Black is in serious trouble. The game Loncar - B. Radulovic, Croatia 2008, continued: 8 .. . dxe5 9.4Jxe5 .ig7 10 . .ib5t .id7 1 1 .4Jxd7 4Jfxd7 1 2.'&e2 0-0 1 3.0-0± Black was under strong pressure.

5 .4Jd2 Naturally White's knight is heading for the perfect c4-square.

5 . . . 4Jf6?! Now White gains a large advantage, but even after the more accurate 5 . . . d6 I cannot imagine how Black will complete his development: 6.4Jgf3 4Jf6 (if 6 . . . g6 then 7.e5! is strong) 7 . .ib5t .id7 8.4Jc4 'We7 9.e5 dxe5 1 0.4Jfxe5 a6 1 1 ..ixd7t 4Jbxd7 1 2.4Jxd7 4Jxd7 1 3 .'Wf3!± Threatening 1 4.d6, plus .if4 and 0-0-0 will also quickly fol low.

6.4Jc4 'Wb7

4.a4

146 Benoni Systems

No doubt the reader has already noted that this is White's key positional idea in this line. Black's reply is forced.

4 .. . h4 As usual, this allows a fine outpost for White's

knight on c4. The following lines demonstrate White's advantage:

a b c d e f g h

S ... d6 We shall take Black fianchettoing his king's

bishop as the main line, but we should also consider what happens if Black chooses to put the bishop on e7: 5 . . . ctJf6 6.id3 d6 7.ctJgf3 e5 8.a5!

Another important positional decision; White not only fixes Black's pawn on a6, but also gains more space on the queenside which will help develop his p lay.

8 . . . ie7 9.h3 0-0 1 0.ctJc4 id7 1 1 .ctJb6 �a7 1 2.c3 bxc3 1 3 .bxc3 ib5 1 4.ie3 ctJe8 1 5 .c4 id7 1 6.0-0 g6 1 7.ih6 ctJg7 1 8 .Wfd2

White has a clear space advantage, so it is not surprising that Black's attempt to gain counterplay backfires:

1 8 . . . f5 1 9 .ctJg5 ixg5 20.ixg5 Wfe8 2 l .f4± In Khenkin - Alias Ginel, Spain 2005, White

opened up the position in his favour.

6.ltJc4 g6 7.id3 ig7 8.aS

As we already know from the previous example, this is an important positional decision. I n general I believe White should always be better if he manages to secure his knight on c4.

8 ... ltJf6 9.ltJe Slightly inaccurate is 9.h3 0-0 1 0.ctJf3,

Gritsak - Kot, Warsaw 2006, as it allows 1 0 . . . e6! 1 1 .0-0 exd5 1 2.exd5 ib7 with counterplay.

9 . .. 0-0 10.0-0

8 .i�.t� ��.m 7 ."""� ""'%�'f,Y,.t 6 !.�. ".i"� 5 � J1Ii.L\,"." � � 4 ".5� l�� 3 W'�!�� il$jW%�� W% �'M'iI 2 % " "J�A�Wfl��J� 1 §?� miV.�m

a b c d e f g h

10 ... ctJbd7 In contrast to the variation above, White is

now ready to meet Black's . . . e6 pawn break: 1 0 . . . e6 1 1 .if4! e5

Closing the centre was not Black's original intention, but the consistent follow-up runs into trouble: 1 1 . . . exd5 1 2.exd5 ctJe8 (Black cannot play 1 2 . . . ctJxd5, as after 1 3.ixd6 �e8 1 4.ixg6! White wins material) 13 .E1el ib7 14 .ifl White is clearly better, as Black is tied to the defence of the d6-pawn.

1 2.id2 Followed by 13 .c3 with a favourable position

for White.

Relatively best would have been 1 0 . . . ig4 although after l 1 .h3 ixf3 1 2.Wfxf3 tLlbd7 1 3.if4 White has a pleasant position.

Chapter 1 2 - Old Benoni 1 47

Returning to the main line, we have been following the game Link - Richter, Dortmund 2003, and now White should have chosen a calm prophylactic continuation:

11 .h3 Preventing possible ideas with . . . ctJg4.

11 . . J'�b8 12 . .if4 White has a pleasant edge.

B) 2 . . . f5

This leads to a hybrid between the Dutch and the Benoni. In British chess circles it is known as the Clarendon Court Defence, named after the block of Hats in London where GM Jon Levitt, one of the line's supporters, has lived for many years. I do not rate this variation highly, but who knows, maybe I am wrong. I developed the following attractive-looking line for White.

3.tik3 ctJf6 4.e4 This seems the most principled to me and if

i t work well for White then I do not see any reason to refrain from this continuation.

4 . .. fxe4 Obviously the other capture is completely

wrong: 4 . . . ctJxe4? 5 .ctJxe4 fxe4 6.Wfh5t! g6 7.'�e5 l:%g8 8 .Wfxe4 and White is clearly better.

a b c d e f g h

5.g4!? A tempting continuation, but White can also

try 5.ctJge2 with the idea of quickly regaining the pawn with ctJe2-g3xe4.

5 . . . e6 We have reached the main crossroads for

Black. In addition to the text move, he has two other possibilities to take into consideration:

5 . . . g6 Th is allows White to push away the black knight.

6.g5 ctJh5 7.ile2 Wfb6 I also examined 7 . . . ctJg7 when White is clearly better after 8.h4 ltJf5 9.h5 ilg7 1 0.ctJxe4 d6 1 1 .c3 ctJd7 1 2.h6! ilf8 1 3 .ctJf3±. This position was reached in J psingh -WindPower, Internet 2006. I believe White could simply grab the pawn:

a b c d e f g h 8.ilxh5N gxh5 9.Wfxh5t Wfg6 1 0.Wfe2 ilg7 1 1 .ctJxe4 d6 1 2.h4±

I do not see sufficient compensation for Black.

5 . . . h6 6.ilg2 d6 6 . . . e6 7.ctJge2 d6 8 .h3 would transpose to the main line.

7.h3 The most natural move, but in my opinion the following line also deserves serious attention: 7.ctJxe4 ctJxg4 8 .Wfe2!?N

148 Benoni Systems

7 . . . e5 The alternative is 7 . . . e6 8.lLlge2 exd5 (even worse is 8 . . . lLlbd7 9.dxe6 lLle5 1 0.lLlxe4 �xe6 l 1 .lLlf4 �f7 1 2.lLlxf6t �xf6 1 3 .�xb7 when White was a healthy pawn up in Schlosser - Bischoff, Austria 1 997) 9.lLlxd5 lLlc6 This position was reached in Vaisser - Sarmiento Alfonso, Las Palmas 1 996, and now after the simple: 1 0.0-0N White should be better, and the following line is plausible: 1 0 . . . �e6 l 1 .lLlef4 �f7 1 2.lLlxf6t �xf6 1 3.lLld5 �xd5 14 .�xd5 0-0-0 1 5 .�xe4 �e7 16 .�d2 With an advantage.

8.lLlxe4 I believe this type of position is favourable for White, thanks to his control over the e4-square and Black's slightly weakened light squares on the kings ide. I examined the following thematic line

8 . . . �e7 9.lLle2 lLlbd7 This was played in Menadue - Pugh, England 2008.

a b c d e f g h 1 0.lLl2g3N 0-0 1 1 .0-0 lLlxe4 12.lLlxe4

Also interesting is 1 2.�xe4 lLlf6 1 3 .�d3 when White is a little better.

1 2 . . . lLlf6 13 .lLlg3 �d7 1 4.�e3t White has an edge.

6.dxe6 Also worth considering is 6.�g2, when I

analysed the following natural-looking line: 6 . . . lLlxd5 7.lLlxd5 exd5 8 .�xd5 d6 9.�e3 lLlc6

1 0.0-0-0 White will regain the pawn at a suitable moment, retaining the better chances.

6 ... h6! Black's best chance. The endgame after

6 . . . dxe6 7.�xd8t �xd8 8 .g5 lLld5 9.�d2! is clearly favourable for White.

a b c d e f g h 7.gS hxgS 8.�xgS

At first sight 8.lLlh3 may look quite attractive, but after 8 . . . lLlc6 9.lLlxg5 lLld4! we have a very complex game.

8 . . . �e7 9.lDge2 lDc6 9 . . . dxe6 is l ikely to transpose. After 1 0.1Wxd8t

�xd8 1 1 .�g2 lLlc6 1 2.�e3 we reach a position from the main line.

9 . . . d5 is very risky. After 1 0.lLlf4 lLlc6 (simply bad is 1 0 . . . d4 l 1 .�xf6 �xf6 1 2.lLlxe4 with a

decisive advantage) 1 1 .�e2 0-0 1 2.�xf6 �xf6 1 3 .1Wxd5 White wins material, as Black cannot play 1 3 . . . �xd5 14.lLlfxd5 �xe6 in view of 1 5 .lLlc7!.

1O.�g2 dxe6 Black can hardly hope for serious

compensation after 1 0 . . . 0-0 l 1 .exd7 �xd7 1 2.�xf6 Elxf6 1 3.lLlxe4±.

1 1 .Wfxd8t �xd8 12.�e3!?N

Chapter 1 2 - Old Benoni 149

This move is a slight improvement over 12.0-0-0 as played in Buturin - Trushnikov, Lvov 1 996, which allows 1 2 . . . e5 with the idea of . . . LOd4, when the position is not entirely clear.

12 ... ie7 13.tiJxe4 tiJxe4 14.ixe4� White has a pleasant risk-free advantage,

thanks to his better pawn structure.

C) 2 ... e5

Naturally this blockading move means that White must look to the wings (including the Hie) to create play.

3.e4 d6

This is an important moment for understanding this type of position. I believe if White has a choice then he should refrain from playing c2-c4, which would seriously restrict White's chances of creating play on the queenside. It is important to realize that Black would not be obliged to reply 4 . . . LOf6, transposing to Modern Benoni l ines, but instead he can and should try 4 . . . i.e7, trying to carry out his main positional idea of exchanging dark-squared bishops with . . . i.g5 . White's main choice by far in this specific position is 4.LOc3, but I found quite an interesting alternative.

4.ib5t!? What could be more natural than developing

with check? In fact the main point is to avoid Black's thematic idea of trading dark-squared bishops with . . . i.e7 -g5 , which would be helped by the pinning . . . i.c8-g4, possibly followed by an exchange of Black's l ight-squared bishop.

Black is obviously at a crossroads as he decides with which minor p iece to block the check: Cl) 4 •.. id7 or C2) 4 ... tiJd7.

Cl) 4 ... id7 5.a4!

This is White's key idea after 4.i.b5t. Now Black's l ight-squared bishop is slightly misplaced on d7, while an exchange of bishops on b5 would be an obvious concession that would activate White's rook along the a-file.

Black now has three conceptually-different moves: The sensible lines are Cl1) 5 ... g6 and C12) 5 ... ie7.

In addition, we should also have a quick look at a tempo-losing positional blunder: 5 . . . a6

It is important to understand exactly how we should react after this move.

6.i.xd7t LOxd7 7.a5! White has to fix the black pawns on the queens ide, which will give him plenty of play there.

1 50 Benoni Systems

7 . . . fle7 B.'Df3 'Dgf6 9.'Dc3 bS Black clarifies the situation on the queenside.

1 0.axb6 iWxb6 Obviously this is not the correct recapture, but even after the best 1 0 . . . 'Dxb6 l l .iWe2 iWcB 1 2.0-0 0-0 13 .h3, followed by fle3, 'Dd2 and doubling rooks on the a-file, White's advantage is obvious.

1 l .'Dd2 0-0 1 2.'Dc4 iWc7 13 .'DaS fldB 14 .iWe2

White was much better in Muehlebach -Kaeding, Bad Ragaz 1 992.

C I I) 5 ... g6

Black intends to offer an exchange of darksquared bishops by means of . . . flh6.

a b c d e f g h 6.£4!

The most principled reply.

6 ... exf4 Only one game has reached this position, so

I decided to check Black's other options:

6 . . . a6 is met strongly by 7.fld3 flg7 B.fxe5 flxe5 9 .'Df3 with an advantage.

6 . . . flg7 7.'Dc3 and if 7 . . . 'De7 then B.fxeS flxeS 9.'Df3 flg7 1 0.flf4 is pretty unpleasant for Black.

7.:flxf4 �f6 In his comments in ChessBase Magazine 46

Stohl recommended the following move as a better option for Black: 7 . . . iWe7 B.'Dc3 flg7

If B . . . flh6 then White keeps an advantage after 9.iWd2 flxf4 1 0.iWxf4 'Df6 1 l .'Df3 0-0 1 2.0-0 because Black cannot continue 1 2 . . . flxbS in view of 1 3 .'DxbS! 'Dxe4 14.E!ae 1 f5 l S .'Dd2 'Dd7 1 6.'Dxe4 fxe4 17.iWxd6 with a big advantage. After the text move I found an interesting opportunity for White.

9.'Df3!? The normal 9.iWd3 also comes into consideration.

9 . . . flxc3 t __ After 9 . . . 'Df6 10 .0-0 0-0 White gains a solid advantage by l l .eS dxeS 1 2.'DxeS±.

1 0.bxc3 flxbS I also analysed 1 0 . . . iWxe4 t 1 l .iWe2 Wxe2t 1 2.flxe2 'Df6. There is no way Black can hold the d6-pawn (if 1 2 . . . We7 then after 13 .0-0 Black is helpless against the coming E!e1 when the d6-pawn is falling) . 13.0-0 'DxdS 14.flxd6 'Dc6 1 S .'DgS! White's threats are very serious.

l l .axbS iWxe4t 1 2.We2 iWxe2t 1 3.Wxe2 �d7 1 4.'DgS 'Df6 1 s .flg3!

White's initiative looks very dangerous, especially when we consider the state of Black's queenside pieces.

Chapter 1 2 - Old Benoni 1 5 1

8 . .!Lle2!N I believe this is a strong improvement over

8.�c l ih6! 9.ixh6 'lWh4t 1 0.g3 'lWxh6 when Black had a perfectly playable position in Korotylev - Malakhov, Moscow 1 995 .

8 ... 'Wxb2 Otherwise there is no point In Black's

previous move.

9 . .!Lld2 Black is way behind in development, but he

can capture a second pawn.

9 ... ixb5 1O.axb5 'lWxb5 But after:

11 .0-0 Black's position is critical, for instance:

I 1 ...ClJd7 12J:!bl 'lWa6 13.ClJc3! 14.lLlb5 is on the way with decisive effect.

Cl2) 5 . . . i.e7

a b c d e f g h 6 . .!Llf3 ClJf6 7.ClJc3 0-0 8.ClJd2

White should avoid the immediate 8 .0-0 as it would allow Black 1'0 play the useful 8 . . . ig4.

S ... ClJe8

Black intends to carry out the . . . O -f5 advance very quickly, but this concept is risky with his queens ide so undeveloped. The following encounter saw:

9.ClJc4 g6 10.0-0 f5

1 1 .i.h6!?N l3f7 12.f4 a6 1 2 . . . exf4 1 3 .e5 looks horrible for Black.

13.i.xd7 ClJxd7 14.\We2 White is much better prepared for opening

up the position.

C2) 4 . ..tild7 5.a4

Now Black has a wide choice, but in general we can break it down into studying two different concepts: one with Black developing his darksquared bishop to e7, and the second with a fianchetto.

5 . . . g6 5 . . . ie7 6.lLlf3 lLlgf6 7.lLlc3 0-0 8.0-0

And now I have again divided the variations in two: one where Black plays . . . a7-a6 driving away the bishop from b5, and the second

1 52 Benoni Systems

where Black refrains from . . . a7 -a6 and tries to carry out his ideas on the kingside.

a) 8 . . . a6 9.�e2 ttJe8 Black can prevent a possible a4-a5 by 9 . . . b6, bur White easily develops his play on the queenside, as was proven convincingly in the following encounter: 1 O.ttJd2 ttJe8 1 1 .ttJc4 �g5 1 2.Ei:b 1 White prepares the b2-b4 advance. 12 ... �xc l 13 .\Wxcl \We7 1 4.b4 g6 1 5 .\We3 White was much better in Roiz - Daudzvarrus, Biel 2005.

1 0.ttJd2 The immediate 1 0.a5 also comes into consideration.

10 . . . g6 The alternative plan is 1 0 . . . �g5, bur here Black's counterplay also fails. 1 1 .ttJc4 �xcl 1 2.\Wxc l \Wh4 This was Mikhalev -Debowska, Mondariz 2003, and now White can simply continue his plan with 1 3 .a5 and it is hard for Black to create counterplay, while White has easy play with Ei:b 1 , \We3 and b2-b4.

1 1 .ttJc4 ttJg7 Black now manages to carry our . . . £1-f5, bur the perfect position of White's knight on c4 and Black's passive pieces on the queenside mean that opening the position is clearly favourable for White.

1 2.a5 f5

a b c d e f g h 1 3 .f4! fxe4 1 4.ttJxe4 ttJf6

This is Jaworski - Mammadov, Poland 2003, and here White could have decided the issue with:

1 5 .ttJexd6!N �xd6 1 6.fxe5+-

b) 8 . . . ttJe8 9.ttJd2 g6 Another option is 9 . . . �g5 when the following encounter is quite thematic: 1 0.ttJc4 �xc1 1 1 .\Wxc1 \We7 1 2.f4 exf4 1 3.�xd7 A welltimed operation. 1 3 . . . �xd7 1 4.\Wxf4 �d8 This is Sosnicki - Markowski, Poland (ch) 1 998, and now the natural 1 5 .e5!N dxe5 1 6.ttJxe5 would clearly favour White, due to his strong passed pawn and more active pieces.

1 0.a5 �g5 The same position can be reached if Black plays first 9 . . . �g5 and then 1 0 . . . g6.

1 1 .ttJc4N This seems stronger than 1 1 .a6 bxa6 12.�xa6 �xa6 1 3 .Ei:xa6 ttJb6 1 4.\We2 ttJc7 1 5.Ei:al as as in Miton - Ivkov, Ottawa 2007.

1 1 . . .�xc1 1 2 .\Wxc1 a6 1 3.�xd7 �xd7 14 .ttJb6 Otherwise Black has the idea of playing . . . �b5.

14 . . . �b8 1 5 .f4 f6 1 6.�b 1 Followed by 1 7.b4; White has an obvious

edge thanks to his extra space.

a b c d e f g h


6 . .. ig7 Black has twice tried:

Lih6 But this does not solve Black's problems.

7.ixh6 tDxh6 S .�d2 tDgS A more natural option would have been 8" .tDg4, and now I recommend 9.a5, grabbing more space on the queenside. 9".0-0 1 0.tDf3 White's position is preferable, as Black is struggling to create counterplay. For example: 1 O" .f5 1 1 .exf5 gxf5 (or 1 l . . .l"i:xf5 1 2.h3 tDgf6 1 3.tDg5 tDfS 1 4.id3 l"i:f4 1 5.tDe2±) 1 2.tDg5 �e7 1 3 .0-0 White has a clear advantage.

9.f4 exf4 Now I would prefer to deviate from the game we have been following.

a b c d e f g h 10.tDf3!?N

The game Khenkin - Rogers, Switzerland 1998, continued 1 0.�xf4 �f6 1 1 .�g3 when I believe Black should have played 1 1 . . .�e7 12.tDf3 tDgf6 1 3.0-0 tDh5! and matters are not so clear.

lO" .tDgf6 It would be dangerous for Black to hold on to the f4-pawn with 1 0" .g5 as 1 1 .e5! is very strong. For example: 1 1 " .dxe5 (after 1 1 " .g4 12.�xf4! gxf3 1 3 .0-0 Black faces a crushing attack) 1 2.tDxe5 ( l 2.h4!?) 1 2" .tDgf6 1 3.h4 0-0 14 .hxg5 tDxe5 1 5 .gxf6 �xf6 1 6.0-0-0 White is clearly better.

1 1 .Wlxf4 �e7 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3 .�h4!

White has the advantage, and the following line is more or less forced:

1 3" .Wg7 1 4.ixd7 ixd7 1 5 .tDg5 h6 1 6.tDh7! Wxh7 17.l"i:xf6

The endgame after 17.�xf6 �e5 l S.tDb5 ixb5 19 .�xe5 dxe5 20.axb5 is also better for White, but I believe White can ask for more.

1 7" .�e5 l S.l"i:afl ie8 19 .�h1 ± With a clear advantage.

7.ttJf3 ttJgf6 8.0-0 0-0 9.ttJd2 There are now two continuations to

consider:

9 .. . a6 The alternative looks quite natural:

9" .tDh5 This was played in Rodshtein - Andreikin, Internet (blitz) 2006, and now I believe more flexible than the game's 1 0.tDc4 would have been:

1 0.a5 I analysed the following variation:

1 0" .a6 1 1 .id3 ct:lf4 12.tDc4 �e7 1 3 .l"i:e1 tDxd3

1 3" .l"i:bS 14 .ifl is very nice for White. 1 4.cxd3

Black now manages to carry out his " . f5-advance, but it leads nowhere.

14" .f5 1 5 .l"i:b1

1 54 Benoni Systems

Followed by I 6.b4. Also worthy of consideration is I 5 .exf5 gxf5 I 6.f4!?

1O.�e2 b6 It is clear that 1 0 . . . b6, stopping a4-a5, is

Black's best option.

The alternative leads to an inferior position: 1 0 .. .tLle8 1 1 .lLlc4 We7 1 2.a5 f5 1 3 .f3 f4 We have reached a position that resembles a King's Indian, with one very important difference: instead of a pawn on c4 White has a beautiful knight. This allows him to develop his play on the queens ide very quickly. The following line is j ust one possible example: I 4.Elb 1 h5 1 5 .b4 cxb4 1 6.Elxb4 Elf7 I7 .i.a3 i.f8 1 8 .lLla4 g5 1 9.1Llab6 (or 1 9 .Wd2 Elg7 20.lLlab6) 1 9 . . . lLlxb6 2o.lLlxb6 White had the upper hand in Matamoros Franco - Gonzales, Coria del Rio 1 995.

1 1 .tDc4 ttJe8 12.Elbl White has also tried 1 2.'�h 1 and 1 2.i.e3,

but the text seems the most natural to me. It is also essential to understand that 1 2.f4 does not work properly for White, as after 1 2 . . . exf4 1 3.i.xf4 We7 Black keeps control over the e5-square.

1 2 . . . Elb8 13.b4 £5 14.�d2 No doubt White also has other options, but

the text looks rather flexible.

14 .. . 'lWc7 If 1 4 . . . f4 then Black was concerned about

the thematic 1 5 .i.g4.

The position after the text move was reached in B. Lalic - Orenda, Pula 1 997. Instead of Lalic's 1 5 .i.d3 I suggest a surprising concept:

l S.bS!?N Black's pieces are grouped on the queens ide

and his idea of . . . cxb4 followed by . . . lLlc5 looks

pretty reliable, which is why I intend to close the queenside, thus securing a perfect position for the c4-knight, then switch to the kingside, using the fact that Black's pieces are a little too far from the action.

l S .. . aS I guess Black should avoid bxa6 followed by

lLlb5.

16.exfS gxf5 17.g4! Fighting for the e4-square.

17 . . . fxg4 1 8.�xg4 ttJdf6 19.�xc8 Wxc8

a b c d e f g h

20.WO White's prospects are much better, as Black

is tied to the defence of the b6- and d6-pawns. White even has the luxury of 20.f4!? as a

promising alternative.

D) 2 . . . e6

It is likely this line will lead to a more open centre than 2 . . . e5, so the action is speeded up and rapid development is essential.

Mter 3.c4 the position would transpose to the chapter on 1 . . .e6 2.c4 c5 , but here I decided to offer the reader a second choice, which I believe is even more favourable. Of course I

Chapter 1 2 - Old Benoni 1 5 5

intend to meet both 2o o .tOf6 and 2 o o .g6 with 3.c4, which will transpose to other chapters.

3.ttJc3 Now we will examine three possible moves

for Black: 01) 3 ... ttJf6, 02) 3 ... d6 and 03) 3 . • . exd5.

01) 3 ... ttJf6 4.e4

4 . .. d6 This is Black's best bet, as it is too dangerous

for Black to capture on dS: 4 . . . exdS?! S .eS !

Black is already in trouble. S . . . tOg8

Or S o o YJie7 6.'iffie2 tOe4 (perhaps slightly better is 6 o o .tOg8, but after 7.tOxdS 'iffid8 8.if4! with the idea of 9.e6 followed by lO .tOc7, it is hard to believe Black can survive for long) 7.tOxdS 'iffixe5 8 .c4 Black is helpless against White's threats. The game Saric - Stock, Pula 2006, continued for just a few more moves: 8 o o .tOc6 9.tOf3 'iffif5 lO.tOc3 and Black resigned.

6.%hd5 White is clearly better due to his lead in development. The following is just one illustrative line:

6 . . . tOc6 7.tOf3 d6 8.ib5 tOge7 9.'iffixd6 'iffixd6 1O.exd6 tOf5 1 1 .if4 ixd6 l 2.ixd6 tOxd6

l 3 .ixc6t bxc6 1 4.0-0-0± White had a huge positional advantage in

Smejkal - Savon, Wijk aan Zee 1 972.

5.i.b5t!? This is White's second choice according to

theory, but it is a good idea to disrupt Black's coordination. Now, as in an earlier line in this chapter, Black must decide which minor piece belongs on d7, but in this case one of the answers is definitely wrong. The options are 0 1 1) 5 •.. ClJbd7?! and 012) 5 ... i.d7.

0 1 1) 5 ... ClJbd7?!

This alternative is clearly inferior as it allows an immediate punch.

a b c d e f g h 6.dxe6 fxe6 7.e5!

Black's pawn structure is damaged beyond repair.

7 ... dxe5 8.ClJf3 a6 The other option brings Black no relief either:

8 o o .e4 9.tOg5 a6 This was played in Quiroga N. Diaz, Argentina 2004, and now very strong would have been: 1 0.tOxe6 'iffib6 I l .ic4 tOeS 1 2.tOdS! With the following point: 1 2o o .tOxd5 1 3 .'iffihSt tOf7 1 4.'iffixd5 ixe6 I S .'iffixe6t 'iffixe6 1 6.ixe6 White is much better, thanks to his bishop pair and the weak e4-pawn, which is likely to drop off.

1 56 Benoni Systems

9.ic4 tLlb6 Another line runs: 9 .. Y.!je7 1 0.a4 gG

(somewhat better would have been 1 0 . . . ttJbG, although here after 1 1 .�e2 ttJxc4 1 2.�xc4 �c7 1 3.0-0 �e7 1 4.E!e1 White's advantage is indisputable, as he regains the pawn and Black still has obvious targets in his pawn structure) 1 1 .0-0 �g7 And now in Gomez Esteban -Ruiz Gomez, Spain 200 1 , the simple and strong 1 2.�e2 0-0 1 3.�g5 would have been clearly better for White.

1O.'\Wxd8t @xd8 1 1 .tLlxe5 tDxc4 The alternative is even worse: 1 1 . . .�dG

1 2.ttJf7t rJJe7 1 3 .ttJxdG rJJxd6 14 .�d3 White has a serious advantage, thanks to his bishop pair and Black's weakened pawn structure. The only game to reach this position continued: 1 4 . . . ttJbd5 1 5 .ttJe4t rJJcG 1 6.c4 ttJb4 1 7.�b l E!dS This is Biaggi - Szmetan, Buenos Aires 1 992, and now White missed the simple l S.�e3 ttJd3t 1 9.�xd3 E!xd3 20.rJJe2± followed by capturing the c5-pawn.

12.tLlxc4 b5 Now I believe White's best option is:

I G.O-O-ot @e8 1 7.E!he1 @f7 White still kept a slight edge in E. Cosma - Voiska, Romania 2004, but Black's position looks defendable to me.

13 ... @e8 14.0-0 Now I examined the following possible line:

14 . . . ib7 15.E!e1 E!d8 16.£3 ie7 17.ig5� White has a pleasant edge, thanks to his

better pawn structure and Black's king, which is slightly exposed in the centre after losing the right to castle.

D12) 5 ... id7 6.a4

The attractive-looking line G.dxeG fxeG 7.!c4 has scored highly for White, but Black's problems were only created because the players have refrained from developing naturally: 7 . . . �e7 S.ttJf3 ttJc6N In ChessBase Magazine 106 Atalik annotated his game against NurlGe and recommended 9.�f4, but after 9 . . . 4Ja5 1 O.�e2 �cG! the position seems doubleedged.


Black's pawn structure may look flexible, but in fact it is rather vulnerable. He may experience problems defending the e6-pawn after a possible liJg5, while . . . h7-h6 would significantly weaken the light squares on the kingside.

9 . . . ttJe5 Black can also play 9 . . . �e7 when White replies 1 0.0-0. a) Now Black has to prevent liJg5 as, for example, after 1 0 . . . 0-0? l 1 .liJg5 White is simply winning. b) He should play 1 0 . . . h6 when after 1 1 . Wi e2 White is threatening the unpleasant 1 2.e5, damaging Black's pawn structure. After l l . . .e5 1 2.liJh4 0-0 1 3 .liJf5± White is clearly better, as Black's weaknesses start to tell.

l O.ttJxe5 dxe5 Now in the game Fulgenzi - J .P. Campos, Argentina 1 997, White continued with 1 1 .Wi e2, then transferred his queen to c4 and had the better chances, but I suggest that instead the reader should have a quick look at the position after:

7.exd5 White cannot hold on to a piece outpost

on d5: 7.tt'lxd5 liJxd5 8.'rWxd5 tt'lc6 9.liJf3

�e7 1 0.c3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 �e6 1 2.Wdl d5 And Black easily solved all his opening problems in Mochalov - Dyachkov, Orel 1 995 .

7 . . . i.e7 8.tt'la 0-0 9.0-0 tt'la6 The text is Black's most common choice, but

he has also tried 9 . . . �xb5 . This looks like a slight concession, as it allows White to activate his queenside rook. 1 0.axb5 tt'lbd7 1 1 .h3 tt'lb6 1 2.gel ge8 This is Baltar Iglesias - Bello Filgueira, Ourense 2007, and now the simple 1 3.Wd3 h6 14.�f4t would retain a pleasant edge, thanks to White's extra space.

a b c d e f g h 10.i.xa6!

I believe 1 0.gel would also retain a slight edge, but the text is the most principled. The arising position is favourable for White, not only because his better pawn structure naturally compensates for Black's bishop pair and halfopen b-file, but because of the wonderful outpost for White's knight on c4.

10 .. . bxa6 1 1 .liJd2 This seems the best option, but White

also had a pleasant advantage after 1 1 . b3 �f5 1 2.liJd2 liJd7 1 3.liJc4 �f6 14 .�b2 liJb6 1 5 .liJe3 �g6 1 6.'�'d2 ge8 1 7.a5 liJd7 1 8 .liJa4 in Vaganian - Agzamov, Moscow 1 983.

1 58 Benoni Systems

The following game is a good example of White's strategy:

12 . . . ifS 13.!'le1 !'le8 14.if4 The d6-pawn is an important target for

White's minor pieces.

14 ... if8 15.!'lxe8 ctJxe8 16JWd2 ctJf6 17.!'le1 h6 18.h3 ih7 19.!'le2 'lWd7 20.£3 �h8 21 .g4

White's space advantage is significant; Black faces a long, passive defence, N.V Pedersen -Papp, Budapest 2006.

02) 3 ... d6 4.e4

Now there is a split between 021) 4 . . . exd5 and 022) 4 . . . a6.

021) 4 ... exd5

4 . . . ctJf6 5 .ib5t transposes to the 3 . . . ctJf6-line.

5.ctJxd5

9 . . . ctJxd5 Obviously White's e-pawn was poisoned, as Black loses material after 9 . . .tLJxe4? 1 0J''le l .

a b c d e f g h 1 0.exd5!N

In my opinion this tempting recapture is stronger than 1 0.ixd5 ig4 I I .h3 ih5 12.c3 'lWc7 when White was only slightly better in Sakaev - Szmetan, Internet 2003.

1 0 . . . ttJbS 1 0 . . . ttJa5 1 1 .id3 leaves Black's knight poorly placed on the edge of the board.

1 1 .1"i:e 1 ig4 Instead 1 1 . . .ttJd7 allows the unpleasant 1 2.�e2 ttJb6 1 3.'lWxe7 ttJxc4 1 4.'lWe4 tiJb6 1 5 .c4± when White is clearly better.

12 .�d3 ttJd7 1 3 .ttJd2 White's chances are much better, thanks to

his space advantage.

6.ctJ£3 We now have a further split based on

whether Black captures immediately on d5: 021 1) 6 ... ctJxd5 or 0212) 6 ... ie7.

0211 ) 6 . . . ctJxd5 7.'lWxd5 ctJc6

Another option is: 7 . . . ie7

Theory considers White's best bet to be: s.ig5

Both of Black's replies should eventually lead to the same position


8 .. . !xg5 8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0-0 !xg5t (instead simply bad for Black is 9 . . . LDc6? 1 0.!xe7 WTxe7 1 1 .WTxd6 �xe4 and now both 1 2.WTxc5 and 1 2.!d3 are clearly better for White) 1 0.LDxg5 transposes to 8 . . . !xg5 .

9 .l2lxg5 0-0 1 O.!c4 WTe7 1 1 .LDxf7 :8:xf7 1 2.0-0-0 LDc6 1 3 .WTxd6 cj,Jf8 1 4.!xf7 cj,Jxf7

After a series of more or less forced moves we have a position from Epishin - Adams, Dortmund 1 994. Now the most accurate continuation would have been:

15.f4!N I examined the following variations:

a b c d e f g h a) 1 5 . . . !g4 runs into 1 6.WTxe7t cj,Jxe7 (16 . . . LDxe7 would be stronger, bur even so after 1 7.:8:d6 White is clearly better) 1 7.:8:d5! White wins a pawn, because he is threatening not only :8:xc5, bur also :8:g5 .

b) 1 5 . . . LDd4 1 6.WTxe7t cj,Jxe7 1 7.f5 ! Restricting Black's bishop and taking control of the e6-square. Next White will play 1 8 .c3, driving away Black's knight from d4. White's chances are better and he is playing for only two results.

c) 1 5 . . . WTxd6 The main point is that after 16.:8:xd6 �e7 17 .:8:d2 I believe White is better, thanks to his slight material advantage. Once again, White can play for a win without any danger of defeat.

a b c d e f g h 8 ... WTe7

Despite being only Black's second most popular choice, I believe this is the critical line. After the more common 8 . . . WTc7 White continues with 9.!c4 LDe5 1 0.!b5t !d7 1 1 .!xd7t WTxd7 1 2.!f4 LDc6. Now 1 3.0-0-0 is usually played, but I prefer the quiet 1 3.c3 h6 1 4.LDf3 !e7, as in Utkin - Jezov, St Petersburg 2005. Now I recommend the following manoeuvre: 1 5 .LDd2 0-0 1 6.LDc4 :8:ad8 1 7.0-0 b5 1 8.LDe3t White has a pleasant edge, thanks to his control over the d5-square.

9.ibS The only way to fight for an advantage. The

following line was recommended by GM Jim Plaskett in Chess Informant 77 late in 1 999.

If instead 9.!c4 then Black gains normal play with the unexpected 9 . . . f6! 1 0.WTf7t cj,Jd7! .

9 ... id7 10.ic4 LDd8 1 1 .0-0 h6 12.ctJa I decided to continue the analysis a little

further:

12 ... ic6 13.WTd2 ltJe6 14.idS iWd7 IS.b3 ie7 16.ib2 0-0 17.:8:feH

White retains a positional advantage, once again thanks to his control of the d5-square.

160 Benoni Systems

D212) 6 . • . i.e7

This seems to me to be the most flexible development for Black.

7.i.b5t This is more ambitions than 7.ic4 as then

Black has 7 . . . 0-0 8 .0-0 ctJxd5 9.ixd5 ctJd7! and the black knight comes to either b6 or f6 to fight for the d5-square.

7 . . . ctJc6 Black has also tried: 7 . . . id7 8.ic4 0-0

9.0-0 ic6 (or 9 . . . ctJxd5 1 0.ixd5 ctJc6 1 l .c3 and White has a pleasant edge) 1 0.if4 ctJxd5 This is Schlosser - Szalanczy, Velden 1 993, and now it is of course tempting to maintain control over the d5-square, but here White could have played 1 1 .exd5 with tempo, and after 1 1 . . .id7 1 2.�d3 White would enjoy a significant space advantage.

8.0-0 0-0 9.�el ig4 1O.ixc6 bxc6 And now instead of 1 1 .ctJe3, which led to

double-edged play after 1 1 . . . ie6 in Sutorikhin - Schroter, Zalaegerszeg 1 992, White could have gained a favourable position with:

a b c d e f g h 1 l .ctJxe7t!N �xe7 12.h3 ixf3

If 1 2 . . . ih5 then White has 1 3.g4 ig6 1 4.e5 dxe5 1 5 .ctJxe5 me8 1 6.ig5 with an obvious edge, thanks to his better pawn structure.

13.\Wxf3 ctJd7 14.if4 ctJe5 15.\Wc3 1'He8 16.�adI;t

White has a stable advantage, again thanks to his better pawn structure.

D22) 4 ... a6

This is the more important line of this variation. Black hopes to benefit from delaying the capture on d5.

5.a4

8 � ?� A XUli��"�'�0 B. ��.JL�e��m.�a 7 .i"� "'' '�� 'i�9'iY, 6 �� 'li��}j� 5 1��'�� , 4 !�" '�!�,��, 3 ��m�� 2 �n"8'��D!D ""0""��r� �W:''''.{'' ' ' %% ,,,/;;[,, " % 1 �� i!i��mn

a b c d e f g h I have figured out the following guidelines for

White in this line: if we have the opportunity we should try to recapture with a piece on

d5, but it is also important to prevent Blaek achieving a desirable pawn structure after . . . e6xd5 e4xd5 with his dark-squared bishop developed on g7. Let's see how this works in practice:

5 ... llJf6 Black's other options include:

5 . . . g6 6.ctJf3 ig7 Dubious is 6 . . . ih6 as 111 Stohl - Lane, Czechoslovakia 1 990, and now White could have achieved a big advantage after 7.ixh6 ctJxh6 8 .�d2 ctJg4 9.h3 ctJf6 1 0.dxe6 ixe6 1 1 .0-0-0±.


7.�c4 Instead 7.dxe6 does not work out well, because after 7 . . . �xe6 S.�f4 Black has the annoying S . . . �b6! 9.gb 1 tLlc6 with acceptable play.

7 . . . 4Jf6? A serious error. Also bad would have been 7 . . . exd5? S .�xd5! We7 9.tLlg5 tLlh6 1 0.�f4± and White is much better. Probably Black should settle the game down with 7 . . . e5.

S.dxe6! White missed this opportunity in Tonka -Duthilleul, corr. 1955 .

8 . . . �xe6 9.�xe6 fxe6 1 0.e5 dxe5 1 1 .�xdSt WxdS l 2.tLlxe5

With a pleasant advantage.

5 . . . exd5 6.tLlxd5 Following the strategy I suggested above. The text move has been tested only once in tournament practice. 6.exd5 would allow 6 . . . g6 and Black's knight might be developed to e7, which is exactly what we must try to avoid.

6 . . . 4Jf6 I decided to examine this natural move and to compare with the line without including ... a7-a6 and a2-a4. Instead 6 . . . tLle7 was Szymanski - Dziuba, Trzebinia 1 999, and now 7.�c4 would leave Black with much fewer options compared with 6 . . . 4Jf6.

7.�c4 Now we lack the option of �b5, as we opted for in the line without the insertion of . . . a7-a6 and a2-a4.

7 . . . �e7 S.tLlf3 0-0 9.0-0 4Jxd5 Another line I looked at was 9 . . . tLlc6 1 0.gel 4Jxd5 (Black fails to equalize after 1 0 . . . �g4 1 1 .h3 �xf3 l 2.�xf3 tLle5 l 3 .�e2;j;) 1 1 .exd5 and White is better after either 1 1 . . .4Ja5 l2 .�d3 or 1 1 . . .4JbS l 2.�f4.

1 0 .�xd5 tLld7 Here I believe insertion of a2-a4 and . . . a7 -a6 favours White, as he retains an advantage if 1 0 . . . tLlc6 1 1 .c3 �e6 l 2.�f4;j;.

1 1 .�d3 tLlb6 1 1 . . .4Jf6 l 2 .�c4 is also an edge for White.

1 2.�b3 White is threatening l 3.a5 and after:

l 2 . . . a5 l 3 .�e3 He retains a pleasant advantage.

a b c d e f g h

6 . .ic4! A very important moment. White's last move

forces Black to clarify the pawn structure in the centre. Instead I believe Black has a reasonable game after 6.tLlf3 exd5 7.exd5 �g4 .

6 .. . .ie7 Naturally 6 . . . exd5 transposes to 5 . . . exd5

7.tLlxd5 .

7.tLl£3 0-0 8.0-0 Premature would be S.dxe6?! �xe6 9.�xe6

fxe6 1 0.e5 dxe5 1 1 .�xdS gxdS 1 2.tLlxe5 tLld5! followed by " .�f6. After the text move Black has a decision to make.

8 . .. exd5 The other path is S . . . e5 accepting the loss

of a tempo. After 9 .h3 White has a favourable position and the extra time will certainly help.

162 Benoni Systems

9. ClJxdS Once again this transposes to the 5 . . . exd5

line mentioned above.

03) 3 . . . exdS

The direct approach from Black, although now there is a rather obvious hole on d5.

4.ctJxdS d6 Black has other possibilities as well:

4 . . . 4.Jf6 is a slightly inaccurate move order, as it allows 5 .ig5! ie7 6.ixf6 ixf6 7.c3 0-0 8.g3 4.Jc6 9.ig2 d6 as in Kaps - Mrdja, Montecatini Terme 2005. Now the natural 1 0.4.Jf3 l::i:e8 1 1 .0-0 if5 12 .4.Jd2;1; would leave White with a pleasant edge, thanks to his control over the d5-square.

4 . . . 4.Je7 would allow 5 .ig5 .

5 . . . 4.Jbc6 6.e4 d6 7.c3 ie6 This was played in Akselrod - Katalymov, Tomsk 2003, and now White should have played: 8.4.Je2 iWd7 9.4.Jef4 0-0-0 1 0.ib5 h6 1 1 .ixe7 ixe7 1 2.4.Jxe6 (also worth considering is 1 2.0-0 ig5 1 3 .4.Jxe6 fxe6 1 4.f4 if6 1 5 .iWb3;1;) 1 2 . . . fxe6 1 3.ixc6 bxc6 14 .4.Jxe7t iWxe7

is to open up the play with l::i:b 1 and then b2-b4.

Black cannot solve his opening problems with 5 . . . iWa5t 6.id2 iWd8 because White has 7.ic3! 4.Jxd5 8 .iWxd5 d6 as in Vaganian - Quinteros, Biel 1 985 . Now I found the following nice improvement: 9.4.Jh3! The knight is heading for f4. 9 . . . 4.Jc6 1 0.4.Jf4 V!1e7 1 1 .e3 ie6 1 2.iWf3 0-0-0 1 3 .0-0-0;1; White has definite pressure.

5 . . . h6 6.if6! A remarkable move; it is not so

easy to break the pin. 6 . . . 4.Jbc6 7.e4 d6 This is Khalifman - Katalymov, Bad Woerishofen 1 996, and now White should have played 8 .4.Je2! ie6 9.4.Jef4 when Black is under serious pressure.

S.g3!? This is a relatively rare continuation. More

common are 5 .4.Jf3 and 5 .e4, but I believe White should take the opportunity to maintain control over the d5-square by fianchettoing his bishop.

S ... ctJf6 Now I recommend the following

improvement:

/5.0-0 White is better, due to the exposed a b c d e f g h position of Black's monarch. White's key idea 6 ""xf6 . "l..l t!N


Instead G.�g2 l2lxd5 7.�xd5 l2lcG 8.l2lf3 te6 was less convincing in Fedorovsky -Billerbeck, Internet 2004.

6 ... VNxf6 7.tilh3! The key move of my idea; the white knight

is heading for f4 to control the d5-square. The position favours White. For example:

7 ... ttJc6 8.i.g2 'Wd8 9.ttJf4 i.e7 10.c3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 �e8 1 2.'Wb3�

a b c d e f g h Followed by �d1 if necessary; White has

total control over the d5-square.

Conclusion:

The Old Benoni lines are rare for a reason -White keeps a pleasant edge with sensible play. In most cases Black has an unpleasant choice between accepting a cramped position or breaking with . . . e7 -eG and suffering with a weak point on d5 and a backward pawn on dG.

Benoni Systems

Modern Benoni

Variation Index l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.lLlc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6

A) 9 ... .ig4 B) 9 ... b6 C) 9 .. J:�eS 10.lLld2

Cl) 10 ... lLlg4 C2) 10 ... b6

D) 9 ... a6 E) 9 ... f1e7 F) 9 ... lLla6 10.h3

Fl) 10 ... .id7 F2) 10 .. J�eS F3) 1O ... lLlc7

6.g3 g6 7 . .ig2 .ig7 S.ciJf3 0-0 9.0-0

G) 9 ... lLlbd7 10.a4! �eS 1 l.lLld2 a6 12.h3 Gl) 12 .. .ttJh5 13.lLlce4 G2) 12 ... �bS 13.lLlc4

G21) 13 ... lLlb6 14.lLla3 .id7 1 5.e4 G21 1) 1 5 ... ttJcS G212) 15 ... f1c7

G22) 13 ... ttJe5 14.ttJa3 G221) 14 ... f1c7?! G223) 14 ... .id7 G224) 14 ... ttJh5 1 5.e4

G2241) 1 5 ... .id7 G2242) 15 ... �f8 16.@h2

G22421) 16 ... .id7 G22422) 16 ... £5

I G2243) 1 5 ... £5

a b c d e f g h

166 167 169 169 169 170 173 175 176 177 178 179 181 182 182 184 185 186 187 188 189 189 192 193 194 196

Chapter 1 3 - Modern Benoni 1 65

l.d4 CDf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.CDc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6

The Modern Benoni is an ambitious choice by Black, creating an asymmetrical pawn structure. White auromatically gains more space in the centre and now our standard kingside fianchetto will deter Black's attacking hopes.

6.g3 Now, in addition to the usual 6 . . . g6 I should

also mention the following move: 6 . . . ie7

This is actually Black's second choice, but its low relevance is exemplified by how rarely it is seen in practice nowadays. Black's darksquared bishop is pretty passive on e7; he cannot hope to achieve the sort of active play he often does in the main l ines.

7.ig2 0-0 8.ttJf3 �e8 The best arrangement of the pieces. White has a comfortable edge after 8 . . . ttJa6 9.0-0 ttJc7 1 0.a4 if5 1 1 .ttJd2 �d7, as in V Mikhalevski - Crouch, London 1 999. Here, as is common in the Modern Benoni, White should not fear exchanging the light-squared bishops. After the natural 1 2.e4 ih3 13 .ttJc4 he would have secured a nice advantage; Black's pieces are too passive.

9.0-0 if8 1 0.ttJd2 Obviously White must establish control over the e4-square.

1O . . . ttJa6 Another option is 1 0 . . . b6. I like White's play in the following game: 1 1 .h3 ttJbd7 1 2.a4 ia6 1 3 .b3 �b8 14 .ttJc4 ttJe5 1 5 .ttJa3!± White was firmly in control in Komljenovic - Orev, Ruse 1 984.

1 1 .lUc4 �b8 This is the point of Black's set-up.

12.a4 This is essentially forced, but it does give Black's knight the b4-square.

12 . . . ttJb4

This position has arisen six times in tournament practice. The statistics are great for Black, thanks to a 4/4 score by Jacob Murey. However, the position might not live up to the reputation . . .

a b c d e f g h I believe White can improve his play with:

1 3.if4!?N In all six games White went for 1 3.e4, and Black had decent play after 1 3 . . . b6. For example: 1 4.if4 ia6 1 5 .b3 g6 1 6.�e1 ixc4 1 7.bxc4 a6 1 8.�d2 ttJd7 was Chernin -Murey, Paris 1 989.

1 3 . . . if5 The other options here are: 1 3 . . . a6 is of course met with 1 4.a5!, fixing Black's pawn structure on the queenside. Black does not have enough time to prepare the . . . b5 break. 1 3 . . . b6 is met strongly with: 1 4.ttJb5! ia6 1 5 .ttJcxd6 ixd6 1 6.ttJxd6 ixe2 (if Black tries 1 6 . . . �xe2, then White has the strong move 1 7.ttJb5!, winning material) 1 7.ttJxe8 ixd1 1 8.ttJxf6t gxf6 1 9.�axd 1 White has a big advantage thanks to his passed pawn.

1 4.�c1 ttJh5 White's bishop on f4 is very annoying, so Black tries to release the pressure on the d6-pawn. 1 4 . . . ttJe4 does not work in view of 1 5 .f3! with the following point: 1 5 . . . ttJxc3 1 6.bxc3 ttJa2 1 7.�c2! ixc2 1 8 .�xc2 ttJxc3 1 9.�xc3 �xe2 20.�b 1 ± and White is much better.

1 66 Benoni Systems

1 5.'!d2 lLlf6 1 6. f3 a6 A nice point is that 1 6 . . . b6 1 7.e4 .!c8 1 8 .lLlb5 a6 allows 1 9.1Lld4!± .

1 7.a5 .!d7 1 8 .lLlb6! White has a comfortable plus.

6 • . • g6 7 . .!g2 .!g7 8.lLlf3 0-0 9.0-0

This is the initial position of Fianchetto Variation of the Modern Benoni. Black has a huge choice here. We will deal with seven commonly-played continuations. They are: A) 9 ... .!g4, B) 9 . . . b6, C) 9 . . '!!e8, D) 9 . . . a6 1 0.a4 lLlbd7 1 1 .lLld2 and now not 1 l . . .�e8, E) 9 ... Wie7, F) 9 . . . lLla6, and the main line with G) 9 ... ttJbd7 1 0.a4 �e8 1 1 .lLld2 a6 1 2.h3.

A) 9 ... .!g4

This seems to me to be Black's worst option here. Black executes a typical idea, exchanging light-squared bishops, but in return he loses coordination and allows White to regroup his pieces and effortlessly create pressure against the d6-pawn.

10.lLld2 Wid7 Black has tried other moves as well, but then

I do not see any point to playing 9 . . . .!g4.

1 1 .a4

This move is considered White's main option, though recently some players have also tried 1 1 . f3. The point of the text move is to secure a safe place for White's knight which will land on c4 next move.

a) 1 2 . . . .!h3 Now White continues his plan:

13 . .!f4 .!xg2 1 4.'�xg2 Now it is obvious that Black should defend his d6-pawn with:

1 4 . . . lLle8N Other moves simply do not work: 1 4 . . . lLlh5? 1 5 . .!xd6 �fe8 was played in N.V. Pedersen - Bradbury, Copenhagen 1 997, and now the simple 1 6.f3 f5 1 7.�el, followed by 1 8 .e4, would leave White with a

healthy extra pawn. 1 4 . . . �fd8? 1 5 . .!xd6 lLle8 16 .�e5! �xe5 17 .lLlxe5 and White was a pawn up in Razuvaev - Gufeld, Chelyabinsk 1 972. Now the play might continue:

1 5 .lLlb5 lLlb4 1 6.f3! White's positional pressure is obvious. Note

that 1 6.lLlbxd6? did not work in view of 1 6 . . . g5! 1 7.lLlxe8 Wlxe8, followed by lS.JWe4 winning the c4-knight.


b) 1 2 .. j�fdS 1 3 .if4 ctJeS 1 4.\Wd2 ih3 1 5 .e4 ixg2 1 G.Wxg2 gave White a serious positional edge in Vesely - Hacha, Czech Republic 2000.

c) 12 . . . ctJc7 1 3.if4 ctJfeS 1 4.\Wd2 and White was clearly better in Lacrosse - Cuypers, Gent 2003.

IV�jc4 i.xg2 13.mxg2 Vl1e7 Black can also defend the dG-pawn passively:

13 . . . �dS 1 4.if4 ctJeS Now after 1 5 .\Wd2 ctJaG 1G.e4 we transpose to the game Vesely - Hacha, which was mentioned above via the 1 1 . . .ctJaG move order.

14.�el White can also try 1 4.f3 ctJbd7 1 5 .if4 ctJeS

1G.iWd2 ctJe5 1 7.\We3t with a pleasant edge, as in M. Makarov - Gufeld, Podolsk 1 992.

14 ... ctJbd7 White is ready for: 1 4 . . . ctJe4 1 5 .\Wc2 ctJxc3

(White is also clearly better after 1 5 .. .f5 1G.ctJxe4 fxe4 17 .if4 �xf4 [ l 7 . . . �dS l S .f3!±J lS.gxf4 CUaG 1 9.f3± and Black does not have compensation for the exchange) 1 G.bxc3 ctJd7 17.if4 ctJe5 l S .ixe5 ixe5 1 9.f4 ig7 20.e4±

lS.e4 �fd8

16.f4 White had a very attractive posmon in

Gleizerov - Obukhov, Voronezh 200G.

B) 9 . . . b6

A very rare guest in modern tournaments, but it is very important to know how to deal with Black's queenside fianchetto.

lo.if4 This is not White's most common choice, but

the text seems to me the most natural move.

lo ... ia6

l 1 .a4! Certainly White should prevent a possible

. . . bG-b5 advance. Also, in some cases White will have the idea of playing cub5, forcing Black to give up his light-squared bishop. Less clear is 1 1 .�e 1 b5 1 2.a3 �eS.

1 1 ...�e8 The alternative is:

1 l . . .\Wc7 Black defends the dG-pawn and thus prepares . . . cubd7.

1 2.�e1 ctJbd7 1 3.h3 White makes another useful move and is ready to play 1 4.e4 next.

1 68 Benoni Systems

Not so clear is 1 3.tLlb5 !xb5 1 4.axb5 Ei:fe8 . 1 3 . . . tLle8

a b c d e f g h Here I believe White should have played:

1 4.�b3!?N In the game Bacrot - Derieux, Ajaccio (blitz) 2007, Black reached an acceptable position after 1 4.�c2 �b7 1 5 .e4 tLle5 1 6.tLlxe5 dxe5 17 .!e3 tLl d6°o.

1 4 . . . tLle5 If Black plays 14 . . . �b7 then quite strong is 1 5 .tLlb5 !xb5 1 6.axb5 a6 1 7.tLld2 and White has the advantage.

1 5 .Ei:ed 1 ! White keeps slightly better chances, thanks

to his space advantage.

Wind, Netherlands 1 978, when Black missed the strong move 1 4 . . . tLle4!, with good play.

12 ... tLl e4 Black has no time to arrange his pieces as

in the previous example, with 1 2 . . . �e7 1 3.e4 tLlbd7, as now White fires his central break 1 4.e5! with the following point: 1 4 . . . tLlxe5 1 5.tLlxe5 dxe5 1 6.d6 �d7 1 7.!xa8 exf4 1 8 .Ei:xe8t �xe8 1 9.!f3± Black does not have any compensation for being an exchange down.

l3.W/e21 Of course it is important to chase Black's

knight away from the e4-square. Unclear is 1 3.tLlxe4 Ei:xe4 14.tLlg5 Ei:d4!.

l3 ... tLlxe3 Black cannot play 1 3 . . . �e7 14 .tLlxe4 llh'xe4

1 5 .�xe4 Ei:xe4 in view of a very nice tactical idea: 1 6.tLlg5 Ei:b4 (after 1 6 . . . Ei:d4 White has the annoying 1 7.a5!) 1 7.tLle6! And Black cannot do much against White's idea of tLlc7.

14.bxc3 tLld7 1 5.e4 �e7

Chapter 1 3 - Modern Benoni 169

C) 9 ... ge8 1O.lLld2

Another popular option is 1 0.if4, but that is another story. After the text move we should look at Cl) 10 ... lLlg4 and C2) 1O ... b6.

Cl) 10 ... lLlg4

I had not paid attention to this l ine in my original analysis, but saw that it was given a good press in John Watson's The Gambit Guide to the Modern Benoni. This is a rather provocative move, and I would be surprised if it achieves equality if White reacts in the best way; which is like this:

11 .h3 lLleS 12.f4 lLled7 13.e4 lLla6 If 1 3 .. .f5 1 4.exf5 gxf5 as in Rotstein -

Eisenbeiser, Germany 2005, I like the posi tional 15 .a4N and I believe White is ready to change the pawn structure: 1 5 . . . lLla6 ( l 5 . . . lLlf6 1 6.lLlc4 does not change much) 1 6.lLlb5! An important idea (inaccurate would be 1 6.lLlc4 in view of the thematic 16 . . . lLlb6! ) . 16 ... lLlf6 1 7.lLlc4 ifS IS.b3! lLlb4 1 9.ib2 lLle4 20J'!e l a6 2 1 .lLlc3 White is clearly better, due ro his much more active pieces.

14.Wh2N This useful move is a serious improvement

over the premature 1 4.e5?! when after 1 4 . . . dxe5 1 5 .f5 ttJf6 1 6.fxg6 hxg6 Black had a slight edge in L. Olsson - Allemann, Azerbaijan 2003.

After the text move play might continue:

14 ... lLlc7 lS.a4 gb8 16.lLlc4 lLlb6 17.lLle3 I do not see what Black achieved by jumping

his knight all over the board, while White has developed his pieces harmoniously. White has a pleasant advantage.

C2) 10 . . . b6

This is the only move that might have an independent value after 9 . . . geS. Other options

such as 10 . . . lLlbd7, or 1 0 . . . a6 I l .a4 lLlbd7, would just transpose to other variations.

1 1 .a4 Recently 1 O . . . b6 has been employed at the

very highest level. Black had a reasonable game after 1 1 .ge1 lLlbd7 12.h3 ia6 1 3.�a4 id3!? in Aronian - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 200S.

1 1 ...i.a6 12.fLlbS This is of course one of the points of White's

previous move.

12 ... lLlbd7 13.gel White defends the e2-pawn, thus threatening

the d6-pawn and forcing Black to clarify the situation. Instead White is only slightly better after 1 3 .lLlc4 ixb5 1 4.axb5 lLle5 1 5 .lLlxe5 gxe5 and Black had a fairly reliable position in Ruemmele - Sender, corr. 200 1 .

13 . . . i.xbS 14.axbS � c7 1 4 . . . ge7

This was played in Postny - Laznicka, I nternet (blitz) 2006. I have found a clearcut route to an advantage:

1 5 .e4 lLleS 1 5 ... lLle5 is met strongly by 1 6.lLlb3! and Black has no chance of playing 16 ... c4 followed by ... lLld3 because in this case White would have the lLlb3-d4-c6 manoeuvre.

170 Benoni Systems

16 .ttJc4 ttJe5 17.ttJa3! Wid7 Whi te is clearly better after 1 7 . . . c4 1 8 .�g5 �f6 19 .�xf6 ttJxf6 20.Wid4!±.

1 8 .f4 ttJg4 19 .e5! This works perfectly for White, for example:

1 9 . . . dxe5 20.�f3! f5 2 1 .d6 White wins material.

a b c d e f g h

15.e4!?N In my opllllOn White is ready for this

advance, especially as Black is doing fine after both 1 5 .Wib3 ttJe5 1 6J"1a4 ttJfd7 as i n Burmakin - Pigusov, S t Petersburg 1 998, and 1 5 .Wic2 a6! 1 6.bxa6 b5°o as occurred in Belegotti - Sandstroem, corr. 2003.

15 . . . tLle5 White's only problem is that he has weakened

the d3-square.

16.if1! White's light-squared bishop not only takes

control of d3, but also prevents Black's freeing ideas on the queenside, which we saw in the line above after 1 5 .Wic2.

16 ... g5 This prevents the immediate 1 7. f4, but at

the same time weakens the f5-square. White should not worry about 1 6 . . . c4, since after 1 7.l"1a4! c3 (Black fails to obtain decent

compensation for the pawn after 1 7 .. ,ctJfd7 1 8 .ttJxc4 ttJc5 19 .1"1b4!±) 1 8 .bxc3 Wixc3 19 .�e3 Wic7 20.�b2 White is clearly better from a

positional point of view.

17.l"1a4! A very strong multipurpose move; the rook

takes control of the 4th rank (including the key c4-square and the e4-pawn) as well as

preparing to double the heavy pieces along the a-file.

17 . . . g4 After 1 7 . . J"1e7 1 8 .b3 l"1ae8 1 9.�b2;j; White is

also firmly in control.

18.h3 h5 19.f4! Now that Black has weakened his kingside,

it is the right time to strike.

19 . • . gxf.3 20.liJxf3 I think White retains the better chances,

especially thanks to the following line.

20 ... liJxf3t 21 .Wixf3 liJxd5 22.ic4 ti:lf6 23.l"1f1!

White has conjured up a dangerous initiative on the kingside.

D) 9 . . . a6 10.a4 tLlbd7

Chapter 1 3 - Modern Benoni 1 7 1

This i s also a very popular move order.

11 .li.Jd2 Now Black usually plays 1 1 . . .E1e8, which

transposes to our main line (line G), so we will instead have a look at three other options for Black.

11 ...li.Je8 If 1 1 . . .E1b8 then after 1 2.lLlc4 lLle8 1 3 .a5 we

transpose to a position that will be examined in the 1 1 . . .lLle8 line.

In the diagram position, as in so many other Benoni positions, Black can move his knight to h5, clearing the f6-square and possibly introducing ideas of . . . f7 -f5 : 1 l . . .lLlh5 1 2.lLlce4 lLldf6 1 3.lLlxf6t

Obviously Black has a choice of recaptures. 13 . . . Wfxf6

If 1 3 . . . lLlxf6 then 1 4.lLlc4 E1e8 1 5 .i.f4 i.f8. If Black needs to defend the d6-pawn in such an awkward way, it means something has gone badly wrong for him. White gained a pleasant edge after 1 6.a5 lLlh5 1 7.i.d2 i.d7 1 8.lLlb6 E1b8 1 9.e4 i.g7 20.i.c3 lLlf6 2 1 .E1el i.b5 22.f4 lLld7 23.lLlxd7 �xd7 24.e5! in Tkachiev - Bezold, Croatia 1 997.

14.liJc4 E1b8 I also examined 14 ... i.d7 when play should continue 1 5 .lLlb6 E1ad8 1 6.e4 �e7, with the idea of carrying out . . . f7 -f5 , as I do not see any other constructive ideas for Black. 17.Wfc2 i.d4 This looks like a nice square for the bishop (if instead 1 7 .. .f5 then White reacts, by analogy with the main line, with 18.i.h3) . 1 8.i.d2 f5 1 9.i.h3! This important resource restricts Black's activity. In my opinion White has better chances, which is confirmed by the following variation: 19 . . . lLlf6 20.exf5 i.xf5 2 1 .i.xf5 gxf5 22.E1ae l liJe4 23.i.f4 White has a simple plan of strengthening his position with <;t>g2 and f2-f3.

However, after 1 4 . . . E1b8 Black has a fantastic score, winning three games out of four; obviously this fact forced me to do some homework.

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .h3 !?N

A new move in this position, as previously White had tried 1 5 .lLlb6, 1 5 .a5 and 1 5.i.d2. Actually, when I worked on this position I came to the conclusion that White should not hurry with his play on the queenside, because . . . b7-b5 is not much of a threat, as White's knight would effectively penetrate to c6 via a5. On the other hand, there is no point in playing e2-e4, as that would shut out our light-squared bishop and thus weaken the force of lLla5-c6 in reply to . . . b7-b5. White's last move prepares to chase away Black's knight with g3-g4 after one more preparatory move (�d2) , taking control of the f4-square. I examined the following natural line:

1 5 . . . i.d7 1 6.�d2 Following our plan; now g3-g4 is a serious threat.

1 6 . . . b5 After 1 6 . . . �e7 White immediately starts to attack the d6-pawn with 1 7.�e3! and White is better in the complications after 1 7 . . . �xe3 1 8 .i.xe3 b5 1 9.1Llxd6 i.xb2 20.E1a2.

1 7.lLla5 �d4 1 8.�xd4 i.xd4 1 9.94 lLlg7 2o.lLlc6 bxa4 2 1 .E1xa4 E1b6 22.E1a2

White clearly has the initiative.

1 72 Benoni Systems

12.aS I think Black is doing fine after 1 2.tLlc4 tDb6!.

For example, 1 3 .tDa3 !d7 1 4.a5 tDcB 1 5 .tDc4 !b5 1 6.Wi'b3 !xc4 1 7.Wi'xc4 b5 I B.axb6 tDxb6 1 9.Wi'd3 tDc7 and Black has good counterplay in typical Benoni style.

1 2 .. J3b8 The alternative is:

1 2 . . . b6 Or 1 2 . . . b5 would lead to the same thing.

1 3.axb6 tDxb6 1 4.tDb3 Threatening tDa5-c6.

1 4 . . . tDc4 1 5 .23a4 tDb6 1 6.23a2! First, White improves the position of his rook.

1 6 . . . tDc4 1 7.Wi'c2 I like this move more than 1 7.Wi'd3.

1 7 . . . !d7 There is also 1 7 . . . 23bB but then White has a strong idea: I B.tDe4 23b4 1 9.tDed2! tDe5 20.tDa5 with a positional advantage.

1 B .tDd2 tDxd2 After I B . . . tDb6 1 9.b3 White has easy play on the queenside with !b2, tDc4 and so on.

1 9.!xd2 tDf6 20.23fa 1 !cB Certainly better was 20 . . . Wi'b6, but then White can execute the same idea as in the game: 2 1 .tDdl !b5 22.!c3 with a slight edge.

2 1 .tDdl 23eB 22.!c3 h5 23.e4 h4 24.tDe3

White had a pleasant advantage in Avrukh Papaioannou, Greece 2005.

13.ttJc4 ttJeS 14.ttJb6 White has nothing special after 14 .tt:lxe5

!xe5 1 5 .!h6 tDg7 1 6.Wi'd2 b6.

14 ... ttJc7 Another, but less popular, option is:

1 4 . . . tDd7

1 5.tDca4! In my opinion this is the only way White can fight for an advantage. White keeps his knight in order to block Black's counterplay on the queenside, and eventually the knight will switch to c4 to attack the d6-pawn. The alternative is 1 5 .tDxcB 23xcB. Usually in Benoni-type positions Black is happy to

get rid of his light-squared bishop, which can hardly find a decent square. Withour it, Black gains more room for manoeuvre on the queenside and can easily implement . . . b7-b5. For example, 1 6.!d2 tDc7 17.Wa4 23bB I B .23ab l b5 1 9.axb6 tDxb6 20.\Wa2 and here a draw was agreed in Melnikov - Ulibin, Kursk 1 9B7. Black has good play.

1 5 . . . tDxb6 1 6.tDxb6 I found only one relevant example in my database:

1 6 . . . tDc7 17.tDc4 tDb5 l S .!f4 23eB 19.!!e J I would prefer 1 9 .e4 but the text is good enough.


1 9 . . .'�e7 20.iWd2 White had definite positional pressure III

Henrichs - Kunin, Bad Woerishofen 2008.

ls.id2 I recommend this calm move as White's best

idea. The main plan is to carry out the b2-b4 advance, prising open the c-file for White's heavy pieces.

ls ... id7 If 1 5 . . . tZlb5 1 6.tZlca4 iWe7 1 7.l'!cl and White

will execute his idea, as b2-b4 is coming next.

16.l'!c1 ibS This position was reached in Birnbaum -

Pohl, corr. 1 986, and now White should have consistently followed his plan:

a b c d e f g h

17.b4!N cxb4 18.tLlca4 b3 19.1'!e1� White will soon regain the pawn and has

opened up the queens ide, which is in his favour, though Black's position remains solid.

E) 9 .. .r!lfe7

This continuation was quite popular in the 1 970s, but has recently been completely out of fashion.

10.tlJdZ

White tries to carry out his main positional idea of transferring his knight to c4, while also keeping control over the e4-square, thus avoiding any . . . tLle4 Iunges.

10 . . . tLlbd7 Now Black is ready to meet I l .tZlc4 with

1 1 . . . tZle5 . The reader should know the following important rule in Benoni-type positions: iri most cases the exchange of one pair of knight clearly favours Black, as it allows him more breathing room to create his counterplay.

1 1 .a4

a b c d e f g h

A useful move that grabs more space on the queenside. Now I will examine Black's rwo most popular replies:

l 1 ...tLlhS The alternative is:

1 l . . .b6 1 2.tZlc4 Black is fine after 1 2.h3 tLlh5! (with the idea of playing . . . 0-f5 next) 1 3.tZlde4 tZldf6. Instead, 13 . . . f5 ? would be premature in view of 1 4.tZlg5 and White's knight lands on e6.

1 2 . . . tLle5 1 3 .tZla3 As you will see from the main line, this is a thematic idea. White should avoid exchanging a pair of knights, as I mentioned above. Now he intends to drive Black's

174 Benoni Systems

knight away from e5 with f2-f4 at the right moment. After 13 .ltJxe5 'Wxe5 14 .'Wd3 a6 Black was doing quite well in Cappello - Cosulich, Sottomarina 1 973.

1 3 . . . i.a6 14.ltJcb5! A very good positional move; White's knight blocks Black's light-squared bishop, renewing White main idea of f2-f4.

1 4 . . . i.xb5 White is clearly better after 1 4 . . . 1'!feS 1 5 .f4 ltJed7 1 6.ltJc4 i.xb5 1 7.axb5.

1 5.axb5 a6

a b c d e f g h

I recommend the following improvement: 1 6.i.f4!N

In Szmetan - Gamarra Caceres, Fortaleza 1 975, Black managed to obtain a good position after 16 .'Wb3 axb5 1 7.'Wxb5 1'!fbS l S.i.d2 ltJeS! 1 9.1tJc2 ltJc7 20.'Wb3 b5.

16 . . . axb5 More or less the same type of position arises after 1 6 . . . ltJh5 17 .i.xe5 i.xe5 1 S .'Wb3t.

1 7.ltJxb5 ltJh5 If 17 . . . ltJfd7 then White has the neat 1 S .1'!a7! and if Black captures on a7, White's knight will come to the c6-square.

l S.i.xe5 'Wxe5 1 9.e3t White is setting the tone.

12.ttJc4 Since the game Hort - Nunn, Hastings

1 975, it has been well known that Black

obtains good play after 1 2.e4 ltJe5 1 3 .'We2 f5 14 .f4, and now Black can simply go 1 4 . . . ltJf7!oo with double-edged play.

12 ... ttJe5 Black has no time for 1 2 .. .f5 ? as after

1 3.ltJb5! he cannot defend the d6-pawn.

13.ltJxe5 The roles are reversed, and now it is White

who has no time for 1 3.ltJa3 as Black is ready to play 1 3 . . . f5 with good play, so this is one of the rare cases when we have to swap a pair of knights.

13 ... i.xe5 14.ih6 ttJg7 I also examined 1 4 . . . 1'!eS 1 5 .e4 f5 16.exf5

i.xf5 1 7.h3 ltJf6 1 S.'Wd2t and White is a little better due to the slightly exposed position of the black king, but this may be the lesser evil for Black.

15 .'Wd2 White has mobilized his forces and is ready

to push his central pawns.

15 . . . £5 1 6J�ae1 id7

a b c d e f g h

17.f4 if6 18.e4 Now Black comes under strong pressure.

1 8 . . . id4t 1 9.@h1 ixc3


Otherwise Black cannot stop e4-e5. For example, 1 9 .. J:'!fe8 20.e5 dxe5 2 1 .fxe5 �xe5 22.d6! \Mfxd6 23.l"l:xe5 \Mfxe5 24.\Mfxd7± and White has a material advantage.

20.1Mfxc3 fxe4 2 1 .l"l:xe4 1Mff7 Black is trying to hold on, but it is obvious

that without his dark-squared bishop Black's position is highly dubious.

22.h3 l"l:fe8 23.l"l:xe8t l"l:xe8 24.g4 ixa4 This position was reached in Haba -

Kanovsky, Czech Republic 2006, and now I suggest a new move:

25.l"l:al!?N ib5 Black loses after 25 . . . b5 26.b3 b4

27.\Mfxg7t! .

2G.l"l:xa7 iaG 27.�h2 White's advantage is indisputable. 28.b4 will

most likely follow, while Black is doomed to a passive defence.

F) 9 ... etJa6

a b c d e f g h This is a typical idea in Benoni variations;

the knight transfers to c7, where it helps carry out the . . . b7-b5 advance.

1O.h3

After seriously investigating this line, I came to the conclusion that this calm move is White's best chance of gaining an opening advantage.

White's main problem is that after 1 0.ctJd2 ctJc7 1 1 .ctJc4 (or 1 1 .a4 b6) Black is doing fine after: 1 1 . . .b5! 1 2.ctJxd6 (to the uninitiated, this may be a shock, but in fact it is a well known move) 1 2 . . . \Mfxd6 1 3.�f4 \Mfb6 1 4.d6 ctJe6 The arising complications are far from clear. For those who are interested in playing this line with Black, I would recommend studying the game Gleizerov - Novgorodsky, Russia 2007.

1 0.e4 seems rather premature to me, as it allows Black to play . . . �g4, favourably exchanging his l ight-squared bishop. After 1 0 . . . �g4 1 1 .h3 �xf3 1 2.�xf3 ctJc7 1 3 .a4 a6 14 .a5 ctJb5 Black had fine play in Z. Varga - Gyimesi, Kecskemet 1 997.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 a b c d e f g h

Now Black has three main options: Fl) lo ... id7, F2) lO . . . l"l:e8 or F3) 1O • • • etJc7.

One very minor option can be quickly dismissed: 1 0 . . . l"l:b8?!

This common method of supporting the . .. b7-b5 advance does not work in this case, as White breaks in the centre very effectively:

1 1 .e4 b5 1 2.e5! ctJe8

176 Benoni Systems

If instead 1 2 . . . dxe5 1 3.lUxe5 lUxd5 (or 13 . . . �b7 1 4.lUc6 �xc6 1 5 .dxc6± leaves White with a large positional advantage) 1 4.lUxf7! and White is clearly better.

1 3.�f4 lUac7 This position was reached in Ligterink -I. Wells, Manchester 1 98 1 , and now White had a simple and strong option:

1 4.exd6N lUxd6 1 5 .lUe5 �xe5 1 6.�xe5 White has a clear advantage, as Black will

really miss his dark-squared bishop.

FI) IO ... �d7

Another typical idea in Benoni positions; Black wants to provoke White into playing a2-a4, when Black's knight gains a fine square on b4.

I l .e4 I like this move more than I I .a4 lUb4.

I 1 .. J'! e8 Before playing ... b7-b5, Black inserts the

moves .. J'%e8 and :!'l:el . Clearly worse for Black is: 1 1 . . .'lWc8? ! 1 2.�f4!

�xh3 (a better option was 12 . . . lUe8, but even so after 1 3.cj{h2 Black's set-up looks pointless) 1 3 .�xd6 �xg2 1 4.cj{xg2 :!'l:e8 1 5 .:!'l:el 'lWd7 1 6.e5 lUg4 1 7.lUe4± White was clearly better due to his strong central pawns in Alburt - D. Gurevich, USA (ch) 1 989.

12.:!'l:el bS 13.eS dxeS 14.ltJxeS Black is absolutely fine after 1 4.:!'l:xe5 b4

1 5 .lUe2 lUe4! 1 6.:!'l:xe8t 'lWxe8, as in Urban -Panczyk, Poland (ch) 1 992.

14 • • . b4 IS.lUa4 The only way! Black has no problems after

1 5 .lUb l lUh5! 1 6.lUc6 �xc6 1 7.dxc6 �d4!, as in Birnboim - Blees, Tel Aviv 1 988.

IS ••• \WaS Now I have found a serious improvement:

16 ... ha4 17.bxa4 lUd7 At first sight 1 7 . . . lUe4 looks attractive for

Black, but after 1 8.lUc6! lUc3 1 9.1Uxa5 tt:\xdl 20.:!'l:xdl �xa l 2 l .�e3! �d4 22.�xd4 cxd4 23 .d6± White's passed pawn is extremely strong.

18.tiJxd7 hal 19.d6! White seizes a strong initiative, thanks to his

passed d-pawn and Black's misplaced pieces on the queenside. For example:


21.�e7t Black is in trouble.

F2) 10 ... �e8 1 1 .ctJd2

Now this move is essential, as Black intended to play 1 1 . . .lLle4.

8 �_1.��_*_ � .� � . � �.�� 7 /i� i . _ i m i 6 �_�_��",�� 5 �

�.8/'_'''' ' ' '_ � 4 %� ... . . /,� ��

� ��:n//�� .�� 3 � ;�; � f� fj

2 �ft""';��1Zm 1 ��""/'_ifBi�

a b c d e f g h 1 1 . ..llJc7

Another option is: 1 l . . .�bB 1 2.a4 lLlc7

The natural alternative is 1 2 . . . lLlb4 13 .lLlc4 !f5 (White has a nice edge after 1 3 . . . a6 14.!f4 !fB 1 5 .a5!) 1 4.!f4 !c2 1 5 .�d2 !fB. This was played in Gal - Borsi, Hungary 2003, and now after 1 6.lLle3! !b3 1 nh3 c4 IB.!g5! White has severe pressure, as Black cannot play I B ... h6? in view of 1 9.i,xf6 '&xf6 20.lLle4+- and Black's knight on b4 is hanging.

13.C/Jc4 b6 14.i,f4 !fB 1 5 .e4 i,a6

a b c d e f g h

1 6.b3! i,xc4 This leaves White with a nice positional advantage, but even after the best 1 6 ... lLlh5 17 .!e3 i,g7 I B.2"ka White is firmly in control.

1 7.bxc4 a6 I B .�b l lLld7 1 9.2"i:b3!± White has managed to stop Black only idea

on the queens ide ( . . . b7-b5) and so White's extra space and the bishop pair makes his edge quite obvious, Roiz - Rechlis, Ashdod 2004.

1 2.a4 b6 13.e4 i.a6 The text looks like the most natural move. I

also examined: 1 3 . . . lLlh5

And now I believe White's most accurate continuation is:

1 4.�el With the following ideas:

1 4 . . .f5 14 . . . i,a6 1 5 .lLlf3 is simply better for White.

1 5 .exf5 �xe 1 t 1 6.�xel i,xf5 1 6 . . . gxf5 runs into the unpleasant 1 7.lLlb5! lLlxb5 I B .axb5 followed by 19.1Llc4, when White is clearly better.

a b c d e f g h 1 7.�d l !

White should avoid the complications that ensue after 1 7.g4 lLlf4 I B .gxf5, especially since Black has good play after I B . . . lLlxg2 (but not I B . . . �g5? ! 1 9.�e4! which is better for White) 1 9.<J?xg2 �g5t 20.<J?hl �xf5°o.

1 7 . . . lLlf6 1 B .lLlc4 White has a promising position.

178 Benoni Systems

14J':l:el CLld7 l S.ttJa 'We7 Another option 1 5 . . . ctJe5, but White has

a pleasant edge after 1 6.ctJxe5 j,xe5 1 7.j,e3 j,g7 1 8.Wfd2t, Goldin - Emms, Cappelle la Grande 1 992.

16 . .if4 'WfS 17.'Wc2 h6 This complex position arose in Kamsky -

Topalov, Dos Hermanas 1 996. I believe White should have continued:

a b c d e f g h 18.�adlN �ad8

White is ready to meet 1 8 . . . g5 with 1 9 .j,c l .

1 9.h4t White's chances are preferable thanks to his

space advantage.

F3) 10 . . . CLlc7

This is considered to be Black's main choice.

1 1 .e4 CLld7 The main move according to theory. Black

has also tried: 1 l . . .ge8 1 2.�el ctJd7 1 3 .j,f4 ( l 3.j,g5 !? also comes into consideration) 1 3 . . . ctJe5 1 4.ctJxe5 dxe5 1 5 .j,e3 This was played in Stempin - Gdanski, Poland 1 997. I believe that, in general, this type of pawn structure favours White, especially if Black cannot bring his knight to d6 immediately.

12 . .if4 A recent high-level game continued 1 2.,ig5

f6 1 3.,if4 ctJe5 1 4.a4 g5 1 5 .,ixe5 fxe5 1 6.ttJd2 ctJe8 17 .ctJc4 �f7 1 8.ttJe3 ttJf6 19 .c.t>h2 ,if8 when Black had a very solid position in Wang Yue - Gashimov, Baku 2008.

12 ... CLleS The point of Black's set-up. Other options are

quite passive, for example 1 2 . . . ctJe8 1 3.'Wd2± or 1 2 . . . Wfe7 1 3.�e 1 f6 1 4.�b 1 ! , followed by 1 5 .b4, which led to a pleasant edge for White in Csom - Wedberg, Malta (01) 1 980.

a b c d e f g h 13 . .ixeS!?N

This is my improvement over 1 3.ctJxe5 dxe5 1 4.,ie3 b6 1 5 . f4 ctJe8!. The key idea of Black's plan, as now his knight will land on the ideal blockading square. 1 6. f5 ctJd6 1 7.'Wc2 ,id7 White failed to find any advantage i n Bacrot Gashimov, Spain 2007.

13 ... dxeS 14.ttJd2 White's knight comes to c4 in order to

exchange BlaCKS blockading knight. I predict the play might continue as follows:

14 . . . ttJe8 lS.ttJc4 Also quite interesting is 1 5 .Wfb3 ltJd6

1 6.ctJb5 ctJxb5 17 .Wfxb5 b6 1 8 .a4t.

lS ... ttJd6 16.'Wb3 ttJxc4 17.'Wxc4 Wfd6


18JUc1� White has succeeded in exchanging the key

black knight. White's chances are better, as he can easily create play on the queens ide, with the main idea being transferring his remaining knight ro c4.

G) 9 . . . ctJbd7

lO.a4! This is a very important moment. After

many hours of investigation I realized that it is vital for White ro start with this move. Let's check out some of the other possible moves to understand the point. First of all, 1 0 .if4 Vll e7 leads to another theoretical tabiya, which is not relevant to our repertoire.

Inaccurate is: 10.h3

In view of: 10 .. j''1e8 1 1 .lOd2 lOhS!

With the idea of playing . . .£7 -fS next; Black will get good play.

12.ttJde4 White's problem is that 1 2.e4 runs into 12 . . . ttJeS (heading for d3) l 3.lOf3 lOxf3t 14.Wxf3 ttJf6 and Black is fine with j ust one

pair of knights on the board. 1 2 . . . lOdf6 l 3.lLlxf6t lOxf6 1 4.a4 a6 l s .id2 Ei:b8

Black had easy play in Solozhenkin -Akopian, Rethymnon 2003.

The main point is that 1 0.lOd2 runs into the same idea: 1 0 . . . lLlhS! And again I could not find a way for White to fight for an advantage: 1 1 .lLlde4 lLldf6 1 2.lLlxf6t Vllxf6 (I do not see any problems for Black after the natural 1 2 . . . lLlxf6 either) 1 3.e4 a6 l 4.Ei:el And here a draw was agreed in Roiz - Sakaev, Warsaw 200S .

lO . . . Ei:e8 The same pOSltlOn can be reached after

1 0 . . . a6 1 1 .lOd2 Ei:e8. Other options are:

1 0 . . . lOe8 This was tried in P Nikolic - Maze, Budva 2009, but it seems rather passive to me.

1 1 .igS This looks very nice for White with the following variations:

l 1 . . . f6 Also possible is l 1 . . .if6 1 2.if4 lLleS. This is a thematic idea when Black's knight is on e8; after an exchange on eS it will get a nice square on d6, but in this concrete example White succeeds in seizing the initiative on the queenside. 1 3 .lLlxeS dxeS 14 .ie3 b6 This position was reached in Hausner -Sikora Lerch, Czech Republic 1 999, and now instead of the double-edged l S.d6, I prefer a clean positional decision: l S .aS!?N Ei:b8 1 6.axb6 axb6 l 7.Vllb3! ib7 ( l 7 . . . lLld6? would be a mistake in view of l 8 .ixcS!) 1 8.Ei:a7 lLld6 1 9.Ei:fa l White has strong pressure on the queenside.

l 2.if4 Vlle7 I believe White should simply play the natural move:

1 3.e4

1 80 Benoni Systems

In Kuligowski - Spassky, Germany 1 987, White chose the less convincing 1 3 .E1el b6 1 4.h4 ct:Je5 1 5 .txe5 bee5 with double-edged play.

1 3 . . . ct:Je5 1 4.�c2;!; With Black's dark-squared bishop blocked by

the f6-pawn, White should always be better.

In the first round of the Russian league, David Navara surprised me with: 1 0 . . . b6

This seems to have been a novelty at the time, and no one has repeated it since. Now I believe that White should play:

1 1 .ct:Jd2 Instead I won a nice game after I I .tf4 �e7. Now I employed a tricky idea: 1 2.ct:Jb5 ct:Je8 1 3 .E1a3 This worked perfectly in the game: 1 3 . . . a6?! 1 4.E1e3 �f6 1 5 .tg5! �xb2 1 6.E1b3 �a2 1 7.ct:Jc3 txc3 1 8 .E1xc3oo White had powerful compensation in Avrukh - Navara, Dagomys 2008. But after the correct 1 3 . . . ct:Jdf6! I am not sure if White has anything.

l l . . .ta6 1 2.ct:Jb5 E1e8 1 3.E1el The play would transpose to l ine C2

(the 9 . . . E1e8, 1 0 . . . b6 line that we examined earlier).

The position after 1 0.a4 was seriously tested in the Caruana-Alekseev match during the last World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk: 1 0 . . . ct:Jg4

This surpnsmg novelty was played twice during the match. Black has two ideas behind his move: firstly, he wants to play . . .£1-f5 , and secondly he would be happy to exchange one pair of knights, which is a typical thematic idea for Black in this variation.

I l .h3 In the first game the Italian grandmaster did not react so strongly: 1 1 .ct:Jd2 And after 1 1 . . .f5 1 2.h3 ct:Jge5 1 3 .f4 ct:J£1 14 .e4 ct:Jf6 1 5 .exf5 txf5 1 6.ct:Jc4 h5 1 7.ct:Je3 ct:Jh6! Black equalized comfortably, Caruana - Alekseev, Khanty-Mansiysk (3 . 1 ) 2009.

1 l . . .ct:Jge5 12 .ct:Jg5! In the third game Caruana was well-armed and unleashed a powerful plan. It turns out that Black is unable to carry out either of his plans.

1 2 . . . �e7 The main point is that after 1 2 . . . h6 1 3.ct:Jge4 ct:Jf6 White is not obliged to capture on f6, but instead he can simply play 1 4.ct:Jd2 and it seems to me that White has an improved version of a normal Benoni.

1 3 .f4 ct:Jc4 1 4.e4 ct:Ja5 This is Caruana-Alekseev, Khanty-Mansiysk (3.3) 2009, and now White missed a good chance:

1 5 .e5!N With the following point:

1 5 . . . dxe5 1 6.d6 �d8 1 7.f5 White has powerful compensation for the pawn. For example:

1 7 . . . gxf5 1 8 .E1xf5 ct:Jb6 1 9.E1x£1! E1x£1 20.ct:Jxf7 I±>x£1 2 1 .�h5t I±>g8 22.te4+-

With a crushing attack.

1 1 .tiJd2 a6 This is clearly Black's main choice in the

present position. In a few games Black tried: 1 1 . . .ct:Je5

Now I recommend: 1 2.h3

Chapter 1 3 - Modern Benoni l S I

Instead 1 2.f4 ctJeg4 1 3 .ctJc4 �f5! looks rather double-edged. For example, 1 4.h3 ctJh6 1 5 .g4 ctJ6cg4 1 6.hxg4 ctJxg4.

12 . . . ctJh5 The critical continuation. Needless to say, Black wants to continue with . . . f7-f5 . Another option is 1 2 . . . g5 when I like the following plan: 1 3.'<Wc2 h6 1 4.b3 id7 1 5 .�b2 a6 1 6.ctJc4 ctJxc4 1 7.bxc4 In Reefschlaeger - Ackermann, Menden 1974, White was much better positionally, as he has managed to block Black's play on rhe queenside, while he has a clear plan of advancing his central pawns.

13.f4 ctJxg3 1 4.6ce5 ctJxfl 1 5 .'<Wxfl )gxe5 16 .e4

Although this position may look doubleedged at first, I believe White is better as he has a clear plan of putting his knight to c4 followed by if4. The following encounter supported my evaluation:

16 . . . id7 1 7.ctJc4 )gh5 l s .if4 �d4t 1 9.<j;Jh2 White was clearly better in Heurtebize -

Valentin, France 1 997.

12.h3 An important prophylactic move. It is

essential to know that White cannot fight for an advantage with 1 2.ctJc4 because Black has

1 2 . . . ctJe5. 1 3 .ctJa3 (or if 1 3 .ctJxe5 )gxe5 and Black is fine, as has been proven by the theorists) 1 3 . . . ctJh5 Black has time to play . . . f7-f5 next.

At this point there are rwo important moves to consider: Gl) 12 ... ltJh5 and G2) 12 . .. )gbS.

Less vital is 1 2 . . . '<Wc7 as after 1 3.ctJc4 ctJb6 1 4.ctJa3 id7 ( 1 4 . . . ctJbd7 1 5 .e4 makes no senSe for Black) 1 5 .e4 )gabS we will transpose to the line G2 1 below, the 1 3 . . . ctJb6 variation.

Gl) 1 2 ... ttJh5 13.ttJce4

a b c d e f g h

This is the only way White can fight for the advantage.

13 ... ttJdf6 14. ttJxf6 t ltJxf6 1 4 . . . '<Wxf6 1 5 .ctJc4 �d7 was played in

Wright - Vrnata, Nachod 2002, and now I like the simple 1 6.ctJb6N )gadS 1 7.)ga3 '<We7 l S .e4± with a very nice position for White. The weakening of the d4-square is not so relevant, as White can easily meet l s . . . id4 with 1 9.)gd3! threatening a positional sacrifice with )gxd4.

15 .ttJc4 Now with the inclusion of . . . a7 -a6 and a2-a4

we can play this move, whereas without these moves the text would be met by . . . b7-b5 .

182 Benoni Systems

15 ... .if5 Here I developed the following strategic

plan.

8 E.��i.';� 7 �£_�/..�_%�}��£ 6 '� �� , . , ��.J""��//"".;� � � !��,�� %� 3 ��.�� .J�� 2 ""J�?fJ'�-��!� 1 �� mg�

a b c d e f g h 16.a5!?N

Sooner or later White should make this positional move, fixing Black's pawns on the queenside and thus securing a nice outpost for White's knight on c4.

Before White has tried only 1 6.�a3 and 1 6.�f4 but failed to achieve anything special.

16 ... .ie4 17 . .ig5! The point of my plan. My idea is to reach

a favourable position with White's knight versus Black's dark-squared bishop. Although this move has never been tested in practice, I discovered later that it was suggested by Nogueiras in Informant 52. The play might continue like this:

17 ... h6 18 . .ixfG VNxfG 1 9 . .ixe4 �xe4 2o.VNc2 �ae8 21 .e3 h5 22.�a4!

Creating the tactical threat of 23.CtJxd6.

22 ... �4e7 23.h4! White has a stable positional advantage,

thanks to his strong knight.

G2) 12 ... �b8

This is clearly Black's main choice.

13. 1tJ c4 I believe this is White's best try.

Instead l 3.a5 brings White nothing as the following recent example illustrates: 13 ... b5 1 4.axb6 CtJxb6 1 5 .VNc2 a5 1 6.e4 �a6 17.Eldl CtJc4 Black achieved good counterplay in Sargissian - Damljanovic, France 2008.

After the text move we reach an important crossroads for Black. He has two knight moves

that usually lead to very different kinds of play: G21) 13 ... ttJb6 and G22) 13 ... ttJe5.

G21 ) 13 ... ttJb6

This leads to more positional play than 1 3 . . . CtJe5.

14.ttJa3 Certainly White has no intention of trading

one pair of knights; in fact, he is planning to drive away Black's knight from b6 with a4-a5, and then return his own knight to the excellent c4-square.

I will mention in passing that White cannot play 1 4.CtJxd6? in view of 1 4 . . .'IWxd6 15.�f4 �e5 ! .


14 . . . if5 Black takes control over the e4-square, inviting White to weaken his kingside with g3-g4.

1 5 .a5 This looks the most natural choice to me.

15 . . . tLlcS 1 6.tLlc4 tLle4 As usual, 16 . . . b5 is met strongly by 1 7.axb6 tLlxb6 I S .tLla5.

17.E1a3 tLla7 This position was reached in Avrukh -Megaranto, Turin (01) 2006, and now I have found an obvious improvement over the inaccurate I S.E1b3 that I actually played.

8

7

6 5

4

3

2 r".",.,'/. //,'=-'.

a b c d e f g h 18.tLlxe4!N .ixe4 1 9 .f3 .ifS 20.e4 .ic8 2 1 .f4

ttJb5 22.E1d3 White has everything one could dream of

when facing the Benoni.

1 4 . . . ttJaS This is actually not as stupid as it may seem at first glance. Black's knight is heading for c7, where it will either support . . . b7-bS , or jump out to b5 if White plays a4-a5.

1 5 .e4 ttJc7 In my opinion it is now logical to recentralize the a3-knight:

� �]f.\\ji/!e 6 f.''''' ' :.�.i� 5 _b� ""� 4 !.""%.!� �� 3 m m .�� 2 �""' ;wli""' ;� ��f� f"'�""%W<7��." '>-�'� �� 'iV.M�

a b c d e f g h 1 6. ttJc4!?N

Surprisingly, this is a novelty. In all eight games where this position was reached White chose 1 6.a5, when I think a very strong reply is 1 6 . . . ttJb5! , which leads to good play for Black. I was claiming 1 6 . . . ttJb5 as my novelty until a Czech called Turner played it on January 20, 20 l O!

1 6 . . . b5 1 7.axb5 Less convincing is 1 7.ttJa5 .id7.

1 7 . . . ttJxb5 Or 1 7 . . . axb5 I S.ttJa5 with the main point that after 18 . . . .id7 White can play 1 9.ttJc6! .ixc6 20.dxc6 and not worry about losing the e4-pawn, as after 20 . . . b4 2 1 .ttJd5 ttJxe4 22.E1a7 E1cS 23 .�el White has powerful play for the pawn.

1 8 .E1el ttJd4 1 9.ie3t White has the better chances, thanks to his

space advantage.

1 84 Benoni Systems

15.e4 This is more Hexible than 1 5 .a5 ctJc8 1 6.ctJc4

ib5 1 7.�b3 ixc4 1 8 .�xc4 ctJd7 when Black has scored well from this position.

This is a very important moment. Black usually chooses between G21 1) 1 5 ... ctJc8 and G212) 15 ... �c7. A third option will also be considered brieHy, but it is a less serious line.

1 5 . . . ctJxa4 1 6.ct:lxa4

a b c d e f g h 1 6 . . . ctJxe4

Certainly Black can easily regain the piece by 1 6 . . . b5 1 7.ctJxc5 dxc5, but this has been played only once in tournament practice. Now White could play the simple 1 8 .�e l !N (instead of 1 8 .e5 �xe5 1 9.if4 ctJh5 20.ixe5 ixe5� which gave Black excellent compensation in Levy - Hulak, Dornbirn 1 988) . White's strong centre gives him a clear edge. For example, 1 8 . . . b4 1 9 .ctJc4 ib5 20.ctJa5 ctJd7 2 l .f4 and White is ready to advance his central pawns, while Black's counterplay has failed to develop. After the text move I believe the best answer is:

17 .�c2!?N In E. Atalik - Marzolo, Sousse 2007, White opted for 17.ctJc4, and now it is not clear to me why Black avoided 1 7 . . . b5 with the following point: 1 8 .ctJxd6 ctJxd6 1 9.ctJxc5 a5! 20.ctJxd7 �c8 Black retains equal chances.

1 7 . . . ctJf6 17 . . . b5 can be discounted. After doing my own work I noticed that Watson had already analysed this in The Gambit Guide to the Modern Benoni. His line goes: 1 8 .ixe4 ixh3 1 9.ig2 ixg2 20.Wxg2 bxa4 2 1 .ctJc4 Here he says White is a bit better, which is slightly inaccurate, as White is of course completely winning.

1 8.ctJc3 b5 1 9.ctJe2 It seems to me that Black's two pawns are

not enough to compensate for the piece.

G21 l) 15 ... ctJc8

a b c d e f g h

16.�d3 Usually Black opts for 1 6 . . . �c7, which can

transpose to the 1 5 . . . �c7 line after 17.:9:e1 , but also gives White an additional option of 17 .ie3, but Black has another possible 16th move:

16 ... b5 This pawn sacrifice is in Benko Gambit

style.

17.axb5 axb5 18.ctJaxb5 ixb5 19.ttJxb5 tiJd7

I believe Black does not have enough compensation for the missing pawn. The following example is quite il lustrative.


20.We2 20.t2k3 is another option that is worthy of

consideration.

20 ... Wb6 21 .lLla3! White's knight is heading for c4.

21.. .Wb3 22.tLle4 lLleS Black is clearly worse after 22 . . . f5 23J:'1a3

Wib5 24.Wc2 fxe4 25 .ixe4± .

a b c d e f g h

24.WdI ! A strong positional decision; White i s not

going to allow Black's knight to land on d3.

24 .. J3a8 2S.ga3 WbS 26.gb3 Wa4 2? ga3 WibS 28.gb3 Wa4 29.lLle6!

Mter repeating the position just to gain time on the clock, White plays on and was clearly better in Avrukh - Gashimov, Athens 2005 . However, as usually happens in this line, Black still has some tactical tricks.

G2I2) IS ... We? I6.gel

Only White's second most popular choice. 16.ie3

This is considered to be the main choice. In fact Black has great play after the following tactical operation.

1 6 . . . tt:lxa4! 1 7.tt:lxa4 tt:lxe4 The difference compared to 1 5 . . . tt:lxa4 is that now Black has the additional threat of l S . . . tt:lxg3. The following consequences look pretty forced.

l S .tt:lc2 b5 1 9 .tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 20.bxc3 Now Black has a strong punch:

20 . . . a5! The text is better than creating unclear play with 20 . . . ixc3 2 1 .gxa6 b4 22.if4.

2 1 .id2 b4 Black is probably a bit better, although the

position is generally j ust messy. White was lucky to escape with a draw in Pantsulaia -Bagaturov, Batumi 200 1 .

I6 ... lLle8 Again Black has the option of:

1 6 . . . tt:lxa4 1 7.tt:lxa4 b5 White has to regain the pawn by means of:

l S .tt:lxc5 W"xc5 Certainly not l S . . . dxc5? which allows 1 9.if4.

1 9.ie3 I believe White has very pleasant play, for example:

1 9 . . . W"cS 20.gel W"b7 2 1 .id4 gbcS Now White might improve on existing theory with:

1 86 Benoni Systems

White played 22.b4, but after 22 . . . Ehc1 23 .�xc 1 2"lcS 24.�d2 lLleSoo Black had a reasonable position in Akopian - Yudasin, Lvov 1990.

22 ... b4 23.�d2 b3 The point is that 23 . . . a5 runs into 24.�f4! and Black loses material.

24.lLla3 2"lxc 1 25 .�xc1 White keeps a pleasant advantage, thanks to

his better pawn structure.

17.�d3 It almost goes without saying that White has

to stop the . . . b7-b5 advance.

17 ... ctJa7 In my opinion 17 . . . b5 is inferior, as Black

does not gain sufficient compensation after: 1 S.axb5 c4 19.�xc4 (if 1 9.1Llxc4 then 19 . . . axb5 20.lLld2 b4 2 1 .lLle2 �b5� and Black gets some play) 19 . . . �xc4 20.lLlxc4 axb5 And now White should play the simple: 2 1 .lLld2!N (instead 2 1 .lLlxd6 lLlxd6 22.�f4 �fS 23.2"la6 b4 was unclear in Jirka - Simacek, Prerov 200 1 ) 2 1 . . .b4 (or 2 l . . .lLlb6 22.2"la7 b4 23.lLle2±) 22.lLle2±

18.ctJc4 b5 Of course 1 s . . . lLlcs looks very strange, but

actually Black is renewing his main idea of . . . b7-b5 . 1 9.a5 �b5 20.b3! A very important positional decision; now White is ready to recapture with a pawn on c4. Cu. Hansen -S.B. Hansen, Koge 2005, continued 20 . . . lLld7 2 l .f4 b6 22.axb6 lLlcxb6 23.�d2 lLlf6 24.<;t>h2 and White had a stable positional edge.

19.axb5 lDxb5 20.�d2 Now the following series of moves looks

pretty logical.

2o ... lDxc3 21 .�xc3 �b5 22.b3! Once again we see this well known positional

idea; White will recapture with the b-pawn i n the event of a capture on c4.

22 ... lDd7 23.�xg7 �xg7 24JWc3t i>g8 25.lDa5

White has a clear positional advantage and the following example supports my assessment.

25 . . . lDe5 26.2"le3 Worthy of consideration is 26.f4 ltJd3

27.2"le3 lLlb4 2S.e5 with an advantage.

26 ... f5 27.f4 lDf7 28.lDc6! �xc6 29.dxc6 �xc6

This was played in Cernousek - Terekhov, Bavaria 200S, and now we have a simple novelty.

G22) 13 ... lDe5

a b c d e f g h


In my opinion this is a critical continuation that leads to very sharp play.

14.ttJa3 As usual, the trade of one pair of knights

(by 1 4.ttJxe5 �xe5) leads to a comfortable game for Black. Now we have reached the first crossroads in this complicated line.

Black can now play G221) 14 ... Wc7?!, G222) 14 . . . c4, G223) 14 . . . id7 and G224) 14 .. . ttJh5.

G221) 14 ... Wc7?!

This is dubious as it allows White to get everything he is dreaming of:

15.f4 ttJed7 16.e4

17.te3 ttJc5 Let's see some of the other moves that have

been tested in practice:

17. ..ttJh5 l S.�h2 I prefer this move, as White keeps an important option of driving Black's knight away with g3-g4. (Instead Gonzalez Zamora - Polugaevsky, Havana

1 962, continued l S .tf2 ttJc5 1 9 .e5 ttJd3 and Black had good counterplay.) 1 S . . . l2lc5 (I also examined l S .. . f5 1 9 .We2 fxe4 20.ttJxc4 and White's forces are much better coordinated.) 1 9.94 l2lf6 20.e5± Black is already in serious trouble.

1 7 . . . l2lxe4 1 S.l2lxe4 f5 This is a thematic idea for Black in die Benoni, but in this case White can easily prove his superiority:

a b c d e f g h 1 9.12lxd6!N

In Cernousek - Arakhamia-Grant, Sunningdale 2007, Black obtained reasonable play after 1 9 .12lg5 �xe3 20.l2le6 �xe6 2 1 .dxe6 l2lf6 22.l2lxc4 d5.

19 . . . �xe3 20.l2laxc4 �xg3 2 1 .We l ! �xg2t 22.�xg2 l2lf6 23.We5 !

White is clearly better, as Black does not have compensation for the exchange.

18.e5 dxe5? 19.d6 Wa5 20.fxe5 liJfd7 2 1 .Wd5+-

White quickly won in Korsus - Friedrich, Bad Zwischenahn 2006.

G222) 14 . . . c4

A rare move, introduced by the talented Polish Grandmaster Gajewski against the author of this book. Still, I do not see any justification for losing control of the d4-square.

1 88 Benoni Systems

Is .ie3! White immediately takes control over the

e3-a7 diagonal and especially the d4-square. White should not accept the pawn sacrifice with 1 5 .f4 lUed7 1 6.lUxc4?! , as this would allow Black fantastic compensation after 1 6 . . . b5 17 .axb5 axb5 1 8 .lUd2 lUc5.

I s . . . id7 Now I have found a very interesting

solution.

In the game I played less convincingly and after 1 6.lUc2 b5 1 7.axb5 axb5 1 8 .lUb4 Wfc8co Black had counterplay on the kingside in Avrukh -Gajewski, Dresden 2007.

1 6.a5 WfcB 1 7.g4 h5 1 B .g5 ixh3 leads to equality, and shows once again that Black has plans on the kingside as well as the usual . . . b7-b5 idea.

16 ... bS This looks principled, but it does not work.

However, the other options also leave White with a clear positional plus.

After 1 6 . . . Ei:aB 17 .id4 the idea of 1 B.f4 is very unpleasant, and the c4-pawn is also hanging. 1 7 . . . lUh5 1 B.@h2 g5 1 9.ixe5! ixe5 20.lUxc4± and White has a healthy extra pawn.

After 1 6 . . . Ei:cB 17 .f4 lUh5 1 B.fxe5 ixe5 19.94 lUg3 20.Ei:f3 Black is far from having sufficient compensation for his missing piece.

17.axbS axbS 18.ixb8 Less clear is 1 B. f4 lUeg4 1 9.hxg4 lUxg4 and

Black has some play.

18 . . JWxb8 19.b4 Black hardly has compensation for the

exchange, with the following important point:

19 ... cxb3 20.'\19xb3 b4 2 1 .Ei:abl± Black's play i s not serious, though some

accuracy is required from White.

G223) 14 ... id7

16.fxeS ixeS


And now the easiest would be:

17.g4 17.if4 should also be enough for an

advantage.

17 ... tLlg3 Now I recommend that White save his

rook.

18 ... b5 Another option is l S . . . \Wh4 19 .ie3 h5

20.gxh5 and Black's attack falls short after 2o . . . ixh3 2 1 .hxg6 fXg6 22.if2 ig4 23. ttJe4 �xf3 24.exf3 with a material advantage.

19.axb5 axb5 20.\Wel b4 I also examined 20 .. .f5 2 1 .if4 ixc3

22.�xg3 ixb2 23.l"i:b l when Black does not have sufficient compensation for being a piece down.

21.l"i:xg3 bxc3 22J�xc3 White is clearly better.

G224) 14 ... tLlh5

This is by far Black's most important choice.

15.e4 The best and most principled continuation;

other moves do not pose Black any problems. For example, 1 5 . f4 ttJxg3 1 6.fXe5 ixe5! and Black has good attacking chances.

After the text move we reach a critical position of the whole line. Black has to decide which sharp line he wants to try.

G2241) 15 .. . id7

The text is Black's most common choice in the present position, and has recently become even more popular thanks to the game Avrukh - Kamsky from the 2007 World Cup.

16.a5! This is White's only chance of fighting for

the advantage. With this pawn sacrifice White tries to distract Black's queen from the kingside, and especially the h4-square, in order to start pushing his pawns there. Neither 1 6.f4 tLlxg3, nor 1 6.g4 b5! promises White any favourable chances.

190 Benoni Systems

16 .. :�xa5 The alternative

1 6 . . . b5 seems worse to me.

1 7.axb6 Elxb6 Black failed to obtain serious compensation after 1 7 . . . i.b5 1 8 .lOaxb5 axb5 1 9.1Oxb5 Wfxb6 20.lOa3 c4 2 1 .\t>h2 in Anastasian -Gopal, Abu Dhabi 2007.

I B .f4!N In my opinion this is a serious improvement over White's play in the following two games: I B.@h2 was tested in Civin - Nokes, New Zealand 2006, but it is too slow. Black could achieve a good game after I B . . . i.b5 1 9.1Oaxb5 axb5 20.f4 1Oc4. I B .g4?! allows Black to develop a dangerous attack after I B . . . Wfh4! 1 9.9xh5 (simply bad is 1 9.Ele l ? i.xg4 20.hxg4 1Oxg4 2 1 .Wff3 as in Payen - Sanglan, Avoine 2004, and here it's a mystery why Black did not find the primitive 2 1 . . . i.d4 22.i.e3 Elxb2 and White's position collapses) 1 9 . . . i.xh3 20.Wfe2 lOg4 2 1 .i.f4 i.e5! . The play might continue:

1 B . . . lOxg3 1 9.Elf2! The point. Black is fine after 1 9 .bee5 lOxfl 20.i.xf1 (20.Wfxfl runs into 20 . . . i.xe5 2 1 .1Oc4 i.xc3 22.bxc3 i.b5!=t) 20 . . . i.xe5 2 1 .lOc4 i.d4t 22.\t>hl Elb4 and Black has great play.

a b c d e f g h Now I investigated the following lines:

1 9 . . . lOg4 1 9 . . . Wfh4? does not work due to 20.fxe5 i.xh3 2 1 .Wff3 and White wins. It is also hard to believe Black has sufficient play for the sacrificed piece after 19 . . Jlb4 20.bee5 i.xe5 2 1 .1Oc2.

20.hxg4 i.xc3 2 1 .bxc3 lOxe4 22.i.xe4 Probably we have to give up our bishop, as 22.Ela2 runs into 22 . . . i.a4.

22 . . . Elxe4 23.g5! Not allowing the queen to jump to h4. Black

has insufficient compensation for the piece.

17.g4 1Of6 1 7 .. . b5 has been tried only once and indeed

after I B .gxh5 b4 1 9.ct:k2 WfdB 20.lOe2 Black's compensation was rather questionable in Luyks - Pinheiro, Lisbon 2002.

Chapter 1 3 - Modern Benoni 1 9 1

18.f4 In my opinion this is the only way for White

to fight for an advantage and this is the move I opted for in my most recent game.

I had previously tried: 18 .g5

But I was hit by a strong novelty. The curious point is that I had already discovered this move by myself a few years before. The explanation is quite simple - I simply forgot the right move.

1 8. . .tZlh5 1 9.f4 tZlc4! This is the only way, as other moves are favourable for White.

20.ttlxc4 'Wxa1 2 1 .tZlxd6

8 �� :i�.� -.""�� . . � 7 � i • .t..i . i 6 r� �m�� ·iY.� 5 ��.�';.��I 4 �.""%. �wt1" . .%. 3 ��".J�! 2 ��r�"" ';� �� . <,.jS%�'0 �� il�l:(m

a b c d e f g h 2 l . . .ixc3!

Very simple and very strong! Before this game the position had occurred only three times in tournament practice, and had been considered slightly risky for Black. This game completely changed the assessment of this line. The old main line according to the theory was 2 l . . .id4t 22,cj;1h2 !:Ie7 with doubleedged play, Hulak - Nunn, Toluca 1 9S2.

22,bxc3 'Wxc3 The game continued:

23,ttlxeS !:IxeS 24.m3 'Wd4t 25 .'Wxd4 cxd4 26,)"!d3 !:IcS 27.id2 a5

And it was White who had to fight for a draw in Avrukh - Kamsky, Khanty-Mansiysk 2007,

IS ... llJexg4 Now the same idea that Black used against

1 S .g5 no longer works: l S . . . tZlc4 1 9 .1Llxc4 'Wxa1 20.e5! and Black is in trouble.

1 9.hxg4 ltJxg4

a b c d e f g h

20.f5! A very important move that significantly

improves White's play compared with previous encollnters. White destroys the connection between Black's minor pieces, opens the diagonal for his dark-squared bishop and, most importantly, creates some active ideas on the kingside. The previollsly played lines (2o.lLlc2, 20.'Wf3 and 2o.if3) have scored disastrously for White.

20 ... CLle5 The critical line of course is:

2o . . . id4t 2 1 .Wh1 lLlf2t 22.!:Ixf2 ixf2 23.ig5!

Not allowing Black's queen to be transferred via dS-square to h4. Now I examined the following line:

23 . . . id4 24.lLlc4 'Wb4 After the passive 24 . . . 'Wc7 25 .if4 ie5 26.'Wd2 White develops his initiative on the kingside.

25 .'We2 White's main idea is to win the d6-pawn.

192 Benoni Systems

After 25.ifl Black has an interesting idea at his disposal: 25 . . . b5! 26.l2Ja2 Wxc4 27.ixc4 bxc4� and strangely enough Black has good compensation for his material deficit.

25 . . . f6 If 25 . . . ixc3 26.bxc3 Wxc3 27.l"k1 Wg3 28 .We3 Wxe3 29 .ixe3 and the d6-pawn is falling, so White retains the advantage.

26.if4 ie5 Black has defended his d6-pawn, but in return he must give up his dark-squared bishop.

27.l2Jxe5 dxe5 28 .ie3 Finally we have reached a very complex

position where both sides have their pluses. Stil l , I believe White's chances should be preferred, as he has good chances to develop an initiative on the kingside using the fact that Black's queen is somewhat out of play.

a b c d e f g h 21 .f6!?N

This is my new idea, which might improve on the fol lowing game: 2 1 .ig5 h6 22.l2Jc4 Wb4 23.l2Jxe5 ixe5 with very complex play in Avrukh - Bar, Israeli League 2008 .

2 1.. .ihS 22 . .ig5 Now Black's dark-squared bishop is

temporarily out of play.

22 ... WdS 23.ltJc2

This is the critical position for the assessment of my new idea. Despite retaining material equality, Black faces a tough choice - either to play without his dark-squared bishop or to get it into play at the cost of weakening his kingside.

23 .. . h6 24 . .ih4 g5 25 . .ig3 .ixf6

G2242) 1 5 .. JUS

This tricky move is well-known since the famous game Korchnoi - Kasparov, Lucerne (01) 1 982. Black wants to play . . . £7-f5 on the next move.


This is considered to be White's best bet. It is very difficult to access the position after 1 6.g4 Wh4 1 7.gxh5 ixh3, bur I have a feeling that Black has enough attacking resources to fully compensate for his material deficit.

After the text move Black has two main replies: G22421 ) 16 . . • id7 and G22422) 16 ... £5.

G22421 ) 16 ... id7 17.'&e2

An important prophylactic move; White takes control over the b5-square while at the same time improving the position of his queen. Very unclear is 1 7.f4 b5 1 8.fXe5 CLlxg3! as in Ross -O'Donnell, Canada 1986.

17 ... £5 18.f4

a b c d e f g h

18 ... fxe4 Black has yet to test the following move over

the board: l s . . .lt'l£7

However, I decided to analyse this line, as White can easily drift into trouble if he is not careful.

19.exf5 �e8 20.iWdl !N This is a good square for the queen, because in the following line, 20.iWf3 b5N (varying from S.M. Larsen - Schnabel, corr. 2003, where Black played 20 ... CLlf6) 2 1 .axb5 axb5

22.fXg6 hxg6 23.CLlc2 b4 24.CLle4 if5! , White starts to experience definite problems because his knight is undefended on c2.

20 . . . b5 2 1 .axb5 axb5 22.fXg6 hxg6 23.CLlc2 CLlf6

If Black continues the same way as he did after 20.iWf3, with 23 ... b4 24.CLle4 if5, White can comfortably play 25.CLlf2±, as his queen defends the c2-knight.

24.�e1 �xe1 25 .iWxe1 Black has some activity, but it can hardly

compensate for his pawn deficit.

1 8 . . . �e8 This simply does not work.

1 9 .fXe5 CLlxg3 20.Wxg3 ixe5t 2 1 .g;,f2 iWh4t And now instead of the incredible 22.We3, as was played in Robert - Ballmann, Zurich 1 983, White has a clear defence:

22.Wg1 iWg3 23 .�f2 b5 24.axb5 axb5 25.iWf3 iWh2t 26.Wfl b4 27.ih 1 iWg3 28 .iWxg3 ixg3 29.�f3

White remains a piece up.

19.fxe5 I believe this is the critical continuation,

although it has been played only once.

The main move is considered to be 1 9.ixe4, but I feel that Black has very rich play here. Let's have a look at the most recent example: 19 . . . CLl£7 20.g4 Probably this is already bad for White. 20 . . . CLlf6 2 1 .if3 b5! 22.axb5 axb5 23.CLlaxb5 �e8 24.iWd3 c4 25 .iWxc4 CLlxg4t 26.hxg4 iWh4t 27.Wg2 ixg4 Black easily developed a decisive attack in Solozhenkin -Kornev, St Petersburg 2005.

19 . . . gxf1 20.'&xf1 ixe5 Instead 20 . . . CLlxg3 does not work due to

2 1 .iWe1 ! ixe5 22.CLlc4 CLlfl t 23.g;,g1 id4t 24.Wh1 and White wins.

2 1.ltJxe4

194 Benoni Systems

22.lt:Jxg3 �h4 23.�el �e8 This position occurred in Symersky - Fiala, Czech Republic 2000. Usually it is not my business to improve Black's p lay, but here I have to mention an incredible resource:

23 . . . l"!fS!? Now Blackis threatening 24 . . . i.xh3! 25 .i.xh3 l"!f3 with decisive threats; despite being two pieces up, White has only one defence!

24.i.e3 i.xh3 25 .i.xh3 l"!fl Now 25 . . . l"!f3 does not work in view of 26.i.f2! so Black has to try another idea.

26.i.g5! The following l ine looks quite forced:

26 . . . l"!xe1 26 . . . i.xg3t 27.Wg2! �xh3t 2S.Wxh3 i.xe1 29Jbc4 is winning for White.

27.i.xh4 l"!xa 1 2S.tt:Jc4 White's material advantage should tell.

In the game, after 23 . . . l"!eS, White missed an easy solution:

24.�e3 Threatening 25 .�g5 .

24 ... ixb2 25.�xe8t !xe8 26.ixb2 With a clear advantage.

G22422} 16 ... £5 17.f4

1 7 . . . tt:Jf7? is not an option in view of l S.exf5 and Black cannot recapture with the bishop because of 1 9.94.

17 . . . fxe4 This is also incorrect, as White can take the piece:

l S .fxe5!N l S .tt:Jxe4 tt:Jf7 1 9.tt:Jc4 was only slightly better for White in the game Ki. Georgiev Alexakis, Corfu 1 99 1 .

l S . . . i.xe5 1 9.tt:Jxe4 l"!xf1 20.�xfl i.f5 Amusingly, we have transposed to a position that has been examined in the line 1 6 . . . i.d7 17 .�e2. Just as a reminder, White has a clear advantage, as the following line does not work for Black:

2 1 .tt:Jc4 i.xe4 22.tt:Jxe5 i.xg2 23 .�f7t �h8 24.lt:Jg4 i.e4 25 .i.d2+-

Black has also tried: 17 . . . i.d7 1 S.exf5 !


This is the correct move, as after IS .fxe5 ixe5 Black has definite play.

18 . . . ixf5 White can surely accept the piece sacrifice:

8 �� B �� •• 7 .,Y.� ... ,,/.� "",y..r �� P' �� ..... "� 6 , . 1� � , � 5 �_�%.r��· 4 !� . . . .. %�'� . . .. . :��. ��_""!:WKt"t 3 .� ,7.2...i .. �O 0 2 Y .. . ... � ...... � 0<�:r� .... r{ .. ..?W;7�� p ... " ,� �WIf�� .

a b c d e f g h 19.fXe5!N

Instead the dubious 1 9.ctJe2?! ctJd3! handed the advantage to Black in V Mikhalevski -Ly, Sydney 2007.

19 . . . ixe5 1 9 . . . ctJxg3 does not work due to 20.�f3! ixe5 2 1 .ctJc4+-.

20.ctJe2± I could not discover anything special for

Black here.

18.axb5 I S.fXe5?! ctJxg3! has been considered very

unclear since the old game Birnboim -Amason, Randers 1 9S2.

18 ... axb5 19.1tJaxb5 The critical continuation. Once again

19.fXe5 ctJxg3! offers Black good play, with a fine example being Van Wely - Timman, Wijk aan Zee 2002,which ended in a brilliant win for Black.

19 ... fxe4 19 . . . �d7? was played in the game Lacrosse

- Piceu, Gent 2000. White could simply grab the important pawn with 20.ctJxd6!N and have a winning position, for example: 20 . . . ctJxg3

2 1 . <j;>xg3 iWb6 22.ctJxf5 gxf5 23.Wh2+-

20.i.xe4 This is White's main move according to

theory. However, also worthy of consideration is 20.ctJa7!? which has been played three times. I decided to reject this move in favour of the natural 20.�xe4, but at first sight 20.ctJa7 also offers White reasonable chances of an advantage.

20 ... �d7 2 1 .Wfe2 Wfb6 22.ltJa3 �be8 The alternative 22 . . . iWdS was tested In a

German correspondence game Kiupel-Juelich, corr. 1 99 1 , but it does not look sensible to me. White can play by analogy with the main line with 23 .iWg2 ctJf7 24.ctJc4 �b4 25 .�d3, when Black has insufficient compensation for his missing pawn.

In his book The Modern Benoni Revealed Richard Palliser suggests that Timman must have had an improvement, since he risked going into this line in his game against Van Wely.

196 Benoni Systems

However, Palliser does not suggest anything himself, nor have I found any improvements for Black. I find Palliser's comment a little strange, at it seems to me that White has many ways to claim an advantage, so Black would need a whole cascade of improvements.

It might be that Timman was relying mainly on his opponent's youth, hoping he had not studied the history of this line. It would not be the first time an experienced grandmaster bluffed in this way.

23 ... lLlf'7 Black has tried a range of alternatives:

23 . . . c4? was played in Lacrosse - Piceu, Gent 2000. (Actually, the same players seem to have reached this position twice in Gent in 2000!) And now 24.g4! would have won on the spot: 24 . . . lLlf6 25.fxe5 tLlxe4 26.tLlxc4! with a decisive advantage.

23 . . . g5? was Burger - Bergmann, Reykjavik 1 984, and also loses after 24.fxe5N �xfl 25 .tLlc4!.

23 . . . 'Wb3 This is more serious.

24.�b 1 ! I like this calm prophylactic move. White defends the b2-pawn and is ready to develop his queen's bishop. It appears that Black cannot create further threats. Instead, accepting the piece sacrifice is far from clear: 24.fxe5 �xf1 25.'Wxfl �xe5 26.'Wc4 �xg3t 27.r;:t>g2 'Wb4!�

24 . . . tLlf7 Unfortunately for Black, 24 . . . tLlc4? does not work: 25 .�c2 'Wb4 26.tLlal 'Wa5 27.tLlxc4 'Wxal 28.tLlxd6 and White remains two pawns up.

25 .�d2 tLlf6 This was played in Hechler - Kaiser, corr. 1 994, and now White could have executed

his main positional idea of getting his knight to c4:

26.�c2! 'Wb7 If 26 . . . 'Wb4? then 27.tLlcb5 and Black's queen is trapped on b4.

27.tLlc4 White has a healthy extra pawn.

24.g4 Also good enough is 24.tLlc4 'Wb4 25 .�d3±.

24 ... lLlf6 25.lLlc4 Wfb4 26.id3 @h8 27.�d2±

Black failed to obtain any compensation for the pawn in Pietila - Issakainen, Finland 1982.

G2243) 15 ... £5

8 ��.t� .i � *� . '� '��.�� : !��.��,� � ��'�""�r/";�� 5 � f� b �� imlil

4 �� ''' , , %� /�"� @� . ,,//. �%'''//. �� r� 3 � � _ f[j b 2

�"" . ;�",,, ;� �.�� %""�""%�7� ��[",%�,� 1 /� j]iVmn� a b c d e f g h

This is probably the oldest move in this position. It was employed by one of the biggest Benoni experts, Kapengut, in 1 97 1 and has undeservedly been forgotten by theory. To make up for this, I will play close attention to it.

16.exfS This is the critical continuation. Another

option is 1 6.�e l , which leads to a complicated game with mutual chances.

16 .. . ixfS


a b c d e f g h 17.g4 ixg4 lS.hxg4 'lWh4

This is Black's only idea in this position.

19.9xh5 !!i'S! Again the only move; Black has to take the

f4-square under control, and at the same time he creates the powerful threat of . . . ttJg4. We have an incredible position, where despite being two p ieces up it is not easy for White to deal with Black's idea without giving back a significant part of his material advantage.

It is obvious that Black cannot play 1 9 . . . ttJg4 2o.if4 ie5 2 1.Wf3! ttJh2 22.Wg3 and Black was completely lost in Granda Zuniga -Gruenfeld, Spain 2006.

20.h6 It is useful for White to insert the following

moves.

2o ... ihS I barely need to mention that Black is lost

after 20 . . . ttJg4 2 1 .Wxg4 Wxg4 22.hxg7.

21.ttJc4! White is ready to give up his knight to

disrupt Black's coordination. White can reach the same position via a different move order with 2 1 .ttJe4 ttJg4 22.Wxg4 Wxg4 23.ttJc4 and so on.

a b c d e f g h 21 .. .ttJg4

Black cannot capture the knight, as after 2 1 . . .ttJxc4? 22.Wd3! White's queen transfers to h3 and kills Black's attack.

22.'lWxg4 'lWxg4 Finally we have reached a critical position

of the whole line. Now White has to make an important choice.

23.ttJe4 I believe the text move is White's only chance

of fighting for an edge. 1 should perhaps mention that this is not a commonly shared opinion. In Mastering the Chess Openings 2, American 1M John Watson treats Black's position as more or less lost after 23.ttJxd6. The position is a bit more complicated than that, as we shall see below, but 1 should add that Watson's aim is not to be theoretically accurate, but to give the reader a general concept of the various openings considered in his book.

The theory continues: 23.ttJxd6 ie5! 24.ttJde4

The text is the only move as 24.ttJce4 runs into the unpleasant 24 . . . Wh4.

24 . . . �be8!N This strong novelty leads to a forced draw! Previously Black has tried only 24 . . . �f3 and 24 . . . Wh4, which are both far from convincing.

198 Benoni Systems

25 .d6 It is not so easy for White ro move, as Black has the dangerous threat of . . . Wlh4 followed by . . . id4. Let's see two of White's other options: 25.E:e 1 ixc3 26.bxc3 E:xe4 27.E:xe4 Wld l t 28.'kt>h2 E:xf2 and Black's attack looks extremely strong, while White cannot connect his pieces. 25.ie3 Wlh4 26.E:fe 1 ixc3 27.tLlxc3 E:xe3! and Black wins, because of the line 28.fxe3 Wlf2t 29.'kt>h2 E:f5.

25 . . . ixc3! Black is probably worse after 25 . . . Wlh4 26.E:e 1 id4 27.E:e3! .

26.tLlxc3 Black has a draw at the very least after 26.bxc3 E:xe4 27.f3 E:xf3 28.E:xf3 E:e2 29.E:f2 E:e 1 t 30.E:fl E:e2.

26 . . . E:xf2! 27.'kt>xf2 E:f8t 28.c;t>e3 I believe White should accept a draw, as after 28.c;t>e1 Wlxg2 29.E:xf8t c;t>xf8 only Black can play for a win.

28 . . . Wlxg2 29.E:xf8t 'kt>xf8 30.tLle4 Wlgl t=

23 ... bS This looks ro me like the only playable

option. If instead: 23 . . . E:be8 24.tLlcxd6 E:e5

White has a simple solution:

the central pawn after 25 .E:a3 E:xd5, as has occurred twice in rournament practice.

25 . . . Wld4 If 25 . . . Wld7 then 26.tLlc4.

26.tLlde4 Now this is more effective.

26 . . . E:xd5 27.ie3 Wle5 28.tLlc3 E:d7 29Jlfd l E:fd8 30.E:xd7 E:xd7 3 1 .tLlge4

Black can hardly survive given the activity of White's minor pieces.

24.axbS axbS 2S.lLJcxd6 This is the last crossroads for Black in this

line.

2s ... ieS The alternative is:

25 . . . E:b6 White's knight looks somewhat trapped on d6 and Black is threatening ro gain material with 26 . . . �e5, but I found a great idea -White solves this problem with the help of his h6-pawn!

a b c d e f g h 26.E:a5!N

In the game Landgraf - Mirov, corr. 1975, White did not manage ro find the right idea and ended up in a worse position after 26.ie3 ie5 27.ixc5 Wlf4 28.E:fel E!xd6.

26 . . . Wld7 Black defends the b5-pawn. If instead 26 . . . ie5 then White has nothing to worry about and can grab the pawn with 27.liJxb5.


8

7

6

5

27.�a3!!

a b c d e f g h

White now has rhe deadly threat of 28 .�h3 followed by .ie6t.

27 . . . Wfg4 28.�b3! The easiest; White escapes with his knight

and achieves a winning position (also worthy of consideration is 28.�g3 '!:Nh5 29 .�e3 �d4 30.b4!?).

a b c d e f g h

26.f4!? This is a clear improvement over 26 . .ie3 '!:Nh4

27.f4 .ixf4 28.�xf4 �xf4, as in Johansen -Y ndesdal, corr. 1 993, when Black's coun terplay should be enough for a draw.

26 ... id4t 27.<j;>h2 '!:Nh4tN I also examined the dangerous-looking

27 . . . g5, but White is firmly in control after 28.�a3! gxf4 29.�xf4 �xf4 30.�g3± and the d-pawn should decide the game.

Another natural defensive try was tested in an e-mail game: 27 . . . �b6

a b c d e f g h

White played brillianrly for many moves: 28 .�a7!

This important move creates many tactical ideas against the black king.

28 . . . c4 29.�h3 '!:Ne2t 30.�f2! '!:Nh5 The white rook is untouchable as 30 . . . �xf2? leads to mate-in-5 after 3 1 .�e6t <j;>h8 32.lt:lf7t �xf7 33.�a8t and so on.

3 1 .�d2 �e3 There are no other good squares for Black's bishop.

32 .�g7t <j;>h8 33.lt:lf7t �xf7 34.�xf7 <j;>g8 And only now in the game Valeinis -Claridge, e-mail 2004, did White go wrong with 35 .�f6, which soon led to a draw. Instead the right move was:

a b c d e f g h

35 .�e7!!N

200 Benoni Systems

This gains a big advantage for White. For example:

3s . . . ixf4t 3S ... <;t>f8 10ses to 36.ltJg3.

36. <;t>g2 <;t>f8 The only challenging move; White obtains a decisive advantage after 36 . . . ixd2 37.ixd2 iWxdS 38 .ig4! followed by 39.if3.

37.l='i:a7 ixd2 If instead 37 . . . gS then White gains a big advantage with 38.l='i:a8t <;t>f7 39.l='i:f2 l='i:xh6 40.l='i:f3! .

38.ixd2 iWe2t 38 . . . b4 10ses neatly to 39.l='i:a8t <;t>f7 40.ltJgSt <;t>e7 4 1 .l='i:a7t <;t>d6 42. <;t>g3! with a decisive attack.

39.<;t>gl iWd l t Black cannot take the knight with 39 . . . iWxe4 due to a forced mate after 40.ib4t <;t>g8 4 1 .l='i:a8t <;t>f7 42.l='i:f8#.

4o.if1 iWg4t 4 1 .ig2 iWdl t 42.<;t>h2 iWhSt 43. <;t>g3+-

Black has no chance of stopping White's attack.

28.ih3 iWhS Black tries to penetrate with his queen to e2,

but White has his own attacking ideas, once again thanks to his little h6-pawn.

29.<;t>g3 White sacrifices his central pawn, but frees

his bishop.

29 ... iWxdS 3o.lLlgS!

30 ... iWb3t The white knight is untouchable, as

30 . . . iWxd6? 3 1 .ie6t <;t>h8 32.l='i:a7 wins for White.

31 .<;t>g2 White's attack looks very dangerous. For

example:

31 ...l='i:f6 32.ltJde4 l='i:fb6 33.l='i:a7±

Conclusion:

The Modern Benoni is a dangerous practical weapon, as Black often has tactical tricks. I am very satisfied with the work I did in this chapter, and hopefully now White players will test the main lines I recommend, instead of varying with a variation such as l O.if4 in line C, which seems pretty soft to me.

Benoni Systems

Benko Gambit

Variation Index 1.d4 ctJf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5

4.cxb5 A) 4 ... e6 202 B) 4 . .. a6 5.bxa6 203

Bl) 5 ... �xa6 203 B2) 5 ... e6 204 B3) 5 ... g6 6.ctJc3 �xa6 7.g3 d6 8.�g2 �g7 9.ctJf3 206

B3 1) 9 ... ctJfd7!? 206 B32) 9 ... ctJbd7 10J:!bl! 208

B3 1 ) after 10 ... ctJb6

B321) 10 ... ctJb6 209 B322) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 .0-0 210

B3221) 1 1 ... ctJb6 2 1 1 B3222) 1 1 ...ctJe8 212 B3223) 1 1 . . . 'lWa5 12.�d2 213

B32231) 12 ... ctJg4 214 B32232) 12 . . . �fb8 13.'lWc2 215

B322321) 13 ... 'lWc7 216 B322322) 13 ... ctJe8 217 B322323) 13 ... ctJg4 217

B3222) after l S . . . ctJf6 B32232 1 ) after 2 l . . .e6

1 6.l!e 1 !N

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22.ic4!N

202 Benoni Systems

l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5

8 i:_..t.�*. �� 7 ."""� 'i/'_'i�_'i 6 " � �� uu,. '� ��¥l0��"

: �'! .... � , � � � � � !�dd� 1 �¥?��!�J:%�� f�/'C:utJ�§'��: �

a b c d e f g h

The original name of this opening was the Volga Gambit, named after the Volga River in Russia, At the end of the 1 960s this variation was also promoted by Pal Benko, who provided many new suggestions. The name Benko Gambit stuck, and is particularly used in English-speaking countries,

4.cxb5 Here Black has the alternative A) 4 ... e6

to the much more popular move, B) 4 ... a6.

A) 4 ... e6

In general this is a very rare continuation, but even so there are more than 200 games in my database! I do not rate this move highly, so I can hardly believe it might be a serious alternative to the main 4 ."a6.

My editor told me it is possible that this is actually the Volga Gambit, and that 4."a6 is the Benko Gambit, if you look at the names in a historical context. However, I am unsure if this is really the case and also I am not writing about chess history in this book, so I have decided to deal with the moves rather than the names.

5.llJc3 exd5 6.llJxd5 �b7

a b c d e f g h

7.e4! In my opinion this strong move promises

White a clear advantage. Instead after 7.ttJxf6t �xf6 Black has reasonable compensation. Mter the text move Black has several options, but none of them promise him equal play.

7 ... a6 This is probably the main move, but a few

others also have a right to exist.

7 ."lLlxd5 8,exd5 d6 9.lLle2! It is a very good idea to transfer this knight to c3, where it will be perfectly placed, protecting both the b5- and d5-pawns.

9 . . . ie7 10.lLlc3 0-0 1 1 .ie2 lLld7 If 1 L . .a6 then White should simply play: 1 2.0-0 (instead 1 2.bxa6 lLlxa6 allowed Black reasonable compensation in Kozul -Trkulja, Sarajevo 1 998) 1 2 . . . axb5 13 .!xb5 lLla6 14.�el if6 1 5 .if4 lLlb4 1 6.ic4 With a clear advantage.

1 2.0-0 �e8 1 3.if4 lLlb6 14 .if3 if6 This position was reached in Citak - Werner, Budapest 2007.

1 5 .a4!?N ttJc4 1 6.�b3 lLle5 17.ie4 This would have secured White a clear

advantage.

It would be very risky for Black to capture the central pawn: 7" .lLlxe4?! 8.ic4 and

Chapter 1 4 - Benko Gambit 203

White's initiative is extremely dangerous. For example:

a) 8 . . . �e7 9.tL'lf3 tL'ld6 And now the easiest would have been 1 0.�e2! ( instead 1 O.�b3 was Skomorokhin - Fedoseev, Novgorod 1 998) 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 .0-0 a6 1 2.E\e l ! axb5 1 3 .�f4 tL'le8 14.�xb5 �f6 1 5 .�c4 Not only is White a pawn up, he also has a great positional advantage.

b) 8 . . . tL'ld6? simply loses to 9 .�f4 �e7 1O.�e2.

c) 8 . . . �d6 9.tL'lf3 0-0 1 0.0-0 a6 l 1 .b6 tL'lc6 12.E\e l E\e8 1 3 .Wd3± with clear advantage III

Grabliauskas - Vreedenborg, Berlin 1 997.

7 . . . �e7 8 .�c4 0-0 9.tL'le2 tL'lxe4 1 0.�f4 �d6 1 1 .0-0 �xf4 1 2.tL'lexf4 gave White a clear positional advantage, due to his control of the d5-square, in Goldin - Tate, USA 2006.

8.bxa6 8.tL'lf3!?N might also be an interesting idea:

8 . . . axb5 (White is better after 8 . . . tL'lxd5 9.exd5 axb5 10.Wb3!) 9.�g5 c4 1 0.�xf6 gxf6 1 1 .�e2 With very promising play for White.

8 ... tL'lxa6 9.i.c4 llJb4 10.llJxb4 cxb4 1 1 .Wfb3!? W'e7 12.llJe2 llJxe4 13.0-0 llJc5 14.'1Wg3

Black had allowed White to build up a serious initiative in Gleizerov - Capece, Ticino 1 993.

B) 4 ... a6 5.bxa6

In my opinion, only by accepting the pawn sacrifice can White fight for a real advantage in this opening.

The suggested main line in this chapter is the one generally considered to give Black the most problems these days. The 1 0th move, which characterizes this line, was first played back in the mid- 1 980s, but was later popularized by Vladimir Epishin, who won almost all of his dozen or so games with it. This led to other strong players taking it up, such as Van Wely, Yusupov, Kramnik, and even yours truly on a couple of occasions.

% /.� '" ' z 8 i.�..t�*m �� 7 �Y"""m',/'_',�_',Y-6 f_�. '.N '1l ��r%�� /"""� : Illl�' Illlllll � Illl �� Il� �

3 1l'00 �� -'00 1l'0'0 2 �JtlrfP ��Jtl%t:::J� l ��"i!�JLW�

a b c d e f g h Black usually develops his bishop to g7, as

this is known to be the best line. There are two sidelines, one with early queen moves and one that involves more immediate action in the centre. Our three lines are: BI) 5 ... i.xa6, B2) 5 .•. e6 and the big main line with B3) 5 ... g6.

BI) 5 . • • ha6

Some sources claim this move is imprecise, but as Black has no better move than 6 . . . g6 after

204 Benoni Systems

6.lilc3, there is no reason for us to look out for an imprecise move order, which might not be imprecise anyway.

6.lilc3 WfaS?! I found more than 80 games with this

position in my database. Instead Black could of course transpose back to the normal lines with 6 . . . g6, but as White also had some additional options on move 6, this would be an i llogical move order for Black to choose.

7.id2 Wfb6 White has tried every possible move here,

but I like the concrete approach:

8.Wfb3! Wfxb3 Black has no time to switch to positional

play: 8 . . . 'Wc7 9.lilf3 g6 1 0.e4 �xfl 1 1 .rj;Jxfl d6 1 2.e5! and White launches a decisive attack.

9.axb3 ib7 lOJha8 ixa8 1 l .e4 e6 And here White could have claimed a clear

advantage with:

12.if4!N An improvement over 1 2.ic4 lilxe4

1 3.lilge2 lilxd2 1 4.rj;Jxd2, which was also successful in B. Lalic - Fong, Saint John 1 988. There are still many such improvements to be found in the sidelines of the openings, as most of the positions were first seen not in home preparation but over-the-board, which means that the players could not consult their external brains (Fritz).

12 ... d6 13.ibSt @d8 14.ttJa exdS lS.ttJgS! The f7-pawn cannot be defended, as 1 5 . . . rj;Je7

runs into the tactical blow 16 .ixd6t, followed by 1 7.lilxf7t.

lS .. J!g8 16.CtJxf7t @c7 17.ie2 ttJxe4 18.ttJxe4 dxe4 19.ic4!

Followed by 20.lilxd6 with an extra pawn.

B2) S ... e6 6.ttJc3 ttJxdS 7.CtJxdS exdS 8.WfxdS ttJc6

a b c d e f g h

This tricky sideline has been played recently by the T utkmen GM Annageldyev. Black's idea is to play not only on the queenside, but also in the centre using his slight lead in development. Nevertheless this idea seems dubious to me and with precise play White obtains the bener chances.

9.CtJa White has other options as well , but the

straightforward idea of lilf3-e5 looks best.

9 ... ixa6 Another line goes:

9 . . . ie7 1 0 .lile5 0-0 1 0 . . . lilxe5? 1 1 .'Wxa8 was losing for Black in Minev - Spirov, Albena 1 973.

1 1 .lilxc6 dxc6 1 2.Wfxd8 �xd8 1 3.e3 if6 Black's main problem is that his doubled c-pawns will be clear targets of attack in any rook endgames.

14 .ic4 ixa6 1 5 .ixa6 �xa6 1 6.rj;Je2 �b8 1 6 . . . c4 1 7.�d 1 (In his annotations Atalik recommended 1 7 .a3 �b6 1 8.�a2 �db8 1 9.�d 1 , but after 1 9 . . . ixb2 20.ixb2 �xb2t 2 1 .�xb2 �xb2t 22.rj;Jf3 g6 23.�c1 �b3 24.�xc4 �xa3 25 .�xc6 h5 the endgame is objectively drawish.) 17 . . . �b8


I S . Wd2! transposes to the main line after 1 6 . . . :gbS.

17.:gdl c4 I S .'�d2! :gab6 Black has some other options: I S . . . WfS 1 9.Wc2 We7 20.a3 and White should convert his extra pawn, Sahovic - Rogers, Nis 1 9S5 . Also 20.f4!? is interesting. After I S . . . i.xb2 19 .i.xb2 :gxb2t 20.Wc3 :gbS 2 1 .a4!± the endgame is very difficult for Black.

19.a4! Only like this! Instead 19 .<;t>c2 i.xb2 20.:gb 1 .!f6! 2 1 .:gxb6 :gxb6 should be an easy draw.

19 . . . h5 The point behind White's play can be seen in the following line: 1 9 . . . .!xb2 20 . .!xb2 :gxb2t 2 1 .Wc3 :gxf2 22.a5 :gaS 23 .a6 And White's passed pawn should easily decide the game.

20.a5 :ga6 2 1 .Wc2 :gb5 This position was reached in Atalik -Annageldyev, Turkey 2007, and now the easiest would be:

2Hla4 :gaxa5 23.:gxc4 :ga2 24.Wbl :gaxb2t 25 .i.xb2 :gxb2t 26.Wcl :gxf2 27.:gc2 :gxc2t 2S.Wxc2

The endgame should be winning for White. The reader might be slightly surprised by the length of this line, but it is really very important for the evaluation of White's idea of tZlf3-e5.

lO . .!d2 I have spent a few hours analysing 1 0.tiJe5

tZlxe5 1 1 .\¥Txe5t i.e7! (after 1 1 . . .\¥Te7 1 2.i.f4! Wixe5 l 3.i.xe5 f6 1 4 . .!c3 d5 1 5 .e3 Black has no compensation for the pawn) 1 2.\¥Txg7 .!f6, but however unlikely it seems, it appears that Black has reasonable compensation for two pawns.

lo ... ie7

a b c d e f g h

l 1 .e4!N This natural move appears to be a novelty,

and in my opinion it significantly improves White's prospects. Previously White has tried only 1 1 .e3 and 1 1 .'!c3.

I 1 ..JWb6 Another line runs I l . . .i.xfl 1 2.WxfI

0-0 l 3.g3 tiJb4 14 . .!xb4 cxb4 1 5 .c;t>g2 :ga5 I 6.\¥Tb3 \¥TaS 1 7.:ghe1 when Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn.

12.ixa6 'lWxa6 13.tiJe5! The point, as otherwise Black could count

on reasonable compensation.

13 ... 0-0 White is clearly better after 1 3 . . . tiJxe5

I 4.\¥Txe5 \¥Te6 I 5 .i.c3.

14.tiJc4 By closing the fl-a6 diagonal White solves his

king's problem; now he is ready to castle short.

14 . . . tiJd4 15.0-0 etJc2 1 5 . . . \¥Te6 I 6.a4± does not bring Black relief

either.

16.:gac1 etJd4 17.:gfe1 'lWxa2 18.'lWxd7 I S .i.e3 tiJb3 19 .:gcd l :ga7 20.:gd3!? looks

very interesting as well.

206 Benoni Systems

1 8 .. J�a7

a b c d e f g h

19.Wg4 White is a healthy pawn up.

B3) 5 . . . g6 6.ttJc3 iLxa6

After this brief digression into variations that are not usually considered to be part of the Benko Gambit, it is time to take on the main variation.

a b c d e f g h

By sacrificing the pawn Black gets good control of the big diagonal and can exert pressure down the half-open a- and b-files. These are benefits which can last well into the endgame and so, unusually for a gambit Black does not generally mind of queens swap.

7.g3 Recently this has been the most fashionable

direction for White in the Benko Gambit.

7 ... d6 8.iLg2 iLg7 9.ttJf3 Now there is a split determined by which

knight Black places on d7. Line B31 is 9 ... ttJfd7!? and B32 is 9 ... ttJbd7.

B31 ) 9 ... CLJfd7!?

"S' �� ruu.�� %.�( 8 gMt ��. �§ 7 �""";_i)_r_'i 6 l.� �.""%� 'i%� '" �m'; '�

��

. : ��·I�� ,:"'�� 0� � !��!m� ��t"" "W�VJii��· "i{'' ' " %�.� "g"" 1 �� %% / / /.,

a b c d e f g h

At first sight this looks a bit artificial, but in fact it contains a healthy positional plan: Black increases his pressure along the long dark diagonal, not allowing White to play �bl and b2-b3, as he will in the main line. The d7-knight heads for b6 and hopefully on to c4, while the other knight will often be developed from a6 to b4 or c7. I have spent a few hours analysing this line and have managed to find an attractive idea that I would like to share:

1O.Wc2 Another interesting line is: 1 0.0-0 tLlb6

1 1 .�c2 0-0 ( instead 1 1 . . .lLlc4 would be premature due to 1 2.lLld2! �a5 1 3.lLlxc4 ixc4 1 4.id2± and White achieves his optimal setup) 1 2.�d l lLl8d7 1 3 .if4 White's idea is that after 1 3 . . . lLlc4 14.lLld2 �a5 1 5.lLlxc4 ixc4 1 6.id2± he once again has the ideal set-up, as in Kraidman - P. Olsen, Kusadasi 1 990.


lO ... ctJb6 Premature would be 1 0 . . . 0-0, as it allows

White to launch a dangerous offensive against Black's king: 1 1 .h4! CDf6 1 2.h5 And if 1 2 . . . CDxh5 then White continues with 1 3 .:8:xh5! gxh5 1 4.CDg5 f5 1 5 .CDe6± with a dangerous initiative.

1 1 .h4!?N

I find that it is quite logical to generate some activity on the kingside in reply to Black's knight manoeuvre to the queenside.

1 1 . . .h6 In my view this is Black's best reply.

l l . . .h5?! This is clearly inferior as it weakens the g5-square.

1 2.CDg5 CDSd7 1 2 . . . 0-0? is poor, as 1 3 .g4! gives White a decisive attack. Here White has an interesting tactical solution:

13.CDe6! fxe6 1 4.'lWxg6t cj;JfS 1 5 .dxe6 CDe5 16.'lWf5t cj;JgS

1 6 . . . cj;JeS? loses to 1 7.�c6t!. 1 7.f4

White will regain the piece and keep a clear advantage.

1 l . . .�b7 1 2.e4 CDa6 A typical idea in this variation; Black's knight often comes into the game via a6.

1 3.h5 CDb4 1 4.'lWd l �a6 1 5 .�fl A very tense position has arisen, but I would definitely prefer White. The following is just a rough variation:

1 5 . . . 'lWcS 1 6.a3 �xfl 1 7.cj;Jxfl 'lWa6t l S.cj;Jg2 CDd3

This all looks very logical and attractive, but the h-file is a very important detail:

1 9.hxg6 hxg6 20.:8:xhSt �xhS 2 1 .Wh 1 ! �xc3 22.bxc3 CDxcl 23.:8:xcl

White is clearly better, as he will combine an offensive against Black's king with an attack on the V-pawn.

1 l . . .CDc4 1 2.CDd2! ( l 2 .h5 'lWa5 is less clear) 1 2 . . . CDd7 ( l 2 . . . 'lWa5 1 3.CDxc4 �xc4 14 .�d2 is similar, and White also has clearly better chances) 1 3 .CDxc4 �xc4 1 4.b3 �a6 1 5 .h5 Wa5 1 6.�d2 White is clearly better.

1 2.ttJh2!?

8 i:� �.� �i§ 7 .. . . . . . _n . . '/.wi_ . . . . ·Y-6 i'�ilI�f '.r� 5 /y . . . . . ;.�� ;; . . . . � 4

��" ��

� �%."/h �� % .� . . . . � 3 � � • � 2 ��ii��t?Jl!j 1 /� .... /.��= . . . . %al!

a b c d e f g h

The knight transfers to g4 where it will have multipurpose functions: firstly, it is ready to support White's offensive i f Black decides to castle short; secondly, it can go to e3, which is a nice square for it, protecting the d5-pawn and also covering the c4-square.

20S Benoni Systems

12 ... lLlsd7 Black gets nowhere with the pseudo

active 1 2 . . . .ic4 1 3 .ttJg4 ttJa6 1 4.ttJe3 ttJb4 1 5 .Wb1 ± .

After 1 2 . . . .ib7 1 3.ttJg4 ttJa6 14.ttJe3 ttJb4 1 5 .�b3 0-0 1 6.0-0 Black's set-up does not look very logical to me. For example: 16 .. .f5 ( 1 6 . . . l':1bS 17.a3 ttJa6 l S .h5 is very unpleasant for Black) 1 7.a3 ttJa6 (Unfortunately for Black, the following aggressive line does not work: 1 7 . . .f4 l S.gxf4 l':1xf4 1 9.�d2 ttJa6 20.�c2 �eS 2 1 .h5! gxh5 22.ttJf5 l':1g4 23.f3 Black is losing an exchange. ) l S . .id2 Finally White has mobilized all his pieces, while Black's set-up does not look especially dynamic, so I believe White is clearly better.

1 2 . . . ttJc4 1 3.h5 g5 14.0-0 ttJd7 1 5 .ttJg4 transposes to 1 2 . . . ttJSd7.

13.h5 Premature would be 1 3 .ttJg4 h5! 1 4.ttJe3

�d4 1 5 . .id2 ttJf6 and Black has nice play.

13 ... g5 14.lLlg4 lDc4 Very dangerous is 14 . . . 0-0? as after 1 5 .f4

Black faces an immediate attack. Then if 1 5 . . .f5 1 6.ttJe3 and the f5-pawn is falling.

1 5.0-0 '\Wa5 16.a3!?

We have reached a very complicated position which requires careful evaluation. Black has an optimal set-up for his pieces on the queenside, but White has managed to create some weaknesses on the kingside, and therefore in many cases it would be very dangerous for Black to castle. White has a clear plan to improve his position: he will play Ela2 and after moving his knight from c3 he would be ready to chase away the c4-knight with b2-b3. So in general I think White's chances are preferable.

B32) 9 . . . lLlbd7

8 � ��;��.JJ 7 � m�r� i m i 6 r� �_""%_',�� 5

�.;S%�" � 4 ��" ".��. � ��:'//� �� .� 3 � �� mttJr� 2 !"�"""_!"��i(� 1 /.=""%D;=""%.�

a b c d e f g h

10.l':1bl ! The obvious idea of this move i s to

meet Black's . . . ttJb6 with a calm b2-b3 (as in line B32 1 ) avoiding any possible penetration by the knight to c4, as well as generally restricting Black's activity on the queenside.

The split now is between two main lines: B321 ) 10 • . . lLlb6 and B322) 10 ... 0-0.

One minor option is 1 0 . . . �a5 . White should simply react with 1 1 ..id2 ( 1 1 .0-0 tLlb6) and now best for Black would be 1 1 . . .0-0, transposing to the main line, since 1 1 . . .tLlb6 runs into 1 2.b3 �a3 1 3 .0-0 0-0 14.tLle1!. White's queen is still on d 1 , so White has the


opportunity to play a lLlel -c2 manoeuvre, chasing Black's queen from a3 . 1 4 . . . �b7 1 5.lLlc2 Vlia6 1 6.e4 lLleS 1 7.a4 gave White a clear advantage in Van Wely - Carlsen, Wijk aan Zee 200S.

B321) 10 ... lLlb6 l 1 .b3 �c8

Threatening . . . �f5; this slightly artificial manoeuvre was Jan Pinski's recommendation in his book The Benko Gambit in 2005 .

Another option is: 1 1 . . .�b7 12 .lLlh4 (White should not play 1 2.e4 in view of 1 2 . . . �a6) 12 . . . 0-0 1 3 .0-0 lLleS 14.Vlid2 lLlc7 1 5 .e4 (less convincing would be: 1 5 .�b2 �xc3 1 6.Vlixc3 f6 17.e4 1':1xa2) 1 5 . . . e6 1 6.�b2 exd5 1 7.lLlxd5 lLlbxd5 l S .�xg7 c;t>xg7 1 9.exd5 Vlif6 This position was reached in V. Milov - Tregubov, Germany 200 1 , and now White missed the sttong 20.b4!, which would have secured his advantage.

12 ... h6 Now 1 3 . . . g5 followed by . . . �f5 is Black's

intention.

13.Vlic2 Vlid7

This extremely original idea was first employed by the Dutch player Van der Weide.

Within a few seconds the computer shows an interesting tactical possibility for Black: 1 3 . . . g5 14.lLlf5 �xf5 1 5 .Vlixf5 lLlfxd5!?

Nevertheless White keeps an advantage with precise play:

1 6.lLlxd5 e6 1 7.Vlid3 lLlxd5 17 . . . exd5 I S .a4 0-0 1 9.h4! is an important resource. Before castling short, White forces a weakness in Black's pawn structure on the kingside. After 19 . . . g4 20.0-0 White is clear! y better.

I S .a4 0-0 Black does not get sufficient compensation for the exchange after: I S . . .lt:Jb4 1 9.Vlib5t c;t>fS 20.�xaS �c3t 2 1 .�fl VlixaS 22.f3±

1 9.h4 g4 20.�xd5 exd5 2 1 .Vlixd5 1':1eS 22.0-0 1':Ixe2 23 .�e3

White is clearly better, as he is threatening both 1':Ifd l and Vlic4, attacking the rook on e2 and the g4-pawn.

14.�b2 Much worse is 1 4.0-0?! g5 1 5 .lLlf3 lLlfxd5

1 6.lLlxd5 lLlxd5 and Black regained the pawn and had good play in Epishin - Halkias, Ohrid 200 1 .

14 ... gS I s.lLlf3 VlifS The black queen transfers to the kingside

in order to generate some counterplay against White's king. Another option is 1 5 . . . �b7 1 6.1':Id l 0-0 1 7.0-0 lLlfxd5 I s .lLlxd5 lLlxd5 19 .�xg7 �xg7 20.lLlxg5! hxg5 2 1 .�xd5 and White was simply a pawn up in Gustafsson - S. Kasparov, Germany 2002.

16.e4 Vlig6 17.0-0 0-0

2 10 Benoni Systems

Black does indeed have some interesting ideas on the kingside and White must play accurately to quell the danger. I finally came to the conclusion that White's best option is:

I S.gfcl !?N Defending against tricks with . . . ltJxd5. I

found the other moves less convincing. For example: I S.gfd l ig4 19.h3 ixf3 2o.ixf3 h5 2 1 .a4 g4 22.hxg4 hxg4 23 .ig2 ltJfd7 24.ltJe2 ixb2 25 .�xb2 ltJe5 Black has reasonable compensation thanks to his strong knight on e5, Breier - Van der Weide, Groningen 1 999. We should also note that the careless I S.gbc 1 ? allows I S . . . ltJxe4.

IS ... ctJg4 I s . . . ig4 can simply be met with 1 9.1tJd2

when White is better.

19.a4 f5 20.h3 ctJeS 20 . . . ltJxf2? does not work due to 2 1 .�xf2

ixc3 22.ixc3 fxe4 23.�gl and White is winning.

21 .ctJxeS ixeS 22.ctJbS! ixb2 23.gxb2 f4 24.eS! 'lWxc2 2S.gbxc2

White is clearly better, as Black has no compensation for the pawn.

B322) 10 . . . 0-0

a b c d e f g h

This is definitely the main move.

1 1 .0-0 Here the three main options are B3221)

1 1 . ..lbb6, B3222) 1 1 . ..ctJeS and the hugely popular B3223) 1 1 . . .'lWaS. Besides these lines, we will also briefly consider the following options:

1 1 . . . �b6?! This is a relatively rare set-up, and indeed it is not so clear what Black's queen is doing on b6.

1 2.b3 gfbS Or 12 . . . :gabS 1 3.\Wc2 :gfcS 14.id2 e6 1 5 .dxe6 fxe6 16 .:gfd l d5 17.if4 :gaS IS.tZle5 ib7 1 9.1tJc4! \Wa6 20.ltJd6 and White had a clear edge in Piket - Baklan, Germany 1999.

1 3.�c2 �b7 1 4.:gd l ltJeS 1 5 .e4 ltJc7 16.a4± White has improved his position by making

all the standard useful moves, while I cannot find any logic in Black's play, Skomorokhin -Andreev, St Petersburg 1 996.

l l . . .ltJg4 This typical knight jump is not popular in this particular position. White's best reply is:

1 2.id2! Because after 1 2.�c2 Black is just in time to get his play going with 1 2 . . . ltJge5 13.tZlxe5 ltJxe5 1 4.b3 �a5 1 5 .id2 �a3!.

Chapter 1 4 - Benko Gambit 2 1 1

I2 . . . 4Jge5 13 .tZl xe5 4Jxe5 I 4.b3 Wa5 And here we are not obliged to play I 5 .Wc2, but instead have a stronger option in:

I 5 .We l ! Preventing Black from playing the annoying . . . Wa3.

I 5 . . . l"Ub8 1 6.a4 White has an advantage, as we have reached

the "optimal" set-up.

B3221) 1 1 ...ttJb6

This is quite a popular l ine.

12.b3 Naturally we reply with this obligatory

move.

a) 1 2 . . . Wc7 This looks rather dubious, as c7 is not such a good square for the black queen.

13.ib2 White's most popular reply is 1 3 .l"1e 1 ? ! but I found an unexpected nuance: 1 3 . . . 4Jg4!N 14.ib2 ixc3 1 5 .ixc3 ib7 1 6.e4 l"1xa2°o And here it works perfectly for Black, as White has to waste a tempo defending the f2-pawn!

1 3 . . . e6 Once again this idea does not work.

1 4.dxe6 fxe6 1 5 .4Jg5 l"1ae8 1 6.ih3 e5 1 7.a4 White had a great positional advantage in

Barsov - Gunnarsson, Istanbul (01) 2000.

b) 1 2 ... l"1a7 1 3.ib2 Also good enough is 1 3.a4 as In Piket -Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1 999.

1 3 . . . Wa8 13 .. . e6 opens up the play in White's favour: 1 4.dxe6 fxe6 1 5 .4Jg5 We7 1 6.ih3! e5 1 7.a4 With a clear positional edge, Chatalbashev -Vafiadis, Thessaloniki 2007.

1 4.4Jh4 l"1b8 White has tried several moves here, but the most precise seems to be:

1 5 .Wd2 4Jbd7 1 5 . . . 4Jfd7 1 6.a4 gives White the advantage.

1 6.4Jf3 White is gradually improving his position,

while Black cannot create any serious play, Sakalauskas - Savickas, Lithuania (ch) 2007.

c) 1 2 . . . ib7 1 3 .e4 e6? ! This idea usually does not work, and this position is no exception.

1 4.dxe6 4Jxe4 1 5 .4Jxe4 ixe4 1 6.exf7t �h8 After 1 6 . . . l"1xf7 White gains a decisive advantage with the help of a nice tactical operation: 1 7.4Jg5 ixb 1 1 8.4Jxf7 �xf7 1 9.i.d5t! 4Jxd5 ( l 9 . . . �f8 loses to 20.i.xa8 4Jxa8 2 1 .Wf3t �g8 [2 l . . .i.f5 fails to 22.g4] 22.Wd5t �h8 23.i.g5 Followed by l"1b l .) 20.Wxd5t �f8 2 1 .ig5 Wb8 22.l"1xb 1 l"1xa2 23.l"1e 1 Black is losing his c- and d-pawns, at the very least.

1 7.l"1b2! White had a clear advantage in Olarasu -

Bozinovic, Nova Gorica 2007.

13.i.b2 ttJc7 Black could have regained the pawn with

1 3 . . . i.xc3 1 4.i.xc3 i.b7 I 5 .e4 l"1xa2, but


after 1 6.b4 White still has strong positional pressure.

14.Wd2! This smart move tactically defends the d5-

pawn.

Less accurate is 1 4.ct:Jh4?! �xc3! 1 5 .�xc3 �b7 1 6.e4 ct:Jb5! (winning an important tempo) 1 7.�a1 �xa2 with balanced play.

14 ... �a7 Instead 14 . . . �xc3? would fal l straight into

White's trap: 1 5 .�xc3 ct:Jbxd5 (better is 1 5 . . .f6 even though after 1 6.ct:Jh4 White's advantage is indisputable) 1 6.Wh6! The point of White's 1 4th move. 1 6 . . . e5 1 7.ct:Jg5 ct:Jf6 1 8 .f4 White quickly developed a killing attack in Harikrishna - Tregubov, Internet (blitz) 2004.

15.�fel White logically prepares the e2-e4 advance.

15 ... .!b7 16.e4 WaS 1 6 .. . f5 is met strongly by 1 7.ct:Jg5 with an

advantage to White.

17.a4± Black did not manage to create any

counterplay in Dorfman - Degraeve, France (ch) 2003.

B3222) 1 l ... ct:Je8

Planning . . . ct:Je8-c7-b5 with the idea of exchanging a pair of knights, which would clearly favour Black, as the white knight is an important defender on the queens ide.

1 2.Wc2 In 2000 I employed the following interesting

idea: 1 2.�e1 ct:Jc7 13 .e4 ct:Jb5

Later Black improved his play with 13 . . . �c4

14 .a3 Wb8 and the weakness of the b3-square gave Black decent counterplay. 1 5 .�f4 (or 1 5 .�g5 �e8) 1 5 . . . �xc3!? 1 6.bxc3 Wa7 With reasonable compensation for the pawn in Kongsted - G. Jones Copenhagen 2005.

1 4.ct:Je2! White was better in Avrukh - Hendriks,

Wijk aan Zee 2000.

12 ... ct:Jc7

8 �B e ��.� %i �%'N/J''' '�%i'%''' ' ' '��'�� 7 � ��¥� i m i 6 r�/''' ' ' · ;.'''' /'_·l��

�%i'%"""/'� �� 5 _ ¥� 8 _ _ 4

�� ""./,� �� %'N//. �� .� 3 � � _llJ?f� 2 f�jfm �n1t� 1 Rim %iRi�""

a b c d e f g h

13.�dl 1 3 .a4 was first played by Grischuk in a game

against Tregubov in France in 2005. Despite White's perfect score with 1 3. a4, I believe Black is fine after 1 3 . . . �xc3! . We should note that capturing on c3 followed by . . . �c4, winning either the d5- or a2-pawns, is a typical manoeuvre by Black. 1 4.bxc3 �c4 1 5 .l"\d1 �xd5°o It is difficult for White to use the long diagonal, while Black has clear play on the queenside, Jirka - Plischki, Olomouc 2006.

13 ... .!xc3 Black's most ambitious continuation.

Another line is: 1 3 . . . ct:Jb5 14 .ct:Jxb5 �xb5 1 5 .b3 Wb6

White is ready for 1 5 . . . c4?! 16 .ct:Jd4 cxb3 17 .axb3 and Black faces a tough choice: either to give up his dark-squared bishop, or

to allow White's knight to penetrate to cG.


16.a4 White has achieved the optimal pawn configuration on the queenside. I believe the following encounter is a good example of White's plan:

16 . . . �a6 17.e4 White had an opportunity to play 1 7.�b2?! , but I believe this would be inaccurate, as after the dark-squared bishops are traded Black would gain the important b4-square for his queen.

17 . . . l"lfb8 1 8 .�e3 Wld8 19 .h3 This move is usually a useful prophylactic measure.

19 . . . l"lb7 20.ttJd2 l"lab8 2 1 .�fl ! Swapping the light-squared bishops is an important strategic idea, in order to establish control over the c4-square and later on even the b5-square.

2 l . . .�xfl 22.Wxfl Wla5 This was Shaidullina - Pogonina, Orel 2006, and here White should have continued:

23.ttJc4 Wla6 24.Wg2 ttJe5 25.ttJa3! Followed by ttJb5 with a pleasant

advantage.

14.Wlxc3 .ixe2 1 5 . .ih6 ttJf6

Then 1 6 . . . �xf3 1 7.�xf3 l"le8 leads to mutual chances.

16 ... ttJcxd5 The main point is of course that after

1 6 . . . �xf3 17.�xf8 White is attacking the e7-pawn.

17.�d2 White wins an exchange and I do not think

Black's compensation is sufficient.

17 . . • .ib5 1 7 . . . �xf3 does not change the assessment:

1 8.�xf3 e6 1 9 .�xf8 Wxf8 20.a3 White has a clear plan: to prepare the b2-b4 advance.

1 8 . .ixfS �xfS 1 9.ttJg5 .ic6 20.a3 e6 21 .l"lbc1�

Black definitely has some compensation for the exchange, but White's chances are preferable.

B3223) 1 1 ... �a5

8 �m • �� •• �� .�". "y'�.�� 7 �� ff�. �.m. ' 6 .am �� _,� 5 � �_�%�/y"".;� ui�' i�� 4 � ��;,,/,,�� .�� 3 m :0: mtZJr� 2 ��"''';m�dj£� 1 .�D;� .�=""

a b c d e f g h

This is by far Black's most popular option. In my opinion this is the real starting position of the whole system. The further play contains various strategic ideas: White's main plan is to get his pawns to b3 and a4 with his bishop on d2, which we will call the optimal set-up,

2 14 Benoni Systems

while Black logically should try to prevent White from achieving this set-up. Black has two main strategic ideas: the first is to put his queen on a3, blocking White's a-pawn and thus preventing a2-a4, and the second is to play . . . c5-c4 at an appropriate moment.

1 2.id2 I always thought that White should first play

Wic2 and :gdl , and only then decide where to develop his bishop, but I have changed my opinion due to the games of a great Benko expert, Pavel Tregubov, who has recently answered 1 2.Wic2 with 1 2 . . . tLlb6! and gained excellent play.

Now Black has a choice between B32231) 12 . . . tt::lg4 and the main move, B32232) 12 .. . :gfbS.

Instead 12 .. . tLlb6?! now makes no sense due to l 3.b3 Wia3 14 .tLle1 ! transposing to the aforementioned Van Wely - Carlsen game (the 1 0 . . . Wia5 minor line on page 20S-209) .

B32231 ) 1 2 . . . lLlg4

a b c d e f g h

Now I believe I have found a strong move that is connected with a new concept.

l3.Wiel !

Let's have a brief look a t White's other options:

1 3 .a4 tLlb6 14 .h3 tLle5 1 5 .tLlg5 This is also my idea, but Black gets plenty of counterplay after 1 5 . . . tLlbc4 1 6.ie1 Wib6 1 7.b3 tLla5 with double-edged play.

I also tried 1 3 .h3 tLlge5 1 4.tLlxe5 tLlxe5 1 5 .Wic 1 , but Black is just in time to create some play: 1 5 . . . :gfbS (after 1 5 . . . tLlc4 1 6.ih6 ixh6 1 7.Wixh6 :gfbS l S.tLle4 f6 1 9.h4 White would gain some activity on the kings ide) 1 6.b3 c4?

13 .'lWc2 tLlge5 1 4.tLlxe5 tLlxe5 1 5 .b3 looks natural, but Black has time for 1 5 . . . 'lWa3!. Actually this line helped me to generate the idea of 13 .Wic 1 . I have analysed this position quite intensively and concluded Black is simply fine. The most recent game continued: 16.icl Wia5 1 7.ib2 ( l 7.a4 runs into 17 . . . tLlf3t! l s.ixf3 Wixc3 1 9.Wixc3 ixc3 and next Black will double rooks along the b-file, when the b3-pawn becomes a real target.) 1 7 . . . c4 Black had good counterplay in Flear - Tregubov, Clichy 200S.

Chapter 1 4 - Benko Gambit 2 1 S

1 3 . . . l"lfbS 1 4.b3 c4 14 . . . �xc3? does not work due to l S .�xc3 '&xa2 1 6.lLld2 when the black queen is trapped on a2 and is helpless against l"la1 .

l S .h3 lLlgeS 1 6.lLld4! Usually if White manages to play lLld4 after . . . cS-c4 then he keeps his advantage.

16 . . . cxb3 16 . . . lLlcS 1 7."&c2 cxb3 l S .axb3 leaves White with a clear advantage.

17.ttJc6! Only not 1 7.axb3? lLld3! followed by l S . . . �xd4.

17 .. .t2:lxc6 l S .dxc6 lLlcS lS . . . bxa2 1 9 .1"lxbSt l"lxbS 20.cxd7 is losing for Black.

19.ttJdS "&xa2 20.ttJxe7t �fS 2 1 .c7 Black cannot avoid losing material.

13 . . . �xc3 Objectively this is not the best move, but actually it is the critical test of my idea. 1 4.�xc3 "&xa2 l S .l"la1 "&c4 (if l S" '''&b3 then 16 ,,,&gS lLlgf6 1 7.lLlh4! allows White to develop a strong attack with the idea of lLlfS) 16.h3 lLlgf6 ( l 6 . . . ttJgeS runs into 1 7.lLlxeS dxeS l S .d6 exd6 1 9.1"ld l ! with a big advantage for White) 1 7."&h6 �b7 l S .e4 l"lxa1 1 9.1"lxa1 ElaS 20.l"le1 It is hard to believe Black can hold this position.

14.lLlxeS lLlxeS lS.b3 l"ltb8 16.a4;!;

a b c d e f g h

White has achieved his optimal set-up and should be able to play for a win without any major risks.

B32232) 12 ... l"ltb8

1 3.a4 lLlg4 14 ."&c2 lLlgeS l S .lLlxeS lLlxeS 1 6.b3 "&b4 gives Black reasonable counterplay, and we will examine this position later via a different move order ( l S .a4) .

1 3 .b3 lLleS! (and certainly not 1 3 . . .'r,I:-lfa3? 1 4.lLlel ! as we already know) 1 4."&c2 "&a3 l S .�cl "&as 1 6.�b2 c4 Black had counterplay in Epishin - Krivoshey, Graz 200 1 .

Now Black has a wide choice berween: B322321) 13 ... "&c7, B322322) 13 ... ltJe8 and B322323) 13 ... llJg4.

It should be mentioned in passing that the following line is clearly in White's favour: 1 3 . . . lLlb6 1 4.b3 "&a3 l S .�cl "&as 1 6.l"ld 1

White will gradually be able to improve his pieces. For example:

1 6 . . . lLleS 1 7.�b2 lLlc7 l S.e4 �cS 1 9.h3 It would be more accurate to start with

2 16 Benoni Systems

19.a3, which would probably transpose to the game after 1 9 . . . �d7 20.h3.

19 . . . �d7 White's last move unnecessarily allowed 19 . . . �xc3 20.�xc3 Wxa2 when after 2 1 .Wc1 f6 the position is rather double-edged.

20.a3 '@fa6 2 1 .�dc1 '@fcs 22.�h2 Black failed to create counterplay in

Malakhatko - Raznikov, Calvia 2007.

B322321) 13 • • • '@fe7

Now this retreat looks quite logical and surprisingly it leads to very concrete play:

a b c d e f g h

14.h3 1 4.�fe 1 ?! would allow Black to regain his

pawn with 1 4 . . . �c4!.

14 ... ctJh6 lS.ctJh4 Less convincing is 1 5 .tUg5 '@fb7! 1 6.b4

( l 6.�fd l ctJbxd5 1 7.tUxd5 tUxd5 is also nne for Black) 1 6 . . . cxb4 1 7.�xb4 '@fc7 with counterplay.

lS . . .'IWh7 Another way of playing is:

1 5 . . . �b7 16 .e4 �a6 1 7.�fd l ltJbd7 Worse is 1 7 . . . ltJg4 I S .h3 ltJe5 1 9.�e3 c4 20.b4 ltJd3 2 1 .ltJf3 with a clear advantage.

l S .ltJf3

Less clear is l S .h3 ltJe5 1 9.�e3 Wa5 as in Goh Koong Jong - Aikhoje, Turin (01) 2006.

IS . . . ltJg4 19 .a4 ltJde5 20.ltJxe5 ltJxe5 21. .�el �a7

2 l . . .c4 22.b4 ltJd3 23.b5 �cS 24.�f1 ! would not help Black either, as White's passed pawns on the queens ide should decide the game. Now in Cox - J. Houska, Sunningdale 2007, White should have played the calm:

22.h3N Threatening 23.f4.

22 ... c4 23.b4 ltJd3 24.b5 �cS Now White has a neat tactical solution:

25.b6! �xb6 26.ltJb5 With a decisive advantage.

16.�fdl ctJfxdS Black can also take with the other knight,

1 6 . . . tUbxd5 1 7.ltJxd5 ltJxd5, which simply transposes.

17.ctJxdS ctJxdS 18.ih6 ixh6 There is another line to consider:

l S . . . ltJb4 1 9.'@fd2 tUc6 19 . . . �xh6 20.'@fxh6 '@fcs (20 . . . ltJc6 loses to 2 1 .ltJf3 f6 22.ltJh4! and Black is helpless against White's threats) 2 1 .�xaS �xa8 22.ltJf3 Black has insufficient compensation for being an exchange down, L. Williams -Situru, Bled (01) 2002. Instead of the "brilliant" 20.ltJf5 , White should continue with:

20.�xg7 �xg7 2 1 .b4! With an initiative.

19.ixdS '@fe8 1 9 . . . '@fb5 was pointed out in Chess Informant

as an improvement for Black. I disagree with this claim, as White is better after: 20.ltJxg6 �a7 2 1 .�c4 '@fc6 22.ltJh4 (22.ltJf4 �xf4 23.gxf4 e6 24.�d3 might be an interesting option as well) 22 . . . e6 23.�xa6 '@fxa6 24.a4


1"lb4 25.tLlf3 'lWb6 26.e4± I do not see any real compensation for the pawn.

20.lLlxg6 Mter 20.ixa8 Ei:xa8 Black has some

compensation for the exchange, thanks to his bishop pair.

20 ... Ei:a7 2 1 .lLlh4 e6 And now I believe White's best move is:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

22.ic4!N I think this is correct because swapping light

squared bishops will be useful for White.

22 ... d5 23.ixa6 'Wxa6 24.a4 :gab7 25.lLlf3 Wfa5 26.e3

White has the advantage.

B322322) 13 . . . lLle8 14.a4!

Although 1 4.Ei:fe l has been employed by Kramnik, I like the text move more.

14 ... :gb7 Once again White appears to be ready for

1 4 . . . c4 1 5 .tLlb5 'lWb6 1 6 .ie3 tLlc5, and now instead of 17 .'lWc4, as in Moreno Ruiz - Perez Gonzalez, Madrid 2006, White could have secured his advantage with 17.tLlbd4 tLlf6 1 8 .b4! cxb3 1 9 .tLlxb3± .

15.b3 'Wd8 16.:gfe1 :gab8 And now instead of the natural expansion

with 1 7.e4, White comes up with a very i nteresting plan:

17.lLldl lLlb6 18 .lLle3 'Wd7 19.a5 ctJc8 20. lLl c4

White had a clear advantage in Chatalbashev - Remmler, Germany 2008 .

B322323) 13 ... lLlg4

In my opinion this is the most challenging continuation.

1 4.b3 Less convIncIng is 1 4.a4 tLlge5 1 5 .tLlxe5

tLlxe5 1 6.b3, and this position will be examined below in the 1 4 . . . tLlge5 line.

14 . . . 'Wa3


Simply bad is 14 . . . c4?! 1 5 .h3 cxb3 1 6.axb3 ttJge5 (maybe the lesser evil would be the ugly 1 6 . . . ttJh6, though after 1 7.Ei:fc l Black can hardly count on compensation with his knight so poorly placed) 1 7.ttJd4 and White's knight penetrates to the c6-square with great effect, Bakalarz - Wehbe, Germany 1 995.

A very important alternative is: 1 4 . . . ttJge5

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .ttJe l !

This is the only way White can fight for the advantage. The alternatives would allow Black reasonable counterplay: 1 5 .a4 iWb4! ( l 5 . . . ttJxf3t 1 6.�xf3 ttJe5 17 .�e4! is good for White) 1 6.ttJa2 ( l 6.ttJb5 iWg4 is also okay for Black) 16 . . . iWg4 Surprisingly Black's queen is very well placed on g4. Black's immediate threat is 1 7 . . . �d3 and in general his position is quite reliable. 1 5 .ttJxe5 ttJxe5 1 6.a4 ( l 6 .ttJe4 iWa3! cannot be satisfactory for White) 1 6 . . . iWb4 17 .ttJe4 ( l 7.ttJa2 iWg4! is good for Black) This important position is playable for Black, but he needs to play the brave: 17 . . . iWa3! I have failed to find any advantage for White. Here is my rough line: 1 8 .Ei:fe l Ei:b7 19 .�c3 ttJd7! Swapping the dark-squared bishops appears to be in Black's favour, as he takes control of the important b4-square. 20.ttJd2 �xc3 2 1 .iWxc3 iWb4 leads to double-edged play.

1 5 . . . iWa3

Unfortunately for Black the following line does not work: 1 5 . . . c4?! 1 6.b4 �a3 ( l 6 . . . Ei:xb4?! loses the exchange after 17.lLJe4. The important point of White's ttJel move is that the white queen is protected on c2 and Black cannot escape from the pin with 17 . . . iWa4.) 1 7.iWe4 (with the idea of playing 1 8 .ttJc2) 1 7 . . . ttJf6 1 8.iWd4 Black cannot avoid ttJc2 next, when he has a strategically lost position.

1 6.h3 This transposes to the main line.

l S.h3 White should certainly avoid the following

line: 1 5 .�cl iWb4 16 .�b2, as Black has 16 . . . c4 at his disposal, gaining good counterplay on the queenside, Orsini - Cremon, Brazil 1 999.

lS ... ttJgeS 16.ttJel

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

A smooth multipurpose move; firstly, White is threatening to trap Black's knight in the centre with f2-f4, and secondly he is aiming to chase Black's queen from a3 with ttJe1 -c2 after the preparatory iWdl . This is an important position for the whole line; I have come to the conclusion that White's chances are preferable. Now I would l ike to share my analysis, bur I have a feeling there is still room for improvements.

Chapter 1 4 - Benko Gambit 2 19

16 ... f5 I do not see any point in Black blocking his

own dark-squared bishop with 16 . . . ltJf6, when after 17 .Widl White easily executes his plan, gaining much better chances.

16 . . . ltJb6 17.Widl 17.Wie4? is met strongly by 17 . . . ltJec4! IS .bxc4 ltJxc4 and Black takes over the initiative.

17 . . . ics After 1 7 . . . Wia5 I S .Ekl c4?! White achieves his strategic aim: 1 9.1Dc2 cxb3 20.axb3 followed by ltJd4-c6. 17 . . . ltJec4?! This unexpected piece sacrifice looks quite attractive, but White can refute it with a series of precise moves: I S.bxc4 lDxc4 19.1Dc2 Wia5 20.E&xbSt E&xbS 2 1 .ltJe4 ltJxd2 22.Wixd2 Wixd2 (22 . . . Wixa2 23.E&cl E&b2 24.'lWdl is clearly better for White) 23.ltJxd2 Ei:b2 24.E&cl E&xa2 25 .lDf1 ! ixe2 26.lDfe3 Black does not have enough compensation for the piece.

l s.lDc2 l S.Ei:c l ! ? is also worth considering.

1 8 . . . 'lWa5 1 9.a3 19.'lWe 1 ! ? might be an interesting alternative.

19 . . . if5 20.ltJe4 Wia6 2 1 .g4 ics 21 . . .ixe4 22.ixe4 Wib7 23.a4 e6 24.ltJe3! also leads to an advantage for White. So far we have followed T unik - 5hevelev, Israel 2003, but here White could have claimed an advantage with energetic play:

a b c d e f g h

22.f4 lDed7 23 . .ic3

17.f4 tDf7 18.tDd3 A worthy alternative is: I s.Widl Wia5 (the

a2-pawn is untouchable: I s . . . ixc3? 1 9.ixc3 Wixa2? 20.E&b2 Wia3 2 1 .lDc2+-) 1 9.E&f3 c4 20.lDc2 cxb3 2 1 .axb3 In this complicated position I would prefer White.

1 8 •.• c4 19.bxc4 .ixc4 20.�h2

We have reached an interesting posItIon where it might seem Black has succeeded in creating counterplay on the queens ide with his . . . c5-c4 advance. However, his position has clear drawbacks: his kingside was weakened by . . . £7-f5 , and his knight is poorly placed on £7. These factors will be relevant for a long time. Now Black can regain the pawn with:

20 ... .ixc3 Another line runs 20 . . . E&cS 2 1 .ltJb4 ixe2

22.E&b3 Wia7 23.E&cl and the threat of lDc6 is very powerful.

2 1..ixc3 E&xbl 22.E&xbl Wixa2 White whips up a dangerous initiative along

the long diagonal after:

23.Widl Wia7 24.E&al Wib7 25.E&xa8t Wixa8 26.tDb4

White has an attractive position.

220 Benoni Systems

Conclusion:

In general Black cannot rely on the sidelines in the Benko Gambit (or perhaps just for one game as a surprise weapon) as White has clearcut routes to an advantage in almost every case. The only exception might be 9 . . . tUfd7, where further investigation is definitely required.

In the main lines of the Benko, I hope that I have managed to find some good ideas and at this point the situation looks promising for White in the 1 0.E!:bl line. In my opinion the 1 3 . . . tUg4 variation is a critical test for White. According to my analysis the final evaluation is rather favourable for White; nevertheless it would be interesting to see a practical test.

Dutch Defence

Stonewall Variation

Variation Index l .d4 f5 2.ttJf3 ttJf6 3.g3 e6 4.�g2 d5

A) 5 ... �e7 6.c4 0-0 7.ttJbd2 AI) 7 ... ttJc6 A2) 7 ... c6 8.ttJe5

A2l ) 8 ... b6 A22) 8 ... �d7 A23) 8 ... ttJbd7

B) 5 ... �d6 6.c4 c6 7.ttJc3 0-0 8.'!Wc2 Bl ) 8 .. .'!We7 B2) 8 ... �d7 B3) 8 ... "lWe8 B4) 8 ... ttJe4 9J!bl

B4l ) 9 ... �d7 B42) 9 ... ttJd7 10.b4

B42l) 10 ... ttJdf6 B422) 10 .. b5!?

B43) 9 ... a5 B44) 9 ... "lWe7 10.b4

B44l) 10 ... �xb4 B442) 10 ... ttJd7 B443) 10 ... �d7 B444) 1O ... b5

5.0-0

a b c d e f g h

222 222 223 224 225 225 227 229 229 230 233 233 234 234 235 236 239 239 240 241 241

222 The Dutch Defence

The Stonewall covers a variety of ideas in the Dutch Defence, particularly when Black's pawns are on c6, d5, e6 and f5 . In this chapter we shall also look at a few positions where the c-pawn does not go to c6, but i n general this is the main idea.

But first I want to explain my choice of putting the knight on f3 instead of h3, as is generally recommended against the Stonewall. The issue is the following move order: 1 .d4 e6 2 . c4 f5 3 .g3 tt:lf6 4.i.g2 c6!? Recently this has been very fashionable. It is commonly used by two big experts in the Stonewall, Grandmasters Gleizerov and Ulibin (who incidentally come from the same town) .

The main point i s to force White to play a move such as Wic2, if he wants to choose the system with tt:lh3, as the immediate 5 .tt:lh3 can be met by 5 ... d6 with the idea of quickly playing . . . e6-e5, since White's knight does not control the e5-square.

After 5 .Wic2 d5 6.tt:lh3 a popular variation of the Stonewall arises. This was actually my first choice, but later I found another system, which I will share with the reader, to be quite interesting. It has the advantage of not having to worry about this move order issue, as we are going to develop our knight to f3 regardless. But it is good to be aware of the existence of this move order none the less.

l .d4 f5 2.1L1f3 c!tJf6 3.g3 e6 4.i.g2 d5 5.0-0

There are other move order issues, and it will always be possible to find an independent line, but hardly one with independent value. Whatever Black does, the bishop needs to go to e7 or d6 very soon. We shall thus split the chapter into line A) 5 ... i.e7 and line B) 5 ... id6.

A) 5 . . . i.e7 6.c4 0-0 7.tDhd2

In my opinion this is the best way to fight for an opening advantage. White's play is pretty simple and effective.

Now Black can play AI) 7 . . . tDc6 or A2) 7 ... c6.

AI) 7 • . . tDc6

Among all the side lines where Black refrains from playing . . . c7 -c6, I found that only this variation deserves attention. It was once played by Nigel Short.

8.h3

a b c d e f g h

8 ... tDe4 I also examined:

8 . . . a5 9.a3 It is useful to prevent possible ideas connected with the advance of the a5-pawn.

9 . . . i.d7 lO .i.b2 tt:le4

Chapter 1 5 - Stonewall Variation 223

Several games have reached this posmon, but nobody has opted for the right plan:

8 7 6 5 4 3 v,=z -- ; 2

a b c d e f g h 1 1 .ttJe1 !N

This knight is heading for d3, while the one on d2 will come to f3 and eventually to e5 under favourable circumstances. Then White will be ready to chase away Black's knight from the centre by means of f2-f3 . The following i llustrative line is quite typical:

1 l . . .if6 White was ready to meet the advance of Black's a-pawn: 1 1 . . .a4 1 2.b4 Now it is obviously inferior for Black to capture the c4-pawn with 1 2 . . . ttJxd2 1 3.\Wxd2 dxc4 since after 1 4.d5! White is clearly better.

12.l"k1 ie8 13 .e3! If 13 .ttJdf3 then Black gets counterplay with 13 . . . a4 1 4.b4 dxc4 1 5 .l"lxc4 e5 ! .

a b c d e f g h It is useful for White to strengthen the

d4-pawn. White will continue with his plan

of ttJd3, ttJf3 and so on, while Black's play is not so obvious. White's chances are clearly preferable.

9.il.b2 il.d7 10.ttJel ! As we already know, this i s the right plan.

1O ... il.f6 1 1 . ltJ df3 White easily gained a superior position in

the following encounter: 1 1 .e3 ttJe7 1 2.ttJd3 a5 1 3 .f3 ttJxd2 1 4.\Wxd2 ic6?! 1 5 .ttJc5 \Wc8 1 6.e4! Kengis - Deev, Podolsk 1 990.

1 1 ...il.e8 1 2.l"lc1 Vff e7 13. ltJd3 l"ld8 This position was reached in Zilberman

- Press, Moscow 1 979. White should have continued slowly improving his position with:

a b c d e f g h

14.e3!N il.hS Is .Vffc2 White retains the better chances with a very

pleasant game.

A2) 7 ... c6 8.itJeS

A very flexible plan; this knight will transfer to d3 and then the d2-knight comes to f3 and then perhaps e5. Afterwards White will either prepare an advance with f2-f3 and e2-e4, or start his play on the queenside.

Here Black has tried A2l) 8 ... b6, A22) 8 ... il.d7 and A23) 8 ... ltJbd7.


All) 8 . .. b6

This plan is not very popular in this particular line. I suspect the main reason is the slight weakening of the e6-pawn, but in fact White can hardly use this factor. Instead I developed the following line for White:

1 0.tDg5N This might be the reason Black players tefrain from S . . . b6. In fact, after 1 0 . . . 'WcS fol lowed by . . . tDe4 he has a perfectly playable position.

I O ... ltJe4 1 1 ..te3 White prepares l'!cl .

1 1 ...cS Otherwise it is not so easy to develop the

queen's knight.

1 2.dxcS bxcS 1 2 . . . i.xc5 1 3 .i.d4!?;!; should secure White

a long-term advantage, thanks to his better pawn structure.

13.cxdS exdS

We have reached a typical position for the Stonewall variation, with hanging pawns on c5 and d5. In this specific case White's chances seem preferable, since Black still has not completed his development and thus White has time to create threats.

14.l'!ac1 .td6 Clearly inferior is 1 4 . . . 'WeS 1 5 .'Wb3! �c8

1 6.tDg5!± .

Also risky is advancing the d-pawn: 14 . . . d4 1 5 .l'!fd 1 ! i.f6 ( l 5 . . . i.d5 runs into 1 6.tDxd4! cxd4 1 7.l'!xd4+- and Black's position is hopeless) 1 6.i.f4 'Wd5 ( l 6 . . . 'We7 1 7.e3 dxe3 l S.i.xe3 leaves White with a clear positional edge) 17.h4! White has the better chances.

IS.l'!fdl We? Alternatively, 1 5 . . . l'!eS is hit by the neat:

1 6.tDc4! i.c7 17.tDcd2! ltJa6 l S.tDxe4 l"i:xe4 (or l S . . . fXe4 1 9.tDg5 d4 20.b4! and Black's centre collapses) 1 9.'Wb3 l'!b4 20.'Wa3±

16.Wb3 fLla6 If 1 6 . . . c4 then White has a fine sacrifice:

1 7.tDxc4! dxc4 l S .l'!xc4 <j;JhS 1 9.tDg5 White has a powerful initiative, for instance: 1 9 . . . ltJa6 20.tDxe4 i.xe4 2 1 .i.xe4 fXe4 22.l'!c6 ltJc5 23.'Wd5 tDb7 24.l'!xd6 tDxd6 25 .'Wxd6±


17.gxd5!? ixd5 1 8JWxd5t @h8 19.CLld3 gad8 20.'We4

White has excellent positional compensation for the exchange.

A22) 8 ... id7

This is a thematic idea in Stonewall positions, but in this particular case White has an annoying move:

9.'Wh3!? h5 If 9 .. .'IWb6 then 1 O.ltJdf3 and Black cannot

continue his plan, since 1 0 . . . ieS is met strongly by l I .ltJg5! .

a b c d e f g h

10.a4!?N A surprising tactical idea; previously only

l O.cxb5 has been tried.

10 . . . hxe4 Black has two other possibilities:

I O . . . dxc4 allows White excellent compensation after 1 1 .'Wd l ltJd5 1 2.e4 fxe4 1 3 .ltJxe4.

lO . . . b4 can be answered by I l .ltJdf3 ltJe4 12.ie3 followed by gae l . Black's position looks very dubious.

11 .\Wh7 'We8

We reach the same position after 1 1 . . .'Wb6 1 2.\WxaS \Wc7, while 1 2 . . . ltJa6? does not work on account of 1 3.ltJxd7 ltJxd7 I 4.ltJxc4!+-.

1 2.'Wxa8 'We7 13.CLldxe4 The even more positional 13 .b3!? also comes

into consideration: 1 3 . . . cxb3 1 4.ltJxb3 ltJa6 1 5 .\wxfSt ixfS 1 6.if4 id6 1 7.ltJd3 ixf4 l S.gxf4;!;, or 1 3 . . . c3 14.ltJb l ltJa6 1 5 .\WxfSt ixfS 1 6.ltJxc3 \Wb6 17.e3 'Wxb3 I s.id2 and White starts to penetrate along the b-file.

13 ... ttJa6 14.'WxfBt ixfB 15.ttJxd7 CLlxd7 16.if4 'Wh7 17.ttJe5 ttJxe5 1 8.he5 'Wxh2 1 9.9fbU

I feel that in the long run the two white rooks should be stronger than Black's queen. Certainly the e2-pawn is untouchable in view of 20.ifl .

A23) 8 ... ttJhd7 9.ttJd3

9 ... ttJe4 This is the main continuation, but of course

there are several additional options:

9 . . . b6 1 0.�a4 �c7 A very unfortunate square for the queen. (The lesser evil was l o . . . ib7


1 1 .ltJf4 Wf7, although after 1 2.ltJf3 ltJe4 13 . .ie3 White retains the better chances.) 1 1 .ltJf3 ltJh5 1 2 . .id2 This was J. Collins -Halper, New York 1955. Next White will continue with :B:ae l , underlining the misplaced position of Black's queen; White's advantage is obvious. Incidentally, White in this game was Jack Collins, the noted American chess teacher whose pupils included Bobby Fischer.

9 . . :�feS This does not make much sense, since White is ready to meet the .. :�'h5 jump with ltJf4. White has a comfortable advantage.

1 0.b3 Also good is: 1 0.�c2 �h5 1 1 .ltJf4 �f7 1 2.cxd5! (it is always useful to force Black to recapture with the c-pawn on d5, especially when his knight is on d7) 1 2 . . . cxd5 1 3 .ltJf3 ltJe4 14.ltJd3 .id6 This is P. Varga - Kajnih, Eger 1 994, and now the simple 1 5 . .if4 .ixf4 1 6.ltJxf4 would leave White with an obvious positional superiority.

1 0 . . . ltJe4 1 1 ..ib2 .if6 1 2.:B:e l <j;>hS 1 3 .f3 ltJxd2

This is probably the lesser evil compared with l 3 . . . ltJd6 14.e4 when White has a large advantage.

1 4.�xd2 dxc4 1 5 .bxc4 e5

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h This was played in Andersson - Salov, Leningrad 1 9S7. White's edge is undeniable, and now the most accurate continuation

would have been: 1 6.d5!N We7 17.e3±

1O.'IWc2 White needs to defend the c4-pawn in order

to continue his plan with ltJf3.

lO . . . ltJxd2 The text move is Black's first choice, but he

has plenty of alternatives. However, none of them promises Black fully satisfactory play:

1 O . . . b6? is impossible here in view of 1 1 .cxd5 cxd5 1 2.Wc6 and Black loses material.

1 0 . . . �eS 1 1 .ltJf3 g5 This does not make much sense, as Black has no ideas on the kingside, while White slowly but surely carries out his plan. 1 2.ltJfe5 �h5 13 .f3 ltJd6 14.b3 ltJeS Otherwise .ia3 was unpleasant. 1 5 . .id2 ltJg7 16.:B:ae1 lt:lf6 17.�el h6 l S . .ib4 .ixb4 1 9 .1tJxb4± White was much better in Cvitan - Sebestyen, Pula 2002.

10 . . . ltJdf6 1 1 .ltJf3 .id7 1 2.ltJfe5 .ieS 13.lt:lf4!? Beginning concrete action. l 3 . . . WcS 14.cxd5 exd5 1 5 .f3 ltJd6 1 6 . .id2 a5 17.:B:ael White had achieved a pleasant game in Vladimirov Mahmud, Aden 2002 .

1 0 . . . .if6 1 1 .ltJf3 WhS Usually 1 1 . . .WeS just transposes to the l l . . .WhS-line after 1 2.b3 WhS.

1 2.b3 �eS 13 .a4 This move was recommend by Kasparov in Chess Informant 43, as an improvement over his game against Short, which continued: 1 3 . .ia3 :B:gS 1 4.:B:ael a5 1 5 . .ib2 Wh5 16.a4;!; Kasparov - Short, Brussels 1 9S7.

l 3 . . . a5 14 . .ia3 :B:gS 1 5 .ltJfe5 White is totally in control.

1 5 . . . ltJxe5 16.dxe5 .idS 1 7.f3 ltJg5 1S . .ib2 %%b8 1 9 . .id4 ltJf7

This was Toshkov - Batchinsky, Geneva 1989, and now the obvious:


20.e4N± Would secure White a big advantage.

1 1 . .txd2 ttJf6 Black could also try 1 1 . . . ii.f6 1 2.e3 �h8, but

after 1 3 .ii.b4 1'%e8 1 4.1'%acl a5 1 5 .ii.a3:t White enjoys a stable positional superiority.

12 . .tf4 .td6 If 1 2 . . . ii.d7 then White can start some

activity on the queenside by means of 13 .a4.

13.1'%adl .txf4 14.lDxf4 g5 1 5.lDd3� White has managed to swap dark-squared

bishops, which is one of the main positional ideas. His pieces are optimally placed and he can either play on the queens ide or prepare the "programmed" e2-e4 advance in the centre, Hardicsay - Rusniok, Austria 200 1 .

B) 5 .. . .td6

This is a better square for the bishop than e7, according to theory. One of the main ideas is that plans with b2-b3 and ii.a3 are less feasible, compared to when the bishop is on e7, as this square is now available for the queen. But, as we have seen, White does not need this plan in order to play for an advantage. The 5 . . . ii.d6 line has been played by many top players on occasion, but especially by Artur Yusupov, who has played this line regularly for the last 25 years with phenomenal results.

6.c4 c6 Black can play 6 . . . 0-0 with the idea of

answering 7.b3 with 7 ... b6!? as played by the Swedish GM Karlsson. But after 7.tZk3 White would be able to play quickly with �b3, ig5 and maybe even e2-e4, making Black's intended plan seem unattractive, which must be why no one has ever tried it against 7.ltJc3.

7.ttJc3 0-0 8.�c2

a b c d e f g h

Here Black has a number of main options, as well as some secondary ones. It is not necessary to know them all by heart, but it is important to understand the main points of the various lines. The main options are: Bl) 8 .. .'IWe7, B2) 8 ... .td7, B3) 8 ... 'W'e8, and the main move B4) 8 . . • lDe4.

The lesser options are:

8 . . . a5 9.b3!? White changes the direction of his play, using the fact that Black has slightly weakened his queenside.

9 . . . ltJa6 1 0.c5 fic7 1 1 .fif4 As we already know, exchanging the darksquared bishops is White's main strategic idea.

1 1 . . .ltJd7 1 2.e3 h6 1 3.ltJa4 g5 1 4.ii.xc7 �xc7

a b c d e f g h White's positional advantage was obvious


in Pelletier - Kelecevic, Switzerland 1 996. I have very slightly improved on White's play by preventing counterplay i n the centre.

1 5 .�d2!N :9:e8 1 6.:9:ac 1 ± Black cannot play 1 6 . . . e5? because of

17 .dxe5 'tJxe5 1 8 .'tJb6 :9:b8 1 9.�xa5± winning a pawn.

8 . . . dxc4 A rather principled move, but I have always fel t that when Black breaks up his own pawn structure it must favour White.

9.e4 i.e7 Black has also tried 9 . . . i.b4, but in the following encounter White convincingly built up her advantage: 1 0.i.g5 h6 1 1 .i.xf6 �xf6 1 2.�e2! i.xc3 1 3 .bxc3 b5 1 4.a4 i.b7 1 5 .exf5 exf5 1 6.'tJe5 a6 1 7.axb5 axb5 1 8.:9:xa8 i.xa8 1 9.�a2! The penetration by White's queen proved decisive in Cmilyte Rozhkova, Dagomys 2008.

8 .i�.t� �;i.� 7 .i"� " . . 'z.' .. . . y.�r 6 % ' .. , %� f� 'iY._ .... z� 5 ' �� "i' ;� � 4 �.f�!.�. �z ",d ... . Z� ��/" z 3 � � .l2J�� 2 ��iV.�dif� �""zD �_:= . .. . %

a b c d e f g h 1 0,exf5!N

This concrete approach seems very promising.

1 0" .exf5 1 1 .�e2 b5 White is clearly better after 1 L .c;t>h8 1 L:9:e1 i.d6 1 3 .�xc4.

1 2.'tJe5 a6 Defending against 1 3.'tJb5,

1 3 .'tJxc6 'tJxc6 1 4.i.xc6 :9:b8 An even worse version for Black is 14" .:9:a7 1 5 .a4± .

1 5 ,a4 i.d7 1 6.axb5 axb5 1 7.i.f4 i.xc6 A necessary sacrifice; Black cannot play 1 7".:9:b6 in view of 1 8 .:9:a8! and White wins material.

1 8.�e6t :9:0 No better is 1 8" .c;t>h8 1 9.i.xb8 1d7 20.�e5± .

1 9.1xb8 i.d7 20.�e5 i.c6 Black is unable to claim sufficient compensation for being an exchange down because of the following line:

2 1 .d5! 'tJxd5 22.:9:fd1 1f6 23 .:9:xd5 1xd5 24.�xd5 �xd5 25.'tJxd5 i.xb2 26.:9:a8

White should convert his material advantage.

8 . , ,'tJbd7 This allows White to favourably release the tension in the centre.

a b c d e f g h 9.cxd5! cxd5

Recapturing with the e-pawn is impossible, because the f5-pawn would be hanging, while 9" .'tJxd5 1 0.e4 'tJxc3 1 1 .bxc3 'tJb6 1 2.a4± led to an obvious positional advantage for White in Abregu - Araoz, Buenos Aires 1 993.

1 0.'tJb5 i.b8 1 1 .i.f4 White should play energetically in order to prove his advantage.

1 L .1xf4 1 2.gxf4 'tJb6 Clearly inferior is 1 2".'tJe8 1 3 .:9:fc1 a6 1 4.'tJc7 'tJxc7 1 5 .�xc7 �xc7 1 6.:9:xc7


lDfG 1 lJ'hc 1± , as in Gabdrakhmanov -Gubajdullin, Kazan 2007.

13.lDc7 Elb8 14.lDg5 'lWdG 1 5 .'lWc5 Eld8

8 .J�%!)�� ;� 7 � i � • w� i """\jjif' ' ' '' '\illJ ,?-'/,.",,%� 6 � �� . � � 5 _"""iifi/.� 'i"m 7'% �� ·""/.�n"�%i'�"" ' :� 4 • if� if� � �� ",,%�

�""%� 3 �%i"� �� %i"� �%i'� 2 8 W� .8 W��W& i�""%� �.i=""

a b c d e f g h IG.Elfc 1 !N

An obvious improvement. White failed to pose Black serious problems after I G.'lWxdG ElxdG 1 7.lDb5 Eld8 1 8 .a4 hG 1 9.1Df3 id7= in Bogoljubow - Tartakower, New York 1924.

16 . . . hG 1 7.'lWxdG ElxdG I 8 .lDf3 id7 1 9.ttJe5 Elc8

Or 19 . . . icG 20.ttJaG Elc8 2 1 .ttJc5;:!:: and White will soon seize the initiative on the queenside.

20.e3 aG 2 1 .ifl g5 If 2 L..ttJc4 then 22.ixc4 Elxc7 23.id3!± and White is clearly better.

22.fxg5 hxg5 23 .id3;:!:: White has the better prospects.

Bl) 8 ... 'lWe7

Black is ready to meet White's plan of Elb 1 and b2-b4, so this is the right moment to change direction.

9.i.g5!? h6 If 9 . . . bG 1 0.ttJe5 ib7 1 1 .cxd5 cxd5 1 2 .ttJb5

Elc8 1 3 .'lWb3 lDcG 1 4.lDxcG ixcG 1 5.ttJxd6 'lWxdG 1 G.Elfc 1 and White retains a small but stable advantage.

10.i.f4! In my opinion, this is the strongest approach.

The weakness of the gG-square might be important if White's knight reaches e5 .

Black solves his problems quite comfortably after: 1 0.ixfG 'lWxfG 1 1 .Elab l a5 1 2.a3 lDd7 1 3 .b4 axb4 1 4.axb4 This was Huzman -Ulibin, Antwerp 1 993, and now Black could have captured the pawn with: 1 4 . . . dxc4 1 5 .b5 (Black has nothing to worry about after 1 5 .e4 e5) 1 5 . . . c5 1 G.lDa4 cxd4 1 7.'lWxc4 c;iJh8 1 8 .lDxd4 e5+ Followed by 1 9 . . . e4 and . . . ttJe5.

10 ... dxc4 The text move is the main continuation.

Clearly inferior is 1 0 . . . ixf4 1 1 .gxf4 dxc4 1 2 .lDe5 Eld8 1 3 .e3 and White will regain the pawn with dividends.

1 1 .i.xd6 'lWxd6 1 2.e4 The quiet 12 .a4! ? looks a reasonable

alternative.

1 2 ... fxe4 13.lDxe4 lDxe4 14.'lWxe4 ttJd7 1 5J'Uel ttJf6 16.'lWe5

White's compensation is indisputable.

B2) 8 . . . i.d7

A well-known Stonewall idea - Black's lightsquared bishop, which is undoubtedly his problem piece, is heading for h5 via the e8-square.


I also analysed the pawn capture, which has yet to be tested in practice: 1 O . . . dxc4N

8

7

6

5

4

3

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .b5! (much worse is 1 1 .ltJd2?! b5 1 2.ltJxb5 cxb5 1 3.�xa8 ltJa6! and Black takes over the initiative) 1 1 . . .ltJd5 1 2 .ltJg5! Wie7 1 3.e4 White has very powerful play for the pawn. For instance, 1 3 . . . ltJb4 14 .Wia4 cxb5 1 5 .ltJxb5 a6 1 6.e5!, with complications that favour White.

1 l .bS �hS 12.bxe6 bxe6 13.eS iJ.e7 I also studied 1 3 . . . �c7 when White should

continue 1 4.Wia4 iJ.a5 1 5 .ltJdl E!c8 1 6.E!b7 retaining the better chances.

14.ltJgS iJ.f7 lS.'!Wa4 '!We8 16.iJ.d2 ltJe4

This is Drozdovskij - Wang Yue, Beijing (blitz) 2008. White could have seized the advantage with:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

17.ltJcxe4!N fxe4 18.ltJxf7 E!xf7 19.iJ.h3! ttJf8 20.E!b3 iJ.f6 21 .�fbl±

I t would be hard for Black to defend this position.

9 . . . ltJbd7 1 0.b4 There is no point in rushing with 1 0.cxd5?!

Chapter 1 5 - Stonewall Variation 23 1

as Black can calmly recapture with the e-pawn: 10 . . . exd5 and 1 l .i'!!fxf5? loses in view of 1 1 . . .lLle4.

lO . . . a6 Once again I checked the pawn capture on c4: 10 . . . dxc4N l l .e4 (less clear is l l .b5 ttJd5 1 2.bxc6 bxc6 1 3 .e4 lLlb4 1 4.i'!!fe2 ia6 1 5 .ia3 Ei:b8oo) 1 1 . . .fxe4 (Another line is 1 1 . . .lLlxe4 1 2.lLlxe4 fxe4 1 3 .lLlg5 ttJf6 14 .lLlxe4 i'!!fg6 I S .Ei:b2! c3 1 6.lLlxf6t �xf6 17.i'!!fxc3;!;. White has regained the pawn and has a pleasant positional edge.) 1 2.lLlgS! lLlb6 1 3.lLlcxe4 i'!!fg6 1 4.a4! id7 (or 14 . . . c3 I S.i'!!fxc3 lLlfdS 1 6.i'!!fe l ! ie7 1 7.a5 ttJd7 I 8.b5;!;) I S .aS lLlbdS 1 6.i'!!fxc4 With a stable positional advantage.

1 1 .a4 lLle4 After 1 1 . . .dxc4 I 2.lLld2 i'!!fe7 I 3 .lLlxc4 ixb4 14.aS!� White's compensation is more than sufficient.

1 2.bS axbS 1 3 .axbS h6 14 .id2 I also like I4.ib2!?N lLldf6 1 5 .lLle5 with an advantage.

1 4 . . . lLldf6 I 5 .lLla4 i'!!fhS 1 6.lLlb6 Ei:b8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17.ib4! ixb4 1 8 .Ei:xb4± White's advantage is obvious, Seres -

Baumegger, Budapest 1 997.

9 ... b6 1 0.b4 ib7 This is quite a logical reaction to White's play on the queenside.

l l .cS!?N

A new and interesting idea. Black equalized comfortably after l l .cxdS cxdS I 2.bS lLlbd7 1 3.if4 ixf4 1 4.gxf4 i'!!fe7 I S .e3 Ei:fc8 in Cmilyre - Agdestein, Gibraltar 2008.

l l . . .ic7 I 2.bS The point of White's play is shown by the following line:

1 2 . . . bxc5 1 3 .dxc5 1 3 .ia3 lLlbd7 14.dxc5 IS j ust a transposition.

1 3 . . . lLlbd7 1 4.ia3 White has no advan tage after: I4.lLld4 lLlxc5 1 5 .ia3 ib6 1 6.bxc6 ixc6 I7 .ixc5 ixc5 1 8 .lLlxdS ixd4 1 9.1Llxf6t ixf6 20.ixc6 Ei:c8=

I4 . . . lLle5 I S .lLld4 lLlc4 I 6.icl ;!; A complex and double-edged position has

arisen, bur White's activity should give him the better prospects.

9 . . . i'!!fh5 This idea does not really work, since White simply continues his play on the queenside: 1 0.b4 lLlbd7 (inferior is 1 O . . . dxc4 l l .bS lLldS 12 .lLld2! and White regains the pawn with dividends) l l .bS dxc4 I 2.bxc6 bxc6 This was Patelli - Schlichthaar, Arco 2000, and now the simple 1 3 .i'!!fa4 would give White a good edge.


I originally intended to follow White's play in the main game that is known here, as he won a good game. I was thinking that White is just a bit better everywhere, but Jacob Aagaard had some recommendations deep into the middlegame in his book The Stonewall Dutch that I did not want to spend time on. However, they did make me look for a second time at the position, which allowed me to spot White's real problem.

This problem, and the fact that it makes more sense to try to attack the b5-pawn directly and open the queens ide to gain a space advantage, made for a last-minute revision. My "old" line was: 1 0.cxb5 cxb5 I l .if4 ixf4 1 2.gxf4 id7 1 3 .b4 This was played in Schandorff - L.B. Hansen, Denmark 1 997. Here I do not see any advantage for White after: 1 3 . . . tLlc6!N ( l 3 . . . a6 1 4.e3 tLlc6 1 5 .tLlel �cB 1 6.tLld3t was the game) 1 4.�fc l We7 1 5 .a3 �fcB=

lO ... ia6 After 1 0 . . . tLle4 White can also j ump in with

his knight with I l .tLle5, having in mind two ideas: exchanging on e4 followed by f2-f3, or if4.

1 1 .e5 ie7 12.a4!

1 2 . . . b4 1 3 .tLla2 ia5 1 4.Wd l ! A very strong move; White not only defends the e2-pawn, preparing id2, but also vacates the c2-square for the manoeuvre tLle l -c2. The forcing sequence 1 4.id2 ixe2 1 5 .�fe l ixf3 1 6.ixf3 tLle4 1 7.ixb4 ixb4 I B.tLlxb4 a5 1 9.tLld3 tLla6 helps Black, who can hold the balance here. After the text move the following sample line illustrates White's advantage:

1 4 . . . �f7 The main point of White's idea can be seen in the following line: 1 4 . . . tLlbd7 1 5 .id2 �b8 ( l 5 . . . WbB loses a pawn to 1 6.We l ) 1 6.if4! Followed by id6, winning the exchange, since . . . �f7 would run into tLlg5.

1 5 .tLlel e5 A logical attempt; Black intends to generate counterplay in the centre.

1 6.tLlc2 exd4 1 7.Wxd4 Wxe2 I B.tLlaxb4 �g4 1 9 .Wxg4 fxg4 20.tLlxa6 tLlxa6 2 1 .b4!±

White is clearly better.

13.11Jxa4 In this complex middlegame posmon

White's chances are slightly better, thanks to his better pawn structure, which should be an important factor in the long run. The following is a sample line:

13 ... 11Jbd7 14.11Jc3 11Je4 Black is not ready to open the centre with

1 4 . . . e5 . After 1 5 .�al ib7 1 6.dxe5 't:lxe5 1 7.tLld4 tLle4 I B .tLlxe4 fxe4 1 9. f3! White is clearly better.

1 5.�al ib7 If 1 5 . . . WcB 1 6.tLlxe4 dxe4 1 7.tLlg5 �f6

I B .f3! and White opens the h l -aB diagonal in his favour.

16.if4 As always, swapping the dark-squared

bishops is White's main positional idea.


1 6.b4!? could also be tried. Maybe White is slightly better, but Black is certainly very solid.

16 ... i.xf4 I f 16 . . . e5 then White has the strong 1 7.4Jxd5!

cxd5 1 8 .c6 �xc6 1 9.V9xc6 exf4 2o.V9xc7 fxg3 2 1 .hxg3;l; with a positional edge.

17.gxf4t Although Black has a very solid position,

I prefer White's chances due to twO factors: his better pawn structure and the passivity of Black's bishop.

B4) S ... 4Je4

This is by far Black's most important option.

9.�bl White prepares to advance his b-pawn.

This is the starting position of the more important half of this chapter. White intends to push his b-pawn to create weaknesses in Black's queenside. If White is successful with this plan, Black will be condemned to a passive defence. His main options are: B41) 9 . . . i.d7, B42) 9 . . . tDd7, B43) 9 . . . a5 and B44) 9 ... Vf!e7 .

B41) 9 ... i.d7 10.b4 i.eS l 1 .b5 tDd7

A very important position has arisen. Black has made natural developing moves while White has made some progress on the queenside. Right now, White has to decide between several plans. In my opinion, in the following encounter White opted for the best line.

1 2.bxe6 bxe6 13.4Jxe4 fxe4 Recapturingwi th the other pawn is favourable

for White after 1 3 . . . dxe4 1 4.4Jg5 !"lf6 1 5 .f3, as White opens up the play advantageously.

14.tDg5 �f6 15.e5 i.e7 16.f4 I believe this is the correct idea, as it is very

important for White to prevent Black's idea of . . . e6-e5 . I also considered 1 6.4Jxe4 dxe4 1 7 .�xe4, but this leads to a double-edged position.

16 ... h6 17.tDh3 i.h5 This position occurred in Chekhov -

Yusupov, Germany 1 993, and now is the right time to improve on White's play. Instead of placing his bishop on e3, White should play:

IS.tDfl!N Vf!cs 19.e3 White's kingside is more or less secure, and

now he can try to develop his play on the


queenside. I evaluate White's position as more promising, for example:

19 .. J'l:b8 20J'l:xb8 ixb8 21 .E:el Vacating the fl -square for the bishop.

21 ...E:f8 If 2 1 . . .g5 then White has an interesting

sacrifice at his disposal: 22.ltJxe4! dxe4 23. 'IW xe4 White will also win the c6-pawn and his pawn chain will become very dangerous.

22.�f1 liJf6 23.'lWa4t White has an easy plan ro seize the initiative,

which includes �d2, E:b 1 , �a6 and so on.

B42) 9 . • . liJd7

1 l . . .ltJxc3 1 2.'lWxc3 cxb5! 1 3.c5 ( 1 3 .E:xb5 b6! also does not promise White much) 1 3 . . . ltJe4 14.'lWc2 �e7 1 5 .E:xb5 b6! 1 6.cxb6 �d7 1 7.E:b2 axb6= Stefansson - Radjabov, Torshavn 2000.

However, worthy of consideration was: 1 1 .ltJe5!? 'lWc7

In the event of 1 1 . . .ltJxc3 1 2.'lWxc3 ltJe4 1 3 .'lWc2 White retains an advantage.

8 7 6 5 4 3

A natural idea ro bring his second knight into 2

the game.

1O.b4

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Here we have a further branching point.

B421) 10 ... llJdf6 1 1 .c5!

A remarkable moment; White avoids the natural-looking 1 1 .b5, since it would allow Black ro force favourable simplifications:

a b c d e f g h

1 2.�f4!N This move is clearly stronger than 1 2.f3 ltJxc3 1 3.'lWxc3 b6 14.c5?! �xe5 1 5 .dxe5 ltJd7 1 6.�f4 bxc5 17 . bxc5 �a6 when Black was already better in ]. Szabo - Hajnal, Hungary 1 997.

1 2 . . . ltJxc3 Black also fails to solve his opening problems by: 1 2 . . . g5 1 3 .ltJxe4 ltJxe4 14.c5 ( 1 4 .�c 1 !?) 1 4 ... gxf4 1 5 .cxd6 ltJxd6 1 6.gxf4 White keeps a stable positional edge.

1 3.'lWxc3 ltJh5 14 .�e3 ltJf6 1 5 .E:fc 1 ltJe4 1 6.'lWb2t

White enjoys a pleasant game.

1 1 ...ic7 1 2.if4 The following encounter is a very good

illustration of what might happen in this type of position:

12 ... �xf4 13.gxf4 id7 14.llJe5 ie8 1 5.a4 a6 16.llJa2!


A strong positional idea; White not only creates the threat of trapping Black's knight by 17 .f3, but also transfers his knight to d3.

16 . . . CLld7 17.ltJcl VNh4 It is very important that Black cannot play

17 . . . CLlxe5, since after 1 8 .dxe5 d4 (otherwise f2-f3 would trap the knight) 1 9.tt:la2± Black is going to lose his d-pawn.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

18.e3!N In my opinion 1 8.tt:lcd3, as in Grabuzova -

Burchardt, Germany 1 995 , is not so accurate, since it allows Black to create counterplay with 1 8 . . . tt:lxe5! 1 9.dxe5 d4.

18 ... CLlefG 19.CLlb3! .th5 20.CLla5� White retains a long-term advantage.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

B422) 10 . • . b5!?

a b c d e f g h

This very interesting attempt to stop White's queens ide offensive was recommended in Win with the Stonewall Dutch. After some time analysing the position, I found an aggressive way to deal with this line.

1 l .cxb5 ltJxc3 12.VNxc3 cxb5 In my opinion the critical continuation is:

13.VNc6!N 1 3 . .!g5 has been played, but after 1 3 .. .'IWb6

14 J�fc 1 .!b7 1 5 .VNe3 me8 1 6 . .!f4 '!xf4 1 7.gxf4 iWd6 1 8 .tt:le5 �ac8 Black equalized easily in Kerek - C. Horvath, Aggtelek 1 997.

13 . . . VNb6 The point of Black's idea - the white queen

is going to be trapped on a8.

a b c d e f g h

14.VNxa8!! But we are not frightened of this trap - there

are opportunities for White here as well .

Now Black i s a t a crossroads. He must decide which minor piece to place on b8, since I believe the position with rwo rooks versus queen, which might appear after 14 . . . .!b7 1 5 .VNxf8t, is favourable for White in the long run.

14 ... .tb8


The alternative is: 1 4 . . . tLlbS 1 5 .tLlg5!

An important tactical idea. 1 5 . . . tLlc6

After 1 5 . . . .ib7 1 6.'Wxb7 'Wxb7 17 .tLlxe6 l"leS l S .tLlc5 'Wf7 1 9.e3 White is clearly better due to the permanent weakness on d5.

1 6.a3! White is ready to play 'WxcS next.

1 6 . . . .id7 1 7.'WxfSt .ixfS l S .e3 More accurate than l S .l"ld l a5 1 9.bxa5 tLlxa5, as in this case Black has good counterplay.

1 8 . . . a5 1 9 . .id2! White is better.

ls .lbgS ib7 The other option is:

1 5 . . . tLlf6 Now White has a strong move:

1 6.l"lb3! .ib7 Practically forced, as 1 6 . . . h6 loses to 1 7.tLlxe6! .ixe6 l S.l"lc3, and White's queen escapes.

1 7.'Wxb7 'Wxb7 l S .tLlxe6 l"le8 1 9 .tLlc5 'Wf7 20.e3 !;!;

In my opinion White has the better chances, as he will slowly prepare to open up the position on the queenside, or penetrate along the c-file, while Black is rather passive.

It should be noted that 1 5 . . . l"leS loses in one go to 1 6 . .ixd5! .

16.Wxb7 Wxb7 17.lbxe6 ge8 18.lbcs Wc6 Certainly l S . . . tLlxc5? would be a serious

mistake in this case, as after 1 9 .dxc5 l"lxe2 20.l"ld l Black's central pawn is falling and White gains a strategically winning position, since his c-pawn should decide the issue.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

Now White has a pleasant choice between two options:

19.if3 tLlb6 20.l"lb3 tLlc4 (20 . . . g6 2 1 .l"la3!?;!;) 2 1 .l"lc3 Followed by opening the a-file with a2-a4.

1 9.1bxd7 'Wxd7 20.e3 l"lcS 2 1 ..ib2 l"lc4 22.l"lfc l ;!;

I n either case only White can play for a win.

B43) 9 ... aS 10.a3


Once again we have reached a very important position where Black has a wide choice.

lo ... Wle7 The natural attempt to prevent White's idea.

Other possibilities are:

10" .tiJxc3?! This is rarely a good idea when White has the opportunity of recapturing with the b-pawn. I l .bxc3! a4 (White easily regains the pawn after l l . . .dxc4 12 .tiJd2 b5 l 3.a4!±) 12.cS fie7 13 .c4 tiJd7 14.fid2 Wh8 I S .E:b4± White was clearly better in Kozlov - Yagupov, Alushta 2002.

10".b6 I l .b4 axb4 1 2.axb4 fia6 This whole concept is probably wrong.

1 3.bS cxbS 1 4.tiJxbS fixbS l S .E:xbS Wic7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 6.tiJgS!

a b c d e f g h

After this strong move White's advantage becomes clear.

1 6" .E:c8? This allows an attractive refutation. A better try was 1 6".tiJxgS 1 7.fixgS h6, although after 1 8 .fid2 tiJd7 1 9.E:cl E:ac8 20.Wia2 dxc4 2 1 .e3±, followed by 22.fifl , White's advantage is indisputable.

1 7.tiJxe6 Wid7 1 8.E:xdS Wlxe6 1 9.E:xfS! E:e8 20.E:eS!+-

White was winning in Urban - Tazbir, Lubniewice 2002.

1 0".tiJd7

a b c d e f g h 1 1 .cS!?N

By analogy with l ine B42 (9" .tiJd7) this move looks very logical to me. Also worth considering is: 1 1 .b4 axb4 1 2.axb4 tiJdf6 1 3 .cS (Again l 3 .bS allows Black to simplify favourably, just like in the 9".tiJd7-line. 1 3".tiJxc3 14 .Wixc3 cxbS l S .l'hbS fid7! 1 6.E:xb7 Wic8! with equality, Grabuzova - Zaitseva, Moscow 1 992.) 1 3".fic7 1 4.bS!?

l l . . .fic7 1 2.fif4 fixf4 l 3.gxf4 In my opinion White's chances are preferable in this kind of position, for example:

1 3" .b6 1 4.cxb6 Wixb6 I S .tiJa4 Wic7 16.tiJeS tiJxeS 1 7.fxeS fia6 1 8.f3 tiJgS 1 9 .tiJcS

With a solid positional advantage.

1 1 .b4 This move works well for White, but again

1 1 .cS fic7 1 2.fif4 fixf4 l 3.gxf4 deserves attention, as in Pichugin - Savchenko, Odessa 2003.

1 1 ...axb4 1 2.axb4 ixb4 The most challenging continuation. Other

possibilities are:

1 2" .fid7 is not great: 1 3.cS fic7 1 4.fif4 fixf4 l S .gxf4± Grabuzova - Zaitseva, o rei 1 993.

1 2".tiJxc3 This move cannot be recommended, as Black exchanges his most active piece, thus


significantly easing White's task. 1 3.Wxc3 dxc4?!

This is already a serious inaccuracy. Black was obliged to choose 1 3 . . . b5 1 4.c5 �cn with a passive, but still pretty sound, position.

1 4.Wxc4 �a4 1 5 .�g5! Wc7 1 6.ttJe 1 ! ? White had many other attractive options, but the text is good enough. The knight is heading for the ideal d3-square; White's advantage is obvious.

1 6 . . . b5 17.Wc3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h This position was reached in Blagojevic -Podinic, Bijelo Polje 2005. In my opinion White is clearly better, but in the book WIn with the Stonewall Dutch there is a strange recommendation of improving Black's play by means of:

1 7 . . . h6N I think White keeps all his pluses after:

1 8 .�e3 e5 1 9.dxe5 �xe5 20.Wb3t Wf7 2 1 .Wxf7t <j;Jxf7 22.ttJd3 �f6 23.ttJc5 �a2 24.�f4! �e6 25 .e4 �c4 26.�fd 1 fxe4 27.ttJxe4

The endgame is very unpleasant for Black.

1 2 . . . ttJd7 1 3.b5 ttJdf6 The alternatives are worse: After 1 3 . . . \t>h8 White should not rush with 14.�f4, as happened in Gleizerov - Moroz, Lubniewice 1 994, since this allows 14 . . . �xf4 1 5 .gxf4 �a3! with counterplay. He just needs

to continue with the calm 16 .�b2 or 1 6.�d2 and then, depending on the situation, either �a1 or ttJa4. White's chances are preferable in either case. 1 3 . . . ttJxc3 As was already mentioned above, this exchange clearly favours White. 1 4.Wxc3 �a4 1 5 .�g5 We8 This position arose in Budnikov - Gnidash, Kharkov 2000, and now the simple 1 6.c5 �c7 17 .Wb3± would leave White with a serious advantage.

1 4.c5 �c7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h So far this is Pligin - Knight, Telechess 2007, and here I found the following improvement:

1 5 .b6!?N �b8 1 6.�f4 It seems to me White retains a small but long-lasting advantage, for instance:

1 6 . . . �xf4 17.gxf4 ttJxc3 1 8.Wxc3 ttJe4 1 9.Wc2 �d7 20.�aa

White will place one of his rooks on a7, and then try to get his knight to a5. It is also important that he has the option of breaking through in the centre with f2-f3 and e2-e4.

So, in general, White has pleasant almost risk-free play, while Black, despite having a pretty sound position, is doomed to passive defence.

1 2 . . . b5 A thematic idea, but it certainly cannot promise Black equality:

1 3.cxb5 ttJxc3 14.Wxc3 cxb5 1 5 .�f4 �xf4


1 6.gxf4 tLla6 The more natural l 6 . . . �d7 also fails to equalize, since White keeps definite pressure after l 7.�c5! tLlc6 1 8.�xe7 tLlxe7 1 9.tLle5 E:fd8 20.E:fcU.

l7.tLle5 �b7

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

In Hobuss - Kaenel, Zurich 1 999, White missed a strong idea:

1 8 .�d3!N tLlc7 Also 1 8 . . . E:fb8 1 9.E:fc 1 tLlxb4 20.�d2! tLla6 2 1 .E:xb5 E:c8 22.!'kb1 E:c7 23.E:b6± does not promise Black relief

1 9.E:fc 1 It is not so easy to defend for Black, for in

stance: 19 ... E:a2 20 .E:c5 followed by 2 1 .E:bc 1 .

a b c d e f g h

13.�xe4 dxe4 14.igS The point of White's sacrifice; now Black has

to give up his dark-squared bishop.

14 ... Wfd7 I S.E:xb4 exf'3 16.exf'3 In my opinion this is the correct recapture,

as it opens the e-file for White's second rook and Black's e6-pawn becomes a target.

16 ... Wfxd4 17.E:bbl �d7 18.ie7 E:e8 19.E:fdl Wfa7 2o.id6iii

There is no doubt White has sufficient compensation for the pawn, thanks to his bishop pair and Black's passivity, I. Novikov Moskalenko, Cap d'Agde 1 994.

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

B44) 9 •. :We7 I O.b4

a b c d e f g h We have reached our final branching point.

In this position Black has an additional four options: B441) lo . • . ixb4, B442) lo ... lLld7, B443) lo ... id7 and B444) IO .•. bS.

Instead 1 0 .. . a6 1 1 .a4 tLld7 1 2.b5 axb5 1 3.axb5 would transpose to a position examined in line B43 (the 9 . . . a5 1 0.a3 �e7 Iine) .

B441 ) lo • . • ixb4

Here Black has a worse version of the position we have already seen in the 9 . . . a5 1 0.a3 �e7 line.

I l .lLlxe4 dxe4 12.igS Wfd7 13.E:xb4 exf'3 50 far this is 5akalauskas - 5arnolins,

Lithuania 2003, and now much stronger would have been:


a b c d e f g h

14.ex8!N With the following illustrative line:

14 ... �xd4 15 .i.e7 �e8 16.�dl �e5 17.f4 �a5

Or 1 7 . . . 'Wc7 1 8 .�d6 �f7 1 9 .�xb8 and White regains the pawn, while retaining dear positional superiority: 1 9 . . . c5 20.�a4 �xb8 2 1 .�xa7 'Wc7 22.�c3±

1 8.�a4 �c7 1 9.i.d6± Once again White gets the pawn back with

a positional edge.

B442) 10 ... ttJd7 1 l .b5 ttJdf6

Inferior is 1 1 . . .lLlxc3 1 2.'Wxc3 cxb5 1 3. cxd5! exd5 14 .�xb5 lLlb6 1 5 .lLle5 �e6 as in Matveeva - B. Thipsay, Jakarta 1 993. Now the natural 1 6.�f4!N would secure White's advantage, for instance: 1 6 . . . g5 17.�d2 f4 1 8.�a5 �xe5 1 9 .dxe5 lLlc4 20.'Wb4!±

12.c5 Once again this plan works very well for

White. An interesting alternative might be 1 2.bxc6 bxc6 13 .lLle5!?

1 2 . . . i.c7 13.i.f4! A natural follow-up of White's plan.

13 ... i.xf4

Black quickly ended up in a strategically difficult position in the following encounter: 1 3 . . . lLlxc3 14 .'Wxc3 lLle4 1 5 .�e3 �xf4 1 6.gxf4 �d7 1 7.bxc6 �xc6 1 8 .lLle5 g5 1 9.f3 gxf4 20.'Wxf4 lLlc3 2 1 .�b2± Gual Pascual -Moncayo Romero, Barcelona 200 1 .

14.gxf4 ltJxc3 15.�xc3 i.d7

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

L ....... /'//m ....... ..

a b c d e f g h

16.a4! It is absolutely the right idea to keep up the

pressure, since after 1 6.bxc6 �xc6 1 7.lLle5 Vlic7 it might be very difficult to break through.

16 . • . ltJe4 The following defensive plan was given by

GM Roiz in ChessBase Magazine 1 00 : 1 6 . . . 1'!fc8 17.lLle5 �e8 18 .�b3 �c7 Now after 1 9.�fb l it would be very hard to hold Black's passive position.

17.�c2 �fc8 1 8.lLle5 i.e8 1 9.i.xe4!? An interesting positional solution. White

keeps his strong knight against Black's passive bishop, which gives him a long-term edge.

Another idea was to continue improving his position with 1 9.�b3 followed by �fb l .

19 ... dxe4 The best choice.


After 19 . . . fxe4 20.f3 b6 (This is the only attempt to gain counterplay, as otherwise Black's position is lost. For example, 20 . . . exf3 2l .:B:xf3 and White's attack on the kingside should win easily.) 2 l . bxc6 il.xc6 22.cxb6 ieS 23 .b7! Wxb7 24.:B:xb7 :B:xc2 2S .fxe4 dxe4 26.Wf2± The endgame is very difficult for Black.

This position was reached in Schandorff -Sandner, Germany 2004, and now I believe White should not rush with 20.f3, as happened in the game. I prefer the calm suggestion made by Michael Roiz:

20.Whl! Followed by doubling rooks on the g-file.

Black's position is very passive as he lacks any real counterplay.

B443) 1O ... id7 1 1 .bS lLlxc3 1 2.�xc3 cxbS

This has been tried quite often.

13 .. . exdS Clearly worse is 1 3 . . . b4 14 .Wb3 aS l S .tt:leS!±

as In Hoang Thanh Trang - Zimina, St Petersburg 2009.

14.lLleS! ic6 This allows an elegant tactical refutation:

ls .lLlxc6 bxc6 16.:B:xbS! rJ;{h8 If 1 6 . . . cxbS 1 7.il.xdSt rJ;{hS l S.il.xaS Wxe2

1 9.ia3! We7 20.:B:e1 Wf6 2 l .il.dS± and White is much better.

17.:B:b2± White's positional advantage is self-evident,

Baryshpolets - Shumilov, Kiev 200S.

B444) 10 .. . bS

This move was played in a recent grandmaster game.

1 1 .cxbS lLlxc3 1 2.�xc3 cxbS 1 3.if4 ixf4 14.gxf4 lLld7 l S.�c7! :B:e8

This position occurred in Golod - Ulibin, Biel 2009. White now overlooked a very strong idea:

a b c d e f g h

16.�aS!N a6 17.:B:fcl Now Black's knight cannot come to b6.

17 . . . :B:b8 I also examined 17 . . . tt:lf6 I S .tt:leS il.d7


1 9.!'k7 !!ec8 20.!!bc1 ± when White is totally in control.

lS.ttJe5 After I 8.!!c7 V;Yd8 1 9.ttJe5 ttJb6 20.!!c6 itJc4

2 I .V;Yxd8 !!xd8 22.e3;!; White has the better chances, as he can eliminate Black's knight at a suitable moment.

lS ... ttJxe5 19.fxe5 'lWh4 20.'lWc7 !!b7 21 .'lWc6 !!d7 22.'lWb6

8

7 6 5 4 3

2

a b c d e f g h

White has the advantage thanks to his control of the c-file.

Conclusion:

The Stonewall Dutch is often successful for Black in practice, simply because it is a reasonable opening, despite some positional drawbacks. I do not know of a clear-cut path to an advantage for White in the main lines, which is why I have proposed an interesting alternative that looks promising.

Dutch Defence

. Classical Variation

Variation Index l .d4 f5 2.g3 �f6 3.�g2 e6 4.c4 �e7 5.�f3 0-0

6.0-0 A) 6 ... �e8 B) 6 ... �e4 C) 6 ... d6 7.�c3

C1) 7 ... �c6!? C2) 7 ... a5 8.b3

C21) 8 ... �a6 C22) 8 ... �e4

C3) 7 ... �e4 8.�xe4 £Xe4 9.�d2 d5 10.f3! C31) 10 ... exfJ C32) 10 ... �c6

C4) 7 ... �e8 8.b3 C41) 8 ... �c6 C42) 8 ... �bd7 C43) 8 ... c6 C44) 8 ... �h5 C45) 8 ... a5 9.�b2

C45 1) 9 ... �c6 C452) 9 ... �h5 C453) 9 ... c6 C454) 9 ... �a6

244 245 246 246 249 249 249 251 252 252 253 253 254 255 255 256 257 257 258 259


l .d4 f5 2.g3 ctJf6 3.i.g2 e6 4.c4 i.e? The variation involving the development

of the black bishop on e7 is considered to be slightly passive and is seldom played at grandmaster level. White should have good chances to secure an opening advantage with accurate play. At the same time Black's position contains considerable dynamic potential, and his resources should not be underestimated. One cannot help but pay attention to the efforts of the English GM Simon Williams, a specialist in this opening who has won many fine attacking games with it. Thus I recommend that you study the recommendations in this chapter closely, in order to avoid the kind of murky, double-edged positions that Black hopes to reach.

Before we begin dealing with specific variations, I will offer a few very general guidelines. In most variations White's main plan will involve the preparation of the central thrust e2-e4, while Black will be aiming for . . . e6-e5. Both sides will generally try to carry out their own e-pawn advance while obstructing that of the opponent. Overall it seems to me that White is bettet equipped to succeed in this batrle, and you can find plenty of strong recommendations, including some of my own original ideas, throughout the chapter.

s.ctJf3 0-0 6.0-0

This is our first branching point, though I should stress that A) 6 ... 1!Ne8 and B) 6 ... ctJe4 are far less serious lines than the main move, C) 6 . . . d6.

Many other moves are of coutse legal, for example: 6 . . . b6

This would not be such a bad idea if Black could secure control over the central squares d5 and e4, but White strikes first:

7.d5! exd5 Somewhat stronger is 7 . . . i.b7, although White's chances are better after 8 .tt:lc3.

8 .cxd5 8.tt:lh4!? would be an interesting alternative.

8 . . . tt:le4 9.tt:ld4 There is no point for White to enter the complications resulting from 9.d6 i.xd6 1 0.1!Nd5t <j;>h8 1 1 .�xa8 tt:lc6.

9 . . . tt:ld6 1 0.tt:lc3± White has an obvious positional advantage,

Turzo - Mihalko, Hungary 2004.

A playable alternative is 6 . . . c6 7.tt:lbd2 d5 (I do not see much point in 7 . . . d6, since after 8 .�c2 White is ready to play e2-e4 next) 8.tt:le5, and we have a position examined i n the Stonewall chapter.

A) 6 . . . 1!Ne8

Black begins a thematic manoeuvre for this variation, but I do not see much point i n doing it without first moving the d-pawn.

? ttJc3 1!NhS 8.dS! Not only gaining space in the centre, but

also disturbing Black's coordination.

8 . • • ctJa6 I found four practical examples of this

position on my database, but so far nobody seems to have tried the strongest move:

Chapter 1 6 - Classical Variatio n 245

a b c d e f g h

9.if4!N It seems to me that White maintains a clear

advantage after this move, for instance:

9 ..• d6 1O.dxe6 ixe6 1 1 .liJd4 ics 12.liJdb5 It is very hard for Black to deal with the

pressure on the queenside.

B) 6 ... liJe4 7.liJbd2 if6

If 7 . . . d5 S.b3 liJc6 9.ib2 we reach a position from the Stonewall chapter.

S.b3 liJc6 Black has often succeeded i n obtain ing a good

position after: 8 . . . c5 9.ib2 ttJc6

The main reason for that is that White has often reacted with the slightly passive 1 0.e3 after which 1 0 . . . d5 is fully satisfactory for Black. I nstead White should immediately address the problem of Black's annoying knight:

10.'&c2! ttJb4!? This looks like a principled attempt to disrupt the white position , but it does not equalize. After 1 0 . . . d5 1 1 .dxc5 ixb2 1 2.'&xb2 ttJxc5 13.�fd 1 White has a pleasant edge. The game Schroeder - Knoche, Germany 1993, continued 1O . . . ttJxd2 1 1 .'&xd2 d6 12.�ad 1 'lMfa5 1 3 .'lMfxa5 ttJxa5 14.�d2 and

Black faced a difficult defensive task with no real prospects for counterplay.

1 1 .'&c1 cxd4 12 .ttJxe4 fxe4 13 .ttJxd4 d5 We have been following the game Backwinkel - Haub, Germany 200 1 . Here I suggest:

1 4.ttJb5 id7 1 5 .ixf6 �xf6 1 6.ttJc3t White exerts unpleasant pressure against the

enemy centre.

9.ib2

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

9 ... d6

a b c d e f g h

Again Black has the option of entering a Stonewall structure: 9 . . . d5

Although this is quite playable, I believe this kind of position is almost always pleasant and slightly better for White, the present case being a good example.

1 0.e3 id7 1 1 .ttJe1 A thematic idea i n such positions.

1 l . . .a5 12 . f3 ttJxd2 Somewhat stronger was 12 . . . ttJd6, although White keeps a pleasant game: 1 3.ttJd3t

1 3.'lMfxd2 ieS I 4.ttJd3 'lMfe7 I 5. f4!? Usually White refrains from this move, but here it is more tempting, as Black's knight is a long way from e4.

1 5 . . . �dS 1 6.�fc1 dxc4? ! It was better to maintain the pawn on d5 and keep the h I -a8 diagonal closed.

246 The D utch Defence

1 n'hc4 White was clearly better in Gozzol i - Pytel,

La Fere 2007.

1O.ltJe1! It is important to challenge Black's strong

knight.

10 ... ltJxd2 There is not much logic in moving the

d-pawn for the second time, as the extra move lLle 1 is almost always useful for White in the Stonewall structure. After 1 0 . . . d5 1 1 .e3 b6 1 2.lLld3 �b7 1 3 .lLlf4 l"le8 1 4.lLlxe4! dxe4 1 5. f3 exf3 1 6.�xf3 lLla5 17.�f2 �xg2 1 8 .�xg2 White clearly has the initiative, Prohaszka -Bui Vinh, Budapest 2008.

Black has also tried the somewhat passive 1 0 . . . lLlg5, but White's play in the following encounter was pretty convincing: 1 1 .f4 lLlf7 1 2.e3 e5 1 3.fxe5 dxe5 14.d5 lLle7 1 5.e4 with a comfortable edge in Tregubov - Williams, Reykjavik 2006.

l 1 .�xd2 eS Black can also hold the e-pawn back with

1 1 . . .�e7, which forces an accurate response. 1 2.f4! ( l 2.e4 e5°o is rather double-edged) 1 2 . . . �d7 1 3.e4 fxe4 1 4.�xe4 g6 1 5 .lLlf3 and White was clearly better in Sen - Stephenson, Coulsdon 2006.

a b c d e f g h

12.�dSt!N This is an important improvement over the

game Kveinys - Bleis, Triesen 2004, in which White took on c6 immediately. The king on h8 will be further away from the centre in case of an endgame, and may also be slightly susceptible to back rank tricks.

1 2 ... �h8 13.�xc6 bxc6 14.dxeS dxeS lS .�aS! e4 16.�xf6 �xf6 17.ltJg2

White has an obvious positional superiority, thanks to his better pawn structure.

C) 6 . . . d6

This is Black's most important line by far.

a b c d e f g h

This is the basic starting position of the Classical Dutch and, as usually occurs, an important crossroads. We will examine four main options: Cl) 7 • • • ltJc6!?, C2) 7 ... aS, C3) 7 ... ltJe4 and C4) 7 ... �e8. This chapter is an exception from the way most chapters in this book are structured, in that I consider variation C3 to be the most theoretically critical line. Nevertheless there is no doubt that line C4 is the absolute main line in terms of popularity.

Cl) 7 • • • ltJc6!?

Chapter 1 6 - Classical Variation 247

This move does not have the best reputation, and in the original draft of this chapter I only included is as a side variation. However, not long before publication the Quality Chess team informed me that this line had been featured in a recent Dangerous Weapons book, with Classical Dutch expert, GM Simon Williams making the case for the black side. This prompted me to take a more detailed look at it, and I suggest that the reader does the same as the resulting positions are rather unorthodox and tricky to handle. The good news is that White can look forward to a nice advantage if he can navigate the complications successfully.

8.d5! This is of course the critical test.

8 ... lLle5 8 ... lt'la5 9.lt'lg5 It'lxc4 1 0.lt'lxe6 transposes,

while after 8 . . . exd5 9.cxd5 It'le5 1 0.lt'ld4! White's advantage is obvious.

9.lLld4! lLlxc4 9 . . . exd5 1 0.cxd5 reaches the previous note.

10.lLlxe6 !xe6 1 l .dxe6 c6 12.'Wd3 d5 13.'Wxf5

Black's previous few moves have been more or less forced, but now he has quite a wide choice, although strangely enough only one option seems to have been tried in practice.

a b c d e f g h

13 ... !c5!? This untested move seems to be Williams' top

choice, although he also pays close attention to the last of the following four alternatives. Before analysing any variations, I would like to emphasize a few general points. For the time being White has an extra pawn, but Black has fair chances ro regain the pawn on e6. If he can do this while retaining a firm grip over the central light squares, he will generally be doing well. In many positions, the best policy for White is to avoid becoming too preoccupied with the defence of the e6-pawn, and instead focus his efforts on preparing the move e2-e4, eroding the enemy centre and increasing the scope of the unopposed bishop on g2. If White can get this piece working properly then he will almost always stand better, even in a position with equal material.

Let us now see how these ideas might play out over the board.

So far the only option to have been tested is the natural but incorrect: 1 3 . . . lt'le4?! 1 4.'Wg4 It'lxc3 1 5 .bxc3 i.f6 1 6.:gb l It'ld6

Williams briefly considers 1 3 . . . i.b4, but concludes that White stands better after 14.'Wd3! . It is absolutely normal for White to


retreat the queen either to this square or c2, in order to prepare the following pawn break. 1 4 . . . W'eS l S .e4! �xc3 1 6.W'xc3 W'xe6 1 7.exdS cxdS l S .!'i:e 1 W'f7 19 .W'd4 Material is equal, but White has two bishops versus two knights and an obvious target on dS.

It is a similar story after 13 . . . �d6 14.W'c2! W'e7 l S .e4 W'xe6 ( 1 S . . . d4? loses a pawn after 16.ctJe2) 1 6.exdS ttJxdS 1 7.ttJxdS cxdS l S.W'd3 (analysis by Williams). Black has regained his pawn, but positionally he is in trouble.

Aside from the main line, Williams is slightly more hopeful about: 1 3 . . . W'b6N

With the idea of putting additional pressure on the f2-pawn.

1 4.W'c2 Avoiding the obvious threat of 1 4 . . . ttJe4.

1 4 . . . !'i:aeS Williams also considers 14 . . . ttJg4, offering the response l S .ttJa4 W'd4 1 6.W'c3 with an advantage for White. That may be true, although it seems to me that a queen exchange should help Black slightly, so instead I would prefer the simple l S .e3± when the knight is doing nothing on g4.

l S .!'i:b I !? This subtle move looks quite promlSlng, although I should add that there is nothing wrong with l S .e4 and l S .b3, both of which

lead to White's advantage according to Williams.

l S . . . �d6 Obviously this is not forced, bur I chose to focus on the text as it seems like the most natural improvement of the black position.

1 6.e4! d4 17.ttJa4 W'b4 No better is: 1 7 . . . W'bS l S.b3 ttJb6 ( 1 S . . . ttJe5 runs into 1 9 .f4±) 1 9 .!'i:d 1 ±

l S .b3 ttJa3 19.�xa3 W'xa3 20.!'i:bd l bS Now White stays on top with a timely return of the extra pawn.

2 1 .eS! �xeS 22.ttJcS± Material is equal, but White's positional

advantage is obvious.

a b c d e f g h

14.b3! Williams analyses some alternatives but in

the end concludes that this is clearly strongest.

14 ... ctJb6 The tactical j ustification is seen after

1 4 . . . ttJe4? l S .e7! W'xe7 1 6.ttJxdS!± White remains with a healthy extra pawn, as pointed out by Simon Williams.

The other possibility is 14 . . . ttJd6 l S .W'c2 !'i:c8, when I found the following nice line: 16.�f4 W'e7 17.e4 W'xe6 l S.exdS cxdS 1 9.!'i:ae 1 ttJde4 20.ttJxdS!± and White will emerge from the complications with an extra pawn.


ls.Wfc2! This typical retreat is even more effective

than usual thanks to the threat of 1 6.ctJxd5 , underlining the vulnerable position of Black's dark-squared bishop.

lS ... Wfe7 16.ih3± Williams continues analysing for a few more

moves, but it is already clear that Black has failed to obtain compensation for the pawn.

C2) 7 . . . aS 8.h3

S . . . WeS 9.ib2 reaches line C45 .

C21 ) 8 . . . CtJa6 9.ih2 c6 10.gel dS

This looks slightly surprising, but I consider the transition to a Stonewall set-up Black's best option. 1 0 . . . id7 leads to a clearly better position for White after 1 1 .e4 fXe4 12.ltJxe4 lLlxe4 1 3.gxe4, for example 1 3 . . . if6 1 4.Wd2 b5 1 5 .1'k1 We7 1 6.h4 bxc4 1 7.bxc4 c5 l S.lLle5! and White seized the initiative in Lautier -Roos, France 1 9S7.

1 1 .e3 id7 12.ctJeS ie8 1 3.a3 id6 14.f3 hS lS.ctJe2�

As usual in the Stonewall, White retains a small but long-term edge, Lecuyer - Roos, Rouen 1 987.

C22) 8 . . . ctJe4 9.ih2

By contrast with the 7 . . . lLle4 line, here I prefer not to swap knights at once, since after 9.ctJxe4 fXe4 1 0.ctJd2 d5 1 1 .f3 the inclusion of the moves b2-b3 and . . . a7 -a5 allows Black the additional resource 1 1 . . .a4! with double-edged play.

8 ��..t� ��.m ''''' ' '� '�" " '%�i,(�" ' ' 'Y-�'YW�

: �i·.!.Y.I� 5 � iW.""'%mlm � 4 N ".f�:.�� iW�:,/<",, %� ,iW�/�

3 ��t:jt[j�� J��

'/0-

2 8� _8�� ' ' ' '�'''' 'Y-� �W'''' %�'i{''' '% 1 �� iYmM�

a b c d e f g h

9 ... ctJxc3 The main alternative is:

9 ... if6 1 0.Wc2 ctJxc3 l 1 .ixc3 ctJc6 A few games saw 1 1 . . .WeS, but White is better after 1 2.e4 Wh5, Ghaem Maghami - Girinath, Dubai 2007, and now 13 .e5!N dxe5 1 4.dxe5 ie7 1 5 .ctJd4!± with a clear edge, due to Black's passive queenside pieces.

1 2.e4 There is no point in postponing this thematic advance.

1 2 . . . fXe4 The pawn sacrifice 1 2 . . . f4?! looks far too optimistic. The only game i n which this dubious idea occurred continued 1 3.gxf4 WeS 14.e5 ie7 1 5 .We4! and Black failed to prove any compensation, Sundararajan -Williams, Scarborough 1 999.


1 2 . . . ctJb4 does not change the evaluation, as has been proven in the following encounter 13 .�e2 c5 14.l"1fd 1 fXe4 1 5 .�xe4 �eS 1 6.a3 ctJc6 1 7.l"1ac1 �h5?! l S .d5!± and Black faced serious difficulties, Erdos - Ianov, Zalakaros 2006.

1 3.�xe4 White is definitely better. For example:

1 3 . . . �eS 1 4.l"1fe 1 .id7 1 5 .l"1ac1 ctJdS 1 6.ctJd2 �h5 17.�e3 .ig5 1 S.f4±

Ruck - Williams, Tallinn 1 997.

10 . .ixc3 Wl'e8 Other options:

1 0 . . . .if6 1 1 .�c2 ctJc6 1 2 .e4 transposes to 9 . . . .if6 above.

1 0 . . . ctJd7 1 1 .�c2 �eS 1 1 . . .ctJf6 can be met comfortably with 1 2.ctJd2 intending 1 3 .e4.

1 2. a3!? I like this clever approach. There is no point for White to rush with 1 2.e4, as it only eases Black's game: 1 2 . . .f4 1 3.e5 dxe5 14.dxe5 �h5 and Black achieved good results in practice.

1 2 . . . �h5 1 3. b4 White easily develops his play on the

queenside, while Black's attacking prospects on the kingside remain in doubt, Sundararajan - Williams, Yerevan 1 999.

l 1 .ttJel!? Far from being White's most popular choice,

but somehow I am fond of this manoeuvre. I found the positions after 1 1 .l"1e 1 �h5 1 2.e4 f4 1 3.e5 d5 to be rather double-edged.

1 1 .. . .if6 1 1 . . .ctJd7 may have been a slight

improvement, although after 1 2.ctJd3 ctJf6 13 .�c2;!; White has a pleasant game.

12.e4 This is the correct moment to advance the

e-pawn, as the reply . . . f4 is not possible.

12 ... fxe4 13 . .ixe4 eS

a b c d e f g h

This position occurred in Broomfield Phillips, West Bromwich 2003. Here instead of the soft 14.dxe5 I recommend:

14.ttJg2!N ttJd7 Or 14 . . . ctJc6 1 5 .l"1e 1 ! WhS 1 6.dxe5 dxe5

1 7 . .ixc6 bxc6 1 S .f4 with a large advantage for White.

lS .l"1el c6 16.dxeS dxeS 17.ttJf4! ttJcS 17 . . . exf4 runs into the elegant 1 S . .ixh7t!

Wxh7 1 9 .1"1xeS l"1xeS 20.�h5t winning.

18 . .ic2

Chapter 1 6 - Classical Variation 25 1

White has a clearly favourable position, with easy play against Black's weak central pawn.

C3) 7 . .. ctJe4

a b c d e f g h

always considered this continuation as Black's most interesting possibil ity, especially taking into account the fact that I failed to achieve anything special for White on the first occasion on which I encountered it over the board. Now, after doing some serious work on this line, I can state with confidence that Black is far from reaching equality.

8.ctJxe4 Undoubtedly the critical reply. My above

mentioned game, Avrukh - Vouldis, Ermioni Argolidas 2005, saw B .Wc2 ctJxc3 9.bxc3 ctJc6 and Black had reasonable prospects.

8 ... fxe4 9.lDd2 The alternative is 9.ctJe 1 , but I failed to

discover any advantage against Black's play in the following game: 9 . . . d5 1 0.f3 dxc4 1 1 .fxe4 �xfl t 1 2.ixfl c5 1 3.e3 lUc6 1 4.ctJf3 if6 1 5 .ixc4 cxd4 1 6.exd4 lUxd4 17.ie3 lUxf3t 1B.Wxf3 Lindberg - Brynell, Stockholm 2007. Now after 1 B . . . ixb2!N 1 9.�fl WeB I do not see how White can pose any serious problems.

9 ... dS

10.£3! White wastes no time in breaking down

Black's central pawn chain. Now we will consider C31 ) 10 ... exf3 and C32) 1O . .. ctJc6.

The alternatives are not really playable:

1 0 . . . e3?! l 1 .lUbl dxc4 1 2.ixe3 if6 1 3.lUa3 and Black's position soon collapsed in the following game: 1 3 . . . c5? ! 1 4.dxc5 ixb2 1 5 .WxdB E:xdB 1 6.E:ad l E:fB 1 7.lUxc4+Schandorff - Bleis, Copenhagen 2007.

10 . . . c5?! 1 1 .fxe4 E:xfl t 1 2.Wxfl dxe4 ( l 2 . . . dxc4 1 3 .d5±) 1 3 .dxc5 Wd4t 14.';t>h l id7 1 5.ctJxe4 ic6

a b c d e f g h This was Iljin - Obukhov, Alushta 200B.

Now very strong would have been 1 6.ig5!N ixe4 1 7.ixe7 ixg2t I B.�xg2 lUc6 19.id6± and White keeps a material advantage.


C31) 10 ... exf3 l 1 .CLlxf3 ctJc6

The main alternative is 1 l . . .c5

but this looks premature. 1 2 .�e3!

The opening of the centre favours White, who enjoys a significant lead in development.

1 2 . . . cxd4 1 3.ctJxd4 Elxfl t This position occurred in two games, but on both occasions White missed the strong:

a b c d e f g h

1 4.<i>xf1 !N l2lc6 The point is that the natural 1 4 . . . dxc4 runs into a strong reply: 1 5 .l2lxe6! Wxd l t 1 6.Elxd l and White emerges with at least an extra pawn after 1 6 . . . l2lc6 1 7.�d5 Wh8 1 8 .�xc4.

1 5 .cxd5 exd5 1 6.Wb3 l2lxd4 17 .�xd4± White is winning a pawn.

12.b3

1 2 ... if6 The ultra-active 1 2 . . . e5?! seems a bit too

optimistic. The game Relange - Bricard, Besancon 1 999, continued 1 3 .l2lxe5 l2lxe5 1 4.dxe5 Elxfl t 1 5 .Wxfl Wf8t and now White should have played 1 6.�f3N dxc4 1 7.Wd5t Wh8 ( l 7 . . . Wf7 1 8.bxc4±) 1 8 .Wxc4 �h3t 1 9.<i>gl �c5t 20.<i>h 1 c6 2 1 .�f4, when his extra pawn is quite significant.

13.ia3 Ele8 14.e3 We have reached a fairly stable middlegame,

with White maintaining some positional pressure.

14 . . . b6 lS.CLlel ib7 16.ctJd3 dxc4 White was ready to seize the initiative on the

kingside by means ofWg4 followed by l2lf4, so Black is looking for counterplay.

17.bxc4 l2laS 18.ixb7 l2lxb7 1 9.ctJf4 CLld6 This position occurred in Maletin -

Ovechkin, Nizhnij Tagi1 2005, and now White could have retained an edge with:

C32) 10 ... ctJc6

I believe this is the most challenging.


1 1 .fxe4 �xf1 t Clearly inferior is: 1 l . . .dxc4? 1 2.�xfSt ixfS

1 3.e3 b5 1 4.a4! ia6 1 5 .e5 lLlb4 1 6.'lWg4+Black collapsed very quickly in Fridman -Taylor, Minneapolis 2005 .

12 ... dxc4 13.te3 a6 Black intends . . . b5 and . . . ib7. The

immediate 1 3 . . . b5 runs into the unpleasant 14.a4 b4 1 5 .e5! ib7 1 6.'lWc2 lLlxd4 1 7.'lWxc4 ixg2 l S .r;t>xg2+- and Black loses material, Cox - Williams, Birmingham 2006.

14.eS �b8 l S.�c1 ! Simple and strong. In the recent game

Avrukh - Meessen, Ohrid 2009, I instead opted for 1 5 .ie4, but after 1 5 . . . lLlb4N 1 6.'lWb l h6! Black should be okay.

15 ... ltJb4 This loses a pawn without any compensation,

but even after the superior 1 5 . . . 'lWd7 1 6J':&xc4 4Jxe5 1 n:&c1 lLlc6 ( l 7 . . . lLlg4 l s .if4 id6 19.e3±) l S.d5! exd5 1 9 .'lWxd5t r;t>hS 20.if4 White is clearly better.

16.a3 ltJdS 17.�xc4 White has a healthy extra pawn, Jones -

Williams, Liverpool 2006.

C4) 7 ... 'lWe8

This is Black's most popular choice by some margin. The queen usually makes its way to h5 or g6, although it can sometimes remain on eS to support the . . . e6-e5 advance after . . . idS. Still, somehow Black's pieces lack coordination and he can hardly hope for equal play.

8.b3

a b c d e f g h

Now Black's main options are C41) 8 ... ltJc6, C42) 8 . . . ltJbd7, C43) 8 . . . c6, C44) 8 . . . 'lWhS and C4S) 8 ... aS.

C41 ) 8 ... ltJc6 9.dS! ltJd8

9 . . . exd5 1 0.cxd5 lLle5 1 1 .lLld4! This pawn structute is obviously favourable for White. Here is one illustrative example:

1 l . . .'lWh5 1 2.f4 lLleg4 1 3 .h3 lLlh6 1 4.'lWd3 White has a clear positional edge, although there was no need for Black to aggravate his problems with the following mistake.

1 4 . . . lLle4? 1 5 .g4! Black must have overlooked this.

1 5 . . . fxg4


Trying to complicate matters, but it fails miserably.

l 6.i.xe4 gxh3 l 7.i.xh7t �h8 l 8 .�hl i.h4 1 9 .�g6

1-0 Adamski - Christensen, Copenhagen 2000.

a b c d e f g h

10.dxe6! This simple and strong move secures a

favourable pawn structure. White should avoid the seemingly attractive 1 0.lOb5, which would lead to a decent game for Black after 1 0 . . . lOxd5! l 1 .lOxd6 i.xd6 l 2.cxd5 e5.

10 ... ttJxe6 1 1 .ttJd4 tLlc5 12 . .ib2� White has the typical slight edge for this

pawn structure. I only found one game that reached this position, in which Black played l 2 . . . a5, which transposes directly to line C45 l (page 257) . To be honest, there is no particular need for Black to play this pawn move here, but even after a more purposeful move like l 2 . . . c6, the above evaluation still stands.

C42) 8 ... ttJbd7 9 . .ib2

White should not rush with 9.lOg5 i.d8 1 0.d5, since after l O . . . e5 l 1 .lOe6 �f7 Black's position is not bad at all, as he is ready to eliminate the intruder with . . . lOf8.

9 .. . e5 Black has also tried 9 . . . �h5 1 0.�c2 lOg4

intending to bring the second knight to f6, but the idea seems a bit extravagant. l 1 .h3 lOh6 l 2.e4 f4 was seen in Sal<aev - Hanley, Dos Hermanas 2003. Now the simple 1 3 .lOe2N would secure White's advantage, for example 1 3 . . . fxg3 l 4.fxg3 e5 l 5 .c5!± and the opening of the position is clearly in White's favour.

1 1 .e4! This has not been the most popular choice,

but it is a strong one.

1 1 .. .f4 If 1 1 . . .fxe4 White does not need to play

l 2.lOg5, and should instead prefer l 2.lOxe4! lOxe4 l 3 .�d5t \t>h8 l4.�xe4 when the e5-pawn's days are numbered.

12.gxf4 exf4 13.e5 As often happens, the opening of the position

favours White's better coordinated forces.

Chapter 1 6 - Classical Variatio n 255

13 ... ctJg4 14.ttJdS �d8N I do not understand Black's idea behind

14 . . . ctJcS? l S .ctJxc7 �g6:

a b c d e f g h This was Rieke - Krings, Germany 1 989,

and now White could have simply captured the rook: 1 6. ctJxa8N +-

lS.�d4 cS 16.'Wd2 White has a big positional advantage.

C43) 8 ... c6

This looks rather passive, and White soon obtains a favourable position without difficulty.

Very simple and strong. 1 2 . . . tZ:lg4 1 3.h3 ctJgeS 1 4.ctJd4± White was clearly better in Pavlovic - Vlahovic, Kladovo 1 990.

1 O.a3 The natural l 0.�a3 would allow 1 O . . . eS! , so

White prepares to advance the b-pawn. This plan will be all the more effective with Black's knight already committed to a6.

10 ... 'Wg6 1 1 .b4 ttJc7 12.a4 ctJe4 13.bS �d7 14J�bl

White is building a strong initiative on the queenside, Ribli - Rodriguez, Riga 1 979.

C44) 8 ... 'WhS 9.�a3!

This is an important move. The undefended bishop on e7 gives White some extra tactical possibilities.

9 ... aS Several other moves have been tried, but

we will stick to a few of the more instructive examples.

9 . . . gS?! is too weakening. White can simply continue developing with 1 0.�d2 g4 ( l 0 . . . ctJg4 does help Black after l l .dS ! eS 1 2.h3 ctJh6 1 3.ctJxeS± and White simply remained with an extra pawn, C. Bognar - Kun, Aggtelek 1 997)


1 l .ttJe5! c5 I 2.ttJd3 cxd4 I 3 .ttJb5± and Black is in trouble.

9 . . j'�f7 It makes some sense to defend the bishop on e7, but still it seems that White can maintain the advantage by relatively simple means.

1 0.�c2 g5 1 0 . . . ttJc6 allows White to force a favourable transformation of the pawn structure by means of l l .d5 exd5 12.tiJxd5 ( l 2.cxd5!N was even stronger) 12 . . . idS 13.tiJf4 �h6 1 4J�ad 1 and White was better in Elliott -Alvarez Villar, e-mail 1 997.

1 1 .E&adl The immediate 1 l .e4 runs into 1 1 . . .fxe4N ( l 1 . . .f4?! I 2.e5 leads to a clearly favourable position for White, Liebert - Poenisch, Germany 200 1 ) 1 2.ttJxe4 tiJxe4 13 .�xe4 g4 14.ttJh4 d5! This is actually one of the hidden ideas behind 9 . . . E&f7. 1 5 .cxd5 ixa3 I 6.dxe6 E&f6 17.d5 ttJa6°o and despite what appears to be quite nice compensation I do not see anything decisive for White, while Black intends to improve his position by developing h is queens ide pieces.

1 l . . .ttJbd7 12.ic1 Removing the bishop from the a3-square. We saw in the previous note how this piece might turn out to be tactically vulnerable.

I 2 . . . h6 13 .e4 There is no reason to delay this thematic advance any longer.

13 . . . fxe4 1 4.ttJxe4 tiJxe4 1 5 .�xe4 ttJf6 1 6.�d3 White has a pleasant advantage.

1O.d5! One of the key ideas behind the development

of the bishop on a3. White exploits the fact that Black cannot play 1 0 . . . e5? in view of the simple 1 l .ttJxe5, in order to force a favourable change in the pawn structure.

10 ... tt:J e4

Black has also tried 1 0 . . . ttJa6 1 1 .dxe6 ixe6 1 2.tiJd4 ics 1 3.e3 �g6, Portisch - Rossolimo, Monte Carlo 1 969, and here White could have secured his positional edge with: 1 4.tiJdb5!Nt

12.dxe6 i.xe6 13.tt:Jd4 tt:Jxc3 14.E&xc3 i.c8 15.tt:Jb5!

White has an obvious positional advantage, Yevseev - Gavritenkov, Tula 1 995.

C45) 8 . . . a5 9.i.b2


The development of the bishop on a3 makes less sense when the e 7 -bishop is securely defended. Now we arrive at a further division, with four main choices for Black: C451) 9 ... lDc6, C452) 9 . . .'IWh5, C453) 9 .. . c6 and C454) 9 . .. lDa6.

C451 ) 9 .. . lDc6 10.d5

This is a programmed response to the development of the knight on c6, and it works well here too.

a b c d e f g h

lo ... lDd8 We should also check some other knight

moves.

10 . . . ltJe5? is refuted easily by means of 1 1 .ltJxe5 dxe5 1 2.lDb5!± and Black is in trouble, Bertholee - Van de Mortel, Dieren 1 99 1 .

1 0 . . . ltJb4 leads to a very pleasant position for White after 1 1 .dxe6 �xe6 12.lDd4 �c8 1 3 .e3 c6 1 4.a3 ltJa6, Cruz - De las Heras, Buenos Aires 1 964, and now the natural 1 5 .lDa4 �d8 16.'&c2 would have left White with a stable advantage.

1 1 .dxe6 lDxe6 I have already mentioned several times that

this pawn structure is generally favourable for

White. The following arrangement IS quite standard for this kind of position.

12.lDd4 ttJc5 1 3.'lWc2 'lWh5 14.e3 c6 1 5.a3� White intends to generate active play on the

queenside by advancing his b-pawn. He has a pleasant and stable advantage, Yakovich -Shtyrenkov, Balakovo 1 994.

C452) 9 . .. 'lWh5

8 .i�..t� �� •• Y"""�n� ��iP1{·" 'Y,�·�� 7 � i 1� m 1� i 6 �_"'''%_·l�.'''' %� 5 "'� �� "� "iN� � 4 '.!O�� C4;""%� ��'%� 3 _ b gZ1 _tZJ1� 2 [;wj{"""a8dILWJ 1 ��"".�� i.frif""

a b c d e f g h

lo.lDe1!? Not the most popular option, but to me it

looks quite attractive. The knight is heading for d3, where it will be perfectly placed for controlling several important central squares. At the same time White opens the diagonal for his l ight-squared bishop and prepares the thematic e2-e4 advance.

Less clear to me is 1 0.e3 lDa6 l 1 .ltJe1 W'h6!.

1O . . . c6 Other possibilities:

l o . . . lDbd7 1 1 .lDd3 c6?! This was seen in Seidemann - Just, Fuerstenwalde 1 98 1 . Black's last move was too passive, and the temporary weakness of the e6-square allows the nice tactical trick: 1 2.d5 cxd5 1 3.lDf4! W'f7 14.cxd5±


1 0 . . . ltJc6 This was played in Efimov - Naumkin, Asti 1 996. Now I see no reason for White to refrain from the standard reaction:

a b c d e f g h 1 1 .d5!N ltJe5

Another line runs 1 1 . . .exd5 1 2.ltJxd5 ltJxd5 1 3.cxd5 ltJb4 1 4.1lMd2t. The arising pawn structure promises White a lasting advantage, thanks to the permanent weakness of the c7-pawn.

1 2.ltJb5! After 1 2.dxe6 c6 Black regains the pawn, although White is still slightly better after: 1 3.ltJd3 �xe6 1 4.ltJf4t

1 2 . . . ltJe8 1 3 .dxe6 c6 14 .ltJd4 1lMh6 White is clearly better after: 1 4 . . . ltJc7 1 5 .e4! 1lMxdl 1 6.E&xd l fxe4 1 7.�xe4 il,xe6 ( 1 7 . . . ltJxe6 1 8 .ltJf5±) 1 8 .ltJxe6 ltJxe6 1 9.�xe5 dxe5 20.E&d7±

1 5 .ltJec2 �xe6 1 6.ltJxe6 1lMxe6 1 7.ltJd4 1lMg6 1 8.1lMc2

White's bishop pair secures him a long-term edge.

1 1 .ltJd3 dS It is hard to advise anything else with e4 on

the way.

12.0 ltJa6 This position occurred in Estremera Panos -

Pomes Marcet, Oropesa del Mar 1 996. Here I developed the following idea for White:

13.1lMd2!?N ltJb4 Otherwise White carries out the e2-e4

advance, for instance after: 1 3 . . . E&b8?! 14.e4±

14.ltJf4 Now after 1 4.e4 ltJxd3 1 5 .1lMxd3 fxe4 1 6.fxe4

dxc4 1 7.1lMxc4 �d7 Black is pretty much in the game.

14 .. .'IWh6 lS.a3 ltJa6 16.lLla4 �d8 17.�c3 b6 White has no reason to fear 1 7 . . . b5 1 8.cxb5

cxb5 1 9.1tJb2 ltJb8 20.ltJbd3 and Black has only created weaknesses on the queenside.

18.'lWb2 i,c7 19.1tJd3t A thematic Stonewall pawn structure, where

White's pieces are better coordinated.

C4S3) 9 ... c6 10.E&e1

White prepares the thematic e2-e4.

Alternatively 1 0 . . . ltJe4 1 1 .ltJxe4 fxe4 1 2.ltJd2 d5 1 3.f3 exf3 1 4.exf3± leads to a clearly favourable position for White, Hoang Thanh Trang - Kun, Budapest 2005 .


1O . . . ttJa6 allows White to execute his main idea. 1 1 .e4 fXe4 1 2.ttJxe4 ttJxe4 1 3.Elxe4 Here I like the following example: 1 3 . . . '@Fh5 14.Ele3 '@Ff5 1 5 .'@Fd2 �f6 1 6.�c3 ttJc7 1 7.a4! Not allowing any counterplay connected with . . . a5-a4. 1 7 . . . �d7 1 B .ttJe1 b6 1 9.ttJd3 ElaeB 20.Elae1 '@Fh5 2 l .f4± and White is firmly in control, Babula - Bunzmann, Austria 2007.

1 1 .e3 My opinion is that the Stonewall structure

almost always promises White slightly better prospects, and this position is no exception.

11 ...b6 1 1 . . .b5 might appear more active, but it only

weakens Black's position on the queenside, as demonstrated in the following encounter: 1 2.ttJe5 ttJe4 1 3.ttJe2 �f6 1 4.f3 ttJd6 1 5 .cxb5 cxb5 1 6.Elcl b4 1 7.ttJf4 with an obvious positional superiority, Chuchelov - Spice, Eupen 1 997.

12.ttJe5 ia6 This was seen in Straub - Zatonskih, Kiev

199B. Now White could have retained the initiative as follows:

C454) 9 .. . ltJa6 lO.Elel

a b c d e f g h

White prepares the standard e2-e4 pawn break.

lo .. . WfgG The most natural move. Other options:

1 0 . . . ttJe4 1 1 .ttJd2! White fights for control over the e4-squate. 1 1 . . .ttJxd2 (also after 1 1 . . .ttJxc3 1 2.�xc3 White stands better, with e4 to fol low) 1 2.'@Fxd2 c6 13 .e4 '@Fh5 1 4.exf5 �xf5 1 5 .ttJa4 �dB 1 6.Ele3!± White obtained a clear positional advantage in Sulyok - Bachofner, Hattberg 2004.

1 0 ... Wfh5 1 1 .e4 fXe4 1 2.ttJxe4 ttJxe4 1 3.Elxe4 If White manages to carry out the e2-e4 advance he will almost always stand better. We will look at a few examples.

1 3 . . . �f6 1 4.'@Fe2 �d7 1 4 . . . c5?! is too weakening, and White found a nice tactical trick in the following encounter: 1 5 .Eld1 �d7 1 6.ttJe5! '@Fxe2 1 7.Elxe2 �cB 1 B.ttJf3 With easy play against the weak pawns on e6 and d6. 1 B . . . a4 1 9.dxc5 dxc5 20.ttJe5± White's advantage is undisputable, Damljanovic - Gundersen, Eupen 1 999. The present position was reached in Kholmov - Chistiakov, Tbilisi 1 949. Now I like the following line:


a b c d e f g h

1 5.lLld2!?N The following continuation looks quite logical:

1 5 . . . Wfxe2 1 6J'!xe2 E:abS 1 7.lLle4 fie7 I s .fic3 b6 1 9.f4

White has persistent positional pressure.

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

1 1 .e4!

a b c d e f g h

It turns out that Black is not really preventing the e2-e4 advance.

1 1 ...lLlxe4 12.lLlxe4 fxe4 13.E:xe4 The rook is untouchable, as after 1 3 . . . Wfe4?

1 4.lLlh4 the queen is trapped.

13 .. . lLlb4 Another option is:

1 3 . . . e5 14.lLlh4! This is the easiest way to prove White's advantage.

1 4 . . . fixh4 1 4 . . . Wff7 does not change the evaluation after 1 5 .Wfe2!. In Yrjola - Pyhala, Espoo 1 9S5 . Black now faltered with 1 5 . . . g5? 1 6.dxe5 gxh4 1 7.e6 and thanks to the threat of I S .E:g4 t Black was already busted.

1 5 .E:xh4 exd4 I G.Wfxd4 White already has a large advantage, and in the following game Black quickly collapsed under the pressure:

I G . . . lLlc5 1 7.E:el lLld3? I S.Wfd5t i>hS 1 9.fie4 1-0 Lomineishvili - Rychagov, Moscow

1 997.

14.'lWe2

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... J.f6 The alternatives are no better:

1 4 . . . e5 ? This idea simply leads to disaster. 1 5 .dxe5 fif5 I G.exd6 fixe4 17.dxe7 E:fe8 I S .lLle5 fid3 1 9.Wfd2 WfdG 20.a3 and White wins, Chuchelov - Spice, Clichy 1 995.

14 . . . Wfh5 1 5.a3 lLlaG I 6.lLld2 Wfxe2 17.E:xe2 c6 I S .E:ael and White is clearly better, thanks to the weakness of the e6-pawn, Rieke - Moser, Oberwart 2000.

15.a3 lLla6

Chapter 1 6 - Classical Variation 26 1

Somewhat stronger is 1 5 . . . ctJc6, although White keeps serious pressure after 1 6J��e l .

16.J.h3! Now it is hard for Black to defend the e6-

pawn, for instance:

16 ... ttJcS 17J!e3 '\WhS lS.r,ilg2! eS 19.J.xcS exd4

This position occurred in Contin - Caruso, Monselice 2003.

� ,!-� •• ,!-�� ",,%�/� ��'�""%� 6 m /.l% � �/ 5 ��_""%m"'''�m�

""'%�"8' ;_��

� 4 ''l; �� ""%% '"' ' �W''l; � 3 [�. � _�/, ��J��,� 2 D miVw��

1 � . . ",%� �W""%W " " / .. / � m m a b c d e f g h

20.J.xb7!N The game continued 20.g4 Wf£1 2 1 .ibe6 ctJxe6

22.E\xe6, and now Black for some reason did not play 22 . . . d3N, when the position would have become less clear than we would like.

The text leaves us in no doubt about the final evaluation.

20 ... dxe3 21 .J.xaS E\xaS 22.J.xf6 gxf6 23.'\Wxe3

White has an extra pawn and a winning position.

Conclusion:

The Classical Dutch does not, and perhaps never will, enjoy the best reputation. Nevertheless it should under no circumstances be underestimated, as the black position contains a surprising amount of dynamic potential. In most variations my recommendations are not difficult to understand; White will look to develop his pieces in a purposeful way, usually with a view to opening the centre with e2-e4. This should enable him to enter the middlegame with optimism, although in most cases the main battle will lie ahead.

Dutch Defence

Leningrad Variation

Variation Index l .d4 f5 2.lDf3 lDf6 3.g3 g6 4.i.g2 i.g7 5.0-0 0-0

6.b3 A) 6 ... c5 B) 6 ... d6 7.i.b2

Bl) 7 ... a5 B2) 7 ... e6 B3) 7 ... c6 B4) 7 ... lDe4 8.lDbd2 lDxd2 9.�xd2

B41) 9 ... lDd7 B42) 9 ... lDc6

B5) 7 ... e5?! B6) 7 ... h6 B7) 7 ... lDc6 B8) 7 ... �e8 8.c4

B8 1) 8 ... e5 9.dxe5 B81 1) 9 ... lDg4 B812) 9 ... lDfd7

B82) 8 . . • lDc6 B83) 8 ... lDe4 B84) 8 ... lDa6 9.�c2!?

B841) 9 ... h6 B842) 9 ... lDb4 B843) 9 ... gb8

a b c d e f g h

263 265 265 266 267 270 271 272 273 275 276 278 278 278 279 280 281 282 284 285 286

Chapter 1 7 - Leningrad Variation 263

l.d4 f5 2.�f3 �f6 3.g3 g6 4 . .ig2 .ig7 5.0-0 0-0

The alternative move order 5 . . . d6 6.b3 does not change much, since after 6 . . . 0-0 7 . .ib2 the play just transposes to our main line B. The only other possibility worth mentioning is 6 ... c5, although in general I am not a great believer in mixing the moves . . . f5 and . . . c5 early in the opening. 7 . .ib2 (But not 7.dxc5 CLle4 8.c3 CLlxc5 with reasonable play for Black.) 7 . . . CLle4 8.c4 CLlc6 9.e3 0-0 1 0.CLlc3 This position will be examined after 6 . . . c5 in line A below.

6.h3 The most popular theoretical continuation

is 6.c4 intending 7.CLlc3, but after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the text offers at least as many chances for White to fight for the advantage.

Leningrad players will tend to advance the d-pawn one square without a second thought, although of course there are many other moves that can be tried. We will consider the semiserious alternative A) 6 ... c5, before moving on to the standard B) 6 . . . d6.

Here is a brief round-up of the alternatives.

6 . . . CLle4 7 . .ib2 c5 8.c4 CLlc6 9.e3 reaches a position that will be examined in line A below.

6 . . . d5 7.c4 c6 reaches a Stonewall structure in which it is hard to believe g7 can be the right square for Black's dark-squared bishop. Here I like the following plan involving the active development of the bishop on a3 : 8 . .ia3 Wh8 9.e3 .ie6 1 O.Wd3 CLle4 1 1 .Elcl CLld7 1 2.CLlc3t with a pl�asant game for White, Van Wely -Garcia Ilundain, Linares 1 995 . Black must be on guard against a well-timed capture on d5, intending to meet . . . cxd5 with Wb5.

6 . . . c6 7 . .ib2 Now one of the Stonewall versions is

7 . . . d5 Perhaps Black can claim to have improved slightly over the previous line, since the bishop has committed itself to b2. However, White's position is still a little more comfortable. Of course 7 . . . d6 would transpose to Line B3.

8.CLlbd2 Wh8 9.CLle5 This plan seems quite natural to me; White is not obliged to rush with c2-c4.

9 . . . .ie6 1 0.e3 1 O.c4!? is also quite playable.

1 0 . . . CLlbd7 1 1 .CLld3 a5 1 2.a4 .ig8 1 3 .c4 CLle4 14.Elcl Wb6 1 5 .CLlf3 Wa6 16 .Wc2 Elac8 1 7.ElfdU

White has a pleasant game with a small but stable edge, Neverov - Rendle, Hastings 2008.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

1

7.e3

A) 6 ... c5

a b c d e f g h

One of Black's key ideas is that after 7 . .ib2 cxd4 8 .CLlxd4 d5! he gets a very decent game. Apart from the main move, White can also use the move order 7.c4 CLle4 8 . .ib2 CLlc6 9.e3 to reach the same position as in the main l ine with 7.e3.

7 ... �c6 8 . .ib2 ttJe4 9.c4 d6


Black has an important alternative in: 9 . . . e6 1 0.We2!

A logical move. By defending the bishop on b2 White gives himself the options of d4-dS and dxcS.

1 0 . . . Wf6 This attempt to maintain the pressure was not really successful in the following game:

1 1 .lOc3 gS 1 2.lOxe4 fxe4 1 3 .lOeS dS 1 4. f3! lOxeS l S .dxeS Wg6

In Kushnir - Levitina, Dortmund 1977. White missed a strong continuation:

lO.ltJc3 e6 10 . . . WaS was played in Romanishin - Nikac,

Bar 200S, and now the simple 1 1 .Wd3!N would have secured a promising position, for instance: 1 1 . . .lOf6 ( l 1 . . .lOb4 achieves nothing after 1 2.Wb l ) 1 2.dS lOb4 1 3.We2± with a pleasant advantage for White.

A more popular and important alternative is: 1 0 . . . lOxc3 1 1 .�xc3 WhS

The tempting 1 1 . . .eS is well met by 1 2.dxcS ! (More accurate than 1 2.dxeS , as in this case Black is not obliged to recapture the pawn immediately, but can instead try 1 2 . . . �e6 or 1 2 . . . !'!eS.) 1 2 . . . dxcS? ! (Somewhat stronger

for Black would be 1 2 . . . e4N, but also here after 1 3 .�xg7 Wxg7 14 .lOd4 [also interesting might be 14 .cxd6!? exf3 l S .�xf3 �e6 1 6.cS� with strong compensation] 1 4 . . . dxcS l S .lOxc6 bxc6 1 6. f3 exf3 17.Wxf3 and White will continue with e3-e4 and enjoy a pleasant advantage, thanks to Black's dubious pawn structure.) 1 3.WdSt! WxdS 14 . cxdS lOb4 I S .�xeS lOxdS 1 6.�xg7 Wxg7 17 .!'!ael ± Gelzenleichter - Gudat, Wingst 1 999. Black loses his cS-pawn, since 1 7 . . . b6? runs into I S .lOgS! winning.

1 2.!'!e l Wc7 1 2 . . . eS?! does not achieve the desired result after 1 3 .dxeS dxeS 1 4.WxdS !'!xdS I S .lOgS! !'!fS 1 6.�xc6 bxc6 1 7.!'!fd 1 and White is clearly better. We are following the game Zilberman -Kosashvili, Kfar Sava 1 993. Here White should have played the natural:

1 3 .dSN For example:

1 3 . . . �xc3 1 4.!'!xc3 lOeS Now White has a strong retort:

l S.e4! f4 l S . . . lOxf3t 1 6.!'!xf3! makes good use of the rook's position on the third rank.

1 6.Wd2 fxg3 1 7.hxg3 White's better structure ensures a s light but

long-term edge. He can also consider the more aggressive 17.fxg3!? when Black will have to play carefully to defend his kingside.


1 1 .�cl Vfie7 This was Schuh - Kummer, Oberwart 1 993.

Here White could have obtained a serious advantage with the following forcing line:

B) 6 ... d6 7.i.b2

7 .. .t2Ja6 8.c4 has little independent significance. For Black to make any sense of the position of his knight he will have to play . . . c6 in the near future, transposing to line B3.

7 . . . ttJg4 This strange-looking move, which prepares a quick . . . e5, has been tried by several strong players i ncluding Vladimir Malaniuk, a Leningrad specialist. White should react with

8.h3 ttJh6 9 .tt:k3 Seldom played, but it seems to work well.

9 .. . f4 Or 9 . . . ttJf7 1 0.e4.

1 0.g4 c6 1 1 .Vfid2 ttJd7 This was Ftacnik - Gurevich, Jakarta 1 996. Now before carrying out the intended e2-e3, White should have first prepared this with:

1 2.l:'lad l !N I analysed the following line, which illustrates White's chances rather well.

1 2 . . . 'lWa5 1 3.e3 fxe3 14.'lWxe3 e5 1 5 .ttJa4! ttJf7 1 6.dxe5 ttJdxe5 17 .ttJxe5 iLxe5 1 8 .iLxe5 'lWxe5 1 9.'lWxe5 dxe5 20.ttJc5!

With an obvious positional edge.

Bl) 7 ... a5 8.c4

A bit more flexible than 8 .ttJbd2 a4 9 .c4.


S ... ltJa6 There is not much point for Black to advance

the a-pawn: 8 . . . a4 9.b4! W'e8 1 0.CLla3! (this is an extra option White gets by refraining from 8.CLlbd2) 1 0 . . . c6 I 1 .1'!b l h6 Delchev- Biliskov, Zadar 200 1 . Now I like I 2.b5!N when White is obviously better, as Black failed to obtain any decent counterplay.

9.ltJbd2 c6 lO.W'c2! Just in time. If 1 0.a3 Black can already get

a decent game by means of 1 0 . . . e5! I 1 .dxe5 CLlg4.

lO .. .'!WeS 1 O . . . CLlb4 does not really bother White, as he

will soon regain the lost tempo by chasing the knight away. I 1 .W'b l 1'!b8 I2 .a3 CLla6 1 3 .W'c2 b5 I 4.CLle 1 ! ? A remarkable positional idea that we will see in other lines as well . The knight is heading for d3, increasing the pressure along the h l -a8 diagonal. I 4 . . . �d7 I 5 .CLld3 CLlc7 I 6.e3 CLle6 1 7.1'!acU White has obtained a pleasant game, 1. Ivanov - Lutikov, Yerevan 1 977.

1 0 . . . �d7 1 1 .a3 b5 I 2.CLle1 1'!b8 I 3.CLld3 transposes to the position reached after 1 0 . . . CLlb4 above.

1 1 .a3 Other moves are possible, but I like the text

the most.

1 1 ...h6 Quite interesting is 1 1 . . .CLlh5 1 2.e4 f4 1 3.d5

e5 14 .dxe6 �xb2 1 5 .W'xb2 �xe6 1 6.e5! and White seized the initiative in Odendahl -Dormann, Germany 1 992.

12J3ael Now everything is ready for the e2-e4

advance. In the following game Black failed to find an adequate response.

12 .. .'&f7?! 13.e4 fxe4 14.ltJxe4 irs

B2) 7 ... e6

This arrangement has recently been played very often by the top Slovenian female player Muzychuk. Sti l l , I find it hard to believe that Black can fight for equality in this way.

S.c4 Wfe7 9.ltJc3 In this position the knight belongs on c3, as

it is useful to have the option of j umping to d5 after . . . e6-e5.


9 . . . ttk6 Muzychuk has tried a couple of alternative

set-ups, without much success.

9 . . . tLlbd7 is well met by 1 0J'l:e1 , planning a quick e2-e4. 1 0 . . . tLle4 1 1 .tLlxe4 fxe4 1 2.tLld2 d5 1 3.f3! exf3 ( 1 3 . . . �h6 does not change much: 1 4.tLlfl tLlf6 1 5 .W'c2 forces Black to capture on f3 anyway.) 1 4.exf3 c6 1 5 .f4 tLlf6 1 6.a4 W'c7 17.tLlf3 tLle4 l S.tLle5± and White's positional advantage is obvious, Tratar - Muzychuk, Bled 200S.

9 . . . c6 1 0.�a3 c5 Now I like White's play in the following game: 1 1 .b4! tLle4 1 2.Ek1 cxb4 13 .�xb4 tLlc6 14.�a3 tLlxc3 1 5 .Elxc3 EldS 16.Ele3!? �h6 17.Eld3 and White exertS longlasting pressure thanks to his better pawn structure, Sasikiran - Muzychuk, Antwerp 2009.

1O.W'c2 1 0.d5 should also be good enough for an

edge, but I like the text even more.

1O . . . e5 10 . . . tLldS looks too passive. After the simple

1 1 .e4 fxe4 1 2.tLlxe4 tLlxe4 1 3.W'xe4 tLlf7 14.Elfe1 W'f6 1 5.Ele2± White was much better in Butnorius - Ashby, Gibraltar 2007.

1 1 .dxe5 dxe5 12.ltJd5 W'd6

This position was reached in Johannsson -Menvielle Lacourrelle, Havana 1 966. Now I discovered the following remarkable line:

13.Elacl !N The game continuation of 1 3 .Elfd 1 allowed

Black to obtain a satisfactory position by exchanging on d5. Mter the text move the pressure against c7 prevents this idea.

1 3 . . . e4 14.Elfdl! 'lWc5 1 5.lt'lg5 h6 16.ltJh3 g5 17.'lWd2

This is stronger than 1 7.tLlxc7 tLlb4 1 S.W'd2 W'xc7 1 9.W'xb4 f4, with some compensation for Black due to the misplaced knight on h3.

17 ... 'lWd6 Defending c7. 1 7 . . . ElO is also not an ideal

solution in view of 1 S .tLlxf6t �xf6 1 9.�xf6 Elxf6 20.W'd5t W'xd5 2 1 .cxd5 when the c7-pawn drops anyway.

Mter the text move Black seems to be holding his position together, but an unpleasant surprise awaits him.

lS.ltJxg5! hxg5 19.'lWxg5 ltJeS 20.ltJf6t Elxf6 2 1 .i3xd6 i3xd6 22.c5 i3d7 23.f3!

White has a serious advantage. Material is approximately equal, but Black's exposed king and poor coordination will almost certainly force him to make some further concessions.

B3) 7 ... c6 S.ltJbd2


8 ... ttJa6 This is Black's usual choice. There is also:

8 . . . 'We8 9.c4 h6 9 . . . e5? 1 0.dxe5 tOg4 does not work in view of the thematic 1 1 .�a3!± V. lanov - Stepanets, Policka 1 996.

1 0.'Wc2 g5 1 1 .e4 Another possible plan is 1 1 .e3 fol lowed by play on the queenside, but I prefer the text.

1 l . . .fxe4 1 2.tOxe4 tOxe4 After 1 2 . . . 'Wg6 1 3.tOxf6t 'Wxf6 14.E1ael tOa6 1 5 .E1e3, we reach the note to Black's 1 0th move in l ine B841 (7 . . . 'We8 8.c4 tOa6 9.'Wc2 h6 10.tObd2 g5 1 1 .e4 fxe4 1 2.tOxe4 'Wg6 1 3.tOxf6t 'Wxf6 14.E1ae l c6 1 5 .E1e3) .

1 3 .'Wxe4 �f5 14 .'We3 In general, after carrying out the e2-e4 advance and opening the e-file White's position seems to me to be preferable from a positional point of view, due to the permanent weakness of Black's e-pawn. Here is an illustrative example:

1 4 . . . tOd7 1 5 .E1fe l 'Wg6 1 6.h3 E1ae8 Garifulin - Pasko, Evpatoria 2006. Now White missed a strong opportunity:

a b c d e f g h 1 7.g4!N �c2 1 8 .E1acl

Black starts to experience definite problems, due to the awkward position of his lightsquared bishop.

1 8 . . . e5 19 .'Wd2 �e4 Now White carries out a favourable simplification.

20.tOh4! gxh4 2 1 .�xe4 'Wg5 The continuation 2 1 . . .'Wf7 22.�f5 exd4 23.E1xe8 E1xe8 24.�xd4± does not bring Black any relief either.

22.'Wxg5 hxg5 23.�a3! E1f6 24.�f5 E1d8 25 .dxe5 tOxe5 26.E1e3±

The endgame is clearly in White's favour, due to his strong bishop pair.

9.c4 eS The most popular alternative 9 . . . 'We8

1 0 .'Wc2 will be examined in the note to Black's 9th move in variation B84, via the move order 7 . . . 'We8 8.c4 tOa6 9.'Wc2 c6 (see page 283).

lO.dxeS

8 ��£��i� 7 � i m • m i

6 �mr_�_'i�m �� "'' ' %�r�''''';� �

: ��!�8j�� w ��iW*� 3 �� %'n//./.��J��.� 2 � � 0 � r�iLr� 1

" "�" , , ,r.�· " ' ' 'W' ' ' ' %�·i{ ' ' ' ' % ,� _\if_�� a b c d e f g h

l O . .. ttJd7 As always, the other option is:

1 0 . . . tOg4 1 1 .'Wc2 It looks interesting, though perhaps a bit too speculative, to try: 1 1 .�a3 tOxe5 1 2.tOxe5 �xe5 1 3 .tOf3 �xa1 14.'Wxa1�

1 1 . . .tOxe5 Black cannot play 1 1 . . .dxe5? in view of 1 2.h3±.

1 2.E1ad 1 Black has a playable posmon, but as I mentioned already he can seldom hope for full equality in this kind of structure. White


almost always keeps some pressure and can gradually look to expand on the queens ide.

1 2 . . . 'We7 1 3.a3 Not only preventing a possible knight j ump, but also preparing a future advance of the b-pawn.

1 3 . . . i,d7 Another option is 1 3 . . . i,e6 14 .L2ld4 i,d7 (if 14 .. . i,£7 White can bravely continue with 1 5 .e4! , since Black has blocked his kingside rook and thus deprived himself of the option of .. . f5-f4. 1 5 . . . fxe4 1 6.L2lxe4 d5 1 7.cxd5 i,xd5 1 8 J�fe 1 Elae8 1 9.f4 L2ld7 Khurtsidze - Vrana, Bad Woerishofen 2005. Now the accurate 20.b4!N would have brought White a clear plus, thanks to her much better mobilized pieces and the problematic placement of Black's queen.) 1 5 .e3!N (This seems to me more accurate than 1 5 .Elfe 1 as occurred in Damljanovic - Anic, Santa Cruz de Tenerife 1 995, when Black could have obtained reasonable counterplay by means of 1 5 . . . f4! .) After the text White retains better chances inacomplexmiddlegame,forexample 1 5 . . . L2lc5 1 6.b4 L2le6 1 7.L2l4b3!t heading for a5.

14.b4 L2lc7 1 5 .L2lb3 i,e6 16 .L2la5 Elab8 17 .L2ld4 i,£7

This position was reached in Milos - Ochoa de Echaguen, Las Palmas 1 993. Now I like the following idea:

With the natural plan of increasing the pressure by doubling rooks along the d-file. At the same time White also sets a nIce trap:

1 8 . . . d5 19 .cxd5 i,xd5 20.i,xd5t L2lxd5 Somewhat stronger is 20 . . . cxd5 although after 2 1 .Elcl White maintains a clear positional advantage.

2 1 . L2ldxc6! bxc6 22.i,xe5 'W xe5 23. L2lxc6 'W c3 24.L2lxb8 'Wxc2 25 .Elxc2 Elxb8 26.Eld 1 ±

White is much better.

1 1 .ctJd4! This is the way to force Black to recapture on

e5 with the knight rather than the pawn - an idea that is well worth remembering!

l 1 . ..ctJxeS 12.a3 White prepares the advance of the b-pawn.

12 ... ctJc7 We have been following the game Lazarev

- Ficco, Castellaneta 2000. Now I like the following plan:

a b c d e f g h

13.b4!N This is the consistent follow-up to the

previous move.

13 . . JMie7 14.\Wb3! This move carries a subtle positional threat.


14 ... �h8 Not the best response, but it looks very

natural and allows us to see the real point of White's previous move.

15.f4! ttJg4 16.e4 The queen covers the e3-square, and White

is obviously better.

B4) 7 .. . llJe4 8.llJbd2

a b c d e f g h

8 ... ttJxd2 Black has several other options.

8 . . . d5 The Stonewall set-up is always an option, although as I mentioned previously, it is unlikely to bring him equal chances in most cases. White should continue 9.c4 c6 1 0.Ek 1 with the more pleasant game, for instance 1 0 . . . ih6 1 1 .e3 ie6, Bareev - Palatnik, Voronezh 1 987, and now I l ike the following idea: 1 2.iWc2!?N ttJa6 1 3.a3 l'l:c8 1 4.ttJe5 i.g7 1 5 .ttJd3 White has seriously improved his position, while Black failed to get any real counterplay.

8 . . . c5 9.iWc 1 ! By defending his White immediately of any tension diagonal.

dark-squared bishop solves the problem along the a 1 -h8

9 . . . ttJxd2 If 9 . . . cxd4 it looks good to try 10 .ttJxe4!? fxe4 1 1 .ttJxd4 d5 1 2.c4 and Black's centre is quite vulnerable.

1 0.iWxd2 ttJc6 A couple of games have reached this position. I like the following new idea:

1 1 .l'l:ad 1 !?Ni Restraining the possible . . . e7 -e5 break, and

planning c2-c4 with a pleasant edge.

8 . . . ttJc6 9.ttJe l ! The best chance to fight for an opening advantage.

9 . . . d5 Once again we encounter another slightly different incarnation of the Stonewall structure. Instead after 9 . . . ttJxd2 1 0.iWxd2 the play transposes to 8 . . . ttJxd2.

1 0.ttJdf3 f4 This is the only move to have been tested, but perhaps Black is trying to become too active.

1 1 .ttJd3 g5 Another option is 1 1 . .. fxg3 1 2. hxg3 if5 1 3 .l'l:c1 ih6 1 4.l'l:b 1 (certainly White has no intention allowing 14.e3 ig4) 1 4 . . . i.e6?! (This allows White to seize the initiative. More accurate was 1 4 . . . ig7 although after 1 5 .c4 e6 1 6.l'l:c 1i White's position looks preferable to me.) 1 5 .ttJc5! ttJxc5 1 6.dxc5 if5 1 7.b4 ig7 1 8.ixg7 Wxg7 19.b5 with a clear advantage, Cramling - Ziska, Calvia 2006.

1 2.c4 e6 1 3 .l''k 1 As often happens, the advance of the f-pawn did not bring Black any dividends and only weakened his position on the kingside. White proved his advantage in the following game:

1 3 . . . ttJe7 14.ttJd2 ttJd6 1 5 .e3 fxe3 1 6.fxe3 ttJdf5 1 7.iWe2±

Lputian - Gurevich, Jurmala 1 983.


a b c d e f g h

Black occasionally tries B41) 9 ... ttJd7, but the most popular move by far is B42) 9 . . . ttJc6.

B41) 9 . . . tDd7

The idea of transferring the queen's knight to f6 is far from senseless, but it gives White a bit of extra time to carry out his plans.

10.c4 ttJf6 Two other options are relevant, but

insufficient:

1O . . . e5? This move occurred j ust once, in Claus -Haase, Kassel 2000. Now White can achieve a big advantage with some energetic p lay.

1 1 .ttJg5!N I analysed the following attractive l ine that i l lustrates the dangers Black is facing:

1 1 . . .ttJb6 1 2.dxe5 i.xe5 Or 1 2 . . . dxe5 1 3 .'.Wxd8 E!:xd8 14 .E!:ad1 i.f6 1 5 .f4!±.

1 3.i.d5t! The key move. Unexpectedly Black is unable to avoid material losses. The point is revealed after:

1 3 . . . Wg7

14 .i.xb7! And White wins.

1 0 . . . c6 White can try a few different plans here, but I found the following idea to be the most interesting.

1 1 .ttJg5!? ttJf6 1 2.d5 i.d7 I also examined 1 2 . . . c5 1 3.E!:ae 1 preparing the advance of the e-pawn. 13 . . . h6 1 4.ttJe6 i.xe6 1 5 .dxe6 ttJe4 1 6.i.xe4 fxe4 1 7.i.xg7 Wxg7 1 8 .'.Wd5 '.Wc8 1 9 .'.Wxe4 E!:f6 20.f4 E!:b8 2 1 .'.Wd3 '.Wxe6 22.e4 and despite heavy simplifications White keeps the initiative, for instance 22 . . . E!:ff8 23.e5 E!:bd8 24.exd6 '.Wxd6 25 .'.We2 with an obvious advantage, due to the weakness of the e-pawn.

a b c d e f g h This position occurred in Stefansson -Fernandes, Istanbul 2000. Now I found the following improvement:

1 3 .E!:ad l ! ?N h6


Black cannot really sit and wait, as White can seriously consider opening the centre. For instance, after 1 3 . . . l::Ic8 there is 1 4.dxc6!? bxc6 1 5 .c5! d5 1 6.�e5 with a favourable position.

1 4.Ct:Jh3 g5 Preventing Ct:Jf4. 14 . . . cxd5? is no good in view of 1 5 .�xf6 followed by 'lWxd5t and 'lWxb7.

1 5 .dxc6! This is a concrete and strong approach.

1 5 . . . �xc6 1 5 . . . bxc6 leads to a more or less forced line: 1 6.c5! Ct:Je4 (after 1 6 . . . d5? 1 7.�xf6! �xf6 1 8.�xd5t White wins material) 1 7.�xe4 fxe4 1 8 .�xg7 �xg7 1 9 .Ct:Jxg5! hxg5 20.'lWxg5t �h7 (Worse is 20 . . . �f7 2 l .f3! e3 22.l::&d4 �e6 23.'lWh6+- and Black appears to be helpless.) 2 1 .cxd6 l::If7 22.'lWh5t �g8 23.'lWg6t l::Ig7 24.'lWxe4± Black managed to survive in the complications, but White emerged with a material advantage with four pawns against a bishop.

1 6.f4 g4 1 7.Ct:Jf2 White is much better, as he has a clear plan of carrying out the e2-e4 advance, for instance:

1 7 . . . h5 1 8 .�xf6! �xf6 1 9 .�d5t± Followed by e2-e4.

1 1 .d5 White intends to continue with 1 2.Ct:Jd4, so

Black has to react somehow.

1 l • . . tLle4 1 2.'!We2 e5 13.dxe6 Once again reaching the typically favourable

pawn structure.

13 ... ibxb2 14.'lWxb2 ibxe6 15.ttJd2! The knight swap allows White to increase

the pressure against Black's queenside.

15 ... tLlxd2 16.'lWxd2 '!We8 17.l::Ife1 ! Now the e2-e4 advance will be very strong.

17 ... l::Ib8 18.e4 f4!? Black decided to jettison a pawn in order to

keep the e-file closed.

1 9.9xf4 ibh3 We have been following the game Zilberman

- Gonzalez, Mallorca 2004. Now White could have secured his advantage with:

a b c d e f g h

20.'lWd5t!N l::If7 21 .£3 With the following point:

21 ...ibxg2 22.@xg2 'lWd8 23.l::Iadl 'lWh4 24.e5 '!Wxf4 25.exd6 cxd6 26.l::Ie7±

B42) 9 ... tLle6


This is by far the most popular and challenging move.

10.'Llel! A very important idea, otherwise Black is

just ready to carry out . . . e7-e5.

10 ... \WeS Definitely the safest reply. White forces

favourable simplifications after: 1O . . . e5?! 1 1 .�xc6!

White can also give a preliminary check on d5, but I do not believe it changes the evaluation either way.

1 l . . .bxc6 1 2.dxe5 dxe5 1 3 .4.Jd3 e4 After 1 3 . . . \We7 1 4.\Wc3! Black is in trouble.

1 4.�xg7 �xg7 1 5 .\Wc3t \Wf6 Here I found a very strong new idea:

8 �0��'� 7 � r� _ �i i "".z� "".z� �r"r""z� 6 �� : ��,��. ��/., ." .�� .� 3 ��.�.J��.� 2 /j _ /j _ /j rtyj r� ��.�_i=·" · ·

a b c d e f g h 1 6.4.Je5!N

The previously played 1 6.iWxf6t mxf6 17.'Llc5 , Kolev - Danailov, Zaragoza 1 994, does not promise much against the correct 1 7 .. J''1dS!N l S.l"lfd 1 l"ld5! with good chances to hold.

1 6 . . . �e6 The tactical j ustification for White's last move is seen after 1 6 . . . l"leS? 1 7.\Wxc6 winning a pawn.

1 7.\Wa5 White intends to strengthen his posmon

with l"lad 1 next. H is positional advantage is beyond any doubts.

1 1 .f4!? Absolutely harmless is 1 1 .e4 fxe4 1 2.�xe4

e5 1 3.dxe5 �xe5!, as correctly pointed out by Stohl in ChessBase Magazine 66.

l 1 ...eS 12.idSt! On this occasion this intermediate check is

an important nuance.

12 ... �hS 13.dxeS dxeS 14.'Lld3 exf4 Black is certainly not helped by 1 4 . . . e4

1 5 .�xg7t mxg7 1 6.\Wc3t l"lf6 1 7.ttJe5! and White dominates the board, as once again pointed out by Stohl.

ls.ixg7t �xg7 Thiswas Stohl- Kindermann, Portoroz 1 995.

Now I suggest the following improvement:

16 ... \We7 17.e4 \Wf6 lSJ3el 'Lle7 19.13f2! White is much more active.

BS) 7 ... eS?!

This is a thematic idea, but it is unjustified here.


8.dxeS

8 ��j;J��i� 7 I%. i i�I.'H� � i 6 <",,%��. r/..-i%�

r/. ��f*r� �� 5 � • t� i� 4 �� """%� r/.. ��%W� 3 � � • • lLJ?f� ��-� �� w-J".Jw-� 2 � � � . � i�j"i� �""_%�/.;-j=""

a b c d e f g h Michna - Dworakowska, Warsaw 2004.

1 1 .e4!N This thematic move looks very strong for White, as Black wil l experience serious problems connected with the defence of the e5-pawn. Here is an il lustrative line:

1 1 . . .lLlc5 Black loses a pawn after: 1 1 . . .lLlf6 1 2.'�xdS :gxdS 13 .lLlfxe5 lLlxe5 1 4 . .ixe5 lLlxe4 1 5 . .ixc7 :gd7 1 6 . .ie5± 1 l . . .fxe4 1 2.iWd5t followed by 1 3.iWxe4 also leaves Black under pressure.

1 2 .iWd5t! iWxd5 1 3.exd5 lLlb4 1 4.lLlcxe5 lLlxd5 1 5 . .ia3 b6 1 6.lLlg5 .ib7 1 7 . .ixc5 bxc5 l S .:gae l :gfeS 1 9.1Lld3

Black loses a pawn.

9.ttJa3! Once again this move works well.

9 ... lLlc6 Clearly in White's favour is:

9 . . . lLlxe5? ! 1 0.lLlxe5 dxe5 1 0 . . . .ixe5 ? loses material after 1 1 .iWd5t .

1 1 .iWxdS :gxdS 12 .lLlb5 lLla6 1 3 .l'hd1 .id7 The main point is that 1 3 . . . :geS runs into 1 4 . .id5t �hS 1 5 . .if7! mS 1 6 . .ia3 c5 (Obviously 1 6 . . . :gxf7? loses after 1 7.:gdSt .ifS l S . .ixfS) 1 7 . .ic4± with a big advantage, as Black can hardly do anything to oppose White's penetration along the d-file. Now in the game Komljenovic - Milia de Marco, Malaga 2002, White missed an easy Wlll :

8

7

6 5 4

3

a b c d e f g h 1 4.:gxd7!N :gxd7 1 5 . .ixb7 :gbS 1 6 . .ixa6 :gb6 1 7 . .icS :gdS l S.lLlxa7+-

10.'\WdSt �h8 1 1 .ttJc4 dxeS No better is 1 1 . . .lLlgxe5 1 2.lLlfxe5 dxe5

1 3.iWxdS :gxdS 1 4 . .ixc6 bxc6 1 5 .lLlxe5± and White is a healthy pawn up, Reeh - Juhnke, Germany 1 9S5.

12.iWxd8 :gxd8


This position was reached in Dankert -Schian, Germany 1 997. Now White has a simple and strong idea at his disposal:

a b c d e f g h

13.lLlg5!N ge8 14.J.xc6 bxc6 1 5.£3 lDh6 16.lLla5±

With a large positional advantage.

B6) 7 ... h6 8.c4 'We8

9.lLlbd2 g5 1O.e3!? A slightly unusual concept. White refrains

from the thematic plan of e2-e4, instead opting to stabilize his position in the centre

and kingside, and planning to start an attack on the queenside.

A principled alternative is 1 0.'Wc2 Wh5 1 1 .e4 ( l l .d5 is another option). However, after serious investigation I found the positions after 1 1 . . . f4!? 1 2.e5 ctJh7, Tratar - Balinov, Charleville 2000, as well as 1 1 . . .bce4 1 2.ctJxe4 ctJxe4 1 3.Wxe4 ctJc6, Makarov - Kontic, Podgorica 1 993, to be pretty double-edged.

1O ... lDa6 There are numerous alternatives.

Nobody appears to have tried 1 0 . . . Wh5, probably because of 1 1 .ctJe l ! . After a queen exchange Black would obviously lose all chances for a successful kingside assault.

1 0 . . . e5 1 1 .dxe5 ctJg4 12 .Wc2 ctJxe5 was Frois - Dias, Algarve 1 999. Here I l ike the thematic 1 3.ctJd4N ctJa6 14.a3± followed by play on the queenside, while f2-f4 might also be an attractive idea at some point.

1 0 . . . c6 This has been played by Nakamura amongst others. Strangely enough nobody seems to have tried the natural:

1 1 .b4!?N Curiously the same position has been reached a few times with White to move, having played b2-b4 i n one move rather than two. Despite the lost tempo, I nevertheless find White's position to be quite promising.

1 l . . .Wh5 12 .l"k1 In this position I am not so keen on 1 2.ctJel on account of 1 2 . . . Wxd1 1 3.gxd1 a5! 1 4.b5 �e6 followed by . . . �c8 and . . . ctJbd7 with reasonable counterplay.

1 2 . . .f4?! Usually with White's pawn on e3 this idea is unlikely to work. Black should definitely try something else, but I include the text move


for illustrative purposes. 1 3.exf4 gxf4 14 .l::1 e 1 �f7 1 5 .c5!±

Black's attack is unlikely to succeed in a position with an open centre. Meanwhile he will have a hard time defending his weaknesses.

1 0 . . . a5 1 1 .a3 I do not see any point in switching plans with 1 1 .d5, since after 1 1 . . .c5 ! Black obtains a decent position, Powell - Posazhennikov, Telford 2005.

1 l . . .'lWg6 1 2 .'lWc2 c6 We are following the game Hornung -Egorov, Augsburg 1 995 . Here I find it hard to understand why White refrained from the consistent move:

1 3 .b4N With promising play on the queens ide.

1 0 .. .f4 1 1 .exf4 gxf4 This position occurred in Mohota - Fossum, Catalan Bay 2004. Here I like the following idea:

8 �;�A�')�� 7 � i �i1 W� � 6

% ... . "� .... . " . .. . . " ...... ". �� .... %�" ..... ;�� . ... c

5 �� .%��.%�� 4 • 8 �f!J. �i% • �� r, .. .. %� �: . .. %�.% � 3 ��It.//. ��J��'0 2 8 � m W�.t� ,� .... ·".�.im .... a b c d e f g h

1 2.'lWe2!?N ttJa6 1 3 .�ae1 White wastes no time III creating threats against the e7-pawn.

1 3 . . . 'lWh5 Defending e7 indirectly, since 14 .'lWxe7?? �e8 wins the queen. But White can alter his plans slightly with:

1 4.ttJh4! �g4 1 5.'lWd3 White is clearly better.

1 1 .i.c3 c6 Black can try 1 1 . . .e5, but there is not much

difference between this and 1 0 . . . e5, since after 1 2.dxe5 ttJd7 1 3 .ttJd4! Black is forced to take on e5 with knight. Play continues 1 3 . . . ttJxe5 0 3 . . . dxe5? runs into the unpleasant 1 4.ttJe6!±) 1 4.b4 and White startS his play on the queenside.

12.'lWc2 'lWg6 13.ctJel ctJc7 14.�dl i.d7 IS.ctJd3 ctJe4

The active 1 5 .. .f4 does not promise Black a satisfactory game after 1 6.exf4 gxf4 1 7.ttJf3 fxg3 1 8.hxg3 �g4 1 9.�d2! intending ttJh4.

16.i.b2 ctJxd2 17.gxd2 ctJe8 18.b41; White has a pleasant game thanks to his

spatial superiority, Damljanovic - Teran Alvarez, Dos Hermanas 2000. In the game Black played the slightly careless 1 8 . . . ttJf6, which allowed White to increase his advantage with 1 9.ttJe5 ! .

B7) 7 . . . ctJc6 8.dS

In my opinion the most challenging move, although 8.ttJbd2 also deserves attention.


Again White benefits from the option of developing the knight on d2.

1 O . . . a6 1 1 .'Wc2 The position resembles the Yugoslav variation of King's Indian Defence, with one major difference that Black's f-pawn is on f5 . In my opinion this detail should help White, since it weakens both the e6-square and the e7-pawn, making White's intended e2-e4 advance all the more powerful.

1 l . . .b5 1 2 .�ae l Also worthy of consideration is 1 2.t2Jg5!?N �b8 1 3 .�c3 fol lowed by the penetration of the knight to e6.

12 . . . �b8 1 3 .�c3 e5 14 .dxe6 �xe6 This position occurred in Podzielny -Wieder, Schwaebisch Gmuend 2000. Here I see no reason for White to refrain from the natural move:

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .e4N t2Jc6

Clearly inferior is 1 5 . . . fxe4 1 6.t2Jxe4 �f5 1 7.�xf6 �xf6 1 8 .ctJxf6t 'Wxf6 1 9.'Wd2! Underlining the misplacement of the knight on a5. 1 9 . . . b4 20.ctJg5±

16.e5 dxe5 17.t2Jxe5 t2Jxe5 1 8 .�xe5 �b6 1 9.�e2!±

Despite some simplifications White maintains a useful initiative.

9.c4 as There are some other playable options, but

White keeps an edge in all lines.

9 . . . c5 1 0.a3 t2Ja6 1 1 .t2Jc3 �b8 1 2.'Wc2 �d7 1 3 .ctJd2 ctJc7 14 .b4 b6 1 5 .e3± Black has a solid but rather passive position, Cramling -Rivas Vila, Vila Real 200 1 .

9 . . . e 5 1 0.dxe6 �xe6 reaches the usual favourable pawn structure for White, since it is much easier for him to pursue his play on the queenside. 1 1 .ctJd4 �c8 1 2. a3 ctJa6 was played in Bernard - Bauer, Clichy 1 997. Now White could have obtained excellent play on the queenside with 1 3.b4!N, since 1 3 .. . c6 runs into the strong 1 4.b5! cxb5 1 5 .ctJxb5 with serious pressure.

10.a3 ctJa6 1 1 .llJc3 This time the knight is better off on c3.

1 1 .. . .id7 12.llJd4 llJcS We have reached a thematic position for the

Leningrad system, in which White should be able to maintain slightly better chances.

13.'Wc2 1 3 .b4 t2Jce4 is okay for Black.


natural move, 1 4.e3, but a clear drawback of this move is that it weakens the d3-square, which Black managed to utilize quite nicely. 1 4 . . .lDe5 1 5 .:gfdl g5 1 6.b4 axb4 1 7.axb4 :gxal l S .E'ha l ?! ( l S.�xal ttJa6) l S . . . ttJcd3 1 9.�a3 f4 Black achieved quite nice counterplay, although he later went wrong and lost.

14 ... f4 This is probably the move that White feared

in the aforementioned game. However, he can keep control with the following accurate response:

I S.lDe4! lDxe4 16.�xe4! With a nice position.

B8) 7 ... �e8

This is the main continuation.

8.c4

S . . . h6 9.ttJbd2 g5 reaches a position that was examined in line B6 with 7 . . . h6.

S ... c6 9.ttJbd2 reaches the note to Black's Sth move in line B3 (7 . . . c6 S.ttJbd2 W'eS 9.c4).

S . . . ttJg4 Black's idea is to prepare a quick . . . e7-e5 advance, but White appears to be fully armed for such a development.

9.h3 ttJh6 1 0.ttJc3 e5 Black has also tried 1 0 . . . ttJ£7, but after 1 1 .d5! c5 1 2.W'c2 ttJa6 13 .:gael followed by next e2-e4 White had much better prospects, Headlong - Lyell, Birmingham 2002.

1 1 .dxe5 dxe5 1 2.e4 We have reached a position examined in line

BS l l (beginning with 9 . . . ttJg4), found just below.

B81) 8 ... eS 9.dxeS

As is customary for such a position, Black can now choose between two knight moves: B81 1) 9 ... tLlg4 and B812) 9 ... lDfd7.

B81 1) 9 ... tLlg4 10.tLlc3 dxeS

1 0 . . . ttJxe5 reaches a position considered in l ine BS 1 2 below.

l 1 .h3 tLlh6 1 1 . . .ttJf6? loses material after 1 2.ttJb5 or

1 2.ttJd5.


12.e4 1tJc6 The most natural reaction would seem to be

12 . . . f4 However, it turns out that White is ideally positioned to respond with immediate action in the centre.

13.ttJd5! Seizing the initiative.

13 . . . ttJa6 14 .gxf4 c6 Just terrible is: 1 4 . . . exf4? 1 5 .�xg7 cj;>xg7 16.iWd4t cj;>g8 1 7.ctJf6t+-

15 .fxe5!? A natural piece sacrifice, but it was also quite acceptable to play: 1 5 .�xe5 cxd5 16 .cxd5±

1 5 . . . cxd5 1 6.exd5 White has a strategically winning position

thanks to his central pawn mass, Mamedyarov - Reinderman, Warsaw 2005.

13.ltJd5 �d8 In his annotations for ChessBase Magazine,

GM Michael Roiz pointed out the line 13 . . . fxe4 1 4.ctJg5 �d8 1 5 .ctJxe4 ctJd4 as a possible improvement for Black. Still, in my opinion White retains the better chances after the resolute 1 6.f4! c6 17.fxe5 cxd5 1 8.�xf8t �xf8 .

a b c d e f g h Here White can choose between two

promlsmg continuations: 1 9.cxd5 ttJdf5 20:�e2!?, and 1 9 .ctJf6t �xf6 20.exf6 ctJe6 2 1 .cxd5, with more than enough compensation for a piece in both cases.

So far we have been following the game Bewersdorff - Tisdall, Gausdal 1 990. Now I like the following straightforward line:

I5.�xe4 �J5 I6.�e3 1tJf'7 I7.�fdl �c8 I 8.b4!

White's positional advantage is obvious.

B8I2) 9 .. . ltJfd7 1O.CLlc3


almost always be favourable for White, who can build long-term pressure against Black's queenside.

1 1 .i1tl d2 The plan of CLld5 is not easy to meet.

1 l . . .CLlbc6 1 l . . .CLla6 1 2J''1ad 1 CLlxf3t?! This is an unfortunate decision, but presumably Black had not considered the strong reply. 1 3.exf3! This excellent decision adds the e-file to White's list oftrumps. 1 3 . . . CLlc5 1 4.2"1fel i1tld8 1 5 .b4 CLld7 1 6.CLld5± and Black was already i n serious trouble, Lputian - Malaniuk, Sverdlovsk 1 987.

1 2.CLld5 i1tld8 13 .2"1ad 1 Black's position is not so easy to handle, as demonstrated by the following encounter:

1 3 . . . �d7 1 4.CLlxe5 �xe5 1 5 .c5! �e6 1 6.CLlf4 �f7 1 7.cxd6 cxd6 1 8 .�a3

White's positional edge is beyond any doubts, Harikrishna - Zhang Zhong, Taiyuan 2005.

1 1 .e4 c6 This position has occurred a few times

in tournament practice. In general Black's position is pretty sound from a positional point of view, but for the time being he is lagging well behind in development. It seems to me that White should act quickly in order to exploit this trump, which led me to develop a new concept:

1 2.�a3!?N lH6 Another line is 1 2 . . . 2"1f7 1 3 .exf5 gxf5

1 4.CLlg5 2"1f6 1 5 .i1tld2 CLla6 1 6.2"1ad l . I like White's chances in this position, for example: 16 . . . h6 (Black's problems also persist after 1 6 . . . e4 1 7.f3!) 17 . CLlf3 e4 1 8. CLlh4 CLle5 1 9.f3! The key strategic idea. 19 . . . exf3 20.CLlxf3 and Black faces definite problems, due to his inferior development.

13. exf5 ! The best way for White to exploit his lead

in development is by opening the centre. Of course the position remains complex, but I would be amazed if it were shown that Black is not worse here.

13 ... e4 14.i1tle2 g:xf5 15 .2"1adl CLla6 16.ctJh4 ctJdc5 17.f3!±

Black is starting to encounter real problems.

B82) 8 .. . tLlc6

An interesting idea. Black's previous move vacated the d8-square for the knight, so Black is not afraid of the d4-d5 advance.

9.d5 Certainly this is the most principled

continuation.

9 . • . tLld8 10.tLlc3

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 7 - Leningrad Variation 2S 1

IO • . • eS This is the usual response. I do not see much

point for Black in postponing direct action, since White will generally have a greater number of useful waiting moves available. One illustrative example continued 10 . . . h6 1 1 .'lWc2 (an interesting alternative is 1 1 .ttJb5!?, forcing the awkward 1 l . . .'lWd7) 1 l . . .'lWf7 12.e3 id7 13 .�ad1 c6 14.ttJd4 �cS 1 5 .�e2t and it is not clear what Black achieved, Smejkal -Kalinitschew, Porz 1992.

I l.dxe6 ltJxe6 White has the usual small but long-lasting

edge, as is customary for this pawn structure.

12.'Wc2 id7 Other moves are:

1 2 . . . ttJe4 13 .�ad 1 �d7?! was played in Inkiov -Barbero, Plovdiv 19S6. Now White missed the simple 14.ltJxe4!N fxe4 1 5 .ttJd2 which should cause Black serious problems, for instance 15 . . . �xb2 16 .'lWxb2 �c6 (or 16 . . . ttJc5 17.b4 CLla4 I S.'lWd4±) 17.ttJxe4 ttJf4 l S .gxf4 �xe4 19.�d4 �xf4 20.�d2 �xg2 2 1 .�xf4 �xfl 22.'lWd5t �g7 23.�xfl with a big advantage.

12 .. .f4 13 .ttJd5 fxg3 14.hxg3 c6 The knight on d5 was hard to tolerate, but the text renders the d6-pawn vulnerable. 1 5 .ttJxf6t �xf6 1 6.�ad1 We7 17.�xf6 �xf6 At this point the game Grott - Leisebein, e-mail 200 1 , was agreed drawn, although l S .�c3N would have retained a pleasant edge for White.

13.�adl ic6 14.ltJdS 'Wf7 IS.e3 gae8 This looks like the best arrangement for

Black. Nevertheless I still believe White retains the better chances, due ro his strong knight.

16.b4 a6 This was Hausrath -Van Beers, Antwerp 1997.

Now I think White should have continued:

B83) 8 •.• tLle4 9.tLlbd2 c6

This looks like Black's best chance to achieve a playable position.

9 . . . ttJxd2 This has been almost universally played, but it would be strange if Black could equalize by exchanging knights in a way that costs him three tempos ro the opponent's one. Nimzowitsch would not have approved!

1 0.�xd2 ltJd7 After 1 0 . . . c6 1 1 .d5 White forces a favourable exchange of the dark-squared bishops. Here is one example: 1 1 . . .�xb2 1 2.�xb2 'lWf7, Boehm - Kuhnert, Bavaria 2007, and now the obvious 1 3.e4!N fxe4 14.ttJg5 �g7 1 5 .�d2 would secure White's advantage. There is also 1 0 . . . ttJc6 1 1 .d5 ttJe5 (Too passive is 1 1 . . .ttJdS?! 1 2.�xg7 �xg7, Khasin - Videki, Budapest 1 990, when the simple 1 3 .c5!N would have brought White a clear plus.) 1 2.ttJd4! leading ro a very comfortable position for White, who can follow the natural plan of carrying out e2-e4 under favourable circumstances. The following encounter is a good example: 12 . . . �d7 1 3 .f4 ttJf7 1 4.e4


c5 1 5 .dxc6 bxc6 1 6.exf5 gxf5 1 7.Elae1 and White obtained a clear advantage in Necada - Krouzel, Czech Republic 1 995 .

1 1 .e4! This thematic idea works perfectly at this moment.

1 1 . . .fXe4 1 2.ctJg5 ctJf6 Black achieved a good result after 1 2 . . . �h6 1 3.�xe4 ctJf6 1 4.�g2 c6, Golod - Gurevich, Venacu 2006, but it was in no way related to the quality of his opening, since at this moment White could have obtained a nice position by means of: 1 5 .f4 �f5 1 6.Elae 1 Wd7 1 7.We3!±

1 3.ctJxe4 ctJxe4 1 4.�xe4 e6 Here I tried to improve Black's play and considered 1 4 . . . c6N, but Black is very far from equalizing after the natural 1 5 .Elfe 1 Wf7 1 6.d5! c 5 1 7.Ele3 , due to the weakness of the e7 -pawn.

1 5 .f4 a6 1 6.Elae 1 ± Whitemaintaineda clear positional advantage,

Navara - Bosboom Lanchava, Dubai 2005.

10.ctJxe4! This is a committal move which demands

accurate follow-up play. However, if White gets it right then the rewards are well worth the effort.

1O ... fx:e4 1 1 .ctJgS dS

12.'lWd2!N A powerful prophylactic novelty.

The immediate 1 2.f3 allowed Black to achieve counterplay by means of 1 2 . . . h6 1 3.ctJh3 exf3 14.exf3 dxc4 1 5 .bxc4 c5! in Benkovic Meijers, Biel 2005 . This led me to propose the text move, which prepares the undermining of Black's centre.

12 ... h6 13.ctJh3 It is not so easy for Black to meet the

planned f2-f3. I analysed the following line, which seems to represent quite accurate play from both sides:

13 ... �f5 14.f3 exf3 IS.exf3 dxc4 Or 1 5 . . . Wf7 1 6.c5 ctJa6 1 7.Elacl g5 1 8.ctJf2

Elae8 1 9.Elfe 1 e6 20.Ele3± with a positional edge.

16.bxc4 lbd7 17.g4! ie6 18.dS cxdS 19.ixg7 �xg7 20.cxdS io 21 .f4t

White has a serious initiative, due to the exposed position of Black's king.

B84) 8 ... ctJa6

The main line.


8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

9.1.Wc2!? The most common move has been 9.l2lbd2,

but I prefer the text for a few different reasons. First and foremost, by defending the bishop on b2 White eliminates the typical idea of . . . e7-e5, intending to meet dxe5 with . . . l2lg4 or ... l2ld7. Secondly, it could be useful to preserve the option of developing the knight on c3 in certain positions.

After the text move the big question is whether a timely . . . l2lb4 might prove disruptive. This idea will be dealt with in due course, but for the time being I will provide a brief summary of White's ninth move alternatives.

9.d5 has been tried by some strong players (including no less than Kasparov, although this was back in 1 988), but after 9 . . . c5! Black gets a decent position according to theory.

9.l2lbd2 This has been the most popular move, and is still a reasonable try for an advantage.

9 . . . e5 1 0.dxe5 l2lg4 1 0 . . . l2ld7 1 1 .i.a3! l2lxe5 is a simple transposition.

1 1 .i.a3! A thematic idea in this variation. It is important for White ro prevent the d-pawn from recapturing on e5, as occurred in the following line: 1 1 .1.Wc2 dxe5 1 2.e4 f4 with

counterplay, Belov - Goldin, Moscow 1 992.

1 1 . . .l2lxe5 1 2.gb 1 I believe White should be able to claim a slight edge from this position. One example continued:

1 2 . . . l2lc5?! Black should probably look for an improvement here.

1 3.l2lxe5 1.Wxe5 14.i.b2 Also worthy of consideration was: 1 4.b4!? l2ld7 1 5 .c5 l2lf6 1 6.i.b2 1.We7 1 7.cxd6 �xd6 1 8.�c2;!;

1 4 . . . �e7 1 5 .i.xg7 �xg7 1 6.b4 l2ld7 17.e3 gb8 1 8 .l2lb3 l2lf6 1 9.12la5

White keeps definite pressure, Sasikiran -Babu, Chennai 2000.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Returning to the main line, we will analyse three principal responses: BS41) 9 ... h6, BS42) 9 .. . l2lb4 and BS43) 9 ... gbS.

The other main move is: 9 . . . c6

This usually transposes to a different line. 1 0.l2lbd2

This is obviously the right square for the knight; instead if 1 0.l2lc3?! e5 Black is fine.

1 0 . . . gb8 1 0 . . . h6 1 1 .i.c3 reaches a position from line B84 1 below.


It looks too slow for Black to play 10 . . . id7 l 1 .a3 h6 1 2.e4 ttJxe4 1 3.ttJxe4 fx:e4 1 4.'1Wxe4 if5 1 5 .�e3 �f7 16.ctJh4! and White was better, Strikovic - Hidalgo Santana, El Sauzal 2003.

l l .a3 b5 1 2.l"lac 1 id7 1 3 .b4 We have transposed to line BS43.

B841) 9 . .. h6 l O.ClJbd2 c6

Black can also continue his kingside expansion without delay. 1 0 . . . g5

However, in this case he must reckon with the immediate central strike:

l 1 .e4

1 1 . . .fx:e4 An interesting position appears after 1 1 . . . f4 1 2.e5 (The premature 1 2.gxf4?! ttJh5! promises Black excellent play on the kingside.) 1 2 . . . ttJh5 This was Zagorskis - Manik, Hlohovec 1 994. Now I like 1 3 .ttJel !?N with the idea of preventing the possible . . . g4 followed by . . . f3, while also preparing to meet . . . if5 with ie4. It looks like White keeps some advantage, for example: 1 3 . . . dxe5 ( 1 3 . . . ttJb4 1 4.�dl g4 1 5 .ie4 dxe5 1 6.dxe5 ttJc6 1 7.ttJd3 f3 I S .h3!±) 1 4.dxe5 if5 1 5 .�dl ! This underlines the questionable position of Black's knight. (not so clear is 1 5 .ie4 ttJb4!) 1 5 . . . fx:g3 1 6.fx:g3! l"ldS 17.ic3± Black will have a hard time dealing with the dual threats of I S.g4 and I s .ixb7.

1 2.ttJxe4 �g6 If 1 2 . . . ttJxe4 1 3.�xe4 Black cannot play 1 3 . . . if5 as the b7-pawn will hang. (That is the reason why I consider 1 0 . . . c6 to be the main line!)

1 3 .ttJxf6t �xf6 1 3 . . . l"lxf6?! 1 4.�xg6 l"lxg6 1 5 .l"lfe 1 leads to a favourable position for White, since Black's rook is clearly misplaced on g6.

1 4.l"lael c6 In Bagirov - Gurevich, Helsinki 1 992, Black tried 1 4 . . . if5 1 5 .�d2 l"laeS. Now White should have continued with the typical plan: 1 6.l"le3N e6 1 7.l"lfe 1 c6 I s .ic3± maintaining better chances.

1 5 .l"le3 if5 1 6.�d2 l"lf7 17.l"lfe l l"leS I s .ic3!±

We have been following the game Dreev - Motwani, Berlin 1 99 1 . White has steadily improved his position and is now ready for d4-d5.

After l 1 .a3 g5 1 2.e4 fx:e4 1 3 .ttJxe4 ttJxe4 14.�xe4 if5 1 5 .�e3 Black has the interesting 1 5 . . . ttJc5!? which allowed her to activate her misplaced knight, Minogina - T. Kosintseva, Kolontaevo 1 997.


I l .e4 bce4 12 . .:tJxe4 .:tJxe4 1 3 .'lWxe4 ii.f5 14.'lWe2 (or 14 .�e3 .:tJb4 1 5 . .:tJel e5! with counterplay) 14 . . . g5 1 5 .d5 ii.xb2 1 6.�xb2 c5 was double-edged in Pilaj - De la RivaAguado, Turin 2006.

Black also manages to create counterplay after 1 1 .�ael g5 1 2.e4 .:tJb4! 1 3 .�c3 a5! . Here we can see the drawback of the move �ae l . The a2-pawn is hanging, while in the event of 14.a3 Black has 1 4 . . . .:tJxe4 1 5 . .:tJxe4 bce4 16.�xe4 ii.f5 with counterplay.

1 l .. . g5 12.e4 fxe4 13.ttJxe4 Wfg6 Another line is 1 3 . . . .:tJxe4 14.�xe4 ii.f5

15 .'lWe3 �d7. This position has occurred in a couple of games. Here I found the new idea 16.�ael ! ?N �ae8 1 7.h4. I think it is useful to weaken Black's kingside. 1 7 . . . g4 1 8 . .:tJd2 .:tJc7 (White is also better after 18 . . . d5 1 9.f3!) 1 9.d5 ii.xc3 20.�xc3 e5 2 1 .dxc6 bxc6 22.b4 and White has promising play on the queens ide.

14.ttJxf6t Wfxf6 This position was reached in Koursin -

Gavrikov, Neu Isenburg 1 992. At this point I see nothing wrong with continuing White's usual strategy by means of:

a b c d e f g h

15.�aeIN if5 16.Wfd2 e6 17J�e3! White keeps the better chances.

B842) 9 . . . ttJb4

8 J��.')-jj� 7 1� i 1� 1� � i

6 % . . . . %_ . . · .. %.· . . ·%_'I�� 5 0 "'� '� ".l� � 4 �.!��.�� 3 .� . .

� . . . . . %� ejjwr - . � � V . . . . % 2 8 �V_8 ��

1 ��_ �.jf�"" a b c d e f g h

lO.Wfd2!N It is slightly bizarre that this natural and

strong move should be a novelry. I present my analysis here.

lO ... a5 It looks inadvisable for Black to play 1 0 . . . c5

as after 1 1 ..:tJc3 the moves . . . f5 and . . . c5 do not combine welL

1 1 .ttJc3 c6 1 2.gfe1 ! White intends to carry out the thematic

e2-e4. The idea is standard, bur it is vital to anticipate B lack's rypical reaction as mentioned in the next note.

1 2 . . . id7 It is important to appreciate that Black cannot

play 12 . . . .:tJe4? in view of the forcing line: 13 . .:tJxe4 bce4 14 . .:tJg5 d5 1 5 .a3 .:tJa6 1 6.cxd5 cxd5 17.�xa5 and White wins a pawn.

13.a3 ttJa6 14.e4 fxe4 15.CtJxe4 ttJxe4 16.�xe4 ifS 17.ge2!?

This is justified by some concrete tactical features of the position, although the simple 17.�ee1 also looks quite promising.

17 . . . ig4 18.gael! The point of the previous move.


18 ... e6 The knight on f3 is untouchable: l S . . . .ixf3?

1 9 .1'he7 \WdS 20.l'hg7t! \t>xg7 2 1 .d5t \t>g8 22.\Wd4+-

The same method also works after l S .. J"hf3 1 9 . .ixf3 .ixf3 20Jhe7 \Wf8 2 1 .:gxg7t! \Wxg7 n.d5 when Black is helpless against the threats on the long diagonal.

1 9.\We3 ttJcl 20.h3 ixf3 2 1 .ixf3 White has an obvious positional advantage.

B843) 9 • . . :gb8

This principled move is the most popular continuation. Black hopes to exploit the fact that White plans to develop his knight to d2, by preparing the advance of the b-pawn.

10.ti.Jbd2 This is the most flexible square for the knight.

It can also go to c3 of course, but I do not see any reason to fear the advance of the b-pawn.

his various moves. White should be able to maintain a nice edge with natural moves, for instance:

1 1 .:gad1 .id7 1 2.:gfe 1 It'lb4 1 3.\Wb 1 cxd4 1 4.lt'lxd4 \Wf7

This was seen in Schiffer - Lutz, Groningen 1 995. Here White missed a very nice idea, which was quite understandable as it is not at all obvious. Therefore I recommend that the reader pays close attention to what follows:

" � z �� 8 i:?!1,J'.'�I,J!.f 7 � • • .JL � � 'e W . ' ' ' ' ' ''. �." '''�'fi�� 6 �� ""'''�

z"" '� : ��!rn�� 3 _�

';�

'z""';�

��

� �:W'/ �% "" ��'d'''''�WC0. 2 � � � � 1�j,1� � ""'''Pf1fi'('' ''''% " "z.-" '''w'it " " ��BM�� a b c d e f g h

1 5 .lt'l4f3!N White not only intends It'lg5 followed by e4, but also c4-c5.

1 5 . . . h6 If 1 5 . . . lt'lc6 1 6.lt'lg5 \We8 1 7.e4 White is much better, as his pieces are optimally placed for the opening of the centre.

1 6.c5! This temporary pawn sacrifice underlines Black's poor coordination.

16 . . . dxc5 1 7.lt'le5 \WeS l S.\Wcl lt'la6 1 9.e4! White has fantastic play for the pawn, for instance:

1 9 .. .f4 20.gxf4 lt'lh5 2 l .f5 gxf5 n.lt'lxd7 \Wxd7 23.lt'lc4 \Wc7 24.exf5±

White dominates.

1 1 .a3 c6 Other possibilities:

1 1 . . . c5?! soon leads to trouble for Black: 1 2.dxc5 It'lxc5 1 3.cxb5 \Wxb5 1 4.lt'ld4! \We8


1 5 .b4 lLle6 ( l 5 . . . lLlce4 does not change the assessment: 1 6.lLlc6 lLlxd2 17.�xd2 gb7 18 .gac l ±) 16 .�b3 �f7 17 .lLlc6 gb7 1 8.gae l gc7 19 .gc2 White enjoyed a pleasant advantage due to her strong knight on c6, Cramling - E. Berg, Malmo 200 1 .

1 l . . .!b7 12 .gae l e6 1 3.b4 White slowly improves his position on the queens ide, while Black suffers, due to his badly placed knight on a6. 13 . . . bxc4 14.�xc4 h6 1 5 .lLlb3 �c8 1 6.lLlh4 ixg2 17.lLlxg2 lLld5 This was Sundararajan - Sharma, New Delhi 2007. Now 1 8.ia 1 N would be a useful move that gives White a pleasant game, for instance: 1 8 . . . gb6 1 9.f3 f4 20.lLla5 and White has the better chances.

l l . . .h6 1 2.gael ib7N This looks like the best way for Black to proceed along independent paths. 1 2 . . . c6 13 .lLle l ! reaches the note to Black's 1 2th move in the main line below. 12 . . . c5?! is the only move to have been played, but it looks too risky to open the queenside. 1 3.dxc5 lLlxc5 14.cxb5 gxb5 1 5 .lLld4 gb6 1 6.lLlc4 ga6? ( l 6 . . . gb8 was essential, although even here 17.lLla5 leaves Black struggling against the imminent knight invasion on c6.) 1 7.b4 lLla4?! (Relatively best was 17 . . . lLle6 although 1 8.lLlxe6!xe6 19.!b7 wins an exchange for very little.) 1 8 .b5 1-0 Kulczycki - Vieira, Internet 2005 .

13.b4 lLle4 14.lLle l ! lLlxd2 Or 14 . . . bxc4 1 5 .lLlxc4 followed by lLld3 and f3 .

1 5 .�xd2 bxc4 1 6.gxc4 �b5 17.gc2 e6 18 .ixb7 gxb7 19.1Lld3

White has better prospects, since Black somehow fails to solve the problem of his misplaced knight. Here is an illustrative line:

19 . . . g5 20.gfe l �d5 2 1 .a4! ixd4 22.!xd4 �xd4 23.b5 lLlc5

Or 23 . . . lLlb8 24.gxc7 ± 24.lLlxc5 dxc5 25 .�xd4 cxd4 26.gxc7

The rook endgame is difficult for Black.

12.gacl White can also start with 1 2.b4, which is

likely to transpose after 1 2 . . . lLlc7 1 3 .gael !d7 14.cxb5!.

12 ... id7 A logical follow-up, although Black can also

try 12 . . . h6. White carried out a nice manoeuvre in the following encounter: 1 3 .lLle l ! g5 14.lLld3 A perfect square for White's knight, where it not only controls several important central squares, but also clears the diagonal for the light-squared bishop. 14 . . . id7 1 5 .e3t White achieved better prospects in Crarnling Movsziszian, Vila Real 200 1 .

13.b4 lLlc7

8 �� "iW��*� '%,,, . ,,V-,, N/-< %%�.{if"" ,v-��f�� 7 � �..t.�� m i """"� /,,,.,,, , ,,-.,%� 6 ��

"�

" .� � 5 �� .�R�R� 4 �� 8 �� _ R 3 �""%.""%R�O % ., ," .�.� %"'N/-< �W'�"" ·W·� 2 �iY� 8 ��1L�� 1 .n.n%�_nnn.i=""

a b c d e f g h

14.cxb5! An important moment. White exploits the

fact that Black cannot recapture with the c6-pawn, which will now remain a long-term target.

14 ... gxb5 White IS also better after: 1 4 . . . lLlxb5

1 5 .lLlb3t

15.lLIb3 lLIcd5


Black is partially compensated by his control over the central light squares, but White's chances remain preferable.

16.e3 'tJe4 Somewhat stronger was 1 6 . . . Wb8 although

even here White maintains pressure after 1 7.'tJfd2 1'!c8 1 8.1'!fe l . The next step in improving the position will either be i.g2-fl or f2-f3 followed by e3-e4.

17.'tJfd2! It is useful for White to exchange a pair of

knights.

17 ... 'tJxd2 18JWxd2 'Wf7 19.'tJaS 1'!c8 20.1'!c2

White's play is straightforward and easy to understand. At the same time, and most importantly, it is also highly effective.

20 ... 1'!b6 2 1 .1'!fc1 �f8 22.'Wd3 e6 We have been following the game Ruck -

Pflug, Austria 2004. At this point I like the following idea:

23.f3N± I believe that this move, followed up with

e3-e4, would pose serious problems for the defence and thus be the most accurate.

To be fair, I should add that White was also clearly better in the game and went on to win in nice style.

Conclusion:

The system with an early b3 and i.b2 is less popular than the official main line involving c4 and lLlc3, but it brings certain advantages, the main one being flexibility. It is especially useful to preserve the option of developing the queen's knight on either c3 or d2, only making a final decision once the opponent's intentions have been revealed. Later White can aim for the standard e2-e4 break, although depending on the circumstances he might also elect to keep the centre closed and instead focus his attention on the queenside. The black position is playable and contains plenty of resources, but in general it seems to me that White's chances are higher.

A) 2 . . . f5 3.h4! AI) 3 . . . i.g7 A2) 3 . . . lLlf6

B) 2 . . . i.g7

A) after 2 . . . f5

a b c d e f g h

3.h4!

Dutch Defence

St Petersburg Variation

Variation Index l .d4 g6

2.c4

A I ) note to 4 . . . c5

a b c d e f g h

8.dxe5!N

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

B) after I 5 . . . bxc6

290 290 291 292

a b c d e f g h

I 6.e4!N


l .d4 g6 2.c4 In this chapter we shall consider two lines

where Black uses the Modern move order to reach a Dutch. We must be careful to avoid being tricked into a line of the Leningrad Dutch that is not part of our repertoire. As Black is toying with a "modern" version of the Leningrad, the name St Petersburg Dutch seems appropriate.

The lines we shall look at are A) 2 ... fS and B) 2 ... il.g7 3.ttJf3 f5.

A) 2 ... £5

Black heads directly for the Leningrad System of the Dutch. It is important to know that here we have a strong punch that foils Black's plans:

a b c d e f g h

3.h4! Black will not be allowed an easy life on his

way to the Dutch. The subtle plan is h4-hS. The split now depends on which kingside piece Black decides to develop first: AI) 3 . . . il.g7 or A2) 3 . .. 11Jf6.

AI) 3 .. . il.g7 4.hS cS

Black's only chance is to search for counterplay on the long diagonal. Normal development would not work here. For example:

4 . . . dG S .tLlf3 tLlcG G.tLlc3 eS 7.il.gS Wfd7

8

7

6

5

3

2

a b c d e f g h This is Zsinka - Danner, Oberwart 2000, and now White has a strong possibility:

8 .dxeS!N tLlxeS Worse is 8 . . . dxeS 9.tLlbS! (threatening 1 O.Wi'xd7t <;t>xd7 I l .0-0-0t) 9 . . . Wff7 I0 .WdS! and Black cannot avoid losing material.

9. tLlxeS �xeS Once again the pawn recapture 9 . . . dxeS runs into 1 O .tLlbS! . Now I examined the following line: 1 0 . . . aG 1 1 .Wi'xdlt <;t>xd7 I 2.E1dI t <;t>cG I 3.hxgG! axbS (instead I 3 . . . hxg6 loses instantly to I 4.E1xh8 �xh8 I S .E1d8!} I 4.cxbSt <;t>xbS I S .E1xh7 E1xh7 1 G.gxh7 �eG (if I G . . . tLlfG then I 7 .�hG!) I 7.e4t <;t>c6 I 8.hxg8=Wf E1xg8 I 9.exfS �xfS 20.�c4 White's position is technically winning, due to his extra pawn.

10 .hxgG hxgG 1 l .E1xh8 �xh8 I 2.Wfd2 Black's position looks very shaky with his

king on e8.

S.dS WfaSt T here is not a lot of sense in S . . . WfbG as White

is clearly better after G.tLlc3. For example: G . . . gS 7.Wi'c2 Wi'fG 8.e4 dG Conquest - E. Berg, Saint Vincent 2000, and now the natural 9.exfSN �xfS 1 0.�d3 �xd3 I l .Wfxd3 tLld7 I 2 .tLlge2 tLleS I 3 .Wc2 would have given White a clear advantage.

Chapter 1 8 - St Petersburg Variation 291

The most natural reaction, but also worthy of consideration is the new 6.ttJc3N, since after 6 . . . txc3t 7.bxc3 'W'xc3t 8.td2 'W'g7 9.CtJf3 White has powerful compensation for the missing pawn.

6 ... 'W'b6 7.ttJc3 tLla6 More challenging was 7 . . . 'W'xb2, but at the

same time it is pretty dangerous, since after 8.l"lh3! 'W'b6 9.l"lbl 'W'dS 1 0.d6 exd6 1 1 .ttJb5 White builds up a powerful initiative.

The position after the text move was reached in Lieder - Bruhn, Travemuende 2004, and now White has a simple yet strong move:

8 . . . tLlf6 It is still dangerous to grab the b-pawn:

8 . . . 'W'xb2 9.l"lb1 'W'a3 1 0.l"lb3 'W'a5 1 1 .d6! White has the initiative.

9.h6 tfS lO.ttJa4 \Wd8 1 l .tc3 d6 12.ttJg5 Black's position looks extremely dubious.

A2) 3 ... ttJf6

Despite initial appearances, this does not stop White's plan:

4.h5

4 . . . gxh5 5 .ttJc3 tg7 6.tg5 0-0 7.CtJh3 ttJc6 This is Khismatullin - Golubenko, St Petersburg 2004, and now the straightforward 8.e3N d6 9.ttJf4± would secure White a clear advantage.

4 . . . ttJxh5 This is the most critical move, but White whips up an initiative with a thematic exchange sacrifice:

5 .l"lxh5 gxh5 6.e4 tg7 Not much would be changed by: 6 . . . d6 7.'W'xh5t �d7 S.'W'xf5t e6 9.'W'h3 White is clearly better, as the following l ine i l lustrates: 9 . . . c6 1 0.ttJf3 cJJc7 1 1 .ttJc3 e5 1 2.'W'g3 ttJd7 This is S. Atalik - Skembris, Kastoria 1 996, and here White could have struck with: 1 3 .c5!N It is hard to believe Black can hold. The following line is quite typical: 1 3 . . . 'W'f6 14 .tg5 'W'e6 1 5 .0-0-0 l"lg8 1 6.cxd6t txd6 1 7.dxe5 ttJxe5 l S.l"lxd6! With a winning attack.

7.'W'xh5t �fS S.'W'xf5t cJJgS 9.ttJf3 d6 1 0.'W'h5 ttJc6 1 1 .te3 td7 1 2.ttJc3 te8


So far this is Obsivac-Civin, Olomouc 1 995, and now there is an obvious improvement:

a b c d e f g h 1 3.�h3!N eS 1 4.dxeS lLlxeS l S .lLlh4±

White's compensation is more than sufficient.

5.h6 A continuation that IS as strong as it is

tempting.

5 ... ifS 6.lik3 d6 7.ig5 I also like the following line: 7.lLlf3 e6

8.�c2!?N fie7 9.e4 0-0 (9 . . . fxe4 is very dangerous for Black after 1 0.lLlxe4 lLlc6 1 1 .lLlegS! and Black cannot even castle: l 1 . . .0-0? Due to l 2.lLlxh7! with a winning attack.) 1 0.exfS exfS l 1 .fie2 lLlc6 1 2.0-0 White retains a comfortable advantage, since Black's king cannot feel safe with a white pawn on h6.

7 ... e6 This position has occurred five times in

practice, but White has yet to choose the following natural try:

8.ctJf:3!?N ie7 9.g3 White has a comfortable plus after:

9 ... 0-0 10.ig2 ctJg4 1 1 .fixe7 'ifflxe7 12.'iffld2�

He can continue either with lLlgS followed by f2-f3 and e2-e4, or even �gS.

B) 2 ... ig7 3.ctJf:3 f5

a b c d e f g h

Because we have already played c2-c4, a direct transposition to the Dutch will create some differences compared to my recommended anti-Dutch system. You might think this move order is too rare to be important, but you would be wrong. Tricky guys such as Mikhail Gurevich play like this with Black, and so might your opponent!

In this section I want to examine some lines where there are differences compared with the main anti-Dutch system I recommend for White.

Another move order that heads the same way is 3 . . . d6 4.g3 fS S .fig2 lLlf6.

4.g3 ctJf6 5.ig2 0-0 Attempting to carry out . . . e7 -eS without

castling would not cause White any problems: S . . . d6 6.b3 eS

If 6 . . . 0-0 7.fib2 and we get the main line. 7.dxeS lLlg4

If 7 . . . dxeS then 8 .�xd8t Wxd8 and the exposed black king gifts White many tempos. For example: 9.fib2 (certainly not 9.lLlxeS? lLlfd7!) 9 . . . e4 This is Ruiz - Foygel, USA 1997, and here I developed a new and natural line for White: 1 O.lLlgSN We7 1 1 .lLlc3 c6 Black has to cover the bS- and

Chapter 1 8 - St Petersburg Variation 293

d5-squares. 1 2.0-0-0 Next White will play f2-f3, breaking up the black pawn chain, when his lead in development starts to tell. For instance: 1 2 . . . h6 1 3 .tiJh3 tiJa6 1 4.f3 exf3 1 5 .exf3 �f7 1 6.�he1 tiJc5 17.ia3 if8 18 .�b2! White has definite pressure.

8.ib2 tiJxe5 8 . . . 0-0 would transpose to the 7 . . . e5-line that is considered briefly below.

9.tiJc3 White has the more desirable pawn structure. The following line is j ust one more example that shows Black's structure is quite unpleasant:

9 . . . tiJxf3t 1 0.ixf3 tiJc6 1 1 .W'd2 0-0 Here in the game Smejkal - Biolek, Czech Republic 1 994, White could have tried an aggressive line:

a b c d e f g h 1 2.id5t!?N �h8 1 3.h4

With the obvious idea of advancing the h-pawn further.

13 . . . h6 13 . . . h5 allows 14.tiJe4!? tiJe5 1 5 .tiJg5 with an initiative.

14.0-0-0 White's position looks very promising to

me.

6.b3 d6 I did not find any difference if Black reacts

with an early 6 . . . c5 , as after 7.ib2 tiJe4 8.0-0 liJc6 9.e3 the play will eventually transpose to

a position that was examined in the 6 . . . c5-line in the previous chapter.

7.ib2 After thematic moves such as 7 . . . c6 or

7 . . . W'e8, White responds with 8 .0-0 and the play transposes to the previous chapter, but there are several possibilities where we reach a slightly different position because of our early c2-c4.

7 . . . e5 8 .dxe5 tiJg4 9.tiJc3 tiJxe5 (Recapturing with the pawn does not work out well for Black: 9 . . . dxe5 1 0.h3 e4 l 1 .W'xd8 �xd8 1 2.hxg4 exf3 1 3 .ixf3± This is Tukmakov -Tseitlin, Odessa 1 976. The point is that after 1 3 . . . fxg4 14.id5t �h8 1 5 .0-0-0 Black is in big trouble.) 1 0.W'd2 White achieves the better pawn structure, which promises him lasting pressure.

7 . . . tiJc6 This allows 8.d5. I do not see any reason Black should provoke d4-d5, which is often a thematic move for White in this line. Let's see one typical example: 8 . . . tiJb8 9.liJd4!? Preventing the advance of the c-pawn. 9 ... a5 1 0.tiJc3 tiJa6 1 1 .0-0 CLlc5 12 .e3 tiJg4 1 3."'&c2


.id7 14J�adl tDe5 1 5 .h3 �cS 1 6.Wh2 c6 This is Archangelsky - Henson, Montreal 1 995, and now after the natural 1 7 .f4N tDf7 I S.�fe 1 White would prepare the thematic e3-e4, retaining clearly the better chances.

8.0-0 I also examined S 'tDbd2 tDc6 and I tried to

make it work for White: 9'tDxe4 fXe4 l O'tDg5 Unfortunately, after 1 0 . . . e5 I l .tDxe4 exd4 12.0-0 .if5 Black is doing fine.

After S.tDc3 tDc6 we cannot ptofit from this move order and should simply play 9.0-0, transposing to the main line.

8 . . . tDc6 I think S" 'tDd7 is not so relevant, as we

could have started with S.tDc3 when Black has to play S" 'tDc6, since S . . . tDd7 is impossible in view of9.tDxe4 fXe4 1 0.tDg5 winning a pawn.

9.tDc3 After 9'tDbd2 tDxd2 1 0.�xd2 e5 I l .dxe5

dxe5 1 2.�d5t WhS 1 3 .�xdS �xdS 14.tDg5 �d2 1 5 . .ic3 �c2! Black is doing fine according to theory.

9 . . • tDxc3 10 . .ixc3

Now we have reached an important crossroads for Black.

10 . .. eS The alternative is:

1 0 . . . �eS I l .b4! In my opinion this is the only chance to fight for an advantage. Black is alright after I I .e4 f4! 1 2.e5 .ig4.

1 1 . . .e5 1 1 . . .e6 is too passive, as was shown in the following recent example: 1 2.�b3 tDdS 1 3 .�fel h6 1 4.e4 f4 1 5 .e5 g5 1 6.d5 And White was clearly better in Dreev - Knudsen, Helsingor 2009.

1 2.dxe5 We would be heading for the same position after 1 2.b5 tDdS. Black should accept this as 1 2 . . . tDxd4 1 3 .tDxd4 exd4 1 4 . .ixd4 .ixd4 1 5 .�xd4;l; leads to a pawn structure that favours White, Paunovic - Fernandez Siles, La Roda 200S.

1 2 . . . dxe5 If 1 2 . . . tDxe5 1 3.�c1;j; and again White has the desired pawn structure.

1 3 .b5 tDdS

a b c d e f g h 1 4.e4!?N

I think this is an important novelty. Both games that reached this position saw Black easily solve his opening problems by advancing his pawn to e4. After the novelty my brief analysis runs as follows:

1 4 .. .f4 The alternative is 1 4 . . . fXe4, but after 1 5 .�d5t tDf7 (or 1 5 . . . .ie6 1 6.�xe4 .if5

Chapter I S - St Petersburg Variation 295

1 7.'We3±) 1 6.tZJd2 White is clearly on top with his better pawn structure.

1 5.gxf4! Otherwise I found that it is hard to fight for the advantage.

1 5".exf4 The main point is that Black cannot recapture with his rook on f4: 1 5" .l"i:xf4 1 6.�xe5! �xe5 17.tDxe5± And Black's knight is hanging on dS.

16.e5 Black has a reliable position after 1 6.�xg7 �xg7 1 7.'Wd4t �gB, but after the text move White retains the better chances.

1 6".'We7 1 7.l"i:e l t

1 1 .dxe5 dxe5 After 1 1 . . .'WeB 1 2.b4 the play would

transpose to the 10" .'WeB-line.

12 ... \tJh8 Certainly 12" .'Wxd5? is a serious mistake.

After 1 3.cxd5 tDd4 1 4.�xd4 exd4 1 5 .l"i:ac l ! White quickly achieved a decisive advantage in the following encounter: 1 5 " .l"i:dB 1 6.l"i:xc7 Ei:xd5 1 7.tDg5 l"i:d6 1 B.l"i:fc l +- Lakunza Oyarbide - Suarez Roa, Elgoibar 1 992.

13.Wfxd8 gxd8 14.ltJg5 ge8 The alternative is obviously inferior: 1 4" .l"i:fB

1 5 .�xc6 bxc6 And here I l ike 1 6 .l"i:fd 1 with the following nice idea: 1 6 . . . e4 17 .tDf7t! �gB 1 B.�xg7 l"i:xf7 (instead 1 S" .\tJxg7 1 9 .tDe5 l"i:f6 20.f4! is also strategically difficult for Black) 1 9 .�e5 Despite the opposite-coloured bishops, White was clearly better in Groszpeter - Videki, Kecskemet 1 9BB .

15.ixc6 bxc6 16.e4!N

This is a completely new plan in this position. The problem was that after both 1 6.gad1 a5 and 16.l"i:fd 1 �gS I fail to see how to pose Black any serious problems.

16 • . . h6 I also examined 1 6" .�gB 1 7.exf5 gxf5

1 B .l"i:fe 1 e4 1 9 .�xg7 �xg7 20.f3 when White retains a good edge, due to Black's damaged pawn structure and the superiority of the white knight over the black bishop.

17.ltJf3 fxe4 After analysing 1 7" .a5 1 B .l"i:fe l f4 I

recommend 19 .a4 (instead 1 9.ged1 a4 20.tDe1 g5 2 1 .�g2 might be a worthy alternative) 19" .g5 20.l"i:ed1 when Black is doomed to a passive defence.


18.liJd2 e3 1 9.fxe3 e4 This seems to be the critical test.

2o.ixg7t The tempting 20.tUxe4?! does not work

in view of 2o . . . ih3! 2 1 .Elf7 ixc3 22.tUxc3 Elxe3 23.Elc1 Elae8 24.<;t>f2 El3e6 and Black's counterplay is enough for a draw.

20 ... @xg7 21 .Elf4 if5 22.Elafl White's advantage is miserably small after

22.g4 Elad8 23.tUfl ic8 24.tUg3 Eld3 25.Elel Eld2! 26.Elefl Ele7 27.Elxe4 Elxe4 28 .ltJxe4 Elxa2 29.h3 Ela3! .

22 ... Elad8 23.Ellf2 White's intension is to play 24.g4. I do not

see how Black can equalize here, as somehow White keeps an edge everywhere. For example:

23 ... h5

a b c d e f g h

24.h3! Ele5 Another line is 24 . . . ixh3 25 .Elf7t �h6

26.Elxc7 Eld3 27.�h2 ig4 28.tUfl !;!; and one of the black pawns on the queens ide will fall .

25.g4 hxg4 26.hxg4 ie6 27Jhe4 Elxe4 28.liJxe4 ixg4 29.liJc5 Ele8 30.Elg2 ic8 3 1 .@f2 @f6 32.@f3�

Despite the l imited material, Black will suffer for the rest of the game, due to his damaged pawn structure.

Conclusion:

The lines covered in this chapter can be tricky for the unwary. White must watch out for transpositions to the Dutch that land outside our repertoire, so the lines given above should be a reliable guide.

More specifically, after 1 .d4 g6 2.c4 f5 we can cause Black problems with 3.h4!. The other line is l .d4 g6 2.c4 ig7 3.tUf3 f5 when the play is less dramatic - our usual kings ide fianchetto leads to lines similar to our regular anti-Dutch lines. In both cases White should retain an edge.

Griinfeld Defence a b c d e f g h

Dynamic Variation

Variation Index l .d4 ttJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 j,g7 4.j,g2 d5

5.cxd5 ttJxd5 6.ttJf3 A) 6 ... c5 298 B) 6 ... 0-0 7.0-0 299

Bl) 7 ... ttJc6 300 B2) 7 ... c6 302 B3) 7 ... ttJa6 8.ttJc3 303

B3l) 8 ... ttJxc3 304 B32) 8 ... j,e6 304 B33) 8 ... ttJb6 305 B34) 8 ... c5 306

B4) 7 ... c5 8.e4 308 B41) 8 ... ttJb6 308 B42) 8 ... ttJf6 9.e5 ttJd5 10.dxc5 31 1

C) 6 ... ttJb6 7.ttJc3 ttJc6 8.e3 315 Cl ) 8 ... e5 9.d5 315

Cl l) 9 ... ttJe7 10.e4 j,g4 l 1.h3 j,xf3 12:�xf3 c6 13.0-0 315 C12) 9 ... ttJb4 10.e4 c6 1 1 .a3 ttJa6 12.0-0 cxd5 13.ttJxd5!?N 319

C121) 13 ... 0-0 320 C13) 9 ... ttJa5 10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .e4 c6 12.j,g5 f6 13.j,e3 321

C2) 8 ... 0-0 9.0-0 325 C21) 9 ... e5 326 C22) 9 ... a5 328 C23) 9 .. J�e8 lOJ�el!? 328

298 The Grilnfeld Defence

l .d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 �g7 4.�g2 dS

a c e f g h

This variation is more dynamic than the lines where Black plays . . . c6 before pushing the d-pawn. If White continues his development with 5.lLlf3 , Black will take on c4, either immediately, or after both players castle. This is an absolutely respectable main line, however, I chose to confront the beast head on and follow the line leading to more thematic Grunfeld play.

S.cxdS tiJxdS 6.llJf3 My first intention was to recommend the

6.e4 line, but after serious investigation I came to the conclusion that Black is doing fine in the main variation beginning with 6.e4 lLlb6 7.lLle2 c5 8.d5 e6 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.lLlbc3 lLla6.

After the more restrained knight move, we come to the basic starting position of the present chapter. Black has several options: A) 6 .. . cS, B) 6 . .. 0-0 and C) 6 ... llJb6. The latter is widely considered to be the most accurate, for reasons that wil l be explained later.

I should mention that 6 . . . lLlc6 has little independent value after 7.lLlc3, when 7 . . . 0-0 8 .0-0 and 7 . . . lLlb6 8 .e3 both lead to positions examined below. However, it is worth noting that 7.0-0? ! would be a slight inaccuracy.

a b c d e f g h

The point is revealed after 7 . . . lLlb6! 8 .e3 e5 when Black has achieved a better version of the main line, which enables him to claim full equality.

A) 6 .. . cS

It is important to be aware of some potentially significant differences between this line and 6 . . . 0-0 7.0-0 c5. The details will become apparent in due course.

7.e4 tiJf6 We should also pay attention to:

7 . . . lLlb6 This is likely to transpose to line B4 1 with 6 . . . 0-0 7.0-0 c5, after the almost inevitable short castling by both sides.

8 .d5 e6 9 .0-0 exd5 9 . . . 0-0 reaches line B4 l .

1 0.exd5

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 9 - Dynamic Variation 299

1 0 . . . W!xd5?! This is an independent line, but it is clearly misguided. Even worse is 1 0 . . . 4Jxd5? 1 l .4Jg5! �d4 1 2.W!b3 when Black is in serious trouble. Correct is 1 0 . . . 0-0, transposing to B4 l .

l l .!'Ie l t �e6 1 1 . . .�f8 is no better. White plays 1 2.W!e2 W!d8 1 3.�g5 f6 1 4.�f4 followed by 4Jc3 and !'lad 1 . It is hard to imagine Black surviving beyond the next ten moves.

1 2.W!xd5 The queen exchange does not diminish White's initiative in the slightest.

12 . . . 4Jxd5 1 3.4Jg5 0-0 1 4.!'Ixe6! The strongest. 14 .4Jxe6 fxe6 1 5.!'Ixe6 is also enough for an advantage, but it is less substantial.

14 . . . fxe6 1 5 .4Jxe6 !'If5 The only move.

1 6.4Jxg7 �xg7 1 7.4Jc3 The point of White's combination.

1 7 . . . 4Jxc3 1 8 .�xb7 White emerges with a healthy extra pawn

and a technically winning endgame.

8.dS! This strong move would be impossible in

the analogous position with both sides having castled, as the pawn on e4 would be hanging, whereas here it is untouchable due to the queen check on a4. This small nuance allows White to achieve an optimal set-up.

8 ... W!aSt!? Black understandably attempts to complicate

matters. The standard 8 . . . 0-0 does not equalize after 9.4Jc3 e6 1 0.0-0 (In Ujtelky - Paoli, Trencianske Teplice 1949, White misplaced his bishop with 1 0.ie3?!, after which Black could have obtained a nice position with 1 0 . . . exd5N l 1 .exd5 b6.) 1 0 . . . exd5 l 1 .exd5 !'Ie8 At this point the game Jensen -Yssing, Denmark 1 999, was prematurely agreed drawn, but after

1 2.�f4N White has an improved version of the typical positions involving a passed d-pawn (compare, for example, line B4 1 ) .

9 ... W!a6 This is less effective in the present position,

but Black's situation was already becoming difficult. 9 . . . 0-0 might be relatively best, although after 1 0.0-0 e6 1 l .4Jc3 the queen is obviously misplaced on a5.

1O.�fl W!aS 1 1 .4Jc3 0-0 12.ttJc4 White is clearly better, for instance:

12 ... \Wa6 13.eS ttJfd7 14.f4 ttJb6 IS.ttJe3 \WaS 16.id2±

B) 6 ... 0-0 7.0-0

Here Black's most popular choice is 7 . . . 4Jb6, leading after 8 .4Jc3 4Jc6 to line C. Nevertheless the following alternatives all deserve attention: Bl) 7 ... ttJc6, B2) 7 ... c6, B3) 7 ... ttJa6 and B4) 7 ... cS.

300 The Griinfeld Defence

Bl) 7 ... lLlc6

a b c d e f g h

I recommend meeting this tricky move with:

8.llJc3 B.e4 ttJb6 9.d5 ttJa5 leads to a major

theoretical variation, which in my opinion does not ptomise White any advantage.

8 ... lLlxc3 B . . . ttJb6 9.e3 transposes to line C.

The other option is B . . . ie6, when play continues 9.e4 ttJxc3 1 0.bxc3 ic4 1 1 .�e l . Here Black has two main moves:

a) 1 l . . .e5 is met Strongly by 1 2.d5 ttJe7 (Black cannot play 1 2 . . . ttJa5 in view of 1 3.ia3 l"i:eB 14 .ib4! with a clear advantage.) 1 3.ttJd2 ia6:

a b c d e f g h

Now in Itkis - Pasarelu, Bucharest 1 992, White continued with 14 .c4, which is quite alright, but I would prefer not to allow Black the opportunity to regroup with 1 4 . . . c5N followed by . . . ttJcB-d6.

Therefore I instead recommend 14.ia3!N and only then following up with c3-c4. If Black stubbornly tries to prepare . . . c5 with 14 . . . b6, then it looks good to play 1 5 .�a4 icB 16.ttJc4 id7 1 7.�b3 when Black will find it hard to carry out . . . c7-c5. Overall White has a nice edge after 14 .ia3.

b) 1 1 . . . ttJa5 1 2.if4!? c5 Van den Cruyce -Blok, e-mail 2006. Now I suggest:

a b c d e f g h 1 3.ie5!N f6 1 4.if4 White should be better with Black's dark-squared bishop at least temporarily blocked by its own team-mate.

9.bxc3 e5 This is quite a sound system for Black.

10.e3 Fortifying the d4-pawn is the most popular

and best continuation. In case of an exchange on d4, White will almost always recapture with the c-pawn. Should this happen he will have the makings of a long-term positional advantage, based on his strong central foundation and pressure against Black's queenside.

Chapter 1 9 - Dynamic Variation 30 1

1 0 . . . :B:b8 is likely to transpose to the main line after 1 1 .�a3 :B:e8 1 2.lLld2 �e6.

1 0 . . . :B:e8 This is a flexible move, defending against the �a3 idea in advance.

1 1 .�a3 It is too early for White to relinquish the pressure on the e5-pawn. For instance, I investigated the following line: I l .lLld2N lLla5 12.�a3 �e6 1 3.�a4 c6, when Black has a pretty normal position. He relies on the variation: 14 .�b4 lLlc4 1 5 .lLlxc4 �xc4 1 6.�a5 b5! 17 .�xc4 �xa5 1 8 .�b3 (also 1 8 .�xc6 :B:ac8 seems equal) 1 8 . . . :B:ac8 1 9.a4 exd4 20.cxd4 b4, with equality.

1 l . . .�f5 After 1 1 . . . �e6 12.lLld2 we reach the main line.

1 2 .�b3 �d3?! This is the wrong idea. Better was 12 . . . :B:b8, even though 1 3 .:B:fdU maintains White's edge.

1 3.:B:fdl e4 We have been following the game S.B. Jensen - Lindinger, Hamburg 1 999. Here White missed a very nice idea:

a b c d e f g h

14.:B:xd3!N exd3 14 . . . exf3 is best met by 1 5 .�h I ! ( 1 5 .�xf3 lLle5 allows Black counterplay) 1 5 . . . lLla5 16 .�d l , and the f3-pawn is falling.

1 5 .�xb7 �d7 1 6.�a6 White also picks up the d3-pawn. With two

pawns for the exchange plus a powerful pair of bishops, his advantage is undisputable.

l 1 .ia3 :B:e8 12.ltJd2 Also quite interesting is the unexpected

12.lLlxe5!?N. After the more or less forced sequence: 1 2 . . . lLlxe5 1 3 .dxe5 �xe5 14 .�xb7 :B:b8 1 5 .�c6 �h3 1 6.�xe8 �xe8 1 7.�d5 �xc3 18 .:B:ac l �xfl 1 9.�xfl White enjoys a small but stable plus.

12 ... :B:b8 13.Wfc2 This is the best square for the queen; it

protects the a2-pawn and frees the queen's rook.

13 ... exd4 Black releases the tension in the centre in

order to prepare . . . �d5, as the immediate 1 3 . . . �d5?? loses a piece to 14.e4.

14.cxd4 idS IS.:B:fdl A good prophylactic move, preventing

tactical ideas connected with a piece sacrifice on d4.

Is ... ixg2 16.Wxg2 WfdSt

302 The Grunfeld Defence

a b c d e f g h

I7.li.Jf3 Ei:bd8 I8.Ei:abl Ei:d7 I9.Ei:dcU Thanks to the pressure on the queenside

White achieved a pleasant advantage in Csom - Okhotnik, Hungary 2002.

It is important to mention that 1 9 ... ixd4?! does not work: 20.Ei:d l tUe5 2 1 .e4 Wc6 22.tUxd4 Ei:xd4 23.Wxc6 tUxc6 24.Ei:xd4 tUxd4 25 .Ei:xb7 !'i:xe4 26.!'i:xa7± and the endgame is very difficult for Black.

B2) 7 . . . c6

This move is playable but rather passive. Black makes no attempt to fight for the centre, and White comfortably continues:

8.e4 li.Jb6 9.h3!

a b c d e f g h

It is important to prevent . . . ig4.

9 ... tU8d7 Another possible plan is:

9 ... tUa6 1 0.tUc3 ie6 Now I like the following idea:

I l .a4!? h6 Black has also tried 1 1 . . .Wd7, when the following encounter provides a good illustration of White's ideas: 1 2.a5 tUc4?! (After 1 2 . . . tUc8 1 3.<.t>h2 tUd6 14.if4 Ei:fd8 1 5 .!'i:el;!; White has the better chances, but this was the lesser evil for Black.) 1 3.e5! Suddenly Black's knight on c4 is in danger of being trapped in the middle of the board. 1 3 . . . b6 (Obviously Black cannot play 1 3 . . . ixh3? in view of 14 .b3 when the knight is lost.) 1 4.axb6 axb6 1 5 .tUg5 White successfully develops h is initiative. 1 5 . . . tUc7 16.!'i:xa8!'i:xa8 1 7.tUxe6tUxe6 1 8.b3tUa5 Until now we have been following Mastrovasilis -Panagiotopoulos, Thessaloniki 2004. Here I found a strong improvement: 1 9.ie3!N White is threatening 20.d5, and 1 9 . . . tUc7 runs into 20.b4 tUc4 2 1 .b5±, when Black faces serious problems.

a b c d e f g h 1 2.tUe2!N

This move is stronger than 1 2.a5 tUc4 1 3:�9a4 Wc8 1 4.b3 b5! 1 5 .axb6 axb6 when White's misplaced queen enabled Black to count on a good game, Thorhallsson - Gretarsson, Iceland 1 993.


Now I examined the following line: 1 2 . . . ic4

Otherwise lLlf4 might be annoying. 1 3.b3 ixe2 1 4.�xe2 c5 1 5 .a5 lLld7 16J�d 1 �c8 1 7.e5!

White has a serious initiative.

10.tiJc3 eS Otherwise Black gets a very passive position

without any real counterplay, for instance 1 0 . . . lLlf6 1 1 .b3 h6 1 2.ie3 when White has achieved his optimal set-up and keeps an obvious edge, Kursova - Bannikova, Novokuznetsk 2007.

l 1 .igS

1 1 . . . f6 1 2.ie3 �e7 has occurred three times. Here I suggest the improvement 1 3.�b3t!N Wh8 1 4.d5 cxd5 1 5 .exd5 when the passed d-pawn secures White's advantage.

1 1 . . . �c7 1 2.�c 1 1 2.d5 is also promising.

1 2 . . . exd4 1 3 .lLlb5! The point of White's previous move.

1 3 . . . �b8 1 4.lLlbxd4 lLle5 1 5 .if4 �d6? This tactical oversight occurred in Turova -

Marinina, Samara 2003. Certainly better was 1 5 . . . �e8, but White keeps a pleasant edge after 1 6.�c2 �d6 1 7.lLlxe5 ixe5 1 8.ixe5 �xe5 1 9.�cd l followed by f4.

1 6.lLlxc6!N In the game White missed this simple tactic.

1 6 . . . �xd l 1 7.lLle7t �h8 1 8 .�fxdl lLlxf3t 1 9.ixf3 ixh3 20.�c7±

a b c d e f g h In this position I found a new idea.

12.b3!?N A good positional move, restricting the

knight on b6.

The following line looks logical, but does not give much: 1 2.d5 h6! 1 3.ie3 cxd5 1 4.lLlxd5 lLlxd5 1 5 .�xd5 lLlf6 1 6.�xe5 lLlxe4 with equality, Baburin - Enders, Germany 2000.

12 ... exd4 13.tiJxd4 ttJcS l4J�kl id7 1S.'\Wd2 '\WeS 16.i.e3 gad8 17.f4 '\We7 18.gfdl

White maintains a pleasant edge, thanks to his central superiority.

B3) 7 ... ttJa6 8.ttJc3

In my opinion this is the most promlslOg direction for White. The popular alternative


is 8 .e4 tLlb6 9.tLlc3 ig4 1 0.d5, but Black is White has fantastic compensation, for doing fine after 1 0 . . . Wd7. instance:

B31) 8 ... lbxc3 9.bxc3 cS

The position resembles a normal Grlinfeld, except mat Black suffers from a misplaced knight on a6.

lO.gbl White's pressure is deceptively strong. We

will look at one principled reaction.

10 ... WaS This was played in Ptacek - Pataridis, Czech

Republic 1 996. Here I found an attractive new idea.

I I .if4!?N It turns out that White is under no obligation

to defend his pawns. Instead he continues to combine development and centralization.

1 1 . .. Wxa2 The other pawn is untouchable: 1 1 . . .Wxc3?

1 2.Wa4! and mere is no good defence against gfc1 .

12 ... We6 13.dS Wd7 14.lbeS Wd8 Is.lbc4! Black's position is very passive.

B32) 8 ... ie6

This has been played only once to my knowledge, but it seems quite interesting.

9.e4 lbb6 This cannot be enough to equalize, since

White is allowed to grab a lot of space.

9 . . . tLlxc3 1 0.bxc3 ic4 1 1 .ge1 c5 looks more logical. In this case White should continue with 1 2.if4, maintaining the better chances. Play might continue 1 2 . . . Wa5 1 3.tLld2 ie6 14.d5 id7 1 5.l'k1 with an edge.

lO.dS id7 White is also better after l o . . . ig4 1 1 .h3 ixf3

1 2.Wxf3.

8 7 6 5 4 3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

We have been following the game Meier - Mikhalchishin, Steinbrunn 2005. Now instead of 1 1 .We2, I suggest the following continuation:

1 1 .if4!?N c6 12.ieS! With a pleasant edge for White.


B33) 8 ... tDb6 9.if4

After 9.e4 ig4 we would reach a position mentioned in the note to White's 8th move above (8 .e4 tDb6 9.tDc3 ig4). As I said before, Black's chances are quite alright there, so White does better to avoid it.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

9 . .. cS

a b c d e f g h

The alternative is: 9 . . . c6

Such a passive strategy can hardly be enough for equality.

10 .�c l A nice multi-purpose move. White not only intends to exchange the dark-squared bishop with ih6, but also vacates the d I -square for the rook.

10 . . .f6 Black has also played 1 0 . . . Ele8, but after 1 1 .Eld 1 ig4 1 2.ih6 if6 13 .ctJg5 intending h3 and e4 White has clearly better chances, Navarovszky - Malich, Budapest 1 965.

1 1 .�h6 �e6 1 2.ixg7 <J:txg7 1 3 .Eld l �e8 We have been following the game Boehlig - Nun, Warsaw 1 978. At this point White should have played the natural:

14.e4! Eld8 1 5 .h3 White maintains the better chances thanks

to his space advantage and central control.

10.dxcS This is the right way to fight for an opening

advantage. The following pawn sacrifice is very unclear: 1 0.d5 ixc3 1 1 .bxc3 �xd5 1 2.�cl �h5!oo Rodriguez Cespedes - Vilela de Acuna, St Spiritus 1 989.

a b c d e f g h

1O . . . tDxc5 The queen exchange does not bring Black

any relief: 1 0 . . . �xd 1 1 1 .ElfXdi ctJxc5 12 .Elacl ctJca4

I also examined 1 2 . . . ctJe6 1 3 .ie5 f6 1 4.id4 ctJxd4 1 5 .ctJxd4 Eld8 1 6.ctJb3! and White keeps serious pressure.

1 3.ctJxa4 ctJxa4 This was Toran Albero - De Carvalho, Montevideo 1 954. Now strong would be:

14 .ie5!N f6 White is also clearly better after: 1 4 . . . ctJxb2 1 5 .ixg7 <J:txg7 1 6.Eld4! Cutting off the knight. 1 6 . . . ie6 ( l 6 . . . b5 17.ctJe5 Elb8 1 8 .Elb 1 ctJa4 1 9.Elxa4 if5 20.Elab4 ixb l 2 1 .Elxb l ±) 1 7.ctJg5 Elac8 1 8 .Elb l ctJc4 Now White should avoid 1 9 .ctJxe6t fXe6 20.Elxb7 in view of the nice resource 20 . . . ctJe3! which almost equalizes. Instead the simple 1 9.Elxb7! gives a big advantage.

1 5 .id4 e5 1 6.b3! White is clearly better.

1 1 .Wi'c1 !


This enables White to make use of his better threat of lLlg5. 1 6.lLld5 �xb2 17.lLlxe7t cj;lh8 placed pieces. 1 8 .�h4 lLlac5 1 9.1hd 1 and White is much

Black is very close to equality after 1 1 .l'ki lLle6 1 2.ie5 �xd 1 1 3 .�fxd 1 . here the draw was agreed in Stohl - Lputian, Rimavska Sobota 1 99 1 . Indeed after 1 3 . . . �d8 14.ixg7 cj;lxg7 White's advantage is largely symbolic and Black has good chances to complete development.

1 1 ...lLlba4 In Cvitan - Lehmann, Budapest 1 990,

Black instead preferred 1 1 . . .lLlca4. Here White should played 1 2.ie5!N and after 1 2 . . . ixe5 1 3.lLlxe5 �d4 14.lLlf3 �f6 1 5 .lLlxa4 lLlxa4 we reach the same position as after 1 l . . .lLlba4.

1 1 . . . id7 was tried in Davies - P. Popovic, Vrsac 1 989. Here I suggest the natural 1 2.lLle5!N �c8 1 3 .�d l with annoying pressure.

1 2.ie5 ixe5 13.liJxe5 �d4 This position was reached in Bolbochan -

Malich, Varna 1 962.

8

7

6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

14.lLlf3!?N �f6 Black should not remove his queen from the

long diagonal. For instance, after 14 . . . �b4?! I 5 .�h6! White obtains a strong attack. 1 5 . . . lLle6 There is no other defence against the

better.

15.lLlxa4 lLlxa4 16.b3 lLlc3 17.�e3 �d8 Less accurate would be 1 7 . . . lLld5 1 8.�d2

ie6 19 .1Lld4 with serious pressure.

18.liJe5 liJd5 19.�d4 ie6 20.f4 White has some pressure, thanks to his

strong light-squared bishop, in a position that somewhat resembles a Catalan.

B34) 8 ... c5 9.lLlxd5 �xd5 10.ie3

a b c d e f g h

10 .. . �h5 This is Black's relatively best reply, although

his position remains problematic in any case.

1 0 . . . �d8? This just loses a pawn.

1 1 .dxc5 ie6 1 1 . . .ixb2 also does not help, since after 1 2.Wxd5 �xd5 1 3.�ab 1 if6 14.lLld2 �d8 1 5 .�xb7! ixb7 1 6.ixb7 White has a decisive advantage. The text move was played in Williams -Littlewood, Brighton 1972. Now White could have obtained a winning position by means of:

1 2.lLld4 �c4 I 3 .b3 �b4 1 4.a3 �c3 1 5 .�c l


Wb2 1 6.ixb7 1%abB 1 7.llJxe6! 1%xd 1 I B.1%fxd 1 fxe6 1 9.ixa6

White is winning.

1 0 . . . cxd4

a b c d e f g h l 1 .llJxd4!N

This is much stronger than 1 1. .�xd4 1%dB 1 2.ixg7 'it>xg7 when Black was close to equal in Gereben - Seret, Nice 1 974. After the superior text move, Black has a harder time neutralizing his opponent's initiative, as demonstrated by the following il lustrative line:

1 l . . .'lWd6 1 2.llJb5 'lWb4 13 .a4! 'lWxb2 14.1%b 1 Wle5 1 5.Wld5

White has strong pressure for a small material deficit. It seems to me that Black's position is highly problematic, for instance:

1 5 . . . if5 16.'lWxe5 ixe5 17 .ixb7 ixb l 1 B.1%xb 1 llJc7 1 9.llJxa7!

The a-pawn decides the issue.

1 1 .\Wb3 It looks like Black faces serious problems

here and cannot hope for adequate play.

1 1 ...b6 The activation of his knight by 1 1 . . . cxd4

1 2.llJxd4 llJc5 looks natural, but fails to solve Black's problems after 1 3 .'lWa3 if6 1 4.1%ac1 llJd7 1 5 .1%fd 1 when White dominates, Paroulek - Svancer, corr. 1 96B.

12.1%acl

a b c d e f g h

12 ... 1%b8? Overlooking White's next move. Critical

would have been 1 2 . . . ih3 but after the resolute 1 3.'lWc4! White is firmly in control, due to the following line: 1 3 . . . cxd4 1 4.ixd4 ixg2 1 5 .�xg2 ixd4 16.llJxd4 llJc5 1 7.b4 llJd7 1 B.llJc6 1%feB 1 9 .'lWd4! with a clear advantage thanks to the mighty knight.

13.i.f4! 1%b7 1his was played in Porat - Mart, Netanya

1 97 1 . Now White missed a very strong opportunity.

a b c d e f g h

14.tLlg5!N h6


Black cannot play l4 . . . Ei:d7, as after l 5 .if3 his queen is trapped.

ls.if3 ig4 16.Lb7 hxgS 17.ieS White's extra exchange should decide the

game.

B4) 7 ... c5

a b c d e f g h 8.e4

I decided to go with White's second choice according to theory. I did not find any advantage after 8.dxc5 lOa6 9.lOg5 e6 l O.lOe4 id7! l l .lObc3 ic6 which looks perfecrly playable for Black.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ��-----1

a b c d e f g h We have reached another branching point.

Here the main possibilities are B41) 8 ... ttJb6 and B42) 8 ... ttJf6.

Besides these we also have: 8 . . . lOb4

The knight seems to be misplaced here. 9.d5 e6

Black is not ready for complications, as happened in the following encounter: 9 . . . c4 l O.lOa3 f5 1 1 .exf5 ixf5 l 2.lOd4! Black was already in trouble, and in the game his problems only worsened: 1 2 . . . ixd4?! 1 3.�xd4 lO8c6 l 4.�xc4 id3 l 5 .�b3 and White was winning, Kustar - Nogrady, Budapest 1 993.

l O.a3 lO4a6 1 1 .lOc3 exd5 l 2.exd5 The knight is obviously misplaced on a6.

1 2 . . . lOd7 1 3 .ig5 lOf6 14 .�d2 lOc7 1 5 .Ei:ad l id7 l 6.Ei:fe 1 Ei:e8

This was Matchett - May, Bognor Regis 1 959. Now the natural

1 7.lOe5!?N would secure White's clear edge.

B41) 8 . . . ttJb6 9.d5

Black has no problems after 9.dxc5 �xd 1 1 0.Ei:xd l lOa4.

9 .. . e6 In a few games Black has tried:

9 . . . ig4 However, relinquishing the bishop pair is unlikely to lead to equaliry.

l O.h3 ixf3 1 1 .�xf3 lO8d7 l 2 .�e2 c4 This was Smyslov - Simagin, Moscow 1 96 1 . Now White should have played:

a b c d e f g h


13 .ttJa3!N I examined the following line, which looks pretty natural to me:

13 . . . 1"l:c8 1 4.l'l:b 1 ttJe5 1 5 .!e3 �d6 1 6.f4 ttJd3 17.ttJxc4 ttJxc4 1 8 .�xd3 !xb2 1 9.!f2

White's chances are preferable.

lO.ttJc3 exdS 1 1 .exdS

1 1 . . .ttJa6 1 2.!g5! This natural move is surprisingly annoying for Black.

1 2 . . . �d7 13 .1"!e l f6 The threat of 14.1"!e7 forces this undesirable move. Presumably Black rejected 1 3 . . . 1"!e8 on account of the simple 1 4.1"!xe8t �xe8 1 5 .�d2 followed by 1"!e l , when White seizes the initiative.

14 .!f4 1"!d8 1 5 .d6 White was clearly better in Safin -

Purushothaman, New Delhi 2007.

l 1 . . .!xc3 Obviously this is a risky decision.

1 2.bxc3 �xd5 1 3.!h6 1"!e8 I t would have been relatively best to exchange

queens, although after 1 3 . . . �xd 1 14.1"!axd l 1"!e8 White nonetheless maintains clearly bener chances with 1 5 .ttJg5 !g4 1 6.1"!d6 ttJ8d7 1 7.!xb7.

1 4.ttJd2! �d8 1 5.ttJe4 By very simple means White develops a dangerous initiative.

1 5 . . . ttJc6 1 6.!g5 �xd l 1 7.ttJf6t @h8 1 8 .1"!axd 1 1"!f8 1 9.!h6±

Black is losing the exchange, Sakhatova -Levitina, Moscow 1 983.

B41 1) 1 1 ...i.f5 12.i.gS �d7 13.1"!e1

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

13 ... £6 a b c d e f g h

It can hardly be a good sign if Black has to make this move. I also examined the following attempt: 1 3 . . . h6 14.!e7!

Black is fine after 1 4.!f4 g5! 1 5 .!e5 f6 1 6.!xb8 1"!axb8.

14 . . . 1"!c8 1 5 .a4! ttJc4 Black faces serious problems after 1 5 . . . ttJa6 1 6.d6!. Now that Black's knight cannot jump to c6 this move is very strong. 1 6 . . . ttJb4 17.ttJe5 �e6 1 8.f4!±

16.�e2 ttJd6 1 7.ttJb5! There is nothing special for White after 1 7.!xd6 �xd6 1 8.ttJe5 �xe5 1 9.�xe5 !xe5 20.1"!xe5 ttJd7 2 1 .1"!e7 1"!e8!.

17 .. . ttJxb5 1 8.axb5 c4 1 9.b6!

3 1 0 The Griinfeld Defence

White has the initiative thanks to his strong passed pawn.

14.i.e3 ttJa6 lS .tbd2 gacS This was Bocharov - Makarov, Krasnoyarsk

2007. Now I managed to improve White's play.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

16.a4!N tbb4 White is also clearly better after: l 6 .. J::kd8

1 7.a5 ltJc8 1 8.ltJde4!±

17.tbde4 i.xe4 lS.tbxe4 c4 19.tbcS 'flf7 20.ttJe6 gfeS 2 1 .i.xb6! axb6 22.�fl±

Once again Black has considerable problems.

B412) 1 1 . . .ttJc4

12.gel !?N A previous game continued 1 2.Wi'b3, after

which the natural 1 2 . . . ltJd6?! soon led to problems for Black: 1 3.ig5 if6 l 4.if4! ltJa6 1 5 .ixd6 Wi'xd6 16.ltJe4 Wi'd8 1 7.ltJxf6t Wi'xf6 I 8 .me l gb8 I 9.ltJe5± N. Pert - D. Howell, Halifax 2004.

However, Black could have improved with 1 2 . . . ltJa5! since the natural I 3 .Wi'a4 only leads to an unclear game after I 3 . . . id7 l 4.Wi'f4 tba6 1 5 .ie3 h6 with complex play.

12 .. . ttJd7 This looks stronger than 1 2 . . . ltJa6 1 3 .ifl !

ltJd6 1 4.ig5 when White keeps the advantage, for instance: I 4 . . . if6 ( l 4 . . . Wi'b6 1 5 .ltJa4!±) 1 5 .ixf6 Wi'xf6 l 6.ixa6 bxa6 1 7.ltJe5 White is better, thanks to his superior pawn structure.

13.'fle2 ttJd6 14.i.f4 Now 14 .ig5 can be met conveniently by

l 4 . . . ltJf6.

14 .. . geS lS .'fld2 tbf6

a b c d e f g h

16.gxeSt tbfxeS 17.gel i.f5 lS.h3 We have reached a complex middlegame

position that requires practical testing. It seems to me that White's more active pieces enable him to claim some initiative at this stage.

Chapter 1 9 - Dynamic Variation 3 1 1

B42) 8 . .. �f6

This is undoubtedly Black's main reply.

8 � ?� It. � ��t'a /!Aj, .lL �8� Y/a'5j' 7 '?it·&,,�� '"" '%?ft'£'&Y.?f� & �.� A . �.% A W A 6

. .. , ,%� �� · · · · ·%�f'�� 5 ��.��t . 4

�� ." . . . � �� _

3 ��" 'D!-,r ��.� �� .¥ . . , ,%�.� 2 �J��jX0 �J�!llj l �4J��.Mm

a b c d e f g h

9.e5 �d5 9 . . . 4Jfd7

This is not very popular, due to the following line:

1 0.e6! fxe6 1 1 .4Jg5 �b6 I also examined: 1 1 . . .4Jb6 1 2 .�e l 4Jc6 1 3.dxc5 4Ja4 1 4.4Jxe6 !xe6 1 5 .'lWxe6t c;:t>hS 1 6.4Jc3 4Jxc5 1 7.�e3;!; White maintains a pleasant edge thanks to his pair of bishops.

1 2.�e2 4Jc6 1 3 .�xe6t c;:t>hS 1 4.4Jf7t �xf7 1 5 .�xf7 cxd4 1 6.�e 1 4Jf6

This was played in Borovikov - Gutman, Senden 2005. Later on Black managed to get adequate compensation for the exchange, but only after White missed the following strong manoeuvre:

a b c d e f g h

1 7.4Ja3!N The knight comes very effectively to c4, as shown in the following illustrative l ine:

17 . . . !f5 l S .4Jc4 �c5 l S . . . �a6 1 9.!xc6 �fS 20.�xe7 �xc6 2 1 .4Je5 �d5 22.!f4±

1 9.b4! �xb4 20.!a3 White has a large advantage.

10.d.xc5

a b c d e f g h

Black's options here are B421) 10 ... �c6 and B422) 1O ... �b4, in addition to the main line with B423) 1O ... �a6.

B421) 10 ... �c6 1 1 .�a3!

The best way to fight for the advantage.

1 1 ... �db4 Black has also tried 1 l . . .!g4 1 2.�b3 �b8?!,

Wade - Boxall, Chester 1 952, and here the simple 1 3.�d 1 e6 1 4.h3 !xf3 1 5 .!xf3 would have given White a clear plus.

12.Wfa4!?N This is an important improvement, as White's

results after other moves have not been too favourable. The idea of the text is very simple - White just wants to complete development and aim for a positional advantage. For the

3 1 2 The Griinfeld Defence

time being he keeps an extra pawn, although he should not get too preoccupied with clinging to it.

12 ... J.g4 I also analysed 1 2 . . . 4:Jd3, which turns out to

be inferior in view of: 1 3.i:%d l 4:Jxc5 1 4.Wc2 4:Jd7 1 5 .e6! ( l 5 .i.f4 also gives White slightly better chances, but the text is more ambitious.) 1 5 ... fxe6 1 6.4:Jg5 4:Jd4 1 7.ltWd3 Black is in trouble, for instance 17 ... 4:Jb6 l S.4:Jb5! e5 1 9.4:Jxd4 exd4 20.Wb3t e6 2 1 .4:Jxe6 i.xe6 22 .Wxe6t WhS 23.i.f4± and White dominates the board with his bishop pair.

13J'%dl �cS 1 3 . . . WeS is met strongly with 1 4.4:Jb5! . Note

that 1 4 . . . 4:Jxe5 1 5 .4:Jxe5 i.xd l does not solve Black's problems in view of: 1 6.Wxb4 i.xe5 1 7.i.h6!±

14.4:Jc4 Black has a pretty reliable posItIon after

1 4.i.f4 i.xf3 1 5 .i.xf3 i.xe5 16 .i.h6 i.g7 1 7.i.xg7 Wxg7.

14 • . .'�e6 1 5.�b3 �adS 16.J.e3 Black certainly has some activity, but

White has completed his development fairly harmoniously while retaining his extra pawn.

16 ... �f5 17.�xdS �xdS

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 V///.r//,,,·=,//H,W,,

a b c d e f g h

lS.4:Jfd2± Black has very little to show for the missing

pawn.

B422) 10 . . . tiJb4 1 l .tiJc3 tiJSc6 12.a3!?

It is also worth considering 1 2.Wa4.

12 . . . tiJd3 13.J.e3 White is ready to give up his extra pawn in

order to secure a positional edge.

13 . . . J.g4 I think the lesser evil for Black would

have been to regain the pawn by means of 1 3 . . . 4:Jdxe5, although White maintains better chances after: 1 4.4:Jxe5 i.xe5 1 5 .�c 1 ( l 5 .Wb3 tiJd4 1 6.i.xd4 Wxd4 looks pretty doubleedged) 1 5 . . . Wxd 1 1 6.l':i:fxd1 i.g4 1 7.l':i:d5! i.g7 l S.b4 a6 1 9.h3 i.e6 20.�d3;j; White has a slight but long-lasting advantage and Black is doomed to a passive defence.

a b c d e f g h

14.�b3!N I believe this to be a serious improvement

over 1 4.h3 i.xf3 1 5 .Wxf3 4:Jdxe5, as seen in Borvinnik - Bronstein, Moscow 1 95 1 .

14 ... tlJdxe5 After 1 4 . . . Wd7 1 5 .l':i:fd 1 ! the pin along

d-file is extremely inconvenient for Black, for


instance 1 5 .. Ji:adS 1 6.tLle 1 ixd 1 1 7.l'hd 1 tDcxe5 1 S .ltJxd3 ltJxd3 1 9 .ie4 with a winning position.

lS.ltJxeS ttJxeS 16.'Wxb7 �b8 17.'Wxa7 �xb2

No better is: 1 7 . . . tDf3t l S.r;t>hl �xb2 19 .�adl ltJd2 20.�xd2 �xd2 2 1 .i.xd2 'Wxd2 22.ltJd5±

8 7 6 5 4 3

2 1

a b c d e f g h

18.ttJdS �e8 19.igS! Black fails to get adequate compensation for

the pawn.

B423) 1 0 ... ttJa6

This is the main line, and probably the most reliable move for Black.

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .a3 This is best. After 1 1 .'We2 ltJxc5 1 2.�d 1 b6!

followed by . . . ia6 Black is doing fine.

l 1 ...ttJxcS 12.b4 ttJe6 Clearly the main move. I found only one

game with 1 2 . . . ltJa6, which is hardly surprising as the knight looks very passive here. 1 3 .ib2 ltJb6 1 4.'We2 ie6 1 5 .�d 1 'Wc7 1 6.ltJbd2 'Wc2 1 7.�ab 1 id5 1 S .ltJd4 'Wa4 1 9.1tJe4!± White has a much better position, thanks to his beautifully centralized pieces, Smejkal - Ribli, Leningrad 1 977.

13.'Wb3 This is the natural way of developing the

initiative. The immediate threat is 1 4.�d l .

1 3 . . . ltJec7 1 4.�d 1 ig4 ( I think 1 4 . . . ie6 would have been better, although 1 5 .ttJg5! i.xe5 1 6.ltJxe6 fxe6 1 7.�a2 gives White nice compensation for the pawn.) 1 5 .ltJc3 e6 1 6.ib2 'WbS 17 . ttJe4± Black faces serious difficulties, Mamedyarov Lausanne 2005 .

Nakamura,

1 3 . . . b6 14 .�d l ib7 1 5 .ltJc3 ltJec7 1 6.i.b2 'Wd7

3 14 The Grunfeld Defence

This position occurred in Kotsur -Nepomniachtchi, Moscow 2005 . Here White should have played the natural:

I n';d3!N I analysed the following lines:

1 7 . . . h6 Or 17 .. . �fdS l S.�ad l e6 1 9 .tDg5 h6 20.tDge4 with an advantage for White.

l S.�ad l e6 Black cannot survive without this move.

1 9.tDe4 �c6 20Jl:c 1 �a4 2 1 .Wla2 �b5 22.�d2

White's chances are clearly preferable.

14.�dl Wle7 IS.11Jc3 id7 Too passive is 1 5 . . . ttJdS 1 6.ttJb5 WlbS. The

game Bocharov - Nepomniachtchi, Tomsk 2006, continued 17.�f4 �e6 and now White should have played l s.Wlc2!N tDc6 ( 1 S . . . tDd5 1 9.tDfd4 tDxf4 20.gxf4 leads to a difficult position for Black due to the threat of ttJc7) 1 9.tDfd4 tDxd4 20.ttJxd4 �d5 2 1 .tDf5 gxf5 22.�xd5 e6 (or 22 . . . tDxd5 23 .�xd5 e6 24.�d6 with advantage) 23 .�g2 �xe5 24.�xe5 Wlxe5 25 .�xb7 �abS 26.�c6 and White's chances are better.

16.ie3 ie6 Clearly inferior is 1 6 . . . �fcS?! 1 7.ixb6! axb6

l S .tDd5 WldS 1 9.Wle3! and White maintains a clear positional superiori ty, Dmitriev - Efimov, Saratov 2009.

17.a4! Only with energetic play can White fight

for the advantage. It is also quite possible to reach this position via the move order 1 6.a4 �c6 17 .�e3.

Too slow is 17.�ac 1 ? ! �adS l S .�xdS �xdS and Black was doing fine, Martinovic - Wittmann, Budapest 200S.

17 ... �fd8? After this move Black encounters serious

difficulties, so this looks like a prime moment to improve his play.

1 7 . . . �xe5 This seems like the obvious candidate.

l S .ttJxe5 Wlxe5 l S . . . �xg2? is not really an alternative, 111

view of 1 9.tDxf7!. 1 9.a5 �xg2 20.�xg2 tDcs

Other lines do not promise Black any relief either: 20 . . . �acS 2 1 .�ac1 tDc4 22.�xa7 White is better in the long term, due to the possibility of creating a passed pawn on the queenside. 20 . . . �fcS 2 1 .axb6 �xc3 22.Wld5 Wlxd5t 23.�xd5 a6 24.b5! I doubt that Black can hold this endgame, due to the following variation: 24 . . . a5 25 .�d7 �bS 26.�xa5 mfS 27.�a7 ttJdS 2S .�f4 �bcS 29.�axb7 and White wins.

2 1 .�d5 Wlg7 22.�ad l tDd6 23.tDb5 ttJxb5 24.�xb5

White regains his pawn and maintains the better chances, for instance:

24 . . . b6 25.axb6 axb6 26.�xb6 �fdS 27.�xdSt �xdS 2s .Wlc4

White's passed b-pawn is dangerous.

18.aS llJd7 19.11JdS! ixdS 20.�xdS Black is in trouble, as demonstrated by a

couple of practical encounters.

20 .. . 11JxeS


Even worse is 2 0 . . Jl:acB? 2 1 .�xa7! �h6 (Black cannot play 2 1 . . .ttJxe5 in view of 22.lt:Jxe5 �xe5 23.�b6+- ) 22Jl:ad l with a decisive advantage, Bocharov Nepomniachtchi , Tomsk 2006.

21 .lt:JxeS !'!:xdS 22.�xdS E1d8 23.�xb7 �xeS

This was seen in Mamedyarov - Zhigalko, Heraklio 2002. Now the cleanest route to victory would have been:

24.E1fl.!N +-

Not allowing Black any chances.

C) 6 ... lt:Jb6

a b c d e f g h This is regarded by theoreticians as the main

line. Black can also aim for the same position with 6 . . . 0-0 7.0-0 ttJb6 B .ttJc3 ttJc6, bur in that case White can consider 9.d5 as an alternative to the main line of9.e3 (although I prefer the latter) .

7.lt:Jc3 It:Jc6 This is the most popular move order for

Black. Instead 7 . . . 0-0 B.O-O transposes to the previous note.

8.e3 B.d5?! is not really an option, since Black

has B . . . �xc3t 9.bxc3 �xd5. (This is not the case when both sides have castled, as instead of bxc3 White can capture on c6.)

a b c d e f g h This is the starting point for some of the

most critical battlegrounds of the Fianchetto variation against the Grunfeld. Here we should look at CI) 8 ... eS and C2) 8 ... 0-0.

CI) 8 ... eS 9.dS

Now Black has three possibilities: CII ) 9 ... lt:Je7, Cl2) 9 ... liJb4 and C13) 9 ... liJaS .

Cl l) 9 ... liJe7 10.e4 �g4

Developing the bishop while vacating the cBsquare for the knight, in order to prepare . . . c7-c6.

Premature would be: 10 . . . c6?! 1 1 .d6 ttJgB

This is too artificial and hardly playable for Black, as it allows White a lot of time to arrange his pieces in an optimal way.

1 2.b3 f6 1 3.0-0 ttJh6 14 .�a3 �e6 1 5.�c2 0-0 1 6.E1ad l E1f7

Black cannot continue his regrouping by 16 . . . lt:Jf7 in view of 1 7.d7! winning the exchange.

1 7.ttJe l !

3 16 The Grunfeld Defence

A strong positional idea - the knight is heading for c5.

1 7 . . . lUcs I S.lUa4! Preventing Black from covering the outpost by means of . . . b6.

l S . . .'&eS 1 9.1Uc5 White had a big advantage in Poliakov -

Plischki, Marianske Lazne 2009.

10 .. . 0-0 1 1 .0-0 will be examined in line C2 1 , note to Black's 1 0th move.

I l .h3 1 1 .0-0 c6 1 2.h3 ixf3 1 3.'&xf3 is just a

transposition.

l l ... hf.3 12.Wfxf3 c6 Black often plays:

1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 .0-0 Now 1 3 . . . c6 would transpose to our main line. However, we should also consider:

1 3 . . . lUc4 Transferring the knight to d6 is of course a thematic idea. Nevertheless, I do not believe that one well-placed piece can be enough to offset White's strong pawn centre and pair of bishops. We will look at one instructive example.

1 4.'&e2 lUd6 1 5.h4! White intends to activate his bishop via the h3-square. It is well worth remembering this strong positional motif.

1 5 .. . f5 1 6.ih3 c6 1 7.ig5 h6 l S .ixe7 Wixe7 1 9.dxc6 bxc6 20.h5! f4 2 1 .hxg6 �f6

This was Djuric - Z. Nikolic, Cetinje 1 99 1 . Now White could have obtained a big advantage with:

22.if5!N lUxf5 23.exf5 �xf5 24.Wic4t �hS 25 .lUe4

The difference between the knight on e4 and bishop on g7 is striking.

13.0-0 Compared with the previous note, it is useful

for Black to exchange his potentially backward

c-pawn for one half of the opponent's strong central duo. On the other hand, following the exchange on d5 the bishop on g2 will get a slightly better view of the board.

a c d e f g h

We will look at Cl l l) 13 ... cxdS and Cl l2) 13 ... 0-0.

Cl l l) 13 . • . cxdS 14.exdS

I like this better than: 1 4.lUxd5 lUbxd5

In Grischuk - Avrukh, Kerner 2007, I managed to mix up the move order and captured with the wrong knight. My position soon became unpleasant after 1 4 . . . lUexd5?! 1 5 .exd5 Wid6 1 6.Wfb3 0-0 1 7.id2 �fcS l s.ib4 Wid7 1 9.d6.

1 5 .exd5 1 5 .�d 1 0-0 1 6.exd5 is considered in the note to White's 1 5th move in line C l 1 2, page 3 1 S.

1 5 . . . lUf5 Black has a reliable position, N. Pert -

Zhigalko, Turin 2006.

14 ... tDf5 IS.d6! This aggressive continuation is the only way

to fight for the advantage. Black has nothing to fear after other moves, for instance: 1 5 . b3 0-0 1 6.ia3 lUd4 1 7.Wid3 �eS l S.�ac l lUcS! Both


of Black's knights have found nice squares, and he has a full share of the chances, Bocharov -Roiz, Sochi 2007.

lS .. .!;b8 It looks much too risky for Black to grab the

pawn: 1 5 . . . ctJxd6?! 1 6.E\d l Wie7

16 . . . Wic7 17.ctJd5 ctJxd5 1 8.Wixd5 E\d8 1 9.ig5 f6 20.ie3±

1 7.ctJd5 ctJxd5 1 8.Wixd5 0-0-0 1 8 . . . E\d8 does not help after 1 9.ie3 (threateningic5) . 1 9 . . . b6 20.id2! (planning ib4) 20 . . . a5 2 1 .ie3! The bishop's dance has provoked some major weaknesses, resulting in serious problems for the defence.

19 .Wia5 mb8 20.ie3 ctJc8 2 1 .E\dc 1 ! It is hard to believe Black can hold this

position.

16.E\dl 0-0

own.

17 . . . lLld4 1 8.ctJbS Wld7

Base Magazine 81 as a possible improvement over the game, which continued: 1 8 . . . ctJd7 1 9.ctJxd4 exd4 20.id2 E\e8

Somewhat stronger was 20 . . . ctJe5 although after 2 1 .Wib3 E\e8 22.ib4 White maintains a stable edge.

2 1 .E\ac 1 Wif6 22.ib4 ctJe5 23 .Wixd4! 1his elegant exchange sacrifice quickly decides the game.

23 . . . ctJf3t 24.ixf3 Wixd4 25 .E\xd4 ixd4 26.d7 E\ed8 27 .id6

White won easily in Van Wely - Leko, Wijk aan Zee 200 1 .

19.1Llxd4 exd4 20.if4 Ftacnik gives the following line, which seems

pretty logical to me as well:

20 ... lLlc8 21 .Wla3 gd8 22.ge1 ! bS 23.E\ac1 b4

Here I found a significant improvement.

a b c d e f g h

24.Wla6! 1his brings White a substantial advantage.

Ftacnik only considered 24.Wib3.

24 ... ctJxd6 24 . . . E\b6 meets with the powerful rebuttal

25 .E\c7! .

This was recommended by Ftacnik in Chess- 2S.E\c6 if8

3 1 8 TIle Griinfeld Defence

No better is 25 .. Jl:b6 26.lhb6 axb6 27.Wfxb6 when the b4-pawn is falling.

26J':l:dl Black is under serious pressure. White's

pieces are tremendously active, especially his bishops.

8

7 6 5 4 3

2

Cl 12) 13 ... 0-0

a b c d e f g h

14J':l:dl adS lS.exdS Some strong players have taken with the

knight, but my own preference is to go with the pawn. In principle, it should be helpful for White to keep his remaining knight on the board, as it adds a 'non-linear' dimension to the collective abilities of his pieces. Black, on the other hand, can obviously afford to trade one pair of knights without losing that ability.

Thus 1 5 .tUxd5 tUbxd5 1 6.exd5 Wfd6 should be acceptable for Black, who plans to activate his remaining knight by means of . . . tUf5-d4.

lS . .. liJrs Black would love to install one knight on d4

and the second on d6, but of course White has no intention of allowing this.

16.d6! We have already encountered this thematic

idea in previous lines. It is important for White

to increase the influence of his light-squared bishop.

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

a b c d e f g h 16 . . • liJd4

If 1 6 . . . !'l:b8 17.Wfd3 we reach the well-known game Van Wely - Leko, as examined in Line C I I I starting on page 3 1 6.

1 6 . . . tUxd6? is easily refuted by 17.tUe4 tUbc4 1 8 .tUxd6 tUxd6 1 9.Wfa3 winning.

17.�xb7 �xd6 This is perhaps the critical position of the

whole line. Both sides have achieved certain things. Black has eliminated his opponent's passed pawn, and has secured an ideal central outpost for one of his knights. Nevertheless White's pair of bishops is a valuable long-term asset, and this should enable him to obtain the better chances if he plays precisely.

18.igS! White strives to make the best possible llse

of his bishops.

18 . . . �e6 The threat was 1 9.ie7.

19.!'l:acl h6 Driving the bishop away from the h4-d8

diagonal, in order to obtain the d8-square for the rooks.


Clearly premature would b e 1 9 . . .f5 ? i n view of 20.'Lld5! 'Lle2t (20 . . . e4 loses on rhe spot in view of 2 1 .E:c7 i.e5 22.E:e7! 'I1:lfd6 23.i.h6 with a decisive attack.) 2 1 .ct?h2 'Llxc 1 22.'Llc7 Wf7 23 .'LlxaB Wxb7 24.i.xb7 'LlxaB 25 .i.d5t \iJhB 26.E:xc 1 'Llb6 27.i.e6± and White is clearly better, thanks to his bishop

a fully acceptable game. I tried to improve upon previous games with 1 4.b4!?N, bur eventually concluded that after 14 .. . 'Lld3t 1 5 .\iJe2 'Llxc 1 t 1 6Jhc1 bxc6 1 7.E:xc6 i.a6t I B .\iJe1 0-0 1 9.'Lld2 i.h6 Black has very nice compensation.

pair. l2 . . . cxdS Black has also tried:

20.ie3 E:fd8 21 .'lWa6 E:ac8 22.b3! 1 2 . . . 0-0 It is essential to cover the c4-square in order

to keep the b6-knight restricted. 8

22 ... E:c7 23.ct?h2 Another prophylactic move, preparing

'Llb5.

23 .. . E:dc8 24.tLlbS E:xc1 2S.E:xc1 E:xc1 26.ixc1 'lWc8 27.'lWxc8t tLlxc8 28.ifl

We have been following Martyn - Jo. Hodgson, Birmingham 2006. The resulting endgame is highly unpleasant for Black, thanks to White's bishop pair and possibility to create a passed pawn on rhe queenside.

C12) 9 . . . tiJb4

7

6 I "'''IF.'!'�.I' 5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h Now it looks promising for White to play:

1 3.dxc6!N Getting a favourable pawn structure.

1 3 . . . bxc6 If 1 3 . . . 'I1:lfxd l 1 4.E:xd l bxc6, then White can play 1 5 .b4 E:eB 1 6.i.fl 'Llc7 1 7.h3! intending i.e3, maintaining a pleasant advantage.

14 . W c2 i.e6 1 5 .i.e3 Also worthy of consideration is 1 5 .b4!?

1 5 . . . 'Llc4 1 6.E:fe 1 I think White has a stable edge, for instance:

1 6 . . . 'Llxe3 17.E:xe3 'Llc5 Otherwise White will continue with 'Lla4.

I B .'Lld1 'I1:lfb6 19 .b4 tLlb7 20.E:c3 With definite pressure.

13. tiJxdS!?N This is an interesting novelty. Up to now

White has only tried 1 3.exd5 but without much success. Now I have analysed C12l) 13 ... 0-0 and C122) 13 ... tLlxdS.


8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

W//-'//-.. ;

a b c d e f g h

C121) 13 ... 0-0 14 . .ie3 20.'lWb3 �cS 21 .�xcS 'lWxcs 22.�cl 'lWfB 23.'lWa4

1 4 . .igS seems less convincing to me due to White maintains some pressure. 1 4 .. . f6 l S . .ie3 ttJxdS 1 6.exdS e4! 1 7.ttJd2 fS .

14 ... ttJc4 14 . . . ttJxdS l S .exdS transposes to line C 1 22

with 1 3 . . . ttJxdS.

15 . .ig5 f6 16.�c1 ! This is the tactical justification for White's

previous play.

16 . . . fxg5 Other possibilities are no better.

1 6 . . . bS 1 7 . .ie3 .ie6 (clearly inferior is 1 7 . . . ttJxe3? 1 B.ttJxe3 "Wxd1 1 9 .�fxdl .ib7 20.ttJdS with the unpleasant threat of 2 1 ..ifl ) 1 8 ."Wb3 "Wd7 1 9.�fd 1 ttJxe3, and now both 20.ttJxe3 .ixb3 2 1 .�xd7 and 20."Wxe3 "Wb7 2 1 .ttJd2 �acB 22.ttJb3 followed by ttJaS promise White a stable edge.

1 6 . . . ttJxb2 1 7.ttJxf6t! "Wxf6! (this is Stronger than 17 . . . .ixf6 1B ."Wb3t �g7 1 9 . .ixf6t "Wxf6 20."Wxb2 �e8 2 1 .�fd l ±) 1 B."Wb3t "We6 1 9."Wxb2 b6 20 . .ie3! White enjoys a pleasant edge, thanks ro his better pawn structure.

17.�xc4 g4 IS.ttJel .ie6 19.ttJd3 �f7

C122) 13 ... liJxd5 14.exd5 0-0 15 . .ie3!

a b c d e f g h

The dark-squared bishop really feels at home on this square. This position requires serious investigation, but seems promising for White.

15 ... h6 White is also better after the alternatives:

l S . . . fS ?! looks premature in view of 16.d6! �hB 1 7."Wd2 and the d6-pawn is very Strong.

l S . . . ttJc7 1 6.d6 ttJe8 17.�c l ! (Black obtains fair compensation for the exchange after the


premature 1 7.d7 �xd7 1 8.�c5 e4) 17 . . . �f5 18 .d7 �xd7 19 .�c5 e4 20.ttJd4 It is hard for me to believe Black will get sufficient compensation for the exchange.

16J"kl e4 17.ttJdl f5 18.'�'b3! White has the better chances.

Cl3) 9 . . . �aS 10.0-0

10.e4 is likely to lead to the same position.

10 ... 0-0 I l .e4 c6

8

7 6 5 4 3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 9.b3 would have given White a pleasant advantage.

1 2 . . . 'lWd6 1 3 .b3! Taking conrrol over the crucial c4-square.

1 3 . . . h6 Relatively best would have been 1 3 . . . cxd5 1 4.exd5 f5 , although White still maintains an edge after 1 5 .Wd2 �d7 1 6.gac 1 .

14.�e3 cxd5 1 5 .exd5 gd8 1 6.We l ! e4 1 6 . . . �d7 does not help after: 17.ttJe4 Wxd5 1 8 .�xh6! ttJc6 1 9.�xg7 Wxg7 20.gd l ttJd4 2 1 .ttJeg5!±

1 7.ttJxe4 'lWxd5 1 8 .�xh6! The point.

18 . . . �f5 1 9.�xg7 �xe4 20.�b2 Whi te has a wi nni ng posi tion, Harikrishna

Sivanandan, Mumbai 2003.

l3.ie3

8

7 6 5

This position has been reached quite often 4 via the move order 8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 e5 1 0.d5 ttJa5 3 I l .e4. Black's set-up used to be quite popular in the 1 980s and 1 990s, bur eventually faded our of fashion at higher levels, due to the following line:

12.igS! f6 The alternatives are also less than inspiring

for Black:

1 2 . . . 'lWd7 Ie is hard to believe this can be the right square for Black's queen. 1 3 .l''k l (a nice alternative was the thematic 1 3 .b3!?N) 13 . . . h6 14 .�e3 gd8 Szmetan - Barreras, Cienfuegos 1976. Now the simple 1 5 .ttJa4!N ttJac4 16.ttJxb6 ttJxb6 1 7.dxc6 bxc6 1 8 .'lWxd7 �xd7

2 1

In this topical position Black used to take on d5 automatical ly, but more recently a second option was introduced in Grandmaster praxis. Thus we wil l analyse the newer Cl31) l3 . . . �bc4 along with the more established Cl32) l3 ... cxdS.

Cl31) l3 ... �bc4

This fresh idea was tested by the talented


Indian Grandmaster Negi at the Politiken Cup in 2009, although it had first been played in a couple of obscure e-mail games five years previously.

14.�e5! The game Brynell - Negi, Politiken Cup

2009, continued 1 4.�cl c5, and Black soon obtained a comfortable ganle after 1 5 .tLJel tLJd6 16.f4 f5 1 7.tLJf3 tLJac4. The text seems like a definite improvement to me.

14 .. J'H7 15.b4!?N I believe this to be the critical test of Black's

idea.

The stem game continued 1 5 .dxcG tLJxc6 16.'lWe2 �e6 when White had no more than a tiny advantage, Bochev - Benovic, Internet 2004.

Another possibility is 1 5.b3 b6 1 6.�b4 c5 1 7.�xa5 tLJxa5 with a very complicated game. In general, it is hard for White to achieve anything special by simple means.

15 ... b6

16 ... lLlxe3 17.fxe3 lLle4 18.dxe6 \We8 White also keeps the better chances after

1 8" .ie6 1 9 .�el b5 20.a4! .

19.ttJd5 The exchange sacrifice 1 9.b5 tLJxe3 20.'lWa4

tLJxfl 2 1 .�xfl looks playable, but I doubt it can suffice for more than equaliry.

19 .. . \Wxe6 20.�cl b5 I also analysed 20" .�g4 2 1 .a4 a6 (The main

point is that after 2 1 . . .b5 22.axb5 'lWxb5 White has the incredibly strong 23.�f2! threatening �fl . It looks like Black unavoidably loses material, for instance 23".tLJd6 24.tLJc7 winning the exchange.) 22.'lWd3 b5 23.tLJd2 �c8 24.�c2! followed by �fc l winning a pawn.

21 .lLld2 �d7 22.lLlxe4 bxe4

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

a b c d e f g h

23.�f2! White not only intends to double his rooks

along the c-file, but also vacates the fl -square for the bishop.

23 ... �e8 24.�fl \Wa6 25.�c3! There is no way Black can hold on to the

c4-pawn. White can increase the pressure with 'IW c l and �fc2 if needed.

C132) 13 ... ad5 14.�xb6!


8 i. U.t� ��.R 7 if,.""xB"",v..r 6 ""'%D %_�_'i�� 5 ,�""'�_l.""%� 4 " � "�K��

� �

��"w�� r� 3 _ ,0: _1lJ�� 2 !twi""' ;_ �nt� ,�''' ' %� ".tir�r'" , a b c d e f g h

The exclamation mark is largely for the psychological aspect of this move. Usually when choosing this line Black hopes for a complicated battle, such as that which arises after 1 4.exd5 ttJac4. Instead after the text move White gets an almost risk-free middlegame position with a slight pull. In general this is quite an unpleasant strategy for the type of player who opts for such an "active opening" as the Grunfeld.

Black can recapture with the pawn, C1321) 14 ... ax:b6, and the queen, C1322) 14 ... �xb6,

C1321 ) 14 ... ax:b6

This is not without merit, but ultimately I believe the vulnerability of Black's queenside pawns ro be the most important facror.

15.�xd5t @h8 I believe this to be a better try than:

1 5" ,�xd5 1 6,ttJxd5 ttJc4 Black has also tried 16".ig4 17.ttJxb6 1':1a6 1 8.ttJd5 ttJc4 but this is refuted by the attractive 1 9.1':1fc l ! ttJxb2 20,1':1ab l 1':1a3 (I also examined 20" .1':1xa2, but it does not help much, 2 1 .1':1c2 1':1a3 22.1':1cxb2 ixf3 23 ,ixf3 1':1xf3 24,1':1xb7 Black's position is hardly acceptable, since he can do nothing about White's idea ro penetrate along the seventh rank with his rooks. ) 2 1 ,1':1xb2 ixf3 22,ixf3

1':1xf3 23.1':1xb7 with a winning position, Ross - Savereide, Saint John 1 988 ,

1 7.b3 ttJd6 Now I discovered a nice improvement:

8 ��.t� ��.g 7 � l. mB' "�wKr ?m�,� ?m% o,/. �WJ�Wfl� 6 ��iI� �� iI� '" �� @ff£ % ,� " % . 5 ." " '�2t)'_' '' '� �� ".%� �� 4 ��,� 3 �8� �ltJ�� 2 �. �� mri�� Y��.i= '

a b c d e f g h 1 8 .1':1fd 1 !N

1 8 .ttJxb6 1':1a6 19.ttJxc8 1':1xc8 20.1':1fd1 ttJxe4 21 .ttJxe5 f5 22.f4 ixe5 23.fxe5 1':1c2 and Black has reasonable drawing chances, Sriram - Rodriguez Lopez, Pontevedra 2008.

1 8" .ttJxe4 1 9,ttJxe5 fxe5 Now 1 9" .f5 meets with a stylish refutation: 20.ttJe7t @h8 2 1 .1':1d8! ixe5 22.1':1xf8t @g7 23 .1':1g8t �f7 24.1':1cl +-

20.ixe4 ig4 2 1 .1':1d2 White has a clear positional advantage.

16JUdl �e7 17.�b5 �c5 18.�d5 �c6 Exchanging queens is inadvisable for Black,

as in this case he loses the b6-pawn: 1 8".�xb5 1 9.1':1xb5 id7 ( 1 9".1':1a6 20.ttJd5!) 20.1':1xb6 ic6 2 1 .ifI ± Quinteros - L. Bronstein, Sao Paulo 1 977.


19.'lWb4!N This move is obviously better than the

inaccurate 1 9 .Elad 1 ? ! , which allowed Black to equalize after 1 9 . . . ie6 20.Eld6 'lWxb5 2 1 .lLlxb5 ixa2 Kristiansen - Heggheim, Oslo 1 978 .

19 . . . ie6 20.l'!:d6'IWc8 21 .lLld5ixd5 22.l'!:xd5 'lWc7 23.l'!:adl l'!:fd8 24.'lWc3! tt:lc6 25.a3

White enjoys a small but stable edge.

C1322) 14 .. . 'lWxb6 15.lLlxd5

1 5 . . . 'lWd6 This is not a stable square for Black's queen.

1 6.Elc 1 lLlc6 Black is certainly not ready for activity such as 1 6 . . .f5? 1 7.Elc7 Wh8 18 .lLlg5 ie6

8

7

6

5

a b c d e f g h

1 9.Elxg7! Wxg7 20.tt:lc7 and White wins, Brunello - D. Andersen, Helsingor 2008.

1 7.'lWb3 Elm An unfortunate idea. Better was the modest 1 7 . . . \t>h8 although after 1 8 .ElfdU:: Black has a slightly worse version of the position with the queen on d8.

1 8.Elfd 1 \'!Jff8 With the queen on d6, 1 8 . . . ie6?? loses to 1 9.tLlxf6t .

19 .1Llc7! This was Ryzhkov - Ovchinnikov, Tula

2004. White is already winning, as 1 9 . . . Elb8? would allow 20.Elxc6.

8 7 6 5 4 3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . tt:lc6 Other options are clearly worse:

1 6 . . . ig4 1 7.Elc7! Elm A mistake, but White is better anyway. 1 8 .Elxf7 Wxf7 1 9.1Llxe5t! fXe5 20.\'!Jfxg4 and White is a pawn up for nothing, Cvitan - Sanchez Almeyra, Biel 1 992.

16 . . . Elf7 17.b4 lLlc6 1 8 .b5! lLla5 1 9.1Llc7! A very concrete and strong approach.

1 9 . . . Eld7 The main point of White's idea can be seen in the following line: 1 9 . . . \'!Jfxd l 20.ElfXd 1 Elb8 2 1 .Eld8t Elf8 22.tLle8! and White wins material.


20.ctJxa8 Eixd1 2 1 .Eifxd1 �f8 22.ctJc7± White's two rooks are clearly stronger than

Black's queen, Tatenhorst - Zylla, Germany 1993.

17.�b3 This natural move is considered best by

theory.

17 ... Eif7 This is the main reply. Black has also tried:

17 .. .'�h8 1 8 .Eifd l f5 To me this looks rather dubious.

19.ctJb4! �f6 This was N. Pen - Bu Xiangzhi, Liverpool 2007. Now instead of settling for the draw by 20.ctJd5 White could have achieved an advantage by simple means:

20.ctJxc6!N fxe4 20 . . . bxc6 is strongly met by 2 1 .�e3 f4 (even worse is 2 l . . .fxe4?! 22.ctJd2!) 22.�c5 i.g4 23 .Eid6 and Black is going ro suffer.

2 1 .ctJcxe5 exf3 22.ctJxf3 i.g4 23.Eic3! White keeps an extra pawn. Cenainly Black

has some chances for the draw thanks to the possibility of defending with opposite-coloured bishops, but I doubt that many players would consider this a satisfactory outcome from the opening for Black.

18.Eifdl i.e6 19.if1! Despite being played only twice the text seems

to me the most natural continuation. One of White's main strategic ideas is to exchange light-squared bishops, leaving White's central knight against Black's dark bishop.

19 . . . @h8 I also examined 1 9 . . . Eid7 20.i.b5 Eic8 2 1 .�a4

Eid6 which appears pretty solid for Black. Nevertheless White obtains a comfortable edge through an elegant tactical combination: 22.i.c4 Wh8 23.ctJb6! Eixd 1 t 24.Eixd 1 �xb6 25 .i.xe6 Eid8 26.Eixd8t �xd8 27.i.d5;1;

a b c d e f g h

20.i.b5!N 20.�a4 has been played in a couple of games,

bur the text is a natural improvement.

20 ... Eib8 2 1 .�a4 White's initiative is not easy to contain.

For example, 2 1 . . .Eid7 is met strongly by 22.ttJb4!.

C2) 8 ... 0-0 9.0-0

We should also consider a couple ofless serious alternatives.


9 ... �g4 1 0.h3 �xf3 1 1 .'lWxf3 Exchanging the black light-squared bishop for White's knight cannot be a good idea.

1 l . . .e5 1 2.dxe5! This is easier than 1 2.d5 tiJe7 13 .e4, which leads to a position examined in line C 1 1 .

1 2 . . . �xe5 1 3 .'lWe2 'IWe7 This far we have been following Navarovszky - Kirov, Polanica Zdroj 1 976. Now White could have played the following natural moves:

a b c d e f g h 14 .�d2!?N l'!fdB 1 5 .l'!fd 1 �g7 16.�eU


9 . . . �e6 1 0 .b3 'lWcB 1 1 .�b2 �h3 The exchange of the light-squared bishops costs Black some time and does not lead to equality.

1 2.l'!c1 �xg2 1 3 .<;t>xg2 l'!dB 14 .We2 e5 1 5 .dxe5 tiJxe5

Kharitonov - Zaichik, Vilnius 1 97B. Once again we have a natural improvement.

a b c d e f g h

1 6.tiJe4!N tiJxf3 An important point is that 1 6 . . . tiJd3 allows White to seize a dangerous initiative with 1 7.�xg7 <;t>xg7 1 B.l'!fd 1 ! tiJxc 1 1 9.'lWb2t <;t>fB 20.'lWhBt <;t>e7 2 l .Wf6t <;t>eB 22 .l'!xc l . 1 6 . . . 'lWf5 can be met comfortably with 1 7.�xe5! �xe5 1 B.lUc5 l'!abB 1 9 .e4, with an obvious positional superiority - juSt look at the difference between the knights.

1 7.�xg7 <;t>xg7 1 B.'IWxf3 lUd5 1 9.md1 c6 20.lUc5

White has definite pressure, with e3-e4 to follow shortly.

e21) 9 ... e5 1O.d5

8 ;i • .tS �:i*. 7 �r_""'X_" y.lfr %""%.�� ',�� 6 " ��M%�� 5 ��,��.� 4 �%'''//-��r� �� '� � 3 � m t�ttJ� 2 ��,,,, ,_,,, , ,xd1Z� �""%�;.�l�%''' '%

a b c d e f g h

IO . . . e4 This used to be considered fully reliable for

Black, up until the Tkachiev - Sutovsky game featured in the main line below.

After 1 0 . . . lUa5 1 l .e4 we reach a position that was examined in line C 1 3.

The other serious option is: 1 0 . . . lUe7 1 1 .e4 lUc4

This knight manoeuvre is thematic, but costs Black some time. After 1 1 . . .�g4 1 2.h3 �xf3 1 3.'lWxf3 c6 1 4.l'!d l we once again reach a position from the B . . . e5 variation, this time line C 1 1 .

1 2.b3 lUd6 13 .�a3


This is the most purposeful square for the bishop. White has a promising position, as shown by the following lines.

1 3 . . . h6 Premature would be 13 .. .f5?! in view of the thematic 14.lUg5! f4 1 5 .lUe6 ixe6 1 6.dxe6 lUc6 1 7.lUd5 with a big advantage for White, Srohl - L. Horvath, Germany 2005.

1 4.l"kl f5 This occurred in Krant - Shure, New York 1 992. Here I found a nice improvement:

1 5 .E:e l !N Targeting the e5-pawn.

1 5 . . .f4 This looks like the natural response.

1 6.lUa4! White obtains a srrong initiative on the

queenside. His ideas include 'Wc2 attacking the c7-pawn, or lUc5-e6.

l 1 .dxc6 �xd l 1 2.E:xdl ex£3 13.ix£3 bxc6

14.!d2! Tournament practice has demonstrated that

Black has full compensation for the pawn after 1 4.ixc6 E:b8. Instead White should concentrate on development, with a view to exploiting his superior structure later in the game.

14 ... lDc4 15.lDa4! E:b8 1 5 . . . lUxb2?? would be a decisive mistake

in view of: 1 6.lUxb2 ixb2 17 .E:ab 1 E:b8 1 8 .ic1 +-

Black has also tried: 1 5 . . . if5 1 6.E:ac 1 lUe5 1 7.ie2 �e4

This looks tricky, but White can keep the advantage with precise play.

1 8.ia5 lUf3t This was Blecken - Von Alvensleben, Germany 1 996. Here White should not be afraid of Black's threats and instead react calmly.

a b c d e f g h 1 9 .@g2!N

The discovered checks achieve very little. Here is a sample line:

1 9 ... lUel t 20.@fl lUf3 2 1 .lUc5 lUxh2t 22.@gl lUf3t 23.@g2! lUh4t 24.@h3 if3 25 .ixf3 lUxf3 26.<j;Jg2 lUe5 27.ixc7±

White is clearly better, due to Black's weak pawns on the queens ide.

16.!c3 !xc3 17.bxc3 lUe5 18.!e2!


Another accurate move. Instead if 1 8.iLg2 Black has 1 8 . . . E:b5! intending . . . E:a5 with decent counterplay.

18 ... iLe6 19.E:d4! White has coordinated his pieces in an

optimal way, preventing all counterplay.

1 9 ... ctJd7 20.E:adl ctJb6 21 .ctJcS Black faces a depressing endgame, Tkachiev

- Sutovsky, Dresden 2007.

e22) 9 ... aS 10.b3

1 0 . . . a4?! is premature. 1 1 .ctJxa4 ctJxa4 12 . bxa4 iLeG ( 1 2 . . . iLf5 , Covic - Plakalovic, Jahorina 2003, can be met simply by 1 3 .ctJh4N iLd7 1 4.E:b 1 ±) 1 3 .E:bl E:a7 1 4.iWc2 iWa8 1 5 .ttJh4! Black fails to obtain sufficient compensation for the pawn.

1 0 . . . iLg4 was played in Gorelov - Tseshkovsky, Minsk 1 985 . Here I suggest the following line for White: I l .h3N iLeG 1 2.iLa3 ttJd5 1 3 .ttJa4 ttJdb4 1 4.iWe2;!; and White is slightly better.

1 0 . . . iLf5 l 1 .iLb2 iWd7 12 .ttJg5!? Not only preventing . . . iLh3, but also embarking on

a journey towards the c5-square. 1 2 . . . E:fd8 1 3 .ttJge4 e5 14.ttJc5 iWc8 1 5 .d5 e4 This was Korchnoi - Olafsson, Stockholm 1 962, and now White should have continued 1 G.iWe2N ttJxd5 1 7.ttJxd5 E:xd5 1 8 .ttJxe4 iLxb2 1 9.iWxb2 iLxe4 20.iLxe4 E:dG 2 1 .E:fda with a pleasant edge.

l 1 .ia3 E:e8 12.dxeS ctJxeS 13.ttJd4 This is more ambitious than 1 3 .ttJxe5 iLxe5

1 4.E:cl with just a slight edge.

1 3 ... c6 14.Wc2 ctJdS lS.ctJxdS adS We have been following the game Sokolsky

- Arulaid, Moscow 1 959. Now I suggest:

This is the most fashionable line nowadays.

1 0.E:e1!? This continuation used to be considered

harmless for Black, but after the game Tkachiev - Iordacescu, Dresden 2007, it returned to fashion. The rook move is useful preparation for the central confrontation that usually takes place within a few moves.


a b c d e f g h

At this point we should look at C231 ) lO . . . b6!?, C232) 1O . . . id7, C233) lO . . . a5!? and finally the main line of C234) lO . . . e5.

C231) 1O . . . b6!?

Rather a curioLls waiting move. Black is waiting for his opponent to reveal his intentions before committing himself to a definite plan. The text might be useful in preparing to develop the bishop on e6 without fear of harassment from a knight on gS .

1 1 .h3!? White responds in a similar manner. The

premature 1 1 .b3 is exactly the move Black was waiting for. After 1 1 . . .eS 1 2.dxeS tUxeS 1 3 .tUxeS ixeS 1 4.ib2 �xd l l S .�axd l c6 Black equalized comfortably in Prakken -Okhotnik, Nancy 2004.

1 1 . . . a5 12.'&e2 The same idea can be found in line C233

with 1 0 . . . aS .

12 . . . a4 13.�dl Preventing . . . eS for the time being.

13 . . . ie6 14.ttJd2 This looks like the most promising idea. In

case of the natural 1 4.e4 Black can bravely

accept the pawn with 1 4 . . . tUxd4 l S .tUxd4 ixd4 1 6.ixh6 ic4! 1 7.�f3 eS with equal chances.

14 . . . �a5!? Black finds a remarkable way to activate his

rook. Here the rook helps to control the dSsquare while also supporting the thematic . . . eS break. On the other hand, with all the minor pieces still on the board, the rook might be subjected to an attack at some point.

a b c d e f g h

15.�bl !?N This is my improvement. The idea is to

prepare the b2-b4 advance to take advantage of the position of the black rook.

l S .tUde4 �cB 1 6.�h2?! After this Black's set-up works perfectly. The principled continuation was 1 6.tUcS, when Black has to sacrifice an exchange by means of: 1 6 . . . ixh3 1 7.tUxb7 ixg2 1 B .tUxaS �h3 1 9.f3 ixf3 20.�xf3 tUxaS White is probably bener here, but Black has definite compensation, due to the vulnerable position of White's king.

1 6 . . . ic4 1 7.�c2 eS 1 B .dxeS tUb4 1 9.�d2 �axeS+

TIlis was Cvitan - Kozul , Reggio Emilia 1 993. Black has obtained an excellent position and went on to win a nice game.


lS . . • Wics Another option is I S . . . �a8 I 6.b4 axb3

I 7.liJxb3 �c4 I 8 .�eI Ei:a7 1 9.a4;!; with pressure on the queenside.

16.b4 axb3 17.liJxb3 i.c4 If I 7 . . . Ei:a8 I 8 .dS �xc3 19 .dxc6 bxc6

20.�xc6 �xh3 2 l .e4 I do not believe Black has sufficient compensation.

ls.Wib2 Ei:aS 19.1iJcS Ei:dS 2o.Wic2!;t White keeps definite pressure on the

queenside.

C232) 10 . . . i.d7 1 1 .h3

a b c d e f g h

Once again we see this useful waiting move. Now White is ready to meet . . . �c8 with <j;Jh2.

1 1 ...eS Black can first insert 1 1 . . .�c8 I 2 .i>h2 and

only then carry out the thematic 12 . . . eS, but this does not change the overall evaluation of the position. Atishay - Nadig, Mumbai 2008, continued I 3 .dS liJaS 1 4.e4 liJac4 l S .b3 liJd6 1 6.a4 as, and now the simple I 7.�e3N fS 1 8.Ei:c l would have given White a comfortable edge.

l2.dS liJe7 13.e4 c6

Unlike the main l ine C234, Black does not have the g4-square available for his bishop. On the other hand his . . . �d7 move vacated the c8-square for the knight, meaning that dS-d6 is of no concern here.

14.a4! This is a thematic idea for this variation.

14 • • . cxdS lS.exdS liJf5 16.liJe4 liJc4 Black's moves appear perfectly natural, but

somehow he fails to equalize.

17.g4! liJfd6 I also considered 17 . . . liJd4, when White

maintains an edge with 1 8 .liJxd4 exd4 19.b3 liJaS 20.�f4 �b6 2 1 .Ei:b 1 .

lS.ttJfd2! After this powerful move Black cannot

maintain the blockade on d6.

IS ... f5 19.ttJxc4 ttJxc4 20.b3! ttJaS 2 1 .i.gS Wib6 22.i.e3 Wi dS

This posltlon occurred 111 !zoria Kempinski, Ohrid 200 l . Here White missed an opportunity to increase his advantage:


C233) lO . .. a5!?

8 .i �J.J . . j.i �.�

7 � ' _ _ , �,

6 %._�� . . . . . %� ',�� 5 iI' � 1Il� 1Il� 4 l•lIlnlll•1Il•

� �%'''/d'''''%®'0 �®'� 3 � �� f':'\ �fl� � .. �; iO% �iO% 2 �%n/''' ' ' '� ''' ' '%d:f� . · . . Z·· · · %�f0 �% . . . . Z···· %?�ci!··· · 1 �� iV�� W

a b c d e f g h

This subtle move has become quite topical lately. Black takes control of some extra space on the queenside and waits for a favourable moment to strike in the centre with . . . e5.

1 1 .'lWe2!? This is an interesting new attempt to fight

for the advantage. White intends to place his took on d l , which should make Black think twice before executing his intended . . . e7 -e5 advance.

1 1 .b3 e5 1 2.lDxe5 lDxe5 1 3 .dxe5 �xe5 14.�b2 c6 is acceptable enough for Black, the latest example from Grandmaster praxis being Drozdovskij - Kempinski, Germany 2008.

Interestingly, when I wrote the first draft of the present chapter, 1 1 :&e2 was a move that I found by myself, and I intended to present it as an interesting novelty. However, between then and the time of publication, it has so far been played in no less than five (!) different games. This can only be a good thing insofar as it allows us to draw more informed conclusions about the objective merits of the move. So far, the evidence appears quite promising for White.

1 1 . . . e5

The following options also deserve our consideration.

1 1 . . .�e6N has not been tested yet. 1 2.1'%d l �c4 1 3.Wc2 (This is more accurate than 1 3 .We l lDb4 14.b3 �a6 when Black has counrerplay.) 1 3 . . . lDb4 1 4.Wb l a4 1 5 .e4 Wd7 1 6.�e3;j; White has the more pleasant game, although the position remains quite complicated.

1 1 . . .a4 1 2.1'%d 1 �f5? ! This seems a bit strange, as it provokes White to win some tempos. Another line is 1 2 . . . 1'%a5 1 3.lDe1 �f5 1 4.�d2 and Black's rook on a5 is completely misplaced. I also examined 1 2 . . . �g4, when 1 3 .h3 �xf3 1 4.�xf3 e5 1 5 .dxe5 Wg5 1 6.�d2 �xe5 17.1'%ac J leaves Whi te with a pleasant edge.

1 3 .d5 lDa5 14 .lDd4 Wc8 A sad necessity, as Black can hardly play 14 . . . �d7 in view of the elegant 1 5 .lDe6!.

1 5 .lDxf5 Wxf5 1 6.e4 Wc8 1 7.e5± White has achieved everything he could wish

for in this line, Diamant - D. Howell, Puerto Madryn 2009.

IV�jxe5 ltJxe5 13.dxe5 i.xe5

8

7 6 5 4 3

2

1 a b c d e f g h

14.e4!


The first game to feature White's 1 1 .�e2 was Ljubojevic - Grischuk, Villarabredo 2009. In that encounter he failed to achieve anything special after 1 4.f4 ixc3 1 5 .bxc3 if5!? 1 6.ixb7 l:'!b8 1 7.if3 ie4 when Black had nice compensation due to his domination over the light squares and the passivity of White's bishop.

The text started out as my own improvement, but it has since been played three times before the book was published.

14 ... ie6 14 . . . c6 is too slow and allows White to

carry out his plan without problems. 1 5 .ie3 ie6 1 6.f4 i.g7 17.e5 Blocking the g7 -bishop and intending to penetrate with the knight to d6. 17 . . . f6 An understandable decision, given the previous comment. 1 8 .l:'!ad 1 �c7 1 9.exf6 ixf6 20.ttJe4 ie7 (if 20 . . . ig7 2 1 .ttJd6± Black's position is very difficult) We have been following the game Tkachiev - Maze, Nimes 2009. At this point the simple 2 1 .id4!N would have left Black in considerable danger, due to the exposed position of his king.

1 4 . . . a4 occurred in Khismatullin - Efimenko, Ohrid 2009. Now White should have played 1 5 .f4N ig7 1 6 .ie3 a3 17 .l:'!ad 1 �e7 1 8.e5 axb2 1 9.ixb6! cxb6 20.�xb2 maintaining a long-term advantage, due to his superior pawn structure.

lS.f4 ig7 The computer likes 1 5 . . . ixc3 1 6.bxc3 id5,

although I cannot imagine many human players being attracted by this. In any case, I believe that after 17.�f2 i.c6 1 8.ia3! intending ic5-d4, the vulnerability of Black's dark squares should tell eventually.

I also analysed 1 5 . . . id4t 16.ie3 ttJc4 17 .if2! (The obvious 17.ixd4 leads to unclear play after 1 7 . . . �xd4t 1 8.Wh 1 l:'!ed8 19 .1:'!ad l �c5 .)

17 .. . c6 1 8 .l:'!ed 1 ! ? ixf2t 1 9 .�xf2 �b6 20.b3 �xf2t 2 1 .Wxf2 ttJb6 22.e5! The endgame is certainly better for White, who intends ttJe4 in the nearest future.

16.ie3 �e7 17.eS Suddenly Black's position starts to become

uncomfortable.

17 ... l:'!ab8 This position occurred in Rogozenko -

Areshchenko, Germany 2009. Now White has a wide choice, but the most accurate would have been:

a b c d e f g h

1 8.'Wf2!N White's advantage is obvious. Aside from his

superiority in the centre, he has two concrete threats in 1 9.i.c5 and 19 .ttJb5. Of course, there is also the option of slowly improving the position with ideas such as ttJe4.

C234) lO ... eS n .dS

Now we have reached an important crossroads for Black. Here he can consider C2341 ) 1 1 . . . lbe7 and C2342) l 1 . . . lbaS.

C2341) 1 1 . .. lbe7

This has brought Black excellent practical results, but White's play can be improved.


12.e4 i.g4 Here I developed the following plan for

White:

1 3.a4 c6 14.a5 ttJc4

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

20.�g5 f6 2 1 .ttJxf6t There is a second promising cominuation in 2 1 .ie3!? ttJc6 (2 1 . . . ttJac4 22.ixa7 is strong) 22.l=1ed l with excellem compensation.

2 1 . . . ixf6 22.ixf6 Wixf6 23 .l=1xa5 a6 24.l=1d5 White has regained his pawn while keeping

a stable advantage.

17.ig5 h6 The idea to sacrifice an exchange for the

strong passed d-pawn does not work: 1 7 . . . d4?! 1 8.ttJd5 h6 1 9.ttJxe7t l=1xe7 20.ixe7 Wixe7 2 1 .Wib3! ttJd6 22.a6 b6 23.l=1ec 1 and White is clearly better.

17 . . . dxe4 allows White to obtain a strong initiative after 1 8.ttJxe4, for instance 1 8 . . . ttJxa5 1 9.1:01ed l Wic7 20.ttJf6t �xf6 2 1 .Wixf6 and

a b c d e f g h wins.

1 5.h3!N Having analysed this importam novelty in

some detail , I believe it promises White good chances to fight for the advamage. The only previous game continued 1 5 .a6 bxa6 16.Wib3, Krisko - Soucek, Czechoslovakia 1 989, and now Black could have achieved comfortable play by means of 1 6 . . . cxd5!N 1 7.exd5 Wic8 .

15 .. . .hf3 1 6.Wixf3 cxd5 The first poim worth noting is that the a5-

pawn is poisoned: 16 . . . ttJxa5? 1 7.d6! and Black loses one of his knights.

Black can also try 1 6 . . . ttJd6 1 7.Wid3 cxd5

Not so good is 17 . . . c5?! 1 8 .�e3 l=1c8 1 9.ttJa4! and White is clearly better.

1 8.ttJxd5 ttJc6 1 9.h4!? r like this move, not only preparing ig5 , but also vacating the h3-square for the bishop.

19 . . . ttJxa5 This is obviously the principled cominuation. Instead if 1 9 . . . h6 20.�d2 White enjoys a pleasam edge.

1 8.he7 l=1xe7 1 9.ttJxd5 l=1e6 20J3ec1 �c8 21 .h4!

White has definite pressure, thanks to the superiority of both of his minor pieces over their black counterparts.

C2342) 1 1 ...ttJa5 1 2.e4 c6


the long diagonal, but it turns out that White has enough tactical resources to justify the decision.

Other moves are not so dangerous for Black. One recent high-level encounter continued 1 3 .ig5 f6 14.ie3 cxd5 1 5 .ixb6 axb6 1 6.ttJxd5 ie6 17.'lWe2 ixd5 l S.exd5 f5 and Black easily solved his opening problems, Ivanchuk - Dominguez, Sofia 2009.

l3 .. . cxd5 14.exd5

a b c d e f g h

We have reached our final branching point of the chapter. Here Black should choose between C23421) 14 • • • e4 and C23422) 14 .. . ig4.

C23421) 14 ... e4

This appears critical, but the tactics turn out in White's favour.

15.liJxe4! liJxd5 The immediate rook capture is very bad for

Black and it is no surprise that it has never occurred in practice. 1 5 . . . ixa l ? 1 6.ig5 f6 17.ixf6! ixf6 l S .ttJxf6t 'lWxf6 19.ElxeSt �f7 20.'lWe l with a winning position.

An important alternative is: 1 5 . . . Elxe4 1 6.Elxe4 ixa1 17.ig5

Only this move enables White to fight for an opening advantage. 1 7.id2 if5 l S.Ele1 if6 1 9.ixa5 'lWxd5 20.'lWxd5 ttJxd5 was equal in Gagunashvil i Sutovsky, Rishon Le Zion 2006.

1 7 . . . if6 Black cannot play 17 . . . f6 I S .id2 if5 1 9 .Ele 1 ttJxd5 20.'lWxa l ± and despite the material equality his position is very difficult.

l s.ixf6 'lWxf6 1 9.EleSt 1 9 .'lWd2 if5 20.Ele 1 ttJxb3 2 1 .axb3 EldS is perfectly playable for Black.

1 9 . . . �g7 20.'lWe 1 ig4 2 1 .ElxaS ttJxaS 22.ttJe5 ics 23.b4

White was clearly better in Podgaets -Nedilko, Odessa 2007.

16.ig5 f6 17.id2 ttJc6 Despite the material equalityand symmetrical

structure, Black is still a long way from equality as White's forces are much better mobilized.

18.Elc1 if5? A bad move, but it was hard to suggest a

fully satisfactory continuation. Now in the game Tkachiev - Mikhalevski, Ajaccio 2007, White should have played:

a b c d e f g h

19.ttJc5!N Elxel t 2o.ixel! Black can hardly avoid material losses.


C23422) 14 . . . ig4 15.ia3!

This is a key move. The bishop is heading for b4, where it will attack the misplaced knight on a5.

15 .. . f5 We should also consider:

1 5 . . . e4 This principled continuation has been played many times, but it just seems to lead by force to an inferior position for Black.

1 6.ltJxe4 Wxd5 Once again White's rook is untouchable: 16 . . . �xa l ? 1 7.Wxal ltJxd5 I B.ltJe5 i.e6 1 9.1tJd6 and Black's position just collapses. Black can also take on d5 with the knight, but this also fails to solve his problems: 1 6 . . . ltJxd5 17.Elc l ltJc6 I B.ltJd6! Elxe l t 1 9.Wxe l ElbB ( 1 9 . . . Wf6 20.We4± brings no relief either) 20.ltJxb7 Elxb7 2 1 .Elxc6 and White remains with a healthy extra pawn, Navara - Ivanchuk, Prague (rapid) 2009.

1 7.Wxd5 ltJxd5 I B.Elac l After a nice tactical battle a near-symmetrical posmon has arisen in which Black unexpectedly faces serious problems, due to the poor coordination of his knights and the vulnerabiliry of the h l -aB diagonal.

I B . . . ltJc6 If I B . . . ElacB Black loses material after 1 9 .ElxcB ElxcB 20.ltJd6 ElbB 2 1 .ltJxf7!.

1 9 .1tJd6 Elxe l t 20.Elxel ltJdb4 2 1 .i.xb4 ltJxb4 22.ltJg5!

This very strong move maintains White's initiative.

22 . . . f6 The most stubborn defence. White's task would be easier after: 22 . . . ltJxa2 23.i.xb7 ElbB 24.i.d5 i.f6 25 .ltJgxf7±

23.i.xb7 Also worthy of consideration was 23 .ltJe6!? i.xe6 (23 .. . ltJxa2 is met strongly by 24.ltJxg7 Wxg7 25 .ltJeBt! and Black loses both his

b7- and f6-pawns) 24.Elxe6 ltJxa2 25 .Ele7 with an initiative.

23 . . . ElbB This position occurred in Tkachiev -

Iordachescu, Dresden 2007. Here White missed the best continuation:

a b c d e f g h 24.Ele4!N fxg5 25 .Elxb4 EldB 26.Elxg4 Elxd6 27.Elxg5 Eld2 2B.Eld5 Elxa2 29 .Eld7±

With a very difficult endgame for Black.

1 5 . . . ElcB This was recommended by Ftacnik in ChessBase Magazine 1 18. Now White should continue with:

1 6.Elc l ! i.h6 Or 1 6 .. . f5 1 7 .i.b4 ltJd7 I B.Wd2 with an advantage.

1 7.Elc2 i.f5 Objectively better is 1 7 .. . f5 , although White keeps clearly better chances after: I B.i.b4 ltJd7 1 9 .1tJa4 Elxc2 20.Wxc2 i.xf3 2 1 .i.xf3 e4 22.i.e2±

a b c d e f g h


l SJ3ce2!! A great tactical idea, found with the help of my silicon friend. The point is revealed after:

l S . . . !hc3 1 9.1Dxe5 Despite being a piece up, Black is unable to defend against the numerous threats, for instance:

1 9 . . . �d7 20.�b4 i:%el 2 1 .lLJxd7! i:%xe2 22.lLJf6t! �xf6 23 .�xe2

White will regain the piece while keeping an extra pawn and a winning position.

16.�b4 lLJd7 The alternative 1 6 . . . e4 17.�xa5 �d6

occurred in the very recent game Caruana - Dominguez Perez, Wijk aan Zee 20 1 0. Here White's strongest continuation would have been l S.i:%el !N exf3 I 9.�fl . White is threatening lLJb5, and I9 ... a6 is well met by 20.i:%e6! i:%xe6 2 1 .dxe6. This is actually the same as the game, except for the position of the rook on el instead of b I , which can only favour White. In my opinion his advantage is already decisive. One important point is that 2 1 . . .�xe6? can be refuted by the elegant 22.lLJa4! winning material, thanks to the idea of ic4 winning the queen.

17.�d2 ixf3 18.ixf3 irs Black could also try I S . . . e4 1 9 .ig2 b6,

though after 20.f3! exf3 2 1 .i:%xeSt �xeS 22.�xf3 lLJe5 23 .ig2 White maintains a pleasant edge, thanks to his bishop pair and strong passed pawn.

We have been following the game Asis Gargatagli - Kalod, Sabadell 2007, in which White failed to find the best continuation.

21 .ie2 i:%c8 22.i:%ac1 White's chances are preferable, thanks to the

strong d-pawn.

Conclusion:

The system featured in the present chapter, involving . . . d5 without the preparatory . . . c6, leads to positions more in keeping with the general character of the Griinfeid and is the natural choice for players looking for a dynamic and unbalanced game. White startS out with a slight superiority in the centre, having exchanged on d5. For this reason, most of Black's attempts to obtain counrerplay will be based on preparing . . . e5 or . . . c5. Depending on the specific circumstances, a variety of potential central pawn configurations might occur. We have seen that many of the resulting positions contain an intriguing blend of positional and tactical motifs, and are likely to provide plenty of complex challenges for both sides. Ultimately I believe White's prospects to be sl ightly superior, and a player armed with the analysis contained in these pages will have excellent chances to create problems for his opponent.

Griinfeld Defence

Solid Variation

Variation Index l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.�f3 d5

5.b3 i.g7 6.i.g2 A) 6 ... dxc4 B) 6 ... 0-0 7.0-0

Bl) 7 ... i.e6 B2) 7 ... c5 B3) 7 ... �e4 8.i.b2 B4) 7 ... i.fS 8.i.b2

B41) 8 ... �bd7 B42) 8 .. :�c8 B43) 8 ... �e4

B5) 7 ... �bd7 B6) 7 ... a5 8.�c3 �e4 9.i.b2

B61) 9 ... �xc3 10.i.xc3 B62) 9 ... i.fS

B7) 7 ... dxc4 8.bxc4 c5 9.i.b2 B71) 9 .. :Wb6 B72) 9 ... cxd4 10.�xd4

B72 1) 10 ... �g4 B722) 1O ... �c6!? B723) 1O .. :�Nb6 1 1 .�b3

B723 1) 1 1 ...�bd7 B7232) 1 1 ...�fd7 12.e3

B72321) 12 ... �c5 B72322) 12 ... �a6 B72323) 12 ... �c6

a b c d e f g h

338 339 340 341 342 345 345 345 346 348 349 350 354 357 357 358 359 360 361 361 362 362 363 364


1 .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.lLlB d5 5.b3 ig7 6.ig2

The solid system with . . . c6 and . . . d5 in the Griinfeld has proved to be one of the most difficult nuts to crack. I was determined to suggesr the g3-variation for various reasons, one of them being that I play the Griinfeld at times and have found this Ii ne difficult to face in practice. However, certain theoreticaJ problems remained. The main line against this system does not involve b2-b3, with White instead preferring to exchange on d5. However, after . . . cxd5 it seems unlikely that any advantage can be achieved in this symmerricaJ position.

Eventually I came up with a very interesting pawn sacrifice in the 5.b3 line ( l 3 .tUc3!! in line B72323), shifting the foundation under the black position, and suddenly offering White good chances everywhere. Only the future will tell if this evaJuation will stand the test of time. In the short term it seems to offer Black a lot of practical ptoblems, which I have not been able to solve easily for him.

At this point we should divide our attention between the sideline A) 6 ... dxc4 and the main lines starting after B) 6 . . . 0-0.

A) 6 . . . dxc4 7.bxc4 c5

This is reminiscent of the main line, which can be found in line B7 (page 357) . However, the fact that neither side has castled can lead to some independent possibilities, aJthough transpositions can easily occur as well. I faced this line against a Griinfeld speciaJist, Emil Sutovsky, last year.

8.ib2 cxd4 9.lLlxd4 9.0-0 tUc6 1 0.tUxd4 0-0 transposes to

the main line; I know Emil has played this position as well. With this particular move order, it looks interesting for Black to try 1 0 . . . id7!?N intending a rapid development of the queens ide with . . . E\CS.

9 ... VNb6 9 . . . 0-0 1 0.0-0 would just transpose to our

main variation.

10.VNb3 In Avrukh - Sutovsky, Jubilee Open 2009,

I preferred 1 0.tUb3 0-0 1 l .0-0. Now Black could have obtained a good position with the naturaJ 1 1 . . J!dS 12 .�c l tUc6 1 3 .tUc3 ie6.

10 . . . lLlfd7 This was the move I feared during the

game. The problem for White is that 1 1 .e3 is unsatisfactory due to 1 1 . . .tUc5 forcing a favourable queen exchange, as 1 2.�a3?? is impossible in view of 1 2 . . . �xb2 and 1 3 . . . . tUd3t winning a piece.

It aJmost goes without saying that 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .0-0 again transposes to our main variation.

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .0-0 1 1 .tUd2 allowed Black to get a comfortable

game after 1 l . . .tUc6 1 2.tUb5 tUc5 1 3.�a3 ixb2 1 4.�xb2 0-0, Dizdarevic - Shirov, Sarajevo 2004.

1 1 ...lLlc6!? This is the main idea that gives the present

line independent vaJue. I only found one game reference, in which Black played 1 1 . . . 0-0 transposing to line B7 as usual.

Chapter 20 - Solid Variation 339

1 l . . .ixd4?! This was the idea I was afraid of during my game with Sutovsky, but it is hardly correct.

1 2.Wlxb6 ixb6 Objectively better would be 1 2" .axb6 but then Black's idea is senseless, as it gifts White the advantage of the two bishops after 13 .ixd4.

1 3.ixhS f6 14.a4! Defending against " .id4.

1 4" .'ii7f7 Or 14" .ttJc6 I 5 .id5! ttJc5 1 6.ig7! and the bishop escapes via the h6-square.

1 5.a5 id4 1 6.�a3 The threat of 1 7 .a6 gives White an importanr tempo.

1 6" .ttJc5 17.�d l ie5

I S.�e3! An importanr tactical idea White is ready to sacrifice an exchange in order to escape with his bishop.

I S".ttJc6 19.ixc6 bxc6 20.�xe5 fxe5 2 1 .ixe5 White has an extra pawn and good winning

chances.

12.ttJb5 I 2.e3 ttJa5 I3 .Wlc2 ttJxc4 1 4.Wlxc4 Wlxb2

I 5 .ttJc3 0-0 1 6.�ab l Wla3 1 7.ttJdb5 gives White reasonable compensation for the pawn, but not enough to claim a real advanrage.

12 . . . ixb2 13.Wlxb2 0-0 14.ttJ 1c3

White can also consider 14.ttJd2!?, e.g. 1 4" .a6 1 5 .Wla3 Wlc5 1 6.Wlxc5 ttJxc5 1 7.ttJc3 with a slight initiative.

14 . . . ttJde5 1 5.ttJd5 Wlc5 16.�ac1 a6 If 1 6" .ttJxc4 White should conrinue with

17.ttJbc7 �bS I s .Wlc3 b5 1 9.ttJxb5 �xb5 20.Wlxc4 Wlxc4 2 1 .�xc4 ie6 22.e4 ttJe5 23.�c7 and White will end up with an extra pawn.

Instead 17.�xc4 Wlxc4 I S .�c 1 Wla4 19.ttJbc7 Wld4 20.Wlxd4 ttJxd4 2 1 .�d l ttJxe2t 22.'ii7fl ttJxg3t 23.hxg3 �bS 24.ttJxe7t 'ii7hS! would allow Black to hold the position.

a b c d e f g h

17.Wla3! Wlxa3 18.lLlxa3 ifS 19.£4 ttJd7 20.c5

It may not be much, but White definitely keeps a small advantage.

B) 6 . . . 0-0 7.0-0

a b c d e f g h


At this major branching point we need to consider the following options: Bl) 7 ... ie6, B2) 7 ... c5, B3) 7 . . . tiJe4, B4) 7 ... ifS, B5) 7 ... ttJbd7, B6) 7 ... a5 and finally the main line starting with B7) 7 ... dxc4 .

B1) 7 ... ie6

Not a very popular move, but White must still react precisely to get an advantage.

8.ttJbd2 Obviously Black is not concerned about

S .ttJg5, as after S . . . if5 the knight is misplaced on g5 .

8 ... a5 The alternatives are:

S . . . ttJe4?! 9.ttJxe4! White can also play calmly with 9.ib2, bur the text move enables him to take advantage of his opponent's inaccuracy to initiate favourable complications.

9 . . . dxe4 1 0.ttJg5 Wxd4 Much worse is 1 0 . . . ig4 1 1 .ie3 c5 1 2.d5! ixa l 1 3 .Wxa l and Black is in trouble, as was proved in the following encounter: 1 3 . . . b6 14.ttJxe4 f6 1 5 .d6! ttJd7 16.ih6 l"!eS 1 7.tt:Jg5 e6 I S .h3 with a decisive advantage in Le Roux - Kovchan, France 2007. lo . . . ixd4 1 1 .ttJxe6 fxe6 1 2.ih6 ig7 1 3 .ixg7 Wxd l 1 4.l"!fxdl I:t:?xg7 occurred in Gomes - Mikadze, Gaziantep 200S, and now White should have played: 1 5 .b4!N tt:Ja6 1 6.l"!d7±

1 1 .Wxd4 ixd4 1 2.ttJxe6 fxe6 1 3.l"!b l ttJa6 14.b4!

White regains the pawn and keeps an obvious edge, thanks to h is bishop pair.

S . . . WcS 9.ia3! A very good moment to develop the darksquared bishop to a3, while at the same time

vacating the c 1 -square for the rook. 9 . . . l"!eS 1 O.l"!c 1 dxc4?!

A lesser evil would be lo . . . ih3 1 1 .cxd5 ixg2 1 2.l:t:?xg2 ttJxd5 1 3 .e4 ttJc7 14 .ib2, although here too White has a pleasant edge.

1 1 .bxc4 ih3 1 2 .e4 ixg2 1 3 .l:t:?xg2 ttJfd7 14.Wb3 c5 1 5 .d5 e5 1 6.ttJe1 ttJa6 17.tt:Jd3 b6 ls .ib2 ttJc7 19 .f4

White emerged with a clear advantage from the opening phase in Ji rovsky - Zwanzger, Bavaria 1 999.

9.e3!? Again I favour this flexible approach; It IS

important for White to retain different options for the development of h is dark-squared bishop. Black is doing fine after 9.ib2 a4 1 0.l"!e 1 axb3 1 1 .axb3 ttJa6.

9 . .. ttJbd7 If 9 . . . a4 White should favour the active

development of his bishop with 1 0.ia3 ( 1 0. bxa4 dxc4 1 1 .ttJg5 does not work in view of 1 l . . .id5 1 2.e4 c3!) l O . . . l"!eS 1 1 .We2 Wb6 1 2.l"!fc 1 ttJbd7 1 3.b4! Preventing the possible opening of the a-file. 1 3 . . . dxc4 14 .ttJxc4 Wa6 1 5 .ifU and White has a pleasant game.

1O.a4!?N

8

7 6 5 4 3

2

a b c d e f g h


This interesting and promising concept has not yet been tested. White simply prevents Black's main idea of advancing his a-pawn, at the same time intending to continue his normal development by mean of ia3, 'We2 and �fcl . Black's set-up with the bishop on e6 100ks to me pretty dubious here. Please pay attention to the timing of the last move; White only played a4 after the black knight had committed itself to d7; otherwise it would have found a nice home on a6, eyeing the potential outpost on b4.

B2) 7 ... cS

a b c d e f g h

Black moves his c-pawn for the second time, but at the same time he challenges White's centre and hopes to create pressure on the long diagonal.

8.�b2 This natural move is best.

8 ... cxd4 8 . . . dxc4 9.bxc4 leads to the main line B7.

But there is an alternative to investigate: 8 . . . tLJc6 9.dxc5 dxc4

This has been played in twO games. Now I found an interesting novelty:

l O.tLJd4!?N A quite natural improvement of White's play. Here are a few exemplary lines I analysed:

1 0 . . . id7 1 0 . . . tLJxd4 1 1 .'Wxd4 'Wxd4 1 2.ixd4 �d8 1 3.e3 cxb3 1 4.axb3 tLJd5 1 5 .ixg7 <;i?xg7 1 6.tLJa3! White has definite pressure, thanks to his powerful bishop.

1 1 .'Wc2 cxb3 1 2.axb3 tLJxd4 1 3 .ixd4 ic6 14.ixc6 bxc6

Black cannot play 14 . . . 'Wxd4? in view of 1 5 .�a4!.

1 5 .�d L!; White has easy play against Black's weak

pawns on the queenside.

9.cxdS 'lWxdS An obvious alternative is 9 . . . tLJxd5, against

which I propose l O.tLJxd4N (The only game played in this line continued with 1 0 .ixd4 tLJf6!, and Black wins an important tempo with . . . tLJc6, P. Nikolic - Krasenkow, Elista 1 998.) I analysed the following line: l O . . . 'Wa5 1 1 .'Wd2! 'Wxd2 1 2.tLJxd2 �d8 1 3.tLJc4 ixd4 1 4.ixd4 tLJc6 1 5 .ib2 ie6 16.�ac1 when White has a small but stable edge thanks to his bishop pair.

1O . . . 'WhS This was the idea behind 9 . . . 'Wxd5.


l 1 .Wc1 ! Otherwise 1 1 . .Jl:d8 would be unpleasant.

Despite the innocent appearance of White's position, he still remains with slightly better chances, as shown in the following line I analysed.

1 1 ...lLla6 12.lLlc3 gd8 13.gdl gb8 14.lLlf3 gxdlt

Or 1 4 . . . id7 1 5 .�e3 �c5 1 6.�xc5 lLlxc5 1 7.ltJe5;!;.

1 5.Wxdl ie6 16.Wd2 White retains the better chances, due to

Black misplaced pieces on the queenside.

B3) 7 ... lLle4 8.ib2

B31) 8 ..• dxc4 9.Wc2!

The best reply, although after 9.bxc4 �b6 1 0.�b3 c5 we would get the position from the 7 . . . dxc4 line.

9 ... lLld6 The main point of White's previous move is

that Black cannot support his knight by means of9 . . . if5? since after 1 0.g4 Black unavoidably loses material.

10.bxc4 if5 Black wins a tempo for developing his pieces,

but it can hardly make up for surrendering the centre.

1 1 .�c1 tDa6 12.lLlbd2 c5 13.d5 f6 14.lLlel e5

a b c d e f g h

15.e4N This obvious move is a novelty. Instead after

1 5 .dxe6 ixe6 1 6.ltJd3, Ehlvest - Perelshteyn, Stillwater 2007, Black might get a reliable position after 1 6 . . . ih6!N.

15 ... id7 16.lLld3 We7 17.Wc3 White intends :B:ae1 and f4. His chances are

definitely better, as he controls the centre and his pieces are much better mobilized.

B32) 8 ... ie6 9.lLlbd2

White immediately takes the opportunity to challenge the opponent's centralized knight.

9 ... tDxd2 Black can also play:

9 .. .f5 But in my opinion the Stonewall structure always promises a White long-lasting edge, especially given the unusual placement of Black's bishops. We will look at a few ill ustrative exam pies.


1 0.e3 tiJd7 Another game continued: 1 0 . . . c;t>hB 1 1 .�e2 tiJxd2 12.tiJxd2 tiJd7 1 3.cxdS ! With the queen on e2, White always has the idea of jumping to bS. We will see the same idea again and again throughout this chapter. 1 3 . . . �xdS 1 4.�xdS cxdS l S .�bS tiJb6 1 6.�fc l �d6 1 7.�aS White has serious pressure on the queenside, Borovikov -Haub, Nettetal 2004.

1 1 .�c l White should not change the character of the position with 1 1 .tiJxe4 dxe4 12.tiJgS, since after 1 2 . . . �f7 Black has a normal game.

l l . . .�hB 12 .�c2 as 13 .a4 �eB 14.md1 �cB l S .tiJel �f7 1 6.tiJd3

White had a nice edge in Kharitonov -Bareev, Sochi 1 9B7.

1O.�xd2!

This is an important point. White can sacrifice the c4-pawn temporarily, as the tiJgS idea is quite troublesome for Black.

1O .. . dxc4 This is a principled reaction, although

objectively it is not the best. Besides this Black has also played:

10 . . . h6 1 1 .tiJeS tiJd7 12.cxdS cxdS 13 .�ac l !?N

I see no point in removing the knight from the centre, as happened in the following encounter: 1 3 .tiJd3 tiJf6 14.�acl �fS and Black was doing fine in Milov - Lechrynsky, Bayern 2003.

1 3 . . . tiJxeS Also after 13 . . . tiJf6 14 .�b4 �bB l S .f3 tiJeB 1 6.�cS;!; White obtains definite pressure on the queenside.

14 .dxeS �cB Black cannot play 14 . . . �d7? in view of l S .e4 �fdB 1 6.exdS �xdS 17 .�fd l e6 1 B .�xdS exdS 1 9.�cS and White grabs a valuable central pawn.

l S .�xcB �xcB 1 6.�c l �d7 1 7.�c2 White is better thanks to his control over the

c-file.

1 0 . . . tiJa6 1 1 .�ac l This keeps all options open, although 1 1 .tiJgS �fS 1 2.e4 dxe4 1 3.tiJxe4 would give White a slightly better position as well .

1 1 . . .�d6 1 2.tiJeS mdB 13 .�fd l White has more space and obviously more useful moves.

1 3 . . . �acB 14.�a5! dxc4 The justification of White's previous move can be seen in the following line: 1 4 . . . �b4 l S .tiJxc6! bxc6 1 6.�xa6 dxc4 1 7.�a3! with advantage.

l S .tiJxc4 �c7 1 6.�e l The arising pawn structure promises White

a pleasant and enduring edge, Tal - Botvinnik, Moscow 1 960.

1 1 .tiJg5 Wfd7 This is the main move according to theory.

An important alternative is 1 1 . . . cxb3 1 2.lLlxe6 fXe6, which has occurred a few times. An interesting new idea would be 13 .�e3!?N intending to grab the b3-pawn with the queen in order to keep the b-file open to attack the queenside. A critical line runs 1 3 . . . bxa2


14 .'lWxe6t Wh8 1 5 .'lWxa2 tLld7 1 6.d5! and White has a substantial in itiative.

1 1 . . .ig4 would be an admission of failure, as Black just gives up the centre. 1 2.bxc4 h6 was Schmidt - Gauglitz, Dresden 1 985 , and now after the accurate 1 3 .h3!N ic8 1 4.tLle4 White already has the serious positional threat of 1 5 .d5. His advantage is obvious.

12.ttJxe6 'lWxe6 13.bxc4 'lWxc4 Now, in the game Jansa - Biolek, Czech

Republic 2005, White missed a strong idea.

14.dS!N This dynamic move is not at all easy to meet.

Here is one possible continuation:

14 ... hb2 lS.'lWxb2 'lWbS 16J3abl 'lWxb2 17Jhb2 cxdS 18.hdS ttJd7 19Jhb7 ttJf6 20.18

The resulting endgame is highly unpleasant for Black.

B33) 8 ... ttJd7

This is another popular set-up. The second knight comes to f6 to reinforce the position of the central steed.

9.e3

In my opinion this is the most promising plan for White. Conventional theory considers 9.ttJbd2 as White's main option, but after 9 . . . tLldf6 1 0.tLle5 if5! I see nothing wrong with Black's position.

In general I do not believe that White can achieve much by exchanging the knight on e4, as this would completely justify the decision to bring the second knight to f6. Instead White should develop his pieces atound the intruder on e4, before eventually expelling it with f2-f3, after suitable preparation.

9 ... ttJdf6 9 . . . b6 has been played a few times. 111is forces

White to adopt a slightly different approach compared to the main line, so I developed the following plan, which seems quite promising. 1 0.tLlbd2 tLldf6 I l .tLle5 ib7 12 .Ek l �c8 1 3.f3 tLlxd2 14 .'lWxd2 White has a slight pull. If Black plays too ambitiously, for instance with 14 . . . tLld7 1 5 .tLld3 c5?! , then White can increase his advantage with: 1 6.cxd5 cxd4 17.�xc8 'lWxc8 1 8 .e4±

Another line is: 9 . . . a5

This is another solid continuation. I think White's best chance to fight for the advantage is:

1 0.'lWe2!?N A recent game saw 1 0.tLlc3, bur Black responded with the nice 1 0 . . . tLlxc3 I l .ixc3 tLlc5! and after 1 2.ttJd2 if5 1 3.a3 id3 14.13e1 tLle4 1 5 .ib2 tLlf6 White failed to achieve anything and a draw was agreed in Borovikov - Miroshnichenko, Alushta 2009.

10 . . . a4 1 1 .13cl tLldf6 Or 1 1 . . .axb3 1 2.axb3 13xal 1 3 .ixa l 'lWb6 1 4.'lWa2! tLldf6 1 5 .tLle5 with a typical slight plus.

1 2 .tLle5 ie6 1 3.tLla3 axb3 14 .f3! tLld6 1 5 .axb3t


Whire retains an edge, thanks to his spatial B4) 7 ••. ifS 8.ib2 superiority.

10.tiJe5 ie6 After 1 0 . . . �f5, Gyorkos - Ruck, Austria

1 998, White can drive away Black's minor pieces by means of 1 1 .g4!?N �e6 1 2.f3 4Jd6 1 3.c5 4Jb5 1 4.a4 4Jc7 1 5 .4Jc3 with a clear space superiority.

1 1 .Wfe2 A very flexible set-up. Now White is ready

to play f3, chasing Black's knight from the centre.

1 1 ..Jk8 Black has also tried 1 1 . .. Wfa5 but it

hardly changes anything. After 1 2.f3 4Jd6 1 3.l"k1 dxc4 1 4.bxc4 4Jd7 1 5 .4Jxd7 �xd7 1 6.4Jd2 1"!ae8 1 7.c5 Wfb5 1 8.Wfxb5 4Jxb5 1 9 .4Jc4 White enjoyed a pleasant edge in Kalinitschew - Henzner, Bad Wiessee 1 999.

12.1"!c1 1"!c7 13.a lLld6 14.lLld2 lLlfS So far we have been following T Ukn1akOV -

Alterman, Elenite 1 995. Here White should have continued with:

This is the usual move, although I see nothing wrong with starting with 8.4Jc3 and only after 8 . . . 4Je4 playing 9.�b2.

a b c d e f g h

Here we have the following options: B41 ) 8 ... tiJbd7, B42) 8 ... Wfc8 and B43) 8 ... tiJe4.

Besides these, there is also 8 . . . a5 9.4Jc3 4Je4 1 0.e3 4Jxc3 1 1 .�xc3 �e4 1 2.�h3, but as so often, there is a transposition, this time to a position from line B6.

B41) 8 ... tiJbd7 9.lLlc3

I think this is more promising than 9.4Jbd2, when there may follow 9 ... 4Je4 1 0.4Jh4 4Jxd2 1 1 .Wfxd2 �e6 1 2.e4 dxe4 1 3 .�xe4, reaching quite a popular position, which I believe to be perfectly playable for Black.

9 ... lLle4 10.e3 tiJxc3 1 1 .ixc3 ie4 12.Wfe2 We have transposed to line B43 below.

B42) 8 ... Wfc8

The idea of swapping the l ight-squared bishops is thematic, bur at the same time quite unusual in this particular position. It seems to me that Black loses too much time while executing his idea.


9.lLlbd2 White has no reason to fear the bishop

exchange. Besides, 9.l:l:e l !h3 1 0.!hl �f5! l l .lLlc3 lLlbd7 allows Black some acrivity.

9 ... ih3

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

10.�c2!?N It is important to establish control over

the e4-sq uare, as after I O.l:l:e l !xg2 1 l . Wxg2 Black has 1 1 . . .lLle4.

1O ... ixg2 After 1 0 . . . lLla6 White continues with

1 1 .l:l:fe l and similar plans.

1 1 .@xg2 Now if White is allowed to play e4, he will

be assured of a slight but lasting advantage, so it makes sense to check the following:

1 1 ...Wle6 Perhaps a better option would be 1 1 . . . Wlf5

1 2 .Wlxf5 gxf5 with a solid position, although after 1 3.b4! ( l 3.cxd5 lLlxd5 should be alright for Black) 1 3 . . . ttJe4 I4.l:l:fc l White can still try to make something of his sl ight queenside initiative.

12.!!ael

line is the only really consistent choice for Black.

12 ... lLle4 13.lLlxe4 Wlxe4 14.Wlxe4 dxe4 lS.ttJgS

It turns our that the simplifications do not solve Black's problems. The following line is virtually forced, and leads to a favourable endgame for White.

l S ... cS 16.e3 l:l:d8 17.l:l:dl lLlc6 18.dS! ixb2 19.dxc6 bxc6 20.lLlxe4

White has a permanent advantage, thanks to Black's damaged queenside structure.

I also found it quite interesting to start with 9.e3 lLld7 1 0.iWe2!?, but finally decided to focus on the more natural development of the knight.

9 . . . lLld7 1 0.e3 will usually transpose to the main line after l o . . . lLlxc3 1 l .!xc3 !e4.

Again White threatens e4, so the following 9 . . . dxc4 1 0.bxc4 c5


This has definite logic. Nevertheless it seems to me that White can retain an edge.

1 1 .lOa4! White achieves nothing after I l .lOh4 lOxc3 1 2.ixc3 ic8 1 3.e3 lOc6, with pressure against the d4-pawn.

l l . . .cxd4 White was ready to play d4-d5.

1 2.lOxd4 ixd4 1 3.ixd4 lOc6 14 .ie3 'lWxd l 1 5 .mxd l lOd6

This was played in Ribli - Yermolinsky, Manila 1 992. Now White missed a good opportunity:

a b c d e f g h 16.lOc5!N

After this strong move Black's problems are far from over. The justification for the pawn sacrifice is revealed in the following line:

16".lOxc4 17 .ih6 Elfc8 1 8.Elac 1 ± White dominates the board, thanks to his

mighty bishop pair.

lo.ixc3 ie4 1 1 .e3 tiJd7 12.'I1;Ve2 From this position White will try to chase

Black's light-squared bishop away from e4, and Black will usually respond by exchanging it for the knight on f3 . We will follow one illustrative example.

12 ... 'I1;Vb6 12" .lOf6 1 3.mc 1 a5 1 4.ifl transposes to Bu

Xiangzhi - Radjabov, examined in line B6.

13.�fdl! This is the best square for White's rook, as

otherwise Black might have the idea of playing " .c6-c5 under favourable circumstances, for instance after 1 3 .Elfc 1 Elfd8 1 4.ifl c5! .

13 .. . �fd8 14.ih3 1 4.ifl !? also deserves consideration.

14 ... ixf3 15.'I1;Vxf3 ttJf6 16.'I1;Ve2 tiJe4 This position was reached in Huzman -

Nunn, Amsterdam 1995 .

8 �_ �� •• � 7 ,tB",,,V._r.r 6 �"'%�r� . " , ,%� 'l�� 5 "�� 4 �.:�J.=� 3 � t!:J � if� if�� 2 �_ ""'% .. VJO , %� %""�� .""%f�'�"" 1 �� _M. �

a b c d e f g h

17.iel !N This improves over the slightly passive

game continuation of 1 7.ib2. From el the bishop supports White's play on the queenside with b4, a4 and so on. White was probably concerned about:

17 ... e5 This is the principled reaction, but the

complications turn out in White's favour.

1 8.dxe5 Le5 19.�ac1 dxc4 20.'I1;Vxc4 ttJf6 21 .ib4!

In such a position the bishop pair will come into its own.

21 . .. �xdl t 22.�xdl �d8 23.�xd8t 'I1;Vxd8 24.'I1;Vc5

White has definite pressure.


BS) 7 . . . lLlbd7

I was surprised to discover that this knight move is Black's third most popular choice in this line. It seems to me that the knight is slightly misplaced on d7, but Black hopes to achieve a harmonious set-up by flanchettoing his light-squared bishop.

8.ib2 b6 9.lLlc3

8 :i_.t� ��._ 7 ��_i)_·,y,lfr . . . . %_r� ... . . %_.,�� 6 ,� iIi�f 'iIi � � iIi�!6 iIi� iliili iIi!:" ;J '� �0%iIi 3 ��?t[j� ��J�®.� 2 ��.�U�JIl�J/j �� V.M� a b c d e f g h

9 . . . ib7 The bishop can also move to a different

square: 9 . . . ia6 1 0.lLld2

This is stronger than 10 .lLle5 �c8. 1 0 . . . �c8

This position occurred in Stein - Krogius, Leningrad 1 97 1 . Now White should have played:

l l .�cl N White intends e2-e4 next, and Black's attempt to obtain counterplay in the centre is doomed to fail.

1 l . . .c5 Now White gains a clear advantage with:

1 2.dxc5 dxc4 Also unsatisfactory is 1 2 . . . d4 1 3 .lLlb5 ixb5 14.cxb5 bxc5 1 5 .b4! when White opens the position favourably.

1 3. c6 lLle5 14.b4!±

1O.�c2 The plan with liJd2 is less promising with

the bishop on b7 instead of a6, as seen after 1 0.liJd2 �c8 1 1 .e4 e5! 1 2.dxe5 liJxe5 1 3 .exd5 cxd5 with good play for Black.

lO . . . e6 l l .�adl Obviously White's main idea is to carry

out the thematic e2-e4 advance at a suitable moment. The immediate 1 1 .e4 is slightly premature in view of 1 1 . . .dxe4 1 2.liJxe4 liJxe4 1 3.'lWxe4 'lWc7, when Black carries out the programmed . . . c6-c5 break .

1 1 . . .�c7

a b c d e f g h

12.icl !?N Rather a surprising move, isn't it? Before

carrying out his main plan White intends to improve the position of his dark-squared bishop.

In a previous game White executed his main idea of 1 2.e4, but after 1 2 . . . liJxe4 1 3.liJxe4 dxe4 14.liJg5 liJf6 1 5 .liJxe4 liJxe4 16.ixe4 �fd8 1 7.c5 �d7 Black's counterplay against the d4-pawn fully compensated the passiviry of his light-squared bishop, Bu Xiangzhi - Ganguly, Vishakapatnam 2008.

12 ... bS


Another principled reply is 1 2".c5, when I analysed the following long line: 1 3.�f4 �c8 14.4Jb5 dxc4 1 5 .4Jd6 cxb3 1 6.�xb3 �c6 17 .4Jxb7 4Jd5 1 8.�d6 c4 1 9.�c2 E:fc8 20.e4 4Jc7 2 1 .�xc7 �xc7 22.e5 �xb7 23.4Jg5 �a6 24.d5! with some advantage for White.

13.if4 �aS 14.4Jd2! The arising position reminds one of a

Catalan, except for the unusual placement of the black bishop on g7.

14 ... 4JhS I also examined 1 4" .bxc4 1 5 .bxc4 �a6

16.�d6 E:fe8 17.4Jb3 �d8 1 8 .c5 e5 1 9.dxe5 4Jxe5 20.4Jd4 �c8 2 1 .�a4 and White has the better chances.

ls.id6 E:fc8 16.e3 White's chances are preferable.

B6} 7 .. . aS

a b c d e f g h

Pushing the a-pawn is a thematic idea in positions with a " .c6/" .d5 set-up. Black not only gains some space on the queenside, but also intends to push his a-pawn further under favourable circumstances. On the negative side, White might one day be able to exploit the weakened b5-square, especially with the typical �e2-b5 manoeuvre after a pawn exchange on d5.

8.tiJc3 The best reply, developing a piece while

preventing " .a5-a4 for the moment.

8 . .. tiJe4 By far Black's most popular choice, but it is

also important to consider: 8" .4Ja6 9.�b2 �f5 1 0.e3

A very flexible move. White not only strengthens his centre, but also vacates a nice square for his queen. He failed to achieve anything special after 1 0.4Je5 4Je4 1 1 . cxd5 cxd5 1 2.4Jxe4 �xe4 1 3.f3 �f5 in Calotescu - Popova, Warsaw 200 1 .

1 0" .4Jb4 1 1 .4Je1 dxc4 1 2.bxc4 e5 1 3 .a3 1 3.4Ja4!? was worthy of consideration.

1 3" .exd4 1 4.exd4 4Ja6 1 5 .4Jf3 �b6 1 6.4Ja4 �c7 17.E:c 1 E:ad8 1 8 .�b3 4Je4 19 .E:fe 1

White was slightly better i n Spassov - Petkov, Bankia 1 992.

If 8" .�f5 9 .�b2 4Je4 we transpose back to the main line.

9.ib2

Here we have the following possibilities: B61} 9 ... lbxc3 and B62} 9 ... ifS.

9" .a4?! would be premature, as it allows White to establish control over the centre


with 1 0.lUxa4 dxc4 1 1 .'I1Nc2 cxb3 1 2.axb3 lUf6 1 3 .lUe5 . 111e game Korpics - Istvanovszky, Hungary 2006, continued 1 3 . . . lUbd7 1 4.!l:fd l 'Wc7 1 5 .lUd3 lUb6, and now the simple 1 6.lUac5N !l:xal 1 7.!l:xa1 !l:dS l S.e4 would leave White with a pleasant edge, thanks to his strong centre.

B61) 9 ... lUxc3 10.i.xc3

a b c d e f g h

�fc8 17.�cl �xc7 1 8.i.xc7 'I1Nxc7 19.�xc6 �xc6 20.�xc6

The endgame is clearly favourable for White, though Black keeps some chances for a successful defence, Tukmakov - Glek, Biel 1 996.

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

B612) lo ... lLld7 l 1 .�cl

a b c d e f g h

l 1 ...lLlfG After this exchange, Black has a wide choice: The alternatives are:

B61 1) 10 ... bS, B612) lo ... lLld7, B613) 1O ... a4 and B614) 10 ... i.f5. 1 l . . .e6 1 2.'I1Nc2 b5 allowed White to obtain

easy play along the c-file after 1 3.cxb5 cxb5 B61 1 ) 10 ... bS 1 1 .�cl lLld7 14 .�d2! in Ivkov - Kavalek, Sou sse 1 967.

If 1 l . . .dxc4 1 2.bxc4 b4 1 3 .�a l c5 14.d5 1 l . . .a4 1 2.lUd2 White's chances are clearly preferable, as rightly pointed out by Glek in Chess Informant 67.

1 1 . . .a4, Tsang Hon - Wong Meng, Singapore 1 995, should be met by 1 2 .cxb5N cxb5 13 .lUe5 �e6 14.lUd3 lUc6 1 5 .e3 'Wd6 16.�d2, with better chances for White.

12.cxdS cxdS 13.i.d2! White's dark-squared bishop is immediately

transferred to f4, from where it will support the invasion along the c-file.

13 ... i.b7 14.i.f4 �b6 lS.�c7 i.c6 16.�c2

1 2.cxd5 cxd5 1 3 .�b4!? looks quite interesting.

1 2 . . . axb3 1 3 .axb3 lUf6 14.�a l �f5 Black has a sound position, but the open a-file enables White to keep some initiative.

1 5 .�xaS 'I1NxaS 16.�b4 �eS 17.'I1Na l 'I1NbS Also in case of 17 . . . �fS l S.'I1Nb2 followed by 1 9.!l:a 1 White's chances are slightly better.

l S .'I1Na3 �fS 1 9.!l:a l White has gained control over the a-file and

tllUS maintained the better chances in Ivkov -Bukic, Budva 1 967.

12.lLleS

Chapter 20 - Solid Variation 35 1

White has to generate some activity in order to fight for an opening advantage.

12 .. . ie6 With this natural move Black aims at the

c4-pawn, creating some tension in the centre. After 1 2 . . . tLlg4 1 3 .cxd5 cxd5 , which occurred in Kanko - Book, Helsinki 1 966, White can try 14.Wd3!?N with the idea to place the queen on b5, where it will help to put pressure on Black's queenside. Play might continue 14 . . . tLlf6 (Black had better not venture 1 4 . . . tLlxe5?! 1 5 .dxe5 �e6, as after 1 6.1"i:fd 1 ± his central pawn is falling.) 1 5 .�d2 ( 1 5 .Wb5 b6) 1 5 . . . a4 1 6.�b4! and White has definite pressure.

13.'�c2 White maintains control over the e4-square.

The following game is thematic for this line.

13 . . .'�'b6 If 1 3 . . . a4 White can consider 1 4.bxa4!?

dxc4 1 5 .1"i:b 1 1"i:a7 1 6.1"i:fd 1 with play on the queenside.

14J'Hdl 1'!fd8 IS.e3 ifS 16.We2 a4 Maybe it was better to refrain from this

move.

a b c d e f g h

17.b4! dxc4 18.tDxc4 'Wa6 19.ifl ie6 2o.ie1 ixc4 21.1'!xc4t

White has the better chances thanks to his bishop pair, P. Nikolic - Leko, Wijk aan Zee 1 995 .

8613) 10 . . . a4 l 1 .e3 if5

This position occurred in Tseitlin - Zifroni, Tel Aviv 1 996. Now I found an interesting opportunity:

8 7 6 5 4 3

2

a b c d e f g h

12.cxdS!N cxdS 13.tDeS! tDc6 Black cannot play 1 3 . . . axb3?! 14 .Wxb3±,

when both the b7- and d5-pawns are hanging.

14.bxa4! Less clear is 1 4.tUxc6 bxc6 1 5 .bxa4 c5!oo.

14 ... tDxeS IS.dxeS White's extra pawn is significant.

8614) lo . . . ifS 1 1 .e3

This flexible move is a common one in this line. It is important to understand that carrying out the e2-e4 push does not always improve White's position. For instance, 1 1 .tLld2 does not work out well: 1 1 . . . tLla6 1 2.e4? ( l 2.1"i:cl runs into the unpleasant 1 2 . . . tLlb4!) 1 2 . . . dxe4 1 3.tLlxe4 c5! and White cannot hold his centre.

1 1 . . . tDd7 12.'We2

3S2 The Grunfeld Defence

In this position I would like to consider three options: B6141) 1 2 ... a4, B6142) 12 ... ie4 and B6143) 12 ... GLlf6.

B6141) 12 ... a4 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.Wfb5!

Once again we see the queen occupying this important square. This enables the first player to generate definite pressure on the queenside. For instance:

14 ... axb3 15.axb3 Wfb6 16.Wfxb6 GLlxb6 This position has occurred twice in the

games of Pre drag Nikolic, probably the leading expert in this l ine. At this point I found a way ro improve on his 1 7.iaS.

a b c d e f g h

17.ib4!N The knight on b6 is currently being

dominated by the pawn on b3, so there is no need to chase it away just yet. The following continuation looks pretty logical:

17 ... if6 lS.lLle5 Now the dS-pawn is under pressure and

Black should watch out for ia5 or ic5 ideas.

lS .. Jhal 19Jhal �cS 2o.ic5 lLld7 21 .lLlxd7 ixd7 22.ga7 ic6 23.b4

White stands clearly better. The plan is 24.ifl with the direct threat of bS. Black is doomed to a passive defence, with virtually no chance of achieving any more than a draw.

B6142) 12 ... ie4 13.�fcl

This is an absolutely typical move in positions with a black bishop on e4. White intends to play ifl next, followed by ttJd2, or forcing Black to exchange his bishop for the knight.

Nevertheless, this particular move order allows White an additional option that seems to be worthy of consideration: 1 3.cxd5!? cxdS

1 3 . . . ixd5? is just bad, since after 1 4.e4 ie6 l S .ttJgS White obtains a clear advantage.

1 4.Wfb5 We have already seen that this is one of the main ideas behind the e3/Wie2 set-up. In the following game, Black failed to solve his problems:

1 4 . . . b6 1 5 .�fc l �a7 1 6.ib2 Wia8 This position was reached in Ionescu -Foisor, Predeal 1 997. Here I found a simple and effective improvement.

1 7.ia3!?N ge8 1 8 .�c3 This should keep White firmly in COntrol.

13 ... e6 If 1 3 . . . ttJf6 1 4.ifl we reach a position that

will be examined in line B61 43.


14.i.f1 i.xf3 If Black decides to keep the light-squared

bishop alive by means of 14 . . . g5 1 5 .liJd2 ig6, there is no point in rushing with 1 6.e4. The problem is revealed after 1 6 . . . e5! 1 7.dxe5 liJxe5 1 8 .cxd5 cxd5 when Black is doing fine.

Instead White should respond with the calm 16.ig2;!;, intending to improve the pieces and later carry out the e3-e4 advance under more favourable circumstance. I rate White's position highly.

1 5.�xf3 The arising position is quite typical for this

line. Black has a solid but slightly passive position, while White has a clear plan of queenside play. The following example is very instructive:

15 . . . £5 16.cxd5

a b c d e f g h

16 .. . exd5 White now has clear targets for attack on

the queenside, but the alternative also does not promise Black a satisfactory game: 1 6 ... cxd5 17.iWe2! As usual White's queen is headed for the b5-square. 1 7 . . . liJf6 1 8.iWb5 1'!f7 1 9 .1'!c2 liJe4 20.iel liJd6 2 1 .iWa4 1'!c7 22.1'!ac1 1'!xc2 23.1'!xc2 White has a pleasant edge.

17.b4 axb4 IS.i.xb4!

Of course White recaptures this way in order to keep his bishop active.

IS .. . 1'!f7 19.a4 White's queenside attack almost plays itself

19 ... ttJbS 20.a5 ttJa6 21 .i.d2 i.f8 22.1'!abl 1'!a7 23.i.d3 i.a3 24.1'!c2 �f8 25.1'!b6

White was obviously better in Marin -Hebert, Yerevan 1 996.

B6143) 12 ... ttJf6 13.1'!fc1 i.e4

White was ready to meet 1 3 . . . liJe4 with 14.ie l .

14.i.f1 Once again we see the same thematic idea.

14 . . . i.xf3 15JWxf3

a b c d e f g h

15 . . . e6 I also checked 1 5 . . . liJe4. Now apart from

the natural 1 6.ie l , White gets an additional opportunity in 16.cxd5!? cxd5 (if 16 . . . liJxc3 17.1'!xc3 cxd5 1 8.1'!acl e6 1 9.1'!c7 1'!b8 2o.iWf4 White has unpleasant pressure.) 17.iel and the opening of the c-file seems to be favourable for White. Here is an illustrative line: 17 . . . e5 1 8 .dxe5 ixe5 1 9.1'!ab 1 iWd7 20.iWe2 1'!ac8 2 1 .iWd3, with bener chances for White.


After the natural 1 6.b4 tDe4 1 7.i.e l axb4 1 8.i.xb4 ge8 1 9.a4 h5 the game was pretty double-edged in Bu Xiangzhi - Radjabov, Sofia 2008.

16 . . . a4?! This was Black's choice in Matlak - Kaminski,

Lubniewice 1993, the only game I found on the database. Pushing the a-pawn is a thematic and principled idea, but unfortunately for Black it simply does not work as desired, so he should play more solidly. It is hard to give much concrete analysis in that direction, as the play will mainly be characterized by positional manoeuvring. White's position seems easier as he has the clear plan of opening the queenside by advancing the b-pawn at the appropriate moment.

17.b4!N This looks more challenging than the game

continuation of 17.lMfd l .

1 7 ... dxc4 1 8.Lc4 ltJd5 19.i.el Naturally White should preserve his bishop

pair before continuing with the queenside attack.

19 ••. lMfd7 20.b5! cxb5 2 1 .Ld5 exd5 22.gc5 gfd8 23.gbl

White has a long-term edge thanks to the better pawn structure. It seems that Black should refrain from 1 6 . . . a4 and play more patiently. Still, even then Black will still have to come up with a reliable defensive plan against White's standard queens ide initiative.

B62) 9 ... i.f5

10.e3 White can hardly achieve anything after the

other options.

1 O.tDh4 tDxc3 l 1 .i.xc3 i.e6 and Black is fine.

1 0.tDe5 tDa6! with equal chances.

1 0 .ge l tDxc3 l 1 .i.xc3 i.e4 1 2.e3 This move usually figures in White's plans at some point, which is why I prefer to play it early and keep as many options open as possible. In the present position Black can play 1 2 . . . a4, getting additional resources along the a-file. This position will be examined after 1 2.gcl in the note to move 1 2 below.

10 ... ltJxc3 1 1 .ixc3 ie4 After 1 1 . . .tDd7 1 2.lMfe2 we reach a position

that was examined in line B6 14 .


We have arrived at one of the critical positions of the whole variation. After a deep investigation I came to the conclusion that White's best bet for an advantage is a peculiar-looking move.

1 2.1"kl a4 1 3 .ih3 axb3 ( l 3 . . . e6!?) 1 4.axb3 e6 1 5 .Wfe2 was Borovikov - Neverov, Rivne 2005 . Now the simple 1 5 . . . ixf3!N 1 6.Wfxf3 Wfb6 1 7.Wfdl l"i:a3 would have given Black comfortable play.

White has usually opted for 1 2.Wfe2 bur after 12 . . . a4 I failed to find any advantage, for instance: 1 3 .l"i:fc l ( l 3 .ih3 c5! 14.ttJg5 ttJc6 1 5 .l"i:ad l axb3 16.axb3 cxd4 1 7.exd4 �b6=) 1 3 . . . axb3 14.axb3 l"i:xal 1 5 .l"i:xa 1 c5 1 6.Wfb2 cxd4 1 7.ixd4 ixd4 1 8 .exd4 ttJc6 and Black equalized comfortably in P Nikolic - Kempinski, Antalya 2004.

12 . . . c5 Definitely the critical line. We also have:

1 2 . . . ixf3 1 3.Wfxf3 e6 14.l"i:fc l ± Such a position almost always favours White slightly, as shown in line B6 1 43 above.

In case of 1 2 . . . e6 Black should already be on guard after 1 3.ttJe 1 ! threatening to trap the bishop.

Instead the game Neverov - Wu Xibin, Dubai 2008, continued 1 3.ttJg5 ttJc6 14 .l"i:c l cxd4 1 5 .exd4. At this point Black should have played 1 5 . . . e6!N 16.Wfd2 (or 1 6.ttJxe4 dxe4 1 7.d5 exd5 1 8.ixg7 �xg7 1 9.cxd5 ttJe5 20.Wfd4 Wff6 and Black is fine) 1 6 . . . Wfe7 1 7.l"i:fel ih6 1 8.f4 f5! with equality.

13 . . . cxd4 I also examined:

13 . . . ttJc6 14 .dxc5 ixc3 1 5 .l"i:xc3 dxc4 16.ttJd2 id3 1 7.l"i:e l cxb3 1 8 .Wfxb3 ia6 1 9 .ttJc4± and White keeps definite pressure.

1 3 . . . dxc4 1 4.bxc4 e6 (Black cannot play 1 4 . . . ixf3?! 1 5 .Wfxf3 cxd4 in view of 16.�xb7! winning material) 1 5 .Wfe2 White plans to strengthen his position with l"i:fd 1 . 1 5 . . . cxd4 1 6.exd4 ixf3 1 7.�xf3 ixd4 1 8 .Wfxb7 l"i:a7 1 9.Wfb2 ixc3 20.Wfxc3 White's passed pawn, together with Black's weakness on a5, gives the first player the better chances.


14.ixd4 Black is doing fine after 1 4.4Jxd4 dxc4

1 5.bxc4 e5 1 6.4Jb5 id3 17.:B:e1 4Jc6 with balanced play.

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... d.xc4 Black's rwo other options are:

14" .ixd4 1 5 .4Jxd4 e5 (Black has to solve the problem of his light-squared bishop. After 1 5".4Jc6? 1 6.f3 he loses material.) 1 6.4Jb5 dxc4 1 7.:B:xc4 ic6 1 S.4Jc3 4Ja6 1 9.ig2! White keeps a slight pull due to the vulnerabiliry of Black's queenside pawns.

1 4" .4Jc6 1 5.ixg7 �xg7 This looks very solid for Black, but unexpectedly White manages to create serious play, again due to the slightly misplaced position of the e4-bishop.

1 6.4Jh4! 4Je5 If 1 6" .dxc4 1 7.:B:xc4 f5 ( l 7".id5? is met with I S .Wa l t and the unpleasant I 9.:B:d l ) White manages to pose serious problems with I S .Wal t! e5 (or I S" .:B:f6 1 9.:B:d l Wb6 20.g4! with some initiative for White) 1 9.f3 id5 20.:B:d l :B:O 2 1 .:B:c2 (less convincing is 2 1 .:B:c5 :B:d7 22.e4 ie6 23.:B:xd7t Wxd7 24.exf5 gxf5 25 .ixf5 ixf5 26.:B:xe5 4Jxe5 27.Wxe5t �gS 2S.4Jxf5 :B:a6!) 2 l . . .:B:d7 22.:B:cd2 ie6 23.:B:xd7t ixd7 24.f4

We7 25.4Jf3 and Black is under serious pressure.

1 7.Wd4 f6 I S .cxd5 ixd5 I S".'�xd5 1 9.:B:c7 also looks quite unpleasant for Black.

1 9 .:B:fd l if3 20.WxdS :B:fXd8 2 1 .4Jxf3 4Jxf3t 22.�g2 4Je5 23.i>fl t

White enjoys a pleasant, long-lasting edge in this endgame, thanks to superioriry of his bishop over Black's knight.

15.ixg7 1he best chance. Black equalizes comfortably

after: 1 5 .:B:xc4 4Jc6 1 6.ixg7 Wxd l 1 7.:B:xdl ixf3 I s .ixfS ixd l 1 9.ih6 :B:dS!=

1 5 . . . 'it>xg7 16.�d2!? This slightly surprising pawn sacrifice allows

White to fight for an opening advantage.

16 . . . id3 17.:B:e1 cxb3 If Black refuses the pawn with 17" .4Jc6 then

White keeps better chances after l S .4Jxc4 e5 1 9.ifl ! ixc4 20.:B:xc4.

a b c d e f g h

1 8.Wxb3! White must not allow Black to take control

over the h I -aS diagonal, as happens after I S .4Jxb3 ie4!.

18 ... �c6

Chapter 2 0 - Solid Variation 357

18 ... �a6 allows the strong manoeuvre 1 9.ttJe4! ttJc6 20.ttJc5, with unpleasant pressure.

19.i.g2 Certainly not 1 9.i�:hb7 ttJb4 and Black is

already better, thanks to the dual threats of . . . ttJxa2 and . . . �a6 followed by ... ttJd3.

19 .. J�b8 20.Ek5!? Another possibility is 20.�c3t cj;Jg8 2 1 .ttJb3,

but here Black has the very strong punch: 2 1 . . .ttJb4! Now after 22.:gedl ttJxa2 23.�a l ttJxc1 24.ttJxc1 �b6 25.ttJxd3 :gfd8 we reach a more or less balanced position. White has sufficient compensation for a pawn, but no more.

20 ... i.a6 21 .'lWc3t �g8 22.i.xc6 bxc6 23.�b3 i.b5 24.�d4 'lWd7

White has some sort of domination and can regain the pawn at any moment. Meanwhile he can try to push his kings ide pawns in order to create targets near the black monarch.

25.h4!?

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

With the idea of 26.h5. I believe White can try to squeeze something from the knight's superiority over the enemy bishop.

B7) 7 ... dxc4

Not the most popular choice, but in my view a critical one, as Black tries to solve his opening problems by concrete means.

8.bxc4 c5 The point. This is considered one of the most

challenging responses to White's set-up.

9.i.b2 Black is doing fine after 9.e3 ttJc6 1 0.�b2

�b6!.

Now we reach an important crossroads for Black. He can choose between B71) 9 . . . 'lWb6 and B72) 9 ... cxd4.

B71) 9 ... 'lWb6

This is a serious alternative to the main line.

lO.'lWb3 liJfd7 This is Black's first choice according to

theory. He has also played: 1 0 . . . ttJe4 1 1 .e3 cxd4

1 1 . . .ttJc6 may well be a better try. In this case White can force favourable simplifications with 1 2.ttJe5 ttJd6 1 3 .ttJxc6 bxc6 1 4.dxc5 �xc5 1 5 .�xg7 �xg7 1 6.ttJd2± retaining some pressure.


1 2.ixd4 �a6 Black fails to equalize after both 1 2 . . . �xb3 1 3 .axb3 4Jc6 1 4.ixg7 'ttxg7 1 5 .4Jd4± and 1 2 . . . ixd4 1 3.exd4 with an edge for White.

1 3 .ixg7 'ttxg7 1 4.4Jd4 4Jc5 1 5 .�b2 �f6 1 5 . . . f6 does not impress, as after the obvious 1 6.4Jc3! �xc4 1 7.4Jd5 White has a powerful ini tiative.

1 6.4Jc3 e6 1 7.�a3 4Jbd7 1 B.gab l ± White was clearly better in P. H . Nielsen - El

Kher, Aarhus 1 999.

1 1 .4Jc3! White immediately exploits the fact that

Black relinquished control over the d5-square.

1 1 . . . 4J c6 In Cuevas - Vargas Mal iq ueo, San tiago 2007,

Black grabbed the central pawn with 1 1 . . . cxd4 1 2.4Jd5 �dB 1 3 .ixd4 ixd4 1 4.4Jxd4 e6 1 5 .4Jb4 4Jc5 1 6.�e3 4Jbd7. Now the simple 1 7.gabl !?N a6 I B.4Jd3 would have brought White a clear advantage, for instance: 1 B . . . �c7 1 9.4Jc6! bxc6 20.4Jxc5±

12.4Jd5 Also worthy of consideration was 1 2.e3!?N.

After 12 .. . 4Ja5 White retains pressure with 1 3.�c2 4Jxc4 14.4Jd5 �xb2 1 5 .4Jxe7t 'tthB 1 6.�xc4 cxd4 1 7.4Jxd4. And against 1 2 . . . cxd4 White plays 1 3.4Jxd4, which transposes to a position from the main line B72323.

12 ... �xb3 13.axb3 e6 1 3 . . . cxd4 runs into the unpleasant 1 4.ia3!

when Black cannot defend his e7-pawn with the rook in view of the 4Jc7 fork. Instead he must setrie for 1 4 . . . if6 1 5 .gfd l when White regains his pawn with an obvious advantage.

14.4Jc7 gb8 15.e3 a6 16.gfdl .if6 So far we have been following the game

Gyorkos - De Gleria, Koszeg 1 997. At this point I found an interesting improvement:

8 ��.i.m ��*m 7 ,y.�i�/. ,_, �� '.""� ��'0 �� 6 'm�_ 'm '_ 5 W _ � 4 �.zr��.�. 3 .� r.""%WfjlJw@ 2 ��. ·%Di.Wfj

.�"."�� l • . %=. " . a b c d e f g h

17.4Jel !N The white knight is headed for c2, from where

it will support White's play on the queens ide. The following variation is very interesting:

17 ... cxd4 18.exd4 4Jc5 This is the critical response, but it is not

enough to equalize.

19.9abl ! 4Jxb3 20.d5 4Jcd4 21 .4Jc2 e5 22.4Jxd4 4Jxd4 23 . .ixd4 exd4 24.4Jxa6 ga8 25.4Jc5

Black has definite problems.

B72) 9 ... cxd4 10.4Jxd4

We reach an important crossroads for the whole line. The main options are B721)


lO . . . llJg4, B722) lO . . . llJc6!? and B723) lO .. .'�·b6, the latter being the clear main line.

A few other options deserve a brief mention:

10 ... ttJa6 l 1 .ttJc3 ttJc5 This plan is too slow, as was proven in the following encounter: 1 2 .ttJb3 ttJfd7 1 3 .'<Mfc2 :B:b8 1 4.:B:fdl b6 1 5 .ttJb5!± and Black already faced serious problems, Muse -Brkic, Rabac 2004.

1 0 . . . ttJbd7 This is too passive and hardly sufficient for reasonable play.

I I . ttJd2! The most accurate move. White's knight is heading for b3. If 1 1 .ttJc3 ttJb6! 1 2.'<Mfd3 ttJfd7 Black gets good counterplay.

1 1 . . .ttJc5 1 2.ttJ2b3 ttJfd7 1 3 .�a3 1 3.'<Mfc2!? followed by :B:fd l is worthy of consideration.

1 3 ... ttJxb3 14.axb3 a6 This was N. Pert - Harikrishna, Edinburgh 2003. Now White could have obtained a clear advantage through simple means.

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .'<Mfd2N :B:e8 1 6.:B:fd l

Black's position i s difficult.

1 0 . . . ttJfd7 1 1 .'<Mfc2 ttJc5 The natural improvement here is:

1 2.:B:d l ! ?N The inaccurate 1 2.ttJb3 allowed Black

1 2 . . . i.f5! . The tactical justification was revealed after 1 3.e4 �xe4! 14.�xe4 �xb2 1 5 .ttJxc5 �xa1 16 .�xb7 Wc7 1 7.�xa8 '<Mfxc5 with equal chances, Goudriaan - Pruijssers, Hoogeveen 2006.

12 ... �d7 13 .ttJc3 ttJba6 14.:B:ab l White has definite pressure on the

queenside.

B721) l O ... tLlg4 1 1 .e3

It is necessary for White to fortify the position of his knight.

1 1 ...llJa6 1 l . . .ttJe5 1 2.'<Mfc2 ttJa6

Here I recommend a natural move: 1 3.ttJd2N

Instead of 1 3 .:B:d 1 '<Mfb6 1 4.�a3 ttJc5 1 5 .ttJd2 '<Mfa5 1 6.�xc5 '<Mfxc5 when Black obtained reasonable play, Iotov - Gochev, Borovets 2008.

1 3 . . . ttJb4 1 3 . . . ttJc5 1 4.ttJ2b3 ttJa4 1 5 .�a3\Wc7 1 6.:B:ac l :B:e8 1 7.c5! brings White an advantage.

1 4 .'<Mfb 3 ttJ bd3 1 5 .�a3;j; Black's knights are unstable.

12.llJd2

a b c d e f g h to develop his bishop with tempo with l':\ 12 . . . "LlcS


Black has also tried: 1 2 . . . tLleS

Now I propose exerting pressure on the queenside with:

1 3.:gb 1 !?N White failed to achieve any advantage after 1 3.\We2 ig4! 1 4.f3 id7 I S .tLl2b3 :gc8 in Tarrio - Strikovic, Benidorm 1 992.

1 3 ... :gb8 1 4.\Wa4 ttJd3 1 4 . . . id7 I S .\Wa3t

I S .ia3 id7 1 6.\Wc2 tLldcS 17.ttJ2b3 White stands better.

13.ttJZb3 It is obvious that Black's strategy has failed.

His pieces lack coordination and his knight on g4 is misplaced.

13 ... ttJxb3 This appears to be the lesser evil. White has

much better chances after 1 3 . . . ttJa4 1 4.ia3 \Wc7 I S .:gc 1 a6 1 6.cS!± Hartoch - J. Horvath, Haarlem 1 995.

14.axb3 a6 15 .\WeZ White enjoys a pleasant, risk-free advantage,

Strikovic - Mozetic, Banja Vrucica 1 99 1 .

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

B722) 1O ... llJc6!?

V///// /. ...... .//h'/// •..

a b c d e f g h

database where the same position arose through a different move order. Still it is interesting and poses White a real challenge.

1 1 .ttJxc6 bxc6 I propose the following solution:

12.ttJdlN Not the most exciting novelty, but White

still retains some nagging pressure thanks to his active light-squared bishop. It is not a great deal, but the position is certainly easier to play as White.

The main justification of Black's idea is seen after: 1 2.ixc6

This allows the second player to become very active.

1 2 . . . :gb8 1 3 .ieS ih3! 1 4.\Wxd8 :gfxd8 I s .ixb8

Another line runs I S .ig2 ixg2 16.mxg2 :gbc8 1 7.ttJa3 :gd2 1 8 .@f3. Here Black has several good options, my own preference being 1 8 . . . :gcS 19.if4 :gfS! when he is at least not worse.

I S . . . ixfl 1 6.tLla3 ixe2 1 7.ixa7 tLlg4! Black had sufficient compensation for the

pawn, Inarkiev - Sutovsky, Kallithea 2008.

12 ... \Wc7 The most natural reply. Other options seem

to be worse:

1 2 . . . :gb8 1 3.ieS :gb6 14.ttJb3 \Wxdl l S .:gfxd l The arising endgame is very unpleasant for Black. For example: I S . . . tLlg4 16.ixg7 mxg7 1 7.cS :ga6 1 8.a4! with serious pressure due to Black's misplaced rook.

1 2 . . . ifS?! does not offer Blackanycompensation for the pawn after 1 3.ixc6 :gc8 14 .if3.

Technically this seems to be a new move 13.ic3!? here, although I found one example on my


Quite a flexible move. White keeps all his options open, he can either continue with Wa4 or tLlb3, while tLlf3 might also be a possibility in some lines. Meanwhile it is always useful to clear the b-file.

I failed to find anything special for White after 1 3.Wa4 id7 14 .tLlb3 c5 1 5 .Wa3 l%ac8.

13 ... l%b8 I also examined 1 3 . . . ie6 14 .Wa4 l%ac8

1 5 .c5!? , which seems to me pretty promising for White, for example 1 5 ... tLld5 16.ixg7 i>xg7 1 7.tLlf3 followed by 1 8 .tLld4.

14.Wa4 cS lS.l%abl Black still has to solve some very concrete

problems, and it is not so easy. Here is a possible example of how the game might continue:

lS ... .tfS 16.l%bS! tLld7 17 . .L:g7 i>xg7 18.tLlb3 l%fc8

a b c d e f g h

19J:'kl;!; White intends to increase his pressure with

l%a5. It should be noted that Black cannot solve his problems with concrete play:

19 ... l%xbS 20.cxbS c4 21 .liJd4 1iJb6 22.Wa3 The position has become more dangerous

for Black.

B723) 1O • • • Wb6

This is Black's principal choice, and in my opinion the most challenging continuation, at least when followed up correctly.

1 1 .Wb3 I l .Wc2 is considered to be harmless because

of: 1 1 . . . tLlc6 1 2. tLlxc6 ( l 2.c5 should be met with 1 2 . . . Wa6 1 3 .l%d 1 id7, followed by . . . l%ac8 with comfortable play) 1 2 . . . bxc6 1 3.tLld2 if5! 1 4.Wb3 l%fd8 with equality, Malakhov Svidler, Krasnoyarsk 2003.

1 1 . . .tLla6 is likely to transpose to B723 1 after 1 2.tLld2 tLlc5 1 3 .Wa3.

B7231) 1 l ... liJbd7

This allows White to develop his pieces comfortably.

12.lbd2 lbcs 13.Wa3 id7 1 3 . . . e5

This is positionally dubious as it obstructs Black's best minor piece, his dark-squared bishop.


1 4.ttJ4b3 ttJfd7 1 5 .�c3 ttJxb3 This was played in P Nikolic - Markos, Berlin 2009. Here White could improve with simple moves:

14Jhbl There is no reason to rush with 1 4.ttJ4b3,

when 1 4" .ttJxb3 1 5 .axb3 �c6 gives Black a reasonable position.

14 .. Jhc8

a b c d e f g h

15.ic3!?N An improvement over 1 5 .ttJ4b3 ttJxb3

1 6.axb3 l'!fd8 1 7.�c3 �c6= Malich - Seul, Germany 1 995 .

15 . . . �c7 16.ttJb5 ixb5 17.cxb5� Black has a solid position, nevertheless

White's bishop pair secures him a slight but long-lasting edge.

B7232) 1 l ... ttJfd7

The most critical continuation.

12.e3 The most accurate. Instead Black is absolutely

fine after 1 2.l'!dl ttJc6 1 3 .e3 ttJc5!.

Here Black has tried: B72321) 12 ... ttJc5, B72322) 12 ... ttJa6 and B72323) 12 ... ttJc6.

B72321) 1 2 ... ttJc5

I only found a single game featuring this move, in which White missed the most challenging response.

13.�a3!N Far better than 1 3.�xb6 axb6 1 4.ttJc3 e6

1 5 .l'!ab 1 ttJbd7 with equality, Carlier - Cvitan, Cap pelle la Grande 1 996. Black's activity fully compensates for his double pawns.

13 ... ttJ a4 This may have been the move that concerned

White.


I also examined: 1 3 . . . 4Jc6 14.ic3!

A nice prophylactic move; White not only defends against a possible ... 4Jb4 jump, but also removes his bishop from its exposed location. This could have become relevant after 14 .4Jd2 4Je6! 1 5 .E:ab l 4Jexd4 1 6.ixd4 Wlc7 1 7.ixg7 'it>xg7, reaching a position in which White's pressure is already not so strong. The main justification of the text move is seen after:

14 . . . 4Jxd4?! Black would be better off looking for some other way to relieve the pressure.

1 5 .ixd4 ixd4 1 6.exd4 4Je6 1 7.c5! White keeps a nice advantage.

following line shows the potential pitfalls into which Black might easily stumble.

17.E:adl Wlxe4 18.E:fel e6?! 19.ttJe4 ttJe6 Now White can break the defence by

utilizing the long diagonal.

2o.lLlf6t <;i;>g7 2 1 .Wlb2! e5 22.E:xe5! The point. Black is completely busted.

22 ... Wlb4 23.Wlal ! ttJxe5 24.Wlxe5 White's attack should decide the game.

B72322) 12 . . . lLla6

This natural development appears a bit too slow. White will be able to arrange his pieces in an optimal way.

13.ttJc3 lLlae5 14.Wle2 e6 Otherwise 4Jd5 would be very strong.

1 5.E:abl a6 16.E:fdl Wle7

8

7 6 5 4 3

Black is quite alright after 1 4.Wlxa4 Wlxb2 1 5 .4Ja3 ixd4 1 6.E:ab 1 Wlxa2 1 7.exd4 4Jc6. 2 The text is much stronger. 1

14 .. . lLlxc3 15.lLlxc3 bd4 Black had better accept the invitation,

otherwise White will easily develop his initiative at no material cost.

16.exd4 Wlxd4 White's initiative is obviously strong and

fully compensates for the pawn deficit. The

a b c d e f g h

This position arose in Bloemhard - Muhren, Dieren 200 1 . It seems to me that White could have increased his initiative with natural play.

17.i.a3!N E:e8 1 8.lLlb3! Black's position is hard to defend, for

example:


18 ... !!b8 19.1tJxeS ltJxeS 20.ltJa4 if8 21 .liJxcS !xeS 22JWa4 !!f8 23 . .heS �xeS 24.�b4±

The difference between the power of the light-squared bishops should tell.

B72323) 12 . . . ltJe6

8 1�£m�rJ�;� 7 � ' _�f� ' m ' " ""B'� ," '''� ',�� 6 ... ,

�� , : ��'m�� 3_' .. , ��JI!I

2 ��_�' "%ri�ff . ,("'''Y-��. ""w,,'i/ ' ;�tZJ. _M� a b c d e f g h

13. ltJ c3!!N A very important novelty. White sacrifices a

pawn in return for long-term pressure against Black's queenside. It is very difficult for Black to solve the problems connected with the passivity of his l ight-squared bishop.

It should be mentioned that after 1 3.'lWxb6?! tZlxb6 it is Black who has slightly better chances.

13 . . . ltJxd4 Another interesting line is 1 3 . . . ltJa5 1 4.'lWc2.

Now White keeps definite pressure after both 1 4 . . . tZle5 1 5 ,tZld5 'lWdS 16.c5 tZlac4 1 7.!!ab l t and 14 . . . tZlxc4 1 5 .tZld5 'lWxb2 1 6.tZlxe7t WhS 17.'lWxc4 tZlb6 l S.'lWc5;!;.

14.exd4 �xb3 It is also possible to take the d4-pawn with

the queen: 1 4 . . . 'lWxd4

However, this is obviously riskier.

1 5 .!!ad 1 'lWf6 1 5 . . . 'lWb6 does not change the assessment. After 16 ,tZld5 'lWdS 17 .'lWa3! !!eS l s.ixg7 @xg7 1 9.c5± it is hard to deal with the threat of tZlb6.

8

7

6

5

a b c d e f g h 1 6 .!!d2!

A calm move that prepares a knight jump to d5. Black has serious concerns in the face of White's idea. For instance:

1 6 .. ,'lWg5 17.!!fd l ltJb6 17 . . . tZlc5 l S.'lWa3! is very annoying for Black.

l S.ltJd5 tZlxd5 1 9Jhd5 e5 20.f4 White regains the pawn while maintaining

the pressure. The position is highly unpleasant for Black.

lS.axb3 ixd4 16.!!fdl

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h


16 ... ig7 One of the key points is that Black cannot

defend his bishop with the natural-looking 1 6 . . . e5? due to 1 nhd4! exd4 1 B .ctJd5±. Strangely, there is no satisfactory defence against White's threats.

Another important option is: 1 6 . . . �f6 17 .l:h2!

White needs to protect his bishop in order to make the most of the knight's agility.

1 7 . . .'�g7 1B .ctJd5 �xb2 1 9J'hb2 ctJe5 If 19 ... e6, then 20.ctJe7! ctJf6 2 1 .Ei:a 1 and White will regain the pawn under favourable circumstances.

20.Ei:a1 ! White can regain the pawn with 20.ctJxe7, but after 20 . . . �g4 Black gets enough counterplay to equalize.

20 . . . ctJc6 2 1 .b4 �d7 22.b5 ctJe5 23.ctJe3� White has strong pressure on the queens ide,

which provides full compensation for his minimal material deficir.

17.Ei:a2 White plays in the same way as we saw

after 1 6 . . . �f6. In my opinion he has very interesting compensation for the pawn. Here is an approximate line that shows how difficult Black's defensive task might become.

17 ... e6 IB.llJe4 ixb2 19.Ei:xb2 ttJe5 Another line runs 1 9 .. .'�g7 20.ctJd6 ctJe5

2 1 .f4 ctJc6 22.b4 Ei:bB 23.b5 ctJe7 24.c5 and Black is in serious trouble.

20.Ei:a2 a6 20 . . . a5 2 1 .ctJc5! (but not 2 1 .Ei:da l Ei:dB! with

counterplay) 2 1 . . .Ei:a7 22.Ei:d6 �g7 23.Ei:e2 ctJg4 24.Ei:b6 does not offer Black any relief either.

21 .Ei:e2 White's rook has nothing further to do on

the a-file, so it is time to switch to the centre.

21 ...ctJc6 22.ctJc5 Ei:bB

a b c d e f g h

Here White has the option of 23.�xc6 bxc6 24.Ei:d6 Ei:b6 25 .Ei:e3, with significant compensation. However, I do not think it is necessary to start cashing in on the positional advantages yet and thus recommend a less forcing move.

23.Ei:d6!?� White has powerful compensation.

The only question is if Black can hold the position or nor. What is certain is that he is doomed to a long and hard defence in the endgame.

220 Benoni Systems

Conclusion:

In general Black cannot rely on the sidelines in the Benko Gambit (or perhaps just for one game as a surprise weapon) as White has clearcut routes to an advantage in almost every case. The only exception might be 9 . . . tUfd7, where further investigation is definitely required.

In the main lines of the Benko, I hope that I have managed to find some good ideas and at this point the situation looks promising for White in the 1 0.E!:b l line. In my opinion the 1 3 . . . tUg4 variation is a critical test for White. According to my analysis the final evaluation is rather favourable for White; nevertheless it would be interesting to see a practical test.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

King's Indian a b c d e f g b

6 . . . ig4 Variation Index

l .d4 C£)f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 .ig7 4 . .ig2 d6 5.C£)c3 0-0 6.C£)f3 .ig4

7.h3

nore ro lO . . . eS after l S . . . .ixf6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

1 1 .h4!N 1 6.¥'i d3!?N

368 The King's Indian Defence

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d6 5.�c3 0-0 6.�f3

Besides all the main moves, it is important to know how to face the following tricky line:

6 .. . ig4 7.h3 As a general rule, the most challenging

reaction to a bishop on g4 will be to play h3 to ptovoke the exchange on f3 . After 7.0-0 I discovered (for me it was new!) an interesting and reliable l ine for Black in 7 .. .'IWc8!?

One notable exception to the aforementioned rule occurs after 6 . . . lOc6 7.0-0 ig4, when 8.h3 ixf3 9.ixf3 lOd7 seems quite reliable for Black, That is why in Chapter 22 I instead recommend 8.d5.

Before we start exploring any vanatIons, will mention one important nuance. In the present variation, the fact that White has not yet castled can make it quite arrractive for him to advance his h-pawn in certain positions. For this reason, White should refrain from castling prematurely and instead look for other ways to strengthen his position.

7 ... ixf3 8.ixf3 �c6 8 ... c6 9.0-0 lObd7 1 0.e4 transposes to the

6 . . . c6 variation (Chapter 27).

9.e3

9 ... �d7 1he most popular move. Black has also

tried: 9 . . . e5 1 O.d5 lOe7

The drawback to this idea is that White is not obliged to waste time with if3-g2, as happens in the main line.

1 1 .e4 lOd7 1 2.h4! A typical idea in these positions. White's chances are much better, as was demonstrated in the following example:

1 2 . . . h5 1 3.g4 hxg4 14.ixg4 f5 Sergeev - Likavsky, Bratislava 1 996. Now White should have kept his bishop on the h3-c8 diagonal:

1 5 .ih3!N lOf6 1 6.ig5! Premature would be 1 G.exf5? ! lOxf5 ! with

decent play for Black. The text, on the other hand, maintains all the pluses of White's position.

1O.ig2 e5 Once Black tried :

1 0 . . . a5 Sakaev - Mrva, Istanbul 2000. Once again

White can try a familiar idea:

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .h4!N h5 Preventing the further advance, but this approach brings other problems. If 1 1 . . .lObG 1 2 .\We2 e6 White can retain the better chances with 1 3.!'i:b I ! intending to meet 1 3 . . . d5 with 14.b3.

Chapter 2 1 - 6 . . . �g4 369

1 2.0-0 e5 1 3.d5 ltJb4 14.e4 White stands better in this complex

middlegame. In view of the kingside structure, Black will find it difficult to execute the typical . . . 0-f5 advance in a favourable way.

l 1 .d5 ltJe7 12.e4 f5 13.h4! Once again White does not rush to castle,

and can instead aim to profit from the position of the king's rook.

13 . . . ltJf6 14.�g5 This helps to increase the pressure on the

kingside, while at the same time provoking the weakening . . . h7-h6 advance.

14 ... h6 In Shumiakina - Szczepkowska, Stockholm

2008, Black tried 14 . . . a6, at which poi nt I offer the following improvement: 1 5 .h5!N ltJxh5 16.exf5 l'Ixf5 17 .Wfd2 l'1f8 1 8 .�h3 and White has powerful compensation for the pawn.

IS.�xf6 �xf6 This position was reached in Portisch -

Sznapik, Amsterdam 1 984.

a b c d e f g h

16.Wfd3!?N

The game continuation of 1 6.h5 �g5 1 7.hxg6 f4 was less convincing. The text is an improvement, which by the way was also mentioned by Stohl in his annotations .

16 .. . hS I also examined 1 6 . . . c5. In this case I believe

White should open up the position by means of 1 7.dxc6! bxc6 1 8.h5 with better chances. What I especially like here is the flexibility of the white position. Depending on the circumstances, he still has the freedom to castle on either side.

17.0-0-0 I prefer this to 1 7.exf5 gxf5 ! (Worse is

17 . . .tLlxf5 1 8.0-0-0 when Black has a strategically difficult position, as White has full control over the key e4-square.) 1 8.Wfe2 e4 1 9.Wfxh5 c6 and Black has definite compensation, with strong play on the dark squares.

17 . • . �g7 1 8.@bl I believe White has the much more promising

position. He can increase the pressure on Black's pawn structure by �h3, followed by exf5 at a suitable moment, and can also prepare f3 and g4 opening up the kingside. Meanwhile it is not at all easy for Black to obtain any significant activity on the opposite flank.

Conclusion:

Black can hardly hope to equalize by exchanging his bishop for the enemy knight in the early stages. The fact that White has not yet castled improves his chances even more, and we have seen repeatedly how troublesome a well timed h4-h5 can be for the defender.

King's Indian a b c d e f g h

6 .. . CtJc6 & 7 . . . ig4 Variation Index

l.d4 tLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 i.g7 4.i.g2 d6 S.tLlc3 0-0 6.tLlf3 tLlc6 7.0-0 i.g4

S.dS tLlaS 9.tLld2 cS A) 10 ... �d7 B) 10 ... eS C) 10 ... a6 1 1 .h3 i.d7 12.b3 bS 13.i.b2 gbS 14.gabl

Cl) 14 ... bxc4 C2) 14 ... �c7 C3) 14 ... eS

note to S . . . tUa5 A) after 1 4 ... fxe6

1 5 .b4N

B) after 1 6 ... f5

372 373 375 375 376 377

a b c d e f g h

1 7.fxe5!N

Chapter 22 - 6 . . . tt'lc6 & 7 . . . !g4 371

l .d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 !g7 4.!g2 d6 5.tt'lc3 0-0 6.ltJf3 ltJc6 7.0-0 !g4

I had never considered this move seriously, but in fact it is Black's fourth most popular option and there are 9S9 games with it in Mega Database 2009!

S.dS I believe this is the most challenging choice.

Before writing the book, I was pretty sure White had a simple route to an advantage with S.h3 !xf3 9.!xf3 ttJd7 1 0.e3, but after studying the position more closely I concluded that after 1 0 . . . e5 l l .d5 ttJe7 1 2.e4 f5 White's bishop pair is not so significant, as the position is closed and it is not easy to activate his lightsquared bishop.

S . . . ltJaS This is clearly Black's main choice, but

there is also S . . . !xf3 when 9.exf3! leads to a favourable position for White. His bishop pair is the most significant detail, and Black's e7-pawn is a permanent target for White's heavy pieces. (In contrast, 9 .!xf3 would be a serious error, as after 9 . . . ttJe5 both White's light-squared bishop and the c4-pawn are vulnerable.) After 9.exf3! we should consider the following options:

a) 9 . . . ttJe5 1 O.'IM!e2 E:eS 1 l .f4 ttJed7 1 2.!e3 This is a dream position, as Black has no activity while White can slowly improve his position all over the board. 1 2 . . . a5 1 3.ttJb5 E:bS 14.E:ad l ttJb6 1 5 .b3 ttJfd7 1 6.h4 White was already much better and after the inaccurate 1 6 . . . h5? 1 7.f5 he had a decisive attack in Andersson -Lucena, Brasilia 1 9S 1 .

b) 9 . . . ttJbS Here I recommend:

10 .'IM!b3!? The main point is to disrupt Black's intended plan of 1 0 . . . c6 followed by . . . cxd5. Now

Black can play either 1 0 . . . b6, which looks very suspicious as it weakens the light the squares, or he can defend with the queen:

1 0 . . . '1M! cS I l . f4 ttJa6 If Black returns to the . . . c7-c6 plan then White is ready: 1 1 . . .c6 1 2.E:e l E:eS 13 .!e3 cxd5 1 4.cxd5 ttJa6 1 5 .E:ac l The black queen is misplaced on cS. 1 5 . . . 'IM!d7 1 6.ttJb5±

1 2.!e3 b6 12 . . . ttJg4 obviously runs into 1 3 .!h3! and again Black is hurt by his queen's location.

1 3.a3 ttJc5 14 .'IM!c2 a5

a b c d e f g h In Izeta T xabarri - Fernandez Ramos, Leon 1 995, it was obvious White is clearly better, especially after Black's . . . b 7 -b6 and now I suggest a simple move:

1 5 .b4N ttJa6 1 6.E:ab l White has a huge positional advantage.

c) 9 . . . ttJa5 1 0.'IM!d3 Also good is 1 0.'IM!e2.

1 0 . . . c5 1 0 . . . ttJd7 1 l .b3 does not change much.

1 l .!d2 a6 1 2.b3 'lM!c7 More natural-looking is 12 . . . E:bS, but after 1 3 .E:ac l b5 14.ttJdl White is in control.

1 3.f4 E:fbS 1 4.E:ac 1 b5 1 5 .ttJd l ! This is White's main positional idea i n this line.

1 5 . . . bxc4 1 6.bxc4 White is clearly bener, as Black can hardly

create counterplay on the queenside because


he is tied to defending his knight on as, while White can slowly build his play on the kingside and in the centre, Krogius - Kraidman, Bad Liebenzell 1 996.

9.ltJdl c5 The other c-pavyn move is not really playable

after the following forcing line: 9 . . . c6

a b c d e f g h

1 0.b4 lUxdS l l .cxdS �xc3 1 2.�b l �xd2 1 3.�xd2 1tJc4 14 .�h6

In view of the threat of I S .Wfd4 Black has to give up an exchange, and he fails to obtain adequate compensation.

1 4 . . . Wfb6 The text is Black's best chance. Instead I faced 14 . . . ltJeS I S .�xfS WfxfS 111

the game Avrukh - Ezat, Dresden (01) 200S. Now I went wrong with 16.h3, when instead I had at least two strong options. Firstly, there was 1 6.dxc6!N when 16 . . . bxc6 1 7.�c 1 leads to a clear edge. Secondly, I could even have taken the second exchange with 1 6.f4 ltJc4 1 7.Wfd3 cxdS I S .�xdS bS 1 9.�xaS WfxaS. During the game I was worried about this position, but White is much better after the correct 20.e4 Wfc6 2 l .Wfd4!±.

l S .�xfS �xfS I 6.a4 16.�c 1 lUeS 17.Wfd2 looks even stronger.

1 6 . . . �d7 17.Wfd3 lUeS I S .aS! Wfc7 1 9.Wfc3 White was clearly better in Blagojevic -

Mujic, Tuzla 1 990.

lO.�c2

a b c d e f g h This move seems more flexible than 1 0.h3,

which is also popular. I chose to recommend the 1 0 .Wfc2 line after comparing it with the main line of the Yugoslav variation, l .d4 ltJf6 2.c4 g6 3 .g3 �g7 4.�g2 d6 S.ltJc3 0-0 6.ltJf3 ltJc6 7.0-0 a6 S.dS ltJaS 9 .lUd2 cS 1 0.Wfc2. The difference looks rather symbolic at nrst: we have a black bishop on g4, while in the other line Black has played . . . a7 -a6. In fact, Black's position in the Yugoslav variation is slightly dubious from a positional point of view, but Black manages to get his play going move by move with 1 0 . . . �bS l l .b3 bS 1 2.�b2 bxc4 1 3.bxc4 �h6, and so on. In our position Black needs to spend one more tempo to create his typical queenside play, and this tempo turns out to be vital as Black fails to create the same level of activity as in the main line of the Yugoslav variation.

Black has three main moves to consider: A) lO ... �d7, B) 10 ... e5 and C) lO ... a6.

A) 10 ... �d7 1 1 .b3 i.h3 12.i.b2 i.xg2 13. \t>xg2 e5

In our lines we generally avoid very closed positions, so:

14.dxe6 fxe6

Chapter 22 - 6 . . . tDc6 & 7 . . . �g4 373

The other recapture is also possible: 1 4 . . . Wxe6

Now White keeps control over the key d5-square with the help of a tactical trick:

1 5 .ttJd5! �ad8 Obviously Black cannot touch the white knight: 1 5 . . . lOxd5 1 6.cxd5 Wxd5t (no better is 1 6 . . . Wxe2 1 7.�xg7 �xg7 1 8.Wc3t followed by 1 9.Wxa5) 1 7.e4 Black is helpless against the coming 1 8.�xg7, 19 .Wc3t and Wxa5.

1 6.e3 1Oc6 17.�xf6 �xf6 1 8 .�ada White retains a pleasant edge, thanks to his

grip on d5 .

8 �� m )�.B , �� . . . . . y.�'�� 7 � i_"ifm m i

6 . . . . . %� �_l_',�� 5 'I1i�. "." .� 4 �

. . . . . ;� '2r� �� %'N//. �� p 3 _� � � V� ��'�"""% N//. ��p:I""%%i'� 2 � �V� � V��V� ��' .. "�� """.i.""

a b c d e f g h

lS.lOee4!N This move is more challenging than 1 5 .�ad 1 ,

as was played i n Bilek - Taimanov, Kapfenberg 1 970, when Black equalized (and drew) after 1 5 . . . lOc6 16.1Of3 �ad8 17.lOe4 1Ob4 1 8 .lOxf6t ixf6 1 9.Wd2 Wg7 20.ixf6 Wxf6 2 1 .a3 1Oc6 22.We3 Wf5.

lS . . . lOe6 16.1t1xf6t �xf6 1? � �xf6 lS.lOe4

Now the big question is whether White can build up pressure against Black's central pawns. In my opinion White has good chances of success. For example:

lS ... �f7 19.�adl lOd4 20.Wd3 We6 21 .b4!

The idea is to drive away the black queen from c6 with b4-b5, when White will also be restricting the black knight, as its only remaining retreat square will be f5 .

21 ...�dS 22.bS We? 23.1t1gS �f6 Instead 23 . . . �f5 is just a waste of time after

24.f4, when the black rook is on a square that the d4-knight needs.

24.e3 1Of5 2S.f4 dS 26.g4 109? This position has been reached by a more

or less forced sequence. Now I found a very strong idea:

a b c d e f g h

2? e4! �xf4 The main point is that after 27 . . . h6 28.e5

�ff8 29.lOxe6! lOxe6 30.Wxg6t lOg7 3 1 .cxd5 White has a winning position.

2S.Wg3 eS 28 . . . �df8 does not help Black after 29.�xf4

Wxf4 30.Wxf4 �xf4 3 L�g3 and next White will regain the pawn and keep a clear advantage.

29.Wh4 hS 30.:!'%xf4 exf4 31 .gxhS gxhS 32.exdS

White is clearly better.

B) 10 ... eS

374 The King's I ndian Defence

8 �*,�lil�.';*, 7 .�£RWo.�R%l1-.l£ 6 _ t� � , � 5 �WAlitj�Ii"''' ;_ � ''' . . ;��''' '%��. "%� WA� 4 �� J;� 3 � ;�; � r� 2 �Wtf{\iii)�� wrrt�%W� O ?'O% ,§ ��· O ?'� �?'� 0�t··· ·%�d:t"··".o/iit%�····% 1 /� � . g �

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .b3 �d7 Several times Black has opted for:

l L.a6 Here I developed the following line for White:

1 2.�b2 b5 13 .l"Iae l In general, White's plan includes e2-e4, ct'ld l -e3 and eventually f2-f4, starting to play in the centre.

1 3 . . . l"IbS A possible alternative for Black is: 13 . . . �d7 14.e4 ct'lg4 1 5 .f3 (It is worth briefly considering the following game: 1 5 .ct'ld 1 f5 1 6.exf5 �xf5 1 7.�e4 �d7 l S .�g2 ct'lb7 1 9.h3 ct'lf6 20.ct'le3 Vflc7 2 1 .f4 exf4 22.l"Ixf4 l"IaeS 23.Vfld3 VfldS 24.l"Iffl b4 25.�a l �cS 26. c;t>f2 V2-V2 Arsovic - Todorovic, Belgrade 200S. White's move order allowed the black knight to retreat from g4 to a sensible square on f6.) 1 5 . . . ct'lh6 The knight must go to h6 to keep the possibiliry of . . . f7 -f5 . This is Tregubov - Gavrilov, St Petersburg 1 994, and now White should have started the previously mentioned plan with 1 6.ct'ldl N and if 1 6 . . .f5 17.f4 then White is much better prepared for a central confrontation, due to Black's poorly placed knight.

1 4.ct'ldl Vflcs This is Stippekohl - Volkmer, Germany 1993, and now White could have initiated favourable complication with:

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .f4!N exf4 White is positionally better after 1 5" .l"IeS 1 6.fxe5 dxe5 17.ct'lf2 ct'lb7 l S.tt'ld3.

1 6.l"Ixf4 Or 16.gxf4 also leads to a promising position, but the text is stronger.

1 6. "ct'lh5 17.�xg7 ct'lxg7 Black cannot recapture with his king due to l s.Vflc3t followed by Vflxa5.

l S.ct'le4 f5 Black's position is very difficult after I S. "ct'leS 1 9.Vfld2 tt'lb7 20.l"Iefl ±.

1 9.ct'lxd6 '!Wd7 20.Vfld2 b4 If 20 . . . Vflxd6 then 2 1 .Vflxa5 and Black has no compensation for the pawn after, say, 2L.tt'lh5 22.Elf2.

2 1 .l"Ixg4! fxg4 22.tt'le4 tt'lb7 23.ct'ldf2± White has fantastic compensation for the

exchange.

12.�b2 ih3 This plan is quite logical; first Black trades

light-squared bishops and then he intends to start his play on the kingside. Here I discovered a surprising idea:

13. tt'lce4!? After the natural 1 3 .e4 Black obtains a

rather solid position: 1 3 . . . �xg2 1 4.c;t>xg2 ct'lh5 1 5 .ct'le2 b6 1 6.l"Iae l �h6 1 7.Vflc3 f6 l S.c;t>h l l"IaeS 19 .f4 Vflg4 20.Vflf3 Vflxf3t 2 1 .ct'lxf3 a6 White had nothing special in Velikov -Velimirovic, Dubai (01) 1 9S6.

Chapter 22 - 6 . . . tt:lc6 & 7 . . . ig4 375

13 ... ixg2 Black has a couple of alternatives we should

look at in passing:

1 3 . . . if5 1 4.tt:lxf6t ixf6 1 5 .e4 ih3 1 6.f4 is clearly better for White.

1 3 . . . tt:lxe4 14 .ixh3! The main point of White's idea. 1 4 . . :�xh3 1 5 .tt:lxe4 White wins an important tempo by attacking the d6-pawn. 1 5 . . . \Wd7 1 6.f4 White seizes the initiative, using the fact that Black cannot play 1 6 . . . f5 in view of lLlg5-e6.

14.lLlxf6t ixf6 1 5.�xg2 ig7 16.f4 f5 This position was reached in the game

S. Webb - Nicholson, Britain (ch) 1 975. It is very important for the evaluation of White's idea. I found an interesting novelty:

19.exf5 gxf5 20.ttJf3 White immediately attacks the e5-pawn.

20 .. J:�ae8 21 .l;ael e4 22.tt:lg5 White is clearly better, as his knight will be

strong on e6.

C) 1O ... a6

This is Black's main plan; obviously he is trying to play on the queenside.

1 1 .h3 id7 12.b3 b5 13.ib2 l;b8 Another option is 1 3 . . . bxc4 1 4.bxc4 gb8

1 5 .gab l ! which will be examined in line C l .

14.l;ab1

Less important is 14 . . . h5, as in Feller - Sebenik, Szeged 2007, and now I like 1 5 .e4!?N, as after 1 5 . . . \Wc8 1 6.mh2 h4 White can simply grab the pawn with 1 7.gxh4.

C1) 14 ... bxc4 1 5.bxc4 e5

Black has also tried: 1 5 . . . ih6

This is a thematic idea in the main line of the Yugoslav variation, but here it falls short.

1 6.f4 e5 There is also 16 . . . lLlh5 1 7.<it>h2 e5 1 8 .dxe6! fxe6 1 9 .1Llce4 \We7 as in Velikov - Lenz, Graz 1987, and here White has the simple 20.\Wd3 tt:lb7 2 1 .ic3 ic6 22.l;b6 with a near decisive advantage.


1 7.dxe6 ixe6 I B.tUd5 White plays by analogy with the main line of the Yugoslav variation; the big difference is that Black does not have the chance to play 1 8" .l:hb2.

1 8" .ixd5 1 9.cxd5 ig7 This is N. Davies - F. Rayner, Wrexham 1 994, and now I suggest a new move:

a b c d e f g h 20.ic3N

White has a clear advantage, as Black has problems coordinating his pieces.

16.dxe6 fxe6 After 1 6" .ixe6 the play might continue:

1 7.tUd5 E!:xb2 1 8 .E!:xb2 tUxc4 1 9.tUxf6t Wl'xf6 20.tUxc4 ixc4 2 1 .E!:b6 Black failed to find sufficient compensation for the exchange tn I . Almasi - Zsinka, Hungary 2004.

17.tUce4 E!:xb2 Another important line goes 1 7" .tUxe4

I B .tUxe4 ixb2 1 9.E!:xb2 E!:xb2 20.WI'xb2 tUxc4 2 1 .WI'c3! d5 22.tUxc5 and White is clearly better.

18.E!:xb2 tLlxe4 19.ttJxe4 tLlxc4 1 9" .ixb2 20.WI'xb2 would lead to the

17" .tLlxe4 line mentioned above.

20.E!:b3 tLlaS 21 .E!:d3 This is clearly better for White.

C2) 14 ... WI'c7

a b c d e f g h

lS.e4 e6 Black has also tried several other moves

here:

1 5" .E!:b7 In Wojtkiewicz - Docx, Antwerp 1 994,

Black's idea was to double rooks on the b-file. White should continue with:

a b c d e f g h 1 6.tUe2N E!:fb8 17.ic3!

This is the best arrangement of White's minor pieces in most cases. It is important for White to keep an eye on Black's knight, as this is a key idea in restricting Black's activity on the queenside.

1 7" .bxc4 1 8 .bxc4 E!:xb l 1 9 .E!:xb l E!:xb l t 20.'<!tixb l tUe8 2 1 .'<!tib2 ixc3 22.'<!tixc3 tUb7 23.f4

Black is doomed to a passive defence.

Chapter 22 - 6 . . . lLlc6 & 7 . . . ig4 377

1 5 . . . bxc4 1 6.bxc4 E!:b6 was tried In Schwartzman - Gretarsson, USA 1 990, and we already know White should meet this plan with 17.lt'le2 E!:fb8 1 8 .ic3;!;.

1 5 . . . e5 1 6.lt'le2 1 6.dxe6 fxe6! is very unclear.

1 6 . . . lt'lh5 17.f4 bxc4 1 8 .bxc4 ih6 I also examined an interesting temporary exchange sacrifice: 1 8 . . . E!:xb2 19.E!:xb2 exf4 20.gxf4 ixb2 2 1 .iWxb2 E!:e8 White cannot stop . . . 0 -f5 , but he has a good strategic idea at his disposal: 22.@h2 f5 23.lt'lg3! Black's kingside becomes vulnerable after the exchange of a pair of knights. 23 . . . lt'lxg3 24.@xg3 White is better, and now his main positional idea is to penetrate along the b-file with E!:b l and iWb6.

19 .�c3 E!:xb 1 20.iWxb l f6 2 1 .iWb2 Threatening iWa3.

2 l . . .lt'lb7 22.@h2! A nice positional move; the king protects the h3- and g3-pawns and thus creates the additional idea of �f3 attacking Black's knight. The game we are following is Krogius - Ozsvath, Budapest 1 965.

22 . . . exf4?! Obviously Black should not release the tension, but White would still be better after any of Black's range of neutral moves.

23.lt'lxf4 It'lxf4 24.gxf4 �g7 25.f5 White has a clear positional advantage.

16.lt'ldl! The knight is heading for e3, where it will be

perfectly placed if Black plays . . . exd5.

16 . . J�fc8 In two other games Black immediately

released the tension in the centre, but in both cases he failed to equalize: 1 6 . . . bxc4 1 7.bxc4 exd5 1 8 .cxd5 E!:fe8 1 9.1t'le3 E!:b4 20.ic3 �a4 2 1 .iWc 1 l:'i:xb l 22.iWxb 1 Now the games diverged:

22 . . . lt'ld7 23.iWa l ixc3 24.iWxc3 f6 25 .E!:b 1 @g7 26.�fl ± Black failed to create any counterplay and his minor pieces are clearly misplaced on a4 and a5. White was much better in Stangl - Gretarsson, Reykjavik 1 993.

Black has also tried 22 . . . �b5 23.l:'i:c 1 It'lh5, but White created a dangerous attack after 24.�xg7 It'lxg7 25 .lt'lg4! It'lh5 26.iWb2!± In WI. Schmidt - Troianescu, Poland 1 97 1 .

17.ttJe3 exd5 This is Tkachiev - Krstic, Croatia 2002, and

now I believe it is always desirable for White to recapture with the c-pawn. Ptobably White overlooked that after:

a b c d e f g h

18.cxd5!N c4 He has a strong answer:

19.B:fc1! This would secure White's advantage.

C3) 14 ... e5 15.dxe6 �xe6

The obvioLls alternative is 1 5 . . . fxe6. Now the critical line runs 1 6.lt'lce4 It'lxe4 1 7.lt'lxe4 �xb2 1 8 .l:'i:xb2 �c6 19 .1:'i:bb1 iWe7 as in Unzicker - Kavalek, Lugano (01) 1 970. Now in my opinion White could retain the better chances with 20.l:'i:fd l , as Black is far from


solving the problem of his misplaced knight on a5. For example, 20 . . . ixe4 2 1 .�xe4 %%b6 22.�d3 %%dS 23.cxb5 %%xb5 (or 23 . . . axb5 24.b4!) 24.%%bc l d5 25 .e4 d4 26.e5 with an advantage.

16 . . . axb5 17.%%fdl The main idea is to prepare 4Jde4 under

favourable circumstances. White has also tried 1 7.%%bd 1 , but I think the text is more natural.

17 ... WI'e7 The main point is that Black is unable to play

1 7 . . . d5, as after 1 S .4Jde4 his centre collapses.

lS.llJde4 ttJxe4 19.ttJxe4 ttJb7 20.i.xg7 @xg7

Now I have an improvement over Marin - Florean, Romania (ch) 1 996, where White opted for 2 1 .4Jc3:

a b c d e f g h

21 .b4!N c4 White should not be afraid of 2 1 . . .if5 as

22.bxc5 ixe4 23.ixe4 4Jxc5 24.ic6! wins a pawn.

22.ttJc3 White has a clear positional advantage, as

Black has still not solved the problem of his bad knight.

Conclusion:

The 6 . . . 4Jc6 7.0-0 ig4 vanatlon is more popular than I had at first realized, bur White can keep a pleasant edge by following the lines I recommend. One point to note is how often (particularly after d5xe6 . . . f7xe6) the key move for White is 4Jce4.

King's Indian

6 . . . �c6 & 7 . . . if5

Variation Index l .d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 J.g7 4.J.g2 d6 S.tiJc3 0-0 6.tiJf3 tiJc6 7.0-0 J.f5

8.dS tiJaS 9.tiJd2 A) 9,..c6 B) 9, ..cS

A) note to lO . . . liJxd5 A) after 1 4 ... Wlxa5 B) after 1 5 ... h5

a b c d e f g h

l 'i .!!e l !N

380 381


l .d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d6 S.lLlc3 0-0 6.lLlf3 lLlc6 7.0-0 ifS

I was surprised to discover that this move had been played for the first time by Boris Spassky back in 1 955 . Nowadays it is a rare guest in high level tournaments, although I have to mention that it has been played regularly by Ilya Smirin, a leading King's Indian expert.

8.dS This is by far White's most popular reply and

undoubtedly the most critical one.

8 ... lLla5 It looks senseless to retreat passively with the

knight. 8 . . . ltJb8?! 9 .ltJd4 �d7 1 0.h3 c5 1 1 .ltJc2

We have reached a version of the Benoni that is clearly favourable for White.

1 l . . .ltJa6 1 2.e4 ltJc7 1 3 .a4 e5 Black has a very passive position, and his last move, an attempt to gain some space in the centre, fails to bring any relief.

1 4.dxe6! �xe6 1 5 .�d3 ltJfe8 1 6.�e3 �c8 1 7.Wh2 �d7 1 8 .�ad l ±

White had a clear positional advantage i n Xu Jun - Mencinger, Portoroz 1987.

9.lLld2 The other main option is 9.ltJd4 �d7

intending 10 . . . c5 after White defends the c4-pawn. It is a reasonable line for White, but I prefer the text.

Now Black must make an important choice between A) 9 ... c6 and B) 9 •.. c5.

A) 9 . . . c6

With this move Black invites complications, and White should accept the challenge.

lO.b4! This principled move has not been so

popular, but it is definitely the right way to fight for the advantage. Black has scored well against less ambitious moves such as 1 0 .e4.

1O ... liJxd5 This has been played in most of the games,

but we should also consider: 1 0 . . . ltJxc4 1 1 .ltJxc4

Obviously the most ambitious reaction. Black gets a normal position after 1 1 .dxc6 ltJxd2 1 2.cxb7 �b8 1 3.�xd2 d5 14.�b3 �xb7, Danielian - Fierro Baquero, Istanbul 2009.

1 l . . .ltJxd5 1 2.ltJxd5 �xa 1 Black has insufficient compensation after 1 2 . . . cxd5 1 3 .ltJb2 e6 1 4.a4! �c8 1 5 .�a3 with ltJd3 to follow.

1 3.�h6 �g7 14.�xg7 Wxg7 1 5 .ltJde3 �e6 After a more or less forced sequence, we arrive at a rather unbalanced position. From a materialistic point of view Black is absolutely fine, but I believe that in this concrete situation White's two minor pieces are stronger than Black's rook and two pawns, as the rooks will have a hard time becoming active any time soon. Another important detail is the absence of d�rk-squared bishops, which makes Black's kingside slightly more vulnerable.

1 6.a4 �xc4 17 .ltJxc4 d5 This position occurred in P.H. Nielsen -Nataf, Reykjavik (blitz) 2004. Now White should have played actively with:

Chapter 23 - 6 . . . 4Jc6 & 7 . . . if5 381

a b c d e f g h l S.ltJa5N Wic7

Black certainly cannot play l S . . . :gbS? in view of 19 .Wd4t followed by 20.Wixa7. White is also better after l S . . . W'b6 1 9.W'd2 e5 20.ltJb3.

1 9.W'd2 :gfdS 20.:gc1 e6 2 1 .W'c3t WgS It is too dangerous for Black to try: 2 1 . . .e5? ! 22.b5 c5 23.f4! c;t>gS 24.fxe5 c4 25 .ltJb3!±

22.ltJb3 :gacS 23.ltJc5 Black is very passive, while White can

prepare the e2-e4 advance under favourable circumstances.

1 1 .cx:dS ixc3 12.e4 hal Also 1 2 . . . id7 does not bring Black

satisfaction: 1 3 .:gb 1 ixd2 14 .ixd2 ltJc4 1 5 . .ih6 b5 1 6.W'd4 f6 17 . .ixfS c;t>xfS l S .a4!± Krogius - Shagalovich, Soviet Union 1 967.

13.exfS ig7 The alternative 1 3 . . . cxd5?! is hardly playable

for Black. The game U. Nielsen - Hvenekilde, Denmark 1 993, continued 1 4.bxa5 e6 1 5 .fxe6 fxe6 1 6.ltJb3 .ig7 17.ltJd4 .ixd4 l S .Wixd4. With simple and natural moves White got a winning position.

14.bxaS This straightforward capture is much

stronger than 1 4.:ge l ? ! cxd5 1 5 .bxa5 gxf5 1 6 . .ixd5 Wixa5 1 7.ltJc4 Wic7 with an unclear and double-edged game, Ivanchuk - Smirin, Odessa 2007.

The text move was originally a novelty of mine, although it was played early in 20 1 0, shortly before publication.

14 .. .'IWxaS

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

a b c d e f g h

lS.:gel !N In Nakauchi - Ly, Sydney 20 10 , White

tried the enterprising but ultimately incorrect 1 5 .fxg6 hxg6 16 .Wib3?! cxd5 17 . .ixd5 e6 l S . .ixe6?! fxe6 1 9.Wixe6t and although he eventually won, his position at this stage is far from convincing.

After the simple rook development White's position seems very promising, as shown by the following illustrative line:

lS . . . �c7 16.ltJf3 :gac8 17.fxgG hxgG 1 8.dxc6 bxc6 19.�a4!

White has serious attacking prospects, the principal threat being Wih4 and ltJg5.

B) 9 ... cS 1O.e4

As a general rule, I regard most of the positions with a black knight on a5 as slightly dubious for the second player, with the exception of the main line of the Yugoslav variation. Nevertheless Black still keeps plenty of tactical chances, as is customary for this opening, so we must always remain on guard.


lO . . . id? Another option is:

1 0 . . . ig4 l 1 .'I&c2

a b c d e f g h Now Black has a choice:

a) 1 1 . . .Wc8 1 2.b3 ih3 This is not a dangerous idea, and it allows White additional time to mobil ize his forces. 1 3 .ib2 ixg2 1 4.c;t>xg2 b6 This position has occurred a few times in practice and I do not see anything wrong with the natural: 1 5 . f4N The following line looks very convincing to me: 1 5 . . . e5 1 6J'!ae 1 exf4 1 7.lLle2 lLlg4 l s.lLlxf4 ixb2 1 9.Wxb2 lLle5 20.lLlf3 With better chances for White. fu usual, Black's misplaced knight on the edge of the board is the prevailing factor.

b) 1 l . . .Wd7 1 2.b3 h5 1 3.ib2 a6?! Of course it is hardly a good idea to combine Black's previous two moves, but still it is useful to observe White's play. 14 .f4 h4 1 5 .e5 if5 1 6.lLlce4 lLlxe4 1 7.lLlxe4 hxg3 I S .hxg3 'l&c7 This position was reached in PH . Nielsen -Kaabi, Cappelle la Grande 200 1 , and now White could have won a pawn with a simple tactic: 1 9.exd6N exd6 20.ixg7 c;t>xg7 (Black is certainly not helped by 20 . . . ixe4 2 1 .Wc3) 2 1 .Wc3t f6 22.lLlxd6! Wxd6 23.Wxa5 with a winning position.

c) 1 1 . . .a6 1 2.b3 b5 1 3.ib2 actually reaches a position from the 7 . . . ig4 variation with

the extra move e2-e4 for White, which is obviously favourable for him. 1 3 . . . �bS 1 4.�ab 1 White begins a standard regrouping. 14 . . . id7 1 5 .lLldl bxc4 1 6.bxc4 �b4 1 7.ic3 ia4 I S .We I Wb6?! Black tries to get some activiry on the queenside even at the cost of an exchange, bur it is hardly sufficient. 1 9.ixb4 cxb4 20.lLlb2 id7 2 1 .lLld3± White was much better in Neckar - Lorenz, Leipzig 1 97 1 .

1 1 .Wc2 a6 Black can also choose a closed rype of

position, but this also brings him little relief. 1 1 . . .e5 1 2.b3 lLlg4 1 3 .ib2 f5 1 4.exf5 gxf5 1 5.lLle2

Now I think Black should play 1 5 . . . lLlf6

Actually this position might arise after 1 2 . . . lLlh5 as well .

1 6J::!ae 1 White is much better mobilized for a central confrontation.

1 6 . . . a6 This position occurred, via a different order of moves, in the game Osnos - Vasiukov, Kiev 1 964. Now I found a strong improvement.

Chapter 23 - 6 . . . lLlc6 & 7 . . . �f5 383

I also examined the modest 17 ... h6 1 B.lLlh4 lLlh7 at which point I like the following solution: 1 9.f4! e4 20.�xg7 <;t>xg7 2 1 .lLlc3! Now White has a natural positional plan of 4Jd 1 -e3 followed by �h3 and perhaps g4, or even a sacrifice on f5 depending on circumstances. White is clearly better.

1 B.lLlg5 bxc4 19 .bxc4 iWcB Also important is: 1 9 . . . l!bB 20.lLle6 �xe6 2 1 .dxe6 iWe7 22.�d5 4Jxd5 23.cxd5 W'b7 24.�c3 lLlc4 25 .iWd3 4Jb2 (25 . . . 4Jb6 runs into the strong 26.l!b l ! when 26 . . . Wxd5? is impossible due to 27.W'xa6 and Black loses his knight.) 26.�xb2 e4 27.iWc4 �xb2 2B.l!b l iWb5 29.iWc2 White is clearly better.

20.f4 e4 2 1 .g4! Fully exploiting the fact that Black cannot play 2 1 . . .4Jxg4, when White has 22.�xg7 �xg7 23.iWc3t followed by 24.W'xa5.

2 l . . .l!bB 22.gxf5 l!b4 23.�c3 l!xc4 24.W'd2 White is much better.

14 . . . h5 1 5 .4Je2 e5 (After 1 5 . . . h4 White can simply grab the pawn with 1 6.gxh4 as was shown convincingly in the following encounter:

1 6 . . . bxc4 17.bxc4 l!xb2 1 B .l!xb2 lLlh5 1 9.l!bb l e6 20.4Jf3± Matveeva - Kachiani Gersinska, Bled 2002.) 1 6.dxe6 �xe6 1 7.lLlf4 �d7 Lemos - Orsini, La Plata 200B. Now I found a strong regrouping:

14 ... bxc4 1 5 .bxc4 W'c7 The alternative is 1 5 . . . �h6, but here White gets an advantage by simple means. 1 6.f4 e5 was PH. Nielsen - Pedersen, Denmark 200 1 . Now I believe White should have played the simple 1 7.dxe6N fxe6 ( l 7 . . . �xe6 I B.lLld5!±) 1 B.iWd3 �c6 1 9.1Llf3 and White's pieces are much better placed, for instance: 1 9 . . . l!b4 20.�h3 l!eB 2 1 .e5 lLlh5 22.a3 l!xc4 23.exd6±

1 6.4Jd 1 Also worthy of consideration is the thematic 1 6.4Je2 e5 1 7.�c3.

1 6 . . . e5 17.lLle3 �h6 I B.�c3! Underlining the poor position of Black's knight.

1 8 . . . l!xb l 1 9.1!xb 1 �xe3 20.fxe3 4Jg4 2 1 .l!e l lLlb7 22.h3 lLlf6 23.l!b l !

Correctly switching to the queenside. 23 . . . lLlh5 24.<;t>h2 �cB 25.lLlf3 W'e7 26.l!b6 a5 27.iWd J

White obviously has the initiative, Aronian - Blehm, Yerevan 1 999.

3.S4 The K ing's I ndian Defence

lS.ltJe2 This is perhaps rhe critical position of the

whole line. Black has several possibilities.

8 �:i � ��*m 7 �··· · Y._�� ·iY.mt �� '0 �%''''d'''''Y-� 6 i _ W� � i_ 5 � :.ti%.·,,· · :. . 4 0 . . . ":� �ti7.��ti7.� �� 3 �!.�.�.� ��'0 �%'''//. ��·d'·· ·}�r� 2 8 �"iVmtZJw�.,tw� .·iB···· · ·.i=··· ·

a b c d e f g h

lS . . . hS This is a typical idea, preparing . . . h4 and

. . . hxg3. This has nothing to do with a crazy kingside attack, bur is in fact a prophylactic positional concept. The point is that White's entire position is geared towards the f2-f4 break. If the h-pawns are removed from the board, then this move immediately becomes much less attractive as the enemy knight will obtain a valuable outpost on g4.

Naturally some other moves have been tried as well.

1 5 . . . lDh5 1 6.f4 ig4 The exchange sacrifice on b2 is not so effective: 1 6 . . . bxc4 1 7.bxc4 �xb2 l S .�xb2 exf4 J 9.lDxf4 ixb2 20.�xb2±

1 7.if3 ixf3 l s .lDxf3 bxc4 The passive I S .. .f6 Ieads to a difficult position for Black after J 9.f5! .

1 9.fxe5! cxb3 20.axb3 dxe5 2 1 .ixe5 �c8 22.ixg7 lDxg7

This position was reached in Rogozenko -Lanka, Hamburg 200S. Now I suggest:

23 .�c3N c4 24.b4 lDb3 25.lDed4± White keeps a clear positional advantage.

1 5 . . . lDg4 This is another natural try. Black intends to carry out . . . 0-f5 immediately, while the knight can always drop back to h6 and perhaps later 0.

1 6.h3 lDh6 1 7.f4 [5 We have been following the game Koneru -Jobava, Wijk aan Zee 2006. Now I believe White should react qUkkly, not allowing Black to consolidate his position with moves like . . . �c7, . . . lDb7 and . . . �aeS.

I S .fxe5N I believe this is the right moment to release the tension.

1 8 . . . dxe5 1 9.1Dc1 ! This thematic manoeuvre works very well here. The knight is heading for d3, where it will be perfectly placed attacking the pawns on e5 and c5. I analysed the following continuation:

1 9 . . . �g5 The idea to activate Black's knight via the f5-square is insufficient: 1 9 . . . fxe4 20.�xfSt �xfS 2 1 .lDxe4 lDf5 22.�c3!±

20.�f3 More complicated is 2o.lDd3 �xg3 2 1 .�f3 �g5 22.lDxc5 ic8 when Black has definite coun terplay.

20 . . . lDO 2 1 .lDd3 lDb7 22.�el �fe8 23 .h4 �e7 24.�f2;!;

White keeps the better chances, as Black's centre is vulnerable.

Chapter 23 - 6 . . . tDc6 & 7 . . . if5 385

1 5 . . . We7 1 6.�bel Premature would be 1 6.f4?! iLlg4 1 7.Wd3 bxc4 1 8.bxc4 �xb2! 1 9.�xb2 exf4 with great compensation for the exchange.

1 6 . . . iLlh5 17.ic3 It is essential to remove the bishop from b2 in order to avoid a possible exchange sacrifice on b2.

17 . . . b4 1 8.ib2 f5 If 1 8 . . . g5 White can surprisingly generate playon the queens ide by means of1 9.a3! bxa3 20.ic3 iLlb7 2 1 .�a 1 with better chances.

1 9.f4 exf4 If 1 9 . . . �be8, then Huschenbeth in ChessBase Magazine 121 gives the following line: 20.ih3 exf4 2 1 .iLlxf4 iLlxf4 22.gxf4 fxe4 23 .ixd7 Wxd7 24.iLlxe4 iLlb7 25.Wh 1 ! with advantage to White, thanks to the strong idea of iLlg5-e6.

20.iLlxf4 iLlxf4 2 1 .gxf4 fxe4 22.iLlxe4 if5 23.Wd2 ixb2 24.Wxb2 ixe4 25 J�xe4 Wg7 26.Wxg7t Wxg7 27.f5!? gxf5 28.�e7t �f7 29.�xf7t Wxf7 30.ie4!

The endgame was unpleasant for Black thanks to his inferior minor piece, Sargissian -Huschenbeth, Kerner 2007.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

16.iLlcl !?N After a deep investigation I decided to

recommend this novel idea. It seems to me that the knight on e2 is currently White's worst

placed piece, bur if we reposition it on d3, then it suddenly becomes one of the best!

Before we look any further, I will share my findings on the other possibilities, so you can see why I felt a new approach was needed.

1 6.ic3 has been the most popular choice. 1 6 . . . h4 1 7.Wd3 White's idea is to cover the e3-square, taking the sting out of the potential . . . iLlg4 jump. However, the idea is a little slow and allows Black to regroup his pieces: 17 . . . b4 1 8 .ib2 iLlb7 1 9.f4 hxg3 20.hxg3 iLlg4 with unclear play, Akopian - Prusikhin, Bad Wiessee 200 1 .

Another natural option is: 1 6.f4!?N

This is the move White would ideally like to play. I worked a lot on this position and discovered the following line, which provides quite an instructive demonstration of Black's resources.

1 6 . . . exf4 17.gxf4 bxc4 1 8 .bxc4 �xb2! White should always be on the lookout for this thematic sacrifice.

1 9 .�xb2 iLlg4 Threatening to jump to e3.

20.�f3 Wh4 2 1 .h3 Black also has a great position after 2 1 .�b6 id4t! 22.iLlxd4 Wxh2t 23.Wfl cxd4 24.Wd3 iLle3t 25 .�xe3 dxe3 26.Wxe3 �c8.

2 l . . .We1 t 22.ifl

a b c d e f g h


22 ... ttJe3!! 23.gxe3 id4 The position remains complicated, but Black

is certainly not worse.

16 ... h4 17.lLld3 White is now ready to carry out the desirable

f4 advance. Another advantage of the knight manoeuvre to d3 is that the possible . . . ttJg4 idea can now be met comfortably by gbe l covering e3.

17 .. . lLlh5 This is directed against f2-f4. Instead after

1 7 . . . ttJg4 1 S .h3 ttJh6 1 9.f4! White's position looks very nice.

a b c d e f g h

18.b4!? Here we see a further advantage of the knight

manoeuvre: White created an additional opportunity to get play on the queenside.

18 ... lLlxc4 Another interesting line is 1 s . . . cxb4 1 9 .c5

gcs 20.c6 ttJxc6 2 1 .dxc6 gxc6, but despite the approximate material balance I prefer White's position after 22.�d 1 a5 23.ttJb3t.

19.bxc5 lLlxb2 20.�xb2 Obviously the queen should vacate the c-file,

preventing a potential pin after . . . gcS.

20 ... dxc5 21 .ltJxc5 gc8 22.gfc1

a b c d e f g h

Black is very much in the game, but I believe White's chances are better, due to his queenside pressure and passed d-pawn. The latter is likely to become increasingly important after more pieces are exchanged.

Conclusion:

Line A with 9 . . . c6 is certainly tricky, but ultimately it seems that White can emerge from the complications with better chances in the positions with two minor pieces against a rook. Variation B with 9 . . . c5 leads to semi-closed positions demanding more subtle manoeuvring. Despite the absence of an immediate tactical confrontation, a great deal of tension lies under the surface of the position. To take one example, we saw in the note to White's 1 6th move how effectively the black pieces may spring into action if given the opportunity. It will be interesting to see my new idea with 16.ttJc 1 !? tested in practice, but at this stage all I can say is it looks promising for White.


6 . . . �c6 & 7 . . . e5

Variation Index l .d4 tlJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 �g7 4.�g2 d6 S.tlJc3 0-0 6.tlJa tlJc6 7.0-0 eS

8.dS tlJe7 9.e4 A) 9 ... cS 10.tlJel tlJe8 1 l .tlJd3 fS 12.f4 exf4 13.�xf4

AI) 13 ... fxe4 A2) 13 ... �d4t

B) 9 ... aS C) 9 ... h6 D) 9 ... tlJd7 E) 9 ... tlJe8 10.tlJe1 fS 1 l .tlJd3 tlJf6 12.�gS!

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

E1) 12 ... fxe4 E2) 12 ... h6 13.�xf6

E21) 13 ... �xf6 E22) 13 .. J;xf6

A) afrer 1 6 . . . \Wb6

a b c d e f g h

1 7.a4!N

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

E I ) afrer 22 . . . id7

a b c d e f g h

23.l'lafl !N

E22) afrer 17 ... ie5

389 389 390 391 391 393 395 395 396 397 398

a b c d e f g h

1 8 .l'lad l !N


l .d4 lDf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d6 S.lDc3 0-0 6.ttJ£3 lDc6 7.0-0 eS

What could be more natural than Black's last move? After 8.d5 ttJe7 the play resembles the Classical line of the King's Indian (where the bishop is on e2) . Recently this variation has rarely been seen in high level chess, mainly because Black fails to create the kingside attacks that often arise in the Classical lines, and the positional battle tends to favour White. Nevertheless, as always in the King's Indian, Black has many ideas for counterplay. However, it is l ikely that this is not Black's most promising variation.

8.dS ttJe7 There is a minor alternative to cover before

we reach the real tabiya: 8 . . . tLla5 9.tLld2 c5

Positionally dubious is 9 . . . b6?! l O.b4 tLlb7 as the knight looks horrible on b7. I like the following example: l l .ib2 ttJe8 l 2J�k l a5 l 3.a3 E:b8 It is hard to explain this move, but White was much better anyway with the black knight so badly placed on b7. l 4.tLlb5 �d7 l 5 .tLla7! In Volodin - Rezak, Slovakia 2000, White transferred his knight to c6 and obtained a clear advantage.

a b c d e f g h I found no fewer than 520 games in Mega Database where this position was reached. The funny thing is that usually it appears via a different move order and White's next move would be illegal.

l O.dxc6! This is the point; now White gains strong pressure against the d6-pawn.

l O . . . ttJxc6 Of course l O . . . bxc6? is impossible due to 1 l .b4 followed by l 2.�xc6.

1 1 .tLlde4 ttJe8 Black can also try 1 1 . . .tLlxe4 1 2.tLlxe4 tLld4, but after: l 3.e3 tLlf5 l 4.b3 �e6 1 5 .Wd2 Wb6 (or 1 5 . . . d5 1 6.cxd5 �xd5 1 7.Wxd5 Wxd5 l 8.tLlf6t �xf6 1 9 .�xd5 is clearly better for White) as in Dizdar - Matkovic, Makarska 1 994, White could have secured a positional plus with 1 6.�a3 E:fd8 17.tLlg5.

l 2 .tLlb5! Immediately attacking Black's weakness.

1 2 . . . tLld4 l 3 .ig5! An important intermezzo.

1 3 . . . f6 l 4.tLlxd4 exd4 l 5 .�f4 �e6 Little is changed by 1 5 .. .f5 1 6.tLlg5 ttJc7 1 7.Wb3! �e5 as in Vasic - Dimovska, Tivat 200 1 , and here 1 8.c5t \t>g7 1 9.E:ac l ± would give White a large advantage.

1 6.c5! d5 1 7.tLld6 White was much better in Medic - Stanic,

Zagreb 1 993.

9.e4

a b c d e f g h

This is the tabiya of our lines against the 7 . . . e5 variation. Another popular continuation

Chapter 24 - 6 . . . lLlc6 & 7 . . . e5 389

is 9.c5 4Je8 1 0.cxd6 4Jxd6, but I find 9.e4 more promising.

Black now has a huge choice. The lines we will study are: A) 9 . .. c5, B) 9 ... a5, C) 9 ... h6, D) 9 .. . lLld7 and E) 9 ... lLle8.

One less critical option is: 9 .. . �g4

This move has appeared many times in practice. The idea is to provoke White into playing h2-h3, which might weaken the white king's position, but it is simpler j ust to get rid of Black's l ight-squared bishop.

l o.V9b3! I think this is a very nice idea. The queen steps out of the pin and prepares the 4Je I -d3 manoeuvre.

l o . . . V9c8 The alternative is: 1 0 . . . b6 1 1 .4Je1 V9c8 1 2.lLld3 �h3 1 3 .i.d2 i.xg2 1 4.<j;Jxg2 4Jh5 1 5 .l:%ae 1 V9d7 1 6.V9a4! Obviously a queen exchange favours White, as Black's minor pieces are very passive. 1 6 ... V9xa4 1 7.4Jxa4 f5 1 8.4Jc3 4Jf6 1 9.f4 Opening up the position is clearly in White's favour, due to the weakness of the e6-square. 1 9 . . . 4Jd7 20.4Jb5 l:%fc8 This is Marin - De Dios Alija, Benasque 1 998, and now 2 1 .fxe5N lLlxe5 22.4Jxe5 �xe5 23.i.g5! would have given White a solid advantage.

1 1 .4Jel i.h3 1 2.4Jd3 i.xg2 1 3.cj;>xg2 In my opinion this type of position is favourable for White, as it is much easier for him to develop an initiative on the queens ide than it is for Black to create activity on the kingside. An important detail is that Black needs several tempos to solve the problem of his rather passive knight on e7.

13 . . . b6 14 .V9c2 4Jh5 1 5 .i.d2 f5 1 6.f3! It is important not to allow Black to play . . . fxe4 followed by . . . 4Jf5, activating his knight.

1 6 . . . a5 17.a3 h6

White is also clearly better after 1 7 . . . cj;>h8 1 8.b4 4Jg8 1 9.c5±.

1 8.b4 g5 1 9.4Jf2.! An essential prophylactic measure; if 1 9.c5 g4 and Black finds some activity.

1 9 . . . axb4 20.axb4 V9d7 2 1 .l:%xa8 l:%xa8 22.l:%bl White was better in Illescas Cordoba -

] . Polgar, Moscow (01) 1 994.

A) 9 . .. cS

Obviously this move helps Black to establish control over the d4-square, especially if the position opens up, but at the same time it weakens the d6-pawn, which might be an important detail in the long term. The play usually continues:

IO.lLleI lLle8 I l .lLld3 5 I2.f4 exf4 13.ixf4 Now Black has a choice:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

The split is between AI) 13 ... fxe4 and A2) 13 . . . id4t.

AI) 13 . . . fxe4 I4.tDxe4 tD5

The alternative is 14 ... h6 when the following idea looks quite impressive: 1 5 .i.d2! TIle white bishop is heading for c3 with the obvious intention of trading for its opposite number, and thus making Black's kingside vulnerable.


It is no less important that the f4-square is vacated for White's knight. Black has a couple of likely replies:

a) 1 5" .ttJf5 1 6.ic3 ixc3 Black cannot safely avoid the exchange of bishops. If 1 6" . ttJd4 1 nhfBt he would face concrete problems. For example: 1 7" .ixfB 1 B.ixd4 cxd4 1 9.ttJf4 if5 20.ttJe6 ixe6 2 1 .dxe6± or 1 7".\t>xfB I B.ttJf4 if5 1 9.94!±

1 7.bxc3! White covers the d4-square and now Black has to deal with White's idea of g3-g4, pushing away the knight from f5 .

1 7".ttJeg7 Not good enough, but still more tenacious was: 1 7" .ttJf6 I B.ttJxf6t E:xf6 1 9.�d2 \t>g7 20.E:ae 1 ±

I B.�d2 g5 In Marin - J. Gonzalez, Badalona 1 995 , White could have decided the game with:

a b c d e f g h 1 9.94!N ttJh4 20.E:xfBt �xfB 2 1 .E:fl �e7 22.�e2!

Threatening 23.ttJf6t. 22".<;t>hB 23.E:f6+-

b) 1 5" .E:xfl t 1 6.�xfl if5 1 7.E:e 1 �d7 I B.�e2! ig4 1 9.ttJexc5! A well-calculated tactical operation. 1 9" .ixe2 20.ttJxd7 ixd3 2 1 .E:xe7 ixc4 22.b3 id3 23.ih3 White was clearly better in Filippov - Loginov, Elista 200 1 .

lS.�d2 bS A very challenging move. White would

be much better after 1 5" .ttJf6 1 6.ttJg5 ttJh5 1 7.ttJe6 ixe6 1 8.dxe6 id4t 1 9.<;t>hl ttJxf4 20. ttJxf4 ttJe3 2 1 .E:fe 1 ± and the e6-pawn makes a difference.

16.cxbS �b6

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

This is Marin - Piera, La Pobla de Lillet 1 997, and now I found a nice little improvement:

17.a4!N a6 18.g4! Not so clear is I B .ttJg5 c4t 1 9.ttJf2 axb5 .

18 . . . lLld4 19.�h6! White has every chance of building a

dangerous offensive. For example:

19 ... hg4 2o.hg7 <;t>xg7 Or 20" .lLlxg7 2 1 .a5 �xb5 22.lLlxd6 �b8

23.lLle4±.

2 1.E:xf8 <;t>xf8 22.�h6t <;t>g8 23.lLlgS E:a7 24.E:el lLlf6 2s.lLlxh7! E:xh7 26.�xg6t E:g7 27.�xf6

With a winning attack.

A2) 13 ... �d4t 14.<;t>hl �xc3 1 5.bxc3 fxe4 16.he4N

Chapter 24 - 6 . . . lOc6 & 7 . . . e5 39 1

This natural recapture is a new move. Instead White has tried 1 6.lOf2 and of course it would be nice to recapture on e4 with the knight, but unfortunately Black has a strong exchange sacrifice: 1 6 . . . �xf4! 1 7.gxf4 e3 1 8.lOe4 1Of5� Black had fine compensation in Mamedyarov - Guliev, Baku 2006.

16 ... if5 17.i8 '.Wd7 18.lOfl White's chances are clearly preferable due to

his bishop pair.

B) 9 . . . aS 10.lLle1 lLld7

This position might also be reached via the 9 . . . tDd7 move order.

1 1 .1Od3 And now I found the following idea quite an

interesting one:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . ..b6!? The alternative l 1 . . . f5 does not really

combine well with 9 . . . a5, so it is no surprise White is better after 1 2.f4. Luch - Rodriguez Fernandez, Oviedo 2007, continued: 1 2 . . . <;t>h8 13 .fxe5 tDxe5 1 4.tDxe5 �xe5 1 5 .�g5 �d7 16.'!9d2 '!ge8 1 7.�ae l tDg8 And now the straightforward 1 8 .exf5N �xf5 1 9.�f4! would secure White's plus. For example, 1 9 . . . '!ge7 20.�xe5t dxe5 (or 20 . . . �xe5 2 1 .�xe5 '!9xe5

22.�f7 tDf6 23.Wh6 �g8 24.h3 and Black is almost paralysed) 2 1 .tDe4±.

12.a4!? A very surpns1I1g move in this kind of

King's Indian position, and yet I think this is White's best bet of gaining an advantage. The main point is that White is actually not interested in playing on the queenside; instead he is concentrating on carrying out the £1-f4 advance. The text move helps prevent Black becoming active on the queenside, for instance with . . . a4-a3 in reply to f2-f4. Also . . . �a6 could now be met with the blocking tDb5.

The following game shows some of the black ideas we are trying to avoid: 1 2. f4 exf4 1 3.�xf4 �a6 14.tDb5 In Tregubov - Motylev, St Petersburg 1 998, Black should have played 14 . . . tDc5N 1 5 .tDxc5 bxc5 1 6.'!9d2 �xb5 1 7.cxb5 a4! with counterplay.

12 ... f5 13.£4 Opening up the position is clearly in White

favour. For example:

13 ... lOeS I also examined other options for Black.

For example, 1 3 . . . fxe4 1 4.tDxe4 exf4 1 5 .tDxf4 tDc5 1 6.tDg5 gives White a good initiative, and 1 3 . . . �a6, as I already mentioned, is well met by 1 4.tDb5.

14.fxeS lOxd3 1S.'.Wxd3 ixeS 16.ih6 �e8 17.'.Wd2±

White has easy and active play, while Black is doomed to passivity, Matamoros Franco -Garrido Dominguez, Seville 2004.

C) 9 ... h6 10.1Oe1

Now I examined Black's two most popular moves in this position.


8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

10 ... �d7 1 0 . . . �h7

Now I believe the critical continuation is: 1 l .f4

1 1 .�d3 allows 1 1 . . .g5 1 2.f4 exf4 1 3.gxf4 tLlg6, which gave Black reasonable play in Unzicker - Manor, Budapest 1 994.

l 1 . . . f5 If 1 l . . .exf4 1 2.gxf4 f5 then White has the important resource 13 .e5! exploiting the hanging h6-pawn. Then 1 3 . . . dxe5 1 4.fXe5 ixe5 1 5 .ixh6 l"le8 1 6.tLlf3 if6 1 7.Wd2 is much better for White.

1 2.tLld3 exf4 This is McCart - Jovanovic, Australia 200 1 , and now White should have recaptured with the knight:

1 3.tLlxf4N And if:

1 3 . . . fXe4 14.ixe4 tLlg5 1 5 .ig2 White has the better chances.

1 1 .�d3 f5 12.id2!? This is probably the only moment in this

line where White will not meet Black's . . . £7 -f5 with an immediate f2-f4. The main reason is that Black is optimally prepared for a clash in the centre. On the other hand, it is essential to understand that White's position is flexible and he can allow himself to delay the advance of his f-pawn.

I will briefly show some lines that demonstrate why the immediate f2-f4 is not best: 1 2.f4

Black can react with: 1 2 . . . exf4 1 3.tLlxf4

White will also find no advantage with the other recapture: 1 3.ixf4 g5 14 .id2 (or 1 4.ie3 tLlb6 1 5 .Wb3 fXe4 1 6.tLlxe4 tLlf5 1 7.if2 tLld4=) 14 . . . tLlf6 1 5 .Wc2 fXe4 1 6.tLlxe4 tLlxe4 1 7.ixe4 if5 1 8.tLlf2 Wd7 1 9.ic3 ixc3 20.Wxc3 tLlg6= Black was okay in Stohl - Rasik, Czech Republic 1 997.

1 3 . . . tLle5 14 .Wb3 fXe4 1 5 .tLlxe4 tLlf5 With double-edged play.

12 .. . ltJf6 If 12 . . . i>h7 1 3 .l"lc 1 tLlf6, as in Konnov -

Nesterov, Izhevsk 2005, White should continue with 1 4.f4 with the following tactical point: 14 . . . fXe4 ( l 4 . . . exf4 is a better try, but even here after 1 5 .tLlxf4 White has the better chances) 1 5 .tLlxe4 tLlxe4 1 6.ixe4 exf4 1 7.tLlxf4 ixb2 1 8 .tLlxg6! With a powerful attack.

13.l"lcl White slowly prepares his play on the

queenside.

a b c d e f g h

13 . .. fxe4 Another option for Black is:

1 3 . . . g5

Chapter 24 - G . . . ltJcG & 7 . . . e5 393

This was played in Sarfati - Mohd, Manila (01) 1 992, and now I suggest the following line:

1 4.:ge 1N f4 14 . . . fxe4 1 5 .lZ'lxe4 �f5 is also quite natural for Black, but here White has better prospects after 1 6.f3 'lWd7 17.ltJdf2. White has established control over the e4-square and is ready (0 start playing on the queenside.

1 5 .c5 lZ'lg6 In this kind of position White is much faster, as it is not so easy for Black (0 attack on the kingside. For instance:

I G.ltJb5 a6 1 7.ltJa3 Also interesting is the thematic piece sacrifice: 17 .cxd6 axb5 1 8 .dxc7 'IWd7 1 9.�b4!?�

1 7 . . . h5 18 .cxd6 cxd6 1 9.1Z'lc4 White has many ideas for seizing the

initiative, such as �b4, or �a5 and lZ'lb6.

14.lZ'lxe4 i.fS 1 5.lLlxf6t 1 5 .:ge 1 ! ? also comes into consideration.

15 .. J�xf6 16.i.c3 Finally White switches (0 the f2-f4 idea.

16 . . . g5 17.f4 gxf4 1 8.gxf4 hd3 19.'lWxd3 13xf4

Here I found an appealing idea:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

20.i.h3!?N

In the game Drasko - Sahovic, Yugoslavia (ch) 1 99 1 , White opted for 20.13xf4 exf4 2 1 .�xg7 �xg7 22.'lWd4t, but after 22 . . . lt>g8 23.'lWxf4 'lWf8 24.'lWe4 'lWg7 Black obtained reasonable play, as White cannot prevent the centralizing . . . lZ'le5.

20 • • . 'lWfS 21 .i.d2 13f6 22.i.e6t i>h8 23.'lWh3 lLlg8 24. i>h1

White has fantastic compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Black is still solid, but he does not have a single active move at his disposal. I believe White's main idea should be (0 double (Ooks on the g-file. In any case, it would be very unpleasant (0 play Black's side of this position.

D) 9 ... �d7 1O.lLle1 fS

Besides this move, only 1 0 . . . a5 is a serious alternative, and after 1 1 .lZ'ld3 this position is examined in the 9 . . . a5 variation (line B) .

1 1 .lLld3 i>h8 1 1 . . .lZ'lf6 just transposes (0 our main line,

while 1 1 . . .h6 is covered in line C.

12.f4 A thematic central clash in this line.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

'" ' i:�.t� �� '0 �%6i''' ' '/.'' ' - -/d''' ' ''\�:.rd'''''' � i f�lj)� m i ' ' ' , ,%�

""'%W/i"""�

',�� Z 'm"'�� ." !A�) " '--/h � %1'0 � � tZJ � if[!f ; ' : ' � � �%I'�'''' ' ;� �� ""'''%1'0 �'o0Z �� j.� � mv ,: ,� /" � �--� � ?,,, �

a b c d e f g h

12 . . . exf4


The alternatives are clearly worse:

1 2 . . . 'LlgS may look a natural try, but it is badly timed, as it allows White to force a favourable pawn structure: 1 3.exf5 gxf5 1 4.fxe5 dxe5 (White is also clearly better after 1 4 . . . 'Llxe5 1 5 .'Llxe5 dxe5 1 6.ie3) 1 5 .ie3 'Llh6 1 6.1MI'd2 Black faced serious difficulties in Huzman -Maes, Amsterdam 1 994.

1 2 . . . a6 Obviously this is a strange move, but I decided to examine it in order to show what White intends to do if Black makes some waiting move.

1 3 .fxe5 'Llxe5 I also analysed: 1 3 . . . fxe4 1 4.'Llxe4 (the point is that after 1 4.exd6 exd3 1 5 .dxe7 1MI'xe7 1 6.1MI'xd3 White wins a pawn, but Black gets great compensation in return after 1 6 . . . 'Lle5 1 7.1MI'e3 if5�) 14 . . . 'Llxe5 1 5 .'Llxe5 ixe5 1 6.'Llg5! Otherwise Black might be alright. 1 6 . . . 'Llf5 1 7.g4 'Llh6 I S.h3 White is clearly better, especially due to the poorly placed knight on h6.

1 4.'Llxe5 ixe5 White is simply better after 1 4 . . . dxe5 1 5 .ie3±; Black lacks activiry.

1 5.ih6 �f7 1 6.1MI'd2 'LlgS

a b c d e f g h

With the following idea: 1 7 . . . ig7

It should be noted that 17 . . . ixf4 l S .�xf4 is clearly better for White.

l S.�ae 1 White is threatening to play 1 9.e5.

IS . . . fxe4 1 9.'Llxe4 h6 Otherwise White was threatening to play 'Llg5 .

20.c5 White has a fine initiative.

13.ixf4 h6 As we already know, if 1 3 . . . 'Lle5 1 4.'Llxe5

dxe5 1 5 .ie3 then the arising pawn structure favours White and gives him a solid advantage, as in Grachev - Khadzhaev, Rybinsk 2000.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

14.1MI'd2!?N This natural move seems stronger than the

modest 1 4.Wh1 which was played in A. Maric - Skripchenko, Kishinev 1 995 .

14 . • . g5 15.ie3 fxe4 Black is practically forced to release the

tension, as 1 5 . . . 'Llf6 runs into the simple 1 6.e5 when White is obviously better.

This position is from the game Marin - 16.lbxe4 lbfS 17.if1 Florean, Bucharest 1 999. Now I really like: The following sequence looks logical to me.

1 7.if4!?N

Chapter 24 - 6 . . . tLlc6 & 7 . . . e5 395

17 ... lLlf6 18.lLlxf6 \Wxf6 19.94! lLld4 20.ie3 \We7 21 .�xf8t \Wxf8 22.�fl \We7 23.h3

Black's knight has problems as, for example, White is threatening 24.tLlf4.

E) 9 ... lLle8

This move and 9 ... tLld7 are Black's two most popular options, and they usually transpose to the same position. Still, Black has some possible deviations after:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

I ...... ./////>

1O.lLle1 f5 a b c d e f g h 1 0 . . . c5 I l .lLld3 f5 1 2.f4 would just transpose 13.lLlxe4 lLlf5

to 9 . . . c5.

1 1 . ttJd3 lLl f6 I am rather sceptical about Black's

alternatives. For exan1ple: 1 1 . . .h6 1 2. f4 exf4 1 3.tLlxf4

An important detail is that Black's knight cannot jump to e5 at once, as was possible in the 9 . . . tLld7, 1 0 . . . h6 l ine.

13 . . . lLlf6 1 4.exf5 ixf5 1 5 .Wle2 White has a clear edge; he will move his knight to e6 at a suitable moment.

15 . . . @h7 16.id2 :B:eB 1 7.tLle6 ixe6 I B.dxe6 c6 1 9.:B:ae l ±

White kept his advantage i n Lisitsin - Panov, Tbilisi 1 937.

12.ig5! A very strong idea, which is problematic for

Black according to existing theory. White's main goal is to carry out f2-f4 as quickly as possible.

Now there is a further split between El) 12 ... fxe4 and E2) 12 ... h6.

El) 12 ... fxe4

1 2 . . . lLlxe4 1 3.lLlxe4 fXe4 1 4.ixe4 wil l transpose to the 1 3 . . . tLlxe4 line in the note below.

Black has several other options:

13 . . . if5 is hit by a strong reply: 14 .ixf6! ixf6 1 5 .f4 exf4 (somewhat better is 1 5 . . . ixe4 1 6.ixe4 tLlf5 but White is still positionally better after 1 7.ixf5 gxf5 1 B.fXe5 ixe5 1 9.Wld2) 1 6.lLlxf6t! :B:xf6 17.lLlxf4 WlfB I B.Wld4± White had a clear advantage in Melkumyan - Benza, Russia 200B.

13 . . . tLlxe4 14.ixe4 if5 There is no point in trying to be more active with 1 4 . . . ih3, as after 1 5.:B:el Wld7 1 6.f3! the bishop must return to f5: 1 6 . . . if5 (and not 1 6 . . . lLlf5 in view of 1 7.tLlf2 lLld4 I B.g4! and the bishop is trapped on h3) 1 7.Wld2 (also worthy of consideration is 1 7.c5!?) 1 7 . . . :B:0 I B.f4 :B:eB (stronger was I B . . . exf4 1 9.1Llxf4 ie5, although White is better after 20.lLle6) 1 9.fXe5 dxe5 20.tLlc5 Wld6 2 1 .b4 b6 22.lLle6! White has a clear advantage, Maherramzade - Manhardt, Medellin 1 996.

1 5 .Wle2 Wld7 I like the following unexpected move:

1 6.ixe7! Instead 1 6.f4 exf4 1 7.lLlxf4 :B:aeB looks pretty double-edged.

1 6 . . . Wlxe7 1 7.ixf5 :B:xf5 I B.lLlf4 Now I believe the critical move is:

I B . . . :B:xf4!


White was clearly better after 1 8 .. .l'hf8 1 9.ttJe6 �8f7 20.f3 h5 2 1 .\We4± in C. Powell - C. Rich, corr. 1 995.

1 9.9:xf4 \Wh4 20.fxe5 ixe5 2 l .f3t Undoubtedly Black has compensation for the

excha.l1ge, but I still prefer White, Matamoros Franco - Naranjo Moreno, Campillos 2007.

a b c d e f g h

14.g4! Of all the many possible continuations, I

like this concrete approach the most.

14 ... ttJe7 1 4 . . . ttJd4 is very bad for Black: 1 5.f4 \We8

1 6.ttJxf6t ixf6 1 7.ixf6 �xf6 1 8.�e1 \Wf8 1 9.fxe5 dxe5 20.ttJxe5 And White was simply a pawn up in Matamoros Franco - Hennigan, Campillos 2006.

1 s.ixf6 .txf6 16.f4 This is the main idea behind White's 1 4th

move. Now we have a series of essentially forced moves.

16 ... exf4 17.ttJxf6t �xf6 18.llJxf4 WffB

22.h3 id7

8 � my/. ., R. ' N//. u.�. (�rr!� A ��?/�� & 7 .. . f_.JL�� • 6

. .. . . %� . . . . · %w .. . .. . � .,y.�

5 � �a'8'.�. \Ir@j

4 �� f� ��// . . . . . ;�� 3 ��.0-�-� . . . . . -� 2 fj r� � �� . . . . � . . .. %� �.� . . . . . y.�.� 1 .� � � �

a b c d e f g h

23.�afJ.!N This is stronger than 23.ttJe6, which was

played in both games that reached this position. 23 . . . ixe6 24.dxe6 ttJc6 25 .c5 dxc5! 26J''kl �e8!N Not a difficult improvement. (Instead Black lost quickly after 26 . . . ttJb4 27.ixb7 �e8 28.�dl ttJxa2 29.ic6 �b8 30.e7 �xe7 3 Lid5t Wg7 32.ixa2+- in Harika - Saheli, India 2004.) 27.ixc6 (or 27.�xc5 ttJd8!) 27 . . . bxc6 28.�xc5 �xe6 29.�a5 �d7 30.�xa7 �e3 Black's counterplay is good enough for a draw.

23 ... �f8 24.ttJe6 �xfl 2S.�xfl ixe6 26.dxe6 c6

If 26 . . . ttJc6 then White is j ust in time to get in 27.ixc6 bxc6 28.g5! �e7 29.�f6 and I believe this endgame is winning, as Black is paralysed.

27.�d2 ttJc8 28.cS! dS 29.ixdS! The point.

1 9.Wfd4 Wfg7 29 . . . cxdS 30.�xdS± Obviously 1 9 . . . ixg4? is killed by White will regain the piece, and keep his

20.ttJxg6!+-. extra pawn.

20.�f2 �f7 21 .\Wxg7t �xg7 E2) 12 . . . h6 13.ixf6 2 1 . . .�xg7? loses to 22.�af1 �g8 23.ttJxg6!.

Chapter 24 - 6 . . . lOc6 & 7 . . . e5 397

As usual, other moves are possible:

1 5 . . . fXe4?! only helps White to seize the initiative. 1 6.i.xe4 �g7 17.�d3 and Black was already struggling in Sokolowski - Tokarski, Poland 2005.

15 . . . c6 1 6.�hI i.e5 I7.�d2 g5 It would not be a good idea to move the black queen far from the kingside, as the following game demonstrates: I7 ... �a5?! I S.lOd3 i.xc3 1 9.bxc3 cxd5 20.exd5! i.d7 21 .c5 Black was in serious trouble in Lenic Sarno, Slovakia 2004.

l s .lLId3 i.xc3 The beginning of a concrete approach. Instead I S . . . i.g7 would not solve all Black's problems after 1 9.i'!ae l . For example: 19 . . . fXe4 20.i'!xfSt �xfS 2 1 .lLIxe4 lLIf5 22.dxc6 bxc6 23.i'!fl (threatening 24.g4) 23 . . . �e7 24.lLIb4! i.d7 25 .c5 dxc5 26.lLId5! With a winning advantage.

19 .�xc3 fXe4 20.dxc6 bxc6 21 .i.xe4 i.h3 1his allows White to seize the initiative. 2 1 . . .if5 22 .ig2 was the lesser evil, though White has strong pressure.

a b c d e f g h 22.lLIf2!

The point! The rook is untouchable. 22 . . . i.f5

22 . . . i.xfl 23.lLIg4 gives White a decisive attack.

23.i.xf5 lLIxf5 This position was reached in Fontaine - A. Hunt, Patras 1 999, and now White could have gained a solid advantage by simple means:

a b c d e f g h 24.i'!ae IN �d7 25 .lLIg4 �g7 26.�d3!±

16.exfS ixfS 17.�d2 c6 Black has also tried:

1 7 . . . �d7 But this seems too slow.

l s .lLIb5! The knight is heading for d4 with the idea of penetrating further to e6.

IS . . . c5 1 9.1LIe6! i.xe6 20.dxe6 �xe6 21 .lOc7 �xc4 22.lLIxaS �d4t


Black has to trade queens, as 22 .. .!!xaS 23.Wxh6± is unsatisfactory for him.

23.Wxd4 ixd4t 24.rJih l 1"1:xaS 25 .1"I:ael ie5 This is Rasmussen - Solleveld, Germany 2007. Now White missed a clear chance:

26.ixb7N 1"I:bS 27.ia6! And now Black cannot take on b2 in view of 2s .ic4 followed by 29.1"1:0.

27 ... lLlf5 2S.g4 lLld4 29.ic4t rJihS 30.b3± I do not see any reason why White should

not convert his extra material.

1 8.�hl Wb6

a b c d e f g h

19.1"I:ael White has mobilized his pieces optimally

and is now ready to jump his knight into e6. It is not easy to handle this position with Black, as was shown in the following encounter:

19 • • • 1"1:0 20.lDe6 �xe6 A very important line runs 20 . . . \�%4

2 1 .Wxh6 Wxc4 22.1"I:xf5! gxf5 23.lLlg5 1"I:afS 24.We6! ixc3 25.lLlxf7 1"1:xf7 26.dxc6 Wxe6 27.1"I:xe6 bxc6 2S.bxc3 d5 29.if3 with an unpleasant endgame for Black.

21 .d.xe6 1"I:xf1 t 22.1"I:xf1 lDf5 23.i.h3 We3 24.Wxe3 lDxe3 25.1"1:0

Black faced a difficult defensive task in Karpov - Gelfand, Dos Hermanas 1 994.

E22) 1 3 ... 1"I:x:f6 14.£4 exf4

Black has no reliable alternative, as 1 4 . . . 1"I:f8 is clearly favourable for White after: 1 5 . fxe5 dxe5 This is Szelenyi - Csolig, Hungary 200S, and now 1 6.c5!N is very strong as if 1 6 . . . fxe4 then White is comfortably better after 17.1"I:xfSt WxfS I S .ixe4 lLlf5 19.Wa4!±.

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . • c6 The second option is:

1 5 . . . rJih7 1 6.Wd3 1"1:fS 17 .1"I:ae l White has easy play in this line; he just needs to mobilize all his pieces and then land his knight on e6 at a good moment.

1 7 . . . ie5 I S .exf5 lLlxf5 Instead I s . . . ixf5 1 9.ie4! does not help Black ei ther.

1 9.rJih l Wf6 20.c5 Wg7 2 1 .cxd6 cxd6 22.lLle6 ixe6 23.dxe6 1"I:ac8 24.lLld5

White's advantage was undisputable in Kasparov - Ivanchuk, Riga 1 995.

16.�hl A useful prophylactic move against a possible

. . . Wb6.

16 • • . 1"1:0 The alternative is:

Chapter 24 - 6 . . . 4Jc6 & 7 . . . e5 399

16 . . J:%f8 The following game was very exciting:

17.c5!? I believe there is also nothing wrong with the modest 17. Wi d2 followed by :B:ae 1 .

17 . . . g5 It is understandable that Black avoided 1 7 . . . �xc3 1 8.bxc3 cxd5 1 9.exf5! dxc5 20.fXg6, which looks dangerous.

1 8.dxc6! 4Jxc6 Other possible lines are 1 8 . . . gxf4 19.c7! Wixc7 20.cxd6 Wid8 2 1 .Wib3t cj;lh8 22.dxe7 Wixe7 23.4Jd5 Wif7 24.:B:xf4 when White is a healthy pawn up, and 1 8 . . . dxc5 1 9.cxb7 �xb7 20.4Je6 Wixd 1 2 1 .:B:axd 1 , which also leads to a clear advantage.

1 9.4Jg6 :B:f6 20.exf5 �xf5 2 1 .Wib3t cj;lh7 This position occurred in Konikowski -Kruse, corr. 200 1 . Now I found a nice winner for White:

a b c d e f g h

22.:B:xf5!N :B:xf5 23.Wixb7 cj;lxg6 24.Wixc6 :B:c8 25 .Wie4!

White's attack is decisive.

17.Wid2 ieS

a b c d e f g h

1 8.:B:adl!N This is more flexible than 1 8.4Jd3 �g7 as

played in Huzman - Nijboer, Netherlands 1 994. The danger of Black's position can be seen in the following variation:

1 8 .•. Wif8 19.cS! ixf4 20.gxf4 fxe4 21 .cxd6 lLlxdS 22.lLlxdS cxdS 23.'I1*fxdS �g4 24.ixe4 hdl 2S.:B:xdl

With a winning position for White.

Conclusion:

The 6 . . . 4Jc6 7.0-0 e5 variation is not Black's most critical reply to the Fianchetto variation; White should gain a comfortable edge. Most unpleasant of all for King's Indian fans is the idea that it will be White who is more likely to have attacking chances on the kingside.


6 .. . �c6 & 7 . . . a6

Variation Index l .d4 lDf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 i.g7 4.i.g2 d6 5.lDc3 0-0 6.lDa lDc6 7.0-0 a6

8.�d3 A) 8 ... lDd7 401 B) 8 .. J�b8 404 C) 8 ... lDb4 405 D) 8 ... i.d7 406 E) 8 ... i.f5 407 F) 8 ... e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.�xd8 �xd8 1 1 .i.g5 408

Fl) 1 1 ...�e8 409 F2) 1 1 ...i.e6 12.lDdl h6 13.i.xf6 410

F21) 13 . . . �xdl 41 1 F22) 13 ... i.xf6 412

A) 1 3 . ..�c8 E) after 1 4 ... ic8 F2 1 ) 1 8 . . . l"lxd2

8 8 8

7 7 7

6 6 6

5 5 5

4 4 4

3 3

2 2 2

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

1 4 .liJg5!N 1 5 .liJc2!N 1 9.@fl !N

Chapter 25 - 6 . . . 4Jc6 & 7 . . . a6 40 1

l.d4 4Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d6 5.4Jc3 0-0 6.4Ja 4Jc6 7.0-0 a6

This is the most popular move order to reach the so-called Yugoslav variation.

At first my intention was to give an 8 .h3 line against both 7 . . . a6 and 7 .. .1''! b8, but unfortunately I failed to discover any advantage for White after 7 . . . a6 8.h3 id7!, which in my opinion is Black's best choice when dealing with 8.h3. So finally I decided to change my recommendation after the usual 7 . . . a6 and go for the strange-looking 8.�d3, while after 7 . . . :gb8 I believe 8.h3 works well .

8.Wd3 A slightly mysterious move that made its

debut in two games in 1 956 - one by Gideon Stahlberg and one by Alberic O'Kelly de Galway. Perhaps the queen looks vulnerable on d3, as Black can attack it with . . . ttJb4 or . . . if5 , but White is defending the c4-pawn, thus creating the unpleasant threat of 9.d5, because the black knight cannot then go to its usual as-square because it would be lost after b2-b4.

As I mentioned above, I cannot find a path to an advantage after 8.h3. For example, 8 . . . id7 9.e4 e5 1 0.ie3 exd4 1 1 .4Jxd4 :ge8°o.

After 8.�d3 Black has a wide choice, and we will deal with seven possible replies; six main lines and one sideline: A) 8 ... 4Jd7, B) 8 ... :gb8, C) 8 ... 11Jb4, D) 8 . .. id7, E) 8 .. . ifS and F) 8 . . . e5.

8 . . . ig4 This is probably the weakest move of all the options I examine in this chapter. White gains a very pleasant edge after:

9.d5 ixf3 1 0.exf3 ttJe5 1 1 .�e2 c5 1 2.f4 4Jed7 13 .a4

White has a stable advantage, thanks to his bishop pair and extra space. What more

could White dream of in the Fianchetto variation? Here are two examples with model play for White:

1 3 . . . :ge8 14 .�d3 Wc7 Fridman - Mamedov, Internet 2005, continued: 14 . . . ttJf8 1 5 .f5 (a decent idea, but there is also nothing wrong with the simple 1 5 .id2) 1 5 . . . 4J8d7 1 6.fxg6 hxg6 1 7.id2 :gb8 1 8.:gae l �b6 1 9.�c2 And White retained a comfortable plus.

1 5 .:gel :gad8 1 6.id2 e6 It is no wonder Black is looking for some activity, but this backfires:

a b c d e g h 1 7.dxe6! fxe6 1 8.:ge2 ttJf8 1 9 .:gael

Black has only created additional targets for the white pieces. White was much better in Kengis - Antoniewski, Swidnica 2000.

A) 8 .. . 11Jd7

A rather logical move; Black defends against the threat of d4-d5 (he now has . . . 4Jce5) and, depending on the situation, Black can either break in the centre with . . . e7-e5, or continue his play on the queenside.

9.i.e3 This seems to be the best idea; White's plan

includes �d2 followed by d4-d5.

I do not believe provoking . . . h7-h6 with 9.ig5 is usefUl for White. It is important to understand why Black is alright after 9.e4:


Black has to continue with 9 . . . e5 1 0 .ig5 f6 1 1 .ie3 exd4 1 2.llJxd4 llJde5 when he gains good counterplay. For example: 1 3.We2 llJxd4 1 4.ixd4 ig4! (an important intermediate move) 1 5 .f3 ie6 Followed by 16 .. . f5 .

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

9 . . . eS

a b c d e f g h

I also examined two other moves:

9 . . . E:b8 1 0.Wd2 In my opinion this is stronger than the more popular 1 O.E:ac 1 , when after 1 0 . . . b5 I l .cxb5 axb5 I think Black is absolutely fine.

1 0 . . . E:e8 The only game where 1 0 .Wd2 was played continued 1 0 . . . e5, which transposes to the 9 . . . e5 line. If 1 0 . . . b5 then White can favourably exchange dark-squared bishops with I I .cxb5 axb5 1 2.ih6!.

I l .d5 After 1 0.Wd2 White is ready for this advance.

l l . . .llJce5 1 2.llJxe5 llJxe5 1 3.b3 I believe White has better chances, for instance:

1 3 . . . b5 1 4.cxb5 axb5 1 5 .ia7 E:b7 16 .id4 b4 1 7.llJd1t

9 . . . h6 1 0.Wd2 <Jih7 1 1 .d5 llJa5 In Chess Informant 99 Bologan considers

this move an improvement over 1 1 . . .llJce5 1 2.llJxe5 (I also l ike Bu Xiangzhi's recommendation in the same issue of Informant: 1 2.b3!? llJxf3t 1 3.exf3 e5 1 4.dxe6 fXe6 1 5 .f4! White's position looks very nice.) 1 2 . . . llJxe5 ( 1 2 . . . dxe5? is not really an alternative, as after 1 3 .c5 White is positionally much better) 1 3 .b3 c5 1 4.dxc6 llJxc6 (White retains a pleasant edge after 14 . . . bxc6 1 5 .id4!!. There is no point going for 1 5 . f4 llJg4 1 6.ixc6 llJxe3 1 7.Wxe3 E:b8 as in this case Black has some compensation for the pawn.) This position is from Bu -Bologan, Wijk aan Zee 2007, and now I am happy with Bu's recommendation: 1 5 .llJd5!?N ixal 1 6.E:xa l Then after either 1 6 . . . h5 1 7.ib6 Wd7 1 8 .E:c1 or 1 6 . . . g5 1 7.f4 f6 1 8 .ib6 Wd7 1 9.E:fI White has enormous compensation and it would be no fun to be Black.

1 2.b3 c5 1 3.dxc6 bxc6

a b c d e f g h

Now I believe this is the right moment to improve on White's play:

1 4.E:ad I N Both previous games have gone 1 4.E:ac1 E:b8 1 5.ia7 E:b7 1 6.id4 c5 1 7.ixg7 Wxg7 when White's rook appears to be useless on c 1 .

1 4 . . . E:b8 If 14 . . . ib7 then White has a strong positional idea: 1 5 .c5 d5 (or 1 5 . . . llJxc5 1 6.ixc5 dxc5 1 7.We3 Wc7 1 8.Wxc5 and Black suffers

Chapter 25 - 6 . . . tLlc6 & 7 . . . a6 403

with his misplaced knight) 1 6.ttJa4 �cB The only defence against White's idea of ttJb6. And now best is 1 7.�d4! as after 1 7 . . . e5 White has a tactical solution: 1 B.ttJxe5! �xe5 (or I B ... ttJxe5 1 9.ttJb6 ttJxb3 20.axb3 �bB 2 1 .Wlc3 f6 22.e4 with a big advantage) 1 9.�xe5 ttJxe5 20.ttJb6 ttJxb3 2 1 .axb3 �bB 22.e4 With an obvious positional advantage.

1 5 .�a7 �b7 1 6.�d4 c5 1 7.�xg7 'it>xg7 1 B .ttJh4! �bB 1 9. f4

This is a good moment to start playing on the kingside, as Black really misses the defensive strength of his dark-squared bishop.

19 . . . ttJf6 20.e4 Wlc7 2 1 .Wle 1 With good attacking chances.

lo.Wld2

1 0 . . . exd4 l 1 .ttJxd4 ttJce5 1 2.b3 This leads to an attractive position for White, as his pieces are very well mobilized for the middlegame.

1 2 . . . ttJc5 1 3 .h3 A useful move that covers the g4-square, but also worth considering is the immediate 1 3 .�h6.

1 3 . . . �d7 The following example shows Black's problems in this structure:

14.�ad 1 �bB 1 5 .�h6 �xh6 16.Wlxh6 f5 1 7.Wld2

1 7.b4 ttJe6 1 B .c5 also looks pretty strong. 1 7 . . . �eB 1 B.'it>h2 b5

Black understandably wants some activity, but this only makes matters worse:

1 9. f4 b4 Or 1 9 . . . ttJf7 20.ttJc6 �xc6 2 1 .�xc6 also leads to material losses.

20.fxe5 bxc3 2 1 .Wlxc3 �xe5 22.�d5t Black was losing material in Borovikov -

Smirnov, Panormo 2002.

1 0 . . . �bB 1 1 .�ac l White continues making useful moves, as

there is no point rushing to release the tension in the centre: 1 1 .dxe5 ttJdxe5 1 2.ttJxe5 ttJxe5 1 3.b3 ttJg4 14 .�a7 �aB 1 5 .�d4 Everything looks fine for White, but Black has a nice trick: 1 5 . . . �h6 1 6.f4 And here a draw was agreed in Grabarczyk - Markowski, Warsaw 200 1 , in view of the following variation: 1 6 . . . c5 1 7.�f2 ttJxf2 1 B .�xf2 �g7 Despite his positional concessions, Black will always have a lot of play thanks to his dark-squared bishop.

1 1 . . .exd4 1 2.ttJxd4 ttJxd4 1 3.�xd4 ttJe5 14.b3 �e6 1 5 .�fd 1

White has a very comfortable set-up and after the inaccurate:

1 5 . . . Wld??!

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h


In Zhumabayev - Zimmerman, Russia 200S, White could have increased his advantage with:

I G. f4N ttJcG 17.ixg7 <;t>xg7 l S .c5±

1 1 .b3 ig4 12.dxe5 The correct decision; Black has nothing to

worry about after 1 2.d5 ixf3 1 3.exf3 ttJd4.

12 ... d.xe5 13.gadl "We8 Obviously Black should avoid the unpleasant

endgame after 1 3 . . . Wxd2 14.ttJxd2. The following sample variation underlines his difficulties: 14 . . . gadS 1 5 .h3 (also worth a look is 1 5 .ixcG!? bxcG I G.ttJde4) 1 5 . . . ics ( l 5 . . . ieG runs into IG.ttJde4 fol lowed by ttJc5) 1 G.c5 ttJd7 1 7.ttJd5 Black is going to lose the c7-pawn.

14 ... gd8 After 1 4 . . . hG 1 5 .ttJge4 White not only

intends to bring his knight to c5, but also has the tricky tactical idea of ttJdG, as . . . cxdG ixbG would lead to a favourable pawn structure for him.

15."Wc1 llJd4 This looks like principled play for Black, but

after:

16.e5! White easily proves his advantage in every

line:

16 ... llJd7 The alternative is IG . . . hG 17 .cxbG hxg5

l s.ixd4 exd4 1 9.ttJd5 gxd5 2o.ixd5 cG 2 1 .ic4 when White is simply an exchange up.

17.ixd4 exd4 18.llJd5 ge8 19."Wf4± White's advantage is obvious.

B) 8 ... gb8 9.d5

As I mentioned above, after S .Wd3 White is ready to play d4-d5 .

8 ��.!.� ��.� " " ,y-�,�,,, , ,;-;�,,,!!, , , , ,y-�,� 7 �£ ��?%o'J'llJ-IA 6 ,_�W� . ,� �

� ''' ' '%�

/"""� : ��!j��.

� ��;N/h�� iW� 3 _ ,�:riV_lZJw� 2 8ft"''' '_ 8wJ�r!i " "1£" " 'm;� �.""%%'i{"" 1 � � m��

a b c d e f g h

9 . . . llJb4 It is really hard to believe that Black can get

away with playing: 9 . . . ttJa7 1 0.a4 c5 1 1 .e4 e5

This is Kozak - Tibensky, Czech Republic 1 997, and now I believe White should play:

1 2.a5N We have reached a position that closely resembles the "Reluctant Benoni" with the

Chapter 2 5 - 6 . . . tLlc6 & 7 . . . a6 405

difference that the knight is on a7 instead of c7, which seems clearly inferior for Black. I will offer some illustrative lines:

12 . . . �d7 If Black goes straight for . . . f7 -f5 with 12 . . . lLle8, then White can play 13 .�e3 with the idea of b2-b4. 1 3 .. .f5 14.exf5 gxf5 1 5 .lLlg5 It was important to include 14.exf5 to prevent Black's idea of . . . f5-f4, which is now impossible in view of mate on h7. 15 . . . lLlc7 Now I believe White can try the sharp: 1 6.b4!? cxb4 1 7.lLle2 h6 1 8 .lLlh3 �a8 1 9.�a4 White will regain the pawn, while Black's misplaced knight on a7 should tell eventually.

1 3 .�d2 b6 14.axb6 �xb6 1 5 .�a3 White is slightly better, as he always is in

these types of position.

1O.�dl a5 Black has to vacate the a6-square for his

knight to defend against the threat of 1 1 .a3.

With the idea of preparing the e4-e5 break under ideal circumstances, and if 1 3 . . . cxd5 14.exd5 then the rook is useful on the e-file.

In Roiz - Barcenilla, Internet 2004, White opted for 1 3 .dxc6 bxc6 14.e5 lLlg4 1 5 .exd6 and now 1 5 . . . �xd6 would give Black very good play with his pressure on the long diagonal.

13 ... tLlc5 14.e5 dxe5 Black also fails to equalize after: 1 4 . . . tLlg4

1 5 .exd6 exd6 1 6.h3 lLle5 (worse is 1 6 . . . lLlf6 1 7.dxc6 bxc6 1 8.lLld4! with a clear advantage) 1 7.lLlxe5 �xe5 1 8 .�e3;t

15.ttJxe5 cxd5 16.cxd5 irs 17.,te3 White is slightly better, with the main point

being that Black cannot play 17 . . . �c8? in view of 1 8 .lLlc6! bxc6 1 9.�xc5 with a winning position.

C) 8 ... liJb4

l 1 .e4 Black wants to check if the white queen has a I think 1 1 .�e3!? also deserves serious good retreat square:

consideration.

1 1 ...c6 12.a3 ttJa6 Now I believe White should play modestly:

9.'I1Bd2 I believe this is the only way to fight for an

advantage. Instead 9 .�b l looks quite strange, and Black can even afford to move his knight back with 9 . . . lLlc6.


9 . . . ttJc6 If 9 . . . c5?! then 1 0.d5 and the knight is

absolutely useless on b4, and of course 1 0 . . . �f5 ? does not work: 1 1 .lLlh4 lLlc2 1 2.lLlxf5 lLlxal 1 3 .lLlxg7 <j;Jxg7 1 4.b3 Black loses the knight and her position is hopeless, Harika - Zenyuk, Beijing (blitz) 2008.

10.b3 The question is whether White's queen is

more useful on d2 than on d l . The answer is Yes! as you can see from the following lines:

10 .. J'3b8 1 1 .ib2 b5 12.cxb5 axb5 13.d5 ttJa7

The main difference with having the queen on d2 is clear in the line: 1 3 . . . lLla5 1 4.lLld4 b4 1 5 .lLld 1 ! The knight has a good square on d l ! White is clearly better here.

14.ttJd4 b4 Black has also tried 14 . . . �d7, but after

1 5 J'hc l 13b6 1 6.h3 e6 1 7.e4 he failed to equalize in Solozhenkin - Oney, Bethune 2000.

15.ttJdl id7 16J'3cl ttJb5 In Carlsen - Kasimdzhanov, Moscow (blitz)

2007, White overlooked a simple move (of course Carlsen would spot this in a game with a normal time control) :

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17.ttJc2!± This would win the b4-pawn immediately.

D) 8 ... id7

One of the critical continuations.

9.d5 ttJb4 10.�dl Instead 10.'&d2 a5 1 1 .lLld4 '&c8 is perfectly

playable for Black.

lO ... a5 Here I analysed for a long time and decided

to go for a new concept:

a b c d e f g h

1 l .a3!? The main theoretical continuation is 1 1 .e4

e5 1 2.lLlel when the knight is heading for d3, from where it will support White's play on the queenside. However, the following game looks rather convincing and leads to good play for Black: 1 2 . . . b6! This allows Black to solve the ptoblem of his b4-knight. 1 3 .13b l lLla6 1 4.a3 lLlc5 1 5 .b4 axb4 1 6.axb4 lLla4 Usually if Black finds a good use for his queenside knight (such as exchanging it) then he should be alright, and this position is no exception. 1 7.lLlxa4 13xa4 1 8.lLld3 '&a8 Black was fine in Bukal -Fedorov, Croatia 2005.

White also achieves nothing after 1 1 .�e3 e5 1 2.dxe6 �xe6 as in Votava - Khalifman,

Chapter 25 - 6 . . . lLlc6 & 7 . . . a6 407

Fuegen 2006. It is very important that now the black knight can retreat to c6 after l 3.a3.

1 1 ...ltJa6 1 2.ie3 c6 If Black continues by analogy with I I .ie3

by playing 1 2 . . . e5 then after 1 3 .dxe6 ixe6 14 .lLld4 White obtains serious pressure. Here we can see why it is important to insert 1 1 .a3 - with our move order the knight was forced to a weak square on a6.

I prepared I I .a3!? as a novelty for this book and tested it in the game Avrukh - Bitensky, Israel 2009. Black replied with I 2 . . . 'lWc8 and then after: 1 3.id4 ih3 14.e4 ixg2 I S .'it>xg2 eS 1 6.dxe6 'lWxe6 I nk l White already had a comfortable space advantage, and Black's next move starts a misguided plan: 1 7 . . . ih6? 1 8 .lLld2 lLlg4 1 9.h3 lLle5 20.f4 lLld3 Now I mistakenly chose 2 1 .lLld5 allowing 2 1 . . .f5, when instead 2 l .fS!N 'lWd7 22.lLldS would give White a devastating attack.

1 3.id4 cxdS I also analysed 1 3 . . . c5 1 4.ie3 lLlc7 1 5 .a4

(Black intended to play I S . . . b5) . It is important that l S . . . eS 1 6.dxe6! is clearly in White's favour: 1 6 . . . ixe6 17.if4 lLlfe8 1 8 .'lWb3 White still has pressure.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

14.ltJxdS!

An important detail is that after exchanging dark-squared bishops White will have chances of seizing the initiative on the kingside.

14 . . . ltJxdS l S.cxdS� There is nothing badly wrong with Black's

position, but I prefer White's chances.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

E) 8 . . . if5

a b c d e f g h

9.e4 ig4 With this idea Black tries to undermine the

white queen's position, but it appears she is not doing so badly on d3.

10.ie3 The alternative plan is 1 O.d5 ixf3 I l .'lWxf3

lLld4 I 2.'lWdl c5 ( l 2 . . . lLld7 l 3.ie3 c5 1 4.dxc6 lLlxc6 leads to the same type of position) 1 3.dxc6 lLlxc6 with very complex play, but I believe this position should be perfectly playable for Black.

10 ... ltJd7 Black intends to fight for the d4-square by

playing . . . e7-eS.

l 1 .ltJel After seriollsly investigating this position I

came to the conclusion that the text is White's best try for an advantage. I would also like


to mention that I I .h3 leads to thematic play after I l . . .Axf3 1 2.Axf3 e5 1 3 .d5 ltJd4 1 4.ig2 c5 1 5 .dxc6 bxc6 1 6.b4 when the position was double-edged in Ki. Georgiev - Du. Popovic, Serbia 2006.

1 1 ...e5

Mission accomplished; the d4-knight is gone and now White can start to play on the queenside.

16 ... a5 17.a3 Using the fact that 1 7 . . . a4 is impossible.

It makes no sense for Black to play l l . . .ltJb6, 17 .. . f5 18.b4 ttJa6 19J'hbl as White can comfortably continue with 1 2.f3 I believe White's prospects are brighter. Ad7 1 3.'t:k2 covering the d4-square.

12.d5 ttJd4 13.£3 ttJc5 14.Wfdl ic8 Unfortunately for Black, he cannot retreat

his bishop to d7: after 1 4 . . . Ad7? 1 5 .b4 his knight is trapped on c5.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15.ttJc2!N This is a clear improvement over the

inaccurate 1 5 .b4 ltJd7 when it appears White cannot remove the d4-knight without making a concession. 1 6.Ei:b 1 Now Black gets counterplay on the queenside. (The point is that the obvious 1 6 . ttJc2 is met strongly by 1 6 . . . a5 1 7.a3 axb4 1 8 .axb4 Ei:xa l 1 9.1tJxa l ttJb6 20.Wd3 f5 with good play for Black.) 1 6 . . . a5 1 7.a3 axb4 1 8.axb4 This is Stefanova - Paehtz, Heraklio 2007, and now 1 8 . . . ttJb6!N would bring Black rich counterplay.

15 ... ttJxc2 16.Wfxc2

F) 8 ... e5

This is Black's main move according to theory.

9.dxe5 Defini telythe most challenging con tinuation;

I do not believe Black has any problems after 9.d5 ltJb4 1 0.Wd l a5 .

a b c d e f g h

9 ... dxe5 The knight recapture is less popular and

rightly so: 9 . . . ltJxe5 1 0.ltJxe5 dxe5 I l .Wxd8 Ei:xd8 1 2.Ag5

Black experiences significant problems, due to the following line:

1 2 . . . Ei:e8 Instead 1 2 . . . Ei:d4 looks all wrong, as after 1 3.b3 the rook is obviously misplaced in the centre: 1 3 . . . c6 1 4.ltJa4 with unpleasant pressure.

Chapter 2 5 - 6 . . . tZk6 & 7 . . . a6 409

1 3.tt:ld5 tt:lxd5 14.cxd5 The c7 -pawn is a clear target of attack.

1 4 . . . f6 Other moves look inferior: 1 4 . . . �d7 1 5 .l'!acl l'!ac8 16.d6! cxd6 1 7.�xb7 l'!xcl 1 8.l'!xc l l'!b8 1 9.1'!c7 �e6 20.b3 a5 In Matjushin - A. Vovk, Ukraine 2006, White should have played 2 1 .�c6! and I do not see any reasonable defence against 22.�d2 winning the a5-pawn. 14 . . . e4 1 5 .l'!ac1 c6 1 6.dxc6 bxc6 17.b3 gave White a clear edge in T. Cox - Conterno, Coventry 2005 .

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .�e3N

This is stronger than 1 5 .�d2 �f8 1 6.l'!ac1 �d6 17.a3 a5 when Black had a defendable position in Fridman - Bezold, Internet (blitz) 2005.

1 5 . . . �f8 1 6.l'!fc l �d6 17.�c5 l'!e7 1 8 .l'!c3 White has nagging positional pressure; he

will double rooks on the c-file and capture on d6 under favourable circumstances.

lO.Wlxd8 l'!xd8 1 1 .i.g5 Now there is a split between Fl) 1 1 ..J�e8

and F2) 1 1 ...ie6.

I also analysed 1 1 . . .e4N but Black is still far from equality in the following line: 1 2.tt:ld2 h6 1 3.�xf6 l'!xd2 14.tt:lxe4 l'!xe2 1 5 .b3!

Fl) 1 1 .. .l'!e8

8 :i �j�!�;� 7 �' r� _ , m e 6 �� ".,,"� ��fi�_ �, �! ��.�".,,:�.� 5 � • �j% � �� 8��""%� .; ... �-4 �" ... //. �� .� 3. � .tZJw�

2 r�""';m8�� . ' ' "rf' ' ' ' "W4 �.�/�"" 1 ,� � .§�'§? a b c d e f g h

12.l'!fdl! A very instructive moment. After seriously

investigating this position I decided that 1 2.l'!fd l is the best option for White. For a better understanding of this decision, let's have a quick look at White's alternatives.

If 1 2.tt:ld5 tt:lxd5 1 3 .cxd5 tt:ld4! And the arising position is rather double-edged, so the concrete approach does not work.

1 2.tt:ld2 This looks flexible, but Black quickly plays 1 2 . . . tt:ld4 with the main idea of saving a tempo on . . . h7-h6 by playing . . . tt:le6. 1 3.e3 (I tried to improve on White's play with 1 3.c5, but after 13 ... l'!b8 14 .tt:lc4 �g4 Black is absolutely fine.) 1 3 . . . tt:le6 14.ixf6 �xf6 1 5 .b4 In Payen - Croizer, Avoine 2004, Black should have activated his dark-squared bishop with 1 5 . . . �g7! followed by 1 6 .. . f5 and 1 7 . . . e4.

12 ... h6 13.ixRi .txf6 Black has wasted a tempo on . . . h7-h6, so

now is the right moment to play:

14.�d2 �d4 I also examined 14 . . . �e6 1 5 .tt:ld5 �d8

1 6.tt:le4. This knight is heading for c5, where it will put additional pressure on Black's queenside. 1 6 . . . \tlg7 17.tt:lc5 �c8 1 8 .tt:lc3! With the positional idea of damaging Black's


pawn structure with �xc6. l S . . . lOa5 1 9.b4 lOxc4 20.lOxb7 White is better.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15.c5!?N I believe this is the most challenging

continuation. Black can easily solve his problems after 1 5 .lOde4 �dS 1 6.lOc5 ;gbS 1 7.e3 lOe6 I S .lOd7 �xd7 1 9.;gxd7 lOc5 20.;gd2. Now in Zugic - Babula, Istanbul (01) 2000, the natural 20 . . . e4N would secure Black equal play.

15 ... ;gb8 Other options are:

1 5 . . . lOe6 16.c6! b5 1 7.lOd5 �dS l S.b4 I believe Black's position is very difficult, as he lacks counterplay, while White can slowly improve his position with e2-e3, lOb3 and of course the main positional threat is to play a2-a4 and �g2-f1 , putting real pressure on Black's queenside.

1 5 . . . �dS 16.lOc4 \t1g7 1 7.;Gd2 looks very unpleasant for Black.

16.4Jd5 id8 17.e3 liJe6 18.b4� White is obviously setting the tone.

F2) 1 1 ...ie6

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12.4Jd2 h6 1 2 . . . lOd4

This is not so good with Black's bishop on e6.

1 3 .;Gfd l c6 Unsatisfactory for Black is 1 3 . . . h6 1 4.�xf6 �xf6 1 5 .e3 lOc6 1 6.lOd5!.

1 4.e3 1Oc2 1 5 .;gab l ;Gd7 1 5 . . . lOb4 was played in Psakhis - Babula, Batumi 1 999, and now Psakhis correctly pointed out 1 6.a3! lOd3 1 7.lOde4 lOxe4 I S.�xe4 f6 1 9.�xf6 �xf6 20.�xd3 with a healthy extra pawn for White.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h 1 6.lOb3!N

This is my improvement over 1 6.�xf6 �xf6 1 7.lOde4 ;gxd l t I S.;gxd l �e7 1 9.�f1 f5 20.lOd6 b5 when Black was already taking over the initiative in Drasko - G. Szabo, Sozina 2004.

Chapter 25 - 6 . . . ttJc6 & 7 . . . a6 4 1 1

1 6 . . . �xc4 Black cannot play 1 6 . . . �xd 1 t 1 7.�xd 1 ttJd7, as after 1 8.�e4 f6 1 9 .�xf6! he loses material.

17 .�xf6 �xd I t 1 8 .�xd 1 �xf6 1 9 .ttJa5 �e6 20.ttJxb7 �b8 2 1 .ttJc5 �xb2 22.ttJxe6 fxe6 23.�xc6

This endgame is very unpleasant for Black, due to his shattered pawn structure.

13 . .ixfU Black has a choice of which minor piece

he wishes to collect: F21) 13 ... �xd2 or F22) 13 ... .ixfU.

F21) 13 ... �xd2

This move leads to a strategically dangerous situation for Black:

14.Lg7 Wxg7 IS.Le6! It is important to start with this exchange,

as after 1 5 .b3 Black can try to avoid White's positional idea with 1 5 . . . ttJa5!? instead of the compliant 1 5 . . . �ad8, as was played in most games that reached this position.

IS ... bxe6 16.b3 �ad8 The most popular answer, but I should also

mention 16 . . . a5, which has the idea of getting rid of the a-pawn. However, Black was in trouble in the following model example: 1 7 .�fd 1 �xdI t 1 8 .�xdl a4 1 9.ttJxa4! �xc4 20.�d2 �e6 2 1 .f3 �f6 22.�c2 �a6 23.�f2 �e7 In Csom - Zimmerman, Hungary 200 1 , if White had played 24.tt:lc5N �a3 25.tt:lxe6 fxe6 26.�e3 Black would have been strategically lost.

17.�fdl Black's position is very hard to defend. White

has an easy plan, which includes exchanging both rooks, as the endgame with knight versus bishop would be unpleasant for Black, due to his weak pawns on the queenside.

17 .. J�8d4 I also examined 1 7 . . . f5 when I believe White

should not hurry to exchange rooks, but instead calmly execute his plan with 1 8.�fl (if 1 8 .�xd2 �xd2 1 9 .�c 1 as in Ehlvest -Barcenilla, San Francisco 2000, Black could create some counterplay with 1 9 . . . f4! 20.�fl �f5) . 1 8 . . . �f6? Black's last move is a blunder that was not exploited in Harika - Borosova, Beijing (rapid) 2008: 1 9.tt:ld5t!N 1his simple tactic would have given White a decisive advantage after 1 9 . . . cxd5 20.�xd2 d4 2 1 .�ad l c5 22.e3.

18.�xd2 Both games that reached this posltlon

continued with this move, but it is also worth considering 1 8.�fl N �c2 1 9.�dc1 , although in this case Black keeps both rooks on the board with 1 9 . . . �cd2.

18 ... �xd2 Now it is obvious that White should play:

a b c d e f g h

19.Wf1!N 19.�c1 is a serious inaccuracy that allows

Black to get rid of his weak a-pawn: 19 . . . a5! 20.Wfl a4 2 1 .�d 1 �c2 22.tt:lxa4 �xa2 23.ttJc5 �f5 Black has a defendable position, which he even managed to win in Bocharov - Loskutov, Novosibirsk 2002.


19 . . J'�c2 20.ttJa4 20.\tle 1 ? might look cool, but 20 . . . ixc4! is a

rude awakening.

20 ... a5 21 .Wel h5 There is not a big difference compared to the

main line if play continues: 2 1 . . .g5 22.Wdl if5 23.g4 ig6 24.ttJc5 )"gb2 25.f3

22.Wdl ifS 23.h3 g5 24.g4 hxg4 25.hxg4 ig6 26.lLlc5 )"gb2 27.8

White has a clear plan: his king goes to e3, then he plays a2-a4 and the rook gets into the game along the d-file. Of course this is not a forced line, but it shows the general picture of this endgame. White can play for a win without any risk, while Black's defensive task is highly unpleasant.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

F22) 13 ... ixf6 14.lLlde4 ie7

a b c d e f g h

1 5.ttJd5 ixd5 I also checked 1 5 . . . )"gab8, which has never

been tested in practice. I 6.)"gac1 f5 ( l 6 . . . ixd5 I7.cxd5 ttJb4 I 8 .ttJc3 c6 I 9.dxc6 leads to the same rype of position as in our main line, with the inclusion of the useful �ac 1 ) 1 7.luxc7 if7 1 8.ttlc3 ixc4 I 9.ttl3d5 ixd5 (otherwise )"gxc6 and ttJe7 -c6 is decisive) 20.ixd5t \tlh8 2 1 .ixc6 bxc6 n.b3 White has a clear positional advantage.

16.cxd5 ttJb4 17.lLlc3 c6 As we can see from the following lines,

it is hard for Black to do without the text move:

I 7 . . . id6 was tried in Grycel - Mista, Wisla 2000. White can reply 1 8.)"gfc 1N a5 1 9.ttJb5 ttJa6 20.)"gc4 with annoying pressure.

1 7 .. . f5 has a nice tactical refutation: I 8.a3 ttJc2 1 9.)"gac1 ttJd4 20.e3 ttlb5 (probably Black discovered too late that the desirable 20 . . . ttJb3 runs into 2 1 .d6! )"gxd6 22.id5t )"gxd5 23.ttJxd5 ttlxc 1 24.ttlxe7t mf7 25 .)"gxc 1 Wxe7 26.)"gxc7t followed by 27.)"gxb7 with a winning rook endgame) 2 1 .ttlxb5 axb5 22.)"gxc7 id6 23.)"gxb7 White was two pawns up and winning in S. Atalik - Djukic, Cannes 2007.

1 8.dxc6 lLlxc6

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

19.ttJd5! A very strong move that was found by

Dautov. White is only marginally better after I 9.ixc6 bxc6 20.md l f5 followed by . . . \tlf7 -e6.

19 ..• ifS Black has tried to defend this unpleasant

endgame in various ways:

Chapter 2 5 - G . . . tt:lcG & 7 . . . aG 413

19 . . . WfB 20.ttJbG ElabS 2 1 .Elfc l (White also gained an edge after 2 1 .ixc6 bxc6 22.ltJc4 f6 23.Elac l Elb5 24.Elc2 WeS 25 .b3;J; in Cosma Jianu, Romania 2005) 2 1 . . .Eld2 This is Roiz - Filipovic, Basel 2006, and now I found a strong line: 22.ixc6!N bxc6 23 .Elxc6 ElbdS (if 23 . . . Wg7 24.b3 Elxe2 25.Wfl Eld2 26.ttJc4 Eld5 27.Ele1 f6 2S.Elxa6 and White has a winning position) 24.e3 Elxb2 25.ttJc4 Elc2 26.ttJxe5 Eldd2 27.Elxc2 Elxc2 2S.a4 White is a clear pawn up.

1 9 . . . ic5 20.Elac l ia7 2 1 .e3 (White continues to play positionally, although I do not see anything wrong with 2 1 .ltJf6t Wg7 22.i.xc6 Wxf6 23.�xb7 ElabS 24.Elc7!) . 2 1 . . .Eld6 22.ttJc3 Wg7 23.ttJe4 Eld5 24.ttJc3 Eld6 25.Elfd l Elxd l t 26.ltJxdl White was better in Filippov - A. Zhigalko, Moscow 2004, due ro the superiority of his light-squared bishop over Black's dark-squared one.

19 ... Eld6 20.Elacl EladS (after 20 . . . i.fS 2 1 .ttJb6 EleS 22.i.xc6 bxc6 23.Elfd l EledS 24.Elxd6 Elxd6 25 .\t>fl the endgame is difficult for Black due to his weak pawns on the queenside, Zhang Zhong - Ginting, Tarakan 200S) 2 1 .ltJxe7t ttJxe7 22.�xb7 Elb6 23.Elc7 WfS 24.b3 Eld2 25 .e3± White ended up a pawn to the good in Shinkevich - Predke, Kazan 2009, because Black cannot play 25 . . . Elxa2 due to 26.Eld 1 Ele6 27.EldSt \t>g7 2S .Eldd7 WfS 29.i.g2! and the bishop transfers decisively to c4.

20.ttJb6 Elab8 21 .ixc6 There is no doubt the text move forces a

pleasant advantage, but I think White can do even better: 2 1 .Elfd l !N

a b c d e f g h With the following illustrative l ine: 2 1 . . .ig7

22.Elac l Elxd I t 23.Elxd J EldS 24.Eld7! Elxd7 25 .ttJxd7 e4 26.i.xe4 i.xb2 27.�xc6 bxc6 2S.ttJbS c5 29.ltJxa6 c4 30.\t>fl White's extra pawn should decide the issue.

21 . .. bxc6 22.ltJc4� White had a lasting edge lD Dautov -

V Milov, Essen 2000.

Conclusion:

The 6 . . . ltJc6 7.0-0 a6 variation is a key line for which White should be well prepared. My recommendation is S.�d3, which is not the most popular line, but I have not selected it to avoid theory - I bel ieve it is the best move. My improvements in the above lines suggest that White can retain an edge, and the main line leads to an endgame where White has an enduring advantage - bad news for King's Indian aficionados.

King's Indian a b c d e f g b

6 . . . �c6 & 7 . . J�b8

Variation Index l .d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 �g7 4.�g2 d6 5.tDc3 0-0 6.tDa tDc6 7.0-0 �h8

8.h3 A) 8 ... e5 B) 8 • . . �f5 C) 8 ... a6 9.e4

Cl) 9 ... e5 C2) 9 ... tDa5 C3) 9 ... tDd7 C4) 9 ... h5 10.cxh5 axh5 1 1 .�el!?

C41) 1 l . . . tDd7 C42) 1 l ... e5 C43) 1 l ... h4 C44) 1 l ... e6

B) after 1 l . . .a6 C4 1 ) note to 14 .. c5

8 8

7 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3

2 2

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g

1 2.Eic l N 1 6.�c l N

h

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C43) after 1 3 . . . h6

415 415 416 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 424

a b c d e f g h

1 4 .Eic l !?N

Chapter 26 - 6 . . . lLlc6 & 7 . . . Ei:b8 4 1 5

l.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 �g7 4.�g2 d6 5.lLlc3 0-0 6.lLlf3 lLlc6 7.0-0 Ei:b8

The two main move orders that Black uses to reach the Yugoslav variation are 7 . . . Ei:b8 and 7 . . . a6. We have already seen the more popular 7 . . . a6, so now it is time for 7 .. J'%b8

8.h3 Ir is important to understand the difference

between this variation and 7 . . . . a6. If after 7 . . . l'%b8 White continues in (he same way as we do against 7 . . . a6 with: 8.�d3 e5

Then this move is good enough for Black. 9.d5

9.dxe5 is absolurely harmless in view of: 9 .. . dxe5 1 0.'Wxd8 l'%xd8 1 1 .i.g5 h6! 1 2.i.xf6 ixf6 1 3 .lLld5 ig7 (with the rook on b8 Black should not be afraid of 14.lLlxc7, as in this case he will take over the initiative with 14 . . . e4!) 14J'%ad 1 i.e6 And due to his bishop pair, only Black can be better, Grabarczyk -Markowski, Glogow 200 1 .

9 . . . lLlb4 A natural move.

1 0.'Wd1 a5 Securing the c5-square for the knight.

1 1 .e4 i.d7 1 2.lLle 1 'We8 In my opinion Black has a normal King's Indian game.

1 3.a3 lLla6 1 4.lLld3 This is Wang Yue - Inarkiev, Nizhniy Novgorod 2007, and now natural is:

1 4 . . . a4 Followed by . . . b7-b6 and . . . lLlc5 , which will

give Black a good game.

After 8.h3 Black has three main lines: A) 8 ... e5, B) 8 ... �f5 and C) 8 . . . a6.

A) 8 . . . e5 9.d5

I believe this is the most challenging continuation. Sometimes White goes for 9.id a6, but I am nbt sure abour the position

that arises after 1 0.l'%cl if5 1 1 .g4 id7 1 2.'Wd2 h5! 1 3.dxe5 dxe5 1 4.g5 ltJh7. Black had counterplay in Grischuk - Inarkiev, Baku 2008.

9 ... lLle7 Now 9 . . . ltJa5 loses its charm, as the g7-

bishop is blocked by the e5-pawn. White can simply play 1 0.ltJd2 c5 I l .a3 followed by 1 2.b4, when Black's knight will probably be forced to withdraw to b7. White has an obvious edge.

1O.e4 Compared with the l ine 6 . . . ltJc6 7.0-0 e5

8.d5 ltJe7 we have the extra moves h2-h3 and . . . l'%b8. I am confident h2-h3 is more useful than the rook move. For example, White may often win a tempo with i.d, attacking the a7-pawn. One possible continuation is:

1O ... lLle8 1 1 .�e3 a6 12.'lWd2 f5 13.lLlg5 fxe4 14.lLlgxe4 lLlf5 15 .�g5

White has a pleasant edge thanks to his control over the e4-square, Najdorf -Ardiansyah, Manila 1 973.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

B) 8 . . . �f5

v///·u/, .......

a b c d e f g h

This tricky move has twice been played by I narkiev, one of the strongest King's Indian

4 16 The King's Indian Defence

experts. Naturally this posmon closely resembles the 6 . . . ltk6, 7 . . . if5 line (Chapter 23) . Black's idea is to prove that in this line his . . . �b8 is more useful than White's h2-h3. However, I intend to make good use of 8.h3:

9.g4! id7 1O.e4 1 0.ie3!? might be an interesting alternative.

10 . . . e5 1 1 .ie3 a6

White has thematic positional pressure, while the weakening of his position caused by g3-g4 is not relevant.

C) 8 • . . a6

This is Black's main choice. The position after 8 . . . id7 9.e4 e5 1 0.ie3 a6 will be examined in the 9 . . . e5 variation (line C l ) .

Now I like a solid positional approach: 9.e4

8 8

7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2

1 a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

12.�c1N Now there is a major branching point: Cl) Levon Aronian instead chose a concrete

approach: 1 2 .dxe5 ttJxe5 1 3 .ttJxe5 dxe5 1 4. f4 White won convincingly in Aro n ian - Inarkiev, Khanty-Mansiysk (4) 2007, but I believe Black can improve his play with 14 . . . ie6N 1 5 .ttJd5 exf4 1 6.ixf4 ttJe8 with a rather double-edged game, as White has seriously weakened his kingside pawn structure.

12 ... b5 If 1 2 . . . exd4 1 3.ttJxd4 ttJe5 1 4.b3 c5 1 5 .ttJde2

then Black has no time for 1 5 . . . b5 because the d6-pawn is hanging, and White will continue with 1 6.f4 putting a lot of pressure on the black position.

13.dxe5 ltJxe5 14.ltJxe5 dxe5 15.cxb5 axb5 16.Wc2 c6 17.�fdl

9 ... e5, C2) 9 ... �a5, C3) 9 ... �d7 and C4) 9 ... b5.

Cl) 9 ... e5 10.ie3 id7

Naturally Black has other possibilities:

1 0 . . . exd4 1 1 .ttJxd4 id7 1 2.�c l would transpose to our main line.

1 0 ... b5 Ieads to a pleasant positional advantage for White: 1 1 .dxe5 dxe5 ( l l . . .ttJxe5 does not change much: 1 2.ttJxe5 dxe5 1 3.cxb5 axb5 14.�c2 White is better due to Black's weakened queens ide) 1 2.cxb5 axb5 1 3 .�c l ie6 In A. Sorensen - Bogo, Aarhus 1 990, the simple 14.b3N, restricting Black's l ight-squared bishop, would have secured a positional edge.

Chapter 26 - 6 . . . ctJc6 & 7 . . . l!b8 417

1 U'k1 exd4 12.ttJxd4 l!e8 Instead 1 2 . . . ctJxd4 also fails to solve Black's

problems: 1 3.�xd4 c5 1 4.�e3 �e6 1 5 .'lMre2 ctJd7 1 6J!fd 1 'lMre7 1 7.f4 f5 1 8 .exf5 gxf5 1 9 .�f2 Black was under strong positional pressure in Ippolito - Paragua, Hawaii 1 998.

13.l!e1 ttJeS Black also has two other options:

1 3 . . . 'lMrc8 1 4.@h2 Now Black has a typical attacking idea that can occasionally prove dangerous: 1 4 . . . l':!e5 I like the following approach for White: 1 5 .ctJf3 l':!h5 1 6.ctJh4! Playing against the black rook. 16 . . . b5 1 7.cxb5 axb5 1 8 .f4 Taking away the rook's potential retreat square. 1 8 . . . ctJe7 1 9.b4! Now the rook merely looks misplaced on h5, Arkell - Talbot, Fishguard 2003.

13 ... ctJxd4 1 4.�xd4 �e6 should be met by 1 5 .'lMre2 with the better chances for White.

14.b3 cS lS.ttJde2 ixh3 A very nice tactical idea, but it is probably

insufficient.

Unfortunately for Black 1 5 . . . b5 1 6.f4 ctJc6 1 7.'lMrxd6 b4 does not work in view of 1 8 .e5 bxc3 1 9.ctJxc3! l':!e6 20.'lMrd2 ctJe8 2 1 .l':!ed 1 when White is much better.

16.ixh3 ttJf3t 17.'�{g2 lL'lxe1 t 18.'lMrxe1 ctJxe4 19.1L'lxe4 �xe4 20.'lMrd2 bS

In Ignacz - Borosova, Olbia 2008, White could have gained a clear advantage with a simple manoeuvre:

21 .ttJc3N l':!e8 22.ttJdS White's two minor pieces are much stronger

than Black's rook.

C2) 9 ... ttJaS 1O.'lMre2 bS

This looks quite logical, but the problem is that it allows the following line:

a b c d e f g h l 1 .eS ttJe8 12.cxbS axbS 1 3.b4!

A very important resource.

13 ... ttJ c6 Black cannot play 1 3 . . . ctJc4, as after 1 4.a4

c6 1 5 .axb5 cxb5 1 6.ctJxb5! he loses a pawn, Pigusov - Gleizerov, Voronezh 1 988.

14.l!d1 Also very interesting is 14 .a3. For example:

1 4 . . . dxe5 1 5 .dxe5 ctJd4 1 6.ctJxd4 'lMrxd4 This looks challenging, but White has a fine answer: 1 7.ctJd5! 'lMrxa 1 ? ( 1 7 . . . 'lMrxe5 would avoid immediate disaster) 1 8 .ctJxe7t @h8 1 9.�b2 'lMrxfl t 20.'lMrxfl �e6 2 1 .ctJc6 l':!b6 22.�d4! In P.H. Nielsen - N.v Pedersen, Denmark 2009, Black was dead lost.

14 ... ttJxb4 Otherwise Black will suffer under strong

positional pressure.

lS J'�b1 ttJc6 In N. Pert - Heinrich, Bunratty 2008, the

correct route to an advantage was:

16.l':!xbSN ia6 17 .�xb8 ttJxb8 1 7 . . . �xe2 1 8.l':!xd8 ixd 1 1 9.1':!xe8 l':!xe8

20.ctJxd 1 ± cannot be acceptable for Black.


18.'lWc2 White is beuer, thanks w his space

advanrage.

C3) 9 . . . llJd7

This is best met by:

10 ... h6 Oilier possible moves are:

1 0 . . . b5 I l .cxb5 axb5 1 2.l'%c 1 h6 1 3 .ie3 lUa5 1 4.b3 Ir is essenrial w cover the c4-square. 1 4 . . . b4 1 5 .lUa4 ia6 1 6.l'%e l ib5 Now in Wisniewski - Szoen, Frydek Mistek 2004, instead of the modest 1 7.lUb2, White should have played the principled:

a b c d e f g h

1 7.'lMfd2!N Auacking both the h6- and b4-pawns. 1 7 . . . ixa4 1 8 .bxa4 �h7 1 9.e5! White is beuer, as the e5-pawn is poisoned due w the following variation: 1 9 . . . dxe5 20.dxe5 lUxe5? 2 1 .lUxe5 ixe5 22.l'%c5! ic3 23.'lMfxd8 l'%fxd8 24.l'%fl lUb7 25 .l'%xc7 lUd6 26.a5 With a winning position.

1 0 . . . lUa5 1 1 .b3 c5 1 2.l'%c 1 lUc6 White creates strong pressure after 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 .cxb5 axb5 14.dxc5 dxc5 1 5 .lUd5 lUc6 1 6.'lMfd2.

1 3 .d5 lUa5 I also examined the natural-looking 1 3 . . . lUd4 14 .lUxd4 cxd4 1 5 .lUe2 h6 16.id2 b5. Here the play becomes very concrete, as Black is close w gaining counterplay, but White retains an edge with precise moves: 1 7.cxb5 l'%xb5 (or 1 7 . . . axb5 1 8.ib4 'lMfb6 19 .'lMfd2 gives White a positional edge) 1 8 .l'%c4 'lMfb6 1 9.b4!

1 4.lUe2 b5 1 5.id2 'lMfb6 16.'lWc2 White has neutralized Black's activity on the

queenside and enjoys a pleasant advantage, Drozdovskij - Dembo, Differdange 2008.

1 1 ..te3 b5 Two other options are:

1 1 . . .e5 1 2.l'%c1 I believe this is stronger than 1 2.d5 lUe7, which allows Black w create a clear plan.

1 2 . . . exd4 1 3.lUxd4 lUde5 1 4.b3 lUxd4 1 5 .ixd4 c5 16 .ie3 lUc6

In Ataman - Erdogdu, Turkey (ch) 2008, White could have played simply:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 26 - 6 . . . tLlc6 & 7 . . . l!b8 419

17 .�d2N ttJd4 Or 1 7 . . . c;i{h7 l S .gfd1 ttJd4 1 9.ttJe2! .

l S.ttJe2! There is no point in White embarking on the line l S.�xh6 �xh3! .

lS . . . ttJxe2t 1 9.�xe2 White has an obvious positional advantage

due to the weak d6-pawn.

1 1 . . .ttJa5 1 2.b3 c5 As always, this idea is not good enough to gain real counterplay

1 3.�d2 c;i{h7 1 4.gac1 ttJc6 This position occurred in Fernandez Lopez Perez AJeman, Badalona 1 993. Black intends 1 5 . . . e5 which migh t lead to a closed and unclear position, so I propose the following improvement:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .d5N ttJa5 1 6.�d3 Now if Black tries to play on the queenside with:

1 6 . . . b5 It does not work, as after:

1 7.cxb5 axb5 l S .ttJxb5 �a6 1 9.a4 Black cannot play:

1 9 . . . �b6 In view of:

20.b4! With a clear advantage.

12.cxbS axbS Certainly White can continue with 1 3 .gc 1 ,

which would transpose to a position that has

been examined in the 1 O . . . b5 line, but White also has another interesting idea:

13.�cl !? �h7 14.ttJxbS �a6 Black decides to engage in a tactical clash,

but it ends in White's favour, so the lesser evil was 1 4 . . . gxb5 1 5 .�xc6 gxb2, even though after 1 6.gfc 1 White is slightly better.

1S.a4 �aS 16.�c3 c6

a b c d e f g h

17.l!fd1! ttJcS 1 7 . . . cxb5 does not help Black: l S .axb5 gxb5

1 9.b4!±

18.�d2 cxbS 19.axbS l!xbS 20.�f1 ! l!b8 21 .ha6 ttJxa6 22.l!xaS

White was a clear pawn up in Goldin -Smirin, Philadelphia 1 996.

C4) 9 . . . bS

This is by far Black's most popular choice.

1O.cxbS Recently, more and more White players

have been switching to this move, while after 1 0.e5 dxe5 1 1 .dxe5 �xd l 1 2 .l!xd 1 ttJd7 Black stands quite well.

10 . . . axbS 1 1 .l!e1!?


The most challenging move. This leads us to the ini tial position of our line and now Black has to decide between four main continuations:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

The variations we will study are: C41) 1 1 ...tDd7, C42) 1l . . . e5, C43) 1l . . . h4 and C44) 1 l ... e6.

But first a minor line must be dealt with: 1 1 . . . id7

This allows White to place his pieces very comfortably.

1 2.e5 tLle8 1 3 .if4 The position is clearly in White's favour, for instance:

1 3 . . . tLla5 1 4Jk1 b4 1 5 .tLld5 c6 In C. Powell - M. Davis, corr. 1 993, White could have played:

1 6.exd6N exd6 1 7.tLle7t Wh8 1 8 .b3 With a clear positional advantage.

C41) 1 l ... tDd7 12.ig5

As in almost every case, I prefer this move to moving the bishop to e3 directly.

12 ... h6 13.ie3 .!Da5 Black has also tried 1 3 . . . e5 14.:gc1 tLla5.

In Fominyh - Kochetkov, Alushta 1 994, White could have gained a clear advantage with: 1 5 .dxe5! tLlxe5 (or 1 5 . . . dxe5 1 6.b3! also

leads to a very unpleasant position for Black) 1 6.tLlxe5 dxe5 1 7.'lWxd8 :gxd8 1 8.tLld5 White wins a pawn.

14.b3 The c4-square must be taken away from

Black's knight.

14 ... c5 The alternative is:

1 4 . . . b4 Now the position resembles one that was examined in the 9 . . . tLld7 variation (line C3), but White has an even better version, as Black cannot win a tempo with . . . ia6.

1 5 .tLla4 I believe the alternative retreat 1 5 .tLle2 is also worth considering. The only game to reach this position continued: 1 5 . . . c5 (I believe more critical is 1 5 ... ib7 and in this case White has to accept the challenge and play 1 6.'lWd2 ixe4 1 7.ixh6 with a very complicated game) 1 6.:gc 1 ia6 1 7.dxc5 dxc5 1 8 .ixc5 tLlxc5 1 9.'lWxd8 :gfxd8 20.:gxc5 tLlb7 2 1 .:gc6 Black failed to get sufficient compensation in Magerramov - Ezat, Abu Dhabi 2003.

1 5 .. . tLlf6 I also examined 1 5 . . . ib7 16.'lWc2 c5 1 7.dxc5! ixal 1 8 .:gxa 1 and White has powerful compensation for the exchange. Here we can see the advantage of playing ig5, as now the h6-pawn is hanging.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 26 - 6 . . . ctJc6 & 7 .. J%b8 42 1

This position was reached in Sturua -Hasanov, Moscow 1 979, and now I found a nice improvement:

16.Wc l N �h7 1 7.Wc2 c6 I B.ctJb2 It is essential for White to control the

. . . c7-c5 advance, as if it does not work then Black has serious difficulties creating counterplay.

lS.Wd2 �h7 16J'!ac1 White has arranged his pieces optimally.

16 ... �c6 Also 1 6 . . . c4 1 7.b4 ctJc6 I B .a3t does not

solve all Black's problems.

17J'!edl b4 18.tLle2 \WaS It seems as though Black is very close

to getting a decent game, but White has a surprising resource that allows him to keep the initiative.

a b c d e f g h

19.eS! :gd8 This is a serious error that allows White's

initiative to grow even more dangerous.

Stronger was 1 9 . . . dxe5 20.ctJxe5! (20.dxe5 1'!dB! is not clear) 20 . . . tLlcxe5 2 1 .dxe5 1'!b6 22.f4 and White is better positionally, as he has managed to restrict Black's dark-squared bishop.

The main point of White's idea can be seen in the following line: 1 9 . . . cxd4?! 20.ctJexd4 ctJcxe5 2 1 .ctJxe5 tLlxe5 22.f4 And after the black knight retreats 23.ctJc6 will be decisive.

20.e6! fxe6 2 1 .dxcS ib7 22.tLlf4 White was attacking strongly in Vennemann

- H. Simon, e-mail 200 1 .

C42) l 1 . .. eS

This is quite a playable move, as long as Black is ready to defend the slightly inferior position that arises after:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1 2.dxeS Not dangerous for Black is 1 2.d5 b4! 1 3 .tLla4

CiJe7 as . . . c7-c6 is on the way.

1 2 .. . llJxeS The alternative does not bring Black relief

either: 1 2 . . . dxe5 1 3.�g5 Wxd 1 1 4.1'!axd1 ctJeB 1 5 .CiJd5 f6 1 6.�e3 White was better in D. King - Levitt, Britain (ch) 1 9B9.

13.�xeS dxeS 14.ie3 ie6 If 14 . . . c6 then White has a strong answer:

1 5 .a4 bxa4 ( l 5 . . . b4 is dubious, because 16 .WxdB 1'!xdB 1 7.CiJb 1 �fB 1 B.1'!c l leads to a strategically difficult position for Black) 1 6.CiJxa4 �a6 1 7.Wc l t White keeps annoying pressure.


1 5 . .ia7 The text is probably White's best option, as

the natural-looking 1 5 .ltJd5 is not dangerous for Black after: 1 5 . . . .ixd5 (Certainly 1 5 . . . c6 would be an unfortunate decision as after 1 6.ltJb4! White is clearly better; the c6-pawn is a definite target.) 1 6.exd5 e4 1 7.�g5 h6 I B .�xf6 \wxf6 1 9.1"lb l

15 ... l"lb7 16 . .ic5 Wixdl 17.l"lexdl l"la8

a b c d e f g h

18.ltJd5 tiJd7 19 . .ie3 .ifS 20.a3 White retained a slight edge in P. Nikolic -

McShane, Germany 2007.

C43) 1 1 ...b4 12.�d5

Another important position in this line.

a b c d e f g h

12 ... �d7 Black has a range of other options, of which

the final one is especially important:

1 2 . . . �d7 1 3 .ltJxf6t The simplest path to an advantage.

1 3 . . . exf6 Much worse is 1 3 . . . �xf6 1 4.�h6! �g7 (if 14 .. . l"leB 1 5 .e5 �hB 1 6.l"lc 1 and White has total domination) 1 5 .�xg7 �xg7 16.l"lc1 ltJa5 17 .\Wd2 and White was much better in Wirig - Habibi, Calvia 2007.

1 4.�f4N This natural move improves on 1 4.d5, which was played in Sisniega - Zapata, Seville 1 992.

1 4 . . . l"leB 1 5.l"lc1 t White has a very pleasant game.

1 2 . . . e6 This is certainly not the best option, as it allows White a very clear plan:

1 3 .ltJxf6t �xf6 14 .�h6 �g7 14 . . . l"leB does not change much: 1 5 .e5 was good for White in R. Byrne - Perez Perez, Mar del Plata 1 96 1 .

1 5 .�xg7 �xg7 1 6.l"lc 1 ltJe7 17 .\Wc2 c6

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

This is Profumo - Bonanno, Milan 200B, and now:

1 B.e5N White has good attacking chances as Black

will miss his dark-squared bishop.

Chapter 26 - 6 . . . lLlc6 & 7 . . . E!b8 423

12 . . . lLlxd5 Finally we get to a critical l ine!

1 3 .exd5 lLla5 14 .�g5 !!e8 1 5 .E!c1 E!b5 1 6.lLlh2 b3

Just as relevant is 1 6 . . . �d7 1 7.�d2 f6 I B .�f4 e5 1 9.dxe6 !!xe6 20.!!xe6 �xe6 2 1 .�e2 �d7 22.h4 and White was obviously better in D. King - Gruenberg, Budapest 1 9B6.

17 .�d2! bxa2 This interesting position was reached In Urban - T. Petrosian, Warsaw 2005, and now it is not obvious why White avoided the following natural variation:

1 B.b4N lLlb7 1 9.�a4 id7 20.�xa2 ixd4 2 1 .�c4 �g7

Black could not afford to remove his bishop from the long diagonal, as after 2 1 . . .�b6 22.lLlg4! White's attack is too dangerous.

22.�xc7± Black's misplaced knight on b7 makes a

difference.

13.ig5 h6 If 1 3 . . . �b7 then after 1 4.�d2 the

combination of the g5-bishop and d5-knight creates irritating pressure on Black's position.

a b c d e f g h

14Jkl!?N I think this concrete approach is White's best

chance of an advantage. The other options did not impress me much:

14 .�e3 e6 1 5 .lLlf4 e5 1 6.lLld5 exd4 1 7.lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 B .�xd4 lUe5 1 9 .f4 c5 20.�f2 This is Lputian - Erdogdu, Heraklio 2007, and here the accurate 20 . . . lUd7N 2 1 .�d2 !!eB would lead to a double-edged game.

In ChessBase Magazine 104 Stohl suggested 14.�c1 was a strong move. In fact the position is far from clear after the pretty forced variation: 14 . . . hxg5 1 5 .�xc6 e6 1 6.lUxc7 !!b6 1 7.�c2 �b7 IB .!!ac 1 !!c6 1 9.�xc6 �xc6 20.!!xc6 �b8°o

14 • • . hxg5 Another important l ine is: 1 4 . . . �b7 1 5.!!xc6

hxg5 1 6.lUxb4 �aB (I also examined 1 6 . . . e5 1 7.d5 lUc5 I B .�c2 when White is clearly better. Black is not really threatening to take on c6, as after the knight recaptures, Black can hardly stop White's a-pawn.) 1 7.!!c4 c5 I B.dxc5 dxc5 (after I B . . . lUxc5 1 9.�d2 �a5 20.!!e2! Black has nothing in return for being a pawn down) 1 9.1Lld3 �xb2 20.lUxc5 lUxc5 2 1 .!!xc5 �xd1 22.!!xd 1 White keeps his extra pawn and a clear edge.

1 5Jhc6 h3 1 5 . . . �b7 would transpose to the 1 4 . . . �b7

line above.

16.axh3 ib7 17.E!c2 This move is stronger than 1 7. lU b4 �aB

1B .!!c4 c5! 1 9.dxc5 lUxc5� when Black has reasonable compensation.

17 ... c6 18.lLlc3 c5 After 1 B . . . �b6 White can give up his extra

pawn to develop an initiative: 1 9.e5 �xb3 20.lUe4! Then White will also win Black's g-pawn.

19.dxc5 �xc5 20.b4! ixc3 21 .bxc3 liJxe4 At first sight it seems Black has managed to

solve all his problems, but his g5-pawn is weak


and this allows White to gain an advantage with direct moves:

22.4Jd4 d5 Another l ine runs: 22 . . . lDf6 23 .Wd2 e5 (the

main point is that after 23 . . . g4 24.hxg4 lDxg4 White has the strong 25 .We2! winning the e7-pawn) 24.lDc6 ixc6 25 .ixc6 g4 26.hxg4 lDxg4 27.1'l:d l !± Black has to give up his d-pawn.

23.c4 e5 23 . . . e6 24.b5 leaves White with a pleasant

advantage.

24.4Jb3 f5 Black eventually loses a pawn after 24 . . . lDf6

25.lDc5±.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

V///"/h. co-::-:c;

a b c d e f g h

25.ixe4 fxe4 If instead 25 . . . dxe4 then 26.Wxd8 1'l:fxd8

27.b5 and White's two passed pawns should decide the game.

26.ttJa5 d4 27.ttJxb7 �hb7 28J'he4 �hb4 29J�xe5 d3 30JU2 Wb6 3 U�b5 �hb5 32.cxb5 Wxb5 33J�xd3

White should win.

C44) 1 1 ...e6 12.Wc2

This is White's best option; Black is absolutely fine after 1 2.e5 dxe5 1 3.lDxe5 lDxd4 1 4.ie3 c5 and 1 2.d5 lDa5 seems very unclear to me.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h 12 ... b4 13.ttJe2 ib7

Black has also tried another bishop move: 1 3 . . . id7 In this case White should continue 1 4.lDf4 by analogy with our main line, creating the idea of an e4-e5 advance.

14.ttJf4 This seems to be White's best option, as Black

can easily improve after 1 4.ig5 h6 1 5 .id2 as in Greenfeld - Hebden, Dublin 2008. Now after 1 5 . . . lDe7 1 6.lDcl (An important l ine arises after 1 6.lDf4 g5 and now after the fairly forced consequences 1 7.e5 gxf4 1 8 .exf6 ixf6 1 9.ixf4 lDf5 20.g4 ixf3 2 1 .gxf5 ixg2 22.'it>xg2 ig7 the position is very complicated.) 1 6 . . . Wd7 Black's idea is 1 7 . . . Wc6.

14 ... ttJd7 Black has other options as well, but none of

them seem good enough:

1 4 . . . e5? ! is positionally dubious, as after 1 5 .dxe5 dxe5 1 6.lDd3! 1'l:e8 17.lDc5 White has exactly what he wants: clear positional pressure, Blazik - Camper, corr. 1 999.

14 .. . g5?! This obviously weakens the black king. 1 5 .lDd3 h6 1 6.id2 g4?! Certainly it

Chapter 26 - 6 . . . iDc6 & 7 . . . �b8 425

was better not to weaken the kingside even more. 1 7.hxg4 iDxg4 In Szekely - Pecorelli Garcia, Havana 200 1 , White had the strong 1 8 .d5 iDd4 1 9.iDxd4 �xd4 20.�h3!± with an obvious advantage.

lS.dS!? An interesting try, but it was also worth

considering not clarifying the position and just developing normally with 1 5 .�e3.

lS ... exdS 16.liJxdS �e8 17 . .igS 'lWe8 Black cannot solve his problems tactically:

1 7 . . . ttJd4 1 8 .ttJxd4 Wxg5 1 9.1tk6 �xc6 20.Wxc6 White has significant pressure.

18.�ac1 The following encounter was a very exciting

battle:

18 ... �a8 19.b3 �aS 20.'lWd2 liJeS 21 .liJh2! A fine attacking idea - the knight is heading

for g4, from where it will help launch a strong offensive.

21 ...liJeS White is also better after 2 1 . . .h5 22.�f6, due

to the weakness of Black's b4-pawn.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h 22.liJf6t!

White plays for an attack. He could grab a pawn with 22.ttJxb4, but after 22 . . . Wa8 all

Black's pieces are very active and he has fine compensation.

22 ... hf6 23.hf6 liJed3 After 23 . . . ttJcd7 24.�xe5 gaxe5 25 .Wxb4

White stays a pawn up.

24.'lWh6 liJe6 This interesting position was reached in J .

Horton - Vorobiev, e-mail 2006. White has various tempting lines and one very strong option is:

2S.liJg4!N

a b c d e f g h

2S ... �hS 25 . . . ttJxe l 26.�b2 leads to an immediate

disaster.

26.'lWd2 liJxe1 27J�xel White's powerful attack more than

compensates for Black's material advantage.

Conclusion:

The first point to note is that the 7 . . . �b8 line requires a different answer from White than the related 7 . . . a6 system. In this case I recommend 8.h3. The critical variation is line C4: 8 . . . a6 9.e4 b5 1 0.cxb5 axb5 when I believe l l .ge l !? offers White good chances.


6 . . . c6

Variation Index l .d4 lL1f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 i.g7 4.i.g2 0-0 5.lLIc3 d6 6.lLIB c6

7.0-0 A) 7 ... lLIa6 B) 7 • • . �b6 C) 7 ... i.f5 8.lLIel

Cl) 8 ... e5 C2) 8 ... i.e6

D) 7 ... a6 E) 7 ... i.g4 F) 7 ... �a5 8.e4

Fl) 8 ... i.g4 9.h3 i.xf3 10.i.xf3 Fl l ) 1O • • • lLIbd7 F12) 10 ... lLIfd7 F13) 10 ... e5

F2) 8 ... �h5 F3) 8 ... e5 9.h3

F3 1) 9 ... exd4 F32) 9 ... lLIbd7 10J:�el

F321) 10 .. J:�e8 F322) 1O • • • exd4

427 430 432 434 436 437 440 440 441 441 442 445 445 448 449 45 1 452 454

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 427

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 .tg7 4 . .tg2 0-0 S.ltJc3 d6 6.�f3 c6

Black keeps a great variety of options open with this flexible move.

7.0-0

a b c d e f g h

This is the basic starting position of the present chapter. Black's main options are as follows: A) 7 ... ltJa6, B) 7 ... Wfb6, C) 7 . . • if5, D) 7 ... a6, E) 7 ... .tg4 and F) 7 . . • WfaS.

7 . . . ltJbd7 8.e4 e5 takes us to Chapter 28 or 29.

7 . . . ie6

he now appears to have given it up may tell us something about its objective merits . . .

8.e4 eS Other options are not very attractive for

Black: 8 . . . .tg4

Despite the fact that in 200) out of 2 1 games White opted for the natural 9.h3, I still prefer:

9 . .te3 The idea is to continue normal development by means of 'IWd2, without wasting time on h2-h3. I only found one practical example, which continued:

9 . . . 'lWd7 1 0.1"i:e1 Ci:Jc7 We can see the point of White's previous move after 1 0 . . . .th3 l 1 .e5! ixg2 1 2.�xg2 Ci:Jg4 1 3 . .tf4 dxe5 14 .dxe5 and Black's knight is obviously misplaced on g4. This position occurred in Schmitz - Suedel, Corr. 1 986.

8

7

6

5

This thematic move does not make much 4

sense in this particular situation. White gets 3

better chances with simple play: 2

8.d5 cxd5 9.cxd5 ig4 L;-,,/-="_

If 9 . . . id7 I suggest 1 0 . .te3 Ci:Ja6 l 1 .id4 'lWa5 1 2.e4 with better chances. a b c d e f g h

1 0.Ci:Jd4 Ci:Ja6 l 1 .h3 id7 1 2 . .te3 Ci:Jc5 l 1 .e5!N Krueger - Tarde!, Germany 2002. Here I recommend:

1 3.b4!?N Ci:Ja6 14 .'lWb3 White's spatial superiority gives him a

definite edge.

A) 7 ... ltJa6

This move has been played a few times by Viore! Bologan, a King's Indian expert. The fact that

This would have given White excellent chances, for instance:

1 1 . . .dxe5 1 2.Ci:Jxe5 ixd 1 1 3.Ci:Jxd7 Ci:Jxd7 14 .1"i:axd 1

With a stable advantage thanks to the bishop pair.

8 . . . ltJc7 9.h3 1"i:b8 This is a rather slow plan, which allows White

to obtain better prospects by simple means.


1 0.a4 a6 1 1 .a5 d5 After 1 1 . . .lLld7 1 2.ie3 e6 1 3.Wd2 Black has a very passive position and his attempt to get some counterplay on the queenside backfired: 1 3".b5 1 4.axb6 lLlxb6 1 5 .b3 lLld7 16.!'i:fb l and Black only succeeded in creating weaknesses in his pawn formation, Bui Vinh - Duong Thuong, Dong Thap 2004.

1 2.e5 lLld7 1 2" .lLle4 13 .lLla4 does not solve Black's problems either.

1 3 .We2 b5 Guldberg - Em. Petersen, Aalborg 1 995. I do not see any point in opening any lines on the queens ide, and thus recommend:

a b c d e f g h 1 4.c5!N

This seems pretty obvious. Here is an illustrative line:

14" .lLle6 1 5 .id2 !'i:e8 1 6.lLla2! Heading for the ideal b4-square.

1 6" .f6 1 7.lLlb4 ib7 1 8 .exf6 exf6 1 9.!'i:fe l White's chances are clearly higher, especially

in the long term, as Black is tied to the defence of his a6- and c6-pawns.

9.h3 This is a standard prophylactic move. White

not only prevents a possible " .ig4, but also secures the e3-square for his bishop.

9 . . . Wb6

This is Black's main idea. He wishes to exert pressure in the centre, while inhibiting the development of the c l -bishop, which must stay at home at least temporarily in order to guard b2.

After 9".exd4 1 o.lLlxd4 !'i:e8 1 1 .ie3 lLlc5 1 2.Wc2 we reach a well known position, that will be examined via the 6".lLlbd7 move order in Line 02 of Chapter 28.

a b c d e f g h

lO .. . exd4 We should also consider

1 0" .!'i:e8 In this case I recommend the thematic:

1 1 .d5 Blocking the centre often proves an effective response to the rook's arrival on e8. With the centre closed, Black's last move becomes worse than useless as the rook would prefer to be on f8 to support the " .0-f5 break.

1 1 " .id7 Not the most accurate, but even after the superior 1 l . . . cxd5 1 2.cxd5 id7 1 3.!'i:b l ! White gets a favourable position, thanks to the misplaced queen on b6.

1 2 .ie3! White seized the opportunity to develop

with gain of tempo in Barsov - Gofshtein,

Chapter 27 - G . . . cG 429

Hoogeveen 1 999. Black was forced to retreat to c7, as after 1 2 .. :�xb2? 1 3 .lZla4 'l&a3 1 4 . .ic l �b4 1 5 . .id2 'l&xc4 (or 1 5 . . . 'I&a3 1GJ:%e3) 16 . .ifl Black's queen is trapped.

1 1 .ttJxd4 �e8 There are a few other options:

1 l . . .ttJd7 Now I found a new concept for White.

a b c d e f g h 1 2.ttJde2! ?N

Obviously I was not satisfied with White's play in the following encounter, where Black got a great position: 1 2.ttJc2 ttJe5 1 3 . .ie3 'l&a5 14 . .ifl .ie6 1 5 .ttJa3 'l&b4 Trifunovic Bekker Jensen, Widey 1 999.

1 2 . . . tLJe5 Another line is 1 2 . . . 'I&b4 13 . .if4 'l&xc4 (if 1 3 ... tLJe5 1 4.b3 White keeps everything under control) 1 4.b3 (less clear would be 1 4.'I&xd6 �e8) 14 . . . 'I&e6 And now White is better after both 1 5 .�xd6 tLJe5 1 6.�ad l;!; and 1 5 . .ixd6 �d8 1 6.ttJf4 'l&e8 ( 1 6 . . . 'I&f6 runs into 1 7.e5! with the following tactical justification: 1 7 . . . tLJxe5? 1 8 . .ixe5 �xd 1 1 9.�axd l 'l&g5 20.h4 and White wins) 1 7.'I&c2 tLJe5 1 8.�adl;!;

1 3.b3 tLJc5 1 4 . .ie3 tLJed3 1 5 .�fl Black's activity has come to an end, while

White will slowly drive Black's knight ftom d3 away by means of 'l&d2 followed by �ad l .

1 l . . .ttJg4 1 2.hxg4 'l&xd4 The alternative does not solve Black's problems either. 1 2 . . . .ixd4 1 3 . .ie3 .ixe3 14.�xe3 .ie6 (The b2-pawn is untouchable: 14 . . . 'I&xb2? 1 5 .�bl 'l&a3 1 6.tLJa4 'l&xa2 17 . .ifl ! and Black is helpless against the coming �al or �b2) 1 5 .b3 ( l 5 . .ifl ! ? �ad8 16.�b 1 followed by b2-b4 comes into consideration as well) 1 5 . . . �ad8 1 6.'I&e2 tLJc5 This position occurred in Medic -Rogic, Bled 1 997, and now I like 1 7.g5N ttJd7 1 8 .f4;1; with a small but stable edge.

1 3 .'I&e2 .ie6 1 4 . .ifl 'l&b6 1 5 . .if4 �ad8 16.�ad l;!;

White is in control, Tregubov - Iskusnyh, Novgorod 1 997.

Returning to the main line, here I found a promising new idea:

12 . . . .ie6 I also examined 1 2 . . . tLJd7 1 3 . .ie3 'l&b4

14 . .ifl tLJdc5 1 5 .�c l with the possible continuation 1 5 . . . tLJa4 1 6.a3 tLJxc3 1 7.�xc3! 'l&a4 1 8 . .id4 with better chances for White.

13 . .ie3 cS


If 13 .. :�c7 14.We2 White has a comfortable position.

14.i.f1 ttJd7 15J.%bl ttJe5 16.tLld2� White's army is much better mobilized for

further battle.

B) 7 ... Wfb6

This move recently became popular.

8.b3 One of the main replies to Black's system

and in my opinion the most promising one.

8 ... e5 Black has two other popular options:

8 . . . Wa5 The whole idea of transferring the queen to h5 at the cost of a tempo seems somewhat artificial.

9.ib2 9.Wd2 is more popular, but I do not see any reason to refrain from the natural development of the bishop.

9 . . . Wh5 1 0.e4 ig4 I also examined 1 0 . . . ih3 when 1 1 .l:!el ! is very strong, intending to push the e-pawn. 1 1 . . .ltlg4 (after 1 1 . . .ixg2 1 2.�xg2 e5 1 3.h3 Black's queen is misplaced on h5) 1 2.ltlh4 ixg2 1 3 .cj;>xg2 and Black achieves nothing.

I l .Wd3 ltlbd7 1 2.ltlh4! This ambitious move underlines the misplacement of Black's kingside pieces. Too soft is 1 2.l:!fe l e5, Roiz - Carlsen, Rishon Le Zion (blitz) 2006.

1 2 . . . e5

1 3 .h3!N This move is stronger than 1 3.f3 ie6 1 4.ltle2 as played in Friedrich - Lorscheid, Wuerttemberg 1 995.

1 3 . . . ie6 1 4.d5 Now the following line looks more or less forced:

1 4 . . . ltlc5 1 5 .Wd2 cxd5 1 6.cxd5 ih6 1 6 . . . id7 runs into the unexpected 1 7.ic 1 ! and Black has to give u p the g-pawn i n order to defend against the threat of if3.

1 7.Wc2 ixh3 Obviously 1 7 . . . id7? loses to 1 8.if3.

1 8.ixh3 g5 1 9.1tlf5! Wxh3 20.f3 Despite being temporarily a pawn up, Black's position is very difficult to handle, for instance:

20 . . . g4 2 1 .l:!f2!+-Black is helpless against the threat of

22.l:!h2.

8 ... ltlbd7 9.e4 e5 1 0.l:!e1 In my opinion this is the critical l ine. It is harder to achieve anything after 1 0.d5 ltlc5 I l .ie3 cxd5. I t is worth pointing out that there is no transposition to Chapter 29 here.

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 43 1

True, the present position could easily be reached via the move order 6 . . . lLlbd7 7.0-0 e5 B.e4 c6 9.Ei:e1 "Wb6 1 0.b3. However, in Chapter 29 I recommend 9.h3 instead of 9.Ei:e l .

1 0 . . . exd4 1 l .lLla4 Despite White's high score after 1 1 .lLlxd4, I believe Black should be fine after 1 1 . . .lLlg4!.

1 1 . . ."Wa5 1 2.lLlxd4

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . Ei:eB Another direction is 1 2 ... lLlg4 13 .�b2 lLlc5 1 4.�c3 "WdB 1 5 .lLlxc5 ( l 5 .lLlb2!? also deserves serious consideration; it is often a good idea to avoid exchanges, as White has an obvious space edge. Play might continue 1 5 . . . a5 1 6.h3 lLlf6 1 7."Wc2 Ei:eB I B.Ei:ad l ;!; and White keeps better chances.) 1 5 . . . dxc5 1 6.lLle2 This type of position is favourable for White, as Black has insufficient activity to compensate his worse pawn structure, as demonstrated by the following encounter. 1 6 . . . �xc3 1 7.lLlxc3 �e6 (Knaak correctly indicates in ChessBase Magazine 25 that Black gets a worse endgame after 1 7 . . . "Wd4 1 B."Wxd4 cxd4 1 9.1Lla4 and Black's central pawn is rather weak. Still, this was the lesser evil.) 1 B.h3 lLle5 1 9.f4± and White clearly obtained the upper hand in Greenfeld -Fishbein, Beer-Sheva 1 99 1 .

1 3.�b2 lLlc5 14 .�c3 "Wc7 1 5 .lLlxc5 This time 1 6.lLlb2 is not an option as the e-pawn is hanging.

1 5 . . . dxc5 1 6.lLlc2 lLlh5 We have reached a similar position to that examined after 1 2 . . . lLlg4. The present version is an improved version for Black, but this still does not enable him to equalize.

1 7.�xg7 lLlxg7 I B ."Wd2 f5 ! ? The best chance. If I B . . . �e6 1 9."Wc3 Ei:adB 20.Ei:ad l Ei:xd1 2 l .Ei:xdl Ei:dB 22.Ei:d2:t White keeps a small but long-lasting edge thanks to his better pawn structure.

1 9 .Ei:ad l fxe4 20.Ei:xe4 �f5 2 l .Ei:xe8t Ei:xe8 22.lLle3 �c8

We are following the game Kurajica - Prie, Debrecen 1 992. Now I propose the following modest improvement:

a b c d e f g h 23.h3N lLle6

White's advantage is significant after 23 . . . lLlf5 24.lLlxf5 �xf5 25.g4! �cB 26.Ei:el .

24.lLlg4 Ei:d8 25 ."We1 Ei:xd l 26."Wxdl ;!; White keeps a slight edge, and can follow

the simple plan of exchanging as many pieces as possible.

9.d5 Although this has only been White's sixth(!)

most popular choice, I believe it to be the most ambitious continuation, which emphasizes the misplaced position of the queen on b6.

9 . . . cxd5 Another important line goes:


9 . . . e4 1 0.ttJg5 I did not discover any advantage for White after 1 0.ttJd4 ttJxd5! .

1 0 . . . cxd5 Clearly worse is 1 O . . . �f5? ! 1 1 .ie3 Wl'd8 1 2.ttJgxe4 ttJxe4 1 3.ttJxe4 �xe4 14.�xe4 Wl'e7 1 5 .�g2 ixa l 1 6.WI'xa l ± and White has powerful compensation for the exchange, Razuvaev - Filippov, Novgorod 1 995.

a b c d e f g h 1 1 .cxd5N

This transposes to the main line below (9 . . . cxd5 1 0.cxd5 e4 1 1 .ttJg5) .

The com plications after 1 1 .�e3 WI' a5! Dizdar ) . Horvath, Austria 1 998, look very unclear to me, although it is obvious that White should have reasonable compensation after: 1 2.ttJxd5 ttJxd5 1 3.cxd5 �xa 1 14 .WI'xa 1�

lO.cxdS Black is doing fine after l O.ttJxd5 ttJxd5

1 1 .WI'xd5 e4!.

lO ... e4 1 1 .1tJgSN I believe this is more challenging than

1 1 .ttJd4, Matnadze - Dacalor, Parras 1 999, 1 l . . .ttJg4!N 12 .e3 f5 and Black has fully adequate play.

1 1 . .. ltJg4 12.ib2 e3 13.£3 The position is rather complex, but I believe

White has the advantage, as he is better developed and the e3-pawn is a serious targer.

8 ��.i. ��*m -¥" . . � �� . . . . Y-• • V� 7 � i _ _ i � i 6 . . . . . . � �_ �m" %_ 5 ." -zm'lszm �m � 4 � m . . m 'mi� 3 � 8 � _ 8 D 2 8 wii mlszm��

�"-"%_-I�. �F'i["" .. Y- � �� a b c d e f g h

13 ... 1tJf6 We should also consider 1 3 . . . ttJf2 1 4.WI'c l h6

1 5 .ttJge4 ttJxe4 1 6.fxe4 (less clear is 16 .ttJxe4 �f5!) 1 6 . . . ttJd7 1 7.ttJa4 �xb2 1 8.ttJxb2 ttJe5 1 9J�b l ! White prepares ttJc4, fol lowed by recapturing with the b-pawn, if Black swaps the knights. It looks like Black cannot keep his e3-pawn, for instance: 1 9 . . . �g4 20.ttJc4 ttJxc4 2 1 .bxc4 Wl'd4 22J'%d l Wl'c5 23 .i'!b5 Wl'c7 24.WI'xe3 with an advantage.

14.ltJa4 \Wa6 14 . . . WI'd8 1 5 .�d4;t

lS.�d4 ltJbd7 16.ltJc3 h6 17.ltJge4 White maintains the advantage.

C) 7 ... �f5

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 27 - 6."c6 433

Recently a fashionable choice.

8.ttJe1 In my opinion this is White's best chance

to fight for an opening advantage. The idea is very simply to play e2-e4 with tempo.

Now we have Cl) 8 . . . eS and C2) 8 . . . �e6.

8 . . . d5 This could be a good idea - unless there is a concrete problem . . .

9.%%3! Attacking both the d5- and b7- pawns.

9 . . . %%6 1 0.cxd5 cxd5 The most tenacious. White's task is much easier after I 0 . . . 'Wxb3 1 l .axb3 cxd5 1 2.l2lxd5 l2lc6 1 3 .l2lxf6t ixf6 14.e3 �fd8 1 5 .id2 ie6, Leibbrand - Walther, Germany 1 992, and now the simple 1 6.�a3N would just keep a healthy extra pawn.

1 l .l2lxd5 l2lxd5 12 .ixd5 l2lc6 13 .e3 e5 1 4.dxe5 ixe5 1 5 .l2lf3 if6

This was Bentzen - E. Mortensen, Denmark 1 99 1 . Now I like:

a b c d e f g h

1 6.e4!?N 'Wxb3 1 7.axb3 ig4 1 8 .<tt>g2± Although Black has some activity, I can hardly

believe he can claim sufficient compensation for being a pawn down.

8 . . . 'Wd7 Sometimes Black prefers 8 . . . 'Wc8, which will

quickly transpose.

9.e4 ih3 1 0.ixh3!? White usually Opts for 1 0.f3 or 1 0.ttJd3, but the text seems to me very logical, despite only having been played a couple of times in practice. The main point is that Black's queen is diverted from the queenside, forcing the second player to expend one more tempo to prepare . . . b7-b5. White hardly needs to worry about Black's attacking chances, as he can always drive the queen away with l2ld3-f2 if necessary.

1 0 . . . 'Wxh3 1 l .f3 l2la6 1 2.l2ld3 'Wd7 Black was probably already worried about ideas of g4 with the aim of trapping the queen.

1 3 .ie3 White can also consider 1 3 .a4!?N preventing the . . . b7-b5 advance.

1 3 . . . b5 Another game went 1 3 . . . l2le8 1 4.a4 l2lec7 1 5 .�a3!? l2le6 1 6.d5 cxd5 17.exd5 l2lec5 1 8.l2lxc5 dxc5 1 9. 'W d2± wi th better chances for White, Chiburdanidze - Foisor, Gothenburg 2005.

1 4.cxb5 cxb5 This position occurred in Cvitan - Loncar, Tucepi 1 996. Now I developed the following play for White:

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .'Wb3!N l2lc7

Much worse for Black is 1 5 . . . �ab8?! 1 6.d5! �fc8 1 7.a4! b4 1 8 .l2le2 with an obvious positional advantage.


1 6.Elfc 1 Elfc8 17.Elc2 lLle6 1 8.Elac 1 a6 1 9.1Lle2:i::

White enjoys a pleasant positional edge, thanks to his spatial superiority.

Cl) 8 . . . eS 9.dS adS lO.adS

a b c d e f g h

1O . . . lLla6 There are two interesting alternatives:

1 0 . . . a5 Black takes some space on the queenside, bur at the same time weakens the b5-square.

1 1 .lLlc2! Immediately heading towards the newly created outpost.

1 1 . . .lLla6 1 2.lLla3 Elc8 13 .�d2 Also interesting is 1 3.�e3 lLld7 (If 13 . . . lLlg4 then 1 4 . .id2 and Black's knight is misplaced on g4. I also examined 1 3 . . . lLlc5 14.lLlc4 with the idea 1 4 . . . lLlce4 1 5 .�b3 lLlxc3 1 6.bxc3 and White is better, due to the Black's weak pawns on the queenside.) 1 4.lLlcb5 lLlb6 Ilincic -Khmelniker, Budapest 2004. Now after the simple 1 5 .�d2!?N lLlb4 1 6.Elfc 1 White has a serious initiative on the queenside.

1 3 . . . lLlc5 Somewhat stronger would have been 1 3 . . . lLlb4, although here after 1 4.Elc 1 �b6 1 5 .b3! with the idea of lLlc4 White's chances are somewhat preferable.

1 4.lLlc4 Black's last move blocked the c-file, thus facilitating the text move. The second knight will look to jump to b5 under favourable circumstances.

1 4 . . . lLlce4 If 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 .�g5! h6 1 6.�xf6 �xf6 1 7.lLlb5 White gets a stable edge.

1 5 .lLlxe4 Elxc4 1 6.lLlxf6t �xf6 1 7.�b3 �c7 This looks like a blunder, but Black's problem was that 1 7 . . . Elc2 was not really working, because after 1 8.�h6 he loses an exchange, due to White's threat of e4.

1 8 .�xa5± White just won a pawn, Quinteros -

Hansson, Reykjavik 1 986.

1 0 . . . �d7 1 1 .e4 �h3 As usual in these types of positions, White should not be too concerned about the exchange of light-squared bishops. In return he gets a few important tempos to kick-start his initiative on the queenside.

1 2.lLld3 �xg2 1 2 . . . lLla6 1 3.f3 �xg2 14.�xg2 would just transpose. Black can hardly benefit by delaying the exchange indefinitely.

1 3.cj;Jxg2 lLlaG 14.f3 Elfc8 Black chooses a passive strategy, because the desirable idea of carrying out . . . f7 -f5 is not really working: 1 4 . . . lLlh5 1 5 .g4! and the thematic pawn sacrifice 1 5 . . . lLlf4t I G.lLlxf4 exf4 1 7.�xf4 f5 gets nowhere after 1 8.exf5 gxf5 1 9.95.

1 5 .�e3 lLle8 1 6.a4 Preparing the lLlb5 jump.

IG . . . lLlc5 Tondivar - Van der Veen, Hoogeveen 2007. Now I would continue:

1 7.lLlxc5!N dxc5 1 8.a5! lLld6 1 9.�a4 The well placed knight on dG does not solve

all of Black's problems here. He still suffers from a passive bishop and slightly vulnerable queenside pawns.

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 435

11 .e4 id7 There is also:

1 1 . . .ig4 1 2.f3 id7 1 3 .ie3 With the pawn on f3 White should hurry to establish control over the gl -a7 diagonal in order to avoid a possible check on b6.

13 . . . 4Jh5 This position occurred in Marnadze -Zozulia, Parras 1 999. Now White has to react quickly, as Black intends to get some activity by means of . . . f5 and . . . 4Jf6.

a b c d e f g h

1 4.Wb3!N Now Black has no comfortable way of defending the b-pawn. In the game she obtained a reliable position after 1 4.4Jd3 f5 1 5 .Wd2 4Jf6.

14 . . . b6 1 5 .Wa3! 4Jc5 1 6.b4 4Jb7 1 7.Wa6 White seizes the initiative on the queenside.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12 ... \WaS I also examined two other options here:

1 2 . . . We7 This is not really a "King's Indian move", but anyway it is a pleasure to follow Kasparov's play in the following example:

1 3.a4 1%fcS 1 4.id2 4Jc5 1 5 .4Jxc5 1%xc5 1 6.a5 Gaining more space and preparing the unpleasant Wb3.

1 6 ... WdS 1 7.Wb3 4Jg4?! This was a rapid game, so it is understandable that Adams misjudged something. He should have gone for 1 7 . . . 1%xa5 l S .1%xa5 Wxa5 1 9.Wxb7 WdS, although after 20.Wa6 White would keep better chances.

I S .h3 ih6 19 .ixh6 4Jxh6 20.Wxb7 White has a healthy exrra pawn, Kasparov

Adams, New York (rapid) 1 995 .

12 . . . b5 This is a double-edged move. Black gets some space on the queenside, but at the same time weakens some squares.

1 3.a3 Wb6 Badea - Scalcione, Nereto 2000. Now developed the following line for White:


1 7.tL'la2 1'!acB IB .Wd2 White enjoys a pleasant advantage.

13.id2 1'!fc8

14.1'!cl !N The most natural and I believe White's best

continuation. Up to now he has tried only 1 4.b4 and 14.a3.

14 ... '&d8 1 4 . . . b5 can be met comfortably by 1 5 .a3.

1S .'&b3 1'!ab8 16.'&a3 '&£8 17.0 White has every chance to develop his

initiative on the queenside, while Black is doomed to passivity.

C2) 8 ... ie6 9.b3

Another continuation is 9.d5 cxd5 1 0.cxd5 id7, but here I failed to find an advantage for White. It seems that Black's activity on the queenside fully makes up for White's extra space.

9 ... dS 1O.cxdS tL'lxdS 1 1 .ib2 tDxc3 Inferior is 1 1 . . . f5 1 2.tL'la4 tL'ld7 13 .tL'ld3

b6 14.e3 1'!cB 1 5 .1'!c 1 tL'l7f6 16 .We2 with a pleasant edge for White, Badea - Vaidya, Odorheiu Secuiesc 1 992.

12.ixc3

a b c d e f g h

12 ... tDa6

. In case of 1 2 . . . tL'ld7 I found the following

Ime: 1 3.tL'ld3N ( 1 3.e4 allows Black to solve his problems easily by means of 1 3 . . . c5! 1 4.1'!c1 cxd4 1 5 .ixd4 Wa5, Drasko - Roiz, Internet 2004.) The justification for White's last move is seen after the critical 1 3 . . . c5 1 4.tL'lf4! ig4 1 5 .h3 cxd4 1 6.ixd4 e5 1 7.hxg4 exd4 1 B .ixb7 1'!bB 1 9.if3 and White keeps an extra pawn.

Another line is: 12 . . . WcB 1 3.1'!c 1 1'!dB 1 4.e3 ih3 1 5 .Wc2 ixg2 1 6.'it>xg2

1 6.tL'lxg2!? might be an interesting alternative.

1 6 . . . tL'ld7 17.tL'lf3 Wc7 If 1 7 . . . tL'lf6 White can play 1 B .1'!fe l followed by e4.

I B.1'!fd l 1'!acB 1 9.e4 e6 111is is a more or less rypical position that might arise in this line. White has more space, but Black remains very solid. The following eXan1ple illustrates the ideas for both sides:

20.id2 The bishop has better prospects on the c1 -h6 diagonal.

20 . . . Wd6 2 1 .ig5 f6 This is already a pleasing sight for White; o�viously the pawn on f6 restricts the g7-bishop and exposes the black king slightly.

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 437

22.ie3 liJb6 This position was reached in Cvitan - Tratar, Rabac 2003. Here I found a way to improve White's play:

23.a4!N f5 24.if4 \Mia3 25.gel The game is very complicated, but White

retains the better chances.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h 13J3cl!N

This natural move seems to be White's best.

So far White only seems to have tried 1 3.e3 id5 1 4.gc 1 (After 1 4.e4 ie6 Black's pressure against the d4-pawn gives him good play, for instance 1 5 .\Mid2 CiJc7 16.gd l CiJb5 17 .ib2 \Mib6) 14 . . . ixg2 1 5 .mxg2 \Mid5t 1 6.\Mif3 \Mixf3t 1 7.<;!?xf3 and here the draw was agreed in Mikhalchishin - Tratar, 5ibenik 2007.

1 3 ... liJc7 14.e3 id5 I also examined 14 . . . CiJb5 1 5 .ib2 id5

1 6.CiJd3 (After 1 6.f3 I found 16 . . . ih6! a bit annoying) 16 . . . ixg2 1 7.mxg2 \Mid5t I B .f3;1; with a slight pull.

1 5.e4 The most ambitious, although also possible

is: 1 5 .CiJd3 ixg2 1 6.mxg2 a5 1 7.\Mic2 with slight space advantage in the centre.

1 5 ... ie6 16.a4!? Preventing a possible knight jump to b5.

16 ... f5!? This is not forced, but it is certainly the

most principled way for Black to play. Against quieter responses White's strong centre would guarantee a pleasant edge.

17.ltJd3 fxe4 l S.ltJc5 gbS 19.1tJxe4 ltJd5 2o.ib2�

I regard White's position as preferable, as he can easily generate pressure along the e-file.

D) 7 ... a6

This is not a popular option at grandmaster level, but it has still been tried many times i n practice.

S.e4 b5 9.e5 The most challenging idea.

a b c d e f g h

9 ... ltJeS Black has a few other possibilities:

9 . . . CiJfd7 This looks like the natural retreat, but may in fact be the inferior option.

1 0.if4 b4 1 0 . . . dxe5 I l .dxe5 CiJc5 1 2.\MixdB gxdB 1 3 .gfd l geB 14.liJd4 leads to a very unpleasant position for Black. 10 . . . CiJb6 runs into the strong I l .c5! dxc5


1 2 .dxc5 �xd l 1 3 .l'%fxdl ttJ6d7 1 4.ttJe4 and again Black is under serious pressure.

I l .ttJa4 dxe5 1 2.dxe5 Wa5 1 3 .l'%e 1 ttJb6 14 .ttJxb6 �xb6 1 5 .ie3± White has a clear positional edge, Kveinys - Edvardsson, Reykjavik 2007.

9 . . . dxe5 1 0.ttJxe5 bxc4 I l .ttJxc4 ie6 1 2 .ttJe5 id5

8 E ar � ��.� 7 �y • • • • •• • X_iV-� { 6 r� r� . ·"%.·i�� 5 �

��!rn"""� 4 �� ...... ��.

3 � ��f.'%· ·J.�Wlfr � �: . . }� 2 8 ��f' • Dj,� ._····%�;�;.lf=···· a b c d e f g h

1 3 .ttJxd5N Despite repairing Black's pawn structure, I believe White should take the opportunity for this favourable swap. Black has got a reasonable position after 1 3.�a4 ixg2 14 .Wxg2 ttJd5, Mednis -Pacis, Manila 1 99 1 .

1 3 . . . cxd5 1 4.ie3 e6 1 5 .l'%c l �b6 Black is not helped by 1 5 . . . ttJbd7 16 .�a4 ttJxe5 1 7.dxe5 ttJd7 1 8.f4 ttJb6 1 9.�d4 ttJc4 20.if2 intending 2 1 .b3.

1 6.�c2 ttJbd7 17.�c6 White has clearly better chances.

1O.�e2 bxc4 Black has tried some other moves as well:

1 O . . . ttJc7 1 1 .l'%d 1 bxc4 (After l l . . .d5 1 2 .b3 h6, Spassov - Krnic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 984, White can obtain a clear positional advantage with: 1 3 .ie3!N ie6 1 4.�d2 Wh7 1 5 .cxd5 ttJxd5 1 6.l'%ac l ) 1 2.�xc4 ie6 1 3.�a4 h6 1 4.if4 g5 1 5 .id2 �d7 1 6.h4 g4 17.ttJe 1 l'%a7 1 8.ttJd3

and White was much better in Zhidkov - S. Farago, Budapest 2003.

1 0 . . . ig4 I l .h3!? Less convincing is I I .if4 ttJc7, Itkis - Badea, Bucharest 1 996.

1 1 . . .ixf3 1 2.ixf3 bxc4 Black had better grab a pawn, otherwise he will just have a bad position; the combination of advancing the queenside pawns followed by exchanging the light-squared bishop does not make a favourable impression. For instance, after 1 2 . . . ttJc7 1 3 .ie3 dxe5 14.dxe5 ixe5 1 5 .l'%ad l �c8 1 6.ih6 ig7 17.ixg7 c;t>xg7 1 8.�xe7± Black's position looks horrible.

1 3.�xc4 dxe5 14 .dxe5 ixe5 1 5 .l'%d l

a b c d e f g h White has powerful compensation for the missing pawn, thanks to his pair of bishops and Black's vulnerable queenside structure.

1 5 . . . �a5 1 6.id2 ig7 This allows an elegant idea. Relatively best would have been 1 6 . . . �c7, although after 1 7.l'%acl l'%a7 1 8 .�e2! ttJf6 1 9. ttJa4 White maintains excellent compensation for the pawn. His chances are clearly better.

1 7.ttJd5! cxd5 Maybe Black was planning 1 7 . . . �d8, but after 1 8 .if4! cxd5 1 9.ixd5 ttJd6 20.ixd6 l'%a7 2 1 .ia3 l'%d7 22.l'%ac l White's advantage is obvious.

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 439

1 8.�xa5 dxc4 1 9.�xa8 tZJd6 20.�d2± White convincingly converted his material

advantage in Terreaux - Weiss, internet 2003.

1 1 .'Wxc4 This is the main position in the present line.

1 1 . . .tZJc7 1 2.exd6 exd6 1 3.�g5 iWd7 1 4.�fe l ! ? (This looks better than 1 4.d5 tZJxd5 1 5 .tZJxd5 cxd5 1 6.iWxd5 �b7 1 7.iWd2 tZJc6 with a playable position for Black, Csom - F. Portisch, Budapest 1 976.) 1 4 . . . d5 This was played in Thesing - Schoene Germany 1 997, and now after 1 5.iWa4N tZJe6 1 6.�e3 a5 1 7.�acl �b7 1 8 .tZJg5t White has definite pressure.

1 1 . . .�e6 1 2.iWa4 tZJc7 1 3.�el h6 1 4.exd6 exd6 1 5 .�f4 g5 was Ljavdansky - Suetin, Tall inn 1 965, and now the simple 1 6.�e3N iWd7 1 7.�acl would have maintained White's advantage.

1 1 . . .a5 1 2.�el �e6 ( l 2 . . . �a6 is hardly an improvement: 1 3 .'Wa4 d5 14 .�d2 'Wb6 1 5 .iWc2 and White's positional advantage is undisputable, Ruck - Suskovic, Zagreb 1 999.) 1 3 .'Wa4 tZJc7 This position occurred in

Dorfman - Kr. Georgiev, Warsaw 1 983. Now I suggest:

a b c d e f g h 1 4.exd6!?N exd6 1 5 .�f4 iWd7 1 6.�acl maintaining the pressure.

12.'Wa4 ttJc7 13.�e3 ttJb5 14,l'!ac1 ttJd7 15.'Wc2

Intending to follow with tZJa4.

15 . . . ttJb6 16.b3 It is essential to take control over the c4-

square, thus restricting the knight on b6.

16 ... a5 This occurred in Lempert - Kozlov, Moscow

1 990. The cleanest way for White would be:


E) 7 ... .ig4

Nowadays this is a rare guest in tournament practice and rightly so, as Black can hardly hope to equalize without his light-squared bishop.

8.h3 .ixB 9 . .ixB �bd7 The alternative is:

9 . . . e5 1 0.d5 c5 Closing the position also does not promise Black adequate play.

1 1 .e4 ctJaG Black has also tried 1 1 . . .ctJeS but without much success. 1 2.h4! This is the most effective way of fighting against the . . . £7-f5 advance. 1 2 .. .f5 1 3 .h5 f4 1 4.hxg6 hxg6 1 5 .i.g4 White's light-squared bishop effectively enters into the action. 1 5 . . . i.h6 1 6.i>g2 cj;>g7 1 7J�h 1 i.g5 111is was Sturua - Bioess, Hamburg 1 999. Now very strong would have been l S.'lWf3!N ctJf6 (Black cannot play 1 8 . . . fxg3 1 9.i.xg5 'lWxg5 20.l::1h7t! cj;>xh7 2 1 .'lWxf8 when he is helpless against the coming l::1h l .) 1 9.i.e6 ctJbd7 20.ctJe2 ctJh5 2 1 .l::1xh5! gxh5 22.i.f5 and White has a powerful initiative for the exchange.

1 2 .a3 ctJc7 1 3.cj;>g2 ctJd7 1 4.h4! Again we see this well known idea.

1 4 .. .f5 1 5 .h5 f4 1 6.hxg6 hxg6 1 7.i.d2 'lWg5 l S.l::1h 1 cj;>£7 1 9.b4 l::1hS 20.'lWa4! ctJb6 2 1 .'lWb3 l::1xh 1 22.l::1xh 1 ctJd7 23.l::1h4!±

White obtained a clear advantage in Tukmakov - Kiaric, Zadar 1 997.

10.e4 e5 1 1 .d5 c5 Having relinquished the bishop pair, Black

usually elects to close the position.

12. i> g2 The following game also provides a nice

illustration of White's chances: 1 2 .a3 cj;>hS 13 .h4 h5 Preventing h4-h5, but the problem

for Black is that . . . £7 -f5 is now practically impossible to achieve. Thus White can slowly prepare his play on the queenside without worrying about counterplay on the opposite flank. 14 .i.g5 ctJb6 1 5 .i.e2 'lWd7 1 6.cj;>g2 l::1aeS 1 7.b4 ctJh7 l S.i.e3 l::1c8 1 9 .bxc5 dxc5 20.a4 ctJf6 2 1 .'lWb3 ctJa8 22.a5± Rochev - Fox, Bunratty 200 1 .

1 2 ... �e8 13.h4 f5 14.h5 �ef6 15.l::1hl White i s steadily building the pressure.

Over the next few moves Black made a few unfortunate decisions and quickly fell into hopeless position, but his position would have been unenviable regardless.

1 5 . . • b:e4 16.�xe4 ctJxe4 17 . .ixe4 W'f6 1 8 . .ie3 g5 1 9.h6 .ixh6 20.W'h5

White is already winning, Georgiev - Illi, Lugano 1 9S6.

F) 7 ... W'a5

This is Black's most popular plan after 6 . . . c6.

8.e4 The main alternative is S.h3, but here instead

ofS . . . e5, which after 9.e4 transposes to line F3 below, Black has two interesting alternatives in S . . . i.e6 and S . . . 'lWa6.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 44 1

Here Black has three main moves: Fl) 8 ... ig4, F2) 8 .. J1tihS and F3) 8 ... eS .

S . . . ie6 It has already noted that this move was a respectable answer to S.h3, but in the present position it does not make a favourable impression.

9.d5 The most ambitious continuation.

9 . . . ig4 Black should refrain from capturing on d5, as after 9 .. . cxd5 1 0.exd5! the e7-pawn becomes an obvious target. l o . . . id7 I l .We2 �eS I 2.id2 WdS I3 .ie3 WcS I 4.�ac 1 4Jg4 1 5 .id4 e5 I 6.dxe6 �xe6 I 7.Wd l ± and White's positional advantage is beyond any doubts, Badea - Teodorescu, Herculane 1 996.

1 0.h3 ixf3 I l .ixf3 �cS If 1 l . . .4Jbd7 1 2.id2 4Je5 1 3 .ie2± White keeps all his pluses.

I 2.id2 4Jfd7 I 3 .ie2 Wb6 I 4.�b I a5 I 5 .ie3 Wc7

This happened in Blagojevic - Arsovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 995. Now I found the following strong idea:

8

7

6

5

4

3 2

a b c d e f g h 1 6.h4!N 4Ja6

If I 6 . . . h5 Black should worry about I 7.g4!? hxg4 l s .ixg4 followed by h4-h5 . White has good chances to develop a dangerous offensive.

I 7.h5 4Jac5 I S.Wc2 White has an excellent position, with more

space, two bishops and active possibilities on both sides of the board.

Fl) 8 .. . ig4

I find it doubtful that Black can equalize by giving up his light-squared bishop.

9.h3 ixf3 1O.ixf3

Fll ) 10 ... ltJbd7 1 1 .'\1tfe2!?

This flexible continuation seems to me very interesting. The most popular move is I I .id, but after l l . . .c5 1 2.d5 Wb4 13 .Wb3 4Jb6 1 4.ie2 a5 Black has reasonable counterplay.

1 1 ...ltJe8 In case of 1 1 . . .e5 1 2.d5 cxd5 1 3.cxd5 a6

I4.id2 �fcS 1 5 .�fc 1 we reach a position from line F 1 3 . Meanwhile 1 1 . . .c5? runs into the strong 1 2.e5! and Black is in trouble.

12.gdl cS Another line is:

12 ... 4Jc7 I 3 .ie3 4Je6 1 4.ig2


I also found 14.j,g4!? quite interesting, with the idea to meet 14 . . . h5 with 1 5 .j,xe6 fxe6 1 6.e5! dxe5 1 7.d5� with promising compensation for the pawn.

1 4 .. J'l:fe8 1 5 .l'l:ac 1 c5 1 6.dxc5 lUdxc5 This is the position for which both sides were aiming. Black carried out the intended . . . c6-c5 and has won some space for his pieces, but White has mobilized his forces in almost optimal way and in my opinion obtained the better prospects, with a space advantage and pair of bishops. The following game is a good example:

1 7.l'l:c2 This modest move prepares the lUd5 jump, as the a2-pawn will now be untouchable in view of b2-b4, winning material.

17 . . . l'l:ac8 1 8 .lUd5 lUd7 19.b3 a6 Somewhat stronger would have been 1 9 . . . lUe5, although White retain better chances after 20.h4 lUc6 2 1 .j,h3.

20.h4 'Wd8 2 1 .h5 lUf6 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.j,h3 Black is under serious pressure, !zoria -

Banikas, Yerevan 2000.

13.dxcS bc3 I f 1 3 . . . lUxc5 White has the strong 1 4.b4!

'Wxb4 1 5.lUd5 'Wa4 1 6.lUxe7t �h8 17.l'l:b l with advantage.

14.cxd6 tLlxd6

lS.l'l:dS!?N This intermediate move is an improvement

over 1 5 .bxc3 lUe5 1 6.j,g2 lUexc4 and Black has a decent game, Baburin - Kaufman, New York 1 997.

lS ... ctJcS The alternative is 1 5 . . . b5 1 6.bxc3 'Wxc3

(If 1 6 . . . lUb6 17.c5 lUxd5 1 8 .exd5 lUc4 [ 1 8 . . . lUf5 19 .j,b2±] 1 9.j,h6 'Wxc3 20.l'l:el White has more than sufficient compensation for the exchange.) 1 7.j,b2 'Wxc4 1 8.'Wxc4 lUxc4 1 9.1'l:xd7 lUxb2 20.l'l:b l lUc4 2 1 .l'l:xb5 e6 22.l'l:c5 lUb6 23.l'l:b7 l'l:fb8 24.l'l:bc7 The endgame looks difficult for Black.

16.bxc3 �xc3 17.l'l:bl ! This i s much stronger than 17.j,b2 'Wxc4

1 8 .'Wxc4 lUxc4 19.1'l:xc5 lUxb2 20.l'l:b5 lUc4 2 1 .l'l:xb7 e6 when Black has good chances to hold the endgame.

17 ... l'l:ac8 18.j,h6 l'l:fd8 1 8 . . . l'l:fe8 19 .j,g4 lUe6 20.e5 lUxc4 2 1 .l'l:xb7

also leaves Black with some problems to solve.

1 9.1'l:bdl tLle6 20.j,g4! White keeps the initiative.

F12) 10 ... tLlfd7 1 1 .l'l:bl!

The more common 1 1 .j,e3 'Wb4 1 2.'Wb3 a5 looks less convincing to me.

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 443

1 1 ...c5 There are some alternatives:

1 l . . .'lWb4 1 2.i.e2 'lWb6 1 3.i.e3 100ks absolutely senseless, as Black just lost a few tempos jumping with his queen. White has clearly better chances, Aronian - Ahn, Batumi 1 999.

1 1 . . . a6 is very passive and allows White to seize the initiative. 1 2.b4 'lWc7 1 3.i.g5 1'%e8 14 .'lWd2 e5 1 5 .d5 a5 These moves occurred in A. Petrosian - Micic, Dortmund 1 998, and now I propose 1 6.b5!N with the following nice idea: 16 . . . c5 1 7.b6! lLlxb6 1 8.lLlb5 'lWd7 1 9.i.g4 f5 20.exf5 h5 2 1 .i.e2 gxf5 22.i.xh5 1'%f8 23.'lWe2 with a huge positional advantage.

l l . . .lLla6 1 2.a3 White insists on playing b2-b4.

12 . . . c5 This position has occurred a couple of times in practice. Now I found a nice improvement:

a b c d e f g h 1 3.dxc5!N 'lWxc5 14 .e5! I really like the idea of activating our lightsquared bishop.

1 4 . . . 'lWxc4 1 4 . . . lLlxe5 1 5 .i.xb 7 'lWxc4 1 6.i.xa8 1'%xa8 1 7.lLld5 can hardly promise Black any compensation for being the exchange down.

1 5 .exd6 exd6 1 6.i.xb7 1'%ab8 17.i.d5 'lWc8 1 8.lLle4

White enjoys a pleasant positional advantage,

thanks to his bishop pair and better pawn structure.

12.d5 ixc3 This is certainly a principled move, although

there are a number of alternatives.

1 2 . . . lLlb6 13 .i.e2 lLl8d7 14.a3! A strong and concrete approach. Less clear is 14 .'lWc2 lLle5.

14 . . . 'lWa6 This leads to passive position for Black. More critical would be 14 . . . i.xc3 1 5 .bxc3 'lWxc3 1 6.i.b2 'lWa5 keeping an extra pawn, although after 1 7.'lWcl � White has powerful compensation and a much easier position to handle in practice.

1 5 .lLlb5 This position was reached in Goldin - Har

Zvi, Rishon Le Zion 1 995. I believe this is the right moment to stOp and evaluate the situation on the board. White's chances are clearly preferable; he has two bishops and a space advantage, while the Black pieces are rather oddly placed on the queens ide.

1 2 . . . a6 This can be met strongly by:

1 3.i.e2! lLlf6 Black's problem is that the desirable 13 . . . b5 does not work out well after: 14.cxb5 axb5 1 5 .i.xb5 i.xc3 1 6.bxc3 'lWxc3 1 7.a4± Despite the material balance White's bishop pair should be the deciding factOr.

1 4.a4 'lWd8 1 5 .i.g5 e6 Izoria - Paragua, Heraklio 2002. White's position is better after almost any sensible move, but I like the following idea the most:

1 6.dxe6!N fxe6 1 7.e5! dxe5 1 8 .'lWxd8 1'%xd8 1 9.i.g4 <tt>f7

Or 1 9 . . . lLlc6 20.i.xe6t <tt>h8 2 1 .i.d5 with advantage.

20.f4! White has a serious initiative.


1 2 . . . �b4 1 3 .�g5 �f6 1 3 . . . lLlb6 is senseless, as was correctly indicated by HiUarp Persson, as after 1 4.�e2 Black cannot take on c4, because of the following variation : 1 4 . . . lLlxc4 1 5 .a3 lLlxa3 1 6.lLla2! �xe4 1 7.bxa3+-1 3 .. .f6 1 4.�d2 �xc4 also does not work after: 1 5 .�e2 �d4 ( l 5 . . . �b4 1 6.lLlb5 �xe4 1 7.lLlc7 leads to the same position) 1 6.lLlb5 �xe4 1 7.lLlc7± Again this l ine was given by Hillarp Persson in ChessBase Magazine 69.

1 4.�xf6 This move is so far the only one to have been tried in practice, but also very interesting is Marin's suggestion: 1 4.�h6!? �g7 1 5 .�xg7 c;t>xg7 1 6.�e2;!;.

1 4 . . . exf6 If 1 4 . . . lLlxf6 1 5 .�e2 White has better chances, as he has a clear plan of preparing the advance of his central pawns (f and e) , while Black's play is very unclear.

1 5 .lLlb5! I like this energetic move, even though after the modest 1 5 .�e2 White's chances are preferable as well, Marin - HiUarp Persson, Gothenburg 1 999.

1 5 . . . a6 1 6.a3 �a5 1 7.b4 �b6 l s .lLlc3 �c7 After I s . . . cxb4 1 9.axb4 �c7 20.�e2 White obtained a clear advantage in D. Bekker Jensen - Engelbert, Gausdal 2000.

1 9.�e2 l'!eS 20.�b3 l'!a7 2 1 .c;t>g2 White retains a stable edge, although the

black position remains fairly solid, Schlosser -Prusikin, Passau 1 996.

13.bxc3 \1Mxa2 Also possible is 1 3 . . . �xc3, although the

obvious drawback is that Black is clearing the a l -h8 diagonal for this opponent's now unopposed dark-squared bishop, which White exploited brutally in the followinggame. 1 4.�e2 b6 1 5 .�b2 �a5 1 6.f4 �xa2 1 7.�c2 ( l 7.h4 b5 I S .cxb5 lLlb6 gave Black some counterplay in Rausis - Gross, Cairo 2002.) 17 . . . �a6 1 8 .e5

�b7 ( l S . . . �cS does not really help after 1 9 .�g4) 1 9 .�c3 dxe5 20.fxe5 f6 2 1 .exf6 exf6 22.�g4 �c7 23.l'!bel �d8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h 24.�f3! b5 25.d6 lLlb6 26.�d2 lLl8d7 27.�d5t lLlxd5 28.�xd5t �h8 29.l'!e7 1-0 Lemke -Melson, e-mail 2000.

14.�h6! In my opinion White should be striving to

develop his initiative on the kingside and in the centre, without being sidetracked by the thought of regaining the sacrificed material. After 1 4.l'!xb7 l'!eS 1 5 .l'!b3 lLlb6 1 6.�e2 �a4 Black gets some counterplay, Bates - Snape, West Bromwich 2004.

14 ... l'!e8 15.ie2 liJf6 This position was reached in Vaganian -

Kozul, Pula 1 997. Now I would like to follow Dautov's recommendation from ChessBase Magazine 57.

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 445

16 . .id3N He gives the following defensive idea for

Black:

16 ... �a6 17.f4 tDbd7 1 8.�e2 cj;>h8 Black intends to follow with . . . ltJg8. Dautov

evaluates the position as unclear, but I find it hard to believe Black can withstand White's offensive after a continuation such as the following:

19.e5 ltJg8 20.e6 fxe6 21 .dxe6 ltJdf6 22 . .ig5

Intending 23.f5. Black's position looks very difficult.

F13) 10 ... e5 1 l .d5 cxd5

Unlike the stereorypical King's Indian positions, here Black intends to fight for the initiative on the queens ide. It is the only way to make any sense of his position, especially the position of his queen.

12.cxd5 �bd7 13 . .id2 iUe8 14.�e2 a6

8 �_� _ _ *� �� "/h �:'l'h'/ 7 � 'm�_' �' �� ,� �h'N/JL;%j� 6 ' � r� � , � 5 ��B·�h."··"m 4

""'?� %%��?� %%� �%'''/h �� /� 3 �ff),;t[jff).��1[J� 2 8 f� mVf� • �.""%."N'%mi=%% a b c d e f g h

We have reached a rypical early middlegame position for this variation. As I have already mentioned, I do not rate very highly Black's strategy of giving away his light-squared bishop. He is very much in the game of course,

but White's space advantage and bishop pair are both long-term trumps.

From here, Black will usually try to force the trade of the dark-squared bishops by means of . . . h5 , . . . rj;>h7 and . . . i.h6, or . . . �f8 and . . . i.h6. White will strive to avoid this exchange, while also preparing to transfer his own "bad" bishop to the h3-c8 diagonal. Let us now see how these ideas might play out in practice.

15.gfc1 White can also begin an immediate transfer

of the light-squared bishop with: 1 5 .i.g2 �d8 16.h4 �f8 17 .i.h3 i.h6 (This idea does not work well for Black. Best would have been the modest 1 7 . . . gc7:t) 1 8 .i.g5! gc7 1 9.9ac l gac8?! Under pressure, Black squanders a pawn. 20.i.xf6! ltJxf6 2 1 .i.xc8 i.xc 1 22.i.xb 7! gxb7 23.gxc l ± Izoria - Khismatullin, Oropesa del Mar 2000.

15 ... �d8 16.h4 h5 17 . .ig2 ge7 This position was reached in Marin -

Grigore, Bucharest 1 998. Now I would seriously consider:

18 .ge2!?N gae8 19.9ac1� Followed by i.h3. I t i s much easier to play

with White, thanks to his spatial superioriry.

F2) 8 .. . �h5 9.tDg5

I prefer this to 9 .e5 dxe5 1 0.ltJxe5, which is the most popular reaction.


9 • • J1*ixd 1 Black has other options:

After 9 . . . h6 1 0.'Wxh5 lLlxh5 I l .lLlf3, it is worth examining twO continuations.

a) 1 1 . . . �e6 Here I discovered an interesting idea:

8 "='/"��'. 7

6 5 4 3 2

1 2.e5!?N

a b c d e f g h

The idea is to restrict Black's knight on h5. Both games that reached this position continued 1 2.d5, but I am not so keen to open the long diagonal for the g7 -bishop.

1 2 . . . lLld7 If 1 2 . . . �xc4 1 3.g4 �xfl 14.�xfl dxe5 1 5 .dxe5 lLld7 1 6.gxh5 g5 1 7.h4 g4 I B.lLlh2 lLlxe5 1 9.�f4 I rate White's chances as higher.

1 3 .!'le l dxe5 1 4.lLlxe5! !'1feB After 1 4 . . . lLlxe5 1 5 .dxe5 !'lfdB 1 6.h3 the threat of 1 7.g4 is very annoying.

1 5 .h3 The immediate 1 5 .lLlxg6 is not dangerous for Black in view of: 1 5 . . . �xd4°o

1 5 . . . !'ladB If 1 5 . . . lLlhf6 the tactical idea works well: 1 6.lLlxg6 �xc4 17.b3! �e6 I B.�a3 with initiative.

1 6.g4 �xe5 1 7.dxe5 lLlg7 I B .b3 Less convincing is I B.�xh6 �xc4 1 9.b3 �a6.

I B . . . h5 1 9.f3 lLlc5 20.�g5t

White's bishop's pair could prove to be an important asset in the long run.

b) 1 1 . . . lLla6 1 2.�e3 �e6 1 3.b3 In this complex position White maintains better chances, due to his space advantage. The following example illustrates his possibilities quite well:

1 3 . . . g5 1 4.!'lfd l f5 1 5 .exf5 �xf5 1 6.lLlel lLlf6 1 7.h3 lLlc7 I B.!'lac I lLld7

This was Vasquez - Hamilton, Siegen 1 970. Here White should have continued:

1 9.1Lld3N !'ladB 20.d5 c5 2 l .f4 Retaining better chances.

9 . . . lLla6 1 0.h3 The natural and useful move virtually forces Black to trade queens in view of the threatened g3-g4.

1 0 . . . 'Wxd l 1 1 .!'lxd l e5

a b c d e f g h

1 2.lLlf3!N This seems like the most natural move, as the knight on g5 does not have much to do. After 1 2.�e3 exd4 1 3.�xd4 !'leB! Black is threatening . . . h7 -h6 and I do not see a comfortable way of defending the e4-pawn.

1 2 . . . exd4 After 1 2 . . . !'leB it looks good close the centre with 1 3 .d5. I often favour this idea in response to Black's . . . !'leB, in order to emphasize the fact that he has just wasted a tempo. 1 3 . . . cxd5 14.cxd5 Even without

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 447

queens White's space advantage is significant here, for instance 1 4 . . . id7 1 5 .ie3 E!ecS 1 6.ifl ctJc5 1 7.ctJd2 with better chances.

1 3 .ctJxd4 E!eS I also analysed the following alternatives: 1 3 . . . lLlc5 14.lLlb3 E!eS 1 5 .lLlxc5 dxc5 16.f4 ie6 1 7.e5 ctJd7 I S .lLle4 White is obviously better. 1 3 . . . lLld7 14.lLlde2 lLle5 1 5 .b3 f5 1 6.E!xd6 fxe4 1 7.ie3 lLlf3t I S.cj;JhI and Black is about to lose his central pawn.

1 4.lLlb3 lLld7 14 . . . ifS 1 5 .if4 E!e6 looks awfully passive.

1 5 .E!xd6 lLlb6 No better is I 5 . . . ctJac5 I 6.lLlxc5 lLlxc5 1 7.ie3 ixc3 I S.bxc3 lLlxe4 1 9.ixe4 E!xe4 20.E!dSt cj;Jg7 2 1 .E!eI f5 22.f3 E!e6 23.cj;Jf2 and White's initiative should be decisive.

1 6.ifl ie5 1 7.if4 ixd6 I s.ixd6 White has powerful compensation for

the exchange, with much more active minor pieces.

10. 1"!xd 1

8

7 6 5

4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

lO . . . eS Black had better establish a pawn in the

centre while he has the chance. Too passive is: 1 0 . . . lLlbd7 1 l .f4

White grabs more space in the centre. 1 l . . .ctJb6

Clearly inferior is 1 1 . . .c5? 1 2.e5! cxd4 1 3.exf6 exf6 1 4.lLlxh7 cj;Jxh7 Zifroni -Chytilek, Siofok 1 996. Now after the simple 1 5 .E!xd4N f5 16.E!xd6± White is just a pawn up. Here I found a way to improve over the game Becking - Enzmann, Schoeneck 1 996.

1 2.c5!N A very energetic and strong idea. Black faces serious problems, for example:

1 2 . . . lLlc4 I 3.b3 ig4 1 4.lLlf3 ctJa5 I 5 .cxd6 exd6 I 6.e5 lLleS 1 7.ia3

With an obvious advantage.

l 1 .dS cS Black can also try opening the queenside:

l I . . . cxd5 1 2.cxd5 I 2.exd5!?N might be an interesting alternative.

1 2 . . . a6 I 3.a4 a5? Chiburdanidze - Mona, Abu Dhabi 2007. Black's last move was an unfortunate decision. Now both sides have potential outposts on the queenside, but White is in a much better position to take advantage of them. Better would have been I 3 . . . lLlbd7, bur still after 1 4.E!a3 b6 1 5 .lLlf3;!; White retains better chances.

I 4.lLlb5N A minor improvement over the game.

1 4 . . . lLleS 1 5.lLlf3 ig4 Or 1 5 . . . lLla6 16.lLld2± followed by lLlc4.


16.h3 i.xf3 1 7.i.xf3 ttJa6 1 8 .i.e3 Black faces a depressing struggle to defend.

12.a3 Planning a standard queenside attack.

12 . . . ttJe8 13.b4 ttJd7 14J!bl b6 lS.liJbS!? lbdf6 16.!!el h6 17.lbf3 .id7 18 . .id2 liJh7 19.a4

White is slowly increasing the pressure, while Black lacks any trace of counterplay, Khismatullin - Gabdrakhmanov, Kazan 2007.

F3) 8 . . • eS 9.h3

Besides these, there are a few minor lines to check out:

9 . . . i.e6 As usual I am rather sceptical about the idea of provoking d4-d5 at the cost of a tempo.

1 0.d5 cxd5 1 1 .cxd5 i.d7 1 2.i.e3 We have already spent some time investigating similar positions, so I will refrain from analysing this in much detail and instead show one model example.

1 2 . . . 1"k8

l 2 . . . ttJa6 l 3.a3! reaches the line 9 . . . ttJa6 1 0.i.e3 i.e6 1 1 .d5 cxd5 1 2.cxd5 i.d7 1 3.a3! below.

1 3.ttJd2 ttJa6 14.ttJb3 14.a3!? has been played a few times, and also deserves consideration.

14 . . . �d8 1 5 .�e2 i.e8 Portisch - Kavalek, Skopje 1 972. Here I developed the following variation:

a b c d e f g h 1 6.l'%fc l !?N ttJd7 1 7.ttJb5 ttJdc5 1 8 .ttJxc5 ttJxc5 1 9.1"k2

White can easily continue to build his queenside initiative, without any fear of counterplay on the opposite flank.

9 . . . ttJa6 1 0.i.e3 exd4 Most popular move is 1 0 . . . i.e6 1 1 .d5 (Most games saw 1 1 .�e2 but I do not see any reason to refrain from the central advance) 1 1 . . .cxd5 12.cxd5 id7 l 3 .a3! (it is useful to prevent 1 3 . . . ttJc5) 1 3 . . . ttJc7 Black wishes to activate his misplaced knight via the b5-square. 14.b4 �a6 1 5 .a4! A very strong and concrete approach. 1 5 . . . Wic4 1 6.�c2 ttJa6 17 .ttJd2 Wixb4?! (A bad decision; much better was 1 7 . . . Wic8 1 8.b5 ttJc5 19 .ttJc4 Wic7, although it is obvious that after 20.a5 b6 2 1 .1'%fc l White retain better chances.) 1 8 .1'%fb1 �a5 1 9.ttJc4 �c7 20.ttJb5 ixb5 2 1 .axb5 ttJc5 22.lbxd6! White has a large strategic advantage, Maherrarnzade - Guliyev, Baku 2000.

1 1 . ttJxd4 1'%e8 1 2.1'%e 1

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 449

Now it is obvious that the combination of Black's queen on a5 and knight on a6 is rather unfortunate for Black. No wonder he has rwice opted for the passive:

12 . . . \Wc7 Black's main problem is that 1 2 . . . lt.k5 is met strongly by 13 .lt:lb3! It:lxb3 14.axb3 \Wc7 1 5 .ixa7! and White wins a pawn.

1 3.\Wd2 lt:lc5 1 4.if4 lt:lh5 1 5 .ie3 lt:lf6 1 6.if4 It:lh5 1 7.ig5 a5 I B .l'%ad a

White has got a pleasant position in Mikhalchishin - Martinovic, Baku 1 9BO.

9 . . . l'%eB 1 0.ie3 The standard 1 0.d5 is also promising, but I found it interesting to study another line.

10 ... exd4 1 1 .lt:lxd4 lt:lbd7 1 2.l'%e l It:lb6?! It would have been better for Black to attack the c-pawn from another direction: 1 2 . . . lt:le5 and after 1 3.ifl we reach a position from line F322.

l3 .c5! A very nice tactical trick.

1 3 . . . lt:lc4 If 1 3 . . . dxc5 1 4.lt:lb3 White gains too many tempos attacking Black's queen. l 4 . . . \Wa6 1 5 .lt:lxc5 \Wa5 1 6.lt:lb3 \Wb4 1 7.ic5 �c4 I B.ifl �e6 1 9.f4±

l4.lt:lb3 �dB 1 5 .cxd6 lt:lxd6 It was necessary to swap queens by means of l 5 . . . �xd6, though after 1 6.�xd6 It:lxd6 l 7.l'%ad l It:lc4 I B.ica White enjoys a pleasant edge.

1 6.id4 lt:lc4 l 7.\Wc2 ie6 l B.l'%ad l �e7 1 9.f4 It:lb6 20.lt:lc5

White was clearly better in Polugaevsky -Uhlmann, Amsterdam 1972.

F31) 9 . . . exd4 lO.lt:lxd4

lO . . . �c5 This is an important line which has been

played a few times by Mikhail Tal, although once again there are some other options.

1 0 . . . lt:lbd7?! This is probably the worst of the bunch.

1 1 .lt:lde2! The attack on d6 is rather awkward to meet, whilst the c4-pawn can now easily be protected with b2-b3. White could obviously have played 1 1 .l'%e1 transposing to l ine F32, but the text i s stronger.

1 l . . .�c7 1 2.ie3 l'%eB 1 3.\Wc2 b6 1 4.l'%adl ia6 1 5 .b3 l'%adB 1 6.l'%d2

Black failed to find any counterplay, Stohl -Banikas, Istanbul 2000. When that happens, as a rule White will always stand better in this pawn structure thanks to his extra space, more active pieces and pressure in the centre.

1 0 . . . l'%eB I only found three games in which this move was played.

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .if4!N I believe this to be a strong novelty. Less clear is 1 1 .l'%e l ie6!? 1 2.lt:lxe6 l'%xe6.

1 l . . .�b4 I do not really consider 1 1 . . . ifB to be a serious option, as it would be a clear admission that Black has lost the opening battle.

l 2.lt:lc2 1 2.�b3!? is an interesting alternative that deserves investigation .

1 2 . . . �xc4


Obviously the b2-pawn is untouchable: 1 2 . . . �xb2?? 1 3.tt:la4+-

1 3.1:'fe l ! Th e point. White is i n n o hurry to capture on d6 and instead vacates the f! -square for his bishop. Premature would be 1 3.�xd6? 1:'fdS followed by 1 4 . . . tt:leS.

1 3 . . . �a6 If 1 3 . . . 1:'fdS then 1 4.eS! is very strong, for instance 14 . . . tt:lhS (or 1 4 . . . tt:leS I s .igS f6 I 6.exf6 tt:lxf6 I 7.1:'fe7!i) I s .if! �cS 1 6.igS 1:'fd7 I 7.�e3 �aS l S.exd6 �dS 1 9.tt:le4 and White is clearly better, due to his passed pawn.

1 4.�xd6 ie6 I S .�d2 tt:lbd7 1 6.tt:ld4 tt:lb6 1 7.tt:lxe6 1:'fxe6 1 S.b3t

White has pleasant advantage, thanks to his bishop pair and better placed pieces.

1 0 . . . tt:leS This is too passive; White has no problems in dealing with the . . . �cS idea.

1 1 .ie3 �b4 12 .�e2 ie6 Black could have won the c4-pawn, but the price is too high: 1 2 . . . ixd4 1 3 .ixd4 ie6 14 .�d2 White simply abandons the c4-pawn to its fate, in order to develop a kingside attack. 1 4 . . . �xc4 Bagaturov - Mrdja, Porro San Giorgio 200 1 . Here I found a strong improvement: I S .b3! It is important to play this move first, as now Black is forced to retreat his queen to an inferior square. l S . . . �a6 (The generally desirable I S . . . �b4? loses to 1 6.tt:ldS!) 1 6.f4 f6 1 7.eS with a powerful attack.

1 3 .tt:lxe6 fxe6 14.a3 �b3 Cvitan - Rukavina, Pula 2002, now I improved White's play:

l S .1:'ffd 1 N tt:ld7 This is the natural response, but there is an unpleasant surprise in store:

1 6.cS! tt:lxcs 1 7.eS± 1 0 . . . �b4 1 1 .tt:lc2

I think this is White's best option. Black has interesting counterplay after 1 1 .�e2 bS! .

1 l . . .�xc4 1 2.�xd6 Having worked a lot on this variation I noticed that the trade of c4- and d6-pawns usually favours White. His pieces have more space in which to operate, and the extra central pawn will generally be a lot more influential than Black's extra c-pawn.

1 2 . . . tt:la6 13 .ie3 1:'fe8 1 4.1:'ffd l �e6 This position was reached in Trois -Chevaldonnet, Reggio Emilia 1 980. Here it is important for White to keep the queens on the board, since an exchange would really help to ease the congestion within Black's position.

a b c d e f g h I S .�d2!N �e7 1 6.if4 ie6 1 7.id6 �dS I S .1:'fac1

White keeps the better chances.

1 1 .lLlde2 After a serious investigation of this variation

I carne to the conclusion that the text move is the one that gives the highest chances for a white advantage. 1 1 .tt:lb3 has been more popular, but I found 1 1 . . .�b4! to be enough for Black to obtain reasonable play.

1 l • • • 'lWxc4 If 1 1 . . .1:'fdS 1 2.b3 White's space advantage

promises him better chances, for instance

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 451

12 . . . ttJa6 1 3.a3 Wfe5, which occurred in the game Heurung - Fishbein, Chicago 1 99 1 , and now the simple 14 .�e3 ttJc5 1 5.Wfc2 1'!e8 1 6.f3 would promise White better chances.

8 � �.i.m ��.� 7 .'''m ·m·,y.�r 6 �""�a l_ �_'i�� •• ".%� '''. ' ' .� � �� '% 3 � �m: m �� 2 8�" " '_�D1Z� · · · ·{· · · %�7�� " . . %%:.� 1 /� �iV� M m

a b c d e f g h

12.Wfxd6 lLla6 Black has also tried 1 2 . . . ttJe8 1 3.Wff4!?

f5 (This appears fairly logical, but White is ready for it. Relatively best would have been 1 3 . . . �e6, although after 14 .ie3 ttJd7 1 5.1'!fd 1 I still prefer White's position.) 1 4.exf5 Wfxf4 1 5 .�xf4 �xf5 1 6J'hd l ! Black's minor pieces suffer from a severe shortage of space. 1 6 . . . ttJa6 1 7.ttJd4 White was clearly better, Janjgava - Bagaturov, Ankara 1 995.

13.i.e3 Also worth considering is 1 3.b3 Wfe6

14.�a3 1'!e8 1 5 .!'!ad 1 Wfxd6 16.�xd6 �e6 1 7.f4 and White maintains a typical edge for this pawn structure, Pavlovic - Krnic, Yugoslavia 1 98 1 .

1 3 ... 1'!e8 14.!'!acl i.e6 15.!'!fdl Wfb4 We have been following the game Cordara -

Fierro Baquero, Cannes 2007. Up to now both sides have made very natural moves, and here White could have continued the good work with:

a b c d e f g h

16.lLlf4!N Wfxd6 17.!'!xd6 i.f8 1 8.!'!d2 i.c8 19.tiJd3�

White has a small but stable advantage.

F32) 9 . . . tiJbd7

This is the most popular continuation.

10.!'!e1

a b c d e f g h

Now we reach a further division in the material. We will analyse: F321) 1O ... !'!e8 and F322) 10 ... exd4, after first checking a few minor alternatives.

1 0 . . . b5 I l .cxb5 cxb5 1 2.a4! This principled reaction should lead to a fine position.


12 ... b4 13 .'Llb5 'Lle8 1 4.dxe5 dxe5 The best chance for Black appears to be 14 . . . 'Llxe5, although after 1 5 .'Llxe5 dxe5 1 6.ie3 ie6 I 7.�e2 'Llf6 1 8.'Lld6! White retains a pleasant advantage.

I 5 .ie3 a6 I 6.'Lla7! Black was already facing severe problems,

Dizdar - Klinova, New York 1997.

1 0 . . . �b4

a b c d e f g h This is rare guest in modern tournament practice, but it is important to examine it, just in case.

I I .ifl The only way to defend the c-pawn, but it is good enough.

1 1 . . .exd4 12 . 'Llxd4 Black's queen appears to be misplaced on b4, and will soon have to waste time avoiding threats.

1 2 . . . Ele8 Too passive is 1 2 . . . 'Lle8 1 3 .a3 �c5 1 4.ie3± Vijayalakshmi - Son, Kuala Lumpur 2005. More interesting, but still hardly sufficient for equality, is 1 2 . . . 'Lle5 1 3 .'Llc2 �b6 14.ie3 �c7 1 5 .f4 'Lled7 16.�d2 Ele8 1 7.ifL 'Llb6 1 8.Elad 1 ie6 Cori Tello - Almeida Quintana, Malaga 2008. Here White could get a serious edge by concrete means: 19 .�xd6!N �xd6 20.Elxd6 if8 (Black cannot play 20 . . . ixc4 in view of 2 1 .ixb6 ixfl 22.id4+-, while 20 . . . 'Llxc4? loses at

once to 2 1 .Elxe6!+-) 2 1 .c5 ixd6 22.cxd6 with more than enough compensation for the exchange.

1 3 .'Llc2 �b6 This position has been reached in a couple of games, but for some reason no-one has played the obvious:

a b c d e f g h 14 .�xd6!N

I was unable to find a way for Black to justify the pawn sacrifice, for instance:

1 4 . . . 'Llc5 Another line is 14 .. . 'Llh5 1 5.g4! ie5 1 6.�d l 'Llf4 1 7.�f3! 'Lle6 1 8 .Elb l and Black hardly has sufficient compensation.

1 5 .�f4 a5 1 6.Elb 1 'Llh5 17.�f3 ixc3 Regaining the pawn, but exchanging this mighty bishop for a knight is a concession in itsel(

1 8 .�xc3 'Llxe4 1 9.�e3 White's powerful dark-squared bishop

guarantees his advantage, regardless of whether or not the queens remain on the board.

F321) lO .. J3e8 1 1 .d5

On this occasion blocking the centre is the clear first choice, as after 1 1 .ie3 �b4! 1 2.�b3 a5 Black has a good game.

1 1 ...cxd5 Black must try to play actively if he is to

justify the position of his queen.

Chapter 27 - G . . . cG 453

1 1 . . .c5?! would make no sense, as the queen is not only misplaced but will also be forced to waste additional time after b2-b4. Here is a good il lustrative example: 1 2.:gb l aG 1 3 .a3 fic7 1 4.i.fl lUf8 Black has a solid position, but suffers from a lack of space and virtually no prospects of counterplay. 1 5 . b4 b6 1 6.ie3 id7 1 7.a4 It was also possible to double rooks on the b-file before playing this move. 1 7 . . . :geb8 1 8 . lUd2 fi c8 1 9. � h2 ttJe8 2o.fic2 if6 2 1 .:gb3 a5 22.bxc5 bxc5 23.ttJb5 White was much better in Kelecevic - Baljon, Eerbeek 1 978.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12.cxd5 b5 Too slow is 1 2 . . . a6?! 1 3.i.e3 ttJc5 (If

13 . . . b5 1 4.ttJd2 White saves a tempo by omitting a2-a3; compare the main line below.) 1 4.ttJd2 fic7 1 5 .ifl b6 1 6.:gc1 fib8 1 7.b4 ttJcd7 1 8.ttJc4± Portisch - Freyre, Thessaloniki 1 984.

13.a3 It is essential to take measures against . . . b5-

b4.

13 ... a6 The alternative is 1 3 . . . b4 1 4.ttJa4 bxa3

1 5 .:gxa3 :gb8, as played in the game Hjartarson - Vasiukov, Moscow 1 987. Now White should have played:

a b c d e f g h

1 6.fic2!N when I analysed the following l ine: 1 6 . . . ttJb6 1 7.ttJc3 fic5 18 .ie3 fic7 1 9.ifl id7 20.:gc1 and White keeps serious pressure on the queenside.

14.ie3 Wd8 15.tiJd2 Black managed to grab some space on the

queenside, but on the other hand White has now clear ideas to exploit the newly created weaknesses there. This might be achieved by means of a timely a4 advance, or by manoeuvring a knight towards the c6-square with ttJb3-a5 or ttJa2-b4.

a b c d e f g h

1 5 ... tiJb6 This looks more challenging than:

1 5 . . . ib7 It is already a bad sign for Black if he feels compelled to develop this piece on such an unfortunate square.


1 6.b4 l:%c8 1 7.'lWb3 lLlh5 1 8.a4 bxa4 1 9.1Llxa4 f5?!

Grabarczyk - Bastian, Germany 2006. Now White overlooked a nice tactical solution:

20.exf5N gxf5 2 1 .lLlc5! lLlxc5 2 1 . . .dxc5 loses to: 22.d6t c4 23.lLlxc4 ixg2 24.lLlxe5t+-

22.bxc5 f4 23.'lWxb7 fxe3 24.l:%xe3 ih6 After 24 . . . l:%xc5 25.lLle4 l:%b5 26.'lWxa6 White has a healthy extra pawn and a winning position.

25 .lLle4 ixe3 26.fxe3 dxc5 27.l:%fl l:%f8 28.d6+-

16Jkl l:H8 17.liJa2! In this position the plan of invading on c6

works well.

17 ... liJfd7 18.lLlb4 f5 19.1tJc6 'lWf6 20.exf5 gxf5

We have been following the game Ivkov -Minic, Vinkovci 1 968. Black managed to carry out the thematic . . . f7 -f5, but we will see that this is far from a complete solution to his problems.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

21 .g4!N This resolute move leaves White's advantage

in no doubt. He will soon conquer the crucial e4-square, leaving Black with considerable problems to solve.

F322} 10 . . . exd4 1 1 .liJxd4

a b c d e f g h

1 1 ...liJe5 As LlSUal in such positions, Black has tried a variety of alternatives.

1 1 . . .ltJc5 been a rare guest in tournament practice, so it is not surprising that so far noone has tried: 1 2.if4!N l:%d8 1 3.lLlb3! ltJxb3 1 4.axb3 'lWc7 I 5 .'lWd3 and White enjoys a pleasant space advantage.

1 l . . .l:%e8 1 2.ie3 'lWb4?! This is an independent option, but it is tactically flawed. 1 2 . . . lLle5 1 3.ifl reaches our main line ( l l . . .lLle5 I 2 .ifl l:%e8 1 3 .ie3), and 1 2 . . . lLlb6?! 1 3.c5! was examined in the note to Black's 9th move on page 449 (9 . . . l:%e8 1 0.ie3 exd4 1 1 .lLlxd4 lLlbd7 1 2.l:%e1 lLlb6?! 13 .c5!) . 12 . . . lLlc5? is not a realistic option in view of 1 3 .lLlb3! lLlxb3 1 4.axb3 'lWc7 1 5 .ixa7! with an extra pawn.

1 3.a3! This effectively refutes Black's last move.

1 3 . . . 'lWa5 The pawns are untouchable: 1 3 . . . 'lWxb2?? 14.lLla4 and 1 3 . . . 'lWxc4? ? 14 .ifl both lose the queen.

1 4.b4 'lWc7 1 5 .l:%c 1

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 455

White is much bener, Vladimirov - Savon, Baku 1 96 1 .

1 l . . .ltJb6 1 2.ifl l:'i:eB 1 3.if4 This is more ambitious than the modest 1 3 .l:'i:b 1 !?, which is still a reasonable alternative.

1 3 . . . ie6 The idea [0 exchange queens by 1 3 . . . 'lWh5 is not really working after 1 4.g4!, as 1 4 . . . ltJxg4?! 1 5 .hxg4 ixg4 16 .'lWd3 can hardly promise Black sufficient compensation.

a b c d e f g h 1 4.ltJb3!N

This is an obvious improvement over 1 4.e5 dxe5 1 5 .l:'i:xe5 'lWb4 1 6.ltJxe6 fxe6 when Black's activity fully compensates his pawn weaknesses, A. Schneider - Serrer, Budapest 1 9B7.

1 4 .. . 'lWh5 1 5 .g4 ltJxg4 Also 1 5 . . . 'lWh4 1 6.ltJa5! d5 1 7.cxd5 cxd5 I B .'lWd2! does not bring Black any relief.

1 6.hxg4 ixg4 1 7.'lWd3 g5 17 . . . ie5 I B .ixe5 l:'i:xe5 1 9 .f4± This position was reached in Kaczorowski -Braun, e-mail 2004. Now after:

1 8.ig3N Black does not have enough for the sacrificed

piece.

1 1 . . .'lWc5 1 2 .b3 ltJd5 For me it is absolutely clear that such a tactical idea cannot work well for Black.

1 3 .exd5

This simple reaction is the best. 1 3 . . . 'lWxd4

a b c d e f g h 1 4.id2!!N

A strong novelty. It is certainly not a big pleasure for Black to defend the endgame that arose after 14 .ib2 'lWxd l 1 5 .l:'i:axd 1 c5, Jasnikowski - Foyge!, Moscow 1 99 1 , but the text is even stronger.

1 4 . . . cxd5 If 14 . . . 4Je5 1 5 .l:'i:c l ! It is not easy to find a reasonable move for Black, for instance: 1 5 . . . if5 1 6.g4 id7 1 7.ltJe2 'lWb6 1 8.ie3 'lWc? 1 9.f4±

1 5 .4Jxd5! ! 1 5 .ixd5± is enough for a pleasant advantage, but the text is the main idea behind the previous move.

1 5 . . . 'lWxa l 1 6.'lWxa 1 ixa1 1 ? l:'i:xa 1 Despite being the exchange down White's

initiative is extremely dangerous.

12.ifl

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h


12 . . J!e8 Needless to say Black has other moves as

well .

12 . . . ie6 1 3.lLlxe6 fxe6 Black gets a flexible pawn structure, but the absence of a lightsquared bishop is significant. 14 .ie3 �ad8 1 5 .f4 lLlf7 1 6.ig2 lLld7 1 7.�c 1 lLlb6 (If 17 . . . 'Wb4 1 8.'We2 lLlb6 1 9 .1Lld l ;!; White comfortably defends all his pawns and is ready to transfer his knight to fl.) 1 8 .'Wb3 �fe8

a b c d e f g h

This was Bradford - Bonin, USA 2007. Now after 1 9.�c2N:t White keeps everything under control and is ready to double rooks on d-file with �d l and �cd2.

1 2 . . . 'Wb6 Black tries to create concrete problems, but White remains on top with careful play.

1 3 .ie3! c5 Taking the b-pawn is practically suicidal: 1 3 . . . 'Wxb2? 14 .lLla4 'Wxa l (Relatively best, as 14 . . . 'Wa3 1 5 .ic1 'Wb4 16.id2 'Wa3 1 7.�e3 traps the queen anyway.) 1 5 .'Wxa1 c5 1 6.f4 lLlfg4 1 7.hxg4 lLlxg4 1 8.e5 and White is winning, Nunez - Almeida Quintana, Havana 1 999.

14.lLlc2 ie6 1 5 .b3 'Wa5 16.id2 Black is lacking active ideas and will soon have to start worrying about defending the d6-pawn, while White can slowly look to activate his pieces.

1 6 . . . lLle8 Chiburdanidze - Kovalevskaya, Hyderabad 2002. Now I improved White's play:

a b c d e f g h 1 7.lLle3!N 'Wd8

Or 1 7 . . . lLlf3t 1 8 .'Wxf3 ixc3 1 9 .ixc3 'Wxc3 20.�ad l;!;

1 8.lLled5 'Wd7 1 9 .1Llf4 lLlc7 20.�c 1 We reached a complex position, but the

weakness of the d6-pawn and full control over the d5-square are long-term factors that define White's advantage.

1 3.ie3 White top choice according to theory.

1 3.�b l is another decent move.

13 ... ie6 Here Black has an important alternative:

1 3 . . . c5 14 .lLlb3 The main idea of Black's 1 3th move is that White cannot play 1 4.lLldb5? due to the nice tactical blow 14 . . . lLlxe4! 1 5 .lLlxe4 'Wxe l .

1 4 . . . 'Wb4

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 27 - 6 . . . c6 457

1 5.a3!N The fruit of my homework. Strangely enough I failed to discover any advantage for White after other moves, for instance 1 5 .'lWxd6 It:lf3t 1 6.\t>h l lt:lxe l 1 7.i.xc5 'lWxc3! 1 8 .bxc3 It:lxe4 and Black seems to be fine in this crazy position.

1 5 . . . 'lWb6 After 1 5 . . . lt:lf3t 1 6.'lWxf3 'lWxb3 17.�ad l �e6 (clearly inferior is 1 7 . . . 'lWxb2?! 1 8 .lt:lb5!) 1 8.i.f4 It:le8 1 9 .�d2 White has an obvious positional edge.

1 6.lt:ld2 i.e6 Again the b2-pawn is untouchable: 1 6 . . . 'lWxb2?? 1 7.lt:la4+-

17.b4 'lWd8 1 8 .�b l b6 1 9.b5!t Establishing control over the c6-square

and intending to drive Black's knight away from the centre with f4. White is definitely better.

14.ttJxe6 �xe6

a b c d e f g h

lS.i>g2! White has to take control over the f3-square,

in order to defend against the tactical idea of 1 5 ... lt:lxe4! 1 6.lt:lxe4 'lWxe l ! 1 7.'lWxe 1 lt:lf3t.

lS ... �ae8 The most natural move, although a few

others have also been tried:

1 5 . . . a6 1 6.c5!? This is an important thematic sacrifice in this l ine. In return for the pawn White gets a chance to mobilize his central pawns with f4 and e5, freeing the e4-square for the knight.

16 . . . dxc5 After 1 6 . . . �d8 White obtains a pleasant position with the simple 1 7.cxd6 �exd6 1 8 .'lWa4!.

17.f4 'lWb4? Presumably impressed with his opponent's concept, Black takes the rather drastic decision to sacrifice a piece. He should certainly have opted for 17 . . . �d8 18 .'lWc2 lt:led7 1 9.�ad l b5 20.i.f2! The last preparatory move before e4-e5. 20 . . . lt:le8 2 1 .e5 White has great compensation for the pawn, but there is still a lot of play left in the position.

a b c d e f g h 1 8 .fxe5 !N

In the game Marin - Grigore, Galati 2006, White opted for 1 8.i.f2. Although this was sufficient to maintain an advantage, I see absolutely no reason not to accept the piece.

1 8 . . . 'lWxb2t 1 9.�e2 'lWxc3 20.exf6 �xf6 2 1 .�c 1

Despite the approximate material balance, White's position is almost winning.

1 5 . . . lt:led7 1 6.f3 White is obliged to protect the e-pawn, since 1 6.�b l It:lxe4 1 7.lt:lxe4 �xe4 1 8 .'lWxd6 It:lf8 is fine for Black.


1 6 . . . lDh5 16 . . . i'l:aeB 1 7 .i'l:b 1 would transpose to the main line below.

1 7.Wld2 i'l:aeB 1 B.g4! This resolute move meets the demands of the position.

1 B . . . i.xc3? Black should have preferred the modest 1 B . . . lDhf6, after which White should continue 1 9.i'l:ab l Wlc7 20.b4 with slightly better chances.

a b c d e f g h

Now in Borisenko - Petersons, Kiev 1 964. White missed the simple:

1 9.Wlxc3!N Wlxc3 20.bxc3 lDhf6 2 1 .i.xa7! White is simply a pawn up, with two

potentially monstrous bishops against two knights. The weakness of his queenside structure is hardly enough to make the position a playable one for Black.

16.i'l:bl !? According to the database this is only

White's fourth most popular choice, but I would pay more attention to the fact that it was Ivanchuk's choice in a recent game with King's Indian specialist Teimour Radjabov.

16 .. . ttJed7 I regard this as Black's most challenging reply,

but we must also consider the aforementioned super-GM game which continued: 1 6 . . . a6 1 7.b4 Wlc7 I B.i'l:c l

White is not yet ready for 1 B.c5 d5! and Black was okay in Vaganian - Smejkal, Germany 1 997.

I B . . . WlbB 1 9 .c5 Now that Black is lacking the . . . 'ifffc6 resource, the . . . d5 response does not work.

1 9 . . . i'l:dB This was Ivanchuk - Radjabov, Nice 2009. In this position I found a small improvement for White:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20.Wlb3!N White seems to be better after this logical move.

20 . . . dxc5 Or 20 . . . d5 2 1 .exd5 lDxd5 22.lDxd5 cxd5 (Black's problem is that the otherwise desirable 22 . . . i'l:xd5 runs into 23.f4! followed by 24.i.c4) 23.i'l:cdU.

2 1 .bxc5 lDd3 22.i.xd3 i'l:xd3 23.i'l:cd 1 i'l:d7 24.i.f4 WleB 25.f3 lDh5 26.i.e3;!;

It is clear that White's pawn majority is much more potent that Black's.

17.S a6 18.b4 Wld8 19.'lWdZ h5!? This position was reached in Cvitan -

Volokitin, Celje 2004. Black is searching for counterplay on the kingside. He intends to search for activity on the dark squares by means of 20 . . . h4 2 1 .g4 lDh7 etc. I believe this is the right moment to start concrete action in the centre, hence the following important improvement:

Chapter 27 - G . . . cG 459

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

20.cS!N The game saw 20.i.f2 h4 2 1 .g4 lt:lh7 22.lt:le2

i.h6! 23.Wixh6 g5 24.Wih5 It:ldf6 25 .Wih6 lt:ld7 and a draw was agreed.

20 ... 'lWe7 Black fails to prove his compensation after

20 . . . h4 2 1 .i.c4! hxg3 22.i.xe6 �xe6 23.�bd l ± when the g3-pawn does a nice job of defending White's king!

21 .cxd6 �xd6 22.'lWc2 bS Worse is 22 . . . h4?! 23.e5! It:lxe5 24.f4 It:led7

25.i.c5 'lWf8 26.i.xd6 Wixd6 27.�xe8t It:lxe8 28.lt:le4 Wie7 29.�e l hxg3 30.Wid2! It:lf8 3 1 .i.c4 with a clear advantage.

23.eS! A very concrete and strong approach. In case

of the slow 23.a3 Black is in time to regroup successfully; 23 . . . h4 24.g4 lt:lh7 25.�ed l lt:lhf8 26.lt:le2 lt:le6 27.f4 c5! with balanced play.

23 ... llJxeS 24.�cS! White must be accurate. The tempting 24.f4

does not work after 24 . . . lt:lc4 25 .i.xc4 Wid7!! and White cannot retreat with his bishop in view of 26 . . . �xe3 threatening . . . �d2t.

24 ... :Sed8 2S.'lWe2 tbfd7 26.hd6 'lWxd6 27.llJe4

27.Wie3!? is another decent option.

27 ... 'lWffi 28.'lWe3!

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Black has a degree of compensation, but I doubt that it is really enough.

Conclusion:

6 . . . c6 is an extremely flexible move, and we have seen over the course of the chapter that it might give rise to a whole host of different pawn structures and position types. After the standard reaction of 7.0-0 White's most promising course of action will usually involve taking control over the centre with e2-e4, followed by an appropriate reaction to whichever set-up Black has adopted. In general, White's harmonious development and extra central space should provide good chances for an opening advantage, although precision will be required in certain critical variations.


Variation Index l .d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 �g7 4.�g2 0-0 5.tiJc3 d6 6.tiJf3 tiJbd7

7.0-0 e5 8.e4 A) 8 ... a6 B) 8 ... h6 C) 8 ... exd4 9.tiJxd4

CI) 9 ... c6 C2) 9 ... ge8 1O.h3

C21) 10 ... a6 C22) 1O ... tiJc5 l l .gel

D) 8 ... c6 9.h3 DI) 9 ... a6 D2) 9 ... ge8

A) after 14 ... ifB

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .e5N

C221) 1 l ... c6 C222) 1 l ... a5 C223) 1 1 ...�d7 12.@h2!?

C2231) 12 ... h6 C2232) 12 ... a6

e2 1 ) note to 1 2 .. c5

a b c d e f g h

I B .ttlc2!N

02) note to 13 . . . 1We7

462 466 467 468 469 470 475 475 477 479 480 482 483 484 485

a b c d e f g b

1 7.ttldb5!N

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . tt::lbd7 461

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 0-0 5.�c3 d6 6.tt::lf3 tt::lbd7 7.0-0 e5

This is the overwhelmingly most popular choice, but there are also a few rare lines to consider.

7 . . . :ge8 8.e4 hardly leaves Black with anything better than 8 . . . e5, when 9.h3 will lead to one of the main lines.

7 . . . c6 8.e4 Now Black must already begin to worry about 9.e5.

8 . . . Wc7 Obviously the most common move is 8 . . . e5 reaching line D. 8 . . . \Wa5 9.:gb 1 ! looks like a promising way to exploit the early queen sortie. (White could also have played 9. :ge l which almost forces 9 . . . e5, thus transposing to Line F32 of Chapter 27.) 9 ... e5 1 0.d5 c5 1 1 .a3 White intends to follow with 1 2.b4 and it is obvious that Black's queen is misplaced on a5, Roiz Godes, Tel Aviv 1 997.

9.h3 e5 1 0 .ie3 :ge8 1 l .d5 White is also better after other moves, but the text clearly underlines the poor placement of Black's queen, as well as the e8-rook.

l 1 . . .c5 Obviously after 1 1 . . . cxd5 1 2.cxd5 Black's queen would soon be forced to waste time moving again.

1 2.ttJe1 a6 1 3 .a4 b6 1 4.ttJd3 :gb8 1 5.\Wd2 ttJh5 1 6.if3 ttJhf6 1 7.g4 <j;Jh8 1 8.ig2 ttJf8 1 9.b4

White was clearly better in Kasparov -Capitelli, Asiago 1 99 1 .

7 . . . c5 I do not rate the combination of . . . ttJbd7 and . . . c5 very highly.

8.d5 ttJb6 Another plan is 8 . . . a6 9.a4 ttJe8, but it also hardly sufficient for equality. 1 0.a5 b6 1 1 .axb6 ttJxb6 1 2. ttJd2 ttJf6 Rustemov

- Kramnik, Internet (blitz) 1 999. Now White should have played 1 3 .b3N. It is understandable that he wished to avoid the temporary weakening of the long diagonal, especially in a blitz game, but in reality Black is unable to exploit it due to the exposed position of his rook on a8. 1 3 . . . :gb8 ( 1 3 . . . ttJfxd5? loses material after 1 4.ttJxd5 ixa1 1 5 .ttJxb6) 1 4.ib2 e6 1 5 .\Wc2 exd5 1 6.cxd5 and White has a favourable version of a Benoni position.

9.ttJd2 e6 Otherwise Black's set-up would be senseless.

1 0.h3 exd5 1 1 .cxd5 Again we have reached a Benoni-type position, this time with Black's knight on b6. It is obvious that it is misplaced here and only stops Black's activity on the queens ide.

1 1 . . .ttJfd7 1 2.f4! Not allowing .. . ttJe5 followed by .. . ttJbc4.

1 2 .. .f5 1 3 .a4 As usual, it is essential to obtain the c4-square for White's knight.

1 3 . . . ttJf6 1 4.a5 ttJbd7 1 5 .ttJc4 ttJe8 1 6.e4 fxe4 1 7.ttJxe4 ttJdf6 l S .ttJg5±

White was much better in Timman -Mueller, Zurich 1 988.

7 . . . a6 S.e4 c5 8 . . . e5 reaches line A below. Obviously inferior is 8 . . . :gb8?! 9.e5! ttJeS 1 0.if4 and Black has a passive position. The "active" 1 0 . . . c5? ! only made things worse after 1 1 .dxc5 ttJxc5 1 2.exd6 ttJxd6 1 3 .ttJd5! with serious pressure, Ionescu - Nanu, Bucharest 1998.

9.e5 The most challenging continuation.

9 . . . ttJeS Only a few games reached this position, and I was not particularly impressed with White's play in any of them. That is why I propose a new move:


a b c d e f g h

10 .ie3!?N Here is my brief analysis:

10 . . . cxd4 1 1 .ixd4 dxe5 1 2.ixe5 ixe5 Another line is 1 2 . . . lLlef6 1 3.if4 Ele8 1 4.Ele l Wa5 1 5 .lLle5 and White's pressure is annoying.

1 3 .lLlxe5 lLlef6 14.lLld3t White maintains better chances, thanks to

his strong light-squared bishop.

8.e4

a b c d e f g h

This is the real starting point for the whole variation. We will examine four moves in detail: A) 8 . .. a6, B) 8 ... h6, C) 8 ... exd4 and D) 8 ... c6 (excluding 9 . . . Wb6) .

The big main line with 8 . . . c6 9.h3 Wb6 is considered in the next chapter.

Moves like 8 . . . Ele8 and 8 . . . a5 do not have any real independent value, as after 9.h3 intending ie3 Black will usually exchange on d4 within a move or [WO.

A) 8 • . • a6 9.Wc2!?

This is just about the only time we will be employing a set-up involving a quick Eld l . In this particular situation it works very well for White, especially taking into account that other lines can quickly become very doubleedged, for instance 9.Elel exd4 l o.lLlxd4 lLlg4!?, or 9.h3 b5!?

9 .. . exd4 One of the key points of9.Wc2 is that White

is ideally placed for: 9 ... b5 1 0.dxe5 dxe5 1 1 .gd l !

Black has no time for . . . c6 since his e5-pawn is hanging. Therefore he is obliged to play:

1 1 . . . b4 But this is an obvious positional concession.

1 2.lLld5 gb8 I found five examples of this position on my database. Several moves have been tried, but to tell the truth I do not understand why nobody seems to have tried the natural:

1 3 .ie3N Black is under pressure, for example:

1 3 . . . c6 14.lLlxf6t ixf6 1 5 .Eld2 Wfc7 1 6.c5±

The main alternative is 9 . . . c6 l O .Eld l :

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . tU bd7 463

White is already threatening to capture on e5, so we will examine the following three moves.

a) 1 0 . . . Wc7 1 1 .h3 b5 1 2.c5! This is a thematic reaction after Black advances his b-pawn.

1 2 . . . dxc5 1 3 .dxe5 tUe8 Clearly inferior is 1 3 . . . tUxe5 1 4.tUxe5 Wxe5 1 5 .if4 We6 ( l 5 . . . We8 16 .id6±) 1 6.gd6 We7 1 7.gxc6 id7 1 8 .id6 We6 1 9.9b6 intending 20.e5 with a big advantage, Oanet - Le Ou, Besancon 1 999.

1 4.a4 gb8 1 5 .axb5 axb5 1 6.ie3 h6 Montalban - Oefez Gomez, Mislata 1 995. Here I suggest:

1 7.tUe2N c4 1 8.e6! fxe6 1 9.tUf4 White has a serious initiative.

b) 1 0 . . . We7 I l .h3 b5 Perhaps it was objectively better to play more modestly with something like 1 1 . . . h6 1 2.ie3 exd4 1 3 .tUxd4 ge8, but obviously Black's set-up does not make a healthy impression, especially with his queen misplaced on e7. 1 4.ge l White can afford to lose a tempo. 1 4 . . . Elb8 This was Ingbrandt - Hillarp Persson, Orebro 2000. At this point I like the positional 1 5 .a4t, completely preventing all Black's possible ideas involving . . . c5 followed by . . . b5 .

1 2.c5! Again this typical idea works well.

1 2 . . . dxc5 1 3 .dxe5 tUe8 1 3 . . . tUxe5 1 4.tUxe5 Wxe5 1 5 .if4 was examined in the 1 0 . . . Wc7 jine above.

1 4.ig5 We6 1 5 .tUe2! tUxe5 1 6.Wxc5 f6 This blocks the dark-squared bishop, bur White was threatening to win the exchange with ie7.

1 7.ie3 White has an obvious positional advantage.

c) 1 0 . . . ge8 I l .h3 Now l l . . .b5 1 2.dxe5 dxe5 1 3 .ie3 We7 will be examined in line 0 I , but Black can

deviate from this transposition with the strange looking move:

1 l . . .if8 1 2.ie3 b5 This occurred in Goldin - Bronstein, Polanica Zdroj 1 988. Now White should once again react in the typical way:

a b c d e f g h 1 3 .c5!N

Now I analysed the following line. 1 3 . . . exd4 14.tUxd4 tUxc5

Or 1 4 ... ib7 1 5 .tUb3 Wc7 1 6.cxd6 ixd6 1 7.gac l with a pleasant position for White.

1 5 .tUxc6 Wc7 1 6.tUb4 ib7 1 7.tUbd5 tUxd5 1 8 .tUxd5 ixd5 1 9 .9xd5

White's positional advantage is beyond any doubts.

1O.lLlxd4

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1O • • • ge8


An important alternative is: 1 0 . . . lLle5 1 1 .b3 !d7

There is also 1 1 . . .c5 1 2.lLlde2 :gbB Here it is essential to prevent Black's counterplay connected with the . . . b5 advance, so: 1 3.a4! !g4 (If 1 3 ... :geB 1 4.h3 b6 1 5 .!g5 h6 1 6.!e3 Black ends up in a passive position, for instance 1 6 . . . h5 1 7.:gad l Vlic7 Epishin - J. Polgar, Madrid 1 995 , and now 1 B.f4N lLlc6 1 9.Vlid3 lLla5 [ 1 9 . . . !fB 20.f5t] 20.lLlcl !b7 2 1 .f5 would secure White's edge.) 1 4.f3 !d7 1 5.:gd l lLleB This was I l lescas Cordoba - Piket, Linares 1 995. Here I suggest the natural 1 6.!b2N (in the game White rushed with 1 6.f4) 1 6 . . . lLlc6 (too risky is 1 6 .. .f5 1 7.f4 lLlg4 1 B.:gd3!) 1 7.lLld5 with a pleasant edge for White.

a b c d e f g h 1 2.!b2!N

Strangely enough nobody seems to have played this natural move.

1 2 . . . c5 I also examined 12 .. . :geB 1 3.:gad 1 VlibB, after which 14.f4 lLlc6 1 5 .lLlxc6 !xc6 1 6.lLld5t gives White a stable edge.

1 3.lLlde2 b5 14 .f4! A logical reaction. Now White obtains the advantage by concrete measures.

1 4 . . . lLleg4 After 1 4 . . . lLlc6 1 5 .:gad 1 Black has problems defending the d6-pawn.

1 5 .Vlid3 White comfortably covers the e3-square.

1 5 . . . bxc4 16.bxc4 :gbB 17.:gab 1 ± White is firmly i n control. H e has prevented

all possible counterplay, and now threatens to drive Black's knight to the edge of the board by means of 1 B .h3.

l 1 .l;dl :gb8 Black continues preparing his queenside

counterplay. 1 l . . .lLle5

This meets with a powerful retOrt. 1 2.c5! !g4

1 2 . . . dxc5 1 3.lLlf5 Vlixd l t 1 4.lLlxd l gxf5 1 5 .exf5± leaves Black without reasonable compensation. 12 ... !d7 1 3 .f4 just transposes to 12 ... !g4, with one fewer move having been played.

1 3.f3 !d7 1 4.f4! This is much stronger than 14.lLlb3 Vlie7 with double-edged play, Strikovic - Tissir, Lorca 2006.

1 4 . . . lLlc4 Clearly worse is 14 . . . lLlc6 1 5 .lLlxc6 !xc6 1 6.e5! lLlg4 1 7.h3 with a big advantage.

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .b3!N

This is a serious improvement over 1 5 .c6 bxc6 1 6.e5 lLlg4 with a very complex game, Ullrich - Beckemeier, Germany 1 9B5 .

1 5 . . . lLla5 If 1 5 . . . dxc5 1 6.lLlde2 Black will be hard pressed to meet the intended 1 7.e5.

1 6.!a3

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . ttJbd7 465

Also interesting is 1 6.�b2 ttJg4 1 7.Wie2 dxc5 l S.ttJc2 with very interesting compensation, for instance: l s . . . Wics 1 9 .e5 1"1bS 20.ttJe4 b6 2 1 .h3 ttJh6 22.g4� White has a powerful initiative for the pawn.

1 6 . . . dxc5 16 . . . ttJg4 1 7.Wic1 does not help Black.

17.�xc5 b6 l S.�a3 c5 1 9 .ttJf3 White's chances are clearly preferable.

12.h3 This is invariably a useful move in this

variation, preparing to place the bishop on e3.

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

a b c d e f g h

12 . . . cS Black has also tried 1 2 . . . Wie7 1 3.�g5 WifS,

but this seems a bit too passive. White continues with 14.a4 Preventing all hopes of counterplay with . . . b5. 14 . . . �h6 1 5 .Wid2 ( l 5 .f4!? was also worthy of consideration.) 1 5 . . . �xg5 1 6.Wixg5 Vflg7 1 7.cJih2 ttJc5 l S.'IWe3 and White was clearly better in Ivanchuk - Narciso Dublan, Barcelona 2006.

13.liJf3! Less clear is 1 3.ttJde2 ttJe5 14.b3 b5 1 5 .f4

ttJed7.

13 ... hS Black gOt into an unpleasant position after

1 3 . . . Wie7 1 4.�f4 ttJe5 1 5 .ttJxe5 dxe5 1 6.ie3

b6 1 7.a3 �b7 1S .1"1ab l l:!edS 1 9.l:!xdSt WixdS 20.b4 in Studeny - Pachow, Germany 2003.

14.1£4! The complications resulting from 1 4.l:!xd6

b4 are far from clear.

8 ��.ti!i.�*. 7 Y�""·�.�ar�r 6 r� �_�_',�� 5 !I !�f '� " � ��" . . %� ��7��%� 4 m � .� � � 3 m

�

��

mtt5��

2 ��iV� r/.ot_ 1 d . . . . %mr .. . . . %�

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . 1£8 At first glance this looks like an admission of

failure, but White must still play accurately to contain his opponent's initiative.

While I was preparing the present chapter, I also decided to analyse a principled move that had not yet been tested: 14 . . . b4

By a curious quirk of fate, the very same move was most unexpectedly played against me before the book was published!

1 5 .ixd6 bxc3 16.�xbS It seems to me that Black fails to get sufficient compensation for the sacrificed exchange.

1 6 . . . Wib6 1 6 . . . cxb2 runs into: 1 7.1"1ab l ttJxe4 l S.ie5!± and the b2-pawn is fal ling.

17.�f4 Wixb2 At the time of the game the only contin uation I had analysed was 1 7 . . . cxb2 l S.l:!ab 1 ttJxe4, when White has the strong 1 9.1:!e 1 f5 20.ttJg5! with a clear advantage. We have been following the game Avrukh


- Rudolf, Ohrid 2009. In the game I immediately went wrong and allowed my opponent to obtain genuine compensation. However, with accurate play White should be able to maintain control. The correct response is:

I S .tOel ! The point is seen in the following forcing line:

I S . . . \Wxc2 I 9.tOxc2 tOxe4 20j:!e l ! f5 2 l .f3 tOef6 22.l::!xeSt tOxeS 23.!!b 1

White should win the ending.

Now I propose a simple move:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

15.e5N The only game saw 1 5 .cxb5 axb5 1 6.a4

Pezzica - Fritz, e-mail 2002. Now Black missed the strong idea 1 6 . . . i.b7!N with unclear play.

However, White does have a second promising idea in the exchange sacrifice 1 5 .!!xd6!?N i.xd6 1 6.i.xd6 !!b6 1 7.i.f4 (Unfortunately after the natural 1 7.e5 Black has a strong defensive idea at his disposal: 1 7 . . . i.b7 l S .!!dl \WaS! When he is by no means worse.) 1 7 . . . i.b7 l S .tOd2 White has nice compensation. He intends to play tOd5 at a suitable moment and to recapture with the c-pawn in the event of an exchange.

15 ... h4 Others would lead to serious problems

for Black. Now the game follows a forcing sequence.

16.tOa4 lLlh5 17.,ig5 f6 Black faces serious problems after: 1 7 . . . \Wc7

1 S.exd6 ixd6 1 9.\Wd2! ie7 (or 1 9 . . . ifS 20.g4!) 20.!!e 1 tOb6 2 1 .tOxc5 !±

18.exf6 lLl hxf6 Now I analysed the following continuation:

19.a3 a5 20.axb4 axb4 21 .if4 \We7 22.'\Wd3!

White keeps definite pressure.

B) 8 . .. h6

This used to be quite a popular move, especially in the late 1 9S0s. Black's idea is to prepare the manoeuvre . . . tOf6-h7-g5 , with the idea to exchange a pair of knights and perhaps generate some pressure against the white kingside.

9.h3 lLlh7

a b c d e f g h White has several routes to a slight plus, but

I choose to recommend the following.

10.ie3 lLlg5 1 1 .lLlxg5 hxg5 12.!!cl I like this positional move quite a lot.

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . ttJbd7 467

12 ... exd4 The "waiting" strategy is hardly a good idea

for Black: 1 2 . . . c6 1 3.d5 c5 14.ttJb5! VfJe7 1 5 .VfJd2 f6 1 6.b4 b6 17.a3 and White has much better chances, Lingnau - Schoenberger, Muenster 1 997.

13.,ixd4 lbeS

a b c d e f g h

14.b3! White should not rush with 1 4.c5, as the

position after 1 4 . . . g4 1 5 .hxg4 �xg4 16.f3 �e6 appears rather unclear, Litinskaya - Botsari, Debrecen 1 992.

14 ... cS Black cannot play passively with 14 ... �e6?

as after 1 5 .f4 gxf4 16.gxf4 ttJc6 1 7.�xg7 �xg7 1 8 .f5 White develops a dangerous initiative, McFarland - Greet, Hove 1 997.

IS.,ie3 g4 Sooner or later Black should play this.

16.hxg4 ,ixg4 Black has also tried 16 . . . ttJxg4 1 7.�f4

VfJa5 Santi - Bobzin, corr. 1 998. Now White should have played I S .VfJc2N ttJe5 1 9.ttJb5! E!:d8 20.E!:cd l VfJb6 2 1 .�g5! f6 22.ic1 with a serious positional advantage.

17.8 �e6 IS.llJe2 Wfe7 19.Wfd2

White has a slight positional edge thanks to Black's permanently weak d6-pawn, Borovikov - Matjushin, Kharkov 2000.

C) S ... exd4

White was not really threatening d5 or dxe5 yet, so without wanting to split hairs, one could make the argument that this reveals Black's intentions just a little too quickly.

9.llJxd4

Now we will examine two moves in detail: Cl) 9 ... c6 and C2) 9 ... E!:eS.

9 ... a6 1 0.VfJc2 reaches l ine A.

9 . . . ttJc5 1 0.h3 E!:eS l 1 .E!:el is line C22.

9 . . . ttJe5 1 O.b3 id7 1 0 . . . c5 l 1 .ttJde2 ttJeS is not a serious option. White has got an advantage without much effort after 1 2 .�e3 ie6 1 3.VfJd2 VfJd7 14 .E!:ad l ± Ditt - Striebich, Menden 1974. There is also not much point in 1 0 . . . ig4 1 I .f3 id7 when White can simply develop his pieces. 1 2.�b2 llJc6 Cross - Pafnutieff, Hollywood 1 952, and now 1 3.E!:c 1 E!:e8 1 4.llJd5 would give White pleasant edge.

1 1 .�b2 1 1 .h3 E!:e8 1 2.�e3 is another good option.


1 l . . .E!e8 1 2.E!e1 Black is unable to create counterplay. Here is one example:

1 2 . . . h6 1 3.f4 ItJc6 1 4.ltJd5 ItJxd5 1 5 .cxd5 j,g4 1 6.Wld2 ItJxd4 1 7.�xd4 Wld7 1 B .E!ac 1 ±

White has a clear positional advantage, Wassin - Vlach, Heraklio 200B.

Cl) 9 . . • c6

1 1 . .. a5 1 1 . . .ltJc5 reaches line 02.

12.Wlc2 a4!? Black uses a tactical motif in order to obtain

the a5-square for his queen. 1 2 . . . ltJc5 again leads to line 02.

13.E!adl In my opinion White should not enter the

complications arising after I 3.ltJxa4 ItJxe4! I 4.�xe4 E!xa4 I 5 .�xc6 bxc6 I6.Wlxa4 ltJe5 and Black has very interesting compensation for the exchange.

13 ... Wla5 14.E!fel White continues to strengthen h i s position.

14 ... ltJc5 Black also tried the rather provocative:

1 4 . . . \Mfb4 I 5 .a3 Positionally this is not the most desirable move, but I think it is worth making a small concession in order to gain time. Nevertheless White can also consider I 5 .ltJb 1 !? intending to meet I 5 . . . ltJb6 or 1 6 ... ltJe5 with 1 6.ltJa3, maintaining control without compromising the pawn structure.

I 5 . . . Wla5 Black cannot take on c4 as the queen would be in trouble after the simple bishop retreat to fl .

1 6.f4 Obviously this is much better than I6.b4?! axb3 I7.ltJxb3 Wlc7 when Black will always have plenty of counterplay against White's weak pawns on the queenside, Bunzmann -Enders, Germany 1 99B. I originally analysed the text move as a novelty, but then saw that it had been played towards the end of 2009.

1 6 . . . ltJb6 Not much is changed by 16 . . . ltJc5 1 7.�f2 ItJfd7 I B .ItJa2 ( l B.ltJf3 ItJb6 1 9.�f1 �e6 20.E!xd6 �xc4 leads to unclear play) 1 B . . . Wlc7 I9.ltJb4 White keeps the better chances, thanks to his spatial superiority.

1 7.�fl ItJfd7 This position was reached in Buss - Pavlovic, Ohrid 2009. Now I suggest:

1 B .Wlf2!N This is directed against the knight's intended move to c5. The point is revealed after:

1 B . . . ltJc5 Perhaps Black should try something else, but in that case it is clear that his strategy has failed.

I 9 .e5! dxe5 20.ltJxc6 bxc6 2 1 .�xc5 White has clearly better chances, for instance:

2 1 . . .ltJd7 22.�b4 Wlc7 23 .�d6 Wla5 24.c5±

15.j,f4!

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . lObd7 469

One of the key ideas in this variation is to attack Black's d6-pawn, and here the timing is perfect.

lS . .. i.ffi Sacrificing the pawn does not work. After

1 5 . . . ltJe6 16 .ixd6 ltJxd4 1 nhd4 ltJd5 White has the simple 1 8 .e5! if5 1 9.�d2 ltJxc3 20.�xc3 �xc3 2 1 .bxc3 and she remained with an extra pawn in Manakova - Segal, Duisburg 1 992.

16.lOf3 gd8 In case of 1 6 . . . ie6 1 7.ixd6 ixc4 1 8 .ixf8

�xf8 Reshevsky - Najdorf, Salvador 1 952, I would suggest 1 9.9d4!?N ie6 20.�d2, threatening 2 l .e5 followed by �h6 and ltJg5. Play might continue 20 . . . �g7 2 U�dl and thanks to his control over the d-file White has clearly better chances. His main plan wil l be to prepare an advance of his kingside pawns.

17.i.d2 �b6 1 8.i.e3 i.e6 We have been following the game Lekander

- Hakki, Eksjo 1 982. Here I like:

a b c d e f g h

19.i.d4!?N lOe8 If 19 . . . ig7 White gets a favourable position

by means of: 20.ltJxa4 (Also worthy of consideration is 20.e5!?) 20 . . . �b4 2 l .ltJxc5 dxc5 22.ic3 �xc4 23.b3 �a6 24.ltJg5!±

20.i.fU White keeps a firm control over the position,

while Black remains quite passive.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C2) 9 ... ge8 10.h3

a b c d e f g h

Now the rwo principal continuations are C2l) 1O ... a6 and C22) lo . . . lbcs.

Also to be considered are:

1 0 . . . c6 l l .ie3 takes us back to line C l .

1 0 . . . ltJe5 l l .b3 a6 1 1 . . .id7 1 2.ie3 a6 allows White to set up his pieces in the optimal way: 1 3 .�c2 c5 1 4.ltJde2 b5 1 5 .gad 1 Here, having failed to equalize, Black committed the inaccuracy 1 5 . . . �e7?! in Glaser - Ludwig, Leipzig 1 995. This could have been punished by 16.ig5! when there is no comfortable defence against White's threats of 1 7.ltJd5 and 1 7.f4 followed by e5 , for instance: 1 6 . . . ic6 1 7.f4 ltJed7 1 8 .e5 ixg2 1 9 .exf6±

1 2.ie3 c5 This is premature. Relatively best would have been 1 2 . . . gb8 transposing to line C2 l .

1 3 .ltJde2 gb8 1 4.f4 ltJc6 1 5 .�d2! ixh3 Having reached a strategically difficult position, Black tries unsuccessfully to complicate matters.


Note that 1 5 .. . b5 does not work in view of the simple 1 6.e5! when both Black's knights are hanging.

1 6.�xh3 lLlxe4 1 7.lLlxe4 �xa l 1 8J"ha l E!xe4 We have been following the game Valiente - Cortes Moyano, Santiago de Chile 2008. Now the simplest would be:

1 9.1Llc3N E!e8 2o.lLld5 With a huge advantage.

e21) 1O . . . a6

1his set-up is sometimes referred to as the Gallagher variation, after the Anglo-Swiss GM. Gallagher has certainly been one of its most loyal adherents, and has also published analysis on it in various books. Black's main idea is to prepare the moves . . . c5, . . . lLle5 and . . . b5 , with strong counterplay on the queens ide.

1 l .i.e3 I believe this standard developing move to

be the most promising. 1 1 .E!e 1 has been the most popular choice, but it is not necessary to overprotect the e-pawn at this stage.

8 E �j-�j �if� 7 �£��!-hl!.I£ 6 , _ f� a1 ' � �� " • • • %� /"""� % 5 �� %'''/''�' �� 4 m8 � 8 m �

� �%.,,/;)'l . . . . . ;�.� ��r� %

3 � � m f[j 8 2 �n"""_'''''��

" .. � . . " .� �.''''%f0'� 1 � �iY.��

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . . .E!b8 This is an essential part of Black's strategy; he

could hardly contemplate a subsequent . . . b5 with his rook still on a8.

He has also occasionally switched plans with

1 l . . .lLlc5 1 2.�c2 �d7 1 3.E!adl �c8 14.c;!{h2 E!e5!? as seen in Krogius - Kuzmin, Cappelle la Grande 1 995. Black's idea is quite tricky, but could have been refuted as follows:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .b4!N E!h5 1 6.bxc5 �xh3 1 7.f3! and Black's attack appears to be insufficient, for instance: 1 7 . . . �xg2t 1 8 .c;!{xg2 �h3t 1 9.c;!{f2 �h2t 20.�e1 �xg3t 2 1 .�f2 �g2 22.cxd6 cxd6 23.Wb3±

12.b3! White defends the c4-pawn if anticipation

of . . . lLle5 .

12 ... c5 This is the most popular move - Black

simply continues with his plan. He has tried a few other approaches as well, and I suggest that you pay particularly close attention to the second and third of the following options:

1 2 . . . lLlc5 This does not really challenge the white position.

1 3 .'1Wc2 �d7 1 3 . . . �e7 is met strongly by 1 4.E!fe l ! lLlfxe4 (After 1 4 . . . �d7 1 5 .E!ad 1 White has an optimal set-up, while it is hard to say the same about Black's arrangement, Mittelman - Lederer, Beersheba 1 997.) 1 5.lLlxe4 lLlxe4 1 6.�xe4 �xe4 1 7.�d2! The point. 1 7 . . . �xe 1 t 1 8.E!xe1 E!xe I t 1 9.�xe1

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . lLlbd7 471

ixd4 Ruck - Vajda, Gyula 2000. Now the strongest would be 20.g4!N id7 2 1 .ic3 ixc3 22.\Wxc3, and Black would face a tough defence, since White has good chances to generate an attack using the weakened dark squares on the kingside.

14.b4 tOe6 1 5 .tOb3! It is generally favourable for White to keep more pieces on the board, since he has a definite space advantage. On a secondary note, now he can comfortably meet . . . b7-b5 with c4-c5.

1 5 .. . \Wc8 As I mentioned above, White is ready for 1 5 . . . b5 1 6.c5 dxc5 1 7.tOxc5 tOxc5 1 8 .ixc5 when he maintains a pleasant positional advantage.

1 6.�ad1 White was obviously better in Avrukh -

Arizmendi Martinez, Biel 2003.

1 2 . . . tOe5 This is a bit trickier.

1 3 .a4! This stops Black's idea connected with the . . . b5 advance. The point of Black's last move can be seen after 1 3.f4?! tOed7 when White is unable to prevent the two main ideas: 1 4 . . . c5 followed by . . . b5, and the tactical blow 14 . . . tOc5 followed by capturing on e4, exploiting the vulnerable position of the bishop on d.

1 3 . . . id7 We have reached a very important moment.

a b c d e f g h

1 4 .�a2! The ideal way to maintain control. The rook is heading for d2, where it will be perfectly placed to reStrain Black's possible counterplay. 1 4.\Wc2 \Wc8 1 5 .cj;Jh2 c5! 1 6.tOde2 b5 gave Black nice play in Wilke - Bakhmatov, Templin 2004.

1 4 . . . \Wc8 Less accurate would be 1 4 ... h5? ! 1 5 .�d2 \WcB In this position White has the opportunity for 1 6.f4! which would be impossible with the king on h2, as Black would give a check on g4. 16 . . . tOc6 17.\t>h2 (I would also seriously consider 1 7.f5 ! ? tOe5 1 B.�df2 with good attacking chances, due to Black's . . . h5 move, which seriously weakened his kingside.) 17 . . . h4 Consistent, but White's forces are much better prepared for complications. 1 B.gxh4 tOh5 1 9.tOd5 \WdB 20.tOf5! and White obtained a big advantage in Stohl -Arizmendi Martinez, Leon 200 1 .

1 5 .\t>h2 Now if 1 5 .f4 Black is just in time to create counterplay with 1 5 . . . tOc6 1 6.cj;Jh2 tOb4 1 7.�d2 c5 followed by . . . ic6 .

1 5 . . . h5 It was also important to check 15 . . . c5 1 6.tOde2 b5. The critical line runs 1 7.axb5 ( 1 7.cxb5 axb5 1 8 .\Wxd6 c4! allows Black plenty of counterplay) 1 7 . . . axb5 1 B .\Wxd6 (once again 1 B .cxb5 ixb5 1 9.tOxb5 �xb5 20.\Wxd6 c4 gives Black counter-chances) 1 B . . . bxc4 1 9 .bxc4 tOxc4 20.\Wxc5 tOxe3 2 1 .\Wxd and Black does not have enough compensation for the missing pawn.

1 6.�d2! In the game Skembris - Knaak, Athens, 1 992 White defended with the less than ideal 1 6.f3 . This does not worsen his position significantly, but I still prefer the text move.

1 6 . . . h4 1 7.gxh4 c5! This looks like the most challenging move. Instead 17 . . . tOh5 1 B .f4 transposes to the


game Stohl - Arizmendi, examined after 1 4 . . . h5? ! instead of 14 .. :�cB above. It is time to improve on White's play:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g b

I B.tt:lc2!N In the game White choose IB .tt:lde2, which allowed the nice I B . . . i-xh3! 1 9 .i.xh3 tt:lf3t forcing a perpetual, and after 20.<.t>g3 tt:lh5t 2 1 .<.t>g2 tt:lxh4t a draw was agreed in Ki. Georgiev - Knaak, Dortmund 1 99 1 .

1 B . . . tt:lfg4t This looks critical. After 1 B . . . b5 1 9.axb5 axb5 White removes his vulnerable knight with tempo: 20.tt:lxb5! i.xb5 2 1 .cxb5 �xb5 (or 2 l . . .c4 22.tt:ld4! c3 23 .�c2±) 22.f4± White is much better. I also examined I B . . . tt:lh5 1 9 .�xd6 i-g4 20.hxg4 tt:lxg4t 2 1 .<.t>g1 i-xc3 22.i-g5 i.e5 23.�d3± and thanks to the idea of i.h3, Black is unable to maintain control over the key f4-square.

1 9 .hxg4 tt:lxg4t 20.<.t>g1 i-xc3 2 1 .�xd6 tt:lxe3 Black should eliminate the dark-squared bishop in order to fight for compensation. Instead after 2 1 . . .i.e6 22.i-f4± he is just a pawn down for very little.

22.tt:lxe3 i.e6 Under normal circumstances the unopposed dark-squared bishop might provide good compensation for Black's missing pawn. However, in this particular position White has a strong and concrete idea at his disposal:

23.h5 i.e5 24.hxg6 fxg6 25 .tt:lg4!±

1 2 . . . �e7!? I suggest that the reader pays close attention

to this move. I only found six games (almost all of which involved a grandmaster playing Black), with Black scoring three wins and three draws.

a b c d e f g b

1 3.a4 This seems like the only good way to stop Black's intended . . . c5 followed by 14 . . . b5.

1 3 . . . tt:lc5 Another line is 13 .. . c5 1 4.tt:lde2 b6 Huzman - Gallagher, Mallorca 2004. Here White should choose the most natural 1 5 .�d2!N Evidently he was afraid of 1 5 . . . i.b7, but here White has the strong 1 6.i.f4 tt:le5 (In case of 1 6 . . . tt:lxe4 17 .i.xe4 i.xe4 IB .i.xd6 tt:le5 White has 1 9.f4, gaining material.) 1 7.�ad l �bdB I B.i-g5! �fB 1 9.f4 tt:lc6 20.f5 with a serious attack.

1 4.f3 Not the most desirable move, but White will eventually prepare f4 and it should also be noted that Black's queen is sl ightly misplaced on e7. Here is one example:

1 4 . . . a5 1 5 .i.f2 c6 1 6.�e l h5 1 7.f4 Finally we reached a normal-looking position for the whole line.

17 . . . tt:lfd7 1 B .�b l tt:le6 This position occurred in Botovikov - Vovk, Alushta 200B. Now White could use have exploited his opponent's weakened kingside with:

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . ttJbd7 473

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h 1 9.1Od5!N \Wd8 20.lOxe6 1:%xe6

White is also better after: 20 . . . fXe6 2 1 .lOe3 lOc5 22.\Wd2±

2 l .f5 1:%e8 22.lOf4 lOe5 23.'�·d2± Black might starr to regret the . . . h7-h5 move.

13.ttJde2 b5 Black follows his plan and plunges head-first

into the complications. There was nothing to gain from postponing this advance, as after 1 3 .. .'lWc7 14.a4! he falls under positional pressure, for example 1 4 ... lOe5 1 5 .1:%a2 �e6 1 6.f4 lOc6 1 7.g4! and Black was in serious trouble, P.H. Nielsen - Arizmendi Martinez, Istanbul 2003.

14.'�xd6 This implies an exchange sacrifice, but White

gets excellent value for it.

14 ... b4 15.llJa4 ttJxe4

16.i.xe4 Obviously we would not usually wish to

exchange our prized bishop for a lowly knight, but it is important to keep the momentum.

16 . . . i.xal After 1 6 . . . 1:%xe4 White has 1 7.1:%ad 1 \We8

1 8 .lOf4! (There is no point in entering complications with 1 8 .lOxc5 1:%xe3 1 9.1Oxd7 1:%xe2 20.lOxb8 �xh3 with unclear play, Zebre - Yarmolyuk, corr. 2006.) 1 8 . . . �f8 (Worse is 1 8 . . . �e5 1 9.\Wc6 when Black loses the c5-pawn, while after 19 ... �d4 20.lOxc5! 1:%xe3 2 1 .1:%xd4+- he ended up in a lost position in Drozdovskij - Golubev, Odessa 2007.) 19 .\Wc7! (Less convincing is 1 9.\Wd3 lOb6) 19 . . . 1:%e5 This position was reached in ] . Horvath - Reinderman, Haarlem 1 993. Now the natural improvement would be 20.lOd5N 1:%b7 2 1 .\Wa5± and Black loses the c5-pawn.

17.1:%xal 1:%xe4 1 8.llJxc5 1:%e8 This is the most challenging, although a

couple of alternatives have been tried:

1 8 . . . 1:%xe3 1 9.fXe3 \We8 ( 1 9 . . . 1:%b6 20.\Wd4 is also hopeless for Black) 20.e4! 1:%b6 2 1 .\Wc7 1:%f6 22.1:%d 1 +- ] . Horvath - Berthelot, Cannes 2002.

1 8 ... 1:%b6 1 9.\Wd2 \wf6 This was Makarov - Thipsay, Moscow 2004. Now there is a clear improvement:

a b c d e f g h


20.itJxe4!N �xal t 2 1 .It>g2! ! Only like this. The natural looking 2 1 . It> h2 actually squanders all White's advantage after 2 1 . . .E!e6 22.itJd6 itJe5!.

2 l . . .�b7 If 2 l . . .E!e6, rhere follows 22.itJd6! E!xd6 23.�xd6 �b7t 24.f3 �xa2 25.'it>f2, and Black is helpless against the threats.

22.�xd7 �xe4t 23.f3 �xf3t

a b c d e f g h 24.lt>f2!!

The easiest way, although 24.'it>xf3 �fl t 25.�f2 E!f6t 26.itJf4 g5 27.�d8t It>g7 28 .'it>g4! seems to be winning as well, since after 28 . . . gxf4 29.�d4 fxg3 30.�xf6t �xf6 3 1 .�xf6t It>xf6 32.'it>xg3 the pawn endgame should be winning for White, thanks to his c-pawn.

24 . . . E!b8 Obviously Black cannot play 24 . . . �xe2? 25 .�d8t It>g7 26.�d4t.

25 .lt>xf3 White has a large advantage, for instance

25 . . . �f6t 26.lt>g2 E!d8 27.�d4 E!xd7 28.�xf6 E!d2 29.lt>f3 E!xa2 30.itJd4 and the c-pawn should decide the issue.

19.E!dl This position used to be evaluated as lost for

Black, but then it transpired that he can still fight with:

19 ... �e7

And not 1 9 . . . �a5? when 20.itJxd7 �xd7 2 1 .�xd7 �xa2 22.�d3 was winning for White in Terekhov - Raykhman, Munich 2008.

Now White faces a very imporranr crossroads. After a deep investigation I came to the conclusion that White's best option is:

a b c d e f g b 20.�xe7

The alternative is 20.�c7, but here I believe Black has good chances to hold after 20 . . . itJxc5 2 1 .�xb8 �e4!.

20 . . • E!xe7 21 .ltJf4 Even without queens White has a serious

initiative, which more than makes up for the missing exchange.

21 .. .itJxc5 22.ixc5 E!d7 I also examined 22 . . . E!e8 23.itJd5 E!e2

24.ixb4 ie6 (24 . . . ib7 25.itJf6t It>g7 26.�c3±) 25 .�d6 E!b7 26.itJc3 E!c2 27.itJe4 E!xa2 28 .�e5 f6 29.E!d8t 'it>f7 30.itJd6t It>e7 3 1 .�xf6t! It>xf6 32.itJxb7 �xh3 33.itJc5 when the endgame should be winning for White.

23.ltJd5 'it>g7 24.id4t f6 A sad necessiry, in view of 24 . . . lt>h6 25.itJf6

E!xd4 26.E!xd4 �xh3 27.g4 with a large advantage for White.

25.ixf6t 'it>f7 26.ie5

Chapter 2S - 6 . . . tU bd7 475

With two pawns for the exchange, White is at least equal on material terms. Moreover, he still has fine attacking chances due to his domination in the centre and on the dark squares, Kiss - Tratar, Austria 1 996.

C22) lO ... tLlcS l l .�el

Sometimes Black tries the mysterious waiting move: 1 1 . . . h6

White can try to exploit the slowness of this approach with:

1 2.lLib3! Compared with l ine C223, Black lacks the option of 1 2 . . . tUa4.

1 2 . . . tUe6 Alternatives also do not promise Black an adequate game. a) 12 . . . lLixb3 1 3 .axb3White has strengthened his c4-pawn and entered his queens ide rook into the play. Even more importantly, he eliminated Black's pressure against the e4-pawn and now can easily improve his position. 1 3 . . . a6 1 4.ie3 id7 l S .'lWd2 hS 1 6.f4 ic6 1 7.if2 as l S .Elad l WcS 1 9.id4 was clearly better for White in Moskalenko - Illescas Cordoba, Barcelona 200S .

b ) 1 2 . . . lLifd7 1 3.ie3 lLieS (or 1 3 . . . lLixb3 14.axb3 a6 l S .'lWc2 with a pleasant edge, Bayer - Holzke, Germany 1 996) 14.tUxcs dxcS l S .'lWe2 ie6 1 6.�ad l 'lWc8 was Drozdovskij - Ootes, Leeuwarden 2009, and now White should have opted for: 1 7.f4!N lLixc4 (No better is: 1 7 . . . ixc4 l S.'lWc2 lLid7 1 9.b3 ia6 A sad necessity. [ l 9 . . . ie6 20.fS!+-] 20.eS± Despite being a pawn up Black's position is hard to defend.) l s .ixcs tUb6 1 9.c;t>h2 and White maintains a comfortable advantage.

1 3.f4 as 14.a4 Preventing any potential tricks along the hB-al diagonal, as might occur after 1 4.ie3 a4 l s .lLid4 lLixd4 1 6.ixd4 cS 1 7.if2 a3 1 8 .b3 lLig4!.

14 . . . hS l S .ie3 lLid7 16.'lWf3 c6 17.�ad 1 'lWc7 l S .'lWf2 b6 1 9.lLid4±

White has maintained control and enjoys a pleasant edge, Anastasian - Comas Fabrego, Istanbul 2000.

C22l) l l . . . c6 12.'lWc2

Another decent possibility is 1 2.if4, when the main continuation is 1 2 . . . lLie6 1 3.ie3 lLixd4 1 4.ixd4 ie6 l S .'lWd3 'lWaS The position is complex, but it seems to me that White's chances are preferable. Nevertheless I like the text move even more.

a b c d e f g h


12 ... tLlfxe4?! A risky move according to theory. The main

line is obviously 1 2 . . . a5 1 3.ie3, which almost transposes to l ine 02 of the present chapter, except that White has played E!fl -e 1 instead ofE!a l -d 1 . This should not alter the evaluation in any dramatic way. White has managed to develop his pieces in the optimal way, with E!ad l to follow shortly, and thus enjoys an almost automatic advantage with his central control and well coordinated pieces.

13.tLlxe4 hd4 14.�g5! After this strong move White forces the

exchange of Black's dark-squared bishop for a knight, obtaining a dangerous initiative thanks to the obvious weakness of the dark-squares in Black's camp.

14 ... WTd7 The bad news for Black is that 1 4 . . .f6? is

impossible due to 1 5 .ixf6!.

15.tLlf6t �xf6 16.�xf6 E!e6 This defensive manoeuvre has been played in

all the games that reached this position.

17.�c3! This is stronger than 1 7.WTc3.

17 ... WTe7 This does not solve Black's problems, but I

doubt that he has anything better. 17 . . . WTd8 1 8.b4 E!xe1 t

Or 1 8 . . . tLld7 Vasilev - Maitesian, Cannes 2000, and now 1 9 .E!xe6N fxe6 20.E!d l d5 2 1 .\Mfe2 with a powerful attack.

1 9Jhe 1 tLle6 20.\Mfd2 The vulnerabiliry of the dark-squares in not Black's only problem - he also has trouble developing his light-squared bishop.

20 . . . \Mff8 Lagowski - Chojnacki, Poznan 2006. Here I found a simple improvement:

a b c d e f g h 2 1 .E!d l !N

White regains the pawn by force, and his bishops will remain a powerful force in the endgame.

2 l . . .id7 22.\Mfxd6 WTxd6 23.E!xd6 ie8 24.if6 a5 25.b5 cxb5 26.cxb5 ixb5 27.ixb7 E!b8 28.if3

The mating net around Black's king should decide the game.

1 8.b4 tLld7 This position has occurred in rwo games, but

White's play left much to be desired on both occasions. Fortunately it is easy to improve his play as follows:

a b c d e f g h

19.E!xe6!N fxe6 20J�dl e5 21 .WTd2 2 1 .b5 cxb5 22.cxb5 ttJc5 23 .\Mfd2 .if5 is less

convincing.

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . ltJbd7 477

21.. .lLlb6 22.Wxd6 Wxd6 23.!!xd6 �f5 24.c5 ttJc4 25.!!dl±

It is doubtful that Black can hold this endgame.

C222) l 1 ...aS

a b c d e f g h

12.lLldb5! This is the most principled continuation.

Needless to say, White has numerous alternatives, but I like the text move the most. Black is prevented from playing . . . c6 for the time being and has to suffer White's annoying knight, which might help to facilitate many tactical ideas for us.

12 ... �d7 We should also pay attention to three other

moves:

12 . . . a4 has been tried four times, but strangely enough on each occasion White missed the thematic 1 3 .e5!N, which is extremely strong here. Here is an illustrative line: 1 3 . . . dxe5 14 .'<MfxdS �xdS 1 5 .ltJxc7 �b8 (Black loses a pawn after 1 5 . . .:1!a5 1 6.�xe5) 1 6.�e3 ltJd3 17.�ed l and Black is in trouble, due to the threat of l S .�a7.

1 2 . . . ltJfd7 13 .�g5! A very important tactical resource. Practice

revealed 1 3 .�e3 ltJe5 14 .�xc5 dxc5 1 5 .'<MfxdS �xdS 1 6.ltJxc7 �bS to be perfectly playable for Black.

1 3 . . . '<Mfxg5 Black has to accept the challenge, as otherwise his position is simply unpleasant. 13 . . . �f6 14.�xf6 ltJxf6 1 5 .e5! dxe5 1 6.'<MfxdS �xdS 1 7.ltJxc7 �bS l S .�xe5± with a healthy extra pawn for White. 1 3 . . . f6 1 4.�e3± leaves Black with a blocked bishop.

14.ltJxc7 '<MfdS 1 5 .ltJxaS �xc3! The best chance. 1 5 . . . ltJe5 16.ltJb5 ltJxc4 1 7.ltJac7 leaves Black with no compensation for the exchange.

1 6.bxc3.�e6 1 6 . . . ltJe5!? This move, which was mentioned by Vul in Chess Informant S6, may be a better practical chance although White still remains on top. 1 7.�b l ltJxc4 l S .�fl Vul stopped analysing here, evaluating the position as clearly better for White, and indeed after l S . . . �e6 1 9.�xc4 �xc4 20.ltJb6 �xa2 2 1 .�b5 Black fails to demonstrate compensation.

1 7.�b l b6 1 7 . . . b5 runs into strong l S.e5! dxe5 1 9.�xb5 when Black can resign.

l S.e5! A key idea; now Black will hardly be able to crap the knight.

l S . . . dxe5 l S . . . �b7? is much worse. Vul gives the following brilliant line: 1 9.�xb7 ltJxb7 20.ltJxb6 ltJxb6 2 1 .'<Mf d4 dxe5 (2 l . . .ltJc5 22.exd6+-) 22.'<MfxdSt ltJxdS 23.�ed l ltJb7 24.�b5!+- and Black unavoidably loses one of his knights. We have been following the game Vul -Markosian, Moscow, 2002. Now I think White should have played:

19 .�d5!N .�f6 20.�e3! Intending �f3 .

20 . . . �b7 2 1 .�xb7 ltJxb7 22.ltJxb6


Equally effective is 22.:B:b5 Wi'c8 23.:B:d5 4Jbc5 24.:B:exe5! Wi'xa8 25.:B:xd7 4Jxd7 26.Wi'xd7.

22 . . . 4Jxb6 23.Wi'xd8t 4Jxd8 24.:B:xe5 @f8 25 .:B:xa5 4Jxc4 26.:B:a8

White has a large, probably decisive advantage.

1 2 . . . i.e6

a b c d e f g h 1 3 .e5! dxe5 1 4.Wi'xd8 :B:exd8

No better is 1 4 . . . :B:axd8 1 5 .4Jxc7 :B:e7 1 6.4Jxe6 :B:xe6 17 .i.e3 4Jd3 1 8.:B:e2! The most accurate. 1 8 . . . e4 1 9.:B:d l Black faces serious troubles, for instance 1 9 . . . :B:de8 20.4Jxe4! 4Jxb2 2 1 .:B:xb2 4Jxe4 22.:B:xb7 4Jxg3 23.:B:dd7!+- Harika - Salman, Jodhpur 2003.

1 5 .4Jxc7 :B:ac8 1 6.4Jxe6 fxe6 After 1 6 . . . 4Jxe6 1 7.:B:xe5 White remain with an extra pawn, while Black fails to prove his compensation, for example: 1 7 . . . b6 ( l 7 . . . :B:xc4 1 8.:B:xa5 4Je8 1 9.:B:d5!±) 1 8.i.e3 :B:xc4 1 9.i.xb6 :B:d2 20.:B:b5± Cech -Jirovsky, Czech Republic 2000.

17.b3!? I really like this "human" move. Still, 17 .:B:e2 should also be enough for an advantage.

1 7 . . . e4 1 8 .:B:b l :B:d3 Black's best chance was 1 8 . . . 4Jd5!, but also here after 1 9.4Jxd5 exd5 20.i.g5 :B:d7 2 1 .cxd5 :B:xd5 22.h4! White's advantage is clear, due to his bishop pair and Black's weak central pawn.

1 9.4Jb5 4Jfd7 20.i.f4 With an obvious positional advantage,

Ki. Georgiev - J . Ivanov, Bulgaria 1 99 1 .

13.i.f4 This is one of the critical positions of the

whole line.

a b c d e f g h

13 ... i.xbS This has been Black's most common choice,

although it is clearly a rather double-edged idea. Black removes the annoying knight and gets a bit more space for his pieces, but the weakness of the c7 -pawn and the powerful enemy bishops might spell trouble for him in the long run.

Here are a few of the other options:

1 3 . . . Wi'c8 runs into a thematic tactical strike for this variation: 1 4.4Jxc7! Wi'xc7 1 5 .i.xd6 Wi'c8 16.e5 4Jh5 Payen - Seeman, Helsinki, 2000, and now the simple 17 .i.xc5N 4Jxg3 1 8.i.d6! 4Jf5 1 9.4Jd5 would have given White a clear advantage.

1 3 . . . h6 allows the very same idea: 14 .4Jxc7! W1xc7 1 5 .i.xd6 Wi'c8 (also after 1 5 . . . Wi'b6 1 6.e5 i.c6 17 .i.xc5 Wi'xc5 1 8.i.xc6 bxc6 1 9.exf6 :B:xel t 20.Wi'xe l i.xf6 2 1 .4Je4 White remains with a healthy extra pawn) 1 6.e5 White will regain the piece while keeping a material

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . itJbd7 479

advantage. Still, the following continuation was certainly not the way for Black to try and salvage his position: 16 . . . ixh3? 1 7.ixh3 �xh3 1 8.exf6 �xe 1 t 1 9.�xe 1 +- Barsov - Malyshev, Abu Dhabi 2003.

13 ... ic6 prevents the aforementioned tactical threat, but leaves White with a pleasant position all the same. 14 .�c2 itJfd7 1 5 .�ad l White's army is well coordinated and he needs just to find a suitable moment for jumping with his knight to d5. 1 5 . . . ttJe5 1 6.ttJd5 ( l 6.ie3!N seems to be even stronger, for instance 16 . . . �c8 17.ttJd5 ixd5 1 8.exd5 and Black is tied to the defence of the c7 -pawn.) 1 6 . . . ixb5 1 7.cxb5 �b8?! (Black should have opted for 17 ... c6, although after 18 .bxc6 bxc6 1 9.ttJe3! White maintains a pleasant advantage.) 1 8.ie3 White's positional advantage is beyond any doubts, Kalinitschew - Hannebauer, Berlin 2007.

14.cxb5 The doubled pawns can hardly be considered

a weakness - it is more important to increase the control over the light squares, as well as opening the c-file.

14 ... itJfd7 15.�c2 itJe6 Another game saw 1 5 . . . ttJb6 16.�ad 1 �f6

Hernandez Onna - Vogt, Leipzig 1 975, and now White has a nice tactical shot: 17.e5!N dxe5 1 8.i.e3 ttJe6 (Black is not helped by 1 8 . . . �e7 1 9.ttJd5 ttJxd5 20.ixc5! ttJb4 2 1 .�c l �e6 22.a3 trapping the knight.) 1 9.i.xb7 �ab8 20.itJd5 ttJxd5 2 1 .ixd5 with a big positional advantage.

16 . .ie3 c5 Black eliminates the backward c7 -pawn,

but now the pawns on c6 and d6 may become vulnerable. There is also 1 6 . . . id4 1 7.�ad l ixe3 1 8.�xe3 ttJec5 Ki. Georgiev - I 1incic, Belgrade 2000. Now White should continue with 1 9.f4N intending a central breakthrough with e4-e5 when the circumstances are right.

17.bxc6 bxc6 Now in Mchedlishvili Hartoch,

Amsterdam 2004, White automatically moved the queenside rook to the centre. Instead he should have played:

19 ... liJec5 20.ttJa4 White maintains unpleasant pressure along

the c- and d-files.

C223) 1 1 .. . .id7

This is another big tabiya with more than 400 games on the database. Black's main idea is to play . . . �c8 (attacking h3), intending to meet Wh2 with . . . �e5 followed by . . . �h5.

12.<j;Jh2!? I like this prophylactic move, which prevents

the threat before it even occurs. White's general strategy in this line is to restrain any counterplay before gradually completing development.

1 2.if4 used to be a principal line here, but recent games have shown that after 12 . . . h6 1 3.�c2 ttJfxe4! Black is doing okay.


a b c d e f g h

Now we will consider C2231) 12 . . . h6 and C2232) 12 . . . a6 in detail, as well as:

1 2 . . . E:e5 This thematic move has only been played once, in the game Shvedov - Chuprov, St Petersburg 1 999. White can obtain an excellent position with some resolute play, beginning with:

1 3 .f4N E:h5 1 4.f5! This is an important antidote against Black's attacking manoeuvre, which should always be remembered.

1 4 . . . tt'lg4t No better is 1 4 . . . gxf5 1 5 .exf5 ixf5 1 6.tt'ld5 ig6 1 7.tt'le7t �hB 1 8 .tt'lxg6t hxg6 1 9.b4! and Black's knight does not have a good square, for instance: 1 9 . . . tt'le6 20.tt'lxe6 fxe6 2 1 .E:xe6 1M!d7 22.1M!e2±

1 5 .1M!xg4 ixd4 16.1M!e2! ie5 1 7.tt'ld5! The rook on h5 can hardly feel comfortable

with tt'lf4 on the way.

1 2 . . . 1M!cB This immediately justifies White's last move. Having already protected the h3-pawn, he can now afford the time to prevent the intended . . . E:e5.

1 3.f4! a5 14.e5! This "concrete" approach ro the position works well here.

1 4 . . . dxe5 1 4 . . . tt'lh5 1 5 .tt'lf3 does not change much.

1 5 .fxe5 tt'lh5 1 6.tt'lf3! Now Black must constantly be on guard against g4 winning a piece. In certain positions he can get enough compensation by sacrificing his bishop, but sooner or later it will become a real threat.

1 6 . . . b6 After 1 6 .. .f5 1 7.ie3 tt'le6 I B.tt'ld5! White keeps an obvious positional advantage.

1 7.ie3 There is no point in rushing with 1 7.g4?! ixg4 l B . hxg4 1M! xg4 when Black has a dangerous initiative.

1 7 . . . E:bB This position occurred in Sheers - Mano, e-mail 200 1 . Now was the right moment for:

a b c d e f g h 1 8 .g4N ixg4 1 9.hxg4 1M!xg4 20.1M!d4! 1M!xd4

There is nothing better. 2 1 .ixd4 tt'ld3 22.tt'ld5! tt'lxel 23.E:xe l

White has a clear advantage thanks ro his tremendously active minor pieces.

C2231) 12 . . . h6 13.gb1

White continues the strategy involving useful prophylactic moves.

13 • • • 1M!c8 Most other sensible moves have been tried as

well. Here are a few of the main ones:

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . ttJbd7 481

1 3 . . . a6 leads straight to line C2232.

l3 . . . l'%eS?! Once again this does not work properly. 1 4.b4 (This is my preferred choice, although the thematic 1 4. f4 l'%hS l S .fS! is also strong.) 1 4 . . . lLle6 Wastney - Schlosser, Yerevan 1 996. Now White should play the simple I s .lLlf3!N l'%hS 1 6.@g l ! when it is obvious that the rook is misplaced on hS.

l 3 . . . aS 1 4.lLldbS Also worthy of consideration is 1 4.b3!?

14 . . . �c6 14 . . . �xbS I S .cxbS lLlfd7 1 6.f4 (also interesting was: 1 6.�e3!? hS 1 7.\1;l!c2 h4 1 8.g4 g5 1 9 .@gl;!;) 1 6 . . . a4 1 7.\1;l!c2 hS Serafimov - Dochev, Bankia 1 992. Now White should have played I S .�d2N maintaining a pleasant positional advantage. Obviously I S . . . h4 is nothing to worry about, as after 1 9.94 Black's h-pawn might become weak.

a b c d e f g h l S.\1;l!c2N

This looks clearly preferable to 1 5 .f3, as occurred in Maric - Eidelson, New Delhi 2000. 1 5 . . . \1;l!d7 1 6.�f4 White has a pleasant game. It is important to note that Black has no time to double his rooks along e-file, since after:

1 6 . . . l'%e7 1 7.l'%bd l l'%aeS?! White strikes with:

l S.lLlxc7! \1;l!xc7 1 9.�xd6 \1;l!b6 20.�xe7 l'%xe7

2 1 .eS lLlfd7 22.f4 With an obvious advantage.

14.b4 lLle6 15.lLlxe6 Black is absolutely fine after I S .lLlb3 lLlgS!.

15 ... �xe6 16.liJd5 Now we see the value of the earlier l'%al -b l .

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

16 ... �d8 I doubt that Black has anything better,

although as usual we will check a few alternatives.

1 6 . . . c6 was played in C. Horvath - Kovalev, Debrecen 1 992. Now White should have played the natural and critical: 17.lLlxf6t!N �xf6 1 8 .�xh6 (But not l S .\1;l!xd6 \1;l!dS! 1 9 .\1;l!xdS l'%axdS 20.�xh6 ixc4�) I S . . . �xc4 1 9.\1;l!xd6 �e5 20.\1;l!d2 Blackwill have problems demonstrating compensation.

1 6 . . . lLld7 17.�b2 The exchange of dark-squared is clearly in White's favour, as Black will lose a good deal of his dynamic potential and may also suffer from the weak dark squares on the kingside.

1 7 . . . �xb2 Clearly inferior is 1 7 . . . c6?! I S.�xg7 @xg7 1 9.1Lle3! when the d6-pawn becomes a target. 1 9 . . . \1;l!c7 20.\1;l!d4t lLlf6 (even worse


is 20 . . .f6 2 1 .:1'%ed 1 ± when Black loses his pawn) 2 1 .f4 and Whire has nice arracking prospecrs.

1 8.l'hb2 �d8 Intending to rransfer the queen to f6. Another option is 1 8 . . . a5 Kharitonov -Kalashnikov, Moscow 2008. Now I prefer nor to give Black the a-file and thus suggesr 1 9.b5N maintaining the advantage.

1 9.f4! This is exactly the right moment to start aggressive action. Note that rhe queen's rook can easily swing over to f2 to join the arrack.

1 9 . . . a5 20.b5 Once again it makes sense to keep the a-file closed.

20 . . . a4 2 1 .lOe3 �f6 2 l . . .lOc5 should be met by 22.�d4! raking conrrol over the key a l-h8 diagonal. White has an obvious advantage.

22.:1'%f2 lOb6 23.f5! gxf5 If 23 . . . �xc4 24.�c l ! intending lOg4 White develops a decisive offensive.

24.exf5 Black faces serious problems in Avrukh -

Kanrsier, Israeli league 2004.

17.ib2 c6 1 8.lLle3! On rhis occasion White musr avoid

simplificarions for the time being. Afrer 1 8.lOxf6t ixf6 1 9.�c2 �xb2 20.:1'%xb2 �f6! Black was absolurely fine in Arsovic -Markovic, Belgrade 2003.

18 . . . a5 19.a3 On this occasion 1 9.b5 is not really an

option, as the a2-pawn is hanging.

19 .•. axb4 20.axb4 This position is certainly playable for Black,

but still White's chances seem preferable, thanks to his space edge and the weakness of the d6-pawn. Here is a good example:

20 . . . :1'%a2 21 .:1'%e2! 'lWa8 This was Tadic - Markovic, Vrnjacka Banja

2005 .Now the strongest continuarion would have been:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

22.:1'%c2!N Maintaining control. Instead 22.�xd6

:1'%d8 23.�f4 :1'%d3 allows Black reasonable compensation.

22 ... :1'%d8 23.:1'%d2 'lWa4 24.'lWc1� Whire maintains all the pluses of his

position.

C2232) 12 ... a6 13.:1'%bl

Again we see rhis calm prophylactic move.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 2S - 6 . . . ltJbd7 483

13 . . . h6 Black also decides to play the waiting game.

He has also tried:

1 3 .. J:%b8 14.b4 CLJe6 1 5 .�e3 h6 16.Wd2 <Jih7 (Or 1 6 . . . CLJg5 1 7.f3 WcS I S.h4 CLJe6 1 9.CLJb3 with a nice advantage.) This position occurred in Izeta Txabarri - Lezcano Jaen, Las Palmas 1 995 , and now I suggest: 1 7.f4N b5 Black needs to look for counterplay somewhere. I B.cxb5 axb5 (Worse is 1 S . . . CLJxd4 1 9.�xd4 axb5 20.e5! dxe5 2 1 .fxe5 CLJgB 22.Wf2± when White dominates.) 1 9.CLJb3± and White is clearly in control.

13 . . . b5 14.cxb5 axb5 Cvitan - Loffler, Switzerland 200 1 . Now of course the principled reaction would be:

1 5 .CLJdxb5N �xb5 1 6.CLJxb5 CLJcxe4 After 16 .. .l'ha2 1 7.CLJc3 �a6 I S.b4 CLJcd7 1 9.Wc2t White keeps a slight but long-term advantage, due to his bishop pair and Black's weak c7-pawn.

1 7.Wc2 �d7 I S.a4 c6 1 9.CLJc3! 19.CLJd4 d5 looks perfectly playable for Black.

1 9 . . . CLJxc3 20.�xeBt WxeB 2 1 .bxc3 It seems to me that White keeps a small edge everywhere; for instance

2l . . .d5 22.c4 CLJe4 23.cxd5 Better than 23.�f4 CLJc3.

23 . . . cxd5 24.�f4t

14.M tiJe6 15 . .ie3

a b c d e f g h

1 5 ... tiJg5 This is the most common move. The main

al ternative is: 1 5 . . . CLJxd4 1 6.�xd4 �e6

16 . . . c5? 1 7.bxc5 dxc5 1 B . .ixc5 �cB 1 9.�b6 We7 20.e5 CLJh7 2 1 .CLJd5 was dreadful for Black in Ilic - Miljanic, Nis 1 997.

1 7.CLJd5 b5 I B .�cl �cB No better is I S . . . c6 1 9 .�b6! WbS 20.�c7 Wb7 2 1 .CLJxf6t ixf6 22.�xd6 �xc4 23.e5 ig7 24.Wd2 with definite pressure. This position was reached in Vukic - Ilic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 99B. Now White should not hurry to exchange on b5 but instead play:

1 9.Wd2N With the possible continuation:

19 . . . c6 20.�b6 Wd7 2 1 .CLJxf6t �xf6 22.c5 dxc5 23.Wxd7 ixd7 24.ixc5

Black will suffer in this endgame, due to his weak queens ide pawns.

16.8 Usually we would prefer to avoid this move,

but here it is more or less forced, in order to defend e4 while also preparing h3-h4 without allowing a check on g4.

16 ... Wc8 17.h4 ltJe6 1 8.tiJd5 Despite the minor positional concession,

White has seized a lot of space while his opponent remains huddled on the back three ranks.

1 8 . . . Wd8 19.1tJxe6 ixe6 20.Wd2 Wh7 21 .id4�

White maintained a pleasant edge m

Blagojevic - Markovic, Niksic 1 997.

D) 8 . . . c6

Finally we arrive at Black's most popular and flexible Sth move.

9.h3


a b c d e f g h Now we will consider in detail: Dl) 9 ... a6

and D2) 9 .. J';eS. after a quick round-up of the less common alternatives.

The big main line is 9 . . . \Wb6, which will be considered in the following chapter.

9 . . . exd4 1 0.lLlxd4 reaches line C l .

9 . . . \Wa5 is considered in Line F32 of chapter 27 via the 6 . . . c6 move order.

9 . . . lLle8 1 0.E:e 1 exd4 1 1 .lLlxd4 1Mlb6 1 2.lLlb3 transposes to Line B3 of the fol lowing chapter.

9 . . . h6 This does not have much sense.

1 0 . .te3 \We7 Compared with line B there is no time for the . . . lLlh7-g5 manoeuvre in view of: 1 0 . . . lLlh7?! 1 1 .\Wd2±

1 1 .\Wd2 Wh7 Black can hardly afford to play so passively in the opening, as shown by the following example.

1 2.E:ad l E:d8 1 3 .E:fe l a6 Desperately searching for some activity, but this only worsens Black's position. Now in the game Rantanen - Walsh, Moscow 1 956, White could have created major problems for his opponent with:

1 4.c5! dxc5 1 5 .dxe5 lLlg8 1 6.lLla4!±

Dl) 9 ... a6 1O.ie3

a b c d e f g h

lO ... E:eS AI; usual, Black would be ill-advised to seek

queenside activity prematurely. 1 O . . . b5?

This can be more or less refuted by the following typical response.

1 1 .c5! b4 1 1 . . .dxc5, Dautov - Sutovsky, Bad Homburg 1 997, might lead to immediate disaster after the obvious: 1 2.dxe5 lLle8 1 3.ixc5+-

12.lLla4 d5 There is also 1 2 ... lLlxe4, but Black is far from solving his problems here too. 1 3.cxd6 lLlxd6 1 4.lLlxe5 lLlxe5 1 5 .dxe5 lLlc4 (if 1 5 . . . ixe5 1 6 . .tc5! Black unavoidably loses material) 16 . .tc5 E:e8 1 7. f4N wirh an obvious positional advantage, Jirka - Schauer, Plzen 2000.

1 3.ig5 \Wc7 1 4.ixf6! A very strong and concrete approach.

1 4 . . . lLlxf6 Or 1 4 . . . ixf6 1 5 .dxe5 lLlxe5 1 6.lLlb6 E:b8 1 7.exd5 and Black remains a pawn down.

1 5 .exd5 Now the play proceeds along a more or less forced pathway:

1 5 . . . lLlxd5 1 6.lLlxe5 ixe5 1 7.dxe5 \Wxe5 1 8.E:el \Wf6 1 9 . .txd5! cxd5 20.lLlb6 E:b8 2 1 .lLlxd5 \Wxb2 22.c6

Chapter 28 - G . . . lLlbd7 485

The mighty passed pawn easily decides the result.

22 . . . ixh3 23.�b 1 Wig7 24.c7+Gagunashvili - Bayramov, Urumia 2008.

1 1 .Vffc2 Also quite promising is 1 1 .d5 cxd5 1 2.cxd5

b5 1 3.'tJd2, but Black's position seems to be more or less acceptable after 1 3 . . . 'tJbG.

1 1 . ..b5 12.dxe5 dxe5 Only once has Black tried 1 2 . . . 'tJxe5

1 3.'tJxe5 dxe5. In this case, after 1 4.�fd 1 Wie7 1 5.cxb5! White maintains better chances, for instance: 1 5 . . . cxb5 ( 1 5 . . . axb5 1 6.a4±) Milos - Fedorowicz, Buenos Aires 1 99 1 , and now simply 1G.'tJd5!N 'tJxd5 1 7.exd5 if5 1 8.Wid2 �ac8 1 9.�ac l gives White the advantage, since Black is unable to set up a blockade on d6.

13.�fdl Wi e7 14.a3

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... h6 I also examined the more natural 14 . . . ib7

1 5 .�d2!? (Also worthy of consideration was 1 5 .'tJd2 intending to meet 1 5 . . . 'tJf8 with 1 G.cxb5 cxb5 17.a4! bxa4 1 8.'tJc4± with definite pressure.) 1 5 . . . �ed8 1 6.�ad 1 a5 1 7 .if! �ac8 ( 1 7 . . . b4 is worse in view of 18 .'tJa4 bxa3 19.bxa3 when 1 9 . . . c5? loses a pawn due to: 20.'tJxc5 'tJxc5 2 1 .�xd8t

�xd8 22.ixc5±) 1 8 .b4! axb4 1 9.axb4 White has long-term pressure, due to the passivity of Black's light-squared bishop. Obviously Black cannot capture on b4 in view of 20.ib6 winning material.

1 5.b4 ib7 16.lLld2 �ac8 This was seen in the game Lelievre - Viaud,

France 1 989. Here White should continue with:

17.1L1b3N �ed8 18.�ac1 i.a8 19.1Lle2;t Maintaining a stable advantage thanks to

the more harmonious position. Black will have particular difficulty finding a useful role for his l ight-squared bishop.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2

D2) 9 . . . �e8 10.ie3

a b c d e f g h

1O ... exd4 As usual Black has tried virtually all possible

moves, but in my opinion only the following idea deserves to be mentioned specifically: 1 0 . . . a5 1 1 .Wic2 a4

1 1 . . .exd4 1 2.'tJxd4 'tJc5 1 3.�ad 1 would just transpose to the main line below.

1 2.�ad 1 Wia5 13 .�fe 1 Wib4 It is more reliable to play 1 3 . . . exd4 14.'tJxd4, reaching a position examined via the move order 8 . . . exd4 9.'tJxd4 c6 move order, in line C l .


14.c5! Again this move is very strong.

14 . . . dxc5 1 5 .dxe5 ltJxe5 1 6.ltJxe5 l:%xe5 1 7.f4 l:%e8 I S.e5 ltJd7 1 9.1tJe4 i.fS

Paci - Pelle, Paris 2000. Now White could have secured a big advantage with:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h 20.i.d2!N iWb6 2 1 .i.c3±

1 1 . ttJxd4 ttJc5 1 1 . . .a5 1 2.iWc2 reaches a position from line

C l .

12.iWc2 a5 The only reliable alternative is 1 2 . . . iW e7,

when White should react with 13 .l:%fe l . (Certainly if i t is possible we should always avoid playing f2-f3, especially when h2-g3 has already been played.)

a b c d e f g h Now 1 3 . . . a5 would transpose to 1 2 . . . a5, so

we will examine fWO other possibilities:

a) Of course it is important to check the greedy option: 1 3 . . . ltJ&.e4? This move can be punished by the following forcing sequence. 14.i.xe4! (I have taken a slight liberty with the move order. The game actually continued 14 'ltJxe4 ltJxe4 1 5 .i.xe4 iWxe4, but Black could also have considered 1 5 . . . c5!? , as played in a few games. The text move leads to the same position while sidestepping this possibility.) 1 4 . . . ltJxe4 1 5 .ltJxe4 iWxe4 ( 1 5 . . . c5? is useless here due to 1 6.i.g5) 1 6.i.d2 iWxe 1 t 1 7.l:%xel l:%xe 1 t I S .i.xe 1 i.xd 4 1 9.i.c3 ( 1 9. g4!? is also interesting) 1 9 . . . i.xc3 20.iWxc3 i.xh3 2 1 .iWb4! Without this important detail Black would be fine. In my opinion it is tough for Black to hold this position, for instance: 2 1 . . .b6 22.iWxd6 c5 23 .iWe7!± and Black did not manage to survive, Shamkovich - Baljon, Amsterdam 1979.

b) 1 3 . . . i.d7 1 4.ltJb3! This excellent move enables White to remove the pressure against the e4-pawn.

14 . . . i.e6 14 . . . ltJxb3 1 5 .axb3 Now Black must take time out to defend the a-pawn. 1 5 . . . a6 ( l 5 . . . c5 1 6.iWd2 i.c6 17.l:%ad l ± leaves White with an obvious positional advantage, A. Petros ian - Akopian, Yerevan 19S5.) 16.l:%ad l i.e6 17.iWd2! Now the weakness of the b6-square becomes very important, as we can see from the following line: 1 7 . . . l:%adS I S .i.b6 l:%cS ( l S . . . l:%d7 is well met by 19.f4± when the threat of f5 is very unpleasant.) We have been following the game Burmakin - Iskusnyh, Novgorod 1 995. Now White could simply have grabbed the d6-pawn with 1 9.iWxd6 iWxd6 20.l:%xd6 ltJd7 21 .i.e3, keeping a healthy extra pawn.

1 5 'ltJxc5 dxc5 1 6.b3 Now White can look to exploit his "extra" kingside pawn.

1 6 . . . l:%adS 1 7.l:%adl i.cs l S .f4 ltJd7 Raicevic - F. Portisch, Odzaci 1 975. Here White missed a strong opportunity:

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . ttJbd7 487

a b c d e f g h 19 .e5!N

Intending 20.tiJe4. 1 9 . . .f6 20.tiJe4!

Still we see this powerful knight manoeuvre. 20 . . . fxe5 2 1 .tiJd6 �f8 22.f5±

Black has a difficult position.

13.�adl There have been more than two hundred

games played from this position, but for me the evaluation is obvious. White has achieved an optimal arrangement of his pieces and his chances are clearly higher.

1 3 . . . a4?? is a blunder in view of: 1 4.tiJxc6 bxc6 1 5 .i.xc5+-

1 3 . . . 1Wc7? This is also a serious inaccuracy, as it allows White to strike immediately with the elegant:

1 4.tiJdb5! cxb5 1 5 .tiJxb5 1We7 1 6.tiJxd6 tiJa6 16 . . . tiJe6 17.e5!N So far White has only captured immediately on e8, which I believe to be less accurate than the text. 17 . . . tiJd7 (Another option is 17 . . . tiJh5 1 8 .tiJxe8 '?fixe8 1 9 .1We4! Threatening 20.g4 1 9 .. .f5 20.exf6 tiJxf6 2 1 .1Wc2 intending 22.�fel . White is clearly better.) 1 8.tiJxe8 1Wxe8 19 .f4± This kind of position is strongly in White's favour, as it is difficult for Black to develop his queenside.

1 7.tiJxe8 tiJxe8 1 8 .f4 Intending to advance the e-pawn.

1 8 . . . tiJb4 1 9.1Wf2 i.f8 I f 19 . . . tiJxa2 20.�a l i.e6 (or 20 . . . tiJb4 2 1 .i.c5 1Wd7 22.md 1 tiJd3 23.1We3 tiJxc5 24.�xd7 tiJxd7 25.e5±) 2 1 .�xa2 i.xc4 22.�aa 1 i.xfl 23.�xfl ± White's bishop will be very strong after the imminent e4-e5 advance.

20.b3 White was clearly better in Szmetan - Milos,

Buenos Aires 1 99 1 .

1 3 . . . tiJfd7 This should me met by a calm reaction.

14 .b3 1 4.tiJb3 was also a good move, but I like the idea of defending the c4-pawn in advance, thus preventing Black's threats before they even occur. White is firmly in control, and I just want to share with the reader the following nice line:

14 . . . 1Wb6 1 5 .�b l 1Wc7 The desirable 1 5 . . . 1Wb4 runs into 16 .tiJdb5! when it suddenly transpires that the queen is not so well placed on b4.

1 6.�fd l tiJb6 This position occurred in Makarov -Askarov, Tomsk 2006. Now White could


have obtained a big advantage with the following thematic blow:

a b c d e f g h 1 7.ltJdb5!N cxb5 1 B .ltJxb5

Now the following line looks natural: I B .. .'o&e7 1 9.ltJxd6 ltJbd7 20.ltJxeB �xeB 2 l .f4 b6 22.e5!

It is essential to restrict Black's dark-squared bishop.

22 . . . �b7 23 .�xb7 ltJxb7 24.�g2 ltJbc5 25.a3±

14.lUel a4 I doubt that Black has anything better.

1 4 . . . �d7 looks a bit passive, but this is not the biggest problem for Black, since after 1 5 .�f4! it is hard for him to deal with the threat of ltJxc6 followed by �xd6, for example: 1 5 . . . :!:%adB (after 1 5 . . . ltJh5 1 6.ltJxc6! �xc6 1 7.�xd6 �e6 1B .�xc5 �xc4 1 9.�d6± and Black has no compensation for the pawn, Malaniuk - Mohr, Nova Gorica 2003.) 1 6.ltJb3! �e6 1 7.ltJxa5 ltJh5 IB .�e3 �c7 1 9.1tJb3± White had a healthy extra pawn in Vasilev - Maherramzade, Medellin 1 996.

1 4 . . . ltJfd7 1 5 .b3! This is why I consider 14 . . . a4 to be more accurate. The text move not only prevents here Black from attacking the c4-pawn, but also from opening up the a-file for his rook. Here is one illustrative line:

1 5 . . . h5 1 6.f4 �fB There is also 1 6 . . . h4 17.g4 ltJf6 1 B .�f2 ltJxg4 1 9.hxg4 �xg4 Goczo - 5tupavski, Budapest 2005, and now the natural 20.�f3N would have left Black without sufficient compensation.

1 7 .�f2 ltJ e6 This was Bocharov -Apicella, Internet 2002. Here I suggest:

a b c d e f g h 1 B .ltJxe6!N :!:%xe6 1 9.1tJa4!

Black's position is very difficult. He has no active play and the b6-square requires constant observation.

15.f4 1 5 .�f4 is not so strong in view of 1 5 . . . ltJfd7,

Guimard - Olivera, Buenos Aires 1 964.

15 ... 11Jfd7 We must also pay close attention to:

1 5 . . . ltJfxe4 1 6.ltJxe4 ltJxe4 1 7.�xe4 'IMlxe4 I B.�f2 �xe l t 1 9 .�xel �xd4t 20J%xd4 :!:%xe1 t 2 1 . c;f{f2 �f5

After this forced sequence I do not believe that Black has enough compensation for his material deficit.

22.�d2 :!:%a1 Another option is 22 . . J�h 1 23.c;f{g2 c5 24.c;f{xh 1 cxd4 25 .�xd4 �xh3 26.�xd6 i.e6 27.�d4± and it looks like White should convert his material advantage, Dautov -Akopian, Tbilisi 1 9B9. 50 far we have been following the game

Chapter 28 - 6 . . . ttJbd7 489

Moncelli - Bilic, Bratto 1 988. At this point I found a serious improvement for White:

23.g4!N Now my main line runs as follows:

23 .. Jha2 24.�xd6! 24.gxf5?? a3 might lead to the opposite result.

24 . . . ie6 24 . . . a3 does not work now. White can give checks on d8, take on f5 , give a check with the pawn on f6 and then with the queen on f8 and c5, with mate to follow.

25.f5 ! gxf5 26.1Mfg5t @f8 27.gxf5 With a decisive attack.

16.b4 1 6.if2 ttJb6 1 7.b3 is another move order.

16 ... axb3 17.axb3 llJb6 Black has managed to open the a-file for his

rook, but this is not enough to make up for White's central dominance.

18.if2 i.d7 1 8 . . . �a3 occurred in Kopylov - Seifert,

internet 2004. Now White has a wide choice of interesting possibilities, but my own preference is 1 9.�a l N with the idea to exchange Black's only active piece.

19.ttJf3 White has achieved a model arrangement of

his pieces. Now he threatens not only ixc5 or b4, but also e5.

19 . . J3a3?! Black must have either overlooked or

underestimated his opponent's next move. Somewhat stronger would have been 1 9 . . . ieG, although here it looks tempting for White to make the transition to a strategically advantageous position by means of 20.ixc5 dxc5 21 .e5.

20.e5!±

a b c d e f g h

The opening of the centre was dearly favourable for White in Greenfeld - Koneru, Lippstadt 2004.

Conclusion:

The system with G . . . ttJbd7 and . . . e5 is considered to be one of Black's most principled responses to the Fianchetto system, and rightly so. From a long-term perspective, the pawn structure following the typical . . . exd4 exchange should favour White, who dominates the centre. The main challenge for the first player is likely to come in the early stages of the game, when he must strive to develop his pieces on purposeful squares while restraining the opponent's tactical opportunities. His plans will usually involve the moves h3 and ie3, followed by a queen move to c2 (often to defend the e4-pawn) and finally centralizing the rooks, typically on d1 and e 1 . If he can achieve all of this then he will invariably stand very well in the middlegame, unless Black has really achieved something concrete.

Obviously Black has plenty of resources as well, and there are a few particular lines in which White has to be especially well prepared for a tactical confrontation. This is especially true of the Gallagher variation, which we encountered in line C2 l . The good news is that, in this and other lines, White's chances appear to be higher as long as he plays precisely.

King's Indian

Variation Index l.d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 0-0 5.tDc3 d6 6.tDf3 tDbd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 c6 9.h3

�b6

A) 10 .. J:�e8 B) 10 ... exd4 1 1 .tDxd4

B1) 1 1 . .. �e8 12.�e2!? Bl l) 12 ... ltJxe4 B12) 12 ... tDg4 B13) 12 ... Wb4

B2) 1 1 ...tDg4 B3) 1 l . . . tDe8

A) after 1 9 ... �xc3

a b c d e f g h

20.4Jb3!N

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

10J:�e1

B l I ) after 13 . . . ixd4

a b c d e f g h

1 4 .a4!?N

B 1 2) afrer 18 ... �b4

1 9.4Jcb5!N

491 493 494 494 495 497 498 498

Chapter 29 - 9 . . . 'Wb6 491

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 0-0 5.�c3 d6 6.�f3 �bd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 c6 9.h3 'Wb6

This is the most theoretically challenging move, and the one I have always been most cautious about facing.

10J:�el I believe this to be the most promising line.

White has other interesting options, including both the positional 1 0.d5 and the more aggressive l O.c5!? dxc5 1 l .dxe5 lLJe8 l 2.e6 fxe6 l3 .lLJg5 lLJe5 , but I failed to discover any advantage after either of them.

Now we must pay close attention to both A) 10 .. J�e8 and B) 10 . . . exd4.

1 0 . . . 'Wb4 1 1 .ifl is examined in Variation F32 of Chapter 27 via the 6 .. . c6 move order.

1 0 . . . a5 is not really a serious option due to the following strong idea: 1 1 .c5! dxc5 1 2.lLJa4! 'Wa7 (after 12 . . . 'Wc7 1 3.dxc5± Black must already have been regretting his 1 0th move in M. Novikov - Timoshin, St Petersburg 200 1 ) 1 3.dxc5 lLJxc5 Black rries to complicate matters, bur this does not bring him any relie( 14.ie3 lLJfd7 1 5 .lLJxc5 lLJxc5 1 6.'Wd6 b6 17.lLJxe5 with a definite advantage for White, Bell - P. Littlewood, England 1 997.

A) 10 ... ge8 1 1 .d5

Compared with the position after 1 0.d5, the inclusion of the mutual rook moves to the e-file definitely helps White, for reasons that will become apparent.

1 1 . . . �c5 If 1 1 ... c5 Black's pieces are somewhat

misplaced for the closed position and White obtains a pleasant edge after: 1 2.a3 gf8 1 3.ie3 'Wd8 1 4.lLJd2 b6 1 5 .gbl a6 1 6.b4;!;; Timman Day, Haifa 1 976.

Black should postpone the capture in the centre until he is either forced to do it, or an otherwise suitable moment presents itsel( The immediate exchange is premature: 1 2 . . . cxd5 1 3.cxd5 a5 14.ie3 id7 1 5 .lLJd2

This is the optimal set-up for White's minor pieces. The light-squared bishop might also assist in the fight for the queenside after ifl - just one example of how the inclusion of the moves gfl -e l and . . . gf8-e8 was in White's favour. Quite a lot of games have been played from this position, but there is no doubt that White has a superior version of the main line, so I will only mention one illustrative game to show some ideas.

1 5 . . . 'Wc7 16.'We2 A worthy alternative is 16 .ifl .

1 6 . . . gec8 17.gecl lLJe8 1 8.b3 White slowly prepares the b4 advance.

1 8 . . . b6 1 9.a3 f5 20.b4 axb4 21 .axb4 lLJa6 Here I found an improvement over the game Fridman - Lykinov, Marijampole 1 996:

a b c d e f g h 22.exf5!N gxf5 23.lLJf3! 'Wd8

White was threatening 24.lLJa4. 24.lLJg5!

The knight will arrive on e6 with great effect. It is very important that the following tactical sequence turns our in White's favour.

24 . . . f4 Objectively Black should try something else, but in that case White's superiority would not be in any doubt.


25.gxf4 exf4 26.ixf4 l%xc3 27.l%xc3 ixc3 28.W!d3 ig7 29.W!xh7t Wf8 30.W!g6! W!e7 3 1 .l%b3+-

White has a crushing attack.

13.ie3 Wfc7 14.lLld2 14 .ixc5 has been known to be premature

ever since the famous game Portisch - Fischer, Sousse 1 967, in which Black got a perfectly playable position after 14 . . . dxc5 1 5 .dxc6 bxc6 1 6.ltJa4 if8.

14 . . . id7 Again premature is 1 4 . . . cxd5? ! 1 5 .cxd5

id7 (Senseless is: 1 5 . . . ltJd3 1 6.l%fl ltJxb2?? 1 7.W!b3+-) 1 6.W!e2 and we have transposed to the note to Black's 1 2th move above.

I s.ifl Once again we see this very important

resource. Now after a possible exchange on d5 the bishop might become very useful on the fl-a6 diagonal .

a b c d e f g h

15 . . . l%ab8 Let's also look at these ideas:

After 1 5 . . . l%ec8 I propose the modest 1 6.b3N intending a3 followed by b4. I do not see how Black can profit from his last move, as 1 6 . . . cxd5 17.cxd5 is still very much in White's favour.

1 5 . . . l%eb8 1 6.�f3 Instead 1 6.dxc6 ixc6! gives Black a plenty of counterplay, for instance 1 7.ig2 b6 1 8.b3 �b7 1 9.W!c2 l%c8 20.a3 ltJe6 with balanced chances, Ivkov - Liberzon, Amsterdam 1 969.

1 6 . . . ltJe8 White also keeps some pressure after 16 . . . cxd5 17.cxd5 b5 1 8.l%ec1 W!d8 19.b3t Black is tied to the defence of the b5-pawn. His problem is that advancing wi th . . . b4 would present the c4-square to White's knight.

1 7.dxc6 I suggest that the reader pays close attention to the timing of this exchange. If the timing is correct, it can be one of his key positional ideas. Having said that, I should also mention that there is nothing wrong with 1 7.b3 intending the standard plan of a3 and b4.

1 7 . . . ixc6 Black would ideally prefer to play 17 . . . bxc6, but the problem is that after 1 8.ixc5 dxc5 19 .1tJa4 Black will lose the c5-pawn, as White can always step up the attack with ltJb3 and W!e3. If this were not the case, then White would have been better off eschewing the exchange on c6.

1 8 .ltJd5 W!d8 1 8 . . . ixd5 does not solve Black's problems, as after 1 9.cxd5 White's bishop pair gives him the advantage. Here I found a nice new idea:

19 .1%bd 1 !N White is planning ltJb1-c3 and he maintains better chances. This is much stronger than 1 9.1%ed 1 ltJc7 20.ltJb3 ltJ7e6 when Black was alright in Panno - Stein, Caracas 1 970. I now analysed the following important line:

19 ... ltJc7 20.ig5! W!xg5 2 1 .ltJxc7 l%a7 22.ltJb5! ixb5 23.cxb5 ltJe6 24.ic4 W!e7 25 .ixe6 W!xe6 26.l%c1

White keeps a positional advantage.

Chapter 29 - 9 . . . �b6 493

16.a3! White immediately exploits the fact that

Black removed his rook from as, meaning thar rhe standard reaction of . . . a4 is nor available.

16 ... cxd5 17.cxd5 b5 This was rhe idea behind Black's 1 5rh move.

lS.b4 liJd3 Black should refrain from exchanging on

b4, as after I S . . . axb4 1 9.axb4 ltJd3 20.j,xd3 'Wxc3 White is not obliged to defend his a3-pawn and can instead accelerate his queenside play by the following means: 2 1 .'We2 1'!ecS (Very bad is 2 1 . . .j,xh3? 22.1'!ec1 'Wa3 23 .j,xb5 followed by ltJc4) 22.1'!b3 'Wc7 23.�h2 This kind of position is clearly favourable for White, as he can slowly increase his pressure on the queens ide, while Black is a long way from doing anything special on the kingside. 23 . . . 'Wb7 24.1'!a3 1'!aS 25.1'!ea l with ongoing pressure, Marovic - Tatai, Malaga 1 965.

19.hd3 �xc3 Now I found a very strong novelty:

a b c d e f g h

20.liJb3!N After 20.1'!b3 'Wc7 2 1 .bxa5 'Wxa5 22.�h2

1'!ecS 23 .'We2 1'!b7 24.1'!eb l 1'!cbS Black should hold the balance easily, Najdorf - Tal, Beograd 1 970.

20 ... a4 The tactical justification behind the last move

is seen after: 20 . . . axb4? 2 1 .1'!c 1 'Wb2 22.1'!e2 'Wxa3 23.1'!a l +- as well as: 20 . . . j,xh3? 2 1 .1'!c 1 'Wb2 22.1'!e2 Wxa3 23.1'!a l Wxb4 24.j,d2+-

21 .Wfe2! This is the second key point. White's knight

is untouchable in view of the threat to trap the queen.

21 ...WfeS 22.1'!ecl Wfa6 23.liJa5 1'!eeS 24.@g2

The b5-pawn is a constant weakness, and the c6-square will make an ideal future outpost for the knight. White's advantage is obvious.

B) 10 . • . exd4

This is considered to be the principal reply according to theory.

1 l .liJxd4

Now Black has three moves that warrant serious attention: BI) l 1 ...1'!eS, B2) 1 l ... liJg4 and B3) l 1 . . .liJeS.

1 1 . . .ltJc5 is not so challenging, and White can soon develop his pieces in the optimal way: 1 2.1'!b l a5 1 3.j,e3 1'!eS 1 4.'Wc2 ltJfd7


1 5 .f4 a4 16.�f2 �b4 1 7.a3 �a5 I BJ�bd 1 4Jb6 1 9.4Ja2!? ( l 9.�fl was a good option as well) 1 9 . . . �d7 20.4Jb4 l'!adB 2 1 .c;t>h1 �aB 22.g4t We have reached a typical situation for this variation. Black is searching in vain for counterplay, while White slowly improves his position, Arencibia - Garza Marco, Santa Clara 2002.

Bl) 1 1 .. . l'!e8

This certainly looks like the most natural move. Here White must make an important decision.

1 2.l'!e2!? I believe this to be the most promlsmg

option. The main purpose is to defend the b2-pawn in order to facil itate the development of the dark-squared bishop, although we will see in the variations that the rook has some other uses on the second rank as well.

Also worthy of consideration is the main theoretical move 12.4Jc2!?

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a e f g h

In this tense position there are three main ways in which Black may try to disrupt his opponent's plans: Bl 1 ) 12 ... lLlxe4, B12) 1 2 ... lLlg4 and B13) 1 2 .. JWb4.

As usual, there are a few less common alternatives to consider.

1 2 . . . 4Je5 1 3.b3 4Jfd7 1 4.�e3 4Jc5 1 5.l'!d2 just leaves Black with an inferior version of the positions reached in line B 1 2.

1 2 . . . 4Jc5 also does not create any problems after: 1 3 .�e3 �b4 14 .l'!c l ! Whi te easily defends the c4-pawn by indirect means. 14 . . . a5 1 5 .a3 �b6 Two games reached this position, but still I found an improvement:

a b c d e f g h 1 6.4Jf3!N with the fol lowing nice point: 16 . . . �e6 17 .�xd6 4Jfxe4 1 B.4Jxe4 4Jxe4 1 9.�f4 4Jc5 20.�h4! and Black faces serious troubles.

B 1 1) 1 2 ... lLlxe4

This is certainly a critical line, although I still like White's chances.

13.lLlxe4 ixd4 The other option is:

1 3 . . . �xd4 1 4.�e3! White will keep a nice initiative 111 the position without queens. It is difficult to evaluate the position after 14.4Jf6t 4Jxf6 1 5 .�xd4 l'!xe2 1 6.�xd6 4Jd7, but it seems to me that Black has good chances to hold.

14 . . . �xd l t 1 5 .l'!xd l 4Je5 1 6.4Jxd6 l'!dB 17.l'!ed2 ixh3?

An obvious error, but even after 17 . . . ifB I B .c5 f6 1 9 .b3 White is clearly better.

Chapter 29 - 9 . . . Wb6 495

l s.ixh3 ltJf3t 1 9.cj;f1 ltJxd2t 20J%xd2+Kursova - Kirillova, Orel 2006.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

14.a4!?N This is a very interesting novelty. Apart from

the incidental threat of 1 5 .a5, the main idea is to activate the queen's rook via the a3-square.

The usual move is 14 .ttJxd6, but it seems to me that Black is doing alright after 14 . . . :B:xe2 1 5 .�xe2 ltJe5.

14 .. . a5 This is the most natural move, although I

checked a few others as well:

Black fails to obtain adequate compensation after: 1 4 . . . :B:xe4? ! 1 5 .ixe4 ttJf6 1 6.ig2 ie6 17.a5 �c5 l S .:B:a4!±

Also unsatisfactory is: 14 . . . c5 1 5 .a5 �c7 1 6.ie3 ixe3 1 7.:B:xe3 :B:e6 l S.:B:d3 White will regain the pawn, while maintaining serious pressure.

15.:B:a3 :B:xe4!? Perhaps this is the best chance to complicate

the game, as the alternatives do not bring Black any relief:

1 5 . . . ig7 1 6.ie3 �c7 1 7.ttJxd6 :B:e7 I S .c5 White is clearly better.

1 5 . . . d5 This attempt to obtain some activity does not bring Black any relief. 1 6.:B:b3 �a7 1 7.cxd5 cxd5 lS .ttJd6 :B:xe2 1 9.�xe2 ltJf6 20.ie3! ixe3 2 1 .:B:xe3 Faced with the threats of 22.:B:eSt and 22.:B:e7, Black is in big trouble.

16.ixe4 Very unclear is 1 6.:B:xe4 ixf2t 1 7.cj;f1 ltJfS

l S .:B:b3 �a7.

16 ... ltJe5 17 . .!g2 I do not believe that Black has sufficient

compensation for the exchange. The following point is very important:

17 . . . .!e6 18 .'!e3!? l S .b3 intending ie3 is also good enough.

1 8 ... .!xe3 19.:B:axe3 liJxc4 White is clearly better after 1 9 . . . ixc4 20.:B:d2

ie6 2 1 .b3 when the d6-pawn is falling.

20.:B:xe6 fxe6 21 .b3 liJe5 22.Wxd6 lLlf7 23.Wxe6 :B:d8 24 . .!f1 !±

The vulnerability of Black's king should eventually tell.

B12) 12 ... liJg4 13.:B:d2

It is important that White is not obliged to retreat with his knight, but can instead maintain its strong position in the centre.

a b c d e f g h


13 ... �ge5 14.b3 lLlc5 15J'�c2! White intends to develop his dark bishop

on its preferred home of d. Obviously White could not play 1 5 .ib2? in view of 1 5 . . . tLled3 winning material.

15 ... a5 It is much too optimistic for Black to try:

1 5 . . . ixh3? 1 6.ixh3 tLlxe4 1 7.ie3! (but certainly not 1 7.tLlxe4?? 'lWxd4! 1 8 .'lWxd4 tLlf3t 1 9.1t>fl tLlxd4 when it is Black who emerges with extra material) 1 7 . . . tLlxc3 1 8 J�xc3 c5 Bagirov - Geller, Lvov 1 978. Now the simplest route to victory would be: 1 9.tLle2N tLlf3t 20.lt>h 1 ixc3 2 1 . tLlxc3+-

a b c d e f g h

16.ie3 a4 Black logically continues his play on the

queenside. The problem is that he does not achieve anything concrete and White stays firmly in control.

17J�bl axb3 18.axb3 W'b4 This looks like the most natural con tinuation,

but unfortunately it meets with a beautiful refutation.

Black can hardly hope for an acceptable game by playing passively, as seen after 1 8 . . . 'lWc7 19 .�d2 'lWe7 20.f4 tLled7 Borovikov - Schaefer, Senden 2005. Here White should have played

2 1 .b4!N tLle6 22.tLlde2 with an obvious advantage.

Perhaps best is 1 8 . . . �a3!?N although even here after the forcing seq uence 1 9. b4 tLlxc4 20. bxc5 'lWxc5 2 1 .'lWcl tLlxe3 22.fxe3 ixd4 23.exd4 'lWxd4t 24.lt>h2 I would prefer White's chances, despite the approximate material balance.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

19.�cb5!N This attractive tactical solution creates

serious problems for the defence. Less convincing is 1 9 .tLla2 'lWa3 20.b4 tLle6 2 1 .tLlcl Fridman - Schaefer, Essen 200 1 , and now after 2 l . . .tLlxd4!N 22.ixd4 ie6 23.�a2 'lWxa2 24.tLlxa2 �xa2 Black has decent chances.

19 ... cxb5 2o.id2 W'a3 21 .�xb5 W'a6 22.�c7 W'c6 23.lLlxa8

The last few moves were forced. Now Black has a choice, but neither continuation brings him any relief.

23 ... b5 23 . . . ie6 hardly looks like an improvement

after: 24.�a2 tLla6 25.f4 'lWc5t 26.lt>h2 tLlc6 27.b4! 'lWxc4 28.�xa6 bxa6 29.�cl +-

24.f4 W'xa8 25.fxe5 ixe5 26.if4± It is clear that Black faces serious problems

in this line.

Chapter 29 - 9 .. .'IWb6 497

BI3) 12 .. .'&b4

This time Black tries to harass the c4-pawn.

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

I3.l'k2 The rook takes full advantage of its position

on the second rank.

I3 . . . lZkS 14 . .id2 'Wb6 Although this is undoubtedly the main line,

we should not overlook the queen sacrifice: 1 4 . . . Wxc4! ? 1 5 .tLlcb5 cxb5 1 6.lhc4 bxc4 17 .tLlb5!

White has to take action very quickly, otherwise he could easily slip into a worse position.

17 . . . tLlfxe4 I S .tLlc7 �f5 I also examined l S . . . �e6 1 9.tLlxaS l:1xaS 20.�e3 �xb2 2 1 .l:1b 1 �g7 (2 l . . .tLlc3 22.Wc2 tLlxb l 23.Wxb2 �f5 24.Wf6! tLld7 25 .Wxd6±) 22.�d4 and it is hard to believe Black has enough compensation for the queen.

1 9.tLlxaS l:1xaS 20.g4 �xb2 2 1 .gxf5 �xal This position occurred in Seglins - Remde, corr. 1 990. Now I suggest:

22.'Mfxa l N tLlxd2 23.Wd4 c3 24.Wxc3 tLlde4 25 .�xe4 tLlxe4 26.Wc7

White keeps a definite edge.

lS . .ie3 as

It is very important to check the other possibilities:

Too risky is 1 5 . . . tLlfxe4? 1 6.tLlxe4 tLlxe4 17.tLlf5! c5 I S .tLlxg7 Wxg7 1 9.1:1e2 tLlf6 20.Wd2 l:1xe3? (A strange decision, but even after the relatively best 20 . . . �d7 2 1 .�h6t WgS 22.l:1ae 1 Black has serious problems defending the dark squares.) 2 1 .l:1xe3+- Stamenkovic -Djuric, Nis 1 994.

1 5 . . . Wc7 1 6.f3 Usually White tries to avoid this move, but in this concrete situation I do not see any problems, as he will slowly improve his position and later play f3-f4. 1 6 . . . a5 17 .Wd2 �d7 l S.l:1d l l:1adS Calleja Quintana - Roiz Baztan, Gijon 2000. Now I like the following arrangement: 1 9 .Wf2N �cS 20.b3:t and White's chances are better, thanks to his space advantage.

16.ttJb3 I also spent some time on the tempting

16.tLlxc6!? Wxc6 ( l 6 . . . bxc6? 1 7.'Mfxd6 tLlfd7 l S .tLla4 tLlxa4 1 9.�xb6 tLlaxb6 20.c5+-) 1 7.e5 Pragua - Zehm, corr. 2000, but eventually concluded that after 1 7 . . . tLlfe4!N l S .�xc5 tLlxc3 1 9.�xc6 tLlxd l 20.�xeS dxc5 2 1 .l:1xdl �f5 22 .�a4 �xc2 23.�xc2 �xe5 the endgame looks rather drawish.

16 ... a4 17.ttJxcS dxcS Here I found an interesting improvement:

a b c d e f g h


18.�ac1 !?N I found nothing special for White after

1 B .�b 1 lLld7 19 .b3 (White also gets nowhere after 1 9.�d2 lLle5 20.lLlxa4 Wia5 2 1 .b3 lLlxc4!) 19 . . . axb3 20.axb3 Wic7 2 1 .f4 Kunte Kotronias, Edinburgh 2003, and now after the accurate 2 1 . . .�dB!N 22.Wie1 id4 Black has a decent game.

18 ... �d8 Now the aforementioned idea of I B . . . lLld7

19.�d2 lLle5? does not work, because after 20.lLlxa4 the c4-pawn is protected by the rook on d .

1 9.�d2 �xd2 20.'lWxd2 White keeps the better chances, thanks to

his superior pawn formation. It is important to note that Black cannot solve his problems in a radical way by means of:

20 ... ie6 21 .eS ltJe8 22.£4 ixc4 In view of the unexpected:

23.ltJxa4! �xa4 24.b3 ixb3 2s.ixcs Wlc7 26.axb3 �a8 27.�dl

White maintains a clear positional edge.

B2) 1 1 ...ltJg4

a b c d e f g h

12.ltJce2 1tJgeS 13.b3 ltJcS 14.ie3 as

1 4 . . . �eB 1 5 .�b 1 a5 1 6.�fl is just another route to the same position.

lS.�bl �e8 16.�fl ! This great prophylactic move was played first

by Botvinnik back in 1 96 1 ! Now Black fails to get any concrete

counterplay and his pieces will soon be expelled from the centre.

16 ... Wld8 Another line is 1 6 . . . Wic7 17.Wic2 lLled7

1 B.lLlc3 lLlf6 (too passive is 1 B . . . lLlfB 1 9.Ei:bd 1 lLlfe6 20.lLlde2 .tfB 21 .Wid2 lLld7 22.ih6 lLlg7 23.Ei:fe 1 ± Botvinnik - Pachman, Germany 196 1 ) 1 9.Ei:fe 1 id7 20.Ei:ed 1 and White keeps a clear space advantage, Sergeev - Lundberg, Ceske Budejovice 1 993.

17.Wlc2 Wle7 18.ltJc3 ltJed7 1 9.�fel 1tJf6 20.�bdl ltJfd7 21 .£4

White continues to improve his position, while Black struggles to find any counterplay.

21 ...Wld8 22.ifl Wlb6 23.�bl Wlc7 24.Ei:e2 ltJb6 2S.�dl

White maintains all his pluses, Furman -Nezhmetdinov, Soviet Championship 1 959.

B3) 1 1 . . .ltJe8

This may appear unexpected, but it has actually been the most popular choice according to the database. It is surprisingly awkward for White to develop his pieces in the desired way, and great precision is required.

12.ltJb3 as This time the alternatives are not really

impressive:

1 2 . . . Wib4 1 3 .ifl lLlc5 14 .id2 gives White a very pleasant game, for instance 1 4 . . . lLlxb3 1 5 .axb3 Wib6 1 6.ie3 Wic7 1 7.Wid2 White

Chapter 29 - 9 . . . 't&b6 499

slowly improves his pOSItIOn, while Black remains passive. 1 7 . . . b6 l S.b4! i.b7 1 9.E1ed 1 White intends to continue with 20.c5 or 20.b5. 1 9 . . . c5 20.bxc5 bxc5 2 1 .i.g2 White's positional advantage is beyond any doubts, Matamoros Franco - Paramos Dominguez, Santa Clara 1 999.

1 2 . . . lZle5 This allows the strong thematic sacrifice:

1 3.c5! dxc5 14.i.e3i.e6 1 5 .lZla4 Wic7 1 6.lZlaxc5 i.c4 1 7.lZld2 b6

More stubborn would be 1 7 . . . E1dS, but also here after l s .Wic1 i.b5 19.f4 lZld3 ( l 9 . . . b6 20.fxe5 bxc5 2 1 .lZlf3 c4 22.E1d 1 !±) 20.lZlxd3 i.xd3 2 1 .e5 White gets a stable advantage.

l S .'t&c2 bxc5 J 9.lZlxc4 lZlxc4 20.Wixc4 i.xb2 This was Ruck -Jobava, Dresden 2007. Now I found the following improvement:

a b c d e f g h 21 .E1ad l N lZlg7 22.i.xc5 E1fdS 23.E1b 1 i.f6 24.f4 lZle6 25 .e5 lZlxc5 26.exf6! lZle6 27.i.xc6 E1d6

27 . . . E1acS loses to 2S.E1xe6 fxe6 29.Wixe6t Wif7 30.i.d5! .

2S.i.d5 Wixc4 29 .i.xc4 lZld4 30.E1e7 E1xf6 3 1 .E1bb7

White has a strategically winning position.

13.ie3 'lWb4 Black continues to pose problems. White

must find a precise way to deal with the threats against his queenside pawns.

14.cild4! This is the correct way, although it would

not be easy to determine this over the board.

14 . . . Wixc4 This leads to a forced sequence:

1 5 .i.f1 Wib4 1 6.a3 Wib6 1 6 . . . Wixb2?? loses the queen after 17.lZla4.

1 7.lZle6 Wixb2 1 S.lZlxg7 lZlxg7 19 .lZld5 Threatening 20.i.d4, trapping the queen.

19 . . . lZle6 Mamedjarova - Umanskaya, Warsaw 200 1 . Now Dautov's recommendation from ChessBase Magazine 91 looks strong:

20.lZlc7! lZlxc7 2 1 .i.d4 Wixa1 22.i.xal lZleS 23.f4!

White has a clear advantage, as his attacking chances are quite real.

14 . . . Wixb2 1 5 .lZla4 Wia3 16 .Wic2!N This looks like a very strong novelty. Black's queen is in real danger, and he will have to make some serious concessions in order to extricate her.

J 6 . . . lZlc5 16 .. . lZle5 does not help after: 1 7.E1ed1 Wib4 l S .i.fl !± Threatening 1 9.a3.


1 7.tOb6 �bB I B .�ab 1 ! Less convincing is 1 8 .�ed 1 tOa6!.

1 B . . . tOd3 If 1 B ... tOf6 19.�ed 1 Black must already lose material in view of the threatened 20.�c l .

1 9 .�e2 tOb4 20.Wd2 Wd3 2 1 .Wxd3 tOxd3 22.tOxcB �xcB 23 .�xb7

White has regained his pawn while keeping a very strong initiative. A sample continuation might be:

23 . . . tOf6 24.tOb3 �a8 25 .�a7! a4 26.tOa5±

lS.a3 WaS Nobody seems to have tried 1 5 . . . Wxb2. It

does not seem to be so bad, as after 16 . tOxa4 �xa4 1 7.Wxa4 tOb6! Black has chances to obtain decent compensation for the exchange. Nevertheless after 1 B .Wa7 tOxc4 1 9.�eb 1 Wc3 20.�c 1 Wb2 2 1 .�ab l Wa2 22.tOc2! White keeps the better chances.

16.f4 Another possible move order is 1 6.Wc2

tOc5 17.�ad 1 tOf6 1 B . f4 leading to the same position.

16 ... tOcS 17.Wc2 lLlfG Clearly inferior is: 17 . . . h5?! 1 B.�ad 1 tOf6

1 9.tOf3 �eB 20.tOg5 Black's d6-pawn is hanging and retreating the bishop to fB would be a clear admission of failure. Thus in the one practical encounter I found Black tried 20 . . . tOe6, but after 2 1 .tOxe6 ixe6 22.�xd6 �xc4 23.W£1 Wc7 24.e5 tOd7 25 .�ed 1 �e6 26.tOe4± White was in total control, Fridman - Gladyszev, Port Erin 2002.

18.�ad1 �e8 19.ifl hS I also checked 19 ... Wc7 20.tOf3 tOfd7

2 1 .id4! and White should be much better after exchanging the dark-squared bishops.

Now I found a promising improvement:

2o.lLlf3!?N

a b c d e f g h

There is no point in rushing with 20.f5 tOfd7 2 1 .fxg6 fxg6 22.tOf3 tOe5 23.�xd6 �e6 when Black has reasonable compensation, Vladimirov - Novopashin, Gorky 1954.

20 ... .ie6 21 .�xd6 Lc4 22.eS tLlfd7 23.tLld2 ie6 24.tLlce4 lLlxe4 2S.tLlxe4

White has definite pressure.

Conclusion:

The 9 . . . Wb6 varIation deserves its own dedicated chapter, as it sets White a totally different set of challenges from the lines we encountered previously. Here White really has to work hard and show great resourcefulness (or a high standard of opening preparation) simply to get his pieces out without allowing an unpleasant tactical blow. Subtle manoeuvres like �e2-d2 (or c2) can make all the difference. In line B3 we saw a case where White left the pawns on b2 and c4 en prise at the same time, which was justified by some specific tactics.

Fortunately, there is a reward for all these difficult moves; after successfully repelling his opponent's early threats, White can look forward to a typically favourable middlegame thanks to his great control over the centre. As usual, I found several important improvements which I believe will pose considerable problems for adherents of Black's set-up.

Modern Defence

A) 3 ... c6 B) 3 ... g6 C) 3 ... ttJf6 D) 3 ... �xf3 4.exf3

Dl) 4 ... g6 D2) 4 ... c6

E) 3 ... ttJd7 4.ttJc3 El) 4 ... �xf3 E2) 4 . . . e5 5.g3

E21) 5 ... ttJgf6 E22) 5 ... �xf3

C) after 1 8 . . . ic7

a b c d e f g b

1 9.'<Wel !N

Wade Defence

Variation Index l .d4 d6 2.ttJf3 �g4

3.c4

D2) note to 1 0 . . . cxd5

a b c d e f g h

1 4.a4!?N

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

£1 ) after 1 2 . . . tUb6

502 502 505 509 510 5 1 1 515 515 516 516 518

a b c d e f g h

1 3 .h5!N

502 The Modern Defence

l .d4 d6 2.�f3 ig4 This line is known as the Wade Defence,

named after Bob Wade, the British 1M who played it for many years.

3.c4 It is too early for us to play our usual

fianchetto, since after 3 .g3 Black has a strong positional idea at his disposal: 3 . . . ixf3 4.exf3 d5! with a very solid position.

This is the main branching point of the Wade Defence. The main lines we shall study are: A) 3 ... c6, B) 3 ... g6, C) 3 ... �f6, D) 3 ... ixf3 and E) 3 ... �d7.

A) 3 ... c6 4.lLlc3 �d7

This position might also arise via the 3 . . . lUd7 4.lUc3 c6 move order. White's fWO main options according to the theory are 5 .e4 and 5.g3, but I prefer a less popular move that is rather aggressive:

S.dS This fits perfectly with the rest of our anti

Wade repertoire, as will become clear if Black takes on f3 .

Then White shows another point to 5.d5: 6.lUd4!

Black's light-squared bishop looks misplaced on g4, as the following examples show:

6 . . . lUe5 Veingold - Maki Duro, Finland 1 998, continued 6 . . . c5 7.lUc2 e6 8.f3 (or 8 .lUe3 ih5 9.g3± is also quite pleasant for White) 8 . . . ih5 9.e4 ie7 1 0.ie2 a6 1 1.0-0 h6 1 2.a4 and White had a comfortable advantage, due to Black's badly placed bishop.

7.h3 id7 8.e4 e6 9.dxe6!? Changing the pawn structure is interesting, though obviously the natural 9.ie2± would also retain the advantage.

9 . . . fxe6 1 0.ie2 ie7 1 l .f4 lUf7 12.0-0 0-0 This position was reached in Gulko -

Ardaman, Hawaii 1998, and now White can play simple chess:

a b c d e f g h 1 3.ie3!?N c5 14.lUf3 ic6 1 5 .id3

This would maintain White's advantage.

6.exf3 g6 7.ie3 ig7 8.ie2 �gf6 9.0-0 0-0 1O.'?Nb3

This leads to a line that will be examined via the 3 . . . ixf3 4.exf3 c6 5.lUc3 lUd7 6.ie2 move order (line D) .

B) 3 ... g6

Not a very popular move order, but quite important for us, since we cannot play the

Chapter 30 - Wade Defence 503

natural 4.ltJc3 (see my notes after 2 . . . g6 3 .c4 ig7 on page 522) .

4.�b3!

In general this is a thematic move in this line, but this is the only moment when we wil l use it.

4 ... �c8 The alternative is 4 . . . ixf3, but this looks

like a concession to me: 5 :�xf3 c6 6.ltJc3 ig7 7.e3 ltJf6 S.g3 This is usually the best way to develop the light-squared bishop. S . . . ltJbd7 9.ig2 0-0 1 0.0-0 e6 (we shall examine the type of position that arises after 1 0 . . . e5 l 1 .d5 in the 4 . . :�cS line) 1 1 .b3 d5 1 2.ib2 ltJb6 1 3:�e2;!; White has a pleasant game with the bishop pair and a space advantage, Vukic -Puric, Jahorina 2003.

5.h3 The main point of White's previous move;

now White can recapture with the queen on f3.

5 ... ixf3 The passive 5 . . . id7 was played in Velikov -

Ivkov, Cannes 1 990, and now White should play the natural 6.e4N ig7 7.ltJc3 ltJc6 S.ie3 when after S . . . e5 White has a pleasant choice between the calm 9.�dl and 9.dxe5 dxe5

1 0.�d l ltJge7 1 1 .ie2 0-0 1 2.0-0± when the black pieces are uncoordinated.

6.�xf3 ig7 7.e3 Now 1 examined three options for Black, all

of which lead to very different play.

7 .. . c5 Black's two other options are:

7 . . . ltJf6 S.ltJc3 0-0 9.g3 As mentioned above, the fianchetto seems the best way to develop the light-squared bishop.

9 . . . ltJbd7 The alternative is 9 . . . c5 1 0.d5 when White has a nice version of the Benoni pawn structure. Let's see one example: 1 0 . . . e6 l 1 .ig2 exd5 1 2.ltJxd5! The point: White recaptures on d5 with a piece. 1 2 . . . ltJxd5 13 .'lWxd5 'lWc6 14.0-0 'lWxd5 1 5 .ixd5 ltJc6 16.�d l �fdS White obviously has a longterm edge, thanks to his better pawn structure and the bishop pair, Jaworski - Mokry, Czech Republic 1 999. White only needs to complete the development of his queenside, and this can be achieved by 1 7.�b 1 N �d7 IS .a3 a5 1 9.id2 when Black is doomed to a passive defence.

10 .ig2 c6 1 1 .0-0 e5 1 2 .d5 Sooner or later White has to play this move to make progress in the centre.


12 . . . cxd5 1 3 .cxd5 ttJeB 14.e4 f5 Finally we have reached what appears to be a thematic King's Indian position, but Black's missing light-squared bishop is a significant long-term factor. Here is a nice example:

1 5 .h4!? White activates his light-squared bishop via h3. The simple 1 5 .id2 f4 1 6.�e2;j; would also promise White the better prospects.

1 5 . . . �c4 1 6.h5 fxe4 1 7.�d l ! ? White bets on a middlegame, while 1 7.� xe4 �xe4 I B'ttJxe4 gxh5 1 9.ih3! was also quite promising.

1 7 . . . gxh5 I B.�xh5 ttJef6 1 9.�h4 ttJc5 20.ie3

White has a very nice position and just needs to find a suitable moment to capture on e4, Portisch - Larsen, Sousse 1 967

7 . . . e5 B.dxe5 ixe5 9.ttJc3 ixc3t This seems quite risky, but on the other hand after the natural 9 . . . ttJe7 1 0.id2 0-0 l 1 .h4 h5 1 2.g3;J; White's chances are preferable.

1 0.bxc3 ttJc6 l 1 .c5 Opening up the position is of course desirable, since White has the bishop pair.

1 1 . . . dxc5 This position has occurred twice in tournament practice, and in both cases Black emerged from the opening with reasonable play. Naturally we need an improvement:

a b c d e f g h

1 2J'!b l !N gbB Black cannot develop his knight in view of 1 2 . . . ttJge7 1 3.�f6! 0-0 14.e4 and Black faces serious problems.

1 3 .�b5 The best way to regain the pawn.

1 3 . . . �d7 Another line is 1 3 . . . �e6 14.�xc5 �d6 1 5 .gd5 and White is better.

1 4.�xc5 ttJge7 1 5 .ie2 0-0 1 6.e4 White's edge may not be big, but it wil l be

long-lasting, thanks to his bishop pair.

S.dS llJf6 9.ltlc3 0-0 10.g4 Certainly White could choose the modest

1 0.g3 , but the text is interesting and more aggressive.

10 . . . ltla6 This is Lechtynsky - Mokry, Rimavska

Sobota 1 990, and now I suggest the following plan:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .ig2!N ltlc7 12.a4! It is better not to allow a Benko-style . . . b7-

b5 pawn sacrifice.

12 ... ltla6 13.0-0 ltlb4 14.id2 White is better thanks to his extra space, and

the play might continue as follows:


14 ... a6 IS.aS Wfc7 16.Wfe2 e6 17.gS lLld7 18.dxe6!? fxe6 19.f4t

In this complex position White's chances are preferable.

C) 3 ... lLlf6 4.lLlc3

4 ... c6 This is the only move order that actually

forces us to play 5 .e4, which I have tried hard to avoid. The alternatives are 4 . . . �xf3 and 4 . . . lLlbd7:

4 . . . �xf3 5 .exf3 g6 After 5 . . . e6 it is a good opportunity to opt for my favourite 6.g4!? (the more common 6.d5 is also quite promising). 6 . . . �e7 7.f4 c6 (little is changed by 7 . . . 0-0 8.�g2 c6 9.d5! as White's chances are preferable) 8.g5 lLlfd7 9.d5 0-0 This position was reached in Cheparinov - Klinova, Metz 2005 , and despite White's quick win after 10 .�d3, I believe his l ight-squared bishop belongs on another diagonal; after 1 0.�g2 White would enjoy a pleasant edge.

6.�e3 �g7 7.�e2 Now there is a split between plans with . . . c7-

c6 and instead simply castling:

a) 7 . . . c6 Probably White can transpose to a position

that is covered in the 3 . . . ixf3 4.exf3 c6 5 .lLlc3 lLld7 6.�e2 line, by means of 8.d5 0-0 9.0-0 when I hardly believe Black has anything better than 9 . . . lLlbd7. However, once again I would like to campaign for greater aggression:

8 .g4 I played this once and it turned into quite an instructive game:

8 . . . e6 1f8 . . . h5 then White just continues his normal development with 9.\Wd2 and 0-0-0.

9.f4!? A remarkable idea: White intends to push his pawn to f5 in order to open lines. The thematic 9.d5 is also worthy of consideration.

9 ... d5 1 0.f5 exf5 1 1 .gxf5 dxc4?! Probably this is the wrong strategy, as it hel ps activate White's l ight-squared bishop.

1 2.�xc4 b5 1 3.�b3 b4 1 4.lLle2 lLld5 This is Avrukh - Bellini, Amsterdam 2005, and now instead 1 5 .\Wd3 allowing 1 5 . . . 4Jd7, I should have played:

1 5 .\Wc2 0-0 1 6.fxg6 hxg6 1 7.h4 The obvious plan of 1 8.h5 will give White a

sttong initiative.

b) 7 . . . 0-0

a b c d e f g h Here it will be no surprise that I like the

aggressive 8.g4!?N, especially compared with 8 .h4 e5 9.d5 lLlh5 1 0.g3 lLld7 when


Black obtained a very reasonable game in Ligterink - Hartoch, Hilversum 1 985 . I have even suggested the move g2-g4 with Black's king still on e8, so I believe this is a significantly improved version for White, since with the king on g8 we have even more reasons to starr advancing the kingside pawns.

4 . . . ltJbd7 5.d5!? Again I would like to mention this rare option. Cerrainly White can opt for the natural 5 .e4, which will probably transpose to the 4 . . . cG-line after 5 . . . e5 G.�e2 �e7 7.0-0 0-0 8.�e3 cG.

5 . . . e5 Another option is 5 . . . gG, but then after G.ltJd4 we already know that the lightsquared bishop is misplaced on g4. Ftacnik - Jansa, Hamburg 1 993, continued G . . . ltJc5 and now I believe White should have played 7.b4!N ltJaG 8 .a3 �g7 9.g3 0-0 1 0.�g2t with a pleasant advantage.

G.dxeG �xeG An alternative is G . . . fxeG when I believe White retains the better chances after 7.h3 �xf3 8 .exf3 �e7 9.�e2 0-0 1 0.0-0 cG 1 U%el !t.

7.e4 �e7 If 7 . . . �g4 then simply 8 .�e2.

8.ltJd4 0-0 9.�e2 ltJc5 1 0.f3 a5 1 1 .0-0 cG 1 2.�e3

White had a big space advantage in B. Lalic - Rodriguez Aguilera, Dos Hermanas 200G.

5.e4 I was not satisfied with the results of our

usual fianchetto: 5 .g3 This allows the following positional idea: 5 . . . �xf3 G.exf3 d5! Black has good play.

Also 5.d5 is not so good in this case. The point is that Black has not played . . . ltJbd7, so the d7-square is free for his light-squared bishop,

while the knight can develop on aG. 5 . . . cxd5 G.cxd5 gG 7.ltJd4 �g7 leads to a double-edged position.

8 i. � �.I] �� '�'i";��"""��'�"i'��I'�"& 7 � • • � � . � � . % ".%� r • . "x." . . x_ 6 % �'IJ "�' ... . � 5 ��.%�� 4 . 8 1� 8_.i.� 3 �

�m""%� ttJ'� ��.� .. .. . ;� ��.� ��.� 2 8 1[j _ 1[j 8 1� % . . . . � . . . . x�7��x.� 1 /� �§��_§

a b c d e f g h

5 . . . ltJbd7 Playable but somewhat passive is:

5 . . . eG Here I like the following set-up for White:

G.�e2 �e7 7.0-0 0-0 8 .�e3 There is no point rushing with 8 .h3 , since Black will answer with 8 . . . �h5.

8 . . . d5 I also examined 8 . . . ltJbd7 when the following plan looks good for White: 9.ltJd2 �xe2 10.�xe2 d5 l 1 .e5 ltJe8 1 2.f4 (the calm 1 2.l"1ac l is also worthy of consideration) 1 2 . . . dxc4 This is Suvraj it - Koshy, Calcutta 1 996, and now the natural-looking 1 3.ltJxc4 was strong enough. The threat of f4-f5 is unpleasant and probably forces Black to play 1 3 . . . b5 1 4.ltJd2 f5 when after 1 5 .exfG ltJdxfG I G.l"1ac l White has a positional advantage, due to Black's badly damaged pawn structure.

9.e5 ltJfd7 1 0.ltJd2 �xe2 1 1 .�xe2 dxc4 1 2.�g4 'tt>h8

White was threatening 1 3 .�hG. 1 3.ltJxc4 ltJbG

This is Krogius - Karasev, St Petersburg 1 995 , and now I like a modest move:

1 4.b3N ltJd5 1 5 .ltJe4


White should be better, due to his extra space, for instance:

1 5 . . . ltJd7 16Jhc1 Wic7 17.id2t

5 . . . e5 6.ie2 ltJbd7 7.0-0 ie7 will just uanspose to 5 . . . ltJbd7.

6.i.e2 eS 7.0-0 i.e7 Finally we have reached a position that is

similar to an Old Indian Defence, except with Black's light-squared bishop on g4. At first glance, it feels like a favourable version for Black, as the bishop is much more active on g4 than cS. Even so, my general impression is that Black can hardly hope for equal play in Indian-type positions with his dark-squared bishop passively placed on e7.

8.i.e3 0-0 The line S . . . ixf3 9.ixf3 0-0 does not have

any independent value, as we can reply 1 O.d5 transposing to the main line, though I believe White also has reasonable alternatives. For example, I would seriously consider 1 0.g3.

9.dS Obviously the critical move. It seems White

can also fight for an advantage with 9.ltJd2 ixe2 1 0.Wixe2, but the text is the most challenging.

This is a significant theoretical tabiya. Black now has a wide choice between which type of position he would like to play.

9 .. . cxdS There are two other important lines to

discuss:

9 . . . c5 1 O.ltJel ! This is stronger than 1 0.ltJd2, since White's knight is transferred to d3, where it can support both the £2-f4 and b2-b4 advances.

1 0 . . . ixe2 1 1 .Wixe2 ltJeS Black plays in the spirit of the Czech Benoni; his plan includes . . . g7 -g6 and . . . ltJg7 followed

by . . . 0-f5 . He would also be happy to trade dark-squared bishops.

1 2.g3 An important prophylactic move, as now . . . ig5 can be met by f2-f4 .

12 . . . g6 1 3 .ltJd3 ltJg7 Here I like the following idea:

14.f4 exf4

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .ixf4!N

After 1 5 .gxf4 if6 White's central pawns are rather vulnerable and Black has definite counterplay, as in the following game: 16 .id2 id4t 17.l!fh l a6 l S.!'lae l Wih4 With a double-edged position, Smejkal -Benjamin, Thessaloniki 1 9S5.

1 5 . . . !'leS If 1 5 . . . f6 then 1 6.ih6 !'leS 17.ltJf4! ltJfS I S.!'lf2, fol lowed by !'lafl , when Black's position is very passive.

1 6.!'lael ltJh5 1 7.Wif3 With the idea:

1 7 . . . ltJxf4 Or 17 . . . f6 1s .id2.

I S.gxf4 if6 1 9.e5! A thematic pawn sacrifice.

1 9 . . . dxe5 20.f5 White has a dangerous initiative.

9 . . . ltJeS A thematic move for this kind of pawn structure.

1 0.dxc6

50B The Modern Defence

In my opinion the most promising continuation. Other options are less clear: If 1 0.ttJd2 then 1 0 . . . ixe2 1 1 .Wxe2 ig5 somewhat eases Black's task. At first I preferred 1 0.b4, but then I failed to discover anything interesting for White after 1 0 . . . ixf3 1 1 .ixf3 c5! 1 2.a3 ig5 1 3 .Wd2 ixe3 1 4.Wxe3 E1c8 and Black was doing fine in D. Gurevich - Hickl, Groningen 1 98B.

10 . . . bxc6 1 1 .b4 This change of pawn strucrure appears favourable for White. In the following encounter he had definite pressure after:

1 l . . .a6 1 2.ttJd2 ixe2 1 3 .Wxe2 ttJc7 1 4.a3 ttJe6 1 5 .ttJb3

And now after the inaccurate: 1 5 . . . c5 ?!

In Geller - Matulovic, Skopje 1 967, White could have secured his advantage with:

a b c d e f g h 1 6.ttJd5!N ttJd4 17.ixd4 exd4 I B.ttJa5±

9 . . . ixf3 Even though the position is closed, I consider this trade a concession.

1 0.ix.f.3 c5 1 1 .g3 With the idea of slowly preparing f2-f4.

1 1 . . .ttJe8 1 2.ig4!? The natural 1 2.ig2 also comes into consideration.

1 2 . . . a6 Another example is: 1 2 . . . g6 1 3. f4 exf4 ] 4.gxf4 f5 1 5 .exf5 gxf5 1 6.ih3 ttJg7

1 7.';f;?hl E1f6 1 8.E1g 1 E1g6 1 9 .Wd3 White had a pleasant edge in Uhlmann - Orbaan, Poland 1 967.

13 .E1b l ttJef6 1 4.ih3 b5 Black consistently follows the plan he has prepared, but any opening of the position favours White:

1 5 .cxb5 axb5 16.b4! cxb4 Not much better is 1 6 . . . c4 17.E1a l ! WbB 1 8 .a4 bxa4 19.E1xa4±.

1 7.E1xb4 Wa5 1 8 .Wb l ttJc5 1 9.E1cl E1fb8 20.ifl

Black has been strategically outplayed, plus his b5-pawn is fal ling, Ruck - Runic, Bled 2002.

lO.cxdS Once again Black has a choice:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h lo . .. ixf3

The alternatives are:

1 0 . . . a6 1 1 .ttJd2 ixe2 1 2.Wxe2 White's d5-pawn secures a clear space advantage and it is easier for him to generate play on the queens ide.

1 2 . . . ttJe8 Advancing the b-pawn would only ease White's task, for example: 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 .E1fc1 b4 1 4.ttJd l ttJe8 1 5 .a3 bxa3 1 6.E1xa3± Black faced serious difficulties in Li Wen liang -Reh, Bad Zwesten 2003.


13.b4 White starts his play on the queenside, not worrying about a possible trade of darksquared bishops.

1 3 . . . g6 After 13 . . . �g5 White can continue with 1 4.�xg5 'lWxg5 1 5 .ttJc4.

14.ttJc4 �g5 1 5 .�xg5 'lWxg5 16.�acl 'lWe7 17. ttJa5 �b8

This position arose in Blagojevic -Guzijan, Niksic 1 996, and now I found an improvement:

1 8.'lWe3!?N f5 1 9 .'lWa7 ttJc7 20.f3 ttJf6 2 1 .a4t Maybe there is still nothing concrete, but

White has achieved more on the queenside and has the better prospects.

1 0 . . . ttJe8 Now I like the following idea: 1 1 .'lWb3 'lWb8 1 2.�fc l ttJc5 1 3 .'lWc2 f5 Black's last two moves were simply wrong and now White achieves a solid plus with a simple idea: 14 .�xc5! dxc5 1 5 .exf5 �xf5 1 6.�d3 ixd3 1 7.'lWxd3± White has a clear positional advantage, Marin Khasin, Dresden 1988.

I I .ixf3 'lWb8 Now Black's main positional idea is to trade

dark-squared bishops with . . . id8-b6, which is why White's next couple of moves are logical .

12.a4 �c8 13.aS id8 Now I found the following example quite

instructive:

14.ie2 bS IS.£3! The best reaction; White carries out a fine

regrouping.

IS ... a6 16.�f2 'lWb7 17.ifl h6 18.g3 ic7 This is Gelfand - Campora, Izmir 2004.

Black's idea is to transfer his dark-squared bishop to a7 with . . . �b8-a7, but White has a strong positional idea at his disposal:

8 Jml��m;� 7 .��. ' W� 6 r_""'Y-_�_''' ' %_ 5 � {� .�%.'l...".� .. . . .

4 L'� ��" � �. �

�%'''//-�� ,� 3 . m � 8 W�

2 ��."";_"",��,,, .%� 1 ;�"" %

�,

� 1Z=" " a b c d e f g h

19.'lWel!N ib8 20.ttJa2! ia7 21 .ttJb4 The knight is ready to jump to c6. White

can also create more pressure on the queenside with �h3, and then start playing along the c-file. His advantage is obvious.

D) 3 ... ixf3 4.exf3

I always prefer to recapture with the e-pawn, bur of course 4.gxf3 is a worthy alternative that leads to more closed positions.

a b c d e f g h There is now a split between Dl) 4 .. . g6 and

D2) 4 ... c6.

4 . . . e6 5 .ttJc3 ttJf6 will be examined via 3 . . . ttJf6, and 4 . . . ttJf6 5 .ttJc3 will also transpose to 3 . . . ttJf6.

5 1 0 The Modern Defence

DI) 4 . . . g6 5.lLlc3 ig7 6.ie3 e6

Other options, such as 6 . . . tLld7 or 6 . . . tLlf6, are examined via different move orders.

7.�b3 A tempting continuation that attacks the b7-

pawn and thus White gains a tempo to castle long. Instead Black has a reasonable game after both nMfd2 tLle7 8.h4 d5! and 7.h4 tLle7 8.h5 tLlf5 , as in this case Black keeps the option of castling long.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

7 ... lLle7 The critical move. Perhaps White is not

really threatening to capture on b7 at once, but it should always be considered.

Black sometimes chooses to defend against the alleged threat to b7:

a) 7 . . . b6 Now I like immediate aggression:

8.h4!?N White has tried only 8.d5 and 8 . .ie2, but neither move is in the spirit of the position.

8 . . . tLle7 I also examined 8 . . . h5 9 .0-0-0 tLlh6 (9 . . . tLle7 1 0.g4 just transposes to 8 . . . tLle7) 1 O . .ig5 �c8 1 1 ..id3 and White has a comfortable edge.

9.g4 h5 1 0.0-0-0

White's position looks very promising, for instance:

1 0 . . . tLlbc6 1 1 .d5 tLla5 12.�c2± It is hard to imagine where Black's king will

hide.

b) 7 . . . �c8 This looks too passive, and the following example illustrates White's resources.

8.h4 h5

a b c d e f g h 9.d5!

This is very strong, especially with the black queen stuck on c8.

9 . . . exd5 The main point is that 9 . . . e5 runs into 1 0.c5! which underlines how badly placed the black queen is. The best try was 9 . . . tLle7, although after 1 0.dxe6 fxe6 1 1 .0-0-0 tLlbc6 1 2.g4! White has clearly better prospects.

1 0.tLlxd5 ! tLld7 Black cannot play 1 0 . . . c6 in view of 1 1 .tLlc3 tLle7 1 2.tLle4! and Black loses the d6-pawn.

1 1 . 0-0-0 'it> f8 The line 1 1 . . .tLlgf6 1 2 . .id4 'it>f8 1 3 .tLle3± does not change much.

1 2.g4± White's superiority was undeniable in

Pogorelov - Panchenko, Katowice 1 992.

8.0-0-0 Grabbing the b7-pawn would allow

Black excellent counterplay: 8.�xb7 tLlbc6

Chapter 30 - Wade Defence 5 1 1

9.0-0-0 �b8 10.�a6 0-0 Black definitely has compensation.

8 ... 0-0 9.h4 ttJbc6 1O.d5 Not allowing Black to build pressure against

the d4-pawn with . . . lUf5.

10 ... ttJa5 This is Peek - Hartoch, Edinburgh 1 988,

and now a possible improvement is :

1 1 . ..b6 Black cannot play 1 1 ... c5 in view of 1 2.dxe6

fxe6 1 3.ixc5.

12.dxe6 Also quite promising is 1 2.h5 �d7 1 3.g4.

12 ... fxe6 13.h5 ttJrs 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.ttJe4 White is clearly better, due to Black's

vulnerable kingside.

D2) 4 ... c6 5.ttJc3 ttJd7

Black has three interesting alternatives:

5 . . . g6 6.ie3 lUd7 7.�d2

Now I checked what happens if Black delays playing . . . ig7.

7 . . . lUgf6 Instead 7 . . . ig7 8 .ie2 lUgf6 9.g4 would transpose to the 3 . . . lUd7 4.c4 ixf3 5 .exf3 g6 6.ie3 ig7 7.�d2 c6 8.ie2 I ine, which is variation El on page 5 1 5 .

8 .g4! White's play in the following game looks very powerful.

8 . . . lUb6 9.h4 d5 1 0.c5 lUbd7 Another option is 1 0 . . . lUc4 l 1 .ixc4 dxc4 12 .�e2! when Black fails to obtain sufficient compensation for the pawn.

l 1 .h5 gg8 12 .0-0-0 b6 This extremely complex position arose In I lincic - Pikula, Yugoslavia (ch) 2002, and now White should have played:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e g h

1 3 .cxb6N This move, and the following variation, was suggested by Ilincic in Informant 84.

1 3 . . . axb6 14.<;tJb 1 Black stands well positionally, with one minor exception - his king is in trouble. 1his is why I believe White's chances are better. For example:

14 . . . e6 1 5 .�cl ib4 1 6.hxg6 hxg6 17.�c2 b5 1 8 .lUe2 �a6 1 9.1Uf4!±

Followed by lUd3.

5 . . . lUf6 With this move order Black can sometimes


try to play a quick . . . dG-d5 and then develop his dark-squared bishop on the f8-a3 diagonal. So it makes sense that White's usual choice here is G.d5, but instead I recommend my favourite thrust:

G.g4!? This has been played only once, and that was by me! The position is very interesting and complicated, and in the following encounter my innovation worked perfectly:

G . . . eG 7.g5 tLlfd7 8.d5! Certainly White has no intention of allowing Black to play . . . dG-d5.

8 . . . cxd5 9.cxd5 e5 1 0.f4 White has the twO bishops, so he tries to open up the play.

1 0 . . . i.e7 When annotating this game in ChessBase Magazine 96, Meulders suggested 1 0 . . . exf4 1 1 .i.xf4 i.e7 as the right way to equalize. I disagree with this evaluation, as I do not see any big difference from the game. After 1 2 .h4 0-0 1 3.i.e2 if 1 3 . . . tLle5 then 1 4.i.e3 followed by 1 5 .f4 is good. White keeps his usual space advantage.

1 1 .fxe5 tLlxe5 1 2.f4 tLled7 This was Avrukh - Sanduleac, Istanbul 2003, and now I should have played the natural:

1 3 .i.e3 0-0 14.i.e2 tLl aG 1 5 . O-Ot White would have a comfortable space

advantage.

5 . . . e6?! A dubious move that allows a powerful reply:

G.d5! exd5 7.cxd5 White activates his l ight-squared bishop and his lead in development starts to tel l . Black will experience serious problems whichever way he replies:

7 . . . tLlfG After 7 . . . c5 8.i.b5t tLld7 9.0-0 aG 1 0.i.xd7t iWxd7 Black receives an unpleasant surprise: I l .b4! cxb4 1 2.tLla4 iWb5 1 3.i.e3 tLlfG

1 4.tLlbG E\b8 1 5 .a4! iWa5 1 6.E\e1 i.e7 17.i.d4+- White was winning easily in S. Atalik - Negulescu, Romania 2003.

8.i.e2 tLlbd7 9.0-0 tLlbG 1 0.dxcG bxcG 1 1 .i.aG! iWd7

White was threatening 1 2.i.b7. 1 2.tLle4! tLlfd5

This is too much; Black should have preferred the modest 1 2 . . . tLlxe4 1 3.fxe4 i.e7, though after 14 .iWc2 0-0 1 5.i.e3 White is better due to his bishop pair and Black's weak central pawns.

1 3.iWd4 tLlc7 1 4.E\e l tLleG 1 5 .tLlg5+-Black was unable to hold back White's

offensive i n Ilj in - Mishin, St Petersburg 2005.

6.i.e2 g6 7.0-0 .tg7 8 . .te3 lbgf6 This is a rather solid set-up for Black. White

is still better, despite having selected a less aggressive set-up with short castling.

Black should not get extravagant with 8 . . . tLlhG:

a b c d e f g h This was tried in Polak - Votava, Olomouc

1 997, and by now the reader migh t guess my recommendation: 9.g4!?N

Not just raw aggression; there is also a healthy positional idea of restricting the black knight. The next sequence looks close to forced:


9 . . . f5 1 0.'I&d2 tO f7 1 1 .gxf5 gxf5 1 2.<j;>h 1 ! I think opening the g-file is clearly in White's favour, as now castling short would be dangerous for Black, while castling long is barely possible. For example:

1 2 . . . iWa5 Somewhat better is 1 2 . . . tOfB 1 3.l'!gl tOg6, but even here after 1 4.f4, with the idea of ih5, White has the advantage.

13.l'!gl if6 14 .l'!ab 1 ! It is hard to imagine Black castling long here,

since after b4-b5 his king would not survive for long.

9.d5 0-0 1O.'&b3! A key move that disrupts Black's normal

development.

a b c d e f g h

10 . . . cxd5 Perhaps objectively this is not the strongest

continuation, but it is a very important move to study. The other possibilities are 1 0 . . . 'I&c7 and 1 0 . . . 'I&bB:

1O . . . Wfc7 1 1 .l'!fd l a6 1 2.l'!ac1 White quickly exploits the slightly misplaced black queen.

12 . . . l'!fcB We have fol lowed the game Kharitonov -Agrest, Pinsk 1 993, and now is the right moment to improve on White's play:

8

7

6

5

4 3 2

1 3.g4!?N

a b c d e f g h

Our thematic move for this line, but usually White plays this as part of a plan involving castling long and attacking on the kingside. However, in this case it is a useful move from a positional point of view. White has two ideas. The first is to chase away Black's knight from f6 with g4-g5 , when White's bishop might jump to g4. The second is to support the advance of the f-pawn to f5 . In the game 1 3.f4 was played, when Black had a good chance: 1 3 . . . cxd5N 1 4.cxd5 tZlc5 1 5 .Wfa3 Wfd7! (with the idea of playing . . . tOg4) 1 6.h3 tOfe4 The simplifications will favour Black.

1 3 . . . cxd5 1 4.cxd5 tOc5 Vacating the d7-square for the other knight.

1 5 .Wfa3 a5 A sad necessity, as White was threatening b2-b4 at some point.

1 6.<j;>g2 White has no reason to hurry, so he simply makes a useful move. Premature would have been 1 6.g5 tZlh5! 1 7.f4 Wfd7. The queen is heading to f5 ; Black has counterplay.

1 6 . . . tOfd7 1 7.f4!;1; There is no immediate danger for Black, but he suffers from the lack of a concrete plan, while White can push his kingside pawns, which will create targets near the black king. For example, if Black tries:

1 7 . . . iWb6

5 14 The Modern Defence

With the idea of heading to b4, but White has an easy solution:

1 8.ttJb5

1O" .lMfb8 1 1 .Elfdl Elc8 1 2.Elac l a6 I admit I am in love with the idea of pushing White's g-pawn. Once again, I think that after all the natural moves have been played, it is the right time to squeeze Black on the kingside.

1 3 .g4!?N The text move looks right, especially when we consider that Black should have had reasonable play in the following encounter: 1 3 .Eld2 cxdS 1 4.ttJxdS ttJxdS l S .ElxdS This is Gelfand - Ivanchuk, Belgrade 1997, and now I do not see why White is better after: l S" .ttJcS 1 6.lMfb4 (if 1 6.lMfa3 then all Black's pieces on the queenside start to work after 1 6".bS 17.b4 ttJa4 18 .Eld2 as! and White must be careful) 1 6".aS 1 7.\1;I!a3 lMfc7 And it seems to me Black has a very sound position. Mter my novelty I analysed the following variation:

1 3".ttJcS Obviously Black cannot start with 1 3".cxdS, since this runs into the very annoying 1 4.gS! and White will recapture with his knight on dS.

1 4.\1;I!c2 Less clear is 14 .lMfa3 as l S .gS ttJfd7 1 6.f4 lMfc7 followed by " .\1;I!b6-b4.

14".aS And now White has two plausible lines:

l S .gS A serious alternative is: l S .f4 ttJfd7 16.if3 ttJb6 (or 1 6" .a4 1 7.Elel ttJb6 18 .\1;I!e2±) 1 7.lMfe2 cxdS 1 8.cxdS ttJba4 19.ttJxa4 ttJxa4 20.\1;I!bs Elxcl 2 1 .Elxcl ttJcS 22.Wg2± White has a pleasant advantage.

l S " .ttJfd7 16.f4 a4 17.h4 lMfc7 1 8.hS White has a good initiative on the kingside,

and he is also pretty much in control on the other side of the board.

1 1 .cxd5 'IW a5 12.'lWxb7 Obviously this is the critical continuation.

16 ... Elc2 The other option was 16" .Elab8 but now the

strong 1 7.f4! would promise White a serious advantage, thanks to the line 1 7" .ttJed7 1 8.ixa7 Elxb 1 1 9.Elxb 1 Elxb l t 20.ttJxb l ttJxdS 2 1 .a4 and the a-pawn should decide the game.

17.Elfcl! Elxcl t 18.Elxcl lLled7 19.1lJe4 lLlxe4 20.fxe4 Elb8

This is Schroer - Vovsha, Internet 2009, and now White should play:

a b c d e f g h


21 .�e7N tDeS 22.LeS dxeS 23.�xe7 Black's position is very difficult.

E) 3 ... tDd7 4.tDc3

Instead 4 . . . lUgf6 5 .e4 will in most cases lead to the position 5 . . . e5 6.�e2 �e7 7.0-0 0-0 8.�e3 c6, which was examined in the 3 . . . lUf6-line.

El) 4 ... �xf3 S.exf3 g6 6.ie3 ig7

We have a similar type of position as we examined after 3 . . . �xf3.

7.Wfd2 I like this aggressive approach. Also possible

is 7.�e2, but here Black can try to save a tempo by avoiding . . . c7-c6, with 7 . . . lUgf6 8.0-0 0-0.

7 ... e6 I also examined a few other options for

Black:

7 . . . e6 8 .g4 I came to the conclusion that this is more accurate than 8.h4, when after 8 . . . h5 9.�e2 lUe7 1 0.g4 c6 1 1 .0-0-0 d5 Black had a good game in N. Berry - Wells, Edinburgh 2002.

8 ... lUe7 9.h4 d5 1 0.cxd5 lUxd5 Worse is 10 . . . exd5 l 1 .h5±.

1 1 .lUxd5 exd5 1 2.0-0-0 0-0 1 3 .h5 White keeps the initiative, as was proven in S. Savehenko - Belikov, Ukraine 1 997:

1 3 ... �e8 14.@b l �c8 1 5 .f4 lUf6 1 6.f3±

7 . . . lUgf6 8.g4 c5 9.d5 Worthy of consideration is 9.h4!? cxd4 1 0.�xd4 lUe5 1 1..�. e2 lUc6 1 2.�e3, though Black is pretty much in the game after 1 2 . . . W!a5 1 3.h5 lUd7.

9 . . . W!a5 1 0.h4 lUb6

a b c d e f g h 1 1 .lUb5!?

An interesting decision. The position after a queen exchange appears to favour White, thanks to his space advantage and the bishop pair.

1 1 . . .W!xd2t 1 2.@xd2 0-0 1 3.a4! a5?! A positionally dubious decision, bur in any case White was a little better, for instance: 1 3 . . . a6 14.lUc3 lUe8 1 5 .h5 lUc7 1 6.�a3!t

1 4.@c2 lUbd7 1 5 .h5 �ad8 1 6.�e2± White had an obvious positional advantage

in Pogorelov - Argandona Riveiro, San Sebastian 2005 .

8.ie2 tDgf6 9.g4 Once again this is the cri tical line; I was the

first to employ this continuation. Instead, the position after 9.d5 0-0 1 0.0-0 cxd5 1 l .cxd5 seems playable for Black, as his pieces are placed harmoniously.


9 ... h6 1O.M d5 Naturally Black wants to stabilize his position

in the centre, since castling short is no longer possible.

l 1 .cxd5 cxd5 Black is also far from solving his problems

after the other recapture: 1 1 . . .tt'lxd5 1 2.tt'lxd5 cxd5 And now either 1 3 .0-0-0 or 1 3.h5 g5 14.f4 gxf4 1 5 .ixf4. In either case White is better.

12.0-0-0 tiJb6 This position was reached in Avrukh -

Vovsha, Bie! 2002, and now I should have continued with:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

13.h5!N Then after 1 3 . . . gxh5 14.gxh5 or 1 3 . . . g5

1 4.f4 gxf4 1 5 .ixf4, Black's king has significant problems.

E2) 4 . . . e5

This is an important tabiya. The text move has been used by such strong players as Adams, Bacrot, Be!iavsky and Timman.

5.g3

different types of position; the first line keeps the same structure we have now, and the second changes the structure by capturing on f3.

a b c d e f g h

Thus our l ines are E21) 5 ... tiJgf6 and E22) 5 ... ixf3.

E21) 5 ... tiJgf6 6.ig2 c6

Black can also start with 5 . . . c6 followed by . . . tt'lgf6, which would eventually lead to the same position.

7.0-0 i.e7 8.h3 Again Black is at a crossroads.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h This is White's main choice according to 8 ... ih5

theory. Now Black has a choice between two The alternative was of course to take:

Chapter 30 - Wade Defence 5 17

8 . . . �xf3 9.�xf3 0-0 This leads to a sound but pretty passive position for Black. I have never believed Black can hope for full equality after giving up his l ight-squared bishop.

10 .�g2 �b6 Another practical example continued: 1 0 . . J'!e8 l l .d5 �c8 1 2.b3 a6 13 .�d2 cxd5?! It was obviously better not to open up the h l -a8 diagonal. In the following game Black tried not to close the position, bur it did not work out vety well: 1 4.lLlxd5 lLlxd5 1 5 .�xd5 �c7 1 6.�c1 lLlf6 1 7.�g2 White obtained a comfortable edge in Heim - Zupe, Slough 1 997.

l l .d5 c5 1 2.e4 lLle8 This position is from Stohl - Ruck, Opatija 1 995 , and now I believe White should have continued with the natural:

a b c d e f g h 1 3.�b 1;j;N

White wil l combine the two thematic plans of b2-b4 and f1-f4. These pawn breaks, together with the bishop pair, promise him better long-term prospects.

9. lLl h4! The best way of fighting for an advantage;

the knight is heading for f5 and Black has to decide which bishop he will give up for White's knight.

9 . . . 0-0

Another option is: 9 . . . �g6

But now White has a strong idea: 1 0.e3 0-0

Black has also tried 1 0 . . . lLlh5 when White replies l l .lLlxg6 hxg6 1 2.b4. White intends to seize the initiative on the queenside with the help of his light-squared bishop. 1 2 .. . f5 With the natural idea of blocking White's l ight-squared bishop with . . . e5-e4. 1 3.b5 e4 14.bxc6 bxc6 1 5 .lLlxe4!? An interesting piece sacrifice. (Bur maybe objectively stronger would have been 1 5 .g4 lLlhf6 1 6.f3, since after 1 6 . . . d5 White has a very strong idea: 1 7.cxd5 lLlxd5 1 8.lLlxe4! fxe4 1 9.fxe4 lLl5b6 20.e5 With a powerful initiative.) 1 5 . . . fxe4 1 6.�xe4 lLlhf6 1 7 .�xg6t <j{fB This was played in Plaskett - Dunworth, Dundee 1 99 1 , and now I like 1 8.�f3N with the idea of 1 8 . . . �xh3 1 9.e4 <j{g8 20.�f5! and after 2o . . . lLlf8 2 l .�xh3 lLlxg6 22.�e6t <j{f8 23.�b l ± White has a clear advantage.

1 l . f4 Black's reply is forced.

1 1 . . .lLlh5 1 2.lLlxg6 hxg6 1 3.g4 lLlhf6 In Krasenkow - Lauk, Lubniewice 1 994, I found the following improvement:

1 4.g5N lLle8 1 5 .h4 lLlc7 1 6.d5! White has a pleasant space advantage.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h


10 .. J!e8 Some games have continued 1 0 . . . i.g6,

but after 1 1 .tDxe7t Wixe7 1 2.e4 White has a comfortable advantage, mainly due to Black's misplaced bishop and White's extra space. The game Nikolaidis - Galego, Panormo 200 1 , continued 1 2 . . .i"!fe8 1 3.1"!e l . And here Black unsuccessfully tried to change the character of the position with 1 3 . . . exd4 14.Wixd4 d5?! 1 5.cxd5 cxd5 1 6.i.g5! dxe4 and now the simple 1 7.tDxe4N would secure White a large advantage.

l 1 .ttJxe7t From a positional point of view I like the idea

of playing against Black's light-squared bishop, but at the same time the popular I I .d5 is also good enough. For example, 1 1 . . .c5 12 .Wib3 tDb6 1 3 .e4 i.g6 14.tDe3;!; and White had an edge in Sasikiran - Torre, Bled (01) 2002,

1 1 ...Wixe7 12.g4 ig6 1 3.e4 In the only game to reach this position Black

tried to create some play on the kings ide, but he did not succeed.

13 ... h5 14.£3 tDf8 15.ie3 White continues his normal development.

15 ... tD6h7 16.Wid2 'lWh4 17.ttJe2 ttJe6 18.in 'lWf6

8

7 6 5 4 3

2 1

a b c d e f g h

19.d5! cxd5 20.cxd5 ttJef8 Black recognizes his fai lure; now White has

easy play on the queenside.

21.�ac1 hxg4 22.hxg4 'lWd8 23.�c4 ttJf6 24.�fc1±

White's advantage was obvious in J . Alvarez - Galego, Cuba 1 997.

E22) 5 ... ixf3 6.exf3

8 � � �.ml.i)�� 7 �r_i)� " %W', 6 "� H ".�� "� �:m;; � . . . . %� .� �� 5 � • _ m 4 �m8�""/'U�-��:.//,{ . . . . /.� ��.� 3 � :� m 8 r� 2 8n .... ·:U �� . . . . /.� 1 � . . . . /.�'�tf�L·� 'It

a b c d e f g h

6 ... exd4 This is Black's main move according to

theory, but I consider it slightly inaccurate, as it allows White an extra option on the 8th move (as we shall see below, 6 . . . tDgf6 7.i.g2 exd4 should be Black's choice if he wants to play as in our main l ine).

Clearly inferior is: 6 . . . i.e7 7.dxe5! tDxe5

If 7 . . . dxe5 then 8 .f4 and opening up the play is clearly in White's favour, thanks to his bishop pair.

8 .f4 tDd7 9.i.g2 c6 1 0.g4!? Preventing Black's normal development, as White is ready to meet I O . . . tDgf6 with 1 1 .g5.

I O . . . tDb6 1 1 .Wie2 tDf6 1 2.g5 tDfd7 I 3.i.e3 Followed by castling long; White had a nice

edge in I. Sokolov - Hick!, Jakarta 1 996.


Too slow is: 6 . . . g6

Here I like the aggressive approach: 7.f4 exf4

After 7 . . . exd4 8.�xd4 lUgf6 9 . .tg2 Black has serious problems completing his development, as the following example shows: 9 . . . lUc5 1 0 .0-0 .tg7 1 l .!%el t <j;>f8 1 2 .�d2! a5 1 3 .�c2 !%b8 1 4.h3 h6 1 5 . .te3 lUfd7 1 6.!%ad l White had a huge advantage in Plischki - Verkasalo, Prague 2008.

8 . .txf4 .th6 9 . .txh6 lUxh6 1 0.�d2 lUf5 l I . .th3 lUg7

The key point is that Black cannot play 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 . .txf5 !%e8t, since after 1 3 . .te4! f5 14.0-0 fxe4 1 5 .!%ae1 Black cannot hold his central pawn: I 5 . . . lUf6 1 6.�c2 �e7 I7.lUxe4! lUxe4 1 8.f3±

1 2.�e3t rJif8 Also I 2 . . . �e7 1 3.0-0! �xe3 I 4.fxe3 f5 1 5 .e4 0-0 1 6.exf5 lUxf5 17.lUb5! does not bring Black relief either.

1 3.0-0 lUf6 14.�f3 !%b8 1 5 .!%fe 1 ± White had a clear advantage In Dizdar -

Hicld, Yerevan (01) 1 996.

6 . . . lUgf6 7 . .tg2 .te7 7 . . . c6 8 .0-0 .te7 9.f4 will eventually transpose to 7 . . . .te7. The key line is 7 . . . exd4, as I think this is the right move order if Black wants to play our main line with 6 . . . exd4.

8.0-0 0-0 9.f4 c6 Here I like the following plan:

10 .fxe5 dxe5 l l .d5 �c7 This position has been reached in two games, and now I suggest a natural novelty:

1 2 . .te3N !%fd8 Black should avoid I 2 ... .tc5 as White rolls forward with tempo after 1 3 . .txc5 lUxc5 14 .b4 lUcd7 1 5 .c5±.

1 3 .!%c 1t The strong d-pawn, with the support of the

bishops, secures White a comfortable edge.

7.Wxd4 ltJgf6 8.ig2 With the move order Black has used,

White has a very interesting alternative at his disposal: 8 .g4! ? lUc5 (Other moves are hardly sufficient for Black: 8 . . . .te7 9 .g5 lUe5 1 0 . .te2 lUc6 1 1 .�h4 lUd7 I 2 . .te3±, or 8 . . . h6 9 . .te3 g6 1 0.0-0-0 .tg7 1 1 ..te2 0-0 1 2.�d2 r;t>h7 1 3.h4 with an initiative.) 9 . .te3 .te7 1 0.g5 lUe6 1 1 .�d2 lUd7 1 2.f4 c6 1 3.0-0-0 �a5 14.rJibl lUb6 1 5 . .td3± White reached a very promising position in Komarov - Klinova, Valle d'Aosta 2002.

8 . .. ie7 9.0-0 0-0

10 ... !%e8 l 1 .f4 c6 We have reached a typical position for this

variation. White has a space advantage and his plan includes advancing his kingside pawns after first consolidating his position in the centre. This should win White even more space and push back Black's minor pieces.

12.h3 It is essential to take control of the g4-

square, while at the same time preparing the g3-g4 advance.


12 ... a5 13.h3 It is useful to prevent a possible . . . a5-a4,

which would gain Black more space on the queenside.

13 . . . liJc5 14J'!ahl This move is a bit slow, but this is not a big

problem as it does not change the character of the position.

14 ... ifS 15.g4 g6 16J�hdl Now in the game Vyzmanavin - Mokry,

Tilburg 1 994, Black dubiously sacrificed a pawn with:

16 . . . ig7?! Black should instead have played the natural

1 6 . . . lLlfd7. In this case after 1 7.lLle2 '&b6 (or 17 . . . '&f6 1 8 .lLlg3 '&xd4 1 9.1:hd4t) 1 8.'&d2 '&b4 1 9.1Llg3t White would retain slightly the better chances. His main idea is to play f4-f5 and fire up the action on the kingside.

After the text move there was nothing wrong with taking the pawn:

17.VBxd6N Since the following idea does not work for

Black.

17 ... VBxd6 18.ihd6 �he3 19.fxe3 lLle8

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

I ...... '/''////''''

a b c d e f g h

20J�d4! lLle6 21 .lLle2 liJxd4 22.exd4± White has a healthy extra pawn.

Conclusion:

The Wade Defence usually leads to interesting unbalanced play. White should keep an edge, with his extra space or bishop pair being two common sources of this advantage. The attentive reader will have noted my fondness for the advance g2-g4, sometimes as an attack, other times as a purely positional space-grab.

Modern Defence a b c d e f g h

Modern Defence

Variation Index l .d4 d6 2.tiJa g6

3.c4 �g7 4.g3 A) 4 ... �c6 522 B) 4 ... c5 5.d5 b5 6.cxb5 522

Bl) 6 ... a6 522 B2) 6 ... 'lWa5t 524

C) 4 ... e5 5.�c3 524

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Cl) 5 ... �g4 525 C2) 5 ... �c6 526 C3) 5 ... exd4 528 C4) 5 ... �d7 6.�g2 530

C41) 6 ... �h6 530 C42) 6 ... �e7 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 exd4 9.�xd4 �c6 10.�de2 531

A) after 1 6 . . . ih3

a b c d e f g h

1 7.�f4!N

C421) 10 ... �de5 534 C422) 10 ... �c5 535 C423) lO ... a5 535

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C2) note to 6 . . . lOxe5

a b c d e f g h

1 4.Elxd7!N

C423) after 1 2 .. .f5

a b c d e f g b

1 3 .lOf4!?N


l .d4 d6 2.llJa g6 The Modern Defence requires careful

treatment from White, because of the many transpositional possibilities. Naturally the King's Indian is lurking in the background.

3.c4 At first my intention was to recommend the

immediate 3.g3 , bur then I discovered that 3 . . . �g7 4.�g2 c5!? lures us into unfamiliar territory.

3 ... ig7 4.g3 Instead 4.ttlc3 �g4 is not a bad system for

Black, so it seems wise to avoid this variation. Now we must consider three main lines: A)

4 ... llJc6, B) 4 ... cS and C) 4 ... eS.

Instead 4 ... ttld7 5 .ttlc3 e5 just transposes to the 4 ... e5 line. And of course 4 ... ttlf6 would lead to a normal King's Indian .

A) 4 ... llJc6

I recommend avoiding the main theory of 5 .�g2 e5 or 5 .ttlc3 �g4 and instead opt for:

S.dS llJeS 5 . . . ttlb8 looks too artificial, and after

6.�g2 ttlf6 7.ttlc3 0-0 8 .0-0 we reach a very favourable version of the King's Indian.

6.llJxeS ixeS 7.ig2 Now in order to develop his kingside knight

Black needs to waste a tempo:

7 ... ig7 8.0-0 llJf6 9.llJc3 0-0 I believe White should avoid playing 1 0.e4,

as the following line seems much more to the point:

10.ie3 The only game to reach this position

continued:

10 ... eS l 1 .dxe6 Le6 12.b3 c6 13J'gcl White has easier play in this pawn structure,

with the following game a good thematic example:

13 .. .'�aS 14.'�·d2 �fd8 IS.�fdl 'ffhS 16.id4 ih3

This is Burgess - Anand, Prestwich 1 990, and now White missed a strong manoeuvre:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h 17.'fff4!N ixg2 18.�xg2 llJe8 19.ixg7 �xg7 20.�d3

White has good pressure on Black's weak d6-pawn.

B) 4 ... cS S.dS

In the next few moves the play should transpose to either the Benoni or the Benko Gambit. However, I also analysed some rare ideas after the following pawn sacrifice:

5 ... bS 6.cxbS The split now is between Bl) 6 ... a6 and B2)

6 .. .'�aSt .

Bl) 6 ... a6 7.bxa6

White is willing to transpose to the Benko Gambit.

7 ... tiJf6 8.llJc3 0-0 9.ig2

Chapter 3 1 - The Modern Defence 523

Now of course 9 . . . ixa6 transposes to the Benko, but Black can vary:

9 . . . 4Jxa6 Another method of carrying out a similar

idea is: 9 . . . if5

This idea was mentioned by Kasimdzhanov in his DVD on the King's Indian, to which opening this position might transpose, so this could be important in practice.

1 0.tLld2 This is White's best continuation. If instead 1 0.0-0 then Black carries out his main idea: 1 0 . . . tLle4 1 1 .tLlxe4 ixe4 1 2.tLld2 ixg2 1 3.i>xg2 lha6� With interesting play for Black.

1 0 . . . tLlxa6 1 0 . . . 'lMfcB is too artificial: 1 1 .tLlc4 'lMfxa6 After 1 2.tLle3 icB as in Drasko - Ristic, Ulcinj 1 997, White should have played the simple 1 3.0-0 tLlbd7 1 4.'lMfc2± with a good version of a thematic Benko position.

a b c d e f g h 1 1 .tLlc4!N

An important novelty that obviously improves upon 1 1 .0-0 tLlb4 1 2.tLlc4 ic2 1 3.'lMfd2 ib3! when Black has good play.

1 l . . .tLlb4 12 .e4 ig4 It makes little difference to the assessment if Black tries 12 ... icB l 3.a3 ia6 1 4.ifl .

13.f3 icB 1 4.a3 ia6 1 5 .if! ixc4 1 6.ixc4 tLld7 1 7.ie3 tLla6 1 B.0-0 'lMfa5 1 9.'lMfd2±

White manages to consolidate and Black can hardly hope for full compensation without his l ight-squared bishop.

10.0-0 Here 1 O.tLld2 does not achieve its goal, since

after 1 0 . . . tLlc7 1 1 .0-0 .ia6 Black has very nice play for the pawn, as White's pieces lack coordination.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

10 ... J.f5 Otherwise there is no point in 9 . . . tLlxa6.

1 1 .4Jh4 I think this is the most promising line for

White.

1 1 .. . i.d7 12.i.d2 Now the following continuation is quite

natural:

12 . . . 'lMfa5 13.'lMfcl!? As we already know from the main line, this

is not such a bad square for the white queen, especially when we take into account that 1 3 .'lMfc2 would run into . . . tLlb4.

13 .. JHb8 14.h3 This is always a useful move in this kind of

position.

14 ... c4


This position was reached in Sargissian -Kurnosov, Plovdiv 2008, and now White should have played:

a b c d e f g h

15.�e3!N Keeping control of the d4-square; let's see a

typical continuation:

15 . . . liJe8 16.liJa It is very important that the thematic tactical

idea 1 6 .. .:1hb2?! 1 7.'lWxb2 i.xc3 does not work in view of 1 8 .'lWb7± when White keeps an extra pawn.

B2) 6 ... \Wa5t 7.lLlc3!

Not so clear is 7.i.d2 'lWxb5 8 .lLlc3 'lWb6 and Black has a half-decent version of the Benko.

7 ... liJf6 Obviously dangerous is 7 . . . i.xc3t 8.bxc3

'lWxc3t 9.i.d2 as the absence of the darksquared bishop should tell eventually.

7 . . . i.d7 looks ridiculous and White played strongly in the following encounter: 8 .i.d2 (8.e4!?) 8 . . . i.xb5 9.lLlxb5 'lWxb5 1 0.e4 'lWb7 ( l 0 . . . 'lWxb2 would of course be dangerous for Black: 1 U�b l 'lWxa2 1 2.i.b5t 'iflf8 1 3.0-0 White has the initiative) 1 1 .'lWa4t! <j;Jf8 ( l 1 . . .lLld7 1 2.i.b5 does not bring Black relief either) 1 2.i.h3!? 'lWa6 13 .'lWc2 ttJf6 14 .i.fl 'lWc8 1 5 .i.e2 h6 1 6.0-0 With the black king on f8, White's advantage is undeniable, Khamzin -Singh, New Delhi 2009.

8.id2 a6 9.bxa6 0-0 10.�g2 ixa6 1 1 .0-0 liJbd7 12J3bl

We have finally transposed to a position from the main line of the Benko Gambit, which is covered on page 2 14.

C) 4 ... e5 5.liJc3

We have reached a major crossroads for Black. He has a wide choice in this position, with four main lines and even a couple of minor variations:


We will also mention and dismiss 5 . . . ttJe7 and 5 . . . f5 :

5 . . . ttJe7 I do not see how Black can profit from this move order, and it also allows White an additional option:

6.dxe5!? There is nothing wrong with 6.ig2.

6 . . . dxe5 7.WxdBt WxdB B.ig2 Usually this type of endgame is defendable for Black, but here there is one small detail that makes Black's life tougher: normally Black develops his kingside knight via h6 to f7, where it controls the important d6-square and allows Black to slowly complete his development. But in this case it is obviously misplaced on e7, so White has good chances of gaining an advantage.

B .. .f6 9.0-0 c6 This position was reached in Rinder - Weise, Solingen 1 964, and now I found a strong idea:

a b c d e f g h 1 0.b3!N

This is quite problematic for Black, for instance:

10 . . . Wc7 l l .ia3 :!'%eB 1 2.ttJe4 ig4 1 3 .h3 ixf3 14 .id6t Wc8 1 5 .exf3 ttJf5 1 6.f4

White has the initiative.

5 .. . f5?! This is one of Black's weakest legal moves!

6.dxe5! dxe5 7.WxdBt WxdB B.ig5t

White gains far too many tempos for his development.

B . . . @eB 9.0-0-0 ttJe7? This is just a blunder. Black should have opted for 9 . . . id7, although even here after 1 0.e4 h6 l 1 .ie3 ttJe7 1 2.exf5! gxf5 1 3.ttJh4!± he is under serious pressure due to his weak king, which is stuck in the centre and has lost the right to castle.

1 0.ixe7! @xe7 l 1 .ttJd5t @d6 1 2.ttJb6t White was winning in Tadic - Borsos, Senta

2002.

Cl) 5 . . . ig4

This mixture of a kingside fianchetto, . . . e7 -e5 and . . . ig4 does not work well for Black.

6.dxe5

a b c d e f g h

6 . . . hO The simple pawn recapture walks into

trouble: 6 . . . dxe5 7.WxdBt WxdB B.ttJg5 ! ttJh6 9.ig2 c6 (Not much better is: 9 ... WcB 1 0.0-0 ttJc6 1 1 .h3 id7 1 2.ttJge4 Heading for c5 at an appropriate moment. 1 2 . . . f5 1 3 .ttJc5 e4 1 4.:!'%d 1 ttJe5 1 5 .if4 ttJhf7 1 6.ttJd5± White seized a

decisive initiative in Adorjan - Kupreichik, Jyvaskyla 1 99 1 .) This is Ribli - Matulovic, Vrbas 1 977, and now White should continue


with: 1 0.b4!N f6 1 1 .ltJge4 ltJf7 1 2.b5 With a strong initiative on the queenside.

7.exf3 ixe5 8.Wfb3 A tempting continuation, but it is also worth

considering 8 .i.h3!?N with the following possible line: 8 . . . i.g7 (if Black moves his knight from g8, White has the annoying 9.i.h6) 9.0-0 ltJe7 1 0.i.g5 0-0 1 1 .1"!el ltJbc6 1 2.ltJd5 White's position plays itself. 12 . . . f6 1 3.i.d2± Black's set-up is very suspicious from a positional point of view.

8 ... Wfc8 9.£4 ig7 10.ig2 lLlc6 1 1 .0-0 llJge7 12.ltJd5!

Not allowing Black to complete his development in a natural way.

12 ... ltJxd5 13.cxd5 lLlb8 14.1"!el t �f8 15 .ih3±

Black faced serious problems in Van Wely -Hommeles, Netherlands 1 997.

C2) 5 ... ltJc6 6.dxe5!

This looks more convincing than 6.d5 ltJce7.

a b c d e f g h

6 . . . ltJxe5 The pawn recapture is simply inferior:

6 . . . dxe5? 7.Wfxd8t �xd8 Black loses material after 7 . . . ltJxd8 8.ltJb5

ltJe6 9.ltJg5! and the c7-pawn is dropping, T.R. Hansen - Flaata, Norway 2000.

8 .i.g5t! Black is in serious trouble.

8 . . . ltJce7 The other options do not help either: 8 .. .f6 9.0-0-0t �e8 (or 9 . . . i.d7 1 0.i.h3!+-) 1 0.ltJd5 The c7 -pawn cannot be saved. 1 0 . . . �f7 1 1 .ltJxc7 1"!b8 1 2 .i.d2 ltJge7 1 3.i.c3 e4 14 .ltJd4 White was simply a pawn up in Comas Fabrego - Sanpera Bonet, Castellar 2004. 8 ... ltJge7 9.0-0-0t i.d7 This is Jasnikowski - Swpka, Lublin 1 988, and now the simple 1 0.ltJd5 would be decisive, since Black is helpless against the threats of 1 1 .ltJf6 or 1 1 .i.f6.

9.0-0-0t i.d7 1 0.i.h3 f5 This is the best Black can do in this dubious line, bu t still after:

1 1 .e4! Black's position is extremely dangerous, for instance:

1 1 . . .�c8 1 2.1"!he1 ltJc6 1 3.exf5 gxf5 In Milos - Fulgenzi, Buenos Aires 1 99 1 , a simple tactic was possible:

a b c d e f g h 1 4.1"!xd7!N �xd7 1 5 .i.xf5t <j;>e8 16.ltJd5 �f7 1 7.ltJxc7 1"!b8 1 8.ltJb5

This would secure a huge advantage for White.

7 .ltJxe5 he5


Once again the pawn recapture is simply bad: 7 . . . dxe5? 8 .\Wxd8t <j;lxd8 9.ig5t f6 1 0J:%d 1 t We8 1 1 .lLlb5! Black loses at least a pawn, Vaulin - Belotserkovsky, Krasnodar 1 997.

8.ig2

a b c d e f g h

8 ... lLle7 Black has also tried:

8 . . . ig7 9.0-0 lLle7 But then White has a powerful blow:

1 0.c5! Black experiences definite problems:

10 . . . lLlf5 Mter 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .cxd6 cxd6 1 2.if4 Black is clearly worse.

1 1 .\Wa4t! A very annoying check.

1 l . . .Wf8 A sad necessity; Black's problem is that 1 1 . . .c6 runs into 1 2.l'%d l ! followed by e2-e4 and Black loses his d-pawn.

12.l'%d 1 id7 1 3.\Wb4± There is no doubt White is much better, with

Black's king stuck on f8, Milos - Cifuentes Parada, Buenos Aires 1 99 1 .

9.0-0 0-0 Of course 9 . . . ig7 leads ro the position that

was examined above via the 8 . . . ig7 move order.

1O.ig5 Instead 1 0.ih6 l'%e8 1 1 .\Wd2 would promise

White a pleasant edge, but the text move is even more challenging.

10 ... f6 If 1 0 . . . c6 then White continues his natural

development: 1 1 .\Wd2 ie6 1 2.b3 \Wc7 1 3.l'%ad 1 White has a pleasant game, with definite pressure against the d6-pawn. 13 . . . lLlf5? (somewhat better would have been 1 3 . . . l'%ad8, although here after 1 4.lLle4 f6 1 5 .ih6 l'%fe8 1 6.if4! White has serious pressure) Now in Tran Minh - Nguyen Hoang, Vietnam 2002, White overlooked the simple 1 4.e4 with the point that after 14 . . . lLld4 White has 1 5 .ie3! c5 1 6.ixd4 cxd4 1 7.lLlb5 winning a pawn.

1 1 .ie3 White's prospects are clearly preferable due

ro his favourable pawn structure and Black's insecure dark-squared bishop. The game continued:

1 1 ...ie6 If 1 1 . . .lLlf5 then White responds with

1 2.\Wd5t Wg7 1 3 .id2 keeping all the pressure.

12.�d3 �d7 13.l'%fdl l'%ae8 Now White can strike with:

a b c d e f g h

52S The Modern Defence

14.c5! tLlc6 The main point is that Black cannot play

1 4 . . . d5 in view of 1 5 .ttJxd5 ttJxd5 1 6.i.xd5 ixd5 1 7.Wxd5t Wxd5 1 SJhd5 i.xb2 1 9.l'�b 1 fol lowed by Elxb7 with an extra pawn for White.

15.cxd6 cxd6 White had a significant positional advantage

in Sorokin - Shariyazdanov, Dubai 200 1 , and now after the natural move:

16.tLle4 Black is left with a very poor position.

C3) 5 ... exd4 6.lDxd4

This is also quite a popular l ine for Black. Now his main continuation is:

a b c d e f g h

6 . . . ttJe7 Black also has a serious alternative:

6 . . . ttJc6 Theory considers that White has a promising

position after: 7.ttJxc6 bxc6 8 .i.g2 ttJe7 9.ig5 0-0

Another option is 9 . . .f6 1 0.i.f4 �e6 (Black has also played 1 0 . . . 0-0 when I like the idea of 1 1 .Wa4N with the following point: 1 l . . .Elb8 1 2.b3 f5 1 3.Elc l White's queen is pretty annoying on a4, while 1 3 . . . a6 runs

into the strong 14.c5 d5 1 5 .0-0 with a clear positional advantage.) 1 1 .Wa4 Again I like this jump; the white queen puts a lot of pressure on Black's queenside pawns. 1 l . . .Wd7 12.0-0 0-0 1 3 .Elfdl White intends to continue with c4-c5, and Black is unable to stop this idea. This example shows the danger of Black's position: 1 3 . . . ElfbS 14.c5 d5 1 5 .e4! Elxb2? 1 6.exd5+- Black suddenly found himself in a lost position in Staiger -Frick, Germany 1992.

1 0.0-0 After the inaccurate 1 0.i.xc6 Elb8 Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn.

l O . . . ElbS The text is Black's first choice according to theory, but we should also consider two other possibilities: 1 0 . . . i.e6 Now I found an interesting innovation: 1 1 .Elcl !N (The usual line is 1 1 .Wd3 Elb8 1 2.b3 c5 1 3.�d2, but my idea is to get the same posirion with an extra tempo for White.) 1 1 . . .f6 (Other options include 1 l . . .i.xc4 1 2.i.xc6 Elb8 1 3.�a4 i.e6 14.b3 when White has a pleasant advantage, and 1 l . . .Elb8 1 2.b3 c5 13 .�d2 when we get exactly the kind of position we want. We shall examine this type of position in the 1 0 . . . Elb8 line.) 12 .i.e3 i.xc4 1 3.�a4 i.e6 14.ixc6 ttJxc6 1 5 .Wxc6;!; Black's bishop pair is irrelevant, while White's better pawn structure makes his play much easier. 1 0 .. .f6 1 1 .i.f4 i.e6 Once again this allows a thematic sortie: 1 2 .Wa4! ElbS 13 .b3 Now Black tried to build up an attack on the kingside to make up for his problems on the queenside: 1 3 . . . g5 14.i.d2 f5 In the game Esposito - Reinhardt, Buenos Aires 1963, White obtained a pleasant edge with 1 5 .Elac l , but I do nor see any problem with capturing the pawn: 1 5 .i.xc6 ttJxc6 16.�xc6 f4 17.Elacl EI£7 l S .gxf4! gxf4 1 9.\tlh 1 Black does not have any serious compensation for the pawn.


1 1 .�d2 c5 1 2.b3 White makes all the necessary prophylactic moves to neutralize Black's initiative on the long diagonal. I believe White's chances are slightly better in this position. Let's see a few examples:

12 . . . ie6 After 1 2 .. .f6 it is a good idea not to swap dark-squared bishops: 1 3 .if4 ib7 This is Birnboim - Radulov, Berlin 1 986, and now I believe White should also avoid trading lightsquared bishops with: 1 4.e4 ltJc6 1 5 .ie3! White has established control over the d4-square and enjoys a pleasant game, though Black remains pretty solid.

13 .�ad 1 f6 14.if4 Again it is the same idea: White keeps the bishops on the board, whereas 14 .ih6 ixh6 1 5 .�xh6 �d7 would ease Black's task, as in Hulak - Schneider, Neu Isenburg (rapid) 1992.

14 . . . @h8? This slip allows White an unexpected tactical idea:

1 5 .ltJb5! a6 1 6.ltJxc7 The point.

16 . . . �xc7 17.ixd6 �d7 1 8 .ixb8 �xd2 19.�xd2 �xb8 20.�d6

White had quickly gained a decisive advantage in Magerramov - Kantsler, Podolsk 1 989.

6 . . . ltJf6 7.ig2 0-0 8.0-0 is almost certainly heading towards a normal King's Indian. For example, 8 . . . ltJbd7 9.e4 immediately leads to the KID, while after 8 . . . �e8 9.h3! it is hard to imagine Black has anything cleverer than 9 . . . ltJbd7 when 1 O.e4 transposes to Line C2 in Chapter 28.

7.ig2 ltJ be6 The other move order 7 . . . 0-0 8.0-0 ltJbc6

9.ltJxc6 leads to the same positions.

8.lLlxe6 lLlxe6

The alternative 8 . . . bxc6 leads to a position that was examined in the 6 . . . ltJc6 line.

a b c d e f g h

9.0-0 0-0 10.id2 This is the best way of solving the problems

on the long diagonal. This pawn structure can arise in many openings, and in my opinion White always keeps slight but lasting pressure if Black is unable to create something special on the kingside. Note that White must avoid 1 0.�d2, since it allows 1 0 . . . a5 1 1 .b3 a4 with counterplay.

10 ... ie6 1 1 .b3 Wld7 Now in almost every game where this

position was reached White continued with 1 2.�e 1 , preventing the exchange of lightsquared bishops. In this case, that plan is a bit slow and White can play more aggressively.

12.<�d5! �ae8 Capturing the rook would lead to a pleasant

advantage for White after the fairly forced: 1 2 . . . ixa l 1 3.�xal ixd5 14 .ih6 ltJe5 1 5 .cxd5 f5 1 6.h3! Taking control of the g4-square and also threatening f2-f4. 1 6 . . . �e7 1 7.ixf8 �xf8 1 8 .�d4 Black's pawns on the queenside are permanent targets for White's pieces.

13.�cl


a b c d e f g h Now the following encounter showed rather

thematic play for this kind of pawn structure.

13 . ..fild8 14.ic3 f6 1 5.�d2 c6 16.tDf4 if5 17J'kdl tDf7 1 8.!Ue1:t

Black has a passive but solid position, but at the same time it is obvious White has a pleasant edge, Smejkal - Gross, Czech Republic 1 995 .

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

C4) 5 ... ltJd7 6.ig2

a b c d e f g h

We now have a split depending on which square Black selects for his g8-knight. The lines are C41) 6 ... tDh6 and C42) 6 ... tDe7. Of course 6 . . . ttJgf6 is just a transposition to a normal King's Indian Defence.

C41) 6 ... tDh6

A very strange move in my opinion, but to my surprise it has been played in more than a hundred games.

7.c5!? A surprising move, which appears to be quite

strong, as White changes the pawn structure in his favour. I should mention that I believe the natural 7.e4 is also sufficient for an advantage.

7 ... 0-0 Black also has many other options:

7 . . . ttJf5 8 .cxd6 cxd6 9.ig5 ! From Black's point of view, this is an annoying move.

9 . . . Wa5 It is understandable that Black does not want to play the weakening 9 . . . f6 1 0.ic l 0-0 1 1 .0-0 when Black's position is rather unpleasant, as his pieces lack coordination. For example: 1 l . . .ttJb6 1 2.Wb3t Wh8 1 3.a4 exd4 14.ttJb5±

1 0.dxe5 dxe5 1 1 .0-0 h6 Also 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2.e4 ttJd4 1 3.ttJxd4 exd4 1 4.ttJd5 does not help Black.

1 2.id2 0-0 This is T. Paehtz - Peev, Plovdiv 1 988, and now direct action was called for:

8 7

6 5

3 2

a b c d e f g h 1 3.e4N ttJd4 1 4.ttJxd4 exd4 1 5 .ttJd5 Wd8 1 6.ib4 :ge8 17.:gc l ±

Black has serious problems.

Chapter 3 1 - The Modern Defence 53 1

7 . . . exd4 8 . .ixh6 .ixh6 9.Wxd4 0-0 1 0.cxd6 .ig7 (instead after 1 0".c6 1 1 .0-0 .ig7 1 2.Wd2± Black failed to achieve any compensation in Makarov - Sekulic, Cetinje 1 993) I l .dxc7 Wfxc7 1 2.Wb4 Black's play is hardly enough to compensate for the pawn.

7" .dxc5 8 .dxe5 c6 9 .0-0 0-0 This is Weber - Maassen, corr. 1 998, and now I found the following improvement: 1 0 . .if4N lLlg4 (Another line runs 1 0".lLlf5 1 1 .e3 We7 1 2.g4! lLlh4 1 3.lLlxh4 Wxh4 14 . .ig3 We7 1 5 .f4 and White has a promising position.) 1 1 .e6! fxe6 12 .id6 l:'!:e8 1 3.Wc2 White has excellent compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

8.cxd6 cxd6 9.e4 It is essential to restrict Black's knight on

h6. For example, less convincing is 9.0-0 lLlf5 1 0 . .ig5 Wb6.

9 .•. exd4 1O.lbxd4 lbcs 1 1 .0-0 lbg4 Black has managed to activate his minor

pieces, but he had to pay a high price, as his pawn structure is damaged and the d6-pawn is an obvious target.

12.l:'!:bl hS In Ivanchuk - Yusupov, Brussels 1 99 1 ,

White could have immediately targeted the d6-pawn:

a b c d e f g h

13.lbdbS!N Black has serious problems defending his

d6-pawn.

C42) 6 ... lbe7 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4

The position is similar to the fianchetto line against " .lLlbd7 in the King's Indian, except the other black knight is on e7 instead of the normal f6-square.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

8 ... exd4 This is certainly Black's main choice, but 1

will also examine rwo other options, 8" .h6 and 8" .lLlc6:

8" .h6 9 . .ie3 Now there is a further split:

a) 9" .�h7 This does not promise Black an easy life. For example:

1 0.Wc2 c5 The main point of White's 1 0th move is that Black cannot play 1 0" .f5 in view of 1 1 . dxe 5 dxe5 1 2.exf5 gxf5 13 .lLlh4! c6 1 4.l:'!:ad 1 ± followed by 1 5 .�h3.

1 1 .dxc5 dxc5 This is Bachmann - Schneider, Berlin 1 987, and now I like a natural developing move:


a b c d e

1 2J�fd l N Threatening ixc5. One key line continues:

1 2 . . . Wa5 1 3.a3! With the following point:

1 3 . . . ttJc6? 1 4.b4 cxb4 1 5 .axb4 Wxb4 1 6.ttJd5 Wd6 17.ttJb6

White wins material.

b) 9 .. .f5 This advance is not so effective here, unlike in positions where White has developed his bishop to e2.

1 0.dxe5 dxe5 1 1 .Wd2 Surprisingly, Black has a good score in this position, not losing a single game. Objectively, White has better prospects, due to the passivity of Black's minor pieces. For example:

1 1 . . .@h7 1 2.�ad l c6 1 3.ic5! We8 1 4.id6 b6 1 5 . exf5 gxf5

In R. Miles - G. Morris, Wales (ch) 1992, Whi te overlooked a crushing blow:

a b c d e f g h

16 .ttJh4!N Black cannot avoid material losses.

8 . . . ttJc6 Here I recommend:

9.ig5 f6 Another possible reply is 9 . . . if6 and here I found an interesting idea: 1 O .i.xf6 vtIxf6 (If 1 0 . . . ttJxf6 1 1 .h3t then White enjoys a pleasant game. Black cannot hope for equality without his dark-squared bishop, Kotov - Lein, Leningrad 1 962.) 1 1 .vtld2!N With this small trick White continues his normal development. 1 1 . . .exd4 (or 1 1 . . . vtld8 1 2.�ada) 1 2.ttJd5 vtId8 1 3 .ttJxd4 White has a comfortable edge.

1 0.ie3 White has an improved version of the King's Indian. I do not think we need to investigate this position too deeply, so I will just show a few instructive points:

1 0 . . . exd4 1 1 .ttJxd4 ttJde5 1 2.b3 ttJxd4 Another important line is: 1 2 . . . ttJg4 1 3 .ttJxc6 bxc6 (the main point is that after 1 3 . . . ttJxe3 1 4.ttJxd8 ttJxd l White has the strong 1 5 .ttJb5! winning material) 14 .id2t

1 3.ixd4 ig4 1 4. f3 ie6 1 5 .�cl White is better, due to his extra space, but the next move significantly eases his task:

1 5 .. .f5?! 1 6.f4 ttJc6 1 7.ixg7 g;,xg7 1 8.exf5 ixf5

In B. Lalic - Soos, Bad Mergentheim 1 988, White could have played:

1 9.ttJd5N @g8 20.vtld2± White has a clear positional advantage.

9.ttJxd4 ttJc6 The whole idea is to activate the passive

knight from e7. Black can also try a couple of other moves:

9 . . . ttJe5 1 0.b3 ttJ5c6 After 1 0 . . . ttJ7c6 1 1 .ttJde2 the play would transpose to the 9 . . . ttJc6 line.


I I .i.e3 Black can make a few exchanges, but he will fai l to equalize:

1 l . . .lLlxd4 1 2.i.xd4 i.xd4 1 3 .'lWxd4 i.e6 1 4.f4 f6 1 5 .l"1ad l

White had a pleasant game in Kharitonov Azmaiparashvili, Jurmala 1 983.

9 . . . a6 1 0.b3 l"1b8 This has been played a few times, and I believe the following line is the best way for White to fight for an advantage:

I l .i.e3 lLle5 1 2.'lWd2 Also worthy of consideration is 1 2.a4!?N tbg4 1 3.i.f4.

1 2 . . . c5 1 3 . tbde2 b5 Black has carried out the usual plan, but White is well mobilized and in the game Sterpu - S. Foisor, Romania 2006, she could have tried:

1 4.l"1ad l !N The next few moves are basically forced:

1 4 . . . bxc4 1 5.i.xc5 tbd3 1 6.i.a7! l"1b7 1 7.i.d4 i.xd4 1 8.lLlxd4±

Eventually, after exchanging on b3, White will have a small but stable advantage, due to the weak d6-pawn.

10. lLl de2 White's most popular continuation and it

looks as though it deserves to be.

a b c d e f g h

Black now has three main lines: C42l) 1O ... tL\deS, C422) lO . . . tL\cS and C423) lO . . . aS. There is also a tricky minor line to be dealt with first:

1 0 . . . a6 A rare continuation, but one that scores well for Black! I managed to discover a new way of fighting for an advantage:

1 1 .i.e3N lLlde5 If 1 1 . . .l"1b8 1 2.l"1c1 and White is ready to meet 1 2 . . . b5 with 1 3.cxb5 axb5 14.tL\d5 i.b7 1 5 .b3± wirh some pressure.

1 2.b3 l"1b8 I doubt Black has compensation after 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 .cxb5 axb5 1 4.lLlxb5 i.a6 1 5.lLlbc3 .

1 3 .h3 b5 14.f4 lLld7 1 5 .cxb5 axb5 1 6.l"1c 1± And again Whi te i s ready to meet the . . . b 7 -b 5

idea; he is rhreatening the thematic 1 7.lLld5.

1 0 . . . lLlce5 I l .b3 lLlc5 This looks very active, but in fact White controls all the important squares.

1 2.i.e3 c6 And now in the game Seirawan - Welin, Reykjavik 1 986, White should have chosen a calm preparatory move:

a b c d e f g h

1 3.h3N In the game, after the inaccurate 1 3.'lWd2 Black achieved good counterplay with 1 3 .. .f5 1 4.exf5 i.xf5 1 5 .l"1ad l Wa5 . After the text move White is ready for Black's pawn break:


13 . . .f5 1 4.ixc5! dxc5 1 5 .f4 ct:lf7 1 6.e5± Certainly Black is very solid, but White

effectively has an extra pawn in the centre.

C421) 1O . . . lLldeS 1 1 .b3 f5

This line has been tested many times In practice.

12.f4 ct:lg4 A less popular l ine is:

1 2 . . . ct:lf7 Now White should continue with:

1 3.ib2 fxe4 14.Wd2! This is an important move in White's strategy; he intends to recapture the e4-pawn with his knight and then exchange the darksquared bishops. Black's knight is too passive on f7 and it is hard to see how he can oppose White's simple idea. The following line is a good example:

1 4 . . . e3 1 5 .Wxe3 if5 1 6.Wd2 ct:lh6 1 7.h3 id7 1 8 .g4!

Preventing the black knight activating via f5 and maintaining a clear positional advantage, S. Farago - Resika, Budapest 2000.

13.h3

a b c d e f g h

13 . . . ct:lf6 The second option is:

1 3 . . . ct:lh6 1 4.l"1:b l Also worth considering is the following new idea: 14.Wd5t @h8 1 5 .ib2 fxe4 1 6.Wd2! White has a pleasant game after 1 6 . . . e3 1 7.Wxe3 ct:lf5 1 8.Wd2±.

1 4 . . . fxe4 Better would have been 14 . . . ie6, but even here after 1 5 .ie3 Wd7 1 6.Wd2 White has the better chances.

1 5 .g4! The point; now Black's knight is badly placed on h6, so his desperate sacrifice is understandable:

1 5 . . . ct:lxg4 1 6.hxg4 ixg4 Sadly for Black, the sac was convincingly refuted in the following encounter:

1 7.We1 Wd7 1 8.ct:lxe4 l"1:ae8 1 9.ib2!± This is Arkell - Azmaiparashvili, Oviedo

(rapid) 1 992.

14.exfS ixfS Of course the alternative is:

14 . . . gxf5 Now the play continues:

1 5 .ib2 ie6 1 6.Wd2 Wd7 1 7.ct:ld5 This is the thematic plan in this kind of position; first White consolidates and then at some moment comes ct:ld5.

1 7 . . . l"1:ae8 This natural move appears to be inaccurate. Black should have played 1 7 . . . ct:le4 but even so after 1 8 .ixe4 fxe4 1 9.ixg7 Wxg7 20.@g2 l"1:ae8 2 1 .ct:le3 White has a slight positional advantage.

1 8.ct:lxf6t! ixf6 1 9.ixf6 l"1:xf6 20.l"1:ae1 It transpires that the black king is seriously

weakened without the dark-squared bishop to protect it. White had a solid advantage in Eingorn - Jakobsen, Hamburg 1 999.

IS.g4 ie6 The sac is still not a serious threat: 1 5 . . . ct:lxg4?!

1 6.hxg4 ixg4 In Nedela - Bielczyk, Slovakia 1 995, White made a series of good defensive


moves: 1 7.id5t! 'tt>h8 1 8.ib2 1'!e8 1 9.'lWd2 'lWh4 20.1'!f2 And Black ended up in a lost position.

16.�b2 'lWd7 17.'lWd2 Here I tried to improve on Black's play:

17 ... hSN But this novelty still falls short. Black must

find an improvement somewhere, as White easily gained a big advantage after 17 . . . 'tt>h8 1 8 .lDg3 1'!ae8 1 9 .1Dd5 lDg8 in Csom -Riazantsev, Budapest 1 999, and now just 20.1'!ae 1 ± .

18.f5! gxf5 19.9S lLle4 Or 1 9 . . . lDh7 20.h4± followed by lDf4.

20.tlJxe4 hb2 21 .'lWxb2 fxe4 22.tlJf4 tlJeS 23.�e2!±

Black is in trouble.

C422) lO ... tlJcS 1 1 .�e3

Worse is l 1 .1'!b 1 because it gives Black an opportunity to break free: l 1 . . . f5 1 2. b4 lDxe4 1 3.lDxe4 fxe4 1 4.ixe4 if5 Black has comfortable play.

a b c d e f g h

11 ...aS The most popular alternative is:

l 1 . . .f5 1 2.exf5 ixf5 1 3.'lWd2 a5 14.1'!ad 1 This is the position White should aim for in this line; he has consolidated his pieces in an optimal way and now he should slowly develop his play in the centre and on the kingside.

14 . . . a4 Now in the game P. Nikolic - Damljanovic, Manila 1990, White opted for 1 5 .lDd4, which eased Black's task after heavy exchanges on d4. This is why I developed another idea:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .lDf4!?N �h8 1 6.h3t

White does not need to rush, but in some lines he can consider g3-g4 to push away the bishop. White's chances are clearly preferable.

12.1'!bl ! Now the play transposes to the main line.

It is important to understand that the natural 1 2.'lWd2 is actually a serious inaccuracy, as it allows Black to create counterplay on the queenside with: 1 2 . . . ie6! 1 3.b3 (or 1 3 .lDd5 lDe5 14.b3 a4�) 1 3 ... a4 14.1'!ab 1 axb3 1 5 .axb3 1'!a3 As in Bentzen - E. Mortensen, Denmark 2002.

C423) lO ... aS 1 1 .1'!bl

The main idea of this move is not to allow Black to open up the a-file, as would happen


after the natural 1 1 .b3 a4 1 2.l'!b 1 axb3 1 3. axb3 a pleasant advantage. when Black has a totally reliable position. 1 6.e5 It'ld7 1 7.Wff2 dxe5 1 8.f5

1 l ... lt'lcS 12.J.e3 Black is doing fine after 1 2.b3 f5 . After the

text move we reach the final crossroads for Black in this line.

12 .. . £5 The most natural continuation and also

Black's main idea to activate his pieces. Various other possibilities have also been tried:

1 2 . . . a4 This gains some space on the queens ide, but

after: 1 3.f4

It will be hard for Black to carry out the . . . f7-f5 advance, since White will always have the idea of e4-e5, exploiting the vulnerable position of the black knight on c5.

13 . . . ig4 1 4.h3 ixe2 In Ferrer Duran - Todorcevic, Ponferrada 1 992, White wrongly recaptured with the knight, but we can do better:

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .Wxe2!N This is very strong, for example:

1 5 . . . l'!eB 1 5 . . . a3 is possible, but White retains an edge with accurate play: 1 6.l'!fd 1 ! axb2 1 7.e5 It'la4 1 8.lt'lxa4 l'!xa4 1 9.Wxb2 l'!b4 20.WeI We7 2 1 .l'!xb4 It'lxb4 22.a3 It'lc6 23.exd6 cxd6 24.if2 The bishop pair secures White

White has a strong initiative.

Black cannot afford to play slowly In this position: 1 2 . . . l'!e8 1 3.b3 �g4 1 4.f3 id7 1 5 .Wd2 b6 1 6.lt'ld4 It'le5 17.h3 f6 1 B .s1<h2 It'lf7 19.1'!fe l Black ended up in a very passive position in J. Horvath - Todorcevic, Igalo 1 994.

Actually Black can open the a-file by means of: 1 2 . . . lt'le5 1 3.b3 a4

But here White is firmly in control after: 14 .h3

If 1 4.b4 then 14 . . . lt'le6. 1 4 . . . axb3 1 5 .axb3

White intends to chase the black knights from the centre with f2-f4 and b3-b4, while if Black tries to play in the centre it will backfire:

1 5 . . . f5 1 6.f4 lt'led7?! Better was 16 . . . lt'lf7 when White should react with the standard idea: 1 7.ixc5 (and not 1 7.e5 It'le6 when Black is quite okay) 1 7 . . . dxc5 1 8 .e5 With better chances for White.

1 7.exf5! gxf5 I B.b4 lt'le6 1 9.1'!e l It'lf6 20.Wc2 We8 2 1 .lt'ld5

White was much better in Nestorovic - S. Nikolic, Belgrade 1 990.

a b c d e f g h


13.tiJf4!?N This is my new idea. Previously White

has tried 1 3.b3 and 1 3.ixc5, but without much success. The simple plan is to activate White's passive knight, using the temporary vulnerability of the a2-gS diagonal.

For 1 3.b3 Wie7, see the 1 2.b3 line.

13 ... ixc3 Accepting the challenge, but Black also has a

solid alternative: 13 . . . ttJxe4 14 .ttJxe4 fxe4 1 5 .ixe4 if5 16 .id5t!

White has nothing special after 1 6.ixf5 l"hf5 17.ttJe6 Wid7 l S.ttJxg7 Wixg7 and, despite the absence of his dark-squared bishop, Black is not worse.

1 6 . . . <;t>hS 1 7.ttJe6 ixe6 l S.ixe6 White gains the advantage of the two bishops,

as he manages to keep his light-squared bishop alive after: l S . . . ttJe5 1 9.b3 c6 2o.ih3;!;

Perhaps White's advantage is not so big, but it will certainly last, thanks to his bishop pair.

14.bxc3!? This is the main point of my idea; not

dangerous for Black is 14 .ixc5 ig7 1 5 .ie3 lMfe7! with more or less balanced play.

14 ... tlJxe4 Certainly inferior is 1 4 . . . fxe4? 1 5 .Wid5t

:gO 16 .ixc5 dxc5 1 7.ixe4± with a clear advantage.

lS.tiJdS White has sacrificed a central pawn, but

in return he has gained plenty of play in the centre and on both long diagonals. Let's see a couple of plausible continuations:

lS ... tlJeS 1 5 . . . b6 is a desirable solution to White's

pressure along the b-file, but unfortunately for Black it is hit by 1 6.ttJxb6! cxb6 1 7.Wid5t :gO l S .ixe4 fxe4 1 9.Wixc6 ib7 20.Wia4!± and White starts collecting the weak pawns.

a b c d e f g h 16.:gel

Adding one more piece into the play; Black's position is very shaky. For example:

16 ... e6 17.f3 tiJxf3t 18.ixf3 cxdS 19.\WxdSt :gU 20.l:!b6 \We7 21 .ixe4 fxe4 22.l:!xd6

Despite the opposite-coloured bishops, White retains the better chances due to his active pieces.

Conclusion:

The Modern Defence creates many transpositional options for Black (obviously to the King's Indian, but also, for example, to the Benoni or even Benko Gambit). The lines above should be studied with care by White players, as one slip in the move order can allow Black's counterplay to spring to life. With accurate play, White keeps control and good chances of an advantage.

A) 3 . . . e6 B) 3 . . . tLlc6

A) nore to 4 . . . .ih4t

a b c d e f g h

9 . .ie3!N

Minor Systems

2 . . . b6

Variation Index 1 .d4 tLlf6 2.c4 b6

3.B!?

B) nore to 8 . . . d6

a b c d e f g h

1 3 .dxc6N

B) afrer 1 3 . . . dxcS

539 540

a b c d e f g h

1 4 . .igS!N

Chapter 32 - 2 . . . b6 539

l.d4 lDf6 2.c4 b6 Needless to say, the text is a very rare move at

the highest level, but it is very popular in blitz games. It also prevents White from playing the Catalan opening.

3.f3!? A very ambitious continuation. White grabs

more space in the centre using the fact that Black is not really ready to fight back with 3 . . . d5.

Another critical line, according to theory, is: 3.lOc3 .ib7 4.'lMfc2 d5 5 .cxd5 lOxd5 6.lOf3 e6 7.e4 lOxc3 8.bxc3 .ie7 9 . .ib5t c6 10 . .id3 c5 1 1 .0-0 cxd4 1 2 .cxd4 0-0 1 3 . .ib2 lOc6 14. a3 This simply transposes to a position from the Petrosian Variation of the Queen's Indian Defence.

Very often White opts for 3.lOf3 .ib7 and now both 4.lOc3 and 4.g3 transpose to the Queen's Indian after 4 . . . e6.

After 3.f3!? Black has a range of minor options that we wil l consider before moving on to the main lines:

3 . . . .ib7 This move makes no sense; you do not have to prepare for such moves. Having said that, I will offer one example just to be helpful:

4.e4 e5? This idea works only rarely.

5.dxe5 lOxe4 6.fxe4 'lMfh4t 7.<±>d2 'lMff2t 8.'lMfe2 'l'Md4t 9.<±>e 1 .ixe4 1 0 .lOc3 .ib4 1 1 ..id2

White was winning in Euwe - Abrahams, London 1 946.

3 ... d5 4.cxd5 lOxd5 5 .e4 lOf6 6.lOc3 e6 7 . .ie3 .ib7 8 .lOh3 lObd7

This position occurred in Kraidman -Hoelting, Dresden 2007, where White

continued with the modest 9.lOf2 . I prefer the following idea:

9 . .ie2!?N .ie7 1 0.lOf4!? 0-0 White is ready for 1 0 . . . c5, when he can play 1 1 .e5! lOd5 1 2.lOcxd5 exd5 13 .e6! , with an obvious advantage.

1 1 .e5 Less clear would be: 1 1 .0-0 c5 1 2.d5 exd5 1 3 .lOfxd5 lOxd5 14.lOxd5 .id6!

1 1 . . .lOe8 1 2.'lMfb3 It is essential for White to place his rook on d 1 quickly. For example, 1 2.0-0 c5 looks fine for Black.

1 2 . . . c5 1 3.E1d 1 cxd4 1 4.E1xd4 White definitely has pressure.

Now let's see the more important lines, A) 3 . .. e6 and B) 3 ... lDc6.

A) 3 ... e6 4.e4

4 . . . lOxe4? is bold, but it does not work here. 5 .fxe4 'lMfh4t This is Lehmann - Montoro, Germany 2002. Now the simplest way forward would be to play 6.<±>e2!N 'lMfxe4t 7.<±>f2 followed by lOf3 and lOc3 with a large advantage.

540 Minor Systems

4 . . . d5 After the natural:

5 .cxd5 exd5 6.e5 lLlfd7 7.f4 White's position seems to me very promising.

7 . . . c5 7 . . . �b4t 8 .�d2 (also worthy of consideration is 8.lLlc3 c5 9.lLlf3 0-0 1 0.�e2 lLlc6 1 1 .0-0 cxd4 1 2.lLlb5! with the better chances) 8 . . . �xd2t This was played in Marian - Jurasin, Germany 1 982. Now White should continue with the natural recapture 9 .Wfxd2!N. I believe White gets an even better version of the 7 . . . c5-line. For instance, 9 . . . c5 1 0.lLlc3 0-0 l 1 .lLlf3 �b7 1 2.�e2 lLlc6 1 3 .0-0 cxd4 1 4.lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 5 .Wfxd4 lLlc5 1 6.f5 ! with good attacking chances, due to the idea of 1 7.f5 .

8 .lLl f3 lLlc6 Now it is important for White to play:

a b c d e f g h 9.�e3!N

Black gains normal play after 9.lLlc3 cxd4! 1 0.lLlxd4 lLlxd4 l 1 .Wfxd4 ib7 12 .�e3 �c5 13 .Wfd2 0-0 as demonstrated by Lev -Kogan, Tel Aviv 1 996.

9 . . . �b7 1 0.ie2 White's chances are much better after either

1 0 . . . �e7 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.lLlc3 cxd4 1 3.lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 4.ixd4 lLlc5 1 5 .f5! or 1 0 . . . cxd4 l 1 .lLlxd4 ic5 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.lLlc3.

5.id2 ixd2t 6.�xd2 d6 7.lLlc3 0-0

8 ... �e7 8 . . . ib7 9.g4 a6 1 0.g5 lLlfd7 1 1 .h4± was

Alber - Gazic, Moerlenbach 2004.

9.g4 c5 10.d5 e5 1 l .lLlge2 ttJe8 12.h4 a6 13.ttJg3

White had a very promising position in Kruppa - Simonian, Kiev 2008.

B) 3 .. . ttJc6

This seems to me the most reliable move for Black.

4.ttJc3 Very unclear is 4.d5 ttJe5 5 .e4 e6 6.lLlc3

ic5 .

Premature would be 4.e4 e5 5.d5?! in view of 5 . . . ttJd4.

4 ... e5 5.d5 lLle7 The downside to Black's plan is that his

knight will have to move yet again to free the f8-bishop.

Chapter 32 - 2 . . . b6 54 1

6.e4 tLlgG 7.ie3 ics

a b c d e f g h

8.�d2 We have reached a very com plex middlegame,

where I prefer White's prospects due to two very important details:

Firstly, Black's knight has taken a few moves to reach g6, where it is not well placed.

Secondly, " .b7-b6 has slightly weakened Black's queenside and significantly complicates Black's counterplay there. For example, the thematic " .c7 -c6 hardly works now, as Black cannot recapture on c6 with the b-pawn.

I do not like 8 . .txc5 bxc5 9.d6 and indeed after 9".0-0 1 0.lOge2 l:%b8 I l .dxc7 Wixc7 1 2.Wid2 d6 1 3.l:%dl l:%d8 14 .g3 lOf8 1 5 . .tg2 lOe6 Black obtained a nice position in Manolache -Zajarnyi, Romania 2000.

8 .. . d6 Black has also tried: 8" .0-0 9.lOge2 �xe3

10.Wixe3 d6 1 1 .lOc1 (the immediate I l .g3 followed by �g2 or �h3 was an interesting alternative) 1 1 . . .�d7 1 2.g3 c6 S. Buckley -]. Cobb, Newport 1 999. White should now have played 1 3.dxc6N �xc6 1 4.�h3 a6 1 5 .a4 Wic7 1 6.0-0 �b7 1 7.b3;!;, retaining the better chances.

9.tiJge2 id7 10.tLlcl 0-0 1 1 .tLld3 tLle8 12.0-0-0 fS?

Before carrying our the typical " .f? -f5 advance Black should first trade dark-squared bishops with 1 2" .�xe3 1 3 .Wixe3 f5 . Even so, White is better after 1 4.exf5 .txf5 1 5 .lOf2;!; due to his control over the e4-square.

13.lOxcS dxcS So far we have been following Bodnar -

Zajarnyi, Lvov 1 999, where White now took prematurely on f5 .

14.ig5!N �c8 l S.exfS ixfS 16.h4 White has a serious edge.

Conclusion: 2" .b6 is a minor line on merit. With 3.f3 White can secure a pleasant edge by preventing Black from escaping ro a respectable Queen's Indian.

A) 1 . .. b5 B) 1 ...a6 C) 1 . ..c6 2.c4 b5 D) 1 ...b6

B) note to 5 ... c5

a b c d e f g h

9.d5N

Minor Systems

b-pawn Systems

Variation Index l.d4

B) note to 7 . . . �e7

a b c d e f g h

1 3 .Wlxe6t!N

a b c d e f g h

C) note to 9 . . . 0-0

543 545 548 550

a b c d e f g h

1 0.a4!N

Chapter 33 - b-pawn Systems 543

In this chapter we shall look at a collection of rather odd systems where Black decides to fight for the centre by advancing his b-pawn and putting the bishop on b7. It is not a great surprise that I have found a route to an advantage for White in all of these systems, as Black's plan is a rather slow way of fighting for the centre, and does little to develop the kingside.

The systems that involve . . . b7-b5 at some point are probably the most dubious, as this space-grab on the queenside costs further time because the pawn is exposed. It is not a coincidence that this strategy is a bit risky . . .

l.d4 Here we shall consider A) l ...bS, B) l ...a6,

C) l...c6 2.c4 bS and D) l ...b6.

A) l ...bS

This leads to similar kinds of position as in the 1 . . .a6 variation, but L.b5 seems to me to be more playable than 1 . . .a6. The main difference is that by attacking White's e4-pawn, Black forces ttJbd2, while in the 1 . . .a6 variation White has time to castle and play gel .

2.e4 �b7 3.�d3 The same arrangement of minor pieces as we

shall see against 1 . . .a6. I tried to vary White's play and investigated 3 .f3, but I found Black's position to be pretty decent after 3 . . . a6.

Also 3.ixb5 ixe4 4.ttJf3 ttJf6 5 .0-0 e6 6.c4 ie7 7.ttJc3 ib7 is perfectly playable for Black.

3 ... ttJf6 3 . . . a6 4.ttJf3 would transpose to the 1 . . . a6

variation.

4.ttJd2 e6

4 . . . c5 5.c3 e6 6.ttJgf3 leads to the same position as in the main line.

S.ttJgf3 a6 The most playable alternative is:

5 . . . c5 6.dxc5 ixc5 Here White has an extra option that looks very promising to me.

7.e5 The normal 7.0-0 a6 would transpose to our main line.

7 ... ttJg4 8.0-0 a6?! Somewhat better would be 8 . . . �c7, although after 9.ttJe4 0-0 the position is very dangerous for Black (instead 9 . . . ttJxe5 1 0.if4 ttJxf3t 1 1 .�xf3 �b6 1 2.�g3! would give White a strong attack as well) . 1 0.if4 f6 1 1 .ttJxc5 �xc5 1 2.exf6 gxf6 1 3 .id6! �b6 14 .ig3! White has clear edge. With the text move, we have followed Corso - Accardo, Rome 1 990.

a b c d e f g h 9.h3N

This simple move secures White an advantage. For example:

9 . . . ttJxf2 1 O.gxf2 ixf2t 1 1 .�xf2 d6 1 2.�el 0-0 1 3.exd6 �xd6 1 4.ttJe4 �c7 1 5 .id2±

White's material advantage should tell in the long run.

6.0-0 cS Another option is:

6 . . . d5 7.e5 ttJfd7 8.ttJb3!

544 Minor Systems

An important move, as Black gets quite a decent position after 8 .c3 c5 9.l"i:e1 lLic6 1 0.lLifl :lie7.

8 . . . c5 9.dxc5 lLixc5 1 0.lLixc5 :lixc5

1 1 .c3! It is much easier for White to seize the initiative when he controls the d4-square.

l 1 . . .lLic6 This position was reached in G. Plear - C. Rossi, Asti 1 997, and now I like the following set-up for White:

1 2.:lif4N Also worthy of consideration is 1 2.b4!? followed by a2-a4.

1 2 . . . :lie7 1 3.Wle2 0-0 1 4.l"i:adl l"i:c8 1 5 .:libU White has good prospects of seizing the

initiative on the kingside.

7.dxc5 The following consequences are pretty much

forced:

7 ... �xc5 8.e5 ttJd5 9.lLle4 �e7 10.a4 b4 Black tried 1 0 . . . lLib4 in Swinkels - Serdijn ,

Vlissingen 2006, which seems not such a bad alternative. In my opinion White should try: 1 1 .l"i:e1 N lLixd3 (otherwise Black would have to reckon with :lifl , leaving Black's knight badly misplaced on b4) 1 2.Wlxd3 b4 1 3.:lig5 :lixe4 1 4.Wlxe4 lLic6 1 5 .:lixe7 Wlxe7 1 6.l"i:adl 0-0 1 7.l"i:d6 l"i:fc8 1 8.l"i:ed l l"i:a7 1 9.lLid4! White has serious pressure.

1 1 ... 0-0 Black can try an immediate 1 1 . . . f5 bur

it is quite dangerous, as after 1 2.exf6 lLixf6 1 3.lLixf6t :lixf6 1 4.Wlh5t g6 (as in Myc -Kania, Lublin 1 999) it is easy to improve on White's play with the natural-looking 1 5 .Wlh6N. The following illustrative line shows the downsides of Black's position: 1 5 . . . Wle7 1 6.lLic4 d5 1 7.lLib6 l"i:a7 1 8 .l"i:e1 e5 1 9 .:lif4t Black's position is very dangerous with his king stuck in the centre.

12.ttJc4 f5 I f 1 2 . . . lLic6, apart from 1 3 .Wlg4 which would

probably transpose to our main line, White has the even stronger 1 3 .Wlh5 g6 1 4.Wlh6! with good chances of seizing a dangerous initiative.

13.exf6 lLlxf6 14.lLlxf6t :lixf6 Here I found the following improvement:

15.Wlg4!?N lLlc6 16.:lif4 And now White's ' chances are preferable

after both 1 6 . . . lLie7 1 7.a5 lLid5 1 8 .:lig3;\; and 1 6 . . . a5 1 7.l"i:adl lLie7 1 8.Wlg3;\;.


B) 1.. .a6

This is certainly quite a dubious opening that allows White too much space. It is rather famous, thanks to the sensational win of the late Tony Miles (the biggest expert in this opening) over Anatoly Karpov in 1 980.

2.e4 b5 3.lDO �b7 4.�d3 The most natural set-up for White.

4 ... e6 I have known since childhood that the

following line was inferior: 4 . . . ttJf6 5.e5 ttJd5

The key move is: 6.ttJg5!

This leads to serious problems for Black.

6 . . . e6 Quite interesting is 6 .. .ltJb4. Now I believe White should simply play: 7.ie4N (After 7.ixh7 �xh7 8 .ttJxh7 as in VI. Schulz -B. Schmitt, Baden 1 997, I surprisingly found a serious improvement for Black: 8 . . . ie4!N For example: 9.ttJxf8 ttJxc2t 10.�f1 �xf8 1 1 .ttJc3 ih7 1 2.�b 1 b4! with good play for Black.) 7 . . . ixe4 8.ttJxe4 In my opinion White has much better prospects in this position; for example: 8 . . . e6 9.ttJbc3 ie7 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 1 .if4 Black's knight is obviously misplaced on b4, as the following line proves: 1 L.d6 1 2.exd6 cxd6 1 3 .d5!±

7.'lWf3! This is definitely the best move, as 7.ttJxh7 'lWh4 8 .ttJxf8 �xf8 is not so clear since Black gets some compensation for the pawn.

7 . . . f5 If 7 . . . 'lWe7 then 8 .ttJxh7! ttJc6 9.c3 0-0-0 as in Handke - Poley, Stockholm 2004. White should continue 1 O.'lWe2 with the following point: 1 0 . . . �xh7 (after 1 0 .. .f6 White is ready to start activity on the queenside by means of 1 1 .a4!±) 1 1 .ixh7 g6 1 2.h4 ig7 1 3.h5 �h8 14 .hxg6 fxg6 1 5 .�h3! Black's idea of trapping White light-squared bishop fails.

8 .exf6 'lWxf6 9.ixh7!± White has an extra pawn, Kozhuharov -

Vasilev, Sofia 2006.

5.0-0 c5 Black's main continuation. Let's have a look

at a couple of alternatives:

5 . . . ttJf6 6.�e 1 and now there is further split:

a) 6 . . . ie7 I have come to the conclusion that White's best option is:

7.ttJbd2 The main point is that if 7.c3 d5 8.e5 ttJfd7 Black controls the g5-square and will continue with . . . c5 and . . . ttJc6. I consider this position quite playable for Black.

7 . . . d5 I also examined 7 . . . c5 8.e5 ttJd5 9 .dxc5 i.xc5 1 0.ttJe4 i.e7. Now we have the same position as in the L.b5-line, bl,lt with the extra move �e 1 , which is quite useful here. White has a pleasant choice: 1 1 .c3 (or 1 1 .a4 b4 1 2.ttJfd2 as in the L .b5-variation, but with an extra tempo) 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2.a4 'lWb6 1 3 .'lWe2 bxa4 1 4.�xa4 ttJc6 1 5 .i.g5 and White has much better chances.

8.e5 ttJfd7 9.ttJb3 The key move; White does not intend to go

S46 M inor Systems

for a closed French-type of position. 9 . . . cS 1 0.dxcS tDxcS 1 1 .tDxcS �xcS

Now we get a position that will be examined in the l . . . bS line, but with the extra tempo �el . In general this is not a big difference, but White can use the fact that his eS-pawn is protected to create some activity.

1 2.tDgS The alternative is to play positional chess with 1 2.c3, as in line A.

1 2 . . . tDc6 1 3 .Wfg4 White has a promising position, for instance:

1 3 . . . g6 1 4.c3 Wfc7 Instead 1 4 . . . d4 l S .Wff4 followed by tDe4 does not bring relief either.

l S .�f4 With an advantage for White.

b) 6 . . . dS 7.eS tDfd7 8.tDgS! As usual, this is a very unpleasant move for Black. White is threatening tDe6, so the best defence seems to be:

8 . . . g6 The following example is quite thematic for this line:

9.Wfg4 Wfe7 1 0.c3 tDc6

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .tDxh7! A neat tactical blow that leads to a favourable transformation for White.

1 1 . . .tDdxeS 1 2.dxeS �xh7 13 .�gS Wfd7 1 4.tDd2 �e7 l S .tDf3 0-0-0

And now instead of 1 6.b4 d4, White played the energetic move:

1 6.a4! White was clearly better in Kislov - Chirp ii ,

Ilichevsk 2007.

S . . . d6 6.Wfe2 tDd7 This is a slightly passive set-up. White has very comfortable play.

7.a4 b4 8.tDbd2 cS After 8 . . . tDgf6 9.eS tDdS 1 0.tDc4 White has the unpleasant idea of tDaS. This position was reached in Carstensen -Zapolskis, Frydek Mistek 2006.

9.d5N This natural move secures White's advantage.

9 . . . exd5 A better try would have been 9 . . . e5, but even so after 1 0.a5 �e7 1 1 . tDc4 tDgf6 12 .c3 bxc3 1 3 .bxc3 0-0 1 4.�d2 White has a pleasant edge.

1 0.exdSt �e7 I l .tDc4 tDdf6 Otherwise it is not so easy to deal with the threat of 1 2.tDxd6t.

1 2.tDe3 tDh6 Another important line goes 1 2 ... tDxd5 13 .�xd5 �xd5 1 4.�xa6 tDf6 1 5 .�b5t tDd7 1 6.�dl �xf3 1 7.Wfxf3 0-0 1 8 .�f4 tDf6 1 9 .�c4± and White has a clear positional edge.

1 3.�el 0-0 14.tDc4 �e8 1 5 .�xh6 gxh6

Chapter 33 - b-pawn Systems S47

16 .'lWd2! ifB 1 7.:!:heB ltJxeB 1 B .�e 1 White has much better prospects due to his

extremely strong knight and Black's weakened pawn structure.

6.c3 li:lf6 Clearly inferior is 6 .. . ltJc6, when White

plays 7.dS ltJaS B.�e 1 . Black's minor pieces on the queenside are poorly placed. B . . . ltJe7 (also clearly advantageous for White is B . . . ltJf6 9.b3 followed by 1 0.c4) 9.b4! cxb4 1 0.cxb4 ltJc4 1 1 .ixc4 bxc4 1 2.'lWd4 �cB 1 3 .ltJa3± It is no wonder Black's opening experiment ended up in total disaster in Hoffmann - Lopatina, Bad Wiessee 200B.

7.�e1 ie7 Again Black can try to close the position

with: 7 . . . dS B.eS ltJfd7

There is also B . . . ltJe4 when the following example is quite illustrative: 9.ltJbd2 ltJxd2 1 0.ixd2 ltJc6 1 1 .dxcS! ixcs 1 2.ltJgS Again the same knight-jump is verysrrong: 1 2 . . . 'lWc7 1 3.'lWhS g6 14.'lWh3 0-0-0 Unfortunately for Black, castling long does not promise safety for the black king. l S .b4 ib6 1 6.ltJf3 d4 This was Delchev - Cherverik, Cannes 200S, and now strong would be 1 7.c4 bxc4 1 B.ixc4± when Black's king is in serious danger.

9.ltJgS! The usual thematic idea is as strong as ever.

9 . . . g6 9 . . . cxd4 10ses at once to 1 0.ltJxe6! .

1 O.'lWg4 'lWe7 1 ] .ltJxh7 cxd4? Black cracks under the pressure. He should have played 1 1 . . .�xh7 12 .igS ltJxeS 1 3'dxeS 'lWd7 14.ltJd2 ltJc6 l s .ic2 ig7 16.ltJf3 when White would still enjoy a pleasant advantage.

1 2.igS 'lWcS In Niebergall - Mo. Jovanovic, Munich 2006, White missed a nice shot:

a b c d e f g h 1 3.'lWxe6t!N ie7 14.ixg6! and White has a winning attack.

8.eS 4JdS 9.dxcS .txcS Black loses what appears to be a significant

tempo with his bishop.

1O.li:lbd2 f5 Relatively the best defence. After 1 0 . . . ltJc6

1 1 .4Je4 ie7 1 2.a4 bxa4 1 3 .�xa4± White has a very promising position.

Instead of 1 2 . . . bxa4, Black can deviate by trying 1 2 . . . 'lWb6, but then Whi te plays: 1 3 .axbS axbS 14.�xaBt ixaB l S .'lWe2! This creates problems for Black with defending the bS-pawn.

For instance, l S . . . ltJa7 1 6.ltJd4 and Black has a difficult choice, either to give up his bSpawn or to lose the opportunity to castle after 1 6 . . . b4 1 7.'lWg4.

Or l S . . . b4 16.c4 4Jc7 1 7.ltJd6t ixd6 I B .exd6 ltJa6 1 9.4JgS! ltJdB 20.if4, with a big advantage.

1 1 .exf6 4Jxf6 12.4Jb3 .te7 This position happened 111 the game

Sadvakasov - Tatai, Saint Vincent 1 999. worked out the following natural

improvement:

13 . .tgSN 0-0 1 3 . . . ltJc6 Ieads to serious problems for Black

after 1 4.'lWc2.

548 Minor Systems

1 4.tDe5 Yffc7 The key point of my idea that Black cannot

play 14 . . . tDc6? in view of 1 5 .ixf6 ixf6 1 6.tDxd7! and the knight is untouchable because of the idea of ixh7.

1 5.Yffc2 Black faces serious problems, as there is no

comfortable way to defend the h7-pawn, for instance:

1 5 . . . h6 16.tDg6 !!eS 17.tDxe7t !!xe7 ls.ih4±

White achieves a big advantage, due to his bishop pair and much better pieces.

C) 1 .. .c6 2.c4 b5

A very rarely played move, which I do not rate rughly, but White should stili know something about it. Australian Grandmaster Ian Rogers wrote an article on it in 50S 5, calling it the Malinoise Defence, named after the city of Malines in Belgium (Malines is the French name of the city of Mechelen) . Rogers tells a story about Dautov deciding after long thought not to allow this opening and answered L.c6 with 2.tDf3 tDf6 and then after more thought, 3.if4. We shall be a bit braver in this chapter.

3.cxb5 cxb5 4.e4 The position slightly resembles the line with

L .b5, but here we have the same position without c-pawns.

4 . . . ib7 4 . . . tDf6 usually transposes to the same

position after 5 .id3 ib7 6.tDd2.

5.tDd2 To me this is the most logical move. If the

b I -knight moved to c3 instead of d2 it would be harassed by Black's b-pawn. We also have to avoid the trap 5 .ixb5 ixe4 6.tDf3 ixb l ,

winning a piece. Finally, 5 .id3 makes less sense here, as I want to put pressure on the b-pawn immediately.

5 ... a6 This is Black's best option and leads to worse

but quite playable positions. The alternatives are weaker:

5 . . . �b6 6.tDgf3 e6 7.id3 Now the natural 7 . . . tDf6 would transpose to a position that will be examined in the 5 . . . tDf6 variation .

7 . . . tDc6 This is met strongly by the following thematic idea:

8.d5 tDb4 9.ib I exd5 9 . . . tDf6 1 0.0-0 would again transpose to the 5 . . . tDf6 line.

1 O.0-0! White has excellent compensation for the pawn, as Black has serious problems developing his kingside. The following line illustrates this well:

1 0 . . . ie7 1 1 .a3 tDa6 1 2.e5 tDh6 I 3 .tDb3 White has much better chances.

5 . . . tDf6 6.id3 e6 If 6 . . . �b6 7.tDgf3 e6 (7 . . . tDc6 8.d5 tDb4 9.ib 1 e6 is j ust the same) 8.0-0 (8 .�e2 is rather harmless for Black after 8 . . . tDc6 9.tDb3 ib4t!) 8 . . . tDc6 9.d5 tDb4 1 0.ib I


we reach a position we will examine in the G . . . eG line.

7.ltJgf3 'WbG Obviously it would be much wiser for Black to refrain from such early activity and instead play the quiet 7 . . . aG, which would take us to the other main line of the variation.

S.O-O ltJcG 9.d5! This thematic idea is very strong in almost every position.

9 . . . ltJb4 Nobody has ever played 9 . . . exd5 and indeed after 1 0.e5 ltJg4 1 1 .'We2! Black will soon face serious difficulties.

1 0.�b l exd5 I l .e5 ltJe4 12.a3 ltJxd2 Also 1 2 . . . ltJaG 1 3 .ltJxe4 dxe4 14 .ltJg5! does not bring Black relief. White will regain a pawn, retaining much better chances, for instance 14 . . . ltJc5 1 5 .�a2! ltJeG I G.�e3 'WdS 1 7.�d5±.

1 3.'Wxd2 ltJaG 1 4.'Wf4! A nice multipurpose move; White not only creates the threat of ltJg5, but also intends to develop his dark-squared bishop comfortably on e3.

1 4 . . . hG Black was concerned about ltJg5 and indeed after 1 4 . . . ltJc5 it is very strong: 1 5 .ltJg5! fG 1 G .exfG 'WxfG 1 n�e 1 t �e7 l S .�xh7! Black's problem is that he cannot even castle long, due to the line I S . . . 0-0-0 19.1tJf7 E:xh7 20.E:xe7! with a winning position.

1 5 .�e3!N An obvious improvement over 1 5 .b4 ltJc7 1 G.�e3 ltJeG, which gave Black a defensible position in Molzahn - Schwab, St Veit 2002.

1 5 . . . ltJc5 After 1 5 ... �c5 I G.ltJd4 0-0 1 7.ltJf5! White has a massive attack.

I G.'Wg4± With an obvious edge for White.

6.ltJgf3 ltJf6 7.id3 e6 8.0-0 ie7 Again S . . . ltJcG is quite risky in view of 9.d5!

exd5 1 0.E:e 1 with a very attractive position for White. Certainly Black cannot afford to play 1 0 . . . dxe4? I l .ltJxe4 ltJxe4 1 2.ixe4 �e7 1 3.�g5 fG 1 4.�f4 when White's advantage is already decisive.

9.E:el Instead 9.a4 looks quite natural, but after

9 . . . 'WbG! Black has a decent game. Incidentally, Rogers considers only 9 .a4 and 9.'We2, giving the latter an exclam.

9 . . . 0-0 9 . . . dG is met Strongly by:

a b c d e f g h 1 0.a4!N with the following point: 1 0 . . . bxa4 1 1 .'Wxa4t ltJbd7 1 2 .ltJb3 and White's knight is heading for a5, where it will put a lot of pressure on Black's queenside.

9 . . . d5

550 Minor Systems

a b c d e g h 1his move is entirely in the spirit of this system. However, this also shows just what is wrong with the black position.

1 0.e5 lLlfd7 1 1 .lLlb3! This move makes the most sense to me. 1 1 .b3 is recommended by Rogers with the queen on e2 instead of the rook on e l . Although White is probably better after this move too, I do not think it makes sense to weaken the c3-square and (presumably) pur the bishop on the passive b2-square, out of respect for the . . . lLld7-b6-c4 manoeuvre.

1 1 . . . lLlc6 1 2.ie3t White is a little better. He will play 4Jb3-

c 1 -e2-f4, as in the 3 . . . lLlc6-line of the French Tarrasch. From f4 the knight is threatening to go to h5, from where it will provide White with interesting attacking options, or simply be proud to make . . . f7-f6 unfeasible. It should be added that . . . ib4 is not too attractive. White is not necessarily unhappy abour playing id2, but even ifhe has to play �e2 or ml , the bishop will only appear to be active on b4, but in reality it will be missed on the kingside, where White will consider both ixh7t and 4Jg5.

1O.a3 d6 l 1 .lLlfl Certainly White can develop his bishop to

b2, by means of 1 1 .b3 lLlbd7 1 2.ib2, but Black seems to be okay in this type of position after 1 2 . . . Wlb6 13 .Wle2 �ac8.

1 1 . .. lt:Jbd7 12.lt:Jg3 ge8

8 Am��I�;� 7 �..t.�� ' W� ' �� %i'�" '/.'/. " /d' . . . %� 6 ' B W� , � � �� ... . . %�� .. . . '� 5 8£ �00�W$I �.%� 4 _ W� �_ � 3

� �� '� ltJ'� 2 "O�.��tiWj l¥rl '/.w.�.��t "%M' .. . 1 � �'§ ��

a b c d e f g h

13.id2t This was Podkriznik - Svensek, Rogla 2002.

Undoubtedly this is a quite playable position for Black, bur on the other hand White can be satisfied with the results of the opening: he has a clear space advantage and every chance of generating some activity on the kingside, either by playing e4-e5 at a suitable moment, or by pushing the h-pawn.

D) 1 . . . b6

This continuation is not as bad as it looks. The strong French GM Christian Bauer published a whole book on 1 . . .b6 and lent some respectability to this move.

2.e4 White should not miss the opportunity to

build a strong centre.

2 ... ib7 3.id3 lt:Jf6 White should be familiar with Black's other

options:

3 . . . e6 is one of the main moves when play should transpose to our main line after 4.4Je2 c5, or (4 . . . 4Jf6 5 .4Jd2 c5 6.(3) 5 .c3 4Jf6 6.4Jd2.

3 .. .f5?


This lunge does not work in view of the following line:

� ?� mu.�� ... �isl( 8 g ,!AI' �'5l��""�§ 7 ?itA �1�, ... ,z�I%""Y.�I� & .� .lL � ;:: . � % � % • . x. x� . x . .... x� 6 . . %�� 5 �� r" �£ �� 4 • t� �. � 3 � ��.i� %�

�� 'X �� W·x �W·x 2 �� . t� � t� 1 % 'if:;-.. W'�\illJ. �r.% 1FT �. ,�t.t2.jM'§�� , §

a b c d e f g h 4.exf5 i.xg2 5.�h5t g6 6.fxg6 i.g7

The only move as 6 . . . ltlf6?? leads co a nice mate: 7.gxh7t ltlxh5 8.i.g6#

7.gxh7t i>f8 8 .ltlf3 ltlf6 Again the only move. 8 . . . i.xh I ? leads co a hopeless position after 9.ltle5! i.xe5 l O.dxe5.

9.�g6 i.xf3 9 . . . i.xh l ? loses co 1 0.i.h6 �xh7 1 1 .ltlg5 and Black will quickly be mated.

1 O.�gl �xh7

1 1 .�g3! The key move in this line; White regains the piece and remains a pawn up with a clearly better position.

1 l . . .i.e4 1 2.i.xe4 ltlxe4 1 3 .�f3t ltlf6 Black's position is hopeless after 1 3 . . . i>g8 14.�xe4 c6 1 5 .i.f4 �f8 1 6.i.e5 d5, as in

S.H. Jensen - 1hestrup, Helsingor 2008, as the simple 17 .�e3N �f5 1 8.ltld2 is winning for White.

14 .�xa8 �xh2 1 5 .i.f4 �h4 16.�g2 �g4 This was Dallmann - Ewald, Leipzig 1 996, and after:

17.�h2+-White remains an exchange up with an easily

winning position.

3 . . . g6 Black opts for a double fianchetto and most probably a set-up with his knights on e7 and d7, a system which some call the Hippo. I recommend the following idea:

4.c4!?

centre. 4 . . . i.g7 5 .ltle2

This is more Aexible than 5 .ltlf3. 5 . . . ltlc6 6.i.e3 ltlb4

Black exchanges his knight for White's l ight-squared bishop as otherwise his knight would simply be misplaced on c6.

7.ltlbc3 ltlxd3t 8.�xd3 e6 9 .0-0-0 d6 In Najer - Blatny, Pardubice (rapid) 2007,

White's space advantage was obvious, but Black has a fairly sound position. I recommend that White vary from the game with the following suggestion:

552 Minor Systems

1 O.h4N The game saw 1 0.f4 l:jje7 l 1 .g4 h5 1 2.g5 and now the well-timed 12 . . . d5! would have offered Black fine play, as he gains control over more squares in the centre.

1 0 . . . l:jjf6 1 1 . f3 h5 Otherwise White would grab more space with g2-g4.

1 2.<j{b l 1&d7 1 3 .1&c2!? Black has to solve an unpleasant dilemma

with his king. If Black castles short he would Black obviously face a Samisch-sryle attack, while 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 runs into the unpleasant 1 4.e5.

4.l:jjd2 White can also defend the e4-pawn with

4.1&e2 or 4.l:jjc3, but I prefer the text.

4 ... e6 5.l:jje2!? It is true that in most cases White develops

his knight to f3, but I find the text move quite interesting. First of all , White keeps the option of advancing the f-pawn in many lines and, secondly, if Black decides to go for a closed rype of position (by playing at some moment . . . d6-d5, e4-e5 . . . l:jjfd7) White would enjoy a more comfortable set-up with the knight on e2 compared with on f3. I decided to concentrate on Black's two main options:

5 ... c5 The alternative is:

5 . . . d5 6.e5

And here we shall consider two options:

a) 6 . . . l:jje4 7.c3 l:jjd7 If 7 . . . c5 then after 8 .l:jjxe4 dxe4 9.ic2 Black's e4-pawn is very vulnerable.

8. l:jj g3 There is also nothing wrong with 8 .0-0 l:jjxd2 9 .ixd2 c5 10 .l:jjf4 g6 1 1 .1&g4t. White could instead have tried 8.l:jjxe4 dxe4 9.ic2, but Black could avoid this option by playing . . . l:jjxd2 on the previous move.

8 . . . l:jjxd2 9.ixd2 c5 1 0.0-0 �c8 So far we have followed the game Lelumees - Siempos, Patras 1 999. Now a naturallooking continuation is:

1 1 .1&g4N g6 1 2.ig5 1&c7 Or 1 2 . . . ie7 13 .ih6!.

1 3.h4 This leads to a position that is much like a

very favourable French Defence for White.

b) 6 . . . l:jjfd7 7.0-0 c5 8 .c3 l:jjc6 8 . . . g6 makes Black's dark squares vulnerable, which was exploited neatly in the following encounter: 9.l:jjf3 ie7 1 0.ih6! ia6 1 1 .c4! With the black king stuck in the centre, it is correct to open up the play. 1 1 . . .ixc4 1 2.ixc4 dxc4 1 3 .d5 White was clearly better in Poluljahov - Shevchenko, Polanica Zdroj 1 999.

9.f4 This is a reasonable plan, but the immediate 9.l:jjf3 is quite good as well , for instance: 9 . . . ie7 1 0.a3 A prophylactic move that secures White from a possible . . . l:jjb4-jump after exchanging on d4. 1 0 . . . cxd4 1 1 .cxd4 �c8 1 2.b4 0-0 13 .l:jjf4 �e8 14.g3 Now White has gained a lot of space on the kingside and can easily seize the initiative there. 1 4 . . . g6 1 5 .h4 if8 16.h5 ig7 17.�e 1 White had the better prospects in Korneev -Triquell, Badalona 1 994.

9 .. . g6 1 O.l:jjf3 ig7 1 0 . . . 1&c7 is well met with I l .ie3.


I I .g4 Obviously White's plan is to push f4-f5 . Black should have tried to castle long, but instead in the game he entered the battle in the centre, which naturally ended in White's favour:

I 1 . . .f5 I 2.exf6 .ixf6 1 3.f5 ! e5 14.dxe5 Simple, although it should be said that 1 4.g5 .ie7 1 5 .f6± was good enough as well .

14 . . . ttJcxe5 1 5.ttJf4 d4 1 6.ttJe6 Wle7 17.ttJxe5 .ixe5 1 8.Wle2!

Black ended up in a lost position in Browne - Kueiuer, Skopje 1 972.

6.c3 li:Jc6 Black's first choice according to theory, but

he has additional options as well :

6 . . . cxd4 7.cxd4 ttJc6 8.a3 j,e7 9.0-0 0-0 1O .b4! This is probably White's best set-up. I O . . . d6 1 1 ..ib2 �c8 1 2.ttJg3 White prepares to advance his f-pawn, which should give him serious attacking chances. 1 2 .. . ttJd7 1 3.f4 g6 I4.Wlg4 ttJf6 1 5 .Wlh3 White enjoyed the better prospects in Ermenkov - Sahovic, Jurmala 1 978.

6 ... d6 7.0-0 .ie7 White now has two equally strong options.

8.f4 Or 8 .ttJg3 ttJc6 9.ttJf3 cxd4 1 0.cxd4 0-0 as in Beshukov - Turikov, St Petersburg 200 1 , and now simply 1 1 .id2 �c8 I 2.Wle2t and White h<l$ better chances, thanks to his space advantage.

8 . . . ttJbd7 9.e5 Less convincing is 9.f5 exfS 1 0.�xf5 0-0 1 1 .ttJg3 �e8 with an unclear position.

9 . . . ttJd5 1 0.ttJe4 Wlc7 I I .a3 Wlc6? An obvious mistake, as Black certainly should have played 1 l . . .cxd4 1 2.cxd4 0-0, although after 1 3 . .id2 White has a promising position.

I 2.c4 ttJc7 1 3.b4!±

Black faces serious problems due to his misplaced queen, S. Krug - S. Lang, Bavaria 200 1 .

a b c d e f g h

7.0-O i.e7 Black has various other possibilities that we

should consider:

7 . . . Wlc7 8 .a3 It is essential to cover the b4-square, as if 8.ttJf3 cxd4 9.cxd4 ttJb4 1 0.if4 Wld8 White has to give up his l ight-squared bishop.

8 . . . d6!?N Surprisingly, this move has never been tested in practice, but the position is quite thematic and that is why I decided to examine this line. I should also mention three alternatives: a) 8 . . . h5?! This just weakens the g5-square, while Black fails to gain any activity on the kingside. 9.ttJf3 d6 1 0.ig5 ie7 This was played in Luther - Scherer, Altenkirchen 2005, and now with 1 1 .ttJf4! White could have secured his advantage and proved Black's set-up was a failure. b) Also unsuccessful is 8 . . . g6?! 9.e5! ttJh5 1 0.ttJe4 ie7 as in Beliavsky - Basman, Hastings 1 974. Now the straightforward 1 1 .g4! ttJg7 I 2.ttJf6t �d8 1 3.ih6 would leave Black with a poor position.

554 Minor Systems

c) Also not so good is 8" .ie7 as after 9.e5 Black cannot play 9" .4Jd5? in view of 1 0.c4 and Black's knight is trapped in the centre.

9 .f4 Again White has an alternative way of arranging his pieces without moving the f-pawn: 9.4Jf3 ie7 1 0.4Jg3 0-0 1 1 .if4 With a complicated battle, but White will obviously enjoy his space advantage.

9" .ie7 1 0.e5 4Jd5 1 1 .4Jf3 cxd4 1 2.cxd4 0-0 We have reached a very complex middlegame where White's chances are preferable, thanks to his extra space. The following is an ill ustrative l ine:

l 3 .id2 Sac8 14.sc 1 Wfb8 1 5 .b4 Preventing possible counterplay with " .4Ja5.

1 5" .a5 After 1 5" .sfd8 1 6.Wfe1 White would build a dangerous initiative on the kingside.

1 6.b5 4Ja7 1 7.Wfb3 White retains the better chances.

An interesting attempt is: 7" .cxd4 8 .cxd4 4Jb4 9.ib 1 ia6 1 0.4Jf3 d5

This position occurred in Schneider -Karlsson, Stockholm 1 978. Now I improved on White's play with:

1 1 .a3N 4Jc6 After 1 1 " .dxe4 1 2.4Je5! ixe2 1 3 .Wfxe2 4Jd3 (or even worse: 1 3" .4Jbd5 1 4.Wfb5t 4Jd7 1 5 .ixe4 with a clear advantage) 1 4.4Jxd3 exd3 1 5 .ixd3 Black is unable to run away with his king and after 1 5" .id6 1 6.ib5t @e7 17.id2 White is clearly better.

1 2.e5 4Jd7 l 3.Se 1 I l ike the idea of keeping the l ight-squared bishops on the board, since after l 3.id3 ixd3 1 4.Wfxd3 ie7 1 5 .id2 4Ja5! White's advantage is rather minimal.

1 3" .ie7 1 4.ie3 4Ja5 Obviously Black should try to generate activity on the queenside.

1 5 .4Jc3 4Jc4

White is also better after 1 5" .Sc8 16.4Jd2 0-0 17 .Wfg4.

1 6.ic 1 sc8 1 7.id3 b5 1 8 .4Je2 White has managed to neutralize Black's play

on the queens ide and has the better chances, as he can easily develop an initiative on the kingside.

8.a3 White should take control over the b4-

square, as after 8 .4Jf3 Black answers with 8".cxd4 9.cxd4 4Jb4! and White has to give up his light-squared bishop.

8 . . . d6 Now I have another novelty:

8 �� *D �j] .� �� · .. . . %�i%��·� . . · . .

7 .�J;��.J�%lJ�� 6 W��W� , � � 5 �

. . . . . % ... . . %�/ . . . . . . � 4 �� "�!jJjj ��

3 ��tjJjj �� . .. . . �" .J-.. . . �" ... //, ��r� �W·� 2 �fl� p.� f':'. �fl� A �� iU" .. .t2-J ""LJ iU" Q iU 1 �"""�Vj'� ·i= ... .

a b c d e f g h

9. lLl f3N I definitely prefer this move, as the alternative

9 .f4 cxd4 1 0.cxd4 0-0 looks pretty doubleedged. For instance: l l .4Jf3 (if 1 1 .b3 then 1 1 . . .b5! 1 2.ib2 Wfb6 and Black has a decent game) 1 l . . .d5 1 2.e5 4Je4 1 3.4Jg3 4Ja5! Black had good play in Fink Nunn - Dragasevic Georgieva, Dortmund 1 988. The main point is that after 1 4.Sel Black can leave her knight on e4 and sacrifice a pawn with 1 4" .Sc8.

9 ... 0-0 10.lLlg3 I n my opinion this kind of position is

slightly favourable for White, due to the space


advantage. The following continuation is quite logical:

lO . . J�c8 1 1 .\We2 Also worthy of consideration is 1 1 .b4 \Wc7

12 .\We2!?

1 1 .. .lLla5 12 . .if4 ttJb3 13J3ada

Conclusion:

Even though the openings covered in this chapter are not Black's main lines, the reader should not overestimate White's likely advantage. The main difference compared with normal openings is just the ease with which White obtains an edge with natural moves. The main benefit this chapter offers is collecting all the relevant material (plus of course some improvements) so you do not need to waste time choosing between many promising possibilities.

Minor Systems

English Defence

A) 4 ... �f6 B) 4 ... .tb4t C) 4 ... �c6 D) 4 ... f5 5.exfS

Dl) 5 ... .L:g2?! D2) 5 ... .tb4t 6.@f1

D21 ) 6 . . . exfS D22) 6 ... �f6

01) note to 1 1 . . .ll'lc6

a b c d e f g h

1 6.!!d1 !N

Variation Index l .d4 e6 2.c4 b6

3.e4 .tb7 4 . .td3

022) note to 7 . . . �d6

a b c d e f g h

1 0.fxe6!N

a b c d e f g b

022) after 1 3 . . . axb6

557 558 560 565 565 567 568 568

a b c d e f g h

1 4.�c2!?N

Chapter 34 - English Defence 557

l.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 This opening is called various names by

various sources, but probably should be named the English Defence in tribute to the effons of players such as Miles, Stean and Keene. The name Owen's Defence is usually reserved for the moves l .e4 e6 2.d4 b6 (Owen was also English - apart from "his" opening, he is best remembered for losing a match 6- 1 to Morphy, despite receiving the odds of a pawn and the move). In Owen's Defence it is also common to play 3.c4 Iater, but systems with i.d3 and c2-c3 seem to give Black a hard l ife. Unfortunately, we do not have this option, as after l .d4 e6 2.e4 we would be well outside our repertoire if our opponent tricked us with 2 . . . dS! .

3.e4 It is clear that this is the most ambitious and

principled continuation. Instead White players often prefer to avoid a theoretical discussion of the English, and continue instead with 3.ltJc3, or 3.ltJf3 which will frequently transpose to the Queen's Indian Defence. Also fashionable recently is 3 .a3, which I played several times a few years ago.

3 ... ib7 4.id3 Now Black must make a significant choice

between: A) 4 ... �f6, B) 4 ... ib4t, C) 4 ... �c6 and the main move, D) 4 ... £5.

A) 4 ... llJf6

This move is not especially popular, but i t is important for White to know how to react.

5.£3 Among the many possibilities, the text move

seems best to me.

5 ... ib4t Black also has the following couple of

options:

S . . . cS 6.dS exd5 7.cxd5 d6 We reach a Benoni-type position, which in my opinion favours White, due to Black's misplaced l ight-squared bishop.

8 .ltJe2 I can also recommend the following set-up: 8.ltJc3 g6 9.ltJh3 i.g7 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 l .i.gS

8 . . . g6 9.ltJbc3 a6 1 O.a4 i.g7 This is Blaas - Wach, Austria 2004, and now White should play:

a b c d e f g h 1 l .i.gS!N 0-0 1 2.0-0 ltJbd7 1 3.f4

With a promising position for White; the bishop does not belong on b7 in Benoni-style positions, as it is suffocated by White's centre.

S . . . d5 6.cxdS exdS 7.eS ltJfd7 8 .f4 White advances his f-pawn for the second time in the opening, but this allows him to establish better control over the centre.

8 . . . c5 9.ltJf3 ltJcG 1 0.0-0 i.e7 I also analysed 1 0 . . . cxd4 l l .a3 as. The i nclusion of a2-a3 and . . . a7 -as favours White, as it slightly weakens B lack's queenside (however 1 1 . . .i.e7 1 2.h4 0-0 13 .i.h2 also gives White pleasant play) . 1 2.:ge 1 Due to the threat of 1 3.e6 Black is forced to develop his bishop to e7: 12 .. . i.e7 1 3.i.bS 0-0 1 4.i.xc6 i.xc6 I S.ltJxd4 i.b7 1 6.ltJc3± White enjoys a stable edge, thanks to his better pawn structure.

l l .ltJc3!? Also interesting is : 1 l .i.e3 0-0 12.ltJc3 cxd4 1 3.ltJxd4 ltJc5 1 4.ltJxc6 i.xc6 l S.i.e2±

558 Minor Systems

1 l . . .lLlxd4 1 2.lLlxd4 cxd4 1 3.lLlb5 0-0 1 4.lLlxd4 lLlc5

This is Vu Dinh Hung - Nguyen Vu Son, Vietnam (ch) 200 1 . Now White could have claimed an edge by playing simple chess:

1 5 .�e3;!;N

6.�d2 ixd2t 7.Vffxd2 ltJc6 8.ltJe2 Vffe7 9.lLlbc3

The defining feature of the position is White's extra space.

9 ... d6 10.a3!? ltJa5 1 l .Vffc2 0-0 12.0-0 White was better in Gil Matilla - Gomez

Castilla, Valladolid 1 978.

B) 4 ... �b4t 5.�d2 ixd2t

A serious alternative is : 5 . . . Vffe7

Now I recommend a flexible move: 6.lLle2

Black now has a couple of options:

a b c d e f g h a) 6 . . . f5? !

White is ready to refute this lunge. 7.exf5 �xg2 8.�gl �f3

After 8 . . . �b7, as in Vasiliev - Lempert, Moscow 1 990, White can play the simple: 9.fXe6! �xd2t (Black cannot recapture with the pawn: 9 . . . dxe6 1 0.Vffa4t! lLlc6 1 1 .�e4 �xd2t 1 2.lLlxd2 Vffd7 1 3.�xg7!+-) 1 0.lLlxd2 dxe6 1 1 .lLlf4 lLlf6 1 2.Vffe2 White is unquestionably better.

9.�g3! An important resource, since after 9.fXe6 Black has the interesting move 9 . . . �d6!, with coun ter-chances.

9 . . . �b7 Somewhat better would have been 9 . . . �xe2, but even so after 1 0.Vffxe2 lLlc6 1 1 .fXe6 �xd2t 1 2.lLlxd2 lLlxd4 1 3.exd7t <;t>xd7 14 .Vffxe7t lLlxe7 1 5 .�xg7 White has an extra pawn.

1 0.fXe6 lLlf6? l 1 .exd7t lLlbxd7 1 2.�e3 White was already winning in Chuhachev -

S. Frolov, Vladivostok 2008.

b) 6 .. . �xd2t 7.Vffxd2 lLlh6 Mter 7 . . . lLlf6 White should not rush with 8.e5 lLle4 9.Vffc2 f5! , but instead just continue with 8 .lLlbc3.

8 .lLlbc3 0-0 9.0-0 d6 This leads to a passive position for Black. More ambitious was 9 . . . f5 , though after 1 0.d5 White still has the better chances.

1 0. f4 lLld7 Now it is too late for 1 0 . . . f5 , as after 1 1 .exf5 lLlxf5 1 2.d5!± Black faces serious difficulties.

1 1 .d5! e5 12 .f5 f6 It is important that Black has no time for 1 2 . . . lLlc5? due to 1 3 .f6!+-.

1 3 .b4 lLlf7

a b c d e f g h 1 4.�c2!;!;

The idea is to activate the bishop via the


a4-square. White has a stable edge, thanks to his huge space advantage. In the game Avrukh - Speelman, Elista (01) 1 998, I eventually won a nice positional game, which proved decisive in our match against England.

I would also like to mention the following idea: 5 . . . tLlc6 6.tLlf3 'lWf6

This move is rather dubious, as we shall see. lfinstead 6 . . . �xd2t then 7.'lWxd2! and White intends to drive away the c6-knight with d4-d5. It is not easy to deal with this idea. The only game to test this position continued: 7 . . . tLlge7 (perhaps slightly better is 7 . . . Wf6, but after 8 .d5 tLld4 9.tLlxd4 'lWxd4 1 0.tLlc3;!; White is threatening 1 1 .tLlb5) 8.d5 tLlb8 9.tLlc3± Black had to accept the fai lure of his opening strategy in Yeremenko - Poliakov, Kharkov 2004.

a f g h 7.d5!

This is much stronger than 7.e5 �xd2t 8.'lWxd2 'lWh6 with double-edged play, H. Olafsson - Speelman, Internet (blitz) 2000.

7 ... �xd2t 8.'lWxd2 tLlce7 After 8 . . . tLle5 9.tLlxe5 'lWxe5 1 0.tLlc3 White is also much better, as he is threatening the unpleasant 1 1 . f4.

9.tLlc3 a6 A sad necessity, as otherwise it was not so easy to handle White's intended 1 O.tLlb5.

1 0.0-0 It was obvious Black's experiment had failed

in Dautov - Speelman, Lippstadt 2000.

6.lLlxd2! This time it is necessary to recapture with the

knight, since 6.'lWxd2 f5! gives Black reasonable play. For instance: 7.tLlc3 fxe4 8 .�xe4 �xe4 9.tLlxe4 tLlf6 1 0.'lWe3 0-0 1 1 .tLlf3 tLlc6 1 2.0-0 tLlxe4 1 3.'lWxe4 'lWf6 14.!!ad l 'lWf5! Black had nothing to worry about in Goldwaser -Dolezal, Buenos Aires 2006.

6 ... f5 The text move is the most ambitious

continuation, bur Black also has a couple of al ternatives:

6 . . . tLlh6 7.tLlgf3 0-0 8 .0-0 f6 This is a solid but rather passive approach. Now or on the previous move Black could have played . . . £1-f5, which would just transpose to the main 6 .. . f5-variation. 9.b4 Probably White has several other ways of retaining his advantage, but the text looks most logical to me. 9 . . . tLlc6 This was Kishnev - Bischoff, Germany 200 1 , and now I like the following flexible move: 1 0.a3!?N tLle7 l 1 .c5 lD£1 1 2.'lWc2 White has better chances, thanks to his obvious space advantage.

Black can attempt to weaken the light squares in White's camp with: 6 . . . tLlc6 7.lDgf3 'lWf6 8.e5 'lWf4 9.g3 'lWh6 This is Elsness - Conquest, Novi Sad 2009, but Black's plan fails to achieve its goal after 1 0.0-0 tLlge7 and now White should have played: 1 1 .�e4 'lWh5 (if 1 1 . . .0-0 then 1 2.d5!± is very strong) 1 2.b4 0-0 1 3.!!c 1 White keeps his usual space advantage.

7.lLlgf3 lLlh6 White's task is much easier if Black releases

the tension: 7 . . . fxe4 8.tLlxe4 tLlf6 9.'lWc2 tLla6

Alternatively Black could try: 9 . . . tLlc6 1 0.a3 tLle7 I I .d5! (a strong idea although White is also better after the normal 1 1 .0-0 tLlxe4 1 2.�xe4 �xe4 1 3.'lWxe4 0-0 1 4.tLle5;1::) .

560 Minor Systems

1 1 . . .lDf5?! (the critical line is 1 l . . .exd5 1 2.lDxf6t gxf6 1 3.0-0-0!� when White has great play for the pawn) 1 2.dxe6 ( 1 2 .0-0-0!N was even stronger) 1 2 ... dxe6 1 3.0-0-0 White was much better in Olarasu - ]icman, Romania 2004.

1 O.a3 lDxe4 1 1 ..Le4 .Le4 1 2.Wxe4 0-0 1 3.0-0

White's chances are clearly preferable, due to the difference in strength between the knights, with Black's clearly Struggling to find a decent square.

1 3 . . . c6 1 4.lDe5 lDc7 1 5.�ad 1 We7 1 6.�fe 1 !%ad8 1 7.�e3

White developed a strong initiative In F. Schlamp - C. Ross, Germany 1 999.

S.O-O O-O

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

Six games have reached this position, but none of White's efforts looked convincing to me, so I developed a new plan.

9.�el !?N lDc6 1O.Wa4! It is important to take aim at the d7 -pawn.

10 . . . Wf6 Another idea for Black is to transfer his

knight to g6: 1 0 . . . lDe7 1 1 .�ad 1 lDg6

In this case White's central strategy promises him better chances after:

1 2.d5 lDf4 1 3.�fl fxe4 14 .lDxe4 exd5 1 5.cxd5 �h8

Black can hardly capture the d5-pawn: 1 5 . . . �xd5? 1 6.g3 �xe4 1 7 .�xe4 followed by 1 8.�d7. Or 1 5 . . . lDxd5 1 6.�c4 c6 17.lDd6 Wc7

1 8.lDxb7 Wxb7 1 9.�e5± . 1 6.d6

White retains the better chances.

l 1 .d5 lbe5 12.lbxe5 Wxe5 13.lba Wxb2 14.�abl

After the inaccurate 14 .Wxd7 lDg4 Black has counterplay.

14 .. . Wc3 1 5J�b3 Wf6 16.Wxd7 fxe4 17.he4 exd5 IS.cxd5 �f7 19.We6!

White keeps definite pressure, due to his better mobilized pieces.

C) 4 ... lbc6 5.lbe2

a b c d e f g h

5 ... lbb4 Giving up bishop for knight is the price

White must pay for grabbing so much space in the centre, but it is worth it.

Much less popular is: 5 . . . g6

White should now develop naturally: 6.lDbc3 �g7 7.�e3 lDge7


Here I like the following example: 8.Wd2!?

Instead 8.0-0 has been played in most of the games.

8 . . . d5 Black naturally avoids 8 . . . 0-0 9.ih6! when White would have chances of generating a kingside attack.

9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.e5 0-0 1 1 .0-0 ttJb4?! This plan is mistaken, so instead Black should continue 1 1 .. .f6, although in this case after 1 2.f4 White's chances are still preferable.

12.ib 1 c5 1 3.f4 cxd4 1 4.ttJxd4 �c8

a b c d e f g h

This position was reached in Bareev - Bauer, Ajaccio (blitz) 2007. Now White could have gained a solid advantage with the simple:

1 5.ttJcb5!?N ttJbc6 1 6.ttJd6±

I recently faced an unusual alternative: 5 . . . ib4t 6.id2

Black came up with a rather strange idea: 6 . . . ixd2t 7.'lWxd2 'lWf6

Trying to provoke e4-e5, which would activate Black's bishop.

8.ic2! A flexible move, and now the queen is obviously misplaced on f6. In the game Black tried unsuccessfully to justifY his idea.

8 . . . 'lWh6 9.f4 'lWh4t 1 0.g3 'lWh5 l 1 .d5! ttJce7 1 2.ttJbc3 ttJh6 1 3.0-0-0±

Black had a horrible position in Avrukh -Bischoff, Zurich 2009.

6.ttJbc3 ttJxd3t 7.'lWxd3 ttJe7 Black has three other moves we should

consider:

7 . . . d6 8.0-0 ttJf6 8 . . . ttJe7 transposes to 7 . . . ttJe7.

9.d5 ie7 Now the fol lowing idea appeals to me:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2

a b c d e f g h 1 0.'lWg3!?N

A rapid game between high-level players continued: 1 O.ttJd4 'lWd7 1 1 .a4 c5 1 2.dxc6 ixc6 1 3 .b3 0-0 14.ia3 i.b7 Black had decent play in Kramnik - Ivanchuk, Monte Carlo (rapid) 2002.

1 0 . . . 0-0 Obviously Black cannot play 1 0 . . . ttJh5? in view of 1 1 .'lWh3 and White wins a pawn.

1 1 .ih6 ttJe8 1 2.ie3 I really like White's position. He has easy play with good attacking prospects, while Black's position, although sound, is rather passive. Let's see a sample line:

1 2 ... e5 1 3 .f4 exf4 1 4.ixf4 if6 1 5 .�ad 1 Followed by 1 6.ttJd4, when White has better

chances.

7 . . . i.b4 8 .0-0 ttJe7 The alternative is 8 . . . ixc3 9.ttJxc3 ttJe7 when I like the following plan: 1 0.d5! This advance restricts both Black's minor pieces. 1 0 . . . d6 (Perhaps better would be 1 0 . . . ttJg6 1 1 .f4 0-0, but in this case White should

562 Minor Systems

slowly improve his position with: 1 2.�d2 [there is no point hurrying with 1 2.f5 as after 1 2 . . . exf5 1 3 .exf5 lLle5 1 4.Wg3 f6 Black has a sound position] 1 2 . . . d6 [or 1 2 . . . We7 1 3 .l'l:ae l ] 1 3.Wg3 White keeps good attacking chances.) 1 l .f4 Wd7 1 2.f5! exf5 1 3 .exf5 0-0-0 This is Gual Pascual - Teran Alvarez, Cala Galdana 1 999, and now the simple 1 4.a4N 14 . . . a5 1 5 .lLlb5! fol lowed by b2-b4, would give White a powerful attack.

9.lLld l ! A remarkable move; White i s not only threatening to trap Black's dark-squared bishop, but is also transferring his knight to e3, where it will significantly help White's play on the kingside.

9 . . . lLlg6 I do not see much point for Black in playing 9 .. . f5 l O. f3.

1 0.f4 Now White intends l 1 .f5 .

1 0 . . .f5 Black cannot play 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .f5 exf5 1 2.exf5 lLlh4 13 .g3 as he loses his knight.

1 1 . exf5 exf5 1 2.lLl g3 Not only attacking the f5-pawn, but also taking control of the e4-square.

1 2 . . . 0-0 13 .c5! Finally, White catches the dark-squared bishop:

1 3 . . . a5 1 4.a3 �a6 1 5 .Wb3t Wh8 1 6.axb4 �xfl 1 7.lLlxfl ±

White was much better in Ehlvest - Kraai, Philadelphia 2003.

7 . . . g6 Now I like the aggressive approach:

8 .h4!?

a b c d e f g h

Let's have a look at Black's options:

a) 8 ... h6 9.h5 g5 1 0.f4 gxf4 1 1 .�xf4 d6 1 2 .0-0-0 Wd7 1 3.d5 0-0-0

This position occurred in Bacrot - Short, Sarajevo 2000, and now I found a slight improvement on White's play:

1 4.l'l:hfl !N �g7 White's last move prevented 1 4 . . . lLlf6 in view of 1 5 .�xd6! �xd6 16 .l:'!xf6 �e5 1 7.l:'!f2 and Black cannot hope for sufficient compensation with such a passive lightsquared bishop.

1 5 .Wg3 l:'!h7 Also unsatisfactory for Black is 1 5 . . . �xc3

1 6.lLlxc3 lLle7 1 7.Wg7!±. 1 6.e5!

With a strong initiative.

b) 8 . . . lLlf6 9.e5 lLlh5 was played in Charalbashev - Chernyshov, Zalakaros 2008. Now I believe White overlooked a strong blow: 1 0.d5!N d6 1 1 .�g5 (also interesting is I I .g4 lLlg7 1 2.�f4!?) 1 l . . .�e7 1 2.g4 lLlg7 1 3 .exd6 cxd6 1 4 .�xe7 Wxe7 1 5 .0-0-0 Black's passive minor pieces make White's advantage obvious.


c) Black would not be happy if White managed to advance his h-pawn, so the most natural reaction is: S ... h5 9.i.g5 i.e7

a b c d e f g h 1 0.We3!?

I was surprised to discover that three games had continued with 1 0.d5. This temporary sacrifice is not at all clear: 1 0 . . . i.xg5 l 1 .hxg5 Wxg5 1 2.ctJb5 0-0-0 1 3.ctJxa7t <JibS 1 4.ctJb5 ctJf6 With a complex battle.

1 0 . . . d6 After 1 0 . . . ctJf6 1 l . f3 White has a very pleasant game due to his extra space.

1 1 .0-0-0 Wd7 1 2.f3 0-0-0 1 3.ctJf4 White has better chances, for instance:

13 . . . i.xg5 14.hxg5 ctJe7 1 5 .ctJd3;!;

8.0-0 In one recent game White selected the

aggressive S.h4, bur Black reached a perfectly playable position after: S . . . d5 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.e5 Wd7 l 1 .h5 ctJc6 1 2.a3 f6 1 3.exf6 gxf6°o Eljanov - Ponomariov, Kharkov 2009.

8 .. . d6 I believe the alternatives are clearly worse:

S . . . g6 9.Wh3! It is essential for White to exchange Black's dark-squared bishop.

9 . . . i.g7 1 0 .i.h6 0-0 l 1 .i.xg7 <Jixg7 This is Kohlweyer - Gulko, Geneva 1 997, and now White should have played:

a b c d e f g h 1 2.d5!N

I really like advancing the d-pawn in this variation, as White at a stroke restricts both Black's minor pieces. White's chances are clearly preferable, for instance:

1 2 . . . exd5 1 3 .cxd5 f5 14 .f3 i.a6 1 5 .l'hd 1 With a positional edge.

S . . . d5 This looks very risky, as Black is lagging far behind in development.

9.exd5!N This seems more logical than 9.cxd5, as was played in both games that reached the previous position.

9 . . . exd5 1 0Jl:e 1 ! This significantly complicates Black's attempts to castle shorr, while castling long would allow White to develop a dangerous offensive on the queenside.

1 0 . . . Wd7 Another line goes 1 O . . . dxc4 1 1 .Wxc4 Wd7 1 2.i.f4 0-0-0 (or 1 2 . . . Wc6 1 3.Wxc6t ctJxc6 14 .i.xc7±) 1 3 .Wxf7 ctJg6 14.Wxd7t l'%xd7 1 5 .i.e3 and Black has insufficient compensation for the missing pawn.

1 1 .c5! 0-0-0 After 1 1 . . . ctJg6 Black loses a pawn by force: 1 2.ctJf4t i.e7 1 3 .ctJxg6 hxg6 1 4.cxb6! axb6 1 5 .i.g5 f6 1 6.Wxg6t±

1 2.b4! The black king's position is perilous.

564 Minor Systems

9.d5 �d7 Clearly worse is: 9 . . . e5? ! 1 0.f4 exf4 I l .ctJxf4

�d7 1 2.�e3 O-O-O?! 1 3 .b4 ( 1 3.a4 was also very strong) 1 3 . . . c5 1 4.bxc5 dxc5 1 5 .a4 'it>b8 1 6.a5+- White developed a decisive attack in Dub - Jamrich, Budapest 2000.

1O.f4 g6 l 1 .ctJd4 �g7 Black can also choose to commit his king

immediately: 1 1 . . .0-0-0

This was tried successfully by Nigel Short against Gelfand in Novgorod 1 997. In fact Black's last move is risky and I believe White could pose serious problems after the following strong move:

8 u.�� i% 7 lir_�I�f1Y.� '1 6 "",z_""z.l"�!� 5 "",z� "",z� �� i��{%�� 4 � b ;�:iJ, b t� D 3 � ��V� "",z� rm ��,�"",;� �� ,� 2 �.1llffP �� J� � � � �� i

a b c d e f g h 12 .a4! ?N

Instead Gelfand played 12.b4?!. After 1 2.dxe6 fxe6 1 3.�h3 Short analysed 1 3 . . . �g7 and then 14 .ctJxe6 �xc3 1 5 .bxc3 �de8� when Black has fantastic compensation for the pawn.

1 2 . . . a5 Otherwise it is hard to imagine how Black can defend his king against the advance of the a4-pawn.

1 3 .ctJcb5 White has every chance of building a dangerous offensive, for instance:

1 3 . . . �g7 1 4.b4! exd5 1 5 .exd5 c5 1 6.dxc6 ctJxc6 17. ctJxc6 �xc6 1 8 .�a2 axb4 1 9 .�e3 'it>b7 20.a5 bxa5 2 1 .�xa5 �a8 22.ctJa7!

White's attack is very strong, since Black has nothing to oppose the �bl -b4 manoeuvre.

12.f5! This is stronger than 12 .�e3 0-0 1 3.f5, as

in S, Savchenko - Koenig, Bad Woerishofen 2003, as then Black has the opportunity to play 1 3 . . . �xd4!N 14 .�xd4 e5 1 5 .�d3 f6 16 .�h6 �f7 reaching a defendable position.

1 2 . .. gxf5 Now it is a different story and 1 2 . . . �xd4t

1 3.�xd4 e5 does not solve Black's problems: 1 4.�f2 gxf5 1 5 .exf5 c6 1 6.ctJe4 0-0-0 17.ctJf6 �c7 1 8.�h6!± Black cannot do much against the upcoming 1 9 .�g7, winning an exchange.

1 3.exfS �xd4 t Or 1 3 . . . ctJxf5 1 4.ctJxf5 exf5 1 5 .�g5 0-0

1 6.�xf5 f6 1 7.�e3 �ae8 1 8 .�d4± leads to an obvious positional advantage for White.

14.�xd4 0-0-0 1 5.fxe6 Instead 1 5 .�g5 is well met by 1 5 . . . �hg8.

15 ... fxe6

16 . . . �hg8


I also looked at 1 6 . . . e5 17 .'.Wd3 h6 when White is still in control after 1 8 .�d2 Wb8 1 9J:U7 �dg8 20.�afl .

17.ctJe4 e5? A serious mistake, but Black was struggling

even after the best defence: 17 ... lL'lf5 I B .'.Wd2 �df8 1 9.1L'lf6 White wins an exchange due to the following line: 1 9 . . . '.Wg7 20.�ae 1 ! �xf6 2 1 .�xf6 '.Wxf6 22.�xe6 '.Wd4t (if 22 . . . '.W£7 23.'.Wc2 �g5 24.h3!+- and Black is defenceless against the threat of 25 .g4) 23.'.Wxd4 lL'lxd4 24.�e7 WbB 25 .�ff7 With a clear advantage.

18.Wd2 �g7 In the game Miniboeck - Schroll, Austria

2004, White now missed an easy win:

19.ctJf6!N We7 20.ctJh5! �g6 21 .�f7 �e8 22.ctJg7+-

0) 4 . .. £5

This move is definitely the reason why some players avoid playing the natural 3.e4 line with White.

5.exfS Naturally White should not shrink from the

challenge. Now Black has a choice between 01)

5 ... �xg2?! and 02) 5 . . . ib4t.

01 ) 5 .•. ixg2?!

This move is correctly regarded as dubious by existing theory, but it is essential to be familiar with the following line:

6.Wh5t g6 7.fxg6 ig7 Obviously bad is 7 . . . lL'lf6? B.g7t lL'lxh5

9.gxhB='.W+-.

8.gxh7t c;f.1f8 9.ig5 Usually 9.lL'le2 lL'lf6 1 0.'.Wh4 �xh l 1 1 .�g5

leads to the same position.

9 ... ctJf6 This is the only move, since 9 . . . lL'le7? loses

to 1 0.lL'lf3! �xh l 1 1 .lL'le5 '.WeB 1 2.lL'lg6t lL'lxg6 1 3 .�xg6 '.WcB 1 4.'.Wh4 and Black is helpless against the mating threats.

lo ... ixhl An alternative is:

1 0 . . . lL'lc6 This has actually scored well for Black; nevertheless, White has a great position:

1 1 .lL'le2 lL'lb4 l l . . .�xhl would just transpose to the 1 0 . . . �xh l line.

1 2.�g6 �xh l

566 M inor Systems

8 �. � • �.i 7 Jr.i1.&",,1.WJI/j 6 . . . . . z •.. " z. ,.:r.

. . . . . z� �� /" ""�;r 5 ��'�M�Wffi �;"" " 4 .�. 0 frc.§ • Ni \".":�,!,,,,%� ��""

3 ��r'l; �Wffi �z '/ �z '/ 2 [j t� .QJ� �� 1 �:(l5. ��""z_r

a b c d e f g h This position was reached in Shumiakina - Matveeva, Russia 1 995, and now it is not that difficult to find the following idea:

13 .ttJd2!N White prevents ... �f3 and prepares the decisive ttJe2-f4-h5 . The best defence I managed to discover was:

13 . . . ttJc6 Instead 1 3 . . . �b7 loses neatly after: 1 4.ttJf4 @e7 1 5 .ttJh5 'lWfS 1 6.d5! (threatening 17.ttJe4) 1 6 . . . exd5 (or 1 6 . . . ttJbxd5 17.ttJe4+-) 1 7.0-0-0 White's attack is unstoppable, as l"Ie1 is on the way. Similarly hopeless is 1 3 . . . @e7 14.a3 ttJc6 1 5 .0-0-0 �g2 1 6.l"Igl +-.

1 4.0-0-0 ttJe7 1 5.ttJf4 ttJxg6 1 6.ttJxg6t @f7 1 7.ttJxhSt 'lWxhS I S .l"Ixhl ttJxh7 1 9.'lWh5t @gS 20.�e3

White is simply a pawn up.

1 1 . ttJ e2 ttJ c6 Black has tested a couple of alternatives:

1 l . . .'lWe7 This is simply too slow and allows White to unleash a powerful attack:

1 2.ttJf4 'lWf7 Instead 1 2 . . . 'it>eS, as in Elsness - Antoniou, Istanbul (01) 2000, loses at once to 1 3 .ttJh5.

1 3.ttJg6t @eS 14.ttJe5 'lWfS 1 4 . . . 'lWe7 would lose to 1 5 .ttJg4.

1 5 .ttJc3 d6 1 6.0-0-0 �b7

In the game Browne - Miles, Reno 1 999, Black soon had a dreadful position after 1 6 . . . dxe5 1 7.dxe5 @e7 I S .l"Ixh l ttJbd7 . Now White played some strange moves (perhaps already in time trouble). After the simple 1 9.exf6t ttJxf6 (or 1 9 . . . �xf6 20.l"Ie1 c6 2 1 .ttJe4 �xg5t 22.ttJxg5 and White wins) 20.l"Ie1 @d7 2 1 .�g6 Black would be doomed.

1 7.�g6t @e7

8 7 6 5

4

3 2

1.."==' y/ .. ,,,�; ..

a b c d e f g h I B .ttJd5t!!

White wins easily in every line. I B . . . �xd5

Also losing is I B . . . exd5 1 9.1"Ie1 @dB 20.ttJf7t @cB 2 1 .�xf6.

1 9 .cxd5 dxe5 20.dxe5 ttJbd7 2 1 .'lWb4t! @dB Or 2 1 . . .ttJc5 22.'lWf4 winning.

22.'lWxfBt l"IxfB 23.dxe6 @cB 24.exf6 ttJxf6 25 .e7 l"IhB 26.�xf6 �xf6 27.eB='lWt l"IxeB 2B.�xeB

White has a won position.

1 1 . . .�f3 1 2.ttJf4 ttJc6 1 3.ttJd2 �g4 Now the best way to proceed is:

1 4.�xf6 Wxf6 1 5 .'lWxg4 'lWxd4 The other capture is also losing: 1 5 . . . ttJxd4 1 6.ttJg6t 'it>eB 17.ttJxhB �xhB I B.'lWgBt 'lWfB 1 9.0-0-0 and White is completely winning. The text move was played in Lower -

D. Marshall , e-mail 1 999. White's advantage is decisive after:


A big improvement over 1 6.lLlf3, as played in the game. After the text move Black's position falls apart. For example:

16 . . . �f6 17.lLlg6t Wf7 I S .�e4+The main threat is lLlf3.

1V!tJd2 @f7 Black has three other moves we should

consider:

1 2 . . . lLlb4 1 3 .�g6 �b7 1 4.lLlf4 lLlc6 1 5.0-0-0 lLlxd4 This is Popovics - Babujian, Chalkidiki 2003, and now White could have won on the spot with 1 6.lLlh5.

12 . . . e5 1 3.0-0-0 e4 1 4.�xe4 �xe4 1 5.lLlxe4 gxh7 1 6.�f4 White's attack is very dangerous, as shown in the following game: 1 6 . . . @f7 17.lLl2c3! The most natural move and probably the strongest. 1 7 . . . gh5 I S.h4± Black cannot do much against White's threat of lLld5, Magerramov - Psakhis, Soviet Union 1 9S0.

12 . . . b5 Now White's initiative develops almost effortlessly. 1 3 .lLlf4 lLlxd4? This of course significantly eases White's task. (I also examined 1 3 . . . bxc4 14.lLlxc4 lLlxd4 1 5 .lLlg6t WeS 1 6.�xd4 gxh7 1 7.lLlge5 gh3 I S .0-0-0 �d5 1 9.�g6t WfS 20.�f4! d6 2 1 .�xf6 �xf6 22.lLld7t+-.) 1 4.lLlg6t Wf7 1 5 .lLle5t WeS 16.�xd4 White had a big advantage in Boor - Kraai, USA 2004.

1 3.f3! A good positional decision; White traps the

bishop on h I , intending to capture it after castling long.

13 ... lLlb4 14.�b1 Black has to deal with White's i ntended lLlf4

which will create many threats. Black failed to find an adequate defence in the following encounter:

14 ... cS l S.ltJf4 dS 16.�g6t @e7 1 7.lLlhS �f8

This is Santini - Nava, e-mail 2004, and now White has a simple solution:

02) S . • . �b4t

This is a more testing line for White than the dodgy pawn grab on g2 we have j ust looked at.

6.@f1 Stepping out of the way, covering g2, and also

leaving the b4-bishop as a potential target.

Black must now decide between 021) 6 ... exfS and 022) 6 ... ltJf6.

568 Minor Systems

D21) 6 ... exfS 7.c5!

8.a3 c4 The alternative is hardly playable for Black:

8 . . . i.a5 9.dxc5 Wf6 Now I really like the following elegant idea: 10 J!a2! id5 (instead 1 0 . . . c6 does not help after 1 1 .b4 i.d8 1 2.Ele2t tue7 13 .i.b2 Wf7 1 4.tuf3± with a strong initiative) 1 1 .We2t tue7 1 2.b4 i.xa2 1 3.Wxa2 d5 1 4.bxa5 tud7 1 5 .tuf3 Elb8 1 6.Wc2± White's material advantage should tell, Mielke - Heusslein, Germany 1 986.

9.ixc4 i.d6 The alternative is simply bad:

9 . . . i.a5? 1 0.Wb3! Attacking both the b7-bishop and the g8-knight.

1 0 . . . We7 Now the simplest would be:

1 1 .tud2!N In the game Krueger - Galicki, Hattingen 2005, Black gained some counterplay after 1 1 .tue2 We4! 1 2.f3 Wc6 13 .ixg8 d5, although White is still much better.

1 1 . . .ib6 1 2.i.xg8 tuc6 1 3.tugf3 0-0-0

14 .i.d5 Elhe8 1 5 .g3 Black is lost.

10.Wb3 White undoubtedly also keeps the initiative

after 1 0. tuf3, but the text is more ambitious.

10 ... i.a6 1 1 .i.xa6 ttJxa6 12.ttJa Certainly White has no intention of

winning a pawn with 1 2.Wd3, since after 1 2 . . . Wc8 1 3.Wxf5 tuf6 1 4.tuf3 O-O� Black has reasonable compensation, M. Johansson -Scholbach, e-mail 2000.

12 ... c6 In Summerscale - S. Williams, Britain (ch)

1 998, Black did not manage to solve his king's problems: 1 2 . . . tuf6 1 3 .tuc3 c6 14.i.g5 Wb6 1 5 .Ele l t �d8 1 6.i.xf6t (also good enough was 1 6.Wxb6t axb6 1 7.tuh4, winning the f-pawn) 1 6 . . . gxf6 1 7.Wc2 White is clearly better.

13.ttJc3 Wb6 14.Wc4 ttJc7 1 5.g3 Wa6 16.Wxa6 ttJxa6 17.d5!

Black has managed to swap queens, but even so White's active pieces allow him to keep the initiative.

17 ... lDe7 1 8.dxc6 dxc6 19.rj;>g2 0-0 20.Eldl Elad8

This is L. Christensen - L. Nielsen, Denmark 1 992. Now White could have won a pawn with:

2 1.i.g5N Elfe8 22.ixe7 i.xe7 23.ttJd4!±

D22) 6 ... ttJf6 7.a3!?

Not the most popular continuation, but in my opinion a very promising one. In the more popular lines Black has been doing fine, according to recent theory.

7 .. . i.d6


Black can hardly hope for adequate compensation if he plays passively: 7 . . . fie7 S.LtJc3 0-0 9.LtJf3 iMfeS

Black has also tried 9 . . . exf5 1 O.fixf5 iMfeS, Holmsgaard - Nemitz, Porz 1 990 (instead 1 0 . . . d5? as in Moreno Trujillo - Zamarbide Ibarrea, Mondariz 2003, is not a serious option, as the simple 1 1 .LtJg5!N± would pose Black tough problems) . I think White should continue developing normally: 1 1 .fie3N For example, 1 l . . .iMfh5 1 2.LtJg5! iMfxd1 t 1 3 .l:hd1 g6 14 .fie4 LtJxe4 1 5 .LtJgxe4 fia6 1 6.LtJd2 leaves Black with insufficient compensation.

a b c d e f g h 1 O.fxe6!N

This is obviously stronger than 1 0.iMfe2 as in Beliavsky - Czebe, Hungary 1 999, as now 1 0 . . . exf5N 1 1 .fixf5 iMfh5 would give Black some play for the pawn.

1 0 . . . dxe6 1 1 .iMfe2 Now very simple play gives White a large advantage. For example:

1 1 . . .fid6 1 2.LtJg5! e5 1 3 .d5 LtJbd7 1 4.LtJe6 �f7 1 5.fie3±

8.lLlc3 0-0 9.1tJf3 Wfe8 This is Black's main choice according to

theory. There are also a couple of alternatives:

9 . . . LtJc6 1 0.fig5 LtJe7 1 0 . . . exf5 1 1 .fixf5 would transpose to the 9 . . . exf5 1 0.fixf5 LtJc6 variation. 1 0 . . . iWeS allowed White to force favourable

simplifications in Dautov - Filipovic, Switzerland 2004: 1 1 .fxe6 dxe6 1 2.fixf6! �xf6 1 3.fie4 �dS 1 4.iMfa4!±

1 1 .fxe6 dxe6 1 2.iMfe2 iMfd7 1 3 .�e 1 White is clearly better, and the game Goldin - Gofshtein, Rishon LeZion 1 995, was decided very quickly:

1 3 . . . h6 1 4.fixf6 �xf6 1 5 .LtJe4 �f4 1 6.c5!+-

9 . . . exf5 1 0 .fixf5

a b c d e f g h Here we have a few possible options:

a) 1 0 . . . LtJc6 1 1 .fig5 iMfeS 1 2.fixf6!? A fine positional move; White establishes control over the h I -aS diagonal, which secures him against Black's tactical ideas. 1 2 . . . �xf6 1 3 .fie4 fia6 1 4.iMfa4 fib7 1 5.�e 1 ± White was clearly better in Sherbakov - Volzhin, Poland 1 999.

b) 1 0 . . . fixf3?! Black cannot hope for adequate compensation after giving up his l ight-squared bishop. 1 1 .iMfxf3 LtJc6 1 2.fie3 g6 1 3 .fic2 �g7 1 4.g3 h5 1 5 .�g2 LtJg4 Now in Yermolinsky Blatny, San Francisco 2000, the simple 1 6.iWe2 LtJxe3t (or 1 6 . . . iMff6 1 7.LtJe4) 1 7.fxe3± would have left White with a healthy extra pawn and a positional advantage.

c) 1 0 . . . iMfeS 1 1 .fie3 iMfh5 1 2.LtJg5! Without queens it will be hard for Black to rustle up compensation, as was shown in the following encounter:

570 Minor Systems

1 2 . . . h6 1 3.�h7t c;t>hS 14 .1&xh5 tLlxh5 1 O . . . i&h5 l 1 .d5 This is Jaworski - Kalinitschew, Poland 2006.

a b c d e f g h 1 5 .�g6!N

An easy improvement over 1 5 .�e4, as played in the game.

1 5 . . . tLlf4 Or 1 5 . . . hxg5 1 6.�xh5 �f4 1 7.c;t>g l ! with the idea of h2-h4.

1 6.�xf4 �xf4 1 7.tLlf7t c;t>gS I S.ttJe2 �d6 1 9 .tLlxd6 cxd6 20.d5

White has a strategically winning position.

1O . .igS The most challenging continuation, as the

endgame after 1 O.i&e2 exf5 l 1 .i&xeS tLlxeS is very playable for Black.

This move is positionally well motivated, but I also like the following idea: 1 1 .h4N exf5 1 2.l'l:h3!?

1 1 . . .exf5 If 1 1 . . .exd5 1 2.�xf6 l'l:xf6 1 3.ttJxd5 l'l:fS 1 4.h3! tLlc6 1 5 .g4 i&h6 1 6.Wcl and White swaps down to a clearly favourable endgame. 1 6 . . . i&xcl t 1 7.l'l:xcl tLle7 I S .tLlxelt �xe7 1 9. c;t>g2 White retained his advantage in Shalimov - Janturin, St Petersburg 2002.

1 2.ttJb5 This is the point of 1 1 .d5. White intends to capture the dark-squared bishop, leaving Black with a bad light-squared bishop.

1 2 . . . ttJe4 1 3.tLlxd6 cxd6 1 4.�e3 ttJa6 1 5 .b4!N 1 5 .l'l:c l unnecessarily allows 1 5 . . . tLlac5 , as in Schlosser - Totsky, Pardubice 2007. After the text I like the following illustrative line:

1 5 ... tLlc7 1 6.tLld4 i&g6 17.f3 b5 l S.ttJxb5 tLlxb5 1 9.cxb5 tLlc3 20.i&d2 ttJe4 2 1 .i&b2 �xd5 22.i&d4

White has a clear positional advantage.

1 l .cS! A strong and concrete approach.

Instead Black had serious counter-chances after 1 1 .�xf5 i&h5! 1 2.h4 h6 in Khenkin -Bunzmann, Poland 1 999.

An interesting alternative was tested in a recent game: 1 1 .�xf6 l'l:xf6 1 2.c5 �fS Black had to retreat, �s the c5-pawn is untouchable due to 1 3.i&b3t winning the b7-bishop. 1 3 .i&b3t c;t>hS 1 4.tLld5 This is Doric - Hrvacic, Slovenia 2009, and now I think Black missed the best defensive idea: 1 4 . . . �xd5N 1 5 .i&xd5 ttJc6 1 6.l'l:el tLle7 1 7.i&c4 l'l:bS White has a goodlooking position, but Black is pretty much in the game.

1 1 ... .ie7


Of course the c5-pawn is still untouchable: l l . . .bxc5? 1 2.'Wb3t @hS 1 3.'Wxb7 +-

12.ixfS �h8 I also analysed the thematic move:

1 2 . . . 'Wh5 White should continue:

1 3.h4 And now:

1 3 . . . �xf3 1 4.'Wxf3 Also interesting is 1 4.gxf3!? bxc5 (weaker is 1 4 . . . h6 1 5 .�xf6 fi:xf6 1 6.'Wb3t @hS 17 .�g4!± followed by I S.fi:e 1 ) 1 5 .dxc5 ltJc6 ( l 5 . . . �xc5 allows White a strong initiative after 1 6.ltJd5) 1 6.ltJd5 White looks to be better.

1 4 . . . 'Wxf3 1 5 .gxf3 bxc5 1 6.dxc5 �xc5 Black has managed to regain the pawn, but White retains an initiative after:

1 7.fi:d l For example:

1 7 . . . c6 I S .ltJe4 �e7 1 9.@g2 d5 20.ltJg3 a5 2 l .fi:he 1

White is better.

13.cxb6 axb6 Now I found the following interesting idea.

14.ic2!?N Removing the bishop from a vulnerable

square and also intending to create threats along the b l -h7 diagonal with 'Wd3, after a preparatory 'it>gl (to sidestep . . . �a6 tricks) .

Instead 1 4.h4 as played in Likavsky -Bunzmann, Austria 200S, which was premature as it allows the reply 1 4 . . . ltJd5!N with unclear play.

14 .. '\Wh5 Black has a few alternatives:

1 4 . . . c5 allows White to block the l ight-squared bishop by 1 5 .d5! with a clear edge.

1 4 . . . ltJc6 is also unsatisfactory in view of 1 5 .d5 ltJa5 1 6.'it>gl 'Wh5 1 7.h4±.

14 . . . ltJg4 is met strongly by 1 5 .h4! ltJc6 1 6.'it>g l ± and White is clearly better.

15 .h4! id6 16.fi:h3! ltJcG 17.�gl Black has no compensation for his missing

pawn.

Conclusion:

The English Defence surrenders a lot of space in the centre and White should be bold enough to take it with 3 .e4. Black has various tricky tactical lines, but the variations above provide all the answers. The positional verdict is simple - White's extra space is the key factor.

A) 3 ... d6 B) 3 ... e6

A) note to 4 . . . e5

12 .�g5N

Minor Systems

Black Knights Tango

Variation Index l .d4 l2Jf6 2.c4 l2Jc6

3.l2Jf3

A) after 16 . . . 1J9 d7

1 7.b4N

B) after 9 ... i'lb8

1 0.d5N

573 575

Chapter 3 5 - Black Knights Tango 573

l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 ctJc6 The Black Knights Tango is an off-beat

line that is respectable enough to be regularly ventured by GM Viktor Bologan. The Tango tempts White into advancing his pawns in the hope that the knights will dance away, leaving the white centre over-extended. We shall decline the invitation.

3.ctJf3 This move is the best fit with our repertoire.

If 3.LtJc3 we would have to deal not only with 3 . . . eS, but also 3 . . . e6, which would probably lead to Nimzo-Indian type positions.

After 3.LtJf3 Black has two main lines to consider: A) 3 ... d6 and B) 3 ... e6 .

Besides these, we should also have a quick look at two minor lines:

3 . . . dS Obviously this allows White to seize total control of the centre.

4.cxdS LtJxdS S .e4 LtJf6 6.LtJc3 Here Black probably should accept a passive position after 6 . . . e6, since active development does not work:

6 . . . ig4 The problem is as follows:

7.dS! And Black cannot play:

7 . . . LtJeS? The lesser evil is 7 . . . ixf3, but even here after 8 .gxf3 LtJb8 (or 8 . . . LtJeS 9.f4) 9.iWb3! Black's position is unpleasant.

8 .LtJxeS ! . A well-known idea in various openings. 8 . . . ixd 1 9.ibSt c6 1 0.dxc6

Many games have reached this position; it is obvious that Black is losing too much material.

3 . . . eS also does not work: 4.dS e4 S .dxc6 exf3 6.cxb7 ixb7 7.exf3± I do not believe Black has

serious compensation for his mlssmg pawn, Tempone - Olivieri, Santiago 1 996.

A) 3 • . . d6 4.lLlc3 e5

This seems like the most serious option, but let's also consider a couple of alternatives:

4 . . . g6 S .dS Certainly we could also choose S .g3, which would probably transpose to the Yugoslav variation of the King's Indian.

S . . . LtJb8 6.g3!?N Surprisingly, no one has tried this fianchetto set-up. Of course the main l ine is 6.e4 ig7 7.ie2 0-0 8.0-0. I found many games from this position, but it is hard for me to take them seriously, as the position is similar to a Classical King's Indian, except with one or even two extra tempos for White. The following is just a sample line:

6 . . . ig7 7.ig2 0-0 8.LtJd4!? I like this move as it reduces Black's options.

8 . . . eS 9.dxe6 fxe6 1 0.0-0 eS 1 1 .LtJc2 LtJc6 This is the game Rubinstein - Bluemich, Dresden 1 926. I propose the following improvement:

a b c d e f g h 1 2.igSN ie6 1 3.LtJe3 iWd7

If 1 3 . . . LtJd4 then White has the strong 1 4.LtJbS! .

1 4.LtJedS Elae8 l S .iWd2t White enjoys a pleasant game.

574 Minor Systems

4 . . . �g4 5.d5 �xf3 If 5 . . . ltJbS then we can use the thematic 6.ltJd4! when Black's light-squared bishop is misplaced on g4. Dziuba - Przewoznik, Poland 2006, continued: 6 . . . g6 7.g3 �g7 S.�g2 Wfcs 9.h3 (or 9 .f3) 9 . . . �d7 1 0.e4 0-0 1 1 .�e3 c5 And here I like 1 2.ltJde2!?N ltJa6 13 .g4 as after 1 3 .. J::\bS 1 4.a4 ltJb4 1 5 .Wfd2 White has a promising position.

6.exf3 ltJe5 7.f4 ltJed7 S.g3 Black's position may be solid, but his missing l ight-squared bishop is significant.

S . . . g6 9.�g2 �g7 10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .�e3 White has a very pleasant game; the game Dokhoian - Donner, Porz 1 99 1 , continued:

1 l . . .a5 1 2.ltJa4!? b6 Obviously it was better to refrain from this move.

1 3.ltJc3 ltJc5 14 .ltJb5 White was clearly better, since Black lacks

any counterplay.

S.g3

a long-term edge. The following is a nice example: 9 . . . c6 Otherwise it is hard to deal with the pressure along the h I -aS diagonal, but now the d6-pawn becomes a target. 1 0.b3 �e6 1 1 .�b2 Wfa5 1 2.e4 Wfh5 Black tries to create some play on the kingside. This is Donchenko - Varavin, Tula 2000, and now the natural-looking 1 3.Elfe l N �h3 1 4.f3 �xg2 1 5 .cj{xg2 ElfeS 1 6.EladU would secure White a pleasant game.

S .o-o 0-0 Now I recommend:

9.ltJc2 Preventing Black's idea of . . . ltJxd4 fol lowed by . . . �c6. It is usually wise to avoid swapping minor pieces when you have a space advantage.

9 . . . Wfcs 10.e4 �h3 l 1 .ltJe3 White has a pleasant advantage, for example:

1 1 . . .�xg2 12 .cj{xg2 EleS 1 3.b3 �fS 1 4.f3 g6 1 5 .�b2 �g7 1 6.Wfd2 Wfd7 1 7.Elad 1

White is clearly better, thanks to his extra space, Brenninkmeijer Martschausky, Germany 200 1 .

6.�g2!? Also not bad is the natural 6.d5, but it would

allow Black some additional options.

6 .. . �e7 White should not worry about the following

exchanges: 6 . . . �xf3 7.�xf3 exd4

Clearly inferior is: 7 . . . ltJxd4 S.�xb7 ElbS 9.�g2N Wfd7 (defending against Wfa4) 1 0.0-0 �e7 1 l .f4! And if 1 1 . .. 0-0 then 1 2.fxe5 dxe5 1 3.Elxf6! �xf6 1 4.e3± and White wins material.

S.ltJb5 �e7 9.ltJxd4 ltJxd4 1 O.Wfxd4 c6 1 1 .0-0 0-0

This is Kirchner - Hohlbein, Germany 1 995, and now I suggest a simple novelty:

1 2.Eld1 Nt

Chapter 35 - Black Knights Tango 575

7.d5 CDb8 8.h3 ih5 Exchanging the light-squared bishop would

be a concession: S . . . ixf3 9.ixf3 0-0 1 0.e4

White enjoys a fine advantage, for instance: 1 0 . . . ctJfd7 1 1 .h4!

Preventing the thematic . . . ig5. l l . . .a5 1 2.0-0 ctJc5 1 3 .b3 ctJba6 1 4.�b l c6 1 5 .ie3 cxd5?!

This only makes Black's position worse. 1 6.'Wxd5 ctJb4 17 .'Wd2±

White's advantage was obvious in Uhlmann - Calvo Minguez, Madrid 1 973.

9.Wfb3! A very annoying move that creates tricks on

the long white diagonal.

9 ... ixB White's tactical threats force Black into a

long-term positional concession. The problem is that 9 . . . 'WcS runs i nto the sneaky 1 0.ctJxe5! dxe5 I l .d6±, with a big advantage.

1O.ixB b6 1 1 .0-0 The absence of Black's l ight-squared bishop

and his general passivity makes White's position easy to play. For example:

1 1 ...Wfc8 12.ig2 etJbd7 13.Wfc2 a5 14.�bl lLlc5 15.b3

After provoking the weakening of Black's light squares, carrying out b2-b4 becomes a serious positional threat.

15 ... 0-0 16.a3 Wfd7

17.b4N axb4 1 8.axb4 CDa6 19.1Llb5± White obviously has the upper hand.

B) 3 ... e6

This line is definitely Black's main choice.

4.g3 ib4t If 4 . . . d5 5 .ig2 dxc4 then play would

transpose to the Catalan, so you can find this position covered in the first Volume.

5.id2 ixd2t 5 . . . 'We7 6.ctJc3 transposes to the Bogo

Indian variation (see Chapter 4, page 45).

6.Wfxd2 d6 This is a new position for us, since in the

Bogo-Indian with 3 . . . ib4t followed by . . . ixd2, we always have the option of playing e2-e4 quickly, because against the Bogo we delay the development of our kingside knight.

576 Minor Systems

7.lLlc3 0-0 8J�dl! A very important moment. After S.�g2 Black

has a decent variation available in S . . . e5 9.0-0 �g4 with complicated play, while instead the text move causes Black problems. The main point is that White temporarily stops . . . e6-e5, and all Black's moves that prepare . . . e6-e5 have drawbacks.

8 . . . a6 With the text move Black intends to play

on the wing. We will also examine a couple of other options, where Black prepares . . . e6-e5.

S . . . 'lWe7 9.�g2 e5 1 0.ctJd5! The key move in this l ine, which forces a favourable change of pawn structure after:

1 0 . . . ctJxd5 I l .cxd5 ctJxd4 1 2.ctJxd4 exd4 1 3.'lWxd4 �d7

Another example is Komarov - Martinovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 999, which continued: 1 3 . . . a5 1 4.l'!d2 �d7 1 5 .0-0 l'!fcS 1 6.l'!c1 a4 1 7.l'!dc2± Thanks to the permanent weakness of the c-pawn, White obtained a clear advantage.

14 .l'!d2 A necessary prophylactic move.

1 4 . . . l'!fdS 1 5 .0-0 a5

a b c d e f g h

This is Komarov - Skembris, Bolzano 1 995, and now White played the most natural continuation:

1 6.l"kl

White should follow up with l'!dc2 with a clear superiority; the pressure along the c-file is obvious and strong.

S . . . �d7 9.�g2 e5 1 0.dxe5 dxe5 1 1 .0-0 Black has managed to carry out . . . e6-e5 , but his pieces lack coordination; in the following encounter he faced serious problems.

1 1 . . .�e6 1 2.'lWe3! 'lWcs Black cannot play 1 2 . . . ctJd7? in view of 1 3.ctJg5 �xc4 1 4.l'!xd7 'lWxd7 1 5 .'lWe4+-.

1 3 .ctJd5 Also 1 3.ctJxe5 ctJxe5 1 4.'lWxe5 �xc4 1 5 .'lWf4 �e6 1 6.e4 c6 1 7.e5 ctJd7 I S.l'!d6± leads to an advantage for White.

1 3 . . . ctJg4 1 4.'lWc5 White was much better in De Lange - Safvat,

Siegen (01) 1 970.

9.i.g2 l'!b8 Black intends to carry our the ... b7-b5

advance.

a b c d e f g h

10.dSN In my oplOlOn this is the most natural

reaction to Black's idea. Instead Black easily solved his problems after 1 0.0-0 b5 l 1 .cxb5 axb5 1 2.E!fe l b4 1 3 .ctJa4 �d7 in Tregubov Meier, Merida 2007.

Chapter 35 - Black Knights Tango 577

Another option is lO . . . lLle7. Then I like the following positional idea: 1 1 .lLld4 e5 1 2.lLlc2 b5 1 3.cxb5 axb5 1 4.lLlb4!± Black did not achieve much by carrying out the ... b7-b5 advance, as White has dear targets on the queenside.

1 l .dxe6! A well-timed change of pawn structure.

I l ...�xe6 The point of the previous move is that White

is better after 1 1 . . .fXe6 1 2.c5! lLlc4 1 3:��!fcl± .

I2.b3 b5 Otherwise White simply has a favourable

pawn structure.

13.llJd5 llJc6 I4.llJg5 hd5 I 5.ad5 lLle5

a b c d e f g h

I6.0-0� Once again we have managed to achieve

a favourable pawn structure with Black's c7-pawn a long-term target.

Conclusion:

The Black Knights Tango is not a ridiculous line, but White can keep an edge with accurate play. Best of all, White can play in our standard repertoire style with a kingside fianchetto, so the reader should feel at home in the resulting positions. It is also worth remembering that the Tango can, at various points, transpose to the Catalan or Bogo-Indian.

Minor Systems a b c d e f g h

Old Indian

Variation Index l.d4 ltJf6 2.c4 d6 3.ltJa ltJbd7 4.ltJc3 e5

5.g3 ie7 6.ig2 0-0 7.0-0 A) 7 .. J�e8 B) 7 ... exd4 C) 7 ... c6 8.e4 ge8 9.h3 a6 10.a4! a5 l 1 .ie3

8

7

6

4

3

2

Cl) l l ... ifS C2) 1 l ... exd4

A) note to 1 3 . . . tiJb6

a b c d e f g h

I B .Wb3!N

C I ) note to l S ... ig7

a b c d e f g h

1 6. tiJh21?N

C2) note to 14 . . . Wc7

579 581 583 584 586

a b c d e f g h

1 4.igS!N

Chapter 36 - Old I ndian 579

The Old Indian Defence looks like a poor man's King's Indian Defence; instead of developing the dark-squared bishop to g7, it goes to e7. Bent Larsen used to play this line regularly and with some success, but in general Black is worse in this system, as the bishop is too passive on e7. This is illustrated by the fact that Black often plays the bishop to f8 and later plays " .g6 and " .�g7.

As with almost all the other openings, I am recommending a system for White that involves a kingside fianchetto. As ever, this causes Black a lot of problems.

l .d4 ctJf6 2.c4 d6 3.ctJf3 I selected this move order for a couple of

reasons. Firstly, because Black can simply force this via another move order ( 1 .d4 d6 2.CtJf3 CtJf6 3.c4 CtJbd7 4.CtJc3) . Secondly, I recommend avoiding 3.CtJc3 e5 4.CtJf3 e4 5 .CtJg5 1Mfe7! ? , which has recently brought Black very decent results.

3 .. . ctJbd7 4.ctJc3 e5 This line is heading for the Old Indian

Defence, which is indeed quite similar to the new-fangled King's Indian Defence, with one big difference - the destination of Black's darksquared bishop.

5.g3 This is my favoured move in this line,

which stems from the fact that Black still has the option of switching to the King's Indian Defence. For example, after the most popular move, 5 .e4, Black can choose 5" .g6 transposing to the Classical line of the King's Indian with " .CtJbd7, which is not part of my repertoire.

5 ... ie7 If 5" .g6 then we are heading for the King's

Indian part of our repertoire, which is of course examined in a different chapter.

6.ig2 0-0 7.0-0

a b c d e f g h

This is the initial position of the whole vananon. There are many possible moves, but as we cannot cover everything, we will have to decide what is important and what is not. I decided to concentrate on three main possibilities: A) 7 ... �e8, B) 7 ... exd4 and C) 7 . . . c6.

A) 7 . . . �e8 8.e4

White very often opts for 8 .1Mfc2 but I believe the following sequence is quite playable for Black: 8" .�f8 9.1"\d1 c6 1 O.e4 1Mfc7 1 1 .h3 b5!

8 .. . if8 Black's first choice; another option is

8".c6, which we will consider in line C under the 7".c6 move order.

9.h3 c6 10.ie3 a6 The only decent plan for Black, as releasing

the tension in the centre favours White: 10".exd4 1 1 .CtJxd4 CtJc5 12 .1Mfc2 a5 1 3.1"\ad1 We have reached a position that will be examined in line B, using the 7".exd4 move order.

1 1 .d5!? I want to show this additional idea for White,

although the thematic 1 1 .a4 was also possible and would eventually transpose to one of the lines considered below.

580 M inor Systems

1 1 ...cx:d5 Instead 1 1 . . .ttJc5? is j ust a blunder in view

of 1 2.dxc6 bxc6 1 3 .i.xc5 dxc5 1 4.'lWxdS ElxdS 1 5 .ttJxe5 winning a pawn.

12.cx:d5 h5 13.liJd2 An optimal set-up for White's minor pieces.

White enjoys a serious space advantage, thanks to his d5-pawn. His play on the queenside is quite easy to carry out and in general his chances are favourable. To get a feel for how to play the position we should have a look at several examples:

1 3 . . . g6 1 4.b4 White is ready to play a2-a4 next.

1 4 . . . ttJb6 1 5 .a4 ttJxa4 1 6.ttJxa4 bxa4

a b c d e f g h

1 7.ttJc4! i.d7 l S.ttJb6 ElbS 1 9.ttJxd7 'IWxd7 So far we have been following Ftacnik -Hausner, Marianske Lazne 1 975. Now White should have opted for the exchange of queens and a pleasant ending:

20.W'xa4 W'xa4 2 1 .Elxa4 ElecS 22.Elel Elxel t 23.i.xel ttJeS 24.i.d2 ttJc7 25 .i.f1 ElaS 26.i.d3±

It would be very hard for Black to hold this position.

1 3 . . . 'lWc7 1 4.'lWe2 i.e7 1 5 .Elfe l 'lWbS This was played in Vukic - Zapata, Zenica 1 9S6. Instead of the usual thematic idea of 1 6.b4 followed by 1 7.a4, I like another plan:

1 6.a3N ttJb6

7 6

5 4

2

1 7.ttJa2!

a b c d e f g h

The knight is heading for glory on c6. 17 ... i.d7 I S .lLlb4 'IWb7 1 9.ttJc6 ElacS 20.ttJa5 'lWbS 2 1 .b3±

White is obviously better.

1 3 . . . i.e7 This move is in the spirit of this variation; Black intends to transfer his dark-squared bishop to the dS-a5 diagonal, but White is very fast on the queenside.

1 4.b4 ttJb6 1 5 .a4 The same thematic play as we have seen before.

1 5 . . . bxa4 1 6.ttJxa4 ttJxa4 1 7.'lWxa4 i.d7

Chapter 36 - Old Indian 58 1

a b c d e f g h Thus far we have been following the game A. Petrosian - Gulko, Soviet Union 1 984. Here I think I have found an improvement on White's play with:

1 8.'lMrb3!N ib5 1 9.1'!fc l l'!c8 20.ifl ! Black seems to find it hard to equalize, for

instance: 20 . . . 'lMrd7 2 1 .ixb5 axb5

Or Black could try: 2 1 . . . 'lMrxb5 22.l'!xc8 l'!xc8 23.<tt>g2 l'!b8 (the endgame after 23 . . . ttJd7 24.'lMra4 'lMrxa4 25.l'!xa4 ttJb8 26.ia7! is difficult for Black) 24.'lMral h6 25 .'lMrxa6 'lMrxa6 26.l'!xa6 l'!xb4 27.l'!a8t! <tt>h7 28.l'!a7 if8 29.f3 After massive complications, Black's position is rather difficult. White has a clear target in Black's d6-pawn.

22.<tt>g2 h6 23.'lMrd3± White is clearly better, due to the weakness

of Black's b5-pawn.

14.a4! With the knight on b6 as a target, White can

immediately launch his a-pawn.

14 ... bxa4 The main point is 14 . . . b4 is met strongly with

1 5.a5! ttJbd7 1 6.ttJa4 with a clear advantage.

lS.ttJxa4 ttJxa4 16.'lMrxa4 J.d7 17.'lMra3 J.bS 18.l'!fd l'!e8 19.1'!c3!

A neat positional idea. White creates pressure along the c-file, while capturing on c3 is clearly i nferior for Black, as White would recapture

with the b-pawn, followed by c3-c4 when Black is going to lose his a-pawn.

1 9 .. . l'!e7 20.J.f1 l'!ee7 This position was reached in Schroll - Appel,

Germany 1 998, and now White could have achieved an advantage by simple means:

2 1.�aS �d7 22.LbS! axbS 23.l'!xe7 l'!xe7 24. c;f; g2

Next, White is going to attack the b5-pawn (with 'lMrb4, l'!a5 and ttJbl -c3) while Black's counterplay, if it exists, is well hidden.

B) 7 ... exd4 8.ttJxd4

The most natural recapture, but 8 .'lMrxd4!? is also worthy of consideration. Let's see one example: 8 . . . l'!e8 9.b3 if8 1 0.ib2 a5 1 1 .l'!fdl 'lMre7 1 2.ttJel ttJc5 13 .ttJd3 ttJe6 1 4.'lMre3 c6 1 5 .ttJa4! White had a nice edge in Gabancho Galarce, Buenos Aires 2004.

I did not find much point in the aggressivelooking: 8 . . . ttJe5

White simply continues his normal development, while Black remains passive.

582 Minor Systems

9.b3 c6 1 0.!b2 �e8 I l .Wd2 !d7 1 2.h3 White slowly prepares f2-f4, chasing Black's knight from the centre.

1 2 . . . Wc8 1 3 .�h2 !d8 1 4.LtJc2 Attacking the d6-pawn and thus not allowing Black to activate with ideas such as . . . !a5 .

1 4 . . . !c7 This was J. Walker - M. Spiegel, Seattle 1 974. And now I recommend a naturallooking novelty:

1 5 .f4N LtJg6 1 6.e4 h5 1 7.�ad l ± White has a serious advantage.

8 . . . LtJb6 9.Wb3 Not only defending the c4-pawn, but also preventing the idea of . . . d6-d5. Although in fact Black would be far from equalizing even after carrying out . . . d6-d5, as we shall see in the line below. After 9.b3 d5N (if 9 . . . c6 1 0.e4 Black should ask himself what his knight is doing on b6, as he can hardly hope to play . . . d6-d5, as in this case White would favourably change the central structure with cxd5 . . . cxd5, e4-e5) 1 0.cxd5 LtJfxd5 I l .LtJxd5 LtJxd5 1 2.!b2 White retains a strong advantage after either 1 2 . . . cS 1 3 .e4 LtJb4 1 4.LtJf5! or 1 2 . . . !f6 1 3.�c1 �e8 1 4.Wd2 followed by 1 5 .e4.

9 ... c5 1 0.LtJc2 !e6 Maybe trickier would be 1 0 . . . LtJg4, nevertheless after 1 1 .!f4 !e6 1 2.LtJa3 White would enjoy a pleasant advantage.

I l .LtJe3 �b8 1 2.a4 Wc8 1 3 .�d l ± I n Villegas - Garcia Balado, Argentina 1 936,

Black did not gain any counterplay in return for his weakened d5-square and misplaced knight on b6.

9.Wc2 Now White can vary his set-up, although

there is certainly nothing wrong with 9.e4.

9 ... ifS 9 . . . LtJe5 does not bring Black any dividends

after 1 0.b3.

1O.e4 c6 1 1 .h3 An essential move that prepares !e3.

8 :i_j,J�:im.� 7 • r.i).i�.; % " •• %� ��n� �r//.(""%� 6 m ' w� ;�; � �� ." ,,%� /, . . . ,,;� : ·.!m!�� %.,,/;j'l . . . . . ;� �w.'� A 3 � 0 _ w� o ��,% . . . . ,;� ��r�;..;�%� 2 8 w�"iV_ w�� C''d�''''%%� '.� .� 1 �� k � M �

a b c d e f g h

1 1 . .. a5 The attempt to free himself with a . . . d6-d5

break falls short: 1 L" LtJb6 1 2.b3 d5 This was played in Bannik - Pogrebissky, Kiev 1 959, and now White had a strong possibility: 1 3.exd5!N cxd5 1 4.�d l ! a6 (Black cannot play 14 . . . dxc4 in view of 1 5 .LtJc6!) 1 5 .LtJxd5 LtJbxd5 1 6.cxd5 LtJxd5 1 7,!b2± White's bishops dominate the board.

1 2.ie3 lLlc5 13.�adl White i s already threatening a small

combination with 14 .LtJxc6 followed by 1 5 .!xc5.

13 ... Wb6 If 1 3 . . . Wc7 then 1 4,b3! and White enjoys a

space advantage, while Black has no counterplay on the queenside.

14.b3 I like this positional approach more than:

1 4.LtJb3 LtJfd7 1 5 .LtJxc5 LtJxcS 1 6.LtJa4 Wa6 1 7. LtJxc5 dxc5 1 8 .a4 (better was 1 8. f4 !e6 1 9 .b3 a4 20.f5 axb3 2 1 .axb3 !c8 as in this case White keeps some advantage, but Black also has some play on the queens ide, thanks to the open a-file) 1 8 . . . !e6 1 9.b3 b5! Black

Chapter 36 - Old Indian 583

had reasonable counterplay on the queenside in Pyhala - Valkesalmi, Lahti 1 985 .

14 . . • a4 15J:;b1 !

20 ... c5 20 . . . ltJf6 does not help as White can play

2 l .ltJe6!± .

A well-timed switch to the queenside. 21.i.xe4 l3xe4 Or if2 1 . . .cxd4 then 22.i.xd4 V!1c7 23.i.xh7t

1 5 •.. axb3 16.axb3 V!1b4?! with a clear edge. This was played in Jobava - Galego, Warsaw

2005, but it is inaccurate due to a clever trick. 22.V!1xe4 cxd4 23.i.xd4

Black should be satisfied with the passive 1 6 . . . V!1c7 even though in this case White enjoys a very pleasant game after 1 7.b4 ltJe6 IB .ltJb3.

Now, as pointed out by Bruzon in Informant 94, White overlooked a very nice idea:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

17.V!1d2!

White has a winning position.

C) 7 .. . c6

8 � �..te ��.m 7 , l.ii;w§f'iy.trr 6 ' ' ' ' '�� f.'''�.''''�� 5 �� "_H � �

4 ��!� '��. �" ,,/J""!i%% ��,� 3 � � _lZJw� 2 8H''''';_8dj£� . ""0"" "�'0 W%."""�'i{""% 1 �� i1imM�

a b c d e f g h

In this line Black avoids (or at least delays) exchanging on d4, which is a logical approach. Instead, releasing the tension (as in the line we have j ust seen) is a concession that significantly eases White's task.

The threat of I B .ltJc2 followed by 1 9.b4 is 8.e4 very unpleasant. Now the main line is:

17 ••• V!1b6 8 ... l3e8 17 . . . ltJa6 I B.l3a l ! does not bring relief Other popular alternatives are:

either.

18.b4! This is the point of Bruzon's idea.

1 8 ... tDcxe4 1 9.tDxe4 tDxe4 20.'lWd3! Black cannot avoid losing material.

B . . . V!1c7 Here we react in the same way as in the main line: 9.h3 a6 1 0.a4! a5 1 l .i.e3 And eventually, after 1 1 . . .exd4 1 2.ltJxd4 l3eB 13 .V!1c2 and so on, we are heading towards the same position as in the main line.

584 Minor Systems

S . . . a6 Again I consider White's best idea is to prevent the . . . b7-b5 advance by radical means: 9.a4 (Instead 9.h3 b5 1 0.c5 �b7! leads to a position that slightly resembles a Meran variation of the Semi-Slav Defence, especially Black's set-up. The position is very complicated and I did not manage to find any advantage for White.) 9 . . . a5 1 0.h3 :B:eS 1 1 .�e3 exd4 1 2.ttJxd4 And we reach a position from our main line (line C2) .

9.h3 a6

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

10.a4!

a b c d e f g h

In my opinion this is the best continuation, stopping Black's counterplay connected with the . . . b7-b5 advance. In order to gain a better understanding of the nuances of this line, I would like to show why I was not satisfied with other options:

1 0.d5 cxd5 1 1 .cxd5 b5 White cannot reach his optimal set-up (with �e3 and ttJd2) as Black is already threatening 12 .. . b4 attacking the e4-pawn.

1 O.�e3 b5 1 1 .c5 �b7 again leads to a rather double-edged position.

positional trumps (such as a grip on the b4-square), but White's space advantage is still more significant.

1 1 ..ie3 At this point Black has two main options,

Cl) l 1 .. . .ifB and C2) 1 1 ...exd4.

Cl) l 1 .. . .ifB

In this line Black keeps the tension in the centre, at least for the moment.

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12.'&c2 Meanwhile White continues with useful

moves and normal development. There is no point in changing the character of the game with 1 2.d5 as after 1 2 . . . Wc7 Black has reasonable play.

12 ... '&c7 Obviously 1 2 . . . exd4 1 3 .ttJxd4 would

transpose to our main line.

13J!adl g6 Again 1 3 . . . exd4 14 .ttJxd4 ttJc5 is another

path to the main destination.

14J'Uel lO ... aS I nstead 1 4.c5 is not so dangerous for Black:

An obvious reaction; Black gains some 1 4 . . . dxc5 1 5 .dxe5 ttJxe5 1 6.ttJxe5 Wxe5

Chapter 36 - Old Indian 585

And White cannot play 1 7.f4? In view of 1 7 . . . Wh5! .

14 ... exd4 Black takes on d4 now in order to avoid

specific problems with his other options. Thus it is very important that White is familiar with the following lines where Black attempts to maintain the tension:

1 4 . . . �g7 Now it is time to strike with:

1 5 .c5! dxc5 Even worse is 1 5 . . . exd4 1 6.cxd6 Wxd6 1 7.�xd4± followed by l S.e5.

1 6.dxe5 1Oxe5 1 7.lOxe5 Wxe5 I S .f4 Wc7 This time I S . . . Wh5 is met strongly by 1 9.e5 lOd7 20.g4 Wh4 2 1 .1Oe4 with an obvious advantage.

1 9.�xc5 �e6 20.e5 20.�f2!? also deserves serious attention.

20 . . . lOd5 2 1 .1Oe4 �edS 22.Wf2± White had a clear advantage in Leontiev -

Aleksikov, Moscow 1 996

1 4 . . . b6 1 5.d5! After Black has moved his b-pawn this move is much stronger, because the c6- or b5-squares will be weakened.

1 5 . . . �b7 Or: 1 5 . . . cxd5 1 6.cxd5 �a6 1 7.lOd2 �ecS I S.�fl and White has a significant positional advantage on the queenside, due to the weakness of Black's light squares.

1 6.dxc6 �xc6 1 7.lOd2 1Oc5 I S.lOdb 1 ! The knight i s heading for the b5-square via

a3; White undoubtedly has a positional edge.

1s.hd4!? This recapture is very interesting for White.

If instead 1 5 .lOxd4 lOc5 then Black has a slightly favourable version of the main line.

1S ... i.g7

Black has also tried 1 5 . . . b6. Now I like 1 6.lOh2!?N with the idea of preparing the f2-f4 advance. (In Matamoros Franco - Hick!, Seville 2006, White decided to regroup with 1 6.�e3 and after 1 6 . . . �a6 17.b3 b5 l S .axb5 cxb5 1 9.cxb5 �xb5 20.lOd4 �a6 2 1 .Wd2 White gained the upper hand. Still, Black should have more reliable moves than 16 . . . �a6.) 16 . . . �b7 1 7.f4 �g7 l S .g4 White slowly builds his activity on the kingside, while Black finds it hard to create any reasonable counterplay.

a b c d e f g h

16.ctJh2! ctJf8 This looks passive, but even after 1 6 . . . lOc5

1 7.f4 lOfd7 l S.�xg7 �xg7 1 9.1Ofl lOb6 20.lOe3 �e6 2 1 .b3± White is firmly in control.

17.f4 ctJe6 1 8.i.f2 ctJd7 19.ctJf3 ctJecS 20.i.d4 i.f8

White also has pressure after 20 . . . �xd4t 2 1 .�xd4 lOf6 22.�ed 1 ! .

21 .�h2 White's position is preferable. He can slowly

generate an offensive on the kings ide, while Black lacks any activity, Miezis - Heinig, Dresden 200S.

C2) 1 l ... exd4

586 Minor Systems

Black's most popular continuation, clarifying the situation in the centre immediately rather than maintaining the tension as in the previous line.

12.<�Jxd4 In this concrete situation I prefer to take

back with knight, but 1 2.ixd4!? is also a serious alternative.

12 ... lLlcs 13JWc2 ifS 14.�ad1 White is threatening 1 5 .tLlxcG followed by

1 G.ixc5.

14 . . JWc7 Instead in Grachev - Kurochkin, Moscow

2005, Black opted for: 1 4 . . . WbG

The game continued: 1 5 .f4 Wb4 1 G.b3 gG

After 1 G . . . id7 White just continues his plan with 1 7.g4.

1 7.g4!N In my view it would make no sense for White to j ust continue playing generally "useful" moves, since the time is right to start direct action, especially as the black queen is far from the kingside action. The following line is not forced, but it does illustrate typical play:

1 7 . . . ig7 1 8 .f5 tLlfd7 1 9.tLlce2 tLle5 White can develop his play either with

20.tLlc1 id7 2 1 .Wf2 or 20.tLlg3 id7 2 1 .fG!? In either case Black's position looks very dangerous.

1 S.f4!N I do not see any reason to refrai n from this

natural move. In practice, White has tried only the slow 1 5 .E:fe 1 and 1 5 .E:d2. After the text move, I examined the following lines:

1 S .. . g6 After 1 5 . . . tLlfd7 1 G.g4 tLlaG 1 7.g5 tLlb4

18 .We2 tLlc5 19 .h4 White's position looks extremely promising as again Black has no real counterplay.

16.ifl The text move is essential prophylaxis.

Instead the tempting 1 6.g4?! would lead to unnecessary complications after 1 6 . . . tLlfxe4! 17 .tLlxe4 tLlxe4 1 8 .ixe4 We7.

16 • . • tLlfd7 17.g4 ttJa6 A thematic regrouping, but Black hardly

achieves anything on the queenside.

1 8.£5 ttJb4 19.W'e2 ig7 20.ie3!

Conclusion:

The Old Indian looks like a more passive King's Indian and in this case looks are not deceiving. Our usual kingside fianchetto secures an edge, but Black's position is often rather solid. There are also some sharper lines, so the reader should study the lines above with care.

Minor Systems a b c d e f g h

Queen's Indian Attempt

Variation Index l .d4 liJf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 b6

4.�g2

note to 7 . . . 1le7 note to lO . . . /tJfd7 after 1 l . . ./tJa6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g b a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

l O.e4!?N 13 .e4N 1 2.e4!N

588 Minor Systems

l.d4 ltJf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 b6

a b c d e f g h

This is a bit of a left-over from the Catalan treated in the first book. I would not go so far as to call it wrong or dubious, but it is rather primitive. If Black is willing to play a Queen's Indian type of position he has a wide choice after 3 . . . d5 (with the bishop on a6 or b7 etc) .

4.�g2 d5 This position might also arise via the Catalan

move order l .d4 tiJf6 2.c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4.�g2 b6.

The alternative is 4 . . . c6

This is objectively worse, but in some ways more logical. Black plans to play . . . �a6 and . . . d5 at a suitable moment, but White has other plans.

5 .e4! The most principled and strongest response. If 5 .tiJf3 the play would almost certainly transpose to some version of the Catalan.

5 . . . d5 Black does not have much choice, as White was already threatening the unpleasant 6.e5.

6.e5 tiJfd7 Now it is obvious that White has a promising position with his spatial superiority. I worked out the following line for him.

7.tiJd2 A serious alternative might be 7.tiJe2!?

7 . . . �a6 I also examined 7 . . . �e7 8.tiJe2. (This is more flexible than 8.tiJf3.) The knight is heading for f4 where it will generate additional pressure against the d5-pawn, significantly hindering the . . . c6-c5 advance. 8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 �b7 1 0.tiJf4 tiJa6 l 1 .b3t and White has a pleasant edge.

a b c d e f g h 8.tiJe2!?N

I prefer this over the slow 8.b3 as occurred in Flear - Chapelle, Bastia 1 997, especially since Black now has an interesting opportunity to play 8 . . . c5!N (exploiting the slight vulnerability of White's centre after 8.b3) 9 .cxd5 exd5 1 0.tiJe2 (The d5-pawn is untouchable: 1 0.�xd5? tiJxe5 allows Black to seize the initiative.) 1 0 . . . tiJc6 with counterplay .

8 . . . �b4 9.tiJc3! It turns out that White can manage perfectly well without b2-b3.

9 . . . 0-0 1 0.0-0 dxc4 This is not forced, but if Black avoids the principled line it is obvious that he will have failed to equalize from the opening.

l 1 .tiJde4 �b7 The freeing attempt 1 1 . . . f5 does not bring any relief, as after 1 2.exf6 tiJxf6 1 3.tiJg5 l'!e8 1 4.l'!e1 White keeps serious pressure.

1 2.'lWg4 �h8 1 3 .'lWh5 f6 1 4.�f4

Chapter 37 - Queen's I ndian Attempt 589

White has a powerful initiative for the pawn.

5.cxd5 This move leads to a favourable version of

the Queen's Indian for White. He can also play S.lOf3 but he will usually want to take on dS at some point, and delaying it will only give Black extra options.

5 ... exd5 S . . . lOxdS

This is hardly advisable, as White gains a definite edge after:

6.e4 �b4t Now I believe the most accurate is:

7.�d2N If 7.lOd2 Goltsov - Aleshin, Tula 2003, it appears that Black can get away with 7 . . . lOe7!?N not fearing S.'�a4t lOec6 9.dS (9.lOe2 �a6 is also pretty unclear) 9 . . . exdS 1 0.exdS iWe7t with unclear complications.

7 . . . �xd2t s.iWxd2 lOe7 9.lOc3 �b7 1 O.lOf3 0-0 1 1 .0-0

White has a pleasant advantage, for instance:

1 1 . . .lOd7 12 .Elac 1 lOf6 1 3.iWe3t

a b c d e f g h

This is a natural move, but the knight can also consider an alternative route: 7. lOh3!? �e7 S.lOf4 0-0 9.0-0 EleS (9 .. . lOe4? simply blunders a pawn after 1 0.lOfXdS! Reshevsky - Tartakower, Nottingham 1 936.) 1 0.a3 h6 1 1 .b4t As often happens in these positions, White is slightly better but Black is not without chances, Flear - Savinel, Corsica 1 997.

7 ... ie7 The most popular choice, but we should also

consider another natural continuation: 7 . . . lObd7

This does not allow White the idea he executes in the main line.

S .O-O �e7 9.lOeS c6 The only playable move. 9 . . . 0-0? is a serious inaccuracy due to 1 0.iWa4! when Black is under serious pressure. One recent example continued 1 0 . . . lOxeS l 1 .dxeS lOeS and here in the game Miroshnichenko - Berlin, Minsk 2007, White missed an easy tactical trick: 1 2.lOxdS! �xdS 1 3.Eld1 regaining the material, with the possible continuation 1 3 . . . c6 1 4.e4 lOc7 l S .exdS cxdS 1 6.�e3 with a large advantage.

a b c d e f g h 1 0.e4!?N

This natural move does not appear to have been tried.

1 0 . . . dxe4 1 0 . . . 0-0?! runs into the neat 1 1 .lOxc6! �xc6 1 2.exdS �b7 1 3.d6 and White will emerge with an extra pawn.

590 Minor Systems

1 0 . . . 'Llxe4 1 1 .'Llxe4 dxe4 ( l l . . .'Llxe5 1 2.dxe5 dxe4 1 3 .Wg4 is clearly better for White) 1 2.Wg4 g6 1 3.Wxe4 and White has a pleasant, risk-free initiative.

1 1 .Wa4! The key point of White's previous move. Black's position seems pretty reliable after the natural 1 1 .'Llxe4 'Llxe4 1 2.�xe4 'Llxe5 1 3.dxe5 Wxd l 1 4.Elxd 1 ElbS! followed by a quick . . . c6-c5.

1 l . . .b5 Black also suffers after 1 1 . . .'Llxe5 1 2.dxe5 'Lld7 (or 1 2 . . . 'Lld5 1 3.Eld1 0-0 1 4.�xe4 with advantage) 1 3.Wxe4 'Llc5 1 4.Wg4 0-0 1 5 .�h6 'Lle6 1 6.'Lle4 with very promising play.

1 2.Wc2 0-0 1 3.'Llxe4 ElcS 1 4.�e3t White has a clear positional advantage,

thanks to the passivity of Black's light-squared bishop.

8.'1Wa4t!? I decided to concentrate on this move, which

aims to pose more concrete problems than the official main line.

After S.O-O 0-0 it seems like White has a slight pull almost everywhere, but at the same time Black always has a pretty sound position. The Queen's Indian has always been considered a very solid opening for Black and rightly so.

a b c d e f g h

8 . . . c6 This is the main reply. Let's have a look

atBlack's other options:

Unsatisfactory is S . . . �c6?! 9.Wc2 when the light-squared bishop is obviously misplaced on c6. 9 . . . 0-0 1 0.0-0 'Llbd7 1 1 .�f4 ElcS 1 2.Elac1 ( l 2.'Lle5!N �b7 1 3.Wa4 was even stronger) 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 .Elfd 1 �b7 14.�h3 h6 1 5 .'Lle5 c5 1 6.'Llxd7 'Llxd7 17.dxc5 Elxc5 l S .Wb3 with a clear advantage, Ivanchuk - Voigt, Mainz 2007.

Even worse is S . . . 'Llbd7? 9.'Lle5 0-0 and now Whi te is clearly better after 1 0.'Ll c6 ( l 0.0-0 was examined after 7 . . . 'Llbd7) 1 0 . . . �xc6 1 1 .Wxc6.

S . . . Wd7 This is the only truly playable alternative to the main line.

9.Wb3! I also checked 9.Wxd7t 'Llbxd7 10.'Llb5 and now Black should play 1 0 . . . 0-0! (White retains a slight edge after 1 0 . . . �b4 t 1 1 .�d2 �xd2t 1 2.'Llxd2 <j;>dS 1 3.Elc 1 . The trade of dark-squared bishops is usually favourable for White. 1 3 . . . a6 1 4.'Llc3 <j;>e7 1 5 .0-0 ElheS 1 6.Elc2t) 1 1 .'Llxc7 ElacS 1 2.'Llb5 'Lle4! and it looks like Black has interesting compensation for the sacrificed pawn. An approximate line runs 1 3.0-0 a6 14.'Lla3 �xa3 1 5 .bxa3 Elc2 1 6.Ele 1 'Lldf6 with plenty of activity.

9 . . . 0-0 1 0.0-0 Now Black's queen blocks what would have been a potential destination square for the bS-knight, while also being a target for a knight j ump to e5.

1 0 . . . 'Lla6 Clearly inferior is 1 0 . . . c5?! 1 1 .dxc5 �xc5 (if 1 1 . . .bxc5 1 2.'Lle5! Black loses a pawn) 1 2.Eld1 and Black has quite a poor version of the IQP position.

Chapter 37 - Queen's I ndian Attempt 591

l l .ttJe5 Wie6 12 .ig5 EladS I also examined 1 2 . . . c5 1 3.ixf6! gxf6 (This is forced; 1 3 . . . ixf6 14.ttJxd5 ixe5 1 5 .dxe5 is clearly favourable for White, as the e5-pawn is untouchable: 1 5 . . . Wixe5? 1 6.ttJf6t Wixf6 1 7.ixb7+-) 14.ttJf3 Although the black position is playable, the damaged kingside structure should enable White to count on a long-term edge.

13 .ttJd3 c6 After 1 3 . . . h6 14.ttJf4! Wid6 1 5 .ixf6 ixf6 16.ttJcxd5 ixd4 1 7.Elad l ± Black is under serious pressure.

1 4.a4! ? A very interesting idea, intending to attack Black's pawn formation on the queenside.

14 . . . h6 1 5 .ixf6 Wixf6 1 6.e3 id6 17.a5 b5 I S .Elfe l

White has a pleasant positional edge, Mitenkov - Dragomarezki j , Moscow 1 99 1 .

9.ltJe5! It is important to be precise with the move

order. In case of the natural 9.0-0 Black has the extra option of9 . . . ttJbd7.

9 . . . 0-0 After 9 . . . ttJfd7 10.ttJd3 0-0 1 l .0-0 we reach

the position from our main line.

10.0-0

a b c d e f g h

The point of White's opening strategy has been to hinder the development of the bSknight. Black must now decide how to solve that problem.

10 .. . ltJfd7 The alternatives are:

10 . . . b5 is hardly an ideal solution. Now Black can hardly hope to achieve the thematic . . . c6-c5 advance, and his light-squared bishop looks destined to remain passive for quite some time. 1 l .Wic2 Wib6 1 2.Eld l EldS was seen in the game Urban - Delander, Berlin 1 993.

a b c d e f g h Now I like the simple 1 3 .e4N with the

following approximate line: 1 3 . . . ttJa6 14 .ie3 ttJb4 1 5 .Wib3 a5 1 6.a4 bxa4 1 7.ttJxa4 Wic7 I S .Elae l with definite positional pressure.

1 0 . . . a5 l l .if4 b5 1 2.Wic2 Wib6 was tried in Cvitan - Vucinic, Novi Sad 1 9S5. Now instead of the slow 1 3 .Elad 1 , I suggest the more natural 1 3 .e4!. I examined the following line: 1 3 . . . ttJa6 14.exd5 cxd5 (If 1 4 . . . ttJb4 1 5 .Wie2 ttJbxd5 1 6.ixd5 cxd5 1 7.Wixb5 White keeps a healthy extra pawn) 1 5 .Wid3 ttJc7 1 6.Elfe 1 and White has serious positional pressure.

1 1 .ltJd3 ltJa6 This position has occurred a few times in

tournament practice, but White somehow refrained from the following natural move:

592 Minor Systems

12.e4!N Breaking open the centre is the best way to

fight for the initiative.

12 ... dxe4 13.lDxe4 lDc7 The knight is heading for d5, easing the

pressure along the h I -a8 diagonal. Nevertheless White's position remains preferable after:

14J�e1

a b c d e f g h

14 .. J'ge8 If I 4 . . . lLJd5 White maintains the initiative by

means of I 5 .lLJc3 lLJ7f6 I 6.lLJe5 �d6 I 7.id2.

lS.tLlc3 Black is under some pressure, for instance:

l S ... tLldS 16.tLlxdS cxdS 17.if4 tLlf6 1 8J�ac1�


Conclusion:

The set-up with 3 . . . b6 is rarely seen at high levels, but it generally leads to quite solid positions for Black. That is why I was attracted to the slightly unusual 8.�a4t!?, which takes Black away from his usual comfort zone and immediately poses concrete problems for the defence. After inducing the defensive move . . . c6, the plan of breaking open the centre with e4 seems quite appealing. Obviously Black's set-up cannot be refuted, but White can certainly obtain a pleasant position with good chances for an ongoing initiative.

Minor Systems

Odd Ideas

Variation Index l.d4

A) 1 ...e5?! B) 1 ...tlJc6 2.d5 tlJe5 3.e4 e6 4.£4 tlJg6 5.dxe6

B l) 5 ... fxe6 B2) 5 ... dxe6

A) after 1 1 . . . tLlh6

� �.t. � � 8 � i. � ." �;I;i?" � ��'li'" 7 � i�i�i.i 6 .. . '� i\� ;I;� .... 'r .. "' 5 r��m

l1 4

�� . '� ' .... . � 3 �� ' ... . �� ?Ji." �?Ji" 2 t::, � t::, � � t::, � t::, � �.''''?0'Z{';''.'''' l � � �.t�H

a b c d e f g h

1 2.f4!?N

B l ) after 8 . . . tLlh4

8

7

6

5

4

2

a b c d e f g h

9.tLlg5!N

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b

8

7

6

5

4

2

a b c d e f g h

B2) 1 4 . . . tLlf5

c d e f

1 5 J':lhdl !N

g

594 596 597 599

h

594 Minor Systems

In trus chapter we shall look at two odd ideas in reply to our favourite pawn push.

l .d4 Our lines in this chapter are A) 1 ...eS?! and

B) 1 ... 1lJ c6.

A) 1 ...eS?!

8 �_.t�*mlj)�� 7 �6'''_''/.� ',�_', 6 "� '�

�� "�

5 .�.�

.�

� 1111

�� ''11 ' ' ' ' /.' �� 4 m � m �

�� ""./.�� 3 �0" ��

�0" �0'" 2 f)Jlj� ��Jll/;:J� l �CZJ�if�.f,m� / ,/� % , :/./. , a b c d e f g h

This seems to me the worst possible reply to White's first move. I am sure you will not be surprised to learn that White accepts the sacrifice.

2.dxeS llJc6 3.11Jf3 We7 This is Black's main idea: he either hopes to

regain the pawn, or to j ump with his queen to b4 in search of tricks.

3 .. .f6 I cannot take this gambit seriously either. White is a pawn up for absolutely nothing.

4.exf6 Also worthy of consideration is 4.e4 with the idea 4 . . . fxe5 5 .�c4 'Df6 6.'Dg5, but I definitely prefer to play with a healthy extra pawn.

4 . . . 'Dxf6 Many set-ups are possible and Black's compensation is really questionable. I worked out the following arrangement for White:

5 .g3 d5 Or 5 ... �c5 6.�g2 d6 7.0-0 �f5 8 .'Dc3 (8.c3 followed by 9.'Dd4 is also a nice idea) 8 . . . \Wd7 as in Umansky - Walter, Augsburg 200 1 . Now in the game White was better after 9.'Da4, but I believe even stronger would be 9.�g5N with the idea of capturing the knight followed by 'Dd5. 9 . . . 'De4 (horrible for Black would be 9 . . . 0-0-0 1 0.�xf6 gxf6 1 1 .'Dd5 and White will easily create a queenside attack with c3, b4, a4 and so on) 1 0.'Da4 �b6 1 1 .�f4 With the idea 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2.'Dxb6 axb6 1 3.'Dh4! with a huge advantage, as Black has to give up his second bishop.

6.�g2 �c5 7.0-0 0-0

a b c d e f g h 8 .�g5 �e6 9.'Dc3 a6

Obviously this is a very slow move, but even after the best line 9 . . . h6 1 0.�xf6 :gxf6 1 1 .'De1 ! �d4 1 2.'Dd3 �xc3 1 3.bxc3 White's advantage is undisputable.

1 0.'De1 'De7 1 1 .'Dd3 �d6 1 2.�xf6 :gxf6 1 3.e4

White had a decisive advantage in Kludacz Savary, Rennes 2008.

4.Af4 One approach for White would be to guess

that you will face this line once in your l ife, and decide to play something l ike 4.'Dc3 'Dxe5 5 .e4, or 4.g3 'Dxe5 5 .�g2, developing normally, while Black's queen is obviously

Chapter 3S - Odd ideas 595

misplaced on e7. But when working on this book I fel t Black's dubious opening deserves to be refuted, which is why I decided to develop a line based on the principled 4.�f4.

Another quite promising idea is 4.�d5 f6 5.exf6 ltJxf6 6.�b3. White seems to be a pawn up.

4 .. .'.Wb4t The point of Black's 3rd move. Instead Black

has absolutely no compensation after 4 . . . f6 5 .exf6 �xf6 6.�c1 . After 6 . . . d5, as played in Solozhenkin - Bocchicchio, Montecatini Terme 1 999, White could easily have accepted the second pawn: 7.�xc7 �f5 S.c3 with an enormous advantage.

5.i1.d2 �xb2

This is the moment Black has been waiting for. However, we are not going to walk into the trap.

6.liJc3! There is a famous childish trick: 6.�c3??

�b4 7.�d2? �xc3 S.�xc3 �c1 mate!

6 . . . i1.b4 The only more or less playable continuation.

Other options are j ust bad:

6 . . . a6 7J::lb 1 �a3 S.ltJd5 i>dS 9.e4 with a huge advantage for White.

6 . . . ltJb4 7.ltJd4 c6 (If7 . . . c5 S.E:b 1 �a3 9.ltJdb5 then Black's position is hopeless: 9 ... �a5 l O.a3 ltJa6 1 1 .ltJe4 Followed by a check on d6.) S.E:b 1 �a3 9.E:b3 �a5 1 0.a3 ltJd5 1 1 .ltJf5 !N Black can hardly survive for long. For example, l l . . .ltJxc3 1 2.�xc3 �dS 1 3 .e4 with complete domination.

7.E:bl Wfa3 8.clld5 Out of all the promising continuations the

text seems to me the most accurate.

8 • . . i1.a5 The alternative is:

S . . . �xd2t 9.�xd2 �xa2 1 0.E:d1 i>dS After 1 0 ... i>fS 1 1 .ltJxc7 E:bS 1 2.ltJb5 Black has no extra material to compensate for his suffering.

1 1 .ltJg5 ltJh6

a b c d e f g h 1 2.e6!

A nice tactical trick, although even after the modest 1 2.f4 White's compensation for the pawn would be more than sufficient.

1 2 . . . d6N Obviously the only move. Strangely enough, in both games that reached this position Black lost in the same way: 1 2 . . . �a5? 1 3 .e7t! i>eS 1 4.�xa5 ltJxa5 1 5 .ltJxc7t �xe7 1 6.ltJxa8 and White wins.

596 Minor Systems

I 3.exf7 I 3 .e7t is not entirely clear, as Black calmly continues: I 3 .. .';i;>d7 ( l 3 . . . 'Llxe7 loses to I 4.'Llxc7) I4.g3 "Wa5 I 5 . .ih3t f5!

I 3 . . . E1f8 I 4.'Llxc7! The decisive blow.

I4 . . . �xc7 I 5 ."Wxd6t �b6 I 6.'Lle4! The point. I 6."WxfS? leads to a perpetual after I 6 . . . "Wa5t I7 .E1d2 "Wal t.

1 6 . . . "Wxc2 I 6 . . . .if5 loses on the spot to 1 7.'Llc3 "Wxc2 l S .'Lld5t.

1 7.'Lld2 E1xf7 1 8 .E1b 1 t "Wxb 1 t I 9.'Llxb 1 White has a decisive advantage.

9.l:!b5 ixd.2t 9 . . . a6? is just a blunder, but was still played

in Koenig - Neumann, Heroldsbach 1 997. White decided the issue immediately with 1 0.E1xa5! 'Llxa5 1 1 .'Llxc7t.

10."Wxd.2 �d8 1 1 .tLlg5 The modest 1 1 .c3 also deserves attention:

1 1 . . .'Llge7 1 2.e4 'Llxd5 1 3 .E1xd5 �e7 I 4.'Lld4 'Llxd4 1 5.cxd4 With a clear advantage, as in Luzuriaga - Valverde Lopez, e-mail 2002.

1 1 ...tLlh6 Now I believe White should continue with:

8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

a b c d e f g h

12.f4!?N

This is a slight improvement over 1 2.e4 'Llxe5 I3 .E1b3 "Wd6 I 4.f4 'Llc6, as in Hartwich - Grott, e-mail 1 999, where White also gained a clear advantage.

12 ... a6 Or I 2 . . . E1e8 I 3.e3 "Wxa2 14 . .ie2 with a big

advantage.

13.l:!h3 Wxa2 14.ltJc3 Walt 15.l:!hl Wa5 16.e3

Despite being a pawn up, Black's position is close to losing, as the following line illustrates:

16 ... l:!e8 17.ic4 'Llxe5 18.fxe5 Wxe5 19.ixf'7! Wxg5 20.ixe8 �xe8 2 1 .ctJd5 We5 22.0-0

White wins.

B) 1 ...tLlc6

This move is very seldom seen at GM level, although of course there was a Kramnik -Short game at the Dresden Olympiad. White has a pleasant choice between the main move 2.d5, or 2.'Llf3 transposing to the Chigorin Defence. Also 2.c4 e5 3.d5 is a decent way of fighting for an advantage.

2.d5 This is undoubtedly the most principled

con tinuation.

2 ... ctJe5 3.e4 It is like watching the Alekhine Defence in

a mirror.

3 ... e6 In my OpllllOn this is the only playable

independent line.

3 . . . 'Llg6 is an acceptable move order as after 4.f4 both 4 ... e5 and 4 . . . e6 would transpose to our main line after 5 .dxe6.

Chapter 38 - Odd ideas 597

3 . . . d6 This seems very passive to me.

4.f4 ltJg6 5 .ltJf3 e5 6.dxe6 Less clear is 6.f5 ltJ6e7 and Black has the idea of undermining White's centre from both flanks by means of . . . g7 -g6 and . . . c7 -c6.

6 . . . fxe6 7.�d3 Black has serious difficulties with developing his kingside.

7 . . . ltJf6 I also investigated 7 . . . e5 when Black's position is very difficult after 8.f5 ltJ6e7 9.0-0 ltJf6 1 0.ltJc3 . Now I worked out the following line: 1 0 . . . ltJc6 1 l .ltJg5! h6 12.ltJe6 �xe6 1 3.fxe6 White's advantage is probably decisive, as ltJd5 is coming with devastating effect, while 1 3 . . . �e7 loses immediately to 14.1hf6 followed by 'IWh5.

8.e5!N This natural advance seems much stronger than 8.0-0 c6 9.<j;lhl as in Skodvin -Wrangell, Norway 1 99 1 .

8 . . . ltJd5 8 . . . dxe5 does not bring Black much relief: 9.fxe5 (less clear is 9.�xg6t hxg6 1 O.'Wxd8t <j;lxd8 l l .ltJxe5 1'%h5 1 2.ltJxg6 �d6 and Black has some compensation for his missing pawn) 9 . . . ltJg4 1 O.'We2 'Wd5 1 l .�xg6t hxg6 1 2.�d2 Followed by ltJc3 and 0-0-0; Black's position looks very dangerous.

9.�xg6t hxg6 1 0.'Wd3 White is clearly better.

4.£4 Again this is the most principled decision.

The difference with the immediate 4.dxe6 is that after 4 . . . fxe6 5 .f4 Black's knight is not obliged to go to g6 and can step back to the more flexible f7 -square.

4 . . . lLlg6 Only move. 4 . . . �c5? loses simply to: 5.dxe6

�xgl (the point is that Black cannot recapture with the f-pawn: 5 . . . fxe6 6.'Wh5t) 6.1'%xgl ltJc6 7.exf7t <j;lxf7 8.�c4t+- Hulak - Mestrovic, Yugoslavia 1 983.

5.dxe6

Bl) 5 ... fxe6 6.ftJf3 .ic5

After 6 . . . d6 7.�d3 the play would transpose to the 3 . . . d6-line.

7.lLlc3 lLlh6 The most frequently played continuation. I

also investigated two other options:

7 . . . ltJf6 8.e5 ttJg4 9.ttJe4 'We7 After 9 . . . ttJe3 1 O .�xe3 �xe3 l l .g3 White's advantage is obvious. For example: 1 1 . . .'We7

598 Minor Systems

1 2.a3 Before starting concrete action, White takes the necessary prophylactic action by covering the b4-square. 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 .Wfd3 �xf4 (Black tries to complicate matters, as after 1 3 . . . �b6 1 4.0-0-0± it is hard to see how Black is going to develop his queenside) 1 4.gxf4 tLlxf4 This was Sutkovic - Kalajzic, Croatia 2006, and now after the accurate 1 5 .Wfd2 tLlg6 ( 1 5 . . . b6 runs into 1 6.tLlf6t! �xf6 1 7.exf6 Wfxf6 1 8.Wfd4 with a decisive advantage) 1 6.Wfe3! Black still has no compensation.

1 0.We2!?N I believe this move is stronger than 1 0.d as in Hampel - Malinin, corr. 1 997, which looks pretty s low.

1 0 . . . 0-0 1 l .tLlfg5 tLlh6 1 2.g3 d5 This seems to me like Black's only decent try to create some activity.

1 3.tLlxc5 Wxc5 14 .�e3 d4 White also retains an edge after 1 4 . . . Wfe7 1 5 .0-0-0 tLlf5 1 6.�f2 h6 1 7.tLlf3 and White is ready to start an offensive by means of h4-h5, followed by g3-g4.

1 5 .�gl Wfb4t 1 6.Wfd2 Wfxd2t 1 7.�xd2 tLlf5 1 8 .�c4 �e8 1 9.�f2

White has a clear advantage.

7 . . . d6 8.tLla4! White should take the opportunity to exchange Black's dark-squared bishop.

8 . . . �b6 9.tLlxb6 axb6

a b c d e f g h

1 O.�d3!N This is an obvious improvement over 1 0.e5 tLl8e7 when matters were not so clear 10

Ruban - Ermenkov, Miskolc 1 990. 1 0 . . . tLl8e7

1 0 . . . tLlf6 runs into the unpleasant l 1 .e5. 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.g3±

White is better due to his bishop pair and space advantage. We also should not forget about Black's misplaced knight on g6.

8.£5! This is a very active and principled move.

8 . . . lLlh4 The alternative is 8 . . . exf5 9.�g5 �e7 (if

9 .. . tLle7 then 1 0.�xh6 gxh6 1 1 .Wfd2± poses Black serious problems) 1 0.�xh6 gxh6 I I .exf5 tLlh4 1 2.tLlxh4 �xh4t 1 3.g3 Wfen as in D. Obukhov - Davidovich, USA 2004. Now many moves lead to an advantage for White, but the most accurate is: 14 .�e2 �g5 1 5 .Wfd4 �f6 (instead 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6.tLld5 Wfd6 1 7.0-0 is also clearly better for White) 1 6.Wfc4!±

8 . . . tLlg4 is simply bad in view of 9.fxg6 tLlf2 1 0.Wfe2 tLlxhl 1 1 .�g5 �e7 1 2.�xe7 Wfxe7 1 3.0-0-0± and Black's knight is trapped in the corner.

Chapter 38 - Odd ideas 599

This unexpected knight jump (with the idea of'IWh5) poses Black serious problems.

In Minasian - Teran Alvarez, Ubeda 1 999, White opted for the natural 9.g3 tt:lxf3t 1 0.'lWxf3 and was better in this complicated position.

9 . . . exf5 There are other moves such as 9 . . . 0-0

1 0.'lWh5 when Black simply loses his knight for no compensation, or 9 . . . tt:l6xf5 1 0.exf5 tt:lxf5 1 1 .i.d3 when White has a large advantage.

1O.\Wh5t CtJg6 l 1 .exf5 lLlxf5 Black loses by force after 1 1 . . .'lWe7t 1 2.tt:lge4

i.b4 1 3.i.d3 'lWh4t 14 .'lWxh4 CLlxh4 1 5 .i.xh6 gxh6 1 6.0-0 and the knight is trapped on h4.

12.td3 Black has no defence against White's direct

threats, for instance:

12 ••• d5 1 2 . . . 'lWf6 does not help, as after 1 3.l"m d6

14 .'lWe2t White is winning.

15.h3! Black cannot avoid losing material.

B2) 5 ... dxe6 6.\Wxd8t �xd8 7.CtJO

8 �� A � W��0 a �.JL�� w.�a '-% �%i'�""%� ..... .-;%i.�' . . . . : "�i·.!-�:j 5 �

� ,,��

� " ��

��p�' 4 m m 8 �fJ _

� ��W&��W& 3 ��'-% ��

2 8 r� 8_ .8 � . . . . 0 . . . . %%!'0 W&?0'0� W&.' . . , l �QJ� m�alI a b c d e f g h

In my opinion, despite the exchange of queens, Black has not managed to solve his problems, as the arising endgame is highly unpleasant for Black due mainly to two factors. Firstly, Black's wandering king is a constant problem. Secondly, his knight is clearly misplaced on g6, where it is restricted by White's f4-pawn, and it will definitely take time to re-enter the game. Meanwhile, White enjoys a pleasant space advantage and can choose between many possible set-ups.

7 ... tc5 Black's most popular move. The other

options are:

7 . . . i.b4t This seems pointless, as White's pawn wil l be very useful on c3.

8.c3 i.c5 9.i.d3 I also l ike 9.CLlbd2 with the idea of meeting 9 . . . CLlf6 with the immediate 1 0.e5 followed by 1 1 .CLle4, while the f4-pawn is certainly untouchable in view of 9 ... CLlxf4 1 0,CLlb3 i.d6 1 1 .e5 winning a piece.

9 .. ,CLlf6 1 0.�e2 a5 1 1 .g3 \!;e7 1 2.CLlbd2 a4 After 1 2 . . . Eld8 White executes the same idea: 1 3.e5 CLld5 1 4.CLle4 i.b6 1 5 .a3! With the unpleasant idea of driving Black's knight from d5 with 1 6.c4.

600 Minor Systems

1 3.e5 lLld5 14 .lLle4 �b6 1 5 .�d2! White was much better in Karpov -

Berlandier, Internet Simul 1 998.

7 . . . lLlf6

a b c d e f g h 8 .e5!?N

A novelty, but in my opinion a very natural reaction. Previously White has mainly tried 8 .lLlc3, but after 8 . . . �b4 9.�d3 �d7 1 0.0-0 �c5t 1 1 .�h1 lLlg4 the position was not at all clear in 1. Smirnov - Zubarev, Alushta 200 1 .

8 . . . lLld5 9.g3 As in the previous line, White's main idea is to slowly prepare the c2-c4 advance, driving back Black's knight from the centre. The following line is not forced, but shows the main ideas:

9 . . . �c5 1 0.a3 �d7 1 1 .�d3 �c6 Or 1 l . . .a5 1 2.lLlbd2 �c6 1 3.lLle4 �b6 l 4.�e2± and next 1 5.c4.

1 2.b4 �b6 l 3 .�e2 White is clearly better, thanks to his huge

space advantage. Black's minor pieces hardly have any good squares.

8.lLlc3 lLlf6 I also examined:

8 . . . �d7 9.�d3 lLlf6 10.e5 lLlg4 1 1 .lLle4 �b6 If 1 1 . . .�e3 l 2.h3 �xcl 1 3 .l':!xcl lLle3 14 .�f2 lLld5 1 5 .g3± the swap of darksquared bishops does not really help Black, and White is clearly better.

1 2.h3 lLle3 1 3.�xe3 �xe3 14.g3 There is a well-known saying: if you have one bad piece, then your whole position is bad. This is probably the case here, as Black's knight is poorly placed on g6.

1 4 . . . �c6 l 5 .�e2 �b6 l 6.c4 �xe4 l 7.�xe4 c6 1 8 .b4

White is dominant.

9.e5 ttJd5 10.lLle4 �b6 1 l .g3 i.d7 12.i.d2 lLle3 13.�d3 �c6 14.@e2 lLlfS

lSJ3hdl!N @c8 16.b4 l3d8 17.a4 Black is really suffering.

Conclusion:

There is no doubt 1 . . .e5 is a dubious continuation and I think the line I recommend is very close to be a refutation. On the other hand 1 . . . lLlc6 has some point, for example if 2.lLlf3 d5 3.c4 �g4 White would reach a line of the Chigorin Defence that is not part of my repertoire. Instead my recommendation of 2.d5! is very challenging and forces Black to choose between a dangerous position after 5 . . . fxe6 and a passive endgame if 5 . . . dxe6.

Index of Variations Chapter 1

l .d4 tLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 .ib4t 4 . .id2 cS s . .ixb4 cxb4 6 . .ig2 A) 6 . . . d5 14 B ) 6 . . . 0-0 7.e4 d6 8.ctJe2 1 5

B l ) 8 . . . ctJc6 1 5 B2) 8 . . . e5 9.a3 1 6

B2 l ) 9 . . . ctJa6 1 7 B22) 9 . . . �b6 1 8

Chapter 2

l .d4 tLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 .ib4t 4 . .id2 .ixd2t S.�xd2 A) 5 . . . 0-0 6.ig2 d6 20 B) 5 ... d5 6.ctJf3 0-0 7.ig2 2 1

B l ) 7 . . Y!Je7 22 B 1 l ) 8 . . . dxc4 22 B 12) 8 .. . b6 23 B 1 3) 8 . . . l"ld8 24

B2) 7 . . . ctJbd7 8.0-0 25 B2 l ) 8 . . . dxc4 25 B22) 8 .. . �e7 26 B23) 8 . . . c6 28

Chapter 3

l .d4 lDf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 .ib4t 4 . .id2 as S . .ig2 A) 5 . . . d6 3 1 B) 5 . . . 0-0 3 1 C) 5 . . . d 5 6.ctJf3 0-0 7.0-0 32

C l ) 7 ... c6 33 C2) 7 ... ctJc6 33

Chapter 4

l .d4 tLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 .ib4t 4 . .id2 �e7 s.lDf3 A) 5 . . . b6 6.ig2 ib7 7.0-0 37

A l ) 7 . . . 0-0 37 A2) 7 ... ixd2 8.�xd2 39

A2 l ) 8 . . . d6 39 A22) 8 . . . 0-0 4 1

602 Grandmaster Repertoire 2 - 1 .d4 Volume Two

B) 5 . . . 0-0 6.�g2 �xd2t 7.'lWxd2 d6 8.lLlc3 e5 9.0-0 43 B 1 ) 9 . . . lLlc6 43 B2) 9 . . . �g4 44 B3) 9 . . . ge8 44

C) 5 . . . lLlc6 6.lLlc3 45 C 1 ) 6 . . . d5 46 C2) 6 . . . 0-0 7.�g2 48

C2l ) 7 .. . d6 48 C22) 7 .. . lLla5 49

C3) 6 . . . �xc3 7.�xc3 lLle4 8.gc1 50 C3 1 ) 8 . . . d6 50 C32) 8 . . . 0-0 9.�g2 d6 1 0.d5 lLld8 1 1 .0-0 e5 l 2.lLld2 lLlxc3 l 3 .gxc3 53

C321 ) 13 . . . b6 54 C322) 13 .. . �d7 55 C323) 13 . . . f5 l 4.c5 lLlf7 1 5 .'lWb3 b6 1 6.cxd6 cxd6 l7 .'lWa3! 56

C323 1 ) 17 . . . �b7 56 C3232) 1 7 ... e4 57 C3233) l7 .. . a5 57

Chapter 5

l .d4 ctJf6 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS ctJe4?! 4.a3 A) 4 . . . b6 60 B) 4 . . . lLlc6 62 C) 4 . . . 'lWh4 63 D) 4 . . . d6 64

Chapter 6

l.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 eS 3.dxeS ctJg4 4.ctJf3 A) 4 ... �b4t?! 67 B) 4 . . . lLlc6 5 .�f4 �b4t 6.lLlbd2 68

B 1 ) 6 . . .f6 68 B2) 6 ... 'lWe7 7.e3! lLlgxe5 8.lLlxe5 lLlxe5 9.�e2 7 1

B2 1 ) 9 . . . d6 72 B22) 9 . . . b6 74 B23) 9 . . . �xd2t 76 B24) 9 . . . 0-0 78 B25) 9 .. . a5! 8 1

C) 4 . . . �c5 5.e3 lLlc6 6.lLlc3 0-0 7.�e2 lLlgxe5 8 .lLlxe5 lLlxe5 9 .0-0 83 C1 ) 9 ... d6 84 C2) 9 . . . a5 86 C3) 9 . . . ge8 86

I ndex of Variations

Chapter 7

l.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 h5 A) 6.e4!? It:lxe4 7YJie2 Vlie7 8 .ig2 93

AI ) 8 . . . lt:ld6 94 A2) 8 . . .f5! 94

B) 6.lt:lf3!? 95 B 1 ) 6 . . . ib7 96 B2) 6 . . . d6 7.e4 97

B2 1 ) 7 . . . a6 98 B22) 7 . . . b4N 1 00

Chapter 8

l .d4 llJf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 id6 6.llJc3 0-0 7.ig2 A) 7 . . . ie5 1 03 B) 7 . . . ic7 1 04 C) 7 .. j''&e8 1 05

Chapter 9

603

l .d4 e6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 exd5 4.cxd5 d6 5.lLlc3 g6 6.llJf3 ig7 7.g3 lLle7 8.ig2 0-0 9.0-0 a6 10.a4 A) 1 0 . . . h6 1 1 0 B) 1 0 . . . lt:lf5 I I I C) 1 0 . . . lt:ld7 1 1 1

Chapter 10

l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 d6 4.lLlc3 g6 5.lLlf3 ig7 6.g3 o-0 7.ig2 A) 7 . . . e5 8.0-0 1 1 5

A 1 ) 8 . . . lt:lg4 1 1 5 A2) 8 . . . lt:la6 1 1 6 A3) 8 . . . lt:le8 1 17 A4) 8 . . . lt:lh5 1 1 8

B) 7 . . . lt:la6 8.0-0 It:lc7 9.a4 1 1 9 B 1 ) 9 . . . lt:la6 1 20 B2) 9 . . . l'%b8 1 0.e4 1 2 1

B2 l ) 1 0 . . . b6 1 2 1 B22) 1 0 . . . ig4 1 24


Chapter 1 1

l.d4 ltJf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5 4.ltJc3 d6 5.e4 A) 5 . . . g6 6.�e2 1 27

A I ) 6 .. .tZlbd7 1 28 A2) 6 . . . a6 1 28 A3) 6 . . . �g7 1 29

B) 5 . . . CLJbd7 6.�d3 1 3 1 B 1 ) 6 . . . g6 1 3 1 B2) 6 . . . �e7 7.CLJge2 1 32

B2 1 ) 7 . . . g6 1 32 B22) 7 . . . h5 1 33 B23) 7 . . . CL:Jf8 1 34 B24) 7 . . . 0-0 1 35

C) 5 . . . �e7 6.g3 0-0 7.�g2 1 36 C1 ) 7 . . . CLJa6 1 37 C2) 7 . . . CLJe8 1 37 C3) 7 . . . CLJbd7 8 .CLJge2 1 39

C3 1 ) 8 . . . CLJe8 1 39 C2) 7 . . . ttJe8 C3) 7"'ttJbd7 8 'ttJge2

C3 1 ) 8 . . . tLle8 C32) 8 . . . a6

Chapter 1 2

l .d4 c5 2.d5 A) 2 . . . b5 145 B) 2 . . .f5 1 47 C) 2 . . . e5 3 .e4 d6 4.�b5t!? 1 49

C l ) 4 . . . �d7 5 .a4! 1 49 C 1 1 ) 5 . . . g6 1 50 C 1 2) 5 . . . �e7 1 5 1

C2) 4 . . . CLJd7 1 5 1 0) 2 . . . e6 3.CLJc3 1 54

0 1 ) 3 . . . CLJf6 4.e4 d6 5 .�b5t!? 1 5 5 0 1 1 ) 5 . . . CLJbd7?! 1 55 0 1 2) 5 . . . �d7 1 56

02) 3 . . . d6 4.e4 1 58 02 1 ) 4 . . . exd5 5.CLJxd5 CLJf6 6.CLJf3 1 58

021 1 ) 6 . . . CLJxd5 1 5 8 02 1 2) 6 . . . �e7 1 60

022) 4 . . . a6 1 60 03) 3 . . . exd5 1 62

I ndex of Variations

Chapter 13

l.d4 ttJf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.ttJc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.g3 g6 7.ig2 ig7 8.ttJf3 0-0 9.0-0 A) 9 . . . �g4 1 66 B) 9 . . . b6 1 67 C) 9 . . . �e8 1 0.ttJd2 1 69

C l ) 1 0 . . . ttJg4 1 69 C2) 1 0 . . . b6 1 69

D) 9 . . . a6 1 70 E) 9 . . . Vf1e7 1 73 F) 9 . . . ttJa6 1 0.h3 1 75

F l ) 1 0 . . . �d7 1 76 F2) 1 0 . . . �e8 1 77 F3) 1 0 . . .tLlc7 1 78

G) 9 . . . lLlbd7 1 0.a4! �e8 l 1 .lLld2 a6 1 2.h3 1 79 G 1 ) 1 2 . . . lLlh5 1 3.lLlce4 1 8 1 G2) 1 2 . . . �b8 1 3.lLlc4 1 82

Chapter 14

G2l ) 1 3 . . . lLlb6 1 4.lLla3 �d7 1 5 .e4 1 82 G21 1 ) 1 5 . . . lLlc8 1 84 G2 1 2) 1 5 . . . Vf1c7 1 85

G22) 1 3 . . . lLle5 14.lLla3 1 86 G22 1 ) 1 4 . . . Vf1c7?! 1 87 G223) 1 4 . . . �d7 1 88 G224) 1 4 . . . lLlh5 1 5 .e4 1 89

G224 1 ) 1 5 . . . �d7 1 89 G2242) 1 5 . . . �f8 1 6.cj;lh2 1 92

G2242 l ) 1 6 . . . �d7 1 93 G22422) 1 6 .. .f5 1 94

G2243) 1 5 . . . f5 1 96

l .d4 ttJf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 A) 4 . . . e6 202 B) 4 . . . a6 5 .bxa6 203

B l ) 5 . . . �xa6 203 B2) 5 . . . e6 204 B3) 5 . . . g6 6.lLlc3 �xa6 7.g3 d6 8.�g2 �g7 9.lLlf3 206

B3 1 ) 9 . . . lLlfd7!? 206 B32) 9 . . . lLlbd7 1 0.�b 1 ! 208

B32 1 ) 1 0 . . . lLlb6 209 B322) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .0-0 2 1 0

B322 1 ) 1 1 . . .lLlb6 2 1 1 B3222) 1 1 . . .lLle8 2 1 2

605

606 Grandmaster Repertoire 2 - l .d4 Volume Two

B3223) 1 1 . . .Wt'a5 1 2.!d2 2 1 3 B3223 1 ) 1 2 . . . ltJg4 2 1 4 B32232) 1 2 . . .l'%£b 8 1 3 .Wt'c2 2 1 5

Chapter 15

l .d4 f5 2.ltJf3 lLIf6 3.g3 e6 4.i.g2 d5 5.0-0 A) 5 . . . !e7 6.c4 0-0 7.ltJbd2 222

A I ) 7 . . . ltJc6 222 A2) 7 ... c6 8.ltJe5 223

A2 1 ) 8 . . . b6 224 A22) 8 . . . !d7 225 A23) 8 . . . ltJbd7 225

B) 5 . . . !d6 6.c4 c6 7 .ltJc3 0-0 8.Wt'c2 227 B 1 ) 8 ... Wt'e7 229 B2) 8 . . . !d7 229 B3) 8 . . . Wt'e8 230 B4) 8 ... ltJe4 9.:B:b 1 233

Chapter 16

B41 ) 9 . . . !d7 233 B42) 9 . . . ltJd7 1 0.b4 234

B42 1 ) 1 0 . . . ltJdf6 234 B422) 1 0 .. b5!? 235

B43) 9 . . . a5 236 B44) 9 . . . Wt'e7 1 0.b4 239

B44 1 ) 10 . . . !xb4 239 B442) 10 ... ltJd7 240 B443) 10 . . . !d7 24 1 B444) 1 0 . . . b5 24 1

B32232 1 ) 1 3 . . . Wt'c7 2 16 B322322) 1 3 . . . ltJe8 2 1 7 B322323) 1 3 . . . ltJg4 2 1 7

l .d4 f5 2.g3 lLIf6 3.i.g2 e6 4.c4 i.e7 s.lLIf3 0-0 6.0-0 A) 6 . . . Wt'e8 244 B) 6 . . . ltJe4 245 C) 6 . . . d6 7.ltJc3 246

C1 ) 7 . . . ltJc6!? 246 C2) 7 ... a5 8 .b3 249

C2 1 ) 8 . . . ltJa6 249 C22) 8 . . . ltJe4 249

C3) 7 . . . ltJe4 8.ltJxe4 fxe4 9.ltJd2 d5 1 0.f3! 25 1 C3 1 ) 1 0 . . . exf3 252

Index of Variations 607

C32) 1 0 . . . tDc6 252 C4) 7 . . . We8 8.b3 253

C4 1 ) 8 . . . tDc6 253 C42) 8 . . . tDbd7 254 C43) 8 . . . c6 255 C44) 8 . . . Wh5 255 C45) 8 . . . a5 9.�b2 256

C45 1 ) 9 . . . tDc6 257 C452) 9 . . . Wh5 257 C453) 9 . . . c6 258 C454) 9 . . . tDa6 259

Chapter 17

l .d4 f5 2.lbn 1tJf6 3.g3 g6 4 . .ig2 .ig7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 A) 6 . . . c5 263 B) 6 . . . d6 7.�b2 265

B l ) 7 . . . a5 265 B2) 7 . . . e6 266 B3) 7 ... c6 267 B4) 7 ... tDe4 8.tDbd2 tDxd2 9.Wxd2 270

B4 1 ) 9 . . . tDd7 27 1 B42) 9 . . . tDc6 272

B5) 7 . . . e5?! 273 B6) 7 . . . h6 275 B7) 7 . . . tDc6 276 B8) 7 . . . We8 8.c4 278

B8 1 ) 8 . . . e5 9.dxe5 278 B8 1 1 ) 9 ... tDg4 278 B8 1 2) 9 . . . tDfd7 279

B82) 8 . . . tDc6 280 B83) 8 . . . tDe4 28 1 B84) 8 . . . tDa6 9.Wc2!? 282

B84 1 ) 9 ... h6 284 B842) 9 ... tDb4 285 B843) 9 . . . gb8 286

Chapter 18

l .d4 g6 2.c4 A) 2 .. .f5 3.h4! 290

A I ) 3 . . . �g7 290 A2) 3 . . . tDf6 29 1

B) 2 . . . �g7 292


Chapter 19

1 .d4 ttJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d5 5.cxd5 ttJxd5 6.ttJf3 A) 6 . . . c5 298 B) 6 .. . 0-0 7.0-0 299

B 1) 7 . . .tt:k6 300 B2) 7 .. . c6 302 B3) 7 . . . ttJa6 8.ttJc3 303

B3 1 ) 8 . . . ttJxc3 304 B32) 8 . . . ie6 304 B33) 8 . . . ttJb6 305 B34) 8 . . . c5 306

B4) 7 . . . c5 8 .e4 308 B41 ) 8 .. . ttJb6 9.d5 e6 1 0.ttJc3 exd5 1 1 .exd5 308

B4 1 1 ) 1 1 . . .if5 309 B4 1 2) 1 1 . . .ttJc4 3 1 0

B42) 8 . . . ttJf6 9.e5 ttJd5 1 0.dxc5 3 1 1 B42 1 ) 1 O . . . ttJc6 3 1 1 B422) 1 0 . . . ttJb4 3 1 2 B423) 1 O . . . ttJa6 3 1 3

C) 6 . . . ttJb6 7.ttJc3 ttJc6 8 .e3 3 1 5 C 1 ) 8 . . . e5 9.d5 3 1 5

C1 1 ) 9 . . . ttJe7 10.e4 ig4 1 1 .h3 ixf3 1 2.�xf3 c6 1 3 .0-0 3 1 5 C l l 1 ) 1 3 . . . cxd5 3 1 6 C l 1 2) 1 3 . . . 0-0 3 1 8

C 1 2) 9 . . . ttJb4 1 0.e4 c6 1 1 .a3 ttJa6 1 2.0-0 cxd5 13 .ttJxd5!?N 3 1 9 C 1 2 1 ) 1 3 . . . 0-0 320 C 122) 13 . . . ttJxd5 320

C 1 3) 9 . . . ttJa5 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 1 .e4 c6 1 2.ig5 f6 1 3.ie3 32 1 C 1 3 1 ) 1 3 . . . ttJbc4 321 C 132) 1 3 . . . cxd5 14.ixb6! 322

C 1 32 1 ) 14 . . . axb6 323 C 1322) 14 . . . �xb6 324

C2) 8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 325 C21 ) 9 . . . e5 326 C22) 9 . . . a5 328 C23) 9 . . . Ele8 1 0.Ele l ! ? 328

C23 1 ) 1 0 . . . h6!? 329 C232) 10 . . . id7 330 C233) 10 . . . a5!? 33 1 C234) 1 0 . . . e5 1 1 .d5 332

C2341 ) 1 l . . .ttJe7 332 C2342) 1 l . . .ttJa5 12 .e4 c6 13 .b3!? cxd5 14.exd5 333

C2342 1 ) 14 ... e4 334 C23422) 14 ... ig4 335

Index of Variations

Chapter 20

l .d4 ttJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.ttJf3 d5 5.b3 J.g7 6.J.g2 A) 6 . . . dxe4 338 B) 6 . . . 0-0 7.0-0 339

B 1 ) 7 . . . j,e6 340 B2) 7 . . . e5 341 B3) 7 . . . lLle4 8.j,b2 342

B3 l ) 8 . . . dxe4 342 B32) 8 . . . j,e6 342 B33) 8 . . . lLld7 344

B4) 7 . . . j,f5 8 .j,b2 345 B4 l ) 8 . . . lLlbd7 345 B42) 8 . . . We8 345 B43) 8 ... lLle4 346

B5) 7 ... lLlbd7 348 B6) 7 ... a5 8 .lLlc3 lLle4 9.j,b2 349

B6 1 ) 9 ... lLlxc3 10.j,xc3 350 B61 l ) 10 ... b5 350 B6 1 2) 1 O ... lLld7 350 B6 1 3) 1 0 ... a4 35 1 B6 1 4) 1 0 . . . j,f5 1 1 .e3 lLld7 1 2.We2 3 5 1

B6 1 4 l ) 1 2 . . . a4 352 B6142) 12 . . . j,e4 352 B6143) 12 . . . lLlf6 353

B62) 9 . . . j,f5 354 B7) 7 . . . dxe4 8.bxe4 e5 9.j,b2 357

Chapter 21

B7 l ) 9 . . . llffb6 357 Bn) 9 .. . exd4 1 0.lLlxd4 358

Bnl ) 10 . . . lLlg4 359 Bn2) 10 . . . lLle6!? 360 Bn3) 1 0 . . . Wb6 1 1 .Wb3 361

Bn3 l ) 1 1 . . .lLlbd7 361 Bn32) 1 1 . . .lLlfd7 1 2.e3 362

Bn321 ) 12 ... lLle5 362 Bn322) 12 ... lLla6 363 Bn323) 12 ... lLle6 364

l .d4 tlJf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 J.g7 4.J.g2 d6 5.ttJc3 0-0 6.tlJf3 J.g4 7.h3

609


Chapter 22

l.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d6 S.lLlc3 0-0 6.lDf3 lLlc6 7.0-0 ig4 S.dS lLlaS 9.lLld2 cS 1O.'I1;lfc2 A) 1 0 . . . 'I1;lfd7 372 B) 1 0 . . . e5 373 C) 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 .h3 id7 1 2.b3 b5 1 3 .ib2 l'l:b8 1 4.l'hb 1 375

C 1 ) 1 4 . . . bxc4 375 C2) 14 ... 'I1;lfc7 376 C3) 1 4 . . . e5 377

Chapter 23

l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d6 S.lLlc3 0-0 6.lDf3 lDc6 7.0-0 ifS S.dS lLlaS 9.lDd2 A) 9 . . . c6 380 B) 9 ... c5 38 1

Chapter 24

l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d6 S.lLlc3 0-0 6.lLlf3 lLlc6 7.0-0 eS S.dS lLle7 9.e4 A) 9 . . . c5 1 0.ttJe1 tLJe8 1 1 .tLJd3 f5 1 2.f4 exf4 1 3.�xf4 389

A l ) 13 . . . fxe4 389 A2) 13 . . . �d4t 390

B) 9 . . . a5 39 1 C ) 9 . . . h6 39 1 D) 9 . . . tLJd7 393 E) 9 .. . tLJe8 1 0.tLJe1 f5 1 1 .tLJd3 tLJf6 1 2.�g5! 395

E 1 ) 12 . . . fxe4 395 E2) 12 . . . h6 1 3 .�xf6 396

E2 l ) 13 ... �xf6 397 E22) 13 . . . l'!xf6 398

Chapter 25

l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d6 S.lLlc3 0-0 6.lLlf3 lLlc6 7.0-0 a6 s.Wfd3 A) 8 . . . tLJd7 40 1 B) 8 . . . l'!b8 404 C) 8 ... tLJb4 405 D) 8 . . . �d7 406 E) 8 ... �f5 407 F) 8 ... e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 1 0.Wfxd8 l'!xd8 1 1 .�g5 408

F 1 ) 1 1 . . .l'!e8 409 F2) 1 1 . . . �e6 1 2.tLJd2 h6 1 3.�xf6 4 1 0

F2 1 ) 1 3 . . . l'!xd2 4 1 1 F22) 1 3 . . . �xf6 4 1 2

Index of Variations 6 1 1

Chapter 26

l .d4 lbf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 d6 S.lbc3 0-0 6.tDe tDc6 7.0-0 gb8 8.h3 A) 8 . . . e5 4 1 5 B) 8 . . . �f5 4 1 5 C) 8 . . . a6 9.e4 4 1 6

C l ) 9 . . . e5 4 1 6 C2) 9 . . . tLJa5 4 1 7 C3) 9 . . . tLJd7 4 1 8 C4) 9 . . . b 5 1 0.cxb5 axb5 l 1 .gel ! ? 4 1 9

C4 1 ) 1 1 . . .tLJd7 420 C42) 1 1 . . .e5 421 C43) 1 l . . .b4 422 C44) 1 l . . .e6 424

Chapter 27

l .d4 lbf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 0-0 S.tDc3 d6 6.lbe c6 7.0-0 A) 7 .. .lLla6 427 B) 7 . . . �b6 430 C) 7 ... �f5 8.tLJe 1 432

C 1 ) 8 . . . e5 434 C2) 8 ... �e6 436

D) 7 ... a6 437 E) 7 . . . �g4 440 F) 7 . . . �a5 8.e4 440

F 1 ) 8 . . . �g4 9.h3 �xf3 1 0.�xf3 44 1 F 1 1 ) 1 0 . . . tLJbd7 44 1 F 1 2) 1 0 . . . tLJfd7 442 F 1 3) 1 0 . . . e5 445

F2) 8 . . . �h5 445 F3) 8 . . . e5 9.h3 448

F3 1 ) 9 . . . exd4 449 F32) 9 . . . tLJbd7 1 0.gel 45 1

F32 l ) 1 0 . . . ge8 452 F322) 10 . . . exd4 454

Chapter 28

l .d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 ig7 4.ig2 0-0 S.tDc3 d6 6.lbe lbbd7 7.0-0 eS 8.e4 A) 8 . . . a6 462 B) 8 . . . h6 466 C) 8 . . . exd4 9.tLJxd4 467

C 1 ) 9 . . . c6 468 C2) 9 . . . ge8 1 0.h3 469


C2 l ) 1 0 . . . a6 470 C22) 1 0 . . . ctJc5 1 1 .l':!e1 475

C22 1 ) 1 1 . . .c6 475 C222) 1 1 ... a5 477 C223) 1 1 . . .�d7 1 2.�h2!? 479

C223 1 ) 1 2 . . . h6 480 C2232) 1 2 ... a6 482

D) 8 . . . c6 9.h3 483 D 1 ) 9 . . . a6 484 D2) 9 .. . l':!e8 485

Chapter 29

l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 �g7 4.�g2 0-0 S.lLlc3 d6 6.ttJf3 lLlbd7 7.0-0 eS 8.e4 c6 9.h3 'lWb6 10.ge1 A) 1 0 . . . l':!e8 49 1 B) 1 0 . . . exd4 1 1 .ctJxd4 493

B 1 ) 1 l . . .l':!e8 1 2.l':!e2!? 494 B 1 1 ) 12 ... ctJxe4 494 B 1 2) 1 2 . . . ctJg4 495 B 1 3) 1 2 . . . �b4 497

B2) 1 1 . . .ctJg4 498 B3) 1 1 . . .ctJe8 498

Chapter 30

l .d4 d6 2.lLlf3 �g4 3.c4 A) 3 . . . c6 502 B) 3 . . . g6 502 C) 3 .. . ctJf6 505 D) 3 ... �xf3 4.exf3 509

D 1 ) 4 . . . g6 5 1 0 D2) 4 . . . c6 5 1 1

E) 3 . . . ctJd7 4.ctJc3 5 1 5 E 1 ) 4 . . . �xf3 5 1 5 E2) 4 " . e5 5 .g3 5 1 6

E2 l ) 5 . . . ctJgf6 5 1 6 E22) 5 . . . �xf3 5 1 8

Chapter 31

1 .d4 d6 2.ltJf3 g6 3.c4 ig7 4.g3 A) 4 . . . l2lc6 522 B) 4" .c5 5 .d5 b5 6.cxb5 522

B l ) 6".a6 522 B2) 6 . . :�Va5t 524

C) 4" .e5 5 .l2lc3 524 C l ) 5" .ig4 525 C2) 5" .l2lc6 526 C3) 5 " .exd4 528 C4) 5" .l2ld7 6.ig2 530

C4 l ) 6" .l2lh6 530

Index of Variations

C42) 6" .l2le7 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 exd4 9.l2lxd4 l2lc6 1 0.l2lde2 53 1 C42 1 ) 1 0" .l2lde5 534 C422) 1 0".l2lc5 535 C423) 1 0" .a5 535

Chapter 32

1 .d4 ltJf6 2.c4 b6 3.f3!? A) 3" .e6 539 B) 3" .l2lc6 540

Chapter 33

l .d4 A) L.b5 543 B) l . . .a6 545 C) 1 " .c6 2 .c4 b5 548 D) l . . .b6 5 50

Chapter 34

l .d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.e4 ib7 4.id3 A) 4".l2lf6 557 B) 4" .ib4t 558 C) 4".l2lc6 560 D) 4 . . . f5 5.exf5 565

D l ) 5 " .ixg2?! 565 D2) 5" .ib4t 6.mfl 567

D2 1 ) 6".exf5 568 D22) 6".l2lf6 568

6 1 3


Chapter 35

l .d4 ltJf6 2.c4 CLlc6 3.ltJf3 A) 3 . . . d6 573 B) 3 . . . e6 575

Chapter 36

l .d4 ltJf6 2.c4 d6 3.ltJf3 ltJbd7 4.ltJc3 e5 5.g3 fie7 6.fig2 0-0 7.0-0 A) 7 . . J''!e8 579 B) 7 . . . exd4 58 1 C) 7 . . . c6 8.e4 �e8 9 .h3 a6 1 0.a4! a5 1 1. .�e3 583

C1 ) 1 1 . . .ii,f8 584 C2) 1 1 . . .exd4 586

Chapter 37

1 .d4 ltJf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 b6 4.fig2

Chapter 38

l .d4 A) 1 . . .e5?! 594 B) 1 . . .ltJc6 2.d5 ttJe5 3.e4 e6 4.f4 ttJg6 5 .dxe6 596

B 1 ) 5 . . . fxe6 597 B2) 5 . . . dxe6 599

Playing the Queen's Gambit Grandmaster Lars 5chandorff

The power of the Queen's Gambit is beyond question, even though it a l lows some serious de

fences - the S lav and Semi-Slav are favoured by the el ite, Kasparov was playi ng the Queen's

Ga mbit Accepted u ntil he retired, and the Queen's Gambit Decl ined has been trusted for a

century.

The principled way for White to bui ld a repertoire after 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 is to play the critical

main l ines. Ta ke as much space as possible - no compromises. That is Lars Schandorff's

attitude and so his choice is clear:

* S.i.gS against the Semi-Slav

* 6.tt:leS versus the S ••• i.fS main l i ne S lav

* 3.e4 against the Queen's Gambit Accepted

* The Exchange Variation versus the Queen's Gambit Decl ined * S.cS against the 4 ••• a6-Slav

The Tarrasch, Chigorin, Albin and all m i nor

l ines a re also met with the same vigour -

this is a com plete White repertoire after

1 .d4 dS 2.c4.

Grandmaster Lars Schandorff from

Denmark is renowned on the i nternational

circuit for the depth of h i s open ing preparation.

Playing the Queen 's Gambit

- A Grandmaster Guide

QUALITY CHESS • I

Grandmaster Repertoire An update to a Classic Concept

Creating the Grand master Repertoire series seemed a natural idea. There has been a g lut of

open ing books offeri ng simpl istic coverage of a subject. Apart from a few exceptions, it a lmost

seemed l i ke the concept of a high-level repertoire book had been forgotten. As chess players

and fa ns, we felt we were missing out, and beca use we can, we decided to do something about

it.

The books in the Grandmaster Repertoire series are written by grandmasters, ed ited by

grandmasters, and wi l l certa inly be read by grandmasters. Of cou rse, this does not mean that players who a re not grandmasters cannot benefit from them. We have worked hard to make our

books c lear in their presentation and to make it possible for the readers to decide the depth to

which they want to study them.

It is our conviction that most players wi l l eventua l ly enjoy greater success by playing the main

l ines, s imply because they a re, i n most cases, based on stronger moves. Instinctively most

players know this, but for one reason or another they employ easy-to-Iearn but unambitious

systems, or d u bious gam bits. These approaches may yield success from time to time, but we wou l d a rgue that they a re less cond ucive to a player's overal l development.

In these days of mu lti-m i l l ion game databases, we all have access to information. The d ifficu lty

comes from tryi ng to navigate through the ever-expanding jungle of games and variations. I n

this groundbrea king new series, readers wi l l be gu ided by the insights of grandmasters, each chosen for their specia l expertise i n the opening i n question.

We are im mensely excited about this new series, and we hope that the readers wi l l share our

enthusiasm.

Boris Avru kh 1.d4 VOLUME TWO

Grandmaster Repertoire is a new series of high qual ity books based on the main l ines, written by strong grand masters. The a im is to provide the reader with a complete repertoire at a level good enough for elite tournaments, and certainly also for the club championship.

Grandmaster Repertoire provides a reperto i re to last a l i fetime.

Top GM Boris Avrukh charts a course towards an advantage with 1 .d4. Avrukh is used to facing the best players i n the world. I n this book he presents an improved version of the repertoire that elevated him to the top 50, focussing on main l i nes with a kingside fianchetto.

1 .d4 Vo l u m e Two covers t h e K i n g's I nd i a n, Dutch, G r u nfe l d, va r i o u s B e n o n is , Ben ko, B u d a pest a n d oth e r m i n o r syste ms.

· Critical lines explained by an expert · Hundreds of novelties · Busts many recommended lines · A repertoire to last a lifetime

Boris Avrukh is a grandmaster from Israel. He is an Olympiad gold medal l ist, former World J u n ior Cham pion and analysis partner of World Championship fi na l i sts.

Also available

QUALITY CHESS www.q u a l ityc h ess.co. u k

€29.99 $34.95 ISBN: 978-1 -906552-33-6

9 7 8 1 9 0 6 5 5 2 3 3 6

5 3 4 9 5

I

boris avrukh 4 - chess96.ruchess96.ru/books/avrukh boris - 1.d4 volume two, 2010.pdf · almost...

Documents